[1] Betz, H. D., ‘Matthew vi.22f. and ancient Greek theories of Vision’, in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, ed. Best, E. and McMilion, R.Wilson, L. (Cambridge, 1979) 43–56.Google Scholar

[2] Plato, , Timaeus, trans. Bury, G. R., Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1929) 101.Google Scholar

[3] ibid.

[4] Diels, H. and Kranz, W., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed. (Zürich, 1964) 1Google Scholar, 342.4–9 (31 B 84).

[5] For discussion and lit, see Beare, J. I., Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to Aristotle (Oxford, 1906) 14–23Google Scholar and O'Brien, D., ‘The Effect of a Simile: Empedocles' Theories of Seeing and Breathing’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 90 (1970) 140–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar O'Brien himself argues that while Empedocles believed the eye to produce an outward-flowing fire, he did not connect this with the act of seeing. This is a distinctly minority position and it conflicts with the impression left by Aristotle, , de Sensu 437b 23–438a5.Google Scholar

[6] Diels, and Kranz, , Fragmente, 1, 226.Google Scholar 3–17. (28 A 46).

[7] Trans. of Colson, F. H. for the Loeb Classical Library, Phio, vol. 6 (London, 1959) 76–7.Google Scholar

[8] ‘Matthew vi.22f. and ancient Greek theories of Vision’, 55.

[9] For the argument that both Leucippus and Democritus have been misinterpreted see Burkert, Walter, ‘Air-Imprints or Eidola: Democritus’ Aetiology of Vision', Illinois Classical Studies 2 (1977) 97–109.Google Scholar He makes a strong case for thinking that Democritus believed in the emission of some sort of sight ray.

[10] See Theophrastus, , de Sensu 25–26Google Scholar = Diels and Kranz, , Fragmente, 1Google Scholar, 211.34–210.10 (24 A 5). Discussion in Beare, , Greek Theories, 11–13.Google Scholar

[11] Aristotle's accounts in de Sensu and de Anima seem to reflect his mature opinion; another account of vision seems to be set forth in Meteor. 3.2.372a19–21; 3.372b34–373a19; 4.373a35–b13; b32–33; 374b11, 12; 6.377a30–378.12; cf. Cael. 2.8.290a17–24; Gen. An. 5.1.781a3–13. For discussion see Lindberg, D. C., Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler, University of Chicago History of Science and Medicine (Chicago, 1976) 217Google Scholar, n. 39 and Hahm, D. E., ‘Early Hellenistic Theories of Vision and the Perception of Color’, in Studies in Perception, ed. Machamer, P. K. and Turnbill, R. G. (Columbus, Ohio, 1975) 63.Google Scholar

[12] On the symbolism of the eye in ancient Egypt see Rundle, A. T., Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (London, 1959) 218–30.Google Scholar Note also Lurker, M., The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt (London, 1980) s.v. eye.Google Scholar

[13] Cf. Budge, E. A. Wallis, The Gods of the Egyptians (Chicago, 1904) 1, 467.Google Scholar Similar beliefs have been held elsewhere. In India, the sun was considered to be the eye of Mitra and Varuna. For other parallels see The Mythology of all Races, vol. 9, Oceanic, by Dixon, R. B. (Boston, 1916) 37Google Scholar (the South Seas) and vol. 10, North America, by Alexander, H. B. (Boston, 1916) 257Google Scholar (the American Indians).

[14] Dasgupta, S., A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 4 (Cambridge, 1955) 342.Google Scholar

[15] ibid., vol. 3 (1952), 182 (italics mine).

[16] Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilization in China, Vol. 5, part V (Cambridge, 1964) 249.Google Scholar

[17] Trans. of Ware, J. W., Alchemy, Medicine, Religion in the China of A. D. 320: The Nei P'ien of Ko Hung (Pao.p'u tzu) (Cambridge, 1966) 257.Google Scholar

[18] Mata Han took her name from a Malay expression for the sun which means, lit., ‘eye of the day’. Plato said the eye was ὴλιοειδέστατον (Resp. 508B). Pindar wrote: the sun is μᾱτερ óννάτων (Paean 9.2). In Plotinus, Enn. 1 6, 9, we read, ού γάρ πώποτε εδεν όφθαλμòς λιο νὴλιοειδὴς μὴγεγενημένος. The likening of the eye to the sun has much to do with the principle of γνσις τοῡòμοίον τ òμοίῳ. See Verdenius, W. J., Parmenides. Some Comments on his Poem (Amsterdam, 1964) 72–3.Google Scholar

[19] For discussion of these and other proponents of the extramission theory see van Hoorn, W., As Images Unwind. Ancient and Modern Theories of Visual Perception (Amsterdam, 1972)Google Scholar; Ronchi, V., The Nature of Light. An Historical Survey (Cambridge, Mass., 1970)Google Scholar; and Lindberg, Theories of Vision.

