Chapter Fifteen

1–20. Disputes and teaching concerning “the tradition of the elders.”—21–28. The healing of the daughter of the Canaanite woman.—29–39. The feeding of four thousand with seven loaves.

Matthew 15:1. Then the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came to Jesus and said: (Cf. Mark 7:1). The entire chapter agrees in exposition with Mark 7:1-37. That this was in Gennesaret is evident from Matt 14:34, and this is indirectly confirmed by the evangelist John, who, having set forth the discourse in Capernaum, says that “after this Jesus walked about in Galilee” (John 7:1). It is very likely that this occurred some time after Passover, close to the events of the feeding of the five thousand. The scribes and Pharisees came from Jerusalem, as Matthew and Mark unanimously testify. These were people more honorable in comparison to provincial ones and were distinguished by a stronger hatred of Christ than the latter. Probably these Pharisees and scribes were sent by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.

Matthew 15:2. Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. (See Mark 7:2-5). In the further narrative, Matthew departs from Mark, who provides a detailed account of what precisely the Jewish elders’ traditions concerning hand-washing consisted of, and for what reason the scribes and Pharisees accused the Savior and His disciples. Mark’s account is very well confirmed by the Talmudic information we possess about these Jewish rituals. The Pharisees had many ablutions, and their observance reached the point of extreme minuteness. Different types of water were distinguished, for example, having different purifying power, numbering up to six, and it was precisely determined which water was suitable for various ablutions. The definitions concerning hand-washing were especially detailed. In discussing hand-washing, the evangelists, especially Mark, show very close familiarity with the customs of the Jews of that time, set forth mainly in a small Talmudic treatise on hand-washing, “Yadayim.” Hand-washing, as Edersheim shows (1901, II, 9 ff.) chiefly on the basis of this treatise, was not a legal ordinance but “the tradition of the elders.” The Jews observed the ritual of hand-washing so strictly that Rabbi Akiba, when imprisoned and having only enough water to sustain his life, preferred to die of thirst rather than eat with unwashed hands. For neglecting to wash before a meal, which was considered an ordinance of Solomon, minor excommunication (“niddah”) was imposed. The Pharisees and scribes accuse the disciples, not the Savior Himself, just as they had done when the grain was plucked.

Matthew 15:3. But He answered them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (See Mark 7:9). The Pharisees and scribes accuse the disciples of violating the tradition of the elders, yet they themselves are guilty of violating the commandment of God. This latter is violated “by your tradition,” which relates not to ablutions but to an entirely different matter. According to Chrysostom, the Savior posed this question “to show that he who sins in great matters ought not to be so careful to note in others trivial acts. You would deserve to be accused, He says, yet you yourselves accuse others.” The Savior reveals the error of the Pharisees in that they paid attention to trifles and lost sight of the most important matters in human relations. Hand-washing and honoring father and mother are opposite poles in human moral relations. Both John Chrysostom and Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus say that the Savior here does not vindicate the disciples in their non-observance of petty Pharisaic ordinances and allows that there was some kind of violation on the part of His disciples of a human ordinance. But at the same time He affirms that on the part of the scribes and Pharisees there was also a violation, and in a far more serious sense, and what is of far greater significance, their tradition was guilty in this violation. The Lord here sets clavum clavo retundit.

Matthew 15:4. For God commanded: Honor father and mother; and: Whoever reviles father or mother shall be put to death. (See Mark 7:10). (Citations from Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Lev 20:9). According to St. John Chrysostom, the Savior “does not immediately turn to the offense that was committed and does not say that it is nothing, lest He increase the boldness of his accusers, but first strikes at their boldness, putting before them a far more serious violation and laying it at their feet. He does not say either that those who violate the ordinance act well, so as not to give them occasion to accuse Him, but neither does He condemn the act of the disciples, so as not to confirm the ordinance. Similarly, He does not accuse the elders as lawbreakers and vicious people, but leaving all this aside, chooses a different path and, while appearing to reprove those who came to Him, touches those who made the ordinances themselves.”

