Full text of "Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes"

See other formats

Google 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 


It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 


Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 


Usage guidelines 


Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 


We also ask that you: 


+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 


+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 


+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 


About Google Book Search 


Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 


atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/ 








BS . 
234Y 


M623 


| &&Y 
Vi 2- 





Sn ee 


iia Nee nek (aped Woe been 
, 
: 


Couns ny in TM Nay gree | ’ ) Set 





CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HAWN D-BOOK 


TO THE 


GOSPELS OF MARK AND jane 
/. | 


BY 


HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Ts.D., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
REV. ROBERT ERNEST WALLIS, Pa.D. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 


PROPESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


WITH A PREFACE, TRANSLATION OF REFERENCES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY 
NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY 


MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 


NEW YORK: 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PuBLisHErs, 
10 AND 12 Dry STREET. 


1884. 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, 
By FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C. 


PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


Tats volume contains the Edinburgh translation of Dr. Meyer’s Com- 
mentary on Mark and Luke, and supplementary matter by the American 
editor, consisting of brief critical remarks and more extended exegetical 
notes. 

The Edinburgh translation was made ‘‘from the fifth edition of 
the original,’’ and not from the ‘‘ sixth edition,’’ which is only in part 
the work of Dr. Meyer. It is necessary to call attention to the fact 
that the English editor, Prof. Dickson, in his prefatory note to this 
part of the Commentary (p. ix.), expresses his views in regard to the 
last-named ‘‘edition.’? With these views the present writer fully agrees. 
The edition of Prof. Weiss, however valuable its contents, is not 
‘‘Meyer’s Commentary.’’ Indeed, the matter in that edition is so 
arranged that a careful comparison with Meyer is necessary in order to 
know when Weiss speaks for himself, and not for his author. 

Yet it seemed desirable that the reader should have the benefit of the 
contributions of Prof. Weiss. 1n the German edition (Weiss’s edition 
of Meyer) these are substituted for Meyer’s views ; in the English edition 
they are ignored; in this volume they are added to the work of the orig- 
inal author. It was, indeed, impossible to insert all the comments of 
the accomplished German editor, but his opinions on -most of the im- 
portant points have been incorporated in the ‘‘ supplementary notes ”’ 
which follow Meyer’s comments in each chapter. Special attention has 
naturally been paid to the views of Prof. Weiss on the ‘‘ sources’ of 
the separate sections of the two Gospels, as illustrating his theory of the 
origin of the three Synoptical narratives. While Meyer’s view of the 
relation of these Gospels is given most fully in his Commentary on Mat- 
thew, his acceptance of the originality of Mark (see Introduction, p. 8 seq.) 
would, in consistency, have required him to treat that Gospel first. Re- 
taining the traditional order in his comments, he nevertheless finds it 
necessary to refer to the priority of Mark at the beginning of nearly 
every paragraph in this volume. This compels Weiss, almost as fre- 
quently, to dissent from him. For these two great exegetes, while they 
ostensibly adopt the same method of investigation, and while they actu- 


lV PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


ally agree in many points respecting the solution of the Synoptic prob- 
Jem, in very many cases reach opposite conclusions in regard to the 
origin of separate portions of the narrative. In other words, when these 
giants in exegesis leave the solid facts belonging to their own depart- 
ment, and venture into ‘‘ higher criticism,’’ they simply conjecture, as 
all must do in a region where there are too few data to warrant a scien- 
tific conclusion. Hence the judgment of the one usually offsets the 
judgment of the other; the earlier ‘‘ Apostolic source,’? which Weiss 
has invented, seems to disprove the existence of the Logia-collection, 
to which Meyer constantly refers. Both are far too ready to admit ‘‘ ma- 
nipulation ’’ and ‘‘ later tradition,’’ especially in the Gospel of Luke. It 
is but fair that the reader should have this divergence of views constantly 
presented to his attention. Certainly the appending of the dissenting 
opinions of Weiss is far more justifiable than the conduct of the German 
editor, who in so many cases strikes out Meyer’s opinions and substitutes 
his own. 

This difference between Weiss and Meyer serves to show that the in- 
terdependence of the Synoptic Gospels cannot be proved. The reader 
is referred to the preface of Prof. Crooks in the volume containing Mat- 
thew, for a fuller discussion of the general subject. A lengthened 
treatise on the Synoptic problem would be out of place here, but in edit- 
ing this volume I found the question meeting me at every turn. Believ- 
ing that the Synoptists wrote independently of each other, and that every 
theory which denies this not only tends to discredit their accuracy, 
but is contrary to the phenomena presented by the Gospels themselves, 
I felt warranted in frequently expressing my dissent from both Meyer 
and Weiss, and in calling attention to the peculiarities of the Greek text, 
which seem to controvert their opinions. The recovery, as it may be 
called, of the correct text has shown us greater verbal variations in the 
parallel accounts. The Gospels of Mark and Luke (especially the for- 
mer) have suffered greatly from the ‘‘ conforming ’’ tendencies of the 
transcribers. Hence the importance of showing the bearing of the orig- 
inal differences upon the solution of the Synoptic problem. My duty 
as editor did not allow me to do this in detail, but reference is frequently 
made to the class of facts named above. No judgment adverse to that 
of Meyer, I may add, has been expressed, which is not based upon a 
minute and repeated comparison of the passages in question, as they 
appear in the best-attested text. Any emphasis of dissent is due to the 
conviction that the ‘‘ sources’ of a truly ‘‘ historical ’’ criticism of the 
Gospels must be found in the canonical Gospels themselves. 

As the comments upon the matter common to Matthew and one or 
both of the other Synoptists are found in the Commentary on Matthew, 


PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Vv 


this volume is not only fragmentary to a certain extent, but it comprises 
a proportionally smaller amount of that purely exegetical work in which 
Meyer stood pre-eminent. This has made my task as editor less pleas- 
ant to me, and compelled me to appear less appreciative of Meyer’s great 
excellences than the editors of some of the volumes which preceded. 
But I heartily indorse all that has been written in regard to the characacter 
of the great exegete, .bis love of truth, his excellent method, and the very 
wide and advantageous results of his influence in the department of Exe- 
getical Theology. For the privilege I have had of using Meyer’s Com- 
mentaries ever since I became a student in theology, I am deeply grate- 
ful. No volume of the German edition has been in my hands oftener 
than that containing Mark and Luke. But because Meyer is sucha 
master in interpretation, his efforts in historical criticism suffer by com- 
parison. To interpret what is written is a scientific tusk ; to discover 
why it was written requires qualifications of a different order. In the 
Commentary on John, where the author is not impeded by the self-im- 
posed trammels of ‘‘ historical criticism,’’ he shows how superior he is in 
doing his own proper work. In the portions peculiar to the third Gospel 
we find the same excellencies. His exegetical method is the correct 
one ; and that very method will in the end prove destructive to the con- 
jectures respecting the Gospels which, owing to obvious causes, have 
been somewhat discordantly mingled with his scientific interpretations. 
The citations from Weiss’s edition of Meyer are quite frequently of a 
purely exegetical character. No living scholar in Germany ranks higher 
in this department than Prof. Weiss, and in many cases he defends 
opinions which seem preferable to those of Meyer. Tis view that the 
genealogy in Luke is that of Mary shows his skill as a grammatical in- 
terpreter, while his labors in the field of Biblical Theology give to his 
discussion of other passages a weight that cannot but make itself felt. 
Owing to the peculiar state of the text in the Gospels of Mark and 
Luke (see above), it seemed neeessary to insert critical remarks on the 
various readings, in addition to those which Meyer prefixes to each 
chapter. A further reason for doing this was the fact that Mcyer had 
not been able to use Tischendorf’s eighth edition. Moreover, while 
Meyer is remarkable for his keen judgment respecting internal grounds 
of probability in textual criticism, he wrote at a time when the weight of 
the two earliest authorities (~ and B) had not yet been duly estimated. 
It is not strange, then, that Prof. Weiss has, in his German edition of 
Meyer, entirely rewritten the critical remarks. In the present volume 
nothing has been omitted from the critical portions, and, when the 
readings preferred by Meyer are generally accepted, nothing has been 
added. The additions have been made only when Meyer passes over 


vl PREFACE BY THE AMEBICAN EDITOR. 


what is now accepted by the best critical editors, or when their judgment 
differs from his, or when he has omitted some weighty authority. The 
additional ‘‘ critical remarks’’ are several hundred in number, and might 
have been multiplied. They are based upon a careful collation of Mey- 
er’s views with the following critical editions : Tischendorf (VIII.), 
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, with the judgment of Weiss (ed. Meyer) 
and with the readings accepted by the revisers in the Revised Version 
of 1881. No one familiar with work of this character will fail to per- 
ceive that these brief notes have required much labor. To avoid the 
inconvenience arising from constant repetition of the same names, the 
term ‘‘ recent editors’’ has been adopted as a common denominator for 
Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Weiss: for it was found that these gen- 
erally agreed in differing from Meyer, when there was any difference. 
It will be noticed that the Revised Version is usually in accord with 
these ‘‘ recent editors’’—a coincidence all the more instructive, since 
Weiss could not have been cognizant of the results reached by the re- 
visers, As these two Gospels present proportionally the greatest num- 
ber of variations, the data furnished by these additional notes point to 
a greater agreement among textual critics, and confirm the accuracy of 
the critical judgment of the revisers. 

These supplementary critical remarks are invariably enclosed in brack- 
ets. Some readings of Tischendorf VIII. were inserted in the Edin- 
burgh edition and also bracketed. As these have been rendered unneces- 
sary by the fuller additions in the present volume, they have been 
stricken out, and thus confusion has been avoided. While Meyer cites 
Tischendorf’s seventh edition, I have retained his abbreviation ‘“Tisch.,’’ 
to indicate the eighth edition, unless there is a difference between the 
two, or unless ‘‘ Tisch. VIII.”’ appears in the same connection. It is my 


hope that some students of this volume will find in these added notes’ 


convenient material for their own critical judgments, and be stimulated to 
devote more attention to textual criticism than is now common among 
us. The problem of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels cannot be fairly 
discussed until the questions of textual criticism are sufficiently settled 
to furnish proper material for the discussion. The two- topics are so 
closely related, that the prominence given by Meyer in this volume to 
the former seemed to demand from me a fuller statement of facts in the 
latter field. 

The translations of the Latin and Greek citations appended to the 
original in this volume may prove convenient to some readers. They 
have been made as literal as possible, too literal for my own taste ; but 
in many cases the citations present verbal allusions or such forms of 
speech as called for more or less of verbal correspondence in the Eng- 


PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. vi 


‘lish dress. Some obvious errors in the Edinburgh translation have been 
corrected. 

No extensive additions have been made to the ‘‘ Exegetical Liter- 
ature.’’? A few titles have been added, mainly of accessible Eng- 
lish and American works. In choosing these, I have followed the ex- 
ample of the editors of previous volumes in this series. A full bibliog- 
raphy was out of the question, and in any case belonged to another 
volume than this. | 

Nor has it seemed necessary to cite or indicate the opinions of recent 
commentators, at least to any great extent. Meyer has given abundant 
references, and fuller lists would have overloaded the volume. An ex- 
ception has been made in the case of Godet, whose Commentary on Luke, 
despite his uncritical preference for the Textus Receptus, remains one 
of the most valuable on any of the Synoptic Gospels, In afew instances 
IT have taken the liberty of introducing citations from the International 
Revision Commentary, to which I contributed the volumes on Mark and 
Luke. 

As in the other volumes of this edition, considerable matter of a par- 
enthetical character, or consisting of references, has been transferred to 
foot-notes, so that the body of the Commentary is rendered more con- 
venient for perusal. 

The Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., has exercised a gen- 
eral supervision over the printing of this volume, as in the case of those 
which preceded it, and has also prepared the Index, a service which is 
gratefully acknowledged. | 

M. B. RIDDLE. 


Haztrorp THEoLoaicaL Sremmary, December 10, 1884. 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE ENGLISH EDITOR. 


Tue translation of the Commentary on the Gospels of Mark and Luke 
bas been made from the fifth edition of the original—the last form in 
which the work had the advantage of Dr. Meyer’s own corrections and 
additions. In the case of the Commentary on 8t. Matthew, the mate- 
rials for a sixth edition had been carefully prepared by Dr. Meyer be- 
fore his last illness ; and the work was issued by its editor, Dr. Ritschl, 
substantially as the author had left it. The present portion has likewise 
been given forth since the author’s death in what professes to be a ‘‘ sixth 
edition worked up anew’’ by Dr. Bernhard Weiss ; but it is so considerably 
changed in form and substance, that, whatever may be its value on its 
own account, it can no longer be regarded as the proper work of Meyer ; 
and I have had no hesitation in deeming it my duty to present to the 
English reader the last form of the book as it came from the great 
master of exegesis, rather than to reproduce the manipulation which it 
has undergone at the hands of its new editor. A few sentences will 
suffice to explain the state of the case, and I should hope sufficiently to 
justify the course which I have taken. 

In the preface to the first volume that was issued of this.translation 
(Romans, vol. I.), when speaking of the marked advantage which Meyer’s 
work possessed in having undergone successive revisions at the hands of 
tts author, as compared with the rival work of de Wette, the revision of 
which passed early into other hands, I took occasion to remark on the 
strange and, as it appeared to me, unwarrantable procedure of Dr. Over- 
beck in overlaying de Wette’s book on the Acts of the Apostles with a 
running commentary largely devoted to the combating of de Wette’s 
views. Dr. Weiss can hardly be charged with anything so unseemly as 
this ; but he contrasts unfavorably with Dr. Overbeck in another respect. 
The latter, even at the distance of twenty years after de Wette’s death, 
was careful to distinguish by brackets his own additions, though form- 
ing two-thirds of the whole, from the original author’s text; but a 
strangely different course has been adopted with the great work of 
Meyer. Within less than five years after his death the Commentary on 
Mark and Luke has been re-issued under his name ; but he is spoken of 


x PREFATORY NOTE BY THE ENGLISH EDITOR. 


throughout in the third person; his arrangement is discarded; his | 


critical verdicts are recast to a considerable extent on other principles ; 
his exegetical views are freely controverted ; the statements of the author 
are often superseded by those of the editor; and, what is more, the 
character and complexion of the Commentary are materially altered 
by the superinducing on it of Dr. Weiss’s special theories regarding the 
structure of the Gospels and the relations of their parallel passages. In 
other words, the work is no longer such as Meyer left it ; it is to a con- 
siderable extent a new book by another author, and from a standpoint 
in various respects different. 

Now, it may be at once granted that—if such a course were allowable 
at all in the case of an author so recently removed from us as Meyer, 
and of such a masterpiece of exegesis as his Commentary—Dr. Weiss 
might well be chosen to carry it out, for his investigations as to the re- 
lations of the Synoptic Gospels, as well as his contributions to Biblical 
Theology, have given him a foremost place among the critics and theo- 
logians of the day. In his preface he suggests some more or less 
plausible grounds for the course he has pursued, while indicating no 
small misgivings as to its legitimacy and its success. The plan has met 
with partial approval in Germany ; but its propriety, as it seems to us, 
may well be questioned, on account both of the respect due to so great 
a name, and of the desirableness of permitting a reader, who buys a 
book on the faith of the writer's reputation and of the title-page, 
to have—with whatever else—at any rate the entire work of the author 
in the form in which he left it. Weiss himself states with regard to 
the work of Meyer, that ‘‘ it contains such treasures of erudite research, 
philological, archaeological, and biblico-theological ; so Jaboriously col- 
lected and carefully grouped a summary of all different views on every 
passage of importance, drawn from the whole domain of the history of 
exegesis ; and lastly, so exemplary a model of sober and strictly method- 
ical exegesis, that generation after generation may learn from it.’’ As 
the case stands with the re-issue of it, the reader has no security that he 
gets more of the views of Meyer, or their grounds, than the subjective 
judgment of Weiss may have deemed worthy of reproduction ; while 
he does get a good deal for which, it is safe to say, Meyer would 
not have held himself responsible. I shall only add, that the plan of 
entrusting the revision of the several portions of the work to different 
editors, whose methods of procedure and standards of judgment are 
necessarily various, breaks up the unity and consistency of the Com- 
mentary as stamped throughout with the impress of its author ; and 
introduces a confusion, which cannot but materially interfere with the 
pertinence of the numerous references from one portion of the Commen- 





PREFATORY NOTE BY THE ENGLISH EDITOR. xi 


tary to another (introduced by ‘‘ see on,’’ or ‘‘comp. on’’), that form 
a main element of its value. I have therefore had little difficulty in 
coming to the conclusion that, having undertaken to issne the Commen- 
tary of Dr. Meyer in an English form, I ought to give it in its final 
shape as it came from himself, and not as it has been since transformed 
by another hand. 

The translation, on which Dr. Wallis has expended a good deal of 
time and care, has been revised and carried through the press, in the 
case of the first volume, by myself, and, in that of the second, by my 
colleague and friend Dr. Stewart, who tells me that he has, as he went 
along, inserted [in square brackets] the readings of Tischendorf’s editio 
octava major,’ which, as Dr. Meyer explains in his Preface (p. xv.), had 
not been carried beyond the earlier chapters of Mark’s Gospel at the 
time of his sending to the press the fifth edition of the Handbook. 


W. P. DICKSON. 
Giascow CoLLEGE, February, 1880. 


} These have been rendered unnecessary by the fuller comparison with Tisch- 
endorf presented in this edition, and hence have been omitted. See p. vi.— 
Amer. Ep. 


THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 


Tux investigations as to the origin and mutual relations of the first 
three Gospels have again been pursued of late years with much vigor. 
A series of still unsettled questions has stimulated their prosecution ; 
and the Christological discussions of the day, in which the authority of 
the evangelic records is of decisive importance, have imparted a peculiar 
and diversified interest of their own to the controversy, which has thue 
come to be of a more intensified and partisan character. That this 
critical ferment will last for some time longer, no one can doubt, who 
has given special attention to even the most prominent of the writings 
on the subject and compared their results with one another. And if, at 
the same time, we glance—as the two fields of inquiry, in fact, are not 
to be separated—from the Synoptic into the Johannine domain, in which 
very recently a valiant Swiss has raised the flaming sword, as if fora war 
of extermination, against the more popular’ than strictly theological 
work of a highly meritorious Saxon theologian whose laurels belong to 
another field of criticism [Tischendorf], we cannot but lament much im- 
petuosity and even bitterness, which are the more apt to come into-play 
when the contest is a contest of principles. Conflict in and by itself, in- 
deed, over such critical problems as belong to the exciting questions of 
the present day in theology, is inevitable, and has its justification in the 
end at which it aims,—the separating the dross of error from the truth. 


1 Of apologetic writings for cultivated non-theologians our day has produced 
many, and several that are excellent. Such writings—because their problems 
of themselves belong primarily and preponderantly to the province of profes- ° 
sional theology—always occupy, in presence of the latter, a dubious position. 
For along with all the value of opportune and clever popularizing, there 
necessarily clings to them a certain incompleteness of proof and presentation, 
which may provoke the adversary at times to unfairness in his claims and in 
his criterion of judgment. It isindeed a material defect, when—as often—they 
deal with critical extravagances merely in the way of repelling, and leave un- 
touched, or with a dubious mincing word evade, the necessary concessions, 
which in various important points are not to be refused to a sound, judicious, 
and thorough criticism. In this way there is no attempt ta meet a justifiable 
requirement, and no clearness even as regards insight into the status causae. 


xiv THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


But the sharpness of passion should not interpose to banish he chari- 
able belief that an opponent, even where he is chargeable with error, has 
been seeking the truth and striving to serve it. Inso speaking we cannot 
mean and desire that men should cry peace when there is no peace. But 
as we cannot avail aught against the truth, so we ought never to will 
anything that is not pure—free from selfish or even indecorous zeal—/or 
the truth.’ 

Various as are the critical opinions of the present day on the question 
of the Synoptic Gospels, the view seems ever more evidently to be ap- 
proaching final triumph, that among the three Gospels (apart from the 
‘¢ Logia-collection’’ of Matthew) Mark is the first. The unfair judg- 
ments,* that may still be heard about him, will gradually be put to 
silence; just like Augustine’s ‘‘pedissequus Matthaei,’’ Griesbach’s 
‘¢ copyist of Matthew and Luke’’ will disappear from the arena of ancient 
error. This view derives special confirmation from the critical contri- 
butions—some of them entering very thoroughly into the subject—that 
have appeared since the publication of the fourth edition of this Com- 
mentary, or, in other words, since 1860, when we survey their aggregate 
results, It will easily be seen that I have sought’ to give due heed to 


1 The extravagance of criticism, which in various productions of the day far 
transcends the boldness of Baur, does not advance the matter, bursts all the 
ties even of historical possibility, turns things upside down, promotes the con- 
venient aversion—already, alas! so widely diffused—to criticism generally, as 
if it were an affair of unbelief, and works involuntarily into the hands of the 
Jews, who gladly accept the alleged negative results as if they were settled 
matters, as may be sufficiently seen from several writings of modern Jewish 
scholars. 

* No one can pronounce a judgment of rejection over Mark more decidedly 
than has been done, with French frivolity, by Eichthal (les Evangiles, 1863, I. p. 
51 ff.). 

8 Some minor works reached me too late for a consideration of their sugges- 
tions: e.g., Hilgenfeld, Markus zwischen Matth. und Luk., in his Zeitschr. 1866, 
p. 82 ff. ; Zahn, Papias von Hierapolis, in the Stud. u. Kril. 1866, p. 649 ff. ; 
Stawars, tb. d. Ordnung Abia, in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1866, p. 201 ff.; also 
Volkmar, Urspr. uns. Evangelien, Ziirich 1866, but chiefly in reference to John. 
The Christologie des Neuen Testamenies of Beyschlag, Berlin 1866, I have, to my 
regret, only been able to take into consideration here and there supplemen- 
tarily, during the later progress of the printing. As Ino longer had any fitting 
opportunity to express in the Commentary my view as to Beyschlag’s develop- 
ment of the idea of the Son of man,—which he regards as the Jdeal man, as the 
ideal of humanity,—I may here be allowed, on account of the Christological im- 
portance of the subject, frankly to state that the deductions of the author—how- 
ever attractive they are, and however considerable the names of authority that 
may range themselves on the side of their result—have not been able to convince 
me. I cannot but think that the notion of the Jdeal man, as well in Daniel as 





THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE, . XV 


them, as well as generally to the latest literature relative to the subject, 
in their bearing on my purpose. 

In reference to the critical remarks, I must call attention to the fact 
that only for the first four chapters of Mark could I take the readings of 
the text of Tischendorf from the new large edition (editio octava), which 
had only appeared up to that point; and for the sequel I had to quote 
them from the second edition of the Synopsis Evangelica. For I might 
not fall back on the editio septima (1859), because after issuing it Tisch- 
endorf modified essentially his critical procedure, and reverted to the 
principles of Lachmann, constituting in accordance with these the text of 
the second edition of the Synopsis (1864), and, of course, diverging 
much from that of the editio sepittma. I am not quite free from hesita- 
tion as to this change of principles, whereby, instead of simply steering 
for the ideal goal as such, we are again directed, as in the case of Lach- 
mann, only to an intermediate station, the actual reaching of which, 
especially if it is to be the text of the second century, must withal in 
numberless cases be uncertain. 

In conclusion, may I be allowed, simply for those at a distance inter- 
ested in my personal circumstances, to mention that since last autumn [ 
have retired from my position as a member of the Royal Consistory here. 
‘« Deus nobis haec otia fecit,’’—this I have (in another sense, indeed, 
than the Roman poet meant it) to acknowledge with humble thanks to 
the everlasting Love, which has in great long-suffering and grace up- 
held me during many most Jaborious and, in part, momentous years, and 
has at length helped me to get over the difficult step of retiring from the 
vocation bound up with my very inmost life. As nothing else than con- 
siderations of health, which I might not and could not withstand any 
longer, gave occasion to this change, and as for me especially it has been - 


in the Gospels, is one brought to them and introduced, and not the one there 
given. I find that the only Synoptic passage which appears to favor this inter- 
pretation is Mark ii. 28, But even here it is, as I believe, only an appearance. 
For, firstly, the fundamental thought in this passage is not that of the ideal, but 
that of the representative of humanity, which isa different idea ; secondly, even 
this conception does not attach to 6 vld¢ rot avOpérov in itself, but to the whole 
conception of the Messiah, and would be the leading thought of the argument, 
even if quite anolher appellation of the Messiah were used. That Christ, 
although without prejudice to His personal pre-existence, was and is the Ideal 
of humanity, is accordant with Scripture ; but it is not contained in 6 vide rod 
av6pérov, as, indeed, this expression in itself does not lexically contain the 
very slightest hint thereof.—We may add, that it is much to be wished that the 
antagonism, which the work of Beyschlag will still abundantly encounter and 
must needs encounter, may be kept clear of the passionate vehemence which it 
has already so largely experienced. 


Xvl THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


deeply painful to separate from the circle of the dear colleagues highly 
and gratefully esteemed by me,—with all of whom, amidst manifold 
diversity of our gifts and powers, I was bound in unity of spirit ‘to 
the service of the one Lord, and, I venture to hope, may still continue 
bound,— it is a fervent joy to my heart, that in the partial co-operation 
which still remains assigned to me, especially by my continuing to take 
part in the theological examinations, there is not yet wholly dissolved the 
official bond of fellowship, which has always been to meso high a bless- 
ing in my position here. 

Let the future, which is to be developed out of the blood-stained 
seed-sowing of the present not only for the fleeting existence of this 
world, but also for the eternal kingdom of the Lord, be committed to 
God, who turns the hearts of men as water-brooks, and will turn all 
things for the best to His people—the unknown and yet well known, the 
sorrowful and yet always rejoicing, the dying, and behold they live ! 


DR. MEYER. 
Hannover, 10th August, 1866. 


ae Ss eet coon 2 ————_ ——_.- -—— 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


[For Commentaries embracing the whole New Testament, the Four Gospels 
as such, or the three Synoptic Gospels (including the chief Harmonies), see the 
list prefixed to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. The following 
list contains Commentaries on the Gospel of St. Mark or on that of St. Luke, 
along with a few works of historical criticism relative to these Gospels. Works 
mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a few exceptions, been 
excluded, since, however valuable they may be on their own account, they have 
but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. 
Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. 
The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the 
book has been more or less frequently re-issued ; + marks the date of the 
author's death ; c. = circa, an approximation to it.] 


Recrnt Eprrons. = Tregelles’ Greek Testament, Westcott and Hort’s Greek Tes- 
tament, Bernhard Weiss in Weiss ed. Mey. 
(These are cited only when they differ from Meyer.) 

Weis ed. Mey.—the sixth German edition of Meyer, edited by Prof. Bern- 
hard Weiss, D.D. : 


ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., + 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. Hist. at 
Princeton : The Gospel according to Mark explained. 

8°, New York, 1858, al. 

Amsnosrus, + 397, Bishop of Milan: Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. 

Opera. 

Bauer (Reedieand Christian), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tibingen : Das Markus- 

evangeliam nach seinem Ursprang und Charakter. 8°, Tiibing. 1851. 

Boryemann (Friedrich August), + 1848, Pastor at Kirchberg : Scholia in Lucae 

Evangelium ad supplendos reliquorum interpretum commentarios... . 

8°, Lips. 1830. 


CaTenaz. See Corperros, Niceras, and Possrvs. 

Coox (F. C.), Canon of Exeter : Commentary and critical notes on the Gospel 
according to St. Mark. Vol. I. of Bible Commentary (N. T.), edited by 
Canon Cook. Lond. 1878. 

Corpgxztus [{Corprrr] (Balthasar), + 1650, Jesuit: Catena sexaginta quinque 
Patrum Graecorum in 8. Lucam. .. . Latinitate donata et annota- 


tionibus illustrata. ... 2°, Antv. 1628. 
Costa (Isaac Da), Pastor at Amsterdam : Beschouwing van het Evangelie van 
Lucas. 8°, Amst. 1850-52. 


Exsnes (Jakob), + 1750, Consistorialrath at Berlin : Commentarius critico-phil- 
ologicus in Evangelium Marci . . . Edidit Ferd. Stosch. 
4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1773. 


i a 


xViil EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


Forp (James), M.A., Prebendary of Exeter: The Gospel of St. Mark [and of 
St. Luke], illustrated from ancient and modern authors. 

8°, Lond. 1849-51. 

Frirzscue (Karl Friedrich August), + 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Evange- 

lium Marci recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit D. Car. 


F. A. Fritzsche, 8°, Lips. 1830. 

Gopet (Frédéric), Prof. Theol. at Neuchatel : Commentaire sur l’Evangile de 
saint Luc. 2 tomes. 8°, Neuchatel, 1871. 
Translated from the second French edition by E. W. Shalders and 

. W. Cusin. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1875. ] 

An American edition of this translation, in the volume, edited by John 

, D.D., published by I. K. Funk & Co. 8°, New York, 1881.] 


Hevpen (Georg Friedrich), Theological Tutor at Wittenberg: Marci Evange- 
lium notis grammatico-historico-criticis illustratum. 

8°, Argent. 1716. 

HILGENFELD (Adolf), Prof. Theol. at Jena: Das Markusevangelium nach seiner 

Composition, seiner Stellung in der Evangelien-Litteratur, seinem 

Ursprung und Charakter dargestellt. 8°, Leip. 1850. 

Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), + 1877, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : 
Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testamentes zusammenhangend untersucht. 

Achter Theil. Das Evangelium des Lukas, Cap. i.-xxii. 66... . 

8°, Nérdlingen, 1878. 


Jones (W. B.) : Commentary and critical notes on the Gospel according to St. 
Luke. Vol. I. of Bible Commentary, edited by F. C. Cook, Canon of 
Exeter. Lond. 1878. 

Juntos (Franciscus) [Francois pv Jon], + 1602, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Analyt- 
ica expositio Evangelii Marci. [Opera.] 


KLOSTERMANN (August), Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Das Markusevangelium nach 
seinem Quellenwerthe fiir die evangelische Geschichte. 
8°, Gétting. 1867. 


MicHELsEN (Jan Hendrik Adolf) : Het Evangelie van Markus. 1 gedeelte. 
8°, Amst. 1867. 
Morison (James), D.D., Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glasgow : A 


Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark. 8°, Lond. 1873. 
Mokrvs (Samuel Friedrich Nathan), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Praelecti- 
ones in Evangelium Lucae. Ed. K. A. Donat. 8°, Lip. 1795. 


Niceras Serrariensis, c. 1150, Bishop of Heraclea: Catena veterum Patrum in 
Lucae Evangelium, colligente Niceta. . . . [Mai, Scrip. Vet. Coll. ix.] 


Parr (Heinrich), ¢ 1805: Das Lucas-Evangelium umschrieben und erlantert. 
Theile. 8° Bremen, 1777-81. 
ParEvs [WakrNGLER] (David), + 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Adversaria in 
S. Marcum, 8. Lucam.. . per 
Petrer (George), Min. at Bread, Sussex: A learned, pious, and practical com- 
mentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. 2vols. 2°, Lond. 1661. 
Prscator [Frsscuer] (Johann), + 1626, Cohrector at Herborn : Analysis logica 
Evangelii secundum Lucam. 8°, Sigenae, 1596, al. 
Puumprre (E. H.), Prof. at King’s Coll., Lond. : The Gospel according to St. 
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. In. Vol. I. of New Testament Com- 
mentary for English Readers. Edited by C. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of 
Gloucester and Bristol. 49 Lond. 1878. 
Posstnus (Peter), + c. 1650, Jesuit at Rome: Catena Graecorum Patrum in 
Marcum Graece et Latine. Interprete P. Possino. 2°, Romae, 1673. 


Remnarp (Lorenz), + 1752, Superintendent at Biittstadt : Observationes phil- 
ologicae et exegeticae in Evangelium Marci selectissimae. 
4°, Lips. 1737. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. x1x 


Scuarr (Philip), Prof. in Union Theol. Sem., N. ¥.: A popular commentary on 
the New Testament by English and American scholars. Vol. I. In- 
troduction and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke by the editor 
and Matthew B. Riddle, Prof. in Hartford Theol. Sem. 8°, N. Y. 1879. 

ScHLEIERBMACHER (Friedrich Daniel Ernst), + 1834, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : 
Ueber die Schriften des Lukas kritischer Versuch. 8°, Berl. 1817. 
[Translated with an introduction by Connop Thirlwall, D. D. 

8°, Lond. 1825, 

ScHoutteN (Johan Hendrik), Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Het oudste Evangelie ; 
critisch onderzoek naar de samenstelling, de onderlinge verhouding, 
de historische waarde en den oorsprong der Evangelien naar Mattheus 
en Marcus. 8°, Leid. 1868. 
Het Paulinisch Evangelie ; critisch onderzoek van het Evangelie naar 
Lucas, en seine verhouding tot Marcus, Mattheus, en die Handelingen. 

8°, Leid. 1870. 

Szcaaz (Carolus), ¢ 1803, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Observationes philologicae 
et theologicae in Evangelii Lucae capita xi priora. 8°, Utrecht, 1766. 

StTEimn (Karl Wilhelm), Pastor at Niemegk : Commentar zu dem Evangelium des 
Lucas, nebst einem Anhange tiber den Brief au die Laodicier. 

8°, Halle, 1830. 

Stevia (Esterua] (Diego), ¢ 1578, Spanish monk: In Evangelium secundum 

ucam enarrationes. 2 voll, 2°, Compluti, 1578, al. 


‘Trrvus Bostrensis? ¢ c. 370: Commentarius in Lucam. [Bibl. Max. Patrum. iv. ] 
TROLLOPE (William), M. A. : Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. 
12°, Lond. 1849. 


Vicror, Antiochenus, c. 400, Bishop of Antioch : Exegesis in Evangelium Marci. 

Ex codd. Mosq. edidit Chr. F, Matthaei. 8°, Mosquae, 1775. 

Vinge (Hendrik Egbert), + 1862, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Het Nieuwe Testa- 
ment met ophelderende en toepasslijke aanmorkingen. 

8°, Utrecht, 1852-54. 


‘Wenrss (Bernhard), Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Das Markusevangelium und seine 
synoptischen Parallelen erklart. 8°, Berl. 1872. 

Das Matthéusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen erklart. 
8°, Halle, 1876. 
‘Wr: (Bartus van), + 1844, Pastor at Niewland : Specimen hermeneuticum de 
iis quae ab uno Marco sunt narrata aut copiosius et explicatius ab eo 
exposita. 8°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1812. 


THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


INTRODUCTION. 
§1.—ON THE LIFE OF MARK. 


“2, HE evangelist Mark, a Jew by birth (Col. iv. 10 f.), is the same' 
4 who, in the Acts of the Apostles, is sometimes called John Mark 
(xii. 12, 25, xv. 37), sometimes John only (xiii. 5, 13), sometimes 
only Mark (xv. 39; comp. Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; Philem. 
24; 1 Pct. v. 18). His original name, therefore, was John ;* 
and the name Mark, adopted probably on his passing into the service 
of the apostles, became the prevailing one in Christian intercourse. Mary 
is named to us as his mother, who, at the time of the execution of 
James the Elder, was an esteemed Christian dwelling at Jerusalem, and in 
friendly relations with Peter (Acts xii. 12). Jerusalem may therefore be 
regarded as the birthplace of Mark. According to 1 Pet. v. 18, he was 
converted by Peter (viéc ov) ; he entered, however, into the service of Bar- 
nabas and Paul, when they commenced thcir missionary journeys (Acts xii. 
25), but subsequently became the occasion of a difference betwecn them and 
of their separation from one another, when he accompanied Barnabas, 
whose cousin he was (see on Col. iv. 10), on his journey to Cyprus (Acts 
xv. 36 ff.). It is probable that a want of dauntless perseverance (Acts xiii. 
18, xv. 38) had withdrawn from him Paul's favor, without, however, hin- 
dering their subsequent reunion. Of his further life and work nothing is 
known to us in detail from the N. T. beyond the fact that during Paul's 
imprisonment at Caesarea—according to the usual view, at Rome (see on 
Eph., Introd. § 2)—he was with that apostle to his comfort (Col. iv. 10 f. ; 
Philem, 24 ; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 11), and was at that time contemplating a 
journey to Asia Minor (Col. iv. 10). At 1 Pet. v. 18 we find him again 
with his spiritual father Peter in Babylon. His special relation to Peter is 





1 The supposition that there were (wo di/- 
Serent Marks (Grotius, Calovius, and sev- 
eral others, including Schlelermacher in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 183%, p. 760) is absolutely 
without any sufficlent foundation. It is 
nevertheless again taken up by Kienlen in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1818, p. 428 ff., and in op- 
position to the tradition of the church far- 
ther made use of for ascribing the Gospel 


1 


not to the Petrine, but to the Pauline Mark, 
whom Papias had already confounded 
with the former. 

2Thence Hitzig (ud. Johannes Markus u. 
seine Schriften, Zirich 1848) could hold him 
to be the author of the Apocalypse, which, 
however, is decidedly incorrect. See 
Liicke, Hind. in d. Offend. p. 781. 


2 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


specified by the unanimous testimony of the ancient church as having been 
that of interpreter (épunvetrnys ; Papias, in Eus. iii. 89 ; Iren. ili. 1, iii. 10, 6 ; 
Tertull. contr. Mare. iv. 5 ; Eusebius, Jerome, et al.) ; and there exists ab- 
solutely no valid reason for doubting the statement, if only the notion of 
épunveiryc, ‘* interpreter,” be taken not as meaning that Peter, being himself 
insufficiently versed in Greek, caused what he delivered in Aramaic to be re- 
produced in Greek by Mark (Kuinoel and many others), or that Peter made 
use of him as Latin interpreter (Bleek), but rather as denoting the service 
of a seeretary, who had to write down the oral communications of his apostle, 
whether from dictation or in a more free exercise of his own activity, and 
thus became his interpreter in writing to others. This view is plainly con- 
firmed by Jerome, ad Hedib. 11: ‘‘ Habebat ergo (Paulus) Titum interpretem,”’ 
‘‘Therefore he (Paul) had Titus as an interpreter” (in drawing up the 
second Epistle to the Corinthians), ‘‘ sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cujus 
evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est. Denique et duae 
epistolae quae feruntur Petri, stilo inter se et charactere discrepant structuraque 
verborum, ex quo intelligimus, pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpre- 
tiwus,” ‘‘as also blessed Peter had Mark, whose Gospel was composed, 
Peter narrating and he writing it. In like manner also the two epistles 
which bear the name of Peter differ from each other in style and character 
and structure of words, from which we know that the necessity of things 
led him to use different interpreters.” 

The tradition, that Mark was with Peter in Rome, is not yet attested, it 
is true, in the fragment of Papias, but is still very ancient, as it is designa- 
ted by Clem. Al. Hypotyp. 6, in Eus. vi. 14, as wapddociv rav davéxabev mpec- 
Burépwr, ‘‘a tradition of the elders from the first.”” It is not, however, free 
from the suspicion of having arisen out of 1 Pet. v. 18, where Babylon was 
taken as a designation of Rome (Eus., ii. 15 ; Jerome, Vir, ill. 8). From 
Rome, after the death of that apostle (not so early as the eighth year of 
Nero, as Jerome states), he is said to have gone to Alerandria, and there— 
where, according to Eus. iii. 39, he is alleged to have founded the church'— 
to have died as bishop (Eus. ii. 16 ; Epiph. Haer. li. 6 ; Jerome, Vir. ill. 8), 
and, according to later tradition, in the character of a martyr (Niceph. ii. 
48, Martyrol. Rom., 25 Apr.). 


§ 2.— ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL. 


It is related, first of all by Papias (in Eus. iii. 89), and then unanimously 
by the entire ancient church, that Mark wrote his Gospel under the special 
influence of Peter, whose épu7vetrnyc, ‘‘ interpreter,” he was. This account 





1 That this occurred before the compo- 
sition of the Epistle to the Romans, Thiersch 
concludes (d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. 
p. 104 f.) from Rom. xv. 19 ff. Certainly it 
is tn itself probable that even at that carly 
date Christianity existed, as in Rome, so 
also in Alexandria, where there was a very 


numerous body of Jews. Still the expres- 
sion in Rom. /.c. is too indefinite as respects 
its geographical limits for any one to be 
able to maintain that Egypt belongs to the 
regions whereof Paul eays that there is 
nothing more in them for him to do. 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


is, according to Papias (see on Matt., Introd. p. 29 ff.), to be understood as 
amounting more precisely to this, that Mark made notes for himself after 
the discourses of Peter which he heard, and subsequently employed these 
in the composition of his Gospel. This original relation to the authority of 
Peter! could not but reccive more precise delineation by tradition, as there 
grew up an increasing desire to see the non-apostolic writing invested with 
apostolic validity. Already, at avery early date, our Gospel was regarded 
directly as the Gospel of Peter, as even Justin, c. Tryph. 106, quotes it as ra 
arouvnpovetyara Iérpov, ‘the memorabilia of Peter ;”* and Tertull. c. Mace. 
iv. 5, says: ‘‘ Marcus quod edidit evangelium, Petri adjirmatur, cujus inter- 
pres Marcus,” ‘‘The Gospel which Mark put forth is established as Peter’s, 
whose interpreter Mark was” (comp. Iren. iil. 1: ra id Térpov xypvocdueva 
éyypdguc, quiv wapadéduxe, ‘‘ those things preached by Peter he has delivered 
to us in writing,” similarly Origen in Eus. vi. 25). Still, however, there is 
no mention of any special recognition of the book on the part of Peter. 
Nothing can with any certainty be concluded from the fragmentary 
initial words of the Muratorian Canon (as has especially been attempted by 
Volkmar on Credner’s Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 351 f.); and Clement, Hypotyp. 
6, in Eus. vi. 14, expressly states that the publication of the Gospel, com- 
posed after the apostle’s discourses, experienced at the hands of the latter 
neither a xwitca, ‘‘ hindering,” nor a mporpfyacba, ‘‘furthering.” But in 
the course of tradition the apostolic confirmation also* does not fail to ap- 
pear, and even Eusebius himself,‘ ii. 15, relates : yudvra 62 apazbév pact tov 
aréoroAov . . . Kupwoal te tiv ypagny cig evreviww raic txxAnoiac, ‘it is said, 
however, that the apostle, knowing what was done . . . also confirmed the 
writing for reading in the churches.” Comp. Epiph. Haer. li. 6 ; Jerome, 
Vir. il. 8. 

In the dependence—to which Papias testifies—of Mark on Petrine dis- 
courses and on notes made from them, there is not implied essentially and 
necessarily his independence of Matthew and Luke ; for if Mark, when he 
composed his Gospel, found already in existence the writings of Matthew 
and Luke, even although he rested on the testimony of Peter, the compari- 
son of that testimony with those other two evangelists might still be of the 
highest importance to him, inasmuch as it might furnish to him partly con- 
firmation, partly, in the event of want of accord between Matthew and 
Luke, decision, partly inducement for omissions, partly additions and modi- 


1 Which, however, most of the later 
critics (comp. on Matt. p. 26 f.), without suf- 
ficient warrant either from the testimony 
of Paplas, or from other testimonies, or 
from internal grounds, refer back to a lost 
primitive Mark, from which our Mark first 
took its rise. So, too, Schenke) and Weiz- 
sicker, tb. d. Evang. Gesch. 1864. Recently 
Weiss and Tischendorf have decidedly de- 
clared themselves against the hypothesis of 
a primitive Mark [Urmarkus}. 

® See on John, Introd. p. 7 f.: Ritsch! In 
the theol. Jahrd, 1851, p, 499 f.; Késtlin, 


Urspr.d. synopt. Evang. p. 308 f.; Welss in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 677. 

§ The view which finds mention of the 
literary services of Mark even by Paul, 
namely at 2 Cor. vill. 18 (Storr, Hitzig), is a 
pure fancy. : 

4 Euseblus does not here quote Clemeni‘s 
words, so that Clement would have here, 
compared with the previous passage, con- 
tradicted himself (Strauss, de Wette, and 
others), but he is narrating {tn his own pcr- 
son. Sce Credner, Hin. I. p. 118; Thiersch, 
fist. Stand. p. 212 f. 








4 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


fications. And thus the matter would have to be conceived of, if the hy- 
pothesis of Griesbach (see Introd. to Matt. p. 24), which is still in substance 
upheld by many,’ were the correct one.*? But it is not the correct one. 
For, apart from the fact that in any case Luke closes the series of the Synop- 
tics and is only to be placed after the destruction of Jerusalem, our existing 
Gospel of Matthew cannot have taken its present shape until after Mark (see 
Introd. to Matt. p. 26 f.):; and prior to Mark, as far as concerns the relation 
of the latter to Matthew, there can only have existed the apostolic collection 
of Logia, which became also the first foundation of our Matthew. [See Note 
I., p. 10 seq.] Mark must have made use of this, although in general the 
presentation of the discourses of Jesus has been with him so subordinate a 
feature, that we may reasonably assume that he has taken for granted in his 
readers an acquaintance with the teaching (comp. Holtzmann, p. 385). But 
every kind of procedure in the way of epitome and compilation (according 
to the hypothesis of Griesbach, there would only be left to Mark as his own 
peculiar portions, iv. 26-29, vii. 32-37, viii. 22-26, xi. 1-14, xiii. 833-37, xvi. 
6-11) is absolutely incompatible with the creative life-like freshness and 
picturesqueness of detail, with the accurate designation of the localities and 
situations in his description,* with his taking no account of all the prelimi- 
nary history, with the clear objectivity and simple, firmly-knit arrangement of 
his narratives, with the peculiar character of that which he gives either in 
greater brevity or in greater detail than the others.‘ Besides, we do not 
find in Mark the peculiar elements which Matthew and Luke (the latter es- 
pecially, ix. 51-xviii. 14) respectively have in matter and manner ; indeed, 
precisely in the passages where Mark does not stand by their side (as in the 
preliminary history and in discourses of Jesus), those two diverge even the 
furthest from one another, while they in the main go together where Mark 
presents himself as the intervening link. Such an intervening link 
between the two Mark could not be as a subsequent worker and com- 
piler, but only as a previous worker in the field, whose treatise—freshly 
moulded from the apostolic fountainhead in simplicity, objectivity, homo- 
geneousness, and historical continuity—furnished a chief basis, first, in the 


1 Including Saunier, Fritzsche, de Wette, 
Bleek, Baur, Delitzsch, Késtlin, Kahnis, and 
others. 

2 The best conjoint view of all that can 
be said on behalf of this hypothesis is given 
by Bleek in his Beifrdge, p. 72 ff.. and Fini. 
p. 248 ff. The most forcible refutation is 
found in Holtzmann, Synopt. EKvang. p. 118 
ff., 344 ff. Comp. Weiss in the Stud. u. 
Ariz. 1861, p. 652 ff., 680 ff. 

* Baur, Markusevang. p. 41, does Mark in- 
justice, when he sees in his vividness of de- 
scription merely the habit of seizing first 
of all on the most sensuously-concrete 
conception. Kdéstlin and others speak of 
Mark’s ‘‘mannerism.” Welsse, Frangeli- 
enfr. p. 78, rightly says: “‘in fact, nothing 
can be more dangerous to the ‘ cridicism of 


fendency’ than any kind of acknowledg- 
ment, be it ever so limited, of the indepen- 
dence of Mark.” Nevertheless, Eichthal 
(es Evangiles, Paris 1868) has found in the 
pictorial description of Mark a proof of 
subsequent elaboration ; he is held to be the 
epitomizer of Matthew, whose Gospel nev- 
ertheless, as It now stands, is full of inter- 
polations. And so Luke too is in many ways 
interpolated. In this Eichthal goes to 
work with yery uncritical license, and re- 
gards Mark as being much less Interpolated, 
merely because he was from the first look- 
ed on as of far less consequence (I. p. 267 ff.). 

4 See especially, Ewald, Jahrb. IT. p. 208 f.; 
Weiss in the Stud. u. Krif. 1861, p. 67 ff., 
646 ff. ; Holtzmann, p. 284 f., 448 f. 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


gradual formation of our Matthew, and then also for Luke. It is simply 
inconceivable that Mark could have passed over, in particular, the mch 
materials which Luke has peculiar to himself (as is still the opinion of Kést- 
lin, p. 884), merely from the endeavor after brevity and a laying aside of 
everything anti-Jewish. As regards the origin of the Gospel of Mark, we 
must accordingly abide simply by the testimony of Papias : it is primarily 
to be traced back to the communications of Peter, and with this view ad- 
mirably agrees the characteristic discourse of the latter in Acts x. 36 ; in 
fact, this discourse may be regarded as a programme of our Gospel. Other 
special sources are not sufficiently recognizable,’ apart from the primitive 
evangelic tradition in general, under the influence of which the companion 
of Paul, Barnabas, and Peter of necessity came, and from the collection of 
Logia of Matthew, which, as the most ancient (see on Matthew, Introd. 
p. 9 ff.) document intended for the natives of Palestine, could not have re- 
mained unknown to Mark, the inhabitant of Jerusalem. Rightly have 
many * maintained the primitive ecangelic character of Mark in relation to 
the rest of our Gospels, and thus there is taken ‘‘a great step towards find- 
ing our way in the labyrinth of Gospel-harmony,” ? however strongly Baur 
and his school (K6stlin, in the most complex fashion) contend against it with 
their hypothesis of a special ‘‘ tendency” (see § 3), and with the aid of a 
Papian primitive-Mark ; while Hilgenfeld withal, following Augustine and 
Hug, insists ppon the priority of Mark to Luke, and consequently on the 
intermediate position of Mark between Matthew and Luke.‘ According to 
the opinion of Delitzsch,* in connection with his mistaken discovery (see on 
Matt. Introd. p. 25) that the writing of the evangelic history, proceeding 
in the footsteps of the Thora, was created by Matthew, the dependence of 
Mark on Matthew would appear as so great, that even the possibility of the 
converse relation vanishes before it,—a dependence which, we may add, 
Hilgenfeld thinks to explain by the dubious hypothesis, opening the door 
to much that is arbitrary, of a Gospel of Peter or of the Petrine-Roman tra- 
dition as an intermediate step. *° 

The Gospel has three main divisions, of which the first goes as far as the 
choice of the Twelve (iii. 13), and the last begins from the setting out for 
Judaena (chap. x.). 


Remark 1.—Although Mark was chiefly dependent ou the communications 
of Peter, still the Petrine tendency is not to be attributed to his Gospel (in op- 


2 According to Fritzsche and Bicek, Mark 
is alleged to have used not merely Matthew 
and Luke, but even the Gospel of John. 
The state of the case fs directly the re- 
verse, 

2 So not only Welisse and Wilke, but also 
Lachmann, Hitzig, Reuss, Ewald, Ritschl, 
Thiersch, Volkmar, Tobler, Plitt, Holtz- 
mann, Weiss. Schenkel, Weizsicker, and 
others (see also Gider in Herzog’s EncyX. 
IX. p. 47 f.) 


*Thiersch, Kirche tm Apost. Zeitalt, 


p- 102. 

‘ Especially since 1850, then in his long 
controversy with Baur, and once more in 
his Kanon u. Krilik d. N. T. 1868, and In his 
Zeitechr. 1864, p. 287 ff. 

§ Neue unters. db. d. Entsteh. u. Ant. d. ka- 
non. Evang. I., 1858. 

® See on the other hand Baur, Markua- 
evang. p. 119 ff.; Ritschl in the ¢heol. 
Jahrb. 1851, p. 482 ff.; Weiss in the Stud. wu. 
Arit. 1861, p. 691 ff.; Holtzmann in his 
synopt. Evang. 


6 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


position to Hilgenfeld),,as appears by the very fact, that from his Gospel there 
is actually absent the saying of Jesus concerning the Rock of the church (Matt. 
xvi. 17). See generally, Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 56 ff., and Markus- 
evang. p. 133 ff. Comp. on viii. 29; also Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, 
p. 674 f. 

Remakk 2.—In making use of particular passages of Mark to prove his inde- 
pendence or dependence on the other Synoptics, the greatest caution is neces- 
sary, not to educe from our reading of them what is already in our own mind as 
the critical view of the relation. The experience of the most recent criticism 
is a warning against this, for in it very often what one takes to be in his favor 
is by another turned against him, according to the coloring imported by the 
subjectivity of each. Even from the O. T. citation in Mark i. 2, 3, compared 
with Matt. iii. 3, xi. 10, we cannot draw any reference either for (Ritsch]) or 
against the dependence of Matthew on Mark ; see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, 
p. 89f. Comp. on i. 2 f, 


§ 8.—PURPOSE, TIME, PLACE. 


Like all the canonical Gospels, ours also has the destined purpose of his- 
. torically proving the Messiahship of Jesus : it seeks to accomplish this es- 
pecially by setting forth the deeds of Jesus, but in doing so does not bear 
any special dogmatic color.’ It leaves out of consideration the doctrinal 
differences that agitate the subsequent apostolic period, and goes to work 
quite objectively. We must not on this account, however, assume a mediat- 
ing aim in the interest of the idea of catholicity, and consequently a neutral 
character accordant with that tendency,’ ora mediating between the Jewish- 
Christian Matthew and the Pauline Luke (Hilgenfeld), for assumptions of 
which sort it was thought that a welcome external support was to be found in 
the very fact, that Mark’s place was from old assigned to him only after Mat- 
thew, and relatively (according to Clem. Al.) even only after Luke. The omis- 
sion of a genealogy and preliminary history does not betray the design of a 
neutral attitude (Schwegler alleges even that a Docetic reference is implied), 
but simply points to a time of its origin, in which, among Gentile Chris- 
tians, such matters as these had not yet attained the importance of being 
regarded as elements of the Gospel.* And the work is composed for Gentile 
Christians, as is evident beyond any doubt from the total absence of proofs 





1 Not even the character of artistic con- 
struction, which (according to Hilgenfeld) 
is designed to turn on the contrast of light 
and shade. But the alternation of light 
and shade is involved In the course of the 
history, not in the artistic premeditation 
of a literary plan. 

® Schwegler, Baur, Késtlin, and others, 
with more precise definitions various in 
kind. According to Baur, even the name 
for this neutral and mediating Gospel is 
significantly chosen: ‘* Mark,’’ the inter- 
preter of Peter and the companion of Paul. 


* The opinion of Volkmar (d. Relig. Jesu 
u. thre erste Entwickelung, 1857, and ge- 
schichtstreue Theol. 1858)—that the Gospel of 
Mark asan Epos is a Pauline treatise with a 
set purposein opposition tathe Judaistic reac- 
tion, and bas as its presupposition the Juda- 
istic Apocalypse, and that, having come into 
existence under Titus, it became the founda- 
tion for the rest of the Gospels—is a critti- 
cal extravagance. See, in opposition to it, 
Hilgenfeld in the cheol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 887 
ff., and in his Zeitschr. 1859, p. 252 ff., 1861, 
p. 190 ff., also in Kanon u. Kritik, p. 17% ff. 


INTRODUCTION. 7 


drawn fromthe O. T. (excepting only i. 2 f., see in loc.) and of Judaistic 
elements of doctrine (Késtlin, p. 814), as also from the comparison of many 
points of detail with the parallel passages in Matthew (see Holtzmann, 
p. 385 ff.). Comp. on x. 12, vii. 1 ff., xi. 17, and others. 

With respect to the time of composition, the Gospel must, in accordance 
with the eschatological statements in chap. xiii. (see especially, vv. 13, 24, 
80, 33), and because it preceded our Matthew, have been written at all 
events before the destruction of Jerusalem, although Weizsiicker concludes 
the contrary from the parable iv. 26—29 (see in loc.). This is more precisely 
defined by the statement of Irenaeus, iii.’ 1 (in Eus.v. 8), that Mark 
published the Gospel after the death’ of Peter and Paul. By this we 
must abide ; and as there is not historical ground for going back to an 
earlier period (Hitzig : years 55-57 ; Schenkel, 45-58), the treating of that. 
assertion of Irenaeus with suspicion, as if it might have flowed from 2 Pet. 
i. 15 (Hichhorn, Hug, Fritzsche), and were too much of a doctrinal nature 
(Weizsicker), is unfounded. See Credner, I. p. 118. The account of Clem- 
ent, Hypotyp. 6 (in Eus. H. #. vi. 14), that Mark published his Gospel 
while Peter was still alive in captivity at Rome, makes indeed but an incon- 
siderable difference in the definition of the time, yet was so welcome to the 
interest felt in its apostolic authority, that Eusebius not merely added the 
confirmation of the treatise on the part of Peter (see § 2), but also transfer- 
red the apostle’s sojourn at Rome in question to the very earliest time pos- 
sible, namely, to the third year of Claudius (ten years after the death of 
Christ), when Peter was said to have been there together with Philo and 
Simon Magus (Eus. 7. £. ii. 14, 15, 17), which incorrect determination of 
the date of our Gospel was in consequence adopted by Theophylact, Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus, and others. Later critics, who place Mark in point of 
time after Matthew and Luke (Griesbach’s hypothesis), or at least after 
Matthew (Hilgenfeld), do not make it come into existence till after the: 
destruction of Jerusalem (de Wette, Bleek, and others ; Hilgenfeld : under: 
Domitian), to which vicw Weisse also (‘‘ under the influences of the lively. 
impression of the conquest”) is inglined ; Késtlin, assigning to tho alleged 
older Mark of Papias the date 65-70 a.p., makes the canonical Gospel 
appear the first decade of the second century. Baur puts it down still 
lower in the second century, as indeed he assigns to the canonical Gospels. 
in general no earlier date than 180-170. _ 

The place of composition is not known with certainty, but the prepondcr-~ 
ant voice of ecclesiastical tradition (Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius,, 
and many others) names Rome, which is not necessarily connected with the 
supposition that Mark wrote his Gospel while Peter was still alive, and has 
no internal reasons against it, but still is not to be made good by the Latin 
expressions which occur, as at vi. 27, vii. 4, 8, xv. 39, 44, and explanations 
such as xv. 16, xii. 42, or by x. 12, xv. 21. Most of the later critics have 
declared themselves in favor of the Roman origin (Gieseler, Ewald, Hilgen- 


1 efo8ov, not: departare, as Mill, Grabe, Aberle, and others will have it. See Hilgen- 
feld in his Zeilechr. 184, p. 224. 


8 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


feld, Késtlin, Schwegler, Guerike, and several others), and the evidence in 
its behalf can only gain in weight from the fact that even at avery carly 
period Alexandria was assigned to Mark asa sphere of labor. It is true 
that Chrysostom names Alerandria as the place of composition, but to this 
the less value is to be attached that no Alexandrian confirms it. Hence the 
combination of Rome and Alexandria by the assumption of a teofold publi- 
cation (Richard Simon, Lardner, Eichhorn) is unnecessary, and cannot be 
made good, not even by the statement of Jerome : ‘‘ Assumpto itaque Evan- 
gelio, quod ipse confecerat, perrexit Aegyptum,” ‘‘ Therefore the Gospel 
which he had completed being approved he proceeded to Egypt.” 


§ 4.—PRIMARY LANGUAGE, ORIGINALITY, INTEGRITY. 


Mark wrote in Greek, as the Fathers are unanimous either in presuppos- 
ing or in expressly testifying. It is true that there occurs in the Peshito as 
a subscription, and in the Philoxenian on the margin,’ the remark that 
at Rome he preached in the Roman tongue ; and several manuscripts of the 
Greek text (see Scholz, p. xxx.; Tisch. p. 325) distinctly affirm that he 
wrote in Latin, but this entire statement is a hasty inference from the sup- 
position that Mark wrote at Rome and for Zomans. .Nevertheless, to the 
Roman Catholics, in the interest of the Vulgate, it could not but be wel- 
come, so that it was defended by Baronius (ad ann. 45, No. 39 ff.) and 
others. Since the days of Richard Simon, however, it has been again given 
up even among Catholic scholars. It was even given out that the Latin au- 
tograph was preserved in Venice, but that has long since been unmasked 
as a portion of the Vulgate.* 

The originality of our Gospel has found assailants only in recent times, 
and that, indeed, on the ground of the account of Papias, on which its 
originality was formerly based. It was thought to be discovered that what 
Papias says of the Gospel of Mark does not suit our Gospel.? and it was fur- 
ther inferred (see especially, Credner, U.c. and p. 205 ‘) that the Gospel in 
its present form could not be the work of Mark, but that another had 
worked up the notes which Mark had made without regard to arrangement, 
and thereby the etayyéAcov xara Mdpxov had come intoexistence. In the fur- 
ther progress of criticism, the hypothesis was developed of a pre-canonical 
or primitive-Mark [Urmarkus] which had been an Evangelium Petri, a 
hypothesis variously elaborated in particular by Baur, Késtlin, and others. 
According to Késtlin, this primitive Gospel (which is held to form the basis 
of Matthew also) was composed in Syria, and formed, along with Matthew 


1Comp. also Ebedjesu, in Assem. Bit. das neve Test. nach Zweck, Uraprung, Inha-t, 
Or. TIT. 1, p. 9. 1843, IT. p. 2183 ff.) has declared in faror of 
2 See Dobrowsky, fragment. Pragense ev. the genuineness of our Gospel, and has look- 
&8t. Marci vulgo autographi, Prag. 1778; ed upon the testimony of Papias as affirm- 
Michaelis, ortené. Bibl. XIII. 108, Hind. TT. ing that the order of events in the three 


p. 1078 ff. Synopticrs does not correspond to the re- 
* See Schlelermacher in the Stud. u. Krit. ality. But even this does not follow from 
1882, p. 758 ff. ; Credner, Find. I. p. 128. the words of Papias rightly apprehended. 


* Subsequently Credner (see his work, 





INTRODUCTION. 9 


and Luke, a chief source for our canonical Mark, which is alleged to be a later 
product of the idea of catholicity. But the assumption of an original 
treatise that has been lost would only have a historical point of support, in 
the event of the contents of the fragment of Papias—so far as it speaks of 
the treatise of Mark—not really suiting our canonical Mark. But since, 
upon a correct interpretation (see on Matt. Introd. p. 28 f.), it contains 
nothing with which our Mark is at variance, and therefore affords no 
ground for the assertion that it is speaking of another book ascribed to’ 
Mark, it remains the most ancient and the most weighty historical testimony 
for the originality of our second Gospel, and at the same time for the high 
historical value of its contents. With this view, no doubt, the much-asserted 
dependence on Matthew—or on Matthew and Luke—cannot subsist, because 
this runs directly counter to the testimony of Papias ; and to get rid of that 
testimony is a proceeding which amounts to peremptory dogmatism (de 
Wette), to arbitrary conjecture (Baur),' and to contradiction of history (as 
opposed to the testimonies of Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius), as if the 
Fathers, to whom at any rate our Mark was very well known, would have 
only thus blindly repeated the story of Papias. 

On the supposition of the originality of our Mark the comparison of Matthew 
and Luke, who made use of him, presents no constraining reason for the view, 
that the Gospel, in the form in which we possess it, has been preserved merely 
ina recension modified by various omissions, additions, and alterations, ® or, in- 
deed, that that form, in which his Gospel has been made use of in our Gos- 
pel of Matthew, as well as by Luke, was preceded by one still earlier 
(Ewald), especially as Mark has not always followed the most original tradi- 
tion, and in accordance with the peculiar character of his book abstains 
from giving the longer discourses of Jesus, with the special exception of the 
eschatological in chap. xiii. ; hence, also the Sermon on the Mount is not 
found in his Gospel,? and need not have stood between iii. 19 and iii. 20 
(together with the narrative of the centurion at Capernaum). See on iii. 20, 
Remark. 

As to the integrity of the Gospel, the only question to be considered is 
that of the genuineness of the concluding section, xvi. 6-20. See, regard- 
ing this, the critical remarks on chap. xvi. 


1 Markuserang. p. 181 f., he alleges that 
Papias has combined things not connected 
with each other, namely, the existence of 
the Gospel of Mark, which, perhaps, had 
not been even known to him, and the tra- 
dition of the discourses which Peter fs al- 
leged to have delivered on his apostolic 
journeys. 

2 Ewald, comp. Titzig, Weisse, MHoltz- 
mann, Schenkel, Weizsicker, also Reuss, 
Késtlin, and others. 


3 On the hypothesis of the Gospel being 
prepared with @ épecial purpose, this dis- 
course is regarded as having been omitted 
by Mark, because he did not wish to bring 
into remembrance the continuing obliga- 
tion of the law, Matt. v. 17. See especially, 
Baur, Evang. p. 565. Asif this would have 
been a sufficient reason for the exclusion 
of the entire discourse! Just as little as 
the alleged Ebionitic commencement of the 
discourse. 


10 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Nore spy American Eprror. 


I. Origin of the Gospel. 

The remarks of Meyer on this subject assume the correctness of his own 
theory respecting the relation of the Synoptic Gospels to each other, and their 
dependence, though in different ways, upon the Logia-collection of Matthew, 
which, as he thinks, consisted simply of discourses, and is the work referred 
to by Papias. The full discussion of the question belongs to the volume on 
Matthew, but it will be necessary here to state some points affecting more 
particularly the Gospel of Mark. 

Weiss, who in many respects agrees with Meyer, especially in rejecting the 
theory of a Proto-Mark, and in upholding the originality and priority of this 
Gospel, differs from him in regard to its relation to the Logia-collection. He 
regards the work referred to by Papias as ‘‘the older source,” but admits that 
it includes narrative as well as didactic portions. Ina detailed commentary 
(Das Markusevangelium und seine Synoplischen parallelen, Berlin, 1872), this ac- 
complished and patient scholar has sought ‘‘to establish with exactness those 
passages in which Mark, although he otherwise forms throughout the source 
for our first and third Gospels, shows himself to be dependent on the portions 
of the oldest apostolic document which are faithfully preserved in them,”’ i.e, 
the first and third Gospels. The frequent references to Weiss ed. Meyer in 
the following pages call for this statement of his view in advance. 

But it does not seem more satisfactory than the other attempts to show the 
interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Why does Mark have such brief 
didactic portions, if the Logia-collection was a collection of discourses such as 
are now preserved in the Gospel of Matthew? Orif ‘‘ the older source” contained 
narrative also, how can we account for the verbal variations as well as agree- 
ments in the three Gospels? A repeated comparison of the parallel passages 
has left the writer more firmly convinced of the independence of the Synoptic 
Gospels. (On the question of Luke's relation to the other two, see Introductiorr 
to Luke. If Luke can be proven independent, then the other two can 
more readily be shown to be so.) ‘But no theory is admissible which 
asks us to doubt the accuracy of these straightforward records, in order that 
we may find a truer history in some original Gospel, whether oral or written, 
the existence of which is a matter of conjecture. The problem of the origin 
of the Synoptic Gospels is an interesting one; but it has historical and theo- 
logical importance only when it assumes that the canonical Gospels are not gen- 
uine and authentic narratives" (Int. Revis. Com. Luke, p. x.). The main ob- 
jection to Meyer’s application of his theory is that he, especially in his pre- 
liminary comments on the several paragraphs, suggests that there have been 
additions, abridgments, amplifications, differences of tradition, etc. Now all 
these terms may not imply dishonesty on the part of the writers, and yet even 
Weiss ed. Mey. complains in his preface of Meyer's opinions respecting the 
credibility of the separate narratives, adding that he would gladly have can- 
celled these passages entirely. Whatever honesty of purpose belongs to the 
use of such terms, the impression produced is unfavorable to confidence in 
the Gospel records. Tomany it appears that Meyer, in discussing these topics, 
has wandered from the field where he isa master. In his exegesis we have 


NOTE. 11 


scientific induction ; in this department of criticism we find little that is not 
based on assumptions. It may be said that the view which accepts the de- 
pendence of the Synoptists inevitably leads toward, if not to, such a habit of 
discrediting the accuracy of the narratives. Godet (Luke, p. 556, Am. ed.) well 
observes: ‘It is impossible to conceive anything more capricious and less 
reverential than the part which we make the author of any one whatever of our 
Synoptic Gospels play with the history and sayings of Jesus, supposing that he 
had before him the other two, orone ofthem. Such an explanation will only be 
allowable when we are brought absolutely to despair of finding any other. And 
even then it were better still to say, Non liquet. For this explanation involves 
amoral contradiction. Most of our present critics are so well aware of this, that 
they have recourse to middle terms. By common sources they seek to explain the 
relation between those three writings, or they combine this mode with the pre- 
ceding”’ (i.¢., that of interdependence). The same author, in the Introduc- 
tion and Conclusion of the same work, discusses quite fully the entire ques- 
tion, deciding most strongly in favor of the independence of the Synoptists. 
See also Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I. pp. 590-612. 

The labored attempts to solve the problem have, however, shed some light 
on one point, namely, the originality of Mark. If this Gospel were studied, 
as it ought to be, before that of Matthew, the impression produced by internal 
phenomena would confirm this view. But most of the evidence in favor of the 
priority and originality of Mark make against his dependence on an earlier 
document, whether the Logia-collection (Meyer) or the ‘earlier source’ 
(Weiss). The constant difference of opinion between these two authors, who 
yet stand so close together in their view, will appear in the following pages. 
This difference shows how untrustworthy the judgments formed on either theory 
must necessarily be. Westcott (Introduction to Study of the Gospels, p. 369, 
Am. ed.) well says: ‘‘ In substance and style and treatment, the Gospel of St. 
Mark is essentially a transcript from Jife. The course and the issue of facts are 
imaged in it with the clearest outline. If all other arguments against the 
mythic origin of the evangelic narratives were wanting, this vivid and simple 
record, stamped with the most distinct impress of independence and original- 
ity—totally unconnected with the symbolism of the Old Dispensation, totally 
independent of the deeper reasonings of the New—would be sufficient to re- 
fute a theory subversive of all faith in history.’’ He will always be best guarded 
against false theories of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels who most faith. 
fully devotes himself to the study of the books themselves ; and he who would 
study them with most profit will, as already intimated, begin his research 
with this briefest yet most vivacious of the three narratives. 


12 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Evayyéhiov xara Mapxoyr. 


B E & have merely cara Mdpxov. Others: Td xara Mapxov dyov ebayyédiov. 
Others : éx rot x. M. dylov evayyediov. Comp. on Matt., note respecting the 
title. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 2. The Recepta has éy roi¢ rpogyta, following AE F G*HKMPSU 
V I, min. Iren. and other Fathers and vss. Defended by Rinck on account of 
Matt. iii. 3; placed by Lachm. in the margin. But Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. 
Tisch. have év (év ty, Lachm. Tisch.) ‘Houia (in Lachm. always with the 
spiritus lenis) ro mpogyry. SoBDLA ®&, min. and many vss. and Fathers. 
Rightly ; the Recepia was introduced because the quotation is from two proph- 
ets. — After ddé6v cov Elz. has éurpoolév cov, from Matthew and Luke. — Ver. 5. 
savtec|] which in Elz, Scholz, and Fritzsche stands after ¢@azviovro, is rightly 
placed by Griesb. I.achm. and Tisch. after 'IepocoA. (BD L A ®&, min. vss. Or. 
Eus.). If xai edarr. savrec had been the original arrangement and rdvrec had 
been put back, it would, conformably to usage (dca 7 ’Ievdaia), have heen 
placed before oi ‘IepocoA. The Recepta is explained from the circumstance that 
savrec Was omitted (so still in min. and Brix.), and that it was then restored be- 
Bide é3unrtifovro, because in Matt. iii. 5 also ‘IepocdéAvua stands alone. — Ver. 10. 
dé] So also Scholz. But Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have éx, which also Griesb. 
approved of, following BD L A &, min. Goth.; azé is from Matt. iii. 16. — Ver. 
11. vg] Lachm. Tisch. have év oi, following BD L P &, min. vss. The latter is 
right ; ¢v @ is from Matt. iii. 17. — Ver. 13. Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche have éxei after 
7v. It is wanting in AB D LX, min. vss. Or.; it was, however, very easily passed 
over as superfluous (K. min. omit év r. ép.) between jw and év. [Rejected by 
Tisch. and recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 14. rij¢ BaotAciac] is not found in BL 
%, min. vss. Or. It is regarded as suspicious by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. It is an addition in accordance with what follows. Comp. Matt. 
iv. 23. — Ver. 16. reperatay dé] Lachm. and Tisch. read kai wapdywr, which 
Griesb. also approved, following B D L X&, min. Vulg. It. al. The Recepia is 
from Matt. iv. 18, from which place also came subsequently atrov, instead of 
which Yiuevoc (Lachm.: tov Lcuavoc) is with Tisch. to be read according to B 
LM &. — dygeBadd.} Elz. has 8aAdovras, contrary to decisive evidence. From 
Matt. iv. 18. — Ver. 18. airdv] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following BC L 8, 
min. vss., to be deleted as a familiar addition, as also in ver. 31 avri¢. — Ver.19. 
éxei0ev] is wanting in B DL, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by 
Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. From Matt. iv. 21.— Ver. 21. 
The omission of eloeA9cv (Tisch.) is attested indeed by C L A ¥&, min, Syr. 
Copt. Colb. Or. (twice), which assign various positions to did, (Tisch: éded. 
et¢ T. ovvuywy7v), but might easily be produced by a clerical] error on occasion 


CHAP. I., 1-4. 13 


of the following etc, and it has tho preponderance of the witnesses against it. 
[Bracketed by Treg., retained by W. and Hort in text (marg. omits), Weiss and 
R.V.]— Ver. 24. éa] is wanting in B D&*, min. Syr. Perss. Arr. Aeth. Copt, 
Vulg. It. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The exclamation, which only 
occurs again in Luke iv. 34, and is there more strongly attested, was the more 
easily introduced here from that place. — Ver.°26. é& atrov] Lachm.: am ’advrov 
without preponderating testimony. From Luke iv. 35. — Ver. 27. Instead of 
mpo¢ avrovc, read with Lachm., in accordance with decisive evidence, zpds¢ éavrovc 
{so Treg., W. and Hort, margin]. Tisch. |W. and Hort text, Weiss] following 
only B &, have merely atrovc. — ri tore tovto; rig 4 didax) 7 xatv) adty; tt Kat’ 
x.T.A.] Lachm.: ri éorey rovzo ; dtdax7 Katy) Kar’ x.t.2. Just so Rinck and Tisch., 
who, however, connect dd. xaiv?) kar’ egono. together. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
R. V., accept the punctuation of Lachm&nn.j] The authority of this reading de- 
pends on B LA 8, min.; it is to be preferred, since manifestly the original 
Jidaxn Kav? Kar’ é£ovciav was conformed to the question in Luke, ri¢ 6 Adyoc 
airog, ort x.7.4., and thus arose ri¢ 7 diday) 7 Kaw) aity, bre. — Ver. 28. In- 
stead of é£/A0e dé, preponderating attestation favors «ai é674Gev (Lachm. Tisch.). 
— After eiOv¢ Tisch. has mavrazov.! So B C L &8** min. codd. It. Copt. 
Rightly so ; the superfluous word, which might easily be regarded as inappro- 
priate (8 * min. omit eifv¢ also), dropped away. — Ver. 31. ei6éwc] after rup. is 
wanting in B C L 8, min. Copt. Arm.; and D, Vulg. Cant. have it before 
agjxev. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. [Recent editors, R. V.] But 
it was easily omitted, since Matt. viii. 15 and Luke iv. 39 have not this defin- 
ing word. — Ver. 38. After dywyev, B CL &, 33, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Arr. Tisch. 
have dAdayou. To be adopted (comp. Bornem. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, 
p. 127) ; being unnecessary and without corresponding element in Luke iv. 43, it 
was very easily passed over ; comp. on zavrayoi, i. 28. — Instead of efeA7Av8a, 
BCL ®&, 33 have éf7Afov, which Griesb. and Scholz have approved, and 
Tisch. has adopted. Rightly ; the explanation of procession from the Father 
suggested the Johannine éA7/v9a, which, moreover, A and min. actually read. 
-— Ver. 39. el¢ rag svvaywyds] So also Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. on preponderant 
attestation. The Recepta év raic cvvaywyaic is an emendation. [See Note IX., 
p. 26.] — Ver. 40. xa) yovuteroy atrov] is wanting in BDGT, min. Cant. Ver. 
Vere. Colb. Germ. 1, Corb. 2. Deleted by Lachm.; omission through 
the homoeoteleuton. Had any addition been made from Matt. viii. 2, 
Luke v. 12, another expression would have been used. Tisch. has deleted 
auréy, but following only L &, min. vss. — Ver, 41. 6 dé ’Iyovic] B D &, 102, 
Cant. Verc. Corb. 2 have merely xai. So Lachm. and Tisch. But comp. Matt. 
viii. 3; Luke v. 13. From these passages comes also the omission of eimévro¢ 
atrov, ver. 42, in BDL &, min. vss. Lachm. Tisch. [Both omissions accepted 
by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 44. undév] deleted by Lachm., following A D 
L A &, min. vss. Vict. Theophyl. The omission occurred in conformity with 
Matt. viii. 4; Luke v. 14. — Ver. 45, Elz. reads wavrayd6ev. But mdvrodev is 
decisively attested. 


Vv. 1-4. As our canonical Matthew has a superscription of his first section, 
so also has Mark. This, however, does not embrace merely ver. 1, but o¢ 
yéypanta: . . . tae tpiBovg avrod belongs also to the superscription, so that with 


1 In the text of the Synops. of Tisch. it is omitted by mistake, 


14 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


ver. 4 the section itself (which goes on to ver. 8, according to Ewald to ver. 
15) begins. [Sce Note II., p. 25.] It is decisive in favor of this view, that 
with it there is nothing either to be supplied or to be put in parenthesis, 
and that it is in the highest degree appropriate not only to the simplicity of 
the style, but also to the peculiar historical standpoint of the author, sec- 
ing that he places the beginning of the Gospel, 7.¢., the first announcement of : 
the message of salvation as to the Messiah having appeared—leaving out of view 
all the preliminary history in which this announcement was already included 
—#in strictness only at the emergence of the Baptist ; but for this, on account 
of the special importance of this initial point (and see also the remarks on 
vv. 21-28), he even, contrary to his custom, elsewhere appends a prophetic 
utterance, in conformity with which that apy7 took place in such a way and 
not otherwise than is related in ver. 4 ff. Moreover, in accordance with this, 
since the history of that ap74 itself does not begin till ver. 4, the want of a 
particle with éyévero, ver. 4, is quite inorder. Comp. Matt. 1.2. If! we con- 
strue : apy? . . . éyévetro "Iwdvune Barrifuv, then o¢ yéyparracx.t.A. becomesa 
parenthetical clause, in which case the importance of the Scripture proof has 
not due justice done to it, and the structure of the sentence becomes too com- 
plicated and clumsy for the simplicity of what follows. If we take mercly 
ver. 1 as the superscription either of the first section only with Kuinoel and 
others, or of the entire Gospel with Erasmus,’ and others, then d¢ +é;parra 
becomes protasis of éyévero x.7.4., but thereby the citation, instead of being 
probative of the apy7 laid down by Mark, becomes a Scripture proof for the 
emergence of John in itself, and in that way loses its important bearing, see- 
ing that this emergence in itself did not need any scriptural voucher at all, 
and would not have received any, in accordance with Mark’s abstinence from 
adducing Old Testament passages. Finally, if we supply after ver. 1: #, 
the beginning. . . was, as it stands written,® doubtless the want of the article 
with apy7 is not against this course,‘ nor yct the want of a yép with éyévero— 
an asyndeton which would rather conduce to the lively impressiveness of 
the representation (comp. John i. 6) ; but it may well be urged that the 
supplying of qv is unnecessary, and even injurious to the vivid concrete rep- 
resentation. Morcover, in the very fact that Mark just commences his 
book with the emergence of the Baptist, there is ingenuously (without any 
purpose of contrast to other Gospels, without neutral tendency, or the like) 


1 With Fritzsche, Lachmann, Hitzig, 
Holtzmann. The conjecture of Lachmann 


the evangelist further added the familiar 
passage of Malachi. In this way at all 


(Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 84, and praefat. II. p. 
vi.), that vv. 2,3 are a later interpolation, 
is critically quite unwarranted. According 
to Ewald and Weizsiicker, p. 108, ver. 2 f. is 
not from the hand of the first author, but 
is inserted by the second editor; in oppo- 
sition to which, nevertheless, it fs to be re- 
marked that similar O. T. insertions, which 
might proceed from a second hand, are not 
found elsewhere in our Gospel. According 
to Holtzmann, p. 261, only the citation from 
Isaiah appeared in the primitive-Mark, and 


events,—as he allowed simply év Hoale to 
stand,—he would have appropriated to 
Isainh what belongs to Malachi; and the 
difficulty would remain unsolved. There 
is therefore no call for the appeal to the 
primjtive-Mark. 

2 So Bengel, Paulus, de Wette. 

*Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Vatablus, Maldonatus, Jansen, Grotius, 
and others. ; 

4 Sec Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 124}. 


CHAP. I., 1-4. 15 


exhibited the original type of the view which was taken of the Gospel his- 
tory,—a type which again, after the terminus a quo had been extended in 
Matthew and Luke so as to embrace the preliminary histories, presents it- 
self in John, inasmuch as the latter, after his general introduction and even 
in the course of it (ver. 6), makes his historical commencement with the 
emergence of the Baptist. Undoubtedly, traditions of the preliminary his- 
tory were also known to Mark ; in leaving them unnoticed he does not re- 
ject them, but still he does not find in them—lying as they do back in the 
gloom prior to the great all-significant epoch of the emergence of John—the 
apx? Tov evayy. —'Ijoov Xporov] See on Matt. i. 1. When the genitive with 
evayy. 1s not a person, itis always genitive of the object, as ciayy. rio Bacd- 
eiac, ti¢ cwrnpluc x.t.A. (Matt. iv. 23 ; Eph. i. 13, vi. 15, a/.). If Ocod is as- 
sociated therewith, it is the genitive of the subject (i. 15 ; Rom. i. 1, xv. 16, 
al,), as is the case also when pov stands with it (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess. 
i, 5, al.). But if Xprorot is associated therewith (Rom. i. 9, xv. 19; 1 Cor. 
ix. 12, al.), it may be either the genitive subjecti (auctoris) or the genitive 
objecti, a point which must be determined entirely by the context. In this 
case it decides (see vv. 2-8) in favor of the latter. Taken as genitive sub- 
jecti (Ewald : ‘‘how Christ began to preach the gospel of God”), rot evayy. 
I, X. would have reference to ver. 14 f.; but in that case the non-origi- 
nality of vv. 2, 3 is presupposed. — viovd r. Ocod] not as in Matt. i. 1, because 
Mark had primarily in his view Gentile-Christian readers ;’ see Introd. § 3. 
This designation of the Messiah is used in the believing consciousness of the 
metaphysical sonship of God (comp. on Matt. iii. 17), and that in the Pauline 
and Petrine sense (see on Matt. p. 44f.). The supernatural generation is by 
viov r. Gzov neither assumed (Hilgenfeld) nor excluded (Késtlin) ; even vi. 
8 proves nothing. — év 'Hoaig] The following quotation combines Mal. iii. 1 
and Isa. xl. 8. In this case, instead of all sorts of hypotheses (see them in 
Fritzsche), we must abide by the simple admission, that by a mistake of 
memory (of which, indeed, Porphyry made a bitter use, see Jerome, ad Matt. 
iii. 3) Mark thought of the whole of the words as to be found in Isaiah,—a 
mistake which, considering the affinity of the contents of the two sayings, 
and the prevalence of their use and their interpretation, is all-the more con- 
ceivable, as Isaiah was ‘‘ copiosior et notior,” ‘‘ more full and better known” 
(Bengel). A different judgment would have to be formed, if the passage 
of Isaiah stood jirst (see Surenhusius, xaraAd. p. 45). Matt. xxvii. 9 wasa 


'The absence of viod r. Gecov in &, two 
min., and some Fathers (including Iren. 
and Or.) has not so much critical impor- 
tance as to warrant the deletion of these 
words by Tischendorf (ed. maj. viii.). In 
his Synopsis, Tischendorf had still rightly 
preserved them. The omission of them 
has just as little dogmatical reason as the 
addition would have had. But apxq rod 
evayy., as in itself a complete idea, was taken 
together with the following as yéyp.; and 
thence all the genitives, "I. X. 0. 7. @., which 
could be dispensed with, were passed over 


the more readily by reason of the homoeote- 
leuta. So stillinIr.int.and Epiph. Others 
allowed at least ‘Incov Xpicrov to remain, 
or restored these words. Besides, viovd r. 
@cov is precisely so characteristic of Mark's 
Gospel in contradistinction to that of Mat- 
thew, that it could scarcely proceed from a 
transcriber, as, in fact. the very oldest vss. 
(and indeed ali vas) have read it; for 
which reason merely a sporadic diffusion {fs 
to be assigned to the reading without viov 
Tt, @cov. [See Note IIIL., p. 25.] 


16 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


similar error of memory. [See Note IV., p. 25.] According to Hengsten- 
berg, Christol. III. p. 664, Mark has ascribed the entire passage to Isaiah, 
because Isaiah is the auctor primarius, to whom Malachi is related only as 
auctor secundarius, as expositor. A process of reflection is thus imputed to 
the evangelist, in which, moreover, it would be sufficiently strange that he 
should not hate placed first the utterance of the auctor primarius, which is 
held to be commented on by that of the minor prophet.—As to the two pas- 
sages themselves, sec on Matt. iii. 8, xi. 10. The essential agreement in 
form of the first citation with Matt. xi. 10 cannot be used, in determining to 
which of the two evangelists the priority is due, as a means of proof ;’ it 
can only be used as a ground of confirmation, after a decision of this ques- 
tion has been otherwise arrived at. Just as little does the quotation form a 
proof for a primitize-Mark, in which, according to Holtzmann and others, it 
is alleged not to have held a place at all, — éyévero] might be connected with 
Barrizov.* But the mention of the emergence of the Baptist is in keeping 
with the beginning of the history. Hence : there appeared John, baptizing in 
the desert.4 [See Note V., p. 25 seq.] As to the desert (the well-known desert), 
see on Matt. iii. 1. — Barrioua peravoiac] a baptism involring an obligation to re- 
pentance (see on Matt. ili. 2), genitive of the characteristic quality. — ei¢ dgeocy 
dyapt.] Comp. Luke iii. 8. Theaim of this baptism, in order that men, pre- 
pared for the purpose by the yerdvora, should receive forgivencss of sins from 
the Messiah. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus. This is not an addition derived 
from a later Christian view (de Wette, comp. Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1861, p. 61), but neither is it to be taken in such a sense as that John's 
baptism itself secured the forgiveness (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 606 ; 
Ewald). This baptism could, through its reference to the Mediator of 
the forgiveness who was approaching (John i. 29, 33, iii. 5; Acts ii. 88), 
give to those, who allowed themselves to be baptized and thereby under- 
took the obligation to repentance, the certain prospect of the dgeore which 
was to be received only through Christ—promising, but not imparting it. 
Matthew has not the words, the passing over of which betrays an exer- 
cise of reflection upon the difference between John’s and the Christian 
baptism. 

Vv. 5-8. See on Matt. ili. 4, 5, 11; Luke iii. 7 ff. Matthew enters more 
into detail on John the Baptist ; Mark has several particulars in a form 
more original. — raca 7 'Iovd. x.7.A.] "Iovd. ig an adjective (see on John iii. 
22), and yopa is in contrast to the metropolis (see on John xi. 54 f.), the 
whole Judaean region, and the people of Jerusalem collectively. In aca and 
ravteg there isa popular hyperbole. — Ver. 6. Instead of éofiwy, we must 


? Anger and others, In favor of Matthew ; 
Ritschl and others, in favor of Mark. 

2 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Kufnoel, and 
others, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 278 
f.; Lobeck, ad Aj. 588; Kiihner, IT. p. 40. 

3 Ewald (comp. Hitziz) connects é¢yévero 
with eypvccwyr, reading 6 Banrigwy in accord- 
ance with B LA ® (comp. vi. 14), and omit- 
ting the subsequent «ai with B, min. “John 


the Baptist was just preaching,"’ etc. The 
critical witnesses for these readings are 
not the same, and not sufficiently strong; 
there has evidently been an alteration in ac- 
cordance with Matt. iii. 1. Tischendorf has 
rightly reverted to the 7ecepta. 

4 Comp. John {. 6; 1 John ii. 18; 2 Pet. if. 
1; Xen. Anab. ill. 4. 49, iv. 3. 20, a2. Comp. 
sapayivera, Matt. iil. 1, and on Phil. il. 7. 


CHAP. I., 9-13. 1? 


write, with Tischendorf, gofwv.'— Ver. 7. Epyerac] present: ‘ut Christum in- 
telligas jam fuisse in via,” ‘‘that you may know Christ is already on the way,” 
Beza. — xbwac] belongs to the graphic character on Mark, whose delineation 
is here certainly more original than that of Matthew. —é» rvebu. ayiy| The 
Jire, which Matthew (and Luke also) has in the connection of his more com- 
prehensive narrative, is not yet mentioned here, and thus there is wanting a 
characteristic point, which, nevertheless, appears not to be original. Comp. 
John i. 83.2. It would not have been ‘‘ abrupt” (Holtzmann) even in Mark. 

Vv. 9-11. See on Matt. iii. 18-17; Luke iii. 21 f. — ei¢ roy "Ilopdévyy] Con- 
ception of immersion. Not so elsewhere in the N. T.—ei#ic] usual form in 
Mark ; we must, with Tischendorf, read it here also. It belongs to dvaf.: 
immediately (after He was baptized) coming up. A hyperbaton (Fritzsche 
refers ci. to cide) just as little occurs here as at Matt. iii. 16. + eide] Jesus, 
to whom also éx’ aurév refers (see on Matt. l.c.). Mark harmonizes with Mat- 
thew,* who gives a further development of the history of the baptism, but 
whose statement : avegx@ncav att of obp., ‘the heavens were opened unto 
him,” presents itself in Mark under a more directly definite form. In op- 
position to the context, Erasmus, Beza, Heumann, Ebrard, and others hold 
that John is the subject. — cy:fouévovc, conveying a more vivid sensuous im- 
pression than Matthew and Luke. — Lange’s poctically naturalizing process 
of explaining (LZ. J. II. 1, p. 182 ff.) the phenomena at the baptism of Jesus 
is pure fancy when confronted with the clearness and simplicity of the text. 
He transforms the voice into the sense of God on Christ’s part ; with which 
all the chords of His life, even of His life of hearing, had sounded in uni- 
son, and the voice had communicated itself sympathetically to John also. 
The dove which John saw is held to have been the hovering of a mysterious 
splendor, namely, a now manifested adjustment of the life of Christ with 
the higher world of light; the stars withal came forth in the dark blue sky, 
festally wreathing the earth (the opened heaven). All the more jejune is 
the naturalizing of Schenkel: that at the Jordan for the first time the 
divine destiny of Jesus dawned before His soul like a silver gleam from 
above, ctc. Sce, moreover, the Remark subjoined to Matt. iii. 17. 

Vv. 12, 18. See on Matt. iv. 1-11 ; Luke iv. 1 ff. — &x4A2e] He drives, 
urges Him forth ; more graphic than the avfy67 of Matthew and the yero of 
Luke iv. 1. The sense of force and urgency is implied also in Matt. ix. 38. Ob- 
serve the frequent use of the vividly realizing praesens historicua, ‘‘ historical 
present.””— And He was there (éxei, sec the critical [and supplementary] re- 
marks) in the desert (whither the Spirit had driven Him), #.¢., in that region of 
the desert, during forty days, being tempted by Satan,—a manifest difference of 
Mark (comp. also Luke) from Matthew, with whom it is not till after forty 
days that the temptations begin. [See Note VI., p. 26.] Evasive interpreta- 
tions are to be found in Krabbe, Ebrard, and others, — xai #v pera ray Onpivv] 


1 See on this poetical form, which occurs __ this form {s to be read. 
also in the LXX. and Apocrypha, Duncan, 2 In opposition to Ewald, Kostlin, Holtz- 
Lex. ed. Rost, p. 457; Winer. p. 79 (KE. T. mann, and others. 
85); Buttmann, neuf. Gr. p. 51 [E. T. 58). 3In opposition to Strauss, Weisse, de 
Also at xif. 40, Luke vil. 33 f., x. 7, xxil. 8, Wette. 


2 


18 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


and He was with the wild beasts. This is wsually ' taken as merely a graphic 
picture (according to de Wette : ‘‘ a marvellous contrast” to the angels) of 
the awful solitude ;* but how remote would such a poetic representation be 
from the simple narrative! No, according to Mark, Jesus is to be con- 
ceived as really surrounded by the wild beasts of the desert. He is threatened 
in a twofold manner ; Satan tempts Him, and the wild beasts encompass 
Him. The typical reference, according to which Christ is held to appear as 
the renewer of Paradise (Gen. i. 26),* is not indicated by anything in the 
text, and is foreign to it. The desert and the forty days remind us of 
Moses,‘ not of Adam. — oi ayyeA01] The article denotes the category. — dinxé- 
vovy avt@] There is no occasion at all, from the connection in Mark, to un- 
derstand this of the ministering with food, as in Matthew ; nor does the ex- 
pression presuppose the representation of Matthew (Weiss). On the con- 
trary, we must simply abide by the view that, according to Mark, is meant 
the help which, gives protection against Satan and the wild beasts. There is in 
this respect also a difference from Matthew, that in the latter Gospel the 
angels do not appear until after the termination of the temptations. — The 
narrative of Christ's temptation (regarding it, sec on Matt. iv. 11, Remark) 
appears in Mark in its oldest, almost still germinal, form. It is remarkable, 
indeed, that in the further development of the evangelic history (in Mat- 
thew and Luke) the wonderful element gy pera tov O7piwv (which, according 
to Hilgenfeld, merely serves to color and embellish the meagre extract), 
should have remained unnoticed. But the entire interest attached itsclf to 
Satan and to his anti-Messianic agency. The brevity® with which Mark re- 
lates the temptation, and which quite corresponds ® to the still undeveloped 
summary beginning of the tradition, is alleged by Baur to proceed from the 
circumstance that with Murk the matter still lay outside of the historical 
sphere. Against this we may decisively urge the very fact that he narrates 
it at all, and places the apy? Tov evayy., ‘‘ beginning of the gospel,” earlier." 

Ver. 14 f. See on Matt. iv. 12, 17; Luke iv. 14 f. —ei¢ r. Tadsa.] in 
order to be more secure than in the place where John had labored ; accord- 
ing to Ewald : ‘‘He might not allow the work of the Baptist to fall to 
pieces.” But this would not furnish a motive for His appearing precisely 
in Galilee.’ In Matthew also the matter is conceived of as avayapyore, ‘a 
withdrawal,” — xypboowr] present participle with 7Adev.° — rd giayy. Tov cov] 


1 So also von Engelhardt (de Jesu _Caristi 
tentatione, Dorp. 1858, p. 5). 

2 Virg. Aen. ill. 646, and see Wetstein in loc. 

® Usterl in the Slud. uv. Krit. 1834, p. 789; 
Gfrérer, Olshausen, comp. Bengel, and also 
Baur, rang. pp. 640, 564; Hilgenfeld, 
Evang. p. 126; Schenkel, Holtzmann. 

4 Ex. xklv. 48, xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 18. 

® For the idea that «. ot ayy. d:n«. avre is 
only the closing sentence of an originally 
longer narration (Weisse, Zvangelienfr. p. 
163) is fanciful. Only the short, compact 
account is In harmony with all that sur- 
rounds it. Welsse supposes that something 


has dropped out also after ver. 5 or 6, and 
after ver. 8. 

® How awkwardly Mark would here have 
epitomized, if he had worked as an epito- 
mizer! How, in particular, would he have 
left unnoticed the rich moral contents of 
the narrative in Matthew and Luke! 
Schleiermacher and de Wette reproach him 
with doing so. Comp. also Bleek. 

7 Comp. K6stlin, p. 822. 

® See Welzsicker, p. 888. 

®See Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vil. 14, p. 81; 
Bornemann, ad Xen. Anabd. vil. 7. 17; Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C, 


CHAP. I., 16-20. 19 


See on ver. 1. — 5r:] recitative. — é xa:pé¢] the period, namely, which was to 
last until the setting up of the Messiah’s kingdom, 6 xa:pd¢ ovroc, x. 30. It 
is conceived of as a measure. Sce on Gal. iv. 4. — miorebere tv TO evayy.] Be- 
liere on the gospel.’ The object of faith is conceived as that in which the 
faith is fixed and based. Fritzsche takes év as instrumental: ‘‘ per evange- 
lium ad fidem adducimini,” ‘‘ through the gospel ye are induced to believe.” 
This is to be rejected, since the object of the faith would be wanting, and 
since 7d evayy. is just the news itself, which Jesus gave in rewAgpwrat x.T.A. 
Vv. 16-20. See on Matt. iv. 18-22 (Luke v. 1 ff.). The narrative of 
Mark has the brevity and vividness of an original. Observe, however, how, 
according to all the evangelists, Jesus begins His work not with working 
miracles, but with teaching and collecting disciples.* This does not exclude 
the assumption that miracles essentially belonged to His daily work, and 
were even from the very beginning associated with His teaching, ver. 21 ff. 
— wapéywy (see the critical remarks), as He passed along by the sea. This as 
well as augifiadrdr. év r. Bay. (casting around) is part of the peculiar vividness 
of representation that Mark loves. — Ver. 19. xai avrobc| e¢ ipsos in nave, 
likewise in the ship. It docs not belong to xaraprifovras (the usual view, in 
which there is assumed an imperfect comparison, which contemplates only 
the fishers’ occupation generally, comp. on Matt. xv. 3), but merely to év r¢ 
w2oiy, 80 that xarapr. x.r.A. then subjoins a further circumstance. The for- 
mer explanation in the sense assigned to it would only be possible, if 
augr3aaa., in ver. 16, and xarapr. were included under one more general 
idea. — Ver. 20. wera r. wtofwr.] peculiar to Mark. Any special purpose for 
this accuracy of detail is not apparent. It is an arbitrary supposition that 
it is intended to explain how the sons might leave their father without 
undutifulness,* in reference to which de Wette charges Mark with taking 
away from their resolution its nobleness.* It may, moreover, be inferred, 
that Zebedee carricd on his business not altogether on a small scale, and 


1 As to mor. with év, see on Gal. fil. 26; 
Eph. f. 18; frequently in the LXX. 

2Comp. Welzsiicker, p. 864. But the 
teaching begins with the announcement of 
the kingdom, which has as its presuppost!- 
tion the Measianic sclf-consciousness (Weiz- 
sicker, p. 425). Without reason Schenkel 
maintains, p. 370, that Jesus could not at 
all have regurded Himself at the beginning 
of His work as the Messiah. He might do 


80, tolthout sharing the political Messianic . 


hopes. See Schlefermacher, Z. .7. p. 250 f.; 
Keim, chicht. Chr. p.44f. But the view 
which makes the beginning of the teaching 
and miracle-working even precede the bap- 
tism (Schlelermacher) has absolutely no 
foundation in the N. T., not even in the 
history of the marriage feast at Cana. Nor 
yet can it be maintained, with Kelm (p. 84), 
that the conviction of being the Messiah 
gained strength in Jesus gradually from 
His first emergence up to the decisiveness, 


which first makes itself manifest at Matt. 
xi., where He announces the present king» 
dom, no longer merely that which is ap- 
proaching. For the approaching kingdom is 
throughout—only according to a relative 
conception of time—from the’ beginning 
onward to Luke xxi. 81 to be taken in an 
eschatological reference ; and it presupposes, 
therefore, a Messianic self-certainty in the 
Son of man, who with this announcement 
takes up the preaching of the Baptist. 

3 Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and 
others. 

4 With greater truth, because more nat- 
urally, it might be sald that that trait places 
in so much stronger a light the resignation 
of those who were called, seeing that they 
forsook a business so successfully prose- 
cuted. Comp. Ewald, p. 192. We may 
more surely affirm that it is just a mere 
feature of the detailed description peculiar 
to Mark. Comp. Weiss, é.c. p. 652. 


20 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


perhaps was not without means.’ Only no comparison with the ‘‘ poverty 
of Peter” (Hilgenfeld) is to be imported. 

Vv. 21-28. Comp. Luke iv. 81-87, who in substance follows Mark ; in 
opposition to the converse opinion of Baur, see especially Weiss, p. 858. 
Matthew, freely selecting, has not the history, but has, on the other hand, 
the more striking casting out of demons contained in Mark v. 1 ff. Mark 
lays special stress on these healings. — It is only with ver. 21 that Mark’s 
peculiar mode of handling his materials begins,—the more detailed and 
graphic:treatment, which presents a very marked contrast to the brevity of 
outline in the annalistic record of all that goes before. Perhaps up to this 
point he has followed an old documentary writing of this character ; and 
if this comprised also in its contents vv. 1-3, the introduction of the Bible 
quotation in vv. 2, 8, contrary to the usual custom of Mark elsewhere, is 
the more easily explained. And the fact that now for the first time an indepen- 
dent elaboration begins, is explained from the circumstance that precisely 
at this point Peter entered into the service of the Lord—from which point 
of time therefore begins what Peterin his doctrinal discourses had communi- 
cated of the doings and sayings of Christ, and Mark had heard and record- 
ed (fragment of Papias). 

Ver. 21. eioropetovrac] Jesus and His four disciples. According to Mark, 
they go away from the lake to Capernaum, not from Nazareth,* and not 
away from the mount (according to Matt. viii. 5). Matthew and Luke have 
differently restored the right historical sequence, the absence of which was 
felt in the abrupt report of Mark, ver. 21. They thus found here something 
of the évxa, which the fragment of Papias pronounced to be wanting in rééi¢ 
(see on Matt. Introd. p. 30 f.). — eiféuc roig od BB. ]i.€., immediately on the next 
Sabbath, not : on the several Sabbaths,* which is forbidden by ciféuc. 
odfBara, as in li. 23; Matt. xii. 1 ; Luke iv. 6; Col. ii. 16. — édidacxe] 
What, Mark does not say, for he is more concerned with the powerful im- 
pression, with the marvellous deed of the teaching, the general tenor of which, 
we may add, ver. 14 f. does not leave inany doubt. This synagogue-dis- 
course has nothing to do with the sermon on the Mount, as if it were 
intended to occupy the place of the latter (Hilgenfeld). 

Ver. 22. Comp. Matt. vii. 28 f., where the notice of Mark is reproduced 
unaltered, but placed after the sermon on the Mount; and Luke iv. 82, 
where the second part of the observation is generalized and divested of the 
contrast. It is very far-fetched, however, in Hilgenfeld, who in ver. 22 secs 
a sure indication of dependence on Matthew, to find in the fact, that Mark 
already here makes Capernaum appear as the scene of the ministry of Jesus 
Just as in ver. 29, the Petrine character of the Gospel. See, on the other 
hand, Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1858, p. 56 ff. — As to #v diddox. and we éfove. 
Eywv, see on Matt. vii. 28 f. 

Ver. 23 f. ‘Ev rvebu. axabépry] to be connected closely with évfpwrog : a 


1Comp. xvi. 1; Luke vill. 8; John xix. ing Luke. 
27. 3 Euthymius Zigabenus, Wolf, and many 
* Thus Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, others. 
Euthymius Zigabenus, and others, follow- 


CHAP. I., 25-27. 21 


man in the power of an unclean spirit.' As tothe demoniacs, see on Matt. iv. 
24; and as tothe miracles of Jesus in general, see on Matt. viii. 4. — davé- 
xpase| he cried aloud (see Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. compos. usu, III. 
p. 7), namely, the man, who, however, speaks in the person of the demon. 
Comp. Matt. viii. 29, where also, as here, the demon immediately discerns 
the Messiah. — #uac] me and those like tome. ‘‘Communem inter se cau- 
sam habent daemonia,” ‘‘demons make common cause with each other,” 
Bengel. — arodéoac] by relegation to Hades, like Gacavioa: in Matt. U.c.—64 
aytoc Tov Gevi| the hallowed One of God (John x. 36) xar’ éEox#v,* a characteris- 
tic designation of the Messiah, which here proceeds from the consciousness 
of the unholy demoniac nature.* Ina lower sense priests and prophets were 
Gytot tov Ocov.4 The demon does not name Him thus as xoAaxebov abrév 
(Euthymius Zigabenus, and before him Tertullian), but rather by way of 
giving to His 776e¢ arodécat jac the impress of hopeless certainty. 

Ver. 25 f. Aur] to the demon, who had spoken out of the man.°—The 
demon, before he goes forth, once more gives vent to his whole fury on the 
man by tearing (orapdééav) him. Comp. ix. 26 ; Luke ix. 42. 

Ver. 27. Ipédg éavrotc] is equivalent to mpd¢ aAAjAove (Luke iv. 86). The 
reason why the reflerive is used, is the conception of the contradistinction to 
others (they discussed among one another, not with Jesus and His disciples). ° 
Fritzsche explains : apud animum suum. But ov{yreiv stands opposed to 
this, designating as it does action in common, ix. 10, xii. 28 ; Luke xx. 23, 
xxiv. 15, al.; so also in the classics. — ri gor: rovro;] a natural demand in 
astonishment at what had happened for more precise information as to the cir- 
cumstances of the case.—In what follows we must read : d:day7 Kav) xa’ 
éEovaiay’ xai toic wvebpace Toig axabdpro . . . aut! See the critical remarks. 
[See also Note VII., p. 26.] They give vent by way of exclamation to what 
has thrown them into such astonishment and isso incomprehensible to them, 
and do so in the unperiodic mode of expression that is appropriate to excited 
feeling : a doctrine new in power ! and He commands the unclean spirits, etc. ! 
They marvel at these two marked points, as they have just perceived them 
in Jesus. Lachmann attaches car éfovoiav to cai roic mvebuact x.t.A. But this 
is manifestly opposed to the connection, according to which kar’ éfovsiav 
looks back to the foregoing qv yap diddoxwy avrovg ag é€ovciay Eywv. This ap- 
plies also in opposition to Ewald, who reads diday@ xacvg : ‘‘ with new teach- 
ing He powerfully commands even the devils.” A confused identification 
of the teaching with the impression of the miraculous action is here ground- 
lessly discovered by Baur,’ and used as a proof of dependence on Luke iv. 


1 See on ev Matthiae, p. 1141. Comp. v. demon’s declaration of the Messilahship of 


2;2 Cor. xiL 2; Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 84 
[E. T. 98]. 

3 See Origen and Victor Antiochenus in 
Possini Catena. 

® Luke iv. 84; Acts iv. 27; Rev. ili. 7; 
John vi. 69. 

¢ See Knapp, Opuec. I. p. 38 f. 

®§ To refer ¢dcusOyr, with Strauss, IT. p. 21, 
following older expositors, merely to the 


Jesus, is, in view of the general character 
of the word, arbitrary. It is the command 
of the victorin general: Be silent and go 
out! Strauss appeals to i. 34, ill. 12. But 
these prohibitions refer to the time after the 
going out. 

®* See Kiihner, ad Xen. Ifem. ii. 6. 20. 

7 Who holds that Mark has not been able 
to enter into Luke’s mode of view, but has 





22 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


36. Even with the Recepta ér: the two elements of the exclamation would 
be very definitely correlative to the wo elements of the ministry of Jesus in 
the synagogue respectively. — «ar éfovoiav] defines the reference of xaivf : 
new tn respect to power, which has never yet occurred thus with the impress 
of higher.authorization. 

Ver. 28. Eic Any 7. repiy. +t. Taaca.] not mercly therefore into Galilec 
itself, but also into the whole region that surrounds Galilee. [See Note VIII., 
p. 26.] Comp. Luke iii. 8, vili. 87. This wide diffusion, the expression of 
which is still further strengthened by zavrayoi (see the critical remarks), is 
not at variance with the ei@t¢ (Késtlin finds in the word ‘‘a mistaken fash- 
ion of exaggeration”), which is to be estimated in accordance with the lively 
popular mode of expression. Criticism becomes confused by the stress laid 
on such points. — zavrayov] with the verb of motion, as is often the case 
among the Greeks : every-whither. Comp. on dAdAayod, ver. 38.—It is to be 
observed, we may add, that this first miracle, which Mark and Luke relate, 
is not designated by them as the first. Hence there is no inconsistency with 
John ii. 11 (in opposition to Strauss). 

Vv. 29-39. In connection and narrative, Luke iv. 88-44 is parallel. 
' compare also Matt. viii. 14-17, which proceeds by way of abridgment. 

Ver. 29 ff. Sce on Matt. viii. 14 f. — é&eAdvrec] Jesus, Peter and Andrew. 
James and John are thereupon specially named as accompanying.—The 
short narrative is condensed, animated, graphic,’ not subjected to clabora- 
tion, against which view the mention of Andrew, whom Matthew and Luke 
omit as a secondary person, cannot well be urged. Comp. Weiss, p. 654. 

Ver. 32 f. Opies . . . qasoc] an exact specification of time (comp. Mat- 
thew and Luke) for the purpose of indicating that the close of the Sabbath 
had occurred. ‘‘Judaeos religio tenebat, quominus ante exitum sabbati 
aegrotos suos affcrrent,” ‘‘ Religion restrained the Jews from bringing their 
sick before the close of the Sabbath,” Wetstein, and, earlier, Victor Antio- 
chenus. — zpé¢ avrév] presupposes that before the evening Tic has returned 
again to His own dwelling (ii. 1, 15). It is not Peter’s house that is meant.— ° 
mavrac Tove x.T.A.} all whom they had.—Here and at ver. 34, as also at Matt. 
viii. 16, the naturally sick are distinguished from the demoniacs ; comp. iii. 
15. — 7) xdArc 6An] comp. Matt. iii. 5.9 

Ver. 84. woAdAovc . . . zoAdAa] therefore not all, which, nevertheless, does 
not presuppose attempts that were without result. It was already late, and 
in various cases, moreover, the conditions of healing might be wanting. — 
Hote} a8 in xi. 16. Imperfect, from the form a¢iv, with the augment on the 


But 








kept to the &8ax74 of Jesusin the sense of 
Matthew, without himself rightly under- 
standing in what relation the nrawh &8ax7 
stood to the émirdoccewx.r.A. Baur, Markus- 
evang. p. 11; comp. theol. Jahrb. 1838, p. 69 
f. See, on the otber hand, Hilgenfeld, 
Evang. p. 128. 

1 In this point of view the sickness is de- 
noted by the words «aréxe:tro supécc. as se- 
vere enough not to allow the event to be 


treated asa simple soothing of the over- 
excited nervous system (Schenkel). Mere 
psychological soothings of this kind would 
simply stand in utter disproportion to the 
sensation produced by Jesus asa worker 
of miracles. 

2So also in the classical writers (Thuc. 
vil. 82. 1; Soph. O. R. 170); comp. Niagels- 
bach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 103, 


CHAP. I., 35-39. 23 


preposition ; see Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 81]. —Aateiv . . . dre] He allowed 
them not to speak, enjoined on them silence, because they knew Him. They 
would otherwise, had they been allowed to speck, have said that He was the 
Messiah. Kuinoej, Bleek, and others erroneously take it as if the expression 
was Aéyerv . . . drt. The two verbs (comp. on John viii. 43 ; Rom. iii. 19) 
are never interchanged in the N. T., not even in such passages as Rom. xv. 
18; 2Cor. xi. 17; 1 Thess. i. 8 ; hence “‘ to say that” is never expressed by 
Aadeiv, dr. —As to the reason of the prohibition, see on v. 43 and Matt. 
vili. 4. 

