Nr. 94 and
ficial honey, made from boiled fruits (dates, raisins figs), and to which the Arabs pvo the n.-vme of rffft. (the phonetic equivaU.,1 ..I ILK ^-- honey rof bees]) it is not impossil.U- ili.-t n wus kno^n to the Israelites and the .l,;«~; Lm ^ve '-ave no decisive Biblical proof of tins (<• .0^. i;;/ n^^^^- 3 • Urquhart, The Lebanon, 18b0, gren, Guide Franqais-Arabe, col. !
^^The two parallel pa.ssages cited above, relating to the food of John the Baptist, a^-e the only ones in the Gospels in which the word ^i\^, 'honey, is found. Wild honey (m^X' StP'o.-) is named along with locusts as forming the very simple and finigal sustenance of an a^scetic, a ^a7.lnte, such as John was.* Further, in another Gospel passage (i^k
d;^^;s^x!^^«~'r^'^^(HS
HONOUR
HOPE
747
24''") there is mention, at least in the TR and AV, of a piece 'of a honeycomb' (awb iiiKiaalov K-rjpiov) as liaving lieen ottered along with ' a piece of broiled iish ' to Jesus after His resurrection. But a number of the most ancient MSS of the NT (XABDLn) do not contain the former phrase, and the disposition of modern commentators, almost without exception, is to consider it as an addition. 'A singular interpolation, evidontly from an ex- traneous source, written or oral," s:i\- >\'.'si.-..t( and Hort. The RV omits it. lim ilii- mnhod of solving the problem cannot bu icu.u.li-.l ;is ^atis■ factory and final. In fact, if it is very liard to imagine, to use the language of Dean Burgon, ' that such a clause as tliat established itself univer- sally in the sacred text, if it be spurious,' it is much less difficult to explain ' how such a clause became omitted from any manuscript, if it be genuine.' One can discover no possible motive for the surreptitious introduction of these words into the text. On tlie other liaiid, if (licy are regarded as an integral part of llic pi iinii im-'iukI authentic text, it is not iiiipossililc lo .lisi'iitnnuhj the reason of their suppression in s.iuk! MSS. With a view to this we must ])lace the narrative of Lk 24'""* alongside of Jn 21'-'-'^, compare these two descrip- tions of a meal, and note that in many of the writings of the Fathers, and probably in various attempts to establish ' harmonies of the Four Gospels' (but not in the Diatcssaron of Tatian), these two .scenes are in fact identified (although they differ in all their essential features). Now, perhaps, we may be able to explain how the mention of the honeycomb came to disappear. The influ- ence of Lv 2"'-, which forbids the use of honey (probably because easily subject to fermentation) in any kind of sacrifice ; that of the allegorical interpretation of Ca 5' (especially in the LXX version) applied to Christ ; an ascetic tendency to proscribe sweet foods ; the possible intervention of the Valentinians with their Vcritatis EvanrjcUmn ; and, finally, the proneness to polemize against the Gnostics, who made large use of honey in their solemn 'mysteries' (cf. Carl Schmidt, Gno.itischa Schriftan, in koptischcr Sprachc, Leipzig, 1892, pp. 203, 508), and who may have apjpealed for support to this text ; — such are the motives which, either singly or all combined, may have brought about the rernoval of the disputed words. The present writer is strongly inclined, in common with the three authors cited below in the Literature, to retain them as authentic.
Literature.— Burgon-Miller, The Traditional Text of thc Hohj Gospels, London, 1896, Appendix I. 'Honeycomb,' pp. 240- 252 ; Merx, Etjanq. des Markus utvi Lukas, Berlin, 1905, i>p. 640-543 ; Nestle, ThLZ, 1906, col. 40. See also, for bees, Bochart, Hicroz. ii. 502 il. ; J. G. Wood, 'Bible Animals, 1869, pp. 605-612 ; Tristram, Nat. Hist, of the Bible^, 1889, pp. 322-326.
LUCIEN Gautier.
HONOUR. — The codes of technical ' honour ' are largely opposed to the teaching of Christ (Mt 5, Lk 6='). Therefore such conceptions of ' honour ' must be regarded as briers choking the word (Mk 4'") ; for whatever justification codes of ' honour ' may claim (as from Mt 7'^), they are impatient of the spirit of meekness inculcate'd by Christ in pre- cept (Mt 53") and in examjjle (Mt 27). So the Sons of Thunder would Have vindicated summarily the honour of their Master (Lk 9'^^). More generally, in the quest of honour, it is honour from God and not from men that is to be sought by the Christian — the glory of God rather than of"men (Jn V2*'''). Worldly honour may be a source of severest temptation (Lk 4'), for the disciple is not greater than his Master wliose sinlessness was thus brought
from a tree. To collect nourishment of this kind in the thickets along the Jordan would have been an easier task for the Baptist, and would have required lees time, than to hunt for the honey of bees (of. Berggren, op. cit. col. 664).
to view (Mt 10^). Honour from God the Christian disciple will have : ' If any man will serve me, him will my Father honour ' ( Jn 12-"). And to be invited to the marriage-supper of the King's Son is a greater honour than any this world att'ords (Mt 22). But this honour and blessing from God contrasts with the dishonour and scorn that the world is ready to shower upon followers of One who was despised and rejected. The wicked husbandmen did not honour the son of the lord of the vineyard (Mk 12") ; they killed him and put him to shame (Mk 15). The Christian therefore must not be found