Laudator Temporis Acti

Matthew 6:28-30 (KJV):

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

καὶ περὶ ἐνδύματος τί μεριμνᾶτε; καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ πῶς αὐξάνουσιν· οὐ κοπιῶσιν οὐδὲ νήθουσιν·
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδὲ Σολομὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο ὡς ἓν τούτων.
εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ σήμερον ὄντα καὶ αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέννυσιν, οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι;

J. Enoch Powell, The Evolution of the Gospel: A New Translation of the First Gospel with Commentary and Introductory Essay (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 90-91 (I inserted ellipses in place of the Hebrew words):

The words 'card not' οὐ ξαίνουσι—the process preliminary to spinning (as 'sow' above is preliminary to 'reap')—generated, by a slight misreading, the corruption αὐξάνουσι 'they grow', which is manifestly wrong, because it is not growing that is at issue but being fed and clothed. In addition, οὐ ξαίνουσι 'card not' has been replaced by οὐ κοπιῶσι 'toil not', which, as generic, cannot be paired or contrasted with the specific 'spin' (e.g. 'no money and no shillings'). Thus the wording we have is the product of a (wrong) variant αὐξάνουσι in the margin and a (wrong) interlinear gloss κοπιῶσι in the text.

The antithesis to 'fowls of the air' is not 'lilies of the field' but 'beasts of the field'. The beasts are indeed 'clad' without industry or artifice on their part. To say that 'flowers' or, even more, flowers of one particular sort are 'clothed' is absurd: beautiful they may be, clothed they are not.

The alteration of 'beasts' into 'lilies' may be a corruption. Confusion between 'beasts' ... and 'lilies' ... is difficult in Hebrew, whereas in Greek that between ΤΑΘΗΡΙΑ, 'the beasts', and ΤΑΛΕΙΡΙΑ, 'the lilies', is not. Corruption would then have taken place in Greek in two stages—(1) θηρία, 'beasts', changed to λείρια, 'lilies', and (2) λείρια glossed with its synonym κρίνα. On the other hand, the rhetorical piece about 'Solomon' and the 'oven' may be an insertion prompted by objection to being clothed as 'the beasts' are clothed, viz. in skin and fur, and this may have suggested 'lilies'. Elaboration is betrayed by (1) 'lilies', for which 'grass', χόρτος, has later to be substituted (ovens are not fuelled with lilies) and (2) the absurdity of 'clothing' lilies or grass.

According to A.E. Harvey, "Logic and the lilies of the field. How Enoch Powell stretches scholarship to prove that Jesus was not crucified," Times Literary Supplement no. 4773 (23 Sept. 1994), p. 31 (at col. 3), Powell made nearly twenty conjectures in Matthew. Powell's book received little scholarly attention. From Peter Richardson's review in Echos du monde classique: Classical news and views 14.3 (1995) 432-435 (at 434-435):

In the long run the most interesting question to New Testament scholars is why classicists and scholars of early Christianity read evidence so differently. One is reminded of John Rist's earlier (and more sophisticated) study, with a slightly similar view of the priority of Matthew. We work with the same language, read the same literature, are immersed in the same historical period's intrigues and politics, and yet frequently we talk past each other or never manage to connect.

In Powell's case, this problem is complicated by another. He remains untroubled by his refusal to read what others have written or thought about Matthew, one of the storm centres of scholarship. And this at a moment when there is an unparalleled number of scholars working on the question of the relationships among the gospels. There is, of course, no unanimity on many questions; this is a period when any thesis is worth a try. But to ignore totally the current scholarship on Matthew, studies that argue for Mark's priority, investigations that hypothesize the existence of another common source ("Q") behind Matthew and Luke, and even those studies that argue—even if on different grounds—his own view of Matthew's priority seems perverse at best and hybris at worst. It is, of course, possible that he is right about some things; regrettably the failure to interact with other views will probably mean that this study will be ignored by those best placed to evaluate his views. In the end, then, one can only applaud his attempt to struggle without presuppositions with this early Christian text, but be bemused by his apparently blissful ignorance of competing views.

Here is Powell's translation of the passage from Matthew, incorporating his changes (pp. 12-13):

And why do you worry about clothing? Observe the *beasts* of the field: they do not *card* or spin, <and yet your heavenly Father clothes them>.
But I tell you that Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these. And if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not do much more for you, O you of little faith?

See also Klaus Brunner, "Textkritisches zu Mt 6, 28: οὐ ξαίνουσιν statt αὐξάνουσιν vorgeschlagen," Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 100.1 (1978) 251-256, and J. Enoch Powell, "Those 'Lilies of the Field' Again," Journal of Theological Studies 33.2 (October, 1982) 490-492.