VII. Intellegite ergo, filii dilecti, quia omnia bonus. dominus ostendit nobis, ut sciremus cui per omnia gratias 2 agere debeamus. si ergo filius dei, cum sit dominus qui incipiet iudicare vivos et mortuos, passus est ut plaga illius vivificaret nos: credamus quia filius non poterat 48. 3 pati nisi propter nos. sed et potatur aceto et felle. Mt. xxvii. 34, audite quemadmodum de hoc significaverint sacerdotes templi. inscripta lege praecepti, ut si quis non ieiunaret Lev. xxiii. 29. ieiunium, morte moreretur, praecepit dominus, quia ipse pro peccatis nostris incipiebat vas spiritus sui offerre hostiam, ut et figuram quae fuerat sub Isaac, qui oblatus 4 est ad aram, consummaret. Quid dicit propheta? Et manducent de hirco quem oblaturi sunt ad ieiunium pro omnibus peccatis. adtendite diligenter: Et manducent 5 sacerdotes soli intestinum non lotum cum aceto. ad quid? 1. 2 Cui. cum cod. says simply, o dè ouk ëλaße. Matt. xxvii. 34 reconciles the two, saying Jesus tasted the vinegar, but refused to drink. Tεpаvéρwкаv. NBCOV all agree in this form, which is found in N.T. Winer, § 13, 2 c. Evroλns. Lev. xxiii. 29, though the actual words differ. Kúpos, emphatic. It was the Lord that gave, inspired the command ment. τὸ σκεῦος τοῦ πνεύμ. Not a mere paraphrase for the body (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 7; 1 Thess. iv. 4), but regarding the Incarnate Christ as specifically the Vessel of the Spirit. For σKEÛOS v. xxi. 8, note. 4. Aéye, saith He. The ceremonial commandment is represented as coming from God. καὶ φαγέτωσαν. The command is not found in the O.T. nor in any surviving apocryphal writer. That some definite writing is referred to, not mere oral Jewish tradition (the deurépwols of which Aug. speaks, 7. 12 Quid. qui cod. contr. Adv. Leg. II. i.), is clear from The general reference throughout τὸ ἔντερον. Not the intestines, which were not of course eaten by the priests, but the flesh. To translate Heb. D. The writer perhaps uses the word as dwelling on the disagreeable nature of the meal, ἄπλυτον—μετὰ ὄξους. The injunction is contrary to the law, which ordains (Lev. xvi. 27) that the sacrificed goat should be burnt in the fire with the skin, flesh and dung. Irregularities must have begun to creep into the performance of the ceremonial; it hardly seems satisfactory to attribute a precise quotation of this kind to sq. ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν μέλλοντα τοῦ λαοῦ μου τοῦ καινοῦ προσφέρειν τὴν σάρκα μου, μέλλετε ποτίζειν χολὴν μετὰ ὄξους, φάγετε ὑμεῖς μόνοι, τοῦ λαοῦ νηστεύοντος καὶ κοπτομένου ἐπὶ σάκκου καὶ σποδοῦ· ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ 6 παθεῖν ὑπ ̓ αὐτῶν. Πῶς οὖν ἐνετείλατο, προσέχετε Λάβετε Δύο τρόπους καλος καὶ ὁμοίους καὶ προσενέγκατε, καὶ λαβέτω 7 ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸν ἕνα εἰς ὁλοκαύτωμα ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν. τὸν δὲ ἕνα τί ποιήσωσιν; ἐπικατάρατος, φησίν, ὁ εἷς. προσέχετε πῶς 8 ὁ τύπος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ φανεροῦται καὶ ἐμπτύσατε πάντες καὶ ΚΑΤΑΚΕΝΤΗσατε, καί περίθετε τὸ ἔριον τὸ ΚΟΚΚΙΝΟΝ περὶ ΤΗΝ the ignorance of the writer. Donaldson, Apost. Fathers, cap. IV. 206 pp., and others do so apparently without misgiving. Cf. Dissert. p. xliii. On the subject of the author's apparent ignorance of ritual law, cf. O. Braunsberger's Der Apostel Barnabas, Sein Leben und der ihm beigelegte Brief. Sect. VI. §§ 1-3, P. 253 pp., where the writer attempts (not without plausibility) to show that these supposed errors ought really to be regarded as genuine additions to our knowledge of Jewish Antiquities. 