DUPL
B 353984
1
!
ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
PLUN BI5
TIEBOR
QUÆRIS PENINSULAN AMⱭ NAM
CIRCUMSPICE
ПІШНИНГ
BS
2361
.A13
Diatessarica
PART VII
NOTES
ON NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
CLUE: A Guide through Greek to Hebrew
Scripture (Diatessarica-Part I).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 7s. 6d. net.
THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK (Diatessarica—Part II).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 15s. net.
FROM LETTER TO SPIRIT (Diatessarica—Part III).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 20s. net.
PARADOSIS (Diatessarica-Part IV).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 7s. 6d. net.
JOHANNINE VOCABULARY (Diatessarica-Part V).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 13s. 6d. net.
JOHANNINE GRAMMAR (Diatessarica-Part VI).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 16s. 6d. net.
SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN.
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 7s. 6d. net.
APOLOGIA: An Explanation and Defence.
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 2s. 6d. net.
INDICES TO DIATESSARICA.
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 2s. 6d. net.
THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL (Diatessarica-Part VIII).
In Preparation.
AGENTS
AMERICA. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
CANADA
INDIA
64 & 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY OF CANADA, Ltd.
27 RICHMOND STREET WEST, TORONTO
MACMILLAN & COMPANY, Ltd.
MACMILLAN BUILDING, BOMBAY
309 BOW BAZAAR STREET, CALCUTTA
NOTES
}
ON NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM
BY
EDWIN Abbott
Аввотт
"Fili mi, monitus esto ut facias libros sapientiae plurimos,
adeo ut non sit finis.”
Eccles. xii. 12 (according to the Targum).
LONDON
Adam and Charles Black
1907
Cambridge:
PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
0267 18 FG.
TO
THE TARGUMISTS
MUCH NEGLECTED BY MOST STUDENTS OF THE SCRIPTURES
YET FOR THOSE WHO DESIRE TO TRACE THE GROWTH OF TRADITION
AND TO DISTINGUISH FACT FROM NON-FACT
UNIQUELY VALUABLE
320468
PREFACE
IN submitting to the public the Seventh Part of Diatessarica
the author cannot but feel that he may be supposed to be
rejecting the warning attributed to Solomon, “And further-
more, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is
no end: and much study is a weariness to the flesh."
But there are at least two other versions of this saying
under either of which I could find shelter; and they appear
morally though perhaps not critically sound. One of these
warns the son to beware of those who say “Of making books
there is no end." Another, the Targum, punctuates and
expands so as to give the following rendering: "And
furthermore, my son, be admonished to make very many books
of wisdom, so that there may be no end, and to study the
words of the Law, and to attain understanding in weariness
of the flesh¹."
¹ On the Targums, see Schürer I. i. 154-60. He says (1) that they
"belong to the Rabbinical Literature, inasmuch as expression is given in
them likewise to the traditional understanding of the Scripture text." But
he adds (2) "We mention here only the Targums on the Pentateuch and
on the Prophets, for the Targums on the Sacred Writings or Kethubim
can scarcely come under consideration by us owing to their late origin.”
After mentioning the two Targums attributed severally to Onkelos (on
the Pentateuch) and to Jonathan ben Uzziel (on the Prophets)—“ placed
by some about the middle of the first century"-he says (3) “Even if the
two Targums were first issued during the third and fourth centuries, it
cannot be doubted that they are based upon earlier works, and only form
the conclusion of a process that had been going on for several centuries."
The reader will perceive from the second of these extracts that the
vii
PREFACE
Not that I would claim for all the preceding parts of this
series that they are "books of wisdom." But I do venture to
claim that they are "books of fact." They sometimes add
suggested explanations; but seldom, if ever, without alleging
facts. It is as a store-house of facts-facts carefully ascertained,
fully and impartially stated, and so arranged and indexed as
to be readily accessible—that Diatessarica appeals to students
of the New Testament.
In order to make these facts accessible to students who
may wish to refer to the series in some library but may not be
able to purchase it owing to its cost, I have decided to publish
the Indices to this and the preceding Parts (I-VII) in a
separate volume shortly after, if not simultaneously with, the
present publication. My hope is that, long after Silanus the
Christian is forgotten, these Notes-originally entitled Notes
to Silanus but now Notes on New Testament Criticism¹.
together with the Indices to Diatessarica, may remain in use
for New Testament research.
If some of the Notes appear too full of detail and digres-
sion, I must ask my readers to remember that they are (most
of them) not intended so much for perusal as for reference.
The Note on "The Son of Man," for example, has been
quotation from the Targum on the title-page of the present work must not
be taken as a specimen of Targums in general.
Schürer arranges the principal Targums thus:
I.
ONKELOS ON THE PENTATEUCH.
2. JONATHAN ON THE PROPHETS (this includes "the historical books,"
outside the Pentateuch, as well as "the prophets properly so called ").
3. PSEUDO-JONATHAN AND JERUSALMI ON THE PENTATEUCH.
These "are only two different recensions of one and the same Targum,"
and "both are quoted by older authorities (Aruch and Elia) under the
name 'Targum Jerusalmi."" Hence "Pseudo-Jonathan" is often referred
to as "Jer. I," and Jerusalmi as "Jer. II." But there are reasons for
thinking "Jerusalmi," of which only fragments are extant, to be earlier
than "Pseudo-Jonathan." Some call "Jerusalmi" the "Palestinian "
Targum.
For abbreviated references to the Targums, see below, pp. xxviii—ix.
1 See Apologia pp. vii-viii.
viii
PREFACE
lengthened into a treatise (pp. 140—252) by the necessity (as it
appeared to me) of tracing the difference of contextual thought
amid which the phrase is used by Balaam, the Psalmists,
Ezekiel, Daniel, and the author of the Similitudes of Enoch
—with a view to studying the gospel uses of it hereafter.
Again, the Book of Revelation, in special passages, has
been minutely commented on (2942* (i)—(xxiv), 2998 (xxvi)
-(xxxiii)). The question of its date is of great importance
for New Testament criticism generally. But it also appeared
important to shew that some of the most characteristic
thoughts of the Seer of Revelation are reproduced, though in
very different language, by his disciple, the Evangelist of the
Fourth Gospel.
I do not think some students of the Gospels realise how
much, how very much, remains to be done in the way of
collecting and classifying facts. Only the facts must be of
the right kind, and classified in the right way. And here a
caution may perhaps be useful as to that particular class of
facts called "authorities," whether ancient or modern.
That Chrysostom thought this or that, is a fact. That
Origen thought this or that, is a very much more important
fact-because he is a scholar, fearless, frank, thorough, ac-
quainted with Hebrew as well as with Greek, and because he
goes fully into contexts and parallels, and seldom or never
gives you his opinion without also giving you the historical or
documentary facts on which it is founded. Sometimes it is
founded on fancy as well as fact.
Origen never deceives his reader.
while gratefully accepting his facts and giving them your own
interpretation.
Even when that is the case,
You can reject his fancies
The facts, then, must be facts of a solid sort. It is not
I worth while to record error without a reasonable hope that
the error may point to some truth hidden behind it.
After collecting comes the need of classifying. Care
having been taken to. select, for first research, only such sub-
ix
PREFACE
jects as present most available facts-e.g. the subject-matter
common to the three Synoptists, in preference to the subject-
matter found in the Fourth Gospel alone-we must then
tabulate results in such a way as to get a bird's-eye view
of parallelisms and divergences, likenesses and differences. If
we are to reach the truth we shall reach it not by talking
a great deal about matters on which we have little or no
evidence, but by toiling¹ a great deal about matters where the
evidence is abundant.
For example, Mr Rushbrooke's Synopticon, placing the
three Synoptic Gospels in parallel columns, prints in red
the matter common to Mark, Matthew, and Luke. It also
prints in special types the additional contextual matter in
which Matthew agrees with Luke.
When the eye glances down the columns, the reader is
¹ It appears to me a significant fact that a reader of these pages, not
unacquainted with the usual methods of N.T. criticism, queried “toiling"
and suggested "talking."
This would make a neat antithesis, "not by talking a great deal”
about the unknown but "by talking a great deal" about the comparatively
well-known. But it was not what I meant. Let me explain in detail.
I meant that we might take two or three copies of Mr Rushbrooke's
indispensable Synopticon and utilise the blank pages as follows. First,
insert quotations of the text by the Fathers from Resch's valuable
Parallel-texte, and add others. Then add variations of the great Greek
and Latin Codices (sometimes with their contexts) and those of Prof.
Burkitt's Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. The translation of the Arabic
Diatessaron should also be written out in full, with quotations from
Ephrem Syrus. Illustrations from the LXX, from Aquila, Theodotion,
and the rest, may be brought to bear upon the parallelisms of Mark,
Matthew, and Luke. Conflations (Clue 20 foll.) from O.T. and the
Targums should be adduced to throw light on the conflations in Mark.
'Why all this labour?" Because there is evidence to shew that our
present gospels are developments; and, if they are, all the phases of their
development must be studied by those who hope to discover the original
by scientific method. A "scientist" has been defined—not amiss though
by a child-as "a man who finds out things." But "things" cannot be
found out except from "things." This involves "toiling." One may “toil
all the night and take nothing." Still it is the only way to take anything.
So I adhere to "toiling.”
X
PREFACE
struck by the extreme paucity, and often complete absence, of
any such additional matter. Yet the types shew abundance
of additional matter in which Matthew agrees with Mark,
and also abundance of other additional matter in which Luke
agrees with Mark.
Reading on, he is led to the conclusion that, in these
portions of their narrative, Matthew and Luke hardly ever
agree except, so to speak, through the intervention of Mark, and
that they copied, independently, from an edition of the latter.
For the full details, see Corrections of Mark 318–30.
To see this was very difficult until Mr Rushbrooke's
laborious classification had been accomplished. Afterwards,
even to the merest beginner in Greek, with a few pages of the
Synopticon before him, the conclusion was patent.
It is not often that an important group of literary pheno-
mena can be traced so simply and surely to a single cause.
Least of all can this be expected about phenomena in
theological literature where a multitude of causes is mostly
at work, causes moral as well as intellectual and literary,
national or ecclesiastical as well as individual. In previous
parts of this series it has been contended that many diver-
gences in the Gospels may be explained by Semitic obscurity
in the earliest traditions. But the author has never intended
to deny that other influences were at work, and that research
in the Gospels, as in most other provinces of study, requires
a student to keep constantly before him the rule, BEWARE OF
SINGLE CAUSES.
One reason why Gospel criticism has made no progress
proportionate to the vast labour expended on it, is, that
we have no Handbook of Traditional Evolutions to teach us
how traditions have been evolved out of records, or poems, or
religious rites, or other sources. One section of such a work
should deal with documentary as distinct from oral evolution,
although recognising that oral and documentary developments
often go together.
xi
PREFACE
Such a Handbook would classify documentary develop-
ments under various headings, whether relating to the source
or to the source-use and transmission. Under "Source"
would come (1) original obscurity, (2) original indefiniteness,
(3) original austerity, non-edification, or offensiveness.
((
Under "Source-use” or Transmission" would come not
only the general desire to be clear, definite, and attractive
(covered by (1) (2) (3)) but also special tendencies. One
writer, for example, might arrange a biography according to
chronology; another according to subject-matter of conver-
sations, letters, or books; another would prefer a series of
graphic scenes mingling word and deed together. Less
pardonably, a special tendency might exist in a writer to
favour a particular nation, e.g. Jews or Greeks against the
world; or a class against the whole nation, eg. priests against
people, or the people against their rulers, and so on. There
would also have to be considered the special circumstances
that might cause some writers to abridge, although the general
tendency has been to amplify.
Such a Handbook, besides containing general rules applic-
able to all literature, would, of course, keep in view the special
rules applicable to transmissions of literature, e.g. translation;
to special kinds of literature, eg. prophecy; and to special
national traditions about literature, eg. those of the Hebrews
and the Jews, and then those of the Jewish Christians handed
on to the Christian Church at large.
Let us briefly consider a single instance in the Synoptic
Gospels where such a work might be useful:
Mk xiii. 14
"But when ye
see the abomination
(neut.) of desolation
[one] standing (masc.)
where it is not fit-"
Mt. xxiv. 15
"When therefore
ye see the abomina-
tion of desolation
spoken of (neut.) by
Daniel the prophet
standing (neut.) in a
[or, the] holy place-"
Lk. xxi. 20
"But when ye see
Jerusalem surrounded
by camps (or, armies),
then know that her
desolation is nigh—”
xii
PREFACE
In each column the text continues identically, in order as well
as in word, "Then let them that are in Judæa flee unto the
mountains."
Three obvious ways (besides others not obvious though
possible) present themselves for dealing with the italicised
words. One is, to assert that Christ uttered Luke's words as
well as the others, and that for some inscrutable reason the
definite prophecy about Jerusalem was omitted by Mark and
Matthew though they knew it and though it was acted on by
the Christians before 70 A.D. Another is, to say that Christ
made no mention of Jerusalem, but that Luke, writing after
the destruction of the City by the Romans, substituted
"surrounded by armies" for "abomination of desolation";
either dishonestly, because the substitution magnified Christ;
or honestly, because he thought that Christ meant this.
These two ways have the merit of being short.
The third way is much longer. It has, so to speak, several
stations at which we must halt. First, remembering what
Papias said about a Hebrew Gospel that was variously inter-
preted—¿.e. targumised, for "targum" means "interpretation"
J
we must consider whether in this case there may have been
such a Hebrew original. If so, and if our Greek gospels are,
in parts, interpretations of that Hebrew, it follows that, re-
latively to that Hebrew, they are of the nature of Targums.
This is our first station-a hypothesis that the gospels are
interpretations or Targums.
From this we go on further to consider the relation be-
tween existing Targums and their existing original, i.e. the
Hebrew Bible. Under this head we must include the Greek
Targums of the LXX, Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus,
as well as the Aramaic Targùms of Onkelos and of later
Targumists. These Targums are scattered over centuries,
whereas our hypothetical evangelistic Targums called gospels
could be .divided only by intervals of mere decads. But a
decad in the seething-pot of the first century might well
xiii
PREFACE
produce as many developments as ten decads at any other
period. And in any case the Targums of the Hebrew sacred
books cannot fail to throw some light on the way in which the
sacred books of the Jewish Christians in the first century
would be interpreted into Greek, or into other languages or
dialects. Clearly, therefore, we have to make parallel columns
of these ancient Targums, as we made above of our Synoptic
gospels, and to ask whether in the divergences of the former
we can find any rules that may help us to explain the diver-
gences of the latter.
A preface does not afford room to explain by instances
how much these ancient Targums have to teach us about
literary developments in general and about our gospels in
particular. The reader will find a few facts bearing on the
subject in the Note on The influence of mistranslation illus-
trated from Shakespeare (2830-7)'. Here I can do no more
than indicate how our Handbook might help us to explain
Luke's "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" as something
better than a "prophecy after the event," and something far
better than an arbitrary alteration of Mark's "standing where
it is not fit," or Matthew's "standing in a (or, the) holy place."
First, then, the Handbook will teach us that where Old
Testament Targumists diverge in prophecies, one fundamental
cause of the divergence is, very often, the honest belief of the
Targumist that the prophet meant, in plain prose, something
verbally different from what he said, in poetic metaphor.
¹ If the Note seems out of place, my apology must be that many
think everything relating to Shakespeare interesting, everything relating
to grammar uninteresting, and everything relating to Targums supremely
dull. So I blended the Shakespearian matter with the Targumistic that
the latter might have a better chance of being read. But I would ask
the reader to note (2834) “Brutus answered him, being yet but a young
man, ‘I...”” instead of "Brutus answered him, ‘Being yet but a young
man, I....'"
Does not this appear to illustrate Mt. xix. 20
The young
man said” parall. to Mk x. 20, Lk. xviii. 21 “He said, ‘From my youth””?
(6
xiv
PREFACE
This leads us to what may be called "The Law of Prosaic
Substitution."
Secondly, the Handbook will teach us that when a prophecy
centres round some obscure word capable of two or even more
interpretations, there will often flow from it divergent streams,
sometimes running separately, sometimes combining in various
ways the result being two or more versions of the whole
context as well as of the central word. This leads us to
a second Law. It may be called "The Law of Divergence
from Obscurity¹."
¹ See 2837 (i)—(iii) where instances are given of both these Laws,
shewing how, for example, such a phrase as Gen. xlix. 22 "branches (lit.
daughters) run over the wall," has given rise to a number of different
interpretations in which the "daughters" are supposed to be (1) the tribes
of Manasseh and Ephraim, or (2) the daughters of Egypt. These, when
combined with one another and inserted in the context, have resulted in
long expansions that may be almost called separate legends.
See also 2949 foll. quoting Gen. xv. 7 (Heb.) "from Ur of the Chaldees,'
where Jer. Targ. (because “ Ur" may mean "fire") has "from the fiery
furnace, from Ur of the Chasdai." Hence Gen. xi. 28 (Heb.) "Haran
died...in Ur of the Chaldees" becomes, in the Targum, "Haran died...in
the furnace of fire which the Chasdai had made for Abraham." The result
is a long legend about the deliverance of Abraham from a fiery furnace
into which he is cast by Nimrod. See Beresh. R. (on Gen. xi. 28).
There are scores of instances of this kind in the Targums alone, not to
speak of instances in the Talmuds and other Jewish literature. In the face
of these facts, it is futile to assert that, because Greek and Latin mythology
is not based---so often as was once supposed-on such verbal divergences,
therefore the New Testament is not in any way affected by them.
For an instance in early Christian literature take the astonishing
legend gravely recorded by Hegesippus in the second century that James
the Just "alone was allowed to enter into the holy place (äyıa); for he
wore no wool but only fine linen, and he would enter into the sanctuary
(vaóv) alone...." Some may say that this was simply mendacious
exaggeration. Lightfoot (Gal. pp. 362-6) suggests misunderstood meta-
phor as the explanation of what he declares to be "plainly false." But see
2999 (xvii) c foll., where an attempt is made to shew that "alone" has
been transposed in the tradition "He used to go into the temple wearing
linen alone." The meaning has been taken to be “going alone." This
implies (Lightf.) "assigning to him a privilege which was confined to the
high-priest alone,” and is “plainly false."
A.
XV
b.
PREFACE
Let us apply these two Laws to Mark (xiii. 14). Mark
does not, it is true, mention any prophet by name (as Matthew
does) but he clearly alludes to the prophet Daniel, mentioned
by Matthew, and to an expression contained in Dan. ix. 27
"abomination of desolation."
According to our first Law, "the Law of Substitution," we
may take, as a point of starting, the hypothesis that Luke
honestly thought this "abomination of desolation" to mean
"the Roman armies closing round Jerusalem," and that he
substituted the literal prose for the poetic metaphor.
But further, keeping in view the second Law, that of
Divergence from Obscurity," we must refer to Daniel in
order to ascertain whether Daniel's context contains any
obscure word that may explain the Synoptic divergences.
Indeed Mark himself almost seems to say, "Read Daniel and
think of its meaning," when he gives us the warning, "He
that readeth let him understand." See p. xviii, n. 1 (b).
The detailed results of such a reference to Daniel will be
found in 2837 (i) foll. In outline, the facts are these.
Daniel
From Josephus an interesting instance may be taken in his account of
the sweetening of the waters of Marah by Moses (Exod. xv. 25 “And the
Lord shewed him a tree and he cast it into the waters, and the waters
were made sweet"). Philo (i. 255-6) says, "God cast 'the sweetening
tree' into the soul, creating love of toil (pidorovíav) in place of hate
of toil....This is the food of the soul that practises virtue-the belief
that toil is very sweet instead of bitter." R. Levi (Wünsche on Exod.
xxxvii. 1) said that the bitterness was in Israel's mouth: "The generation
was 'bitter' in its conduct." Others (ib.) illustrated the miracle from
2 K. ii. 22 "The waters were healed," and Jerem. xxx. 17 “From (ảπè)
thy plagues (LXX πλŋyîs) I will heal thee." Josephus literalises (1) Philo's
tradition about Tovéw, (2) the tradition about λnyaí. Moses, he says
(Ant. iii. 1. 2), split the tree so as to use it as a channel for drawing off the
water. Then he persuaded the most vigorous of the men to "toil (ñoveîv)”
to such good purpose that the water was purified from (vπò i.e. as the
result of) the continuous "strokes (πλnyai).” He also says that the
fragment of the tree was cast at the feet" of Moses. For an explanation
of this, and of the "splitting," see The Introduction to Indices to
Diatessarica.
(C
xvi
PREFACE
(ix. 27" on the wing [of] abomination[s] one that maketh deso-
late") has just such an obscure "central word" as will explain
all the divergences.
Daniel's Hebrew for "wing" may mean
(1) tip, or extremity, of anything; (2) "wing” of an invading
and desolating army; (2) "pinnacle" (from "pinna,” feather, or
wing), and hence, more particularly, "pinnacle (TTEрvyiov)
(πτερυγίου)
of the Temple" (comp. Mt. iv. 5, Lk. iv. 9). The following
table of divergences, taken from Field's Hexapla, traces as it
were their descent from the parental obscurity:
LXX and Theod.
"on the temple (Éπì
Tò iepòv) an abomina-
tion of desolations."
Daniel ix. 27 (Hebrew)
"ON THE WING"
Aq. and Sym.
on the beginning
(ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς) of the
abominations it shall
be desolated."
"Another ("Aλλos)"
66
as far as the pin-
nacle (ἕως πτερυγίου)
from destruction."
There is no Targum. But the Syr. has "super extremitates
(or, alas) abominationis." If "the abomination" meant an
invading army, this would mean "the wings of the invading
army," which the Syriac means in 1 Macc. ix. 12 “the right
wing."
In the absence of a Targum paraphrasing "wing” in Daniel¹,
1 (a) I have found only one reference to Dan. ix. 27 in the Talmud,
Taanith 28b-29 a on which see 2837 (iii) d. Dr A. Büchler tells me
that, as far as he knows, there is no other in Talmud or Midrash, and
Bacher's Index to his "Agada" mentions no other. The tradition
(4th cent.) takes "wing" as "hand" (for which meaning of chânâph
in Talmud see Levy ii. 357) and proceeds to develop a legend about
two idols with something written on the hand of one of them (rather
like the story of Dagon in 1 S. v. 4).
Jerome's commentary says "What the Hebrews think about this
passage I will briefly outline (brevi sermone perstringam)." Having
unfortunately omitted it below, I will give here his "outline" of the
Jewish paraphrase of Dan. ix. 22—7: “(22—3) O Daniel, scito quod a die
hac, qua tibi nunc loquor: erat autem annus primus Darii, qui occidit
Balthasar, et regnum Chaldaeorum in Persas Medosque transtulit,
(24) usque ad septuagesimam annorum hebdomadam, hoc est, annos
xvii
b 2
PREFACE
the reader will find an equivalent (and an instance of the Law
of Prosaic Substitution) in the following parallels :
Primum
quadringentos nonaginta, haec populo tuo per partes accident.
propitiabitur tibi Deus, quae nunc magnopere deprecaris, et de-
lebitur tibi peccatum, et finem accipiet praevaricatio. Nunc enim urbe
deserta et templo usque ad fundamenta destructo, in luctu est populus
constitutus, sed non post grande tempus instaurabitur: Et non solum hoc
fiet in his septuaginta hebdomadibus, ut aedificetur civitas, et templum
instauretur, sed nascetur Christus, i.e. justitia sempiterna. Et signabitur
visio et Propheta, ut nequaquam Propheta inveniatur in Israel, et ungatur
Sanctus sanctorum. De quo in Psalterio legimus: Propterea unxit te
Deus, Deus tuus, oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis. Qui et in alio loco
dicit de se: Sancti estote, quia et ego sanctus sum. (25) Scito igitur,
quoniam a die, qua tibi nunc loquor et Dei sermone promitto, quod
revertatur populus et Hierusalem instauretur, usque ad Christum ducem
et perpetuam desolationem templi, hebdomadae numerentur sexaginta
duae, nec non et aliae septem hebdomadae, in quibus juxta ordinem suum
duae res fient, de quibus et ante jam dixit, quod revertatur populus et
aedificetur platea a Nehemia et Esdra. In fine ergo hebdomadarum
complebitur Dei sententia in angustia temporum, quando rursum
destruetur templum et capietur civitas. (26) Nam post sexaginta duas
hebdomadas occidetur Christus, et non erit ejus populus, qui eum
negaturus est, sive ut illi dicunt, non erit illius imperium quod putabat se
redempturum. Et quid dico de Christo occidendo et populo penitus
deserendo auxilio Dei, cum civitatem et Sanctuarium dissipaturus sit
populus Romanus cum Duce venturo Vespasiano? (27) Quo mortuo
transactis septem hebdomadis, id est annis quadraginta novem, Ælius
Hadrianus, a quo postea de ruinis Hierusalem urbs Ælia condita est,
rebellantes Judaeos, Timo Ruffo magistro exercitus pugnante, superavit.
Et tunc deficiet hostia et Sacrificium et usque ad consummationem mundi
et finem perseverabit desolatio.”
Jerome adds, as regards "una hebdomada de qua scriptum est
Confirmabit pactum multis hebdomada una," that by some Jews the
week (?) is divided for Vespasian and in the case of Hadrian, “dividatur
Vespasiano et in Hadriano," because, "juxta historiam Josephi, Ves-
pasianus et Titus tribus annis et sex mensibus pacem cum Judaeis fecerint.
Tres autem anni et sex menses sub Hadriano supputantur, quando
Hierusalem omnino subversa est et Judaeorum gens catervatim caesa, ita
ut Judaeae quoque finibus pellerentur."
(b) Mk xiii. 14 "He that readeth" assumes that the reader is to
read Daniel. Mt. xxiv. 15 expressly mentions "Daniel" for clearness.
"Readeth” could not mean "reads to the congregation" except in suitable
context, e.g. Rev. i. 3 "Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear."
xviii
PREFACE
Hebrew poetry
Jerem. xlviii. 40
"As it were an eagle shall fly
and extend its wings."
Targum prose
"Like a flying eagle so shall a
king go up with his army and
encamp on Moab."
Returning to the Christian documents we find that Mark,
using the masculine (“the abomination (neut.)…..[one] standing
(masc.)") appears to contemplate the Abomination as a Man
of Sin (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3—4) standing erect and obtrusive.
Where? The various versions of Daniel suggest some "holy
place" or "pinnacle." An evangelist not able to decide
between these two places might well paraphrase by "where
it is not fit [for him] to stand." Matthew explains "on the
wing" in general terms as "in a holy place." Luke, like the
Targumist on Jeremiah, takes the "wing" as that of an army,
and paraphrases with "camp,” or “army.”
What, then, did our Lord actually say? Or, if we cannot yet
venture to answer that question, which of the three Synoptists
has been most faithful to His words? That is a question to
be discussed in The Fourfold Gospel¹ rather than in the present
volume. But the evidence points to the conclusion that the
earliest tradition made no mention of Daniel by name, and
certainly made no mention of "armies" or "camps," but that
it did make mention of Daniel's phrase about the "wing".
perhaps meaning "pinnacle" of the Temple.
On this same " pinnacle" Jesus-according to Matthew and
Luke-had been placed by Satan when He was tempted to
tempt God. On this same "pinnacle," perhaps, the Thes-
¹ Some may ask, "Why fourfold? Ought not this to be discussed in
a treatise on the threefold Gospel? For the fourth gospel says nothing
about it."
True, but it is contended that, in passages of this kind, if Luke omits
or alters anything in Mark, John intervenes as a rule to give the substance
of Mark (2965, and Paradosis p. ix). Consequently the passage has to be
discussed in The Fourfold Gospel; for, if John does not intervene, the
rule is here broken.
xix
PREFACE
salonian Epistle describes the Man of Sin as "exalting himself"
against God "in the temple." Origen, at all events, quotes,
Paul and Daniel as saying the same thing¹.
If Origen is right, the Synoptic words about the Abomi-
nation of Desolation would need to be studied in the light of
the Johannine tradition (Jn xiv. 30) "The prince of the
world cometh and hath nothing in me." It would be in
accordance with Christ's general doctrine to suppose that He
predicted some outburst of spiritual revolt against God, not a
merely material or national war. Many considerations com-
bine to make it certain that He did not speak of "Jerusalem
surrounded by armies, or camps."
""
This is a specimen, in outline, of the way in which many
Synoptic divergences-so far as documentary causes are con-
cerned-might be studied where they come in the midst of
parallel or identical traditions. If only we had such a
Handbook as has been suggested above, the method would
be both briefer and safer. As things are, the way is long,
circuitous, and laborious, and sometimes leads the traveller
to no conclusion. But negative knowledge is not always to be
despised, as, for example, when a kind ransacker of Con-
cordances and Indices tells his reader that, so far as these
helps may be relied on, this or that word is non-existent in
these or those authors or papyri. Moreover, even if he finds
himself brought to a standstill, the diligent seeker may map
out the country as far as he has gone, and thus leave behind
him positive knowledge useful for future explorers.
In exploration of this kind it is not lawful for the traveller
to feel hopes or fears in such a form as to entice him into
reporting non-fact as fact. But it is lawful to feel hope about
the untraversed based on knowledge of the traversed region,
1 Orig. Cels. vi. 46, after quoting 2 Thess. ii. 4, says, "Now this has
been said also in Daniel as follows, 'And on the temple an abomination of
desolations!
XX
PREFACE
if he can reasonably believe that he has gained some insight
into "the lie of the land."
Hence I venture to express my conviction that the
minutiæ of scientific literary criticism are destined to play
more than a minute part in the attainment of truths beyond
those of grammar and literature. Grammar is not theology,
nor is it the handmaid of theology. But it is the handmaid
of truth, and truth includes theology. Honest criticism,
grammatical as well as historical, will ultimately (so I believe)
play a constructive as well as a destructive part for Christian
faith, opening our minds to discern more clearly the real
meaning of worship and the real meaning of redemption, and
gradually preparing us for a purer, firmer, more spontaneous,
and more fruitful worship of our Redeemer.
In addition to friends mentioned in the Preface to Apologia
(Mr H. Candler and the Rev. J. Hunter Smith) I desire to
record my thanks to Mr W. S. Aldis and Professor W. H.
Bennett, for valuable suggestions. In several passages I
have expressed indebtedness to Professor A. Büchler, of Jews'
College, London, for special extracts from Rabbinical works,
but I have pleasure in here adding that I am under a wider
obligation to him for criticisms of a more general character.
Wellside, Hampstead,
7 Aug. 1907.
EDWIN A. ABBOTT
xxi
CONTENTS
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
PAGE
xxvii
PART I
NOTES¹ TO SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN .
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL NOTES
[2805] On "orphans" in Jn xiv. 18 and Epictetus
[2806]
""
[2808-9],,
[2813]
[2824*—(i)],
Johannine and Epictetian descriptions of the
Son of God
•
the divergent accounts of the sayings of Socrates
the "Galilæans"
"spiritual body"
[2830—7] the influence of mistranslation illustrated from
وو
Shakespeare
•
Targumistic Translations
•
I
5
6
7
9
15
21
[2837 (i)-(iii)]
""
24
[2839 a-d],
[2840* a―g]
""
the continuity between Mark and Isaiah.
"favour," "kindness" etc. in R.V.
33
36
رو
37
[2842-9] the "yoke" and the "cross'
""
[2851-6] "faith as a grain of mustard-seed”
""
40
1 The Notes, being intended to include references, explanations, and
justifications, bearing on Silanus the Christian, contain, in each case,
a reference to that work. Thus "[2807] Page 34, 'Carriest about God,'
Epict. ii. 8. 12, ii. 16. 33" merely gives references to the passages quoted
on page 34 of Silanus.
But "[2824*] Page 135, 'To describe a real person'" introduces a note
of considerable length under a separate heading "Spiritual Body"; and
“[2942*] Page 304 'The Apocalypse'" introduces a very much longer
note (pp. 75-114) about the date of that work.
For the convenience of the reader a Summary of Principal Notes is
given here, but his principal help will be the Indices.
xxiii
CONTENTS
[2860–71] On “the lost sheep"
[2874-8],, "the barren fig-tree".
[2880-2], the birth of Christ
PAGE
42
46
49
[2885-6]
[2892---907]
(6
""
receiving as a little child"
51
""
the events between Christ's Resurrection and
Ascension
54
Ascension
the Resurrection
""
[2892 a―c],, the interval between the Resurrection and the
""
ble
[2892-5] Acts i. 4 (R. V. txt) "being assembled together"
[2896-907],, the traditions concerning Christ's eating after
[2910]
•
an alleged eclipse at the Crucifixion .
[2917-23] Luke's omission of "Why hast thou forsaken
""
""
me?"
[2924] the end of Mark's gospel
[2926-34],,
the prediction of Peter's crucifixion
[2935-41] the modern hypothesis of the early death of John
the son of Zebedee .
[2942* (i)—(xxiv)] THE DATE OF THE WRITING OF “THE REVELA-
TION OF JOHN"
[2942*] The hypothesis of incorporated documents
54
55
56
8་ ་
60
•
•
265
62
66
67
70
75
75
(i) The argument (as to the date) from numbers
77
(i) g-k. The principle of antithesis
79
(ii) a-d. "The Great City"
(i) -q. The Number of the Beast
(ii) Parallelism between John and Ezekiel
(iii) The Seven Churches
(iv) The Measuring for the Temple
(v)—(vi) Other arguments for A.D. 96.
(vii)-(x) John's view of the Fall of Jerusalem
(viii) a-i. Does óvóµara ever mean
66
persons"?
(xi)-(xv) The Birth of the "Man-child"
(xv) b-f. The meaning of "virgins" in Rev. xiv. 4
(xvi)-(xxiv) Inferences
[2942-7] On Patmos
""
81
83
84
•
86
87
88
90
91
96
103
105
114
[2948-51] legends of martyrdom by fire
116
•
""
""
[2952] Jerome's story about John the son of Zebedee .
[2954-5] "Elder," as a title of teachers
117
•
117
""
[2958] the vagueness of Irenæus's references
118
[2959—61 (i)]
وو
""
the pool of (R.V.) "Bethesda "
[2962] Jn ii. 20 "forty-six years”.
119
122
xxiv
CONTENTS
Origen
Catherine of Siena
[2963-5] On the Washing of Feet, as regarded by Philo and
[2966] the "thirsting" of Christ as explained by
""
[2969-77],, the name “Boanerges"
PAGE
123
124
•
125
وو
[2978] the use and meaning of τεκνία
127
•
[2980-4],,
the preface to Luke's gospel
128
•
""
""
""
[2986] the metaphor “sweat and watching”
132
[2989-90] Jn viii. 57, "Thou art not yet fifty years old"
133
[2995] Mt. x. 8" Raise the dead"
134
PART II
LONGER NOTES
NOTE I
"THE SON OF MAN" [2998 (i)—(lvi)]
(i)
§
1.
Importance of the Title.
140
(ii) § 2.
Deficiency in Aramaic.
141
(iii)--(iv) § 3.
"Son of Man" in the Law
142
(v)(viii) § 4.
"Son of Man" in the Prophets
145
(ix)—(x) § 5.
Son of Man" in the Psalms and Job
149
(xi)--(xix) §6.
Jewish Comments
151
(xx) $7.
Ambiguity of the Title
163
(xxi) § 8.
The Fourth Gospel prepares us for misin-
terpretation
165
(xxii)-(xxiii) §9.
Pauline equivalents
166
(xxiv)—(xxv) § 10.
The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts
171
(xxvi)-(xxxiii) § II.
The Revelation of John
175
(xxvi) c―g.
Who is “his angel”? .
176
""
h-k. “Witness” and “martyr"
178
l—m.
""
"The IS" and "the seven spirits"
179
""
n-q.
(xxvii) a—e.
"The faithful Witness"
180
"The Alpha and the Omega"
182
99 fm.
"Almighty"
184
""
n—q.
r—v.
"Angels" not to be worshipped
187
•
و,
Did Essenes"offer worship" to the sun?
188
W.
""
The “washing" of the Essenes
192
""
(xxviii) b-e.
f-k.
“The seven golden candlesticks”
"Walking in the midst"
193
196
XXV
CONTENTS
(xxxiv)--(xxxvi) § 12.
(xxxvii)-(xli) § 13.
(xlii)-(xlv) § 14.
(xxviii) l—r.
""
S-X.
(xxx) b-(xxxi) c.
(xxxii) b-d.
"One like a son of man"
The "stars" and the "sword"
"Clouds" and "cloud"
The difference between ȧpvíov and åµvós
The Gnostics, Ignatius, and Barnabas
Justin, Irenæus, and Tertullian
•
Clement of Alexandria and Origen
PAGE
199
202
207
210
214
217
224
(xlvi)—(1) § 15.
Conclusion .
230
(li)—(lvi) § 16.
(liv) e-j.
Addition on the "Similitudes of Enoch"
“The righteous one"
235
241
(lv) d-m.
d—m.
The doctrine of "hiding
246
(lvi) a-d. The resurrection .
251
NOTE II
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999 (i)-(xvii)]
(i)—(ii) § 1.
“Touching" and "drawing near
""
253
(iii) §2.
God "meeting” man
•
255
(iv)-(v) $3.
lists
(vii)-(viii) § 5.
(ix)-(x) §6.
•
(vi) §4. Different words employed by the Evange-
Matthew's unique use of "anticipate"
Matthew's account of Peter's "fishing"
illustrated from John
"Going to meet," "going before," and
"drawing near"
259
261
263
268
(xi) $7.
Different symbolisms of "fish"
270
(xii)—(xvii) § 8.
The original meaning of the story of "the
stater"
272
(xvii) a—o.
The reclothing of Peter
279
INDICES
I.
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
II.
ENGLISH
III. GREEK
291
298
309
xxvi
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
(i) Black Arabic numbers refer to paragraphs in the several volumes
of Diatessarica :
(ii)
1— 272=Clue.
273-552 Corrections.
=
553–1149— From Letter to Spirit.
1150-1435= Paradosis.
1436-1885-Johannine Vocabulary.
1886-–2799–Johannine Grammar.
2800-2999= Notes on New Testament Criticism.
The Books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary ab-
breviations, except where specified below. But when it is
said that Samuel, Isaiah, Matthew, or any other writer, wrote
this or that, it is to be understood as meaning the writer,
whoever he may be, of the words in question, and not as
meaning that the actual writer was Samuel, Isaiah, or Matthew.
(iii) The principal Greek Mss. are denoted by §, A, B, etc.; the Latin
versions by a, b, etc., as usual. The Syriac version discovered by
Mrs Lewis on Mount Sinai is referred to as SS, i.e. "Sinaitic
Syrian." It is always quoted from Prof. Burkitt's translation.
I regret that in the first three vols. of Diatessarica Mrs Lewis's
name was omitted in connexion with this version.
(iv) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of B, edited
by Prof. Swete; of the New, that of Westcott and Hort.
(v)
Modern works are referred to by the name of the work, or author,
vol., and page, e.g. Levy iii. 343 a, i.e. vol. iii. p. 343, col. 1.
ABBREVIATIONS
Apol. Justin Martyr's First Apology.
Aq.=Aquila's version of O.T.
Blass=Second English Edition of Prof. Blass's Grammar of New
Testament Greek, Macmillan and Co., 1905.
Buhl = Buhl's edition of Gesenius, Leipzig, 1899.
Burk. = Prof. F. C. Burkitt's Evangelion Da-mepharreshe, Cambridge
University Press, 1904.
C. before numbers = circa, "about" (e.g. c. 10).
Canon. LXX=the canonical books of LXX.
xxvii
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Chr.
=
Chronicles.
Chri. the words of Christ, as distinct from narrative, see 1672*.
Clem. Alex. 42=Clement of Alexandria in Potter's page 42.
Dalman, Words=Words of Jesus, Eng. Transl. 1902; Aram. G.=
Grammatik Aramäisch, 1894.
Demosth. 433=Teubner's marginal page 433 of Demosthenes; but
Demosth. (Preuss) xxvii. 3=p. 3 of Orat. xxvii. in Teubner, as in Preuss's
Concordance.
Diatess. = the Arabic Diatessaron, sometimes called Tatian's, trans-
lated by Rev. H. W. Hogg, B.D., in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
Ency. Encyclopaedia Biblica.
=
Ephrem Ephraemus Syrus, ed. Moesinger.
=
Etheridge = Etheridge's translations of the Targums on the Pentateuch.
Euseb. the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
=
Field=Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Oxford, 1875, also
Otium Norvicense, 1881.
Gesen. = the Oxford edition of Gesenius.
Heb. LXX=that part of LXX of which the Hebrew is extant.
Hor. Heb.=Horae Hebraicae, by John Lightfoot, 1658-74, ed.
Gandell, Oxf. 1859.
Iren. the treatise of Irenæus against Heresies.
Jer. Targ. (or Targ. Jer.)=the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum on
the Pentateuch, sometimes referred to as Jer. II (see Preface, p. viii).
Jon. Targ. (or Targ. Jon.) = the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan ben
Uzziel on the Pentateuch, sometimes referred to as Jer. I. The Targum
of Jonathan on the Prophets is referred to as simply "Targ." (see Preface,
pp. vii-viii).
K.=Kings.
Levy-Levy's Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, 4 vols.,
Leipzig, 1889; Levy Ch. Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, 2 vols., 1881.
-
L.S. Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon.
Narr.in narrative, as distinct from (a) speech of Christ, (b) speech
generally (1672*).
Onk.=the Targum of Onkelos (see Preface, pp. vii-viii).
Origen, Huet, or Lomm., ii. 340=vol. ii. p. 340 of Huet or Lommatzsch
severally. The reader is also sometimes guided by reference to the text,
e.g. Numb. xiv. 23 in O.'s commentary on Numbers.
=
Oxf. Conc. The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint.
Papyri are indicated by Pap. [from the] Berlin [Museum]; and Pap.
[of the] Egypt [Exploration Society], vols. i-vi, viz. Oxy[rynchus] i-iv,
Fayûm v, Tebt[unis] vi.
Pec., affixed to Mt., Lk., etc., means peculiar to Matthew, Luke, etc.
Philo is referred to by Mangey's volume and page, e.g. Philo ii. 234,
or, as to the Latin treatises, by Aucher's pages (P. A.) (see 1608).
xxviii
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Resch=Resch's Paralleltexte (4 vols.).
S.=Samuel; s.=" see."
Schöttg.=Schöttgen's Horae Hebraicae, Dresden and Leipzig, 1733.
Sir.=the work of Ben Sira, i.e. the son of Sira. It is commonly called
Ecclesiasticus (see 20α). The original Hebrew has been edited, in part,
by Cowley and Neubauer, Oxf. 1897; in part, by Schechter and Taylor,
Camb. 1899.
SS, see (iii) above.
-
Steph. or Steph. Thes. Stephani Thesaurus (Didot).
Sym. Symmachus's version of O.T.
=
Targ. (by itself) is used where only one Targum is extant on the
passage quoted (see Preface, pp. vii—viii).
Targ. Jer., and Targ. Jon., see Jer. Targ. and Jon. Targ. above.
Theod. Theodotion's version of O.T.
Tromm. =Trommius' Concordance to the Septuagint.
Tryph. the Dialogue between Justin Martyr and Trypho the Jew.
Wetst. Wetstein's Comm. on the New Testament, Amsterdam, 1751.
W.H.-Westcott and Hort's New Testament.
Wünsche Wünsche's translation of Rabboth etc. Leipzig, 1880—5.
=
(a) A bracketed Arabic number, following Mk, Mt., etc., indicates
the number of instances in which a word occurs in Mark, Matthew, etc.,
e.g. ảɣárŋ Mk (0), Mt. (1), Lk. (1), Jn (7).
(b) Where verses in Hebrew, Greek, and Revised Version, are
numbered differently, the number of R.V. is given alone.
xxix
PART I
NOTES TO SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN
NOTES TO SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN
NOTE TO PREFACE
[2800] Page 9 (of Silanus) "Detailed proofs." For these the
reader will sometimes be referred by black numerals to paragraphs of
the various parts of Diatessarica as given on p. xxvii of the present
volume.
Occasional reference will also be made to a work (mentioned in
Johannine Vocabulary, Pref. p. ix) to be entitled The Fourfold
Gospel, which I hope to publish before long'.
For general remarks as to quotations, and as to the sayings
attributed to Epictetus, Arrian, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and others,
the reader's attention is directed to the note on p. 12 of Silanus².
¹ [2800 a] Thus, with reference to the argument—which seems to me very
slight-for the early date of the fourth gospel, based on Jn v. 2 "Now there is...
a pool," the reader will find very little in the text of Silanus, and not much in the
Notes. But he will be referred for further information to Fourfold G. "pool,"
i.e. The Fourfold Gospel, English Index, "pool."
2 [2800] Obligations to modern sources will be acknowledged where they
Occur. But I should like to mention one instance where obligation might be
supposed to occur but does not. On p. 188, Scaurus raises the objection that
a message to "repent" cannot be regarded as good news." Wellhausen's Das
Evangelium Marci p. 8 raises the same objection in very similar words, "Aber
wie kann die Busspredigt als frohe Botschaft bezeichnet werden?" This is a case
of coincidence. I did not see Wellhausen's work till the notes were written; and
the objection raised by him (and by Scaurus) is answered-or an answer is
attempted-by Silanus.
[2800c] Concerning "repentance," Luther writing to Staupitz in 1518 A.D.
(Martin Luther's Briefe, ed. de Wette, Berlin, 1825, p. 116) says that Staupitz first
taught him its true meaning-" quod poenitentia vera non est nisi quae ab amore
justitiae et Dei incipit : et hoc esse potius principium poenitentiae quod illis finis
et consummatio videtur." By "illis" Luther means the previously mentioned
"murderers (carnifices)," who, by their precepts, alike innumerable and insupport-
able (importabilibus), “teach what they call the method of confession (modum
docent, ut vocant, confitendi)." When the true meaning was grasped, and
3
I-2
[2801]
NOTES TO CHAPTERS I, II
NOTES TO CHAPTER I
[2801] Page 15, "I forbid...," Epict. i. 2. 19 foll.; p. 15,
"Helvidius Priscus," put to death by Vespasian. See Mayor on
Juvenal v. 36.
((
P. 16, “Not from Arrian." Celsus tells this story, and Origen
(Cels. vii. 54) assumes it to be true; but Arrian makes no mention of
it, and it is very doubtful; see Epict. i. 12. 24 (which suggests
natural lameness) and Schweig. Epict. vol. iii. p. 126—7; p. 17,
Described," Epict. i. 2. 29; p. 17, "So you philosophers," Epict. i.
29. 9 foll.; p. 17, "Went on to say"; from this point to the end of
the chapter, the imaginary lecture consists of quotations—sometimes
combined, paraphrased, and transposed-from Epict. i. 9. 15, i. 30.
6—7, ii. 13. 21—7, i. 29. 50 foll., ii. 13. 14, iii. 24. 48, i. 19. 8—9,
iii. 22. 30 foll., ii. 9. 1 foll., iv. 5. 16, ii. 9. 3, iii. 22. 72 (quoting
Iliad ii. 25), iii. 22. 45 foll., iv. 10. 14 foll.
P. 23, "Plato," Symp. xxxii (215 E).
NOTES TO CHAPTER II
7 ;
[2802] Page 25, "It was therefore right...," Epict. i. 1.
p. 25, "But what says Zeus?" Epict. i. 1. 10, comp. Epict. iv. 6. 5
"that which Zeus was not able to do."
P. 26, "The difficult words," Epict. i. 2. 12, see Schweig. ad loc.
The text of Schweighäuser and Schenkl reads ἐδώκαμεν as ἔδωκα μέν,
but μév presents difficulties greater than those involved in the change
of number.
P. 26, "Wretched creature!" Epict. i. 12. 24. "The Fates
Scripture was studied in this new light, the consequence, he says, was a delightful
transformation: "Ecce jucundissimum ludum! Verba undique mihi colludebant,
planeque huic sententiae arridebant et assultabant, ita ut, cum prius non fuerit
ferme in Scriptura tota amarius mihi verbum quam poenitentia-licet sedulo etiam
coram Deo simularem, et fictum coactumque amorem exprimere conarer-nunc
nihil gratius aut dulcius mihi sonat quam poenitentia.'
[2800 d] While complaining that these spiritual "murderers" have "attached
so much importance to works of repentance (poenitentiae) that they have left us
scarcely a remnant of repentance [itself]," Luther charitably adds that they have
been led astray by the Latin word, "Latino scilicet vocabulo abducti, quod
'poenitentiam agere' actionem magis sonet quam mutationem affectus, et Graeco
illi μetavoeîv nullo modo satisficit (sic).”
4
NOTES TO CHAPTER II
[2805]
present at your birth" suggests that the lameness implied in the
context was not caused by cruelty (see 2801); p. 27, “The philo-
sophers say," Epict. ii. 14. 11 foll.
[2803] Page 27, "Whom I must needs please," Epict. iv. 12. 11.
The context illustrates Gal. i. 10-ii. 6 “Do I seek to please men?…..
From those who seemed to be something...Those who seemed [to be
something] imparted nothing to me." Comp. Epict. iv. 12. 10 “But
my friends tell me I have not pleased Mr so-and-so. Is Mr so-and-so
my life-work?
'No, but he (lit.) seems to be someone.' That
concerns him and those to whom he seems to be someone, not me.”
In both writers, there is the same disgust at attempting to conciliate
a person that "
seems to be someone."
P. 27, “Thine...all,” see Silanus p. 22, quoting Epict. iv. 10. 16.
Comp. Jn xvii. 7 "All things whatsoever thou hast given me are
from thee." But the Cynic is thinking of himself and his own
faculties; Christ is thinking of His body, the Church.
[2804] Page 28, "To each...," Epict. i. 14. 12; p. 28,
Cattle...," Epict. ii. 8. 10 foll.; p. 29, "Virtue and vice," Epict. i.
12. 16; p. 30, “Thou art the sun...," Epict. iii. 22. 5-8. Curiously
enough, Epictetus mentions Thersites in the context, but without
the least recognition of the difficulty mentioned in the text; p. 30,
"How grand," Epict. iii. 24. 111-15; p. 31, "In very truth,"
Epict. iii. 24. 19.
[2805] Page 31, "Orphans," see Epict. iii. 24. 14-20. "Not
as though he were leaving them orphans," resembles Jn xiv. 18
"I will not leave you orphans." Comp. Ps. lxviii. 5 "a father of the
orphans...is God in his holy habitation," and xxvii. 10 "When my
father and my mother forsake me the Lord will take me up." The
difference between Jn and Epict. is that whereas the latter exhibits
Hercules as leaving his children without a regret, and without any
suggestion of a future return, Jn exhibits Christ as sympathizing
with those whom He is leaving, and as consoling them with the
thought that He will come to them, "I will not leave you orphans,
I will come unto you¹."
1 [2805 a] Jn xiv. 18 R.V. txt “desolate" does not appear to be justified by
Greek usage, which (according to Stephen's Thesaurus) always uses oppavós
to mean orphan" except when it is defined by a genitive ("bereaved" of
children, of country etc.). The LXX, too, uses it abundantly to mean "orphan'
but never to mean "desolate." Origen (Hom. Ezek. iv. 5) quotes Jn xiii. 33 “dear
children (TEKvía)" along with Gal. iv. 19 "filioli mei quos iterum parturio." He
""
5
[2806]
NOTES TO CHAPTER II
[2806] The context shews four other Epictetian features in the
Son of God that should be compared with corresponding Johannine
features.
(1) Epict. "He (Hercules) thought God to be his Father and
fixing his eyes on Him did everything that He did," Jn v. 19 "The
Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father doing."
Comp. Joh. Voc. 1607 "Philo also uses ẞλéπw of the Eldest Son in
heaven looking at the acts of the Father as patterns for His own
action."
(2) Epict. (lit.) "That which is blessed (rò yàp evdaμovoûv)
ought to be [already] in full possession of (anexew) the things that it
wills (féλe); it ought to be like something that has been filled, or
fulfilled (TETλnрwμévų Tivì čoiкévai)." Contrast Jn xv. 11 "that your
joy may be filled, or fulfilled (#λŋpw0y),” xvi. 24 "that your joy may
be completely filled, or fulfilled (πeñλnpwµévn),” xvii. 13 "that they
may have the joy that is mine, completely filled, or fulfilled, in
themselves." These passages imply a future "filling" or "fulfilling."
And xvii. 24 "I will (éλw) that, where I am, there they also may
be with me" implies that the will of the Son (which is also the will
of the Father) is not yet "fulfilled." The only character in the
fourth gospel that describes his joy as "fulfilled" is John the Baptist,
Jn iii. 29 αὕτη οὖν ἡ χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται. That implies the finite
character of his mission.
(3) Epict. "Thirst ought not to attach itself to it (ie. to the
blessedness of the Son of God)," Jn xix. 28 "Jesus...in order that
the scripture might be perfectly fulfilled, saith, I thirst.”
(4) Epict. "Ulysses, if indeed he wept (ěkdaɩe) and lamented,
was not a good man," Jn xi. 35 “Jesus wept (édákpvoev).”
In (1), Jn agrees with Epict.; in (2), (3), and (4), he disagrees.
P. 31, "Banqueting," Epict. Ench. xv.
""
also (on Jn xiii. 33) contrasts the appellation "dear children" with the term (Jn
xx. 17) "my brethren as though the former implied "my" in "dear children,"
being a term of endearment (úrokoρiσTIKOû) that also suggested a "littleness" in the
souls of the apostles. It must be understood however that the Son will deliver the
disciples from orphanhood, not by presenting Himself to them as their Father, but
by revealing the Father, or (so to speak) bringing the Father, with the Holy Spirit,
into their hearts.
[28056] Compare also the Jewish use of "orphan" mentioned by Levy Ch. 1.
348 b.
"Thou orphan!" is addressed metaphorically to anyone regarded as
grossly ignorant, "orphaned of his teacher (vom Lehrer verwaister)."
:
6
NOTES TO CHAPTERS III, IV
[2809]
NOTES TO CHAPTER III
[2807] Page 34, "Carriest about God," Epict. ii. 8. 12, ii. 16. 33;
p. 34, "Fever and Cholera," Epict. i. 19. 6; p. 34, "Demeter, or
the Koré," Epict. ii. 20. 32; p. 34, "Never... Poseidon, Ares, or
Aphrodite." They are not in Schenkl's Index; p. 35,
"Even
Athene...," Epict. ii. 8. 18-20, ii. 19. 26, iii. 13. 4; p. 35, "An
oath," Epict. i. 14. 15—17; p. 36, "Profit," Epict. i. 19. 12-15,
i. 22. 1, ii. 22. 15, comp. iii. 3. 6.
P. 36, "New work...Tacitus," Annals xv. 44 "quos per flagitia
invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat," "exitiabilis superstitio," "haud
perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt,"
'sontes et novissima exempla meritos"; p. 37, "His letter to the
Emperor," Pliny Epist. ad Trajan. 96; p. 38, "Pointed to these
words," Plato Apol. xix. (31 D); p. 38, "The very words," Xen.
Apol. xii. 1.
XXX.
[2808] Page 39, "Entirely different saying," Xen. Apol. xxix—
Socrates predicts that the son of Anytus will come to a bad
end, because Anytus rejected the advice of Socrates about the boy's
training. "Anytus," says Socrates, "exults in having destroyed me,...
but how wretched is this man! He does not know that whosoever
of us two has achieved for all time the fairer and more profitable
results he is the real victor!"; p. 39, "Condensed version," Epict. i.
29. 18, ii. 2. 15, iii. 23. 21, Ench. liii. 4; p. 39, "Much longer,
Plato Apol. xviii. (30 c—D) "Me Anytus will not harm-nor Meletus
either. For he would not have the power. For I do not think that
it is God's will that a better man should be harmed by a worse.
Kill me he might perhaps, or banish me, or degrade me....
""
>>
P. 39, "Very variously reported." See the various readings of
the Manual in Schenkl's edition as compared with those of the
Lectures; p. 39, "Sacrifice to Esculapius," Plato Phad. lxvi.
(118 A).
NOTES TO CHAPTER IV
[2809] Page 41, "Quick etc." Comp. Epicharmus quoted by
Polyb. xviii. 23, "Be sober and remember to disbelieve."
P. 43,
"The same things." See Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 6, where
Hippias accuses Socrates of always saying the same things, and
Socrates replies, "Not only the same things but also about the same
7
[2809]
NOTES TO CHAPTER IV
subjects," and Plato Gorg. xlv. (490-1) where Callicles says, "How
you do always say the same things, Socrates!" To which the reply
is, "Not only so, Callicles, but also about the same subjects¹."
[2810] Page 45, "Musonius Rufus," comp. Plin. Epist. iii. 11. 5
"C. Musonium...quantum licitum est per aetatem cum admiratione
dilexi," and Epict. i. 9. 29 "Thus also Rufus, testing me, used to
say, 'This or that will befall you at the hands of your master'."
But the context describes Epictetus as replying, "Such things men
must put up with," on which Musonius exclaims, in admiration, that
the youth, thus armed, is in no need of the philosopher's intercession.
Perhaps we should read περὶ σοῦ παρὰ σοῦ δυναμένου. The context
requires the meaning to be "since you are able to draw help from
yourself."
•
[2811] Page 47, "Made money," comp. a treatise printed in
the works of Lucian describing a sham philosopher, a Christian
(De Morte Peregrin. 18) who gained great repute by abusing the
Emperor. When the Prefect of the City banished him, the punish-
ment "made him a rival of Musonius, Dion, and Epictetus";
p. 47, "The condition," Epict. iii. 22. 69; p. 48, "Undistractedly 2...
entangled," I Cor. vii. 35, 2 Tim. ii. 4; p. 48, "Daniel," see
Dan. vii. 1-14; p. 49, "Cudgelled," Epict. iii. 22. 54; p. 49, “I
think that God," I Cor. iv. 9—13; p. 49, "Never needlessly
offending," 2 Cor. vi. 3 foll.; p. 50,
foll.; p. 50, "He could give points to
Epictetus"; p. 51, "How then dost thou...," Epict. i. 29. 46;
¹ [2809 a] The author desires to call attention to the promise of Scaurus
(Sil. p. 43) and to say that he will be happy to give the same sum (say £5) to
the first person that may send him twenty consecutive identical words of Socrates
from Plato and Xenophon. Address, Rev. Dr Abbott, Wellside, Well Walk,
London N.W.
2 [2811 a] The word "undistracted," by itself, would prove little. For it is
frequent in Polybius and Plutarch, and (which is still more indicative of frequency)
had found its way into regular legal forms as early as 13 B.C. See Berl. Pap.
1957 (22) (B.C. 13) παρέξεσθαι τὸν Η. ἀπερίσπαστο(ν) καὶ ἀπαρενόχλη(τον), and
comp. Ox. Pap. 286 (17) (A.D. 82), where the same three words occur,
that they
may secure us (παρέχωνται) against any liability or trouble (ἀπερισπάστους κ.
ἀπαρενοχλήτους).”
"C
3 [28116] Silanus might have replied to this by quoting Epict. ii. 19. 23—4
'Who then exists, a [genuine] Stoic?...Shew me a man diseased—and happy
(voσoûvтa kal eÚTUXOûvтa); in peril—and happy; dying-and happy; exiled-and
happy; dishonoured-and happy." But I think Scaurus would have retorted that
Epictetus was assuredly borrowing here from Paul, and trying to outdo the latter in
brevity and epigrammatic point, because he was hopelessly behind the apostle in
8
NOTES TO CHAPTERS IV-VI
[2813]
p. 51, "Pauline," 2 Thess. i. 11, Eph. iv. 1; p. 51, "Defile the
image," Epict. ii. 8. 12 foll.; p. 51, "In this way," Epict. iii. 13. 23;
p. 51, "God's temple," 1 Cor. iii. 16—17; p. 51, "The temple of
the Holy Spirit," 1 Cor. vi. 19; p. 51, "Cause shame,” 1 Cor. xi. 22;
P. 51, "Whether therefore," 1 Cor. x. 31; p. 52, “So wrote Pliny,"
Plin. Epist. iii. 11.
NOTES TO CHAPTER V
[2812] Page 56, "Steadfastness," Epict. i. 29. 1 foll. ; p. 57,
"You are an apparition," Epict. Ench. i. 5; p. 57, "Agamemnon,"
Epict. iii. 22. 30 foll.; p. 59, “Neither good nor evil," Epict. ii. 16.
I; p. 59, “Catechism," Epict. i. 30. 1 foll. ; p. 60, "Jew," Epict. ii.
9. 19 foll.; p. 61, "Surgery," Epict. iii. 23. 30; p. 62, “Dipping,"
see L. S. and Stephen's Thesaurus; Schürer (11. ii. 323) thinks
Jewish proselytes are denoted. See Fourfold Gospel ("baptism").
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI
[2813] Page 65, "The Galilæans,” Epict. iv. 7. 6. Some might
urge that Epictetus is referring to the followers of Judas of Galilee
described by Josephus as "the fourth sect of the philosophies" of
the Jews. It is not probable, however, that Epictetus would talk to
his class about "the Galilæans," if the class knew them only through
book-knowledge, that is to say, through the works of Josephus.
Even if Epictetus were referring to those Galilæans, there is nothing
in Josephus that suggests "custom," but much that suggests passion,
Ant. xviii. 1. 6 "unconquerable love (pws) of freedom," "the
unchangeableness of their confidence (voorάoews)," "contempt for
pain," "madness (avoía).” Arrian, however, has "custom"; and he
is not responsible for the criticisms fictitiously attributed to him in
this and the preceding chapter.
Comp. M. Ant. xi. 3 "But this readiness [to meet death]—
let it always spring from a man's own deliberate judgment, not by
way of mere obstinate opposition, as the Christians [are ready], but
force and fervour and fulness of hope. The Stoic could not say "as dying and
behold we live," nor 66
as having nothing yet having all things for ever"; so he
repeats "and happy." It is epigrammatic and very fine; but the apostle's
language is more than "fine."
9
[2813]
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI
with reasonable conviction (μὴ κατὰ ψιλὴν παράταξιν ὡς οἱ Χριστιανοί,
ἀλλὰ λελογισμένως).” Perhaps Epict. iv. 7. 6 ὑπὸ μανίας μὲν (καὶ
ὑπὸ ἔθους οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι)...ὑπὸ λόγου δὲ οὐδείς may mean “by [the
mere force of] habit," because they accustom themselves to think and
speak about death in such a spirit (without any reasonable basis
for their thoughts and words) that they are able, when the moment
comes, actually to die in the same spirit. Bacon's Essay on Custom "
maintains that habits of speech and thought cannot be trusted to
produce consistent action. But Epictetus may have thought other-
wise. Comp. i. 27. 4-6 where, after deprecating the bad habit of
saying, "The poor fellow is dead!" he says, "Against that habit set
the opposite habit" (and sim. iii. 12. 6, iii. 16. 13). If so, the clause
about the Galilæans in iv. 7. 6 is parenthetical. In iii. 25. 5 VÒ
Oovs is used in a bad sense.
66
[2814] Page 67, "Who shall separate...," Rom. viii. 35; p. 68,
'Never," ayánη does not occur in Schenkl's Index; p. 70, "Ruin
and help," Epict. iv. 9. 16, comp. i. 4. 11, i. 9. 30—2; p. 70, “Not
only so," Rom. viii. 23.
P. 70, "Foolish...prayers." But it should be added that Epictetus
(ii. 7. 10-12) recognises "coming to" God as our guide (though he
expressly forbids us (ib.) to tell God what we want, which is, he says,
as unreasonable as it would be to ask our own eyes to see what
we want). Moreover he definitely sanctions "calling on" God in
time of moral trial (ii. 18. 29) as mariners in a storm call on the
Dioscuri. Comp. iii. 21. 11-12, where he says that the aspirant to
teach must have God for his "leader," and must not approach the
task "without God" (and sim. iii. 22. 56). The statement, therefore,
in the text, though verbally true about "prayer," is not really true.
It ought to have been said that Epictetus allows us to pray for our
own spiritual peace and guidance, but not for anything else, and
for nothing that concerns others.
P. 70, "Searcheth," I Cor. ii. 10; p. 71, "Diogenes," Epict.
iii. 24. 64 foll., where he is called "mild and philanthropic "; p. 71,
"Such sentences as these," Phil. iv. 13, Col. i. 11, Eph. vi. 10; p. 72,
"Power," I Cor. ii. 4, Rom. xv. 13; p. 72, "The love of Christ,'
2 Cor. v. 14; p. 72, “Adam,” Rom. v. 14; p. 73, "Phædo," Plato
Phæd. lxiv. (115 D); p. 74, "Christ sent me not...," 1 Cor. i. 17 foll.
""
TO
NOTES TO CHAPTERS VII, VIII
[2816]
NOTES TO CHAPTER VII
[2815] Page 77, "Pity me," Ps. li. The translation follows the
Septuagint; p. 78, "Country girl," Hor. Odes iii. 23; p. 79, "Our
own hearts," Epict. i. 29. 4 "Receive from thyself"; p. 80, “A
passage,” Rom. vii. 18.
P. 80, "Repentant sorrow." It may be urged that Epictetus,
though he does not insist on "repentance," makes frequent mention
of "turning (πɩστpépw)”—using that very word which, when
employed by the LXX to express "turning to God," signifies
"repentance." But it will be found that Epictetus' "turning" is, for
the most part, to oneself (Ench. 10 ÉπισTρéÓWv éπì σeautóv, iv. 4. 7
Èπ' ɵavτòv Éπισтpéow etc.). The meaning appears to be, “fix one's
thoughts on one's own nature," and in any case is far removed from
the Hebraic "turning to God." The passive, in ii. 20. 22 iv' oi
πολῖται ἐπιστραφέντες τιμῶσι τὸ θεῖον, is put into the mouth of a
rhetorician ready to prove anything.
ιν
P. 81, "Strangers," Exod. xxii. 21, xxiii. 9, Lev. xix. 10, 33,
Deut. x. 19; p. 81, "Vile," Deut. xxv. 3; p. 82, Base thought,"
Deut. xv. 9; p. 82, "Covet," Rom. vii. 7, xiii. 9, quoting Exod.
xx. 17, Deut. v. 21; p. 82, "Two fundamental precepts," Deut. vi. 5
etc., Lev. xix. 18; p. 83, "Proverbs," Prov. xx. 27 "soul" (R.V. and
LXX lit. "belly"); p. 83, “Imputed," by Aulus Gellius, see Epict.
ed. Schweig. vol. iii. p. 121.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII
[2816] Page 85, "Profit," Epict. ii. 22. 15. Comp. Epict. i. 19.
II "Even the sun does everything for its own sake; and, for the
matter of that, so does Zeus Himself. Nay, when He wishes to be
called Raingiver and Fruitgiver and Father of men and Gods, you
see that He cannot attain these actions and these appellations
without conferring advantages on the world at large.”
In O.T., God is not said to do anything "for His own sake," but
sometimes "for His name's sake," e.g. 1 S. xii. 22, and comp.
Is. xlviii. 9 "For my name's sake will I defer mine anger," Ezek. xx.
9, 14 etc. "I wrought for my name's sake that it should not be
II
[2816]
NOTES TO CHAPTERS VIII, IX
profaned," where the meaning seems to be, lest God's "name" and
the worship of the true God should be blasphemed among the
Gentiles. "Name" is nearly equivalent to "nature as far as it can
be revealed in words."
In Mt. v. 44—5 “Love your enemies...that ye may become sons of
your Father in heaven, for he causeth his sun to rise on evil and
good and sendeth rain on just and unjust,”—where the precept is
not "Do good to your enemies," but "Love them"-it is implied that
God loves even the "evil" and the "unjust," and does good to them
for their own sake.
There is no incompatibility between "for His name's sake" and
"for Israel's sake." God rewards and punishes Israel, because He
loves them. But "God loves Israel" is almost equivalent to God
desires to make Israel righteous," or "to make Israel one with
Himself," or "to put His name upon them." Thus, what God does
for Israel, He may be said to do for the sake of Righteousness,
which-Epictetus might say-means "for the sake of Himself,"
and—as the Bible says-means "for the sake of His name."
[2817] Page 85, "Given it back," Epict. Ench. xi., comp.
Epict. iv. 1. 103 and Job i. 21; p. 86, "What does it matter?"
Epict. Ench. xi.; p. 86, “No philosopher…..an enemy," Epict. Ench.
i. 3; p. 86, "Desire," Epict. Ench. viii.; p. 86, "Uneducated,"
Epict. Ench. v.; p. 86, "Take it from yourself," Epict. i. 29. 3—4;
p. 86, "Another mention," Epict. ii. 16. 27 foll.; p. 87, "David,"
Ps. cxix. 97, comp. ib. cxix. 131; p. 88, "What he wills...," Epict. ii.
26. 1 foll.; p. 88, "Manliness," Epict. iv. 9. 6 foll.; p. 89, "Abusing,"
Epict. iv. 9. 12 i.e. misusing; p. 89, "Nothing more pliable,"
Epict. iv. 9. 16.
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX
[2818] Page 92, "Make personal appeals," AéYEL πρós TIVα,
λέγειν πρός τινα,
Epict. iii. 1. 36; p. 92, "Intent on not sinning," Epict. iv. 12. 19;
p. 93, "Immortal," see Epict. i. 2. 21, ii. 6. 27, ii. 8. 28, ii. 17. 38,
iii. 24. 8, iv. 10. 31, iv. 5. 28. These are all Schenkl's instances
from the Dissertations; p. 93, "The death of the whole," Epict. iii.
22. 21.
I 2
NOTES TO CHAPTERS X, XI
[2820]
NOTES TO CHAPTER X
[2819] Page 97, "Desolation," Epict. iii. 13. 1 foll.; p. 98,
"Henceforth no evil," Epict. iii. 13. 13; p. 98, "But if at any
moment," Epict. iii. 13. 14; p. 98, "Such part as was fire," Epict. iii.
13. 15-if the reading is correct-may indicate a shade of difference
between the "fire" and the other element. But Schweig. and
Schenkl follow a MS. that reads "of fire" parall. to "of earth,"
"of air" etc.; p. 99, “The soul," Epict. ii. 12. 20—1, iii. 7. 4,
comp. iii. 3. 2-4; p. 100, "Mind, knowledge, right logos,"
Epict. ii. 8. 2.
P. 100, "Fire.”
"Fire." The soul was declared to be of the nature of fire
by the Stoics (Cicero Tusc. I. xviii-xix) consisting of "inflammata
anima,” and soaring upwards after death till it found rest in "naturam
sui similem." The Stoics (Steph. Thes. s.v. Texviкóv) defined Nature
as πῦρ τεχνικὸν ὁδῷ βαδίζον ἐπὶ γενέσει.
P. 100,
Be not afraid," Mt. x. 28, Lk. xii. 4.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XI
[2820] Page 102, "Though the number," Rom. ix. 27—9;
p. 102, "Isaiah is very bold," Rom. x. 20; p. 102, “Isaiah says,"
Rom. xv. 12; p. 102, "To whom are entrusted," Epict. iii. 22. 72
(quoting Iliad ii. 25); p. 103, "Children," Is. i. 2. The following
quotations or descriptions follow Isaiah's order up to Is. xi. 10 “the
root of Jesse." R.V. has been generally followed; p. 104, "The
Prayers of David," Ps. lxxii. 20 ad fin.
P. 104, "Sophocles," Ant. 600. Comp. Herod. viii. 55 de-
scribing how the sacred olive-tree in the Acropolis, two days after it
had been burned down by the Persians, sent up a shoot, a cubit
long, from the stock; p. 105, “Come ye," Is. ii. 3; p. 106, “The
dead shall arise," Is. xxvi. 19 (LXX); p. 107, "Hezekiah," see
Is. xxxix. 10-20; p. 107, "One passage," Is. liii. 1-12, translated
from the LXX, which differs greatly from the Hebrew; p. 107,
"Romans,” Rom. iv. 24—5; pp. 107-8, "Swallowed up," Is. xxv.
8, quoted in 1 Cor. xv. 54; p. 108, "Other passages," Is. xxxvii. 35,
xli. 8, xliii. 10; p. 108, "Abraham my friend,” Is. xli. 8.
13
[2821]
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XII-XIV
NOTES TO CHAPTER XII
[2821] Page 111, "The government,” Is. ix. 6.
P. 112, "Thee have I chosen," Is. xli. 8, 9, xliii. 10, xliv. 1—2,
comp. Amos iii. 2
"You only have I known of all the families of the
earth," followed by "Therefore I will visit upon you all your
iniquities."
P. 113,
"In the furnace of affliction," Is. xlviii. 10; p. 113,
"The Lord was wroth with me," Deut. iii. 26, comp. Numb. xx. 12;
p. 114, "Divide the spoils," Is. liii. 12 (LXX); p. 115, "David,"
Ps. viii. 1-9; p. 116, "Behold, the Lord," Is. xl. 10—13.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIII
""
[2822] Page 117, "Be not surprised," Epict. i. 16. 1 foll.;
"Articulates," Epict. i. 17. 1—4; p. 119,
p. 119,
"In the act of
blaming," Epict. iii. 17. 1 foll.; p. 120, “Thou seest," Epict. i. 12. 3
quoting Iliad x. 279; p. 120, “Why cannot God?" Epict. i. 14.
7-10; p. 121, "Galba," Epict. iii. 15. 14; p. 123, "Look up,'
Gen. xv. 5 (LXX); p. 123, "Lift up your eyes," Is. xl. 26 foll., from
the LXX. The punctuation is doubtful; p. 123,
"But sorrow,"
Is. xl. 29, Heb. has "To him that hath no might he increaseth
strength." In the LXX, "them that have no grief" seems to mean
"have no experience of chastisement," so that they are unfeeling.
""
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIV
[2823] Page 125, "Paul, a slave," Rom. i. 1; p. 126, "Cynic,"
Epict. i. 24. 6, iii. 22. 23 and passim; p. 126, "As a shepherd,"
Is. xl. II (LXX); p. 128, "Ye have heard," Gal. i. 13-14; p. 128,
"A Hebrew," Phil. iii. 5-6; p. 128, "The chief of sinners,"
1 Tim. i. 15; p. 128, "Accursed from Christ," Rom. ix. 3; p. 129,
"On the third day," 1 Cor. xv. 4.
P. 129,
Reveal his Son in me," Gal. i. 16. Both Jerome (in
the earlier and fuller of his two interpretations) and Chrysostom
take "in me” as meaning "within me," and not "by me." Jerome
perhaps (as he very frequently does) has followed Origen's inter-
pretation.
14
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIV
[2824*]
P. 131,
"But whatever things," Phil. iii. 7 foll.; p. 131, “Drama,"
Shakespeare, Richard II, v. I. 28; p. 132, "If any man be in
Christ," 2 Cor. v. 17; p. 132, "Emasculate,” Gal. v. 12 (lit.); p. 132,
"Add affliction," Phil. i. 17; p. 133, "Ten thousand tutors,"
I Cor. iv. 15.
[2824] Page 133, "Villains!" Epict. iii. 22. 58. Schweig. ad loc.
quotes Jerome, who says that Diogenes, under a tree, said, "Haec
me nox aut victorem probabit aut victum. Si febrim vicero, ad
Agonem (ie. the Olympic games) veniam. Si me vicerit, ad inferna
descendam.' Ibique, per noctem, eliso gutture, non tam mori se ait
quam febrim morte excludere." According to Jerome, Diogenes
appears to have hanged himself in order to stop the fever. Epictetus
takes interrogatively (“Are you going to Olympia?") what Jerome
seems to take imperatively (“Abite quaeso et spectatum pergite!”).
Silanus is supposed to have heard (though not from Epictetus) that
the story ended in the death of Diogenes.
P. 133-4, "Weakness," Gal. iv. 13, 1 Cor. ii. 3, 2 Cor. xii. 5.
In 2 Cor. xii. 9 ǹ dúvaµis, "the power"-like (Corrections 272) “the
name [of God]"-prob. means "the power of God," "divine power."
As "the power" is hardly intelligible to English readers, "the" has
been dropped, and the noun has been printed with a capital letter.
P. 134,
"Satan hindered," 1 Thess. ii. 18; p. 134, "Fever is
worshipped," Epict. i. 19. 6; p. 134, "Have the fever rightly,"
Epict. iii. 10. 13; p. 135, “Who is made to stumble?" 2 Cor. xi. 29.
The following reff. are to 2 Cor. xi. 28, 2 Tim. iv. 7, Rom. xv. 19,
2 Cor. xii. 10.
"SPIRITUAL BODY"
"""
[2824*] Page 135, "To describe a 'real person. The
"spiritual body" is not to be regarded as the "real person." It is
rather conceived to be a spiritual shape expressive of a spiritual being.
An angel might be said to have a spiritual body: and this, when made
visible to men, would be seen as the body of a man. 2 Cor. v. I-2
calls the spiritual body provided for men "a house...eternal in the
heavens," and teaches us to think of ourselves as "putting on the
clothing [of this house] over" our former earthly being, so that we
are encompassed with an atmosphere of incorruptibility, not "un-
clothed," but "clothed upon." But I Cor. xv. 35-45 describes the
spiritual body as bearing the same relation to the earthly body that
15
[2824*]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIV
the flower bears to the seed. Probably the Apostle did not
intend us to infer that the spiritual body was as different in shape
from the earthly body as the flower is from the seed, and that the
spiritual body resembled the earthly body in being tangible. He
seems to have used these metaphors to express his conviction that
the human being is raised up in Christ whole—that is, preserving a
continuity of spiritual identity—and real, and incorruptible.
[2824* (i)] The difficulty attending the use of "body," in connexion
with resurrection, may be illustrated by the ambiguity of the word
"bodiless." "Bodiless" may be used to signify (1) “immaterial” in a
good sense, or philosophic sense; (2) "unreal," "unsubstantial,"
"weak," in a popular sense-especially when applied to the dead, or
in a bad sense applied to bodiless evil spirits, which (according to
Jewish belief), having no bodies of their own, tried to find homes
in human bodies¹. Luke repeats a tradition that Jesus after the
Resurrection said to the disciples (R. V. txt), "See my hands and feet
that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as ye behold me having." R.V. txt proceeds,
"And
when he had said this he shewed them his hands and his feet." But
W.H. doubly bracket this sentence, and there are many variations in
the context². Moreover Ignatius has the following, "For I know
and believe that also after the resurrection He was in the flesh: and
when He came to Peter and his friends He said to them, Take, handle
me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon," as to which Jerome
¹ [2824* (i) a] For Origen's remarks on this difficulty, see below, 2824* (i) e.
Aowμaros is not used in LXX or N.T. Steph. gives "Carphyl. Anth. Pal. 9, 52,
3 olкTeipas dè véкUV тòv dowμαтov," implying "helpless," like Virgil, Æn. vi. 292
tenues sine corpore vitas...volitare cava sub imagine formae," but on the other
hand Plato Phil. p. 64 Β κόσμος τις ἀσώματος and Phad. p. 85 Ε ὡς ἡ ἁρμονία
ἀόρατον κ. ἀσώματον κ. πάγκαλόν τι ἐστίν. Lewis and Short quote Aul. Gel. v. 15. 1
Corpusne sit vox an incorporeum : hoc enim vocabulum quidam finxerunt proinde
quod Graece dicitur ασώματον.”
E
2 [2824* (i) 6] Lk. xxiv. 39-40. SS omits "And when...feet." Epiphanius
Adv. Hær. I. iii. 78 (p. 349 C)-perh. quoting Marcion, for elsewhere he quotes
differently has ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας μου· ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστᾶ οὐκ ἔχει,
Kalws ȵè Dewρeîтe exоvта. In Lk. xxiv. 37 "they thought they saw a spirit
καθὼς θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.
(πveûμa),” D has pávraσµa, and in xxiv. 39 it has тò πνeûµа (? meaning "the Holy
Spirit," as in 2 Cor. iii. 17 "the Lord is the Spirit," on which Origen says (Hom.
Exod. xii. 4) "Verbum Dei...nunc via, nunc veritas, nunc vita...: nunc vero
spiritus dicitur"). Þávтаσµа occurs elsewhere in N.T. only in Mk vi. 49,
Mt. xiv. 26, where SS has "devil." Thus pávтaoμa in Lk. xxiv. 37 (D) shews
how πνεῦμα in that passage might be interchanged with δαιμόνιον “ devil.”
16
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIV
[2824*]
makes the "repeated and explicit¹" statement that this is from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews which he had himself translated.
Origen quotes it, with condemnation, as from the Teaching of Peter.
But the important point to note is that as early as the beginning of
the first century, if not before, difficulties appear to have arisen as to
Christ's post-resurrectional "body." Some seem to have argued
thus: "Christ could not have said, I am not a spirit, for (2 Cor.
iii. 17) The Lord is the Spirit. He must have meant, I am not a
bodiless demon. Even if He did not use these words, they express
His meaning." Others, Marcion for example, may have turned
Luke's tradition round-unless indeed Luke turned the original
round and Marcion kept closer to it—so as to mean, in effect, "[I
am a spirit. And] a spirit has not bones as also ye see me [not]
having [them]"." Curiously enough, Origen appears to say that the
tradition about the "bodiless demon " was similarly used in two
senses. His remarks on the passage deserve careful study³. They
¹ [2824* (i) c] See Lightf. on Ign. Smyrn. 3 shewing that Jerome renders oîda
by "vidi" ("in carne eum vidi") and "evidently supposes that Ignatius had seen
our Lord in the flesh."
2 [2824* (i) ɗ] Tertull. Marc. iv. 43 ad fin. "Quum haesitantibus eis ne
phantasma esset, immo phantasma credentibus, Quid turbati estis, inquit, et quid
cogitationes subeunt in corda vestra? Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse
sum; quoniam spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me habentem videtis. Et Marcion
quaedam contraria sibi, illa credo industria eradere de Evangelio suo noluit, ut ex
his quae eradere potuit, nec erasit, illa quae erasit, aut negetur erasisse, aut merito
erasisse dicatur. Nec parcit nisi eis quae non aliter interpretando quam delendo
subvertit. Vult itaque sic dictum, quasi, Spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis
habentem, ad spiritum referatur, sicut me videtis habentem; id est, non habentem
ossa sicut et spiritus. Et quae ratio tortuositatis istius? quum simpliciter pronun-
tiare potuisset, Quia spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis non habentem."
Here it may be noted that Tertullian apparently admits that Marcion quoted
correctly and fully, though he explained perversely. If so, Tertullian read
'phantasm" as D does ("phantasma credentibus"). It is not quite so clear that
he omitted "flesh." As regards "bone," it may be noted that the context mentions
“I myself,” and that in N. Heb. (Levy iii. 679) DYY, "bone," may mean "self"
with persons as well as things (in Bibl. Heb., only with things, Gesen. 783 a).
The punctuation in Tertullian is doubtful, and perhaps "spiritus" should be
printed "Spiritus" (comp. D rò πVEÛμα) throughout.
3
³ [2824* (i) e] See Orig. De Princip. Præf. 8 "Appellatio autem dowµárov, id
est, incorporei, non solum apud multos alios, verum etiam apud nostras scripturas
est inusitata et incognita. Si vero quis velit nobis proferre ex illo libello, qui Petri
Doctrina appellatur, ubi Salvator videtur ad discipulos dicere: 'Non sum
daemonium incorporeum': primo respondendum est ei, quoniam ille liber inter
libros ecclesiasticos non habetur; et ostendendum quia neque Petri est ipsa.
A.
17
2
[2824*]
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XIV, XV
shew that the word "bodiless," if applied to Christ's manifestations
after death, would have been misleading and essentially false, and
they help us to appreciate St Paul's motives in using the expression,
"spiritual body."
NOTES TO CHAPTER XV
[2825] Page 136, "The lecture," Epict. i. 24. 1 foll. and i. 25.
1 foll.; p. 138, "I am not ashamed," Rom. i. 16; p. 139, “Shall
judge," Rom. ii. 16; p. 139, "Abraham had faith," Rom. iv. 3, 9 etc.,
Gal. iii. 6; p. 149, "Shall not the judge,” Gen. xviii. 25.
scriptura, neque alterius cujusquam, qui spiritu Dei fuerit inspiratus. Quod etiamsi
ipsum concederetur, non idem sensus ibi ex isto sermone dowµárov indicatur, qui
a graecis et gentilibus auctoribus ostenditur, quum de incorporea natura a
philosophis disputatur. In hoc enim libello incorporeum daemonium dixit pro eo,
quod ipse ille, quicunque est, habitus vel circumscriptio daemonici corporis, non
est similis huic nostro crassiori et visibili corpori: sed secundum sensum ejus, qui
composuit illam scripturam, intelligendum est quod dixit; id est, non se tale corpus,
quale habent daemones, quod est naturaliter subtile, et velut aura tenue, et propter
hoc vel putatur a multis vel dicitur incorporeum, sed habere se corpus solidum et
palpabile. In consuetudine vero hominum omne quod tale non fuerit, incorporeum
simplicioribus vel imperitioribus nominatur: velut si quis aërem istum, quo
fruimur, incorporeum dicat, quandoquidem non est tale corpus, ut comprehendi ac
teneri possit, urgentique resistere.
Quaeremus tamen si vel alio nomine res ipsa, quam graeci philosophi dowμatov,
id est incorpoream, dicunt, in Scripturis sanctis invenitur. Deus quoque ipse
quomodo intelligi debeat, inquirendum est, corporeus, et secundum aliquem
habitum deformatus, an alterius naturae, quam corpora sunt: quod utique in
praedicatione nostra manifeste non designatur. Eadem quoque etiam de Christo
et de Spiritu sancto requirenda sunt: sed et de omni anima, atque omni rationabili
natura nihilominus requirendum est.
[2824* (i)ƒ] It is not clear whether Origen distinguishes an unnamed con-
troversialist or an allusion to such a one (“si vero quis velit nobis proferre") who
quotes the Doctrina Petri, from the actual composer of the Doctrina ("qui
composuit illam scripturam"). There appears also an antithesis between the
meaning of this "composer" and the meaning intended in the treatise previously
mentioned ("in hoc enim libello"). But in any case the passage clearly indicates
Origen's difficulty, and the popular difficulty, in connexion with the use of "body"
applied to spiritual beings.
[2824* (i) g] Compare the following passage from Clem. Alex. 970-1 in which,
starting from Mt. xviii. 10 "the face of the Father," he asks, "How can there be
a face of Him that is not fashioned (πρόσωπον δὲ τοῦ ἀσχηματίστου πῶς ἂν εἴη;) ?”
He apparently maintains that the "bodies" of angels, archangels, and the Son,
differ in respect of "bodilessness and invisibility," "definite measurement and
perceptibility,” as compared with the Father (ὡς πρὸς τὴν σύγκρισιν τῶν τῇδε
σωμάτων, οἷον ἄστρων, ἀσώματα καὶ ἀνείδεα, ὡς πρὸς τὴν σύγκρισιν τοῦ υἱοῦ, σώματα
μεμετρημένα καὶ αἰσθητά, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα παραβαλλόμενος).
18
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XV-XVII
[2827]
P. 141, "Shew us," Epict. iii. 7. 33-4. The text has "the
quasi-ruler,” which is rather flat. Perhaps ōrws (¿.e. ŏvτws) has been
corrupted to o ws (a somewhat unusual combination).
P. 141, “If I knew," Epict. ii. 6. 10—13; p. 142, “Wisdom of
word," 1 Cor. i. 17.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XVI
[2826] Page 144, "What Epictetus had said," see Sil. p. 98;
p. 144, “the enigma" of the "mirror," 1 Cor. xiii. 12. I had at first
adopted R.V. txt "darkly," but a friend justly objected, as follows:
"Darkly' is a poor rendering of èv aiviyμarı. I suppose two men
to be standing before a mirror, and the mirror to be a very bad one,
as the common mirrors of that time must have been. One of the two
sees the image of the other through the mirror, a dimmed and
distorted image which puzzles him; turning round, he sees his
companion 'face to face.' So there is an immediate contrast between
a puzzling (say, confusing) image and the reality"; p. 144, "Work
together," Rom. viii. 28; p. 145, "Elijah,” Rom. xi. 2, and comp.
1 K. xix. 10 foll.; p. 145, "Cry aloud," Is. xlii. 2; p. 146, "Be with
Christ," Phil. i. 23; p. 146, “I have fought," 2 Tim. iv. 7 (Silanus
is represented, perhaps wrongly, as having the Pastoral Epistles in
his Pauline volume); p. 146, "Fallen asleep," 1 Thess. iv. 15; p. 148,
"To the Galatians," the reff. are Gal. i. 11—12, i. 16—17, iv. 25,
i. 18-19, ii. 1; p. 149, "Spiritually prepared," comp. Acts xxvi. 16¹.
}
NOTES TO CHAPTER XVII
[2827] Page 151, "The Lord Jesus said," I Cor. xi. 23-4;
p. 154, “A divine Artist," Epict. ii. 8. 21 foll.; p. 154, "Inveighed,"
see Epict. iv. 13. 4—19, ii. 23. 13, and comp. ii. 20. 7; p. 155,
Medea," Epict. ii. 17. 19 foll., iv. 13, 14; p. 155, "If you pity,"
Epict. ii. 17. 26; p. 155, "Observe and test," Epict. ii. 19. 20 foll.;
p. 157, "Is not this matter," Epict. ii. 19. 32—4.
(6
1 [2826 a] This version of Christ's words, uttered to Paul at the moment of his
conversion, indicates that the substance of the apostle's testimony was to be based
on the future "appearing” of Jesus as well as on the things that he saw at
the moment, "For to this end appeared I (wpłŋv) unto thee to appoint thee
a minister and witness both of the things wherein thou sawest me (ŵv te eîdés µe)
and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee (ŵv Te ¿płńooµal ooı).”
19
2-2
[2828]
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XVIII, XIX
NOTES TO CHAPTER XVIII
[2828] Page 160, "Thyestean meal," comp. Euseb. v. 1. 14,
Iren. fragm. ed. Grabe p. 469, Origen Cels. vi. 27.
P. 161, "Giving' or 'delivering over.'" More literally, this
would be (1) "Giving or giving over," or else (2) "Delivering or
delivering over." But it is impossible to reproduce in English edwкe
and raρédwкe in either of these ways when St Paul uses the two
Greek words in the same context to describe the Father as "delivering
over" the Son for the redemption of mankind.
""
;
P. 161, "Homer," Iliad ii. 702 foll.; p. 162, "New covenant,
"old covenant," 2 Cor. iii. 6, 14, Gal. iv. 24, Exod. xxiv. 8; p. 162,
"Create in me," Ps. li. 10; p. 164, "When Socrates is dead,"
Epict. iv. 1. 169; p. 164, "Playing at ball," Epict. ii. 5. 15 foll.
p. 164, "Transferred his habitation," Plato, Phæd. 117 C, Apol. 40 C;
p. 165, "Thy image," Virgil Æn. vi. 695-6; p. 165, "Scaurus's
saying,” see Sil. p. 43 ; p. 166, “A living sacrifice,” Rom. xii. 1; p. 167,
"Si nunc," Virgil Æn. vi. 187; p. 168, "The reign of Domitian," on
the date of the Apocalypse, see 2942*; p. 169, “The three gospels,"
Mk xiv. 22-4, Mt. xxvi. 26-8, Lk. xxii. 17-20; p. 169, “No
mention." This is not quite accurate, see Sil. p. 172.
P. 170, "Sophocles," Ant. 1195. But it is a messenger that says
"Truth is always right"; and the message causes the wife of Creon
to commit suicide. It is to be feared that it is an instance of
'Sophoclean irony." The messenger may be intended to speak as
a fool.
66
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
[2829] Page 172, "Benefactors," Lk. xxii. 25. Comp. Joh. Voc.
1571 "Luke appears to be alluding to the name Euergetes, or
Benefactor, assumed by several Eastern Kings, one of whom, it is
said, was called by the Alexandrians Kakergetes, or Malefactor."
P. 173, “A ransom for many," Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28; and see
Lk. xxii. 27 "he that serveth."
P. 174, "And they drank," see Clue 141-2, 240-3, quoting
similar instances, e.g. Josh. xxii. 8 "Return ye," LXX "and they
departed."
P. 174, “To you" and "for you," see Paradosis 1321-4
p. 175, "I am become...Jews," I Cor. ix. 22 and 20.
20
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
[2832]
THE INFLUENCE OF MISTRANSLATION ILLUSTRATED
FROM SHAKESPEARE
[2830] Page 178, "Ilices' or 'silices,'" see Clue, 1-2. Pro-
copius (I think) has made a mistake of this kind, but I cannot give
the reference. The best instance known to me is one in which
Shakespeare might be said by some to have been led into a complete
misrepresentation of the words of Marcus Brutus, before the battle
of Philippi, as to the lawfulness of suicide. I think it can be shewn
that, in the context, where he was not "misled," he used North's
text as potter's clay for his dramatic images. Still, in one point, he
has certainly been misled by North, who has mistranslated Amyot's
French translation of the passage. Amyot wrote "fis," "made.”
North (ed. 1657, p. 831) took it as "fie," "trust¹.”
[2831] In answer to the question of Cassius as to what Brutus
would do in case of defeat, Plutarch represents Brutus as replying,
"When I was a young man, Cassius, and without experience of
practical life, I uttered (or, published)—I know not how or why
(2833)—a grandiloquent discourse in philosophy. I blamed Cato for
making away with himself, as though it were an unholy and cowardly
action to give way before the face of one's fate, and to run away,
instead of fearlessly awaiting that which is to befall. But now, in
the events that have chanced, I find myself becoming changed.
And in the event of Providence not awarding the present contest
favourably, I have no desire again to put to the test other hopes and
enterprises, but I shall pass away [from life], acquiescing."
[2832] Amyot renders this as follows: "Estant encore ieune &
non assez experimenté és affaires de ce monde, ie fis, ne scay
1 The Clarendon Press edition of Julius Cæsar, p. xxxvii, quotes Amyot as
"ie feis," and says "North translated feis (=fis) as if it were from fier." My
edition of Amyot (1571) has (p. 592 F) fis. The C. P. ed. also says in the notes that
"I trust," "although evidently a past tense (Old English truste) must have been
read by Shakespeare as the present." I cannot accept "evidently." It would
seem to me probable that North used "trust" as the present tense, unless it could
be shewn that he elsewhere uses it as a past. See 2834.
2 [2831 α] Plut. Vit. Brut. 40 Νέος ὢν ἐγώ, Κάσσιε, καὶ πραγμάτων ἄπειρος οὐκ
οἶδ' ὅπως ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγον ἀφῆκα μέγαν. Ητιασάμην Κάτωνα διαχρησάμενον
ἑαυτὸν, ὡς οὐχ ὅσιον οὐδ᾽ ἀνδρὸς ἔργον ὑποχωρεῖν τῷ δαίμονι καὶ μὴ δέχεσθαι τὸ
συμπίπτον ἀδεῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδιδράσκειν. Νυνὶ δ᾽ ἀλλοῖος ἐν ταῖς τύχαις γίνομαι· καὶ
θεοῦ καλῶς τὰ παρόντα μὴ βραβεύσαντος, οὐ δέομαι πάλιν ἄλλας ἐλπίδας ἐξελέγχειν
καὶ παρασκευάς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαλλάξομαι τὴν τύχην ἐπαινῶν.
ådeŵs,
21
[2832]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
comment, vn discours de Philosophie, par lequel ie reprenoye &
blasmoye fort Caton de s'estre desfait soy-mesme, come n'estant
point acte licite ny religieux, quãt aux dieux, ny quant aux hommes
vertueux, de ne point ceder à l'ordonnance diuine, & ne prendre pas
cõstamment en gré tout ce qui luy plaist nous enuoyer, ains faire le
restif & s'en retirer: mais maintenant me trouuant au milieu du peril,
ie suis de toute autre resolution: tellement que s'il ne plaist à dieu
que l'issue de ceste bataille soit heureuse pour nous, ie ne veux plus
têter d'autre esperace, ny tascher à remettre sus derechef autre
equipage de guerre, ains me deliureray des miseres de ce monde, me
contentat de la fortune." I give the spelling exactly (e.g. "quất ”
and "quant").
[2833] Amyot has perhaps read μeyā, i.e. µéyav, as μéya, “greatly,”
fort, and connected it with graváμŋv ("blasmoye fort"). Also-
taking vлoxwρeîv daíμovi in a good sense, "submit (céder) to fate,”
whereas it appears to be in a bad sense "give way before fate”-
he has inserted a negative (" de ne point ceder ") which is not in the
Greek. The apologetic phrase oùк old oπws may refer to the manner,
or to the motive, of the "discourse." In the former case, it might
imply haste; in the latter, self-conceit and ostentation. It is
certainly apologetic, but it is difficult. Amyot has rendered it
literally, leaving it ambiguous.
[2834] North (ed. 1657) commits two errors at the very outset.
First, he takes the words "being a young man" as being uttered by
Plutarch about Brutus, not by Brutus about himself-a specimen of a
very frequent source of ambiguity in the fourth gospel. "Brutus
answered him, being yet but a young man, and not over greatly
experienced in the world." This leads him and his readers all wrong.
Brutus really says, in effect, "Many years ago, when I was a foolish
young man, I did so-and-so." North makes Plutarch say that Brutus,
at the time of the battle of Philippi, was a foolish young man¹.
In the next place, North takes "fis," "made," as "fie," "trust."
To make the sense agree with this error, he renders λóyov ("discourse")
by “rule" (following Amyot as to "greatly ") thus: “I trust (I know
not how)² a certain rule of Philosophy, by the which I did greatly
1
¹ [2834 a] Comp. Mt. xix. 20, Mk x. 20, Lk. xviii. 21 (Pref. p. xiv).
2 Perhaps North took the meaning to be "I entertain a lingering illogical
trust" in this "rule," but in practice "I am of a contrary mind." He has
translated the passage very carelessly. It seems more probable that "trust" is a
careless use of the present than an antiquated use of the past ("trust" for "trusted").
22
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
[2836]
blame and reprove Cato for killing himselfe, as being no lawfull nor
godly act, touching the gods; nor, concerning men, valiant; not to
give place and yeeld to divine Providence, and not constantly and
patiently to take whatsoever it pleaseth him to send us, but to draw
back and flie: but being now in the midst of the danger I am of
a contrary minde. For if it be not the will of God that this Battell
fall out fortunate for us, I will look no more for hope, neither seek
to make any new supply for War againe, but will rid me of this
miserable world, and content me with my fortune."
[2835] Shakespeare, then, found Brutus (in North) saying two
inconsistent things (1) "I trust (I know not how) a certain rule of
Philosophy," (2) "Now...I am of a contrary mind." How does he
deal with the difficulty?
He omits this change of mind in Brutus, or perhaps transfers it
to Cassius, whom he represents as saying (Julius Cæsar v. 1. 77-8)
"You know that I held Epicurus strong And his opinion: now
I change my mind." Thus he exhibits Brutus as still consistently
retaining his old condemnation of suicide-for "even by the rule"
implies "consistently adhering to the rule that I approved when
I blamed Cato." I give the text, with its strange punctuation, as
in Booth's (1864) representation of the folio of 1623:
"Euen by the rule of that Philosophy,
By which I did blame Cato, for the death
Which he did giue himselfe, I know not how;
But I do finde it Cowardly, and vile,
For feare of what might fall, so to preuent
The time of life, arming myselfe with patience,
To stay the prouidence of some high Powers,
That gouerne vs below."
Julius Cæsar v. 1. 101 foll.
[2836] Yet it was necessary for Shakespeare to express in some
way the fact that Brutus does not intend to survive defeat. This the
dramatist does by inserting a question from Cassius, not in Plutarch.
Will Brutus be content to be "led in triumph"? To this Brutus
replies with an indignant "No, Cassius, no," and a protest not in
Plutarch. Brutus adds that this same day "must end that work the
ides of March begun." Of these words there is a vestige in Plutarch's
text (possibly corrupt) "having given my life to my country on the
ides of March." By thus breaking Brutus's speech in two, and by
23
[2836]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
interpolating as above, Shakespeare prepares the way for Brutus's
change of mind in practice, while avoiding any avowal of Brutus's
change of mind in theory. On the other hand, Cassius does dis-
tinctly change his mind in theory as well as in practice—according
to Shakespeare. Plutarch, on the contrary, represents Cassius as
retaining his Epicurean beliefs till the last and as applying them to
(North) "comfort and quiet Brutus" in his misgivings about the
vision of an "evil spirit" seen by the latter. All this, of course,
Shakespeare leaves out.
TARGUMISTIC TRANSLATIONS
[2837] A promise was made in the Preface that some illustrations
should be given from the Targums of two tendencies, or what might
be called laws, of translation or paraphrase :—(1) The Law of Prosaic
Substitution, (ii) The Law of Divergence from Obscurity. Others
might easily be enumerated (e.g. the Law of Definiteness¹), but space
will confine illustration almost entirely to these two.
[2837 (i)] The Law of Prosaic Substitution may be illustrated
from the following description, in Isaiah, of an impending invasion.
The passage has a special bearing on Lk. xxi. 20 "Jerusalem
surrounded by camps (or armies)," because (as has been shewn in
the Preface to this work) the parallels of Mark and Matthew to
•
1 [2837 a] "Definiteness." Comp. Gen. i. 2 "without form and void," where
Targ. Jon. and Jer. add "solitary of the sons of men and void of every animal," and
they define "Spirit of the Lord" as "the Spirit of mercies from before the Lord"
(where Onk. has simply "Spirit from before the Lord," Etheridge "Wind from
before the Lord"). So in Job i. 6" There was a day when the Sons of God came
to present themselves before the Lord," the Targum has "And it came to pass on
the day of judgment at the beginning of the year that the hosts of angels came……..
[28376] In Gen. xxii. 1 "After these things (lit. words) the Lord tempted
Abraham," a tradition (Sanhedr. 896) taking the Heb. as “words,” says, “What
words?" and gives a dialogue between God and Satan, like that in Job i. 8 foll.
Targ. Jon. and Jer., making the "words" consist of a contention between Ishmael
and Isaac, supply a suitable dialogue. No doubt, the Targumists often borrowed
from pre-existing traditions of the Agadists; but that does not affect the argument
in this section.
[2837 c] In Job iii. 17 "the wicked cease from troubling," the Targum has
"the wicked who have repented cease from the trouble of Gehenna." Comp. Mk
ii. 17, Mt. ix. 13, Lk. v. 32 "I came not to call the righteous but sinners," where
Lk. alone adds "to repentance.”
24
TARGUMISTIC TRANSLATIONS
[2837]
Lk. xxi 20 allude to a prophecy of Daniel obscurely mentioning
"wing" (5); and, somewhat similarly, the Hebrew of Isaiah men-
tions a "wing" while the Targum of Isaiah mentions an army."
Hebrew
Isaiah viii. 8
"And he [i.e. the king of
Assyria] shall sweep onward into
Judah; he shall overflow and
pass through; he shall reach
even to the neck; and the stretching
out of his wings shall fill the
breadth of thy land, O Im-
manuel." See 2837 (iii) d.
Targum
"And he shall pass through
the land of the House of Judah
as an inundating torrent ; even to
Jerusalem shall they attain; and
the people of his army shall fill
the fulness of thy land, O Im-
manuel." [Comp. also N,
"wing (of an army)."]
Another instance occurs where we can compare the earlier Targum
(Onkelos) with two later Targums, one called by the name of Jona-
than ben Uzziel, or Jerusalem I, another called Palestinian or Jeru-
salem II. I give them from Etheridge's translation, unaltered. They
all expand into detailed simile the metaphor contained in :-
Gen. xlix. 16-18 (Heb.)
Dan
"Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.
shall be a serpent in the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the
horse's heels, so that his rider falleth backward.
thy salvation, O Lord.”
Onkelos
"From the house of
Dan will be chosen and
will arise a man in whose
days his people shall be
delivered, and in whose
years the tribes of Israel
have rest together. A
chosen man will arise
from the house of Dan,
the terror of whom shall
fall upon the peoples;
(a man) who will smite
the Philistines with
strength, as the serpent,
the deadly serpent, lurk-
ing by the way, he will
slay the mighty of the
Philistines' host, the
Jonathan
"From the house of
Dan there is to arise
a man who will judge
his people with the
judgment of truth. All
the tribes of Israel will
hearken to him together.
A chosen man shall arise
from the house of Dan,
like the basilisk which
lieth at the dividing of
the way, and the ser-
pent's head which lurk-
eth by the way, that
biteth the horse in his
heel, and the master
from his terror is thrown
backward. Even thus
I have waited for
Jer. II
"He will be the de-
liverer who is to arise,
strong will he be and
elevated above all king-
doms. And he will be
like the serpent that lieth
in the way, and the
basilisk which lurketh
at the dividing of the
road, which striketh the
horse in his heel, and
thinketh by the terror of
him to throw his rider
backward. He is Shim-
shon bar Manovach, who
will be a terror upon his
adversaries, and a fear
upon them that hate
25
[2837]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
Onkelos
horsemen with the foot;
he will weaken (loosen)
the horses and chariots,
and throw their riders
backward. For thy sal-
vation have I waited, O
Lord!"
Jonathan
will Shimshon bar Mano-
vach slay all the heroes
of Philistia, the horse-
men and the foot; he
will hamstring their
horses and hurl their
riders backwards. When
Jakob saw Gideon bar
Joash and Shimshon bar
Manovach, who were
established to be de-
liverers, he said, I ex-
pect not the salvation
of Gideon, nor look I
for the salvation of Shim-
shon; for their salvation
will be the salvation of
an hour; but for thy
salvation have I waited,
and will look for (sic), O
Lord; for thy salvation
is the salvation of eter-
nity."
Jer. II
him, and who will slay
kings with princes. Our
father Jakob said, My
soul hath not waited for
the redemption of Gideon
bar Joash which is for
an hour, nor for the re-
demption of Shimshon
which is a creature re-
demption, but for the
redemption which thou
hast said in thy Word
shall come for thy people
the sons of Israel, for
this thy redemption my
soul hath waited."
It will be observed that Onkelos, who is generally very faithful to
the Hebrew, and not given to expansions, here expands freely, so as
to explain the historical fulfilment of the prophecy in Samson's
destruction of the Philistines whom he mentions twice. The two
later Targums expand still more, but they dwell less on the historical
fulfilment. Jer. II does not mention the Philistines by name. They
enlarge on the contrast between "salvation" past and future.
[2837 (ii)] The Law of Divergence from Obscurity may be illus-
trated from obscure passages of two kinds, (1) obscurities of reading,
e.g. where one has to choose between and (Clue, 5—7);
(2) obscurities arising from a rare and difficult word.
The first class has been illustrated in several volumes of
Diatessarica, and especially in 1069 (i) Addendum on Jewish Legend,
where various traditions are given about the ram substituted for Isaac.
They appear to have arisen in the later Targums from the various
meanings of 8 and 8 meaning "after," "behind," "one,"
"hold fast." This class is largely increased by the Jewish habit of
saying (Levy iv. 367) "Read, not this, but that," sometimes seriously
where the reading is in doubt, but sometimes with a playful intention
of giving a new moral meaning to a scriptural passage where the
reading is not in doubt.
26
TARGUMISTIC TRANSLATIONS
[2837
Instances of the second class are comparatively rare in narrative.
But the strange use of "bareness to signify "a bare hill top" has
caused the following variations in:-
Numb. xxiii. 3 (Heb.) "He [Balaam] went [to] a bare height.”
Onkelos
"And he went soli-
tary."
Jonathan
He went bending
as a serpent."
Jer. II
"He went with
humbled heart."
a
66
Here the LXX conflates two renderings "(1) He went to ask God
and (2) he went straight" (but ""AMλos" has ovpóuevos "trailed," or
trailing "). Any one of the three Jewish renderings might obviously
have given rise to an explanatory and picturesque amplification of
Balaam's action.
And in the next instance we find such an amplification. It
occurs in Jacob's prophecy about the future of Judah :-
Gen. xlix. 9 (Heb.) "Judah is a lion's whelp. From the prey
(7 lit. rending, or tearing), my son, thou art gone up (y).”
Onkelos
"The dominion shall be [thine]
in the beginning, and in the end.
the kingdom shall be increased
from the house of Jehuda, be-
cause from the judgment of death,
my son, hast thou withdrawn
(marg. gone up)."
Jonathan
(עלית)
"I will liken thee, my son
Jehuda, to a whelp, the young
of a lion; for from the killing of
Joseph, my son, thou didst uplift
thy soul, and from the judgment
of Tamar thou wast free." (Jer.
II is similar.)
The LXX has "Whelp of a lion, Judah, from a sucker (Bλaστov,
7), my son, didst thou mount up," taking as in Gen. viii. 11
,my son ,(טרף
"freshly plucked [twig]" Ezek. xvii. 9 "leaf."
I I
The clue to these divergences lies in the double meanings of
andy. The former may mean "torn prey” or “leaf”; the
The former may mean עלה טרף
latter may mean "go up," or "shoot up" like a tree.
"Went up
from [tearing] the prey" is taken by Onkelos as meaning “withdrew
from shedding blood," and he applies this to Judah's reversal of the
judgment on Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 26). Perhaps he also included
the meaning "shot up from a leaf" in the word "increased"; which
however may be a mere expression of the metaphor of the "whelp"
becoming a lion. Jonathan, besides definitely mentioning Tamar,
adds a reference to (Gen. xxxvii. 26-7) Judah's preventing the
shedding of Joseph's blood. Comp. Gen. xxxvii. 33, xliv. 28,
.twice connected with Joseph טרף טרף
27
[2837]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
The next and last instance that will be given is of interest partly
because it shews how one or two metaphorical or allusive phrases,
variously translated and combined, may absolutely transmute one
passage into two widely divergent traditions, and partly because it
illustrates Josephus (Ant. ii. 8. 1) "He also enlarged upon the
praises of Joseph," on which Whiston has this note, "As to this
encomium upon Joseph, as preparatory to Jacob's adopting Ephraim
and Manasses into his own family, and to be admitted for two tribes,
which Josephus here mentions, all our copies of Genesis omit it
(ch. xlviii); nor do we know whence he took it, or whether it be not
his own embellishment only." It will be seen that Onkelos and Jer.
Targ. assign to Jacob an express prediction of this kind concerning
the "two tribes."
After Jacob has compared Joseph to a fruitful bough by a
fountain, the literal Hebrew proceeds as follows:-
Gen. xlix. 22—4 “His daughters [i.e. the small branches of “the
bough"] run over the wall...There shot at him the lords of arrows.
But there abode in strength his bow and the arms of his hands were
made supple by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob."
The main causes of obscurity here are four: (1) "daughters,"
(2) "lords of arrows," (3) "bow," (4) "were made supple."
(1) "Daughters" of a parent city means (Clue, 40) surrounding
towns or villages, and the metaphor may represent the superabundant
and overflowing towns of the descendants of Joseph, denoted by the
small branches of the "bough." Others might take it literally of
daughters" looking at Joseph "over a wall." The LXX renders it
"son."
((
(2) 'Lords of arrows," if taken of the "arrows" of the tongue,
may refer to Joseph's brothers, who quarrelled with him; or to some
in Egypt, who slandered him. So LXX λordópovv.
ελοιδόρουν.