Vv. 35-39. Luke iv. 42-44 is less characteristic and more generalized. — 
2vvvyov Aiav] when it was still cery dark. évvuyov is the accusative neuter of 
the definition of time, as cfuepov, aipiov, vféov, etc. The tcord itself is often 
found also in classical writers, but not this adverbial use of the accusative 
neuter.’ Comp. émvyédrepov, Aesop, Fab. 79. The plural form vvya (in 
Lachmann and Tischendorf, following BC DL &, min.) is, however, de- 
cisively attested, although likewise without sanction from Greek usage ;* in 
Soph. Aj. 930, wévvvya is adjective. — é7AGe] out of his house, ver. 29. 
Comp. ii. 1. —«arediwfav] only occurring here in the N. T., more significant 
than the simple form, expressive of the following up till they reached Him.*— 
xal oi per’ avrov] Andrew, John, and James, ver. 29. Under this expression is 
already implied the conception of the historical prominent position of Peter. 
But such an expression does not betray any special Petrine tendency of the 
Gospel. — ravrec}] puts Jesus in mind of the multitude of yesterday, vv. 32, 
34. — 4?2axov] with a verb of direction, comp. ver. 28 and on Matt. ii. 22. 
The following cic ra¢ éyou. kwpor., into the nearest ‘ villages, is a more pre- | 
cise definition of aAAayoi. — xwuorddecc| villages, only used here inthe N. T., 
but see the passages in Wetstein. — ele rovro yap é&7Afov] for that (namely, 
to preach abroad also) és the object for which I have left the house, ver. 35. 
Schenkel invents here quite a different connection. In opposition to the 
context, others understand é£7A6ov of having come forth from the Father.° 
A harmonizing with Luke iv. 43. 

Ver. 39. Kypicowy ei¢g rag cuvayuy. aitév x.t.a.] There is the soneention of 
direction in ei¢ : announcing (the Gospel) into their synagogues. [See Note 
IX., p. 26.] He is conceived of as coming before the assembly in the syna- 
gogue and speaking to them.® The following cic Av ryv Tats2aiay specifies 
the geographical field, into which the xypicoew ei¢ tag ovvaywy ait. extended. 
Comp. xiii. 10 ; Luke xxiv. 47. We may add that this tour is not invented 
by Mark as a happier substitute for the Gadarene journey of Matt. viii., as 


13 Macc. v. 5; see, however, Grimm in 
loc. 

32 Hesychius has the adverb vrvxa, equiva- 
lent to vixrwp. 

*Thuc. ii. &.8; Polyb. rl. 42. 1; Ecclus. 
xxvii. 17; Ps. xxii. 18. 

“Herod. i. 184; Xen. Anabd. |. 8, iv. 9; 
Joseph. Antt. xi. 8 6, and frequently; 
comp. Acts xiil. 44, xxi. 26. See Borne- 
mann, Schol.in Lue. iv, 28, v. 3, and in the 


/ 


Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 127; Fritzsche, ad 
Mare. p. 22. 

§So Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, 
Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and others; comp. 
Baumgarten-Crusius. 

* Comp. the well-known modes of expres- 
sion: és rov &yuoy eixervy, Thuc. V. 45, eis Thy 
orpariay eimerv, Xen. Anad. Vv. 6. 87; John 
vill. 28, radra Adyw eis Tov xéouoy, Comp. 
xiv. 10; Rom. xvi. 3. 


24 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Hilgenfeld assumes it to be, which is  vagary in the interest of antagonism 
to the independence of Mark. Holtzmann appropriately observes that vv. 
85-89 is one of the most telling passages in favor of Mark’s originality. 

Vv. 40-45. Comp. on Matt. viii. 2-4, where this histogy follows immc- 
diately after the sermon on the Mount, and that in a shorter, more compre- 
hensive form in accordance with Mark. In Luke (v. 12 ff.) the narrative of 
the draught of fishes is previously inserted. — yovuretav avrév] Sec on Matt. 
xvii. 14, — Ver. 41.' oriayyo8.}] subordinated to the participle éxreivac.* — 
Ver. 42. arjAev an’ avrov] so also Luke. But he has omitted the following 
nx. éxaflap., to which Matthew has adhered. — Ver. 43. éufBpiunody. atte] after 
He had been angry at him, wrathfully addressed him (comp. xiv. 5, and on 
Matt. ix. 80). We are to conceive of a vehement begone now! away hence! 
With this is connected also the forcible é£é3arev. Observe the peculiar way 
in which Mark depicts how Jesus with very carnest zeal desired and urged 
the departure of the man that was healed. Moreover, the statement that 
the cure took place in @ house (é£é8adev) is peculiar to Mark, who in the en- 
tire narrative is very original and cannot be following the colorless narra- 
tive of Luke (Bleek). It is true that, according to Lev. xill. 46, comp. 
Num. v. 2, lepers were forbidden to enter into a house belonging to other 
people ;? but the impulse towards Jesus and His aid caused the sick man to 
break through the barrier of the law, whence, moreover, may be explained 
the hurried and vehement deportment of Jesus. — Ver. 44. As to the pro- 
hibition, see on Matt. viii. 4, and on Mark v. 43. — The prefixing of ceavrév 
(thyself) is in keeping with the emotion, with which the withdrawal of the 
person is required. — epi tov xafap. cov] on account of thy cleansing, 7.e., in 
order to become Levitically clean. — Ver. 45. Comp. Luke v. 15f. Mark 
has peculiar matter. — éeA#év] from the house. Comp. ver. 48. — 7pfaro] 
evyvouuv dv 6 Aerpoc, ovx yvéoyxeto ory Kadinpat riv evepyeciav, ‘* Being well-dis- 
posed the leper could not bear to hide the good deed in silence,” Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus. The beginning of this breach of the imposed silence is 
made prominent. — rév 2éyov] Euthymius Zigabenus : 6éyv eipyxev aire 6 Xpio- 
roc, dyAady 7d OéAw, KaOapicOnrt, ‘‘ which Christ hath spoken to hin, 
plainly the ‘I will ; be thou made clean.’” So also Fritzsche. But Mark, 
in order to be intelligible, must have led men to this by a more precise 
designation pointing back to it. It is the story, i.e., the narrative of the 
occurrence (Luther appropriately has the history), not : the matter (sousually ; 
even de Wette and Bleek), which Adyé¢ in the N. T. never directly means 
(not even at ii. 2, viii. 82 ; Luke i. 4; Acts x. 36); as, indeed, also in 
classical writers (see Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277) it never absolutely means 
the matter in itself, but the point spoken of, the state of things that 1s under 
discussion, or the like.* — yyxére] no longer, as He could hitherto. — divacfar] 


1 Jf the leper had come to Jesus when he mouth of Peter. 
was already substantially healed, as Schen- 2 See Winer, p. 808 [E. T. 344] ; Dissen, ad 
kel in spite of ver. 45 thinks probable. what Dem. de Cor. p. 249. 
charlatanry would the Lord have been 8 See Ewald in loc., and Alterth. p. 180. 
practising at ver. 41 f.! And yet, even ac- 4 As to the distinction between Adyos and 
cording to Schenkel (p. 878), Mark is as- $y», see Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 22. 
sumed to have had the narrative from the 





NOTES. 25 


moral possibility, if, namely, He would not occasion any tumult. — xai] 
not : and yet,’ but the simple and. Instead of going publicly into the city, 
He was outside in solitary places, and people came to Him from all quarters. 
A simple account of what was connected with' His sojourn in the solitude ; 
He did not withdraw from this concourse, but He would not excite any 
sensation in the city. 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


Il. Punctuation of vv. 1-4. : 


The verses are pointed variously, in accordance with the different views of 
the grammatical connection. Tischendorf places a comma at the end of ver. 1, 
and a period at the close of ver. 3, thus agreeing with Meyer's view. W. and 
Hort place ver. 1 by itself as a title, putting a comma at the end of ver. 3, thus 
making vv. 2, 3 a protasis, This isthe view of the R. V. Weiss ed. Mey. re- 
gards ver. 1 as the title of the entire Gospel, and not of the first section only. 
The lexical objection to this, namely, that the word evayyéAcov in the N. T. 
never means a book, he meets by referring the term to the contents of the glad 
tidings. 

‘ III. Ver. 1. viow Geo. 

The article is omitted in¥* B D L, and rejected by those recent critics who re- 
tain the phrase. W.and Hort regard the longer reading as Alexandrian, the 
later form with the article as Syrian ; they omit the entire phrase in their text, 
but put viod deo in the margin. The R. V. reverses this ; and with good 
reason. The evidence against the longer reading is slight. Irenaeus has both 
readings, and his testimony is therefore invalidated. But Origen is the main 
witness for the early existence of the briefer reading. 


IV. Ver. 2. év 7 ‘Hoaig ro mpopyry. 


The evidence for this reading is decisive, yet the R. V. retains the plural in 
the margin. Meyer seems to reject the first rt», which is found in 8 BL 4 33, 
etc. — The admission of a mistake of memory on the part of Mark, in thus nam- 
ing Isaiah, seems unwarranted. Mark was a Jew of Jerusalem, a companion in 
labor first of Paul, then of Peter, acquainted previously with the latter (see 
Introd. § 1). That he should forget the author of » prophecy applied to John 
the Baptist by our Lord Himself, is to the last degree unlikely. The Jews were 
very familiar with the O. T., and especially did the early Christian preachers 
make use of it. Mark may not have had all the habits of an author of the 
present century, but he would probably ‘‘ verify his references,” 


V. Ver. 4. 6 Bawrifov x.1.A. 


The article is found in & B L A 33, Copt., accepted by recent critical editors 
(so Weiss ed. Meyer), and R.V. W.and Hort omit, mainly on the authority of 
Band 33, The latter reading compels us td give 6 Banrif~wy a substantive force 


1 Kulnoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others. 


26 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


(comp. chap. vi. 14, 24), and to take xypicowy as a modal participle qualifying 
éyévero, With which verb év rg épjzq would then be more naturally connected ; 
so Weiss ed. Mey. Retaining the well-sustained «ai, the R. V. properly ren- 
ders : ‘‘ who baptized in the wilderness and preached,’’ etc. 


VI. Ver. 13. é» 19 gon x.7.A. 


Meyer retains éxei against decisive evidence.—It is uncertain whether ‘‘ forty 
days'’ should be connected with “‘ was” or ‘‘tempted ;”’ probably with both, as 
the position of the phrase allows. The ‘‘ difference” of Mark (and Luke) from 
Matthew is fancied. The lust named evangelist says that ‘‘Jesus was led up 
of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil” (Matt. iv. 1). He 
then tells of the fasting. Luke combines both points : the continued tempta- 
tion and the final specific assaults (Luke iv. 1-13). If this constitutes o real 
difference, all ordinary legal testimony is invalidated. 


VII. Ver. 27. diday? nacvy, x.7.A. 


The punctuation of Lachmann is on the whole preferable, as more accord- 
ant with Mark’s vivacious style, as giving emphatic position to xar’ efovciay, 
and also to xai (here used with ascensive force). So R. V., which even allows 
an exclamation point: ‘‘a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even 
the unclean spirits,” etc. Meyer's view of the connection is contrary to lis 
habit of joining prepositional qualifications with verbs rather than nouns ; the 
explanation, ‘‘new in respect to power,” is very artificial. 


VIII. Ver. 28. riv repiywpov ti¢ TadcAaiac. 


The R. V. renders: ‘‘ the region of Galilee round about,” while the A. V. 
has: ‘‘the region round about Galilee,” The former is preferable (against 
Meyer). The word zepiywpoe is strictly an adjective, and the feminine article 
shows that j#v isto be supplied. TadcAaiag isthen the appositional genitive 
usual in such cases. N. T. usage allows other genitives to follow, but the name 
of the country in the genitive is more naturally explained as ahove. Weiss ed. 
Mey. properly objects to Meyer’s view that it takes eic in the sense of ‘‘as far 
as.’’ 


IX. Ver. 39. xai 7Adev xnpicowy ei¢ Tag cvvaywyde. 


The above reading is abundantly attested. Meyer accepts el¢, but takes no 
notice of 74Gev, which is found in & BL Copt. The received reading (7v) was 
probably taken from Luke, and then ei¢ substituted for év. This will account 
for the state of the evidence. So recent editors, including Weiss ed. Mey. 
R. V. Meyer's explanation must be modified in accordance with the cor- 
rected text. The R. V. joins ‘into their synagogues,’’ etc., with ‘‘came,”’ 
connecting the participles together : ‘‘preaching and casting out devils.” 
This gives the sense, but not with grammatical accuracy. The thought seems 
to be: ‘‘He came throughout all Galilee, entering into (ec) and preaching in 
their synagogues, and casting out demons.’’ The order of the Greek gives em- 
phasis to the last clause ; so Weiss, 





CHAP. II. a7 


CHAPTER IL. 


Ver. 1. The order cio7jA$e nad (Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz) would need to be 
adopted on decisive evidence. But Tischendorf has ciceAfov mad without the 
subsequent xa/, which Lachm. brackets. Rightly ; the attestation by B DL X&, 
min, vss. is sufficient ; the Recepia is an attempt to facilitate the construction 
by resolving it. — cig olkov] Lachm. Tisch. [W..and Hort, R. V.] have éy olxy, 
following B DL &, min. An interpretation. — Ver. 4. [Tisch., W. and Hort, 
Weiss, R. V. marg., with & B L, 33, Copt. Vulg., read zpocevé) xa] — é9’ 9) 
Lachm.: 6zov, according to B D L &. So now also Tisch. [recent editors]. Me- 
chanical repetition from the foregoing.— Ver. 5. d¢éwvrac] B 28, 33 have doievrac. 
So Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors] here and at ver. 9 (where also ® has the 
same reading). But B has the same form at Matt. ix. 2. An emendation.— 
Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have co? ai éuapriae cov, the latter bracketing cov. But 
BDGLA &, min. have cov al duapria: (Griesb, Fritzsche, Tisch.), [So recent 
editors, R. V.] This reading is in Matt. ix. 2 exposed to the suspicion of 
having been taken up from ver. 5, where the Recepia has but very weak attesta- 
tion, and from Matthew it easily passed over into our passage. There is the 
same diversity of reading also at ver. 9, but with the authorities so divided 
that in ver. 5 and ver. 9 only the like reading is warranted. — Ver. 7. Aadei 
Baacénpiac] Lachm. Tisch. read Aadci; BAacgnuei, following BDL &, Vulg. It. 
Rightly ; the Recepta has smoothed the expression in accordance with Luke. — 
Ver. 8. ofrac} is deleted by Lachm. upon too weak evidence. — avroi is adopted 
after ofrwc by Bengel, Matt. Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz on very considerable 
evidence (A CT A, etc.). Being unnecessary and not understood, it was passed 
over. [Rejected by Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort.] — Ver. 9. éye:pe] Elz. Rinck 
have éyecpar (1st aorist middle). The former is here quite decisively attested, 
and, indeed, in all places éyecpe is to be written, the active form of which 
the transcribers did not understand (see on Matt. ix. 5), and converted it 
into the middle forms éye:pa: and éyeipov (B L 28 have here the latter form). 
[Treg., W. and Hort: éyeipov here; in Matt. ix. 5, 6 éyecpe.] The middle form 
éyepeo%e is in stated use only in the plural (Matt. xxvi. 46 ; Mark xiv. 42 ; John: 
xiv, 31), which affords no criterion for the singular. — After éye:pe Elz. Lachm. 
Tisch. have xai, which C D L, min. ves. omit. An addition in accordance with 
Matt. ix. 5; Luke v. 23. — Instead of cov rév xpaff. we must read, with Lachm. 
Scholz, Tisch., in accordance with decisive testimony, Tov xp. cov. — rapitdret] 
Tisch. viii : iraye, but against such decisive weight of evidence, that wepevdrer 
is not to be regarded as derived from the parallel passages, but iraye is to be 
referred to a gloss from ver. 11. — Ver. 10. Elz. has éxi rij¢ y#¢ after agiévar. So 
AEFGal. But B has a¢. au. éxir.y.; CDLMA ®&, al. min. vas. have éx? 
rt. y. ad. au. 80 Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., viii. [W. and Hort 
agree with B in their text (so Weiss) ; and with & in their margin.] The latter 
isa reading conformed to Matthew and Luke. The various readings have 
arisen through omission (Augustine) and diversity in the restoration of éx? r. y. 


28 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


The Recepta is to be restored, as there was no reason, either in the passage it- 
self or from the parallel] passages, for separating adgévui and duaptiag from one 
another by the insertion of ézi r. y. — Ver. 15. The reading x. yiverat xutaxeiobae 
(Tisch.) is based on BL 8, and is to be preferred ; éyévero is from Matthew, 
and év tq is explanatory. -— Ver. 16. «. of ypapyp. x. of bapic.] Tisch. : «. ypap- 


pareic roy dapicaiav, following BL A &, Lachm. in the margin. Rightly; the 


Recepta arose from the usual expression. But we are not, with Tisch. (follow- 
ing the same testimony), to insert xai before iddvrec, as this xai owes its origin 
to the erroneous connection of «a2 ypauu. with 7x0A0v6. — The simple éri (Tisch. ), 
instead of ri dr, is too feebly attested. [See Note XIII., p. 36.]—- xal sive] is 
wanting, no doubt, in B D 8, min. Cant. Vere. Ver. Corb. 2 (bracketed by 
Lachm. [omitted by W. and Hort, text, Weiss, R. V., marg.], but was omitted on 
account of Matt. ix. 11, from which place, moreover, C L D 8, min. vss. 
Fathers have added 06 diddoxadog tyov. — Ver. 17. After duapr. Elz, has cig peré- 
vorav, which on decisive testimony is deleted as an addition from Luke v. 32 by 
Griesb. and the later editors. — Ver. 18. Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 
Fritzsche have rightly adopted oi dapicaio: instead of the Recepla of rdv bapicaiwy. 
The former has decisive testimony in its favor, the latter is from Luke v. 33.— 
of rav} Tisch. : of wabyra? trav, following B C* L &, 33. Rightly ; the super- 
fluous word was passed over. — Ver. 20. Instead of the Recepta éxeivaic rai¢ 
iuépace (which Fritzsche maintains), éxelvy tr qépg is received by Griesb. 
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. according to decisive evidence. The plural is from 
what precedes. — Ver. 21. The Recepia is xa} otdcic, against decisive witnesses, 
which have not xai. — éwi luariw tata] Lachm. and Tisch. : é72 indriov waAady, 


according to BC DL 8, 33. Rightly ; it was altered in conformity with Matt. 


ix. 16. — aipec 15 wAgpwpa avTow Td Katvdy Tov waAaiod] Many variations. A K A, 
min. Syr. p. : aipet am' avrov Td TA, 7d Katvov Tov maA.; BL & (yet without the 
first 76), min. Goth. : alpe: rd 7A. am’ abrov (B: ag’ gauTot) rd Kaw, Tov aA. (BO 
Lachm. and Tisch.) ; D, min. vss. : alpec 7 7A, 76 Katvov axé Tov rad. (so Rinck). - 
[Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., agree with Tisch.] The Recepia is to be rejected 
no less than the reading of D, ete. Both are from Matthew. Of the two read- 
ings that still remain, that of A, etc., is to be preferred, becanse in that of 
Lachm, and Tisch. the collocation of aipes ré 7A. likewise betrays its being 
shaped according to Matthew. Hence we read : aipe: az’ aitot 7d TAnpwpa TO 
Kaivov Tov radaov. -— Ver. 22. pyooes] Lachm. f7éer, following BC D L 8, 33, 
Vulg. codd, of It. Soalso Tisch. From Luke v. 37, whenco also subsequently 
has come 6 réoc, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
R. V., agree with Tisch. in both readings, Weiss in the latter only. ]— xa? 6 olvog 
. . . BAnréov] Instead of this there is simply to be read, with Tisch., follow- 
ing BLD, codd. of It.: xat 6 olvog améAAurat nai ol doxot (B & leave out of 
GAAG K.T.A, only BAnréov), [W. and Hort give in brackets the reading of B and 
Aleph, which is accepted in R. V. So Weiss, ed. Mey., who justly says that 
only BAnréov of the Rec. is taken from Luke.] The Recepta is from the 
parallels. — Ver. 23. raparop}] Lachm. d:arop., following B C D. But comp. 
Luke vi. 1. — 6dov rocetv] Lachm.: ddoraeiv, only after B G H.— Ver. 24. év] 
is on decisive evidence condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
From ver. 23. — Ver. 25. avréc] after the first «ai is suspected by Griesb., 
bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. It is wanting indeed 
inBCD LX, min. vss., but it was very easily mistaken in its reference, and 








CHAP. IL, 1-12. 29 


passed over as cumbrous and superfluous, the more especially as it does not 
appear in the parallels. [Rejected, however, by Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., re- 
tained by Weiss. ] — Ver. 26. émi 'ASidOap rod dpytep.] is wanting in D, 271, Cant. 
Ver. Verc. Vind. Corb. 2. Condemned, after Beza, by Gratz (neuer Versuch, d. 
Entst. d. drei erst. Ev. z. erkl. p. 196), and Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. 
I. p. 23. An omission on account of the historical difficulty and the par- 
allel passages. Only row before apy. has decisive evidence against it, and is 
rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [Treg. text, W. and Hort, R. V. text.] 


Vv. 1-12. Comp. on Matt, ix. 1-8; Luke v. 17-26. At the foundation 
of both lies the narrative of Mark, which they follow, however, with free- 
dom (Matthew more by way of epitome), while not only Matthew but Luke 
also falls short of the vivid directness of Mark.—According to the reading 
eiceAGGv (see the critical remarks), this participle must be taken as anacolu- 
thic, in accordance with the conception of the logical subject of the follow- 
ing : it was heard that He, etc.'— du’ juepav] interjectis diebus, after the lapse 
of intervening days. See on Gal. il. 1. — ei¢ olxov gore] just our: ‘‘ He is 
into the house.” [See Note X., p. 86.] The verb of rest assumes the pre- 
vious motion ; xiii. 16; John i. 18; Herod. 1. 21, al.* The house where 
Jesus dwelt is meant (but not expressly designated, which would have re- 
quired the use of the article).—Ver. 2. uyxér:] from the conception of the 
increasing crowd, — uydé] not even the space at the door, to say nothing of 
the house. Késtlin, p. 339, arbitrarily finds exaggeration here. — ray Adyov] 
kar’ éfoxhv : the Gospel. Comp. viii. 82; Luke i. 2, al.—Vv. 8, 4. Here 
also Mark has the advantage of special vividness. Jesus is to be conceived 
of as in the upper chamber, ixeppov (where the Rabbins also frequently taught, 
Lightfoot in loc.; Vitringa, Synag. p. 145 f.). Now, asthe bearers could not 
bring the sick man near * to Him through the interior of the house by reason of 
the throng, they mounted by the stair, which led directly from the street to 
the roof, up to the latter, broke up—at the spot under which He was in the 
txeppov—the material of which the floor of the roof consisted, and let down 
the sick man through the opening thus made. The conception that Jesus 
was in the vestibule, and that the sick man was lowered down to Him after 
breaking off the parapet of the roof (Faber, Jahn, Kister, Imman. p. 166), 
is at variance with the words (areoréyacav rv oréynv, comp. Luke v. 19), and 
is not required by ver. 2, where the crowd has filled the fore-court because 
the house itself, where Jesus is tarrying, is already occupied (see above on 
undé, ver. 2) ; and a curious crowd is wont, if its closer approach is already 
precluded, to persevere steadfastly in its waiting, even at a distance, in the 
hope of some satisfaction. Moreover, the fact of the unroofing is a proof that 
in that house roof and upper chamber were either not connected by a door (comp. 


See Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 26 (E. T. Tischendorf, zpocevéyxa, following B L &, 
296]. min. vss., is a correct {nterpretation of the 
? See Buttmann, p. 286 [E. T. 888]. Comp. word, which only occurs here in the N. T. 
even eis Sdpous péverv, Soph. Aj. 80, and This view is more in keeping with the vivid 
Lobeck in loc. ; Eliendt, Lex. Soph. I. 587. description than the usual intransitive ac- 
9 Tpogeyyioa, active (Aquila, 1 Sam. xxx.  cedere. 
7; Lacian, Amor. 58), hence the reading of 


30 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Joseph. Anit. xiv. 15. 12), or that the door was too narrow for the passage of 
the sick man upon his bed (Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 23) ; and it is contrary to the 
simple words to conceive, with Lightfoot and Olshausen, only of a widening 
of an already existing doorway. Mark is not at variance with Luke (Strauss), 
but both describe the same proceeding ; and the transaction related by both 
bears in its very peculiarity the stamp of truth, tn favor of which in the 
case of Mark the testimony of Peter is to be presumed, and against which 
the assertion of the danger to those who were standing below (Woolston, 
Strauss, Bruno Bauer) is of the less consequence, as the lifting up of the 
pieces of roofing is conceivable enough without the incurring of that risk, 
and the whole proceeding, amidst the eager hurry of the people to render 
possible that which otherwise was unattainable, in spite of all its strange- 
ness has no intrinsic improbability. —As to xpdB8aroc, or xpdfaroc, or xpaBar- 
roc (Lachmann and Tischendorf), a couch-bed, ® word rejected by the Atti- 
cists, see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 175 f.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 62 f. — agéwvras 
x.t.A.] See on Matt. ix. 2.—Ver. 6. rév ypaypzer.] Socorrectly also Matthew. 
But Luke introduces already here (too early, see in Mark ii. 16) the Pharisees as 
well. Asto d:adoy:¢. comp. on Matt. xvi. 7.—Ver. 7. According to the reading 
Baacdnuet (see the critical remarks), this word answers to the question, What 
speaketh this man thus? by saying what He speaks. — ovro¢ ob rw] this man in this 
manner, an emphatic juxtaposition. The former is contemptuous (Matt. 
xiii. 54) ; the latter designates the special and surprising manncr, which is 
immediately pointed out in what follows.—Ver. 8. Observe the intentional 
bringing into prominence of the immediate knowledge of the thoughts.— 
avroi] is not the unaccented they, but designates with é» éavroic, ipsi in semet 
tpsis, the element of se/f-origination, the cogitationes sua sponte conceptas. 
[Sce critical note.]— As to vv. 9-12,' see on Matt. ix. 5-8, 33. — coi Aéyw)} 
coi prefixed with emphasis, because the speaker now turns to the sick man. 
Comp. Luke v. 24. According to Hilgenfeld, the ‘‘awkward structure of 
the sentence,” ver. 10 f., betrays the dependence on Matt. ix. 6. Why, 
then, not the converse ? —xai dpa¢ x.r.A.] Thus the assurance of the remission 
of sins, according to Schenkel, must have stimulated the paralyzed elasticity 
of the nerves! A fancy substituted for the miracle.—oiruc . . . eidopev] 
not equivalent to rocobro eid. (see on Matt. ix. 38), but : so we have never seen, 
i.e., a sight in such a fashion we have never mct with. Comp. the frequent 








1 Respecting the Messianic designation— 
which presupposes Messianic consciousness 
—coming from the mouth of Jesus: 6 vids 
Tov avOpwrov, see on Matt. viil. 20, and the 
critical exposition of the different views by 
Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1865, 
p. 212 ff., and Weizsiicker, p. 426 ff. Observe, 
however, that the passage before us, where 
Jesus thus carly and in the face of His ene- 
mies, before the people and before His dis- 
ciples, and in the exercise of a divine plen- 
ary power, characterizes Himself by this 
Danielic appellation, does not admit of the 
set purpose of veiling that has been ascribed 


to His use of it (Ritschl, Weisse, Colani, 
Holtzmann, and others). For the disciple 
especially the expression, confirmed as it is, 
moreover, by John from his own lively rec- 
ollection (see on John 1. 41), could not but 
be from the outset clear and unambiguous, 
and the confession of Peter cannot be re- 
garded as the gradually ripened fruit of the 
insight now for the first time dawning. See 
on Matt. xvi. 18, 17. How correctly, more- 
over, the people knew how to apprehend 
the Danielic designation of the Messiah, is 
clearly apparent from John xii. 34. 


CHAP. II., 13-17. 81 


éc épare. It is not even requisite to supply ri (Fritzsche), to say nothing of 
mentally adding the manifestation of the kingdom of God, or thé like. 

Vv. 13-17. See on Matt. ix. 9-13 ; Luke v. 27-82. Matthew dcals with 
this in the way of abridgment, but he has, nevertheless, retained at the end 
of the narrative the highly appropriate quotation from Hos. vi. 6 (which 
Luke, following Mark, has not), as an original element from the collection 
of Logia. [See Note XI., p. 86.] — é#A6e] out of Capernaum. Comp. ver. 1. 
— xdéitv] looks back to i. 16. — Mark has peculiar to himself the statements 
napa tT. O¢4acoay as far as édidaoxev avrobc, but it is arbitrary to refer them to 
his subjective conception (de Wette, comp. Késtlin, p. 335). — Ver. 14. rapdyuv] 
in passing along, namely, by the sea, by the place where Levi sat. Comp. 
ver. 16. — On Levi (i.e., Matthew) and Alphaeua, who is not to be identified 
with the father of James,’ see Introd. to Matthew, § 1. Hilgenfeld, in his 
Zeitschr. 1864, p. 801 f., tries by arbitrary expedients to make out that Levi 
was not an apostle. — Ver. 15. éy rj oixig avrov] is understood by the expos- 
itors of the house of Levi.2 Comp. Vulg.: ‘‘in domo illius.” [See Note 
XII., p. 36.] In itself this is possille, but even in itself improbable, since by 
avréy just before Jesus was meant ; and it is to be rejected, because subse- 
quently it is said of those who sat at meat with Him, just as it was previous- 
ly of Levi; qxoroibycay aitG. Moreover, the absolute xadéoaz (to invite), ver. 
17, which Matthew and Mark have, while Luke adds ei¢ perdvorav, appears 
as a thoughtful reference to the host, the xade7v on whose part will trans- 
plant into the saving fellowship of His kingdom. Accordingly, the account 
in Matthew (see on Matt. ix. 10) has rightly taken up Mark’s account which 
lies at its foundation, but Luke has not (v. 29). It is not indecd expressly 
said in our text that Jesus went again into the city ; this is nevertheless in- 
directly evident from the progress of the narrative (wapdywv . . . . 7KxoAoifnoav 
avrg... . KataxeioGat «.T.A.). — Yoav yap roAAol x.7.A.] A statement serving to 
elucidate the expression just used : roAAoi reAdvai x.7.A., and in such a way 
that joay is prefixed with emphasis : for there were many (7eA. x. duapr.); 
there was no lack of a multitude of such people, and they followed after 
Jesus. Against the explanation of Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek : 
aderant, it may be at once decisively urged that such an illustrative state- 
ment would be unmecaning, and that 7xoAoffycav may not be turned into a 
pluperfect. And mentally to supply with joav, as Bleek does : at the calling 
of Levi, is erroneous, because the narrative lics quite beyond this point of 
time. —Ver. 16. The corrected reading (see the critical remarks) is to be 
explained : and Pharisaic scribes when they saw, etc., said to Lis disciples. 
To attach this x. ypapp. r. dapic. to the previous 7xoAot#. (Tischendorf) is un- 
suitable, because joayv yap roAAci, taken by itself alone, would be absolutely 
pleonastic, and because 7xoAot#., in accordance with the context, can only 
mean the following of adherents. — Respecting iddvre¢ x.7.4., comp. on Matt. 
ix. 11. Here the direct secing (coming to Him) of the ypaypar. is meant, 


1 A confusion that actually arose in very 2 Yet Bleek and Holtzmann have agreed 
early times, which had as its consequence with my view, and also Kahnis, Dogm. I. 
the reading "ld«eofoyr (instead of Aeviv)in D, _ pp. 400 f. 
min., codd. in Or. and Vict. and codd of It. 


32 ; THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


not : cum intelligerent, ‘‘ when they knew” (Grotius and others, de Wette). 
— ri bri] quid est, quod, ‘‘ How is it that,” so that there needs to be supplied 
after ri, not yéyovey (Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 591), but the simple éozi. 
Comp. Luke ii. 49 ; Acts v. 4, 9. [See Note XIII, p. 36.] 

Vv. 18-22. See on Matt. ix. 14-17. Comp. Luke v. 33-88. —xal oar 

. . vyotevovrec] considered by Késtlin, p. 839, as meaningless and beside the 
question, is taken by the expositors as an ‘‘ archaeological intimation” (de 
Wette, comp. Fritzsche). There is nothing to indicate its being so (how 
entirely different it is with vii. 3 f.!); weshould at least expect with vyoret- 
ovrec some such general addition as roAAd (Matt. ix. 14).- It is to be explain- 
ed : And there were the disciples of John, etc., engaged in fasting (just at that 
time). This suggested their question. This view is followed also by Bleek 
and Holtzmann, the latter thinking, in the case of John’s disciples, of their 
fasting as mourners on account of the loss of their master,—a view for 
which ver. 19 does not serve as proof. — épyovra: x.7.A.] Both, naturally by 
means of representatives from among them. The text does not yield any- 
thing else ; so we are neither to understand the questioners of ver. 16 (Ewald, 
Hilgenfeld), nor mentally to supply r:véc (Weisse, Wilke). In Matthew the 
disciples of John ask the question, and this is to be regarded as historically 
the case (see on Matt. ix. 17, Remark). — oi pabyra? ’Iwdvvov «.7.4.] Not in- 
appropriate, but more definite and more suited to their party-interest than 
jucic (in Opposition to de Wette). — soi] might be the dative (the disciples 
belonging to Thee), see Bernhardy, p. 89 ; Kithner, II. p. 249. But in ac- 
cordance with the use—frequent also in the N. T.—of the emphatic oéc, it 
is to be taken asits plural. Comp. Luke v. 33. — Ver. 19. dc0v xpdvov x.1.A.] 
superfluous in itself, but here suited to the solemn answer.’ — pe? éavrav] in 
the midst of themselres. — Ver. 20. év éxeivg ti yyutpa] Not a negligence (de 
Wette) or impossibility of expression (Fritzsche), but : rére is the more gen- 
eral statement of time : then, when, namely, the case of the taking away 
shall have occurred, and év éxeivy r@ jutpg is the special definition of time sub- 
ordinate to the rére: on that day, éxeivoc having demonstrative force and 
consequently a tragic emphasis (on that atra dies/). Comp. Bernhardy, 
p. 279. Ifthe plural were again used, the time previously designated by éAeto. 
dé juépac would be once more expressed on the whole and in general, and that 
likewise with solemnity, but not the definite particular day. Aptly, more- 
over, Bengel remarks : ‘‘Dies wnus auferendi sponsi, dies multi ejusdem 
ablati et absentis,” ‘‘the day of the bridegroom’s removal is one, the days 
when he is removed and absent are many.” The Lord from the beginning 
of His ministry had made Himself familiar with the certainty of a violent 
death. Comp. John ii. 19. — Ver. 21. ei d? y4] In the contrary case, even 
after a negative clause, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 892], and see on 
2 Cor. xi. 16.—The correct reading : aipe: am’ avrob rd rAGpupa Td Katvdy Tod 
madatov (sec the critical remarks), is to be explained : the new patch of the 
old (garment) breaks away from it. Sce on Matt. ix.16f. The Recepta sig- 
nifies ; his new patch (that which is put on by him) breaks away from the 


2 Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix. 





CHAP, II., 23-28. 33 


old garment. According to Ewald, aipei ag’ Zavrov ought to be read (follow- 
ing B, which, however, has the a@’ éavrod after 7d cAZpwyua), and this is to be 
interpreted : ‘‘ thus the new filling up of the old becomes of itself stronger.” 
He compares the phrase 6 Adyo¢ aipei,’ the meaning of which (reason teaches 
it) is, however, here foreign to the subject. — Ver. 22. A combination from 
Matthew and Luke is here contained only in the interpolated Recepta. Sec 
the critical [and supplementary] remarks.’ 

Vv. 23-28. See on Matt. xii. 1-8. Comp. Luke vi. 1-5, who follows Mark 
in the order of events, which in Matthew is different. — rapamopetec@ac| not: 
fo walk on, ambulare (Vulgate, Luther, and many others, including de 
Wette), so that rapé would refer indefinitely to other objects, but to pass 
along by.* Jesus passed through the corn-fields alongside of these, so that 
the way that passed through the fields led Him on both sides along by 
them. Just so ix. 30, and Deut. ii. 4. — dddv soveiv x.7.A.] is usually ex- 
plained as though it stood : odév root-pevor riAAey Tove ordyvac, to pluck the 
ears of corn as they went. Against the mode of expression, according to 
which the main idea lies in the participial definition,‘ there would be in 
itself nothing, according to classical examples, to object ; but in the N.T. 
this mode of expression does not occur (Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 443 f.}), 
and here in particular the active zoveiv is opposed to it, since dddv roreiv is 
always viam sternere, and odév taeicGac (a8 also ropeiav roceiobaz) is iter facere.* 
The assumption that Mark had missed this distinction is wholly without 
exegetical warrant, as is also the recourse to a Latinism (Krebs). The only 
correct explanation is : they began to make a way (to open a path) dy pluck- 
ing the ears of corn; not, as Bretschneider and Fritzsche alter the meaning 
of the words: ‘‘evellisse spicas et factum esse, ut projectis, quum iis es- 
sent demta grana, spicis exprimeretur cia,” ‘‘to pluck the ears and to cause 
that a way might be forced through the projecting ears when the grain was 
removed from them,” [See Note XIV., p. 36 seq.] We must rather con- 
ceive of the field-path on which they are walking—perhaps at a placc 
where it leads through a field of corn which it intersects—as over- 
grown with ears, so that they must of necessity, in order to continue 
their journey, make @ path, which they do by plucking the ears of corn 
that stand in their way. According to Matthew and Luke, the chief point 
liesin the fact that the disciples pluck the ears and eat them; and the 
Pharisees find fault with theirdoing this—which in itself is allowable—on the 
Sabbath. According to Mark, however, who has not a word’ of the disciples 


1 Ratio evinctt, Polyb. vi. 5.5; comp. also 
Herod. fi. 88; Plat. Crtt. p. 48 C, ai. 

2 As to the form pyjocw instead of pryyvume, 
see Ruhnken, Zp. crit. 1. p. 28. 

* Comp. Matt. xxvil. 39; Mark xi. 20, xv. 
29. 
‘See Hermann, ad Af. 1118; Electr. 1305; 
Stallbaum, ad Flat. Gorg. p. 186; Phil. p. 58. 

® See Viger. ed. Herm. p. 116; Kypke, I. 
p. 154; Krebs, p. 81; Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 
820]. Comp. also d8omneiy (Xen. Anad. v. 1. 
14; Dem. 1274, 26, frequently in the LXX.) 


3 


and 46d» d8oroety ; Kithner, ad Xen. Anab. 
iv. 8. 8. 

¢ Mark has been blamed on this account. 
See Fritzsche, p. 69. But the very evange- 
list, who knew how to narrate so vividly, 
should by no means have been charged with 
such an awkwardness as the omission of 
the essential feature of the connection— 
which {fs Just what the latest harmonizing 
avers. It ought to have been candidly 
noted that in Mark the object of the pluck- 
ing of the ears {1s the 65d wovety; while in 


34 THE GOSPEL CF MARK. 


eating, their act consists in this, that by the plucking of the ears of corn they 
open arcay through the field ; and the Pharisees, ver. 24, find fault that they do 
that, which in itself is already unallowable,' on the Sabbath. The justification 
of Jesus amounts then, ver. 25 ff., to the two points: (1) that according 
to David’s- precedent the proceeding of the disciples, as enjoined by 
necessity, is by no means unallowable ; and (2) that the Sabbath makes no 
difference in the matter.— The origin of this difference itself is easily ex- 
plained from the fact, that Jesus adduces the history of the eating of the 
shew-bread, by means of which also the eating of the ears of corn 
came into the tradition of this incident. Mark betrays by his ddév 
mwoteiv abandoned by Matthew and Luke, and by the less obvious con- 
nection of it with the eating of theshew-bread, the original narrative, which 
perhaps proceeded from Peter himself. — rov¢ ord yvac] the article designates 
the ears of corn that stood in the way.—Ver. 24. They do not ask, as in Matthew 
and Luke, why the disciples do what is unallowable on the Sabbath, but 
why they doon the Sabbath something (already in itself) wnallowable.— Ver. 
25. avréc] and He on His part, replying to them. He put a counter-question. 
— ore ypeiav écye) In this lies the analogy. The disciples also were by the 
circumstances compelled to the course which they took. The demonstra- 
tive force of this citation depends upon a conclusion @ majori ad minus. 
David in a case of necessity dealt apparently unlawfully even with the shew- 
bread of the temple, which is yet far less lawful to be touched than the ears of 
grain in general. — Ver. 26. éxi 'APidbap rot apyeep.| tempore Abiatharis ponti- 
Jicis maximi, i.e., under the pontificate of Abiathar. Comp. Luke iii. 2 ; 
Matt. i. 11. According to 1 Sam. xxi. 1 ff., indeed, the high priest at that 
time was not Abiathar, but his father (1 Sam. xxii. 20; Joseph. Anét. vi. 
12. 6) Ahimelech. Mark has erroneously confounded these two, which might 
the more easily occur from the remembrance of David’s friendship with 
Abiathar (1 Sam. xxii. 20 ff.).". The supposition that father and son both 
had doth names,? is only apparently supported by 2 Sam. viii. 17, 
1 Chron. xviii. 16, comp. xxiv. 6, 81; as even apart from the fact 
that these passages manifestly contain an erroneous statement,‘ the reference 
of our quotation applies to no other passage than to 1 Sam. xxi. [See Note 
XV., p. 37.] Grotius thought that the son had been the substitute of the 


Matthew it is the eating on account of hunger. 
The occasions of the necessity, in which the 
disciples were placed, are differené ; in the 
former case, the dsomrota ; in the latter, the 
hunger. 

1 To this view Holtzmann and Hilgenfeld 
have acceded, as also Ritschl, altkath. A. 
p. 29: Schenkel, Charak/erdild, p. 86; und as 
regards the ody xocety in itself, also Lange. 
The defence of the usual explanation on the 
part of Krummel in the allgem. K. Zeit. 1864, 
No. 74, leaves the linguistic difficulty which 
stands in its way entirely unsolved. He 
should least of all have sought support from 
the redding of Lachmann (é8omocey); for 
this aldo never means anything else than 


viam sternere, and even in the middle voice 
only means lo make for oneself a path. Weiss 
(Jahrd. f. Deutsche Theol. 1865, p. 868) calls 
my explanation “somewhat odd;’’ this, 
however, can matter nothing, if only it is 
linguistically correct, and the usual one 
linguistically erroneous. 

2 See Korb in Winer's krit. Journ. IV. p. 
205 ff.: Paulus, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek. 

3 Victor Antiochenus, Euthymius Zigabe- 
nus, Theophylact, Beza, Jansen, Heumann, 
Kuinoel, and many others. 

4 Comp. Thenius on 2 Sam. i.c. ; Bertheau 
judges otherwise, d. Bucher der Chron. 
p. 181. f. 





CHAP. II., 23-28. 35 


father. Recourse has been had with equally ill success to a different inter- 
pretation of éxi; for, if it is assumed to be coram (Wetstein, Scholz), 
1 Sam. /.c. stands historically opposed to it ; but if it is held to mean : in the 
passage concerning Abiathar, i.e., there, where he is spoken of (xii. 26 ; Luke 
xx. 37), it is opposed by the same historical authority, and by the con- 
sideration that the words do not stand immediately after avéyvwre.'— Ver. 
27 f. xat dey. avroic] frequently used for the introduction of a further im- 
portant utterance of the same subject who is speaking ; Bengel : ‘‘ Sermo- 
nem iterum exorsus,”’ ‘‘ having again begun his discourse.” Comp. iv. 9. 
As Jesus has hitherto refuted the reproach conveyed in 6é oix éeor., ver. 24, 
He now also refutes the censure expressed. by é roic¢ cdéSBaow, ver. 24. 
Namely: as the Sabbath has been made (brought into existence, t.¢., ordained) 
Jor the sake of man, namely, as a means for his highest moral ends (Gen. ii. 
8; Ex. xx. 8 ff.), not man for the sake of the Sabbath,? it follows thence : the 
Messiah has to rule even over the Sabbath, so that thus the disciples, who 
as my disciples have acted under my permission, cannot be affected by any 
reproach in respect of the Sabbath. The inference dcre depends on the fact 
that the vide rov avOpdov, t.¢., the Messiah (not with Grotius and Fritzsche to 
be taken as man in general), is held ex concesso as the representative head of 
humanity.* On the mode of inference in general, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 9; 
2 Macc. v. 19. —x«tpcoc] emphatically at the beginning : is not dependent, 
but Lord,‘ etc.; whereby, however, is expressed not the prerogative of ab- 
solute abolition (see against this Matt. v. 17 ff., and the idea of the rAjpwore of 
the law makes its appearance even in Mark vii. 15 ff., x. 5 ff., xii. 28 ff.), but 
the power of putting in the place of the external statutory Sabbath observance 
—while giving up the latter—something higher in keeping with the idea 
of the Sabbath, wherein lies the rAgpwore of the Sabbath-law.'— xai] also, 
along with other portions of His xvpiérie. 


1 In opposition to Michaelis and Saunier, 
Quetlen d. Mark. p. 58. 

*Comp. Hechilta in Ex. xxxi. 18: ‘‘ Vobis 
sabbatum traditum est, et non vos traditi 
estis sabbato,” ‘‘ For you the Sabbath is de- 
livered, and not yon delivered for the Sab- 
bath.” According to Baur, ver. 27 belongs 
to * the rational explanations,” which Mark 
is fond of prefixing by way of suggesting a 
motive for what is historically presented. 
To the same class he would assign ix. 389, 
vil. 15 ff. Weizsiicker finds in the passage 
before us a later reflection. This would 
only be admissible, if the idea facilitated the 
concluding inference, which is not the case, 
and if Mark were not in this narrative gen- 


erally so peculiar. The connecting link of 
the argumentation preserved by him might 
more easily have been omitted as something 
foreign, than have been added. 

§ For Him, as such, in the judgment to be 
formed of the obligatory force of legal or 
dinances, the regulative standard is just the 
relation, in which man as a moral end to 
himself stands to the law. Comp. Ritsohl.,. 
alikathol. Kirche, p. 20 ff. 

4 With this the freedom of worship is given 
as well as assigned to its necessary Jimié,. 
but not generally ‘‘ proclaimed” (Schenkel). 

* Comp. Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, 
p. 811; Weizs&cker, p. 891. 


36 THE GOSPEL OF MARE. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 


X. Ver. 1. év olxy éariv. 


The reading of the Rec., ei¢ olxov, must be rejected. It is true that it is 
lectio difficilior, yet ® B D L 33, Copt., Vulg. constitute decisive evidence, even 
against this consideration. Meyer's explanation (pregnant construction) is 
therefore unnecessary. The R. V. marg. has “‘ at home,” which isan allowable 
rendering, despite the absence of the artiole. 


XI. Vv. 13-17. 


We have in Meyer’s prefatory remark on these verses a specimen of his con- 
jectures in accounting for the differences between the narratives of the Synop- 
tists. Weiss ed. Mey. denies that the citation from Hosea (in Matthew) is “‘ an 
original element from the collection of Logia.’’ He refers it to ‘‘ the earlier 
source’ (see Note L., p. 10), where, however, it stood in a different connec- 
tion. As to Matthew’s dealing with the narrative of his own call, etc., 
‘‘in the way of abridgment,” there seems to be no psychological ground for 
it. If Matthew was present, he probably heard ‘‘‘the highly appropriate quo- 
tation.” To believe that he reports as an eye-witness is not more difficult than to 
Accept either of the theories above referred to. 


XII. Ver. 15. év rq otxig avrod. 


That this refers to the house of Levi (Matthew), Meyer admits as in itself 
possible. The pronoun airdév undoubtedly means Jesus, but airov can follow 
immediately with a different reference. There would be no necessity for in- 
troducing the name (r@ ’Iyoov) in the leading clause, if uvrov did not point to 
Levi. Moreover, as Weiss ed Mey. remarks, ‘‘ the call of a pablican is nar- 
rated in ver. 14, in order to explain how it happened that Jesus reclined at 
table in a publican’s house.’”’ He also rightly rejects the notion that xaAéoac 
(ver. 17) refers to the invitation of Jesus as host. An unnecessary variation 
between the narratives is created by Meyer's view. 


XII. Ver, 16. dre pera «.7.A. 


The briefer reading dr: (instead of ri ér:, Rec., Meyer) is now generally ac- 
_eepted, on the evidence of B L 33, supplemented by the fact of the existence of 
another variation (& D, did ri), which was taken from Matthew and Luke. The 
ér. is rightly taken as recilantis ; see R. V. text.—In regard to the variations in 
the earlier part of the verse, Meyer's judgment in the main is sustained by 
Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.; but all accept oi before ypayyareic, which 
Tisch. omits, and reject his view of the punctuation. 


XIV. Ver. 23. ddov roteiv x.17.A. 


Meyer, by his explanation of this passage, makes an unnecessary conflict be- 
tween the account of Mark and those of Matthew and Luke. To this Weiss 
ed. Mey. objects. He cannot conceive why ‘‘the disciples must first break a 
path on which Jesus had preceded them, and which therefore could not have 





NOTES. 37 


been so impassable, and why they should do this by plucking off the ears in- 
stead of treading down the stalks ; for according to iv. 28 crayo¢ is the ear in 
contrast with the stalk.”’ He findsthe three narratives in accord. ‘‘ Mark, how- 
ever, rightly does not mention the eating, because not in this but only in the 
plucking of the ears, in itself allowable (Deut. xxiii. 26), the Pharisees saw a 
resemblance to the harvest labor which was incompatible with Sabbath rest. 
Had the plucking of the ears been in itself unallowable (Meyer), the Pharisees 
would not have taken notice of it on account of the breaking of the Sabbath, 
and Jesus would have justified it by no assumed necessity, since the matter 
here involved would have been an infringement on the rights of others.” Here 
Meyer's linguistic accuracy has led him to adopt an interpretation which explains 
nothing. His assumption that the mention of David’s eating, introducing the 
notion of eating the ears into the tradition of this incident, is purely gratu- 
itous, We may with far more justice assume that Mark expected the answer of 
Jesus in this controversy to shed needed light on his brief statement of the 
action which gave offence to the Pharisees. 


XV. Ver. 26. éxi ’ABid0ap rov apytepéwe. 


The interpretation of Meyer is undoubtedly correct (comp. R. V. text : “‘ when 
Abiathar was high-priest’’). But that Mark is in error by no means follows, 
The Evangelist could have Abiathar in mind only from familiarity with the 
whole O. T. narrative, since Abiathar is not named at all, 1 Sam. xxi. To say 
that ‘‘the reference of our quotation applies to no other passage than”’ that, is 
contradicted by the alleged mistake. Hence Mark may have known that both 
father and son had both names. At least this is as probable as the convenient 
assumption that the O. T. passages which would prove Mark’s accuracy are them- 
selves inaccurate. Moreover, the singular ignorance of the Scriptures attributed 
by Meyer to this born Jew, son of a pious mother, is in itself highly improbable. 


38 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ven. 2. Instead of raperipovy, read with Lachm. rapernpoirro, following A C* 
D A, min. The middle here and at Luke vi. 7 (comp. also Acts ix. 24) was not 
attended to. [The active form is supported by B L & etc., and accepted by re- 
cent editors ; the middle seems to have been taken from the parallel passages. } 
— KaTnyopnoovoly, instead of xarnyopjowour, is not sufficiently attested by C D 
(Lachm.).— Ver. 3. Lachm. has 1 T#v yeipa Exovre Eqpav, following B L 102, 
Vere. [So recent editors, R. V.] In favor of énpav C also tells, which has ry r. 
Ennav éx. x., and A &, which have 7 r. éypar y. éy. So Tisch. viii. The Re- 
cepla te esnpaypévny Exovre t7v veipa is from ver. 1.— Ver. 5. At the end Elz. has 
byte OC Y aAAn. This is indeed defended by Matthiae, but in opposition to 
decisive evidence. It is from Matt. xi. 13.— Ver. 7. The order of the words : 
peta Tav pant. avrov dvexép.(Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepta ave- 
xoOp. wu. T. pad. air., has in its favor BC DL A 8, min. vss., and is on this evi- 
dence to be adopted, the more especially as the Recepta easily presented itself 
from the connection, according to which the important element for the progress 
of the narrative lies in dveyop. — Instead of rpéc (Elz. Scholz), Griesb. Fritzsche, 
Lachm. Tisch. have «ic, which is attested, indeed, only by D H P, min. 
Theophy]., but was explained by zpé¢ (in some min. by zrapé) as a gloss. — 7KoA- 
ov8noayv] #xoAovOnoev, in favor of which D, min. also concur by 7xoAovbe:, is con- 
siderably attested, partly with and partly wifhout avrg (which Lachm. 
brackets), Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche and Lachm. ([Treg., 
W. and Hort, R. V., have the singular, but after TadcAaiac, with A B L, Copt.} 
The plural flowed mechanically from the conception of the multitude ; airg is 
supplied, and is with Tisch. to be deleted. — Ver. 8. axovcartec] Lachm. and 
Tisch, [recent editors, R. V.] read uxovoyrec, following only B A ¥&, min. — Ver. 
11. Instead of éedpet, mpooémintev, and éxpate, Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 
have the plurals, which also Griesb. approved. The evidence preponderates in 
favor of the latter, and the singulars are a grammatical but inappropriate cor- 
rection. — Ver. 15. Qepameverv rag vécoug xai] is wanting in BC* LA X&, 102, 
Copt. Deleted by Tisch. An addition, in recollection of Matt. x. 1.— Ver. 16. 
Fritzsche has zporoyv Xywova before xai éréOyxe, following only 13, 39, 124, 346. 
An addition from Matt. x. 2, with a view to supply a construction.! — Ver. 18. 
Here, too (comp. on Matt. x. 4), must be read in conformity to decisive evidence, 
with Lachm. and Tisch., not Kavaviryy, but Kavavaiov. — Ver. 20. unre] Read 
with Fritzsche and Lachm. pdé, which is sufficiently attested and necessary as 
respects the sense. (So recent editors (against Tisch.) with A B L, 33.— Ver. 


1 From the same design, moreover, we constructed passages “ correctio parit cor- 
may explain the placing of cai éroincey rovs rectionem : alter enim alterum cupit ante- 
&H5tea at the beginning of the verse. So cellere ingenio,’’ ‘correction begets cor- 
BC*A&. Defended by Hitzigand Ewald; rection ; but one desires to surpass another 
adopted by Tisch. [So W. and Hort, in ingenuity” (Matthiae, ed. min. ad A. /.). 
Weiss, R. VY. marg.} In such awkwardly 


CHAP. III., 1-6. 39 


26. W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., read «ai (X¢ A B O? L) éxepiobn (&* B L) od. ]—Ver. 
27. The Recepia is : ov divara: ovdeic. So also Fritzsche and Tisch., the latter 
having, in accordance with B C (?) LA &, min. vss., adopted ada’ previously (a 
connective addition). But oideic dvvata: (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm.) is the 
more to be retained, since the mechanical repetition of the ot divara: was 80 
readily suggested from what precedes. [The presence of a2’ is against the 
theory of a ‘‘ mechanical repetition.” Recent editors agree with Tisch., follow- 
ing B C* A &.}] — Ver. 28. The verbal order: roi¢ vioig trav dvOpimav Ta cuap- 
THpata (sanctioned by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), has, with A B 
CDLA 8, min. vss, the balance of evidence in its favor, and is also to be ac- 
counted genuine, as being the more unusual.—The arlicle before BAag@. is 
adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. on decisive evidence ; it 
became absorbed through the preceding kai. — dca¢] Lachm. and Tisch. read 6éca, 
folowing BD E* GH AIl* 8, min. The Recepia is a correction. — Ver. 29. 
Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have xpicews (A C** E FG, ete. Syr.), instead of which 
Griesb. approved duaprnpatrog (BL A &; D has dyuapriac), and this Lachm. and 
Tisch. have adopted.  xpicewe (al. Kxoddcews) is a gloss.—Ver. 31. The reading 
cai Epyovra: (Lachm.) certainly has preponderant evidence (D GX, Tisch. ed. VIII. 
have «ai épyera:), but is a mechanical alteration, in which the retrospective 
reference of the ov was not attended to. — The Recepia is of ddeAgot xai 7 uyTnp 
avrov. But B C D GLA R, min. vss. have 7 pyt7p avtov x. of adeAgod avrod 
(Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. ed. 8), with which also the reading épyera: is 
connected. Still the Recepia (and that with atrov repeated) is to be sustained, 
for it became changed in consideration of the rank of the mother, of ver. 32, 
and of the parallel passages. [The plural is fairly attested ; but the order of B 
R, etc., is still better sustained. ] — gwvoivrec] Lachm. and Tisch. have xadobvrec, 
following BC L &, min. (A: (yrotvrec). Rightly ; the meaning of xa2odvrec 
was more precisely defined by guvoivrec. — Ver. 32. The verbal order zepi airov 
éxAoc (Lachm. Tisch.) is preponderantly attested, as also is xal Aéyovor (Lachm. 
Tisch.) instead of elzov dé. —The addition ka? ai adeAgai cov is rightly adopted 
by Griesh. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. It certainly has important evi- 
dence against it(BC GKLA II &, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Syr. utr.), and is 
rejected by Fritzsche; but the words were omitted, because neither in ver. 31 
nor in ver. 34 nor in the parallel passages are the sisters mentioned. Had it 
been interpolated, the addition would have been found already in ver. 31. 
[Rejected by Treg., R. V., regarded by W. and Hort as a western interpolation. ] 
—Ver. 33. Instead of 7, Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have xai, 
following BCL V A &, min. vss, A mechanical repetition from ver. 32; and 
comp. Matt. — Ver. 34. The verbal order: rovc rep att. xixAw (Lachm. Tisch.) 
[recent editors, R. V.], which is found in B C L A &, min. Copt., arose from the 
fact, that the «vcdw, which with wepc8%cy. was superfluous, was omitted (so 
still in min, vss.), and then restored in the place that appeared fitting. — Ver. 
35. The omission of yép (Lachm. Tisch. Weiss) is too weakly attested. [W. and 
Hort omit in text, insert in margin.] On the other hand, pov after adeAg7 is, 
with Lachm. and Tisch., following AB DLA X&, min. vas., to be deleted. 


Vv. 1-6. See on Matt. xii. 9-14 ; comp. Luke vi. 6-11. The brief, viv- 
idly, and sharply graphic account of Mark is in Matthew partly abridged, 
partly expanded. [See Note XVI., p. 47.] — wdAcv] see i. 21. —ei¢ r. ovva- 
ywytv] at Capernaum. See ii. 15. — éfnpayutvyy] ‘non ex utero, sed morbo 


40 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


aut vulnere ; haec vis participii,” ‘‘not from birth, but by disease or 
wound ; this is the force of the participle,” Bengel. More indefinitely 
Matthew (and Luke): £pav.— rapetnpoivro] of hostile observing, spying 
(comp. Luke vi. 7, al.; Polyb. xvii. 3. 2: évedpevew xai maparnpeir), 
which, however, is‘implied, not in the middle, but in the context. [See 
critical note.] — Ver. 3 ff. éyepe eig tr. uéoov] arise (and step forth) into 
the midst. Comp. Luke vi. 8. — ayaforo:joat % xaxororgjoa:] to act well (Tob. 
xii. 18), or to act ill (Ecclus. xix. 25). Comp. xadde woceiv, Matt. xii. 12 ; 
Ep. ad Diogn. 4: God does not hinder xadéy rz roveiv on the Sabbath day. 
The alternative must be such that the opponents cannot deny the former 
proposition, and therefore must be dumb. On this account it is nat to 
be explained : to render a benefit (1 Macc. xi. 83), or to inflict an injury ;' 
for the former might be relatively negatived on account of the Sabbath 
laws, the observance of which, however, could not be opposed to the 
idea of acting well (i.e., in conformity with the divine will). We can 
only decide the question on this ground, not from the usus loguendi, which 
in fact admits of either explanation. The reading in D: re ayadév rogoat, 
is a correct gloss of the late Greek word (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 200), 
comp. 1 Pet. ii. 15, 20, iii. 6 ; 3 John 11. — yuyqw coca] to rescue a soul, 
that it be not transferred to Hades, but, on the contrary, the man may be 
preserved in life. Comp. viii. 85, often also among Greek writers. This 
likewise could not be denied, for ‘‘ periculum vitae pellit sabbatum,” ‘‘ peril 
of life expels the Sabbath,” Joma, f. 84, 2. See the passages in Wetstein, 
ad Matth. xii. 10. — aroxzeiva:] to be taken by itself, not to be conuected 
with wyfv. At the foundation of the question of Jesus lies the conclusion 
from the general to the special ; He carries the point in question about the 
Sabbath healings back to the moral category, in consequence of which a neg- 
ative answer would be absurd. The adversaries feel this ; but instead of 
confessing it they are silent, because they are hardened. — cviAvmoipevoc }.feel- 
ing compassion over, etc.?, Anger and compassion alternated. The preposi- 
tion denotes not the emotion of the heart collectively, but the fellowship, 
into which the heart enters, with the misfortune (in this case moral) of the 
persons concerned. Comp. Plato, Pol. v. p. 462 E.—amexareordfy] with 
double augment (Winer, p. 67 [E. T. 72]) is, in accordance with Lachmann, 
to be read. Comp. on Matt. xii. 18. — Ver. 6. evOéuwe x.7.2.] ‘‘ crevit odium,” 
‘*hatred grew,” Bengel. They instituted a@ consultation, in order that, etc. 
Comp. on Matt. xxii. 5. That the Herodians are introduced into this placc 
erroneously from Matt. xxii. 16 (see in loc.) is not to be maintained (de 
Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld). The sensation produced by the working of Jesus 
(see vv. 7, 8) was sufficiently fitted to induce their being now drawn by the 
Pharisees into the hostile effort. Hence the mention of them here is no 
meaningless addition (Késtlin). 

Vv. 7-12. Comp. Matt. xii. 15 f., Luke vi. 17-19, who with their differ- 
ence of historical arrangement make but brief use of the description in 


' Erasmus, Bengel, Beza, de Wette, Bleek, 2 Herod. tx. 94, vi. 89; Polyb. vil. 3. 2; 
and others. Aelian, ¥. H. vii. 3. 











CHAP. III., 13-19. 41 


Mark, which is more accurate and more fresh, and does not blend heteroge- 
neous elements (Hilgenfeld). — eic] direction whither. — Ver. 8. '"Idovpaiac] 
on the south-eastern border of Palestine.—A pozné is not to be placed, as by 
Beza, Er. Schmid, and Fritzsche, after ’Iopddvov, but—as is required by the 
two distinct predicates based on the local relations, 7xo2A0iGycev and 7A0ov rpd¢ 
avrov— before xai awd r. Iovdaiac. It is first of all stated, who followed Jesus 
from Galilee, where Iie Himself was, to the sea, and then, from xai dard r. 
"Iovd. onward, who came to Him from other regions. Namely: and from 
Judaen, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea and Peraea (kai répav row ‘lope. ; 
observe that here ard is not repeated), and those (the Jews) about Tyre and 
Sidon, in great multitudes (xAgGoc roAt belongs to the whole as a more precise 
definition of the subject), they came to Him. [See Note XVII., p. 47.] — 
Observe, moreover, the different position of wAj%oc in vv. 7 and 8; in the 
one case the greatness of the mass of people preponderates in the conception, 
in the other it is the idea of the mass of people itself. — éroies] imperfect, used 
of the continuous doing. -— Ver. 9. iva] What He said to them is conceived 
of as the design of the speaking (comp. on Matt. iv. 8) : in order that a ves- 
sel should be continually at His service. —- dia rdv dx/A0v x.t.A.] therefore not for 
the purpose of crossing over ; ueAAe yap éuBac cig aird wy EvoxAeiovat, 
‘for He would by embarking in it not be thronged,” Euthymius Zigabenus. 
Comp. iv. 1; Matt. xiii. 2. It is not said, however, that He wished to teach 
out of the vessel (Kuinoel and others). — Ver. 10 f. Information regarding 
this pressing towards Him. — éUepdrevoev] not sanaverat, ‘‘had healed” 
(Castalio, Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but He healed just at that time. The dore 
txivinrecy auto, 80 that they fell upon Him, depicts the impetuous thronging 
unto Hjm of those seeking aid. ‘‘ Admirabilis patientia et benignitas Dom- 
ini,” ‘‘admirable patience and kindness of the Lord,” Bengel. spooémenr. 
airs in ver. 11 is different : they fell down before Him (v. 33, vii. 25). — udo- 
ttyag} plagues, v. 29, 34; Luke vii. 21; Ps, xxxv. 15; Ecclus. xl. 9; 
2 Macc. vii. 37. In accordance with the context : plagues of sickness. — ra 
rvebuara x.T.A.] & statement in conformity with the appearance ; the sick 
people identified themselves with the demons. — érav] with the praeterite in- 
dicatice: whenever they saw Hin, 1.¢., as soon as ever they got sight of Him.’ 
This rare and late linguistic phenomenon is to be explained to the effect, 
that the conception of the uncertain (év) has become completely blended 
with dre, and the whole emphasis rests upon this whenever. See Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 690. It does not mean: if they ever saw Him. — Ver. 12. iva] 
design of the roAAd éreriua aitoicg (the demons). How colorless is Matt. xii. 
16! According to Hilgenfeld, Mark has eraggerated. As to the prohibition 
itself of their making Him known as Messiah, comp. i. 43, and on Matt. 
viii. 4; Mark v. 43. 

Vv. 13-19. Comp. Matt. x. 2-4 ; Luke vi. 12-16. —1d bpo¢] upon the 
mountain there. See on Matt. v. 1. — oi¢ 7OcAev airéc] so that no one might 
come forward of his own will. Jesus first of all made a wider selection, 
and then out of this, ver. 14, the narrower one of the Twelve. To raise a 


1 See Winer, p. 276 [E. F. 109]. 


42 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


doubt of the actual selection of the latter (Schleiermacher, ZL. J. p. 370), as if 
they to some extent had become apostles with less of assent on Christ’s 
part, is at variance also with John vi. 70. — Ver. 14 f. éoince] Le made, 
that is, He ordained, appointed. Comp. Acts ii. 86; 1 Sam. xii. 6. On the 
clause iva doc per’ atrov, comp. Acts i. 21. —amooréAAy avroic¢}) namely, 
subsequently. See vi. 7.—xai éyecv] conjoined with the xyptooeyv as an 
aim of the sending forth, in which it was contemplated that they were fo 
preach and to have power,' etc. Comp. vi. 7. The simple, naive detail 
of the appointment and destination of the Twelve bears the stamp of orig- 
inality, not of elaboration after Matthew and Luke.* — Ver. 16 ff. Inexuact- 
ly enough Mark relates, instead of Simon’s appointment, only his being 
named ; but he leaves his appointment to be thence understood of itself, 
and then, as if he had narrated it in connection with éroiyce, continues by 
kat "Idxwfov, which still depends on ézoiyce,—an awkwardness which is 
scarcely to be attributed to a reflecting reviser.—As to the arrangement— 
generally according to rank, but in Mark and Acts i. 13 giving precedence 
to the three most intimate disciples—of the twelve names in three quater- 
nions, sce on Matt. x. 2; Ewald, p. 205 f.—Mark narrates the naming of 
Peter as having taken place at that time, which is not incompatible with 
Matt. xvi. 18 (see in loc.), although it is doubtless with John i. 43.—Ver. 17. 
And he assigned to them names (namely) Boanerges. The plural ovéyara (for 
which D reads évoua) depends on the conception that the names bestowed 


Y 
Boavepyé¢ ] tyr, 


W231 °23. The Sheva, according to Aramaic pronunciation (see Lightfoot) : 
oa. ¥)), in the Hebrew, a noisy crowd, Ps. lv. 15 ; in the Syriac, thunder ; 


on the two brothers are included in Boanerges. 


comp. the Arabic (uo), tonuit.* The historical occasion of this appellation 


is altogether unknown. It has been sought in the mighty eloquence of the 
two ;‘ but it may be objected to this view that such a quality could hardly 
have appeared at that time, when the men had not yet taught ; and also 
that in the case of John at least, a thundering eloquence (as in Pericles ; 
Cic. Orat. 29) is not to be supposed. Others* have understood it to bea 
name of reproach, and referred it to Luke ix. 54, so that the meaningless, 
destructive power (Gurlitt) would be the point of comparison ; but the time 
of the giving this name is not in accordance with this view, as it is also in 
itself improbable, and at variance with the analogy of Peter’s name, that 
Jesus should have converted a reproach into a name and thereby have made 
it the signature of their character ; to which we may add, that in Luke, J.c. 


1 Observe the correciness of the expres- 
sion txeyv éfove. «.7.A. (in opposition to de 
Wette). For the destination of the apostles 
in fact was not: to teach and lo drive out the 
demons, but lo teach and in so doing to pos- 
sess the power of driving out demons, in 
order that they might apply this‘power on 
appropriate occasion for the confirmation 
of their teaching. Comp. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. 
xii. 12. 


* Zeller in Hilgenfeld's Zeilschrift, 1865, 
p. 396 ff. 

3 Jerome's reading (in Dan. {., Isa. Ixii.): 
Benereem, is an emendation (Dy), thunder). 

‘Victor Antlochenus, Theophylact, Eu- 
thymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Wetstein, 
Michaelis, and others, comp. Luther's gloss. 

& Heumann, Kuinoel, comp. also Gurlitt 
in the Stud. u. Arit. 1829, p. 715 ff. 


CHAP. III., 20, 21. 43 
there is nothing at all said about thunder. Moreover, it is historically 
demonstrable that the disciples were of impetuous, ardent temperament (ix. 
38 ; Luke ix. 54; comp. Matt. xx. 20 ff., and Mark x. 35 ff.), and it is 
therefore not arbitrary to conjecture that some special exhibition of this 
peculiarity at the time suggested the name, of which, however, it is ab- 
solutely unknown for what reason it did not become permanent, like the 
name of Peter, and in fact is no further mentioned elsewhcre, although 
it was given by Jesus. — Oaddaiov] see on Matt. x. 38. As to é Kavavaioc, sce 
on Matt. x. 4. 

Vv. 20,’ 21. Peculiar to Mark, but in unity of connection with ver. 22 f. 
— xai épy. ei¢ olxov] The choice of the disciples, and what had to be said to 
them concerning it, was the important occasion for the preceding ascent of 
the mountain, ver. 18. Now they come back again to the house, namely, 
in Capernaum, as in ij. 2, to which also the subsequent dd points back. 
De Wette is in error when he says that the following scene could by no 
means have taken place in the house. See, on the other hand, ver. 31 and 
Matt. xii. 46. Hilgenfeld finds in ei¢ olxoy even a misunderstanding of Matt. 
xiii. 1.—The accusation dre é&éory, ver. 21, and that expressed at ver. 22, dr: 
BeeACeBova zxer, are analogous ; and these accusations are the significant ele- 
ments in Mark,* with whom ver. 22 still lacks the special historical in- 
formation that is furnished by Matt. xii. 22 f.. (comp. ix. 33 f.) ; Luke xi, 14. 
In the connection of Mark alone the retrospective reference to vv. 10-12 is 
sufficient ; hence it is not to be supposed that in the primitive-Mark that 
cure of demoniacs given by Matthew and Luke must also have had a place 
(Holtzmann). See, moreover, Weiss, 7.c. p. 80 ff. Mark, however, does not 


1 Before cai épyorrai eis olxow would be the 
place where Mark, if he had desired to take 
in the Sermon on the Mount, would have 
inserted it; and Ewald (as also Tobler, 
die Evangelienfrage, 1858, p. 14) assumes that 
the Gospel in [ts original form had actually 
contained that discourse, although abridg- 
ed, in this place,—which Weiss (Fvangeli- 
enfrage, p. 154 f.) concedes, laying decided 
stress on the abridgment on the ground of 
other abridged discourses in Mark. Never- 
theless, the abrupt and unconnected mode 
of adding one account to another, as here 
by the cai épxovra: eis olxoy, as well as the 
omission of longer discourses, are peculiar 
to Mark and in keeping with the originality 
of his work ; further, it would be quite im- 
possible to see why the discourse, If it had 
originally a place here, should have been 
entirely removed, whether we may con- 
ceive for ourselves its original contents 
and compass in the main according to 
Matthew or according to Luke. Ewald’s 
view has, however, been followed by Holtz- 
mann, whom Weiss, in the Jahrd. /. 
Deutsche Theol. 1864, p. 68 ff., and Weizsack- 
er, p. 4, with reason oppose, while Schenk- 


el also regards the dropping out as proba- 
ble, although as unintentiona).—In respect 
of the absence from Mark of the history of 
the centurion at Capernaum (Matt. vill. 5 ff.; 
Luke vii. 1 ff.), the non-insertion of which 
Késtlin is only able to conceive of as aris- 
ing from the neutral tendency of Mark, 
Ewald supposes that it originally stood in 
Mark, likewise before cai épxorrat eis olxoy, 
and that In Matthew and Luke it still has 
the tinge of Mark's language, in which re- 
spect ixavyéds and oxvAAew are referred to 
(but comp. Matt. iif. 11, ix. 836; Luke fil. 16, 
vill. 49). Weiss, p 161, finds the hypothesis 
of Ewald confirmed by the affinity of that 
history with the narrative of the Canaanit- 
ish woman, vii. 24 ff. Holtzmann appro- 
priates the reasons of Ewald and Weiss ; 
they are insufficient of themselves, and fall 
with the alleged disappearance of the Ser- 
mon on the Mount. 

2 Jt isahasty and unwarranted judgment 
that vv. 21, 22 appear in Mark as quite 
“* misplaced,” and find a much better place 
just before ver. 31 (so Weiss, Evangelien/r. 
p. 162). 


a 


44 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


represent the mother and the brethren as ‘‘ confederates of the Pharisees” 
(Baur, Markusevang. p. 23) ; their opinion ér: é&éor7 is an error (not malicious), 
and their purpose is that. of care for the security of Jesus. — abrotc] He and 
His disciples. — pydé] not even, to say nothing of being left otherwise undis- 
turbed. [See critical note.] Comp. ii. 2. According to Strauss, indeed, 
this is a ‘‘palpable exaggeration.” — dxotoavrec] that He was again set 
upon by the multitude to such a degree, and was occupying Himself so 
excessively with them (with the healing of their demoniacs, ver. 22, and so 
On). —oi wap’ aitov] those on His side, i.e., His own people.’ By this, how- 
ever, the disciples cannot here be meant, as they arc in the house with Jesus, 
ver. 20 ; but only, as is clearly proved by vv. 81, 32, His mother, His brethren, 
His sisters. — é&7Afov| namely, not from a place in Capernaum (in opposition 
to ver. 20), but from the place where they were sojourning, from Nazareth. 
Comp. i. 9, vi. 3. It is not to be objected that the intelligence of the pres- 
ence and action of Jesus in Capernaum could not have come to Nazareth so 
quickly, and that the family could not have come so quickly to Capernaum, 
as to admit of the latter being already there, after the reprimand of the 


- scribes, vv. 23-30 ; for Mark does not say that that é£72fov, and the coming 


down of the scribes from Jerusalem, and the arrival of the mother, etc., 
happened on the same day whereon Jesus and the disciples had returned eic 
olxov. On the contrary, that intelligence arrived at Nazareth, where His 
relatives were setting out, etc. ; but from Jerusalem there had already—when 
Jesus had returned to Capernaum and was there so devoting Himself beyond 
measure to the people—come down scribes, and these said, etc. This scene, 
therefore, with the scribes who had come down was before the arrival of 
the relatives of Jesus had taken place. — xparjoa: abrév] to lay hold upon Him, 
to possess themselves of Him.* — éAeyov] namely, oi zap’ avrov. After é&#ABov 
it is arbitrary to supply, with others (including Ewald) : people said, which 
Olshausen even refers to ‘‘ the malicious Pharisees.” So also Paulus, while 
Bengel thinks of messengers. Let it be observed that é/cyov, ver. 21, and 
éAeyov, ver. 22, correspond to one another, and that therefore, as in ver. 22, 
so also in ver. 21, there is the less reason to think of another subject than 
that which stands there. — é&éorn] He is out of His mind, has become frantic." 
This strong meaning (erroneously rendered, however, by Luther : He will 
go out of his mind) is incontestably required by the forcible xpav7oaz, as well 
as by the subscquent still stronger analogous expression BeeAleBoda Eyer. 
Hence it is not to be explained of a swoon or the like, but is rightly ren- 
dered by the Vulgate : in furorem versus est. To the relatives of Jesus, at 
that time still (John vii. 8) unbelieving (according to Mark, even to Mary, 
which certainly does not agree with the preliminary history in Matthew and 
Luke‘), the extraordinary teaching and working of Jesus, far transcending 





1 Comp. Xen. Anabd. vi. 6. 24; Cyrop. vi. 2 
1; Polyb. xxill. 1. 6; 1 Macc. ix. 44. See 
Bernhardy, p. 256. 

2 Comp. vi. 17, xil. 12, xiv. 1; Matt. xxvi. 
4; Judg. xvi. 21; Tob. vi. 8; Polyb. viii. 20, 
8, al. 

32 Cor. v.18; Arist. HZ. A. vi. 22: efiorarar 


cal paiverat, and see Wetstein. Comp. Xen. 
Mem. 1. 8.12: rov dpovery efiornory. 

‘It is entirely arbitrary for Theophylact, 
Beza, Maldonatus, Bisping, and others to 
desire to exclude Mary from sharing in the 
judgment orn eféorm. No better is the eva- 
sion in O]shausen, of a moment of weakness 


CHAP, III., 20, 21. 45 


their sphere of vision, producing such a profound excitement among all the 
people, and which they knew not how to reconcile with His domestic antc- 
cedents, were the eccentric activity of the frenzy which had taken posses- 
sion of Him. Comp. Theophylact (who regards éééor7 as directly equivalent 
to daivova éyer), Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Maldonatus, Jansen, and others, in- 
cluding Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek (according to whom they considered 
Him as ‘‘at the least an enthusiast”), Holtzmann, Weizsiicker, e¢ al. The 
omission of the surprising historical trait in Matthew and Luke betrays a 
later sifting process. [See Note XVIIL., p. 47 seq. ] 


Remanrgs.— To get rid of this simple meaning of ver. 21, placed beyond doubt 
by the clear words, expositors have tried very varied expedients. Thus Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus, who in other respects is right in his explanation, arbitrarily 
suggests for the 2Aeyov the subject revéc gGovepoi, and adduces, even jn his day, 
two other but unsuitable explanations.! According to Schoettgen and Wolf, 
the disciples (of wap’ aivot) heard that so many people were outside, and went 
forth to restrain the multitude, and said: the people are frantic! According to 
Griesbach and Vater, the disciples likewise went forth after having heard that 
Jesus was teaching the people outside, and wished to bring Jesus in, for people were 
saying : ‘‘ nimia eum omnium virium contentione debdilitatum velut insanire !” ‘‘ that 
He by too great contention in all His strength has been weakened so as to be 
insane.’’ According to Grotius, the relatives of Jesus also dwelt at Capernaum 
(which, moreover, Ewald, Lange, Bleek, and others suppose, although Mark 
has not at all any notice like Matt. iv. 13); they come out of their house, and 
wish to carry Jesus away from the house, where He was so greatly thronged, for 
the report? had spread abroad (éAeyov ydp) that He had fainted (according to 
Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 334: ‘‘had fallen into a frenzy from exhaustion”). Ac- 
cording to Kuinoel, it is likewise obvious of itself that Jesus has left the house 
again and is teaching outside; while the mother and the brethren who are at 
home also go forth, in order to bring Jesus in to ent, and they say, with the view 
of pressing back the people: mazime defatigatus est! Comp. Kuster, JImman. 
p. 185, according to whom they wish to hold Him on account of faininess. So 
again Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 556. According to Ebrard, § 70, 
notwithstanding the ei¢ olxov and the méAcv, Jesus is not in Capernaum, but at 
the house of a host ; and in spite of vv. 31, 32, of rap’ avrod are the people in this 
lodging,* who think, as they hear Him so zealously teaching (?), that He is out of 


and of struggling faith. Similarly Lange 
finds here a moment of eclipse in the life of 
Mary, arising out of anxiety forher Son. If 
her Son had already been to her the Mes- 
siah, how should she not have found in His 
marvellous working the very confirmation 
of her faith in Him, and the begun fulfil- 
ment of the promises which had once been 
so definitely made to her! 

11, e€RADow of oixeioe avrov xparngat avrdp, 
tyva pie Yroxwpion, eAeyor ydp Teves, 
ort efearn, Hyouy awdoty an’ atray &a 
Tov bxAov. 2. éfnAdoy .. . rapaBonOnaar, 
eAcyov yap, S6rs 2 2. wmapeAUdy trdy tévoy 
TOU CwepmaTOS, ayay comdacas, ‘1, His rela- 


tives went forth to lay hold on Him, that 
He might not withdraw, for some were say- 
ing, ore éféorm, that is, He is gone away from 
them on account of the crowd. 2. They went 
forth .. . toaid Him, for they wero saying 
... He has relaxed the tone of His body 
by exerting Himself too much.” 

3 Even Schlelermacher (Z. J. p. 190 f.) 
presents the matter as if they had learnt by 
rumor that He wasin an unee(tled condition, 
and that they thought it better to detain 
Him (xparetv) in domestic life. 

3 Kahnis (Dogm. I. p. 728 f.) also explains 
it of the Aosts and disciples (not of the 
mother and the brethren). He thinks that 


46 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


His mind, and go out to seize upon Him, but are at once convinced of their 
error! According to Ammon, L, J. II. p. 155, the people have gathered together 
round His dwelling, while He is sitting at meat ; He hastens into the midst of 
the people, but is extricated by His friends out of the throng, because in their 
opinion He has fallen into a faint. Lange, LZ. J. Il. 2, p. 834, takes étéory 
rightly, but regards it as the presupposition of the popwlar judgment, into which 
the kinsfolk of Jesus had with politic prudence entered, in order on this pretext 
to rescue Him from the momentary danger, because they believed that He 
did not sufficiently estimate this danger (namely, of having broken with the 
hierarchical party). In this way we may read everything, on which the matter 
is to depend, beticeen the lines. Schenkel also reads between the lines, that the 
relatives of Jesus had been persuaded on the part of His enemies that He Him- 
self was a person possessed. It is aptly observed by Maldonatus: ‘‘ Huno lo- 
cum difficiliorem pietas facit... ; pio quodam studio nonnulli rejecta verbo- 
rum proprietate alias,quae minus a pietate abborrere viderentur, interpretationes 
quaesiverunt. Nescio an, dum pias quaererent, fulsas invenerint,’’ ‘‘ This 
passage piety renders more difficult—by a certain pious study some, the proper 
sense of the word having been rejected, have sought other interpretations which 
seem less repugnant to piety. I might say while they sought pious ones they 
found false ones.’’ According to Késtlin, p. 342, Mark has, ‘ after the manner 
of later pragmatists,” taken the 2Aeyov dr: é€éorn, which originally had the less 
exceptional sense of enthusiasm, as a malicious calumny. Thus, indeed, what 
appears offensive is easily set aside and laid upon the compiler, as is done, 
moreover, in another way by Baur, Evang. p. 559. 


Vv. 22-30. Sec on Matt. xii. 24-32, who narrates more completely from 
the collection of Logia and historical tradition. Comp. Luke xi. 15-23, xii. 
10.— And the scribes, etc., asserted a still worse charge. — Ver. 23. 
mpooxadeadu. avtovc] De Wette is of opinion, without warrant, that this could 
only have taken place in the open air, not in the house (ver. 20). They were 
in the house along with, but further away from, Jesus ; He calls them to 
Him to speak with them. — carava¢ caravay] not : one Satan . . . the other, 
but : Satan . . . himself; see on Matt xii. 26. Comp. 6 caravag . .. 
éaurév, ver. 26. The want of the article with the proper namc is not opposed 
to this. — Ver. 24. Now, in order to make good this ré¢ divara: (i.¢., ob 
divatat x.t.2.), there come, linked on by the simple and (not ydp), two 
illustrative analogues (év rapaPodaic), after which at ver. 26, but likewise by 
the simple and, not by a particle of inference, is added the point, guod erat 
demonstrandum. This symmetrical progression by means of xai is rhetorical; 
it has something in it impressive, striking—a feature also presenting itself 
in the discourse as it proceeds asyndetically in vv. 27 and 28. — Ver. 28. The 
order of the words: rdvra dgef. roic vloig rév avOpéruv ta duapthuara places 
them so apart, as to lay a great emphasis on rdvra.! The expression roi¢ vioi¢ 
rt. avOp., not a singular reminiscence from Matt. xii. 82 (Weiss), is rather a 
trait of Mark, depicting human weakness, —aiwviov dzapr.] namely, in re- 


they wished to bring Him into the house by 1 See Bornemann and Herbst, ad Xen. 
saying that He was in the ecstatic state like § Mem. ii. 10. 2. 
the prophets. 








NOTES. 47 


spect of the guilt, ‘‘nunquam delendi,” ‘‘ never to be effaced,” Beza. ([See 
Note XIX., p. 48.]— Ver. 30. dr: 2Aeyov: (He spake thus) because they said. 
Comp. Luke xi. 18. — mrveiya axé6aprov] not again as at ver. 22: BeeAleBova 
é ye, because of the contrast with rvetua ro Gyiov. The less is it to be said that 
Mark places on a par the blasphemy against the person of Jesus (Matt xii. 
31 f.) and that against the Holy Spiri¢ (K6stlin, p. 818), or that he has ‘‘ al- 
ready given up” the former blasphemy (Hilgenfeld). It is included, in fact, 
in ver. 28. 

Vv. 31-35. See on Matt. xii. 46-50. Comp. Luke viii. 19-21. — épyovra 
ov] otv points back, by way of resuming, to ver. 21.1 épyovra: corresponds 
with é£7a9ov, ver. 21, where Bengel pertinently observes : ‘‘ Exitum sequetur 
ra tenire, ver. $1,” ‘‘The coming (ver. 81) follows the going forth.” Eb- 
rard resorts to harmonistic evasions. — oi ade2gni] They are named at vi. 3. 
Of a ‘ position of guardianship towards the Lord ” (Lange), which they had 
wished to occupy, nothing is said either here or at John vii. 3, and here all 
the less that, in fact, the mother was present. — 2£w] outside, in front of the 
house, ver. 20, Matt. xii. 47. — Ver. 82. The mention of the sisters here for 
the first time is an inaccuracy. [See Note XX., p. 48.] — Ver. 84. mepsBrew. 
xixAw] Comp. vi. 6.*— The expressive looking round was here an entirely 
different thing from that of ver. 5. Bengel: ‘‘suavitate summa.” How 
little did His actual mother and His reputed brothers and sisters as yet 
comprehend Him and His higher ministry ! 


Norres ey American Eprror. 


XVI. Vv. 1-6. 


Weiss ed. Mey. thinks it probable that Mark blended some features of another 
Sabbath healing (Luke xiv. 2-6), which belongs to ‘‘the earlier source,’’ and 
which Matthew has more fully used. As between this view and that of Meyer, 
there is little ground for decision. 


XVIL. Ver. 8. fxorovOncev x.1.A. 


The evidence in favor of the singular seems decisive ; also that for the omis- 
sion of aizy. Tisch. wrongly places the verb after "Iovdaias, while Meyer 
retains the article before repi, against the evidence of X*and¢ BC L A. The 
view of Meyer, as to the two parts of the crowd, seems correct ; comp. the 
punctuation of the R. V. 


XVII. Ver. 21. ore é&éorn. 


There is no objection to the strong sense attached to this phrase by Meyer, 
although Weiss ed. Mey. thinks that N. T. usage will justify the meaning ; ‘‘to 
be under strong excitement.” Nor need we deny that the relatives of Jesus were 


1See Kroger, Cyrop. 1. 5. 14; Klotz, ad Phaed. 72 B, and the passages in Sturz, Lez, 
Derar. p. 718. ® Xen. Il. p. 808 f. 
® Hom. Od. vill. 278; Herod. iv. 182; Plat. 


ae nr 


48 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


unbelieving. The view that they used this utterance as a pretext to remove Him 
from the multitude is not impossible. But it by no means follows, even if the 
strongest sense is accepted, that the unbelief of Mary is here so fully implied 
as to create disagreement with the preliminary narratives of Matthew and 
Luke. 

Moreover, if Meyer holds that the other Synoptists omit this “‘ surprising his- 
torical trait’’ because of ‘‘a later sifting process,” with what reason can he 
object to Schenkel’s ‘‘ reading between the lines,’’ or to Baur’s laying the bur- 
den of what is offensive on the ‘‘compiler'’? All the verse asserts is that on a 
given occasion the friends of Jesns said, ‘‘ He is beside Himself.'’ It is writing 
between the lines to say that this contradicts the story of His birth. The 
‘sifting process” belongs to a Jater school of litterateurs than the Evangelists, 
and stands on the same moral level with ‘‘ additions from later reflection,’’ ete. 


XIX. Ver. 28. atwvriov duaprnpyaroc. 


As the word cuéprnua, which is well attested here, usually refers to an act of 
sin, the idea of eternal activity in sin seems to be suggested by the choice of 
the term in this connection. The notion of guilt would more properly lie in 
the word éroyoc ; the ground of it is in the ‘‘ eternal sin,’’ which therefore in- 
volves eternal guilt. 


XX. Ver. 32. ai adeAgat cov. 


This phrase is wanting in the best authorities (see critical notes), and only 
accepted by Tischendorf and others, because it does not occur in parallel pas- 
sages. Meyer calls the mention of the sisters here for the first time ‘‘ an inac- 
curacy,” probably meaning that the proper place would have been ir ver. 31. 
Weiss ed. Mey. suggests that in ver. 31 Mark retained the form of an earlier 
source, which also contained this anecdote. Neither of them tells us whether 
he deems Mark correct in stating that the sisters were present. But as the 
statement is made by the multitude, there is room for the theory of ‘‘later re- 
flection’’ on the part of some one on the outskirts of the crowd! At all events, 
both Matthew and Mark speak of the sisters of Jesus (Matt. xiii. 56 ; Mark 
vi. 3) in passages where the text is not in doubt, and ver. 35 bere, as well as 
Matt. xii. 50, suggests their presence. 


CHAP. IV. » 49 


CHAPTER IV. 


VER. 1. ovv7y67] Lachm. and Tisch. read ovydyera:, following B C LA 8, 
min. Rightly ; the alteration was made from Matt. xiii. 2, partly to ovv7yAnoay 
(so A, min.), partly to ovv7z6n. — Instead of woAvc, according to the same evi- 
dence, mAeicrog is to be adopted, with Tisch. — Ver. 3. rot oreipac] Lachm. and 
Tisch, [W.and Hort, Weiss] have merely ozeipa:, following only B ®* 102.—Ver. 4. 
After seread Elz. has rov otpavov, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is 
taken from Luke viii. 5. — Ver. 5. Instead of dAdo dé read, with Lachm. and 
Tisch., xai dAAo, according to B C L M** A &, min. vss. The Recepta is from 
Matt. xiii. 5. — Ver. 6. #Aiov dé avareiAavrog] Lachm. and Tisch. read xai dre 
avtrecAev 6 fAcoc, following BC DL A ®&, Copt. Vulg. Cant. Vind. Corb. 2, Rd. 
The Recepia is from Matt. xiii. 6. — Ver. 8. é4A0] BO L &, min. have the reading 
G/A4a (Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch.). [So W. and Hort, R. V., and Weiss.] It is 
from Matt. and was favored by the tripartite division that follows. — avSdvovra]} 
ACDLA, 238 have atgavéuevov. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. [B % (wrongly cited in Meyer) have atéavdueva, accepted by W. and 
Hort, R. V., Weiss; the participles then agreeing with dA4a.] Rightly, be- 
cause the intransilive aiédvev is the prevailing form in the N. T. — Instead of 
the threefold repetition of é», Tisch. has cic three times, following B C* L A, 
min. Yet BL have EJZ once and EN twice, [So W. and Hort, and, appar- 
ently, Weiss.] The reading of Tisch. is to be regarded as original ; the é, 
which is likewise strongly attested, was a gloss upon it, and that reading then 
became easily taken and interpreted, in comparison with Matt. xiii. 8, as the 
numeral fy. In ver. 20 also the év is not to be written three times, but with 
all the uncials, which have breathings and accents: év, as also Tisch. has it. — 
Ver. 9. 6 yw: ] Lachm. and Tisch. have d¢ Fyet, following BC* D A &*, Tho 

vecepta is from Matt. xiii. 9; Luke viii. 8.— Ver. 10. fpern0av] Fritzsche, 
Lachm. and Tisch. have jpWwrwy'! on preponderant evidence (D has éxypwrur). 
To be adopted. If the imperfect had been introduced from Luke viii. 9, 
étgodruv would be more diffused. — rv rapaBoAfyv] Tisch. has ra¢ wapaBoddc, 
following B C L A ®, vss. The singular is a correction; comp. Luke. — 
Ver. 11. yvova:] is wanting in ABC* K L &, min. Copt. Corb. 1. Suspected 
by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from Matt. xiii. 11; 
Luke viii. 10. With Tischendorf the words are to be arranged thus: rT. pvor. 
ded, 7, Bao, — Ver. 12. 7a duaprjyara] is wanting in BC L &, min. Copt. Arm. 
Cr. (twice) ; condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche 
and Tisch. An addition, instead of which is found also ra tapantdépyara (min.). 
— Ver. 15. év raigxapd, avrav] C L A &, Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Colb, : ev 
avroi¢g (so Tisch.), and in favor of this B and min. testify by the reading ei¢ 


'Ined. VIII. Tisch.,followingC XX, hasthe evidence in its favor is the case in Matt. xv. 
form jpwrovy, which probably is only a 2%. The Ionic form of the verb in ew is en- 
transcriber’s error, a8 with still stronger  tirely forelgn to the N. T. 


4 








50 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


avrotc. [The latter reading is accepted by Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] The 
Recepia is explanatory after Matt. xiii. 19, comp. Luke viii. 12, but at the same 
time its testimony is in favor of év airoir, not of et¢ avrovc. — Ver. 18. xai otrol 
cio] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. read xai dAdAoi eiowv, following B C*D L AR, 
Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ver. Colb. Vind. Germ. Corb. Rightly; the Recepia originated 
by mechanical process after vv. 15, 16, comp. ver. 20. When this otro: came 
in, there emerged at once an incompatibility with the subsequent ovroi ciocy, 
therefore this later was omitted (A C** EG HK MSU VII, min., Copt. Syr. 
p. Goth. Slav. Brix. Theophyl. Matth. and Fritzsche), while others removed 
the first odroi etocy (min. Arm.). — Ver. 19. rovrov after aidvoc is rightly deleted 
by Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. in conformity with very considerable 
testimony. A current addition. — Ver. 20. odro:] Tisch. has éxeivo., following 
BCLA ®&; otro: is a mechanical repetition, and comp. Matt. and Luke. — 
Ver. 21. The order épyera: 6 Avyvog is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
according to BC DL A; min. vss. — émitefj] te7 is attested by B CLA &, 
min. (so also Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. ; recommended, moreover, by 
Griesb.). The compound word is more precise in definition, and came in here 
and at Luke viii. 16. — Ver. 22. The rz (which Lachm. brackets) was easily 
omitted after eor: as being superfluous. — 6 cay v7] many variations, among 
which édy y7 has the strong attestation of AC KL, min. It is commended by 
Griesb., and is to be adopted. The apparent absurdity of the sense! suggested 
partly the addition of 6, partly, in conformity with what follows, readings with 
tva, namely, aA/’ iva (D, vss.) and édv 7? iva (so Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., W. and 
Hort, R. V.], following B D &), e yz) iva (min.), [Meyer's explanation is unsatis- 
factory, since 6 is the latest reading ; cv pz iva is found in the oldest mss., and 
is probably the original form.] — Ver, 24. After the second tiv, Elz. Fritzsche, 
Scholz have 7voi¢ dxovovow, which also Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence 
have deleted (it is a gloss), while Griesb. strikes out the whole «ai mpoore). tyiv 
roi¢ ax. (only in accordance with D G, Codd. It.), and Fritzsche places these 
words after dxovere (according to Arm.). The course followed by Griesb. and 
Fritzsche must be rejected on account of the very weakness of the evi- 
dence ; the reading of Griesb. arose from the fact that the eye of the tran- 
scriber passed from the first tuiv directly to the second. — Ver. 25. d¢ yap av éyy] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have é¢ yap éyet, following B C L AX, min., to which, 
moreover, D E* }, al. are added with the reading 6¢ yap dv yer. According to 
this, ‘ye: alone is to be read ; dv was added probably in recollection of Luke 
viii. 18, and then ye: was transmuted into éyy. — Ver. 28. ydp is to be deleted, 
with Lachm. and Tisch., following very important authorities. A connective 
addition, instead of which D has dr: att. — xAnpy otvav] Lachm. and Tisch. 
[Weiss] read w27pne ciroc, following B, to which D should be added with the 
reading wAnpne 6 olroc. xAgpne oiroc is the original, which it was subsequently 
thought necessary to help by a structural emendation. [But ® supports the 
Rec., and the reading of B is very peculiar ; W. and Hort retain the accusative. ] 
— Ver. 30. tix] BCL AX, min. Ver. have mis, which Griesb. has recom- 
mended, Fritzsche and Tisch. have adopted. ri is from Luke xiii. 18. — év 
sola mapaBoag napaBa2wpev avryr) Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have év rive abriv 
rapaBoAg Ocpuev, following BC* L A ®&, min. Ver. Or. Rightly; zoig came in 


1 The reading eay ny fs in no wise absurd (Fritzsche, de Wette), but it gives the same 
logical analysis as x. 80. See in loc. 


CHAP. IV., 1-9. 51 


as a gloss upon rin, after the analogy of the preceding mé¢ ; and the more dif- 
ficult @6juev was explained by wapaBadcnev, — Ver. 31. xédxxov] Elz. Fritzsche, 
Tisch. read xéxxy, following BD AII &. As after the second half of ver. 30 
the accusative (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.) more readily suggested itself (in con- 
nection with @iuev or rapa3dAwpuev), the dative isto be preferred as the more dif- 
ficult reading, which was the more easily supplanted by comparison of the dif- 
ferent connections in Matt. xiii. 31 ; Luke xiii. 19. — pixpdérepoc] Lachm. reads 
pxpérepov, following BDLMAR, min. He adds, moreover, dv according to 
BLA &, omitting the subseqnent éori, and encloses ray én rij¢ yijc, which is 
wanting in C. Ver., in brackets. Tisch. also has puxpérepov dv, omitting éori. 
The Recepia is to be retained ; pexpdrepoy is a grammatical correction,’ that has 
originated from a comparison with Matt., and the added 6y, having arisen from 
the writing twice over of the ON which had gone before, or from the marginal 
writing of ON over the final syHable of pixpdrepQX, dislodged the subsequent 
éorl, whereupon, doubtless, the connection was lost. [Recent editors, R. V., 
agree with Tisch., against Meyer.]— Ver. 34. 7. waQ. avrov] Tisch. reads r. 
idiore pa9., following BC LA®. Rightly ; the Recepiais the usual expression. 
— Ver. 36. The reading wAvia instead of rAordpia (as Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have 
it) is so decisively attested, that but for that circumstance the more rare rAodpia 
would have to be defended. — Ver. 37. Instead of atré #dbn yeutlecfa:, Griesb. 
approved, and Lachm. and Tisch. read, 7dy yeuileoba: rd wAoiov, following BC 
DLA &** Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Vulg. It. This latter is to be preferred ; 
the simple mode of expression was smoothed. — Ver. 38. Instead of ém before 
r. wp., Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read é1 on decisive evidence. — Ver. 40. 
otvw] is deleted by Lachm., following B DLA &, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., and 
subsequently, instead of ma¢ ov«, he has, with Griesb., otrw according to the 
same and other authorities. (So Treg., W.and Hort, R. V. The evidence is too 
strong to be set nside.] But the Recepia is, with Tisch. [Weiss], to be main- 
tained. For in accordance with Matt. viii. 26 ofrw was very easily dropped, 
while ofr just as easily crept in as a modifying expression, which at the same 
time dislodged the rac. 


Vv. 1-9. See on Matt. xiii. 1-9. Comp. Luke viii. 4-8. Matthew has 
here a group of parables from the collection of Logia to the number of 
sever,—a later and richer selection than Mark gives with his three simili- 
tudes, the second of which, however (vv. 26-29), Matthew has not, because 
it probably was not embraced in the collection of Logia. See on ver. 26 ff. 
{and Note XXIV., p. 60.] Matthew has worked by way of amplification, 
and not Mark by way of reducing and weakening (Hilgenfeld). — rads, see 
iii. 7. — jpfaro] For from xal ovvayerac onward is related what happened 
after the commencement of His teaching. — Ver. 2. év ry didax avrov] in His 
doctrinal discourse. Of the many (70144) Mark odduces some. — Ver. 7. 
owérutav] choked the germinating seed, compressing it. Comp. Theophy- 
fact, c. pl. vi. 11. 6: dévdpa cuprvydueva. — Ver. 8. avaBaivovra Kai avéavé- 
pevov (see the critical remarks) is predicate of xaprév, hence édidov xaprév 
(and consequently also xaprdav otk Eduxe, ver. 7) is to be understood not of 
the grains of corn, but of the corn-stalks ascending and growing (shooting 


1 pecgewr, too, ver. 82, became changed in codd. into petgov,. SOACELVR, min. Tisch. 


52 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


upward and continuing to grow). [See Note XXI., p. 59.] The produce 
of the grains is only mentioned in the sequel : xai égepev x.r.A. In the clas- 
sics also xaprég means generally that which grows in the field.’ Comp. 
Kaprogopei, ver. 28. — With the Recepta &v rpidxovra is to be taken as : one 
bore thirty (neuter : nothing to be supplied), 7.6., according to the connec- 
tion : one grain, which had been sown, bore thirty grains, another sixty, 
and soon.* With tho reading ei¢ rpidxovra (see the critical remarks) we 
must render : it bore up to thirty, and up to sixty, etc. If év rprdxovra be 
read, the meaning is: it bore in (at the rate of) thirty, etc., so that the 
fruit-bearing was consummated in thirty, and so on. Observe, further, how 
ver. 8 has changed the primitive form of the Logia-collection still preserved 
in Matthew, especially as to the climax of the fruitfulness, which in Mat- 
thew is descending, in Mark ascending. — Ver. 9. nai 2Acyev] ‘‘ pausa fre- 
quens, sermonibus gravissimis interposita,” ‘‘a frequent pause, interposed 
in the most weighty discourses,” Bengel. Comp. ii. 27. 

Vv. 10-20. See on Matt. xiii. 10-23.. Comp. Luke viii. 9-15. — xarayévac] 
therefore, according to Mark, no longer in the ship, ver. 1. — of repi avzév] 
they who besides and next after the Twelve were the more confidential dis- 
ciples of Jesus. A more precise definition than in Matthew and Luke. Of 
the Seventy (Euthymius Zigabenus) Mark has no mention. [See Note XXII, 
p. 60.] We may add that Matthew could not have better made use of the 
expression ol epi avrév ovy roic Sddexa (Holtzmann, who therefore pronounces 
it not to belong to the primitive-Mark), nor could he not use it at all 
{Weiss in the Zeitschr. f. D. Theol. 1864, p. 86 f.). He has only changed 
the detailed description of Mark into the usual expression, and he goes to 
work in general less accurately in delineating the situation. — rag rapaf.. | 
see ver. 2.— Ver. 11. dédora:] of the spiritual giving brought about by 
making them capable of knowing; hence yvavae (which here is spurious) in 
Matthew and Luke. —roi¢ éfw] that is, to those who are outside of our 
circle, to the people. The sense of of {wis always determined by the con- 
trast to it. In the Epistles it is the non-Christians (1 Cor. v. 12 f.; Col. iv. 
5; 1 Thess. iv. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 7). We are the less entitled to discover 
here, with de Wette, an unsuitable torepoy mpérepov of expression, seeing 
that the expression in itself so relative does not even in the Talmud denote 
always the non-Jews (Schoettgen, ad 1 Cor. v. 12 f.), but also those who do 
mot profess the doctrine of the D°93—the D'N¥"N ; see Lightfoot, p. 609. 
—év mapaB. ta wdvta yiverat] év napaB. has the emphasis : in parables the 
whole is imparted to them, so that there is not communicated to them in addi- 
tion the abstract doctrine itself. All that is delivered to them of the mys- 
tery of the Messiah’s kingdom—that is, of the divine counsel concerning 
it, which was first unveiled in the gospel—is conveyed to them under a veil 
of parable, and not otherwise. On yiveraz, comp. Herod. ix. 46: giv ob 
Adyot yeyévant, Thucyd. v. 111, al. — Ver. 12. iva] not: ita ut, as Wolf, 


1 Hom. I. 1. 156; Xen. de venat. v.65; Plat. vil. 4. 27: é» pdpos €AaBow ‘Apyeior, dy 8¢ On- 
Theaet. p. 149 E, Crat. p. 410 C,as in the ator, év 52 "Apeaées, &v 8@ Meooyjvos, Arist. 
German Frucht, Frichte. Eth. Nic. vi. 1.5; Ecclus. xxxi. 28 f. 

2On the wsus loguendi, comp. Xen. Hell. 








CHAP. IV., 10-20. 53 


Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, and others would have it, but, as it always 
is (comp. on Matt. i. 22), a pure particle of design. The unbelieving people 
are, by the very fact that the communications of the mystery of the Mes- 
siah’s kingdom are made to them in parables and not otherwise, intended 
not to attain toinsight into this mystery, and thereby to conversion and 
forgiveness. This idea of the divine Nemesis is expressed under a remem- 
brance of Isa. vi. 9, 10, which prophetic passage appears in Matthew (less 
originally) as a formal citation by Jesus, and in an altered significance of 
bearing attended by a weakening of its teleological point. Baur, indeed, 
finds the aim expressed in Mark (for it is in nowise to be explained away) 
absolutely inconceivable ; but it is to be conceived of as a mediate, not as a 
final, aim —a ‘‘judicium divinum,” ‘divine sentence” (Bengel), which has 
a paedagogic purpose. — Ver. 18. After Jesus, vv. 11, 12, has expressed the 
right of His disciples to learn, not merely, like the unbelieving multitude, 
the parables themselves, but also their meaning—the pvorfpiov contained in 
them—and has thus acknowledged their question in ver. 10 as justified, He 
addresses Himself now, with a new commencement of His discourse (xai 
Aéyet abroic, comp. vv. 21, 24, 26, 30, 85), to the purpose of answering that 
question, and that with reference to the particular concrete parable, ver. 
3 ff. To this parable, which is conceived as having suggested the general 
question of ver. 10 (hence r. rapaBodq retryv), He confines Himself, and in- 
troduces the exposition to be given with the words : Know ye not this par- 
able, and how shall ye (in general) understand all parables? These words are 
merely intended to lead back in a lively manner, after the digression of vv. 
11, 12, to the point of the question at ver. 10, the reply to which then begins 
at ver. 14 with respect to that special parable. A reproach is by some 
found in the words (since unto you it is given, etc., ver. 11, it surprises me, 
that ye know not, etc.). See Fritzsche and de Wette, the latter accusing 
Mark of placing quite inappropriately in the mouth of Jesus an unseasonable 
reproach. But Mark himself pronounces decisively against the entire sup- 
position of this connection by his xai Afyec avtoic, whereby he separates the 
discourse of ver. 18 from what has gone before. If the assumed connection 
were correct, Mark must have omitted this introduction of a new portion of 
discourse, and instead of oix oldare must have used perhaps kai tyei¢ ovn 
oidare, or some similar link of connection with what precedes. Morcover, 
ver, 13 is to be read as one question (comp. Lachmann and Tischendorf [W. 
and Hort.]), and in such a way that xai rac x.7.4. still depends on ovx oidare 
(comp. Ewald) ; not, as Fritzsche would have it, in such a way that «ai in- 
dicates the consequence, and there would result the meaning : ‘‘ Ye under- 
stand not this parable, and are ye to understand all parables?” But this 
would rather result in the meaning : Ye understand not this parable ; how 
is it, consequently, possible that ye shall understand all parables? And 
this would be a strange and unmeaning, because altogether self-evident 
consequence. Usually ver. 18 is divided into two questions (so, too, de 
Wette), and sdéoa¢ is taken as equivalent to: all the rest; but this is done 
quite without warrant, since the idea of Ao:~d¢ would be precisely the point 
in virtue of the contrast which is assumed. — yvdceobe] future, because the 


54 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


disciples were now aware how they should attain to the understanding of 
the whole of the parables partly delivered already (ver. 2), partly still to be 
delivered in time to come. — The following interpretation of the parable, vv. 
14-20, is ‘‘so vivid, rich, and peculiar, that there is good reason for finding 
in it words of Christ Himself,” Ewald. [See Note XXIII., p. 60.]— Ver. 
15. Observe the difference between the local 4xrov and the temporal 
érav, in connection with which «ai is not adversative (Kuinoel, de Wettc), 
but the simple conjunctive and: The following are those (who are sown) 
by the way-side: then, when the teaching is sown and they shall hare 
heard, cometh straightway Satan, etc. — Ver. 16. dpotwc] in like manner, 
after an analogous figurative reference, in symmetrical further inter- 
pretation of the parable. Translate: And the following are in like manner 
those who are sown on the stony ground: (namely) those who, when they 
shall have heard the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they hate 
not root in themselces, etc. It is more in keeping with the simplicity and 
vividness of the discourse not to take the xai ovx éyovo: along with oi. — 
Ver. 18 f. And there are others, who are sown among the thorns, these are they 
who, etc. If axovovrec be read,—which, however, would arise more easily 
from the similar parallel of Matthew than dxotcavreg (BC DL A 8, Tisch.) 
from the dissimilar one of Luke,—the course of events is set forth from the 
outset, whereas axotoavres sets it forth from the standpoint of the result 
(they hace heard, and, etc.). — ra Aoiwd] besides riches: sensual pleasure, 
honor, etc. — eiorop.] namely, into that place whither the word that is 
heard has penetrated, into the heart. The expression does not quite fit into 
the parable itself ; but this does not point to less of originality (Weiss). 
De Wette wrongly observes that ciorop. is probably an erroneous explana- 
tion of the ropevéuevor in Luke. — Ver. 20. év (not & ; see the critical re- 
marks on ver. 8) rpcdxovra x.r.A. is, it is true, so far out of keeping, that by 
retaining the numbers the discourse falls back from the interpretation into 
the figure ; but the very repetition of the striking closing words of the par- 
able, in which only the preposition is here accidentally changed, betokens 
the set purpose of solemn emphasis. 

Vv. 21-23. Comp: Luke viii. 16 f. Meaning (comp. Matt. v. 15, x. 26) : 
‘‘the light, i.e, the knowledge of the nvorjpiov rig Bactdeiag, which ye re- 
ceive from me, ye are not to withhold from others, but to bring about its 
diffusion ; for, as what is concealed is not destined for concealment, but 
rather for becoming manifest, so also is the mystery of the Messiah’s king- 
dom.”! These sayings, however, as far as ver. 25, have not their original 


1 According to others, Jesus gives an 
allegorical exhortation to virtue: “ut 
lucerna candelabro imponenda, est, sic vos 
oportet, discipull, non quidem vitam um- 
bratilem sine virtutis splendore agere; 
sed,” ‘That as a lamp should be placed 
upon a lamp-stand, so it behoves you, dis- 
ciples, not to lead a life of retirement with- 
out the brightness of virtue; but,” etc., 
Fritzsuhe, comp. Theopbylact, Grotius, and 


others. But the kindled Heht would, in 
fact, be already the symbol of virtue, and 
Jesus would forbid the exercise of it in 
secret! Moreover, this view is not re- 
quired by ver. 20, sinco with ver. 21 a new 
portion of the discourse commences; and 
our view ts not forbidden by ver. 11 (comp. 
ver. 34), since in ver. 11 Jesus is only speak- 
ing of the then unsusceptible multitude, 
and, if pushed to consistent general applica- 


CHAP. IV., 24-29. 55 


place here, but belong to what (according to Papias) Mark wrote ob rd£e, 
‘not in order.” Holtzmann judges otherwise, p. 81, in connection with 
his assumption of a primitive-Mark. The collection of Logia is sufficient as 
a source. [See Note XXIII., p. 60.] Comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. f. D. 
Theol. 1864, p. 88. — épyera:] Doth the lamp then possibly come, etc. ? ipyeabac 
is used of inanimate things which are brought; very frequently also in clas- 
sical writers. — i7d rdv pddiov] Sce on Matt. v. 15.—«divy] a table-couch. 
Comp. vii. 4. After «Aivzv there is only a comma to be placed : the ques- 
tion is one as far as rej. — According to the reading éév yu) gavep. (see the 
critical remarks), the rendering is: nothing is hidden, if tt shall not (in fu- 
ture) be made manifest.! So surely and certainly does the ¢gavépworg set in ! 
[But see additional critical note.] — 442° iva cic dav. Ay] The logical refer- 
ence of 424’ is found in a pregnant significance of améxpudov : nor has there 
anything (after oidé, r: is again to be mentally supplied) taken place as 
secret, 7.¢., what is meant to be secret, but what in such a case has come to pass, 
has the destination, etc. 

