62 Wally V. Cirafesi 2. The Issue and the Evidence Perhaps the most interesting case of divergent tense-form usage in all of the Synoptic material occurs in the use of the verb ποιέω in Matt 21,13//Mark 11,17//Luke 19,46, which is placed on the lips of Jesus in his statement concerning those who have “made the temple a den of robbers” (see table below)3. Few monographs and commentaries note the difference4, but even fewer note the textual variants associated with these readings5. Matt 21,13 Mark 11,17 Luke 19,45-46 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· 13 καὶ ἐδίδασκεν καὶ ἔλεγεν 17 45 Καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ γέγραπται· ὁ οἶκός αὐτοῖς· οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ ἱερὸν ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν μου οἶκος προσευχῆς οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς τοὺς πωλοῦντας 46λέγων κληθήσεται, ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς· γέγραπται· καὶ ποιεῖτε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. ἔθνεσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε ἔσται ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. προσευχῆς, ὑμεῖς δὲ αὐτὸν ἐποιήσατε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. According to the NA28, Matthew has two variants for ποιεῖτε. The first is ἐποιήσατε, found in C D K W Γ Δ f13 33. 565. 579. 1424. l844. Texte occidental des Actes des Apôtres: Reconstitution et Réhabilitation. Vol. 1: Introduction et textes (Paris 1984); M.-É Boismard, “Le Codex de Bèze et le texte Occidental des Actes”, in D.C. Parker and C.-B Amphoux (eds.), Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994 (NTTS 22; Leiden 1996) 257-270. All of my comments on the text of Bezae are based on digital photographs of the codex provided at http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/ MS-NN-00002-00041/551. 3 For recent approaches to the meaning of the phrase σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, see Timothy C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in its Narrative Role (WUNT 2.242; Tübingen 2008) 36-38. 4 W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (ICC; 3 vols; Edinburgh 1988–97) III, 139 note the tense-form difference between Matthew and Mark, but incorrectly identify the Perfect form in Mark as an Aorist. Ezra P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (ICC; New York 1903) 213, simply notes it as a textual matter that Mark has πεποιήκατε rather than ἐποιήσατε, but offers no explanation for the divergence. 5 The variants are noted in S.H.-F. Wong, The Temple Incident in Mark 11, 15-19: The Disclosure of Jesus and the Marcan Faction (New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis 5; Frankfurt am Main 2009) and Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (WUNT 2.119; Tübingen 2000) 165, n. 27. Ådna suggests that it is easier to see an Aorist form deriving form a Perfect form when he says, “Bezeichnenderweise ist die Aorist Form in Lk 19, 46 dagegen textgeschichtlich unumstritten. Es läßt sich vor diesem Hintergrund viel plausibler erklären, wie aus der Perfektform πεποιήκατε die Aoristform ἐποιήσατε entstehen konnte als umgekehrt, und zwar nicht nur erst in der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des abgeschlossenen NT-Textes, sondern bereits in der noch text-produktiven literarischen Phase”.