5. Our author refers the distasteful character of the priest's meal, as also the fasting and sorrowing people, typically to the sufferings of Christ, the accompaniment of the vinegar finding its literal fulfilment at the Crucifixion. In tracing the significance of the type he dwells but lightly on the goat which was sacrificed-except as regards the likeness of the two goats, which he regards as typical of the likeness of the triumphant Christ at his second coming to the suffering Christ upon the Cross. The principal points he notices with regard to the second goat, the scapegoat, are (besides those mentioned above) the contumely of piercing and spitting heaped upon it, the scarlet wool bound round its head as the scarlet robe about Christ's body, and further the portion of wool put among the thorns, signifying that we must not shrink from the thorns of suffering if we would lay hold upon Christ. To the crown of thorns, we may note, he makes no reference. Cf. Dissert. p. xlv. Tert. adv. Jud. XIV. gives a strikingly similar explanation of type. It will be well to quote his words: Sic enim et duorum hircorum, qui ieiunio offerebantur, faciam interpretationem. nonne et illi utrumque ordinem nominis Christi, qui iam venit, ostendunt? pares quidem atque consimiles propter eundem Domini conspectum, quia non in alia venturus est forma, ut qui agnosci habet a quibus et laesus est. unus autem eorum circumdatus coccino, maledictus et consputatus et convulsus et compunctus a populo extra civitatem abiciebatur in perditionem, manifestis notatus insignibus Christi passionis, qui coccinea circumdatus veste et consputatus et omnibus contumeliis afflictus extra civitatem crucifixus est. alter vero pro delictis oblatus, et sacerdotibus tantum templi in pabulum datus, secundae repraesentationis argumenta signabat, qua delictis omnibus expiatis sacerdotes templi spiritalis, id est ecclesiae, dominicae gratiae quasi visceratione Quoniam me pro peccatis populi mei incipientem offerre corpus meum potabitis acetum cum felle: manducate vos soli, populo ieiunante, et plangite vos in cilicio et 6 cinere. et ut ostenderet quia ab illis debet pati, sic praecepit: Sumite hircos duos bonos similes et offerte, et Lev. xvi. 7 7 accipiant sacerdotes unum holocaustum pro peccatis, alium autem in maledictione. adtendite quomodo figura Iesu 8 ostendebatur. Expuite in illum, inquit, omnes et pungite, et inponite lanam coccineam circa caput illius, et sic in sq. quadam fruerentur, ieiunantibus ceteris a salute. He repeats the same words adv. Marc. III. 7. Just. Mart., Dial. 40, doubtless quite independently, regards the two similar goats as types of the first and second coming of Christ. τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ καινοῦ. Not of course necessarily exclusive of those under the Old covenant. The chosen people (Maós) might, no less than others, become a part of the new people, ὁ καινὸς λαός, of Christ. ὑμεῖς. Sc. οἱ ἱερεῖς, as supr. 6. καλοὺς καὶ ὁμοίους. There is no such direction in Lev. xvi., but the oμoloтns is insisted on in the Mischna. So too Cyril, Just. Mart., Tert. o eis, o els... Winer, § 26, 2. It is repeated in v. 9. Cf. xii. 2. 