^irt^Wiiv,;: 
 
 ^< 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN 
 
 U. S. A. 
 
 (Sy 
 
 NO. 29233 
 
 Cornell Unlveralty Library 
 BS255S .A22 
 
 Clue 
 
 olin 
 
 a guide through Greek to Hebrew sc 
 
 a aulde through 
 
 3 1924 029 334 640 
 
Sv 
 
 
CLUE 
 
AGENTS m AMBBIOA 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 66 Fifth Ayehde, New Yobk 
 
CLUE 
 
 A GUIDE THROUGH GREEK TO 
 HEBREW SCRIPTURE 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWIN A. ABBOTT 
 
 'AiroSe^eas S' oSffrii AvAyKri avyKara^alveai els rdis 
 fijTiJ<r«s, ■ If there is such a thing as demonstration 
 people must condescend to investigate.' — Clem. Alex. 
 Miscellanies, vii. 15. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 
 
 1900 
 
^=#=?=^^^ 
 
 ***- — -*-J«-— ■ 
 
 
TO 
 
 TROMMIUS AND BRUDER 
 
 AND THE WHOLE OF THE UNKNOWN ARMY 
 
 OF PATIENT PLODDERS 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED 
 
 BY ONE OF THEM 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029334640 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This book, called Clue for brief reference, is the 
 First Part of a series (to be entitled Diatessarica) 
 dealing with the interpretation of the Gospels. 
 
 Part I. — which is of a more popular character than 
 the rest, and requires from the reader no knowledge 
 of Greek or Hebrew — aims at demonstrating that 
 portions of the Synoptic Gospels are translated, or 
 modified by translation, from Hebrew documents. 
 
 Part n., which will be published almost simul- 
 taneously with Part I., aims at demonstrating that 
 Mark contains a tradition from which Matthew and 
 Luke borrowed, and discusses the corrections of Mark 
 adopted jointly by Matthew and Luke. 
 
 Part in. will contain the whole of the text of 
 Mark, with such parts of the other Gospels as are 
 parallel to Mark, The text will be divided into small 
 passages, each accompanied by its commentary. This, 
 being for the most part the common tradition of the 
 first three Gospels, may conveniently be called the 
 Triple Tradition. 
 
 Part IV. — not yet in writing — will contain what 
 may conveniently be called the Double Tradition, i.e. 
 
 vii 
 
CLUE 
 
 passages not found in Mark but only in Matthew and 
 Luke. 
 
 Part V. will contain John, 
 
 Part VI. will contain the Gospel of the Resurrection 
 as given by the Mark-Appendix, Matthew, Luke, and 
 John. 
 
 Part Vn. — not yet in writing — will contain Single 
 Traditions, i.e. portions peculiar to Matthew, and to 
 Luke, including the account of Christ's birth. 
 
 Before Part VIII. can be described, a little ex- 
 planation is needed. It is maintained by the author 
 that parts of the first three Gospels are derived from a 
 Hebrew original (which has also influenced the fourth). 
 Now in the Greek Old Testament we find a multitude 
 of errors arising from the inability of the translators 
 to distinguish Hebrew letters, and to understand 
 Hebrew words and idioms. In the Synoptic Gospels 
 of the Greek New Testament, then, we may expect 
 (on our hypothesis) to find the same errors, fewer, of 
 course, but still the same in kind. For example, a 
 constant source of error in the Greek Old Testament 
 is the similarity between the Hebrew letters d and 
 r (t and i), so that (to take one instance) " Edom " 
 (mw) and "Aram" (din) are repeatedly confused by 
 the translators, who give us "Idumaea" for "Syria," 
 or vice versa. 
 
 The object of Part VIII. is to tabulate, in their 
 Greek alphabetical order, errors of this kind found 
 in the Greek Old Testament, with the view of detecting 
 similar errors — if any such exist — in the Greek New 
 Testament. For example, the error above mentioned 
 
 viii 
 
PREFACE 
 
 would be tabulated not under the Hebrew names of 
 " Edom" and "Aram," but under their Greek equiva- 
 lents " Idumaea " and " Syria," Then, if we should 
 find in one of the Synoptic Gospels an unexpected 
 mention of " Idumaea," our tabulated lists would 
 suggest to us that — instead of trying to find historical 
 reasons (where none appear to exist) for a statement 
 about Idumaea — the right course is to look first in 
 the parallel Gospels for some mention of Syria. If 
 " Syria " is there, we shall conclude that the discrepancy 
 arises from translating a Hebrew original. Then will 
 begin the task — in some cases a far more difficult 
 task — of deciding which of the two readings is correct. 
 
 For the construction of such a Key, some materials 
 are available from the invaluable Concordance to the 
 Septuagint compiled by Trommius — to whom, in com- 
 pany with Bruder, the compiler of the New Testament 
 Concordance, this work is dedicated. But Trommius 
 has left a great many explicable errors unexplained. 
 Moreover, it did not lie within the province of Trom- 
 mius to set side by side parallel Hebrew books or 
 parallel versions of the same Hebrew book, and to 
 classify the variations in Greek resulting sometimes 
 from the variations of two Hebrew sources, sometimes 
 from the divergent interpretations of one Hebrew text 
 by two translators. All this then remains to be done. 
 
 As regards parallel versions, the author has tabu- 
 lated the divergences in the two versions of Daniel, 
 in Ezra compared with, the First Book of Esdras, and 
 in large portions of the Books of Samuel and Kings 
 compared with Chronicles (or, in some cases, with 
 
 a2 ix 
 
CLUE 
 
 the Psalms and Isaiah). But it has not been found 
 possible as yet to tabulate all the verbal errors scattered 
 through the pages of the Septuagint, nor can the 
 author hope ever to achieve this task. It is the busi- 
 ness of a University, not of a single student, and one 
 of the objects of this Preface is to suggest to the 
 Universities of Europe and America that such a 
 work would be well worthy of them. To be complete, 
 it should not be confined to mere words, but should 
 contain Greek errors classified under other heads, 
 such as, Person, Mood, Voice, Insertion, Omission, 
 Interrogative, Negative, Subject, Metaphor reduced 
 to Prose, Speech converted to Narrative, etc. 
 
 The author's approximation to this object, if pub- 
 lished in his lifetime, will follow the seven Parts aboV6 
 mentioned. It is daily growing and, as he believes, 
 daily becoming more useful. If published, it would 
 be a more complete and less popular form of Clue, 
 and might be entitled Filum Labyrinthi. 
 
 Obligations must be acknowledged to many friends 
 for the revision of the proofs of this work ; and, in 
 particular, to the Rev. C. Taylor, D.D., Master of 
 St. John's College, Cambridge, the Rev. W. H. 
 Bennett, M. A., Professor of Old Testament Languages 
 and Literature at Hackney and New Colleges, London, 
 and Mr. W. S. Aldis, M.A., formerly Principal of the 
 Durham College of Science, Newcastle-on-Tyne, for 
 corrections and suggestions on points of Hebrew. 
 
 Wellside 
 Hampstead 
 9/9/1900 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 References and Abbreviations .... Page xv 
 Introduction xvii 
 
 BOOK I 
 
 THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 SPECIMENS OF ERROR IN THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 5 I. On the evidence needed to prove translation. § 2. On the evidence obtain- 
 able to prove translation from Hebrew into Greek. § 3. Specimens of Greek 
 error arising from confusion of similar Hebrew letters. § 4. Specimens of 
 Greek error arising from confusion of similar Hebrew words. § 5. The place 
 of Christ's baptism : Bethabara ? Betharaba ? or Bethany ? § 6. On the 
 evidence required to prove translation from Hebrew in the Synoptic 
 Gospels ....... Page 3 
 
 CHAPTER n 
 
 THE ERROR OF CONFLATION 
 
 I. Conflations, their nature and origin. § 2. Conflations, mostly caused by 
 obscurity. § 3. Rules for returning through a conflation to the Original. 
 § 4. Conflation mostly the sign of an early translation . 19 
 
 xi 
 
CLUE 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 " (see p. xix. n.) § I. Specimens of name conflation. * § 2. " Darius." § 3. Luke's 
 misunderstanding about Herod Antipas. § 4. " The son of Timaeus, Bar- 
 timaeus" ; the development of different accounts about the person, or persons, 
 denoted in the story of " Bartimaeus "... Page 27 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 CONFLATIONS OF TECHNICAL TERMS, DATES, ETC. 
 
 § I. Technical terms. § 2. Conflations of dates. § 3. The hour of the 
 Crucifixion ........ 46 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 OTHER TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 * § I. Variations of grammatical form. * § 2. Longer conflations. § 3. Hebrew 
 conflations. § 4. Prejudice a cause of error. § 5. The "lour sons" of 
 Araunah ........ 53 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 CONFLATIVE VERSIONS 
 
 § I. The First Book of Esdras. § 2. The Septu^int Version of Daniel (parts of 
 this are marked *). § 3. Conflations arising from Aramaic . . 67 
 
 BOOK II 
 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 SPECIMENS OF CONFLATION 
 
 i I. (Mark i. 28) " The surrounding country of Galilee.'' § 2. (Mark i. 32, lit.) 
 " It having become late, when the sun had set." § 3. (Mark iv. 5, 6, lit.) 
 
 xii 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 " It {f.e. the seed) arose . . . there arose the sun.'' § 4. (Mark iv. 40) 
 "Why are ye fearful? Have ye not yet faith?" § 5. (Luke viii. 25, lit.) 
 "Fearing they wondered." Conflated? § 6. (Luke ix. 37) "On the next 
 day . . . from the mountain " . . . . Page 79 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 CONFLATIONS IN THE STORY OF THE GADARENE 
 
 § I. Conflative tendency apparent in Mark. §2. (Mark v, 10) " the country " ; 
 (Luke viii. 31) "the abyss" ...... 89 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 § I. (Mark iii. 8) " Idumaea" ; (Matthew iv. 24) "Syria." § 2. The prophecy 
 of Amos concerning "Edom." § 3. (Matthew v. 48; xix. 21) "perfect" 
 (i) (Mark x. 21, and Luke xviii. 22) "lacking" or "wanting." (ii.) (Luke 
 vi. 36) "compassionate." §4. (Mark vi. 33; Matthew xiv. 13) "on foot," 
 an error. § 5. (Mark vi. 32 ; Matthew xiv. 13) "in the (or, a) boat to a 
 desert place " ; (Luke ix. 10) " to a city called Bethsaida." § 6. Was " boat " 
 in the original ? § 7. The "earthquake" recorded by Matthew (xxvii. 54) 
 alone. §8. Peter "sitting" or "standing" during the three denials? §9. 
 Peter (Mark xiv. 54) " warming himself" at the light [? of a fire]. § 10. 
 (Markiv. 21) "come"; (Matthew v. 15) "light"; (Luke viii. 16) "kindle." 
 § II. Matthew's use of "Companion !" § 12. (Mark i. 13) "wild beasts" ; 
 (Matthew iv. 2; Luke iv. 2) "he hungered." § 13. The healing of the 
 "paralytic" : (Mark ii. 3) "by four" ; (Matthew ix. 2, Luke v. 18) "on 
 a bed." § 14. The healing of the paralytic : origin of Mark's details. § 15. 
 (Mark ii. 23) "making a way"; (Luke vi. l) "rubbing with their 
 hands" 97 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 S 1. (Mark xiv. 30) "Before the cock crow twice thrice ..." § 2. (Mark 
 xiv. I, Matthew xxvi. 2) " After two days" ; (Luke xxii. l) " drawing nigh." 
 § 3. (Matthew a. 29) "two for a farthing "; (Luke xii. 6) "five for two 
 farthings." § 4. (Mark viii. 31) "after three days" ; (Matthew xvi. 21, and 
 Luke ix. 22) " on the third day." § 5. (Matthew xvui. 2Z) "seventy times 
 seven " ; (Luke xvii. 4) " seven times turn." § 6. On the error that led 
 
 xiii 
 
CLUE 
 
 Luke to suppose that there were "other seventy [two] disciples." §7. 
 Errors arising from the Hebrew "and." § 8. Indicative confused with 
 non - indicative forms. § 9. (Mark iv. 36) " they receive him " ; 
 (Matthew viii. 23, Luke viii. 22) "he went." § 10. Mark (iv. 36) alone 
 mentions "other boats.'' § 11. (Matthew x. 28) "destroying"; (Luke 
 xii. S) "casting." § I2. (Matthew x. 29) "fall to the ground without"; 
 (Luke xii. 6) "forgotten in the sight of." § 13. (Matthew v. 47) "salute"; 
 (Luke vi. 33) " do good to." § 14. (Luke v. 20) " Man, thy sins are 
 forgiven thee." § IJ. (Mark vi. 8) "nothing . . . except a stafiF" ; 
 (Matthew x. 10) "nor a staff" ; (Luke ix. 3) "neither a staff." § 16. 
 (Mark ix. 41) lit. "in the Name because ye are Christ's.'' § 17. Hebraic 
 alternatives. § 18. Conclusion .... Page 128 
 
 XIV 
 
REFERENCES 
 
 (i.) Black Arabic numbers, e.g. (27), refer to subsections in 
 this volume, or (if exceeding 272) to subsections in Part 
 II. ; (27a) means a footnote on subsection 27. 
 
 (ii.) The books of Scripture are referred to by the ordinary 
 abbreviations, 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.) In the notes, the MSS. known severally as the Alexan- 
 drian, the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Codex Bezae, are 
 called by their usual abbreviations A, N, B, and D. The 
 Syriac version of the Gospels discovered by Mrs. Gibson 
 on Mount Sinai is called in the text the " Syro-Sinaitic " or 
 " Sinaitic Syrian," and in the notes is referred to as SS. 
 
 (iv.) The text of the Greek Old Testament adopted is that of 
 Professor Swete^ ; of the New, that of Westcott and Hort. 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS 
 
 A and N. See (iii.) above. 
 
 B. See (iii.) above. 
 
 Chr. = Chronicles. 
 
 D. See (iii.) above. 
 
 Ency. = Black's Encyclopedia Biblica. 
 
 Esdras, the First Book of, is frequently called, in the text, Esdras. 
 
 ^ This differs greatly from that of most earlier editions, which are usually based 
 on Codex A. (33). 
 
 XV 
 
BOOK I 
 THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
CLUE 
 
 Hor. Heb-^Horae Hebraicae, by John Lightfoot, 1658-74, ed. 
 
 Gandell, Oxf. 1859. 
 1^.= Kings. 
 leg. = (as in Tromm.) "legeiunt," i.e. the LXX "read" so-and-so 
 
 instead of the present Hebrew text. 
 Oxf. Cone. = The Oxford Concordance to the Septuagint. 
 S. = Samuel. 
 
 Schottg. = Schottgen's Sbrae Hebraicae, 1733. 
 Sir. = the work of the son of Sirach, commonly called Ecclesi- 
 
 asticus (see 20a). 
 SS. See (iii.) above. 
 Tisch. = Tischendorf 's New Testament. 
 Tromm. = Trommius' Concordance to the Septuagint. 
 Wetst. = Wetstein's Comtnentary on the New Testament, 1751. 
 W. H. = Westcott and Hort's New Testament. 
 
 (a) A bracketed Arabic number, following the sign =, and 
 intervening between a Hebrew and a Greek word, indicates the 
 number of instances in which that Hebrew word is represented by 
 that Greek word in the LXX — e.g. nS"' = (7) avd-Trreiv. 
 
 (b) * For the meaning of the asterisk prefixed to the headings 
 of some sections, see p. xix n. 
 
 (c) In cases where the verses of the Hebrew, the Greek, and the 
 Revised Version are numbered differently, the numbering of the 
 Revised Version is for the most part given alone. 
 
 XVI 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The primary object of this work is to indicate means for 
 constructing a clue by which scholars may systematically 
 find their way through any Greek translation from Hebrew 
 back to the Hebrew original. 
 
 The secondary object is to demonstrate that parts of the 
 Synoptic Gospels are based upon a common original Hebrew 
 document, not Aramaic, but Hebrew in the strict sense, 
 biblical Hebrew.^ 
 
 Another object is to give specimens of the manner in 
 which one may employ the clue so as to return from the 
 Gospels to their original Hebrew. 
 
 Some years ago, the notion that a Jewish Christian 
 
 ^ See Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. i. col. 283 : " By the time of Christ Aramaic 
 had long been the current popular speech of the Jews in Palestine, and the use, 
 spoken and written, of Hebrew (in a greatly modified form) was confined to 
 scholars. Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic, and the original preaching of 
 Christianity, the £^077^X10^, was in the same language. And this, too, not in the 
 dialect current in Jerusalem, -which roughly coincided with the literary language of 
 the period, but in that of Galilee.'' Professor Noldeke, the writer of the above, 
 adds, "it is impossible for us to know the Galilean dialect of that period with 
 accuracy. The attempts made in our days to reduce the words of Jesus from Greek 
 to their original language have therefore failed." 
 
 By "the original preaching" Professor Noldeke presumably means the oral 
 Gospel preached during and after Christ's lifetime in Palestine. 
 
 It is quite possible that in the written Hebrew Gospel, Aramaic words were 
 included (as in Ecclesiastes), and even Aramaic passages (as in Ezra and Daniel). 
 
 xvii 
 
CLUE 
 
 would write a Gospel in Hebrew, a dead language, might 
 have been dismissed by many as absurd. But the recent 
 discovery of the lost Hebrew of portions of Ecclesiasticus '^ 
 reveals a Jew, long after Hebrew had ceased to be spoken, 
 writing with fair success in " biblical Hebrew," just as the 
 chroniclers of the life of St. Francis might write the Saint's 
 words (as well as his deeds) in Latin, though St. Francis 
 spoke in Italian. This in itself — apart from the opinion 
 of so learned and laborious a scholar as Professor Resch — 
 ought to convince people that there is no antecedent im- 
 probability in the hypothesis that the earliest written Gospel 
 was composed in biblical Hebrew. 
 
 From this original Hebrew to ascend still further to the 
 Galilaean Aramaic actually uttered by our Lord, is a different 
 object — possibly attainable, and certainly not under-rated 
 by the author, but not contemplated in this treatise. On 
 the hypothesis of a Hebrew Gospel, the differences between 
 Aramaic and Hebrew will not be likely to affect that large 
 portion of the Gospels in which the evangelists, speaking in 
 their own person, describe Christ's birth, death, resurrection, 
 and miracles. 
 
 The earliest Christian ecclesiastical historian, Fapias, 
 tells us that " Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrew 
 language, and each one interpreted them as he could." * This 
 external evidence dissipates a good deal of the alleged im- 
 probability of a Hebrew original. However, neither external 
 evidence nor antecedent probabilities will find much space 
 in the following pages. For it is there maintained that the 
 internal evidence derivable from a Greek document can as 
 absolutely and scientifically demonstrate translation from 
 biblical Hebrew documents,^ as fossils in a rock can demon- 
 
 1 See below 20«. 
 
 ^ Quoted by Eusebius in his History of the Church, iii. 39, 30. 
 s "Documents,'' not "document." The Hebrew Ijygia would be "inter- 
 preted " differently by Hebrew editors as well as by Greek translators. Some 
 
 xviii 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 strata the action of water. The details of the demonstration 
 will be often necessarily technical, but its fundamental 
 principles can be made clear to the simplest intelligence. 
 And even of the details a large number can be mastered 
 without knowledge of any ancient language.^ For the scholar, 
 the statements made in the text will be demonstrated by 
 quotations from the Hebrew Bible and from the Greek 
 translations of it. These the " unlearned " reader will be 
 unable to understand. Similarly, in a Court of Justice, a 
 juror may be unable to understand the words of a foreign 
 witness. He depends on the interpreter. But he is not 
 thereby excluded from giving a verdict, and his verdict is 
 generally right. 
 
 This is as it should be. It seems intolerable that, on 
 points vitally affecting the religion and spiritual development 
 of the multitudes, the ultimate judgment should rest with a 
 few linguistic or theological specialists. The truth is — and 
 to show that it is true is another object of this work — that 
 what is called "the higher criticism" is simply scientific 
 investigation and classification submitted to the judgment 
 of common sense. 
 
 parts of Ecclesiasticus are rewritten in the margin by the Hebrew editor. Oral 
 teaching would also produce variations. Hence the original Hebrew " document " 
 would soon become " documents," perhaps intermixed with Aramaic words (see 
 126). 
 
 ^ For the purposes of reference and demonstration it has been necessary, in 
 some sections, to accumulate instances of Septuagint error more numerous and more 
 difficult than would be needed for mere illustration. Such sections are indicated 
 by an asterisk, and the general reader is recommended to pass over them at first, 
 returning to them when they are referred to in the later pages that deal with the 
 Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 XIX 
 
BOOK I 
 THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
CHAPTER I 
 SPECIMENS OF ERROR IN THE SEPTUAGINT 
 
 § I . On the evidence needed to prove translation 
 
 [1] Suppose we are reading two English histories of 
 the French Revolution and find them so closely agreeing as 
 to suggest that the two were borrowed from a common 
 source. Comparing two corresponding sentences, we find, 
 let us say, in one, " I assure you I am your friend in this 
 affair," but in the other " I assure you I follow your friend 
 in this affair." Ought we not at once to suspect — if we 
 know anything of French — that this difference arises from 
 translating into English the ambiguous French "suis"? 
 Again, a page or two afterwards, we find in one of the 
 histories (let us suppose) " he was in good health" but in the 
 parallel portion of the other "he was carrying his goods'' 
 , Surely this should suggest that " il portait ses biens " has 
 been mistaken for the more familiar " il se portait bien " ; 
 and the result will be to strengthen our impression that 
 parts of the two histories consist of translations made from 
 one and the same French document. If, a little later, we 
 met with two such parallels as " he found for himself in the 
 town a young artist," and, " there happened to be in the town 
 a young artist," our strong impression would be exchanged 
 for an absolute conviction that these three errors were to be 
 explained by one cause, translation from French. The 
 original was, in the last case, " il se trouvait." 
 
 3 
 
[2] SPECIMENS OF ERROR 
 
 [2] Now take a case where there are no parallel 
 documents and where the history is in a dead language. 
 Suppose a Byzantine historian to be describing in Greek 
 the invasion of Italy by the Goths. We know nothing of 
 Greek ; but, reading his work in a faithful English translation, 
 we are perplexed by finding that the historian mentions 
 " oaks '' where we should have expected " flint-stones " or 
 " flinty rocks " ; and on the next page he has " the waters 
 of all Italy " where " the waters of a river of Italy " would 
 be much more to the point, and where "«// Italy" is 
 absurd. Turning to the annotations we are informed that 
 "ilices" is the Latin for "oaks," and "silices" for "flint- 
 stones " ; and again that " omnis Italiae " is the Latin for 
 " of all Italy," and " amnis Italiae " for " a river of Italy." 
 We know nothing of Latin, and nothing of Greek ; but if 
 our annotator brought forward two or three more of such 
 errors, and assured us that none of them could be explained 
 as Greek misprints, should we feel any hesitation in accept- 
 ing his statement — though based entirely on internal evidence 
 — that these errors arose from mistranslated Latin ? "What 
 do you know about Greek or Latin ? " some one might say 
 to us. " Nothing," we should reply, " but we know some- 
 thing about the laws of evidence, and we have some claim 
 to common sense." 
 
 § 2. On the evidence obtainable to prove translation from 
 Hebrew into Greek 
 
 From the preceding instances it appears that if we 
 desired to ascertain whether an English document was 
 translated from a French one, it would be well to make 
 a list of such English words as were found by experience 
 to be associated . with errors in translating from the latter 
 language, e.g. " follow " and " am," " find " and " happen to 
 be," " carry " and " be in [good] health," etc. We should 
 
 4 
 
ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT [4] 
 
 then be on our guard whenever we met such words in an 
 English passage that seemed to contain a misstatement, and 
 might be able, by means of our tabulated list or key, to 
 restore the original French and rectify the error. 
 
 In the case of French, it would be a matter of great 
 difficulty to compose a Key that would be of any practical 
 service. The language is too well known, and modern 
 criticism is too exacting, to allow English translations of 
 French works to be published with many errors, or, if 
 published, to remain in circulation. But in the case of 
 Hebrew, things are widely different. 
 
 [3] The Greek Version of the Old Testament, called the 
 Version of the Seventy, or the Septuagint — from the supposed 
 number of the translators — teems with mistranslations arising 
 from confusions between similar Hebrew letters, from the 
 ambiguity of Hebrew forms, and from a general obscurity 
 in Hebrew syntax owing to its inadequate supply of moods 
 and conjunctions. Hence, it is easy to find materials for a 
 Greek-Hebrew Key such as has been suggested above. The 
 difificulty here consists, not in the paucity, but in the Vastness 
 of the materials, and in the labour of collecting and classify- 
 ing them. 
 
 Although the Key itself could be used by none but 
 students acquainted with Greek and Hebrew, the use of the 
 Key can be made apparent to readers knowing nothing but 
 English — and this by a single example, with only a few 
 words of preface. 
 
 [4] Hebrew manuscripts in the first century were 
 written without vowels. In the sixth or seventh century 
 substitutes for vowels (called vowel-points) began to be 
 introduced,^ but when the first Hebrew Gospel was written, 
 these substitutes did not exist. Under these circum- 
 stances ambiguity and error could hardly be avoided even 
 if the consonants were clearly distinguishable, as we may 
 
 ' Dr. Ginsburg's Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, p. 451. 
 
 5 
 
[5] SPECIMENS OF ERROR 
 
 easily realise if we try to imagine the consequences if in 
 English we were left to infer from the context the meaning 
 of bt, frm, wnt, or msty 
 
 [5] But, further, many of the Hebrew consonants are 
 hardly distinguishable, e.g. h and ch (n and n), and d and r 
 ("T and n). We ought not to be surprised at the multitude 
 of errors arising from the latter of these similarities. Not 
 only do we find the Hebrew Ramah, Madon, etc., represented 
 by the Greek Daman, Marron, etc., but in parallel Hebrew 
 books, and even in different passages of the same Hebrew 
 book, the same person is called Hadadezer and Hadarezer.^ 
 
 ^ [4o] For the consideration of the instances of confusion of Hebrew letters to 
 be hereafter given, the following extracts from Dr. Ginsburg's Introduction to the 
 Hebrew Bible may be found useful by readers acquainted with Hebrew : — 
 
 (i.) Concerning quiescent letters. — "It is now established beyond a doubt that 
 the letters <inK, commonly called quiescent or feeble letters, have been gradually 
 introduced into the Hebrew text. It is, moreover, perfectly certain that the 
 presence or absence of these letters in our text in many instances is entirely due 
 to the idiosyncrasy of the Scribes" (p. 136). 
 
 (ii.) Concerning v- — "Very frequently it was not expressed in the primitive 
 forms. This orthography is still exhibited in the name ^3 Bel= ^pa Baal which 
 has survived in three instances (Is. xlvi. i, Jer. 1. 2, li. 44) apart from compound 
 proper names, and in the particle of entreaty '3 = 'pa I pray, / " (p. 142). 
 
 (iii.) Concerning n and y. — " That the n and p, like the 3 and 3, the 1 and •, 
 etc., must have been similar in form in olden times is evident from " a "caution" 
 which Dr. Ginsburg quotes as "given in the Talmud to the Scribes,'' and he adds 
 instances of their interchangeableness (pp. 143-4). 
 
 (iv.) Concerning words written "plene," i.e. with quiescent letters, or "defec- 
 tive" {i.e. without them). — "When the scribe was in doubt whether a word is 
 to be written plene or defective, he naturally wrote it plene, since he thereby 
 committed no mistake even if the word in question ought properly to have been 
 written defective" (p. 157). 
 
 [4i] Some of these confusions may have arisen from the Samaritan characters 
 of the old version of the Bible. But as late as the first century (Sor. Heb. vol. i. 
 p. 170), Galilaeans confused (i) «, p, and n, (2) 3 and 3. The Jerusalem Talmud 
 says, "The mystical doctors distinguished not between Cheth and He," and the 
 Babylonian says, "The schools of Eleazar ben Jacob pronounced Aleph Ain, 
 and Ain Aleph." 
 
 ^ 2 S. viii. 3-12 (Hebr.) " Hadadezer" ; (LXX) " Hadraazar"; but 2 S. x. 16, 
 19, etc., and elsewhere in Scripture and Josephus, " Hadarezer." 
 
 6 
 
ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT [6] 
 
 [6] It happens that this last variation causes no serious 
 historical difficulty. But now take the similarity between 
 the Hebrew name for Syria, i.e. Aram, and the Hebrew 
 for Idumaea, i.e. Edom.^ The former and the latter are 
 represented severally by a'rm (ms) and e^dm (D^M). No 
 knowledge of Hebrew, nothing but common sense, is needed 
 to convince us that, unless the context made the meaning 
 absolutely certain, errors would arise from this similarity. 
 Hence we cannot be surprised that where the second book 
 of Samuel speaks of " Syria and Moab," Chronicles has 
 " Edom and Moab," and the Septuagint " Idumaea " in both 
 cases.^ In another passage, where the Revised Version gives 
 " Syrians " in the text and " Edomites " in the margin, the 
 Septuagint prefers the latter, and in another, where the 
 Hebrew has certainly " Syria," the Greek gives " Edom." * 
 Again, the title of the sixtieth Psalm represents David 
 as striving with " Aram," i.e. with the Syrians, and then 
 adds that Joab returned and " smote of Edom . . . twelve 
 thousand." Here the Septuagint, while translating what 
 refers to Syria, omits what refers to Edom, perhaps taking it 
 as an erroneous repetition of the statement about Syria. 
 It follows from these facts that if, in two parallel Greek 
 documents bearing on Jewish history, we find Idumaea in 
 one and Syria in another, this must be taken as evidence 
 pointing to translation from Hebrew. One such instance 
 would, of course, not suffice to prove translation. But it 
 ought to prepare us to study the text with a view to ascer- 
 tain whether other deviations may be similarly explained. 
 
 ' For the convenience of readers ignorant of Hebrew, k will sometimes be 
 transliterated as a', and v as a". It must be remembered that Hebrew words are 
 read from right to left. 
 
 '' 2 S. viii. II-I2 (also 13), 1 Chr. xviii. 11. 
 
 » 2 K. xvi. 6, I K. xi. 25. 
 
[7] SPECIMENS OF ERROR 
 
 § 3. Specimens of Greek error arising from confusion of 
 similar Hebrew letters 
 
 Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek it would 
 be impossible to use to any good purpose the Key above 
 described. But a few specimens of its results may be 
 helpful. For besides indicating the astonishing extent to 
 which the Septuagint is permeated with error, they will also 
 show how natural the mistakes were, and how probable it is 
 that other translators might err in the same way. 
 
 [7] Here are some instances arising from confusions 
 of the following six Hebrew roots : (i.) " feed," " pasture," 
 " shepherd " ; (ii.) " know," cause to know," " teach," " know- 
 ledge," " wise," etc. ; (iii.) " evil " ; (iv.) " appoint a meeting 
 with," " meet," " appointment " ; (v.) " break " ; (vi.) " cry out." 
 A glance at the footnote will convince readers, with or with- 
 out knowledge of Hebrew, that such confusions are very 
 natural.^ 
 
 Is. xliv. 20 : " He feedeth on ashes." LXX " Know thou that 
 ashes. ..." 
 
 Prov. XV. 14 : "The mouth of fools feedetk on folly." LXX "The 
 mouth of the unlearned will know evil things." 
 
 Prov. X. 21 : "The lips of the righteous ^«</ many." LXX "The 
 lips of the righteous understand lofty things." 
 
 Is. xliv. 28 : "He that saith of Cyrus, [He is] my shepherd." LXX 
 " He that saith to Cyrus to be wise." 
 
 Jer. iii. 15 : " They shall feed you with knowledge and understand- 
 ing." LXX "They shall shepherd you, j>4(?^^er^^i«^ith understanding." 
 
 Jer. vi. 18 : "Hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what 
 is among them." LXX "The nations heard and those shepherding 
 their flocks." 
 
 Hos. xiiL 5 : " I did know thee in the wilderness." LXX " I 
 did shepherd thee in the wilderness." 
 
 Ezek. xix. 7 : "And he knew." LXX "And he fed on." ^ 
 
 1 The Hebrew is (i.) njn. ("•) J>T, ("i.) Vn, (iv.) ny, (v.) pjn, (vi.) jnn. 
 ^ Ezek. xix. 7, nai Minero T<j) OpAcei airov, 
 
 8 
 
ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT [7] 
 
 Prov. xiii. 19: "To depart from evil." LXX "Far from know- 
 ledge." 
 
 Prov. xix. 23: "He shall not be visited with evil." LXX "Where 
 knowledge does not visit." 
 
 2 S. xix. 7 (Hebr. 8) : "And that will be worse (lit. evil) unto thee 
 than all." LXX " And know for thyself, and evil for thee this, more 
 than all." ^ 
 
 Prov. xix. 27: "Words oi knowledge." LXX "^ot7 speeches." 
 
 Is. xxviii. 9: "Whom will he teach knowledge." LXX "To 
 whom did we announce evil things ? " 
 
 Eccles. vii. 22 : "For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth." 
 LXX " For very often it will do thee evil, and on many occasions 
 will thy heart do mischief." ^ 
 
 Dan. xii. 4 : "■Knowledge." LXX (but not (32) Theod.) « Un- 
 righteousness." 
 
 Mic. iv. 9 : " Wherefore dost thou cry out aloud (lit. a cry) ? " 
 LXX " Wherefore didst thou know evil things 1 " 
 
 Ex. xxix. 42-43 : " I will meet (lit. appoint') with you ... I will 
 meet with the children of Israel." LXX " I will be known to thee 
 ... I will appoint to the children of Israel." [Here the LXX, as 
 is often the case with scribes, makes a mistake at first, which, when 
 the circumstances recur soon afterwards, it does not repeat.] 
 
 Ex. XXX. 36 (and comp. Num. xvii. 4) : "I will meet with you." 
 LXX " I will be known to thee." 
 
 Am. iii. 3,: " Except they have agreed (marg. made an appoint- 
 ment)." LXX " Except they have made themselves known." 
 
 Hos. xii. I (Hebr. 2) : " Ephraim feedeth on wind." LXX 
 " Ephraim [is] an evil spirit." 
 
 Is. Ivi. 11: " And these are shepherds." LXX " And they are 
 evil." 
 
 Jer. XV. 12: " Can one break iron ? " LXX " Shall iron be 
 known ? " 
 
 Jer. ii. 16 : "They have broken (marg. fed on)." LXX "They 
 knew thee." 
 
 Prov. xi. 15 : "(He) shall be sore broken" lit. "breaking shall 
 be broken" LXX " A wicked man doeth evil." 
 
 ' The LXX has combined (20) the wrong meaning ("know") with the right 
 one ("evil"). 
 
 ' The LXX has again (20) combined two meanings. 
 
 9 
 
[8] SPECIMENS OF ERROR 
 
 Prov. XXV, 19: "A broken tooth." LXX "The way of the 
 wicked." 
 
 [8] Errors arising from neglect of Hebrew grammatical 
 distinctions — e.g. that between causative and non-causative 
 forms of the verb — do not, strictly speaking, come within 
 the scope of this section. But as the word " know " has 
 been under consideration, and as it may be necessary here- 
 after to consider possible confusions in the New Testament 
 between " know " and " cause to know," i.e. " say," " teach," 
 etc., it will be well to add one or two instances of such 
 confusion here : — 
 
 Is. xix. 12 : " And let them know." LXX " And let them say." 
 Is. xlviii. 6 : " And thou didst not know them." LXX " And 
 
 thou didst not say." 
 
 Ex. vi. 3 : " But [by] my name I was not known." LXX " But 
 
 my name I did not show." 
 
 § 4. Specimens of Greek error arising from confusion of 
 similar Hebrew words 
 
 It would be possible to repeat the process of the last 
 section with regard to other letters and other groups of 
 words. But want of space prevents us from mentioning 
 more than a few that are most frequently confused. 
 
 [9] (i.) The word («) " sit " is identical, in some of its 
 forms, with {V) "turn," "return," "do again," and hence 
 "again." In Num. xi. 4, Deut. i. 45, Josh. v. 2, Judg. xix. 
 7, 2 S. xix. 37, Job vi. 29, Zech. ix. 12, the Revised 
 Version has " turn," " return," " again," " the second time " ; 
 but the LXX has in every case " sit." Also the word " sit " 
 is regularly used for " abide," " remain," " sojourn." ^ 
 
 This may be important, in view of passages where 
 
 ^ " Sit (SB")," " Return (aiir) " : but " he will return " (aii" or y\v) may be 
 identical with " sit." " Sitting " is rax, which may be confused with " rest " and 
 "sabbath." 
 
 10 
 
ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT [12] 
 
 Jesus is described as "sitting," or "returning," or doing a 
 thing " again," by one, but not all of the Synoptists ; or 
 where the Synoptists describe Peter as " sitting " during his 
 denial of our Lord, while John describes him as " standing." 
 
 An interesting instance of variation in Hebrew, bearing 
 on these forms, may be found in two parallel Hebrew passages,^ 
 one saying " Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt," but the other " Jero- 
 boam returned from Egypt." 
 
 [10] (ii.) The words "friend," or "companion," and 
 " evil," are identical and repeatedly confused. This will 
 come before us in connection with passages where Matthew 
 represents a king, or lord, as calling a wicked servant 
 " companion." ^ 
 
 [11] (iii.) The words "there," "name," "put," "wonder," 
 " hear," " report," " fame," " announce [the Gospel] " are very 
 similar, and are often confused. This has a bearing on 
 passages where one evangelist mentions " wondering" or 
 " dismay" and another " hearing " ; and where one says that 
 Jesus " came announcing [the Gospel]," and another that " the 
 report of Jesus came " into a certain district.^ 
 
 [12] (iv.) The words "cross," "across," "ford," "ferry- 
 boat," " evening," " Arabah " (often called " wilderness," or 
 " lowland," or " plain ") are very liable to confusion, and 
 some of them are frequently confused not only by the 
 Septuagint but in the Hebrew. Thus, where the Hebrew 
 text gives " Lodge not at the fords" the Hebrew margin 
 gives " in the plains " ; and the Septuagint, adopting the 
 latter, treats it as a proper name "Araboth."* This may 
 have a bearing on several synoptic passages where one 
 
 ^ [9a] 1 K. xii. 2, 2 Ch. *. 2, ap'iin both cases. "From (-d)" and "in (-a)" 
 are frequently (168 a) confused. In Kings, Codex Alexandrinus mistranslates, or 
 conforms to Chronicles. " The Hebrew is jn (see 188). 
 
 ' "There"=DB', "name"=D», "put"=DiB', "hear"=j)Diy, " wonder "=do»'. 
 
 * 2 S. xvii. l6. In 2 S. xix. l8 (Heb. 19), "there went over u. ferry boat 
 (jnarg. convoy)" the LXX (confusing <^ with r) renders the word by two meanings 
 (a) "service," {b) "crossing," and combines them. 
 
 I I 
 
[13] SPECIMENS OF ERROR 
 
 evangelist, unsupported by the rest, mentions a " boat," or 
 describes Jesus as " passing along." 
 
 § S. The place of Christ' s baptism : Bethabara? Betharaba? 
 
 or Bethany ? 
 
 [13] In view of the perplexed question as to the place 
 of Christ's baptism, importance attaches to the following 
 mentions of the Jordan : '' the plains of (Heb. Arabotfi) 
 Moab which are by the Jordan at Jericho," " the plains of 
 (Heb. ArabotK) Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho east- 
 ward," ^ while the Septuagint in both cases appears to treat 
 " Araboth of Moab " as a place, and certainly does so in the 
 former passage, "Araboth of Moab which is by Jordan at 
 Jericho." Mark apparently mentions the baptism as occur- 
 ring in Jordan,^ and Matthew describes Jesus as coming 
 towards Jordan to be baptized ; but Luke omits all mention 
 of the Jordan in this connection, having however previously 
 said, "John came into all the surrounding country of the 
 Jordan." John defines "the place where John was baptiz- 
 ing " as " Bethany beyond Jordan." But there are various 
 readings " Bethabara," and " Betharaba." Bethany may 
 mean " the place of a ship," Bethabara " the place of a ford 
 or ferryboat," Betharaba " a place in the Arabah." The latter 
 name is given in Joshua several times to a city in the 
 " wilderness " of Judah ; but the Hebrew itself once 
 erroneously drops " Beth," and calls it simply " the Arabah," 
 i.e. "the wilderness," and the Greek, on another occasion, 
 substitutes " Bethabara " (as some suppose, correctly).* 
 
 [14] Origen, visiting the Jordan early in the third 
 
 ' Num. xxxi. 12, Josh. xiii. 32. 
 
 ^ Mk. i. 9 i^aicrUsBi] els Tim' I., lit. "he was baptized (in)to Jordan," may 
 mean " he came to Jordan and was baptized," or " was baptized by Jordan," i.e., 
 on the banks of, or near, the river. Mk. i. 5 has ipairrij^ovTo iv rif 'lopSAvg. 
 
 ' Eney. Bib., " Beth- Arabah. " In Josh. xv. 61, LXX (but not A) has 
 "Tharabaam." 
 
 12 ■ 
 
ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT • [15] 
 
 century, found no trace of any " Bethany '* in the neighbour- 
 hood of Jordan, but adds, "They say that Bethabara is 
 indicated, on the banks of the Jordan, and that John is said 
 to have baptized there." This testimony is not lightly to be 
 disputed. Yet Origen himself tells us that " Bethany " was 
 supported by "almost all the copies," and by Heracleon. 
 It is not intended here to discuss which reading is historically 
 correct, but merely to indicate that the variations. point to a 
 confusion arising from a Hebrew original.^ 
 
 § 6. On the evidence required to prove translation from 
 Hebrew in the Synoptic Gospels 
 
 The reader may be disposed to infer from the preceding 
 instances of Septuagint mistranslation that it must be a very 
 short and simple process to detect translation in the Gospels 
 if it is actually latent there : " only give us three or four 
 such instances as those of Edom above and we will be 
 convinced at once." 
 
 [15] This is a very natural way of looking at the matter, 
 but it ignores some important differences between the Greek 
 of the New Testament and that particular Greek version of 
 the Old Testament which is commonly called the Septuagint 
 — differences that would explain why errors would be more 
 speedily corrected, and obliterated for posterity, in the former 
 than in the latter. 
 