Vv. 24, 25. Comp. Luke viii. 18. — Baéwere] Be heedful as to what ye hear ; 
how important it is rightly to understand what is delivered to you by me ! 
iv » pétpy x.t.A.] A ground of encouragement to heedfulness. It is other- 
wise in Matt. vii. 2. In our passage the relation of heedfuiness to the knowl!l- 
edge thereby to be attained is described. Euthymius Zigabenus well says : é» 
@ pétpy peTpeite THY XpoooxRY, év TH avT@ uetpHOjoeTar duiv 4 yvoots, Toutéctiv’ 
ony eiogipete xpoooxny, tooatty mapacyefhoerat tiv yao, kal ov udvoy ev 7H 
aio pétpy, GAAa Kai rAéov, ‘‘ with what measure ye mete your attention, with 
that same will knowledge be measured unto you—that is : as much attention 
as ye apply, so much knowledge will be supplied to you, and not only in 
the same measure, but also more.” — Ver. 25. Reason assigned for the forc- 
going xai xpooteOjcerac. The application of the proverbial saying (comp. | 
Matt. xiii. 12, xxv. 29) is: For if ye (through heedfulness) have become 
rich in knowledge, ye shall continually receive still larger accession to this 
riches (that is just the zpocre@yoerac) ; but if ye (through heedlessness) are 
poor in knowledge, ye shall also lose even your little knowledge. Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus erroneously refers dofjcera:, ‘‘ shall be given,” only to the 
yvooc, ‘‘ knowledge,” and éyy, ‘‘ hath,” to the rpoooyfy, ‘‘ attention.” So also 
Theophylact. 

Vv. 26-29. Jesus now continucs, as is proved by ver. 33 f. (in opposition 
to Baur, Markusevang. p. 28), His parabolic discourses to the people ; hence 
éseyev is here used without airoi¢ (vv. 21, 24), and vv. 10-25 are to be re- 
garded as an inserted episode (in opposition to de Wette, Hinl. § 94b, who 


tion, these words spoken at ver. 11 would 
quite annul the apostolic calling. Zfitstory 
has refuted this general application. Eras- 
mus, Paraphr., aptly says: ‘* Nolite putare 
me, quod nunc secreto vobis committo, per- 
petuo celatum esse velle;... lux est per me 
in vobls accensa, ut vestro ministerio dis- 
cutiat tenebras totius mundi," “You 
should not think that what I now commit to 


you in secret I wish to be perpetually con- 
cealed; ... the light is through me kindled 
in you, that by your ministry it may dispel 
the darkness of the whole world." 

1 “Td fit successive in hoc saeculo, et fiet 
plene, quum lux omnia illustrabit,”’ ‘* This 
occurs successively in this age, and will 
occur fully, when the light shall illumine 
all things, 1 Cor. iy. 5,°’ Bengel. 


56 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


holds ére 62 éyévero xarauévac as absurd). —Mark alone has the following par- 
able, but in a form so thoughtful and so characteristically different from 
Matt. xiii. 24 f., that it is without sufficient ground regarded (by Ewald, 
Hilgenfeld, Késtlin) as founded on, or remodelled’ from, Matt. 7.c., and there- 
fore as not originally belonging to this place,—a view with which Weiss 
agrees [see Note XXIV., p. 60], but traces the parable of Mark to the 
primitive form in the collection of Logia, and holds the enemy that sowed 
the tares, Matt. xiil., to have been brought into it by the first evangelist ; 
while Strauss (in Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1863, p. 209) has recourse to the neu- 
tral character of Mark, in accordance with which he is held to have removed 
the éxflpd¢ dvflpwroc, ‘‘ enemy” (by which Paul is meant !). See, on the other 
hand, Klépper in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1864, p. 141 ff., who, with Weiz- 
sicker, discovers the point aimed at in the parable to be that of antagonism 
to the vehement expectations of a speedy commencement of the kingdom, 
—which, however, must have been directly indicated, and is not even im- 
plied in Matt. xiii. (see ver. 37 ff.). Without foundation Weizsicker (p. 118) 
finds in the parable a proof that oyr Gospel of Mark was not written till 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the delayjng of the Parousia had 
become evident. Here the establishment of the kingdom is not at all de- 
picted under the specific form of the Parousia, and there is nothing said of 
a delaying of it. — 4 Saatreia r. Gcov] The Messianic kingdom, conceived of 
as preparing for its proximate appearance, and then (ver. 29) appearing at 
its tine. — rdv oxdpor] the seed concerned. — Observe the aorist Bdady, and 
then the presents which follow : Aas cast, and then sleeps and arises, etc. — 


_vixta x. quépav] With another form of conception the genitives might also 


be used here. See on the distinction, Kiihner, II. p. 219. The prefixing 
of véxra is here occasioned by the order of xaecidy xai tyeip. See, further, 


. on Luke 11. 37. Erasmus erroneously refers éyeip to the seed, which is only 


introduced as subject with Biacr. — uyxbvyta] is extended, in so far, namely, 
as the shoot of the seed comes forth and mounts upwards (éncrescat, Vulgate). 
Comp. LXX. Isa. xliv. 14. In the shoot the seed extends itself. — dc ovx oldev 
avréc] ina way unknown to himself (the sower) ; he himself knows not how 
it comes about. Sce the sequel. — avroydry] of itself, without man's sssist-. 
ance.? Comp. Hesiod, épy. 118 ; Herod. ii. 94, viii. 188 ; and Wetstein in 
loc. — elra wAijpye aitog év t. ot.] the nominative (see the critical remarks) 
with startling vividness brings before us the result as standing by itself: then 
Jull (developed to full size) grain in the ear! See on this nominative stand- 
ing forth in rhetorical relief from the current construction, Bernhardy, 
p. 68 f.—Ver. 29. rapad@] is usually explained intransitirely, in the sense : 
shall have delivered itse/f over, namely, by its ripeness to the harvesting. 
[See Note XXV., p. 60.] Many transitive verbs are confessedly thus used 
in an intransitive signification, in which case, however, it is inappropriate 
to supply éavréy (Kiihner, II. p. 9f.). So, in particular, compounds of 


1A “‘tame weakening,” in the opinion of _ ver. 27 (Weiss). The germinative power of 
Hilgenfeld, comp. Strauss; “of a second-  theseed is conditioned by the immanent 
ary nature,” in that of Weizsacker. power of the earth, which acts upon it. 

2? Hence there is no inconsistency with 


CHAP. IV., 30-32. 57 


didévar.2 But of this use of rapad:déva there is found no quite certain in- 
stance * (not even in 1 Pet. ii. 28, see Huther) ; moreover, the expression 
itself, ‘‘ the fruit has offered itself,” would be forcign to the simplicity of 
the style, and has a modern sound. Hence (comp. Kuaeuffer, de (wie aiwv. 
not. p. 49) rapadid. is rather to be explained as fo allow, in accordance with 
well-known usage: * but when the fruit shall hace allowed, 3.e., when it is suf- 
ficiently ripe. Quite similar is the expression : ri¢ Gpac mapadidotons, Polyb. 
xxii. 24. 9: when the season permitted. Bleek assents to this view. — azoc- 
réAae rd dpéravov] Comp. Joel iv. 13 ; Rev. xiv. 15. — The teaching of the 
parable is : Just as a man, after performing the sowing, leaves the germination 
and growth, ete., without further intervention, to the earth’s own power, but at 
the time of ripening reaps the harvest, 80 the. Messiah leaves the ethical results 
and the new developments of life, which His word is fitted to produce in the 
minds of men, to the moral self-activity of the human heart, through which these 
results are worked out in accordance with their destination (dtxaooivy — this is 
the parabolic reference of the wAgpye¢ ciroc), but will, when the time for the es- 
tablishment of His kingdom comes, cause the dixaiove to be gathered into iv (by 
the angels, Matt. xxiv. 31; these are the reapers, Matt. xiii. 39). The self- 
activity on which stress is here laid does not exclude the operations of 
divine grace, but the aim of the parable is just to render prominent the for- 
mer, not the latter. It is the one of the two factors, and its separate treat- 
ment, keeping out of view for the present the other, leaves the latter unaf- 
fected. Comp. ver. 24. Bengel aptly observes on airoudry, ver. 28: ‘‘non 
excluditur agricultura et coelestis pluvia solesque,” ‘‘ There is not excluded 
cultivation, heavenly rains and sunshine.” Moreover, Jesus must still for 
the present leave the mode of bringing about the diaacocivy (by means of His 
izacrhpiov and faith thereon) to the later development of His doctrine. But 
the letting the matter take its course and folding the hands (Strauss) are 
directly ercluded by avroudry, although the parable is opposed also to the 
conception of a so-called plan of Jesus.‘ 

Vv. 80-32. See on Matt. xiii. 31 f. Comp. Luke xiii. 17 f. —ré¢] how 
are we to bring the Messianic kingdom into comparison ?— # év tiv abr. 
rapa;307,9 Ganev (see the critical remarks) : or in what parable are we to place 
it, set it forth? The expression inclusive of others (we) is in keeping with the 
deliberatize form of discourse. The hearers are formally taken into the con- 
sultation. The deviation from the normal order of the words places the 
principal emphasis on tiv. — d¢ xéaxw orv.] d¢ is correlative to the ac of 
ver. 30: so as itis likened toa grain of mustard seed. — The following ®* is 


18ee Viger., ed. Herm. p. 182; Valck- 
enaer, Diair. p. %8; Jacobs, ad Philosir. 
p. 363 ; Kriager, § 52. 2.9; and seein general, 
Bernbardy, p. 339 f.; Winer, p. 2% [E. T. 
815}. 

23In Josh. xi. 19 the reading varies much 
and ts doubtful; in Plat. Piaedr. p. 250 E, 
wapafove is not necessarily reflexive. 

® Herod. v. 67, vil. 18; Xen. Anabd. vi. 6. 
&; Polyb. fil. 12. 4. 


4 Comp. Schlefermacher, Z. J. p. 348 ff. 

® From the collgction of Logia, and ina 
shape more original than Matthew and 
Luke, who add the historical form. Mark 
would least of all have divested it of this, if 
he had found it iu existence. Comp. (in 
opposition to Holtzmann) Welss in the 
Jahrd. f. D. Theol. 1864, p. 98 [See Note 
XXVIL., p. 00.) 








58 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


not a parable in the stricter sense (not a history), but a comparison gener- 
ally, the representation of the idea, borrowed from the region of sense. 
Comp. iii. 23, vii. 17. See on Matt. xiii. 3.—Observe the twofold érav 
orapy, VV. 31, 32. In the first the emphasis is on éray, in the second on 
oxapy. ‘‘ Exacte definit tempus illud, quum granum desinit esse parvum ct 
incipit fieri magnum,” ‘‘It defines exactly that time when the grain ceases 
to be small and begins to become great,” Bengel. 

Ver. 33 f. Comp. Matt. xiii. 34.—From roatracc it follows that Mark 
knew yet more parables that were spoken at that time. — kafld¢ qdivavro 
axover] as they were able (in virtue of their capacity) to take in the teaching. 
Not as though they could have apprehended the inner doctrinal contents of 
the parables (ver. 11), but they were capable of apprehending the narrative 
form, the parabolic narrative in itsel//, in which the teaching was veiled, 
so that they were thus qualified only én this form (xa@éc) to hear the doctrine. 
Accordingly, axotecv here is neither : to understand, nor equivalent to Baord- 
fev, John xvi. 12 (Bengel, Kuinocl, and others), but the simple to hear, to 
perceive. — ovx trade] at that time. See on Matt. xiii. 834. Baur indeed 
(see Markusevang. p. 24 f.) will not allow a limitation to the teaching at that 
time, but would draw the conclusion that Mark has perhaps not even re- 
garded the Sermon on the Mount, such as Matthew has it, as being histori- 
cal, and has given the foregoing parables as a substitute for it. But Mark 
himself certainly has doctrinal utterances of Jesus enough, which are not 
parabolical. 

Vv. 35-41. See on Matt. viii. 18, 28-27. Comp. Luke viii. 22-25. — év 
éxeivy TH juépa) ver. 1 f.; a difference in respect of time from Matt. viii. 18. 
Luke viii. 22 is altogether indefinite. — dc #vévr@ rAoiy] to be taken together ; 
as He was in the ship (comp. ver. 1) without delay for further preparation 
they take possession of Him. For examples of this mode of expression, see 
Kypke and Fritzsche. — xai 4A2a dé] but other ships also’ were in His train 
(uer’ avrov) during the voyage ; a characteristic descriptive trait in Mark.— 
Ver. 37. On Aaidawp avéuov, comp. Hom. Jl. xvii. 57; Anthol. Anacr. 82. 
On the accent of AaiZzayp, see Lipsius, gramm. Untersuch. p. 36 f. — ext Barer] 
intransitive (comp. on v.r. 29, Plat. Phaedr. p. 248 A, and frequently) not 
transitive, so that the storm would be the subject (Vulgate, Luther, Zeger, 
Homberg, and several others). The ra dé «fara, for this purpose prefixed, 
indicates itself as the subject. — Ver. 38. And He Himself was at the stern, 
laid down on the pillow that was there, asleep. It was a part of the vessel 
intended for the sailors to sit or lie down, Poll. x. 40; morestrictly, ac- 
cording to Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, p. 296 ff.), the cushion 
of the rower’s bench. — Ver. 39. odra, rediuwoo] be silent! be dumb! asyn- 
detic, and so much .he more forcible (Niigelshach, Anm. ¢. Ilias, ed. 3, 
p. 247, 859), Eur. Hec. 582. The sea is personified ; hence the less are we 
to conjecture, with Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 230, that Jesus has addressed 
the disciples (ye shall sce that it will immediately be still). — éxéracev 6 avepoc] 
Herod. vii. 191. Comp. Mark vi. 51; Matt. xiv. 32, from which passage 


1 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 182; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 884. 





NOTES. a9 


de Wette arbitrarily derives the expression of Mark. — Ver. 40. rac] how is 
it possible, etc.? |See Note XXVII., p. 60.] They had already so often been 
the witnesses of His divine power,' under the protection of which they 
needed not to tremble. — Ver. 41. é¢o87$ycav] not the people (Grotius and 
others), which agrees with Matthew but not with the context, but the disci- 
ples, who were thrown (psychologically) into fear at the quite extraordinary 
phenomenon, and were not yet clear as to the divine causa efficiens in Jesus 
(rig Gpa ovro¢, etc.). As to goBeicha: d6Bov péyav, comp. on Matt. ti. 10. On 
ric dpa, in which the perplexity is not expressed by the dpa, but is implied 
in the context (in opposition to Hartung), and dpa means: igitur, rebus ita 
comparatis, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176. Comp. Nagelsbach, Anm. e. Ilias, 
ed. 3, p. 10 f. 


RemarkE.—The weakness of faith and of discernment on the part of the dis- 
ciples (ver. 40 f.) appears in Mark most strongly of the Synoptics (comp. vi. 
52, vii. 18, vii. 17, 18, 33, ix. 6, 19, 32, 34, x. 24, 32, 35, xiv. 40). Ritsch] in 
the theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 517 ff., has rightly availed himself of this point on be- 
half of Mark's originality ; since a later softening—yet without set purpose 
and naturally unbiassed, and hence not even consistent—is at any rate more 
probable than a subsequent aggravation of this censure. The remarks of Baur 
in opposition (iheol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 88 f.) are unimportant, and would amount 
to this, that Mark, who is assumed withal to be neutral, would in this point 
have even outstripped Luke. Comp. Holtzmann, p. 435 f. 


Nores By AMEnican Eprrox. 


XXI. Ver. 8. dAAa.. 


The above reading, sustained throughout by ® and B and in the earlier part 
by other weighty witnesses, is to be accepted. The change to avéardéuevoyv was 
first made, then to the much later form avédvorvra. Weiss ed. Meyer rightly ex- 
plains that the participles agree with d4Aa, showing the process of growth up to 
bearing fruit. Meyer’s view of xapzév he properly opposes. In this case, as so 
often, textual criticism confirms a reading apparently more difficult, and yet 
really more accurate and graphic when correctly apprehended. 

It may be remarked here that in no one section of the Gospel narrative are 
the resemblances and differences of the Synoptists more difficult to explain, 
on the theory of interdependence, or combination, etc., than in the three ac- 
counts of the parable of the sower, as presented according to the better estab- 
lished text. Very significantly Weiss ed. Meyer omits the remark of Meyer (on 
ver. 8) in regard to ‘‘the primitive form of the Logia-collection.”’ 


. dvapalvovta kai avfavéueva. 


' With this agrees neither the half-natu- 
ralizing view of Lange, L. J. IT. p. 814, that 
the immediate causes of the calm setting fu 
lay in the atmosphere, and that so far the 
threatening word of Jesus was prophetical 
(comp. Schlefermacher); nor the complete 
breaking up of the miracle by Schenkel, 
who makes the matteramount simply to 
this, that Jesus, by virtue of His confidence 
in God and foresight of His destination, ex- 
ercised a peaceful and soothing sway among 


the disciples, although these were possessed 
of nautical knowledge and He was nvt. 
Kelm, p. 128, adds, moreover, a prayer 
previous to the command of Jesus, assum- 
ing that then God acted. and Jesus was only 
His interpreter. Of all this, however, there 
is nothing In the text. See rather ver. 41, 
which Also testifies against the resolution of 
the natural miracle suggested by Weiz- 
sicker. 





60 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


XXII. Ver. 10. of repi avrév. 


Weiss ed. Meyer omits the sentences, from ‘“‘ We may add,” etc., to ‘‘ delin- 
eating the situation.’? He probably thus indicates his difference of opinion 
and also his disapproval of this method of commenting. 


XXII, Vv. 14-20. Vv. 21-23. 


Although Ewald and Meyer find in these verses ‘‘ words of Christ Himself,” 
so uncertain is the critical method that Weiss (Mark, p. 146) opposes this view. 
—The latter (ed. Mey.) omits under vv. 21-23 the sentence: ‘‘the collection 
of Logia is sufficient as a source,’’ and gives a different theory of the origin. 
He thinks the sayings belong to two different places, and. are here combined 
entirely out of their connection, with a new application given to them by 
Mark himself. 


XXIV. Vv. 26-29. 


Weiss ed. Mey. says that the parable ‘‘is formed entirely out of elements of 
the parable of the tares among the wheat, which, it is true, in somewhat sim- 
pler form than in Matt. xili., already had a place in the parabolic discourse of 
the older source (comp. Weiss, Mark, p. 160, Matt. p. 347 seq.).’’ He also de- 
nies the existence of any peculiar sayings in Mark which cannot be traced to 
this older source. The passages usually regarded as peculiar to Mark have, as 
a rule, this in common, that they indicate gradual processes (comp. chap. Vii. 
31-37 ; viii. 22-26). It is safe to hold that Mark’s narrative is trustworthy, 
until the theory of the origin of the Synoptists is solved in a way which obviates 
the necessity for such differences as this between Meyer and his German 
editor. 


XXV. Ver. 29. rapadoi. 


Meyer improperly rejects this form of the subjunctive. Here it is attested 
by ® BD 4, and accepted by recent editors ; so in chap. xiv. 10, 11 ; comp. also 
yvoi (v. 43, ix. 30), dot (viii. 37). 


XXVI. Vv. 30-32. 


Weiss ed. Mey. traces this parable also to ‘‘the older source, but does not 
regard it as belonging to the parabolic discourse. Mark, he thinks, placed it 
wrongly, and Matthew followed him, while Luke (xiii. 18, 19) has it in its most 
original form ; the two former adapting it for their purpose. From this mur- 
tard-seed of narrative, what great and diverse branches of theory have sprung ! 


XXVII. Ver. 40. Ti decAoi tore; obtw Exete tiotiv ; 


For the above reading, omitting ofrwc and substituting otzw for ma¢ ovn, we 
have five of the best uncials (® B D L A) and two of the most accurate versions 
(Copt. Vulg.). In the face of this evidence the considerations urged by Meyer 
(see critical note) seem indecisive, although Tisch. retains the received readings. 
The better attested form, moreover, accords with the brevity and vivacity of 
Mark’s style. ‘' Yet’’ points to the recent instruction (in the great parabolic 
discourse) and to the numerous miracles previously wrought. 





CHAP. V. 61 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. Tadapyvev} Here also, as in Matt. viii. 28, occur the various readings 
Tepacyvéy (B D 8* Vulg. Sax. Nyss., so Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, 
R. V.]) and Tepyeoyvay (L A &** min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Or.). The Recepta 
is to be ratained, according to A C BK, etc., with Fritzsche and Scholz. See on 
Matt. — Ver. 2. é£eAévroc avrov] i¢ here more strongly attested (B C LA X, 
min. Ver. Brix., to which D also with é&eA§évrwv airév falls to be added) than in 
Matt. viii. 28. To be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch. ; éeA§évr: air (Elz.), 
is from the parallel passages. — ev§éac] which Lachm. has deleted, is only 
wanting in B, Syr. Arm. Ver. Brix. Vind. Colb. Corb. 2. [Bracketed by Treg., 
W. and Hort.] The omission is explained from the parallels, from which also 
has arisen the reading tryvtyocev (BC DLA &, min. Lachm.). [The latter reading 
is accepted by Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort.]— Ver. 3. otre] BCD L A 8, 33 
have otdé. 8o Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. ; and of necessity rightly. — dadvceorv)} 
Lachm. and Tisch. have ddvce:, following B C L 33, Colb. ; the Recepia is from 
what follows. — ovdeic] Lachm. and ‘Tisch. have ovxér: ovdetc, following B C D 
LA, min. Vulg. It. Arm. Looking to the peculiarity of this notice and the 
accumulation of the negatives, we must recognize this as correct. — Ver. 7. eize] 
+£yec has preponderating evidence ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, 
Lachm. and Tisch. ; elze is from Luke viii. 28. But Mark is fond of the his. 
torical present. In ver. 9 also the simple Afye aire (instead of amexpiOn Abyuv 
in Elz.) is rightly adopted by Griesb. on preponderant evidence. — Ver. 9. 
Acycov] B* CD LA &* 69, Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. have Aey:dv, and this Lachm, 
and Tisch. have adopted. The Recepta is from Luke. — Ver. 11. Instead of rpé¢ 
to Spe, Elz. has wpd¢ ra dpy, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 12. 
After avrév Elz. Matt. have ravrec, which Lachm. brackets and Tisch. deletes. 
It is wanting in BC DKL MARX, min. vsé. Afterwards Elz. Matth. Scholz, 
Lachm. have oi daixovec, which Griesb. rejected, and Fritzsche and Tisch, have 
deleted, following B C L A &, min. Copt. Aeth. [Recent editors, R. V., rightly 
pmit the entire phrase.] The Recepia wdvrec ol daivovec is to be maintained ; 
these words were omitted in accordance with the parallels ; but they are quite 
in keeping with Mark’s graphic manner. — Ver. 13. zoav dé] is on considerable 
evidence to be deleted as supplied (Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of azyyy. Elz. 
has avjyy. But the former is decisively attested. — é£7A@ov] has come in from 
Matt. and Luke instead of the genuine #A6ov (A B K L MU &** min. vas.), 
which Griesb. approved, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. — Ver. 15. The 
omission of the «ai before iuar. (Tisch.) proceeded from Luke. [But «ai is sup- 
ported only by A C among weighty authorities, and is properly rejected by 
recent editors, R. V. The omission leaves the description more graphic.] — 
Ver. 18. tufavrop] ABC DK L MAR, min. Vuilg. It. have éudaivovroc. Ap- 
proved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepia is 
from Luke viii. 37.— Ver. 19. Instead of xal otx, Elz. has 6 dé 'Incov¢ oix, 
against decisive evidence. — avdyye:Aov] Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 





62 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


have azayyecdov, following B C A & 50, 258. A mechanical change in conform- 
ity to ver. 14, —Instead of rezoinae, Elz. has érxoince, contrary to decisive evi- 
dence. — Ver. 22. idov] before épy. is wanting in B D L A & 102, vss. (also Vulg. 
It.). Suspected by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and 
Tisch. From Luke viii. 41, contrary to the usage of Mark. — Ver. 23. ruapexdAec} 
ACL 8, min. have rapaxaAci, Recommended by Griesh. and Scholz, adopted 
by Fritzsche and Tisch. The imperfect is from Luke viii, 41 ; the present is in 
keeping with Mark’s manner, — The reading iva ow67 xai (yoy has preponderant 
attestation by BC DLA, min. (adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.) ; d:we (Elz. 
Fritzsche, Scholz) instead of iva may be suspected of being an amendment of 
style, and the more current (jcera: flowed easily from Matt. ix. 18. — Ver. 25. 
ric] is wanting in ABCLAX&, min. Vulg. Ver. Vind. Colb. Corb. Condemned 
by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and Lachm., and justly so ; the weight of evi- 
dence is too strong against it, to admit of the omission of a word so indifferent 
for the sense being explained from the parallels. — Ver. 26. Instead of avrij¢, 
Elz. Tisch. have éauri¢, against so preponderant evidence that it is manifestly 
the result of a gloss, as also is the omission of zap’ (D, min. Syr. utr. Vulg. It.). 
{Recent editors, with A B L, and many others, have map’ uirjc, but W. and 
Hort, marg., give éavurij¢.] — Instead of epi, Tisch. has ra repi. So B C¥ AX. ra, 
being superfluous, dropped out after the preceding syllables. — Ver. 33. én’ 
avrg] tx’ is wanting in BC DL &, min. Syr. Copt. Vere. Bracketed by Lachm., 
deleted by Tisch. That AYTH is not the nominative belonging to the following 
verb (as it is understood in Cant..Corb. Vind.) was noted in the form of gloss, 
sometimes by éx’, sometimes by év (F A). — Ver. 36. &7/0éa¢] deleted by Tisch. 
following B D LA, min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. [So 
recent editors, R. V.] But regarded as superfluous, nay, as disturbing and in- 
compatible with the following reading rapaxovoac, it became omitted the more 
easily in accordance with Luke viii. 50. — axoticag] BL A ® have xapaxovcac. 
So Tisch. and Ewald also. Rightly; although the attestation of the vss. is 
wanting (only one Cod, of the It. has neglexit). The difficulty of the not under- 
stood compound occasioned the substitution for it of the current simple form. 
— Ver. 38. ipyerar] A BC DF AR, min. vas. have ipyovraz. So Lachm. and 
Tisch. The plural might just as well have been introduced from what pre- 
cedes, as the singular from what follows and Matt. ix. 23. But the prepon- 
derance of the witnesses is decisive in favor of the plural. — After Gépuzov 
Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderant evidence, added xai. 
Being superfluous, it was the more easily absorbed by the first syllable of «Aui- 
avrac. — Ver. 40. 6 d#] Lachm. has avré¢ dé [so Tisch., recent editors, R. V.], 
on evidence considerable doubtless, but not decisive. From Luke viii. 54. — 
After wadiov Elz, and Scholz have é@vaxelpevov, which Lachm. has bracketed, 
Tisch. has deleted. It is wanting in B D LAX, min. vss. An addition by 
way of gloss, instead of which are also found xeizevov, xataneiuevov, and other 
readings. 


Vv. 1-20. See on Matt. viii. 28-84. Comp. Luke viii. 26-389. The nar- 
rative of the former follows a brief and more general tradition ; that of the 
latter attaches itself to Mark, yet with distinctive traits and not without 
obliteration of the original. — Ver. 2. t£eAdévro¢g airot. . . ariveroev avT¢] 
The genitive absolute brings the point of time more strongly into prominence 





CHAP. V., 1-20. | 63 


than would be done by the dative under the normal construction.’ — avSpw- 
moc év rvetuat: ax. See on i. 28. — Ver. 8. ovdé dAices ovxéte oideic x.T.A. (see 
the critical remarks) : not even with a chain could thenceforth any one, etc. 
So fierce and strong was he now, that all attempts of that kind, which had 
previously been made with success, no longer availed with him (ovxér:). On 
the accumulation of negatives, see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 57 f. — Ver. 4. dia 
sd abvrdv x.7.A.] because he often... was chained. See Matthaei, p. 1259. — 
wédat are fetters, but dAicee need not therefore be exactly manacles, as the 
expositors wish to take it,—a sense at variance with the general signification 
of the word in itself, as well as with ver. 8. It means here also nothing 
else than chains ; let them be put upon any part of the body whatever, he rent 
them asunder ; but the fetters in particular (which might consist of cords) 
he rubbed to pieces (ovvrerpig3a:, to be accented with a circumflex). — Ver. 5. 
He was continually in the tombs and in the mountains, screaming and cutting 
himself with stones. — Ver. 6. avd paxpd9ev] as in Matt. xxv. 58. — Ver. 7. 
opxife oe tov Ody] not inappropriate in the mouth of the demoniac (de Wette, 
Strauss), but in keeping with the address vi2 r. Geov r. ip., and with the 
desperate condition, in which the wvevua axédaprov sees himsclf to be. On 
épxizw asa Greek word (Acts xix. 13 ; 1 Thess. v. 27), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 361. — u@ ue, Bacavic.] is not-—as in Matthew, where zpo xazpov is associated 
with it—to be understood of the torment of Hades, but of tormenting gener- 
ally, and that by the execution of the éfe29e, ver. 8. The possessed man, 
identifying himself with his demon, dreads the pains, convulsions, etc. of 
the going forth. Subsequently, at ver. 10, where he has surrendered him- 
self to the inevitable going forth, his prayer is different. Observe, more- 
over, how here the command of Jesus (ver. 8) has as its result in the sick 
man an immediate consciousness of the necessity of the going forth, but not 
the immediate going forth itself. — Ver. 8. dAeye ydp] for he said, of course 
before the suppliant address of the demoniac. A subjoined statement of 
the reason, without any need for conceiving the imperfect in a pluperfect 
sense. — Ver. 9. The demoniac power in this sufferer is conceived and repre- 
sented as an aggregate—combined into unity—of numerous demoniacal in- 
dividualities, which only separate in the going forth and distribute them- 
selves into the bodies of the swine. The fixed idea of the man concerning 
this manifold-unity of the demoniac nature that possessed him had also sug- 
gested to him the name : Legion,?—a name which, known to him from the 
Roman soldiery, corresponds to the paradoxical state of his disordered im- 
agination, and its explanation added by the sick man himself (6rz roAAoi 
éopev ; otherwise in Luke), is intended to move Jesus the more to compas- 
sion. — Ver. 10. é&w ri¢ yopac] According to Mark, the demons desire not 
to be sent out of the Gadarene region, in which hitherto they had pleasure ; 
according to Luke (comp. Matt. : pd xacpov), they wish not to be sent into 
the nether world. A difference of tradition ; but the one that Luke followed 
is a remodelling in accordance with the result (in opposition to Baur), and 


' See Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 807, 185; 2 The word is also used in Rabbinic He- 
Pflugk, ad Kur. Med. 910; Winer, p. 18 brew 12, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1128; 
{E. T. 207]. Lightfoot, p. 612. 





Se ee aS Se, a a 





64 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


was not included originally also in the account of Mark (in opposition to 
Ewald, Jahrb. VII. p. 65). [See Note XXVIII., p. 68.] — Ver. 18. de diayi- 
sot] without goay dé (see the critical remarks) is in apposition to 7 ayéAy. 
Only Mark gives this number, and that quite in his way of mentioning par- 
ticulars. According to Baur, Markusevang. p. 48, it is a trait of his ‘‘ atfecta- 
tion of knowing details ;” according to Wilke, an interpolation ; according 
to Bleek, an exaggerating later tradition. — Ver. 15. 7A4fov] the townsmen 
and the possessors of the farms. Here is meant generally the coming of the 
people to the place of the occurrence ; subsequently, by «x. épyovrac mpéc r. 
"Incovv, is meant the special act of the coming to Jesus. —xaOfu.] He who 
was before so fierce and intractable was sitting peacefully. So transformed 
was his condition. — ixar:ouévov] which in his unhealed state would not 
have been the case. This Mark leaves to be presupposed (comp. Hilgenfeld, 
Markusevang. p. 41) ; Luke has expressly narrated it, viii. 27. It might be 
told in either way, without the latter of necessity betraying subseguent 
elaboration on the narrator’s part (Wilke), or the former betraying an (inez- 
act) use of a precursor’s work (Fritzsche, de Wette, and others, including 
Baur), as indeed the assumption that originally there stood in Mark, ver. 3, 
an addition as in Luke viii. 27 (Ewald), is unnecessary. — The verb inarifu 
is not preserved except in this place and at Luke viii. 85. — rav éoyyx. 1. 
Acy.] contrast, ‘‘ad empbasin miraculi,’? Erasmus. — Ver. 16. xai repi r. 
xoip.] still belongs to dizy4zo. — Ver. 17. i;pfav7o] The first impression, ver. 
15, had been : xai é¢of876n0av, under which they do not as yet interfere with 
Jesus. But now, after hearing the particulars of the case, ver. 16, they 
begin, etc. According to Fritzsche, it is indicated: ‘‘Jesum statim se 
sivisse permoveri,” ‘‘ that Jesus instantly suffered Himself to be persuaded.” 
In this the correlation of xai é¢08/4j0av and xai jpéavro is overlooked. — Ver. 
18. éuBaivovtng abtov] at the embarkation. — mapexdiec x.7r.A.] entreaty of 
grateful love, to remain with his benefactor. Fear of the demons was 
hardly included as a motive (49) yuwpic avtov rovrov eiipévreg méAuy éExinndjowow . 
avt@, ‘‘lest having found this one apart from him they might again posscss 
him,” Euthymius Zigabenus ; comp. Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, 
Grotius), since after the destruction of the swine the man is cured of his 
fixed idea and is cudpovav. — Ver. 19. ovK adixev aizév] He permitted him not. 
Wherefore? appears from what follows. He was to abide in his native 
place as a witness,and proclaimer of the marvellous deliverance, that he had 
experienced from God through Jesus, and in this «cay to serve the work of 
Christ. According to Hilgenfeld, Mark by this trait betrays his Jewish- 
Christianity, which is a sheer figment. — 6 xtpsoc] God. — nat yAénoé ce] and 
how much He had compassion on thee (when He caused thee to be set free from 
the demons, aorist). It is still tobe construed with dca, but zeugmatically, 
so that now dca is to be taken adcerbially (Kiihner, II. p. 220). On dcoc, 
quam insignis, ‘‘how noteworthy,” comp. Ellendt, Lez. Soph. II. p. 377. — 
Ver. 20. #p€aro] a graphic delineation from the starting-point. — Aexamé/e:] 
See on Matt. iv. 25. — éroiqcev] aorist, like #Aénoe. On the other hand, in 
ver. 19, zeroinxe, which is conceived of from the point of time of the speak- 
er, at which the fact subsists completed and continuing in its effects. — 


CHAP. V., 21-34. 6d 


é "Incotc] 6 pév Xpioricg perpioppovaw tO marpi rd Epyov avéOnxev’ 6 dé Heparevieic 
evyvwpovay te Xpiorg tovro averide, ‘‘ Christ indeed modestly attributed 
the work to the Father ; but the healed man continued gratefully to attrib- 
ute it to Christ,” Euthymius Zigabenus. The circumstance, moreover, 
that Jesus did not here forbid the diffusion of the matter (see on v. 48 ; 
Matt. viii. 4), but enjoined it, may be explained from the locality (Peraea), 
where He was less known, and where concourse around His person was 
not to be apprehended as in Galilee. 

Vv. 21-24. See on Matt. ix. 1, 18. Comp. Luke viii. 40-42, who also 
keeps to the order of events. — rupa rpv 044.) a point of difference from 
Matthew, according to whom Jairus makes his appearance at Capernaum at 
the lodging of Jesus. See on Matt. ix. 18. — Ver. 28. dr] recitative. — 
70 Yuydzpidvy pov|' This diminutive expression of paternal tenderness is 
peculiar to Mark. Comp. vii. 25. It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. 
— toxdrwe éxer] a late Greek phrase.?—iva éA0av «.7.4.] His excitement 
amidst grief and hope speaks incoherently. We may understand before iva: 
this I say, Mm order that, etc. This is still simpler and more natural than the 
taking it imperatively, by supplying volo or the like (see on xii. 19). 

Vv. 25-34. See on Matt. ix. 20-22; Luke viii. 43-48. — Ver. 26. Mark 
depicts with stronger lines than Luke, and far more strongly than 
Matthew. — 1a rap’ airov] what was of her means. How manifold were 
the prescriptions of the Jewish physicians for women suffering from 
haemorrhage, and what experiments they were wont to try upon them, 
may be seen in Lightfoot, p. 614 f. — Ver. 27. axoteaca] subordinated as 
& prior point to the following éA9ovoa. Comp. on i. 41.— The charac- 
teristic addition rov xpacrédov in Matt. ix. 20, Luke viii. 44, would be well 
suited to the graphic representation of Mark (according to Ewald, it 
has only come to be omitted in the existing form of Mark), but may proceed 
from a later shape of the tradition. — Ver. 28. deve yép] without év éaurg 
(see the critical remarks) does not mean : for she thought (Kuinoel, and many 
others), which, moreover, VO used absolutely never does mean, not evenin 
Gen xxvi. 9, but : for she said. She actually said it, to others, or for and 
to herself ; a vivid representation. — Ver. 29. 1 xny# r. ai. abr.] like Wp? 
BY) (Lev. xii. 7, xx. 18), ‘‘issue,” or, ‘‘ fountain, of blood,” not a euphe- 
mistic designation of the parts themselves affected by the haemorrhage, but 
designation of the seat of the issue of blood in them. —r@ odyari] dia rod 
Owparog pyaéte patvoutvov toig oradaypoic, ‘‘through the body no longer being 
besprinkled by the droppings,” Euthymius Zigabenus. Still this by itself 
" could not as yet give the certainty of the recovery. Hence rather: through 
the feeling of the being strong and well, which suddenly passed through 
her body. — puéortyoc] as at iii. 10.— Ver. 80. émcyvotc] stronger than the 
previous zyww. — év éav7G] in His own consciousness, therefore immediately, 
not in virtue of an externally perceptible effect. — rjv é& avrov div. é€eAA. | 
the power gone forth from Him. What feeling in Jesus was, according to 


Comp. Athen. xiil. p. 581 C; Long. 1. 6; * See Wetstein and Kypke, also Lobeck, 
Plut. Mor. p.179 E; Lucian, Zox. 2. ad Phryn. p. 889. 


5 








66 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Mark’s representation, the medium of His discerning this efflux of power 
that had occurred, we are not informed. The tradition, as it has expressed 
itself in this trait in Mark and Luke (comp. on Matt. ix. 22), has disturbed 
this part of the narrative by the view of an efflux of power independent of 
the will of Jesus, but brought about on the part of the woman by her 
faith (comp. Strauss, II., p. 89), the recognition of which on the part of 
Jesus occurred at once, but yet not until after it had taken place. This is, 
with Weiss and others (in opposition to Holtzmann and Weizsicker), to be 
conceded as a trait of later origin, and not to be dealt with by artificial ex- 
planations at variance with the words of the passage (in opposition to Ebrard 
and Lanye), or to be concealed by evasive expedients (Olshausen, Krabbe, 
and many others). It does not, however, affect the simpler tenor of the his- 
tory, which weread in Matthew. [See Note XXIX., p. 68.} Calovius made 
use of the passage against the Calvinists, ‘‘ aim divinam carni Christi dero- 
gantes,” ‘‘ detracting from the divine power of the flesh of Christ.” — ri¢ pov 
gypato Tov lu.|] who has touched me on the clothes? Jesus knew that by means 
of the clothes-touching power had gone out of Him, but not to whom. The 
disciples, unacquainted with the reason of this question, are astonished at 
it, seeing that Jesus is in the midst of the crowd, ver. 31. In Olshausen, 
Ebrard, Lange,’ and older commentators, there are arbitrary attempts to ex- 
plain away that ignorance. — Ver. 82. mepieBAérero ideiv] namely, by any re- 
sulting effect that might make manifest the reception of the power. The 
Feminine tiv t. wothoacay is said from the standpoint of the already known 
fact. [See Note XXX., p. 69.] — Ver. 33. racav rjv aAgdecav] the whole truth, 
so that she kept back nothing and altered nothing.* —el¢ cipfr] pow, 
1 Sam. i. 17; 2 Sam. xv. 9; Luke vii. 50, al.: unto bliss, unto future 
happiness. In év cipyvg (Judg. xviii. 6; Luke ii. 29 ; Acts xvi. 36; Jas. 
ii. 16) the happy state is conceived of as combined with the izaye, as simul- 
taneous. —iod: byijc x.1.A.] definitive confirmation of the recovery, which 
Schenkel indeed refers merely to the woman's ‘‘religious excitement of 
mind” as its cause. 

Vv. 35-48. Sce on Matt. ix. 23-25. Comp. Luke viii. 49-56. The former 
greatly abridges and compresses more than Luke, who, however, does not 
come up to the vivid originality of the representation of Mark. — ézd rob 
apytovv.] rovréoriv ard Tiz¢ olKeiag Tov apyovv, ‘* that is, from the house of the 
ruler of the synagogue,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — ér:] since now there is 
no longer room for help. — Ver. 36. According to the reading srapaxoteac, 
this (comp. Matt. xviii. 17) is to be taken as the opposite of traxobev, 
namely : immediately He left this speech unnoticed ; He did not heed it for 
one moment, but lect it remain as it was, and said, etc. In this way is set 
forth the decided certainty.’ He has heard the announcement (ver. 35), but 


1 According to Lange, for example, the T7yach. 91; and see Kruger on Zhue. vi, 
conduct of Jesus only amounts to an @p-_ 87. 1. 


pearance ; ‘He let Hiseyes move as ¢f (}) ? Which, however, all the more precludes 
inquiringly over the crowd” (wepreBAcn, iseiy the thought of a mere apparent death of 
«.7.A.). the maiden (such as Schleiermacher and 


2 Comp. Phat. Apo’. p. 17 B, 2 D; Soph. Schenkel assume). 


CHAP. V., 35—43. 67 


at once let it pass unattended to. [See Note XXXI., p. 69. ] Ewald is 
incorrect in saying that He acted as if he had failed to hear it. That He did 
not fail to hear it, and, moreover, did not act as if He had, is in fact shown 
just by the yu ¢0fo0v «.r.A. which he addresses to Jairus. The Itala in the 
Cod. Pal. (e. in Tisch.) correctly has neglerit. — yu) gofov «.7.A.] as though 
now all were lost, all deliverance cut off. — Ver. 87. According to Mark, 
Jesus sends back the rest (disciples and others who were following Him) 
before the house ; according to Luke viii. 51, in the house. [See Note XXXII., 
p. 69.] — Ver. 38. WépuBov nai xAaiovrac x. GAad.] an uproar and (especially) 
people weeping and wailing. The first xai attaches to the general term 
YépuBov the special elements that belong to it, as ini. 5, and frequently. 
adaAdfw not merely used of the cry of conflict and rejoicing, but also, al- 
though rarely, of the cry of anguish and lamentation. See Plutarch, Lwe. 
28 ; Eur. Zl. 843.— Ver. 39. ciceAdév] into the house. A later point of 
time than at ver. 88.— Ver. 40. éxSaddv] irritated, commanding ; He 
ejected them. Among the rdvrac, those who are named immediately after- 
wards (wapadauB. x.t.A.) are not included, and so not the three disciples (in 
opposition to Baur). — Ver. 41. radudd, note] *P'P NOD, puella, surge. It 
is a feature of Mark’s vivid concrete way of description to give significant 
words in Hebrew, with their interpretation, iii. 18, vii. 12, 34, xiv. 36. On 
the Aramaean #1", see Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 875. —1d xopdovov} nomina- 
tive with the article in the imperative address, Bernhardy, p. 67 ; Kihner, 
II. 155. — coi 24yw] a free addition of Mark, ‘‘ ut sensum vocantis atque im- 
perantis exprimeret,” ‘‘that he might express the sense of one calling and 
commanding” (Jerome). — éyecpe] out of the sleep, ver. 39. — Ver. 42. 9» 
yap érav dédexa] not as giving a reason for the word xopdciov (Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Fritzsche), but in explanation of the previous remark, that the 
maiden arose and walked about ; she was no longer a little child. Bengel 
appropriately observes : ‘‘rediit ad statum aetati congruentem,” ‘‘she re- 
enters the state corresponding to her age.” The circumstance that she was 
just in the period of development (Paulus) is certainly in keeping with the 
thought of an apparent death, but is alien to the connection. — Ver. 48. 
diecrei4avo}| He gave them urgently (70/44) injunction, command. See on 
Matt. xvi. 20. — avroic] those brought in at ver. 40.-—iva] the purpose of 
the deeoreiA. rod. Comp. Matt. xvi. 20; Mark vii. 36, ix. 9. — yv@’] rotro: 
namely, this course of the matter. The prohibition itself, as only the three 
disciples and the child's parents were present (ver. 40), has in it nothing 
unsuitable, any more than at i. 44, vii. 36, viii. 26. When Jesus heals pub- 
licly in presence of the multitude there is not found even in Mark, except 
in the cases of the expulsion of demons, 1. 84, ili. 12, any prohibition of the 
kind (ii. 11 f., iii. 5, v. 84, ix. 27, x. 52). Mark therefore ought not to 


1 The subjanctive form yvoi (like dot, eto.), crept in by error of the transcribers from 
which Lachmann and Tischendorf have the languageof common life. [But this form 
(comp. ix. 30; Luke xix. 15), has important is accepted, here and in the other instances 
codices in its favor (A B D L) andagainst it referred to, by nearly all recent critical 
(including ®), but it is unknown to the’ editors. Comp. Note XXV., p. 60.] 

N. T. elsewhere, and has perhaps only 


68 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


have been subjected to the imputation of a tendency to make the sensation 
produced by the healings of Jesus ‘‘ appear altogether great and important” 
(Késtlin, p. 317 ; comp. Baur, Markusevang. p. 54) by His design of wish- 
ing to hinder it ; or of the endeavor to leave out of view the unsusceptible 
mass of the people, and to bestow His attention solely on the susceptible 
circle of the disciples (Hilgenfeld, Hoang. p. 135). In our history the 
quickening to life again in itself could not, of course, be kept secret (see, 
on the contrary, Matt. ix. 26), but probably the more detailed circumstances 
of the way of its accomplishment might. Jesus, although He was from the 
outset certain of being the promised Messiah (in opposition to Schenke)), 
by such prohibitions did as much as on His part He could to oppose the 
kindling of precipitate Messianic fanaticism and popular commotion. He 
could not prevent their want of success in individual cases (i. 45, vil. 36) ; 
but it is just the frequent occurrence of those prohibitions that gives so 
sure attestation of their historical character in general.’ It is quite as his- 
torical and characteristic, that Jesus never forbade the propagation of His 
teachings. With His Messiahship He was afraid of arousing a premature 
sensation (viii. 80, ix. 9; Matt. xvi. 20, xvii. 9), such as His miraculous 
healings were calculated in the most direct and hazardous way to excite 
among the people.— xai ele doS#vac x.7.A.] not for dietetic reasons, nor yet in 
order that the revival should not be regarded as only apparent (Theophylact, 
Euthymius Zigabenus), but in order to prove that the child was delivered, 
not only from death, but also from her sickness. 


Nores spy American Eprror. 


XXVIII. Ver. 10. &&w rij¢ ydpac. 


Over against Meyer’s view of the relation of the three narratives respecting 
the journey to Gadara, Weiss ed. Mey. holds that Matthew could not have fol- 
lowed a briefer and more general tradition, ‘‘ since he used only Mark and the 
older source.’’ In commenting on this verse he says it is ‘‘ entirely false that 
the demons feared they would be driven into hell, as Luke explains.’’ This is 
more explicit than Meyer’s notion of a ‘‘remodelling in accordance with the 
result,’’ which Weiss omits in his edition. 


XXIX. Ver. 30. rv 2& airoi divauy teAPovcar. 


The R. V. properly renders this phrase: ‘that the power proceeding from 
Him had gone forth.” So Bleek, Ewald, and others. The above rendering 
has been greatly criticised, as regards its English form, but it accurately ex- 
presses the sense.—Meyer's view of a disturbance of the tradition, etc., is purely 
conjectural. The mention of an incident not named by another Evangelist 
does not of necessity require the invention of such cumbrous theories of ‘ later 
origin.”” That Matthew here gives “‘ the simpler tenor of the history” cannot 
be proved, 


1 Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 117 f. 





NOTES. 69 


XXX. Ver. 32. rpv rovro roijoacay. 


Here Mark has the feminine, and also the article. Both are used “from 
the standpoint of the already known fact.” But Meyer means by this the fact 
already known to the Evangelist. With equal reason the form of words may be 
regarded as pointing to a fact already known to Jesus Himself. Such an ex- 
planation ought not to be characterized as an arbitrary attempt to explain away 
the ignorance of Jesus. 


XXXI. Ver. 36. zapaxovcac. 


Meyer retains «v§éwc, which is very poorly supported, and not found in any 
of the authorities which have zapaxovoas. He usesthe former to sustain his 
view of the participle : ‘‘ He did not heed it for a moment,” etc. The R. V. 
also renders : ‘‘not heeding,”’ but puts in the margin: ‘‘ overhearing,’’ which 
gives the original sense of the word, though it is not so common in later use as 
the former meaning. Weiss ed. Mey. defends the latter sense here. 


XXXII. Ver. 37.. 


Luke viii. 51 may mean simply: ‘‘ When he came to the house” (so BR. V.), 
and thus the apparent discrepancy disappears. That this is the meaning is in- 
dicated by the remainder of the verse. The direct influence of Peter's testi- 
mony best accounts for the character of Mark’s narrative here. 


%0 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER VI. 


Vex. 1. Instead of 7A0ev, we must read with Tisch., following BCLA ®, 
Zoxerar. 7AGev was introduced in accordance with the preceding ¢&Adev. — 
Ver. 2. After avr (instead of which B C L A ¥,as before, read rovty ; so Tisch.) 
Elz. has 6r:, which Fritzsche defends. But the evidence on the other side so. 
preponderates, that 57: must be regarded as an inserted connective addition, 
instead of which C* D K, min. give iva (and then yivwyra:), while BLA ® have 
changed yivovra: into y:véuevat, which is only another attempt to help the con- 
struction, although it is adopted (with ai before d:¢ upon too weak evidence) by 
Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. accepts the readings approved by Meyer; but recent edi- 
tors read ai before duvayerc, and yivéueva: at the close of the verse. Comp. 
rendering of BR. V.]—- Ver. 3. 6 réxrwv}] The reading 6 rov réxrovog vidg (and 
then merely xai Mapiac), although adopted by Fritzsche, is much too weakly at- 
tested, and is from Matt. xiii. 35. —’Iwo7} The form "Iwoyrog (Lachm. Tisch. 
[recent editors]) has in its favor B D L A, min. vss, ’Iwo7¢ (8, 121, Aeth. Vulg. 
codd. of the It.) is here too weakly attested, and is from Matt. xiii. 55. — [Ver. 
4, Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read xal éAcyev (R BC DL A, 33, Copt. 
Vulg.), and add atrov (B C* L Copt. Vulg.) after cvyyeveiorv.] — Ver. 9. The 
Recepta, defended by Rinck, Fritzsche, is évdvcacOar. But evdvcnode (s0 Griesb. 
Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) has decisive attestation ; it was altered on account of 
the construction. — Ver. 11. Sco: dv] Tisch. has é¢ dv réroc (and afterwards 
déEnra:), following B L A &, min. Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin). A peculiar and 
original reading, which became altered partly by the omission of rézoc¢ (C*? 
min.), partly by 4c0:, in accordance with the parallels.—After avroic Elz. Matth. 
Fritzsche, Scholz, have : aujv Aéyw duiv, dvextérepav Ecrat Lodduore 7 Toudppore ev 
nuépa Kpicews, 7 TG wéAe Exeivy, Which is not found in BC DLA, min. vas. 
An addition in accordance with Matt. x. 15.— Ver. 12. éx7pvgav (Tisch.), 
instead of the Recepta éxjpvocoy, is still more strongly attested than peravodow 
(Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors]). The former is to be adopted from BC DL 
A &; the latter bas in its favor B D L, but easily originated as a shorter form 
from the Recepla peravonowsr. — Ver. 14. fAeyev] Fritzsche, Lachm. [W. and 
Hort text, Weiss, R. V. marg.] have éAcyoy only, following B D, 6, 271, Cant. 
Ver. Verc. Mart. Corb. Aug. Beda (D has éAéyooav). An alteration in accordance 
with ver. 15; comp. ver. 16..— &x vexp. jyép@n] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, 
R. V.) have éyjyepras éx vexp., following B D L A &, min.; but A K, min. 
Theophyl. have éx vexp. dvéorn. The latter is right ; dvéory became supplanted 
by means of the parallel passages and ver. 16. — Ver. 15. dé after the first dAAoz 
is wanting in Elz. Fritzsche, but is guaranteed by decisive evidence. Decisive 
evidence condemns the # read before oc in Elz. and Fritzsche. — Ver. 16. otré¢ 
éoriv, adroc 7y.) B D LA, min. Vulg. Cant. Colb. Corb. Germ. 1, 2, Mm. Or. 
have merely otrog fy. So Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. [recent editors, 
KR. V.] (Lachm. has bracketed éor. atr.). Certainly the Recepta might have 
arisen out of Matt. xiv. 2. But, if merely otro¢ #y. were original, it would not 





, CHAP. VI. 71 


be at all easy to see why it should bave been altered and added to. On the 
other hand, the transcribers might easily pass over from ovTOS at once to 
avTOS. Therefore the Recepta is to be maintained, and to be regarded as made 
use of by Matthew. — éx vexpayv] is, in accordance with Tisch., to be deleted as 
an addition, since in BLA X, vss. it is altogether wanting; in D it stands 
before #y.; and in C, Or. it is exchanged for amo r. vexp. — Ver. 17. The article 
before gvAaxj is deleted, in accordance with decisive evidence.—Ver. 19. 70eAev] 
Lachm. has é¢yre, although only following C* Cant. Ver. Verc. Vind. Colb. An 
interpretation. — [Ver. 20. AC D A, and most read ézoies; but & BL, Copt. 
have #7dper, accepted by recent editors, R. V. text. The critical note in the 
original confuses this variation with o similar one in ver. 21.]—Ver. 21. éroiec] 
BC DLA ®, min. have ézoincev. So Lachm. [Tisch, and recent editors ].—Ver. 
22. atric) BD L A &, min. [W. and Hort, R. V. marg.] have avrov. A wrong 
emendation. [See Note XXXVIIL, p. 83.] — xa? dpeodo.| BC* LA ®& have jjpecev. 
So Lachm. and Tisch., the latter then, upon like attestation, having 6 dé Bac. 
elxev (Lachm., following A, has eive dé 6 Bac.). Rightly ; the Recepla is a me- 
chanical continuation of the participles, which was then followed by the 
omission of dé (Elz. has : elmev 6 Sac.). — Ver. 24. airjoouar)] atryowpat is deci- 
sively attested ; commended by Griesb., and adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and 
Tisch. — Ver. 30. suvra xaf] This xai has evidence so considerable against it 
that it is condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 
[Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.]. But how easily might the quite superfluous and 
even disturbing word come to be passed over!— Ver. 33. After tmdyovrac Elz, 
has of 6x01, in opposition to decisive evidence ; taken from Matt. and Luke. 
—After éxéyvwoav (for which Lachm., following B* D, reads éyvwoav) Elz. 
Scholz have atrév, which is not found in B D, min. Arm. Perss. Vulg. It., while 
AK LMU AX, min., vss. have avrots. So Tisch. But atréy and avrove are ad- 
ditions by way of gloss. [Recent editors, R. V., agree with Lachmann, } — éxei] 
Elz. Scholz have : éxei, xa? mpo7zAGov avrove Kai cvv7A9ov wpog airév. Griesb, : 
Kad 7AGov Exet. Fritzsche: éxei xa #AGov mpdc airév, Lachm. Tisch.: éxet xai 
wponAGov avrovc. So, too, Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 298. The latter reading (B L 
®%)is to be regarded as the original one, and the variations are to be derived 
from the fact that mpocjASov was written instead of mpo7A90v. Thus arose the 
corruption xai rpoo7Afov atrot¢ (so still L, min.). This corruption was then 
subiected to very various glosses, namely, xai tpoojjAGov mpdc avrovc (220, 2265, 
Arr.), xal to007AGov avroic¢ (A), xai ovv@AGov avrod (D, Ver.), xai cvvédpapov pic 
abrév (A), xat ovviAfov xpoc abrdév (Elz.), al.; which glosses partly supplanted the 
original xa) zp07A60v avtovc (D, min. vss.), partly appeared by its side with or 
without restoration of the genuine zpojAfuv. The reading of Griesb. has far 
too little attestation, and leaves the origin of the variations inexplicable. For 
the reading of Fritzsche there is no attestation ; it is to be put on the footing 
of a conjecture, — Ver. 34. After eldev Elz. and Scholz have 4 "Incotc, which in 
witnesses deserving of consideration is either wanting or differently placed. 
An addition, — ér' avroic] Lachm. and Tisch. have éz’ avruve, following impor- 
tant witnesses ; the Recepia is from Matt. xiv. 14 (where it is the original read- 
ing). — Ver. 36. dprove- rl ydp déywory oix Zxoveww] BL A, min. Copt. Cant. Vere. 
Corb. Vind. have merely ri ¢éyworv, which Griesb. approves and Tisch. reads. 
D has merely r: dayetv, which Fritzsche reads, adding, however, without any 
evidence: ot ydp Eycvow. Lachm. has [dprove-] ri [yap] ¢¢yworv [ove Exovorr). 


72 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. ¢ 


The reading of Griesb. is to be preferred ; cprove was written in the margin as 
a gloss, and adopted into the text. Thus arose dprove, ts ddyworr (comp. ®: 
Bpoparea tt ddyworv, Vulg.: ‘‘ cibos, quos manducent’’). This was then filled up 
from viii. 2, Matt. xv. 32, in the way in which the Recepia has it. The reading 
of D (merely rz gayeiv) would be preferable, if it were better attested. — Ver. 37. 
da@uev}] Lachm. has ddcouev, following AB [marked doubtful by Meyer, but it has 
the future] L A 65, It. Vulg. [so recent editors]. Comp. D &, min., which have 
duowuev, The future is original ; not being understood, it was changed into 
déuev, and mechanically into ddswuev (Tisch.). — Ver. 38. xai before idere ‘is 
wanting in B D L &, min. vss., and is an addition which Griesb. has con- 
demned, Lachm. has bracketed, and Tisch. hus deleted. — Ver. 39. dvaxdivac] 
Lachm. has dvax/c:Ojvae [so W. and Hort, R. V.}, not sufficiently attested ; from 
Matt. xiv. 19. — Ver. 40. Instead of avd, Lachm. and Tisch. have xara both 
times, in accordance with B D 8, Copt. Rightly ; dva is from Luke ix. 14, — 
Ver. 44. Elz. has after dprove : deci, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 
45. adrodicyp} Lachm. and Tisch. have azodve, following BD LAN1. The 
Recepta is from Matt. xiv. 22. — Ver. 48. elev] BDL AX, min. Vulg. It. Copt. 
have iduvy, So Lachm. and Tisch., omitting the subsequent «ai before rep/. 
Rightly ; the participle was changed into eldev, because the parenthetic nature 
of the following 7v ydp ... avroic was not observed. — Ver. 51. xai éOar‘uafor] is 
wanting, it is true, in BL A ®&, min. Copt. Vulg. Vind. Colb. Rd., and is con- 
demned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., cancelled by Tisch.; but after é£o- 
ravro it was, as the weaker expression, more easily passed over than added. 
[Rejected by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 52. The order avrav # caps, is, with 
Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be preferred on far preponderating evidence. [Ver.. 
53. See Note XLI., p. 84.]—Ver. 54. After avrév Lachm. has bracketed oi dvdpec 
tow térov éxeivov, which A G A, min. vss. read ; from Matt. xiv. 35. — Ver. 55. 
(Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8B L A, 33, Copt, read wepiEdpapov . .. yapuv 
and xa) ypf.] — éxei] is not found in BL A 8&, 102, Copt. Vulg. Vind. Brix. Colb. 
Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. Passed over as super- 
fluous. — Ver. 56. #7rTovro] Lachm. reads fppavro, following BD LA &, min. 
Matt. xiv. 36. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., accept the aorist.] 


Vv. 1-6. See on Matt. xiii. 54-58, who follows Mark with slight abbrevi- 
ations and unessential-changes. As respects the question of position, some 
advocates of the priority of Matthew have attributed to Mark an unthink- 
ing mechanism (Saunier), others a very artistic grouping (Hilgenfeld, who 
holds that the insusceptibility of the people was here to be represented as 
attaining its climax). — The narrative itself is not to be identified with that 
of Luke iv. 16 ff. See on Matt. — é779ev éxeidev] from the house of Jairus. 
Matthew has an entirely different historical connection, based on a distinct 
tradition, in which he may have furnished the more correct rdaét¢. — f#péEaro} 
for the jirst emergence and its result are meant to be narrated. — After elim- 
ination of ér:, the words from 7é3ev to avr¢ are to be taken together as an 
interrogative sentence, and xai duvéuecc on to yivovra: forms again a separate 
question of astonishment. [See Note XXXIII., p. 82.] —duvdue roabrar] 
presupposes that they have heard of the miracles that Jesus had done (in 
Capernaum and elsewhere); these they now Lring into association with His 
teaching. — dia trav yerp. avrov} that is, by laying on of His hands, by taking 


CHAP. VI., 1-6. io 


hold of, touching, and the like ; ver. 5. Comp. Acts v. 12, xix. 11. — Ver. 
3. 6 réxrwy}] According to the custom of the nation and of the Rabbins,' 
Jesus Himself had learned a handicraft. Comp. Justin. «. Tryph. 88, 
p. 316, where it is related that He made?® ploughs and yokes; Origen, ce. 
Celsum, vi. 4. 8, where Celsus ridicules the custom ; Theodoret, H. £. 
iii, 28; Keang. infant. 38; and sce generally, Thilo, ad Cod. Apoer. 
I. p. 868 f. The circumstance that Mark has not written 6 rov réxrovoc 
vidc, a8 In Matt. xiii. 55, is alleged by Hilgenfeld, Hoang. p. 135 (‘‘ Mark 
tolerates not the paternity of Joseph even in the mouth of the Naza- 
renes”), Baur, Markusevangel. p. 138, and Bleek, to point to the view 
of the divine procreation of Jesus. As though Mark would not have 
had opportunity and skill enough to bring forward this view otherwise 
with clearness and definitely ! The expression of Matthew is not even 
to be explained from an offence taken at réxrwy (Holtzmann, Weizsicker), 
but simply bears the character of the reflection, that along with the mother 
the father also would have been mentioned. And certuinly it is singular, 
considering the completeness of the specification of the members of the fam- 
ilies, that Joseph is not also designated. That he was already dead, is the 
usual but not certain assumption (see on John vi. 42). In any case, how- 
ever, he has at an early date fallen into the background in the evangelical 
tradition, and in fact disappeared : and the narrative of Mark, in so far as 
he names only the mother, is a reflection of this state of things according to 
the customary appellation among the people, without any special design. 
Hence there is no sufficient reason for supposing that in the primitive-Mark 
the words ran: 6 réxruy, 6 vli¢g "Iwo7g (Holtzmann). —’Iwo7] Matthew, by 
way of correction, has 'Iwo#¢. See on Matt. xili. 55. [On the form, see 
critical note.}] The brother of James of Alphaeus was called Joses. Sce on 
Matt. xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40.— Ver. 4. The generic rpopyrne is not to be 
misapplied (so Schenkel) to make good the opinion that Jesus had not yet 
regarded Himself as the Messiah. — xai év roig ovyy. x.t.4.*] graphic fulness 
of detail ; native town, kinsfolk, house, proceeding from the wider to the 
narrower circle : not a glance back at iii. 20 (Baur, p. 23). — Ver. 5. ov« 
73bvaro] neither means noluit, ‘‘ would not” (Verc. Vind. Brix. Germ. 2), 
nor is 7d(v superfluous ; but see on Matt. xiii. 58. Theophylact says well : oz 
ote arog Govenjs Hv, GAA’ bre éxeivor dtora Hoav, ‘‘not because he was weak, 


‘Lightfoot, p. 616; .Schoettgen, IT. 21; John vil. 5. —Wemay add that, accord- 


p. 898; Gfrdrer in the Tid. Zeilischr. 1838, 
p. 166 ff. 

3 Whether exactly “ with an ideal mean- 
ing,”’ so that they became s«ymébols under 
His hand, as Lange, L. J. II. p. 154, thinks, 
may be fitly left to the fancy which js fond 
of inventing such things. No less fanciful 
is Lange’s strange idea that the brothers of 
Jesus (in whom, however, he sees sons of 
his brother Alphaeus adopted by Joseph) 
would hardly have allowed Him to work 
much, because they saw in Him the glory 
of Israel! Comp., on tbe other hand, iil. 


jag to the opinion of Baur, Mark here, 
with his érécrer, “stands quite on the 
voundary line between the canonical and 
the apocryphal ” (Markuserang. p. 4%). 

?The form ovyyevetor, which, though er- 
roneous, had been in use, is here recom- 
mended by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 2 [E. T. 
23]; and itis so adequately attested by B 
D** EF G, al. (in R* the words «. é. r. ovyy. 
are wanting) that it !s, with Tischendorf 
{Treg., W. and Hort], to be adopted. In 
Luke il. 44 the attestation is much weaker. 
Mark has not further used the word. 


74 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


but because they were unbelieving.” — Ver. 6. dia tiv amor. abrav] on account 
of their unbelief. Acé is never thus used with Javudlev in the N. T. (not 
even in John vii. 21) and in the LXX. But the unbelief is conceived not 
as the object, but as the cause of the wondering.’ Jesus Himself had not 
expected such a degree of insusceptibility in His native town. Only a few 
among the sick themselves (ver. 5) met Him with the necessary condition 
of faith. —xai repijye x.7.A.] seeking in the country a better ficld for His 
ministry. — kixAw] as ili. 34, belonging to zepipye. 

Vv. 7-13. Comp. Matt. x. 1-14 ; Luke ix. 1-6. Mark here adopts, with 
abridgment and sifting, from the collection of Logia what was essentially 
relevant to his purpose ; Luke follows him, not without obliteration and 
generalizing of individual traits. — 7pfaro] He now began that sending forth, 
to which they were destined in virtue of their calling ; its continuance was 
their whole future calling, from the standpoint of which Mark wrote his 
jptato. — dio dio] binos, in pairs. Ecclus. xxxvi. 25. A Hebraism ; Winer, 
p. 223 [E. T. 312]. The Greek says xard, avd, cig dio, or even ovvdio.* 
Wherefore in pairs? ‘‘ Ad plenam testimonii fidem,” ‘‘ for full trustwor- 
thiness of testimony,” Grotius. Comp. Luke vii. 19, ix. 1. — Ver. 8. aipwor] 
should take up, in order to carry it with them, 1 Macc. iv. 30. — ei nu} paBdov 
uzévov] The variation in Matthew and Luke betokens the introduction of ex- 
aggeration,* but not a misunderstanding of the clear words (Weiss). [See 
Note XXXIV., p. 82seq.] There isan attempt at a mingling of interpretations 
at variance with the words in Ebrard, p. 382; Lange, Z. J. II. 2, p. 712. 
It ultimately comes to this, that ei u7 p. uw. is intended to mean: at most a 
staff. Even Bleek has recourse to the unfounded refinement, that the staff 
in Mark is meant only for support, not us a weapon of defence. — Ver. 9. aAav’ 
trodedeu. cavddaA.| There is no difference from pydé trodjuara, Matt. x. 10, 
not even a correction of this expression (Bleek, comp. Holtzmann). See on 
Matt. l.c. The meaning is, that they should be satisfied with the simple 
light foot-covering of sandals, in contrast with the proper calceus (inddnya 
xoiAov), which had upper leather, and the use of which was derived from the 
Phoenicians and Babylonians (Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. VII. p. 729). 
Comp. Acts xii. 8. The construction is anucoluthic, as though rap7yyeAev 
avtoig wopetecdac had been previously said. Then the discourse changes 
again, going over from the obliqua into the directa (évdiona9e).4 A lively 
non-periodic mode of representing the matter ; comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
p. 830 [E. T. 384 f.] — Ver. 10. xai fey. avr.] a new portion of the direc- 
tions given on that occasion. Comp. on iv. 13. — éxet] in this house: but. 
éxeidev : from this rémo¢ (see the critical remarks). — Ver. 11. eig mapripiov 
avroic] which is to serve them for a testimony, namely, of that which the shak- 
ing off of the dust expresses, that they are placed on a footing of equality with 
heathens. Comp. on Matt, x. 14.— Ver. 12 f. ive] the aim of the éxjpvéav. 


1Comp. Ael. V. H. xil.6, xiv.86: avr» the “reaaoning’ Mark had modified the 


Oavudgouey Sta Ta épya. expression. Comp. Holtzmann and Hil- 
2 See Valckenaer, ad Herod. p. 811; Hein-  genfeld. 
dorf, ad Plat. Parm. p. 239. *See Ktihner, II. p. 598 f., and ad Xen, 


3Inverting the matter, Baur holds that Men. i. 4. 15, fil. 5. 14, iv. 4 5. 


CHAP, VI., 14-16. v5 
— faeidov tAaly] The anointing with oil (the mention of which in this place is 
held by Baur, on account of Jas. v. 14, to betray a later date) was very fre- 
quently applied medically in the case of external and internal ailments.’ 
But the assumption that the apostles had healed by the natural virtue of the 
oil (Paulus, Weisse), is at variance with the context, which narrates their 
miraculous action. Nevertheless, it is also wholly unwarranted to regard the 
application of the oil in this case merely as a symbol ; either of the working 
of miracles for the purpose of awakening faith (Beza, Fritzsche, comp. 
Weizsicker), or of the bodily and spiritual refreshment (Euthymius Zigabe- 
nus), or of the divine compassion (Theophylact, Calvin), or to find in it 
merely an arousing of the attention (Russwurm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
p- 866), or, yet again, a later magical mingling of the supernatural and the 
natural (de Wette). In opposition to the latter view the pertinent remark 
of Euthymius Zigabenus holds good: eixéc dé, cai rovro rapa Tov Kupiou dida- 
x9jvat tobe axoordéAove, ‘‘ But it is likely that the apostles were taught this 
also by the Lord.” Comp. Jas. v. 14. The anointing is rather, as is also the 
application of spittle on the part of Jesus Himself (vii. 33, viii. 23 ; John ix. 
6), to be looked upon as a conductor of the supernatural healing power, anal- 
ogous to the laying on of hands in ver. 5, so that the faith was the causa 
apprehendens, the miraculous power the causa efficiens, and the oil was the 
medians, therefore without independent power of healing, and not even nec- 
essary, where the way of immediate operation was, probably in accordance 
with the susceptibility of the persons concerned, adopted by the Healer, as 
Jesus also heals the blind man of Jericho without any application of spittle, 
x.46 f. The passage before us has nothing to do with the unctio extrema (in 
opposition to Maldonatus and many others), although Bisping still thinks 
that he discovers here at least a type thereof. 

Vv. 14-16. See on Matt. xiv. 1,2. Comp. Luke ix. 7-9. Mark bears the 
impress of the original in his circumstantiality and want of polish in form. 
— 4 Baorreic] in the wider sense adsaddpuc xpduevoc ty dvéuati, ‘‘ using the 
name indifferently ” (Theophylact) : the prince (comp. the dpywv Bactrebe of 
the Athenians, and the like), a more popular but less accurate term than in 
Matthew and Luke: 6 rerpapyn7c. Comp. Matt. ii. 22. — gavepdv yap éyév. rt. 
bv, avrov] is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it does not interrupt the 
construction, but assigns the reason for the jxovoev, after which the narrative 
proceeds with xai ZAeyev. — As object to jxovoev (generalized in Matthew and 
Luke) we cannot, without arbitrariness, think of aught but the contents of 
vv. 12, 13. Comp. axotcac, ver. 16. Antipas heard that the disciples of 
Jesus preached and did such miracles. Then comes the explanation as- 
signing the reason for this : for His name became known, 1.¢., for it did not 
remain asecret, that these itinerant teachers and miracle-workcrs were work- 
ing as empowered by Jesus. Comp. also Holtzmann, p. 83. According to 
Grotius, Griesbach, and Paulus (also Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, 
p. 797), the object of gxovcev is : 1d bvoua avrod, 80 that gav. y. éyév. would be 
parenthetic. Thisis at variance with the simple style of the evangelist. 


1 See Lightfoot, p. 304, 617; Schoettgen, I. p. 1088; Wetatein in loc. 


16 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
According to de Wette, Mark has been led by the alleged parenthesis gavepav 

. avrov to forget the object, so that merely something indefinite, perhaps 
tavra, would have to be supplied. But what carelessness ! and still the 
question remains, to what the raira applics. Ewald (comp. Bengel) takes 
oavepov . . . TpogyTay as a parenthesis, which was intended to explain what 
H{erod heard, and holds that in ver. 16 the jxovcev of ver. 14 is again taken 
up (that instead of éAeyev in ver. 14 é/eyov is to be read, which Hilgenfeld 
also prefers ; see the critical remarks). But the explanation thus resorted 
to is not in keeping with the simple style of the evangelist elsewhere (in 
the case of Paul it would create no difficulty). — 6 Sazri{wv] substantival 
(see on Matt. ii. 20). Observe with what delicacy the set evangelic expres- 
sion 6 Barrory¢ is not put into the mouth of Antipas ; he speaks from a 
more extraneous standpoint. [See Note XXXYV., p. 83.] Moreover, it is 
clear from our passage that before the death of John he can have had no 
knowledge of Jesus and His working. — did rovro] mpérepov yap 6 "lwévvne 
ovdev onpeiov Exoinoev’ ard 68 THE avaoTdceuc Evdutoev 6 ‘Hpddy¢ mpocdAaBeiv avrov 
TOV onueiwy THY Epyaciay, ‘‘ For John had previously wrought no miracle ; but 
from his resurrection Herod supposed he had obtained the working of mira- 
cles,” Theophylact. — ai dvvduecc]) the powers xar’ éfox77, 7.€., the miraculous 
powers, the effluence of which he saw now also in the working of the disci- 
ples. — Ver. 15. The difference between these assertions is that some gave 
Him out to be the Elijah, and so to be the prophet who was of an alto- 
gether special and distinguished character and destination; but others said : 
He is a prophet like oné of the prophets, i.e. (comp. Judg. xvi. 7, 11), a usual, or- 
dinary prophet, one out of the category of prophets in general, not quite the 
exceptional and exalted prophet Elijah. Comp. Ewald, p. 258f. The inter- 
polation of 7 before d¢ could only be occasioned by the expression not being 
understood.’ — Ver. 16. dxotvcac] namely, these different judgments. Mark 
now relates the more special occasion of the utterance of Herod. —év.. . 
"Iwdvyyy] a familiar form of attraction. See Winer, p. 148 [E. T. 164]. — 
iy6} has the stress of an evil conscience. Mockery (Weizsiicker) is, in 
nccordance with ver. 14 f., not to be thought of. — oiroc] anaphorically 
with emphasis (Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 19): this 1s he. —aizéc] the 
emphatic He, precisely he, for designation of the identity. Observe the 
urgent expression of certainty, which the terror-stricken man gives to his 
conception : Thisoneit is: Heis risen! [See Note XXXVI, p. 83.] 

Vv. 17-29. See on Matt. xiv. 3-12. Mark narrates more circumstan- 
tiaily? and with more peculiar originality ; see especially ver. 20, the 
contents of which, indeed, are held by Baur to rest on a deduction 
from Mati. xiv. 9.—atrés] is a commentary upon the éyo of ver. 


1The Recepia bt. wpod. éoriv, } ws els roy necessitate the supposition of a confusion 





spod. would have to be explained: he is a 
prophet, or (at least) like to one of the 
prophets. 

2 Mentioning even the name of Phtlp. 
Josephus, Anitt. xvill. 5.4, names him by 
the family name Lerodes, which does not 


as to the name on the part of Mark (Ewald, 
Gesch. Chr. p. 51). Only we may not under- 
stand Philip the ¢efrarch, but a half-brother 
of his, bearing a similar name. See on 
Matt. xiv. 3. 


CHAP. VI., 17-29. C7 


16. Herod himself, namely, etc. —év gvdAaxy] in a prison, without the 
article. At ver. 28, on the other hand, with the article.'.— Vv. 19, 
20. The Ae avrdv aoxreiva: is here, in variation from Matthew, 
denied in the case of Herod. It is not merely an apparent variation 
(Ebrard, p. 884; Lange), but a real one, wherein Mark’s narrative 
betrays a later shape of the tradition (in opposition to Schneckenburger, 
erst. kan. Ev. p. 86 f.) ; while with Matthew Josephus also, Anét. xviii. 5. 
2, attributes to Herod the intention of putting to death. [See Note XXXVIL., 
p. 83.] Comp. Strauss, I. p. 896 f. As to éveiyev (she gave close heed to him), 
see on Luke xi. 53. — égoBeiro] he feared him ; he was afraid that this holy 
man, if he suffered him tobe put to death, would bring misfortune upon 
him. ‘From this fear arose also the utterance contained in vv. 14, 16: 
‘‘ Herodem non timuit Johannes,” ‘‘ John did not fear Herod,” Bengel. — 
cuvetiper| not : magni eum faciebat, ‘*made much of him” (Erasmus, Grotius, 
Fritzsche, de Wette), which the word does not mean, but he guarded him,? 
i.e., he did not abandon him, but took care that no harm happened to him : 
‘‘ custodiebat eum,” Vulg. Comp. Jansen, Hammond, Bengel, who perti- 
nently adds by way of explanation: ‘‘ contra Herodiadem,” ‘‘ against Hero- 
dias ;”’ and also Bleek. According to Ewald, it is: ‘‘ he gave heed to him.” 
Comp. Ecclus. iv. 20, xxvii. 12. But this thought is contained already in 
what precedes and in what follows. The compound strengthens the idea 
of the simple verb, designating its action as entire and undivided. — dxot- 
cac] when he had heard him. Observe afterwards the emphasis of 7déu¢ 
(and gladly he heard him).— odd éroie:] namely, which he had heard from 
John. Very characteristic is the reading : w. 77épe, which has the strong- 
est internal probability of being genuine, although only attested by B L ¥&, 
Copt.?— We may add that all the imperfects apply to the time of the im- 
prisonment, and are not to be taken as pluperfects (Grotius, Bolten). The 
jxove took place when Herod was actually present (as was now the case ; 
see on Matt. xiv. 10 f.) in Machaerus ; it is possible also that he had him 
sent for now and then to his seat at Tiberias. But in any case the expres- 
sions of Mark point to a longer period of imprisonment than Wiescler, 
p. 297, assumes.—Ver. 21. #uépac ebxacpov] evxaipoc, in reference to time, means 
nothing else than at the right time, hence : a rightly-timed, fitting, appropri- 
ate day.4 Mark makes use of this predicate, having before his mind 
the purpose of Herodias, ver. 19, which hitherto had not been able 
to find any fitting point of time for its execution on account of the 
tetrarch’s relation to John.* Grotius well says: ‘‘ opportuna insidiatrici, 


1 Comp. 1 Macc. Ix. 58; Thuc. fif. 84; Plut. 
Mor. p. 162 B; Plat. Leg. ix. 864 E: ew 
Snpocig Seouy bedeis. 

2 Matt. Ix. 17; Luke v. 38; Tob. ffi. 15; 2 
Macc. xii. 42; Polyb. iv. 60. 10; Herodian, 
ff. 1. 11. 

2Comp. Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1860, p. 349. Itis to be explained: he was 
perplered about many things; what he 
heard from John was so heart-searching 


and so closely touched him. On azopety rt 
as equivalent to mepi rivos, seo Kriiger on 
Thuc. v. 40. 8; Heindorf, ad Plat. Crat. 
p. 409 D. 

4 Beza, Grotius, Jansen, Fritzsche, de 
Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and many others. 
Comp. Heb. iv. 16; Ps. civ. 27; 2 Macc. xiv. 
29; Soph. O. C. 82; Herodian, i. 4. 7, 1 9. 
15, v. 8. 16; and see Plat. Def. p. 418 C. 

6 The appropriateness of the day is then 


8 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


quae vino, amore et adulatorum conspiratione facile sperabat impelli 
posse nutantem mariti animum,” ‘‘opportune for the insidious woman, 
who hoped through wine, lust, and the concurrence of sycophants 
to be able easily to overcome the wavering mind of. her husband.” 
Others (Hammond, Wolf, Paulus, Kuinoel) have explained it contrary 
to linguistic usage as: dies festious (110 DY). At the most, according 
to a later use of eixaipeiv (Phrynich. p. 125 ; comp. below, ver. 31), #uépa 
etxatpoc might mean : a day, on which one has convenient time, i.¢., a leisure 
day,’ which, however, in the connection would be inappropriate, and very 
different from the idea of a dies festivus. — On peyiravec, magnates, a word 
in current use from the Macedonian period.* — xai roi¢ mpwrorg r#¢ TaA.] The 
first two were the chief men of the civil and military service of the tefrarch. 
Moreover, the principal men of Galilee, people who were not in his service 
(‘status provinciales,” ‘‘ provincial estates,” Bengel), were called in. — 
Ver. 22. airi¢ ri¢ ‘Hpwd.)] of Herodias herself. The king was to be capti- 
vated with all the greater certainty by Herodias’ own daughter ; another 
danccr would not have made the same impression upon him. [See Note 
XXXVIII., p. 83.] — Ver. 23. tue guicove x.7.2.] In accordance with Esth. 
v. 38. See in general, Késter, Erldéut. p. 194. It is thus that the unprinci- 
pled man, carried away by fecling, promises. The contracted form of the 
genitive belongs to the later manner of writing. Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 347. The article was not requisite. Heindorf, ad Phaed. p. 176. — Ver. 
25. Observe the pertness of the wanton damsel. As to dédw iva (x. 85: I 
will that thou shouldst, etc.), see on Luke vi. 31. — Ver. 26. mepidvroc] on 
account of what was observed at ver. 20. —did rove bpxove x. Tr. ovvavan. } 
emphatically put first, as the determining motive. —abriv avetica] eam 
repudiare. Examples of avereiv, referred to persons (comp. Heliod. vii. 26: 
eig dpxove averovuat), May be seen in Kypke, I. p. 167 f. The use of the 
word in general belongs to the later Greek. Frequent in Polybius. — Ver. 
27. omexovAdrwpa] a watcher, i.e., one of his body-guard. On them also 
devolved the execution of capital punishment.* The Latin word (not 
spiculator, from their being armed with the spiculum, as Beza and many 
others hold) is also adopted into the Hebrew Tw 7ppD.* The spelling ongxov- 
2aropa (Lachm. Tisch.) has decisive attestation. 

Vv. 30-44. See on Matt. xiv. 18-21. Comp. Luke ix. 10-17. The latter, 
but not Matthew, follows Mark also in connecting it with what goes before; 
Matthew in dealing with it abridges very much, still more than Luke. On 
the connection of the narrative in Matthew, which altogether deviates from 
Mark, see on Matt. xiv. 18. Mark has filled up the gap, which presented 
itself in the continuity of the history by the absence of the disciples who 
were sent forth, with the episode of the death of John, and now makes the 


stated in detall by ore ‘Hpawéys «.7.A. Hence  p. 182; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 197. 
I do not deem it fitting to write, with Lach- 3 Seneca, de ira, i. 16, benef. lil. B, al.; 


mann (comp. his Prolegom. p. xiiil ), 6, re. Wetstein in doc. 
1 Comp. eixaipws éxev, to be at lelsure, 4 See Lightfoot and Schoettgen., also Bux- 
Polyh. v. 26. 10, al., evxatpia, leisure. torf, Lex. Talim. p. 1583. 


2 See Kypke, I. p. 167; Sturz, Dial. Mae. 


CHAP. VI., 30-44. 79 


disciples return, for whom, after the performance and report of their work, 

Jesus has contemplated some rest in privacy, but is hampered as to this by 
the thronging crowd. — aréaroAo] only used here in Mark, but ‘‘apta huic 
loco appellatio,” ‘‘ an apt appellation for this passage,” Bengel. — ovvéyorraz] 
returning from their mission, ver. 7. — révra] What? is told by the follow- 
ing wai. . . wai: aswell. . . as also, — Ver. 31. tpeic abroi] cos ipsi,’ ye for 
yourselces, ye for your own persons, without the attendance of the people. 

Comp. on Rom. vii. 25. See the following goav yap x.7.A. — xai ovdé gayeiv] 
Comp. ii. 2, iii. 20. — Ver. 88. And many saw them depart and perceived it, 

namely, what was the object in this jrdyew, whither the iréyovrec wished 
to go (vv. 31, 32), so that thereby the intention of remaining alone was 
thwarted. oAJoi is the subject of both verbs. — re¢g] emphatically prefized. 

They came partly round the lake, partly from its sides, by land. — éxei] 

namely, to the ipzyoc réroc, whither Jesus with the disciples directed His 
course. —mpoq7Adov avrobc| they anticipated them. Comp. Luke xxii. 47. 

Not so used among the Greeks, with whom, nevertheless, gddvew rivé 
(Valck. ad Eur. Phoen. 982), and even rpoveiv teva (Ael. WN. A. vii. 26 ; 
Oppian. Jial. iv. 431) is analogously used. — Ver. 34. éeAddv] not as in 
Matt. xiv. 14, but from the ship, as is required by the previous rpo7AVov atrobe. 

In ver. 32 there was not as yct reported the arrical at the retired place, but 
the direction of the course thither. — jpéavo] His sympathy outweighed the 
intention, under which He had repaired with the disciples to this place, 

and He began to teach. — Ver. 85 ff. xai 767 Gpag roAA. yevou.] and when much 
of the day-time had already passcd (comp. subsequently : xai 467 dpa roAAf), . 
that is, when the day-time was already far advanced, rip pac tyévero opé, 

Dem. 541 pen. foAtc, according to very frequent usage, applied to time.* — 
2éyovorv] more exactly in John vi. 7. — dyvap. dtaxoc.] Comp. John vi. 7, by 
whom this trait of the history, passed over by Matthew and Luke, not a 
mere addition of Mark (Bleck, Hilgenfeld) is confirmed. That the contents 
of the treasure-chest consisted exactly of two hundred denarii (Grotius and 
others) is not clear from the text. The disciples, on an approximate hasty 
estimate, certainly much too small (amounting to about £7, 18s., and con- 
sequently not quite one-third of s penny per man) specify a sum as that 
which would be required. It is otherwise at John vi. 7. Morcover, the an- 
swer of the disciples bears the stamp of a certain irritated surprise at the 
suggestion dére avroi¢ x.7.A.,—a giving, however, which was afterwards to 
be realized, ver. 41.—With the reading dwoouev, ver. 37 (see the critical re- 
marks), the note of interrogation is to be placed, with Lachmann, after 
dprovc, so that xai is then the consecutive ; and so shall we, etc. The reading 
areAdévrec on to gayeiv together without interrogation (Ewald, Tischendorf), 

is less in keeping with the whole very vivid coloring, which in vv. 87-40 
exhibits a very circumstantial graphic representation, but not a paraphrase 
(Weiss).—Ver. 89 f. cvpréca ovurdéora} Accusativces: after the fashion of a meal, 


1 Stallb. ad Flat. Phaed. p.68C; Kihner, dxpe wodAdAis Spas; Polyb. v. 8. 8; Joseph. 
§ 630, A 8. Anté, viil. 4. 3. 
2 Comp. Dion. Hal. iL 54: éudyorro . 


80 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


so that the whole were distributed into companies for the meal. The distribu- 
tive designation, as also mpacia? mpaciai (areolatim, so that they were arranged 
like beds in the garden), is a Hebraism, as at ver. 7. The individual divi- 
sions consisted partly of a hundred, partly of fifty (not 150, Heupel, Wet- 
stein). — yAwp@] Mark depicts ; it was spring (John vi. 4). — ebAdynoe] refers 
to the prayer at a meal. It is otherwise in Luke. See on Matt. xiv. 19. — 
Ver. 41. xat r. dbo ixd.] also the two fishes. — iuépice aor] namely, by means 
of the apostles, as with the loaves, — Ver. 43. And they took up of frag- 
ments twelve full baskets, in which, however, xAacyzdtrwy is emphatically pre- 
jfized. Yet probably Mark wrote xAdoyara dddexa xogivuy tAnpduata (80 
Tischendorf), which, indeed, is only attested fully by B [so Treg. marg., 
W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] and incompletely by L, A, min. (which read 
xogivovc), a8 well as by &, which has x2acuérwr ddd. xogivey mAnpduare [Tisch. 
VIII.], but was very easily subjected to gloss and alteration from the five par- 
allel passages. This reading is to be explained : and they took up as frag- 
ments fillings of twelve baskets, i.e., they took upin fragments twelve baskets 
full. — xat avd r. iy6.] also of the fishes, that it might not be thought that the 
xAdouara had been merely fragments of bread. Fritzsche without probabil- 
ity goes beyond the twelve baskets, and imports the idea: ‘‘ and further in: 
addition some remnants of the fishes,” so that ri is supplied (so also Grotius 
and Bleck).—Why ver. 44 should have been copied, not from Mark, but 
from Matt. xiv. 21 (Holtzmann), it is not easy to see. — rove dprovg] These 
had been the principal food (comp. ver. 52) ; to their number corresponded 
also that of those who were satisfied. 

Vv. 45-56. Comp. on Matt. xiv. 22-36. The latter abridges indeed, but 
adds, probably from a tradition’ not known to Mark, the intervening scene 
xiv. 28-31. The conclusion has remained peculiar to Mark. — #vdyxace 
x.7.A] remaining behind alone, He could the more easily withdraw Himself 
unobserved from the people. — rd rAoiov] the ship, in which they had come. 
Brfcaidav] The place on the western coast of the lake, in Galilee, is meant, 
Matt. xi. 21. See ver. 53, viii. 22 ; John vi.17. In opposition to Wieseler 
and Lange, who understand the eastern Bethsaida, sce on Matt. xiv. 22, 
Remark. [See Note XL., p. 83.] As to the relation of this statement to 
Luke ix. 10, see in loc. — azote: (see the critical remarks) is to be explained 
from the peculiarity of the Greek in introducing in the direct mode of ex- 
pression in oblique discourse, by which means the representation gains in 
liveliness.* — aroragfdu. avroic] after He had taken leave of them (of the people), 
an expression of later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 24 ; Wetstcin in 
loc. — Ver. 48. A point is to be placed, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, 
after 6aAdconc, and then a colon after atrofe ; but Fv yap 6 dvep. évavr. adr. is 


1 According to Hilgenfeld, Mark pur- 
posely suppressed the incident under the 
influence of a Petrine tendency, because 
Peter had shown weakness of faith. In 
this case he would have been inconsistent 
enough in narratives such as at vill. 88. 
Weizsdcker rightly recognizes in Matt. J.c. 


the later representation, which, however, 
is merely a further embellishment not be- 
longing to history. [See Note XXXIX., 
p. 83.] 

2See Kfihner, IT. p. 8% f., and ad Xen- 
Anabd, i. 3.14; Bernhardy, p. 889. 


CHAP. VI., 45-56. §1 


a parenthesis. When He had seen them in distress (idév, see the critical re- 
marks), this induced Him about the fourth watch of the night to come to 
them walking on the sea (not upon its shore). His purpose therein was to 
help them (ver. 51) ; but the initiative in this matter was to come from the 
side of the disciples ; therefore He wished to pass by before the ship, in 
order to be observed by them (ver. 49). — epi rerdpr. gvdAax.] The diffi- 
culties suggested by the lateness of the time at which they were still sail- 
ing, after having already owiac yevouévy¢ reached the middle of the lake 
(Strauss, B. Bauer), are quite explained by the violence of the contrary 
wind.’ — rapeAYeiv avrotc] The Vulgate rightly has : praeterire eos (Hom. JI. 
viii. 239 ; Plat. Ale. i. 128 B), not: ‘‘to come over (the lake) to them,” 
Ewald (yet comp. his Gesch. Chr. p. 365). This is at variance with the 
New Testament usage, although poets (as Eur. Med, 1137, 1275) join sapép- 
yveo8a, to come to any one, with the accusative ; moreover, after épyeras 
apog avrobe the remark would be superfluous. It might mean: He wished 
to overtake them,’ but the primary and most usual meaning is quite appropri- 
ate. — Ver. 51. éx wepsocov| is further strengthened by Aiav : very much above 
all measure.’ — év éavroic}] in their own hearts, without giving vent to their 
feelings in utterances, as af iv. 14.—évatualov] The imperfect denotes 
(comp. Acts ii. 7) the continuance of the feeling after the first amazement. 
—Ver. 52. yép] for they attained not to understanding in the matter of the 
loaves (on occasion of that marvellous feeding with bread, ver. 41 ff.); 
otherwise they would, by virtue of the insight acquired on occasion of that 
work of Christ, have known how to judge correctly of the present new 
miracle, in which the same divine power had operated through Him, ‘and they 
would not have fallen into such boundless surprise and astonishment. 
Bengel says correctly : ‘‘ Debuerant a pane ad mare concludere,” ‘‘ They 
ought to have concluded from bread to sca.” De Wette unjustly describes 
it as ‘‘an observation belonging to the craving for miracles ;” and Hilgenfeld 
arbitrarily, as ‘‘a foil” to glorify the confession of Peter. — qv yap x.1.A.]} 
informs us of the internal reason of their not attaining insight in the matter 
of the loaves ; their heart, 7.¢., the seat of their internal vital activity 
(Beck, Seelenlehre, p. 67 ; Delitzsch, Psych. p. 248 ff.), was withal in a state 
- of hardening, wherein they were as to mind and disposition obtuse and in- 
accessible to the higher knowledge and its practically determining influ- 
ence. Comp. viii 7.— Ver. 58. d:arepdo.] points back to ver. 45. — én? r. 
yiv Tevvnc.)] not : into the country, but unto the country of Gennesareth ; 


1Comp. Ebrard, p. 892; Robinson, Pal. 
IIL. p. 587, 572. 

§ Antevertere, see Hom. Od. vill. 230; 
Sturz, Lez. Xen. Ill. p. 458; Ameis and 
Négelsbach on Hom. J. i. 182. 

Comp. Aiay ayay (Meineke, Menand. 
p. 152), and simflar expressions (Lobeck, Pa- 
ralip. p. 62), also Aiay BéAriora, Plat. Zryz. 
p. 393 E. 

4 Mark therefore regarded the walking 
on the sea quite difforently from Lange, 


6 


L. J. TI. p. 287 f., for this latter finds the 
pith of the miracle in the complete divine 
equanimity of the mind of Jesus, and in 
respect of that even says: ‘“‘the dog falls 
into the water and swims, but the man 
falls into it and is drowned," namely, by 
his alarm, instead of poising himself amidst 
the waves in the triumphant equanimity of 
his mind. This is an extravagance of natu- 
ralizing. 


82 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


for the landing (mpocwpyiod.) and disembarking does not follow till afterwards 
[See Note XLI., p. 84.] —Ver. 55. repsdpaudvrec] in order to fetch the sick. 
— ip&ato] belongs to the description of the quick result. Immediately they 
knew Him, they ran round about and began, etc. — repiptpery] is not inap- 
propriate (Fritzsche), which would only be the case, if it were necessary to 
suppose that the individual sick man had been carried about. But it is to 
be understood summarily of the sick ; these were carried about—one hither, 
another thither, wherever Jesus was at the time (comp. ver. 56).—Hence 
érov FKovov, ore éxei Eore Cannot mean : from all the places, at which (iov) they 
heard that He was there (in the region of Gennesareth), but both érov and 
éxei, although we may not blend them after the analogy of the Hebrew 
DW-We into the simple vdi (Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, and many others) 
must denote the (changing, see ver. 56) abode of Jesus. They brought the 
sick round about to the places at which they were told that He was to be found 
there. We may conccive that the people before going forth with their sick 
first made inquiry in the surrounding places, whether Jesus is there. 
Wherever on this inquiry they hear that He is present, thither they bring 
the sick.—Ver. 56. cig xdu. 7 wéAecc¢] therefore not merely limiting Himself 
to the small district of Gennesareth, where He had landed. The following 
év Taig ayopaic, however, is not in keeping with aypéc (country-places). A 
want of precision, which has suggested the reading év raic¢ rAareaic in D, 
Vulg. It. The expression is zeugmatic. — xay rod xpaor. x.t.A.] comp. V. 
28. As to the mode of expression, see Acts v. 15 ; 2 Cor. xi. 16. — dca av 
qmrovto| all whosoerer, in the several cases. Comp. above : érov ay eicero- 
petero.' [See Note XLII., p. 84.]— éodlovro] analogously to the case of the 
woman with an issue of blood, vv. 29, 30, yet not independent of the know]l- 
edge and will of Jesus. And airov refers to Jesus, no matter where they 
touched Him. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror, 


XXXII. Ver. 2. al duvdyecc rovavrat . . . ytvopuevat ; 


The variations are very numerous. Meyer seems to retain avrw against the 
strangely attested rovrw. The above reading is sustained by &* B 33, Copt., 
and in some details by other weighty authorities. It is accepted by Weiss ed. 
Mey. The others have been derived from it (against Tischendorf). TheR. V. 
renders the latter part of the verse correctly : ‘What is the wisdom that is 
given unto this man, and what mean such mighty works wrought by his hands?” 
This differs from the punctuation of Meyer. The last clause is strictly an ex- 
clamatory sentence. 


XXXIV. Ver. 8. et 4} JaBdov pdvor. 


These words intimate the permission to take the staff usual in walking a long 
distance. That the probibition in Matthew and Luke excludes this is by 
no means so clear as to make it an instance of ‘‘ exaggeration.’’ The use 


1 See Hermann, de part. ay, p. 2 ff. ; Klotz, ad Derar. p. 145; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 186 f. 
[E. T. 216}. ' 


4 


NOTES. 83 


of et py in the N. T. is elliptical, and not strictly exceptive. The same 
elliptical form occurs in Aramexan. ‘‘ This saying of Jesus might therefore be 
reproduced in Greek either in one way or the other. But in ro case could 
these opposite forms be explained on the hypothesis of a common written 
Greek source” (Godet, Luke, p. 254, Am. ed.). 


XXXV. Ver. 14. 6 Barrifur. 


The R. V. margin has : Greek, the Baptizer. In ver. 24 the same expression 
occurs, but the margin of ver. 25 (R. V.) is a typographical error, made by the 
printer afterthe R. V. had passed out of the hands of the American Committee. 
Meyer's explanation of the use of the term is fanciful. In ver. 24 the daughter 
of Herodias uses it, and in ver. 25 not. 


XXXVI. Ver. 16. ovrd¢ Hyép6y. 


This briefer reading is decisively attested. Meyer’s explanation must be 
modified accordingly: ‘‘This one (emphatic ‘he,’ R. V.) is risen ;’’ so Weiss 
ed. Mey. 


XXXVI. Ver. 19. #6cAev abrdv amoxreivac. 


The account of Mark, with its more exact details, cannot be proven at variance 
with that of Matthew. Meyer says it ‘‘ betrays a later shape of the tradition ;”’ 
Weiss ed. Mey. denies this, rightly finding in the expression of Matt.xiv. 9 
(‘the king was grieved’’) the presupposition of the same state of things. To 
admit a working over of the narrative is to deny the originality of one of 
the most remarkable psychological pictures in the Gospel narratives. Nowhere 
does the real Herod appear so clearly. 


XXXVIII. Ver. 22. atrij¢ tii¢ Hpwdidduc. 


The reading avrov, which would give the sense: ‘‘his daughter Herodias ” 
(B. V. marg.), has good support, but is probably a mechanical repetition from 
ver. 21. Weiss ed. Mey. rightly objects to it, as contrary to history, to the 
context, and to grammar, ‘‘since a proper noun that has a definition of office or 
kindred added to it, stands without an article.’’ This is one of the rare cases 
where five of the most weighty uncials attest a reading that seems impossible. 


XXXIX. Vv. 45-56. 


Weiss ed. Mey. omits the clause: ‘‘ which, however, is merely a further 
embellishment not belonging to history.” Such remarks areas unwarranted as 
the supposition of a suppression “‘ under the influence of a Petrine tendency."’ 
Whether Mark knew of the incident or not, is a matter that lies beyond our 
knowledge as well as outside of exegetical discussion. 


XL. Ver. 45. 


It is very doubtful whether there was a Western Bethsaida ; see on viii. 22, 
the only other instance in which Mark mentions the name. 


84 THE GOSPEL OF MARK, 


XLI. Ver, 53. éni riv yi 7A9ov etc Tevynoapér. 


Meyer takes no notice of this reading, which is attested by ®& BL A, accepted 
by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss. So R. V.: ‘‘they came to the land unto Gen- 
nesaret,” with the more exact marginal rendering : ‘‘ crossed over to the land, 
they came unto Gennesgaret.” So Weiss ed. Mey. 


XLII. Ver. 56. d002 dv Hpavro. 


The aorist is decisively attested, and yields an excellent sense, placing the 
emphasis more directly upon the single cases whenever they occurred. The 
imperfects throughout sum up these as repeated actions. The delicacy of 
Mark’s expression was not understood by the transcribers, 


CHAP. VII. 85 


CHAPTER VII. 


Ver. 2. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® BL A, 33, read Src . . . éofi- 
ovory, instead of éofiovrac.] — dprovg] Lachm. and Tisch. read rode dprove, fol- 
lowing B D L A, min. Rightly ; the article was passed over, because it was 
regarded as superfluous, The reading dprov (Fritzsche) has in its favor only 8, 
min. and vss., and is from Matt. xv. 2. — After dprove Elz. and Fritzsche have 
éuéuwavto, which, however, is absent from witnesses so important, that it must 
be regarded as an addition ; instead of it D has xaréyvwoav. —[Ver. 4. See Note 
XLV., p. 94.] Treg., Weiss, R. V. marg., retain xa? xA:vdv, omitted by Tisch., 
W, and Hort, R. V. text, with & BL A, Copt.] — Ver. 5. éxe:ra] BDL ®, min. 
Syr. Copt. Vulg. It. have xai (A has érecta xai). Recommended by Griesb., and 
adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; érecra was written on the 
margin on account of the construction, and then displaced the xai. — xocvai¢] 
Elz. Scholz have avirrocg, in opposition to B D &, min. vss. An interpretation. 
— Ver. 8. yap] is wanting in B D L A ®, min, Copt. Arm. It. Goth. Lachm. 
Tisch. A connecting addition. — Samriopotc . . . woeire is wanting in BLA 
®, min. Copt. Arm. There are many variations in detail. Bracketed by 
Lachm. ed. min. [Treg.], deleted by Fritzsche, and now also by Tisch. [W. and 
Hort. Weiss, R. V.]. Rightly restored again by Lachm. ed. maj. For, if it were 
an interpolation from vv. 4 and 13, there would be inserted, as at ver. 4, worn- 
piav xai feordv, and, as in ver. 13, not dAAa; moreover, an interpolator would 
certainly not have forgotten the washing of hands. The explanatory comment of 
Mark, vv. 3, 4, tells precisely in favor of the genuineness, for the joint-mention 
of the rornpiwy «x. EecrHy in that place has its reason in these words of Jesus, 
ver. 8. And why should there have been an interpolation, since the reproach 
of the Pharisees did not at all concern the pitchers and cups? This apparent 
inappropriateness of the words, however, as well as in general their descrip- 
tive character, strikingly contrasting with the conciseness of the context, might 
have occasioned their omission, which was furthered and rendered more wide- 
spread by the circumstance that a church-lesson concluded with av6pdrwv. — 
Ver. 12. xai] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.], following 
BD &, min. Copt. Cant. Ver. Vere. Corb. Vind. Colb. Omitted as confusing, 
because the apodosis was found here. — Ver. 14. rdvra] BD L A &, Syr. p. (in 
the margin) Copt. Aeth. Sax. Valg. It. have réAcv. Recommended by Griesb., 
adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Rightly ; «édvra was written in the mar- 
gin on account of the following zdvrec, and the more easily supplanted the 
xéduv, because the latter finds no definite reference in what has preceded. — 
Instead of dxovere and ovviere, Lachm. and Tisch. have dxovcare and ovvere, fol- 
lowing BD HLA. The Recepia is from Matt. xv. 10. — Ver. 15. The reading 
TG éx Tot avApurov éxrropevduera (Lachm. Tisch.) has in its favor B DL A ¥&, 33, 
Copt. Goth. Aeth. Pers. p. Vulg. It. The Recepta ra ixrop. dx’ abrov appears to 
have originated from the copyist, in the case of the above reading, passing over 
from the first éx to the second (éx7op.). Thus came the reading ra éxropevopmeva, 


86 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


which is still found in min. Then, after the analogy of the preceding ei¢ atrév, 
in some cases a7’ atrov, in others é£ atrod (min. Fritzsche) was supplied. — Ver. 
16 is wanting in BL &, min, Copt. Suspected by Mill and Fritzsche as an in- 
terpolation at the conclusion of the church-lesson ; deleted by Tisch. But the 
witnesses on behalf of the omission, in the absence of internal reasons which 
might occasion an interpolation (in accordance with iv. 23; comp., on the 
other hand, Matt. xv. 11), are too weak. [Bracketed by Treg., deleted by W. and 
Hort, Weiss, omitted in text of R. V.]— Ver. 17. repi ri¢ wapaB.] BD LA &, 
min. It, Vulg. have r7v rapaBoAyy. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche 
Lachm. Tisch. The Recepia is a gloss. — Ver. 19. xa6apifiov] ABEFGHLS 
X A &, min. Or. Chrys, have xa$apif{wv (D: xarapifer), So Lachm. and Tisch. 
Not a transcriber’s error, but correct (see the exegetical remarks), and needlessly 
emended by the nenter. — [Ver. 21, 22. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B 
L A, Copt., have the order : ropveiat, xAorai, dévot, potyeiat.] -— Ver. 24. pefdpia) 
Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors] have épra, following B D L A 8, min. Or. 
But pefdpia does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and was supplanted by the 
current dp:a (comp. Matt. xv. 22), — xai Ecddévoc] is wanting in D L A 28, Cant. 
Ver. Vere. Corb. Vind. Or. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and 
Tisch., comp. Ewald. Rightly ; the familiarity of the collocation ‘‘ Tyre and 
Sidon” and Matt. xv. 21 have introduced the xai Sidavoc, which also came in at 
ver. 31, and there supplanted the original reading 7A6¢e dia Eedvog (approved by 
Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in conformity with B DLA X&, 
33, Arr. Copt. Aeth. Syr. hier. Vulg. Sax. It.), and changed it into the Recepia 
xai Lida@voc 7Afev. [Recent editors agree with Meyer as to the reading in ver. 31, 
but Treg., R. V. (text) retain the longer form in ver. 24; W. and Hort bracket 
it.] — Ver. 25. axovcaca yap yovy] Tisch. has 444’ eb8d¢ dxotcaca yuv7, following 
BLA 8, 33, vss. The witnesses are very much divided (D: yur? d2 ebBéwe oc 
axoteaca) ; but the reading of Tisch. is, considering this division, sufficiently 
attested, and in keeping with the character of Mark ; it is therefore to be pre- 
ferred. — Ver. 26. Instead of éx§4Ay (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) Elz. has . 
éxBaAAy. The evidence for the aorist is not decisive, and the present is in 
keeping with Mark’s manner. [A B D § and many others read the aorist, ac- 
cepted by recent editors, R. V.]— Ver. 27. Instead of 6 62 Incove elxev Lachm. 
and Tisch. have xa? éAeyev, following B L A &, 33, Copt. Cant. (D has xai Aéyet ; 
Vulg. : quidizit), The Recepia is an alteration arising from comparison of Matt. 
xv. 26. — Ver. 28. éofiec] Lachm. and Tisch. have écfiovorv, following B DLA 
®, min. The Recepta is from Matthew. — Ver. 30. Lachm. and Tisch have 
ndopted the transposition : 7d ra:diov 3eGAnuévov (instead of tiv Ovyar. BeBAn- 
Hbvny) ext tiv KAivnv x. 7d daisy. teAnavOéc, following B DL A 8, min. vss. (yet 
with variations in detail). The Recepta is to be retained ; the above transposi- 
tion is to be explained by the fact that the transcriber passed over from the «az 
after éfeAnAvGé¢ immediately to the xai in ver. 31. Thus kai ri Ovyar. down to 
K2ivgc was omitted, and afterwards restored at the wrong, but apparently more 
suitable place, From the circumstance that Ovy.. . . xAivng. and not 76 daiudy, 
éfeAn., is the clause omitted and restored, may be explained the fact that all 
the variations in detail are found not in the latter, but in the former words. 
[Recent editors, HK. V., agree with Tisch.] — Ver. 31. See on ver. 24. — As in iii. 
7, 80 also here, instead of zpéc we must read, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm., 
following evidence of considerable weight, etc. — Ver. 32. After xugév Lachm. 