(3) "Bow" might be interpreted as "steadfastness" since the
same Aramaic word represents both (Levy Ch. ii. 393). Comp.
Ps. lx. 4 (R.V.) "the truth," marg. "anc. auth. the bow," LXX Tóέov.
(4)
"Made supple" is an extremely rare word, identical with a
word meaning "refine [gold]" (Gesen. 808 a) whence comes a common
word for "refined gold." The Scripture, in Gen. xli. 42, speaks of
a "signet ring" and a "gold chain" placed on Joseph by Pharaoh.
Onkelos says vaguely here that "gold was laid upon his [Joseph's]
arm." The later Targums say that the daughters of Egypt cast
their bracelets or ornaments of gold before Joseph.
28
TARGUMISTIC TRANSLATIONS
[2837]
•
These explanations will suffice to explain the following divergent
accounts:
Onkelos
...as a vine planted
by a fountain of waters.
Two tribes will come
forth from his sons, and
they shall receive a por-
tion and inheritance.
The mighty men, the
men of division, were
bitter against him; they
afflicted him and sorely
grieved him; and his
prophecy shall be ful-
filled in them, because
he was faithful to the
law in secret, and set his
confidence firmly. There-
fore was gold laid upon
his arm, and the king-
dom was strengthened
and confirmed. This was
to him from the mighty
God of Jacob,..."
LXX
υἱὸς ηυξημένος μου ζη-
λωτός· υἱός μου νεώτατος
πρὸς μὲ ἀναστρεψον. εἰς
δν διαβουλευόμενοι ελοιδό-
ρουν, καὶ ἐνεῖχον αὐτῷ
κύριοι τοξευμάτων· καὶ
συνετρίβη μετὰ κράτους
τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐξελύθη
τὰ νεῦρα βραχιόνων χειρὸς
αὐτῶν διὰ χεῖρα δυνάστου
Ἰακώβ....
،
Jonathan
"...to a vine planted
by fountains of water,
which sendeth forth her
roots, and overrunneth
the ridges of stone, and
covereth by her branches
all unfruitful trees; even
so didst thou, my son
Joseph, subject by thy
wisdom and thy good
works all the magicians
of Mizraim; and when,
celebrating thy praises,
the daughters of princes
walking on the high
places cast before thee
bracelets and chains of
gold, that thou shouldst
lift up thine eyes upon
them, thine eyes thou
wouldst not lift up on
one of them, to become
guilty in the great day
of judgment. And all
the magicians of Miz-
raim were bitter and
angry against him, and
brought accusations a-
gainst him before Pha-
roh, expecting to bring
him
down from his
honour. They spake a-
gainst him with the
slanderous (marg.triple)
tongue which is severe
as arrows. But he re-
turned to abide in his
early strength,and would
not yield himself unto
sin, and subdued his in-
clinations by the strong
discipline he had re-
ceived from Jakob,..."
Jer. II
"...to a vine planted
by fountains of water,
which sendeth her roots
into the depth, and strik-
eth the ridges of the
rocks, uplifting herself
on high and surmounting
all the trees. So hast
thou, O Joseph my son,
risen by thy wisdom a-
bove all the magicians
of Mizraim, and all the
wise men who were there,
what time thou didst ride
in the second chariot of
Pharoh, and they pro-
claimed before thee and
said, This is the father
of the king, Long live
the father of the king,
Great in wisdom, though
few in years. And the
daughters of kings and
of princes danced before
thee at the windows,
and beheld thee from
the balconies, and scat-
tered before thee brace-
lets, rings, collars, neck-
laces, and all ornaments
of gold, in hope thou
wouldst uplift thine eyes
and regard one of them.
But thou, my son Joseph,
wast far from lifting thine
eyes on any one of them,
though the daughters of
kings and of princesspake
one to another, This is
the holy man Joseph,
who walks not after the
sight of his eyes nor after
the imagination of his.
heart; because the sight
of the eyes and the
imagination of his heart
29
[2837]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
Onkelos
Jonathan
Jer. II
make the son of woman
to perish from the world.
Therefore will arise from
thee the two tribes Me-
nasheh and Ephraim,
who shall receive portion
and inheritance with their
brethren in the dividing
of the land. The ma-
gicians of Mizraim and
all the wise men spake
against him, but could
not prevail over him;
they spake evil of him
before his lord, they ac-
cused him before Pharoh
king of Mizraim, to bring
him down from his dig-
nity; they spake a-
gainst him in the palace
of Pharoh with a slan-
derous tongue severe as
arrows. But the strength
of his confidence (or,
fidelity) remained in both
his hands and his arms,
and he sought mercy
from the strength of his
father Jakob,..."
[2837 (iii)] This note on Targumistic translations was written to
illustrate the divergences arising (Preface, p. xvi foll.) from the obscure
word "wing" in Dan. ix. 27 in connexion with "abomination of
desolations," and it was contended in the Preface that Christ actually
used the word "wing," perhaps in the sense of "pinnacle (Trepúуtov)"
and that it was variously interpreted by Christians-Luke, for
example, taking the word to mean "a surrounding army." A
confirmation of this conclusion, namely, that our Lord did not
mention "army" and did mention "wing," is afforded by the
following facts. According to Josephus (Ant. xx. 9. 1) James the
Just was unjustly condemned to death and stoned. Origen (Cels.
i. 47) is supported by Eusebius (ii. 23. 20) in quoting Josephus as
saying that retribution befell the Jews for this crime. No such
statement is in our text of Josephus. But Eusebius quotes (ii. 1. 5)
Clement of Alexandria as declaring that there were two Apostles
named James, "One, the Just, he that was cast down from the
30
TARGUMISTIC TRANSLATIONS
[2837]
pinnacle (TTEрvyíov) and clubbed to death by a fuller." Eusebius
afterwards (ii. 23. 4 foll.) quotes Hegesippus' largely fabulous account
(Lightf. Epist. Galat. p. 330) of James's death in which the Pharisees
place him "on the pinnacle of the temple" and afterwards throw him
down. Then they "stone" him (see Josephus above). Then a
fuller clubs him to death. The narrative concludes with the words
"And straightway Vespasian besieges them." The inference suggested
by this abrupt conclusion is that Hegesippus considered this cruel
and sacrilegious murder on "the wing," or "pinnacle," of the temple,
as being an "abomination" that might well be regarded as fulfilling
Christ's prediction about "the abomination of desolation." If so, it
would seem probable that Hegesippus' account was based on an earlier
narrative by someone who reasoned thus: "The death of James the
Righteous one was 'the abomination of desolation.' But the Lord
said it was to be 'on the wing,' that is, on the pinnacle of the temple.
Therefore the Righteous one must have been placed on that
'pinnacle' and thrown down¹."
¹ [2837 (iii) a] It is antecedently natural that, before the siege of Jerusalem,
many questionings and traditions would be current among Christians in the city
about the meaning of the Lord's warning words, "the abomination of desolation."
This is confirmed by Eusebius' mention (iii. 5. 3) of “a certain oracle (Tɩvà
χρησμόν),”
Xpησμóv),” given to "those of approved reputation there (Toîs avтóðɩ doкíµois),” in
accordance with which the Christians "were commanded to remove from the city
and dwell in a certain city of Peræa, [people] call it Pella." If the Christians had
had Luke's clear words before them, "When ye see Jerusalem encircled by armies,”
they would hardly have needed an oracle." As it was, they seem to have needed
one. When it was announced, it might be expressed in Greek thus: "What the
Lord meant was (éλeyev dè ó Kúpios öтı) that, when ye see Jerusalem etc." This,
in Greek (and in Semitic too) would be indistinguishable (1300, 2467—-70) from
"Now the Lord said, When ye see....
[2837 (iii) b] Before this "oracle" had become current, and long before it was
adopted in Luke's gospel, amid the horrors that preceded the siege, the Christians
within the walls might naturally say, "Surely this or that is the Abomination of
Desolation"; and no event that we know would take precedence of the Martyrdom
of James the Just in its claim to be so called. We might naturally expect that the
Martyrdom would be recorded in various traditions, and that the central word
'pinnacle" would reappear in some other shape.
[2837 (iii) c] Accordingly, in Recognitions of Clement (transl. Clark, bk i, ch. 55),
the apostles "go up to the temple," and stand "on the steps" and repeat this action
(ch. 66) on the following day. Then, Peter is introduced as saying (ch. 70) “One
of our enemies," namely Saul, "seized a strong brand from the altar," and,
31
[2838]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XIX
[2838] Page 178, "Flavius Clemens," Suet. 15 "contemptissimae
inertiae," see Lightfoot Philipp. p. 22; p. 179, "Mark in the middle,"
see Corr. of Mk 322; p. 180, "Old Hermas," an imaginary character,
not the author of the Pastor; p. 181, "Bond and free," comp. Lucian
Hermotim. 24 (i. 763) as to the city in which "the words "inferior'
and 'superior,' noble' and 'lowborn,' 'bond' and 'free,' have
absolutely no existence."
attacking the Christians with his followers, threw James headlong down "from
the top of the steps, and, supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further
violence upon him." In this narrative, the "pinnacle" becomes "the top of the
steps." “The fuller”—a term applied in the Talmud to a Rabbi (522 n.)—
becomes "the enemy," Saul, as is indicated by the next chapter which describes
him as "going to Damascus with letters" from the high priest. That the "fuller's
club" should become "a strong brand "would be intelligible if Saul were regarded
as (Zech. iii. 2) "a brand plucked from the fire" of an ordinary hearth, and if the
writer meant to describe him as ultimately converted. But "brand from the altar"
suggests sacrilege, and the writer is bitterly hostile to Paul.
The passage is quoted to shew the early currency of traditions about the
martyrdom of James the Just in connexion with some obscure mention of a
pinnacle or "high place."
""
[2837 (iii) d] It should be added that Gesen. 1055 a suggests as prob. the sing.
"abomination in Dan. ix. 27 and also "its place" instead of "wing
(comp. Gesen. 489 b). Taanith 28 b—29 a after quoting Dan. xii. 11, where the
sing. is used, "the abomination that maketh desolate," says, "Was there then only
one?" and asks how this can be reconciled with the plural in Dan. ix. 27 “Und
auf dem Flügel werden die entsetzliehen (?-ichen) Scheusale stehen. Raba
erwiderte: Es waren zwei Götzen, da fiel einer auf den anderen und brach ihm
eine Hand ab; auf dieser fand man folgende Aufschrift: Du wolltest den Tempel
zerstören, deine Hand ist ihm aber übergeben worden." This suggests that
was taken as "hand" (for which meaning, see Levy ii. 357 a, Levy Ch. i.
371 6). Compare the story of the fall of the truncated Dagon (1 S. v. 4) of whom
it is said that “the palms (MID) of his hands" were broken off and lay on
"the threshold." Having regard to the extant divergences in rendering "wing,"
it is perhaps worth adding that the Heb. for "threshold," in the Dagon story
¡n, is usually rendered by LXX aleptov (Lat. atrium) and also once ẞalμós,
"step" (comp. the use of " steps" above in the martyrdom of James the Just),
also póluрov etc. But Aquila and Symmachus twice render it ovdós. Hesychius
πρόθυρον
has οὐδός, βαθμός....
was as כנף
Oodel (Steph. Thes.) is a freq. dat. of oudos or oûdas, "ground," "pavement,"
meaning "on the ground," whereas er' ovde means "on the threshold," sometimes
metaph. The facts suggest that may have been rendered eПOуAw,
EПOYAЄι, and that the latter may have produced Mk xiii. 14 OTTOуOYAЄ. But
paraphrase seems a more probable explanation.
1
32
NOTES TO CHAPTER XX
[2839]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XX
[2839] Page 184, "The time is fulfilled," Mk i. 15; p. 184,
Comfort ye," Is. xl. 1 (LXX). Aquila, like R.V. marg., has "time
of service¹." The LXX has prob. confused the Hebrew letters;
99 66
THE CONTINUITY BETWEEN MARK AND ISAIAH
1 ¹ [2839 a] The continuity between Mark and Isaiah may be illustrated (2839 ₺)
by their use of the word "preach." This, in Hebrew, is P, which means
call,' cry aloud"—sometimes "call [to a place]" or "call [by name],” kaλéw:
sometimes "" cry as a public crier," Boáw: sometimes "proclaim as a herald,”
κηρύσσω.
kηpúσow. In later Hebrew this "crying" or "proclaiming" came to be applied
technically to the "crying aloud," or public reading, of the scriptures. The written
scriptures had no vowel points. But the scriptures read aloud were necessarily
pronounced with definite vowels; and the oral text, thus defined, was called (from
the Hebrew verb) Kri (which by accident agrees somewhat in sound with the
French "cri" and our 66
cry").
6،
This Hebrew verb (from which Kri is derived) is used both in the Scrip-
ture and in Targums in two passages (Lev. xxv. 10, Is. lxi. 1) relating to the
"crying" (as though by God's "public crier ") of "the year of remission." One
of these passages is said by Luke (iv. 18) to have been read by our Lord at
His first appearance in public life, "He hath anointed me... to cry remission to the
captives...to cry the acceptable year of the Lord." Here the LXX uses 1st,
κηpûğaι, "preach" (or
κηρύξαι,
proclaim"), 2nd, kaλéσaι, “call." But Luke uses
κηρύσσω twice. Κηρύσσω, too, is the word used regularly in the Pauline epistles to
denote Christian "preaching" i.e. "announcing the gospel."
announcing the gospel." The Targum of
Onkelos on Leviticus (xxv. 10) uses the old Hebrew word, the root of "Kri,”
to denote this announcement" of remission. It may be taken as certain that
Christ used it, too, if He read Isaiah to His countrymen. It is true that the
Targum of the Prophets (as also Targ. Jon. in Lev. xxv. 10) often renders the
Hebrew "
cry” by câraz, a Hebraized form of êŋpúσσw “proclaim as a herald":
but this does not hold in the passage of Isaiah in question, in which the Targum
uses the old Hebrew word "cry." The Syriac also uses the root of Kri, "cry,"
in Lev. xxv. Io and Is. lxi. 1, 2.
66
[28396] Now let us pass to the opening words of Mark quoting Is. xl. 3 “the
voice of one crying." LXX has Boŵvтos. But Aquila has каλοûvтos "calling,"
and we have seen above that, in Is. lxi. 1, the LXX renders the word first
by "proclaim" and then by "call," while Luke renders it twice by "proclaim.”
The latter, κηρύσσω, might well seem to some a more dignifed word than βοάω
which often means 'shout.' Hence we cannot be surprised that Mark, after
quoting the prophecy with the LXX word, Boάw, describes the fulfilment in
his own word, κηpúσow. But the result is, that English readers may fail to realise
that Mark means, in effect, “Isaiah predicted 'the voice of one crying,' and
accordingly John the Baptist came 'crying."" This "crying," LXX таρакаλéw and
Boάw, recurs in Isaiah's context, Is. xl. 1 foll. “Cry unto her (πAPAKAλÉOATE AŮTÝV)……
(3) The voice of one that crieth (Boŵvros)...(6) The voice of one saying, Cry
I
A.
33
3
[2839]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XX
p. 185, "Having authority," Mk i. 22; p. 185, "Flavius Josephus,"
Ant. viii. 2. 5; p. 185, "Would not allow," Mk i. 34, Lk. iv. 41;
p. 186, "Authority on earth," Mk ii. 10; p. 186, "In the habit of
quoting," I Cor. xv. 27-8, Eph. i. 22, Heb. ii. 8 quoting Ps. viii. 6
(comp. Phil. iii. 21). Silanus is allowed to quote the Epistle to the
Hebrews as Pauline. Origen quotes it thus. But perhaps the
allowance is a fault. Almost all deny its Pauline authorship.
The doctrine of the exaltation of the Son by the Father may be
illustrated by Jewish tradition likening God to the father of a
(Bóŋσov), and I said, What shall I cry (Bońow)?" Then Isaiah gives the message
that is to be "cried," namely, "All flesh is grass...but the word of our God
abideth for ever." Mark and Isaiah alone might suffice to shew the connexion
between the Hebrew "crying," or Kri, and the Christian "preaching" or
"gospel." But we have, besides, the confirmation of 1 Pet. i. 24—5 quoting the
words of the "cry" ("All flesh...but the word of God abideth for ever") and
adding, “Now this is the word' that was preached as gospel to you." Both Isaiah
and Peter take the "gospel" to be the abiding fulfilment of “the word of God,”
as Ibn Ezra says (on Is. xl. 6) "This verse explains the glory of the Lord'
to consist in the fact that His word alone is fulfilled, not so the word of man."
Ibn Ezra also explains Is. xl. 3 "the voice of him that crieth,” as "the voice
of him that brings the good tidings," thus connecting “crying" with "good
tidings" or "gospel." The Syriac uses the root of "Kri" in Is. xl. 2, 3, 6.
Another meaning of the root of "Kri," "call," is expressed in Christ's saying
that He " came to call sinners," and in many parts of N.T. that speak of the
calling" of Christians and describe them as
"called."
[2839 c] All these Hebrew, Jewish, and Greek traditions may help to explain
the first mention of kŋpúσσw in Christ's words, as given by Mark (i. 38) “Let us go
hence...that there also I may proclaim”—i.e. carry on and fulfil the “ crying
aloud,” the “proclaiming" of the true "year of remission" in the highest sense,
the "calling" of men to accept the "remission" of sins. By itself, "that I may
proclaim must have been unintelligible to Greek readers of Mark. But it
pointed back to Mk i. 14 “Jesus came…..proclaiming («ŋpúσσwv) the gospel of God,"
and that, again, to Mk i. 7 “John proclaimed, saying, There cometh he that
is stronger than I," and to Mk i. 4 "John...proclaiming the baptism of repentance
for remission of sins." Finally, Mk i. 4 "proclaiming" pointed back (though not
4“
clearly for a Greek reader) to Mk i. 3 the voice of one crying aloud," i.e. “ 'pro-
claiming"; and this led the reader back to the "good tidings," or "gospel" "cried
aloud," or "proclaimed," in Isaiah.
[2839 d] Mark is open to the objection that readers of Christ's words, "that I
may proclaim,” may well ask, in perplexity, "proclaim what?" Luke meets this
objection in Christ's first public discourse :— proclaim remission to prisoners...
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (i.e. the year of remission)." John
perhaps considered that kŋpúσow, meaning "proclaim, as a herald proclaims the
advent of a king," was entirely inappropriate to the Son declaring the will of the
Father.
At all events John never uses кκŋpúσσw either in Christ's words or in his
own narrative, though it is frequent in all the Synoptists.
34
NOTES TO CHAPTER XX
[2840]
household, and Israel, or Abraham, to the son.
Thus Exod. rab.
(on Exod. xii. 2, Wünsche pp. 108-9) says, "Even as a King that
had a Son, whom he loved above all things. The Son said to the
Father, 'If thou givest me not thy throne, how shall all know that
thou lovest me?'... Even so God gave to Abraham the world
(Gen. xviii. 17 foll.). When He had given him all, Abraham said,
'If thou givest me not the Temple, which is 500 ells long and as
many broad, thou hast given me nothing.' The Temple is
apparently regarded as the "throne." Comp. Rom. iv. 13 "heir of
the world," applied to Abraham.
[2840] Page 186, "Socrates had the power," see Epict. iii. 7. 34,
which adds, “Make us enamoured (lit. zealots) of you, as Socrates
made people enamoured of himself." Comp. ib. i.
Comp. ib. i. 19. 6 "Who
becomes enamoured of you [lit. thy zealot] as of Socrates?" ii. 6. 26
"We shall be zealots of Socrates, in the moment (and not till the
moment) when we can write paeans in prison," where "zealot"
implies imitation.
P. 186, "In Matthew," Mt. xxi. 16.
שָׂדֶה The word
P. 187, "Wild beasts." The word transl. "field" (") in Ps.
viii. 7 (R.V.) "the beasts of the field," means (Gesen. 961 a) “home
of wild beasts" there and in Joel ii. 22, Is. lvi. 9 etc.
means (Gesen. ib.) "specif. home of beasts...of beasts in gen. and of
wild beasts." For "beasts in gen." Gesen. quotes 2 S. xvii. 8 “as a
bear robbed of her whelps in the field," which indicates a "wild
beast" of the carnivora; and Jer. xiv. 5 "the hind also in the field
calveth," which indicates a "wild beast," but not carnivorous.
Gesen. gives no instance where "field" is used as the home of
"cattle" in the English sense¹.
66
""
P. 188, "He goes about," Epict. iii. 22. 73; p. 188, Recon-
noitrer," Epict. i. 24. 6; p. 188, "I came not," Mk ii. 17, Mt. ix. 13,
Lk. v. 32; p. 189, "Healthy," Epict. iii. 22. 72; p. 189, "Bear ye,'
Gal. vi. 2; p. 189, "meekness," Gal. vi. 1; p. 190, "Pronouncing
righteous," see Gesen. Oxf. 842—3; p. 191, "That men should
repent," Mk vi. 12; p. 191, “The sabbath...for man," Mk ii. 27;
I
¹ [2840a] In Ps. viii. 7, LXX renders "beasts of the field" by "cattle of the
plain,” Tà кTÝVη тоû πedíov, perhaps misled by the word "field." But comp. 1 S.
xvii. 44 "I will give thy flesh to... the beasts of the field," LXX "cattle of the earth,
where A corrects Kтnveσw to Onpiois. Here LXX does not retain " field," and
yet mistranslates "beasts." Probably the Psalmist included in one brief phrase
the subjection of "beasts of prey," and "beasts of the chase," to man.
35
3—2
[2840]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XX
p. 191, "I desire kindness," Mt. xii. 7 quoting Hos. vi. 6; p. 191,
"If ye have any charge," Mk xi. 25.
[2840*] Page 192, "The favourite of a bad God." In O.T.
(R.V.) the notions of "favour," "grace," "kindness," and "com-
passion" so run into one another that it may be well to state a few
leading facts about the terms here, for future reference. The Heb.
noun, “favour,”, is rendered by LXX xápis about 60 times; but
the verb, "favour," is never rendered by LXX xapirów etc., but
(besides other renderings) èλeéw 45 times, oiKTeίpw 10; and (in
hithp.) déoμaι about 17 times. Aquila renders the verb by Swpéoµai,
"make a free gift," "give freely," thus suggesting the notion of
"grace" or "favour.”
favour." R.V. varies remarkably¹.
"FAVOUR," "KINDNESS," ETC. IN R.V.
¹ [2840* a] In Ps. vi. 2, ix. 13, xxx. 10 etc., LXX has eleéw, Aq. dwpéoµaι
(Targ. DIN, in O.T.=(22 times) peldoµaɩ, “spare ”). In Ps. cxix. 29, both A.V.
and R.V. have "grant graciously." In Ps. xxxvii. 21 where A.V. has "sheweth
mercy," R.V. has "dealeth graciously." In Ps. iv. 1, lxxxvi. 16, R.V. has txt
"have mercy," marg. “be gracious.” In Ps. vi. 2, ix. 13, xxv. 16, xxvii. 7,
xxx. 10, xxxi. 9, cxxiii. 2, 3, R.V. has "have mercy," without marg. note. In all
these cases the Heb. is a form of 1. In Gen. xxxiii. 5 (R.V.) "The children
which God hath graciously given," Onk. follows Heb. 1, but LXX and Jon.
Targ. have eλeeîv and a form of D; so, too, in Exod. xxxiii. 19 "I will be
gracious to whom I will be gracious."
[2840* b] As regards DM, chesed, "kindness," Aq. freq. renders it by eλeos,
e.g. Ps. xliv. 26 "for the sake of thy kindness," LXX "for the sake of thy name,
Aq. Sym. διὰ τὸ ἔλεός σου: also li. 2 LXX κατὰ τὸ μέγα ἔλεός σου, Aq. κατὰ ἔλεόν
σου, Sym. κατὰ τὸ ἔλεός σου. Oxf. Conc. gives Aq. as using λeos in Ps. xxxi. 7,
16, 21, xxxii. 10, and xxxiii. 18, 22 etc. Symmachus renders chesed by xápis in
Ps. xxxi. 7, 16, xxxiii. 18 etc., and it is similarly rendered in Sir. vii. 33 (txt xápis,
Η χάρισμα).
[2840* c] The Vulg. mostly uses some form of "miser” (such as “misereri,”
"misericordia" etc.), where "mercy" occurs in our A.V., e.g. Gen. xix. 19,
xxiv. 27, xxxix. 21, Exod. xv. 13, xx. 6, xxxiv. 7, Numb. xiv. 18, 19. All these
passages have chesed.
[2840* d] "Lovingkindness" (sing. or pl.) occurs in A.V. 30 times, and always
as the representative of chesed, 23 times in the Psalms, 7 in the Prophets. In
Ps. lxxxix. 33 "But my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him," and Jer.
xxxii. 18 shewest lovingkindness unto thousands," R.V. substitutes "mercy";
and in Ps. cvii. 43 "They shall understand the lovingkindness of the Lord," R.V.
has "the mercies of the Lord."
[2840* e] On the other hand, R.V. freq. introduces "lovingkindness" where
A.V. has "mercy," e.g. 2 S. xxii. 51 "sheweth lovingkindness unto his anointed,"
and so too in Ps. v. 7, xviii. 50, xxi. 7, xxv. 7, 10, xxxvi. 5, lxi. 7, cxliii. 12.
[2840*f] The American Revisers (Strong's Comparat. Conc. p. 1236—c) have
36
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXI
[2842]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXI
[2841] Page 193, "Outside the man," Mk vii. 15, Mt. xv. 11;
p. 193, “A vision," Acts xi. 5—10, x. 9—16; p. 194, "Confuse."
Instances could be quoted from letters written by intelligent and
well-read students of Scripture, published in English journals of the
highest class, where such confusion has occurred in recent times;
p. 195, "Leaven," "loaves," "crumbs," see "loaves" in Index of
The Fourfold Gospel; p. 195, “Take up his cross," Mk viii. 34,
Mt. xvi. 24, Lk. ix. 23; p. 195, "Paul's epistles," 2 Cor. v. 15,
Gal. ii. 20, Rom. vi. 6, Gal. vi. 14; p. 196, "Reproached," Mt. xi. 3,
Lk. vii. 19, “Art thou he that should come, or must we look for
another?"
THE YOKE AND THE Cross
[2842] Page 197, "Yoke-bearer," see From Letter 928 (i) foll. on
"furca," the yoke of punishment, and on "furcifer"; p. 197, "Take
my yoke," Mt. xi. 29; p. 197, "Babes," Mt. xi. 25, comp. Is. xxviii.
7—13.
P. 198, "Akiba," see From Letter 928 (v) a Jerem. Lam. iii. 27
"It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth……..Let
him give his cheek to him that smiteth him; let him be filled full
with reproach" is paraphrased in the Targum "si docuerit animam
suam ut portet jugum præceptorum in adolescentia sua" and
"sustinebit castigationes quæ eveniunt, propter unitatem nominis
Dei." The final words are illustrated by the tradition that the spirit
gone still further in altering "mercy"-for example, where Abraham's servant,
on meeting with Rebekah, blesses God because (Gen. xxiv. 27) (R.V.) "he hath
not forsaken his mercy and his truth toward my master." They adopt the same
course in Gen. xix. 19, Exod. xv. 13, xx. 6 and very many other passages, besides
more than sixty instances in the Psalms.
[2840*g] Luke and John, alone of the evangelists, use the word xápis. But
they apply it to Christ very differently. Lk. ii. 40 uses it of the "grace" of God
that was on Jesus as a child when He was "becoming full of wisdom"; ii. 52 says
that Jesus "advanced in wisdom and age and grace (or, favour) with God and
man"; iv. 22 says that people "wondered at the words of grace which proceeded
out of his mouth," immediately before they exclaimed, “Is not this Joseph's son?"
and not long before they attempted to stone Him. In Jn i. 14-17, the phrases
'grace and truth,” and “grace in the place of grace," help to describe not only
the "glory of the Only begotten," but also the gifts that came to men from Him,
from whose "fulness," says the writer, "we all received" (1775 c, 2285, 2743 a).
37
[2842]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXI
of Akiba passed away while he was uttering the word ONE in pro-
claiming the unity of God, see Taylor's Aboth p. 54.
[2843] Page 198, "Yoke," Gal. v. 1, Acts xv. 10, Barnabas
ii. 6.
In
L
P. 198,
"Matthew's tradition." The Greek word for "yoke"
may mean (1) "balance," (2) the crosspiece of a sail, i.e. “yard,”
(3) the crosspiece of a cross, (4) the yoke of oxen. The Acts of
Thomas § 3 connects "yokes and balances and ships," and says, later
on, § 28 “receive the yoke of meekness and the light burden...come
unto Him that is truly good that ye may receive His grace; and His
sign [i.e. the cross in baptism] shall ye place in your souls."
Plato Timæus 26 (63 B) the phrase aïpeiv Čvyóv refers to a "balance.”
Clem. Alex. 663, after quoting a maxim of Pythagoras, "not to
overpass the balance," adds " For this cause the Lord says, Take my
yoke," apparently playing on the word. Elsewhere he uses the word
"take" to mean "take away," thus (440) "Take from yourselves,
says he, the heavy yoke, and receive the meek" [? meek yoke or
? Meek One (comp. Mt. xi. 29)], "the Scripture says," apare ap'
ὑμῶν, φησίν, τὸν βαρὺν ζυγὸν καὶ λάβετε τὸν πρᾷον, ή γραφή φησι.
[2844] A treatise attributed to Cyprian says, Adv. Jud. 7
"He
broke His old Covenant and wrote a new one....We Gentiles carry
on our shoulders the cross, which the Lord of Israel confessed (? con-
fessed to Israel, quam confessus est Israel Dominus) who gently
(placide) addressed them [i.e. the Jews] in these words (Mt. xi.
28-30) 'Come unto me all that toil under burdens and I will
refresh you. For my yoke is gentle (placidum) and [my] burden very
light."" The writer appears to regard "my yoke" as the Cross,
rejected by the Jews but accepted by the Gentiles. In Testim. i. 13
(and iii. 119) Cypr. quotes the whole of Mt. xi. 28—30 (as in R.V.)
in order to shew that the old yoke is made of no effect and a new
one substituted.
[2845] Origen frequently quotes the context, but seldom or
never the words "Take my yoke." In Cels. ii. 7 Origen quotes
"Learn from me..." to defend Christ from the charge of “pompous
arrogance (åλačoveías)." Clem. Rom. xvi. says "the Lord Jesus
Christ came not in the boasting of pompous arrogance (ȧλačoveías)
but does not quote "Learn from me." He concludes however with
the words, "If the Lord was thus humble minded, what ought to be
done by us who, through Him, have come under the yoke of
grace?"
""
38
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXI
[2849]
[2846] Justin Martyr, alluding to the ass and the colt mentioned
in the Entry into Jerusalem, says (Tryph. 53) that the Gentiles were
"like a colt not having a yoke on its neck" until they "bore the yoke
of His word," and that the "saddled ass" was a symbol of the Jews.
“Saddled ass" alludes to Mt. xxi. 5, which describes the colt as
(literally) "the offspring of one under the yoke." In this might be
seen an implied contrast between the Jews, i.e. the ass, which had
been under the yoke, and the Gentiles, i.e. the colt, which had not.
[2847] Clem. Alex. 106 makes no such contrast between the
"ass" and the "colt," apparently regarding the two as one, and
saying that, although the animal is called "ass" in the Scripture, it
is also "colt" and "young" (i.e. "new," with allusion to the “new
man" in Christ). The context in Clem. regards "yoke" as evil,
speaking of the Gentiles as "colts unyoked to vice."
[2848] Origen (on Jn lib. x. 18, Lomm. i. 330) says that the
"ass" is a beast of burden, and of heavy burdens, but "the colt is
not a beast of burden in the same way as the ass is." Then he
mentions the view that the colt means the Gentiles, who, “before
they receive the word of Jesus, are free from control." Here, if the
precedent of Clem. Rom. and Justin had been followed, we should
have had "before they receive the yoke of Jesus," or "the yoke of
grace."
On Mt. xxi. I foll., Origen says (Lomm. iv. 47) that perhaps the
ass and the colt are the symbols of the Jews and Gentiles, both
having been "bound" by sins, and both being loosed by the
Saviour. He adds that Jesus "sat on the ass that He might give
rest, rather than find rest." This evidently refers to Mt. xi. 29 "and
ye shall find rest for your souls," where the "rest" is associated with
"my yoke."
[2849] Chrysostom (on Mt. xi. 28—30) in a very long com-
mentary on the "yoke," although he nowhere identifies it with the
Cross, frequently declares that it may imply persecution, insult, and
a violent death.
The impression given by the early quotations (and by the non-
quotations) of Mt. xi. 28-30 is that Christian writers avoided
connecting the name of Christ with "yoke" except in passages where
the new yoke was contrasted with the old one.
39
[2850]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXII
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXII
[2850] Page 201, "Shall be ashamed," Mk viii. 38; p. 201, "Of
the present day." This is doubtful. Such traditions are recorded in
the Talmud about Hillel and about much earlier personages (in-
cluding Biblical characters): but the date of these traditions cannot
be determined. See the remarks on Bath Kol in From Letter
725—85; p. 201, "Thou art my beloved Son," Mk i. 11; p. 201,
"Above," see Sil. p. 184 foll. ; p. 202, "Repeated," Mk ix. 7 "This
is my beloved Son"; p. 203, "David and Daniel,” see Sil. pp. 48
and 186; p. 203, "Matthew," Mt. xvi. 27 instead of "shall be
ashamed," has "shall render to each according to his doing";
p. 203, “A very instructive parable," Mt. xxv. 31—46.
P. 204, "Who is this Son of man?" Jn xii. 34. For the early
Christian explanations of "Son of Man," and for its Aramaic
equivalents, see 2998 (i) foll.
"FAITH AS A GRAIN OF MUSTARD-SEED
""
[2851] Page 204, "Fast," Mk ix. 29 (see R. V. marg.). Mk ix.
29 (R.V. txt) has "This kind can come out by nothing save by
prayer." The parall. Mt. xvii. 20 has "Because of your little faith.
For verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed,
ye shall say unto this mountain...." Again, where Mk xi. 22
3 has
"Have faith in (lit. of) God....Whosoever shall say to this moun-
tain...," the parall. Mt. xxi. 21 has "If ye have faith and be not
divided [in mind]...even if ye say to this mountain...," but Lk. xvii. 6
has "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye would say to this
sycamine-tree, Be uprooted……..'
""
[2852] Hippolytus (Dunck. p. 168, v. 9, and p. 244, vi. 14) says
that certain very early heretics—whom he calls Phrygians-and also
Simon Magus (in his Announcement) spoke of growing, or being
generated, "from the indivisible point." This the Phrygians illus-
trated by "the grain of mustard" (in Mt. xiii. 31), saying, "This is
the kingdom of the heavens, the grain of mustard, which is the
indivisible point existing in the body." Simon Magus applies this
to the generation of man both in Paradise and in the womb.
[2853] Origen (on Mt. xvii. 20, Lomm. iii. 219) explains "faith
as a grain of mustard-seed" as signifying its small repute in the eyes
40
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXII
[2857
of men. Both here and later on (Lomm. iii. 223) he identifies it with
Paul's "all faith," and likens it to the faith of Abraham.
[2854] On the other hand, Clem. Alex. Theodot. Excerpt. 993 says,
'The Saviour shewed his faithful apostles that prayer was stronger
than faith...saying 'Such [evils] as these are set right by prayer.'
This indicates a different view from Origen's. Origen takes the
meaning to be, not that prayer is stronger than faith, but that "all
faith," or "faith in its entirety," was needed, and not possessed, by
the apostles.
((
[2855] These facts shew (what is a priori probable) that the
expression "faith as a grain of mustard-seed" caused difficulty in
very early times. It would naturally be taken to mean
a very little
faith." But Origen's conclusion seems right-though his arguments.
are not convincing that it means a living faith." It seems to
have been paraphrased by Mark, both in ix. 29, and in xi. 22-3, as
"faithful and fervent prayer." In Mk ix. 29, "fasting" may have
been added by many authorities in order to express that the prayer
was of a special nature.
[2856] The speculations of Simon Magus and others shew that
the doctrine about the "mustard-seed" was liable to corruption
through, undue emphasis laid on the "littleness" of the "grain."
Paul, in arguing about the resurrection, mentions "grain" of any
kind. The fourth gospel (xii. 23-4) mentions "a grain of wheat"
in connexion with "the Son of man," implying that as the "grain
mast "die" to "bear fruit," so "the Son of man" must be "glorified"
through death. In expression, this somewhat resembles the Egyptian
doctrine about Osiris. But the thought is implied in the Synoptic
gospels, which teach that "whosoever will lose his life (or soul, yvxý)
shall find it," if it is "lost" for "the Son of man." See 2998 (lv) m.
[2857] Page 204, "Of men," Mk ix. 31. Origen, on the parall.
Mt. xvii. 22, calls attention (Paradosis 1221—2) to this difficult
phrase. It is probably based (1223) upon Isaiah liii. 12. Origen is
referred to, in an anachronism, as one of the brethren," later on.
'Above," see Sil. pp. 107 foll. and 160 foll.; p. 205,
"Desires to be first," Mk ix. 35; p. 205,
p. 205, “As a little child,"
P. 204,
66
(6
Mk x. 15; P. 205, "First sentence," Mk i. 15; p. 206,
"One thing
is lacking," Mk x. 21; p. 207, "Loved (or embraced)," Mk x. 21,
4I
2857]
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXII, XXIII
see oh. Voc. 1744 (iii); p. 207, "The Son of man came," Mk x. 45;
p. 207, "All things that ye pray," Mk xi. 24; p. 207, “In the
moment when ye stand praying," Mk xi. 25; p. 207, "Have salt in
yourselves," Mk ix. 50; p. 208, "The commandments of men,”
Mk vii. 7; p. 208, "What Plutarch says," see his Introduction to the
Life of Alexander.
[2858] Page 209, "Salted with fire," Mk ix. 49; p. 209, "All
things are possible," Mk ix. 23, x. 27, xiv. 36, Mt. xix. 26; p. 209,
"Be at peace with one another," Mk ix. 50. Concerning "salting
with fire," see Fourfold G. "fire," "salt." Since "salt" represents
the Holy Spirit, the precept "Have sat in yourselves” implies, in
effect, "Have in yourselves the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," which
includes, "Have peace with one another." In Jn xiii. 34, XV. 12,
"love one another" is a wider expression of the same precept.
P. 209, "Unbelievers." Cramer, on Mk x. 24 fòll., prints this cavil,
"Can it be then that this includes evil things?"; R. 209, "Fashion
anew,” Phil. iii. 21; p. 209, "Nowhere uses it," see Joh. Voc. 1686
"mighty (possible, able)"; p. 209, "Is able to do," see Joh. Gram.
2605 quoting Jn v. 19, 30, and 2516. Comp. Joh. Voc. 1607; p. 210,
"Prefers 'authority,'" see Joh. Voc. 1576-94.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII
[2859] Page 211, "It is not fit," Mk vii. 27.
P. 212, “The disciples tried." If so, the circumstances would
resemble those in Mk v. 35, x. 13-14, where the disciples of Jesus
try to prevent people from coming to Him. "They said" and "he
said" might be confused in Greek through the interchange of two
similar letters (Joh. Gram. 2650--2), and then the narrative would
be modified to suit the error.
THE LOST SHEEP
">
[2860] Page 212, "As in Matthew," Mt. xv. 24 "I was not sent
save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In the gospels, the
phrase "house of Israel" is found only in Mt., and only in connexion
with "lost sheep." The emphasis may have originally been not on
"Israel," as distinct from "Gentiles," but on "lost."
P. 212, "By extraction," Acts iv. 36; p. 212, "Dogs," Phil. iii. 2
comp. Rev. xxii. 15.
42
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII
[2865]
[2861] Page 213, "The lost sheep." All the Synoptists have tra-
ditions about a man's "losing" or "saving" his own "soul" (or “life”).
But, apart from these, the word "lost" occurs freq. in Lk. to repre-
sent the "lost sheep," and in parables (peculiar to him) about
saving the lost." Lk. also describes the shepherd as (Lk. xv. 4)
"having lost one" of his sheep. But "save the lost" does not
occur in the other gospels (Mt. xviii. 11 being an interpolation).
[2862] Matthew has "lost" in this sense only twice, and that in
the phrase Mt. x. 6, xv. 24 "lost sheep of the house of Israel." In
the parall. to Mt. x. 6, Mk and Lk. omit the phrase-and also omit
the context, which forbids the disciples to go to Gentiles or Samari-
tans. In the parall. to Mt. xv. 24-the story of the Syrophoenician
woman, which is wholly omitted by Lk.-Mk omits the phrase and
its context.
(C
CC
[2863] "Lost" may be ambiguous in Hebrew and in Greek (as
to some extent in English) since it may mean (1) destroyed,"
(2) strayed." SS renders Mt. x. 6, xv. 24 “the flock that hath
strayed from the house of Israel" and Palest. Lect. has "from," but
with a different word meaning "lost" or "destroyed" (comp. Levy i.
6a, where "lost from the world" means "vanish (or, be destroyed)
out of the world").
[2864] Hence some evangelists might avoid, as being para-
doxical, the expression "save that which is lost." They might
prefer (1) "find that which is lost," or (2) "save that which is on the
point of being lost." Compare :—
Mt. xviii. 12.
"What think you? If a man
have a hundred sheep and one of
them have strayed (λavno)...he
seeketh that which is straying....
">
Lk. xv. 4.
"What man of you having a
hundred sheep and having lost
(aroλéoas) one of them...he goeth
after that which is lost...."
[2865] Here SS has in Lk. xv. 4 "and one of them be lost."
This avoids the inference that the shepherd has by carelessness
"lost" the sheep. Luke however does not consider this an objection,
as is clearly seen in his parable of the drachma "lost" by the
woman, which is peculiar to him. Lk. xix. 10 "hath come to seek
and save that which is lost" is quoted by Clem. Alex. 579 "having
come to-day hath found that which was lost," and Epiphanius
Haer. xlvi. 4 quotes Mt. xv. 24 "I have not come except to the
strayed sheep (sing.) of the house of Israel."
43
[2866]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII
[2866] Mark nowhere speaks of "lost sheep," or "strayed sheep,"
or "saving the lost"; but he describes the Saviour as having com-
passion on the multitude because they were (Mk vi. 34) "as sheep
that have no shepherd." W. H. print this as alluding to Numb. xxvii.
17 "that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep that have no
shepherd”—which is just before the appointment of "Jesus," or
Joshua, to be the "shepherd." The Jon. Targum paraphrases the
italicised words thus, "may not be without the wise, nor go astray
among the nations, as sheep who go astray, having no shepherd."
This shews how words of our Lord might be variously expressed.
[2867] Are we to suppose that Matthew's expression, "the lost
sheep of the house of Israel," was really uttered by Christ and dropped
by Mark in the story of the Syrophoenician woman, or that it was
erroneously inserted by Matthew? The former supposition is more
probable, especially in view of the great difficulty found by Origen
(Cels. iv. 3, 17, De Princip. iv. 1, and Lomm. i. 367, ii. 206, iv. 51)
in explaining the phrase. He refuses to take it literally "as the
Ebionites do."
[2868] But it is quite possible that Christ's precept to His
missionaries did not originally mention "Gentiles" or Samaritans."
The emphasis may have been on "lost," thus, "Go to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel, that is, to the outcasts and sinners, not to the
'just persons."
The former were to be dealt with first. A subse-
quent interpretation, not recognising this antithesis, may have sup-
posed that a different antithesis was intended, "of the house of
Israel, not of Samaritans or Gentiles." Then the italicised words
may have been inserted in the text. If the tradition was thus
variously interpreted at a very early date, we can understand why
Mark and Luke may have honestly omitted all reference to "the lost
sheep of the house of Israel" as being of doubtful meaning.
[2869] What then were the facts that confronted the author of
the fourth gospel? (1) He found Luke continually mentioning
"the lost" as the objects of salvation, but not "those who were on
the point of being lost." (2) Luke frequently implies a "shepherd"
but never mentions the word. When Luke speaks of a "man" owning
sheep, he once describes him as "losing" one of his sheep. (3) Mark
(followed by Matthew) twice mentions "shepherd" (Mk vi. 34,
xiv. 27). In the first of these passages he (followed by Matthew,
though not in the same context) uses the old phrase of the Law
sheep that had no shepherd" to describe the condition of Israel at
(6
44
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII
[2873]
the coming of Jesus. (4) Matthew alone twice uses "the lost sheep
of the house of Israel" in a manner that suggests national ex-
clusiveness. How does John deal with these facts?
[2870] As regards "losing," John emphasizes the doctrine that
Christ came (iii. 16) "that every one that believeth in him might not
be lost" (comp. the mystical (vi. 12) "that nothing may be lost"),
(vi. 39) “that I may not lose aught of that which thou hast given me.”
It is only the thief that comes to the sheepfold (x. 10) "that he may
steal...and (lit.) lose, i.e. destroy." The sheep that hear the shep-
herd's voice (x. 28) "shall never be lost, or destroyed," (xvii. 12) "not
one of them was lost," (xviii. 9) “I have not lost one of them.”
[2871] As regards the "shepherd," John (x. 1-18) describes
Him as not only caring for the sheep outside the fold, but also
coming to the sheep in the fold and taking them in and out of it.
He also explains how the shepherd may "save" the sheep (not
merely "find" them) by "laying down his life" for them. Lastly,
"other sheep" are mentioned, not of the same fold as the first,
which are to be united with the first.
that is contrary to the spirit of Christ's
that is in obvious conformity with it.
remove misunderstandings likely to have been current at the end of
the first century.
There is nothing in all this
teaching, and there is much
It seems exactly adapted to
9. 28
"We
[2872] Page 213, "Bury," Mt. viii. 21, Lk. ix. 59; p. 213,
"Esau," Gen. xxvii. 41; p. 213, "In Latin," Hor. Sat. i.
"omnes composui"; p. 213, "My rabbi," see Sanhedr. 52 a
shall see who will bury whom," i.e. who will survive. This conjecture
has been made, or mentioned, in some recent review, which I
cannot recall.
[2873] Page 214, "Tacitus's story," Hist. iv. 81.
P. 215, “Ass's Jawbone," Strabo (p. 363) "Onou Gnathos ("Ovov
yváðos) (i.e. ass's jawbone) a lowlying peninsula.”
P. 215, "Believe that ye have received," Mk xi. 24; p. 216, "To
this sycamine-tree," Lk. xvii. 6; p. 216, "Uprooter of mountains,"
see From Letter 764, which also quotes an instance of a Rabbi
"uprooting a tree"; p. 216, "The deed of the fig-tree," Mt. xxi. 21:
see Mk xi. 12-14, Mt. xxi. 18—19.
45
[2874]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII
"THE BARREN FIG-TREE
עקר
[2874] Page 216, "Barren." The LXX (Trommius) translates
the same Hebrew root,
12 times "barren" and 3 times
"root out" or "pluck out." Levy Ch. ii. 238 gives this word as
meaning "cut down," "exterminate," "uproot," "barren "-all very
frequent. For the "parable," see Lk. xiii. 6-9. But see also
Mk xiii. 28 (Mt. xxiv. 32) "But from the fig-tree learn its (rỶV)
parable," where Lk. xxi. 29 has “And he spake a parable to them,
See the fig-tree and all the trees"-apparently missing the point of
difference between the fig-tree and "all the trees," namely, that the
fig-tree puts forth fruitbuds before leafbuds and fruit before leaves.
Lk. xxi. 30 πρoßáλwow is the word used by Aquila in Cant. ii. 13
describing the (lit.) "spicing ()" or "fragrant budding" of the
green figs which took place (Levy ii. 81 a) a hundred days before the
plucking," so that R.V. "ripeneth her green figs" seems an error.
In The Fourfold Gospel (Index "End") it will be shewn that there is
a very close connexion between (1) "the [Messianic] end," (2) "sum-
mer," (3) "ripe-fig-time'." The last two may be identical in Hebrew,
66
¹ [2874 a] "Ripe-fig-time," comp. Amos viii. 1—2 "The Lord God shewed me
…..a basket of ripe figs (PP) (see Levy iv. 300 “bes. Feige")...Then said the Lord
unto me, Ripeness (PP) is come upon my people Israel." Here R.V. has "the
end is come," but I adopt Ewald's "ripeness" to keep the play on the words.
The LXX completely misses the meaning. The Syr., for "basket of ripe
figs," has "the goal of the end (NYP)." Mk xi. 13 "season of figs" might be
expressed by P alone. For the thought of the Messiah seeking early figs comp.
Hos. ix. 10 I saw your fathers as the first ripe in the fig-tree at her first season."
And for the Messiah's disappointment comp. ib. "but they came to Baal Peor and
consecrated themselves unto the shameful thing."
66
[28746] In Jer. viii. 20 "Harvest is passed, ripe-fig-time (PP) is finished, and
we are not saved," the Targum renders or paraphrases PP by NYP "the end,"
reducing the metaphor to literal expression.
[2874 c] On Cant. ii. 13 "The fig hath put forth with fragrance her green figs,"
the Targum is, “The assembly of Israel, which is likened in a parable to the early
ripe figs of the fig-tree, opened its mouth and sang a song on the shore of the Red
Sea, and even boys and infants praised the Lord of the World with their tongues"
-which resembles the tradition peculiar to Matthew (xxi. 15) about the
"children" crying Hosanna to Christ in the Temple.
[2874 d] In The Fourfold Gospel it will be maintained that Origen, although
partially misled by Luke's interpolation of "all the trees," has correctly explained
the parable of the fig-tree" as enjoining fruitfulness and ripeness; and that
originally much that Luke supposed to apply to the siege of Jerusalem really
applied to the development of the human soul through pain and trouble, and
46
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII
[2874]
through what is called by Mark and Matthew " pangs of child-birth," illustrated
by John's tradition about “a woman when she is in travail" (Mk xiii. 8, Mt. xxiv.
8, Jn xvi. 21-2).
[2874 e] Contrast the following predictions:
Mk xiii. 14
"But when ye see the
abomination of desola-
tion standing where he
ought not (let him that
readeth understand),
then let them that are
in Judæa flee unto the
mountains."
Mt. xxiv. 15-16
"When therefore ye
see the abomination of
desolation, which was
spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, standing in the
holy place (let him that
readeth understand),
then let them that are
in Judæa flee unto the
mountains."
Lk. xxi. 20—21 a
"But when ye see
Jerusalem compassed
with armies, then know
that her desolation is at
hand. Then let them
that are in Judæa flee
unto the mountains."
Then add Origen's comment (Cels. ii. 13) ὁ δὲ ἀπιστῶν παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ Ἰουδαῖος
περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι πάντα τὰ συμβάντα αὐτῷ προᾔδει, κατανοησάτω τίνα τρόπον, ἔτι
συνεστώσης τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, καὶ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς λατρείας γινομένης ἐν αὐτῇ,
προείπεν Ἰησοῦς τὰ συμβησόμενα αὐτῇ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοὺς αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ
γνωρίμους καὶ ἀκροατὰς φήσουσι χωρὶς γραφῆς τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων παραδεδωκέναι
διδασκαλίαν, καὶ καταλιπεῖν τοὺς μαθητάς χωρὶς τῶν περὶ Ἰησοῦ ἐν γράμμασιν
ὑπομνημάτων. Γέγραπται δὴ ἐν αὐτοῖς τό “ ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων
τὴν ῾Ιερουσαλήμ, τότε γνῶτε ὅτι ἤγγισεν ἡ ἐρήμωσις αὐτῆς.”
""
[2874] Here Origen, with an inaccuracy or unfairness quite unusual in his
writings, describes the definite prophecy about the "surrounding of Jerusalem as
being in the gospels (èv avtoîs), whereas it is only in Lk. It seems obvious that
Luke means (1) the "surrounding of Jerusalem" to be the equivalent of (2) “the
abomination of desolation." Both are the objects of
Both are the objects of "when ye see." But the
former would be intelligible to Greek readers, the latter would not be. Perhaps
Luke found the "surrounding" mentioned in some oral or written tradition of
Christ's words as being what Christ really "meant (ëλeye)," and took it as
representing what He “said" (2469). In the Targums such substitutions are very
frequent. It is incredible that Christ should have uttered these words about the
surrounding of Jerusalem and that only Luke, the third of the evangelists, should
have been aware of them, or else that only Luke should have thought them worth
recording. Origen is perfectly alive to the advantage given him over his Jewish
adversaries by Luke's version of Christ's words, and we may be sure that Mark,
Matthew, and John would have been equally alive to it-if they had recognised
such words as authentic. Origen quotes Lk. xxi. 20 again in his Comm. Gen. tom.
iii. 4 (Lomm. viii. 17) as a specimen of prophecy, and incidentally in Comm. Matth.
tom. xvi. 2 (Lomm. iv. 5). In neither passage does he quote it as the utterance of
only one evangelist, but at all events he does not assign it to the gospels in the
plural ("it is written in them”).
[2874 g] The passage in Lk. affords an instructive warning that even a diligent
evangelist with a historical turn of mind could not be trusted always to refrain
from-if one may use the word—"Targumizing" even the words of the Lord,
where clearness as well as edification seemed to recommend it. No doubt, the
Jewish habit of using Targums in the synagogues would contribute generally
to a Christian habit of Targumizing the earliest traditions of the gospels; and
here, there were special reasons (2837 (i)) for the rendering "armies."
47
[2874]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIII
as well as in Greek; and it will be maintained that Oépos in Mk xiii.
28, Mt. xxiv. 32, Lk. xxi. 30 (which occurs nowhere else in N.T.)
meant "fruit-time," rather than "summer," and that it was intended
to impress on the disciples that the time was at hand for judging
men by their “fruits." If so, the underlying thought is that which
is expressed by Edgar in King Lear v. 2. 11, “Ripeness is all.”
[2875] Page 217, "Remembering it," Mk xi. 21; p. 217, "Mar-
velled," Mt. xxi. 20; p. 217, "Ezekiel's saying," Ezek. xvii. 24;
p. 217, "The green tree," Lk. xxiii. 31.
P. 218, "Qui cum eo erant," see Corr. of Mk 370 and Joh. Voc.
1802 a.
Add Pap. Fayûm 34 (11) (A.D. 161) where "Panesneus and
Maron,” partners, are afterwards described as "you that are around
(πepì) Panesneus,” ¿.e. P. and Co., comp. Dan. iii. 23, 49 (LXX).
The only passage in which Lk. uses "Those around him " (xxii. 49)
prepares the way for a story about "one of them," whom Jn xviii. 11
defines as "Peter." See 2999 (xvii) ƒ foll.
P. 218, "An error," e.g. comp. Numb. xvi. 5 "in the morning,"
LXX "visited"; 2 K. xvi. 15 “inquire by,” LXX "in the morning."
P. 218, "The disciples...remembering,” Jn ii. 22, xii. 16; p. 218,
"Dark sayings," Jn xvi. 25; p. 218, "Call them back to their minds,”
Jn xiv. 26.
•
""
[2876] Page 219, "By no means improbable." Comp. Epict. iv.
8. 36-43 which combines two thoughts, 1st, the necessity of gradual
growth (εἶτα... εἶτα εἶτα, comp. Mk iv. 28 εἶτεν... εἶτεν), 2nd, the
danger of premature bloom, which exposes the tree to "frost-burn
(άTTоkaúσeι σe å xeur), "cutting off by frost even to the root"
(ἀποκαύσει σε χειμών),
(ἀποπαγήσῃ, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀποπέπηγας ἤδη ἐν τῇ ῥίζῃ κάτω), “ withering
away” (τί οὖν με πρὸ ὥρας ἀποξηρᾶναι θέλεις ὡς αὐτὸς ἐξηράνθης ;).
But this illustration of human precocity is so frequent that the
borrowing cannot be proved.
[2877] In John, the words "wither" and "burn" are applied,
not to a tree but to the boughs of a tree. Concerning the bough
that bears no fruit (presumably having leaves alone) it is said (xv. 6)
¿έnpávon...kai Kaieraι. But the agency that produces the "drying up
(or, withering)" and the "burning" is not frost, as in Epictetus; nor
is it a miracle, as in Mark. It is the Powers of divine Retribution.
"THEY cast them into fire" (Joh. Gram. 2426).
[2878] Origen attempts to explain Mk xi. 13 "for it was not the
season of figs," at great length, in his commentary on the parall.
Mt., but not satisfactorily. Nor are the comments published by
48
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXIII, XXIV
[2880]
Cramer on Mk xi. 13 satisfactory. The thought appears to be this,
'He came from afar off to look, on the chance of (ei äpa) finding...
and he found nothing but leaves. [I say, 'on the chance,' because
a fig-tree having leaves would usually have fruit as well, since its
fruit precedes its leaves; but it was hardly to be expected] for the
season of figs had not arrived." But the notion of Christ's doing
anything "on the chance," and also the suggestion that He could
from afar off" whether there were figs or not, might be
a stumbling-block to some. This difficulty would make it all the
more desirable that John should intervene to shew how God prepares
man to bear "fruit," and (so to speak) expects it from him.
not see
P. 219, "For they were afraid," see Mk xvi. 8—9 with note in
R.V., and Westcott and Hort's note on the spurious Appendix; and
see below, 2924.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIV
[2879] Page 221, "Everyone agrees." Papias says so (Euseb.
iii. 39. 16) and this was the general belief among the early Fathers.
P. 221, "Ignorant of letters," Acts iv. 13, i.e. (Corr. of Mk 317 a)
"unlettered and ignorant men," as in Epict. ii. 14. 15, comp. Epict.
ii. 2. 22.
In both passages it means "not knowing how to write the
letters of the alphabet correctly." Comp. Berlin Pap. 664 (1st cent.)
ἔγραψα [πὲρ αὐτ]ων ἀγραμμάτου (sic) and Papyri passim.
P. 221, "Physician," Col. iv. 14; p. 221, "Is not this the
carpenter?" Mk vi. 3, comp. Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22.
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST
=
[2880] Page 222, "Born of a woman," Job xiv. 1, XV. 14, XXV. 4.
In Gal. iv. 4, yevóμevov ek yuvatkós, R.V. has, "born of a woman "
(A.V. “made of a woman"). Tívoμai Heb. "to be born," freq.
in LXX, espec. (Tromm.) Genesis (iv. 25, xxi. 3, 5 etc.); comp. Ezr.
Χ. 3 τὰς γυναῖκας κ.
κ. τὰ γενόμενα (1977) ἐξ αὐτῶν (al. exempl.
γενηθέντα) parall. to r Esdr. viii. 90 τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν… σὺν τοῖς τέκνοις
avτŵv. Lightf. on Gal. iv. 4 says "Comp. Job xiv. 1, Matth. xi. 11.
These passages show that the expression must not be taken as
referring to the miraculous incarnation."
P. 222,
A.
"Philo." The quotations are from Philo i. 130—1,
49
4
[2880]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIV
147-8. Comp. Philo i. 273, 598-9 where similar language is used
about Samuel the son of Hannah, Isaac the son of Sarah, and the
sons of Leah and Tamar¹.
P. 223, “Narratives,” Mt. i. 18—25, Lk. i. 26—35; p. 223,
"Isaiah," Is. vii. 14, where the LXX has "virgin," but Aquila
"young woman," as stated later on; p. 224, "Out of the school of
Diodorus." This is an imaginary incident, but the charge erroneously
brought by Justin against the Jews is not imaginary, see Tryph.
71-3.
[2881] Page 225, "Marginal notes," see Prof. Burkitt's translation
of the Syriac Gospels, and his commentary in vol. ii. p. 261 foll.
(i) In Mt. i. 24-5 "he took his wife (Burk. txt "Mary ") and
knew her not (Burk. txt "purely was dwelling with her ") until she
bare a son," the Syro-Sinaitic version omits "knew her not until."
(ii) In Mt. i. 21, the Syro-Sinaitic version makes the Angel say
of Mary to Joseph, "She will bear thee a son2 and thou shalt call.”
¹ [2880 a] Justin justifies his belief in the miraculous birth of Christ by saying
to the Gentiles (1 Apol. 21 foll.) "We do not go beyond the sons assigned to Zeus
among you, alleging something new (οὐ παρὰ τοὺς παρ' ὑμῖν λεγομένους υἱοὺς τῷ Διὶ
Kalvóv Tɩ pépoµev)." Then he mentions Mercury, Æsculapius, Bacchus, Hercules,
the Dioscuri, and Perseus. Then he takes three hypotheses. First, even if Jesus
were born after the common fashion (kowŵs), He would be worthy to be called
God's Son "on account of wisdom," for Zeus is called "Father of Gods and
men." Secondly, if He were “born in a peculiar way beyond common generation
(ιδίως παρὰ τὴν κοινὴν γένεσιν γεγενῆσθαι)” from God as God's Word, this would
be analogous to the birth of Hermes. Thirdly, "if we allege that He has been
actually begotten through a virgin (εἰ δὲ καὶ διὰ παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι φέρομεν)
this, too, may be accepted as analogous to the birth of Perseus (Kowòv Kai TOÛTO
πρὸς τὸν Περσέα ἔστω ὑμῖν)”—who was begotten from Danae by Zeus descending
in a shower of gold. Otto ad loc. compares Tryph. 66 èк пapłévov yevvntòs k. dià
παρθένου γεννηθῆναι, and ib. ἀπὸ παρθένου.
2 [2881 a] Comp. Gen. xvii. 19 "And God said, Nay, but Sarah thy wife
shall bear thee a son and thou shalt call his name Isaac." Philo i. 617 omits
"thee" in quoting the text, but subsequently (ib.) inserts it in paraphrase, "Learn
therefore, O soul, that also Sarah, [that is] virtue, shall bear thee a son"; and
again (i. 618) “Virtue therefore shall bear thee a son...and thou shalt call the name
of the son according to the feeling that thou shalt feel about him, and thou shalt
verily feel joy (xapáv)." Comp. Lk. i. 13—14 “Thou shalt call his name John ;
and thou shalt have joy and gladness"-where it seems probable that Luke
connected the name "John" etymologically with "joy." Philo, in "joy,"
is referring to the etymology of "Isaac," i.e. "laughter." Comp. Origen Hom.
Genes. viii. 10 (Lomm. viii. 205) "generas gaudium" (i.e. Isaac) after which he
quotes Jn xvi. 17, 22 concerning the "joy" that "no man shall take away".
where Ju's context (xvi. 21) speaks of "the woman in travail.”
50
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXIV, XXV
[2885]
(iii) Syriac versions differ between "she called” and “he called”
(in Mt. i. 25 “she called his name Jesus”).
(iv) In Mt. i. 16, the Syro-Sinaitic version has "Jacob begat
Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus
called the Messiah." There are many other variations.
[2882] Page 226, "Three consecutive kings," see Alford on
Mt. i. 8; p. 226, "Write ye," Jer. xxii. 30; p. 227, "Irenæus,"
quoted from iii. 21. 9.
P. 227, "That of Mary." Some differ from Scaurus. See
Alford's note on Lk. iii. 23. Justin says (commenting on Ps. xxii. 4
our fathers hoped in thee," which he regards as uttered by Christ)
Tryph. 101 "The words are significant of the fact that He also owns
as His 'fathers' those that 'hoped in God' and were saved by Him,
who also were 'fathers' of the Virgin through whom He came into
being, coming into being as man." This suggests that Justin, who
favours Luke's gospel, imagined that Lk. iii. 23 could mean "being
the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, [but in fact], descendant of Heli,
descendant of Matthat...," and that "Heli" was the father of Mary.
On "son of Joseph" in Lk. and Jn, see Joh. Voc. 1776-8.
[2883] Page 228, "Dreams," comp. 1 K. iii. 5, 15 with 2 Chr. i.
7; p. 229, "Thy father and I," Lk. ii. 48; p. 229, "He is beside
himself," Mk iii. 21. This, being omitted by Mt. and Lk., might
naturally be referred to by Jn. On this, see Fourfold G. "Brethren
(of the Lord)"; p. 230, "Out of Egypt," Mt. ii. 15 quoting Hos. xi.
I; p. 230, "Rachel weeping," Mt. ii. 18 quoting Jer. xxxi. 15;
p. 232, “In earthen vessels," 2 Cor. iv. 7; p. 232, "The foolishness
of God," I Cor. i. 25.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXV
[2884] Page 234, "Must love," Epict. iii. 22. 54; p. 236, “King
and master," Epict. iii. 22. 49; p. 237, "Jesus is represented,” see
Joh. Voc. 1685 a; p. 237, "Phalanx," Col. ii. 5, where see Lightfoot's
note.
"RECEIVING AS A LITTLE CHILD"
[2885] Page 238, “Ambiguously...earlier," see Mk x. 15, ix. 36
(comp. Lk. xviii. 17, ix. 47). Origen (Matth. tom. xiii. 18, Lomm. iii.
243) suggests that the little child placed by Jesus in the midst of
the disciples is the Holy Spirit, which they are to receive so as to
51
4-2
[2885]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXV
become little children. Thus, "receiving the child" and "becoming
as children” would be two aspects of one thing. Later on (Lomm.
iii. 247) Origen says that "receiving as a little child" is "ambiguous."
Mt. xviii. 3-4 "turn and become as little children....humble himself
as this little child," which is peculiar to Matthew, describes a third
aspect of Christ's doctrine (Joh. Voc. 1865 a), using language not
found in Mark and John. It implies regeneration.
[2886] Cramer (on Mk x. 13 foll.) prints a striking comment,
"It is well said that He blessed them taking them in His arms.
For once again as it were into the arms of the Creator the creation
is [by this act of Jesus] brought back." Origen would probably
connect the "child" taken into "Christ's arms" and the “disciple"
that "lay in Christ's bosom," and would say that by receiving these
we receive Christ.
(6
"
Matthew alone (x. 41) has preserved a doctrine about "receiving
the "reward" of a "prophet" etc. by receiving a "prophet." This
implies that by receiving any character we to some extent approximate
to, or appropriate, that character. Receiving a little child,” and
receiving "the Son of man," imply receiving the innocent spirit of
the former, and the human and humane spirit of the latter. See
Joh. Voc. 1689, 1721, and 1826-30, and The Fourfold Gospel
("Receiving ").
[2887] Page 238, "Diffinget," Hor. Odes iii. 29. 47—8; p. 238,
"Babes in respect of malice," 1 Cor. xiv. 20; p. 238, "Born from
above," see Joh. Gram. 1903—8, 2573; p. 239, "Mountain," Mt. v.
1; p. 239, “Plain,” Lk. vi. 17; p. 239, “Would sooner give it up,”
Epict. iv. 1. 153'; p. 239, "Binding and loosing," Mt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18.
On the Jewish use of the term, see Hor. Heb. on Mt. xvi. 19;
P. 240, Arise, kill and eat," Acts x. 13, xi. 7; p. 240, "In the
fourth gospel," Jn xx. 23, see Joh. Gram. 2517-20; p. 240,
if he refuse," Mt. xviii. 17; p. 240, "I am there in the midst of
them," Mt. xviii. 20; p. 240, "I am with you always," Mt. xxviii.
(6
"But
1 [2887 a] Elsewhere, however, Epictetus agrees with Matthew in recom-
mending non-resistance under "pressing" (Mt. v. 41 ȧyyapeúσel, Epict. iv. i. 79
ȧyyapela). But Epict. merely says, "Do not resist, do not even murmur.” He
does not say, "Go two miles where only one is required."
52
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXV, XXVI
[2890]
20; p. 240, “When ye are gathered together," 1 Cor. v. 4; p. 241,
"Eat those things that are served up to you," Lk. x. 8, comp.
I Cor. x. 27.
[2888] Page 241, "Lord, appoint," Acts i. 24 "appoint [him]
whom thou hast chosen," where R.V. has "shew," although the verb
is the same as in Lk. x. 1 R.V. “appointed.”
P. 242, "A tradition of Matthew's," Mt. xix. 10-12; p. 242,
"Paul's advice," 1 Cor. vii. 1-40; p. 243, "Blessed are the poor,"
Lk. vi. 20, comp. Mt. v. 3; p. 243, "Hungering after righteousness,"
Mt. v. 6, comp. Lk. vi. 21; p. 243, "A staff only," Mk vi. 8, comp.
Mt. x. 10, Lk. ix. 3; p. 243, “My staff," Gen. xxxii. 10, comp. Philo
i. 83. This seems to me to complete and strengthen the explanation
offered in Clue 264-7; p. 243, "Thy rod," Ps. xxiii. 4; p. 243,
The "rabbi" is represented by Rashi on Gen. xxxii. 10; p. 244,
"Sandals," see Corr. of Mk 390 (ii) (e) a; p. 246, "John sent,"
Mt. xi. 2—3, Lk. vii. 19; p. 246, "Timæus,” Plato Tim. § 3, 22 B
"O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always boys.”
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVI
[2889] Page 248, "Come and let us return," Hosea vi. 1—2.
P. 248-9, On "deliver over," "betray," and "Galilee," see the
Indices to the author's Paradosis and From Letter to Spirit, where
the matters here touched on are fully discussed.
P. 249, "Took hold of his feet," Mt. xxviii. 9; p. 250, “As I have
explained above," see Silanus p. 134-5.
P. 250, "Would have," i.e. av, is dropped by the LXX, or by
MSS, in I S. xiii. 13, Ps. lv. 7, lvi. 2, lxxxi. 14, 16, Jer. li. 9.
But a much more potent cause of confusion exists in ambiguities
of Hebrew or Aramaic words. On these, and on other points of
verbal criticism bearing on the self-manifestations of Christ, see
below, 2999 (i) foll.
14 etc.
[2890] Page 251, "Walking," Gesen. 236b quoting Deut. xxiii.
Barnabas i. 4 says "The Lord journeyed with (ovvwdevoev)
me" (where the word is the same as in Acts ix. 7 "the men that
journeyed with him)." In Barnabas, the meaning is made clear by
the following words, "in the way of righteousness.'
""
P. 252, "Their Jewish enemies," comp. Orig. Cels. ii. 70; p. 252,
"Delusion," Lk. xxiv. 11; p. 252, "Josephus," see Ant. iv. 8. 15.
53
[2891]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVI
[2891] Page 253, "They touched him," Ign. Smyrn. 3.
P. 253, "They fed on one another," Diod. Sic. i. 84. For the
saying of Pythagoras, see Steph. Thes.
P. 253, “Take'as in Mark and Matthew," Mk xiv. 22, Mt. xxvi.
26. The active verb naturally means, not "take hold of" (which
would almost require the middle) but "take" in the sense of
"receive."
P. 253, FISH, see Joh. Gram. 2703.
P. 254, "Instances," e.g. Ps. xii. 2 "They speak," LXX "he
spake"; Ps. xxxiii. 9 “it was done," LXX "they were created" etc.
THE EVENTS BETWEEN CHRIST'S RESURRECTION
AND ASCENSION
[2892] It will be convenient to place here, for future reference,
some facts bearing on the interval between the Resurrection and the
Ascension¹, and on the traditions concerning Christ's eating after the
Resurrection.
1 [2892 a] The following remarks bear on—
THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE RESURRECTION AND THE ASCENSION.
The only basis for statements as to the duration of the period after the
Resurrection during which our Lord remained with the disciples is Acts i. 3
"appearing unto them (R.V.) by the space of forty days." It has been shewn
however (Joh. Gram. 2331 c) that there is no authority for this rendering. To the
proofs there given add the following from Origen Cels. ii. 63 “For in truth to us
also it is manifest (according to the Gospel) that He did not appear in the same
way after the resurrection as He was wont to manifest Himself before in public
and to all ('Αληθῶς γὰρ κ. ἡμῖν φαίνεται...οὐχ οὕτω...ὀφθεὶς ὡς τὸ πρότερον...
¿palveтo). But in the first place (μév) in the Acts it is written' after an interval
of forty days' appearing (δι' ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος) to the disciples He
was announcing (kaτńyyeλλev) ‘the things concerning the kingdom of God'; and
on the other hand (dé) in the Gospels [it is] not [written] that He was always
in company with them, but on some occasions (åλX' öπov µév) after an interval of
eight days He appeared (di' nueрŵv ỏктú) the doors being shut, in the midst
of them; but on other occasions in some such similar ways (öπου dè кαTÁ TIVAS
τοιούτους τρόπους).”
[28926] The words " after an interval of eight days" refer to Jn xx. 26 µeľ’
ǹμéρas ỏктú. Origen quotes this with diά and the genitive, as in the previous
quotation from the Acts: and he alleges both passages in such a way as to
shew that the "forty" and the "eight" do not indicate days of duration but days
of interval. He also proceeds to quote I Cor. xv. 3-8 "after that,...after that,...
last of all," to shew that Christ did "not appear to the people at large (un
δημωδῶς αὐτοῦ ὀφθέντος)”: but incidentally these phrases also indicate that an
"interval" elapsed between them.
54
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVI
[2895]
!
§ 1. Acts i. 4 (R.V. txt) "Being assembled together"
66
""
P. 254, “Being incorporated." This is suggested as a literal
approximation to the meaning of Acts i. 4 ovvaditóμevos, A.V. and
R.V. txt "being assembled together with them." Shakespeare never
speaks of one person as being assembled with a number of
companions. It sounds like scholastic English of 1611 attempting
to give an exact rendering of a difficult word. "Assembled with" is
hardly strong enough: "assimilated with" would perhaps be too
strong.
[2893] The rendering, "feeding with "—which is not (I believe)
supported by any contemporary authority-would assume a derivation
from σúvados, "partner of salt," which however is not recognised in
σύνολος,
Steph. Thes. as used except in glosses. 'Aliouai, when derived
Αλίζομαι,
from aλas, "salt," means "I am salted.”
[2894] In Ignat. Magn. 10 álíoßŋte, meaning "be salted," is
corrupted (Lightf.) by A to "conjungamini" (taking the word in the
sense "incorporated") and by g to avλío◊ŋte. In Clement. Hom.
xiii. 4, although (Thayer) Dressel, with Cod. Ottob., reads σvvavdı-
ζόμεθα, the sense demands (as Schwegler) συναλιζόμεθα and the
meaning is eat with."
(6
[2895] This suggests that, at a very early period, the “incor-
poration" implied in the Christian Eucharist had conveyed to the
word that strictly meant "be incorporated with," the new and
Christian meaning "eat with." Steph. Thes. quotes Manetho v. 339
πῆμα λυγρῷ γαμέτη συναλιζόμενον κακόηθες: but this does not appear
to necessitate any other meaning than "closely united with."
On Ps. cxli. 4 "let me not eat of their dainties," Field gives LXX
συνδοιάσω μετά, Sym. συμφάγοιμι, “Αλλος” συναλισθῶ ἐν, and adds
"In editis Chrys. hodie legitur µǹ ovvavλɩo0w.”
P. 254,
"One loaf," comp. 1 Cor. x. 17; p. 254, "Gathered
[2892 c] Origen, who enters fully into the nature of the appearances of Christ
after death, nowhere implies that they were compressed into a period of forty days.
He says that they were given (Cels. ii. 66) "with a certain discrimination (κploews)
measuring to each what was due (rà déovra).” He adds "As it is written, 'God
appeared (open) to Abraham (Gen. xii. 7)' or to one of the saints, and this
' appearing' (rò ửḍ0N TOÛTO) was not always going on (oỦk ȧel èyíveto) but
at intervals (èk diadeiµátwv) and was not manifested (¿palvero) to all, so I would
have you understand (vóeɩ µoi) that the Son of God also has appeared (ŵplaɩ) with
the same sort of discrimination (τỷ πаρаπλŋσlą……..кpioei)...." The text is perhaps
παραπλησίᾳ...
slightly corrupt in detail. But the general meaning is clear.
55
[2895]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVI
into one," comp. Didach. ix. 4; p. 254, "Mixed," Ign. Smyrn. 3
Kpaðévtes Tη σapkì avтoû, where Lightf. gives below, “convicti («PATη-
Oévtes?) L; quum prehendissent eum C; al. g. A has crediderunt qui
eucharistiæ-participes-fuerunt (lit. communicaverunt) et cænaverunt antea
corpus et sanguinem ejus. The first clause is evidently a gloss (prob.
later and certainly erroneous) of the second; and the rendering
generally points to кpalévтes. The rendering of C may represent
κραθέντες.
κρατήσαντες, but prob. is a loose paraphrase of κραθέντες.” He adds
The same confusion of κραθῆναι, κρατηθῆναι, appears three times in
Iren. i. 6. 4."
P. 255, "Testifying," Acts x. 41; p. 256, "In the fourth gospel,"
Jn xxi. 13.
cas
§ 2.
The traditions concerning Christ's Eating after the
Resurrection
[2896] Page 256, "Punctuated...differently." See Origen Cels. ii.
20 which quotes from a Jewish opponent this ironical attack on
Christ's prediction concerning Judas Iscariot: "God, then, it
seems, brought round His own disciples and prophets, with whom
He was in the habit of dining and drinking, to a state of impiety and
iniquity"; and comp. ib. ii. 9, and ii. 70 "his fellow-revellers." These
phrases refer to the period before the Resurrection. It should be
stated that the Jew says "was in the habit of drinking" (imperf.).
whereas Peter says “drank” (aor.). W. H., to judge from their
punctuation, apparently take Acts x. 41 as Scaurus does. But the
aorist and the imperfect might easily be interchanged (especially in
rendering from Semitic tradition where distinctions of tense are
comparatively few).
[2897] Page 256, "In other ways." As to "convivo" and
"convivor" see Lewis and Short. In Syriac the same verb that
means "abide with," "put up for the night," lit. "loose," means also,
in its reflexive form, "take breakfast," "feast" etc., Thes. Syr. 4312.
The following passage deserves particular attention because it com-
bines two acts of Jesus, one of which, "hymning," is placed by Mark
and Matthew (not by Luke) at the Eucharist; while the other,
"standing in the midst," is placed by Luke (not by Mark or
Matthew) at a meal after Christ's resurrection.
[2898] It occurs in Justin Martyr, who combines these two acts
with a mention of Jesus as "living," or "passing the time," with the
56
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVI
[2902]
disciples, Tryph. 106 "And that He stood in the midst (comp. Lk.
xxiv. 36) of His brethren the apostles... and, living with them, He
hymned God (as also in the memoirs of the apostles is shewn to have
taken place) was indicated by the rest of the psalm." Justin is
referring to Ps. xxii. 22 "I will declare thy name unto my brethren;
in the midst of the congregation will I hymn thee," which is applied
to Christ in Heb. ii. 12. "To hymn" occurs nowhere else in N.T.
except Mk xiv. 26, Mt. xxvi. 30, Acts xvi. 25, see below.
[2899] "Stood in the midst" is applied to Christ in Luke's and
John's accounts of His manifestation to the disciples (Joh. Gram.
2307). But how are we to explain Justin's phrase "living (diáywv)
with them"? He perhaps means, "continuing," "abiding"-to
distinguish the manifestation from a mere fitful transient apparition.
Comp. Jn xiv. 23 "My Father will love him and we will come unto
him and make our abode with him," Rev. iii. 20 If any man hear
my voice and open the door, I will come in to him and sup with him
and he with me." This last sentence shews that, if diάyw could in
any way be connected with "eating," it might naturally be so rendered
in a tradition like that of Justin's "living with them."
66
[2900] Stephen's Thesaurus ii. 1132 shews that dayew is some-
times thus used to mean "entertain," "feed," mostly active (and with
a dative of the food), but once middle: "To nourish and entertain
with (v) many good things," "To supply the barbarians with (ev)
abundance of water" (like our phrase "We will keep you, or find
you, in tobacco”), “He fed (dinyero) on honey-cakes and loaves,"
"He fed the army with wild herbs," "They entertained the populace
with spectacles...and feasts."
[2901] Steph. Thes. has the following comment on έevíčov TE
αὐτὸν πολὺν χρόνον διήγε, “ Haud accuratissime versum est, Multo
autem tempore ejus hospitio usus est.' Verbum diye est activae
sign. et notat Oblectare, Tempus alicui gratum reddere, sive bene
nutriendo, s. diebus festivis ipsi institutis." This indicates another
source of confusion as to traditions about Christ's "living with the
disciples," some of which might, or might not, mean "eating with
them."
[2902] The only passage in the gospels where "hymning" is
mentioned is Mk xiv. 26, Mt. xxvi. 30. This takes place at the
conclusion of the Lord's Supper. Luke omits the word “hymning.”
It is used in the plural so that it would include the disciples as well
as Christ. The Acts of John § 11 represents Christ on the night
57
[2902]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVI
before the Passion as "gathering" or "entertaining" (ovvayayov) all
the disciples, and as saying "Let us hymn the Father." Then He
placed Himself "in the midst of" them, and "began to hymn
a hymn," which is given in full.
[2903] The verb "hymn" is so rare in N.T., and the prophecy
about "hymning" was applied to Christ at such an early date, that
Mark and Matthew may well be supposed to have had it in view
though they do not quote it. They may have thought it was fulfilled
before the Resurrection. John assigns to Jesus before the Resurrec-
tion a long utterance of prayer and praise that might well be called
a "hymn." Luke may have thought (like Justin) that it was fulfilled
after the Resurrection. Luke does not mention a "hymning," any
more than John does; but Lk. xxiv. 44—9 implies a long discourse
shewing the fulfilment of "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms "
in the Gospel.
[2904] Returning to Tryph. 1o6 καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτῶν διάγων ὕμνησε τὸν
Oɛóv, we see that the aorist "He hymned [on that occasion]” prevents
us from taking daywv as referring to "forty days"-the period of
"abiding" (2892 a) erroneously deduced in Acts i. 3 (Joh. Gram.
2331c) but it may mean, "Instead of vanishing away as at
c)—but
Emmaus, as soon as the meal began, He, remaining.... If that was
the sense, with punctuation before and after diάywv, "and with them—
[not vanishing away but] abiding-He hymned God," most students
will recognise that the meaning was very obscurely conveyed and
liable to misunderstanding.
""
[2905] Among misunderstandings, one might be the rendering
"with them-entertaining [them at a meal]-He hymned God."
The word Staywyn "spending the time," ought not to be confused
with διατροφή or δίαιτα; but that it was in danger of being thus
confused appears from a warning of Thom. Μ. Δίαιτα· οὐ διαγωγή
ovde Siaтpopý, Steph. Thes. ii. 1133 where see Steph.'s note.
"In
[2906] Justin quotes the "standing in the midst," and the
“hymning,” as two of the Messianic fulfilments of Ps. xxii. 22,
the midst of the congregation will I hymn_thee.” "The whole
Psalm "
(Tryph. 99) appears to Justin to be fulfilled in Christ.
Consequently, although he passes rapidly over the last part (Tryph.
106) as "the remainder," it is probable that he found a fulfilment
(in Luke's post-resurrectional meal) of Ps. xxii. 26 "the meek shall
eat and shall be satisfied." Those who took the same view would be
prepared to believe that Christ gave food to the disciples after
58
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXVI, XXVII [2909]
the Resurrection, and perhaps to render diάywv, “entertaining
[them]."
[2907] T. & T. Clark's translation of Tryph. 106 (1) does not print,
or annotate, "stood in the midst" as an allusion to Lk. xxiv. 36;
(2) brackets, as part of a parenthesis, the part of the sentence con-
taining the words "after He rose from the dead" so as to give the
connexion thus: "The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest
that...and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles...
and when living with them sang praises to God." The translator
apparently takes the words that I have italicised, as meaning, “and
while still living with them before the crucifixion." This seems.
improbable, in view of (2307) "stood in the midst." But it
is possible. And the possibility illustrates the great uncertainty
attending every attempt to elicit the exact truth amid conflicting.
traditions of alleged fact largely based on poems and prophecies.
As a whole, however, the facts indicate that Luke's tradition about
Christ's eating has sprung from expressions that have been misunder-
stood; that Matthew was justified in not inserting any such tradition;
and that John was justified in declining to reproduce the tradition of
Luke, except in a form where the disciples eat and Christ gives them
to eat.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVII
[2908] Page 257, "The Jews," see Beresh. Rabb. on Gen. xxix.
2-3. Philo i. 596 (on Exod. ii. 16) describes Moses as "nourishing
the Father's flock with draughts of the word."
P. 257, “A veil," 2 Cor. iii. 14; p. 258, “Veiled from them,"
Lk. ix. 45; p. 258, "Opening the scriptures," Lk. xxiv. 32; p. 258,
"Isaiah," Is. viii. 14 (quoted in Rom. ix. 33), xxviii. 16, comp.
1 Pet. ii. 4—6; p. 259, "Someone," Mk xvi. 3 SS "Now who hath
rolled...?"; p. 259, "The Psalmist," Ps. xciv. 16—17, cviii. 10—II.
Comp. Deut. xxx. 12 quoted in Rom. x. 6; p. 259, "Traditions,” an
anachronism. See Evang. Pet. § 8 and Lk. xxiii. 53 (Codex D).
999
[2909] Page 26ɔ, “I think it means
means 'saw in a vision'. For
ȧvaßλéлw, meaning "I see angels, a vision etc.," comp. Gen. xxxii. 1
(ins. LXX) avaßλévas...idev Tapeµßoλnv eoû, Dan. viii. 3 "I lifted
up mine eyes...a ram...," LXX ávaßλéyas eidov, Theod. pa roùs 8P0.
μου κ. ἴδον, Mart. Polyc. § 2 τοῖς τῆς καρδίας ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀνέβλεπον. In
N.T. it mostly means "recover sight." In Gen. xxii. 13 "lifted up
59
[2909] NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXVII, XXVIII
his eyes...a ram," no vision is intended as in Daniel, but the word
probably implies divine intervention. Onk. has "lifted up his eyes
after these words" (i.e. the words just spoken by the angel of the
Lord), Targ. Jon. (Etheridge) "lifted up his eyes and saw...a certain
ram which had been created between the evenings of the foundation
of the world."
P. 260, "Right up to heaven." Origen (on Jn xi. 39) contrasts
Gen. xxix. 2-10 "rolled away" with "lifted up" (or "taken right
away") the word used in Jn, saying that the latter implies that
"the stone is altogether taken away and is not to be rolled back
again." Schöttg. ii. 88 gives a tradition from Sohar of the ascent of
"the stone" in a different sense; the "corner stone" of the temple
(which the builders rejected) is carried up to heaven.
P. 260, "Ascension of angels," see codex k, which (in Mk xvi. 3)
describes angels as "descending" and "rising" and ascending with
Him; or possibly it may mean that those saints who rose with Christ
ascended with Him, see Mt. xxvii. 53.
P. 260, “An angel," Mt. xxviii. 2, 5; p. 261, “Bless them,"
Rom. xii. 14 foll.; p. 263, "One like unto a son of man," Dan. vii.
13 (see 2998 (xxvi)—(xxxi)); p. 263-4, "Deuteronomy," Deut.
XXX. 12 foll., quoted in Rom. x. 6 foll.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXVIII
[2910] Page 267, "Last utterance," Mk xv. 34, Mt. xxvii. 46
(?) parall. to Lk. xxiii. 45; comp. Mk xv. 37, Mt. xxvii. 50, parall.
to Lk. xxiii. 46.
P. 268, "An eclipse." Origen (on Mt. xxvii. 45, Lomm. v. 54)
suggests that either (1) someone has ignorantly altered "the sun
was darkened" into "eclipsed" (as being the ordinary explanation of
such darkening), or that (2) "the crafty enemies of the Church
of Christ (insidiatores ecclesiae Christi)" have done this, in order to
accuse the evangelist of falsehood. He reads "the sun was darkened."
But the best Greek Mss. have "eclipsed," and W. H. adopt this,
without alternative¹.
¹ [2910 a] Thucydides makes it clear that a solar eclipse was generally
recognised at a very early date to be impossible except at new moon, ii. 28 vovunvia
κατὰ σελήνην, ὥσπερ καὶ μόνον δοκεῖ εἶναι γίγνεσθαι δυνατόν, ὁ ἥλιος ἐξέλιπε. In
Acta Pilati II (A and B) the Jews tell Pilate that there has been merely "an
eclipse of the sun in the usual way." In Acta P. (A), one Ms. makes Pilate reply,
"I know that that never happens but at new moon."
60
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXVIII, XXIX
[2915]
P. 268, "Of the sun" or "Of Elias," see From Letter 1057—60.
P. 268, "Why hast thou forsaken?" Ps. xxii. 1.
[2911] Page 269, "We let him kill it." Tertull. Ad Nat. 15 says
that the laws against infanticide are deliberately evaded, and that the
evasion is deliberately permitted, comp. Tertull. Apolog. 9. It would
seem that an infant might be killed with impunity if the parents
avoided steel and left the business to "drowning, cold, hunger, or
dogs."
[2912] Page 269, "Got a nurse," so Mrs Carter, Introd. p. xxix.
But the words (Schweig. iii. p. 134, quoting Simplic. § 46 p. 272)
may mean that he, "after remaining alone the greater part of his
life, quite late in life took to himself a wife, to nurse a child (ové tote
γυναῖκα προσελάβετο, παιδίου τροφόν) that he had taken and reared,
belonging to a friend, who was purposing to expose it because of his
poverty." See Steph. Thes. vi. 1958—9.
[2913] Page 271, "His own son," Epict. iv. 5. 3; p. 271,
"Apollo," Epict. iii. 1. 16; p. 271, "one in a thousand," Epict. iii. 1.
19; p. 271, "Hear ye indeed," Is. vi. 9 foll., comp. Mk iv. 12,
Mt. xiii. 13 foll., Lk. viii. 10, Rom. xi. 8; p. 272, "The universe,"
Epict. iii. 24. 19; p. 272, "Ulysses," Epict. iii. 24. 18; p. 272,
"How long," Mk ix. 19, Mt. xvii. 17, Lk. ix. 41; p. 273, “As
Diogenes did," Epict. iii. 24. 64-8; p. 273, "Not from within,"
Epict. Ench. xvi, comp. i. 18. 19; p. 273, "The subject of 'distress',"
Epict. ii. 2. 1 foll., comp. ii. 13. 10; p. 274, “Played at ball," Epict.
ii. 5. 15—20; p. 274, "These portents," Epict. Ench. xviii; p. 274,
"Nothing to do with my father," Epict. iii. 3. 5; p. 274, “Am I to
neglect," Epict. iii. 3. 7; p. 275, "A contrast," Epict. i. 4. 24—7;
p. 276, "It is among the rich," Epict. i. 24. 15 foll.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXIX
[2914] Page 288, "Not on the same level as scripture." Barnabas
iv. 14 “Let us give heed lest, as it is written, we be found many called
but few chosen," is sometimes alleged as proof that the writer quoted
Mt. xxii. 14 with the formula "as it is written," i.e. as "scripture."
But Barnabas also twice quotes Enoch either as (xvi. 5) "scripture"
or (iv. 3) with the form "it is written." See Enc. Bibl. (col. 1828)
"Gospels" § 89.
[2915] Page 288, "Mark committed no error." The "elder"
61
[2915] NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXIX, XXX
here mentioned is quoted by Papias; who, in turn, is quoted by
Eusebius thus, iii. 39. 15 “And this too the Elder used to say, Mark
in the first place becoming Peter's interpreter...so that Mark
committed no error (ovdèv ýµapte)...." In the preceding sentence,
Eusebius says that Papias hands down diegetic works of Aristion and
traditions of "the Elder, John." And Eusebius previously quotes.
Papias as mentioning together (iii. 39. 4) "Aristion and the Elder,
John." It appears therefore that "the Elder" described as here
defending Mark was called "John." See Silanus p. 306 foll.
[2916] Page 289, "Wrote in Hebrew," see p. 221; p. 289,
"Never did quote it." For proof of this, see Enc. Bibl. (col.
1832-7) "Gospels" § 101-4; p. 290, "Irenæus" ii. 11. 8 foll.
"It is not possible that there should be more gospels than there are,
nor again fewer. For since there are four zones...and four principal
winds...."
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXX
ON LUKE'S OMISSION OF "WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME?"
[2917] Page 293, "Luke...something about the sun." The
following remarks bear on the possibility of explaining Luke's omission
in a manner consistent with an honest though unsuccessful attempt
to elicit the facts. It will be shewn that other early authorities,
besides Luke, had traditions about the "sun" and "light" at this
point of the gospel narrative.
""
P. 293, "Some of our brethren." Justin says (Tryph. 98) “And
further I will if you please quote the whole psalm (xxii.), that
you may hear His piety to the Father, and how He [i.e. the Son]
refers all things to Him." He proceeds to quote the entire psalm.
Chrysostom, though he does not say that "the whole of the psalm.
was in Christ's mind, implies it thus: "He says, Eli, Eli... that men
may see that up to the last breath He honours the Father and does
not oppose Himself to God." Cramer prints similar comments on
Mt. xxvii. 46 and on the parall. Mk xv. 34. The Valentinians said
that when Jesus said these words He indicated (Iren. i. 8. 2) that
Sophia (by which they meant the lower Wisdom) was forsaken by
light.
[2918] An extract preserved by Clem. Alex. (1003, Theodot.
Excerpt.) mentions Christ's "Heli" in connexion with "Helios,” the
62
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXX
[2920]
sun (comp. Silanus p. 267—8) quoting Ps. xix. 4 "In them hath he
set a tabernacle for the sun," as in LXX, "In the sun he placed his
tabernacle” (2920). Tertullian says (Adv. Prax. 30) that the Father
"forsook" the Son inasmuch as (Rom. viii. 32) He "did not spare"
the Son, and "delivered Him up (Is. liii. 5-6, 12) for our trans-
gressions." Comp. Cypr. Spur. (De Mont. Sina et Sion 10) "Caro ligno
confixa emisit verbum dominicum dicens: Heli, heli: et adimpletum
est propheticum spiritale ante dictum: 'De Sion exiet lex et verbum
domini ab Hierusalem.'" Does "dicens" agree with "caro" or with
"verbum"? Does "caro" mean "the flesh forsaken by the spirit"?
[2919] Page 294, "One of the brethren" is to some extent
represented by Origen. Origen (on Mt. xxvii. 46-7, Lomm. v.
58 foll.), after quoting the text as in Mt., says, "It is not lawful to
believe that He lied, when saying, Why hast thou forsaken me?
Now some under cover of reverence for Jesus (colore religionis pro
Jesu), and because they cannot explain the meaning of Christ's being
forsaken by God, think [thus] and say [thus] 'It is true that it was so
said, (or, What was said is true) but it was said in humility (per
humilitatem).'" Brushing aside this evasion, Origen seriously asks
what the words mean, and his conclusion apparently is that the Son
is questioning the Father as to the future results of His being
"forsaken," so that "why?" means "What is thy desire or object?”
[2920] Origen, although (2921) he resembles the author quoted
above (2918) by Clement of Alexandria in connecting the cry to God.
with a mention of the "sun," differs from him in spirit and in detail.
For the older writer, presumably a Valentinian, says, "Can it be that
the words (Ps. xix. 4) ‘In the sun he placed his tabernacle' are to be
understood thus:-'placed in the sun,' that is, 'in God'...?" The fol-
lowing words are obscure, ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ πλησίον θεός, ὡς ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
ἠλὶ ἠλί, ἀντὶ τοῦ θεέ μου, θεέ μου. But they seem to express the Valen-
tinian belief that Jesus, ascending, laid aside His body in the sun
because it was not possible that it should ascend to the highest
height. So Hermogenes (180 A.D. or earlier) declares that (Hippol.
Haer. viii. 10) Christ, as He went up to heaven, left His body in the
sun, but Himself proceeded to the Father. Irenæus himself (iv. 33.
13) quotes Ps. xix. 6 "His going forth is from the height of heaven
and his returning even to the highest heaven" as referring to the
Incarnation and the Ascension, although the Psalmist is referring to
the sun. Origen (on Ps. xix. 4) says, "the sun of righteousness is
our Lord, and in Him the Father tabernacles." Elsewhere he
63
[2920]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXX
condemns the Valentinian view ("quidam quidem dicebant") and
defines his own more fully (Lomm. ib. xii. 73 "in sole justitiae
ecclesiam suam collocavit ").
[2921] But in quoting Ps. lxxxix. 36-8 "his throne as the
sun before me...but thou hast cast off and rejected," Origen
(Lomm. v. 60-5) paraphrases the words as follows: "As long
as the sun's light lasted, enduring His great sufferings, He
did not say, Why hast thou forsaken me? But when He saw
darkness spread over all the land of Judæa until the ninth hour, He
said with His loud voice, Why hast thou forsaken me? desiring by
these words to indicate that, namely (illud...quoniam), 'Deliberately
(volens) hast thou forsaken me, Father...that the people [of the
Jews]...may be in darkness.... But thou hast also forsaken me for
the salvation of the Gentiles...."" And then Origen adds further
questions supposed to be addressed by the Son to the Father.
[2922] Elsewhere Origen says (Cels. iii. 32) "Since He had
'authority to lay down His life,' He laid it down when He said,
'Father, why hast thou forsaken me?' And, having cried with a loud
voice, He dismissed His Spirit, anticipating the executioners that
were to deal with those crucified." It will be observed that Origen
here uses "Father" in quotation. Above (Lomm. v. 58-65) he
used "My God" in quotation, but "Father" in paraphrase.
[2923] Page 294, "I am not alone," Jn xvi. 32.
P. 295, “A complete answer." Origen (Lomm. v. 65—6) suggests
that the last words and acts of Christ, as described in the four
gospels, constitute a "cause" of the resurrection, "Propter hoc enim
non dereliquit animam ejus in inferno nec dedit eum videre cor-
ruptionem." He has just said, "Quod si vis audire quid profuit
Christo magnam vocem clamasse, et sic emisisse spiritum, id est,
in manus Domini commendasse spiritum, et sic emisisse, aut
inclinasse- caput super gremium Patris, et tradidisse spiritum, audi
quod dicit Propheta: Propter hoc enim...." The original is Ps. xvi.
9-10 “For this cause my heart is glad...because thou wilt not forsake
my soul in Sheol." No version has "for this cause thou wilt not
forsake." Possibly the Latin transl. of Origen is inaccurate.
But
his language as a whole indicates that he regarded Christ's utterance
as revealing an act that causatively prepared the way for the
resurrection¹.
1 ¹ [2923 a] The Valentinians (Iren. i. 8. 2) regarded the words of the Saviour
64
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXX
[2923]
on the cross as shewing that Sophia (“a kind of abortion" outside the Pleroma)
was deserted by "the light," which "had forsaken her." So previously (i. 4. 1)
"she strained herself to discover that light which had forsaken her," impelled by
the passion of "desiring to return to Him who gave her life." These last words
suggest the earnest desire for God's presence, expressed in the Johannine words
"I thirst" the former accord with the connexion seen by Origen between
the "light" (or its absence) and the "forsaking.”
[29236] Philo i. 412 quoting Jer. xv. 10 " Mother, what manner of man hast
thou borne me, a man of strife!” says that the Mother is Wisdom. Origen (Lomm.
xv. 261 foll.), agreeing with Philo, adds that Christ uttered this, "not as God but as
man," like many other passages in the Psalms and prophecies, and that Jer. xv. 10
(LXX, Heb. diff.) "My strength hath failed ( ioxús µov ¿¿éλɩπev)" was fulfilled
when Christ " emptied himself" (Phil. ii. 7), that is, in the Incarnation. It will be
remembered that Evang. Pet. gives Christ's words as "My Power (ʼn dúvaµís
μov)! Thou hast abandoned me.
""
[2923 c] The facts indicate that every word of this Aramaic utterance was
much scrutinized, explained, and sometimes explained away. D, in Mk xv. 34
oaßax@avei, has Čaplaveí (sim. in Mt. xxvii. 46, where, however, the photograph
seems to shew corrected into σ). This is D's attempt to transliterate 'ny,
azabthani, dropping a, and changing b to p (perhaps for euphony). But why does
D, while rendering ξαφθανεί in Mt. ἐνκατέλιπες, render it in Mk ὠνίδισας (sic),
"didst reproach," thus making the moral difficulty perhaps greater than before?
Dalm. Words, p. 54, suggests that D's Jap0avei has been "transformed" back
into a form of U. But I means in Heb. (Gesen.) "be out of humour, vexed;
be enraged," and in Aram. (Levy) "toben, stürmen." It is not quoted by either
authority as a transitive verb; nor is it ever rendered ỏvedišw by LXX, or others.
Overdiğw may come from an Aram. gloss, "My strength hath failed." "Strength" is
called by Eusebius (Dem. Evang. p. 494, Field on Ps. xxii. 1) "the correct ren-
dering. 'Fail,” èkλeíπw—which occurs in parall. Lk. xxiii. 45 ýλíov èkλelπOVTOS
—is expressible in Heb., Syr. (e.g. Lk. xxii. 32) and Aram., by D. This is con-
fused with DM, "reproach," in Sir. xiv. 2 "reproached” (Heb. "failed," but edd.
“D, read 1770п”), ib. xli. 6 ["want"] Syr. DM, but LXX öveidos, Prov. xiv.
34 "reproach (7DM)," LXX èλaoσovoûσi i.e. m. In Mk xv. 34, a, b, etc. are
wanting, k has "dereliquisti” (“a m. 3") over erasure. Swete does not mention
ὠνείδισας, and gives Β ζαβαχθανει, but the photograph clearly has ζαβαφθανει.
[2923 d] With reference to the last utterance of the Saviour on the cross
as recorded by Jn (xix. 30), it should be noted that Teréheσra mid. is the
regular official word in a custom-house receipt to signify that the carrier of goods
"has paid duty" in passing "through a gate." It is regularly defined by (Fayûm
Pap. p. 195) “dià πúλns followed by a village name.”
πύλης
The editors of the Fayûm
P. (p. 200) say that "the receipts range in date from the reign of Titus to
the third century," and Berlin Urk. 766 gives such a receipt beginning with
TETÉ[XEO]Tαι of A.D. 91, besides many of later date. These facts go far to prove
that, when the fourth gospel was written, the word tetéλeotaɩ would suggest, even
to the poorest classes of Greeks, the meaning "duty paid," and a thought of
"passing through a gate." This would lend itself to a mystical suggestion—
that Jesus, at the moment of this utterance, passed through the grave and gate
of death,” taking mankind with Him, and paying the tax with His blood. Such
mysticism is almost incredible to modern readers, but it is hardly more difficult
than other instances in Jn (see e.g. "lifted up," Joh. Gram. 2211 b, c, 2642 b).
A.
65
5
[2924]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXX
[2924] Page 296, "Forsaken yet not forsaken." Comp. Is. liv. 6
The Lord hath called thee as a wife forsaken," ib. lxii. 12 “a city
not forsaken," and Hos. i. 6—11; p. 297, "Him that knew not
sin,” 2 Cor. v. 21; p. 298, “I taught Ephraim," Hos. xi. 3-4;
p. 298, “Mark never mentions 'love,'" see Joh. Voc. 1716; p. 299,
'A new commandment," Jn xiii. 34; p. 300, "The Lord's
Prayer," see From Letter 967-71.
THE END OF MARK'S GOSPEL
P. 300, "I am disposed to think." Great difficulties attend the
two suppositions (1) that Mark deliberately stopped short in his
narrative so as not to record any manifestations of the risen Saviour,
(2) that Mark described such manifestations in the last part of his
gospel but that the last part is lost. As to (1), the objections hardly
need to be stated: and the ill-omened end, "for they were afraid,"
adds to their weight. As to (2), it requires us to believe that in
every one of the copies of Mark's gospel made at the time of its
being first circulated, that part which would be of most interest to
Christians was destroyed, without being transcribed. The least
difficult supposition is (3) that Mark's work was cut short by his
death, or by some other preventive cause. That would account for
the general roughness of the gospel and for the errors in various parts
of it.
The following passage from Tertullian about a work of his
own may illustrate the view that Mark may have been "opusculum
properatum," and also "nondum exemplariis suffectum." It also
suggests an explanation of some of the additions in Luke. (Against
Marcion i. 1) "My original tract, as being a hasty composition
(primum opusculum quasi properatum) I had subsequently superseded
by a fuller treatise. This, too, I lost, before it had been adequately
copied (nondum exemplariis suffectam). A brother, who afterwards
turned apostate, stole it. He happened to have transcribed portions
of it, in a transcript full of faults, and this he published (exhibuit
frequentiae). It became necessary to correct [this] (emendationis
necessitas facta est). The opportunity afforded by this new edition
(Innovationis ejus occasio) induced me to make some additions. So
my pen-which I now take up for the third time in place of the
second, but must ask my readers to regard henceforth as first in
place of the third-necessarily prefixes this explanation of the issue
of its work, for fear anyone should be perplexed by the various
66
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXX, XXXI
[2927]
versions that might be found in scattered forms (ita stilus iste nunc
de secundo tertius, et de tertio jam hinc primus, hunc opusculi sui
exitum necessario praefatur, ne quem varietas ejus in disperso
reperta confundat)."
P. 301,
Jn xiii. 34.
Bear ye," Gal. vi. 2; p. 301,
"Love one another,"
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2925] Page 303, "The texts vary," Jn xxi. 24, see Joh. Gram.
2166. On the whole passage, see 2386, 2427–35; p. 303, "The
disciple whom Jesus loved," Jn xxi. 20; p. 303, "Hath borne
witness,” Jn xix. 35; p. 303, "Sons of Zebedee," Jn xxi. 2.
THE PREDICTION OF PETER'S CRUCIFIXION
[2926] Page 303, "Crucified." Westcott, on Jn xxi. 19 "what
manner of death" and the context, says, "Though the language of
the Lord has very commonly been adapted to the details of cruci-
fixion, it does not appear that it points directly to anything more
than martyrdom, when another girded him' and he was taken
'whither he would not.' The 'stretching forth the hands' can
hardly be referred primarily to the position on the cross, since this
detail is placed first."
up"
But, as regards the last objection, "the stretching out of the hands
[on the cross]" mentioned (see Joh. Gram. 2797) may mean the
"stretching out of the hands" on the σavís, or "crosspiece of the
cross" (From Letter 928 (vii) c foll., 928 (x) a) which was often
preliminary to the "girding" (with a rope) and to the "lifting up
of the condemned, on the upright part of the cross. So Theodorus
(Cramer ad loc.) "The stretching out (ekraσis) of the hands and the
bond of the girdle (ò deoμòs Ts (avns) signified nothing else but the
manner of death by crucifixion (τò σxîµa tοû σтavρoû)." In Rome
it sometimes preceded (928 (vi)) the going to the cross.
[2927] Westcott himself does not deny (though he does not
explain) that xii. 33 “what manner of death," and its contextual
"lifted up," refer to crucifixion. Also on xviii. 32 "what manner
of death," he says, "Crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment,"
apparently admitting that, there, "what manner of" implies something
more than martyrdom," namely, a particular kind of martyrdom,
crucifixion. The words would not apply to beheading or stoning.
67
5-2
[2928]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2928] Westcott says "Stretch forth thy hands, as helpless and
seeking help." But Steph. Thes. (èkтeivw col. 581, UπTIOS col. 493,
where add Aristoph. Eccles. 782) indicates that ekтeivw xeîpas pl. (when
Xeîpas is not qualified by πTIOs or some special context) does not
mostly imply "seeking help," but may imply giving help, or self-
confident action as in Polyb. i. 3 ἐθάρσησαν ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τὰς χεῖρας
ἐκτείνειν. In LXX, “stretch out the hands"-though much rarer
than "stretch out the hand". -occurs in Exod. ix. 33, B "and he
stretched out his hands," Heb., A, and Aquila "and he spread abroad
his hands," that is, in prayer; 1 Esdr. viii. 73 "stretched out my
hands," where the parall. Ezr. ix. 5 has, correctly, "spread out";
Is. i. 15 LXX "when ye stretch out your hands," without v.r., though
Heb. has "spread out."
[2929] It appears therefore that there is enough of LXX usage
to make intelligible a play on the double meaning (1) "stretch out the
hands" in prayer to God, (2) "stretch out the hands," literally, at the
bidding of the executioner. The latter was probably familiar in
vernacular Greek and connected with crucifixion. Artemidorus
(Joh. Gram. 2211 c) like Theodorus above, mentions "the stretching
out of the hands” as a sign of crucifixion. Epictetus iii. 26. 22 ¿KTEίvas
σαυτὸν ὡς οἱ ἐσταυρωμένοι, may imply that the condemned had to
obey the order of the executioner "Stretch yourself out," i.e. stretch
out your arms, in order that they may be bound to the oavís or
crosspiece of the cross. Thus, when Prometheus is to be nailed to
the rock "with his two hands spread out," Hermes says to him, “Go
up," "Make yourself ready to be fastened to the mountain," and
then, “Stretch out your right hand,” “Stretch out the left." But there
(Lucian i. 185-7, Prom. 1—2) no "crosspiece" was needed, no
"girding," and no "uplifting," as Prometheus himself could "go up"
to the place of crucifixion, which was on a steep cliff.
[2930] As to the words, Jn xxi. 18 "shall carry thee (oo)
whither thou wouldest not," the same word "carry
carry" occurs in
Mk xv. 22 (R.V.) "bring (pépovou)" in connexion with crucifixion
(Corrections, 449). Possibly in Mk it means "bring," but in Jn
"carry." It was suggested (Joh. Gram. 2797) that there was a
double meaning in Jn's words, one meaning being "Another [i.e. the
Lord] shall gird thee [for thy martyrdom] and shall carry thee [to
the cross, obedient now to His will]."
[2931] In connexion with this "carrying," see Artemidorus ii. 57
"On carrying and being carried," where he says that "carrying" is
•
68
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2934]
sometimes a bad sign, meaning "crucifixion," but that "being
carried" is worse because, as a rule, it indicates helplessness. But it
is a good sign when "the servant" is "carried by the Master." Artemi-
dorus uses ẞaoráłw, not pépw, but his words rather favour the view
that in Jn the "carrying" was contemplated mainly as the act of
"the Master." One executioner (Joh. Gram. 2796) could hardly
carry" the condemned.
(C
[2932] "Stretch out the hands" must be distinguished from
“stretch out the hand." The latter implies action, and often violence.
The first instance of the latter is in Gen. iii. 22 (6
Behold, the man
is become as one of us...and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and
take also of the tree of life."
[2933] Alluding to this, and to "the tree" as also meaning the
"wood" of the cross, Ephrem says (p. 261) "No one so exalted
himself as man, who stretched out his hands (sic) (extendit manus) to
the tree, and would fain have made himself equal to his Creator;
and no one so humiliated himself as God, who stretched out His hands
on the wood (super lignum) and blotted out those transgressions
which, by stretching out of the hand (extensione manus), had entered
for the first time [into the world] (primae intraverant). The Lord
stretched out His hands on the wood of the cross (in ligno crucis) that
He might slay death which had come into being through the wood
of the tree [of knowledge] (mortem quae per lignum erat)."
[2934] Ephrem confuses two phrases quite distinct in meaning
though very similar in word. Nevertheless his words may possibly
illustrate the meaning of Jn xxi. 18, which clearly means, "When
you were young, you acted in your own strength, and went your own
way." An instance of Peter's "acting in his own strength" is given
in Mt. xxvi. 51 "Having stretched out his hand...smote the servant of
the high priest." “Stretch out the hand" is nowhere else applied in
the gospels to any disciple: Jn may be alluding to this. Also the
impulsiveness of Peter is indicated by Jn in xxi. 7 "girt on his
garment...and threw himself in the sea" (whereas the other disciples
came in the boat). The whole passage (Jn xxi. 2-23) is so full of
allusion that it is not fanciful to suppose a contrast between Peter's
being "girt" by "himself" recently, and by "Another" henceforth
(2796-7).