 In the first place, large parts of the Greek Old Testament, 
 partly because of their inferior interest and partly because of 
 their extent, would be comparatively rarely read by Greek- 
 speaking Jews or Christians ; and consequently less notice 
 would be attracted by the mistakes in them. 
 
 ' It is possible that "Bethabara"' may be historically, and "Bethany" 
 textually, correct. If the two terms may mean the same thing, John may have 
 taken advantage of a transitory local appellation, or even of a literary paraphrase, 
 in order to call attention to a kind of mystical appropriateness in the name : Christ 
 began His course at one Bethany and brought it toward its end at another. 
 
 13 
 
[15] SPECIMENS OF ERROR 
 
 In the second place, the Old Testament does not contain 
 parallel versions of the words of Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., 
 corresponding to the parallel versions of the words of Christ 
 in our Gospels.^ In the latter, parallelism, together with 
 occasional diversity, would lead a Christian editor to correct 
 the diversity if it arose from mistranslation. In the former 
 there would be no such cause for correction. 
 
 In the third place, the Septuagint had existed for more 
 than three centuries before controversies began between Jews 
 and Christians about the meaning of Hebrew Scriptures. Up 
 to the middle of the first century (a.d.) there was no contro- 
 versial inducement to correct Greek errors. The Alexandrian 
 Jew, Philo, regarded the Septuagint as inspired. Probably 
 many Greek-speaking Jews agreed with him, and certainly 
 the Palestinian Jews took no steps to correct the Greek 
 errors. Not till the Alexandrian Apollos began to " mightily 
 convince " Greek-speaking Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, 
 by quoting from the Scriptures, and not till Christian 
 evangelists throughout Asia Minor freely appealed to the 
 Septuagint, and finally published Gospels quoting from it, 
 would the Hebrew-reading Jews, who adhered to the Jewish 
 faith, be roused to protest. 
 
 But protests were not followed by action till early 
 in the second century, when there appeared " a new 
 translation, slavishly literal in character, made by a Jewish 
 proselyte of the name of Aquila."^ But it was too late. 
 
 ' In the parallel books of Kings and Chronicles, diversities have been occa- 
 sionally corrected by the Greek translators. But the inducement to make such 
 corrections was comparatively slight in such cases — often mere statistics, or 
 names. See 16. 
 
 ^ Robertson Smith's The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 76. Aquila's 
 translation is described on p. 391 as " made expressly in the interests of Jewish 
 exegesis." ' ' Symmachus," the author continues, " and Theodotion followed later, 
 but still in the second century. . . . Aquila, says Jerome, sought to reproduce the 
 Hebrew word for word ; Symmachus aimed at a clear expression of the sense ; 
 while Theodotion rather sought to give a revised edition not very divergent from 
 the Greek of the Septuagint." 
 
 14 
 
ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT [16] 
 
 The Christian Church was by this time committed to the 
 Septuagint. In the middle of the second century we find 
 Justin Martyr bitterly attacking the Jews for " corrupting " 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, simply because the Jews adhered to 
 the Hebrew and rejected the erroneous Greek ! ^ It was not 
 till the third century that an attempt was made by a 
 Christian writer, Origen, to show the divergences of the 
 Septuagint from the Hebrew ; and his work was not so far 
 appreciated by the Christians as to induce them to preserve 
 it for posterity. 
 
 [16] How different was the case with the New Testa- 
 ment 1 Reading daily, and catechizing in, and preaching 
 from, and disputing about, and knowing by heart, their brief 
 and recently composed Gospels, many early Christian evan- 
 gelists may well have desired to compare and blend them 
 into a harmonious whole as Tatian did some time after the 
 middle of the second century. Others — who did not venture 
 to intermix the Gospel texts in the form of a continuous 
 harmony — would write on the margin of one Gospel the 
 parallel expression used by another. These marginal notes 
 might be taken as additions or corrections by some scribe 
 copying the manuscript a few years afterwards. In that 
 case, they would either be added to the text, or else they 
 would supplant the text^ The general result would be to 
 obliterate for posterity most of the striking instances of 
 discrepancy arising from obvious mistranslation. 
 
 Again, the text of the Greek New Testament — instead 
 of being allowed to retain its errors of mistranslation (if 
 errors there are) until three centuries had made them 
 venerable and secured their perpetuation — was plunged 
 almost from the beginning into a furnace of controversy. 
 A few specimens of attacks made upon the Christian Gospels 
 
 1 Tryph. 72-3. 
 
 ^ [16a] From the latter cause arises the curious result that sometimes a manu- 
 script (as, for example, the Codex Bezae) shows a text of Mark conformed to that 
 of Luke, while the parallel Luke is conformed to Mark ! 
 
 15 
 
[17] SPECIMENS OF ERROR 
 
 are still extant — preserved only in the works of those 
 Christian Apologists who quote in order to refute them. 
 But we have to bear in mind that controversy must have 
 been at work from the time when Christianity began to 
 attract the notice of educated Greeks and Romans : and its 
 effect on evangelists must have been in the direction of 
 harmonizing and correction of error — except in cases where 
 the error was too old to be corrected. 
 
 No doubt, in the Hebrew books of Kings and Chronicles 
 flagrant discrepancies have been allowed by the Septuagint 
 as well as by the Jewish editors to remain uncorrected. But 
 in the first place, there was little inducement to correct these. 
 No great questions of religion depended on them. They 
 were mostly matters for Jews alone, and the Jewish mind 
 was less alive than the Greek to errors of statistics, and 
 names, and prosaic facts. No controversies raged about the 
 dimensions of the Temple or the chronology of the kings of 
 Israel and Judah. In the next place, it should be noted 
 that in several instances the Greek translators of Kings 
 and Chronicles have corrected discrepancies created by the 
 Jewish writers. Much more was this to be expected in 
 Greek evangelists translating, or editing translatic«is, from a 
 variously interpreted Hebrew original. 
 
 [17] To these three differences — (i.) familiarity arising 
 from brevity and from frequent repetition, (ii.) the existence 
 of parallel Gospels, at first perhaps adopted severally in 
 several Churches and only gradually adopted by all, and 
 harmonized by some, (iii.) the influence of controversy tend- 
 ing to the removal of errors and discrepancies — must be added 
 two others : (iv.) that of oral tradition, at first, and in a few 
 Churches, Aramaic, but afterwards, and in many more, Greek, 
 (v.) the absence, at first, of one written and supremely 
 authoritative Gospel. 
 
 Summing up, we may say that the earliest Greek trans- 
 lations of the Logia would be for some time fluid, like the 
 
 i6 
 
ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT [19] 
 
 versions of Daniel, which, as given by the Septuagint and 
 by Theodotion, are, in some parts, practically different books. 
 At first, causes (iv.) and (v.) would tend to differentiation, 
 covering up the Hebrew original with variations and ampli- 
 fications. Then, causes (i.), (iL), and (iii.) would tend to 
 assimilation, sometimes returning to the original Hebrew, 
 sometimes departing from it, but in either case cancelling 
 those discrepancies which before made a Hebrew origin 
 obvious. For example, two early parallel Gospels may have 
 had " Idumaea " and " Syria " respectively. Later editors may 
 have removed the discrepancy by substituting " Idumaea " for 
 " Syria," and in so doing they may have rightly returned to 
 the original Hebrew. But what is the consequence ? The 
 proofs of mistranslation from an original Hebrew text will 
 now have vanished. 
 
 [18] Nevertheless a great deal of evidence attesting 
 translation from Hebrew still remains, not difficult to perceive 
 when we are prepared for it, and, when perceived, conclusive. 
 Only we must not expect to find the Gospels agreeing 
 together quite as closely as Ezra and the first book of 
 Esdras, or as the Septuagint version of Daniel with 
 Theodotion. When the same or nearly the same words occur 
 in parallel passages, we must be prepared to find the context 
 or construction different, as at the outset of the Gospel, 
 where Mark says, " there went out to him [the Baptist] all 
 the Judaean country," Matthew " there went out to him . . . 
 all Judaea and all the surrounding country of the Jordan," 
 Luke " he [the Baptist] came to all the surrounding country 
 of the Jordan " — differences that could easily be explained 
 by the obscurities of Hebrew syntax and paralleled from 
 the Septuagint.^ 
 
 [19] When translated from Hebrew, speech may easily 
 become narrative, and narrative speech ; future things past, 
 find past future ; subject may become object, and object 
 
 1 Mk. i. S, Mt. iu. 5, Lk. iii. 3 (3364). 
 2 17 
 
[19] ERROR IN SEPTUAGINT 
 
 subject ; " for " may be replaced by " though," " and " by 
 " but," the interrogative by the affirmative, passive by active, 
 active by passive, and either of these by the causative. 
 It would take up far too much space to give instances here 
 of each of these deviations : they will better be reserved for 
 special passages of the Gospels, to be discussed later, on 
 which they severally have a bearing. But there is one 
 source of confusion so important that it must be examined 
 immediately, because it permeates the Septuagint and may 
 reasonably be supposed to affect the earliest Gospels still 
 more extensively. This will be considered in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 i8 
 
CHAPTER II 
 THE ERROR OF CONFLATION 
 
 § I. Conflations, their nature and origin 
 
 [20] A " CONFLATION " (literally '' something blown or 
 fused together"), when used as a literary technical term, 
 ought etymologically to mean a fusion of two renderings 
 in one. As a fact, the name is frequently given to such a 
 combination of two or more meanings as does not amount 
 to fusion. For example, in a passage in the book of the 
 Son of Sirach, commonly called Ecclesiasticus, where the 
 Hebrew has " drought," the Greek has " mountains and 
 deserts." Now the Hebrew " drought " means also " a dry or 
 desolate place," and might be translated " deserts." But how 
 are we to explain the addition " mountains and " ? The 
 answer is given by the remark of the editors, who tell us 
 that the Hebrew scribe has written " {of the) mountains " above 
 the line. The Hebrew of " mountain " is very like the first 
 two letters of "drought," and the scribe seems to have 
 suggested this as an alternative. The Greek text combines 
 the two in what is called a conflation} 
 
 ^ [2O3] Sir. xliii. 21, "drought" (ann), " mountains " = Dnn. The antiquity ot 
 the lately discovered Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus appears to be demonstrated by 
 recent discussions, and is assumed throughout this work. "Sir.'' is an abbrevia- 
 tion of " Sirachides," i.e. son of Sirach, and is preferred to "Ecclesiasticus," 
 because the latter, when abridged, is liable to be confused with abridgments of 
 "Ecdesiastes." The Hebrew of xxxix. 15 to xlix. 11 is edited by Cowley and 
 Neubauer, Oxford, 1897 ; some earlier and later chapters, by Schechter and 
 Taylor, Cambridge, 1899. 
 
 19 
 
[a] THE ERROR OF CONFLATION 
 
 [21] Another Hebrew passage in the same book says, 
 " with all your heart sing aloud," but the Greek says, " we 
 sang with all our heart and voice '' ; in a third, where the 
 Hebrew has "count," the Greek has "in number and 
 measure'' The Hebrew of " voice " is quite different from 
 that of " heart," and so is the Hebrew of " number " from 
 the Hebrew of " measure." But both these additions are 
 found in the Hebrew margin. In the former, the scribe was 
 influenced by literalism, feeling that people do not sing with 
 their " heart " but with their " voice " ; in the latter, he 
 perhaps desired to complete the meaning.^ 
 
 [22] These instances give us some notion of the pro- 
 cesses that result in conflation. The owner of the manu- 
 script jots down in the margin some various reading if the 
 text is doubtful, or some explanatory term or amplification 
 if the text is obscure or incomplete, never dreaming, perhaps, 
 of the danger of its being hereafter added to the text. 
 Then a scribe or translator, ignorant of the writer's motive, 
 and regarding the marginal note either as a part of the 
 text accidentally omitted, or else as an authoritative 
 addition, transfers it to the text. 
 
 [23] The earliest Christian ecclesiastical writer, Papias, 
 is perhaps apologising for Mark's redundancy when he says 
 that the Evangelist " committed no fault ... for he made 
 it his one object neither to omit anything of what he had 
 heard nor to misstate anything therein."^ The italicised 
 words at all events express that sense of responsibility 
 which, when accompanied by a want of exact and first-hand 
 knowledge, naturally leads a scrupulous translator or scribe 
 into the error of conflation. " The text may be right," he 
 
 ^ Sir. xxxix. 35, xlii. 7. 
 
 2 Euseb. H.E. iii. 39, IJ (quoting Papias), fflo-Te oiSh ij/mfrre Mdpxos oCrws (ma 
 ypi^l/as lis i,rreiivriii6yev(rev. ivis yi,p iiroiijiraTo trpivouiv, tow laiSh Siv iJKOvire 
 irapaKiveui fj ^eiaturSal n iv a&roTs. For the meaning of this, see Ency. Bib., 
 "Gospels," §65. 
 
 20 
 
THE ERROR OF CONFLATION [25] 
 
 says, " but so may the margin be. It will be best to put 
 down both." 
 
 § 2. Conflations, mostly caused by obscurity 
 
 Of the three instances given above from Ecclesiasticus 
 only one was caused by possible doubt as to the Hebrew 
 text. The two others were of an explanatory or ampHfica- 
 tory nature. 
 
 [24] But this does not represent the facts in most of 
 the canonical books of the Septuagint.^ Presumably the 
 Hebrew text of those was regarded as more authoritative 
 than the Hebrew of the son of Sirach. At all events in the 
 canonical books the Septuagint seems seldom to depart 
 deliberately from the Hebrew, except to correct expressions 
 that may have appeared erroneous or unseemly, e.g. anthro- 
 pomorphisms applied to God, as when it alters "it grieved 
 him \i.e. God] at his heart" into " he considered [it]." ^ In 
 these rare instances there was seldom any temptation to 
 conflate. The translators or editors might naturally feel that 
 they had expressed the substantial meaning of the Hebrew 
 by a reverent paraphrase. Why should they spoil their work 
 by adding a literal rendering that would shock Greek readers ? 
 But where an obscure Hebrew passage had been either loosely 
 paraphrased or erroneously translated, there an editor of 
 the translation might naturally step in to add a marginal 
 correction, and a scribe might subsequently incorporate it in 
 the text. 
 
 [25] In exceptional cases conflation, sometimes on a 
 large scale, is caused by supplementary tradition, as in the 
 story of Jeroboam, where the Septuagint gives two consider- 
 ably divergent accounts of the way in which he became 
 king. Many more such cases may be expected in the 
 Synoptic Gospels. Just as, in the case of Jeroboam, one 
 
 ' Daniel is an exception.' That is freely amplified and interpolated by the 
 LXX ; Job less freely. ^ Gen. vi. 6, iievalfiri, comp. viii. 2i. 
 
 21 
 
[26] THE ERROR OF CONFLATION 
 
 tradition might prevail in Judah and another in Israel, 
 so, as regards some of the words and acts of Jesus, the 
 Galilaean Church might in the earliest times preserve one 
 account and the Church in Jerusalem another. But it is 
 shown by experience that, even where supplementary tradition 
 intervenes, many diverging expressions in two parallel narra- 
 tives of the Septuagint may be explained by mistranslation 
 from Hebrew. The following instance is of great interest 
 because it presents in the Septuagint a Greek story of which 
 the Hebrew original has been lost — a story manifestly corrupt 
 and inconsistent, but believed by many scholars to represent 
 the earliest tradition more faithfully than the Hebrew version 
 that has been preserved : — 
 
 I Kings xi. 29 foil. (Heb.) i Kings (LXX only) xii. 24 {0) ^ 
 
 [26] The story of Ahijah The story of Samaia 
 
 (before Jeroboam's flight to (after Jeroboam's return from 
 
 Egypt). Egypt). 
 
 " And he [Jeroboam or " The word of the Lord 
 
 Ahijah ^] had clad himself in came to Samaia the [? son 
 
 a new garment . . . And of] Enlamei, saying. Take to 
 
 Ahijah caught the new gar- thyself (a^ a new garment, 
 
 ment that was on him[self] (a^ that which has not passed 
 
 and rent it [in] twelve pieces into waterf and rend it [in] 
 
 and he said to Jeroboam, twelve pieces, and thou shalt 
 
 Take thee ten pieces . . ." give it to Jeroboam and shalt 
 
 [Then comes a long discourse say to him. Thus saith the 
 
 with frequent mention of Lord, Take to thyself twelve 
 
 David.] pieces to clothe thee. And 
 
 ' For this passage, see Swete's edition of the LXX, vol. i. pp. 708-710. The 
 verses are xii. 24 {o)-xii. 24 {«). 
 
 * The last person mentioned is Ahijah, so that " he " would most naturally 
 mean the prophet. It is so understood by LXX, which inserts "Ahijah."' 
 
 ' IjiAtiov Koaihv rb oix et<re\ri\v8l)S eh lidup. The letters Oj, a^, denote (prob- 
 ably) two translations of one early Hebrew original. 
 
 22 
 
THE ERROR OF CONFLATION 
 
 Jeroboam took [them]. And 
 
 Samaia said, Thus saith the 
 
 Lord concerning the ten 
 
 tribes of Israel." [Hereupon 
 
 follows a version of the 
 
 people's remonstrance to 
 
 Rehoboam, " And the people 
 
 said . . ."] 
 
 [27] Here the version preserved by the Septuagint alone, 
 
 contains many traces of superior antiquity. It retains the 
 
 homely expression about a garment that has never yet " gone 
 
 to the wash " as we say in English, though it adds the free 
 
 rendering " new." ^ It also retains the manifestly erroneous 
 
 "twelve" instead of "ten," caused by mechanical repetition 
 
 of the preceding " twelve " or by corruption of the Greek.^ 
 
 [28] As regards the change of the imperative, " Take a 
 new garment," to the statement of fact, " and he had clad " 
 and " caught," we may compare a passage that comes a 
 little later where a prophet is speaking, and the Septuagint 
 has, " And he shall sacrifice on thee . . . and he shall burn 
 men's bones on thee, and he shall give a sign " ; but in 
 reality the speech of the prophet terminates at " thee," and 
 the following words should run '' and he gave a sign." 
 Hence it is easy to understand that an original " Take " may 
 have been interpreted {a-^ " and he took " \i.e. " clad himself 
 with"], (ag) "and he caught," and this the author of the 
 extant Hebrew version appears to have done (240), and to 
 have conflated the two meanings. 
 
 [29] The Septuagint version omits the long moralising 
 discourse about the mercies of God to the house of David. 
 
 1 Comp. Mk. ii. 2I (Mt. ix. l6), dy^'d^oi/ "that has never gone to the 
 fuller," where Lk. v. 36 has simply "new." 
 
 2 [27a] "To thyself twelve," o-cout^ SiiSeKa. Possibly the original -tio Sexa 
 (a being casually repeated) was written -Tuadexa which suggested -tu SuSeKa. 
 " Corruption of the Greek " will henceforth be called, for brevity, " Greek cor- 
 ruption." 
 
 23 
 
[30] THE ERROR OF CONFLATION 
 
 But this may be because the tradition preserved in the 
 Septuagint originated from Ephraim, that in the Hebrew 
 from Judah. 
 
 § 3. Rules for returning through a conflation to the Original 
 
 [30] The consideration of the stories of Ahijah and 
 Samaia leads us to one excellent rule in attempting to decide 
 between the claims of two clauses in a conflation, viz., 
 " Choose the more difficult, or the less commonplace." 
 The tendency of later versions is to remove whatever is 
 rough, homely, or unseemly, and to substitute the easy and 
 edifying. Thus, above, in the story of Samaia, if " new " 
 and " never yet gone to the water " constitute a conflation, 
 the latter is more likely to represent the original Hebrew. 
 So, too, in Mark,^ the phrase, " that has not been fulled," is 
 probably older than the corresponding " new " in Luke. On 
 this point one of the best instances is from Latin, quoted in 
 Bacon's Advancement of Learning concerning a scribe who 
 altered the phrase in the Epistle to the Corinthians, "let 
 down by a basket (sportam) " into " let down by the gate 
 (portam)." " Sporta " was comparatively unknown, " porta " 
 well known, and it is a universal tendency in scribes to 
 substitute the well known for the less known. 
 
 [31] Another general rule will appear to be deducible 
 from the instances to be hereafter given : the correct rendering 
 in a conflation mostly follows the incorrect one. For this, a 
 very natural reason may be given. In the majority of 
 cases of conflation, the text has been wrong and a marginal 
 reading has set it right^ But when a scribe was copying a 
 
 ' Mk. ii. 21 quoted above in footnote. 
 
 ^ In a few cases, a scribe or editor may be peculiarly eccentric and fond of 
 novelty, introducing erroneous corrections in the margin. But that virould be 
 comparatively rare in the Septuagint, where the Hebrew was of very high 
 authority, and the written text was not liable to be largely supplemented by oral 
 traditions. The tendency of the corrector there would generally be to return to 
 the literal Hebrew where the Greek had deviated from it. 
 
 24 
 
THE ERROR OF CONFLATION [34] 
 
 manuscript and mistook a marginal correction for an addition, 
 it was very natural that, in transferring it to the text, he 
 should place it second, not first. The old clause would 
 seem to have a sort of claim to precedence, and, apart from 
 sentiment, the new clause, being of the nature of an appendix 
 or supplement, would naturally come last.^ 
 
 § 4. Conflation mostly the sign of an early translation 
 
 [32] The Septuagint translation, which is generally said 
 to have been made in the third century before Christ,^ is far 
 less accurate than such parts as have come down to us from 
 the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, composed in the 
 second century after Christ. In particular, the Septuagint 
 version of Daniel abounds with conflations that are excluded 
 by Theodotion. In the Septuagint itself, some books are 
 far more faithful to the original than others : for example, 
 the Septuagint version of Ezra is superior, both in general 
 accuracy and in freedom from conflations, to the parallel 
 work in the Septuagint, called the First Book of Esdras. 
 The dates of these two translations are not known from 
 external evidence. But internal evidence suggests that the 
 translation of Ezra is the later. 
 
 [33] The oldest manuscript of the Septuagint, the 
 Codex Vaticanus, is often (though not always) less close to 
 the Hebrew than the later Codex Alexandrinus ; and the 
 latter rejects many of the conflations incorporated in the 
 former. 
 
 [34] On the other hand, a version of the Septuagint was 
 
 ^ [31a] This applies merely to marginal additions. Interlinear additions 
 might be regarded as part of the original text and would be inserted in the text 
 according to their position in its columns. In the Ecclesiasticus conflations above- 
 quoted (20), the two Hebrew marginal additions came last, but the interlinear 
 first, in their several Greek conflations. 
 
 ' It is not probable, however, that all the books of the Bible were translated 
 into Greek at the same time. 
 
 25 
 
[35] THE ERROR OF CONFLATION 
 
 published in the third century, after Origen's death, by 
 Lucianus of Antioch. He is said to have espoused the cause 
 of the literal, as distinct from the allegorical, interpretation 
 of Scripture ; and perhaps he entered on his task with a bias 
 against Origen's scholastic labours. At all events Lucianus' 
 work teems with conflations and precludes us from laying it 
 down as an invariable rule that a conflative version is earlier 
 than a non-conflative one. 
 
 [35] But, as a whole, applying to the Gospels the 
 analogy of the Septuagint, we should say that, if the former 
 were translated from, or corrected by, a Hebrew original, the 
 Hebrew would be at first freely and inaccurately translated 
 into Greek ; and the earlier translations, among other features 
 of inaccuracy, would contain more numerous conflations than 
 the later. 
 
 26 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 * § I . Specimens of name-conflation ^ 
 
 [36] The Septuagint's name-conflations, and its general 
 confusion of names, may be of great historical importance 
 if they can explain why the later Gospels omit many of 
 the names in Mark, e.g. Bartimaeus, Boanerges, Abiathar, 
 Dalmanoutha, and Levi. Moreover, name-conflations show 
 with special clearness what Hebrew letters are most liable to 
 be confused. When a word with a meaning is confused 
 with another, the scribe may be biassed by the meaning ; 
 but when a word with no meaning is confused with another, 
 there is seldom any cause for the confusion except similarity 
 of letters. 
 
 Here are a few specimens of name-confusion resulting in 
 name-conflation : — 
 
 [37] 2 S. xxiv. 6 : " Dan-jaan "; LXX, " Dan-eidan and 
 Oudan." [Codex A " Jaran and loudan."] 
 
 Ezra viii. i o : " Sons of Shelomith " ; LXX gives this 
 correctly, but Codex A conflates "sons -of (Heb. Baani)" 
 taking it first as " sons of," and then as part of the father's 
 name, " {a^ sons of {a^ ^aawi-seleimmouth." 
 
 The parallel i Esdr. viii. 36 has "sons of Banias, 
 Saleimoth" (A, "sons of Bani, Assalimoth "). 
 
 * For the meaning of the asterisk, see p. xix. n. But 36 and 45 will be found 
 useful to the general reader. The letters a^ and a^ denote two Greek renderings 
 of one Hebrew original, 
 
 27 
 
[38] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 Dan. viii. i6 : "Gabri-el," lit. "man of God," is rightly 
 given as " Gabriel" by Theodotion. But the LXX has (a^ 
 " Gabriel," and (a^) " man to " — because the same Hebrew 
 word means either " God " or " to." * 
 
 [38] Ezra iv. 8-9 : " Rehum ike chancellor" lit " master 
 of judgment" (Heb. Ba"l-Ta"m). This is translated in the 
 first book of Esdras (i Esdr. ii. 15) " Rathumus and Beel- 
 tethmus," {ib. ii. 21) "Rathumus (a^ who writes the things 
 that come before him, and {a^ Beeltethmus," (ib. ii. 16) 
 " Rathumus who (sic) the things that come before him." (In 
 Ezra it is translated "Raoul Badatamen" and "Raoum Baal.") 
 
 Josh. vii. 24 : " Unto the valley (Heb. Emek) of Achor''; 
 LXX, " Unto the {a^ ravine of Achor . . . unto {a^ Emek- 
 achor." 
 
 Ezra vii. 1 3 (Aramaic) : " And (the) Levites " is correctly 
 rendered. But the parallel i Esdr. viii. i o has " («J and the 
 Levites (a^ and these" the two words being somewhat similar.^ 
 
 2 S. XV. 22 : "' . . . and pass over.' And Ittai . . . 
 passed over " ; LXX, " ' , . . and pass over (a^) with me.' 
 (a^ And Ittai passed over. . . ." The same letters mean 
 both " with me " and " Ittai." ^ 
 
 [39] I Chr. ii. 9-10: " . . . and Ram and Chelubai. 
 And Ram begat A."; LXX, " and Ram and Chabel («^) and 
 Aram, {a^ And Arran begat A." 
 
 Judg. vi. 1 1 : " The Abieztlte." " Ab " (or " Abi ") means 
 
 ■■ This induces LXX to rewrite the whole of the clause containing the name. 
 The first clause (A{) follows the Hebrew, but the second (Aj) reproduces the 
 Hebrew word for word in a different sentence with a wrong meaning. The 
 following is a literal translation : " (Aj) (aj) And he called and said, (*i) Gabti-el 
 (iT]) instruct (rfi) that [man] [in] [e^) the vision ; (Aj) (oj) And having cried out said 
 (^2) tie man, To (^2) the ordinance (d^ that (neut.) (ej) the vision." The meaning 
 of Aj seems to be " The man said ' The vision is with a view to that ordin- 
 ance ' " ; it follows the Hebrew literally, though wrongly (perhaps reading pnn " the 
 ordinance " for pn " instruct ") and was perhaps thought by the conflator an improve- 
 ment on the original. This is a case where the incorrect clause of a conflation 
 comes second. " ' ' And (the) Levites " = M'l^i ; ' ' and these " = aVui. 
 
 3 ' ' With me " = " Ittai " = tin. 
 
 28 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [43] 
 
 " father." Hence LXX, " The father of Esdrei." Codex 
 A conflates " (a^) The father of (a^) Abiezri." 
 
 Judg. i. 15: "Caleb gave her." " Ca-" may mean 
 "according to," and "leb" may mean "heart." Hence LXX, 
 " («j) Caleb gave to her {a^ according to her heart'' 
 
 [40] In Judg. i. 27, "and her towns" is repeated six 
 times. The R.V. marg. informs us that the literal transla- 
 tion is " and her daughters" the villages being regarded as 
 " daughters " of the central town. 
 
 The LXX four times conflates " and her suburbs " ^ with 
 "and her daughters" (in varying order), and twice has 
 simply "and her daughters." Codex A has merely "and 
 her daughters" — except in the first of the six instances, 
 where it adds " and her scattered (hamlets)." 
 
 [41] Mic. vi. 16: "the statutes of Omri"; LXX, "the 
 laws of my people . . . the ordinances of Zambrei" the 
 two words being similar.^ 
 
 [42] 2 S. iii. 12: " sent . . . on his behalf" marg. 
 " where he was " : an instance of the conversion of a phrase 
 into (a) a name, as part of a triple conflate. The Hebrew 
 means {a^ " in the place of a person " (that is, " in his behalf") 
 and {a^ " in the place where he was." But (a^), in Greek, 
 might suggest (^3) " immediately" The LXX first treats it 
 as (a) a proper name, and then adds the meanings a^ and a^: 
 " sent (a) to Thailam, (aj where he was, (a^) immediately" ^ 
 
 [43] Judg. iv. 17: " Heber the Kenite," LXX "(«j) 
 Chaber, {a^ a companion of the Kenite" (or, "the Kenite 
 companion"). The word "Chaber" means "companion." 
 Codex A omits " companion." 
 
 1 t4 ■Ktfioi.Ka. ofir^s. ^ My people ('oy)," " Omri (nov)." 
 
 s The Hebrew (txt.) is wnn followed by -avh ("saying"). Probably the LXX 
 combined the n, which begins the former, with the \ which begins the latter. 
 Instead of eaiXo/t ou tiv, "Thailam where he was," A has eijXo/iou ynv, "the 
 land of Thelamus "—an interesting instance of Greek corruption. The Greek 
 ai>rb9a> "from the place," like our "on the spot," sometimes means "immedi- 
 ately." 
 
 29 
 
[44] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 [44] I S. xxi. 2 (Hebr. 3) : "to such and such a place," 
 LXX " in the place called (a^) God's Faith, (flj) Phellanei 
 Maemoni." The Hebrew freely rendered " such and such " 
 is " Pelouni-Elmouni" which has a very distant resemblance 
 to a combination of " Elohim " (i>. " God ") and " Emunah " 
 {t.e. " faith ")} 
 
 [45] One of the most remarkable instances of name- 
 conflation is to be found in the list of David's eleven sons 
 born in Jerusalem. The LXX converts eleven to twenty-four, 
 adopting two different versions, represented below by i. and 
 ii., and placing the whole of ii. after the whole of i., thus : — 
 
 2 S. v. 14-15 
 
 rHebr. (i) Shammua, (2) Shobab, (3) Nathan, (4) Solomon, (5) Ibhar, 
 \ (i.) LXX (i) Sammous, (2) Sobab, (3) Nathan, (4) Salomon, (S) Ebear, 
 [(ii.) LXX (i) Samae, (2) Jesseibath, {3) Nathan, (4) Galamaan, (s) Jebaar, 
 
 (Hebr. (6) Elishua, (7) Nepheg, (8)Japhia, 
 
 (i.)LXX(6) El(e)isous, (7) Naphek, (8)Jephie8, 
 
 (ii. ) LXX (6) (a) Theesous, {*) Eliphalat," (7) (a) Naged, («) Naphek, (8) Janatha, 
 THebr. (9) Elishanm, (10) Eliada, (ll) Eliphelet, 
 
 J (i.) LXX (9) EI(e)isama, (10) Epidae, (11) EI(e)iphaath, 
 
 [(ii.) LXX (9) Leasamus, (10) Baaleimath, (11) Eleiphaath, 
 
 The second list is (88) omitted by Codex A. It is 
 worth noting that the more inaccurate of the two Greek 
 versions comes (contrary to (31) the usual rule) after the 
 more accurate one. Perhaps the list denoted by ii. was 
 perceived to be so grossly inaccurate that it was not allowed 
 precedence, though the scribe of the Codex Vaticanus did not 
 like to reject it altogether as the Codex Alexandrinus does. 
 
 *§ 2. ''Darius"'' 
 
 Hitherto, the instances of name -conflation have been 
 interesting chiefly as exemplifications of scribal error, and 
 
 1 I S. xxi. 2 (Hebr. 3) 'jbSn ^ht, 0«oO TMant, ^iKKavA VLiu\i,mi, 
 ''' An anticipation of the eleventh name. 
 ° For the meaning of the asterisk, see p. xix. n. 
 30 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [4!] 
 
 of the mental tendency to substitute the known for the 
 unknown, and also of the general obscurity of Hebrew 
 written without vowel -points ; but none have risen to the 
 level of a great historical error. Such an instance we now 
 proceed to give. 
 
 [46] It relates to the Persian sovereigns who at first 
 hindered and finally sanctioned that rebuilding of the 
 Jewish temple which began in the first year of Cjnrus king 
 of Persia. The book of Ezra describes the Jews as coming 
 up under Cyrus, and erecting the altar, and proceeding a 
 little way with the building of the temple "in the second 
 jrear of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem." ^ 
 But at this point — 
 
 Ezra iv. 4-24 (R.V. (txt))*: "The people of the land 
 weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled 
 them in building, (5) and hired counsellors against them, to 
 frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, 
 even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. (6) And in 
 the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his re^n, wrote 
 they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and 
 Jerusalem. (7) And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote 
 Bishlam,^ Mithredath . . . unto Artaxerxes. . . . [Here 
 follows the letter to Artaxerxes, and his reply forbidding 
 the erection of the temple] (iv. 24) Then ceased the 
 work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem, and it 
 ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king 
 of Persia." 
 
 [47] This is quite intelligible if Ahasuerus and Arta- 
 xerxes represent Persian sovereigns (preceding Darius), in 
 
 ^ £cra in. 8. Qmcetnii^ the txt. of Ear. iv. 6 f., see Adeney and Bennett^s 
 Biblical ItUroductien, p. 119, "The text is probably coimpt," i.e. the Hebrew 
 and the Aiamaic. 
 
 * Henceforth the Revised Vosion will usually be denoted, as hoe, by R.V. 
 and the Anthorised Version by A.V. 
 
 ' But the LXX takes B as meaning "in" (which it does), and sUm as 
 meanii^ " peace," and tells us that the letter was written "in peace." 
 
 31 
 
[48] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 whose reigns the building was in abeyance. We should 
 then regard verses 6-23 as a long parenthesis (the Hebrew 
 " and " in verse 6 being equivalent, as it often is, to " for " 
 or "now") explaining the machinations by which the 
 permission given by Cyrus was withdrawn and the temple 
 brought to a stand. 
 
 But " Ahasuerus " is generally supposed to mean Xerxes 
 the son of Darius, and Artaxerxes is supposed to be the 
 son of Xerxes, and it is manifest that letters to the successors 
 of Darius seem quite out of place here. 
 
 [48] Turning to the parallel statement in the first 
 book of Esdras (ii. 16) we find no mention of Ahasuerus, 
 but only of Artaxerxes as receiving this letter and as con- 
 sequently forbidding the building. 
 
 The actual succession of Persian sovereigns was (i.) 
 Cyrus ; (ii.) his son Cambyses ; (iii.) a pretender, Smerdis 
 (who reigned but a few months) ; (iv.) Darius the son of 
 Hystaspis, after whom followed Xerxes and then Artaxerxes.^ 
 But Cambyses is never mentioned ; and Xerxes (if he is 
 meant by Ahasuerus), together with Artaxerxes, seem 
 mentioned out of place. The question arises whether the 
 original Hebrew terms for any of these kings (" Cyrus," 
 "Darius," "Ahasuerus," "Artaxerxes") are liable to be 
 confused and whether they are actually confused. 
 
 [49] As regards actual confusion, we find that (i.) the 
 Hebrew (or Aramaic) Daniel mentions a " Darius the Mede " 
 of whom no trace has been found in history. (ii.) This 
 " Darius the Mede " is described as conquering Babylon, 
 whereas Cyrus was the real conqueror.^ (iii.) The Hebrew 
 Daniel implies, and the Septuagint expressly states, that 
 " Cyrus received from [him]," i.e. succeeded to, the kingdom 
 
 ' The eldest son of Xerxes was called Darius, presumably named thus after 
 his grandfather Darius. But he was killed before ascending the throne, so that 
 Artaxerxes succeeded Xerxes. The Greeks commonly named an eldest son after 
 the grandfather. ^ Dan. v. 31. 
 
 32 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [51] 
 
 of Darius.1 (iv.) In one passage, both the Septuagint and 
 Theodotion substitute " Cyrus " for the Hebrew " Darius." * 
 (v.) In the first passage in which the Hebrew mentions 
 " Darius the Mede," the Septuagint has " Artaxerxes the [?] 
 of the Medes." ^ (vi.) A subsequent mention speaks of (Dan. 
 ix. i) "the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus (LXX, 
 Xerxes) of the seed of the Medes," according to which this 
 non-historical Darius has a father of the same name as the 
 son (Xerxes) of the historical Darius. 
 
 [60] The possibilities of Hebrew corruption in (a) 
 " Ahasuerus," and {b) " Artaxerxes " are in themselves con- 
 siderable, as may be seen from some of the Greek attempts 
 to transliterate them, «.^. (a) " Astheros," (3) " Asarthatha," 
 "Astartha," etc., and from the fact that, in some texts of 
 Esther, Ahasuerus is called by various forms of the name 
 Artaxerxes.* 
 
 [51] But, further, both these words closely resemble 
 another Persian word meaning "governor." It is trans- 
 literated in our Revised Version "Tirshatha," but the 
 Septuagint represents it by forms still more like the names 
 above-mentioned: Athersaa, Athersatha, Asersatha. And 
 how easily Asersatha might be taken as a proper name 
 appears from a passage in the first book of Esdras : " And 
 Naimias and Atharias said unto them that they should 
 not partake of the holy things " ; where the parallel passage 
 in Ezra has, "And Athersaa said unto them that they 
 should not eat of the holy of holies " ; and the Revised 
 
 ^ Dan. vi. 28 : LXX, Ev/>as 6 Ile/xn;: irapfXaPe r^y pa<rC\elav airroS: Theod., 
 as Hebr., " Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the 
 Persian." 
 
 "Dan. xi. i: "Darius the Mede"; LXX, "Cyrus the king"; Theod. 
 " Cyrus." 
 
 ' Dan. V. 31, 'Aprrttiip^ris 6 tGiv "iMfiwi. This would naturally mean "Arta- 
 xerxes, the [person of that name belonging to] the Medes." But there must be 
 some error. See, however, 125. 
 
 * Black, Ency. Bib., "Artaxerxes" and "Ahasuerus." 
 3 33 
 
[52] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 Version, "And the Tirshatha (marg. or, governor) said 
 unto them."^ It is obvious that this word might easily 
 be taken to mean the governor of Babylon, or confused 
 with the Hebrew equivalents of Artaxerxes and Xerxes. 
 
 [52] Now let us return to the passage in Ezra quoted at 
 the beginning of this section about («) plots in the days of 
 Cyrus, (3) letters (authors unnamed) written " in the reign of 
 Ahasuerus," and {c) letters from Bishlam and others "in the 
 days of Artaxerxes." The first step to its elucidation is to 
 examine the parallel passage in the First Book of Esdras. 
 Doing this, we find that Esdras takes the passage to pieces 
 and places two of the pieces at different stages of his 
 narrative. Beginning with an appearance of logical order, 
 he mentions {c) the letter from Bishlam ^ and his companions 
 before its consequence — the stopping of the temple-building. 
 Esdras says that it was written in the time of Artaxerxes. 
 After giving the letter and the reply, he says that in 
 consequence of the prohibition of Artaxerxes, building 
 ceased till the second year of Darius? Then comes a 
 legendary account of Darius' permission to rebuild and then 
 an account of the founding of the temple. And now, most 
 inconsistently and preposterously, he places («) the plotting 
 during " all the days of the life of King Cyrus',' and repeats 
 a second time his statement about hindering till the reign of 
 Darius, only in a corrupt form : " and they were hindered 
 from building two years till the reign of Darius ! " * 
 
 [53] Where is (^) the remaining piece (mentioning 
 Ahasuerus)? Nowhere. Now, as a rule, Esdras conflates 
 and amplifies, but does not omit anything that is given by 
 Ezra. The absence of the name of Ahasuerus in Esdras, 
 combined with the evidence of its confusion with Artaxerxes 
 elsewhere, point to the conclusion that Esdras regarded the 
 
 ^ Ezra ii. 63 = 1 Esdr. v. 40. The LXX of parallel Neh. vii. 65 has 
 "Asersatha," but AN " Athersatha. " 
 
 2 I Esdr. ii. 15 (16). » tt., 30 (31). * lb., v. 70 (73). 
 
 34 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [55] 
 
 former as an erroneous repetition of the latter in a different 
 shape. If that is the case, the passage quoted at the 
 beginning of this section (Ezra iv. 4-6) is a Hebrew confla- 
 tion. In any case we must conclude that great doubt 
 attaches to all the Hebraic statements about Artaxerxes, 
 Ahasuerus, and Darius the Mede.^ 
 
 [54] It is even possible that the letters that stopped the 
 building, if any letters were written at all, may have been 
 written to, and by, Cyrus, or his representative at Babylon. 
 Otherwise it must seem very extraordinary that a permission 
 given by Cyrus in the first year of his Persian reign was 
 abrogated during the rest of his reign without any counter- 
 mand on his part. But if a countermand was issued by 
 him, or by his representative, it might well happen that 
 Jewish chroniclers would be unwilling to describe such a 
 prohibition as coming from Cyrus, whom they regard as the 
 Lord's instrument for good.^ They would naturally prefer 
 a vague term such as " the sovereign," using some Persian 
 word. This might be subsequently defined, or rendered in 
 translation, as " Xerxes " or " Artaxerxes." 
 
