41 And he comes the third time and says to them, "Do you go on sleeping, then, and taking your rest? The money is paid; the hour has come; behold the son of Man is given over into the hands of the sinners. 42 Get up; let us go; behold the one who gives me over has come near."

Let us first note that Matthew 26:45, in repeating this passage, simply omitted apechei, probably because he was unable to understand the meaning of this verb here. This is also the reaction of many modern biblical scholars.

The verb apechei is a compound word, formed from the preposition apo (from) and the verb echō (to have). It can have various meanings.

1. Sometimes it means "to have from" or "to take from", i.e., to receive (Lk 6:24: "But woe to you, rich people, for you receive (apeichete) your consolation").

2. It can also mean "to have away from" or "to keep away from", i.e. to abstain (Acts 15:20: "Let them only be commanded to abstain (apechesthai) from that which has been polluted with idols, unlawful unions, stifled flesh and blood").

3. Or it can mean in some cases "to be far from" in the sense of being far away from something (Lk 15:20: "So he set off and went to his father. While he was still far away (apechontos), his father saw him and was pitied; he ran and threw himself on his neck and kissed him tenderly").

4. Finally, there are papyri in the world of commerce where this verb appears to describe that the amount to be paid has been received in full from the debtor, i.e. a receipt note, and therefore the verb then means: the sum is paid (to have from someone). This is the meaning proposed for Mark 14:41: "The sum is paid (apechei); the hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is given over into the hands of sinners". Let us remember that earlier the chief priests promised Judas a sum of money so that he would hand over Jesus to them (Mk 14:11), and now Judas is approaching to have him arrested; this means that the sum has been paid.

The various attempts to understand apechei in Mk 14: 41 can be categorized into six distinct groups

1. Supplied personal subject

   In Mark the sentence has only one verb, apechei, without subject. As is usual in Greek, the subject "he" is implied. In an effort to understand what Mark is trying to say, the biblical scholars have suggested adding a personal subject. Here are a number of them.

   1. "Judas", which would give: "Judas is receiving (or has received) money" or "Judas is taking possession of me" or "Judas is far away".
   2. "Devil", which would give: "The devil has got power over me."
   3. "Scripture", which would give: "What concerns me (i.e. The Scriptures) has been fulfilled".
   4. "Father", which would give: "The Father has received my prayer".
   5. "God", which would give: "God is far away".

   In the face of all these attempts, one must ask the fundamental question: would Mark's ordinary reader have spontaneously recognized the proposed subject?

2. The reading in codex Bezae.

   This copy of the Gospels and Acts, which dates from the 5th century, offers this version: apechei to telos kai hē hōra (rather than: apechei. ēlthen hē hōra). However, we know the meaning of telos (end) and hōra (hour). But what is the meaning of apechei? This codex is accompanied by a Latin translation, and here we can read: sufficit finis et hora (It is enough! the end and the hour). This translation is also that of St. Jerome for whom apechei means: it is enough, it suffices. The old Latin translations had: consummatus est finis and adest finis, i.e. "the end is complete" or "is at hand". Combining the Codex Bezae and Vaticanus one could get: "Is the end still far away? Why, the hour has come!". Some have suggested that the version of Codex Bezae would be more original than the one we use, but it is more likely that it is more of an effort to interpret a passage he could not understand.

3. Impersonal renderings.

   Rather than having a personal subject, some suggested an impersonal subject: it. Here are a few examples.

   1. "Is it far away?". Obviously, the answer is: no, for it is followed by: the hour has come.
   2. "It is all over; the hour has come."
   3. "It is settled" or "it is paid", referring to Judas's betrayal.
   4. "It hinders", i.e. an allusion to the sleep of the disciples that gets in the way.
   5. "It is enough". This is the translation of St. Jerome, which takes its full meaning from the fact that Jesus has just said: "Are you sleeping and resting? Enough of that". But one wonders if Jerome was not influenced by the old Latin translations, rather than by the Greek verb itself. For there is no data in all the ancient Greek literature to justify the meaning: it is enough.

   In short, it is highly unlikely that apechei could have an impersonal form here.

4. Textual corruption.

   It has been hypothesized that verse 41 was originally longer and contained words found in verse 42 (Behold, he who gives me over has come near). A scribe, deceived by words similar to v. 41 and 42, would have mistakenly transposed these lines. Realizing his mistake, he would have written at the bottom of the page the correct version, and he would have written in the margin of v. 41: apechei to telo, i.e. the end (of this line) is farther on. Later on, this note would have been erroneously integrated into the text itself, and later another scribe would have dropped to telos (the end), because it contradicted what Jesus said afterwards.