69
[2935]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
THE MODERN HYPOTHESIS OF THE EARLY DEATH OF
JOHN THE SOn of Zebedee
[2935] Page 303, "Survived his martyrdom." The prediction of
Christ that James and John would (Mk x. 39) drink of His cup and
be baptized with His baptism would lead some Christian writers to
infer that John was actually put to death. But a "martyr
martyr" or
"witness" to Christ might be tortured, maimed, imprisoned, con-
demned to the mines for life, and yet not actually die under his
sufferings (2939–40). The parallel in Matthew (xx. 23) omits
"baptized." Perhaps Matthew confined himself to that part of the
tradition which was accepted by all as applying to both James and
John, namely, that they testified and "suffered" for their testimony.
This "suffering" Matthew may express by "cup" (as distinct from
dying," which he might take to be expressed by "baptism ").
"(
[2936] Luke has no parallel to Mk x. 39. John steps in to explain
that there are more ways of "following" Christ to the cross than
Peter "followed" to the literal cross (Jn xxi. 18—19). John
also is described as (xxi. 20) "following'," yet he lived to a great
one.
a
1 [2936 α] In the context of Jn xxi. 20 επιστραφεὶς ὁ Πέτρος βλέπει τὸν μαθητὴν...
åkoλov@oûvтa, there is no mention of Christ's rising from the meal (as in Jn xiii. 4) and
going away from the disciples, or beckoning Peter to "follow" Him. Chrysostom,
Theodorus, and Anastasius (Cramer) imply that "Follow me is metaphorical.
But they throw no light on the words "seeth the disciple...following." Westc.
says, "The command of the Lord appears to have been accompanied by some
symbolic action. As St Peter literally obeyed the call thus expressed under a
figure, and moved away from the group of the apostles, something attracted his
attention, and he ‘turned about' to the direction indicated (¿ñɩтpapeis, Mark v.
30). The whole picture is full of life" But if a "picture" in words is "full of
life," ought we not to see the living figures doing, not "some action," but a definite
action? And are not the words "appears" and " 'some symbolic action" equivalent
to a confession that it is difficult to realise the picture of our Lord literally
walking away, and bidding Peter alone to "follow" Him in a literal sense
But if the narrative refers to a vision, to be taken separately from what precedes,
then "following" may denote literal symbolic "following," seen by Peter in that
vision. After hearing and beginning to obey the call "Follow me [to the cross]!"
Peter ((
turns round,” in his vision, and sees the beloved disciple also “following
as indeed he did, according to tradition, to the very brink of death by martyrdom.
Then he asks for a revelation of the future in store for his brother-apostle.
""
Compare, however, Lk. xxii. 32. There, èπiσтρéyas (preceding orηpirov TOÙS
ådeλpoús σov), applied to Peter, might indeed possibly be taken, as in Lk. i. 16,
transitively; but it is much more probably intransitive, "having turned again,'
and it suggests that there may have been various versions of an ambiguous tradition
about Peter's "turning again” after Christ's resurrection.
70
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2937]
age after his "martyrdom" in Patmos.
martyrdom" in Patmos. This is one of the cases
where John seems to have intervened to explain something difficult
in Mark and omitted by Luke.
[2937] In modern times a hypothesis that John died early as a
martyr like his brother James (Acts xii. 2) has been supported from
two writers quoting Papias (see Enc. Bibl. col. 2509). Their late-
ness weakens their evidence¹. But besides, they may easily have
1 [2937 a] The earlier of the two is (Enc. ib.) Philip of Sidè (c. 430 A.D.). But
the extant evidence is only "from an epitome," dating from the 7th or 8th cent.
and "probably based" on his writing. Moreover (Dict. Christ. Biogr. iv. 356)
"the chronological order of events" is said to be "constantly disregarded” by
Philip, and “his details" are pronounced by Neander (ib.) "unworthy of
confidence.” The epitome says, Παπίας ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει, ὅτι Ἰωάννης ὁ
θεολόγος κ. Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν. This is more fully
expressed (Burkitt, The Gospel History etc. p. 252) "in the oldest MS. of the
Chronicle of George the Monk, a writer of the 9th century." George, after
understanding Origen, wrongly, as asserting that John was a martyr to the death,
proceeds (Enc. ib.) Παπίας γὰρ ὁ Ἱεραπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος αὐτόπτης τούτου γενόμενος
ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων φάσκει ὅτι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, πληρώσας
δηλαδὴ μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ αὐτῶν πρόῤῥησιν καὶ τὴν ἑαυτῶν
ὁμολογίαν περὶ τούτου καὶ συγκατάθεσιν.
[29376] Note here that both writers use ȧvaipeiv, to mean "kill." This is a
rare word in N.T. (exc. in Acts). It is also non-existent in the Indices of Eusebius.
Yet Eusebius uses it in describing the death of James the brother of John, thus,
iii. 5. 2 Ιουδαίων…..κατὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων...πλείστας ὅσας ἐπιβουλὰς μεμηχανημένων,
πρώτου τοῦ Στεφάνου λίθοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀνῃρημένου, εἶτα δὲ μετ᾿ αὐτὸν Ἰακώβου, ὃς ἦν
Ζεβεδαίου μὲν παῖς, ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰωάννου, τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτμηθέντος, ἐπὶ πᾶσί τε
Ἰακώβου...τὸν προδηλωθέντα τρόπον μεταλλάξαντος. Now ἀναιρεῖν is the word used
in the Acts to describe the death of James the brother of John, thus, Acts xii. 1—2
Ἡρῴδης ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀνεῖλεν... Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰωάνου μαχαίρῃ.
[2937 c] Origen (Lomm. iv. 18, Comm. Matth. tom. xvi. 6), also referring to
Acts xii. 1-2, says, Ηρώδης μὲν ἀπέκτεινεν Ιάκωβον τὸν Ιωάννου μαχαίρᾳ, omitting
ådeλpóv. This would naturally mean "James the son of John," an absurdity,
ἀδελφόν.
but it points to a possibility that the tradition of Acts xii. 1-2 may have existed
in a form where ådeλøós was not mentioned, and where 'Iwávŋs meant, as it usually
does, "John the Baptist" (see 2937 e). Moreover it has been acutely observed
(Oxford Magazine, 1907, p. 175) that Eusebius' own words might be carelessly
translated, "Stephen having been first slain by them [i.e. the Jews] with stones,
and then, after him, James, who was on the one hand the son of Zebedee and on the
other hand the brother of that John who was beheaded (ὃς ἦν Ζεβεδαίου μὲν παῖς,
ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰωάνου τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτμηθέντος).
""
[2937 d] Early writers lay great stress on the variety of the deaths suffered by
God's "martyrs or witnesses," e.g. Heb. xi. 37 “sawn asunder etc.,” Tertull.
Scorp. 15 "This I perceive...running through the Acts (Acta decurrens)... (1) prisons,
bonds, scourges, stones (saxa), swords, onsets of Jews and gatherings of Gentiles....
That (2) Peter is scourged (caeditur), Stephen crushed [with stones] (opprimitur),
James [the son of Zebedee] immolated (immolatur), Paul torn in pieces (distra-
71
[2937]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
mistaken some such expression as "James was perfected with the death
of John." (This actually occurs in Tertullian De Praescr. Haer. 36
Paulus Johannis exitu coronatur.") This might be taken to mean,
"James the son of Zebedee died as a martyr like his brother John
the son of Zebedee¹." But it means, "James was put to death, not on
the cross but with the sword, with the death of John the Baptist."
[2938] A more plausible argument for John's execution is, that
Heracleon, as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (p. 595), does not
mention John as dying a natural death along with "Matthew, Philip,
Thomas, Levi, and many others." Of these he says, "They did not
confess the confession of voice [before a magistrate] and go forth [in
death] (ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ὁμολογίαν καὶ ἐξῆλθον).”
[2939] Probably "go forth" means "depart," "die,” as in the
Letter of the Church of Lyons (A.D. 177) and Epictetus ii. 15. 6.
>>
2
hitur).... The writer closely follows the order of the Acts, in his lists of
(1) persecutions, (2) names:—iv. 3, v. 18, 23, 40 Peter's "imprisonments" and
"scourging"; vii. 58 Stephen's "stoning"; xii. 2 the "immolation" of James
with the "sword," perhaps with some allusion to the severing of the throat as
connected with "immolation"; xiv. 5 "an onset of Gentiles and Jews" on Paul
and his companions; xxiii. to Paul's rescue from being "pulled in pieces (Vulg.
discerperetur)." From missing the force of Tertullian's "distrahitur," some have
translated it "beheaded"! Others have taken "James" to mean James the Just,
who (2837 (iii)) was not slain with the "sword."
[2937 e] Having regard to the general carelessness of Philip and to the ease with
which "John" the Baptist might be confused, in his days, with "John" the son of
Zebedee, it is a reasonable and charitable supposition that Philip has not invented,
but misunderstood a saying of Papias, to the effect that “James—as also John—
was put to death by the Jews with the sword."
¹ [2937f] Such a mistake is very natural. Comp. Clem. Alex. 145, as transl.
by T. & T. Clark p. 167, "And in the Gospel by John He says, 'Serpents,
brood of vipers, with the footnote, "Nothing similar to this is found in the
fourth Gospel; the reference may be to the words of the Baptist, Matth. iii. 7,
Luke iii. 7.” But the Gk is, Kảv tŵ evayyeλíw, dià 'Iwávvov, “”Opeɩs,” pnoí, i.e.
"And in the Gospel, through John [the Baptist], He says, 'Serpents, generation of
vipers....' The previous sentence describes the Instructor as “ speaking through
Isaiah"; this describes Him as "speaking through" John the Baptist, whom the
translator appears to have mistaken for John the son of Zebedee.
""
2 [2939 a] Euseb. v. 2. 3. Such confessors as did not actually "depart
(¿§épxoµai)” modestly disclaimed the title of "martyr." But it is clear that people
were disposed to give it to them, ἡδέως γὰρ παρεχώρουν τὴν τῆς μαρτυρίας
προσηγορίαν τῷ Χριστῷ, τῷ πιστῷ καὶ ἀληθινῷ μάρτυρι καὶ πρωτοτόκῳ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ
ἀρχηγῷ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἐπεμιμνήσκοντο τῶν ἐξεληλυθότων ἤδη μαρτύρων, καὶ
ἔλεγον· ἐκεῖνοι ἤδη μάρτυρες, οὓς ἐν τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ Χριστὸς ἠξίωσεν ἀναληφθῆναι,
ἐπισφραγισάμενος αὐτῶν διὰ τῆς ἐξόδου τὴν μαρτυρίαν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ὁμόλογοι μέτριοι καὶ
Tаπeol. Note the belief that the "departed" witnesses, or martyrs, had been
“taken up (åvaλŋp0ñvai),” and comp. Tertull. Scorp. 15 "Then is Peter 'girt by
ταπεινοί.
72
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2941]
John was in a peculiar position. He did, according to tradition,
"confess" before a magistrate; he did, according to some traditions,
"go forth" to die; but he did not actually "go forth," i.e. depart this
life, under the punishment to which he was subjected. It is highly
improbable that Heracleon would venture to reckon John along with
Matthew and the rest, who neither "confessed [before a magistrate]"
nor "went forth." For John, according to Tertullian, had not only
been condemned to the mines at Patmos, but had also been cast
into burning oil, and had survived, De Praescr. Haer. 36 “in oleum
igneum demersus...relegatur."
[2940] Tertullian, speaking about announcements referring to
martyrdom, says (Scorp. 12) "Cui potius figuram vocis suae declarasset
quam cui effigiem gloriae suae revelavit, Petro, Jacobo, Joanni, et
postea Paulo, quem paradisi quoque compotem fecit ante martyr-
ium?" The context implies that Tertullian regarded John as no
less a "martyr" than Peter, James, and Paul, although he asserts that
John had survived martyrdom (2939). Hegesippus, quoted by
Eusebius, says that the grandsons of Jude, after having been let go by
Domitian, "became leaders of the Churches, as being at once martyrs
(µápTupes) and relatives of the Lord," and that they "lived on till
the reign of Trajan'.
[2941] Origen (Lomm. iv. 18 on Mk x. 38) though the text (“it
seemed to some") may be corrupt, clearly shews that there was a
difference of opinion as to the fulfilment of the prediction about the
sons of Zebedee. And he inclines to think that the "relegatio"
constituted martyrdom.
Summing up the evidence for and against the hypothesis of John's
""
another' (Jn xxi. 18) when he is made fast to the cross. Then is Paul (Acts xxii.
28) 'born free' of Rome indeed, when, in Rome, he springs to life again ennobled
by martyrdom —a passage that would suggest to Roman Christians-familiar with
the story of the martyrdom of the two apostles on one and the same day—another
instance of God's "two witnesses," martyred and "taken up" to heaven: comp.
also 2942* (xix) foll.
¹ [2940 a] Euseb. iii. 20. 6 (rep. iii. 32. 6). Lightf. on Clem. Cor. 5 refers
also to Apollonius (Euseb. v. 18. 5-7) as using μáprus thus "several times."
Apollonius is condemning people who did this or that, posing as "martyrs,"
although they had procured immunity from punishment, or were unworthy of the
name (e.g. ὡς μάρτυς καυχώμενος ἐτόλμησε...). Still, the passage shews that μάρτυς
was freely used for confessors who had suffered, but not died, for Christ. Eusebius
also quotes a letter alleged by Serapion, beginning (v. 19. 3) “I, Aurelius Cyrenius,
martyr, greet you ('Α. Κ., μάρτυς, ἐῤῥῶσθαι ὑμᾶς εὔχομαι).”
73
[2941]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
con-
early death by martyrdom, we find, in favour of it, (1) a non-mention
by Heracleon of John, among the list of apostles that did not
fess and depart," i.e. die as martyrs; (2) two very late and unauthori-
tative documents loosely quoting a saying of Papias-not quoted
by the more early, and accurate, and diligent Eusebius-to the
effect that John "was killed (avaipéw) by Jews."
((
Against it we find that (1) in the first century and for some time
afterwards the name of “ martyr" was freely given to those that
confessed" and suffered for Christ, even though not actually killed, so
that Heracleon would not mention John along with Matthew; (2) the
two late writers above-mentioned have probably confused some state-
ment of Papias mentioning the death of James and the death of John
[the Baptist] together, or else the death of James and the name of
John [the Apostle] together, from which they inferred that James and
his brother John had been simultaneously killed.
Against it are also (3) Luke's non-mention of any martyrdom of
John in the Acts; (4) the silence of Eusebius about any such
account of martyrdom (in Hegesippus, Papias, or other writers);
(5) the mention by Paul of John as still living and as one of the
three "pillars" (Gal. ii. 9) “James, Cephas, and John," where
James is (ib. i. 19) "the Lord's brother”; (6) the evidence of the
fourth gospel as to the belief that (Jn xxi. 23) "the disciple was not
to die" (2998 (xxv)ʊ); and (7) the consensus of testimony recorded
by Eusebius. These facts, taken all together, constitute over-
whelming proof that John the son of Zebedee lived to a great age.
Traditions that he died as a martyr would spring up so naturally
from Christ's prediction to the sons of Zebedee, that we may well
be surprised that only one such tradition exists, and that one so
poorly supported.
"We know," Jn xxi. 24; p. 304, "Revealed to Andrew,"
see Enc. Bibl. "Gospels " § 78.
P. 304,
74
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE WRITING OF ((
THE REVELATION OF JOHN"
§ I. The Hypothesis of incorporated Documents
[2942*] Page 304, "The Apocalypse." The question of the
date of the Apocalypse as a whole is not affected by the possibility
that it may combine documents of different dates. The date of the
work as a whole must be later than the latest events described or alluded
to; and these descriptions or allusions confirm the statement of
Irenæus (v. 30. 3) "It" [not "he" (2997 α)] “was not seen long ago
but nearly in our generation at the close of the reign of Domitian."
Justin Martyr describes the author (Tryph. 81) as "John,...one
of the Apostles of Christ"; and that Justin's words are genuine is
shewn by two facts. (1) They present great difficulty to those who
believe that the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel, so that there
would be no temptation to interpolate them; (2) Eusebius says
(iv. 18. 8) "He [ie. Justin] makes mention also of John's Apoca-
lypse saying unmistakeably that it is the work of the Apostle."
The following discussion deals not only with the date of the work
as a whole, but also with its unity of authorship, and with the
character and purpose of the author so far as they can be inferred
from his work. As to the date, reasons will be given for thinking that
chronological inferences cannot be safely drawn from the numbers
mentioned in the book, but that the evidence points to A.D. 96, or
thereabouts (the date asserted by Irenæus). As to its unity, an
attempt will be made to shew that it is of the nature of an epic poem
describing what a Christian Homer might describe as "the Good
News of the accomplishment of the righteousness and the wrath of
God."
Homer begins by saying that by the anger of Achilles "the
purpose of Zeus was being fulfilled." The Epistle to the Romans
says (i. 16-18) "I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the
power of God unto salvation....For therein is revealed a righteousness
of God....For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." So, in Ezekiel, the slaughter
of the sinful by the six Destroying Angels follows hard on the
marking of the redeemed by the Recording Angel in their midst
(2998 (xxviii) n); and both acts precede the measuring for the New
Temple. The author of Revelation, though frequently using the
75
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
language of Daniel, is permeated through and through with the
thought of Ezekiel. He constantly realises, through various emblems,
the domination exercised over the inanimate, irrational, and bestial
forces of the Universe by One whom Origen calls "the Charioteer "
of the Four Living Creatures. His poem, for it is one poem, though
also a succession of poems-in spite of episodes and inconsistencies
of imagery and expression indicating perhaps a combination of the
visions of many years by a Seer, now in extreme old age, who will
not alter what God has at any time uttered or revealed to him—
appears to be a series of poetic visions of "the power of God"
typified from the outset by the Figure with the "two-edged sword."
The sword, as Philo says, separates Light from Darkness. It is
characteristic of our author that he delights in differences expressive
of unity. Nothing can be more different from a sword than a lamb.
Yet the Lamb-who is also the Lion of the tribe of Judah
accomplishes the work of the two-edged sword. A closely following
vision reveals the Lamb, in heaven, opening the seven seals of
doom and preparing the way for "salvation" by "revealing God's
wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness." This is the
tenor of all the visions even to the end.
There is no attempt to keep chronological order. But the
spiritual significance of the visions sometimes perhaps gains from the
non-attempt. There is, as in a drama, a sense of the retarded but
inevitable accomplishment, perhaps all the more vivid because the
reader is taken at times back from the present to the past and then
hurried into the future; or suddenly lifted up to the spectacle of God's
purpose in heaven, and then brought down again to behold the vain
and furious raging of the heathen upon earth-all things alike, evil
as well as good, being ultimately subjected to one divine will. The
literary form is rough-hewn. But it may be roughly said to describe
a Purpose, a growth of Good, a growth of Evil, a Conflict, and a
Victory. Those who deny that the work could have been written by
a personal disciple of Christ should reflect that the book may be
almost said to begin and end with the name of Jesus. Behind all
the angelic visions there is unity in the thought that Jesus sends
them. Moreover the book has poetic refrains, mystical repetitions
of words and phrases, mystical uses of number. These and many
other considerations strengthen the feeling that as a whole the
prophecy proceeds not only from one mind but also with the
exception of a few passages—from one hand, though probably the
76
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
hand of one recording, late in life, the most prominent and most
vividly remembered of many visions and many revelations.
If Revelation was written by John the son of Zebedee, and if the
same John supplied to a disciple traditions that form the basis of
the Fourth Gospel, then some of the characteristics of Revelation
may be expected to reappear in the Gospel, though tinged by a
different personality and expressed in entirely different language. It
is for this reason that Revelation is so fully discussed here, as to its
date and unity, and later on (2998 (xxvi)-(xxxiii)) as to some of
its visions, and as to the influence exerted on the Seer by Ezekiel
and by Daniel.
အာ
$ 2.
The Argument (as to the date) from numbers
[2942* (i)] Bishop Lightfoot maintained that the Apocalypse was
written before the fall of Jerusalem. And it has been argued with
much apparent cogency that the language used about the heads and
horns of the Beast points to that conclusion. But the number of
the heads can be made to vary (1) by including or excluding the
great Dictator Julius-as in the two widely differing alternative
lists of Roman Emperors given by Clement of Alexandria (405—6)
—and the three short-lived rivals for Nero's throne (Galba, Otho,
and Vitellius), (2) by reckoning the three emperors of the Flavian
House as "under one [head] (vø' év)” as in Barnabas and the
Sibylline Oracles, (3) by playing on the popular saying that
Domitian was, as Juvenal says, "a bald Nero," or (as Tertullian)
"a Sub-Nero "—and this at a time when it was believed by many
that Nero would really return to take vengeance on Rome¹. It can
1 [2942* (i) a] See Orac. Sib. v. 222 :
εν
Πρῶτα μὲν ἐκ τρισσῶν κεφαλῶν σὺν πληγάδι ρίζης
Στησάμενος μεγάλως, ἑτέροις δώσειε σπάσασθαι,
Ὥστε φαγεῖν σάρκας γονέων βασιλῆος ἀνάγνου.
The previous lines shew the meaning. The returning Nero is to destroy the
"three heads" of the Flavian dynasty. Barnabas says (iv. 4—5) Xéyeɩ dè oŬTWS
καὶ ὁ προφήτης (Dan. vii. 24) Βασιλείαι δέκα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς βασιλεύσουσιν, καὶ
ἐξαναστήσεται ὄπισθεν αὐτῶν μικρὸς βασιλεύς, ὃς ταπεινώσει τρεῖς ὑφ᾽ ἓν τῶν βασιλέων.
ὁμοίως περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λέγει Δανιήλ (Dan. vii. 7 foll.) καὶ εἶδον τὸ τέταρτον θηρίον
πονηρὸν καὶ ἰσχυρὸν καὶ χαλεπώτερον παρὰ πάντα τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ
ἀνέτειλεν δέκα κέρατα καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μικρὸν κέρας παραφυάδιον, καὶ ὡς ἐταπείνωσεν ὑφ'
ἓν τρία τῶν μεγάλων κεράτων. He changes Daniel's order and might give a reader
the impression that "the prophet" is distinct from the subsequently mentioned
"Daniel." Also where Daniel says (vii. 24) “ten kings," he says "ten kingdoms"
77
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
(6
also be shewn that the numbers in the Apocalypse are in very
many cases obviously mere symbols, as when the Seer speaks of
seven churches,” and “one hundred and forty-four thousand" of
the "sealed,” and that (as Origen suggests) he has almost always in
view spiritual Powers of evil rather than (like Daniel) earthly kings or
emperors. More particularly, his interest in numbers is of an anti-
thetical nature. He shews the "seven" churches, and the “seven "
spirits, and the "seven" angels, of God, conquering the Dragon as
the Beast with the "seven " heads, and the Harlot that sits on "seven "
hills¹.
66
(comp. Dan. vii. 17 "four kings," LXX and Theod. "kingdoms"). He twice
inserts ¿' év, which is not in either passage of Daniel. Similarly 2 Esdr. xii. 23
explains the three heads as "three kingdoms," but goes on to say, as though they
were "kings" (ib. 26) unus ex eis [Vespasian] super lectum suum morietur et
tamen cum tormentis," and, of the two next (ib. 28) "unius [Domitian] enim
gladius comedet [eum, i.e. Titus] qui cum eo, sed tamen et hic [Domitian] gladio
in novissimis cadet." The legend that Domitian killed Titus may reflect a current
tradition that the former not only (Suet. Titus 9) "plotted" his brother's death,
but also effected it.
[2942* (i) b] On Domitian, regarded as a second Nero, comp. Juvenal (iv. 38)
who describes how "the last Flavian lacerated the almost lifeless world, and Rome
served bald Nero"-for which utterance, the Scholiast says, he was banished.
Mayor ad loc. quotes also Pliny Pan. 53, and Auson. Monost. de ord. xii imper.
11-12, who speaks of Titus as followed by "Frater quem calvum dixit sua Roma
Neronem." Tertull. calls Domitian (Apol. 5) “Portio Neronis de crudelitate," and
(De Pall. 4) “Subnero." Comp. Euseb. iii. 17 Tŷs Népwvos Deoex@pias diádoxos.
¹ [2942* (i) c] Origen has left no commentary on the Apocalypse. But in Comm.
Johann. tom. i. 1-2 he questions the literal accuracy of the numbering in Rev.
vii. 2-8, and implies that the passage has a mystical meaning. In his Comm.
Ps. lxviii. 21 he suggests that "the heads of his enemies" may mean тà πρúτws èk
τῶν δαιμόνων ἐπισυμβαίνοντα νοήματα τῇ ψυχῇ, and this indicates that he would
have at all events included a spiritual meaning in interpreting the "heads" of the
Dragon and of the Beast in Rev. xii. 3 &c. if he had written his intended com-
mentary, referred to at the end of this paragraph. He speaks of churches as being
(Comm. Numb. iii. 3, Lomm. x. 28) “non solum in terris sed et in coelis ecclesias
ex quibus et septem quasdam Joannes enumerat." Concerning Rev. xi. 8 “the great
City, which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified,"
he raises the question (Comm. Matth. Lomm. iv. 314) whether "the whole world"
or "Judæa" is signified. On Rev. xii. 3 seven heads and ten horns," he says
(Lomm. iv. 307) "Omnia haec exponere singillatim de capitibus septem draconis,
quae forsitan possunt referri ad aliquos principes rerum nequitiae, sive ad tanta
ducentium ad mortem peccata, non est temporis hujus ; exponentur autem tempore
suo in revelatione Joannis. Sed et decem cornua dicere, quoniam sunt regna
serpentinae malitiae, et habentis serpentis naturam...."
،،
[2942* (i) ď] The only striking exception to this rule-of the spiritual, not
literal, significance, of numbers-is the mention of (Rev. xvii. 9—11) the seven
78
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
hills" of Rome, followed by a mention of "seven kings," of whom " five have fallen,
the one is, the other hath not yet come, and when he shall have come he must
remain a little and the beast that was and is not" [the punctuation is here doubtful]
even he [or, and he] is eighth and from the seven and goeth into destruction (kal
ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὀλίγον αὐτὸν δεῖ μεῖναι καὶ τὸ θηρίον δ ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν καὶ αὐτὸς ὄγδοός
ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν καὶ εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει).”
Comp. Enoch 18 " seven mountains," of which the middle one "reached to
heaven like the throne of God," contrasted with “seven stars, like great burning
mountains, and like spirits "—afterwards (En. 21) described as "bound together"
in chaos, "like great mountains, and flaming as with fire." The seven stars, or
mountains, have (ih.) transgressed the commandment of God, and are bound in
"the prison of the angels.”
[2942* (i) e] Here, doubtless, the Seer has been influenced by Daniel's descrip-
tion of Antiochus Epiphanes, as a Portent of Evil, who is to be (Dan. vii. 8)
“among (Theod. èv µéow, LXX åvà µéσov),” and yet (Dan. vii. 24) “after,” the
previously mentioned ten "horns." Applying this to the popular belief in a
returning Nero-identified with Domitian, who is said by Pliny to have "avenged"
the former he is struck, as a poet might be, by the similarity between the Beast
(who is to be "from the seven
" and yet
yet "the eighth ") and Daniel's horn (which is
to be "
among," and yet "after," the other horns). Perhaps, in the quarries of
Patmos, he may have heard from fellow-toilers, fresh from the streets of Rome,
something about the "seven" ancient kings of Rome repeated in the " "seven"
imperial kings from Augustus to Titus, to whom there is now added the returning
Nero, in his imitator and avenger, Domitian.
[2942* (i)ƒ] This mysterious (Rev. xvii. 9—11) "king"-whether he is regarded
as the Beast, or as one of the heads of the Beast, or as both, is uncertain, but in
any case the masc. aúrós denotes a "king"-is called "eighth." The only other
instance of "eighth" in N.T., applied to persons, is 2 Pet. ii. 5 “Noah the
eighth person," meaning "with seven others." At first sight there would appear
to be no possible connexion between a number applied to Noah, and also applied
to the Beast or the Beast's representative. But a brief consideration will shew
that the numbers in this book (as well as occasional expressions) are influenced
by what may be called the writer's recognition of :-
THE PRINCIPLE OF ANTITHESIS
[2942* (i) g] This is expressed by Sir. xxxiii. (xxxvi.) 14—15 “Good is set over
against (åπévavтɩ) evil, and life over against death. So is a sinner over against a
saint (evσeßoûs); and thus discern thou (ëµßλeyov eis) all the works of the Most
High two [and] two, one right against the one (êv katévavtɩ TOû évós).”
[2942* (i) h] The unity of the Roman Empire has been typified by Virgil in
the line
"Septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces."
This material unity has been taken by the Seer of the Apocalypse as a symbol of
spiritual unity of a bad kind, a unity of consistent policy, dominating and (as
Juvenal says) "lacerating" the nations of the earth, and compelling them to receive
its "brand (xápayμa)” (xiii. 16, 17 etc., 7 times mentioned) which is opposed to
the (vii. 2) "seal (oppayîda) of the living God" with which believers are "sealed,”
and perhaps also opposed to the (v. 1) "seven seals" of the Book of Redemption.
[2942* (i) z] This contrast is especially manifest in the use of seven," which
is applied to a very great number of the manifestations of God, or to their adjuncts,
79
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
99.66
39.66
e.g. "spirits, candlesticks," " stars, angels, "“ torches,
" "seals," the "horns"
of the Lamb, the "eyes" of the Lamb, "trumpets" and " thunders." Anti-
thetically, "seven is applied to the (xii. 3) "heads" and "diadems" of the
dragon" and (xvii. 3, 7) to the "heads" of the "scarlet beast," and it is said
that (xvii. 9-11) the " seven heads" are seven hills" (i.e. the seven hills of
Rome) and that they are also "seven kings," and that the "eighth" is one of "the
seven. This (with the exc. of xxi. 9) is the last mention of "seven," and it shews
the spirit in which the writer uses seven throughout the book, as indicating
""
spiritual antithesis, "good over against evil, life over against death.”
[2942* (i)j] Note also the following antitheses relating severally to God or the
Lamb on one side, and to the Beast on the other, or to the two causes for which
they contend :—
Lamb
v. 6 "A Lamb standing as though
(ws) slain (éopayµévov).”
V. 11-13
acclaim "the slaughtered Lamb,” and
"all creation" gives glory to Him that
sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb.
'Myriads of myriads"
iv. 8 "The WAS and the IS and
the COMING.”
xiii. 3
Beast
"One of his [i.e. the Beast's]
heads as though (ws) slain (éopayμévnv)
unto death."
xiii. 3-4 The deadly wound is healed
and
66 'all the earth" worships the
Dragon and the Beast.
xvii. II a "The Beast, which was
and is not.'
xvii. 11" And he is eighth, and
is from the seven, and goeth into
destruction."
In xvii. 11, taken with iv. 8, there appears to be a bitter antithesis, contrasting
the past present and future, as applied to God, with the past present and future,
as applied to the Power of Evil--the only abiding positive statement about the
latter being that it "was."
[2942* (i) k] Returning to Rev. xvii. 11 in the light of these illustrations of
numerical antithesis, we may reasonably suppose that antithetical allusion exists
in "the eighth [king]," as contrasted with 2 Pet. ii. 5 Noah "the eighth
[person]." Also the Valentinians early in the second century (Iren. ii. 24. I,
comp. i. 14. 4 Clark's note, and i. 15. 2) recognised 888 as a number symbolic
of the Saviour. "Eighth" is connected with circumcision in the familiar phrase
“circumcised the eighth day," and with baptism, the ark, and Noah, in 1 Pet. iii.
20, 21 "in the days of Noah...few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water...
even baptism." That being so, the "eighth [king]," who is to precede the fiery
destruction of the world, may be called "eighth " in antithesis to Noah. Else-
where the writer thinks it well to tell us that the "number" of the Beast, instead
of being 888, is (Rev. xiii. 18) 666. Philo (P. A. 101) deals with the latter in-
directly in connexion with Noah. He speaks of 6, 60, and 600, and says that God
would never have destroyed mankind “sub forma sexti" except for their excessive
wickedness. Elsewhere he adds (P. A. 124) “in sexti numeri ratione corruptio."
Apparently he would have thought that 666 represented the essence of diabolical
power as the Valentinians found the essence of its opposite in 888.
What precise name, or word, the Seer may have had in view, we do not know.
But we may feel sure that he laid stress upon it, not solely because it represented
any of the conjectured historical names, but also (if not entirely) because it repre-
sented spiritual evil.
80
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST
[2942* (i) ] In connexion with Rev. xvii. 11, must be considered Rev. xiii. 18
"Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding let him count the number of the
beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666." Compare an obscure
passage in Clem. Alex. 812 about Christ going up to the Mount of Transfiguration
"fourth," i.e. with three others. Then He "becomes Sixth," i.e. because
Moses and Elijah join Him. Then He is "proclaimed Son of God, through the
Voice as Seventh (δι' ἑβδόμης ἀνακηρυσσόμενος τῆς φωνῆς υἱὸς εἶναι θεοῦ).”
Clement proceeds, iva dǹ oi µèv……ó dè dià yevéoews (ĥv édýλwoev ǹ é§ás) éπionuos,
ὀγδοὰς ὑπάρχων, φανῇ θεὸς ἀριθμούμενος μὲν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, κρυπτόμενος δὲ ὃς ἦν, τῇ
μὲν γὰρ τάξει τῶν ἀριθμῶν συγκαταλέγεται καὶ ὁ ἕξ, ἡ δὲ τῶν στοιχείων ἀκολουθία
ἐπίσημον γνωρίζει τὸ μὴ γραφόμενον. Apparently he is referring to the ancient
sixth letter of the alphabet (the digamma F) which had dropped out of the alphabet,
and only remained as an arithmetical symbol (5). Comp. Gow's History of Greek
Mathematics p. 45 "The tickets of the ten panels of Athenian jurymen were
marked with the letters of the alphabet from a to к, 5 being omitted. So also
the books of Homer as divided by Zenodotus (flor. c. B.C. 280) were numbered by
the 24 letters of the ordinary Ionic alphabet, 5 and 9 being omitted: and the
works of Aristotle were also at some ancient time divided into books numbered
on the same principle."
Irenæus quotes from the Valentinians an apparently similar use of éπionuos
(i. 14. 4) Ἰησοῦς μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἐπίσημον ὄνομα (Lat. insigne nomen) ἓξ ὢν γράμματα.
Here Grabe says, "'Eπionμov hic non insigne vel celebre nomen denotare puto, sed
sex constans literis, ut mox additur. Cum enim éπlonμov Baû sextum in Alphabeto
locum teneret, indeque numeri 6 nota esset, tam hic ipse numerus, quam quae illum
haberent, éπionua dici sueverunt." Comp. i. 14. 6—7 and ii. 24. 1 “Jesus enim
nomen...aliquando quidem episemon esse dicunt sex habens literas, aliquando autem
plenitudinem Ogdoadum, 888 numerum habens." Hesych. and Steph. Thes. do
not recognise any technical use of èrionuos. It means "sign-bearing," "stamped,"
“conspicuous [for good or ill].” There may be different views as to the ways in
which the word might be played on and applied to Christ; but it was certainly
used by the Valentinians (e.g. Iren. i. 15. 2) to denote the incarnate Jesus, the
Hexad, as distinct from the celestial Christ, the Ogdoad; and it bears on Rev. xiii.
18 because it shews that there were early heretical disquisitions on the number six.
[2942* (i) m] The extract given above from Clem. Alex. may have some
bearing on the possibility of early glosses and corruptions in Rev. xiii. 18, where
666 has been most variously transliterated. A priori the conjecture entitled to
most consideration would be the very early one favoured by Irenæus (v. 30. 3)
TEITAN. This, in itself, would be suitable as denoting a Monster of earth rising
up against the Powers of heaven. The word occurs in 2 S. v. 18, 22 to represent
"Rephaim," "giants," and in Judith xvi. 6 (8). An objection against it is, that
it is not (Rev. xiii. 18) "the number of a man" in the sense of representing a
But, even if that phrase ("the number of a man ") is regarded as
above suspicion of being a gloss, it may be replied that (1) every one of the three
Flavian emperors was called TITUS, (2) the name TITUS was used as early as
the middle of the first century in Rome in bitter satire on vicious and degenerate
Roman nobles-
man's name.
A.
"Hic neque more probo videas neque voce serena
Ingentes trepidare TITOS cum carmina lumbum
Intrant"
81
Persius i. 19-21
6
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
(3) Hesychius has Τιτάν παιδεραστής (as well as καὶ τὸ τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου ὄνομα), (4) the
name Titus occurs in the Talmud in connexion with profanity, cruelty, and licentious-
ness, e.g. Beresh. Rab. (on Gen. ii. 1, Wünsche p. 42), R. Nathan on Aboth i. 1,
(5) the hatred felt by the Jews for the second of the "Titi" (Titus) would be trans-
ferred by the Christians to the third (Domitian), (6) a vernacular use of the word, as
applied to the Flavian dynasty in the streets of Rome during the later years of the
unpopularity of Domitian, might easily reach John, working as a convict in
Patmos; and (7) its Greek and Roman associations with rebellion against heaven,
penetrating far below literary circles, would appeal even to a Jew attempting to
represent that outburst of evil against good which (he felt) must precede the final
triumph of the latter. It is true that the i in "Titus" is short. But the Jews
transliterated it as "Teitous," see 2942* (i) q.
It has been shewn above (2942* (i) b) that Domitian was called "a second Nero."
Pliny Pan. 53 (“vindicatus Nero...qui mortem ulcisceretur") seems to speak of
the former as "avenging" the latter. "Vengeance" is also associated with "Titan"
by Irenæus (v. 30. 3 "ut etiam sol Titan vocetur ab his qui nunc tenent [?" who now
hold fast [to belief in the sun]," comp. Tertull. Prax. 3 "monarchiam tenemus”]: et
ostentationem quandam continet ultionis et vindictam inferentis, quod ille simulat se
male tractatos vindicare") arguing, no doubt, from Tiouai, "I exact vengeance,"
but agreeing with what might be popular talk about Domitian. Nor should
Irenæus's mention of the "sun" be forgotten, in view of the fact that the colossal
statue of Nero (the one that gave name to the Coliseum) was remade by Vespasian
and dedicated to the Sun (Pliny N. Hist. xxxiv. 7. 18 (45), Suet. Vesp. 18).
When Domitian claimed to be worshipped as Lord God, the Christians in Rome
might well say that the old Nero had been "new made as Domitian, the Sun-God,
the Titan." That the Jews would associate such worship with a special "abomin-
ation" is indicated by Ezek. viii. 16-18, where the worship of the sun at the door
of the temple comes as the climax of "abominations" and prepares the way for
the slaughter of Israel by the six destroyers.
[2942* (i) n] These facts may have a two-fold importance. In the first place,
if the author supplied material for the Fourth Gospel, they prepare us for symbolical
uses of numbers in that work (not indeed for symbolism of the same openly poetic
character, but still for numerical symbolism). In the second place, they shew the
insecurity of arguments as to chronology based on the numbers in this book.
Suppose a tradition about "three heads " (borrowed from Daniel's tradition about
Antiochus Epiphanes) to have referred originally not to the Flavian family but to
the three short-lived successors of Nero-namely, Galba, Otho and Vitellius-during
a time when the Empire was supposed to have received a deadly wound. As time
went on, it might be adapted to the Flavian family, with a suggestion of the
returning Nero.
""
[2942* (i) o] We may illustrate the state of things by the old prophecy (Bacon's
Essays, 35) "When HEMPE is spun, England's done." At first, " Hempe
might be spelt with a final P, and the meaning would be that England would be
ruined when Mary and Philip reigned: then, the E being added, it might suit
those who (before the Armada) regarded England as destined to be destroyed
under Elizabeth. The last interpretation would be that, after Elizabeth's reign
was over, "England" was merged in "Great Britain."
Comp. Jerome's account of the Jewish interpretation of the end of Dan. ix,
where a period of "three and a half years" is mentioned as occurring (1) under
Vespasian, (2) under Hadrian, so as to make up a divided "week" (of years).
82
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
§ 3. Parallelism between John and Ezekiel
[2942* (ii)] The determination of the date of the Apocalypse
might not be affected, but our estimate of the writer or of the writing
would be affected, by the proof of a hypothesis that he or his editor
had incorporated, in his accounts of things that he had seen, whole
documents-and, amongst them, pre-Christian documents-about
things that he had not seen. Such a hypothesis does not seem to me
proved or probable. The undoubted differences of view taken in
different parts of the book are easily explicable if the author had been,
from his youth, one of the "Boanerges" in the sense given by Origen
(2969-77), a receiver of "thunders," or voices, from heaven, accom-
panied by visions, a genuine Seer. Even those who dispute his
claims to be a Seer must admit that he is a poet-imbued indeed
Irenæus, when giving his conjectures as to the Number of the Beast, says that there
is (v. 30. 3) “no want of names possessing this number." This remark, and the
early variation of 666 and 616, imply that, from the first, the Number was obscure
and probably based on some local and transient vernacular talk.
[2942* (i) p] Not that the author of this book would be himself likely to
manipulate prophecies in this fashion. But he might accept them as manipulated
by others, and as reported to him in the quarries of Patmos by Roman fellow-
Christians. And these predictions, in various shapes, blending with his dreams
and visions, might be moulded by him into harmony with his own broad and
general conception of the pending and imminent conflict between the WAS and
the IS and the COMING on the one side, and, on the other, the was, and the is
not, and the going into destruction.
""
[2942* (i) q] For "Titus" transliterated as "Teitous" in the Talmud, see Levy
ii. 154a. "Teit" (ib. 153 b) means "mire," "slime," and a demon is addressed as
"Son of mire, son of the unclean (NDD), son of clay (ND)!" According to
Kohut, the last two should be read as names of spirits of darkness, "Temo, Tena.
Compare the variations of the name of Tineius Rufus A.D. 132 governor of Judæa
(Schürer Div. i. Vol. 2, p. 263). In his Chron. Jerome calls him "Tinnius Rufus,'
but on Dan. ix 25 foll., quoting from Jews, he calls him "Timus Ru(f)fus,” and on
Zech. viii. 16, again quoting from Jews, he has (abl.) T. Annio Rufo. This has
been corrected conjecturally into Turannio. But it is perhaps Jerome's attempt to
give a Jewish nickname. The name Tineius lent itself to Jewish jests (somewhat
like "Boney" in English for "Buonaparte"). TANNIUS may represent a form
of the Jewish "Tena," "clay," and TIMUS may represent "Temo," "the
unclean." Another name for this Rufus in the Talmud is "Turnus," i.e. "Tyrant.”
Schürer (Div. i. Vol. 2, pp. 304-5)—who also gives, as a frequent form,
“D1101J1 (sic) Tunustrufus" (like "Istrahel")—says that this is "only a
corruption" of Tineius. I should prefer to call it possibly a nickname, or play
upon "Tineius," a wilful "corruption." Playing upon names is a characteristic
of Hebrew literature from the earliest times.
מונוסטרופוס)
83
6—2
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
with the prophetic poetry of Israel, as the Pilgrim's Progress is
imbued with Scripture, but no more a copyist than Bunyan-and
must recognise that poets cannot be expected to have, or to aim at,
the exactness of historians.
John's treatment of history may be illustrated from Ezekiel, who,
more than any other writer, has contributed to shape and inspire the
Apocalypse in its outline, its imagery, its expressions, and its
profound sense of the correspondence between the visible and the
invisible and of the domination of the latter. Now Ezekiel, whose
prophetic work (Hastings' Dict. "Ezek." p. 814) "extended over a
period of not less than 22 years," instead of cancelling an unfulfilled
prophecy, is said to have written (ib. 818) "a supplementary oracle,"
many years afterwards, "to counteract the impression produced by the
non-fulfilment of the original prediction"; he also (ib. 816) "calls up
from the past the vanished cities of Samaria and Sodom, and treats
them as if they had a present and real existence and a real interest in
the unfolding of the divine purpose"; and again (ib. 817) “in the
signs of chap. iv the prophet appears to represent simultaneously two
facts-the siege of Jerusalem and the captivity of the two branches
of the Hebrew nation."
Yet almost all commentators agree that the book of Ezekiel is
written (subject to a little revision) by one hand. The same inference
appears to me true about the Apocalypse, in spite of one or two
difficult passages-in particular, the Measuring for the Temple, and
the Birth of the Messiah. As to the latter, see 2942* (xi) foll. As
to the former, see 2942* (ii) a—c and (iv) a—c. The reader should
note that both in Ezekiel and in Zechariah the Measuring for the
Temple takes place after the old Temple has fallen. The fall is the
raison d'être of the "measuring." As to all the visions, it may be
usefully borne in mind that the visions of John, the son of thunder,
say in A.D. 40 in Jerusalem, might be very different from those that
he had in A.D. 96 in the quarries of Patmos¹.
"THE GREAT CITY"
¹ [2942* (ii) a] No doubt, the Measuring for the Temple (Rev. xi. 1—13) presents
the appearance of (Enc. Bibl. col. 209) "a fragment interpolated." Hastings' Dict.
Vol. iv. p. 252 a asserts that "its Jewish origin is unmistakable," and that "its evident
date (before 70)" is "much earlier than the book as a whole." But the description
of the two Witnesses (Rev. xi. 8, "And their carcase (sic) [is] on the street of the
Great City, which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord
was crucified") would be admitted by all not to proceed, in its entirety, from a
84
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
"Jewish origin," not, at least, in the sense of "non-Christian." On this, see
2942* (xix) foll.
""
((
[2942* (ii) b] “Great city" occurs elsewhere in the Bible, but always applied to
foreign cities as also in this book (Gen. x. 12; Josh. x. 2; Jonah i. 2 etc.
(Nineveh); Rev. xvi. 19, xvii. 18, xviii. 10, 16, 18, 19, 21 (Babylon)). Jer. xxii. 8
"Why hath the Lord done thus unto this great city?" can hardly be called an
exception, as it is not uttered by the prophet but is put into the mouth of
foreigners. In Rev. xxi. 10 (A.V.) "that great city, the holy Jerusalem" is a
corruption; and R.V. omits "great" without even mentioning it in the margin.
Prof. Swete says, "The epithet ʼn μeɣáλn is one which a Jew might not un-
naturally give to the capital of his native land (cf. Orac. Sibyll. v. 154, 226,
413).... Instead of not unnaturally," I should prefer to say "as a rule, only
where the Jew regards the capital of his native land as estranged from Jehovah."
But I must admit that the use in Orac. Sibyll. breaks the rule because v. 154 (rep.
226) μeɣáλŋv te tóλiv λaóv te dikatov couples "great city" with "righteous people.
This suggests a Jewish hand, and Orac. Sibyll. v is generally attributed to an
Alexandrian Jew. But comp. ib. 422—3 äɣıóv te veùv étoiŋoev "Evσapkov, and
2567 ἀπ' αἰθέρος ἔξοχος ἀνήρ, Οὗ παλάμας ἥπλωσεν ἐπὶ ξύλον πολύκαρπον,
Ἑβραίων ὁ ἄριστος ὃς ἡέλιόν ποτε στῆσεν. These references to the Temple in the
flesh," and the return of Jesus the Son of Nun in Jesus of Nazareth who "stretched
out His hands on the fruitful Tree [of the Cross]," indicate a Christian. The
book, then, may be from a Jew but from a Christian Jew, or it may contain
Christian interpolations. In either case μeɣáλŋ wóλɩs may be borrowed from
Rev. xi. 8.
""
[2942* (ii) c] If the writer of the Apocalypse called Jerusalem "the great city,"
he probably meant that it had become foreign to Jehovah, like Nineveh or
Babylon-"great" instead of "holy." Otherwise the passage (xi. 8) might refer
to Rome, the New Babylon, which is elsewhere always, in this book, "the Great
City." The "two witnesses" cast out unburied in the Great City-two being the
number prescribed by the Law ("in the mouth of two witnesses ")—might
represent the Christian martyrs destroyed by Babylon the Great. To be left
"unburied" was the fate of many Christian martyrs, who "fed the crows" on
the cross. Origen (on Mt. xxiv. 30, Lomm. iv. 314) says, with reference to Rev.
xi. 8, "sive totus mundus, sive Judæa."
[2942* (ii) d] It should, however, be added that the description of these two
Witnesses may have been suggested by the fate of Ananus the High Priest and his
kinsman Jesus, who were killed by the Idumæans (A.D. 67) and cast out un-
buried. Josephus—although in his Antiquities xx. 9. 1 (if his text has not been
Christianized) he takes a somewhat unfavourable view of Ananus as causing the
death of James the Just-declares in his Wars of the Jews that this brutality
(which was quite abhorrent to Jewish feeling) indicated that Jerusalem was a
"polluted" city. "God," he says (Bell. iv. 5. 2) "cut off its best friends because
He had sentenced it to destruction, and because He willed that the Holy Places
should be thoroughly purged with fire." And he describes the horror with which
the citizens saw "those who had but lately worn the sacred vestments" now slain
and "cast out naked to be the food of dogs and wild beasts." Some Jewish
tradition of this outrage may have been blended with a Christian vision in which
it was predicted that a doom would fall on the Great City of Rome or Jerusalem,
when the two Martyrs, or Witnesses, of the Christians, rose up from the dead, to
bring down vengeance on the persecutors of the Church. But see 2942* (xix) foll.
85
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
$4. The Seven Churches
[2942* (iii)] The later date of the Apocalypse is favoured by the
authoritative tone of the Apostle in addressing the Seven Churches ;
by his intimate knowledge of their characteristics and circumstances;
and by the long standing of heresies and of persecutions¹.
1 ¹ [2942* (iii) a] The language of the author to the Seven Churches indicates
that he had already lived a long time among or near them, and that he held a
position of recognised authority among them. Now it is generally supposed that
John the Apostle remained in Jerusalem till a short time before the siege, say
A.D. 66 or 65: and, up-or nearly up-to that time, St Paul, and not St John,
would be the prominent Apostle among the Seven Churches (and especially at
Ephesus where he had spent (Acts xix. 10) two years). Suppose John to have
left Jerusalem A.D. 65. He comes to Asia, remains at Ephesus for, say, a couple
of years till A.D. 67; is then (according to the Neronian theory) arrested, tried,
sentenced, banished to Patmos, sees the Apocalypse, writes the Apocalypse-and
all this in the short space of one or two years: is it likely that he should write to
the Seven Churches as he does, not only in a tone of high authority, but with so
detailed a knowledge of their circumstances and antecedents?
""
[2942* (iii) 6] The descriptions of the Seven Churches (Rev. ii, iii) point rather
to A.D. 96 than to A.D. 68. The mention of the first Christian "sect by a
sectarian name ("Nicolaitans," Rev. ii. 6, not "the followers of Nicolaos") suggests
a date much later than any of the Epistles of St Paul. To the same conclusion,
though less directly, tends the use of such terms and names as "the deep things of
Satan" (ii. 24), "the teaching of Balaam" (ii. 14) and the allusion to “Jezebel
(ii. 20). "The deep things of Satan" appears to be an ironical parody of the
Gnostic phrase "the deep things of Gnosis, or Knowledge"; and the names
“Balaam" and "Jezebel" presuppose in the Asian Churches a familiarity of
considerable standing with the allusions to certain heretics and heretical habits.
The use of "their Lord" (for Christ) in the nom. (xi. 8) and of "Lord's day"
(i. 10) for the Sunday, are also indications of a late date.
Also it is hard to suppose that in A.D. 68 the Church of Sardis had lived long
enough to shew such signs of advanced corruption as appear in iii. I: "Thou hast
a name that thou livest and thou art dead": even the Church of Ephesus has so
far lost its first love that its "candlestick " will be moved out of its place unless it
repents. There is nothing in St Paul's Epistles nor in the Acts of the Apostles
(even in the way of predictions such as are found in the Pastoral Epistles, written,
says Lightfoot, probably as late as A.D. 66 or A.D. 67) which would prepare us for
such a state of things in A. D. 68-9.
[2942* (iii) c] Note in particular the allusions to martyrs, who had been slain
for the name of Christ some time before. The phrase "in the days of" (ii. 13)
("in the days of Antipas, my martyr, my faithful one, who was slain among you
where Satan dwelleth ") suggests that Antipas lived several years before the date
of writing; and, if that date were A.D. 68—9, an early and exceptional martyrdom
occurring, say, A.D. 48 or 58, would probably have found mention, if not in the
New Testament, at least in ecclesiastical writers. But if the author wrote about
A.D. 96, he might naturally allude thus to a martyrdom that took place about
86
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
§ 5. The Measuring for the Temple
[2942* (iv)] The measuring for the Temple, which is sometimes
taken as an indication that the building was regarded by the author
of the Apocalypse as still standing, is, on the contrary—when taken
in conjunction with the precedents of "measuring" in Ezekiel and
Zechariah—an indication that the Temple had been destroyed¹.
A.D. 76 or 86 (one of the sporadic persecutions that followed the persecution
of Nero in A.D. 64).
II
To the same effect is vi. 10, 11 "How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost
thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" This is
the utterance that accompanies the opening of "the fifth seal," and it comes from
"the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God"-intelligible enough
in A.D. 96 when the souls of those who had suffered in the terrible Neronian
persecution (A. D. 64—5) had waited unavenged for more than thirty years, but less
intelligible in A.D. 68-9 when they had only waited for four or five years.
[2942* (iii) ɗ] Moreover, it is implied, 1st, that in the persecution contemplated
by the author, the Christians are to be condemned not for secret or open crimes
but as part of a systematic war of the Beast against the Church, in which the test
applied to the martyr is, "Wilt thou worship the Beast?"; 2nd, that the whole
world is divided into those who will and those who will not thus worship, and
that the latter alone are to be saved (xiii. 8): "And all that dwell on the earth
shall worship him, everyone whose name hath not been written in the book of life
of the Lamb...."
""
This does not apply so well to the persecution under Nero as to that under
Domitian. The latter, claiming systematically to be called "dominus deusque,'
prepared the way for the anticipations of the Apocalypse.
¹ [2942* (iv) a] John borrows (2998 (xxvi) foll.) from Ezekiel (Ezek.i. 5—28) the
four "living creatures," the "throne," the "appearance of a man," the "rainbow,"
(ib. ix. 2) the man with the ink-horn who sets a mark on the foreheads of those
who are to be saved, (ib. iii. 3) the roll or book of prophecy which is to be sweet
first and afterwards bitter, and (above all) the New Jerusalem (beside the river of
life (ib. xlvii. 9) with trees that are to bring forth new fruit each month and leaves
that are to be for healing (ib. 12)) whose gates are named after the twelve tribes
(ib. xlviii. 31) and whose name shall be (ib. 35) "the Lord is there." When, there-
fore, John borrows from the same prophet the "measuring for the temple," we
should be prepared to find that he uses this last imagery in the spirit, and with
something of the purpose, of his predecessor. Now Ezekiel tells us that his
"measurement" occurred (xl. 1) "in the fourteenth year after that the city was
smitten": and the object of the vision is clearly to encourage his deserted
countrymen with the thought that their Temple will be restored hereafter.
By "borrowing" it is not meant that John plagiarizes or copies. For example,
his "four living creatures" are in many respects different from those of Ezekiel.
But he gives us the impression of having meditated long on Ezekiel's prophecies
and on the events that caused them, and of writing like a prophet who had lived
through similar events and had received similar revelations and visions—similar,
yet not the same, because of the Voice that said, “Behold I make all things new."
87
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
§ 6. Other arguments for A.D. 96
[2942* (v)] The later date is also favoured by apparent allusions
to special events in the reign of Domitian, such as the coincidence
of corn-famine and vine-plenty, and the wealth and pride of Laodicea,
66
[2942* (iv) 6] Again, John borrows from Zechariah (Zech. i. 8, comp. vi. 2, 3)
the “four horses,” (ib. iv. 2) “the candlestick with the seven lamps,” (¿b. iv. 2, 3,
14) the “two olive-trees on the right and left of the candlestick" (which represent,
for Zechariah, "the two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth,”
and for John (Rev. xi. 3, 4) the "two witnesses," whose emblems also “stand
before the Lord of the earth"). Also, the Woman whose name is Wickedness
(Zech. v. 7, 8), who is carried into the land of Shinar or Babylon, is the prototype
of the Woman (Rev. xvii. 3, 5) who is Babylon the Great, the Mother of the
harlots and abominations of the earth. Now by Zechariah, as by Ezekiel, the
measurement" for the Temple is introduced as a consolation to those who are
mourning for its destruction (Zech. i. 16): "Therefore thus saith the Lord, I am
returned to Jerusalem with mercies; my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord
of hosts"; and then, after a vision of the "four horns" that scattered Israel, and
the four friendly "smiths" who are to cast down the "horns," the prophet sees
“a man with a measuring line" who is to measure Jerusalem with the view of
rebuilding it. All this occurs (Zech. i. 12) "three score and ten years" after the
desolation of Jerusalem. Thus the argument of the last paragraph applies here
again. Borrowing so much from Zechariah's imagery, John seems likely to have
borrowed it with something of his predecessor's spirit and meaning. And the
argument is all the stronger because the precedent is twofold.
When two great
prophets had thus stamped the "measuring" of the Temple with a definite
apocalyptic meaning, it is not likely that John would have departed from it.
[2942* (iv) c] Not, of course, that John hoped (as Ezekiel and Zechariah
hoped) that the material Temple would be rebuilt. His revelation taught him
that this was not to be. Even in the beginning of his vision of the measurement
he diverges significantly from Ezekiel. The measurement of Ezekiel had begun
from the outer courts and worked inwards; John (Rev. xi. 2) is warned to "reject
and measure not the court that is without the Temple, for it hath been given unto
the nations." He therefore measures only the "sanctuary of God and the altar
and them that worship therein." And he gives us none of Ezekiel's "cubits."
He has already given us the mystical numbers of those who are saved, twelve
times twelve thousand (vii. 4). And in the end, when New Jerusalem at last appears,
he sees "no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the
temple thereof." For him, therefore, the New Temple was the Church, the Body
of Christ, the Congregation of the Saints.
All this confirms-and indeed almost suffices by itself to prove a date some
time after the fall of Jerusalem. John's attitude is (except in respect of good taste
and beauty of expression) like that of the Pseudo-Barnabas who wished to
persuade “the unhappy Jews" (xvi. 1) that their cravings for the rebuilding of the
Temple were useless. Barnabas urges that the Temple is to be (xvi. 10) “a
spiritual temple built unto the Lord." Both apparently assume that the material
Temple has fallen long ago; both agree that it is vain to expect that the structure
will be otherwise than spiritually rebuilt.
88
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
after that luxurious city had repaired its ruin (caused by a well-known
disastrous earthquake) without having recourse to aid from the
imperial treasury¹.
[2942* (vi)] The Apocalypse, for the most part, uses numbers
mystically, not historically; and the author seems to deal with
historical facts in the same way, believing that what has been in
the past will be repeated in the future. This applies, perhaps, not
only to events predicted by Ezekiel and Zechariah, but also to
traditions about the past horrors of the siege of Jerusalem. His
imagery was derived from what he had heard, as well as from what
he had read. And what he had heard about the woes of Jerusalem
¹ [2942* (v) a] Rev. vi. 6 "a measure of wheat for a denarius......and the oil
and the wine hurt thou not," i.e. a day's bread alone would cost a whole day's
wage. This would mean famine for the poor, and the continuance of luxury
for the rich. The Chronicon of Eusebius states that Domitian, apparently
towards the close of his reign, prohibited the planting of vines "in the cities."
Suetonius (Domitian ch. vii) gives us the reason. Wine was extremely abundant,
and corn scarce. Domitian issued an edict that no one was to plant new vineyards
in Italy and that at least half of the vines in the provinces should be cut down.
A coincidence of cheap wine and dear corn might have happened before; but it
needed an imperial edict to stamp the event with the importance attached to it in
the Apocalypse. Not that the author intended to gain credit by a "prophecy
after the event." Such prophecies, common in the Sibylline Poems, are not to be
found in the Apocalypse. But he has in mind future scourges, in which, as in the
past, misery will cause moral evil. In describing these anticipations, he borrows
from recent historical fact.
[2942* (v) 6] Rev. iii. 17 represents Laodicea as saying "I am rich and have
gotten riches and have need of nothing." Now although this city was indeed
famous for its wealth, it was not wealthy at the alleged paullo-post-Neronian date
of the Apocalypse (A.D. 68—9). At that time such language would have been
peculiarly inappropriate. For it was then still suffering from the effects of an
earthquake which had utterly prostrated it (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27, Euseb. Chronicon
ii. p. 154). Eusebius places the earthquake A.D. 64, and Lightfoot gives good
reasons (Coloss. p. 39) for preferring his date to that given by Tacitus (A.D. 60).
But in any case we know from inscriptions (Boeckh 3935 and 3936) that the
amphitheatre was not rebuilt till A.D. 79 and its race-course a little later.
In A.D. 80, the year after the amphitheatre was rebuilt, the author of the
Fourth Sibylline Poem (1. 107) after mentioning the terrible earthquake that had
cast down "hapless" Laodicea, might naturally congratulate it on “again standing
erect," and in A.D. 96 the only result of the calamity might be the proud
consciousness of the citizens that (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27) they had remedied it
without imperial aid. But in A.D. 68-9 how could a Greek city that had neither
amphitheatre nor stadium--and no prospect of either for some ten years-be
represented as saying "I am in need of nothing"?
1
89
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
in the past might naturally suggest forms and combinations in his
visions of woes to come¹.
§ 7. John's view of the Fall of Jerusalem
[2942* (vii)] It has been thought by some that the author must
necessarily have written before the siege of Jerusalem, because he
feels a hope that, even if God should inflict punishment on Jerusalem,
only a part of the city and its inhabitants will perish; that such as
remain will amend, and the city, together with the temple, will be
preserved until the appearing of the Lord.
Presumably, this inference is drawn from the following passages:
(a) (xi. 2) “The court which is without the temple leave without
and measure not; for it hath been given unto the nations: and the
holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." This
is, seemingly, supposed by some to mean that the temple itself will
not be "given to the nations."
(b) (xi. 13) “And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and
the tenth part of the city fell; and there were killed in the earthquake
1 ¹ [2942* (vi) a] In the First Woe a description is given of (ix. 3—11) locusts
with scorpions' stings, like horses prepared for war, taken from Joel's (i. 4—ii. 9)
well-known description of the locust-plague. These, however, are not to destroy
herbage but to "torture (Baoaviolýσovтai)” men for "five months"; they are
to have the teeth of lions but "the hair of women."
""
It is not at all likely that the "five months" refer to the actual duration of the
investment of the city, from April to September. Such literal arithmetical allusions
to the past (or perhaps they might be called collusions with the past) are not in the
manner of the Apocalypse. "Five," as often throughout the Old Testament,
means "a few." "The hair of women is doubtless intended to indicate a kind
of monstrosity of cruelty. It is to be unexpectedly revolting, combining feminine
aspect with masculine ferocity. Now Josephus, describing the "tortures," or
"torments," perpetrated on the citizens by some of the Idumæans or Galilæans,
declares that they assumed the garb of women. He says of their victims (Bell. iv.
6. 3) "Those who so survived congratulated those who had died before them, as
being at rest already. So did those under torture (aikišóµevo) in the prisons
declare that even the unburied corpses were by comparison happier": and (v. 1. 5)
"they were tormented (èßaoavíšovтo) without even daring to open their lips in
groaning. Of some of these murderers (iv. 9. 10) he says that in the midst of
plundering, outrage, and murder, they dressed, walked, painted and “dressed their
hair (kbμas ovvbeтišóµevo) like women," and again, "While wearing the appearance
(кbµas
of women they slew with their right hands." It is probable that some account of
these torturing women-fiends, brought to John in Asia, suggested this particular
feature in his account of the locust-torturers of the Second Woe.
90
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
،
names of men seven thousand; and the rest were affrighted and gave
glory to God." This is, seemingly, supposed by some to mean that
only a part❞—and a very small part-only "seven thousand" of
the citizens of Jerusalem, will perish. Now that anticipation is
glaringly contradicted by the history of the siege. Hence (it has
been inferred) the prediction must have been before the siege.
[2942* (viii)] Against this view it may be repeated that John's
general tendency is to use numbers mystically; that the forty and
two months, that is, three and a half years, may represent the period
described as (Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7) "a time, times, and half a time.”
This is a prophetic phrase that might be variously applied. For
example, it was interpreted by the Jews themselves (according to
Jerome (2942* (i) o)) as referring both to the war against Vespasian
and to the war against Hadrian. Similarly, before the First Woe
(ix. 12 “one woe is past ") "a third part" of "trees,” “rivers” etc.
destroyed; and, before the Second Woe (xi. 14 "the second woe is
past") mention is made of the destruction of the (ix. 15—18) "third
part” of men. But the number would seem not intended to be
taken literally. There is only one passage in O.T. where
a third
part" is connected with destruction, and that is in Ezekiel's (v. 2—12)
prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. There the context is
different. But still it seems probable that it was from Ezekiel that
John derived the phrase though he modified its application.
As regards the difficult expression (following "the tenth part
of the city") (xi. 13) "there were killed...(lit.) names of men¹ seven
thousands"--which has not as yet been satisfactorily explained from
merely Greek usage-it seems probable that it may contain some
1
DOES óvóμata EVER MEAN "PERSONS”?
[2942* (viii) a] On Rev. xi. 13 "there were killed in the earthquake names of
men seven thousands," Prof. Swete says "i.e. äveρwжо, 'persons': cf. iii.
4, note;
to the examples of this use of ovoμa given by Deissmann, Bible Studies p. 196 f.,
may now be added those published by Grenfell and Hunt in the Index to the
Tebtunis Papyri.”
This use of ovoμa appears to me not proved. It appears to be occasionally used
in such a way that we might substitute for it "person" without injury to the sense.
But even this is in contexts that imply writing, or accounts; and even there the
word is not identical with "person. "As John's use of the term here may illustrate
his style, I give, below, some facts bearing on the subject.
[2942* (viii) b] Tebt. Pap. 24 (64—5) speaks of dishonest officials who "have
transferred their duties to their sons (els Toùs vioús) who are quite young men (edd.)
and sometimes to other persons altogether (ὅτε δὲ καὶ τύχοι καὶ εἰς ἄλλον (i.e. ἄλλων)
91
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
ỏvóµ[a]ra).” The writer might have said "to others," eis äλλovs, parall. to els TOùs
vioús. But he means "to names of other people." The editors take this, apparently,
as "not even [like their sons] of the same name as themselves." I should prefer
"to [mere] names of others," i.e. "to people nominally so-and-so, but really
themselves in disguise, their tools." The foll., xxviii. (Introd.) ¿vóµaTOS TAσTOPÓρCV,
xxxii. 22 τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ὄνομα, xxxviii. 13 οὗ το(ν) [ὄνο]μα ἀγνοῶι, xxxix. 28 ὧν τὰ
ὀνόματα ἀγνοῶι—are not instances of ὄνομα = person. These are all the instances
of ovoμa in Tebt. Index. I have found no instance of the above use of ovoμa
in the Indices of Oxyr. Pap. vols.,iii and iv.
[2942* (viii) c] Deissmann's Bible Studies pp. 196-7 quotes B. U. 113 (11)
(143 A.D.) ἑκάστῳ ὀνόματι παραγενομένῳ). This is possibly more correct than the
B.U. text, which gives πapay(evoµévw). It should be compared with B.U. 265 (18)
(148 A.D.) [ἑκάστῳ ὀνόμ]ατι παράκ[ει]ται. Both of these are “claims (dikaιwµATA)”
from "veterans" (see Egypt Expl. Pap. Fayûm 319 ȧvтlyp(apov) [d]ixaiwµátWv
èπikp[loews]) for emiкpiois. Comp. B.U. 780 (154—6 A.D.) where it is stated that
the "veterans" πapeɣévov[тO πρòs èπĺкρiσ……..] and then that “the claims they
presented are attached to each name,” ἃ δὲ παρέθεντο δικαιώματα ἑκάστῳ ὀνό]ματι
παράκιται.
From these facts I should infer that ovoμa means "name" in all these formularies,
and that, in the first of them, rapa (not raρay) should be read as a short form of
Tαράκειтaι. In all of them, "the claim is attached to each name." For πаρaкеîσ@aι
παρακείσθαι
thus used, comp. Tebt. Pap. Νο. 27 (8-9) πέμψαθ᾽ ἡμῖν τὰς κατ᾿ ἄνδρα γραφάς,
παρακειμένων οὗ ἕκαστος ἔχει κλήρου, “ You will send us the lists of individuals,
with a statement, attached to each, of their several holdings."
[2942* (viii) d] Deissmann also alleges B.U. 531, ii. 9 тà πeρɩɣeivóµeva évolkia
πρὸς ἕκαστον ὄνομα τῶν τρυγώντων γραφήτωι. But this seems simply a request that
the amount should be written "against the name of each of the vintagers.'
και
""
Somewhat more to the point is B. U. 388 i. 16 ταβέλλαι δύ[ο] ἐλευθερώσεων τοῦ
αὐτοῦ ὀνόματος διαφόροις χρόνοις (cf. ii. 35 πῶς [ο]ῦν τοῦ Εὐκαίρου δύ[ο] ταβέλλαι
¿Xev0epías ev[pi]σ[kov ]Taι;). But the context explains this. Two deeds of emanci-
pation had been found, made out for the same name (Eukairos) but at different
dates. It was suspected that one was a forgery. A barrister, suspecting this,
would not be safe in assuming that the two deeds referred to the same person, but
he was safe in stating that they belonged to the same name: "There have been
brought into court two deeds of emancipations belonging to the same name (TOû aνTOû
¿vóμatos) of different dates, and I doubt whether the writing was that of the
deceased. For how can he have emancipated the same man (Tòv aŮTÓv) twice?”
Here it would hardly have been possible to use
66 name " with the verb (“emancipate
a name"); but, in the special circumstances, the use of "name" with the noun
("emancipations of the same name," meaning "deeds of emancipation connected
with, or referring to, the same name") is intelligible for brevity.
[2942* (viii) e] The frequent use of "nomen" in Latin lists and accounts
suggests that ovoμa may have a Latin derived meaning in B.U. 390 (A.D. 200)
where ἀπορικὰ ὀνόματα καὶ ἄλλα τετελευτηκότα seems to mean “names,” in the
sense of "securities," like the Latin "bonum nomen":"
names, some little better
than those of paupers, others deceased." 'Aroрiкά perhaps means "not quite arropo
but nearly." It is not in Steph. Thes.
[2942* (viii)ƒ] But all this is quite different from Rev. xi. 13 "there were killed
in the earthquake names of men seven thousands." And that it needs explanation
is indicated by a commentary printed by Cramer on Rev. xi. 13, “idikúтepov, for
92
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
allusion to numbers mentioned in ancient Hebrew history as well as
to the notion of "names" written in the book of life.
"Seven
thousand," in the days of Elijah, represented the faithful remnant,
and the Epistle to the Romans had reminded Christians of this, long
before the destruction of Jerusalem. "Seven thousand," also,
conquering Ben-hadad, are described as (1 K. xx. 15) "all the people
the 'names' were not [literally] 'killed'." Perhaps the commentator takes the
meaning to be that the "names," or "memorials," perished metaphorically, as
well as the bodies literally (comp. Ps. ix. 6 "their very memorial is perished ”),
and regards the former, the metaphorical meaning, as predominant. There may
be an allusion to "the book of life," or "the book of the living."
[2942* (viii) g] “The book of life" or "the book of the living" (see Lightf.
and Wetstein on Phil. iv. 3 and Charles on Enoch 47) means the register of the
covenant people" (Lightf.) "perhaps confined originally to temporal blessings,"
but "in itself a witness to higher hopes." In N.T. it is very rare, not occurring
apart from Rev. (iii. 5, xiii. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, 15, xxi. 27) except in Phil. iv. 3.
But Lk. x. 20, Heb. xii. 23 have the phrase "written in heaven." With the
“names” on such a "register" the notion of "numbering" was naturally connected
as in the numbering of Israel (Numb. i. 2) “according to the number of the names."
So a parenthesis in the Acts tells us that, when the Church met for their first public
act, the election of a twelfth Apostle, (Acts i. 15) "there was a multitude of names
[gathered] together about a hundred and twenty." The next mention of a number
in connexion with the Church is (Acts ii. 41) "there were added in that day about
three thousand souls." As "souls" suggests salvation, so "names
suggests the
first "numbering" of Israel after the spirit, and an enrolling in the Book of Life.
[2942* (viii) h] The "blotting out" of a name from the Book of Life meant
originally a disfranchisement of a citizen of Israel, but conveyed a notion of
perishing in the sight of God, that is, of real perishing. Ezekiel says concerning
the false prophets, who (xiii. 16) prophesied "peace" for Jerusalem when there
was "no peace,” (ib. 9) “they shall not be in the council of my people, neither
shall they be written in the writing (marg. register) of the house of Israel.” Origen
interprets this (Lomm. xiv. 213) "They shall be blotted out from the book of the
living." Some meaning of this kind appears to be indicated by Rev. xi. 13.
¿]
""
[2942* (viii) z] Wetstein, on Rev. xi. 13, says, "Nomina virorum sunt viri
nobiles et principes," and refers to 2 K. xxiv. 16 "all the men of might, even
seven thousand" (on which Sanhedr. 38 a interprets the context about "smiths"
metaphorically, as meaning "teachers," but says nothing about "the men of
might"). Did Wetst. regard "names of men" as identical with the Hebrew "men
of name(s)" which occurs in Gen. vi. 4, Numb. xvi. 2, 1 Chr. v. 24, xii. 30?
"Men of name(s) " may mean "notorious" as well as "glorious" (see Beresh. R.
on Gen. vi. 4). The thought of "a name" among men, simultaneous with a "death'
in the sight of God, may be illustrated by Rev. iii. 1 "Thou hast a name that thou
livest, but thou art dead." But “men of name(s),” in any sense, is quite distinct
from "names of men. The latter implies names on a list. In Rev. iii. 4,
the
'names" are regarded as still on the list; but in Rev. xi. 13, as “names of men
once inscribed on the register of the Kingdom of God and now struck off as dead.”
I
93
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
of Israel"! But again, in the days of Jeremiah-in a context
difficult to reconcile with itself and with Jeremiah lii. 28-the position
is reversed (2 K. xxiv. 16) "and all the men of might, even seven
thousand...the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon," and
(ib. 15) “none remained save the poorest sort of the people of the
land." Christian Jews at the end of the first century might say that
history had repeated itself—only spiritually. The "men of might "
had perished from the Kingdom of God; the citizenship of the New
Jerusalem had been given to "the poorest sort." And this feeling
may be latent here in the Seer's description of the fall of Jerusalem
as he looks back to it through the interval of a quarter of a
century, rejoicing in the growth of Israel after the Spirit: "The
'court without the temple' was given unto the nations, but the
'temple,' the body of Christ, remained. The whole City of God
was shaken by His judgment, but mercy prevailed. In Elijah's
time, the 'remnant' was but 'seven thousand' and the rest were to
perish. But in this last judgment, the numbers were as in the days
of Jeremiah. Only seven thousand names were written down for
death, 'The rest were affrighted and gave glory to the God of
heaven.' This is the Second Woe. It is past. But there is a
heavier Woe to come, the third Woe, which is to fall on Babylon!
Behold, the third Woe cometh quickly." See 2942* (xiii)ƒ.
[2942* (ix)] Some may feel it difficult to believe that a Jew could
take such a view of the destruction of Jerusalem, even when softened
by the lapse of twenty-five years. Yet Paul wrote, "All Israel shall
be saved," when half a generation of Israel had passed away, from
the Christian point of view, unsaved. We can hardly make sufficient
allowance, in our days, for the Christ-absorption of those early
Jewish Christians who found the true Israel and the true Temple
nowhere but in Christ.
In any case there is much more difficulty in the hypothesis of a
literal meaning and a Neronian date. If we take the writer's
words literally and not mystically, he anticipates that only 7000
of the citizens of Jerusalem will perish! But already, before
March A.D. 68, there were (Joseph. Bell. iv. 5. 1) 8500 corpses
lying in the outer court of the temple! The city, too, was
divided into three factions warring against each other (ib. v. 1. 3)
and causing constant slaughter. Josephus (ib. vi. 9. 3) makes the
numbers of those who perished in the city during the whole of the
war, 1,100,000, besides those who were slain in Palestine and the
94
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
surrounding districts. Grant that Josephus exaggerates, yet would
not contemporary rumour also exaggerate? And would not John,
if he had dealt in literal numbers, have been compelled to rely on
contemporary rumour? Is it possible then that, in the midst of such
literal reports of the deaths of thousands of his countrymen, John,
about A.D. 69, should predict in a literal sense that the number of
those who would fall would be 7000? A quarter of a century after-
wards, when this mass of horrors was ancient history, he might
represent it under symbolical numbers as a contrast to the far more
terrible retribution that he saw impending on Rome; but about A.D. 69,
when the tales of daily slaughter and the numbers of those who
were slain, were continually reaching his ears, was it possible for
a Jew to indulge, even symbolically, in an understatement so cold
if regarded as a symbol, and so false if regarded as a fact?
[2942* (x)] If the fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the
Temple for ever, were accepted by John not only as matters of ancient
history, but also as parts of the revealed will of God, then we can
understand how it is that a few lines suffice to describe them, while
whole chapters are reserved for the doom impending on Rome.
On the supposition that the writer, or inserter, of Rev. xi. 1-13
was a Christian, we may also allege, in favour of A.D. 96, the Synoptic
predictions (probably based on actual predictions of Jesus) that the
Temple, in a literal sense, would be utterly cast down and that the
city would suffer terrible and unprecedented tribulation. If these
Synoptic predictions have any substantial likeness to what Jesus said,
how could any Christian writer, and especially an Apostle, at a time
when the Roman armies were closing round Jerusalem, anticipate-
as some maintain that he did that "the City, together with the
Temple," in a literal sense, would be "preserved until the appearing
of the Lord"?
Some may reply, "This favours our view that the writer of this
separate passage was not a Christian." But these have to explain
how the Christian writer or editor of the whole book came to insert
a non-Christian vision that, literally speaking, was completely
falsified by results.
The safest conclusion is, that the vision was seen by John long
after (or, less probably, long before) the Fall of Jerusalem; and that,
in either case, the numbers of persons, days, months etc. have no
historical significance.
95
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
§ 8. The Birth of the "Man-child"
[2942* (xi)] It has been contended that a non-Christian origin
must be assigned to the Birth of the Messiah in xii. 1-5 foll. “And
a great sign was seen in heaven; a woman arrayed with the sun, and
the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars;
and she was with child...and behold a great red dragon...stood before
the woman...that...he might devour her child...and she bare a son,
a man [child] who is to shepherd all the nations with a rod of iron;
and her child was caught up unto God and unto his throne."
But, far from this being the case, is it not, at bottom, the conception
of a personal disciple of Christ, imbued with His doctrine about the
exaltation of the "babes and sucklings" who are the signs of God's
glory "above" the heavens? The Seer is so rapt with this thought
of the domination of the mere "child (Tékvov)" that he describes
Him as simply born and then "snatched up" at once to heaven
away from the "dragon," who represents the prince of this world.
It is very doubtful whether any Jew uninfluenced by Christ's doctrine
would have ventured to describe a ((
child" as snatched up to the
"throne of God." A somewhat similar tradition in the Jerusalem
Talmud, perhaps shewing traces of Christian influence, makes no
mention of God's throne¹.
It would be more reasonable to contend that Pagan combined
with Christian thought to shape this story. Looking due West from
his convict island, John would see Delos daily, a few leagues off.
He might naturally hear from his fellow-convicts the story of its
preparation for becoming the birth-place of the God of the Sun
(2942* (xiii) b). This might blend with his thoughts of the preparation
for the birth of the Sun of Righteousness.
John's vision of the Mother giving birth is (doubtless) influenced
by Isaiah; but his vision of the Mother in heaven is not like anything
in any prophet. It is, however, like what a Christian Jew might
dream, or see, working in chains among convicts from Rome, when
¹ [2942* (xi) a] Jer. Berach. ii. The mother, when questioned as to what has
become of her child, says (Schwab i. 42) "Storms have carried him away."
Comp. Echa Rabb. (on Lament. i. 16, Wünsche p. 88) where the story is similarly
told. In both, it is said that the birth of the babe will bring the destruction of the
Temple, and also its rebuilding. But neither describes the babe as carried up "to
the throne of God."
96
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
he had learned to understand the Roman reverence for the imperial
Mother who (Virg. Æn. vi. 782-8) would "raise her spirit to the
height of Olympus...like the Berecynthian Mother, rejoicing in her
offspring of Gods, all dwellers in heaven, all throned on the heights
above." The Vision is the answer, coming from a Christian Jew:
"We, too, have our Mother in heaven, ordained from the beginning."
[2942* (xii)] The writer is saturated, no doubt, with Jewish as
well as Hebrew tradition, but this saturation, and the application of
Jewish symbolism to Christian illustration, are characteristics of the
whole book, and not merely of parts capable of being detached from
the rest. The description of the birth of the Child, not from a Virgin
but from a Woman-Woman in the Greek sense of Wife, the Bride
of Jehovah-is what we might have expected from a personal disciple
of Christ to whom Christ's personality was everything, and by whom
He was regarded as summing up all the revelation of God from the
beginning, so that He seemed not the Son of Mary of Nazareth, but
the Son of the crowned Mother in Heaven, the celestial Sion, the
Bride of Jehovah. Nor is there anything inconsistent in the mention
of the "travail" of the Mother. On the contrary we may discern in
it the hand of the disciple who heard Jesus Himself say "These
things are the beginning of travails," and who gave to the author of
the Fourth Gospel the grounds for our Lord's Discourse containing
the words, "The woman when she is in travail hath sorrow," as an
illustration of the necessary trials through which the Church must
pass.
The non-mention of the Virgin does not prove that the writer
was a non-Christian. It tends to prove that he was a Jewish disciple
recognised by the Asiatic Churches as having the highest authority
and the fullest knowledge of facts. From any other, towards the
end of the first century, some of the Churches of Asia would have
expected some mention of the Virgin, and would hardly have accepted
the picture of the "Woman...being in travail¹."
"And
¹ [2942* (xii) a] The description of the birth is preceded by Rev. xi. 19
there was opened the sanctuary (vaós) of God that is in heaven, and there appeared
the ark of his covenant.... Victorinus says “The sanctuary of God is the Son"
and quotes Jn ii. 19-21 "the sanctuary (vaós) of his body."
""
Iren. iv. 18. 6 connects a reference to this opening of the "sanctuary
with a reference to the divine "tabernacling" (which in Jn i.
14 denotes
the Incarnation) thus, "Est ergo altare in coelis (illuc enim preces nostrae et
oblationes nostrae diriguntur) et templum-quemadmodum Joannes in Apocalypsi
ait (xi. 19) Et apertum est templum Dei-et tabernaculum: Ecce enim, inquit
(xxi. 3), tabernaculum Dei in quo habitabit cum hominibus (ldoù ǹ okηvǹ toû deoû
A.
97
7
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942* (xiii)] This passage (Rev. xii. 1-17), in many details,
bears the impress of the mind of the author of the whole book. In
particular it shews his habit of regarding history as repeating itself,
so that the story of Israel in the desert of Sinai becomes the story of
Christ's Church in "the wilderness of this world." The LXX's first
use of the phrase "she brought forth a male child" is connected
with Moses. The thought of Providence watching over the birth of
the Deliverer of Israel from Egypt, might well suggest the thought of
the still greater Deliverer of mankind from sin. Moses at birth
(through Pharaoh) and Moses after birth (through the monsters of
the Nile) is in danger of being "swallowed up" by a "dragon¹." But
μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ σκηνώσει μετ' αὐτῶν).” As to later commentators, Prof.
Swete ad loc. says that "the majority take the birth-pangs to symbolize the
spiritual travail of the Church," e.g. Hippol. Christ. et Antichr. 61 où πaúσetai ǹ
ἐκκλησία γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας τὸν Λόγον τὸν ἐν κόσμῳ ὑπὸ ἀπίστων διωκόμενον.
Comp. Jn xvi. 21 ἡ γυνὴ ὅταν τίκτῃ.
[2942* (xii) b] Origen's commentary on Jn xvi is lost. But in commenting on
Gen. xxii. 13-14 he says, "You, too, will generate a son, Isaac, in the spirit, when
you begin to have the fruit of the spirit—joy (gaudium) [and] peace." So Philo
i. 618 says-alluding to (Gen. xvii. 19) the birth of Isaac, "laughter," or "joy".
'Virtue will bring forth to you a son, noble, male (viòv yevvaîov äppeva)…..and thou
shalt call his name...joy (xapáv)." Comp. the curious phrase in Rev. xii. 5 vióv,
apσev. Buhl (218 a) gives only Lev. iv. 23, Jer. xx. 15 as instances of a superfluous
“male,” äþóŋé, applied to a masc. noun. In Lev. iv. 23 the sacrifice of a "he-kid,
a male" is distinguished from the inferior sacrifice of a she-kid in iv. 28. Jer. xx. 15
“a son, [yes,] a man-child” (LXX äpoev, v.r. äpoŋv, Aq. Sym. Theod. add viós) is
parall. to the congratulatory language in Job iii. 3 a [great] man (11) is born.
This perhaps illustrates Jn xvi. 21, "she remembereth no more the anguish for joy
that a man (not "a son") is born into the world." Although Jn has äveρwños, not
ȧvýp, it is not prob. that he means "human being." At all events Origen
quotes Jn xvi. 17, 22 in connexion with his comment on the sacrifice of Isaac:
"Generas autem gaudium, si (Jas. i. 2) 'omne gaudium existimaveris cum in
tentationes varias incideris,' et istud gaudium offeras in sacrificium Deo. Cum
enim laetus accesseris ad Deum, iterum tibi reddit, quod obtuleris, et dicit tibi,
quia 'Iterum videbitis me, et gaudebit cor vestrum, et gaudium vestrum nemo auferet
a vobis.'" Hippolytus (Christ. et Antichr. 61) quoted by Swete, Tòv äppeva к.
TÉλELOV XpiσTÓv, perh. means "full-grown" (as in Heb. v.
τέλειον Χριστόν,
14).
[2942* (xii) c] Concerning the Dragon, Origen says (iv. 307) "Omnia haec
exponere singillatim de capitibus septem draconis, quae forsitan possunt referri ad
aliquos principes rerum nequitiae, sive ad tanta ducentium ad mortem peccata, non
est temporis hujus; exponentur autem tempore suo in revelatione Joannis. Sed
et decem cornua dicere, quoniam sunt regna serpentinae malitiae, et habentis
serpentis naturam...”
1
¹ [2942* (xiii) a] Comp. Ezek. xxix. 3 "I am against thee, Pharaoh king of
Egypt, the great dragon....” Ibn Ezra, on Is. li. 9—10 "Art thou not it...that
pierced the dragon? Art thou not it which dried up the sea?" says, "Pharaoh
98
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
،،
is meant," and he compares Ezek. xxix. 3, and says that Isaiah "refers to the
division of the Red Sea." So in Ps. lxxiv. 13 "thou brakest the heads of the
dragons in the waters," the Targum explains this and the parall. "leviathan'
by reference to "Egypt” and “Pharaoh." In Job vii. 12 sea...sea-monster,"
Targ. gives two versions, (1) "Egyptians... Pharaoh," (2) "sea...leviathan."
Levy (iv. 656b and Ch. ii. 547 a) explains the word as great sea-fish, crocodile,
dragon." Hence it might be applied to any Enemy of Israel, e.g. Pompey,
the desecrator of the Temple, murdered on the sandy beach of Egypt, Ps. Sol.
ii. 28—31 (ed. James) "Delay not, O God, to recompense it upon their heads, to
turn the pride of the Dragon to dishonour.' And I delayed not until God shewed
to me that insolent one (τǹv üßpiv avtoû ? His Dishonourer) lying pierced upon the
high places (ỏpéwv, v.r. ópíwv borders) of Egypt...even his dead body lying corrupted
upon the waves in great contempt " [üßpei ? dishonour, so as to retain the play on
the words indicating that the “Dishonourer” is in “dishonour ”] “and there was
none to bury him." This is probably one of many similar Jewish traditions which,
if extant, would explain many things in John. The Dragon has a natural connexion
with the "sea," or abyss." The dragon, Pompey, after dishonouring God,
comes from the sea to Egypt and is cast back "on the waves," dishonoured. In
Rev., the Dragon (or the Beast) comes from the sea, or from the abyss, and is cast
into the abyss. Comp. Clem. Hom. viii. 15 dрaкovтóπodes Sc. TɩTâves (2942* (i) m).
[2942* (xiii) b] Rev. xii. 9 “The great dragon, the ancient serpent, he that is
called Devil and Satan, he that leadeth astray the whole of the earth," accumulates
many phrases to shew that they all mean one Evil. The mention of "the ancient
serpent (öøɩs)” does not oblige us to suppose that the Seer saw the dragon in the
actual form of a serpent when he (xii. 4) “stands (čoтnкev) before the Woman,”
waiting for the birth of the Child. Swete says, "The dpáкwv is a glorified öpɩs,
which, as Pliny (H.N. viii. 21. 33 (78)) says, 'nec flexu multiplici ut reliquae'”
[Teubn. -qua, ?-qui] "corpus impellit sed celsus et erectus in medio incedens.'
Against this is the fact that Pliny describes the creature as (ib.) "not more than
twelve inches in size," so that its posture would hardly seem applicable to that of
a dragon large enough to devour a child. See, however, 2942* (xiii)g on “scorpion.”
The mention of "dragon" by Artemidorus (ii. 13) mostly as presaging good-
whereas "serpent (õpus)" (ib.) presages evil-and the associations of the Hebrew
word with the waters of Egypt rather favour the conclusion that the shape is
that of a crocodile, not of a python. On the other hand it is the Python-not
"a dragon"—that hunts Latona from land to land so that she finds no refuge
wherein to give birth to Apollo till the wandering Delos is made to stand still for
her. This story John, in the quarries of Patmos, was sure to hear; and his vision
may have blended it with the story in Exodus.
Wetstein says,
In numis Imp. Veri Hydra èπтaкépaλos" and quotes
Kidduschin f. 29 b "R. Acha pernoctavit in åkроaтηρių. Mox visus ei est daemon
forma draconis septem habentis capita...." In Test. Abr. (A) § 17 Death exhibits
κεφαλὰς δρακόντων πυρίνους ἑπτά, and says (§ 19) τοὺς ἑπτὰ αἰῶνας ἐγὼ λυμαίνω τὸν
кóσμov. Apáкwv is Hebraized in New Heb. (though not in Aramaic) and Baba
Bathra 166 (on Job xxxix. 1) represents God as appointing a "dragon" to bite
the “hind” in order that it may bring forth its offspring safely!
[2942* (xiii) c] For illustrations of the conception of the overflowing Nile going
forth in pursuit of its prey comp. Jer. xlvi. 7-8 "Who is this that riseth up like
the Nile...Egypt riseth up like the Nile...and he saith, I will rise up, I will cover
the earth; I will destroy the city and the inhabitants thereof," ib. xlvii. 1 foll. “The
99
7-2
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
the two thoughts-the picture of the two Sons of the enthroned
Mother-mingle in the Seer's vision. He thinks, first, of the greater
Deliverer, Christ, as at once ascending-just shewn to mankind
("ostendent terriş hunc tantum fata") and then withdrawn-snatched
up to heaven and to the throne of God. Then his mind turns to the
work of the inferior Deliverer, Moses, triumphantly leading Israel
forth into the wilderness. But again this Deliverer, Moses, is merged
in the Mother, whom he delivers, Israel led forth from Egypt. The
"Dragon" casts forth a "river" to pursue the Mother—the army of
Egypt with its horses and chariots and a rushing as of many waters
(Is. xvii. 12—13). But the Mother flees, upborne by the two "wings"
of the great Eagle¹, "into the wilderness, where she hath a place
prepared by God"," and the "river" is "swallowed up" by the earth.
word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet...before that Pharaoh smote
Gaza...waters rise up...and shall overflow the land...at the rushing of his chariots....'
It may be called by some “a bold use of metaphor" to describe the swallowing
up of Pharaoh's army in the sea as a swallowing up of "waters" in the "earth."
But John is not a composer of metaphors but a seer of visions. He describes what
he sees.
And the language of the prophets made him see things as Jeremiah and
Isaiah pictured them.
¹ [2942* (xiii) d] Rev. xii. 14 "the two wings of the great eagle,” as the context
seems to refer to the deliverance from Egypt, probably alludes to Exod. xix. 4,
"Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles"
wings and brought you unto myself." But the article ("the great eagle") is
obscure. Does it refer, literally, to the largest kind of eagle known to the writer,
or to some symbolic "great eagle"? If the latter, does it refer to Rev. iv. 7 "the
fourth creature like a flying eagle"? Hippol. (Christ. et Antichr. 61) illustrates
by (1) the outspreading of Christ's hands on the cross, (2) Mal. iv. 2 "the sun of
righteousness...with healing in his wings." Origen often quotes Mal. iv. 2 for
"sun of righteousness," but only once for the "wings," where he says (Comm.
Ps. xix. 4 (LXX) (Lomm. xii. 73) "In the sun he placed his tabernacle") that
some "used to say (dicebant)" that the Saviour, ascending to heaven, laid aside
His body (i.e. "tabernacle ") in the sun, because the body could not ascend higher.
Origen maintains that the "tabernacle" is the Church, and God has placed it “in
the sun❞—not in the physical sun, but in the sun of righteousness.
2 [2942* (xiii) e] As to Rev. xii. 6 (comp. xii. 14) "place prepared by God,"
see Parad. 1240-3, on "place," and 1232-9, 12446, 1434-5, on "prepare
a place." It may refer to the Providence of God in the first instance preparing for
Israel a "tent of meeting" or "tabernacle" in the Wilderness, whereby God,
through Moses, says to Israel (as above quoted) Exod. xix. 4 "I brought you to
myself." Comp. 1 Chr. xv. 1 K. ηTOĹμAσE TÒV TÓπоν and Jn xiv. 2 " I go to prepare
a place for you." The allusions may include one to the migration of the Christian
Church, before the siege, from Jerusalem to Pella, Euseb. iii. 5. 3 Toû λaoû…..KATÁ
τινα χρησμὸν τοῖς αὐτόθι δοκίμοις δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως δοθέντα...καί τινα τῆς Περαίας
πόλιν οἰκεῖν κεκελευσμένου, where Eusebius seems to indicate that the waring
100
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
The "place" probably alludes to the tabernacle. Other allusions
are not wanting to the whole history of Israel. The "dragon," as in
the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, casts down "stars"—perhaps from
the Woman's coronet. So Daniel (viii. 10) had said. John says a
"third part" of the stars-introducing a number, perhaps, symbolical
of trial, and, in any case, repeatedly used throughout this book in
that symbolism¹.
[2942* (xiv)] Before the birth of the "man-child," and before
the "travail," the Seer beholds the opening of the temple of God
that is in heaven (Rev. xi. 19) "and there was seen in his temple
the ark of his covenant, and there followed lightnings and voices...."
Compare Isaiah's prediction (lxv. 18—lxvi. 7) "I create Jerusalem
a rejoicing...the heaven is my throne...what manner of house will ye
build unto me?... To this man will I look, even to him that is poor
and of a contrite spirit...a voice from the temple, a voice of the Lord
that rendereth recompense to his enemies. Before she travailed she
brought forth; before her pain came she was delivered of a man-child."
Here the LXX has "Before she that was in travail brought forth,
before the pain of her travail came, she fled away and was delivered of
a man-child." Perhaps the writer had this passage of the LXX in
view, treating it freely after his custom, when he wrote that the
Woman "fled" into the wilderness after bearing the "man-child." In
any case, in his context (Rev. xii. 5) "who shall surely shepherd
(Mk xiii. 14, Mt. xxiv. 16, Lk. xxi. 21) "Let those in Judæa flee unto the
mountains " was defined more clearly in a revelation to disciples "of repute."
1
¹ [2942* (xiii) ƒ] "Third part" is used in Zech. xiii. 8-—9, apparently to
describe the remnant that is saved. Reversely, Rev. uses it repeatedly (viii. 7, 8
&c., ix. 15, xii. 4) to describe that which is destroyed. So 1 K. xix. 18 applies
seven thousand" to the remnant saved, but Rev. xi. 13 to the number killed
(2942* (viii)). (Comp. Test. Abr. (A) § 17 éteλeÚTŋoav……ŵoel xiλiádes éπτá). “Third
part" in Zech. is variously interpreted in Rosh-hashanah 17a, Sanh. 111a. Jerome
makes it refer to Christians as distinct from Jews and unbelieving Gentiles.
[2942* (xiii) g] As regards the dragon drawing down the stars with its tail, my
friend Mr W. S. Aldis informs me that the splendid constellation of the Scorpion,
for an observer in the Isle of Patmos soon after dark in the summer, would be
entirely above the horizon, speedily plunging into the sea from which it rose, and
that, when he was residing in New Zealand, it often reminded him of the Great
Red Dragon. Virgil implies that the Scorpion encroaches on two neighbouring
constellations but gives place to Augustus (Georg. i. 33—5, where "panditur
expresses the protrusive form of the constellation). Comp. Ovid Metam. ii. 195—6
"geminos ubi brachia concavat arcus Scorpios, et cauda flexisque utrinque lacertis,
Porrigit in spatium signorum membra duorum,” and Fast. iv. 163—4
"Dum loquor, elatae metuendus acumine caudae
Scorpios in virides praecipitatur aquas."
ΙΟΙ
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
(µéddei toiμaíve) all the nations with an iron rod," he quotes an
erroneous LXX rendering of Ps. ii. 9, where the "shepherding"
should be "breaking." The erroneous "shepherding" is also quoted
in Rev. ii. 27, xix. 15. This use of LXX appears inconsistent with
the hypothesis of a Jewish non-Christian authorship for the narrative
of the birth of the Child, but consistent with the view that all the
three passages where the error occurs proceed from the same writer,
and that writer, a Christian.
[2942* (xv)] The last quoted passage of Isaiah, "to him will
I look that is poor...," should be studied in conjunction with such
doctrines of Christ as "blessed are the poor" (meaning "blessed are
the poor in spirit"), "blessed are the little ones, " "blessed are the babes
and sucklings." Then we should perceive that Isaiah also, in effect,
declares that no house of stone can be a "throne " or even a
"footstool" for the Highest. His "throne" is to be the heart of
man-man "poor," ¿.e. "hungering and thirsting" after God. It is
a kindred metaphor to describe His "temple," or His "throne,” as
the "child." Thus regarded, the birth of the Child is, in the mind
of the Seer, identified with the revelation, not only of the Temple, but
also of the Ark. The material Ark had been destroyed with the Temple
of Solomon, nor had a substitute been provided in the Temple
of Ezra. But the Seer goes back, like the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, to "the pattern in the heavens "-probably, like that
writer, seeing in the Ark not only the Tables of the Covenant, but
also the hidden "manna" of which the Epistle speaks, and which
John mentions to the Church of Pergamum¹. But the main meaning
in John's vision of the Ark appears to have been this, that the Old
Covenant of the Law was on the point of being fulfilled and super-
seded by the New Covenant embodied in the Child, the Poor, the Little
One, the Lamb (apvíov). If so, the twofold mention of a (xii. 1, 3)
"sign in heaven" in this passage is intended to prepare us for a
passage in which the phrase occurs for the third and last time,
introducing the final stage of the fiery purification of the saints ("a
glassy sea mingled with fire"). Here Moses, instead of being merely
suggested as a type of the "man-child," is actually mentioned. It is
See
¹ [2942* (xv) a] Rev. ii. 17 “I will give to him of the hidden manna.”
Wetstein's note, which shews a widely diffused Jewish belief that the pot of manna
was “hidden,” along with the ark. Rev. ii. 17 is generally accepted as coming
from a Christian source.
102
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
the only mention of his name in the book; and it is most instructive,
as a proof of the writer's reverence for the great Lawgiver, and of his
belief that the Lawgiver testified, as a subordinate, to the Redeemer
(xv. 1—3): “And I saw another sign in heaven...seven plagues...for
in them is finished the wrath of God. And I saw as it were a glassy
sea mingled with fire, and them that come victorious from the beast…..
having harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of
God, and the song of the Lamb¹.”
THE MEANING OF "VIRGINS" IN REV. xiv. 4.
¹ [2942* (xv) b] On Rev. xiv. 4 "These are they that were not defiled with
women; for they are virgins," Wetstein says simply "Ovк èμoλúvėŋoav, non polluti
idololatria." But in modern times "ascetic celibacy" has been confidently asserted
to be John's meaning. Which is right? On the one hand, Wetstein does not, and
presumably could not, allege any instance where μoλúveσðaι µetà yvvaikŵv (including
yuvaikŵv) is metaphorically used. Moreover Epictetus, and passages in the
Pauline Epistles, recommend celibacy as best for a missionary; and this view may
have prevailed in some Christian Churches at an early date, especially under Essene
influences. On the other hand, Revelation magnifies "apostles," of whom one
(Peter) was married, and includes them in the "twenty-four elders." [Any allusion
in "twenty-four" to (Diod. Sic. ii. 31) a double zodiac, if existent, is subordinate
to the thought of the twelve tribes, the Old Church, and the twelve apostles, the
New Church, combined together (Rev. xxi. 12-14).] Would the writer exclude
Peter from those that "have not defiled themselves with women"? This would
be in express contradiction to Heb. xiii. 4 "marriage honourable and the bed
undefiled." The passage therefore requires discussion.
•
[2942* (xv) c] The first question is, "When and where in pre-Christian Greek
or Hebrew literature is 'virgin' applied to man?" The answer is (so far as O.T.,
Steph. and Levy indicate) "Nowhere." The next question is, "Is 'virgin' used in
any pre-Christian writing likely to be known to the Seer and of such a character
that he might have it in his mind during his visions of the 144,000 who (Rev. xiv.
3-4) sing 'a new song' that 'no man could learn' except themselves, and who
follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth '?" The only mention of “virgins" (pl.)
in the gospels is connected with (Mt. xxv. 1-11) "going to meet" a "bride-
groom "—presumably (see Wetstein, on the Arabian custom not rightly represented
by Alford) as the Bride's escort. Now in Revelation the Lamb is a Bridegroom-
the Bridegroom of the New Jerusalem. And the wedding of the Lamb with the
"bride adorned for her husband" forms the climax of this book (xxi. 1 foll.).
This suggests that the "virgins" in Revelation are regarded as following the
Lamb on the way to the Bride or returning in a procession with the Bride, and
leads us to ask, 1st, whether O.T. contains any description of a wedding that might
be regarded as Messianic, 2nd, whether such description, if it exists, makes any
mention of "virgins" such as the Seer might apply to Christian visions of the
wedding of the Lamb of God.
[2942* (xv)d] The forty-fifth Psalm appears to be just such a writing as we are
in search of. Iren., Clem. Alex., Tertull., and Origen, all regard it as applying
to Christ. Its marginal reff. (at verses 3, 4 [for Rev. xvi. 2 rd vi. 2], 16) contain
103
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
several minor parallelisms to Revelation about the Messiah as a warrior riding to
victory &c. But it is preeminently a Wedding Psalm. In correspondence with
Rev. xxi. 2 the "bride adorned," the clothing of the Bride is described in detail
(ib. 13 "her clothing is inwrought with gold..."). Afterwards, when she is led to
the royal Bridegroom, mention is made of (ib. 14) "the virgins her companions
that follow her": Origen's comment is, "The undefiled, and pure, and conse-
quently (dià Toûto) ‘virgin' souls, having departed [this life] will be brought to
Christ." Clement of Alexandria (874—5) speaks of the married man as having
"the Apostles as his patterns,” and says that the man "who restrains his passion,
like the widow, becomes a virgin again." See Lightfoot's note on Ign. Smyrn. 13
"I salute the virgins-the so-called widows," i.e. "I salute those women who
though called widows are really virgins because of the purity of their devotion
to God."
In
[2942* (xv) e] John's mention of "defilement" and "virgins" must not be
considered by itself but as issuing from a consistent reversal of prophetic metaphor.
Both John and the prophets agree that the true Bridegroom of the Church is One,
namely, God, or, in John, God represented by the Lamb of God; but they differ
as to the false gods, the seducers. The Old Testament regards them always as
male; Revelation, often, as female. Space does not admit of discussing the
reason-more probably reasons-for this reversal. But it is at all events a fact.
Ezekiel, the gods of Assyria are described repeatedly (xxiii. 6, 12, 23) as “desirable
young men.
Samaria and Jerusalem are described as "playing the harlot,"
going after their Assyrian or Babylonian lovers and being (ib. 17) “polluted with
them," (ib. 37 foll.) "with their idols they have committed adultery...ye have sent
for men...for whom thou didst wash thyself...and satest upon a stately bed...."
Isaiah, it is true, (xxiii. 15—18) briefly mentions Tyre's "merchandise" with the
nations as a "harlot," but he nowhere suggests that she seduces Israel: Ibn Ezra
says "In reality, he does not speak of a harlot at all." Again, Babylon is
described by Jeremiah (li. 7) as "a golden cup in the Lord's hand that made all
the earth drunken," but nowhere as a wanton leading Israel astray.
[2942* (xv)ƒ] Our author, on the other hand (Rev. xiv. 8, xvii. 1—2, 4, xviii. 5—9),
though reproducing old prophetic phrases about Tyre and Babylon, is really seeing
an entirely new vision of the supreme Polluter-"Babylon the Great, the Mother
of the Harlots," who rides, supreme for a time, upon the Beast, and with whom
the kings of the earth committed fornication, until (xvii. 16) they turn to hate and
destroy her. This feeling induces him elsewhere (as it seems) to apply Jehu's
brief reference to (2 K. ix. 22) the “fornication” of Jezebel, and to use the name
(Rev. ii. 20) in connexion with "committing fornication and eating things sacrificed
to idols," very much as Ezekiel invents the names Oholah and Oholibah to describe
the idolatry of Samaria and Jerusalem. No doubt, the writer also has in view the
"strange women that led Solomon (1 K. xi. 1-8) into idolatry, and the
daughters of Moab who (Numb. xxv. 1-2) "called the people unto the sacrifices
of their gods." The main truth for us to keep in view is that the Seer sees, so to
speak, more visions than one, and yet tries to express them in one. He sees the
Virgin daughter of Sion, the Church, the Bride, faithful to her one Lord (comp.
2 Cor. xi. 2 "I espoused you to one husband...a pure virgin to Christ "); but he also
sees the members of the Virgin Church triumphing over the temptations of
"strange women" such as Jezebel and the daughters of Moab, and over the
temptations of the idol-worship to which they led, and over all the temptations of
the Harlot's "golden cup." He sees a procession, so to speak, of the members
104
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
§9. Inferences
[2942* (xvi)] Attention has been called above to the fact that the
same prophecy (about "shepherding the nations with a rod and
beating them to pieces") is quoted in three passages of Revelation—
passages ascribed by some to different authors. This
This is but one of
many quotations, phrases, or images (pointed out in the course of this
discussion) recurring again and again in this book—somewhat like
the recurrences in the Fourth Gospel-and implying unity of author-
ship. There are also traces of a natural, though not chronological,
arrangement. Like Ezekiel, the Seer is first sent to testify to his own
immediate circle, the "seven churches." These are God's Temple
on earth, with the "candlestick" of the Jewish Temple, multiplied
according to the promise of Isaiah concerning the sun (Is. xxx. 26)
"sevenfold." Thence he is led to the vision of the heavenly causes
that led to this new temple on earth, and then to the remeasuring for
the new temple, which suggests a mention of the destruction of the
old one.
This introduces the causes of the destruction of the temple
on earth, namely, Evil, in various shapes, the Evil that caused
the sin of Adam and the many lapses and captivities of Israel; and
hence come visions of future outbreaks of sin and God's future
judgments. Amidst all these conflicts between good and evil are
seen glimpses of the divine purpose, which finally drives the Seer
forward to the vision of a consummation where he beholds the
descent of the New Jerusalem coming down as a Bride from heaven.
[2942* (xvii)] For modern readers, a more serious doubt than
any that concerns the mere date or literary character of the Apoca-
lypse may present itself in its moral character. The Seer appears
sometimes vindictive. He seems to exult in fire and sword and to
need the repetition of Christ's words (Lk. ix. 55, R.V. marg.) “Ye
know not of what spirit ye are." This objection is difficult to meet
because of his constant use of language undoubtedly intended by
Psalmists and Prophets to mean literal slaughter and vengeance,
e.g. the passage in the Psalm above-quoted, as to the "breaking" of
the "nations." Origen's assertion (on Ps. ii. 9) that it is good for us
of the Virgin Church faithful to the Lamb, on the one side, and a procession of
the kings of the earth, the slaves of Circe, on the other side. The latter have
succumbed to the Harlot and to her daughter harlots. They have "defiled
themselves with women." The former have not. They are (C
virgins."
105
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
to be thus "broken," and even to be "killed," seems to modern
readers the height of absurdity. Yet even modern readers admit
that Christ's "two-edged sword" is spiritual, and that He not only
forbade Peter to use the earthly sword but also pronounced, in effect,
the verdict, “Thou shalt perish" on any of His disciples that should
resort to it. He also said that He had come to send a "sword" and
"fire" upon earth. Surely, in the face of these facts, we ought not
to find it hard to infer-however strange the inference may appear at
first—that the words (Rev. ii. 26—7) “I will give to him [¿.e. to the
faithful conqueror] authority over the nations, and he shall shepherd
them with an iron staff even as the vessels of the potter are broken in
pieces," did not mean that the Thyatirans to whom this promise was
made might look forward to revenging themselves on Roman oppres-
sors with clubs or maces.
[2942* (xviii)] The reply, then, to this objection is, 1st, that, if
it were valid, it would affect the whole of the book, including those
parts that are recognised by all as coming from a Christian source,
2nd, that it is not valid, since the language of "blood and iron”
must not be taken literally¹, 3rd, that modern readers will do well to
recognise the extreme difficulty of putting themselves in the place of
1 [2942 * (xviii) a] "Must not be taken literally." It may be asked, “Did not
John, then, really believe that there would be literal famines, literal earthquakes,
literal pestilences, before the Coming of the Saviour and the Last Judgment?'