 § 3. Luke's misunderstanding about Herod Antipas 
 
 [55] As compared with the translators of Ezra and 
 Esdras, evangelists toward the end of the first century would 
 have the advantage of being much nearer to the events they 
 related : but they would also have a great disadvantage — 
 the presence of a multitude of (i.) oral traditions, (ii.) written 
 interpretations of the Hebrew Logia, (iii.) marginal comments 
 on the latter in Hebrew (or sometimes Aramaic) or Greek. 
 Hence it is impossible to accept without hesitation any 
 important statement of fact made even by so painstaking 
 
 1 As regards Darius some confusion may have been caused to Jewish writers 
 by his being called "the son of Hystaspis." 
 a See£«0'. Bib., Cyrus, § S- 
 
 35 
 
[56] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 a writer as Luke on his sole authority, if it appears that the 
 other evangelists had no inducement at all to omit the fact, 
 supposing they knew of it, and if the fact — supposing it to 
 be a fact — was of very great interest to all Christians. 
 
 [56] These considerations apply to the statement, made 
 by Luke alone, that Herod Antipas examined our Lord 
 before the Crucifixion. A prophecy in Isaiah,^ commonly 
 regarded as Messianic, predicted that the Sufferer should be 
 dumb "as a lamb that is led to the slaughter." All the 
 other Evangelists represent Jesus (after the brief reply " Thou 
 sayest") as. "answering nothing" to Pilate. Luke alone 
 refers this to Herod, thus : — 
 
 Mark xv. 5 Matth. xxvii. 14 Luke xxiiL 9 
 
 "But Jesus no " And he answered "But he [Herod] 
 
 longer answered any- him to never a word, questioned him with 
 thing, so that Pilate so that the governor many words, but he 
 marvelled." marvelled greatly." made no answer to 
 
 him." / 
 
 Two hypotheses are almost equally incredible, (i.) that 
 the earliest evangelists omitted this knowing it to be true ; 
 (ii.) that Luke inserted it knowing it to be false. We are 
 led to consider a third hypothesis, (iii.) that Luke inserted it 
 under a misunderstanding. 
 
 In the context, some words of Pilate are given by Mark 
 thus, " Will ye that I release for you the king of the Jews ? " 
 by Matthew, "Whom will ye that I release for you, Barabbas 
 or Jesus who is called Christ ? " by Luke, " Having therefore 
 chastised him I will release him." This indicates early 
 divergence in the context of this tradition about " releasing." 
 Now Luke never puts into Pilate's mouth 'the jesting applica- 
 tion of " king " to Jesus. John emphasises it, using once 
 the phrase, ^^your king."^ 
 
 Suppose, then, an original tradition, " Pilate said to the 
 
 ^ Is. liii. 7. 
 ^ Mk. XV. 9, Mt. xxvii. 17, Lk. xxiii. 16 : "for you''=4/t(j' : Jn. xix. 15. 
 
 36 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [57] 
 
 Jews that he would release Jesus their king." The Greek 
 word used by Mark to mean " release " may also mean, and 
 is used by Mark elsewhere to mean, " send away," and the 
 Hebrew original might have the same double meaning.^ 
 Hence some interpreters — who perhaps thought it impossible 
 that a Roman Governor should thus jest about a " king " — 
 might easily render the tradition, either by Hebrew or by 
 Greek corruption, " Pilate said to the Jews that he would 
 send away Jesus to their king" Now Herod Antipas, though 
 only a tetrarch, might be called " king " for courtesy, and 
 the adopters of this tradition might argue that Herod would 
 naturally be in Jerusalem for the Passover, and that Pilate, 
 when addressing a mingled crowd of Galilaean pilgrims and 
 Jews, might style him thus, especially if he wished to pay 
 him a compliment.^ A marginal explanation might naturally 
 be added to justify this novel interpretation, stating that 
 Pilate remitted the accused to the tetrarch of Galilee 
 because (as Luke states) he ascertained that Jesus was a 
 Galilaean, under the jurisdiction of Antipas. 
 
 In order to do full justice to this hypothesis, we ought 
 to compare other passages where Luke, with a perfectly 
 honest intention, seems to have been led astray by mistrans- 
 lation. This we are not as yet able to do. For the present, 
 however, the reader may be fairly asked to keep an open 
 mind on this story about Antipas, expecting to return to it 
 again with the advantage of cumulative evidence on similar 
 points. And perhaps, even now, some may feel that hypo- 
 thesis (iii.) is at least more probable than (i.) or (ii.). 
 
 [57] No doubt, after Luke's tradition had originated 
 from a corruption, or misunderstanding, of the text, it would 
 be favoured and developed from controversial motives, 
 
 ^ Comp. Mk. viii. 9, iiriKvasv airois, " he sent them away.'' 
 " Herod Antipas is called " king " in Mk. vi. 14 /., Mt. xiv. 9. Luke would 
 not probably in his own person call Antipas " king," but he might accept a tradi- 
 tion that Pilate called him "king" when he wanted to (Lk. xxiii. 12) conciliate 
 the tetrarch. 
 
 37 
 
[58] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 because it fulfilled the Psalmist's words that "kings and 
 rulers " should " take counsel together against the Lord and 
 his Christ," and also because it shifted some of the blame 
 from Pilate on to the Jewish prince. This last motive is 
 apparent in the opening words of Pseudo-Peter : ^ " But of 
 the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor a single 
 one of his judges!' Here the phrase " his judges " may 
 indicate the Hebrew origin of Luke's phrase " Herod and his 
 men of wary The original may have been " men of conten- 
 tion" i.e. the adversaries, or accusers, of Jesus. The Hebrew 
 word is rendered in Greek " battle " six times, " adversary " 
 twice, "trial" six times, and "judgment" twenty -seven.* 
 The indication of Hebraic origin shews the antiquity of 
 Luke's misunderstanding. 
 
 [58] Very frequently indeed when Luke deviates from a 
 passage of Mark in the Triple Tradition, it will be found 
 that John steps in, throwing light on the deviation. Hence 
 it is reasonable here to ask whether John has, in any shape, 
 an account of Pilate's remission of the trial to a Governor 
 of the Jews. There is none, of any actual remission ; but 
 John asserts that Pilate bade the chief priests take the 
 accused and conduct the trial for themselves. 
 
 [59] Now in the Bible the title of " princes " or " rulers " 
 is frequently applied in the Hebrew text to the chiefs of the 
 priests, causing much perplexity to the Greek translators. 
 For example, Chronicles speaks of " the chiefs (or princes) of 
 the priests and the people " where the Septuagint has " the 
 nobles of fudah, and the priests, and the people of the earth," 
 and the parallel Esdras has " and moreover the rulers of the 
 
 ' The Gospel according to Peter, § l, ai)5i "B.piiit\'s oiS' cfs twi> KpiTuv airou. 
 The words come at the mutilated commencement of the Gospel, so that it is not 
 clear to whom airov refers. 
 
 ' Is. xli. II, "adversaries," Heb. men of contention," ivrtducot, Job xxxi. 35, 
 (card. In Jer. 1. 34, li. 36, where the meaning is ("legal) cause," LXX has 
 ivHSiKos. See also Trommius on an. Luke's word, CTpaTeiiMTa, does not occur 
 in Heb. LXX. 
 
 38 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [62] 
 
 people and of the priests "; and where Ezra speaks of " the 
 princes of the priests" the Septuagint has simply "rulers."^ 
 
 [60] If therefore some tradition was current in the 
 Christian Church at Jerusalem that " Pilate gave command 
 to send Jesus for trial to the Prince of the priests and to the 
 men of contention," and if this was taken to mean " a Prince 
 of the fewish people and his men of war," this would suggest 
 another way of explaining Luke's story. 
 
 The possibility of applying reasoning deducible from 
 Septuagint name-conflations to passages in the Gospels, may 
 be confirmed by facts relating to the only cure of blindness 
 recorded by all the Synoptists, which will be the subject 
 of the next section. 
 
 § 4. " The Son of Timaeus, Bariimaeus"^ 
 
 [61] This name is recorded by Mark alone. "Bar-" 
 means " son of" Hence " the son of Timaeus " and " Bar- 
 timaeus " mean the same thing. But Mark puts the two 
 words together, as though they were two Greek names. 
 Elsewhere, when he gives the interpretation of an Aramaic 
 appellation, he says " Boanerges, which is, Sons of fhunder " ; 
 and Luke says, " Barnabas, which is, Son of consolation." 
 But here the usual phrase denoting interpretation is omitted. 
 Moreover, the order here is strange. We should expect, as 
 in the two passages just quoted, that the Aramaic would 
 come first, and the interpretation second, " Bar-timaeus, which 
 is. Son of Timaeus." 
 
 [62] Suspicion is also thrown on the name by four facts, 
 (i.) It is rejected by all the later Gospels, (ii.) Matthew 
 mentions two blind men, which suggests that he had before 
 
 ' 2 Chr. xxxvi. 14 "chiefs of (nir)" ; LXX, oi (ySo^oi 'loiSa xal oi icpeis xal 
 Xads r^s yv^-' • • ■> ^ Esdr. i. 47, xal oi Tiyoi/ievoi Bi toG XaoC xal r&v lepiuv. 
 Comp. Ezra x. 5 : "the chiefs of the priests ; " LXX simply dfixovTas, but parall. 
 I Esdr. viii. 92 ^vKdpxovs t&v lepiiov, 
 
 ^ Mk. X. 46, Mt. XX. 30, Lk. xviii. 35. "Bar-" is late Hebrew and Aramaic 
 for " son of." It is very rare in O.T. The usual form is " Ben-"- 
 
 39 
 
[63] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 him some tradition that so far agreed with Mark as to 
 recognise two names, but did not venture to give them as 
 authoritative, (iii.) The Sinaitic Syrian and the Arabic 
 Diatessaron agree with the Peshitta in reading " Timai the 
 son of Timai." (iv.) Timaeus is an ancient Greek name, 
 meaning " honourable." But Greek words are rarely, if ever, 
 found after the Aramaic prefix " Bar-." We find Bar-nabas, 
 Bar-jona, Bar-sabas, Bar-jesus, Bar-abbas — but never such an 
 apparent hybrid as this. This last fact might indeed be used as 
 an argument for the genuineness of the name : " If Mark had 
 invented it, would he have gone out of his way to invent a 
 hybrid ? " Certainly not, but he may have created an 
 apparent hybrid, by transliterating a Hebrew gloss so as to 
 produce an impossible name. 
 
 [63] Before going further, we may remark that such an 
 argument as " the author would not have invented the name '' 
 often falls to the ground in the face of even a very slight 
 amount of evidence showing that the name may have sprung 
 from a gloss. 
 
 For example, the Acta Sanctorum, commemorates the 
 martyrdom of the soldier who pierced Christ's side with a 
 " spear." John calls the spear " lonch6," and the " soldier " 
 is appropriately called " Longinus," which happens to be a 
 Latin name. Everyone can see how easily a Latin marginal 
 gloss may have originated this, and few students would 
 hesitate to accept this explanation. Similarly, too, perhaps, 
 may be explained the very early name " Dysmas," applied to 
 the penitent malefactor who was on the right hand of the 
 Cross. The word is a transliteration of the Greek term for 
 "sunset" or "west," and if the Cross faced the south, the 
 Latin Church may have welcomed the symbolical suggestion 
 that the West repented while the East remained impenitent.^ 
 
 ^ This, if we could similarly explain the name of the impenitent malefactor 
 " Gistas " (or " Gestas "), might be regarded as almost certain. At present it has 
 only a fair probability. 
 
 40 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [65] 
 
 The earliest mention of Dysmas is in the text of the Acta 
 Pilati, and perhaps the earliest mention of Longinus is in 
 a MS. of that work, but no one accuses the author, or the 
 scribe, of " inventing." The names grew. 
 
 [64] It remains to shew that names could "grow " in the 
 same way in the Bible. Above (42), only one such instance 
 was given. But here are others : ^ 
 
 (a) I Chr. XXV. 4-5, tells us that "God gave to Heman 
 fourteen sons and three daughters," and prefixes the names 
 of the sons. But some of them, " at least the last six," are 
 fashioned out of "a prayer or meditation." Instead of 
 " Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, etc.," we are to read, " Be 
 gracious to me, Jah, Be gracious to me, thou art my God," 
 and so on. 
 
 (6) I Chr. iv. 21. " Jashubi-lehem " has arisen from a 
 misunderstanding of the text, "And they returned to 
 Bethlehem." 
 
 (c) I Chr. ii. 25/. "Ahijah", is probably "to be struck 
 out, having arisen from an original misinterpretation of ' his 
 brother.' " 
 
 (d) I Chr. iii. 17, 18. " Assir," as a proper name, "arose 
 from a misunderstanding of the adj. assir meaning captive." 
 
 (e) I Chr. viii. 13/" Ahio " is " certainly to be rejected," 
 being, like (c), a confusion of " brother." 
 
 (/) I Chr. viii. 44. " Bocheru " should be read as " his 
 first-born " (the unpointed consonants being capable of either 
 interpretation). 
 
 (g) I Chr. xxiv. 26 and 27. "Beno," which occurs twice 
 as a proper name, means " his son." In the first case, 
 whereas LXX omits it, A conflates it as " Sons of Beno " ! ^ 
 
 [65] The preceding instances are taken from the Old 
 
 1 See Hastings' Diet. Bib. vol. ii. pp. (a) 124, {b) 126, («■) 126, (d) 127, («) 131, 
 (/) 131, Or) 125. 
 
 " To these may be added I K. iv. 8. " Ben-hur," Baicip (A, Bev wos up, i.e. 
 "Ben, sonof Hor"). 
 
 41 
 
[65] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 • 
 
 Testament. We shall now adduce one from the New — 
 the insertion by Mark of a name that is omitted by Matthew 
 and Luke, and that is contrary to historical facts. 
 
 Mk. ii. 25-26. " Have ye never read what David did . . . 
 how he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was 
 high priest." Turning to the history we find, " Then came 
 David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came 
 to meet him ..." and it is then said that Ahimelech gave 
 David some of the shew-bread.-' No one denies that 
 Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was "the priest" in question, so 
 that Mark has apparently assigned a mis-statement to Christ.^ 
 Even those who — in spite of Matthew's and Luke's omission 
 of the name — accept unhesitatingly the authenticity of " the 
 son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus," hesitate about, or reject, the 
 statement that " Abiathar was high priest " at the time in 
 question. 
 
 The solution of the difficulty is probably to be found in 
 the similarity, in Hebrew, between (i.) " to the house of the 
 priest"; and {^x^^^^ Abiathar the priest,"* the former being 
 the correct rendering of the original. Later interpreters took 
 " the house," to mean (iii.) " the House of God," as it often 
 does ; * and this, in Matthew and Luke, supplanted (i.). 
 Mark added (iii.) to his text. Then, since "To the House 
 of God to the house of the priest," made no sense, it was 
 natural to adopt a gloss interpreting " to the house of," as 
 "Abiathar" — the particular high priest whose name is 
 most frequently associated with that of David.* 
 
 ' I S. xxi. 1-6. 
 
 ^ Few competent judges would accept, as an explanation, so forced a rendering 
 as "in the presence of Abiathar [afterwards] high priest." Professor Swete says 
 " the clause is peculiar to Mark and may be an editorial note." 
 
 ' "To the house of "=n'i^!« (or Si iat S» as in i S. ii. 11 quoted below), 
 " Abiathar " = nn'3N. 
 
 * Hor. Hebr. i. 64-5, says that the Court of the Gentiles was called "the 
 Mountain oithe House" i.e., the Temple. 
 
 ' In I S. ii. II "He went ./o his (Elkanah's) house (in'a^p)" is omitted by 
 
 42 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [66] 
 
 [66] Returning now to " the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus," 
 we are justified by the evidence of name-errors in the Old 
 Testament (and apparently in Mark's own Gospel), by the 
 difficulties inherent in the name, and by the deviations of 
 early versions, in attaching much more weight than before 
 to the non-insertion of the names in Matthew and Luke, and 
 to the fact that Matthew mentions two persons instead of 
 one. But, proceeding by analogy, we shall not be justified 
 in saying that Mark "invented" the name. The right 
 question to ask is, " What kind of gloss could have originated 
 the name ? " 
 
 This question appears to be met by the fact that 
 " Bartimaeus " is represented as a " beggar," and that, in the 
 only instances in which the word " beg " occurs in the Bible, 
 it is implied that begging is a degradation reserved for the 
 children of sinners : " I have been young and now am old, 
 yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed 
 begging their bread " : " Let his {i.e., the sinner's) children be 
 vagabonds and beg^ -^ That " sinners," in such a case, might 
 be called " the unclean " is indicated by the Horae Hebraicae : 
 " It was a received doctrine in the Jewish schools, that 
 children, according to some wickedness of their parents, were 
 born lame, or crooked ... by which they kept parents in 
 awe, lest they should grow remiss and negligent in the per- 
 formance of such rites which had respect to their being clean, 
 such as washings, purifyings, etc." ^ Accordingly, in the case 
 of the man born blind, described by John — concerning whom 
 the disciples ask whether he or his parents had sinned — when 
 we find the Pharisees saying to the afflicted man, " Thou 
 wast altogether bom in sin" it appears that they may have 
 included parental " uncleanness" in their imputation of sin. 
 
 LXX, which inserts "before the Lord." Is the latter based on a rendering of 
 "his house," as " His House," i.e., the House of God? If so, A, which adds 
 " to their house," has a conflation. 
 
 ' Ps. xxxvii. 25, cix. 10. Comp. Sir. xl. 28. "Better it is to die than to beg." 
 
 * Hot. Hebr., on Jn. ix. 2, and comp. ib. on Mk. -vii. 4. 
 
 43 
 
[67] CONFLATIONS OF NAMES 
 
 [67] We have been led, then, step by step, to the con- 
 clusion that the name " Bartimaeus " is an editorial addition 
 derived from some marginal gloss, and that it may have 
 referred to some parental " sin " or " uncleanness." If we 
 can find no such reference latent in " Bartimaeus," the con- 
 clusion must remain a mere reasonable conjecture, but if we 
 can find one, the probability of the conclusion will be greatly 
 increased. 
 
 The reader will perhaps be surprised to hear that the 
 most natural Hebrew root from which "Timaeus" could 
 have been obtained by transliteration is the Old Testament 
 word in regular use to denote " unclean." " Why," he may 
 ask, " did not commentators suggest this origin ? " The 
 answer is that probably many of them assumed that 
 Bartimaeus must be "well known in the times of the Apostles," 
 and perhaps were also induced by the Greek meaning of 
 Timaeus to suppose that it had a favourable meaning.^ 
 How could a man who was " well known " or " famous " in 
 the days of the Apostles bear a name that meant " son of 
 the unclean ? " But those who approach the discussion of 
 the name with no prejudice in favour of its being a name of 
 honourable signification, and with minds open to believe 
 that Mark may have been led astray here by a gloss, as he 
 appears to have been in the case of Abiathar, will be 
 prepared by the above-mentioned considerations to accept 
 as highly probable the conclusion that the name sprang from 
 an early Jewish gloss stating that this afflicted man had 
 been called by the Pharisees " son of the unclean." 
 
 * Hot. Hebr. suggests " son of admiration (no'n)," " son of frofit ('D'b)," or 
 " son of one blind " (jt'D'D being used for k<b'o). Victor, quoted by Prof. Swete 
 ad loc, says, 6voiw,<rTl SeSiJXuKey 6 MapKos . . . <is iiriipav^ T&re ivra, a word 
 that means "famous," " illustrious," more often than " well-known. Prof. Swete 
 himself says " Bapn/Muos ... Is clearly a patronymic analogous to BapBoKofmto!, 
 = (?) 'NDBia." The letters ndb mean nothing but "unclean," "defiled," etc., in 
 O.T. But Prof. Swete does not draw any inference from the letters. He says, 
 " Bengel is doubtless right in saying : ' notus Apostolorum tempore Bartimaeus.' " 
 
 44 
 
CONFLATIONS OF NAMES [68] 
 
 [68] On this supposition, the omission of the words of 
 interpretation (" which is "), the silence of Luke, the mention 
 of "two blind men" in Matthew, and the various reading 
 " Timai the son of Timai," are all explicable. We cannot 
 indeed feel sure whether the original gloss was simply 
 " Timai," or " Timai the son of Timai." But in either case, 
 (i.) the transference of the gloss into the text explains why 
 Mark omits the usual words of interpretation ; (ii.) doubt 
 about the authenticity of the gloss might lead Matthew to 
 reject the two names while inferring that there were two 
 persons; (iii.) conviction that it was non-authentic would 
 lead Luke to omit it altogether.^ 
 
 This conviction, whether it was Luke's or not, may very 
 well commend itself to careful and dispassionate students of 
 the New Testament. 
 
 ' As an illustration of the use of "Timai" (apart from vowel points) we may 
 quote the enactment about the leper. Lev. xiii. 45-46, "He shall cry, Unclean, 
 Unclean (ndb mms)," where the LXX has "he shall be called unclean." In con- 
 clusion it should be noted that Matthew omits mention of "begging." This may 
 have been caused, not by a desire to suppress the fact, but from a confusion between 
 "asking" for bread, and "asking" for pity. Luke alone inserts that the man 
 "inquired who it was." This may be another version of the "asking" (i.e. 
 "begging"). 
 
 45 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 CONFLATIONS OF TECHNICAL TERMS, DATES, ETC. 
 
 § I . Technical terms 
 
 Technical terms, since they approach the nature of 
 names, are almost equally liable to conflation, of which the 
 following are instances : — 
 
 [69] I S. X. 5 : (lit.) "Where [there] the garrison o/the 
 Philistines is," LXX " Where is there the («j) erection of the 
 foreigners, there {a^ Naseib the foreigner." ^ Here " garrison " 
 is first translated " erection " and then transliterated. The 
 twofold translation of one word causes the repetition of the 
 context. This often happens on a much larger scale. 
 
 2 K. ix. 1 3 : " On the top of (grm) the stairs," LXX " On 
 the garem of the stairs." Codex A, by Greek corruption, 
 reads " gar ena," i.e. "for one of the steps." The version of 
 Lucianus conflates thus, " on {a^ one (neut.) of the (a^) garem 
 on (^g) one (fem.) of the steps." ^ 
 
 [70] Josh. V. I o : "At even, in the plains of (ja^'rbth) 
 Jericho," LXX "from the evening, {a^ from the west of 
 Jericho, {a^ on the other side of for dan, (a^) in the plain." 
 
 The " Arabah " was the technical name given to the low- 
 lying country about Jericho and the Dead Sea, the southern 
 valley of the Jordan. The Hebrew here is " Araboth," the 
 
 ^ I S. A. S, " where "=in Heb. the indecl. rel. followed by "there," lit. 
 " which there." This perplexes the LXX. " Foreigners (dXXi^uXoi) " is the regular 
 rendering of " Philistines." " Garrison-of " = 'asj. 
 
 ■■' Codex A. yap eva. R.V. marg. has "the ban stairs." 
 
 46 
 
CONFLATIONS OF TECHNICAL TERMS, ETC. [72] 
 
 plural of " ArabaL" Aquila frequently renders it " the level." 
 But the root also means " evening " and " west." ^ Again, 
 d'rb is sometimes confused with d'br meaning " on the other 
 side of." The LXX is influenced by these possibilities. 
 It introduces " Jordan " from a vague feeling that this is 
 implied by the term " Arabah." But again " on the other 
 side (T/'Jordan " is a familiar phrase, and a slight transposition 
 in the word for " west " converts it into " on the other side." 
 The result is a triple conflation of two inaccurate translations 
 with one accurate one, which comes last.^ 
 
 [71] A very similar introduction of "Jordan" occurs in 
 Matthew's and Luke's accounts of John the Baptist. Mark 
 mentions " the men of Jerusalem and the country of Judaea," 
 meaning " the country " as distinct from " the capital city " 
 of Judaea, or, in other words, the country round about the 
 city. For clearness, " country " was probably changed to 
 "country-round-about." But this term is habitually con- 
 nected, in Genesis, with "Jordan." Matthew and Luke adopt 
 " the-surrounding-country of Jordan." * 
 
 [72] 2 S. xix. i8: "And there -went- across {d'br) the 
 ferry-boat {d'br, lit. crossing) to bring-across (d'br) the king's 
 household " ; LXX, " (Aj^) and they ministered (d'bd) the 
 ministration [d'bd) to bring - across the king, ( A^) and 
 there-went across the going-across to stir up the house of the 
 king." 
 
 The confusion of the Hebrew r and d — shewn (5-8) 
 to be of constant occurrence — here causes " go across {d'br) " 
 
 1 [70a] Josh. V. lo: LXX, "From the west (djrJSuir/iwi')." ^v<riuU, ■when=2ivo, 
 is "westward" (as in I Chr. vii. 28); when=n2iv, it is "plain," as in Num. 
 xxii. I, xxxiii. 48. 
 
 " The LXX may have been further confused by the fact that the word c^'ri 
 occurs in the context in its usual sense of " evening." 
 
 " Mk. i. 5, Mt. iii. S, Lk. iii. 3. Comp. Jn. xi. 55 : " Out of (Ae country" 
 i.e. the country round about Jerusalem. Ueplxi^pos is connected with "Jordan" 
 in Gen. xiii. 10, 11, and is used absolutely to mean "the circle of the Jordan," in 
 Gen. xiii. 17, 28. 
 
 47 
 
[73] CONFLATIONS 
 
 to be confused in A^ with " minister {el'bd)." In A^, this 
 error is corrected, though a new one is introduced.^ 
 
 [73] This passage may have a bearing on one in Mark 
 where Jesus is said to have ordered that a boat should be 
 " in attendance " on Him. The two words " boat " and 
 " attend " may there, as here, be a conflation.^ Matthew and 
 Luke omit all reference to the boat. Elsewhere (171) Mark 
 and Matthew mention a " boat " but Luke omits it. 
 
 [74] Ex. xxi. 6 : " Then his master shall bring him unto 
 God {Elokhn)," (R.V. marg. and A.V., "the judges") ; LXX, 
 " (oSj) the judgment-place {a^ of God" conflating the usual 
 with the unusual meaning of Elohim. 
 
 [75] 2 S. XV. 1 8 (lit. Heb.) : " And all his servants passed 
 on at his hand, and all the Cherethites, and all the Pelethites, 
 and all the Gittites, six hundred riien, who came at his feet 
 {i.e. after him) from Gath, passed on before the king." 
 
 The translators were perplexed partly by the titles of 
 David's bodyguard, partly by other confusions of which the 
 explanation would be too lengthy. The result is the follow- 
 ing triple conflation in the LXX. 
 
 The first {a^ confuses " the Gittites " and " six hundred 
 men," and also " Gath." 
 
 The second («g), which is of the nature of a free non- 
 Hebraic paraphrase, translates the titles of the warriors, and 
 gives their number correctly, but omits " the Gittites " and 
 " Gath." 
 
 The third (flg) is the most correct and complete, but 
 mistakes " at his feet " for " with their feet," and makes the 
 men come " to " Gath instead of " from " it.^ The ultimate 
 combination is as follows, literally translated : — " («i) And all 
 
 ' "Stir up''=hiph. of iiy, which the LXX, in Aj, has erroneously substituted 
 for iny. Conflated sentences, as distinct from conflated words, will be denoted by 
 Ai, Aj, instead of a^, Oj. 
 
 ^ Mk. iii. 9, Iva, irXoiipioy wpoffxaprep^ airif. 
 
 ° [75a] See 335i5, comparing Luke's statement that John came to " the sur- 
 rounding country of the Jordan," with Matthew's that men came from it to John. 
 
 48 
 
OF TECHNICAL TERMS, ETC. [78] 
 
 his servants at his hand passed by, and all Chettei and all 
 the Phelethei,' and halted at the olive tree in the wilderness 
 and all the people went by close to him ; {a^ and all those 
 about him and all the valiant and all the warriors six 
 hundred men ; (ag) and there were by him at his hand both 
 all the Chereththei {sic) and all the Pheleththei and all the 
 Geththaeans the six hundred men the [men] that came on 
 their feet to Gath and going before the face of the king." 
 
 [76] It will be noted that not one of these conflations 
 translates " at his feet " {i.e. "following him ") correctly. 
 Both here and in the context the phrase is translated " on 
 foot," or "with their feet."^ A similar error, resulting in 
 conflation, almost certainly exists in Matthew as compared 
 with Mafk and Luke : — 
 
 Mark vi. 33 Matt. xiv. 13 Luke ix. 11 
 
 " (flg) on foot from " {a^ followed him " (a^ followed him.'" 
 all the cities." (flj) on foot from the 
 
 cities." 
 
 S 2. Conflations of dates 
 
 There are several passages in the Synoptic Gospels that 
 contain perplexing mentions of time or date. Hence 
 importance attaches to the following conflations : — 
 
 [77] Dan. ix. 26 (lit.) : " After weeks sixty and two." 
 So, too, Theodotion. But the Hebrew " week " (like the old 
 English " se'nnight," i.e. " seven night ") resembles the Hebrew 
 " seven," and also the Hebrew " seventy." Hence the LXX 
 has " after {a^ seven and {a^ seventy, and sixty-two." 
 
 [78] Ezra iv. 24: (lit.) "And it \i.e. the building of the 
 Temple] ceased until the year two (R.V. second) [belonging] 
 
 . ^ nSj Xerrel KoX ttSs 6 ieKerdel. 
 2 2 S. XV. 16-18: "At his feet (Hebr. v^jna and l^Jia)," rots Troo-ic oirffii' 
 (twice), and ve^ (once). 
 
 4 49 
 
[79] CONFLATIONS 
 
 to the reign [i.e. of the reign] of Darius king of Persia. Now 
 the prophets, Haggai. . . ." This is parallel to — 
 
 I Esdr. V. 70 (R.V. 73): "And they were kept from 
 building («j) two years until the reign of Darius. But (a ) 
 in the second year of the reign of Darius there prophesied 
 Haggai. . . ." The Aramaic word here translated in Ezra 
 (R.V.) " second " is rendered " two " by Theodotion in Daniel.^ 
 From these facts follows a conclusion, to which we shall 
 have hereafter to refer, that ordinal and cardinal numbers 
 may be confused in the process of translation from Hebrew. 
 See 226. 
 
 [79] Gen. viii. S : " Until the tenth month. In the tenth 
 [month] on the first of the month " ; LXX, " until the tenth 
 month ; but («j) in the eleventh month, (a^) on the first of 
 the month." The translator rendered " tenth first " as {a^ 
 "eleventh."^ The corrector placed {a^ "on the first" in 
 the margin. The copyist or editor conflated the two. 
 
 [80] Ezra iii. 8 (lit.) : " Now in the second year to [i.e. of] 
 their coming into the house of God, in the second month" 
 LXX, " in the second year of their coming." This is correct. 
 But it is parallel to — 
 
 I Esdr. V. 54 (S6)-55 (57) (lit): (a^) " And having come 
 in the second year to the temple of God . . . {a^ on the day 
 of the new moon of the second month of the second year in 
 their coming\i.e. after they had come] to Judaea and Jerusalem." 
 Here a^ is an error, and a^ is a correct translation made 
 more logical than the original Hebrew. For the translator 
 reflects that, as the Temple was not yet in existence, but 
 only on the point of being built, the Jews could not well be 
 
 1 Dan. V. 31 : "two (pmn)," Theod. hio (LXX paraphrases). In numbering 
 days of the month and years the forms of the cardinals are regularly used in 
 Hebrew. 
 
 ^ Comp. Mt. X. 29, Lk. xii. 6, where the original was possibly "two [or] three 
 sparrows for a farthing," and Luke may have followed a tradition corrupting the 
 regular Hebraic idiom "two [or] three" into "five" with other consequent 
 modifications. See below (225). 
 
 SO 
 
OF TECHNICAL TERMS, ETC. [aS] 
 
 said to "come to the house of God." The writer of a^ 
 alters (as often elsewhere) " house of God " to " temple," an 
 expression more familiar to Greeks ; the writer of a^ sub- 
 stitutes "Judaea and Jerusalem." 
 
 § 3. Tke hour of the Cmdfixion 
 
 These facts may be applied to the well-known apparent 
 discrepancy in the Gospels as to the hour of the Crucifixion. 
 
 [81] (L) Mark sajrs, "Now it was die third hour and 
 they crucified him." (iL) John, immediately before describ- 
 ing how Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified, says, " it was 
 about the sixth hoiu-." (iiL) The synoptists agree that from 
 the sixth hour to the ninth hour there was darkness ovor 
 the whole land, (iv.) Mark and Matthew state, and Luke 
 implies, that Jesus died at the ninth hour.* 
 
 [82] On the hypothesis of translation from the Hebrew, 
 aU these statements can be reconciled, if we regard Maik's 
 statement about "the third hour" as being a marginal addition 
 inserted out of place, and " the third hour and" as a mis- 
 translation of "three hours since' (just as (78), in Esdras,* 
 " second year " is confused with " two years "). 
 
 [83] Let us suppose that, in the Original, this marginal 
 clause was intended to come after the description of the 
 darkness and immediately before the description of Christ's 
 death, thus : " And as soon as the sixth hour had come there 
 had come darkness over Ac whole land [and it lasted] until 
 the ninth hour — it bang now three hours since they had 
 crucified him — and at the ninth hour Jesus cried out"* 
 
 * Mi. XT. 25, fr ii 6pa. Tfli^ taX kmipitnr uMr : Jn. xix. 14, bpa ^ wi 
 &n». Mk. rr. 34, B« TJ iriri 6pf e^nir^ : Mt. xxtS. 46, -rtfi Sk iV &*»T» 
 fipoj' €p6atrew, IX. om. 
 
 3 For cDDtaueoce, " tiie fiist book c^ Esdias" «iD be called mnspif " Esdias." 
 
 * [83<i] " As soon as tbe arth hour tad e»me (-jro^iir^) . . . then had came 
 f^t^ero). . . .'' Tbe ^iq)eifect in Helaew is non-existent. But ft is a freqaoit 
 halat in Hebrew wiitii^ to go ba<i to the past with a sap pfc-mfnt a i y danse that 
 
 51 
 
[83] CONFLATIONS 
 
 According to this hypothesis, the clause originally assumed 
 that Jesus had been crucified about the sixth hour, and 
 explained " from the sixth to the ninth " by saying that this 
 was the interval (" three hours ") that had elapsed between 
 the crucifixion and the " loud cry " and death, which are 
 now to be described. But " since " was confused with 
 " when," and, as in Esdras, the cardinal number was taken 
 as an ordinal. Thus the words were converted into a state- 
 ment about the time when the crudfiMon took place, and, in 
 this shape, the marginal clause, instead of being inserted in 
 its right place, was transposed to an earlier position where 
 the crucifixion was described. Indeed such a transposition 
 may well have happened even if the mistranslated clause 
 was a part of the text of the original Hebrew Gospel.^ Thus 
 we can explain Matthew's and Luke's omission of the phrase 
 and John's correction of it.^ 
 
 implies a pluperfect. This, in theory, ought to be expressed by a jffieek pluper- 
 fect ; but, owing to the disuse of this tense, the LXX mostly pri'fers the aorist 
 (241a). f 
 
 ' [83i] Comp. Mk. xii. 12, Mt. xxii. 22, "and they left him, and went away, 
 (koX iipdvTes ain-bv iirriKBov), placed by Mark before, but by Matthew after, the 
 dialogue with the Pharisees and Herodians about tribute. 
 
 * [83c] Even without the hypothesis of transposition, the view advocated above 
 might hold good on the supposition t^at the original author of Mark intended his 
 readers to connect Mk. xv. 25 with xv. 33, thus : "(25) And it was now three 
 hours from the time of his being crucified. . . . (33) And as soon as the sixth 
 hour [the hour of the crucifixion] had come, darkness had come over the whole 
 land, lasting till the ninth hour. (34) And at the ninth hour Jesus called aloud." 
 The description of the inscription, the malefactors, and the mocking (xv. 26-32) 
 may have been intended to be taken parenthetically. 
 
 52 
 
CHAPTER V 
 OTHER TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 * § I. Variations of grammatical form^ 
 
 In the following instances, conflation has arisen from trans- 
 lating one word as having two grammatical forms, e.g. a verb 
 as past and future, active and passive, etc. 
 
 [84] 2 Chr. XXV. 1 8 (lit.) : " And there passed by a beast 
 of the field that was in Lebanon and trod down " ; LXX, 
 " (a^) And behold t^re shall come the beasts of the field in 
 Lebanon, {a^ and there came the beasts and trod down." 
 
 [85] I K. xviii. 43 : " Go-again (lit (re)turn) seven 
 times " ; LXX, " («J Return seven times, {a^ and turn away 
 seven times, {a^ and the servant turned away seven times." 
 The Hebrew " go-again," literally " (re)turn," produces a three- 
 fold conflation. 
 
 [86] The change of tense adds a third variation, illus- 
 trating once more the important rule that (28) in translating 
 from Hebrew, commands may be corrupted into statements of 
 fact and vice versa. See 240. 
 
 [87] In JosL viii. 1 8, the LXX inserts " and the Hers 
 in wait shall speedily rise up from their place," anticipating 
 what is subsequently expressed in the past tense. Josh, 
 viii. 1 9, " and the Hers in wait rose up out of their place." 
 The former is not in the Hebrew. 
 
 ' [88] Ezek. xii. 12 : " He shall not see with his eyes the 
 
 * For the meaning of *, see p. -ax. u. 
 
 S3 
 
[89] TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 ground " ; LXX, " (a^ lest he [or ii\ should be seen with the 
 eye, {a^ and he (emph. form) shall not see the ground." 
 
 [89] Job xxxvii. 20 (lit. Hebr.): "Shall it be recounted"; 
 LXX, " («j) Book or {a^ scribe'' The passive verb is taken 
 as {a^ " written account," i.e. " book," (a^) " one that writes 
 an account," t.e. " scribe." 
 
 [90] Conflations illustrating the most common kind of 
 confusions of letters — e.£: between d and r — are of import- 
 ance, and especially those which bear on suspected mis- 
 translations in the Gospel, e.g: Matthew's use of " companion " 
 where we might expect " thou wicked one," ^ 
 
 Prov. vi. 3 : " Into the hands of thy neighbour " ; LXX, 
 " (flj) Into the hands of the wicked (a^) for the sake of thy 
 friend" 
 
 Eccles. vii. 22 : " Oftentimes thine own heart knoweth" ;. 
 LXX, " (a^ oftentimes it will work evil on thee {a^ and on 
 many occasions thy heart will do mischief." This is a rather 
 unusual instance, a conflation of two translations having 
 similar meanings, and both of them wrong. [" Thy heart," 
 "thy soul," etc., often mean "thyself" in Hebrew.] For 
 other instances, see 7. 
 
 [91] Even a familiar name may sometimes cause con- 
 fusion when used in an unfamiliar phrase, e.g. "in David," 
 which occurs in a dispute between the men of Israel and the 
 men of Judah. The phrase somewhat resembles the word 
 " first-born," * which seemed an appropriate epithet for the 
 former to claim. Hence the following conflation in : — 
 
 2 S. xix. 43 : (lit.) "And also in David I more than 
 thou," i.e., as R.V., " We have also more [right] in David 
 than ye " ; LXX " {a^ And first-born I than thou, (a^ and 
 certainly in David I am above thee." 
 
 [92] The distinction between sh and s is absent alto- 
 
 ' "Companion" and "bad" both = jn; "know" (imperat.)=si. For 
 Matthew's use of " companion," see below (188). 
 2 " In David (ina)," " first-born (iwa)." 
 
 54 
 
TYPICAL CONFLATIONS [94] 
 
 gather when the Hebrew consonant is left unpointed. 
 Hence the word " elders-of (sbt)" when it occurs in Ezra, is 
 regularly translated " captivity {shbt) " in Esdras. In the 
 following instance, Esdras conflates the two meanings. The 
 reader should also note how the Hellenizing Esdras avoids 
 the anthropomorphic expression " the eye of God " : — 
 
 Ezra V. 5 : " The eye of their God was upon the elders of 
 the Jews." i Esdr. vi. 5 : " Favour was found, through the 
 visitation of God, («j) on the captivity of the Jews, (a^) by the 
 elders of the Jews." ^ 
 
 [93] A similar confusion, with the dropping of a letter, 
 explains 2 Chr. xxxv. 15, "the porters," rightly translated 
 in the parallel i Esdr. i. 15 (R.V. 16), " the porters" hut 
 conflated by the LXX in Chronicles, " {a^ the rulers {a^ and 
 the porters." ^ 
 
 Bearing in mind that " gates " (as in " within thy gates ") 
 often means " cities," we find precisely the same error in 
 Judg. V. 8, " gates," LXX («j) " cities {a^) of rulers" 
 
 [94] Owing to the similarity between the preposition 
 " for " and " not," the particle " therefore " (" for-this ") is very 
 frequently rendered " not thus." ^ In the following parallel 
 passages, the translator of Kings wedges another error (" not 
 I ") between two instances of an erroneously translated 
 " therefore " : — 
 
 1 K. xxii. 19 (2 Chr. xviii. 18): " Therefore hear thou 
 (Chr. ye) the word of the Lord"; LXX (K.), "(aj Not 
 thus ; (a^) not I ; hear thou the word of the Lord ; (a^ not 
 thus." Chronicles is content with a single translation, 
 but an erroneous one, " Not thus ; hear ye the word of the 
 Lord." 
 
 ' "Elders of ('ai')," "captivity (of) ('aw)." In l Esdr. vi. 5, read yero/i^vris 
 with A. ' " Porters (DnvB')." " Rulers "= one'. 
 
 ' [94a] "Not thus"=[DK^ (sometimes written as two words), but tih is some- 
 times written i^i. "Therefore "=[3':'. The last three letters of "not thus" are 
 the same (though not in the same order) as the first three letters of " I ('ajjt)." 
 
 SS 
 
[95] TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 * § 2. Longer conflations 
 
 [95] The same ignorance or carelessness that leads a 
 translator to confuse one word in a sentence may naturally 
 lead him to confuse another. Moreover, a first error often 
 suggests a second as "necessary for the sense." Hence 
 some passages exhibit a group of conflations so com- 
 plicated as to make it rather difficult to associate them 
 with a Hebrew original even when we have the latter 
 before us. 
 