Matthew 15:5. But you say: If one says to father or mother: A gift to God—that which you might have received benefit from me, Matthew 15:6. He need not honor his father or mother; thus you have nullified the commandment of God by your tradition. (See Mark 7:11-12). In Matthew almost identical with Mark, but with the omission of the word “corban” and with the replacement of Mark’s words “So you allow him to do nothing for his father or mother” with other expressions set forth in the first half of verse 6. The construction of the verse in Matthew is less clear than in Mark. The word “corban” is a literal translation of a frequently used Jewish vow formula, which was subject to many abuses. The foundations for the practice of vows were given in the Sacred Scripture of the Old Testament (see Gen 28:20-22; Lev 27:2-4; Num 6:2-3; Deut 23:21-23; Judg 11:30-31; 1 Sam 1:11). Later, vows became the subject of Jewish casuistry. The word “corban” was changed to “konam” “from piety.” People began to say not only “this thing is konam,” but also “konam my eyes, if they shall sleep,” “konam my hands, if they shall work,” and even simply “konam that I shall not sleep” and so forth (see Talmud. Translation of Pereferkovich, III, 183). A gift to God in Hebrew was called “corban” (as in Mark 7:11), and it is often mentioned in Lev 1-3 chapters, where lambs, goats, bullocks offered to God for burnt offering, peace offering, or sin offering are called “corban,” that is, “sacrifice.” The Gazophylacium (treasury) in the temple, where offerings from the people were deposited, is metonymically called “corban” or “corbana” Matt 27:6. Vows could and often should be annulled, the chief reason being that one repented of them (“harata”), and in that case the lawyers were to annul them. The custom which the Savior condemns consisted in that the scribes allowed a man to dedicate his own property to the temple by this formula and thus to escape the obligation of helping his parents. The legal formula, thus, was more sacred than the divine commandment set forth in Scripture.

Matthew 15:7. Hypocrites! Isaiah truly prophesied about you, saying: Matthew 15:8. These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their tongue, but their heart is far from Me; Matthew 15:9. But in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. (See Mark 7:6-8). According to Mark, these words of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 29:13) were spoken by Christ earlier than the reproach of the scribes and Pharisees. The meaning of this citation as applied to the present case is quite clear. By observing the traditions of their elders, the Pharisees and scribes wished to please God, because all these traditions, like all Hebrew legislation in general, had a religious character. The scribes and Pharisees thought that by washing their hands before eating food they were fulfilling religious requirements which are obligatory for all, and especially for such religious teachers as Christ and His disciples. The non-observance of the traditions of the elders could serve both in the eyes of Christ’s enemies and in the eyes of the people as evidence of a departure from the true religious teachings. But the enemies of Christ did not notice that in observing these trifles which had no relation to religion, they were not paying attention to more important matters and were violating not the traditions of the elders but the commandments of God. From this it was clear that not the religion of Christ but their own religion was false. They drew near to God with only their mouth and honored Him with their tongue.

Matthew 15:10. And calling the crowd to Him, He said to them: Hear and understand! (See Mark 7:14). Having put His enemies in an impossible position through the extraordinary power of His argumentation, the Savior leaves them and turns to address the whole crowd. The word proskalésamos—“called” or “beckoned”—indicates this, referring to the crowd, which stood there, perhaps simply separating to make way for their teachers and leaders who were speaking with Christ.

Matthew 15:11. Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth defiles a man. (See (Mark 7:15)—with a slight difference in expressions). When the Pharisees accused the disciples of eating with unwashed hands, the Savior says that no food defiles a man. But if food does not defile, then still less does eating it with unwashed hands. Here an entirely new principle was set forth, which, simple as it is in itself, is still not understood properly by many even now. It expresses a thought contrary to that which says that some food can be the cause of spiritual or religious defilement. Here Jesus Christ clearly thinks not of legal but of moral defilement, which has to do not with what goes into the mouth (cf. 1 Tim 4:4) but with what comes out of the mouth (immoral speech). According to the context, Christ does not speak against the ordinances of Moses, but the application of His words to them is inevitable, so that as a result of this the law and its dominance undergo material abrogation. In the corresponding passage in Mark, one rightly finds a certain ambiguity. Matthew substitutes the clarifying “from the mouth” instead of “from the man.”