Probably he did. But he looked on these visible movements mainly as the
external signs of invisible movements intended to rescue men at all costs from the
greatest evil of all-servitude to the Beast. 2 Thess. i. 8 "the Lord Jesus...in
flaming fire rendering vengeance (didóvtos ékôlkŋoiv)," is rendered by Lightfoot
“awarding retribution," and Lightfoot says that a "double aspect" of the words
“will hold equally whether the 'fire' be taken in a literal or a figurative sense:
for the revelation of Christ will in itself inflict the severest punishment on the
wicked, by opening their eyes to what they have lost." Avenger," at all events,
is not the right word, as used in modern English, to apply to a magistrate called
by Greeks (Rom. xiii. 4) ěkdɩkos, i.e. exactor of justice. There is a feeling in John
as in Paul that ékdíkŋois is connected with díkalos, just, or righteous, and that the
justice of the Father-who sent His Son into the world as the Sacrifice or Lamb
of Redemption—cannot be other than dikaloσúvn, righteousness.
The cry in Rev. vi. 10 "How long dost thou not judge and exact justice
(èkdikeîs) for our blood?" means, in effect, "How long dost thou delay to right
the oppressed? How long dost thou delay to open the eyes of the sinful to their sins?
How long dost thou suffer a Nero, or a Domitian, to exult as Lord over the world?
How long dost thou delay to lift up the Man who is now prostrate under the claws of
the Beast?" Into the exact nature of the ultimate destruction of Evil and
evil beings the Seer gives us no clear vision. But he himself seems clearly to see
that they will be destroyed—and this, by the agency of "the Lamb.”
106
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
6
such an original Seer as John, and of realising the influence exerted
on him by Jewish associations and by his Master's abundant use of
metaphor. It may be added that what has been preserved from
Origen, bearing on the Apocalypse, is always worthy of consideration;
and he seems, as a rule, to have regarded the book as dealing with
spiritual forces. Probably he is right. Daniel deals with political
Powers, but Ezekiel-much more, though by no means wholly—with
spiritual and natural Powers. John follows both, but mainly Ezekiel.
Or rather, he follows neither, but he assimilates both, and has
assimilated in the main the thoughts of the earlier prophet.
Perhaps, instead of calling the writer "cruel," some may be
disposed to call him an inconsistent optimist: "He calls God
'Almighty,' 'the First and the Last,' 'the Beginning and the End';
yet what is the 'end' of God's drama? Is it the New Jerusalem ?
No, that is only half the end. The other half is what is outside the
City: (Rev. xxii. 15) 'Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers...and
everyone that maketh a lie.' Who is responsible for this if not the
Almighty' and 'the Beginning'? And is not such an 'end' a failure?"
A charge of this kind-though it might be slightly exten-
uated by metaphysical arguments about "Almighty" (2998 (xxvii)
ƒ—m)—cannot be denied. The fault (if it is a fault) arises from
the Seer's feeling that he can realise what we cannot at present
logically realise-a future when God's "Kingdom" will have "come"
in such a manner that the saints, looking back on (Rev. xx. 14)
"Death and Hades... cast into the lake of fire," may be able to see
that God after all was (6
Almighty"—though the word is one that
Jesus Himself never applied to God. Perhaps all men ought to be,
in some sense, guilty of "inconsistent optimism.”
At all events, this feeling is compatible with compassion for the
sinful in themselves, along with a horror of them in so far as they
identify themselves with the Beast that preys on the Man, dragging
their fellow-creatures under the Beast's feet. The Epistle to the
Romans says (xi. 32—3) "God hath shut up all unto disobedience,"
and yet "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the
knowledge of God!" Elsewhere, it says (ix. 3) "I could wish that
I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake," and
yet (xi. 26) "All Israel shall be saved." Paul, though he had never
seen Christ in the flesh, was forced to utter these "inconsistent
optimisms" by the conviction that, in Christ, death was swallowed up
by victory. Might not the same conviction explain even greater
107
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
inconsistencies in the beloved disciple? The gulf between Jews
and Christians was wider in John's time than in Paul's. John, we
may think, had not so much right as Paul to be sanguine. But on
the other hand, if John had "lain in Christ's bosom," might he not
be unable to keep down a predominant exultation-predominant
over individual and national sympathies and sorrows—in the thought
of the Lamb of God, wielding the judgments of heaven, and
controlling the forces of the universe for the salvation of mankind?
[2942* (xix)] There are undoubtedly instances of Jewish works
appropriated by Christians, and either revised, or interpolated and
amplified, for Christian purposes. But in such cases any predictions
that are retained or added are generally found to be in fair
accordance with subsequent facts, since one of the reviser's objects.
is to claim credit for the prophetic truth of the work as a whole.
The Book of Enoch, for example, is manifestly a compilation; it has
been certainly revised; possibly also it has been here and there
touched by a Christian hand; and it is full of differences of style
and inconsistencies of detail. But it does not, so far as I know,
insert prophecies that have been manifestly falsified by subsequent
facts. If there are any, they are few.
The Revelation of John, as compared with Enoch, may be
pronounced quite homogeneous in style and thought. If the
book proceeded from an interpolator or compiler, the ban (Rev. xxii.
18-19) on anyone adding to or taking from it would bespeak an
extraordinary audacity of self-confidence in the compiler¹.
a
""
1 [2942 * (xix) α] Rev. xxii. 18 ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ...καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ, comp. Deut. iv.
2 (rep. xii. 32) οὐ προσθήσεσθε...κ. οὐκ ἀφελεῖτε, and Prov. xxx. 6 μὴ προσθῇς τοῖς
Xoyois avтoû. Prof. Swete ad loc. says, "It was not uncommon for writers
to protect their works by adding a solemn adjuration to the scribes to correct the
copies carefully, and in no case to mutilate or interpolate the original; cf. e.g.
Irenæus ap. Eus. H. E. v. 20...." But does this prove that such adjurations were
"not uncommon at the end of the first century? If no such adjuration can be
found at the end of books of, or before, that date, does not its existence here
indicate an "uncommon attitude in the writer? The Seer seems to apply the
warning of Moses about "adding to or "taking from" the Words of the Law to
"the words of the prophecy” of this book (with a play on words, as Prof. Swete
justly notes, gained by altering Deut. προστίθημι to ἐπιτίθημι, so as to introduce
Rev. xxii. 18 ¿πiðýσeɩ πλnyás, “lay on lashes"). This seems a vast assumption
of authority. Perhaps the Seer was moved by his Master's warnings against
"false prophets," and by his own knowledge of their forgeries. But in any case,
until this adjuration can be shewn to have been "not uncommon" in the first
century, it goes some way to prove that the writer occupied an eminent position in
the Christian Church.
108
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
It also differs from Enoch in containing at least one prophecy
that appears not only to have been not fulfilled but also to call
attention to a different fulfilment from that contemplated by the
Seer. And it utters this prophecy in curiously condensed and
definite language as though the writer had long had it in his mind.
It is the story of the Two Witnesses (Rev. xi. 1—13): "These are
the two olive-trees and the two candlesticks, that [are] before the Lord
of the earth, standing." They are to prophesy 1260 days. They can
consume their adversaries with fire, shut up the rain in heaven, turn
waters to blood, and smite the earth with plagues. When their witness
is accomplished, "the beast”—yet no “beast (Onpíov)" has been men-
tioned "that comes up from the abyss shall kill them," and their
carcase (sic) shall lie unburied in the street of the Great City. The
nations gaze on "their carcase three and a half days and do not
suffer "their carcases” (2942* (xxii) b) to be entombed. The dwellers
on earth rejoice to be freed from their torturers. But a spirit of
life makes the dead Witnesses stand up. A Voice from heaven says,
"Come up here," and they "went up to heaven in the cloud". -no
cloud has been mentioned-" and their enemies beheld them."
[2942* (xx)] Suppose this not to have proceeded from John.
Then it must have been inserted among his genuine visions either
by John himself or by some editor of his work. In either case, we
have to face the question, "Why?" No one can say that it is a pro-
phecy after the event, or that it has ever been literally fulfilled. No
one can deny that it perplexes us with its assumptions about things
defined in the Seer's mind but not in that of his reader-"the two
candlesticks,"
" "the beast,” “the cloud"—to which we might add “the
Great City" if it were not defined by a suspicious addition, "which
is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was
crucified¹." It is very difficult to answer the question Cui bono—
'Whose interest was it to make this incoherent insertion ?"
1 [2942* (xx) a] Comp. Rev. xvi. 13 "Out of the mouth of the dragon, and
out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet three
unclean spirits, as frogs"—where no false prophet has been previously mentioned.
He is probably (Swete ad loc.) to be identified with the second Beast in xiii. II.
The Seer assumes that there is a threefold evil, the Dragon, the first Beast
(i.e. the Beast) and the Word of the Beast, i.e. "the false prophet." He is
mentioned thrice altogether, namely, here and xix. 20, xx. 10. The three "
unclean spirits are perhaps (antithetical to the Pauline triad) faithlessness, hopeless-
ness, and hate. There seems an implied antithesis to a divine triad never
mentioned in this book but implied in (2998 (xxvi) ↳, (xxvii) e—ƒ) IS, WAS,
109
[2942*] THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942* (xxi)] But on the other hand let us suppose it to have
proceeded from John the son of Zebedee. According to the Fourth
Gospel this John was a disciple of the Baptist, and the Baptist came
to "bear witness" to Christ. According to Revelation, Christ
Himself was "the faithful and true Witness." Here, then, were
two witnesses." The Fourth Gospel (like the Law) lays stress on
the necessity of "two witnesses." These "two witnesses," the Baptist
and the Christ, were closely associated together in all the gospels.
Nay, the Synoptists agree in asserting—an assertion scarcely credible
but for their combined testimony-that some people in Galilee
declared Christ to be the Baptist raised from the dead! These facts
point to the conclusion that the Seer may have had in his mind Jesus
of Nazareth and John the Baptist (as well as Moses and Aaron, and
Elijah and Elisha) as the culminating pair in a series of Witnesses,
sent "two and two" into the world by God to testify against men's
sin and for God's righteousness, and to prepare them for God's
righteous judgments-bringing purification to the penitent, destruction
to the persisters in sin.
[2942* (xxii)] We cannot indeed assert that the vision is historically
true. It is not a photograph of a single definite past. More truly
might we say that it is of the nature of a superimposed photograph
shewing traces of many pasts. If the Baptist and the Christ are
among the "two witnesses," then it is not true that they died at the
same time; or that they both died in Jerusalem; or that they were
left unburied; or that they destroyed their enemies with fire; or that
both visibly ascended to heaven. No historian could assert these
things. But it does not follow that a Poet and Seer-"jumping o'er
times" and giving body and place to spiritual imaginings-might not
assert them. He might behold the two witnesses in a series of
pictures, thus. First, they would be "standing" before the Lord
like Zechariah's two bright "sons of oil¹" before the altar. Then, in
COMING. All this gives the impression of having been thought out by the
writer so long ago and meditated on so constantly that images are defined in his
mind as
"the," where the reader would expect a. As to "the cloud" see
2998 (xxx) b—(xxxi) c.
،
""
¹ [2942* (xxii) a] Zech. iv. 2—14 "I have seen...two olive-trees by it [i.e. by
the candlestick]...what are these two olive-branches which are beside the two
golden spouts that empty the gold [i.e. the golden oil] out of themselves?... These
are the two sons of oil that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” Aq. has "sons
of brightness (σtiλπvóтntos),” Theod. λаµπротηTOS. John, who before (i. 12 foll.)
mentioned "seven candlesticks" as representing the seven Christian Churches,
IIO
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
accordance with the Baptist's and Christ's utterances about "fire"
(and about the "axe,” and about "bringing a sword, or fire, into the
world") they would be seen dividing, as with a two-edged sword, the
false from the true in Israel, terrifying the rulers of the land, and
destroying evil, as with flame from their mouth. Then he would see
them meeting death together-for what difference would a few
months make in a vision that concerned all time and destiny ?-killed
and cast out from the vineyard by the rebellious vine-dressers of
Israel, who exulted in being rid of their persecutors. No doubt the
Baptist died in Machærus; and (according to Mark) his “ corpse
was allowed by Herod Antipas to be buried by his disciples. Christ's
"corpse," too, was allowed by Pilate to be buried by Joseph of
Arimathæa'. But, in the eyes of the Seer, Jerusalem was the real
scene of both murders. It was not Antipas, or Pilate, but the
Jewish rulers who were responsible. Christ's own word held good,
""
later on (xi. 4) describes God's "two witnesses " as being "the two olive-trees
and the two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the earth," whereas Zechariah
speaks of " one candlestick" and "two olive-trees " (or "olive-branches") inter-
preted as "sons of oil." The Targ. has "sons of rulers." John, as before, deals
freely with the ancient symbol. He seems to regard the "sons of brightness"
as lights. We might be prepared for this from him but hardly from a non-
Christian Jew.
66
1 ¹ [2942* (xxii) b] Mk vi. 29, Mt. xiv. 12 πтŵμa, of John the Baptist, Mk xv.
45 πтŵμа, of Jesus. In Mk xv. 43, πтŵμa is the reading of D, and SS, but
is not adopted by W.H. In Mt. xxiv. 28, πтúμата (pl.) means carcases." In
LXX πτώμα sometimes means carcase" or the body of one slain (but more often
"downfall or "fall"). In Rev. xi. 8—9, R.V. has, twice, txt “dead bodies,”
marg. Gr. "carcase" concerning the sing. Tтŵμа, but "dead bodies," without
marg. "carcases," for πтúμата.
* [2942* (xxii) c] Comp. Origen iii. 206 (on Mt. xvii. 10) where he says
that Christ implied that the scribes were "jointly guilty (ovvalrio)" of the
imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas. He is
also actually driven to suppose (Lomm. i. 252, Comm. Joann. tom. vi. 30 foll.) that
Christ was confused with the Baptist διὰ τὸ κοινὸν τῆς μορφῆς. The Cod. Bodl.
has sought refuge from this hypothesis by changing μορφῆς τo γραφῆς.
...
Eusebius iii. 5. 2 says Στεφάνου...ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀνῃρημένου...εἶτα δὲ Ἰακώβου
åπотµηlévтos, which would lead the reader to infer that "the Jews" were as much
responsible for the death of James as for that of Stephen. But he has some justifi-
cation in Acts xii. 3 "when he saw it pleased the Jews."
[2942* (xxii) d] That the office and the personality of John the Baptist were
regarded by the earliest Christians in aspects differing from one another and
differing from modern aspects, appears from several facts. Acts xviii. 25-xix. 3
describes Apollos as "teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus," but
"knowing only the baptism of John," and certain disciples as ignorant of
any other baptism. Josephus says that (Ant. xviii. 5. 2) some of the Jews thought
III
[2942*]
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
"It is not possible that a prophet can perish outside Jerusalem."
The "two Witnesses," then, were virtually killed by the rulers of the
corrupt City-once called Jerusalem but now Sodom and Egypt—
killed, and cast out, and (so far as the rulers were concerned) left
unburied. Then was fulfilled the saying of the Lord about the blood
of all the prophets "from Abel to Zechariah" falling on the people.
As Abel's blood went up to the Lord to call down vengeance on
Cain, and as Elijah went up to heaven leaving a curse of the sword
on idolatrous Israel, so the two Witnesses went up to heaven in the
cloud in the sight of their enemies, some of whom repented while
others were destroyed.
[2942* (xxiii)] Such a hypothesis-briefly described above as a
hypothesis of photographic superimposition-may seem beneath the
level of a historian's consideration. But not if the historian has to
deal with the history of Seers and visions; not if the particular Seer
in question has passed through fifty or sixty years of history and
experience. And such history, and such experience! Including
discipleship under John the Baptist, discipleship under Christ, the
death and resurrection of the Saviour, the rise of the Christian
Churches, the apparently imminent death of the Roman empire-
wounded and restored to life-the actual and absolute destruction
of the Temple in Jerusalem! Then, the variations of place and
circumstance! Fisherman in Galilee, apostle in Jerusalem, bishop
and chief of bishops in the region round Ephesus, convict among
(
((
that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a punishment for his
killing John. Christian Jews, and especially those who had been disciples of John
as well as Jesus, might attribute to God's wrath for both John and Jesus the
calamities that fell on their country during the first century. Origen (Comm.
Johann. ii. 25, Lomm. i. 146 foll.) asks whether John was an angel" before he
became a man. Hippolytus (Christ and Antichrist 45) says that John the
Baptist preached to those in Hades" before Christ. Justin Martyr (Tryph. 87,
comp. 51) says that the Spirit "ceased" in John when it "rested" on Jesus, and
perhaps implies that which Tertullian (Marc. iv. 18, comp. Adv. Jud. 8) actually
ventures to say, that the Spirit went back from John into Jesus. Perhaps the
Synoptic tradition about Christ's being "John the Baptist raised from the dead"
simply meant what we should express by saying that any departed Master “lives
again in his pupil." But Galilæan poetry might very well expand this thought into
a conception of the Two Witnesses (1) prophesying together, in one and the same
spirit, before the Lord; and then (2) both of them, after their ministration was
accomplished, slain and raised up together. For the "taking up [to heaven,
or Paradise]" of martyrs, comp. the Letter of the Churches of Lyons (Euseb. v. 2.
3) ἐκεῖνοι ἤδη μάρτυρες οὓς ἐν τῇ ὁμολογίᾳ Χριστὸς ἠξίωσεν ἀναληφθῆναι (comp. v. i.
1ο ἀνελήφθη κ. αὐτὸς εἰς τὸν κλῆρον τῶν μαρτύρων).
I.
II 2
THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE
[2942*]
convicts in the quarries of Patmos! These antecedents are not
unworthy of the consideration of a historian endeavouring to assign
date and authorship to "the Revelation of John.”
Nor must the historian despise grammar. And from a grammatical
point of view the hypothesis of the compilation of documents is most
unlikely. Differences of style undoubtedly exist, in different portions
of Revelation, but not a tenth part of such differences as separate
The Tempest from Richard II. In contrast with all the other books
of N.T., the Apocalypse of John is written in a language of its own,
a blend of Hebraic Greek and vernacular Greek, defiant of grammar.
Its peculiarities stamp the whole work-barring a few brief phrases
-as not only conceived by one mind but also written by one hand.
[2942* (xxiv)] As regards the exact dates of the several visions,
and the exact amount of influence on the Seer exerted by oral and
written traditions-some of them still extant in apocryphal books
connected with the names of Enoch, Esdras, and others—a critic
must be very self-confident if he ventures to utter detailed decisions¹.
But the case is different in deciding that particular allusions necessi-
¹ [2942* (xxiv) a] In studying Revelation, some notice ought perhaps to be
taken of the influence likely to be exerted on men's minds by the approaching
centenary (according to ordinary computation) of Christ's birth 101 A.D., the
third year of Trajan. The Book of Elchasai (Hippol. ix. 13) connects a new
remission of sins" with "the third year of Trajan." Comp. ib. 16 "When the
time comes again for the fulfilment of three years of the Emperor Trajan from the
time when he subjected the Parthians to his authority [when three years have been
fulfilled] war is to rage (ȧypíšerai) between the angels of wickedness of the north."
This repetition of a date that has no recognised historical importance (whatever
may be the explanation of the modification in the second passage) suggests an
early date for the Book of Elchasai and also reminds us that Christians, a century
after Christ's birth, would begin to ask with special emphasis, "Will not the Lord
Jesus come now?" The second passage also illustrates the note on the Parthians
in 2998 (li) a foll.
[2942* (xxiv) 6] Lightf. Coloss. p. 375 renders the precept of Elchasai in
Epiphan. xix. 3 p. 42 "men ought to pray there at Jerusalem (λéyeɩ ÈKEî deîv
exeσbai els 'I.)." But that exeolaι els 'I. means "pray towards Jerusalem " is
indicated by what precedes (ib.) "he forbids them to pray towards (els) the East
(els åvaroλàs eüşaσbai), saying that they must not pray thus, but must have their
face towards (èπì) Jerusalem, from all parts." So 1 K. viii. 29—30, 2 Chr. vi.
20—1 πроσεÚXεσlαι eis тóπov 4 times. Comp. Ps. xxviii. 2, cxxxviii. 2 and Tobit
προσεύχεσθαι τόπον
iii. 11 (where & adds “spreading out her hands”). For èkeî meaning “thither," comp.
Mt. ii. 22, xvii. 20, etc. This does not wholly destroy Lightfoot's argument
(Coloss. 87-8) that sun-worship was practised by the Essenes; but it indicates
possibilities of misunderstanding "towards the sun as meaning "to the sun,"
which must be taken into account. See 2998 (xxvii) r—v.
A.
113
""
8
[2942*]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
tate particular pre-existent historical facts. It is these allusions that
(in my opinion) almost necessitate the conclusion that large portions
of the Apocalypse were written—as Irenæus says—at the close of the
reign of Domitian. Having regard to the general unity of thought
and style, I should be disposed to go further, and to say that
practically the whole of the book was written or revised at that date.
It would follow, as an inevitable conclusion, for those who compare
the style of the Apocalypse with that of the Fourth Gospel, that the
author of the former could not have written the latter till late in the
reign of Trajan, so as to allow time for a complete transformation
of language and idiom. Even with this allowance, the hypothesis
that the author of the Apocalypse was also the author of the Gospel,
would involve something approaching to "a miracle." See 2967 a.
PATMOS
[2942] Page 304, "To the mines in Patmos." So Victorinus of
Pettau (Migne v. 333) on Rev. x. 11 "Hoc dicit propterea quod
quando haec Joannes vidit erat in insula Pathmos in metallo damnatus
a Domitiano Caesare. Ibi ergo vidit Apocalypsin. Et cum jam
senior putaret se per passionem accepturum receptionem, interfecto
Domitiano omnia judicia ejus soluta sunt. Et Joannes de metallo
dimissus sic postea tradidit hanc eamdem quam acceperat a Deo
Apocalypsin." But see Dict. Christ. Biogr. iv. 1128-9 on the
doubtfulness of the works assigned to this writer.
((
[2943] Guérin (Descr. de l'île de Patmos 1856, p. 2) quotes
Meletius (Geogr. p. 488, ed. 1728) describing the island as μeraλopópos.
"Metallum " may mean "mine” or quarry." Sir W. M. Ramsay
(Letters to the Seven Churches, p. 85) says, “There were no mines in
Patmos. Whether any quarries were worked there might be deter-
mined by careful exploration of the islet." I presume that Sir W. M.
Ramsay, who quotes no authorities, has convinced himself that there
never were any mines-by a personal inspection that has not sufficed
to settle the rather more difficult question whether there were ever
any quarries.
On this point I am permitted to quote a letter from the Rev.
Prof. Alexander Nairne, describing his inferences from a visit to
Patmos in March and April 1887: "I do not remember any mines or
114
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2946]
quarries. I am almost certain none were being worked while we
were there, and I don't think we saw any disused ones."
[2944] Mayor's exhaustive note on "relegatio" (Juvenal i. 73)
mentions a great number of islands, described by various historians
as selected for this purpose, and, among these, Patmos, but adds no
authority except Rev. i. 9. Several other islands, however, are
mentioned by him in connexion with only one instance. Pliny iv. 69
gives the circuit as 30 miles; Meletius says "40 or, according to
others, 50." The discrepancy might be explained if Pliny took a
walker's estimate and Meletius a sailor's. And the indentations of
the island might make even a walker's estimate vary very much.
Pliny iv. 69-74 contains the names of more than sixty islands.
About many he gives no particulars. About many he merely gives
their distance from other points. But he specifies the circuit in six
cases. Of these six, one is Patmos. Another is Gyaros-the well-
known place of exile. Pliny may have ascertained the circuit of
Gyaros from his friend Musonius Rufus, who was sent there by Nero.
[2945] In Rev. xiii. 1, A.V. has “And I stood upon the sand of
the sea and I saw," but R.V. “And he [i.e. the beast] stood upon the
sand...."
The MSS. favour R.V., but on this point (Joh. Gram.
2687 d) good мSS. might go wrong. The precedents of Ezek. i.
1 foll., Dan. viii. 2, x. 4 "by the river," and Gen. xli. 17 upon
the brink of the river," suggest that standing by the side of water
would be a feature in dreams and visions. But had the rocky
island of Patmos any "sand" on which the Seer could "stand"
whether in fact or in vision? Prof. Nairne writes, "There were bits
of sandy beach here and there along the coast"; and I gather that
there is a beach in the principal bay looking eastward on which the
Seer might stand, or imagine himself standing, beholding the rising
sun and “the Beast coming up from the sea."
(C
[2946] In describing the group of islands to which Patmos
belongs, Pliny says, iv. 70 “When Thera first emerged it was called
Calliste, Therasia was afterwards torn off from it, and between the
two there soon sprang up Automate (also called Hiera), and in our
times Thia, which sprang up next to the above-mentioned islands.”
These words, and the frequent references to earthquakes in the
Sibylline books, and our knowledge of multitudes of earthquakes
about the Ægean sea from 100 A.D. onward, must be taken into
account in estimating the value of negative evidence, even when
coming from most careful and trustworthy eye-witnesses, as to the
8-2
115
[2946]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
non-existence of mines and quarries in Patmos in the reign of
Domitian. Comp. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 363 "Samos shall be sand
(ammos); Delos shall be no Delos (adēlos)," and many other passages.
[2947] Since writing the above, I have received from the
Rev. T. C. Fitzpatrick, President of Queens' College, Cambridge
(through the kindness of Prof. Swete), an article in Christ's College
Magazine, Easter Term, 1887, describing a fortnight spent in Patmos
in the spring of 1887. It says (p. 19) "Down the middle of the island
run a succession of hills; in one of them, in the northern half of the
island, there are quarries." [I italicize.] "This perhaps is the ex-
planation of the statement that St John was 'damnatus in metallum,'
as there do not appear to have been any mines properly so called."
In a letter to Prof. Swete dated 30 April 1906, Mr Fitzpatrick
says, "There are quite a number of little bays with sandy shore."
LEGENDS OF MARTYRDOM BY FIRE
[2948] Page 304, "The fiery trial." Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 12 "the fiery
trial among you," lit. "the burning (Tupóσe) among you." Iúpwσis
occurs elsewhere in N.T. only twice, Rev. xviii. 9, 18 "smoke of her
burning." In Prov. xxvii. 21, πúpwois corresponds to Hebrew "smelting
pot," or "furnace," which Heb. is rendered by the LXX "furnace
in Is. xlviii. 10, Deut. iv. 20. Пúpwois, in the LXX of Amos iv.
9, means "blight," which is substituted by the other translators.
Stephen's Thesaurus indicates that upwσis is very frequent as literal
"burning," but gives no instance of "trial," "probation," except from
Hesychius. These facts shew that "saved from burning," in an old
tradition about John, might be taken literally by error (as Tertullian,
"fiery oil") although it really meant "saved from a fiery trial of
suffering in prison, mines, torture etc."
[2949] Compare Gen. xi. 28 "And Haran died in the presence
of his father Terah, in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees,"
and xv. 7 “I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the
Chaldees." The word "Ur" means "flame." The Jerusalem
Targum in the latter passage has, "I am the Lord who brought thee
out of the fiery furnace, from Ur of the Chasdai," thus combining
“furnace” and “Ur." (Targ. Jon. omits "from Ur.”)
[2950] So far, a reader might suppose that Ur, being given up to
116
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2954]
idolatry, was regarded as being a place of trial for Abraham and
called metaphorically a "furnace," as Egypt is in Deut. iv. 20, "from
the iron furnace, even out of Egypt." But in Gen. xi. 28 the meta-
phor has been developed into a literal fact by Targ. Jon., "And
Haran died in the presence of his father Terah, where he was burned
in the land of his nativity, in the furnace of fire which the Chasdai
had made for Abraham," and sim. Targ. Jer. On the phrase "in
the presence of,” i.e. "in the life-time of," see Gesen. 818 b.
[2951] In this form, Gen. xi. 28 is made the basis of a long
legend in which Abraham is brought by God out of the furnace that
the Chaldees had made for him; but Haran, his brother, being
faithless, is consumed in the furnace, before the eyes of Terah.
The legend of the furnace in Daniel may have had a similar origin,
in the metaphor of a "furnace," though without the special mention
of "Ur."
[2952] Page 304, "I have heard it said." Jerome (on Gal. vi.
10) relates, without question, that John, "tarrying (moraretur) at
Ephesus up to the last limits of old age (ad ultimam senectutem),
being with difficulty carried down into the congregation in the hands
of the disciples, and being unable to frame voice for more words
(nec posset in plura vocem verba contexere [? many words, or more
words than the following]) was wont to utter at each assembly
nothing more than this: 'Dear sons (filioli), love one another.' At
last the disciples and brethren present, tired of always hearing the
same thing, said, 'Master, why do you always say this?' His reply
was worthy of John, Because it is the Lord's command; and this
by itself, if done, is enough.'" It should be noted that Jerome does
not say that this comes "from tradition," or that "some report this."
He relates it as a fact.
[2953] Page 305, “Mix vision with fact," comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2— 3
"Whether in the body or out of the body I know not." See also, as
an extreme instance, Sons of Francis (by Anne Macdonell) on
"Giles the Ecstatic," p. 72 "Soon he lost control over his comings
and goings between the world of sense and vision.”
[2954] Page 305, "Something of the kind,” Epict. i. 9. 10—12,
where see Schweig.'s note. He refers to Diog. Laert. vii. 182 where
Hübner (Leipzig 1828) reads (as given me by a friend) Tpeoẞúτepov,
117
[2954]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
، ،
'Cease,' said he, 'distracting the Elder [i.e. the teacher] from more
serious occupations: propound these things to us, the young [i.e. the
pupils].'" Comp. I Pet. v. 1 "The elders I exhort, who am a
fellow-elder." In Diog. Laert., Cobet's text varies greatly from
Hubner's and reads πρεσβύτην for πρεσβύτερον.
[2955] On Philem. 9 (R.V.) "such a one as Paul the aged
(marg. an ambassador) (πρeσẞúrns)” Lightfoot quotes Theophylact
("to be respected both because of his claim as a teacher and
because of age (lit. time)") who apparently finds a play on the
double meaning of the word, (1) “advanced in authority as an Elder
or Teacher," (2) "advanced in years." Theophylact does not recognise
"ambassador" as one of the meanings here. To the passages in
Lightf.'s note add that (Steph. Thes. vi. 1589) πρeσßúτηs is freq.
'vitiose scriptum pro πрeσẞúτepos," and that some (ib.) make πреσ-
Búrηs older than yépwv, others younger. The latter view is more
probable, and, if adopted, will remove the difficulty (discussed by
Lightf.) as to Paul's calling himself "an old man." IIpeo Búτns
Πρεσβύτης
probably means, not "old," but "advanced in years."
[2956] Page 306, "The Wisdom of Solomon." See the Mura-
torian Fragment (Westcott's Canon of N.T. p. 530). The text is
corrupt, but fairly clear as to a connexion between the composition
of the Wisdom of Solomon and that of the Johannine letters:
Epistula sane Iudae et superscriptio Ioannis duas in Catholica
habentur; et Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius
scripta," where the second "et" is corrected by some to
but it may represent kaì...dé.
(C
"ut,"
[2957] Page 306, "In the same sentence," Eus. iii. 39. 4.
Eusebius calls attention to the distinction, as shewing the truth of
the account of those who assert that there were two Johns and two
tombs of John in Ephesus, comp. Eus. vii. 25. 16; p. 306, “Above,"
see Silanus p. 288.
[2958] Page 307, "He that is greater than we are" etc., see
Iren. Pref., and i. 13. 3, i. 15. 6, iii. 17. 4. Of these, i. 15. 6 is
printed in Greek iambic verse, and Pref. and iii. 17. 4 shew signs of
a similar origin. Comp. the saying of Polycrates in Eus. v. 24. 7,
"For they that are greater than I have said, 'We must obey God
rather than man,"" referring to Peter and John in Acts v. 29; p. 308,
"Hard to say," see Joh. Gram. Pref. pp. vii—viii.
118
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2961]
THE POOL OF (R.V.) "BETHESDA ”
[2959] Page 310, "There is in Jerusalem a pool,” Jn v. 2, see
Fourfold G., "pool." The text abounds in variations and is pro-
bably corrupt. Perhaps therefore not much stress can be laid on
the fact that SS and Nonnus have “was in Jerusalem." Apart from
the reason suggested by Clemens for the present, "is" might
naturally be used here in accordance with the regular habit of
geographers to use "is" in mentioning such remarkable phenomena
as intermittent springs. Having used "is," the writer does not
break off into the past to say that in old times it had five porches,
but uses the participle "having," which may, or may not, represent
the indicative imperfect ("which used to have"). Perhaps he
thought the porches were not destroyed. Perhaps he did not know
whether they were destroyed or not.
[2960] The following facts-which will be more fully given, with
authorities, in The Fourfold Gospel-make it probable that the pool
mentioned by John was not "intermittent" in the ordinary sense of
the term, nor medicinal. Some of them point to the conclusion
that the pool was used for purification, and especially before the
beginning of the New Year. Such a pool, regarded as regularly and
perhaps as annually intermittent, just before the Day of Atonement,
might be contrasted by John with the "fountain for sin and un-
cleanness" opened in Jerusalem by the Messiah, not intermittent
but always at hand for the sinful.
The Talmud, and other Jewish literature (so far as alleged), and
Josephus, while mentioning remarkable springs in various parts of
Palestine or Syria, are silent about this one. So is Pliny, though
he is diffuse on medicinal and intermittent springs, and though he
mentions one (N. H. xxxi. 18) "in Judæa,” that ceased on Sabbaths.
Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 13) implies that after Christ's resurrection
and the institution of baptism the spring lost its curative power.
Eusebius and Jerome use the past to declare that the bathing-
place "formerly had five porches"; they use the present about two
"pools (íuvai, lacus)." The water of one of these, they say, is
remarkably "red" (Jerome says "as it were bloody ")-but not a
bloody")—but
word about their being intermittent or curative. “ Each (ἑκατέρα) "
says Eusebius (“one (unus),” says Jerome) is filled "from the yearly
rains (ἐκ τῶν κατ᾽ ἔτος ὑετῶν, Jerome hibernis pluviis).”
""
[2961] The Jewish Prayer-Book says (p. 254) "On the First
119
[2961]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
Day of New Year, or, when New Year falls on Sabbath, on the Second
Day, after the Afternoon Service, it is customary to go to the banks of
a river or any other piece of water." A prayer is subjoined con-
taining the words "thou wilt cast all their [ie. Israel's] sins into the
depths of the sea." SS describes the pool mentioned by John as
"a certain place of baptism." Hor. Heb. (on Jn v. 2) quotes a
Targum about a man going "down to Siloam," in consequence of
uncleanness, and washing himself "on the shortest day in winter,"
on which it may be remarked that the Talmudic tract entitled
Rosh-Hashanah," Beginning of the Year," recognises four beginnings
of the year, of which the winter solstice would be one. We cannot
indeed assert that Jn v. 1, a feast of the Jews," meant New Moon
of the beginning of the Year; but at all events Origen appears to
have dissented from Irenæus' confident assertion that it was the
Passover¹. Wetstein quotes from the Talmud a tradition about a
rivulet flowing from the Holy of Holies, at first as thin as the horns
of a grasshopper, and then growing to a river capable of purifying the
unclean. But he omits, at the end of his extract, the words "For
it is said, (Zech. xiii. 1) In that day there shall be a fountain
opened..." These would have shewn that the tradition was based
upon prophecy and apparently intended to be of a spiritual or
mystical character.
66
[2961 (i)] If (Jn v. 1) "feast" was connected with Rosh-hashanah,
¹ [2961 a] Iren. ii. 22. 3. Origen's comm. on Jn v. 1 foll. is lost, but on Jn iv.
35 he says (Lomm. ii. 75) ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὴ ἡ ἑορτὴ τοῦ Πάσχα ἦν, οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτῆς. στενοχωρεῖ τε τὸ ἀκόλουθον τῆς ἱστορίας, καὶ μάλιστα ἐπεὶ μετ' ὀλίγα
ἐπιφέρεται ὅτι “ ἦν ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ή σκηνοπηγία.” Westcott (on
Jn v. 1, Add. Note) does not quote this, but seems to me right in suggesting that
the "feast" is the September New Moon, unless indeed it is the Day of Atonement.
As regards the latter, Westcott says, "It is scarcely likely that the Day of Atone-
ment would be called simply 'a festival,' though Philo (de Septen. § 23) speaks of
it as 'a festival of a fast' (vnσTelas ÉOPTý).” But Philo (ii. 296) adds v ÉορτÒν
čoρTÈV
(Mang. - τή by error) τὴν μεγίστην Μωυσῆς ἀνεῖπεν...σάββατον σαββάτων ὀνομάσας.
(Comp. Lev. xvi. 31, xxiii. 32 σáßßαтα σаßßáтwv.) And NC read ǹ éoprý. It is
therefore possible, though strange to us, that Jn meant the Day of Atonement.
2 [2961 b] Joma 77 b “Dixit R. Pinehas nomine Hunae Zipporensis: Rivulus,
qui emanavit e sancto sanctorum, principio tenuissimus erat, ut cornua cicadarum;
attingendo ostium porticus referebat filum staminis; cum pervenisset ad ostium
templi referebat filum subtegminis; denique circa portam atrii excreverat in oris
urceoli magnitudinem; deinceps valde augebatur et invalescebat, ad portam usque
arcis Davidicae; atque porro fluminis instar exundabat, inque eo qui passi fuerant
gonorrhoeam, menstruatae ac puerperae lavabantur.”
I 20
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2961]
special interest would attach to a remark at the beginning of that
tract as to the method of dating (Schwab vi. 53) "since the going
forth from Egypt."
""
The sick man is said to have been sick (Jn v. 5) "thirty-eight" years.
He is generally regarded (see the comments in Cramer) as a type of
Israel after the flesh. The only other Biblical use of "thirty-eight'
is in Deut. ii. 13-14 where it is applied to Israel crossing the brook
Zered, on the point of deliverance, after "thirty-eight years" of
wandering in the wilderness, dating from "the going forth from
Egypt."
The number of porches may have been specified in order to
suggest the influence of "the flesh," like the (Jn iv. 18, s. Origen
ad loc.)
"five husbands" of the woman of Samaria. On the whole,
several details point to the conclusion that there was actually some
place of purification of the kind described by John; that Christ
actually performed an act of healing there; and that the circumstances
lent themselves so easily to allegory that John took this one act of
healing as typical of the whole class of similar acts mentioned by
the Synoptists. It is easy to see how the "year by year¹" filling of
the pool mentioned by Eusebius-as the result of "rains "-might
give rise to the notion of an annual and miraculous agency adopted
by Tertullian.
A 6th or 7th century inscription given below, late
¹ [2961 (i) a] See 2960. Kar' éros occurs in N.T. only in Lk. ii. 41, of going
up to the feast of the Passover, and кar' éviavтóv only in Heb. ix. 25, x. 1, 3 of
the Highpriest making atonement. For eros interchanged with èviavrós, s. 1 K. xiv.
21 parall. 2 Chr. xii. 13, Ezr. vii. 8 parall. 1 Esdr. viii. 6. According to Jerome,
one pool was of the colour of "blood," the other (presumably) of the ordinary
colour of water. Eusebius and Jerome agree in connecting the blood-red colour
with sacrifices, Ἴχνος, ὡς φασι,. τῶν πάλαι καθαιρομένων ἐν αὐτῇ ἱερείων, “ quasi
cruentis aquis antiqui operis in se signa testatur. Nam hostias in eo lauari a
sacerdotibus solitas ferunt." We may accept the Bordeaux Pilgrim's "piscinae
gemellares" (Geyer p. 21) (A.D. 333) as being those described by John, while
regarding his "porticos" as doubtful. Comp. ib. "crepta (sic) ubi Salomon
dæmones torquebat" &c.
2 [2961 (i) b] Boeckh Inscr. 9060.
Ἐν τῷ Σωλοάμ, προβατικῇ κολυμβήθρ[α]
([ἔ]νομα αὐτοῖς ἑβραεστὶν Βηδσαιδά), εὕρησε ὁ κ[ύριο]ς, ἐν τῇ στοουᾷ
τὸ Σολομῶντος εὕρηθε ὁ τησπότης τὸν ἄνθρωπον) καταγείμενος
ἀργόν· ἠθεράπευσεν καὶ τὸν δυφλὸν ἀνέβληψεν. ὅθεν καὶ ὑμεῖς
ματὰ τὸν ἀρχανγγέλον τὸν ἀζωμάτων ἀναβῶντα καὶ γεγρα-
κόντα καὶ λέγοντες· ἅγιος ὁ θεός, ὃ ἀνυμνῖ τὰ χερουβὶν καὶ προσκυνοῦσ
[ιν οἱ... ]οι· ἅγιος ἰσχυρ[ός], ὃ ἐνδοξάσσοι ὁ χορὸς τὸν ἀζωμάτον ἀγγέλο[ν].
[ἅγιος, ἀθάν]ατος, ὁ [ἐ]ν φωνῇ τῶν ἀλόγον γνορισθείς· ἠλέησον ὑμᾶς.
121
[2961]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
though it is, shews how these picturesque surroundings of this
particular act of Christ might be blended with other acts. And it is
not impossible that Luke's account of a dropsical man healed on the
Sabbath may have some connexion with John's story of the man
lying sick and helpless by the water¹.
JN ii. 20
CC
FORTY-SIX YEARS”
[2962] According to some commentators, another indication of
date—not indeed of the date of the writing of the gospel but of an
event in the gospel-occurs in ii. 20 "forty-six years was this temple
in building." But it can be shewn that this is simply an erroneous
statement made by the Jews about the Temple of Ezra. It may
have been current even before the first century (Joh. Gram. 2021—4).
Many Jews may have refused to regard the Idumæan Herod as
building the Temple; in their eyes, he merely "repaired" it.
The Editor says, "Aetatem tituli certo definiri non posse fatendum est. Mihi si
credis, ad secula referas post Chr. septimum vel octavum.'
1
¹ [2961 (i) c] "Dropsical" occurs in N.T. only in Lk. xiv. 2, of a man healed
on the sabbath. There is no single word of native Heb. or Aramaic to express
"dropsical." SS transliterates voрwπiкós, but Syr-Pesh. gives "who had gathered
waters," and Thes. Syr. (1774) quotes a saying that Hadrian died “in (2) a
gathering of waters. But in Gen. i. 10 "the gathering together of the waters,"
rendered by Vulg. "congregationes aquarum," is, in Onk. and Jon., "house of
gathering of the waters. And this phrase "house of gathering together (or, of
congregation)" is regularly used for "synagogue.”
""
[2961 (i) d] Again, Thes. Syr. 1549 shews that by in Syriac, as well as in
Hebrew (Buhl 306 b), means "by the side of," so that a man "lying sick by the
side of the water,” might be described as κατακείμενος νοσῶν ἐπὶ χεῖρα ὑδάτων.
But to a Greek this might convey the notion of some disease of the hand. Hence
it is not to be passed over that Luke's account of the cure of the dropsical man in
a private house (xiv. 1-2) on the sabbath is in many respects parall. to his account
(vi. 6) of a man with a withered hand cured in a synagogue (parall. to Mk iii. 1,
Mt. xii. 10). The word "waters," whether inserted or omitted, is not so easy to
explain. It may however be noted that in vi. 6, Lk. alone says it was the "right
Details must remain un-
certain, but there is evidence enough to shew that many of the divergences in the
accounts of sabbath healing may be explained by divergent interpretations of one
and the same obscure Semitic original.
"waters.
מיין and this is confusable with ,ימין ",hand
2 [2962 a] Some, who favour an early date for the fourth gospel, allege,
in favour of it, an expression in the first epistle, 1 Jn ii. 18" It is the last hour," as
being language likely to have preceded the fall of Jerusalem, to which fall, as an
accomplished fact, they find no allusion in the gospel. But Jn xi. 48-52 appears
to be just such a prophecy as the author might repeat, a generation after its
accomplishment, "The Romans will come and take away both our place and
122
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
[2965]
[2963] Page 310, "Connected with sacrifice."
Lev. i. 6-9
refers to the washing of the "feet" and the "inward parts" of
sacrificial victims. Origen ad loc. (Lomm. ix. 181) says, "Pedes
abluit qui consummationem suscipit sacramenti, et scit quia qui
mundus est non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet." In his comment on
Jn xiii. 5 Origen, after contrasting Christ with Abraham (Gen. xviii.
4) and Joseph (Gen. xliii. 23—4) who did not themselves wash the
feet of their guests, says
"But He who said (Lk. xxii. 27), ‘I came
(sic) not as the guest but as the attendant,' and who with justice says
(Mt. xi. 29), 'Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart'
He Himself puts water in the basin.”
[2964] Origen's "I came" is a reminiscence of the parallel to
Lk. xxii. 27 in Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28, "the son of man came not to
be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for
many." This is a slight indication of Origen's recognition of the
notion of "expiation," "ransom," or "sacrifice," as underlying "the
washing of feet." He adds that Christ "wiped off" the uncleanness
from the feet of the disciples with the towel with which He girt
Himself (Lomm. ii. 401) "perhaps to make their feet cleaner, but
perhaps to take into His own body the filth on the feet of the
disciples...for (Is. liii. 4, comp. Mt. viii. 17) 'He bears our in-
firmities."
[2965] Philo, i. 115 and ii. 242, comments on Lev. i. 9, ix. 14,
and in both passages explains the washing of the "feet," and the
washing of the "inward parts," with reference to spiritual purification.
P. 310, “John intervenes," see Joh. Gram. Index, "John,
intervention of." Comp. Dom J. Chapman (Journal of Theological
Studies, April 1906, p. 426), “In the Revue Bénédictine (July 1905)
I have expressed my full agreement with Dr E. A. Abbott's re-
،،
our nation." And surely a Christian teacher in the days of Domitian might well
think, and say, “It is the last hour"! Even after that date, the thought would
still be natural. Who would argue that Ignatius wrote before the fall of Jerusalem
because he says to the Ephesians § II The last times [are at hand],"” ëσxαтοι кαιρoi?
[2962 6] In Jn xxi. 18-23, there is nothing to shew that the death of Peter had
recently occurred. What is shewn, or at least made probable, is that an old
tradition had contrasted Peter's comparatively early death with the unusually pro-
tracted life of the " disciple whom Jesus loved," leading some disciples to a
conclusion that the latter might possibly not die till the coming of the Saviour.
This conclusion appears to have been contradicted by the death of the disciple at a
very advanced age. The contrast suggests that Peter had died long ago.
123
[2965]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXI
markable discovery that the fourth Gospel takes up, with explanation,
the points in Mk which Lk. omits (Encycl. Bibl., art. 'Gospels'),
and I have shewn that the account of St Mark given by the Presbyter
of Papias affords a very clear confirmation of this theory. Now in
our present subject," the Brethren of the Lord, "we shall find Lk.
carefully omitting certain things which he found in his authority Mk,
and we shall find John explaining the apparent difficulty.”
[2966] Page 311, "O God, my God," Ps. lxiii. 1 (LXX) ô feòs ó
Deós µov, (Aq.) Deè iσxvpé µov; p. 311, "My soul thirsteth," Ps. xlii. 2.
In Hebrew, "my soul" is often used where Greek or English would
use "I" or "myself" (Paradosis 1326).
The thirst for God's presence may also be a thirst to consummate
God's will, which is the redemption of mankind. Compare Saint
Catherine of Siena, As seen in her Letters (transl. by V. D. Scudder,
Dent & Co., 1905) p. 120 "Do we wish to have that glorious hunger
which these holy and true shepherds of the past have felt, and to
quench in ourselves that fire of self-love? Let us do as they, who
with fire quenched fire; for so great was the fire of inestimable and
ardent charity that burned in their hearts and souls, that they were
an-hungered and famished for the savour of souls....Should one ask
me how men attained that sweet fire and hunger-inasmuch as we
are surely in ourselves unfruitful trees-I say that those men grafted
themselves into the fruitful tree of the most holy and sweet Cross,
where they found the Lamb, slain with such fire of love for our
salvation as seems insatiable. Still He cries that He is athirst, as if
saying: 'I have greater ardour and desire and thirst for your salvation
than I shew you with my finished Passion.
[2967] Page 311, "Rested his head," Jn xix. 30, see Joh. Gram.
2644 (i) quoting Origen, who interprets the words thus, and who is
referred to here in Silanus as "one of the ablest Greek scholars
among the brethren."
P. 311, "In Aramaic," see Corr. of Mk 510-14.
[2967 a] ADDENDUM ON 2942* (xxiv). See Journal of Theol. Stud., Apr. 1907,
pp. 436–44, indicating that Hegesippus testified to the exile of John under
Domitian. The argument would be still stronger if the two names alleged by an
unknown writer from Hegesippus (ib. p. 437) ỏ µèv èkaλeîto Zwкýp, ò dè 'Iáкwßos,
could be shewn to be a corruption of the term quoted correctly in Euseb. iii. 20. I
'IOVÓKATOS (i.e. “evocatus, veteran ") v.r. Ηκόβατος, Πριβοκάτος &c., Ruf.
"revocatus "-conflated as (1) kaλoúμevos, (2) a pair of proper names.
""
124
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXII
[2971]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXII
[2968] Page 312, "He meant;" see Joh. Gram. 2467 foll.; p. 313,
"Give me to drink,” Jn iv. 7; p. 313, "If anyone be athirst," Jn vii.
37; p. 313, "Thirsting to free them from thirst," see the words of
St Catherine of Siena quoted in 2966.
THE NAME "BOANERGES"
[2969] Page 314, "Translated the term correctly." See Hor.
Heb. on Mk iii. 17, shewing that the o in "Boanerges" may have
been the result of Jewish pronunciation in Galilee, so that it may
represent "sons of," and quoting a passage where the Hebrew rgs
(represented by -erges in "Boanerges ") means the "rushing sound”
of the divine glory, or Shechinah: Megill. 296 "The father of
Samuel sat in the synagogue...the Shechinah came. He heard the
voice of the rigsha [i.e. the rushing sound of the Spirit] and went
not out the angels came and he was affrighted."
[2970] Comp. the account of the descent of the Holy Spirit in
Acts ii. 2 "the sound as of a mighty rushing wind." It happens that
the same word means "perception," "understanding," so that there
might be a double meaning in the title, (1) "sons of perception,"
sons of divine revelation.” Levy i. 239b quotes sons of the
rigsha" as meaning "Spürende, die Empfindung haben"; but the
context of Levy's extract indicates that the meaning there is physical
and special¹, and it would be inappropriate here.
(2)
((
[2971] Josephus, describing the Shechinah as abandoning the
temple to the Romans, mentions (Bell. vi. 5. 3) “a moving, and a
beating [of the air] and afterwards a voice as of a great multitude
[saying], 'Let us depart hence.'" Comp. Ezek. iii. 12-13 "Then
the spirit lifted me up and I heard behind me the voice of a great
rushing....And I heard the noise of the wings of the living creatures...
and the noise of the wheels...even the noise of a great rushing."
The Syriac Thesaurus 3815-6 gives the word in its masc. and fem.
1 [2970 a] Levy Ch. ii. 407-8 gives as "rauschen," and (Af.) “merken,
nachspüren," also as "das Rauschen," not Nachspürung, but (ib. 408)
"das Empfinden" in Job xx. 2, where LXX and Targ. (“sensus meus
in me est ") differ from Heb.
as רגישתא
125
[2971]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXII
forms as meaning (1) "uproar," "tumult," "sound of a multitude,”
"rushing," (2) "sense," "perception."
[2972] It may be regarded as almost certain that the title.
"Boanerges" was meant by Mark in a good sense, like "Peter."
This Origen assumes. In modern times, it has been suggested that
it may record a name of rebuke incidentally used by Jesus (just as
He is said to have incidentally called Peter "Satan" and "stumbling-
block"). But is it credible that Mark could place such a dishonour-
able title here in his account of the appointment of the Twelve, in
contrast with the honourable title given to Peter?
[2973] A difficulty, felt by some, has been that in Hebrew, men
would not be said to thunder (as Aristophanes says of Pericles that
he lightened and thundered) except in a bad sense, meaning "mur-
mur," "rebel" etc. But the explanation suggested above (2970)
excludes the notion-which is the popular one about a modern
"Boanerges"-that the man "thunders." It is from God that
there comes the "rushing mighty sound," which Mark has, not
very correctly, translated "thunder."
[2974] Origen has no comment on Mark; but he may perhaps
refer to the correct interpretation i.e. "sons, and receivers, of the
voices of divine revelation," when he speaks of the "thunder"
(Lomm. iv. 14) as "the true mother" of the sons of Zebedee, who
"have taken in (xwpnoavras) her mighty sound." "Take in," xwpéw,
may imply spiritual "perception" (comp. Mt. xix. 11-12). To the
same effect is Orig. Cels. vi. 77 "And those who have obtained as
their lot birth from words of loud utterance (ἐκ λόγων τὴν γένεσιν
λαχόντες μεγαλοφώνων), who in no respect fall short of being sons of
thunder." This follows a comment on Peter as "having taken in
(xwpnoas) the building of the Church in himself from the word.”
Both "Peter" and "Boanerges" are regarded as honourable
titles.
[2975] Elsewhere Origen (Lomm. i. 165) refers to John thus,
"What as to him that lay on the breast of Jesus, who has left [only]
one gospel, [though] avowing that he was able to compose so many
that the world would not hold them? But he also wrote the
Apocalypse, having been commanded to be silent (Rev. x. 4) and
not to write the voices of the seven thunders." This implies, not that
John himself "thundered," but that he received "thunders" of God,
that is, voices of God (the Hebrew word "voice" is repeatedly used
for "thunder"). Compare Enoch 59, where the Patriarch says, “I
126
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXII
[2978]
saw the secrets of the thunder...how it ministers unto well-being and
blessing, or serves for a curse before the Lord of Spirits."
[2976] It would naturally be displeasing to judicious friends of
John the son of Zebedee to find that the name "sons of thunder,"
as given by Mark, was interpreted in the west as meaning merely
loud-tongued or sonorous-preachers of the gospel with a voice of
thunder. Since Luke omits the name (as also does Matthew) the
fourth gospel (according to its custom) might be expected to
intervene.
[2977] There is no trace of direct intervention; but indirectly it
represents John (1) as anything but "thunderous,” and (2) as being
peculiarly “a son of perception." (1) Although he and Andrew are
the first to join Jesus, John's name is not mentioned. Nor does
John receive a new name (as Simon does in the context, "thou shalt
be called Cephas"). (2) John and Andrew simply receive a promise
of revelation (Jn i. 39 "Come and ye shall see "). This perhaps
prepares the way for constituting him a Boanerges in the sense "son
of vision" or "son of perception." He is certainly a disciple of
"perception " later on, for he is the first to "catch a glimpse of, and
note" (πapakúas (Joh. Voc. 1798-1804) ẞλée) the bands of the
grave discarded by Christ. He is also the first disciple mentioned
as "believing" (Jn xx. 8) after the Resurrection. Moreover, on the
sea of Gennesaret, when the disciples have failed to recognise Jesus,
it is the "son of perception" who first recognises Him (Jn xxi. 7)
"That disciple whom Jesus loved saith to Peter 'It is the Lord.'”
،
[2978] Page 315, "Simon son of John," Jn xxi. 15—17; p. 315,
sons of Zebedee," Jn xxi. 2; p. 316, "Be not little children,”
I Cor. xiv. 20. Here, and in all that follows, "little children"
represents παιδία (not τεκνία); p. 316, “ Calls to them and says
'Little children,'" Jn xxi. 5. See Joh. Voc., 1676 b, Joh. Gram.,
2235c; p. 316, "Born from above," Jn iii. 3, on which see Joh.
Gram. 1903-8.
P. 316,
"Mother's word,” Jn xiii. 33 teKvía. The nearest equiv.
is perhaps "darlings." It does not occur in LXX, and Steph. gives
no instances of it in prose writers before N.T. But it occurs in
Epict. iii. 22. 78, Anton. ix. 40, x. 34 etc., always with some notion of
contempt. In N.T. it occurs only in Gal. iv. 19 (v. I. Tékva) Tekvía
127
[2978] NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXXII, XXXIII
µov ovs rádiv wdívw, and 1 Jn ii. 1, 12 etc. Origen (on Jn xiii. 33)
πάλιν
says that it indicates fondness (VπокоρισTIKOU) on the part of Christ
and also spiritual childishness (Вpaɣúτηтa…..&vxŵs) in the apostles.
P. 316,
Orphans," Jn xiv. 18.
self," Jn xv. 4, 5, 6 etc.; p. 316,
See 2805 a
See 2805 a; p. 316, “In Him-
"Paul never mentions it." It
occurs, however, in Heb. ii. 13, 14, xi. 23; p. 316, "I have written
unto you, little children," 1 Jn ii. 14
1 Jn ii. 14; p. 317, "The Son of God
chose," Catherine of Siena p. 46.
[2979] Page 318, "The son of Joseph," "from Nazareth." This
is implied for all the disciples mentioned in Jn i. 37-46, except
that Nathanael at first raises an objection to Nazareth," an ob-
jection almost immediately dropped. In the case of Philip, it is not
only implied but expressed, i. 45 "We have found Jesus son of
Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth."
P. 319, “Taking hold of Christ's feet," Mt. xxviii. 9, comp.
Jn xx. 17, and s. 2999 (i) foll.; p. 320, "Agreed with Scaurus,” see
Silanus p. 252 foll.; p. 320, "Before the Resurrection," Mt. xviii.
18, xiv. 29-30.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXIII
[2980] Page 322, "What did (Jn i. 1—2) ‘with' mean?" See
Joh. Gram. 2363—6.
THE PREFACE TO LUKE'S GOSPEL
πίστις.
P. 323, “The facts,” Lk. i. 1 περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν
πραγμάτων. For the very emphatic position of πραγμάτων, comp.
Heb. xi. 1 as punctuated by Field in his edition of Chrys., and as
interpreted by Chrys., ἔστι δὲ πίστις, ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων,
čλeyxos ov Bλeñoμévwv: so punctuated by W. H. marg., but with-
out comma after rioris. It has the same meaning ("facts, not
fancies") in Heb. x. 1, and is also best taken thus in Heb. vi. 18.
Lommatzsch v. 85-6 prints a Gk fragm. of Origen (not in the Latin
transl.) on Lk. i. 1 "He used the word payμárov to destroy the
heresy of those who assert (λεγομένων ? λεγόντων) that the acts of the
Saviour occurred only in phantasms during His incarnation (TV
αἵρεσιν τῶν κατὰ φαντασίαν λεγομένων τὰ διὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος γεγενήσθαι
κατὰ τὴν σάρκωσιν αὐτοῦ).”
[2981] Page 323, "Consummated," weλnpopopnµévwv, "solidly
πεπληροφορημένων,
128
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXIII
[2984]
fulfilled." Heb. x. I speaks of three degrees of reality: (1) "shadows,"
(2) "likenesses," (3) "facts." Comp. Herm. Sim. ii. 9, where the
prayers of the poor are said to "give fulness to" the wealth of the
rich, and the alms of the rich "give fulness to" the souls of the poor
-in both cases using Anpopopeiv, and playing on the double
meaning of the word. Applied to things, it means "give full
realisation to an act"; applied to persons, it means "satisfy."
[2982] In Pap. Ox. vol. iii. 509 (10) it means "I have been fully
paid my debt," and so perhaps in Berlin Urk. (1st cent.) 665 11. 2;
in ib. 747 I. 22 the context leaves the meaning uncertain. By saying
"solidly fulfilled among us,” i.e. among us Christians, Luke probably
intends to convey more than would have been conveyed by еяλNPW-
μévwv. Lightfoot (on Col. iv. 12) is right in saying "there is no
justification for translating it 'most surely believed' in Lk. i. 1":
but some notion of the writer's strong conviction of reality is suggested.
This is confirmed by the fragm. of Origen, above quoted, IIepì dè
τῶν πεπληροφορημένων εἰπὼν, τὴν διάθεσιν αὐτοῦ ἐμφαίνει, and he
continues "for he had been fully satisfied (Eπληpópnтo sic) and was
in no doubt whether things were so or not." Similarly a schol. in
Cramer on Lk. i. 1.
I
[2983] Page 323, "Eyewitnesses...accessories.” "Eyewitness"
does not occur in N.T. except in Lk. i. 2. 'Yлŋpérα-too loosely
Ὑπηρέται—too
paraphrased in Silanus as "accessories," in order to distinguish it
from diákovo, the ordinary word for "ministers "-in N.T. almost
always means the "officers," or "attendants," of the chief priests.
But it is used in connexion with the gospel in Acts xiii. 5 "they
had John as attendant" (called previously ib. xii. 25 "John surnamed
Mark"), xxvi. 16 "to appoint thee" [i.e. Saul] "a minister (vπηpéτην)
and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of
the things wherein I will appear unto thee," 1 Cor. iv. I "Let
a man thus reckon of us as ministers of Christ."
[2984] Although Luke in the Acts applies the word væŋpérns to
Mark, and although he borrows largely from Mark, it is not probable
that in the words οἱ ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται κ. ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου
he intends to draw a distinction between two kinds of witnesses
and to include Mark in the latter. It is true that Papias
says about Mark (Euseb. iii. 39. 15) "He was neither a hearer
of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but, later on, as I said,
[a follower] of Peter." But, if Luke had intended such a distinction,
would he not have omitted yevóuevo and repeated the article (oi...
A.
129
9
[2984]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXIII
avтóπтαι кai oi vrηpérα)? He appears to mean (as Origen implies)
"those who consistently became [in the first place] eyewitnesses
from the very beginning and [in the next place] servants of the
Word." Probably Luke would have placed Paul also in this class.
Chronologically and literally, Paul could not be thus classed. But
spiritually, the words of Christ (Acts xxvi. 16 "thou hast seen...
I will appear") covering both past and future, when combined with
mentions of "visions" and "revelations" in the Epistles and Acts,
might seem to Luke to justify the classification¹.
¹ [2984 a] Iren. iii. 14. 2 quotes Paul's farewell to the Ephesians, including
Acts xx. 27 "I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole counsel of God."
Then he says,
“Thus did the Apostles…………...deliver to all what they had themselves
learned from the Lord. Thus also does Luke...deliver to us what he had learned
from them, as he has himself testified, saying (Lk. i. 2) Even as...from the
beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word." Here, and in iv. pref. 3, he
implies that Luke means 'the apostles," including Paul. But he does not explain
how "from the beginning" and "eyewitnesses" could apply to Paul.
[29846] Origen suggests various explanations of "eyewitnesses" (Lomm.
vol. xx. Proleg. x. foll.) (1) those that saw Christ in the flesh (comp. Jn i. 14);
(2) ἢ τοῦτό φησιν· ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου γεγόνασιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ὡς τὸν λόγον τῆς
åλndelas tapadıdóvtɩ tŵ 'Inσoû, meaning (?) "Or else he says this, 'The apostles
are said to have become servants of the Word, as [being servants] to Jesus, who
delivers the Word of Truth'"; (3) then follows, "But another says, 'If to have
seen the Lord in the body had been to become an eyewitness of Him (ToÚTOυ) then
Pilate would have been an eyewitness of the Word....Knowing the Word therefore
(Tò oûv eidévai Tòv λóyov) must be understood as the Saviour says (Jn xiv. 9) He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father?" Comp. a Latin version of this in Orig.
Lk. Hom. 1, Lomm. v. 88—9, and a fragment in Lomm. v. 237 πрayµátwv dè eîtev
πραγμάτων
ἐπεὶ οὐ κατὰ φαντασίαν, κατὰ τοὺς τῶν αἱρετικῶν παῖδας ἐδραματουργει ὁ Ἰησοῦς....
[2984 c] Neither the Latin nor the Greek version of Origen's comment explains
what meaning he attaches to "from the beginning (ảπ' ảρxîs)" and whether it
would apply to Paul. But, as he spiritualises the context, he probably gives to
this phrase also something more than a chronological meaning.
Απ᾿ ἀρχῆς,
in N.T., means "consistently, from the first "-for good in Jn xv. 27 "ye
have been (èoré) with me from the beginning (àπ' ȧpxîs)," I Jn ii. 7 "the old
commandment, which ye had from the beginning," implying a spontaneous
reception and retention of the good. On the other hand it is applied to evil in
Jn viii. 44 “he was a murderer from the beginning." In Mk x. 6, Mt. xix. 4,
2 Pet. iii. 4, άπ' ȧpxîs refers to God's arrangement; and the negation of ȧ'
ȧpxîs in Mt. xix. 8, Mk xiii. 19, Mt. xxiv. 21 refers to man's disarrangement or to
exceptional miseries caused by man's sin. This differs from the chronological
meaning of è ȧpxôs in Jn vi. 64, xvi. 4. In 1 Jn, ȧ' ȧpxns is very freq. to
denote the eternal and continuous Word, or Command, and the spontaneousness
and continuity of the Christian reception of it.
130
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXIII
[2985]
...
[2985] Page 324, "John...Epictetus." A very interesting
coincidence appears on the surface in Jn x. I "He that entereth
not through the door (dià Tŷs Oúpas)...is a thief and a robber,” and
Epict. ii. 11. 1 on the right initiation into "philosophy," at least "for
those that attach themselves to it fitly and by the door (ws deî kaì KaTà
Oúpav)." But comp. Plutarch Mor. ii. p. 617 A-B "Lest we should
seem, while excluding conceit by the hall-door, to let her in by the
side-door (τῇ αὐλείῳ ἀποκλείοντες εἰσάγειν τῇ παραθύρῳ),” and Clem.
Alex. 897 "not throwing open the hall-door...but cutting open (avaтe-
Móvτes) a side-door," with which comp. Lucan Phars. ii. 443
tam portas intrare patentes quam fregisse juvat." Lucian (Nigrin.
31, i. p. 73) seems to assume that the phrase is familiar (rò λeyó-
μevov) to theatre-goers when he says that the seekers after un-
seasonable and unnatural pleasure are guilty of the fault of which
"mention is made both in tragedies and comedies," forcing their
way in "beside the door (Tapà Oúpav eioẞiáceolai)." From all this, it
"Non
[2984 d] This sense, of spontaneous reception from the first, might be illustrated
by Gal. i. 15 “It pleased God, who set me apart [i.e. for the gospel] from my
mother's womb," and it is really supported-not contradicted--by Acts xxvi. 14
"It is hard for thee to kick against the goads." The Galatian Epistle also
represents the Pauline gospel (Gal. ii. 2) as at one with that of the older Apostles;
and, as has been said above, "revelation" might be supposed to convey to Paul the
gospel as it was "from the beginning."
[2984 e] Iren. iii. 14. 1 describes Luke as "inseparable from Paul," and Luke's
phrase was probably intended not to distinguish Paul from the "eyewitnesses from
the beginning" but to claim for him a place among them. Perhaps Luke had in
view Paul's self-description as (1 Cor. iv. 1) a minister of Christ and steward of
the mysteries of God," as distinguished from those who were unfaithful "stewards"
and who tampered with the Word. "Ministers of the Word" is perhaps a brief way of
suggesting (1) "servants of the incarnate Logos," and (2) "stewards of His logos," in
a single phrase. The saying in Plato's Theatetus (p. 173), "We...are not ministers
(vπηρéraι) of the logoi, but the logoi are as it were our own house-slaves (oikéтαi),"
might hold good of some logoi but did not hold good of the Logos of the Gospel.
Some Christians, however, at a very early date-perhaps before Luke wrote his
preface-acted as though they were not irηpéraι, and as though the Christian history
contained, not πежраyμévа, but (as Origen says) pavraola. In some critical
details these heretics may have been right, but in their heresy of a non-human
Christ they were fatally wrong. In some sayings, e.g. about refusing to "know"
Christ "after the flesh," Paul may have seemed to support the heretics against the
other Apostles. Against this view Luke contends, saying, in effect, "My story is
one of facts, not fancies; and my teachers are those who had personal knowledge,
and insight into the meaning of facts, from the beginning; instead of shaping the
truth to accord with their imaginations, they devoted themselves to the service
of the Word."
131
9-2
[2985]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXIII
would seem that both John and Epictetus inherited the metaphor of
"forcing entrance beside the door." But it is not at all improbable
that John borrowed the application from Epictetus. It seems to be
Greek, not Jewish, in phrase, and perhaps in thought.
P. 324,
'When a wolf snatches away," Epict. iii. 22. 35,
contrast Jn x. 11-12; p. 325,
II—12
Blames Ulysses," Epict. iii. 24.
18-20, contrast Jn xi. 35; p. 325, "This is eternal life," Jn xvii. 3,
on which see Joh. Gram. 1936; p. 325, "Thrice troubled,” Jn xi. 33,
xii. 27, xiii. 21; p. 326, "Ye are clean," Jn xv. 3; p. 326, “Epic-
tetus...with the Logos," Epict. iv. 11. 4; p. 327, "Look at the
passages," Mk xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi. 61, Jn ii. 19—21.
[2986] Page 328, "Watching and sweat." Comp. 2 Macc. ii. 26
“The business was one of sweat and watching," where the Syriac, for
"sweat," has (Walton) "sudore et labore lassitudineque." In quoting
Lk. xxii. 44, Justin Martyr omits "of blood," Tryph. 103 "sweat
streamed down like drops," or rather, "like clots." This suggests
how the interpolation developed. First it was merely "sweat," used
metaphorically, meaning "anxious toil" or "travail." Then it was
taken literally. Then, in order to indicate that there was something
unusual, and also perhaps in order to explain how it was visible to
the disciples at some distance, "like clots" was added. But Wetstein
ad loc. quotes Galen, “clot, for this is the customary Greek word for
congelated blood." Hence it would be natural to add "of blood."
The Arabic diatessaron has "as a river of blood." The passage
is omitted by the best Gk Mss. and by SS, and is placed in double
brackets by W. H. But it must have been a very early interpola-
tion, for Irenæus iii. 22. 2 speaks of Christ's "sweating clots of
blood." "Clot" is Opóµßos in all these passages.
[2987] Page 328, "He that hath seen...may believe,” Jn xix. 35,
on which see Joh. Gram. textual Index.
I
9, 2 Chr. ix.
P. 328, "He that seeth (opŵv)," comp. 1 Chr. xxi.
29, xii. 15, also used by Theod. and Sym. in 1 S. ix. 9. The phrase
in the present tense, "he that seeth God," is regularly applied to
Israel by Philo i. 483, 526, comp. 124, 369 etc. For the sake of
distinguishing Christian vision, and to emphasize its permanence,
John might prefer to use the perfect of opáw. He never uses the
present. His non-use of it cannot be explained by contemporary
disuse of the present, for it is very freq. indeed in the second century.
P. 329, "Zechariah," Zech. xiii. 1 "In that day there shall be a
fountain opened."
132
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXXIII, XXXIV [2992]
P. 329, "A marginal note," Mt. xxvii. 49 enclosed by W. H. in
double brackets, see Joh. Voc. 1756.
[2988] Page 329, "Acts of John," 12-15 "I therefore, having
seen Him, did not even abide at His passion but fled to the Mount
of Olives....And our Lord stood in the midst of the cave...and having
said these things He shewed me a cross of light...and the Lord
Himself I could see above the cross not having shape but a kind of
voice....Thou hearest that I suffered, yet I did not suffer; [thou
hearest] that I did not suffer, yet I did suffer...; thou hearest that
blood flowed from me (αἷμα ἐξ ἐμοῦ ῥεύσαντα (sic)) and it did not
flow." But the Acts of John, though a very early work, could not
have been known to Scaurus in 118 A.D.
P. 329, "Crib," see Joh. Voc. 1673, 1736; p. 329-30, "Am-
biguities," "Philo," and "lifted up," see Joh. Gram. Index.
[2989] Page 330, "Thou art not yet fifty...," Jn viii. 57. On
this see Hor. Heb. referring to Numb. iv. 3 and iv. 47. But Numb.
viii. 25-6 shews that, after the age of fifty, the Levite was not (as
Hor. Heb. says) "superannuated" but relieved from laborious service.
Hence Philo says i. 204 "the fiftieth logos is complete, or perfect
(Téλeos)." Origen (on Numb. iv. 3—47, Lomm. x. 35 and x. 41—3)
also says "usque ad quinquagesimum annum et fit iste praecipuus
numerus et electus"; p. 331, “The young Irenæus,” ii. 22. 5—6.
[2990] Page 331, "Another of the brethren."
This is an
anachronism, referring to Chrysostom, who reads "forty" both in
his text and in his comment. Cyril says that, though Jesus was only
thirty-three, the Jews thought that He was nearly fifty; p. 331,
"Twofold and threefold attestation," see Joh. Gram. 2587-2623.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXIV
[2991] Page 334, "Seven before the resurrection." In Joh.
Gram. 2624, "John records only seven 'signs,"" the words "before
the resurrection" were assumed, but should have been added; p. 334,
"Fourteen generations," see Silanus p. 226.
""
[2992] Page 334, "Mighty works," see Joh. Voc. 1686; p. 334,
"The stronger," see Joh. Gram. 2799 a; p. 334, Greatness," see
Joh. Voc. 1683; p. 334-5, "No mention of repentance,'
uses the noun faith" etc. For these and other points see 1670 and
the English alphabetical lists in Joh. Voc.; p. 335, "Ceres and
never
133
[2992]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXIV
Pluto," Epict. ii. 20. 32; p. 335, "On the edge of the sea," see Joh.
Gram. 2340-6, and Fourfold G. "sea."
[2993] Page 335, "A curious book," Fourth (or Second) Book
of Esdras, on which see Enc. Bibl. col. 1392-3. The vision is
described in ix. 38—x. 55.
[2994] Page 336, “David...'a son of thirty years'" is the lit.
rendering of 2 S. v. 4, comp. Lk. iii. 23. Epiphanius says (Adv.
Hær. Lib. ii. tom. ii. 34, p. 652) "We have also found in traditions
that Lazarus was thirty years old at the time when he is recorded to
have been raised from the dead, and after [the Lord] had raised him
up he lived another thirty years"; p. 336, "The raising of Lazarus,”
see the author's article in Enc. Bibl. 2744—51.
P. 337, "Philo sees………… Barnabas." Philo i. 481 comments on
the two aspects of the name Eliezer, as denoting that man is
"dead" without God: "Being interpreted, Eliezer means 'God my
help,' since the lump of flesh and blood, which is by itself liable to
dissolution and dead, is kept together and enkindled by God's
providence." Beresh. Rabb. (on Gen. xiv. 14 "three hundred and
eighteen ") says that the number means " Eliezer," and Barnabas
ix. 8 says that the number means "Jesus and the cross"; p. 337,
"Christians," Justin Martyr Tryph. 134, Iren. iv. 21. 3.
[2995] Page 338, "Some leave it out," that is, Mt. x. 8 “raise
the dead." Chrysostom and Jerome leave it out, as also do some
good Mss. The Scholia published by Cramer say nothing about it.
Nor does Alford. But it must be remembered that Origen also
(once) omits "the dead are raised" in Mt. xi. 5, where the words, if
taken literally, create great difficulty-because the Baptist's disciples
are supposed to see this and the other mighty works ("Go, tell John
the things that ye hear and see"). Luke meets the difficulty by
(1) changing the present into past tenses (Lk. vii. 22 "the things
that ye saw and heard"), and (2) introducing a raising of the dead
just before the arrival of the Baptist's messengers, so that Christ is
able to say with literal truth, "the dead (pl.) are raised," which
Matthew (having mentioned no revivification except that of Jairus'
daughter) could not consistently say except in a spiritual sense.
A kindred difficulty occurs in Matthew's combination of a precept
about "lepers" (Mt. x. 8), "raise the dead, cleanse the lepers." This is
mentioned by no other evangelist and (so far as we know) fulfilled
by no Apostle. It will be maintained in a future treatise that
Matthew has preserved a spiritual tradition of great value (which
134
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXXIV-XXXVI
[2997]
perhaps Luke may have taken literally and consequently omitted as
erroneous). The Babylonian Talmud mentions a tradition that the
Messiah would be a "leper." Of far greater importance is the fact
that in Isaiah's account of the Suffering Servant as "stricken, smitten
of God, and afflicted," Aquila and Symmachus render "stricken" by
"leprous." According to Matthew, the first act of the Saviour, after
descending from the mountain where He had promulgated the New
Law, was to break the letter of the Old Law (while fulfilling its
spirit) by touching a leper-thereby symbolizing His mission to
"bear the infirmities and carry the pains" of sinful mankind. See
Fourfold Gospel (Index, "Healing ").
P. 340, “Isaiah and Horace in one," Is. x. 33, Hor. iv. 4. 57;
p. 341, "Arms of war," Cicero, De Offic. i. 22..77; p. 341,
"Laws
are silent," ib. Pro Mil. 4; p. 342, “Frustra,” Virgil, Æneid vi. 294.
NOTES TO CHAPTERS XXXV AND XXXVI
[2996] Page 351, "The kingdom of God," Lk. xvii. 21; p. 352,
"So Paul," Acts xvii. 23 foll.; p. 353, "One year," see Irenæus
(ii. 22. 1—5) who vehemently attacks heretics for holding this view,
which however (see Grabe's note, p. 156) seems to have been held
by Tertullian, Lactantius, Julius Africanus, and Clemens Alexan-
drinus; p. 353, "The acceptable year," Is. lxi. 2; p. 354, "Aio te,
Æacida,” see Shakespeare, 2 Hen. VI. i. 4. 65; p. 357, “A woman,
see "Letters of Saint Catherine of Siena," passim ; p. 357, “one of
our poets," Cowper; p. 358, "The Son of man," Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28,
parall. to Lk. xxii. 27; p. 358, "Philo," see Philo i. 187-8 and
Paradosis, 1285; p. 358, "Dry bones," Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14.
"
[2997] Page 364, "The Promise of the Man," Epict. ii. 9. 3.
The word "promise," or "profession," rayyeλía, occurs about
15 times in Epictetus and about as many times in the epistle to the
Hebrews. It is also freq. in the Acts and the Pauline epistles.
Bonitz gives it as only occurring once in Aristotle (and there in a
bad sense), and Mitchell does not give it as occurring in Plato. It
also rare in Plutarch. It does not occur at present (1906) in the
indices of the Berl. Urkund. and the Egypt Expl. Pap. Marc. Ant.
does not use it. In canon. LXX, it occurs only thrice. It may be
taken as characteristic of a few writers in N.T. and Epictetus. But
Epictetus speaks of "the promise of the Man," "the promise of
135
[2997]
NOTES TO CHAPTER XXXVI
Virtue," "the promise of the philosopher," whereas the N.T. writers
mostly regard it as "the promise of God."
P. 364, “All...in subjection," Epict. ii. 10. 1; p. 364, "Thou hast
put," Ps. viii. 6; p. 364, "Man...in honour," Ps. xlix. 12 (LXX).
ADDENDUM ON 2942*
[2997 a] Page 75 above, "It, not he." See an able paper (Journ. of Theol.
Stud., Apr. 1907, pp. 431—5) on Iren. v. 30. 3 ei yàp édeɩ åvapavdòv tŵ vûv kaipŵ
κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ [sc. τοῦ ᾿Αντιχρίστου] δι᾽ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν
Αποκάλυψιν έωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη (visum est) ἀλλὰ σχεδόν
ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς, urging (1) that the
connexion requires "He (not it) was seen "; (2) that "he" harmonizes with v. 30.
1 μαρτυρούντων τῶν κατ᾿ ὄψιν τὸν Ἰωάννην ἑωρακότων, and with similar phrases
about "having seen apostles, elders &c.," e.g. iii. 3. 3 and 4, iv. 27. 1; (3) that
"visum est" may be a corruption of "visus est," for, if the meaning were "it was
seen,” the Latin ought to be “visa est [sc. Apocalypsis]."
But (1) the connexion may be explained thus: "If it had been needful that the
name should be openly proclaimed for the present season, it would have been
mentioned by the same man that has also seen [the vision about the name], for
[the vision] was seen...almost in our own generation [so that it may almost be said
to belong to 'the present season']." (2) Against Dr Chase's suggested paraphrase,
"For the author was seen on earth, he lived and held converse with his disciples
not so very long ago but almost in our own generation," there is the objection that
Irenæus' usual expression for prolonging life is tapéµeɩve, e.g. ii. 22. 5 “He (John)
remained with them up to the times of Trajan,” iii. 3. 4 (bis) about John and
Polycarp, iii. 4. 3 about Valentinus. Dr Chase would seemingly distinguish
παρέμεινε
πaρéμewe “remained (alive)" from "was seen," i.e. was active. This hardly
agrees with the Irenæan and Pauline (Phil. i. 25, Heb. vii. 23) use of πaрaµévw.
Besides, Jerome implies (2952) that John was seen when bedridden. If “
If "was
seen" meant lived and held converse," we should expect, not the aorist éwpáłn,
but an imperf. (to denote continuance) or some mention of "being heard," as in
iv. 27. 1 "seen and heard." (3) "Visum
Visum" (neut.) may well refer to ővoμa, or,
κατὰ σύνεσιν, to ἡ ᾿Αποκάλυψις, i.ε. τὸ ἀποκεκαλυμμένον ἐν τῇ ᾿Αποκαλύψει. Against
the conjectural "visus," applied to John, there is this objection, that the passive
of òpáw (which is much rarer than the active) when used at all, seems mostly
applied by Aq. and Iren. to divine manifestations, e.g. Aq. in Exod. vi. 3, Numb.
xiv. 14, 1. S. iii. 21, Iren. i. 19. 2 éwpâolaι "visum (masc.)," iv. 20. 5 "videtur,"
“visus” (bis), “videbitur," dópatos ópúμevov (visibilem) éavròv πapéoxev.
Dr Chase-whose paper deserves careful study-endeavours to meet the
objections based on the aorist éwpáłŋ and on the naturalness of what he admits
to be an "obvious" interpretation. But he does not appear to me successful.
And compare Eusebius v. 8 ὅπως ὁ Εἰρηναῖος τῶν θείων μνημονεύει γραφῶν, quoting
the ewpάon-clause with its preceding context. If the clause referred to John,
Eusebius might have stopped short without quoting it. But he expressly says,
"This is what Irenæus has recorded about the Apocalypse" (not, "about John").
136
PART II
LONGER NOTES
CONTENTS OF PART II
NOTE I
"THE SON OF MAN" [2998 (i)—(lvi)]
(i) § 1.
Importance of the Title
(ii) § 2.
Deficiency in Aramaic
(iii)-(iv) § 3.
"Son of Man" in the Law
(v)--(viii) § 4.
"Son of Man" in the Prophets
(ix)-(x) § 5.
"Son of Man" in the Psalms and Job
(xi)—(xix) § 6. Jewish Comments
(xx) § 7. Ambiguity of the Title
(xxi) § 8. The Fourth Gospel prepares us for misinterpretation
(xxii)-(xxiii) $9. Pauline equivalents
(xxiv)-(xxv) $ 10.
(xxvi)—(xxxiii) § 11.
(xxvi) c—g.
""
""
h-k.
l—m.
'", n-q.
(xxvii) a—e.
The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts
The Revelation of John
Who is “his angel” ?
“Witness" and "martyr"
“The IS" and "the seven spirits"
"The faithful Witness"
"The Alpha and the Omega"
f-m.
"Almighty"
n—q.
r—v.
""
""
W.
""
(xxviii) b—e.
""
f-k.
l—r.
S—X.
"Angels" not to be worshipped
Did Essenes " offer worship" to the sun?
The "washing" of the Essenes
“The seven golden candlesticks”
"Walking in the midst"
“One like a son of man
""
The "stars" and the "sword"
(xxx) b—(xxxi) c.
"Clouds” and “cloud”
(xxxii) b-d. The difference between ȧpvíov and àµvós
ἀρνίον ἀμνός
(xxxiv)-(xxxvi) § 12. The Gnostics, Ignatius, and Barnabas
(xxxvii)--(xli) § 13. Justin, Irenæus, and Tertullian
(xlii)—(xlv) § 14. Clement of Alexandria and Origen
(xlvi)-(1) § 15.
(li)—(lvi) § 16.
Conclusion.
Addition on the “Similitudes of Enoch”
(liv) e—j. "The righteous one"
(lv) d-m. The doctrine of" hiding"
(lvi) a-d. The resurrection
139
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
NOTE II
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999 (i)—(xvii)]
(i)—(ii) § 1. “Touching” and “drawing near
(iii) § 2.
God "meeting” man
""
(iv)—(v) § 3. "Going to meet," "going before," and "drawing near"
(vi) § 4. Different words employed by the Evangelists
(vii)—(viii) § 5. Matthew's unique use of "anticipate"
(ix)-(x) §6. Matthew's account of Peter's "fishing" illustrated from
John
(xi) § 7. Different symbolisms of “fish”
(xii)—(xvii) § 8. The original meaning of the story of "the stater
(xvii) a-o. The "reclothing" of Peter
""
NOTE I
"THE SON OF MAN"
§ 1. Importance of the Title
[2998 (i)] This title is applied by our Lord to Himself
in all the gospels. But it has been divergently explained
from very early times. The divergence may cause a corre-
sponding divergence in estimates of Christ's doctrine. For
example, some have considered that it implied a claim to be
the Messiah; others, that it implied an identification of
Himself with ordinary mankind; and it has been already
indicated (Apologia p. 62) that very early patristic interpre-
tation favoured the view that äveρwπos, "man"-which might
mean "human being," male or female-meant, in this phrase,
the female parent, so that "Son of man" meant "Son of
the Virgin Mary." The task of throwing light on Christ's
meaning by a comparison of evangelistic passages must be
deferred to The Fourfold Gospel (Index, "Son of Man").
140
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
But evidence will be collected here bearing on the use of
it in (1) Biblical Hebrew, (2) Jewish and Aramaic, (3) Early
Christian writings. (4) An attempt will also be made to
deduce from the facts here collected an inference as to the
fundamental thought of the Law and the Prophets on which
Christ based His adoption of this title.
((
§ 2. Deficiency in Aramaic
[2998 (ii)] The regular Biblical Hebrew for "man" in
"son of man" is adam, regularly rendered äveρwπos, corre-
sponding to homo. Hebrew has other words to express
"man," eg. ish, regularly rendered ȧvýp, corresponding to
vir. Adam" dropped out of Aramaic except as meaning
the patriarch. This placed Aramaic at a disadvantage with
Hebrew because the former could not distinguish so well as
Hebrew could, between "homo" and "vir," av@pwπos and
ἀνήρ
ȧvýp (Germ. "Mensch" and "Mann"). In English and
French we are under the same disadvantage. The distinction
is regularly recognised in the LXX, which (with a few excep-
tions in Proverbs) may be almost said never to use ảvýp to
represent adam, whereas it uses avýp to represent ish, the
Hebrew "vir," many hundreds of times. This deficiency in
Aramaic forces us to rely less on the precise Aramaic words
in which Jesus may have called Himself "Son of man," and
more on the context and circumstances in which He gave
Himself this title. But still more must we rely on the
thought as distinct from the words-set forth in the best
Biblical writings, and especially those parts of the Law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, from which our Lord quotes.
Another reason for laying stress on the thought rather than
the words is, that we have very little knowledge of the exact
kind of Aramaic used in Galilee in 1-30 A.D.
It was
probably very different from that of the later Targums
composed four or five centuries afterwards.
141
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
§ 3.
"Son of Man" in the Law
[2998 (iii)] For these reasons special attention is due to
the only instance of "Son of man" (sing.) in the Pentateuch.
It occurs in Balaam's Song and deserves attention from the
point of view both of thought and of word. As to "thought,”"
it represents Balaam as saying that God could not “repent
because He was not "Son of man." But God often "repents,"
in the Old Testament. The Talmudists much discussed this
passage¹, naturally. And how could Jesus fail to have it in
His mind, whether He accepted it, as from Scripture, or
rejected it, as from Balaam? As to "word," the passage
exhibits, both in Onkelos and in the two other Targums,
paraphrases of "son of man" (either as "sons of flesh," or
sons of men," without using the word adam), and all
three paraphrases differing.
as "
[2998 (iv)] The Hebrew is (Numb. xxiii. 19) “God is not
a man (ish) that he should lie nor son of (ben) man (adam)
that he should repent." Premising that ben, “son of” (Ara-
maic bar) may mean specimen of a class,—e.g. “son of the herd,”
(Gesen. 1216) "in general, one of the herd"-we might imagine
a Targumist meditating thus concerning the best method of
rendering the ancient Hebrew: "We do not use the singular
īsh for 'vir,' but we have a plural form of it meaning men
in general, 'homines.' Using this, I will paraphrase 'man' as
'sons of men.' As to ben adam, if I were to call it bar adam, it
would mean 'son of Adam,' which is not the meaning. Adam
suggests an earthly source, a corruptible or fleshly nature.
I will therefore substitute flesh,' and throw this phrase, too, into
the plural, so as to indicate that it means a class. Since the
plural, 'sons of,' is the same in Aramaic as in Hebrew, there
¹ See Schwab Jer. Talm. vol. vi. p. 156, Wünsche Bemidb. R. on
Numb. xxiii. 19, and below, 2998 (xviii) foll.
142
"THE SON OF MAN
[2998]
""
will be no need to use bar." This is what Onkelos has done,
as will be seen in the footnote¹.
A later Targumist might say, "In order to express ish—
which does not here mean emphatically 'vir'-I will use the
Aramaic bar nash, 'son of man,' that is, 'ordinary man,' 'a
specimen of humanity.' In order to express ben adam, I will
follow Onkelos and say 'sons of flesh.'" This is what the
Targum of Jonathan has done¹.
Again, a third Targumist has said, in effect, “I shall not
try to express the difference between the Hebrew 'man' and
'son of man.' But, to shew that both terms signify a class,
I will throw both, as Onkelos does, into the plural, 'sons of
men,' and will use that phrase twice-not following him in
the use of the term 'flesh¹.”
The LXX mistranslates the passage. Philo repeatedly
quotes it as "God is not as man (ås äv¤ρwños)" and there
stops short. He twice contrasts Balaam's saying favourably
with Deut. i. 31, "The Lord thy God bare thee as a man doth
1 ¹ [2998 (iv) a] Walton's translations, which are generally fairly
accurate, exemplify, in these Targumistic passages, the differences that
might be expected in early Christian attempts to render the Aramaic
bar nash, or similar titles. I therefore give them in full.
In Targ.
Jon., Walton represents bar nash first by "hominum," and then by
"homo." In Targ. Jer., he represents one and the same title by (1)
"filiorum hominis," (2) "hominum," (3) "homines."
Onk. Non sicut verba filiorum hominum est sermo Dei; filii
hominum (Walt. N by error, Lagarde NWN, ed. Wien 1859
WIN) dicunt et mentiuntur; nec juxta opera filiorum carnis,
qui....
Jon. Non sicut verba hominum sermo Dei viventis......at homo dicit
et renuit; et etiam non similia sunt opera ejus operibus filiorum
carnis, quia....
Jer. Non sicut sermo filiorum hominis fuit sermo Dei viventis, nec
secundum opera hominum [sunt] opera Dei. Homines dicunt
et non faciunt....
This Pentateuchic use of "Son of man" derives additional importance
from the fact that it is alluded to by a Jewish Rabbi at a very early date
in a hostile reference to Jesus, in connexion with this title. See below
2998 (xviii).
143
[2998]
'THE SON OF MAN"
bear his son," which is also mistranslated-by him in one way
and by the LXX in another. "There are two fundamental
principles," he says in effect, “One is, God is not as man.
The other is, that [He is] as man; the former is confirmed
by fundamental truth, the latter is for the sluggish, or for the
teaching of the multitude¹."
The gospels indicate that our Lord judged the doctrine of
Deuteronomy to be-at all events in His days, and perhaps
1 [2998 (iv) b] Numb. xxiii. 19 LXX oux ws äveрwπоs ó beòs diapтηoñvai
(to be put off the scent) οὐδὲ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀπειληθῆναι (to be deterred
by threats). It would be interesting to know whether Philo, when quoting
it above (i. 280) and elsewhere (i. 181, 453, 656) was deterred from quoting
more than oux...Oeós by an uneasy feeling that the LXX was inaccurate.
[2998 (iv) c] Deut. i. 31 “The Lord thy God bare thee as a man doth
bear his son." This metaphor is explained by Rashi from the thought of
a child attacked by robbers from the front; on which the pillar of cloud
goes to the front; then, when he is attacked by wild beasts behind, the
pillar of cloud goes behind. But presently he is attacked both behind
and before. Then the Father "takes the child into His arms." Comp.
Jon. Targ. "And in the desert where thou sawest burning serpents full of
deadly venom, the Lord thy God bare thee with the glorious clouds of
His Shechinah, as a man carrieth his child" [an exceptional use of
"clouds” (2998 (xxx-xxxi)) meaning apparently the pillar of cloud and
the pillar of fire].
[2998 (iv) d] This beautiful metaphor is spoiled by a mistranslation of
"bear" in the LXX, which has "give food to (Tрopopopeîv)" with v.r.
"endure the ways of (трожодоpeiv)." Philo when quoting it (twice) has
Taideów, "chasten," i. 656 “And indeed it may be said that there are these
two, and only these two, lines of thought in the whole Law (dúo eiơìv avtaι
αἱ μόναι τῆς νομοθεσίας ἁπάσης ὁδοί), one that inclines to the truth, through
which we reach the settled decision (dɩ'îs kataσkeváČerai), God is not as
Man, but another-the one better fitted for the notions of the more sluggish
sort, from which (ap' &v) comes the saying (Aéyeraɩ) 'The Lord thy God
shall chasten thee as if one should chasten-a [mere] man [should chasten]
his son (Παιδεύσει σε κύριος ὁ θεός, ὡς εἴ τις παιδεύσει ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν
αὐτοῦ).” Simil. i. 280-281 ὡς ἄνθρωπος παιδεῦσαι (sic) τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ is
quoted as “brought in [?temporarily, as if on a stage] for the teaching of
the multitude (πρὸς τὴν τῶν πολλῶν διδασκαλίαν εἰσάγεται),” whereas
Balaam's dictum "is confirmed by fundamental truth (ảλŋocią ßeßalotáτn
πεπιστωται).”
144
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
for all days-necessary for the enlightenment of all classes as
well as for "the multitude."
§4. "Son of Man" in the Prophets
[2998 (v)] Isaiah twice uses ben adam, "son of earthy
man," and both times parallel to a preceding enôsh. The
etymology of the latter is variously given by experts, who
define it as originally meaning "frail man" or "social man”;
but in Isaiah, enôsh clearly means "frail man": Is. li. 12 “I,
even I, am he that comforteth you. Who art thou that art
afraid of frail man, who shall die, or the son of earthy man,
who shall be appointed to be as grass?" In the other passage,
there is a climax, or rather a descent, of frailty or transience,
Is. lvi. 2-3 "frail man (enôsh)...earthy man (ben adam)...
stranger (lit. son of stranger)...eunuch." All these are com-
forted with the thought (in effect) that God, though He is
in heaven, humbles Himself to behold the things that are
on earth and helps the meanest of them. This thought runs
through the Old Testament, as well as the New-that the
"little one" is "great" in God's eyes, that the "poor" are
to be raised up to the seat of judgment or the throne, and
that "man" on earth is to be lifted up towards heaven.
Both passages of Isaiah imply a contrast, or relation,
between God and ben adam. (1) "Man's son" is not to be
feared in comparison with God; (2) "Man's son" is to feel
comfort in the assurance that he is not forgotten by God.
[2998 (vi)] Ben adam occurs in Jeremiah in a refrain
about a desolate land "where no man (ish) shall abide nor son
of man (ben adam) dwell." The Targum ignores the difference
of nouns (having enâsh (2998 (v) a) and bar enâsh), and there
is hardly any distinction of meaning except a suggestion that
nor son of man" means "nor even man of the lowest rank?."
((
1 [2998 (v) a] The Targum does not attempt to preserve Isaiah's
distinction. It has enâsh (the Aram. form of enôsh) followed by bar and
enâsh (genit.), in both passages.
2 Jer. xlix. 18, 33, 1. 40, li. 43.
A.
145
IO
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN’
[2998 (vii)] Ben adam is frequent in Ezekiel. The prophet
is addressed for the first time thus, "Son of man," when he
is receiving “spirit" for prophecy¹, after falling on his face
because of the splendour of a vision in which he has seen
(i. 26) "above the appearance of the throne, an appearance
like the aspect of man (adam)." Then a Voice says to him,
"Son of man (ben adam), stand upon thy feet, and I will
speak with thee." Then "the spirit entered into" the prophet,
and he is commanded, with reiterations of "son of man," to
convey God's message to rebellious Israel. Throughout all
these reiterations, readers may find a double suggestiveness
in ben adam. As being "son of earthy man" the prophet
falls down and needs lifting up and strengthening; but as
being "son of Adam" he is a fit medium for conveying God's
message to all the other sons of Adam, including Israel.
Reasoning thus, perhaps, the Targumist does not now, as
in Jeremiah, render adam by enâsh. He treats it as the
patriarch's name, and represents the prophet as being called
by God "son of Adam?"
1
¹ [2998 (vii) a] Ezek. ii. 1, 6, 8 etc. Levy Ch. i. 11 a has
"Mensch und N. pr. Adam,” but he gives no instance of its Aramaic
use as man," and he renders Ezek. ii. 1, iii. 1, 3 foll., "son of Adam.”
2 [2998 (vii) 6] But in Ezek. i. 26 "like the aspect of man (adam)”
the Targumist renders adam by enâsh, on which see Levy Ch. i. 11 a.
>
[2998 (vii) c] Ezekiel, apparently for the sake of reverence, uses a
long periphrasis when he speaks of man, adam, in connexion with the
enthroned figure that he beholds in a vision: contrast Ezek. i. 5 “there
was the likeness of a man in (lit. to) them [i.e. in the four living
creatures],” óμoiwµa åvôρóñov éπ' avтoîs, with ib. i. 26 "Upon the likeness
of the throne was a likeness (MID) as the appearance of a man," óμoiwμa
ús eidos áv·ρáπоυ. Ezek. viii. 2 repeats the phrase in connexion with
fire, thus, “Lo, a likeness (D7) as the appearance of a fire,” and so
Targ.; but LXX has idoù óμoíwμa ȧvdpós, "similitudo viri," reading 'N
.(434) אש for
[2998 (vii) d] In Ezek. i. 26—7 "And I saw as the colour of amber, as
the appearance of fire within it round about, from the appearance of
his loins and upwards; and from the appearance of his loins and
downwards I saw as it were the appearance of fire," LXX omits the
italicised words (inserted by A, Aq. and Theod.). Origen, who also
146
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
[2998 (viii)] As regards ben adam, Daniel follows Ezekiel
in representing the prophet as affrighted by a vision and
falling on his face, after which the Voice says (Dan. viii. 17):
Understand, son of man (ben adam)"; and then, says the
prophet, “he touched me and set me upright."
(6
((
But the Aramaic portion of Daniel (vii. 13) differs from
Ezekiel as to the description of a human form in heaven.
It describes "[one] like unto a Son of man (bar enâsh)” as
coming with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of days."
There is no Targum, but the title is paraphrased by the
Syriac translation as "Son of men," perhaps meaning “Son
of humanity." It seems to denote the human empire of
Israel as contrasted with the "beasts" denoting foreign
empires. Writing in Aramaic the author could not use
ben adam. But the meaning seems to be that frail earthy
omits them, draws a distinction between "fire above" and "fire below"
as follows (Lomm. xiv. 181, on Ezek. i. 26) ὁ ἡνίοχος...οὐχ ὅλος ἦν πῦρ ἀλλ᾽
ἀπὸ ὀσφύος ἐπὶ τὰ κάτω, καὶ ἀπὸ ὀσφύος καὶ ἕως ἄνω ἤλεκτρον...Κολάζει δὲ
διὰ τῶν κάτω δυνάμεων. Οὐ γὰρ εἶδε πῦρ περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν, οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῆς
ὀσφύος ἐπὶ τὰ ἄνω ἡνίοχος πῦρ ἦν, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσφύος ἐπὶ τὰ κάτω πῦρ
ἦν· ἵνα δηλώσῃ ὅτι οἱ ἐν γεννήσει τυγχάνοντες οὗτοι δέονται πυρός. Jerome
inserts the words that Origen omits, yet seems to adopt Origen's view,
Quod electrum et intrinsecus et extrinsecus habebat quasi ignis aspec-
tum. A lumbis vero et deorsum, ignis erat resplendens in circuitu: ut
ostenderet ea quae supra lumbos sunt...non indigere igne nec flammis....
Ea vero quae a lumbis deorsum-ubi coitus, ubi generatio, ubi incentiva
vitiorum-purgatione indigere flammarum." The Targum has a long
insertion about the glory of the upper parts as being beyond the scope
of human vision, but no insertion about the lower parts.
((
""
nor
[2998 (vii) e] In Ezek. viii. 2" from the appearance of his loins and
downwards, fire; and from his loins and upwards, as the appearance of
brightness, as the colour of amber," fire is seen below the loins; and hence,
if Origen's view were correct, the notion of punishment (koλášeɩ dè dià tôv
káτw dvváμewv) would predominate. In x. I there is neither "man
κάτω δυνάμεων)
"fire," but only "as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the
likeness of a throne." The visions of the "fire" in viii. 2, and that of
the "sapphire stone," are followed by destruction or denunciation. These
variations may have some bearing on the visions of John in Rev. i. 14 &c.
See 2998 (xxvii) foll.
147
10-2
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
humanity, representing oppressed mankind in general but
Israel in particular-as contrasted with the beasts that repre-
sent foreign empires-is to be exalted to heaven¹.
¹ [2998 (viii) a] Daniel (x. 5 foll.) sees a vision of a man, “vir,” WN,
described in a context that suggests that the writer has borrowed from
Ezekiel viii. 2, adopting (2998 (vii) c) 'N for N. A little afterwards
comes x. 16 "and behold as the likeness () of the sons of man
(bne adam) touched my lips," and x. 18 (lit.) "and he added and there
touched me as the appearance of (18) man (adam). The LXX has
x. 16 ὡς ὁμοίωσις χειρὸς (Theod. υἱοῦ) ἀνθρώπου, x. 18 (LXX and Theod.)
és őρaσis ȧvôρórov. Neither in these passages, nor anywhere in Daniel,
is there any mention of a "man" or son of man" as "sitting" on a
"throne." The only mention of "throne" is in Dan. vii. 9, "Thrones
were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit...his throne was
fiery flames...." "Sit" refers to God, not to any "son of man."
But the plural "thrones suggests that, when the "son of man
is "brought" to the "Ancient of days," the redeemed race as a whole
will sit on "thrones" judging mankind (comp. Dan. vii. 10 "the judgment
was set,” ib. 22 "judgment was given to the saints of the Most High,"
Rev. xx. 4 "I saw thrones and [figures] sat on them and judgment was
given to them ").
""
"
[2998 (viii) b] 1 Cor. vi. 2-3 “Know ye not that the saints shall judge
the world...that we shall judge angels?" should be compared with Rev.
iii. 21 “I will give unto him to sit with me in my throne, as I also...have
sat with my Father in his throne," and with Mt. xix. 28 "ye, too, shall sit
on twelve thrones" (uttered in reply to Peter), Lk. xxii. 30 “that...ye may
sit on thrones," where both add, "judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Taken together, these passages suggest that our Lord habitually connected
the judgment of the world by the Son of man with a notion of collective-
ness or assessorship.
[2998 (viii) c] Comp. Enoch 45 (ed. Charles, where see note) “On that
day Mine Elect One will sit on the throne of glory,” but ib. 47 “I saw the
Head of Days when He had seated Himself on the throne of His glory,
and the books of the living were opened before Him, and His whole host
which is in heaven above and around Him stood before Him," ib. 51
"And the Elect One will in those days sit on My throne and all the
secrets of wisdom will stream forth from the counsels of his mouth; for
the Lord of Spirits hath given it to him and hath glorified him,” ib. 69
The name of the Son of Man was revealed unto them: and he sat on
the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment was committed unto
him, the Son of Man...." All these passages are from the Similitudes (on
which see 2998 (li) foll.). Another section of Enoch (90) says "I saw till
148
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
§ 5.
"Son of Man" in the Psalms and Job
[2998 (ix)] By far the most important passage bearing
on the title is in the Psalms as follows:-Ps. viii. 4 “What is
[frail] man (enôsh) that thou art mindful of him, and the son
of [earthy] man (ben adam) that thou visitest him?" where
the whole context implies 1st, that man, though a “babe and
suckling," is created for "strength," so that God, through "the
mouth of babes," may "still the enemy and the avenger";
2nd, that man, though a creature of earthy origin, is to be
but "little lower than God," and that, in uplifting man, God
will "set his glory above the heavens."
From a different point of view, the Psalmist, thinking of
"man" as apart from God, a boaster, hostile to Israel, and
destined to perish as a mere thing of earth, says (cxliv. 1—4)
"Blessed be the Lord my rock...who subdueth my people
under me! Lord, what is [earthy] man (adam) that thou
takest knowledge of him, or the son of [frail] man (ben
enôsh) that thou makest account of him? [Earthy] man
(adam) is like to vanity¹." And the meaning is similar-
the son of man apart from God-in Ps. cxlvi. 3 "Put not
your trust in princes, nor in the son of man (ben adam) in
whom there is no help." In Ps. lxxx. 17 "[Let thy hand]
be upon the man (ish) of thy right hand, and upon the son
a throne was erected in the pleasant land, and the Lord of the sheep sat
Himself thereon, and THAT OTHER took the sealed books and opened
them before the Lord of the sheep." This has points of resemblance with
the Lamb opening the sealed book in Rev. v. 7.
1
¹ [2998 (ix) a] The difference of order in poetic exclamations like
those in Ps. viii. 4, cxliv. 1-4, and the distinctions of words in poetic
parallel clauses, may not be susceptible of exact grammatical explanation.
Perhaps, in the former, the meaning is "enôsh...and [still more] ben
adam" ; in the latter, "adam...and [even] ben enôsh." In both, there is
a suggestion of weakness; but the latter may mean that ben enôsh is
somewhat above the level of adam, yet far below the level of a claim
to God's consideration.
149
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
of man (ben adam) whom thou madest strong for thyself,"
the Psalmist first prays for the hero and champion of Israel
as īsh i.e. "vir," and then adds "yea, upon that [weak] son of
[earthy] man whom thou hast made strong for thy glory."
In all these passages, from two opposite points of view, ben
adam means the same thing; when leaning on God, raised
from earth to heaven; when rebelling against God, perishing
into his native earth-but always "son of [earthy] man¹."
[2998 (x)] In Job xxv. 4-6, Bildad says (R.V.) “How
then can man be just with God? or how can he be clean
that is born of a woman? Behold, even the moon hath no
brightness, and the stars are not pure in his sight. How
much less man (enôsh), that is a worm! And the son of man
(ben adam), which is a worm!" This is not the view of the
eighth Psalm. There, the heavens are not denied to be
glorious, but the "glory" of God, revealed in the son of man,
is "set" by God "above" the heavens. According to Bildad,
even the stars are not "pure"; enôsh is less pure, and ben adam
most impure of all. This, under the guise of magnifying God,
seems unduly to condemn His works-even the stars. But a
much lower depth is reached by the cynical Elihu, who implies
that man's righteousness or sinfulness does not affect God,
but merely weak man, Job xxxv. 8 "Thy wickedness [may
hurt] a man (ish) as thou art; and thy righteousness [may
profit] a son of man (ben adam)?.”
1 [2998 (ix) b] Targ. has bar nasha for Ps. viii. 4 ben adam; bar
nash for Ps. lxxx. 17 ben adam, for Ps. cxliv. 3-4 adam, and for
Ps. cxlvi. 3 ben adam; and, in Ps. cxliv. 3, bne enâsha sons of man"
for ben enôsh.
66
2 [2998 (x) a] The Targ. has "viro impio, qui similis est tui, iniquitas
tua est, et filio hominis justo justitia tua." In any case, Elihu is bitterly
contemptuous both of Job and of humanity, implying that both are
comparatively strong ("vir") for
strong ("vir") for wickedness, and weak ("filius
hominis") for righteousness, and that neither their wickedness nor
their righteousness is a loss or a profit to God. I think Matthew
Arnold, in Literature and Dogma, or some other of his works, quotes
150
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
But although the thought of these two disputants is
different from the thought of the eighth Psalm, the meaning
of ben adam is the same throughout-" son of earthy man."
§6. Jewish Comments
[2998 (xi)] Early Christian literature recognises a kind
of paradox in the exaltation of man-a mystery "not revealed "
at the beginning, a mystery that "the angels desire to look
into." Jewish tradition, of the first two centuries, is very
scanty. But it may have been preserved, by oral transmission,
in later writings; and these occasionally recognise, in God's
dealings with man, not only a paradox, but a paradox that
disappoints angels and creates a rivalry between them and the
exalted "son of man." In at least two passages of the Talmud
this feeling is connected with Ps. viii. 4 "son of man." When
Moses went up on high to receive the Law, the angels said to
God (Sabbath 88 b, quoting from 3rd century tradition) “What
business hath this [creature] born of a woman among us?
Wilt thou give thy secrets to this flesh and blood?" Then the
angels quote Ps. viii. 4, "What is man that thou art mindful
of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?" This
indicates, perhaps, a paraphrase of the terms of the Psalmist
as "born of a woman” and “flesh and blood," but at all events
an assumption that the Psalm uses the terms to denote the
weakness and corruptible nature of man.
[2998 (xii)] The hostile angels go on to quote Ps. viii.
1—2 “O Lord, our Lord...Set¹ thy glory above the heavens,"
one of Elihu's sayings-a saying of this character-with the preface,
"The Hebrews said," apparently meaning that it was a customary
expression of Hebrew thought. "The Hebrews" would scarcely choose
Elihu for their spokesman.
In Job xxv. 6, Targ. has bar nash twice (for enôsh and ben adam);
in Job xxxv. 8, Targ. has bar nash for ben adam.
1 Ps. viii. I 7717 MIN W8, Field “ quam gloriam tuam pone," Gold-
schmidt (Sabb. 88 b) "(welcher) verleihe deine Pracht"; 71 "splendour,"
"vigour" (Gesen. 217 a), is applied to sound as well as to sight.
151
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
apparently meaning that
glory below, on the frail
One bids Moses reply to the angels; but he cannot, for fear
of the fire from their mouths: "Then He said, Hold fast
to the throne of my majesty and give them their answer;
for it is written (Job xxvi. 9) He closeth in the face of his
throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it." The Targum on
these last obscure words from Job is, "Who holds the darkness
of His throne that the angels may not see Him, who extends
it like a veil upon the clouds of His glory"—which illustrates
the suggestion of a rivalry between "angels" (who may not
see God) and men (to whom, as represented by Moses, God
manifests Himself). And fresh light is thrown on it, and
perhaps on the phrase "face of his throne," by the Targums
on Jacob's Ladder, where some angels, expelled from heaven,
go up to those in the high heavens and say, "Come! See
Jacob the pious, whose likeness is inlaid in the throne of glory,
and whom you have so greatly desired to behold." Then "the
rest of the angels of the holy Lord descended to look upon
him." Jer. Targ. describes the ascending angels as those
who had accompanied him [i.e. Jacob] from the house of his
father," but it agrees with the Targum of Jonathan in saying
that the "likeness" of Jacob is "in the throne of glory."