7. τὸν δὲ ἕνα. Dismissing the goat of sacrifice, he considers more in detail the type of the scapegoat. v. note on v. 5. Karάparos. For the IN, which our author translates by πɩKaтúρаTOs, and Tert. by maledictus, the LXX. and Greek fathers have ἀποπομπαίος, probably combining the notions of the scape-goat as banished into the wilderness, and also as averting evil. Cf. &Tотроπαῖος. ἀποπομπαίος is used of propitiatory offerings, as also of the Dii averrunci. Vulg. gives simply emissarius. - The word ἐπικατάρατος is used of the legal curse by S. Paul quoting from Deut. in Gal. iii. 10, 13with the first of which, cf. John vii. 49. The LXX. uses it of the snake and of the ground in Gen. iii. 14, 17. 8. ἐμπτύσατε. The imperatives are not parallel with the προσέχετε, but like preceding λάβετε and προσEvéуKaтe are part of the Commandment. There is no such command in the O.T., and the Talmud only sanctions that part of it relating to the red wool. Of its maltreatment there is no trace in Bible or Talmud; indeed special provisions necessarily excluded it. The High Priest merely pronounced the confession over it, and while the other priests and people prayed, the goat was handed over to the man appointed to lead it away. κατακεντήσατε. Cf. ἐξεκέντησαν, Joh. xix. 37. Cf. Rev. i. 7-with ref. to Zech. xii. 10. κόκκινον. The actual word is used Matt. xxvii. 28, of the scarlet robe worn by Jesus, corresponding to the Toppúpa of Mk. xv. 17, 20; Joh. xix. 2. The author probably had S. Matthew in his mind. plov. So among the Romans a fillet of wool was bound upon the consecrated victim probably in sign of cleansing, though wool itself κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὕτως εἰς ἔΡΗΜΟΝ βληθήτω· καὶ ὅταν γένηται οὕτως, ἄγει ὁ βαστάζων τὸν τράγον εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, καὶ ἀφαιρεῖ τὸ ἔριον καὶ ἐπιτίθησιν αὐτὸ ἐπὶ φρύγανον τὸ λεγόμενον ῥαχία, οὗ καὶ τοὺς βλαστοὺς εἰώθαμεν τρώγειν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ εὑρίσκοντες. οὕτως μόνης ταύτης τῆς ῥάχους 9 οἱ καρποὶ γλυκεῖς εἰσίν. τί οὖν τοῦτό ἐστιν; προσέχετε ΤΟΝ Μὲ ἕνα ἐπὶ τὸ θγιαστήριον, Τὸν δὲ ἕνα ἐπικατάρατον, καὶ ὅτι τὸν ἐπικατάρατον ἐστεφανωμένον· ἐπειδὴ ὄψονται αὐτὸν τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τὸν ποδήρη ἔχοντα τὸν κόκκινον περὶ τὴν σάρκα, καὶ ἐροῦσιν· Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὅν ποτε ἡμεῖς ἐσταυρώσαμεν ἐξουθενήσαντες καὶ ἐμπτύσαντες καὶ κατακεντήσαντες; ἀληθῶς οὗτος ἦν ὁ τότε λέγων ἑαυτὸν υἱὸν 1ο τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι. πῶς γὰρ ὅμοιος ἐκείνῳ; εἰς τοῦτο ὁμοίους τοὺς τράγογς καὶ ἴcorc, ἵνα ὅταν ἴδωσιν αὐτὸν τότε ἐρχόμενον, ἐκπλαγῶσιν ἐπὶ τῇ ὁμοιότητι τοῦ τράγου. οὐκοῦν in the religious service of the Jews was often regarded as the reverse of clean. Cf. Ezek. xliv. 17, 18. But we may compare Isai. i. 18. βαστάζων. Not of literal carrying, but in wider sense of ἄγων. ῥαχία. ῥαχήλ Ν. ῥαχίλ BCOV. ῥαχίη and ῥαχίηλ, and Gebhardt's ῥαχία, are read by various Edd., but without direct MS. support. ῥαχίηλ seems fairly probable. Müller reads ῥαχίη (sc. ῥαχία), which is used, Soph. Fr. 934, like ῥάχιs, of a sharp, spiky mountain-ridge. It is closely akin to paxós, which means a thornbush or branch. Müller supposes the term paxin to have been applied by Hellenists to the rock from which in the later ceremonial the goat was thrown down, and on which a portion of the wool was previously laid; and that our author transferred the term so used to the thorn-branch, which was strictly paxós not paxin. The explanation seems far-fetched, and probably not right, but none better is suggested. Between Gebhardt's PAXIA and the MS. PAXIA, the difference is of course very slight. τοὺς βλαστούς. Prop. the shoots, here apparently