Matthew 15:12. Then His disciples came to Him and said: Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying? In Mark and other evangelists there are no verses corresponding to verses 12–14. But in Mark (Mark 7:17) one can find an explanatory note which is not in Matthew, and on the basis of it one may conclude that the disciples came to the Savior not in front of the crowd but when He had entered the house with them. However, this can also be guessed from Matthew’s account in verses 12 and 15 in comparison with Matt 13:36, where almost the same expressions are used. “This saying” many relate to that set forth in verses 3–9. But it is better with Euthymius Zigabenus to understand verse 11 here. Because this “saying,” if addressed to the crowd, would have seemed particularly offensive to the Pharisees. The Pharisees were greatly offended by precisely these words of Christ because they saw in them the destruction and open contempt not only of their own traditions but of all Mosaic ceremonialism.

Matthew 15:13. But He answered and said: Every plant which My Father in heaven has not planted will be pulled up; According to John Chrysostom, the Savior speaks this of the Pharisees themselves and their traditions. A plant here serves as an image of the Pharisees as a party or sect. The thought expressed here by Christ is similar to the thought of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38).

Matthew 15:14. Leave them alone; they are blind guides of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit. (See Luke 6:39). According to John Chrysostom, if the Savior were speaking this of the law, He would have called it a blind guide of the blind. See Matt 23:16. In Luke (Luke 6:39) a similar saying is inserted into the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 15:15. But Peter answered and said to Him: Explain to us this parable. (See Mark 7:17). The saying coincides in meaning with the second half of the corresponding verse in Mark. Meyer calls the difference from Mark 7:17 “non-essential.” The best reading is simply “the parable,” without adding “this.” If we accept the word “this,” then Peter’s request will, of course, refer to verse 14. But the question is fully clarified by Mark, in whom Peter’s words, undoubtedly, refer to Mark 7:15, and in Matthew, consequently, to verse 11. The further speech of the Savior confirms such an interpretation.

Matthew 15:16. Jesus said: Are you also still without understanding? (See Mark 7:18). The meaning is that even “you”—a word on which special emphasis rests—who have been with Me so long and learned from Me, even you do not yet understand?

Matthew 15:17. Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is thrown out into the sewer? (See Mark 7:18-19). In Mark it is much more detailed: “Are you also so lacking in understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, because it enters not his heart but his stomach, and goes out into the latrine.” For the passage in question, a parallel is found in Philo (De opificio mundi, I, 29), who says: “Through the mouth, according to Plato, enters the mortal, and issues the immortal. Through the mouth enter food and drink, mortal nourishment for the mortal body. But words—immortal laws of the immortal soul, by which intelligent life is governed—issue from the mouth.”

Matthew 15:18. But the things that come out of the mouth proceed from the heart, and they defile a man, (See Mark 7:20). That which enters a man (food) does not defile him. But that which comes out of his heart may defile him. A precise explanation of this is given in the following verse.

Matthew 15:19. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander— Matthew 15:20. These are what defile a man; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man. (See Mark 7:23). Christ did not abrogate the law of Moses and did not say that any kind of food or drink is beneficial to man. He only said that no food and no manner of taking it can defile a man.

Matthew 15:21. And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. (See Mark 7:24). The word “from there” is quite unclear both in Matthew and in Mark. Origen thought that it was from Gennesaret, through which the Savior was traveling (Matt 14:34; Mark 6:53); and He withdrew, perhaps, because the Pharisees who heard Him were offended by His discourse about things which defile a man. Having withdrawn from Israel, Jesus Christ comes to the region of Tyre and Sidon. According to John Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, when commenting on this passage, there is much discussion about why the Savior told the disciples not to go in the way of the Gentiles, when He Himself goes to them. The answer is given in the sense that the Savior went to the region of Tyre and Sidon not for preaching but to “withdraw,” although He was not able to do so. From these interpretations it is clear that the Savior, contrary to common opinion, “crossed the borders of Palestine” and, although only briefly, was in a pagan country. If we agree with this, then the further narrative becomes somewhat clearer to us. Tyre (in Hebrew “tzor”—rock) was a famous Phoenician trading city. Around the time of the conquest of the kingdom of Israel by Salmaneser (721 B.C.), the Assyrians besieged it but could not capture it after a five-year siege, only imposing tribute upon it (Isa 23). Around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre and took it, but did not destroy it. In 332 B.C., after a seven-month siege, Tyre was taken by Alexander the Great, who crucified 2,000 Tyrians for their resistance. Tyre is now called Es-Sur. From 126 B.C., Tyre was an independent city with a Hellenistic organization. Sidon (fishing city, fish catching, fishing—the root is the same as [Beth]saida) was older than Tyre. Sidon is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament. At present it has up to 15,000 inhabitants, but its commercial importance yields to Beirut. Sidon is now called Saida.