God is not to stoop to "set" His
"son of man."
son of man." On this the Holy
((
In the light of these passages, and of those in Ezekiel
and Daniel which describe "as it were the appearance of
a man," or a "son of man," either "on a throne," or "coming
to the Ancient of days," it would seem that the Rabbi quoting
Job above--as though Job supplied the answer to the angels
assailing the claims of the "son of man"-meant "he closeth
in the face of his throne" to suggest that the "face" of man
had a place in or near the very throne of the Supreme, far
above the heaven and the heaven of heavens¹. It is not
¹ The passages from the Targums about Jacob are quoted from
Etheridge's translations. Another Talmudic passage puts Ps. viii. 4
into the mouths of two classes of angels, who, on two occasions,
152
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
contended that the Rabbi was right, but only that he was
influenced by some traditional connexion between the "face"
of man and the "throne" of God.
[2998 (xiii)] It is necessary to dwell on this Jewish con-
nexion of "angels" with "son of man," because it may shew
the Jewish origin of similar connexions expressed or implied
in the gospels. For example, a tradition peculiar to John
mentions "angels ascending and descending on the Son of
man." Another, peculiar to Matthew-of which Origen
recognises the difficulty much more clearly than it is recog-
nised by modern commentators — mentions
mentions "angels" of
Christ's "little ones," who would naturally be identified with
despised humanity, frail "son of man." A tradition peculiar
to Luke describes an "angel" standing by shepherds at
night, announcing the birth of the Babe to be found lying in
a manger in Bethlehem: upon which there comes a multi-
tude of the heavenly host praising God" in a song that
implies that God's "glory in the highest" is connected with
man's "peace on earth." When "they go away to heaven,”
the shepherds find the future Son of man in accordance with
their message. The story may freely be described as one
that represents, from a Christian point of view, angels from
heaven descending to earth and then reascending, after
they have caused men to behold the face of the sleeping
Son of man, which is "inlaid in the throne of God."
[2998 (xiv)] Genesis Rabba (ed. Wünsche pp. 332—4)
contains many Jewish traditions about Jacob's ladder. The
first says, The ladder is placed on the earth, that is, (Exod.
xx. 24) on the altar. The top of the ladder, reaching up
to heaven, signifies the offerings. The angels are the High-
priests. But "according to the Rabbis," the ladder is Sinai,
and the angels that go up are Moses and Aaron. God shews
deprecate God's purpose of making man. Both classes are destroyed.
A third class acquiesces (Sanh. 38 b).
153
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
him [i.e. Jacob] His throne, which has "three feet" (Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob); and a Rabbi declares that the fathers
must be "not less than three." Some, who (differing from
the majority) maintain that the angels descend on Jacob,
not on the ladder, explain that the angels leap on him
for joy because (Is. xlix. 3) they have found the servant
in whom God's glory will be fulfilled, and whose image is
engraved above. The two classes of angels saw two different
things (presumably, according to their natures):-"Those that
went up saw his image [on the throne]; those that came
down to earth saw him sleeping. [The matter is] like a King
sitting on his judgment seat: those who go up into the
palace find him as Judge, those who go out into the street
find him sleeping."
[2998 (xv)] Another tradition explained the ascending
and descending thus: "In heaven, the angel that defends
Israel goes up, and the angel that accuses Israel falls down;
on earth, the one defending falls down, and the one accusing
goes up¹." According to another view, the ascending angels
¹ [2998 (xv) a] Wünsche p. 333, "Wer für das Volk oben (im
Himmel) spricht, dessen Verdienst steigt empor und seine Schuld sinkt
herab, wer aber unten (auf der Erde) für das Volk spricht, dessen Ver-
dienst sinkt herab und seine Schuld steigt empor." I give the words in
full because they seem to me obscure and capable of more than one
meaning. I am indebted to Dr Büchler for the rendering given above.
[2998 (xv)b] Mt. xviii. 10 "their angels in heaven do always behold
the face of my Father in heaven "-on which Ephrem (Moes. p. 165) says
that "their angels" are prayers, "orationes eorum"-if the text is
correct, might seem to justify a belief in "guardian angels" attached,
so to speak, specially to individuals, during their lives. But there is very
little basis for supposing that such a belief existed among Jews, except Acts
xii. 13-15, concerning which Origen, while in some sense accepting the
belief (ad loc. Lomm. iii. 262) apparently suggests-in a somewhat obscure
passage that Rhoda's utterance, and the reply made to it, are "not a
dogma." The Heb. of Ben Sira shews that "the cry of the poor" is
personified in Sir. xxxv. 17 “it will not remove till God shall visit,” ¿.e. it
is a petitioner that goes up to heaven, taking no refusal, like the im-
portunate widow in Luke. The context in Sir. xxxv. 14 mentions "the
cry of the widow." This favours Ephrem's view. Comp. Rev. viii. 3—4.
154
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
A very slight change would convert Mt. xviii. 10 into "I say unto
you that the angels before the face of my Father do always behold them
(or, their faces)," i.e. the faces of the little ones. This would resemble
Enoch civ. I" In heaven the angels are mindful of you for good before the
glory of the Great One. Your names are written before the glory of the
Great One." Comp. Lk. x. 20 "your names are written in heaven."
[2998 (xv) c] I am indebted to Dr Büchler for quotations from passages
(Tosefta Sabbath xvii. 2, Tosefta Aboda Zara i. 17) indicating that there
was a Jewish belief in angelic guardianship of some kind. Levy iii. 1216
quotes the former as mentioning "angels of ministration (♫wn) ac-
companying the good" (Ps. xci. 11 "He shall give his angels charge
over thee") and "angels of Satan accompanying the bad" (Ps. cix. 6
Set thou a wicked man over him and let an adversary stand at his right
hand"). Comp. Sabbath 1196 "R. Jose b. R. Jehuda (A.D. 160—200)
says, Two angels (dual) of ministration” [marg. “angels" (pl.)]“accom-
pany the man (15) on the eve of the Sabbath from the synagogue
to his house." Then, said R. Jose, if preparations for the Sabbath are
found duly made, the good angel blesses, and the evil angel unwillingly
says, Amen. Else, the evil angel pronounces an evil wish, and the good
angel unwillingly says, Amen.
66
[2998 (xv) d] Comp. Taanith 11 a "Die Rabbanen lehrten: Wenn
Jisraél sich in Schmerz befindet, und einer sich ausschliesst, so kommen
die zwei Dienstengel, die den Menschen begleiten, legen die Hände auf
sein Haupt und sprechen: Dieser da, der sich von der Gemeinde
ausgeschlossen hat, soll den Trost der Gemeinde nicht sehen." This
represents "the two angels of ministration" as excommunicating the
offender by laying their hands on him. "The man," lit. "him, the man,"
seems to mean the man, whoever he may be," or "the man in question.”
But the same (6
two angels" might conceivably do duty for all mankind.
[2998 (xv) e] I am indebted to Dr Büchler for the following extracts.
Tanḥumâ, ed. Buber, on Genes. xxxii. 3 "This is what Ps. xci. 11 says:
'For he shall give his angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy
ways.' When a man is in Palestine, the angels of Palestine guard him.
You see this, in the case of Jacob (in Genes. xxviii. 12) when the angels
were leaving who guarded him in Palestine, and who now ascended.
Other angels came down from heaven to guard Jacob abroad. When he
returned from Padan Aram, the angels who guarded him in Palestine
descended again." Ib. on Exod. xxiii. 20 § 19: “Behold I send an angel
before thee.' This is what Ps. xci. 11 says: 'For he shall give his angels
charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.' To a man who fulfils one
commandment one angel is given; who fulfils two commandments, two
angels are given to him. Who fulfils all commandments, many angels
are given to him, according to Ps. xci. 11. Who are these angels? Those
that guard him from the demons according to Ps. xci. 7."
155
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
are those that bring Jacob back to the Holy Land, and the
descending ones are those that accompany him into exile.
The latter appear to be regarded as "fallen," and thence
follow discussions of the reasons for the banishment of the
fallen angels, and of the length of its duration. Other
traditions pass from Jacob and his ladder (which "reached
to heaven") to Nebuchadnezzar and his tree (which "reached
to heaven"), apparently contrasting the true empire of God
with the false empires of this world.
There is some approach to the Jewish notion of angelic
jealousy of man in the recently published Apostolic Preaching
of Irenæus (ch. 11--16, ed. Harnack, 1907) which confirms
the Greek text of Iren. iv. 40. 3 ayyeλos avтoû (see Fourfold
Gospel, "Angels").
[2998 (xv)ƒ] The influence of angelology is remarkably illustrated by
Origen's theory that John the Baptist may have been an angel incarnate,
and by the still earlier Prayer of Joseph which he quotes in support of it
(Comm. Johan. ii. 25) εἰ δέ τις προσίεται καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ Ἑβραίοις φερομένων
ἀποκρύφων τὴν ἐπιγραφομένην Ἰωσὴφ προσευχήν, ἄντικρυς τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα
καὶ σαφῶς εἰρημένον ἐκεῖθεν λήψεται· ὡς ἄρα οἱ ἀρχῆθεν ἐξαίρετόν τι ἐσχηκότες
παρὰ ἀνθρώπους, πολλῷ κρείττους τυγχάνοντες τῶν λοιπῶν ψυχῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ
εἶναι ἄγγελοι, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην καταβεβήκασι φύσιν. Φησὶ γοῦν ὁ Ἰακώβ·
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγὼ Ἰακώβ, καὶ Ἰσραήλ, ἄγγελος θεοῦ εἰμι ἐγώ, καὶ
πνεῦμα ἀρχικόν, καὶ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ προεκτίσθησαν πρὸ παντὸς ἔργου·
ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰακὼβ ὁ κληθεὶς ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων Ἰακώβ· τὸ δὲ ὄνομά μου Ἰσραήλ, ὁ
κληθεὶς ὑπὸ θεοῦ Ἰσραήλ, ἀνὴρ ὁρῶν θεόν, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρωτόγονος παντὸς ζώου
ζωουμένου ὑπὸ θεοῦ.”
The evidence of Jewish tradition supports the evidence derived from
almost every book of N.T., and also from the earliest heresies, indicating
a very general though undefined belief in the widely diffused operations
of angels of good and evil, but not a belief in the existence of a special
good angel attached as a guardian to each human being from his entrance
into life until his departure from it. In Tobit iii. 17-v. 4, the angel
Raphael is represented as being sent to fulfil the prayers of Tobit and
Sara, and he takes the form of a man named (v. 12) Azarias in order to
guide Tobit's son, Tobias; but he would not be called a "guardian angel,"
in the modern sense of the phrase, to Tobias or his parents, any more than
the angels sent to Gideon, or to Manoah's wife, or to Elijah, would be
called, severally, their "guardian angels."
156
"THE SON OF MAN
[2998]
[2998 (xvi)] This conception of angels from above and
from below coming together to behold the sleeping son of
man, would naturally be combined by Christians with the
words put into the mouth of the Creator in Job xxxviii. 4-7
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth
...when the morning stars sang together and all the sons
of God shouted for joy?" The LXX, perhaps not under-
standing how "stars" could "sing," corrupts the Hebrew
"sang" into "were created." It also changes "shouted for joy"
into "praised me,” and substitutes "angels" for "sons of God."
The parallelism between "angels" and "stars" may be
illustrated by Rev. ix. I “I saw a star from heaven fallen unto
the earth, and the key of the pit was given unto him," ie. to
the star, regarded as an angel, like "Lucifer" (Is. xiv. 12).
"Stars" is also used symbolically of angels in Enoch (ch. 86).
In Job, by connecting "stars" with a parallel clause about
angels," the LXX prepares the way for Luke's narrative,
"There was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host
[marg. of the host of heaven] praising God¹." A commentary
on Job printed in Origen's works connects the "singing" of
the "angels" in Job with the "singing” in Luke. In O.T.,
"host of heaven" almost always means the stars in a bad
sense, regarded as objects of worship³.
((
[2998 (xvii)] Another source of confusion might arise
from Greek traditions about the angels chanting songs over
the cradle of Christ. This kind of "chanting over" persons
may be expressed by eπaeidw, as where the chorus in
Euripides appeals to Electra, "Sing a song of victory over
1 Lk. ii. 13. There are many variations in the Latin versions. SS
has "There appeared by him [i.e. by, or near, the first angel] a host
and the many angels [of heaven]."
2 [2998 (xvi) a] Anon. in Job, lib. i., Lomm. xvi. 49. Origen also
(Lomm. iv. 304—5) interprets Mt. xxiv. 29 “sun," "moon,” and “stars,”
as including “Satan" and powers of evil.
3 Deut. xvii. 3, 2 K. xvii. 16, xxi. 3, 5 etc.
157
[2998]
THE SON OF MAN"
((
my chorus¹." It is applied to the strains of Orpheus, and
Lucian uses it of the Delphian oracular utterance thus, "I
will chant, Know thyself, over you." But in the LXX the
verb éπádew is always (4 times) used of "charming," and the
noun éπao dós always means "magician," "charmer," "sorcerer,"
étaoïdós
and is frequently parallel to μáyos. This and other points
in Luke's narrative, and in quotations of it by early autho-
rities, suggest that Luke's "singing" may be connected with
Matthew's "Magi," i.e. magicians, and with his narrative
about the miraculous star. If that were the case, we should
have to recognise that the influence of the old Hebrew tradition
on Christian literature was still more extended.
1 Eurip. Electr. 865 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπάειδε καλλίνικον ᾠδὴν ἐμῷ χορῷ.
2 Eurip. Iph. Αul. 1212 εἰ μὲν τὸν ᾿Ορφέως εἶχον...λόγον πείθειν
ἐπάδουσ᾽ ὡσθ᾽ ὁμαρτεῖν μοι πέτρας.
3 Lucian Dial. Mort. ii. 2 ἐγὼ δὲ τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν ἐπάσομαι ὑμῖν.
4
""
¹ [2998 (xvii) a] Máyos is probably "magician" in a bad sense, in
conformity with O.T., N.T. (and Greek generally exc. Philo ii. 456) and
the express testimony of Origen, who assumes the "magicians to
be converted from their errors. He blames Celsus, who called them
"Chaldæans," for not understanding the difference of "profession"
between the two: (Orig. Cels. i. 58) "The Jew in Celsus' book, instead
of the Magi mentioned in the Gospel, says that Chaldæans have been
asserted by Jesus to have come to worship Him at His birth, while still
a babe, as being a God, and to have revealed [the matter] to Herod
the Tetrarch (sic)." Presumably Origen means that "Chaldæans” were
astrologers, and not necessarily “magi,” i.e. "sorcerers
sorcerers” or “magicians.”
(6
[2998 (xvii) b] Beside the possible confusion between "singers" and
'magicians" above mentioned, it should be noted that, in Mt. ii. 1, Syr.
Palest., and Delitzsch, all have magushēm in some form, for "magi."
Now this word, though not in Levy Ch., is freq. in New Heb. (Levy iii.
23 a) always in a bad sense. It is easily confused with "magēshēm,”
which in Mal. i. 7, iii. 3, is used of "bringing" offerings. In Mal. i. II
the passive describes incense "offered" throughout the world, even
among the Gentiles." I K. iv. 21 mentions foreigners
1 “bringing
(magēshēm)" gifts, or tribute, to Solomon. If this word were applied
to the angels that "brought" their tribute of praise to the Saviour, it
might give rise to, or might confirm, a story about "Magi."
((
[2998 (xvii) c] The "Magi" are called, from very early times, "kings"
158
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
(see Tertull. Adv. Jud. 9). This might arise in part from Ps. lxxii. 10
"The kings of Sheba and Seba shall bring gifts." But the confusion
between "king" and "angel" is so frequent (105 a) that the fact favours
the hypothesis that the "Magi" are derived from an original “angels.”
[2998 (xvii) d] Ignatius Eph. 19 says, concerning Matthew's "star,"
that it "shone above all the stars...and all the rest of the constellations
became a chorus to the star." Substitute "angel” for “star,” and there
is a resemblance between Ignatius and Luke, who says that one angel
of great glory shone forth first, bringing the glad tidings, and that then
the other angels joined in a chorus, "praising God." As regards one
star, preceding the rest in glory, comp. Paradise Lost, IV. 605—6
Hesperus that led The starrie Host, rode brightest."
[2998 (xvii) e] When some of the angels came to be supposed
"magi," then Phosphorus (for Phosphor, not Hesper, would be here
the leading star or angel) would be said to "lead forward” the “magi”
to their destination (instead of "leading the starry host"). Comp.
Mt. ii. 9 πрoñуev avtoús, a suitable phrase for the "leader" of a "host."
(C
[2998 (xvii) ƒ] Is. xlvii. 13, and the Targum, and LXX, imply that
astrologers are watchers by night," and Lk. ii. 8 mentions "watchers
by night." This adds another point of possible similarity between the
sources used by Matthew and by Luke.
[2998 (xvii) g] Luke adds "flocks." Now in Judg. v. 16 "flocks
(D)” is confused by A with “waking up (é§eyeipóvtwv) (071)),” and
the text of B gives ảyyéλwv (prob. an error for åyeλŵv). Levy iii. 285 a
quotes a saying that "the night-watches in heaven correspond to the
night-watches on earth," and it is possible that there may have been
some early confusion between (Arab. Evang. Infant. 6) "angels...like
life-guards standing by a king," and shepherds "guarding" their flocks.
Although Greek corruption is probably not a frequent source of error
in the gospels, yet in a poetic tradition of this kind, so widely divergent
in many versions, the chance of confusion between ayyeλwv and ayeλwv
is not to be ignored.
[2998 (xvii) h] “Watcher (^)" means "angel" in Dan. iv. 13, LXX
"angel," Theod. "eir" (transliterating)—but "oi λoroí” have “watcher
(éyphyopos)”—and in Dan. iv. 17, 23. In Enoch (ed. Charles, Index)
"watchers" means archangels in xx. I etc. and "fallen angels" in i. 5 etc.
In Enoch xv. 2 66
watchers of heaven" are fallen angels. In ib. lxxxvi.
I, 3 "stars" is used symbolically of "angels" (2998 (xvi)).
[2998 (xvii) i] It will be shewn (2999 (v) a foll.) that éréornoev (v.r.
éσráðŋ), sometimes with érávo, is used of sudden angelic apparitions.
Hence, a slight additional confirmation of parallelism is afforded by
Mt. ii. 9 ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον and Lk. ii. 9 ἄγγελος Κυρίου
ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς. Luke adds και δόξα Κυρίου περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς, but D, 6,
and ƒ om. the 2nd κupíoʊ, b having simply “claritas.” The paral-
159
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998 (xviii)] There are several Jewish comments on
Numb. xxiii. 19, "God is not a man that he should lie, nor
son of man (ben adam) that he should repent. Hath he said
and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken and shall he not
make it good?" Most of them are unimportant for our
purpose as they merely reconcile the passage with others
that describe God as repenting. But a saying of Abbahu
is important, as it appears to jest against Jesus for calling
Himself "son of man": If a man says to thee, I am
God, he speaks falsely. [If he says] I [am] son of man (ben
adam) his end is to rue it"-playing on "son of man that
he should repent." Abbahu then takes up Balaam's following
words: "Hath he [i.e. God] said...and shall he not make it
good?" and applies them to Jesus, reading them non-inter-
rogatively thus: "He that hath said [so] shall not make it
good," so as to contrast God's power to "make good” what He
says with the impotence of the Christian Messiah to do the
lelism, the twofold expression in Luke, and the variations, suggest that
the original may have simply stated that "the angel, or the star, stood
over, or near, the cradle of the sleeping Son of man."
[2998 (xvii)j] Comp. Arab. Evang. Infant. 7, which does not mention
the "star" till the Magi are going home, "And in the same hour there
appeared to them an angel in the form of that star which had before
guided them on their journey." Instead of a "brightness" or
"star"
66
appearing to the shepherds, the Arab. gospel says that the shepherds
lighted a fire"-another specimen of confusion arising from Semitic
sources (617-25). The same gospel says § 6 "Simeon saw Him shining
like a pillar of fire," and instead of calling the Magi "kings," says that,
on their return, "their kings and chief men came together to them"
questioning them—an apparent duplication of Matthew's statement that
king Herod questioned the Magi. This gospel carries "conflation to
excess. Comp. Clem. Αlex. Fragm. 986 ἀνέτειλεν ξένος ἀστὴρ κ. καινὸς....
αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἀνθρώπων ὁδηγός, ὁ κατελθὼν εἰς γῆν, where “ the Lord” is
the “strange and new star” and the “guide of men." By themselves,
the first words would mean “There rose a strange star."
""
1
¹ [2998 (xviii) a] See j. Taanith 65 b quoted in Dalm. Words p. 246.
Abbahu lived about 280 A.D. For Heb. "repent (DN)," Abbahu sub-
stitutes as Targ. Jon. does in Exod. xiii. 17 (Levy Ch. ii. 530 a).
160
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
same. The special instance of impotence that he selects is
connected with "ascension to heaven." In order to give
dramatic vividness to his jest, he represents Christ as boasting,
like the king of Babylon in Isaiah (xiv. 13—15), "I will ascend
into heaven." Then, by a non-interrogative version, Abbahu
twists the sentence round to this:-"[If he, the Christian
Messiah, says] 'I will ascend to heaven'-he that hath said
[so] shall not make it good¹."
[2998 (xix)] This comment is important for two reasons.
First, it shews that this early Jewish controversialist assumed—
no doubt from his intercourse with Christians-that Jesus
habitually called Himself "son of man."
son of man." Abbahu does not
say that the friends or followers of Jesus gave Him this title:
and indeed, as we have seen and shall see, they did not give
1
¹ [2998 (xviii) 6] Prof. Dalman, commenting on the interpretation of
j. Taan. 65 b, calls it "a divergence from Dan. vii. 13,” and says, “The
dictum forms a crux interpretum only for those who find the obvious
sense disagreeable. It is correctly rendered by Laible, Jesus Christ
im Talmud (1891), 48, and by Bacher, op. cit. 118; incorrectly, by Levy,
Neuhebr. Wörterbuch under DTN; Wünsche, Der jerus. Talmud, 141;
M. Schwab, Le Talmud de Jérusalem, vi. 156. The explanation of
F. Cohn given by Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, 50, is quite im-
practicable."
I am unable to see any "divergence from Dan. vii. 13,” if at least
deliberate "divergence" is intended. Abbahu appears to me not to be
thinking about Dan. vii. 13. He seems intent simply upon making a bitter
play upon Numb. xxiii. 19. Levy (i. 29a) translates the latter part of
Abbahu's saying thus, "[Wenn er aber sagt:] Ich steige in den Himmel
[so ist zu entgegnen :] Wird er [Gott] denn sprechen und es nicht thun?
und sagen, aber nicht erfüllen?" That is, he translates Abbahu's quota-
tion "correctly," according to the scriptural meaning, but supplies a wrong
context in brackets, and thereby fails to give the jesting and incorrect
application intended by Abbahu. Prof. Dalman fails to give—or at least
I should not have guessed it from his remarks—the literally “correct”
rendering under which Abbahu masks his attack.
Dr Schmidt (Enc. 4706) proposes to alter the text of Taanith. But,
with the explanation suggested by a play upon the words, no alteration
appears necessary.
A.
161
II
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
it to Him, speaking in their own persons. The jest would be
no jest if the title were not self-given.
("
say,
In the next place, the jibe is quite consistent with the
view that the phrase used by Jesus, whatever it was, meant
ordinary man" with a sense of weakness. Abbahu does not
"If he calls himself Son of man, he lies," but, in effect,
"If he calls himself to quote Balaam's phrase—son of man,
he will 'repent' it-to quote Balaam again—only too keenly,
when he finds himself suffering like a son of man, and when
he finds himself' repenting' as sons of men do repent.”
As regards the other above-mentioned Jewish traditions,
many of them (apart from Messianic views about the Son
of man on the clouds) shew traces of a belief in the essential
unity of human nature with the divine, and of the destined
exaltation of ben adam to the throne of the Maker.
"Son of man" occurs frequently in the Similitudes of
Enoch. On this, Westcott (Gospel of St John, p. 34) says that,
in Enoch, "The Messiah is 'a Son of man' and not properly
'the Son of man' (ch. xlvi. 1, 2, 3, 4, xlviii. 2)." Dr Charles
(Enoch p. 18) says "Dr Westcott asserts that the title in
Enoch is 'A Son of Man'; but wrongly; for it is as definitely
'The Son of Man' as the language and sense can make it."
The truth, however, is that Enoch first introduces the term as
undefined, then defines it, and always afterwards speaks of it
as defined. Owing to (what appears to me) the uncertain
date of the Similitudes', I had not intended to quote from
them: but in view of Westcott's verbal mistake, and a possi-
bility that the mistake may not be so substantially serious as
it appears, I have added a section (2998 (li) foll.) on this subject.
1 [2998 (xix) a] Contrast Dalm. Words p. 243, “It cannot be proved
that they originate from a pre-Christian period," with Charles Enoch
p. 108, which states the latest date as 70-64 B.C., but suggests as a
reasonable date 94-79 B.C.
162
"THE SON OF MAN[2998]
"'
"
§7. Ambiguity of the Title
((
[2998 (xx)] Owing to the defining force of the genitive,
it is not always easy to tell, in Greek translations of a Semitic
original, whether viòs eoû, “God's son," means a son of
God" or "the son of God." A somewhat similar ambiguity
attends viòs avoрóπov, "a son of a man," or "a son of man,
ἀνθρώπου,
i.e. of man typically," or "man's son." In Aramaic, "bar
nāšā,” i.e. “man," "the individual of the human species," is
distinguished from the indeterminate bar 'naš, "a man."
But we are told on high authority that "it is quite possible...
that the emphatic ending had already lost its force." The
¹ [2998 (xx) a] Enc. Bibl. col. 4728, “Son of Man" (Dr Schmidt).
As regards the genitive with viós, see Jn x. 36 viòs Toû Beoù eiui where
W.H. are justified-by the recognised rule of preferring the more difficult
text when well supported-in inserting roû, though it is omitted by ND,
Chrys., and (Alf.) some minor authorities. Yiòs beoû eiµí, “I am God's son,”
leaves it an open question whether there are more sons than one; but
viòs toû deoû eiµí, “I am a son of God,”—“God” being defined, and “son”
not being defined-suggests “a son of God." So Satan contemptuously
says to the Saviour (Mt. iv. 3, 6, Lk. iv. 3, 9) ei viòs eî toû beoû: but
Nathanael (Jn i. 49) và cỉ % viòs rou Geou. In Jn, the Saviour does not
υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.
hesitate to speak of "the Son," in connexion with "the Father," as
implying the type of filial dependence and obedience; but when He
adds "I am," John (x. 36) does not add "the" (as he does in "I am the
light of the world"), but prefers, by the words "I am a son of God," to
suggest that there are other sons.
ει
[2998 (xx) 6] Hence Origen, after enumerating the titles given to
Himself by "the son of God (ò viòs toû beoû)” does not say that Christ
calls Himself "the son of God." He prefers to use the ambiguous
phrase "God's son," while at the same time quoting Christ's actual
words, which suggest as their meaning, “I am a son of God": Johan.
Comm. tom. i. 23, Lomm. i. 44—5) ’Aλλà kaì viòv elvai beoû σapŵs éavròv
καταγγέλλει λέγων...ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς ὅτι εἶπον, υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμί.
This explains the error of D and Chrys. They have adopted in their text
what the more scholarly Origen reserved for a reverential commentary.
Nonnus paraphrases Jn x. 36 υἱ. τ. θεοῦ εἰμί simply as θεοῦ ζώοντος ἐγώ
πaîs (where (wovтos may well represent the article, "[the] living God”).
163
II-2
[2998]
“THE SON OF MAN"
attempts of Christian Semitic versions of the gospels give
widely divergent results and convey no clue to Christ's
original language. Nor must we forget the possibility that
a Jewish prophet of the first century might call himself "son
of Adam," throwing in his lot with the prophets Ezekiel and
Daniel, who prophesied under this ambiguous title to their
brethren in captivity. We do not know the precise time
when ben adam ceased to include, grammatically or verbally,
"son of man," and came to mean merely "son of Adam.”
There are many occasions where “son of Adam" might well
be used to mean "son of man." We have seen (2998 (xviii))
that Abbahu scoffs at Jesus for calling Himself ben adam.
This is in a Biblical allusion, and of course it does not
follow that Abbahu imputed to Jesus the actual words
ben adam, or bar adam. Still, the jest illustrates the
possibility that Jesus might describe Himself in the old
Biblical term as "son of Adam," that is, "son of man," and
that for this reason, among others, Luke might think it well
to trace up the Lord's pedigree to "Adam the son of God¹."
He is much more full and emphatic in paraphrasing Jn i. 50 ó vi. T. 8.
as σὺ Χριστὸς...υἱὸς ἀειζώοιο θεοῦ λόγος...καί σε θεοῦ ζώοντος ἐτήτυμον υἱόν,
besides adding ὑψίθρονε ποιμήν and θεόν.
...
¹ [2998 (xx) c] Lk. iii. 36. For variations between A.V. and R.V.,
and also between txt and marg. of R.V., comp. Gen. ii. 15 A.V. txt “the
man," marg. "Adam,” ii. 19 (bis) A.V. (1) txt "Adam," marg. "the man,".
(2) "Adam," R.V. (bis) "the man," ii. 20 A.V. (bis) “Adam," R.V. (1)
"the man,"... (2) txt "man," marg. "Adam,” ii. 21, 23, iii. 8, 9, 20 A.V.
"Adam," R.V. "the man"; Deut. xxxii. 8 A.V. "sons of Adam," R.V.
"children of men,” Aq. “sons of man"; Hos. vi. 7 A.V. txt “like men,”
marg. "like Adam," R.V. txt "like Adam," marg. "as men."
(6
[2998 (xx) d] That "son of man" in the gospels is incapable of being
illustrated by classical Greek metaphors such as a child of fortune,"
a true "son of his country," and by uses of "son" as a complimentary
title in Greek inscriptions, appears evident from a careful examination
of Greek usage. Paton and Hicks give three identical inscriptions
(Inscriptions of Cos, Nos. 95-97) θεοῖς πατρώοις ὑπὲρ ὑγείας Μάρκου
Αἰλίου Σαβεινιανοῦ υἱοῦ πόλεως καὶ γερουσίας, εὐεργέτα τᾶς πατρίδος.
Waddington (Inscriptions Gr. et Lat. vol. iii. part ii. p. 26) gives 'H
164
"THE SON OF MAN "
[2998]
§ 8. The Fourth Gospel prepares us for misinterpretation
[2998 (xxi)] In the gospels, "Son of man" is almost
exclusively reserved for the utterances of Christ Himself,
and the study of these passages must be deferred to The
Fourfold Gospel. Our business now is not with these, but
with the rare instances where it is used about Christ by
others, eg. the martyr Stephen, or by the earliest Christian
apologists or commentators. One of the most striking is
Jn xii. 34: "We have heard from the Law that the Christ
abideth for ever, and how sayest thou that the Son of man
must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?” These
words exhibit the multitude as, so to speak, recoiling from
γερουσία ἐτείμησεν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων προσόδων Φερ τὸν υἱὸν τῆς γερουσίας
ἀγορανομήσαντα, etc. He says "La qualification de viòs rns yepovoías...
est nouvelle. On trouve souvent dans les inscriptions de l'Asie les titres
υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως, υἱὸς τοῦ δήμου, et sur les médailles υἱὸς τῆς πόλεως, υἱὸς
Αφροδισιέων, Κοπαέων etc., mais on ne sait rien de positif sur la nature
de ces adoptions. On peut les comparer aux bourses entretenues dans
les colléges par nos départements et nos communes...."
[2998 (xx) e] ‘O viòs toû áv◊ρárov, regarded as a translation from the
Aramaic, does not receive much illustration from the LXX, except so far
as to shew that Christian translators of the Aramaic phrase would in
most cases translate it literally, at least when used by our Lord about
Himself, in the singular. When applied to animals, the Hebrew “son of”
is sometimes paraphrased by LXX (see Index viós), but when applied to
persons, it is rendered literally except in a few cases not worth men-
tioning except as interesting proofs of exceptional, and, so to speak,
experimental” translation in a few books of the Bible, notably Genesis.
For example, Toλirns in Gen. xxiii. II is used to render " son of my
people." But it is never used again as a rendering of this phrase, although
son of people" (Gesen. 121 a) is freq. in Hebrew.
(6
""
[2998 (xx) ƒ] It is indeed possible that, here and there, our Lord's
sons of men to signify “men," may have been rendered “men” by
Greek gospels, partly because "sons of men" and "Son of man,” to-
gether, might cause obscurity and misunderstanding. But the view
that any Greek interpreter of Christ's Aramaic would represent Christ
as calling Himself “Son of man"—when He did not do so-owing to
any influence of Greek thought or language, is extremely improbable.
165
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
the phrase "son of man"-which, as used by Jesus, bewildered
them owing to their false notions of the vileness of human
nature-in order to take refuge in a technical term that
they thought they understood, namely, Christ, or Messiah¹.
Perhaps John had in his mind similar misunderstandings
among Christians, orthodox as well as heretical, of his own
time. At all events, his words should serve to prepare us
for them, and these we must now discuss, after mentioning
the few very early instances where "son of man" is used in
the Epistle to the Hebrews (quoting from the Psalms) in the
Acts, and in the history of Hegesippus.
(<
§9. Pauline Equivalents
[2998 (xxii)] The Pauline Epistles, though not quoting
son of man" from the eighth Psalm as referring to Christ,
repeatedly quote from this Psalm the closely following phrase
about “subjecting all things” (Heb. “put all things under his
feet”), and always with reference to the expressed or implied
¹ [2998 (xxi) a] Comp. Jn i. 41 "We have found the Messiah," iv. 25
"I know that Messiah cometh." These are the only instances of
"Messiah" in N.T., and both may be taken as voces populi. In Jn xii.
34 the multitude will not attempt to take in the Psalmist's view-set
before them by Jesus-of the divinely destined exaltation of "the son
of man." They prefer a title (like Messiah) that does not give them the
trouble of thinking, because—so they would have said "Everybody
knows what 'Messiah' means.
""
[2998 (xxi) b] We are not to suppose that the multitude took “Son
of man "" to be another title for "Messiah." There is no evidence to
shew that they could have had this notion, and much to shew that they
could not have had it. What they said was, in effect, "We do not
understand this strange use of the phrase 'Son of man,' which the new
Teacher is continually dinning into our ears. Even a prophet was never
called 'son of man' except to shew how weak he was. A 'son of man
is a poor creature. Does this Jesus mean to call himself 'a poor
creature'? What we want is a Messiah-and a Messiah, not to be
'lifted up'—another perplexing phrase of his-but to stay with us on
earth, after delivering us from all enemies."
166
'THE SON OF MAN
[2998]
((
subjection" of death¹. The first epistle to the Corinthians
quotes Psalm viii along with Psalm cx ("The Lord said unto
my Lord...until I make thine enemies thy footstool ") adduced
by Jesus against Pharisæan views concerning the Messiah as
"the son of David." Any quotation of the latter Psalm, in any
Semitic original of the gospels, would probably contain the
word “footstool,” retained in the LXX thus, “until I put thine
enemies as the footstool of thy feet." But in the Apostle's mind
the two passages "all things under his feet," and "footstool of
thy feet," seem to have referred to the same Person, or at least
to the Person and the type of the Person. At all events he
has dropped "the footstool" so that the two Psalm-quotations
are conformed in expression: "For he [i.e. Christ] must reign
until (Ps. cx. 1) 'he [i.e. God] hath put all his [i.e. Christ's]
enemies under his feet. The last 'enemy' to be destroyed is
death; [but he, too, must finally be destroyed] for (Ps. viii. 6)
he [i.e. God] hath subjected all things [without exception] under
his feet [i.e. under the feet of the 'man' or the 'son of man'
(6
1 [2998 (xxii) a] The allusion is always made without any mention of
Scripture," or "he saith," as though Christians were quite familiar with
:-1 Cor. xv. 27 "The last enemy that is to be destroyed is death,
for He hath subjected all things beneath his feet." Here anyone un-
familiar with the Psalm might very naturally suppose that "He" means
Death, who had, up to a certain time, "subjected all things" and was
now to be himself subjected. But the writer assumes that the Corinthians
will recognise his quotation from the Psalm "Thou [i.e. God] hast
subjected all things under his feet." He proceeds to speak of “him
that subjected," and "the subjecter," on the same assumption. Comp.
Eph. i. 19-22 "according to the inward working of the might of his
strength which he has inwardly worked in Christ, having raised him from
the dead and caused him to sit at his right hand...and he 'subjected all
things under his feet,”” Phil. iii. 20—1 “the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall
change the fashion of the body of our humiliation so as to share in the
form of the body of his glory according to the inward working of his
power to subject all things to himself." W. and H. do not print this
third passage as a quotation. But, though the writer here represents
the Son, and not the Father, as the "subjecter," and omits “feet,” he
appears to me to allude to the Psalmist's phrase.
167
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN
(C
mentioned by the Psalmist, whom I, Paul, take to be Christ].”
This juxtaposition is of great importance. For it shews that,
although the Apostle does not mention "man" or son of
man,” he takes them as pointing to Christ. And indeed “ the
Adam," or “the first man," is in his mind all through this
chapter on the resurrection. He regards Christ as being
chronologically the Second Man, or Second Adam—although
spiritually the First Man, because He is the express image of
God in whose image humanity was designed¹.
[2998 (xxiii)] This Pauline combination of the two Psalm-
traditions-the former tradition dealing with "babes and
sucklings" and with the subjection of all things to "the son
of man," and the latter tradition with "sitting at the right
hand" of God till "all enemies" are subdued-takes us back
1 [2998 (xxii) b] Perhaps this very early Christian combination of
"subjecting underneath (vñoкáτw) the feet" and "making the footstool
(vπoródiov) of the feet" may account for the very great confusion in the
text of the latter as quoted in the Synoptic gospels. W.H. give Mk xii. 36
ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου, Mt. xxii. 44 ib., but Lk. xx. 43 ὑποπόδιον τῶν
ποδών σου.
But SS has "underneath" in Mk, Mt., Lk. (prefixing "as
the footstool" in Lk.). The Lat. versions are divided between "sub"
(d in Mt. has "suptus ") and "scabellum" (Mk xii. 36, in k, "suppeda-
neum," D vжокáτw, but d “scamillum"). In Mk, D has wow (with n
above the first w) and exxovs, and L has expovs, and the three versions
have been more than usually "counterchanged,” so that it is difficult
to ascertain the right readings.
[2998 (xxii) c] St Paul may have felt that “making one's enemies
a footstool" had a barbaric sound for Greek ears. At all events he freely
paraphrased vπоñódiov as úτó. But the Pauline writers of Acts ii. 35,
Heb. i. 13, quote the Psalm and (Heb. x. 13) refer to it in the 3rd pers.
with the correct vπолódιov. Origen, commenting on Mt. xxii. 44, appeals
to the Biblical use of God's "footstool" (as referring to the sanctuary
or ark (Is. lx. 13, lxvi. 1, Lam. ii. 1)) to shew that the "enemies"
benefited by being made "the footstool." If our Lord interpreted the
words thus and applied them to Himself, it would be in accordance with
His own precepts about the treatment of “enemies." Jerome (on Mt.)
reads "scabellum," but concerns himself with little more than a con-
troversial argument that the words must refer to Christ, and not to
Abraham.
are
168
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
to Christ's fundamental doctrines about "the little ones" who
are "great" and to whom "the kingdom of heaven" belongs;
and about the bestowal of "authority"-apparently on these
same "babes"-to "tread upon serpents and scorpions";
and about God's revealing His truth to none but "babes "
and only through "the Son"; and about God's "ordaining
praise (Heb. strength) through the mouths of babes and
sucklings"; and about "the Son of man" as destined to
"sit at the right hand of God." It is the doctrine of Isaiah
about the "little child" playing with the "asp" and leading
the "lion." Only by "little child" Christ does not mean
anything that excludes full-grown wisdom and power; He
would say in effect, with His apostle, "in malice be ye babes
but in minds full-grown men." Many other passages in the
¹ [2998 (xxiii) a] "Babes," Mt. xi. 25, Lk. x. 21, followed in Mt.-Lk.
by the doctrine that "none knoweth the Father save the Son," and
preceded, in Lk., by Lk. x. 19 "I have given you the authority to tread
on serpents." The same passage contains a warning as to "subjection."
The Seventy are not to rejoice that the evil spirits are subjected" to
them, but that their "names" are "written in heaven." Mt. xxi. 16 quotes
Ps. viii. 2 "strength” (and so Targum) as LXX “praise.”
،
b]
((
[2998 (xxiii) 6] "The right hand of God" is expressed (or implied)
by Christ on only two occasions. (1) In His last utterance to the
Pharisees, where they have replied to Him that the Messiah is "the
Son of David," He quotes "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on
my right hand," and asks how the Person thus addressed can be both
son" and "lord" to David (Mk xii. 36, Mt. xxii. 44, Lk. xx. 42). (2) He
tells the Pharisees that they shall see (Mk xiv. 62, Mt. xxvi. 64, Lk. xxii.
69) "the Son of man seated at the right hand of the power (Lk. adds
of God)." There Mk-Mt. add "and coming with (Mt. 'on') the clouds
of heaven." But Lk.'s omission of it almost demonstrates that it was
an insertion, intended by the inserter to explain the "son of man" as
being the one mentioned by Daniel. When this insertion is omitted,
"the son of man" may very well mean the ben adam of the eighth Psalm,
weak with the weakness of earthly nature now, but destined to be
exalted to “the right hand of the Power" hereafter. As was said above
(2998 (xx)) bar adam, though meaning "son of Adam" in Aramaic, might
yet convey allusively the meaning that ben adam has in Scripture, "son
of man."
169
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
Pauline epistles suggest that the apostle, though aware that
Christ called Himself "son of man," preferred to express
the meaning in other ways¹.
¹ [2998 (xxiii) c] When St Paul speaks of the incarnation of the Son
of God as a self-humiliation, with a view to the exaltation of all mankind,
in Himself, to the Father, he uses the phrases (Gal. iv. 4) “born of a
woman,” (Phil. ii. 7) “having taken the likeness of a servant,” “having
become in the likeness of men (ávěρóπшv).” Here “men”—i.e. “man”
in the sense of “mankind”—is much more intelligible to Greeks than
son of man”—which, as we shall see below, soon caused difficulty to
non-Jewish Christians, as they naturally asked, "son of what man?”
or "son of what human being?"
66
[2998 (xxiii) d] The Pauline contrasts-between (Phil. ii. 6-9)
"humbled himself" and "God highly exalted him," "emptied himself”
and “God gave him the name that is above every name," "servant” and
“that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow”—may be illustrated
by Mt.-Lk.'s tradition about "the Son of man” and “all things" in
connexion with "being delivered over." There is an implied assumption
of the Law, "To him that giveth shall be given." Because the "Son of
man," humiliated, is "delivered over" by the Father to "men"-in the
original, perhaps, "to the sons of men," ¿.e. to sinful men-therefore to
the "Son of man," glorified, there shall be delivered over all mankind,
or "all things.” Comp. Lk. ix. 44 (Mt. xvii. 22) "The Son of man
is destined to be delivered over into the hands of men," Lk. x. 22 "all
things have been delivered over to me by my Father." Luke's order seems
preferable-first the prediction "I shall be delivered over (as a ransom),”
then the consequence "all things have been delivered over to me."
So, after the Passion, Christ says in Matthew (xxviii. 18)
authority hath been given to me in heaven and on earth.”
(6
"All
[2998 (xxiii) e] These gospel traditions about "delivering over," or
giving," are equivalent to saying, "Because the Son of man has
subjected Himself to all mankind, 'making Himself their servant through
love (Gal. v. 13 διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις) therefore God has
subjected all mankind to Him." John says the same thing, using
didwμ instead of пapadidwμi. Having said (Jn iii. 16) "He [i.e. the
Father] gave the only begotten Son" for the world, he subsequently
reiterates the phrase "all that the Father hath given unto me"-meaning
the world saved by the Son. Here it may be added that Jn never
mentions "the right hand of God." Origen's comment on the literalistic
interpretation of the phrase (Mt. xxii. 44) may perhaps explain why Jn
avoids it. But it is implied in the Johannine "lift up" and "glorify,"
both of which signify (1) Christ's Passion (2) His Ascension-the two
170
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
$10. The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Acts
[2998 (xxiv)] The Epistle to the Hebrews takes up and
quotes more fully the Pauline combination of the two Psalm-
passages above mentioned¹. This writer, unlike St Paul,
inserts "Son of man "2 in his quotation from the eighth Psalm.
But he does not venture to say, “Jesus was this 'son of man'
mentioned by the Psalmist." He prefers to quote in full, and
then, taking phrase by phrase, to say, "This, and that, were
fulfilled, or will be fulfilled, in Jesus." Apparently, he feels
that he must meet an objection "How could Christ be called
(LXX) a little lower than the angels?"" At great length,
he points out that the "Son," mentioned in the Psalms, is
superior to the angels, "all" of whom are "ministering
being regarded as inseparable parts of one divine foreordained act of
Redemption.
¹ [2998 (xxiv) a] One reason for prefixing the quotation about
"enemies" from Ps. cx. to the quotation about subjugating" from
Ps. viii., may be that the latter also contains a mention of an “enemy"
though somewhat brief and obscure (viii. 2) "because of thine adversaries
(LXX enemies, éx@pôv) that thou mightest still the enemy and avenger."
For Origen's comment on this see 2998 (xxiv) e.
που,
2 [2998 (xxiv) 6] Westcott's note on Heb. ii. 6 "son of man," viòs ȧv0pw-
Tov, “¡ not ó viòs Tоû ávěρáπov (07871)” might give rise to erroneous
inferences—if at least it led the reader to suppose that the Hebrew writer
might have written the latter but preferred the former. The pl. bne ha-
adam sometimes occurs in the Bible, but the sing. ben ha-adam nowhere
(so far as Mandelkern's Concordance shews). Dr Schmidt says (Enc. Bib.
4706) "Christians like Sason...probably translated ó viòs toû åvěpáπov by
ben hā-ādām, as, in modern times, Delitzsch." But that fact does not
justify us in supposing that a Jew in the first century could have used
such a phrase: it merely shews that modern Jews felt the ambiguity
caused in ancient Hebrew by the absence of the article. I am informed
by Dr Büchler that he has not found ben ha-adam in Talmudic literature.
My friend Dr W. H. Bennett suggests to me, "Perhaps if it had been
possible for a Jew, while Hebrew was a living language, to have had the
idea of 'The Son of Man' in our sense, he might have used ben ha-adam.”
Perhaps this was Westcott's meaning. But it seems to me that the words
"in our sense" might themselves be interpreted in different senses.
171
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
spirits." He also supplies some things that the Corinthian
Epistle merely implies-e.g. about the "subjection" being
universal, and "not yet" completed. He includes in his
quotation the words "thou didst crown him with glory and
honour." "Crown" has Greek associations with the thought
of a victorious conflict for an honourable prize, and Christians
had probably long connected the word with the "crown" of
martyrdom (“Stephen," or "Crown," being the first martyr).
The result is a sort of Targum on the Pauline passage:
But, as it is, we see not yet 'all things subjected' to him.
But him who hath been made a little lower than the angels'
we see-namely Jesus-because of the suffering of death,
crowned with glory and honour,' in order that, by the grace
of God, he might taste of death for all [mankind]¹.”
((
¹ [2998 (xxiv) c] An instructive contrast is supplied in the different
qualifications of "all things have been subjected":—(1) 1 Cor. xv. 27
“But when he says 'all things have been subjected' it is clear that it
is with the exception of him [i.e. God] who subjected all things to him
[i.e. Christ],” (2) Heb. ii. 8 “For in subjecting [to him, i.e. the Son of
man] all things that are, he [i.e. God] left nothing unsubjected to him.
But as it is at present, we see not yet subjected to him all things that
are." As regards the "not yet "-implying that some of the fulfilment
of the Psalm was future-it may be noted that the Hebrew text of the
Psalm quoted leaves loopholes for variations of tense throughout, and
that in viii. 6 Aquila had "thou wilt give him authority," LXX and
R.V. “thou madest him to have dominion,” Field "dominari facies eum.”
[2998 (xxiv) d] Comp. Ps. viii. 5 "Thou crownest him with glory
and honour" with Ps. xlix. 12 (R.V. marg.) "Man being in honour
abideth not, he is like the beasts that perish." The meaning is that
there are two sorts of human "glory and honour" (Jn xii. 43), one
coming "from God," the other "from men. The latter, apart from the
former, tends to make men (Jn xii. 40) “blind," and (Ps. xlix. 12) "like
the beasts that perish."
""
[2998 (xxiv) e] God's "glory"-so far as it comes from men—consists
(according to Christ's doctrine) in men's sonship towards Himself and
brotherhood towards one another. It consists-so far as it is manifested
in its coming to men-in His righteousness, kindness, and truth.
Origen's commentary on the words "Thou that hast set thy glory above
the heavens" is lost. But we may infer from his comment on Mt. xvi. 27
172
'THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
[2998 (xxv)] Another N.T. mention of "Son of man"
"in the glory of his Father," that he considered the real glory of Christ
not to be confined to that which is popularly associated with His
"second advent," but to consist in "the grace and truth" of (Jn i. 14)
"the only begotten." We have his comment on Ps. viii. 2 “Because
of thine enemies to still the enemy and avenger." "In the enemy and
avenger," says Origen, "understand the true Nebuchadnezzar "—that is,
the persecutor, used by God as an instrument for purifying the Three
Children, and Job, in the furnace of affliction. "The devil," he con-
tinues, was brought down to nothing (karéλvoev) by Christ through
fishermen and unlettered folk and 'babes in malice' (1 Cor. xiv. 20).”
(6
[2998 (xxiv)ƒ] The words of the Psalm "set thy glory (R.V. marg.)
above the heavens," combined with "babes and sucklings," present a
parallelism to Luke's version of the song of the disciples on the entry
into Jerusalem (xix. 38) “in heaven peace, glory in the highest," followed
by Matthew's tradition of Christ's words (xxi. 16) “Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings." Origen (on Ps. viii. 2) identifies the (Mt. xxi. 15)
"boys (πaîdas)" with the previously mentioned (Mt. xxi. 9) "multitudes
(oxλous)" and with the Saviour's (Mt. xxi. 16) "babes and sucklings."
He also suggests a scribal error in Matthew as to "house of David"
and "
son of David" (Lomm. xii. 16) ¿ntýσeɩs dè TÓTEρOV Tavтóv éotiv
οἶκος Δαυὶδ καὶ υἱὸς Δαυίδ· καὶ εἰ μὴ ταὐτόν ἐστιν, ἡμάρτηται τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον
γραφικῶς, ὄφειλον ἔχειν ἤτοι δὶς τῷ οἴκῳ Δαυὶδ ἤτοι υἱῷ Δαυίδ. This is
somewhat obscure. But it rather confirms a hypothesis suggested by
internal evidence, that the Semitic original mentioned "those who were
of his house," that is (616 c) Christ's disciples. This may have been
conflated by Mt. as (1) "servants (raîdas)" (2) "in the House [of God]"
i.e. év To iepa.
[2998 (xxiv) g] Luke's above-quoted Song of the Disciples (xix. 38)
“In heaven peace, glory in the highest," and his Song of the angels
(ii. 14) "Glory in the highest to God and on earth peace among men
with whom he is well pleased,” taken together, exhibit (as Ephrem p. 27
points out) the "angels" proclaiming "peace on earth" and the "babes
and sucklings" proclaiming "peace in heaven." The latter is a bold
expression, but intelligible as the antithesis of Rev. xii. 7
"There was
war in heaven." The suggestion is, that when there is absolute “peace
on earth," there can be no sin or evil, and when there is no sin or evil
there is nothing against which the powers of heaven need contend.
Taken together, Luke's two traditions supply an antidote against the
notion that there is any rivalry or jealousy between the angels and man,
and suggest that as the songs of angels descend, so the songs of the
men with whom God is well pleased ascend, through one and the same
Being the Son of man.
173
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
is in Acts vii. 55—6 “And being full of the Holy Spirit he
[ie. the protomartyr Stephen] gazed steadfastly on heaven
and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right
hand of God; and he said, 'Lo, I behold the heavens wide
opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of
God.'" This resembles an extract from Hegesippus, con-
cerning James called the brother of the Lord, who, when
questioned about "Jesus the crucified," replied (Euseb. ii. 23.
13) “Why question ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man?
And He is seated in the heaven on the right hand of the
Great Power, and is destined to come upon the clouds of the
heaven." The latter utterance may have been shaped by
Hegesippus in accordance with some gospel tradition, but
the former is clearly independent, since it represents Christ
as "standing," not "sitting." The Epistle to the Hebrews
(x. 11) describes an ordinary high priest as "standing"
(2998 (xxxii) a). "Standing," used by Stephen-whose death
was witnessed by Saul and whose dying words may fairly
be supposed to be more exactly reported than the rest of
his speech-betokens a very early tradition indeed, which
reverence for the martyr retained though it was contrary to
customary expression. Thus, in the Acts and Hegesippus
we have two traditions, independent of each other-and the
former also independent of gospel traditions-shewing that
the thought of "the Son of man at God's right hand" was
connected with the thought of martyrdom, or, to use our
Lord's word, "being delivered up¹."
I
¹ [2998 (xxv) a] According to these precedents, to "see the Son of
man at the right hand of God" would be (or rather, might naturally be)
a special vision vouchsafed to a martyr; and this raises an interesting
question as to the variations in Christ's prediction before the Trans-
figuration:
Mk ix. I
There are some
here of those that
stand (v.r. "stand
Mt. xvi. 28
"There are some
of those here stand-
ing who shall not
Lk. ix. 27
"There are some
of those here (avroû,
v.r. de) standing who
174
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
§ II. The Revelation of John
[2998 (xxvi)] The Revelation of John nowhere contains
the gospel phrase "the Son of man." But it twice, in prophetic
language, describes visions of "one like a son of man¹." The
"6
some
here," not
here"; D, a, b etc.
add "with me") who
shall not taste of
death till they see
the kingdom of God
having come (έληλυ-
Oviav) in power."
taste of death till
they see the Son of
man coming in his
kingdom."
shall not taste of
death until they see
the kingdom of God
(but D the Son of
man coming in his
glory)."
Immediately after this prediction, Peter, James, and John are taken
up to the mountain of Transfiguration where (according to Lk. ix. 30)
our Lord holds discourse with Moses and Elias concerning His forth-
coming Passion or Martyrdom. Peter and James are recognised by
all as "martyrs," and John, though not a martyr so far as actual death
was concerned, was generally recognised as a "martyr" (2935 foll.).
The exact words of the prediction are obviously doubtful: but it may not
improbably be interpreted as being fulfilled in this special way (besides
others) that the three disciples in question enjoyed, before death, the
martyr's privilege, the vision of the Son of man in heaven.
""
""
[2998 (xxv) 6] The variations, leaving it open whether the "kingdom
was to "have come," or the "Son of man was to be beheld "coming,"
may be connected with the tradition, about one of the three martyrs,
John, that Jesus said, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that
to thee?" On this see 2936 foll.
1
[2998 (xxvi) a] Rev. i. I3 ốpotov viòn (marg, vi) ảo Apotou, and rep.
Rev. xiv. 14 (no marg. v.r.). Yet in i. 15, ii. 18 and freq. this writer has
óp. with the usual dat. It is perh. a confusion of two constructions"
(1) εἶδον ὡς υἱόν, (2) εἶδον ὅμοιον υἱῷ. Comp. Dan. vii. 13 ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου
"рxeтo or éрxóμevos, i.e. "there came one like a son of man,” equiv. to
öpolós Tis viê. In Rev. i. 13 (and in xiv. 14 after parenth.) eidov precedes,
and might govern vióv if öμolov is taken as is. Another explanation
might be that oμolovkaтά, "according to," "after the manner of."
Comp. Job i. 8, κаT' avтóv=Heb. "like him (17)" al. exempl. ouoiOS
avτ. In either case the originator of the phrase seems to have used
oμotos with a deliberate indefiniteness. In the same spirit Ezekiel, after
saying (i. 26) “the likeness of a throne...the appearance of a sapphire
stone," duplicates the indefiniteness when he has to describe what is
enthroned, a likeness as the appearance of a man.”
175
[2998]
""
"THE SON OF MAN'
latter may help us to understand the former. Moreover the
contexts in Revelation throw light on many questions that
will have to be discussed in The Fourfold Gospel. Hence they
are annotated below at considerable length-rather for
reference than for perusal.
Before the first vision comes a preface-largely made up
of quotations-to the book as a whole :-(lit.) "The Revela-
tion of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his
servants—'the things that must needs come to pass' quickly¹;
and he signified them having sent through his angel to his
2
66
¹ [2998 (xxvi) b] Comp. Dan. ii. 28, 29 å deî yevéσbai and ii. 45
(Theod.) à deî yevéσðaɩ, also Mk xiii. 7 deî yevéolai and comp. Mt. xxiv. 6,
xxvi. 54, Lk. xxi. 9, always used of tribulation. It is repeated by a
voice" in Rev. iv. I "Come up here, and I will shew thee the things
that must needs come to pass hereafter," and by (xxi. 9) "one of the seven
angels that have the seven bowls" in xxii. 6 "And he said to me, These
words are faithful and true, and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the
prophets, sent his angel to shew to his servants the things that must
needs come to pass quickly. And behold, I come quickly."
(xxvi) c-g
(6
WHO IS HIS ANGEL"?
2 [2998 (xxvi) c] Rev. i. 1 "Through his angel." Who is "his angel"?
Apart from the "angels" of the Seven Churches, "angel,” in the sing.,
does not occur till Rev. v. 2 "I saw a strong angel" and then (vii. 2)
"I saw another angel." But this and the following angels do not speak
to the Seer till x. 9 (“take it and eat it up"). And no angel is described
as "shewing" anything till xvii. 1 (“Come hither, I will shew thee...")—
repeated in xxi. 9, and, in both cases, referring to "one of the seven
angels that had the seven bowls." It seems therefore that in the earlier
part of the book the "angel" is the "voice that he (i. 12) turns to see,”
the same that is called, later on (iv. 1), “the first voice that I heard,...
namely a [man] saying (λéywv) 'Come up hither,"" and again (x. 8) "And
[behold] the voice (kaì ǹ þwvý) that I heard from heaven---[I heard it]
again saying (πádiv dadovσav)." The commentary called by the name
of Victorinus commenting on iv. I says (ed. T. & T. Clark) "That is,
the Spirit, whom, a little before, he confesses that he had seen walking
as the Son of man in the midst of the golden candlesticks." That is
a possible explanation. The Paraclete is said (Jn xv. 26) to be "sent
by the Son to the disciples and might be referred to in Rev. i. 1 "sent."
It might be called popularly a messenger" or "angel" in Rev. i. 1, and
(C
""
176
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
yet a "voice" later on. So in Jn xii. 28 "there came a voice from
heaven," the "voice” is that of the Spirit, but some of the crowd said
it was an "angel." In Rev. xix. 5-9 “And a voice came from the
throne, saying, Give ye praise....And he (or, it), saith (λéyet) unto me,
'Write..., there is the same indefiniteness.
"""
[2998 (xxvi) d] The Seer's use of "voice" as a spiritual messenger,
i.e. ayyeλos or "angel," may be illustrated by Jn iii. 8 "thou hearest its
[i.e. the Spirit's] voice, but knowest not whence it cometh nor whither
it goeth" —a passage that suggests a "messenger" invisible as the wind.
On Rev. i. 12 "I turned to see the voice," see 727-8, and comp. Exod.
xx. 18 (LXX) "all the people saw the voice and the torches and the voice
of the trumpet." Philo (728 b, 781 c-d) emphasizes the "seeing" as
referring to the eye of the soul.
[2998 (xxvi) e] The difficulty of answering the question "Who is 'his
angel'?" is increased by the fact that "his" may mean "God's" or
Christ's. Compare :--
Rev. i. I
"The revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave him [i.e. Christ]
to shew to his [whose?] servants,
namely the things that must come
to pass quickly, and (he) [who?
God or Christ?] signified them
having sent through his [whose?]
angel, to his [whose?] servant,
John...."
66
Rev. xxii. 6—16
"And he [i.e. xxi. 9 “one of
the seven angels..."] said to me,
"...and the (6) Lord, the God of
the spirits of the prophets, sent
his angel to shew to his servants
the things that must come to
pass quickly. And behold, I come
quickly......and he saith unto me,
"...Behold I come quickly...I am
the Alpha...I Jesus sent my angel
to bear witness to you (pl.) these
things upon the churches.""
In the second of these passages (xxii. 6) "the Lord the God" might
possibly mean Christ," regarded (as He is by ancient Fathers) as the
Inspirer of the Hebrew prophets and called by the Seer "their God"
(comp. xix. 10 “the witness of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"), although,
in any other book but this, it would be far more probable that the title
should indicate the Father (Phil. ii. 11 does not say that Jesus Christ is
"the Lord the God," but "Lord, to the glory of the Father"). It should
also be noted that the "angel" speaks in the person of Christ (“I come
quickly") so that the Seer (xxii. 8) falls down to worship the angel, but
is prohibited. The writer perhaps means to teach that all the visible
figures that bring messages from the Father or the Son, throughout the
book, are of the nature of "angels," and not to be "worshipped."
[2998 (xxvi)ƒ] Comp. Rev. xxi. 22-3 “And I saw no sanctuary (vaóv)
in it [¿.e. in the city], for the Lord God (ô yàp Kúpιos ó deós) the All-ruler
(ó πаνтокρáτwρ) is its sanctuary-and the Lamb....For the glory of God
A.
177
12
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
servant John, who bare witness¹ [of] the word of God and
(<
was its light (þóτiσev avτýv) and the Lamb [was] its lamp." Here
W.H. print xxi. 22 ỏ yàp KÝPIoc as a quotation from Amos iv. 13, but
Amos has no article. By inserting the article, did John intend to signify
"the Lord Jesus"? In favour of this supposition it may be urged that
it is more usual to speak of "Christ" or the body of Christ," than of
God," as being "the sanctuary." If Christ were meant, there would
be (in "All-ruling... Lamb") paradoxical antithesis-a characteristic of
this book (compare the paradox in Rev. v. 5-6 "the Lion...a Lamb").
But outside the gospels (2998 (xxvii) h) the distinction between ó Kúpɩos
and Kúpios is not regularly observed. On "All-ruler,” паνтокрáτwp, see
also 2998 (xxvii) i foll.
[2998 (xxvi) g] So far, in this conflicting evidence, the definite state-
ment in xxii. 16 "I Jesus sent my angel" turns the balance in favour
of supposing that the angel is sent by Jesus, and that it is the Holy
Spirit represented by "voices" and "angels." But it also appears that
the writer does not make any clear distinction between the Spirit, and
Jesus, and the Father. He writes as a Seer, not as a theologian.
(xxvi) h-k "WITNESS" AND "MARTYR "
¹ [2998 (xxvi) h] i. 2 ôs éµaprúpnoev, "who bare witness." With the
dative, μaprupéw would mean "testify to." With the accusative, it means
"testify,"
""state this or that, as evidence." Comp. xxii. 20 ¿ µapтupŵv
Taûta, i.e. Jesus, who, throughout this book, through an angel or in His
own person, is regarded as "testifying," or
testifying," or "stating in evidence,” the
will of the Father, which He sees in heaven and which is to be revealed,
in act, upon earth.
[2998 (xxvi) i] Maprupía and μáprus, in this book, almost always
convey the notion of "bearing witness under persecution, or with one's
life," comp. μaρrupía in vi. 9, xi. 7, xii. 11, xx. 4, and µáprus in ii. 13, xi. 3,
xvii. 6; and this justifies us in supposing that Jesus Himself is called
(i. 5) “the faithful Witness" and (iii. 14) “the faithful and true Witness,”
with reference to His death, which is regarded as an act of "bearing
witness" to the will of the Father. As to xii. 17, xix. 10 (lit.) “those
that keep (ExóvTwv) the witness of Jesus," comp. vi. 9 "slain because of
the word of God and because of the witness that they would keep (eixov
i.e. continued to keep in spite of persecution)." "The witness of Jesus'
might mean "the witness borne by Jesus,” i.e. His martyrdom, or
witness borne to Jesus," i.e. the martyrdom of the saints. The writer
perhaps combines the two meanings. The martyrs (2 Cor. iv. 10) "bear
about in their bodies" the dying, or martyrdom, of the Lord Jesus, and die
in the power of His dying. Thus they make His martyrdom their own.
[2998 (xxvi)j] R.V. has substituted "witness" for A.V. "martyr"
"the
178
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
[of] the witness of Jesus Christ...." Then, after a blessing
on the observant reader, comes a salutation :-
a salutation:-"John to
the seven churches that are in Asia, grace to you and
peace from the 'IS" and the WAS and the COMING,
66
in Acts xxii. 20, "the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed," Rev. ii. 13
Antipas was my faithful martyr." In Rev. xvii. 6 "the blood of the
martyrs of Jesus," R.V. retains "martyrs" but places "witnesses” in the
margin. Perhaps it would have been better to place "witness" in text,
but "martyr" in margin, in all three passages. Comp. Clem. Cor. 5
"Peter, who, on account of unrighteous zeal [i.e. persecution], having
undergone, not one or two but several (πλeiovas) painful burdens (☛óvovs),
and thus having borne witness, went to his due place of glory"-
passage that may be compared with 1 Pet. v. I where Peter calls himself
“witness of the sufferings of Christ," perhaps meaning that he had
"borne witness" in a practical way, by suffering pain. Clem. Cor. and
Rev. were written at a time when μaprupía had come to mean "bearing
witness at the risk of death," but had not yet come to mean necessarily
"bearing witness by actual death" (see Lightf. on Clem. Cor.)-a
distinction not definitely made till the third century. The use of µápτvs
and kindred forms in Rev. shews, Ist, that the writer regarded "the
faithful Witness," that is, Christ, as the Martyr for the world, 2nd, that
he regarded himself as in some sense a "martyr," "bearing witness"
to "the faithful Witness" in the isle of Patmos.
[2998 (xxvi) k] The word μáprus is applied to God Himself and to
His Servant in Is. xliii. 10 (LXX) (twice quoted thus by Origen,
Lomm. i. 153, xx. 282) "Be witnesses to me and I [am] witness, saith
the Lord God, and my Servant (where the Targum adds "Messiah")
whom I have chosen." Comp. Jn viii. 17, 18 "The witness of two men
is true. I am he that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that
sent me beareth witness of me." Origen (Lomm. i. 153) calls attention
to the narrow sense of µáprus prevalent in his time as distinct from that
in Acts i. 8.
l—m
(xxvi) -m "THE IS" AND "THE SEVEN SPIRITS'
1 [2998 (xxvi) /] Rev. i. 4 åπò '0"ON. Comp. Exod. iii. 14 R.V. txt
"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM (marg. I AM,
BECAUSE I AM, or, I AM WHO AM, or, I WILL BE THAT I
WILL BE)...I AM (marg. I WILL BE, Heb. Ehyeh) hath sent me,"
where Onkelos has (Etheridge) "And the Lord said unto Mosheh,
EHEYEH ASHER EHEYEH...EHEYEH hath sent me," LXX éyć
εἰμι ὁ ὤν (but Aq. and Theod. ἔσομαι (ὃς ἔσομαι)...ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με,
Jon. Targ. "And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake and the
179
12-2
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
and from the seven spirits', which [are] before the face of
his throne, and from Jesus Christ [He is] 'the faithful
witness, the first-born of the dead,' and 'the ruler of the
world was; who spake and all things were...I am He who is and who
will be hath sent me unto you," Jer. Targ. "And the Word of the Lord
said unto Mosheh, He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who
will speak to it, Be and it will be...EHEYEH hath sent me." As the
two later Targums add the past and the future to the present (imperat. in
Jer.), so does John; but, instead of ó éσóuevos (which would resemble
Aq.) he uses épxóμevos in a double sense (1) of "coming" time,
(2) of the "coming" Deliverer and Judge.
1
[2998 (xxvi) m] Rev. i. 4 тŵv étтà пveνµáтwv. Swete compares
Targ. Jon. on Gen. xi. 7 “dixit Deus vii angelis...," and Wetst. quotes
it thus. But Walton and Etheridge have "seventy," and so has the
Aramaic, and I have pointed out (see 668 a where Rev. i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5
are discussed) that "the seventy angels correspond to the seventy nations
of the earth." Possibly (668 a) "the author...derived his 'seven spirits'
from meditation on Zech. iv. 2—10 'seven lamps...by my spirit...these
seven which are the eyes of the Lord,' with an infusion of Eastern
tradition about seven angels before the throne." The Targ. on Zech.
iv. 10 substitutes for the clause about eyes, “septem lapidum ordines
quasi hos. Coram Domino revelata sunt opera filiorum hominis in
universa terra." The Targumist means by "quasi hos" such stones
as that just mentioned, i.e. the "plummet," which tests and tries man's
works. To the facts in 668 a may be added that Origen Hom. iii. Isaiah
(Lomm. xiii. 256) accepts the LXX rendering of Is. xi. 1—3 (as elsewhere)
so as to favour the inference that there are seven spirits.
(xxvi) n—q_“THE FAITHFUL WITNESS”
2 [2998 (xxvi) π] Rev. i. 5 ô µáρTUS Ó TIσTÓS. Comp. Ps. lxxxix. 36—7
"His [David's] throne [shall endure] as the sun before me. It shall
be established for ever as the moon, and as the faithful witness in the
sky," where R.V. gives several various renderings. The Targ. has
"like the moon which has been established as a sign for ever and a
witness in the sky faithful to the ages," and Gesen. (7296) takes
"witness" as referring to the moon, by which the times of the festivals
were determined. John perhaps has in view the relation between the
moon and the sun as illustrating that between the Son and the Father.
The Son receives light from the Father to convey to the dark world,
and He makes Himself a "witness," or 'martyr," for the Father.
Пorós, in this book, goes with (ii. 10) "unto death," and (ii. 13) "my
witness," i.e. martyr. Probably "faithful unto death" is meant here,
Perhaps also it is implied as a climax in xvii. 14
'called and chosen and faithful [in spite of persecution or death].”
and in iii. 14, xix. II.
(6
180
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
kings of the earth"." Then a doxology is inserted: "To
him that loveth us and loosed us from [our] sins in his blood,
and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father —
2
1 ¹ [2998 (xxvi) o] Comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27 (R.V.) "I also will make him
[my] firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." Perhaps the
Psalmist referred to David, the youngest of the sons of Jesse, made
"firstborn." The Targum-reducing, as often, poetry to literal prose--
has "firstborn of the kings of the house of Judah" (David being,
as a fact, the first king of the house of Judah, as well as the chief
of all the kings of Judah). John paraphrases it from the Christian
point of view, "firstborn of the dead." This may imply (1) “the
first [in time] of the dead to arise," (2) "the first [in precedence and
honour] of the dead," and possibly (3) what is expressed in Rom. i. 3
"of the seed of David after the flesh...defined as the [firstborn] Son of
God...from the resurrection of the dead."
[2998 (xxvi) ] The Heb. 1, "highest" (Ps. loc. cit.), is followed by
"to," but in Deut. xxvi. 19, xxviii. I by "above" ("highest above all the
nations of the earth") and Gesen. 751 a gives only these three instances
of personal application to human beings. When personally applied
elsewhere it is a name of God, "Most High," and perh. Aq.'s rendering
is best, otov toîs Baσiλevσi, “[as] Highest, i.e. as God, to the kings of
the earth." LXX has ú√nλòv πaρá "exalted as compared with," Sym.
ávάTаTOV Tŵv (the least satisfactory of all the renderings). John para-
phrases it as apxwv, "ruler"-his only use of the word in this book.
"Ruler of the kings of the earth"--which differs from (Jn xii. 31, comp.
xiv. 30) “the ruler of this world," i.e. "the [transient or apparent] ruler
of the flesh"-signifies the sole Emperor (avTокρáτwρ) who, from behind
the veil, controls the kings of the earth, whether with or against their
will, subjecting them to the will of the Father, who is called (i. 8)
πavтокράτwρ “all-ruler.”
01
[2998 (xxvi) q] There is a paradoxical antithesis or climax in the
thought. 'Witness" and "faithful" mostly imply an attitude of
subordination or service; "firstborn" implies birth, growth, and (at all
events in the beginning) inferiority to a father. Then "of the dead”–
where one might have expected “from the dead”—seems to perplex the
reader by suggesting "firstborn of the corpses." And then suddenly
comes a note of triumph and exaltation, "the ruler of the kings of the
earth."
2
[2998 (xxvi) ] Rev. i. 5 λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν [ἡμῶν] ἐν
τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ. Swete illustrates this by Is. xl. 2 λέλυται αὐτῆς ἡ
ἁμαρτία, and W.H. add Ps. cxxx. 8 λυτρώσεται τὸν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ πασῶν τῶν
181
[2998]
""
"THE SON OF MAN'
to him [is] the glory and the might for the ages [of ages],
Amen." Then come well-known Messianic quotations
"Behold, 'he cometh with the clouds,' and every eye shall
'see' him, and whosoever 'pierced' him, and 'there shall
mourn over him all the tribes of the earth,' yea, Amen¹."
[2998 (xxvii)] Then comes a divine proclamation, “I am
the Alpha and the Omega², saith the Lord God, the IS and
ávoμôv avтοû. But the resemblance is distant.
distant. The next words, "a
kingdom, priests," perhaps give a clue to what is in the writer's mind,
namely, the affectionate address of Jehovah to Israel in Exod. xix. 4—5
as amplified in Targ. Jon. (Etheridge) “I bare you upon the clouds...
to solemnize the Pascha...you shall be more beloved before me than
all the peoples on the face of the earth. And before me you shall be
crowned kings, and sanctified priests, and a holy people." Bearing
in mind what "the Pascha" would mean to John, we find in his words.
a striking parallelism to the Jewish tradition :—(1) “loveth” (“beloved”),
(2) “a kingdom, priests” (“kings...and...priests"), (3) “loosed us from
our sins in His blood" ("the Pascha").
1 [2998 (xxvi) s] Rev. i. 7. These quotations resemble Dan. vii. 13,
Zech. xii. 10 foll., but not as in LXX. Comp. Mt. xxiv. 30, Jn xix. 37
and Didach. xvi. 7. All the passages taken together suggest that these
passages from Daniel and Zechariah were much quoted by Christians
and in a more accurate form than that of Zech. xii. 10 (LXX).
(xxvii) a―e “THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA”
2 [2998 (xxvii) a] Rev. i. 8 ¿yw eiµı tò äλpa κaì Tò a, occurs in this
book thrice, but in xxi. 6, xxii. 13, without eiμ. The context in xxi. 5-6
is “He that sitteth on the throne said (eiπev) ‘Behold, I make all things
new.' And he saith (λéyet) ‘Write, because these words are faithful and
true.' And he said to me (eirrév μoi) 'They are come to pass (yéyovav).
I [am] the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end...." In
xxii. 13, after John has fallen to the ground as though to worship “one
of the seven angels," the angel says-unless there is some change in
the speaker, of which no warning is given-“I [am] the Alpha and the
Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” "The first
and the last" occurs thrice in this book, i. 17, ii. 8, xxii. 13.
[2998 (xxvii) b] This threefold repetition of "first" and "last," in
connexion with God, is also found in Isaiah, from whom John has
probably derived it.
(1) Is. xli. 4 (lit.) “I Jehovah first, and with (N) [the] last (pl.)
(Field, "et cum posteris"), I he," LXX ¿yà Оεòs πршτоя Kaì Els Tà
èñepxóµeva ¿yw eip. Targ. "Ego Dominus creavi seculum a principio,
182
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
etiam secula seculorum mea sunt, et absque me non est Deus." Ibn
Ezra says
"and with the last, with the last generations."
(2) Is. xliv. 6 (lit.) “Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and
his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts, 'I, the first, and I last, and beside me
there is no (1) God”,” ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα· πλὴν ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν
Oeós, Targ. "Ego sum ab initio ; etiam secula seculorum mea sunt, et
absque me non est Deus." The reader will perceive that, in (1), the
Targ. has added the last six words belonging to (2).
<
Ibn Ezra says, "The Lord of Hosts':-He is always King, and
the hosts of heaven testify it. I am the first':-the first king." The
LXX here has beòs σaßawe, transliterating the Heb. sabaoth, “hosts."
It invariably transliterates sabaoth in Isaiah, but almost invariably
renders it in other books by παντοκράτωρ, “ All-ruler.” Παντοκράτωρ is
(2998 (xxvii) i foll.) remarkably frequent in the Apocalypse, and it is
practically certain that to John--who is not in the habit of trans-
literating-it represents "[Lord] of hosts." Consequently it is almost
certain that John would take Is. xliv. 6 as mentioning not only "First
and Last but also " All-ruler,” παντοκράτωρ. Hence παντοκράτωρ here
(Rev. i. 8) should be regarded as coming not from Amos iv. 13 but
from Is. xliv. 6.
""
(3) Is. xlviii. 12 "I [am] he; I [am] first; yea (N), I [am] last,"
ἐγώ εἰμι (Qmg+ ἐγώ) πρῶτος καὶ ἐγώ εἰμι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, Field, Οἱ λοιποί·
ἐγὼ πρῶτος καὶ ἐγὼ ἔσχατος. For “I he,” Field says
"LXX vacat,
Aq. Sym. Theod. ¿yw eiµ,” Targ. "Ego ipse, ego ipse qui sum ab
initio etiam secula seculorum mea sunt, et absque me non est Deus.”
The Targ. has again—as in (1)—added the last six words, borrowing
them from (2).
[2998 (xxvii) c] In (1), (2), (3), both the LXX and the Targum avoid
the term "last." But in (3) it appears that the other Gk translators
retain it. John also uses it thrice, but not here (Rev. i. 8). Why not?
Probably because, like the LXX and the Targumist, he felt that “last”
was liable to be misunderstood until he had prepared the way for it,
by shewing that the context implied not only “first and last” but “from
first to last," so as to imply totality. Now it happens that the letters
meaning "with," N, which in (1) above have caused difficulty to trans-
lators (Is. xli. 4)—ignored by Vulg. and Syr., LXX eis, R.V. "with,"
Targ. paraphr.-mean also (Levy i. 183 b) a grouping of the letters of
the alphabet on the principle of uniting “first and last," "first but one
and last but one," &c. "First and last" would be expressed in Hebrew
by a and th making ♫ (ath), but in Greek by Alpha and Omega. In
Heb. ath might mean the sign of the accusative. In Gen. i. 1, 16 etc.,
where it is thus taken by LXX, Aquila renders it by σúv. John-who
closely follows Ezekiel's opening chapters and who describes himself,
like Ezekiel, as (Rev. i. 17) falling lifeless at the feet of the Figure that
brings him his first vision--must have been familiar with Ezek. i. 28—ii. 2
I,
183
[2998]
>>
"(
'THE SON OF MAN'
the WAS and the COMING¹, the ALL-RULER?"
"I fell upon my face and I heard [a] voice of one speaking....I heard
the (N) one speaking unto me"; and Schöttg. i. 1086 quotes Jalkut
Rubeni 3b, as asserting that means the Shechinah, i.e. the Divine
Glory, and also "all the letters, the beginning and the end." Such
a mystical interpretation would be favoured by the fact that the prophet
distinguishes between i. 28 "I heard [a] voice of one speaking" and
ii. 2 "I heard the () one speaking unto me."
((
[2998 (xxvii) d] The Semitic origin of this use of Alpha and Omega
is confirmed by the absence of any similar use in Greek or Latin literature
(the use of "
Alpha" to mean our AI" being quite different) and also
by the early origin of the name (Iren. i. 4. 1) 'Iaw. It is generally
supposed to be an attempt to represent “Jehovah.” Perhaps it is more
probably Alpha and Omega preceded by the initial Iota which was the
first letter of "Jesus,” in Hebrew and in Greek.
[2998 (xxvii) e] It will be noticed above that, in (3), LXX renders
"I he, I first," by "I am first." This arises from the fact that Heb. "he"
is freq. (2224) equivalent to "is" "am," etc. in LXX.
"am,” etc. in LXX. Ibn Ezra says
(on Is. xliii. 10 "I he") "This is the sublimest expression of the unity
of God”—the reason being that created beings cannot say "I am that
which I ever was and shall be," but God can say this, "I [am] he." It is
improbable (though not impossible) that John meant "I AM HE, the
ALPHA and the OMEGA, saith the Lord God, the IS and the WAS
and THE COMING." But in any case, the writer probably meant
emphasis by inserting ei here alone, compared with xxi. 6, xxii. 13,
where its absence is compensated for by additional clauses "first and
last," "beginning and end." In the fourth gospel the mystical meaning.
of è̟yw eiµ is well known. In Rev. it occurs thrice at the beginning
of a sentence, i. 8 ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα, i. 17 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος, xxii. 16 ἐγώ
εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα (the only other ἐγώ εἰμι being ii. 23 γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ
¿pavvŵv, where it is not at the beginning of a sentence).
(xxvii) f—m
"ALMIGHTY"
1 [2998 (xxvii) f] Rev. i. 8 ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει Κύριος
ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ παντοκράτωρ. On this Prof. Swete
remarks "In xxi. 6, xxii. 13, where it [i.e. rò äλpa kaì rò ] occurs again,
it is applied to Christ, and this reference is assumed by the ancient
interpreters in the present case...but incorrectly, as the next words
shew." Of these "ancient interpreters," (1) Hippolytus adv. Noet. 6
quotes ὁ ὢν ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ and says καλῶς εἶπεν παντοκράτορα
Xploróv, supporting his view from Mt. xi. 27; (2) Clem. Alex. 635 merely
says διὰ τοῦτο ἄλφα καὶ ὦ ὁ λόγος εἴρηται, which may refer to Rev. xxi. 6,
xxii. 13, so that it proves nothing as to i. 8; but (3) Origen de princ.
184
'THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
i. 2. 10, after quoting Rev. i. 8 with "qui venturus est," says, "Qui enim
venturus est,' quis est alius nisi Christus?" May not Origen be right?
Origen's argument would apply also to Rev. i. 4 ó épxóµevos and would
indicate that Origen regarded that verse also as applying to the Son.
He supports the epithet "all-ruling” (de princ. i. 2. 10, Lomm. xxi. 61)
by quoting Jn i. 3 "all things were made through him," adding "per
Filium enim omnipotens est Pater." In favour of his view, is the fact
that the Fourth Gospel speaks of the Son, or of the Light, as
"coming,"
but seldom or never uses the word concerning the Father (except with the
Son (Jn. xiv. 23) "we will come”).
[2998 (xxvii) g] Origen's view seems to agree with that of the Fourth
Gospel, and with Heb. i. 3, which describes Christ as
"the express
image of God's real being, and bearing (pépwv) all things [to their
consummation] by the word of his power." And accordingly Origen
elsewhere (Comm. Rom. ix. 39, Lomm. vii. 351) introduces Rev. i. 8
by saying that Christ, "ut creator omnium, et potestatem gerens uni-
versorum, vi majestatis et necessitate potentiae habet cuncta subjecta……..
idcirco enim et omnitenens vel omnipotens dicitur, secundum quod
Johannes (Rev. i. 8)...." Origen's "omnitenens vel omnipotens "
indicates his feeling that avтокρáτwρ was quite a different word from
παντοδύναμος “being able to do all things.” Παντοκράτωρ, as he implies
in the context, meant holding, swaying, and keeping together, the
Universe, by controlling all its forces, evil as well as good, for the
ultimate accomplishment of the divine will.
TOK
[2998 (xxvii) h] This seems a consistent Johannine view. And it
seems inconsistent to deny that Rev. could call Christ "All-ruler" in
the face of Rev. xvii. 14 "Lord of lords and King of kings"-titles
reserved in O.T. for the Supreme God and in 1 Tim. vi. 15 ó ßao. Tŵv
Baoiλevóvtwv, for the Father. Moreover Rev. i. 14 transfers to the
Figure that is "like a son of man" the "white hair" that Daniel
vii. 9-13 attributes to the Ancient of Days, i.e. God, as distinct from
the Son of man.
It may be objected, however, that here John could not mean Christ
because he has Kúpios, not ỏ Kúpios: and the former, in the gospels, is
applied to God, the latter to the Lord Jesus. But the usage varies in
LXX, e.g. Ezr. iii. 3 óλokaútwσis tậ kupių parall. to 1 Esdr. v. 50
ὁλοκαυτώματα κυρίῳ. And in this very book, Rev. xxi. 22 ὁ γὰρ κύριος
ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ appears to mean God the Father (although closely
connected with "the Lamb"). Perhaps, too, we have the article in
Rev. xxii. 6 ὁ κύριος (marg. Κύριος) ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων.ἀπέστειλεν
Tòv ayyeλov avrov, where the meaning may be God, or Christ regarded
as God. In Ezra and 1 Esdras, ó kúpios freq.=God, e.g. Ezr. iii. 10
TÊN CỦA YÊU TÔI KŮprov. See 2998 (xxvi)f on Rev. xxi. 22.
TaνTOK
2 [2998 (xxvii) ¿] Rev. i. 8 Tavтокрáтwp, R.V. "Almighty," raises
most important questions. The answer to them will help us to under-
185
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
TO
stand the whole book. Why does the author of Rev. usе паνтокрáтшρ
9 times, while the rest of N.T. (apart from the quotation in 2 Cor. vi. 18)
never uses it? What Hebrew word, or words, does πаνтокράτwp represent
in O.T.? Do any writers in O.T. differ in this respect from one another
as this author differs from the rest of N.T.?
[2998 (xxvii) j] Пavтокρáтwρ in LXX represents two words, Ist,
Shaddai, 2nd, Sabaoth. Shaddai occurs, as a title inferior to "Jehovah,"
in Exod. vi. 3 "I appeared unto Abraham...as God (El) Almighty
(Shaddai)." "Shaddai" is interpreted by Aq. and the Rabbis, "self-
sufficient" (Gesen. 994b). The LXX renders it in various ways, but
nowhere as Tavтокρáтwρ except in Job where it is freq. (15). We may
put aside the supposition that John would derive his use of πavтokρáтwρ
from Shaddai-an inferior revelation.
[2998 (xxvii) k] “Sabaoth,” ""hosts" (Hastings' Dict. Prof. Driver
on “Lord of Hosts") forms part of what "is preeminently the prophetical
title of God." It is transliterated by LXX as Sabaoth (Tromm.) 57 times,
of which 52 are (ib.) in Isaiah. Much more frequently (ib.) it is rendered
πаντокράτwρ, but never in Isaiah. John, however, who often deviates
from LXX, might naturally usе паνтокрáтшρ, even when alluding to
Isaiah. For it is a term intelligible to Christian Greeks, who would
naturally compare it with auтoкрáтwp, "emperor." Domitian, who
αὐτοκράτωρ,
claimed to be "Lord and God," might call himself avтоkpáтwp, but
Christ was παντοκράτωρ.
[2998 (xxvii) 7] Origen (Comm. Johann. tom. i. 34 foll., Lomm. i. 67)
on the Apocalyptic "First and Last," and Alpha and Omega, says that
Christ, as being (Eph. i. 21) "above every name," is above those who
are called "
Gods," whether good or bad, in Scripture: "One kind of
these,” he says, "the Hebrew used to call Sabai, whence the form
Sabaoth, their ruler, no other than God (Tapò éσxnμatíobai tòv Ɛaßawl,
ἄρχοντα ἐκείνων τυγχάνοντα, οὐχ ἕτερον τοῦ θεοῦ).... The Saviour...became
a man to men, and an angel to angels...as when the angel of the Lord
appeared in a flame of fire...and he said, 'I am the God of Abraham.’
And Isaiah (ix. 6) too, says (LXX) 'His name is called angel of great
counsel."" His view is that Christ, being Alpha and Omega,, includes
the totality of spiritual being, whether divine, angelic, or human; and
that He is ruler of the "hosts," whether the "hosts" be good angels
or bad.
[2998 (xxvii) m] Ibn Ezra, regarding the "hosts" as good, says (on
Is. xliv. 6) "The Lord of hosts. He is always king, and 'the hosts of
heaven' testify it." But "the hosts of heaven,” in O.T., often represents
the heavenly bodies as, so to speak, intercepting the worship of men, so
that they become "false gods," or "evil angels." It is remarkable that
Ezekiel and Daniel, and all but eight of the Psalms (Hastings, Dict.
iii. 138 a) do not use the title "Lord of hosts." In other words, it is
absent from the prophets that speak of "man," or
""
son of man," on the
186
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
throne or in heaven. It is also rare, or altogether wanting, in the later
chapters of Isaiah, which include the description of the Suffering Servant
of God-occurring only once (liv. 5) in the last fifteen chapters, whereas
it occurs 21 times in the first fifteen.
(xxvii) n—q
'ANGELS" NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED
[2998 (xxvii) n] John combines the mention of the "Son of man
on the throne, with a very frequent mention of "angels" and with a
protest that they are not to be worshipped. On three occasions the
Seer "falls down" before angelic or other representations of God (i. 17,
xix. 10, xxii. 8). On the first, he is touched by the Figure's "right hand,"
and it is implied that (as in Ezek. ii. 1-2, comp. viii. 1-3, and as in
Dan. x. 12, 19) he is either caused to stand, or lifted, and prepared to
receive the divine message. Here there is no mention of "worshipping."
On the second and third occasions, he "falls down to worship” and is
expressly forbidden to worship, in identical words, "See [thou do it] not....
Worship God." The imperative, "worship," occurs thrice in this book-
the third instance being xiv. 7, "Worship ye him that created the heaven
and the earth."
[2998 (xxvii) o] The Seer appears to have deprecated all worship of
visible symbols. "God" was to be worshipped through them. But
they were not to be worshipped, not even He that was "like unto a Son
of man," with the "white hair" that was a characteristic of the Ancient
of Days. And he so combines appearances of angels with words of
Christ that it is sometimes impossible to say whether the angel is not
identified with Christ, or at least with a representation of Christ.
[2998 (xxvii) p] On the angel Michael, mentioned in Rev. xii. 7, Prof.
Charles says (Hastings, Dict. iii. 362 b) "Here the figure of Michael
thrusts aside that of the Messiah." I should prefer to say that the
Alpha and the Omega (2998 (xxxiii)), behind the veil, is seen working
through "Michael" as through many other agencies, including the
numerous "angels" mentioned in this book. Michael is called in
Daniel x. 13
one of the first rulers," (Theod.) "one of the rulers,"
x. 21 (LXX) "the angel," (Theod.) "your ruler," and may be denoted
(Hastings ib.) by Dan. viii. 11 åρxιтρáτηyos, "chief of the host."
Prof. Charles compares Enoch Slav. xxii. 6 and xxxiii. 10 where he is
called "the chief captain" and "the great captain." Jude 9 attributes
to Michael words assigned in the Bible (Zech. iii. 2) to Jehovah. The
name "Michael" means (Levy iii. 100 a) "Who is like God?" implying,
There is none like God," so that it combines a recognition of high
angelic powers with a recognition of their inexpressible inferiority to
the One God.
[2998 (xxvii) q] (1) The general consensus of ancient authorities, and
especially Origen, (2) the LXX tradition about the name of the "Child"
in Isaiah as being (ix. 6) “Angel of Great Counsel," (3) the evidence
187
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
from the Pauline Epistles and other sources as to the Jewish belief
in angels of good and evil, (4) the mention of a special angel called
(Rev. i. 1) “his angel" as the conveyer of the revelation of Jesus Christ,
and (5) the tenor of the Apocalypse as a whole (see 2998 (xxvi) c and
2998 (xxviii) m), make it probable that (as maintained by Primasius
on Rev. x. 1, quoted by Swete, who however dissents) some of the
angels, figures, and voices mentioned in this book, represent Christ
in various aspects. It is possible that He may be even represented
in one and the same context by (Rev. v. 2 foll.) the "strong angel"
who asks the universe "Who is worthy to open the book and to
loose the seals thereof?" and the "slain Lamb," who opens the
book-just as in Isaiah lix. 16 foll. the Redeemer first
saw that
there was no man and wondered that there was no intercessor" and
then became the Saviour Himself. But none of these visible angels,
individuals of "the host of heaven," is to be worshipped by man, not even
the visible Figure "like a son of man." The doctrine is that of the
Fourth Gospel (Jn iv. 24), “God is Spirit, and they that worship him
must worship in spirit and truth."
(xxvii) r—v DID ESSENES OFFER WORSHIP" TO THE SUN?
[2998 (xxvii) r] In connexion with the worship of angels and of
“Titan” (2942* (i) l—m) must be considered the tendency to sun-worship
imputed to the Essenes in Lightfoot's Colossians p. 87 alleging passages
from Josephus, from the close parallel in Hippolytus, and from Philo.
(1) Lightfoot compares Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 5 πρós ye µην тò beîov idíws
εὐσεβεῖς· πρὶν γὰρ ἀνασχεῖν τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων, πατρίους
δέ τινας εἰς αὐτὸν εὐχὰς ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι with Philo ii. 475 (Vit.
Cont. § 3) ηλίου μὲν ἀνίσχοντος εὐημερίαν αιτούμενοι τὴν ὄντως εὐημερίαν φωτὸς
οὐρανίου τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἀναπλησθῆναι, and speaks of “this worship
which Josephus states to be offered to the sun (eis autóv)." Elsewhere
Lightfoot repeats about Josephus (ib. p. 374) "he says plainly that they
addressed prayers to the sun," and he adds, "Similarly Philo relates of
the Therapeutes (Vit. Cont. 11, ii. p. 485) that 'they stand with their faces
and their whole body towards the East'" [ew, perh. better rendered
“dawn” here]“and when they see that the sun is risen, holding out their
hands to heaven they pray for a happy day (evŋμepíav) and for truth and
for keen vision of reason (ὀξυωπίαν λογισμοῦ).”
[2998 (xxvii) s] But in this last passage from Philo the "stretching
upward” (åvareivavtes) of the hands is not "to the sun," but "to heaven,"
and evŋµepía seems to mean, as in the preceding quotation from Philo, τǹv
övтws evnµepíav, i.e. “Good Day in the truest sense." This he explains as
"having their minds filled with the light of heaven," i.e. the light given
by God. Moreover Philo in the preceding context (ii. 485) says that these
Therapeutae sing “hymns made to God (πεποιημένους εἰς τὸν θεὸν ὕμνους)”
188
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
in accordance with the precedent of the choirs of Moses and Miriam,
who "
sang the songs of thanksgiving to the God [that was their] Saviour
(τοὺς εὐχαριστηρίους ὕμνους εἰς τὸν σωτῆρα θεὸν ᾖδον).” These facts indicate
that the prayer of the Therapeutae was addressed to God. They wait, it
is true, for the moment of sunrise before uttering their prayer. But the
prayer is addressed (in Philo's opinion) to the God of Moses and Miriam,
and eis Tòv Oeóv does not mean "to the God of the Sun."
[2998 (xxvii) t] On the custom of orthodox Jews, to wait till sunrise
for certain religious utterances, see Berach. Mishn. i. 2 (5) “R. Eliezer
says, From what time do we recite the Shema in the morning? This
prayer should be finished until (lit.) the sun shine forth...." R. Joshua
adds a licence of extension to the 3rd hour "for such is the custom of kings
to rise at the 3rd hour"; but the pious apparently did not avail themselves
of this. Jer. Berach. comments thus (p. 16 Schwab, Eng. Transl.) “The
reading of the morning Shema has been prescribed for the hour at which
the sun darts its rays, so that the prayer Amida may immediately follow
the passage relating to the Deliverance and be said by daylight." Both
Talmuds quote Ps. lxxii. 5 as meaning “They shall adore thee at the
rising of the sun" (R.V. "while the sun endureth "). Jer. Talm. adds
“Zealous people rose at the first hour and recited the Shema and then the
other prayers so as to finish at the time that the sun darts its rays." The
practice is emphatically recommended by R. Jose (2nd cent.) Sabb. 118 b,
where Ps. lxxii. 5 is again quoted as meaning "at the rising of the sun.”
It must not be forgotten that the Heb. verb 1, "dawn," Gk ȧvatéλλw,
might be applied to God as well as to the sun, e.g. Is. lx. 2 "Jehovah shall
dawn (17) on thee,” LXX pavýσerai, but Aq. and Sym. åvareλeî (as also
LXX, Aq., Sym., and Theod. in lx. 1, åvatéтaλkev). The same Heb. is
used of Jehovah in Deut. xxxiii. 2 LXX étéþavev. Jews therefore might
be said by a Jew to " supplicate God to dawn,” ἱκετεῦσαι τὸν θεὸν ἀνατεῖλαι.
This modern classical scholars might take to mean the sun-god. But it
would mean Jehovah.
П
હો
Ps. lxxii. 5 is rendered by LXX σvμñaрaμevéi tậ yλiw. Aq. (Field)
had σὺν ἡλίῳ, and LXX apparently meant παραμενεῖ σὺν τῷ ἡλίῳ “shall
abide with, that is, as long as, the sun." But Tapaμév might be applied
to the worshipper of Jehovah—as "fear" is in the correct rendering of the
Hebrew ("they shall fear, i.e. reverence, thee, with the sun "). In that case
аρaμévш would mean "I am persistent," or (comp. Rom. xii. 12) “instant
in prayer,” παραμένω εὐχαῖς, or εὐχόμενος. Then the meaning of the LXX
might be taken to be, "He shall abide (mapaμeveî) praying (euxóμevos)
along with the sun, i.e. from the dawn onwards (ewbev).” Now this is
just what Hippolytus has, only that he adds "orderly and steadfastly” to
“ abide,” thus (ix. 21) παραμένουσι δὲ εὐτάκτως καὶ ἐπιμόνως εὐχόμενοι ἕωθεν.
We do not know for certain what caused the LXX reading in Ps. lxxii. 5
παραμένω,
τapaμévw, but it might easily arise from (1) a gloss on "fear,” (2) a
189
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
confusion of the difficult DV "with"--as follows. "Fear" here means
"worship"; "worship" implies "pray"; "pray" (944) is often expressed
by "stand." Also "stand" is confusable (943) with "with"; and
"stand," besides its regular rendering tornu, is, in LXX, Tapaµévo and
diaμévw. Hence we might expect from Ps. lxxii. 5, besides Hippolytus'
παραμένουσιν εὐχόμενοι ἕωθεν, some similar phrase with forms of ἵστημι
and of ews. This we have in Philo quoted above (2998 (xxvii)r) tás te
ὄψεις καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα πρὸς τὴν ἕω στάντες.
Philo's curious expression “standing with their eyes and their whole
body towards” seems intended to express steadfastness and persistence like
éπμóvos in Hippolytus. And a natural inference from the similarities
(amid dissimilarities) between Josephus, Philo, Hippolytus, Ps. lxxii. 5
(Heb.) and ib. LXX, is, that they are all based on the Heb. of the Psalm
and that they all refer to the worship of Jehovah at sunrise, not to any
worship of the sun.
[2998 (xxvii) u] From these considerations returning to eis avtóv in
Josephus, we have to ask whether it may not mean “to Him”—referring
to the previous rò eîov which is a philosophic and cosmopolitan way of
saying "God." For Tò eîov followed by the masc. aurós, comp. Clem.
Alex. 708 (quoting Epicharmus) "Nothing escapes God (rò beîov)...He
(avròs) is our Overseer." In that case, we might render Bell. ii. 8. 5
"Toward God they shew a peculiar piety; for before the sun is up they
will not utter a word about business but only certain prayers made-by-
their-fathers (атρíoνs) to Him as though supplicating [Him] to dawn [on
them]." The following passages suggest, though they do not prove, that Jose-
phus might occasionally refer to тò béîov as avтós, Ant. xi. 6. 11 (Whiston)
"I cannot forbear to admire God (rò beîov) and to learn hence His wisdom
(Tηv σ. aỶToû) and justice" (where "its wisdom" seems less suitable than
"His") and Ant. iii. 7. 7 (about the Highpriest's breastplate) (Whiston)
'That it was also illustrated with a crown, and that of gold also, is
because of that splendour (avyńv) with which God is pleased (ỷ µáλiota
Xaipei Tò delov)" where the personality implied by "pleased" indicates
that Josephus might naturally follow the usage of Epicharmus.
[2998 (xxvii) v] (2) The second passage quoted from Josephus by
Lightfoot (Coloss. p. 87) is Bell. ii. 8. 9 ws µǹ ràs avyàs vßpíšoιev toû Benû,
relating to the carefulness of the Essenes "to conceal and bury all
polluting substances so as not 'to insult the rays of the god.'" He adds
"There can be no doubt, I think, that by Toù eoû is meant the 'sun-god';
comp. Eur. Heracl. 749 θεοῦ φαεσίμβροτοι αὐγαί, Alc. 722 τὸ φέγγος τοῦτο
τοῦ θεοῦ.....
But in Heracl. 749 Dindorf and Steph. read pacoμßpórov (which is
almost demanded by the usage of p.). With this reading, the text proves
nothing as to the absolute use of θεοῦ. In Alc. 722 τοῦ θεοῦ may be taken
(and, I think, better taken) as referring to "God's" gift of light, comp.
190
"THE SON OF MAN
[2998]
""
Aiòs péyyos Iph. Aul. 1506. Steph. gives avyás with Zeus twice (from
Homer and an epigrammatist) (and once with Helios Hyperion) but not
with Phoebus or Apollo. Even if classical tragic Gk regularly used ô cós
absol. (without special context) to mean "the sun," a similar use in
Josephus would be so antecedently improbable that it would require to be
proved by abundant instances taken from Josephus himself. But it does
not seem to be proved even about tragic Gk.
Moreover Josephus must be interpreted by reference to the Law of
Moses. He is referring to Deut. xxiii. 13–14 “thou shalt cover...that he
[i.e. Jehovah] see no unclean thing in thee." The LXX and the Targums
avoid the anthropomorphism ("he see") by a passive rendering "that
there be seen." Josephus very skilfully suggests the Hebrew meaning by
using avyaí, a word capable of two meanings. It may mean, especially in
poetic style, (Steph.) "eyes" (for the thought, comp. Hab. i. 13“thou art
of purer eyes than to behold evil"). But it may also mean the "rays" of
the divine ubiquitous Glory, of which the sun might be taken as the
visible type. And there is some evidence, as follows, to indicate that
Josephus would use the word in these two ways. Zechariah (iii. 9, iv. 10)
speaks of "the eyes of the Lord"—in connexion with the "engraving" of
a "stone" set before" the Highpriest-as "running to and fro through
the whole earth"; and Chronicles (2 Chr. xvi. 9) says that "the eyes of
the Lord run to and fro" to give victory to a king that trusts Jehovah.
Now Josephus (Ant. iii. 8. 9) says that the special sign of God's presence
at the sacrifices of the Hebrews was an avy that flashed from the precious
stone on the right shoulder of the Highpriest, and that by means of the
twelve stones on his breast" God foretold victory in battle; for such an
avyý flashed from them before the army began to march that all the host
were aware of God's being present to help them." Elsewhere (Ant. iii. 7. 7)
he speaks, in the same connexion, of the “avyý that is close to (πрoσoûσa)
all things” and the " αὐγή in which God rejoices (τὸ θεῖον χαίρει).”
"
Hippolytus (ix. 25), not understanding the force of roû eoù, omits the
defining genitive phrase. But it is emphatic: "that they might not
outrage the light of the God [of heaven]." The precept was certainly not
limited to times when the sun was shining.
To these facts must be added a priori considerations. Would Jews
with any pretensions to piety be likely to salute the sun in such a way
as to suggest what Job calls (Job xxxi. 28) “an iniquity to be punished
by the judges: for I should have lied to God above"? If they did, would
Philo and Josephus be likely to praise such worshippers for their special
piety? Note also the context in Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 9 µerà (1) Tòv Ocòv
(Jehovah)...τὰς αὐγὰς (2) τοῦ θεοῦ. Would any Jew be likely to use ὁ θεός
in the same context to mean (1) “Jehovah,” (2) “sun-god”? Sooner than
accept these improbabilities, it would be reasonable to seek some explana-
tion arising from a confusion between "praying to (eis),” and “praying
191
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998 (xxviii)] Now at last the author drops into the
first person: "I John, your brother and fellowpartner in the
tribulation and kingdom and patience in Jesus, came to be
on the island called Patmos because of the word of God
and [because of] the witness¹ of Jesus. I came to be in the
towards (eis)" mentioned above (2942* (xxiv) b). But the arguments
alleged from the use of τὸ θεῖον, ἀνατέλλω, and αὐγή, appear sufficient,
without recourse to the ambiguity of eis.
(xxvii) w
THE "WASHING" OF THE ESSENES
[2998 (xxvii) w] In connexion with Lightfoot's discussion of the
Essenes, it may be worth remarking that he (Coloss. p. 96) also quotes Orac.
Sib. iv. 16ο ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας ἀενάοισι to shew that “ with
Essenism also it [i.e. this Sibylline book] inculcates the duty of frequent
washings." But, if that had been the meaning, (1) would not the author
probably have written λoveσße and (2) made some mention of frequency?
(3) The epithet dévaos is applied in Clem. Hom. ix. 19, xi. 35 to water used
in Christian baptism, and Didach. 7 urges the use of "running ((v)"
water, if possible. (4) The phrase "the whole of the body" as distinguished
from sprinkling on the head, points to Christian baptism by immersion
which is implied by Didach. 7 (as desirable where possible), by Clem.
Hom. (baptism in or near the sea or river) xi. 35—6, xiv. 1, and by Const.
Apost. iii. 17 kaтádvσis. (5) The context of Orac. Sib. iv. 160 begins,
Alas, wretched mortals, lay aside these crimes," and is practically an
exhortation like that of Isaiah i. 16 “Wash you (λovσaσde)...put away the
evil of your doings," being equivalent to, "Repent and be baptized."
(6) That the Essenes did not enjoin frequent immersions is indicated by
Joseph. Vit. 2, which says that Josephus did not resort to a teacher that
practised these things until he had made trial of the Essenes, and by other
facts for which see Fourfold Gospel (Index "Baptism"). For the present
it is safe to say that Orac. Sib. iv. 160, taken by itself, does not prove that
the writer inculcates the duty of frequent washings.
¹ [2998 (xxviii) a] Origen (Comm. Mt. tom. xvi. 6, Lomm. iv. 18) says,
"John informs us about his bearing witness (uaprupíov, i.e. martyrdom)
not saying who condemned him (Rev. i. 9)...," regarding the passage as
confirmatory of the tradition that Domitian "condemned" John, so that
John thereby fulfilled Christ's prediction (Mk x. 39) that he should drink
His cup and be baptized with His baptism—being a martyr, though not
a martyr unto death. The order of the words "tribulation, kingdom,
patience," favours the view that the "martyrdom" itself is regarded as
192
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a great
voice as of a trumpet, saying, 'That which thou seest write
in a book and send to the seven churches....' And I turned
to see the voice,...and I saw seven golden candlesticks ¹;
(6
(6
a kind of "reigning" or "kingdom" (comp. Justin Tryph. 73 on
reigning from the tree," i.e. from the cross), so that John has already
partaken in it, but has still to endure," if he is to attain to the con-
summated "kingdom." Comp. 1 Pet. v. 1 "Fellow-elder and witness
of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall
be revealed," which may refer to Peter's "partaking" in the revelation
of the Transfiguration (or of other visions)-as an anticipation of the
future "glory." John may include a reference to similar "partaking"
in the Kingdom. The suffering, and the visions of the Kingdom, go
together. See 2998 (xxv) a.
(xxviii) b-e "THE SEVEN GOLDEN CANDLESTICKS"
66
¹ [2998 (xxviii) b] Rev. i. 12 éтà λvxvías xpvoâs. Comp. Zech.
iv. 2 foll. "I have seen, and behold, a candlestick (Avɣvía) all of gold,
with its bowl (λαμπάδιον) upon it and its seven lamps (καὶ ἑπτὰ λύχνοι)
thereon; there are seven pipes to each of the lamps which are upon the
top thereof (καὶ ἑπτὰ ἐπαρυστρίδες τοῖς λύχνοις τοῖς ἐπάνω αὐτῆς).... This
is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by
power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts....They shall see the
plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel, even these seven, [which are] the
eyes of the Lord; they run to and fro through the whole earth." How
the "eyes" of the Lord are a plummet ”—that is, a measure or test—
is seen from Ps. xi. 4 "His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of
men." It is implied by the prophet that the golden "candlestick" in the
Tabernacle is the symbol of the Lord's "Spirit" as against "might and
power." It is also the symbol of His judging and testing men, bringing
to light their secret sins that they may repent, so that it both illuminates
and revivifies. For, as Irenæus says (iv. 20. 7) "the glory of God is
a living man (vivens homo) and the life of man consists in beholding
God"; and "the Word...reveals God indeed to men, but presents men
to God, and preserves at the same time the invisibility of the Father."
The "plummet" in Zechariah may be illustrated by the Psalms (xix. 4)
where the “measuring line” (Aq. κaváv) of the heavens is said to have
'gone out" to all the nations and tongues of the world, testifying to
them about God so that they are (Rom.. i. 20) “without excuse." [Ps.
xix. 4 (LXX) “their sound,” in spite of Gesen. 876 a, seems a very natural
and commonplace corruption, and Aq.'s authority is strong against it.]
[2998 (xxviii) c] Those who believe that John actually saw this
(6
A.
193
13
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN
vision, and that visions of prophets are shaped by their environments,
and that a “candlestick” was the first thing he saw in his long series
of visions, must ask what caused him to see it; what associations (over
and above those connected with Zechariah) the golden "candlestick"
would have for him; and what led him to see the Figure "in the midst
of the seven candlesticks," or perhaps as he says later on (ii. 1) "walking
in the midst of the seven candlesticks."
[2998 (xxviii) d] The following facts may suggest the answer. Philo
(i. 520) describes the candlestick as representing "the archetypal pattern
of the imitation," or correspondence, in virtue of which the Temple on
earth was believed by Jews and Christians alike to have corresponded
with a pattern in heaven (see Heb. viii. 4-5, ix. 23-4). Josephus
(Bell. vii. 5. 5), describing the spoils of Jerusalem exhibited in the
Roman triumph, devotes almost all his space to "the golden candlestick,"
with its "seven lamps," "exhibiting the honour paid to the hebdomad among
the Jews, i.e. to the Jewish idea of the hebdomad (rîs ñaρà roîs 'Iovdaíois
ἑβδομάδος τὴν τιμὴν ἐμφανίζοντες)”—where ἑβδομάς seems to mean
"number seven," not "week" or "sabbath." He adds that Domitian rode
on horseback (not in a chariot like Vespasian and Titus) on a noble horse,
which, as Suetonius Vit. Domitian. § 2 informs us, was
"white."
Here, then, we have the Emperor that sentenced John to the mines,
the persecutor of the Churches, the successor on the throne of the Beast,
who called himself “Lord God," "riding on a white horse”—with "images
of Conquest (Niêns)” adds Josephus—in triumph over the spoils wrested
from Jehovah, foremost among them being the "golden candlestick.” Few
Jews in the Roman Empire-none, probably, in the Patmos quarries—
could fail to know this. Some would hear of it with the reproach addressed
to the Psalmist "Where is now thy God?" How natural that John, receiving
from the One Allruling God visions in accordance with which the fallen
Temple was to be remeasured and rebuilt in spiritual and human form,
should see first of all seven golden candlesticks beyond the grasp of
any imperial conqueror! We may also note here how Domitian, on the
"white horse," with "Niké," would suggest to the Seer the antithesis
(Rev. vi. 2) of the crowned Figure, on the "white horse," "going forth
conquering and to conquer," and then a second vision (Rev. xix. 11) of
the "white horse" with a Figure whose garment is sprinkled with blood,
King of kings and Lord of lords."