CHAP. VII., 1-16. 84 
and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have xai, following B D A &, vss. A connect- 
ing addition. — Ver. 35. etféwe] is wanting in B D &, min. vss. Deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the more frequent in Mark, and the more appro- 
priate it is in this place, the more difficult it was of omission, and the easier of 
addition ; here also in a different order. [Tisch. VIII. inserts eiGv¢ before éAvOn 
(so Weiss), but Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., omit altogether. ] — Instead of dinvol- 
X9noav Lachm. and Tisch. have #voiyncav, following BD A &, 1 (L has Avoty67. 
cav), The Recepia arose from the previous dravolyGintt. — Ver. 36. adréc] is 
wanting in A BL X A &, min. Vulg. Lachm. Tisch. ; but superfluous as it is in 
itself, how easily it was absorbed by the following airoic! [The evidence seems 
decisive against it ; deleted by recent editors, R. V.]—- Before paAdov Lachm. 
and Tisch. have airol, following B D LA &, min. Copt. Goth. Syr. Arm. To 
be adopted ; correlative to the airoc, but passed over, as not being recognized 
in this reference and so regarded as superfluous. — [Ver. 37. Tisch., recent ed- 
itors, R. V., & BL A, 33, omit rove before aAdiouc. } 


Vv. 1-16. See on Matt. xv. 1-11. The occasion of the discussion, only 
hinted at in Matt. ver. 2, is expressly narrated by Mark in vv. 1, 2, and 
with a detailed explanation of the matter, vv. 8, 4. Throughout the sec- 
tion Matthew has abridgments, transpositions, and alterations (in opposition 
to Hilgenfeld and Weiss). [See Note XLIII., p. 94.]—ovvdyovra] is 
simply : there come together, there assemble themselves (ii. 2, iv. 1, v. 21, vi. 
30). The suggestion of a procedure of the synagogue (Lange), or of a formal 
deputation (Weizsicker), is purely gratuitous. — éASévrec] applies to both ; 
on the notice itself, comp. ili. 22. — With the reading xai érepwriou, ver. 5 
(see the critical remarks), a full stop is not to be placed after ver. 1, as by 
Lachmann and Tischendorf, but the participial construction, begun with 
éAdévrec, runs on easily and simply as far as dprovc, where a period is to be 
inserted. Then follows the explanatory remark, vv. 3, 4, which does not 
interrupt the construction, and therefore is not, as usually, to be placed in 
& parenthesis. But with xa? érepwrdow in ver. 5, a new sentence begins, 
which continues the narrative. [So, substantially, W. and Hort., R. V.]— 
idévrec] not in Jerusalem (Lange), but on their present arrival, when this 
gave them a welcome pretext for calling Jesus to account. — rovr’ gory avin- 
to¢] Mark explains for his Gentile readers (for whom also the explanation 
that follows was regarded by him as necessary) in what sense the xo.vai¢ is 
meant. Valckenacr, Wassenbergh, and Fritzsche without ground, and 
against all the evidence, have declared the words a gloss.’ See, on the 
other hand, Bornemann, Schol, in Luc. p. xl. The avirrog? stands in con- 
trast with the prescribed washing. Theophylact well says: avirro xepalv 
ioSiov arepitpywe xai adxAdc, ‘‘ with unwashen hands they were eating unaf- 
fectedly and simply.”— Ver. 8. rdvre¢ of 'Iovd.] A more popular expression 
—not to be strained—indicating the general diffusion of the Pharisaic 
maxims among the people. —rvyyui] Vulg. : erebro (after which Luther : 
auanchmal) ; Gothic: ufta (often); Syr.: diligenter*—translations of an 


1 Wilke holds the entire passage, vv. 2-4, 9 Hom. Ji. vil. 266; Hesiod, Op. 725; Lu- 
as well as «ai... roveire, ver. 18,to be a clan. Rhet. praec. 14. 
later interpolation. 3 Some Codd. of the It. have pugtilo, some 


88 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


ancient reading mvxvd (as in &) or ruxvdc (heartily), which is not, with 
Schulz and Tischendorf (comp. Ewald), to be regarded as original, but as 
an emendation (comp. Luke v. 88), as indeed rvyzj@ itself cannot be made 
to bear the meaning of svxvd (in opposition to Casaubon). The only true 
explanation is the instrumental one ; so that they place the closed fist in the 
hollow of the hand, rub and roll the former in the latter, and in this manncr 
wash their hands (vivwvra:) with the fist. Comp. Beza, Fritzsche. Similar- 
ly Scaliger, Grotius, Calovius, and others, except that they represent the 
matter as if the text were muyujv . . . taicg yepoi. The explanations: péxpe 
tov ayxavoc, ‘‘up to the elbow” (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), and : 
“‘un to the wrist” (Lightfoot, Bengel), correspond neither with the case nor 
with the signification of the word. Finally, had some peculiar ritual form 
of washing been meant (‘‘in which they take the one fist full of water, and 
so pour it over the other hand held up, that it runs off tovards thearm”),' Mark 
would with the mere rvyz9 have expressed himself as unintelligibly as pos- 
sible, and a ritual reference so precise would certainly have needed an ex- 
planatory remark for his Gentile readers. [Sce Note XLIV., p. 94.]— 
Ver. 4. xai awd ayopac] The addition in D, éav éAdwor, Is a correct interpre- 
tation : from market (when they come from the market) they eat not. A 
pregnant form of expression, which is frequent also in classical writers.? In 
this case éav py farric. is not to be understood of washing the hands (Light- 
foot, Wetstein), but of immersion, which the word in classic Greek and in 
the N. T. everywhere denotes, i.e., in this case, according to the context : 
to take a bath.*? [Sce Note XLV., p. 94.] Having come from market, where 
they may have contracted pollution through contact with the crowd, they 
eat not, without having first bathed. The statement proceeds by way of cli- 
maz, before eating they observe the washing of hands alrays, but the 
bathing, when they come from market and wish to eat. Accordingly it is 
obvious that the interpretation of Paulus :‘‘‘they eat not what has been 
bought from the market, without having washed it,” is erroneous both in lin- 
guistic usage (active immersion is always Sarrisev, not Barrifeoda:) and in 
respect of the sense, to which the notion of special strictness would have 
required to be mentally supplied. — Barriouni¢| is likewise to be understood 
of the cleansing of things ceremonially impure, which might be effected 
partly by immersion, partly (xAwav) by mere sprinkling; so that Barriou. 
applies by way of zeugma to all the four cases. — By the cups and jugs are 
meant vessels of wood, for mention of the copper ressels (yaAxiwv) follows, and 
earthen vessels, when they were ceremonially defiled, were broken into pieces 
(Lev. xv. 12).°— xAcvén] not couches in general (de Wette), for the whole con- 
text refers to cating ; but couches for meals, triclinia,° which were rendered 


primo, some momento, some crebro, some 2So also Luke xi. 38. Comp. Ecclas. 





subinde. Aeth. agrees with Syr.; and Copt. 
Syr. p. with Vulgate. 

1 Paulus; comp. Drusius. Cameron, 
Schoettgen, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller. 

2Sce Kypke and Loesner; Winer, Gr. 
p 547 [E. T. 621]; Fritzsche in loc. 


xxxi. 25; Judith xii. 7. 

“ Kuinoel, Olshausen, Lange, Bleek. 

’Sce Kell, Archdol. I. § 56; Saalschfitz, 
Bos. Recht, 1. p. 289. 

®iy. 21; Luke vill. 16; Xen. Cyr. vili. 2. 
6; Herod. ix. 16. 


CHAP, VII., 17~23. 89 


unclean by persons affected with hacmorrhage, leprosy, and the like (Light- 
foot, p. 620 f.). [Sce critical note.] — Ver. 5. With xai érepwr. & new sen- 
tence begins. See above on vv. 1, 2.— Ver. 6. Mark has not the counter- 
question recorded in Matt. xv. 3, and he gives the two portions of Christ’s 
answer in inverted order, so that with him the leading thought precedes, 
while with Matthew it follows. This order of itself, as well as the ironical 
xadae prefixed to both portions, indicates the form in Mark as the more 
original. Comp. Weizsiicker, p. 76. The order in Matthew betrays the set 
purpose of placing the law before the prophets. The agreement of the quo- 
tation from Isa. xxix. 13 with Matt. xv. 8 f. is wrongly adduced in opposi- 
tion to this view (Hilgenfeld) ; it is to be traced back to the collection of 
Logia, since it belongs to the speech of Christ. —Ver. 8. agévrec and xparetre 
(2 Thess. ii. 15) are intentionally chosen as correlative. — aAAa rapépora ror- 
atvza 7oAAé] Such accumulations of homoeoteleuta were not avoided even by 
classical writers.’ raocavra defines rapéuoa as respects the category of qual- 
ity. — Ver. 9. xatec] Excellently, nobly,— ironical.* Not so in ver. 6. — iva] 
‘‘ vere accusantur, etsi hypocritae non putarent, hanc suam esse intention- 
em,” ‘‘ They are rightly accused, although the hypocrites had not held this to 
be their purpose” (Bengel). — Ver. 11. xopBav] {2°p =dépov, namely, to the 
temple.? Sec on Matt. xv. 5. — The construction is altogether the same as 
that in Matt. /.c., so that after aged. there is an aposiopesis (he is thus bound 
to this cow), and ver. 12 continues the reproving discourse of Jesus, setting 
forth what the Pharisees do in pursuance of that maxim. — Ver. 12. ovxér¢] 
no more, after the point of the occurrence of the xopfav ; previously they had 
nothing to oppose to it. — Ver. 13. 9 rapeddéx.] quam tradidistis, ‘‘ which ye 
delirered.” The tradition, which they receive from their predecessors, they 
have again transmitted to their disciples. — xai rapéuora x.7.A.] & repetition 
of solemn rebuke (comp. ver. 8). — Ver. 14. zdAcv (see the critical remarks) 
has no erpress refcrence in the connection. But it is to be conceived that 
after the emergence of the Pharisees, ver. 1, Jesus sent away for a time the 
people that surrounded Him (vi. 56) ; now He calls them back to Him again. 
Comp. xv. 13. — Ver. 15. There is no comma to be placed after av¥purov. 
— éxeiva] emphasizing the contrast to that which is eiorapevéuevov. Observe, 
further, the circumstantiality of the entire mode of expression in ver. 15, ex- 
hibiting the importance of the teaching given. 

Vv. 17-23. See on Matt. xv. 12-20; the conversation, which is recorded 
in this latter vv. 12-14, is by him inserted from the Logia here as in an ap- 
propriate place. [See Note XLIII., p. 94.]— ei¢ oixov] peculiar to Mark in 
this place : intoa house. Jesus is still in the land of Gennesareth (vi. 58), 
where He is wandering about. — érypdéruv x.t.2.] According to Matt. xv. 
15, Peter was the spokesman, the non-mention of whose name in the pas- 
sage before us is alleged by Hilgenfeld to betoken the Petrinism of Mark, 


1 See Lobeck, Paralip. p. 58 f. would gladly give it tothee. But it is Kor- 
22Cor. xi. 4; Soph. Ant. 785; Arist. dv. ban; I employ it better by giving it to God 
189; Ael. V. 77. £ 16. than to thee, and it is of more scrvice to 


§ The following 1s Luther's gloss: “‘is,in theo also.” 
brief, as much as to say: Dear father, I 





90 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


who prefers to divert the reproach upon ali the disciples in general ; but it in 
truth betokens the older representation of the scene. — Ver. 18. ovrw] siccine, 
accordingly, since you must ask this question. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 5. — nai 
iyeic] like persons, who have not the benefit of my guidance (oi é£w, iv. 11). 
— Ver. 19.’ oix eiorop. avrow cig r. apd.) it enters not into his heart. — The word 
agedpév does not occur among the Grecks, but a¢odoc. — The reading xaVapi{ov 
(see the critical remarks) would have to be explained : which (i.e., which 
éxrropebeadac etc Tov agedpava) makes pure the whole of the food (that is eaten), 
inasmuch, namely, as thereby every impurity passes away from it (by means 
of the excrements). [See Note XLVI., p. 95.] Thus xadapi{ov would be 
an appositional addition, which contains the judgment upon the ei¢ rdv aged- 
pova éxtopeverax. See Kiihnér, II. p. 146; Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 624]; 
Fritzsche in loc. But the latter arbitrarily changes xcSapifov.into the mean- 
ing : ‘‘puros esse declarat,” ‘‘ declares to be pure,” in so far, namely, as all 
food, clean and unclean, would come digested into the d¢edpév. With the 
reading xa¥apifuv we must explain: which (the draught) makes pure the 
whole of the food, inasmuch as it is the place destined for the purpose of re- 
celving the impurities therefrom (the excretions). Thus xadapi{wy refers to 
tov agedpava, and is put not in the accusative, but in the nominative, as 
though xai 6 agedpdv déxerac or something similar had been said previously, 
so that the agedpév appears as the logical subject. Comp. the similar applica- 
tion of the anacoluthic nominative participle among the Greeks,* according 
to which it is not necessary, as with Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 68 [E. T. 78], 
to assume the abbreviation of a relative clause.? Moreover, the connection 
of the course of the matter presented from 6r: onward requires that xai ei¢ r. 
agedpava éxrop. should still be dependent on dr (in opposition to Fritzsche). 
— Ver. 21 f. diadoysopot of xaxoi] is specialized by all that follows, which 
therefore is to be taken as the thoughts actually presenting themselves, as 
the prava consilia realized. — The following catalogue betrays later enrich- 
ment when compared with that of Matthew, and there is not manifest any 
principium dividendi, ‘‘ principle of division,” beyond the fact that (with the 
exception of aoéAyeca, excess, especially unchaste excess ; see on Rom. xiil. 
13 ; Gal. v. 19) matters approximately homogeneous are placed together. — 
rovnpiat] malignities, ill-wills, Rom. i. 29 ; Eph. iv. 81 ; Col. iii. 8. —d8aa- 
Hog twornp.] an envious eye, as at Matt. xx. 15. —agpocivn] unreason, morally 
irrational conduct, Wisd. xii. 23. Foolishness of moral practice. Comp. 
on Eph. v. 17 ; Beck, Seelenl. p. 68 (its opposite is cugpoobvy), not merely 
in loquendo, to which, moreover, vrepngavia (arrogance) is arbitrarily limited 
(in opposition to Luther’s gloss ; Fritzsche also, and de Wette, and many 
others). — Ver. 28. As of all good, so also of all evil, the heart is the inmost 
life-seat. See Delitzsch, Psych. p. 250. 


1 The contents of ver. 19, very appropriate p. 326, agrees with him. 
as they are for popular argument in the 2 Richter, de anacol. I. p. 7; Bernhardy, 
way of naive sensuous representation, are  p. 58; Kriiger, § 56. 9. 4. 
unfairly criticised by Baur, krit. Unters. 3Comp. also Stallb. aa flat. Phaed. 
p. 554, and Markuser. p. 55, as awkward  p. 81 A. 
and unsuitable; and in this view Kostlin, 


CHAP. VII., 24-30, oe 91 


Vv. 24-80. Sce on Matt. xv. 21-29, who in vv. 23-25 has added what is 
certainly original. — éxeidev] out of the land of Gennesareth, vi. 58. — eig ra 
pedépia Tipov] into the regions bordering on Tyre.’ It is not, withal, said even 
here (comp. Matt. xv. 21) that Jesus had now left Galilee and betaken 
Himself into Gentile territory. He went into the Galilean regions border- 
ing on Tyre (the tribe of Asher). According to Mark, it was only in further 
prosecution of His journey (ver. 31) that He went through Phoenicia, and 
even through Sidon, merely, however, as a traveller, and without any so- 
journ. The explanation of Erasmus and Kypke : into the region between 
Tyre and Sidon, is set aside by the spuriousness of xai Xcdévoc. [But see 
critical note. ] — ei¢ oixiav] into a house. Comp. ver. 17. It was doubtless 
the house of one who honored Him. — oidéva 75e22 yvevas] not : He wished to 
know no one (Fritzsche, Ewald), but : He wished that no one should know it. See 
the sequel. Matthew does not relate this wish to remain concealed ; the remark 
is one of those peculiar traits in which Mark is so rich. But he has no pur- 
pose of thereby explaining the subsequent refusal of aid on the part of Jesus 
from another ground than that mentioned by Matt. xv. 24 (de Wette, Hil- 
genfeld), since Mark also at ver. 27 narrates in substance the same ground 
of refusal. — ydvvf/97] corresponds to the cde : He wished . . . and could 
not. — 7¢ avr7c] See Winer, p. 1384 [E. T. 148]. On duydérp., comp. v. 23. — 
Ver. 26. ‘EAAmvic] a Gentile woman, not a Jewess, Acts xvii. 12. — Syrophoe- 
nice means Phoenicia (belonging to the province of Syria), as distinguished 
from the AcBogoivixec (Strabo, xvii. 8, p. 835) in Libya. The (unusual) form 
Lvpodotvixeooa ig * to be received on account of the preponderance of the wit- 
nesses in its favor, with which are to be classed those which read Lvpagori- 
xicoa OF Lipa Sorvixioca (80 Tischendorf), which is explanatory (@ Phoenician 
Syrian). The Recepta Z1pogoivcca (so also Fritzsche) is an emendation, since 
¢oivicca was the familiar name for a Phoenician woman.’ But the form 
Lupodorvineocca is not formed from <vpodoimé (Luc. D. Concil. 4), but from 
doivien. The Xavavaia of Matthew is substantially the same. See on Matt. 
Xv. 22. — éx4AAy] (see the critical [and supplementary] remarks) present 
subjunctive, makes the thought of the woman present, and belongs to the 
vividness of the graphic delineation ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 618. — Ver. 27. 
atperov}| certainly a modification in accordance with later tradition, intended 
to convey the meaning : it is not yet competent for Gentiles also to lay claim 
tomy saving ministry ; the primary claim, which must be satisfied before it 
comes to you, is that of the Jews.‘ It is the idea of the 'Iovdaiy re mpéirov 
wal “EAAmu, ‘‘ to the Jew first, and also to the Greek,” Rom. i. 16, which has 
already come in here, added not exactly in a doctrinal sense (Keim), but out 
of the consciousness of the subsequent course of things and without sect pur- 
pose—to say nothing of an anti-Judaistic purpose in opposition to Matthew 


1 Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 16; Thue. if. 27.2, iv.56. 3.2. 
2, iv. 90; Herodian, v. 4. 11; Lucian, V. H/. 4 According to Schenkel, indeed, Jesus 


L 20. was nol at all in earnest with this answer of 
2 With Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz, and _ barsh declinature, and this the woman per- 
Lachmann. ceived. But see on Matt.,and comp. Keim, 


*Xen. Heil. il. 4 1, 1v. 86; Herodian, v. geschichtl. Chr. p. 61 f. 


92 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


(Hilgenfeld), which would rather have led to the omission of the entire 
narrative. But in general the presentation of this history in Matthew bears, 
especially as regards the episode with the disciples, the stamp of greater 
originality, which is to be explained from a more exact use of the collection 
of Logia through simple reproduction of their words. Ewald finds in that 
episode another genuine remnant from the primitive document of Mark. 
Comp. also Holtzmann, p. 192. — Ver. 29. dca rovroy rov Adyov ixaye] on account 
of this saying (which gives evidence of so strong a confidence in me), go thy 
way. In imaye is implied the promise of compliance, hence it is fittingly as- 
sociated with dia rovrov r. A. Comp. Matt. viii. 13 ; Mark v. 34. — Ver. 30. 
evpe x.T.A.] ‘* Vis verbi invenit cadit potius super participium quam super 
nomen,” ‘‘ The force of the word found falls more strongly upon the partici- 
ples than upon the noun” (Bengel). — BeBagu. eri r. xAlvqv] weary and ex- 
hausted, but xecuévyv & eipfvg, ‘lying in peace,” Euthymius Zigabenus, 
which the demon did not previously permit. [See Note XLVII., p. 95.] 
Vv. 31-37. A narrative peculiar to Mark. Matthew, at xv. 30, 31—here 
foregoing details, of which he has already related many—only states in 
general that Jesus, having after the occurrence with the Canaanitish woman 
returned to the lake, healed many sick, among whom there were also 
deaf persons. Mark has preserved a special incident from the evangelic 
tradition, and did not coin it himself (Hilgenfeld). — réaw é&eA9ér] his 
reference to ar7Adev eic, ver. 24. — did YedGvoc] (see the critical remarks) : 
He turned Himself therefore from the region of Tyre first in a northern di- 
rection, and went through Sidon (we cannot tell what may have been the 
more immediate inducement to take this route) in order to return thence to 
the lake. If we should take Y.dévoc not of the city, but of the region of 
Sidon,’ the analogy of Tipov would be opposed to us, as indeed both names 
always designate the cities themselves. — ava péoov tav dpiwy t. AcxaréAewc] He 
came (as he journeyed) through the midst (Matt. xiii. 25; 1 Cor. vi. 5 ; Rev. 
vii. 17) of the regions belonging to Decapolis, so that He thus from Sidon ar- 
rived at the Sea of Galilee, not on this side, but on the farther side of 
Jordan (comp. on Matt. iv. 25), and there the subsequent cure, and then 
the feeding the multitude, viii. 1, occurred, villi. 10. — Ver. 82. xugdv poyt- 
2dAov] is erroneously interpreted : a deaf man with a difficulty of utterance 
(see Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, de Wette, Bleek, and many others). 
Although, according to its composition and according to Aétius in Beck. 
Anecd. p. 100, 22, poy:AdAog means speaking with difficulty, it corresponds in 
the LXX. to the D8, dumb. See Isaiah xxxv. 6.7 Hence it is to be under- 
stood as: a deaf-mute,? which is also confirmed by aAddouc, ver. 37, and 
is not refuted by é2dAe opSac, ver. 35. The reading poyy:Addov, speaking 
hollowly,* is accordingly excluded of itself as inappropriate (comp. also ver. 
85). — Ver. 33. The question why Jesus took aside the sick man apart from 
the people, cannot without arbitrariness be otherwise answered than to the 


¥Xc8ovia, Hom. Od. xill. 285; Ewald, * Vulgate, Luther, Calovius, and many 
Lange also and Lichtenstein. others, including Ewald. 

?Comp. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo- ‘Bee EFHLXTI A, Matthael 
dotion, Ex. iy. 11. 





CHAP. VII., 31-37. 93 


effect that He adopted this measure for the sake of an entirely undisturbed 
rapport between Himself and the sick man, such as must have appeared to 
Him requisite, in the very case of this sick man, to the efficacy of the spittle 
and of the touch. [See Note XLVIL, p. 95.] Other explanations resorted 
to are purely fanciful, such as: that Jesus wished to make no parade;' that 
in this region, which was not purely Jewish, He wished to avoid attracting 
dangerous attention (Lange) ; that He did not wish to foster the supersti- 
tion of the spectators (Reinhard, Opuse. IT. p. 140). De Wette conjectures 
that the circumstance belongs to the element of mystery, with which Mark 
invests the healings. But it is just in respect of the two cases of the applica- 
tion of spittle (here and at viii. 23) that he relates the withdrawing from the 
crowd; an inclination to the mysterious would have betrayed itself also in the 
presenting of the many other miracles. According to Baur, Mark wished 
to direct the attention of his readers to this precise kind of miraculous 
cure. This would amount to a fiction in a physiological interest. The 
spite * (like the oil in vi. 18) is to be regarded as the rehicle of the mirac- 
ulous power. Comp. on John ix. 6. Itis not, however, to be supposed that 
Jesus wished in any wise to ceil the marvellous element of the cures (Lange, 
L. J. TI. 1, p. 282), which would amount to untruthfulness, and would 
widely differ from the enveloping of the truth in parable. — rricac] namely, 
on the tongue of the patient ;* this was previous to the touching of the 
tongue (comp. i. 41, viii. 22, x. 18), which was done with the fingers, and 
not the mode of the touching itself. — Ver. 34 f. éorévage] Euthymius Ziga- 
benus well says : émxauréuevoc roig¢ madeot tov avPpaorov, ‘‘ being moved by 
the sufferings of the man” (comp. Grotius and Fritzsche). Certainly (see 
ava3A. ei¢ Tr. ovpavév) it was a sigh of prayer (de Wette and many others), 
and yet a sigh: on account of painful sympathy. Comp. viii. 12, also iii. 5. 
It is reading between the lines to say, with Lange, that in this half-heathen 
region duller forms of faith rendered His work difficult for Him; or 
with Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 852), that He saw in the deaf-mute an 
image of His people incapable of the hearing of faith and of the utterance 
of confession (comp. Erasmus, Paraphr.). — ép¢padé] wihal} imperative 
Ethpael. — dtavoizxd7r:] be opened, namely, in respect of the closed ears and 
the bound tongue. See what follows. —ai axoai] the ears, as often in clas- 
sic use.‘ — éAvdn «.r.4.] The tongue, with which one cannot speak, is con- 
ceived as bound (comp. the classical oréua Aberv, yAdooas Aberv, and see Wet- 
stein), therefore the expression does not justify the supposition of any other 
cause of the dumbness beside the deafness. — dp3a¢] consequently, no 


1 Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, Eu- the blind man. It is not therefore to be 


thymius Zigabenus, and many others. 

4 According to Baur, there is betrayed in 
the narrative of the rrvey, as also at vi. 18, 
“the more material notion of miracle in a 
later age.”’ But it cannot at all be shown 
that the later age had a more material con- 
ception of the miracles of Jesus. 

§ As in vill. 23 He spits into the eyes of 


conceived that Jesus spat on His own fingers 
and so applied His spittle to the tongue 
of the sick man (Lange, Bleek, and older 
commentators), for this Mark would cer- 
tainly in his graphic manner have «aid. 

4 Kur. Phoen. 1494; Luc. Philop. 1; Hero- 
dian, iv. 5. 8; comp. 2 Mace. xv. 39. 


94 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


longer venting itself in inarticulate, irregular, stuttering sounds, as deaf- 
mutes attempt to do, but rightly, quite regularly and normally. — Ver. 36. 
avvoig] to those present, to whom He now returned with the man that was 
cured. —avré¢] and the subsequent airoi (see the critical remarks) corre- 
spond to one another: He on His part. . . they on their part. — cov. . . 
HGAAov repicadrepov| however much He enjoined (forbade) them, still far more 
they published it. They exceeded the degree of the prohibition by the yet 
far greater degree in which they made it known. So transported were they 
by the miracle, that the prohibition only heightened their zeal, and they 
prosecuted the «piace with still greater energy than if He had not inter- 
dicted it to them. As to this prohibition without result generally, comp. on 
v. 48. — waArov *] along with another comparative, strengthens the latter. — 
Ver. 37. xadic rdvra reroinxe] Let wexoinne be distinguished from the subse- 
quent zovei. The former relates to the miraculous cure at that time, which 
has taken place and is now accomplished (perfect) ; and xui (even) rove xwpod¢ 
moet x.T.A. 18 the general judgment deduced from this concrete case. In 
this judgment, however, the generic plurals xwpoic, adddAove are quite in their 
place, and do not prove (in opposition to Késtlin, p. 347) that a source of 
which Mark here availed himself contained several cures of deaf and dumb 
people. — r. aada. Aad.] the speechless to speak.® 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


XLIW. Vv. 1-23. ° 


Weiss ed. Mey. agrees with Meyer in regarding the entire passage as original 
with Mark, but objects to his view that the material is derived from the Logia, 
basing it rather on the Petrine tradition. 


XLIV. Ver. 3. mvypq. 


This reading should be retained (against Tisch.), but its sense is doubtful. 
The R. V. renders it ‘‘diligenjly’’ in the text, with the margin: ‘‘ Or, up to the 
elbow, Gr. with the fist.” “ Oft’’ (A. V.) is derived from the Vulgate. 


XLV. Ver. 4. Barriowvrat. 


Meyer passes over the remarkable reading of & B and some cursives (pavriocwr- 
tat), accepted by Weiss ed. Mey., and W. and Hort (text), R. V. marg.—The 
A. R. V. has ‘‘ bathe,’ with marg. ‘Gr. baptize.” This rendering marks the 
difference between the verbs (here and ver. 8). 


1 Here fn the sense of “only all the more." —p. 719 f.; Stallbaum, ad Phaed. p. 79 E; 
See Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. ili. p.897 A; Nigels- §Pflagk, ad Jlecub. 877. 
bach’s note on the /liad, ed. 8, p. 227. 2QOn dAados, comp. Plut. Afor. p. 4388 B; 
2 See on Phil. i. 298; Hermann, ad Viger. Ps. xxxvil. 14, xxx. 22. 


NOTES. 95 


XLVI. Ver. 19. xabaptfuv x.r.A. 


Among the witnesses for this reading are three of the fathers (Origen, Greg- 
ory Thaumaturgus, Chrysostom), who, however, take the clause as an explana- 
tion made by the Evangelist (comp. R. V.: ‘‘ This he said, making all meats 
clean’’). Were this the sense, the various reading would scarcely have arisen ; 
nor is there any similar instance of interpretation in this Gospel. The verb, 
moreover, is thus assigned an unusual sense. Weiss ed. Mey. also passes over 
this interpretation without notice. 


XLVI. Ver. 30. 


The order of Lachm. and Tisch. is strongly attested, and the explanation of 
Meyer, in favor of the Re¢., seems unsatisfactory. The fact that the girl lay 
upon the couch was first noticed, and the departure of the demon inferred from 
this. This is in the vivacious style of Mark ; while the transcribers transposed, 
in order to place the real cause before the visible effect. So, substantially, 
Weiss ed. Mey. 


XLVI. Ver. 33. 


Weiss ed. Mey. thinks the man was taken aside, because ‘‘Jesus, here as in 
the heathen territory (chap. vii. 24), was unwilling to renew His activity, and 
hence would not awaken new claims by means of acure wrought before the 
whole multitude."’ The gradual healing was probably in consequence of some 
spiritual need of the man himself. 


96 THE GOSPEL OF MABK. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 1. raunéAAov] BD G L M NARX, min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Goth, 
Vulg. It. have madd. roAAot. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. But the former being an draé Aecydu. in the 
N. T., might very easily have been changed into madi roAAoi, as madi wag 
used in Mark so frequently, and in this place (it is otherwise at vii. 14) was so 
appropriate. — Ver. 2. Instead of #uépar, Elz. has #uépac. A correction, in op- 
position to decisive evidence, as is Matt. xv. 32. — yor] is, according to B D, 
with Lachm., to be deleted as a supplementary addition. It is from Matt. xv. 
32. [The evidence against it is not sufficient to convince even W. and Hort, 
who usually follow B.] — Ver. 3. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® BDL 
A, 33, Copt., read xai revec.] —fxovorv] As A D &, min. have fxaorv (so Lachm.), 
and B L A Copt. have eiciv (so Tisch.), fxovory is condemned by preponderant 
counter-evidence. But as, moreover, almost all the versions deviate from the 
simple ciciv, we must abide by the reading of Lachm. [Tisch. VII. has fraciy ; 
so Treg., but W. and Hort (so Weiss) have elciv, following a group of authorities 
which they usually regard as decisive.] If eiciv had been glossed by a verb of 
coming, the praeterite 7xa, not elsewhere found in the N. T., would hardly have 
been the word chosen for that purpose. Mark has the verb fxev only in this 
place. — Ver. 6. mapyyyeAe}] B D L A ® have rapayyéAde. So Lachm. and 
Tisch. Rightly ; the historical present was lost in the connection with the 
praeterite. — Ver. 7. evAoyjoac elwe mapafeivat xa} avra]) Many variations. 
Griesb. regards merely evioy. elve mapaQeiva: as genuine. Lachm. has ravra 
evaoy. elvev maparebizvat xal avtd, Fritzsche: evAoy. ele wapad. avra. Tisch. : 
evaAoy. avtd napefnxev. It may be urged against Griesbach, that a reading with- 
out any pronoun has not been preserved at all in the Codd. In the midst of 
the confusion of readings that has arisen from the double pronoun, that one is 
to be retained which has in its favor the relatively greatest agreement of the 
most important uncials. And this is: ebAoyjoac avra (BCL A ®&, min. Copt.), 
elev xai ravra rapariMéva (BL A &**, to which, on account of the pronoun and 
its position, C also falls to be added with: elwev: xal ravra napd@ere). [So re- 
cent editors, R. V.] This consensus is more important than that which Lachm. 
has followed (principally relying upon A). The reading of Tisch., simple as 
it is, and not giving occasion to variation, is too weakly attested by ®*. — Ver. 
9. ol gayévrec] is wanting in BL A &, min. Copt. Condemned by Griesb., de- 
leted by Tisch. It is from vi. 44.— Ver. 12. ony. éwc{ynrei] Schulz, Lachm. 
Tisch. read (yrei onu., in accordance with BC DLA &, min. vss. The Recepta 
is from Matt. xvi. 4. — Ver. 13. éuBac rd4tv] B C D L A ®&, min. Copt. Arm. 
have zu éugdac. This is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., as the 
better attested order. — ei¢ ro tAoiov] Lachm. reads ei¢ zAoiny, following A EF 
GMSV¥X, min. Fritzsche and Tisch. have entirely deleted it, following B C 
L A &, Corb. Germ. 1, Tol, The latter is right ; éu@é¢ had its notion completed. 
— Ver. 16. Aéyovrec] is wanting in BD &, min. It. Deleted by Lachm. and 


CHAP. VIII. 97 


Tisch.; the former has subsequently, with B, min. It., Zyevor (comp. D: elyxor). 
[See Note XLIX., p. 104.] As well Afyuvrec as the first person of the verb was 
. introduced in accordance with Matt. xvi. 7.— Ver. 17. érc] is wanting in BC D 
L A &, min. Copt. Verc. Lachm. and Tisch. As well the omiasion as the addi- 
tion might have been occasioned by the last syllables of ovviere; but more easily 
the addition, as the connection (od7w) so readily suggested an érs. — [Ver. 19. 
Recent editors, R. V. (against Tisch.), omit «ai before xdécovc, with A B L, 
Copt., etc., and in ver. 20, Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. with * BC L 4, 
Vulg. Copt., read xai Agyovoty avry, instead of ol dé elrov.] — Ver. 21. ac or} 
Lachm. has roc ofrw, following A D M U X, min. Syr. utr. Perss, Goth. Vulg. 
It. Theophyl. Tisch. has merely obra, following CK LA %&, min. The latter 
is to be regarded as the original. To this otrw, rac was added (Lachm.) from 
Matt. xvi. 11 ; and in accordance with the same parallel, tac obtw passed into 
nix, ov (B, Elz.). — Ver. 22. épyerac] épxovra isrightly approved by Griesb., and 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. See on v. 38. — [Ver. 23. Tisch., recent editors, 
R. V., with & BCL, 33, read éfjveyxev, and W. and Hort, Weiss, R.V., with BC 
D A, Copt., have BAére:c, which was easily altered into the indirect form : BAémes 
(Rec. Tisch.) in ® A and most.]— Ver. 24. w¢ dévdpa] Lachm. and Tisch. read 
bri Oc devdpa épd, following decisive evidence. The Recepia is an abbreviation 
to help the constraction.—Ver. 25. xa? évoincev avrov avaBAépa:] Many various 
readings ; but not such as to warrant the total condemnation of the words 
(Griesb.), since they are only wanting in a few vss. The most fully at- 
tested is xai diéBAewev, and this is adopted by Tisch., following BC* LA X&, 
min. Copt. Aeth. Kai d:éBaewev, not being understood, was variously glossed.— 
évéBAewe] Lachm. Tisch., following B L 8** min. (A, min. have avéij3erev), read 
évéBAsrev, which is to be adopted, as the aorist was easily introduced mechani- 
cally from what preceded. — Instead of éravra (approved by Griesb., adopted 
by Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), Elz. has ézavrac. But the former is at- 
tested by BC DL MA &, min. vas. also Vulg. It. (D has ravra). diavrag is to 
be regarded as an emendation, on account of rove avfpwrove, ver. 24. — Ver. 26. 
pnde etc. . . xofiy] Very many variations, arising out of the apparent inappro- 
priateness of the meaning ; but not such as to justify the striking ont of the 
second half of the sentence (u7Jé elry¢ rivi ev T. KOuy), With Tisch. (BL &, min. 
Copt.). In this way it was sought to help the matter by abbreviation. Others 
amplified (Vulg. It.) and altered (D). [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit the 
second clause, but retain undé at the beginning of the first clause. Tisch. ac- 
cepts 47) (comp. grammatical notes) which has no support except ®*.]—Ver. 28. 
éva) Lachm. Tisch. have ar: eic, following B C* L &, Copt. The Recepta is an 
alteration on account of the construction. If dr: ele had come in in accordance 
with Luke ix. 19, avéory would also be found in Codd. — Ver. 29. Aéyes abroic] B 
C D* L A &, 53, Copt. Cant. Vere, Corb. Colb. have éxnpéra avroic. Recom- 
mended by Griesb., approved by Schulz, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; the 
Recepia is from Matt. xvi. 15. — Ver. 31. ar6] BCDGKLY, min. have oxdé. 
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.; dé is from 
the parallel passages. — Ver. 34. [recent editors, R. V., with 8 B C* D LA 
Vulg., have ef rec.] — Instead of dxodov@eiv (which Griesb. Scholz, and Tisch. have 
adopted), Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] read éA9riv. Both 
readings have weighty attestations ; but é9eiv is from Matt. xvi. 24.— Ver. 35. 
Instead of +. éavrod pux7v in the second half of the verse (Griesb. Scholz), Elz. 


7 


98 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have r. avrov ¥., again following A B C* LA ®&. 
[These authorities support r. y. avrod in the second clause. Tisch. VIII. agrees 
with Griesb. in text, but his notes defend the reading of A B 8, ete. (corrected 
by Gebbardt). W.and Hort follow B (r. gavrod .) in the first clause.] From the 
preceding clause, and in keeping with the parallel passages. [Tisch., recent 
editors, R. V., with most leading uncials, omit otroc¢, and in ver. 36 with & BL, 
read ogedet, xepdijoat, OnptwIiva.] — Ver. 36. dv8pwrov read, with Lachm. and 
Tisch., following A C* D, min. Or.: rév dv8pwrov. [Tisch. VIII., recent editors, 
reject the article.] As well the omission of the article as the reading dv pwro¢ 
(E F GH LM XT A &* min.) is from the parallels. — Ver. 37. # ri] Tisch. 
reads ti yap, following B LA &, 28, Copt. Or. ; 9 ri is from Matt. xvi. 26. 
[Tisch., recent editors, R.V., with S* B (L indirectly) have dot ; (comp. Note 
XXV., p. 60.] 


Vv. 1-10. See on Matt. xv. 832-89. — év éx. r. juép.] An unessential differ- 
ence from Matthew, but still a difference. — rapr. dyAov bvroc] when very many 
people were there. The presence of such a crowd is intelligible enough after 
the miraculous cure that has just been related (in opposition to Holtzmann, 
p. 85).' Onwéprodve, only found in this place in the N. T., see Wetstein.? 
(See critical note. ]— Ver. 2. In the nominative juépa: rpeic, Hilgenfeld finds 
an indication of dependence on Matt. xv. 832. Why not the converse ? — 
Ver. 8. rivég yap x.r.A.] information peculiar to Mark concerning the previous 
éxAvd. év tp 66, but still belonging to the words of Jesus: hence jxaccw 
(Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 744), have come; not: had come (Luther). [See 
critical note.]—— Ver. 4. rédev] With surprise the disciples thus ask, as on 
the desert surface (éz’ épyuiac) there is no place whence loaves for their satis- 
faction were to be obtained. — Ver. 7. Mark (it is otherwise in Matthew) 
narrates in this place (otherwise at vi. 41) two separate actions in respect of 
the loaves and the fishes. — According to the reading : xai evAoyhoag avra 
elev kai ravta rapatiSéva (see the critical remarks), we must translate : and 
after He had blessed them, He bade set these also before them. [Comp. R. V.] — 
With the small fishes thus, according to Mark, Jesus performs a special con- 
secration (comp. on Matt. xiv. 19), as to which, however, in evAoy. there is 
nothing to be found of itself higher than in eiyap. (Lange : ‘‘ the pre-ccle- 
bration of the glorious success”). The thanksgiving of Jesus was a prayer of 
praise (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 16). On evdoyeiv, with accusative of the ob- 
ject, comp. Luke ix. 16, 1 Cor. x. 16,—in the sense, namely, of uttering 
over the object a prayer of praise (1373), blessing it. — Ver. 8. wepioo. xAacp. 
éxra orup., remains left over in pieces secen baskets. The definition of mensure 
is added, according to the Greck usage, in the form of an apposition ; 
Kiihner, IT. p. 117. — Ver. 10. Aaduavovdd, named nowhere else, was doubt- 
less (comp. Matt. xv. 89) a village or hamlct on the western side of the lake, 
in the neighborhood of Magdala (or else Magada ; see on Matt. xv. 39). 
Sce Robinson, III. p. 580 f. ‘Ewald, indeed, Gesch. Chr. p. 876 (comp. 


1On efvas, equivalent to wapetvar, comp. Aus... SxAos), Polit. p. 201 A; Lacian, 
xv. 40; John vii.:389 ; Dorvill. Charité. p. 600. Herm. 61. 
2 Comp. Plato, Legg. vil. p. 819 A (wxdapzxo- 


CHAP. VIL, 11-21. 99 


Lightfoot), conjectures that in Dalmanutha we have the Galilean pronuncia- 
tion of the name of the town 1D7¥, where, according to the Mishna, many 
Jews dwelt. But comp. on Matt. xv. 89. The present village Delhemija 
(Robinson, III. p. 514, 530) lies too far to the south, immediately above the 
influx of the Hieromax, eastward from the Jordan. — The specification of a 
better-known place in Matthew betrays itself as later ; although Baur thinks, 
that by such variations Mark probably only wished to give himself a sem- 
blance of being independent. | 

Vv. 11-18. See on Matt. xvi. 1-4, who narrates more fully out of the col- 
lection of Logia, and from the tradition adds the Sadducees. — é571 ov] 
namely, from their dwellings in the district there. A trait of graphic cir- 
cumstantiality. Lange imports the idea: as spies out of an ambush. But 
it is not easy to see why ver. 11 should fitly attach itself, not to the history 
of the miraculous feeding (which could not but serve to enhance the sensa- 
tion produced by Jesus), but to vii. 37 (Holtzmann). Between Dalmanutha 
and the place of the feeding there lay in fact only the lake. — #pfavro ovis. 
avrg} How they made the beginning of disputing with Him, is told by Cyrowv- 
rec x.7.A.: 80 that they asked, etc. — Ver. 12. avactevdéac] afler that He had 
heaved a sigh (comp. vii. 34), namely, at the hardened unbelief of those 
men.’ A picturesque feature here peculiar to Mark. Comp. vii. 34. — ri] 
thy—in painful certainty of the want of result, which would be associated 
with the granting of their request. ‘‘Tota hujus orationis indoles intelli- 
gitur ex pronuntiatione,” ‘*The entire quality of this discourse is known 
from its manner,” Beza, — et dodf#oera] a thoroughly Hebraistic expression 
of asseveration (nerer shall, etc.), by the well-known suppression of the apo-~ 
dosis.?, According to Mark, therefore (who has not the significant saying 
as to the sign of Jonah adopted by Matthew from the collection of Logia 
already at x. 39 ff., and in this case at xvi. 4), a onueioy is altogether refused 
to this generation of Pharisces.* Hor them—these hardened ones, for whom 
the signs already given did not suffice—none should be given ; the onyeia, 
which Jesus gave everywhere, were in fact sufficient even for their conver- 
sion, if they had only been willing to attend to and profit by them. — mda 
éuBac| without eic rd Aoiov (see the critical remarks), which is, however, by 
means of wéAc obvious from ver. 10.'— ei¢ rd répav] to the eastern side of 
the lake (comp. ver. 10). Holtzmann is wrong in saying that Jesus here 
passes over for the second time to the western side ; see on ver. 22. 

. Vv. 14-21. See on Matt. xvi. 5-11, whose narrative is less concise and 
more explanatory. — zreAddovro] quite as in Matt. xvi. 6, and therefore not : 
viderunt se oblitos esse, ‘‘they saw that they had forgotten” (Fritzsche, 
Kuinoel). The disciples (ver. 15) form the subject, as is evident of itself ; 


' This {s all that is shown by the follow- 
ing painful question. Lange arbitrarily 
holds that Jesus sighed on account of the 
commencement of His separation from the 
dominant popular party; that there was, 
at the same time, a forbearing reservation 
of His judictal power, and so forth. 

2 Sec Koster, Fridut. p. 104 ff. ; Winer, 


p. 444 {E. T. 500]. 

* By passing over the sign of Jonah, 
Mark has effaced the point of the answer, 
which Matthew and Luke have furnished. 

* Comp. Xen. Cyrop. v.7. 7: wore euBaivey, 
oxéray Néros rvén, Dem. 29. 26, and many 
other places in the classical writers. 


100 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

for they ought to have taken care as to the provision of bread, but forgot 
it. — ei uy Eva x.t.A.] a statement, which is quite in keeping with the peculi- 
arity of Mark, and perhaps proceeds from Peter (in opposition to Hilgen- 
feld). — Ver. 15. dpare is absolute; and amd the ¢. x«.7.4. belongs only to 
Baérere, the construction of which with azé (comp. xii. 33) is not, with Titt- 
mann, Synon. p. 114, and Kuinoel, to be analyzed : avertere oculos, ‘‘ to 
turn away the eyes,” but : take heed on account of, etc. Comp. zpocé yerv amd 
(Matt. xvi. 6) ; ¢630¢ amd rdév rodeuioy (Ken. Cyr. iii. 3. 53), al. — rae Cimnc 
tav bapicaiwy] According to Matthew (see on xvi. 6), Céu7 is a figure for per- 
nicious doctrine, and there appears no reason for assuming any other refer- 
ence here, such as to the mali mores, the character (Bleek, Holtzmann), the 
mental tendency (Schenkel), and the like. See on Matt. xvi. 6. Jesus 
warns against the soul-perilling doctrines, which at that time proceeded as 
well from the leaders of the hierarchy (the Pharisees) as from the political 
head (Herod Antipas). Herod was a frivolous, voluptuous, unprincipled 
man (sec Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 47 f.) ; and the morally vile principles and 
maxims, given forth by him, and propagated by the Jews who adhered to 
him (the Herodians, iii. 6 ; see on Matt. xxii. 16), are the Civ 'Hpddov. A 
wrohg attempt at harmonizing will have it that Herod is mentioned (Heupel) 
as a Sadducee (which, however, he never was; see on Matt. xiv. 2), be- 
cause Matt. xvi. 6 has xai Laddovxaiwv. — Ver. 16. According to the correct 
reading (sce the critical remarks): and they considered with one another, — 
that they hadno bread.’ [See Note XLIX., p. 104.] —- Vv. 19, 20. This dia- 
logue form is characteristic of Mark’s vivid mode of representation. [Sec Note 
L., p. 104 seq. ] — récuv orvpld. rAnpduara KAaoudtwy| See on vi. 48. Observe 
here, also, as well as in Matthew, the alternation of xogivove and orrpidwr, in 
accordance with vi. 43 and viii. 8. — By the fact that, after those two mirac- 
ulous feedings, they still could take thought one with another about want 
of bread, they show how much they still lack discernment. The reproach 
of vv. 17,18? refers to this. But in ofzw ovviere, ver. 21 (see the critical re- 
marks), the ow applies to the instruction that has just been catechetically 
conveyed vv. 19, 20, and is therefore a later oirw than that in ver. 17, stand- 
ing related thereto by wayofclimaz. Schenkel regards as incorrect all that 
is said of this reference to the miraculous feedings, in consistency with his 
view that these did not happen at all in the manner narrated. 

Vv. 22-26 are found in Mark only. — It is not the Bethsaida situated on 
the tcestern, shore of the lake (vi. 45) that is here meant,* but the north-east- 
ern Bethsaida, completed by the tetrarch Philip (called also Julias, in honor 
of the daughter of Augustus),‘ from which Jesus goes forth and comes north- 


1 With respect to the indicative present 3Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 


€xovet, comp. on vi. 45, and Dissen,ad Dem. 
de Cor. p. 208. 

2 On the thought of ver. 18, comp. besides 
Isa. vi. 9f., Xen. Cyr. iff. 1. 27: & Cavpacw- 
rate avOpwre, oi Sd ye ovdé dpe yrwwoners, ovde 
axovwy méeuyvnoa, Dem. 797. 3: vtrws dpwrres 

. WOTE TO THS Tapotmlas OpwrTas BH Opay Kai 
axovorvtas py axovey, 


Heumann, Heupel, K6stlin, Holtzmann; 
comp. Bleek and several others. 

4 Sce Josephus, Bell. ii. 9.1, iif. 8.5; Andéé. 
xvili. 2. 1, xviii. 4. 6; Plin. WV. A v. 183 
Wileseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 273 f.; Robin- 
son, Pal. Ill. p. 566 f.; Ritter, Brdk. XV. 
p. 280; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 48. 


CHAP. VIII., 22-26. 101 
wards into the region of Caesarea-Philippi (ver. 27) ; see ver. 13. [See Note 
LI., p. 105.] The weakly-attested reading BySaviav (D, Cod. It.) is an ancient 
alteration, from geographical ignorance of any other Bethsaida than the 
western one. Ewald, indeed, following Paulus, has again (Gesch. Chr. 
p. 378) preferred this reading, because Bethsaida Julias was not a kay, ver. 
26 ; but it was Philip who first raised it to the rank of a city, and hence its 
designation as a village may still have been retained, or may have been used 
inaccurately by Mark.—The blind man was not born blind. See ver. 24. — 
Ver. 23. ésfyayev] see on vii. 83. — The spitting is to be apprehended as at 
vii. 38. As in that place, so here also, Jesus held it as necessary to do more 
than had been prayed for.— Ver. 24. avaBdrévac] after he had looked up 
(vi. 41, vii. 34). Erasmus erroneously interprets it : to become seeing again 
(x. 51), which is only conveyed in «ai azoxareor. x.r.2. — According to the 
reading dr: we dévdpa dpa repixarovvtac (sce the critical remarks) : I see the men, 
Sor like trees I perceive persons walking about, I observe people walking who 
look like trees (so unshapeiy and large). This was the first stage of seeing, 
when the objects appeared in vague outline and enlarged. More harsh is 
Ewald’s construction, which takes dr: as the recitative, that indicates a new 
commencement of the discourse. — We cannot decide why Jesus did not 
heal the blind man perfectly at once, but gradually. But it is certain that 
the agency does not lose, by reason of its being gradual, the character of an 
instantaneous operation. Comp. Holtzmann, p. 507 ; Euthymius Zigabe- 
nus : aredae d2 tov rupdAdv Tovrov Evepdrevoev wc areAde wiotebovra’ 61d Kai ExNpe- 
tHoev avTov, el re BAEret, iva puxpdv avaBAéwac amd THE puKpac deus TLoTetoy TEAed- 
tTepov, Kai iad redewrepov’ copds ydp Eorev iarpdéc, ‘‘Incompletely He healed this 
blind man as one believing imperfectly ; wherefore also He asked him if he 
saw anything, that looking up a little from the little sight he might believe 
more fully and be cured fully ; for He is wise as a physician.” Comp. 
Victor Antiochenus and Theophylact. So usually. According to Olshausen, a 
process too much accelerated wou:d have been hurtful to the blind man. 
This is an arbitrary limitation of the miraculous power of Jesus (see, 
on the other hand, Strauss, II. p. 66). According to Lange, Jesus 
desired in this quiet district, and at this momentous time, ‘‘to subdue 
the powerful effect of His miracles.” As though the miracle would 
not even as it occurred have been powerful cnough. According to 
Strauss, the gradual character is merely part of Mark's effort after vivid- 
ness of representation.’ A notion unwarranted in itself, and contrary to 
the analogy of Mark’s other narratives of miracles. —Ver. 25. xai dé BAewev 
(see the critica: remarks) : and he looked steadfastly? and was restored. This 
steadfast look, which he now gave, so that people saw that he fixed his eyes 
on definite objects, was the result of the healing influence upon his eyes, 


1In fact, Baur, Markusev. p. 58, thinks 
that thereby the writer was only making a 
display of his physiological knowledge on 
the theory of vision. And Hilgenfeld says, 
that Mark desired to set forth the gradual 
transition of the disciples from spiritual 


not-seeing to seeing primarily in the case 
of one corporeally blind. Thus the proced- 
ure related by Mark would be invented by 
Mark ! 

* Plato, Phaed. p. 8 D; comp. on Matt. 
vil. 5. 


102 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


which he experienced by means of this second laying on of hands, and which 
the restoration immediately followed.— xai évéBAerev (see the critical remarks) 
tnAauyae Gzavra] Notice the imperfect, which defines the visual activity from 
this time continuing; and how keen this was! Tle saw everything from 
afar, so that he needed not to come close in order to behold it clearly. 
éuBaérerv, intuert, see Xen, Mem. iii. 11. 10, al. In the classical writers 
used with r/,’ but also with revd (Anthol. xi. 3). ryJavya¢ (far-shining) 
with éufiézev denotes that the objects at a distance shone clearly into his 
eyes,* — Ver. 26. cig oixov avrov] He did not dwell in Bethsaida, but was from 
elsewhere, and was brought to Jesus at Bethsaida. Sce the sequel. — unde 
tig T. noun x.7.A.] This undé is not wrong, as de Wette and Fritzsche judge, 
under the impression that it ought to be v4 only ; but it means : not eren: 
80 now Winer also, p. 434 [E. T. 489]. The blind man had come with 
Jesus from the village; the healing had taken place outside in front of the 
village ; now He sends him away to his house ; He desires that he shall not 
remain in this region, and says : not eren into the village (although it is so 
near, and thou hast just been in it) enter thou. The second pydé is : nor yet. 
— The second clause [see critical note, and Note LII., p. 105}, pydé sizye 
x.T.A., is no doubt rendered quite superfluous by the first ; but Fritzsche 
pertinently remarks: ‘‘ Jesu graviter interdicentis cupiditatem et ardorem 
adumbrari. . . Non enim, qui commoto animo lJoquuntur, verba appendere 
solent,” ‘‘that the desire and ardor of Jesus in forbidding is impressively 
set forth. . . For it is not those who speak with agitated mind that are 
wont to weigh their words.” Grotius, Calovius, Bengel, Lange, and vari- 
ous others take revi év tr. coy to mean : to one of the inhabitants of the village 
(who may meet thee outside). A makeshift occasioned by their own addi- 
tion. And why should not Mark have simply written tix é« rH aaa ? As 
to the prohibition in general, comp. on v. 48. 

Vv. 27-38. See on Matt. xvi. 18-27. Comp. Luke ix. 18-26. — ifpaAder] 
from Bethsaida (Julias), ver. 22. — cic r. nduacg Kaicap.] into the villages be- 
longing to the region of Caesarea. —Ver. 28. With the reading rc ci¢ tay 
mpoontay (see the critical remarks), ci is to be supplied. Matthew was the 
more careful to insert the name of Jeremiah from the collection of Logia, be- 
cause he wrote for Jews. — Ver. 29. Mark and Luke omit what Matthew re- 
lates in vv. 17-19. Generally, Matthew is here fuller and more original in 
drawing from the collection of Logia. According to Victor Antiochenus 
and Theophylact,? Mark has omitted it on purpose : iva py d6&y yapiCduevog 
T@ Térpw x.7.4., ‘That He might not seem to be favoring Peter,” etc. Ac- 
cording to B. Bauer, the narrative of Matthew has only originated from the 
consciousness of the hierarchy. Both these views are arbitrary, and the latter 
rests on quite a groundless presupposition. As the remarkable saying of 
Jesus to Peter, even if it had been omitted inthe collection of Logia (Holtz- 
mann), cannot have been unknown to Mark and cannot have its place sup- 
plied by iii. 16, it must be assumed that he purposely abstained from includ- 


¥ Cyrop. i. 3. 2; Plat. Pol. x. p. 609 D. opav, Suidas : rnAavyds, roppwhew daivor. 
2Comp. Diod. Sic. 1. 50: rpAavyéorepoy 3 Comp. Wetstein, Michaelis, and others. 


CHAP. VIII., 27-38. 103 
ing it in this narrative, and that probably from some sort of consideration, 
which appeared to him necessary, for Gentile-Christian readers.’ [See Note 
LIII., p. 105.] Thus he appears to have foregone its insertion from higher 
motives. To Luke, with his Paulinism, this passing over of the matter was 
welcome. The omission furnishes no argument against the Petrine deriva- 
tion of our Gospel (in opposition to Baur, Markusecang. p. 133 f.), but it is 
doubtless irreconcilable with its subserving a special Petrine interest, such as 
is strongly urged by Hilgenfeld and Késtlin.? And to invoke the conception 
of a mediating Petrinism (sce especially, Késtlin, p. 866 f.), is to enter ona 
field too vague and belonging to later times. Observe, moreover, that we 
have here as yet the simplest form of Peter’s confession. The confession 
itself has not now for the first time come to maturity, but it is a confirmation 
of the faith that has remained unchangeable from the beginning. Comp. on 
Matt. xv. 17. — Ver. 81.3 sav mpecB. x. tav apy. x. Tov ypayp.| Although these 
three form one corporation (the Sanhedrim), still each class is specially 
brought before us by repetition of the article, which is done with rhetorical 
solemnity. — pera zpeic ypuép. | after the lapse of threedays, Comp. Matt. xxvii. 
63. More definitely, but ex eventu, Matt. and Luke have: rq rpizy quépe, 
with which perd rp. 7z., according to the popular way of expression, isnot at ¢ 
variance.* — Ver. 82. xai rappyoig x.7.A.] a significant feature introduced by 
Mark, with a view of suggesting a still more definite motive for Peter’s sub- 
sequent conduct : and openly (without reserve, frankly and freely) He spoke 
the word (ver. 31). xappyoig stands opposed to speaking in mere hints, 
obscurely, figuratively (John xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29). —ézcrcu.] to make reproaches’ 
namely, a¢ ei¢ Advarov pirrovt éavrdy F£ov undév raGeiv, ‘as flinging himself into 
death, it being possible to suffer nothing,” Theophylact. But ‘‘ Petrus dum 
éncrepat, increpationem meretur,” ‘‘ while Peter rebudes, he merits rebuke,” 
Bengel. Comp. éveripyoe, ver. 33. — Ver. 33. nai iddv rob¢ uabyrac avroi] when 
He had turned Himself towards him and beheld His disciples. The latter 
clause gives more definitely the reason for the stern outburst of the censure 
of Jesus ; He could not du¢ set an example to the disciples, whom He beheld 
as witnesses of the scene. Moreover, in ézicrpageic there is a different 
conception from that of orpageic, Matt. xvi. 23. — Ver. 34. Jesus now 
makes a pause ; for what He has to say now is to be said fo all who follow 
Him. Hence He calls to Him the multitude that accompanies Him, ctc. 
Mark alone has clearly this trait, by which the dy4o¢ is expressly brought 
upon the scene also (Luke at ix, 23 relates after him, but with less clearness). 





1 Beza, however, justly asks : “‘ Quis cred- 
iderit, vel ipsum Petrum vel Marcum prae- 
teriturum fuisse fllud Tu es Petrus, si eccle- 
siae Christianae fundamentum in his verbts 
sitaum esse existimassent?” ‘“ Who could 
believe, that either Peter himself or Mark 
would have omitted this, ‘Thou art Peter,’ 
if they had supposed the foundation of the 
Christian church was laid down in these 
words *"’ 

2Comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1858, 


p. 58 f. 

* The view that Jesus Himself now for 
the first time clearly foresaw His death 
(Weizsicker, p. 475; Keim, geschichti. Chr. 
p. 45), conflicts, even apart from the narra- 
tive of John, with il. 20. Comp. on Matt. 
Xvi. 21. Moreover, we cannot get rid of the 
mention of the Parousta, Matt. x. 23, and 
the interpretation of the sign of Jonah, 
Matt. xil. 89 f. (comp. on Luke xi. 30). 

4 See Krebs, Obs. p. 97 f. 


104 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Comp. vii. 14. This is to be explained by the originality of the Gospel, not 
by the mpd¢ rdvrac of Luke ix. 23 (which de Wette thinks Mark misunder- 
stood).'— deri¢] guicungue, not at variance with the sense (Fritzsche), but as 
appropriate as ei rice. [See critical note. ] — axojov8.] both times in the same 
sense of discipleship. See, moreover, on Matt. x. 88. — Ver. 35. See on © 
Matt. x. 39. r. éavrod w.] expression of self-sacrifice ; His own soul He spares 
not. [But see additional critical notes.]— Ver. 87. ri yép (see the critical 
remarks) gives the reason for the negative sense of the previous question. — 
Ver. 38. ydp] proves from the law of the retribution, which Jesus will fully 
carry out, that no ransom can be given, etc. Whosoever shall have been 
ashamed to receive me and my doctrines—of Him the Messiah shall also be ashamed 
(shall not receive him for His kingdom, as being unworthy) at the Parousia / 
As to exaocyvv., comp. on Rom. 1. 16. — rg poryadidi:] see on Matt. xii. 39. 
This bringing into prominence of the contrast with the Lord and His words, 
by means of év r9 yevea . . . duaprwAg is only given here in the vivid de- 
lineation of Mark ; and there is conveyed in it a deterrent power, namely, 
from making common cause with this yeved by the denial of Christ. The 
comparison of Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 4, is not, on account of the very dissimilar- 
ity of the expressions, to be used either for or against the originality of 
Mark, against which, according to Weiss, also cdéce:, ver. 85 (Matt. : etphoe, 
which Luke also has), is supposed to tell. Nevertheless, x. rob evayyediov, 
ver. 35, is an addition of later tradition. — é vide r. avfpor.] Bengel aptly 
says: ‘‘ Nunc non ego, sed jilius hominis quae appellatio singularem cum 
adventu glorioso visibili nexum habet,” ‘‘ Now not ‘J,’ but ‘the Son of 
man,’ which appellation has a remarkable connection with the glorious 
visible advent.” Comp. xiv. 62. — And as tothis mighty decision, how soon 
shall it emerge ! ix. 1. What warning and encouragement in this promise! 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 


XLIX. Ver. 16. wpdc aAAndoue bri dprove 5bx Eyovory. 


The reading and interpretation are alike open to discussion. It seems, how- 
ever, safe to reject Aéfyovrec, although it is retained in the R. V. text. 
The third person is accepted by Weiss ed. Meyer, as well as by Treg. text, 
W. and Hort, R. V. marg. (against Tisch. éyouev), Meyer accepts the reading 
given above, but regards dr: as objective. Taking it as causal we may explain : 
‘‘ because they had no bread ” (the present being used as if in direct discourse). 
With the first person dr: would be recitantis ; or if Aéyovrec be retained, the 
elliptical form of the R. V. marg. is allowable: ‘‘Saying, It is because we have 
no bread.” (It may be added that the English edition of Meyer presents his 
view incorrectly : ‘‘had’’ is substituted for ‘‘ would have’ in this edition.) 


L. Vv. 18, 19. 


Tisch., W. and Hort connect vv. 18 and 19, so that the latter gives the object 
of the verb ‘‘remember.’’ ‘‘ And do ye not remember, when I brake, etc. . .. 


1 Comp. Hilgenfeld, Markusevang. p. 61. 


NOTES, 105 
how many loaves.” The omission of xai (XC D A), before mécovg favors this 
view. In ver, 20 X A have «ai, A D, eto. Rec. df, while B L have ére only. The 
last is probably correct (against Tisch.). 


LI. Vv. 22-26. Bethsaida. 


There can be little question that Bethsaida Julias is here referred to. Indeed, 
in all cases where the Synoptists mention the name, this place may be meant. 
In John (xii. 21), however, ‘‘Bethsaida of Galilee’’ is spoken of; yet that 
Evangelist, writing later, might use ‘‘ Galilee’ for the whole region. Bethsaida 
Julias is held by some to have been partly in Galilee. See Bible Dictionaries 
and recent works on Palestine. 


LIL. Ver. 26. unde cinye revi ev tH Kdpn. 


This clause is omitted by the most judicious critics, also by Weiss ed. Mey. 
Tisch. improperly reads uj (instead of pndé), at the beginning of the previous 
clause. It is found only in &*, and corrected to wnJé by &*. The R. V. rightly 
renders it ‘‘ not even.”’ 


LI. Ver. 29. 


Weiss ed. Mey. regards the parallel accounts as mainly dependent on that 
of Mark, but Matt. xvi. 17-19 as derived from ‘‘ the older source.’’—He does 
not agree with Meyer that it was omitted by Mark from some sort of consider- 
ation for Gentile-Christian readers. 


106 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 1. The arrangement : dde ray éornx., in Tisch., following B D* and one 
codex of the It., is correct ; ray dde éorne. is from the parallels. — Ver. 3. éyé- 
veto] Lachm. and Tisch. [not VIII.] have éyévovro, following ‘a considerable 
amount of evidence. The singular is a correction in recollection of Matt. xvii. 
2. [W. and Hort, R. V., retain the singular.] — o¢ yor] is wanting in BC LA 
1, Sahid. Arm. Aeth. Cant. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. [So 
recent editors, R. V.] But had it been interpolated, it would not have been dc 
xiov (comp. Matt. xxviii. 3), but d¢ 7d gac, that would have been supplied from 
Matt. xvii. 2, as Or. min. actually have. — Before Aevxdvar, B C L A ®&, min. 
vss. Or. have ofzwe, which Tisch. has adopted. Rightly ; as it was found to be 
superfluous and cumbrous, it was omitted. — Ver. 6. Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz, 
Lachm, have AaAjop7. But a preponderance of evidence favors AaAnoe:, which, 
with Matth., is the more to be preferred, as the future seemed objectionnble to 
copyists lacking nice discernment ; hence also in &, Or. the reading arexpiéy 
(according to ver. 5), whence again proceeded, as an emendation, azoxpib9 
(Tisch., following B C* L A, min. Copt.). [Recent editors, R. V., accept this 
better sustained reading. ] — 7oav ydp éxdo8or] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., fol- 
lowing BC DL A 8 33, Copt. Sahid. Jt. Chrys., to be changed into éxg. y. éyé- 
vovto, — Ver. 7. 7A9e] BC LA &, Syr. in the margin, Copt. Atm. have éyévero. 
Recommended by Griesb. [Accepted by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] It 
is from Luke ix. 35. — After vegiAn¢ Elz. Lachm. have Aéyovoa, in opposition to 
very considerable witnesses (yet not to ADL A; the latter has 2£ywv). From 
Matt. xvii. 5. —airov axotere] Lachm. Tisch. have dx. avr. The Recepta is from 
the parallels. — Ver. 8. d4Ad] B D 8, min. vss. have e u7, which Lachm. has 
adopted. [So W. and Hort, Weiss (on the ground of Mark's use of the latter 
phrase), R. V.] From Matt. xvii. 8. — [Ver. 9. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., 
with 8 BC DL, 33, Vulg. Copt., have xai xaraZ., and W. and Hort text, 
Weiss, with B D, 33, substitute é« for aé6.]— Ver. 10. 7d ék vexpov dvuotiiac] 
D, min. Syr. Perss. Vulg. Jer. have drav é« ». dvanr7. So Fritzsche (retaining 
76); already recommended by Griesb., following Mill and Bengel. A gloss, for 
the sake of more accurate definition. — Ver. 11. Before oi ypauy, Tisch. has oi 
éapio. kai, only following L &, Vulg. codd. It. It would, with stronger attes- 
tation, require to be adopted on account of Matt. xvii. 10. [Recent editors, 
R. V., retain the briefer reading.]— Ver. 12. azoxp. elvev] BC L A ®, Syr. 
Perss. p. Copt. have é¢7. Commended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. — Rightly ; 
the more prevalent expression crept in from Matth.; @¢7 is only further found 
in the Teal. rec. of Mark at xiv. 29. — aroxa9:org] on decisive evidence read, 
with Lachm. Tisch., avoxafiordve. [Recent editors, with B D (and indirectly 
other mss.), give the form : éfovdevnlg. Rec. (A C) has éfoudeva67 ; Tisch. (with &) 
éSovfevw97, While Lachmann (with L) has éfov@evn§9. Ver. 14. Tisch., recent 
editors, R. V., with & BL A, have éa6dvrec and eldov: and zpid¢ avrorc, at 
close of verse, with 8* B C L A, Vulg.] — Ver, 15. iddv air. é£e6au376n] B C 


CHAP. IX. ; 107 


DIL AR, min. vas. have iddvre¢ av7. tEePapBnbnoavy. Rightly approved by 
Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Not the plural, but the singular 
had its origin in correction. — Ver. 16. Instead of éxnp. avrov¢ Elz. Scholz have 
éxnp. Tod¢ ypaupuazeic, Which Lachm. has in the margin. But BD LA X&, min. 
Copt. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. It. have avrovc ; trode ypaupareic is plainly an interpreta- 
tion in accordance with ver. 14. — Ver. 17. Following B C D LA &, 33, Copt. 
Cant. Ver. Verc. read, with Lachm. and Tisch., cai dwexpiln avto ele ex. r. bya. 
— Ver. 18. [Recent editors (against Tisch.) retain avrév, after Jyooe, with AB 
CLA.] After ddévrac Elz. Scholz have airov ; it is wanting in B C* D LAR, 
min. Vulg. It. By Lachm, it is only bracketed, by Tisch. deleted. A familiar 
addition. — Ver. 19. Instead of avroi¢ Elz. has avrg, which Rinck, Lucubr. crit. 
p. 300, defends. But avroi¢ has‘ preponderant attestation, and was changed, as 
the father has just spoken, into the singular. — Ver. 20. tordpafev] BC LAR, 
33 have ovveszupasev. So Lachm. Tisch. [W. and Hort, R. V.]. It is from Luke 
ix. 42. The reading érdpafev in D also tells in favor of the Recepia. — Ver. 21. 
éx wacdkdGev (Lachm. Tisch.) is found in BC GIL A 8, min., and is, moreover, 
supported by D, Chrys., which shave éx raidéc. The pleonastic éx was passed 
over.—Ver. 22. zip] Griesb, Fritzsche, Scholz have 70 rip, following A EF G 
KMVI, min. From Matth. —,dvvaca:] Lachm. and Tisch. have duvy here and 
at ver. 23, following B DILAX8, min. To be adopted; the usual form was 
substituted. — Ver. 23. xoretoac) is, with Tisch. (comp. Ewald), following B C* 
LA ®, min. Copt. Arm, Aeth. Arr., to be deleted. An addition to the simple _ 
et durg, which was not understood. — Ver. 24. wera daxp.] is wanting in A* B 
C*° LA ¥&, 28, Copt. Acth. Arm. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent 
editors ; R. V. puts it in margin only]. It is a gloss on x«pdfac. — After m0- 
tevw Elz. Fritzsche have xip:e, ih opposition to preponderant evidence. — Ver. 
26. xpafav . . . oxapdsav] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have xpdfac . . . cvapagac, 
following B C* D L &, min. (A has xpdfac . . . omapagéav) ; the neuter is a cor- 
rection. — dvréy] is, in accordance with nearly the same witnesses and vss., to 
be deleted, with Griesb. and Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it). — roAAotc] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have rove toAAmc, following ABL A &, 33. The article, in 
itself superfluous, was more easily omitted than added. — Ver. 27. avrdv rig 
xeipéc] Lachm. Tisch. have ri¢ yerp. avrov, following B D L A ®&, min. Copt. 
Arm. Vulg. It. Vict. A gloss (comp. i. 31, v. 41, viii. 23 ; Matt. ix. 25 ; Luke 
viii. 54). [Recent editors, R. V., agree with Tisch., the evidence being very 
strong.]— Ver. 28. The genitives ciceAQév70¢ avrov (Lachm. Tisch.) are found 
in BCDLA 8, min. ; they are, however, to be regarded as an emendation (it 
is otherwise at ver. 2) on account of the double avrév. [The evidence is again 
strongly against Meyer's theory. Recent editors, R. V., accept the genitive. ] — 
Ver, 29. The omission of x. vyoreig (Tisch.) is sufficiently attested by B &* and 
one codex of the It., since the addition from Matthew so very easily suggested 
itself. — Ver. 30. maperopevovro] Lachm. has éropedovro, following only B* D. 
Vere. Brix. Colb. The compound, not being understood, was set aside. — 
[Tisch., recent editors, with ® BC D L, have the form yvoi ; comp. Note XXV., 
p. 60.] — Ver. 31. r9 zpiry nuépg] B C* D LA &, vas. have pera zpeic juépag ; 
approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. From viii. 31. If r. rpéirg 
nu. had been introduced from the parallel (in this case, Luke), this would 
rather have been done at viii. 31 (from Matt. and Luke), where it has but very 
weak attestation. [The accusative with era is the form most clearly attested 


108 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


throughout this Gospel ; and accepted by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 33. }AGev] 
Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have 7Aov, folowing B D &, min. 
Syr. Pers. W, Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.). Not sufficiently attested for adoption, 
since at any rate the plural, after ver. 30, occurred more readily to the tran- 
scribers. — Before dieaoy. Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have zpo¢ éavrovc, which Griesb. 
condemned, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted. It is wantingin BC DLA &, 
vss., also in Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.), while several cursives place it after dteAoy., 
and it is to be regarded as added for more precise definition. — Ver. 34. iv rg 
66a] is wanting in A D A, Goth. Cant. Ver. Verc. Brix. Vind. Bracketed by 
Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche. But, if it had been added from ver. 33, it would 
appear before die2éx9. Understood of itself, it was easily overlooked. [Ver. 
37. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with & B L., read séynze, instead of the 
second défyra: of the Rec.]— Ver. 38. amexpify dé] B L A ®&, Syr. Copt. Tisch. 
have merely é¢7. Rightly ; comp. on ver. 12.—The Recepia, Lachm. Tisch. 
read : év ry dvéu. cov. Griesb. Scholz have deleted év. The witnesses on both 
sides are strong. The simple dative was more precisely defined partly, in ac- 
cordance with the usual conception “in the name,” by év, partly, in accord- 
ance with vv. 37, 39, by ézi (so Fritzsche, although following only U, min.). 
[Recent editors, R. V., retain éy, attested by 8 B C DL A, Vulg.] — After 
daizéuia Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have : 5¢ ovx axoAovOei guiv. But 
this is wanting in BC L A &, min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Aeth. Copt. Brix., while D 
X, min. vss., including Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.), omit the following dr: ovx axoa. 
yuiv (so Schulz, Fritzsche, Rinck). Accordingly Griesb. regards both as an ad- 
dition from Luke. But both are to be retained. The former dropped ont, 
because Luke has it not ; witnesses, which had the former reading, left out the 
latter as superfluous and cumbrous, If it had been a gloss from Luke, pe’ fuav 
would have been written instead of #uiv; but this only occurs in L, [Treg. 
brackets, W. and Hort, RB. V., omit the first clause, Tisch. Weiss retain both.] 
—éxwivoauev] BD LA ®&, min. have éxwAvouev. So Rinck and Tisch. The 
aorist is from Luke. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B A, read #xvdAov- 
Get, instead of the present, in the last clause.]— Ver. 40. Elz. Fritzsche, Tisch. 
have both times jzov. But ADE FGHK MSVTI, min. and most of the 
vss., including Vulg. and It., read tuov; juav is an emendation, as it is also in 
Luke ix. 50. [BC A &, Copt., etc. have 7uav twice ; accepted by recent editors, 
R. V.]— Ver. 41. Elz. has: év rw dvéu. pov. But ry and ov are wanting in 
very considerable witnesses, which condemn, although not unanimously, both 
readings as additions. — Before ov uy, dr: is to be adopted, following BC* DL 
AX, min., with Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. — Lachm. and Tisch. [not VIII. ] 
read d7odéce:, following only B D E, min. -— Ver. 42. After pexpav Fritzsche, 
Lachm. [Tisch. VIII., recent editors, R. V.] have rovrwy, in accordance, doubt- 
less, with A B C*#¥* DLN A 8, min. vas., including Vulg. It. ; but from Matt. 
xviii. 6, whence also has come the reading uidog dviadg (Lachm. Tisch. [and 
Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] following BC DL A &, min. vss., including Vulg. 
and It.). [Weiss apparently prefers the latter.) — Ver. 43. xaAdv coi éar:] Lachm. 
and Tisch. rightly read : xadAév éoriv oe, following BC L A &, min. Vere. The 
Recepia is from Matt. xviii. 8; but to derive thence the order eloeAGeiv el¢ r. C. 
(Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is forbidden by. its decisive attestation. — Ver. 45. 
got] oe is still more strongly attested here than at ver. 43, and is likewise to be 
adopted (with Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch.) — ei¢ rd zip rd dopecrov] is wanting 


CHAP. Ix., 1-13. 109 
inBCLA &, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted 
by Tisch. Even in ver. 43 the words are wanting in some, although far weaker 
witnesses. They are to be retained in ver. 43 (had there been an interpolation, 
we should have expected. ei¢ 7d rip rd uidvov, in accordance with Matt. xviii. 
8), but in ver. 45 they are to be struck out as a mechanical repetition from ver 
43. — The words ézov 6 oxeAné avrav ov tedevtd xal td rip ov oBévruTa: are only 
found in all witnesses at ver. 48, whereas in vv. 44 and 46 they are wanting in 
BC AR, min. Copt. Arm. They are, with Tisch., to be deleted in vv. 44 and 
46. [Rejected by all recent critical editors.] They were written on the margin 
from ver. 48.— Ver. 47. rot upéc] falls, according to B DL A 8, min. Arr, 
Copt. Arm. Slav. Cant. Verc. Colb. Corb., with Lachm. and Tisch., to be struck 
out. From Matt. xviii. 9. — [On the genuineness of the second clause of ver. 
49, see Note LX., p. 125.]— Ver. 50. Instead of the third dAa¢ there is to be 
adopted da, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A* B DL A X&, 1, 28, 209. 
dAac is a mechanical repetition. 


Ver. 1. See on Matt. xvi. 28. Comp. Luke ix. 27. — eit rivéc dde x.7.A.] 
sce the critical remarks : there are some here among the bystanders. — éAnavd.] 
having come ; otherwise conceived of in Matthew : épyduevov. — év duvdyer} 
in power ; comp. Rom. i. 8. When, moreover, in this place the coming of 
the kingdom is spoken of, it is the same nearness of the Parousia that is 
meant (comp. on Matt. vi. 10), as at Matt. xvi. 28 ;' not the constituting 
of the church (Bleek), nor the emergence of the idea of the kingdom of God 
into historical realization (Weisse, Heangelienfr. p. 232), the triumph of the 
gospel (Schenkel), and the like. See viii. 88. With interpretations of this 
nature the specification of time cio? rivéc x.r.A.— pointing as it does to the 
term of the existing generation—is not at all in keeping. 

Vv. 27-13. See on Matt. xvii. 1-12, where on the whole the narrative is 
presented in its most original form ; Matthew has followed a tradition 
mostly more accurate® than Mark, and altogether more so than Luke ix. 
28-86 f. [Sce Note LIV., p. 124.] — rdv "Idk. x. "Iwdvyv.] The one article em- 
braces the pair of brothers. — Ver. 3. éyévovro] plural (sec the critical re- 
marks), indicates the different articles of clothing, which became white (a 
vivid delineation), see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. I. 2. 38. [See additional 
critical note. ] — ola yvaget¢ x.7.A.] t.¢., of such nature (they became) as that 
a fuller on earth is not able tofurnish such a whiteness (obrwe¢ Aevedvaz, sec the 
critical remarks). éxi r#¢ y#¢ is added with reference to the heavenly nature 
of that lustre. Bengel well says, moreover : ‘‘ yiév natura, Aevnava arte,” 
‘‘enow by nature, whiten by art.” [But o¢ ydv is not sufficiently attested. J 
— Ver. 6.4 ri Zadgcec] what he shall say ( future, see the critical remarks), not 


1In opposition to Schwegler, I. p. 467; 
Baur, Franz. p. 661: Késtlin, p. 388. 

* A definite specification of time, similar 
to we® Hudpas cf in this case, is only found 
again in Mark at xiv. 1, and there, too, of a 
very important turning-point of the his- 
tory. 

?In opposition to Schenkel and Weiz- 
sicker. 


4 In this remark (by way of excuse) about 
Peter, Hilgenfeld finds Petrinism; and 
Baur, a dependence of the writer on Luke 
ix. 88. As to the latter, the converse Is 
the case. The former springs from the‘en- 
deavor to discover fendency everywhere, 
even when, as here, it is the most innocent 
explanatory remark, in which indeed Baur 
only sees (Markusev. p. 68) the character of 


110 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
inappropriate (Fritzsche) ; but ade: has reference to the point of time, when 
Peter was just desiring to begin the uttcrance of what is said at ver. 5 ; and 
Ti Aad#oes expresses the unknown more strongly and more vividly than the 
deliberative vi AaAyvay (what he should say). — ixdoBa yap éyévovro (see the 
critical remarks): for they became full of terror,’ namely, by reason of the 
appearances, VV. 3, 4. — Ver. 7. xai éyévero] and there became (there arose, 
came into manifestation) a cloud. Comp. Luke ix. 34. — Ver. 8. And ofa — 
sudden, having looked around, they saw, etc. é£amva occurs only here in the 
N. T., frequently in the LXX., but elsewhere is rare and late. — vidéva] ap- 
plies to the persons who had appeared ; hence aid is: but, on the contrary, 
not equivalent to ei uf (Beza, and many others), which Matthew has. — The 
fear of the disciples is presented by Matt. xvii. 6 with more of psychologi- 
cal accuracy as only subsequent to the voice (this is the climax of the event), 
but in such a manner that they fall down, and Jesus Himself delivers them 
from it. The saying about building tabernacles does not bear the impress 
of confusion, as Mark presents it, but that of a still fresh ingenuous joy at 
the ravishing spectacle ; nor yet does it bear the impress of drowsiness, as 
Luke designates it, whose expression, according to Baur’s opinion (see 
Markusecang. p. 69), Mark has only wished to modify ; comp. Baur’s very 
unfavorable judgment on the narrative of Mark in general in the theol. Jahrb. 
1853, p. 82 f. In Luke the latter tradition betrays itself ; sce on Luke ix. 
28 ff., and Holtzmann, p. 224 f. But all three narratives in this particular, 
as also in their other features, stand opposed to the boldness of Schenkel, 
who (following Weisse) reduces the whole matter to this, that Jesus had by 
His instructive teaching made the two representatives of the old covenant ap- 
pear to the three confidential disciples on the mountain in a@ right light, in 
the light of His own Messianic destination; while, on the other hand, 
Weizsiicker abides by a vision as the culmination of a deeper process of faith. 
And assuredly a visionary element was combined with the marvellous event. 
See on Matt. xvii. 12, Remark. — Ver. 10. rdv Adyov] what Jesus had just 
said to them, ver. 9, not the occurrence of the glorification (Beza) ; see the 
following question. — éxpdéryoav]-kept the saying fast ; did not let it go out of 
their consideration, ‘‘ non neglectim habuerunt,” ‘‘ did not hold it heedlessly” 
(Bengel).2. To explain it in harmony with the éo/yyoav in Luke 1x. 36, we 
must neither attach to the xpareiv in itself the meaning : to keep concealed,* 
nor bring out that meaning by the addition to it of pic éavrobe (Vulg. : 
continuerunt apud se) ;‘4 but simply explain it with Fritzsche, comp. Bret- 





incompleteness in the writer’s combination 
of the other two Gospels. In opposition to 
such unfairness, however, Holtzmann, 
p. 88 f. 194, goes too far in his defence of 
Mark, inasmuch as he does not even ac- 
knowledge the excusing character of the 
ov yap joe. «.7.A., Which even Bleek, Weiss, 
and Hilgenfeld have recognized. 

1 Heb. xii. 21; Deut. ix. 19; Plut. Fad. 6; 
Arist. Physiogn. 6. 

2Comp. Test. XII. patr. p. 688: é» puy7 
gov #2 Kpatnoys ScAov, Ecclus. xxi. 14: 


wagay yvaov ov xparyoe, Comp. Bar. fv. 13. 
Cant. lil. 4: éxpdrnga avroy nai ove adane 
auréy. 

2 On behalf of which Theodotion, Dan. v. 
12, and the Scholiast Aesch. Cho&ph. 78, 
have wrongly been appealed to. 

‘Comp. Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Lach- 
mann, Ewald, and many others, including 
even Euthymius Zigabenus; see, on the 
other hand, ver. 16. {. 27; Luke xxii. 23; 
Acts ix. 29; comp. Schulz. 


CHAP. Ix., 2-13. 111 


schneider : they held fast to the prohibition of Jesus, that is, they were silent 
on the matter. But this entire explanation does not agree with zpic éavroic 
ovlyrovvrec k.t.A., Wherein is contained the accompanying more precise defini- 
tion of the xpareiv rév A6yov. — mpd¢ éavrobe prefixed with emphasis: among 
themselces discussing, not questioning Jesus thereupon. To Him they have 
another question, ver. 11. Comp. on i. 27. — ri éore rd éx vexp. avacr.] relates 
not to the resurrection of the dead in general (which was familiar as a con- 
ception, and expected in fact as a Messianic work), but to the rising just 
mentioned by Jesus, namely, that the Messiah would rise from the dead, 
which, in fact, presupposed His dying, and on that account was so startling 
and enigmatical to the disciples. Comp. ver. 32 ; John xii. 84. And in 
reference to the historical character of the prediction of the resurrection, see 
on Matt. xvi. 21.— Ver. 11. dre Aéyovocy x.7.A.] wherefore say, etc. ; that, 
indeed, is not in keeping with thy prohibition ! It is, with Lachmann, to 
be written : 6, re (‘‘ quod est dtd ri, simillimum illi notissimo ei interrogativo,” 
‘* that is, dca rz, very much like the well-known el interrogetive,” Praefat. 
p. xhii.); and the indirect character of the question (Thucyd. i. 90. 4) 
lies in the thought that governs it: I would fain know, or the like.' 
Ewald likewise appropriately takes dr: as the recitativum, so that the ques- 
tion would be veiled in an affirmative clause (but at ver. 28: wherefore). 
Comp. Bleek. Still the bashful expression, which according to our view the 
question has, appears more in keeping with the circumstances. [Sec Note 
LV., p. 124.] — Ver. 12. *HAiac . . . wavra] a concession of the correctness of 
the doctrinal proposition (comp. on Matt. xvii. 11), the theoretical form of 
which (hence the present) is retained.* Bengel appropriately says : ‘‘ Prae- 
sens indefinitum uti,” ‘‘the indefinite present,” as in Matt. ii. 4. — What 
follows is, with Heinsius and Lachmann, to be punctuated thus: xa ric 
yéypartrat Evi tov vidv Tov avbpdrov; iva woAAG wa97 x. ELovd.: and how stands 
a written as to the Son of man? He is to suffer many things, and be set at 
neught. The truth of that proposition of Elijuh as the theocratic restorer, 
who is destined to precede the Messiah, has side by side with it the Script- 
ural testimony of the suffering of the Messiah. kai is the simple and, link- 
ing what stands written of the Messiah to what was said of Elijah. Mark 
ought, after beginning the construction of the discourse with yév, to have 
followed it up by dé ; but he passes over in an anacoluthic fashion from the 
form of contrast with which he began into the eudjunctire.? The ansier fol- 
lows in iva x.t.A., and that conceived under the form of the design of the 
yéyparra: init. vidv x.t.A. The entire wai ric... éfovd. is usually regarded 
as a question, containing an objection against the prevailing way in which that 
doctrine regarding Elijah was understood : But how does it agree with this, 
that it is written of the Messiah that He isto suffer many things? The solution 


1 See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Euth. p. 271A: richer Monatsschr. 1856, p. 64: aroxaitorwvas, 
Licke on Jobn vill. 25, p. 811 f.; Buttmann, is quite as unnecessary as it is grammat- 
neul. Gr. p. 218 (E. T. 28]. Comp. ver. 28, ically clumay. : 
and Homer, //. x. 142: 6, 7. 8% xpew récor ®See Nagelsbach on the Liad, Exc. 1. 
ixet, Barnab. 7, and Dressel in loc. p. 173; Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 257; Klotz, 

*The conjecture of Hitzig in the Zd ad Decar. p. 659. 


112 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

would then be given in ver. 13: ‘‘Verum enim vero mihi credite, Elias 
venit, non est talis apparitio expectanda, qualem expectant Judaei, jam te- 
nit Elias, Johannes baptista. .. ct eum tractgrunt, etc., neque ergo mihi 
meliora sunt speranda,” ‘‘ But truly believe me, Elijah is come, there is not 
such an appearance to be looked for as the Jews look for, Elijah is come al- 
ready, John the Baptist ... . and they did, etc. ; therefore better things are 
not to be hoped for in my case,” Kujnocl.! [See Note LVI., p. 124 seq. | 
In opposition to this entire view, it may be decisively urged that it would 
need an adrersatice particle instead of xai, and that, in ver. 13, instead of 
Ore Kai ‘HAiac éAGAvde, the expression would have run : dre kai éAHAvder "HAiac. 
Fritzsche, following the reading* xaddic too weakly attested (instead of kai 
mag), says : ‘‘Quod Judaici doctores perhibent, venturum esse Eliam, non 
minus certum est, quam e Y. T. oraculis illud, fore ut ego Messias multa 
exantlem,” ‘‘ What the Jewish doctors set forth, that Elijah is to come, is 
not less certain than this from the O. T. oracles will be, that I the Messiah 
should suffer many things.” But Fritzsche himself does not fail to sce the 
want of internal connection herein, and hence he conjectures as to vv. 12, 13: 
Hiag pév iAS Ov mparov, atoxadiord wavta’ GAAG Aéyw tiv, bts Kal éxoigaay avTg 
boa 7PtAnoay, Kadac yéyparrat Ei Tov vidy Tod avd pdrov, Iva woAAG x.t.A. Ewald 
also, with whom Holtzmann agrees, comes ultimately to a conjecture that in 
Mark, ver. 13, there is wanting before xadd¢ yéypamra: the clause of Matt. 
XVli. 12: oftwe Kai 6 vide Tov av¥pdrov péAAc nacxzey tr avrov. He supposes 
the discourse to have proceeded thus : What is said in Malachi iii. of Elijah 
—that, coming before the Messiah, he shall restore all things—retains, doudtless, 
its truth ; but also what the Holy Scripture says about a suffering of the Messiah — 
(as in Isa. liii. 7 f.) must be fulfilled ; tf, thus, both are to be true, the Elijah 
who is to precede the historical Messiah must in fact have come already, and hate 
been mistaken and set at nought by men, just in the same way as, according to the 
Holy Scripture, this destiny awaits the Messiah Himself.” [In this view it is 
at the same time assumed that the clause, ver. 12, xai még yéypazra: x.T.A Is 
omitted in Matthew.] According to Mark, however, as his narrative lies 
before us,* the discourse of Jesus rather contains a syllogism with a suppress- 
ed conclusion,—in such a way, namely, that the major proposition is conveyed 
in ver. 12, and the minor in ver. 13: ‘‘ the doctrine of the prior advent and 
the prior work of Zlijah is correct, and of the Messiah it is written that He has 
to endure much suffering and setting at nought (ver. 12). But I say unto 
you, that Zlijah also (before the Messiah) has come, and they have done to 
him everything that they have pleased, according to the Scripture (ver. 13).” 
The suppressed conclusion is : ‘‘ consequently there is now impending over 
the Messiah the Scriptural destiny of suffering, since the fate of the Elijah is al- 





2 Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophy- 
lact, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, in- 
cluding de Wette. In substance so also 
Hofmann, Weissag. und Hrfill. II. p. 80 f. 

2 Which Linder also follows inthe Stud. 
u. Krit. 1862, p. 558, arbitrarily enough sup- 
pling a filet. 

$8 Which does not exhibit a distinction be- 


tween Scripture and fulfilment, as Weiz- 
sacker judges, but (he hermony of the two. 
Weizsiicker is also mistaken in his extend- 
ing the question from sas to éfovs. Ac- 
cordingly it is assumed to have the mean- 
ing, that the Messiah's suffering, according 
to the prevailing view, is not treated of. 


CHAP. IX., 14-29. 113 
ready fulfilled.” The suppression of this sad closing inference, to which Mat- 
thew, ver. 12, gives erpression, is dictated by tender forbearance towards the 
disciples, whom, after so transporting a vision, the Lord will not now intro- 
duce any further into the gloomy future. This is assuredly an original feat- 
ure, in which Mark has the advantage over the narrative of Matthew, who 
in this history has, on the whole, the more original account.! — éfovdevun§ | 
The form éfovdev799 (Lachmann), as being that which is less prevalent in 
the LXX., is to be preferred.” [See critical note.] The signification may 
be either : to be esteemed as nothing (contemnatur, Vulgate, and most exposi- 
tors), as Ps. xv. 4, lili. 6 ; 1 Macc. iii. 14 ; Ecclus. xxxiv. 22 ; or: to be an- 
nihilated, as Ps, xliv. 6 (5), Ix. 14, cxix. 117 ; Judith xiii. 17 ; Ecclus. xlvii. 
7. The latter is here most in harmony with the context after roAAd radQ. — 
Ver. 18. aAAd] is the continuative jam cero, atgui, which introduces a new 
thought in contrast with the previous one. If the continuation of the dis- 
course were formed purely syllogistically (consequently without 24,0 tyiv, 
bre), the classical language would have chosen aAjd ufv (Becker, Aneed. IT. 
p. 839). —xai "HAtac] Hlijah also, not merely the Messiah. That the latter 
had come, was to the disciples undoubted ; but as to the advent of the Elijah 
they had scruples. The second xai therefore is and. De Wette wrongly 
considers the two uses of «ai as corresponding, ef... et, in that case xa? 
éA9A. "H2iag must have been read. — xadd¢ yéyparra: én’ avtév] has reference 
to the immediately preceding xa? érocfoav x.7.A., not to 'HAlac éA9A., as Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus, Robert Stephens, Heinsius, Clericus, Homberg, Wolf, Ben- 
gel, and many others ambiguously connect it. But in these words Jesus 
does not mean what is written of the unworthy treatment of the prophets in 
general (Kuinoel), against which may be urged the definite én’ airév, but 
what the Scripture relates of the fate of Hlijah (1 Kings xix.) as type of the 
fate of John.* The reference to a lost writing (a conjecture of Bleek) is very 
unnecessary. 

Vv. 14-29. See on Matt. xvii. 14-21. Comp. Luke ix. 37-43. The nar- 
rative of Mark is more original, characteristic, fresher, and, for the most 
part, more detailed than the other two. — ovéyr.] according to vv. 16-18, 
on occasion of the circumstance that the disciples had not been able to per- 
form the cure, and so concerning their power of miracles which was now so 
doubtful. — éfe6au8. | they were cery much amazed.4 But at what ? Euthymius 
Zigabenus leaves the open choice between two explanations : either at the 
approach of Jesus so exactly opportune, or at the brightness of His coun- 
tenance (kal yap eixdc égéAneoOal riva xdpiv ex THE peTapopgdceuc, ‘‘for it is also 
likely that a certain grace was retained from the transfiguration,” comp. 


1 Holtzgmann thinks that In the question 
and answer Mark lays the stress upon the 
resurrection of the dead, while Jfatthew em- 
phasizes the appearance of Hiijah. But in 
Mark too the disciples ask no question what- 
ever about the rising from the dead, but 
only have their difficulties about It among 
themselves. 

?On the later Greek character of the 


8 


word in general (only used here in the N. T. 
—not in 2 Cor. x. 10), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 182. 

3 Comp. Grotius, Wetstein, Fritzsche. See 
also Hengstenberg, Christof. ITI. 2, p. 89. 

4Orph. Arg. 1217; Ecclus. xxx. 9; Polyb. 
XX. 10.9: éxOapzPor yeyoréres; in the N. T. 
used by Mark only. 


114 THE GOSPEL CF MARK. 


Bengel, de Wette, Bisping). But the latter must have been expressed ; 
moreover, this cause of astonishment would rather have been followed by 
a remaining at a distance than a spoorpéyerv and aondfev. Hence (comp. 
also Bleek) the jirst explanation of Euthymius Zigabenus ’ is, in accordance 
with the connection, to be preferred. It was the amazement of joyously star- 
tled surprise, that, whilst the disciples, who had not been able to help, were 
in so critical a situation, as was also the father with his unfortunate son, 
just at that moment the mighty miracle-worker Himsclf came to their aid. 
According to Fritzsche, there is denoted generally : ‘‘ quanta fuerit Jesu 

. et admiratio in plede et veneratio,” ‘‘how great was... both the 
wonder and the veneration of Jesus among the people.” Much too general 
and aloof from the context. According to Lange, what is meant is, ‘‘ the 
starting back of a multitude, that had become somewhat profanely disposed, 
at the sudden emergence of a manifestation of punishment.” But Mark has 
nothing of these psychological presuppositions, and mpoorpéyovre¢ «.T.A. 18 
not in keeping therewith. According to Baur, Markuseo. p. 70, Mark 
has only attributed to the people the impression, ‘‘ with which he himself 
accompanied the Lord, as He descended from the mount of transfigura- 
tion.” With such modes of dealing all exegesis is at an end. —Ver. 16. 
éxnpwrt. avtotc] This avrote cannot without arbitrariness be referred to any 
but those mentioned immediately before—therefore to the people,* who are 
accordingly to be conceived, ver. 14, as likewise taking part in the ovtyreiv, 
so that there ov{yrotvrac also applies jointly to the dxAov zoAbv. So also 
Bleek ; comp. Ewald. The usual reference to the ypaypuareic is consequent- 
ly to be rejected (although Fritzsche adopts this, and Lange, who, however, 
assumes a sympathetic participation of the people); and so, too, is the refer- 
ence to the disciples and scribes (Griesbach, Paulus, Kuinoel), or mercly to 
the disciples (Mill, Bengel). From the above reference it is plain at the same 
time that in what follows there must be written, not zpd¢ avroi¢ (so usually; 
hence also the readings poe éavrotc, A, 8*, and év iuiv, D, Vulg.), but zpa¢ 
avrote (with Bengel, Fritzsche, Lachmann, Tischendorf), since airoic, like 
avtoi¢ in ver. 14, applies to the disciples.—Ver. 17. The father, included 
among this 5yA0c¢, begins to speak in the natural impulse of the paternal heart, 
not asif no other would have ventured to do so (Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Bengel, de Wette). He is designated, in apt delineation of what occurred, 
a8 elc éx T. SyAov, since it is by his utterance that he first shows himself as 
father. — rpéc¢ ce] that is, thither, where I might presume Thy presence, 
because Thy disciples were there. — aaadov] according to the point of view, 
that the condition of the sick man is the effect of the same condition in the 
demon. Comp. Luke xi. 14 ; Wetstein in loc. — Ver. 18. xai drov av k.t.2.] 
and wherever he has taken hold of him. The possession (ver. 17) is not con- 
ceived as constant, but as such that the demon leaves the sick man (epilep- 
tic) at times, and then again returns into him (Matt. xii. 44), and lays hold 
of him, etc. Hence ver. 35 : pyxére cicéAPge cig avrév. The éyovra of ver. 17 


1Comp. Theophylact and Victor Anti- 2To whose yowdgorro abroy Jesus replies 
echenus. with His question. 


CHAP, IX., 14—29. “115 
is not opposed to this (de Wette), for the son had the demon—even although 
at intervuls the latter left him—so long as the pyxéri eicéAOg¢ was not yet 
realized. — pyooe:] he tears him, which convulsive effect is not more precisely 
to be defined (Euthymius Zigabenus and many others : xaraBdéAAec cig yp, 
‘‘throws to the ground”).’— agpife:] change of the subject ; Winer, p. 556 
{E. T. 682]. The permanent effect of these paroxysms is: énpaivera:, be- 
comes withered, wasted away. Comp. iii. 1. See gencrally the description 
of the morbus comitialis in Celsus, IIT. 23. —eizov . . . wa] Itoldit... 
that they. — Ver. 19. avroic] the disciples, ver. 18. See, moreover, on Matt. 
xvii. 17. —Ver. 20. iddv avrdy «.r.2] when the demoniac (not : the demon, 
Bleek) had looked upon Jesus, the demon tore him (the patient).* [See 
Note LVIL., p. 125.]—éxi r. yac] belongs to mecdv (comp. xiv. 85 ; Xen. 
Cyr. iv. 5, 54). — Vv. 21-24. It is only the specially graphic Mark that has 
this dialogue. — Ver. 21. &¢] Particle of time : how long ago is it, when this 
Sell upon him ? — Ver. 22. nai cig rip] even into fire. In John xv. 6 also the 
article is not necessary (in opposition to Fritzsche), although critically at- 
tested. — el ri dévy] Euthymius Zigabenus rightly says: dépac, rac oix eizve 
niorty adicraxrov. Hence the answer of Jesus at ver. 23 ; hence also the ut- 
terance of the father at ver. 24, who felt his faith not to be sufficiently 
strong.? — juiv] the father of the family speaks. — Ver. 23. After deletion of 
rtorevoat (sce the critical remarks), rd ei divy is to be regarded (Winer, 
p. 163, 506 [E. T. 181, 574]) as nominative absolute: The ‘if thou canst”. . . 
‘“* Feerything is possible to him that belieceth,” 7.6., as far as concerns thy just 
expressed ‘‘ if thou canst,” the matter depends on the faith ; the believer is 
able to attain everything. The article embracing the ei divg substantivally 
(Kiihner, § 492) takes up the word just spoken by the father, and puts it 
with lively emphasis without connecting it with the further construction, in 
order to link its fulfilment to the petitioner’s own faith. Griesbach, Tisch- 
endorf, Ewald take 1d ei divy interrogatively, and xdvra dby. tr. mior. as an- 
swering it: ‘‘Tu ne dubitans si potes aiebas ? Nihil non in ejus, qui con- 
fidat, gratiam ficri potest,” ‘‘ Dost thou ask in doubt if thou canst ? Every- 
thing can become a grace in him who fully believes,” Griesbach. Comp. 
Ewald : Askest thou that: if thou canst? etc. But the assumption of a 
question is not indicated by the non-interrogative address of the father 
(whence we should have expected ri rd ei divy, or the like), and so we are 
not warranted in mentally supplying an aiebas or askest thou?4 With the 
Recepta miorevoa: or dbvy the explanation is : if thou canst believe (I will help 
thee) ; everything ia possible, etc., in which interpretation, however, the ré 
is without warrant disregarded, as if it were of no significance (but comp. 
Matt. xix. 18 ; Luke xxii. 37), and taken only ‘‘as a sign of quotation of 


1 See on the word, Ruhnken, ep. crié. I. 
p. %: Duncan, Lez., ed. Rost, p. 1016. 
Comp. pdeceay (of the gladiators); Salma- 
alus, ad Ach. Jat. p. 657; and Jacobs, 
p. 821. 

2 On the anacoluthic use of the nominative 
participle, .co Matthiaec, ad Eurip. Phoen. 


288 ; Bernhardy, p. 479; Winer, p. 501 (E. T. 
668]. Comp. also Niigelsbach, Anm. z. Jliae, 
ed. 8, p. 385 f. 

*? On the form évrp instead of Svrvara, see 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 859. 

4 Comp. Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1848, p. 122, 


116 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

the direct discourse (de Wette).’ Lachmann’? places no point at all after 
mioTevoa, and we might accordingly explain it thus : if thou art in a position 
to beliece that everything is possible to him that believeth (so in my second 
edition). But even thus the ré causes difficulty, and the thought and the 
expression would be too diffuse, not in keeping with the concise representa- 
tion of Mark, especially inso impassioned a connection. Lange takes it thus: 
“the if thou canst means : canst believe.” How enigmatically would Jesus 
have so spoken! Bleek takes ei interrogaticely. But neither the delibera- 
tive character of this question (see on Matt. xii. 10) nor the 746 would be 
appropriate. Bengel’s interpretation also is impossible: ‘‘ Toc, si potes 
credere, res est ; hoc agitur,” ‘‘ This ‘if thou canst believe,’ is the matter ; 
this is to be heeded.” But he well observes on the state of the case : ‘‘ Om- 
nipotentiae divinae se fides hominis quasi organon accommodat ad recipien- 
dum, vel etiam ad agendum.”’ Fritzsche has conjectured either : elzev abr 
ei divacat; micreve’ zavra duvara x.t.A., OF : elmev avrg’ rh tote 1d ei divacat; 
sioreve’ wavta x.7.A., and Bornemann, J.c. p. 128 : elrev aire 1d rdvra duvara 
t@ mior. — Ver. 24. BotOec uav ry antoria] help me unbelieving ; refuse me not 
Thy help, notwithstanding my unbelief. Calovius, Bengel,? and many 
others render : assist my unbelief, strengthen my weak faith, which, how- 
ever, is at variance with the contextual meaning of Bowe: (ver. 22). More- 
over, the answer of the father, who has just said zioretw, but immediately 
afterwards, in consideration of the greatness of the issue made to depend 
on his faith, designates this faith in respect of its degree as amiovia, is quite 
in keeping with the alternation of vehemently excited feeling. Victor An- 
tiochenus rightly says: diddopds¢ tori 4 mioric’ 4 pév eicaywytx?, 7) 62 Tedeia, 
‘“‘the faith is different ; in the one case elementary, in the other full 
grown.”—The substantive ri amcorig brings more strongly into prominence 
the condition than would have been done by an adjective.‘ And the pre- 
fixed wov represents at the same time the mihi of interest (v. 30 ; Rom. xi. 
14, and frequently Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 117 A): render for me tomy 
unbelief Thy help. — Ver. 25. ore éxtovvtpt yer bx20¢] that people were thereupon 
running together. He wished to avoid still greater publicity. —yé] em- 
phatically, in contrast to the disciples. — p7xét1] no more, as hitherto. See 
on ver. 18. — Ver. 26. xpdfac . . . omapdéf&ac] xpdgac : crying out, not speak- 
ing. The masculines belong to the constructio xard civeow ; Mark has con- 
ceived to himself the wvedua as a person (a8 daiuwy), and has used the attrib- 
utive participles accordingly, not therefore by mistake (Fritzsche, de 
Wette).° — roi¢ roAdoic] the multitude. The entire description is true and 
lifelike, and does not aim, as Hilgenfeld thinks, at attaining a very great 


1 So also Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, 
p. 559. 

® Who nevertheless, Pracf. IT. p. vii., con- 
jectures NIZTQZAI: ‘“‘Istud si potes,"’ in 
quo dubitatio est, facito ut certum et con- 
firmatum des, ut fiat “ potes,” “* The tf 
thou canat, in which thereis doubt, I declare 
thou mayst concede as certain and con- 
firmed, that it may become thou canet."’ 


Ingenious, but very artificial; and scrour 
only occurs in the N. T. at 2 Tim. iif. 14. 

3 Who, however, also admits our view. 

4See Winer, p. 211 [E. T. 236]. 

® Comp. Xen. Cyr. vil. 8.8: get, & ayably 
Kai moth Wuxh, olxn 8h awoAtwery Huas; see 
in general, Matthiae, p. 975; Bornemann in 
the Siche. Stud. 1846, p. 40. 


CHAP. IX., 30-37. 117 


miracle. — Ver. 28 f. cic olxov] as vii. 17. — rc] is to be written 6, r:, and, as 
at ver. 11, to be explained as wherefore. — rovto r. yévoc] this kind of demons 
—a view of the words which Ewald also, in his Gesch. Chr. p. 885 (not in 
his Eeang. p. 78, 277), recognizes ‘‘in the present Mark,” but not in Mat- 
thew. —-év ovdevi] by nothing, by no means. That prayer (x. vyor. is not 
genuine) is meant as a means of increasing faith (Matt. xvii. 20), Mark does 
not say indeed, but it follows from ver. 19 ; hence it is not to be concluded 
that the utterance contains in his case the sense of @ reproach that the disci- 
ples had not prayed (and fasted) enough (de Wette). 

Vv. 30-32. Comp. Matt. xvii. 22 f., who abridges, and Luke ix. 43-45. 
— ixeifev] out of the region of Caesarea Philippi, viii. 27. — raperopetovro] 
they journeyed along through Galilee, i.e., they passed through in such a way, 
that (until Capernaum, ver. 38) they never tarried anywhere. Comp. Deut. 
li, 4, 14; Bar. iv. 43; also Mark ii. 23. The travelling along by-ways 
(Lange) is not implied in the verb. — xa? ob #OeAev, iva tig yoo? (Lachmann, 
Tischendorf read yvoi ; see on v. 43) : similar to vil. 24. But here (iva) the 
contents of the wish is conceived as its design. The reason why Jesus 
wished to journey unknown is given by édidaoxe yap x.r.A., ver. 81, for which 
deeply grave instruction He desired to be entirely undisturbed with His 
disciples. This édidacxe was the continuance of the fpfaro didéaxerv of viii. 
31 ; hence there is no reason for understanding in the passage before us not 
the Twelve, but the scattered adherents in Galilee (Lange). Moreover, 
avrotc in ver. 33 is decisive against this. Comp. ver. 85. — rapadidorac] the 
near and certain future realized as present. — xal aroxravOeic] has in it some- 
thing solemn.’— Ver. 32. The instructions of Jesus were so opposed to their 
Messianic expectations, that they not only did not comprehend them, but 
they, moreover, shrank from any more precise disclosure concerning the in- 
conceivable gloomy fate before them. 

Vv. 33-87. See on Matt. xviii. 1-5. Comp. Luke ix. 46-48. Only 
Matt. xvii. 24 ff. has the history of the stater. Of subordinate importance, 
perhaps also belonging to a more local tradition, it seems to have remained 
unknown to Mark, with which view x. 749. ei¢ Kaz. in ver. 33 is not at vari- 
ance (in opposition to de Wette). [Sce Note LVIII., p. 125.]— Mark is more 
original in the historical introduction of the point in question, ver. 38 f., 
whereas Matt. xviii. 3, 4 has rightly completed the narrative from the collec- 
tion of Logia, but has, on the other hand, withdrawn from the conclusion in 
ver. 5 its completeness, as it appears in Mark ver. 87 (Matthew has the thought 
already at x. 40). — év rg 6d] See ver. 80. —iocdrun] from being conscience- 
struck. — mpdc¢ 41441.] emphatically prefixed : with one another, so that they 
one against the other claimed the higher place. It was not the general ques- 
tion ri¢ pweifwv in abstracto, but the concrete question of personal jealousy in 
their own cirele of disciples. — ric pei{av] This brief, certainly primitive, in- 
terrogation is in Matthew more precisely defined by év rj Baad. r. ovp. from 
the answer (ver. 8). This more precise definition, however, is not, with 
Beza, Heupel, and many others, to be imported also here, but it stands 


2 Comp. Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. %. 


118 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


simply : who is of higher rank, although it is self-evident that they had also 
included in their view their position in the kingdom of heaven. — xaficag 
égdv. rove dddexa] by way of solemn preparation. — Jf a man desires to be of the 
Jirst rank, he must, etc. This éora: expresses the resulé (comp. on Matt. xx. 
26 f.),—the state of things that will arise in consequence of that wish,—and 
thereby defines the right OéAew moar. elvac. — Ver. 86 does not come in un- 
connectedly (Weisse, Holtzmann), but the progression is : ‘‘ Of all servants, 
even of the /east, the affectionate reception of whom is a service shown to 
myself,” etc. — évayxadic.] after he had embraced it. Comp. x. 16. An orig- 
inal trait, which is only found in Mark. The verb occurs only in Mark, but 
is frequent in the classical writers. — Ver. 37. ovx . . . aAAd] not non tam 
. guam, but with conscious rhetorical emphasis the ivé déyera: is abso- 

lutely inepatived (comp. Matt. x. 20), which is intended to denote in the 
strongest degree the importance of the reception of such a child (a child-like 
unassuming believer, see on Matt. xviii. 5) to fraternal loving fellowship.’ 
Vv. 38-40. Comp. Luke ix. 49, 50 (not in Matthew). The connection of 
thought lies in émi rg avéu. pov. . . TH ovdu. cov ; the disciples had done the 
opposite of the déyeofa:in the case of one, who had uttered the name of Jesus.” 
So John came to his question. Bengel well says: ‘‘dubitationem hanc vi- 
detur in pectore aliquamdiu gessisse, dum opportune eam promerct.” But 
Strauss, I. p. 642, and de Wette (comp. also Bleek), attribute this connec- 
tion of thought merely to the reporter (Luke, whom Mark follows), who, on 
the ground of the éri r@ ovéu. vov, has inserted just here the traditional frag- 
ment. This is improbable ; such casual annexations are more natural in 
real living dialogue, and the reflection of the reporter would have found - 
more appropriate places for their insertion, such as after vi. 30. — ro ovdu. 
cov.] by means of Thy name, by the utterance of it. [See critical note, 
p. 108.] Comp. Matt. vii. 22 ; Actsiii. 6, xix. 18. The exorcist in our passage 
was not an impostor, but a believer ; yet not one belonging to the constant 
followers of Jesus, although his faith was not perhaps merely elementary, 
but, on the contrary, even capable of miracles. What he had done appeared 
to the disciples as a privilege still reserved for the narrower circle, and as 
an usurpation outside of it. — &¢ ot« axod. juiv, and then again 6rz ovK axoA. 
juiv] John brings this point tery urgently forward as the motive of the dis- 
ciples’ procedure (it is no ‘‘intolerabilis loquacitas,” ‘‘ intolerable loquac- 
ity,” of which Fritzsche accuses the tertus receptus). [See critical note, 
p. 108.] — éxwAtouev (see the critical remarks) : the imperfect, following the 
aorist, makes us dwell on the main point of the narrative. Sce Kiihner, II. 
p. 74. — Ver. 39 f. Application: Of such a man, who, even without belong- 
ing to our circle, has nevertheless attained to such an energetic faith in me 
as to do a miracle on the basis of my name, there is no reason to apprehend 
any speedy change into reviling enmity against me. His experience will 
retain him for us, even although he has not come to his authorization, as ye 
have, in the way of immediate fellowship with me. It is obvious, more- 


1See Winer, p. 439 ff. [E. T. 495 ff.]; Comp. Schleiermacher, Zuk. p. 158 f. 
Klotz, ad Derar. p.9 f. Fritzsche, Olshausen, Ebrard, p. 447 f. 