 2 S. XV. 34 : (lit.) " Thy servant, I, O king, will be. 
 Servant of thy father as I (lit. and I) hitherto [have been], 
 so now also (lit. and now) so I (lit. and I) thy servant [will 
 be]." This means (R.V.) "I will be thy servant, O king. 
 As I have been thy father's servant in time past, so will I now 
 be thy servant." But the ambiguity of the Hebrew conjunc- 
 tions, the omission of verbs, and some confusions of letters, 
 lead the Septuagint to the following result: — "(i»-j5 Thy 
 brethren have passed across, and the king behind' me has 
 passed across thy father (nom.). And now thy servant I 
 am, O king ; (a^ suffer me to live, servant of thy father I 
 was then and lately, and now I [am] thy servant." 
 
 [96] At first sight it seems hopeless to attempt to 
 explain this. But proceeding step by step, we could go 
 some way towards the truth, even though there were no 
 Hebrew. For we should decide, first, that if this was an 
 instance of conflation (31) the substance of the original would 
 probably be found at the end. That rule would lead us to 
 say, in this particular case, " There must have been some- 
 thing about servants in the original." In the next place, 
 knowing from repeated experience that "across" {d'br) is 
 liable to confusions, and that r is confused with d, and 
 knowing that d'bd means " servant," we perceive that " pass 
 across," in a^, represents "servant." Further examination 
 
 56 
 
TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 shews that " brethren" is an error for " I " and " behind me " 
 for "(I) will be."i 
 
 [97] It sometimes happens that the first member of a 
 conflation, though paraphrastic or grammatically incorrect, 
 is substantially right, while the second member, though 
 more literal, in the attempt to remedy the grammatical 
 incorrectness, falls into a far worse error. Thus, where the 
 Gibeonit'es say that Saul " devised we shall be destroyed," 
 the Septuagint first paraphrases this, making "he" the 
 subject, " devised that he should destroy us " ; and then, 
 reverting to the Hebrew so far as to make "we" the 
 subject, gives " that we should destroy him." Besides the 
 grammatical conflation, the two verbs "consume" and 
 " destroy " are also conflated : — 
 
 2 S. xxi. 5 : " The man that ^ (a) consumed us, and that 
 devised against us [that] we should be [marg. so that we 
 have been] {b) destroyed"; LXX, "The man («i) consum- 
 mated against us and (a^) persecuted us, [the man] that 
 devised (^J to destroy us {b^ let us exterminate him." 
 
 So, too. Josh. i. 8 : " Thou shalt make thy way prosper- 
 ous " ; LXX, " (tfi) Thou shalt be prospered, and {a^ he shall 
 prosper thy ways." Here (a^ was substantially correct, 
 though it omitted "ways," which would be superfluous in 
 Greek, and against Greek usage. The author of (a^, while 
 restoring the Hebraic " ways," ha^ changed " thou," which 
 was correct, into "he." 
 
 [98] In the following instance from Esdras, the first 
 place is given to an attempt at a literal translation with 
 amplification, and the second to a brief summary. The 
 original is in Ezra vi. 20 : (lit.) " For there had purified 
 
 ^ [96a] (i.) " Servant (lap)," LXX St^px^eoi (*u) {leg. nay), (ii.) "I (<jk)," 
 LXX oJ i,Se\<l>ol (Tov [feg. Tnn). (iii.) " I will be (n'm*)," Kardirurffh iwv (leg, nnn). 
 (iv.) 'Baffin lie f^ffoi (suffer me to live)," probably arose from taking "let me be 
 (iThm)" as "let me live (nmn)." 
 
 2 2 S. xxi. S : " The man (b"r) that (ipn) " ; LXX omits " that," perhaps con- 
 fusing li"K with IB'K. 
 
 57 
 
/ / 
 
 TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 themselves [A.V. " were purified "] the priests and the Levites 
 as-one, all-of-them pure." In Esdras there is a twofold 
 conflation, in which a^ translates the Hebrew conjunction 
 " for " as " when," which it often means. It also takes " all " 
 as meaning "the whole people," and to express this it adds 
 " the children of the captivity." Perhaps " for " was inserted 
 in the margin as an alternative for " when " ; at all events, 
 it adds, at the end of aj, "/or they were purified." Then 
 follows flj, a condensed translation of the whole, begin- 
 ning with "for." The total result is (i Esdr, vii. lO-ii): 
 "(^i) WAen there were purified the priests and the 
 Levites together and, all the sons of the captivity, /or 
 they were purified ; (a^) /or the Levites together all were 
 purified." 
 
 The Septuagint version of Ezra renders briefly and 
 closely thus, "Because there were purified the priests and 
 the Levites as one^ all pure." 
 
 [99] In the following conflation, Ag inserts the important 
 words " and died " which Aj had omitted, or had erroneously 
 translated. But A^ falls into error by taking " (in)to " as 
 " up to." Also, the " wound " or " blow " inflicted on Ahab, 
 is taken by A^ as being the "blow," "defeat," or "rout," 
 of the whole army. Hence A^ apparently describes the 
 blood from the carnage as rising up to the bottom of the 
 chariot (compare our " knee-deep in blood," and Rev. xiv. 20, 
 "blood . . . even unto the bridles 0/ the horses"), instead 
 of flowing down into it : — 
 
 I K. xxii. 35: " . . . and died at even, and the blood 
 ran out of the wound into the bottom (lit. hollow) of the 
 chariot," LXX "... (A^) {a^ ?) /rom morning till evening, 
 and there was poured forth blood from the {b^ wound 
 (fj) into the hollow of the chariot. (A^) (a^?) And he died 
 
 ' [98a] Ezra vi. 20 : "As one " iui els, probably a Greek error for <ls eU. If 
 the scribe had meant " io the last man" would he not have written las Ms? 
 " Because," or "for " (o), is rendered in Esdr. first tre and then Sn. 
 
 58 
 
TYPICAL CONFLATIONS [102] 
 
 at even and there went forth the blood (J>^ of the rout {c^ 
 as far as the hollow of the chariot." 
 
 § 3, Hebrew conflations 
 
 [100] It would be scarcely reasonable to suppose that 
 the process of conflation did not influence the Hebrew 
 Scriptures till they began to be translated into Greek. 
 Long before the date of the earliest book of the Septuagint, 
 Hebrew copyists of the Scriptures may well have doubted, 
 for example, between a d and an r, whether written in 
 Hebrew or Samaritan characters, and may consequently have 
 inserted in the margin a various reading that in due course 
 found its way into the text along with the original reading, 
 as part of a conflation. 
 
 [101] Take for example, Ps. xviii. 12 "(a^) his thick 
 clouds {a^ passed, {a^ hail, and coals of fire." The mere 
 fact that these three words are similar in form would hardly 
 lead us to suspect — and certainly would not justify us in 
 believing — that the text was conflated. But the Hebrew 
 word " pass " {d'br') is so liable to confusion, and so often 
 confused, that its occurrence must always put us on our 
 guard where there is the least suspicion of error. And we 
 happen to possess another, and, as it is generally believed, 
 earlier version of these words in 2 S. xxii. 1 3, " There 
 were kindled (ba"r) coals of fire." This at once justifies the 
 suspicion of conflation in the later version, arising from a 
 confusion of ba"r with o/'br and other similar words.^ 
 
 [1 02] In the next instance, a passage in Kings describes 
 the rescue of the child Joash by his aunt Jehosheba, im- 
 mediately after the death of his father, king Ahaziah. 
 The author calls Jehosheba, " daughter of king foram, and 
 sister of Ahaziah " : — 
 
 1 "Were kindled (nya)," "his thick clouds (my)," "passed (nay)," "hail 
 (na). '' The word " thick-clouds " occurs in the preceding verse, and the Psalmist 
 may have thought that it was to be repeated here. 
 
 59 
 
[102] TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 2 K. xi. 2 : " Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, 
 sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole 
 him away from among the king's sons that were slain, even 
 him and his nurse [and put them, or, who were] in the 
 bedchamber, and they hid him from Athaliah, so that he 
 was not slain." 
 
 This is correct. Jehosheba was "daughter oi king Joram" 
 who had preceded his son Ahaziah on the throne. But the 
 author of the parallel passage in Chronicles, perhaps thinking 
 the description of Jehosheba superfluously lengthy, shortens it 
 to " daughter of the king." Now the " king " last mentioned 
 is Ahaziah. This makes the statement inaccurate. At 
 the same time, while condensing the statement of fact into 
 an error, the Chronicler amplifies a harsh and terse con- 
 struction, " stole him in the bedchamber," softening it into 
 " stole him . . . and put him in the bedchamber." ^ This 
 being erroneous as regards Jehosheba's parentage, a corrector 
 added a second and correct version, perhaps written from 
 the priestly point of view, in which he adds that Jehosheba 
 was the wife of Jehoiada the priest. The result is : — 
 
 2 Chr. xxii. 1 1 : " (A^) But ^ Jehoshabeath, the daughter 
 of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him 
 away from among the king's sons that were slain, and 
 put him and his nurse in the bedchamber. (Ag) But'^ 
 Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of 
 Jehoiada the priest (for* she was the sister of Ahaziah), 
 hid him from Athaliah so that she slew him not." 
 
 1 [102a] Also, the plural agency ("and they hid") mentioned in Kings, 
 disappears in Chronicles. The " nurse," in the latter, does not help to hide the 
 child, but is herself hidden. 
 
 ^ TThe same Hebrew particle (i) — ^which may mean almost any English con- 
 junction — comes at the beginning of all three accounts, 2 K., 2 Chr. (Aj), 
 (Aj). R.V. has " But " in Aj ; " So " in Aj. 
 
 3 "For" (<3). So R.V., but perhaps "because," or "since," would better 
 express the Hebrew. The writer of Aj suggests by this conjunction that the 
 mention of the relationship is not superfluous. It gives the reason for the act 
 that is on the point of being mentioned. 
 
 6o 
 
TYPICAL CONFLATIONS [104] 
 
 [103] Impassioned language is often abrupt and brief, 
 and leaves much to the imagination. When David was 
 urged to drink the virater his warriors had brought him at 
 the hazard of their lives, he exclaimed (2 S. xxiii. 17), 
 (lit.) " Profanation to me, Jehovah, from my doing this ! 
 what ! The blood of men that went with their lives [in 
 their hands] ! " The Revised Version supplies words to 
 make full sense, thus : " Shall T drink the blood ? " The 
 Authorised Version has, " Is not this the blood ? " The 
 Hebrew has simply an interrogative prefix, prefixed in 
 the original to " blood," but represented in the translation 
 given above by " what ! " 
 
 Compare the parallel i Chr. xi. 1 9, " Profanation to me 
 from my God from doing this ! The blood of these men 
 (Aj) shall I drink with their lives? (A^) For with their 
 lives they brought it." Here, in the first place. Chronicles 
 changes "Jehovah" into "from my God" as being more 
 reverential. Then the writer of A^ inserts (as our Revised 
 Version does) "shall I drink." But having done this, he 
 is disposed to take "with" along with this insertion in a 
 new sense, " Shall I swallow their blood together with their 
 lives ? " But (Ag) another view was that " with their lives " 
 must be taken with " they went." Only, if that was to be 
 done, the verb of motion, it seemed, must be taken causa- 
 tively — "they caused -to -go," or rather, "caused -to -come." 
 Hence the corrector (the writer of A^) substituted " with their 
 lives they caused it to cornel'' ^•^- brought it. 
 
 S 4. Prejudice a cause of error 
 
 [104] Prejudice or bias is an important cause of the 
 corruption of history. But a distinction must be drawn 
 between even the wildest of blunders, when supported by 
 some apparent shadow of evidence, and a mis-statement 
 based on no evidence at all. 
 
 61 
 
[105] TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 Take, as a modern instance, a statement made in a 
 French newspaper, called " La Croix de la Charente," of 4 
 March 1900, that in English schools there was an atlas of 
 which one map was France in ipio, shewing the departments 
 from the Pas de Calais to the Pyrenees as belonging to 
 England. 
 
 At the first glance, one might have been ready to assume 
 that no ignorance and no error could account for an assertion 
 so completely at variance with fact and so incompatible with 
 English unimaginative ways and commonplace notions about 
 education ; and one might seem driven to the conclusion that 
 it was merely a falsehood, fabricated out of nothing but 
 malignity, and tricked out with details to give it the specious- 
 ness of reality. 
 
 But it was pointed out, in a letter to the Times 
 (28 April 1900), that Green's "Short History of the 
 English People" contains a map of France assigning the 
 above-mentioned provinces to England, but referring to a 
 remote past, the days of Richard I. Its date is 1 1 90. This 
 is not very different (in the eyes of a sufficiently prejudiced 
 scribe) from 19 10. 
 
 § 5. The "four sons" of Araunah 
 
 [105] The remarks in the last section bear on the next 
 instance — the last for which space can be found here. It is of 
 special importance because it shews how one initial mistake, 
 perhaps facilitated or favoured by a love of the marvellous, 
 may lead to further mistakes, resulting ultimately in a con- 
 version of a non-miraculous fact into a miracle. And it 
 will be interesting to note that, as usual, the incorrect and 
 miraculous version comes first, while the correct narrative 
 comes last. The original is as follows : — 
 
 2 S. xxiv. 19-20 — "And David went up according 
 to the saying of Gad as the Lord commanded. And 
 Araunah looked forth and saw the king and his servants 
 
 62 
 
TYPICAL CONFLATIONS [107] 
 
 passing-over toward him: and Araunah went out and bowed 
 himself before the king with his face to the ground." Now 
 there has been a previous mention of " an angel of the Lord " 
 as being by " the threshing floor of Araunah," and the word 
 " angel " or " messenger " (mldk), is easily confused with 
 " king " {mlk), and is actually confused with it elsewhere.^ 
 
 [106] The writer of the first clause of the parallel 
 passage in Chronicles actually makes this mistake, and writes 
 " angel " for " king." But, having done this, he is confronted 
 with the difficulty of the angel's "servants passing-over." 
 Now, it happens, that these two words " pass-over " {a"br) 
 and "servant" {d'bd) differ in nothing but the difference 
 between r and d. The reader will be prepared (5-7) to 
 believe that they are easily confused together. Moreover, 
 the letters of the phrase " and his servants passing-over" 
 resemble those of the phrase, "and his four sons."^ 
 
 [107] Again, the Greek for "servants" is also the 
 Greek for " boys," which, in certain contexts, might mean 
 " sons." ^ If therefore the Hebrew of Chronicles was written 
 after Samuel had been translated into Greek, and if the 
 
 1 [105o] "King (iVn)," "messenger (ikSd)." The Hebrew "messenger" is 
 rendered by the Greek "king" or "ruler," in Is. xiv. 32, xlii. 19; Prov. xiii. 17. 
 On the confusion of "king" and "messenger," or "angel," see Dr. Ginsburg's 
 Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 141 : " In 2 K. vii. 17, we have the 
 primitive form -{fan = ^iSsn = ^NVsrr ' the messenger ' without Alefih, as is attested 
 by the Septuagint and the Sjrriac. The passage ought accordingly to be trans- 
 lated 'when the messenger came down to him.' This is corroborated by the 
 statement in the preceding chapter, viz, vi. 33* Exactly the reverse is the 
 case in 2 S. xi. i, where the Massorah itself tells us that the redactors of the 
 text inserted Aleph into this very word, converting (n'o^an) 'kings' into 
 (D'asSsn) ' messengers.^ " 
 
 "^ The former =D'-ajnn3j;nNi, the latter = D'J3nj;aiNi. 
 
 » [107a] Comp. Acts iii. 13 Trais, (R.V.) txt. "Servant" (marg. "'Child': 
 and so in ver. 26 ; iv. 27, 30"). The centurion's servant healed by Jesus is called 
 in Matt. viii. 8 irafs, (R,V.) "servant" (marg. "boy"), but in Luke vii. 2 4o5Xor, 
 "servant." A similar narrative in Jn. iv. 46f., describes the healing of a 
 nobleman's " son " (i/Ms), called also in the context Tatdlov and irols. 
 
 63 
 
[108] TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 Greek version of Samuel contained this ambiguous word, 
 the Jewish writer or reviser of Chronicles might be led by a 
 tradition derived from the Greek translation of Samuel to 
 suppose that a fuller version of the story contained some 
 mention of " boys," that is to say, Araunah's " sons." The 
 Chronicler's acceptance of this reading would be facilitated 
 also by the unusual nature of the verb " passing-over " applied 
 to David's retinue.^ 
 
 [108] But when Araunah's " four sons " were thus 
 introduced into the story, it became needful to adjust the 
 context to the new insertion. " His four sons toward him " 
 would make no sense ; it must be " his four sons wit/i him" 
 This involved no very great change.^ But it was naturally 
 asked how the " sons " came to be there, and whai part (if 
 any) they played in this solemn, inaugural act — a kind of 
 anticipation of the building of the Temple — where they 
 might well seem out of place. These questions were 
 perhaps originally answered in the margin. The " four 
 sons" played no part at all, except that of suggesting 
 reverence to future readers. They " hid themselves." And 
 the reason for their presence was that they were helping 
 their father in his work, " now Oman was threshing wheat." 
 Thus the foundations are laid for an entirely new version of 
 the story. 
 
 [109] It only remained to transfer these graphic touches 
 from the margin to the text, and to modify a few of the 
 expressions in Samuel that did not seem exact, or did not 
 quite harmonise with the additions made in Chronicles. 
 For example, it was not strictly true to say that " the Lord 
 commanded." It was more exact to describe the message 
 as "the saying of Gad which he spake in the name of the 
 Lord." Again, in the Bible, when people see an angel, they 
 
 ^ Our R.V. alters it to "coining on" ; but that does not express the Hebrew 
 meaning which the R.V. gives in the margin.' 
 2 "Toward him (v^-y)," "with him (loy)." 
 
 64 
 
TYPICAL CONFLATIONS [HI] 
 
 do not usually " look forth " as from a window and behold 
 it. More frequently they unexpectedly see an angel behind 
 them, or by their side. So Araunah " turns back and sees " 
 it. We are now prepared for the new version, or rather for 
 the first clause of it, introducing the " four sons '' : — 
 
 (Aj) I Chr. xxi. 19-20: "And David went up at the 
 saying of Gad, which he spake in the name of the Lord. 
 And Oman turned back and saw the angel. And his four 
 sons [that were] with him hid themselves.^ Now Oman 
 was threshing wheat." 
 
 [110] In the next sentence, the corrector gives the 
 right tradition without any miraculous adjuncts, dropping 
 the " servants " or "sons " altogether, and filling up the space 
 by clauses that add definiteness. Instead of " went up," 
 he has " came to Oman." Instead of " looked forth," he has 
 " looked intently and saw David " ; and, after " went out," he' 
 adds, " of the threshing floor." ^ The result is — 
 
 (Ajj) I Chr. xxi. 21 : "And as David came to Oman, 
 Oman looked intently and saw David and went out of the 
 threshing floor and bowed himself to David with his face to 
 the ground." 
 
 No one of course will deny that the original narrative 
 in Samuel recognizes an angel as God's agent producing 
 a pestilence : and, so far, the original may be called 
 " miraculous." But that is very different from the 
 miraculousness implied in the story as developed by the 
 Chronicler. 
 
 [Ill] The existence of conflations in Hebrew shows 
 (what ought indeed to need no showing) that they do not 
 necessarily prove translation. They prove simply this, the 
 
 ' I Chr. xxi. 20: "hid themselves (o'tcanno)." The LXX, in perplexity, 
 transliterates this, koX riaaafox uiois airov ner' airrov /ieOaxaPeir. 
 
 ^ [110a] Such defining additions form a large part of the details of the 
 edition of Mark used by Matthew and Luke. See 534. "Looked intently" is 
 the literal meaning of the Hebrew. 
 
 5 65 
 
[112]: TYPICAL CONFLATIONS 
 
 existence of an original that seemed to a copyist or translator 
 to be obscure, or inadequate, or both. They would there- 
 fore naturally arise in the copying of a difficult book (like 
 Job or Thucydides) or of a work become, or becoming, 
 antiquated (like Chaucer). Chronicles is supposed to have 
 been written after the exile, at a time when the old Hebrew 
 (now called Samaritan) characters of the Bible were being 
 exchanged for the existing square characters, and when the 
 language of the pre-exilic period had become archaic and 
 almost foreign. If so, it was of the nature of a semi- 
 translation, 
 
 [112] The one condition needed for the growth of 
 conflations (in addition to supposed obscurity or inadequacy) 
 is that the text should not be as yet fixed by general 
 acceptance. And, of course, as long as a written tradition 
 is not only recent but also environed by pre-existing oral 
 traditions, it is in a state of non-authoritativeness that 
 renders it peculiarly liable to be conflated. The phenomena 
 of Chronicles support, instead of shaking, the conclusion that 
 a conflated Gospel, like that of Mark, is probably earlier 
 than comparatively non- conflated Gospels like those of 
 Matthew and Luke. This will be shown more clearly in 
 the next chapter. 
 
 66 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 CONFLATIVE VERSIONS 
 
 § I. The First Book of Esdras 
 
 [113] Several parallel passages have been given above 
 from the Greek translations of Esdras and Ezra, in which it 
 has been shown that the former contains conflations where 
 the latter does not. And the mistakes in the former are so 
 numerous as compared with those in the latter that it is 
 reasonable to suppose that the latter is the more recent of 
 the two translations. But there are passages where the 
 Greek of Esdras is closer to the Hebrew than that of Ezra. 
 For example, where the Greek of Ezra has " I rent my 
 garments and quaked-for-fear" Esdras has correctly, though 
 freely, " I rent my garments and the -holy -raiment," the 
 Hebrew being "my mantle." ^ The following passages aflbrd 
 a useful warning that sometimes a loose and inaccurate 
 version may in some single point lead us back to the 
 original Hebrew where the closer Hebraic rendering fails to 
 do so : — 
 
 [114] Ezra ix. i : (Hebr.) (lit.) "There have not been 
 separated the people of Israel and the priests and the 
 Levites from the peoples of the lands, [but have done] like- 
 
 ' Ezra ix. 3, 5 (l Esdr. viii. 68, 70): '^'J;d, itraWi/iriv. The l^'yo was a mantle 
 worn by women and the upper classes but also by priests. Tromm. suggests that 
 the LXX read h'^vj but does this ever mean "shake"? More probably the 
 LXX read tyo which means "totter," and is rendered traXeia in 2 S. xxii. 
 37, and iurSeyuv in the parallel Ps. xviii. 36. 
 
 67 
 
[U5] CONFLATIVE VERSIONS 
 
 their -abominations, those -of (lit. to) the Canaanite, the 
 Hittite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, the Ammonite, the 
 Moabite, the Mitzrite {i.e. Egyptian), and the Amorite." 
 
 I Esdr. viii. 66 (R.V. 65) : " There have not separated both 
 the rulers, and the priests, and the Levites, and foreign 
 nations of the land, their uncleannesses, [those] of Canaan- 
 aeans and Chettaeans and Pherezaeans, and Jebusaeans, and 
 Moabites, and Egyptians and Idumaeans." ^ 
 
 The Greek of Ezra is perhaps influenced by a reaction 
 from the loose inaccuracy of Esdras. It follows the Hebrew 
 exactly except that it probably alters the particle " like " to 
 the very similar " in," ^ concluding thus : " to-the (dat.) 
 Canaanei, the (nom.) Hethei,^ the Pheresthei, the Jebusei, 
 the Ammonei, the Moab, the Moserei, and the Amorei." 
 If this were found in a Gospel where no Hebrew original is 
 extant, we should be perplexed by " Moserei," till we found 
 a parallel " Egyptian " in another Gospel. Then we should 
 infer that both represented a Hebrew original " Mitzree " or 
 " Mitzrite," the regular name for " Egyptian." 
 
 Thus, in the above passage, though teeming with inac- 
 curacies, Esdras has preserved a clue to the Hebrew obscured 
 in the Greek Ezra. 
 
 [115] In the next, Esdras has probably preserved the 
 true Hebrew, where it. has been corrupted in our present 
 text, in which it runs thus (2 Chr. xxxv. 21) : "I came not 
 against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have 
 
 ^ (i.) " People of Israel "=^(cib" ay. The translator could hardly corrupt this 
 into anything meaning rulers. More probably he considered that the original was 
 loose, because "people'' included' priests and Levites. (ii.) The letter (s), 
 signifying " from" ("from the peoples "), happening to follow the same letter at 
 the end of "Levites," is dropped, to the ruin of the sense, (iii.) The letter 
 signifying "like" (3) is omitted without any excuse, (iv.) Also idk ("Amorite") 
 is taken as mN ("Idumaean") (6). 
 
 ^ [114a] "Like (3)," and "in (3)," are repeatedly confused; and the latter 
 might be taken to mean " in the way of," "according to." 
 
 ' 'SQ Xavavel, o 'Effei, 6 . . . The change of case probably represents an 
 attempt to show that the Hebrew "to " occurs only before the first name. 
 
 68 
 
CONFLATIVE VERSIONS [117] 
 
 war." The literal Hebrew is " the-house-of-my-war." But 
 although " house " is freely used for " place of," " receptacle 
 of" it would be difficult to find a use like this. By a slight 
 corruption, " house-of " might spring from " Euphrates," which 
 is the reading of i Esdr. i, 25 (R.V. 27): "for on the 
 Euphrates is my war."^ 
 
 [116] In view of a passage in the Synoptic Gospels 
 where Matthew and Luke agree in describing Jesus as 
 "passing the night," while Mark only speaks of Him as 
 " going," it will be useful to note Ezra x. 6 : " (a) And [Ezra.] 
 went into the chamber . . . {V) and he went thither ; bread 
 he ate not." This makes no sense. Yet, as the Hebrew 
 for " he went " is precisely the same in {a) and (^) it seems 
 unjustifiable to give different translations {e.g^ "(^) and 
 [when] he earned' But the Greek of the parallel i Esdr. ix. 2 
 reads " and ke-passed-the-nigkt there," a phrase very easily 
 confused with " and he went." ^ 
 
 [1 1 7] In its general character, Esdras, as compared with 
 Ezra, is not only a free translation, but also grossly inaccurate 
 on points of history and chronology. No one would blame 
 such substitutions as "temple" for "house of God," and 
 " Coele-Syria " for "beyond Jordan," and "the God that 
 created heaven " for " the God of heaven." Mere adaptations 
 like these are quite compatible with regard for historic truth.* 
 
 1 " House-of "=n'3; " Euphrates " = mB. "But" and "for" are equally 
 justifiable as renderings of 'd ; ^N="to," "against," "near." The Greek of 
 Esdras makes better sense. The Greek of Chr. has irSKeiwv ToXe/i^a-ai, instead 
 of "but against the house of my war." 
 
 In the preceding verse, 2 Chr. xxxv. 20, "against Carchemish by Euphrates,'' 
 the LXX of Chr. omits " Carchemish," while that of Esdras inserts it. Esdras 
 is, perhaps, more accurate when parallel to Chronicles than when parallel to 
 Ezra. 
 
 " [116o]"And he went hV'l)," "and he passed the night (jS'i)." See 
 Mk. xi. 19, 20, " They went forth outside the city. And passing along ... " ; 
 Mt. xxi. 17, " He went forth outside the city to Bethany and passed the night 
 there " ; Lk. xxi. 37, " Coming forth he passed the night on the mountain " (450). 
 
 • Some of these substitutions remind us of Luke, who never uses "sea" 
 
 69 
 
[U8] CONFLATIVE VERSIONS 
 
 But the author hopelessly confuses the leading facts of the 
 return from exile by reading history backwards, placing 
 Artaxerxes before Darius, and Darius before Cyrus. He 
 also introduces the famous apocryphal discussion as to 
 "What is greatest?" giving the leading part in it to 
 Zerubbabel and making it the immediate cause of the 
 rebuilding of the Temple. 
 
 § 2. The Septuagint Version of Daniel 
 
 [118] Such, then, is the character of one of the two most 
 conflative books of the Septuagint. The other — its rival in 
 the insertion of apocryphal matter as well as in conflations — 
 is the Septuagint version of the book of Daniel.^ In com- 
 paring this with the far more accurate version by Theodotion, 
 we have the great advantage of knowing that Theodotion 
 lived in the second century of the Christian era, long after 
 the date of the Septuagint translation. That he knew and 
 used the latter is proved by his close conformity with it in 
 many passages, and indeed in almost all where it accurately 
 represents the Hebrew. In others, the relation between the 
 two will be discerned from the following passages : — 
 
 [119] Dan. ii. 8 : "The thing (lit. word) is gone from 
 me." This may mean (" word " being regularly used for 
 " matter " or " business " in Hebrew) " The matter [i.e. the 
 nature of my dream] has vanished from my memory " ; and 
 Theodotion takes it so.^ But R.V. margin gives an alterna- 
 
 (always "lake") to describe the sea of Gennesaret or Tiberias. Luke also never 
 uses the phrase "beyond Jordan." 
 
 ^ In quoting from this book, which is of a composite character, the word 
 Hebrew may sometimes be loosely used for Aramaic. 
 
 ^ [119a] Dan. ii. 8 : Theod. i.ire(rTri Air' l/jioO t6 (ifj/j.a. Following the Hebrew, 
 he uses "word" where we should say "matter"; so in Kings and Chronicles 
 " the acis" of a king are regularly called in Hebrew "the words," and rendered 
 sometimes jyliimra, sometimes irpiyiiara. 'Airitrrri, i.e. " departed," clearly shows 
 that the meaning is not "was issued." In that case, i^^\9ev would have been 
 employed. 
 
 70 
 
CONFLATIVE VERSIONS [122] 
 
 tive. " The word is gone forth from me that ..." i.e. " I 
 have irrevocably decreed that . . ." In Dan. ii. 5, where 
 the phrase occurs for the first time, the LXX took it as 
 Theodotion takes it here ; but in the present passage the 
 LXX conflates thus : " (A^) the business is gone from me ; 
 (Ag) as therefore I have ordained so shall it be." ^ 
 
 [120] Dan. xii. 8 : " What shall be the issue (marg. latter 
 end) of these things?" Two interpretations are possible. 
 The first is literal, referring merely to time — " What shall be 
 the consequence, or final results, of these things?" So 
 Theodotion, " What [shall be] the last of these things ? " ^ 
 The second regards the " final outcome " as a conclusion, 
 symmetrically completing, and hence indirectly explaining, 
 the mysterious events that had preceded. Adopting this 
 latter interpretation the LXX tries to express it in two free 
 paraphrases : — " (A^) What [is] the solution of this word ? 
 (Aj) and to whom [or what] [belong] these dark-sayings ? " ' 
 
 [121] Dan. xi. 31 : "and arms shall stand on his part" ; 
 the Hebrew noun, in the singular, may mean " arm " (not in 
 the military sense, but the bodily " arm ") regarded as 
 symbolizing strength. But it may also mean "seed," "off- 
 spring." Theodotion takes the word as meaning " offspring " ; 
 but in this sense, the word is not used in the plural. The 
 LXX has " arms." This, then, is one of the very few cases 
 where the LXX is more accurate than Theodotion. Some 
 MSS. of Theodotion conflate " arms " and " offspring." * 
 
 * [122] Dan. iv. 29 (Aram. 26) " [The king] was walking 
 in (marg. " upon ") the royal palace of Babylon," lit. " On his 
 
 1 Dan. ii. 8 ; LXX, (Aj) aviarn iir' iiuou rb irpayfia. As Aj was the form used 
 above (Dan. ii. S). it seems probable that Aj occurred on second thoughts to a 
 scribe or editor at this point. At first it may have seemed to deserve a place in 
 the margin. Then it was placed second in the text. 
 
 ' T/s ri \icris ToD \6yov roirov, xaX Hros al wapaPoKal aSrai ; 
 * Dan. xi. 31 : " Arms (D'yii))" LXX, ppaxioyes, Theod. o-jr^p/iOTO, AQ (in 
 Theod.) /Spax'o'O Kal airipiMTa. 
 
 71 
 
[123] CONFLATIVE VERSIONS 
 
 palace of the kingdom that [belongs to] Babylon walking he 
 was." The word here translated " palace " is generally applied 
 to " the palace of the Eternal," that is, to the Temple. But 
 here " palace of the kingdom," or " palace of royalty," means 
 " the royal palace." The LXX takes it in a first paraphrase 
 (Aj) as meaning '' walls." Also the LXX seems to convert 
 " Babylon " into " the city " and implies " royal " in the 
 notion of walking " in state." Then it adds (Aj) a briefer 
 translation in which " palace " is rendered " towers." The 
 result is : " The king (Aj) on the walls of the city in all 
 his glory was walking about, and (Aj) on its towers he was 
 passing." ^ 
 
 Theodotion hsis the following literal rendering : "' on the 
 temple of his kingdom in Babylon walking about" 
 
 [123] Dan. iv. 31 (Aram. 28): "Yet [was the] word in 
 the mouth of the king," i.e. " the king had scarcely spoken." 
 " Word " in Aramaic closely resembles " fulfil " in Hebrew. 
 " Yet " is easily corrupted into " upon." The LXX renders 
 " word " first (Aj) correctly, and then (Aj) paraphrases the 
 clause incorrectly, thus : " (Aj) The (a^) word being {b^ still 
 in the mouth of the king (A^) and {b^ upon ^& {a^ fulfilment 
 of his word." Theod. " The word being still in the mouth 
 of the king." ^ 
 
 *[124] Dan. vi. 17 (Aram.) : (lit.) "that there might not 
 
 ' Dan. iv.29 "palace (V3',-i)" = (Tromm.) jSdpis (i), /Sao'tXeioi' (i), vaM (51), 
 oIkos (16), dxipia/ia (l) : (Aram.) i>a6s (7), oIkos (S). Here it is rendered by LXX, 
 (Ai) reixSiv (Aj) iripyiav, Theod. valf. "Walking about "=7re/jieirdT«, "passing" 
 = SiaropeieTo. Possibly LXX may have read 133 56fo for Vaa "Babylon"; but 
 it is not likely that it should have corrupted so common a name. 
 
 2 [123ffi] "Word" = Mn'?D, "fulfill "=N^D. "Stm"=nis=ft-t. "Upon"=^j; 
 = iirl. Comp. Mark ix. 6 " he knew not what to answer, " with the parallels Matt 
 xvii. s, "while he was still speaking," Luke ix. 34, "while he was saying these 
 things." There the original was probably "still was the word to him in his 
 mouth.'' Mark interpreted •h, i.e. "to him," as th, i.e. "not," a frequent con- 
 fusion, as in 2 K. viii. 10 (R.V. txt. and marg.), 2 S. xvi. 18 "his" but Heb. txt. 
 "not," etc. Hence the rendering "he no longer had a word to say." Also he 
 may have confused niy "yet " with jn' "know." See 422. 
 
 72 
 
CONFLATIVE VERSIONS [125] 
 
 be changed matter in Daniel," i.e. " that nothing might be 
 changed concerning Daniel." Theodotion translates liter- 
 ally, as above. But the Aramaic word " matter " occurs 
 only here, and R.V. gives the marginal alternative " purpose." 
 The LXX, very probably not knowing what the word meant 
 and guessing at the sense, gives a double paraphrase " (Aj) 
 that Daniel might not be delivered from them {j..e. from his 
 enemies) (Aj) or that the king might not draw him up out 
 of the den." In Aj, the use of " him " for " Daniel " indicates 
 that Aj was written after Aj. 
 
 * [125] The following is an instance of conflation (owing 
 to Aramaic corruption), combined with Hellenistic paraphrase 
 and a kind of " plunging at the sense." 
 
 The literal Aramaic is Dan. v. 30-31 : "In that night 
 was slain Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, and Darius the 
 Mede received the kingdom being like-a-son of sixty-two 
 years." The Septuagint, in the first clause of its conflation, 
 translates " in that " as "' came," and " night " as " consumma- 
 tion " or " final judgment." ^ In the second, it translates, as 
 elsewhere, "slain" by "utterly taken away,"^ "king" as 
 kingdom (dropping "Belshazzar" and "in that night." ^) 
 Then, having inserted a clause to say that "the kingdom 
 
 1 "In that" = n3, "came" (^5r^Xee)=KU. "By night"=K'W3 (Aramaic), 
 "consummation" (ffi)7K/)i/ia) = p'^s (Is. x. 22). 
 
 * [125a] There are curious facts about the LXX rendering of ^>Bp "slay," 
 which suggest that LXX may have been misled by its correspondence to the 
 Greek hnufiiv which may mean, in the active, "slay," but, in the middle, " take 
 away." Theod. uses ixojipSv (4)='?Bp "slay," LXX never. In Dan. ii. 14, where 
 Theod. has ixiufeiv, LXX has k%6riav "lead forth [? to execution]." In Dan. 
 v. 19 (Theod.) dc^pei, LXX omits the whole context. In Aj here Theod. has 
 Sa/ypieri, "was slain," LXX=^|^pTat, "hath been taken away" (with a possible 
 meaning "destroyed"). In Dan. vii. 11, "I beheld even till the beast mas slain 
 (Theod. ivrtpiSii) and his body destroyed, and he was given to be burned with 
 fire," the LXX has iirervitTavlaeri Kal iiriOKero ri ffw/ia airoS (L. and S.) 
 "cudgelled to death," but more probably "tortured to death "as in 3 Mac. 
 iii. 27). 
 
 ' Possibly, in Aj, the LXX took "consummation," i.e. making an utter end, 
 as " utterly " : and considered it implied in the i^ in i^TJfrrai " utterly taken away." 
 
 73 
 
[126] CONFLATIVE VERSIONS 
 
 was given to the Medes and Persians," it substitutes for 
 " Darius," " Artaxerxes the of the Medes." This ought to 
 mean " the man of that name belonging to the Medes " ; 
 but perhaps " Artaxerxes " is used as the Persian title for 
 king, and the LXX means " the Artaxerxes {i.e. king) of the 
 Medes." ^ In the next verse the LXX mentions " Darius " 
 as old and renowned, but drops the number of his years.^ 
 The result is : " (Ai) And (^i) the final judgment {b^ came 
 upon Baltasar the {c-^ king (Ag) and {c^ the kingdom (Pflj) 
 was utterly taken away {b^ om.) from the Chaldeans, and 
 was given to the Medes and the Persians, and Artaxerxes, 
 he of the Medes [or, the Artaxerxes, i.e. king of the Medes], 
 received the kingdom. And Darius [was] full of days and 
 renowned in old age." 
 
 § 3. Conflations arising from Aramaic 
 
 [126] It was natural that Greek translators, familiar with 
 Hebrew rather as a written than as a spoken language, 
 should sometimes take an Aramaic word in its Hebrew 
 signification. Or they might use a MS. in which the 
 Aramaic equivalent of difficult Hebrew words was frequently 
 written in the margin. This might lead to an abundance 
 of conflations. 
 
 [127] For example, take Dan. iv. 19: "Then Daniel, 
 whose name [was] Belteshazzar, was astonied for a while 
 (lit. for one glance, A.V. one hour), and his thoughts troubled 
 him." In a preceding passage the meaning of the word here 
 translated (A.V.) " hour '' appears to correspond to our " at 
 that instant" ^ but it is there translated in both versions by 
 
 1 Dan. V. 31 (LXX), ' Ajrra^ip^ii! 6 rav M.'^duv. 
 
 ^ [125^] This is because the LXX stumbles at the Aramaic idiom " a son of 
 sixty-two years" for "sixty-two years old." It takes nsD "like a son" as naa 
 " renowned " (the frequent error (5-7) of interchanging r and d). 
 
 ' [127a] Dan. iii. 6 : " Whoso falleth not down . . . shall the same instant 
 (but R.V. hour) be cast into the . . . furnace." Comp. Taylor's Jewish 
 Fathers, iv. 24. 
 
 74 
 
CONFLATIVE VERSIONS [127] 
 
 the Greek " hour," which often means " season," " appointed 
 time," etc. In Hebrew, however, the word exists only as a 
 verb, meaning " look (for help)," " look (in dismay)," etc. It is 
 also liable to be confused with words meaning "shudder," 
 and "to be altered [in countenance]." Theodotion follows 
 the Aramaic. But the Septuagint appears to have at first 
 taken it as meaning *' perplexity," so that it intensified the 
 " wonder " and might be rendered " greatly." Then it seems 
 to have accumulated a number of phrases expressive of 
 intense wonder, and finally to have given the correct, or, at 
 all events, the literal rendering, with this result : — " But («i) 
 greatly did Daniel wonder, and thoughts made him afraid 
 (lit. hastened him) ; and (? a^ having feared, (? a^ trembling 
 having possessed him, and (? a^ his aspect being altered, 
 having shaken his head, having wondered {a^ one hour" 
 It is probable that some of these clumsy participial phrases 
 placed one after the other without connecting particles, 
 are attempts at rendering " whose name was Belteshazzar." 
 But facts indicate that two of them (besides («i)) are confla- 
 tions of " hour." ^ 
 
 1 [1274] " Hour (nvv) " might be confused with iv» "shudder,'' and possibly 
 (though less easily) with wr " alter." 
 
 75 
 
BOOK II 
 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 SPECIMENS OF CONFLATION^ 
 
 The discussion of all the probable Synoptic conflations 
 must be reserved for a complete Synoptic commentary. A 
 few instances, however, will be given here to shew the 
 application of the rules deduced from the Septuagint. 
 
 § I. (Mark) " The surrounding country of Galilee" 
 
 Mark i. 28 Luke iv. 37 
 
 " And there went forth the " And there proceeded forth 
 
 report of him everywhere a loud rumour about him into 
 
 into all the (oj) surrounding every place of the {a^ sur- 
 
 country {a^ of Galilee^ rounding country" 
 
 [1 28] " Galilee " means " circuit," and hence " surround- 
 ing-country." In the Old Testament, "Galilee" and 
 " region " or " district " are found as alternatives. Macca- 
 bees speaks of " all Galilee of the Philistines," meaning " all 
 the region of the Philistines." '^ Mark conflates the two 
 meanings. 
 
 ' The chapter on Septuagint confusions preceded that on Septuagint conflations. 
 Consistently, therefore, the chapter on Synoptic confusions ought to precede that 
 on Synoptic conflations. But the appreciation of the error of conflation — applying, 
 as it often does, not to mere pairs of words, but to long statements of fact and 
 to narratives practically rewritten — ^is Of so much more importance, that it has 
 been thought best to place a. few specimens of Synoptic conflation immediately 
 after those of conflation in the Septuagint. 
 
 It is assumed throughout this chapter that Mark contains the Triple Tradition 
 from which Matthew and Luke borrowed. See below (321). 
 
