^{page 70 note 1} Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1881), Vol. ii, p. 68Google Scholar.

^{page 71 note 1} James, M. R., Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), p. 104Google Scholar.

^{page 73 note 1} ‘Not merely in My company (sun emoi), but sharing with Me (met emou).’ So Plummer, I.C.C, in loc. It is doubtful, however, if this distinction of the prepositions still holds in the koine.

^{page 74 note 1} The word is simply gune. It is rendered as ‘woman’ by nine out of sixteen versions consulted, whilst three omit it. The other four attempt an equivalent rendering, e.g. ‘Mother’ (N.E.B. and Basic NT) and ‘Madame’ (Schonfield).

^{page 75 note 1} James, M. R., Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), p. 91Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 1} Taylor, Vincent, Gospel according to St. Mark (Macmillan, London, 1957), P.594Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 1} Mark 15.23 speaks of‘wine mingled with myrrh’ (AV) and most commentators regard the myrrh as an anodyne or narcotic, but it is never used as such in pharmacology. Myrrh (smurna) is the gum-resin obtained from the small trees of the genus Commiphora, and in particular from the species Commiphora myrrha. It has an aromatic odour and a bitter taste, and was used as a mild aromatic antiseptic in ancient methods of embalming (cf. John 19.39), and as a mild stimulating substance in mouth-washes. There are several references to it in the Old Testament where it was highly regarded as a perfume (cf. Psalm 45.8, Proverbs 7.17 and Canticles 1.13, 5.5), and it was an ingredient of the anointing oil of the Tabernacle (Exodus 30.23). It still occurs in the British Pharmaceutical Codex, but is not much used in modern medicine. Although myrrh itself has no effect on pain, it is probable that it was used as the flavouring of a narcotic drink made up of wine and opium. Matthew 27.34 refers to this same drink as ‘wine mingled with gall’ (AV), and a common conjecture is that gall is to be identified with the poppy (Papaver somniferum) from which we obtain opium. If this is accepted then Matthew characterises the wine by the narcotic it contains, whilst Mark mentions its flavouring.

^{page 79 note 1} Note on the physical aspect of the death of Christ: Commentators have suggested that the loud cry was occasioned by rupture of the heart which they believe was the physical cause of the death of Christ. This idea dates from the year 1847 when J. C. Stroud, M.D., published a book which he entitled The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, and which he revised in 1871. It is on this work that many commentators ultimately depend for their comments on the physical aspects of Christ's death, and especially for an explanation of the appearance of ‘blood and water’ of John 19.34. The study of pathology has progressed a great deal since 1847 and Stroud's explanation is difficult to maintain in the light of modern medical knowledge. In Stroud's day the exact causation of cardiac rupture was illunderstood. We know today that cardiac rupture does not occur spontaneously or under the influence of mental agony. It is due to a preceding diseased condition of the heart muscle which is usually the result of coronary artery thrombosis, a condition which was first recognised in 1912 by Dr James B. Herrick. It is most unlikely, to say the least, that our Lord, a healthy man in His early thirties suffered from coronary thrombosis and then from cardiac rupture. The real reason why Stroud postulated a rupture of the heart wall was to obtain an explanation of the blood and water which John observed as issuing from the wound made by the Roman soldier's spear. He assumed that this was really blood clot and serum which had separated from each other after a haemorrhage had taken place through the heart wall into the pericardial sac which surrounds it. But the clotting of the blood and its separation into clot and serum would take much longer than the narrative allows. Also blood clot is not fluid but solid and does not flow like blood and would not come out of a wound as readily as John suggests it did. Such a ready flow suggests that it was fluid blood which came out rather than congealed blood clot. It is probable that the soldier's spear did pierce the heart and so produced liquid blood. The soldier intended to kill his victim if he were not already dead, and he knew from experience that the most effective way to do so was to pierce the heart. Where then did the ‘water’ come from? It could not come from any chronic diseased condition of the organs around the heart, but from some acute condition which could be produced by the act of crucifixion. This condition must affect an organ which would be pierced by a spear directed from below upwards and towards the heart. The condition which most easily answers these requirements is that recognised by modern medicine as ‘acute dilatation of the stomach’. This occurs as a complication of surgical operations, injuries or fractures which are accompanied by surgical shock. The stomach fills up with a thin watery fluid which is eventually vomited in large amounts. If a stomach in this state had been lacerated by a sharp instrument, it would have produced a watery fluid which on mingling with the fluid blood released from the heart by the same spear thrust would have presented the appearance of blood and water described by John. This is a much more acceptable explanation of this observation than that put forward by Stroud, which is now incompatible with medical knowledge. Even this explanation is only hypothetical, and we may ultimately have to admit that we do not know the true explanation and accept the observation as a fact recorded by a reliable observer. For other details on this subject see Short, A. Rendle, The Bible and Modern Medicine (Paternoster Press, 1953), PP. 95–100Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 1} Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, 15th edition (Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1935), p. 329Google Scholar.