CHAP. IX., 41-48. 119 
over, from this passage how powerfully the word and work of Jesus had 
awakened in individuals even beyond the circle of His constant followers a 
higher power, which even performed miracles ; thus sparks, from which 
flamed forth the power of a higher life, had fallen and kindled beyond the 
circle of disciples, and Jesus desires to see the results unchecked. Some 
have found in this man who followed not with the company of the Twelve 
the Pauline Christians, whom Mark makes to be judged of by Jesus only 
with more tenderness and tolerance than at Matt. vii. 21 f.1 This is more 
than exaggerated ingenuity ; it is the invention of a criticism, the results of 
which are its own presuppositions.—The construction is regular, and dw- 
foevas Gesignates the ethical possibility. —rayi] soon,* not : lightly, which 
might be signified by réya, Rom. v. 7; Philem. 15.—([On ver. 40, see 
Note LIX., p. 125.] 

Ver. 41. See on Matt. x. 42. There is nothing opposed to the assump- 
tion that Jesus uttered such a saying here also, and generally on several oc- 
casions. — yép refers, by way of assigning a reason, to what immediately 
precedes, in so far, namely, as the high significance of their position in the 
world is contained in 8¢ ovx fort Ka? tuav, imép ipaev tor. ‘For ye are such 
important persons as the Messiah’s disciples in the world, that he who 
shows to you the smallest service of love,” etc. — év dvéyare 87 x.7.A.] so that 
this rendering of service has its impelling reason in the name, in the charac- 
teristic designation, that ye are Messiah's disciples, 7.e., for the sake of the 
name.’ 

Vv. 42-48. See on Matt. xviii. 6-9. Comp. Luke xvii. 1-4. Jesus now 
reverts to the demeanor towards the lowly modest believers, as whose lively 
type the little child was still standing before Him (ver. 86), and administers 
the warning that none should give offence to such child-like ones (ver. 42). 
To comply with this, we nced the most decided sternness towards ourselves 
and self-denial, so as not to be seduced by ourselves to evil and thereby 
to incur everlasting torment (vv. 43-48). This simple course of the ad- 
dress is often mistaken, and even de Wette (comp. Saunier, p. 111, Késtlin, 
Baur) thought that Mark had allowed himself to be drawn out of the con- 
nection by Luke. The source from which Mark draws is the collection of 
Logia. —xaddv . . . paAAov) namely, than that he should have accomplished 
such a seduction. — repixecrac and 3éBAyra bring vividly before us the state 
of the case, in which he zs sunk with the millstone round his neck. — Ver. 
43 ff. Observe, according to the corrected text (see the critical remarks), 
how in the three references to the everlasting torment (which, indeed, ac- 
cording to Kdstlin, p. 349, are alleged to be in the taste of a later time) it is 
only at the end, in the case of the third, ver. 47, that the awful d7ov 6 


1 Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 140. See also his 
Zetlachr. 1864, p. 317 f., where likewise quite 
untenable grounds are adduced for the 
above opinion. In the answer of Jesus, 
Eichthal sees even a specimen of good but 
not meral tactics, and holds that the narra- 
tive is an Interpolation. 


2 Matt. v. 25, al. ¢ Ecclus. vi. 18, xlviil. 20; 
Plato, Conc. p. 184 A; Zim. p. 78 A; Xen. 
Cyr. i. 1. 1. 

3 Comp. Winer, p. 46f. [E. T. 887]. On 
elvai tives, addictum esse alicui, see Breml, 
ad Jem. Phil. II. p. 125, 86; Seidler, ad 
Eur. El. 1098; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. G21. 


120 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


OxwAné x.7.A., ver. 48, comes in and affectingly winds up the representation. — 
Ver. 48. A jigurative designation of the extremely painful and endless pun- 
ishments of hell (not merely the terrors of conscience), in accordance with 
Isa. Ixvi. 24 (comp. Ecclus. vii. 17 ; Judith xvi. 17). Against the literal 
understanding of the worm and the fire it may be urged that in reality (in 
opposition to Augustine, de civit. xxi. 9) the two together are incompatible, 
and, moreover, that dii, ver. 49, the counterpart of rvpi, is to be understood 
Jiguratively. 

Ver. 49. Without any parallel ; but the very fact of its enigmatical pecu- 
liarity' tells in favor of its originality (in opposition to de Wette, Weiss, 
and many others).? In order to its correct interpretation the following 
points must be kept closely in view: (1) The logical connection (yép) is 
argumentative, and that in such a way that yép is related to the wip in ver. 
48 (because to this the rvpi must correspond), not to the entire thought, ver. 
43 ff. (2) Ide cannot be every disciple (Lindemann), nor yet can it be every 
one in general, but it must, in accordance with the context, be limited to 
those who are designated in the 48th verse by airév (comp. Luke vi. 40), 
because afterwards with zaca 6vcia another class is distinguished from that 
meant by rac, and something opposed to what is predicated of the latter is 
affirmed of it. (3) IInpi and dé are contrasts ; like the latter, so also the 
former can only be explained instrumentally (not therefore : for the fire, as 
Baumgarten-Crusius and Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 515, will 
have it), and the former can, according to the context, apply to nothing 
else than to the fire of hell, not to the fire of trial (1 Cor. iii. 13), as Theo- 
phylact and others (including Késtlin, p. 826 f.) would take it, nor yet to 
the sanctifying fire of the divine word (Lindemann). (4) Kai may not be 
taken as : just as (o>, xaBeéc), to which, following the majority, Lindemann 
also ultimately comes, but which «ai never expresses ; but rather : and, join- 
ing on to those who are meant by wae and its predicate others with another 
predicate. (5) The two futures must be taken in a purely temporal sense ; 
and in accordance with the context (vv. 43-48) can only be referred to the 
time of the Messianic decision at the establishment of the kingdom. Hence, 
also, (6) it is beyond doubt that raca 6voia cannot apply to actual sacrifices, 
but must denote men, who in an allegorical sense may be called sacrifices. 


1 Baur judges very harshly on the subject 
(Markusev. p. 79), holding that Mark in this 
independent conclusion, ver. 49 f., gives 
only a new proof how little he could ac- 
complish from his own resources, inasmuch 
as the thought only externally annexed is 
obscure, awkward, and without unity of 
conception. By Hilgenfeld the discourse fs 
alleged to be a mitigation of the harsh say- 
ing as to cutting off the hand and the foot, 
and so to confirm the later position of 
Mark after Matthew. According to Weiss, 
vv. 49, 50 are “an artificial elaboration” of 
Matt. v. 13. But how specifically different 
ure the two utterances! And what would 


there have been to elaborate in the plain 
saying of Matt. v. 13? and to elaborate in 
such a way? According to Weizs&cker, 
ver. 49f.is only added here “on account 
of the assonance as respects the figure.” 
This would amount to mere mechanical 
work. Holtzmann, however, justly main- 
tains the independent conception of the 
(primitive-) Mark. 

3 See on the passage, Schott, Opusc. IT. 
p. 5 ff., and Diasert. 1819; Grohmann in the 
bi. Stud. Sdche. Geisil. 1844, p. 91 ff.; Bahr 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 678; Lindemann 
in the ecklenb. Zeitschr. 1864, p. 209 ff. 


CHAP. 1X., 49. ~ 121 


(7) The meaning of dA:offoera: may not be apprehended as deviating from 
the meaning (presupposed by Jesus as well known) which the application of 
salt in sacrifices had (see Lev. ii. 18, where meat-offerings are spoken of). 
It was, namely, salt of the covenant (I'S mn) of God (comp. also Num. 
xviii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xiii. 5), 7.¢., it represented symbolically the covenant 
with Jehovah as regarded its imperishableness,—represented that the sacri- 
fice was offered in accordance therewith, and for the renewing thereof.?— 
Consequently we must translate and explain : ‘‘ With warrant I speak of 
their jire (ver. 48) ; for every one of those who come into Gehenna will be 
salted therein with fire, 7.e., none of them will escape the doom of having 
represented in him by means of fire that which is done insacrifices by means 
of salt, namely, the imperishable validity of the divine covenant, and (to add 
now the argumentum e contrario for my assertion concerning the fire, ver. 48) 
every sacrifice, i.e., every pious man unseduced, who, as such, resembles a 
(pure) sacrifice (comp. Rom. xii. 1), shall be salted with salt, i.e., he shall at 
his entrance into the Messianic kingdom (comp. eiceABeiv cic tr. Cwtv, VV. 
43-47), by reception of higher wisdom (comp. ver. 50 ; Col. iv. 6; and as 
to the subject-matter, 1 Cor. xiii. 9-12), represent in himself that validity 
of the divine covenant, as in the case of an actual sacrifice this is effected 
by its becoming salted.” Accordingly, it is in brief : for in erery one of 
them the ever-during validity of the divine covenant shall be represented by means 
of fire, and in every pious person resembling a sacrifice this shall be accomplished 
by the communication of higher wisdom. It is to be observed, further : (1) 
that the figure of the salt of the covenant refers, in the case of those con- 
demned to Gehenna, to the threatening aspect of the divine covenant, in the 
case of the pious, to its aspect of promise ; (2) that Jesus does not accident- 
ally set forth the pious asa sacrifice, but is induced to do so by the fact 
He has just been speaking of ethical self-sacrifice by cutting off the hand, 
the foot, etc. And the conception of sacrifice, under which He regards the 
pious, suggests to Him as a designation of its destined counterpart the sacri- 
ficial expression dAifecfa:. (3) Analogous to the twofold distinction of 
dAiCeofa: in the passage before us, although different in the figurative con- 
ception, is the Sarrifecv rvupi and mrveipari ayiy, Matt. iii. 11. — Of the many 
diterging explanations, which in the light of what has just been stated are 
opposed to the context, or to the language of the passage, or to both, wo 
may note historically the following :—(1) Euthymius Zigabenus : ra¢ mori 
mupi ti¢ mpoc Gedy wicrewc,  TH¢ mpd Tov wAnoiov aydrng dAoOhoeTaL, yoy THY 
onzedéva (corruption) rie xaxiag anoBatet . . . nwaca Ovoia mvevpatixy, elre dv? 
ev'xic, eite de’ &Aenuocivyc, eire rpdrov Erepov yiwoutyyn, TH adate THe TisTew  TI¢ 
a,ar70 dAcoPheerat, elrovy ddofiva: opeider, ‘‘ Every believer will be salted with 
the fire of faith toward God or of love toward his neighbor, that is, he will 
lose the corruption of wickedness . . . every spiritual sacrifice, whether 
made through prayer, or alms, or in some other way, shall be salted with 


1 Comp. in respect of thean!mal offerings, Symbol. d. Bos. Cult. Il. p. 824; and Stud. u. 
Ezek. xlill. 24; Joseph. Anéé. ii. 9.1; and Xrit. l.c. p. 675 ff. ; Knobel on Lev. p. 360 f. 
see in general, Lund. Jid. Heiligth., ed. 2 Comp. Pressel in Herzog’s Encyki. XII. 
Wolf, p. 648; Ewald, Alterth. p. 87; Bahr, p. 343. 


122 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


the salt of faith or of love, that is to say, ought to besalted.” (2) Luther : 
‘In the O. T. every sacrifice was salted, and of every sacrifice something 
was burnt up with fire. This Christ here indicates and explains it spiritually, 
namely, that through the gospel, as through a fire and salt, the old man becomes 
crucified, seared, and well salted ; for our body is the true sacrifice, Rom. xii.” 
He is followed by Spanheim, Calovius, L. Cappel, and others: a similar 
view is given by Beza, and in substance again by Lindemann.’ (3) Grotius : 
‘‘Omnino aliqua desumtio homini debetur, aut per modum saliturae, aut 
per modum incendii ; haec impiorum est, illa piorum,” ‘‘ Universally some- 
thing ought to be taken from man, either by means of salting (extirpation 
of the desires), or by means of burning (in hell); this belongs to the 
impious, that to the pious ;” the godless are likened to the whole burnt- 
offerings, the pious to the mincha. He is followed by Hammond, comp. Cler- 
icus and Schleusner. (4) Lightfoot : ‘‘ Nam unusquisque eorum ipso igne 
salietur, ita ut inconsumtibilis fiat ct in acternum durct torquendus, prout sal 
tuctur a corruptione; . . . at is, quivero Deo victima, condictur sale gratiac 
ad incorruptionem gloriae,” ‘‘ For cach several one of them shall be 
salted with the fire itself, so that he may become inconsumable and remain 
to be tortured in eternity, just as salt preserves from corruption: . . . but 
he who is truly a victim for God will be seasoned with the salt of grace unto 
the incorruption of glory.”* (5) Rosenmiiller (comp. Storr, Opuse. II. 
p. 210 ff.): ‘‘ Quivis enim horum hominum perpetuo igni cruciabitur ; . . . 
sed quivis homo Deo consecratus sale verae sapientiae praeparari debet ad 
neternam felicitatem,” ‘‘ For every one of these men shall be tormented 
with perpetual fire; . . . but every man consecrated to God ought to be 
prepared by the salt of true wisdom for eternal felicity.” (6) Kuinoel 
(taking zvp, with Flacius and others, as a figurative designation of suffer- 
ings): ‘‘Quilibet sectatorum meorum calamitatibus, veluti saliri, praeparari 
debet, quo consequatur salutem, sicuti omnes oblationes sale condiri, prac- 
parari debent, quo sint oblationes Deo acceptae,” ‘‘Every one of my fol- 
lowers ought to be prepared by calamities (these are held to be the pains 
that arise by suppression of the desires), as it were salted that he obtain sal- 
vation, just as all oblations ought to be prepared, seasoned with salt, that they 
be acceptable to God.” (7) Schott: ‘‘ Quivis illorum hominum (qui eup- 
plicio Geennae sunt obnozii) nunc demum hoe igne sale (quod ipsis in vita ter- 
restri versantibus defuit) imbuetur, i.e., nunc demum poenis vitae futurae 
discct resipiscere. Alio sensu illi salientur, quam victimae Deo sacrae, de quibus 
loco illo scriptum legitur: cictima quaevis sale est conspergenda. His enim 
similcs sunt homines in hac vita terrestri animis suis sapientiae divinae sale 
imbuendis prospicientes,” ‘‘ Every one of those men (who are obnoxious to 
the punishment of Gehenna) is at last by that fire saturated with salt (which 
was lacking to them in earthly life), i.e., at last by the penalties of the future 
life he learns to come to himself. In another sense those are salted, as vic- 
tims sacred to God, concerning whom in this place the Scripture reads : every 


1“ As every sacrifice Is salted by salt, {.¢., {of the divine word].” 
by the word of God is madea holy offering, 2 Wolf and Michaelis follow this view; 
so also every disciple is to be salted by fire comp. also Jablonsky, Opusc. II. p. 458 ff. 





CHAP, Ix., 49. 123 


victim is sprinkled with salt.” (8) According to Fritzsche, yép assigns the 
reason of the exhortation to suffer ratherthe loss of members of their body 
than to let themselves be seduced, and the meaning is (in the main as ac- 
cording to Kuinoel, comp. Vatablus) : ‘‘Quippe omnes aerumnis ad vitae 
aeternae felicitatem praeparabuntur, sicut omnes victimae e Mosis decreto 
sale sunt ad immolationem praeparandae,” ‘Certainly all (in general) 
shall be prepared for the felicity of eternal life by hardships, just as all vic- 
tims by the precept of Moses were to be prepared by salt for sacrifice.” So 
in substance also Bleck. (9) Olshausen : ‘‘On account of the general sin- 
fulness of the race every one must be salted with fire, whether by entering 
voluntarily upon self-denial and earnest cleansing from sins, or by being 
carried involuntarily to the place of punishment ; and therefore [in order 
to be the symbolical type of this spiritual transaction] every sacrifice is (asis 
written) to be salted with salt.”' Similarly Lange. (10) According to de 
Wette, mupi dAifecOa: is nearly (?) tantamount to ‘“‘ the receiving by purifica- 
tion the holy seasoning and consecration (of purity and wisdom),” and xaf 
is-comparative. (11) Grohmann takes the first clause in substance as does 
Olshausen, and the second thus: ‘‘as every sacrifice shall be made savory 
with salt, so also shall every one, who desires to offer himself as a sacrifice 
to God, be salted,—that is, shall from without, by sufferings, privations, 
and the like, be stirred up, quickened, and pervaded by a higher, fresh, 
spiritual power.” (12) B&hr : ‘‘ As according to the law there must in no 
sacrifice be wanting the symbol of the covenant of sanctification that conse- 
crates it the salt ; so also must every one be purified and refined in and 
with the sacrifice of self-surrender ;. . . thisrefining process, far from being 
of a destructive nature, is rather the very thing which preserves and main- 
tains unto true and eternal life.” (18) According to Ewald, the meaning 
ig that every one who yields to seductive impulses, because he allows the 
salt—wherewith from the beginning God has seasoned man’s spirit—to be- 
come insipid, must first be salted again by the fire of hell, in order that this 
sacrifice may not remain without the salt which, according to Lev. ii. 13, 
belongs to every sacrifice ; no other salt (no other purification) is left save 
the fire of hell itself, when the salt in man has become savorless. (14) By 
Hilgenfeld the jire is alleged to be even that of internal desire, through 
which (this is held to mean : by overcoming the desire !) one is said to be 
salted, i.c., led to Christian wisdom ; thereby one is to offer a sacrifice of 
which the salt is Christian discernment. —This great diversity of interpre- 
tation is a proof of the obscurity of the utterance, which probably was 
spoken by Jesus in an explanatory connection which has not been pre- 
served. — The second clause of the verse has been held by Gersdorf, 
p. 376 f., on linguistic grounds that are wholly untenable, to be spurious ; 
and, as it is wanting also in B L A &, min. and some vss. (on account of the 
twice occurring d/offe. by transcriber’s error), it is declared also by Schulz 
to be a gloss. [See Note LX., p. 125.] 


1 According to Olshausen, we are to find = significance of the sacrifices, and of the 
here an authentic explanation as to the ritual of their salting. 


124 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Ver. 50. Katdy . . . aprécere] amaxim of experience drawn from common 
life, in which rd Gda¢ is to be taken literally. Then follows with éZyere «.r.A. 
the application, in which the spiritual meaning of the salt (zisdom, see on 
ver. 49, and Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 1208) emerges. The connection with 
what precedes is: In order to experience in yourselves on the establishment 
of the kingdom the truth : aoa @vcia adi dAcofyoerar, ye must—seeing that 
salt, which in itself is so excellent a thing, when it has become insipid, can 
in no wise be restored—preserve in your hearts the salt of true wisdom,’ and 
withal be peaceful one with another. Against both the disciples had sinned 
by their dispute about precedence (ver. 34), from which the entire discourse of 
Jesus, ver. 35 ff., had started, and to which He now againat the close points 
back. This contest about precedence had been foolish (opposed to the adac) 
and unpeaceful. — éav d2 rd GAag Gvadov x.r.A.] Comp. on Matt. v. 13. — avr 
apticete] wherewith shall ye restore it ? so that it shall again be provided with 
saline efficacy (comp. on Cul. iv. 6). —éyere] emphatically placed first : 
keep, preserve, which is not done, if the analogue of the dvadov yivecBa: sets 
in with you. — éy éavroic] in yourselves, correlative to the subsequent éy aAAq- 
zag (reciprocally). Comp. Bengel : ‘‘ prius officium respectu nostri, alte- 
rum erga alios,’? ‘‘ The former a service with respect to ourselves, the latter 
over against others.".— dda (see the critical remarks) from 6 adap. See 
Lobeck, Paralip. p. 93. —xai eipyv. év GAA.] The annexing of this exhorta- 
tion was also suggested by the conception of the salt, since the salt was 
symbol of a covenant. Hence the course of thought : And—whereof ye are 
likewise reminded by the symbolic significance of salt—live in peace one 
with another. 


Notes spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


LIV. Vv. 2-13. 


Weiss ed. Mey. also regards Matthew as more original, i.e., as preserving 
more accurately the report of ‘‘the older source,’’ yet he finds in that Gospel 
traces of the influence of Mark’s account, as well as touches of its own. 


LV. Ver. 11. é7¢ Aéyovowy x.7.A. 


Here Meyer defends a probable view, which seems even more necessary at 
ver. 28, where the absence of Aéfyovrec before 6rs makes any other sense very 
harsh. Still it is more grammatical to take dr: in both cases as the sign of quota- 
tion (47 recitantis). The R. V. accepts this view in the text, but gives in the 
margin (in both passages) the elliptical explanation : ‘‘ How is it that,” etc. 
Comp. chap. 11.16. It is very doubtful whether any other N. T. passage re- 
quires us to read 4, ru. 


LVI. Ver. 12. xai rac yeyparrat k.t.2. 


Weiss ed. Mey. argues strongly against the division of the verse into ques- 
tion and answer. (The R. V. also takes the latter part of the verse as one 


1 Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. 13: adicOnre cv avre (Xpiore), va wn ScadpOapy ris ev Uuir. 


NOTES. 125 


question.) The view of Meyer that there is here a syllogism with a suppressed 
conclusion is open to objection. The matter to be proved is not so much the 
sufferings of the Son of Man as the fact that John the Baptist was the pre- 
dicted Elijah. The conclusion of the narrative in both Matthew and Mark in- 
dicates this. 


LVI. Ver. 20. iddv avray x.7.A. 


Recent critical editors omit ev@i;, which the Rec. has before rveiyza. Weiss 
ed. Mey. objects to Meyer’s explanation of the anacoluthic use of the nomina- 
tive participle, and refers idjy to the demon. 


LVIUI. Vv. 33-37. 


Whether Mark knew of the history of the stater or not, cannot be decided. 
Weiss. ed. Mey. finds from this point to the end of the chapter many sayings 
from ‘‘the older source.”’ 


LIX. Ver. 40. xa6’ fav, bxép nudv eorcy. 


The first person is well attested in both instances, and is not likely to have 
been an emendation ; the second person was probably taken from Luke ix. 60, 
or from ver. 41. So Weiss ed. Mey., who rightly suggests that ‘‘as regards 
Christ and His people, there is no neutrality.’” We may add (in comparing this 
verse with Matt. xii. 30): ‘‘In certain cases, the absence of hostility is a proof 
of friendship ; in others, the failure to co operate is the proof of enmity. .. . 
The saying in Matthew refers more to inward unity with Christ ; this one to 
oulward conformity with His people. The former may exist independently of 
the latter, and its existence unites real Christians, whatever their name and 
outward differences” (Int. Revision Comm., Mark, p. 12)). 


LX. Ver. 49. xat rdoa Guoia dA GAoOjcerat. 


This clause is omitted in & BL A, and anumber of minor authorities (15 
cursives, some of weight). It is rejected by Tisch., bracketed by Treg., 
placed in margin by W. and Hort, R. V.; supposed to be an addition from Lev. 
ii. 13. The authorities would be decisive, were it not a more difficult reading, 
and the omission so readily accounted for by the similar ending in the pre- 
vious clause (dA:cGjcera), Yet it is hardly safe to accept it without question 
against the above evidence. 

Weiss ed. Mey. explains as follows: ‘“‘ The divine ordinance, that every sac- 
Tifice is salted and made well pleasing to God, is fulfilled in the higher sense in 
this manner, that every one is refined through the fire of tribulation, and thus 
made well pleasing to God. Accordingly Meyer’s explanation must be given 
up.” He rejects the reference to the O. T. usage in the second clause, and 
finds in yp a reason for the entire warning (vv. 43-48), taking ‘‘every one” in 
& general sense. Most of the explanations are open to serious objections, es- 
pecially these which take «ai as =‘‘just as,” or, ‘‘ but on the contrary.’ It is 
unnecessary to add another view to the many given by Meyer, but see Inter. 
Revision Commentary, Mark, pp. 123-125. 


126 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. 1. dia rov) is wanting in C**D G A, min. Syr. Pers. Aeth. Goth. Valg. It. 
On the other hand, B C* L &, Copt. have xai. So rightly Lachm. and Tisch. 
This «ai was, in some cases, deleted in accordance with Matt. xix. 1 ; in others, 
more precisely defined by the description contained in dca rov. [Ver. 2, Gries- 
bach, Lachm., Treg., Weiss, R. V., omit oi before ¢ap:caio:, following A B 4, 
etc., W. and Hort enclose in brackets.]—Ver. 4. With Lachm. and Tisch. the 
order exérpepev Modtonc, following B C D L A min., is to be preferred. — Ver. 
6. 6 Océc is wanting in BCL AR, Copt. Colb. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., 
deleted by Tisch. An addition by way of gloss, which appeared necessary here, 
although not at Matt. xix. 4. — Ver. 7. péc r. yuv.] Lachm. has 79 yuvaixi, follow- 
ing AC LN 4, min. codd. It. Jer. From Matthew. Tisch. has now again de- 
leted x. mpooxoAA. mpoc tr. yuv. avrov, nevertheless only following B&, Goth. It 
lies under a strong suspicion of being an addition from Matthew. [Rejected by 
W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. marg.] — Ver. 10. et¢ rv oixiav] So also Lachm. and 
Tisch., following B DL A &, min. Cant. Ver. The Recepia év r7 oixig (Fritzsche, 
Scholz) is an emendation. — uvrov zepi rot avtov] On decisive evidence we must 
read, with Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., merely wepi rovrov. The first avrov 
is a current addition to oi zabyrai ; by rod avrov (D: tod avrov Adyov) tovrou was 
glossed for the purpose of more precise definition. — Ver. 12. Tischendorf’s 
reading [recent editors, R. V.]: xai éav att) droAvoaca tov dvdpa avtij¢ yaunoy 
(BCL & and A, which, however, has xai before yaz.), is a stylistic emendation. 
— yapun99 dAAw} Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have yapijoy a2/0v, follow- 
ing BC* DLA, min. A mechanical repetition from ver. 11 (whence A has 
even dGAAnv instead of dAdov !).—[Ver. 13. W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., in the 
® BCL ACopt. read atrot¢ instead of rtoic rpoogépovarw.] — Ver. 14. Before uy 
Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. have «ai, which is wanting in witnesses deserving con- 
sideration, and is added from the parallels. — Ver. 16. Instead of 7i4dyec Lachm. 
(as also Scholz) has evadyex. But BC AX, min. Vict. have xarevAdye: (LN: 
xatnva.). Itis to be adopted, with Tisch. ; this compound, which does not 
elsewhere occur in the N. T., was unfamiliar to the transcribers. Its posi- 
tion before r:Aeic¢ (omitting the last avrd) is attested by B C LA &, min. Copt. 
Syr. p. ms. Vict. (Fritzsche, Tisch.). But it was precisely the threefold atré 
that gave occasion to error and correction. [The evidence for the latter 
position is substantially the same as for the compound verb ; hence it is accepted 
by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver.19. The arrangement ju) gov., ui wory. (Lachm. 
Tisch.), is found in B C A &** min. Copt. Ar. Colb.; but it is from Matt. xix. 
18. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., follow Lachmann, but Tisch. VIII. returns to 
the order of the Iec.] — Ver. 21. The article before rrwyoic is wanting in wit- 
nesses of such preponderating character (condemned by Griesb., deleted by 
Fritzsche, Lachm.) that it appears (as also in Matt. xix. 21) as an addition. — 
dpac Tov oravpév] is wanting in B C DA, 406, Copt. Vulg. It. Clem. Hilar. 
Aug. Ambr. Other witnesses have it before devpo. Bracketed by Lachm. [Re- 


CMAP. X. 127 


jected by Tisch., recent editors, R. V.] But how easily the words were passed 
over, as the parallels have nothing of the kind !— Ver. 24. rove weroSérac Et 
toi¢ ypru.] is not found in B A &, Copt. ms. Deleted by Tisch. [W. and Hort, 
Weiss, R. V. marg.] But if it had been added, the addition would have been 
made in accordance with the text of Matt. or Luke, or according to ver. 23, 
The omission was meant in the interest of stricter morality, which regarded the 
merror8érac, etc., as quite excluded. — Ver. 25. dieAGeiv] The eiceASciv, commended 
by Griesb., has indeed considerable attestation [& A A ; so Steph., not Elzevir], 
but it is from Matt. ix. 24, and in this case the significant change of the verbs 
in Mark was not observed. — Ver. 28. #xoAcvS7oauev] Lachm. and Tisch. [recent 
editors, R. V.] have jxoAovOjxayev, following B CD. A mechanical similarity 
of formation with ag7xayev, occurring also in some witnesses in Matthew and 
Luke. — Ver. 29. Only B A & (¢. avrg 6’1.), Copt. have the simple éo7 6 ’Iyo. 
(Tisch.) instead of droxp. 6 'I. eizev, but they are correct. Comp. on ix. 12, 38. 
—% natépa 7} untépu| The reverse order is found in BC A 106, Copt. Goth. Colb. 
Brix. Lachm. and Tisch. It is to be preferred. 7 warépa was in some cases 
placed first, in accordance with the natural relation ; in some cases also, in 
consideration of ver. 30, it was altogether omitted (D, Cant. Vere. Corb. Harl.). 
On account of ver. 30 ) yvvaixa has also been omitted (BDA &, min. Copt. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]). — After «ai the second ére- 
xev is added by Griesb. and Tisch., following preponderating evidence. The 
omission is explained from viii. 35.— Ver. 30. unrépac] Lachm. has pnzépa, 
folowing AC D, Verss.; the plural was objectionable. — Ver. 31. The article 
before the second foyuro: is indeed deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. [retained 
in Tisch. VIII.]; but following Matt. xix. 30 it dropped out so easily, and, more- 
over, it is found still in such important testimonies, that it must be restored.— 
Ver. 32. xai dxodové.] BC* L A &, 1, Copt. have ol d2 dxoAov§. This is rightly 
followed by Ewald, and is now adopted by Tisch. The of dé not being under- 
stood was set aside by xai. But the attestation is to be the more regarded as 
sufficient, that D K, min. Verc. Ver. Chrys. are not to be reckoned in favor of 
the Recepia, because they altogether omit x. axod. é¢03., of which omission the 
homoioteleuton was manifestly the cause. — Ver. 33. The article before ypayp. 
(Elz.) is, with Scholz and Tisch. (in opposition to Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, and 
Lachm.), to be maintained. The testimony in favor of its omission is not pre- 
ponderating, and comp. Matt. xx. 18. — Ver. 34. The order iuaricovory air. x. 
paorty, avr. (Lachm. Tisch. Rinck) is found in BC L A 8, min. vas., including 
Vulg. and codd. It. [accepted by recent editors, R. V.]. But the éumai$. and 
éuxtio. were considered as belonging together. Comp. Luke xviii. 33. — Elz, has 
TH Tpity nuépa ; 80 also Fritzsche, Scholz. But BO DLA &, vss. have pera 
tpei¢ yuépac. Approved by Griesb. Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Tisch. [recent 
editors, R. V.]. The Recepia is to be maintained. See on ix. 31. [The evi- 
dence is so strong against the Rec., that to follow it here is to nullify the best 
critical principles.] — Ver. 35. After airjo. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have oe, 
following ABC L A ®%** min. vss. To be adopted. It was easily passed over 
as being superfluous. D K have it before the verb. An incorrect restoration. 
** has entirely omitted 6 éé4v down to dd¢ 7uiv. — Ver. 36. roejoai pe duiv}] Lachm. 
Tisch. have toujow tuiv, which was also approved by Griesb. [Treg., W. and 
Hort (text) omit ye, which Tisch., Weiss (% B) place before rojow.] An al- 
teration in remembrance of passages such as x. 61, xiv. 12, Matt. xx. 32, in 


128 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


which also the bare subjunctive was sometimes completed by tva rotgow. — Ver. 
38. Instead of «ai (in Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche) read, with Rinck, Lachm. and 
Tisch., 7, which Griesb. also approved, following B C* DL A ®&, min. Copt. 
Arm. Ar. Vulg. It. Or.; xai came from ver. 39.—JIn ver. 40 also 7 is to be 
adopted on almost the same evidence (with Rinck, Lachm., and Tisch.) ; xa‘ is 
from Matt. xx. 23. — After etwy. Elz. has pov, which is deleted on decisive evi- 
dence. — Ver. 42. Read xai xpooxad. avtove 6 "Inoots, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
following BC D LA X&, 406, Syr. Copt. codd. It. The Recepta is from Matt. 
xx. 25. — Ver. 43. Instead of the first éora:, Lachm, and Tisch. have éoriv, which 
Schulz also approved, in accordance with BC* DLA &, Vulg. It. The future 
came in from Matt., and on account of what follows. — Ver. 44. tuév yevécbar] 
Lachm. has év tyiv elvat, following important evidence [W. and Hort, R. V., 
with 8B C* L A, Valg. Copt.], but it is from Matt. xx. 27. [Weiss accepts a 
combined text : tua elvat, so D.] — Ver. 46. After rugidc read with Tisch. rpo- 
cairnc, omitting the subsequent zpoca:rov. So B LA Copt. Comp. &, rueidc 
Kai mpoonitnc. The Recepta is from Luke xviii. 35.— Ver. 47. [Tisch., recent 
editors, R. V., with B L A, Vulg., read Nagapnvéc. |—4 vid¢} Lachm. has vié, follow- 
ing BC L A 8, min. [So Tisch., recent editors, R.V.] From Luke. Comp. 
ver, 48. — Ver. 49. avrév guvn9jvai] BC L A &, min. Copt. have gwryoare avrév. 
So Fritzsche and Tisch. And rightly ; the accusative with the infinitive was 
introduced through the fact of exéAevoev being written instead of elev after Luke 
xviii. 40 (so still Ev. 48, It. Vulg.), and remained, after elev was restored, the 
more easily because Luke has it also. — éyepe] See on ii. 9. — Ver. 50. avacrac] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have avarndyoac, according to B D LA X¥&, min, vss. (in- 
cluding Vulg. It.) Or. The Recepia is a ‘“‘scriptorum jejunitas’’ that mistakes 
the peculiarity of Mark (Tisch.).— Ver. 51. The form pafSovvi (Elz. fa  ovi) 
has decisive evidence. [W. and Hort have fJaGovvei, following B (and A: pap- 
Buvei), Otber variations occur.]— Ver. 52. Instead of rq@ 'Inoot (Elz., Scholz, 
Rinck), ABC DLA ®& have ai7@ (Tisch.), which attestation is decisive. 


Vv. 1-9. Bee on Matt. xix. 1-8. — xaxeifev] points back to ix. 88. — kai 
répav Tov lopddvov} sec the critical remarks. He came to the borders of Judaea, 
and that’ on the further side of Jordan, ‘‘ipsa Samaria ad dextram relicta,” 
‘¢ Samaria itself was left to the right” (Beza). At Jericho He came again to 
this side, ver. 46. See, moreover, on Matt. xix. 1. — xai ouuzop. x.1.A.] 
And there gathered together to Him again crowds of people. madsv, for pre- 
viously, at ix. 30 ff., He had withdrawn Himself from the people. — Ver. 2. 
Mark has not the properly tempting element in the question, but it is found 
in Matt.: xara waoap airiav (see on Matt. xix. 3). That this element was not 
also preserved in the tradition which Mark here follows, may very naturally 
be explained from the reply of Jesus, which ran unconditionally (even accord- 
ing to Matt. vv. 4-6). Mark therefore has not the original form of the ques- 
tion,” nor does he make the question be put more captiously (Fritzsche), nor 
has he made use of Matthew incorrectly, or with alterations consonant to his 
own reflection (Saunier, Baur), because the Jewish points of dispute as to 
divorce were to him indifferent (Késtlin) ; but he follows a defective tradi- 


1See Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 9 ff.; ? Bleek, Weiss, Holtzmann, Schenkel, 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 148. Harless, Khescheid. p. 30. 


CHAP. X., 10-12. 129 
tion, which in this particular is completed and corrected in Matthew. 
[See Note LXI., p.137.] De Wette’s conjecture is arbitrary, that Mark pre- 
supposes that the Pharisees had already heard of the view of Jesus on 
divorce, and wished to induce Him to a renewed declaration on the subject. 
The perilous element of the question docs not turn on the divorce of Herod 
(Ewald, Lange). See on Matthew. — Ver. 3. Here also the tradition, which 
Mark follows, deviates from Matthew, who represents that the command- 
ment of Moses is brought into question not by Jesus, but by the Pharisces, 
and that as an objection against the answer of Jesus. But it is more natural 
and more forcible that the reply of Jesus should start immediately from 
Deut. xxiv. 1, and should first clicit this Mosaic ¢vroA7—on the right estima- 
tion of which depended the point at issue—from the mouth of the ques- 
tioners themselves, in order thercupon to attach to it what follows.—Ver. 
4. érérpewe] emphatically prefixed (sce the critical remarks) : Moses per- 
mitted, In saying which their éfrori, ver. 2, is present to their minds. See, 
moreover, on Matt. v. 31. They prudently refrain from saying évserei2aro. — 
Ver. 5. r. évroAjy ratr.] the commandment of the putting forth a writing of 
divorcement. — Ver. 6. The subject (as 6 Ged is not genuine) is to be taken 
out of kricews (6 xriorgc).'— Ver. 7. Christ makes Adam's words at Gen. li. 
44 His own. It is otherwise, but less directly and concisely, given in 
Matthew. — évexev rotrov] because God created men as male and female—in 
order to correspond with this arrangement of the Creator. — The futures in- 
dicate what will happen in cases of marrying according to God’s ordinance. 
Vv. 10-12. See on Matt. xix. 9. The two Evangelists differ from one 
another here in respect of the place, of the persons to whom Jesus is speak- 
ing, and partially of the contents of what He says. Certainly Matthew has 
furnished the original shape of the matter, since what Mark makes Jesus say 
only in the house and mercly to His disciples (ver. 11 with the not original 
amplification of ver. 12) is withal an essential clement of the reply to the 
Pharisces, and does not bear the character of a special private instruction, 
whereas the private communication to the disciples, Matt. xix. 10-12, which 
as such is just as appropriate as it is original, is indeed ‘* the crown of the 
whole” (Ewald). [See Note LXII., p. 137.] — cic riv oixiav] having come into 
the house (in which at that time they were lodging). The same brevity of 
expression occurs at xiii. 9.— xd4cv of pafyrai] again the disciples, as previ- 
ously the Pharisees. — epi rotrrov] (see the critical remarks) : upon this sub- 
ject. — Ver. 11. én’ aif] in reference to her, the woman that is put away.*— 
Mark has not the ji émi rropveig (Matt.), which makes no essential difference, 
as this ground of divorce is obvious of itself as such. See on Matt. v. 82.° 
— Ver. 12. xat av yur? aroAboy «.7.A.] Matthew has quite ao different saying. 


1 See Kiibner, IT. p. 36, 4. Comp. Calvin and Bengel: ‘in {llam,” 


2 Observe that Jesus here of necessity 
presupposes the acknowledgment of the 
principle of monogamy. Theophylact and 
many others, including Lange, Ewald, and 
Bleek, have erroneously referred avryy to 
the second wife. Erasmus appropriately 
says: ‘in injuriam Illius,” “ to herinjury.” 


9 


‘* toward her.” It is only thus that its em- 
phatic bearing is brought out; the marry- 
ing of the second wife makes him an adul- 
terer towards the first. 

® Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. IT. 2, 
p. 410. 


139 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


The narrative of Mark is certainly not original (in opposition to Schenkel), 
but puts into the mouth of Jesus what was the custom among the Greeks and 
Romans, namely, that the wife also might be the divorcing party, and very 
often actually was so,’ which was not competent to the Jewish wife (Deut. 
xxiv. 1; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10), for the instances of Michal (1 Sam. 
xxv. 41), of Herodias (Matt. xiv. 4 f.), and of Salome (Josephus, Anft. xv. 
7. 10) are abnormal in respect of their rank ; and the cases in which, accord- 
ing to the Rabbins, the wife might require that the husband should give 
her a writing of divorcement,’ do not belong to the question here, where the 
wife herself is the party who puts away. The proposition in the passage 
before us is derived from an Hellenic amplification of the tradition,? which, 
however, in Matthew is again excluded. [See Note LXII-, p.137.] Comp. 
Harless, p. 25 f. According to Kuinoel (comp. Lange), Jesus purposed to 
give to the apostles, as future teachers of the Gentiles, the instruction re- 
quisite for judging in such a case. But he must have seid as much, as the 
question had reference to the Jewish relation of divorce. — poryara:] the sub- 
ject is the woman (comp. v. 11), not the dAAog. Moreover, Grotius appro- 
priately says : ‘‘ Mulier ergo, cum domina sui non sit . . . omnino adulterium 
committit, non interpretatione aliqua aut per consequentiam, sed directe. 
Ideo non debuit hic addi éx’ airédv,” ‘‘Therefore the woman, when she is 
not mistress of herself, . . . commits adultery in general, not by a certain in- 
terpretation or by consequence, but directly. For this reason éx’ avréy 
should not be added here.” 

Vv. 13-16. See on Matt. xix. 13-15, who gives the narrative only by way 
of extract. Comp. Luke xviii. 15-17. — ayperac:] From the mere touch on the 
part of the holy man, who assuredly was also known as a friend of children, 
they hoped to derive blessing for their children. So too Luke. It is other- 
wise in Matthew, in whose account, instead of the touch, there is already in- 
troduced here the more definite laying on of hands, which was performed by 
Jesus at ver. 16. — Ver. 15 #yavdxrgoe] ‘‘ propter impedimentum amori suo a 
discipulis oblatum,” ‘*on account of the hindrance opposed to His love by 
the disciples” (Bengel). — Ver. 15 is also adopted by Luke xviii. 17, but not 
by the abbreviating Matthew. Whosoerer shall not have received the kingdom 
of the Messiah as a child, i.e., in the moral condition, which resembles the in- 
nocence of childhood (comp. Matt. xviii. 3) ; Theophylact appropriately 
BAYS : Tay Eyovtwy && aoxhoewo Tv axaxiav, fv Ta madia Exovotv and di-ceuc, 
‘“‘those having by exercise the guilelessness which children have by nature.” 
—In défyrac the kingdom (which the coming Messiah establishes) is con- 
ceived as coming (ix. 1 ; Matt. vi. 10 ; Luke xvii. 20, al.). It iserroncous to 
explain the Baotd. r. Ocov as the preaching of the kingdom.‘ — Ver. 16. évayxad] 
as at 1x. 36. —xaryvAdy.] only occurs in this place in the New Testament ; it 
is stronger than the simple form, Plut. Amator. 4; Tob. xi. 1, 17. It ex- 


1S8ee on 1 Cor. vil. 18, and Wetstein in * According to Baur, froma reflection of 
loc. ; also Danzin Meuschen, N.7. ex Talm. Mark on the equalrights of the two sexes. 
a. p. 680 ff. *Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
2 See Saalschtitz, Afos. R. p. 806 f. Kuinoel, and many others, 


CHAP. X., 17-27. 131 
presses here the earnestness of His interest. 
than was asked of Him ! 

Vv. 17-27. See on Matt. xix. 16-26. Comp. Luke xviii. 18-27. As well 
in the question at ver. 17, and in the answer of Jesus vv. 18, 19, as also in 
the account of the address to the disciples, ver. 23 f., and in several little 
peculiar traits, the narrative of Mark is more concrete and more direct. — 
sic 666v] Out of the house, ver. 10, in order to prosecute His journey, ver. 82. 
— yovurer.] not inappropriate (de Wette), but, in connection with mpocdpa- 
pov, representing the earnestness of the inquiry ; both words are peculiar to 
the graphic Mark. ‘With an accusative, as ati. 40. See on Matt. xvii. 14. 
— Ver. 18. The variation from Matthew is so far unessential, as in the lat- 
ter also the predicate ayafé¢ is attributed to God only. But in Matthew it 
has become necessary to give to it, in the relation to the question, a turn 
which betrays more a later moulding under reflection,’ than the simple and 
direct primitive form, which we still find in Mark and Luke. [See Note 
LXUI., p. 137.] — ri we Abyeic ayadév ; ovdeic x.r.A.] Ingeniously and clearly 
Jesus makes use of the address diddcxade ayafé, in order to direct the ques- 
tioner to the highest moral Ideal, in whose commands is given the solution 
of the question (ver. 19). He did this in such a manner as fo turn aside 
JSrom Himself and to ascribe to God only the predicate ayafécs, which had been 
used by the young man in the customary meaning of holding one in esteem,” 
but is taken up by Jesus in the eminent and absolute sense. ‘‘ Thou art 
wrong in calling me good ; this predicate, in its complete conception, be- 
longs to none save One,—that is, God.”* This declaration, however, is no 
evidence against the sinlessness of Jesus ; rather it is the true expression of 
the necessary moral distance, which the human consciousness—even the 
sinless consciousness, as being human—recognizes between itself and the 
absolute perfection of God.‘ For the human sinlessness is of necessity rela- 
tive, and even in the case of Jesus was conditioned by the divine-human 
development that was subject to growth ;° the absolute being-good, that 
excludes all having become and becoming so, pertains only to God, who is 
‘‘verae bonitatis canon et archetypus,” ‘‘the rule and archetype of true 
goodness” (Beza), Even the man Jesus had to wrestle until He attained 


How much more did Christ do 


1 This primitive form 1s alleged, indeed, 
by Hilgenfeld (in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 
414 ff.; comp. in his Zeitechr. 1888, p. 364 f.) 
to have been no longer preserved even in 
Mark and Luke. He finds it rather in the 
form of the.words which has been pre- 
served in Justin, ¢. 7rypk. 101, and among 
the Marcosians (similarly in Marcion) : ri ne 
Ady. ayaddy; els eoriv ayadds, 6 warjp mov, 6 
ey racs ovpavois; and holds these words to 
have been altered, in order to deprive them 
of their probative force in favor of the 
Gnostic distinction between the perfect 
God and the imperfect Creator of the world. 
Bat the Gnostic exegesis might find this pro- 
bative force just as suitably in our form of 


the text (in behalf of which Jastin, Apolog. 
i. 16, testifies), if it laid stress, in the efsé 
@eds, on the reference to the supreme God, 
the Father of Christ. Sec also on Luke 
xvili. 19. 

2 Excellent teacher, Plat. Mem. p. 98 C; 
comp. the famillar Attic & dyadé or & "yadd ; 
and see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 642. 

2 Comp. Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. 
Opusc. p. 78 ff. 

*Comp. Dorner, Jesu stindlose Vollkom- 
menh. p. 14. 

5 Luke fi. 52; Heb. v. 8; Luke iv. 18, xxii. 
28; comp. Ullmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1842, p. 700. 


132 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


the victory and peace of the cross.' [See Note LXIII., p. 187.] This is 
overlooked from dogmatic misunderstanding in the often attempted (sce 
as early as Augustine, c. Mazim. ili. 23 ; Ambros. de fide, ii. 1) and variously 
turned makeshift,” that Jesus rejected that predicate only from the stand- 
point of the questioner (if thou regardest me as only a human teacher, then 
thou art wrong in calling me good, etc.). Wimmer ®* thinks that the young 
man had been ambitious, had said diddoxade ayafé as captatio benevolentiae, 
‘a feint of good-will,” and presupposed the existence of ambition also in 
Jesus ; that, therefore, Jesus wished to point hisattention by the ri ve Aéyere 
aya6év to his fault, and by the oideic¢ ayafoc x... to bring to his knowledge the 
unique condition of all being-good, in the sense : ‘‘ Nobody is to be called 
good, if the only God be not called good, 7.¢., if He be not assumed and 
posited as the only condition of all goodness.” In this explanation the 
premisses are imported, and the interpretation itself is incorrect ; since with 
ovdeic K.7.A., Aéyerae cannot be supplied, but only éori, as it so frequently is in 
general propositions (Kiihner, I. p. 40), and since oidei¢ ci »# means nothing 
else than nemo nisi, i.e., according to the sense, no one ercept (Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 524). — Ver. 19. The certainly original position of the 2} doveic. 
is to be regarded as having at that time become traditional. Comp. Weiz- 
siicker, p. 356. —u7 aroorep.] is not a renewed expression of the serenth 
commandment (Heupel, Fritzsche), against which may be urged its position, 
as well as the unsuitableness of adducing it twice ; neither is it an expres- 
sion of the tenth commandment, as far as the coveting applies to the plun- 
dering another of his property (Bengel, Wetstein, Olshausen, de Wette), 
against which may be urged the meaning of the word, which, moreover, 
does not permit us to think of a comprehension of all the previous commands 
(Beza, Lange ); but it applies to Deut. xxiv. 14 (ctx drocrepfhoets puobov mévy- 
roc [A. Y., ‘‘ thou shalt not oppressa hired servant that is poor and needy”}, 
where the Roman edition has ov« admadixhoerg wp. z.), to which also Mal. iii. 3, 
Ecclus. iv. 1, refer. Comp. also LXX. Ex. xxi. 10. Jesus, however, quotes 
the originally special command according to its moral universality : thou shalt 
not withhold. [See Note LXIV., p. 137 seq.}] According to Kuinoel, He is 
thinking of Lev. xix. 13 (ot« adexgoeig x.7.A.), With which, however, the char- 
acteristic aroorepfoys is not in accordance. Least of all it can be taken 
together with riva x.7.A., 80 that it would be the prohibitory aspect of the 
commanding riva x.r.4.,4 against which may be decisively urged the simi- 
larity of form to the preceding independent commands, as well as the hal- 
lowed and just as independent ria x.t.A. ; moreover, Mark must have written 
LY arootep. Tiny Tov warépa x.T.A., in order to be understood. In Matthew 
this command does not appear ; while, on the other hand, he has the aya- 
ahoete tov mAnoiov x.7.A., Which is wanting in Mark and Luke. These are 
various forms of the tradition. But since ayarfoeg x.t.A. (which also 
occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews) is most appropriate and charac- 


1 Comp. Keim, geschichil. Chr. p. 89 ff., 2, p.1106f. 
and, moreover, at p. 108 ff. 3 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 115 ff. 
2See Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, 4So Hofmann, Schriftdew. LI. 2, p. 891. 
Olshausen, Ebrard ; comp. also Lange, II. 


CHAP. X., 17-27. 133 


teristic, and the x? aroorephoye 18 80 peculiar that it could hardly have been 
added as an appendix to the tradition, Ewald’s conjecture (Jahrb. I. p. 182) 
that the original number of these commandments was seven, is not improba- 
ble. That which did not occur in the Decalogue was more easily omitted 
than (in opposition to Weizsiicker) added. — Ver. 20. diddoxade] not ayabé 
again. — Ver. 21. 7ydmncev avrév] means nothing else than : He loved him, 
felt a love of esteem (dilectio) for him, conceived an affection for him, which 
impression He derived from the éuBdérew aird. He read at once in his 
countenance genuine anxiety and effort for everlasting salvation, and at the 
same time fervid confidence in Himself. The conception of meritum de con- 
gruo is altogether foreign to the passage. Grotius appropriately remarks : 
‘Samat Christus non virtutes tantum, sed et semina virtutum, suo tamen 
gradu,” ‘‘ Christ loves not only virtues, but also the seeds of virtues, yet in 
their degree.” The explanation : blandis eum compellavit verbis, ‘‘ urged 
him with bland words,’’’ is founded merely on the passage in Homer, 
Od. xxiii. 214, where, nevertheless, it is to be explained likewise as to love.* 
— é oot torepei] see on John ii. 2. Yet, instead of co, according to B C M 
D &, min., oe is, with Tischendorf, to be read. Comp. Ps. xxiii. 1. The 
got occurred more readily (comp. Luke) to the transcribers, — apag r. cravp.] 
Matt. xvi. 24; Mark vili. 34. It completes the weighty demand of that 
which he still lacks for the attainment of salvation ; which demand, how- 
ever, instead of bringing salutarily to his knowledge the relation of hisown 
inward life to the divine law, was the rock on which he made shipwreck. 
[But see critical notes.]— Ver. 22. orvyvdcac] having become sullen, out of 
humor. Except in the Schol. Aesch. Pers. 470, and Matt. xvi. 8, the verb 
only occurs again in the LXX. at Ezek. xxvii. 35, xxviii. 19, xxxii. 10. — 
qv yap éxwv] for he was in possession of much wealth. [See Note LXV., p. 
138.]— Ver. 23. On the significant and solemn mep:Bdérecy, comp. ili. 5, 84 ; 
Luke vi. 10. Comp. also éuBaéwac, vv. 21, 27. — ol ra xpquara éyovres] The 
article ré is to beexplained summarily. The possessions are regarded as an 
existing whole, which is possessed by the class of the wealthy. — Ver. 24. 
The repetition of the utterance of Jesus is touched with emotion (réxva) and 
milder (roi¢ remocOérac x.7.A.), but then, at ver. 25, again declaring the state 
of the case with decision and with enhanced energy,—an alternation of feel- 
ing, which is to be acknowledged (in opposition to Fritzsche), and which 
involves so much of what is peculiar and psychologically true, that even 
in rove wexoOérag x.t.A. there is not to be found a modification by tradition 
interpreting the matter in an anti-EHbionitic sense, or a mitigation found to 
be necessary in a subsequent age.* These words, which are intended to dis- 
close the moral ground of the case as it stands, belong, in fact, essentially 
to the scene preserved by Mark in its original form. — Ver. 25. dia r7¢ rpupaa. 
x.T.A.]| through the eye of the needle. The two articles are generic; see Bern- 


1 Casaubon, Wolf, Grotius, Wetstein, namely, thus as J do now, when I have em- 
Kuinoel, Vater, Fritzsche, and others. braced thee, etc., v. 207 f. 

2 Penelope in this passage says to her 3 Baur, Késtlin, p. 329, Hilgenfeld, Holtz- 
busband : be not angry that Jloved thee not mann. 
thus (8° aydwnoe) as soon as I saw thee,— 


134 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

hardy, p. 815. Observe also the vivid change : to go through. . . to enter 
into. — Ver. 26. xai] at the beginning of the question : cum vi auctiva ita 
ponitur, ut is, qui interrogat, cum admiratione quadam alterius orationem 
excipere ex eaque conclusionem ducere significetur, qua alterius sententia 
confutetur,” ‘‘thus placed with an ascensive force, that he who asks may 
signify that he receives with a certain wonder the discourse of another, and 
that he draws from it a conclusion by which the opinion of the other is 
confuted.””! 

Vv. 28-31. See on Matt. xix. 27-30 ; Luke xviii. 28-80. Matthew is in 
part more complete (ver. 28 coming certainly under this description), in 
part abridging (ver. 29), but, even with this abridgment, more original. 
See on Matt. xix. 29. — 7pgaro] ‘‘ spe ex verbis salvatoris concepta,” ‘‘ hope 
being received from the word of the Saviour,” Bengel. — The question in 
Matthew, ri dpa égora: ju., is obvious of itself, even although unexpressed 
(not omitted by Mark in the Petrine interest, as Hilgenfeld thinks), and 
Jesus understood it. — Ver. 29 f. The logical link of the two clauses is : 
No one has forsaken, etc., if he shall not have (at some time) received, 7.6., if 
the latter event does not occur, the former has not taken place ; the hun- 
dredfold compensation is so certain, that its non-occurrence would presup- 
pose the not having forsaken. The association of thought in iv. 22 (not in 
Matt. xxvi. 42) is altogether similar. Instead of the 7, there is introduced 
in the second half of the clause xai ; which is : and respectively. The prin- 
ciple of division of ver. 30 is : He is (1) to reccive a hundredfold now, in 
the period prior to the manifestation of the Messiah, namely, a hundred 
times as many houses, brothers, etc.; and (2) to receive in the coming 
period (‘‘ jam in adventu est,” ‘‘now is in the Advent,” Bengel), after the 
Parousia, the everlasting life of the Messiah’s kingdom.— The plurals, 
which express the number a hundred, plainly show that the pramised com- 
pensation in the xacpé¢ ovtog is not to be understood literally, but generally, 
of very abundant compensation. Nevertheless, the delicate feeling of Jesus 
has not said )vvaixac also. So much the more clumsy was Julian’s scoff (see 
Theophylact) that the Christians were, morcover, to receive a hundred 
wives ! The promise was realized, in respect of the xa:pd¢ ovtos, by the re- 
ciprocal manifestations of lore,* and by the wealth in spiritual possessions, 
2 Cor. vi. 8-10; by which passage is illustrated, at the same time, in a noble 
example, the pera diwyzov (comp. Matt. v. 10 ff., x. 23, xiii. 21, xxiii. 34). 
The latter does not mean: after persecutions (Heinsius conjectured pera 
Swwyudv, a3 also a few min. read), but : inter persecutiones (in the midst of 
persecutions, where one ‘‘omnium auxilio destitui videtur,” ‘‘seems to be 
deprived of the aid of all,” Jansen), designating the accompanying circum- 


1 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 8. 10; Hartung, 
Partikel. 1. p. 146 f. Comp. John ix. 86, 
xiv. 22. 

2Comp. Luther's gloss: ‘He who be- 
lieveth must suffer persecution, and stake 
everything upon hisfaith. Neverthelesshe 
has enough; whithersoever he comes, he 


finds father, mother, brethren, possessions 
more than ever he could forsake."’ See, ¢.¢., 
on pwyrépas, Rom. xvi. 18; on réxva, 1 Cor. 
iv. 14 ff.; on adeAgovs, all the Epistles of the 
New Testament and the Acts of the Apos- 
tles (also fi. 44). 


CHAP. X., 32—45. ) 135 


stances (Bernhardy, p. 255), the shadow of which makes prominent the light 
of the promise. — Ver. 31. But many—so independent is the greater or lower 
reception of reward in the life eternal of the carlier or later coming to me— 
many that are first shall be last, and they that are last shall in many cases be 
Jirst (see on Matt. xix. 30, xx. 16) ; so that the one shall be equalized with 
the other in respect of the measuring out of the degree of reward. A doc- 
trine assuredly, which, after the general promise of the great recompense in 
ver. 29 f., was quite in its place to furnish a wholesome check to the ebulli- 
tion of greediness for reward in the question of the disciples, ver. 28 (for 
the disciples, doubtless, belonged to the rparo:). There is therefore the less 
reason to attribute, with Weiss, a different meaning to the utterance in 
Mark from that which it has in Matthew. 

Vv. 32-34. See on Matt. xx. 17-19. Comp. Luke xviii. 81-33. Mark is 
more detailed and more characteristic than Matthew. — joav d2 év rg 6d¢)] 
The occurrence with the rich young man had happened, while they went out 
cic ddé6v, ver. 17; now they were on the way (avaBaivovrec is not to be 
taken with joav). Jesus moves on before ‘‘ more intrepidi ducis,” ‘‘in the 
intrepid fashion of a leader” (Grotius), and the disciples were amazed ; but. 
they who followed were afraid,’ for the foreboding of @ serious and grave fu- 
ture had taken hold of them, and they beheld Him thus incessantly going, 
and themselves being led, to meet it ! See vv. 24-26, the pera diwyp., ver. 30, ° 
and the declaration, ver. 31. Comp. John xi. 7-16. — wdc] refers neither 
to xi. 81 (de Wette), where there is nothing said of any wapadayuBdverv, nor 
to ix. 85 (Fritzsche), where the égenvyce rove dédexa, Which happened in the 
house, is withal somcthing entirely different ; but to—what is just related— 
the partial separation of Jesus from His disciples on the way, after they had 
previously gone together. Only in part had they followed Him fearfully ; 
most of them had remained behind on the way amazed ; He now made a 
pause, and took again to Himsclf all the Twelve (hence in this place there 
is put not merely airoi¢, but roic dddexa). — #pEaro] so that He broke the 
previous silence. — Ver. 34. The Gentiles are the sibject of éuraié. as far as 
aroxt. (comp. Matthew). Instead of amoxrevotocyv Matthew has the definite, 
but certainly later, crucifying. 

Vv. 85-45. See on Matt. xx. 20-28. Luke has not this scene. —As to 
the variation from Matt. xx. 20 f., where the peculiar putting forward of 
the mother is’ to be regarded as the historically correct form, see on Mat- 
thew. — féAouev, iva] as at vi. 25; John xvii. 24; and comp. on Luke vi. 
35. — Ver. 87. év ri d6Ey cov] not : when thou hast attained to Thy glory (de 
Wette), but : in Thy glory, which will surround us then, when we sit so 
near to Thee. — Ver. 88. 4] or, in other words. — The presents rivw and 
Barrifoua: picture the matter as being realized. The cup and baptism of Jesus 
represent martyrdom. In the case of the figure of baptism, however (which 


1 According to the reading oi 82 axoA.¢¢o8- them who followed Jesus as He went for- 
ovrro ; see the criticalremarks. Thematter, ward did so only fearfully. As to this use 
namely, is to be conceived in this way, that of ot &é, see on Matt. xxvili. 17. 
the majority of the disciples stayed behind 2In opposition to Holtzmann, Weilz- 
on the way in perplexity, but those among _—_aicker, and others. 


136 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


latter Matthew by way of abridgment omits; it is alleged by Baur that 
Mark has taken it from Luke xii. 50), the point of the similitude lies in the 
being submerged, not in the purification (forgiveness of sins), as the Fathers 
have apprehended the baptism of blood (see Suicer, I. p. 627), which is not 
appropriate to Jesus. Comp. the classical use of xaradievy and Bamriferv, to 
plunge (immergere) into sufferings, sorrows, and the like.’— Ver. 40. 9] or 
else on the left, not put inappropriately (Fritzsche) ; the disciples had 
desired both places of honor, and therefore Jesus now says that none de-' 
pends on Him, whether the sitting be on the right hand or else on the left. 

— GAA’ ol¢ #roivacrac] Matthew has added the correctly explanatory amplifi- 

cation : id tov marpé¢ pov. — Ver. 41. #pgavro] Jesus, namely, at once ap- 
peased their indignation. — Ver. 42. ol doxotvrec dpyerv] peculiar to Mark 
and original, denoting the essential basis of the Gentile rule,—the having 
the repute of rulers,—-not equivalent to oi dpyovrec,? but: ‘qui censentur 
imperare, 4.¢., quos gentes habent et agnoscunt, quorum imperio pareant,” 
‘‘who are accounted to rule, t.e., whom the Gentiles have and acknowledge, 
whose rule they submit to” (Beza, comp. Casaubon and Grotius). Comp. 

Gal. ii. 9 ; Winer, p. 540 [E. T. 613} ; Méller, newe Ansichten, p. 158 ff., who, 

however, as Fritzsche also explains : who imagine themselves to rule, which in 
itself (as ray é6vdy refers to the Gentiles, whose rulers were no shadow-kings) 
and in respect of the context (which requires the general idea of rulers) is 
unsuitable. Compare, moreover, the close echo of the passage before us in 
Luke xxii. 25 from tradition. — Ver. 43. The reading éoriv is as little inap- 
propriate (in opposition to Fritzsche) as Matt. xx. 26. — Ver. 45. xai yép] 
Jor even. As the master, so the disciples, Rom. xv. 3. 

Vv. 46-52. See on Matt. xx. 29-34. Comp. Luke xviii. 35-43. Matthew 
has abridged the narrative, and, following a later tradition (comp. on Matt. 
viii, 28), doubled the persons. [See Note LXVI., p. 138.] Only Mark has 
the name of the blind man, which is not interpolated (Wilke), and certainly 
is from trustworthy tradition. — Bapripatoc] The patronymic ‘D0 13, as 
was often the case (comp. Bap§oAopaios, Bapiyaovs, BapsaBac), had become al- 
together a proper name, so that Mark even expressly prefixes to it 6 vid¢ 
Tiuzaiov, which, however, may be accounted for by the fact of Timacus being 
well known, possibly as having become a Christian of note. — rupade mposai- 
t7¢] (see the critical remarks) : a blind beggar. — Ver. 47. ‘‘ Magna fides, 
quod caecus filium Davidis appellat, quem ei Nazaracum praedicabat popu- 
lus,” ‘‘ Great faith, in that the blind man calls Him Son of David whom the 
multitude was proclaiming as the Nazarene,” Bengel. — Ver. 49. @dpce:, 
Fyerpe, dwvei ce] a hasty asyndeton.* — Ver. 50. arofa2. 1d izdr.] depicts the 
joyous eagerness, with which also the avarydjoac is in keeping (see the crit- 
ical remarks).*— Ver. 51. Saf3ovwi] °213%, usually : domine mi, ‘‘ my Lord.” 


1 Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1. 37; Wesseling, a@ Rosenmfiller,and many more. 


Diod. 1. p. 488. On the construction, comp. 8 Comp. Nigelsbach, Anm. z. Iias, ed. 8, 
Ael. AW. A. ili. 42: 0 wopdupiwy Aoverac 1d Tay p. 80. 

stepiorepwy Aovtpov, al. See in general, Lo- Comp. Hom. Ji. ff. 188: BH 8 déew, azo Se 
beck, Paralip. p. 520. ; xAaivay Bode, Acts Iii. 8; Dem. 403, 5. 


27QGatakcr, Raphel, Homberg, Kypke, 


NOTES. 137 


See Buxtorf, Lev. Talm. p. 2179. Yet the yod, as in ‘35, may also be only 
paragogic (Drusius, Michaelis, Fritzsche) ; and this latter view is precisely 
on account of the analogy of ‘35 more probable, and is confirmed by the in- 
terpretation diddoxade in John xx. 16. The form °2)3" is, we may add, 
more respectful than ‘3°. Comp. Drusius. 


Norres By AMERICAN Eprror. 


LXI. Ver. 2. et &eo71v «.7.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. says that ‘‘ Mark has the original form of the question,’’ that 
he ‘certainly does not follow a defective tradition,” and that throughout the 
chapter up to ver. 45 ‘‘the presentation of Mark is the original one, although 
here and there, especially in the latter parts, sayings from the older source 
show themselves.’’ He also objects to the common view that a new division of 
the Gospel begins with this chapter ; on the contrary, he thinks that the matter 
from chap. viii. 27 to x. 45 was joined together because of an internal connec- 
tion. But the historical character of the narrative is thrown too much in the 
background by this theory. 


LXMI. Ver. 10. et¢ ri oixiay. 


In the opinion of Weiss (ed. Mey.) Mark is correct, while Matthew, though 
following Mark, is inaccurate in making this a part of the reply to the Phari- 
sees. The fuller statements of Mark, moreover, belong to a more private dis- 
course, in which the disciples were to receive special instructions on this impor- 
tant topic. With this view it is allowable to explain ‘‘into the house,’’ as 
meaning ‘‘ within doors,” there being nothing to indicate what house it was. 
Weiss ed. Mey. omits the sentence: ‘‘ The proposition in the passage before 
us is derived from an Hellenic tradition,’’ etc. There is nothing whatever to 
prove its ‘‘Hellenic’’ character, and Meyer’s conjecture is no more valuable than 
that of Baur (see foot-note). 


- LXIII. Ver. 18. ri ue Aéyece ayabdr ; 


The Rec. text in Matthew has undoubtedly been altered to conform to Mark 
and Luke. There is abundant evidence that the correct reading there is: 
‘* Why askest thon me of that which is good ?’’ Such corrections of the text 
are based on weighty authorities. But for statements respecting the ‘‘ primi- 
tive form” and ‘later moulding under reflection” we have no evidence what- 
ever ; Justin's testimony does not help us to a solution. On the theory that the 
Evangelists had some adequate knowledge of the facts, the view that both 
points (the ‘‘ good things” and ‘‘the good person”) were included in the dia- 
logue, is quite probable.— Weiss ed. Mey. significantly omits the sentence; 
‘Even the man Jesus had to wrestle until He attained the victory and peace 
of the cross,” 


LXIV. Ver. 19. pu) aroorepyone. 


There seems to be no valid objection to regarding this prohibition, contain- 
ing 9 word used several times in the O. T. precepts, as here corresponding to the 


138 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

tenth commandment. The reference to Deut. xxiv. 14 seems doubtful, since 
it is based on a single word. Weiss ed. Méy., however, while favoring the view 
that this takes the place of the tenth commandment, refers it to the desire for 
the possessions of others which the rich man often manifests in withholding 
from others their dues. 


LXV. Ver. 22. iv yap éxur. 


The R, V. is more grammatical in its rendering : ‘‘for he was one that had 
great possessions.’’ The participle thus receives its proper force, and is not 
taken with 7» as a periphrastic imperfect ; comp. Buttmann, N. T. Grammar, 
p. 310. 


LXVI. Vv. 46-52. 


Weiss ed. Mey. says of this account of the healing of the blind man: ‘‘ Mark 
narrates the story with reminiscences of the narrative of the healing of two 
blind men, from the older source, preserved in Matthew ix. 27-30, to which 
Matthew reverts still more strongly.’’ This is not the place to discuss the re- 
lation of the two accounts given in the first Gospel, but the theory of Weiss in- 
volves confusion and carelessness on the part of the writer of that Gospel such 
as cannot well be admitted. On the other hand, the acceptance of a later tra- 
dition (Meyer) does not seem compatible with abridgment on the part of 
Matthew. If, as he holds, Luke also follows a later tradition, why does not 
that Evangelist double the persons? ‘The harmonists are indeed open to cen- 
sure for their unwarranted exegesis in the interests of conformity, but that 
does not justify any one in making the narratives less trustworthy, by not only 
magnifying the divergences, but by accounting for them in a way that, if al- 
lowed in one case, must open the door to constant subtractions from the de- 
tails, according to the taste or fancy of the commentator. 


CHAP. XI. 139 


CHAPTER XI. 


Ver. 1. Lachm. and Tisch. read (instead of ei¢ ByOd. x. B70.) merely xai ei¢ 
BnGaviav ; but the evidence is not sufficient (D, Vulg. codd. It. Or. (twice) Jer.) 
to entitle us to derive the Recepla from Luke xix. 29. An old clerical error, oc- 
casioned by the similar beginnings of the two local names ; and «ai was inserted 
to connect them. C & have ei¢ Bnig. x. et¢ By9. If this were the original form, 
the omission would occur still more easily. [But Treg., W. and Hort (text), 
Weiss, R. V., accept: et¢ By¢. x. By. ] — The form ‘I-poodAvya is to be adopted, 
with Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., following BC DLA 8, min. Sahid. Or. 
‘TepovoaAnu does not occur elsewhere in Mark, and only in Matthew at xxiii. 37 
(see in loc.) ; in Luke itis the usual form. — arooréA2e:] Lachm. reads aréoretAev, 
in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from the parallels. — Ver. 2. otdeic} 
Lachm. has otdei¢ ottw ; Fritzsche: ovdérw ovdeic. The latter is much too 
weakly attested. The former has considerable attestation [A B L 4, Vulg., 
accepted by recent editors, R. V.], but with a different position of the virw 
(Tisch. ovd. avOp. otw), instead of which A has xdzore (from Luke). The 
Recepta is to be defended ; the idea expressed in adhuc was very variously 
brought in. — Atoavre¢ aitov aydyere] BC L A 8, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. have 
Avoate avTdv xai gépere. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. (Lachm. has 
Avoare aut. x. aydyete). Rightly ; the Recepia is from Luke xix. 30; comp. 
Matt. xxi. 2, whence also originated the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 3. diooréAAet]} 
Elz. Fritzsche have azooredei, in opposition to decisive evidence. Comp. on 
Matt, xxi. 3. — rad, which BC* D L AR®, min. Verc. Colb. Or. (twice) read, 
although it is adopted by Tisch. [Treg. text., W. and Hort text., Weiss, R. V.], 
is an addition from misunderstanding ; the reader probably being misled by 
ode, and taking the words as being still a portion of what was to be said by the 
disciples. — Ver. 4. The article before w@Aov (Elz.) is, in accordance with deci- 
Bive evidence, deleted. [Recent editors, with B L A, Copt., omit ri (before 
Gvpav) also.]— Ver. 6. Instead of elev (so also Lachm. and Tisch.) Elz. Scholz 
have évetciAaro. But elev is so weightily attested by B OC L A &, min. Or, 
Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm. Or. that évereidaro appears a gloss. D has eipyjxec. 
which likewise tells in favor of elev, and is only a change into the pluperfect.— 
Ver. 7. #yayov) BL A ®** Or, have gépovary ; approved by Griesb., adopted by 
Tisch. The Recepia is from the parallel passages. — éré3atov] BCD LAR, 
min. Vulg. Cant. Ver. Corb, Vind. Or. have ér:faAdoverv. Adopted by Griesb. 
Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The Recepia was derived from the reading jyayov. — 
éx’ attg] BC DL AX, min. have éx’ airév, which Griesb. approved, Fritzsche, 
Lachm. Tisch. adopted. The Recepta isa mechanical repetition of the previous 
airy. — Ver, 8. dé:dpuv] B CLA, Syr. p. (in the margin) Or. Sahid. have 
aypov, which Fritzsche and Tisch. have rightly adopted. With Tisch., however, 
instead of the whole passage ixorrov . . . ddév we must read briefly and simply : 
néwavrec tx Tov aypov. The Recepta is an expansion from Matthew, whence 
also came Aéyovrec in ver. 9. Thisis wanting in BC L 4 &, min. Copt. Sahid, 


140 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Colb. Corb. Or., is regarded as suspicious by Griesb. and Lachm., and is 
deleted by Tisch. — Ver. 10, After Baoideia Elz. has év dvouari xvpiov, against 
preponderating evidence. An awkward repetition from ver. 9.— Ver. 11. xai 
cic T, lepév] xai igs wanting in BC L M AX, min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Perss. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch.; inserted by way of connection. — Ver. 13. To 
paxp60ev, with Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., there is to be added 
aré, upon preponderating evidence. Comp. v. 6. [See Note LXX., p. 147.] — 
Ver. 14. The arrangement ei¢ Tr. ai. éx. o., a8 Well as undeic (instead of ovdeic in 
Elz.), is decisively attested. — Ver. 17. 4é)wv avroic] BC L AB, min. Copt. 
have xui éAeyev atroic¢. So Tisch. The Recepia is from Luke. — éxoujoare} B L 
A, Or. have weroijxare. Adopted by Tisch. The aorist, in itself more familiar, 
came from Luke. Comp. on Matt. xxi. 13. — Ver. 18. The arrangement oi 
apytepeig k. of ypaup. is decisively attested (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), as is also 
the subjunctive droAfowowy (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), instead of aroA£covorv.— 
Ver. 19. ére] BC K L A 8, min. have érav. Wrongly adopted by Tisch. Comp. 
his Proleg. p. lvii. Unsuitable (otherwise at iii.11), and to be regarded as an 
ancient clerical error. [Strongly attested, quite suitable, as referring tos number 
of days ; accepted by Treg. text., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]— é&eropevero] 
A BKM A, min. vss. have. ieropevovro. So Fritzsche, Lachm. [Treg., W. 
and Hort text., Weiss, R. V. marg.]. But how natural it was here to bring in 
the same number, as in the case of raparop., ver. 20!— Ver. 20. The order 
Tpwt tTaparop. is not necessary (in opposition to Fritzsche), but suggested itself 
most naturally after ver. 19, on which account, however, zaparop. tput (B C 
DLA, min. Ver. Cant.) is precisely to be preferred, with Lachm. and Tisch. 
—Ver. 23. yap] is wanting in B D U®, min. vss. Deleted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. A connective addition. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ® B 
L A, read miorevy.] — Aéyer] Lachm. and Tisch. have Aadci, following BL N A &, 
min. ; the more familiar Aéy. slipped in involuntarily. — 6 éav ely] is wanting 
in BC DL AR, min. Copt. Vulg. It. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., con- 
demned also by Griesb. A confusing gloss, following the foregoing 6¢ dv eiry. 
— Ver. 24. dv] is wanting in BC DL A®, min. An addition from Matt. 
xxi, 22. — rpocevzxduevor] BC DL A®, Cant. Vere. Colb. Cypr. have mpocev- 
xeobe xai. So Lachm. and Tisch. The participle is an emendation, because 
it was thought necessary (comp. Matt. xxi. 22) to make dca dependent on 
aireioGe, — Aaupdavere] BC L A ®&, Copt, have éAd3ere. Commended by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the sorist was not understood, and 
was changed partly into the present, partly into the future (D). — Ver. 25. 
otnxnre|] AC DH LUM, min. have orjxere, So Lachm. and Tisch. The 
Recepia is an emendation introduced from ignorance. — Ver. 26.'] is wanting 
in BLS AX, min, Copt. Arm. codd. It. Suspected by Fritzsche, deleted by 
Tisch. [Rejected by Treg., W. and Hort, and in R. V. text.; retained by 
Weiss.}] But the evidence in favor of omission is the less sufficient for its 
condemnation, that the words do not closely agree with Matt. vi. 15, from 
which place they are said to have come in, but present deviations which are 
in no wise to be attributed to the mechanical transcribers. The omission is 
explained from the homoeoteleuton of vv. 25 and 26. But what M., min. 
further add after ver. 26 is an interpolation from Matt. vil. 7, 8. — Ver. 28. 
[Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 BC L A, Copt. read éAeyov.] — Instead of 


1 Ver. 26 is wanting in all the original editions of Luther's translation. 


CHAP. XI., 1-11. 141 


wai ti¢ read, with Tisch., # ric, which is considerably attested and is supplanted 
by «ai ric in Matthew. — Ver. 29. xd)] Tisch. has deleted this, in accordance 
with B C? L A; and Lachm., following A K, min. Arm. Germ. 2, Goth., has 
placed it before iuds [so Weiss). It has come in from the parallels. — Ver. 30. 
Before 'Iudvy, here, as in Matt. xxi, 25, réd is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, 
Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with important testimony. It was passed over 
as superfluous ; in Luke it is too weakly attested. — Ver. 31. fAoyiZuvTo] B C 
DGKLM A &** min. read: dieAoyifovro, which Griesb. has commended, 
Schulz has approved, Fritzsche, Lachm. [Tisch. VIII., Treg., W. and Hort, 
R. V.] have adopted. With this preponderance of evidence it is the less to 
be derived from Matt. xxi. 25, in proportion to the facility with which the 
syllable AI might be lost in the two last letters of the preceding KAI. &* 
has the manifest clerical error zpoceAoyifurro, which, however, does not pre- 
suppose the simple form. — ov] is wanting in A C* L.MX A, min. vss, 
Deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. [Rejected by Treg., bracketed by W. and Hort. ] 
It is from the parallels. — Elz. and Fritzsche have afterwards at ver. 32: a//’ 
fav eizwuev. But edv has against it decisive evidence, and is an addition easily 
misunderstood. — 6r: dvrwe] Tisch. has édvrwe ori, following B C L N** min, 
The Recepia is a transposition for the sake of facility. 


Vv. 1-11. See on Matt. xxi. 1-11. Comp. Luke xix. 29-44. Mark nar- 
rates with greater freshness and particularity’ than Matthew, who partly 
abridges, but partly also already comments (vv. 4, 5) and completes (ver. 
10 f.). — ei¢ Byfd. x. Byf.] a more precise local definition to cic 'Iepoc. : when they 
come into the neighborhood of Jerusalem (namely), into the neighborhood of 
Bethphage and Bethany, which places are situated on the Mount of Olives. 
Comp. the double ¢ic, ver. 11. —Ver. 2. cig rv xdunv x.r.A] Bethphage, which 
was first named as the nearest to them. See also Matt. xxi. 1 f., where 
Bethany as explanatory is omitted. [See Note LXVII., p. 146.] — réAov] 
without more precise definition, but, as is obvious of itsclf, the foal of an aes. 
Judg. x. 4, xil. 14 ; Zech. ix. 9; Gen. xlix. 11. —é’ év otdeic x.7.A] This 
notice, which in Matthew is not adopted ' into the narrative, is an addition 
supplied by reflective tradition, arising out of the sacred destination of the 
animal (for to a sacred purpose creatures as yet unused were applied, Num. 
xix. 2; Deut. xxi. 3; 1 Sam. vi. 7 ; Wetstein in loc.). Comp. Strauss, IT. 
p. 276 f. — On ¢épere (see the critical remarks), comp. Gen. xlvii. 16 : gépere 
ra arhvn buoy, Hom, Od. iti. 117. Therefore it is not unsuitable (Fritzsche) ; 
even the change of the tenses (Zicare . . . pépere) has nothing objectionable in it. 
See Kiihner, II. p. 80. — Ver. 8. ri] wherefore; to this corresponds the sub- 
sequent arz, because, — kai eirdiwg x.7.A4] this Jesus says ; it is not the disciples 
who are to say it (Origen ; comp. the critical remarks), whereby a paltry 
trait would be introduced into the commission. — ade, hither.? [See Note 
LXVIIL, p. 147.] Not yet so used in Homer. — Ver. 4. etpov ... augddov] 
a description characteristic of Mark ; rd éugodav and 7 dugodog (comp. ay¢gé- 


1 By no means obvious of itself, more- Lange and others. 
over, tn the case of the asa’s cold in the nar- 2 Plato, Prof. p. 828 D; Soph. Trach. 496 ; 
rative of Matthew, since it was already 0. 7.7; Ei. 1149. 
large enough for riding,—in opposition to 





142 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


d:ov in Lucian, Jthet. pracc. 24, 25) is not simply the way, but the way that 
leads round (winding way).'— Ver. 5. ri roteire x.r.A.] Comp. Acts xxi. 13.— 
Ver. 8. On the only correct form or:f8ds, not oro:Bdc, see Fritzsche. The 
meaning is: litter, ard pa3dwv nai yAwpav zéptuv orpacic Kai diAAwy, ‘'& COV- 
ering of twigs and green grass and leaves,” Hesychius. Very frequent in 
the classical writers. Litter (branches and leaves) was cut from the fields 
that were near (aypav, sec the critical remarks). — Ver. 10. 4 épyouévy Baar- 
Aela rot warp. ny. A.)i.e., the coming kingdom of the Messiah. Its approaching 
manifestation, on the eve of occurring with the entry of the Messiah, was 
seen in the riding of Jesus into Jerusalem. And it is called the kingdom of 
David, so far as it is the fulfilment of the type given in the kingdom of 
David, as David himself is a type of the Messiah, who is even called David 
among the Rabbins.* Mark did not avoid mention of the ‘‘ Son of David” 
(in opposition to Hilgenfeld ; comp. x. 47, xii. 35), but Matthew added 
it ; in both cases without special aim. The personal expression, however 
(comp. Luke : faorcic, which Weizsiicker regards as the most original), 
easily came into the tradition. — Ver. 11. cig 'Iepoc. cig 7d lrpév] After the 
rejection of «ai (see the critical remarks) the second eic is to be understood 
as @ more precise specification, similar to that in ver. 1.—ovwiag in oboe rH¢ 
&pa¢g) as the hour was already late. syiac is here an adjective. Taken asa 
substantive, r7¢ Gpac (evening of the daytime) would not be applicable to 
it ; expressions with oyé* are different. On the adjective éy0¢, see Lobeck, 
ad Phryn. p. 51. It was already the time of day, which in the classical 
writers iscalled dia decay. According to Matthew and Luke, it was imme- 
diately after His entry, and not on the next day (Mark, vv. 12, 15 ff.) that 
Jesus purified the temple. [See Note LXIX., p. 147.] A real difference ; 
Matthew has not only narrated the cleansing of the temple as occurring at 
once along with the entry, but assumed it so (in opposition to Ebrard, Lange, 
and many others) ; Mark, however, is original ; the day’s work is completed 
with the Messianic entry itself, and only a visit to the temple and the sig- 
nificant look round about it forms the close. What the Messiah has still 
further to do, follows on the morrow. This at the same time in opposition 
to Baur (Markusecang. p. 89), who sees in the narrative of Mark only the 
later work of sober reflection adjusting the course of events ; and in oppo- 
sition to Hilgenfeld, who accuses Mark of an essential impropriety. — repeB- 
Aepdu. wdvra is a preparatory significant statement in view of the measure of 
cleansing purposed on the morrow. The look around was itself deeply seri- 
ous, sorrowful, judicial (comp. iii. 5, 34), not as though He Himself had now 
for the first time beheld the temple and thus had never previously come to 
the feast (Schenkel). 

Vv. 12-14. Comp. on Matt. xxi. 18-20, whose more compressed narrative 
represents a later form taken by the tradition. — «i dpa] whether under these 


1 Jer. xvii. 27, xivil. 27; Aristot. de part. 2 Schoettgen, Jor. IT. p. 10 f. 
ani. IT. 2, p. 668, 86 (codd., see Lobeck, ® As Dem. 541, ult. ope ras Gpas eytyvero, 
Paralip. p. 248), and the examples in Wet- Xen. Hel. ii. 1. 14, al. 
stein, also Koenig and Schaefer, ad Gregor. 4 Herod. vill. 6; Thuc. vill. 2; Polyb. vil. 
Cor. p. 505. 16.4; Rubnken, 7¥m. p. 75. 


CHAP. XI., 12-14. 143 
circumstances "namely, since the tree had leaves, which in fact in the case 
of fig-trees come after the fruits. Comp. on Matt. xxi. 19.—ov yap jv Kaspd¢ 
cixwv}] not inappropriate (Késtlin), but rightly giving information whence 
it happened that Jesus found nothing but leaves only.” If it had been the 
time for figs (June, when the Boccére ripens, comp. Matt. xxiv. 32) He 
would have found fruits also as well as the leaves, and’ would not have been 
deceived by the abnormal foliage of the tree. The objections against this 
logical connection—on the one hand, that figs of the previous year that 
had hung through the winter might still have been on the tree ; on the 
other, that from ov yép Fw Karp. otx. the fruitlessness of the tree would ap- 
pear quite natural, and therefore not be justified as an occasion for cursing 
it ?—are quite irrelevant ; for (1) Figs that have hung through the winter 
were not at all associated with a tree’s being in leaf, but might also be found 
on trees without leaves ; the leafy tree promised summer jigs, but had none,‘ 
because in the month Nisan it was not the time for figs, so t!:at thus the pres- 
ence of foliage which, in spite of the earliness of the time of year, justified 
the conclusion from the nature of the fig-tree that there would be fruit 
upon it, was only a deceptive anomaly. (2) The tree presents itself as 
deserving a curse, because, having leaves it ought also to have had fruit ; 
the ob yap 7 x. co. would only make it appear as blameless if it had had no 
leaves ; hence even with our simply literal apprehension of the words there 
in no wise results an over-hasty judicial sentence. It is almost incredible 
how the simple and logically appropriate meaning of the words has been 
distorted, in order to avoid representing Jesus as seeking figs out of the fig- 
. season. Such explanations, however, deserve no refutation ; ¢.g., that of 
Hammond, Clericus, Homberg, Paulus, Olshausen, Lange, LZ. J. II. 1, 
p. 321: for it was not a good jig-year (sec, on the other hand, Strauss, II. 
p. 220 f.); that of Abresch, Lect. Arist. p. 16, and Triller, ad Thom. M. 
p. 490: for it was not a place suitable for figs ; the interrogative view of Majus, 
Obss. I. p. 7: ‘*nonne enim tempus erat ficuum,” ‘‘ for was it not the season 
of figs ?;” that of Heinsius and Knatchbull : ‘‘ wbi enim fuit, tempus erat 
Jicuum,” ‘‘ where it was, was the season of figs” (so that ov would have to be 
read); the notion of Mill, that Jesus only feigned as if He were seeking figs, 
in order merely to do a miracle (Victor Antiochenus and Euthymius Ziga- 
benus had already taken even His hunger as simulated ; compare recently 
again Hofmann, p. 374); the view of Kuinoel :* for it was not yet (ob = 
otrw) fig-harvest ; compare also Baumgarten-Crusius, Fritzsche has the 
correct view, although he reproaches Mark with having subjoined the 


! See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 178 f. 

2 Not as to the point, that only a symbol- 
ical demonstration was here in question 
(Weizsacker, p. 92). Nobody could have 
gathered this from these words without 
some more precise indication, since the 
symbolical nature of the event is wholly in- 
dependent of them. 

* Comp. de Wette, Strauss, Schenkel ; ao- 
cording to Bruno Bauer, Mark made the re- 


mark on account of Hos. ix. 10. 

4No fruit indeed, even that had hung 
through the winter ; but this Jesus had not 
sought, since the presence Qf leares had in- 
duced Him to expect fruit—namely, fruit 
before the time (comp. Tobler, Denkbl. aus 
Jerus. p. 101 ff.). 

* Comp. Dahme in Henke's Vagaz. I. 2, 
p. 22. 





144 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


notice ‘‘non elegantissime,” ‘not very elegantly,” whereas it very cor- 
rectly states why Jesus, notwithstanding the leaves of the tree, found no 
Sruits. Toup (Emendatt. in Suid. TI. p. 218 f.), Tittmann (Opuse. p. 509), 
and Wassenbergh (in Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 18) have even declared them- 
selves against the genuineness of the words in spite of all the critical evi- 
dence |! Bornemann (in opposition to Wassenbergh)' comes back again 
essentially to the interpretation of Hammond, and explains: ‘‘for it was 
not favorable weather for figs.” But xacpd¢ could only acquire the meaning 
of ‘‘favorable weather” by more precise definition in the contert, as in the 
passage quoted by Bornemann, Eur. Jlec. 587, by Yed0ev, and hence this 
interpretation is not even favored by the reading 6 yap xacpo¢ ovx fv ofKwr,? 
for the time was not fig-time, which reading casily originated from an 64 xa:pé¢ 
written on the margin by way of supplement, whence also is to be derived 
the reading of Lachmann (following D, Or.): ob y. #v 6 xatpdg o. [Sce Note 
LXX., p. 147.] De Wette finds the words ‘‘ absolutely incomprehensible.” ? 
Comp. also Baur, Markusev. p. 90, according to whom, however, Mark here 
only betrays his poverty in any resources of his own, as he is alleged by 
Hilgenfeld only to make the case worse involuntarily. — Ver. 14. azoxpdei¢c] 
Appropriately Bengel adds: ‘‘arbori fructum neganti,” ‘‘to the tree deny- 
ing fruit.” — 9dyo:] According to Mark (it is otherwise in Matt. xxi. 19) the 
cursing is expressed in the form of a wish, as imprecation, Acts viii. 20. — 
Kai fKxovov of yad. avrov] a preparation for ver. 20. 

Vv. 15-19. See on Matt. xxi. 12-17. Comp. Luke xix. 45-48, Matthew 
deals with this partly by abbreviating, partly also by adding what is peculiar 
and certainly original (vv. 14-16). — #pfaro éxfBdAdrcv] but afterwards : xaré- 
orpepe, 80 that thus the latter occurred after the beginning and before the 
ending of the expulsion. — Ver. 16. iva] The object of the permission is 
conceived as its purpose. The form je, as i. 84. — dtevéyny oxevog dia Tod 
lepov] In the estimation also of the Rabbins it was accounted a desecration 
of the temple, if anybody carried the implements of common life (oxetoc, 
household furniture, pots, and the like) through the temple-enclosure, é:4 
rov lenov (not vaov), in order to save himself a circuit ; they extended this 
even to the synagogues.‘ Olshausen is mistaken in explaining dcadgéperv as to 
carry to and fro; and Kuinoel and Olshausen, following Beza and Grotius, 
arbitrarily limit oxsvoc to implements used for the purpose of gain. — Ver. 17. 
édidaoxe] on what subject ? What follows leaves no doubt as to the princi- 
pal theme of this teaching. — maar roi¢ é9vectv] Daticus commodi: (destined) 
Jor all nations,—which has reference in Isa. lvi. 7 to the fact that even 
the strangers dwelling among the Israelites were to return with them to the 
Holy Land,* where they were to present their offerings in the temple.‘ 
Only Mark (not Matthew and Luke) has taken up the aor roi¢ #9 veow from 


1In the Schol. in Luc. p. xlix. f., and in yearat the Feast of Tabernacles (John vii.). 


the Siud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 131 ff. ‘See Lightfoot, p. 082 f.; Wetstein tn loc. 
2BC* LAR, Copt. Syr.: so Tischendorf. 5 Ezra ji. 43 ff., vii. 7: Neh. iif. 26, xf. 21. 
§ Nay, they even compelled Bleek to the ® According to the Israelitish command, 


conjecture that the event had occurred aé__ Ley. xvii. 8 ff., xxii. 19 ff.; Num. xv, 14 ff. 
another time of year, possibly in the previous 


CHAP. XI., 20-26. 145 


Isaiah, which probably has its reason not only in more careful quotation 
(Fritzsche, de Wette, Holtzmann, Bleek), but, inasmuch as itis an honorable 
mention of the Gentiles, in the Gentile Christian interest, without, however, 
thereby indicating that Jesus had desired to announce the new spiritual tem- 
ple of His church (Schenkel), which point of the action does not emerge in 
any of the evangelists, since they had failed to perceive it, or had suppressed 
it. — Ver. 18. aroAéoworv] (see the critical remarks) : how they were to destroy 
Him, deliberative. The future of the Recepta (how they should destroy Him) 
would designate the realization as indubitable (the question only still re- 
maining as to the kind and manner of the destruction).’ — ég¢ootvro yap 
airéy] The reason why they sought to destroy Him. — émi rg é:dayh, abrov] 
which He, namely, had just set forth, ver. 17, after the cleansing of the tem- 
ple. Baur arbitrarily suggests that Mark has dexterously inwoven the d:déoxew 
from Luke. — Ver. 19. dre owe éyévero] on that day, ver. 12 ; hence not bray 
(see the critical remarks). [See also Note LXXI., p. 147.] 

Vv. 20-24. Comp. on Matt. xxi. 20-22. But according to Matthew the 
tree withered away forthwith after the cursing, so that the following conversa- 
tion immediately attached itself thereto. A later form moulded in accord- 
ance with the immediate result inother miracles. [See Note LXIX., p. 147.] 
If Mark had separated the miracle into two acts in order to give to it the 
more importance (see Késtlin, p. 335) he would have reckoned erroneously, 
as the immediate result is the greater and therefore the morein keeping with 
a ‘‘later reflection” (Hilgenfeld). But this variation of the tradition has 
nothing to do with the view that the entire history is only a legendary for- 
mation from Luke xiii. (in opposition to Schenkel). — raparopevéueror mzpwl] 
Fritzsche is wrong in rejecting this order, because ‘‘ rpwi is opposed to the 
preceding oyé.” In fact raparop. is the leading idea (and passing by in the 
morning), pointing out the modal definition to the following cidov «.r.A. — 
Ver. 22. riori Oeoi] confidence in God; genitive of the object.* — Ver. 24. 
é:a tutto] because the confidence has so preat effect. — dr: éAdBere] (see the 
critical remarks): The praeterite is not ‘‘ineptum” (Fritzsche), but the haz- 
tng received, which one believes has its ground in the counsel of God. Comp. 
xili, 20. The real de facto bestowal is future (Zora: tuiv). [See Note LXXIL., 
p. 147 seq. ] 

Vv. 25, 26. Comp. Matt. vi. 14f. To the exhortation to confidence in 
prayer, according to Mark, Jesus links on another principal requisite of be- 
ing heard—namely, the necessity of forgiving in order to obtain forgiveness. 
And how appropriate is this to guard against a false conclusion from the 
occurrence with the fig-tree !_ Nevertheless (in opposition to Holtzmann) it 
is hardly here original, but introduced * into this connection by Mark from 
the collection of Logia in the way of thoughtful redaction, not of unadjust- 


a 


' See Kfibner, II. p. 489 f.; Stallbaum, ad the Jahrd. f. D. Theol. 1864, p. 68, to be sup- 
Plat. Symp. p. 225 C. ported by the argument that Mark has no- 
2 Comp. Acts fil. 16; Rom. fff. 22; Gal. fl. | where else the expresston : 6 rarnp 6 éy roig 
20, iif. 22; Eph. ffl. 8; Dem. 800, 10; Eur.  ovp. For Mark hasno place at all, in which 
Med. 414. . this designation would have been applica- 
3 Which, however, fs not, with Weiss in _ ble instead of another that he has used. 


10 : 


146 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


ed insertion (Hilgenfeld). [See Note LXXIII., p. 148.] —orfxere] Comp. on 
gorarec, Matt. vi. 5. The indication is not incorrect, but dv has its relation 
mcrely to the particle dre, and does not affect the verb ; see on iii. 11. — 
Ver. 26. Observe the antithesis, in which oix (not uf, as in Matthew) is close- 
ly associated with dgiere and constitutes with it one idea.’ 

Vv. 27-33. See on Matt. xxi, 23-27. Comp. Luke xx. 1-8. Matthew 
abridges little, but yet remains not so directly vivid. — mreperarevrec] Accord- 
ing to Matthew and Luke Jesus taught, which, however, is not excluded by 
Mark’s statement. — Ver. 28. raitra] the cleansing of the temple, comp. on 
Matt. xxi. 23. — ia ravra rorpe] not a paraphrase of the infinitive, but : in 
order that thou mayest do these things, purpose of rjv ifovsiav tr. Edwxev.— Ver. 
29. érepwriow] not : post interrogabo, ‘‘ afterwards I will ask” (Fritzsché), 
but, as always in the N. T.: to inquire of, so that ézi expresses the direc- 
tion.? — Ver. 31. ovv] therefore, since it comes from heaven. [But see critical 
notes. ] — Ver. 32. aA’ eirwuev’ &F avd pérwv) Here is to be placed a note of 
interrogation (Complutensian, Lachmann, Tischendorf) ; but are we to say: 
of men? a question of doubtful reflection ! [See Note LXXITV., p. 148.] Rinck, 
Incubr. crit. p. 306, aptly remarks on what follows : ‘‘ Respondet Marcus 
suo nomine, idque elegantissime fecisse videtur, quoniam haud facile quis- 
quam sibi ipse aperte timorem adscribere consuevit,” ‘‘ Mark responds in 
his own name, and he seems to have done this very elegantly, since one does 
not easily become accustomed tv openly ascribe fear to one’s self.”” ? — elyov 
rov "Iwdveny bvtw¢, ott tpod. 7] (see the critical remarks) : they really per- 
ceived * that John (in his lifetime) was @ prophet. ‘'Iudvenv. . . dre is to be 
taken according to the well-known attraction. ° 


‘Nores spy American Eprror. 


LXVII. Ver. 2. etc riv Kony x.7.A. 


Meyer is probably correct in referring this to Bethphage ; but a better reason 
can be given than he addnces. According to John’s account, they had already 
been at Bethany, and the two disciples would scarcely be sent back there. 
The relative position of the two placesis unknown ; some suppose Bethany 
was off the main route from Jericho to Jerusalem, and that the company now 
returns from that village to Bethphage, which was nearer Jerusalem. Weiss 
ed. Mey., however, thinks Bethany is here meant, and that the then better 
known Bethphage is mentioned only to indicate the situation of Bethany, a 
place mentioned only in the gospels. But this theory will not account for 
Matthew's omitting to mention Bethany in chap. xxi. 1, and yet naming it 
in chap, xxvi. 6, | 


1 Hermann, ad Vig. p. 831; Winer, p. 423 3 Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 330 [E. T. 
f. [E. T. 476 f.]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 29% 885]. 


[E. T. 346]. *Perspectum habebant, see Ast, Lez. 
2Comp. Plat. Soph. p. 249 E: Suxatws ay» Plat. I. p. 878. 
ermepwryndeimerv arep avroi réTe HpwrTa- 8 See Winer, p. 551 [E. T. 626] ; Buttmann, 


nev (be inquired of, as we ourselves asked yp. 822 (E. T. 876]. 
questions). 


NOTES. 147 


LXVIII. Ver. 3. xad etGic arooréAAer wad cde. 


The evidence for this form is decisive. Meyer objects to radi, but without 
good reason, especially against the judgment of Origen. The R. V. text ren- 
ders : *‘and straightway he will send him back hither ;” but the margin is 
nore literal : ‘‘and straightway he sendeth him again hither.’’ The present 
tense and the proper sense of 7éA.v compel us to regard this as part of what 
the disciplesare to say. Why this would be a ‘ paltry trait’’ (Meyer) does not 
seem clear. The Rec. is obviously a conformation to Matthew. 


LXIX. Ver. 11. dwiag 4bn obone ti¢ dpac. 


This statement of Mark is specific, and determines the events of that day. 
But since the Evangelists are not always full as to details of days, it is not cor- 
rect to say that ‘‘ according to Matthew and Luke, it was immediately after 
His entry, and not on the next day.” To insist upona ‘‘real difference’’ here 
is to run counter to the ordinary rules of evidence. No historian can be 
judged by any such critical method as Meyer's position involves. These re- 
marks apply also to his comment on vv. 20-24, 


LXX. Ver. 13. 6 yap xatpdc¢ ovK iv avKuy. 


The above reading is well attested, and cannot well be accounted for in the 
way proposed by Meyer. It is far more likely to have been original, and the 
readings of Lach. and of Rec. to have arisen from a wish to connect ca:péc and 
cuxwy more closely ; so Weiss ed. Mey. The R. V. properly renders: ‘‘ For 
it was not the season of figs.” The explanation of T. W. Chambers (Int. 
Revision Comm., Mark, p. 147) deserves notice: ‘‘ The tree bears two crops— 
an early ripe fig, which is crude, and without flavor and valueless, and a later 
fig, which is full of flavor and sweetness, and highly esteemed. Now, the tree 
our Lord saw had not the second, for the time of that had not yet come; but 
it had not even the first, for it had nothing but leaves, and the lack of the first 
was sure evidence that the second would also be wanting.”’ 


LXXI. Ver. 19. éray dpe fyévero. 


If dray is rejected, we must give up the superior weight of the older uncial 
evidence. Moreover, the transcribers would be likely to change this form to 
bre (Rec.), since drav with the indicative seemed unusual. The sense of the 
better attested reading is given in the R. V. (‘‘And every evening He went 
forth’’), while the exact rendering appears in the margin : ‘‘ whenever evening 
came.’’ Thus the more difficult reading, when properly understood, sheds 
much light on the story of the week. It must be added that the plural: efe7o- 
petovro is sufficiently attested to claim attention. The evidence is quite evenly 
balanced. 


LXXII. Ver. 24, dre eAaBere, 


The sorist is undoubtedly the correct reading, though the evidence for it is 
not quite so full as that for drav (ver. 19). The use of this tense implies: 
‘when you asked, you received, God at once granted your request ;” the an- 
swer is thus represented as coming before the fulfilment. The R. V. gives the 
harsh rendering : ‘‘ Believe that ye have received them ;” adding the margin 





148 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


‘*Greek, received,” to show that the verb is aorist. But A. B. V. has ‘‘ receive,” 
with the same margin. The latter is quite correct, for the Greek aorist, in such 
a connection, does not point to something prior to the asking or believing, 
but to a single act, synchronous with the asking. In English, ‘“receive’’ indi- 
cates this better than ‘‘ have received.”’ 


LXXIUT. Vv. 25, 26. 


The evidence against ver. 26 is sufficiently strong to destroy the force of 
Meyer’s suggestion as to the source of vv. 25, 26. The number of variations 
in the form of the verse, as well as the additions, in some of the authorities 
‘that contain it, overbear the probability of omission from ‘ similar ending.”’ 
If the verse is not genuine, then ver. 25, standing by itself, does not suffi- 
ciently resemble any passage in Matthew to give a clue to the common origin. 
Weiss ed. Meyer finds here a reminiscence of ‘‘ the older source,’’ but thinks 
the original form is to be sought in Matt. vi. 12, xviii. 35, not in Matt. vi. 
14, 15. 


LXXIV. Ver. 32. adda eimupev’ bE avbpdrwr; 


Recent editors place an interrogation point after avOpdruyr, accepting aAAé 
instead of aAA’ éav. The R. V., however, renders in the text: *‘ But should we 
say, from men—they feared the people.’’ This is not so grammatical as the 
alternate rendering in the margin, which accords with Meyer’s view. The order 
évrw¢ o7¢ must be accepted, but the adverb may be joined with jv (trajection) ; 
so Weiss ed. Mey., and R. V. margin. 


CHAP. XIL 149 


CHAPTER XII. 


Vez. 1. Aéyeex] BG LA &, min. Syr. Vulg. It. have Aadety. So Lachm. and 
Tisch. The testimony of the codd. in favor of Aéyecv remains doubtless strong 
cnough, nevertheless Jadeiv is to be preferred, because there immediately fol- 
lows what Jesus said, and therefore the change into Aéyecv was readily suggested. 
Comp. iii. 23. — Ver. 3. of dé] Lachm. Tisch. have xai, following BD LAX, 
min. Copt. Cant. Ver. Vere. Vind. Itis from Matt. xxi. 25. — Ver. 4. A:dooAgjo. ] 
is wanting in BD LAR, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Almost all the above wit- 
nesses have afterwards instead of améor. #rimewp.: Ariunoav. Fritzsche, Lachm. 
Tisch. have followed the former omission and this reading, and rightly ; Ac@oBod. 
is a gloss on éxegad. from Matt. xxi. 35, and arfor. 7#r¢wwpuévov is a reading con- 
formed to the conclusion of ver. 3. [On éxegadiworv, see Note LXXVL,, p. 158.] — 
Ver, 5. xai é2Aov] Elz. Scholz have xel rac dAA., in opposition to preponder- 
ating evidence ; 7d/:v isa mechanical repetition from ver. 4. — Instead of rote is 
to be written otc both times, following B L A &, min. with Fritzsche, Lachm. 
Tisch. — The Aeolic form dzoxrévvorrec is on decisive evidence to be adopted, 
with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Comp, the critical remarks on Matt. x. 28. — 
Ver. 6. The arrangement éva yw vidv is required by decisive evidence (Fritzsche, 
Lachm., comp. Tisch.), of which, however, B C** L A &, 33 have elyev instead 
of éywv (so Tisch. rightly, as éywv is an emendation of the construction). 
Almost the samo witnesses omit the ovv after é7: ; it is, with Tisch., to be de- 
leted as a connective addition, as, moreover, avrov after dyaz. is a decidedly 
condemned mechanical addition. — Ver. 8. Such preponderating evidence is in 
favor of the superfluous ai-év after #£é8aA., that it is to be adopted with Lachm. 
and Tisch. — Ver. 14. of dé] BC DLA 8, 33, Copt. codd. of the It. have «ai. 
So Fritzsche, Lachm. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V.]. From Luke xx. 21, whence 
also many variations with é77pdérwv have come into our passage. — Ver. 17. The 
arrangement ra Kuicapoc azod. Kaioap: (Tisch.) is to be preferred, in accordance 
with BCLA 8, 28, Syr. Copt. The placing of a7édore first (Elz. Lachm.) is from 
the parallels. — @utuacavy] Lachm. has é@avuatov. But among the codd. which 
read the imperfect (B DLA &), B & have éfefatyafov (D* has éfefavudfovro). 
This ¢fe@avuafov (Tisch.) is to be preferred. The simple form and the aorist 
are from the parallels. — Ver. 18, éaypdrqcav] Lachm. Tisch. have érypdruv, 
following BC DL A 8, 33 ; the aorist is from the parallels. — Ver. 19. riv yuvaixa 
evrov] atrod is wanting in BC L A &, min. Copt., and is from Matthew. — Ver. 
20. After érrdé Elz. Fritzsche have ovv, against decisive evidence ; it is from - 
Luke xx. 29 ; instead of which some other witnesses have dé (from Matthew). — 
Ver. 21. xa ovd? avréc agizxe] BCL A 8, 33, Copt. have uz? xuradindv. Approved 
by Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 133, adopted by Tisch. [recent 
editors, R. V.j. But if the Recepta bad originated from what precedes and 
follows, it would have run simply «ai ove agijxe ; the xai ovdé atrég does not look 
like the result of a gloss, and might even become offensive on account of its 
emphasis. — Ver. 22, fAafov atr7v} is wanting in B M, min. Colb., also C LA ¥, 


150 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


min. Copt., which, moreover, omit «ai before oix. Fritzsche has deleted 2AaGov 
avr., Lachm. has merely bracketed it ; Tisch. has struck out, besides 2a. atr., 
the xai also before vix. Rightly ; the short reading : «ai ol érra obx agjxayv onéppa, 
was completed in conformity with ver. 21. — éoyérn] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 
[recent editors, R. V.] have écyarov, certainly on considerable attestation ; 
but it is an emendation (comp. Matthew and Luke: torepor), on account of the 
difference of the genders (écy. feminine, mdvr. masculine), — The order xa? # 
yuvy anéO. is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted. The Recepia is 
from the parallels. — Ver. 23. After é¢v rij Elz, Lachm. Scholz have ody, which 
important witnesses omit, others place after avacr. From the parallels. — drar 
avaoroo.} is wanting in BC DL AX, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., brack- 
eted by Lachm. [rejected by Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.]. It is to be main- 
tained, for there was no occasion for any gloss; its absolute superfluousness, 
however, the absence of any such addition in the parallels, and the similarity 
of dvastdce: and avactdoi, occasioned the omission. — Ver. 25. yapioxovrat- 
A F H, min, have éxyayicnovra, BCGLU AX, min. have yauifovra:. Con- 
sequently the testimonies in favor of the Recepfa are left so weak (even 
D falls away, having yapifovorv), and yauifovrae has so much the preponder- 
ance, that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted. Comp. on 
Matt. xxii. 30. — Before iv Elz. has oi. The weight of the evidence is divided. 
But since this of after dy; «AOI was more easily dropped out than brought in (by 
being written twice over), and is wanting also in Matthew, it is to be main- 
tained. [Omitted by Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with & C D L A, Oopt.] 
— Ver. 26. Instead of ro? Bdrov Elz. has r7¢ Barov, in opposition to decisive ev- 
idence. — Decisive evidence condemns in ver, 27 the article before Gedc, and 
then Océ¢ before Cévrwy ; just as also tyeic odv before road mAavdobe is, following 
BCLA X, Copt., to be struck out, with Tisch., as being an addition to these 
short pithy words. — Ver. 28. eiduc¢] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ida (Fritzsche : 
cai tdov), So, with or without «ai (which is a connective interpolation), in 
CDL &* min. vss., including Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Aug. But these witnesses are 
not preponderating, and eiduc might easily seem unsuitable and give way to the 
more usual iduv ; comp. ver. 34. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., accept eidac.] — The 
order azexpi0n atroic has been preferred by Schulz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (follow- 
ing Gersd. p. 526) (so recent editors], in accordance with BC LA 8&, min. Copt. 
Theophylact. But it was just the customary placing of the pronoun after the 
verb that occasioned the inversion of the words, in which the infention with 
which airoi¢ was prefixed was not observed. It is otherwise at xiv. 40. — 
Instead of révrwv Elz. has racy, contrary to decisive evidence. [Tisch., recent 
editors, R. V., with & BC L A, 33, Copt., have the order : évroA} mpury ravrur. | 
— Ver. 29. The Recepta is éti tpartn macav ray évroAdv, Very many variations. 
Griesb. and Fritzsche have 67: rpaty ravtur évroAn, following A, min. Scholz 
reads éri xp. wévTwv Tor é:ToAGy, following EF GHS8,min. Lachm. has or: mp. 
wdvtev [évtoAn gor]. Tisch. has bre tpurn éorev, following B L A ®, Copt. 
The latter is the original form, which, according to the question of ver. 28 and 
its various readings, was variously amplified, and in the process éorly was 
partly dropped. — Ver. 30. airy xpdrn évroai) is wanting in BE L A &, Copt. 
Deleted by Tisch. An addition in accordance with Matthew, with variations 
in details, following vv. 28, 29. — Ver. 31. Instead of xai devr. read, with Tisch., 
merely devr, — Elz. Griesb. Scholz have duo/a afry ; Fritzsche, Lachm. have du. 


CHAP. XII., 1-12. 151 
avr§ ; Tiech. merely aér7. The last is attested by B L A &, Copt., and is to be 
preferred, since ducia very readily suggested itself to be written on the margin 
from Matthew, -~— Ver. 32. After el¢ for: Elz. has Oed¢ ; a supplement in oppo- 
sition to preponderant evidence. — Ver. 33. xai é& dance rie Puy.) is wanting in 
BLA &, min. Copt. Vero. Marcell. in Eus. Condemned by Rinck, bracketed 
by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]. But if it were an 
addition, it would have been insertéd after xapdiac (comp. ver. 30). On the other 
hand, the arrangement different from ver. 30 might easily draw after it the 
omission. — The article hefore @vciev (in Elz.) is decisively condemned. [Tisch. 
retains ; rejected by recent editors.]— Ver. 36. ydp] is wanting in BLA &, 
min. Copt. Verc., while D, Arm. read xai uttéc, and Col. Corb. have autem. 
Lachm. has bracketed ydp, and Tisch. has deleted it. The latter is right. The 
connection was variously supplied. — Ver. 37. ody] is wanting in BD LA X&, 
min. Copt. Syr. p. codd. It. Hil. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An 
addition from the parallels. — Ver. 43. elev] instead of the Recepta Aéyec (which 
Scholz, Rinck, Tisch. defend), is decisively attested, as also is éfa%e (Lachm.) 
instead of the Recepla BiBAnxe. In place of Baddrvr. (Elz.), Badadv7. must be 
written on decisive attestation. 


