\ - 7. καὶ εἶχον ἰχθύδια ὀλίγα: καὶ εὐλογήσας εἶπε παραθεῖναι
9 8. ἔφαγον δέ,” καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν’ καὶ ἦραν περισσεύ-
9. ἦσαν δὲ οἱ φαγόντες ὃ ὡς
τετρακισχίλιοι’ καὶ ἀπέλυσεν αὐτούς. 10. Καὶ εὐθέως ἐμβὰς εἲς τὸ πλοῖον μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ»
ἦλθεν εἰς τὰ µέρη Δαλμανουθά.
11. καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, καὶ
a 2) μη A A ο) ~ ἤρξαντο συζητεῖν αὐτῷ, Lytodvres παρ) αὐτοῦ σημεῖον ἀπὸ τοῦ.
οὐρανοῦ, πειράζοντες αὐτόν. αὐτοῦ λέγει, “Τί ἡ yeved αὕτη σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ”; ὑμῖν” εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον.
12. καὶ ἀναστενάξας τῷ πνεύµατι ἀμὴν λέγω 13. Καὶ ἀφεὶς
αὐτούς, ἐμβὰς πάλιν ὃ eis τὸ πλοῖον,ὃ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ πέραν.
14. Καὶ ἐπελάθοντο λαβεῖν ἄρτους, καὶ εἰ μὴ ἕνα ἄρτον οὐκ
εἶχον µεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ.
156. καὶ διεστέλλετο αὐτοῖς, λέγων,
1 Read καὶ ευλογησας αυτα ειπεν και ταυτα παρατιθεναι as in W.H.
2 και εφαγον in ΝΒΟΡΙΔ. 4 ζητει σηµειον in SBCDLA 33.
3 Omit οι day. NBLA 33. 5 BL omit υμιν (W.H. put in margin).
6 Read παλιν εµβας, and omit εις το πλ. (NSBCLA, Tisch., W.H.).
probably from Mark. In these two places only.—Ver. 8. περισσεύµατα κλασμάτων, the remainders of the broken pieces. Matthew uses the singular neuter, τὸ περισσεῦον, in both feedings.—omvpt- Sas: in both accounts of second feeding, κοφίνους in both accounts of first (Κόφινοι in Luke). On the difference in meaning, vide notes on Mt. xv. 37.—Ver. Io. Here as in case of first feeding there is a crossing of the lake immediately after (εὐθὺς, which has an obvious reason in first case). This time Jesus and the Twelve enter the boat together, at least in Mark’s narrative (μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν).--- Δαλμανουθά, in Matthew Μαγαδάν; both alike unknown: another of the features in this narrative which give a handle to critical doubt. Some place it on the western shore in the plain of Gennesaret (Furrer, “On the site of Khan Minyeh lay once Dalmanutha,” Wanderungen, p. 369); others to the south-east of the lake near the junction of the Yarmuk with the Jordan (Delhemiyeh, Robinson, B. R., iii. 264). Weiss (in Meyer) adopts this view. Holtzmann (Η. Ο.), while leaning to the former alternative, leaves the matter doubtful. f Vv. 11-12. Pharisees seek α sign (Mt. xvi. 1-4).—Ver. 11. ἐξῆλθον οἱ Φ., the Pharisees went out, from their seat in the Holy Land into the heathen Decapolis, otherwise carefully shunned, in their zeal against Jesus. So Weiss (im Meyer).—Ver. 12. ἄναστενάξας,
fetching a deep sigh, here only in Ν. T.; in Sept., Lament. i. 4, Sirach. xxv. 18, εἰο.---τῷ mvevpatt a., in His spirit. The sigh physical, its cause spiritual—a sense of irreconcilable enmity, invincible un- belief, and coming doom.—et δοθήσεται, if there shall be given = there shall not (ov) be given’ a Hebraistic form οἱ emphatic negative assertion. The sup- pressed apodosis is: may I die, or God punish me. Other instances in Heb. iii. II, iv.3,5. In Mark there is an absolute refusal of asign. In Matthew the refusal is qualified by offer of Jonah. But that was an-absolute refusal of signs in their sense.
Vv. 13-21. Warning against evil leavens (Mt. xvi. 4b-12).—Ver. 13. els τὸ πέραν, to the other side; which, east or west? Here again opinion is divided. The reference to Bethsaida, ver. 22, might be expected to decide, but then there is the dispute about the two Bethsaidas; Bethsaida Julias, and Bethsaida on the western shore. These points are among the obscurities of the Synoptical narratives which we are reluctantly compelled to leave in twilight. —Ver. 14. εἰ μὴ ἕνα ἄρτον: a curiously exact reminiscence where so much else that seems to us more important is left vague. But it shows that we have to do with reality, for the suggestion of the Tiabingen critics that it is a mere bit of word painting is not credible. The one loaf seems to witness to a Christ-like