   Unfortunately, there is no way to validate that there was a scribe error.

5. Mistranslation from Semitic

   This hypothesis assumes that the Greek gospel is a literal translation of an Aramaic original, a hypothesis that the majority of biblical scholars do not support. In any case, here are some propositions.

   1. Apechei would be the result of a misinterpretation of the Aramaic kaddu (already) under the influence of the same word in Syriac which means: enough.
   2. The Greek translator would have confused dḥq (to press, to urge) with rḥq (to be far away), and so the original Aramaic read: the end and the hour are pressing.
   3. As in Aramaic the pa'el of šlm means both "to finish" and "to pay a debt", the Greek translator would have mistakenly understood that it was the latter meaning, when in fact it was the former meaning.

   There are two major problems with these proposals: first, there is no data to support the claim that there was an Aramaic original at the origin of our Greek text, and second, we do not know the usage of Aramaic at the time of Jesus.

6. Substituting other Greek verbs

   Here it is assumed that the scribe, writing apechei, misread the text he was copying. So various proposals were made about the original verb he misread. Here is a list of them:

   1. Epechei (to hold fast, stop): "Jesus told them that he was finished", a reference to the end of his struggle in prayer. But this reading presupposes an indirect discourse, which is not the case.
   2. Epestē (from the verb ephistanai : to be at hand): "it is at hand", in connection with "the hour has come".
   3. Enestē (from the verb enistanai: to be at hand).
   4. Arkei (from the verb arkein: to suffice): "That's enough".
   5. Etelesthē (from the verb telein: to end): "to be concluded".
   6. Apechei (the imperfect of the verb apochein: to pour out): "(God) has poured out (his wrath in the cup); the hour has come".

None of these attempts are convincing. On the other hand, they all point in the same direction: "The hour has come: behold, the Son of Man is given over into the hands of sinners". This is the meaning of such proposals as "Judas has received the money"; "The end is at hand"; "It's settled"; "That's enough"; "God has poured out". In this context, our otherwise well-documented translation "The money is paid" is quite justified, for it fits well with a sum promised to Judas (Mk 14:11), and goes well with what follows.

Here is the text (Hebrews 5:7-10)

7 who in the days of his flesh, having brought prayers and supplications, with a strong clamor and tears to the One having the power to save him from death, and having been heard from fear (apo tē eulabeias), 8 despite his being Son, learned obedience from the things that he suffered. And having been made perfect, he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, 10 being designated by god a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

1. Analysis of the Greek expression: apo tē eulabeias

   First there is the preposition apo (from). It is normally used to designate something that comes from something else. Some biblical scholars translate as "because of" or "on account of".

   Eulabeia is related to the verb lambanein, whose root refers to the idea of acceptance, which in reference to God means the fear of God, the piety, reverence. According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (1979), eulabeia only means "awe", but Bultmann points out that in classial literature it slipped over into "anxiety, anxious fear".

2. Various translation proposals

   Here is a list of the various translations offered by biblical scholars.

   • "having been heard because of his (reverential) fear". This implies that he was saved from something other than not dying, and even though he was heard, he still had to learn obedience. This is the option chosen by modern translators, by the Vulgate, the Greek Fathers and Luther.

   • "having been heard (and delivered) from (anxious) fear". This translation has the advantage of illustrating the human struggle, but assumes words that are not there.

   • "to save him from (ek) death and - having been heard - from (apo) (anxious) fear". This is the same meaning as the previous proposition, but the prepositions ek and apo is governed by "to save", the verb "having been heard" is only an explanation.

   • "having been heard. apart from his (reverential) fear and despite his being Son, he learned obedience". But a more logical construction would have been: "In spite of the fact that he showed (reverential) fear and that he was Son".

   • "death. Having been heard, from (apo) anxious fear - despite his being Son - from (apo) the things that he suffered, he learned". The two prepositions would be in apposition, a very strange construction in Greek.

   • "(not) having been heard". This brilliant proposal in the negative form of Harnack cannot be supported textually; it aims to explain why Jesus had to learn through suffering.

In all these proposals, except the last one, the general intention around the expression "from fear" does not change fundamentally, when one sees in it either the anxiety experienced by Jesus in his sufferings or a reverence worthy of his status as Son.