Matthew 15:22. And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders and cried out to Him, saying: Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely demon-possessed. (See Mark 7:25). The narrative set forth in verse 22 and continuing in verses 23–24 is not found in Mark or other evangelists. Mark’s expressions (Mark 7:25) are quite different from Matthew’s. Matthew and Mark call this woman by different names: Matthew—a Canaanite woman; Mark—a Greek woman (hellenis) and Syrophoenician. The first name—Canaanite woman—agrees with the fact that the Phoenicians themselves called themselves Canaanites and their country Canaan. In Gen 10:15-18, the descendants of Canaan, son of Ham, are listed, among whom Sidon is first mentioned. From Mark’s account that the woman was Greek, one can conclude that she was called so only by the language she spoke. In the Vulgate this word is translated through gentilis—a pagan woman. If this translation is correct, the word refers to her religious beliefs rather than her dialect. As for the designation “Syrophoenician,” the Phoenicians living in the region of Tyre and Sidon, or Phoenicia, were so called, in distinction from the Phoenicians living in Africa (Libya) on its northern shore (Carthage), who were called Libyophoenicians, or Carthaginians (Latin poeni). How this woman learned of Christ and that He is the Son of David is unknown, but it is very probable that it was through hearsay, because in Matthew’s Gospel there is a direct note that the fame of Christ spread “throughout all Syria” (Matt 4:24), which was near Phoenicia. Phoenicia itself is not mentioned in the Gospels. The woman first calls Christ Lord (kyrie) and then Son of David. The designation of Christ as Lord in the New Testament is customary. Thus the centurion (Matt 8:6; Luke 7:6) and the Samaritan woman (John 4:15) call Christ Lord. Against the opinion that the woman was a proselyte of the gate speaks verse 26 (Mark 7:26). But the expression “Son of David” may indicate her familiarity with Jewish history. In tradition she is known by the name Justus, and her daughter—Veronica. The woman says: Have mercy not on my daughter but on me. Because the illness of her daughter was the illness of the mother. She does not say: come and heal, but—have mercy.

Matthew 15:23. But He did not answer her a word. His disciples came and begged Him, saying: Send her away, for she is crying out after us. Comparing the accounts of Matthew and Mark, we must imagine the matter thus. The Savior arrived in pagan territory together with His disciples and went into a house to “withdraw” or hide (lathen—Mark). The reasons why the Savior “did not wish anyone to know” of His presence in Phoenicia are unknown to us. But there was nothing unnatural or inconsistent with His other actions about this, because He acted so in other cases too, withdrawing from the crowd and for prayer (Matt 14:23; Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16, etc.). One might suppose that in the present case the Savior’s withdrawal from Jewish society occurred in view of great events requiring solitude, which are told about in Matt 16; Matt 17 (Peter’s confession and the Transfiguration). The woman’s cry, as it seemed to the disciples, did not accord with Christ’s intention to remain alone, and they ask Him to send her away (cf. Matt 19:13). In the word “send her away” (apoluson) is not expressed the idea that the disciples were asking Christ to satisfy the woman’s request. According to Mark, the woman entered the house where the Savior was and cried out there for help (Mark 7:25—eiselthousa), whereas according to Matthew, this was when the Savior was on the way. There is no contradiction, because both were possible. The further explanation is in the comments to the following verse.

Matthew 15:24. But He answered and said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The key to explaining all of this is given by John Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus, who suppose that the purpose of Christ’s refusal was not a test but a revelation of the faith of this woman. This must be noted precisely in order to understand what follows. Although Chrysostom says that the woman heard Christ’s words: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” it is more likely that she did not hear them, because it is said: “He did not answer her a word.” The answer to the disciples was both practically and theoretically correct, because Christ had to limit and did limit His activity only to the house of Israel, and in this individualization of His activity lay its universal character. The Gospel expression cannot be explained in the sense that here we understand the spiritual Israel. If Christ had simply sent the woman away as the disciples asked, we would not have had this wonderful example which illustrates how “the kingdom of heaven is taken by force” (Matt 11:12). It is taken in spite of all obstacles and even humiliations to which the pagans were subjected or might be subjected.