((
[2998 (xxviii) e] Zechariah, Philo, and Josephus, speak of the golden
"candlestick (Avxvía)," or lampstand, as one, with seven
"candles
(Auxva) in it." Why does not John follow them? Apparently he takes
advantage of some detailed traditions about the six branching λúxvo,
and the seventh central Xúxvos (which Philo ii. 150-1 calls Tns μéons
λυχνίας, and refers to in the words, ὁ γὰρ ἥλιος, ὥσπερ ἡ λυχνία, μέσος
τῶν ἓξ τεταγμένος, comp. Exod. xxv. 33, 35 τοῖς ἓξ καλαμίσκοις τοῖς ἐκ-
194
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
TOPEVOµÉVOIS ÉK Tês λvxvías) and about the "seven pipes "-attached to “each
of the lamps" (Zech. iv. 2) so that each of the seven λúxvo is, in some
sense, sevenfold.
((
(6
Using these, he conveys the impression that (1) there are, in effect,
seven lampstands,” (2) they are supplied with light, by the presence
of the Figure that "walks about in the midst of them." Zechariah
apparently speaks of "the seven lamps” as "the eyes of the Lord".
though at the same time referring to the "stone" with (Zech. iii. 9)
seven eyes." John says that the Lamb has (Rev. v. 6) seven horns
and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God," and also that there
are (Rev. iv. 5) seven torches (λaµñádes) of fire, burning before the
throne, which are the seven spirits of God." Previously he has said
(Rev. i. 20) "The seven stars are angels of the seven churches, and the
seven candlesticks are seven churches." Yet the Figure holds the
seven stars" in His hand. This seems confusing. How can He
"hold" the angels of the Churches in His hand and yet "walk about"
in the Churches?
66
It is confusing, if we take the words literally and locally. Taken
literally, the number "seven" is also confusing. For who can suppose
that in heaven the Seven Churches actually mentioned by John are
favoured each by a special candlestick to the exclusion of others, so
that, for example, Laodicea is thus honoured while the neighbouring
Colossae (Col. iv. 15-16) is not? The Seer was probably influenced
by the general belief (Philo ii. 150—1, Joseph. Ant. iii. 6. 7, Bell. v. 5. 5)
that the "seven lamps (Aúxvo)" represented the "planets" (including
the sun). The "stars," in Jewish thought, were associated with "angels.”
The angels that stood in God's immediate presence were generally
regarded as "seven."
"seven." Having special messages for seven of the Asian
Churches the Seer regarded them as represented by the seven lamp-
stands, the seven stars, and the seven angels through whom the Figure
sent His message. In addressing them, the Lord addressed indirectly
all the Churches, for all had similar temptations.
John accumulates images, not for the sake of confusing his reader,
but because they crowded in on his mind revealing various aspects of
the ubiquitous Presence sent as an angel by Jesus, and he felt that each
had its truth, and its consolation for the saints suffering under the
temporary triumph of the Beast: "If," he seems to say, "you desire to
see 'the sevenfold golden candlestick' you must not seek it in the Temple
of Peace (Joseph. Bell. vii. 5. 7) where Vespasian has placed it. It is
to be found on earth wherever there are 'seven churches' like candle-
sticks duly receiving (Rev. xxi. 23) the light of the 'candle' of 'the
Lamb.' Or again it is to be found in heaven, where 'the seven torches'
flame continually before the throne, being 'the seven spirits of God.'
Or again it is to be found in 'the seven eyes of the Lamb,' for these
195
13—2
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
also are 'the seven spirits of God' 'walking to and fro' throughout the
churches like 'the seven eyes of the Lord,' according to the saying of
Zechariah."
(6
(xxviii)ƒ—k "WALKING IN THE MIDST
""
[2998 (xxviii) ƒ) The centre of the "seven golden candlesticks" is
a Figure that "walks to and fro (пеρɩжатŵν)" in the midst of them. This
phrase, though it is not used till later on (Rev. ii. 1), must be discussed
here. God is very seldom said to “walk to and fro” ( hithp., Gesen.
236) in Scripture. Apart from Gen. iii. 8 (comp. Job xxii. 14 diamoрeveтαι)
walking to and fro in the garden," it is perhaps (Gesen. 236) limited
to passages connected with the (Deut. xxiii. 15) “encampment" of Israel,
or with the "tabernacle," or with "tabernacling," e.g. 2 S. vii. 6—7
"I have not dwelt in a house...but have (lit.) walked to and fro in a
tent and a tabernacle. In all places wherein I have walked to and fro
in (*) all Israel..." (comp. parall. 1 Chr. xvii. 5-6 "I have been from tent
to tent and from one tabernacle to another. In all places wherein I have
walked to and fro in (2) all Israel..."). We may safely infer that Jöhn
is alluding to Lev. xxvi. 11-12 "I will set my tabernacle among you...
and I will walk to and fro among you (1) and will be your God
and ye shall be my people,” where LXX has ἐνπεριπατήσω ἐν ὑμῖν, but
èv µéow iµôv would be a more literal rendering. Onkelos reproduces
the Heb. "tabernacle" exactly, but, for "I will walk to and fro," has
"I will make my Shechinah to dwell" (and sim. Jon. "the glory of my
Shechinah"). Comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 26—7 “I will set my sanctuary in
the midst of them (DIN) (LXX Oŋow rà ẵyiá µov év µéow avtŵv, and
R.V. “in the midst of them")...my tabernacle also shall be (R.V. marg.)
over (by) them,” giving a different order from that of Leviticus, and
having “set my sanctuary” instead of "walk to and fro." The second
Epistle to the Corinthians vi. 16 ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐνπεριπατήσω
combines Lev. and Ezek. and, while paraphrasing the "tabernacling"
(as évoɩkýσw), retains "walk to and fro." Jn i. 14 éokývwoev év žµîv
retains the “tabernacling." Rev. xiii. 6, xv. 5, xxi. 3, thrice mentions
"the tabernacle of God (or, of God's testimony)." It predicts twice
(vii. 15, xxi. 3) that God "will tabernacle" (Rev. vii. 15) “over (èπí)”
men (as in Ezek. xxxvii. 26-7, Heb. "over," LXX év) or (xxi. 3) "along
with (μerá)" them.
[2998 (xxviii) g] W.H. print σkηvów as allusive in Rev. xxi. 3, but not
in vii. 15.
But the facts suggest (1) that oxηvów should be printed as
allusive in both cases; (2) that the divine "walking to and fro
(πeρɩπaτéw),” which would be associated in the Jewish mind with God's
“tabernacling,” should be printed as allusive in Rev. ii. 1. It should
be added that Rev. twice (xii. 12, xiii. 6) speaks of "those who tabernacle
in the heaven(s),” and once (xiii. 6, “to blaspheme his name and his
196
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
and, in the midst¹ of the candlesticks, one like a son of man,
tabernacle, [namely] those that tabernacle in the heaven") in such a
way as to suggest that the Tabernacle, like the Church or Body of Christ,
is composed of spiritual beings.
((
[2998 (xxviii) h] What is the use of prefixing to the sharp rebukes
addressed to the Seven Churches the statement that the rebuker "walks
to and fro in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks"? The answer
is given by St Paul, as above quoted-being in effect, "I will walk to
and fro among you—therefore (dió) come forth out of the captivity of
uncleanness (2 Cor. vi. 17, é§éλdate ék µéσov avтôv)." These last words
ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου
are from Isaiah lii. II Go ye out from them...be ye clean, ye that bear
the vessels of the Lord." These again may be illustrated by the only
other instance of éμreрiñaтéw applied to Jehovah (Deut. xxiii. 14—15)
"For the Lord thy God walketh to and fro in the midst of thy camp
to deliver thee...therefore shall thý camp be holy; that he see no naked-
ness of anything in thee and turn away from thee." This the Prophets
and Apostles would interpret as referring to spiritual defilement, and
probably this was in the mind of John as he wrote down the warning
(iii. 17—18) “Thou knowest not that thou art...blind and naked...."
The Figure that "walks to and fro in the midst of the seven candlesticks"
comes to the Church of Laodicea asking whether the Church really
has the light or is "blind," whether it is clothed with "white garments
or is "naked." The "walking to and fro" is for the good of the
Churches. But it may begin by detecting their faults (Rev. iii. 19)
"As many as I love I reprove and chasten." So Adam and Eve heard
the Word of the Lord when He "walked to and fro in the garden,"
and they "hid themselves" and Adam said, "I was afraid because
I was naked."
""
¹ [2998 (xxviii) i] As regards "in the midst (ev μéow)," besides i. 13,
ii. 1 “in the midst of the candlesticks," compare iv. 6 "in the midst of
the throne, and round about the throne, four living creatures" (comp.
Ezek. i. 5 (LXX) “in the midst [of the fire] as [it were] the likeness of
four living creatures,” (Heb.) "from the midst of it [i.e. of the fire]");
v. 6 “I saw in the midst of the throne and [in the midst] of the four
living creatures and in the midst of the elders a Lamb standing”; vi. 6
"I heard as [it were] a voice in the midst of the four living creatures";
xxii. 2 “A river of the water of life...going forth from the throne of God
and the Lamb in the midst of the street thereof and (lit.) of the river
on this side and on that the tree of life (ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ
ἀρνίου ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν
¿úλov (wŷs)” where the meaning would vary with punctuation, but év
μéow (as W.H.) prob. alludes to Gen. ii. 9 “the tree of life in the midst
of the garden." The object of the writer (as in Jn xiv. 20 "Ye in me
197
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
and I in you,” and xvii. 21 "Thou in me and I in thee" (1881–2)) is
to delocalise and spiritualise the meaning. For how can the four living
creatures be literally (iv. 6) “in the midst of the throne" and at the same
time "round about the throne"? But they can be in both places at the
same time spiritually, just as Christ's saints can simultaneously (iii. 21)
sit with Him "in" His throne, and yet worship before His throne
(according to the more usual picture). So in v. 6, "in the midst of the
throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders,"
the meaning is doubtful, because, in Hebraic Greek, "betwixt this and
betwixt that" may mean "betwixt this and that." But it is probable
that the writer conceives of the Lamb as being, so to speak, the spiritual
centre of the "throne," the "creatures,” and the “elders” simultaneously
(or at least he includes that conception over and above any literal
meaning). On the use of the phrase στῆναι εἰς τὸ μέσον, and ἐν τῷ
µéow, in connexion with Christ's resurrection, see 1793 foll., 2307, 2710.
[2998 (xxviii)j] A unique use of another phrase for "in the midst,"
ἀνὰ μέσον, occurs in Rev. vii. 17 τὸ ἀρνίον τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου ποι-
μανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων—a very beautiful and
Johannine thought, that "the Lamb," though "in the midst of the throne,"
can none the less, nay, all the more, act as a shepherd and leader (comp.
vii. 15 "He that sitteth on the throne shall tabernacle over them").
But why does the writer here alone use åvà µéơov-which in O.T. almost
always represents "between," as to which Gesen. (107) says,
"once
with a sing. (unusual) Dan. viii. 16 ‘between the Ulai ('),' that is,
between its banks"? The context ("I heard a man's voice between the
Ulai which called and said, 'Gabriel, make this man to understand the
vision'”) indicates that the author of Rev. would have meditated on this
passage of Daniel in connexion with his own visions.
((
“Ulai” in Dan. viii. 16 is, in Theod., Ovßáλ. Comp. Dan. viii. 2 on
the river (b) Ulai (')," Theod. "on the Oubal," LXX "at the gate
Ailam,” Aq. “on the Oubal Oulai,” Sym. “on the lake (ëλovs) Oulai”.
where the LXX "gate Ailam,” and viii. 3, 6 "gate” (Heb. "river") indicate
that the LXX has transliterated or translated a reading, frequently
transliterated elsewhere as aiλáp, meaning the "porch" of the temple (also
1 K. vii. 7, "porch" of the throne in Solomon's palace): comp. Ezek. viii. 16
LXX ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν αἰλὰμ, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, Sym. μεταξὺ τοῦ
προπύλου (or, τοῦ προθύρου, Aq. τῆς προστάδος or τοῦ αἰλάμ, Theod. τοῦ
aiλáµ) K. Toû 0. A connexion between "porch" and "waters" is recognised
by Philo i. 573, on Exod. xv. 27 εἰς Αἰλεὶμ...δώδεκα πηγαὶ ὑδάτων...Αἰλεὶμ
#vλŵves épµnveúovraι, and between "throne" and "water" in Rev. xxii. I
“a river of the water of life...proceeding out of the throne of God and of
the Lamb," apparently borrowed from Ezek. xlvii. 1
66 waters issued out
from under the threshold of the House [i.e. the Temple] eastward." The
"threshold of the house" appears to be homonymous with the "porch."
198
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
clothed in a garment that reached to the feet, and girt
about at the breasts with a golden girdle¹; and his head
"(
[2998 (xxviii) k] 'Avà μéσov generally means "between two things."
Here it may mean "between [the two sides of] the throne " as in Dan.
viii. 16 "between [the two sides of] the river," dimly suggesting the
co-assessorship of the Father and the Spirit. Or it may suggest that
the Lamb is between "the Throne" and the world, as Mediator, some-
what like 1 Cor. vi. 5 ὃς δυνήσεται διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ,
one able to judge between his brother [and the opposing brother]," an
abridgment of the Hebrew idiom "between this and between that."
Perhaps it suggests both these thoughts. In any case the sevenfold
mention of ev μéo is probably intentional, and so is this unique
mention of ἀνὰ μέσον as compared with the seven uses of ἐν μέσῳ. In
the whole of the Bible no book equals this book in the stress it lays
on mystical numbers; and on no number does this book lay so much
stress as on "seven." See 2998 (xxviii) d on tŷs...éßdoµádos tǹv tiµýv.
(xxviii) --r “ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN
""
1 [2998 (xxviii) Z] Rev. i. 13 ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ἐνδεδυμένον ποδήρη,
καὶ περιεζωσμένον πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς ζώνην χρυσαν. Οη ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀ. see
2998 (xxvi) a. As to the modýpηs, comp. (1) Ezek. ix. 2—11, where
six men come, each with his "instrument of destruction," kaì eis
ἀνὴρ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν ἐνδεδυκώς ποδήρη καὶ ζώνη σαπφείρου ἐπὶ τῆς ὀσφύος
αὐτοῦ...ὁ ἐνδεδυκὼς τὸν ποδήρη κ. ἐζωσμένος τῇ ζώνῃ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ :
(2) Dan. x. 5 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος εἷς ἐνδεδυμένος βύσσινα καὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν
περιεζωσμένος βυσσίνῳ καὶ ἐκ μέσου αὐτοῦ φῶς, Theod. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ εἷς
ἐνδεδυμένος βαδδείν, καὶ ἡ ὀσφὺς αὐτοῦ περιεζωσμένη ἐν χρυσίῳ Ὠφάζ.
The "golden girdle" seems clearly derived from Dan. x. 5 (Theod.)
and may typify "judgment according to truth," since "gold" (Theod.
"gold of Ophaz") includes the metaphorical meaning of "that which has
been refined, or tested, so that it is truly what it professes to be, without
alloy." Comp. Eph. vi. 14 "your loins girt about with truth," and Rev.
xv. 6 Covas xpvoâs. Now the Hebrew transliterated by Theod. in Dan.
x. 5 as Baddeív, is in Ezek. ix. 2—11 rendered modýpηs. This, so far,
favours the view that John is borrowing from Daniel, only substituting
ποδήρης for βαδδείν.
66
man
[2998 (xxviii) m] But there are reasons for thinking that Dan. x. 5
may be itself borrowed or corrupted from Ezek. ix. 2—1I. For the
" in Ezek. is really "girded," not with "sapphire" but with
"a writer's inkhorn (lit.) upon his loins." The author of Daniel-who
freely adapts Ezekiel, as for example, when he (x. 6) takes the "beryl"
from the "wheels" of Ezekiel i. 16, x. 9 and applies it to the “body” of
his Figure-having before him the Hebrew of Ezekiel, namely, "writer's
199
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN'
and his hair were white as white wool-as snow¹, and his
inkhorn,” and the Greek, “sapphire," may have chosen "gold of Uphaz”
as a paraphrastic compromise; expressive of the fact that the Recording
Angel was "girt with the pure gold of judgment according to truth."
John may have followed Theodotion, against the LXX, taking the metaphor
in that sense. Origen (on Ezek. x. 2-8 οὐκ ἀνενδέδυτο ποδήρη ἀλλὰ στολήν)
implies that the σroλń in Ezek. x. 2 was connected with purification but
the woồnρns in Ezek. ix. 2—11 with destruction. If John has in view
Ezekiel's picture of the Man in the midst of the Six Destroyers, this
may explain his use of πodýpηs. And it would also illustrate his apparent
tendency to identify Christ occasionally with one of the Seven Angels
(2998 (xxviii) x—y). Compare Hermas Sim. ix. 12 "the glorious Man and
the Six glorious Angels on the right hand and on the left."
[2998 (xxviii) n] There is a generally recognised reference to Ezekiel
ix. 2-11 in John's account (Rev. vii. 2 foll.) of the "sealing" of the
faithful. Now the action of the Recorder in Ezekiel, marking the fore-
heads of the faithful with a sign, and, by that act, dividing them from the
unfaithful, who are slain by the Six-corresponds to the action of the
Logos, or Word of God, described by Philo and the Epistle to the
Hebrews as a "two-edged sword" or Toµeùs Aóyos (2998 (xxviii) t—u).
Verbally, Ezek. ix. 2 “a writer's inkhorn (lit.) upon his loins," is as different
as possible from Rev. i. 16 " from his mouth a two-edged sword going forth."
But, in fact, is there any real difference between a verdict of "guilty" or
"not guilty” written by a Recording Angel “with an inkhorn upon his
loins” and the same verdict when uttered by a Proclaiming Angel with
what Isaiah (xlix. 2) calls a "mouth like a sharp sword"? The only
difference between the cloaked Figure in Ezekiel and the cloaked Figure
in Revelation is that the former leaves the guilty to the swords of his six
companions, the latter with his own sword deals with good and evil, truth
and falsehood, so that his sword is called "two-edged" (2998 (xxviii) t—u).
Thus the hypothesis that wodnρns is borrowed from Ezekiel ix. 2—11
would help us to understand why the writer passed on to speak of the
(Rev. i. 16) “two-edged sword," which, though not mentioned by Ezekiel
or Daniel in the two passages above quoted, is implied in Ezekiel's
context (but not in Daniel's). See 2998 (xxviii) s—x.
(6
1 [2998 (xxviii) o] Rev. i. 14 αἱ τρίχες λευκαὶ ὡς ἔριον λευκόν, ὡς χιών.
For this, W.H. refer to nothing but Dan. vii. 9 where the "clothing" is
said to be "white as snow," and "the hair of the head" as
pure wool."
But in all probability John's expression ("as white wool, as snow") is
influenced by Isaiah i. 18 "though your sins be as scarlet they shall be
as white as snow, though they be red like crimson they shall be as wool."
The apparent bathos-which created discussion among the Talmudists.
(Schwab iv. 122, Schabb. ix. 3)—might not be bathos to a Jew alluding to
200
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
eyes as a flame of fire¹, and his feet like unto burnished
brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and his voice
the tradition that the “scarlet wool” (on which see Barnabas vii. 8), used
on the occasion of the scapegoat, sometimes became white (“blanchis-
saient en signe de pardon "). Perhaps Rev. i. 14 should be rendered “as
wool [that is] white as snow"-thus alluding to the "whitened wool"
referred to in the Talmud. John drops Daniel's mention of "white
garments" as being perhaps implied in πodýpηs (i.e. Buddeív, white linen),
and he lays stress on the whiteness of the hair because moλiai, "white
hair," is connected with "judgment" as in Sir. xxv. 6 as wρaîov πodiaîs
κpious, where the Syriac context has Daniel's exact expression, "ancient
of days” (“antiquis dierum "). See also Prov. xx. 27-9, where the
context implies that "the hoary head" brings with it righteous judgment.
Origen (on Numbers, Hom. xxvii., Lomm. x. 356) connects the "white-
ness" in Isaiah i. 18 with that in Daniel vii. 9. Here, then, John takes
from Daniel a characteristic of the prophet's "Ancient of days" to whom
the Son of man is "brought," and transfers it to the Son of man Himself,
modifying it by an allusion to Isaiah's description of God's purification of
sin. Thus he suggests concerning the Son of man (as being the white-
haired "ancient of days "), (1) that He is from the beginning, (2) that He
judges, (3) that He purifies.
xix. 12.
1 [2998 (xxviii) ] Rev. i. 14 καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς φλόξ πυρός...
Xaλkoλißávų…….πeñvρwµévŋs. “Eyes as a flame of fire" is rep. in ii. 18 and
Daniel vii. 9—from which John has borrowed details here—says
ó Opóvos…..Þλòέ wʊpós. “Throne" would be inapplicable to this Figure, as
it is (Rev. ii. 1) "walking to and fro in the midst of the seven golden
candlesticks." John transfers "flame of fire" to the "eyes"—perhaps
having in view Zechariah's tradition about the seven candlesticks as
being "the eyes of the Lord," and his own tradition about the Lamb
as having (Rev. v. 6) "seven eyes," comp. Dan. x. 6, "his eyes as torches
of fire (λaµñádes Tuρós)." The sing. concentrates the attention on the one
all-seeing and all-testing Judge. He may be also alluding to the first
use of a "flame of fire" in the Bible, namely, Exod. iii. 2 the “flame of
fire" in which the angel of the Lord appears to Moses, burning but not
consuming.
2 [2998 (xxviii) q] Rev. i. 15 oi módes avтov öμooi xaλkoλißáva is prob.
(522 (vi)) a corruption of a paraphrase of Dan. x. 6 (LXX) oi wódes wσeì
χαλκὸς ἐξαστράπτων (Theod. στίλβοντος). John wished to bring out the
notion of brass that is being "refined in a furnace” xaλκòv év kλißávæ :
and xaλkõēkλißavo, or some such phrase, has been corrupted so as to
give rise to a compound not occurring elsewhere in Gk (comp. Lev. ii. 4).
The phrase ós év kaµivæ ñeπvpwμévŋs is a conflate of this. Both the word
201
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
as the voice of many waters¹; and having in his right hand
seven stars; and from his mouth a sword, two-edged, sharp,
going forth²; and his countenance (or, appearance) was as
and the phrase suggest that the Figure will be (Mal. iii. 2) “like a refiner's
fire."
1
66
[2998 (xxviii) r] Rev. i. 15 os Pwvǹ vdáτwv πoλλŵv is taken from
Ezek. i. 24, rep. in xliii. 2 (Heb.), applied first to the "four living
creatures" and then to "the glory of the God of Israel." Dan. x. 6 has
"the voice of a multitude ()," which, though not expressed by the
same Hebrew word, also occurs in Ezek. i. 24 as the voice of many
waters, as the voice of the Almighty [i.e. Shaddai (2998 (xxvii);)] in their
going, the voice of a multitude (n) [Theod. the voice of the Logos] as
the voice of a camp." Comp. Rev. xiv. 2 "I heard a voice from heaven
as the voice of many waters...," i.e. of the saints singing the New Song,
and xix. 6 "I heard as the voice of a great multitude and as the voice of
many waters," singing Halleluiah. Against this threefold use of "many
waters" in a good sense, must be set Rev. xvii 1-15 "the great harlot
that sitteth upon many waters (comp. Jerem. li. 13)....The waters that
thou sawest are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues," i.e.
this world, or the flesh-the waters “above the firmament" being con-
trasted, in the writer's mind, with the waters "below."
(xxviii) s-x THE "STARS" AND THE "SWORD"
66
² [2998 (xxviii) s] Rev. i. 16 kaì ëxwv ev tŷ değiậ xeipì avtoû àσtépas
ἑπτά, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ῥομφαία δίστομος ὀξεῖα ἐκπορευομένη.
Before shewing the connexion between the seven stars" and the "
two-
edged sword" it is well to repeat that the Seer, throughout this description,
seems to have in view the just Judge, human and therefore able to judge
men because He is "like a son of man" (comp. Jn v. 27 “power to
execute judgment because he is son of man (őtɩ v. à. ẻσtív)”); but also
divine, pure and stainless and wise as the white-haired Ancient of days;
girt with the unalloyed "gold" of truth; with eyes that burn as well as
see; a form that suggests the fire of the refiner; and a voice that goes
forth as that of a sea. All this prepares us for the thought of the Word
of God pronouncing sentence and dividing good from evil; and this
prepares us for the metaphor of the sword.
[2998 (xxviii) t] Heb. iv. 11-12, after warning men against "falling"
(like Israel after the flesh), says "For the Logos of God is living and
inwardly working (évepyýs) and more cutting (Touwrepos) than any two-
edged sword, and penetrating even to division of soul and spirit, joints
and marrow, and a judger (êpɩtikós) of the thoughts and intents of the
heart." Comp. Is. xlix. 2 "He hath made my mouth as a sharp sword,”
202
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
and Hos. vi. 5 “I have hewed them by the prophets, I have slain them
by the words of my mouth." This might be interpreted as meaning that
the Logos divides truth from falsehood, and “slays" the falsehood in the
soul, or else "hews" the soul as long as it retains the falsehood. Comp.
Origen-on Ps. cxlix. 6 "two-edged sword"—"The sword is the mind
under the influence of Logos (voûs λoyɩkós) cutting off the soul from wicked-
ness and ignorance." "The sharp two-edged sword" occurs again (ii. 12)
in the beginning of the letter to Pergamum. Afterwards "two-edged" is
dropped (ii. 16" sword of my mouth,” xix. 15 "sharp sword,” xix. 21 “the
sword that goes forth from the mouth of him that sat upon the horse").
In xix. 13-15 it is "the Logos of God" from whose mouth "proceedeth
a sharp sword."
[2998 (xxviii) u] This last passage is the only one where the Logos of
God is described as a personal agent; but all that precedes leads up to it,
and so does the mention of the "two-edged sword" here. The Logos is
frequently described by Philo as "cutting" or "dividing," sometimes as
a surgeon's knife (i. 212 κακία...λόγῳ τομεῖ τῷ κατ᾽ ἐπιστήμην τέμνεται) but
sometimes as the Universal Divider of things really opposite (i. 491 Tậ
τομεῖ τῶν συμπάντων αὐτοῦ λόγῳ...οὗτος ὁ τομεύς) " opposing against each
other" things that are essentially opposed (e.g. åλŋßés and yeûdos), and also
intervening so as to unite things not opposed; so that the Logos
(i. 496) speaks "between the two Cherubim"; and the two Divine Powers,
the Giver and the Punisher, are manifested as “coequal (iσáčovσwv) using
Him as their Divider (avrê toµeî xpóμevai).” But the "Cherubim ” and
the flaming sword” (Gen. iii. 24) are allegorized by Philo (i. 142—3) as
referring to "the seven stars (tŵv éπtà ảotépwv)," that is, the “planets"
(including the sun), and more particularly "the flaming sword is a
symbol of the sun (ἡ δὲ φλογίνη ῥομφαία σύμβολον ἡλίου)”: “ but I once
heard," he says, "an even better word [i.e. interpretation]" ["kovoa dé
ποτε καὶ σπουδαιοτέρου λόγου, perh. a play on λόγος], “ and it said to
me that, according to the nature of (or, in) the one real God (κATà Tòv ễva
ővтws övta Oeóv), the highest and first Powers are two-Goodness and
Authority. He has begotten the All by Goodness; He rules the
begotten (rov yevvnévros) by Authority. Third is Logos, in the midst,
uniting both (τρίτον δὲ συναγωγὸν ἀμφοῖν μέσον εἶναι Λόγον).”
(C
[2998 (xxviii) v] The thought of God as " dividing" is brought out by
Jer. Targ. (more distinctly than in Targ. Jon.) on Exod. xii. 42 "It is a
night to be observed." There are, says the Targum," four nights written
in the memorial." The first was when there was darkness and "the
Word of the Lord shone forth and He called it the first night" (comp.
Gen. i. 4 "And God divided the light from the darkness...and the
darkness he called night"). The second night was "when the Word of
the Lord was revealed to Abraham between the divided parts" (comp.
Gen. xv. 10 "divided them in the midst," on which see Philo i. 491,
203
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
the sun shineth in his strength'."
502-6, and Quæst. Gen. ad loc.) "and He called it the second night."
The third night was "when the Word of the Lord was revealed upon the
Egyptians at the" (Etheridge) "dividing of the night" (i.e. midnight).
“His right hand slew the firstborn of the Egyptians and His right hand
spared the firstborn of Israel....And He called it the third night." The
fourth night will be "when the end of the age will be accomplished...
Moses shall go forth from the midst of the desert and King Messiah
from the midst of Rome. The former shall lead (77) on the head
of the cloud, and the latter shall lead on the head of the cloud, and
the Word of Jehovah shall lead between the two, and they go as one
(lit. in one)."
1 [2998 (xxviii) w] Rev. i. 16 καὶ ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει ἐν τῇ
δυνάμει αὐτοῦ. Contrast x. I τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ἥλιος. Prob. ὄψις
TÒ
ás
here means “appearance” as always in Ezekiel and mostly in LXX. It
occurs in Rev. only here, whereas πрóσwоv occurs 10 times (thrice
concerning Him that sitteth on "the throne," vi. 16, xx. 11, xxii. 4). In
N.T. os is pec. to Rev. and Jn. Jn never uses πрóσwлоv in any sense,
but is twice, Jn vii. 24 “judge not according to appearance (öpıv),”
Jn xi. 44 ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ σουδαρίῳ περιεδέδετο, where Origen (ad loc. τὴν
ὄψιν περιδεδεμένος ἔτι καὶ μήτε βλέπων, and τὴν ὄψιν τῇ ἀγνοία κεκάλυπται
kai tepidéderai) seems to connect is with "seeing." If övɩs means
appearance," it sums up the general effect produced by the Figure,
"Its appearance [as a whole] was as the sun." This is more easy to
understand than Mt. xvii. 2 ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, τὰ
dè iµátia avтoû...ws тò pws, for instead of ending with "garments" and
“light,” the passage in Rev. ends with "sun" as a climax, so dazzling and
astounding the beholder that he falls to the ground.
66
“
[2998 (xxviii) x] Literally, it is inconsistent that the Logos should
hold "the seven stars" and yet be as one of them, namely, the "sun."
But the same thought pervades the book, that the Logos is sometimes
represented by one of the seven angels. For as Philo (i. 632) says,
“God is the archetype of light," and as "the sun divides (diakpível) the day
and the night, so Moses says God walled off (diateixíσai) light and
darkness (Gen. i. 4)." The vision of the sun" also prepares the reader
for the future, wherein the Logos will be seen both separating light from
darkness and good from evil with His sword and also (comp. Origen on
Mt. xvii. 2, Lomm. iii. 129)
Lomm. iii. 129) "manifested to the children of light" as
(Mal. iv. 2) "the sun of righteousness," and supplying the place of the
sun (Rev. xxii. 5) in the New Jerusalem. W.H. print "the sun in his
might" as from Judg. v. 31 "So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord;
but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his
L
204
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
[2998 (xxix)] The second vision mentioning "a son of
man" (after an announcement of the fall of Babylon and
of the doom of the followers of the Beast), is introduced by
a voice from heaven, saying, "Write, Blessed are the dead
that die in the Lord henceforth. (R.V.) Yea¹, saith the
Spirit, that they may rest from their labours...." Then the
might." This agrees well with the effect of the "two-edged sword" of
the Logos in this book, causing the enemies of the light to "perish," but
bringing the Sun of Righteousness" to those that "love" Him.
((
[2998 (xxviii) y] Summing up the results of the evidence as to John's
meaning when-in a book that mentions many angels and especially
"seven angels" that execute the wrath of God—he describes the revelation
of Jesus as conveyed through "his angel,” we may illustrate it by a
contrast. Ezekiel describes (2998 (xxviii) /—n) “one man” recording the
saved and “six men” destroying the rest. The one man is "in the midst
of” the six (comp. Enoch 90 "that man who wrote before Him, who was
one of the seven white ones"). According to John there are "seven"
destroying angels, as also there are "seven" churches or "seven" candle-
sticks. But, as there is ONE expressly mentioned as "walking in the
midst" of the seven candlesticks or churches, so there is ONE implied as
being "in the midst" of the seven angels, that is to say, prompting each
and all of the seven, whether to enlighten or to chastise. Yet on special
occasions he seems to describe one of the seven angels, or an angel not
mentioned as belonging to the seven, in such a way as to convey the
impression that this particular angel specially represents the ONE.
¹ [2998 (xxix) a] Rev. xiv. 13, unpunctuated, is ypávov Maкápioι oi
νεκροὶ οἱ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἀποθνήσκοντες ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι ναί λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα ἵνα....
Comp. Cramer, who punctuates thus, Η σύνταξις οὕτως. Τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει
γράψον ἀπάρτι, ναὶ γράψον,...apparently meaning-“The Spirit says,
Write this moment, yea, write." This would contrast with Rev. x. 4
“Seal up, write not [yet]," and would imply that the vision in xiv. 13
was soon to be fulfilled.
λέγει Πνεῦμα.
2 [2998 (xxix) b] Rev. xiv. 13 λéyei Tò IIveûμa. Comp. ii. 7 "He that
hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches" (rep.
7 times), words recalling the words of Christ on earth (Mt. xiii. 9, &c.
"He that hath ears"), and best taken as uttered by Christ, speaking
through His Spirit, and saying "Let each man hear what the Spirit
saith." This favours the view that in xiv. 13, the words "saith the
Spirit” are uttered by Christ speaking through the "Voice from heaven.”
And the same will apply to xxii. 16—17 “I, Jesus, sent my messenger....
And the Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him
205
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
Seer continues, "I saw, and behold a white¹ cloud, and on
the cloud, sitting, one like a son of man, having on his head
a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another
angel came forth from the sanctuary (vaoû) crying with a
great voice to him that sat upon the cloud, Send [forth] the
sickle." Here the important question is, what is meant by
the "white cloud" and by "sitting" on it.
It can hardly be contended that the Seer does not dis-
tinguish this from Daniel's visions of the Figure "coming with
the clouds of heaven." In O.T., the plural "clouds" has an
entirely different meaning from the sing. "cloud," which
signifies Shechinah. Moreover John himself has quoted
say, Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come"-all of which may
well proceed from Jesus. "Let him say, 'Come""-sounds like a
paradox, but it is based on the truth that no man comes to God
unless his heart asks God to "come" to him. These are the only
instances where тò πveûμa is used absolutely in this book.
1
(6
¹ [2998 (xxix) c] Rev. xiv. 14" White," used in this book almost always
as a symbol of purity. In visions that appear to represent Christ or His
representative "angel," it occurs thus, i. 14, His head and His hair were
"white,” signifying (2998 (xxviii) o) purity of judgment in connexion with
the seven churches, or candlesticks," in the midst of which He is
described as (ii. 1) “walking." Then it occurs four times in connexion
with "sitting," thus, vi. 2 "Behold a white horse," where the Rider has a
"bow," and a "crown" is "given " Him, and He goes forth "conquering
and to conquer"; xiv. 14 "Behold a white cloud," where the Figure
that sits on it, "like a son of man," "has” a "crown" on His head, and
a “sickle," and is to reap the "harvest" of the world; xix. 11 "and
behold a white horse," where "the Faithful and True," who "judgeth in
righteousness,” is called “the Logos of God," "King of kings” and “Lord
of lords"; xx. II “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat
thereon, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away." There
appears to be a climax in these four descriptions, and perhaps the Rider
in vi. 2 to whom the crown is "given" (just after the mention of the
Lamb in vi. 1) is regarded not as Christ but merely as the first of the four
riders mentioned in vi. 2—8. If so, the epithet "white" would appear to
be used thrice in connexion with Christ or God, regarded as “sitting.”
For cloud" see 2998 (xxx), and for "like a son of man," see
2998 (xxvi) a.
((
206
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
Daniel's words as to be fulfilled hereafter, Rev. i. 7 "Behold
he cometh with the clouds." It is extremely improbable that
he confuses this with "sitting on the cloud."
<<
(C
[2998 (xxx)] The use of "the cloud"-no cloud having
been previously mentioned-in such expressions as our
fathers were under the cloud," "were baptized in the cloud,"
"they went up to heaven in the cloud," shews that "the
cloud" as the emblem of the divine presence had taken hold
of the Jewish mind¹. Wisdom is made by Ben Sira to say
My throne is in the pillar of cloud²." Philo, commenting on
the words "the cloud came in the midst between the Egyptian
host and the Israelite," calls the cloud "the instrument of
defence and salvation for friends, but of vengeance and
chastisement for foes," thus assigning to it a part like that of
the two-edged sword. To the same effect Origen writes.
about Ezekiel's "great cloud in the removing spirit, or, wind
(èv Tô ěžaípovтI TVεúμаTI).” It has two aspects, he says, each
a triad :—(1) spirit, cloud, light, (2) fire, amber, light. In
both aspects, the end will be "light": but in (1), light will
come to us through a baptism of "spirit"; in (2), through a
baptism of fire. Philo's doctrine indicates that traditions
1
[2998 (xxx) a] 1 Cor. x. i. In Rev. xi. 11—12, there is a previous
mention of πveûµa (wŷs derived from Ezek. xxxvii. 5—10, where πveûµa
means both "wind" and "spirit" and "breath." "The cloud" may be
supposed to have descended with the πνεῦμα ζωῆς.
2 Sir. xxiv. 4.
3 Philo i. 501. He is generally silent on other passages containing
ἡ νεφέλη in this sense.
(xxx) b—(xxxi) c
ó
"CLOUDS" AND CLOUD"
4 [2998 (xxx) b] Origen (Lomm. xiv. 27) on Ezek. i. 4, Axws ¿§aipei
τὰ φαῦλα ἀφ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, πνεύματι καὶ πυρί. Ἐὰν καλοὶ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ
γενώμεθα, καὶ λόγῳ παιδενώμεθα, πνεύματι τὰ φαῦλα ἐξαίρεται, κατὰ τὸ
γεγραμμένον “εἰ δὲ πνεύματι τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος θανατοῦτε, ζήσεσθε
(Rom. viii. 13).” Εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἐξῆρε τὰ φαῦλα ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, χρεία, οἶμαι,
τοῦ πυρός. ἐξαίρω
On p. 23 ¿çaípw is rendered "surgens" when Origen quotes
Ezek. i. 4, but "surgens sive auferens" when he comments on it. 'Eέaipw
means "journey forth" in Gen. xxxv. 5, Exod. xiii. 20 &c., applied to men,
207
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
about the double nature of "the cloud" go back to a very
early period.
((
[2998 (xxxi)] The Synoptic Gospels and the text of
Daniel (vii. 13) shew a chaotic confusion of traditions about
the "coming" of the Son of Man-whether "with clouds” or
on clouds," or "in a cloud"; and the Fourth Gospel (which
never uses the word "cloud") avoids them altogether¹. Early
in the second century R. Akiba was reproved by his con-
temporaries for heretical interpretation of the "thrones" in
and in Exod. xiv. 19 applied to the pillar of cloud (R.V. "removed"). It
also means "remove,” i.e. destroy, something evil, e.g. Deut. xvii. 7.
[2998 (xxx) c] The LXX renders D, "storm,” by ¿§aípw, in Ezek.
i. 4, xiii. 11 πνεῦμα ἐξαῖρον, xiii. 13 πνοὴν ἐξαίρουσαν, and nowhere else.
But Ezekiel's meaning is the same as that of Jeremiah xxiii. 19
(rep. xxx. 23) "the tempest of the Lord, [even his] fury, is gone
forth, yea, a whirling tempest; it shall burst upon the head of the
wicked,” where eέaipo is not used. Perhaps Ezekiel's mention of the
"cloud" in the context induces the LXX to employ egaípw as being
applied to the "removing" of "the cloud" in Exod. xiv. 19.
1
¹ [2998 (xxxi) a] Mk xiii. 26, Mt. xxiv. 30, Lk. xxi. 27; Mk xiv. 62,
Mt. xxvi. 64, Lk. om. (see Fourfold Gospel "Clouds "); Dan. vii. 13.
Origen (on Mt. xxiv. 30) says (Lomm. iv. 312) "forsitan super nubibus
animatis et rationalibus." Comp. Deut. xxxiii. 2 (R.V. txt) “from ("D)
the ten thousands (Heb. myriads) of holy ones," LXX "with (ovv) the
myriads of Kades" (s. Gesen. 873—4), Onk., Targ. Jon., and Targ. Jer.
"with him the myriads (Jon. myriads of myriads) of holy angels (Onk.
of holy ones)" [in xxxiii. 3, where Targ. Jer. has as the myriads of the
holy angels," the parallel Targ. Jon. has "and all of them hath he
called to be holy"], Enoch i. 9 "He comes with myriads of [his] holy
ones," Jude 14 "Enoch prophesied saying, Lo, the Lord came (lit.)
in (ev) myriads of his holy ones" [so Judith xvi. 5 λdev év µvpiáσi
dvváµewv avtoû], Zech. xiv. 5 “the Lord my God shall come and all the
holy ones with thee (LXX with him).”
There may have been some early confusion between "D"from,” and
- “in” (see Index to Clue, ") which might be confused with "as."
In Deut. xxxiii. 2, the LXX places the "angels" at the "right hand”
of God. But the Heb. puts the "Law" there. Comp. Rev. v. 1 where,
on the right hand of him that sitteth on the throne," there is mentioned
a "book"-the sealed book of the New Law, the Law of Redemption.
•
208
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
Daniel¹. The Revelation of John, while quoting Daniel's
tradition about "clouds" correctly, as one that is to be
fulfilled, clearly expresses another and a different tradition
about "sitting on" a "white cloud" (where "sitting" is
emphasized by a previous tradition about an angel (x. 1)
“arrayed in a cloud"). This appears to be based on Ezekiel's
prophecy about the "cloud," and about the "wind, or spirit, of
storm," controlled by what Origen calls a "charioteer." But
perhaps John blends with Ezekiel's view of the cloud sugges-
tions from "the pillar of cloud" in the Pentateuch. On the
whole, the vision of "one like a son of man," sitting on the
"white cloud," appears to convey a revelation of a future
righteous judgment in which humanity will be seen con-
trolling the elements and the powers of Nature so as to
subdue the powers of the Beast.
[2998 (xxxii)] A Seer must not be treated as an Apologist
¹ [2998 (xxxi) b] Sanh. 38 b raises the question on Dan. vii. 9, “Why
thrones [instead of throne]?" R. Johanan explained it of God's fellow-
councillors, comparing Dan. iv. 17 "This sentence is by the decree of
the watchers, and the matter by the word of the holy ones." Akiba said
"One for Him and one for David." R. Joses, rebuking him for pro-
fanity, said that one was for God's righteousness and the other for God's
mercy (somewhat as Philo above (2998 (xxviii) u), only that Philo intro-
duces the Logos between the two). Another Rabbi said that one was a
"seat" the other a "footstool."
2 [2998 (xxxi) c] Dan. vii. 13" with (DV) the clouds.” The rarity of
such a phrase would naturally cause it to be corrupted to "on" (as in
LXX), and perhaps Christian influence might facilitate the corruption.
when Christians, applying it to Christ, desired to magnify the phrase so
as to mean enthronement on clouds. Dalman (Words p. 242) alleges
Rev. xiv. 14-16 among passages indicating that the author read érí in
Daniel. But that is hardly a case in point since (1) the writer uses the
sing. "cloud," (2) he is describing "sitting," not "coming," (3) he is
probably influenced by Ezek. i. 26, where "sitting," though not mentioned,
is implied by "throne." If the writer of Rev. xiv. wrote also Rev. i. 7,
then we must add (4) that i. 7 quotes Daniel definitely with μetά. The
two phrases are quite consistent. The Figure might first "come with the
clouds" and then "sit on the cloud."
A.
209
14
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
or Harmonist. Hence it would be out of place to ask why
the Seer did not represent Jesus as the Son of man "standing"
(or " sitting") in heaven, at "the right hand" of the Supreme¹.
Our mouths would fairly be shut by the reply, "Because he
did not see Him thus." But it is lawful to ask whether the
Seer expresses a tradition about "the right hand" in some
other way.
And this he seems to do in the only passage
where he uses “the right hand” in connexion with the "throne”
of God. He tells us that “on (or in) the right hand of him
that sitteth on the throne" is a "book...sealed." The context
shews that it is the "sealed" mystery of the redemption of
the Universe.
"A Lamb standing as if slain" takes the book "from
the right hand of him that sat on the throne," and opens
its seven seals. To describe this "Lamb," the Seer uses
a word that is almost non-existent in pre-Christian Greek
literature; but Jeremiah once uses it of "a gentle lamb
dragged away to slaughter," and Aquila uses it to describe
the "lambs" whom Jehovah, the Shepherd, “carries in His
bosom³." Whither does the Lamb "go," and where does it
1
¹ [2998 (xxxii) a] Acts vii. 56 “standing," Mk xiv. 62, Mt. xxvi. 64,
Lk. xxii. 69 “sitting." On the difference comp. Heb. x. 11-12 “Now
every high priest standeth...but this [high priest] having offered one
sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God." See also
above, 2998 (xxv).
2 Rev. v. I—7.
(xxxii) b-d THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN apvíov AND άµvós
3 [2998 (xxxii) b] 'Apviov (Steph. Thes.) is quoted from Lysias and
Philippides (also from Lucian De Salt. 43, where however it is not in
Gesner's text (ii. p. 294)). It appears to be rare except in Christian litera-
ture (the Indices in the 7 vols. hitherto (1906) publ. by Egypt Expl. give
no instance of apvíov, and those in the Berlin Pap. vols. i.-iii. only one
instance, and that 7th century, vol. iii. no. 377). It occurs in N.T. only
in Jn xxi. 15 “Feed my lambs,” and about 29 times in Rev. In LXX it
occurs 4 times, thrice in the phrase "lambs of (Heb. sons of, or little ones
of) sheep," once in Jer. xi. 19" as a gentle lamb led to slaughter (às apvíov
ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ θύεσθαι).” But Aquila has it in Is. xl. II "He shall
210
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
feed his flock like a shepherd. He shall gather the lambs in his arm and
carry them in his bosom."
young one"
[2998 (xxxii) c] In the Heb. of this last passage the word for "lamb "
(n) is the same (only masculine) as that used by Christ to the daughter
of Jairus, “Talitha," meaning "lamb" in Hebrew, but "
(boy or girl, according to the termination) in Aramaic. The Heb. occurs
(Gesen. 378 a) only in Is. lxv. 25 "wolf and lamb," Is. xl. II "gather the
lambs," and I S. vii. 9 where Samuel sacrifices a sucking lamb" (lit.
lamb of milk, apva yaλaðŋvóv), as a burnt offering in a time of special
emergency. In his short summary of the lives of the heroes of Israel, Ben
Sira says xlvi. 16 “When he [i.e. Samuel] offered up a sucking lamb (év
προσφορᾷ ἀρνὸς γαλαθηνοῦ) and the Lord thundered from heaven.” The
Tosephtha on Aboth i. 2 quotes 1 S. vii. 9 as a proof of the special
efficacy of burnt offering "because it is all burnt up," and Aboda Zara
24 b quotes it on the question as to the masculine or feminine termination
of "lamb."
[2998 (xxxii) ɗ] These details may have some bearing on the very
important question as to the origin and meaning of Jn i. 29 "Behold,
the Lamb (aµvós) of God that taketh away the sin of the world." Many
recognise that John the Baptist could hardly have used these words with
a direct reference to the duvós of the continual morning and evening
sacrifice. But if the author of Revelation supplied the author of the
Fourth Gospel with his groundwork, it is possible to see how the tradition
of the former about the "(gentle) lamb," åpvíov, may have been developed
into the tradition of the latter about the "(sacrificial) lamb,” àµvós.
Origen (Comm. Joann. vi. 35) connects (as elsewhere) Isaiah's (liii. 7)
prophecy about the Man who “was led as a sheep to the slaughter and
as a lamb (aµvós) dumb before the shearer" with Jeremiah's (xi. 19) “I
was as a gentle lamb (åpvíov) led away to be slaughtered (Oveσdai)”
which he regards as uttered by Christ concerning Himself through the
prophet. It is not at all improbable that John the Baptist would call his
disciple, in whom he foresaw his successor, “the young child of Jehovah,”
or "the lamb of Jehovah," playing on the ancient meaning of the word, in
contrast with himself and his own more austere character and doctrine,
and also as an expression of his belief that the younger prophet was
(like the lamb in Nathan's parable, 1 S. xii. 1-6) "in the bosom" of
God. Receiving this tradition from John the son of Zebedee the author
of Revelation, John the Elder-or whoever else composed the Fourth
Gospel in the name of "the beloved disciple"-might interpret it, in the
light of subsequent events, as including a prediction about the lamb
of sacrifice. Interpreting it thus, he would naturally change åpvíov to
áμvós and would explain that the latter was used in a sacrificial sense.
Elsewhere, retaining the meaning expressed by ȧpvíov (i.e. “darling,”
"cherished one"), he expresses it by quite different words, Jn i. 18 eis Tòv
211
14-2
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
abide, after it has opened the seven-sealed book? We may
find an answer in the last of the Seer's visions (xxii. 1) " And
he shewed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." What
is the picture before the Seer? Some passages of Enoch
suggest the thought that God vacates His throne for His
Elect One, or shares it with the latter. Are we to try to think
of the Lamb thus, as filling God's place, or as sitting on a
portion of the throne and by the side of the Supreme? Either
notion would be alien from Hebrew thought, which would
rather regard the Lamb as in the "arms," or "bosom," of the
Shepherd of Israel. And this-the Lamb "in the bosom" of
the Father—was probably the vision, the final vision, seen by
the disciple that had lain "in the bosom of Jesus?" Or rather,
it was a feeling. He saw the water of life proceeding from
the throne. He felt that no solitary God sat there.
It was
(Rev. xxii. 3) "the throne of God and of the Lamb."
There is a whole world of difference between this and
the view that regards Christ merely as the sacrificial Lamb on
the altar on earth, before which the redeemed stand looking
up to God in heaven. The sacrificial aspect is not indeed
omitted; but it is subordinated or merged in the thought that
all life proceeds from an omnipotent tenderness revealed
through such homely associations and images that the disciple
whom Jesus loved feels almost compelled to resort to a
homely word—as though Bunyan were to venture to speak of
the Darling of God. All the more would such a word force
itself upon the Seer if he had been in his youth a disciple of
John the Baptist, and if the first words that he had heard from
κόλπον. In a different way Origen (loc. cit.) gives two aspects of the
sacrificed lamb, (1) "the lamb was not other than the Man (oùк aλdov
Tоû ȧvôρáπον),” (2) “He that brought this lamb to the sacrifice was the
God in the Man (ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἦν θεός).” On κόλπος, s. Ephraim's
Quotations from the Gospel (ed. Burkitt) p. 49.
1 Jn xiii. 23.
212
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
his former Master about Jesus of Nazareth declared the latter
to be "the gentle lamb of Jehovah'."
((
[2998 (xxxiii)] But it may be urged that when John
actually saw Christ represented as he did twice-by a
human figure, it would have been natural for him to use the
words used by his Master-"the Son of man," not "one like
unto a son of man." The answer is that, in fact,
one like
unto" better expressed Christ's meaning, for the Western
Churches, where (as we shall presently see) the question early
arose (Jn xii. 34), “Who is this 'Son of Man'?" John may
well have felt that by this phrase "one like unto a son of
man" he was expressing his Master's conception of humanity
as being exalted by God above the forces of Nature and
above the forces of evil, in accordance with the language
of Ezekiel and the Psalms. It meant "man according to the
1
¹ [2998 (xxxii) e] There are indications in the gospels that Jesus may
have dwelt more than is generally supposed on the metaphor of the Lamb,
as representing the type of patience and gentleness, which the disciples
must keep before themselves, and which they must regard as representing
Himself. Thus Lk. x. 3 "I send you as lambs in the midst of wolves"
(parall. Mt. x. 16 "sheep") suggests that they go forth to bear persecution
as their Master bore it (Mt. x. 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher").
Hence the warning against the "wolves in sheep's clothing." These are
"false prophets," and might be called false imitators of the Lamb.
In
2 [2998 (xxxiii) a] Contrast the more definite use of "man" in Dan. x. 5
“Behold a man. ""
There Sym. has “ as it were a man.” But the context
indicates an angelic companion of Michael, probably (see Jerome's comm.
and comp. Enoch ch. 40) Gabriel, whose name means Man of God.
Daniel, the repeated mentions of Gabriel and Michael are more definite
than the single mention of Michael in Rev. xii. 7. Also, if we bear in
mind that the same Hebrew noun occurs in the “four living-creatures
((wa)” in Ezekiel's vision (i. 5) and the "four beasts (Oŋpía)” in Daniel's
(vii. 3), we shall see how the later prophet narrowed down to nations what
the earlier intended to include the universe. Later still, the author of
Revelation includes both these thoughts, expressing them by their separate
Greek words. He sees in the "four living-creatures" of Ezekiel (Rev.
iv. 4—7, v. 6—14) four (@a, celestial representatives of the animate and
inanimate Universe-apart from the twenty-four Elders who represent
the Old Church transformed into the New. At the same time he finds in
213
[2998]
""
"THE SON OF MAN
:
likeness of God" but another aspect of the meaning was
From either point
"God according to the likeness of man."
of view, "like" was appropriate. This "likeness," then, John
introduces twice: once as "walking" amid the Churches to
reprove and chasten them, once as "seated" on a "white cloud"
to reap the harvest of the world. But both are inferior
revelations. A far superior revelation is conveyed through
"the Lamb." Moreover it is implied that all these visionary
images are but images. None of them are to be worshipped.
They are all sent by "Jesus." Jesus Himself is not seen.
Nowhere does the Seer say, "I saw the Lord Jesus," or,
"Behold, the Lord Jesus." Jesus speaks through His
Spirit ("I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day") under
various forms, or without any form, and is never beheld in
the form He wore in Galilee. The warning is given, and
repeated, that the Seer must not worship a visible representa-
tion of God, however awe-inspiring: "See thou do it not.
Worship God." But it is God as revealed by Jesus. Apart
from the final salutation, we may say that with Jesus the
book both begins and ends, “The revelation of Jesus Christ...
Come, Lord Jesus."
§ 12. The Gnostics, Ignatius, and Barnabas
[2998 (xxxiv)] This spiritual view of Christ as Humanity
on earth exalted to be Humanity in heaven, by the fulfilment
of Christ's law of suffering and service, became obscured when
Christians came to analyse " Son of man" as a technical term
the "four beasts" of Daniel a suggestion of brutal tyrannies which he repre-
sents by θηρίον. But his θηρίον and ἄλλο θηρίον do not make war against
one another as is the case in Daniel. They always make war against
righteousness, and are never spoken of in the plural. Though there are
more than one, they are treated as one, as in the last passage where the
word occurs, describing (xx. 10) "the lake of fire and brimstone where
are also the beast and the false prophet."
214
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
and to discuss it controversially-a proof that Christ used the
term, since heretics as well as the orthodox took such great
pains to explain it in accordance with their several views. The
most ancient misconstruing is that of the early Gnostics, who
were loth to believe that Christ had really come in the flesh.
Yet how could they explain away "Son of man"? Some of
them (it is hardly credible, yet it is twice averred by Irenæus
i. 12. 4, i. 30. 1) declared that the Propator or First Father was
called Anthropos, or Man, and hence that the Saviour styled
Himself the Son of Man (or Second Man, as being Son of the
First Man)¹:
[2998 (xxxv)] On the other side stood those who dis-
liked the term " Son of man (1) because it might mean
"Son of a human father," or (2) because it described Christ as
in His humiliation, and they preferred to regard Him as the
Lord in glory. We have seen that (apart from quotations
of the Psalms and allusions to Daniel or Ezekiel) no book of
N.T. except the Gospels (and the single instance above
alleged from Stephen's martyrdom in the Acts) ever mentions
"the Son of man." The Epistle to the Romans (i. 3-4), even
in an antithesis, instead of saying that Christ "became Son of
man after the flesh, but was manifested as Son of God through
the Spirit," says "born of the seed of David according to the
¹ [2998 (xxxiv) a] What follows (i. 30. 1) is still more portentous,
namely, the generating of "an incorruptible light, a third male, whom
they call Christ "_" Postea, dicunt, exultante Primo Homine cum Filio
suo super formositate Spiritus (hoc est Foeminae), et illuminante eam,
generavit ex ea lumen incorruptibile tertium masculum, quem Christum
vocant, filium Primi et Secundi Hominis et Spiritus Sancti, Primae
Foeminae." But the portent had a basis of mystical thought that was
not portentous. For we shall find Origen contending that, in a certain
sense, God is "man,” so that from eternity there was, in a certain sense,
a Man, and the Son of the Man, and the Spirit. And these Gnostics spun
their cobweb out of a logical argument that the Man, and the Son of the
Man, and the Spirit, cooperated with a view to the incarnation that
resulted in Christ. As to Origen, see 2998 (xliii—v).
215
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN
flesh,” thus leaving the question of parentage undecided, since
"the seed of David" might be taken by some to apply not to
Joseph but to Mary. Ignatius, in his zeal against the Docetics,
uses the phrase once, antithetically, "Jesus Christ, [born]
according to the flesh, of the family of David, who was [at
once] Son of man and Son of God (τῷ υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου καὶ υἱῷ
cov)." This is not quite the same as the evangelistic use,
and even this is removed in the longer recension of Ignatius¹.
[2998 (xxxvi)] Barnabas, after introducing Joshua as
"Jesus the Son of Nun," that is, son of a human father, quotes
a Targumistic version of Exod. xvii. 14-16 in which it is
said "the Son of God shall destroy Amalek" (where Jer. Targ.
1
¹ [2998 (xxxv) a] Ign. Eph. 20. See Lightf. "This (T κarà σáρкα)
is inserted as a protest against Docetic error....But this emphatic
mention of the human nature requires a counterbalance. Hence he adds
that Christ is not only 'Son of man,' but also 'Son of God."" The
longer recension has, for the human side, merely κатà σáрka dè èk yévovs
Δαυείδ.
2 [2998 (xxxvi) a] Barn. xii. 9 “Moses therefore saith unto Jesus, the
son of Nun, having given him this name when he sent him to spy out
the land, Take a book into thy hands and write that which the Lord
saith, that the Son of God will cut down from the roots all the house
of Amalek in the last days," corresponds to Exod. xvii. 14—16 “And the
Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse
it in the ears of Joshua, that (or, for) I will utterly blot out (lit. wiping I
will wipe out) the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And
Moses built an altar and called the name of it Jehovah my banner; and
he said, A hand [is lifted up] upon the throne of Jah; the Lord will have
war with Amalek from generation to generation." It will be instructive
to trace the origin of Barnabas' "Son of God." It arises from "hand...
upon the throne of Jah ( D)," confused by the LXX with "hand
hidden (D),” but capable of being personified as "the Hand of the
Lord," or Arm of the Lord"—that is, "the Son of God," regarded as
"[seated] on the throne of God." "Hands of God" means "the Son and
the Spirit of God" in Iren. v. I. 3 (and elsewhere) where see Grabe's note.
Targ. Jon. has "The Word of the Lord hath sworn...that He by His
Word will fight," and sim. Targ. Jer. "The Lord hath said by His Word
that the memory of Amalek shall perish." Iren. iii. 16. 4 applies Is. viii. 4
and Exod. xvii. 16 (LXX) “hidden hand” to the child Jesus, and Justin
(Tryph. 49) applies the latter to the Incarnation.
216
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
mentions Saul, with Mordecai and Esther, as the destroyers)
and proceeds," Behold, [here] again [is] Jesus, not [now] son
of man (οὐχὶ υἱὸς [υ. r. ὁ υἱὸς] ἀνθρώπου) but Son of God
(ἀλλὰ υἱὸς [υ. ν. ὁ υἱὸς] τοῦ θεοῦ).” It goes on to say that
David, knowing that men were destined to call Christ "the
son of David," and fearing their consequent error, took care to
address Him as "his Lord." See," says the writer, "how
David calls Him Lord, not son." The whole passage shews
that the writer shrank from applying the term "son
Christ except in the phrase "Son of God" for fear of “the
delusion of sinners (τὴν πλάνην τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν).”
§ 13. Justin, Irenæus, and Tertullian
""
2998 (xxxvii)] Justin Martyr uses the expression “man
[born] from men (av0ρwπos § ávОрóжжv)" two or three
times, as representing what "some of our race?" believed
¹ [2998 (xxxvi) 6] Barn. xii. 8—10. Schmidt (Enc. Bibl. 4715) says,
"The most natural interpretation of Barn. ii. 10" [an error for xii. 10] “is
that the author alludes to it [i.e. the title "Son of man "]....The inference
may be drawn that about 130 A.D. the title was known in some circles...."
I should have thought it legitimate to infer more than this, namely, that
when the author wrote (perhaps before 130 A.D.) the title was known
so widely and so authoritatively that he felt it desirable to subordinate it,
since he could not deny its authenticity.
2
""
He
[2998 (xxxvii) a] Tryph. 48" Of our [own] race” àñò toû îµETÉPOV
yévovs, i.e. of our belief. This must be distinguished from ib. 120 “of my
own race,” ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους τοῦ ἐμοῦ, which he explains (λέγω δὲ τῶν
Ɛaµapéwv) as being Samaritan. The former may be roughly paraphrased
as ib. 48 тavтá µoi doέáσavtes "holding the same opinions as I do."
calls Christians our race as being mostly Gentiles, contrasted with
the “race” of the Jews. Comp. ib. 120 Tɩvès TOû yévovs úµôv some of
your race [i.e. some Jews] will be found [real] children of Abraham."
And (ib.) τὸ ἐν τῷ γένει ὑμῶν πολὺ πλῆθος is distinguished from the
Gentiles, with whom Justin identifies himself by the use of the first
person plural (“ we Gentiles ") thus, πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν πάντων οὐ
προσδοκώμεν.
εν
[2998 (xxxvii) b] Justin was not a Samaritan" in the sense of being
a Samaritan by religion. Comp. Apol. 53 where he uses the word " our-
217
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
،
about Christ, but what he himself did not believe¹.
Later on,
he says that Christ has revealed to us from the Scriptures
that He is the first-begotten of God and "son of the patriarchs,
having been made flesh through the Virgin who sprang from
selves," subsequently explained by "those from among the Gentiles," in
contrast with "the Jews and Samaritans" ("seeing our own selves and
knowing that the Christians from among the Gentiles are both more
numerous and more true than those from among the Jews and Samaritans,
ἑαυτοὺς ἡμᾶς ὁρῶντες, πλείονάς τε κ. ἀληθεστέρους τοὺς ἐξ ἐθνῶν τῶν ἀπὸ
Ἰουδαίων καὶ Σαμαρέων Χριστιανοὺς εἰδότες).” He uses γένος in various
senses,e.g. Apol. 53 τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα γένη ἀνθρώπεια ὑπὸ τοῦ προφητικοῦ
πνεύματος καλεῖται ἔθνη, τὸ δὲ Ἰουδαϊκὸν κ. Σαμαρειτικὸν φῦλον Ἰσραὴλ κα
οἶκος Ἰακὼβ κέκληνται—where he uses γένη for “ races” in the ordinary
way, but implies that the prophets recognised two races, (1) that of the
Gentiles, (2) that of the Jews and Samaritans. He compares Is. liv. I,
describing the Mother of the former, and the Mother of the latter.
Justin had studied (Tryph. 2) philosophy in his youth, but makes no
mention of the study of the Bible, and (ib. 29) he had not been
circumcised.
1 [2998 (xxxvii) c] Tryph. 48. The Jew, Trypho, who introduces the
discussion, begins with the singular, "man," ridiculing the notion that
the Christ pre-existed as God and endured to be begotten (becoming
man) and was not man from man (τὸ γὰρ λέγειν σε προϋπάρχειν...εἶτα καὶ
γεννηθῆναι, ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον, ὑπομεῖναι, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἄνθρωπος ἐξ
ἀνθρώπου...μωρόν).
ȧvėрáпov...μwρóv). Justin replies that He will still be the Christ,
"though He should be demonstrated to be born as man from men (éàv
φαίνηται ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γεννηθείς).” And he makes the
following statement, "There are some of our race who confess that He
is Christ but maintain that He was born man from men (ävėрwñоv dè
ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀποφαινόμενοι), with whom I do not agree, nor
indeed would very many holding the same opinions as I do say [as they
do], since it is not in teachings of men that we have been bidden by
Christ Himself to place our trust, but in the truths proclaimed by the
blessed prophets and taught by [our Lord] Himself." In his reply,
Trypho falls into the plural ("men"). "We [Jews] (nμeis) all expect that the
Christ will be born (γενήσεσθαι) man from men (ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων).”
The plural occurs, rather curiously, in Apol. 21 (p. 67 B) 'Нpakλéa dè…..,
τοὺς ἐκ Λήδας δὲ Διοσκούρους, καὶ τὸν ἐκ Δανάης Περσέα, καὶ τὸν ἐξ
ἀνθρώπων δὲ ὑφ᾽ ἵππου Πηγάσου Βελλεροφόντην, where Bellerophon is
classed with others that have ascended to heaven, but is differentiated
from them because they were from Zeus, by the father's side, whereas he
was "from men," that is, from human parentage on both sides.
218
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
their race (διά τῆς ἀπὸ γένους αὐτῶν παρθένου σαρκοποιη-
Oeis)...." For this reason, says Justin, Christ said, "The Son
of man (Tòv viòv тoû ávěpáπov) must suffer many things……..'
But he proceeds to drop "the" and to offer an alternative
explanation thus: "So He called Himself son of man (viòv
оûv ȧvОρáπоν Éаvтòv ëλeyev), either (1) from His birth through
the Virgin—who was, as I said, from the race of David and
Jacob and Isaac and Abraham-or (2) because Abraham him-
self was the father of those enumerated, from whom Mary
derives her race." This is so perplexing that at least two
commentators have altered "Abraham," in the last sentence,
into "Adam," and the alteration has found some acceptance;
but "Abraham" is probably the correct reading, and Justin
Abraham himself" to mean what may be called "the
Patriarchs of Promise," as being the Man to whom the
Promise was made, the real “father" of the promised "Seed¹."
uses
[2998 (xxxviii)] Justin's oscillation is probably to be
explained by his doubt whether his explanation of viòs
¹ [2998 (xxxvii) d] Tryph. 100. Comp. Tryph. 119 where he points
out the superiority of Abraham, as being the recipient of promise, to
Noah, although Noah was the father of Abraham and in fact of all
men." The same thing might have been said by Justin about Adam as
about Noah, namely, that Adam was inferior to Abraham; and Justin
speaks of Adam elsewhere (Tryph. 88) as the origin of the Fall, and as
(Tryph. 40) merely a "house of the inbreathing of God."
[2998 (xxxvii) e] Some, retaining "Abraham," would read avroù for
αὐτόν, thus, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοῦ τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ πατέρα καὶ τούτων τῶν κατη-
ριθμημένων ἐξ ὧν κατάγει ἡ Μαρία τὸ γένος· καὶ γὰρ πατέρας τῶν γεννωμένων
ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτῶν τέκνων τοὺς τῶν θηλειῶν γεννήτορας ἐπιστάμεθα,
"Because Abraham is the father of [Christ] Himself and of these [above]
enumerated as Mary's ancestors; for we know that the progenitors of
female offspring are regarded as the 'fathers' of the children [in their
several generations] born to their daughters." But, to justify avrov, the
sentence ought to run, 66
Abraham is the father of Christ, as being the
father of Mary's ancestors," not "and the father of Mary's ancestors."
Clark's translation has "because Adam was the father both of Himself
and...." Had that been the meaning, Justin would probably have
written καὶ αὐτοῦ.
219
[2998]
THE SON OF MAN'
ἀνθρώπου would apply to ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου—which he has
just quoted from our Lord's own words. Tios ȧvoρáπоν—
Υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου
like "filius hominis "-might conceivably mean "son of a
human being," "son of the Virgin." O viòs тоû ȧvěρáπоν,
"the son of the [masculine] human being," could not have that
meaning. Perhaps ó viòs Toû pointed (so Justin might argue)
to a particular man, and, if so, to no one more probably than
Abraham; or тоû ȧvěράжоν might be used collectively, not
indeed as representing all men, but as suggesting all the
patriarchs of promise, from whom the Virgin was descended'.
[2998 (xxxix)] Irenæus does not oscillate like Justin,
but unhesitatingly adopts the solution that the latter seems
merely to prefer. His argument (as preserved in the Latin
version) is, in effect, this. Christ, being shewn by the Scrip-
tures to be, beyond all men, God and Lord and eternal King,
could not have been a mere man. It is proved from the
Scriptures that He had a preeminent generation from the
Father on High, and also that He underwent generation from
the Virgin. Now the Virgin was a human being, “homo.”
Hence the Saviour could be called "filius hominis," "Son of
man." So far, Justin would probably have agreed with him.
But Irenæus prefixes to this argument a quotation from the
Fourth Gospel-from which Justin never quotes-in order to
1
¹ [2998 (xxxviii) a] The conjecture of commentators that "Adam"
ought to be substituted for "Abraham" may help us to explain why
Luke carries up the genealogy in Mt. from the latter to the former.
"Adam"-so Luke, or the author of the genealogy in Lk., may have argued
-“is not only the first man, but is used in the Bible to mean 'man.' If
I trace up the Messiah to Adam, I shall shew that He is 'Son of man.'
If, further, I add that Adam is son of God, I shall shew that the Messiah
is also, by lineal descent, 'Son of God' as well as 'Son of man."" This
may not seem satisfactory arguing now. But all sorts of unsatisfactory
solutions might well be current in the first century when people had
drifted into a misunderstanding of that mysterious combination of
self-humiliation and self-trust (self-trust based on trust in God, with
whom He felt at one) and trust in human nature, which led Jesus to
adopt as His habitual title, "the Son of man."
220
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
"">
shew how the birth of Christ was differentiated from that of
all "mere men (Jn i. 13): "He (sic) who was not born
either by the will of the flesh or by the will of man (viri)."
This is a misquotation. It should have been "who were
not born." John applied these words to all real Christians,
who were born, he taught, so far as the flesh went, of the
flesh, but, as regards the real and spiritual birth, "from God."
Irenæus, however, takes the words intended to describe that
kind of spiritual birth which is common to all believers, and
uses them to prove that Christ's material birth was unique¹.
¹ [2998 (xxxix) a] Iren. iii. 19. 2. It has been seen (2998 (xxxvii) c)
that Justin says, about those who deny the Virgin birth, merely that
he does not "agree" with them, and that "not very many" Christians
would deny it. Irenæus goes further (iii. 19. 1) “Those who assert that
He was simply and merely a man begotten by Joseph (nude tantum
hominem eum dicunt)...are in a state of death....Not receiving the
incorruptible Word they remain in mortal flesh and are debtors to
death." Then he quotes Isaiah (liii. 8) (LXX) “Who shall declare his
generation?" and the erroneous LXX version of Jer. xvii. 9 "He is a
man, and who shall recognise him?" (Heb. "It [i.e. the heart of man]
is sick who can know it?")-in order to prepare the reader for the fact
that the miraculous " generation" of Christ was not
"declared" or
"known" at first.
[2998 (xxxix) 6] Then Irenæus proceeds to say (iii. 19. 2) that whoso-
ever has received the revelation of the Son from the Father (Mt. xi. 27,
Lk. x. 22, comp. Mt. xvi. 17) understands that (Jn i. 13) "He who was
not born from the will of the flesh nor from the will of [the] man (viri)
[is] the Son of man, that is, Christ, the Son of the living God." Although
Irenæus, or the authority followed by him, has changed John's pl. into
the sing., a believer in the non-miraculous incarnation of the eternal Son
of God would accept this, in the sense in which John wrote it, and would
say that the Eternal Son of God became incarnate as the son of Joseph
and Mary, being begotten “not from the will of the flesh nor from the will
of [the] man [viri] (åvdpós) (¿.e. the husband, 2269, 2371, 2722) but from
God." But Irenæus uses his misquoted version in order to materialise
what John wrote in a spiritual sense, and to pronounce unique what John
declared to be a divine law of origin for all true believers.
[2998 (xxxix) c] Though Justin has not quoted Jn i. 13, he has alluded
to a tradition that mentions “blood” in connexion with "the will of God,”
in a strain of thought quite antagonistic to that of John. Justin's view,
freq. repeated (2269 b-d), is that Christ's "blood" was not created
221
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998 (xl)] In a second passage Irenæus, attacking
certain heretics, who asserted that Jesus (but not the Christ)
was born from Mary, says (iii. 16. 2) "The Holy Spirit,
foreseeing corrupters [of the truth] and fortifying [us] by
anticipation against their fraudulence, says, by Matthew (i. 18)
Now the birth of Christ (W.H. txt [Jesus] Christ, marg.
Christ Jesus) was on this wise,' and that He is Emmanuel,
lest perchance we should suppose Him to be merely man—
for (Jn i. 13) 'Not from the will of the flesh nor from the will
of [the] man (viri) but from the will of God was the Word
made flesh." This is of interest, because it suggests three
things, (1) Irenæus habitually used Jn i. 13 to prove the
unique generation of Christ after the flesh, (2) he habitually
misquoted it, (3) he had not the least suspicion that there was
"from the will of man" but "from the will of God," i.e. miraculously.
John's view is that the true spiritual birth has nothing to do with material
"blood." It would appear that (Gen. xlix. 11) "the blood of the grape,"
being connected by Christians with Christ, originated many traditions,
some false, against which John may have found it necessary to guard
his readers at the outset of his gospel.
"}
""
[2998 (xxxix) d] The passage asserting that "Son of man means Son
of the Virgin is printed by Grabe (p. 250) as follows (Iren. iii. 19. 3)
"Hic igitur Filius Dei Dominus noster, existens Verbum Patris, et filius
hominis quoniam ex Maria, quae ex hominibus habebat genus, quae
et ipsa erat homo, habuit secundum hominem generationem, factus est
Filius hominis.” This is transl. by Clark “He therefore, the Son of God,
our Lord, being the Word of the Father, and the Son of man, since He
had a generation as to His human nature from Mary-who was descended
from mankind, and who was herself a human being—was made the Son
of man. But how could Irenæus say "He...being...the Son of man...
was made the Son of man?" This difficulty caused Grabe to suggest
the deletion of "et filius hominis." And the difficulty is all the greater
because "existens" represents imáрxwv in Irenæus i. 4. 1 and ii. 26. 1,
so that it would not apply well to "Son of man." Moreover in iii. 19. 1,
where the Greek has, εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸν
λόγον χωρήσας κατὰ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν λαβὼν, υἱὸς γένηται θεοῦ, the Latin has
Propter hoc enim Verbum Dei homo; et qui Filius Dei est, filius
hominis factus est, commixtus Verbo Dei, ut adoptionem percipiens fiat
filius Dei."
66
222
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
any doubt about his reading-since in the context he speaks
of the "fraudulence" of heretical "corrupters" of the truth
("depravatores"). That he misused the text in this way
habitually is almost demonstrated by a third passage where
he misquotes it for the same argumentative purpose in order
to shew that "the doctrine of the Ebionites is vanity¹."
[2998 (xli)] About Tertullian little need be said except
that he not only follows the precedent of Irenæus in mis-
quoting Jn i. 13, but also (De Carne Chr. xix.) accuses
heretics of having tampered with it by substituting the plural
for the singular. In effect, he declares the plural-the correct
reading—to be impossible, by asking "How can this be?"
Later on, he says that Scripture (ib. xxiv.) "in the words 'Not
from blood nor from the will of the flesh and the man but
from God was He born,' has given Ebion his refutation."
Earlier (ib. xv.), refuting a Valentinian, he assumes the same
erroneous text, " If His flesh were like ours it would needs be
similarly born, not of the Spirit, nor of God,' but of the will
of [the] man.' More definitely, against Marcion, he argues
(1) that "Son of man (hominis)" must mean "son of a human
parent”—either father or mother—(2) that it cannot mean
"son of a human father," since God was Christ's Father,
(3) that consequently “filius hominis" must mean son of a
human mother," namely, of the Virgin. Here he does not
quote Jn i. 13, but he assumes that whoever is "[begotten]
from God is consequently not [begotten] from man," that is to
say, he assumes the untruth of what John asserted, that
ordinary, non-miraculous men may be " begotten from God."
((
1 [2998 (xl) a] Iren. v. I. 3 "Vani autem et Ebionaei....Et propter
hoc in fine non ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex
placito Patris manus ejus vivum perfecerunt hominem, uti fiat Adam
secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei."
As regards "the Hands of God” (2998 (xxxvi) a) comp. Iren. iv. I.
Pref. "Homo...per manus ejus plasmatus est, hoc est, per Filium et
Spiritum, quibus et dixit Faciamus hominem." Comp. Iren. iv. 20. 1,
v. 6. 1, v. 28. 4.
223
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
§ 14. Clement of Alexandria and Origen
،
[2998 (xlii)] No early Greek authority is alleged for the
Irenæan version of Jn i. 13. But Clement of Alexandria
apparently dissents from the opinion that Christ is referred to
in the "man" and the son of man" in the eighth Psalm
(566), “And what else (TOTE), I ask, is the point in which
man excels (diapépei) beasts, and again the angels of God are
[still] wiser than man (τούτου τε αὖ οἱ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄγγελοι
σоpúτερоi)? [What, I say, is the meaning of] Thou madest.
him a little lower than the angels'? For [people] do not
accept this Scripture as meaning [è] the Lord-although
He also bore flesh-but as meaning the perfect man and the
gnostic, who in respect of the [brief] time and [frail] vesture
[of mortality] is made inferior as compared with the angels ¹."
1
[2998 (xliii)] Origen, commenting on Ps. viii. 4 “What
is man (äveρwπos) that thou rememberest him and the son
of man (v. ȧveράπoυ) that thou visitest him?" says," If he uses
these words because he wonders (Pavµáswv) that the Lord
remembers (?) the man (Toû ȧvěpáπov) and visits [the] son of
man (κ. ὅτι ἐπισκέπτεται υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου) it is clear that the
visitation is beneficent." By "if" he seems to mean “since.”
So far, he takes the passage as referring to man; and, like
Clement, he touches on "knowledge" as being the character-
istic of the " man" here mentioned². But he adds "Paul
a
1 [2998 (xlii) α] Καὶ τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶν ᾧ διαφέρει θηρίων ἄνθρωπος τούτου
τε αὖ οἱ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄγγελοι σοφώτεροι; “ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν,” φησί, " βραχύ
τι παρ' ἀγγέλους”; οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἐκδέχονται τὴν γραφήν—καί τοι
κἀκεῖνος σάρκα ἔφερεν—ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ τελείου γνωστικοῦ τῷ χρόνῳ καὶ τῷ
ἐνδύματι ἐλαττουμένου παρὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. The punctuation in Klotz's
text seems confused. Clark's transl. renders ékdéxovrai “some interpret,"
but, if that had been the meaning, would not Clem. have inserted "some"
some of our people,” as in 499 ἢ γὰρ οὐχ οὕτως τινὲς τῶν ἡμετέρων...
ἐκδέχονται ?
or
2 [2998 (xliii) a] On Origen's "the man," substituted for the LXX
"man," see 2998 (xliii) c. His remark about "visitation" he inserts
224
"THE SON OF MAN
[2998]
((
tells the Hebrews that these words (Ps. viii. 5) are uttered
about Christ." Apparently he would say that the Psalmist
meant "man in God's intention," man as made in God's
image and destined to be completely conformed to it"; but
that the inward inspired meaning was "Christ." Accordingly,
after warning his reader in reference to the words "thou hast
crowned him with glory and honour," that there are two
kinds of "honour," one of which results in "having no under-
standing," he proceeds, "We then are first in the works of
because, he says, the word often means "punishing." He paraphrases
“Thou hast made him a little lower than angels” thus, Kaì avròs yáp,
σου γνῶσιν ἔχειν πεφυκώς, οὐκ ἀπολείπεται λίαν, (?) “ For he, too like
the angels], having a nature created to have knowledge of thee, does not
fall far behind [angels]." But if Origen had in view the Hebrew, as
(see Field) is not improbable (“a little lower than God"), then we should
have to add at the end, "[thee]," instead of "[angels]," and to suppose
that σου is to be repeated after ἀπολείπεται. Or we might say that
γνῶσιν ἔχειν πεφυκώς is treated as a compound verb governing the genit.
so that σου is governed both by it and by ἀπολείπεται.
ic
"}
1 [2998 (xliii) b] On Ps. viii. 5, Kaì ëσð' öte tiµŷ ẻotepavwµévOS TIS
οὐ συνῆκεν, ὡς ἐν τῷ (Ps. xlix. 12) “ ἄνθρωπος ἐν τιμῇ ὤν, οὐ συνῆκεν.” Οὐκ
“ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα σου” δὲ εἶπεν, ἅπερ οἶμαι εἶναι τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα...πρῶτοι μὲν
dè тà
οὖν ἐν “ἔργοις” ἐσμεν “ χειρῶν” θεοῦ, τουτέστι “τοῖς [μή] βλεπομένοις.”
ταῦτα δὲ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν νοεῖται τοῦ θεοῦ κ. σωτῆρος ἡμῶν...
συνήγειρε γὰρ ἡμᾶς.... I have ventured to bracket μή so as to bring out
an apparently intended contrast between "the things that are seen
(i.e. the visible bodies of men)-which St Paul calls (2 Cor. iv. 18)
temporal”—and "the things that are not seen," the invisible body,
which St Paul calls eternal (ib., and comp. 2 Cor. v. 1 "If the earthly
house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God, a
house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens"). Origen distin-
guishes between "the works of God (rà epya σov)," which are invisible
and eternal, and "the works of God's hands (xeipŵv beoû),” which are
visible and temporal. But the latter, he says, "are also-after the In-
carnation—regarded [as the works] of our God and Saviour...for He
hath raised us up with [Himself]." By "works of God" Origen means
the ideals or patterns of things; by "works of God's hands" the visible
Cosmos made by the Father the Son and the Spirit, when God said
"Let us make." On "hands,” signifying the Son and the Spirit, see
2998 (xxxvi) a.
A.
225
15
[2998]
""
"THE SON OF MAN'
،
the hands of God-that is, in the things that are [? not]
seen.' But these are also, after the Incarnation, conceived as
the works of our God and Saviour. For with glory and
honour hath the Man (ò avepwπоs)¹ been crowned. For He
(comp. Eph. ii. 6) 'raised us up with [Himself] and made us
to sit with [Himself] in the supercelestial regions,' as the
Apostle says."
[2998 (xliv)] In Origen's N.T. commentaries, the first
point to note is that when he enumerates more than twenty of
Christ's titles, he omits "Son of man²." Yet many of them
resemble "Son of man" in being given to our Lord only by
Himself. Why does he insert the many, yet omit the one—
and the one most frequent in the Synoptists? The reason is
1
¹ [2998 (xliii) c] "The Man." We have seen above (2998 (xliii) a)
that, in referring to the LXX "man," Origen used “the man.” Either
would represent "mankind." It might be suggested that Origen preferred
"the Man" because he had in view the saying of Pilate, peculiar to John,
(xix. 5) idoù ô äveрwπоs, "Behold the Man!"-in connexion with "the
crown of thorns"; but Origen does not connect Ps. viii. 5 (“thou crownest
him ") with the “ crown of thorns" in any of his works, so far as I have
found.
(6
[2998 (xliii) d] As regards "the beasts of the field" distinguished
in this Psalm from the "cattle," Origen says, Where clean sheep and
oxen [are in question] he [i.e. the Psalmist] adds 'all.' But where he
takes in also unclean things, as in the 'beasts of the field,' 'all' is not
used. So too about the birds of the air and the fishes of the sea." This is
worth noting in connexion with the Christian use of "beasts" or "serpents"
to denote evil spirits, commonly called by Mark "unclean spirits." In
the Parable of the Sower "birds of the air" means the agency of Satan
destroying the good seed. And our Lord speaks of "catching fish"
as a metaphor for "saving souls from the sea of sin."
2 [2998 (xliv) a] Comm. Johan. tom. i. 24 foll. Light, Resurrection,
Way, Truth, Life, Door, Shepherd, Teacher, Master, Son, Vine, Bread,
First and Last, Sword, Servant, Lamb of God, Paraclete, Sanctification
&c. "Son of man," though so often used by Christ about Himself, is
very rarely used about Him by others. Note the exceptional use in
Acts vii. 56 where Stephen beholds "the Son of man" in heaven (see
2998 (xxv)).
Origen's commentary is lost on Mt. ix. 6 "But that ye
may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins,"
and on many other interesting instances of "the Son of man."
226
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
suggested in the course of a long commentary on Mt. xvi. 27,
“For the Son of man is destined to come in the glory of his
Father." On this, he quotes Isaiah liii. 2-3 (LXX) " For we
saw him, and he had no form or beauty, but his form was
without honour, deficient beyond [the deficiency of] the sons
of men...." The Son of man, he implies, is seen by two
classes in two different ways. To "those who are being
brought into [the Church] (Toîs µèv eiσayoµévois)” He has
no form"; but to the "full-grown (reλeíois)" He “ comes in
the glory of his father" (as Matthew says) since they would
say (with John) (i. 14) “ And we beheld "—not “shall behold"
-"his glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father...."
Afterwards (2998 (xliv) d), distinguishing between Matthew
(xvi. 27—28), Luke (ix. 27 (D)) and the parallel Mark (ix. 1)
"the kingdom of God having come in power," he implies that
the revelation of the Logos triumphing over obstacles is
expressed by "the Son of man coming in his own
1
··
¹ [2998 (xliv) 6] Comm. Matth. tom. xii. 29 foll. (Lomm. iii. 176—7)
(Is. liii. 2—3) εἴδομεν γὰρ ἐκλεῖπον παρὰ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. ἐὰν
δὲ δυνηθῇς...ὄψει τίνα τρόπον ὁ Λόγος τοῖς μὲν εἰσαγομένοις ἔχει δούλου
μορφήν, ὥστ᾽ ἂν εἰπεῖν αὐτούς·“ εἴδομεν αὐτόν, καὶ οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος,”
τοῖς δὲ τελείοις ἔρχεται “ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὑτοῦ,” λέγουσιν ἂν τό “ καὶ
εθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης
χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.” Καὶ γὰρ τοῖς τελείοις φαίνεται ἡ δόξα τοῦ Λόγου, καὶ
τὸ μονογενὲς αὐτοῦ τῷ πατρὶ θεῷ, καὶ τὸ τῆς χάριτος πλῆρες, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς
áλnoeías. In Teλeíois, "full-grown," Origen is referring to I Cor. ii. 6.
The quotation is given at full length because it seems to shew that
in Jn i. 14 Origen took λýpηs, if not in agreement with dóğav, in some
unusual absolute construction (contrary to the rendering given in Johann.
Gram. 2180). If Origen is right, John may have been influenced by a
vernacular λýpŋs nom.-used to mean "full measure even when
grammar requires accusative. Comp. Berl. Pap. 707. 15 (A.D. 151)
ἀπέχομεν παρά σου...πλήρης, ib. 373. 13 (A.D. 298) ἥνπερ τιμὴν ἀπέσχεν
ὁ πεπρακὼς παρὰ τοῦ πριαμένου πλήρης, comp. ib. 411. 12 (A.D. 314). But
it is perh. more prob. that Origen himself, and some scribes of Jn, were
thus influenced than that John should use such an idiom.
[2998 (xliv) c] Origen expressly disclaims the desire to set aside the
Second Coming (Lomm. iii. 178) ταῦτα δὲ λέγομεν οὐκ ἀθετοῦντες καὶ τὴν
ἁπλούστερον νοουμένην δευτέραν ἐπιδημίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.
227
15-2
[2998]
""
"THE SON OF MAN
kingdom," but the higher revelation of the Logos bestowing
its gifts is expressed by the addition of " the glory" to "the
kingdom." This kingdom, he says, is spiritual. It is a
kingdom of righteousness and "within" us'. Origen's view
seems to have been that "the Son of man
man" was a title of
Christ adapted for the gradual instruction of those who were
'being brought into" a higher revelation, and who could not
at once discern beneath the humiliation of Christ's humanity
that "glory" which was revealed to "the full-grown."
«Ε
σε
[2998 (xlv)] Elsewhere, commenting on Mt. xxii. 1 foll.
(Lomm. iv. 119 foll.) "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto
a man, a king," Origen finds occasion to explain why Christ
calls Himself" Son of man." Some one before our time,"
he says (Lomm. iv. 124), contrasted Deut. i. 31 "the Lord
thy God endured thy ways (Orig. ἐτροποφόρησε σε as
if a man should endure the ways of his son," with Numb.
xxiii. 19 "God is not a man?.” After explaining the anthro-
1
2
[2998 (xliv) d] Lomm. iii. 1889 ὁ θεωρῶν κ. καταλαμβάνων τὴν τοῦ
Λόγου ὑπεροχήν, λύοντος καὶ διελέγχοντος πάσας τὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν ψευδῶν μέν,
ἐπαγγελλομένων δὲ ἀλήθειαν, πιθανότητας, βλέπει τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
(κατὰ τὸν Ἰωάννου λόγον, τὸν Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ) (comp. Mt. xvi. 28) ἐρχόμενον
ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ βασιλείᾳ· εἰ δὲ βλέποι ὁ τοιοῦτος τὸν Λόγον, οὐ μόνον λύοντα πᾶσαν
τὴν τῶν ἐναντίων πιθανότητα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἴδια τρανότατα παριστάντα, βλέποι
ἂν αὐτοῦ πρὸς τῇ βασιλείᾳ καὶ (Lk. ix. 27 (D) τὴν δόξαν. Καὶ ὁ τοιοῦτός γε
ἐν αὐτῷ βλέποι ἂν (Mk ix. 1) “ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ βασιλείαν ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν
δυνάμει.” καὶ τοῦτο βλέποι ἄν, ὡς οὐδαμῶς ἔτι ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίας βασιλευόμενος,
βασιλευούσης ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώματι τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ τεταγμένος ὑπὸ
βασιλεῖ τῷ τῶν ὅλων θεῷ, οὗ ἡ βασιλεία δυνάμει μὲν “ ἐντὸς ἡμῶν ἐστι,”
ἐνεργεία δὲ καὶ ὡς ὠνόμασεν ὁ Μάρκος, ἐν δυνάμει) καὶ οὐδαμῶς ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ
ἐντὸς τῶν τελείων μόνων.
"God is
2 [2998 (xlv) a] Origen here indicates that Numb. xxiii. 19
not a man that he should lie nor son of man that he should repent" was
quoted by an earlier writer than himself (“some one before our time”) in
discussions about God's nature. It is quoted by Irenæus but only in
a fragment (24, Grabe p. 471) and the context simply contrasts God's
truth with man's falsehood. On the anti-Christian use of this quotation
see 2998 (xviii) foll. Origen's "some one before our time" is Philo, as
is clear from his reference to Philo's "allegories of sacred laws."
But
Origen quotes Deut. and Numb. not as Philo does, but as LXX (see
228
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
pomorphic metaphors of O.T. he says that now, after this
explanation of "a man, a king" (Lomm. iv. 128) "We can
discover the reason why the Saviour has [in the Gospels]
continuously named Himself 'Son of the [above-mentioned]
man, or 'Son of man (υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἢ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου
Éаvтòv ȧvoμакévai). He thereby shews that, as God, in His
dispensations with men (ἀνθρώπους οἰκονομῶν), is called Man
in the language of (ws év) parables-yes and perhaps in a
certain sense [actually] becomes Man-so also the Saviour...
in accordance with the dispensation of Him who though in
parables called Man is really God, becomes Son of Man (oυTWS
καὶ ὁ Σωτὴρ. γίνεται—κατ' οἰκονομίαν τοῦ ἐν παραβολαῖς λεγο-
μένου ἀνθρώπου, ὄντος δὲ θεοῦυἱὸς ἀνθρώπου)....” Hence,
says Origen, "We ought not to seek some particular man and
to say that the Saviour is that man's son. But we ought to
take our stand on the conception of God, and on the parables
that say He is Man (λεγουσῶν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἄνθρωπον), and
thus intelligently to take in His meaning when He calls Him-
self Son of the Man (συνετῶς ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἑαυτὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου)1.”
2998 (iv) b—d). He contrasts Philo's use of "one saying (évì µèv pηtậ)”
about the human aspect of God (¿.e. Deut.), and “one (évì dé) [saying]"
about the non-human aspect of God (i.e. Numb.), with the "abundance of
examples in the gospels (ἡμεῖς δὲ πολλὴν ἀφθονίαν ἔχομεν ἀπὸ τῶν
εὐαγγελίων περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ παραδειγμάτων).”
1
av
¹ [2998 (xlv) b] It may be urged that Origen does not quite meet the
difficulty. For Christ is represented as calling Himself ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
with a twofold use of the article. Origen explains viòs ȧvēρáπov and viòs
Tоû ávěρóñοv, but not the Gospel phrase. Perhaps he omits the article
Thus, in the context, he says
ע!
because the phrase is used predicatively.
υἱὸς ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ, not ὁ υἱός, and so υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, and εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ
-all predicative. Comp. Jn v. 27 "He hath given authority to him
to do judgment because he is man's son (öтɩ viòs ȧvěρáñоν éστív),” and
x. 36 “because I said I am God's son (örɩ eiñov, Yiòs toû deoû eiµí),” and
Heb. i. 3 ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ.
229
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
§ 15. Conclusion
[2998 (xlvi)] The use of the term "Son of Man" in the
gospels has not been discussed in this Appendix. That is
reserved for The Fourfold Gospel, which will take the instances
in Mark's order and compare them with Synoptic and Johan-
nine parallels. The present discussion is intended to facilitate
the comparison by collecting and classifying facts, bearing on
the title, from Hebrew, Jewish, and early post-Christian
writings. Looking forward from Hebrew and Jewish tradi-
tions, we ought to be prepared to find the expression of
what is purest and noblest in them when we come to our
Lord's teaching in the gospels. Looking backward from the
Acts, the Apocalypse, Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas,
Justin Martyr, Irenæus and Tertullian, we ought to be pre-
pared to find in the gospels themselves divergences indicative
of early obscurities and misunderstandings. Noting how
Origen strives to make matters clear and to bring out what—
on our hypothesis-was the original and spiritual significance
of the title, we shall not be surprised if we find traces of the
same effort apparent in the Fourth Gospel.
[2998 (xlvii)] Provisionally we are justified in taking—
only as a working hypothesis, but with strong claims to
careful consideration-the view suggested by the consensus
of Ezekiel, Daniel, the Psalms, the Apocalypse, and the
Fourth Gospel, that "the Son of Man" implied man in his
physical weakness, man seemingly inferior to the beasts of
the field, man represented by "the babes and sucklings"
on whom "the mighty" look down with contempt. This
"man," or this "son of man," the Psalmist regards as but“ a
little lower than God," and destined to have lordship over the
beasts.
The dominion of the human over the non-human living
creature is avowed in Genesis (i. 26-8) as part of God's
230
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
creative intention along with His intention to make man in
His own "image" and according to His own "likeness." If
we remember that the Hebrew for the four "living creatures
((wa)” in Ezekiel is the same as that for the four "wild beasts
(Onpía)" in Daniel (2998 (xxxiii) a), and is mostly rendered in
LXX by Onpíov which repeatedly means "beast” in Revelation,
we shall realise more clearly how the Bible, from the beginning
to the end, suggests that “ man" is bound to control the
"beast" in a spiritual as well as in a literal sense, and that
trampling on the lion, the adder, and the scorpion" could
hardly fail to convey to spiritually minded Jews the notion of
subjugating in one's own heart the evil spirits of ferocity and
malignity. As Christ actually goes back to Genesis (Mk x. 6,
Mt. xix. 4) to define the relation between man and woman,
so it is antecedently probable that He would go back to
Genesis, as interpreted by the Psalms and Prophets, in order
to inculcate the right relation between Man and God.
[2998 (xlviii)] Christ's view of the "son of man," and
even of the “suckling," as being, not (so to speak) promoted
unexpectedly and paradoxically to be Son of God, but
destined from the beginning to be His Son and His Glory,
may help to explain many things in the gospels. For
example, in Jn ix. 35 "Believest thou in the Son of man ?”
very many authorities alter "man
"man" to God. But they are
probably in error, not having understood the Johannine con-
ception (appreciated by Origen above, 2998 (xlv)) that God
is, in a sense, Man, that the "Son of Man" is "Son of God,"
and that the Son of Man (Jn iii. 13) "descended out of
heaven."
[2998 (xlix)] Christ's doctrine about "the Son of man
may be illustrated by His doctrine about the "babes and
sucklings" mentioned in the same Psalm. And both may be
illustrated by Isaiah's doctrine about the Suffering Servant
who is described by Aquila and Theodotion as "growing up
like a suckling before Jehovah," and as "despised and re-
231
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
jected'."
The word "suckling" is used by the Jews to mean
a "pupil" or beginner. No teacher was to teach "more than
twenty-five sucklings?" Our Lord was addressing a pro-
fessional class of Teachers of the Law, some of whom talked
(Rom. ii. 19—20) about being "guides to the blind," "trainers
of fools," "teachers of babes." In a spirit of pedantry, some
of them despised these "babes," and those whom they called
"the people of the earth," and "the sons of men,” and every
"son of man"-so far as the term represented mere humanity
-while, all the time, they themselves were "blind" and
"fools," far indeed below the "babes." The one thing they
needed (according to Christ's doctrine) was to become
babes," and to "believe in the Son of man." It cannot be
matter for surprise that, among this class, Christ's doctrines
about "babes" and about the Son of man sounded paradoxical
and absurd. They refused to learn from "the suckling." As
to "the Son of man," they understood it in the popular sense,
(<
¹ [2998 (xlix) a] Is. liii. 2 (R.V.) " He grew up before him as a tender
plant (P)." Gesen. 413 gives abundant instances of p as subst.
“suckling,” but no instance, except this, of its use as “sucker,” i.e.
sapling. Aq. has τιθηνιζόμενον (s. τι[τ]θιζόμενον), Theod. θηλάζον. The
LXX completely misunderstands the sentence, thus, "We made
announcement as a little child (παιδίον) in his presence (ἀνηγγείλαμεν ὡς
πaidíov évavríov avrov)." But it agrees with Aq. and Theod. in giving
♫♪ the meaning that it has invariably in the rest of O.T. And it makes
excellent sense. The parallelism to "as a root out of a dry ground"
indicates that the despised "suckling" had everything against it. No
doubt there is a play on the meaning of "suckling," p♪, as compared
with Пp which freq. means (Gesen. 413 b) “sucker." But the frequency
of the latter makes it difficult to believe that Isaiah, here alone, used the
former for the latter. Origen (Comm. Rom. viii. 5, Lomm. vii. 219, and
comp. Cels. vi. 75) has some difficulty in deciding in whose person
made announcement" is uttered, but he follows the LXX in reading
παιδίον.
we
2 [2998 (xlix) 6] Levy ii. 247 b. Targ. on Cant. viii. I represents the
Jews as saying to the Messiah, “Come, be our Brother, and let us go up
to Jerusalem and suck with thee the doctrine of the Law, as the infant
sucks the mother's breast." Schöttg. on I Pet. ii. 2 gives abundant
instances of “suckling" used in the rabbinical sense.
232
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
and in Daniel's sense; but in Christ's sense it probably
drew the same question from them as from the multitude
(Jn xii. 34), "Who is this Son of man?"
[2998 (1)] So, too, in many of the Christian Churches,
there would be a natural tendency to smooth the edges
of Christ's words, sometimes to literalise, sometimes to de-
orientalise them, sometimes to make them more definite—
often resulting in making them less spiritual. This would
affect traditions of His teaching on all the deepest subjects,
such as (1) "bearing the yoke" or "taking up the cross,"
(2) "bearing" or "forgiving" sins, (3) "becoming a babe¹,"
((
1 [2998 (1) a] The Pauline warning against (1 Cor. xiv. 20) “becoming
little children in mind,” and against continuing to live on (1 Cor. iii. 2)
“milk,” should be contrasted with 1 Pet. ii. 2, "as newborn babes desire
the sincere milk of the word,” where there is not the least suggestion that
there is to be an advance to meat." Both utterances were (no doubt)
needed. The readers of the Pauline epistle may have literalised Christ's
sayings about "babes" and "sucklings" and needed a warning not to
reduce them to an absurdity. The readers of the Petrine epistle seemed
to the writer to need a caution never to forget that they must be Christ's
"newborn babes."
“
[2998 (1) b] The connexion between "sucklings" and son of man,"
perceived by the Psalmist, is very difficult for modern readers to trace in
the gospels. Yet it extends all through them, ramifying into many
verbally divergent doctrines about the necessity of "receiving a little
child" in the name of the Son of Man, or "becoming as little children,"
or "being born from above," or about "the Son" being "able to do
nothing except that which he sees the Father doing." No doubt, the
Psalmist, when he sang of "the son of man," did not lay any great stress
on "son." He simply placed
He simply placed "sucklings" and "sons of men”—the
ordinary specimens of humanity, weak in comparison with the beasts of
the field--on one and the same level. "What are they that God should
regard them?" But our Lord—who answers this question by Himself
becoming, as Origen says (Lomm. iii. 341—2), a babe or suckling—
replies, in effect, "This son of man, this little one, this babe or suckling,
whom the great men of this world despise, is in truth God's greatest
glory, because his face is always turned towards the Father in heaven
receiving the light reflected from His face."
[2998 (1) c] There is no passage in which this connexion is so strangely
half-revealed this link between the doctrine of "sonship" and the
233
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
and (4) “ believing in," or accepting the "authority" of," the
Son of man.” In the last of these doctrines we have
endeavoured to trace the gradual corruption of Christ's mean-
ing, brought about by two causes (both compatible with
honesty), Ist, by the love of definiteness, resulting in the
desire to answer the question son of what human being?
2nd, by the desire to elicit such a meaning as would magnify
Christ and shew that He was something more than “ a mere
>>
"
doctrine of "babes," and this assumption that the "babes are God's
"glory," which He has "set" above, or on, "the heavens
"the heavens "—as in
Christ's exultation over the revelation to babes (Mt. xi. 25-7, and
sim. Lk. x. 21—2) (R. V.) “ I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and
earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding,
and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-
pleasing in thy sight. All things have been delivered unto me of my
Father and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth
any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
willeth to reveal [him]."
[2998 (1) d] What is the meaning of, "No one knoweth the Son save
the Father"? It means that the true nature of the Son of Man, as
designed in the mind of God, is known only to God, who is also
(2998 (xlv)) Man. The context implies that the two Divine Powers, the
Father and the Son, cannot be known directly from either One, but must
be known indirectly through the Spirit that is (so to speak) between the
Two. It also implies that none can receive this Spirit unless they
become "babes."
66
[2998 (1) e] Is there here-in these parallel passages of Matthew
and Luke-any allusion to the eighth Psalm with its combination of
babes," and "glory," and "heaven," and "beasts of the field" over
whom the "son of man" is to rule, all things being "subjected" to him?
None whatever in Matthew. But there may be in Luke. Luke tells
us that just before this utterance of the Lord, the Seventy returned,
exclaiming, “Even the devils are subjected to us." Christ replies, I
have given you authority to trample on serpents and scorpions." But
they are not to boast of this. Their joy is to be that their “names are
written in the heavens." Then the Saviour exults in this revelation to
His "
babes," who are exalted above "the wise and understanding.”
Finally He claims for Himself universal authority: "All things have been
delivered to me by my Father." These may be mere coincidences or
parallelisms of thought between Luke's Gospel and the Psalm, but they
are at least worth noting.
234
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
man.” The probable influence of these two motives in
evangelists and scribes, as well as the probability of an
original doctrine of the highest and purest spirituality taught
by Christ Himself, must be taken continually into account,
when we come to a detailed examination of Christ's utter-
ances about "the Son of man" in The Fourfold Gospel.
§ 16. Addition on the "Similitudes of Enoch"
[2998 (li)] The evidence from the Similitudes (Enoch,
ch. 37-71) is weakened by the uncertainty as to their
date', by the certainty of interpolations, and by the possi-
1
¹ [2998 (li) a] “Uncertainty as to their date." Comp. Dalman p. 243
"It cannot be proved that they [i.e. the Similitudes] originate from a pre-
Christian period." The Similitudes constitute one of several docu-
ments embedded in what is called The Book of Enoch (see Enoch ed.
Charles pp. 24-33). The following paragraphs will occasionally refer to
other parts of Enoch, besides the Similitudes. Dr Charles (pp. 107—8),
for his theory of the pre-Christian date of the Similitudes, relies on three
passages.
(1) En. 38 “Then will the kings and the mighty perish and be given
into the hand of the righteous and holy." "The kings etc.,” he says (ad
loc.), are "decidedly" indicated to be "native rulers and Sadducees," i.e.
(p. 108) “the later Maccabean princes and their Sadducean supporters."
(2) En. 47 “And in those days the prayer of the righteous and the
blood of the righteous will have ascended from the earth before the Lord
of Spirits. In those days will the holy ones who dwell above in the heavens
...supplicate...and bless the name of the Lord of Spirits on account of
the blood of the righteous which has been shed, and the prayer of the
righteous, that it may not be in vain before the Lord of Spirits, that
judgment may be done unto them, and that they may not have to suffer
for ever.
And in those days I saw the Head of Days when He had
seated Himself on the throne of His glory....And the hearts of the holy
were filled with joy...and the blood of the righteous was required before
the Lord of Spirits."
(3) En. 56 “And in those days will the angels return and hurl them-
selves upon the East, upon the Parthians and Medes, to stir up the kings
...that they may break forth as lions....And they will march up to, and
tread under foot, the land of His elect ones....'
Dr Charles considers (3) to be an interpolation from a document
235
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
bility of their having received a partial and inconsistent
revision. They open with a prediction (En. 38) that “the
Righteous One" will "appear before the eyes of the elect
righteous...and light will appear to the righteous and the elect
who dwell on the earth...and when the secrets of the righteous
shall be revealed, then will the sinners be judged…..and from
that time those who possess the earth will no longer be
powerful and exalted." This vision of what will happen "on
the earth" is succeeded by a vision in which Enoch is trans-
ported to heaven (En. 39) “ I saw...the mansions of the holy
...and the Elect One of righteousness and of faith, and how
righteousness shall prevail in his days...and I saw his dwelling-
place under the wings of the Lord of Spirits." We are
afterwards told abruptly that (En. 42) Wisdom found no place
on earth and returned to heaven. As for those who (En. 45)
deny the name of the dwelling of the holy ones and the
Lord of Spirits," they will be punished, and "mine Elect One
earlier than 64 B.C. depicting (p. 148) "the last struggle of the heathen
powers against the Messianic kingdom established in Jerusalem."
(6
[2998 (li) b] But, as to (3), comp. Rev. ix. 14 "Loose the four angels
that are bound at the great river Euphrates," and Swete's note as to the
greatly dreaded resources of the Parthian Empire," and Rev. xvi. 12
"He poured out his bowl on the...river Euphrates...that the way of the
kings that [come] from the sun-rising might be prepared." These
passages indicate that a fear of "the Parthians" might be felt in
the first century A.D. And, as to (1) and (2), indicating oppres-
sion by "native rulers," comp. Mt. xxiii. 35, Lk. xi. 50, Jas. v. 1—6,
Rev. vi. 10, which-like abundant passages in the Psalms and the
Prophets-indicate that there were many periods in Jewish history when
the poor and pious might complain of oppression at the hands of the
rulers and the rich. There is nothing in (1) or (2) that seems to attach
the utterances to a period B. C., or to any particular "kings" or
(6 rulers."
For example, En. 38 mentions "the kings and the mighty" just after
"those who possess the earth." As in Jas. v. 1-6, the outburst is against
the rich, as much as against the rulers. Any nation might call an
extortioner in some sense a "murderer," especially a nation whose laws
forbade usury, and enjoined periodic remission of debts, and declared
that to take a poor man's millstone as security for debt was to "take life
in pledge" (Deut. xxiv. 6).
236
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
will sit on the throne of glory" and judge men's deeds; "and
on that day I will cause mine Elect One to dwell among them
and I will transform the heaven...and I will transform the
earth...and cause mine elect ones to dwell upon it.”
[2998 (lii)] Up to this time no mention has been made of
the nature of the Righteous or Elect One-whether divine,
angelic, or human. But Enoch now proceeds to develop the
view that He is, in one aspect, a human being, thus: (En. 46)
"And there [i.e. in heaven] I saw One who had a head of
days, and His head was like wool; and with Him was another
being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his
face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. And
I asked the angel, who went with me and showed me all the
hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and
whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days?'
The answer is, "This is the Son of Man who hath righteous-
ness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who revealeth all
the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord hath
chosen him....And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen will
arouse the kings and the mighty ones...and loosen the reins
of the strong and grind to powder the teeth of the sinners."
[2998 (liii)] Here the first sentence is obviously from
Daniel, and it is from Daniel (with perhaps a touch of
Ezekiel) that the writer borrows "the appearance of a man."
But what follows is consistent with the view that "that Son of
man" has, at first, no technical meaning, but means "that
human being yonder." This would be the natural meaning in
Hebrew and Aramaic. If that is the meaning here, Enoch
says, in effect, “How comes it to pass that I see yonder human
being—a mere man, if I may believe my eyes-full of gracious-
ness like that of an angel, seated on the throne of God?"
Then the reply is, in effect, "True, this figure is human ;
but it is a particular form of humanity. It is one of the sons
of men, but 'that [particular] Son of Man who hath righteous-
ness."" After describing (En. 48) "a fountain of righteousness"
237
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
-from which "the thirsty drank," and "had their dwellings
with the righteous and holy and elect"-Enoch continues,
"And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the
presence of the Lord of Spirits.... And before the sun and the
signs were created...his name was named before the Lord of
Spirits. He will be a staff to the righteous...and he will be
the light of the Gentiles.... And for this reason has he been
chosen and hidden before Him before the creation of the
world and for evermore....And the wisdom of the Lord of
Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous....And...
the kings of the earth and the strong...will fall and not rise
again...for they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His
Anointed [i.e. His Christ]."