Here is the text (Matthew 26: 49-50)

49 And immediately having come up to Jesus, he said, "Hail, Rabbi", and he kissed him warmly. 50 But Jesus said to him, "Friend, that's what you are here for (eph ho parei)." Then, having come up, they laid hands on Jesus and seized him

Parei is the verb pareimi in the present tense, 2nd person singular and means: to be present. Ho is a neuter relative pronoun (which), which is preceded by the preposition epi (unto, for), which would translate as: unto which, for which. Thus this phrase could be rendered as follows: "Friend, for which you are here". Let's look at the different ways biblical scholars understand this expression.

1. A relative pronoun refers to a preceding noun, and the context presents us with Judas who identifies Jesus with a kiss. Then one could translate: "Friend, (that is a kiss of betrayal) for which you are here" or "Friend, for this (betrayal) you are here". So Jesus makes Judas feel that he knows the reason for his presence. But the main difficulty with this translation is that words have to be added to Matthew's text.

2. One could assume a hidden demonstrative pronoun in addition to the relative pronoun: "that which" or "what". Here, there are several possible variations, such as a sentence interrupted by the emotion caused by the kiss: "Friend, that for which you are here...", or: "Friend, for that you are here...".

3. Proposal 2) could be repeated, but with the addition of a verb :
   • "Friend, (are you misusing a kiss), for what you're here?".
   • "Friend, (I know) for what you're here."
   • "Friend, (don't you think I don't know) what you're here for?"
   • "Friend, do you kiss me with the goal for which it is evident that you are here?"
   • "Friend, (do) what you're here for."
   • "Friend, that for which you are here (let it be done)"

4. The relative pronoun can be read as a question in a direct form: "Friend, for what are you here?". It is a translation favored by the majority of the Fathers of the Church, even if such a reading is not grammatically correct. But a two-part inscription was found on a vessel that can be read as follows: "For what are you here? Drink!" or "Drink! That's what you're here for".

5. This could be a familiar phrase from everyday life, such as when you make a toast before you drink. Then it could be translated: "Friend, (as as the saying goes), that's what you're here for". Jesus would use irony to let Judas know that he knows his plans. It would be a way to respond to Judas' "Hail, Rabbi".

All these interpretations cover a wide range of meanings. Regardless of the preMathean tradition if it existed, the present text does not offer the possibility of a question from Jesus seeking clarification: Matthew has made it clear to us that Jesus knew. In the same vein, we must also rule out the possibility of a surprise on the part of Jesus. Rather, the context suggests irony on the part of Jesus responding to Judas' ironic "Hail, Rabbi". And it is possible that Matthew puts a familiar phrase in Jesus' mouth, such as this call for a drink of company: "Friend, rejoice. That's what you are here for".

Here is the text (Jn 19:12-13):

12 From this Pilate was seeking to release him. But the Jews yelled out saying, "If you release this fellow, you are not a friend of Caesar. Anyone who makes himself a king contradicts Caesar." 13 Now Pilate, having heard these words, led Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat (ekathisen epi bēmatos) in the place (eis topon) called Lithostrotos, but in Hebrew Gabbatha

The question is: should the verb in the sentence in 13b be considered intransitive ("and he (Pilate) sat on the judgment seat"), or transitive ("and he (Pilate) sat (Jesus) on the tribunal seat")? The Greek word bēma, the equivalent of the Latin tribunal, has two main meanings:

1. It may designate the sella curulis or judgment seat, on which the Roman judge sits to conduct his trial for serious crimes. Josephus (The Jewish War, 2.14.8; #301) mentions the bēma which seems to be placed in front of the palace where Prefect Florus was staying in Jerusalem, in an elevated place accessed by steps.

2. It may also refer to the semicircular stone or wooden platform in the center of which was the judgment seat.

In Mt 27:19 bēma clearly refers to the judgment seat, since Pilate's wife joins him while he sits there, giving the impression that he is there throughout the trial. Note that a trial could be conducted in two positions: 1) sessio de plano (off the bench, litt. "on level ground") for minor crimes; 2) sessio pro tribunali (seated on the judgment chair) for serious crimes. And normally one would not move from one position to the other, which raises questions about the account in John 19:13: did Pilate sit on bēma only at the end of the trial? Was the trial informal until then, and did it really only begin in 19:13? We have to be careful here: John is not a court reporter who describes the technical side of the trial, but a playwright who has constructed a complex scene where Pilate is walking around, and just wants to point out that the most important moment of the trial has arrived. And the meticulousness with which John identifies the place (Lithostrotos, in Hebrew Gabbatha) and the time (at noon before the Easter meal) harmonizes well with the precision implied by bēma as the judgment seat.