Matthew 15:25. But she came and knelt before Him, saying: Lord, help me. (See Mark 7:25-26). Mark gives more detail, saying that the woman fell at the Savior’s feet and asked Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. Concerning prosekyneō, see comments to Matt 2:2. The woman now does not call Christ the Son of David but only calls Him Lord and worships Him as God.

Matthew 15:26. But He answered and said: It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. (See (Mark 7:27) with the addition: “let the children first be fed”). Literally: “One should not (must not) take bread from the children and throw it to the dogs” (in Mark—“It is not good”). It is thought that the Savior speaks here “ex publico judaeorum affectu” (Erasmus), or what amounts to the same thing, in the ordinary speech of the Jews, who called the Gentiles dogs; the Israelites, as children of Abraham—“children of the kingdom” (Matt 8:12)—and have the first right to the bread of grace and truth. The Jews called the Gentiles dogs because of their idolatry and unclean life.

Matthew 15:27. She said: Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters. Matthew 15:28. Then Jesus answered and said to her: O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that hour. Matthew 15:29. Jesus departed from there, came to the Sea of Galilee, went up on a mountain, and sat down there. (See Mark 7:31). According to Mark, Christ, “having left the region of Tyre” (thus in some readings), “again went” through Sidon (which is not in the Russian translation) “to the Sea of Galilee,” in the middle (ana meson—see 1 Cor 6:5; Rev 7:17) of the territory of the Decapolis (in the Russian translation—“through the territory of the Decapolis”). By “mountain” is meant some high place on the shore of the lake, not some separate mountain. From Matthew’s narrative it is not clear on which side of the Sea of Galilee this was, but Mark says clearly that it was on the eastern side.

Matthew 15:30. And a great crowd came to Him, bringing with them the lame, the blind, the mute, the maimed, and many others, and they laid them at Jesus’ feet, and He healed them; Matthew 15:31. So that the crowd marveled, seeing the mute speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel. (See Mark 7:37). In Mark—only the first part of verse 31 in Matthew, expressed quite differently. Then Matthew adds words which are not found in other evangelists. The expressions “praise” and “glorify God” appear many times in the New Testament (Matt 9:8; Mark 2:12; Luke 5:25-26; 1 Pet 2:12; Rom 15:9; 1 Cor 6:20; 2 Cor 9:13, etc.). But nowhere else is there an addition of “of Israel,” as here. On this basis it is supposed that now Christ was among pagans who glorified the foreign God—“the God of Israel” (cf. Mark 8:3)—“some of whom had come from afar”).

Matthew 15:32. Jesus called His disciples to Him and said: I have compassion for the crowd, because they have remained with Me now for three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, for fear they might faint on the way. Matthew 15:33. And the disciples said to Him: Where could we get enough bread in this deserted place to fill such a large crowd? (See (Mark 8:1-4) with considerable difference in expressions). If all four evangelists have told the story of the feeding of five thousand, then the present narrative belongs only to Matthew and Mark. In its general content it is so similar to the account of the feeding of five thousand with five loaves that many took it for a variant of one and the same event. If that were so, it would, on the one hand, influence the interpretation of the first narrative, and on the other, give reason to consider both narratives legendary. But others hold different opinions. Already in ancient times commentators noticed differences between the two narratives and on this basis asserted that they depict two actual events. Thus, Origen wrote in particular: “Now, after the healing of the mutes and others, the Lord has compassion for the people who had remained with Him already three days and had no food. There the disciples ask about five thousand; here He Himself speaks of four thousand. There they are fed in the evening, having spent one day with Him, and about these it is said that they were with Him for three days, and they receive loaves so they may not grow weak on the way. There the disciples speak of five loaves and two fish, which they had, although the Lord did not ask them, here they answer a question, that they had seven loaves and a few little fish. There He orders the crowd to recline on the grass; here He does not order but announces to the people that they should recline. These were fed on a mountain and those—in a deserted place. These three days had been with Jesus and those—one day, on which in the evening they were fed.” The distinction between the two feedings was also made by Hilary and Jerome. That these were actually two events is decisively confirmed by Christ Himself, Who points to this in Matt 16:9. The supposition that both events are identical is based on the imagined difficulty of the question of the disciples: “Where could we get enough bread in a desert place?”—so soon forgetting the previous miracle, but such slowness in faith occurs among people in other cases too, and examples of it are recorded in Scripture itself (cf. Exod 16:13 with Num 11:21-22; see Exod 17:1-7; Alford). The whole of this narrative apparently has a connection with the preceding narrative of the healing of the daughter of the Canaanite woman and the crumbs which fall from the table of the masters to the dogs. The miracle was performed in the Decapolis, that is, where the population consisted, if not exclusively, at least predominantly of Gentiles. The proportion of numbers in the first and second feeding is as follows: 5000:4000; 5:7; 2:x; 12:7 (the number of people, loaves, fish, and baskets full of bread).

