Matthew 22

Matthew 22:1-99

22:1. And Jesus answered again, and spake in parables to them, saving,

2. The kingdom of the heavens is likened to a human king, who made a marriage for his son.] For ὡμοιώθη , see on 13:24. For ἀνθρώπῳβασιλεῖ , 18:23.

(L) 3. And sent his servants to call the invited (guests) to the marriage: and they were unwilling to come.]

(L) 4. Again, he sent other servants, saying, Say to the invited (guests), Behold, my feast I have prepared: my oxen and fatlings are slaughtered, and all things are ready: come to the marriage.] For the double sending, cf. 21:36.

(LE) 5, 6. And they, neglecting (the invitation), went away, one to his estate, and one to his business: and the rest seized his servants, and ill-treated them, and killed them.]— ἴδιον ] here = the possessive pronoun; see Deissm. Bib. Stud. 123.

(E) 7. And the king was angry, and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city.]

6, 7. These verses may be due to the editor writing in remembrance of the death of the Baptist, the Crucifixion of the Messiah, the persecution of the Apostles, and the destruction of Jerusalem. v. 8 follows well upon v. 5. οὐκἦσανἄξιοι suits the indifferent guests of v. 5 much better than the executed murderers of v. 7. The verse expresses the editor’ s belief in the connection between the fall of Jerusalem and the Parousia. The marriage feast here follows the burning of the city.

(L) 8. Then he saith to his servants, The marriage feast is ready, but the invited (guests) were not worthy.]

(L) 9. Go therefore to the byways, and as many as ye shall find, invite to the marriage.]— διεξόδουςτῶνὁδῶν ] Cf. i. 199.

(L) 10. And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered all whom they found, both evil and good: and the marriage feast was supplied with guests.]— συνήγαγον ] is probably a translation of the Aram. root ב נ ם which in the Piel means to “ gather,” and in the Hiphil to “ bring in,” to “ invite.” The subst. ה ב נ ס ה means hospitality, e.g., ה ב נ ס ת א ו ד ח י ם , Shabb 127a, Peah, c. 1. πονηρούς prepares the way for vv. 11-14.— πονηρούςτεκαί ] τεκαί only here in Mt., τε occurs also in 27:48, 28:12.

1-10. So far the editor has adapted a Logian “ kingdom” parable to his context. In the original parable the story of a king who made a marriage feast and invited guests who were indifferent to the invitation, was used to describe the reception accorded to the good news of the coming kingdom of the heavens. By inserting vv. 6-7 the editor has adapted this, and brought it into line with Mark’ s parable of the Husbandmen, and the preceding parable of the Two Sons. The Jewish nation in the person of its rulers had refused to listen to God’ s call to repentance (21:32), had rejected the Messiah (v. 39), and had neglected the summons to the marriage feast (22:5). Consequently, judgement upon them was at hand.

Another people would receive their privileges (21:43, 22:10), whilst the Jewish metropolis, and with it the Jewish polity, would be destroyed, 22:7. The next four verses seem to be the closing paragraph of another parable. They are hardly suitable here as a conclusion of vv. 1-10, because the people invited in from the streets could hardly be expected to have provided themselves with festal attire. The parable to which 11-14 originally belonged no doubt spoke of an interval between the invitation and the feast, during which the guests were expected to make suitable preparations.

Such a parable is attributed to Jochanan ben Zaccai in Shabbath 153a, and to Judah ha Nasi in Midr. Koh 98 (Wü nsche, p. 122). A king invited his servants to a feast, but gave them no fixed time for the meal. The wise attired themselves fittingly, and waited at the palace door. The foolish went away to their work. Suddenly the king issued his summons. The wise came in their festal robes, and the foolish in their working clothes. These were made to stand and watch the wise enjoying the meal. Luke 14:15-24 has a parable of similar outline to Matthew 22:1-10. But the language and details are quite different. The two Evangelists clearly are not borrowing from the same written source.

(L) 11. And the king went in to behold the guests, and saw there a man not attired in a wedding garment.]— οὐκἐνδεδυμένον ] cf. Moulton, pp. 231 f.— θεάσασθαι ] cf. on 11:7.

