Xii — The Expositor's Greek Testament

δοό

e With ex ἡ δὲ οἰκία ' ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ µύρου.

here only.

4. λέγει οὖν εἷς ἐκ

~ a , τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, ᾿Ιούδας Σίμωνος ᾿Ισκαριώτης, ὅ µέλλων αὐτὸν

ΕΜΙ. αἰν.». παραδιδόναι, 5. “'Διατί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη τριακοσίων

g X. 13. h xiii. 29. 2 Chron.

δηναρίων, καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς;

πίστις, and rendered “ genuine,” γνήσιος, δόκιµος. Thus Euthymius, ἀκράτου καὶ καταπεπιστενυµένης Ets καθαρότητα, UN- adulterated and guaranteed pure. But πιστός is the common form; κ. Θηρικλέους πιστὸν τέκνον, Theopomp. in Com. Frag. dicates the name of the place where the nard was obtained. Thus Augustine: “Quod ait ‘pistici,’ locum aliquem credere debemus, unde hoc erat un- guentum pretiosum”. Similarly some modern scholars derive it from Opis (sc. Opistike), a Babylonian town. In the Classical Review (July, 1890) Mr. Bennett suggests that it should be written πιστακῆς, and that it refers to the Pistacia Terebinthus, which grows in Cyprus, Chios, and Palestine, and yields a turpentine in such _ inconsiderable quantities as to be very costly. The word is most fully discussed by Fritzsche on Mk. xiv. 3, who argues at great length and with much learning for the meaning “drinkable”. He quotes Athenaeus in proof that some ointments were drunk, mixed with wine. πιστός is the word commonly used for “potable,” as in Aesch., Prom. Vinct., 480, where Prometheus says man had no defence against disease οὔτε βρώσιμον, οὐ χριστὸν, οὔτε πιστόν. And Fritzsche holds that while πιστός means “ qui bibi potest,” πιστικό means “ qui facile bibi potest”. The weight and nature of the ointment are specified to give force to the added πολυτίµον ; see νετ. 5.--ἤλειψε τοὺς πόδας τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, Mt. and Mk. say “ the head,” which was the more natural but less significant, and in the circumstances less convenient, mode of disposing of the ointment.— κα. ἐξέμαξε . . . αὐτοῦ, ‘‘and wiped His feet with her hair”. Holtzmann thinks this an infelicitous combination of Mk. xiv. 3 and Lk. vii. 38 ; infelicitous b cause the anointing of the feet which was appropriate in the humbled penitent was not so in Mary’s case; and the dry- ig with her hair which was suitable where tears had fallen was unsuitable where anointing had taken place, for the unguent should have been allowed toremain. This, however, is infelicitous

Some suppose it in-.

criticism. In Aristoph., Wasps, 607, the daughter anoints her father’s feet: ἡ θυγάτηρ ... τὼ πόδ᾽ ἀλείφῃ; and if, as Fritzsche supposes, the ointment was liquid, there is nothing inappropriate but the reverse in the wiping with the hair. —7 δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ υροῦ, at once attracting attention and etraying the costliness of the offering. —Ver. 4. Hence the οὖν in ver. 4, λέγει οὖν εἷς . . . πτωχοῖς; “one” of His disciples. Matthew (xxvi. 8) leaves all the disciples under the reproach, which John transfers to Judas alone. On the designation of Judas see vi. 71. Westcott, however, with a harmonising tendency, says “' Judas expressed what others felt’’. But this is contradicted by the motive which John ascribes to Judas, ver. ϐ6.-- Διατί . . . δηναρίων. Three hundred denarii would equal a day labourer’s wage for one year.—Ver. 6. Εἶπε δὲ τοῦτο . . . ἐβάσταζεν. ‘ This he said, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief.” Before John could make this accusation, he must have kad proof; how or when we do not know. But the next clauses, being in the imperfect, imply that his pilfering was habitual.—ré γλωσσόκομον, ‘*the bag,” better ‘‘ the purse,”’ or “‘ box,”’ “loculos habens,” Vulgate. In the form γλωσσοκομεῖον (which Phrynichus de- clares to be the proper form, see Ruther- ford, p. 181) the word occurs in the Bacchae of Lysippus to denote a case for holding the tongue pieces of musical instruments (γλῶσσαι, κοµέω). Hence it came to be used of any box, chest, or coffer. In Sept. it occurs in 2 Sam. vi. 11 (Codd. A, 247, and Aquila) of the Ark of the Lord; in 2 Chron. xxiv. 8 of the chest for collections in the Temple. This chest had a hole in the lid, and the people cast in (ἐνέβαλον, cf. τὰ βαλλόμενα here) their contributions. (Further see Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, p. 42, and Field’s Otium Norvic., 68.)—7a βαλλό- µενα ἐβάσταζεν. The R.V. renders ‘‘took away what was put therein”, Certainly, to say that Judas had the money box and carried what was put therein is flat and tautological. And that ἐβάσταζεν can bear the sense of “ take