Vv. 1-12. See on Matt. xxi. 83-46. Comp. Luke xx. 9-19. Matthew 
makes another kindred parable precede, which was undoubtedly likewise 
original, and to be found in the collection of Logia (vv. 28-82), and he 
enriches the application of the parable before us in an equally original man- 
ner ; while, we may add, the presentation in Mark is simpler and more 
fresh, not related to that of Matthew in the way of heightened and artificial 
effect (Weiss). [See Note LXXYV., p. 158.]— jp£aro] after that dismissal of 
the chief priests, etc. — avroic¢] therefore not as Luke has it : mpd¢ rov Aadr, 
to which also Matthew is opposed. — év rapafo2aic] parabolically. The plural 
expression is generic ; comp. ili. 22, iv. 2. Hence it is not surprising (Hil- 
genfeld). Comp. also John xvi. 24. — Ver. 2. According to Mark and Luke, 
the lord receives a part of the fruits; the rest is the reward of the vine- 
dressers. It is otherwise in Matthew. — Ver. 4. Observe how compendi- 
ously Matthew sums up the contents of vv. 4, 5.'— xaxeivov] The concep- 
tion of maltreatment lies at the foundation of the comparative also, just as at 
ver. 5. Comp. on Matt. xv. 3. — éxepadaiwoav] they beat him on the head. 
[See Note LXXVI., p. 158.] The word is not further preserved in this 
signification (Vulg.: ta capite culnerarunt), but only in the meaning : to 
gather up as regards the main substance, to set forth summarily ;* but this is 
wholly inappropriate in this place, since it is not, with Wakeficld,* to be 
changed into the meaning : ‘‘ they made short work with him.” 4 We have 


1 All the less ought the several 8ovAc0: to 
be specifically defined ; as, for instance, ac- 
cording to Victor Antiochenus, by the first 
servant is held to bo meant Kijjah and the 
contemporary prophets; by the second, 
Teaiah, Hosea, and Amoe; by the third, 
Ezekiel and Danie!. That the expression in 
wv. 2-4 is in the singular, notwithstanding 
the plurality of prophets, cannot in a figw- 


rative Giscourse be surprising, and cannot 
justify the conjecture that here another par- 
able—of the three years of Chrixt’s ministry 
—has been interwoven (Welzsiicker). 

2 Thuo. ill. 67. 5, vill. 58.1; Herod. fli. 159; 
Ecclus. xxxv. & 

3 Sisr. crit. WV. p. 76 f. 

‘This explanation fs set aside by avréy, 
which, moreover, is opposed to the view of 


152 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

here a veritable solecism ; Mark confounded xegadaréu with xegadisu, perhaps 
after the analogy of ywadéu and yuidw ! — qriunoay (see the critical remarks) : 
they dishonored him, treated him disgracefully, the general statement after the 
special fxedaa. The word is poetical, especially cpic,* as also in this sense 
the later form areuéu, of frequent use in the LXX. (Eur. J/el. 462, al.), which 
in the prose writers is used in the sense of inflicting dishonor by depriving 
of the rights of citizenship.*—Ver. 5. x. roAdove GAAove] Here we have to sup- 
ply: they maltreated—the dominant idea in what is previously narrated (comp. 
xaxeivm, VV. 4, 5, where this conception lay at the root of the xa’), and to 
which the subsequent elements dépovrec and aroxrevyéyveec are subordinated. ‘ 
But Mark does not write ‘‘in a disorderly and slipshod manner,” as de 
Wette supposes, but just like the best classical writers, who leave the finite 
verb to be supplied from the context in the case of participles and other in- 
stances.’ Ver. 6. The ére éva elyev vidv ay. (see the critical remarks), which 
is peculiar to the graphic Mark, has in it something touching, to which the 
bringing of iva into prominence by the unusual position assigned to it con- 
tributes. Then, in vivid connection therewith stands the contrast of vv. 7, 
8 ; and the trait of the parable contained in ver. 7 f. certainly does not owe 
its introduction to Mark (Weiss). — Ver. 8. Nota hysteron proteron (Grotius, 
Heumann, de Wette), a mistake, which is with the greatest injustice im- 
puted to the vividly graphic Mark, but a different representation from that of 
Matthew and Luke: they killed him, and threw him (the slain) out of the vine- 
yard. In the latter there is the tragic clement of outrage even against the corpse, 
which is not, however, intended to beapplied by way of special interpretation 
to Jesus. — Ver. 9. éAetoerat x.7.A.] not an answer of the Pharisees (Vatablus, 
Kuinoel, following Matt. xxi. 41) ; but Jesus Himself is represented by Mark 
as replying to His own question.*— Ver. 10. oidé] What Jesus has set 
before them in the way of parable concerning the rejection of the Messiah 
and His divine justification, is also prophesied in the Scripture, Ps. cxviii. 22; 
hence He continues : hare ye not also read this Scripture, etc.? [See Note 
LXXVII.. p. 158.] On ypad4, that which is drawn up in writing, used of 
individual passages of Scripture, comp. Luke iv. 21 ; John xix. 37 ; Actsi. 
16, vili. 35. — Ver. 12. xai égo,3. r. dy.) wai connects adversative clauses 
without changing its signification.’ It is an emphatic azd in the sense of : 
and yet. Especially frequent in John. — The words é,vucay yap . . . ele, 
which are not to be put in a parenthesis, are regarded as illogically placed,° 


Theophylact: cuveréAecay cai exopigwoav thy 
Bp, * they finished and brought to a head 
déxopigwoar) the outrage.’ The middle is 
used in Gireck with an accusative of tho 
person (7a), but in the sense: briefly to de- 
scribe anyone. See Plat. Jol. ix. p. 576 B. 

1 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 95. 

2 Hom. //. i. 11, ix. 111; Od. xvi. 274, al. 
Pind. Pyth. ix. 138; Soph. .4j. 1108; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. 1. p. 251. 

9 Also in Xen. Ath. 1. 14, where arcpovar Is 
to be read. 

Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 252 [E. T. 
Jo}. 


5 Scc Bornemann, ad Xen. Sympos. iv. 53; 
Hermannn, ad Viger. p. 770; Niagelsbach, 
Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 8, p. 179. 

*That the opponents themselves are 
compelled to pronounce judgment (Mat- 
thew), appears an original trait. But the 
Jorm of their answer in Matthew («axovs 
caxws «.7.A.) betrays, as compared with 
Mark, a later artificial manipulation. 

7 Hartung, Partie. I. p. 147 f.; Winer, 
p. 888 [E. T. 487]. 

® Sce Beza, Heupel, Fritzscho, Baur, Hil- 
genfeld, and others. 


CHAP. X11, 13-27. 153 
and are held to have their proper place after xparjoa:z. But wrongly. Only 
let #yvwoav be referred not, with these interpreters, to the chief priests, 
scribes, and elders, but to the éy4oc, which was witness of the transaction in 
the temple-court. If the people had not observed that Jesus was speaking 
the parable in reference to (zpéc) them (the chief priests, etc., as the yewp- 
yotc), these might have ventured to lay hold on Him ; but, as it was, they 
might not venture on this, but had to stand in awe of the people, who would 
have secn at once in the arrest of Jesus the fulfilment of the parable, and would 
have interested themselves on His behalf. [See Note LXXVIII., p. 159.] 
The chief priests, etc., were cunning enough to avoid this association, 
and left im, and went their way. In this manner also Luke xx. 19 is to be 
understood ; he follows Mark. 

Vv. 13-17. See on Matt. xxii. 15-22. Comp. Luke xx. 20-26. Mark is 
more concise and vivid than Matthew. — drocréAAovo:] the chief priests, 
scribes, and elders (xi. 27), whereas Matthew inaccurately refers this new 
and grave temptation to the Pharisees as its authors. — iva air. aypeto. 26yy)} 
in order that they (these messengers) might ensnare Him by means of an utter- 
ance, 1.e., by means of a question, which they were to address to Him. See 
ver. 14. Comp. xi. 29. The hunting term aypefw is frequently even in the 
classical writers transferred to men, who are got into the hunter’s power as a 
prey.’ Ina good sense also, as in Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 7: 1d wAeiorov afcov 
dypevua gitovg Onpacev. — Ver. 14. éx' aAndeiag] equivalent to aa7déc, Luke 
iv. 25, xx. 21, xxii. 59, iv. 27, x. 84.2— dapev, % ui d.] The previous question 
was theoretical and gencral, this is practical and definite. -— Ver. 15. ecidéc] 
as knowing hearts (John ii. 25).* — rt. izdéxpeow] ‘‘ Discere cupientium prae- 
ferebant speciem, cum animus calumniam strueret,” ‘‘They displayed the 
appearance of those desirous of learning, when their soul devised artifice,” 
Grotius. — Ver. 17. Observe the more striking order of the words in Mark : 
what is Cacsar’s, pay to Caesar, ctc. —éeBaipazov] see the critical remarks. 
The aorist would merely narrate historically ; the imperfect depicts, and is 
therefore not inappropriate (in opposition to Fritzsche).‘ The compound 
éxYauu. strengthens the notion ; Ecclus, xxvii. 23, xliil. 18 ; 4 Macc. xvii. 
17, also in the later Greck writers, but not further used in the N. T. 

Vv. 18-27.° See on Matt. xxii. 23-33, who narrates more briefly and 
smoothly. Comp. Luke xx. 27-40. — égpdrev] Imperfect, as at ver. 17. — 
Ver. 19. ir: is recitative, and iva is the imperative to be explained by the volo 
that lies at the root of the expression (see on 2 Cor, viii. 7 ; Eph. v. 33).°— 


18ee Valckenaer, ad Herod. vil. 162; follows him as to assume that ft had stood 


Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 193. 

*8ee Wetsteln in loc. ; Schaefer, Melet. 
p. 83; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 187 f. 

2 Comp. Matt. xl. 23; Luke vi. 8, xl. 17. 

* See KGhner, II. p. 73, and ad Xen. Anabd. 
vil. 1.18. Comp. v. 20, vi. 6. 

*Hitzig, Joh. Mark. p. 219 ff., places the 
Pericope of the adulteress, John vii. 58 ff., 
after ver. 17, wherein Holtzmann, p. 92 ff., 
comparing it with Luke xxl. 87f., so far 


inthe primilire- Mark, and had been omitted 
by all the three Synoptists. Hilgenfeld (in 
his Zeilechr. 1863, p. 317) continues to at- 
tribute it to John. It probably belonged 
originally to one of the sources of Luke 
that are unknown to us. 

*Comp. on ore before the imperative, 
Plat. Crit. p. 50 C: iows av cimowey (the 
laws), Ore. . . pn Oavpage ra Acyopeva, 


\ 


154 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


The éryauBpetoe:, which Matthew has here, is a later annexation to the 
original text of the law. Anger, Diss. II. p. 32, takes another view (in fa- 
vor of Matthew).—Ver. 20. éxra] emphatically prefixed, and introduced in 
a vivid way without otv. — Ver. 21. xai oid? airéc] and also not he. — xa? 6 rpiror 
acair. | namely, he took her and died without children ; comp. what has gone 
before.—Ver. 23. érav avacric:] when they shall have risen, not an epexegesis 
of év rg avacrdce ; but the discourse goes from the general to the particular, 
so that the seren brothers and the woman is the subject of avacrio:. — Ver. 24. 
dia tovro] does not point back to what has gone before (‘‘ ipse sermo vester 
prodit errorem vestrum,” ‘‘ your utterance itself displays your error,” Ben- 
gel), which must have been expressed, but forward to the participle which 
follows : do ye not err on this account, because ye do not understand ?'— 
Ver. 25. éravy . . . avacriowv] generally, not as at ver. 23. — yaui{ovra:] The 
form yapioxw (Arist. Pol. vii. 14. 4) is not indeed to be read here (sec the 
critical remarks), but neither is it, with Fritzsche, altogether to be banished 
out of the N. T. It is beyond doubt genuine in Luke xx. 34 f. — Ver. 26. 
bre éyeipovra] that they, namely, etc. ; this is the conclusion to be proved— 
the doctrinal position denied by the interrogators. — éi rod Bdrov] belongs to 
what has preceded (in opposition to Beza) as amore precise specification 
of év r¢ BBA. M. : at the (well-known) thorn-bush, 7.¢., there, where it is spo- 
ken of, Ex. iii. 6.2 Polybius, Theophrastus, and others have Bdro¢ as mas- 
culine. It usually occurs as feminine (Luke xx. 87 ; Deut. xxxiii. 16), but 
at Ex. iii, 2-4, likewise as masculine. — Ver. 27. According to the amended 
text (see the critical remarks) : He is not God of dead men, but of living | 
Much ye err ! 

Vv. 28-34. Sec on Matt. xxii. 834-40. — Mark, however, has much that is 
peculiar, especially through the characteristic and certainly original ampli- 
fication in vv. 32-34. — The participles are to be so apportioned, that axotcac 
is subordinated to the zpoceA Sav, and eidd¢ belongs to éryparnper as its deter- 
mining motive. —eidéc] not inappropriate (Fritzsche, de Wette) ; but the 
scribe knew from his listening how aptly Jesus had answered them (airtoic, 
emphatically placed before arexp.) ; and therefore he hoped that He would also 
give to him an apt reply. — révrov] neuter. Compare Xen. Mem. iv. 7. 70: 
6 dé qauog . . . rdvtwy Aaurpdratog av, Thucyd. vii. 52. 2.2 — Vv. 29, 30. 
Deut. vi. 4,5. This principle of morality, which binds all duties into unity 
(see J. Miiller, v. d. Siinde, I. p. 140 f.), was named pre-eminently Mp, or 
also from the initial word YOU, and it was the custom to utter the words 
daily, morning and evening.‘ — ioxtoc] LXX. dvvdyews. It is the moral 
strength, which makes itself known in the overcoming of hindrances and in 
energetic activity. Comp. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 112 f., and on Eph. i. 19. 
Matthew has not this point, but Luke has at x. 27.°— Ver. 82. After didéo- 


1 See Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 219; Borne- ad Charlit. p. 549. 


mann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 187 f. ; ‘See Vitringa, Synag. il. & 15; Buxtorf, 
Winer, p. 146 f. (E. T. 161 f.). Synag. 9. 

2See on quotations of a similar kind, 6 The variations of the wordsin Matthew, 
Jablonsky, Bid. I/ebr. praef. § 37; Fritzsche, Mark, and Luke represent different forms 
ad Rom. xi. 2. of the Greek tradition as remembcred, 


*See Winer, p. 1600 [E. T. 178]; Dorvill. which arose independently of the LXX. (for 


OHAP. XII., 28-34. 155 
cade there is only to be placed a comma, so that é’ ad7Selag (comp. on ver. 
14) is a more precise definition of xadéc. — ari eg tots]. that He is one. The 
subject is obvious of itself from what precedes. As in the former passage 
of Scripture, ver. 29, so also here the mention of the unity of God is the pre- 
mniss for the duty that follows ; hence it is not an improbable trait (Késtlin, 
p. 851), which Mark has introduced here in the striving after completeness 
and with reference to the Gentile world. — Ver. 83. ovvécewc] a similar notion 
instead of a repetition of dcavolac, ver. 30. It is the moral intelligence which 
comprehends and understands the relation in question. Its opposite is aci- 
vetoc (Rom. i. 21, 31), Dem. 1894, 4: dperic ddan apy) } cbveore. Comp. 
on Col. i. 9.— dAoxaur.] ‘‘ Nobillissima species sacrificiorum,” ‘‘ the most 
noble kind of sacrifices,” Bengel. zdvruv rév applics inclusively to Svaér. 
Kriiger, § 58. 3. 2. Ver. 34. idav avrdy, 57.) Attraction, as at xi. 32 and fre- 
quently. — vowvexyac] intelligently, only herein the N. T. Polybius associates 
it with gpovipzer (i. 88. 8) and mpayuarixdc (ii. 18. 1, v. 88. 2). On the char- 
acter of the word as Greck, instead of which the Attics say vovvexdvruc (its 
opposite : agpdéves, Isocr. v. 7), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 599. — ot paxpav 
x.t.A.] The (future) kingdom of the Messiah is conceived as the common 
goal, Those who are fitted for the membership of this kingdom are near to 
this goal ; those who are unfitted are remote from it. Hence the meaning : 
There is not much lacking to thee, that thou mightest be received into the 
kingdom at its establishment. Rightly does Jesus give him this testimony, 
because in the frankly and eagerly avowed agreement of his religious-moral 
judgment with the answer of Jesus there was already implied a germ of faith 
promising much. — cai ovdete obxére x.7.A. ] not inappropriate (de Wette, Baur, 
Hilgenfeld, Bleek) ; but it was just this peculiar victory of Jesus—that now 
the result of the questioning was even agreement with Him—which took 
from all the further courage, etc. 


Remarx.—The difference, arising from Matthew's bringing forward the scribe 
as wecpafwy (and how naturally in the bearing of the matter this point of view 
suggested itself!), is not to be set aside, as, for instance, by Ebrard, p. 493,' 
who by virtue of harmonizing combination alters ver. 34 thus: ‘‘ When Jesus 
saw how the man of sincere mind quite forgot over the truth of the case the 
matter of his pride,” etc. The variation is to be explained by the fact, that 
the design of the questioner was from the very first differently conceived 
of and passed over in different forms into the tradition ; not by the supposition, 
that Mark did not understand and hence omitted the trait of special tempta- 
tion (Weiss), or had been induced by Luke xx. 39 to adopt a milder view (Baur). 
Nor has Matthew remodelled the narrative (Weiss); but he has followed that 


no evangelist has évvaurs, which {is in the 


LXX.). 

1 He follows the method of reconciliation 
proposed by Theophylact : mpwroy per abrdv 
@s weipdgovra dpwrica’ elra aheAndévra and 
TRS awoxpicews TOU XpicTod Kai vouvexws amo- 
anpdévra eravednva, ‘First indeed that he 
asks as one tempting; then, profited by the 
response of Christ, ho js also praised as one 


answering discreetly.’* Comp. Grotius and 
others, including already Victor Antioche- 
nus and the anonymous writer in Possini 
Cat. ; Lange, again, in substance takes the 
same view, while Bleek simply acknowl- 
edges the variation, and Hilgenfeld repre- 
sents Mark as importing his own theology 
into the conversation. 


156 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
tradition which best fitted into his context. The wholly peculiar position of 


the matter in Mark tells in favor of the correctness and originality of his narra- 
tive. (See Note LXXIX., p. 159.] 


Vv. 35-87. See on Matt. xxii. 41-46. Comp. Luke xx. 41-44. — Mark is 
distinguished from Matthew in this respect, that the latter represents Jesus 
a3 laying the theological problem before the assembled Pharisees, and then re- 
lates that they were thereby brought to silence, so that they put no further 
questions to Him ; whereas Mark relates that the conversation as to the most 
important commandment had had this result, and thereafter Jesus had thrown 
out before the people, while He was teaching (vv. 35, 87), the question re- 
specting the Son of David. —adzoxp:8cic] The following question to the 
people is a reply—publicly exposing the theological helplessness of the 
scribes—to the silence, to which they had just seen themselves reduced by 
the very fact that one of their number had even given his entire approval to 
Jesus. The scribes are still present. But it is not to themselves that Jesus 
puts His question ; He utters it before the people, but in express reference to 
the ypaypareic. They may therefore give information also before the people, 
if they can. If they cannot, they stand there the more completely van- 
quished and put to shame. And they cannot, because to them the divine 
lineage of the Messiah, in virtue of which as David’s descendant He is yet 
David’s Lord, remained veiled and unperceived ;—we may conceive after 
rétev vidc avrod tor the pause of this silence and this confusion. So pecu- 
liar is this whole position of the matter in Mark, that it appears to be (in 
opposition to Hilgenfeld and Baur) original. — réc] how then? ‘‘Quomodo 
consistere potest, quod dicunt,” ‘‘In what way can what they say hold to- 
gether,” Grotius. — Ver. 37. The twofold emphatic aird¢ Aav. places the 
declaration of David himself in contrast to the point held by the scribes. — 
xai 769ev] breaking in with surprise. Comp. Luke i. 43. dévev is the cau- 
sal unde : whence comes it that.'— 6 wodic dyA.] the multitude of people, which 
was present. — ixovev aitov 7déwc] a triumph over those put to silence. [See 
Note LXXXI., p. 159.] 

Vv. 38-40. Comp. on Matt. xxiii. 1, 6, 7 (14). Mark gives only a short frag- 
ment (and Luke xx. 45-47 follows him) of the great and vehement original 
speech of severe rebuke, which Matthew has adopted in full from the col- 
lection of Logia. — BAérere ard] as viil. 15. —rév DeAdvrwv] quippe gui colunt, 
desire, z.c., lay claim to as a privilege. ‘‘ Velle saepe rem per se indifferen- 
tem malam facit,” ‘‘To desire often a thing in itself indifferent makes it 


1In opposition to the whole N. T., the 
question js, according to Schenkel (comp. 
Strauss), intended to exhibit the Davidic 
descent of the Messiah as a phantom. This 
descent in fact forms of necessity (he pre- 
supposition of the words xai médev x.7.A., the 
concessum on the part of Jesus Himself. 
And it is the postulate of the whole of tho 
N. T. Christology, from Matt. i. 1 to Rev. 
xxil. 16. Comp., moreover, the appropriate 
remarks of Beyschlag, Chrisiol. d. N. T.p. 


61f. But the pre-eristence of Jesus, which 
certainly must have been in His conscious- 
ness when He asked the question, is not ez- 
pressed (in some such way as jin John viil. 
58), nor is the recognition of it claimed for 
the Psalmist by ev mvevuarr. The latter 
merely asserts that David, as c prophet, des- 
ignated his Son as his Lord. [See Note 
LXXX. p. 159.] Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 269 
D. ; Dem. 241, 17; Wolf, ad Lepl. p. 228. 


CHAP. XIiI., 41-44. 157% 


evil,” Bengel. —éy orodaic] z.e., in long stately robes, as oroAf#, even without 
more precise definition, is frequently used.' Grotius well remarks that the 
oroay is ‘‘ gravitatis index,” ‘‘indication of importance.” — xai aonacpobc] 
governed by deAdvruv.? — Ver. 40. of xareodiovres x.r.A.] is usually not sepa- 
rated from what precedes, so that the nominative would come in instead of 
the genitive, bringing into more independent and emphatic prominence the 
description of their character.* But itis more suited to the vehement emo- 
tion of the discourse (with which also the asyndetic form of ver. 40 is in 
keeping), along with Grotius, Bengel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ewald,‘ to 
begin with of xareoViovrec a new sentence, which runs on to «piva : the derour- 
ers of widows’ houses... these shall (in the Messianic judgment) receive a 
greater condemnation |! — ai] is the simple copula: those devouring widows’ 
houses and (and withal) by way of pretence uttering long prayers (in order to 
conceal under them their pitiless greed). — rav yypav] ireragpzovto yap rac 
Grpootarebroug yuvaixac oc dg8ev mpoordra: aitav éoduevot, ‘For they came in 
unawares upon the unprotected women, as if forsooth becoming their protec- 
tors,” Theophylact. —xai mpogdoe: paxpad mpocevy.] mpooxhpati eiAaBeiag nai 
broxpiose ataravreg Tove agedeorépovc, ‘‘ By a show of picty and by hypocrisy 
deceiving the simpler ones,” Theophylact. — mepacérepov xpiua] bow dé pGAAov 
reriunvrat Tapa TH Aaw Kai THY Tinpy et¢ BAGBY EAKovoe TooOb’THW pGAANV KaTadi- 
Kacdhoovra’ duvatol yap duvarac éracoSyoovra, ‘‘the more they have been hon- 
ored by the people and drag this honor into mischief, so much the more will 
they be condemned ; for the strong will be strongly proved,” Victor Antio- 
chenus. 

Vv. 41-44. Comp. Luke xxi. 1-4. It is surprising that this highly char- 
acteristic and original episode, which, according to Eichthal, indeed, is an 
interpolation and repeated by Luke, has not been adopted in Matthew. 
But after the great rebuking discourse and its solemn close, the little isola- 
ted picture seems not to have found a place. — rod yafogvAaxiov] comp. Jo- 
sephus, Antt. xix. 6. 1, where Agrippa hangs a golden chain trép rd yalopu- 
Adxwv. According to the Rabbins it consisted of thirteen trumpct-shaped 
brazen chests (M051), and was in the fore-court of the women. It was des- 
tined for the reception of pious contributions for the temple, as well as of 
the temple-tribute.* The treasure-chambers (yafogvAdxa) in Josephus, Bell, v. 
5. 2 and vi. 5. 2, have no bearing here. Comp. Ebrard, p. 495. The word 
itself (comp. John viii. 20) is found also in the Greek writers (Strabo, ii. 
p. 319), and frequently in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. — yadxdév] not money 
in general (Grotius, Fritzsche, and others), but copper money, which most of 
the people gave. See Beza. — £8aA2ov] imperfect, as at vv. 17,18. The read- 
ing &Badov (Fritzsche) is too weakly attested, and is not necessary. — Ver. 
42 f. via] in contrast with the roddol mdotaro : one single poor widow. A 
Aerrév, 80 called from its smaliness,® was $th of an as in copper. See on 


11 Macc. vi. 16; Luke xv. 2; Mare. 4 Doubtfully also Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 188]. 
Anton. |. 7. 8 See, generally, Lightfoot, Hor. p. 589 f. ; 

2 See Winer, p. 309 [E. T. 577]. Reland, Antt. 1. 8. 14. 

* See Bernhardy, p. 68 f.; Buttmann, neut. © Xen. Cyr. 4.11: 7d Aewréraroy Tov xaAxov 


Gram. p. C9 [E. T. 79). vonioparos. 





158 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Matt. v. 26. It is the same definition in the Talmud, that two NiO)D make 
a DDIM TTP ; see Lightfoot, p. 638 f.—On the fact that it is not ‘‘a guad- 
rans,” but Aerra.dvo, that is mentioned, Bengel has aptly remarked : ‘‘ quorum 
unum vidua retinere potuerat,” ‘‘one of which the widow might have re- 
tained.” The Rabbinical ordinance: ‘‘ Non ponat homo Aezréy in cistam 
eleemosynarum,” ‘‘A man shall not put a Aexréy into the chest of alms” 
(Baca bathra f. 10. 2), has no bearing here (in opposition to Schoettgen), 
for here we have not to do with alms. — rpooxadecdy.] ‘‘ de re magna,” 
‘concerning the important matter,” Bengel. — sriciov mévrwr] is said accord- 
ing to the scale of means; all the rest still kept back much for themselves, 
the widow nothing (see what follows),—a sacrifice which Jesus estimates in 
its moral greatness ; ryv éavrij¢ mpoaipecy iredciEato evropwrépay Tho dvvdpuewc, 
‘‘she showed her own good-will to be morc rich than her ability,” Theo- 
phylact. — The present participle BaAAdvrav (sec the critical remarks) is not 
inappropriate (Fritzsche), but designates those who were throwing, whose 
faddev was present, when the widow éSade. — Ver. 44. éx ric torepho. adrijc} 
(not airy) is the antithesis of é rov mrepioo. avr. in ver, 48.1! Out of her 
want, out of her destitution, she has cast in all that (in cash) she possessed, 
her whole (present) means of subsistence. Observe the earnest twofold des- 
ignation. On Bioc, victus, that whereby one lives, comp. Luke viii. 48, xv. 
12, 30.? 


Notrs By AMERICAN Eprror. 


LXXV. Vv. 1-12. 


Weiss ed. Mey. thinks that Matt. xxi. 33, 38-42, 45 are taken from Mark, 
although the account of the former is more original, both being based on ‘‘ the 
older source,” 


LXXVI. Ver. 4. éxegadiwoar. 


Meyer’s lexical remarks here are rendered entirely unnecessary by the above 
reading, which he passes over without notice, although it is attested by 8 B L, 
and accepted by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. This form of the verb 
(xegadidw) occurs only here; hence the transcribers altered it to the better 
known kedudaiédw. Mark has not ‘‘ confounded” the verbs, but the later copy- 
ists. Here the discovery of & has relieved us of a lexical difficulty, for its testi- 
mony has decided the matter. 


LXXVII. Ver. 10. ovdé. 


The R. V. renders : ‘‘ Have ye not read even this Scripture?” ‘‘ Not even"’ 
is on the whole preferable. The rendering (ver. 11) : ‘‘ This was from the Lord,’’ 
leaves the grammatical question undecided. It is perhaps safer to refer afry 
to xegadgv, but the LXX. is not always exact in its use of the pronouns. 


1 Comp. 2 Cor. viil. 14; Phil. fv. 12. Soph. Phil. 919, 1266; Dem. 869, 25; Plat. 
2 Hesiod, Op. 280; Xen. Mem. ili. 11. 6; Gorg. p. 486 D; and Stalibaum in Joc. 


NOTES. 159 


LXXVIII. Ver. 12. éyvwoav yap x.7.A. 
\ 


It is by no means clear that the subject of éyvwcav is the people composing 
the dyAcc. This view leaves the reference of adrovc in doubt, and does not so 
well account for the ydp. Rather: the rulers perceived the application of the 
parable, and they feared that by laying hold on Him they would show the more 
clearly to the people that the parable pointed to them (i.e., the rulers), and 
thus arouse greater interest on behalf of Jesus ; so substantially Weiss ed. Mey. 


LXXIX. Vv. 28-34. 


It seems quite as reasonable to suppose that honest writers, telling of the 
same narrative, but with difference of detail, choose the details in accordance 
with the exact facts of the case, as to infer from the difference of detail the 
existence of previous modifications which affect the truthfulness of one or the 
other. ‘Harmonizing combination” has its own mistakes to answer for, but 
it does not, as a rule, assume incorrectness on the part of some one of the 
authors of the Gospels. 


LXXX. Ver. 37. xai wo9ev x.1.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. has a somewhat different view of the dilemma and its correct 
solution. In the question of ver. 35: ‘* How say,” etc., he finds this contra- 
diction implied : ‘‘ The scribes seek the highest dignity of the Messiah in this, 
that as descendant of David He shall ascend the throne of His father, while 
David himself (according to ver. 36) describes Him as his Lord, and hence 
attributes to Him a dignity which as his descendant of Himself could never 
have, inasmuch as the ancestor always stands above his descendant, however 
high the latter may rise.’ Accordingly he finds the solution, ‘neither in the 
divine lineage of the Messiah (Meyer), nor in His resurrection and exaltation 
(Klostermann), but in this, that He does not have His specific dignity, because 
He is a son of David, rather shrinks from only according to promise, because 
He was called by God to the supreme dignity of the Messiah, which far exceeds 
that of a descendant (be he never so exalted) on the throne of David. With this 
Jesus destroys all objections to His Messianic dignity which might be deduced 
from His not having ascended the throne of His fathers.” This seems more 
ingenious than correct. The Person of Christ was then, and still remains, the 
great question. 


LXXXI. Ver. 37. 6 wodAvde SyAo¢ Hxovev x.T.A. 


The R. V. marg. is correct, the rendering of the text being retained from the 
A. V., probably because the other could not command a majority of two thirds. 
The imperfect ‘‘was hearing” implies continued action, and suggests the 
reason our Lord could venture to utter. the warning against the scribes, of 
which Mark gives a brief report (vv. 38-40), and Matthew a very full one (Matt. 
xXxiii.). 


160 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Ver. 2. azoxpiOeic] is, with Tisch., to be deleted, os at xi. 33, following B L 
8, min. vss. — Ver. 2. dde is adopted before Aifoc by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, 
Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], in accordance doubtless with BDGL 
U AX, min. vsz., but it is an addition from Matt. xxiv. 2. It is genuine in 
Matthew alone, where, moreover, it is not wanting in any of the codices. ['Tisch., 
recent editors, R. V., with 8 BL, 33, Copt., read exnpdra.] — Ver. 4. eiré] 
BDL, min. have e:xév. So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. This rarer form is to 
be adopted in accordance with so considerable testimony ; eiz¢ is from Mat- 
thew. — With Tisch., following B L &, we must write ravra curred. mivta; dif- 
ferent attempts to rectify the order produced the variations. — Ver. 8. Before 
the second éoovra: we must, with Tisch., delete xa/, in accordance with BL 
8 **, —_xal tapayai] Suspected by Griesb., struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. 
(Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.J, in accordance with BDL &, Copt. Aeth. Erp. 
Vulg. It. Vict. But wherefore and whence was it to have been introduced? 
On the other hand, it was very easily lost in the following apyai. — Ver. 9. 
apxai] BDK LUA X&, min. vss. Vulg. It. also have apy7, which is commended 
by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
R. V.]; from Matt. xxiv. 8.— Ver. 11. Instead of a)wow Elz. has dyayaoy, 
in opposition to decisive evidence, — undé pederdre] is wanting in BDL &, 
min, Copt. Aeth. Ar. p. Erp. Vulg. It. Vigil. Condemned by Griesb., 
bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. But the 
Homoioteleuton the more easily occasioned the omission of the words, 
since they follow immediately afler ri Aadnonre. Luke xxi. 14, moreover, 
testifies in favor of their genuineness. — Ver. 14. After épnudcews Elz., 
Scholz, Fritzsche (Lachm. in brackets) have: 76 Anflév iro AamyA rov zpogyran, 
which words are not found in B D L X&, Copt. Arm. It. Vulg. Sax. Aug. 
They are fron. Matthew. — éord¢] Lachm. has éornxoc, following D 28 ; 
Tisch. has éornxdra, following BL &. [So recent editors, R. V.] Fritzsche : 
‘o7éc, according to AE F GH V A, min. Under these circumstances the Recepta 
has preponderant evidence against it; itis from Matt. xxiv. 15. Of the other 
readings fornxé¢ is to be adopted, because BL ®& also testify in its favor by 
éotnxéta ;' while éordéc likewise betrays its origin from Matthew (var.; see the 
critical remarks on Matt. xxiv. 15). — Ver. 16. dv] is wanting in BD LA 8, 
min. Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. But how easily it dropt out after 
dypON! the more easily, because dy stood also in ver. 15,— Ver. 18. 9 évy? 
tudv] is wanting in BD L A &* min. Arm. Vulg. It., and in other witnesses is 
represented by raira. Condemned by Griesb. and Rinck, deleted by Fritzsche, 
Lachm. Tisch. Rightly so; it is from Matt. xxiv. 20, from which place also 
codd. and vss. have after yemmovog added: pundi caBary, or pndé oaBBdrov, or 


' The masculine was introduced by the reference, frequent in the Fathers, to the statao 
(roy avéptavra) of the conqueror. 


CHAP. XIII., 1-8. 161 


# caBBdrov, and the like. -— Ver. 19. 7¢] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 
have #v, following B C* L &, 28. A-correction. The omission of 7¢ xr. 6 Orde 
in D 27, Arm. codd. It. is explained by the superfluousness of the words. — 
Ver. 21. The omission of 7, which Griesb., following Mill, commended, and 
Fritzsche and Tisch. [W. and Hort] have carried out, is too weakly attested. 
[Retained by Treg., R. V.] In itself it might as well have been added from 
Matthew as omitted in accordance with Luke. [Weiss, with B, reads xai,}]— In- 
stead of mioreveve Elz. has micrevonre, in opposition to preponderant evidence ; 
it is from Matt. xxiv. 23. — Ver. 22. Although only on the evidence of D, min. 
codd, It., pevdiypicro: nai is to be deleted, and xozcovow is to be written in- 
stead of ducover. [So Weiss ; but Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., retain 
yevddy. xai, while all but Tisch. read ducoverv.] Moreover (with Tisch.), xai 
is to be omitted before rove éxA. (B D &). The Recepia is a filling up from Mat- 
thew. — Ver. 23. idov) is wanting in B L 28, Copt. Aeth. Verc. Bracketed by 
Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition from Matthew. — Ver, 25. rov ovpavov 
ésovrat] ABO 8, min. vss. have éoovra: éx tov otpavod. So Fritzsche, Lachm. 
Tisch. Instead of éexirr. BC DL ®&, min. codd. It. have zimzovre¢ (so Fritzsche, 
Lachm. Tisch.). Thus the most important codices are against the Recepia 
(D has of éx rot ovpavod éoovrac <imrovrec), in place of which the best attested of 
these readings are to beadopted. Internal grounds are wanting ; but if it had 
been altered from Matthew, azé would have been found instead of éx. -— Ver. 
27. abvrov] after ayyfA, is wanting in B D L, Copt. Cant. Verc. Vind. Corb. 
Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.; it is from Matthew. — Ver. 28. The 
verbal order 7d7 6 xAddo¢g aizi¢ (Fritzsche, Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort]) has 
preponderating evidence [X A BCD L, Vulg.], but it is from Matthew. The 
manifold transpositions in the codices would have no motive, if the reading of 
Lachm. had been the original, as in the case of Matthew no variation is found. 
— yivoonete] A B** D L.A, min. have y:vsoxerar, which is approved by Schulz 
and adopted by Fritzsche and Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. has y:vdoxere ; 80 recent ed- 
itors, R. V.] The Recepta is from the parallels. — Ver. 31. Insteal of apeAed- 
cevat, Elz, Lachm. Tisch, have rapejevoovrac. The plural (B D K U LT &) is to 
be maintained here and at Luke xxi. 33 ; the remembrance of the well known 
saying from Matth. suzgested mapezevoerac in the singular. Moreover, it tells in 
favor of the plural, that BL &, min. (Tisch.) have rapeAevoovra: again after- 
wards instead of rap/AIwor, although this isa mechanical repetition. [Treg., W. 
and Hort, read zapsActoovrar a second time, but omit u7.] — Ver. 32. Instead of 
7 Elz. has xa/, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 33. xai rpooetyeafe] is 
wanting in B D 122, Cant. Verc. Colb. Tolet. Deleted by Lachm. [So Tisch., 
W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. marg,] Rightly; an addition that easily occurred 
(comp. Matt. xxvi. 41 and the parallels). — Ver. 34. xai is to be deleted before 
éxdory (with Lachm. and Tisch.), in conformity with B C* D L &, min. codd. 
It. —[Ver. 35. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ®& BCL A, Copt., insert 7 
before 5y’.|— Ver. 37. Between din Elz. Scholz, and 6 which Griesb. has ap- 
proved, and Fritzsche, Lachm. have adopted, the evidence is very much divided. 
But is an unnecessary emendation, although it is now preferred by Tisch. 
(BCR, etc.). [So recent editors, R. V.] D, codd. It. have éyod dé A. ty. ypry. 


Vv. 1-8. See on Matt. xxiv. 1-8. Comp. Luke xxi. 5-11. Mark has pre- 
served the introduction in its original historical form. But Matthew has the 
discourse itself although more artistically claborated, in its greatest com- 


11 


162 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

pleteness from the collection of Logia and with some use of Mark ; and that 
down to the consummation of the last judgment.' [See Note LXXXII., 
p. 167 seq. ] — soraroi Aifo:] quales lapides ! gxodopiOy 6 vade ix Aidov pév Aeveev Te 
kai KapTepav, Td péyebog ExdoTwy mepi wévre Kai cixoot THY Eel pAKOC, KTH dé bor, 
etipoc dé repi dddexa, ‘‘ The sanctuary was built of stones both white and vast, 
the greatness of each of them about twenty-five cubits in length, the height 
cight, the breadth about twelve,” Joseph. Anétt. xv. 11. 8. See Ottii Spicileg. 
p. 175. Who uttered the exclamation? (Was it Peter? or Andrew?) Prob- 
ably Mark himself did not know. — On the zorazéc, belonging to later usage, 
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 56 f.; Fritzsche, p. 554 f. — Ver. 2. 5¢ ob pu) xarad.] 
for ov »@ in the relative clause, see Winer, p. 450 [E. T. 507 f.] The con- 
ception here is : there shall certainly be no stone left upon the other, which 
(in the further course of the destruction) would be secure from being thrown 
down. Comp. Luke xviii. 80.— Ver. 3. As previously, Mark here also re- 
lates more vividly (xarévavre rod iepov) and more accurately (Iérpog x«.7.A.) 
than Matthew. According to de Wette (comp. Saunier, p. 132 ; Strauss, 
Baur), Mark is induced to the latter statement by the xar’ idiav of Matthew— 
a specimen of the great injustice which is done to Mark as an alleged com- 
piler. — eirév] Thus, and not elzov, is this imperative (which is also current 
among the Attic writers ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 348) to be accented in 
the N. T.? — 16 onueiov] seil. torac : what will be the fore-token (which appears), 
when all this destruction is to enter on its fulfilment ? — ravra ovvteA. wévra] 
(see the critical remarks) applies not to the duiidings of the temple (Fritzsche, 
who takes ovvredcioba: as simul exscindi, ‘‘ destroyed together,” comp. Beza), 
but, just like ravra, to the destruction announced at ver. 2. Toexplain it of 
‘*the whole world” (as ratra is well known to be so uscd by the philosophers, 
Bernhardy, p. 280) or of ‘‘all things of the Parousia” (Lange), is a forced 
course at variance with the context, occasioned by Matt. xxiv. 3 ? (in opposi- 
tion to Grotius, Bengel). [See Note LXXXIII., p. 168.] Moreover, the state 
of the case is here climactic ; hence, while previously there stood merely raira, 
now wavra is added ; previously : fara, nOW ovrze7riclar (be consummated). 
— Ver. 5. Jesus now begins His detailed explanation as to the matter 
(jp§aro). — Ver. 7. 7d réAoc] the end of the tribulation (see ver. 9), not the 
end of the world (so even Dorner, Lange, Bleck), which only sets in after the 
end of the tribulation. See on Matt. xxiv. 6. [See also Note LXXXIII., 
p- 168.} — Ver. 8. nat écovrat .. . xai fcovra:] solemnly. — xa? rapayai] Famines 
and (therewith connected) disturbances, not exactly revolts (Griesbach), which 
the context does not suggest, but more general.‘ 


1 Weizsicker, p. 125, conjectures from 
Barnabas 4 (&), where a saying of Enoch is 
quoted about the shortening (ovvrérpyxer) of 
the days of the final offence (comp. ver. 20; 
Matt. xxiv. 22), that the properly apocalyp- 
tic elements of the discourse as to the future 
are of Jewish origin, from an Apocalypse of 
Enoch; but the conjecture rests on much 
too bold and hasty an inference, hazarded 
as it Is on a single thought, which Jesus 
Himself might very fairly share with the 


Jewish consciousness in general. 

2 See Winer, p. 49 [E. T. 51]. 

* Nevertheless, between the passage be- 
fore us and Matt. /.c. there is no essential 
diversity, since the disciples conceived of 
the destruction of Jerusalem as immediate- 
ly preceding the Parousia. See on Matt. 
xxiv. 8. Comp. also Dorner, de orat. Chr. 
eschatologica, p. 45. 

‘Plat. Legg. ix. p. 861 A: rapaxy re nal 
afvugwria, Theaet. p. 168 A: zap. cai azopia, 


CHAP. XIIL., 9-23. 163 


Vv. 9-13. See on Matt. xxiv. 9, xiv. 10-13 ; Luke xxi. 12-18. Mark has 
here interwoven some things from the discourse which is found at Matt. x. 
17-22.— apyzai] prefixed with emphasis: beginnings of sorrows (comp. rd réAog, 
ver. 7) are these. — BAézere J? «.7.A.] but look ye (ye on your part, in the 
midst of these sorrows that surround you) to yourselves, how your own con- 
duct must be. Comp. on BAér. éav7., 2 John 8; Gal. vi. 1.—ovvidpa] 
judicial assemblies, as Matt. x. 17. —xal cig cvvaywy.] attaches itself, as ei¢ 
cuvédpia precedes, most naturally to this, so that with dapyoeobe begins o 
further step of the description. The more usual connection with dapfceobe, 
preferred also by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 287 [E. T. 333] and Bleek, is in- 
admissible, because cic cannot be taken in the pregnant meaning (instead of 
évy ; for the clement of ‘‘ motion towards” is not implicd in dapfo.), and be- 
cause the explanation (see my first edition) : ye shall be brought under blows 
of scourges into synagogues (comp. Bengel, Lange), is not accordant with fact, 
since the scourging took place in the synagogues ; see on Matt. x. 17; Acts 


.xxli. 19. [See Note LXXXIV., p. 168.] That dap7o. comes in asyndetically, 


is in keeping with the emotional character of the discourse. — ei¢ waprtip. 
ctroic] i.e, in order that a testimony may be given to them, the rulers and 
lings, namely, regarding me (comp. previously évexev éuov), regarding my 
person and my work (not: ‘‘intrepidi, quo causam meam defendatis, 
nnimi,” ‘*‘of the intrepid mind with which you shall defend my cause,” 
Fritzsche)—which, no doubt, involves their inexcusableness in the event of 
their unbelief ; but it is arbitrary to explain the dative here just as if it 
were eic xarzyopiay x, éXeyxov abréy, ‘for an accusation and conviction of them” 
(Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, and many others). Comp. on Matt. x. 
18.— Ver. 10. And this your vocation fraught with suffering will not soon 
pass away ; among all nations (xévra has the emphasis) must jirst (before the 
cnd of the sorrows appears, comp. apyai ddivwy, ver. 9), etc. These words 
are neither disturbing nor inappropriate (as Késtlin judges, p. 352, comp. 
Schenkel and Weiss) ; they substantially agree with Matt. xxiv. 14, and do 
not betray a ‘‘more advanced position in point of time’? on Mark’s part 
(Hilgenfeld), nor are they concocted by the latter out of x. roig éveorv, Matt. 
x. 18 (Weiss). — Ver. 11. wederare the proper word for the studying of dis- 
courses. See Wetstein. The opposite of extemporizing. *— dof] has the 
emphasis. — ov ydp éore tyueic] of them it is absolutely denied that they are the 
speakers. Comp. on Matt. x. 20.— Ver. 12. See on Matt. x. 21. From 
that hostile delivering up, however (comp. zapadidévrec, ver. 11), neither the 
relationship of brother nor of child, etc., will protect my confessors. — Ver. 
18. uoueivac] according to the context here : in the confession of my name. 
Sce above, did rd dvoud pov. Sce, moreover, on Matt. xxiv. 18. The réAog is 
that of the ddivey, ver. 9, not that ‘‘ of the theocratic period of the world’s 
history” (Schenkel). 

Vv. 14-28. See on Matt. xxiv. 15-26. Comp. Luke xxi. 20-24, who, 
however, has freely elements that are peculiar. —ézov ov dei] thoughtful, 


Ale. il. p. 146, 15: rap, re cai avozia, 2 Macc. vius, Elz., Lachmann. 
xill. 16. Comp. rdpaxos, Acts xil. 18, xix. 23, 2 Comp. Dem. 1129, 9: peAeray Thy aroAoyiary 
1 Luther, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calo- wwép éavrav. 


164 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

but more indefinite designation of the sacred temple-area than in Matthew, 
where the more definite expression, as well as the reference by name (not 
merely suggested by the use of the set expression rd Bd{A. r. épnu.) to Dan. 
ix. 27, betrays a later manipulation. — Ver. 16. 6 cig rov aypor ov] he who is 
(has gone) into the field. See on ii. 1. — Ver. 18. Mark has, with a view to 
his Gentile-Christian readers, passed over the yd? ocaBBaty, which was in 
the collection of Logia, in Matt. xxiv. 20.— Ver. 19. foovra:. . . OAiyuc| 
‘‘Tempori adscribitur res, quae in tempore fit ; una et continua erit calam- 
itas,” ‘‘To the time is ascribed the thing which occurs in the time ; there 
shall be one continuous calamity,” Wetstcin. — ofa ov yéyove x.t.A.] Comp. 
Plato, Rep. vi. p. 492 E : obre yap yiyvetat, ote yéyovev, obt’ obv py yérntat. — 
toatty| aftcr ota. See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 14; Kiihner, II. p. 527. — 
xricewc 7¢ éxtia. 5 Oedc] Comp. ver. 20: did rote éxAextots ob¢ éfeAéEato, Herod. 
ili, 147: évrodde re, tac . . . éveréAdero, Philostr. V. Ap. iv. 18. 150: rie 
pinvidog fv Eufvicac. The mode of expression has for its object ‘‘ gravius can- 
dem notionem bis iterari,” ‘‘ that the same notion be reiterated with greater 
weight,” Lobeck, Paralip. p. 522. A contrast with the Jewish state as a 
human xriotg (Lange) is fanciful. xriowc, that which is created, see on Rom. 
vill. 19. — dzoxdav.] 1 Tim. vi. 10. — Ver. 23. In Matthew at this point the 
saying about the lightnipg and the carcase, which certainly belongs origi- 
nally to this place, is added (vv. 27, 28). : 

Vv. 24-27. See on Matt. xxiv. 29-31. Comp. Luke xxi. 25-28. — a72'] 
breaking off and leading over to a new subject. Hartung, Partihell. 11. 
p. 34 f. — év éxeivare r. qutp pera t. OAc. éx.] Thus in Mark also the Parousia 
is predicted as setting in immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, since 
it is still to follow in those days’ (comp. vv. 19, 20). The ci@éwe of Matthew 
is not thereby avoided (de Wette, Bleek, and others), but this et6fwy is only 
a still more express and more direct definition, which tradition has given to 
the snying. To refer év éx. 7. 7. to the times of the church that are still 
continuing, is an exegetical impossibility. Even Baur and Hilgenfeld ere 
in error in holding that Mark has conceived of the Parousia as at least not 
following so immediately close upon the destruction. [See Note LXXXYV., 
p. 168.]— Ver. 25. of aorvépeg rot ot-paroi x.t.4.] the stars of heaven shall be, 
etc., which is more simple (comp. Rev. vi. 13) than that which is likewise 
linguistically correct : the stars shall from hearen, ctc.*— éoovras éxxixr. ] more 
graphic and vividly realizing than the simple reooivra: (Matt.). — Ver. 26. 
Mark has not the order of sequence of the event, as Matthew depicts it ; he 
relates summarily. — Ver. 27. az’ Gxpov ;7¢ Ewe axpov ovparov] From the outmost 
border of the carth (conceived as a flat surface) shall the ériovvayecv begin, 
ond be carried through even to the opposite end, there the outmost lorder of 


1Itis, in fact, to impute great thought- 
lessness and stupidity to Mark, if people 
can believe, with Baur, Warkuser. p. 101, 
that Mark did not write till after Matthew 
and Luke, and yet did not allow himself to 
be deterred by all that had intervened be- 
tween the composition of Matthew's Gos- 
pel and bis own, from speaking of the near- 


ness of the Parousia in the same expressions 
as Matthew used. This course must cer- 
tainly be followed, if the composition of 
Mark (comp. also Kostlin, p. 883) is brought 
down to so late a date. 

2 Hom. Cd. xiv. 81, 72. xi. 179; Soph. Af. 
1156; Acsch. ii. 84; Gal. v. 4; 2 Pet. ifi. 17. 


CHAP. XIII., 28-32. 165 
the heaven (xara 1d da:véuevov of the horizon) sets limit to the earth. The cx- 
pression is more poetical than in Matthew ; it is the more arbitrary to think 
(with Bleek) in the case of yc of those still living, and in that of oip. of 
those who sleep in bliss. 

Vv. 28-32. See on Matt. xxiv. 82-36. Comp. Luke xxi. 29-33. — atric] 
prefixed with emphasis (see the critical remarks) as the subject that serves 
for the comparison : When of ié the branch shall have already become tender, 
so that thus 7ts development has already so far advanced. The singular o 
xAddoc, the shoot, belongs to the concrete representation. — 7d épo¢] is an image 
of the Messianic period also in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 725. — Ver. 30. 4 
yeved atry] t.¢., the present generation, which yeveéd with atr7 means through- 
out in the N. T.’| Nevertheless, and although Jesus has just (ver. 29) pre- 
supposed of the disciples in general, that they would lize to see the Parousia 
— an assumption which, moreover, underlies the exhortations of ver. 33 ff. 
—although, too, the context does not present the slightest trace of a refer- 
ence to the Jewish people, there has been an endeavor very recently to uphold 
this reference ; see especially Dorner, p. 75 ff. The word never means 
people,* but may in the signification race, progenies, receive possibly by virtue 
of the connection the approximate sense of people, which, however, is not 
the case here. See, moreover, on Matt. xxiv. 34. [See Note LXXXVL., 
p. 168 seq.] — Ver. 32. otdé 6 vide] Observe the climax: the angels, the Son, 
the Father. Jesus thus confesses in the most unequivocal words that the day 
and hour of His Parousia are unknown'® to Himself, to Him the Son of God 
(see subsequently 6 rar#p),—a confession of non-omniscience, which cannot 
surprise us (comp. Acts 1. 7) when we consider the human limitation (comp. 
Luke ii. 52) into which the Son of God had entered (comp. on x. 18),—a 
confession, nevertheless, which has elicited from the antipathy to Arianism 
some strange devices to evade it, as when Athanasius and other Fathers (in 
Suicer, Thes. II. p. 163 f.) gave it as their judgment that Jesus meant the 
not-knowing of His human nature only ;4 while Augustine ° and others were 


' Matt. xi. 16, xii. 41, 42, 45, xxifl. 86; 
Mark viii. 12, 18; Luke vil. $1, xi. 29, 30, 31, 
32, 50,51. Comp. Heb. iii. 10 (Lachmann). 

3 The signification ‘‘people” is rightly 
not given either by Spitzner on Homer, Zé. 
Exe. ix. 2, or in Stephani 7/es., ed. Hase, II. 
p. 559 f.; in the latter there are specified— 
(1) genus, progenies ; (2) generadio, genitura ; 
(8) aefas, seculum. Comp. Becker, Anecd. 
p. 231, 11; also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 853. 

3 Matthew has not ovéé 6 vids; according 
to Késtlin, Holtzmann, and others, he is 
held to have omitted it on account of its 
dogmatic difficulty. But this is to carry 
back the scruples of later prepossession 
into the apostolic age. Zeller (in Hilgen- 
feld's Zeilechr. 1865, p. 808 ff.) finds In the 
words, because they attribute to Christ a 
nature exalted above the angels, an indica- 
tion that our Mark was not written until 
the first half of the second century ; but his 


view is founded on erroncous assumptions 
with respect to the origin of the Epistles to 
the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians, 
and of the fourth Gospel. Moreover, Paul 
places Christ above the angels in other pas- 
sages (Rom. vill. 88; 2 Thess. 1. 7), and even 
as early as in the history of the temptation 
they minister to Him. Zeller believes that 
he gathers the like conclusion in respect of 
the date of the composition of our Gospel 
(and of that of Luke also), but under 
analogous Incorrect combinations, from the 
fact that Mark (and Luke) attaches so stu- 
dious importance to the narratives of the 
expulsion of demons. 

4 Gregor. Epist. vill. 42: ‘‘in natura qul- 
dem humanitatis novit diem et horam, non 
ex natura humanitatis novit,” “in human 
nature indeed he knew the day, and hour, 
but did not know it from human nature.” 

§ De Genesi c. Manich. 2, de Trinit, 1. 12. 





166 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


of opinion that He did not know it for His disciples, in so far as He had not 
been commissioned by God to reveal it unto them. See in later times, es- 
pecially Wetstein. Similarly Victor Antiochenus also and Theophylact 
suggest that He desired, as a wise Teacher, to keep it concealed from the 
disciples, although He was aware of it. Lange, Z. J. II. 8, p. 1280, invents 
the view that He «illed not to know it (in contrast with the sinful wish to 
know on the part of the disciples), for there was no call in the horizon of 
His life for His reflecting on that day. So, in his view, it was likewise with 
the angels in heaven. The Lutheran orthodoxy asserts that xara xrjow (by 
possession) He was omniscient, but that xara xzpyow (by use) He had not 
everything in promptu (at hand).* SceCalovius. Ambrosius, de fide, v. 8, 
cut the knot, and declared that oidé 6 vidg was an interpolation of the Arians. 
Nevertheless, itis contained implicite also in the ei p7 6 warzp pévoc of Matthew, 
even although it may not have stood originally in the collection of Logia, 
but rather is to be attributed to the love of details in Mark, whose depend- 
ence not on our Matthew,’ but on the apostle’s collection of Logia, may be 
recognized in this more precise explanation. 

Vv. 33-37. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 42, 44 ff., xxv. 14. By way of an ener- 
getic conclusion Mark has here a passage, which has been formed by the ag- 
gregation of several different portions—belonging to this connection, and 
most completely preserved in Matthew from the collection of Logia—on the 
part of tradition or of the evangelist himself into a well-adjusted, compact, 
and imposing unity. — Ver. 84. o¢] an anantapodoton, as at Matt. xxv. 14. 
See in loc. With oe the plan of the discourse was, after ver. 34, to subjoin : 
so do I also bid you: watch! Instead of this, after iva ypyyopz, with an 
abandonment of the plan of sentence introduced by ac, there follows at once, 
with striking and vivid effect, the exhortation itself : ypyyopeire, which now, 
just because the d¢ is forgotten, is linked on by ovv. — azddypyoc] is not 
equivalent to azodyjudv (Matt. xxv. 14), but : who has taken a journey.? At 
the same time évereidJaro is not to be taken as a pluperfect, but: ‘‘as a 
traveller, when he had left his house, after having given to his slaves the author- 
ity and to each one his work, gave to the doorkceper also command, in order that 
he should watch.” In this we have to observe : (1) the évereiAaro took place 
after the azdédyzuo¢ had gone out of his house ; (2) xa? dove «.7.a., In which 
xat is also, is subordinate to the adeic x.r.2., because prior fo the leaving of 
the house ; (3) dvfpwro¢ azédnu.| forms one notion : a man finding himself on 
a journey, a traveller ;‘ (4) the éfovoia, the authority concerned in the case, is 
according to the context the control over the household. This He gave tu 
all in common ; and, moreover, to every one in particular the special business 
which he had to execute. Fritzsche is wrong in making the participles 
agrig. . . kal dovg dependent on arddnuog : ‘homo, qui relicta domo sua et 
commissa servis procuratione assignatoque suo cuique penso peregre abfuit,” 
‘a man who, his house having been left and authority given to his servants, 


1 See, on the other hand, Thomasius, Chr. * Pind. Pyth. iv. 8; Plut. Mor. p. 200 E. 
Pers. u. Werk. II. p. 156 f. 4 Comp. av3pwros o8itys, Hom. J]. xvi. 268; 

2 Baur, Markusev. p. 102, comp. his newt. Od. xili. 128; dvdp. éuropos, Mutt. xill. 45, 
Thesl yp. 102. al. 


NOTES. 167 


etc... . went away to a foreign country.” Against this may be urged, partly 
that agei¢ r. ox. abrov would be a quite superfluous definition to amdédnuoc, 
partly that dove x.r.A. would need to stand before ageic x.r.A., because the man 
Jirst made the arrangement and then left the house. — Ver. 35. ypzyopeire otv] 
the apostles thus are here compared with the doorkeeper. — As to the four 
watches of the night, see on Matt. xiv. 24. They belong to the pictorial effect 
of the parable ; the nighi-season is in keeping with the figurative ypyyopeirr, 
without exactly expressing ‘‘a dark and sad time” (Lange). Singularly at 
variance with the text as it stands, Theophylact and many others interpret 
it of the four ages of human life. — Ver. 87. The reference to one thought 
is not at variance with the use of the plural a (see the critical remarks).' 
[But @ is accepted by all recent critical editors. ] — wao:] to all who confess 
me, 


Nores spy American Eprronr. 


LXXXII. The Eschatological Discourse. 


It would be impossible to enter into a full discussion of the points raised in 
the exegesis of this chapter. Moreover, a large part of the explanation belongs 
more appropriately to the volume on Matthew. We may, however, give here 
the view of Weiss ed. Mey. as to Mark’s account in general, his analysis of 
the contents (which differs from the divisions of Meyer), and add a brief state- 
ment in regard to the general application of the discourse. 

‘« The chapter contains the discourse concerning the Parousia, the only longer 
discourse which Mark has fully reproduced from the older source, and even 
provided with an historical introduction (vv. 1-5), a closing exhortation (vv. 
32-37), and also extended by means of two passages inserted (ver. 9-13, 21-23), 
which for the most part have passed over with it into the parallels.’’ (But 
Godet thinks the account of Luke should have the preference.) Weiss divides 
his comments into paragraphs, with appropriate headings, as follows: 

Vv. 1-8 : The foretokens ; vv. 9-13 : Prediction of the destiny of the disci- 
ples ; vv. 14-23: The catastrophe in Judea ; vv. 24-31 : The Parousia ; vv. 32- 
37: closing exhortation. 

With this may be compared the following paragraph from the Inter. Revision 
Comm. Mark, p. 170 : The discourse ‘‘ refers both to the destruction of Jerusalem 
and to the second coming of Christ, one prophecy respecting ¢wo analogous events, 
though all is not necessarily applicable to both. Reasons: 1. An exclusive ref- 
erence to either the destruction of Jerusalem or the second coming of Christ in- 
volves insuperable difficulties. 2. The disciples asked about both, joining them 
in time (comp. Matt. xxiv. 3 with ver. 4). The answer therefore refers to both, 
joining them in character, not necessarily in time. The disciples needed in- 
struction on both points, for immediate and more remote guidance. 3. The 
preceding discourse in Matthew plainly points to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
but Matt. xxv. and vv. 32, 33 of this chapter seem to apply exclusively to the 
Christian dispensation. Great care is necessary in deciding what refers to each 
of the two sets of events (or how far the analogy holds good). The two inter. 


1 Sec Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. ill. 3. 5. 





168 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


pretations probably run parallel as far as ver. 23, the judgment upon the Jew- 
ish church being the predominant thought ; after that (vv. 24-31) tho Lord’s 
second coming is prominent, until in the close of the chapter (vv. 32-37) it is 
exclusively treated of."’ 


LXXXIH. Ver. 4. ratra cvvreAcio§at ravra. 


In view of the emphatic position of wdvra, the question should not be ap- 
plied exclusively tothe destruction of the temple. Even Weiss ed. Mey. thinks 
the plural points to this ‘‘in connection with a series of decisive occurrences, to 
the final completion of which owreAzioba: ruévra.”” The disciples, being Jews, 
classed together this destruction, the Parousia, and the end of the world, think- 
ing that only the personal presence of the Messiah could take the place of the 
ruined temple. The discourse does not sharply and chronologically sunder 
these events, but by its very warnings and prophecies of tribulation prepares 
the disciples for a fuller understanding of the future Christian dispensation. 
Our Lord was awise Teacher, and in the circumstances no method could be 
better adapted for their instruction. But this does not prove that they re- 
mained in the same comparative ignorance during their subsequent labors. 
In accordance with the view above cited, Weiss ed. Mey. refers 70 réAo¢ (ver. 7) 
to the end of the world. 


LXXXIV. Ver. 9, xai et¢ cuvaywyac. 


The R. V. retains the connection with dap7jcecfe : and in synagogues ye shall 
be beaten. So Weiss ed. Mey. this implies: ye shall be taken into synagogues 
and beaten there. 


LXXXYV. Ver. 24. év éxeivace taic fuépacc. 


Weiss ed. Mey. modifies somewhat the strong statement of Meyer respecting 
this phrase. He indeed attributes to the older source the view that the Pa- 
rousia would immediately follow the catastrophe in Judea, but finds it here 
placed ‘‘in the days of the last great tribulation, which in ver. 19 is clearly 
conceived as a universal one, and puts an end toit.” This accords with his 
view of réAog (ver. 7), and certainly agrees better with the whole scope of the dis- 
course. The ‘‘ exegetical impossibility ” of n reference to the present times of 
the church can be admitted only when it is proven that ‘' these days ’’ can mean 
nothing else than a period immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
The main difficulty belongs to the use of ci4éwe in Matt. xxiv. 29, which Weiss 
attributes to the older source, but Meyer attributes to tradition. 


LXXXVI. Ver. 30. 4 yevéad atrn. 


The same utterance is found, though notin exact verbal agreement, in Mat- 
thew and Luke. (Comp. on Matt. xxiv. 34; Luke xxi. 32.) It is undoubt- 
edly safer to accept the reference to the generation then living. The question 
then arises : Did our Lord mean to assert that His Parousia would occur during 
that generation ? 

This question we confidently answer in the negative. (1) The discourse, as 
here given, speaks of many intervening events, which would require a longer 


NOTES. 169 


time. (2) The account in Matthew gives the answer to o twofold question 
(Matt. xxiv. 3), and the answer may properly be regarded as twofold, whether 
we can always separate it into its distinct elements or not. (3) We must inter- 
pret our Lord here by our Lord elsewhere ; and in many cases He speaks of 
the Parousiaas an event ‘‘ which is possibly yet very remote ’’ (see Godet, Luke, 
p- 445, Am. ed.). What He predicts again and again is incompatible with the 
reference of this verse to the Parousia, unless yeved be taken in the sense of 
‘‘race,” or ‘‘all these things be accomplished ” be interpreted as meaning the 
beginning of the process of accomplishment (Van Oosterzee, Plumptre, and 
others). This latter view helps to explain the close connection with ver. 32, 
which seems to call for a reference to the Parousia. 


170 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER XIV, 


Ver. 2. dé] B C* DL X&, vss. have yap. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepia 
is from Matt. xxvi. 5. — Ver. 3. xai before ovyrp. is, with Tisch., following B L 
&, Copt., to be deleted. A connective addition. —1é d743.] Fritzsche, Lachm. 
(Tisch. VIII.] read rdv aAd3., which is attested by (N*] ADEFHKSUVX 
T, min. Tisch., following B C L A &**, has rjv a/d3., and this is to be pre- 
ferred. [So recent editors, R. V.] The ignorance of the transcribers brought in 
7é6 and rév. — xara] is wanting in BC LAR, min. Deleted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. A supplement, instead of which D has éwi. — Ver. 4. xai Aéyovrec] is 
with Tisch., in accordance with B C* L &, Copt., to be deleted. It is a gloss 
after Matthew, instead of which D reads xai @Acyov. — Ver. 5. rd pvpov] is want- 
ing in Elz., but is decisively attested. The omission is explained from Matt. 
xxvi. 9 (where roi'7o alone is genuine). The preponderance of evidence forbids 
the supposition that it is an interpolation from Jobn xii. 5. D, min. have it 
before rovro, and in & rovro is wanting. — Ver. 6. Instead of év éuoi Elz. has eic¢ 
éué, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew. — Ver. 8. airr] is 
only wanting, indeed, in B L &, min. Copt. Syr. utr. (bracketed by Lachm.), 
but is rightly deleted by Tisch. It is an addition, which is not found till after 
énoinoev in A. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 12.— Ver. 9. After auzv very considerable 
evidence supports dé, which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has adopted. It is 
to be adopted ; the omission occurred conformably to the usual expression of 
Mark, in accordance with Matt. xxvi. 13. — rovro] is wanting in BD L &, min. 
Cant. Verc. Vind. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. It is from 
Matt. xxvi. 13.—[Ver. 10. Tisch., recent editors, read Iovdag (8 ABC DL A) 
“Taxapis9 (Treg. "loxap:orn¢) 6 eic (8 B C* L, Copt.), and, with B D, rapadoi. | — 
Ver. 14. After xaraAvua Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. (in brackets) Tisch. read pov, 
following B C DLA B®, min. Sax. Vulg. It. (not all the codices). As zou has 
this strong attestation and yet is superfluous, and as it does not occur at Luke 
xxii. 11, it is to be held as genuine. — Ver. 15. The form avdyaoy (Elz. : dvi- 
yeor) is decisively attested. — Before éxei is to be read with Tisch. «ai, in accord- 
ance with BC DL X&, 346, vss. It dropped out in accordance with Luke xxil. 
12. [Tisch. VIII., xaxei.] — Ver. 19. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with & B L, 
Copt., omit ot dé.] — «al dAAwe: unre Ey] is wanting in BC L P AX, min. vss., 
including Syr., utr. Vulg. After the example of earlier editors, suspected by 
Griesb., rejected by Schulz, struck out by Fritzsche and Tisch. But the omis- 
sion might just as easily have been brought about by means of the preceding 
Hite Ey as by reason of the startling and even offensive superfluousness of the 
words, which, moreover, are not found in Matthew, whereas no reason for their 
being added can at all be conceived of without arbitrary hypotheses. [But the 
evidence against the clause is so weighty, that to accept it on the ground urged 
by Meyer is to invalidate the authority of the most ancient witnesses. Recent 
editors, R. V., omit. — Ver. 21. Tisch., recent editors (Treg. in brackets), 


‘ CHAP. XIV. 17471 


R. V., with & BL, Copt., insert dr: before 6 vév.] — After AdGere, ver. 22, Elz. 
has ¢dyere, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matthew. — Ver. 23. 
The article before rorjprov (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) has in this place 
even stronger evidenco against it than in Matt. xxvi. 27, and is, as there, to be 
struck out. — Ver. 24. 16 r7¢] This ro is, as in Matt. xxvi. 28, to be deleted on 
considerable evidence with Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it). — cacvjjc] is want- 
ing in BC DL &, Copt. Cant. Deleted by Tisch., and rightly, as also at Matt. 
xxvi. 28. — repi] BC DLA ¥&, min. : trép. So Lachm. and Tisch. Mepis from 
Matthew, from whom also codd. and vss. have added eic¢ ddeoty auapr. — Ver. 
27. év éuot év rg vex) tabty] So Elz. and the editors, except Fritzsche and Tisch., 
read after cxavdaA. Yet Mill and Griesb. condemned the words. They are de- 
cisively to be rejected as an addition from Matt. xxvi. 31, as they are wholly 
wanting in preponderant witnesses, while others merely omit év éuo/, and others 
still é¢v rg vuxri ravry. Lachm. has the latter in brackets. — d:acxopzoOjnerat is 
an emendation (comp. on Matt. xxvi. 31), instead of which, with Lachm. and 
Tisch., d:cacxopricOjcovrat is to be read, and that with Tisch., after mpé3ara (B 
CDL &, min.). — Ver. 29. xai ei] Fritzsche, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] read 
ei xai. Either is appropriate, and with the evidence divided no decision can be 
arrived at, even if ei caf was introduced in Matthew. — Ver. 30. ov after dri is 
wanting in Elz., in opposition to decisive evidence. — év rH vuxti ratry] B C D 
L &, min. Lachm. Tisch. have ravtry rp vuxri. Rightly ; if this order of words 
were from Matt. xxvi. 34, the év also would not be left out in it. — In what fol- 
lows tpi¢ ve az. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be written. The received order 
is from Matthew. — Ver. 31. é« xepicoot] BC D &, min. have éxzepisodc. So 
Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the unusual word was partly exchanged for the 
simple mepicods (L, min.), partly glossed by éx mepicoov. — éAeye}] Lachm. and 
Tisch. have éAdAz, following BDL &. The Recepta is a correction. Comp. on 
xi. 23. — uaAAov] is wanting in BC D L 8, vas., including Vulg., It. Deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss on éx zep:acov ; hence min. have it also before these 
words (comp. vii. 36), and this course Fritzsche has followed. [Asin Matthew, 
recent editors, with nearly all the uncials, give the form Iefonuavel ; only in 
cursives does the form v7 occur.]— Ver. 35. As at Matt. xxvi. 39, so here also 
apoce+av is strongly attested, but it is to be rejected. [W. and Hort, Weiss, 
R. V., with 8 BL, Copt., read émcxrev.] — Ver. 36. ro worgp. am’ éuov tovro] D, 
Hil. : retro tr. x. an’ éuod; KM: dz’ exotd ti. 7.7.3; ABCGLUXAR, min. 
Or. vass., including Vulg. : r. 7. rovro dm’ evov. In this variety of readings the 
last ia so preponderantly attested that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to 
be adopted. — Ver. 40. éocrpéwac] Lachm. has rdAw eA6or, following BL X, 
Copt. Pers. w. Ar. p. (D and cod. It. have merely éA6cv). radw é.0dv is the 
more to be preferred, seeing that Mark is fond of the word rd/.v, and that he 
nowhere has the word toorpfgu. But transcribers referred and joined the 
radi to etp. avrar¢ xaGevd., in accordance with which éA9ov then became glossed 
and supplanted by iroorpép. Accordingly the subsequent miacv, which by Elz. 
Scholz, Tisch. is read after airovc, and is not found in B DL X&, min. vss., is, 
with Lachm., to be deleted. [Recent editors, R.V., agree with Meyer.] — Instead 
of xaraBapurvipevor, Elz. Scholz have Besapnufva, in opposition to preponderant 
evidence. It is from Matthew. — Ver. 41. Elz. Scholz., Tisch. [Treg., Weiss] 
have 7d Au7dv. But the article has come in from Matthew, in opposition to 
considerable evidence. [W. and Hort omit in Matt., bracket here.] — Ver. 43. 


172 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


After 'Ioidacg Fritzsche has ‘Ioxapid-n¢, Lachm. and Tisch. 6 ’Joxap. ; and this 
addition, sometimes with, sometimes without the article, is found in witnesses 
of weight (but not in B &). Rightly ; the omission is explained from the par- 
allels. [Treg. brackets, W. and Lfort, Weiss, R. V., omit.] — or] after eg has 
ngainst it such decisive evidence that it cannot be maintained by means of the 
parallels, nor even by ver. 10. It is to be deleted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. 
Tisch. — xoAvc] is wanting in B L &, min. vss. Condemned by Rinck, brack- 
eted by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Matthew. — Ver. 45. Lachm. only 
reads £0f;3i once, following BC* DL MA &, min. vss., including Vulg., codd. 
It. [So Tisch. VIII.,-recent editors, R. V.] Bat this reading is from Maft. xxvi. 
49, whence also yaipe has intruded into codd. and vss. — Ver. 46. éz’ avrdy r. 
yeipag avtéy] Many various readings, of which Lachm. has 7. yeipac éz’ adr. ; 
Tisch. : r. yeipag abr@. The latter is attested by B D L R** min. vss., and is 
to be preferred as the less usual (see on Acts xii. 1, the exegetical remarks), 
which was altered in accordance with Matt. xxvi. 50. — Ver. 47. ric] has, it is 
true, important evidence against it; but, as being superfluous, and, moreover, 
as not occurring in Matt. xxvi. 51, it might have been so easily passed over, 
that it may not be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. retains ; 
Treg. omits ; W. and Hort bracket.] — Instead of driov read, with Lachm. and 
Tisch., following BD &, 1, drdpiov. The former is from Matthew. — Ver. 48. 
The form éé7A6are (Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.) is devisively attested. — Ver. 51. 
el¢ tig veaviax.] Lachm. Tisch. read veawox. tis, following B C L ®&, Copt. Syr. 
It. Vulg. (D: veaviox. dé tic, without «ai). The Recepia is to be maintained ; 
veavioxoc Tc is the most prevalent mode of expression. [Tisch. VIII. returns to 
the Rec., recent editors, R. V., follow B &, etc.] — Instead of 7xoAovOe, read, 
in accordance with B C L &, cuvyxoAovOe: (so Lachm. and Tisch.). The current 
simple form has crept in also at v. 37. — ol veavioxur}] 18 wanting in BC* DLA 
®, Syr. Arr. Pers. Copt. It. Valg. Theophylact, Rightly condemned by Griesb. 
(but see his Comm. crit. p. 179) and Rinck, deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 
It came in by means of the gloss roe veavioxor, which was written in the margin 
beside avrdv, as Slav. still renders tov veavioxov instead of atrdv ol veavioxat. 
The rav veavioxov written in the margin was easily changed into of reavicxoi, 
since the absence of a fitting subject for xparoior.v might be felt. — Ver. 52. an’ 
uvrav] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., has considerable testimony 
against it ; yet, as being quite superfluous, it was more easily passed over than 
added. [Rejected by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 53. air after ovvépy, is 
wanting in DLA 8&, Vulg. It. Or. Deleted by Tisch. [W. and Hort text ; but 
retained by Treg., Weiss, R. V.] An omission from misunderstanding. — [Ver. 
G1. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ®& BC L, 33, Copt., read otx dzexp. ovdév.] 
— Ver. 65. &3uAAov] Lachm. and Tisch. have éAafov on decisive evidence. fAaBov 
not being understood, was variously altered. — Ver. 67. "Inoov jo6a] BC L & 
have yo@e rov ‘Inoov. So Lachm. and Tisch. D A, min. vss., including Vulg. 
and codd. It., have rod "Inc. before row Naf. The latter is in accordance with the 
usual mode of expression, and with Matt. xxvi. 69. 7cfa rov 'Inood is to be 
adopted ; this rot 'Incotv following was omitted (so still in min., Fritzsche), and 
was then variously restored. — Ver. 68. ovx . . . ovdé] Lachm. has ofre... 
ovre, folowing B D L &, Eus. So now Tisch. also; and rightly. See Matthew. 
—ri od Aéyer¢] Lachm. and Tisch. have ov zi A‘yec, following BCL A ®&, min. 
Rightly ; ov was omitted (so still in D, Vulg. It.), and then was restored at the 


CHAP. XIV., 1, 2. 173 


place that first presented itself after ri. — xai dAéxrup épdvnce] is wanting, 
indeed, in B L ®&, Copt. Colb. (bracketed by Lachm.); but the omission is 
manifestly caused by comparison with Matthew. [Retained by Tisch., R. V. 
text, omitted by W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. marg.] — Ver. 70. xai 7 Aadia cov 
duotalec] So Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, after Ta2:A. ci. But the words are wanting 
inBC DL, min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Aug. Condemned by 
Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation from Matt. xxvi. 73, 
in accordance with the very old reading in that place (D, codd. It.), duordger. 
If the words were genuine, they would hardly have been passed over, contain- 
ing, as they do, so familiar and noteworthy a particular of the history ; the 
“appeal to the homoeoteleuton is not sufficient. —- Ver. 71. Instead of duvtew 
(comp. Matthew), éurtva: is sufficiently vouched for byB EH LSUVXTI, 
min. — Ver. 72. evOéwe after cai is wanting in Elz., but it is attested by B D G 
L & (which, with L, has not é« devt.), min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. codd. 
It. Eus., and adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Nevertheless it 
was far easier for it to be introduced from Matt. xxvi. 74 than fcr it, with its 
prevalent use and appropriateness, to be omitted. Hence, on the important 
evidence for its omission (including A C), it is, with Tisch., to be struck out. 
[Tisch. VIII, retains ei 9c, this being the form given in the older manuscripts ; 
so recent editors, R. V. ; but W. and Hort bracket it in the margin. ] — Instead 
of 70 pjua 6, the Recepta has rov pnyatog ov, in opposition to decisive witnesses, 
among which, however, A B C L A &, min. Copt. Sahid. read 7d Aja oc. 
Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have the latter ; and with this pre- 
ponderant attestation, it is to be regarded as original (followed also by Luke 
xxii. 61). 


Vv. 1, 2. See on Matt. xxvi. 2-5. Comp. Luke xxii. 1, 2. Including 
this short introduction cf simple historical tenor (in which Luke follows 
him), Mark is, in the entire narrative of the passion, generally more original, 
fresh, and free from later additions and amplifications of tradition than Mat- 
thew (comp. Weiss, 1861, p. 52 ff.), although the latter again is the more origi- 
nal in various details. — 7d wdcya x2 ca Gluyal the Passorer and the unleacened 
(MSM), z.¢e., the feast of the Passover and (which it likewise is) of the un- 
leavened. Comp. 3 Esdr. i. 19: qydyooav ... 1d adoxa Kat ripv toptiy trav 
ajipov, On ra dsuua as a designation of the feast, comp. 3 Esdr. 1..10 : 
Eyovrec ra &luua Kata Tag dvAde, — édeyov yap] This yap (see the critical re- 
marks) informs us of the reason of the é#rovy zip previously said ; for the 
feast was in their way, so that they could not at once proceed, but believed 
that they must let it first go quietly by, so that no tumult might occur. 
Victor Antiochenus remarks : ryv pév eopriy imepOécbat BobAovrat’ ov ov; xu- 
powvro d2, érecdy tiv mpodnteiay Edee mAnpovobas THY bv TH vopeKD dtatuTdoet, iv 9 7d 
wéoyxa édiero, uni mpdty Teccapeaxadexdty hufpe’ ev tobry yap TH pyvi wal ev 
tatey TH hulpa Td GAnfivov rdoya idee Outgva, ‘‘they determined to pass 
over the feast ; but they were not permitted, since it was necessary that the 
prophecy be fulfilled, that in the legal statute, according to which the pass- 
over came in on the fourteenth day of the first month ; for in this month 
and on this day it was necessary that the truc passover should be slain.” A 
view right in itsclf ; not, however, according to the Synoptic, but according 


174 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
to the Johannine account of the day of the death of Jesus. [See on ver. 12.] 
— iovat] shall be, certainty of what was otherwise to be expected.' 

Vv. 3-9.9 See on Matt. xxvi. 6-13. [See Note LXXXVIL., p. 183.] Comp. 
John xii. 1-8, who also has the peculiar expression morexgc, either directly 
from Mark, or from the form of tradition from which Mark also adopted it. 
Luke has at vii. 86 ff. a history of an anointing, but a different one. — 
pvpov vdpdov] On the costliness of this, see Pliny, ZW. V. xiii. 2. — morexjc]?* 
xcorixéc, in demonstrable usage, means nothing else than (1) convincing, per- 
suading (Xen. Cyrop. i. 6. 10: xrotimwrtpoug . . . 2dyovc, Plato, Gorg. p. 455 
A: Opftwp tove. .. miotixdg pdévov), thus being equivalent to records 3 (2) 
faithful, trustworthy (Artemidorus, Oneir. ji. 32, p. 121: yu) ciorinp cai 
oixovpéc, COMP. miatixOc, Plut. Pel. 8 ; Scymn. orb. descr. 42), thus equivalent 
to zoréc. The latter signification is here to be maintained : nard, on which 
one can rely, 7.e., unadulterated genuine nard, as Eusebius, Demonstr. ev. 9, 
calls the gospel ‘‘the good checr of the genuine (roi zovcxov) mixed wine 
(xpdéuaroc) of the new covenant” (where the contextual reference to the drink- 
ing lies not in morixov, but in xpdyaroc). The opposite is ‘‘ pseudo-nardus” 
(Plin. H. N. xii. 12. 26), with which the genuine nard was often adulterated 
(comp. also Dioscor. mat. med. i. 6 f.). [See Note LXXXVIIL., p. 183.] 
This is the explanation already given by Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus 
(both of whom, however, add that a special sind of nard may also be intend- 
ed), and most of the older and more recent commentators (Liicke is not 
decided). But Fritzsche (following Casaubon, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, 
Maldonatus, and others of the older expositors quoted by Wolf, who deduce 
it from wivw) derives it from mimiocnw, and explains it as nardus potabilis. 
Certainly anointing oils, and especially oil of spikenard, were drunk mingled 
with wine ;* but the actual wsus loguendi stands decidedly opposed to this 
view, for according to it moré¢ doubtless’ has the signification of drinkable, 
but not morixés, even apart from the facts that the contert does not point 
to this quality, and that it is asserted not of the ointment, but of the nard 
(the plant). The wsus loguendi, moreover, is decisive against all other ex- 
planations, such as that of the Vulgate :° spicati;" and that of Scaliger : 
pounded nard (equivalent to morixjc), from wricow, although this etymology 
in itself would be possible (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 81). Others have derived 


1 Hartung, Partikell. IT. p. 140. 

* Holtzmann, p. 95, attributes to this 
episode the significant purpose of introduc- 
ing the attitude of the betrayer, whose 
psychological crisis had now set In, in 
making advances to meet the Sanhedrim. 
But this could only be the case, if Mark and 
Matthew had named Judas as the murmur- 
er. Now Mark has revés in general, and 
Matthew designates ot padnrai as the mur- 
murers. John is the first to name Judas. 

3 See on this word, Fritzsche in loc., and 
inthe JZau. Lit, Z. 1840, p. 179 ff.; Liicke 
on John xii. 3; Winer, p. 89 [E. T. 97 f.]; 
Wichelhaus, Leidensgesch. p. 74f.; Stephani 


Thes., ed. Hase, VI. p. 1117. 

4 Athen. xv. p. 689; Lucian, Wigrin. 81; 
Juvenal, Saé. vi. 303; Hirtius, de bell. Hisp. 
83.5; Plin. 2. N. xiv. 19.5; and see in gene 
eral, Hermann, Privatalterth. § 26. 8, 9. 

5 Aesch. Prom. 478; Lobeck, Technol. 
p. 131. 

*Comp. Castalio, Hammond, Grotius, 
Wetstein, Rosenmifiller. 

7 Mark having retained the Latin word, 
but having given toit another form. See 
also Estius, Annot. p. 892.—Several codd. of 
the It., too, have the translation spicati; 
others: pistici, Vere. : optim. 


CHAP. XIV., 10-16. 175 
motixy¢ from the proper name of some unknown place (Pistie nard), as did 
Augustine ; but this was a cutting of the knot.’ — rodvredove] belongs to 
uipov, not to vapdov, which has its epithet already, and see ver. 5. Comp. 
Matt. xxvi. 7.—ovwvrpivaca] neither: she rubbed it and poured, etc. 
(Kypke), nor : she shook the vesscl,* but: she broke it,? namely, the narrow 
(Plin. Hf. N. ix. 35) neck of the vessel, for she had destined the entire con- 
tents for Jesus, nothing to be reserved. — ri aAd3.] aAdBaorpoc occurs in all 
the three genders, and the codices vary accordingly. See the critical re- 
marks. —avrov ric xepaanc] (see the critcal remarks) on him upon the head, 
without the preposition usual in other cases,‘ xaré before ric xedadge.* — Ver. 
4. But there were some, who grumbled to one another (uttered grumblings to 
one another). pd¢ éavr., as at xi. 31, x. 26, al. What they murmured, is 
contained in what follows, without xai Aéyovres.* — Ver. 5. éveSpin. airy) they 
were angry at her. Comp. i. 43. — Ver. 7. wal drav OéAnre x.7.A.] certainly 
an amplifying addition of tradition, found neither in Matthew nor in John. 
— Ver. 8. What she was uble (to do) she has done; the greatest work of love 
ithich was possible to her, she has done. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 80: dea rd 
pydev Eyew, 6 Te woche. — mpoé2a3e x.t.2.] Beforehand she hath anointed my 
badly on behalf of embalming (in order thereby to embalm it). A classical 
writer would have said rpoda3otca éutpice.7 Passages with the infinitive 
from Josephus may be seen in Kypke, I. 192. We may add that the ex- 
pression in Mark already betrays the erplanatory tradition. — Ver. 9. ei¢ dAov 
7. kdavov] asin i, 89. The relation to érov is as at Matt. xxvi. 13. 

Vv. 10, 11. See on Matt. xxvi. 14-16. Comp. Luke xxii. 3-6. — cic rév 
dodexa} has a tragic stress. 

Vv. 12-16. See on Matt. xxvi. 17-19. Comp. Luke xxii. 7-138. The 
marvellous character of the ordering of the repast, which is not as yet found 
in Matthew with his simple rpd¢ rov deiva, points in Mark and Luke toa 
later form of the tradition (in opposition to Ewald, Weiss, Holtzmann, and 
others), as Bleek also assumes. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 18. This form may 
easily, under the influence of the conception of our Lord's prophetic char- 
acter (comp. xi. 2 f.), have originated through the circumstance, that the 
two disciples met the servant of the deiva, to whom Jesus sent them, in the 
street with a pitcher of water. [Sce Note LXXXIX., p. 184.] Assuredly origi- 


1 Still the possibility of its being the ad- 
jective of a local name may not be called 
in question. In fact, the Scholfast, Aesch. 
Pers. 1, expressly says: rade péev Nepowy 
wiotd caderrat. .. wéAts core Tlepowy Micrecpa, 
cadoupéwn, hy cvyxéwas 0 rocntns Tiara édy, 
** These Persian things are called morta... 
there is a city of Persia called Pisteira, 
abridging which the poet says Pista." Lo- 
beck, Pathol. p. 282, remarks on this: ‘‘Som- 
nium hoc est, sed nititur obscrvatione licen- 
tiac popularis, qua nomina peregrina varie 
ct multipliciter interpolantur,” ‘* This is a 
fancy, but based upon observation of pop- 
ular license, by which foreign names are 
variously and repeatedly interpolated.” 


On the taking of It as a local designation 
depends the translation pistici, which the 
Vulgate also, along with codd. of It., has 
in John xil. 3, although in the present pas- 
sage it gives «picauti. 

2 Knatchbull, Nammond, Wakefield, Silv. 
crit. V. p. 57. 

* Ecclus. xxi. 14; Bar. vi. 17; Dem. 845, 
18; Xen., e¢ al. ; 

4 Plato, Rep. ill. p. 897 E. 

® Plato, Leg. vil. p. 814 D; Herod. fv. 62. 

© Comp. the use of Savuddew, mirabundum 
quaerere, in Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 611 f. 

7 Xen. Cyr. 1.2. 8; Thue. itl.8; Dem. 4, 
8, al. 


176 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


nal, however, is the sending of only tvco disciples in Mark, whom thereupon 
Luke xxii. 8 names, — ire tr. wdoyxa Ovov] on which day they killed the paschal 
lamb (Ex. xii. 21 ; Deut. xvi. 2 ; 3 Esdr. i. 1, vil. 12), which occurred on the 
14th Nisan in the afternoon.’ See on Matt. xxvi. 17. [See Note XC., p. 184.] 
— Ver. 13. d:0pwrocg] The connection (see ver. 14) shows that the man in 
question was a slare ; his occupation was the carrying of water, Deut. xxix. 
10; Josh. ix. 21; Wetstein in loc. — xepasuov idatoc] an earthen vessel with water. 
Comp. a2dBaorpov pipov, ver. 8. ‘‘ The water-pitcher reminds one of the begin- 
ning of a meal, for which the hands are washed,” Ewald. — Ver. 14. ro 
xatéAvud pov] the lodging destined for me, in which (é7or) I, etc. The word 
xatéa., lodging, quarters, is bad Greek, Thom. M. p. 501.* — Ver. 15. airédc] 
He himself, the master of the house. On the form ardyacov instead of avo- 
yarov (Xen. Anabd. v. 4. 29), which is preserved in the old lexicographers, sce 
Fritzsche in loc.* In signification it is equivalent to irepgov, 723, upper 
chamber, used as a place of prayer and of assembling together. Comp. on 
ii. 8, and see on Acts i. 13. — The attributes which follow are thus to be 
distributed : he will show you a large upper chamber spread, i.e., laid with 
carpets, in readiness. — éroimao. quiv] arrange for us, make preparation for 
us. Comp. Luke ix. 52. 

Vv. 17-25. See on Matt. xxvi. 20-29. Comp. Luke xxii. 14-23. — pera 
tov dédexa}] Those two are to be conceived as having returned after the prep- 
aration. — Ver. 18 f. 6 éofiwy uer’ uot] not said for the purpose of making 
known the fact, but the expression of deeply painful emotion. — ei¢ xafeic] 
man by man. Sce on this expression of late Greek, wherein the preposition 
is adverbial, Wetstein in loc.4— kai dAAoc] an inaccuracy of expression, as 
though there had been previously satd not el¢ xafeic, Dut merely etc. Mark 
in particular might be led into this inaccuracy by his graphic manner. — 
Ver. 20. 6 éuBarr.] not at this moment, and so not a definite designation of 
the traitor (as Bleck will have it), for after ver. 19 it is certain that the eat- 
ing was not immediately proceeded with (comp. on Matt. xxvi. 23) ; but 
neither is it generally : ‘‘ qui mecum tesci consuerit,” ‘‘ who was wont ta cat 
with me,” Beza ; but, like 6 éo@iwv per éuowv, ver. 18, referring generally to 
this meal, and withal more precisely indicating the traitor to this extent, 
that he was one of those who reclined nearest to Jesus, and who ate with 
Him out of the same dish. According to Lange, indeed, the hand of Judas 
made a ‘*‘movement playing the hypocrite,” and met the hand of the Lord, 
while the latter was still in the dish, in order with apparent ingenuousness 
to receive the morsel. A harmonistic play of fancy, whereof nothing appears 
in the text. — Ver. 24. eirev] namely, «hile they drank, not before the drink- 
ing. A deviation from Matthew and Luke, but not inappropriate, as Jesus 
gives the explanation not afterwards (in opposition to de Wettc), but at the 


1 Neither here nor elsewhere have the 2 But see Pollux, i. 73, and Eustathius, ad 
Synoptics expressed themselves ambiquous- Od. tv. 146, 33, Rom. 
ly as to the day of the Last Supper. See 3? Buttmann, nevl. Gr. p. 12 [E. T. 18). 
Hilgenfeld in his Zeitechr. 1865, p. 96 ff. (in 4Wincr, p. 223 [E. T. 29]; Buttmann, 
opposition to Aberle in the theo. Quartal- — neut. Gr. p. 27 [E. T. 30]. 
schr. TV. p. 348 ff.). 


CHAP. XIV., 26-42, 177 


time of the drinking! (éori). A very immaterial difference, to be explained 
not from Mark’s mere love for alteration (de Wette), but from a diversity of 
the tradition, in respect to which, however, the greater simplicity and inde- 
pendence on the form of the ecclesiastical observance, which mark the 
narrative in Mark, tell in favor of its originality (in opposition to Baur). — 
rd alud pov tic diafyxnc| my covenant-dlood, as Matt. xxvi. 28. The definition, 
‘the new covenant,” came in later ; as also ‘‘ for the forgiceness of sins” is & 
more precise specification from a further stage of development.’ Comp. on 
Matt. xxvi. 28. And the direction, ‘‘ Do this in remembrance of me,” is first 
added in Paul (twice over) and in Luke. See on 1 Cor. xi. 24. 

Vv. 26-31. Sce on Matt. xxvi. 80-35. — Ver. 29. xai ci] even if. On the 
difference between this and ei xai (which here occurs as a various reading), 
see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f. —422’] in the apodosis of a connecting sen- 
tence, at certe.* — Ver. 80. ci] has the emphasis of the contrast with aA?’ 
oun éyd, — ofuepov tabty TH vuxri] (see the critical remarks) impassioned cli- 
max : to-day, in this night. As to piv 7, see on Matt. i. 18. — dic] a later 
form assumed by the utterance than in Matthew. Comp. vv. 68, 72. Even 
John xiii. 88 has it not. There was no occasion for a later simplification 
(Weiss), if the characteristic dic was there from the first. — Ver. 31. éxepiocac 
éAédec] (sec the critical remarks): but he was speaking exceedingly much. 
Observe the difference between this éAd2« and the subsequent é7¢;ov (comp. 
on i. 84) ; the latter is the simple, definite saying; the former, with éxze- 
peoodc, isin keeping with the passionate nature of Peter not even yet silenced 
by ver. 80. The word éxzepioo. is not preserved elsewhere. — arapvycopat | 
ov uh, with the future,‘ denotes the right sure expectation. Comp. on Matt. 
XXvi. 35. 

Vv. 32-42. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 836-46. Comp. Luke xxii. 40-46. — 
Ver. 88. éx@ayPeicfac] used in this place of the anguish (otherwise at ix. 15). 
The word occurs in the N. T. only in Mark, who uses strongly graphic lan- 
guage. Comp. xvi. 5, 6. Matthew, with more psychological suitableness, 
has Avretcbat. — Ewe Oavdrov] See on Matt. xxvi. 38, and comp. Ecclus. xxxvii. 
2; Clem. 1 Cor. 4: (920¢ éxoinoey "Iwond péype Oavdrov dwwyliva, Test. XII. 
Patr. p. 520. — wapidfy ax’ avtov] Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 527 : nisaro 

. iva mapéADy ar’ Euov 1) opyy Kupiov. — 7 apa] the hour xar’ éfuxijv, hora fatavis, 
It passes over from the man, when the latter is spared from undergoing 
its destiny. — Ver. 36. ’A33a] ¥38 ; so spoke Jesus in prayer to His Father. 
This mode of address assumed among the Greck-speaking Christians the 
nature of a proper name, and the fervor of the feeling of childship added, 
moreover, the appellative address 6 sar#p,—a juxtaposition, which gradually 
became s0 hallowed by usage that here Mark even places it in the very mouth 
of Jesus, which is an involuntary J/ysteron proteron. The usual view, that 
é carhp is an addition by way of interpreting, is quite out of place in the 


? Comp. also Rickert, Abendm. p. 72. that these very words contain a later mod- 
2 But observe how the tdea of reconciliation ification of tho narrative. 
is alrondy in the case of Mark implied in ? See Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 341 f.; 
the simple usép woAAmy. Even Baur (neul. Klotz, p. 98. 
Theot, p. 102) acknowledges this, but thinks 4 See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 410 ff.' / 


12 


178 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

fervent address of prayer. See on Rom. viii. 15. Against the objections of 
Fritzsche, see on Gal. iv. 6. —-mapéveyxe] carry away past. Hahn was 
wrong, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 209 f., in deducing from the passage (and from 
Luke xxii. 24) that Jesus had been tempted by His odp£&. Every temptation 
came to Him from without. But in this place He gives utterance only to 
His purely human feeling, and that with unconditional subordination to 
God, whereby there is exhibited even in that very feeling His u7 ywavas ayap- 
riav, which is incompatible with incitements to sin from His own odp&. — 
aaa’ ov] The following interrogative ri shows how the utterance emotionally 
broken off is here to be completed. Hence somewhat in this way: but 
there comes not into question, not : aad’ ov yeviobu. — Ver. 41, xabeidere Aorrov 
x.7.4.] ag at Matt. xxvi. 45, painful irony : sleep on now, and take your rest / 
[See Note XCI., p. 184.] Hardly has Jesus thus spoken when He sees 
Judas approach with his band (vv. 42, 43). Then his mood of painful irony 
breaks off, and with urgent earnestness He now goeson in hasty, unconnected 
exclamations : there is enough (of sleep) ! the hour is come! see, the Son of 
man ig delivered into the hands of sinners! arise, let us go (to meet this deci- 
sive crisis) ! see, my betrayer is at hand! It is only this view of amwéyer, ac- 
cording to which it refers to the sleep of the disciples, that corresponds to 
the immediate connection with what goes before (xafeidere x.r.A.) and fol- 
lows ; and how natural is the change of mood, occasioned by the approach- 
ing betrayers! All the more original is the representation.’ Hence it 
is not : there is enough of eatching (Hammond, Fritzsche). The usus lo- 
quendi of arézet, sufficit (Vulgate), depends on the passages, which certainly 
are only few and late, but certain, (pseudo-)Anacreon, xxviil. 33 ; Cyrill. 
in Hagg. ii. 9, even although the gloss of Hesychius : azéyer, axéxzpn, éfapxei, 
is critically very uncertain.? Others interpret at variance with linguistic 
usage : abest, ‘‘it is gone,” sc. anzietas mea, ‘‘my anxiety” (sce Heumann, 
Thiess), or the betrayer ;* azéyev, in fact, does not mean the being removed 
‘in itself, but denotes the distance.‘ Lange also is linguistically wrong in 
rendering : ‘‘it is all over with it,” it will do no longer. The comparison of 
ovdév aréxet, nothing stands in the way,—in which, in fact, aréze is not in- 
transitive, but active,—is altogether irrelevant. 

Vv. 43-52. See on Matt. xxvi. 47-56. Comp. Luke xxii. 47-53. The 
brief, vivid, terse narrative, especially as regards the blow of the sword and 
the young man that fled (which are alleged by Wilke to be interpolated), 
testifies to its originality. — deddxec] without augment.* — ciconpov] a concert- 


} Comp. Erasmus, Bengel (‘‘suas jam 
peractas habet sopor vices; nunc alla res 
est ’’), Kulnoel, Ewald, Bleek. 

2 See Buttmann in the Stud. u. Arit. 1858, 
p. 506. He would leave amréexe. without any 
idea to complete it, and that in the sense: 
it is accomplished, it is the time of fulfilment, 
the end ts come, just as Grotius, ad Mai. 
xxvi. 45 (peractum est), and as the codex 
Brixiensis has, adest finis, while D and min. 
add to amrdyes: rd réAos. The view deserves 
consideration. Still the usual ié is enough 


is more in keeping with the empirical use, 
as it is preserved in the two passages of 
Anacreon and Cyril ; moreover, it gives rise 
to a doubt in the matter, that Jesus should 
have spoken a word equivalent to the rere- 
Aeora: of John xix. 80 even now, when the 
consummation was only just beginning. 

® Bornemann in the Siud. u. Krit. 1848, 
p. 108 f. 

4Xen. Anad. iv. 3.5; Polyb. 1. 19. 5; 2 
TMace. xi. 5, xil. 20. 

§ See Winer, p. 67 f. [E. T. 72 f.]. 


CHAP. XIV., 53, 54. 1%9 


ed signal, belongs to the later Greck.' — dogaddc] securely, so that He can- 
not escape. Comp. Acts xvi. 28. — Ver. 45. paZ,3i, pa33i] The betrayer him- 
self is under excitement. [But see critical note.] — Ver. 49. aA’ iva x.1.A.] 
8.3 a éxl Anatyy éq7Hare w.t.A. ver. 48. Comp. John ix. 3, i. 8, xiii. 18. 
— Ver. 50. It would have been more exact to name the subject (the dis- 
ciples). — Ver. 51 f. ovvyxodotGes avrg] (see the critical remarks) : he followed 
Him along with, was included among those who accompanied Jesus in the 
garden.— o.vdéva] a garment like a shirt, made of cotton cloth or of linen 
(see Bast, ep. crit. p. 180), in which people slept. ‘‘ Atque ita hic juvenis 
lecto exsilierat,” ‘‘and so this youth had sprung up from his bed,” Grotius, 
— éxt yvuvov] not to be supplemented by cdéyaroc, but a neuter substantive. 
Comp. ra yvurvd, the nakedness, and see in general Kiihner, II. p. 118. —If 
of veavioxoe Were genuine, it would not have to be explained as the soldiers 
(Casaubon, Grotius, de Wette), since the context makes no mention of such, 
but generally : the young people, who were to be found in the dyAoc, ver. 43. 
— Who the young man was, is not to be defined morc precisely than as : an 
adherent of Jesus,* but not one of the Twelte. [See Note XCIL., p. 184.] The 
latter point follows not from ver. 50 (for this young man also, in fact, had 
fled), but from the designation cig rig veaviox. in itself, as well as from the 
fact that he already had on the night-dress, and therefore had not been in 
the company at the table. There was no justification, therefore, for guess- 
ing at John,? while others have even concluded from the one garment that it 
was James the Just, the brother of the Lord.‘ There are other precarious 
hypotheses, such as: a youth from the house where Jesus had eaten the 
Passover (Victor Antiochenus and Theophylact), or from a neighboring farm 
(Grotius), or Mark himself (Olshausen, Bisping). The latter is assumed also 
by Lange, who calls him a ‘‘ premature Joseph of Arimathea ;” and likewise 
by Lichtenstein, who, by a series of combinations, identifies the evangelist 
with a son of the master of the house where the Passover took place, Casau- 
bon aptly remarks: ‘‘ quis fuerit hic juvenis quaerere curiosum est et va- 
num, quando inveniri rd Cyrotyevov non potest,” ‘*To ask who this youth was 
is curious and vain, because what is sought cannot be found.” Probably 
Mark himself did not know his name. — It must be left undetermined, too, 
whence (possibly from Peter?) he learned this little episode,* which was 
probably passed over by Matthew and Luke only on account of its unimpor- 
tance. — yuuvds] ‘‘ pudorem vicit timor in magno periculo,” ‘‘ In great dan- 
ger fear conquers shame,” Bengcl. 

Vv. 53, 54. Sec on Matt. xxvi. 57 f. Comp. Luke xxii. 54f. [See Note 
XCIII., p. 184 seq.] — rpd¢ r. apycep.] t.e., Caiaphas, not Annas, as appears 
from Matthew. — ovvépyovra: aird] is usually explained : they come together to 


1See Wetstein and Kypke, Sturz, Dial. = xiv. 23. 
Ad, p. 196. : 4 Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxxvii. 13, a3 also in 
2Not possibly Saul (the subsequent Theophylact. 
Apostle Paul), who had run after Him from ® According to Baur, only a piquant ad- 
curiosity, as Ewald, Gesch. der apost. Zeit. dition of Mark; according to Hilgenfeld, it 
p. 889, conjectures. is connected with Mark's conception of 4 
®? Ambrose, Chrysostom, Gregory, Moral. more extended circle of disciples (il. 14%. 


180 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
Him (the high priest), in which case the dative is either taken as that of the 
direction (Fritzsche), or is made to depend upon ow : with. him, i.e., at his 
house, they assemble. But always in the N. T.,’ even in John xi. 33, ovvép- 
xeoOai tux means : to come with any one, una cum aligquo venire ;? and airg, 
in accordance with the following 7xoAot@ycev air¢, is most naturally to be 
referred to Jesus. Hence : and there came with Him all the chief priests,” 
i.e., at the same time, as Jesus is led in, there come also all the priests, etc., 
who, namely, had been bespoken for this time of the arranged arrest of the 
delinquent. This view of the meaning, far from being out of place, is quite 
in keeping with the vivid representation of Mark. — mpdc rd dae] at the Jire- 
light, Luke xxii. 56.4 According to Baur, indeed, this is an expression 
unsuitably borrowed from Luke. | 

Vv. 55-65. See on Matt. xxvi. 59-68. — Ver. 56. xat loa: «.7.4.] and the 
testimonies were not alike * (consonant, agreeing). At least two witnesses had 
to agree together ; Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15.° The «af is the simple: and. 
Many testified falsely and dissimilarly. — Ver. 58. qyeic}] we, on our part : 
the ¢yé also which follows has corresponding emphasis. — yecporoinrov. . . 
GA2ov ayetporoinrov] peculiar to Mark, but certainly (comp. on xv. 29) a later 
form of the tradition resulting from reflection (at variance with John’s own |. 
interpretation) as to the meaning of the utterance in John ii. 19, according 
to which there was found in that saying a reference to the new spiritual 
worship of God, which in a short time Christ should put in the place of the 
old temple-service. Comp. Acts vi. 14. Matthew is here more simple and 
more original. —dyecpor.] is an appositional more precise definition to aAAov.” 
Comp. on Luke xxiii. 82. — Ver. 59. ovd? obrwe] and not eren thus (when they 
gave this statement) was their testimony consonant. The different witnesses 
must therefore have given utterance to not unimportant variations in details 
(not merely in their mode of apprehending the saying, as Schenkel would 
have it). It is plain from this that one witness was not heard in the pres- 
ence of the other.* Others, like Erasmus, Grotius, Calovius, in opposition 
to linguistic usage and to the context (see ver. 56), hold that icoc is here and 
at ver. 56 : sufficient. — Ver. 60. Teo questions, as at Matt. xxvi. 62. If 
we assume only one, like the Vulgate, and take ri for 6,re : answerest thou 
nothing to that, which, etc.,* it is true that the construction azoxpivecOai ti is 
not opposed to it (see on Matthew), but the address is less expressive of the 
anxicty and urgency that are here natural to the questioner. Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 217 [E. T. 251], harshly suggests that ‘‘ hearing” should be sup- 
plied before &, rz. — Ver. 61. Well-known parallelismus antitheticus, with em- 


1 Luke xxiii. 55; Acts i. 21, ix. 89, al. 

2 Comp. Winer, p. 193 [E. T. 215]. 

8 Whither ? is clearly shown from the con- 
text, namely, to the apxtepevs. This in op- 
position to Wieseler, Synops. p. 406. 

4See Raphel, Polyd. p. 151; Sturz, Lez. 
Aen. IV. p. 519 f. 

®It is not to be accented loos, as in 
Homer, but taos, as with the Attic and later 
writers. See Fritzsche in loc.; Bentley, ad 


Menandr. fragm. p. 588, ed. Meinek. ; 
Brunck, ad Avist. Plut. 1118; Lipsius, 
grammat, Unters. p. 2. 

® Lightfoot, p. 658; Michaelis, dAfos. &. 
§ 299 ; Saalschitz, p. 604. 

7 See van Hengel, Annotat. p. 55 ff. 

8 Comp. Michaelis, 2fos. R. § 299, p. 97. 

® Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, 
p. 120 f.; Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ewald, 
Bleek, and various others. 


CHAP. XIV., 66-72. 181 


phasis. Inversely at Acts xviii. 9.— 6 ebdoyyréc] Kar’ tEoxiv, 3, God. 
Used absolutely thus only here inthe N. T. The Sanctus benedictus of the 
Rabbins is well known (Schocttgen, ad Rom. ix. 5). The expression makes 
us feel the blasphemy, which would be involved in the affirmation. But it 
is this affirmation which the high priest wishes (hence the form of his ques- 
tion : Thou art the Messiah ?), and Jesus gives it, but with what a majestic 
addition in this deep humiliation !— Ver. 62. The az’ apr: in Matt. xxvi. 
64, which is wanting in Mark, and which requires for what follows the jig- 
urative meaning, is characteristic and certainly original.’ That jiguratice 
meaning is, moreover, required in Mark by éx defy xeOju. tr. duv., although 
Keim finds in this interpretation ‘‘arbitrariness without measure.” Luke 
only, xxii. 69, while abbreviating and altering the saying, presents the lit- 
eral meaning. — Ver. 63. rove x:rGvag] | more accurate statement, in accord- 
ance with the custom of rending the garments, than the general ra ludria in . 
Matt. xxvi. 65; sce in loc. People of rank wore two under-garments 
(Winer, Iteadw.) ; hence rove yer. — Ver. 64. xaréxpivav x.t.A. | they condemned 
Him, to be guilty of death.? On xaraxp. with an infinitive, comp. Herod. vi. 
85, ix. 98 ; Xen. Hier. vii. 10. — Ver. 65. jpfavro] when the ‘‘ guilty !” had 
been uttered. A vivid representation of the sequel. — revée] comp. pre- 
viously of dé mdavrec, hence : some of the Sanhedrists. The servants, i.e., the 
servants of the court, follow afterwards. — rpog7revoov] usually : who struck 
thee, according to the amplifying narratives of Matthew and Luke. Mark, 
however, does not say this, but gencrally : prophesy / which as Messiah thou 
must be able todo! They wish to bring Him to prophesy by the xozagifecv | 
The narrative of Mark, regarded as an abbreviation (Holtzmann), would be 
a singularity without motive. Matthew and Luke followed another tradi- 
tion. The veiling of the face must, according to Mark, be considered 
merely as mocking mummery.—And after some of the Sanhedrists had thus 
mocked and maltreated Him, the serrants received Him with strokes of the 
rod. To them He was delivered for custody until further orders. This is 
the meaning according to the reading é4aov (see the critical remarks). On 
the explanation of the reading éSaAdov, they struck Him, see Bornemann in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 188. As to pazicuaow, sec on Matt. xxvi. 67. 
The dative denotes the form, the accompanying circumstances, with which 
on the part of the servants the 2Aafov took place. Bernhardy, p. 100 f.? 
Vv. 66-72. See Matt. xxvi. 69-75. Comp. Luke xxii. 56-62. — xdérw] be- 
low, in contrast with the buildings that were situated higher, which sur- 


1 On wera 7. veped., comp. Dan. vil. 18 (Dj?) ; 
Rev. 1. 7. 

2 This was the result, which was already 
from the outset a settled point with the 
court, and to the bringing about of which 
the judicial procedure had merely to lend 
the form of legality. The defence of the 
procedure in Saalschiitz, Mos. 7. p. 623 ff., 
only amounts to a pitiful semblance of right. 
Against the fact as it stood, that Jesus 
claimed to be the Messiah, they had no 


law; this claim, therefore, was brought 
into the sphere of the epirtéual tribunal un- 
der the title of blasphemy, and before the 
Roman tribunal under that of high treasor. 
And into the question as to the ground and 
truth of the claim—although in the con- 
fession of Jesus there was implied the ez- 
ceptio verttalis—they prudently did not en- 
ter at all. 