 2 I Mac. V. IS, comp. Joel iii. (iv.) 4: "All the regions (niWj) of Philistia," 
 
 79 
 
[129] 
 
 SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 But compare :— 
 Mark i. 14 
 " There came Jesus 
 into («^) Galilee {b^ 
 preaching ^e. Gospel 
 of God." 
 
 Matt. iv. 12, 17 
 
 "He retired into 
 
 (a^ Galilee From 
 
 that time began Jesus 
 (p\> to-preach." 
 
 Luke iv. 14 
 
 "(Aj) Jesus turned 
 back . . . into (a^) 
 Galilee, and (A^) {b^ 
 a fame went forth in 
 the whole of (a^ the 
 surrounding country 
 about him." 
 
 [129] Here we must bear in mind that the Greek word 
 (in Mark i. 28) translated "report" may qaean not only 
 the report about a person, but also the report brought by 
 him, as when Isaiah says : " Lord, who hath believed our 
 report?" i.e., as usually taken, our message, ot preaching} 
 
 Luke appears to have conflated "Galilee" as («i) "Galilee," 
 (^2) " surrounding country," and to have taken {b^ " preach- 
 ing " as (^2) " fame." Thence arises a new tradition (A2) out 
 of (^2) and (pi). 
 
 2. (Mark lit), " It having become late, when the sun had set " 
 Mark i. 32 (lit.) ^ Matth. viii. 16 (lit.) ^ Luke iv. 40 (lit) ^ 
 
 "But (flj) it having 
 become late." 
 
 " But (flj) the sun 
 setting." 
 
 "But {aJ it having 
 become late, (ffg) 
 when the sun had 
 set." 
 
 [130] Mark's Greek word "late" occurs only once in 
 the whole of the Septuagint, and then only in Judith. The 
 word and the participial form of the phrase are characteristic 
 
 iraa-a Ta\t\ala iWo^iXuv. In Is. ix. I, " Galilee (S'Vj) of the nations," R.V. has 
 marg. "district." Comp. Josh. xxii. 11: the region-about (P1..V . " borders-of ") 
 Jordan," TaXaAS (A roXiXwfi) toS 'Io/)5. ; Ezek. xlvii. 8 : " the region to'vrards the 
 east," ■rl)V VaKCKaiav rjjv TrpJs dcoToXds. 
 
 ^ Is. liii. I (LXX) Tg i-KCTQ ^/iffic, quoted thus in Jn. xii. 38, Rom. x. 16. 
 
 ' Here, as in several other translated pass^es in this book, the English is 
 sacrificed to the object of expressing, or approximating to, the idiom of the 
 original. 
 
 80 
 
SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 [131] 
 
 of idiomatic Greek. Probably aj represents the first free 
 translation of the original, conflated with a^, a subsequent 
 literal translation. Matthew prefers a^, Luke a^ (only in the 
 participial form).^ 
 
 3 (Mark lit), " It {i.e. the seed) arose 
 arose the sun." 
 
 there 
 
 Mark iv. S, 6 (lit.) 
 
 "And other fell 
 on the rocky [land] 
 where it had not 
 tnuch earth, and 
 straightway it arose 
 because it had no 
 depth of earth ; and 
 when there arose the 
 sun it was burned 
 up, and because it 
 had no root it 
 withered." 
 
 Matth. xiii. 5 (lit.) 
 
 "But others fell 
 on the rocky [lands] 
 where they had not 
 much earth ; and 
 straightway they arose 
 because- they had no 
 depth of earth, and, 
 the sun rising, they 
 were burned up, and 
 because they had no 
 root they withered." 
 
 Luke viii. 6 (lit.) 
 
 "And other fell 
 down on the rock, 
 and having grown, it 
 withered, because it 
 had no moisture." 
 
 [131] Here we have to do, not with the words of an 
 evangelist, but with those of Jesus. And it is highly im- 
 probable that Luke would have omitted the clause relating 
 to the sun if he had believed Jesus to have uttered it. We 
 are driven to conclude either that (i.) Luke's original did not 
 contain the words, or that, although it contained them, (ii.) 
 they appeared to Luke to be based on some error. 
 
 (i.) The English of Mark, above, follows Mark's Greel 
 order. But by transposition, the Greek might run in the 
 order of the following sentence, in which a bracket encloses 
 the words intervening between the end of the first " arose " 
 and the end of the second : — 
 
 1 [130a] Luke wishes to say, not (as Mk.) "when the sun had set," but 
 " when the sun was setting." But the Greek verb (Surai) has no imperfect indica- 
 tive in common use. Luke resorts to the present participle. 
 6 81 
 
SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 " It arose [because it had no depth of earth, and it was 
 burned up when the sun arose\ and because it had no root 
 it withered away," In this shape, the sentence is liable to 
 the error called "homoioteleuton."* Now it is probable 
 (325a) that our present text of Mark has come to us through 
 several editions ; and if one of these, containing the Greek in 
 this order, was employed by Luke (or by some author followed 
 by Luke), his eye may have passed from " arose " to " arose," 
 causing him to omit the intervening words. This is possible, 
 but on the whole not likely, for the following reasons : — 
 
 [132] (ii.) Where Mark has "root," Luke has a very 
 rare word indeed, meaning .'' moisture," "juice," " sap," etc. 
 Now this is difficult to explain on the hypothesis that Luke 
 was merely following a corrupt text of Mark ; for the general 
 tendency of corruption is to substitute an easy word for a 
 difficult and a familiar word for a rare one, and not vice 
 versa. But it is easy to explain on the hypothesis that 
 Luke thought he was restoring the exact meaning of an 
 original Hebrew text.^ Luke's Greek word may mean 
 " moisture in the earth," but it may mean " internal moisture," 
 " sap," " vitality." Now, if the Hebrew word was of a rare 
 and technical kind, the passage might fall under the head 
 of conflations from technical terms, described above (69). 
 A Hebrew word meaning " freshness," " greenness," or 
 " moisture," causing the earliest translators to doubt whether 
 it referred to the plant or to the root, might lead them to 
 
 ^ [131a] That is, the error of passing in transcription from the termination of 
 one passage {e.g., "arose") to the similar termination of a second consecutive 
 passage [e.g., ^' arose"), omitting the second termination and all the words that 
 precede it up to the first termination {e.g., " because it had . . . the sun arose " ). 
 Homoioteleuton means "similar termination." 
 
 ^ Lk. viii. 13 agrees with Mk. iv. 17 in having "root" when the context 
 speaks no longer about seeds but about souls. Supposing Luke's ' ' moisture " to 
 have been the original, Mk. iv. 6 may have been influenced by Mk. iv. 17. The 
 translator or editor of Mk. iv. 6, casting about for some rendering of an obscure 
 Hebrew word in the earlier passage, bethought himself that in the corresponding 
 part of the explanation later on, mention was made of "root." 
 
 82 
 
SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS [133] 
 
 paraphrase it as "depth of earth," "much earth," "root," 
 etc." ^ To this must be added that the Greek word " (a)rise," 
 though applied in the Septuagint to plants as well as to the 
 sun, is more frequently applied to the latter ; and indeed 
 the noun "rising" is regularly used for the "sun-rise" or 
 "east." 
 
 [133] That Mark has gone wrong through conflation 
 seems, on the whole, more probable than that Luke has 
 gone wrong through homoioteleuton. This probability will 
 be greatly strengthened if it is^ shown hereafter that Mark 
 is habitually conflative. For the present, as a working 
 hypothesis, we take this as the Hebrew original : " And other 
 fell on the rock and it (a)rose (i.e., grew up), and because it 
 had no moisture it withered." At a very early period, " rock," 
 seeming hyperbolical — for what could grow on a rock ? — 
 was changed to " rocky land(s) " ; " (a)rose " was explained 
 in the margin by the suggestion of " the sun " ; " moisture " 
 was explained as being " depth of earth," or " much earth," 
 or " root." Hence arose various traditions : " (Aj) it grew 
 up because it had no depth of earth, and withered away;" 
 " (A2) because it had no root it withered away " ; " (A3) 
 the sun rose and it was burned up." All these Mark con- 
 flated. Matthew followed him. Luke not only omitted the 
 additions but also substituted for the ambiguous word 
 " (a)rose," the word " grew up," and also returned to the 
 literal though difficult "rock."^ 
 
 § 4. (Mark) " Why are ye fearfiil? Have ye not yet faith ? " 
 Mark iv. 40 Matth. viii. 26 Luke viii. 25 
 
 (a^) "Why are ye («j^) "Why are ye (a^) "Where is 
 fearful? (o^) Have ye fearful, (a^) O ye of your faith?" 
 not yet faith ? " little faith ? " 
 
 1 The rare word an, translated by LXX "root " in Job viii. 12, means " fresh- 
 ness," "greenness." In its Talm. form, am, "hollow," it might possibly be coniiised 
 with the hollow, or depth, of the earth, being once rendered iK rfls 7?s tpuveiv. 
 
 ' " Rocky "=Mk. tA jrerpaScs, Mt. rk irerpiliit) : "{a.)xoss'' = (ii)iuiirei\e». 
 
 83 
 
[134] SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 [134] The Greek word here rendered "fearful" occurs 
 only thrice as the representation of a Hebrew word in the 
 Septuagint ; but a^ would be a very natural way of express- 
 ing in vernacular Greek some Hebrew idiom reproaching the 
 disciples for want of steadfastness. There is therefore an 
 antecedent probability that Luke omitted a^ as being a 
 paraphrase of the more literal a^. 
 
 [135] As regards a^, the differences point to some 
 Hebrew particle that might mean " Where ? " implying the 
 answer " Nowhere." Matthew's compound (" little-faithed ") 
 is essentially Greek. " Little," — thus used as part of a 
 compound adjective — is very rare in the Septuagint : '^ 
 but " little-faithed " is used four times by Matthew and is 
 once adopted by Luke.^ It might represent the Hebrew 
 " dull (lit. heavy) of heart." But here Mark and Luke point 
 to an original " no-faith " or " where-faith ? " 
 
 [136] The latter view is confirmed by the Hebrew use 
 of " where " to signify negation, as in the name " Ichabod," 
 which means literally " wJiere [is] glory," but implies " the 
 glory zs departed from Israel." ^ Compare also the Hebrew, 
 " man giveth up the ghost and where is he ? " with the Greek, 
 " but a mortal, having fallen, exists no more." * Mark appears 
 to have taken this particle negatively, with an implied inter- 
 rogative, "Ye have not yet faith [it seems]," Luke interroga- 
 tively, while Matthew expressed it by a paraphrase.^ 
 
 ^ Only in d\iy6\l'vxos (6), and 6X176/810! (2). 
 
 2 "Little-faithed [d\iy6TurToi.)," Mt. vi. 30 (Lk. xii. 28), viii. 26, xiv. 31, 
 xvi. 8. 
 
 5 I S. i7.'2i R.V. marg. "there-is-no ('«) glory," LXX o6ai-/3a/)-xaj3(60, appar- 
 ently taking 'n in its meaning "woe," "woe,-son-of-gIory." 
 
 * Job xiv. 10, ireffiiv dk Pporbs oiKiri itrHv. 
 
 ° [136a] The exact words of the original must remain doubtful. Mark's text 
 is itself not quite certain. W. and H. read oHiriii, but Tisch. olhias ; wHs oix, 
 (a) 'N=" where" or "not," (i) TN="how," (c) n3<N="where" or "how," (d) 
 n3= " thus." We should expect {b) when prefixed to (d) to mean irC>% oStiiK, but 
 in Cant. v. 3 it means "how." 
 
 84 
 
SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 [137] 
 
 § 5. {Luke) lit. "Fearing they wondered'' 
 
 Mark iv. 41 
 
 "And they feared 
 a great fear and began 
 to say to one another, 
 Who then is this that 
 
 Matth. viii. 27 
 
 " But the men 
 wondered saying, 
 What kind [of man] 
 is this that even the 
 
 even the wind and 
 the sea obey him ? " 
 
 Conflated ? 
 Luke viii. 35 
 "But fearing they 
 wondered saying to 
 one another, Who 
 then is this that even 
 winds and the sea the winds he corn- 
 obey him ? " mandeth and the 
 water and they obey 
 him?" 
 (i) (Luke) "fearing they wondered" 
 [137] Are we to regard this as a conilate ? Not exactly. 
 The original was probably the reduplicated verb and verbal, 
 or verb and noun, " fearing they feared," or " they feared a 
 fear." Mark — who often elsewhere alone preserves the 
 Hebrew reduplication^ — preserves the Hebrew here, but 
 adds "great" for emphasis. The Septuagint frequently 
 ignores the Hebrew reduplication, and so does Matthew 
 here. His Greek word for "what-kind-of " shows that he 
 is not following a Hebraic style.^ Luke avoids the literal 
 reduplication, but expresses it by two verbs. 
 
 [136*] Mk. viL 18 (Mt. XV. 16) oCrus (Mt. dfc/iV) ««' **"«« iusiverti, iare, 
 suggests that Mt. read nD ny "up to this extent," where Mk. read na. 
 
 [136^] Mk. viii. 17-18 has, instead of the paraU. (Mt. xvi. 8) "[why reason ye] 
 xa. yourselves, ye of little faith ?" a lengthy equivalent " (nor) do ye understand? 
 have ye your heart hardened [or, blinded] ? Having eyes see ye not, and having 
 ears hear ye not?" It is most improbable that Mt. would have omitted all this if 
 he had believed that it was rightly assigned to Jesus. But compare Jer. v. 21, " O 
 foolish people and without understanding (lit. and there is no heart), who have 
 eyes and see not, who have ears and hear not." It is possible that the 
 original contained Jeremiah's phrase "and there is no heart," and that an early 
 evangelist added to Mark Jeremiah's context — in order to explain the force of the 
 prophet's phrase. 
 
 ^ [137a] For instances of reduplication of cognate noun and verb in Mk. alone, 
 see Mk. i. 26, iiL 28, v. 42, xv. 34 (comp. xiii. 19, 20). Lk. xxiii. 46 (compared 
 with Mk. XV. 37) is an exception, 
 
 " Mt. viii. 27, "What kind of (iroToiris)" occurs (in the LXX) only in Dan. 
 (LXX) Su. 34. 
 
 85 
 
[138] SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 [138] Luke's use of two different verbs does not arise 
 from mere love of variety. A Hebrew verbal derived from 
 the Hebrew "fear" regularly means "wonder," and Luke 
 may have felt that to a Greek ear the meaning of " awe " 
 was better conveyed by combining "fear" and "wonder," 
 than by " fear " alone. ^ 
 
 [139] Matthew's " men " probably arose from his mis- 
 understanding the Hebrew idiom for "(they spoke) to one 
 another" which (it will be observed) he omits. It is 
 "(they spoke) man to neighbour (or, to brother)." Hence 
 Ezra uses " man " where Esdras uses " each," and a Greek 
 sentence such as "a man took" may represent a Hebrew 
 original each man took."^ The original may have been 
 "Fearing they feared and said man to neighbour." 
 Matthew rendered this freely, "the men wondered and 
 said." 
 
 (ii.) (Luke) "^« commandeth . . . and" 
 
 [140] There is more to be said for the view that this is 
 a conflation of " obey." For " obey," when interpreted causa- 
 tively, would mean "cause to obey," that is, "command/' 
 and this causative is used several times by the septuagint 
 of issuing a decree or authoritative command. Possibly, 
 indeed, "command" alone (without "obey") stood in the 
 original. If it did, the evangelists might feel that to " com- 
 mand " did not imply obedience, so that they preferred to 
 take the causative in a non-causative meaning. In that 
 case, Luke is here restoring the original meaning, while not 
 venturing to reject the erroneous interpretation which is 
 compatible with the correct one.^ 
 
 ' Fear (kt) = ^opeiadai (frequ.). The pass, particip. = Bav/uurTis (6). 
 
 '■' Comp. Ezra ii. I, "eaci (i!"n)," LXX dvij/j, but parallel I Esdr. v. 8 (mirros. 
 In 2 K, xi. 9 ^Xa/Sec irfip means, " they each took," and the parallel 2 Chr. xxiii. 
 8 has ^KOcrros. 
 
 ^ Lk. viii. 25 " He commandeth {iiriTdauet) " : a full discussion of this passage 
 would require a comparison of it with Mk. i. 27 (Lk. iy. 36), " even the unclean 
 spirits Ae commandeth" where Mk. adds "and they obey him (i7raicoi)o«(7ti' aintf)" 
 
 86 
 
SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 [142] 
 
 § 6. {Luke) " On the next day . . . from the mountain " 
 Mark ix. 9 Matt. xvii. 9 Luke ix. 36-37 
 
 "And when they 
 coming 
 
 "And when they 
 were coming down 
 from the mountain he 
 straitly charged them 
 that they should re- 
 late to no man. . . ." 
 
 were coming down 
 from the mountain, 
 Jesus commanded 
 them saying, ' Tell no 
 man. . . .'" 
 
 " And they were 
 silent and reported to 
 no man in those days 
 . . . But it came to 
 pass (a) on the next 
 day when they had 
 come down {a^ from 
 the mountain." 
 (i.) Speech or fact? 
 
 [141] The variation of Matthew from Mark suggests 
 that the original — as is sometimes the case (28, 86, 240) 
 in Hebrew — might be interpreted " tell no man," or, " they told 
 no man." Very possibly in early collections of the sayings 
 of Jesus, the preface " and Jesus said " might be omitted, and 
 then Evangelists might easily differ as Mark and Matthew do 
 in the Institution of the Lord's Supper where Mark has 
 " and they drank of it all (of them)," but Matthew " drink 
 of it all [of you]." ^ 
 
 [142] Or the Hebrew original may have been "he 
 commanded and they were silent," taken by Mark and 
 Matthew to mean, as it often does, " he commanded that they 
 should be silent." The synoptic divergences might then be 
 explained if the original were " And he caused them to be 
 silent and they reported nothing." Luke took " caused them 
 to be silent " non-causatively, " they were silent." Mark and 
 Matthew paraphrased it, " strictly enjoined (silence) on them." 
 (ii) LuMs addition, " on the next day'' 
 
 Lk., "and they go forth." Perhaps the original of Mk. i. 27 ended at "com- 
 mandeth,'' and the rest was added for clearness. 
 
 Mt. has no parallel to Mk. i. 27 and to its context. The Hebrew for "spirits" 
 is also the Hebrew for "winds." Possibly "unclean" was added in Mk. i. 27 to 
 the original for clearness. If so, Mt. may have identified (i.) " he commandeth the 
 spirits" with (ii.) "he commandeth the winds," and may have dropped the 
 narrative depending upon (i.) ^ Mk. xiv. 23, Mt. xxvi. 27. 
 
 87 
 
[143] SYNOPTIC CONFLATIONS 
 
 [143] A new and important fact introduced by the latest 
 of the three Evangelists must not be discarded on the mere 
 ground of its lateness : for Luke manifestly had access to 
 traditions not found in Mark or Matthew. But an unim- 
 portant detail like this is not antecedently likely to be 
 derived from special tradition. Nor does it seem likely that 
 Luke would insert it, as an inference of his own, for the sake 
 of defining the time of the descent from the mountain. 
 
 [144] If therefore good evidence of the possibility of 
 conflative origin can be produced, the words "on the next 
 day" must be regarded with suspicion. Now the Hebrew 
 for "to-morrow" is very like the Hebrew for "from the 
 mountain," and the two are actually conflated in the Vision 
 of Elijah, where the Hebrew is " Go forth and stand on the 
 mountain," but the Septuagint, " Go forth {a^) on the morrow 
 and stand . . . {a^ on the mountain." Probably, then, Luke's 
 detail is due to conflation.^ 
 
 ^ [144a] I K. Kix. II "on the mountain (nna)," aHfimv (leg. inn) (d and 3 are 
 (158a) often confused). " From the mountain " = -irto, ' ' on the morrow " = inn. 
 
 It is possible that Lk. ix. 36 (o,) "in those days," and ix. 37 (oj) "on the next 
 day," may represent two attempts to make sense out of the reading ino. It 
 means literally "to-morrow," but might be (wrongly) interpreted "on the follow- 
 ing day {i.e. the day following a past day) (mno)," or "in the days that immedi- 
 ately followed." 
 
 88 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 CONFLATIONS IN THE STORY OF THE GADARENE 
 
 § I. Conflative tendency apparent in Mark 
 
 [145] When a passage contains several difficulties, all 
 explained or corrected by marginal alternatives, it is natural 
 that the editor, if he conflates in one instance, should con- 
 flate in the others also. He may, of course, accept some 
 and reject others of the marginal glosses ; but there is an 
 antecedent probability that errors of this kind will "flock 
 together." This we have found to be the case (95) in the 
 Old Testament, and the story of the Gadarene appears to 
 exemplify this tendency in Mark : — 
 
 (i.) (Mark v. 5), "(a^) in the tombs and {a^ in the 
 mountains'' 
 
 [146] Matthew and Luke mention "the tombs," but 
 not "the mountains." The Hebrew of the two words is 
 not similar, but they are confused in Isaiah, "thou art 
 cast away from thy sepulchre " ; LXX, " thou shalt be cast 
 on the mountains." ^ The same verse of Mark contains — 
 
 (ii.) (Mark v. S), "(a^) crying and {a^ cutting {or, bruising) 
 himself with stones." 
 
 ' [146a] Is. xiv. 19, "from thy sepulchre (TiapD)," in toU ipeaai (? leg. some 
 form of Dn or nrt). It is more easy to see why Mk. v. 2, " there met him from 
 the tombs," is parallel to Lk. viii. 27, "there met 'tiim from the city" : for nnp 
 (" city") is somewhat Uke mip ("graves "). 
 
 Dr. Taylor suggests, on Is. xiv. 19, Gk. corr., <r6po(S for ipetriv. In favour 
 of this, see Job xxi. 32 " burial-mound {tni) " a-iipuw, A ffopu. 
 
 89 
 
[147] THE STORY OF THE GADARENE 
 
 [147] Matthew and Luke mention "crying," but not 
 "cutting," or "bruising." The Hebrew "bruise," "break," 
 etc., is one of those words most frequently mistranslated by 
 the Septuagint. It is almost always confused with '' evil " or 
 " mischief," and the latter is confused with " cry " in Micah, 
 " Why dost thou cry [with] crying," where the Septuagint 
 confuses " crying " with " evil." Mark may very well have 
 conflated {a^ " crying," and (a^ " doing himself a mischief," 
 (or " bruising himself,") adding " with stones " for the sake 
 of clearness,^ 
 
 (iii.) The next instance occurs in two forms in Mark 
 corresponding to one in Matthew, and apparently to one 
 in Luke — 
 
 Mark v. 3, 4 (lit.) Matt. viii. 28 (lit.) Luke viii. 27 (lit.) 
 
 "Not even with a "No one had- "For a long time 
 
 eAain any longer was power ^ to pass by he had not put on 
 
 any one able to bind that way." a. garment." 
 
 him, . . . and no one 
 
 had-power to tame 
 
 him." 
 
 In the attempt to trace these diverging traditions to 
 one Hebrew original we have to find reasons for the follow- 
 ing facts : — (i.) Matthew nowhere, in this narrative, mentions 
 " chains," or " garments " ; (ii.) Luke substitutes " garment " 
 for " chain " here, though he mentions " chains " later on ; 
 (iii.) Mark nowhere mentions the refusal to wear clothes, 
 though he says later on that the demoniac was "clothed 
 and in his right mind"; (iv.) Matthew alone inserts (in 
 apparent parallelism to the "chain" or "garment"), "no 
 man had power to pass that way." 
 
 [148] A solution would be afforded by an original to 
 
 1 For the mistranslation of pjn " crush," see above, 7. Cp. Mic. iv, 9, 
 "aloud, i.e. crying (jn)," KaKi. "Cry"=jm, and " crush "^jjjn. 
 
 » Mt. viii 28, " had-power," laxiuv, so translated in order to identify it with 
 "had-power" in Mk. v. 4, 
 
 90 
 
THE STORY OF THE GADARENE 
 
 [149] 
 
 this effect, " he would not so much as gird himself with a 
 girdle," that is, he would wear no clothing. For this would 
 be, in substance, Luke's tradition. And bearing in mind 
 the play of words in John, "another shall gird thee," — 
 referring to the binding of Peter before crucifixion — we 
 see that " gird " might be taken in the sense of " bind." * 
 Hence Mark may have taken the meaning to be " he could 
 never be bound with bonds." But the same Hebrew root 
 means also "strengthen," and hence the phrase might be 
 translated " was strong enough to bind." Again, by a slight 
 change, it would mean " go " or " pass," and the latter would 
 give Matthew's tradition, " No one was strong enough to 
 pass by." ^ 
 
 If this is the correct explanation, Luke is nearest to 
 the original. 
 
 (iv.) Mark v. 15 
 
 "They behold the 
 (dj) demoniac, (? b^ 
 seated, (? b^ clothed, 
 (? ij) and in his right 
 mind, (a^) him that 
 had had the legion." 
 
 Matt. viii. 34 
 
 " having seen him 
 {i.e. Jesus)." 
 
 Luke viii. 35 
 
 "they found [there] 
 seated the man from 
 whom the devils had 
 gone forth, clothed, 
 and in his right 
 mind, by the feet 
 of Jesus." 
 
 [149] In itself, this passage of Mark could be accepted 
 without hesitation. But we have to explain why Matthew 
 omitted it And the variation of Luke from Mark — slight 
 though it may seem — must not be overlooked. That Luke 
 should alter Mark's " demoniac " — literally "the man-having- 
 the- devil " (pres. particip.) — is intelligible, for he no longer 
 had the devil. But the slight variation in the order of 
 
 ' Jn. xxi. 18, explained by Tertullian and commentators generally as meaning 
 the binding of a prisoner by executioners. 
 
 * [14&t] The letter S is freqn. confiised with i, so that -iir "gird," or "bind" 
 might be taken as hw=irope6f<i9iu. iiik (Mandelk. Concord.)=" vinculum" as 
 wen as "dngulum": and the Lexicon takes it as "chain" in Job xii. 18 (but 
 not R.V,, nor LXX) : iiift=iyur)(ita>, Korurxieir, and bxi^cty. 
 
 91 
 
[149] THE STORY OF THE GADARENE 
 
 the words "seated," etc., is such as often proceeds from 
 marginal additions inserted in different places of the text. 
 Also Mark's words (a^ "him that had had the legion," 
 superfluously added to («^) "demoniac," suggest that the 
 original contained simply "he," and that a^ and a^ were 
 subsequently added to define the pronoun, or else that a^ 
 was a correction made by some one who, like Luke, objected 
 to «j. Lastly, the prevalence of conflations in the context 
 would make it reasonable to ask whether there is anything 
 in the nature of the words " seated " " clothed " and " in his 
 right mind " that points to further conflation. 
 
 The Hebrew "sit" is repeatedly confused (9) with 
 the Hebrew "return," or "restore," which might well have 
 originated " restored [to his right-mind]." Again, the word 
 " clothed " is easily confused with " to return," and the last 
 two words are actually confused in Ecclesiasticus, where 
 the Hebrew has " to return," but the editors read " clothed," 
 while the Septuagint has a third reading.^ These facts, 
 together with the considerations above mentioned, lead to 
 the conclusion that the passage in Mark is corrupted — 
 " clothed " and " in his right mind " being a conflation — and 
 that Matthew omitted it on account of its corruption. 
 
 § 2. {Mark) " the country" {Luke) " the abyss " 
 
 Mark v. lo Matt. om. Luke viii. 31 
 
 "And he began "And they began 
 to beseech him much to beseech him that 
 that he would not he would not corn- 
 send them out of fAe mand them to go 
 country." away into the abyss." 
 
 ^ [149a] Sir. xl. 3 : txt. y\t/h, marg. e/:h, above which is written »3i^ : LXX 
 TCTaTeivu/iirov (? meaning "put to shame," leg. as from ena). Luke himself 
 (iv. 18 " set at liberty them that are bruised") adopts a. confusion of a somewhat 
 similar kind in quoting Is. Ixi. I, "bind-up (li'an)," which Luke appears to have 
 understood as meaning "restore to freedom (n'rn)" : so Job v. 18 "bindeth up 
 (wan)" iriXai inroKaBisTiiaai (prob. leg. yvf\). 
 
 92 
 
THE STORY OF THE GADARENE [151] 
 
 [150] Mark's difficult phrase is omitted in the Arabic 
 Diatessaron. The Greek word here rendered " country " 
 means " the habitable world " in Ecclesiasticus and Isaiah.^ 
 Job assumes that it is a part of the punishment of the 
 wicked to be "chased out of the [habitable] world" ; and evil 
 spirits, when cast out from men, are described cis moving 
 " through waterless places," that is, apart from men, and not 
 finding rest till they return to a human tenement.^ But, if 
 that was the meaning of Mark's original, Mark's rendering 
 by no means represents it. It might have been rendered 
 " outside the world," but that would have been still obscure 
 to a Greek reader. Hence, whereas Mark has "he besought 
 him much that he would not send them outside the 
 country," Luke appears to express the original meaning 
 more clearly — though departing from Mark in grammatical 
 form — by saying that "they [i.e. the evil spirits] besought 
 him that he would not command them to go away into 
 the abyss." 
 
 [151] Two considerations may have a bearing on 
 Matthew's apparent omission, (i.) "From" is often (158«) 
 confused in Hebrew with " in " or " into." (ii.) A negative 
 may not improbably have been inserted or omitted in a Greek 
 Gospel translated from Hebrew. 
 
 There are scores of such erroneous insertions, or omissions, 
 of "not" in the Septuagint where there is no apparent 
 excuse. But in this passage there is a special probability 
 of the error, because the pronoun in " they besought him " is 
 one of the most frequent Hebraic causes of an erroneously 
 
 ' Sir. xliii. 3 " iie habitable land (^an) " Xfipax, Is. xviii. 3 " all ye inhabitants 
 of-the-taarlel {hnn)" irhirer (is Xiipa KaToiKovinivri (Oxf. Concord, seems wrong 
 here, taking xdipa as = pn which = a second xdipa). In Is. vii. 19 "desolate 
 (nwa)," xtipos, (?) LXX leg. Van. 
 
 2 [150a] Job xviii. 18, Mt. xii. 43 (Lk. xi. 24). "Waterless," used as a 
 noun, is a common word for " wilderness " in Hebrew ; and solitary places are 
 regarded as habitations for "wild beasts" and "satyrs,"' apparently terms 
 suggesting, at least to the Greek translators of Isaiah (xiii. 21), evil spirits. 
 
 93 
 
[152] THE STORY OF THE GADARENE 
 
 inserted Greek negative.^ Or, on the other hand, the 
 Hebrew negative might have been dropped by the Greek, 
 being taken as a pronoun. 
 
 [152] But does Matthew omit this difficult tradition? 
 May not Mark and Luke be conflating while Matthew gives 
 a single version of what he conceives to be the original? 
 It is impossible to answer with confidence because the dis- 
 crepancies are so many and so complex ; but it is a prob- 
 able conjecture that some confusion underlies the different 
 statements, in this narrative, about "beseeching to go" 
 " beseeching to send {i.e. (possibly) to cause to g6)l' " beseech- 
 ing to permit to go into" and " beseeching not to send." These 
 might be connected, positively or negatively, with " abyss," 
 "country," "borders," and taken as referring to the home 
 of the evil spirits, or to the habitable world, or to the 
 "borders" of the citizens of Gerasa who subsequently (155) 
 " beseech " Jesus to " go away." Again the word " abyss " 
 in Ecclesiasticus is confused by the Septuagint with the 
 third personal pronoun,^ so that " into tkem " might be con- 
 fused with " into the abyss." These considerations suggest 
 that conflation may underlie Mark and Luke in the 
 following : — 
 
 Mark v. 10-12 Matth. viii. 31 Luke viii. 31-32 
 
 "Not send them "If thou art-to-cast "Not command 
 
 out of the country ... us out, send us into them to go away into 
 
 Send us into the the herd of swine." the abyss - . . permit 
 
 swine, that we may go them to go into them 
 
 into them." {i.e. the swine)."* 
 
 [153] It seems probable that very early difficulties 
 
 1 Delitzsch gives i^ here in Mk.-Lk. ; v(>« in Mt. The former is repeatedly con- 
 fused with eh (123a) ; the latter might be confused with the hortative negative Sk. 
 
 ^ Sir. xliil 23 : . . . planted islands in-the-deep (oinna)," i<f><mvnv a&riir 
 'Iijo-oCs, a corruption of iv airy v^ffovs. "In them" (and often "into them") 
 would be Dna. 
 
 ' Us.. "them{iKelvovs)"; Mk. "them {airois)." 
 
 94 
 
THE STORY OF THE GADARENE [154] 
 
 would be found by Hebraic as well as by Hellenistic 
 evangelists in the phrase above quoted about " the country " ; 
 and, owing to the special difficulty, Hebraic alternatives 
 might be inserted in the margin, not because they resembled 
 the letters of the original ("habitable land"), but because 
 they appeared more fitting or less obscure. This is often 
 the case in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, and it might well be 
 so here, where the words of the Lord are not in question. 
 But, if this were the case, the probability of confusion would 
 be greatly increased, and especially of confusion by conflation. 
 
 [154] The confusion between "going" and "sending," 
 or " causing to go," might naturally arise from mistaking a 
 causative for a non-causative form. But, further, these two 
 forms are so similar to the Hebrew " command " or " send 
 word," that even in Hebrew parallels there appears confusion 
 between them. For example, where Kings tells us that 
 Jehoiada " commanded the captains," Chronicles has " and 
 (he) brought out the captains " ; and the Greek of the latter 
 mistranslates "brought out" first {a^ non-causatively, as 
 " went out," and then {a^ as " commanded," conflating so as 
 to produce the following result : " and he (a^ went out . . . 
 and (aSg) commanded." This confusion between " send " and 
 " command " probably explains a remarkable discrepancy in 
 the Double Traditions, where Matthew makes the centurion 
 " come," but Luke makes him " send " to Jesus.^ 
 
 Hence, when Mark has " that he should not send them," 
 i.e. " cause them to go," and the parallel Luke has, " that 
 he should not command them to go," it is possible that 
 Luke may not be freely rendering the causative of "go," 
 but may be conflating (a^) " go " and (a^ " command," like 
 the Septuagint above. And the original may be either 
 
 ^ Mt. viii. 5, TrpoarjXBev ; Lk. vii. 3, &r4(rTci\€v. 2 K. xi. 15, "and he com- 
 manded (is'l)" = 2 Chr. xxiii. 14, " and [he] brought out (ksi'i)," (oi) i^XBev . . . 
 (oj) ivereCKaTo. Comp. Judg. iii. 19, "and there went out (pi.) (ixs'l)," ii- 
 airiaTetKey (but A ^fijXW) ; Gen. 1. 16, "and they sent-a-message (iis'i)" Kal 
 vapeyivovTO. 
 
 95 
 
[155] THE STORY OF THE GADARENE 
 
 " command," as in Kings, or " cause to go," as in Chronicles, 
 or perhaps "go." 
 
 [155] Our conclusion is that Matthew may have 
 omitted the clause about " sending from the country," not 
 because he was ignorant of it, but because he regarded it as 
 an erroneous version of a tradition that he has himself 
 preserved in company with Mark and Luke, viz. "they 
 [the people of Gerasa] besought him to go away from their 
 borders" ^ 
 
 Although this particular conclusion is but a conjecture, 
 the investigation of the Mark-parallels as a whole results in 
 a conclusion that may be described as certain, namely, that 
 some of the details in Mark, omitted or altered by Matthew 
 or by Luke, or by both, are the results of conflation, and 
 must not be accepted as historical. Luke, so far, is less 
 conflative than Mark. Matthew, where he does not follow 
 Mark, appears the least conflative of the three. 
 
 ^ Mk. V. 17, dTreXfieiy (Mt. viii. 34, tnruK /iera/Sj) dirJ tGiv oplav airwv, Lk. viii. 
 37 . . . T^s •jrepix(^pov tuv Tepatrtjvwy 6.irc\6uv d7r* ainStv, 
 
 The final d in the Hebrew "send them" might be repeated as the preposi- 
 tion "from," thus changing "send to" into " seai front." 
 
 96 
 
CHAPTER III 
 CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 § I. (Mark) "Idumaea," {Matthew) "Syria" 
 
 We have seen above that Septuagint errors of confusion are 
 often due to the similarity of the Hebrew d and r; and 
 instances were given of the consequent confusion of " Edom " 
 with "Aram," i.e. "Syria," of "know" with "shepherd," of 
 " across " with " servant," etc. Therefore, if we are seeking 
 to ascertain whether the Synoptic Gospels bear traces of 
 translation from Hebrew, these words^ and the others 
 mentioned above with them as constantly interchanged in 
 the Septuagint, ought first to engage our attention in the 
 Gospels. 
 
 [156] We therefore begin with "Idumaea" or "Edom." 
 Antecedently, this would seem a hopeless word. Every 
 reader of the New Testament is aware that the old names, 
 Edom, Moab, and Ammon, rarely, if ever, occur in its pages. 
 In the first century Edom was called Idumaea ; but the 
 name is never used by Luke, though he mentions the less 
 known Trachonitis, Abilene, and Ituraea. No convert is 
 recorded as coming from it, and it is never mentioned in the 
 Acts, Epistles, or in any Gospel but one, namely, Mark, and 
 there only once. 
 
 [157] Naturally we turn with interest to the parallels in 
 Matthew and Luke. But here we have to bear in mind 
 what was said above (16) about the probability of modifica- 
 tions of the earliest Gospel by harmonisers, so that important 
 7 97 
 
[158] 
 
 CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 discrepancies arising from mistranslation would rarely survive 
 except where the parallel contexts diverged. If Mark had 
 written that people " came to Jesus from Galilee, Idumaea 
 and Judaea " and Matthew and Luke " came to Jesus from 
 Galilee, Decapolis, and Judaea" it is highly probable that the 
 rare and quite unexpected " Idumaea " would have been 
 altered to " Decapolis " in the first century, so that Mark's 
 original reading would have been utterly lost. But it 
 happens that Matthew's context varies a good deal from 
 Mark's. It was shown (1 8) that Luke represents the Baptist 
 coming to the country round Jordan where Matthew represents 
 the people of that country coming to the Baptist. Again, it 
 was shown (129) that the Hebrew "hearing" may mean a 
 " report " or " fame " about a person. Hence, where Mark 
 says ^^ hearing how many [great deeds] he was doing, they 
 came," and Luke "who came to hear him," we must not be 
 surprised if Matthew has " there came the report about him " 
 (lit. " his hearing "). With these preliminaries remembered, 
 we may be prepared to recognise divergent translation from 
 Hebrew in the following passages where Mark alone has 
 retained the old and difficult {a^ " Idumaea," while Matthew 
 has (a.) " Syria." 
 
 Mark iii. 8 
 
 "... and from 
 (« ) Idumaea and be- 
 yond Jordan, (a^ and 
 about Tyre and Sidon, 
 a great multitude, (p) 
 hearing how many 
 [great deeds] he was 
 doing, came unto 
 him." 
 
 Matt iv. 24-5 (lit.) 
 
 " And there came'' 
 (5) his hearing \i.e. 
 his fame spread] into 
 the whole of (aj) Syria 
 . . . and there fol- 
 lowed him many 
 crowds . . . and from 
 beyond Jordan." 
 
 Luke vi 17 
 
 " Andagreat crowd 
 of his disciples, and 
 a great multitude of 
 the people, from . . . 
 and from (sg) the sea- 
 coast of Tyre and 
 Sidon, who came (3) 
 to hear him." 
 
 [158] Probably Mark himself retains a trace of the read- 
 ing " Syria." He might not like to say that " people came 
 
 ' Mt. iv. 24, " came," lit. " came away," dTr^Xdey. 
 98 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [159] 
 
 from Syria and from Galilee and from Judaea, etc.," because 
 " Syria " included " Galilee and Judaea." But the meaning 
 of "(northern) Syria" was substantially expressed by (^g) 
 " about Tyre and Sidon." So Mark may have conflated 
 «i and «g. Luke took a^ alone. Matthew took flg alone, 
 and avoided the hyperbolical statement that " people came 
 hearing (or to hear) from all Syria" by changing it to 
 " there came a hearing {i.e. a report) into all Syria," ^ 
 
 A great many points of interest in these parallel 
 passages must be reserved for another occasion. The 
 object here is simply to prove translation from Hebrew. In 
 this and future instances space will not allow of a full answer 
 to the question " which evangelist is closest to the original ? " 
 But thus much may be said with advantage once for all that 
 the difficult reading is generally the original one ; and the 
 difficult reading here is " Idumaea." 
 
 § 2. The prophecy of Amos concerning " Edom" 
 
 [159] It is probable that a prophecy of Amos, quoted 
 erroneously in the Acts of the Apostles as predicting the 
 inclusion of the Gentiles in the Church, was the basis of 
 Mark's tradition. The original mentioned " Edom " and the 
 nations "called by the name" of Jehovah.^ The latter 
 might be taken as meaning the different parts of Palestine. 
 These, accordingly, Mark (iii. 7) adds to " Edom." But in the 
 Acts, " Edom " — which in Hebrew is identical with " Adam " 
 (both being c^dm) — is regarded as referring to "man" gener- 
 
 1 [158a] For "from" (-d) confused with "in" (-3), see 2 Chr. xxv. 23 (lit.) 
 "in (-3) the wall . . . from (-o) the gate," diri . . . i.irb . . . =2 K. xiv. 13 
 "in . . . in" iv . , . 4i> : 2 Chr. xxv. 27, " conspired against him 2» Jerusalem 
 and he fled to Lachish," iriBevTo airif iirWeffiv koX l<pvyev Awi 'I. els A. ; 2 Chr. 
 xxiii. 20 "from the house of the Lord," els oTkov K. See 9a and 144a. 
 
 ' Amos ix. 12 : " That they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the 
 nations which are called by my name," quoted by James in Acts xv. 17, thus, 
 " that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon 
 whom my name is called " — correctly from the LXX, which, however, is erroneous. 
 
 99 
 
[160] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 ally. That shows at how very early a period the mention 
 of " Edom " was likely to cause variations and to give rise to 
 confusion with " Aram," i.e. " Syria," and to conflations 
 such as " the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon." 
 
