Δέκατον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ἡ ἄγνοια, καὶ τὸ μηδένα γινώσκειν τὴν τελευταίαν ἡμέραν ἢ ὥραν, μηδὲ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτόν, εἰ μὴ τὸν πατέρα. καίτοι πῶς ἀγνοεῖ τι τῶν ὄντων ἡ σοφία, ὁ ποιητὴς τῶν αἰώνων, ὁ συντελεστὴς καὶ 14. 4 ιησουν] + χριστὸν ef II 8 η] ει acef2g ’duo Reg. quattuor Colb.’ 15. 12 ἐστι αὐτοῖς c || 15 σοφία] + η b 1. ἕως ἄν] Remembering what Gr. has said in § 4, we must not suppose him here to be fixing a terminus ad quem. 2. κατὰ σάρκα γιν.] 2 Cor. v 16. The explanatory clause, τὰ σάρκ’. λέγω π., shews that Gr. is not here concerned with our knowledge, but only with ’s condition : γινώσκηται, but for the text of 2 Cor., might as well be ἦ. 3. χ. τῆς ἁμαρτίας] Heb. iv 15. 4. καὶ παράκλητον] 1 John ii 1. The καὶ does not indicate a new thought, ΟnΙγ a new text. 5. προκαλινδούμενον] ’falling prostrate before.’ 7. τοῦ πνεύματος] whose inspired words these are. 8. ἢ. . . δίκαιον] The ἢ grammatically joins δίκαιον to the adjectival notion in τοῦ πατρός, τοῦ υἱοῦ. 9. ἀλλ’ οἶς πονθεν] ‘ But on the strength of what He has suffered in His character of Man, He prevails upon us to endure in His character of the Word and the Encourager.’ Thus Gr. seems to recognise only the manward aspect of the work of the Advocate. 15. No. 10 — The Son knoweth not the last day or hour. Obviously the Wisdom through whom the worlds, or ages, were made cannot be ignorant of the length of their duration ; and our Saviour's s prophecies concerning the last things shetv that He knew. You cannot know how the day ends without knowing how the night begins. He knew therefore as God, and knew not as man. The title of the Son, standing by itself, lends itself to this supposition. 12. μηδένα γινώσκειν] Mark xiii 32. 15. ὁ π. τῶν αἰώνων] II Heb. i 2. In συντελεστὴς Gr. peril, refen to sach passages as Epb. i 10, or iv 13; in μεταπ., to Rev. xxi 5 (although the Speaker there is the Father) or Wisd. vii 27 ; in τὸ πέρας, to Rev. i 17 etc., or Col. i 16 εἰς αὐτόν). The question only asks how such an one could be ignorant of anything ; but the titles by which He is here spoken of have ref. to this particular thing. μεταποιητης, τὸ πέρας τῶν γενομένων ; ο οὐτῶ τὰ του θεοῦ γινώσκων, ὡς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ; τί γὰρ ταύτης τῆς γνώσεως τελεώτερον ; πῶς δὲ τὰ μὲν πρὸ τῆς ὥρας ἀκριβῶς ἐπίσταται, καὶ τὰ οἷον ἐν χρῷ τοῦ τέλους, αὐτὴν δὲ ἀγνοεῖ τὴν ὥραν ; αἰνίγματι γὰρ τὸ πρᾶγμα ὅμοιον, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις τὰ μὲν πρὸ τοῦ τείχους ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστασθαι λέγοι, αὐτὸ δὲ ἀγνοεῖν τὸ τεῖχος· ἢ τὸ τῆς ἡμέρας τέλος εὖ ἐπιστάμενος, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς νυκτὸς μὴ γινώσκειν· ἔνθα ἡ τοῦ ἑτέρου γνῶσις ἀναγκαίως συνεισάγει τὸ ἕτερον. ἢ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, ὅτι γινώσκει μέν, ὡς θεός, ἀγνοεῖν δέ φησιν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἄν τις τὸ φαινόμενον χωρίσῃ τοῦ νοουμένου ; τὸ γὰρ ἀπόλυτον εἶναι τὴν τοῦ 1 τὰ] μέτα b || 2 τὰ ἐν ἀυτῶ] τὸ ἐν ἀυτῶ be ’Or. I ’ || 3 ’δε] δάι d || 4 χρῶ] χρόνω abcdef1g || 5 ἀγνόει] ἀγνοεῖν b ’Coisl. 3' || 11 αγνοειν] ἀγνόει f || 12 του υἱοῦ τὴν προσηγ. bdf : om τὴν g 2. ὡς τὸ πν. τοῦ ἁ.] ι Cor. ii 11. St Paul is speaking of the Spirit, not of the Son. 4. ἀκριβῶς ἐπίσταται] as shewn, no doubt, by His prophecies. ib. ἐν χρῷ] This seems to have been the reading of Elias ; and it is found in the second hand of the Lincoln College MS. The expression is both idiomatic and forcible, to denote what happens right up to the very moment of the end ; and, as Jahn points out, in his notes on Elias, the word οἶον would go more naturally with it than with the tamer ἐν χρόνῳ. The reading ἐν χρόνῳ may easily be attributed to an early copyist unfamiliar with the phrase ἐν χρῷ, wno thought it an abbreviation for ἐν χρόνῳ. 9. συνεισάγει] ‘implies,’ ‘involves’; cp. iii 16. 11. τὸ φαῖν’. χωρίσῃ τοῦ ν.] τὸ νοούμενον may so naturally be used in contrast with τὸ φαῖν’., as ’the unseen' to ’the seen,' that probably Gr. must be understood to mean by the first the Lord's human nature, and by τὸ νοούμ. the divine. So Elias takes it. But it might be possible to take τὸ φ. = ‘ the look ’ of the saying, and τὸ νοούμ. = ‘ the meaning? Α casual reader, looking only at τὸ φ., would think that an absolute ignorance was predicated ; but attentive examination would shew that that is not τὸ νοούμενον. 12. τὸ γὰρ ἀπόλυτον κτλ.] The γὰρ justifies the assertion εὔδηλον. ‘ For the fact that the title of " the Son " stands absolutely and without conditions, nothing being added to say whose Son, suggests to us this interpretation ; so that we put the more reveiwit construction tipon the ignorance, and attribute it to the human nature, not to the divine.' Ἄσχετον is used in a remarkable way, as if from σχέσις, ‘ ’ In the light of later criticism, the fact which Gr. notices may be thought to tell in the opp. direction : the absolute title seems to denote the eternal relation, not the temporary condition. See ’s note in his St Mark p. 297. Gr. takes the argument, as well as the illustrations of τεῖχος, νύξ, from Ath. οἱ. iii c. Ar. § 43, who says that if it had stood ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, it would have implied that the Godhead did not know, but that ὁ υἱός allows us to suppose that the ignorance is that τοῦ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένου υἱοῦ. υἱοῦ προσηγορίαν καἰ ἄσχετον, οὐ προσκειμένου τῳ υἱῷ τοῦ τίνος, ταύτην ἡμῖν δίδωσι τὴν ὑπόνοιαν, ὥστε τὴν ἄγνοιαν ὑπολαμβάνειν ἐπὶ τὸ εὐσεβέστερον, τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ, μὴ τῷ θείῳ, ταύτην λογιζομένους.