2 Comp. the Latin accipere aliguem ter- 
beribus (Cic. Tusc. il. 14. 34). 





182 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


rounded the court-yard (see on Matt. xxvi. 3). — Ver. 68. oire olda, obre 
érlorapat] (see the critical remarks) I neither know nor do I understand. 
Thus the two verbs that are negatived are far more closely connected (con- 
ceived under one common leading idea) than by oix . . . ovdé.’ On the 
manner of the denial in the passage before us, comp. Zest. XII. patr. 
p. 715 : ote oldab Ayer. The doubling of the expression denotes earnestness ; 
Bornemann, Schol. in Luk. p. xxxi. f. — rpoatdov] Somewhat otherwise in 
Matt. xxvi. 71. See in loc. — nai aa. é¢.] and a cock crew ; peculiar to Mark 
in accordance with xiv. 30. [See critical note.]— Ver. 69. 4 macdioxy] con- 
sequently the same; a difference from Matt. xxvi. 71. It is still other- 
wise in Luke xxii. 58. — dA] would, if it belonged to idctca airéy (as 
taken usually), stand before these words, since it would have logical em- 
phasis in reference to idovoa, ver. 67. Comp. subsequently wdaw gpveiro. 
Hence it is, with Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, and Fritzsche, to be attached 
to #pfaTo, on which account, moreover, C L A & have placed it only after 
foé. So Tischendorf. Still the word on the whole is critically suspicious, 
although it is quite wanting only in B M, vss. : the addition of it was nat- 
ural enough, even although the Aéyev here is not addressed again to Peter. 
— #péato| graphic. — Ver. 70. gpveiro] Tempus adumbrativum (as so often in 
Mark). The second zdaw introduces a renewed address, and this, indeed, 
ensued on the part of those who were standing by. Tlence it is not : médcv 
éAryov of xap., but : wade ol wap. éAeyov. — xal yap Tada. ei] for thou art also 
a Galilean ; i.e., for, besides whatever else betrays thee, thou art, moreover, 
a Galilean. They observed this from his dialect, as Matthew, following a 
later shape of the tradition, specifics. — Ver. 72. éwiBader] not : coemit flere, 
‘‘began to weep” (Vulg. It. Goth. Copt. Syr. Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Heinsius, Loesner, Michaelis, Kuinoel [R. V. 
margin] and others), as D actually has jaro xdaieev, which certainly also 
those versions have read ; expressed with ém:Bd2Aer, it must have run évé- 
Bade xdaierv, and this would only mean : he threw himself on, set himself to, 
the weeping (comp. Erasmus and Vatablus: ‘‘prorupit in fletum,” ‘‘ burst 
forth into weeping ;” see also Bengel) ; nor yet : cum se foras projecisset, 
‘‘when he had rushed out of doors” (Beza, Raphel, Vater, and various 
others), since éz:BaAdov might doubtless mean : when he had rushed away, 
but not : when he had rushed out,—an alteration of the meaning which 
Matt. xxvi. 75, Luke xxii. 62, by no means warrant ;* nor yet : veste capiti 
injecta flevit, ‘‘his garment being thrown upon his head, he wept,” ? 
which presupposes a supplement not warranted in the context and with- 


1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 706 f. 

SLange: ‘‘he rushed out thereupon,” 
namely, on the cock crowing asthe awaken- 
ing cry of Christ. ‘First a rushing out as 
if he had an external purpose, then a pain- 
ful absorption into himself and weeping. 
-. - Outside he found that the cry went 
inward and upward, and now he paused, 
and wept."’ A characteristic piece of 
fancy. 


* Theophylact, Salmasius, de foen. Trap. 
p. 272; Calovius, L. Bos, Wolf, Elsner, Krebs, 
Fischer, Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Fritzsche, 
and others. So also Linder inthe Stud. u. 
Arif, 1862, p. 562 f., inappropriately com- 
paring weppBadAcv, and appealing to 2 Kings 
viii. 15 (where the word, however, does not 
at all stand absolutely) and to Lev. xiii. 45 
(where the middle voice is used). 


NOTES. 183 
out precedent in connection with éBdéAdecv, and would, morcover, 
require the middle voice; neither, and that for the same reason, is 
it: after he had cast his cyes upon Jesus (Hammond, Palairet) ; nor : addens, 
‘‘adding,” i.c., praeterea, ‘‘ thereafter” (Grotius), which is at variance with 
linguistic usage, or repetitis vicibus flevit, ‘‘ with repeated turns he wept” 
(Clericus, Heupel, Miinthe, Bleck), which would presuppose a weeping as 
having already previously occurred (Theophrastus, Char. 8 ; Diodorus Sic- 
ulus, p. 845 B). Ewald is linguistically correct in rendering : Breaking in 
with the tears of deep repentance upon the sound of the cock arousing him.’ 
Thus we should have to conceive of a loud weeping, answering, as it were, 
to the cock-crowing. From a linguistic point of view Casaubon is already 
correct (xaravojoac) :* when he had attended thereto, namely, to this pjua of 
Jesus, when he had directed his reflection to it.? [So A. V. and R. V. text. ] 
The latter mode of taking it (allowed also by Beza) appears more in accord- 
ance with the context, because aveyzrvgo9y x.7.A. precedes, so that ém:Baddv 
corresponds to the dveyr4o0n as the further mental action that linked itself 
thereto, and now had as its result the weeping. Peter remembers the word, 
reflects thereupon, weeps ! 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 


LXXXVII. Vv. 3-9. The anointing at Bethany. 


It seems quite probable that the account of John is more accurate in plac- 
ing, as it certainly seems to do, this occurrence before the entry to Jerusalem 
(80 Godet). Weiss ed. Mey. speaks of it as inserted here for the purpose of 
‘‘making prominent how definitely Jesus foresaw His death, and described the 
anointing as a preparation for it (ver. 8), while His enemies sought for means 
of bringing it about, yet entirely helplessly, until the proposal of Judas opened 
the prospect for carrying out their plans.” 


LXXXVHI. Ver. 3. pedpou vapdov miorexye. 


Nothing need be added to Meyer's statement of the sense of miorixij¢ except 
the renderings of the R. V. The text retains: ‘‘ spikenard,” which is unintelli- 
gible. The Eng. Rev. give the margin : Greek pistic nard, pistic being perhaps 
a local name. Others take it to mean genuine; others, liguid. The Amer. 
Rev. have a decided preference for the view of Meyer; reading in the text 
‘* pure nard,’’ with the margin : “ Or, liquid nard.”” Soin John xii. 3. Weiss 
ed. Mey. agrees with our author, though he alters the arrangement of his notes. 


1 See Polyb. 1. 80.1, xxlfl. 1. 8; Stephani 
Thes., ed. Hase, III. p. 1526; Schwelghauser, 
Lex. Polyd. p. 244 f. 

Then Wetstcin, Kypke, Gléckler, do 
Wette, Bornemann (in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1&8, p. 189), Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 127 


[E. T. 145]. 

3 See the examples for this undoubted 
use of er:BadAey with and without rdv vour 
or thy &cavoray, in Wetstein, p. 682 f.; Kypke, 
I. p. 196 f. 


184 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


LXXXIX. Vv. 12-16. 


There is no evidence of preconcert here, and the distinct prediction that the 
disciples would be met by the man pvints to supernatural knowledge. Meyer 
finds in this a later form of the tradition, but a Messiah, to whom he concedes 
pre-existence, might be allowed at least thus much of fore-knowledge. Weiss 
ed. Mey. is not more satisfactory. He denies the marvellous character (and 
hence a later tradition), but finds only the carrying out of an arrangement made 
with the householder by Jesus, to prevent the other disciples from knowing in 
advance where the place was. 


XC. Ver. 12. bre rd récya EBvor. 


In the volumes on Matthew and John will be found a fuller discussion of the 
vexed question whether the last Passover was eaten at the regular time (14th 
Nisan), as the Synoptists positively state, or on the day previous, as John seems 
to imply. The controversy has been in progress since the second century. A 
good résumé will be found in Schaff, ‘‘ History of thé Christian Church,’’ I. pp. 
133-135, new ed. He agrees with Robinson (‘‘Harmony”) in accepting the 
former view. It may, be suggested that the later date of John’s gospel involves a 
knowledge on his part of the view current in the church, which, on any theory 
of the origin of the Synoptic gospels, must have been in accordance with their 
direct statements. Hence, if he meant to correct this mistake, he could and 
would have plainly intimated the time in ‘as definite a manner as the Synoptists 
have done. But this he has not done. His statements are supplementary (i.e., 
to what wus already well known, whether designedly supplementary to the 
Synoptic Gospels.or not), and should be explained accordingly. 


XCI. Ver. 41. xaQetdere Aourdv x.T.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. properly rejects the view of Meyer that this was spoken in 
‘* painful irony,’’ regarding it as sorrowful earnestness. They can now sleep ; 
He does not need their watchfulness any longer—the hour of betrayal is come. 
This, of course, takes dvéyec as referring to the necessity for their fellowship and 
the watchfulness Jesus had asked of them. Even could they watch it cannot 
now avail. (Comp. Int. Revis. Comm. Mark, p. 201.) 


XCII. Ver. 51. xad veavloxoc ze¢. 


The above is the reading of Treg., W. and Hort, R. V. (so Weiss), following 
® BCL; Meyer and Tisch. retain xa) el¢ ri¢ veavioxoc, as in Rec. Weiss ed. 
Mey. thinks it quite certain that the young man was Mark, since it would have 
a special interest for him, and also that it is at least probable that he was a son 
of the master of the house where the Passover took place. Godet deems this 
‘** not impossible.”’ 


XCTIII. Vv. 53, 54. Jesus on Trial before the Jewish Rulers. 


If we accept the statements of the four Evangelists as accurate, it is safest to 
admit that there were three hearings before the Jewish rulers. (1)Before 
Annas, narrated by John (xviii. 13, 15), who omits the others, as well known. 


NOTES. 185 


(2) Before Caiaphas, at night, mentioned in this chapter and by Matthew (xxvi. 
57-68). (3) A final and formal examination in the morning, named by Mark 
(xv. 1) and Matthew (xxvii. 1), but narrated in detail by Luke (xxii. 66-71). The 
denials of Peter occurred during the time from the first to the close of the 
second, John giving the more exact note of time, since he was present. But 
Matthew and Mark are quite accurate in placing in an account the various 
denials. This they give after the narrative of the night trial before the rulers. 
Luke, however, with the same accuracy, places the denials of Peter before the 
examination in the morning, of which he gives the details. See Godet, Luke, 
pp. 478-482, Am. ed. 





186 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER XV. 


Ven. 1. én? rd rpvi] BC DL & 46, Or. Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 
have merely zpwt. But why should éwi ré have been added? The omission is 
easily explained from the fact that the transcribers had the simple conception 
mane (Vulg.; comp. Matt. xxvii. 1). — Instead of zorgo. Tisch. has érocuac., fol- 
lowing only C L &, without min. vss. and Fathers. [Treg., W. and Hort text, 
R. V., retain roijoavres.] But it is worthy of consideration, as zro.jo. might 
easily come from iii. 6.—[Ver. 2. Tisch., recent editors, R. V. with ® BC D, 
Copt., Arm., read avrg Aéyec instead of elev avrg. — Ver. 3. The clause : avrac 
dé ovdév dexp., is an addition from the parallel passages, not found in any im- 
portant uncial. ]— Ver. 4. xatazapr.] B C D &, Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. have xarnyo- 
povorv. So Lachm. and Tisch. ; the Recepta is from Matt. xxvii. 13.— [Ver. 6. 
Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with X* A B,* read 6v rapgrovvro, which 
was easily changed into évrepyrovvro. In A the transition is indicated by the 
reading ov' repyrouvro. | — Ver. 7. ovoraciaczi] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., 
W. and Hort, R. V.] have crac:acrdv, following BC DK ®&, min. Sahid. But 
how easily the syllable EY dropped away before ZT, even although no scruple 
might be felt at the unusual ovorac.! ZY has scarcely been added to make it 
undoubted that Barabbas was himself an insurgent with the others (Fritzsche), 
which assuredly apart from this every transcriber found in the words. — Ver. 8. 
dvaBoncac] Lachm. Tisch. have avaidc, following B D &*, Copt. Sahid. Goth. 
Vulg. It. Approved also by Schulz and Rinck. The dvaeac was not under- 
stood, and, in accordance with what follows (vv. 13, 14), it was awkwardly 
changed into the dvafoyoac, which was as yet in this place premature.— [Tisch., 
W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ®& B A, Copt., omit ae/. — Ver. 12. W. and 
Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ® BC A, Copt., omit 0éAere.] — év Aéyere] Lachm. has 
deleted this, on too slight evidence. If it had been added, it would have taken 
the form rédv Acyéuevov from Matt. xxvii. 22. But révisto be adopted before 
Baca. (with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), according to ABC A ¥&, min., to which 
also D may be added as reading ww BaccA, Out of the swerving from 6y to rév 
is explained the omission of 6v Afyeve, which happened the more easily after 
ver. 9. — Ver. 14. The reading wepiocac (Lachm.), instead of the Recepta repia- 
covépwc, is so decisively attested that it may not be derived from Matt. xxvii. 
23. Somewhat more weakly, but still so considerably, is éxpafov (Lachm.) in 
the sequel attested (A D G K M, min.; A: éxpafav), that this also is to be 
adopted, and éxpa¢av is to be regarded as a repetition from ver. 13. [But 
Tisch., recent editors, R. V., accept éxpafav, following BC 8, etc.]—- Ver. 17. 
évdvovotv] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have évdidicxovocv, which Griesb. also 
recommended, and Schulz approved, following BC DFA X®&, min, Rightly ; 
the familiar verb supplanted the unusual one. — Ver. 18. The Recepla Bacidev 
is to be maintained ; 0 Bacrdet¢ (Griesb. Scholz) is from Matthew and John. The 
evidence is divided.— Ver. 20. cravpdiowaiv] Lachm. and Tisch. have cravpucoverr, 
following AC DLP A, min. (B has not got iva cravp. air at all). With this 


CHAP. XV. 187% 


preponderant attestation, and as the subjunctive so easily intruded itself, the 
fature is to be adopted. [W. and Hort, Weiss, accept the subjunctive, which is 
attested by Nand B. (Meyer incorrectly says the latter codex omits the clause.) 
Tisch, omits avrév. There are a number of minor variations in this verse. ] 
— Ver. 22. Before Toay. Fritzsche and Tisch. have rév, following B C** FLA 
8, min. Rightly ; the article, superfluous in itself, was left out in accordance 
with Matthew. — Ver. 23. zceiv] is with Tisch., following B C* L A &, Copt. 
Arm., to be struck out as being an addition from Matt. xxvii. 34. — Ver. 24. 
Instead of diauepifovrac Elz. has dcexépifov, in opposition to all the uncials. 
[Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with B L, Copt., read cravpotory avrov xai ; the par- 
ticipial form is from Matthew.}— Ver. 28. The whole of this verse is wanting 
in ABCD X X&, min. Cant. Sahid. Condemned by Griesb., Schulz, and 
Fritzsche, deleted by Tisch. It isan ancient, but in the case of Mark a foreign, 
interpolation from a recollection of Luke xxii. 37 (comp. John xix. 24). — Ver. 
29. év rploiv iu. oixod.] Lachm. and Tisch. have oix. rp. yu. As well the omis- 
sion of éy as the putting of oix. first, is sufficiently well attested to make the 
Recepta appear as an alteration in accordance with Matt. xxvii. 40. — Ver. 30. 
kat xaTaZa] Lachm. Tisch. have xarafde, following B D L A 8, Copt. Vulg. codd. 
It. The Recepta is a resolution of the participle ; comp. P, min.: xai xaraPnGe 
(in accordance with Matthew). — Ver. 33. xa? yevoz. (Lachm. and Tisch.) is to be 
adopted instead of yevou. dé on preponderating evidence ; but in ver. 34 the 
Recepta tH Gye Ti évary is, following A C E G, etc., to be maintained, — Lachm. 
Tisch. [recent editors] read rj évaty dpg, which suggested itself in accordance 
with Matt. xxvii, 46. — Ver. 34. The words éAwi x.7.A, are very variously writ- 
ten in codd. and vss. The Receptu Aaupd is in any case rejected by the evi- 
dence ; between the forms Acua (Lachm.), Aaud (Tisch.), and Aexza (Fritzsche), in 
the equal division of the evidence, there is no coming to a decision, [Tisch. 
VIII. has Acud ; recent editors (BD), Aapud.] — Ver. 36. re] has important but 
not preponderating evidence against it ; it is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [re- 
cent editors, R. V.]. But if it had been added, xai zep:0. would have been writ- 
ten (Matt. xxvii. 48), which, however, is only found in a few cursives. On the 
other hand, previously instead of els, ric is to be read with Tisch., and the fol- 
lowing xai to be deleted with Lachm. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.j. The Re- 
cepta is moulded after Matthew. — Ver. 39. «pd&ac] is wanting only in BL 8, 
Copt. Ar..(deleted by Tisch.), and easily became objectionable. [Bracketed by 
Treg., omitted by W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. text.] — The arrangement otrog 6 
dévOpwr. in Lachm. and Tisch. is attested by BD LA ®, min. The Recepia is 
from Luke xxiii. 47. [Ver. 40. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with & BL, 
omit jv (from Matthew), and Tisch., recent editors, with ®&* B D L A, 33, Copt., 
read "Iwa7roc ; 0 ver. 47; comp. on chap. vi. 3, and exegetical note on ver. 47.] 
— Ver, 41. a? xai] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ai. So also Rinck, [W. and 
Hort, R. V., omit xai. Treg. brackets xai in text, and ai in margin.] But the 
collocation of the two almost similar syllables was the occasion of the dropping 
away partly of a? (A C L A, min. vss.), partly of xui (B &, min. vss.). — Ver. 42. 
The reading mpo¢ 0¢arov in Lachm. (instead of rpood33arov) is nothing but a 
clerical error. — Ver. 43. 749ev] Decisive evidence gives ¢26uv. So Matthaei, 
Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., approved also by Griesb. éAfdv . . . rody. eiaiAbe 
was resolved into #29ev . . . xait.é Thisxai before roy. occurs still in min. 
Syr. utr. Vulg. Euthym. — Ver. 44. 7420] Lachm. has dy, in accordance with 


- 188 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


B D, Syr. hier. Arm. Copt. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. [So Treg. text, W. and 
Hort text, R. V. marg.] A repetition of the previous 7é7. — Ver. 45. odua] B D 
L &: rreéua. 80 Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; c®uza appeared more worthy. 
— Ver. 46. xai before xafeA. is wanting in B D L &, Copt. Lachm. Tisch. A 
connective addition. — xaré6nxev] B C** D L &, min. have é@yxev. So Fritzsche, 
Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] But how easily the syllable xar dropped 
out after xai, especially since Matthew and Luke also only have the simple 
form !— Ver. 47. rifera:] In accordance with decisive evidence read, with 
Lachm. and Tisch., réecraz. 


Ver. 1. See on Matt. xxvii. 1, 2. Comp. Luke xxiii. 1. [See Note XCIV., 
p. 195.] —ém? rd xpwi] on the morning (xiii. 85), t.¢e., during the early morning, 
so that éri expresses the duration stretching itself out." Comp. Acts. iii. 1, 
iv. 5. As to ovpf. rot., comp. on iii. 6. They made a consultation. Ac- 
cording to the more significant reading érocudo. (sce the critical remarks), 
they arranged such an one, they set it on foot. On what subject ? the sequel 
informs us, namely, on the delivering over to the Procurator. — kai éAov 7d 
ovvédp.] and indeed the whole Sanhedrim. Mark has already observed, xiv. 
58 (xdvrec), that the assembly was a full onc, and with manifest design 
brings it into prominence once more. ‘‘Synedrium septuaginta unius se- 
niorum non necesse est, ut sedeant omnes . . . cum vero necesse est, ut 
congregentur omnes, congregentur omnes,” ‘‘The Sanhedrim of seventy-one 
elders docs not require that all sit . . . when indeed it is required that all 
assemble, all are assembled,”» Maimonides, Sanhedr. 3 in Lightfoot, p. 639. 

Vv. 2-5. Sce on Matt. xxvii. 11-14. Comp. Luke xxiii. 2f. Matthew 
has here inserted from the evangelic tradition elsewhere the tragical end of 
Judas, just as Luke has the discussion with Herod ; Mark abides simply 
and plainly by the main matter in hand ; nor has he in the sequel the dream 
of Pilate’s wife, or the latter’s washing of his hands. Doubts, however, as . 
to the historical character of these facts are not to be deduced from this 
silence ; only the tradition had narrower and wider spheres of its historical 
material. — Ver. 4. méA.v] See ver. 2.— Ver. 5. ovxére] At ver. 2 he had 
still answered. 

Vv. 6-14. See on Matt. xxvii. 15-28. Comp. Luke xxiii. 13-23. — Ver. 
6. axéAvev] ‘‘Imperfectum ubi solere notat, non nisi de re ad certum tempus 
restricta dicitur,” ‘‘ Where the imperfect denotes ‘to be wont,’ it is not 
used except concerning a matter restricted to a certain time,” Hermann, ad 
Viger. p. 746. — dvrep] quem quidem (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 724), the very one 
whom they, etc. [But sec critical note.] — Ver. 7. pera trav ovotaciacr.] with 
his fellow-insurgents. oavoraccaor#e occurs again only in Josephus, Antt. xiv. 
2.1. {Rejected here by recent editors, see critical notes.] In the classical 
writers it is cvoractdrys.* — év rH ordcec] in the insurrection in question, just 
indicated by ovorac:acr. It is hardly assumed by Mark as well known ; tous 
it isentirely unknown.? But Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ crimen Pilato sus- 
pectissimum,” ‘‘a crime most suspected by Pilate.” — Ver. 8. What Mat- 

1 Bernhardy, p. 252. aqueduct (comp. on Luke xiil. 1), as Ewald 


2 Herod. v. 70. 124; Strabo, xiv. p. 708. supposes. 
3 If it was not the rising on account of the 


CHAP, XV., 15-20. 189 


thew represents as brought about by Pilate, Mark makes to appear as if 
it were suggested by the people themselves. An unessential variation. — 
avaBde] having gone up before the palace of Pilate (see the critical remarks). — 
aireioSat, xadé¢] 80 to demand, as, to institute a demand accordingly, as, i.e., 
according to the real meaning : to demand that, which.'— Ver. 9. rav Baoiréa 
rt. Iovd.] not inappropriate (Késtlin), but said in bitterness against the 
chief priests, etc., as John xviii. 89. — Ver. 10. éyivwoxe] he perceived ; 
Matthew has gde:, but Mark represents the matter as it originated. — Vcr. 11. 
iva paAAov] aim of the davécecay,® in order that he (Pilate) rather, etc., inorder 

*that this result might be brought about. — Ver. 18. wad] supposes a re- 
sponsive cry already given after ver. 11 on the instigation of the chicf 
priests. An inexact simplicity of narration. 

Vv. 15-20. See on Matt. xxvii. 26-31. Comp. Luke xxiii. 24, 25. — rd 
ixavoy rotjoat] satisfacere, to do what was enough, to content them.* — Ver. 
16. Matthew has : eic rd rparrépiov ; the vividly descriptive Mark has : éow 
ric abage, & tore mpatrdptoy, into the interior of the court, which is the praetorium, 
for they did not bring Him into the house and call the cohorts together 
thither, but into the inner court surrounded by the buildings (the court-yard) 
which formed the area of the praetorium, so that, when people went from 
without into this court through the portal (rvA4v, comp. on Matt. xxvi. 71) 
they found themselves in the praetorium. Accordingly ava¢ is not in this 
place to be translated palace (see on Matt. xxvi. 8), but court, as always in 
the N. T. Comp. xiv. 54, 66.— On the 6 attracted by the predicative sub- 
stantive, comp. Winer, p. 150 (E. T. 166]. — Ver. 17. rop¢tpav] a purple 
robe. Matthew specifies the robe more definitely (yAaptda), and the color 
differently (xoxxivyv), following another tradition. [See Note XCV., p. 195.] 
— Ver. 18. #péavro] after that investiture ; a new act. 

Ver. 20. See on Matt. xxvii. 82. Comp. Luke xxiii. 26. — iva oravpé- 
covorv.} See the critical remarks, On the future after iva, see Winer, p. 257 f. 
[E. T. 287 f.].— Ver. 21. Only Mark designates Simon by his sons. 
Whether Alezander be identical with the person named at Acts xix. 83, or 
with the one at 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 17, or with neither of these two, is 
just as much a matter of uncertainty, as is the possible identity of Rufus 
with the person mentioned at Rom. xvi. 138. Mark takes for granted that 
both of them were known, hence they doubtless were Christians of mark ; 
comp. x. 46. But how frequent were these names, and how many of the 
Christians that were at that time well known we know nothing of! As to 
dyyap., see on Matt. v. 41. The notice épyduevov an’ aypov, which Luke also, 
following Mark, gives (but not Matthew), is one of the traces which are 
left in the Synoptical narratives that the day of the crucifixion was not the 
first day of the feast (see on John xviii. 28).4 It is not, indeed, specified 
how far Simon had come from the country (comp. xvi. 12) to the city, but 


1 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 427; Schaef. and so forth, in Wetstein and Kypke. 


O. C. 1124. Comp, AapuBdvecy rd ixavov, Acts xvil. 9. 
2 Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 204 [E. T. ‘Comp. Bleek, Beiir. p. 187; Ebrard, 
236). p. 518. 


* See examples from Diog. Laert., Appian, 


190 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
there is no limitation added having reference to the circumstances of the 
festal Sabbath, so that the quite open and general nature of the remark, in 
connection with the other tokens of a work-day (vv. 42, 46 ; Luke xxiii. 
56; Matt. xxvii. 59 f.), certainly suggests to us such a work-day. The 
ayyapetovrec being the Roman soldiers, there is the less room on the basis of 
the text for thinking, with Lange, of a popular jest, which had just laid hold 
of a Sabbath-breaker who happened to come up. [See Note XCVI., p. 195.] 

Vv. 22-27. See on Matt. xxvii. 83-38. Comp. Luke xxiii. 33 f., who 
here narrates summarily, but yet not without bringing in a deeply vivid and_ 
original trait (ver. 84), and has previously the episode of the daughters of 
Jerusalem. — rdv ToAyoda rérov] Tody. corresponds to the subsequent xpaviov, 
and is therefore to be regarded asa genitive. According to Mark, the place 
was called the ‘‘ Place of Golgotha,” which name (8) interpreted is equiva- 
lent to ‘‘Place of a skull.” — Ver. 23. édidow] they offered. This isimplied in 
the imperfect. See Bernhardy, p. 373. —éopzvpyop.|] Scea, on this custom of 
giving to criminals wine mingled with myrrh or similar bitter and strong 
ingredients for the purpose of blunting their sense of fecling, Wetstein in 
loc.; Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 42. — Ver. 24. én’ avrdé] according to Ps. xxii. 
19: upon them (the clothes were lying there), as Acts i. 26. Whether the 
casting of the lot was done by dice, or by the shaking of the lot-tokens in a 
vessel (helmet), so that the first that fell out decided for the person indi- 
cated by it (see Duncan, Lev., ed. Rost, p. 635), is a question that must be 
left open. — rig ri apy] t.¢., who should receive anything, and what he was to 
receive. Sce, on this blending of two interrogative clauses, Bernhardy, 
p. 444; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 824; Winer, p. 553 [E. T. 628]. — Ver. 25. 
This specification of time (comp. ver. 33), which is not, with Baur and Hil- 
genfeld, to be derived from the mere consideration of symmetry (of the 
third hour to that of ver. 33), isin keeping with Matt. xxvii. 45 ; Luke 
xxilil, 44, As to the difference, however, from John xix. 14, according to 
which, at about the sixth hour, Jesus still stood before Pilate, and as to the 
attempts at reconciliation made in respect thereof, see on John. [See Note 
XCVIL., p. 195.]—xa? éor. abr.] gor. is not to be translated as a pluperfect 
(Fritzsche), but : and it was the third hour, and they crucified Him, i.e., 
when they crucified Him ;) as also in classical writers after the specification 
of the time the fact is often linked on by the simple xai.° 


1Euthymius Zigabenus here gives a livery made lo Pilate.” With more shrewd- 


warning illustration of forced harmonizing: 
iy Se, dyotvy, wpa tpity, OTe SnAovOTEL Hp- 
ato wagxety urd tov oTpatiwtoav 
rod ItAdrov., Eira rd eins avayywordov 
nal’ éavté: Kat éoravpwoay avrdv, éy Exp 
&yAad wpa, “It was, he says, the third 
hour, namely, when He began lo suffer from 
the soldiers of Pilate. Then what follows is 
to be read by itself: and they crucified 
Him, of course at the sixth hour.’ So also 
Luther in his gloss, and Fr. Schmid ; comp. 
Calovius: “‘hora tertia inde a traditione 
Pilato facia,” “the third hour from the de- 


ness Grotius suggests: “jam audita erat 
tuba horae tertlae, guod dici solebat donec 
caneret tuba horae sextae,"’ ‘* Already the 
trumpet of the third hour had been heard, 
as it was customary to say until the 
trumpet of the sixth hour sounded.” In 
the main even at this day Roman Catholics 
(see Friedlieb and Bisping) similarly still 
make out of the third hour the second 
quarter of the day (9 to 12 o’clock). 

2 See Thuc. i. 50, iii. 108; Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 
7, vit. 4.12. Comp. on Luke xix. 48. Stall- 
baum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 220C. 


- 
? 


CHAP. Xv., 29-41. 191 


Vv. 29-41. See on Matt. xxvii. 39-56. Comp. Luke xxiii. 85-49. — oid] 
the Latin rah/ an exclamation of (here ironical) amazement. Dio Cass. 
lxili. 20; Arrian, Zpict. iii. 28. 24; Wetstein in loc. —6 xaratiwv x.7.A.] 
gives us o glimpse of the original affirmation of the witnesses, as it is pre- 
served in Matt. xxvi. 61 (not in Mark xiv. 58). — Ver. 81. wpd¢ aAA7d., inter 
se invicem, belongs to éumail. — Ver. 82. Let the Messiah the King of Israel 
come down now, etc., —a bitter mockery! The 6 Xpioré¢ applies to the 
confession before the supreme council, xiv. 61 f., and 6 Bad. r. Iop. to that 
before Pilate, ver. 2. Moreover, we may attach either the two forms of 
address (Lachmann, Tischendorf), or the first of them (Ewald), to what 
precedes. But the customary mode of apprehending it as a doudle address 
at the head of what follows is more in keeping with the malicious triumph. 
— morebo.| namely, that he is the Messiah, the King of Israel. xa? of cuve- 
oravp.| agrees with Matthew, but not with Luke. Sceon Matt. xxvii. 44. It 
is to be assumed that Mark had no knowledge of the narrative of Luke 
xxiii. 39 ff., and that the scene related by Luke belongs to a later tradition, 
in which had been prescrved more special traits of the great event of the 
crucifixion, but with which the historical character of the exccedingly 
characteristic scene is not lost. Sce on Luke, J.c. — Ver. 84.! é4wi] the Sy- 
riac form for 28 (Matthew), which latter appears to have been what Jesus 
uttered, as is to be inferred from the scoff : 'HA/av guvei. — Ver. 36. Aéyur] 
a difference from Matt. xxvii. 49, whose account is more original (in oppo- 
sition to Holtzmann), because to remoce the aspect of friendliness must ap- 
pear more in keeping with the later development. In consequence of this 
difference, moreover, d¢ere is to be understood quite otherwise than d¢e¢ in 
Matthew, namely, allow zt, what I am doing, let me have my way,—which 
has reference to the scoffing conception, as though the proffcred draught 
would perserve the life till Elijah should come. The view that in ver. 35 f. 
Jriends of Jesus are meant who misunderstood His cry of é2wi, and one of 
whom had wished still to cheer Him as regards the possible coming of 
Elijah (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 490), is in itself improbable even on account 
of the well-known cry of the Psalm, as indeed the d¢ere, idwuev x.7.A., comp. 
ver. 30, sounds only like malicious mockery. —Ver. 87. éérvevee] He 
breathed out, t.e., He died. It is often used in this meaning absolutely in 
the Greck writers (Soph. Aj. 1025 ; Plut. Arist. 20).— Ver. 89. Accord- 
ing to Mark, the centurion concluded from the fact of Jesus dying 
after having cried out in such a manner, i.e., with so loud a voice (ver. 37), 
that He wasa hero. The extraordinary power (otrw deomorixicg élrvevoe, 
‘“so masterfully gave up the ghost,” Theophylact, comp. Victor Antiochenus: 
per’ ELovoiag anéVave, ‘died with power’), which the Crucified One mani- 
fested in His very departing, made on the Gentile this impression — in 
which his judgment was naturally guided by the circumstance that he 
had heard (Matt. xxvii. 40) of the charge brought against Jesus, that He 


1 Mark has only this one of the sayings of specially to John. Schlelormacher, Z. J. 
Jesus on the cross, and Schenkel regards _p. 451, takes offence at this very saying, and 
only this one as absolutely undoubted,— only finds it concelvable as a reference lo 
in which opinion he does great injustice (he whole twenty-second Psalm. 


192 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


claimed to be Son of God. According to others (as Michaelis, Kuinoel, 
de Wette), the unexpectedly speedy dying of Jesus, who had just before 
emitted a vigorous cry, made that impression upon the Gentile, who saw 
in ita favor of the gods. But in order to express this, there would have 
been necessary under the circumstances before écéry. an accompanying 
definition, such as 7é7 or cidéwe. Baur, Markusev. p. 108 f., illustrates the 
remark even from the crying out of the demons as they went forth (i. 26, 
v. 7, ix. 26); holding that Mark correspondingly conceived of the forcible 
separation of the higher spirit, through which Jesus had been the Son of 
God,—therefore after a Gnostic manner. Comp. also Hilgenfeld and Kést- 
lin. Wrongly; because opposed to the doctrine of the entire N. T. regard- 
ing Christ the born Son of God, as indeed the heathen centurion, according 
to the measure of his conception of sons of God, could not conceive of Him 
otherwise. We may add that the circumstantial and plain statement of 
motive, as given by Matthew and Luke for the centurion’s judgment, betrays 
the later manipulators (Zeller in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 385 ff., gives 
a contrary opinion), to whom Mark in this place seemed obscure or unsatis- 
factory. [See Note XCVIIL., p. 195. ]—#v] in His life.—Ver. 40. joa] aderant, 
‘‘were present;” comp. vili. 1.— «ai Map.] among others also Mary. — row 
puxpov] cannot according to the meaning of the word be without arbitrariness 
explained as: the younger, although the James designated 7s the so-called 
Younger, but as : the little (of stature, comp. Luke xix. 8).' An appeal is 
wrongly made to Judg. vi. 15, where in fact zcxpé¢ is not the youngest, but 
the least, that is, the weakest in warlike aptitude. — Mark does not 
name Salome, but he indicates her. According to John xix. 25, she was the 
sister of the mother of Jesus. Comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 171. Thus 
there are three women here recorded by Mark. So also Matt. xxvii. 56. To 
distinguish the Mary of James from the mother of Joses, so that four 
should be adduced (Ewald, l.c. p. 324), there appears to be no sufficient 
ground (comp. the Remark after ver. 47); on the contrary, Mark and Mat- 
thew would have here expressed themselves in 4 way very liable to be mis- 
understood ; comp. on Matthew. — Ver. 41. ai cat x.7.A.] as they were now 
in the company around Jesus, so also they were, while He was in Galilee, 
in His train. ai applics, we may add, to the three who were named. Beside 
these there were among the women present yet many others, who had gone 
up with Him to Jerusalem. [But see critical notes. ] 

Vv. 42-47. See on Matt. xxvii. 57-61. Comp. Luke xxiii. 50-56. — éret 
as far as mpocdé33. gives the reason why Joseph, when the even had come, 
etc. With the commencement of the Sabbath (on Friday after sunset) the 
business of the taking away, ctc., would not have been allowable.* Hence 
the words are not to be put in parenthesis. Mark has not éret elsewhere, 
and it is noteworthy that John also, xix. 81, has it here precisely at the 


1 Hom. 77. v. 801: Tudevs ro. pixpds pey éqvy = narrative otherwise of the Synoptics,—also 
déuas, Xen. Cyr. viil. 4. 20. a remnant of the original (Johannine) con- 

2 Here, therefore, is no trace that that ception of the day of the death of Jesus. 
Friday ttself was already a festal day, Comp. on ver. 21. Bleek, Beitr. p. 115 ff. 
although it was really so according to the 


CHAP. XV., 42-47. 193 
mention of the rapacxev#, and in his Gospel the word only occurs elsewhere 
in xili. 29. Certainly this is no accidental agreement ; perhaps it arose through 
a common primitive evangelic document, which John, however, worked up 
differently. [See Note XCIX., p. 195.] — 3 éor: rpood BB. ] which—namely, the 
expressien rapaoxevj—tis as much as Sabbath-eve, the day before the Sabbath. 
On rpooéBB., comp. Judith viii. 6. — Ver. 43. The breaking of the legs, John 
xix. 31 ff., preceded this request for the dead body, and it is to be supposed 
that Joseph at the same time communicated to Pilate how in the case of Jesus, 
because He was already dead, the breaking of the legs was not applicd. — 
6 azxd ’Apiuad.] The article designates the well-known man. See Kiihner, ad 
Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 5, iv. 6. 20. — evoxfuwv Bovdacvr.] is usually explained : a coun- 
sellor of rank.’ But, as the characteristic of rank is already involved in Bova- 
eurf#¢, there is the legs reason to depart from the old classical meaning of the 
word. Hence: a seemly, stately counsellor, so that the nobleness (the oep- 
vérn¢) of his external appearance and deportment is brought into prominence. 
— That by Bovdeur7c is meant a member of the Sanhedrim,* may be rightly con- 
cluded from Luke xxiii. 51. This is in opposition to Erasmus, Casaubon, 
Hammond, Michaelis, and many others, who conceive of him as a member 
of a council at Arimathea. — xai avrég] on his part also, like other adherents 
of Jesus. Comp. John xix. 88. — rpoodexdu.] comp. Luke ii. 25, 88 ; Acts 
xxiii. 21, xxiv. 15.—r#v Baca. tov Ocov] the kingdom of the Messiah, 
whose near manifestation—that subject-matter of fervent expectation for 
the devout ones of Isracl—Jesus had announced. The idea of the kingdom 
is not Petrine (Lange), but one belonging to primitive Christianity gener- 
ally. — roAufoac] having enboldened himself, absolutely ; see Maetzner, ad An- 
tiph. p. 178. Comp. Rom. x. 20.— Ver. 44. et #7 réOvqyxe] he wondered if 
He were already dead (perfect ; on the other hand, afterwards the historic 
aorist: had died). It is plain that Pilate had had experience, how slowly 
those who were crucified were accustomed to die. ei after Gavudtw denotes 
that the matter is not as yet assumed to be beyond a doubt.?— rdda } the 
opposite of dpr:. Whether He had died (not just only now, but) already ear- 
lier. [See critical note.] He wished, namely, to be sure that he was giv- 
ing away the body as actually dead. See on rdAa:, dudum, ‘‘ formerly,” as 
a relative antithesis to the present time, Wolf, ad Plat. Symp. p. 20 ; Stall- 
baum, ad Apol. Socr. p. 18 B. — Ver. 45. édwphoaro] he bestowed asa gift, 
without therefore requiring money for it. Instances of the opposite (as Cic. 
Verr. v. 46; Justin, ix. 4. 6) may be seen in Wetstein. — Ver. 46. xaOa:peiv] 
the proper word for the taking away from the cross, Latin : detrahere, refi- 
gere.‘—Aehat. éx rétpac] hewn out of a rock. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 60. The 


1 See on the later use of etoxiz., In con- 
trast with the plebeians, Wetstein in loc.; 
Phryn. p. 883 and Lobeck thereupon; Acts 
xill. 50, xvil. 12. 

2The participation of Nicodemus in the 
action (John xix. 39) forms one of the 
special facts which John alone offers us 
from his recollection. But the attempt to 
identify Joseph with Nicodemus (Krenkel 


13 


in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 488 ff.) can 
only be made, if the fourth Gospel be re- 
garded as non-apostolic, and even then not 
without great arbitrarincss. 

3 Seo Boissonade, ad Philosir. Her. p. 424; 
Kohner, Il. p. 480 f.; Frotscher, Hter. i. 6; 
Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195. 

Comp. ver. 86. See Raphel, Polyd. 
p. 157; Kypke and Loesner in loc. 


194 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


same fact is expressed in Mark according to the conception from whence ; 
and in Matthew, according to the conception wherein. Of the fact that the 
grave belonged to Joseph, Mark gives no hint, neither do Luke and John ; 
see on Matt. xxvii. 60. — rod réQeztac] The perfect (see the critical remarks) . 
indicates that the women, after the burial had taken place, went thither 
and beheld where He has been laid, where He lies. The present would indi- 
cate that they looked on at the burial. 


Remarx.—In ver. 47, instead of 'Iwo7 Lachmann and Tischendorf have 
adopted 4% ’Iwo7ros, following B A (I. has merely ’Iwojroc) y»**, as they also at 
ver, 40 have 'Iwoyroc, following B DL A &** (in which case, however, B pre- 
fixes 7). [See critical note.] This is simply a Greek form of the Hebrew name 
(comp. the critical remarks on vi. 3), and probably, on the strength of this con- 
siderable attestation, original, as also is the article 7, which is found in A BC 
G AN**, [Tisch., recent editors, K. V., accept 7.] Another reading is 7 ’Iwoyd, 
which occurs in A, 258, Vulg. Gat. Prag. Rd., and is preferred by Wieseler, 
chronol. Synopse, p. 427 f., who here understands the daughter or wife of the 
counsellor Joseph of Arimathea, and so quite a different Mary from the Mary of 
James. But (1) this reading has the very great preponderance of evidence op- 
posed to it; (2) it is easily explained whence it originated, namely, ont of the 
correct reading of Matt. xiii. 55 (‘Iwo7¢, seo in loc.), from which place the name 
of Joseph found its way into many of the witnesses (including Vulg. and codd. 
It.), not only at Mark vi. 3, but also at xv. 40 (Aeth. Vulg. It. Aug.) and xv. 47; 
while the underlying motive for conforming the name of Joses to that of Joseph 
the brother of Jesus, Matt. xiii. 55, might be found as well in the assumption 
of the identity of the brethren of Jesus with the sons of Alphaeus, as in the 
error, which likewise was already ancient (see Theophylact), that the mother of 
Jesus is meant and is designated as the stepmother of James and Joses. (3) A 
Mary of Joseph is never named among the women of the Gospel history. But 
(4) if Joseph had been the counsellor just previously mentioned, Mark would have 
written not merely M. 7 'Iwo7¢, but M. 7 rod 'Iwong., and would, moreover, as- 
suming only some accuracy on his part, have indicated the relation of kinship, 
whick he has not omitted even at ver. 40, where, withal, the relation of Mary 
to James and Joses was well enough known. Finally, (5) the association of 
Mary of Magdala in the passage before us of itself entitles us to suppose that 
Mary would also have been one of the women who followed Jesus from Galilee 
Aver. 41), as indeed at xvi. 1 these two friends are again named. On the whole 
‘we must abide by the Maria Josis at the passage before us. Mark, in the pas- 
sage where he mentions her for the first time, ver. 40, names her completely ac- 
cording to her ‘wo sons (comp. Matt. xxvii. 56), and then—because she was 
wont to be designated both as Maria Jacobi (comp. Luke xxiv. 10) and as Daria 
Josis—at ver. 47 in the latter, and at xvi.1in the former manner, both of 
which differing modes of designation (ver. 47, xvi. 1) either occurred so acci- 
dentally and involuntarily, or perhaps were occasioned by different sources of 
which Mark made use. 


NOTES, 195 


Nores sy AMERICAN Eprror. 


XCIV. Ver. 1. 


As intimated in Note XCIII., this may be regarded as a formal morning meet- 
ing of the Sanhedrim. This would seem to be even more appropriate with the 
reading éroiudcayrec, accepted by Meyer. Comp. on Luke xxii. 66-71. Weiss 
ed. Mey. rejects the reading éxi rd rpuwt, regarding it an emendation, in the sense 
of ‘‘ toward morning,’ not ‘‘ during the early morning” (Meyer). 


~ 


XCV. Ver. 17. xopgipav. 


Weiss ed. Mey. inserts an interrogation-point after the words ‘‘another tra- 
dition.” The difference of color between ‘‘scarlet’’ and the ancient ‘‘ purple” 
was not great ; the latter was more red than blue. 


XCVI. Ver. 21. épyéuerny an’ aypod. 
This expression by no means necessitates the conclusion that Simon had been 


at work in the fields. Any argument drawn from this in regard to the day of 
the crucifixion is, to say the least, precarious. 


XCVII. Ver. 25. }v 2 dpa rpirn. 


The difficulty here is, as Meyer indicates, not one affecting the accuracy of 
the Synoptists. The solution properly belongs to the commentary on John. 
But over against Meyer’s remark against ‘‘ forced harmonizing,” it may be said 
that the presence of such an obvious verbal difference during so many centuries 
offers the best testimony to the honesty of transcribers and the general consci- 
entiousness of Christian scholars, : 


XCVITI. Ver. 39. 


The fact that Matthew and Luke include the other events as also in part the 
cause of the exclamation of the centurion, does not betray ‘‘ the later manipu- 
lators.” By such a method the historical basis of the Gospels can be brought 
to a vanishing point. 


XOCIX. Vv, 42-47. érel x.1.A. 


The presence of éref here and in John xix. 31 forms a slender foundation for 
this suggestion of ‘‘a common primitive evangelic document.'’ Weiss ed. 
Mey. says this “certainly cannot be thought of.” Yet he finds here ‘‘a re- 
maining trace” of the original representation of the day of the crucifixion (on 
the 14th of Nisan). But this implies an alteration, conscious and repeated, in 
the other parts of the Synoptic narratives. 


196 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


VeR. 2. ri¢ wdc] Lachm. has yg rev, following B1. From John xx. 1, as is 
also 77 wud Tov in L A &, Eus. Tisch. [The latter reading is accepted in R. V. 
Treg., Weiss, agree with B, while W. and Hort bracket ry. All accept the da- 
tive. — Ver. 4. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 B L, read avanxexvdAiorat.] 
—Ver. 8, After é£eA4. Elz. has vayv. in opposition to decisive evidence, from 
Matt. xxviii. 8.— [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B D, Vulg., Copt., etc., 
read yap after elyev.] — Ver. 9. ag’ 7¢] Lachm. has wap’ 7c, following C D L 83. 
Rightly ; ag’ is from Luke viii. 2. — Ver. 14. [R. V. adds dé after torepdy ; W. 
and Hort bracket.] After e¢y7yepu. A C* X A, min. Syr. p. Ar. p. Erp. Arm. have 
fx vexpov, which Lachm. has adopted. A mechanical addition. — Vv. 17, 18. The 
omission of xacvaic, as well as the addition of xai év raic yepoiv before dderc, is 
too feebly attested. The latter is an exegetical addition, which, when adopted, 
absorbed the preceding xa:vaic. [So recent editors, R. V. text, but marg. omits 
xatvaic.] — Instead of B2dy~y Elz. has BAdpe, in opposition to decisive evi- 
dence. — Ver. 19. After xvpioc read, with Lachm. and Tisch., 'Iycotc, which 
is found in C* K L A, min., most of the vss. and Ir. [So Treg., R. V., but W. 
and Hort bracket.}] Asan addition in the way of gloss, there would be abso- 
lutely no motive for it. On the other hand, possibly on occasion of the abbre- 
viation KZ. IZ. it dropped out the more easily, as the expression 6 xtpiog "Inoote 
is infrequent in the Gospels. 

The entire section from vv. 9-20 is a non-genuine conclusion of the Gospel, not 
composed by Mark. The external grounds for this view are: (1) The section is 
wanting in B &, Arm. mss. Ar, vat. and in cod. K of the It. (in Tisch.), which 
has another short apocryphal conclusion (comp. subseqnently the passage in 
L), and is designated in 137, 138 with an asterisk. (2) Euseb. ad Marin. qu. 1 
(in Mai, Script. vet. nov. coll. I. p. 61 f.), declares that oyedov év drat toic avttypa- 
gore, ‘‘ well-nigh in all the copies” the Gospel closes with édofowro yép. Comp. 
qu. 3, p. 72, where he names the manuscripts which contain the section only 
Tiva Tov avttypdgur, ‘some of the copies.’” The same authority in Victor Ant. 
ed. Matth. IT. p. 208, states that Mark has not related any appearance of the 
risen Lord that occurred to the disciples. (3) Jerome, ad Hedib. qu. 3; 
Gregor. Nyss. orat. 2 de resurr. Chr.; Vict. Ant. ed. Matth. II. p. 120; Sever. 
Ant. in Montfauc. Bibl. Coisl. p. 74, and the Scholia in several codd. in Scholz 
and Tisch., attest that the passage was wanting in very many manuscripts 
(Jerome: ‘‘ omnibus Graeciae libris paene,’’ ‘‘in nearly all the books of Greece”’). 
(4) According to Syr. Philox. in the margin, and according to L, several codd. 
had an entirely different ending! of the Gospel. (5) Justin Martyr and Clem. 
Al. do not indicate any use made by them of the section (how precarious is the 


1 Namely: wdvra 8@ ra wapyyyeApdva trois Tov Knpvya THs alwrviov gwmpias. After that 
sept Tov Ilérpov ovvréuws efyyyecAay: pera 52 L goes on: éorny 8¢ xai ravTa depdmeva mera 
taiTa Kai avTos 6 "Incols awd avaroAns Kat axpe 7d éhofovvro yap’ avacrds 8 «.7.A. 
bvgews éfarécrere 6° avrwy rd iepdy nai adOap- 





CHAP. XVI. 197 


resemblance of Justin, Apol. I. 45 with ver. 20 !); and Eusebius has his Canons 
only as far as ver. 8, as, indeed, also in codd. A U and many min. the numbers 
really reach only thus far,! while certainly in C E H K M V they are carried on 
to the very end. These external reasons are the less to be rejected, seeing that 
it is not a question of a single word or of a single passage of the context, but of 
an entire section so essential and important, the omission of which, morcover, 
deprives the whole Gospel of completeness ; and seeing that the way in which 
the passage gradually passed over into the greater part of the codd. is suffi- 
ciently explained from Euseb. ad Marin. qu. 1, p. 62 (dAAo¢g dé ric odd’ orioiv 
ToApov abereiv rav érwoovy év TH TGV evayyediny ypady gepouevur, OimAfy elvai dyot 
tiv avdyvwotv, wo Kar év érépore wodAdoic, éxarépay re rapadextéav Urdpyew, TH LP 
paddAoy tatryy Exeivnc, 7 Exeivyv ravtnc, mapa Toic mioTOIC Kal evAaBéow EéEyxpiveocOat, — 
‘« But some other one, not at all daring to reject anything whatever of what was 
circulated in the text of the Gospels, says that the reading is doubtful, as in 
many other cases also, and that each should be accepted, by not being preferred, 
this to that, or that to this, on the part of the faithful and pious’’). See 
Credner, Finl. I. p. 107. And when Euthymius Zigabenus, IT. p. 183, designates 
those who condemn the section as rivéc tov fSnynror, ‘some of the interpreters,”’ 
not, however, himself contradicting them, the less importance is to be attached 
to this after the far older testimonies of Eusebius, and others, from which is 
apparent not the exegetical, but the critical point of view of the condemnation. 
Moreover, this external evidence against the genuineness finds in the section 
itself an internal confirmation, since with ver. 9 there suddenly scts in a process 
of excerpt-making in contrast with the previous character of the narration, 
while the entire section in general contains none of Mark's peculiarities (no 
evOvc, no mdéAv, etc.,—and what a brevity, devoid of vividness and clearness on 
the part of the compiler !); in individual expressions itis quite at variance 
with the sharply defined manner throughout of Mark (see the notes on the 
passages in detail, and Zellerin the theol. Jahrb. 1843, p. 450); it does not, 
moreover, presuppose what has been previously related (see especially ver. 9 : 
ag’ n¢ ExBeBA. Extra dacu., and the want of any account of the meeting in Galilee 
that was promised at ver. 7), and has even apocryphal disfigurements (ver. 18 : 
Sdece . . . BAdy). —If, in accordance with all this, the section before us is de- 
cidedly to be declared spurious, it is at the same time evident that the Gospel 
is without any conclusion: for the announcement of ver. 7, and the last words 
égoBovvro yap themselves, decisively show that Mark did not intend to conclude 
his treatise with these words. But whether Mark himself left the Gospel un- 
finished, or whether the conclusion has been lost, cannot be ascertained, and 
all conjectures on this subject are arbitrary. In the latter case the lost conclud- 
ing section may have been similar to the concluding section of Matthew 
(namely, xxviii. 9, 10, and 16-20), but must, nevertheless, after ver. 8 have con- 
tained some incident, by means of which the angelic announcement of ver. 6 f. 
was still, even in spite of the women’s silence in ver, 8, conveyed to the dis- 


1 Vv. 15-18 occur in the Evang. Nicod. 14, Apd. 21. But scarcely with warrant, for 
in Thilo, p. 618; Tischendorf, p. 242f. They Tertullian, /.c., where there is contained an 
might therefore have already appeared in excerpt from the Acts of Pilate, is founded 
the Acts of Pilate, which composition, asis upon the tradition in the Acts of the Apostles, 
well known, {s worked upinthe Gospel cf foreign to the Synoptics, regarding (he 
Nicodemus. Ritschl, in the fheol. Jahrd. 1851, forty days. 

p. 527, would infer this from Tertullian, 


198 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
ciples. Just as little with reference to the apocryphal fragment! itself, vv. 
9-20, —which already in very early times (although not by Mark himself, in op- 
position to Michaelis, Hug, Guericke, Ebrard, and others) was incorporated 
with the Gospel as a conclusion (even Syr. has it; and Iren. Haer. iii. 10. 6 
quotes ver. 19, and Hippol. vv. 17, 18),—is there anything more definite to be 
established than that it was composed independently of our Gospel, in which 
case the point remains withal undecided whether the author was a Jewish or a 
Gentile Christian (Credner), as indeed at least tpury oa83uTwr, ver. 9 (in oppo- 
sition to Credner), might be used by one who had been a Jew and had become 
conversant with Hellenic life. — Aguinst the genuineness the following have 
declared themselves : Michaelis ( Auferstehungsgesch. p. 179 ff.; Hinl. p. 1059 f.), 
Thies, Bolten, Griesbach, Gratz, Bertholdt, Rosenmiiller, Schulthess in 
Tzschirner's Anal. III, 3; Schulz, Fritzsche, Schott (Isag. p. 94 ff., contrary to 
his Opusc. Il. p. 129 ff.), Paulus (exeget. Handb.), Credner, Wieseler ( Commentat. 
num. loci Marc. xvi. 9-20 et Joh. xxi. genuini sint, etc., Gott. 1839), Neudecker, 
Tischendorf, Ritschl, Ewald, Reuss, Anger, Zeller, Hitzig (who, however, re- 
gards Luke as the author), Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Keim, and various 
others, including Hofmann ( Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 4), Jn favor of the genuineness : 
Richard Simon (hist. crit. p. 114 f.), Mill, Wolf, Bengel, Matthaei, Eichhorn, 
Storr, Kuinoel, Hug, Feilmoser, Vater, Saunier, Scholz, Rinck (Lucubr, crit. 
p. 311 ff.), de Wette, Schwarz, Guericke, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek, Bis- 
ping, Schleiermacher also, and various others.* Lachmann, too, has adopted 
the section, as according to his critical principles it was necessary to do, since 
it is found in most of the uncials (only B &® do not have it), Vulg. It. Syr., etc. 
We may add that he did not regard it as genuine (see Sud. u. Krit, 1830, 
p. 843). 


Nore spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


C. Vv. 9-20. Critical Judgments. 


We append to the full statement of Meyer the view of Weiss ed. Meyer, that of 
W. and Hort, and of the R. V., with the names of other English and American 
authors. 

I. Weiss ed. Mey. stands almost alone (see, however, Meyer’s reference 
to Schenkel, ver. 8, foot-note) in holding that the Gospel originally ended 
with ver. 8. He urges in support of this : that ‘‘ the appearances of the Risen 
One do not, according to the earliest conception, belong to the earthly activity 
of Jesus, and hence not to the Gospel (comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 138b) ;” 
and finds in the early attempts to add a conclusion an evidence of the extreme 
improbability that the original one had been lost. Hence he thinks Meyer 
hasty in calling it a ‘‘fragment,” and treats it throughout his additional notes 
as a supplement. 


1 That it isa fragment, which originally that which was subsequently completed. 


stood in connection with matter preceding, 
is plain from the fact that in ver. 9 the sub- 
ject, o "Incous, is not named. 

2 Késtlin, p. 878 ff., ascribes the section to 
the alleged second manipulator of the Gos- 
pel. Lange conjectures (see his Z. J. I. 
p. 166) that an incomplete work of Mark 
reached the Christian public earlier than 


According to Hilgenfeld, the section is not 
without a genuine groundwork, but the 
primitive form can no longer be ascer- 
tained: the evangelist appears ‘“‘to have 
become unfaithful to his chief guide Mat- 
thew, in order to finish well by means of an 
older representation.” 


CHAP. XVI., 1-8. 199 


II. The most elaborate critical statement of recent times in English is that 
of W. and Hort, vol. ii. Appendix, pp. 28-51. The evidence is weighed with 
candor and patience, thus affording a strong contrast to Dean Burgon, the fiery 
English champion of the genuineness of the passage (seo his Last Twelve Verses 
. . . Vindicaled, and his article in Quarterly Review, Oct. 1881). Westcott and 
Hort, in accounting for the facts, external and internal, reject the following 
explanations: (1) the very early accidental loss of a leaf (i.e, containing 
vy. 9-20 as they now stand); (2) an intended conclusion of the Gospel 
with ver. 8; (3) the invention of vv. 9-20 by 8 scribe or editor. They suggest, 
‘¢on the contrary, (1) that the true intended continuation of vv. 1-8 either wus 
very early lost by the detachment of a leaf or was never written down ; und (2) 
that a scribe or editor, unwilling to change the views of the text before him or 
to add words of his own, was willing to furnish the Gospel with what seemed 
s worthy conclusion by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ's 
appearance after the Resurrection, which he found in some secondary record 
then surviving froma preceding generation . . . Every other view is, we be- 
lieve, untenable.” They regard the passage as ‘‘ only the conclusion of a longer 
record.’’ ‘Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown; it is, how- 
ever, apparently older than the time when the Canonical Gospels were generally 
received [not before they were written] ; for, though it has points of contact 
with them all, it contains no attempt to harmonize their various representations 
of the course of events. It manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority ; 
but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age.” [On the 
inference from this position, see Note CX., p. 209 seq.] Accordingly these editors 
in their Greek text inclose ver. 9-20 in double brackets, while they print ver. 8 
with marks to indicate an abrupt breaking off of the narrative. The Greek text 
of the conclusion in L is added with the heading : GAdwe. (The disputed pas- 
sage in John they place on a separate page, distinct froni that Gospel.) 

Ill. The R. V. deals fairly with the facts : it leaves a space after ver. 8, add- 
ing this note in the margin: ‘‘ The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some 
other authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a 
different ending to the Gospel.” In John, the R. V. leaves a space before and 
after the pericope (vii. 53, viii. 11), inclosing it in brackets with a marginal 
note: ‘* Most of the ancient authorities omit,” etc. , In other words : the pas- 
sage in Mark stands on a level with those various readings which are accepted 
in the text and omitted in the margin ; the passage in John on a level with those 
rejected in the text, but noticed in the margin. 

IV. Among English and American writers we may note that the passage is 
regarded as genuine by Broadus, Burgon (see above), Scrivener, Wordsworth, 
McClellan, Cook, Morison. It is questioned, and in some cases rejected, but 
usually with explanations admitting its antiquity and general correctness, by 
Tregelles, Norton, Alford, Davidson. The judgment of Dr. Ezra Abbot and 
others of the American Revisers is fairly indicated by the R. V. itself. See fur- 
ther Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. i. pp. 643-647 (new ed.). 


Vv. 1-8. See on Matt. xxviii. 1-8. Comp. Luke xxiv. 1-11. — drayevop. 
row cafB.] i.e., on Saturday after sunset. See ver. 2. A difference from 
Luke xxiii. 56, which is neither to be got rid of, with Ebrard and Lange, 
by a distortion of the clear narrative of Luke ; nor, with Beza, Er. Schmid, 


200 _ THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmfiller, and others, by taking yyépacay as a pluper- 
fet.’ [See Note CI., p. 208.]— They bought aromatic herbs (cpayara, 
Xen. Anabd. i. 5. 1; Polyb. xiii. 9. 5) to mingle them with ointment, and so 
to anoint the dead body therewith (aAciy.). This is no contradiction of 
John xix. 40. See on Matt. xxvii. 59. — Ver. 2 f. rpwi] with the genitire. 
Comp. Herod. ix. 101, and see generally, Kriiger, § 47. 10. 4. — ric pias 
caBB.] on the Sunday. [See critical note.] See on Matt. xxviii. 1. — avare- 
Aavr. Tov 7j2iov] after sunrise; not : when the sun rose (Ebrard, Hug, follow- 
ing Grotius, Heupel, Wolf, Heumann, Paulus, and others), or : eras about 
to rise (so Krebs, Hitzig), or : had begun to rise (Lange), which would be 
avarfAdovroc, as is actually the reading of D. A difference from John xx. 1, 
and also from Luke xxiv. 1; nor will it suit well even with the rpwi 
strengthened by Aiavy ; we must conceive it so, that the sun had only just 
appeared above the horizon. — mpo¢ éavrov¢] in communication with each 
other. But of a Roman watch they know nothing. — éx z7¢ Gipac] The stone 
was rolled into the entrance of the tomb, and so closed the tomb, John xx. 
1. — Ver. 4. 7 yép ubyac o¢65pa] Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 35, 
would transpose this back to ver. 3 after urqpeiov, as has actually been done 
in D. Most expositors (including Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek) proceed thus 
as respects the meaning ; holding that yép brings in the reason for ver. 38. 
An arbitrary view ; it refers to what immediately precedes. After they had 
looked up (their look was previously cast down) they beheld (‘‘ contemplaban- 
tur cum animi intentione,” ‘‘ contemplated with effort of mind,” see Titt- 
mann, Synon. p. 120 f.) that the stone was rolled away; for (specification of 
the reason how it happened that this perception could not escape them after 
their looking up, but the fact of its having been rolled away must of neces- 
sity meet their eyes) it cas cery great. Let us conceive to ourselves the very 
large stone lying close by the door of the tomb. Its rolling away, however, 
had not occurred while they were beside it, as in Matthew, but previously ; 
so also Luke xxiv. 2, 23; John xx. 1. As to odddpa at the end, comp. on 
Matt. ii. 10. — Ver. 5. veavioxov| Mark and Luke (who, however, differ in 
the number : dvdpec dio) relate the angelic appearance as it presented itself 
(xara Td gavéuevov, ‘according to appearance”); Matthew (who, however, 
places it not in the tomb, but upon the stone), as that which it actually was 
(dyyedoc xupiov). [See Note CII., p. 208.] On the. form of @ young man as- 
sumed by the angel, comp. 2 Macc. 111. 26 ; Joseph. Avtt. v. 8. 2f., and Gen. 
xix. 5 f. — év r. de€.] on the right hand in the tomb from the entrance, there- 
fore to the left hand of the place where the body would lie. — Ver. 6. Sim- 
ple asyndeta in the lively eagerness of the discourse. — Ver. 7. a22'] breaking 
off, before the summons which suddenly intervened, Kiihner, II. p. 439 ; 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 78 f£. — «ai r@ Nlérpp] to His disciples and (among 
these especially) to Peter. Comp. i. 5 ; Actsi. 14 ; and see Grotius. The 
special prominence of Peter is explained by the ascendancy and precedence, 
which by means of Jesus Himself (Matt. xvi. 18) he possessed as primus in- 


1¥For examples of sayiver@a: used of the 833.14; Acts xxv. 18, xxvii. 9), see Raphel, 
lapse of an intervening time (Dem. 541. 10, Folyb. p. 157 ; Wetstein in loc. 





CHAP. XVI., 9, 10. 201 
ter pares (‘‘dux apostolici coetus,” ‘‘ leader of the apostolic company,” Gro- 
tius ; comp. also Mark ix. 2, xiv. 33), not by the denial of Peter, to whom 
the announcement is held to have given the assurance of forgiveness (Theo- 
phylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Victor Antiochenus, Calovius, Heumann, 
Kuinoel, Lange, and others), which is assumed with all the greater arbitra- 
riness without any indication in the text, seeing that possibly Peter might 
have concluded just the contrary. — dre] recitative, so that tuac and ipiv ap- 
ply to the disciples as in Matthew. — kadar eirev ipiv] xiv. 28. It relates to 
the whole of what precedes : mpodye: tude x.t.A. and éxei avr. 6y. The latter 
was indirectly contained in xiv. 28. — The circumstance that here prepara- 
tion ie made for a narrative of a meeting together in Galilee, but no such ac- 
count subsequently follows, is an argument justly brought to bear against 
the genuineness of ver. 9 ff. That the women did not execute the angel's 
charge (ver. 8), does not alter the course of the matter as it had been indica- 
ted by the angel ; and to explain that inconsistency by the fact that the as- 
cension does not well agree with the Galilean meeting, is inadmissible, be- 
cayse Mark, according to our passage and xiv. 28, must of necessity have 
assumed such a mecting,’ consequently there was nothing to hinder him from 
representing Jesus as journeying to Galilee, and then again returning to Ju- 
daea for the ascension (in opposition to de Wette). — Ver. 8. dé] explicative, 
hence also yép has found its way into codd. and vss. (Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf [following x B D, ctc., so Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]). — otdevi 
ovdev elzov|] The suggestion that we should, with Grotius, Heupel, Kuinoel, 
and many more, mentally supply : on the way, is devised for the sake of Luke 
xxiv. 9 ; rather is it implied, that from fear and amazement they left the bid- 
ding of the angel at ver. 7 unfulfilled. It is otherwise in Matt. xxviii. 8. That 
subsequently they told the commission given to them by the angel, is sclf-evi- 
dent ; but they did not erecute it. — elye 62 [yap] abrac x.r.A.] Hom. Jl. vi. 187; 
Herod. iv. 15 ; Soph. Phil. 681 ; also in the LXX. [See Note CIII., p. 208. ] 

Vv. 9, 10. Now begins the apocryphal fragment of some other evangelli- 
cal treatise (doubtless written very much in the way of epitome), which has 
been added as a conclusion of our Gospel. [See Note C., p. 198.] In it, 
first of all, the appearance related at John xx. 14-18 is given in a meagre 
abstract, in which the remark, which in Mark’s connection was here wholly 
inappropriate (at the most its place would have been xv. 40), wap 7 éxPeBa. 
éxra datu., is to be explained by the fact, that this casting out of demons was 
related in the writing to which the portion had originally belonged (comp. 
Luke viii. 2). — rpwi xpdérg caZ8.] is joined by Beza, Castalio, Heupel, Wolf, 
Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Fritzsche, de Wette, Ewald, and others with avacrd¢ 
dé, but by Severus of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylact, Euthymius 


1 It is characteristic of Schenkel that he 
assumes the Gospel to have really closed 
with ver. 8, and that it is ‘‘mere unproved 
conjecture” (p. 819) that the conclusion is 
lost. Such a supposition doubtless lay in 
his intercst as opposed to the bodily resur- 
rection ; but even ver. 7 and xiv. 2 ought 
to have made him too prudent not to see 


(p. 888) In the absence of any appearances 
of the risen Lord in Mark the weightiest 
evidence in favor of the early composition 
of his Gospel, whereas he comes to the un- 
historical conclusion that Peter did not 
touch on these appearances in his dis- 
courses. See Acts x. 40 f., and previously 
fi. 32, fll. 13. 


202 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

Zigabenus, Victor, Grotius, Mill, Bengel, Kuinocl, Schulthess, and others, 
with égavy7, We cannot decide the point, since we do not know the connec- © 
tion with what went before, in which the fragment originally occurred. If 
it were an integral part of our Gospel, it would have to be connected with 
égdvy, since ver. 2 already presupposes the time of the resurrection having 
taken place, and now in the progress of the narrative the question was not 
about this specification of time, but about the fact that Jesus on the very 
same morning made His first appearance. — As well zpéry as the singular 
-6a33arav (comp. Luke xviii. 12) is surprising after ver. 2. Yet it is to be 
conceded that even Mark himself might so vary the expressions. — rap’ 7¢] 
(see the critical remarks) : a:cay from whom (French : de chez). See Matthiae, 
p. 1378. The expression with éxfdAde is not elsewhere found in the N. T. 
— Ver. 10. Foreign to Mark is here—(1) éxeivy, which never occurs (comp. 
iv. 11, vii. 15, xii. 4 f., xiv. 21) in his Gospel so devoid of emphasis as in 
this case. As unemphatic stands xaxeivo: in ver. 11, but not at ver. 13, as 
also éxeivag in ver. 13 and éxeivoc at ver. 20 are emphatic. (2) ropevbeica, 
which word Mark, often as he had occasion for it, never uses, while in this 
short section it occurs three times (vv. 12, 15). Moreover, (3) the circumlo- 
cution roi¢ per’ atrod yevoutvorc, instead of roi¢ pafyraic avrov (the latter does 
not occur at all in the section), is forcign to the Gospels. The yafyrai in 
the more extended sense are meant, the apostles and the rest of the compan- 
ions of Jesus ; the apostles alone are designated at ver. 14 by ol évdexa, as 
at Luke xxiv. 9, 33 ; Acts ii. 14. — revOotor xn. xAciovor] who were mourning 
and weeping. Comp. Luke vi. 25, although to derive the words from this 
passage (Schulthess) is arbitrary. ‘ 

Ver. 11. Comp. Luke xxiv. 10, 11 ; John xx. 18. — The fact that 6eéaba 
apart from this section does not occur in Mark, forms, considering the fre- 
quency of the use of the word elsewhere, one of the signs of astrange hand. 
By éfed@y is not merely indicated that He had been seen, but that He had 
been gazed upon. Comp. ver. 14, and see Tittmann, Synon. p. 120 f. — 
axtareiv docs not occur in Mark except here and at ver. 16, but is altogether 
of rare occurrence in the N. T. (even in Luke only in chap. xxiv.). 

Vv. 12, 13. A meagre statement of the contents of Luke xxiv. 13-35, yet 
provided with a traditional explanation (#» ézépg pope7), and presenting a 
variation (od? éxeivorg éxiorevcav) which betrays as its source ' not Luke him- 
self, but a divergent tradition. [See Note CIV., p. 208.] —era ravra] (after 
what was narrated in vv. 9-11) does not occur at all in Mark, often as he 
might have written it : it is an expression foreign to him. How long after, 
does not appear. According to Luke, it was still on the same day. — #& 
avrav] trav wer’ abrou yevouévur, ver. 10. —repivarovaw] euntibus, not while 
they stood or sat or lay, but as they walked. More precise information is 
then gjven in ropevoutvots cic aypdv : while they went into the country. — 


1De Wette wrongly thinks (following 
Storr, Kuinoel, and others) here and repeat- 
edly, that an interpolator would not have 
allowed himself to extract so freely. Our 
author, in fact, wrote not asan interpolator 


of Mark (how unskilfully otherwise must he 
have gone to work!), but indenendently of 
Mark, for the purpose of completing whose 
Gospel. however, this fragment was subse- 
quently used. 


CHAP. XVI., 14. 203 


égavepaOn| ver. 14; John xxi. 1, He became visible to them, was brought to 
view. The expression does not directly point to a ‘‘ ghostlike ” appearance 
(in opposition to de Wette), since it does not of itself, although it does by 
év érépg yop¢g, point to a supernatural element in the bodily mode of appear- 
ance of the risen Lord. This év érépa popd9 is not to be referred to other 
clothing and to an alleged disfigurement of the face by the sufferings borne 
on the cross (comp. Grotius, Heumann, Bolten, Paulus, Kuinoel, and 
others), but to the bodily form, that was different from what His previous 
form had been,—which the tradition here followed assumed in order to ex- 
plain the circumstance that the disciples, Luke xxiv. 16, did not recognize 
Jesus who walked and spoke with them. — Ver. 18. xdxeivor] these also, as 
Mary had done, ver. 10. — roi¢ Ac:roic¢] to the others yevoyévorg per’ avrov, VV. 
10, 12. — otd2 éxelvorg Exior.] not even them did they believe. A difference of 
the tradition from that of Luke xxiv. 84, not a confusion with Luke xxiv. 
41, which belongs to the following appearance (in opposition to Schulthess, 
Fritzsche, de Wette). It is boundless arbitrariness of harmonizing to as- 
sume, as do Augustine, de consena. evang. iii. 25, Theophylact, and others, 
including Kuinoel, that under 2éyovrac in Luke xxiv. 34, and also under the 
unbelievers in the passage before us, we are to think only of some, and those 
different at the two places ; while Calvin makes the distribution in such 
a,manner, that they had doubted at jirst, but had afterwards belicved ! 
Bengel gives it conversely. According to Lange, too, they had been believ- 
ing, but by the message of the disciples of Emmaus they were led into new 
doubt. Where does this appear? According to the text, they believed 
neither the Magdalene nor even the disciples of Emmaus. 

Ver. 14. “Yorepov] not found elsewhere in Mark, dves not mean : at last 
(Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Schulthess, and many others), although, according 
to our text, this appearance was the last (comp. Matt. xxi. 87), but : after- 
wards, subsequently (Matt. iv. 2, xxi. 29; John xiii. 86), which certainly is 
a very indefinite specification. — The narrative of this appearance confuses 
very different elements with one another. [See Note CV., p. 208.] It is 
manifestly (see ver. 15) the appearance which according to Matt. xxviii. 16 
took place on the mountain in Galilee ; but avaxeptvoue (as they reclined at 
table) introduces an altogether different scenery and locality, and perhaps 
arose from a confusion with the incident contained ' in Luke xxiv. 42 f., or 
Acts i. 4 (according to the view of cvvaaiféuevoc as convescens, ‘‘ eating with” 
[R. V. marg.]) ; while also the reproaching of the unbelief is here out of 
place, and appears to have been introduced from some confusion with the 
history of Thomas, John xx., and with the notice contained in Luke xxiv. 
25 ; for which the circumstance mentioned at the appearance on the moun- 
tain, Matt. xxviii. 17 (ol 62 édicracav), furnished a certain basis. — avroic roi¢ 
évdexa] ipsis undecim. Observe the ascending gradation in the three appear- 
ances—(1) to Mary ; (2) to two of His carlicr companions ; (3) to the eleven 
themselves. Of other appearances in the circde of the eleven our author knows 
nothing ; to him this was the only one. Sce ver. 19, —6&rc] equivalent to ei¢ 


1 Beza, Calovius, and others wrongly explain avaxeu. as: una sedentibus. Comp. xiv. 18 


204 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


éxeivo &rt, Luke xvi. 3; John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 61, xvi. 9; 2 Cor. i. 18, 
xi, 10. 

Ver. 15. Continuation of the same act of speaking. — rdoy ri xrice:| to the 
whole creation, i.e., to all creatures, by which expression, however, in this 
place, as in Col. i. 23, all men are designated, as those who are created xaz’ 
éfox#v, as the Rabbinic "551 is also used (see Lightfoot, p. 673, and Wet- 
stein in loc.). Not merely the Gentiles (who are called by the Rabbins con- 
temptuously HY3N, see Lightfoot, U.c.) are meant, as Lightfoot, Hammond, 
Knatchbull, and others would have it. This would bein accordance neither 
with ver. 16 f., where the discourse is of all believers without distinction, 
nor with éxjprfav zavrayov, ver. 20, wherein is included the entire missionary 
activity, not merely the preaching to the Gentiles. Comp. on rdvra ra é6v7, 
Matt. xxviii. 19. Nor yet is there a pointing in r@ xrice: at the glorifica- 
tion of the whole of nature (Lange, comp. Bengel) by means of the gospel 
(comp. Rom. viii.), which is wholly foreign to the conception, as plainly 
appears from what follows (6 . . . 6 dé). As in Col. l.c., so here also the 
designation of the universal scope of the apostolic destination by dey rp 
«tioec has in it something of solemnity. 

Ver. 16. He who shall have become believing (see on Rom. xiii. 11), and hate 
been baptized, shall attain the Messianic salvation (on the establishment of the 
kingdom). The necessity of baptism—of baptism, namely, regarded as a 
necessary dizinely ordained consequent of the having become believing, with- 
out, however (as Calvin has observed), being regarded as dimidia salutis 
causa, ‘‘half the ground of salvation,’— is here (comp. John iii. 5) ex- 
pressed for all new converts, but not for the children of Christians (sce on 
1 Cor. vil. 14). [See Note CVI, p. 209.] —é 62 amcotgoac] That in the case 
of such baptism had not occurred, is obvious of itself ; refusal of faith nec- 
essarily excluded baptism, since such persons despised the salvation offered 
in the preaching of faith. In the case of a baptism without faith, there- 
fore, the necessary subjective causa salutis, ‘‘ ground of salvation,” would be 
wanting. | 

Ver. 17. Zyueia] marvellous significant appearances for the divine con- 
firmation of their faith. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 22. —roi¢ mioretaover] those who 
have become believing, generically. The limitation to the teachers, especially 
the apostles and seventy disciples (Kuinoel), is erroneous. See ver. 16. The 
onueia adduced indeed actually occurred with the believers as such, not 
merely with the teachers. Sce 1 Cor. xii. Yet in reference to the serpents 
and deadly drinks, see on ver. 18. Moreover, Jesus does not mean that every 
one of these signs shall come to pass in the case of every one, but in one case 
this, in another that one. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 4. — mapaxoA.] shall follow them 
that believe, shall accompany them, after they have become believers. The 
word, except in Luke i. 38, is foreign to all the four evangelists, but comp. 
1 Tim. iv. 6 ; 2 Tim. iii. 10. — rabra] which follow.' — tv rH dvépari pov] in 
my name, which they confess, shall the ground be, that they, etc. It refers 
to ali the particulars which follow. — daiy. éxBad.] Comp. ix. 88. — yAdoo. 


1 Seo Kriiger, Xen. Anabd. il. 2.2; Kfihner, ad Anab. {1. 3. 10. 


CHAP. XVI., 18. 205 


Aaa. xatvaic] to speak with new languages. The ecstatic glossolalia (see on - 
1 Cor. xii. 10), which first appeared at the event of Pentecost, and then, more- 
over, in Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, and is especially known from the Corinthian 
church, had been converted by the tradition with reference to the Pente- 
costal occurrence into a speaking in languages different from the mother- 
tongue (see on Acts ii. 4). And such is the speaking in new languages men- 
tioned in the passage before us, in such languages, that is, as they could not 
previously speak, which were new and strange ¢o the speakers. Hereby the 
writer betrays that he is writing in the sub-apostolic period, since he, like 
Luke in reference to the Pentecostal miracle, imports into the first age of 
the church a conception of the glossolalia intensified by legend ; nay, he 
makes the phenomenon thereby conceived as a speaking in strange languages 
to be even 8 common possession of believers, while Luke limits it solely to 
the unique event of Pentecost. [See Note CVII., p. 209.] We must accord- 
ingly understand the yAdoo. Aadriv xavaic of our text, not in the sense of the 
speaking with tongues, 1 Cor. xii.-xiv., but in the sense of the much more 
wonderful speaking of languages, Acts ii., as it certainly is in keeping with 
the two strange particulars that immediately follow. Hence every rational- 
izing attempt to explain away the concrete designation derived, without 
any doubt as to the meaning of the author, from the Acts of the Apostles, 
is here as erroneous as it is in the case of Acts ii., whether recourse be had 
to generalities, such as the newness of the utterance of the Christian spirit 
(Hilgenfeld), or the new formation of the spirit-world by the new word of 
the Spirit (Lange), the ecstatic speaking on religious subjects (Bleek), or 
others. Against such expedients, comp. Keim in Herzog, Encykl. XVIII. 
p. 687 ff. The ecstatic phenomena of Montanism and of the Irvingites 
present no analogy with the passage before us, because our passage has to do 
with languages, not with tongues. Euthymius Zigabenus : yAdooa févatc, 
diatéxrotg aAAoeOvéowy, ‘‘ with strange tongues, with the dialects of other na- 
tions,” 

Ver. 18. "Ogerg apotor] They shall lift up serpents (take them into the hand 
and lift them up). Such a thing is not known from the history of the apos- 
tolic times (what took place with the adder on the hand of Paul in Acts xxviii. 
2 ff. is different); it would, moreover, be too much like juggling for a onpeio»v 
of believers, and betrays quite the character of apocryphal legend, for which, 
perhaps, a traditional distortion of the fact recorded in Acts xxviii. 2 f. 
furnished a basis, whilst the scrpent-charming so widely diffused in the 
East ' by analogy supplied material enough. The promise in Luke x. 19 is 
specifically distinct. Others have adopted for alpew the meaning of taking 
out of theway (John xvii. 5 ; Matt. xxiv. 89; Acts xxi. 36), and have under- 
stood it either of the driving array, banishing (Luther, Heumann, Paulus), or 
of the destroying of the serpents (Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, both 
of whom, however, give also the option of the correct explanation) ; but 
the expression would be inappropriate and singular, and the thing itself in 
the connection would not be sufficiently marvellous. The meaning: ‘‘ to 


1 Elsner, Odse. p. 168; Wetstetn in loc.; Winer, Realw. 


206 , THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 

plant serpents as signs of victory with healing effect,” in which actual serpents 
would have to be thought of, but according to their symbolical significance, 
has a place only in the fancy of Lange excited by John iii. 14, not in the 
text. The singular thought must at least have been indicated by the addi- 
tion of the essentially necessary word onyeia (Isa. v. 26, xi. 12), as the classical 
writers express raising a signal by alpecv onyeiov (comp. Thuc. i. 49. 1, and 
Kriiger thereon).—xap Oavdo. tt wiwow x.t.A.] Likewise an apocryphal append- 
age, not from the direct contemplation of the life of believers in the apostolic 
age. (See Note CVIIL., p. 209.] The practice of condemning to the cup of 
poison gave material for it. But it is not to be supposed that the legend of the 
harmless poison-draught of John (comp. also the story of Justus Barsabas re- 
lated by Papias in Euseb. H. Z. iii. 39) suggested our passage (in opposition 
to de Wette and older expositors), because the legend in question does not 
occur till so late ;' it rather appears to have formed itself on occasion of 
Matt. xx. 23 from our passage, or to have developed itself * out of the same 
conception whence our expression arose, as did other similar traditions (sce 
Fabricius in Abd. p. 576).* — xadédc éfovow] the sick. Comp. Acts xxviii. 
8 f. 

Vv. 19, 20. The Lord Jesus therefore (see the critical remarks). oi an- 
nexes what now emerged as the final result of that last meeting of Jesus 
with the eleven, and that as well in reference to the Lord (ver. 19) as in ref- 
erence also to the disciples (ver. 20) ; hence pév . . . dé. Accordingly, the 
transition by means of uéy ov is not incongruous (Fritzsche), but logically 
correct. But the expression pév obv, as well as 6 Ki:piog Inoove, is entirely forcign 
to Mark, frequently as he had occasion to use both, and therefore is one of 
the marks of another author. — pera 7d AaAgoat avtoig] cannot be referred 
without harmonistic violence to anything else than the discourses just uttered, 
vv. 14-18 (Theophylact well says: ravra dé Aadfoac, ‘‘ and having spoken these 
things”), not to the collective discourses of the forty days (Augustine, Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Bengel, Kuinoel, Lange, and others); and with this 
in substance agrees Ebrard, p. 597, who, like Grotius and others, finds in 
vv. 15-18 the account of all that Jesus had said in His several appcar- 
ances after His resurrection. The forty days are quite irreconcilable with 
the narrative before us gencrally, as well as with Luke xxiv. 44. But if 
Jesus, after having discoursed to the disciples, vv. 14-18, was taken up into 


1 Except in Abdias, hist. apost. v. 20, and 
the Acta Joh. in Tischendorf, p. 266 ff., not 
mentioned till Augustine. 

4 Lange knows how to rationalize this 
oyuecov also. In his view, there is symbol- 
ically expressed ‘‘ the subjective restoration 
of life to invulnerability... Christ 1s held 
to declare that the pofson-cup would not 
harm His people, primarily in the symbol- 
ical sense, just as it did not harm Socrates 
in his soul; but also in the typical sense: 
that the life of believers would be ever 
more and more strengthened to the over- 
coming of all hurtful influences, and would 


in many cases, even in the literal sense, 
miraculously overcome them. This is to 
put into, and take out of the passage, ex- 
actly what pleases subjectivity. 

3 On @avdotnov, which only occurs here in 
the N. T., equivalent to 0avarndopor (Jas. ill. 
8), see Wetstein, and Stallbaum, ad Fiat. 
Rep. p. 610 C. 

{Not the believers who heal (Lange: 
“they on their part shall enjoy perfect 
health”). This perverted meaning would 
need at least to have been suggested by the 
use of xai avrot (and they on their part). 


CHAP. XVI., 20. 207 


heaven (aveAfgOy, see Acts x. 16, i. 2, xi. 22; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Lukeix. 51), 
it is not withal to be gathered from this cery compendious account, that the 
writer makes Jesus pass from the room where they were at meat to heaven 
(Strauss, B. Bauer), any more than'from éxeivo: d2 éZeAPdvrec it is to be held 
that the apostles immediately after the ascension departed into all the world. 
The.representation of vv. 19, 20 is so evidently limited only to the outlines of 
the subsequent history, that between the pera rd AaAjoae aitoic and the aveAy- 
907 there is at least, as may be understood of itself, sufficient space for o 
going forth of Jesus with the disciples (comp. Luke xxiv. 50), even although 
the forty days do not belong to the evangelical tradition, but first appear in 
the Acts of the Apostles. [See Note CIX., p. 209.] How the writer con- 
ceived of the ascension, whether as visible or invisible, his words do not 
show, and it must remain quite a question undetermined. —xal éxddicev éx 
Sefiav t. Ocov] reported, it is true, not as an object of sense-perception (in 
opposition to Schulthess), but as a consequence, that had set in, of the aveAggé@r ; 
not, however, to be explained away as a merely symbolical expression (so, 
forexample, Euthymius Zigabenus : 7d uéy xadioas dyAci avdravow kal anéAav- 
ow tho Seiac BaotAgiag’ To dé Ex deEtav tov Oeod otnelworv Kai dpotimiay mpdg Tov 
warépa, ‘The sitting down indicates the rest and pleasure of the divine 
kingdom ; but the ‘at the right hand of God’ the appropriative and equal 
honor with the Father.” Kuinoel : ‘‘cum Deo regnat et summa felicitate 
perfruitur,” ‘‘ He reigns with God and enjoys the highest happiness”), but 
to be left as a local fact, as actual occupation of a seat on the divine throne 
(comp. on Matt. vi. 9; sce on Eph. i. 20), from which hereafter He will 
‘descend to judgment. Comp. Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 209 ff. — As 
to the ascension generally, see on Luke xxiv. 51. 

Ver. 20. With the ascension the evangelic history was at itsend. The 
writer was only now concerned to add a conclusion in keeping with the com- 
mission given by Jesus in ver. 15. He does this by means of a brief sum- 
mary of the apostolic ministry, by which the injunction of Jesus, ver. 15, had 
been fulfilled, whereas all unfolding of its special details lay beyond the 
limits of the ecangelic, and belonged to the region of the apostolic, history ; 
hence even the effusion of the Spirit is not narrated here. — éxetvor] the évdexa, 
ver. 14. — dé] prepared for by wév, ver. 19. — i£eA0dvrec] namely, forth from 
the place, in which at the time of the ascension they sojourned. Comp. 
ropevdéivrec, ver. 15 ; Jerusalem is meant. — ravrayov] By way of popular 
hyperbole ; hence not to be used as a proof in favor of the composition not 
having taken place till after the death of the apostles (in opposition to 
Fritzsche), comp. Rom. x. 18; Col. i. 6. — rod xupiov] nor God (Grotius, and 
also Fritzsche, comparing 1 Cor. iii. 9 ; Heb. ii. 4), but Christ, as in ver. 
19. The oyyecia are wrought by the exalted One. Comp. Matt. xxviii. 20. 
That the writer has made use of Heb. ii. 8, 4 (Schulthess, Fritzsche), 1s, con- 
sidcring the prevalence of the thought and the dissimilarity of the words, 
arbitrarily assumed. — 6: rév éxaxodovd. onpetor] by the signs that followed 
(the Adyoc). The article denotes the signs spoken of, which are promised at 
vv. 17, 18, and indeed promised as accompanying those tho had become be- 
lievers ; hence it is erroneous to think, as the expositors do, of the miracles 


208 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


performed by the apostles. The confirmation of the apostolic preaching was 
found in the fact that in the case of those who had become believers by means of 
that preaching the onueia promised at vv. 17, 18 occurred.— éxaxoAovd. is for- 
eign to all the Gospels; it occurs elsewhere in the N. T. in 1 Tim. v. 10, 24 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 21 ; in classical Greek it is very frequently used. 


Remanx.—The fragment before us, vv. 9-18, compared with the parallel pas- 
sages of the other Gospels and with Acts i. 3, presents a remarkable proof how 
uncertain and varied was the tradition on the subject of the appearances of the 
Risen Lord (see on Matt. xxviii. 10). Similarly ver. 19, comp. with Luke xxiv. 
50 f., Acts i. 9 ff., shows us in what an uncertain and varied manner tradition 
had possessed itself of the fact of the ascension, indubitable as in itself it is, 
and based on the unanimous teaching of the apostles. [See Note CX., p. 209 
8eq. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 


CI. Ver. 1. dtayevouévov tov caGBarov. 


There can be no doubt as to the meaning here ; but it does not follow that 
Luke xxiii. 56 contradicts this ; see Note there. Comp. also the divisions and 
punctuation of R. V. in Luke xxiii. 56 ; xxiv. 1. It may be said here, however, 
that the two accounts can be reconciled without distorting that of Luke. 


CII. Ver. 5. The angelic appearances. 


For a brief statement of one among the many theories which aim at arrang- 
ing the details of the events, as recorded by all the Evangelists, see Int. Rev. 
Comm, Mark, pp. 233, 234. The differing members are explained by supposing 
that there were two parties of women, etc. 


CUI. Ver. 8. wat otdev? x.7.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. rightly concludes, that when the reason for their silence 
(namely, their fear) was removed by subsequent events, they fulfilled the 
commission of the angel.: We learn from Matthew (xxviii. 8-10) what further 
happened to them. 


CIV. Vv. 12, 13. 


Weiss ed. Mey. seems to connect these verses more closely with Luke. But 
all is conjecture. For aught we know to the contrary, the conclusion is as 
old as the Gospel according to Luke, and it is safe to assign to it as early a date 
as Meyer allows to Luke (A.D. 70-80). 


CV. Vv. 14-18. 


It is by no means clear that these verses confuse ‘‘very different elements 
with one another.’’ They seem to combine the last appearance on the day of 
the Resurrection with the final discourse before the Ascension. Still the lan- 
guage of vv. 15-18 may have been uttered in Galilee, as Meyer thinks ; comp. 
Matt, xxviii. 16. 


NOTES. 209 


CVI. Ver. 16. Sarriofeic. 


The discussion in regard to both the mode and the subjects of baptism may 
receive some new elements from the recently published ‘‘Teaching of the 
Apostles.’ It would obviously be improper to enlarge upon the subject here. 
But it may be remarked that, if these verses in Mark are not genuine, the 
‘Teaching of the Apostles’’ is to be regarded as having quite as much 
authority. 


CVU. Ver. 17. yAdocare AaAyoovow xavaic. 


The oldest manuscripts which contain the passage omit xa:vaic. It thus ap- 
pears that the word on which Meyer relies to prove the sub-apostolic origin of 
the passage has no uncial authority older than the 9th century. His intima- 
tions as to the legendary character of this and Luke’s account of the Pentecostal 
miracle must therefore be taken with great allowance. Here, at least, his 
whole argument rests on a reading which Treg., W. and Hort and others either 
bracket or reject. The R. V. omits in margin. 


CVIII. Ver. 18. 


It must be confessed that the strongest internal evidence against the genu- 
ineness of this passage is derived from the peculiar promises of this verse. In 
any case, we must take the words in their natural meaning, as explained by 
Meyer, and admit that there are no authentic instances in apostolic times of 
the fulfilment of the second promise. 


CIX. Ver. 19. 


The length of time between the Resurrection and Ascension is left indefinite 
in the Gospels. But there is no good reason for making a difference between 
these narratives and that of Luke in Actsi. 3. On the question as it affects 
Luke xxiv., see Notes on that chapter; comp. also Meyer, Acts, p. 37, Am. edi- 
tion. 


CX. Concluding Remark on vv. 9-20. 


From the character of this doubtful passage, conclusions may be drawn 
quite different from those indicated by Meyer. (1) If it is not genuine, its gen- 
eral agreement with the Gospel accounts shows how litile tradition modified the 
narrative of the main facts. (2) If the variations are pushed to extreme lim- 
its, and the fragment placed in the sub-apostolic age, the phenonema it pre- 
sents do not justify the assumptions of modifications, etc., which Meyer and 
others so freely make in regard to the genuine Gospel narratives. If that date 
be accepted, the interval between it and the Gospels must be, on any consis- 
tent theory, as great as that between the Gospels and the events they record. 
We have, on this view, a measure of traditional variations during a generation. 
The variations during the apostolic age could not have been so great as those 
during the sub-apostolic age, and this fragment shows how slight they were 
even during that age. Yet historico-literary criticism frequently attributes to 
the Synoptists deviations from each other or from an original document, far ex- 
ceeding in extent any that can be proven to exist between this fragment and 
the Gospels, which are declared to be much earlier. (3) If itis genuine, the 


14 


210 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 


same variations tend to establish, not only the originality of Mark, but the in 
dependence of the three Synoptists. The very naivelé of the alleged divergences 
would, in any other case, be regarded by literary critics as a mark of truth- 
fulness and of originality. Most clearly does this argument from internal 
evidence hold in the case of the Gospel of Mark, and despite the verbal pecu- 
liarities in vv. 9, 20, there are not wanting indications of Mark’s manner and 
tone in every verse of the disputed passage. 


TOPICAL 


A. 

Abiathar, the high priest, 34 seq., 37. 

Activity, Moral, 56 seq. 

Advent, The second, of Christ, 161 
seq., 167 seq. 

Alexandria, The church at, 2. 

Ambition, Impure, warned against, 
156 seq. 

Anointing of Christ at Bethany, 174 
seq., 183. 

Apostles, The twelve, ordained, 42 ; 
sent out, 74s8eq. ; return and report, 
78 seq.; receive their final com- 
mission, 203 seq. ; their miraculous 
powers, 204 seq.; fulfilling their 
mission, 207 seq. 

Ascension of Christ, 206 seq. 


B. 


Baptism of John, The, 16 seq.; of 
Christ, its necessity, 204, 209. 

Benevolence, True, 157 seq. 

Bethsaida, 80, 83. 

Bethany, 141, 146. 

Bethphage, 141, 146. 

Boanerges, The, 42 seq. 


C. 


Ceremonial washings, 88 seq. 

Christ, Jesus, His Divine sonship, 15, 
25 ; baptized of John, 17 ; tempted 
in the wilderness, 17 seq., 26; 
preaching in Galilee, 18 seq.: 
chooses disciples, 19 seq.; teaching 
in the synagogue, 20 ; expelling the 
unclean spirit, 21, 26 ; healing the 
leper, 24 ; cures one sick of the pal- 
sy, 29 seq.; His Messianic con- 
sciousness, 30; eating with publi- 
cans and sinners, 31 ; His views of 
the Sabbath, 33 seq., 36 seq. ; heals 
the withered hand on the Sabbath, 
39 seq., 47; pressed by the crowd, 
41; ordains the twelve apostles, 42 ; 
accused of being frantic and pos- 
sessed, 44 seq., 47 seq. ; the kingdom 
divided, 46 seq. ; His sisters, 47, 
48 ; teaches in parubles, 51 seq. ; 


INDEX. 


stilling the tempest, 58 seq.; among 
the Gadarenes, 63 seq. ; healing the 
woman with a bloody issue, 65 seq., 
68; raising Jairus’ daughter, 66 
seq., 69; teaching on the Sabbath, 
72 seq.; sending out the twelve 
apostles, 74 seq. ; feeding the 5000, 
79 seq. ; walking on the sea, 81 seq. ; 
heals the Syro-Phonician woman's 
daughter, 91 seq. ; cures the deaf- 
mute, 92 seq. ; feeding the 4000, 98 
seq.; tempted by the Pharisees, 
99; restores the sight of a blind 
man, 101 seq.; confessed by His 
disciples, 103 seq. ; is transfigured, 
109 seq. ; casts out a deaf and dumb 
spirit, 113 seq. ; exhorteth to hu- 
mility, 117 seq. ; instructs concern- 
ing divorce, 128 seq. ; blesses the 
children, 130 seq. ; and the young 
ruler, 131 seq., 137; heals blind 
Bartimeus, 136, 138; His entrance 
into Jerusalem, 141 seq. ; curses the 
fig-tree, 142 seq., 147; oxhorts 
to faith and forgiveness, 145 seq. ; 
defends His authority, 146 ; speaks 
in parables, 151 seq. ; instructs as 
to tribute, 153 ; as to the resurrec- 
tion, 154: Hia interview with the 
scribe, 154seq.; His Divine lineage, 
156 seq., 159 ; foretells the destruc- 
tion of the temple, 161 seq., 167 ; 
His second advent, 161 seq., 167; 
His omniscience, 165 seq.; at 
Bethany, 174 seq.; prepares for 
the Passover, 175 seq., 184 ; eats the 
same with His disciples, 176; in- 
stitutes the Lord’s Supper, 176 seq.; 
in Gethsemane, 177 seq. ; betrayed 
by Judas, 179; before the High 
Priest, 179 seq., 184 seq.; is falsely 
accused, 180; confesses His Messiah- 
ship, 181 ; is denied by Peter, 182 ; 
is led before Pilate, 188 seq. ; is 
mocked and scourged, 189° seq. ; is 
crucified, 190 seq. ; reviled on the 
cross, 191; His death, 192 seq.; 
His burial, 193 seq.; His resurrec- 
tion, 199 seq , 208; appearing to 


212 


the women and the disciples, 202 
seq.; commissions the apostles, 203 
seq.; His ascension, 206 seq. 


D. 


Defilement, Ceremonial and real, 89 
seq. 

Demons, 21 ; of Gadara, 63 seq. 

Disciples, The, their weakness of faith, 
59 ; warned against the Pharisees, 
99 seq. ; their lack of discernment, 
100. 


Divorce and marriage, 129 seq. 


FE. 


Economy, Divine, 80, 98 seq. 
Elijah, his advent, 112 seq. 


F. 


Faith, importunate, illustrated, 91 
seq.; the efficacy of, 116, 136, 138 ; 
exhortation to, 145. 

Fasting, 32. 

Fig-tree cursed, The, 142 seq., 147. 

Forgiveness, Exhortation to, 145 seq. 


G, 


Gethsemane, 177 seq. 
God, His goodness, 132. 
Golgotha, 19. 

Growth, Spiritual, 56 seq. 


H. 


Heart, The, the seat of life, 90. 

Heedfulness enjoined, 55. 

Herod and Christ, 75 seq.; his char- 
acter, 100. 

Herodians, The, 40. 

Holy Ghost, The, blasphemy against, 
46 seq. 

House, Structure of a Jewish, 29 seq. 

Humility, Teaching of, 117 seq., 130, 
136. 

Hypocrisy, Warned against, 156 seq. 


I. 
Isaiah quoted, 15 seq., 25. 


J. 


Jerusalem, Christ's entrance into, 141 


seq. 
John the Baptist, 16, 25 seq. ; baptizes 
Christ, 17; his disciples, 32; his 
imprisonment and death, 77 seq. 
Joseph, the husband of Mary, 73. 
Joseph of Arimathea, 193. 
Judgment, The final, 164 seq., 168. 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


K. 


Kingdom, The Messianic, its myste- 
ries, 54 seq.;, and the rich, 133; 
membership of, 155. 


L. 


Lord’s Supper, The, instituted, 176 
seq. 
M. 


Mark, the Evangelist, his life, 1 seq.; 
his relation to Peter, 2; his death, 
2 ; writes a Gospel, 2 seq. 

Mark, the Gospel of, its origin, 2 seq., 
10 seq.; its Petrine tendency, 5 seq.; 
its purpose, 6 seq.; its time, 7 ; its 
place of composition, 7 seq. ; its 
language, 8 ; its originality, 8 seq. ; 
its integrity, 9; its superscription, 
13 seq.; authorship of its closing 
section (xvi. 9-20), 196 seq., 209 
seq. 

Marriage and divorce, 129 seq. 

Martyrdom, 135 seq. 

Mary, the mother of Joses, 194. 

Matthew called as an apostle, 31. 

Miracles of Christ : expelling the un- 
clean spirit, 21, 26; curing Peter's 
wife’s mother, 22; healing the 
leper, 24; curing the one sick with 
palsy, 29 seq.; healing the withered 
hand, 39 seq.; stilling the tempest, 
58 seq.; expelling the demons of 
Gadara, 63 seq.; healing the woman 
with a bloody issue, 65 seq., 68 ; 
raising Jairus’ daughter from the 
dead, 66 seq., 69.; feeding the 5000, 
79 seq.; walking on the sea, 81; 
healing the Syro-Phcenician wom- 
an’s daughter, 91 seq.; curing a 
deaf-mute, 92 weq.; feeding the 
4000, 98 seq. ; restoring the sight of 
a blind man, 101 seq.; casting out 
a deaf and dumb spirit, 113 seq. ; 
the healing of blind Bartimenus, 
136, 1388 ; the fig-tree cursed, 142 
seq., 147. 

Morality, foundations of, 154 seq. 


N. 
Nemesis, Divine, The, 53. 


O. 
Oil, Anointing with, 75. 
Omniscience of Christ, The, 165 seq. 
P. 


Papias on the Gospel of Mark, 3 seq. 
Parables of Christ, The: the physi- 
cian, 32 ; the children of the bride- 


TOPICAL 


chamber, 32; the new patch, 
32 seq.; the new wine, 33; the 
kingdom divided, 46 seq.; the 
strong man, 46 ; the sower, 51 seq. ; 
the seed growing secretly, 55 seq., 
60 ; the mustard-seed, 57 seq. ; the 
wicked husbandman, 151 seq. ; the 
tig-tree, 165 ; the absent house-hold- 
er, 166 seq. 

Parousia of Christ, The, 161 seq., 167. 

Passover eaten by Christ, 176, 184. 

Persecution for the Gospel's sake, 
163. 

Peter, his relation to Mark, 2; to 
Mark's Gospel, 3 seq.; chosen by 
Christ, 19 seq. ; confessing Christ, 
102 seq. ; rebuked by Christ, 103 ; 
his denial of Christ, 182 seq. 

Pharisees, The, their ceremonial wash- 
ings, 88 seq. ; tempting Christ, 99. 

Pilate and Christ, 188 seq. 

Punishment, Eternal, 120. 


R. 


Rank, dispnte about, 117 seq. ; the 
correct principle about, 136. 

Resurrection, The, 154; of Christ, 
199 seq., 208. 

Rewards of the kingdom, 134. 

Rich, The, and the Gospel, 133. 


INDEX. 213 


Ruler, The young, and Christ, 131 
seq. 


8. 


Sabbath, The, healing on, 21 seq., 39 
seq. ; observance of, 33 seq. 

Salt and sacrifice, 120 seq., 125. 

Sanhedrim, The, 188. 

Self-sacrifice, 104, 122 seq. 

Simon of Cyrene, 189 seq. 

Sinlessness of Christ, The, 131 seq. 

Sisters of Christ, The, 47, 48. 

Syro-Phoenician woman, The, 91 seq. 


T. 


Temple, The, desecrated, 144; its 
destruction, 161 seq., 167. 

Toleration, Christian, 118 seq., 125. 

Transfiguration of Christ, The, 109 


seq. 
Tribute to Caesar, 153. 
W. 


Watchfulness enjoined, 166 seq. 
Wealth, its influence, 133. 
Wisdom, 123 seq. 

Women at the cross, The, 192. 


Y. 
Youth, The unknown, 179, 184. 





THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 


INTRODUCTION. 
§1.—ON THE LIFE OF LUKE. 


Epistles contain as to the circumstances of Luke’s life,—and 
to this Irenaeus also, with whom begins the testimony of the 
church concerning Luke as the author of the Gospel, still con- 
fines himself, Haer. iii. 14. 1,—nothing is historically certain 
concerning him. According to Eusebius, H. ZF. iii. 4, Jerome, Theo- 
phylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others, he was a native of Antioch,—a 
statement, which has not failed down to the most recent times to find 
acceptance (Hug, Guericke, Thiersch), but is destitute of all proof, and 
probably originated from a confusion of the name with Lucius, Acts xiii. 1. 
Luke is not to be identified either with this latter or with the Lucius that 
occurs in Rom. xvi. 21 (in opposition to Origen, Tiele, and others) ; for 
the name Lukas may be abbreviated from Luwcanus (some codd. of the 
Itala have ‘‘secundum Lucanum” in the superscription and in subscrip- 
tions), or from JLucilius (see Grotius, and Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 185), but 
not from Lucius. Moreover, in the Constit?. ap. vi. 18. 5, Luke is ex- 
pressly distinguished from Lucius. Whether he was a Jew by birth ora 
Gentile, is decided by Col. iv. 11, 14, where Luke is distinguished from 
thdse whom Paul calls of dure éx weperouge.* But it must be left an open 
question whether he was before his conversion a Jewish proselyte (Isidorus 
Hispalensis) ; the probability of which it is at least very unsafe to deduce 





1 How freely the Greeks dealt in different 
forms of the same name, may be seen gen- 
erally in Lobeck, Patholog. p. 504 ff. — The 
notion of Lange (L. J. p. 158, 168), that Luke 
is the person named Arisfion in the frag- 
ment of Papias, quoted by Eusebius, ili. 30 
(apcoreveacy = lucere /), is a preposterous fan- 
cy. Comp. Lekebusch, Composit. d. Apose- 
telgesch. p. 890. 

2 This passage tells against everything 
with which Tiele in the Stud. u. Krii. 1858, 
p. 753 ff. has attempted to make good that 
Luke was a Jew by birth. His reasons are 
based especially on the Hebraisms occur- 


ring in Luke, but lose their {mportance 
partly in view of the like character which, it 
isto be assumed, marked the writings made 
use of as sources, partly in view of the Jew- 
ish-Greek nature of the evangelic language 
current in the church, to which Luke had 
become habituated. The passage in the 
Colossians, moreover, has its meaning 
wrongly turned by Tiele, as is also done by 
Hofmann, Schrifidew. II. 2, p. 99, who starts 
from the postulate, which is utterly inca- 
pable of proof, that ai the N. T. writings 
are of Israelitish origin. See on Col. lv. 
11, 14. 


218 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


from his accurate acquaintance with Jewish relations.’ As to his civil call- 
ing he was a physician (Col. iv. 14) ; and the very late account (Nicephorus, 
H. E. ii. 43) that he had been at the same time a painter, is an unhistorical 
legend. When and how he became a Christian is unknown. Tradition, 
although only from the time of Epiphanius,* places him among the Seventy 
disciples,* whereas Luke i. 1 f. furnishes his own testimony that he was not 
an eye-witness. Comp. Estius, Annot. p. 902 f. The origin of this legend 
is explained from the fact that only Luke has the account about the Seventy 
(in opposition to Hug, who finds in this circumstance a confirmation of that 
statement). He was a highly esteemed assistant of Paul and companion to 
him, from the time when he joined the apostle on his second missionary 
journey at Troas, where he, perhaps, had dwelt till then (Acts xvi. 10). 
We find him thereafter with the apostle in Macedonia (Acts xvi. 11 ff.), as 
well as on the third missionary journey at Troas, Miletus, etc. (Acts xx. 
5-xxi. 18). Inthe imprisonment at Caesarea he was also with him (Acts 
XXiv. 23; Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24), and then accompanied him to Rome, 
Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16 (comp. also 2 Tim. iv. 11). At this point the his- 
torical information concerning him ceases ; beyond, there is only uncertain 
and diversified tradition (see Credner, I. p. 126 f.), which, since the time 
of Gregory of Nazianzus, makes him even a martyr (Martyrol. Rom.: 18 
Oct.), yet not unanimously, since accounts of a natural death also slip in. 
Where he diced, remains a question ; certainly not in Rome with Paul, as 
Holtzmann conjectures, for his writings are far later. His bones are said 
by Jerome to have been brought from Achaia to Constantinople in the reign 
of Constantius. 


§ 2.—ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL. 


On the origin of his Gospel—which falls to be divided into three principal 
portions, of which the middle one begins with the departure for Jerusalem, 
ix. 51, and extends to xviii. 830—Luke himself, i. 1-4, gives authentic infor- 
mation. According to his own statement, he composed his historical work 
(the continuation of which is the Acts of, the Apostles) on the basis of the 
tradition of eye-witnesses, and having regard to the written evangelic compo- 
sitions which already existed in great numbers, with critical investigation on 
his own part, aiming at completeness and correct arrangement. Those 
earlier compositions, too, had been drawn from apostolic tradition, but did 
not suffice for his special object ; for which reason, however, to think mere- 
ly of Jewish-Christian writings and their relation to Paulinism is unwar- 
ranted. One of his principal documentary sources was—although this has 
been called in question for very insufficient reasons (Weizsicker, p. 17 ; see 


1In opposition to Kuinoel, Riehm, de tus, and others. 
Sontibus Act. Ap. p. 17 f., Guericke, Bleek. 3 According to some mentioned by 
2 HTaer. ll. 12; also the pseudo-Origenes, Theophylact, he is alleged to have been 
de recia in Deum fide, in Orig. Opp. ed. de oneof the two disciples going to Emmaus, 
la Rue, I. p. 806; Hippolytus, Theophylact, which Lange, LZ. J. I. p. %2, considers prob- 
Euthymius Zigabenus, Nicephorus Callis- able. See on xxiv. 18. 


INTRODUCTION. 219 
on vi. 14 f.)—the Gospel of Mark. [See Note I., p. 225 seq.] Assuming this, 
asin view of the priority of Mark among the three Synoptics it must of neces- 
sity be assumed, it may be matter of doubt whether Matthew also in his 
present form was made use of by him (according to Baur and others, even 
as principal source) or not (Ewald, Reuss, Weiss, Holtzmann, Plitt, Schen- 
kel, Weizsicker, and others). At any rate he has worked up the apostle’s 
collection of Logia in part, not seldom, in fact, more completely and with 
more critical sifting withal than our Matthew in his treatise. As, however, 
this collection of Logia was already worked up into the Gospel of Matthew ; 
and as the Gospel invested with this authority, it isa priori to be presumed, 
could hardly remain unknown and unheeded by Luke in his researches, but, 
on the contrary, his having regard to it in those passages, where Luke 
agrees with Matthew in opposition to Mark, presents itself without arbitra- 
riness as the simplest hypothesis ;' our first Gospel also is doubtless to be 
reckoned among the sources of Luke, but yet with the limitation, that for 
him Mark, who represented more the primitive Gospel and was less Judaiz- 
ing, was of far greater importance, and that generally in his relation to 
Matthew he went to work with a critical independence,* which presupposes 
that he did not measure the share of the apostle in the first Gospel accord- 
ing to the later view (comp. Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 411), but on the contrary 
had no hesitation® in preferring other sources (as in the preliminary his- 


tory). 