 [160] These considerations may prepare the way for a 
 second rule, if it is seen to be supported by further experience. 
 A difficult reading, found in Mark alone, will derive 
 additional probability from evidence indicating that it may be 
 based on the language of prophecy} 
 
 § 3. {Matthew) ''perfect," (i.) {Mark and Luke) "lacking" 
 or " wanting,'' (ii.) {Luke) " compassionate." 
 
 [161] This, like the last instance, will be found to 
 involve a confusion of d and r; the word chsd means 
 " compassionate," " saintly," and hence, by a free paraphrase, 
 "perfect." The word chsr means "Jacking" or " ..anting." 
 The second parallel may be conveniently taken first : 
 
 Matth. V. 48. Luke vi. 36. 
 
 " Be ye therefore perfect aS " Become compassionate as 
 
 your Father in heaven is your Father in heaven is 
 
 perfect." compassionate." 
 
 [162] Among the Jews, the name for "a Saint" was "a 
 merciful [one]," Chasid. Jesus bade His disciples become 
 " saints," not after the pattern of the Pharisees, but after the 
 pattern of the Father in heaven, who is beneficent to all. 
 This Matthew expressed freely by "perfect," Luke more 
 literally, but not so faithfully to the spirit of the utterance, 
 by " compassionate." 
 
 So far, there is no error, nothing but the difference 
 
 ^ Mark in his own person perhaps never quotes prophecy. But his language, 
 like that of any early evangelist, might naturally be based upon prophecy, or 
 contain allusions to it. In Mk. i. 2 the prophecy may have been originally 
 intended as an utterance of John the Baptist. 
 
 100 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [165] 
 
 between a broad and a narrow rendering. But the following 
 contains error : — 
 
 Mark x. 21. Matth. xix. 21. Luke xviii. 22. 
 
 " One thing is " If thou desirest " Yet one thing is 
 
 lacking to thee." to be perfect." wanting to thee." 
 
 [163] The Hebrew for the Greek "lacking" is thrice 
 ^D^ (chsr) in the Septuagint, and this is actually con- 
 fused with ^D^ {chsd) in Proverbs, " He knoweth not that 
 want shall come upon him " ; LXX, " he knoweth not that 
 the merciful shall have power upon him." ^ 
 
 [1 64] The original was probably, as in Matthew, " Is it 
 in thy mind (Heb. soul) to become a saint ? " But (i.) " thy 
 mind (or, soul)" is repeatedly rendered "thee" by the 
 Septuagint ; (ii.) the word " in " might easily be confused 
 with " one thing" ; (iii.) " Saint" was confused with "lacking." 
 The three causes resulted in (Mark) " (ii.) one thing (iii.) is 
 lacking (i.) to thee." Luke, whom we have found above 
 objecting to Matthew's word "perfect," followed Mark's 
 error.^ 
 
 § 4. {Mark and Matthew) " on foot" an error ^ 
 
 [165] In the following passage, immediately before the 
 " Feeding of the Five Thousand," it can be shown that there 
 is antecedent probability that Mark (followed in part by 
 Matthew) has made a mistake avoided by Luke. 
 
 Mark vi. 33. Matth. xiv. 13. Luke ix. 11. 
 
 "... ran together ". . . followed hira ". . . followed him." 
 
 there on foot from all on foot from the 
 
 the cities and came cities." 
 before them." 
 
 ^ Prov. xxviii. 22, the Heb. is non (LXX leg. non) : the Oxf. Cone, by error, 
 gives tan. Another confusion of ion (in a different sense) with ion occurs in Prov. 
 xiv. 34 " is-a-reproacfi (ion)," iKaaaovovm. 
 
 ^ Comp. Gen. xxiii. 8 "If it is in (nx) your mind ..." "One thing" 
 =nnK which is easily confused with n«, i.e. " with," or "in." 
 
 lOI 
 
[166] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 Here Mark says that people ran together "on foot" 
 from " all the cities " and reached the point aimed at before 
 those who went with Jesus in the boat, (i.) It is in the 
 highest degree unlikely that people "on foot" could thus 
 anticipate twelve able-bodied men in a boat. Anyone who 
 has experienced the difference of time between passing on 
 land, or by boat, from one point of, say Derwentwater, or 
 Ullswater, will recognise this, (ii.) Matthew and Luke both 
 omit Mark's statement that the multitudes reached the 
 place first, and both say that the people " followed " Jesus. 
 
 [166] The explanation is very simple. Mark has mis- 
 understood the Hebraic " at his feet," i.e. at the feet of Jesus, 
 and has taken it to mean '' with their feet." The error is 
 a very natural one and occurs repeatedly (75-76) in the 
 Septuagint, e.g. " And the king went forth and all his house- 
 hold after him" LXX "and all his household on their feet." ^ 
 In another passage, "the people that follow me" is rendered 
 by the Septuagint " the people that are my footsoldiers" but 
 by Aquila literally " the people that is in my feet" ^ 
 
 Matthew conflates "followed" with "on foot." Luke 
 gives the correct rendering. 
 
 § 5. {Mark and Matthew) " in the (or, a) boat to a desert 
 place." {Luke) " to a city called Bethsaida." 
 
 Mark vi. 32 Matt. xiv. 13 Luke ix. 10 
 
 " In the boat to a " In a boat to a " To a city called 
 desert place.'' desert place." Bethsaida." 
 
 [167] "Bethsaida" means " House of Provision." * Luke 
 
 ^ 2 S. XV. 16-18, "at his feet," i.e. " following him," is there twice translated 
 " with their feet (tois iroalp oiVffli')," and once irefff. 
 
 2 I K. XX. 10. 
 
 ' " Provision (pits) " = (11) im<rin<rn6t, used here by Luke (Lk. ix. 12, " Send 
 away the multitudes that they may go into the villages and fields round about and 
 find Jirovision"), and nowhere else in N.T. 
 
 102 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [169] 
 
 alone connects it here with the Feeding of the Five 
 Thousand. Later on, where Mark and Matthew have " that 
 they may buy themselves something to eat, or, food" Luke 
 alone has "provision." In the historical books of the 
 Septuagint the Greek " provision " occurs ten times, but in the 
 whole of the Prophets and Psalms only once, and there in a 
 passage that may well have seemed to the earliest Christians 
 appropriate to Christ as the Shepherd of Israel feeding the 
 flock in the wilderness: "Men did eat the bread of the 
 mighty (A.V. and LXX angels) ; he sent them provision to 
 the full." The Psalmist's immediately preceding words, 
 " He gave them of the corn of heaven," are quoted by John 
 in connection with the Five Thousand.^ It may be taken 
 as certain that when Luke used the name "Bethsaida" and 
 the word "provision," he had in mind the unique instance 
 in which the word is used in the Psalms, and regarded the 
 name as appropriate to the miracle. If so, he would 
 naturally be prejudiced in favour of any variation of the 
 text of Mark that allowed him to substitute his tradition in 
 the place of Mark's. 
 
 [168] Now the Greek language is deficient as compared 
 with Hebrew in words that express different kinds of wilder- 
 nesses and deserts. In one pcissage of Jeremiah the single 
 Greek word used here by Mark and Matthew expresses three 
 Hebrew words.* Here the original for "desert" may have 
 been the word employed by the Psalmist (Ps. Ixiii. i), "O 
 God, my God, early will I seek thee in a dry and weary 
 land where no water is " ; where the Septuagint uses Mark's 
 word " desert " to represent " dry." But " Place-of-Drought " 
 {bthtsih) is very like " Place-of-Provision " (bthtzidh). 
 
 [169] Next, to explain Luke's "city." We have seen 
 (12, 13, 73) that Arabah, '' wilderness," is easily confused with 
 a word meaning "ferry-boat." Now Arabah is confused 
 with "city" in Joshua, "to the plains (lit. Araboth) of Jericho" ; 
 
 » Ps. Ixjtviii. 24, 25, Jn. vL 31. ' Jer. 1. 12. 
 
 103 
 
[170] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 LXX "the city of Jericho."^ If, therefore, the original 
 described how the Messiah went forth into " an Arabah, a 
 place-of-drought," there is precedent for supposing that Luke 
 may have corrupted " Arabah " into " city." We have also 
 seen above that a striking similarity of letters justifies the 
 belief that he may have corrupted " place-of-drought " into 
 " Bethsaida." The two corruptions would convert " Arabah 
 a place of drought " into " city Bethsaida." 
 
 [1 70] Luke's mention of Bethsaida has given geographers 
 and commentators a great deal of trouble, because the 
 context seemed to necessitate a city on the west of the 
 lake. That difficulty might be surmounted more easily 
 than the following objections : — (i.) There seems an absurdity 
 in the supposition that the disciples, being in, or quite near, 
 a populous and prosperous city like Bethsaida, should say, 
 " send the multitudes away to buy provision " ; (ii.) There is 
 a contradiction, which has never been satisfactorily explained, 
 between the " desert " of Mark and Matthew, and the " city " 
 of Luke. If the meaning were " the desert round the city," 
 the hungry multitudes would be sent to buy food in the city. 
 But they are sent to the surrounding " farms and villages ! " 
 All these difficulties vanish if Luke's " Bethsaida " is a mere 
 corruption of " desert." 
 
 § 6. Was " boat " in the Original ? 
 
 The introduction of a "boat" harmonises very well — 
 antithetically and on paper — with the notion that the 
 multitudes went round "on foot." But, if linguistic and 
 practical considerations show that "on foot" is a mistake, 
 the question arises whether " by boat " may not be a mistake 
 too. 
 
 [171] We have seen above in discussing the variations 
 
 1 Josh. iv. 13, "plains (nmy)," "city" = Tj;: "a"r-bth-tzdh"="city Beth- 
 saida " ; " a"rbh tzih " = " dry desert. " 
 
 104 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [172] 
 
 of Bethabara, "the place of a ferry-boat or ford," and 
 Betharada, " a place in the wilderness," that the two words 
 "boat" and "wilderness" might easily be interchanged. 
 Apd here " wilderness " is the more probable for the following 
 reasons : — 
 
 Mark frequently mentions a boat where the other 
 evangelists do not, and sometimes he appears to be wrong. 
 Also Mark is unquestionably wrong in the context where he 
 describes the multitude as going " on foot," and this increases 
 the probability that he is wrong here. John follows Luke 
 in mentioning no boat.^ Having regard to the Hebraic 
 habit of accumulating words such as "wilderness," "dry 
 place," " solitary place," etc., contrary to the genius of 
 Greek, it is antecedently probable that the original would 
 use two synonymous words here, and that the Greek 
 translators would be disposed to find a new meaning for 
 one of them. 
 
 § 7. TAe earthquake recorded by Matthew alone 
 
 [172] After saying that "Jesus uttered a great cry and 
 expired," Mark mentions the rending of the veil of the 
 temple and then passes to what the centurion said. Luke, 
 with some variation of order, does the same. Matthew, 
 between the rending of the veil and the words of the 
 centurion, inserts a description of an " earthquake '' to which 
 he refers in the following passage, parallel to passages of 
 Mark and Luke which make no mention of it : — 
 
 ' [171a] Jn. vi. 1, "After these things \i.e. Christ's acts in Jerusalem] Jesus 
 went away beyond the sea of Galilee, the [sea of] Tiberias." Starting from 
 Jerusalem Jesus might go through the southern part of Decapolis. Comp. Mark's 
 description of Christ's journey before the Feeding of the Four Thousand 
 (Mk. vii. 31). " And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came 
 through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee through the midst of the borders of Decapolis" 
 where Mt. xv. 29 has "he went along (iro/wi) the sea of Galilee." It would 
 be quite natural to infer from Jn.'s words that Jesus crossed the lake by boat. 
 But the inference would be by no means certain. 
 
 105 
 
[173] 
 
 CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 Mark xv. 39 
 "But the centur- 
 ion, having seen . . . 
 that he thus expired, 
 said . . ." 
 
 Luke xxiiL 47 
 "But the captain 
 of the hundred, 
 having seen that 
 which had come to 
 pass, glorified God, 
 saying . . ." 
 
 Matth. xxvii. 54 
 
 "But the captain 
 of the hundred and 
 those with him . . . 
 having seen the earth- 
 quake and the things 
 that were coming to 
 pass, feared exceed- 
 ingly, saying . . ." 
 
 [173] The versions of Mark given by Codex Bezae and 
 the Syro - Sinaitic, instead of conforming Mark's brief 
 account to that of Matthewr or Luke, rather suggest a con- 
 fusion of " expire " with " exclaim " and a consequent confla- 
 tion. But the confused nature of the traditions foUovired by 
 the former is indicated by the fact that, in Luke, it makes 
 the centurion " call out." 
 
 Luke (Codex Bezae) 
 "And the captain of the 
 hundred, having called out, 
 glorified God, saying . . ." 
 
 Mark (Codex Bezae) 
 "... having seen him thus 
 exclaiming and [that] he ex- 
 pired." 
 
 Mark (Syro-Sinaitic) 
 "... saw him exclaiming 
 and expiring." 
 
 These variations suggest some confusion arising from a 
 similarity between the Hebrew of " exclaim," " come to pass," 
 and possibly " earthquake " and " fear." 
 
 [1 74] Delitzsch gives, as the modern Hebrew translation 
 of Luke's " that which had come to passl' the passive participle 
 of the verb " do." ^ This, as there is no past participle, might 
 be translated by Matthew " the things that were coming to 
 pass." On the other hand, Mark might take it as meaning 
 
 ' Niph. of agiy. "Cry out (jfw)" (Ps. xviii. 41) is interchanged (parall. 2 S. 
 xxii. 42) with Tivf, which is confused with rwv, " do," in Ex. v. 9. Trommius 
 also suggests that nVf and ntt/SI are confused in I K. xx. 40. 
 
 106 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [176] 
 
 "that which he {i.e. Jesus) did" — the verb "do'' being used 
 in Hebrew as in English to avoid the repetition of a verb. 
 But if a translator took it thus, the necessities of Greek 
 idiom might induce him to substitute for the general verb 
 " do " the particular verb of action. For example, in Genesis, 
 where God is represented in the Hebrew text, as saying " I 
 will not do it " — that is " I will not destroy," referring to a 
 previous mention of destroying — the Greek has " I will not 
 destroy." ^ 
 
 [175] If that was the case, translators of the present 
 passage might take different views of the action iniplied by 
 " do." Some might refer it as Mark does to the action last 
 mentioned, namely, "expiring" ; others, to the loud cry that took 
 place at the moment of death. The latter might substitute 
 " exclaiming." It so happens that one Hebrew word meaning 
 " exclaim " resembles the Hebrew " do," so that — apart from 
 the Greek objection to the Hebrew use of " do " — corruption 
 of the Hebrew text might account for the introduction of 
 the reading " exclaim." Again, the Hebrew " saw tkaf he 
 [Jesus] exclaimed (or, called out)," might easily be confused 
 with " saw and he [the centurion] called out," and this would 
 account for the reading of Codex Bezae in Luke. 
 
 [176] But, when the action was transferred to the 
 centurion instead of Jesus, there would be a tendency to 
 substitute other verbs, similar to "cry out" but more 
 appropriate, such as " feared exceedingly," or " was greatly 
 moved." Such a word is found in the recently recovered 
 Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus, where the Septuagint has " The 
 countries wondered-greatly-at thee," but the Hebrew "thou 
 didst-greatly-move the nations," and the editors add "(lit.) move 
 as with a tempest " ; and the same word, in Kings, describes 
 the " sore trouble " of the king of Syria. But this " moving " 
 is much more often used literally, to mean a "tempest," 
 and is then translated by the Greek word "shaking," here 
 
 ' Gen. xviii. 29-30. 
 107 
 
[177] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 used by Matthew to denote an earthquake.' Thus, by 
 Hebrew corruption, " he cried out " might become " there was 
 a shaking," i.e. an earthquake. 
 
 Hebrew corruption could not, of course, explain Matthew's 
 preceding details about the earthquake. But we have seen 
 (106-9) in the story of Araunah, that a slight Hebrew 
 corruption may originate an erroneous tradition, which may 
 be subsequently amplified with a view to clearness and 
 consistency.^ 
 
 [177] It is quite possible that Codex Bezae approximates 
 to Mark's original tradition, and that, owing to the similarity 
 between the two words " come to pass " and " cry out," one 
 of them dropped out in our Mark, which retained only the 
 former, paraphrasing it as " expired." But these and other 
 details must be left uncertain. However, all the phenomena 
 converge to the conclusion that these remarkable Synoptic 
 variations may be caused by translation from Hebrew, and 
 that Matthew's " earthquake " may have originated in Hebrew 
 corruption. 
 
 § 8. Peter ^^ sitting" or '■'standing" during the three denials?^ 
 
 The Synoptists, in commencing the story of Peter's 
 denials, describe him as "sitting," John describes him as 
 " standing." Why is this ? 
 
 [178] The Hebrew ''sit" means also "remain" or 
 " continue." When the Septuagint writes, " He sat three 
 years and there was no war," the Hebrew is, "They con- 
 tinued three years without war."^ The Hebrew Law of the 
 
 ' " Tempest " = (reiff/iis or aimcreurnis, = miia (or mpo). The verb lyo = (Sir. 
 xlvii. 17) AireOai/iairav, and (2 K. vi. 11) elexiK^JflTj. 
 
 ^ [1763] Errors springing from consistency form a large class. The following 
 is an instance on a small scale, Judg. vi. 16, "the Lord said," LXX "the angel 
 of the Lord said." Having made this alteration, the LXX is forced subsequently 
 to alter " / will be with thee " into " the Lord will be with thee." 
 
 ' Mk. xiv. 54 ; Mt. xxvi. 58 ; Lk. xxii. 55 ; Jn. xviii. 18. 
 
 * 1 K. xxii. I. 
 
 108 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [179] 
 
 Sabbath said, " Abide ye every man in his place," but the 
 Greek said, " Ye shall sit each one in (lit. to) your houses," 
 and Origen's comment is, " no man can sit a whole day." ^ 
 Hence, when Mark says, " I was daily in the temple with 
 you teaching," and the parallel Matthew has " I sat daily," 
 we perceive that Matthew is giving the literal meaning 
 (" sit "), and Mark the real meaning (" be," or " remain.") ^ 
 
 The same applies to Mark elsewhere, "While Peter 
 was below in the courtyard," (Matthew) " But Peter sat 
 without in the courtyard," (Luke) "seated." There are 
 five passages in the Septuagint, where the Greek " was," 
 " is," etc., represents a Hebrew " sit " or " continue." ' It is 
 reasonable to infer that Mark's " was " represents an original 
 Hebrew "sit," translated literally by Matthew and Luke. 
 
 [179] Although the error of Matthew and Luke was not 
 a serious one, it may well have seemed to John important 
 enough to be corrected. It was an error of fact, represent- 
 ing the officers and servants, who were standing on duty, 
 as " sitting." It was also unseemly that the Apostle should 
 be "sitting" while his Lord was standing on His trial. 
 Hence it is, perhaps, that John, in his correction, instead 
 of using the word "remain," repeatedly employs the word 
 " stand." It is Luke that mainly needed correction. Mark 
 mentions "sitting" only once. But Luke says that "they 
 sat together . . . and Peter sat in the midst of them," and 
 that a servant saw him " seated" John says, " the servants 
 were standing . . . and Peter was with them standing," and, 
 again, " Now Simon Peter was standing" * 
 
 * Ex. xvi. 29 ; Orig., De Princip., iv. I (Clark's Transl., vol. i. p. 319). 
 
 " Mk. xiv. 49 ; Mt. xxvi. 55. 
 
 ' Mk. xiv. 66, Mt. xxvi. 69, Lk. xxii. 56- Gen. xxix. 14 ; Josh. xxiv. 7 ; i S. 
 viL 2; Jer. xxxviii. 7; Ezek. iii. 15. 
 
 » [179a] Lk. xxii. 55, 56 ; Jn. xviii. 18, 25. The difference may throw light 
 upon descriptions of Jesus as "standing," or "sitting,"' at "the right hand of 
 God." Both may, in the original, mean simply "abiding for ever." Verbal 
 differences like these, springing from one and the same Hebrew or^nal, and 
 
 109 
 
[180] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 § 9. Peter warming himself at the light \of a fire\ 
 
 Mark xiv. 54 Matt. xxvi. 58 Luke xxii. 55, 56 
 
 [180] "And he "... sat to see the " but having kindled 
 was sitting . . . and end." a fire around'' . . . 
 
 warming himself at but seeing him seated 
 
 the light [of a fire]." at the light [of the 
 
 fire]." 
 
 [181] With this must be compared — Jn. xviii. 18: 
 " The servants . . . were standing [there], having made a 
 fire of charcoal, for there was a frost, and they warmed 
 themselves ; and Peter, too, was with them, standing and 
 warming himSelf."^ 
 
 (i.) {Mark and Luke) "at the light" {Matthew) "to see 
 the end." ^ 
 
 [182] The Greek "light" would not refer to "fire," 
 unless a writer introduces, as Luke is careful to do, some 
 previous mention of a fire as being " kindled," " lit," etc. 
 Mark makes no such mention, and hence it is reasonable to 
 
 passing into the traditional language of the Western Churches (so as to appear 
 even in the Acts and the Epistles) may have given rise to plausible, but baseless, 
 theological distinctions. 
 
 ^ [180a] Lk. xxii. 55, "having kindled around (Trepid^oi'Tes)." But around 
 what ? L. and S. give no instance of this use of the word except in the Epistles 
 of Phalaris, Ep. v. p. 28, presumably about the fire kindled round the brazen 
 bull ! Luke's use of it here has never been explained. 
 
 Instead of saying that Peter followed (as Mk.) "inside (^(tw)" into the court- 
 yard, Luke has iiiaig, and again ))iaai, "in the midst of them." He seems 
 to wish to describe Peter as compassed round by tempters. Comp. Actus Petri 
 cum Simone (ed. Lips. p. 54) where Peter says, as the reason for his denials, 
 " for there were evil dogs that had compassed me round" (no doubt with allusion 
 to Ps. xxii. 16, " dogs have coOT/ajjfi</ me.") 
 
 2 [I8I3] For the explanation of the discrepancy between "standing" and 
 " sitting,'' see last section. The Arabic Diatessaron gets rid of it by substituting 
 "rose" for "stand" thus : "And the servants and the soldiers rose and made a 
 fire in the court . . . and when the fire burned up they sat down round it." 
 
 ' " At the light," icph% rh tpws. The Hebr. for <pws, niN, according to pointing, 
 means "flame" or "light." "See" is "nxi." 
 
 IIO 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [185] 
 
 conclude that the author (whether oral or scribal) of Mark's 
 original Greek meant " light " in the ordinary sense, and most 
 probably " day-light." The Hebrew " (day)light " is identical 
 with the Hebrew " flame " : and that would account for an 
 erroneous inference, adopted by our Mark (325«), that it 
 was a fire, near which (he adds) Peter was "warming 
 himself." 
 
 [183] "Light" makes excellent sense. The Jewish 
 Law forbade a criminal trial to take place by night. The 
 Sanhedrin might evade this by pretending that they were 
 merely collecting evidence before daybreak ; but they would 
 not venture to begin the formal trial till the sun had risen. 
 
 This harmonises with what was proved in the previous 
 section ; that Peter was not " sitting," but " remaining " in 
 the sense of " waiting," that is, waiting for the verdict. But 
 according to Jewish Law this was identical with " waiting 
 for day-light." And that was the meaning of the original. 
 
 [184] But the Hebrew "light" or "flame" also means 
 " enlighten," " kindle," " spectacle " ; and it is very similar 
 in some forms to the Hebrew " see," with which it is once 
 confused in Proverbs, "the light of the eyes," where the 
 Septuagint has "the seeing eye."^ Hence it was easy for 
 one evangelist to find " at the light [of a fire] " where 
 another found "to see" and where probably the original 
 was " toward, or for, the daylight!' 
 
 [185] This may be regarded as so probable as to 
 approach certainty. Other details are matters of conjecture. 
 For example, whence came "the frost" mentioned by John 
 alone? Did he supply it as an inferential detail to explain 
 why the men lit the fire (just as Mark probably supplied 
 "warming himself" in order to show that he assumed the 
 " light " to be fire-light) ? This might seem a sufficient 
 explanation if we did not find that the Septuagint of Job 
 once substitutes " frost " for " light " ; and a longer form of 
 
 ^ Prov. XV. 30. 
 I I I 
 
[186] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 "light" might thus mean "from (or, because of) frost." "^ 
 Matthew, having taken the erroneous view that the original 
 meant " to see," might naturally supply " the end " : and this 
 may be accepted as a temporary hypothesis.^ 
 
 § lo. {Mark) "come" {Matthew) "light" {Luke) "kindle" 
 
 Mark iv. 21 Matt. v. 15 Luke viii. 16 
 
 " Nor doth the " Nor do [men] " But no one 
 
 lamp come . . ." light a lamp . . ." having kindled a 
 
 lamp . . ." 
 
 [186] In the causative form "Come" and "light" are 
 slightly similar.* Possibly the original was " Doth [one] 
 cause a lamp to come," and Mark mistook the causative. 
 Later evangelists accepted a correction right as to the 
 causative, but wrong as to the word. In any case the 
 divergence points to translation from Hebrew, and a similar 
 error occurs in Exodus, " Yet it gave-light by night " where 
 the Septuagint has " The night passed (lit. came through)." * 
 
 §11. Matthends use of " companion ! " 
 
 [187] The Greek word "companion," when used in the 
 vocative, is constantly applied, in light and playful irony, to 
 those who have made themselves ridiculous. No instance 
 
 ^ [185a] Job xxxviii. 24: "the light (hik)" irdxrv- What Hebrew word 
 the LXX read is very doubtful. Consistently with this error, -iind "light" would 
 be interpreted "because of frost" and might be conflated with the "kindling 
 of a fire." 
 
 2 [185*] "End" = n!J:, which in old MSS. would be practically identical with 
 mi: nsj might be confused with nst' which =(2);^/t7rup(feic "burn," (7) dviirrev 
 "kindle." 
 
 * " Cause-to-come," ».«. bring=»i<3n: "kindle," " light," = run. 
 
 * [186a] Ex. xiv. 20: "And it gave light (in<i)"; LXX, Kal Si^\8er> (? leg. 
 some form of nn. More probably, perhaps, LXX read nay (the regular render- 
 ing of Stepxe(r6ai), by interchange of m and y). 
 
 112 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [189] 
 
 has been alleged from Greek literature to associate it with 
 stern reproof.^ 
 
 [188] (i.) But in Matthew a master addresses thus a man 
 whom he is rebuking for an " evil eye," and a king uses the 
 word to one whom he is on the point of having "bound 
 hand and foot and cast out into outer darkness."^ The 
 two passages are peculiar to Matthew, so that we have not, 
 in either of these instances, the advantage of a parallel 
 Gospel. But (i.) the non-Greek use of " companion " makes 
 it probable that Matthew is translating some Hebrew word 
 that does (among other meanings) denote " companion," but 
 without the playful significance attached to it in Greek, 
 (ii.) In Hebrew, the letters meaning "companion" are 
 identical with those meaning " bad " or "evil," and the two 
 are repeatedly confused. In Proverbs, alone, the confusion 
 occurs four times, and in one case the Authorised Version 
 goes wrong. The literal translation plays on the double 
 meaning of the word thus : " A man of companions [makes 
 them] to-the-doing-of-evil-to-himself!' The Revised Version 
 has, " He that maketh many friends [doeth it] to his own 
 destruction " ; but the Authorised, " A man [that hath] 
 friends must show himself friendly!' * 
 
 [1 89] (ii.) Matthew alone says that Jesus, when arrested, 
 said to Judas, " Companion, (lit.) that for which thou art 
 present." Masses of theological comment and discourse have 
 been written on the assumption that Jesus used these words 
 alluding to a passage where the Psalmist complains of ill 
 
 1 [187a], Comp. Plutarch ii. 1580, 1072E; Lucian, vol. i. p. 39, Nigrin. § i, 
 and Wetst. on Mt. xx. 13, quoting Galen, who uses the word about people previously 
 described as "foolish." 
 
 ^ Mt. XX. 13, xxii. 12 ; xxvi. 50 requires special consideration (189). 
 
 ' Prov. xviii. 24 (om. by LXX) yynnni' wvr\ n"*. Other instances are Prov. 
 xix. 6, "a. friend" ; LXX, "the wj/man" : Ezek. xxii., 12 "of thy neighbour" ; 
 LXX, "of wickedness": Ps. xv. 4, "tohisown Aari"; LXX, "to hiswej^vi^aar" 
 (R.V. marg. some ancient authorities "to his iriend"). Comp. Prov. vi. 3, 24; 
 Prov. xxiv. 8 ; Hos. iii. 1 ; Ezek. xxii. 12. 
 8 113 
 
[190] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 treatment from his own " familiar friend." ^ If that was the 
 original Hebrew, Matthew has mistranslated it by using 
 " companion " (instead of " friend," or some other word that 
 would not convey the impression of playful reproof). 
 
 [190] But in view of the fact that Mark — whom 
 Matthew follows in the context — omits these words, we are 
 forced to hesitate about accepting them. Yet their obscurity, 
 and the apparent incompleteness of the sentence, make it 
 almost certain that Matthew is attempting to give a literal 
 translation of a Hebrew original. Matthew's word "present" 
 is rare in the Bible. In the New Testament it occurs only 
 here. In the Old Testament it represents once the Hebrew 
 " make haste!' ^ 
 
 [191] This reminds us of John's version of Christ's last 
 words to Judas, "What thou art doing do quickly" The 
 words resemble a phrase of warning to a self-willed man 
 used by Epictetus " Do as you are doing, not even a god can 
 save you."* Besides making good sense, it would also 
 agree with the Johannine version, if we supposed that the 
 original of the passage under discussion was " The evil thou 
 art bent on doing to thyself do with speed." The Hebrew 
 for " do-evil-to-thyself," might be mistaken for " companion," 
 very nearly as our Authorised Version has mistaken the 
 verb in the passage quoted above. In any case, judged by 
 any reasonable standard derived from Greek literature, 
 Matthew's " companion " is a mistake. * 
 
 1 Ps. xli. 9. 
 
 ^ Mt. xxvi. 50, 'ETofpe, i^ 8 Triipet : Deut. xxxii. 35 " make haste,'' it&peanv, 
 
 ' Epict. iv. 9, 18 (comp. iii. 9, 8). 
 
 * [191a] If this explanation is correct, and if the words in John xiii. 27 are 
 derived from the same tradition as these in Matthew, we should expect in John, 
 not "do," but "do evil." Yet how could a tradition survive that represented 
 Jesus as saying to Judas "do evil" ? It was sure to be misrepresented by contro- 
 versialists, and therefore almost sure to be altered (not in the spirit but in the 
 letter) by evangelists. Besides, the disciples are regarded as overhearing Christ's 
 words and as thinking that the "doing" referred to some kind of ministration, 
 
 114 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 [192] 
 
 § 12. {Mark) "wild beasts" {Matthew and Luke) "he 
 hungered" 
 
 In this, and in a few later instances, specimens will be 
 given of discrepancies arising from the confusion of an 
 unfamiliar Hebrew word which has been corrupted into a 
 familiar one. The following passages relate to Christ's 
 Temptation : — 
 
 Mark i. 13. 
 "And he was in 
 the wilderness forty 
 days, being tempted 
 by Satan, and he was 
 with the wild beasts, 
 and the angels were 
 ministering to him." 
 
 Matth. iv. 1-2. 
 "... into the 
 wilderness to be 
 tempted by the devil. 
 And, having fasted 
 forty days and forty 
 nights, afterwards he 
 hungered'' 
 
 Luke iv. 1-2. 
 "... in the 
 wilderness forty days, 
 being tempted by the 
 devil; and he ate 
 nothing in those days, 
 and when they were 
 completed he hun- 
 gered." 
 
 [192]. The most appropriate Hebrew for "wild beasts" 
 in a " wilderness " — associated with mention of Satan and 
 suggestive of Christ's words about " the power of the enemy " 
 — is a word rendered by the Septuagint once " wild beasts," 
 once "apparitions," and once "demons."^ The word is very 
 rare {p^-£) and closely resembles one that is very common 
 (DIS). The latter means " fast" 
 
 so that, according to that tradition, the "doing'' could not have been "evil- 
 doing." 
 
 [191*] Perhaps John found variations in the Hebrew Gospel, such as, for 
 example, the LXX found in Ex. xxxii. 22 " set on evil (yin)," «/)jK7;/«o (leg. tray 
 by transposition). But the reader knows by this time (5) that n is always liable to 
 be corrupted to % and naj;="do." 
 
 ' Lk. A. 19 " Behold I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and 
 scorpions and over all the power of the enemy." Comp. Ps. xci. 13 : " Thou 
 shall tread upon the lion and adder.'' [Note that Ps. xci. 11-12 is quoted by 
 Satan in Matthew's (and Luke's) description of the Temptation.] In Acts xxviii. 
 4, 5, "wild beast tfii\flov)" means "serpent," and Job Testam. § 42, compared 
 with § 41, shews that 9i)plov means Satan. Meaning "beasts of the desert," 
 D"x=Is. xiii. 21 eijpJo, Is. xxxiv. 14 Sai/nSvia, Jer. 1. 39 IvddKiMTa. 
 
[193] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 [193] To complete the case for translation it must be 
 shewn that " with " (in " with the wild beasts ") could 
 easily be confused with Matthew's "afterwards"' (Luke 
 " when they were completed "). The two Hebrew words are 
 somewhat similar, and are actually confused by the Septuaglnt 
 in at least one passage ; " with that which the Lord hath 
 given"; LXX, "after the Lord had delivered."^ 
 
 [194] The very early sect called the Paulicians taught 
 that Jesus did not fast during the forty days, being supported 
 by communion with the Father.^ This appears to have 
 been Mark's view, for he says that " the angels were minister- 
 ing {imperf^ to him." 
 
 [195] The Greek imperfect "were ministering" may 
 also mean, where the sense requires it, " began to minister." 
 And Matthew gives quite a different aspect to the matter by 
 inserting the clause about the angels (only without the 
 definite article) after mention of " fasting " for forty days 
 and being "hungered," and after three temptations, one 
 being to turn stones into bread. In this new context 
 Matthew's Greek, though identical with Mark's, has a new 
 meaning, " angels began to minister unto him." Which 
 view is erroneous is not a question that can be fully 
 discussed here, though the facts, so far, seem decidedly to 
 
 1 [193a] I S. XXX. 23:— "With"=nN; "after( wards) "=nnN. Comp. Is. 
 xliv. 24-5, "with me (tin)" ft-cpos ; the context is doubtful, and possibly the 
 LXX may have paraphrased " who [is] with me [as a rival] " as meaning, in effect, 
 "what other [is there like me] ? " And this may apply to I S. xiv. 13 {bis), " after 
 him," once Mau airoO, but once ner airoO. Error might also arise in Greek 
 tradition from (245) confusion of lieri with gen. and accus., illustrated by 
 Ex. xxiii. 2 — "after a multitude," /trri irK<£iAvu)v, Gen. xxviii. 4, Num. xviii. 
 19, " to thee and thy seed with thee" /ierd ae. 
 
 An original Greek tradition /tera Btipuav may have been corrected (from Hebrew) 
 into /xeTaTo(i;) (?) vqsTevcrc {i.e., vriaremai), and this into /ierhrdde hi-fiurevae. For 
 a possible confusion between "after" and "afterwards," comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 14, 
 "And afterwards they prepared," LXX "and after they had (iktIl t6) prepared 
 . . . ," but parallel i Esdr. i. 12 " but afterwards {//.eri, di TaOra) they prepared." 
 
 ' See Mr. Conybeare's edition of the Paulician " JTey of Truth" p. 80. 
 
 116 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [198] 
 
 favoor Marie But the point now is, that the parallelisin 
 between " wild beasts " and " fasting " is to be explained by 
 some error in translating firom Helvew. 
 
 § 13. The haiSi^ of the parafytic : {Mark) "iy four" 
 {Matthen and Luke) " tur a bed' 
 
 Maik n. 3-5. Mattk ix. 2. Luke ▼. 18-20. 
 
 "And [people] "Andbdiold fliey " Ami brfiold men 
 
 come bringing nnto broi^ittohimapar- biii^i^ «» a itd a 
 
 him a paralytic lar- aljtic prostrate om a man that vas paia- 
 
 rkd ly four [And. ied. And Jesos, see- Ij^sed [ . . . andnot 
 
 not beii^ able . . .] ing dieir feidi ..." findii^ - - - ]- -^^^^ 
 
 And Jesos, seeing Jesos, seeii^ their 
 
 their &itfa, ..." &idi." 
 
 The brackets in Mark and Luke represent a descripticHi, 
 omitted by Matthew, of the letting down of the paralytic fay 
 his finals throogfa an ofadmg im the roof, an action vi 
 stTQinoas and trustful eSbrt that gives special force to die 
 words "seeing their faith." Antecedent!}- it seems im- 
 |Hobable that Matthew would have omitted tfa& if be had 
 known it and had bdieved it to be correct It is si^gested 
 and maintained in the followit^ remarks that a H^xew 
 w<»d meaning "iqieiiing in the roof is latent in the Synop- 
 tists under the words "fbor" and "bed," and that the Hdxew 
 orig^al was "0^) hoisted in (ii) at the trap-door-in-the^noo£" 
 
 [196] (L) The Hdsrew* hoist,"' suspend" — twice trans- 
 lated in the S^itm^int by the word here used bv Mark — is 
 refdaced in Chrraiicles fay the much mc»re common woid 
 " stretch." Matthew has probal^ made the same sufastitu- 
 tirai, and has taken the wosd to mean " stretched [helplessly 
 (HI a ack bed]," which exactly suited his context " on a bed." 
 Luke^ possibly takii^ the same view, may have omitted the 
 wcvd as superfluous.^ 
 
 I "Hoisf ="&:, iAic&=(2) tlftt. It is iBtadia^ed wich &e nadi mac 
 comnan -c: "stietc&.°' ia 2 S. xxir. 12, i C&r. xii. lo. The btta=^) mlfat 
 (l) jlCCUf (I) ^n^AOH. 
 
 117 
 
[197] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 (ii.) " The trap-door in the roof" : (a) suggested by Marias text 
 
 In order to understand this point, we must compare the 
 
 details given by Mark and Luke, but omitted by Matthew : — 
 
 Mark ii. 4. (R.V.) Luke v. 19 (R.V.) 
 [197] "And when they "And not finding by 
 could not come nigh unto what [way] they might bring 
 him for the crowd, they un- him in because of the multi- 
 covered {aireaTerfaaav) the tude, they went up to the 
 roof {a-Teyr}v) where he was ; house-top, and let him down 
 and, when they had broken through the tiles . . . 
 it up.^ . . . 
 
 [198] The word here translated "roof" by the Revised 
 Version (and frequently used thus in classical Greek), though 
 used elsewhere by Matthew and Luke in the phrase " under 
 my roof," means, radically, " covering " ; and the Septuagint 
 uses it thus when it speaks of (literally) "the covering 
 of my rafters," where the Hebrew has "shadow" and we 
 might say "the shelter of my roof" So, too, Noah is 
 said to have (R.V.) " removed the covering of the Ark and 
 looked." ^ 
 
 [199] The regular Greek word for " roof," found in the 
 LXX twenty-seven times and in the New Testament seven 
 times, is the one employed by Luke here and translated by 
 the Revised Version " house-top " ; and the fact that Mark 
 uses a different word here suggests that he may not have 
 
 ^ [197a] "Broken it up," i^opi^avre^, a scarcely justifiable rendering (202). 
 To express " making a hole in the roof," Thucydides has (iv. 48) SieKbvTei riiv 
 ipoipiiv. 
 
 ' [198o] Mark's word rendered by R.V. "roof," ur^yij, occurs twice as transl. 
 of Hebr. in LXX: Gen. viii. 13, "the covering" (Aqu. KiiXv/i/ia) ; Gen. xix. 
 8, " the shadow of my roof," t^v (rriyiiv tuv Sokwv hov. It occurs in New Testa- 
 ment only here, and in Mt. viii. 8, = Lk. vii. 6. The Septuagint, in using this 
 word in Gen. viii. 13, "removed the covering of the ark," perhaps means not the 
 whole of the roof but the covering of the trap-door or window in the roof, through 
 which Noah "looked." 
 
 118 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [201] 
 
 meant (or if he did, that his original authority may not have 
 meant) "roof," but "trap-door in the roof." It would be 
 hazardous to dogmatise about the Ark ; but the impression 
 left by the passage above quoted is that Noah is not to be 
 understood as unroofing the whole of the Ark when he looked 
 out. And here we can hardly believe (whether Mark 
 believed it or not) that the original Gospel described the 
 paralytic's friends as unroofing the whole house. 
 
 [200] The rendering of the Revised Version "they 
 uncovered the roof," is neither quite accurate nor literal. To 
 " uncover " a thing is to take a cover from the whole of it. 
 " Uncover the roof," would be appropriate here to signify the 
 removal of a tarpaulin from the whole of the roof, but not, 
 except loosely, the removal of the rooffrom the whole of the 
 building, and certainly not the removal of a few tiles, nor the 
 opening of a trap-door. Again, it is not literal, because it 
 does not express the fact that the Greek repeats the 
 same word in noun and verb. Fairly literal renderings 
 would be "they uncovered the cover]' "unroofed the roof" 
 "took oif the covering of the cover" ; and the last of these 
 would approach the meaning of the original, which prob- 
 ably meant, either "they lifted up the cover of the trap- 
 door in the roof," or "they lifted up the trap-door that 
 covered the roof-window." In the former case, we must 
 suppose a trap-door protected by a shutter to keep out rain 
 and dust ; in the latter, simply a trap-door covering a hole 
 used as a door. 
 