(L) 12. And he saith to him, Friend, how camest thou in here not having a wedding garment? And he was reduced to silence.]— ἑταῖρε ] See on 20:13.

(L) 13. Then the king said to the servants, Bind him feet and hands, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the wailing and the gnashing of teeth.] Parable and fulfilment here intermingle. In the parable the rejected guest was dismissed from the palace with ignominy. But the editor has in mind the fulfilment of the parable in the expulsion of the unworthy from the kingdom into the darkness of Gehenna, cf. 13:41, 42, and gives the ending of the parable in terms more appropriate to its explanation and fulfilment. For τὸσκότος , κ .τ .λ . see on 8:12.

(L) 14. For many are called, but few chosen.] Vv. 11-14 do not seem to suit this connection. The editor has added them apparently because of the similarity of subject-matter, a wedding feast 1-10, a wedding garment 11-14. Vv. 1-l0 in this connection seem clearly prophetic of the fate of the Jewish nation. That is to say, this application is given to the parable by the context into which the editor has set it. But vv. 11-14 seem to have no bearing upon this application, unless we suppose that the editor found in the verses some such train of thought as the following.

The Jews as a nation would be punished for their rejection of God’ s call by the destruction of their national polity, vv. 1-9. Their privileges would be given to other people, v. 10; but though the invitation would be given to all, none would be admitted without the proper qualification, 11-14.

It seems clear that the parable from which 11-13 are taken originally had reference not to the Jewish nation at all, but to the Christian society waiting for the coming kingdom. During this period the disciples were to be in a state of readiness, because when the kingdom came all who were not prepared would be rejected. Compare the parable of the Tares, 13:24-30, 36-43, and that of the Virgins, 25:1-13. The wedding garment obviously symbolises a condition of readiness and equipment with the necessary qualification. What this is need not be further defined than by saying that it is the righteousness obtained by obedience to Christ’ s teaching, 5:20; or by doing the will of God, 7:21; or the moral qualifications which Christ recommends, 18:3; or confession of Him before men, 10:32. V. 14 seems to express this warning in a proverbial form.

Many are called to enter the kingdom, but comparatively few obtain the necessary qualifications, and are ultimately admitted. The words, though they express the same lesson of warning as vv. 11-13, do not seem very harmonious in form with them.

They may be a detached saying added here by the editor because of the verbal connection between κλητοί and κεκλημένοι , vv. 3, 4. The contrast between the few and the many is found in 2 Est 8:1 “ The Most High hath made this world for many, but the world to come for few” ; 8 “ There be many created, but few shall be saved” ; cf. 8:55 “ the multitude of them that perish” ; 9:15 “ there shall be more of them which perish, than of them which shall be saved” ; Apoc. Bar 44:15 “ the dwelling of the rest who are many will be in the fire.”

15-22. From Mark 12:13-17. See Gould in loc.

15. Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap Him in argument.]

(M) 16. And they send to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any man; for Thou regardest not the person of men.] Mk. has: “ And they send to Him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might ensnare Him in argument. And they came and say to Him, Teacher, We know that Thou art true, and carest not for any man; for Thou regardest not the person of men, but truly teachest the way of God.” In Mk. the “ they” must refer to the chief priests and elders and scribes, who have not been mentioned by name since 11:27. Mt., who throughout regards the Pharisees as the most bitter of Christ’ s opponents, and lays stress on their hostility, has inserted chief priests and Pharisees in 21:45, and reintroduces them here as the subject of the sentence. For τότε , see on 2:7. For πορευθέντες , see on 21:2; and for συμβούλιονἔλαβον , 12:14.

Mt. substitutes παγιδεύειν for Mk.’ s ἀγρεύειν . He retains here, unusually, Mk.’ s historic present, ἀποστέλλουσιν . He had omitted the Herodians from Mark 3:6, but retains them here because their presence adds point to the narrative. As supporters of Herod, they would have been glad to denounce to the Roman Government any one who agitated against the political status quo. The rearrangement of clauses in v. 16 brings together the two positive sentences followed by the two negative ones.— τὴνὁδόντοῦθεοῦ ] for ὅδον , see on 21:31. The way of God is the conduct or manner of life which God requires.