Biblical scholars are divided into two camps when it comes to choosing whether the verb "to sit" should be translated with the intransitive form (Pilate sat) or the transitive form (Pilate sat (Jesus)). Let's consider the main arguments.

1. Ekathisen (the aorist of the verb kathizō), means in the transitive form: set (something or someone) on; and in the intransitive form: sat on. Now, if the verb had the transitive form, one would expect to have a pronominal object: "Pilate led Jesus outsite and set (him) on the bēma"; but pronoun "him" is absent in the Greek text. Proponents of the transitive form have argued that in New Testament Greek the pronominal object is not necessary when the second verb has the same object. But this argument is only valid when no ambiguity is possible, i.e. the second verb cannot be intransitive. This is the case in Ephesians 1:20: "(God) having raised Christ from the dead and seated (him) at his right hand"; the pronominal object of the second verb, which we have underlined, is absent in the Greek text, but it is not necessary, because no ambiguity is possible: the second verb can only be transitive. Thus, no Greek Father opted for the transitive form. In short, unless the context is clear, the verb kathizō always has an intransitive form.

2. Another argument is related to the word bēma. Proponents of the transitive form find it unthinkable that Pilate sat there only at the end of the trial. This is forgetting that John is a playwright who wants to achieve a stage effect to signal that the most solemn moment has arrived. The proponents of the transitive form have suggested that John, by making Jesus sit on the bēma, would have wanted to create an ironic scene: to seat Jesus the judge on the seat of judgment. But it is unlikely that John would have used an implausible scene to create irony. Proponents of the transitive form suggested that bēma would not refer to the judgment seat, but rather to the judicial platform or the area in front of the Roman judge, especially since the word bēma has no article in the Greek text. Two things can be said in response to this: perhaps there is here the influence of Latin, which has no article (sedere pro tribunali), and by analogy with the expression "to sit on the throne" in the Septuagint, the article is very often absent.

3. Another argument used by those who use the transitional form is "eis topon", which they translate as "into the place" and which they associate with the sentence: "Pilate led Jesus out (into the place) called Lithostrton", which makes it logical to say that in this movement Jesus was seated on the bēma. The argument presupposes that John is very rigorous in the sense he gives to prepositions like eis (into), en (in), which is not the case, in fact. Moreover, the expression "kathizein eis" has the meaning of "sitting down in a place", as seen for example in 2 Thess 2:4: "going so far as to sit (kathizein) in person in (eis) the Temple of God". In Jn 19:13, what accompanies "he led" is "outside", the preposition eis goes with the verb kathizein (to sit), and is translated : "Pilate sat on the judgement seat".

4. The proponents of the transitive form refer to this passage from the apocryphal gospel according to Peter, who says, "And they (the people) clothed him (Jesus) with purple and sat him on a chair of judgment (kathedra kriseōs), saying, 'Judge justly, King of Israel! (3: 7). This apocryphal writing is not an exegesis of John 19:13, but rather a rewriting of the mockery of Jesus based on Isaiah 58:2 (" ... They now ask me for a just (dikaios) judgment"). Moreover, it will have been noticed that the author of Peter's Gospel took care to have the pronoun form of the verb sit ("they sat him").

   The proponents of the transitive form also evoke Justin who, commenting on Isaiah 58:2, writes: "And as the prophet said, having dragged him along (diasyrein) they sat on a/the bēma and said, 'Judge us'". Let us first note that Justin is very close to the text of the Gospel of Peter where the people say: "Let us drag along (syrein) the Son of God now that we have power over him". Therefore, what was said in Peter's Gospel also applies here, and the personal pronoun is absent (the addition in brackets), because there is no possible ambiguity: only Jesus can be seated on the bēma.

   In both Peter's Gospel and Justin's, there are only two actors: the Jewish people and Jesus, and when the people sit Jesus on the seat, they address him. But in John 19:3 there are three actors: the people, Pilate and Jesus, and when Pilate leads Jesus outside, he addresses the Jews, not Jesus. If the verb "to sit" had been in the transitive form, Pilate would have addressed Jesus, not the Jews, and challenged him to act as judge.

We must conclude that, for John, it is Pilate who sits on the bēma, and that the verb has an intransitive form.