 [201] We learn from the Horae Hebraicae, in its com- 
 ment on the present passage in Mark, that a lodger in the 
 attic of a Jewish house was sometimes not allowed to use 
 the interior house-stairs, but was compelled to go up the 
 exterior staircase to the house-top and thence to descend 
 into his room by the trap-door in the roof. This, no doubt, 
 was to secure privacy for the family. But where the upper 
 room was not let, it would seem that in many cases the roof 
 
 119 
 
[202] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 trap-door, with its awkward arrangement of a rope-ladder ^ 
 for descent into the attic, would be disused. The door — or 
 the cover, if there was one — would then be firmly fastened to 
 be secure against rain, and possibly against robbers. Thus 
 it might be wedged into the roof so fast that it would need 
 considerable effort to force it out 
 
 [202] And this might explain Mark's remarkable word, 
 most inadequately translated by the Revised Version " broken 
 up." No instance has been alleged from Greek literature 
 to shew that the word could have this meaning ; it means 
 " dig out," and is applied frequently to the " gouging out " 
 of an eye from the socket. In its strict sense it would most 
 aptly and graphically express the effort needed to extricate 
 the trap-door or shutter from the grooves into which it was 
 wedged. 
 
 [203] The hypothesis of a trap-door in the roof disposes 
 at once of all the objections that have been brought by Strauss 
 against the truth of Mark's narrative on the supposition that 
 it commits those who accept it to a belief that the roof was 
 " broken up," with the necessary consequence of tiles, plaster, 
 and rubbish falling on the heads of those who were assembled 
 round Jesus in the room below. The difficulty of such a 
 supposition may well have induced Matthew to omit all 
 Mark's details as being the result of a mi'sunderstanding. It 
 should be added that Luke's expression " through the tiles " 
 does not commit him to the view that they were " broken up." 
 " The tiles " often means in Greek, as well as in Latin, " the 
 [tiled] roof." Perhaps Luke assumed the trap-doof, but that 
 must remain uncertain.^ 
 
 * Wetstein on Mk. ii. 4 quotes Plutarch, Cap. Rom. v. p. 264 D tV virip t4 
 W70S At T^v oklar Kaeiiiija-iv. But the arrangement may have been different for 
 Jewish houses. 
 
 " It is quite in Luke's manner to denote " roof" first by " house-top " when 
 the question is of " mounting " to it, and then by " tiles " when the question is of 
 descending, as Cicero says, "through the tiles," i.e. through the trap-door in the 
 tiled roof. See note from Wetstein quoted below I 
 
 120 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [205] 
 
 (3) " The trap-door-in-the-roof : " Why not expressly men- 
 tioned by Mark ? 
 
 [204] It is a very obvious question to ask why Mark, 
 instead of giving us a long and ambiguous account about a 
 " roof-cover " or " cover," does not definitely mention the 
 roof-trap-door. The answer is that the Hebrew word that 
 means " roof-window," being rare and technical, might easily 
 be misunderstood by him. It occurs nine times in the Bible, 
 meaning " lattice," " sluice," " window." In the last significa- 
 tion it denotes a horizontal, not a vertical, window, and is 
 five times translated by a rare Greek word that implies 
 " crashing down," retained in the English " cataract." This 
 is a very natural word to denote a " falling door," i.e. " trap- 
 door." But the Hebrew is very similar to that of the much 
 more common word "four." And further, since the same 
 Hebrew preposition may mean " in," " at," or " by " (whether 
 implying agency or neighbourhood), it follows that " at the 
 trap-door " could easily be taken as meaning " by fourP 
 
 [205] This latter rendering Mark has adopted. But it 
 was not unnatural that some dissatisfaction should be felt 
 with it, partly because of the existence of other traditional 
 explanations, partly because the omission of " men " in such 
 a phrase appears to be unusual in Hebrew. Hence other 
 marginal glosses would spring up. Now the Hebrew for 
 " four" is said to be identical with the Aramaic for "stretcher." 
 Hence later evangelists, while adopting the letters of Mark's 
 alteration of the Hebrew text from " trap-door " to " four," 
 might arrive at an entirely different meaning ; and thus we 
 find Matthew and Luke, instead of "hy four" substituting 
 " on a bed." ^ 
 
 ' "Roof-window," or "trap-door in the roof," used of "the windows of 
 heaven," is rendered KarappdnTiis, Gen. vii. ll, viii. 2, 2 K. vii. ig, Mai. iii. lO ; 
 " roof- window" = , laiM : " four " = nymn, which is said by Professor Marshall in 
 the Expositor to mean " stretcher" in Aramaic. (Hebr. pi=Aram. yai, but this 
 = koIti) rather than kKIvi\. ) 
 
 121 
 
[206] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 § 1 4. The healing of the paralytic : origin of Mark's details 
 
 [206] It is possible that Matthew's omission of Mark's 
 details is due to the fact that they were not a part of Mark's 
 Hebrew or even Greek original, but the result of a Hebrew 
 gloss, or marginal note, added by some early evangelist or 
 editor attempting to explain a disputed passage. Wishing 
 to express his view of the tradition about "letting down 
 through the roof, or, through the tiles," this editor may 
 have written, "They found not how they should bring him 
 in because of the multitude, and they caused-to-go-up {j.e. 
 lifted up) the roof-cover, and let the man down." 
 
 [207] When incorporating this note with details added 
 to make the meaning clear, " Mark " — i.e. not Peter's nephew 
 but the editor, or one of the editors, through whom Mark's 
 Gospel has come down to us — may possibly have forgotten 
 the difference between the lighter roofs in the West and the 
 more solid ones used in the East for sleeping and walking 
 in the cool of the evening. Strabo and other writers un- 
 questionably use Mark's word (R.V., " uncover ") for " unroof," 
 and mention cases of large buildings completely and rapidly 
 unroofed with ease ; Strabo speaks of a temple unroofed in 
 a single day. It is therefore possible that " Mark " — i.e. 
 Mark's editor — may have believed that the roof was rapidly 
 and completely unroofed by " digging out (the tiles)," and 
 that this misunderstanding may explain his use of that par- 
 ticular verb. But we are not committed to " Mark's " belief. 
 Our hypothesis is that he is in error, but that his erroneous 
 tradition helps us to go back to the original truth.^ 
 
 Matthew has rejected the whole as a conflation, or late 
 tradition ; and this it is, but in the main a true one, or at 
 all events leading to the truth. 
 
 [208] Luke took "caused-to-go-up" as "went up to," 
 
 ' On the probability that Mark passed through many editions, see the warning 
 above, p. xv. , n. ii., and 325a. 
 
 122 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [209] 
 
 and the "roof- cover" as the "roof," or "house-top." In 
 describing the paralytic as let down " through the tiled roof" 
 — which is the regular meaning of " tiles " both in Latin and 
 Greek — Luke may be steering a middle course. He mentions 
 " tiles," but not " digging out." He does not mention — but 
 he may imply — " the trap-door in the roof." ^ 
 
 [209] The view that Mark's addition results from a 
 Hebrew gloss harmonises with the conjecture that Luke's 
 " went up " corresponds to a causative (" caused to go up ") 
 in the original of Mark. There is also some slight positive 
 evidence for it in the parallelism between (Mark) " not being 
 able" and (Luke) " not finding'' Compare a passage in Job 
 where the Hebrew has " they had found no answer," but the 
 Septuagint " they were not able to answer." ^ 
 
 If the hypothesis of " letting down through the trap-door" 
 is correct, and if it was altered by Mark to " four " and by 
 others to " bed," it is an error curiously similar to that above 
 mentioned (30) wherein a scribe altered " let down by a 
 basket (sportam) " into " let down by the gate (portam) " — , 
 alleged by Bacon as an instance of the tendency to alter the 
 unknown into the known. 
 
 § 1 5. {Mark) " making a way I' {Luke) " rubbing with their 
 
 hands " 
 
 There follow two instances of the mistranslation of a 
 Hebrew word that means, as a noun, " way," and, as a verb, 
 " make one's way," " tread a way (habitually)," " tread [grapes, 
 olives, or corn]," " trample." 
 
 ' A trap-door appears to be implied in Milton, Par. L. iv. 191, describing a 
 thief, who "in at the window creeps or o'er the tiles." Comp. Cicero, Philipp. 
 ii. 18 (Wetstein on Mk. ii. 4), contrasting "entrance across the threshold" with 
 " letting down through the tiles (per tegulas demittere)." 
 
 2 Job xxxii. 3, " had found (ksd)," iii\iiiifir\(ia.v. This is not a mistranslation, 
 but a free translation such as might be expected in Job and Mark. 
 
 123 
 
[210] 
 
 CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 (I) Mark iv. 4 
 
 " Some fell by the 
 side of the way, and 
 there came the birds 
 and devoured it." 
 
 Matth. xiii. 4 
 
 "Some (pi.) fell 
 by the side of the 
 way, and, havingcome, 
 the birds devoured 
 them." 
 
 Luke viii. 5 
 
 " Some fell by the 
 side of the way, and 
 it was trampled down 
 and the birds of the 
 heaven devoured it" 
 
 [210] The original was, nearly as Luke, "and they 
 \i.e. people] trampled it down and the birds of the heaven 
 devoured it." The Hebraic use of the impersonal " they " 
 escaped Mark's notice, so that he made "the birds" the 
 subject. Then, since birds do not " trample " the seed, he 
 was forced to take the verb as meaning "made their way," 
 or, more simply, " came," thus : " And there made their way 
 to it the birds of the heaven and devoured it." ^ 
 
 (ii.) Mark ii. 23 
 
 "And it came to 
 pass, that he on the 
 sabbath was going 
 on through the corn- 
 fields, and his dis- 
 ciples began to make 
 a way, plucking the 
 ears." 
 
 Matth. xii. i 
 
 " In that season 
 went Jesus on the 
 sabbath through the 
 corn-fields : but his 
 disciples were hungry 
 and began to pluck 
 ears and eat." 
 
 Luke vi. i 
 
 " But it came to 
 pass on a sabbath 
 that he was going 
 on through corn- 
 ifields and his dis- 
 ciples were plucking 
 the ears and eating, 
 rubbing [them] with 
 their hands." 
 
 [211] Mark's expression " make a way" if it represented 
 the historical fact, would have to be faced as Euthymius 
 faced it, admitting that the disciples " tore up the wheat-ears 
 that they might be able to go on." ^ Matthew and Luke 
 
 ■■ [210a] The verb hardly ever means simply " come." Even when it is thus 
 translated in Num. xxiv. 17, "There shall come forth a star out of Moab,'' 
 dporeXei, there seems to be a notion of making way through obstruction. 
 
 "^ [211a] Euthym. on Mt. xli. I (quoted by Field, Oiium N. on Mk. ii. 23), 
 Aviffirwv Tois crToxlins tva irpo^alvav ^oiev. Kypke (on Mk. ii. 23) is unable to 
 allege a single instance in which iSiv ttoiu (" I make a road") is used like oSbv 
 iroioD/iai (" I make my way"). Even the single instance which he takes as passive 
 is really a middle (Liban. Efiist. 718), intip &Se\(poO riji/ iShv 'T. (ipri ravriivl 
 
 124 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [213] 
 
 omit the difficult phrase ; and, by adding that the disciples 
 " ate " (Matthew adds also " they were hungry "), they meet, 
 by anticipation, the charge of wanton trespass implied in 
 the scholarlike interpretation of Mark's words. The difficulty 
 raised by them in early times may be estimated by the fact 
 that the Arabic Diatessaron omits them, and the Sinaitic 
 Syrian alters them into " and his disciples ate the ears." 
 
 [212] The explanation lies in Luke's expression, 
 "rubbing them with their hands.'' In classifying their 
 prohibitions of sabbath work, the Jews distinguished be- 
 tween " primitive " and " derivative " labour. To reap was 
 " primitive," and was of course forbidden. But to pluck corn 
 was a kind of reaping, deriving an unlawfulness from its 
 analogy with reaping, and was consequently forbidden also. 
 In the same way they forbade "derivative" ploughing and 
 grinding, and declared that a man who on the sabbath 
 rubbed wheat-ears on the palms of his hands, and then blew 
 away the husk, and ate them, was " guilty." ^ 
 
 [213] Now the word " trample," above mentioned, though 
 usually applied to the treading of oliyes or grapes, is at least 
 once applied to the treading of corn, and is translated by the 
 
 ireiroirjtrBai. itpiapiBri Si irip (rod /jiaXKov f) Siv (<jn) ireiroi'qiiivoi, " he said he 
 had made . . . he was coavicted of having made." 
 
 \2il6] The best MSS read oSoiroicrK in Mk. This, in the LXX always (j) means 
 " prepare (or, make) a road." The inferior MSS read oSJc wouTv, which, unless 
 iSdv is defined by a pronoun, must mean the same thing. The only passage 
 quoted from the LXX to the contrary is Judg. xviL 8, "as he journeyed," 
 (Heb.) " in-making {nwyV) his way (win)," toO iroirjffai r^v iSbv airoS. This proves 
 that the LXX did not mind saying iroiei bShv airov for hShv woieh-aL ; but it does 
 not prove that the LXX, or any one else, ever used 6S4;' vrouT (vrithout airoD) to 
 mean anything but "he makes a road." This, then, until some instance is 
 alleged to the contrary, must be taken to be the meaning here. 
 
 ^ [212a] (Wetst. on Mt. xii. 2) Beza, f. xiii. 2 : " Qui fricat spicas tritici, 
 sufHat super manum et edit ; si autem sufflavit et in sinum recondidit, reus est. 
 R. Eleasar dixit : ' Et sic sabbato.' " Presumably the two actions were forbidden 
 as being "derivative" threshing and virinnowing, and therefore a breach of the 
 
 sabbath. 
 
 125 
 
[214] CONFUSIONS OF WORDS 
 
 Septuagint " thresh." ^ But a translator, not familiar with 
 the subtleties of sabbatical " derivative " works, might 
 naturally take the verb in its radical sense, that is to say, as 
 being the causative of " way." It sometimes means " make 
 a way for others," or "guide." But here there was no 
 question of " guiding." He might therefore leave out " for 
 others," and translate the perplexing word with honest 
 literalism. This Mark appears to have done, leaving posterity 
 to deal with the difficulty — " make a way" 
 
 [214] But "trample" (drk) is not unlike "pound," or 
 " beat " (dk'k'), which is specially applied to corn, and the 
 latter is once rendered "trample," possibly being confused 
 with the former.^ And, again, the latter appears once — 
 possibly being taken to mean " champ," " crush " in the 
 teeth — to be rendered "eat."^ Possibly Matthew followed 
 a tradition substituting the latter for the former, and taking 
 the meaning to be '' champ," or " eat." At all events 
 Matthew inserts "eat," and does not insert anything else 
 corresponding to Mark's " made a way," or Luke's " rubbing 
 them with their hands." 
 
 Luke explains the " treading " or " derivative threshing " 
 in plain words as "rubbing with their hands." Perhaps, 
 also, he too (like Matthew) adopted X>V^> ^"d interpreted it 
 as " champ " or " eat," conflating the two interpretations. 
 
 [2 1 5] Many details in this attempt at restoration of the 
 original are conjectural. The Hebrew may have had X>V^f 
 "crush," instead of a form of ^ni, "way," and Mark may 
 have corrupted the former into the latter. And there is a 
 great deal to be said for this view, as "way" is far more 
 common than "crush." 
 
 [216] Two conclusions, however, are certain, viz. (i.) 
 that no scholar is at present justified in taking Mark to 
 
 ^ Jer. li. 33, "like a threshing-floor when it is trodden," aXoay. 
 ' Is. xxviii. z8, ppi (Tromm.), KOTairoTiJirei ; Tn=(4) KaTairaTeu'. 
 ' Is. xxviii. 27, pp-i (Tromm.) ^paB-ZiaeTai. (the LXX is greatly confused). 
 
 126 
 
CONFUSIONS OF WORDS [218] 
 
 mean anything but what Euthymius took him to mean, and 
 (ip-thal thisTneaqing is historically impossible. 
 
 [217] Two othel^ are highly probable, viz. that (i.) 
 Luke is right, and (ii.)^lie difference between Luke and 
 Mark (and Matthew) may be explained by original obscure 
 Hebrew and by mistranslation from it This last derives 
 such increase of probability from the preceding instance in 
 the Parable of the Sower that it may be regarded as almost 
 certain. 
 
 [218] It is possible that the Original included a word 
 translated by Luke " with their hands," but meaning literally 
 "with the palms [of their hands]." This word means, 
 etymologically, the bend or hollow of the hand, or the foot, 
 and it is rendered twelve times by the Septuagint " foot- 
 print," but in all but two of these occasions the Hebrew 
 " palm " is accompanied by " of the foot." The only instance 
 in which " footprint " is used for " palm " by itself is in the 
 description of the " cloud as small as a man's hand" where 
 the Septuagint has " a man's footprint." ^ If this word was 
 a part of the original, Mark mistook "threshing with the 
 palms [of their hands]" for "trampling with the soles [of 
 their feet]." 
 
 ^ I K. xviii. 44, uis t)(yos i,vSpis, 
 
 127 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 § I. {Mark) "Before the cock crow twice thrice ..." 
 
 [219] Mark, alone among the Synoptists, represents 
 Jesus as predicting (not only the exact number of denials, 
 but also) the number of times that the cock would crow 
 before Peter thrice denied his Master : — 
 
 Mark xiv. 30 Matth. xxvi. 34 Luke xxii. 34 
 
 "... thou ... "... before the "... the cock 
 
 before the cock crow cock crow, thou shalt shall not crow . . . 
 twice, shalt deny me deny me thrice." until thou shalt thrice 
 
 thrice." deny that thou know- 
 
 est me." 
 
 The omission of " twice " by Matthew and Luke is all 
 the more remarkable because its presence would seem to 
 many to enhance the miraculousness of the prediction. 
 
 [220] The explanation is as follows : " Twice " may be 
 expressed in Hebrew by " times tw »." But the Hebrew 
 " time " — which alsa means " step," " stroke," " way," " course," 
 etc. — is one of the few nouns that are occasionally used 
 in the dual ; and the dual of any noun, when without vowel- 
 points, is indistinguishable from the plural. This ambiguity; 
 necessarily produces confusion sometimes where "two" is 
 in question. For example, the Revised Version of Prov. 
 xxviii. 6 gives in the text "perverse in ['lis] ways" but in 
 
 128 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [221] 
 
 the margin, "lit. 'perverse of two ways.'"^ So in Num. 
 ix. 22, "whether it were two-days, or a month, or a year 
 (lit days)," the LXX has simply "the days of a month " ; and 
 even the MSS. that frequently correct the LXX, so as to 
 make it conform to the Hebrew, drop the "two" here.* 
 So in translating the dual of "time" in Eccles. vi. 6, "a 
 thousand years twice-told (lit. times -two)," the LXX takes 
 it as the plural of " course," and has " the courses of a 
 thousand years." A still more important passage, and one 
 exactly applicable to the passage from Mark under con- 
 sideration, is : — 
 
 [221] Job xxxiii. 29 (R.V.) : " Lo, all these things doth 
 God work twice [yea] thrice [A.V. " oftentimes "] with a 
 man." The Hebrew " twice thrice " appears to mean " re- 
 peatedly," being used like our "two or three times," only 
 with a rather ampler meaning. But, whatever be its exact 
 shade of meaning, it is easy to see that the omission of 
 "or," "yea," or some similar particle, may sometimes cause 
 ambiguity. Still further may a translator be perplexed 
 if " twice," being represented by a Hebrew form that may 
 mean either "times-two" or "times]' comes — as it does in 
 the extract from Job — immediately before a word that 
 regularly does mean " three " ^ but in this particular context 
 may mean "thrice." How natural for a Greek, in such 
 circumstances, to translate the Hebrew by " times (or, courses, 
 ways, etc.) three " ! Now this is precisely what the Septua- 
 
 Oa] Comp. Prov. xxviii. 18, "he that is perverse in [Ais] ways" (maig. 
 " walketh perversely in two ways"). In neither instance does the LXX express 
 the "two." In Dan. viii. 3, 6, 20, describing a "ram with two horns," "two,'' 
 being expressed by the dual, is omitted both by LXX and by Theodotion. 
 
 ^ [220^] Num. ix. 22, LXX /iijyAs iiti^pas (AF rjfiepas -q fitivos rifiepas). The 
 Hebrew representation of "a year" by "days" naturally perplexed the LXX. 
 So in I S. i. S, "one portion of two-fersons" ; LXX has simply "one portion." 
 Judg. V. 30, " a damsel [nay] two-damsels," is quite differently rendered both by 
 LXX and by A. 
 
 9 129 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 gint has done in Job : " Lo, all these things doth the 
 Mighty One work three ways with a man." 
 
 [222] Now, applying these facts to the passage in Mark 
 under discussion, we find all the discrepancies explicable by 
 a Hebrew original of this kind : — 
 
 " Before the cock crow,^ twice [or] thrice " [lit. " times- 
 two [or] three," capable of being rendered "times-three"] 
 " shalt thou deny me." 
 
 (i.) Mark translates this literally. But our present text 
 so arranges the words as to necessitate the meaning " Before 
 the cock crow twice, thrice shalt thou deny me." 
 
 (ii.) Matthew, like the Septuagint in Job, takes the mean- 
 ing to be " times-three," and renders it by the Greek " thrice," 
 thus : " Before the cock crow, thrice thou shalt deny me." 
 
 (iii.) In this new form, the meaning depends on punctua- 
 tion. It might mean, " Before the cock crow thrice, thou shalt 
 deny me." Luke, aware of conflicting traditions springing 
 from Greek and Hebrew ambiguities, throws the prediction 
 into a new form in which no ambiguity is possible : " The 
 cock shall not crow till thrice thou shalt deny that thou 
 knowest me." 
 
 § 2. {Mark and Matthew) " after two days" {Luke) " drawing 
 
 nigh " 
 
 [223] The Hebrew of " after two days " has been shewn 
 (220) to be indistinguishable (without vowel-points) from 
 
 "^ [222fl] That is, " before cock-crow," a term recognised for early morning or 
 late night. It is interesting to note that Mark alone, the traditional interpreter 
 of St. Peter, mentions (Mk. xiii. 35) "cock-crow" as one of the critical seasons 
 when the Master may " come." 
 
 If Mark, Peter's nephew, retained the Hebrew idiom "twice [or] thrice" 
 by writing vplv iXiKropa (pwvrjo-ai. Sis rpls . . . , it was natural that " or," i.e. ij, 
 should be inserted in the margin by a very early editor. But subsequent editors 
 would dislike the notion that Jesus should make, as it were, an alternative, pre- 
 diction ("twice, or possibly thrice"). Hence some might transfer the ^ to a 
 different place in the text, placing it after wplv. Codex B has irplv fi here, but 
 irplv in Mk. xiv. 72. The text of Mk. xiv. 30 varies greatly. 
 
 130 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [224] 
 
 that of " after days," But the latter expression is frequently 
 used in the Bible for " after some days" mostly meaning 
 "after many days, or several days." Now suppose, in a 
 context where it was clear that the interval was not one of 
 many days, a Greek translator mistook "two days" for 
 "days." Would he not naturally desire to make it clear 
 that, in this particular instance, " days " meant " few days " ? 
 This is what Luke appears to have done (by using a 
 paraphrase " drawing nigh ") in the following passage : — 
 
 Mark xiv, i Matth. xxvi. 2 Luke xxii. i 
 
 " Now there was "... after two " There was draw- 
 
 the Passover and the days the Passover ing nigh the feast of 
 
 [feast of] unleavened cometh." unleavened bread, 
 
 hxe&A after hvo days.'" called Passover."^ 
 
 § 3. {Matthew) "two . . . for a farthing" {Luke) "five . . . 
 for two farthings " 
 
 [224] The Hebrew " two three," for " two or three," is 
 on one occasion translated by the Septuagint "two and 
 three," ^ and this, taken literally, might be replaced by an 
 equivalent " five." But " two " by itself may mean " a few," 
 in the Bible, as in the passage where the widow of Zarephath 
 says, " I am gathering two sticks." Matthew himself 
 evidently regards " two " as synonymous with " two or 
 three," when he writes, "If two of you shall agree," and, 
 a little afterwards, " for where two or three are gathered 
 together in my name." * These facts explain : — 
 
 ^ [223a] Comp. Mk. ii. I, "after days," 5i' ^iixpav, with Lk. v. 17, iv /uy tSiv 
 il/iepav. If the Hebrew for "after" is here "from" (-a), used partitively, Luke 
 may have taken it as meaning "one of." If the original was inx, "after," it 
 should be remembered that this is repeatedly confused with inK, " one." 
 
 " Amos iv. 8. 
 
 ' I K. xvii. J2, Mt. xviii. 19, 20. "A couple" is similarly used in many 
 parts of England. 
 
[225] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 Matth. X. 29 Luke xii. 6 
 
 "Are not two sparrows "Are not five sparrows 
 
 sold for a farthing ? " sold for two farthings ? " 
 
 [225] The original was, " Are not two [or] three sparrows 
 sold for a farthing ? " Some interpreted this as " two and 
 three" (as in Amos above). Hence arose an insertion of 
 " five " in the margin. Similarly, we have found the LXX 
 (79) conflating " the tenth, on the first " into " the eleventh." 
 
 Others, taking it (perhaps correctly) to mean "two or 
 three " in the sense of " a few," nevertheless thought (as 
 Matthew above) that the phrase might be conveniently 
 abbreviated, and that the meaning was expressed by " two." 
 Hence would arise various marginal annotations and con- 
 fused traditions about " two " and " five," and, among these, 
 Luke's tradition, applying " five " to " sparrows " and " two " 
 to " farthings." But Matthew represents the spirit (though 
 not the letter) of the original, taking the phrase to mean "a 
 few," and condensing it, as he does elsewhere, into " two." ^ 
 
 ^ Two other explanations are given of this variation, both of them unsatis- 
 factory. 
 
 (i.) "A proverb about cheapness might be current in two forms, (a) 'two for 
 one ferthing,' (b) ' five for two ' ; Christ, in His teaching, might sometimes use one, 
 sometimes the other." This is open to the objection that the proverb is used 
 here not as a detached saying — likely to be often repeated and varied — ^but as a 
 part of a connected discourse (eight verses) which we have no reason to suppose 
 to have been repeated, and which Matthew and Luke give in parallelism 
 verse by verse. 
 
 (ii.) "In Luke's time the price of sparrows had risen, and he did not like to 
 state what was untrue, so gave what he knew to be the market-price." But it 
 would be both "untrue " and irreverent to represent Christ as saying what He did 
 not say. Few historians, especially if they professed to know things "accurately," 
 would alter, for example, " a penny a day," into '^ three half-pence a day," because 
 of a rise in wages since the utterance of the former phrase — still less if the 
 utterance proceeded from one whom they believed to be the Son of God. 
 
 132 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [227] 
 
 § 4. (Mark) " after three days" {Matthew and Luke) " on the 
 
 third day " 
 
 [226] The perplexity of the Septuagint in rendering 
 passages where "or" is omitted is illustrated by its 
 rendering of the words of Jonathan to David : " About to- 
 morrow [or] the third [day]." Here the Greek drops "to- 
 morrow " — although there is no cause for confusion in the 
 word — and gives " when-as the season threefold." ^ Much 
 more easily might a Greek translator drop " two " when it is 
 represented by the dual of the word "days," as in the 
 following expression used by Hosea, "after two-days [lit. 
 days (dual)] in day the third." Here " in " is represented by 
 a single letter, easily dropped owing to its similarity with 
 the letter that precedes it. But the dropping of it would 
 leave the translator with a passage that he might very 
 pardonably take as " after days day three," and render freely 
 as " after three days." Moreover, " after " is often confused 
 with "in," and (78) cardinal and ordinal numbers ("three" 
 and " third ") are interchangeable.^ This probably ex- 
 plains the discrepancy in the predictions about Christ's 
 resurrection : — 
 
 Mark viii. 31 Matth. xvL 21 Luke ix. 22 
 
 "... and after "... and on the "... and on the 
 three days rise again." third day be raised third day be raised 
 up." up." 
 
 [227] The departure of Matthew and Luke from Mark 
 is probably not caused, or at all events not wholly caused, 
 by a desire to bring the narrative into conformity with the 
 current account of the interval between Christ's death and 
 
 1 I S. XX. 12, " about the time of (npr) to-morrow (nno) [or] the third [day] 
 (n'»'^ii'a)>" ws fti" 6 /catpJs rputam. 
 
 2 Hos. vi. 2, " After- (-d) two-days (d'O') in (-a) day (ov) the-third ('BKij^n)." 
 The LXX translates it correctly : a, i.e. " in," has been noted above [158a] as often 
 coniiised with q (or d), »>. "after." 
 
[228] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 resurrection. It is highly probable that the original contained 
 a modified quotation from the passage of Hosea above men- 
 tioned : " He will cause us to live after two-days in the third 
 day he will raise us up " — substituting " him," or " the Son 
 of Man," for " us." If the prediction was in this form and 
 was erroneously rendered by Mark owing to his misunder- 
 standing of the dual for the plural in the first half of the 
 prophecy, it was very natural that later evangelists should 
 avoid the first half as superfluous, and content themselves 
 with the second. 
 
 § 5. {Matthew) "seventy times seven" {Luke) "seven times 
 
 turn " 
 
 Matthew gives these words as part of a reply to Peter's 
 question, " How often shall I forgive my brother ? " Luke's 
 parallel occurs, not in a reply, but in the course of a general 
 exhortation : — - 
 
 Matth. xviii. 22 Luke xvii. 4 
 
 " Jesus saith unto him, I " And if seven times in 
 
 say not unto thee until seven the day he sin against thee 
 
 times, dut until seventy times and seven times turn to thee 
 
 seven'' saying, I repent, thou shalt 
 
 forgive him." 
 
 [228] The original probably contained an allusion to the 
 ancient law of revenge mentioned by Lamech, " If Cain shall 
 be avenged seven-fold, truly Lamech seventy-and-seven-fold." ^ 
 But Matthew follows the Septuagint, which substitutes 490 
 for jy. This mistake was sure to be attacked by Jewish 
 opponents of the Church, and it was natural for Luke to 
 take advantage of any possibility of so interpreting the 
 Hebrew Gospel as to give a different rendering of the 
 original. 
 
 1 Gen. iv. 24, "seventy (d'MB') and seven-fold (fiMBi)," but LXX 
 ipSofj,riKovT&Kis IttA, i.e. "seventy times seven" — an error. 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 Supposing the original to have been " {a) but {b) seventy 
 {c) and seven-fold," we will now show how Luke's version 
 may have arisen by corruption and slight modification. 
 
 [229] (a) The Hebrew for "but," in this sense, is 
 frequently " but if." This agrees with Luke's interpretation, 
 "And if" (the difference between "and" and "but,"^ in 
 translating from Hebrew, being mostly a matter of taste). 
 
 [230] (J?) The Hebrew for " seventy " is the Hebrew for 
 " seven," plus the plural termination {im). " Seven " is 
 sometimes used adverbially to mean "seven times." Also 
 the plural termination {im) might easily be confused with 
 ivm, " day " ; thus " seventy " might become " seven times 
 in the day." « 
 
 [231] (c) "And seven-fold" is very easily confused with 
 "he shall turn," which in the Bible is frequently used for 
 " turning (in repentance)." * 
 
 [232] The result of (a), {b), and (c) would be, " And if 
 seven times in the day he shall turn." But if an evangelist 
 conflated the old " seven-fold, or times " with the new " he 
 shall turn," this would give : " And if seven times in the 
 day and seven times he shall turn." This then might 
 become current as an obscure tradition — requiring emenda- 
 tion — of what Jesus said as to the number of times that 
 a disciple was to forgive his brother conditionally on 
 repentance. Suppose Luke desired to insert this in the 
 discourse that says (xvii. 3), " If thy brother sin, rebuke 
 
 ' "But (<d) if (dk)" is given by Delitzsch here as the translation of Mt. 
 "but(dXX(l)." 
 
 " " Day (dv)" is often confused with "water (d'd)," "in the day" once with 
 the pi. of "son (p)," "our days" once with "right hand (|'D')" — all of them 
 less easy changes than that supposed above, viz. □< to ov. 
 
 » [231a] "He shall tum" = 2B", "and seven- fold " = nj;3rl. The difference 
 is great at the first glance. But (i.) the gutturals are freely handled in Hebrew ; 
 (ii. ) the two last letters might be taken by Luke as parts of " to thee," yh]) ; (iii.) 
 when an editor finds the first and largest part of an obscure and disputed passage 
 capable of being easily altered to an edifying result, it is very natural that he 
 should feel justified in dealing more arbitrarily with the last part. 
 
[233] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 him ; and if he repent, forgive him." It would only be 
 necessary to supply something, in the obscure tradition, 
 after " if," , thus, " And if [it should happen, or, he shall sin\ 
 seven times in the day, and seven times he shall turn." 
 When using the vaguer verb "turn" in place of the pre- 
 ceding "repent," Luke might naturally amplify "turn" for 
 clearness, by adding, "saying, I repent." Then it would 
 only remain to repeat the precept to forgive. The result 
 would be, " And ^^f he sin against thee seven times in the 
 day, and seven times turn to thee, saying, I repent, thou 
 shalt forgive him." ^ 
 
 § 6. On the error that led Luke to suppose that there were 
 " other seventy \twd\ disciples " 
 
 [233] It could be shown by a detailed examination 
 that Luke's Seventy-Mission — as we will call it for brevity 
 — contains nothing except variations and conflations of 
 traditions given by Mark and Matthew in the Twelve- 
 Mission. Without asking the reader to accept this state- 
 ment till it is proved (which must be reserved for another 
 treatise), we may just mention that the "sandals" and 
 "money- belt" mentioned by Mark are omitted in Luke's 
 Twelve- Mission, but appear in Luke's Seventy- Mission in 
 the shape of " shoes " and " pouch." This ought to prepare 
 the reader to give a patient hearing to a demonstration that 
 " seventy [two] " may be explained as an error of Luke made 
 in translating Mark's Hebrew original in the following : — 
 
 Mark vi. 7 (The Twelve) Luke x. i (The Seventy) 
 
 " And he (lit.) calleth to " But after these things the 
 
 him the Twelve and began Lord appointed other seventy 
 
 ' [232a] Luke's acceptance of this form of the tradition would be facilitated 
 by the fact that Jesus certainly implied "repentance" as a condition for the 
 acceptance of forgiveness by the offender, if not for its pronouncement by the 
 forgiver. Sar. Heir, on Mt. xviii. 21 alleges Jewish traditions mentioning the 
 "imploring" of the offender, and limiting the forgivenesses to three. 
 
 136 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [235] 
 
 to send them (lit.) two two [W. H. add in brackets 
 . . . ." "two"] and sent them (lit.) 
 
 by two [W. H. . add in 
 brackets " two "] . . . ." 
 
 [234] The omission of Mark's " two two," in Matthew's 
 and Luke's Twelve-Mission, suggests that there was some 
 obscurity in the Hebrew. This might well be. For " twelve " 
 is in Hebrew " two ten," so that the substance of the Hebrew 
 original of " He sent twelve, (lit.) two two " might be, " He sent 
 two ten two two'.' Now " twice " is rendered " two " by the 
 Septuagint in the Psalms ^ (" twice have I heard the same "), 
 and the verb "double" is repeatedly used in the sense of 
 doing a thing a second time. Again, some forms of " two " 
 resemble forms of a verb meaning " appoint," and the re- 
 semblance produces confusion once in Isaiah.^ It is there- 
 fore possible that " two . . . two " might be corrupted into 
 " He appointed ... a second time." Lastly, the dual 
 of the Hebrew " ten " (which closely resembles the singular) 
 is so far similar to the Hebrew for "seventy" that the two 
 are twice confused by the Septuagint.^ 
 
 [235] Now "seventy" was recognised by the Jews as 
 the number of the nations, or languages, of the earth,* so 
 that it might seem highly appropriate for the appointment 
 of a second group of disciples, perhaps regarded as typical of 
 a future preaching of the Gospel to "the nations," i.e. the 
 Gentiles. Thus prejudice and similarity of letters would 
 combine to corrupt " ten " to " seventy," which would be 
 placed in the margin. The result of these confusions would 
 
 ^ [234a] Ps. Ixii. 12, Ua roOro (78). 
 
 " Is. xi. II, "the second time (n'Jf)," fie/f« (leg. rm\ Comp. Lk. "appointed" 
 
 * Gen. xi. 24, Ezra viii. II, "twenty [lit. tens (dual)] (one's;)!" ^/35o/47j/toi'Ta 
 (leg. D'MB'). In Gen. xi. 17, (see context, Hebr. "four hundred and thirty," 
 Gk. "three hundred and seventy") the LXX possibly takes "four (ymn)" as 
 "seven (jfais')." In i S. ix. 22, "about thirty {s'vSe)" LXX has i^SojiiiKovTa. 
 
 * See Wetst. on Acts ii. 3. 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 be to produce a new tradition : " A second time he appointed 
 (or, he repeated to appoint) seventy-two." The retention of 
 "two" so as to make "seventy-two," instead of the more 
 appropriate '' seventy," is an indication of the stages through 
 which the text has passed and of the honesty of those scribes 
 who have not cancelled " two," in spite of its inconvenience. 
 [236] Finally Luke has conflated this with the statement 
 that the Apostles were sent (lit.) "by two [two]." The 
 reader may compare a somewhat similar conflation quoted 
 above (77) from Daniel where " sixty-two weeks " is converted 
 by the Septuagint into " seven and seventy and sixty-two." 
 
 § 7. Errors arising from the Hebrew "and" 
 
 [237] The same Hebrew letter represents (i.) "and," (ii.) 
 "even," meaning, "that is to say." Scores of consequent 
 errors might be quoted from the Septuagint. Most im- 
 portant are those in which the Authorised differs from the 
 Revised Version, or the Revised itself leaves the meaning 
 an open question : — 
 
 I Chr. xxi. 12: " The sword of the Lord, even (marg. 
 and) pestilence." 
 
 Judg. vii. 24 : " The waters as far as Bethbarah, even 
 (R.V. marg. and also, A.V. and) Jordan." 
 
 Mai. iii. i : " The Lord . . . shall come . . . and 
 (marg. and A.V. even) the messenger of the covenant." 
 
 In (R.V.) I K. vii. 45, parallel to 2 Chr. iv. 16, enumerat- 
 ing Temple-utensils, the former has " and the shovels, and 
 the basins, even all these vessels " ; the latter " and the 
 shovels, and the flesh -hooks, and all the vessels thereof" 
 — though the Hebrew conjunction is the same in both. 
 
 Ezra vi. 21 has "The children of Israel . . . and all 
 such as had separated." But the " and " is omitted by the 
 parallel i Esdr. vii. 1 3, presumably being taken by LXX to 
 mean " even." The R.V. of i Esdr. vii. 1 3 inserts " even." 
 
 138 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [240] 
 
 Nehem. viii. 7 : " A., J., H., P., and the Levites " is 
 parallel (with slight name- variations) to i Esdr. ix. 48, " A., 
 K., A., Ph., the Levites." 
 
 Judg. vi. 25: "Thy father's bullock, even (marg. a«<^ 
 the second bullock." The Septuagint here has " and," but 
 the MS that generally conforms the Septuagint to the 
 Hebrew (Codex A) omits " and." 
 
 Zech. ix. 9 : " ... riding upon an ass, even upon a 
 colt the foal (lit. son) of an ass (lit. she-ass)." So the 
 Revised Version, but the Authorised and the Septuagint 
 have " and." * This prepares us for : — 
 
 Mark xi. 2 Matth. xxi. 2 Luke xix. 30 
 
 "... a colt tied " . . . an ass tied "... a colt tied 
 
 whereon no man hath and a colt with her." whereon no man hath 
 yet sat." ever yet sat.'' 
 
 [238] Mark, followed by Luke, takes Zechariah's prophecy 
 to refer to a single animal, and that not a " she-ass " — a 
 creature of great value (superior to a "beast of burden") 
 reserved for kings, nobles, judges, and prophets — but a mere 
 colt. Interpreting " foal of a she-ass " to mean " not yet 
 separated from its mother," Mark paraphrases it freely as 
 " not yet used," i.e. whereon " no man hath yet sat." 
 
 [239] Matthew follows the Septuagint in taking the 
 words to mean two animals. But in translating the prophecy 
 in full, he mistranslates " Raise a shout, O daughter of Zion " 
 as " Tell ye the daughter of Zion," differing from the Septu- 
 agint as well as from the Hebrew. He also calls the colt 
 " the foal of a deast of burden" not " of a she-ass" missing the 
 difference intended in the prophecy. 
 
 § 8. Indicative confused with non-indicative forms 
 
 [240] (i.) Hebrew has no subjunctive. The future, " he 
 
 will come," is identical with " he would come." (ii.) When 
 
 ^ The LXX renders " ass " by intoii'^iov, i.e. "beast of burden," and paraphrases 
 " son of a she-ass " by irSiKav viov, " young foal." 
 
[241] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 the future, "he will come," is preceded by "and," with a 
 special vowel-point, it assumes the meaning of " and he came." 
 (iii.) Hence, " The Lord spake unto him that he should come " 
 is liable to be confused with " The Lord spake unto him and 
 he came" Hence arises a general confusion between com- 
 mand and statement of fact. 
 
 2 Chr. XXXV. 3 : " And he said to the Levites . . . Put 
 the holy ark . . ." is rendered by the Septuagint "And 
 they put " ; but the parallel i Esdr, i. 3 has " And he spake 
 unto the Levites . . . by putting" 
 
 [241] In the following instance two parallel Hebrew 
 passages differ. 
 
 (i.) 2 K. XX. 7 : " And Isaiah said, Take a cake of 
 figs. And they took and laid it on the boil and he recovered." 
 
 (ii.) Is. xxxviii. 21:" And Isaiah [had] said,^ Let them 
 take a cake of figs and lay it for a plaster upon the boil and 
 he shall recover." 
 
 (i.) LXX of Kings : " And he said. Let them take a 
 cake of figs [the Codex Alexandrinus adds, "and it was 
 taken "], and let them lay it on the sore, and he shall 
 recover." ^ 
 
 (ii.) LXX of Isaiah : " And Isaiah said to Hezekiah, 
 Take a cake of figs, and pound it and put it in a plaster 
 and thou shalt be whole." 
 
 [242] Compare also (i.) Ezra v. 15: " He said unto 
 him. Take these vessels," where LXX agrees, but (ii.) the 
 parallel i Esdr. vi. 1 8 has (LXX) " And orders were given 
 
 ^ [241a] There is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew. The same word that means 
 "said" in 2 K. must be rendered " Aaif said" in Is. xxxviii., because the context 
 and position of the clause demand it. But the pluperfect meaningis often required 
 in an appendix or parenthesis, and the LXX seldom uses the Greek pluperfect to 
 express it. 
 