(M) 17. Tell us, therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute to Cœ sar or not?] Mk. omits the first clause, and adds δῶμενἢμὴσῶμεν . For τίσοιδοκεῖ , see on 17:25. For Mt.’ s omission of the redundant “ shall we give or not give,” see on 8:16; and for κῆνσος , 17:25.

(M) 18. And Jesus perceived their malice, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?] Mk. has: “ And He knew their hypocrisy, and said to them, Why tempt ye Me?” Mt. substitutes πονηρίαν for ὑπόκρισιν , but adds ὑποκριταί .

(M) 19. Show to Me the tribute coin. And they brought to Him a denarius.] Mk. has: “ Bring Me a denarius, that I may see it. And they brought (one).” Mk.’ s φέρετε may be due to the fact that Roman denarii would not be current in the Temple, and were, therefore, not likely to be found there. If so, Mt. with his ἐπιδείξατε misses the point. See Swete. For προσφέρειν , see Introduction, p. lxxxvi.

(M) 20. And He saith to them, Whose is this representation and legend? They say to Him, Cœ sar’ s.] Mk. has: “ And He saith to them, Whose is this representation and legend? And they said to Him, Cæ sar’ s.” For τότε , see 2:7.

(M) 21. Then He saith to them, Render therefore to Cæ sar the things of Cæ sar, and to God the things of God.] So Mk., with “ And Jesus said” and no οὖν , which occurs in Mk. about four times as against about fifty-six occurrences in Mt. For the meaning, see Swete.

(M) 22. And they heard (it), and marvelled, and left Him, and departed.] Mk. has: “ And they were marvelling at Him.” — ἐθαύμασαν ] aor. for Mk.’ s imperfect, as often.

15-22. Lk. agrees with Mt. in omitting δῶμενἢμὴδῶμεν from Mk v. 14; in δείξατε Luk_24 =Mat_19 ἐπιδείξατε against Mat_16 φέρετε ; and in the order ἀπόδοτε — τὰΚαίσαρος as against Mk.’ s τὰΚαίσαροςἀπόδοτε . Also in αὐτοῖς , Mat_21 = πρὸςαὐτούς , Luke 25.

23-33. From Mark 12:18-27.

(M) 23. On that day there came to Him Sadducees, saying that there is no resurrection, and they asked Him.] Mk. has: “ And there come Sadducees to Him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they were asking Him.” For ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ , see 13:1; προσῆλθον , see on 4:3. Mt. avoids Mk.’ s hist. pres. ἔρχονται , as often.— ἐπηρώτησαν ] Mt. avoids Mk.’ s imperf., as often.

(M) 24. Saying, Teacher, Moses said, If a man die, not having children, his brother should marry his wife, and raise up seed to his brother.] Mk. has: “ Saying, Teacher, Moses wrote for us, that if a man’ s brother die, and leave a wife, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother.” Mk.’ s Greek is awkward. In ἔγραψενὅτι — ἵνα there is a confusion of two constructions, and the threefold ἀδελφός obscures the meaning. Mt. substitutes τις for τινοςἀδελφός , thus getting rid of one ἀδελφός , omits the superfluous ἵνα , omits the unnecessary καὶκαταλίπῃγυναῖκα , and substitutes the technical ἐπιγαμβρεύειν for λάβῃ : cf. Genesis 38:8 γάμβρευσαιαὐτήν . In Leviticus 18:16, Leviticus 20:21 marriage with a deceased brother’ s wife is forbidden.

But Deuteronomy 25:5-10 specifies certain circumstances under which it shall be the duty of a man to contract such a marriage.— μὴἔχωντέκνα ] The Heb. has simply “ son,” i.e. male issue. But the has σπέρμα , and (Ant. iv. 255) interpreted in this sense.

(M) 25. And there were with us seven brethren; and the first, having married, died, and not having seed, left his wife to his brother.] Mk. has: “ Seven brethren there were; and the first took a wife, and died, and left no seed.”

(M) 26. Likewise the second, and the third, to the seventh.] Mk. has: “ And the second took her, and died, not leaving seed. And the third likewise. And the seven left no seed.”

(M) 27. And last of all, the woman died.] So Mk. with ἔσχατον for ὕστερον . Mt. seven times has ὕστερον .

