the Fourth Week after Easter
Click to donate today!
Bible Dictionaries
Dish
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or DISH.—1. The only place in the NT (Authorized and Revised Versions) where this word is found is in the record of the betrayal of Jesus given by two of the Synoptists (Matthew 26:23, Mark 14:20).
The form of the Greek equivalent (τρύβλιον, Vulgate catinum [Mark 14:20], but in Matthew 26:23 Vulgate has paropsis, for which see below) is that of a diminutive, although there is no example of a cognate or simpler form (see Liddell and Scott, s.v.). With it we may compare the diminutive ψωμίον (John 13:26 ff.) in the latest Apostolic account of the same period of Jesus’ life. The use of this word, as well as of another (ἑμβάττειν) occurring in the same context, by these two authors would seem to prove beyond doubt a close literary relationship between their writings—not, indeed, a relationship of direct inter-dependence (cf. Wright’s Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 140), but rather one of common dependence upon the same or kindred sources, oral or written (cf. the ‘anonymous fragment’ μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ῥαββεί; Matthew 26:25).
A comparative study of the four records which tell of Jesus’ reference to His impending betrayal brings to light some not unimportant minor differences, and at the same time reveals the agreement of all the writers in the belief that He knew of the intentions of Judas, and warned the latter against the dark deed. To the Markan account which makes Jesus answer the anxious question of His disciples (μήτι ἐγώ;) by the vague statement, ‘(it is) one of the twelve who is (now) dipping with me in the dish,’ which is equivalent to the previous ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ (Mark 14:18; on this, however, cf. Gould’s St. Mark, ad loc.), St. Matthew not only adds a more distinct note by employing the aorist (ἐμβάψας) instead of the present Middle (ἐμβαπτόμενος), by which he evidently intended to convey the idea of time, but he also informs us that Jesus gave a direct affirmative reply (σὺ εἶπας) to Judas’ question. On the other hand, St. Luke agrees with St. Mark in leaving out all reference to an indication of the traitor beyond the statement that one of those present at the meal (ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης, Luke 22:21) was guilty, while the author of the Fourth Gospel agrees with St. Matthew in making Jesus, by a sign (ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ᾧ ἐγὼ βάψω τὸ ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ, John 13:26), point him out to his fellow-disciples.
One thing seems to emerge clearly from the fourfold account, there was but one τρύβλιον on the table, and each one dipped his bread into it as he ate (see O. Holtzmann’s Leben Jesu, English translation p. 458). This dish contained a sour-sweet sauce (חֲרוֹסָתְ), which was composed of ‘a cake of fruit beaten up and mingled with vinegar’ (see Encyc. Bibl. art. ‘Passover, § 17n; cf., however, B. Weiss’ The Life of Christ, iii. p. 279). Into the sauce pieces of unleavened bread and bitter herbs were dipped and handed round by the chief person of the assembled party, which was evidently preliminary to the general partaking of the dish (cf. μετʼ ἐμοῦ, Matthew 26:23 = Mark 14:20). It seems that this was a custom of late introduction into the Passover rite, and that it was intended to enrich the meaning of the feast by a symbolic reference to the brick-making period of Israel’s Egyptian bondage (see art. ‘Passover’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iii. p. 691b).
Most scholars have sought to establish the relative positions of Jesus and Judas at this Passover feast from the incidents referred to by all four Evangelists (cf. Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. pp. 493–507; art. ‘Apostle John’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible ii. p. 681a; Farrar’s Life of Christ, ii. 284 ff. etc.). The variety of conclusions arrived at shows how impossible it is to settle a question of the kind. If, indeed, opposite each triclinium at the table there had been a τρύβλιον, then the answer of Jesus to His disciples’ questions would show clearly that Judas reclined immediately on His left. This, however, as we have already intimated, is not probable; and the only data by which an approximately correct impression may be received lie in the words spoken by Jesus to Judas himself, and recorded partly by St. Matthew and partly by St. John (cf. Matthew 26:25 and John 13:27 ff.). It seems more than probable that the traitor reclined somewhere in close proximity to Jesus, that their hands met as both dipped together into the dish (cf. the use of the Middle voice by St. Mark; see Bengel’s Gnomon of NT on Mark 14:20), and that in this way Jesus was able to convey privately to Judas the fact that He knew of the latter’s intention.
2. A very good example of the way in which the didactic sayings of Jesus were caught up and handed down by His different hearers is afforded by the Matthaean and Lukan versions of the words by which He denounced the legal quibblings and Pharisaic hypocrisy of His day (Matthew 23:1 ff., Luke 11:37 ff.). There is just sufficient identity both in language and sense to guarantee the genuineness of the teaching. At the same time there is a marked variety in details as to locality, wording, and even as to the particular objective of Jesus’ remarks. According to St. Luke, Jesus denounces the Pharisees, while a guest in the house of one of their number, for their punctiliousness in keeping the outside of their vessels clean, their own hearts all the time being full of uncleanness. The contrast is between the outside of their utensils (τὸ ἔξωθεν … τοῦ πίνακος) and their own inner lives or characters (τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, Luke 11:39). Here we may notice that the word translated ‘platter’ is the word used to denote the flat dish (Authorized and Revised Versions ‘charger’) on which (ἐπὶ πίνακι) the Baptist’s head was sent to Herodias (Matthew 14:8; Matthew 14:11 = Mark 6:25; Mark 6:28). On the other hand, St. Matthew makes Jesus utter this discourse to ‘the multitudes and to his disciples’ in the Temple (Matthew 23:1; cf. Matthew 24:1). The denunciation is more sustained and rhetorical, as becomes the situation. When the writer comes to the contrast spoken of above, he makes Jesus institute one between the outside of the dish and its contents, looked on as the outcome of rapacity and gluttony (ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας). This is again more suitable to the word he employs, which is the only place in the NT where it is found (τὸ ἔξωθεν … τῆς παροψίδος stands opposite to ἔσωθεν = τὸ ἐντὸς … τῆς παροψίδος, see Matthew 23:25 f.; cf., however, WH’s [Note: H’s Westcott and Hort’s text.] text in Matthew 23:26).
The word ταροψίς was originally, in Attic Greek, used of entrées or dainties (see Liddell and Scott, s.v.). It afterwards came to be applied to the four-cornered (‘quadrangulum et quadrilaterum vas,’ see art. ‘Meals’ in Encyc. Bibl. iii. 2998, n. [Note: note.] 1) dish in which they were served; and, lastly, it became a name for dishes generally used at table.
In both these cases of variation it is possible to see the hand of the editor carefully compiling and arranging his materials before their publication in permanent form.
J. R. Willis.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Dish'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/d/dish.html. 1906-1918.