 ^ The Hebr. ■v\p—"take." "They iiiek"=inp'?: np occurs in two cases for 
 "he took " instead of np^. 
 
 The Hebr. >n'i may mean either "and he recovered" (as in K.), or "and he 
 shall recover" (as in Isaiah). 
 
 140 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [243] 
 
 unto him, and he took all these vessels . . . ," where R.V. has 
 " that he should carry away." 
 
 Josh. ix. 21: " And the princes said unto them, Let 
 them. live. So they became hewers of wood . . ."; LXX, 
 " They shall live, and they shall be hewers of wood." 
 
 Josh. xxii. 8 : " He blessed them and spake unto them 
 saying, Return with much wealth . . ." ; LXX, " And he 
 blessed them and they departed with much wealth." 
 
 Jer. xxxvii. 17:" And the king asked him secretly in 
 his house and said " ; LXX, " And the king asked him secretly 
 to say." ^ 
 
 [243] The last passage may account for the astonishing 
 fact that Mark's account of the Mission of the Twelve contains 
 no precept to preach the Gospel, or the Kingdom, whereas such 
 precepts are mentioned by Matthew and by Luke in the 
 Mission of the Seventy as well as in that of the Twelve. 
 For, according to the rule deducible from the preceding 
 instances, an imperative may be latent in the following : — 
 
 Mark vi. 1 1-12 
 
 "... Shake off the dust ... for a testimony to them. 
 And having gone forth they preached . . ." 
 
 We have only to suppose that the original was, " And 
 go forth and preach," and we then have a parallel to 
 Matthew x. 7, "And as ye go, preach" and Luke ix. 2, 
 " He sent them to preach . . ." 
 
 Compare als^^ : — 
 
 Mark xiv. 23 Matth. xxvi. 27 
 
 " And they all drank of it." " Drink ye all of this." 
 
 ^ [242a] Comp. 1 K. xix. 11 : "And he said, Go forth and stand . . . And 
 behold, the Lord /ofWij'"; LXX, "And he said. Go forth . . . Behold the 
 Lord shall pass by." This is an example, not of the uncertainty of the meaning 
 of 1, but of the uncertainty of the meaning of the Hebr. pres. participle. It shows 
 how statement of fact may be confused with prediction. 
 
 141 
 
[244] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 § 9. {Mark) " tkey receive him" {Matthew and Luke) " he 
 
 went " 
 
 Mark iv. 36 Matth. viii. 23 Luke viii. 22 
 
 "And . . . they "And, when he "And he himself 
 
 receive him ... in went into a boat . . ." went into a boat . . ." 
 the boat . . ." [Codex D, " went 
 
 up," Ss. "went up 
 and sat in a ship."] 
 
 [244] "Received — Mark, in effect, has the causative 
 " cause-him-to-come into the boat " ; Matthew and Luke the 
 non-causative "he came into the boat." This confusion of 
 causative and non-causative is a constant cause of mis- 
 translation in the Septuagint. Compare the following 
 parallel passages in Kings and Chronicles, where the 
 Hebrew text has the very word probably used by the 
 original Hebrew Gospel here, namely, " go up " (which also 
 means " go on board "), employed by Chronicles causatively 
 and by Kings non-causatively. In Chronicles, the Septuagint 
 mistranslates : — 
 
 I K. X. 29 2 Chr. i. 17 
 
 " And a chariot came up " And they fetched up (lit. 
 
 and went out of Egypt " ; caused to come up) and brought 
 LXX, lit. "there came up out of Egypt a chariot "; LXX, 
 the going out." " they came in " (Codex A, 
 
 " they came up "). 
 
 The reader will note that in Chronicles the later MS. 
 (A) conforms to the Hebrew "up," whereas the earlier MSS. 
 have " in." The difference of the Greek words there is 
 precisely that between Codex D and most New Testament 
 MSS. here.^ Thus we see the phenomena of the Greek 
 
 ^ 2 Chr. i. 17 (see context of Chr. and K.) "And they fetched up (ii>V'i)," 
 ivi^aivov, A &vi§(uvov. So in Lk. viii, 22 iyhero . , . koX airbi ivi^i) (Codex 
 L ivi^ti, D 6,va^9jvai aMv). 
 
 142 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 Old Testament reproduced in this passage of the Greek New 
 Testament — leading to the conclusion that the latter, like 
 the former, is a translation. 
 
 § I o. Mark alone mentions " other boats " 
 
 Matthew and Luke omit mention of the boats, as 
 follows : — 
 
 Mark iv. 36 Matth. viii. 23. Luke viii. 22. 
 
 "... And other "... There fol- "... And his 
 
 boats were with him." lowed him his dis- disciples." 
 ciples." 
 
 (i.) " And other boats." 
 
 As Mark has just mentioned " the boat," he may have felt 
 justified in supplying the noun here after "other," even 
 though the original was only " and other[s] [were] with him." 
 
 [245] Now " other " is the same in Hebrew as " after," 
 " behind," " backwards " ; and the word " follow " is expressed 
 in Hebrew by " be after " or '' go after " ; and '' disciples," or 
 " followers," might be expressed by a phrase with the same 
 word. For instances of confusions based on this similarity 
 see Prov. xxv. 9, " the secret of another" LXX " backwards " ; 
 Ps. xvi. 4, " another'' LXX " after these things " ; Sir. xlix. 
 5, "backwards" LXX "to others!' Possibly, in the Greek, 
 " the other " may be intended to mean " the next" in Deut. 
 xxix. 22, "the generation \that is to come"] afterwards" 
 l^XX"the other generation"; Gen. xvii. 21, "in the next 
 year," LXX " the other year." Sometimes, too, confusion 
 may have been caused by the fact that the same Greek 
 preposition means "with" or "after," according to the case 
 of the noun. In Exod. xxiii. 2, " thou shalt not follow a 
 multitude," LXX has " thou shalt not be with a multitude " ; 
 and in i S. xiv. 13, "after him," LXX has "with him."^ 
 
 [246] (ii.) " With him." 
 
 1 The word inn ("after" and also "other") is used in all these passages; 
 neri, with genit. means "with," with accus. "after" (ISSs). 
 
[247] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 Again the Hebrew " with-him," is, in one of its forms,' 
 identical with " his-people," which may be used for "his 
 attendants." In a parallel passage of Kings and Chronicles, 
 "with him" and "the people" are interchanged, and th"; 
 Septuagint omits "with him." ^ In Deut. xxxii. 43, 
 apparently, and certainly in Josh. viii. 14, and in some 
 MSS of Deut. iii. i, "his people" is duplicated by the 
 addition of "with him." The instances are numerous in 
 which " people " and " with " are confused in the Septuagint' 
 
 [247] Thus, taking (i.) " other " as " following," and (ii.) 
 " with him " as " his disciples," Matthew might deduce 
 "his disciples followed him," while Luke might consider 
 " his people that followed him " to be sufficiently represented 
 by " his disciples." 
 
 [248] There is probably a similar confusion between 
 "disciples" and "follow" in Mt. viii. 21, "But another of 
 the disciples said to him," which is parallel to Lk, ix. 59, 
 " But he said unto another. Follow me " (where Matthew pro- 
 bably conflates). But the discussion of these passages must 
 be deferred. 
 
 § II. {Matthetv) "destroying," {Luke) "casting" 
 
 Matth. X. 28 Luke xii. 5 
 
 " But fear rather him who " Fear him who, after 
 
 is able to destroy both soul killing, hath authority to cast 
 
 and body in hell." into hell." 
 
 [249] The context indicates free translation in one at 
 least of the translators. But the following passages show 
 that the divergence of " destroy " and " cast," i.e. " cause to 
 go," may be explained by Hebrew corruption : — 
 
 2 I K. viii. 62: "And all Israel with him (ids) " = 2 Chr. vii. 4, "And all 
 the people (dj;)." The LXX of K. om. " with him " (but A inserts it). 
 
 » Dan. ix. 26, "people;' LXX /tcrdt, Theod. aiv; i Chr. xii. 18, "with thee," 
 LXX "^-^ people" Ps. xlvii. 9, ex. 3, "people" fueri, etc. 
 
 144 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [251] 
 
 Lev. xxvi. 41: "I brought them into the land " ; LXX, 
 " I will destroy them in the land. 
 
 Dan. ii. 12: " to destroy," Theod. as Hebr., but LXX 
 " to lead out." ^ 
 
 Probably the original was " cause to go in(to) hell," and 
 Matthew, interpreting it as " destroy in hell," added " soul 
 and body," to signify that the Greek word, which sometimes 
 means " lose," or " ruin," meant here utter destruction. 
 
 § 1 2. {Matthew) "fall to the ground without" {Luke) 
 ^^ forgotten in the sight of" 
 
 [250] A word may be correctly translated, but in two 
 different senses. For example, the word " fall " may mean 
 " fall to the ground " (i.) metaphorically, i.e. be forgotten, 
 despised, or (ii.) literally, i.e. perish. And this appears 
 partly to explain : — 
 
 Matth. X. 29 Luke xii. 6 
 
 "And one of them \i.e. the " And one of them is 
 
 sparrows] shall not fall to the not forgotten in the sight of 
 ground without your Father." God." 
 
 (i.) {Matthew) "fall," {Luke) "forgotten." 
 
 [251] (i.) The Hebrew "fall" is used metaphorically 
 
 concerning {a) the words of Samuel which God did not 
 
 allow to be unfulfilled, {b) days that are to be " void," and 
 
 {c) a person of inferior account.^ But these metaphorical 
 
 ^ Lev. xxvi. 41, 'nunni (from stu), iicoXw ; Dan. ii. 12, mnin^, Theod. 
 iaroKiaai., LXX ^|a7a7e?i' (which =i(<3rT in Ezek. xvii. 12); TaNn (hiph.) = 
 "destroy,"' !('3n=" cause to go.'' Luke's word "cast (^/i/SiiXXetx) " is used in a 
 mistranslation of nu in Hag. ii. 16. Matthew's "rather" (not a Hebraic word) 
 suggests that he is translating freely. 
 
 * I S. iii. 20 ; Num. vi. 12, " the days . . . shall be void (A.V. lost)," AXoyoi ; 
 Job xiii. 2, " inferior to you," lit. "fallen^ itrvverdrepos. 
 
 Mr. W. S. Aldis suggests to me that there may have been a confusion between 
 (a) HDU' (" forget ") and (6) ^^3 (" fall "). In that case (a) would be the original, 
 because {i) mostly means "stagger," "totter," and could not be applied to birds. 
 
 See also Sir. xliv. 10, "come to an end (ma)," iiri\av$dveir8at, Sir. xlvii. 
 22, "he will suffer to fall to the ground (nann ^'S')," SiaipBapy (x'^-'^ SiatpSelpij). 
 
 10 145 
 
[252] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 senses are comparatively rare. Perhaps no exact parallel 
 could be quoted to Luke's use of the word, on the hypothesis 
 that he translated the Hebrew " fall." 
 
 (ii.) {Matthew) " without" (Luke) " in the sight of" 
 
 [262] In Greek, Matthew's phrase " not without" when 
 preceding " God," " divine fortune," etc., generally refers to 
 good fortune, or what is sometimes called " a providential 
 dispensation." But in Hebrew the phrase has not neces- 
 sarily this good association, as appears from a Jewish tradi- 
 tion how a Rabbi and his son, in hiding during the days of 
 persecution, sat at the door of their cave and watched a 
 fowler catching birds. To them the fowler signified the 
 heathen, and the birds the souls or lives of the persecuted. 
 A Voice from heaven cried " Save thyself, save thyself" (or, 
 as some say, " Pity, pity "). Then the bird escaped. At 
 other times the Voice was against the bird and then it was 
 caught. " Even a bird," exclaimed the Rabbi, " without 
 heaven is not caught : how much less the soul of man ! " ^ 
 
 Matthew's tradition, verbally accurate, but liable to 
 misinterpretation, might induce Luke to adopt any variation 
 (springing from a corruption of the original Hebrew) that 
 might give an unambiguous and edifying meaning. 
 
 [253] The original of Matthew's " without " was probably 
 " away-from the eyes of," i,e. without the knowledge of. But 
 this form occurs only four times to a hundred occurrences of 
 " in the eyes of." The latter, which would be the natural 
 original of Luke's " in the sight of," differs from the former 
 
 ' Schbttg. on Mt. a. 29. Wetst. gives the story with slight but interesting 
 differences. The English reader must note that this saying takes the birfs point 
 of view. Tasfomkr — and perhaps a good many modern readers — might interpret 
 it as meaning, " I cannot catch even a single bird without the help of heaven.'' 
 But the meaning is, "The death even of a single bird is foreseen and controlled 
 by God " ; and the inference is that, though it may seem evil, there must be a 
 good purpose underlying it. 
 
 [252a] " Without heaven " may throw light on Mt. " your father " = Lk. "God," 
 the original being " heaven," variously paraphrased by Matthew and Luke. 
 
 146 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [256] 
 
 by nothing but the difference of Q and a — letters readily 
 confused (158fl). It is probable that the rarer form (Mat- 
 thew's) was the original one, and that the authority followed 
 by Luke altered it to the more usual form in order to har- 
 monise with his interpretation of " fall." 
 
 § 13. {Matthew) "salute" {Luke) " do good to" 
 
 [254] This variation occurs in the Sermon on the 
 Mount, where Jesus, having inculcated " loving," proceeds to 
 inculcate the expression of love in beneficent action. Deuter- 
 onomy forbade Israel to do good to, or " seek the peace " of, 
 Ammonites and Moabites, but excepted the Edomite from 
 this prohibition, " for he is thy brother." Jesus abrogated 
 this rule, asking what virtue there was in mere " seeking the 
 peace " of one's " brothers," who " do good to you " or " seek 
 your peace." That this Deuteronomic precept permeated 
 Jewish thought in the time of the composition of Ezra is 
 proved by its quotation in that book.^ 
 
 [255] But unfortunately the Hebrew "seek the peace of" 
 is easily confused in translation with another quite distinct 
 phrase, " ask [after] the peace of" ; for the Hebrew " seek " is 
 sometimes rendered by the Greek "ask," and the Hebrew 
 " ask," though rarely, by the Greek " seek." ^ Now, " seek 
 the peace of" is, in effect, "do good to." But "ask [after] 
 the peace of" is simply " salute." 
 
 [256] Every one will recognise that these could easily 
 be confused, and as a fact they are confused by the Septuagint, 
 which, in the translation of the Deuteronomic precept itself 
 — instead of "seek the peace" — gives, "Thou shalt not 
 accost them in words of friendship and advantage to them." 
 
 ^ Deut. xxiii. 6, "Thou shalt not seek (em) their peace nor tkeir prosperity 
 all thy days for ever." Comp. Ezra ix. 10-12, "We have forsaken thy commandments 
 which thou hast commanded . . . saying . . . The land ... is an unclean land 
 . . . neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek [trn) their peace or 
 their prosperity for ever.'' 
 
 2 "Seek(Bm)"=(l2)^ire(i)(iiTS»; "ask (W)" = (2) ^p-eiK (Tromm.). 
 
[257] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 And it is significant that whereas in Ezra the Septuagint 
 translates literally and correctly ("ye shall not seek their 
 peace "), the parallel in Esdras is, " Ye shall not seek to 6e at 
 peace with them." This, though not so serious an error as 
 the one in Deuteronomy, does not express the Hebrew 
 meaning " consult the interests of," " do good to." 
 
 [257] Matthew, though he reproduces Hebraic traditions 
 and Hebraic thought perhaps more than any of the Synoptists, 
 exhibits many instances of mistranslation from Hebrew, as 
 we have seen in " the ass and the colt," and his use of the 
 word " companion." We cannot therefore be surprised that 
 he here falls into the error of the Deuteronomic Septuagint. 
 Matth. V. 47 Luke vi. 33 
 
 " And if ye salute your " For if ye do-good-to them 
 
 brethren ^ alone, what do ye that do good to you, what 
 more [than others] ? " thank have ye ? " 
 
 [258] It may be noted that the Arabic Diatessaron 
 renders Matthew thus : " If ye inquire for the good of your 
 brethren only." The original was probably a play on words : 
 " If ye seek the peace of (shim) the men-of your-peace {shim), 
 what recompense (shJm) have ye ? " ^ If so, Matthew has 
 paraphrased as well as mistranslated, and Luke is substantially 
 right. 
 
 § 14. " Man, thy sins are forgiven thee" 
 
 Mark ii. 5 Matth. ix. 2 Luke v. 20 
 
 " And Jesus seeing " And Jesus seeing " And seeing their 
 
 their faith saith unto their faith said unto faith he said, Man, 
 
 the paralytic. Son, the paralytic. Be of thy sins are forgiven 
 
 thy sins are for- good cheer, Son, thy thee." 
 
 given." sins are forgiven.'' 
 
 * Codex Lhas "friends." 
 
 " "Men of your peace " = " well-disposed," "friendly," rendered "friends" in 
 Jer. XX. 10. It is mistranslated "recompense (ivTaToSLSodaiv)" in Ps. vii. 4, and 
 " having-received-recompense (dTreo-xijKiis) " by Q marg. in Is. xlii. .19, where LXX 
 omits it. 
 
 148 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [261] 
 
 [259] " Man," when used in the Bible vocatively, implies 
 reproach/ and is difficult to reconcile with "Son." Jesus 
 never calls any man " son " except as the son of the Father 
 in heaven ; ^ but Luke would hardly^ have deviated so com- 
 pletely from Mark without some reason afforded by the text, 
 
 [260] Luke omits here " unto the paralytic " ; and the 
 question arises whether under that phrase there may be 
 latent some explanation of the discrepancy. The original 
 may not have repeated the technical term " paralytic " used 
 at the introduction of the story, but may have called him 
 " the sick (or, afflicted) man." Now this in Hebrew might 
 be " son-of affliction" * This would explain how " son " made 
 its way into the story. 
 
 [261] The next step is to ask whether " afflicted " could 
 be confused with " man." That is answered by a passage 
 where the Revised Version gives in its text " woeful," but 
 in its margin an alternative " man," and by three passages 
 where the Septuagint has " man " for " woeful." Suppose, 
 then, that the original was " son of affliction," whether in the 
 vocative, or in the objective after " said unto." Mark may 
 have loosely conflated it first as " the paralytic " and then as 
 " son." Luke, reading " son of affliction " as " son of man," 
 took it vocatively as a term of reproach (which it is some- 
 times), and therefore equivalent to the Greek vocative "man."* 
 
 ' Mic. vi. 8, Lk. xii. 14, xxii. 60, Rom. ii. 1, ix. 20. In Mic. vi. 8, the prophet 
 appears to imply rebuke to Balak for even asking, " Shall I give my firstborn for 
 my transgression ? " In classical Greek ivBpunre means " fellow." 
 
 " The Greek is riKvov, "child." The pi. is used by Jesus to the disciples in 
 Mk. X. 24, and the diminutive pi. [reia/la) in Jn. xiii. 33 — in both of which there 
 is a special tenderness. 
 
 ' Comp. Prov. xxxi. 5, " any that is afflicted " ; Hebr. " 33X the-sons-of affliction 
 ('jy)j" icOeveis. This differs from the Hebr. for "affliction" supposed below. 
 But the passage illustrates the Hebrew idiom. 
 
 * [261a] Jer. xvii. 16, "the woeful (tm») day" (marg. "some ancient versions 
 read, the judgment day of man"). The word bun means " man," more especially 
 in poetry, e.g .Vs. cxliv. 3, "son of man." The LXX have "man"' in Jer. xvii. 
 9, 16, and Is. xvii. 11. 
 
 149 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 [262] But if this Hebrew word — meaning " afflicted " or 
 "incurably diseased," but resembling "man" — was in the 
 original, it opens up possibilities of explaining also Matthew's 
 " be-of-good-cheer," a Greek word hardly ever used by the 
 Septuagint except to express the Hebrew prohibition " do 
 not fear." But this would not make very good sense here, 
 where the context rather demands " Be hopeful, or trustful." 
 Now the Hebrew " afflict " is confused once with " lift up," 
 and " lift up " is used to mean " rejoice." ^ Hence, " son of 
 affliction " might be interpreted by Matthew as " Son, rejoice 
 (or, be of good cheery ^ 
 
 [263] There is a fair probability that the Synoptical 
 divergence is due to this particular word in the original.* 
 There is a very much stronger probability that it is due to 
 some mistranslation from Hebrew. And it is certain that 
 " man " is a mistake of Luke's. 
 
 § 15. {Mark) "nothing . . . except a staff" {Matthew) "nor a 
 staff" {Luke) " neither a staff" 
 
 These words occur in Christ's precepts to the Twelve, 
 when He sent them forth to preach : — 
 
 Mark vi. 8 Matth. x. 9-10 Luke ix. 3 
 
 " . . . that they " Do not obtain " Take nothing for 
 
 should take nothing gold . . . not a wallet the journey, neither a 
 
 for [their] journey for [your] journey . . . staff, nor wallet, nor 
 
 except a staff alone, no «(7^astafiF." bread ..." 
 bread, no wallet ..." 
 
 ' Jer. XXX. 12, "incurable (wm)" iviirriiira, leg. orj, which (Is. xlii. il)= 
 
 ^ [262iz] The possibilities of error are increased by the fact that "forgive" 
 may be in Hebrew "lift up," "bear," "take away" — the same word (ms']) that 
 is confused with "afflicted (wm)" in Jer. xxx. 12. The juxtaposition of the two 
 words might easily cause confusion, especially if the Hebrew verb was reduplicated. 
 
 ' [263a] The exact meaning of mix is "sick unto death." It occurs nine 
 times in the Bible, and is only once (2 S. xii. 15, ^ppiio-Tijcrei') rendered exactly. 
 Elsewhere it=KaTaKpaTeiv (l), aripeoi (1), jSioios (3), Ayiarriffa (l), dvBpwTos (2). 
 
 150 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [266] 
 
 Beside the apparent contradiction as to the " staff," we 
 have to explain why Matthew omits all mention of bread. 
 
 [264] The Didachi, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 
 says concerning the true apostle or missionary, "When he 
 goeth forth let the missionary receive nothing except bread 
 [to suffice him] until he reach his lodging for the night. 
 But if he ask for money, he is a false prophet." ^ Now a 
 sufficiency of bread is regarded in Hebrew as bread enough 
 to support one, and hence is metaphorically called "the 
 staff of bread " ; ^ and the writer appears to have read Christ's 
 precept thus, " that they should take nothing for their journey 
 except the staff of bread" i.e. bread enough to support them 
 for the day, or, in other words, the " daily bread." This was 
 almost certainly the original precept, but, if so, we may pro- 
 nounce with equal certainty that it was intended in a spiritual 
 sense. The Apostles were to go forth with nothing but the 
 " daily bread " provided by the Father in heaven.* 
 
 The Didachi, though it has despiritualised, has at all 
 events preserved, in a modified form, the old tradition, 
 " nothing except the staff of bread." We have now to trace 
 its developments in our Gospels. 
 
 [265] (i.) Mark, taking "staff" literally, was bound to 
 detach it from " bread." But " nothing except a staff, bread, 
 no wallet " would make no sense, and a very obvious way of 
 making sense was to supply " no " as Mark does : " no bread, 
 no wallet." * 
 
 [266] (ii.) Another development was to assume that 
 
 1 Didachi, § xi. 6. 
 
 '' Comp. Lev. xxvi. 26, Ps. cv. 16, Ezek. iv. 16, v. 16, xiv. 13. 
 
 ' [264a] It will be shewn hereafter that all the precepts in Mk. vi. 8-9 had 
 originally a spiritual meaning. It is probable that Jesus laid down no rules at all 
 about the literal food or clothing of the Apostles. 
 
 * [265a] Mark (or his authority) might feel justified in this by the frequent 
 omission of the Hebrew negative in expression when it has to be implied from a 
 previous negative, e.g. (Ps. ix. 18) "The needy shall not alway be forgotten, 
 [nor] the expectation of the poor shall perish for ever." 
 
 151 
 
[267] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 Christ forbade the Apostles to take anything at all for their 
 journey. The Hebrew original would not lend itself to this 
 corruption. But these precepts — as we might naturally 
 suppose, and as we may infer from a reference to one of 
 them in the First Epistle to Timothy^ — must have been 
 early appealed to in the Greek Churches, and, as being 
 handed down through Greek oral tradition, must have been 
 peculiarly liable to Greek corruption. Moreover, in a Greek- 
 written Gospel the change of "except" to "not" would 
 involve merely the dropping of one letter.^ 
 
 This course has been adopted by Matthew and Luke. 
 But why has Matthew omitted " bread," and altered " take " 
 into " obtain " ? 
 
 [267] (iii.) The reason probably is that Matthew, when 
 editing, and throwing into the second person, the original 
 tradition expressed in the third person, " that they should 
 take no staff, bread" confused "bread" with the almost 
 identical "_/&r themselves" as appears to have been done 
 once in Nehemiah.^ This induces him not only to omit 
 " bread," but also to introduce a verb in the middle voice, 
 " obtain," meaning " procure for yourselves." 
 
 ^ I Tim. V. i8 ; comp. i Cor. ix. 13. 
 
 ^ [266a] "Except," in illiterate Greek = I MH. "Not" = MH. The dropping 
 of I would be facilitated by its coining after oAo (?'.«. oAon) ; oA5l might be 
 taken as an error for oAoN- (Still more easily might 1 be dropped after AtipoicT). 
 
 In Lk. X. 4-S (" Do not carry . . . and salute none by the way. But what- 
 ever house ye enter) " very slight changes indeed would restore the meaning, " Do 
 not carry . . . anything on your journey. But salute whatever house ye enter," 
 . . . ii.rfiiv[<i) Kari, tV iS&v. 'A(rird(ra({oT i/jo-Se S' eit fjr &v da-iKSrire oIkIov. 
 Codex D has eU fiv 6,v Si . . . 
 
 The kind of Greek that might be expected in the earliest Greek Gospels may 
 be illustrated by Bockh, Gr. Inscr. 4588, .. Sapa ice St, i.e. el 5' &pa Kal Set. It 
 would probably be more similar to the Greek of the Apocalypse than to that of 
 St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
 ' Neh. V. 14, " iAe bread of (nn^) the governor," ^Uui ainOsv, where oirffic 
 seems = " belonging to them" = Dn'7, confused with an"? : |8fa= " governor,'' as also 
 in next verse. 
 
 152 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [Z71] 
 
 § 1 6. " In the Name because ye are Chrises " 
 
 Mark ix. 41 Matth. x. 42 
 
 " For whoso shall give you " And whosoever shall give 
 
 to drink a cup of water in one of these little ones a cup 
 
 th£ Name because ye are of cold [water] in (lit. to) the 
 
 Christ's." name of a disciple." 
 
 [268] We are here confronted, in Mark, with a 
 phenomenon unique in the Synoptic Gospels— Jesus calling 
 Himself Christ, and that, too, not in the course of a special 
 revelation to the disciples, but as (so to speak) a parenthetic 
 assumption in the midst of discourse about other matters. 
 Consequently, there is an antecedent probability that 
 " because ye are Christ's " is an error arising from some 
 original obscurity. 
 
 [269] The Jewish fathers use "the Name" absolutely 
 for " the Name that is above every other name," that is, " the 
 Name of God," as in the saying, " Noisome beasts come into 
 the world for vain swearing and for profanation of the 
 NameV ^ 
 
 [270] Jesus has previously said, "Whoso shall receive 
 one such child in (lit. on') my name receiveth me, and whoso 
 receiveth me receiveth him that sent me,"^ This implies 
 that whosoever receives a " little one " in the name of the 
 Father receives the Father Himself. The sense here, then, 
 seems to require either " in the Name " or " in my name." 
 Some authorities read in Mark " in my name " ; but, if that 
 was the original, why was it altered, since it makes excellent 
 sense ? It seems probable that the Hebrew original was " in 
 the Name," meaning " in the Name of the Father in heaven," 
 and that this caused a difficulty to all the evangelists. 
 
 [271] Luke has omitted the whole passage. Matthew 
 
 ' Taylor's _/«(/«>A Fathers, v. 14, also iv. 7. 
 ' Mk. ix. 37 (and simil. Mt. xviii. 5 and Lk. ix. 48). 
 
 153 
 
[272] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 appears to have identified " in the Name " with " to the 
 name, credit, or account of," i.e. " for the sake of," or " as 
 being." He inserts a passage about receiving a prophet, or 
 righteous man, " for the sake of," or " as being," a prophet 
 or righteous man ; and then he seems to have conformed 
 the original of Mark to this new context by inserting the 
 words " of a disciple." 
 
 [272] Mark appears to have followed the practice of 
 very early Christian writers in referring " the Name " to the 
 Son who, as the Epistle to the Fhilippians says, has received 
 " the Name that is above every name." The third Johannine 
 Epistle says of certain faithful disciples that " for the sake of 
 the Name they went forth," and similarly the Acts, " rejoicing 
 that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the 
 Name." But in both passages the absence of a pronoun has 
 caused the scribes difficulty ; and so many manuscripts have 
 inserted one that the Authorised Version gives on both 
 occasions " kis name." ^ But Mark, instead of inserting a 
 pronoun, has inserted a marginal interpretation, "because 
 ye are Christ's disciples," conflating it with " in the Name." 
 This explains the otherwise inexplicable fact that in this 
 single passage of the Synoptic Gospels Jesus appears to use 
 the word " Christ " about Himself 
 
 § 17. Hebraic Alternatives 
 
 [272 (i)] We will conclude with an instance shewing 
 that a Synoptic passage may contain manifest signs of error 
 through mistranslation, but the phenomena may admit of 
 more than one explanation. 
 
 Matth. xiii. 17 Luke x. 24 
 
 " Many prophets and " Many prophets and kings 
 
 ^ \Zl2a] The same interpolating tendency is apparent in many passages of 
 Clem. Rom., Hermas, and Ignatius, e.g: Ign. jE/ii. 3, " For though I am a prisoner 
 in the Name,'' where see Lightfoot's note. 
 
 154 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [272 (i)] 
 
 righteous \men\ have passion- have desired to see the things 
 ately-desired to see the things on which ye (emph.) look." 
 on which ye-look," 
 
 Of how many " kings " could Jesus say this ? Is there 
 an3^hing in Christ's doctrine, or in the special goodness of 
 the kings of Israel or Judah, that would lead us to suppose 
 that He would use language so favourable to royalty ? 
 
 (a) (?) "Princes." 
 
 Professor Resch suggests that the original had "princely" 
 or " noble," a word translated by the LXX once " righteous," 
 and twice "king".^ But if that was the original, why did Luke 
 give it the rare rendering " king " — contradicting all history 
 too — when he might have rendered it " noble " ? * Moreover 
 in Matthew elsewhere ("Ye build the sepulchres of the 
 prophets and garnish the tombs of the righteous") where 
 it is impossible to alter " righteous " into " kings," why does 
 Luke omit the clause containing the word? And again, 
 when Matthew distinguishes between " receiving a prophet " 
 and " receiving a righteous man " — where once more " king " 
 would be an impossible substitute — ^why does Luke omit 
 the whole passage ? " ^ 
 
 (^) (?) " Messengers of God." 
 
 These considerations make it necessary to consider an 
 
 ' ParcUUltexte zu Lucas, Leipsic, 1895. Prov. xvii. 7 "a prince," (nj) Sixalifi, 
 Prov. xix. 6 and Numb. xxi. 18 PcuriXiav : 'yrn = (11) Hpxt^v, (3) ei5<re/S'^!, (2) irp6Bviws, 
 etc. : its radical meaning is "generous." Many may be so familiar with the 
 sonorous words "prophets and kings," and perhaps with Mr. Maurice's book 
 bearing this title — that they may feel as unwilling as the author felt at first to give 
 up Luke's version. But let any reader dispassionately consider (i) how "many" 
 of the Kings of Judah and Israel can be called decently "good," not to say 
 rivals of prophets, (ii) how far from favourable to the general character of royalty 
 are Christ's remarks about (Mk. x. 42) "those who are reputed to rule over the 
 nations." Then surely it must seem impossible that He should have bestowed 
 this eulogium on kings. 
 
 ' Eiyev/is only occurs once in Heb. LXX, but Lk. has it twice Lk. xix, 12, Acts 
 xvii. II : and it would have well expressed the double meaning of the Hebrew 
 "princely." ' Mt. xxiii. 29 (Lk. xi. 47), Mt. x. 41. 
 
 IS5 
 
[272 (i)] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 alternative. Possibly the original, in all these passages of 
 Matthew, as in a passage of Chronicles, coupled together 
 "prophets" and "messengers of God." The latter term 
 was applicable to Noah, Abraham, and many others, whom 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews describes as having seen and 
 greeted the promises "from afar'' Jesus Himself says 
 concerning the Baptist that he is " greater than a prophet" 
 because he is the "messenger" predicted by Malachi. "^ 
 Matthew — who occasionally (162) shows a tendency to 
 paraphrase — may have habitually paraphrased " messengers 
 of God," as " righteous persons." But it has been shown 
 above (105) that "messenger" or "angel" (hn^d) is 
 frequently confused with " king " (nf?D) and was thus confused 
 by the Chronicler in the story of Araunah. Luke appears 
 to have been misled here by this confusion. In other 
 passages where " king " is an impossible rendering, he omits 
 the word and its context.^ 
 
 The second {U) of these alternatives appears the more 
 probable. But the first («) is preferable to the view that Jesus 
 coupled " kings " with " prophets," while tacitly excluding 
 Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and all the rest (David alone 
 excepted) of the " great cloud of witnesses." ^ 
 
 * 2 Chr. xxxvi. i6, Mt. xi. 9, Mai. iii. i, "messenger": comp. Hag. i. 13, "the 
 Lord's messenger {i.e. the prophet Hs^gai) in the Lord's message," dyyeXos 
 Ku/Dfov ill &yyi\oK Kvpiov. 
 
 ^ It is, however, possible that "prophets and righteous," wherever the phrase 
 occurs, may be a conflation from one original phrase, "messengers of God." 
 This might be interpreted by some as simply "prophets " — the reading of Syr. Cur. 
 in Lk. X. 24 and in TertulL adv. Marc. iv. 25 (quoted by Resch, ad. he.) — by others 
 (Euseb. H.E. x. i. 4) conflated as "righteous and witnesses of God." Since 
 "messengers" = "angels,"' this might give rise to the Petrine tradition, which 
 after saying (l Pet. i. 10) "the/>-o/A«;jsought and searched diligently," adds (i. 12) 
 " which things the angels desire to look into." And Mt.'s saying about 
 "receiving a righteous man '' may be another form of the tradition about (Heb. xiii. 
 2) " entertaining angels unawares." If the original was " messengers of God," 
 Luke may have conflated the interpretation "prophets" with an alternative 
 " kings " taken from the margin. ' Heb. xii. 1. 
 
CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM [272 (ii)] 
 
 § 1 8. Conclusion 
 
 [272 (ii)] The preceding pages make no attempt to 
 answer questions as to the length of time necessary to 
 produce our present Synoptic Gospels out of a combination 
 of (i) written Hebrew Logia, (ii) various written interpreta- 
 tions of them in Aramaic and Greek, (iii) oral tradition in 
 Aramaic and Hebrew : nor do they aim at analysing the 
 Gospels into their (supposed) constituent parts, and assigning 
 to each part its due authority. Interesting and important 
 though these questions are, they must wait for their answer 
 till students have agreed on what may seem to the general 
 reader the comparatively uninteresting question discussed in 
 this work : " Has, or has not, mistranslation been at work, 
 producing divergences in the Gospels ? " It would be easy 
 to show, for example, that five years have sufficed to produce 
 marvellous differences in apparently honest writers, recording 
 the life and death of Beckett But such discussions, though 
 they might apparently lead us swiftly and straight to 
 fairly probable conclusions, would in the end be found to be 
 very circuitous, or possibly to take us backward instead of 
 forward. Internal evidence is a very slow guide, but a much 
 safer one. 
 
 It is believed by the author that an amount of internal 
 evidence has been brought before the reader to make it 
 probable in some passages, highly probable in others, 
 and almost certain in a few, that Synoptic discrepancies 
 sprang from Hebrew mistranslated into Greek, and that the 
 total result demonstrates that the Synoptic Gospels are in 
 parts based on a Hebrew original. Nothing in this demon- 
 stration has been made to depend upon a theory as to the 
 priority of this or that Gospel : but the conviction that 
 Mark contains the Greek tradition from which (when slightly 
 
 1 St. Thomas of Canterbury, His Death and Miracles, par. 838, A. and C. 
 Black, 1898. 
 
 IS7 
 
[272 (ii)] CONFUSIONS OF IDIOM 
 
 corrected) Matthew and Luke have borrowed, has been 
 allowed weight so far as this, that Mark's text has been 
 printed before the other two, and has been taken, hypotheti- 
 cally, as the earliest of the three Greek renderings. 
 
 Part II. of this series will aim at demonstrating the 
 truth of this conviction. But it will also incidentally bring 
 forward a great many more instances of Synoptic discrepancy 
 explained by mistranslation. 
 
 THE END 
 
 Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Ediidmrgh. 
 
In two vols., demy %vo., doth, price 24J. 
 
 t C|)oma0 of Canterbury: 
 
 HIS DEATH AND MIRACLES. 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWIN A. ABBOTT, M.A., D.D., 
 
 FORMERLY FELLOW OF ST. JOHN's COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 AND HULSEAN LECTURER ; 
 
 AUTHOR OP 'CLUE,* *THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK,' ' PHILOCHRISTUS,' ' ON ESI M US. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES 
 Illustrated with a Photogravure Frontispiece. 
 
 "It is clear that I cannot say much of these six hundred and sixty large pages 
 in the same number of lines. But I would commend them to students of the New 
 Testament, to critics and theologians, as furnishing, with admirable candour, no 
 small addition to their means of following out certain long-debated problems, until 
 they arrive at a solution which shall be true to the evidence. " — Bookman. 
 
 ' ' A couple of volumes singularly interesting, not only for their naive human 
 matter and for their important critical implications, but also for the admirably 
 scholarly and sympathetic treatment which he has given them." — Academy. 
 
 "Dr. Abbott's book on St. Thomas of Canterbury is one of the most striking 
 contributions, in my belief, to the history of testimony that has ever been made." — 
 Inquirer. 
 
 ' ' A thoughtful and eminently scholarly work ... a -work which the student 
 of theology, history, and sociology will regard as one of interest and importance." — 
 Scotsman. 
 
 ' ' The critical discernment of Dr. Abbott, the candour and fairness of his criticism, 
 his moderation in tone, and his freedom from partisan prejudice, deserve our warmest 
 praise. " — Daily News. 
 
 "It is extremely thorough and remarkably accurate ; a little hypercritical, no 
 doubt, but very acute and suggestive." — Guardian. 
 
 "As to the interest of the story, the scholarly and scientific treatment of his 
 materials, and the great value of the book, no doubt can be entertained. — Standard. 
 
 ' ' It should find a place in the library of every clergyman, for it must stimulate 
 inquiry and open out fresh lines of thought, and to any serious student of ecclesias- 
 tical history the book will be of special value. " — Morning Post. 
 
 A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON. 
 
THE LATEST BIBLE DICTIONARY. 
 
 VOL. I.— A to D, VOL. IL— E to K. 
 
 Now ready. Ready Jan. 1901. 
 
 To be completed In Four Volnmes, Super-Royal 8to, 11 1)7 7} incheB. 
 
 Cloth, Price ZOs. net eacb; Half-leather, Price 25b. net each; 
 
 Full leather. Price 30s. net each. 
 
 For the convenience of Subscribers who wish to bind the work in One Volume wh4n compute^ 
 an edition will also be issued on thin paper j in paper boards with leather backs. 
 
 Encyclopaedia Biblica: 
 
 A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D. 
 
 ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OP HOLY SCRIPTURE AT OXFORD, 
 AND FORMERLY FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE; CANON OF ROCHESTER 
 
 AND 
 
 J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D. 
 
 ASSISTANT BDITOR OF THE ' ENCYCLOP.EDIA BEITANNICA' 
 
 SCOPE OF THE WORK 
 
 The primary aim has been to supply a much felt want by applying to every 
 detail within the scope of a Bible Dictionary the most exact scientific methods now in 
 use, so as to provide, in dictionary form, completely yet concisely, the results of a 
 thorough-going critical study of the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 Whilst the Bncyclofadia Biblica is meant for the student, <^er readers have 
 constantly been kept in view. The details that are so valuable for one reader are of- 
 much less, if any, use to another. Such matters have, therefore, been given as a 
 rule in smaller type, and any one who wishes to do so can usually learn the general 
 meaning of an article by reading simply the large type parts. 
 
 The work has, on the whole, proceeded simultaneously throughout the alphabet, 
 so that all the articles, from the largest to the very smallest, might be collated with 
 each other in as far as they are mutually dependent or illustrative, — the results of 
 this collation being given in very full references to the numeric^ section of the 
 cognate article. 
 
 Press Opinions 
 
 " Certainly no book could convey a truer idea of the results of modem criticism or could afford 
 a better discipline in its methods than this Encyclopaedia. Here one has under his eye in a nu>st 
 convenient form the utmost that a critical scholarship has accom_plished for the understanding of 
 the Bible. There is brought together a mass of information, critically sifted, skilfully arran^d, 
 and stated with admirable condensation and lucidity, such as no individual student could possibly 
 acquire for himself, and which in many instances has been unearthed from the most recondite ana 
 well-nigh inaccessible sources." — Professor Marcus Dods, D.D., in The Bookman. 
 
 '' We have no hesitation in saying it is one of the most valuable additions to biblical literature 
 of our time, and all who desire to closely study and keep up with the textual criticism and bibUcal 
 archaeology of our day should add the Encyclopadia Biblica to their library." — The ChurtA 
 Family Newspaper. 
 
 A detailed Prospectus of the Work will be forwarded on application to 
 A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON. 
 
I ii 
 
 
 4 
 
 I! 
 
 ! 
 
 
 liiiiiii 
 
 i 
 
 lili 
 
 , IM'l.fhuiliM'll 
 
 •ma 
 
 Itiiilliiiill 
 
 iiijiiijiiiiiijiill 
 
 mil