[2998 (liv)] There is nothing in all this to indicate that
the writer or editor presents to his readers "the Son of man
as a Being already defined in their minds, and as though they
were familiar with the term as a technical title in the Messi-
anic sense, or in any sense. The ideal that the writer has
before him seems to be "the Righteous One," and, next to
that, "the Elect One." These two titles he has bestowed on
one supernatural and celestial Person round whom all the
righteous and elect are to be concentrated and in whom they
are to find Redemption and life. This Being has been
(En. 48) "chosen (or, elected) from the creation of the
world" and "hidden" in heaven, but he is apparently to
dwell on earth "with the elect." Is he God or Angel or
Man? That question is answered (En. 46) in the course of a
vision of One, on the throne of God, whose "countenance had
the appearance of a man." Enoch, in astonishment, repeats,
in effect, a question like the last part of the Psalmist's
question, "What is the Son of man that thou honourest him?"
There is no indication whatever that "asked concerning that
Son of man” means "asked concerning the Son of man men-
tioned by Daniel," or "concerning the Messiah." The meaning
appears to be, “Among all the sons of men, who is the one
238
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
that is thus honoured? Whence did he come? Why has he
a place by the side of God?” When this "son of man" has
been defined as "the son of man who has righteousness,"
then, but not till then, is he regularly spoken of as "that (or
the) son of man¹.”
Whence did the writer of the Similitudes derive his ideal
of "the Righteous One"? And what bearing has it on the
use of "righteous" in N.T.? These questions there is no
space to discuss: but a few notes are given below on points
to which it may be convenient to refer in The Fourfold
Gospel2.
1 [2998 (liv) a] The phrase, thus used as a title, might be printed with
capital initials, and Dr Charles prints it Son of Man (I think) almost
always. I have printed it similarly when quoting from him, but not
always in other cases.
Most frequently, the expression is “that Son of Man" (once “this”),
especially perhaps where the demonstrative is emphatic, xlvi. 2 "I
asked concerning that S. of M.,” ib. 4 “And this S. of M. whom thou hast
seen,” xlviii. 2 “And at that hour that (i.e. ille) S. of M. was named in
the presence of the Lord of Spirits,” etc. "The S. of M." is not used
absolutely (s. Dalm. Words p. 243) till lxii. 7 (Dalm.
6272n by error)
(but it is naturally used in xlvi. 3 “the S. of M. who hath righteousness"
(where emphasis is thrown on the last words) and in lxxi. 14 "Thou art
the S. of M. (so Charles in p. 184 n., but “s. of m." in p. 185 txt) who art
born for righteousness").
""
(C
[2998 (liv) b] Similarly in the Syr. of 2 Esdr. xiii. 1 foll., “son of
man is introduced (Dalman, Words p. 244) in the same way as in the
Similitudes, namely, 1st, "as the likeness of a son of man" (om. in Lat.
by error) and then ib. 3 "ille homo" (Syr. "that son of man"), ib. 5
"homo (Syr. "son of man ") qui ascenderat de mari,” ¿b. 12 "ipse homo"
(Syr. “that son of man"). Later on, ib. 25, 51, comp. 33, it is “vir (not
"homo," Syr. also "vir") ascendens de corde maris." Here, as in the
Similitudes, the writer first introduces a son of man in mysterious
surroundings and then goes on to speak of that son of man as the
Redeemer.
2
[2998 (liv) c]" The righteous [one]," as pyn, occurs only in Exod.
ix. 27, Deut. xxv. 1, Ezek. xviii. 20, xxxiii. 12, Hab. i. 4, Eccles. iii. 17-
where ((
unrighteous" is expressed in context and in Is. lvii. 1 "The
righteous perisheth and no man layeth it to heart...none considering that
239
[2998]
>>
"THE SON OF MAN'
the righteous is taken away from the evil to come." Even in this last
passage there is an implied antithesis: "The unrighteous man does not
realise God's mysterious wisdom when He causes the righteous man to
die." Comp. Wisd. iii. 2 "In the sight of the unwise they [i.e. the
righteous (pl.)] seemed to die," and Wisd. iv. 7-10 “Though a righteous
[man] be prevented with death, yet shall he be in rest....Wisdom is the
gray hair...and an unspotted life is old age. He pleased God and was
beloved of Him, so that living among sinners he was translated
(μETETÉON).” The writer is here alluding to the patriarch Enoch, who
(Gen. v. 22, 24 LXX) "pleased God” (Heb. "walked with God") and
(LXX) “God translated him"; and he implies that this is true of any
"righteous man" dying early. Noah however-not Enoch-is the first
man called "righteous" in Scripture. Philo (ii. 3—5) followed by Origen
(Lomm. vi. 330) implies that Enoch did not please God till after he
“begat Methuselah." Then, they say, he repented. According to this
view, Enoch would be " a righteous man that needed repentance,” Noah
a righteous man that did not need repentance." Sir. xliv. 16, in LXX,
says, "Enoch pleased the Lord and was translated, an example of
repentance to the generations." The Heb. has, "Enoch was found
perfect and walked with the Lord and was taken, a sign of knowledge to
all generations." This is an instance of Heb. confusion. Gen. v. 24 says
“For God took him (108 npɔ ɔ).” The MS. of Sir. has në пp (1),
shewing that the writer confused 18 “him” with “sign” and then
adapted the context to make sense.
[2998 (liv) d] Possibly Philo and Origen may have been aware of
traditions based on a corruption of this kind. In any case, Gen. v.
21-31 raises an interesting question as to the patriarchs that preceded
Noah. Did they all escape the deluge or not? It will be found that
Lamech, Noah's father, died five years before the deluge; that Me-
thuselah, Noah's grandfather, died in the actual year of the deluge; and
that Enoch did not die at all, because God "took him." Presumably
Methuselah died a natural death; for the refrain, "and he died," which
is applied (Gen. v. 5, 8, 11) to all the patriarchs whose genealogy is given,
is applied also to him without change. And Beresh. R. ad loc. takes this
view, containing a tradition that the Lord delayed the deluge till the
death of Methuselah. But the Scripture leaves it doubtful. And the
doubt makes Enoch's "translation" all the more intelligible from the point
of view indicated in Wisdom and Philo. Enoch begot Methuselah while
still in sin. Then he repented. What followed? Methuselah lived on
to be a proverb for old age. But he only just escaped, if he did escape,
being destroyed by the deluge. Enoch died early-but he was taken by
the Lord. Wisdom says (iv. 11) it was "lest wickedness should alter his
understanding." This was also the Rabbinical doctrine, taught however
with considerable variations (see Beresh. R. on Gen. v. 24, and Kimchi's
240
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
commentary). Origen (Lomm. vi. 330, and sim. on Gen. v. 22) says
“Metusalem...interpretatur emissio mortis.”
(liv) e-j "THE RIGHTEOUS ONE'
""
[2998 (liv) e] “The righteous one," in N.T., occurs mostly in quo-
tations. Of these, Rom, i. 17, Gal. iii. 11, Heb. x. 38 (with [mov]) are
from Hab. ii. 4 "His soul...is not upright...but the righteous [one]…..,” and
1 Pet. iv. 18 “if the righteous [one]...where...the godless [one] and the
sinner?" from Prov. xi. 31. In the original of these, "the righteous
[one]" is opposed to "the guilty [one]"; so, in English, we might use
"the accused (sing.)," implying antithesis to "the accuser." Comp.
Exod. ix. 27 “the Lord is the righteous [one], and I and my people are
the guilty [ones],” and Deut. xxv. 1 “If there be a controversy among
men…..and [the judges] judge them, then they shall pronounce righteous
the righteous [one] and pronounce guilty the guilty [one]”—where the
former passage assumes what the latter expresses, that there are two
parties to a dispute, and that one is “the right," the other "the wrong."
In such antitheses, "the righteous" may not be conspicuously "righteous,"
but merely "the righteous one of the two." In Gen. xviii. 25 "righteous
[one]" with "guilty [one]," without article, is followed by "the righteous
[one] as the guilty [one]” (Heb. and Gk). In 2 Pet. ii. 7—8 díkalov Awt
...[6] díkaιos, the adj. may contain an allusion to Gen. xviii. 25, implying
that Lot, though not a very good specimen of righteousness, was at all
events "the righteous man" in Sodom. Even concerning Noah, some
Rabbis gave a similar interpretation to Gen. vi. 9 “righteous...perfect in
his generation" (i.e. considering what his generation was, s. Beresh R.
ad loc.).
66
[2998 (liv)ƒ] “The righteous [one],” in N.T., apart from quotations,
occurs in Mt. xxiii. 35 "Abel the righteous" as a type of persecuted
prophets. Heb. xi. 4 and 1 Jn iii. 12 both use “righteous" in connexion.
with Abel or Abel's works, and both also introduce a comparison between
him and Cain. Taken together, the three passages indicate that "the
righteous" in Mt. xxiii. 35, somewhat like "the martyr," means the
righteous, as is often the case, persecuted by the unrighteous." Jas. v. 6
"Ye have condemned, ye have murdered, the righteous [one]”—when
read with the next words, "he resisteth you not "-seems to mean "Ye
are continually pronouncing sentence in favour of the guilty oppressor
[such as Ahab] against the righteous [i.e. the innocent, such as Naboth]."
In Rev. xxii. II "he that is unrighteous...he that is righteous" is
antithetical.
1 Jn ii. 1 (R.V.) "We have an Advocate...Jesus Christ the righteous
('I. X. díkalov)" is not a correct translation. Aíkalov is predicative; and
the meaning seems to be, "Jesus Christ, righteous [yet Advocate for us
who are unrighteous]." It is strange that Origen, who quotes this text
16
A.
241
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
about a dozen times, never explains the force of dikalov. Westcott's trans-
lation is "being as he is righteous." This is not clear to me.
"The Righteous [one]," in Acts, denotes Christ thrice, namely, in
public utterances of Peter and Stephen and in a private utterance of
Ananias to Saul. First, Peter says to the Jews (Acts iii. 13—15) “The
God of our fathers hath glorified his Servant Jesus whom ye delivered up
...ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be
granted unto you, and killed the Prince of life." There is antithesis here
(as above) but the primary reference is not to any antithesis between
"the guiltless" and "the guilty” but to God's "righteous servant” men-
tioned in Isaiah (Is. liii. 11) who was to be "delivered up” (ib. liii. 12
(LXX)). This is proved by (1) the verbal coincidences, (2) the closely
following sentence (Acts iii. 18) "the things which God foreshewed by the
mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he thus fulfilled,”
(3) the repeated use of πaîs, “servant,” applied to Christ in the following
context (Acts iii. 26, iv. 27, 30) and in Mt. xii. 18 (from Is. xlii. 1), but
nowhere else in N.T., and characteristic of Isaiah both when applied to
individuals and when used absolutely (Is. xliii. 10, lii. 13, liii. 11). The
same meaning—namely, “the righteous servant" predicted by Isaiah—is
probably intended in Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 52) "Which of the
prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they slew those that
announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One-of whom now ye
have become betrayers and murderers." The reference is less clear
in the utterance of Ananias to Saul (Acts xxii. 14) “The God of our
fathers hath appointed thee to know his will and to see the Righteous
One"; but "his will" probably means God's will and purpose about His
"righteous servant" (Is. liii. 11—12).
In Acts iii. 14, 26, iv. 27, 30, R.V. marg. has “Child" (comp. Lightf.
on Clem. Cor. 59): "This designation [i.e. Taîs for Christ] is taken
originally from Is. xlii. I quoted in Matt. xii. 18...where maîs is 'servant,
minister' (y). Comp. Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30. But the higher sense
of viós was soon imported into the ambiguous word "aîs." Later writers
(ib.) sometimes defined maîs (erroneously) as "son" by adding povoyevýs
or ȧyanητós. Tertullian (Marc. iv. 22) renders Is. 1. 10 "servant," πaidós,
by "filii." Perhaps "Righteous One" may have arisen out of "Righteous
servant," from a desire to dispense with the ambiguous maîs.
[2998 (liv) g] "The Righteous" in Aboth i. 2, "Simon the Righteous
(commonly called “ Simon the Just") was probably a title of honour like
"Aristides the Just." So in Euseb. ii. 23. 15 (quoting Hegesippus), the
Jews cry out concerning James-who was called "righteous ”—“ Even
the Righteous [one] has gone astray." The Jews did not intend to say
"the righteous one predicted by the prophets." Yet Hegesippus (¿b.) pro-
ceeds, “And they fulfilled the Scripture in Isaiah iii. 10 (LXX), ‘Let us
slay (LXX bind) the righteous one because he is not for our turn'” (where
""
""
242
"THE SON OF MAN
[2998]
Heb. has "Say ye of the righteous [one] that [it shall be] well [with him];
for they [i.e. all the righteous] shall eat the fruit of their doings").
Comp. Wisd. ii. 1o foll. "Let us oppress a poor righteous man; let us
not spare a widow...let us lie in wait for the righteous [man], because he
is not for our turn....He pronounceth the end of the righteous (pl.) to be
blessed and maketh his boast that God is his Father....If the righteous
[man] be the son of God, He will help him....Let us condemn him with
a shameful death...." The context indicates that "the righteous" ob-
server of the Law is contrasted with open or secret apostates from the
Law. These are "the unrighteous," and persecute “the righteous one,”
whose very existence is a reproach to them. Origen (Lomm. ix. 59,
Exod. Hom. vi. 1) quotes Wisd. ii. 20 as predicting Christ's condem-
nation, and it is hardly surprising that other Fathers do the same. Yet
the passage may be explained, without hypothesis of interpolation, from
pre-Christian Jewish history.
[2998 (liv) h] No single and special "righteous" man is mentioned in
Wisdom. But the book teaches us that, up to the time of the Exodus,
the Wisdom of God acted through the Patriarchs. None are mentioned
by name. But in the descriptions of them (x. 4—20) five are called
"righteous." These five are brought safe by Wisdom, through dangers,
trials, or conflicts-Noah, Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Joseph. The end is
that (x. 20) "righteous ones," i.e. Israel, made spoil of "impious ones,"
i.e. Egypt. The article distinguishes the two "righteous ones" with whom
covenants were made. Wisdom "piloted the righteous one (ròv díkalov) on
a frail tree,” i.e. Noah on the Ark. Wisdom“ found the righteous one (ròv
díkalov)," i.e. Abraham. Philo (ii. 6) commenting on Gen. vi. 9 äveρwπоs
åvēρwños
dikalos—the first use of "righteous" in the Bible—says that Noah is here
called " man not in a general way but "preeminently (kar' ¿§oxýv)” and
that he is also called "righteous" because "an unrighteous man is really
a man-shaped beast.” This saying illustrates the contrast in Daniel and
Revelation between the Son of man and the beasts, or the Beast. The
fourth book of Esdras says of Noah that from him came "all righteous
ones" (iii. II dereliquisti autem unum ex his Noë cum domo sua, et ex
eo justos omnes "). It briefly mentions Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but
does not call any of them "righteous."
""
66
A Noah-Apocalypse inserted in the Similitudes (En. 65—9) represents
Enoch as saying to Noah (En. 65)“ Thou art pure and guiltless of this
reproach concerning the secrets," and God as saying (En. 67) "Thy lot
has come up before me, a lot without blame, a lot of love and upright-
ness." Also, from Noah's seed there is to spring (En. 65) “a fountain of
the righteous and holy without number for ever." But he is not called
"the Righteous One."
[2998 (liv) i] There are indications that the Hebrew word Tsaddîk,
"righteous," went out of fashion, so to speak, and then became fashion-
243
16-2
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998 (lv)] The occasional difficulty of distinguishing in
the gospels between "the Son of Man" when used individually
and when used collectively may be illustrated by several
apparently collective uses of "the righteous one" in Enoch¹
able again. Onkelos (see Brederek's Concordance) in the first century
habitually renders p' by "pure." He never uses p' (except in
his paraphrase of Gen. xlix. 11). Levy Ch. gives abundant instances of
py in the later Targums. A natural explanation is, that in the first
century the word was disused by some for a time because it had de-
generated so as to imply formal righteousness, especially formal alms-
giving. The only instance in Mark where Jesus uses it is Mk ii. 17
"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners"; Matthew and Luke
contain protests against the misapplication of the term.
""
""
[2998 (liv) j] These facts will explain the abundant use of “righteous”
in pre-Christian Jewish works and its disuse in some Christian writings,
especially in the Pauline epistles which emphatically subordinate the
"righteous" to the "
to the "good" (e.g. Rom. v. 7). Yet dikaios was a noble
word, endeared to Greek-speaking Jews by the saying of Plato that “a
righteous man was the thing most like God. Philo, after quoting Gen.
xii. 3 "In thee shall all the tribes of the earth be blessed," says (i. 454)
"For indeed the righteous [man] is a prop to the whole race of men.
So, too, in Jn (xvii. 11, 25) when the Son prays to the Father, after åyıe,
there comes, as a climax, dikale. The same feeling pervades Wisdom
and large parts of the Enoch literature, not the Similitudes alone. The
author, or rather perhaps the author of parts, and reviser of the whole, of
The Book of Enoch, is imbued with the conviction that the redemption of
the world is to be accomplished by righteousness, apparently meaning
justice and equity as well as the observance of the Law of Israel.
first section of the book (En. 1) opens with “the blessing of Enoch where-
with he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the day of
tribulation when all the wicked and godless are to be removed." The
last chapter of the last section says "I will bring forth clad in shining
light those who have loved my holy Name, and I will seat each on the
throne of his honour...for righteousness is the judgment of God; for to
the faithful He will give faithfulness in the habitation of upright paths."
The
1
¹ [2998 (lv) a] En. 91 “The righteous one will arise from sleep, and
wisdom will arise and be given unto them," En. 92 “The Holy [and]
Great One has appointed days for all things. And the righteous one will
arise from sleep...and all his path...will be in...grace. He [? the Holy
244
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998]
-and these, too, where there is no antithesis between "the
righteous one" and "the unrighteous one" to make the
meaning clear (2998 (liv) c). Moreover one passage in a late
section of Enoch identifies "the Son of Man" with the
Patriarch Enoch himself¹! These and other non-Scriptural
One] will be gracious to the righteous [? one] and will give him eternal
uprightness, and will give him power, and he will live in goodness and
righteousness and will walk in eternal light.” In En. 92 there are vv. r.
(1) “wisdom shall arise,” (2) “righteousness will arise from its sleep, will
arise (sic)." "The righteous one," not being followed by "them," might
be supposed by some to mean a single person, and might be altered by
them to make better sense.
1 [2998 (lv) b] En. 71 “And I fell on my face and my whole body
melted away, but my spirit was transfigured...and he [i.e. the Head of
Days] said unto me, ' Thou art the Son of Man (2998 (liv) a) who art born
unto righteousness, and righteousness abides over thee, and the righteous-
ness of the Head of Days forsakes thee not...from thence proceeds peace
since the creation of the world.'...And so there will be length of days
with that Son of Man and the righteous will have peace, and the righteous
his path of uprightness in the name of the Lord of Spirits for ever and
ever."
This is regarded by Dr Charles as an interpolation by the same (pre-
Christian) editor that interpolated the Noachic fragments elsewhere. It
follows (En. 69) a description of "the Son of Man" as judging on the
throne of glory, and a statement that (En. 70) “After this, his [i.e.
Enoch's] name was carried aloft during his lifetime to the Son of Man
and to the Lord of Spirits." Then the interpolated passage (En. 71)
begins, "And it came to pass, after this, that my spirit was hidden, and
it ascended into the heavens...and he said unto me, 'Thou art the Son of
Man....'"
What could the editor mean by retaining the statement that
Enoch (1) was carried to the Son of Man and interpolating, after it, a
fragment to the effect that Enoch (2) was the Son of Man?
""
Did he think that when Enoch's (En. 71) “ whole body melted away
and his "spirit was transfigured," he passed into the Son of Man? If so,
the thought illustrates the Galilæan notion, in the days of Christ, that the
latter was John the Baptist risen from the dead, and perhaps, also, some
literalistic traditions that John the Baptist "was Elias." This identifica-
tion of the Son of Man with Enoch is the last instance of the title in the
whole book (so far as Dalman's Words p. 243 indicates).
The "melting away" of the "body" would favour the view that the
writer of the passage did not accept the resurrection of the "body" in the
popular sense. See 2998 (Ivi) f foll.
245
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
traditions, when combined with the language of the Scriptures
about "the Righteous One,” “my Elect One," "my Servant,"
and “the Son of man," may enable us better to understand
how, in our Lord's time, the last of these titles might be used
in more than one sense¹.
Another point of interest in Enoch is its mystical doc-
trine about “hiding," as a necessary condition of revelation—
a thought that forms the foundation of some of Christ's
deepest sayings in the Fourth Gospel as well as in the
Three; and it is also embedded in the Pauline epistles. But
no part of the book throws much light on Christ's doctrine
about the righteousness that is "in hiding" or "in secret,"
Év кρуπTÔ, being as it were a secret between the righteous
man and the righteous Father in heaven².
>
¹ [2998 (lv) c] Comp. Is. xxiv. 16 “glory to the righteous [one]" with
xxvi. 2-7 "the righteous nation...the way of the righteous [one] is
uprightness: thou that art upright dost direct the path of the righteous
[one]." In these passages, "the righteous [one]" appears (Gesen. 843 a)
to mean "the righteous worshipper of Jehovah," and hence to imply
"faithful Israel." But the fundamental instance is (2998 (liv)ƒfoll.) Is.
liii. II
my righteous servant shall make many righteous." From this,
and from Is. xli. 8 "my servant Jacob whom I have chosen,” xlii. 1 "my
servant...my chosen" (comp. lxv. 9, 22) Enoch might well call Israel, or
the Redeemer of whom Israel was the type, "the Righteous and Chosen
(i.e. Elect)."
((
(6
(lv)d—m THE DOCTRINE OF HIDING "
2 [2998 (lv) d] The following passages illustrate various traditions in
Enoch about hiding, some of which appear to be confused :—En. 10
"the Most High sent Arsjalâljûr (Gk (1) Uriel, (2) Istrael) to the son of
Lamech [i.e. Noah]...' Tell him in my name, Hide thyself," En. 12
"And before all these things fell out, Enoch was hidden...and all his
activities had to do with the holy ones," En. 40 "The angel that came
with me shewed me all the hidden things," En. 46 “I asked the angel
who...shewed me all the hidden things...he said unto me, This is the Son
of Man...who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden," En. 48
"Before the sun and the signs were created...his [i.e. the Son of Man's]
name was named before the Lord of Spirits. He will be a staff to the
righteous...the light of the Gentiles....All who dwell on earth...will bow
the knee before him. And for this reason has he been chosen and hidden
246
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
before Him before the creation of the world and for evermore…..,” En. 62
"And the kings and the mighty...will glorify...him who rules over all,
who was hidden. For the Son of Man was hidden before Him [i.e. before
the Lord of Spirits] and the Most High preserved him in the presence of
His might, and revealed him to the elect. And the congregation of the
holy and elect will be sown...," En. 70 "his [i.e. Enoch's] name was
carried aloft...and the name vanished amongst men [lit. them]," En. 71
"my spirit was hidden and it ascended into the heavens."
་
[2998 (lv) e] In some of these passages, there appears a notion that
“hiding" not only precedes but also causes, or prepares the way for,
revelation. E.g., on En. 10, Dr Charles comments thus, "Hide thyself
[addressed to Noah]: i.e. in order to receive further disclosures from the
angel." He compares En. 12 "Enoch was hidden." It is easy to see
how the writer could say that Enoch "was hidden," but how was Noah
"hidden"? Comp. En. 89 which refers to Noah as a "bull,” only
becoming a man" in order to build the ark, "And one of these four
[angels] went to that white bull and instructed him in a secret, as he
trembled" [i.e. feared God's judgments]; "he was born a bull and
became a man, and built for himself a great vessel and dwelt thereon ;
and three bulls” [Shem, Ham, and Japheth]" dwelt with him...and they
were covered in." These last words refer to Gen. vii. 16 "the Lord shut
him in," i.e. shut Noah in the ark. The expression is paraphrased by
Onkelos "the Lord protected them by his Word," Samaritan (Ethe-
ridge), "the Lord sealed them over," Jer. Targ. "the Word of the Lord
was merciful unto him." Rabbinical traditions vary as to the nature of
the "
protection," or covering." The variations shew how the Lord
might be said to "hide," "cover," or "protect," one of His messengers or
prophets, in order that he might in due time deliver his message or
perform his allotted task, according to many sayings of the Psalms,
e.g. xvii. 8 “ Hide me under the shadow of thy wings," xxvii. 5 “In the
day of trouble...he shall hide me.”
66
[2998 (lv) ƒ] But a different kind of “hiding" is contemplated in
Isaiah (xlix. 2—3) "The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the
bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name...in the shadow
of his hand hath he hid me...in his quiver hath he kept me close; and he
said unto me, Thou art my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified....
And now saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob again to him...I will also give thee for a light to the
Gentiles." Here—although the context indicates that the “Servant" will
be (xlix. 7—8) one “whom man despiseth” and “the nation abhorreth "
but whom God "will preserve" from persecution—yet the main object of
the “hiding” seems to be, not preservation from peril, but hiding like a
seed in the ground with a view to the preparation of a mysterious and
divine growth. This is just possibly contemplated in the above quoted
247
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
passage (En. 48) which closely resembles Isaiah as to the "naming" of
the Son of Man before the Lord, and his having been “chosen and
hidden before Him from the creation of the world," and prepared to be
"the light of the Gentiles." But, except for such expressions as (see
Charles on En. 10) "plant of righteousness,” (En. 62) "the congregation...
sown” by God, (En. 93) “plant of uprightness,” etc., there is very little,
in Enoch, to indicate that the “hiding" implies growth, as of a seed.
[2998 (lv) g] Nor is there any notion of growth or development in
4 Esdr. xiii. 2, where all versions, except the Latin, represent "the likeness
of a man as "coming up out of the heart of the sea." There the writer
explains it thus (ib. 26) “ The same is he whom God the Highest hath
kept a great season," and (ib. 52) "Like as thou canst neither seek out
nor know the things that are in the deep of the sea, even so can no man
upon earth see my Son, or those that be with him, except in (?) the time
of his day (nisi in tempore diei, but Syr. Aeth. Ar. Arm. diei eius)," which
seems to mean “in the appointed time, for which men must patiently
wait."
،
П
[2998 (lv) h] Hiding" was interpreted by some early Fathers as
“hiding from Satan." Comp. Ign. Eph. 19 on the “three mysteries of
the cry," which "escaped the notice of the ruler of this world." Among
these are the maрdevía Mapías. Lightf. quotes many patristic passages
indicating a belief that "the Deceiver was himself deceived by God's
mysterious reserve," e.g. Hippol. Op. p. 38 (Lagarde) idoù ó Kúpιos πaрa-
γίνεται λιτός...κρύπτων δὲ τὸ τῆς θεότητος ἀξίωμα ἵνα λάθῃ τοῦ δράκοντος τὸ
пavоúρуnμа—which suggests a somewhat different picture from that in
Rev. xii. 4, where "the dragon" is waiting in expectation to devour the
child, but the child is snatched away. Origen (Hom. Luc. vi., Lomm.
v. 104) quotes Ign. and says, “Disposuerat Salvator dispensationem
suam, et assumtionem corporis ignorare diabolum : unde et in genera-
tione sua celavit eam, et discipulis postea praecipiebat, ne manifestum
eum facerent. Et cum ab ipso diabolo tentaretur, nusquam confessus est
Dei se esse Filium." These three mysteries, says Ignatius, "were wrought
in God's quiet way (ev novxía Oeoû)," and he describes Christ as (Magn. 8)
"God's Logos having come forth from silence (àñò σɩyês πрoeλ0wv).”
[2998 (lv) i)] Lightf. (Ign. Eph. 19) quotes 1 Cor. ii. 7 foll. Deoû
σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸ τῶν
αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν, ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἔγνωκεν· εἰ
γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν, and says, “it is
probable indeed that by οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου S. Paul means
earthly rulers, such as Pilate and Herod; but very many ancient com-
mentators (e.g. Marcion in Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 6; Origen Sel. in Psalm.
ii., II. p. 538; Twés in Chrysost. on 1 Cor. ii. 6; Ambrosiaster ad loc.),
and some modern, have interpreted the words of spiritual powers, and
Ignatius is likely to have done the same." The "hiding," or non-
248
"THE SON OF MAN'
[2998]
""
recognition, of a deliverer of Israel, in the beginning of his career, may
be illustrated from the lives of Moses (Exod. ii. 2), Gideon (Judg. vi.
9—15), and David (1 S. xvi. 11). Comp. Jn i. 33 “And I knew him not."
[2998 (lv) j] Christ's doctrine about the unperceived, gradual, and
widespread growth of God's "seed" is illustrated by two parables, one
peculiar to Mark, the other, belonging to Matthew and Luke. Mk iv.
26-29 describes "a man" sowing seed, and finding that, while he sleeps
and wakes, the seed shoots up, "how-he himself knows not." The earth,
"of its own accord (avtoµárn)," brings forth fruit-blade, ear, corn. A
very similar saying about the gradual development of the vine is alleged,
from unknown "scripture," by Clem. Rom. 23, where Lightf. quotes
Epict. iii. 24. 86, 91, and M. Anton. xi. 35. Add Epict. iv. 8. 35--6,
enjoining not only patience, but also self-suppression, ayvoeîodai pedé-
τησον πρῶτον τίς εἶ· σαυτῷ φιλοσόφησαν ὀλίγον χρόνον, οὕτω καρπὸς γίνεται·
κατορυγῆναι δεῖ χρόνον τὸ σπέρμα, κρυφθῆναι, κατὰ μικρὸν αὐξηθῆναι ἵνα
Teλeopophon. Origen (Jerem. Hom. 5) says concerning spiritual "seeds,"
that they will seem to spring up "of their own accord (avrтóμara)” but
that God really gives the increase. Then he quotes Mk iv. 28. Some.
objection to avтоµáτη—and perhaps a difficulty in giving an allegorical
meaning to the "man,” and his "
man,” and his "sleeping and waking"-may have
caused the omission of this beautiful parable by Mt.-Lk. Jn, in very
different language (iii. 8), "thou knowest not whence it cometh and
whither it goeth," describes " everyone that is born of the spirit”—and
this birth is really the subject of Mark's parable.
[2998 (lv) k] Mt. xiii. 33, Lk. xiii. 21 "The kingdom of heaven is like
unto leaven, which a woman took and hid (Mt. évékpuyev, Lk. ěkpuyev v. r.
évékρvev) in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened." There
is only one other mention of "three measures" of meal in the Bible,
and that is in Gen. xviii. 6 where Sarah, just before receiving from the
Three Persons the promise of a child, is told by Abraham to "knead
three measures of fine meal and make cakes (èyκpvpías).” Philo i. 173
allegorizes the "three measures" in Genesis as being the three elements
of human nature corresponding to the Three Divine Persons; and he
plays on the word "cakes" (lit. "hidden [in the embers]") as indicating
that the holy word must needs be “hidden” from the uninitiated. Clem.
Alex. 694, commenting on the "three measures" in the Gospel, says,
"Either it means the saving of the soul that is tripartite in obedience [to
the Three Divine Powers] (ἤτοι γὰρ ἡ τριμερής καθ᾽ ὑπακοὴν σώζεται
yuxý)," or else it denotes simply "the compactness and invisibly attractive
power of the Word on every one that takes it into himself”—a power to
draw everything to itself and to make him an organic unity. Origen's
comment on "the leaven" in the Gospels is lost, but his comment on
Gen. xviii. 6 says "totum sacramentis repletum est," and he interprets
ἐγκρυφίας as absconditos ac mysticos panes." Also a scholium on
249
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
[2998 (lvi)] Dr Charles thinks that the doctrine of the
Similitudes as regards the Resurrection does not include the
Gentiles, but only all Israel, and that "the resurrection is
Lk. xiii. 21 (Cramer) says, "Origen takes the Woman' as the Church,
the 'leaven' as the Holy Spirit, and the 'three measures' as body, spirit,
and soul." This makes the parable of the leaven a link between Mark's
parable of the seed, and John's quasi-parable of the Wind or Spirit. The
three parables represent the spiritual growth of the soul in three different
aspects; but each aspect expresses, or implies, that man grows-"how
he himself knows not."
[2998 (lv) /] The precepts (Mt. vi. 1—6) about giving and praying
"in secret (ev кружт)" are not recorded by Lk., perh. as being too
oriental in expression (e.g. "let not thy right hand know") for western
churches. It should be added that ostentatious giving is repeatedly and
severely condemned in the Talmud, see Wetst. on Mt. vi. 1-6. All the
gospels breathe the spirit of what 1 Pet. iii. 4 calls "the hidden man of
the heart (ỏ крνπтòя тηs кαрdías äveршπоs)." Comp. Rom. vii. 22, 2 Cor.
iv. 16, Eph. iii. 16 "the inner man (ó éσw ävėpшπоs).”
[2998 (lv) m] Compare:-
Mk iv. 22
Mt. x. 26
"For there is no-
thing covered that (ô)
shall not be un-
covered."
Lk. viii. 17 (comp. xii. 2)
"For there is not
[anything] hidden that
(ô) shall not become
manifest."
"For there is not
[anything] hidden ex-
cept in order that (iva)
it may be manifested."
This passage of Mark is separated from the preceding Parable of the
Sower by a saying about a “candle," which comes very abruptly there,
and which Matthew dissociates from that parable. But for that inter-
vention, Mk iv. 22 might mean, “Nothing is hidden [by God for the
mere purpose of keeping men in ignorance or perplexity. Nothing is
hidden] except that [by being hidden and given time to mature] it may
be manifested [as a living and growing truth]." If that were the meaning,
it would be similar to the Johannine saying (Jn xii. 24) that the seed of
corn must die in order that it may bring forth fruit. The thought is
briefly and obscurely expressed by Mark; but for that very reason Mark
ought perhaps to be supposed to be closer than Matthew and Luke to the
original. Christ may well have uttered the saying in both forms. The
form adopted by Mark indirectly inculcates patience, modesty, and a
reverence for nature's slow and unobserved methods. It harmonizes with
the saying, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation," and
with Matthew's emphasis on doing good deeds "in secret" since God
seeth in secret." On Is. xlv. 15 "thou art a God that hidest thyself, O
God of Israel, the Saviour," see Fourfold Gospel, "Hide."
(6
250
"THE SON OF MAN”
[2998]
a resurrection of the body." But this appears uncertain.
(lvi) a-d THE RESURRECTION
1 ¹ [2998 (lvi) a] In a long and valuable note on En. 51, Dr Charles
specifies several distinct Jewish beliefs as to the Resurrection as affecting
(1) all Israel, (2) righteous Israel, (3) Israel and a few pious Gentiles [this
asserted only by "individual voices"], (4) all mankind. He considers
En. 51 and 62 to assert a resurrection of the body" (whereas in
En. 91–104 “it is only a resurrection of the soul and spirit") and "of all
Israel, but not of the Gentiles."
((
[2998 (lvi) b] But En. 51 "In those days will the earth also give back
those who are treasured up within it, and Sheol also will give back that
which it has received, and hell will give back that which it owes” is so
manifestly of a universal character that Dr Charles himself says that the
passage "would seem to point to" it. "But," he adds, "the whole
history of Jewish thought points in an opposite direction." Is it not
possible, however, that (1) the author of this particular book may have
had exceptionally cosmopolitan views, or (2) the passage may result from
late revision?
[2998 (lvi) c] The other passage alleged, En. 62, says that “The
righteous and elect will be saved on that day...and with that Son of Man
will they eat and lie down and rise up for ever and ever...and the
righteous and elect will have risen from the earth...and will have been
clothed with garments of glory." These words, following a highly meta-
phorical context that speaks of the Lord's "sword" being "drunk with
the blood" of the oppressors, do not seem to me to prove a resurrection
of the body (as distinct from a resurrection of the soul and spirit that are
to be "clothed with garments of glory"). It is true that "eating" is
mentioned, as also it is mentioned or implied in many of our Lord's
parables; and the author may possibly use the word literally like the
man that exclaimed (Lk. xiv. 15) “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in
the kingdom of God!" But that this is not probable appears from En. 51
"And in those days will the mountains leap like rams, and the hills will
skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and they will all become angels in
heaven." Neither En. 51 nor En. 62 seems to exclude righteous Gentiles.
[2998 (lvi) d] By Philo (i. 164) angels are expressly called "bodiless,"
where he says that "Abraham 'left' mortality, and was 'gathered to'
(Gen. xxv. 8) the people of God, reaping immortality and becoming equal
to angels (loos áyyéλois yeyovws). For angels are God's army, bodiless
and blessed souls (ἀσώματοι κ. εὐδαίμονες ψυχαί).” Το the same effect,
Christ says that those raised from the dead are (Mk xii. 25, Mt. xxii. 30)
as angels in heaven" or (Lk. xx. 36) “equal to angels (ioáyyedoɩ),” in
this respect that there is no "marrying" or "giving in marriage" among
66
251
[2998]
"THE SON OF MAN"
In any case, there is no indication that the doctrine of the
gospels on this subject is based on Enoch, although the book
may copiously illustrate both what Christ taught as true and
what He attacked as false.
The doctrine of Redemption in the Similitudes appears
to be that the Elect and Righteous One, being beheld with
the eye of faith and love by the elect and righteous, will
draw them into His glory; but He will not be beheld by
the godless, and when at last they are forced to behold
Him, they will behold Him with fear and without love, and
their end will be shame.
The earlier part of Enoch (ch. 1—36) is justly described in
Dr Charles's valuable edition (p. 27) as containing "naive and
sensuous views of the kingdom" of God. But the rest, taken
as a whole, and especially the Similitudes, is of a much more
spiritual character. Even though all of it should prove to be
pre-Christian, it would have some bearing on our Lord's time,
indicating that there might exist in others besides John the
Baptist aspirations after a higher righteousness than that of
those Pharisees whom the gospels so bitterly condemn.
<<
them, apparently indicating non-sensuous existence incompatible with
eating." Against the inference that this view extends to the extract
from Enoch, there may be urged the following words (En. 51)
"Their
faces will be lighted up with joy because in those days the Elect One has
appeared, and the earth will rejoice and the righteous will dwell upon it,
and the elect will go to and fro upon it." Does not the mention of "the
earth”-it may be asked-imply earthly, or sensuous existence? The
answer is, Ist, that the sensuous "earth" cannot "rejoice," 2nd, that,
according to En. 45, God will "transform the earth." It would seem,
then, that both "the earth" and the earthly bodies of the sons of Adam
are to be "transformed " into something beyond the region of the senses
and into the region of angels.
So far as concerns the two passages alleged above from the Simili-
tudes, it does not seem to me proved that they refer to a resurrection of
the "body" in the popular sense of the term, or that they contemplate a
resurrection restricted to Jews.
252
NOTE II
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
((
S I Touching" and "drawing near"
[2999 (i)] The object of the following paragraphs is, not
to compare and discuss the gospel accounts of the self-
manifestations of Christ after the Resurrection, but to collect
and classify facts with a view to comparison and discussion in
The Fourfold Gospel.
αν
It was pointed out in 2889 that the dropping of av
might convert an account of a woman desiring to touch the
risen Saviour (such as we find in John) into an account of
women actually touching Him (such as we find in Matthew).
But a much more potent cause of confusion might be found
in the fact that in Hebrew (both old and new) and in
Aramaic, the same word may mean "touch" and "draw near
to¹" And the same ambiguity exists in the Syriac versions
of the Gospels².
((
¹ [2999 (i) a] In Daniel ix. 21, where the LXX has πрoσnyyɩé poi,
Theodotion has aró μov (and comp. Dan. x. 10). In Gen. iii. 3, xx. 6,
xxxii. 25 (and freq.) where Heb. has and LXX varo, Onkelos
has, which in Heb. would mean "draw near to," but, in later Heb.,
Aram., and Syr., would also mean touch." In Numb. iii. 10, xvii. 28,
“cometh nigh," LXX has “toucheth," comp. Numb. iii. 38 "cometh nigh,"
LXX" toucheth" but A "approacheth (poorоpevóμevos)." The non-LXX
translators have "draw nigh" in Numb. iii. 10, 38, but in Numb. i. 51,
LXX ὁ προσπορευόμενος, Field gives "Αλλος· ὁ ἁπτόμενος.
2 [2999 (i) b] Thus in Jn xx. 17 "touch me not," un μоν åπтоν, SS
μή μου ἅπτου,
(Burk.) has "Do not draw near to me," whereas Mrs Lewis has "Touch"
253
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
But the reader must not suppose that any mere confusion
of similar words sufficed to produce the divergent accounts of
Christ's Resurrection. Here, as almost always, the rule holds
good, BEWARE OF SINGLE CAUSES. Theological
motives would naturally be at work; anthropomorphism and
antanthropomorphism; differences between Hebrew and Jewish
(ie. post-captivity) thought (or, at all events, Hebrew and
Jewish expression), and the influence of these differences on
early Christian thought comparing Hebrew scripture with
Jewish interpretation; Semitic and non-Semitic conceptions
of matter, spirit, body, angelic nature, divine nature-so that
where one writer might say "the Lord," another might prefer
"an angel"; and, where one might describe an angel as
"bodiless," another might reserve that epithet for disembodied
spirits (2824* foll., 2998 (lvi) d).
[2999 (ii)] In considering the tradition peculiar to Matthew,
that the women “approached [Christ] and held fast his feet
and worshipped him," we have to bear in mind that this
ambiguous word, "approach" or "draw near to," or "touch,”
may become, when applied to "feet," more than usually
ambiguous, because the meaning may be (1) "fall as suppli-
ants at a person's feet," (2) " touch and grasp his feet." And
the story of Zipporah (Exod. iv. 25)—who is regarded by some
of the translators of O.T. severally as "falling before the feet"
of Jehovah (or Jehovah's angel) or as "touching" them, or as
"holding" them-shews how easily the mere act of prostra-
(6
(Murdock “touch," Etheridge "touch, or approach"). In Mt. xxviii. 9
(where SS is missing) ékpárŋσav avтoû Toùs Tódas, the Syr. (Walton) has a
non-ambiguous word ("grasped his feet"). But in Mt. ix. 25 éкρáтησev
ékpátnoev
TĤs xeipòs avtĤs, SS has “touched” or drew near" (Walton "grasped"),
which might be ambiguous if the context, "hand," did not make the
meaning clear. Mk i. 31 “approached...and grasped her hand" is parall.
to Mt. viii. 15 "touched her hand." On the parall. Lk. iv. 38—9 (Syr.)
containing the phrase "a great fever was grasping her," and omitting the
"grasping" of the "hand," see Fourfold Gospel, “Touch.”
254
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
CC
tion might be taken to mean “touching” or grasping¹."
Also the fact that elsewhere Matthew has a tradition (peculiar
to himself) that Jesus "drew near and touched the disciples,"
when combined with the present instance of "drawing near
and holding fast" (also peculiar to Matthew) suggests that
both of these traditions may be "conflations," omitted by
other evangelists because of the uncertainty of the text².
§ 2. God "meeting" man
[2999 (iii)] It has been objected (Apologia, p. 68) that
Matthew's mention of "meeting" (Mt. xxviii. 9 “Jesus met
them") is inconsistent with the hypothesis of a spiritual
(6
1 [2999 (ii) a] Compare the different versions of Exod. iv. 25 (R.V.)
"cast [it] at his feet," marg. "made [it] touch his feet," as given by
Field: Heb. "Et tangere fecit (s. ‘et tetigit")," LXX πрoσéteσe [the word
used in Mk iii. II of the demoniacs "falling against," or at the feet of,"
Jesus], Αλλος ἤγγισε, Ag. Theod. ἥψατο, Sym. αψαμένη. Here the
Syr. has "and grasped his feet." Onkelos-who uses a form of p,
"bring near," or "offer"-is rendered by Walton "and offered it before
him," but by Etheridge "and approached before him." Thus, in one
and the same Hebrew original, this ambiguous verb is rendered "touch,"
"fall before (as a suppliant)," "approach" and "grasp." "At the feet of,"
if referring to the feet of Jehovah, or an angel (as the Targumists appear
to think) may mean little more than "in the presence of," which Onkelos
substitutes. I am informed by Dr Büchler that in Nedarim three rabbis
of 2nd cent. differ as to whether Zipporah touched the feet of (1) Moses,
(2) the angel, (3) the child. For the double meaning of p (act. and
mid.) in Syr. see Thes. Syr.; and for inferences from the confusion of
"touch" and "draw near," see Fourfold Gospel, “Touch.”
2 [2999 (ii) b] Comp. Mt. xvii. 7 "Jesus approached (πрoσîìðεv) and
touched them and said, 'Arise...,'" not in the parall. Mk ix. 8, Lk. ix. 36.
Also comp. Mt. iv. 24 "they brought," SS " were drawing near (jp),”
Palest. drew near (17p)," which might be confused with " touched"
the parall. Mk (which shews signs of conflation) and Lk. are as follows:-
Mk iii. 10-11 (lit.)
"They kept falling upon (èπ-
πίπτειν) him that they might touch
him...falling against (роσÉTIT-
τον)
TOV) him."
Lk. vi. 19
"kept seeking to touch him"
(Etheridge, “approach to him,” SS
"touch," hithp. of 7p).
255
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
presence. But on the contrary the notion of God as “meeting”
Israel, in what we should call a spiritual manner, underlies the
whole of the Mosaic Law, though disguised in A.V. under the
mistranslation “tabernacle of testimony” instead of "tabernacle
of meeting." The particular word here used by Matthew,
úπývτηoev (v.r. åπývτησev) is rather rare in LXX²; but
σvvavτáw is used in various forms to describe God, or angels,
¹ [2999 (iii) a] "Of meeting," regularly rendered paprupíov, "of testi-
mony," by LXX, but σvvrayĥs, "of meeting," by Aq. in Numb. iii. 7,
iv. 25. Evvráoow in N.T. is used by Mt. alone (xxi. 6, xxvi. 19, xxvii. 10
quoting Zech. xi. 13) but only in the active. The middle ráoσoμai,
however, is used by Mt. (and only once elsewhere in N.T., Acts xxviii. 23
Takáµevoɩ…….ηµépav) in Mt. xxviii. 16 “the mountain where Jesus had
appointed [meeting] for them." Here the Syriac (Walton) (SS is lost)
has y, the equiv. of Heb. 7y, "arrange meeting."
[2999 (iii) b] Matthew probably had some form of in his original,
and it was rendered éráĝaro as it is by LXX in 2 S. xx. 5 "appointed
time." But is rendered by the middle ovvráσσoµai in Exod. xxv. 22
(so Aq. etc., but LXX mistransl.) "there will I meet with thee,” and
by Aq. in Amos iii. 3 "agreed" or "made an appointment."
2 [2999 (iii) c] 'Yñaντáw occurs (7) in LXX, but not in canon. LXX
exc. Dan. x. 14 (LXX) vπaνтhσeraι (Theod. аπ.) "shall befall." Wisd. vi.
16, Sir. xv. 2 v. ws μýrηp describe Wisdom as "anticipating (Sir. Heb. DTP,
Vulg. obviabit)" those who love her, as the father anticipates the
returning prodigal son by running to meet him. In Sir. xii. 17 it means
befall.” In Tob. vii. 1 καὶ ἦλθεν...[κ. Σάρρα δὲ ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ] κ.
ἐχαιρέτισεν αὐτὸν κ. αὐτὸς αὐτούς, the masc. αὐτός (as well as the context)
shews that the clause I have bracketed is corrupt. It is om. by and the
other versions. It may be a conflation of an ambiguous clause in the
context like that in the Itala "haesit cordi eius" (Chald. "the love
for Sarah entered his heart," Heb. "his soul was knit to the soul of
Sarah,” Β ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐκολλήθη αὐτῇ σφόδρα) in the form " obviam venit
eius cor cordi," taken literally and referred to Sarah instead of to Tobit
(see Tobit ed. Neubauer).
66
[2999 (iii) d] Ὑπαντάω differs from ἀπαντάω in that the former mostly
has more of voluntariness-“going to meet" a friend, or enemy; whereas
ἀπαντάω may mean "meet with [an accident]," "light upon [evil]."
Comp. Ammon. (Steph. viii. 121) ὑπαντῆσαι ἐπὶ ὁδοῦ λέγεται, ἀπαντῆσαι δὲ
τὸ περιτυχεῖν δίκῃ· οἷον, ἀπήντησε κατὰ τὴν δίκην, ἀντὶ τοῦ περιτυχεῖν.
Απάντημα is used with δαιμονίου in Tob. vi. 8 (N), and (ib.) ἀπάντημα
by itself means "mischance."
256
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
Sometimes συναντάω ought to
""
as "coming to meet" man¹.
have been used, but has not been used, apparently because
the LXX did not like to speak of God as "coming to meet
anyone. "The real meaning"-so the translators perhaps
argued—“is that God, or rather God's angel, appeared to man."
And accordingly they substituted "appeared." It is of special
importance that the tradition, above (2999 (ii) a) mentioned,
about Zipporah at the "feet," or "touching" the "feet," of
God, or of God's angel, is preceded by a statement that God
"met" Moses. This makes the parallelism between the
¹ [2999 (iii) e] Comp. Gen. xxxii. 1 “And there met him (17-19)Д) the
angels of God,” LXX [κ. αναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθ. ἴδεν παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ
παρεμβεβληκυίαν] κ. συνήντησαν αὐτῷ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, where LXX
interpolates the words I have bracketed. Apparently the text is a
conflation placing (1) first, a paraphrase shewing that the "meeting" was
a vision, (2) next, a literal translation.
2 [2999 (iii)ƒ] The manifestation of God to Moses in the burning
bush is variously referred to, thus: (a) Exod. iii. 16 “The God of your
fathers hath appeared (7) to me...." (b) ib. 18 “Jehovah the God
of the Hebrews hath met us" (lit. lighted upon us (1) passive)”),
(c) Exod. v. 3 sim. omitting “Jehovah.”
66
،
""
((
[2999 (iii)g] Three causes have contributed to confuse the renderings
of (b) and (c) above, namely, (1) the fact that Exod. iii. 16 shews the
"meeting" to have been really an "appearing," (2) the frequent
oscillation (472 c, 474 a) between "meet and call," (3) the doubt
whether the passive "call" (if adopted as the rendering) was to be
rendered as middle or passive. Hence the following variations :-
(6) Exod. iii. 18 προσκέκληται ἡμᾶς “ hath called us (v. r. ἐπικέκληται,
perh. meaning "hath been called on us" as Onk.). Onk. and Jon. have
by pn. This Walton has rendered, in Onk., "invocatus est super
nos,” but in Jon. “occurrit nobis" (Etheridge, Onk. "hath called us,” al.
cod. "hath revealed himself to us," Jon. "hath called us") Levy Ch.
ii. 383 a "wird über uns genannt." The Syr. has "hath revealed himself
('лë) to us (or, on us) (†➜y)” (Walton "apparuit nobis ").
In (c) Exod. v. 3, Heb. and LXX as before, Onk. now has “hath
revealed himself (n) to us (or, on us) (by)" (and sim. Syr. Walton
"apparuit nobis "). But Walton mistransl. Onk. "invocatus est super
nos."
[2999 (iii) h] In Exod. iv. 24 " And there met him (17") Jehovah,”
LXX retains the literal anthropomorphism, but substitutes "angel of the
A.
257
17
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
story in Exodus and that in Matthew very striking indeed,
and greatly increases the probability that the latter, in the
original Semitic, was intended to describe what might be
called, in ancient times, "the coming (or sending) of an angel
of the Lord," or "the appearing of an angel of the Lord,” or
"the appearing of the Lord," or, in modern times, a "spiritual
meeting," "vision," or "revelation." If Matthew misunderstood
Lord," σvvývτnoev autê ayyedos kupiov, and so do Onk. and Jon. (Syr.
"occurrit ei Dominus").
[2999 (iii) z] In Numb. xxiii. 3 (Heb. lit.) “Perhaps there will come to
meet (p) Jehovah to my meeting (ph)," eï poi paveîrai ó beòs év
rvvavτýσei, Onk. is rendered by Walton "si forte occurrat (yy") Sermo
Dei a facie Domini in occursum meum (pb),” but this conceals the
fact that Onk. departs from the Heb. double use of “meet,” and has
(1) "meet," (2) "anticipate." Walton translates the Syr. "si forte
occurrat (p) Dominus in occursum meum (VN)" where Walton takes
occurrat" (not as "clamabit,” see Thes. Syr. 3713 init.
“clamabit in meum occursum"). The Targum of Jonathan has (Walton)
si forte veniat (Etheridge "shall be discovered") (17) ("shall come to
meet,” see Levy Ch. i. 224) verbum Domini mihi obviam (p)." It
is to be noted that, in the noun “meeting,” both Onk. and Jon. adopt
a form of DP, "go before," or "anticipate.”
as נקרא .Syr
tr
LXX does not here substitute "angel of God" for "God," but it
renders “meet” freely by "appear" so as to shew that a "vision" is
denoted.
[2999 (iii)j] In Numb. xxiii. 4 (lit.) “And there went to meet ("p")
God to () Balaam,” LXX has κaì èþávŋ ó beòs tæ B., Onk.
66
66 et occurrit
(וארע) et occurrit
(y) verbum a facie Dei ad ipsum (ns) B.,” Jon.
verbum a facie Dei in (2) B.,” Syr. “and God revealed himself ("bansı)
to (or, on) (by) B.” But in Numb. xxiii. 16, though Heb. is as in xxiii. 4,
LXX has к. ovvývτnoev ô beòs tậ B., Onk. as before (with ↳ for л), Jon.
as before, and Syr. as before. This illustrates the probability that, in a
Gk transl. of a Semitic document, "met" might be correct in word
but misleading in fact-if the narrative described a vision.
[2999 (iii) k] In Numb. xxiii. 15 “and I [¿.e. Balaam] will go to meet
[Jehovah] yonder," the LXX paraphrases the presumptuous-sounding
words as
But I will go to enquire of God,” Onk. has “but I will go as
far ("DDNN) as thither (NJ)," and sim. Jon. with ÿë, and Syr.
.אמטא with
258
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
it, that would only be on a level with his misunderstanding
of other Semitic expressions, as, for example, the Hebrew
parallelism that mentioned an "ass" and "a colt the foal of
an ass"-which he, alone of the evangelists, regards as
representing two animals.
קדם
§ 3. "Going to meet," "going before," and "drawing near"
[2999 (iv)] The facts above stated have a direct bearing
on other passages connected with Christ's resurrection, and
in particular with the mention-omitted by Luke—of “going
before (πρoáɣw)" the disciples into Galilee (1233 foll.). It
has been seen above (2999 (iii) ¿) that Onkelos once substi-
tutes a form of "go before," for Heb. "meet." So in Sir. xv. 2
ὑπαντήσεται αὐτῷ ὡς μήτηρ, the recently discovered Hebrew
is DP, lit. "anticipate," where the Gk has the same rare com-
pound of avτáw as in Mt. xxviii. 9 (and Wisd. vi. 16). In Exod.
xix. 3 “the Lord called (p) unto him [Moses] out of the
mountain,” Targ. Jer. has “the Lord anticipated him from the
mountain," probably taking as P, "meet" (472 c, 474 a)
and meaning that God "came to meet" Moses. Now DP is
ambiguous. It may mean absolutely (1) "do a thing before-
hand," (2) "go before a person to a certain place," (3) "go to
meet a person." Hence we can better understand how a
tradition that might be interpreted by Mark and Matthew as
meaning, in effect, Christ said I will go before you to Galilee,
might seem to Luke to refer to what He said beforehand in
Galilee (Lk. xxiv. 6 "the things that he said unto you still
being in Galilee ").
קרה קרא
קדם
[2999 (v)] Luke in the passage just quoted (xxiv. 6),
adds what is not found in the parallel Mk-Mt.--a predic-
tion of the Passion and Resurrection. This (though it may
1 [2999 (iv) a] Trommius gives DTP as (pih.) karaλaµßáv∞ (2), πро-
καταλαμβάνω (1), προπορεύομαι (1), προφθάνω (15), συναντάω (4), (hiph.)
ἀνθίστημι (1), ἔρχομαι (1).
259
17-2
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
be explained as merely the result of Luke's desire to define
what Jesus said "in Galilee ") makes it worth while to remark
that "anticipate," or "go to meet," is easily confused
with “stand,” “arise,” and that Gesen. 870 a recognises
the confusion in 1 S. xx. 25, favouring LXX πроéþ0aσev
"anticipated," against Heb. "stood." The word generally
used by Luke to denote angelic appearance, or sudden
entrance, is a form of èpioτnu. The renderings of this by
SS suggest either that the translator was perplexed by the
Greek eπí (which may have suggested to him "upon," "up,"
and therefore "standing up") or else that he was influenced
by some Semitic traditions confusing Dp with Dp¹.
.יקום
¹ [2999 (v) a] Here are the renderings of épíornμ in Luke as given by
R.V. and SS :-ii. 9 “an angel stood by them,” SS “appeared to them…..
standing" (comp. ii. 13 "there was (èyévero)…….a multitude of the heavenly
host," SS "appeared"); ii. 38 “she [Anna] coming up at that very
moment," SS (Burk.) “stood up"; iv. 39 “he [Jesus] stood over her
(ἐπιστὰς (D ἐπισταθεὶς) ἐπάνω αὐτῆς) and rebuked the fever,” SS “and he A
rebuked her fever" [for énávw, comp. Gen. xviii. 2 "and lo, three men
stood over against (y) him,” ἰδοὺ τρεῖς ἄνδρες ἱστήκεισαν ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ],
Mk-Mt. differ; x. 40 "(Martha) came up to him and said (ẻπɩotâσa
dè eitev, D étioтabéîσa)” SS "came and saith to him"; xx. I
"there
came upon him the chief priests (étéorŋoav oi ȧpx.),” SS “stood up (IDP)
against him”; xxi. 34 “and [lest] that day come on you (¿miotŷ ¿p'
vµâs) suddenly," SS "and [lest] that day come up (Dip) upon you
(1ɔ'bv) suddenly”; xxiv. 4 “behold, two men stood by them (éréorŋoav
avraîs),” SS (Burk. txt) "they saw two persons (lit. men, IN) standing
(IDP) over them (1) byb),” but SS, for "they saw," has “there
appeared."
επισταθεῖσα)”
[2999 (v) b] The two passages just quoted (Lk. xxiv. 4 idov ävdpes dúo
ἐπέστησαν αὐταῖς and Gen. xviii. 2 ἰδοὺ τρεῖς ἄνδρες...ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ) should
prepare us for a version parallel to Lk., with érávo in it. Moreover, the
analogy of Jon. Targ. on Gen. xviii. 2 “And he lifted up his eyes (LXX åva-
Bλėvas rois ỏp0.) and looked, and behold, three angels in the resemblance
of men were standing before him," should prepare us for versions parallel
to Lk. with “looking up” in them, and with “angel" instead of “man.”
Accordingly, Mk xvi. 4 has ávaßλéaσaı (2909), while Mt. xxviii. 2 has
ἄγγελος and ἐπάνω (not however ἐπάνω αὐτῶν but ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ, i.e. above
the stone of the sepulchre).
260
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
§4. Different words employed by the evangelists
[2999 (vi)] Luke only once applies his peculiar word,
épíστημi, to Jesus, and there, as we have seen, SS omits the
clause. Elsewhere if he wishes to describe Jesus as "drawing
near” or “approaching," he mostly uses ¿yyíçw or ẻyyús (once
πроσéρxоμaι) when Jesus is drawing near to save (or, on rare
occasions, to judge)¹. Herein Luke agrees with LXX which,
1 [2999 (vi) a] 'Eyyíço is applied by Luke alone to Jesus, as follows :—-
(a) vii. 12 “He drew near to the gate of the city" [before restoring the
widow's son to life]; (b) xviii. 35 “and when he drew near to Jericho "
[before healing the blind man]; (c) xix. 29 "and when he drew near to
Bethphage” [a little before the weeping over the City], SS here has
"arrived" DD, (C
came as far as" (=p0ávw freq. in Daniel), and repeats it
and arrived by the mount," Mk-Mt. have the pl. "they"; (d) xix.
37 "And when he drew near to the descent..." [also a little before the
weeping over the City], D and SS have the pl. “they”; (e) xix. 41
"And when he drew near and saw the city" [immediately before the
weeping over the City]; (ƒ) xxiv. 15 “and...Jesus himself having drawn
near was going with them" (SS, "DD i.e. “ came quickly up to them" or
"reached them," as in Dan. iv. 8, 17, 19, 21, 25, vi. 24, vii. 13, 22
φθάνω).
II
'Eyyús is applied to Jesus as follows:-Lk. xix. 11 "because he was
near Jerusalem," where the next words are, "and they thought that
the kingdom of God would immediately be shewn forth (ávaþaíveobai),”
Jn vi. 19 "and when he drew near unto the boat" where the parall.
Mk vi. 49, Mt. xiv. 26 have words indicating that the disciples thought
they saw a phantasm.”
((
In all these instances the word introduces some act of healing or
of divine judgment or of self-manifestation.
[2999 (vi) b] Пpoσéрxoµaι in LXX is mostly represented by P,
"draw near," e.g. Exod. xii. 48, xvi. 9, xxii. 8 etc. In xii. 48 "he shall
come near" means he shall " come near to God," and in xvi. 9, xxii. 8
"God" is expressed. Generally πpoσéрxoμai, Heb. 1, is used of
approaching superiors. So is рoσéрxoμal in the gospels (where the
regular Syr. for it is 27p). For example, in Mt., πрoσéрxoμai occurs
about 50 times and very often of people coming to Jesus. But it is
applied to Jesus only twice. The first instance is xvii. 7 πpoσîìßev ó
'Inσoûs k. á áμevos "Jesus approached and having touched them" (at the
Transfiguration) where SS has “drew near (p) and raised them up”
(Mk-Lk. omit this). The other instance is xxviii. 18 πрoσeλ0wv (SS
261
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
"(
on the very rare occasions on which God is said to draw
near" to men, uses ¿yyíçw, not πрoσéрxoµaι¹. In the gospels,
as in LXX, πроσéρуоμаι is mostly used of inferiors"
ap-
proaching" superiors. When Jesus "approaches" the dis-
ciples or others, He mostly comes as a helper or a healer. On
more than one of these occasions, they think He is “a
phantasm," or they have previously "doubted," or their
eyes are "holden that they should not know him."
missing, Syr. Walton 27p) 'Inσoûs éλáλnoev avroîs. This refers to the
period after the resurrection. Thus, πpoσeλðάv is not applied to Jesus by
Mt. except during some manifestation of a spiritual nature. Mt. xxvi.
39 (Mk xiv. 35) is excluded because the text has πрoλēάv, marg.
προσελθών. Mk i. 31 uses πрoσελðάv of Jesus only once, before
the raising up of Peter's mother-in-law (where, as we have seen, Lk. has
émɩotás); Lk. vii. 14, only once, to introduce the raising of the dead
at Nain.
[2999 (vi) c] Note that in three of the four instances of πрoσeλðáv
applied to Christ, there follows a healing, or helping, "touch," or "grasp,"
or " raising up," (a) Mk i. 31 προσελθὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτὴν κρατήσας τῆς χειρός,
parall. to Mt. viii. 15 ἥψατο τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς...καὶ ἠγέρθη, Lk. iv. 39 ἐπιστὰς
ἐπάνω αὐτῆς...ἀναστᾶσα, (6) Mt. xvii. 7 προσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησ. κ. ἁψάμενος
(where SS has "drew near and raised them up"), (c) Lk. vii. 14 πроσελà v
ñ↓ato τŷs σopoù. In the fourth there is a self-manifestation, after the
resurrection, following a mention of some that had doubted, (d) Mt.
xxviii. 17-18 κ. ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν, κ. προσελθὼν ὁ
Ι. ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς....
p
ó
¹ [2999 (vi) d] Gesen. (897 b) mentions the verb "draw near,"
as applied to God only in Lam. iii. 57 yyloas. But it mentions (898 b)
the adj. as used in Ps. xxxiv. 18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 18, Jer. xii. 2 (all éyyús),
also in Deut. iv. 7, Is. l. 8, lv. 6 (all eyyi(w). It is very natural that Luke
should prefer ἐγγίζω to προσέρχομαι, when applied to Jesus. Lk.'s
only instance of πроσéрxoµaι thus used is in the raising of the Widow's
son-where Jesus is called (vii. 13) “the Lord," and where there are signs
of Semitic tradition and allegory.
[2999 (vi) e] “Draw near," P, may be used in a hostile sense, of an
enemy "taking one by surprise"; and it is so used by SS in Mt. xii.
28, Lk. xi. 20 of the kingdom of God, plaσev ép úµâs, where plávw
prob. combines the meaning " come right up to," "reach to" and also
come before it is expected."
262
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
§ 5. Matthew's unique use of “anticipate"
[2999 (vii)] The facts above collected may help us to
interpret the story, peculiar to Matthew (xvii. 24–7), about
Peter's "finding a stater" after catching "the first fish that
came up (τὸν ἀναβάντα πρῶτον ἰχθύν)” and “opening its
mouth." This story is preceded, at a little interval, by the
words, "And when Peter had come to the house, Jesus came
to meet him (πроéþðaσev avτÓv) saying...." If we assume,
hypothetically, that πρo¶¤ávw represents "meeting" in the
Hebraic spiritual sense frequently illustrated in the preceding
paragraphs, it would follow that the story was of a Petrine
vision. If so, it would find a natural place after the
resurrection, when Peter (according to Jn xxi. 3) took the
initiative in "fishing." It is worth noting that "first,"
applied by Matthew to the "fish," is applied by Clem.
Alex. (in referring to this story) to Peter, as "the first
of the disciples." Origen, also, says that Jesus "gave
Peter power to catch (a) fish first," implying, shortly after-
wards, that this primacy gave rise to discussion among the
disciples as to who should be greatest¹. These facts would
1 [2999 (vii) a] Clem. Αlex. 947 ὁ μακάριος Πέτρος ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς ὁ ἐξαίρετος,
ὁ πρῶτος τῶν μαθητῶν, ὑπὲρ οὗ μόνου καὶ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν φόρον ὁ σωτὴρ ἐκτελεῖ.
Elsewhere he implies that the catching of the fish implies the drawing up
of a soul out of vice to virtue (172) ὁ γοῦν ἰχθὺς ἐκεῖνος, ὃν κελεύσαντος τοῦ
κυρίου ὁ Πέτρος εἷλεν, εὔκολον καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ θεοδώρητον καὶ σώφρονα αινίτ
τεται τροφήν· ἀφαιρεῖν γέ τοι ὑποτίθεται διὰ τῶν ἐξ ὕδατος ἀνιόντων ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς
δικαιοσύνης δέλεαρ, τὴν ἀσωτίαν καὶ τὴν φιλαργυρίαν, ὡς τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ
ιχθύος.... He proceeds ἵνα χωρίσῃ τὴν κενοδοξίαν καὶ τὸν στατῆρα τοῖς
τελώναις δοὺς τὰ Καίσαρος ἀποδοὺς τῷ Καίσαρι φυλάξῃ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ·
ἔχοι (sic, but ? ἔχει) δὲ καὶ ἄλλας ἐπιλύσεις οὐκ ἀγνοουμένας ὁ στατήρ,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ παρὼν ἐπιτήδειος τῆς ἐξεργασίας καιρός. Apparently he finds
a contrast between two coins, one paid to Cæsar, the other to God (as
also does Origen). Clement is allegorizing. Doubtless, he found no
difficulty in accepting the narrative as literal. But the important point
for us is, that even in those early days there were "other solutions" of the
allegorical problem presented by this extraordinary story.
263
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
(6
[2999 (vii) 6] Origen speaks of Peter as being "comforted," or
consoled," over the fish that came up, and connects the consolation with
"Caphar-nahum," which he interprets as "village of consolation" (ad
loc. Lomm. iii. 2323 καὶ ὡς ἐν χωρίῳ γε παρακλήσεως-οὕτω γὰρ ἑρμηνεύεται
ἡ Καφαρναούμ-παρακαλῶν τὸν μαθητὴν καὶ ἐλεύθερον αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ υἱόν,
δίδωσιν αὐτῷ δύναμιν τοῦ ἁλιεῦσαι ἰχθὺν πρῶτον, ἵνα ἀναβάντος αὐτοῦ
παρακληθῇ ὁ Πέτρος ἐπὶ τῷ ἀναβάντι καὶ ἁλιευθέντι, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος
εἰλῆφθαι τὸν στατῆρα, ἀποδοθησόμενον τοῖς οἰκείοις τοῦ στατῆρος, καὶ
ἀπαιτοῦσιν ὡς ἴδιον τὸ τοιοῦτον νόμισμα. Like Clem., he regards the fish as
(Lomm. iii. 230 foll.) being "benefited" and says ȧrò oikeίov Tóπov tŷs
θαλάσσης τὴν εἰκόνα Καίσαρος λαμβάνει. The tax levied by the Jews for the
Temple while standing had to be paid in a special sacred coin, but, after
the destruction of the Temple, it was levied from the Jews by the Romans
for their own purposes. Some confusion as to the meaning of this story
might arise from this change. Madden, Jewish Coinage p. 238, quotes
Origen's Letter to Africanus ed. De la Rue, vol. i. p. 28, kaì vûv 'lovdaiwv
δίδραχμον αὐτοῖς (sc. Ρωμαίοις) τελούντων.
[2999 (vii) c] The following facts bear on Mt.'s use of didpaxµa and
στατήρ.
Exod. xxx. 12 foll. "When thou takest the sum of the children of
Israel, according to those that are numbered of them, then shall they
give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest
them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.
This they shall give, every one that passeth over unto them that are
numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (the shekel is
twenty gerahs :) half a shekel for an offering to the Lord. Every one that
passeth over unto them that are numbered, from twenty years old and
upward, shall give the offering of the Lord. The rich shall not give more,
and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the
offering of the Lord, to make atonement for your souls."
A shekel (Joseph. Ant. iii. 8. 2) was four drachmae, or a tetradrachm
or a stater (Madden's Jewish Coinage p. 239), so that each man was bound
to pay two drachmae. But the LXX renders Exod. xxx. 13 "The half of
the didrachm, which is according to the holy didrachm." The LXX also
habitually renders "shekel" (where not oikλos) by "didrachm" instead of
"tetradrachm." On the other hand Aq. and Sym. have "[half of the]
stater,” ¿.e. “half a tetradrachm,” correctly, and Josephus Ant. xviii. 9. 1
speaks of "the didrachm which they were wont to pay as a national poll-
tax to God (τό τε δίδραχμον ὃ τῷ θεῷ καταβάλλειν ἑκάστοις πάτριον),”
comp. Bell. vii. 6. 6 dúo dpaxµàs ekaσtov, and Dion Cass. (qu. by Madden)
lxvi. 7 dídpaxµov.
[2999 (vii) d] Whatever may be the cause, the fact is certain, that the
collectors were called "collectors of the shekels (not, the half shekels)
(Hor. Heb. on Mt. xvii. 24 qu. Shekal. 1)—which would literally mean
264
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
indicate that τὸν ἀναβάντα πρῶτον might be applied by
some to Peter's "going up," if only we could find any gospel
narrative connecting Peter's "going up" with "fishing." Such
a connexion actually occurs in Jn xxi. 11 ἀνέβη οὖν Σίμων
Πέτρος και εἵλκυσεν τὸ δίκτυον εἰς τὴν γῆν.
[2999 (viii)] Moreover Ephrem Syrus, commenting on
the finding of the Stater, quotes thus (Moes. p. 161) “But
that thou mayest not cause them offence, go to the sea and
cast the net there" (not
(not "hook"). He proceeds, "When
therefore Simon...took his net and went to cast it into the
sea, they also went with him." Ephrem uses "they also
to mean the Pharisees, as his context shews. Presumably he
thinks that the Pharisees, and their agents the collectors,
accompanied Peter to the shore to behold the result of his
fishing, and to be convinced of the reality of the miracle, if
""
“tetradrachms." Matthew calls them collectors of "didrachms." But
Madden (239-40) says that "didrachms" were obsolete coins and would
hardly have been accepted if tendered. Either Matthew used “di-
drachm" in its monetary sense (as Josephus above) for "two drachms," or
in its official sense, as the LXX does, to represent the official phrase
"collectors of the shekels, i.e. of the tetradrachms."
[2999 (vii) e] The Talmud provides (Shekal. i. 3, Schwab v. 263—4)
that "children shall be free from this tax," and that if a man pays for his
neighbour (a whole shekel instead of a half) there shall only be one
surcharge instead of two ("soumis à un seul droit pour les deux"),
but R. Meir dissented. The levying was to begin from the 15th of Adar.
On this point Hor. Heb. frankly admits a difficulty on the hypothesis
of a literal interpretation. "But here this objection occurs, which is not
so easy to answer. The time of the payment of the half shekel was
about the feast of the Passover: but now that time was far gone and the
feast of Tabernacles at hand." He fills nearly a page with attempts (very
unsatisfactory, it seems to me) to answer this, concluding thus,
"But
if any list to understand this of the tax paid the Romans, we do not
contend."
1 The connexion would be still closer if Clark's transl. of Origen were
correct (p. 481 6) “caught in the net of Peter,” (p. 482 b) “sends Peter to
drag up the fish into the net." But neither Huet nor Lommatzsch gives
this reading. It is however given by Ephrem Syrus (2999 (viii)).
265
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
there was to be a miracle. So Ephrem makes Christ say
'Let the sea teach them that I am...king."
Did Ephrem invent this tradition, "they also went with
him"? Such "invention” is scarcely credible. Much more
probably there were various traditions to the effect that Peter
received "power to catch fish first of the apostles," or that
Peter "caught the first fish," or "first, of all the apostles, drew
the fish to land." Some of these would add, “for they also
went with him," i.e. the other apostles also took part in the
fishing. But if "they also went with him" was used with
reference to the apostles, it would need only to be put into
the mouths of the apostles in the first person in order to
obtain the tradition of John (xxi. 3) “We also go with thee."
Thus Ephrem's comment increases the number of links
between Matthew's and John's accounts of the Petrine fishing;
(1) the interchange of "net" and "hook," (2) the mention of
"going up" in connexion with Peter or the fish, (3) the men-
tion of some "going with " Peter. These agreements suggest
that Ephrem had before him a tradition that blended
Matthew's account of the one fish caught by Peter, and
John's account of the 153 fish caught by the Seven disciples,
but drawn to the land by Peter. The Johannine narrative
includes an account of the one "fish" previously prepared
to be the food of the disciples, and manifestly representing
the IXOYC, the Saviour Himself. This in a Johannine
sense, widely different from the Matthæan-might be called the
fish that "first" came up; and Peter might be said (in Origen's
words) to be "comforted" over it, as in O.T. people are said
comfort their souls with bread¹."
to
1 ¹ [2999 (viii) a] As regards the connexion between "Peter" and "going
up”—and this in a context mentioning a boat-it should be added that
there is one other passage in the gospels, besides Jn xxi. 11, where
ávaẞaivo is thus used, not indeed of Peter alone, but of Peter with Jesus.
It is the account (peculiar to Mt.) of Peter's attempt to walk upon the
Lk. is wanting. Jn, like Mk, makes no mention of Peter:
waves.
266
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
Mk vi. 51
καὶ ἀνέβη πρὸς αὐτ
τοὺς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ
ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος.
Mt. xiv. 32
kaì ávaßávтwv av-
τῶν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἐκό-
πασεν ὁ ἄνεμος.
Jn vi. 21
ἤθελον οὖν λαβεῖν
αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ
εὐθέως ἐγένετο τὸ πλοῖον
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν ὑπῆ
γον.
ע
See 1735 b-c. Syr. Burk. txt has in Mt. xiv. 32 "when he went up
into the boat" (but SS "they"). Ephrem has (p. 136) “Cum venisset
Dominus et cum Petro navem ascendisset." The Latin versions (exc. a)
mostly have "ascendisset."
[2999 (viii) b] Steph. Thes. does not give any instance of avaßaívw in
the sense of "being drawn up" (as Mt. xvii. 27) but Wetst. on Mt. xvii. 27
quotes from Semitic sources de Naziraeis v. I 'Denarius aureus qui
ascendit in manum meam primus. Dolium vini quod ascendit in manum
meam primum, h. e. quod veniet in potestatem meam." He also quotes
Beresh. R. v. 8 "Piscis ascendens ex Acco, ascendenti ex Zidon, et
ascendenti ex Apamia sapore similis est." But this, so far as the words
quoted go, might mean "The fish that comes up [to Jerusalem]" from
these places. So ȧvaßaivo in Epictet. i. x. 2 (and freq.) used absolutely,
means “go up to Rome."
""
[2999 (viii) c] The Syr. of Mt. xiv. 32—4 (Burk. txt) has “And when
he went up into the boat the wind ceased...And when he went up to the
dry land.... The Semitic active is often confused with the Semitic ·
causative, so that "he went up" might be confused with "he caused to go
up." And the Syr. “went up to the dry land," closely following a mention
of "the boat," suggests that the former might be interchanged with
"caused [the boat] to go up to the dry land," i.e. caused the boat to be
immediately on the dry land, which is, substantially, the meaning of the
parall. Jn vi. 21.
[2999 (viii) d] It should be noted that, although Jn does not say
expressly that Peter was "first" in catching the fish, yet he implies it-
while at the same time implying that the other disciples laboured with
him. Jn xxi. 10 "Jesus saith unto them, Bring ye of the fish that ye
have
now caught,” implies a statement that all the disciples fished, and a
command to them all to bring the fish to Him. We can hardly suppose
that they disobeyed Him and sat still. Peter, it is true, is alone men-
tioned as drawing in the net, but Ammonius the Elder is probably giving
Jn's meaning correctly in the words (Cramer) "The spiritual net is drawn
by Peter with the others."
[2999 (viii) e] What is likely to have been the historical basis for a
tradition connecting "Peter" and "going up"? Matthew's story of the
walking on the water suggests that the "going up" might refer originally
to Peter's being "lifted up" from the deep waters of sin, after he had
repented of his denial of his Master. But perhaps a more likely
267
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
§6. Matthew's account of Peter's "fishing" illustrated
from John
[2999 (ix)] Several convergences of evidence point to the
conclusion that John is substantially right if he regards
Matthew's narrative as allegorical and as referring to the
period after Christ's resurrection, when Peter, as Origen says,
received “power to catch [a] fish first." In the first place,
the phrase "find a stater" appears to have been part of an old
Jewish proverb, "Everyone that looks into his possessions.
shall find a stater¹" But Jesus gives to a similar phrase, "the
explanation would base itself on the absolute use of avaßaivo to mean
"go up to Jerusalem," especially noticeable in the last words of Chronicles
"The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up,” i.e. to Jerusalem, to
build the new City and the new Temple.
[2999 (viii)ƒ] Luke, it is true, omits all mention of leaving Jerusalem
or "going to Galilee” in order to see the risen Saviour, or before the
preaching of the gospel began. But there are many indications that the
disciples did, as a fact, "go to Galilee" before they preached the gospel
in Jerusalem. If so, the truth may have been that Peter "having gone up
[to the City] was the first to preach the gospel with effect, or, in the
language of his Master, to prove himself a fisher of men." It may be a
mere coincidence that Luke, in a different sense, applies åvaßaivw to the
first meetings of the disciples-merely as meaning go up to an upper room,
or go up to the Temple (Acts i. 13, iii. 1). Later on, when Luke speaks
of Peter as opening the Church to the Gentiles, he describes him as (Acts
x. 9) “going up" to the house-top where he receives a vision, and after-
wards as (xi. 2) "going up" to Jerusalem to advocate the admission of the
Gentiles. If there is anything more than a mere casual coincidence, we
may suppose that Luke's Petrine narratives may have been influenced by
traditions of the Petrine "going up,” though he did not quite accurately
interpret them. See 2837 (iii) c on the apostles "going up to the temple"
and standing on the steps."
1 ¹ [2999 (ix) a] Levy iii. 494 b qu. Chull. 105 a, “Samuel said, 'In many
things I am behind my father, for he used to search his possessions twice
a day, I only once a day....Whoever searches his possessions every day
earns (verdient, 11, v. v. D) a stater."" I am informed by Prof.
Bacher that the context mentions two men as looking about their property
and detecting an agent cheating, or a leak in an aqueduct. The searcher
used to say, "Where are Samuel's staters?" After stopping the leak, he
268
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
finding of a drachma,” a moral application, making it parallel
to "the finding of a lost sheep." As the shepherd rejoices over
the sheep, so does the woman in Christ's parable rejoice over
the drachma, after she has swept her house and sought
diligently, and found it. Both "sheep" and "drachma "
represent a "lost soul," rescued from sin (Lk. xv. 4—10).
[2999 (x)] Before passing to John, it will be well to add a
word about a writer who has a good deal to say about the
didrachm, and from whom John often borrows. Long before
Clement and Origen, Philo speculated about “the half of the
didrachm" in mystical doctrine by which those Fathers may
well have been influenced. Philo (i. 498-9) speaks of the
“half” of the “didrachm,” in connexion with (Exod. xxív. 6)
"half of the blood," as implying an “equality" of division and
also a twofold human nature. The Holy Word, he says,
pours some of the blood into the "vessels" that are the
receptacles of our sensual faculties "insisting (ảğıŵv) that our
non-logical part should become soul and as it were logical
(τὸ ἄλογον ἡμῶν μέρος ψυχωθῆναι κ. τρόπον τινὰ λογικὸν
yevéolai)." Then he continues, "Is it not the fact that in
γενέσθαι).”
this manner also the holy didrachm was divided, in order that
we might purify the one half, the drachma, paying down the
ransom of our own soul (Tŷs έavtŵv ¥vxôs)? Thus, from a
D
exclaims "Now I have found them, Samuel's staters!" There may be a
play on the words "search" and "stater." At all events the ithp.
of (= "search") resembles NDN "stater" (Levy Ch. ii. 178)
and the ithp. may mean either "search oneself" or "be violently moved,"
"disturbed." There is also an interchange between "search" and
TYD (Levy iii. 560, 562) of which the latter means “comfort," or
comfort," or "support
(with food)" σrηpiw, so that the proverb lends itself to many applications.
There is no evidence that Samuel's proverb was borrowed from dialogue
between defaulters and shekel-collectors-"I have not got the stater,"
"Search and you will find it." But any student of LXX meeting with
a tradition that spoke of the "didrachm" and the "stater" might
naturally connect it with the passage in Exodus where LXX uses the
former and Aq. the latter to denote the "shekel" of which a half was
paid for the redemption of the soul (2999 (vii) c).
269
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
cruel and bitter servitude to the passions, the only free and
freedom-giving God, at our supplication, and sometimes even
without our supplication, rescues our soul by force." We have
seen above that Clement and Origen appeared to suppose two
payments, the payment of one coin to Cæsar or to "this
world," but of another to God. Philo seems to make a similar
distinction when he continues, "But the other portion of our
nature [i.e. the other half of the didrachm] let us abandon to
the slavish tribe that is unfit for freedom." This Philonian
passage, besides illustrating many other points in Matthew's
narrative-and in particular the notions of "ransom" and
"freedom"-casually mentions the occasional spontaneousness
of God's intervention (ἔστι δὲ ὅτε καὶ χωρὶς ἱκετείας) in a
manner that accords with Matthew's use of πрoþlável.
$7. Different symbolisms of "fish"
[2999 (xi)] To understand John's divergence from Matthew
we must put ourselves in the position of Christians about
70-80 A.D. when the Greek notion of Christ as the FISH
(2703) was taking hold of the Western Churches. In the
Galilæan Church, for some time after Christ's death, "fish"
would always suggest something quite different-namely a
convert. When Christ said, "I will make you fishers of men,"
He meant that the apostles were to raise up human souls out
of the silence and darkness of the deep waters of sin. The
convert was "born again,” born into a new life. A Jewish
tradition says that when a child is born into the light, the eye
and the ear that were open in the womb must be closed, and
the eye and the ear that were shut in the womb must be
opened¹. So with a convert. He was to be "enlightened,” to
"receive sight," to have "his eyes opened." But he was also
(though that is much less seldom expressed) to have all his
1 Levy iv. 1546, quoting Levit. r. sect. xiv. 158 a. (Dr Büchler adds
Nidda 30 b.)
270
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
senses renewed, including the sense of speech. Speech was
given to man (such at least was the Hebrew feeling) that man
should "glorify God." A "dumb" man could not do this, and
dumbness, in the west even more than in the east, was
symbolized by fish. But when the fishers appointed by the
Saviour had drawn him up from the water and "opened his
mouth ”—according to the saying of David "Deliver me from
bloodguiltiness, O God...O Lord, open thou my lips, and my
mouth shall shew forth thy praise "-then he could offer
up the sacrifice of "thanksgiving" and utter speech as “the
oracles of God¹."
¹ [2999 (xi) a] Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 10—11 ekασTOS κaðòs ëλaßev xáρiσµɑ…….
ei tis dadeî ws dóyia beoû, and Origen (Lomm. iii. 233) who says concerning
the fish, αναβεβηκέναι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἐν τῷ λογικῷ ἀγκίστρῳ συνειλημ
μένον, καὶ εὐεργετούμενον ὑπό τινος αὐτὸν διδάξαντος Πέτρου τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
μηκέτι ἔχειν ἐν τῷ στόματι τὸν στατῆρα, ἀλλὰ ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου τὰ ἔχοντα τὴν
εἰκόνα τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, which seems to be a quotation from 1 Pet.
describing the new speech bestowed as a gift (xápioμa) on the convert.
Comp. also Heb. xiii. 15 “let us offer up the sacrifice of praise (Ovoíav
alvéσews) the fruit of lips that make confession to his name.” On this,
Westc. refers to Lev. vii. 12 etc. The word rendered "praise" by LXX
is habitually rendered evɣapioría by Aq. but égoµodóynoɩs by Sym.
(see Lev. vii. 12, Ps. xlii. 4, cxlvii. 7). The author of Heb. xiii. 15,
though quoting as LXX, explains as Symmachus.
[2999 (xi) 6] The point is, that the converts of an apostle, when "their
mouths are opened," offer up "sacrifices" to the glory of God which may
be called, in some sense, the sacrifices presented by the apostle. Thus,
although Rom. xii. I says "present ye your bodies a living sacrifice,” yet
Col. i. 28 says "that we may present every man." So a convert, though
"begotten" by God, is sometimes said to be "begotten" by the apostle.
1 Pet. i. 13 foll. after mentioning redemption (ib. 19) “by the blood of the
Lamb," calls on the converts to long for the (ii. 2) "milk" of the word,
coming to the Lord as (ii. 4) a living stone," and being built into Him
as "living stones" so as to be a "holy priesthood” and to
offer up
spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." He adds
(ii. 12) the hope that the converts will lead such pure lives that the
Gentiles "from your good works beholding them, may glorify God in the
day of visitation." The epistle also speaks of (iii. 19) Noah brought safe
out of the deluge as a type of the world brought up out of sin by
baptism.
66
(6
271
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
§ 8. The original meaning of the story of "the stater"
[2999 (xii)] Now, returning to Matthew's narrative, let us
endeavour to ascertain what was the original meaning of the
story, and to what time and place it must be referred. First,
as to place, Matthew locates it at Capernaum, but this may
easily be explained. Peter is said to have come to "the
house," but some versions have "his house." Even without
"his," readers might naturally assume the house to be Peter's.
"If so, since Peter's house was at Capernaum, Capernaum
would seem to be the place"-so Matthew may have argued.
But the Arabic Diatessaron has "And when Simon went
forth without," which would be in Greek enλev ew. Now
on what occasion did Peter "go forth without (è§îλ0ev ë§w)”?
According to Matthew and (bracketed) Luke (Mt. xxvi. 75,
[Lk. xxii. 62] eğeλowv ew) only after he had finally denied
his Master¹. In that denial, Peter had "gone forth without"
in a spiritual as well as a material sense. He had gone out-
side the circle of the disciples. He had become as it were a
This rapid succession, or combination, of metaphors, shews how full
of metaphor an early Petrine vision might be, and how some phrase
(differing only a little from Origen's) about Peter's "being comforted over
the first fish that came up" might come to be interpreted-quaint though
the interpretation appears to us—as referring to the FISH, Christ the Son
of God, after He had gone up to heaven.
1
>>
¹ [2999 (xii) a] Mark differs. Mk xiv. 68 ¿§îλðev ë§w eis тò πpoaúdiov
is parall. to Mt. xxvi. 71 ἐξελθόντα δὲ εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα (without ἔξω) while
Lk. xxii. 58 makes no mention of “going out at this point. Thus Mark
defines locally the "going forth outside" and does not make it final;
Matthew mentions one "going forth," local, and another, "going forth
outside," final; Luke (bracketed in W.H.) mentions only the final "going
forth outside."
For the metaphor, comp. 1 Jn ii. 19 "they went out from us," where
Origen's interpretation (21106) is confirmed by Chag. ii. 2 Mishna
"Menahem went out" compared with ib. 166 “Whither did he go out?"
Abajje answers, "To an immoral life” (Levy iv. 667 a л12^^); Raba, “To
the king's service." Jn xiii. 30 describes a "going out" of Judas, but no
"going out" of Peter is mentioned in Jn xviii. 27.
272
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
“heathen and a publican." Jews were familiar (616 c) with
the expressions Beth Hillel, Beth Shammai, to mean the
"house," "school," "circle of disciples" of Hillel or Shammai.
A Jew might therefore say that Peter "went forth," for a
time, from his Master's "house," and afterwards "returned" to
it. According to this view, the place of the "going forth'
was, literally, the Highpriest's palace, but in fact the Church
of Christ¹
[2999 (xiii)] According to this view-that "house" meant
"the circle of Christ's disciples "-the "house" would really
be independent of place but (when the narrative of “fishing"
was literalised) might well be supposed to be in Capernaum—
perhaps Peter's house in that town. And here, according to
Matthew, when Peter "came to the house," Jesus "anticipated
him." This, interpreted in accordance with Hebrew traditions,
would mean that when Peter turned in prayer and in con-
¹ [2999 (xii) b] The parall. Mk ix. 33 makes no mention of the Stater
incident, but has (lit.) “And they came to Capernaum, and being (yevó-
μevos) in the house, he [i.e. Jesus] began to question them, About what
reasoned ye on the way? But they were silent, for they had talked on
the way, Who was the greatest?" Mt. xvii. 24—xviii. I has "But when
they came to Capernaum, (lit.) there approached (πрoσĥλov) those that
collected the didrachms...(25) and when Peter had come to the house...
thou shalt find a stater. Give that for me and thee. In that hour there
approached the disciples to Jesus, saying, Who after all (apa) is the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Lk. ix. 46--7 has "But there
entered a reasoning among them, Who of them should be the greatest?
But Jesus, knowing the reasonings of their hearts...." The facts are best
explained by supposing that there was no mention of "Capernaum"
or of a literal "house,” but a statement of this kind, “It came to pass
that when there entered into the (or his) house [that is, Christ's disciples]
a questioning, Jesus knew it...” Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν
tậ eis
διαλογισμὸν ἦν εἰδὼς Ἰησοῦς.... This was taken by Mk as meaning
"when he entered into the house, Jesus knew of their questioning."
Then it came to be thought that "the house" must be at Capernaum, and
probably Peter's house. But if it had been so, and if it had been known
to Luke, the latter--who takes pleasure in adding circumstances of time
and place would hardly have omitted "Capernaum."
A.
273
18
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
trition to Christ, the Master came to meet him, and helped
and comforted him. And at this point a curious verbal
detail confirms the hypothesis of a parallelism between the
story of the Stater and that of Peter's repentance, namely,
that the Syriac word used to render πрo¶¤ávo "anticipate,"
DP, occurs in Isaiah (xxxvii. 33) where Aquila and the
rest have προφθάνω correctly, but LXX ἐπιβάλλω. Νow
èπɩßáλλw is the very word—not yet satisfactorily explained
by any agreement of critics-used by Mark in connexion
with Peter's "weeping," where the parallel Mt.-Lk. omit
èπißaλáv, but have "went forth without." The context of
the parallel Luke says that the Lord "turned and looked on
Peter," and Cramer, on Mark, prints a paraphrase, which
says that Peter wept bitterly, "the Lord having given heed
to him¹." These small verbal points indicate that in the very
earliest traditions there were divergences about the manner
and circumstances in which Peter "went out," and his Master
helped him to return.
[2999 (xiv)] What then was the original tradition ? Few
will expect that in its exact form the first-hand impassioned
and poetic Petrine narrative can ever be reproduced. But
it appears to have referred to the ransom to be paid for the
apostle's denial. Perhaps a vision of the "exactors," to whom
¹ Mk xiv. 72, Mt. xxvi. 75, Lk. xxii. 62. Cramer has éέeλOwv €§w,
φησίν, ἔκλαυσε δεινῶς, προσεσχηκότος αὐτῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
2 [2999 (xiv)a] For “exactors,” see Lk. xii. 58 r@ paktop (Mt. v. 25
тậ vπηрéтŋ). The meaning seems to be a chastisement, or visitation, for
sin, regarded as an angelic (Lk.) "exactor" or (Mt.) "minister." Sir.
XXXV. 15-17 suggests that the prayer of the oppressed widow goes
up to God and brings down "judgment" on the oppressor from "the
Most High." Comp. Aboth iii. 25 "the bailiffs (l'an) go round
continually every day and exact from a man whether he wills or not...and
the judgment is a judgment of truth." In Lk. xii. 58, πрáктopɩ is rendered
by SS, the word rendered by Dr Taylor, in Aboth, "bailiffs." Levy
i. 293 quotes a passage calling God Himself, in some circumstances,
גבאי
274
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
our Lord once refers, had come to Peter asking whether his
Master would indeed pay the tax for the redemption of his
soul. Then the Lord "came to meet" Peter, assuring him
that he was forgiven and that there was no need of any
sacrifice, or payment of ransom or tax, since the Father did
not take taxes from His Son nor from the Son's brethren.
Notwithstanding, that there should be no stumbling-block-
as though the Father forgave and favoured Peter but not
Judas-let him toil for his Master and prove himself a true
“fisher of men." The apostle had felt sore misgivings about
his own soul. He had "lost his drachma.' What was he to
do? The proverb said, "Look into thine own possessions.
and thou shalt find a stater." Christ "came to meet" him
saying, in effect, “No, do not look into thine own possessions.
Toil for others, toil for my converts. Catch the fish. Open
their dumb mouths to the praise and glory of God. Thus
shalt thou find a stater¹."
""
1 [2999 (xiv) 6] The explanation above given of "opening its mouth"
labours under this disadvantage, that it cannot (as far as I know) be
supported by any instance, from the Talmud, of a teacher "opening the
mouth" of a convert. If the original was simply "catch fish and [thus]
shalt thou find a stater," the detail may have been supplied for clearness.
In most stories of finding pearls etc. in fish, the finder discovers the
treasure when cutting open the fish. Instead of this, feeling that something
of the kind was needed, the Greek translator may have inserted “opening
its mouth." SS, D and most Latin versions define "thou shalt find" by
adding “there," "in it," e "into it." Perhaps the original was "Go down to
the sea and catch fish and there shalt thou find a stater"; and "opening its
mouth" was an addition, which has supplanted “there” in Greek MSS.
[2999 (xiv) c] In view of the possible confusion (2999 (xv) b) between
"shekel" and "scandal," it should be added that in New Hebrew
there is another way of expressing "scandal" when it means
means “occasion
for slander." Levy iv. 156—7 quotes several passages where so-and-so
is said to be done "that there may not be given opening of the
mouth to heretics." The phrase is also Biblical, occurring (Gesen. 836 a)
in Ezek. xvi. 63 where it means “opening of the mouth in boasting,” and
Ezek. xxix. 21 where it means "the opening of the mouth" of a prophet to
declare the will of God. In the present instance, if an evangelist
recording this tradition believed the meaning of Christ's alleged words to
275
18-2
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
[2999 (xv)] Assuming the story to have had some such.
an origin, it would be necessary to suppose that Matthew has
literalised it as he has literalised "the ass and the foal of an
ass"-being the only one of the four evangelists to suppose
that the phrase meant two animals. Another instance is per-
haps Peter's walking on the waters, which he alone records
and which may be parallel to the Johannine account of the
penitent Apostle coming to Christ through the waters, where
SS says that Peter "fell in the sea." Why should we be
surprised at such literalising? Many passages in our extant
" Matthew" reveal an acquaintance with Semitic traditions
that is not balanced by a corresponding power to interpret
them. And surely this particular tradition would be difficult
to interpret. If the above-mentioned Jewish proverb was in
vernacular use during the first century ("Toil at your work,
look to your own affairs, so shall you find a stater")—is it
surprising that the author or editor of our present "Matthew"
interpreted the saying, not from the point of view of a Galilæan
peasant, but from that of a Greek familiar with the LXX?
Then he would naturally assume that the “didrachm
or the
stater" (for two versions might well be current) referred to
the "sacred didrachm," called by Aquila a "stater," which
be, not, "lest we should cause them to stumble and fall," but "lest
we should give them an occasion, or, opening of the mouth, [against us]”
he might write "opening of the mouth" in the margin. This might
be erroneously transferred to the text.
[2999 (xiv) d] Taking the other view of the opening of the mouth
(comp. Ezek. xxix. 21 “I will give thee opening of the mouth"), we might
compare 2 Cor. vi. 11 "my mouth is open to you," Eph. vi. 19 “that the
word may be given to me in the opening of my mouth."
In that case,
some slight change would be required, e.g. of avrov to aúrós, thus:
ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα—αὐτὸς εὑρήσεις στατήρα, “ Having opened thy mouth to
preach the gospel] thou thyself shalt find a stater." But the abrupt
transition from the fish to the fisherman-"catch a fish and having
opened the mouth," i.e. thy mouth-would be very harsh. Any one
of the conjectures above mentioned seems preferable to this. The best
seems to be that in 2999 (xiv) b.
276
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
each Jew offered "to redeem his soul," and which was devoted
to the maintenance of the temple. The collectors of this tax
in Capernaum, would (he argued) naturally come to Peter for
it as being the householder, with the question, Did not his
Master pay the tax? Then the Lord might naturally reply,
Why ought He to pay the tax to keep up the temple of God,
being Himself God's Son? Nevertheless, not to create a
stumbling-block, Peter was to go and catch a fish and find the
tax—yes, twice the tax, a coin sufficient to pay for two. Here
seemed to be a miracle worth recording, and as such it has
been recorded by Matthew¹.
[2999 (xvi)] In John's narrative, the question, “Which of
the disciples was first in catching fish?" is answered in such
¹ [2999 (xv) a] A vestige of Matthew's tradition is perhaps to be
found in the well-known story of Peter, where Peter "went out"-but
from Rome-and the Lord "met" him, saying, "I go to be crucified
in Rome," and then "I saw thee fleeing from death and I desire to
be crucified for thee." Peter's martyrdom, as well as his preaching, might
be regarded as "coin of redemption for the soul," and Peter might
be said to have "found" that "stater," and to have paid it for himself and
for his Master, in the strength that his Master gave him, “Fear not, I am
with thee until I bring thee into the house of my Father." Another
version says, "Follow me, for I go to be crucified again in Rome”; and
John xxi. 18-22 mentions the "following" of Christ by Peter in
connexion with the apostle's future crucifixion, as though the following
were on "the way of the cross." It was very natural that the beautiful
words of the Lord, "Pay that for thyself and for me" should be
interpreted by some as referring to a sort of joint crucifixion of Master
and Disciple, united in a common death. See Acta Petr. et Paul.
Lipsius, pp. 170, 215.
[2999 (xv)6] As regards the introduction of the word oкávdaλov,
"offence," into Matthew's story, it is worth noting that Levy Ch. ii. 551 6
gives the same letters pn as meaning the common shekel z.e. the “half
of the holy shekel" (LXX "half of the didrachm,” really "half of
the tetradrachm") and also "trap," "stumbling-block." In Deut. vii. 16,
Jon. Targ. has pn to represent Heb. PD which =σkávdadov in Josh.
xxiii. 12, Judg. ii. 3, 1 S. xviii. 21 etc. This might indicate a play on the
words "shekel" and "scandal" such as one might expect in a very
old tradition of this kind based on a vernacular proverb.
277
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
a way as to shew the pointlessness, or at least the relative
unimportance, of such comparisons. The apostles were
together, he says, in going forth ("We also go with thee").
They were also together in toiling and in catching fish. But
they caught nothing till the Word of the Lord came to help
them. As for what followed, if Peter was "the first" that
came to Jesus, John was "the first" to recognise Him. Peter
would not have come, but for John's exclamation "It is the
Lord." That Peter was in no mood now to claim primacy
over the disciples is indicated by his humble reply to Christ's
question "Lovest thou me more than these?" True, it is
said that Peter "went up and drew the fish to land," when
Christ gave the command to all, "Bring ye of the fish that ye
have by this time caught." But the others must have taken
part in unloading the vessel. Moreover another fish, THE
FISH, was already on the shore, and it was on this-which
might be called THE FIRST FISH-that the disciples
fed; and this, no other, could be said to contain in itself the
redemption of souls, suggested by the "finding of the stater."
For the rest, though there is scarcely a word in common
between the Matthæan and the Johannine narrative, there is
much common thought. In John, Christ "anticipates" the
disciples-though the word is not used-by spontaneously
addressing them when they did not know Him, and by
helping them in their helplessness. Also, besides the precept
to all the disciples, "cast the net on the right side of the ship,"
a special one is given to Peter, later on, which he is to obey in
order to shew his love for his Master, “feed my sheep”—thrice
repeated in various forms. This is better adapted for Western
ears than "catch fish for me" but it has precisely the same
spiritual meaning. The rule was, "Give, and it shall be
given." The disciples could not partake of the one FISH
until they had caught fish. They could not belong to the
flock of the Shepherd unless they themselves shepherded His
sheep.
:
278
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
[2999 (xvii)] Many other points in the Johannine story
would well repay investigation', but space does not allow it.
THE RE-CLOTHING OF PETER
¹ [2999 (xvii) a] On one of these a few remarks will be made because
it may illustrate the variations of Petrine traditions as well as (2837) the
Law of Divergence from obscure metaphor. Among a multitude of
metaphors describing the apostle's Denial and Restoration one may have
been that of "garments" or "linen." This is frequent in O.T.-partly,
perhaps, because of the white "ephod" worn by an ordinary priest
(Gesen. 65)—and also in Revelation, e.g. iii. 18 "Buy of me white
garments...that the shame of thy nakedness be not made manifest,"
xvi. 15
"Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments,” xix. 8
"the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints." Zechariah (iii. 1 foll.)
describes a vision in which he sees a high priest "clothed with filthy
garments" to whom the Lord says "I have caused thine iniquity to pass
from thee" and he is reclothed. Let us examine how far such a parent-
metaphor would explain difficulties in the following passage.
[2999 (xvii) b] Mk xiv. 50 foll. "And they all left him and fled.
And a certain young man was following along with him clothed with a
linen garment on his naked body, and they seize him, but he, leaving his
linen garment behind him, fled naked."
If taken metaphorically, the passage might refer to Peter-unnamed
as also in Mk xiv. 47 “a certain one of them that stood by...smote the
high priest's servant "—relating how even Peter fled with the rest in the
hour of trial and did not "watch and keep his garments."
66 'Naked" is
twice repeated. He had nothing but the linen garment "over his naked-
ness." He left it with his enemies and fled "naked.”
But, if taken literally, the passage appears an intrusive detail, calling
attention away from Christ Himself in order to say that some one of His
companions was a little less timorous than the rest. Moreover no one
has explained the "linen garment," which certainly (as Dr Swete says ad
loc.) "would excite attention," and of which Bengel says that "the wearer
was rich" (an inference approved by Dr Swete), while Epiphanius (Haer.
lxxviii) says that it was a mark of asceticism. Agreeing with Epiphanius,
Hor. Heb. takes about two pages to shew that "this young man, out of
religion, or superstition rather, more than ordinary, had put on his sindon,
and nothing but that, upon his naked body." Of what interest was it for
Christians to be informed in the earliest gospel that in the moment of
Christ's arrest, a rich disciple left a night-shirt, or a superstitious ascetic
left a sindon, in the hands of the arresters?
The veaviokos (says Dr Swete) "has been identified with St John
(Ambr., Chrys., Bede), James the brother of the Lord (Epiph. Haer. lxxviii.),
279
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
a resident in the house where the Lord had eaten the Passover (Thpt.),
the Evangelist himself (many recent commentators)." If the veaviokos
νεανίσκος
was any one of these, there would seem little reason for mentioning the
fact, and none at all for omitting the name. If it was Peter, the name
might be omitted here for reasons similar to those that caused its
omission in Mk xiv. 47.
[2999 (xvii) c] In the passage in which Epiphanius connects James
with Mk's “linen garment” he describes him as one who never trimmed
his hair or bathed and (Haer. lxxviii. 13) "did not put on a second garment
(xitáviov deútepov)…..one who used (lit.) a light mantle of linen absolutely
alone (τριβωνίῳ ἐκέχρητο λινῷ μονωτάτῳ), as it says (φησί) in the Gospel,
The young man fled away and left the linen garment with which he was
clothed (ἔφυγεν ὁ νεανίας καὶ ἀφῆκε τὴν σινδόνα ἣν ἦν περιβεβλημένος).” James
and the two sons of Zebedee, says Epiphanius, shared this ascetic life (oi
τρεῖς οὗτοι ταύτην τὴν πολιτείαν ἐσχήκασιν)—i.e. they literally obeyed the
precept of the Lord (Mk vi. 9 and parall., comp. Lk. iii. 11) “Do not put
on two coats." Epiphanius adds the astounding statement, "Only to this
James was it permitted once in the year to enter into the holy of holies."
Compare the much earlier statement of Hegesippus about James as
one who never trimmed his hair or bathed and (Euseb. ii. 23. 5 foll.) “he
alone (or, by himself) was permitted to enter into the holy places; for
indeed he did not wear wool but linen garments (τούτῳ μόνῳ ἐξῆν εἰς τὰ
ἅγια εἰσιέναι, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐρεοῦν ἐφόρει ἀλλὰ σινδόνας) and he alone (or, by
himself) used to enter into the sanctuary (κ. μόνος εἰσήρχετο εἰς τὸν ναόν).”
But the Greek version of a quotation of this passage by Jerome Catal.
Script. Eccles. ("Jacobus") says, "Now it was his custom to enter into
the holy of holies not using woollen clothing but linen and to him alone
was it lawful to enter into the sanctuary (ἔθος δὲ ἦν αὐτῷ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ.
ἅγια τ. ἁγίων ἐσθῆτι ἐρεῖνῃ μὴ κεχρημένῳ ἀλλὰ λινῇ μόνῳ τε αὐτῷ ἐξῆν εἰς τὸν
vaòv eloiévai).” Comparing the three passages together we see that the
εἰσιέναι).”
manifestly false tradition about James as going into the holy of holies
alone once in the year-like the high priest on the day of atonement
clothed in linen alone-may be explained by (1) a love of the marvellous,
(2) a verbal transposition of a statement that James "wearing linen alone
used to go into the temple."
This is an excellent instance of myth, springing from verbal corruption,
wherein a comparatively late author, Epiphanius, unconsciously gives a
hint towards the correction of an error that he himself repeats. The same
author may perhaps help us to explain Hegesippus' statement (2837 (iii))
that James was killed with " a fuller's club." Epiphanius (lxxviii. 14) is
represented by the Latin of Petavius as mentioning "fullo quidam," but
the Gk is ὑπὸ του (? τοῦ or του) γναφέως τῷ ξύλῳ παισθεὶς τὴν κεφαλήν,
and this might conceivably represent an allusion to the coup de grâce
given (Suidas) by he yvápos or κvápos, which was like a fuller's carding
280
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
instrument, δι᾿ οὗ τοὺς βασανιζομένους κτείνουσιν. Hegesippus gives the
ov
words in an expanded form suggestive of an error based on a misunder-
standing of ỏ yvápos or κvápos (comp. Euseb. ii. 1. 5, quoting Clem. Alex.,
ὑπὸ γναφέως, v.r. τοῦ γναφέως and κναφέως).
[2999 (xvii) d] Comp. Jerome loc. cit. "The Gospel called According
to the Hebrews, lately translated by me into Greek and Latin,...after the
resurrection of the Saviour, says, Dominus autem quum dedisset sindonem
servo sacerdotis ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei." The Gk transl. has, ó
δὲ Κύριος δεδωκώς σινδόνα τῷ δούλῳ τοῦ ἱερέως, ἀπελθὼν πρὸς Ἰάκωβον
voiέev autê (where voiέev is a rendering of "apparuit" as “aperuit"
which the translator perhaps regarded as meaning "opened the eyes," or
"the scriptures," or the door of salvation").
((
[2999 (xvii) e] The difficult phrase "when he had given the linen
garment to the servant of the priest" is omitted (or replaced) in later
versions thus (ed. Nicholson pp. 63—4): Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc.
i. 21) “At last on the third day, returning with triumph from the spoil of
Tartarus, showing Himself to James," (Abdias Hist. Apost. vi. 1)
"Wherefore He chose to appear to him [James] first of all, as also to
Mary of Magdala and Peter," (Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea
lxvii) "The Lord appeared to the same [James] and said to them that
were with him...." The context in Abdias curiously resembles Epiphanius
above (2999 (xvii) c) in making James one of "three" (but not the same
"three "), the other two being Simon the Cananæan and “Judas of James.”
[2999 (xvii)] The priority of Peter in seeing the risen Saviour is
attested by 1 Cor. xv. 5 and by Lk. xxiv. 34 (where, however, the reading
of D (λέγοντες, not λέγοντας) suggests that Simon and Cleopas saw Him
together). An attempt appears to be made by Abdias (“and Peter") and
perhaps by Jacobus ("them that were with him") to save this priority.
Certainly, some mention of Peter here would make good sense.
his name ought to occur, how can we explain its omission? For future
as well as for present use, it will be convenient to set down here some
facts bearing on the insertion or omission of "Simon" or "Peter" in the
gospels.
But, if
[2999 (xvii)g] "Simon" or Peter" is sometimes parallel to, or added
to, "those with him" or "the disciples," or "the multitude,” in such a way
as to suggest that the name might be confused with one of these phrases.
Mk i. 36
Σίμων κ. οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτ
Mt. iv. 23
om.
Lk. iv. 42
οἱ ὄχλοι
Lk. xxiv. 9 (in diff.
context)
τοῦ
Mk xvi. 7
Mt. xxviii. 7
τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ
τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ
κ. τῷ Πέτρῳ
Parall. to Mk-Mt. is Jn xx. 17 Toùs ådeλþoús µov.
τοῖς ἕνδεκα κ. πᾶσιν
τοῖς λοιποῖς.
281
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
((
66
2.
In the account of the Transfiguration, Lk. ix. 32 ὁ δὲ Πέτρος κ. οἱ
σὺν αὐτῷ ἦσαν βεβαρημένοι is peculiar to Lk. They that were with him
are James and John. These are previously described as (Mk ix. 1)
some here (wde) of those standing," parall. Mt. xvi. 28 “standing here
(ὧδε),” Lk. ix. 27 " standing (3) on the spot (αὐτοῦ),” but Mk ix. I (D) has
Comp. Ezra x. 15 “stood up” (marg. "were appointed”)
17121, LXX μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ (leg. "!). Also, for a parallelism between (1) “standing
by,” (2) “with,” and (3) “Peter," compare
" stand with me.