(M) 28. In the resurrection, therefore, of which of them shall she be wife, for all had her?] Mk. has: “ In the resurrection, of which of them shall she be wife, for the seven had her as wife?” Mt. avoids Mk.’ s repeated “ seven” and “ wife,” and inserts a connecting particle .

(M) 29. And Jesus answered and said to them, Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.] Mk. has: “ Jesus said to them, Do ye not therefore err,” etc. Christ’ s answer is twofold. In denying the possibility of a resurrection, and in supposing that imaginary complications arising out of earthly relationships could be used as an argument against it, they betrayed (a) insufficient knowledge of the law, which, if it did not explicitly teach the doctrine of the resurrection, yet did implicitly teach its possibility; (b) want of faith in the power of God to solve all such difficulties as they alleged. Broadly speaking, a belief in a resurrection was a fundamental doctrine of Jewish literature from the second century b.c. See Charles, Eschatology; Volz, Jü d.

Eschat. 240 ff.; Schü rer, II. ii. 179 ff. But very varied views were held as to its scope. The Sadducees denied it; see Jos. Wars, ii. 165; B. Sanh 90:b. So did the Samaritans, who were accused by the Jews of having falsified the Pentateuch in order to obliterate passages which taught it; Sanh 90:b.

Appeal was made on behalf of it to Scripture, e.g. in B. Sanh 90:b. R. Jochanan appeals to Numbers 18:28, from which it is deduced that Aaron is eternally living: “ Here is also the resurrection of the dead signified.” R. Simai appealed to Exodus 6:4 “ The Sadducees asked R. Gamaliel, Whence is it proved that the Holy One, blessed be He, will raise the dead?

He answered, From the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa.” There follow citations of Deu 31:16, Isaiah 26:19, and Son 7:10. “ He has no part in the world to come,” says the Mishnah (Sanh 10:1), “ who denies that the resurrection can be proved from the Pentateuch.”

(M) 30. For in the resurrection they do not marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.] Mk. has: “ For when they rise from the dead they do not marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in the heavens.” The point seems to be that, in the life which follows the resurrection, men will then be as the angels in heaven now are, immortal, and without need of marriage to propagate their kind.

(M) 31, 32. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, Have ye not read that which was said to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of dead (persons), but of living.] The inference seems to be that when the words were spoken the patriarchs were still living, and that their resurrection was a natural and probable corollary. Cf. the similar inference from Numbers 18:28 with reference to Aaron, quoted above from Sanh 90b. Mk. has: “ But concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, at the Bush how God spake to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob? He is not God of dead persons, but of living: ye greatly err.” The quotation is from Exodus 3:6.

(M) 33. And when the multitudes heard, they were astonished at His teaching.] The editor inserts here words which he has omitted from Mark 11:18 “ For all the multitude was astonished at His teaching.”

23-33. Lk. agrees with Mt. against Mk. in the following:

προσῆλθον , Mat_23 = προσελθόντες , Luke 27; ἔρχονται , Mark 18.

ἐπηρώτησαν , Mat_23, Luke 27; ἐπηρώτων , Mark 18.

ὕστερον , Mat_27, Luke 32; ἔσχατον , Mark 22.

εἶπεν , Matthew 29, Luke 34; ἔφη , Mark 24.

Both Mat_28 and Luke 33 insert οὖν , and both omit ἔλαβεναὐτήν , καὶἀπέθανενμὴκαταλιπὼνσπέρμα from Mark 21.

23. λέγοντες ] So א B. D 1 2 . The meaning seems to be that certain Sadducees came and denied that there was a resurrection. א c E F al have οἱλέγοντες ; but with this reading we should expect also οἱΣαδδουκαῖοι .

24. ἄγγελοι ] Add θεοῦ , א L. Omit B. D 1 209 latt S1 S2.

34-40. Cf. Mark 12:28-34.

(E) 34. And the Pharisees, having heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, were gathered together.]

(E) 35. And one of them asked Him, testing Him.]

Mk. here records the story of a scribe who, approving of Christ’ s answers, himself asked a question, and expressed great approval of the answer which he received. The story ends with a statement of Christ’ s appreciation of the character of His questioner. In Mt. the incident takes a different turn. The Pharisees gather together, and one of them puts a question to Christ, testing Him. The whole of Mk.’ s continuation of the narrative after Christ’ s answer is omitted. It is difficult to see in the continual mention of the Pharisees in Mt. any other purpose than a desire to prepare the way for the chapter of denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees which is to follow in ch. 23.