[20] See Dixon, R. B., The Huntington Expedition, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 17, part 2 (New York, 1902) 65.Google Scholar

[21[ On the evil eye in general see Elworthy, F. T., The Evil Eye: The Origins and Practices of Superstition (London, 1895).Google Scholar

[22] See anonymous, ‘Shining in Human Eyes’, Nature 145 (1940) 737CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Blennie, E. A., ‘Night-Shining Eyes’, Nature 146 (1940) 366.Google Scholar

[23] See Burkert, ‘Air-Imprints or Eidola’, 99. Cf. the remarks of Democritus on the same phenomenon in Diels and Kranz, , Fragmente, 2, 112.Google Scholar 36–113.7 (68 A 1 26a).

[24] For the possibility that the lights of the menorah were interpreted as representing the eyes of God see Frey, CIJ 695 and the comments of Goodenough, E. R., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman World, 12 vols., Bollingen Series 37 (New York, 1953–1963) II, 60–61Google Scholar; 221;IV, 72, 79–81.

[25] See Odeberg, Hugo, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew of Enoch (Cambridge, 1928)Google Scholar part 2, p. 4. All quotations from 3 Enoch are taken from Odeberg's edition.

[26] Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1978) 392Google Scholar; cf. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel according to St. John, vol. 2, trans. Hastings, C. et al. (New York, 1980) 325.Google Scholar

[27] τούς λύχνους ποωῡντες does not appear in mss. P and V. S has τούχνους which is supported by the Slavic; but this reading makes no sense at all. ‘My eyes saw those who make lamps at my tables and couches’ is not intelligible within the context of T. Job 18: what do lamp makers have to do with anything? Thus R. Kraft has conjectured that the reading behind Sslav must be ποιούντς. This conjecture is to be endorsed because the emendation is minor (α > ε) and because it brings good sense to a line which is otherwise incongruous. See Kraft, R. A., ed., The Testament of Job, TT 5, P54 (Missoula, Montana, 1974) 11, 40.Google Scholar The reading in P and V could then be explained as secondary vis-a-vis Sslav: confronted by an unintelligible sentence, someone resorted to excision; that is, τούς λύχνους ποιοῡντες (original) > τούς λύχνους ποιούντας (Sslav) > omit (PV).

[28] We should also mention, if only in passing, that there are a few antique Jewish lamps with eyes on their sides; see Goodenough, , Jewish Symbols, 1, 163Google Scholar; II, 240.

[29] Sjöberg, E., ‘Das Licht in dir. Zur Deutung von Matth. 6,22f. Par.’, ST 5 (1951) 89.Google Scholar

[30] E.g., Torrey, C. C., The Four Gospels (London, n.d.) 309Google Scholar and Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1949) 94.Google Scholar

[31] See Cadbury, H. J., ‘The Single Eye’, HTR 47 (1954) 69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar and the texts discussed in Dibelius, M., James, trans. Williams, M. A., Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1976) 77–9.Google Scholar Matthew must have understood άπλοῡς in this sense, as both the context and 20. 15 imply.

[32] Sjöberg, ‘Das Licht in dir’, 97.

[33] We have translated σῶμα as ‘body’. But it, like the Aramaic which lies behind it, could be translated, ‘self’; cf. Manson, , Sayings, 93.Google Scholar

[34] For πονηρό used of a sick eye, BAGD (s.v., Ia) cites Plato, Hipp. Min. 374D. For the meaning ‘ill’ see Plato, , Prot. 313AGoogle Scholar and Justin, , I Apol. 22.Google Scholar

[35] Caird, G. B., Saint Luke, Pelican New Testament Commentaries (London, 1963) 156.Google Scholar

[36] Four Gospels, 309; cf. idem, Our Translated Gospels (New York, 1936) 33–4.Google Scholar

[37] Four Gospels, 309.

[38] Matthew 6. 24 coheres well with the proclamation of Jesus (cf. Mark 10. 17–22; Luke 12. 13–21), and signs of a Semitic original are present: μαμωνᾱς είς … ἔτερος (see Black, M., An Aramaie Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. [Oxford, 1964] 108)Google Scholar; instead of άντέχω and καταφρονέω, Gos. Thom. 47 has τῳάω and ύβρίςω; άντέχω and τῳάω might be trans. variants of while καταφρονέω and ύβρίςω might derive from (note the resulting assonance). On the unity of 6. 24 note the remarks of Guelich, R., The Sermon on the Mount (Waco, Texas, 1982) 333.Google Scholar

[39] For details see Grobel, K., ‘… Whose Name was Neves’, NTS 10 (1964) 373–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[40] See Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, 2nd rev. ed., trans. Hooke, S. H. (New York, 1972) 178–80.Google Scholar