Mk xiv. 47
""
εἷς δέ τις τῶν παρε-
στηκότων
Mt. xxvi. 51
Lk. xxii. 49-50
εἷς τῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ
οἱ περὶ αὐτόν...εἷς
τις ἐξ αὐτῶν
where Jn xviii. 1o has Σίμων οὖν Πέτρος.
In the following, Luke first mentions "Peter" in one of W.H.'s
doubly bracketed passages (where the parallel Jn has "Peter" and the
unnamed "other disciple") and then afterwards refers to the disciple as
((
some of those with us."
Lk. xxiv. 12
[ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἀνα-
στὰς ἔδραμεν...]
Jn xx. 3
ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Πέτ
ρος κ. ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής
Lk. xxiv. 24
κ. ἀπῆλθάν τινες τῶν
σὺν ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον
Above, Mk xvi. 7 contained the command to make announcement rois
μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ κ. τῷ Πέτρῳ, and Jn xx. 17 τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου. But the
Mark Appendices and Jn describe the actual announcement as follows:
[Mk xvi. 10 App. A]
απήγγειλεν (D + α
τοῖς τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ
γενομένοις
[Mk App. B]
τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον
Jn xx. 18
ἀγγέλλουσα
τοῖς
συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν
μαθηταῖς
Here, then, in Mk, "those that had been with him, i.e. with Christ," is
parall. to “those with Peter," and to "the disciples," and points back, in
Mk, to a previous “his disciples and Peter.” It has been shewn (2875)
that wo
those with Peter" might mean "Peter and his friends." On this
point compare the description of Christ's bidding the disciples "handle"
Him, where the circle of disciples is described by Luke as the eleven and
those with them," but by Ignatius differently, as follows:
Lk. xxiv. 33
τοὺς ἕνδεκα κ. τους
σὺν αὐτοῖς
Some combination
explain :
Mk i. 29
“they came into
the house of Simon
and of Andrew with
James and John"
Ign. Smyrn. 3
ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ
Πέτρον ἦλθεν
66
Comp. Jn xx. 26
οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ κ.
Θωμᾶς μετ᾿ αὐτῶν
of “Simon ” with "and those with him may
Mt. viii. 14
“coming (sing.) in-
to the house of Peter"
Lk. iv. 38
"he entered into
the house of Simon."
282
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
In the story of the fig-tree, where Mark (xi. 21) has “Peter,” the parall.
Matthew (xxi. 20) has "the disciples"; and in Mark's immediately
preceding verse (xi. 20) "they passed by," k has "prætereuntes illi qui
cum eo erant."
[2999 (xvii) h] The causes of these interchanges are doubtful. In
Syriac (Thes. 4216-8) the same letters, but for the final letter, might
mean "disciples" (lit. "hearers") or "Simon," and there is the same
similarity in Heb. and Aram. Some interchanges might also arise from
confusions of by meaning "with," and Dy meaning "multitude" or
"people." Again, in New Heb. py, "those with him," might be
confused with 1, "Simon." There might also be a tendency to
attribute to a central figure (like Peter) the sayings of subordinates
clustered round that centre-especially if there were documents called
the Preaching of Peter, or Teaching of Peter, in which "those with
him " sometimes meant Peter's companions and sometimes the dis-
ciples of Christ. Again, it is possible that some divergences might
arise from Galilæan appellations now utterly or nearly lost. For example,
Ephrem on Mt. xvi. 28 tôv &de éotwtwv (Mk ix. 1 âde tŵv kotykótwv)
speaks of the three as "pillars" (alluding to Gal. ii. 9). But the same
word, D7(1)Dy, is used by Delitzsch to render "standing" in Mt. xvi. 28
and “pillars” in Gal. ii. 9. And a "pillar," Dy, is easily confused with
the Heb. "with him," 17DU. "Pillar" (Levy iii. 660) freq. means “great
man" or (C
great teacher." The metaphor may explain the legend of
Samson's casting down the "pillars" of Philistia. Comp. the tradition
(Levy ib.) that “the pillars, i.e. teachers, of Cæsarea wept," with Euseb.
De Mart. Pal. ix. 12 kιóvwv oi...àπéσтačov, where "pillars" are regarded
as literally dropping tears.
[2999 (xvii) i] The important thing to remember is that the name
"Peter" may be latent, in different forms, under many very early
Christian traditions. If the phrase under consideration ("gave the linen
garment to the servant of the priest") could be explained of Christ's
appearing to Peter, then the Gospel according to the Hebrews would fall
into line with the general Christian tradition that Christ appeared first to
that apostle (1 Cor. xv. 5).
"The servant of the priest” seems to refer to Mk xiv. 47, Mt. xxvi. 51,
Lk. xxii. 50 “the (A.V. a except in Lk.) servant of the high priest." Hor.
Heb. on Mt. v. 25 "the officer," explains the article as meaning the
“executioner,” “whipper," “verger," or "scourge-bearer." Without some
explanation, "the servant of the high priest" is perplexing. Jn xviii. 10
says “the servant of the high priest...the servant's name was Malchus."
Now the Talmudic treatise on scourging, or Maccoth (22 b), says that the
Chazan or overseer of the synagogue was also "the scourger," Maccah.
And Levy iii. 136-7 says that Malcouth (from a different root) meant
"scourging." Rodkinson renders Maccoth 22b "Chazan of the synagogue”
283
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
""
by “messenger of the court"—loosely, no doubt, but still instructively for
our purpose. For it shews that either of two glosses, attempting to
explain that "the officer" acted as the high priest's "scourger or
messenger," malacha, might give rise to a statement that "the man was
called Malchus.”
(6
[2999 (xvii)j] It might seem incredible that this "servant, or scourger,
of the (high) priest" could be substituted for "Peter" in a translation by
Jerome of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. But there remains one
small loop-hole through which we may discern a possibility that this
gospel might use about Peter an allusive phrase that Jerome might take as
referring to the servant of the high priest. The loop-hole must be looked
for in Mk xiv. 47 εἷς δέ [τις] τῶν παρεστηκότων and Jn xviii. 22 εἷς παρεστη-
κὼς τῶν ὑπηρετῶν. These two are the only instances in the gospels (or
in N.T.) of eis with TapeσTηKós. In Mk, it is generally, if not universally,
interpreted as meaning "Peter"; in Jn it certainly means "an officer of
the high priest." We have seen above that y in various forms and in
various ways might be connected with "Peter." But it is also very
frequently represented in O.T. by the LXX Tapíσrŋµı (Trommius gives 36
instances) and Delitzsch uses Dy to represent Tapiornμ both in Mk and
in Jn here.
[2999 (xvii) k] According to this view-suggested by the double use of
this phrase, containing eîs and a form of πaρeσтηкws—the Gospel according
to the Hebrews did not speak of "the servant of the priest" but spoke
allusively about "him that stood by [the Lord] and smote." This Jerome
took to mean "the servant" mentioned in Jn xviii. 22, who was in waiting on
the high priest and smote the Lord. But the writer meant (Mk xiv. 47) the
unnamed "bystander" (whom John called "Peter") who stood by the
Lord and smote His enemy. The writer may have called Peter by this
allusive periphrasis because he had in view the metaphor of the "linen
garment," and because Peter, by shedding blood, might be said to have
stained “the linen garment." He needed to have it cleansed and restored
to him by His Master. He could not come into the presence of the risen
Saviour without receiving what Christ had described as "the wedding
garment." Or it might be called the garment of approach, the white
linen ephod (Gesen. 65) with which the priests were girt.
[2999 (xvii) ] Keeping before us this view of "the linen garment,”
we are in a position not only to explain the stress laid by Hegesippus and
Epiphanius upon the "linen" clothing of James but also to point out that
the Hebrew Gospel assumes a similar emphasis, meaning in effect, “After
Jesus had given the white linen of forgiveness and holiness to Peter he
came to do the same thing for James." And now, too, passing to John's
description of Peter's "reclothing," we shall find this metaphorical inter-
pretation confirmed by the fact that he uses-and he alone in N.T.-
the very word employed by Aquila to render "ephod," namely éπevdútŋs.
284
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
[2999 (xvii) m] Jn's unique use of èñevdúτns (xxi. 7) is all the more
remarkable because it does not appear to be a vernacular word in
contemporary Greek, being non-occurrent in the Indices to the Papyri of
the Egypt. Expl. and the Berlin Urk. up to the beginning of this present
year (1907). Wetstein (on Jn) and Steph. Thes. allege it from Greek
tragedy and from Greek scholiasts but not from intervening literature.
Westcott says "the word was adopted in later Hebrew for the 'frock' of
labourers." But he alleges no evidence. Krauss' index does not give it;
nor does Wetstein's long note on its various and disputed meanings. Acts
of Philip in Hellas § 1 τὸ γὰρ ἔνδυμα ὅπερ ἔδωκεν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ὁ Ἰησοῦς
étevdúτns µóvov ỷv kaì λévτiov is perhaps taken from Jn, since Jn, alone of
the gospels, uses these two words for clothing. If Jn had meant merely
the "upper garment" used by Christ's disciples and mentioned by Christ
in His precepts, why should he not have used the regular Synoptic word?
[2999 (xvii) n] A commentary printed by Cramer says rò μèv ovv
διασώσασθαι (leg. διαζώσασθαι) τὴν αἰδῶ ἐπεδείξατο (and simil. Chrys.).
This, if it means that Peter felt "shame" for "nakedness," in the sense
of sinfulness, probably points to the evangelist's meaning. And then a
special force will be perceived in éπevdúτŋs. For Aquila is known to have
used it in I S. xiv. 3 to represent "ephod"-LXX mostly éπwuís, seemingly
a short surplice fastened round the body with a girdle. For the most
part Aquila uses éñévduµa as in Exod. xxv. 7 (and so Sym. and Theod.),
I S. ii. 18 (where LXX, Sym. and Theod. have époúd or épád), 2 S. vi. 14
(where Sym. has vπodúτŋý, but Field fort. ẻπevdúrŋy and so Oxf. Conc.
without comment, LXX σroλýv). 'Eπevdúτηs, therefore, is exactly the
word to represent Peter, after repentance, "girding himself" anew in the
"linen garment" that he may be no longer "naked." Compare the
repeated use of èñevdúσaodai “to clothe oneself additionally" (unique in
N.T.) in 2 Cor. v. 2—4 “longing (lit.) to clothe ourselves additionally with
our habitation from heaven, if so be that having clothed ourselves
(évdvσáµevoi) we shall not be found naked....We desire not to unclothe
ourselves but (lit.) to clothe ourselves additionally." As to the girding,
the first epistle of St Peter says (1 Pet. v. 5) "Yea all of you...gird
yourselves (éykoμßooaode) with humility to serve one another." Having
regard to the unique N.T. use of λévrov in the Washing of the Feet, we
can have little doubt that the Acts of Philip had a metaphorical meaning
in the passage above quoted, "For the clothing that Jesus gave the
apostles was the ephod (érevdúrns) alone [wherewith to approach God]
and the linen napkin [to serve one another]."
[2999 (xvii) o] From this metaphorical interpretation several small
details in the Johannine narrative receive a fresh significance-especially
when compared with narratives of Lk., Mt., and Mk, describing how
Peter, after a miraculous draught of fishes, said, “Depart from me, for I
am a sinful man, O Lord"; and how he tried to walk on the water to
285
[2999] THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST
Indeed, these notes on the words "touching," "drawing near,"
"meeting," "anticipating," etc. have already taken up more space
than might seem fit in such a volume as this. However, they
Jesus but his faith failed him and he began to sink; and lastly, if
Mk xiv. 51-2 refers to Peter, how he fled from his Master and abandoned
his linen garment "naked.”
Taking up these stories, point by point, the Fourth Gospel seems to
say, "Yes, these things were true once, but now all is altered. Instead
of crying 'Depart from me,' the Apostle eagerly hastens towards the
Saviour. Instead of ‘sinking,' he passes safely through the waters and
reaches Him. He was 'naked,' it is true (v yàp yvμvós): but as soon as he
hears, ‘It is the Lord,' he girds himself with his ephod." Every phrase,
almost every word, seems to have its allegorical significance—the “loaf,”
the “coal fire” (nowhere else mentioned in N.T. except (Jn xviii. 18) where
Peter denied his Master (s. 1711 g quoting Ephrem), the FISH (that is,
the Lord Himself) and the command to "bring" Him their "fish" (the
result of their labour for Him, before they could receive from Him the
result of His labour for them). The allegory may possibly extend
even to matters that modern readers would think incapable of being
allegorized, such as the number of fish (according to the well-known
interpretation of Augustine) and the number of cubits of the distance
through which Peter and the rest have to pass in order to reach Jesus.
They are "not far" from Him. It is only "about two hundred cubits."
This number of years (according to Philo on Gen. v. 21—4) represents the
length of the penitence of Enoch, "bis centum [anni] in quibus pœnitentia
exercita fuit."
As to the "girding," it is alluded to by Jesus a little afterwards,
perhaps (2796—7) implying that Peter has now adopted a new service,
His service. When he was a raw youth, Peter girded himself and
"walked" where he himself "willed." But now (xxi. 18) "Another
(2796—7) shall gird thee and carry thee where thou willest not." Also, as
in the parable of the Wedding Garment, and as in the Gospel of the
Hebrews, the clothing with linen is followed by a feast or the gift of the
"loaf" or "bread." The Lord (Ps. xxiii. 5, lxxviii. 19) "prepares a table"
for the disciples. If we may substitute "Peter" in that Gospel, as above
suggested, the passage will then run: And when the Lord had given the
linen garment to Peter he went to James and appeared to him....Bring
ye (adferte), said the Lord, a table and bread." This “bring ye" appears
parallel to the mystical precept in the Fourth Gospel, "Bring ye."
Whether the food first "brought" be "bread" or "fish" the spiritual
meaning is the same. The disciples were to "bring" their offering to
Christ, before Christ fed them with His offering, that is, with Himself.
"C
286
THE SELF-MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST [2999]
deal with subjects of great importance, some of which may not
come directly under consideration in The Fourfold Gospel.
Hence they have been given in outline here, as otherwise
there might be no opportunity of publishing them at all.
The present state of the evidence makes it impossible to
regard the above suggestions as established conclusions; but
some may regard them as at all events more probable than
the literal view; and, in any case, the considerations advanced
may indicate how these apparently definite narratives of
actual events may have arisen-without any dishonesty in
those who have recorded the narratives in their present
shape-out of visions, metaphors, parables, and songs.
""
I add "songs," because we perhaps lay too little stress
on the influence of the earliest Christian hymnology. The
Pauline Epistles (Eph. v. 14) have preserved no more than
three lines of those "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs
which they commended to the Ephesians and Colossians, and
which St Paul himself sang by night in the prison at Philippi.
That the songs vanished may be explained on the supposition
that they seemed to the second generation of Christians, and
especially to plain Gentiles, too "oriental," or "florid," or
"prone to treat history as poetry." Such matter-of-fact
western readers would be in danger of innocently converting
the metaphorical into the literal and poetry into history. As
the poems of Israel influenced the chronicles of Israel, so-it
can hardly be doubted—the poetry of the first generation of
Galilæan and Jewish believers must have left its impress on
subsequent prose narratives of the life of Christ throughout
the Roman empire.
1 A friend suggests that the use of "linen garment" and of other
above-mentioned metaphors is "too transcendental" for the simple folk.
of the earliest Christians. But perhaps my friend ought to have said
too oriental and poetic for our occidental and prosaic minds to accept
with ease—even with the Revelation of John open before us.”
66
287
INDICES
A.
T9
INDICES
I.
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
II.
ENGLISH
III. GREEK
291
298
309
I
INDEX (NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES)
[Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997 (the 2 not being printed).
Ordinary Arabics refer to the sections of 2998-9, the two "Longer
Notes".1]
MATTHEW
MATTHEW
MATTHEW
PAR.
PAR.
PAR.
1 8
882
10 24
32 e
17 2
28w-x
16
881
26
55 m
18
40
28
819
17
18-25 880
4I
886
20
21
881
282 736
34
I
9
15
883
18
24-5 881
2 1 foll. 176 foll.
22
24
5 I
17e, i
883
942* (xxiv) b
937 f
20 a
20 a
26*
887
11
12 7
IO 961 (i) d
2 51 5
2-3
841, 888
995
22
I I
25
880
842, 23 a
7
2 b*, 6b-c
913
851-6, 942 *
(xxiv) b
857, 23 d
24-7 foll.
7* foll.,
126*
25-7
50c-e
27
86*
27
27f, 396
18 3-4 885
28-30 844-9
29
842-9, 963-4
840
10
824* (i) g, 156
I I
861
12
864 foll.
17
887
18
887, 979
20
887
19
+8
4
984 c, 47
984 c
18
54f
136
28
6e*
888
13 9
296
888
13 foll. 913
25
14 a*, 17 ¿*
31
852
4I
44-5 816
6 1-6
8 14
45
55/
17º*
13*, 6c
887 a
33
55 k
55
879
14 12
15
17
964
21
872
15 II
9 6
44 a
24
13
837 c, 840
16 17
39 b, 44
25
10 6
568
16*
19
887
861 foll.
24
841
995
27
850, 24, 44
10
16
888
32 e
28 25 a-b,
44,
178-h*
942* (xxii) b
26 824* (i) b, 6 a*
29-30 979
32-4
8 a* foll.
841
860-71
1 Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997,
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
291
10-12 888, 974
20
834 a
26
858
28
220
21
20 23
86
935
28
829, 964, 996
I foll. 848
9
15
16
24f
874c, 24ƒ
840, 23 a, 24ƒ
18-21 873
20 875, 17g*
21
851
22 I foll. 45
[4
914
ordinary Arabics to the
For example, 872-2872,
19-2
INDEX
MARK
MATTHEW
PAR.
PAR.
22 30
56 d
1 34
839
11 20
44
22 b-c, 23 b, e
36
17*
21
MARK
PAR.
17**
875, 17**
23 35
24 6
51 b, 54f
266
38
839 C
22-3
851 foll.
2 10
839
24
857, 873
8
874 d
17
837 c, 840, 54 2
25
15-16 874 e-f,
and
27
840
12 25
840, 857, 873
56 d
Pref. p. xii.
foll.
3
I
961 (i) d
36
22 b-c, 23b
10-11 26*
13 7
16
942* (xiii) e
21
984 C
I I
17
2 a
*
969 foll.
14
784
26b
874 d
28
942* (xxii) b
21
883
29
16 a
4 12
913
30
26s, 31 a
22
55 m
837 (iii) d, 874
e-f,
(xiii) e, and
Pref. p. xii
942*
32 874
26-9
551
foll.
25
I-II 942* (xv) c
28
876
19
984 c
31-46 850
5 35
859
26
31 a
26 26 891
63
879
28
874
26-8 828
8
888
14 22-4
828, 891
30
897-903
9
17 c
26
897-903
39
66*
I2
840
27
869
51
934, 17g-i*
29
942* (xxii) b
35
66*
54
266
34
866, 869
6I
985
49
824* (i) b, 6 a*
64
23b, 31 α, 32 a
51
8 a* foll.
*
71
12 a
7 7
857
*
75
12
, 13*
15
841
62
27 45
910
27 foll. 859
345
8888
36
858
58
68
46
910, 917 foll.
8 34
841
47
50-2
17b-k*
17 b* foll.
985
23 b, 31 a, 32 a
*
12 a
*
72
13
49
987
38
850
15 22
930 foll.
50
910, 917 foll.
9 I
25 a-b,
44,
34
910, 917 foll.
53
909
17g-h*
37
910, 917 foll.
28
2579
909, 5 b*
909
78
850
43
942* (xxii) b
26*
16
3
908-9
178
19
913
4
56*
9
889, 979, 1 b*,
23
858
*
3,4
29
851 foll.
78
17*
878
16
3 a-b*
31
857
9
878
17-18 6c*
18
20
33
126*
IO
17 g*
23d, 6 b*
887
MARK
1 3
347 H
839 b foll.
839 c
839 C
850
II
14
839 C
20
834 a
21
857
27
858
35 foll. 857
36 885-6
49-50 858
50
10 6
857
984 C, 47
13-14 859
15-16 857, 885-6
1 1-2
LUKE
980-4
13-14 881 a
16 936 a
26-35 880
2 8foll. 13, 17ƒfoll.
39
935 foll., 28 a
9
17 i, 5 a*
15 839 a-d, 857
45
829, 857, 964,
13
22
839
996
14
16, 5a*
248
29
17 g*
11 12-14 873
38
5 a*
31
1 b*, 6 b-c*
13
874 a, 878
40
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800–[2]997,
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
840* g
ordinary Arabics to the
For example, 872=2872,
292
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
LUKE
LUKE
LUKE
PAR.
PAR.
PAR.
241
48
961 (i) a
883
12
4
819
24 24
17º*
58
14 a*
32
908
52
840*
13 6-9
874
33
170*
3 7
937 f
21
55 k
34
II
17 c*
17ƒ*
14
23
882, 994
15
36
20 C
15
154
I-2
961 (i) c-d
36
897-907
56c
37
824* (i) b
861 foll.
4 3
39-40 824* (i)
20 a
4-10 9*
44-9 903
9
20 a
17 6
851-6, 873
18
22
38
839 a
840*
21
996
g, 879
18 17
885
178
21
834 a
JOHN
38-9
ib
35
6 a*
39
5 a*, 6c*
19 10
865
1 I-2
5 32
+43
4 I
839
II
σα
6 a*
3
*
42
17g*
29, 37 6 a*
13
980
27f
39-42
837, 840
38
24f-g
14
6 6
942* (xii) a,
961 (i) d
41
6 a*
17
887
20
I
5 a*
19
26*
36
56d
14-17
24 e,
44
840* g
28ƒ,
20-I
888
42
236
18
32d
7 12
6 a*
43
226-c
29
32d
13
6 d*
21
9
266
33
55 i
14
6b-c*
20
837 (i), (iii) a,
39
977
19
841, 888
874e-g, and
4I
21 a
22
995
Pref. p. xii.
45
979
8 10
913
foll.
49
20 a foll.
17
55 m
21
874 e-g, 942*
50
206
9 3
888
(xiii) e
2 19-21 942* (xii) a,
23
841
27
31 a
985
27
25 a-b,
44,
29
874
20
962
170*
30
874
22
875
32
170*
34
5 a*
3 3
36
41
44
26*
22 17-20 828
913
23 d
25
829
13
27
829, 963-4, 996
16
300 36
978
8
26d, 55j
48
870, 23 e
45
46-7
908
126*
30
86
29
806
32
923, 936 a
4 7
968
47
885
44
986
18
961 (i)
55
942* (xvii)
49
875
24
279
59
872
49-50 178*, 17 ¿*
25
21 a
10
I
888
58
*
12 a
35
961 a
3∞
32 e
62
12*, 13*
5 I
961 foll.
8
887
69
236, 32 a
2
800 a,
959-62
19
23 a
20
21
22
942* (viii) g,
156
23a, 50 c-e
23 31
875
5
961 (i)
45-6 910, 917 foll.
19
806, 858
53
24
23 d,
39 b,
346
908
27
28s, 45 b
5 a-b*
30
858
*
4
6 12
870
50 c-e
9
178
19
6 a*
40
5 a
I l
890
11 20
50
6 e*
516
*
12
15
178
6 a*
21
39
8 a* foll.
870
64
984 c
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997,
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
ordinary Arabics to the
For example, 872=2872,
293
INDEX
JOHN
JOHN
PAR.
PAR.
7 24
28 ພ
16 22
874 d,
881 a,
1 13
37
968
942* (xii) b
8 17
26 k
24
806
1 2
15
ACTS
PAR.
8ƒ*
942** (viii) g
24
888
18
26 k
25
875
2 2
970
44
984 c
32
923
35
22 C
57
989-90
17 3
9 35
48
10 I
985
II
37H
985
41
942* (viii) g
803
3
547
I-18 871
12
870
ΙΟ
870
13
806
II-12 985
21
28 i
4 13
1 3863
K2K
8f*
13-15 54f
54f
18
26
54f
879
28
870
24
806
27
36
20 a-b, 45 b
25
547
11 33
985
18 9
870
30
36
54f
54f
860
35
806, 985
ΤΟ
178-j*
529
958
39
909
II
875
752
54f
44
28 w
18
170*
55-6
25
48-52 962 a
22
17 j-k*
56
32 α, 44 a
12 16
875
32
23-4 856, 55 m
19 5
27
985
28
28
26c
31
26 p
33
927
34
850, 21, 33, 49
20 3
40
24 d
43
24 d
I ∞ow eveu cu Boer w
927
9
7
890
43 c
10
9
806
30
923 ď, 967
35
925, 987
13
4I
37
26 s
11
2
170*
977
17
13 5
963-4
805a, 979, 1 b*,
170*
12
74
21
985
18
17g*
13 5
8ƒ*
9-16 841
887
895 foll.
8 f*
5-10 841
7
887
I-2
937 b-c
13-15 156
983-4
23
32
23
887
15 10
843
33
805 α, 978
26
892 b, 178
*
16 25
898
34
858, 924
21 2
14
2
942* (xiii) e
9
984 b
18
805, 978
2357
7*,
925, 978
8*
19
20
28 i
IO
23
899, 27ƒ
II
26
875
13
13
30
26p
15
978, 326
15 3
985
17 978
4
978
18
930 foll., 17 0*
978
934, 977, 17 m*
8 d*
7*,
8*
895 foll.
17 23 foll. 996
18 25 foll. 942* (xxii) ď
3 942* (xxii) d
20 27
22 14
20
23 10
26 14
16
984 a
26j
937 d
826 a, 983-4
3 a*
54f
984 d
28 23
5
978
18-19 936 foll.
877
18-23 962 b, 15 a*
II
806
19
926 foll.
12
858
20
925, 936 foll.
ROMANS
26
26 c
23
941
27
984 C
24
925, 941 foll.
I
1 r foll. 823
16
4
984 C
3
260
17
21
874 d,
942*
1 3
a-b
4
881 a,
(xii) b
942*
881 a,
(xii)
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997,
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
3-4 35
16
825
ACT'S
16-18 942*
892 a foll., 904
892-5
17
54 e
20
286
ordinary Arabics to the
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
294
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
PAR.
2 16
825
ROMANS
PAR.
I CORINTHIANS
7 1-40 888
GALATIANS
PAR.
1 15
19-20 49
35
811
16
4 3
825
9 20
829
2
9
825
22
829
13
839
10
I
30
56 1
26
984 d
823
826
984 d
803
24-5
820
17
895
9
941, 17 h*
5 7
54j
27
887
20
841
14
814
31
811
36
825
6 6
841
11 22
811
II
54e
7 7
815
23-4
827-8
4
4
880, 23 C
18
.815
13 12
826
13
824
22
8 13
223 m
23
28
32
wer & OW W
557
306
14 20
887, 978, 24 e,
19
805 a, 978
50 a
24
828
814
826
35
918
814
9 3 823, 942* (xviii)
27-9 820
34 W
15 3-8 892 b
25
826
823
5 I
843
5
17 ƒ*, 17 ¿*
12
823
27
22 α, 24 c
13
23e
27-8 839
6 I
840
35-45 824*
2
840, 924
54
820
14
33
908
10 6
908-9
20
820
2 CORINTHIANS
11 2
826
36
8
828
841
EPHESIANS
1 19-22 22 a
913
26
942* (xviii)
14
828, 908
2 I
32-3 942* (xviii)
17
824* (i)
22
277
839
2
12 I
828, 116*
4 7
883
26
43
ΙΟ
26 i
3 16
551
14
909
13
4
942* (xviii) a
16
4 I
811
55
18
9
815
436
6 10 814
15 12
5 I
820
436
14
281
I-2
824*
19
14 d*
13
814
19
824
2-4
17 22*
14
814
PHILIPPIANS
15
841
1 17
823
I CORINTHIANS
17
823
23
826
1 17
21
924
825
17 foll. 814
6 3 foll. 811
25
2 6-9
997 a
23 d
II
25
883
14 d*
7
923 b, 23 c
2 3
16
824
28 f
II
26 e
4
814
17
28 h
3
2
860
7 foll. 55 i
18
272
5 foll. 823
11
2
ΙΟ
814
942* (xv) ƒ
20-I
22 a
3
2
50 a
28-9 824
2I
12
16-17 811
2-3 953
4 3
839, 858
942* (viii) g
LO CO
5
6
425–
4 I
887
15 823
2-3 86
28 k
983, 984 e
5
824
13
814
9-13 811
9
824
ΙΟ
824
COLOSSIANS
1 II
814
GALATIANS
28
11 6*
19
811
7 1
888
1 10
II foll. 826
13-14 823
803
2 5
884
4 14
15-16 28e
879
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
For example, 872=2872,
295
INDEX
I THESSALONIANS
PAR.
2 18
824
4 15
826
2 THESSALONIANS
1 8
ΙΓ
942* (xviii) a
811
1 13
II 6*
19
11 6*
24-5
839 b-c
2 2
50 α, 11 b*
1 15
6 15
I TIMOTHY
823
4
II 6*
4-6 908
12
116*
27h
3 4
19
557
II b*
942* (i) k
2 TIMOTHY
2
4
4 7
811
824, 826
I 2
948
18
54 e
5 I
954, 26j, 28 a
5
17 22*
PHILEMON
9
955
2 PETER"
2 5
942* (i) ƒ, k
13
1 3
HEBREWS
278,456
22 C
7-8
54e
3 4
984 c
2 6
I JOHN
24
6-9 24
2 I
978, 54ƒ
JAMES
PAR.
5 1-6 51
6
516
54f
I PETER
20-I
4 10-11 11 a*
REVELATION
1 12
13
3 +36
14
15
16
17
1 2
20
1678 0 ~ ~
4678
PAR.
942* (xxii) a,
26 c-d
26 a
7e, 27 h, 29 c
26 a
28 12
27 a-e, n
28e
28 c, f, g, i, p
942* (iii) b
296
27a-b
26 n
28t
942* (iii) c, 26
i-j, n
942* (iii) b
28t
942* (xv) a
26 a, 28 p
942* (iii) b,
27e
(xv)ƒ
942* (iii) b
26-7 942* (xvii)
942* (xiv)
942* (iii) b,
(viii) i
942* (viii) a,
26 i, n
2 I
ΙΟ
12
13
14
16
17
18
20
23
24
27
3 I
4
14
8
839
7
984 c
17
942* (v) b, 28 h
12
898
I 2
978
18
28 h, 17 a*
13
14
3 w
978
14
978
978
18
962 a
19
20
28 h
899
4 11-12 28 t
*
21
19
12 a
5
14
942* (xii) b
3 12
54f
4 1
8 b, 28 i
26 b-c
7 23
997 a
8
4-5
28 d
9 23-4
28 d
JUDE
25
961 (i) a
9
270
10 I
961 (i) a, 980-1
14
31 a
3
961 (i) a
26
II
11-12 32 a
13 22 C
38
54 e
11 I
980
REVELATION
1 I
279
1 3
4
54f
23
978
37
937 d
12 23
13
15
11 a*
942* (viii) g
4 942* (xv) b
1-2
26
4
4-7
27f
26
29, 31 C
78
9
26p, 27
944
9-16 28
IO
942* (iii) b
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997,
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
33a
28 e
28 i
942* (xiii) d
942* (i) j
942* (i) h, 31a,
2-7
2
32
32
26 c
2 foll. 279
56
26 f
942* (i) j, 26ƒ,
28 e, i, p
6-14 33 a
7
8 c
11-13 942* (i) j
6 2
28 d, 29c
ordinary Arabics to the
For example, 872-2872,
5 I
456 7∞ I
4-7
8
296
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES
PAR.
942* (v) a, 28 i
12
26 i
942*
(iii) c,
REVELATION
6 6
9
10
REVELATION
PAR.
1-17 942* (xi)-(xv)
3 +
942* (i) c, i, (xv)
REVELATION
PAR.
17 14
26n, 27 h
16
942* (xv)ƒ
4
942* (xiii) b,
18 5-9
942* (xv)ƒ
(xviii)a, 516
55 h
9
948
I I
16
942* (iii) c
5
942* (xii) b,
18
948
28 w
(xiv)
19 5-9
26 c
7
2
942* (i) h
6
942* (xiii) e
8
17 a*
2 foll. 26 c, 28 n
7
248, 27 P, 33 a
ΙΟ
26 e, i, 27 n
2-8 942* (i) c
9
942* (xiii) b
I I
26n, 28 d, 29c
4
942* (iv) c
II
26 i
12
28p
15
28f-g, j
12
28g
13-15 28 t
17
28 j
14
942* (xiii) d-e
15
8
3-4
156
1.7
26 i
20
9 I
16
13
3-11 942* (vi) a
10
I
4
8
26 c
9
I I
11
2
3
4
78
12 942* (viii)
14 516
15-18 942* (viii)
277, 28 w, 31
975, 29'a
26c
942 foll.
1-13 942* (ii) a, (x),
(xix)-(xxii)
942* (iv) c, (vii)
foll.
26 i
942* (iv) b,
(xxii) a
26 i
942* (i) c,
136∞
I
945
21
3-4
942* (i) j
28f-g
20
4
IO
8
942* (iii) d
II
II
942* (xx) a
14
16
942* (i) h
21
18
942* (i) k-m
3
14
23478
28r
942* (xiv), 28 t
942* (xx) a
281
8 a, 26 i
942* (xx)α, 33α
28w, 29c
942* (xviii)
i foll. 942* (xx) c–d
942* (xii) a,
28f, g
942* (xv) c
5-6
27a, e-f
942* (xv) b-f
9
26 b, c
2722
10
942* (ii) b
942* (xv) ƒ
12
942* (xv) b
13
29 a-b
14
942* (xv) b
13-15 29 foll.
22
26f, 27 h
942* (iv) b-c,
14
26 a
23
26ƒ, 28 e
15
1-3 942* (xv)
22
I
281, 32
5.6
28 f
2
28 i
16 12
281
51 b
34
32
28 w
(ii)
13
942* (xx) a
5
28x
a-c, (iii) b,
(xxii) b
15
17 a*
6
26b, e, 27 h
19
9
942* (xxii) b
17 I
26 c
11-12 30 a
1-4
13
942* (vii) foll.,
1-15 28 7
(esp. (viii)
3
c-¿), (xiii)ƒ
14
942* (viii)
19
MIO 7
5
6
12 I
II
942* (xii) a,
(xiv)
942* (xv)
9–11 942* (i) d foll., ¿
942* (i) j-l
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997,
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16* =2999 (xvi).
6-16 26 e
26 e, 27 n
54f
27a-f
860, 942* (xviii)
16 26g, 27 e
16-17 296
18 942* (xix) a
18-19 942* (xix)
26 h
20
ordinary Arabics to the
For example, 872=2872,
942* (ii) ↳
8
942* (xv)ƒ
11
13
942* (i) i, (iv) b
15
942* (iv) b
26 i, j
942* (i) i
297
II
INDEX (ENGLISH)
[Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997 (the 2 not being printed).
Ordinary Arabics refer to the sections of 2998-9, the two "Longer
Notes "1.]
Abbahu 18-19
Abel 54f
Abomination 942* (i) m; of desolation,
the 837 (iii), 874 e; s. also Pref.
p. xvi foll.
"Above" and "below," mystically in-
terpreted 7 d-e
Abraham 839, 963, 28v, 54 h, 56d;
and Adam 37; superior to Noah 37 d;
A., Isaac, and Jacob, the three feet
of God's throne 14
Acts, the Son of Man in 24-5
Acts of John, the 902, 988
Adam, meaning "man
" in Heb. but
not in Aram. 2, comp. 20c; son of
A. 20, 236; A. and Abraham 37
Adjuration to scribes 942* (xix) a
Ailam 28j
Akiba 842, 31 b
Almighty 27 f-m
"Alone," transposition of, error caused
by 17 c* foll.
Alpha and Omega 27 a foll.
Alphabet, Gk 942* (i) /
Am, "I AM," applied to God 27 e
"Ambassador" and "elder" 954-5
American revisers 840* ƒ
Ananus the high-priest 942* (ii) d
Ancient of Days, the 28 0
"Angel" interch. w. "voice" 26 c-d;
of great counsel 277, q; meant by
"watcher" 17 h; the recording 942*,
28n; "angel of God," substit. for
"God" 3h*; "his angel
"his angel" (Rev.
i. 1) 26 c-g; s. also "Angels"
""
Angelology, influence of 15ƒ
Angels 942*, 26 c foll.; ascension of
909; ascending and descending 13;
opposing Moses II foll.; guardian
15 6 foll.; interch. w. sons of God"
16; at the right hand of God 31a;
associated with stars 28 e, comp.
16 foll.; song of the 24g; myriads
of 31 a; not to be worshipped 27n;
"three a." (Gen. xviii. 2, Targ.) 5 6*
"a little lower than the a. 24,
42 foll.; "their a." (Mt. xviii. 2)
called by Ephrem "orationes"
156
thomorphic metaphors 45
Anthropos 34
Anticipate" 4*-5*; Mt.'s unique use
of 7* foll.
Antiochus Epiphanes 942* (i) e, (xiii)
Antipas, Herod 942* (xxii)
Antipas, the martyr 942* (iii) c
Antithesis, the principle of 942* (i) g foll.
Anytus, Socrates on 808
Aperuit" and "apparuit” 17 d *
Apocalypse, s. "Revelation
Apollos 942* (xxii) d
66
""
Apparuit" and "aperuit" 17 d*
Appear" and "meet" 3"
Appoint" and "shew" 888; "were
appointed" and "stood up" 17 g*
Aramaic 20, 236; how it expresses
"man 2
""
Ark of the Covenant, the 942* (xiv)
Army," parall. to wing" 837 (i);
s. also Pref. p. xvi foll.
Arrian 800-1, 813
1 Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
298
ENGLISH
Artemidorus, on "carrying" and "being
carried" 931; on "dragon and
'serpent" 942* (xiii) b; s. also 929
Article, the, in Revelation 942* (xix)–
(xx); s. also ò in Gk Index, and 984
Ascension, to heaven 18; of angels 909;
and resurrection of Christ, events be-
tween 892-907
Ass and colt 846-8; "Ass's Jawbone"
873
"Assembled with " 892-5
17 a
Astrologers, called "Chaldæans"
Ath (Heb.), meanings of 27 c
Atonement, the Day of 961 a
Authority and goodness, Philo on 28 u
"Babes and sucklings" 23, 24ƒ, 49
Babylon 942* (ii) b−c, (xy) e-f
Balaam's song 3, 4
Baptism, (metaph.) 935; (lit.) 27 w;
a place of 961; of spirit or of fire 30
Baptist, the, s. "John the Baptist
Barnabas, on the Son of Man 36;
s. also 843, 890, 914, 942* (i) a, (iv) c,
994, 280
Beast, the 942* (xx) a; the number of
942* (i) / foll.
"Beasts," in Heb., identical with "living
creatures" 33 a, 47; "the b. of the
field" 840, 43 d
66
'Beginning, from the " 984 c
Bellerophon 37 c
"Below" and "above," mystically in-
terpreted 7 d-e
Beryl, in Ezek. and Dan. 28 m
Bethesda, the pool of 959 foll.
Between 28j; in Heb., ambig. 28 i;
"b. [the two sides of]" 28 k; "judge
b. his brother" 28 k
Bildad 10
Blood, Christ's, Justin on 39 c
Blotting out 942* (viii) h
Boanerges, the name 969-77, comp.
942* (ii)
"Bodiless," ambig. 824* (i); s. also 56 d
Body, resurrection of the 56 a; Enoch's,
melts away 55b; a spiritual body"
824* foll.
""
Bones, a spirit hath not " 824* (i) d
Book, of Life, the 942* (viii) g; the
sealed b. 32
Bosom of the Father, the 32
""
"Bow" and "truth 837 (ii)
66 Branches" and “
and "daughters" 837 (ii)
Bride, the 942* (xv) c−ƒ
Brutus, Marcus, in Shakespeare 830 foll.
*
"Call" and "meet" 3g*, 4*
Candlestick, in the Temple, the 286
foll.; placed by Vespasian in the
Temple of Peace 28 e
Candlesticks, the seven 28 c foll.;
"seven" and "two
and "two" 942* (xxii) a
Capernaum, 12*, 13*; "village of
consolation
""
76*
Carrying" and "being carried,"
Artemidorus on 931
Catherine of Siena 966, 996
Cause, “Beware of single causes ” 1*, s.
also Pref. p. xi
Celibacy, ascetic 942* (xv) b
Chaldæans, i.e. astrologers 17 a
"Charioteer, the," Origen on 31
Cherubim, the 28 u
Child," an error for "servant" 54ƒ;
receiving as a little c. 885-6; little
children 978
Christ, birth of 880-2; preexistence of
37 c; blood of, Justin on 39c; titles
of 44 a
Christians, the, mentioned by M. An-
toninus 813, by Tacitus 807
Chrysostom 823, 849, 895, 917, 936 a,
980, 990, 995, 20 a-b
Churches, the Seven 942* (iii)
City, the great 942* (i) c, (ii) a foll.
Clemens Alexandrinus, on the yoke 843;
on the ass and colt 847; on the Son
of Man 42 foll. ; s. also 824* (i) g, 837
(iii), 854, 865, 918, 937 ƒ, 942* (i) ễ, (xv)d,
985, 996, 27ƒ, u, 55 k, 7 a*, 10*, 17 c
Clemens Romanus 845, 26j, 55j
Clement, Recognitions of 837 (iii) c
Cloud, a white 29; were baptized in
the 30; the pillar of 30, 31; Rashi
on the pillar of 4 c
"Clouds" and "cloud" 30 b−31c;
Origen on 31a; of heaven, the 29;
"with the clouds" 31 c
Coal fire, the 17 0*
Colt and ass 846-8
"Comfort with food" 9 a
Compilation 942* (xix)
Confessors or martyrs 939 a
Conflation 837 (ii), 17j, 3 e*
"Convivo" and "convivor" 897
Creatures, s. "Living creatures
Cross, the 926 foll.; stretch out hands
cross,
""
on 926 foll.; tree i.e. "
Ephrem on 933, comp. 942* (ii) b ;
cross and yoke 842-9
Crucifixion, not a Jewish punishment
927; of Peter 926 foll.
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16* =2999 (xvi).
For example, 872=2872,
299
INDEX
55 h
Cry (n.) "three mysteries of the c." 55
Cry (vb.) i.e. “proclaim the gospel" 8396
Cup, metaph. 935
Daniel, the Aramaic portion of 8; ben
adam in 8; influence of, on Revela-
tion 942* (i) e, (xviii), 26–33 passim
"Daughters" or "branches
837 (ii)
David, son of 23 h, 36
"Dawn" (vb.) applied to God 27t
Dead, first-born of the 26 0; "the dead
are raised" 995
Delocalisation 28 i
Delos 942* (xi), (xiii) b
Denarius, a day's wage 942* (v) a
'Depart," ambig. 938-9
Desolation, the abomination of 837 (iii),
874 e, comp. 942* (i) m
Didaché, the, i.e. The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles 895, 26 s, 27 w
Didrachm 76* foll., 9 a*, 10*
Digamma 942* (i) 7
""
Diogenes, in Epict. 814; Jerome on 824
Disciples, "those with him &c.,
parallels to 17g-h*
"Distrahitur," not "beheaded
Divergence,
937 d
caused by obscurity
caused by metaph.
837 foll. ;
17 a* foll.; s. also Pref. p. xiv foll.
Divider, God as 28 v; the Logos as
28 น
Docetics, the 35
Domitian 942* (i) a, b, e, m, 27 k,
28 a;
"a bald Nero" 942* (i) foll.;
hibits new vineyards 942* (v) a;
pro-
on a
white horse 28 d
Door, metaph. 985
Drachma, finding a 9*
""
Dragon, the 942* (xii) c foll., (xx) a
"Draw near and "touch 1*-2* ;
go to meet," and
"draw near,
*
"go before 4 -5
Dropsical 961 (i) c
Eagle, the great 942* (xiii)
Earthquakes 942* (v) b, 946
Eating, attributed to Christ after the
Resurrection 896-907; metaph. 56 c
Ebion and the Ebionites 867, 40, 41
Eclipse, an, Origen on 910
Egypt, "the iron furnace " 950
Eight hundred and eighty-eight 942* (i) k
foll.
"Eighth," only twice applied to persons
in N.T. 942* (i) ƒ ;
person " 942* (i) ƒ, k
Noah the e.
Elchasai 942* (xxiv) a, b
"
Elder, the," meaning of 915, 954–5;
elders," mentioned by Irenæus 958;
'twenty-four e.” 942* (xv) b, 33 a
Elect, the 51
66
Elect one,
the 51 foll.
Eliezer, the name 994
Elihu 10
Emmanuel 40
End," parall. to "fig-time" 874 a-b
Enoch, the Patriarch 54 c; called the
Son of Man 55
Enoch, the Book of 51 a foll.; a com-
pilation 942* (xix); compared w.
Revelation of John 942* (xix); quoted
as Scripture 914; earlier part of 56
Enoch, the Similitudes of 19, 51; date
of 51 a foll.; on the throne of judg-
ment 8c; doctrine of "hiding
55 d foll.
in
Ephod, the 17 a—n
Ephrem, on the "tree" i.e. "cross"
933; s. also 15 b, 248, 7 e*, 8*, 17 h*,
170*
Epictetus, alleged lameness of 801;
agreements of, with John 805-6;
anecdote about 912; on the Galilæans
813; on repentance 815; on profit 816
Epictetus, Dissertations of :-
Bk. 1. i. 7 (802), i. 10 (802), ii. 12
(802), ii. 19 foll. (801), ii. 21 (818),
ii. 29 (801), iv. 11 (814), iv. 24–7
(913), ix. 10-12 (954), ix. 15 (801),
ix. 29 (810), ix. 30-2 (814), x. 2
(86*), xii. 3 (822), xii. 16 (804),
xii. 24 (801-2), xiv. 7-10 (822),
xiv. 12 (804), xiv. 15-17 (807),
xvi. 1 foll. (822), xvii. 1-4 (822),
xviii. 19 (913), xix. 6 (807, 824,
840), xix. 8-9 (801), xix. 11 (816),
xix. 12-15 (807), xxii. 1 (807),
xxiv. I foll. (825), xxiv. 6 (823,
840), xxiv. 15 foll. (913), xxv. 1 foll.
(825), xxvii. 4-6 (813), xxix. 1 foll.
(812), xxix. 3–4 (817), xxix. 4 (815),
xxix. 9 foll. (801), xxix. 18 (808),
xxix. 46 (811), xxix. 50 foll. (801),
xxx. 1 foll. (812), xxx. 6–7 (801)
Bk. 11. ii. 1 foll. (913), ii. 15 (808),
ii. 22 (879), v. 15 foll. (828), v. 15–
20 (913), vi. 10-13 (825), vi. 26
(840), vi. 27 (818), vii. 10-12 (814),
viii. 2 (819), viii. 10 foll. (804),
viii. 12 foll. (807, 811), viii. 18-20
(807), viii. 21 foll. (827), viii. 28
(818), ix. 1 foll. (801), ix. 3 (801,
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
300
ENGLISH
997), ix. 19 foll. (812), x. I (997),
xi. 1 (985), xii. 20-1 (819), xiii. 10
(913), xiii. 14 (801), xiii. 21–7 (801),
xiv. II foll. (802), xiv. 15 (879),
xv. 6 (939), xvi. 1 (812), xvi. 27 foll.
(817), xvi. 33 (807), xvii. 19 foll.
(827), xvii. 26 (827), xvii. 38 (818),
xviii. 29 (814), xix. 20 foll. (827),
xix. 23-4 (8116), xix. 26 (807),
xix. 32-4 (827), xx. 7 (827), xx. 22
(815), xx. 32 (807, 992), xxii. 15
(807, 816), xxiii. 13 (827), xxvi.
i foll. (817)
Bk. III. i. 16 (913), i. 19 (913), i. 36
(818), iii. 2-4 (819), iii. 5 (913),
iii. 6 (807), iii. 7 (913), vii. 4 (819),
vii. 33-4 (825), vii. 34 (840), x. 13
(824), xii. 6 (813), xiii. 1 foll. (819),
xiii. 4 (807), xiii.
(807), xiii. 13-15 (819),
xiii. 23 (811), xv. 14 (822), xvi. 13
(813), xvii. 1 foll. (822), xxi. 11–12
(814), xxii. 5-8 (804), xxii. 21 (818),
xxii. 23 (823), xxii. 30 foll. (801,
812), xxii. 35 (985), xxii. 45 foll.
(801), xxii. 49 (884), xxii. 54 (811,
884), xxii. 56 (814), xxii. 58 (824),
xxii. 69 (811), xxii. 72 (801, 820,
840), xxii. 73 (840), xxii. 78 (978),
xxiii. 21 (808), xxiii. 30 (812),
xxiv. 8 (818), xxiv. 14-20 (805-6),
xxiv. 18 (913), xxiv. 18-20 (985),
xxiv. 19 (804, 913), xxiv. 48 (801),
xxiv. 64 foll. (814), xxiv. 64–8 (913),
xxiv. 86 (557), xxiv. 91 (557),
xxiv. 111-15 (804), xxv. 5 (813),
xxvi. 22 (929)
Bk. iv. i. 79 (887 a), i. 103 (817),
i. 153 (887), i. 169 (828), iv. 7 (815),
v. 3 (913), v. 16 (801), v. 28 (818),
vi. 5 (802), vii. 6 (813), viii. 35-6
(557), viii. 36-43 (876), ix. 6 foll.
(817), ix. 12 (817), ix. 16 (814, 817),
x. 14 foll. (801), x. 16 (803), x. 31
(818), xi. 4 (985), xii. 10-11 (803),
xii. 19 (818), xiii. 4–19 (827)
Epictetus, Manual of (or Encheiridion)
i. 3 (817), i. 5 (812), v. (817),
viii. (817), x. (815), xi. (817),
xv. (806), xvi. (913), xviii. (913),
liii. 4 (808)
Epiphanes, Antiochus 942* (i) e
Epiphanius, on James the Just 17 c*;
s. also 824* (i) b, 865, 942* (xxiv) b,
994, 17 b* foll.
Esdras, Fourth (or Second) Book of
942* (i) a, 993, 54 h, 558
Essenes, the 27 r-w
Eucharist, the, implies incorporation
895
Euergetes," assumed as title 829
Euphrates, the 516
Eusebius, on two tombs of John"
957; s. also 828, 837 (iii), 879, 915,
937 b-c, 939 a, 940 a, 942* (i) b, (v)a−b,
(xiii) e, (xxii) c–d, 957–8, 960, 961 (i) a,
967 a, 984, 997 a, 25, 548, 17 c*, 17 h*
Evangelium Infantiae Arabicum 17g,j
Exactors 14 a*
Eyes of God (or the Lord)" 28 b, p;
connected with "stone 270
"Eyewitnesses" 984
Ezekiel 942* (viii) h, (xv) e, (xvi); in-
fluence of, on Revelation 942*, also
942* (iv) a and (xviii), and 28-33
passim; parallelism of, with John
942* (ii); ben adam in 7
Faith 992; as a grain of mustard-seed
851-6
Famine 942* (v)
"Favour," "grace, "kindness" &c.
840*
""
Feeding with (?) συναλιζόμενος 893
Feet, washing of the 963-5
Fever and Cholera, divinities 807, 824
Field, beasts of the 840, 43 d
Fifty, "thou art not yet f." 989
'Fig-time," parall. to "end" 874 a-b
Fig-tree, the barren 874–8
Finding a stater 7* foll.; a drachma &c.
9*
Fire, the Stoics on 819; martyrdom by,
legends of 948-51; flame of 28p;
baptism of spirit or of fire 30; con-
fused with "man" 7c
First 7* foll., 16*; "First" and "Last"
27 a foll.
Firstborn of the dead 26 o
Fish, different symbolisms of 11*; the
first 7* foll., 16*
Fishing 8*-9*
Flame, meant by "Ur" 949; of fire
28p
Flesh, sons of 3
"Flocks" and "waking up" 178
Following, metaph. 936 a
"Footstool" 22 b-c, 31b
Forsaking 917 foll.
"Forty-six years" (Jn ii. 20) 962
Fountain of righteousness 53
Four "beasts and four
""
creatures 33 a
""
living
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800–[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
301
INDEX
Fulfilment, in Jn and Epict. 806
"Fuller, the," term given to a rabbi
837 (iii) c
"Fuller's club, a" 17 c*
"Furnace, the iron," i.e. Egypt 950
Gabriel and Michael 33 a
Galilæans, the 813
Galilee 4*, 5*
Garment, reaching to the feet 28
Garments, white 17 a* foll.
Genealogy, Christ's, in Mt. and Lk. 38a
Genitive, defining, force of 20
Gird 926-34, 17 2* foll.
Girdle, the golden 28 /
Glorifying 23 e
""
""
4^-5
286
Glory of God, the, "above the heavens"
12, 24 e, 50 c; "a living man
Gnostics, the, on the Son of Man 34-6
Go, "going out 12*;
; "going up " 8*
"going to meet, "going before,
and "drawing near
God, "is not as man 4; why called
man" 45; "repents" 3; said "not
to repent 45a; "meeting" man
3*; said to "dawn" 27 t; rendered
by To beîov 27 u; dividing 28 v;
"hands" of 40 a; "the right hand
of," s. "right"
Gold, metaph., meaning of 28 /
Golden girdle, the 28 /
Goodness and authority, Philo on 28 u
"Gospel," in Mk, referring to Isaiah
839; fourth, date of 962 a; s. also
Hebrews
Gospels, Irenæus on the number of
916
"Grace," "favour," "kindness" &c.
840*
Great City, the 942* (i) c, (ii) a foll.
Greatness 992
Greeks, are always boys" 888
Habit, Epict. on 813
Hadrian 942* (viii)
a
""
Hair, white 270, 29c; as wool 28 o
Hand, "stretch out the hand and
"stretch out the hands" 928, 932-4;
"upon the throne of Jah" and
"hidden" 36 a
Hands, of God 36 a, 40 a, 43; of an
idol 837 (iii) d; "stretch out the h.
on the cross 926 foll.; spread
abroad the h." 928; "works of God”
and "works of God's h." 43 b
Hannah, the mother of Samuel 880
'Head, rested his" 967; "a h. of
days" 52; s. also 8 c
Heads," prophetic meaning of 942*
(i) a, c
Healing 995
Heaven, hosts of 16
Heavens, glory above the 12, 24 e, 50c
Hebrew, Matthew wrote in 916; paral-
lelism, Matthew misunderstood 3*
Hebrews, Epistle to the 839; on the
Son of Man 24
Hebrews, Gospel of the 824* (i), 17 d*
foll.
Hegesippus, on James the Just 837 (iii),
25, 17 c*; s. also 967 a
",
'Heli," connected with "sun 917
foll.
Heracleon 938; on martyrdom 941
Hercules, as a son of God 806
Hermas, author of the Shepherd 981,
28 m
Hermas, an imaginary character 838
Herod the Tetrarch 17 a
Hesperus 17 d
Hiding, the doctrine of, in Enoch 55 d
foll.; a means to manifesting 55 m;
Noah "" was hidden " 55 e; a hand
hidden and "a hand upon the
throne of Jah" 36 a
High, the Most, a name of God 26 p
High priest, the, clothing of 27 t-v
"Him" and "sign" 54 c
Hippolytus 852, 920, 942* (xii) a, b,
(xiii) d, (xxii) d, (xxiv) a, 27 f, t, v,
55 h
"Hold fast" and "draw near” 2*
Honour, two kinds of 43
Hook" and "net
net" 8
8*
Horse, a white 28 d, 29 c
Hosts, of heaven 16, 27 m; the Lord of
27 m
""
"House -"School" 12*
Husbands, five 961 (i)
Hymning 897–907
I AM, applied to God 27 e
Ignatius, on the Son of Man 35; s. also
824* (i), 891, 894–5, 942* (xv) ď, 962a,
17 d, 55 h, 17 &*
"Immolatur," how used by Tertullian
937 d
Incorporation, implied in the Eucharist
895
Infanticide, Tertullian on 911
Inkhorn, a writer's 28 m
Irenæus, mentions "elders" 958; on
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800–[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16* = 2999 (xvi).
-302
ENGLISH
the number of the gospels 916; on
“Titan ❞ 942* (i) l-m; on the Son of
Man, misquotes Jn i. 13, 39-40; S.
also 882, 895, 917, 920, 923a, 942* (i)
k, l, m, o, (xii) a, 961, 984 a, e, 986,
989, 994, 996, 997a, 15, 27d, 28b, 34,
36.a
Isaac, son of Sarah 880; metaph.
"laughter" 881 a, 942* (xii) b
Isaiah, and Mark, continuity between
839 a-d; ben adam in 5; in LXX,
peculiarities of 27
b
Israel, house of 860; the name, meaning
of 987
Jacob's Ladder, Jewish tradition about
14
James the Just, or Righteous 837 (iii),
54g, Hegesippus on 17c*; called the
brother of the Lord 25; s. also 937 d
James the son of Zebedee 937 d, 942*
(xxii) c
Jeremiah, ben adam in 6
Jerome, on John's old
age 952; on
Jewish interpretations 942* (i) o, q,
(xiii); s. also 823, 824* (i), 960,
961 (i) a, 995, 997 a, 7 d, 22 c, 17 c-d*,
17 j-k*
Jerusalem, the fall of 942* (vii) foll. ;
the spoils of 28d; the surrounding
of 837 (i), (iii), 874f; going up to
8 e*
Jesus, the age of 989-90; not seen in
the visions of Revelation 33; verbs
of motion applied to 6*; s. also
"Christ
Jesus, the kinsman of Ananus 942* (ii) d
Jesus, the son of Nun 942* (ii) b
Jezebel 942* (iii) b, (xv) ƒ
Job 10, 12
John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, con-
fused with John the Baptist 937;
tradition about 948; old age of 952;
parallelism between, and Ezekiel
942* (ii); s. also "Revelation"
John the Baptist 942* (xxii) b−ď, 995 ;
confused with John the son of Zebedee
937; described by Origen as an
angel" 942* (xxii) d, comp. 15f;
the Spirit said to have "ceased" in
942* (xxii) d
John the Evangelist, intervenes in
Synoptic Tradition 965, comp. 936;
on the Son of Man 21; use of xápis
by 840* g
Joseph (husband of Mary), son of 979
Joseph (son of Jacob), Targumistic
tradition on 837 (ii)
Joseph, The Prayer of, an apocr. work
15ƒ
Josephus, on the Galilæans 813; illus-
trated by Targums 837 (ii); inter-
polation in 837 (iii); illustrations of
Revelation from 942* (vi) a; s. also
839, 890, 942* (ii) d, (ix), (xxii) d, 971,
27r-v, 27w, 28 d-e, 7 c-d*
Joshua 36
Judah, Targumistic tradition on 837 (ii)
Judging 28 s
Judgment, the throne of 8 b-c
Justin Martyr, not a Samaritan by
religion 376; on the Son of Man
37-9; s. also 846, 880, 882, 898-907,
917, 942* (and 942* (xxii) d), 986, 994,
28 a, 36 a
""
'Kindness," "grace, "favour" &c.
840*
Kingdom, the, is within 44
Kings and "kingdoms" inter-
changed 942* (i) a
Know s. "See"
Lamb, two Gk words for 32 b-d;
talitha in Heb., not in Aram. 32 c;
"lambs" parall. to "sheep" 32e
Lamb of God, the 32 d; in the bosom
of the Father 32; the sacrificial
aspect of 32; the throne of 32; the
Bride of 942* (xv) c
Lamech 54 d
Laodicea 942* (v); the Church of 28 h
Last, "first and last," applied to God
27b-c
Latona 942* (xiii) b
Laughter, meant by "Isaac" 881 a
Law, the, at the right hand of God 31 a
Leaven 55 k
Leper, the Messiah to be a 995; "cleanse
the lepers" 995
Letters, ignorant of 879
Life, the Book of 942* (viii) g
"Lifting up" 23 e
"Likeness," of a son of man, meaning
of 33
Linen 17 a* foll.
Living creatures, the four 942*, 33 a
Loaf, one 895
"Locusts with the hair of women" 942*
(vi) a
Logos, the, between Goodness and
Authority
28 u; the universal
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800–[2]997,
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
ordinary Arabics to the
For example, 872=2872,
303
INDEX
divider 28 u; comes forth from
silence 55 h
Lord, of hosts 27 m; of Spirits 51
Lord's Day, the 942* (iii) b
Lost, ambig. 863; save the 861 foll.
Love (n.), never mentioned by Mark
924
Loving-kindness 840* d-e
Lucifer 16
Luke, "inseparable from Paul" 984 e;
his use of xápis 840*g; his tradition
about Christ's eating 897-907; his
omission of "Why hast thou forsaken
me?" 917 foll.; his pretace to his
gospel 980-4; on Christ's genealogy
38 a
Luther, on repentance 800 c-d
Lyons, the Martyrs of 939, 942* (xxii) d
Maccabean princes 51 a
Magi, the 17
Malchus, the name 17 ¿*
"Man" and "the man 43c; dominion
of 47; God is not as 4; God meeting
3*; ?" man or "Adam" 20c;
man" and "men" 23 c, 37 c; Son of
Man, definite or indefinite 19, 37–45 ;
s. also 998 passim
Man-child, the, birth of 942* (xi) foll.
Manna, the hidden 942* (xv)
Marcion 824* (i) d, 55 i
Mark, Papias on 915, 965, 983–4; never
mentions love (n.) 924; his gospel,
how concluded 924; continuity of,
with Isaiah 839 a-d
Martyr, or witness 935, 26 h-k; or
confessor 939 a; s. also "Martyrs
Martyrdom 940 foll., 28 a; by fire,
legends of 948-51
"
Martyrs 942* (iii) c, 25 a; variety of
937 d
Mary, 881-2, s. also “Virgin
Matthew, misunderstands Heb. paral-
lelism 3*; literalises 15*; on Christ's
genealogy 38 a
"Meant" and "said" 837 (iii) a, 874 ƒ
Measures, three 55k
Measuring for the Temple 942* (ii) a, (iv)
"Meet," and "appear" 3*; and "call"
38*, 4*; God meeting" man 3*;
'meeting" Moses 3*-4*; "go to
meet," "go before," and "draw near
4 5
Meeting, the tabernacle of 31
Mercy 840* a-f
*
Messiah, the, birth of 942* (xi) foll.;
to be a leper 995; in N.T. 21 a; to
go forth from Rome 28 v
Metaphors, converted to prose 837 foll.;
anthropomorphic 45; cause diver-
gence 17 a* foll.; s. also Pref. p. xiv
foll.
Methuselah 54 ď
Michael 27; and Gabriel 33 a
Midst, standing in the 897 foll.; walking
in the 28f-k
Ministers, in N.T. 983; of Christ 984 e
Miriam, the song of 27 s
Mirror, the enigma of the" 826
Mistranslation 830 foll.
Moon, the, a witness 26 n
Moses 942* (xiii), (xv), 28 v; opposed
by angels 11 foll.; being met by God
3 *-4*; the song of 27 s
Mother, the Berecynthian 942* (xi)
Motion, verbs of, applied to Jesus 6*
Mountains, an uprooter of 873; seven
942* (i) d
Mouth, the, a sword 28t; "opening
the mouth"
14
b-d*
Muratorian Fragment, the 956
Musonius Rufus 810, 944
Mustard-seed, faith as a grain of 851–6
Myriads of angels 31 a
Mysteries of the cry, three" 55 h
Myth, springing from verbal corruption
17 c*
Nakedness, lit. and metaph. 17 6* foll.,
comp. 28 h
Name, "for my name's sake" 816; s.
also below
Names, variations of 942* (i) q; "names
of men" ?used for persons 942* (viii);
men of name(s)" 942* (viii) i
Nebuchadnezzar, the dream of 15; "the
true N." 24 e
Nero 942* (i) foll. ; said to be "avenged"
942* (i) e, m
"Net” and “hook” 8*
Nicolaitans, the 942* (iii) b
Nile, the 942* (xiii) c
Noah, "the eighth person" 942* (i) ƒ, k
inferior to Abraham 37 d; hidden
55 e; Philo on 54 h
Number, the, of the Beast 942* (i) /foll. ;
of a man 942* (i) m
Numbering 942* (viii) g
Numbers, antithetical 942* (i); mystical
942*, 942* (i) d foll., (vi)-(x), 994;
stress on 28 k
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*2999 (xvi).
304
ENGLISH
Obscurity, causes of 837 (ii); divergence
caused by 837; s. also Pref. p. xv
foll.
Offerings, bringing 17 b
Oholah and Oholibah 942* (xv)ƒ
Olive-tree, the sacred, in Acropolis 820
Omega, Alpha and 27 a foll.
"Omnitenens," Origen's use of 27g
"Opening the mouth"
14 b-d*
Oracula Sibyllina 942* (i) a, (ii) b, (v) b,
946, 27 w
Origen, on ȧowμatos 824* (i) e; quotes
interpolation fr. Josephus 837 (iii);
on the ass and colt 848; on mustard-
seed 853 foll.; on the fig-tree 878; on
little children 885-6; on an eclipse
910; on the forsaking of Christ 919-
23; on the sword 28 t; on the
removing spirit 30; on clouds 31 a;
on the Son of Man 43-5; refers
to Philo 45 a; s. also 801, 805 a,
824* (i) a-ƒ; 845, 857, 867, 874 d
881 a, 890, 892 α-c, 896, 909, 937 c,
941, 942*, 942* (i) c, (ii) c, (viii) h,
(xii) b-c, (xiii) d, (xv)d, (xvii), (xviii),
(xxii) c-d, 961 a, 961 (i), 963–4, 967,
972, 974-5, 978, 980, 982, 984 b-c,
989, 995, 7 d-e, 13, 15b, f, 16, 17 a,
20b, 22c, 23e, 24 e-ƒ, 26 k, m, 27ƒ,
g,l,q, 28a,m,o, t, w,x, 30, 32 d, 34 α,
48, 49 a, 50 b, 54 c-g, 55 h-k, 7 a−b*,
7 e*, 9*, 10*, 11 a−b*
Orphans, in Epict., Jn, and Talmud 805
Osiris 856
Oulai 28j
Papias, on Mark 915, 965, 984; s. also
879, 937, 941
Papyri, the 811 a, 875, 879, 923 ď, 942*
(viii) b foll., 982, 997, 32 6,
17 m*
Parables, anthropomorphic 45
Parthians 942* (xxiv) a, 51 a foll.
Patmos 942* (xiii) b, 942-7
44 b,
Patriarchs, the 54h; of promise 37; son
of 37
Paul, inseparable from Luke" 984 e;
،،
an eyewitness "984 a; mentioned
in the Recognitions of Clement 837
(iii) c; does not mention the Son of
Man in his epistles 22
Pella 837 (iii) a, 942* (xiii) e
Peter, death of 926 foll.; martyrdom of
261; primacy of 7*; in Rome,
legends of 15 a*; the first to see the
risen Saviour 17 f*; the "reclothing"
of 17*
Peter, the name, parallels to 17g-h*,
comp. 875
Peter, the Teaching of 824* (i)
Pharaoh 942* (xiii) a, c
Philo, referred to by Origen 45a; on
the Therapeutae 27r foll.; on Noah
54 h;
h; on "the half of the didrachm”
10*; s. also 806, 880, 881 a, 888, 908,
923 b, 942* (i) k, (xii) b, 961 a, 965,
987-9, 994, 996, 4 (esp. 4b, d), 26 d,
28 d, e, j, n, u, v, x, 30, 31 b, 54 c, d,
h, j, 55k, 56d, 10*, 170
Philosophers, pretended 811
Pillar, metaph., errors caused by 17h*;
of cloud 30, 31; of cloud, Rashi on
4 c
Pinnacle, of the Temple 837 (iii); s. also
Pref. p. xvii foll.
Planets, s.
Stars
Plant of righteousness 55 f
Pleasing, Epict. on 803
Pliny 944, 946, 960
Plummet, metaph. 26 m, 28 b
Polycrates 958
Pompey 942* (xiii) a
Pool of (R.V.) Bethesda 959 foll.
Poor, metaph. 942* (xv)
Porch, the, of the Temple 28 j
Power, the 824
"Pray," "stand," and "with," con-
fusable 27t
Prayer, not entirely forbidden by Epict.
814; prayers, perhaps personified 156
Prayer of Joseph, the, an apocr. work
15f
Precocity, human, illustrations of 876
Priests, metaph. 26 r
Proclaim, i.e. preach the gospel 839 b
Profit, Epict. on 807, 816
Promise of the Man, the 997
Propator, the 34
Prophecy, adaptation of 942* (i) o
Prose, substituted for metaphor 837 foll.
Psalms, the Son of Man in 9-10
Python 942* (xiii) b
Quarries in Patmos 947
Race, i.e. Gentiles, as opposed to Jews
37 a
Raising the dead 995
Rashi, on the pillar of cloud (Deut. i. 31)
4 C
Receiving as a little child 885–6
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872-2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
A.
305
20
INDEX
Recorder, in Ezekiel, the 28 n
Regeneration 885
46
Relegatio" 941, 944
Seer, a 942* (ii), (xiii) c, 26 g, 32; s. also
"Vision
Self-suppression, taught by Epict. 55j
Remnant, the faithful_942* (viii), (xiii)ƒ│“Servant," in Is. 1. 1o rendered “ "son
Repent, God does and does not 3, 45 a
Repentance 815, 992; Luther on 800 c-d
Rephaim 942* (i) m
"Rested his head" 967
Resurrection, the 56; of the body 56a;
different beliefs as to 56a; and as-
cension of Christ, events between
892 foll.
Revelation of John the Apostle, the,
date and authorship of 942* foll.
moral character of 942* (xvii) foll.
parallelism between, and Ezekiel
942* (ii); influenced by prophets
942* (i) e, (iv) a−b, (xviii), 26-33 pas-
sim; on the Son of Man 26 foll.
Right hand of God 23 b, 25 a, 32; the
Law or the angels at 31 a
66
Righteous," first use of in O.T. 54 h ;
Heb. (tsaddîk) used and disused 54 i;
"the righteous one 51 foll., 54C,
55a; in N.T. 54 e, f; the Righteous
Servant, in Isaiah 54ƒ
Righteousness, fountain of 53; plant of
55f
Ripeness 874
River 942* (xiii)
Roman Empire, the 942* (i) h
Rosh Hashanah 961, 961 (i)
Rufus, Musonius 810
Rufus, Tineius 942* (i) ₫
b
Rulers, oppressive 51 6
Sabaoth 27 b, k foll.
Sacrifice 963-4
Sadducees 51 a
Salt, metaph. 858
Samaritan, Justin not a, by religion 37 b
Samaritans 868, 37 b
Samson 837 (i)
Samuel, son of Hannah 880
Sapphire 7 e; s. and "writer" 28 m
7e;
Sarah 881a; Isaac son of 880, 55 k
Scapegoat, the 28 o
Scorpion, the constellation 942* (xiii) g
Scribes, adjuration to 942* (xix) a
Scripture, Enoch quoted as 914
Scriptures, opening the 908
Sea, the 942* (xiii) a, 961, 992, 55 F
Sealing, the, of the faithful 28 π
See, "he that seeth 987; "I know
(olda)" rendered "I saw (vidi)” 824*
(i) c
by Tertull. 54f; the righteous, in
Isaiah 54f; the suffering, a leper
995; of the priest 17 e*, 17 2* foll.
Seven, mystically used 942* (i), 26m,
28e, k, y; angels, kings, hills,
mountains, seals, spirits, stars, torches
&c. 942* (i) d, i; churches, the 942*
(iii); candlesticks 942* (xxii) a ; signs
991; confused with "seventy
Seven thousand 942* (viii), (xiii) ƒ
Seventy, confused with seven 26 m;
disciples, the 50 e
Shaddai 27j
26 m
Shakespeare, misled by North's Plu-
tarch 830 foll.
Shechinah, the 969-71, 27 c, 28 f
Sheep, the lost 860-71; parall. to
"lambs"
32 e
Shekel of the sanctuary, the 7 c*
Shema, the, recitation of 27 t
Shepherd, in the gospels 869-71
Side, "by the side of"¿πì xeîpa
961 (i) ď
"Sign," confused with "him" 54 c
Silence, the Logos comes forth from 55 h
Siloam 961
Similitudes, the, s. Enoch "
Simon, the name, parallels to 17g-h*
Simon Magus 852
Simon the Righteous 54 g
Six 942* (i) k foll.
Six hundred and sixty-six 942* (i) k-m
"Snow" and "wool" 28 0
Socrates, on Anytus 808; saying the
same things 809; zealots of 840
Solomon 942* (xv) ƒ
Solomon, the Wisdom of 956
" 26 a,
Son, in Heb., = specimen of a class 4;
in classical Gk, metaph. 20 d; s. of
David 36; of the Patriarchs 37
Son of God 36; "a" or "the" 20
Son of Man, the 998 passim; the term,
why disliked 35; one like a
28 l-r, 33; in Enoch 52 foll.; def. or
indef. 19, 45; s. also "Man
Sons, of flesh 3; of God, interch. w.
angels" 16; of men 20ƒ; of Zeus
880 a ;
"s. of oil" (Zech. iv. 14)
942* (xxii)
""
Song, of Miriam and Moses, the 27 s
Sophia, the Valentinians on 917, 923 a
Soul," in Heb.,="self" 966
For example, 872=2872,
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800–[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999.
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
306
ENGLISH
Sow, the congregation sown by God 55ƒ
Spirit, the, used absolutely 296; said
to have "ceased" in John the Baptist
942* (xxii) d
Spirit," interch. w. "wind" 837 a,
30; the removing wind or spirit 30;
baptism of spirit or of fire 30
Spirits, bodiless, evil 824* (i); the Lord
of 51; the seven 26 m; three, unclean
942* (xx) a
Spiritual body, a 824* foll.
Spread abroad the hands" 928
Springs, medicinal and intermittent 960
Staff, perh. metaph. 888
Stand 25; in the midst 897 foll.; "stand,"
"pray," and "with," confusable 27 t;
"stood up"
up" or
were appointed
17*
66
Stars," and "
and "angels" 16 foll., 28 e;
and "sword 28 s-x; singing 16;
the seven s., i.e. the planets 28 u
Stater, finding a 7* foll., 12* foll.
"Staters, Samuel's," proverb about 9 a*
Stephen 937 c-d, 24-5
، ،
""
Stoic, a genuine " 811 b
Stone, meaning "plummet
connected with "
eyes of God"
26 m;
270;
"rolled away
away" 909
Stretching out the hand(s)" 928,
932-4; on the cross 926 foll.
Subjecting 22, 24 C, 50 e
Suckling 49; confused with "sucker"
49; used by Jews="pupil" 49;
connected with "Son of Man" 50b
Sucklings, s. "Babes
Sun, the 28x; one of the seven stars
28 u; worshipped 942* (i) m, (xxiv) 6;
not worshipped by the Essenes 27 r−v;
connected with "Heli" 917 foll. ;
with "God" 920, with "tabernacle"
918-20, 942* (xiii) d
Sunrise, a time of prayer 27t
Sweat, metaph. 986
""
Sword," and "stars 28s-x; the
mouth a s. 28t; Origen on 28t ;
two-edged 942*, 942* (xvii), (xxii),
28n
Symbolism 942* and 942* (i)–(xxiv)
passim, 26–33 passim
Syrophoenician woman, the 862, 867
Tabernacle (n.) 28 ƒ; of meeting or of
testimony 3*; "in the sun he placed
his t." 918-20, 942* (xiii) d
Tabernacle (vb) 28 ƒ
Tacitus, on the Christians 807
Talitha (Heb.)
"lamb,"
young one 32 c
(Aram.)
Targums, 837 foll., 949-51, 4, 28 v; s.
also Pref. pp. vii-viii and xiii foll.
T(e)itan, Irenæus on 942* (i) m
Temple, the 962, metaph. 839, 942* (xv);
measuring for 942* (ii) a, (iv); de-
struction of 942* (xi) a
""
""
Tertullian, on infanticide 911; on the
Son of Man 41; renders “ servant'
in Is. 1. IO "son 54f; s. also
824* (i) d, 918, 924, 937 d, 939 a, 940,
942* (i) b, m, (xxii) d, 948, 960, 996,
176, 41
Testimony, or meeting, tabernacle of 3*
Tetradrachm 7 c* foll.
Theophany 998 passim
Therapeutae, the, Philo on 27 r foll.
Third part, a 942* (viii), (xiii) ƒ
Thirst, metaph. 966; in Jn and Epict.
806
66
Thirty, a son of t. years" 994
Thirty-eight, only twice in Bible 961 (i)
Three, measures 55 k; unclean spirits
942* (xx) a
Three and a half years 942* (i) o, (viii)
Threshold 28j
Throne 8 a; metaph. 942* (xv); of
judgment 8 b-c; of God and the
Lamb 32; of glory 8c, 51; a white
t. 29c; the face of the 12; a hand
upon the t." 36 a
"Throne " "thrones" 31 b
or
Thunder 972 foll.
Titan 942* (i) m
Titus 942* (i) a; the name, how used
942* (i) m; in the Talmud 942* (i) m, q
Tobit 15f
"Touch
and "draw near" 1*-2
Trajan, the third year of 942* (xxiv) a
Transfiguration, the 942* (i) /
Translations, Targumistic 837 foll.; s.
also "Targums
"Travail, in" 942* (xii), (xiv)
"Tree," i.e. " cross," Ephrem on 933,
comp. 942* (ii) b
"Truth
""
or
"bow" 837 (ii)
Truth is always right " 828
Turnus, i.e. tyrant 942* (i) g
Twenty-four Elders, the 942* (xv)b, 33a
Two, divine powers, Philo on 28 u;
witnesses, the 942* (ii) c-d, (xix) foll.
Two-edged, s.
"Sword
""
Two hundred, perh. mystically used
170*
Tyre 942* (xv) e-f
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*2999 (xvi).
307
20-2
INDEX
Ulai 28j
Ur, "flame" 949
=
Valentinians, the 917, 920, 942* (i) k−l;
on Sophia 923 a
Vespasian 942* (i) a ; placed the golden
candlestick in the Temple of Peace
28e
Vines, planting of, prohibited 942* (v) a
Virgin, the 881-2, 942* (xii), 37-9
Virgin," in LXX,= Aq.
""
woman 880
young
Virgins," meaning of, in Rev. xiv. 4
942* (xv) b-f
Vision, mixed with fact 953; s. also
942*, 942* (i)-(xxiv) passim, 26-33
passim (esp. 26g, 32), and Apologia
pp. v-vi and 80
Visitation, Origen on 43 a
"Voice," interch. w. "angel" 26 c-d;
"seeing the voice” 26 d
Vowel points, not written in anc.
Scriptures 839 a
"Waking up," confused w.
178
'flocks"
Walking, metaph. 890; in the midst
28f-k
Washing of Feet, the 963-5
"Watcher," meaning "angel" 17 h
"Watchers by night," astrologers are
17f
Water, by the side of 961 (i) d; "running
w." 27 w
Waters 942* (xiii) c, 961 (i) d, 28 r;
gathering of 961 (i) c; many 28 r
"Week of years, a '"''942* (i) o
Weeping, in Jn and Epict. 806
White, a symbol of purity 29c; w.
garments 17 a* foll.
"Wind," interch. w. "spirit
spirit" 837 a;
"the removing wind, or spirit" 30
"Wing," in Dan. ix. 27 837 (i), (iii);
parall. to "army" 837 (i); s. also
Pref. p. xvi foll.
Wisdom, Philo on 923 b
Wisdom of Solomon, the 956
With,"
66
pray," and "stand," con-
fusable 27t; "those with him"
178-h*
"Witness" and "martyr" 26 h-k; the
faithful 26 n-q
Witnesses, the two 942* (ii) a, c, (xix)
foll.
Woman, born of a 880
Wool, scarlet 28 o; and snow 28 0
Works, (1) of God, (2) of God's hands
436
Worship, of symbols, deprecated 27 0
"Written, it is "*914
"Writer" confused with " sapphire"
28 m
Year, the New 960-1; year by year,
ambig. 961 (i)
Yoke and Cross 842-9
Zealots of Socrates 840
Zechariah, influence of, on Revelation
942* (iv) b ;
14) 942* (xxii)
sons of oil" (Zech. iv.
Zeus, sons of 880 a
Zipporah 2*, 3
*
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998(xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
308
III
INDEX (GREEK)
66
[Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997 (the 2 not being printed).
Ordinary Arabics refer to the sections of 2998-9, the two Longer
Notes "1.]
'Αγάπη : not in Epict. 814; not in Mk
924
ἀγγαρεία, -εύω : in Epict. and Mt. 887 α
ἀγγέλων and ἀγελῶν 178
ἀγνοέω: ἀγνοεῖσθαι μελέτησον 55
ἀγράμματος “unlettered” 879
αιλάμ 287
Αλλείμ 28
•
αἴνιγμα : ἐν αἰνίγματι 826
αἴρω ζυγόν 843
ἁλίζομαι and αὐλίζομαι 893-5
*Αλλος 170*
*Αλφα και Ω 27 a foll.
ἀμνός and ἀρνίον 32 6-d
ἄν: dropped in LXX 889
αναβαίνω 7* foll., 8a-f*
ἀναβλέπω : of "seeing visions
66
recovering sight” 909, 3e*, 56*
a-b
ἀναιρέω “kill " 937 α-6
or
ἀναλαμβάνω: ἀναληφθῆναι 939 α, 942*
(xxii) d
ἀνατέλλω “dawn,” applied to God 27 1
ἀνήρ and ἄνθρωπος 942* (xii) 6, 2 ; ἀνήρ
and πῦρ 7c
ἄνθρωπος : denoting the female parent
I ; a human being, masc. or fem. 8;
interpr. by Irenæus as the Virgin 39;
with and without ὁ 43c; ἄνθρωπος
and ἀνήρ 942* (xii) 6, 2; ὡς ἄνθρωπος 4;
υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώ-
που 38 ; ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων 37c
ȧvolyw 14 b-d*, 17 d*
ἀνοίγω
ἀπαντάω 3*
ἀπάντημα 3 d*
ἀπ' ἄρτι 29 α
ἀπερίσπαστος κ. ἀπαρενόχλητος 811 α
ἀποκαίω, καίω, and ξηραίνω 876-7
ἀποκαλύπτω : ἀποκαλυφθῆναι,
expressed, s. 3 f-j*
how
ἀπόλλυμι: ἀπολέσας, parall. to πλανηθῇ
864
ἀπορικός 942* (viii) e
ἅπτομαι, ἐγγίζω, κρατέω, προσεγγίζω,
προσπορεύομαι &c. 1-1*, 20*,
ἄρα : εἰ ἄρα 878
ἀρνίον and ἀμνός 32 b-d
ἄρρην : superf. 942* (xii) b
ἄρτι : ἀπ' ἄρτι 29 α
ἀρχή: ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς 984 c-e
ἀσώματος 824* (i) a-3, 56 d
6c*
αὐγή: how used by Josephus 27u;
w. Διός &c. 277; pl. may mean
'rays or eyes" 27
99
αὐλίζομαι 894
αὐτοκράτωρ 27
αὐτόματος 55
66
αὐτόπτης κ. ὑπηρέτης 983-4
Βαστάζω and φέρω 931
βοάω and κηρύσσω 839 a-c
*
Γαλιλαία 4-5
*
Γαλιλαίοι, οἱ 813
γένος : i.e. Gentiles opposed to Jews
37 a
γίνομαι : “am born”
880 ; γενόμενα
parall. to τέκνα 880; γ. ἐκ γυναικός
880
γνάθος : Ονου γνάθος 873
γραφεύς and γράφος (κάφος) τη C*
1 Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872 = 2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
309
INDEX
γράφος s. γναφεύς
γυμνός 17 ο*
γυνή :
66
γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός 880
γυναῖκα...τροφόν, ?" wife” or nurse
912; μετά γυναικῶν μολύνεσθαι,
metaph. 942* (xv) b−ƒ
Δαιμόνιον 824* (i) b
διά :
w. gen. of time 892 a-b; dià
Ιωάννου, ambig. 937
διάγω 899 foll.
διαγωγή, δίαιτα, and διατροφή 905
διαζώννυμι : διασώσασθαι and διαζώσασθαι
17 12*
δίαιτα s. διαγωγή
διάκονοι 983
διασώζω ς. διαζώννυμι
διατροφή s. διαγωγή
δίδραχμον and στατήρ η 6* foll.
7
δίδωμι and παραδίδωμι 828, 23 ε
δίκαιος 547; ὁ δίκαιος 54 e foll.
δικαιώματα “claims” 942* (viii) c
δοξάζω: ταὐτά μοι δοξάσαντες 37 α
δραχμή η εκ
δύναμις, ή 824; ή δ. μου 9236; ἐν
μυριάσι δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ 31 α
δωρέομαι : in Aq. 840*
Εβδομάς 28 d
ἐγγίζω 6* (esp. 6 a*,6d*); έ., ἅπτομαι,
κρατέω, προσέρχομαι &c. 1 6*, 20*,
6a-d*
ἐγγύς 6 α
ἐγκομβόομαι: ἐγκομβώσασθε 17 n*
ἐγκρύπτω: ἐνέκρυψεν v.r. ἔκρυψεν 55 k
ἐγκρύφια “ cakes ” 55 k
ἔθος : ὑπὸ ἔθους 813
εἶδος s. ὁμοίωμα
εἰμί : applied to God 21 e
εἰς : προσεύχεσθαι εἰς " to pray towards”
942* (xxiv) b
εἷς παρεστηκώς 17j*
εἶτα (Epict.) and είτεν (Mk) 876
ἐκδίκησις 942* (xviii) α
ἐκεῖ “thither” 942* (xxiv) 6
ἐκλείπω 910 a, 923 c
ἐκτείνω χεῖρα(s) 926 foll.
ἔλεος, -έω 840*
ἐμπεριπατέω 28f-h
ἐνιαυτός: κατ' ἐνιαυτόν 961 (i) α
ἐνοικέω 28 f
ἔνσαρκος 942* (ii) ό
ἐξαίρω 306-c; ἐξαῖρον πνεῦμα 30
Εξάς 942* (1) Ζ
ἐξέρχομαι : ambig. 938-9; w. ἔξω 12
ἐξομολόγησις and εὐχαριστία 11 α
*
ἔξω s. ἐξέρχομαι
ἑορτή: appl. to Day of Atonement
961 α ; ἡ ἑ. τῶν Ἰουδαίων 961 α
ἐπαγγελία 997
ἐπαείδω, επαοιδός 17
ἐπάνω 17 1, 5a-b*
ἐπένδυμα 17 η
ἐπενδύομαι 17 *
ἐπενδύτης 17 /* foll.
ἐπί : w. gen. referring to" 42; ¿.
and ἐπάνω 5*
ἐπιβάλλω 13*
ἐπικαλέω :
κληται 35*
ἐπικέκληται and προσκέ-
ἐπίκρισις 942* (viii) c
ἐπίσημος 942* (i) / foll.
ἐπιστρέφω : in Epict. 815 ; ἐπιστραφείς
and επιστρέψας 936 α
ἐπιτίθημι and προστίθημι 942* (xix) a
ἐπιφαίνω and ἀνατέλλω 27
ἑπτακέφαλος 942* (xiii) b
ἑτοιμάζω τόπον 942* (xiii) e
ἔτος: κατ' ἔ. 960, 961 (i) α
εὐημερία 27 5
εὐχαριστία and ἐξομολόγησις 11 α*
εὐχή 27 r foll.
ἐφίστημι: w. ἐπάνω and w. dat. 17 i; in
Lk. 5* (esp. 5 a*), 6*
ἐφούδ 17 n*
ἕωθεν εὐχόμενοι 27
66
ἕως “ dawn”: πρὸς τὴν ἕ. στάντες 27r-t
Ζυγόν 843 foll.
ζώα and θηρία 33 α, 47
Ἠλί, ήλί 917 foll.
ἥλιος 917 foll.
ἡμέρα: ταξάμενοι ἡμέραν 3 α*
ἡνίοχος: used by Orig. in Ezek. i. 26 7 d
ἡσυχία θεοῦ 55 1
Θεῖος : τὸ θεῖον, when used for ' God
272
θέλω : in Εpict. and Jn 806
α
"
θεός : υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, υἱὸς θεοῦ, and ὁ υἱὸς
τοῦ θεοῦ 20 a-b; ὁ θεός, absol., alleged
to mean "the sun-god" 27 V ;
27v; w.
ἀνατέλλω 27t
θέρος “fruit-time” 874
θηλάζον 49 α
θηρίον : θηρία and κτήνη 840 α; and
ζωα 33 α, 47
θύρα: διὰ τῆς θ., κατὰ θ., παρά θ. &c. 985
'Iaw 27
d
Ἰησοῦς : the name 942* (i) Ζ
Ισαάκ: the nane 881 α, 942* (xii) ό
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872= 2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16* = 2999 (xvi).
310
GREEK
Ισραήλ : interpr. as ὁρῶν θεόν 15f
ἵστημι : ἑστηκότων ὧδε 17 h*
ἰσχύς : ἡ ἰ. μου ἐξέλιπεν 923 6
ΙΧΘΥΣ 8*
Καίω, ἀποκαίω and ξηραίνω 876-7
καλέω 839 α foll.
κανών 28 6
κατάπὅμοιος 26 α;
ἐνιαυτόν 960, 961 (i) α
κατ' ἔτος, κατ'
κεράννυμι : κραθέντες τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ 895;
Τ
κραθήναι and κρατηθῆναι 895
κηρύσσω 839 α foll.
κνάφος s. γνάφος
κόλπος 32
κρατέω 16* ; κρατήσας τῆς χειρός 6
s. also ἅπτομαι and κεράννυμι
κρυπτός: ἐν κρυπτῷ 55 (esp. 55 Λ
κρύπτω : ἔκρυψεν v.r. ἐνέκρυψεν 55 k
κτήνη and θηρία 840 α
κύριος and ὁ κύριος 26 e-f, 27 h
*
Λέγω : ἔλεγε
"meant or said
""
837 (iii) α, 874 f
λέντιον 17 m-n" *
λίμναι 960
λόγος, ὁ: ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών 55h;
τομεύς 28 n, t, u
λούομαι 27 w
λυχνία, λύχνος 28 e foll.
ὀγδοάς 942* (1) Ζ
ὄγδοος 942* (i) f, k
olda rendered "vidi" 824* (i) c
οἰκτείρω 840*
ὅμοιος: parall. to κατά 26α; foll. by
accus. 26 α
ὁμοίωμα ἀνθρώπου, ὁμ. ὡς εἶδος άνθρ. &c.
ὀνειδίζω: ὠνίδισας in D 923 c
ὄνομα : ἐπίσημον ὅ. 942* (i) / foll.
ὀνόματα ?meaning persons
(viii) a foll.
Όνου γνάθος 873
ὄντως ? corr. of ό ώς 825
942*
ὁράω: ὁ ὁρῶν 987; “Israel” interpr. as
ὁρῶν θεόν 15/; passive of 997 α,
comp. 37-
ὀρφανός : in Epict. and Jn 805 α
ỏσtâ 824* (i) b, d
οὔδει = " on the ground” 837 (iii) d
ὄψις 28 τ
Ξηραίνω, καίω, and ἀποκαίω 876-7
d
Παιδεύω : for τροποφορέω 4 α
παιδίον 49 α ; and τεκνίον 978
66
παῖς “ servant 54f; supplanted by
viós 54f; ambig. 24f
παντοκράτωρ 2η 6, f-m
παρά as abbreviation 942* (viii) c
παραδίδωμι 828, 23 ε
παρακαλέω 839 6
Μάγος :
"magician," in bad sense
17 a foll.
παράκειμαι 942* (viii) c
παραμένω 997 α, 27 t
μαθηταί, parallels to 17g-h*
μαρτυρέω 26 h
μαρτυρία 26 i foll.
μαρτύριον 28 α; and συνταγή 3 α*
μάρτυς 26 i foll.
μέγας: μεγᾶ (i.e. μέγαν) perh. read as
μέγα 833 ; μεγάλη πόλις, how applied
942* (ii) b
μέν : ἐδώκαμεν or ἔδωκα μέν 802
μέσος : ἀνὰ μέσον 942* (i) e, 28j, k; ἐν
μέσῳ 942* (i) e, 28 i-k
μετανοέω, -νοια 800 c-d
μονώτατος ambig. 17 c*
Νεφέλη 30 α
O, ἡ, τό : ins. and om. with ἄνθρωπος
43c; with κύριος 26 e, f, 27 h, with
νεφέλη 30; υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, υἱὸς τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου, and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
246, 38, 450; υἱὸς θεοῦ, υἱὸς τοῦ
θεοῦ, and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ 20a-b; s.
also 942* (xix)-(xx), 984
παρθένια Μαρίας 55 h
παρθένος: ἐκ (or ἀπὸ) παρθένου γεννητός
880 α ; παρθένοι appl. to men (Rev.
xiv. 4) 942* (xv) b-f
παρίστημι : εἰς παρεστηκώς, εἰς [τις] τῶν
παρεστηκότων 17j*
66
πεδίον σ field " 840 a
περί : οἱ περί, parallels to 17 g-h*
περιπατέω 28 f-g
Πέτρος, parallels to 17g-h*; οἱ περὶ
Tòv II. 17 g-h*
πιστός 26 η
πλανάω: ἀπολέσας parall. to πλανηθῇ
864
πλήρης : vernacular use of
πληροφορέω 980-2
πληρόω 806, comp. 982
44
b
Πνεύμα, τό, used absolutely 29 6, comp.
824* (i) b
66
""
πνεῦμα “ wind,” “spirit, "breath
30a ; v.r. φάντασμα 824* (i)
ποδήρης 28 In
α
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872 = 2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
3II
INDEX
ποιμαίνω : an error in LXX 942* (xiv)
πολιαί 280
πόλις : μεγάλη π. how appl. 942* (ii) b
πολίτης 200
66
πράγματα “ facts '980, 984 6
πράκτωρ 14 α
*
πρεσβύτερος s. below
πρεσβύτης and πρεσβύτερος 954-5; and
γέρων 955
προάγω 4*
προβάλλω ?“ put forth leaves " 874
προσεγγίζω and ἅπτομαι (q. vid.) 1 a*
προσέρχομαι 6* (esp. 60-2*)
προσεύχομαι: with εἰς 942* (xxiv) 6
προσκαλέω : προσκέκληται and επικέκλη-
ται 3 8*
προσπίπτω and άπτομαι 2 α-b*
προσπορεύομαι and άπτομαι (q. vid.) ra*
προστίθημι and ἐπιτίθημι 942* (xix) α
πρόσωπον : not used by Jn 28 w
προφθάνω 5*, γ*, 13*
πτερύγιον “ pinnacle (oftemple),” “ wing
(of army)" 837 (iii,
πτώμα 942* (xxii)
πῦρ 819, 7 d; and ἀνήρ γε
πύρωσις 948
Ρομφαία 28 s foll.
Σαβαχθανεί 923 ε
σαβαώθ 27 6
σιγή: ὁ λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών 55 h
σίκλος γι
Σίμων : parallels to 175-h*
σινδών 17 6* foll.
σκάνδαλον 15 6*
σκηνόω 28
στατήρ η c* foll.
7
στηρίζω " comfort with food ga*
συμπαραμένω (LXX) = Heb. “fear” 27t
συναλίζομαι and συναυλίζομαι 892-5
συναντάω 3*
συναυλίζομαι s. συναλίζομαι
συνταγή and μαρτύριον 3 α*
συντάσσω, -ομαι 3 α-6*
σφάζω : ὡς έσφαγμένον, την 942* (1),
σφραγίς and χάραγμα 942* (i) h
Τάσσω: ταξάμενοι ἡμέραν 3 α*
Τ(ε)ιτάν : Irenæus on 942* (i) m
τεκνίον 805 α ; and παιδίον 978
τέλειος 44
τελέω: τετέλεσται 923 d
τιθηνιζόμενον 49 α
τομεὺς λόγος 28 1, t, u
τριμερής 55 k
τροποφορέω v.r. τροφοφορέω 4d, 45;
παιδεύω for 4 d
τροφοφορέω s. τροποφορέω
Υδρωπικός 961 (i) c
ὕδωρ : ὕδατα πολλά 28
υἱός2 : supplanting παῖς 54f; ὑ. ἄνθρω-
που, ύ. θεοῦ &c. ambig. 20, 24h; ύ.
ἄνθρ., ύ. τοῦ ἀνθρ. and ὁ ὑ. τοῦ ἀνθρ.
38, 45 6 ; ὑ. θεοῦ, ὑ. τοῦ θεοῦ and ὁ ὑ.
τοῦ θεοῦ 20a-b; ύ. γερουσίας, ύ.
πόλεως &c. 20 d
ὑμνέω 902 foll.
ὑπαντάω 3* (esp. 3 c* foll.),
ὑπηρέτης 9834, 14 α*,
, 17 2*
4°
*
ὑπό, ὑποκάτω, and ὑποπόδιον 22 6-c
1 Comp. Plato 7orc (Legg. iii. 16) τὴν λεγομένην παλαιὰν Τιτανικὴν φύσιν as
the last and worst of the stages of evil in human nature.
2 Υἱός in Mt. xxi. 5 son of an ass (ύποζυγίου) ” (from Zech. ix. 9 LXX πῶλον
νέον) may help to explain Lk. xiv. 5 τίνος ὑμῶν υἱὸς (λ, α, ὁ ὄνος, D πρόβατον) ἢ
Boûs (Syr. Burk. "son or ox or ass," but SS "ox or ass"). In the latter, " son
may have arisen from " whose foal ?” lit. “whose son of an ass ?” taken by some
as "whose son or ass?" Misspelling may have facilitated corruption. Υἱός,
besides being regularly abbreviated as us, is spelt vos in Oxy. Pap. ii. 211 l. 50
(rst or 2nd cent.); οιειωι in Fayim 113 1. 2, 114 1. 2 (A.D. 100); νειος freq. in a
census, Berl. Urk. 392 (A.D. 207-8) and ib. 948 l. 16. Ps. xvii. 4 (R.V.)" they
are satisfied with children (νείων, v.r. υἱῶν and ὑῶν) ”—where the meaning is
disputed, and Origen gives two explanations, (r) fed on their " children” (Lev.
xxvi. 29), (2) fed on abomination" (lit. "swine's flesh")-has little bearing on
Lk. xiv. 5, though a connexion between the two has been suggested. It should
be added that the Aramaic for "young ass " is derived (Levy Ch. ii. 2116) from
Heb. “suckling,” 51, and that very similar forms in Syriac (Thes. Syr. 2833)
mean both "puer" and "pullus."
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872=2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
312
GREEK
ὑποδύτης 17 η
ὑποκάτω, s. ὑπό
ὑποπόδιον, ὑπό, and ὑποκάτω 22 6-c
Φαίνομαι 3 7* ; ἐφάνη ὁ θεός 3j*; φ. and
ἀνατέλλω 27 t
φαντασία : κατὰ φ. 980, 984 6
φάντασμα 824* (i) b, d;
v.r. πνευμα
824* (i) b
φέρω and βαστάζω 930–1 ; φέρων (Heb.
i. 3) 278
φθάνω 6 α*, 6ε*
Χαλκολίβανον 289
χάραγμα and σφραγίς 942* (i) h
χάρις 840* ; in Lk. and Jn 840* &
χείρ: ἐπὶ χεῖρα = "by the side of
961 (i) d; ἐκτείνω χεῖρα(ς) 926 foll.
χωρέω 974
α
'Ω : τὸ Αλφα κ. τὸ Ω 27 a foll.
Black Arabics refer to paragraphs [2]800-[2]997, ordinary Arabics to the
sections of 2998, or, if starred, to the sections of 2999. For example, 872= 2872,
16=2998 (xvi), 16*=2999 (xvi).
FEB 1 3 1918
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, Μ.Α. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN
Demy 8vo. cloth. Price 7s. 6d. net.
"A book of absorbing interest and deep religious significance....
A study in spiritual conversion which recalls Philochristus both in the
chaste beauty of its language and a restrained dramatic power....The
expression of genuine difficulties-difficulties both critical and religious,
which are presenting themselves again in a very similar form to the
modern mind. It is one of the chief merits of Dr Abbott's able and
stimulating book that, while it does not ignore these difficulties or treat
them as foolish or unreal, it exhibits them in their true religious
perspective, as belonging to the fringe rather than the essential revelation
of the Gospels."-Manchester Guardian.
Interesting on account of the literary skill with which he presents
innumerable points of exposition and criticism, and on account, too,
of the beauty and strength of many of its passages."—Athenæum.
"A deeply interesting theological book in the form of a story....
Dr Abbott contrives, with real dramatic ability, to make it appear
natural that all his characters should be for the time being completely
obsessed by their subject....The gist of its teaching...is summed up in
the words of Clemens 'It has been said that the religion of the
Christians is a person-and nothing more. I should prefer to say
the same thing differently. Our religion is a person-and nothing
less'"-Spectator.
"The book is an able and delightful one. We know nothing so vivid
and so good on Epictetus....The strength and the weakness of the
character and system of that wonderful teacher are set forth with
unrivalled power and with graphic simplicity. So also is the teaching of
the New Testament in some of its aspects....We appreciate the scholar-
ship, the literary art, the high character, and the reverence of the
book."-Aberdeen Free Press.
"The form of fiction which Dr Abbott employs undoubtedly adds
a lively force of persuasion and reality to the highly critical and even
technical arguments with which his study abounds....Valuable…..as
a contribution to the criticism of the doctrines and ethics of Stoic and
Christian."—Outlook.
BOOKS BY
THE REV. EDWIN A. ABBOTT, D.D., F.B.A.
NOTE. The following publications are now all published
by the Cambridge University Press.
PART
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V
VI.
VII.
VIII
IX.
X.
Diatessarica.
Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture.
7s 6d net
The Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and
Luke. 15s net
20s net
From Letter to Spirit: an attempt to reach through
varying Voices the abiding Word.
Paradosis: or "In the Night in which He was
(?) Betrayed." 7s 6d net
Johannine Vocabulary: a Comparison of the Words
of the Fourth Gospel with those of the Three 135 6d net
Johannine Grammar. 16s 6d net
Notes on New Testament Criticism. 7s 6d net
"The Son of Man," or Contributions to the study
of the thoughts of Jesus. 16s 6d net
Light on the Gospel from an Ancient Poet. 12s 6d net
The Fourfold Gospel. In five Sections:-
SECTION
I.
II.
Introduction. 2s 6d net
The Beginning. 12s 6d net
III. The Proclamation of the New Kingdom. 12s 6d net
IV. The Law of the New Kingdom. 12s 6d net
V. The Founding of the New Kingdom, or Life reached
through Death. 16s 6d net (Immediately)
Indices to Diatessarica with a Specimen of Research.
net
Miscellanea Evangelica (1). 2s net
2s 6d
Miscellanea Evangelica (2). Christ's Miracles of Feeding.
3s net
Apologia: an Explanation and Defence. 2s 6d net
Silanus the Christian. 7s 6d net
The Message of "The Son of Man." 4s 6d net
March, 1917
Cambridge University Press
C. F. Clay, Manager
London: Fetter Lane, E.C. 4
Edinburgh: 100 Princes Street
"He does, in our opinion, present to the readers he contemplates
a conception of Christ...such as may help many to whom 'miracles' are
a hindrance ab initio. Viewed as an easy and interesting introduction to
the Higher Criticism of the New Testament, Silanus the Christian
is very welcome."-Literary World.
"A religious romance that recalls the Philochristus and Onesimus
of his earlier days and is quite worthy to stand alongside of them....
Finely conceived and finely written, and characterised not only by a
great deal of insight into certain aspects of New Testament teaching,
but by an instinctive power of realising and reproducing the intellectual
and social atmosphere of the Roman world in the early decades of the
second century....No one with any sympathy for the subject will read
this book without feeling its charm and appreciating its strong and fresh
presentation not only of the spiritual teaching of Jesus, but of the
doctrine of Epictetus."-Glasgow Herald.
"Readers of Philochristus and Onesimus will know what to expect in
Silanus, alike in its non-miraculous Christianity, in its keen criticism of
documents, its lofty and unfaltering ethicalism, and its exquisite charm of
style. The impress of genius is everywhere manifest....A noble book,
and one which we venture to think will afford relief to those who are
staggered with the idea of the supernatural.”—Baptist Times.
"An exceedingly interesting study of psychology illustrating the
history of thought in the time of Jesus....This volume proves that such
rejection [of the miraculous element in Christianity] is compatible with
that high form of reverence for the written word which seeks always to
find the spirit behind the letter, and with the most fervent and loyal
devotion to the person of Christ and His teaching."-
Birmingham Daily Post.
"One of the most charming Christian romances ever written.”.
Expository Times.
"The pen that long ago wrote Philochristus, that delightful study of
the central figure in the Gospels, has clearly not lost its cunning....
In the charm with which Dr Abbott contrives to invest the elucidation of
religious ideas he is certainly unrivalled....It will be apparent what
an opportunity is here for the rare gifts of historical learning, insight,
and characterisation which Dr Abbott has at command, and admirably is
it made use of. A lifelike picture is given of the spiritual milieu of the
second century, and of the entry of Christian ideas upon the scene, and
incidentally a great variety of critical and other questions are descanted
upon with the author's well-known daring and ability."-Scotsman.
"The author of Philochristus and The Kernel and the Husk occupies
a niche by himself in English theology, and we shall not be surprised if
this work, written in the ripeness of his powers, proves the most enduring
of his writings.... There are passages of exegesis and spiritual interpreta-
tion in this volume that take us to the very heart of things.”—
British Congregationalist.
"Interest of a distinctive kind is always attached to Dr E. A. Abbott's
work, his ingenious industry being one of the outstanding features
of modern theology. He has an equipment that gives him the right, as
well as a courage that gives him the power, to take a line of his own;
and the fruit is seen in a notable series of volumes, as suggestive as they
are unconventional....There are vivid pictures of the personality and
teaching of Epictetus; and the mental experiences of Silanus afford an
effective medium for the presentation of Dr Abbott's views on the New
Testament....Theology must always be the gainer from strong work with
an individual stamp; and there lies Dr Abbott's great value to his
generation.”—Christian World.
"Deserves every student's respect.... The author, with a notably
fine equipment as a critic-knowledge, patience, impartiality, judgment—
has made himself master of the leading movements in pagan thought
during that unlit period, and in Silanus he shows us a youth groping his
way to faith in Christ."-Scottish Review.
"The story is both beautiful and possible...may be of great value, on
account of the strong sense of spiritual reality which floats serenely over
the troubled waves of petty verbal questionings ;...may be cordially
recommended to any man who would not care to read the ordinary
apologetic Christian books of the day, but who would like to learn from
a very competent teacher what are the facts about the earliest Christian
literature, and wherein their persuasive spiritual power still lies.”—
Westminster Gazette.
"The author has drunk deeply of the spirit of the philosophy
and ethics of the middle and later period of the Roman Empire, and he
also evinces no mean knowledge of the textual and historical criticism of
the New Testament, especially of the Gospels.... Biblical scholars will
learn much from his close study of the whole question."-
Irish Times.
"The originality of the book is abundantly manifested; and it
will appeal to many for whom Dr Abbott's recent works were 'too
hard''-Oxford Magazine.
“A fine imaginative study of the conflict of the higher paganism
with the growing power of the Gospel. Incidentally the book is full
of subtle and acute exposition of the Gospel narratives, but its central
interest is in the study of a human soul in its inner conflict....No
disagreement with Dr Abbott in details should be allowed to obscure the
literary excellence of his work, or the convincing power with which
he has brought his readers face to face with the central truth of the
Christian Revelation-'our religion is a person-and nothing less'."-
Inquirer.
"One of the most interesting of the books of 1906....Philochristus
was interesting, so was Onesimus: Silanus the Christian is far more so....
It will exactly suit a very large class of the laity of the present day....
Written in a deeply reverent and earnest spirit....For every reason,
Silanus the Christian may be recommended to the clergy....It is a
noble-minded book: it will enlarge the sympathies of every reader :
if it sometimes surprises and perplexes, it never offends; and it clearly
and convincingly shews how a Christianity containing little dogma
and even less of the miraculous element is infinitely superior to the very
highest ethics of philosophy."—Optimist.
"By far the most vivid picture of Epictetus and by far the most
instructive account of the Stoic philosophy that I have seen, are to be
found in Dr Abbott's remarkable story...finely conceived and admirably
written...of absorbing interest...as fascinating as any novel and vastly
more instructive....It not only contains a most instructive and pathetic
story of a soul in search of truth and goodness: it is an invaluable
repertory of ingenious exposition and interpretation. It simply teems
with materials for the Christian preacher and teacher. It is a treasury of
Biblical learning."-Great Thoughts.
"In its way the work is one by a master."-Westminster Review.
(6
One of the most charming Christian romances ever written.”
Commonwealth.
Full of interest as an historical study, though it lacks verisimilitude
as a story, and defends what appears to us to be an indefensible thesis.
We can none the less heartily recommend all students of the New
Testament to read the book, and we cannot but admire the author's
industry, ability, and truly religious spirit."-
London Quarterly Review.
'This will be Dr Abbott's most popular book...every page is full
of thought and crowded with suggestion…..alive with human interest....
Not only fascinating in scholarship and style, but a timely and valuable
message for an age of doubt."-Primitive Methodist Leader.
((
Many who are convinced that the old teaching is still the soundest
and happiest approach will rejoice that Dr Abbott can lead others by his
own less attractive path to the same high view of the nature and the
claims of the Founder of Christianity....A really impressive book……..This
presentation of the paramount interest of the issues of the soul's life and
of the power over the affections and the conscience of the appeal of
Christ.”—Saturday Review.
'We desire to express our deep gratitude to Dr Abbott....This book
must do good. It will shake no one's faith in God revealed perfectly in
Christ. It will help all who are not intolerant...to be just and sympathetic
with those who take a position with which they do not agree and which
they may regret or think unsafe. And it will show them the 'great gulf'
between what philosophy was even at its best, and Christianity."-
Interpreter.
"The volume is distinguished by the same imaginative power,
freshness of thought, and chastity of style which were the notes of its
predecessors Philochristus and Onesimus."-
Journal of Theological Studies.
“We have rarely read a book in which the scholar has so usefully
subserved the artist and the philosopher...It is evident that with such
a theme Dr Abbott might have made his volume a mere theological
treatise. In effect, he has produced a psychological romance of a really
high order, in which sympathy, humour, reverence, and deep religious
feeling all play their part."-Pall Mall Gazette.
“Instinct with a spirit from which, we think, virtue will go out to men
of good will....We think that many who dissent from Dr Abbott's views
will receive spiritual stimulus from contact with the personality which
speaks through the characters of this book, and feel that he has borne
impressive witness to the things which to them are supremely real
and precious."-Times.
A. AND C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON.
To renew the charge, book must be brought to the desk.
DO NOT RETURN BOOKS ON SUNDAY
DATE DUE
Form 7079a 3-50 10M S
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 07421 5271