Cf. 21:45 “ the chief priests and the Pharisees,” 22:15 “ the Pharisees,” 34 “ the Pharisees,” 41 “ the Pharisees.” This may account for the unfavourable view taken here of Mk.’ s scribe. He was a Pharisee, and came to Christ with hostile intent. Consequently the approval expressed of him by Christ must be dropped, and with it goes what may have seemed to the editor the somewhat patronising words of the scribe in Mark 12:32, Mark 12:33. Cf. the omission of the reproachful οὐμέλεισοι from Mark 4:38 = Matthew 8:25, and of the somewhat sarcastic question from Mark 6:37 = Matthew 14:17.

In this way Matthew 22:34-40 might be explained as due to editorial revision of Mar 12:28-34. But another factor has to be taken into account. Lk. in the parallel to Mk. abbreviates the whole section into one sentence: “ And certain of the scribes answered and said, Teacher, Thou hast well said. For no one dared to ask Him anything.” Two reasons for this shortening may be conjectured— (a) Lk. found Mk.’ s narrative to be not free from objection; (b) he had already inserted a similar story free from the objectionable element in 10:25-27. Now, Luke 10:25-27 agrees in some points with Matthew 22:34-40 against Mar_12. In both, according to the usual text, the questioner is described as νομικός .

In both he comes to test Christ— πειράζων , Matthew 35; ἐκπειράζων , Luke 25. Both stories have a definite reference to the law, ἐντῷνόμῳ ; and both omit the quotation from Deuteronomy 6:4, and partially assimilate Mk.’ s quotation of Deu 6:5 to the Hebrew by substituting ἐν for Mk.’ s ἐκ (= LXX.). Lk., however, has both prepositions. These facts are rather difficult to explain. We might suppose that Mt. and Lk. were both acquainted with a narrative of a lawyer who came to tempt Christ. Lk. inserted it in ch. 10, and afterwards omitted the somewhat similar narrative of Mar_12, whilst Mt. substituted it for the story of Mar_12.

Or Mt.’ s text may be regarded as a revision of Mk.’ s, and Luke 10:25-27 may be entirely independent, or affected by reminiscence of Mt. and Mk. on the part of Lk.

(M?) 36. Teacher, what kind of commandment is great in the law?] Mk. has: “ What kind of commandment is first of all?” — ποῖος ] cf. 19:18. Or it is equivalent to τίς ; cf. 21:23ff., p. 241.

(M?) 37. And He said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.] Mk. has: “ Jesus answered that the first is, Hear, Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God from all thy heart, and from all thy soul, and from all thy mind, and from all thy strength.” The quotation is from Deuteronomy 6:5. The LXX. has “ from all thy mind , and from all thy soul, and from all thy power .” But A F Luc have καρδίας for διανοίας . Mk. seems to have conflated the two renderings, and to have substituted ἰσχύος for δυνάμεως . Mt., remembering the fact that there were only three clauses in the original, retains only the first three from Mk., and assimilates to the Hebrew by substituting ἐν for ἐκ .

(M?) 38. This is the great and first commandment.]

(M?) 39. A second similar one is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.] The quotation is from Leviticus 19:18, and has already been quoted in 19:19. This saying in a negative form is ascribed to Hillel in B. Shabb 31a “ What is hateful to thee, do not do to thy neighbour. That is the whole law. All else is commentary upon it.”

(M?) 40. On these two commandments hangeth the whole law, and the prophets.] Mk. has: “ Greater than these is no other commandment.”

Mt. here postpones Mark 34b to the end of the next section, where it suitably closes the whole series of questions.

34. έπὶτὸαὐτό ] D latt S1 S2 have έπ ʼ αὐτόν cf. 27:27 συνήγαγονἐπ ʼ αὑτόν . έπί has here a hostile significance, as in Acts 4:27. This reading gives an admirable sense, and ould be easily corrupted into ἐπὶτὸαὐτό : cf. Acts 4:26.