Matthew 15:34. Jesus said to them: How many loaves do you have? And they said: Seven, and a few small fish. (See Mark 8:5). Matthew adds “and a few small fish.” The word “small fish” (ichthydia) is here a diminutive, instead of the earlier “fish” (ichthyes) in the synoptics and opsaria in John (John 6:9).

Matthew 15:35. He ordered the crowd to sit down on the ground. (See Mark 8:6). “In everything else he acts like before: he arranges the people on the ground and does so that in the hands of his disciples the bread does not diminish” (St. John Chrysostom). Externally the event now differs from the previous one only in numbers.

Matthew 15:36. And He took the seven loaves and the fish, and having given thanks, He broke them and gave them to His disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowd. Matthew 15:37. And they all ate and were satisfied; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full, (See Mark 8:7-8). The addition to the narrative “having blessed, He ordered them to distribute them” (that is, the loaves) is found only in Mark. A parallel to verse 37 is Mark 8:8, with some variation in expressions. Matthew adds: (“seven baskets”) full, which is not in Mark. Instead of “baskets” (kophinoi) in which pieces were gathered after the feeding of five thousand, now “baskets” (spyrides) are mentioned. This word, besides the Gospels, is used only once more in the New Testament (Acts 9:25), where it is said that the apostle Paul was lowered in a basket down the wall in Damascus. On this basis it is supposed that these were large baskets. Where they came from is completely unknown. Perhaps they were brought by people who followed Christ, and originally filled with provisions. The number of baskets full of pieces of the leftover bread now corresponds to the number of loaves that were broken and distributed to the crowd.

Matthew 15:38. Now those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children. (See Mark 8:9). Matthew here also adds “besides women and children,” which is not in Mark (see comments to Matt 14:21).

Matthew 15:39. And after sending away the crowd, He got into the boat and came to the region of Magdala. (See Mark 8:9-10). Instead of “in the region of (ta merē) Magdala” (according to the Russian translation) Mark has “in the region of (ta merē) Dalmanutha.” Augustine does not doubt that this is one and the same place, only having a different name. Because in numerous manuscripts and also in Mark it is written “Magedan.” But in that case why would one and the same place be indicated by different names? First of all, let us note that the correct reading in Matthew is not Magdala but Magadan. So in the Sinaitic, BD, old Latin, Siro-Sinaitic. The word Magadan or Magedan is considered identical with Magdala (modern Mejdel). Magdala means “tower.” This is what a small place was called on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, perhaps mentioned in the book of Joshua (Josh 19:38). It was the birthplace of Mary Magdalene. Why it was also called Magadan is unknown. About Magadan itself, if it was not identical with Magdala, nothing is known. Most travelers supposed that Magdala was about five versts north of Tiberias, where now stands the village of Mejdel. At present it is a small settlement. It has about half a dozen houses without windows, with flat roofs. Now laziness and poverty reign there. Children run about the streets half-naked. Dalmanutha, mentioned by Mark, was apparently somewhere near Magdala. If so, there is no contradiction in the accounts of the evangelists. The one place to which Christ came by boat with His disciples is called Magadan (Magdala) by one, while the other points to a small place nearby.