paT/<r,<i« (Mk 1465, jn 1822) jg a blow inflicted with the open hand (cf. Field's Notes on the Traiisl. of the NT, p. 105). This is the most probable meaning, on the whole, though the dubiety of the reading in the former passage (i^ocXXov or i^ocXov, ix«,iJi.iix.vov or £X«/3(9w) introduces a slight element of uncertainty as to the sense.
4. Special points in the NT narratives.— Most
of the characteristic features in the various reports of the trial have already been noted, but it remains for us to glance briefly at the Evangelic records one by one. The Petrine tradition in Mk. (cf. Bennett in Expositor, Dec. 1906, p. 545 f.) is substantially reproduced in Mt., most of whose additions are of secondary historical importance. St. Luke, again, appears to have access to a special source for this part of his narrative, Avhile the Fourth Gospel presents a problem of peculiar in- tricacy, since its record of the Passion contains not merely elements whicli in form and content are plainly due to the writer's underlying religious aims, but also one or two passages wliich are either modelled upon the Lukan tradition or due to a good source which may have been known, at an earlier period, independently to St. Luke himself.
St. Mt.'s omission of the blindfolding of Jesus (26"*- "') is certainly remarkable, but it merely gives another view of the scene. We see Jesus pulled hither and thither l)y a crowd of exasperated
* Cf. the present writer's remarks in the Hibbert Journal (1903), p. 775 f.
t Cf. Andrew Lang's criticism in Magic and Reliqion, pp. 76f.,200f. ^^
X This is well put by Dr. J. Geflfcken in Hermes (1906), p. 220 f., and by VoUmer in ZNTW (1905) 194-198, criticising Reich.
fanatics, twisted from side to side, knocked about, struck behind His back, and jeeringly invited to guess who struck Him. The blindfolding makes the picture more dramatic, but not more intelligible. On the other hand, the introtluction of oi irpea^vrfpoi in -IV^- 2» (cf. 27*"), and of rbv Xeyd/jLevov Xpiardv (27^-), is probably due to the author's characteristic desire to accentuate the Jewish details, Avhile changes such as the omission of Mark's fa\ourite ijp^avTo (26«''- ■?! 27-'^), or the substitution of aorists for im- perfects (26''"- **'• ■'-• ''^ 27^"- ^■*), are simply literary and stylistic, adding nothing to the real sense of the narrative. Evidently the author or editor of Matthew had not access to any wider channel of authentic information than he found in the Markan tradition. At one point it is possil>le that the canonical text of Mark has even been enriched from Matthew, for the words 6 ^anv Trpairdipwi' (Mk 15^®), as Prof. Menzies (The Earliest Gospel, p. 276) after Biandt observes, do nothing ' to make Mark's narrative clearer, but rather the opposite, and may have crept in first as a gloss on the margin from Matthew, where the statement appears to be that the soldiers took Jesus ottto another building, viz. to the prsetorium, and collected there the whole cohort.' See Blass in ExpT x. [1899] 185 f.
A much more significant and complex character belongs to the Lukan narrative. Thus the freedom with which the historian has treated the Markan narrative* may be gathered from the fact that his order, in the opening scenes of the trial (denials of Peter, mockery of Jesus, examination of Jesus), exactly reverses that of the earlier Gospels. He also forgets to mention that any evidence t was laid against Jesus (cf. 22^^), or that Jesus was ever bound — a point on which the Fourth Evangelist is more correct (Jn 18^-). Furthermore, he omits all reference to the saying about the destruction of the Temple, though it was plainly known to him (cf. Ac 6'''). Possibly an ' apologetic ' motive underlay this alteration. If Luke, writing after the destruction of the Temple, viewed it as a Divine judgment upon Israel, 'which might be regarded as inflicted by Jesus Himself, he might wish to avoid saying that the testimony ' of the wit- nesses 'was false,' and so left out the entire inquiry before the Council (EBi 1772). The attempt to trace an 'apologetic' element in 23^^, as though this meant the pact of Judaism and paganism against Christianity (cf. Ac 4^^), is rather beside the mark, however. Herod considered Jesus quite beneath his notice, no danger was to be apprehended from Him ; He was beneath hatred, though not below contemjit. Nor did Pilate regard the jjiisoner with enmity. It is indubitable, on the other hand, that St. Luke views the conduct of the peo2»le at this point in a more severe light than the other Gospels. He omits the sacerdotal device (cf. 23'* with Mk 15" and Mt 27^"), writing as though the people of their own accord demanded Barabbas (cf. also 22^6 231- 2- 13)^ at one in this with the high priests and the rulers, though possibly, in view of pa.ssages like IS**^ 19* 21^, we are to take the people here as supporters of the priests.^ The Fourth Evangelist, again, takes a slightly milder view of the people (cf. the omission in 19*^), and this leads us to notice the idiosyncrasies of the trial- story in that Gospel.
Here Peter (cf. vol. i. 444-445) is not the only
* Compare Sir John C. Hawkins in Expository Times, xv. [1903] 124 f. On Luke's omissions see EBi, col. 1793 f.