35. νομικός , Om. 1 e S1 Arm Orig. The word occurs seven times in Lk., not in Mk., nor elsewhere in Mt.

36. διανοίᾳ ] c S1 S2 have “ power” (c. virtute) = ἰσχῦι from Mk. S1 S2 also have “ from” for ἐν throughout, assimilating to Mk. (and the Pesh. VS. of Dt.).

41-45. From Mark 12:35-37a.

(M) 41. And when the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying.] Mk. has: “ And Jesus answered and said, as He taught in the temple.” For the emphasis on the Pharisees, cf. on v. 35. The collocation of συνήχθησαν , v. 34, with περὶτοῦΧριστοῦ , v. 42, suggests that very possibly the Evangelist had in mind Psalms 2:2.

(M) 42. What think ye about the Messiah? Whose Son is He? They say to Him, David’ s.] Mk. has: “ How say the scribes that the Messiah is David’ s Son?” — τίὑμῖνδοκεῖ ] cf. on 17:25. For λέγουσιναὐτῷ , cf. 19:7, 21:31, 22:21.

(M) 43. He saith to them, How then does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying?] Mk. has: “ David himself in the Holy Spirit said.” — ἐνπνεύματι ] i.e. by divine inspiration. Cf. “ David said in the Holy Spirit,” Schir ha-Schirim 21 (Wü nsche, p. 54), and see Bacher, Exeget. Termin. ii. 202.

(M) 44. The Lord said to My Lord, Sit at My right hand until I place Thy enemies underneath Thy feet.] So Mk. That is to say, “ there is a Psalm of David in which the writer speaks of the Messiah as Lord.” It is assumed that the Psalm is Davidic, and that it deals with the Messiah. The reference is to Psalms 110:1. Both Mt. and Mk. differ from the LXX. in omitting the article before κύριος , and in substituting ὑποκάτω for ὑποπόδιον .

(M) 45. If, therefore, David calls Him Lord, how is He His Son? Mk. has: “ David himself calls Him Lord, and whence is He His Son?” Christ here raises a difficulty which He does not solve. If the Messiah is David’ s Son, how is it that David, speaking by divine inspiration, ascribes to Him a divine title and divine prerogatives? The solution suggested, though not expressed, is that the Messiah is not only Son of David, but Son of God. See Words, pp. 285 f.

(M) 46. And no one could answer Him a word, nor did any one dare from that day to question Him any further.] Mk. has: “ And no one any further dared to question Him.”

Mt. and Lk. agree in the following:

αὐτούς , Matthew 41, Luke 41.

καλεῖ — πῶς , Matthew 45, Luke 44; λέγει — πόθεν , Mark 37.

Both insert οὖν , Matthew 45, Luke 44.

44. ὑποκἁτω ] א B D al b e h q S1 S2; ὑποπόδιον , E F al latt. In Mk. ὑποκάτω is read by B Dgr Td 28 S1, ὑποπόδιον by א A L al latt. Lk. has ὑποπόδιον here and in Acts 2:35.

editorial passages.

the Matthæ an Logia.

Herodotus.

Babylonian Talmud.

Cf. on 6:19, 18:7.

the Second Gospel.

In Deuteronomy 25:5 LXX. has καὶσυνοικήσειαὐτῇ for ו ְ י ִ ב ּ ְ מ ֶ ה , but Aq. has ἐπιγαμβρεύσει .

The Septuagint Version.

Josephus.

ἐντῷοὐρανῷ . Mk. has ἐντοῖςούρανοῖς , and the plural would accord with the usage of the first Gospel. Cf. 24:29, 36. 18:10. Mark 13:32 has the singular in this connection, and Mt. there substitutes the plural, so that the singular in 22:30 is all the more unexpected.

i.e. with other uncial MSS.

Syriac version: Sinaitic MS.

Syriac version: Curetonian.

Winer-Schmiedel.

quotations from the Old Testament borrowed from a collection of Messianic prophecies. See pp.61 f.

Cf. also Siphra on Leviticus 19:18 (Ugol. 853) “ Rabbi Akiba said, This is the greatest commandment in the law,” and Bereshith R. (Wü nsche, p. 112).

Dalman.

passages in which Mt. and Lk. agree closely, borrowed from an unknown source or sources.