used generally for the produce or fruit. ταύτης. The Gk. MSS. agree one and all in reading οὕτως. The emendation ταύτης is a simple conjectural insertion first added by Voss, and even though supported by huius of the Lat. version seems violent. Nor, so far as I can see, does the sense absolutely_require it, though somewhat benefited by its presence. I cannot help thinking that this sentence is an old marginal gloss of some copyist by way of note on the preceding words. Το explain τρώγειν τοὺς βλαστοὺς and ῥαχία, he writes: with the ῥαχός alone is it the case that the berries are sweet in the way mentioned and his remark has slipped into the text. ῥάχους. So the MSS., but the Edd. rightly I think paxoû. It is hard to see how ῥάχους can be fem. 9. τὸν μὲν ἕνα. Not really an áram ponatur; et cum ita factum fuerit, adducat qui ferat hircum in eremum et auferat lanam et ponat illam in stirpem quae dicitur rubus, cuius et fructus in agris. adsuevimus invenientes manducare. huius stirpis dulces 9 fructus inveniuntur. ad quid ergo hoc? adtendite : Unum ad aram, alium tamquam maledictum; et quare is qui maledictus coronatus? quia videbunt illum tunc in illa die clamidem habentem coccineam circa corpus, et dicent: Nonne hic est quem nos crucifiximus fastidientes et conspuentes et conpungentes? vere hic fuit IO qui tunc se dicebat esse filium dei. sicut ergo similis, sic similes hircos et aequales, ut cum viderint unum ex illis tunc pascentem, admirentur in similitudinem capri. 7. 2 Lanam om. cod. 7. I Adducat. adducite cod. adducit al. edd. accus. absolute, but the words of ÖT. Mark of quotation, simply equivalent to inverted commas in English. Ŏovral. For very similar passages, cf. Matt. xxiv. 30; Joh. xix. 37; Apoc. i. 7. Todýpη is similarly used as subst. in the very parallel Apoc. i. 13. Strictly of course it is an adj., with πέπλος οι χιτών understood. κόκκινον. Doubtless this colour is ascribed with ref. to Matt. xxvii. 28; v. note on last verse. It was regarded of course as the sign of sovereignty—and is not rare in representations of the Last Judgment. Ó TÓTE λÉYWV. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64; Mk. xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 70; though from the amount of verbal agreement I believe the passage really in the author's mind was the declaration of the centurion, Matt. xxviii. 54, ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος. IO. Ts. Not equal to us. The author is going to call attention to the true manner and significance of the likeness, and to show how it comes about in correspondence with the type. In ékeive. I believe the likeness insisted on is of Christ the sovereign Judge, to (exeivw) Christ suffering the humiliation of the cross. what fashion does Christ the Judge resemble that other Christ, Christ on the Cross? But ékeive may be taken of (1) Túπw, the type, (2) more specially, Tpάyw, the goat: the correspondence between Christ and the type being insisted on. ὁμοίους τοὺς τράγ., accus. once more of direct quotation. εἰς τοῦτο. Perhaps a stop should be put after eis TOûTO, which would then be the answer to Tŵs-and the explanatory quotation would begin at ὁμοίους, which would thus be thrown even more prominently at the forefront of the sentence. At present els TOûTO is awkward, for clearly the words would have no place in the original quotation. καὶ ἴσους. καλους ίσους Ν. καλους Kal σous rell. MSS. Gebhardt's emendation seems to me arbitrary, and to be certainly no improvement to the sense, |