1 If a use of our Matthew by Luke {s quite 
rejected, recourse must be had to the hy- 
pothesis (see especially, Weiss in the Jahrb. 
J. Deutsch. Theol. 1865, p. 319 ff.) that the 
apostolic collection of Logia already con- 
tained very much Aistorical matter, and 
thereby already presented the type of the 
later Gospels. Butin this way we again en- 
counter the unknown quantity of a written 
primitive Gospel, while we come into col- 
lision with the testimony of Papias. And 
yet this primitive collection of historical 
matter in connection with the Aoyta is held 
to have excluded not only the history of 
the birth and childhood, but also the his- 
tory of the Passion from Matt. xxvi. 6-12 
onward ; which latter exclusion, if once we 
impute to the Acoyia an historical framework 
and woof in the measure thought of, is 
hardly conceivable in view of the impor- 
tance of the history of the Passion and Res- 
urrection. I am afraid that by following 
Weiss, instead of the oevyypad), trav Aoyiwr, 
which Papias claims for Matthew, we get 
already an historical ¢£7yno1s—even if only 
dealing aggregately—oddly breaking off, 
moreover, with the history of the Passion ; 
instead of the unknown primitive-Mark, 
an unknown primitive-Matthew. [See Note 
J., p. 225 seq. ] 

2 As decisive against the supposition that 


And other sources were available for him, partly oral in the apostolic 


Luke knew our Matthew, Ii. 89 ts cited (see 
especially Weiss and Holtzmann), and the 
genealogy of Jesus, so far as it goes by 
way of Nathan,—i!. 89 being held to show 
that the preliminary history of Matthew 
did not lie within the horizon of Luke. 
Certainly it did not He within it; for he has 
critically eiminated it, and given another, 
which lay in his horizon. And the fact 
that he gave a genealogical tahle not ac- 
cording to the royal line of descent, in 
which, nevertheless, Christ remained just 
as well the Son of David, is likewise entire- 
ly accordant with the crif/ical task of the 
later work; for genealogies according to 
the royal line were certainly the most 
ancient. Only people should be in earnest 
in attributing to him the critical procedure, 
which he himseif, {. 3, affirms of his work, 
also in relation to the Gospel of Matthew. 
Schenkel in particular (p. 845) lightly pro- 
nounces judgment over the criticism of the 
third Gospel. 

? We may dispense with the hypothesis, 
improbable even in itself, that Luke made 
use of Matthew according to an older and 
shorter redaction (de Wette and others), 
which is alleged to derive support especial- 
ly from the gap between Ix. 17 and 18 com- 
pared with Matt. xiv. 22-xvi. 12. 


220 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


tradition which he sought completely to investigate, partly written in the 
Gospel literature which had already become copious. Such written sources 
may in general be sufficiently recognized ; they are most readily discernible 
in the preliminary history and in the account of the journeying (see on ix. 
51), but not always certainly definable as respects their compass and in 
their original form, least of all in so far as to assume them to be only Jewish- 
Christian, especially from the south of Palestine (Késtlin, comp. Holtz- 
mann, p. 166). The arrangement which places Mark only after Luke in- 
volves us, when we inquire after the sources of the latter, in the greatest 
difficulty and arbitrariness, since Luke cannot possibly be merely a free 
elaboration of Matthew (Baur), and even the taking in of tradition and of 
written sources without Mark (de Wette, Kahnis, Bleek, and others) is in 
no wise sufficient. The placing of Mark as intermediate between Matthew 
and Luke, steadfastly contended for by Hilgenfeld in particular, would, if it 
were in other respects allowable, not raise up such invincible difficulties for 
our question, and at least would not require the hypothesis of Hilgenfeld, 
that our Matthew is a freer revision of the strictly Jewish-Christian writing 
which formed its basis, or even (see the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1864, 
p. 333) a tertiary formation, any more than it would need the insertion of 
a Petrine gospel between Matthew and Mark (Hilgenfeld, Késtlin). 

To carry back our Gospel in respect of its origin to apostolic authority was 
a matter of importance to the ancient church in the interest of the canon ; 
and the connection of Luke with Paul very naturally offered itself. Hence 
even Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1, quoted by Eusebius, v. 8, states : Aovxdac dé 6 
axdAgudog TlatAov rd in’ éxeivou xypvocduevov evayyédov év BiBrip xatéVero, ‘‘ But 
Luke the follower of Paul put down in a book the Gospel preached by 
him” (comp. iii. 14 1 f.) ; and already Origen, Eusebius, and Jcrome find 
our Gospel of Luke designated in the expression of Paul 1é evayyéAcéy pov. 
See the further testimonies in Credner, I. p. 146 ff. As regards this eccle- 
siastical tradition, there is to be conceded a general and indirect influence 
of the apostle, not merely in reference to doctrine, inasmuch as in Luke 
the stamp of Pauline Christianity is unmistakably apparent, but also in 
part as respects the historical matter,’ since certainly Paul must, in accord- 
ance with his interest, his calling, and his associations, be supposed to 
have had, at least in the leading points, a more precise knowledge of the 
circumstances of the life of Jesus, His doctrine, and deeds. Comp. 1 Cor. 
xi, 28 ff., xv. 1 ff. But the generality and indirectness of such an influence 
explain the fact, that in his preface Luke himself does not include any 
appeal to this relation ; the proper sources from which he drew (and he 
wrote, in fact, long after [see Note II., p. 226] the apostle’s death) were 
different. As a Pauline Gospel, ours was the one of which Marcion laid 
hold.: How he mutilated and altered it, is evident from the numerous frag- 
ments in Tertullian, Epiphanius, Jerume, the pseudo-Origen, and others. 


3In reference to this, Thiersch, X. im for Luke written records in accordance 
apost. Zeitalt. p. 158, 177, 1s bold enough ar- with 2 Tim. fv. 13. 
bitrarily to assume that Paul had procured 


INTRODUCTION. 221 

Remark 1.— The view, acutely elaborated by Schleiermacher, that the 
whole Gospel is a stringing together of written documents (Krit. Versuch tiber d. 
Schriften d. Luk. I. Berl. 1837), is refuted at once by i. 3, and by the peculiar 
literary character of Luke, which is observable throughout. See H. Planck, 
Obss. de Lucae evang. analysi critica a Schleierm. propos., Gédtt. 1819 ; Roediger, 
Symbolae ad N. T. evangelia potiss. pertin., Hal. 1827. And this literary peculi- 
arity is the same which is also prominent throughout the Acts of the Apostles. 
See, besides the proofs advanced by Crednerand others, especially Lekebusch, 
Composit. d. Apostelgesch. p. 37 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 414 ff. 

Remark 2. — The investigation recently pursued, after the earlier precedents 
of Semler, Léffler, and others, especially by Ritschl (formerly), Baur, and 
Schwegler,' in opposition to Hahn (d. Evang. Murcions in s. urspr. Gestalt., 
Kénigsb. 1823), to prove that the Gospel of Marcion was the primitive-Luke, has 
reverted —and that indeed partially by means of these critics themselves, fol- 
lowing the example of Hilgenfeld, krit. Unters. 1850, p. 389 ff.—more and more 
to the view that has commonly prevailed since Tertullian’s time, that Marcion 
abbreviated and altered Luke. Most thoroughly has this been the case with 

folkmar (theol. Jahrb. 1850, p. 110 ff., and in his treatise, das Evangel. Marcions, 

u. Revis. d. neueren Unters., Leip. 1852), with whom Késtlin, Urspr. u. Composit. 
d. synopt. Ev. 1853, p. 302 ff., essentially agrees. Comp. Hilgenfeld in the 
theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 192 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 11 ff. The opinion that the 
Gospel of Marcion was the pre-canonical form of the present Luke, may be 
looked upon as set aside ; and the attacks and wheelings about of the Tiibingen 
criticism have rendered in that respect an essential service. See Franck in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 296 ff.; and on the history of the whole discussion, 
Bleek, Hinl. p. 126 ff. For the Gospel of Marcion itself, —which has been ex 
auctoritate veler. monum. descr. hy Hahn,—see Thilo, Cod. Apocr. L p. 401 ff. 


§ 3.—OCCASION AND OBJECT, TIME AND PLACE OF COMPO- 
SITION. 


The historical work consisting of two divisions (Gospel and Acts of the 
Apostles), which Luke himself characterizes as a critico-systematic (ver. 3) 
presentation of the facts of Christianity (ver. 1), was occasioned by the rela- 
tion, not more precisely known to us, in which the author stood to a certain 
Theophilus, for whom he made it his aim to bring about by this presentation 


1 Ritschl, @&. Kvang. Marctons u. d. kanon. 
Hn, a. Luk., ¢. krit. Unters., Titb. 1846 ; Baur, 
krit. Unters. tb. d. kanon. Ecangelien, Tilb. 
1847, p. 393 ff.; Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. 
I. p. 261 ff. See, on the other hand, Har- 
ting: quaestionem de Marctone Lucani 
evang. adulleratore, etc., novo examini sub- 
mistt, Utrecht, 1849.—Ritschl has subse- 
quently, in the ¢theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 528 f., 
confessed: ‘‘The hypothesis propounded 
by me, that Marcion did not alter the 
Gospel of Luke, but that his Gospel is a 
step towards the canonical Luke, I re- 
gard as refuted by Volkmar and Hilgen- 
feld. Any one who considers the onesided 


exaggeration with which Hahn has defend- 
ed the customary view, will know how to 
excuse my being led by him to an opposite 
onesidedness.”"* According to Baur, Mark-. 
usevangel. 1851, p. 191 ff., Marcion had before 
him at least an older text of Luke, in many 
respects different from the canonical one. 
Certainly the text of Luke which was be- 
fore Marcion may have had individual 
readings more original than our witnesses 
exhibit; and itis In general, 0 far as we 
can distinguish it, to be regarded as tanta- 
mount toa very ancient manuscript. But 
still Volkmar and Hilgenfeld often overes- 
timate its readings. 








THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


of the history a knowledge of the trustworthiness of the Christian instruc- 
tion that he had received. See vv.1-4. Unhappily, as to this Theophilus, 
who, however, assuredly is no merely fictitious personage (Epiphanius, 
Heumann, and the Saxon Anonymus), nothing is known to us with cer- 
tainty ; for all the various statements as to his rank, native country, etc. (see 
Credner, Hinl. I. p. 144 f.), are destitute of proof, not excepting even the 
supposition which is found as early as Eutychius (Annal. Aler., ed. Selden 
et Pocock, I. p. 334), that he was an Italian, or, more precisely, a Roman' 
(Hug, Eichhorn, and many others, including Ewald and Holtzmann). It 
is, although likewise not certain, according to Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 8, xxvi. 
25, probable, that the address xpdriore points to a man of rank (comp. Otto 
in Hp. ad Diogn., ed. 2, p. 53 f.); and from the Pauline doctrinal character 
of the historical work, considering that it was to serve as a confirmation of 
the instruction enjoyed by Theophilus, it is to be concluded that he was a 
JSollower of Paul; in saying which, however, the very point whether he was 
a Jewish or a Gentile Christian cannot be determined, although, looking to 
the Pauline author and character of the book, the latter is probable. The 
Clementine Recognitiones, x. 71, make him to be a man of high rank in 
Antioch ; and against this very ancient testimony ? there is nothing substan- 
tial to object, if it be conceded that, even without being an Italian, he 
might be acquainted with the localities named in Acts xxviii. 12, 13, 15, 
without more precise specification. The idea that Luke, in composing the 
work, has had in view other readers also besides Theophilus, not merely 
Gentile Christians (Tiele), is not excluded by i. 3 f., although the treatise 
was primarily destined for Theophilus and only by his means reached a 
wider circle of readers, and then gradually, after the analogy of the N. T. 
Epistles, became the common property of Christendom. The Pauline stand- 
point of the author generally, and especially his universalistic standpoint, 
have been of essential influence on the selection and presentation of the 
matter in his Gospel, yet by no means to such an extent that we should have 
to substitute for the objectively historical character of the work,—according 
to which it had to pay due respect to the Judaistic elements actually given 
in the history itself,—a character of subjectice set purpose shaping the book, 
as if its aim were to accommodate the Judaizing picture of the Messiah to 
the views of Paulinism and to convert the Judaistic conceptions into the 
Pauline form (Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 439), or to exalt Paulinism at the 
expense of Jewish Christianity, and to place the twelve apostles in a position 


' Whether this follows from the passage 
of the Muratorian Canon as to the Acts of 
the Apostles (Ewald, Jahrd. VIII. p. 126; 
Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 40) is, considering 
the great corruption of the text, very 
doubtful. At least the very indication, ac- 
cording to which Theophilus would appear 
as living in Rome, would be introduced into 
the fragment only by conjecture, and that, 
indeed, as daring a conjecture as Ewald 
gives. The text, namely, is, in his view, to 
be thus restored: ‘* Acta omnium apostol>- 


rum sub uno libro scripta Lucas optimo Theo- 
philo comprehendil, omittens quae sub prae- 
sentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicut et non 
modo passionem Petri evidenter decerpit (or 
decollat), sed et profectionem," etc. 

2 With which the circumstance is easily 
reconcilable that in the Constidutt. Ap. vii. 
46. 1heis adduced as the third bishop of 
Caesarea. And that in that place our The- 
ophilus is meant, is more than probablo 
from the context, where almost none but 
New Testament names are mentioned. 


INTRODUCTION. 223 


of inferiority to Paul (Baur, Hilgenfeld).! If the author had such a set 
purpose, even if taken only in Zeller’s sense, he would have gone to work 
with an inconsistency that is incomprehensible (not in keeping with that 
purpose, as Zeller thinks) ; and we should, in fact, be compelled to support 
the hypothesis by the further assumption that the original work had con- 
tained neither the preliminary history nor a number of other portions,*® and 
had only been brought into its present form by the agency of a later rédac- 
teur taking a middle course (Baur, Markusevang. p. 228 ff.). Baur regards 
this latter as the author of the Acts of the Apostles. See, on the other 
hand, Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 446 ff. 

The composition of the Gospel, placed by the Fathers as early as fifteen 
years after the ascension, by Thiersch, K. im apost. Zeitalt. p. 158, and by 
various others as carly as the time of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea, is 
usually (and still by Ebrard and Guericke) referred to the time soon after 
the apostle’s two years’ sojourn in Rome, which is narrated at the conclusion 
of the Acts of the Apostles. But as this conclusion is not available for any 
such definition of time (see Introd. to the Acts of the Apostles, § 8), and as, 
in fact, Luke xxi. 24 f. (compared with Matt. xxiv. 29) already presupposes 
the destruction of Jerusalem [see Note III., p..226 seq.], and places between 
this catastrophe and the Parousia a period of indefinite duration (dpi rAnpw- 
Sdor xatpol éSvdv), Luke must have written within these xa:poi édvdv, and so 
not till after the destruction of Jerusalem, as is rightly assumed by Credner, 
de Wette, Bleek, Zeller, Reuss, Lekebusch (Composit. d. Apostelgesch. 
p. 418 ff.) ; Késtlin, p. 286 ff. ; Giider in Herzog’s Encykl. ; Tobler, Hvan- 
gelienfr., Zurich 1858, p. 29. See especially, Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 142 f. ; 
Holtzmann, p. 404 ff. With this also agrees the reflection, which so often 
presents itself in the Gospel, of the oppressed and sorrowful condition of 
the Christians, as it must have been at the time of the composition. Comp. 
on vi. 20 ff. Still xxi. 82 forbids us to assign too late a date,—as Baur, 
Zeller (110-130 after Christ), Hilgenfeld (100-110) do, extending the dura- 
tion of the yeved to a Roman seculum (in spite of ix. 27),—even although no 
criterion is to be derived from Acts viii. 26 for a more precise definition of 
the date of the Book of Acts, and so far also of the Gospel (Hug : during 
the Jewish war ; Lekebusch : soon after it). John wrote still later than 
Luke, and thus there remains for the latter as the time of composition the 
decade 70-80, beyond which there is no going either forward or backward. 
[See Notc III., p. 226 seq.}] The testimony of Irenaeus, iii. 1, that Luke wrote 
after the death of Peter and Paul, may be reconciled approximately with 
this, but resists every later date,—and the more, the later it is. The Prot- 
evangelium Jacobi, which contains historical references to Matthew and Luke 
(Tischendorf : ‘‘ Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst ? ” 1865, p. 80 f£.), 
fails to give any more exact limitation of time, as the date of its own compo- 
sition cannot be fixed with certainty. Whether in its present form it was 


1 See especially, Welss In the Sfud. u. 22, xil. 6 f., xill. 1-6, xvi. 17, xix. 18-46, xxL 
Arif. 1861, p. 708 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 389 ff. 18, also probably xi. 80-82, 40-51, xiii. 28-85, 
3 According to Baur, iv. 16-30, v. 39, x. and perhaps xxii. 30. 


224 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


used by Justin in particular, is very questionable. Still more doubtful is 
the position of the Acta Pilati. In the Epistle of Barnabas 19, the parallel 
with Luke vi. 80 is not genuine (according to the Sinaitic). 

Where the Gospel was written is utterly unknown ; the statements of 
tradition vary (Jerome, praef. in Matth.: ‘‘in Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus,” 
‘in the regions of Achaia and Boeotia ;” the Syriac : in Alerandria magna, 
comp. Grabe, Syicileg. patr. I. p. 82 f.) ; and conjectures pointing to Cae- 
sarea (Michaelis, Kuinoel, Schott, Thiersch, and others), Rome (Hug, Ewald, 
Zeller, Lekebusch, Holtzmann, and others), Achaia and Macedonia (Hilgen- 
feld in his Zeitschr. 1858, p. 594 ; 1851, p. 179), and Asia Minor (Késtlin), 
are not capable of proof. 


§ 4.—-GENUINENESS AND INTEGRITY. 


The author does not name himself ; but the unanimous tradition of the 
ancient church, which in this express statement reaches as far back as Ire- 
naeus (Haer. iii. 1, 1. 27. 2, iii. 14. 8 f., iii, 10. 1), designates Luke as the 
author (see also the Syriac and the Canon of Muratori) ; in opposition to 
which there does not arise from the book itself any difficulty making it nec- 
essary to abide merely by the general view of a Pauline Gentile-Christian 
(but not Luke) as the author, as Hilgenfeld does on account of its alleged 
late composition. Papias, in Eusebius, iii. 89, does not mention Luke, 
which, however, cannot matter much, since it is after all only a fragment 
which has been preserved to us from the book of Papias. Moreover, the 
circumstance that Marcion appropriated to himself this very Gospel, presup- 
poses that he regarded it as the work of a disciple of the Apostle Paul ; 
indeed, the disciples of Marcion, according to Tertullian, c. Mare. iv. 5, at- 
tributed it directly to Paul himself, as also the Saxon Anonymus preposter- 
ously enough has again done. The unanimous tradition of the church is 
treated with contempt by the precarious assertion, that the authorship of 
Luke was only inferred from the narrative of travel in the Book of Acts at 
a time when there was a desire to possess among the Gospels of the church 
also a Pauline one (Késtlin, p. 291). That our Gospel—which, we may add, 
was made use of by Justin,' and in the Clementine Homilies 7—is not as 
yet quoted in the Apostolic Fathers (not even in the Epistle of Barnabas), 
is sufficiently to be explained on the general ground of their preference for 
oral tradition,* and by the further circumstance, that this Gospel in the first 
instance was only a private document. 


REeMARE.—That the person who, in the narrative of travel in the Book of 
Acts, speaks in the first person (we) is neither Timothy nor Silas, see Introd. to 
Acts, § 1. 


1 See Semisch, Denkw. Justine, p. 142 ff.; particular that of Luke. 
Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 26 ff. Comp. also 2See Uhlhorn, Homil. wv. Recognit. des 
Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 45. He, never- Clemens, p. 120 ff.; Zeller, p. 53 ff. 
theless, in this, his last work, calls in ques- 3 See Gieseler, Zntsteh. d. schrifu. Evange- 
tion Justin's direct uee of our Gospels, and = /ien, p. 149 ff. 
only concedes that he knew them, and in 





NOTES. | 225 


The integrity of the work has, no doubt, been impugned, as far as the 
genuineness of i. 5 ff. and ch. ii. has been called in question ; but see the 
critical remarks on ch. ii. 


Nores spy American Eprror. 


I. Origin of the Gospel. 


The problem of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels again confronts us (see 
Mark, Note I., p. 10). 

Here, again, we note the different position taken by Weiss. He holds, and has 
in his Markusevangelium set forth his detailed proof, ‘‘that, aside from the pre- 
liminary history (chaps. i., ii.) and the conclusion (from chap. xxiv. 9 on), with 
the exception of two interjected passages (chap. vi. 20-viii. 3, and ix. 51-xviii. 
14) the entire Gospel, in arrangement and mode of statement, shows a literary 
dependence upon Mark’’ (Weiss ed. Mey., p. 237). At the same time, he insists 
most strongly (against Meyer) that Luke did not make use of Matthew, but of 
“the older apostolic source,’’ which contained much historical matter. He 
thinks (and in his work on Matthew has attempted to prove) that in the two in- 
terjected passages (see above) Luke used the material of this “older source,”’’ 
mainly in its original order, and often in its original form. Into his narrative, 
which borrowed its outline from Mark, he inserted these passages. (The same 
author calls attention, more particularly than Meyer does, to the Hebraizing dic- 
tion of the opening chapters, which, with most recent critics, he attributes 
to the use of a written document.) 

In regard to this hypothesis, it may be remarked that the matter in Luke 
which Weiss so naively excepts is equal in extent to the entire Gospel of Mark ; 
that in the portion which he thinks shows dependence upon Mark there are 
more correspondences, in words, in verses, and in sections, with Matthew than 
with Mark, while the order is by no means identical with that of the latter. 
Hence the dependence on Mark has less support from internal phenomena than 
that on Matthew. The dependence of the Synoptists, in various ways, upon a 
common document containing narrative portions (as Weiss holds) seems still 
more decidedly against the facts. 

Mr. Norton (Genuineness of the Gospels) estimates that Luke has in but 
one-tenth part of his Gospel any agreement of expression with the other 
Evangelists ; ‘‘and but an inconsiderable portion of it appears in the nar. 
rative, in which there are few instances of its existence for more than half a 
dozen words together. In the narrative it may be computed as less than 
a twentieth part.” The greater resemblance in the portions containing dis- 
course is quite readily accounted for by the theory of oral tradition. But the 
divergence in the narrative portions would prove that Luke’s literary habit was 
that of an ‘‘adapter,” altering his phraseology to give an appearance of orig- 
inality. There must remain, in connection with all such theories of literary 
dependence, a suspicion of literary dishonesty. 

Singularly enough, while Luke contains twice as much matter (counting by 
topics or sections) peculiar to himself as Matthew, or, in fact, as both Matthew 
and Mark, recent critics most generally assert his dependence on one or both of 
the two others. 


15 





226 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Moreover, against such dependence in the case of Luke may he urged his own 
language (chap. i. 1), which seems to exclude his use and knowledge of works 
such as our canonical Gospels (see Notes IV., VII., pp. 256, 257). The late date 
which Meyer assigns to the composition of the Gospel would favor such a 
knowledge, but that date cannot be allowed, resting as it does on the assump- 
tion that Luke tampered with our Lord’s language respecting the destruction of 
Jerusalem (see Note III., below). 


II. The Relation of Luke to Paul, 


Meyer places the date of the Gospel between a.p. 70 and 80. But this was 
not ‘‘long after the apostle’s death.’’ If, as seems more probable (see Note 
IIL., below), Luke wrote hoth books shortly after the close of Paul's (first) im- 
prisonment at Rome (Acts xxviii. 30), the connection with the apostle is made 
quite immediate. But in any case the two “treatises” stand together. In the 
second Luke details the labors of Paul, modestly indicating his own relations 
with that apostle : how can we do otherwise than infer the existence of Paul's 
influence in this first literary work? He does not appeal to it, since there was 
no necessity for doing so ; his relation to the apostle to the Gentiles must have 
been known to Theophilus. It is worth while to note the exceeding accuracy 
with which some critics show Luke’s dependence on unknown documents, and 
deny or ignore the influence of that magnificent human teacher, with whom 
we know he lived in relations of the greatest intimacy. 


Ill. Date of Composition. 


If the date of composition be placed after the destruction of Jerusalem, be- 
cause of the reference in chap. xxiv. 24, then the author is necessarily regarded 
as manipulating the words of Jesus, his Master. Meyer's view implies something 
more than a divergence of tradition ; it implies that Luke, finding the Lord’s 

‘prophecy, as it appeared in the Logia collection, was not fulfilled, deliberately 

put in a saving clause about ‘the times of the Gentiles.” This fuller and 
fairer statement will virtually dispose of the argument with those who give 
Luke credit for common honesty. 

There is no valid reason against the usual date, namely, during the two 
years’ sojourn of Paul at Rome (Acts xxviii. 30). The positive argument 
in favor of it is thus stated by Godet (Zuke, p. 545 Am. ed.): ‘If, on 
the one hand, the mention of the term of two years in the last verses of 
the Acts clearly assumes that a new phase in Paul's life had begun after 
his captivity, on the other hand the complete silence of the author as to 
the end of the apostle’s career proves that this phase had not yet termi- 
nated. The Acts must therefore have been written in the interval between the 
end of Paul’s first captivity at Rome (in the spring of the year 64) and his mar- 
tyrdom (about 67). The Gospel must have been composed a short time before.” 
Schaff thinks the Gospel was composed either at Caesarea or Rome, but not 
published till after the death of Paul: he thus accounts for the statement of 
Irenaeus. 

A number of arguments have been adduced in favor of a later date (see E. A. 
Abbott, Encycl. Brit.), but they do not prove the position taken. In fact, the 
Gospel, on the face of it, shows that it was not written after the destruction of 


‘iS 


- 


NOTES. 227 


Jerusalem. Moreover, the relation of its phenomena to those in the other Syn- 
optics points to a date nearly synchronous with that of the composition of the 
other two, and these must have been penned before the destruction of Jerusalem. 

The notice of Jerome as to the place of composition (Achaia and Boeotia) 
would agree with a date immediately after the first imprisonment of Paul, 
and with the somewhat uncertain hints of the movements of the apostle in the 
subsequent years of his life. So Godet, who.formerly named Corinth as the 
place of composition, but now more generally ‘‘ Achaia.” 

On the bearing of chap. i. 1-4 upon the questions of origin and date, see 
Notes IV., VII., pp. 256, ‘257. 


228 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


? ~ 
Evayyédwv xara Aovxar. 


B F & have only «ard Aovedv. Others: rd xara Aovxdy dyeov evayy. Others: 
éx tov kata A. Others: ex roi x. A. (dylov) evayyediov. See on Matthew. 


CHAPTER I. 


Ver. 5. # yur) avrov] B C* D L X &, min. codd. It. Jer. Aug. Beda have yur) 
avrg. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepia is 
an exegetical alteration—which also holds true of the order of the words at 
ver. 10 in Elz. rov Aacd }», instead of which 7v rod Aaod is preponderatingly at- 
tested. —[Ver. 6. évémiov] Tisch., recent editors, R. V., accept évavriov, follow- 
ing ®&BC. The latter is unusual in Luke.]— Ver. 14. Instead of yevéoe, Elz. 
has yevyyoer, in opposition to decisive evidence. From yevyfce, ver. 13. 
Comp. on Matt. i. 18. — Ver. 20. AnpwOncovrar] D, Or. have xAnoOncovra. If 
it were more strongly attested, it would have to be adopted (comp. on xxi. 22).— 
[Ver, 26. Tisch. and recent editors read d7é6, following ® B L, instead of w7é.] 
— Ver. 27. The form éuvyorevu. (Lachm, Tisch.), instead of the reduplicated 
penvnorevu., has in this place, and still more at ii. 5, such important codd. in 
its favor, that it is to be preferred, and peyvyorevy. must be attributed to the 
transcribers (Deut. xxii. 23, xx. 7). — Ver. 28. 6 dyyeAoc] is wanting in B L, min. 
Copt. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch.; the more rightly, that in F A 
&, 69, Syr. Arm. Brix. Rd. Corb. it is placed after air7zv, and was more easily 
supplied than omitted. — evAoynuévn od ev yvv.] is wanting in B L &, min. Copt. 
Sahid. Arm. Syr. hier. Damasc. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An 
addition from ver. 42, whence, also, in some witnesses there has been added, 
kal evAoynuévoc 6 xaptro¢g Tig KocAiag cov. [Treg. brackets, Weiss rejects, W. and 
Hort mark as a Western addition, R. V. inserts in marg. only.]— Ver. 29. Elz. 
Scholz, Lachm. have 7 62 idovoa dterapdx$n éti te Adyw adrod. Griesb. and 
Tisch. have # dé én? TO Adyw duerapdxfn, So B D L X 8, min. Arm. Cant. 
Damasc. (D: érapé76n). This reading is to be preferred. From AE the 
transcriber passed immediately to AIK rapa 767 (hence, also, in D, the mere sim- 
ple form), by which means ém? rq Ady dropped out, and this is still wanting in 
C* min. The bare 7 dé dcerapay6n was then glossed by idovca (comp. ver. 12) 
(another gloss was : cum audisset, Vulg. al.), which, being adopted before dcerap., 
was the cause of imi rp Ady being placed after duerap. when it was restored (in 
which case, for the most part, atrov was inserted also). — Ver. 35. After yevvdu. 
C, min. and many vss. and Fathers (see especially, Athanasius), as also Valen- 
tinus in the Philos., have é cot (yet with the variations de te and in te), and 
this Lachmann has adopted in brackets. A more precisely defining, and withal 
doctrinally suggested addition (comp. Matt. i. 16 ; Gal. iv. 4). — Ver. 36. The 
form ovyyevic is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A C*** D E 
GHLAR, min. ovyyev7¢ is a correction. — Instead of yjpe, Elz. has y7pe, in 





wv ? 


CHAP. I., 1. 229 


opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 37. rapa rp 629] Tisch. has rapa rov 
zor, following B D L 8; the dative suggested itself as being closer to the pre- 
vailing conception (Gen. xviii. 14), — Ver. 41. The verbal order : rév aoracudv 
tig Map. 4 ’E2co. (Lachm. Tisch.), is attested with sufficient weight to induce 
us to recognize § 'E2u0. r. dor. tr. Map. (Elz.) as a transposition. — [Ver. 42. 
Tisch. and recent editors have xpavy%, instead of ¢gurj ; so B L, Origen.) — Ver. 
44. Following BC D* F L &, Vulg. It. Or., the verbal order of the Recepta év 
ayaad, Td Bpégac is to be maintained (Griesb. Scholz have ro Bped. év ayada.). — 
Ver. 49. peyadcia] Lachm. Tisch. read peydda, in accordance with B D* L & 130. 
So also probably Vulg. It., magna (not magnalia, as at Acts ii. 11). To be pre- 
ferred, since peyadzia might easily have been introduced as a more exact defini- - 
tion by a recollection of Ps. Ixxi. 19. — Ver. 50. cic yevedc yevedv] Very many 
variations, among which ei¢ yeved¢ xai yevedc (Tisch.) is the best attested, by B 
C* L Syr. Copt. codd. It. Vulg. ms. Aug. [so recent editors, R. V.] ; next to 
this, but far more feebly, ei¢ yevedy xai yeveav (Commended by Griesb.). The 
former is to be preferred ; the Recepia, although strongly attested, arose out of 
the current expression in saecula saeculorum. — Ver. 55. The Codd. are divided 
between ei¢ rév aidva (Elz. Lachm. Tisch.) and éw¢ aldvoc (Griesb. Scholz). The 
former has the stronger attestation, but is the expression so current in the N. T. 
that éwe, etc., which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., but is in keeping 
with the usage of the LXX. after r. orépu. abrot (Gen. xiii. 15, etc.), here de- 
serves the preference. [Recent editors, R. V., agree with Tisch., following ® AB 
D and most authorities, ]— Ver. 59. dydéy juépa] BC DL 8, min. have quépg 179 
éydéy. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Preponderantly 
attested, and therefore to be preferred. — Ver. 61. év rg svyyeveig cov] Lachm. 
and Tisch. read éx« rij¢ ovyyeveiac cov, following A B C* L A A &, min. Copt. 
Chron. Pasch. The latter is to be preferred, in place of which the former more 
readily occurred to the pen of the copyists. — Ver. 62. airéy] BD F G X&, min. 
have atré. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the reference to 1ré racdiov, ver. 
59, was left unnoticed, and the masculine was mechanically put in xara ovveor. 
— Ver. 66. xai yeip] Lachm. Tisch. have «ai yap yeip, following B C* D L &, 
Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Goth. Approved by Rinck also, who, however, rejects jv 
on too slight evidence. ydp is the rather to be adopted, because of the facility 
with which it may have dropt out on occasion of the similarly sounding yeip 
which follows, and of the difficulty with which another connective particle was 
inserted after the already connecting xa:.—- Ver. 70. rdv dy. rav] the second 
tav, deleted by Tisch., is wanting in B L A &, min. Or. Eus. [Rejected by re- 
cent editors, R. V.} An omission by a clerical error. — Ver. 75. After juépas 
Elz. has rij¢ Cu7¢, in opposition to decisive evidence, — Ver. 76. «hi ov] Tisch. 
has xail od dé (80 also Scholz, following Bornem. in Rosenm. Repert. II. p. 259), 
on very considerable evidence ; xat... dé was often mutilated by copyists 
Jacking discernment, — Ver. 78. éreoxéyaro) so Tisch., and most uncials, but R* 
B L have -era: ; so W. and Hort, Weiss., R. V. text.] 
A 


Ver. 1.' *Execd@rep] Quoniam quidem, since indeed, not found elsewhere in 


1 According to Baur and others, this pre- _ truth in concreto. Ewald aptly observes, 
face, vv. 14, was only added by the last Jahrd. IT. p. 182 f., of this preamble, that in 
hand that manipulated our Gospel, after its homely simplicity, modesty, and brevity, 
the middle of the second century. Thus, it may be called the model of a preface to 


_ the Gospel would bear on the face of It un- an historical work. See on the prologue, 


230 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

the N. T., nor inthe LXX., or the Apocrypha ; frequent in classical writers, 
see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 342 f. Observe that émeed% denotes the fact, 
assumed as known, in such a way ‘‘ ut quae inde evenerint et secuta sint, 
nunc adhuc durent,” ‘‘ that what things have thence resulted and followed 
still endure until now,” Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 640. — roadoi] Christian 
writers, whose works for the most part are not preserved.’ The apocryphal 
Gospels still extant are of a later date ; Mark, however, isin any case meant 
to be included. The Gospel of Matthew too, in its present form which was 
then already in existence, cannot have remained unknown to Luke ; and in 
using the word zoAAoi he must have thought of it with others (see Introd. 
§ 2), although not as an apostolic writing, because the roAAoi are distinct 
from the eye-witnesses, ver. 2. The apostolic collection of Logia was no dij- 
ynotg wept Tov x.T.A., and its author, as an apostle, belonged not to the 7oa- 
Aoi, but to the an’ apyqe¢ aitéxra:. But the Gospel to the Hebrews, if and so 
far as it had then already assumed shape, belonged to the attempts of the 
roAdoi. [See Note IV., p. 256.] — éveyxeipyoav] have undertaken, said under a 
sense of the loftiness and difficulty of the task, Acts xix. 18. In the N. T. 
only used in Luke ; frequently in the classical writers.? Neither in the 
word in itself, nor by comparing it with what Luke, ver. 3, says of his own 
work, is there to be found, with Késtlin, Ebrard, Lekebusch, and older 
writers, any indication of insufficiency in those endeavors in general, which 
Origen,* Ambrosius, Theophylact, Calovius, and various others even referred 
to their contrast with the inspired Gospels. But for his special purpose he 
judged none of those preliminary works as sufficient. — d:fyyorv] a narrative.‘ 
Observe the singular. Of the roAAoi each one attempted a narrative rep? rav 
x.t.4., thus comprising the evangelic whole. Loose leaves or detached 
essays (Ebrard) Luke does not mention. — dvardéac¥ar] to set up according to 
order.* Neither digyno. nor avaréoc. occurs elsewhere in the N. T. — epi rav 
metAnpopop. év juiv mpayp.| of the facts that have attained to full conviction 
among us (Christians). [See Note V., p. 257.] mAnpogopetv, to bring to full 
conviction, may be associated also with an accusative of the thing, which is 
brought to full acknowledgment (2 Tim. iv. 5) ; hence in a passive sense : 
wAnpogopeirai t:, something attains to full belief (2 Tim. iv. 17), it is brought 
to full conviction (rAnpogopia ziorews, Heb. x. 22) among others. So here 


Tfoltzmann, p. 248 ff. Aberle in the 7). 
Quartalschr. 1863, 1, p. 84 ff., in a peculiar 
but untenable way makes use of this pro- 
logue asproof for the allegation that our 
Gospel was occasioned by the accusation 
of Paul (and of the whole Christian body) 
in Rome ; holding that the prologue must 
therefore have been composed with the 
intention of its being interpreted in more 
senses than one. See, on the other hand, Hil- 
genfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 443 ff. The 
whole hypothesis falls to the ground at once 
before the fact that Luke did not write till 
after the destruction of Jerusalem. 

1 There is not the remotest ground for 
thinking of non-Christian books written in 


hostility to Christianity (Aberle in the theoé. 
Quart. 1855, p. 178 ff.). 

2 Comp. also Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valcke- 
naer): érevdyrep wept Tovrou moAAot érexeipnoay 
arodoyjcacbat. 

3In Jerome: ‘“ Matthaeus quippe et Mar- 
cus et Johannes et Lucas non sunt conati 
scribere, sed scrinserunt,” ‘‘Matthew in- 
deed and Mark and John and Luke bave 
not undertaken to write, but have writien.”’ 
Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus. 

“See especially, Plato, Rep. fil. p. 8892 D; 
Arist. Rhet. iii. 16; 2 Macc. if. 32. 

§ Plut. Moral. p. 968 C, evrpexicacGa, Hesy. 
chius. 


e 





CHAP. I., 2. 231 


(it is otherwise where zAypogopeiaSa: is said of a person, as Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 
5; Col. iv. 12; Ignat. ad Magnes. viii. 10; Eccles. viii. 11 ; Phot. Bibl. 
p. 41, 29). Rightly so taken by the Fathers (Theophylact : ob yap drAdc xara 
yiAjy wapddootv ericl ra Tov Xptcrov, add’ év adnGeig wai rlore BeSaig nad pera 
wéanc wAnpogopiac, ‘For the things of Christ are not simply according to 
mere tradition, but in truth and steadfast faith and with all full assurance”), 
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Valckenaer, and many others, including 
Olshausen and Ewald. The explanation : ‘‘ quae in nobis completae sunt” 
(Vulgate), which have fully happened, run their course among us (Luther, 
Hammond, Paulus, de Wette, Ebrard, Késtlin, Bleek, and others), is 
opposed to usage, a8 zAnpodopeiv Is never, even in 2 Tim. iv. 5, equivalent to 
mAnpovv, and therefore it cannot be conceived as applying, cither, with 
Schneckenburger (comp. Lekebusch, p. 80), to the fulfilment of God's counsel 
and promise through the life of the Messiah, which besides would be entirely 
imported ; or, with Baur, to the idea of Christianity realized as regards its 
full contents, under which the Pauline Christianity was essentially included. 

Ver. 2. Kade] neither guatenus, ‘‘ since,” nor belonging to wexAnpog. (in op- 
position, as respects both, to Kuinoel, as respects the latter also to Olshausen), 
but introducing the How, the modal definition of avaraé. difynowv. — raptdocay] 
hare delivered. It is equally erroneous to refer this merely to written,’ or 
merely to oral communication, although in the historical circumstances the 
latter was by far the preponderating.? Holtzmann appropriately remarks : 
‘*The subjects of zapédocay and the woAdvi are not distinguished from one 
another as respects the categories of the oral and written, but as respects 
those of primary and secondary authority.” For the roAAof, as for Luke him- 
self, who associates himself with them by xayoi, the rapddoarg of the avrérrav 
was the proper source, in accordance with which therefore he must have criti- 
cally sifted the attempts of those zoAAoi, so far as he knew them (ver. 8). — ar’ 
apxic}] namely, of those zpayzdruv. But it is not the time of the birth of Jesus 
that is meant (so most commentators, including Kuinoel and Olshausen), 
but that of the entrance of Jesus on His ministry (Euthymius Zigabenus, 
de Wette) ; comp. John xv. 27; Acts i. 21 f., which explanation is not 
‘¢ audacious” (Olshausen), but necessary, because the airémra: xa vanptrat 
Tov Adyov are the same persons, and therefore under the avrérra: there are not 
to be understood, in addition to the first disciples, Mary also and other 
members of the family. az’ apy7c therefore is not to be taken absolutely, but 
relatively. — trnpérac tov Adyov} ministri evangelii (the doctrine xar’ efoyxhy, 
Acts viii. 7, xiv. 25, xvi. 6, xvii. 11). These were the Twelve and other 
pa@nrai of Christ (as according to Luke also the Seventy), who were in the 
service of the gospel for the purpose of announcing it. Comp. iii. 7; Acts 
vi. 4; Col. i. 28 ; Acts xxvi. 16; 1 Cor.iv. 1. Others (Erasmus, Castalio, 
Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, a/., including Kuinoel) take rot 2éyovin the senso 
of the matter concerned, of the contents of the history spoken of (sce on Acts 


1 Konigsm. de fontidus, etc., in Pott's Syl- of the avréwra: we know with certainty only 
loge, TIT. p. 281; Hug. the Aéyca of Matthew according to Paplas. 
3 Of the writen materials of this wapddocre 


% 


232 ‘THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

vill. 21); but it would be just as inappropriate to iypéra: agit would be quite 
superfluous, since rov Aédyou must by no means be attached to atrérrac also. 
Finally, it isa mistake to refer it to Christ in accordance with John i. 1.? 
It is only John that names Christ 46 26)o¢. — Theophylact, moreover, aptly 
observes ; éx rovrov, ‘from this” (namely, from xatic rapédocay juiv x.t.A.) 
SyAov, bre ov qv 6 Aoveadc an’ apyne padytig, aAN’ torepdxpovoc’ GAAo yap hoav ol 
am’ apxnc padnreviévres . . . of kai mapédooav avt@ x.7.A., ‘Sit is evident Luke 
was not a disciple from the beginning, but of a later time ; for those who 
were made disciples from the beginning were others . . . who also delivered 
to him,” ete. By juiv the writer places himself in the second gencration ; 
the jirst were the immediate disciples of Christ, oi ax’ apyfe abrémrat xat in- 
gfrac. This ixypéra:, however, is not chosen for the sake of placing the 
Twelve on an equality with Paul (Acts xxvi. 16). As though the word 
were so characteristic for Paul in particular! Comp. John xviii. 86; 
1 Cor. iv. 1. 

Ver. 8. Apodosis, which did not begin already in ver. 2. — édoge xayoi] in 
itself neither excludes nor includes inspiration. Vss. add to it : e¢ Spiritus 
sancto. By the use of xayoi Luke places himself in the same category with 
the voA2oi, in so far as he, too, had not been an eye-witness ; ‘‘sic tamen ut 
etiamnum aliquid ad acdgd2eay ac firmitudinem Thcophilo conferat,” ‘‘in such 
a way, however, that he bestows on Theophilus something toward aogdéAccav 
and solidity,” Bengel. — rapyxodorvd.| after having from the outset followed 
everything with accuracy. MWiapaxoa., of the mental tracing, investigating, 
whereby one arrives at a knowledge of the matter. See the examples in 
Valckenaer, Schol. p. 12 ; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 844 f. Comp., more- 
over, Thucyd. i. 22. 2: dcov duvardv axpiBeig repi exdorov éimefeaAdov. — raowv] 
namely, those mrpdyzac, not masculine (Syr.). — dvwder] not: radicitua, fun- 
damentally (Grotius), which is comprised in dxp:8., but : from the jirst, see 
on John iii. 8. From the beginning of the history it is seen that in his in- 
vestigation he started from the birth of the Baptist, in doing which, doubt- 
less, he could not but still lack the authentic tradition of ver. 2. Never- 
theless the consciousness of an advantage over those sroAAoi expresses itself 
in apy. dvadev. — xadelic] in orderly sequence, not out of the order of time, 
in which they occurred one after the other. Only Luke has the word in the 
N. T. (viii. 1 ; Acts ili, 24, xi. 4, xviii. 28); it occurs also in Aelian, Plu- 
tarch, ef al., but the older classical writers have é¢efic. — xpdriore GedguAe | 
See Introd. § 8. That in Actsi. 1 he is addressed merely & Ocdég:Ae, proves 
nothing against the titular use of xpdriore. See on the latter, Grotius. 

Ver. 4. “Iva émtyvgc] ut accurate cognosceres, ‘‘ that thou mightest accu- 


1 So Origen, Athanasius, Euthymius Ziga- 
benug, Valla, Calovius, and others, includ- 
ing Stein (Kommentar, Halle 1830). 

2 In the case of this «<a@efns the Harmon- 
ists of course make the reservation, that it 
will be *‘ conditioned at one time more by 
a chronological interest, at another time 
more by that of the subject-matter,” Lich- 
‘tenstein, p. 78. Thus they keep their hand 


free to lay hold now of the one, now of the 
other, just as it Is held to suit. The asser- 
tion, often repeated, in favor of the vio- 
lences of harmonizers, that in Luke the ar- 
rangement by subject-matter even predom- 
inates (Ebrard, Lichtenstein), is absolutely 
incompatible with that xcadefjs. [See Note 
VI., p. 287.] 


Y 





CHAP. I., 5. 233 
rately know,” sce on Matt. xi. 27 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 12. — wepl dv xarnyfOn¢ Adywr] 
The attraction is not, with the Vulgate and the majority of commentators, 
to be resolved into: rav Adywv, zepi dv xarnyfFnc, as the contents of the in- 
struction is put with xaryyeio9a: in the accusative (Acts xviii. 25 ; Gal. vi. 
6), and only the more remote object to which the instruction relates is ex- 
pressed by wepi (Acts xxi. 21, 24), but into: mepl rav Adyur, ob¢ xaryxhAnc: 
that thou mightest know in respect of the doctrines, in which thou wast in- 
structed, the unshaken certainty. Comp. Késtlin, p. 1382, and Ewald. The 
Adyot are not the mpéypara, res, ‘‘ matters” (comp. ver. 2), a8 is usually 
supposed ; but it is just the specifically Christian doctrines, the individual 
parts of the Adyoc, ver. 2 (Trav Adyew rig micrews, ‘‘ doctrines of the faith,” 
Euthymius Zigabenus), that stand in the most essential connection with the 
history of Jesus and from it receive their aogcAea ; in fact, they are in great 
part themselves essentially history. — xarnyirFn¢ is to be understood of actual 
instruction (in Acts xxi. 21 also), not of hearsay, of which, moreover, the 
passages in Kypke are not to be explained. Who had instructed Theophi- 
lus—who, moreover, was assuredly already a Christian (not merely inter- 
ested on behalf of Christianity, as Bleek supposes) —we know not, but certain- 
ly it was not Luke himself (in opposition to Theophylact). — Ti aopadAeay] 
the unchangeable certainty, the character not to be shaken. Comp. rv aogd- 
Aecav eivac Adyov, Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 15. The position at the end is emphatic. 
According to Luke, therefore, by this historical work, which he purposes to 
write, the doctrines which Theophilus had received are to be set forth for 
him in their immovable positive truth ; according to Baur, on the other hand, 
the acgddeca which the writer had in view was to be this, that his entire rep- 
resentation of primitive Christianity sought to become conducive to the con- 
cilatory interest (of the second century), and always kept this object in view. 
This is purely imported. Luke wrote from the dispassionate consciousness 
that Christianity, as it subsisted for him as the Pauline contents of faith, 
had its firm basis of truth in the evangelical history of salvation. [See Note 
VII, p. 257.] 

Ver. 5. The periodic and Greck style of the preface gives place now to 
the simple Hebraizing mode of presentation in the preliminary history,—a 
circumstance explained by the nature of its Jewish-Christian sources, which 
withal were not madc use of without being subjected to manipulation, since 
Luke’s peculiarities in expression pervade even this preliminary history. 
How far, however, the lofty, at times truly lyrical beauty and art of the 
descriptions are to be reckoned due to the sources themselves or to Luke as 
working them up, cannot bedecided. [See Note VIII., p. 258.]— Observe, 
moreover, how the evangelical tradition gradually pushes back ‘its begin- 
nings from the emergence of the Baptist (Mark) to the yéveore of Jesus (Mat- 
thew), and even to the conception of His forerunner (Luke). — éyévero] exti- 
tit, emerged in history. Comp. on Mark i. 4. — lepet¢ ric] therefore not high 
priest. — On the twenty-four classes of priests (APoND, in the LXX., égnuepia, 
also dcaipecrc, in Josephus also égyyepic), which, since the time of Solomon, 
had the temple-service for a week in turn, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 815 ; Keil, 
Archéol. I. p. 188 f. —'AB4] 1 Chron. xxiv. 10. From this successor of 


234 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Eleazar the eighth é¢zuepia had its name. — The chronological employment of 
this notice for the ascertaining of the date of the birth of Jesus would re- 
quire that the historical character of the narratives, given at ver. 5 ff., ver. 
26 ff., should be taken for granted ; moreover, it would be necessary with- 
al that the year and (as every class came in its turn ¢wice in the year) the 
approximate time of the year of the birth of Jesus should already be other- 
wise ascertained. Then, in the computation we should have to reckon, not, 
with Scaliger (de emendat. tempor.), forward from the re-institution of the 
temple-service by Judas Maccabaeus, 1 Macc. iv. 38 ff., because it is not 
known which class at that time began the service,' but, with Salomon van 
Til, Bengel, and Wieseler, backward from the destruction of the temple, 
because as to this the date (the 9 Abib) and the officiating class of priests 
(Jehoiarib) is known. Comp. also Lichtenstein, p. 76.— xat yw arg] 
(see the critical remarks) scil. qv. — éx rév Suyar. 'Aap.] John’s descent on 
both sides was priestly. Comp. Josephus, Vit. v.1. See Wetstein. — 'E%- 
oafer] Such was also the name of Aaron’s wife, Ex. vi. 23 (PIM ow, Deus 
juramentum). 

Ver. 6 f. Aixaoc] upright, such as they ought to be according to God’s 
will. — érémiov r. Ocov] a familiar Hebraism : 17 "D9, characterizing the 
aGAndie¢ dtxacoobvn, ‘‘true righteousness” (Euthymius Zigabenus), which is 
so not perchance merely according to human judgment, but before the eyes 
of God, in God's presence, Gen. vii. 1; Acts viii. 21 ; Judith xiii. 20. Comp. 
Augustine, ad Marcell. ii. 18. [See critical note. ] — wopevépuevor x.7.A.] & more 
precise explanation of the foregoing, likewise in quite a Hebraizing form 
(1 Kings viii. 62, al.), wherein d:xaiwya is legal ordinance (LXX. Deut. iv. 1, 
vi. 2, xxx. 16; Ps. cxix. 93, al. ; see on Rom. i. 32, v. 16), évroAq joined 
with dx. (Gen. xxvi. 5; Deut. iv. 40) isa more special idea. The distinc- 
tion that évroA4 applies to the moral, dixacdua to the ceremonial precepts, is 
arbitrary (Calvin, Bengel, and others). We may add that the popular testi- 
mony to such J:xaoctvy does not exclude human imperfection and sinfulness, 
and hence is not opposed to the doctrine of justification. — duezmro} not 
equivalent to duéutrwc, but proleptic: so that they were blameless. Comp. 
1 Thess. iii. 23 ; Winer, p. 549 f. [E. T. 624 f. }.— The Attic xadér:, here 
as at xix. 9, Acts ii. 24, Tobit i. 12, xiii. 4, corresponding to the argumen- 
tative xaddc : as then, according to the fact that, occurs in the N. T. only in 
Luke. — rpofefnxéreg év raig iu.] of advanced age, D°'°3 DR3, Gen. xvill. 11 ; 
Josh, xxiii. 1 ; 1 Kingsi. 1.2. Observe that «. aug. mpoB. x.r.4. Is no longer 
connected with «caddr:, but attached to ovx qv at. téxv. by way of further 
preparation for the marvel which follows. 

Ver. 8f. ’Eyévero . . . 22aye] thus without interposition of kai. Both 
modes of expression, with and without xai, are very frequent in Luke. See 
generally, Bornemann in loc, — kara Td F90¢ THe lepat.] according to the cus- 
tom of the priesthood, does not belong to what precedes (Luther, Kuinoel, 


? See Paulus, exeg. Handb. I. p. 88; Wiese- _—xill. p. 592 D), also rhy HAcxiay, and the like 
ler, chronol. Synopse, p. 141. (Herodian, ii. 7.7; comp. 2 Mace. iv. 40; Ju- 

2The Greeks say wpoBeAynxws 7H nAcciq, dith xvi. 23), sce Wetstcin, and Pierson, ad 
Lys. p. 169, 37, rots €reocy (Machon in Athen. AMoer. p. 475. 


CHAP. I., 10-14, 235 


Bleek), to which é3o¢ would be inappropriate, but to faye rov Suucacat ; 
the wsual custom, namely, was, that the priest of the class on service for the 
week, who was to have the honorable office of burning incense, was fixed 
every day dy lot, just as in general the several offices were assigned by lot.’ 
How the casting of lots took place, see Gloss. Joma, f. 22, 1, in Lightfoot, 
p. 714. — The genitive rod Suusaoa: (not to be accented Supsdoa: *) is governed 
by faze. See Matthiae, p. 800; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. II. p. 2. On the 
mode of burning incense, see Lightfoot, p. 715 ; Lund, l.c. p. 618 ff. ; Leyrer 
in Herzog’s Eneykl. XII. p. 506 ff. With this office specially divine bless- 
ing was conceived to be associated (Deut. xxxiii. 10f.) ; and during it John 
Hyrcanus received a revelation, Josephus, Antt. xiii. 10. 8. — Whcther, we 
may ask, are we to understand here the morning (Grotius) or the evening 
(Kuinoel) burning of incense? The former, as the casting lots has just pre- 
ceded. — eiceADov x.r.A.] can neither be something that follows after the 
dAayve r. Ov. (so Luther and others, de Wette and Bleek), nor can it belong 
merely to Suudoa (so Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 358], and Gléckler, following 
the Vulgate), in which case the words would be quite idle. [See Note IX., 
p. 258.] Rather must they be, in the same relation as the following xa? may rd 
rAgdog . . . &w rq Spe rov Suuiduaroc, an essential portion of the descrip- 
tion. It is, namely, the moment that preceded the fAaye tov Ovusaoa : the 
duty of burning incense fell to him, after he had entered into the temple of 
the Lord. After his entrance into the temple he received this charge. — eic 
tov vaév] not cic rd iepdy (see on Matt. iv. 5), for the altar of incense, the 
Yvocacrf#piov, ver. 11, stood in the sanctuary (between the table of shewbread 
and the golden candlestick). 

Ver. 10. And now, while this burning of incense (symbol of adoration ; 
sce Biihr, Symbol. I. p. 463-469 ; Leyrer, J.c. p. 510 f.) allotted to him was 
taking placc in the sanctuary, the entire multitude of the people (which ex- 
pression does not exactly presuppose a festival, as Chrysostom, Chemnitz, 
and Calovius hold) was found (#7) in the forecourts, silently praying. This 
was implied in the arrangments for worship ; see Deyling, Obes. III. p. 348f. ; 
Leyrer, lc. p. 509. — rob Ouuiduaroc] not: of burning incense (Svpiaaic), 
but : of incense,*? namely, at which this was burnt. 

Vv. 11, 12. "Q¢97] nota vision, but a real angelic appearance, xxii. 43. — éx 
de§:av] on the propitious side of the altar, at which Zacharias was serving.‘ 
— ayyedoc] an angel. Who it was, see ver. 19.—¢éBo¢ éxémecev én’ avr. ] 
Comp. Acts xix. 17; Ex. xv. 16; Judith xv. 2; Zest. XII. Patr. p. 592. 
Among the Greeks usually found with a dative, as Eur. Andr. 1042 : coi 
péve erérecov Avra. 

Vv. 18, 14. Etonxotadn x.7.2..] By 9 dénoic cov cannot be meant the petition 
Sor offspring (yet so still Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, Schegg, following 


1 See Tr. Tamid, v.2 ff.; Wetstein,and  xvill. 21: Ecclus. xlv. 6; 1 Macc. iv. 49; 2 
Paulus, ereget. Handd.; Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., Macc. i1.5; Plat. Pol. il. p. 878 A, Legg. viil. 


ed. Wolf, p. 804 f. p. 817 C; Herod. i. 196, iv. 71, vill. 99; Soph. 
* Comp. generally, Lipsius, Gramm. Unn OL. R. 4. 
ters. p. 88 ff. 4 See Schoettgen, and Wetstein, ad att. 


3 Bee ver. 11; Rev. v. 8, vill. 3,4; Wisd. xxv. $3; Valckenaer in loc. 


236 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Maldonatus and many others) ; for, as according to ver. 7 it is not to be as- 
sumed at all that the pious priest s¢il/ continued now to pray for children, so 
least of all can he at the burning of incense in his official capacity have 
made such a private matter the subject of his prayer ; but 7 déyoic cov must 

be referred to the prayer just made by him at the priestly burning of incense, 

in which also the whole of the people assembled without were associated 
(ver. 10). This prayer concerned the highest solicitude of all Israel, namely, \ 
the Messianic deliverance of the people (Augustine, Euthymiug Zigabenus, 
Erasmus, Jansen, Calovius, Ewald, and others), éA¥érw 4 Baotdeia cov, ‘thy 
kingdom come.” The context which follows is not opposed to this, but on 
the contrary the connection is : ‘‘ Has preces augelus dicit exauditas ; jam 
enim prae foribus esse adventum Messiac, cujus anteambulo destinatus sit 
is qui Zachariae nasciturus erat filius,” ‘‘The angel says these prayers are 
heard ; for already is the advent of the Messiah before the doors, whose 
forerunner is destined to be he who shall be born to Zachariah as son,’’ Gro- 
tius. — xa2éoerg x.7.2.] sce on Matt. i. 21. — 'Iudvne is the Hebrew JIN or 
120" (God is gracious, like the German Gotthold). The LXX. have 'Iwvd 
(2 ings xxv. 23), ‘Iuvdv (Neh. vi. 18), "Iwavdy (Neh. xii. 18 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 
15, xxili. 1), "Iwdyye (2 Chron. xxvili. 12). — yéveoue here is birth (often so in 
the Greek writers and in the LXX.) ; Xen. Hp. 8: ddov av9purivys apy pev 
. yéveowy, tédog c2 Pavarov. 

Ver. 15. Méyac évér. r. xvp.] A designation of a truly great man ; ‘‘talis 
enim quisque tere est, qualis est coram Deo,” ‘‘ for whoever is truly so, is 80 
before God,” Estius. Comp. on ver. 6. —xai oivov x.r.4.] Description of a 
" "tJ, (Nazarite) as those were called, who had for the service of God bound 
themselves to abstain from wine and other intoxicating drinks (Num. vi. 
8), and to let the hair of their head grow. John was a Nazarite, not fora 
certain time, but for life, like Samson (Judg. xiii. 5) and Samuel (1 Sam. i. 
12).'— 16 oixepa (1D), which does not occur 1n the Greek writers, is any cx- 
citing drink of the nature of wine, but not made of grapes ; Lev. x. 9 and 
frequently in the LXX. It was prepared from corn, fruit, dates, palms 
(Pliny, H. NW. xiv. 19), and so forth. Eusebius, Praep. Hrang. vi. 10, has 
the genitive oixepoc. — ri éx xoiAiag x.7.A.] ére never stands for jdn, but: of 
the Holy Spirit,? he shall be full even from his mother’s womb, so that thus already 
an his mother’s womb (see Origen) he shall be filled with the Spirit. A 
pregnant form of embracing the two points. Doubtless the leaping of the 
child in the mother’s womb, ver. 41, is conceived of as a manifestation of 
this being filled with the Spirit. Comp. Calovius and Maldonatus. 

Vv. 16, 17. Working of John as a preacher of repentance, who as a moral \ 
reformer of the people (comp. on Matt. xvii. 11) prepares the way for the 
Messianic consummation of the theocracy. — émorpéyex] for through sin they 


1 See In gencral, Ewald, Alterth. p. 96 ff. ; 
Saalschiitz, dos. 2. p. 861 f. ; Keil, Archkdol. 
I. §67; Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, 
p. 438 ff. 

2 It is quite arbitrary in Olshausen to sup- 
port the rationalistic upinion that the ex- 


pression here is to be understood not of the 
distinctive Holy Spirit, but of the holy power 
of God in general. 

® Comp. Plutarch, consol. ad Apoll. p. 104: 
ére am’ apxis nxodor Onxey (having therefore 
already followed év apxp). 


CHAP. I., 16, 17. 237 


have turned themselves away from God. — xtpiov r. Gedy abr.}] not the Mes- 
siah (Euthymius Zigabenus, and many of the older commentators), but God. 
—xat airé¢] He will turn many to God, and he himself will, etc. — rpoedct- 
cerat] not : he will emerge previously (de Wette), but : he will precede (Xen. 
Cyr. vi. 8, 9), go before Him (Gen. xxiii. 8, 14 ; Judith ii. 19, xv. 18). — 
évor. avrov] can only, in accordance with the context, be referred to God 
(ver. 16), whose preceding herald he will be. The prophets, namely, look 
upon and depict the setting in of the Messianic kingdom as the entrance of 
Jehovah into the midst of His people, so that thereupon God Himeel? is rep- 
resented by the Messiah ; Isa. xl.; Mal. iii. 1, iv. 5f. Comp. Tit. ii. 13. 
In the person of the entering Messiah Jehovah Himself enters ; but the 
Messiah’s own personal divine nature is not yet expressed in this ancient- 
prophetic view (in opposition to Gess. Pers. Chr. p.47). Incorrect, because 
in opposition to this prophetic idea, is the immediate reference of avrov to 
the Messiah (Heumann, Kuinoel, Valckenaer, Winer), as regards which 
appeal is made to the emphatic use of 811, airéc, and ipse (comp. the Pyth- 
agorean avrd¢ é¢a), whereby a subject not named but well known to every 
one is designated (Winer, p. 182 [E, T. 146 f.]). — év mvetuarc x. duvdy. HA. ] 
furnished therewith. Spirit and power (power of working) of Elijah (ac- 
cording to Mal. iii. 28 f.) is, as a matter of course, God’s Spirit (comp. ver. 
15) and divine power, but in the peculiar character and vital expression 
which were formerly apparent in the case of Elijah, whose antitype John is, 
not as a miracle-worker (John x. 41), but as preacher of repentance and pro- 
phetic preparer of the way of the Lord. —émorpéwa x.t.4.] according to 
Malachi, l.c. : in order to turn fathers’ hearts to children ; to be taken liter- 
ally of the restoration of the paternal lore, which in the moral degradation 
of the people had in many grown cold. Comp. Ecclus. xlviii. 10 and 
Fritzsche in loc. Kuinoel incorrectly holds that rarépwy means the patri- 
arches, and that the meaning is (similar to that given by Augustine, de civit. 
D. xx. 29 ; Beza, Calovius, and others) : ‘‘ efficiet, ut posteri erga Deum eun- 
dem habeant animum pium, quem habebant eorum majores,” ‘‘ will effect that 
the descendants have the same pious mind toward God that their ancestors 
had.” Comp. also Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 674, and Bleek. The 
absence of any article ought in itself to have warned against this view !— 
kai aveBeic év gpov. r. dix.] 8c. Excotpiypat. The discourse passes over from the 
special relation to the general one. are:@cic 18 the opposite of ray dixaiuv, 
and therefore is not to be understood of the children (Olshausen), but of the 
immoral in gencral, whose characteristic is disobedience, namely, towards 
God. — év gpovfoe:] connected immediately in a pregnant way with the verb 
of direction, in which the thought of the resulé was predominant. Sec 
Kitthner, II. p. 816. ‘‘Sensts corum, qui justi sunt, in conversione protinus 
induitur,” ‘‘the disposition of those who are just is directly involved in 
conversion,” Bengel. ¢pévnaeg (see Arist. Hth. Nic. vi. 5. 4), practical intel- 
ligence. Comp. on Eph. i. 8. The practical element follows from are:ei¢. — 
érorudcat]} to put in readiness, etc. Aim of the émorpéyat x.7.A., and so final 
aim of the zpoedetoera: x.t.A. —xupiv] for God, as at vv. 16, 17. —Aadv xare- 
oxevacy.| a people adjusted, placed in the right moral state (for the setting up 


238 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

of the Messianic kingdom), is related to éroudoa: as its result. ‘‘ Parandus 
populus, ne Dominus populum imparatum invenicns majestate sua obtcrat,” 
‘*A people must be prepared, lest the Lord coming upon an unprepared 
people should destroy them with His majesty,” Bengel. 

Yer. 18. Like Abraham’s question, Gen. xv. 8.— xara ri] According to 
what. Zacharias asks after a o7eiov (ii. 12), in conformity with which he 
should know that what had been promised (rovro)—in other words, the birth 
of a son, with whom the indicated destination of Elias should associate it- 
self—had really occurred. 

Vv. 19, 20. The angel now discloses to Zacharias what angel he is, by way 
of justifying the announcement of penalty which he has then to add. — 
Tafpina] O32, vir Dei, one of the seven angel-princes (0°) or archangels 
(comp. Auberlen in Herzog’s Eneykl. IV..p. 634), who stand for service at 
the throne of God (évémov r. Geot), as His primary servants,*? Dan. viii. 16, 
ix. 21. Comp. Fritzsche on Tob. xii. 15. ‘‘ Nomina angelorum ascende- 
runt in manum Israelis ex Babylone,” ‘‘ The names of the angels went up into 
the hand of Israel from Babylon,” Ros Hassana, f. 56, 4 ; Enoch 20.3 — ow- 
wav] It is only the subsequent «. 7 duvdy. AaAgoae that defines this more 
precisely as dumbness, which, however, is not apoplectic, caused by the terror 
(Paulus), nor the consequence of the agitating effect of the vision (Lange), 
which consequence he himself recognized as a punishment ; but it is a mi- 
raculous penalty. — av? ov] for the reason (by way of retribution) that.‘ 
The difficulties felt on account of the harshness of this measure (Paulus, 
Strauss, Bruno Bauer, comp. also de Wette), with which the impunity of 
others, such as Abraham and Sarah, has been compared, are, when the 
matter is historically viewed, not to be got rid of cither by the assumption 
of a greater guilt which the Omniscient recognized (Calvin, comp. Lange, 
L. J. If. 1, p. 65, and even as early as Augustine), or by an appeal to the 
lesser age of Zacharias (Hoffmann), and the like ; but to be referred to the 
counsel of God (Rom. xi. 33 f.), whose various measures do not indeed dis- 
close themselves to human judgment, but at any rate admit of the reflection 
that, the nearcr the dawn of the Messianic time, the more inviolably must 
the requirement of faith in the promise—and the promise was here given 
through an angel and a pricst—come into prominent relief. — oireve¢] quali- 
tative (Kiihner, IT. p. 407), ctacomparati ut, wherein is implied a reference 
that justisics the penal measure. — cic r. xacpdv avr. ] denotes the space of time 
appointed for the Adyo., till the completion of which it is still to hold that 
their fulfilment is setting in.’ Sce also xiii. 9. 

Ver. 21. The priests, especially the chief priests, were accustomed, ac- 
cording to the Talmud, to spend only a short time in the sanctuary ; other- 


1 Hofmann, Schrifidew. I. p. 848 f., makes 
some unimportant objections against the ac- 
curacy of the explanation of archangels. 
See in opposition to him, Hahn, TZheol.d. 
N. T. 1. p. 286. 

8 6 wapeorynxas, comp. thereon Rev. vill. 2, 
and see Valckenaer. 

® See later Jewish fictions in respect to 


Gabriel, set forth in Elsenmenger, entdeck(les 
Judenth. II. p. 368 ff., 878 ff., 890, 874. 

4 xix. 44; Acts xii. 28 ; 2 Thess. fi. 10: Her- 
mann, ad Viger. p. 710; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
I. p. 170. 

’ Comp. the classical és xa:pév, eis xpdvov, 
eis éonépay, and the like, Bernhardy, p. 216. 


CHAP. I., 22-24. 239 


wise it was apprehended that they had been slain by God, because they 
were unworthy or had done something wrong.’ Still the unusually long 
delay of Zacharias, which could not but strike the people, is sufficient in it- 
sei/f as a reason of their wonder. — év r@ ypoviferv airév] not over (érl, iv. 22, 
al.), or on account of (Mark vi. 6, dé), but on occasion of his failure to appear. 
So also Ecclus. xi. 21; Isa. Ixi. 6. Rightly, Gersdorf, Ewald, render : 
when he, etc. 

Vv. 22, 28. ’Exéyvacay, bre Sbrraciav x.t.A.] by the inference ab effectu ad 
causam ; and very naturally they recognize as the latter an appearance of 
God or an angel, since, in fact, it was in the sanctuary that the dumbness 
had come on, and the agitating impression might even cause death, Judg. 
vi. 28, al. In spite of the oix Hdivaro AadAgoa:, Olshausen thinks that this 
éréyvwcav does not refer to the silence of Zacharias, but probably to the ex- 
citement in his whole appesrance, which Bleek also mixes up. — airéc, he 
on his part, corresponding to that which they perceived. — jv dtavetwr atroic] 
he was employed in making signs to them (Ecclus. xxvii. 22 ; Lucian, V. ZZ. 
44), namely, that he had seen a vision. — dc éxAfod. x.7.A.] namely, the 
week in which the class of Abijah (see ver. 5) had the temple service.? — ei¢ 
tr. olx. avrov] ver. 39 f., also ver. 56 : cic Tr. olxov avric. 

Ver. 24 f. Mera dé rabr. r. $uép.] in which this vision had occurred, and he 
had returned at the end of the service-week to his house. Between the re- 
turn and the conception we are not to place an indefinite interval. — repié- 
xpuBev éaurty] she hid herself, withdrew her own person completely (epi, see 
Valckenaer) from the view of others. — p#vac wévre] is of necessity to be 
understood of the first, not of the last five months of pregnancy (in opposition 
to Heumann). See vv. 26, 36, 56, 57. —2Afyovoa’ ire x.7.2.] the reason which 
was uttered by her for this withdrawal ; hence 6r: is not recitative, but to 
be rendered because, as at vii. 16 : because thus hath the Lord done tomein 
the days, in which He was careful to take away my reproach among men. Her 
reflection, therefore, was to this effect : ‘‘ seeing that her pregnancy was the 
work of God, whose care, at the setting in of this state of hers, had been 
directed towards removing from her the reproach of unfruitfulness, she 
must leave to God also the announcement of her pregnancy, and not herself 
bring it about. God would know how to attain His purpose of taking away 
her reproach.” And God knew how to attain this His purpose. After she 
had kept herself concealed for five months, there occurred in the sixth 
month, ver. 26 ff., the annunciation to Mary, in which the condition of 
Elizabeth was disclosed to Mary, so that she rose up (ver. 39 ff.), etc. Hence 
the opinions are not in accordance with the text, which represent Elizabeth 
as having kept herself concealed from shame at being with child in her old 
age (Origen, Ambrose, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), or in 
order that she might first assure herself of her condition (Paulus), and might 
in the meantime apply herself to devotion (Kuinoel), or to afford no handle 
to curiosity (Schegg), or ‘‘quo magis appareret postea repente graviditas,” 


1 See Meroe. Joma, f. 48,2; Babyl. £. &8, 20On the verb, comp. ver. 57, ff. 6, 21 f.; 
2; Deyling, Odss. III. ed. 2, p. 455 f. also Gal. tv. 4; Eph. 1. 10. 


240 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


‘‘that the pregnancy might afterward more suddenly become apparent ” 
(Bengel), or even because it was necessary to keep herself quiet during the 
first months of pregnancy (de Wette). No; it was because with resigna- 
tion and confidence she awaited the emerging of the divine guidance. — aic] 
without repetition of the preposition. '— éeidev] looked to it, 1.e., took care for 
it. - So more frequently é¢opdw is used of the providence of the gods in the 
classical writers ; Herod. i. 124 ; Soph. #7. 170. Comp. Acts iv. 29. — ro 
bvedé¢ wov] Comp. Gen. xxx. 28. Unfruitfulness was a disgrace, as being a 
token of the divine disfavor (Ps. cxiii. 9; Isa. iv. 1, xliv. 8; xlvii. 9; 
Hos. ix. 11); the possession of many children was an honor and blessing 
(Ps. cxxvil., cxxvili.).4— é av0paro?] belongs to agedciv ; among men she 
had dishonor. ; 

Vv. 26, 27. Té éxrw] see ver. 24. — Navapér] According to Matthew, Beth- 
lehem was the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Sce on Matt. ii. 23, Re- 
mark, and Schleiermacher, J. J. p. 51 ff. — é& oixow Aavid] applies not to 
Mary and Joseph (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, 
Calovius, and others, including Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 395), 
but merely to the latter, ii. 4, iii, 28 ff. The descent of Mary from David 
cannot at all be proved in the N. T. Sce on Matt. i. 17, Remark 2. Comp. 
on ver. 86,ii.4f. [See Note X., p. 258.] 

Vv. 28, 29. Eiceadév] namely, 6 dyyedng (see the critical remarks). Paulus 
erroneously puts it : ‘‘a@ person who came in said to her.” — xceyaptopévy] 
who has met with kindness (from God).* Well remarks Bengel : ‘‘ non ut 
mater gratiac, sed ut filia pratiae,” ‘‘not as mother of grace, but as daugh- 
ter of grace.” See ver. 30 ; and on yapiréw in general, see Eph. i. 6. — On 
ridoy. ov év yovace. in the Tertus receptus (but see the critical remarks), see 
Winer, p, 220 [E. T. 246]. It would be not a vocative, like xexyapirwpétvn, 
but a nominative, as the added at indicates : The Lord is with thee, blessed 
(xar’ tEoxiv) art thou among women. — Ver. 29. The Recepta (but see the crit- 
ical remarks) would have to be explained : but she, when she looked upon him, 
was terrified at his saying, so that idovoa only appears as an accessory element 
of the narrative, not as jointly a reason of her terror (in opposition to Borne- 
mann, de Wette, and others), which would rather be simply éxi r@ Aéyw 
avrov, as is shown by the text which follows kai dceAoyifero x.t.2. — rorandc] 
qualis, what sort of a: a question of wonder. Comp. on Mark xiii. 1 f. In 
accordance with its swzhole tenor raising her to so high distinction the grect- 
ing was to her enigmatical. 

Ver. 31. See on Matt. 1. 21. 

Ver. 32. f. Méyac) Comp. ver. 15. And what greatness belonged to this 
promised One, appears from what is said in the sequel of His future ! — vid 
twpiorov xAn3ho.| Description of His recognition as Messiah, as whom the an- 
gel still more definitely designates Him by xa? dace: x.7r.A. The name Son of 


1See Bernhardy, p. 203; TBornemann, sound in the words yxaipe xeyaperwpery. 


Schol. p.6; Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. il. 1. 32. Plays on words of a like kind are found 
2 Comp. the view of the Greeks, Herod. among Roman Catholics with the contrasts 
vi. 86; Miller, Dor. II. p. 192. of ave and Eva. 


3 Observe the ingenious similarity of 





CHAP. I., 34. 241 
God is not explained in a metaphysical reference until ver. 85. — rdv Spédvor 
Aav. tov zarp. avrov] i.¢c., the royal throne of the Messianic kingdom, which 
is the antitypical consummation of the kingdom of David (Ps. cxxxii. 11, 
cx.), as regards which, however, in the sense of the angel, which excludes 
the bodily paternity of Joseph, David can be meant as 6 zar#p avrov only ac- 
cording to the national theocratic relation of the Messiah as David’s son, just 
as the historical notion of the Messiah was once given. ([Sce Note XI., 
p. 258.] The mode in which Luke (and Matthew) conceived of the Davidic 
descent is plain from the genealogical table of ch. iii., according to which 
the genealogy passed by way of Joseph as /foster-father. — cic rove aidvac] 
from Isa. ix. 6 ; Dan. vii. 13 f. The conception of an everlasting Messianic 
kingdom (according to Ps. cx. 4).js also expressed in John xii. 34 ; comp. 
the Rabbins in Bertholdt, CAristol. p. 156. The ‘‘ house of Jucob”’ is not to 
be idealized (Olshausen, Bleek, and others: of the spiritual Israel); but 
the conception of the kingdom in our passage is Jewish-national, which, 
however, does not exclude the dominion over the Gentiles according to the 
prophetic prediction (‘‘ quasi per accessionem,” ‘‘as if through addition,” 
Grotius). — Baca. ivi] as xix. 14; Rom. v. 14. 

Ver. 34 f. How ia it possible that this shall be the case ?? namely, 75 ovAAa,eiv 
éy yaorp? xai texeiv vidv, Euthymius Zigabenus, — ov ywwdcxw| comp. Matt. i. 
18; Gen. xix. 8; Judg. xi. 89; Num. xxxi..17, since I have sexual inter- 
course with noman. In this sense the pure maiden knows no man. As, how- 
ever, she is betrothed, ver. 27, her reply shows that sho has understood the 
promise of the angel rightly as soon to be fulfilled, and not to be referred 
to her impending marriage with Joseph, but as independent of the marriage 
that was soon to take place. The dvdpa od yivdoxw is thus simply the confes- 
sion of the immaculate virgin conscience, and not (a misunderstanding, which 
Mary's very letrothal ought to have precluded) the vow of perpetual virginity 
(Augustine, de virgin. 4, Gregory of Nyssa, Grotius, Jansen, Maldonatus, 
Bisping, and others), or the resolution to that effect (Schegg). — rveiua aytor’] 
In accordance with the nature of a proper name, without the article. More- 
over, see on Matt. i. 18. — émedetcera: imi of] will descend upon thee (Acts 1. 
8). This, as well as émcoxidoe: cot, will overshadow thee (Acts v. 15), is—the 
former without figure, the latter figuratively—a designation of the connec- 
tion producing the pregnancy, which, however, is not conceived of in the 
form of copulation, for which the words are euphemistic expressions (Pau- 
lus, von Ammon, and older commentators), or yct under the notion of a 
bird which covers its eggs (Theophylact, comp. Grotius).’ Certainly the 
expressions are correlates of y:vécxw, but as regards the effect, not as regards 
the form, since éredetc. expresses simply the descent of the Spirit, and é- 


1 This question is only appropriate to the 
virgin heart asa question of doubt on the 
ground of conscious impossibility, and not 
as an actual wish to learn the ovo (rov 
‘apéwov Tou mpayparos, ** the mode of the mat- 
ter,” Theophylact); comp. already Augus- 
tine: “ingutrendo dixit, non desperanido,” 
“she spoke tnguiringly, not Aopelessly,”’ 


16 


whereas the meaning of the question of 
Zacharias, ver. 18, is the converse. 

8 Approved also by Delitzsch, bid. Psychol. 
p. 116 f., and Bleek. But this conception is 
here very much out of place, and is not !m- 
plied even in NDTIN9, Gen. i. 2, which, be- 
sides, has nothing to do with the passage 
before us. 


242 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
oxdo. the manifestation of divine power associated therewith in the form of a 
cloud (aftcr the manner of the Old Testament theophanics, Ex. xl. 45 ; 
Num. ix. 15 ; 1 Kings viii. 10 ; comp. also Luke ix. 34). Augustine and 
other Fathers have quite mistakenly laid stress in éxcox. on the notion of 
coolness (in contrast to procreation in lust); comp. oxdfecv 1d xavya in Alci- 
phr. ill. 2. — divaucc tyicrov] without the article : power of the Highest will 
overshadow thee, will be that, which shall overshadow thee. This will set 
in in immediate consequence (xai) of the mveiya ayiov érehetoera: éni oF. 
Strict dogmatic expositors, such as Theophylact, Calovius, have rightly 
(comp. xxiv. 49) distinguished between the Holy Spirit and the power of the 
Highest, but in doing so have already imported more precise definitions from 
the dogmatic system by explaining the powcr of the Highest of the Son of 
God, who with His majesty filled the body that had been formed by the 
Holy Spirit, and thus have, by a morc precise description of the formation 
of the body, broken in upon the delicate veil which the mouth of the angel 
had breathed over the mystery.’ — 1d yevvduevov dytor| the holy thing that is 
being begotten shall (after His birth), be called Sonof God. Most interpreters 
take 7d yevvdyevov as that which 2 to be burn (comp. ver. 13), which view, 
moreover, has drawn after it the old addition é« cov from Matt. i. 16. But 
the context which immediately precedes points only to the begetting (Ben- 
gel, Bleek); and to this also points the neuter, which applics to the embryo 
(comp. on Matt. i. 20, and see Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Thesm. 564), as well 
us the parallel Matt. i. 20. Tbe subject, we may add, is +d dyiov, not rd 
yervou. (Kuinoel : ‘‘ proles veneranda,” ‘‘ offspring which is to be revered” 
= Td yevvou. Td Gyiov), aS also Bornemann assumes, when he (comp. de Wette) 
takes ayov predicatively : ‘‘ proles tua, cum divina sit,” ‘‘ thy offspring when 
it is divine.” Not as holy, but as begotten by God's power (did), is the fruit 
of Mary called the Son of God. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 117, explains : 
it shall be called holy, Son of God, so that those two appellations are to 
correspond to the two members of the preceding promise. So already Ter- 
tullian, as also Bengeland Bleek. [See Note XIL, p. 258.] But the asyndet- 
ic form, in which vid¢ Geod would be subjoined, tells against this view all the 
more, that we should of necessity, in direct accordance with what precedes 
(xai dbvamts x.T.A.), expect xai vide Ocov, especially after the verb, where no 
reader could anticipate a second predicate without «ai. Comp. Justin, c. 
Tryph. 100 : dtd xai 7d yevvdmevov && artigg ayibv Eat vid¢g Oecd, ‘‘ wherefore 
also that the holy thing begotten of her is Son of God.” 

Ver. 36 f. Confirmation of the promise by the disclosure of Elizabeth's 
pregnancy, which, in fact, was also a deviation from the order of nature (év 
yf#pet), and so far presented an analogy, although only in an inferior sense. 


? Calovins : ‘‘ Supervenit Spiritus non qu!- 
‘dem omepparuxas sed Snutovpyixas, gullu- 
‘las sanguineas Mariae, e quibus concipienda 
caro Domini, sanclificando, easdem foecundas 
reddendo, et ex tisdem corpus humanum effor- 

mando.” Justin, Apol. I. 38, already rightly 
gives the simple thought of the chaste and 
delicate representation: xcvodopnca mapbévor, 


ovcay renoinxe, ‘hath caused her, being a 
virgin, to be pregnant.” Schlefermacher, 2. 
J. p. 62, erroneously affirms that the repre- 
sentation of Luke admits the possibility of 
Jesus being thought of as conceived with 
the participation of Joseph. It absolutely 
excludes any such notion. 


CHAP. I., 38. 243 
‘¢ En domesticum tibi exemplum,” ‘‘ Lo, a family example for thee !” Grotius. 
After ido x.r.A. an éori was as little needed as an ciui at ver. 38. — ovyyevic] 
The nature of this relationship, which is not at variance with John i. 36, 
although questioned by Schleiermacher and others, is wholly unknown. It 
is, however, possible that Mary was of the stock of Levi [see Note XI, 
p. 258],’ as the Test. XII. Patr. p. 542 makes the Messiah proceed from the 
stock of Judah (Joseph) and (comp. p. 546) from the stock of Levi.*—- On the 
late form ovyyevic, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 451 f.; and on the Ionic form of 
dative y#pec, Winer, p. 60 [E. T. 73 f.]. — otroc} subject: and this is the sixth 
month, — dre ovx Gdvvar. «.7.A.} Confirmation of that which has just been said of 
Elizabeth by the omnipotence of God. It is to be observed (1) that oi... 
av do not belong to one another, but of way pyc it is said : cin advvarhoet 
(Fritzsche, Diss. Il. in 2 Cor. p. 24 f.); further, (2) that the proposition is a 
general one ; hence the future, which, however, is purposely chosen with a 
view to what was announced to Mary ; see Dissen. ad Dem. de Cor. p. 369 ; 
(3) that there exists no reason for abandoning the purely Greek meaning of 
adSvvareiv, to be unable (Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 210), any more than 
of a pyua, utterance (ver. 88), especially with the reading zapa rov Ocoi (sce the 
critical remarks). Hence the meaning is not : ‘‘ With God nothing is im- 
possible ;” but rather : not powerless (but of success and efficacy) shall any 
utterance on the part of God be. So also Gen. xviii. 14. Comp. Beza: 
‘* dja, t.é., quicquid Deus semel futurum dixerit,” ‘‘ whatever God at any 
time in future shall have spoken.” 

Ver. 38. Behold the handmuid of the Lord! without a verb. Comp. ver. 
86, v. 12, 18. — yévocro] Aorrov ov pdvov Exiorevoer, aAAa yisato yevioOa avrg, 
Kadac 6 ayyedog eipyxe, Euthymius Zigabenus ; ‘‘eximio fiduciae exemplo,” 
‘* extraordinary example of trust,” Grotius. 


Remark.—The natural explanation of the annunciation to Mary (Paulus) is 
at variance with the evangelic account ; and as the latter unfolds simply, clear- 
ly, and delicately an external procedure, the objective is not to be rendered 
subjective and transferred, as a reciprocal operation of the theocratic Spirit of 
God and the emotional feeling of the Virgin, by means of poetic coloring to the 
soul of the latter (Lange, L. J. I. 1, p. 67). [See Note XIIT., p. 258 seq.] As 
history, believed even as it is related, the narrative arose, and that too in depen- 
dently of the preliminary history of Matthew, and even incompatibly with it,® 
—in consequence of the circumstance that the divine sonship of Jesus was ex- 
tended to His bodily origination (see on Matt. i. 18), an idea, which gave shape 
to legends dissimilar in character and gaining currency in different circles. 
Thus, ¢.g., it is clear that the history, adopted at Matt. i. 19 ff., of Joseph’s 
perplexity and of the angelic message which came to him does not presuppose, 


1 So Faustus the Manichean In Augustine, 
ce. Faust. xxiil.9; and recently, Schleicr- 
macher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 2%; Hilgenfeld, 
Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 177, and others. 

* Thus the descent from the Davidic and 
priestly race might have been used for the 
giorification of Jesus. But from the height 
of the history of Jesus so little importance 


was attached to things of this nature that 
only the Daridic descent, as it was neces- 
sary in the caso of the Messiah, had stress 
laid on it, and the family of Mary was not 
expressly specified at all. Comp. Ewald, 
Geach. Chr. p. 177 f. 

? Comp. Schlelermacher, ZL. J. p. 59 ff. 


r4i4 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

but excludes the annunciation to Mary; for that Mary after such a revelation 
should have made no communication to Joseph, would have been not less psy- 
chologically unnatural, than it would have been a violation of the bridal rela- 
tion and, indeed, of the bridal duty ;! and to reckon on 4 special ‘revelation, 
which without her aid would make the disclosure to her betrothed, she must 
have been expressly directed by the angelic announcement made to her, in 
order to be justified in deferring the communication of her pregnancy to her 
betrothed. We make this remark in opposition to the arbitrary presupposi- 
tions and shifts of Hug (G@utacht. I. p. 81 ff.), Krabbe, Ebrard, and others. Ac- 
cording to the view invented by the last-named, it is assumed that Joseph had 
learned Mary's pregnancy, immediately after the appearance of its earliest 
signs, from the pronubae (‘‘ suspicious women”) ; that immediately there ensued 
the appearance of the angel to him, and forthwith he took her home ; and that 
for all this a period of at most fourteen days sufficed. Mark and John have 
rightly excluded these miracles of the preliminary history from the cycle of the 
evangelical narrative, which onlf began with the appearance of the Baptist 
(Mark i. 1); as, indeed, Jesus Himself never, even in his confidential circle, 
refers to them, and the unbelief of His own brothers, John vii. 6, and in fact 
even the demeanor of Mary, Mark iii. 21 ff., is irreconcilable with them.* — The 
angelic announcement made to Zacharias, which likewise withdraws itself from any 
attempt at natural explanation (Paulus, Ammon), appears asa parallel to the 
annunciation to Mary, having originated and been elaborated in consequence 
of the latter as a link in the chain of the same cycle of legends after the analogy 
of Old Testament models, especially that of Abraham and his wife. [See Note 
XIII, p. 258seq.] Asin the case of the annunciation to Mary the metaphysical 
divine Sonship of Jesus, so in the announcement to Zacharias the extraordi- 
nary divine destination and mission of John (John i. 6) is the real element on 
which the formation of legend became engrafted ; but to derive the latter 
’ merely from the self-consciousness of the church (Bruno Bauer), and conse- 
quently to take away the objective foundation of the history, is at variance 
with the entire N. T. and with the history of the church. For the formation 
of the legend, moreover, the historical circumstances, that John was the son of 
the priest Zacharias and Elizabeth, and a son born late in life, ‘are to be held 
fast as premisses actually given by history (in opposition to Strauss, I. p. 135), 
all the more that for these simple historical data their general notoriety could 
not but bear witness. This also in opposition to Weiss and B. Bauer, who de- 
rive these traditions from the laboratory of religious contemplation. Further, as 
to what specially concerns the late birth of John, it has its historical precedents in 
the history of Isaac, of Samson, and of Samuel; but the general principle 
deduced from such cases, ‘‘ Cum alicujus uterum claudit, ad hoc facit, ut mira- 
bilius denuo aperiat, et non libidinis esse quod nascitur, sed divini muneris 


1 Lange, LZ. J. II. p. 88 f.,rightlyacknowl- severe struggle arose in his soul,and this 


edges this, but, following older writers, 
thinksthat Mary made the communication 
to Joseph before her journey to Elizabeth, 
but that he nevertheless (‘‘ the first Ebion- 
Ite’") refused to believe her. This is not 
compatible with Matthew's narrative, es- 
pecially 1. 18. And what Lange further 
(p. 89) adds, that during Mary’s absence a 


state of feeling became the medium of the 
revelation made to him, is simply added. 

2 Schlelermacher is right in saying, Z. J. 
p. 71: “These occurrences have been en- 
tirely without effect as regards the coming 
forward of Christ or the origination of faith 
in Him." 


CHAP. I., 39. 245 


cognoscatur,’’ ‘‘ When He closes the womb of some one, He does it for this, that 
He may open it again more marvellously, and that what is born may be recog- 
nized as being not of lust but of divine gift” (Hvang. de Nativ. Mar. 3), be- 
came the source of unhistorical inventions in the apocryphal Gospels,! as, in 
particular, the apocryphal account of the birth of Mary herself is an imitation 
of the history of John's birth. 


Ver. 89. The angel’s communication, ver. 36, occasions Mary to make a 
journey to Elizabeth, and that with haste (uera orovdjc, comp. Mark vi. 25 ; Ex. 
xii. 11 ; Herod. iii. 4, iv. 5) ; forhow much must her heart have now urged her 
to the interchange of the deepest feelings with the friend who, in like man- 
ner, was so highly favored | Thus it is not merely ‘‘ne negligeret signum,” 
‘‘that she might not slight the sign,” etc., Grotius. From Elizabeth she 
receives the confirmation of that which the’ angel had announced to her 
concerning Elizabeth. But before her departure the great promise of ver. 
85 is already fulfilled to herself. With extraordinary delicacy the promised 
conception is not related in its realization (comp., on the other hand, ver. 
24), and the veil of the unparalleled marvel is not attempted to be raised ; 
but vv. 41-44 and the whole triumph of Mary, ver. 46 ff., presuppose that 
she appears before Elizabeth already as the mother of the Messiah, bearing 
Him in her womb. §She herself is only made certain of the miracle, which 
has already occurred in her case, by the inspired communication which at 
once meets her from the mouth of her friend. Bengel is singularly arbi- 
trary in transferring the conception, which in any case lies between vv. 88 | 
and 89, to the moment when the child leaped in the womb of Elizabeth, . 
which he concludes from yép in ver. 44, — eig riv dpewvin] into the mountain- 
region —xar’ t&oxfv, Aristot. H. A. v. 28; Judith i. 6, ii. 22, iv. 7, al; 
Plin. Hf. N. v.14. The mountainous country in the tribe of Judah is meant. 
See Robinson, Pal. II. p. 422 ff., III. p. 188 ff. — cic réAcv 'Iobda] into a city 
of the tribe of Judah. Luke does not give any more precise definition, and 
therefore it is to be assumed that he himself had no more precise knowl- 
edge. Jerusalem, the capital, is certainly not meant (in opposition to 
Ambrose, Beda, Camerarius); which is clear, not indeed from the want of 
the article (comp. ii. 4, 11; Bornemann in loc.), but from the unprece- 
dented designation itself (in 2 Chron. xxv. 28 the reading is very doubtful, 
see the LXX.), and from the eic rv dpeivyy [less] appropriate to Jerusalem. 
It may have been the priestly city of Hebron, Josh. xxi. 11 (Baronius, Beza, 
Grotius, Lightfoot, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, and others); but that it is meant as 
@ matter of course under the ‘‘ city of Judah” (sec Ewald, p. 182), is not to 
be assumed, because in that case wé4:v could not dispense with the article 
(to the well-known city of Judah). Others* have regarded Juda as itself the 
name of the city: holding that it was the priestly city TOY or 1! (Josh. 
xxi. 16, xv. 55 ; comp. Robinson, I. p. 417), so that the name is wrongly 


1 See, In general, R. Hofmann, das Leben * Valesius, Epp. 669; Reland, Pal. p. 870; 
Jesu nach d. Apokr, 1851; also Gelpke, Ju- Wetstein, Paulus, Kuinoel, Crome, Beitr. 
gendgesch. des Herrn, 1842 (who, moreover, pp. 45, ef a/.; comp. also Robinson, Pal. III. 
gives the Jewish legends). p. 198, and Ritter, Erdk. XV. p. 641. 


246 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


written. We should have to refer this inaccuracy to Luke himself ; but 
the whole hypothesis is an unnecessary makeshift. 

Ver. 41. Tov domacp. +. Map.} the greeting of Mary. See vv. 40, 44. This 
greeting on the part of Mary (not the communication of the angelic an- 
nouncement, ver. 26 ff., as Kuinoel and others import) caused the leaping of’ 
the child (comp. Gen. xxv. 22), and that as an exulting expression of the 
joy of the latter (ver. 44, vi. 28) at the presence of the Messiah’ now in 
the womb of His mother. Elizabeth immediately through the Holy Spirit 
recognizes the cause of the leaping. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfiil. 
II. p. 251 f. Calvin, Michaelis, Paulus, Olshausen, and many others re- 
verse the matter, holding that the menial agitation of the mother had operated 
on the child (comp. also Lange II. 1, p. 86), and that this circumstance had 
only afterwards, ver. 44, become significant to the mother. Analogous 
to the conception in our passage is Sohar Ex. f. xxiii. 91 f., xxv. 99: 
‘*Omnes Israclitae ad mare rubrum plus viderunt quam Ezechiel propheta ; 
imo etiam embryones, qui in utero matris erant, viderunt id, et Deum S. B. cele- 
brarunt.” A symbolical significance, expressive, namely, of the thought, that 
at the appearance of a higher Spirit the ideas that lie still unborn in the 
womb of the spirit of the world and of the people are quickened (Weisse), 
is foreign to the narrative,—a modern abstraction. 

Ver. 42 f. "Avegdunoe] She cried out (only occurring here in the N. T.; 
comp. 1 Chron. xv. 28, xvi. 5 ; 2Chron. v. 12; Polyb. iii. 33. 4 ; frequent 
in Plutarch), expressing the outburst of the being filled by the Spirit. [Comp. 
critical note.]— 46 xaprég rt. xotA. cov] Designation of the embryo, that 
Mary bears inher womb. For the expression, comp. Gen. xxx. 2 ; Lam. ii. 
20. —xai wédev x.t.A.] 8c. yéyovev. After the first outburst now follows a 
certain reflection, a humble pondering, from what cause (é¥ev, comp. on 
Mark xii. 37) she wasdeemed worthy of this great happiness : avafiav éavt7y rij¢ 
roatrne EriSnpiac Tig Seoroivnc Guodoyel, ‘* She confesses herself unworthy of such 
sojourning of the queen,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — iva x.r.A.] not equivalent 
to rd cAVeiv tH unt. x.T.A., but ftelic: that the mother of my Lord (the Mcs- 
siah, comp. Ps. cx. 1) should come to me,—this is the rovro, in reference to 
which she asks 7é68ev vor. Comp. on John vi. 29, xvii. 3. 

Ver. 44 f. Tap] specifies the ground of knowledge, on which she declares 
Mary as the mother of the Messiah. She had the discernment of this con- 
nection through the Holy Spirit, ver. 41. — ér:] may either be the specifica- 
tion of the reason attached to paxepia (Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, Beza, 
Lange, and others), or the statement of the contents to miorefcaca (Grotius, 
Bengel, Paulus, Kuinoel, Bornemann, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others). 
The latter is the correct view, since the conception—the chief point of the 
AeAaanutva, which Elizabeth has in view—is no longer future, but has already 
taken place. Hence: for blessed is she who has believed, that there shall be a 
Sulfilment to all (ver. 81 ff.), etc. As to redeiworc, comp. Judith x. 9 ; John 
xix. 28. 


1 Older Lutherans (see Calovius) have something unique In character and miracu- 
wrongly used this passage asa proof ofthe lous. The child of Elizabeth has already iu 
Jides infantum. There is, in fact, here the womb the Holy Spirit, ver. 15. 


CHAP. I., 46-51. 


Ver. 46 ff. An echo of the lyrical poetry of the Old Testament, es 
of the song of praise of Hannah the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. ii.). 
psalm-like effusion from the heart of Mary (the so-called Magnificat) . 
itself into four strophes, namely, (1) vv. 46-48 (as far as atrov); (2) ° 
(from idod onward) as far as ver. 50; (3) vv. 51-53 ; and (4) vv. 54,55. Each 
of these four strophes contains three verses. See Ewald, p. 181. — 4 yuy7 
pov] the mediating organ between xveiya and body (Beck, bibl. Seelenl. 
p. 11 ff. ; Delitzsch, 5261. Psychol. p. 222) which receives the impressions from 
without and from within, and here expresses by means of the mouth what 
has taken place in the rveipa (hence yyaAAlace in the aorist). [See Note 
XIV., p. 259.] The rvevya is ‘the highest and noblest part of man, 
whereby he is qualified to grasp incomprehensible, invisible, eternal things; 
and is, in brief, the house within which faith and God’s word abide,” Lu- 
ther (Ausl. 1521). Comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 411 ff. That the 
spirit of Mary exulted full of the Holy Spirit, was self-evident for the 
evangelist after ver. 35 ; an observation, such as that of ver. 41, concerning 
Elizabeth : éxAgody mvebpatog dy., would now have been inappropriate in 
reference to Mary. ayadd:du, in the active, is only found here and at Rev. xix. 
7 (Lachmann, Tischendorf), which reason, however, does not warrant the 
conjecture of ayaAjudoera: (Valckenaer, Bretschneider). —curjpc] benefactor. 
‘(Is est nimirum cwrfp, qui salutem dedit,” ‘‘ He is truly cwrf#p, who gave 
safety,” Cicero, Verr. ii. 63. —ére éwéBiewev imi tr. tar. +r. dobA. air.] as at 
1 Sam. i. 11. Comp. Ps. xxxi. 8; also Luke ix. 38. The expressidn of the 
adjectival notion by means of the substantive (comp. 2 Kings xiv. 26 ; Ps. 
xxiv. 18) places the quality in the foreground.' Mary means the lowliness 
of her person, in spite of which she is chosen of God to such greatness. 
She was in fact only an insignificant maiden from the people, an artisan’s 
betrothed bride. — azo rot viv] from henceforth ; for now, after Elizabeth’s 
inspired words, no further doubt could remain to Mary respecting her con- 
dition as mother of the Messiah ; from henceforth, therefore, she could not 
but be the object of the general congratulation, whereof Elizabeth herself 
had just made a beginning. — racat ai yeveai] all generations. 

Ver. 49 f. Because the Mighty One did to me great things, in making me the 
mother of the Messiah. — xai ay:ov x.r.A.] not for od rd dy. aycov (Luther, 
Castalio, Bengel, and many, including Kuinoel), but lyrically unperiodic : 
and holy is His name! Wence, also, a full stop is not to be placed after 
dvvaréc (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bleek), but only acomma. To the might 
the holiness attaches itself. — cic yevedg x. yeveag] Comp. Isa. 11.8; 1 Macc. ii. 
61; Test. XII. Patr. p. 568 : unto generations and generations, t.e., ever on- 
ward from one gencration to the following. The Recepta cic yeveag yeveov 
would mean : to the uttermost generations ; these would be conceived of as 
forming a euperlatire.? — roi¢ go3oup. avr.} 8c. ore. It denotes the essence of 
theocratic piety. Comp. Ex. xx. 6; Ps. cili. 7. 

Ver. 51 ff. Mary now sees the Messianic catastrophe, which God will 


1 See Fritzsche, ad Rom.I. p. 367 f.; Bern- _— tions, especially from the dramatic writers, 
hardy, p. 53. may be seen in Brunck, ai Ocdip. R. 406; 
? Analogous Greek superlative designa- Bernhardy, p. 154. 


248 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


bring about by means of her son, and she announces it prophetically as hav- 
ing already happened ; for she bears in fact the accomplisher of it already in 
her womb, and thus the work of God, which He is to execute, is before her 
enlightened gaze already as guod as completed ; in that way she sces and de- 
scribes it.—The catastrophe itself is the restoration of the state of things to 
the divine rightful order, the overthrow of the Gentiles and the ezaltation of 
the deeply-oppressed theocratic people (comp. vv. 68, 71, 74) ; the former are 
set forth by the words imepypévovc, duvdcrac, mAovrovvras ; the latter, by 
rarewvolc and revaovrag. This intended concrete application of the general 
expressions is put beyond doubt by avreAdfero ‘IopayA x.r.4., ver. 54 f. — 
izepngavorc| such as are arrogant in the thoughts of their heart; diavoia is the 
dative of more precise definition ; and on the notion (thinking and willing 
ns directed outwards), comp. Beck, Seelenl. p. 58 ; on xapdia as the centre 
of the spiritual and psychic life, Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 248 ff. ; finally, 
in dceoxdép7. the haughty are conceived of as congregated and keeping together ; 
comp. Matt. xxvi. 81; Acts v.37; Ps. Ixxxix. 10. ‘‘ That through Chris- 
tianity the proud were humbled” (de Wette) is not the thought expressed 
by Mary, but a generalization of it, as is also the ‘‘ confusio diabolicae super - 
biae,” ‘‘ confusion of diabolical pride” (Calovius and others), and the like. 
Comp. Ecclus, x. 14 ff. — Ver. 52. He has cast down rulers from thrones, 
does not apply to the demons and Pharisees (Theophylact), but to the Gen- 
tile holders of power. Comp. on the idea of the overthrow of thrones in 
the tintes of the Messiah, Wisd. v. 28; Enoch xxxviii. 4, and Dillmann 
thereon. — Ver. 53. aya#iv] not merely means of subsistence (Valckenacr, 
Bornemann, de Wette), but earthly possessions in general, among which the 
means of subsistence are ineluded. Comp. xii. 18 f. De Wette, moreover, 
is in error in saying (comp. Olshausen) that it is spiritual hunger and spi7- 
itual satisfying that are to be thought of, and that the rich are a type of 
the wise men of this world. The whole is to be taken literally ; the idealiz- 
ing is not warranted according to the context. Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 11.— 
iSaxéor. xevotc] So that they retuin nothing of their possessions, and have 
received nothing from the Messiah.’"—For descriptions of the divine inver- 
sion of relations from the classical writers, see Wetstein and Bornemann. 
Ver. 54 ff. What was expressed descripticely in vv. 51-53, and that by 
means of antitheses, is now definitely and particularly condensed in avre2a- 
eto "lopanA raidd¢ airov (comp. Isa. xli. 8 f.), which is the summary of what 
has been previously said. The aorist is to be taken quite like the previous 
sorists. — avreAd Berto] He has interested Himself for Israel His servant (123.). 
Comp. on avre2dfZ., Acts xx. 35 ; Thuc, iii. 22 ; Diod. Sic. xi. 18. Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus explains it : émeoxéyaro trav "Iapandirixdy Aadyv, rév dovAoy atrod, 
‘he visited the Israelitish people, His servant.” Others, including Paulus, 
Gléckler, Kuinoel, take mra:dé¢ as jfilit (comp. Ex. iv. 22; Hos. xi. 1). But 
the theocratic notion of sonship is never expressed by rai¢ (not even in Acts 
ili, 18). — prgodqvac EA£ovg] not: ‘ita ut perpetuo memor sit,” ‘‘so that the 


1Qn the expression, comp. xx. 10 f.; Job xxfl. 9; Judith x. 11; Hom. Ji. fi. 298 Od. 
xfil. 214. 


CHAP. I., 54. 249 


remembrance is perpetual,” etc. (Kuinoel, Bleck), but : in order to be mind- 
Jul of mercy. We have to note the connection with the éue aidvog [see 
critical note] emphatically put at the end. God has interested Himself for 
Israel, in order to be mindful of mercy even to eternity, in order never again to 
forget mercy. —xa¥acg éAar. rpd¢ tr. war. ju.) not indeed a parenthesis, but 
an inserted clause, which makes one feel that the telic pr7oVvaz eAéove takes 
place in consequence of the divine truthfulness. —rG'ABpady x. tT. orbpp. 
avt.] Dativus commodi to pvrnofyva. Comp. Ps. xcviii. 8; Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 
12; Bornemann, Schol. p. 14 f. It might belong to é2éayce (Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Kuinoel), since 2adeiv may be 
joined as well with mpé¢ as with a dative ; but against this may be urged 
x. tT) orépuarc avrov, Which denotes’ the whole posterity of Abraham with- 
out limitation, and therefore cannot be included in apposition to mpd¢ rode 
marépac iuav. — Observe, moreover, that here (comp. ver. 72) Abraham, the 
progenitor of the race, is conceived of as jointly affected by and interested 
in the destiny of his descendants.?, Abraham liceth unto God, xx. 38. — 
Eucive dé x.t.A.] but not until the delivery of Elizabeth (in opposition to Cal- 
vin, Maldonatus and others) ; see ver. 57. [See Note XV., p. 259.] 


Remark 1.— The harmonizers, even the most recent, have adopted very 
different ways for the fitting of this history into the narrative of Matthew. 
According to Lange, ZL. J. If. 1, p. 84 ff., Mary is driven to Elizabeth by her 
grief at being Ebionitically misjudged and discarded by Joseph ; according to 
Hug, Gutacht. I. p. 85, Ebrard, Riggenbach, and others, she made the journey 
immediately after her marriage, which took place a few days after the begin- 
ning of her pregnancy! Luke says and knows nothing of either view. 

Remarx 2. (See Note XVI., p. 259 seq.] — The historical character as to the 
Visitation of Mary stands or falls with that of the Annunciation. But the psycho- 
logical and moral impossibility, that Mary, after the certainty as to her condition 
acquired while she was with Elizabeth, and after the theocratic inspiration with 
which she declares herself blessed on account of that condition, should not have 
made any communication at all to Joseph on the subject (as must, nevertheless, 
according to Matthew, be assumed, so that thus our narrative and that of Matt. 
i. 18 ff. excludo one another) ; further, the utter want of any trace elsewhere 
of such an intimate and confidential relation as, according to our history, must 
have subsisted hetween the two holy families ; moreover, the design of the nar- 
rative to invest Jesus with a singular glory, according to which even the yet un- 
born John signifies his rejoicing homage before the Messiah when but just con- 
ceived in his mother’s womb; the circumstance, not to be explained away 
(see the untenable suggestion of Lange, p. 92), that it is only after the leaping 
of the babe that Elizabeth receives the Holy Spirit, and by means of this Spirit 
recognizes from that leaping the mother of the Messiah as such ; the hymnic 
scene annexed thereto, the poeic splendor and truth of which lifts it out of 
the historical sphere, in which subsequently the house of Mary was not the 
abode of the faith that is here proclaimed from the mouth of the Virgin with so 


1In what manner it was the owépza  thequestion. 
*ABpady that actually received the com- 2 Isa. xxix. 22 f.; Mio. vil. 90. Comp. John 
passion (Rom. iv., Gal. iv.), was not here  vili. 56; Vest. X1J. Patr. p. 587. 


250 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


lofty a triumph (Mark iii, 31 ; John vii. 3),—all this is not adapted to support 
or to uphold its historical character, even apart from the fact that tradition 
has not even conveyed to Luke the name of the mountain-town. The apocry- 
phal poor and pale copy of the Annunciation and the Visitation may be seen 
in the Protevang. Jacobi, c. xi. xii. ; according to which, moreover, —quite dif- 
ferently from the course followed by the modern Harmonists—it is not till after 
the visitation, only in the sixth month of pregnancy, when Mary is recognized 
as in this condition and called to account by Joseph, that she asserts her inno- 
cence, and then the dream-revelation of the angel is imparted to Joseph (ch. 
xiii. f.). 


Ver. 57 f. Tow rexeiv avr.] genitive governed by 6 xpdvoc : the time, which 
had to elapse until her delivery. Comp. ii. 7, 22; Gen. xxv. 24. — ore 
éueydduve x.t.A.] that he has magnified (Matt. xxiii. 5; 2 Cor. x. 15; 1 Sam. 
xii. 24), namely, by this birth still bestowed, contrary to all expectation, in 
which they saw a proof of especially great divine compassion. The ezpres- 
sion is quite as in Gen. xix. 19. — ovvéya:pov] they rejviced together with her. 
Others, like Valckenaer (following the Vulgate): they congratulated her 
(see on Phil. ii. 17). The former is more appropriate on account of ver. 14 ; 
and comp. xv. 6, 9. 

Ver. 59 f. With the circumcision was associated the giving of the name, 
Gen. xxi. 3. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 110. Among the Greeks and Romans 
it took place on the dies lustricus.' — 7A9ov] The subject is evident of it- 
self, namely, the persons pertaining to the circumcision : ‘‘ amici ad eam 
rem vocati,” ‘‘ friends invited for this purpose,” Grotius. Any Israelite 
might be the circumciser (in case of necessity even a woman, Ex. iv. 25).* 
—ixadovv] They actually uttered this name (this took place immediately 
after the circumcision was performed ; see Lund, l.c., Buxtorf, Synagog. 4): 
but the mother (for the father was still dumb) took exception to it, ver. 60. 
‘* Vere enim incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu,” ‘‘ For the act 
really begins, but fails of result on account of impediments,” Schaefer, ad 
Phoen. 81 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. 205]. The naming of the 
child after the father (Tob. i. 9; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 1. 3) or after a relative 
(ver. 61 ; Lightfoot, p. 726) was very common, asit was also among the 
Greeks (Hermann, J.c. 18). On ézi, comp. Neh. vii. 63 ; Plut. Demetr. 2. 
The idea is : in reference to. — oii, a224 x2.79. "Iwavv.] The usual supposition 
(Paulus, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bleek, following Calvin and others), that Zacha- 
rias after his return from the temple made known to Elizabeth by writing 
the words of the angel, ver. 13, is the more arbitrary, the less it is in keep- 
ing with the miraculous impress of the whole history. Theophylact is right 
in saying : 7 dé'Edodfer dg mpogogzia éAdAnoe epi Tov ovéuarog, ‘‘ But 
Elizabeth spake asa prophetess concerning the name ;” and Euthymius 
Zigabenus : éx rveiparog dyiov Kal airy 7d dvoua Tov raddg peuddyxe, ‘* She also 
hath learned the name of the child from the Holy Spirit” (comp. Origen 
and Ambrose), and this, indeed, at the moment of that éxdAovv, ver. 59, else 


1 See Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 44f.; Her- 2Sce Lund, Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 049; 
mann, Jvivatalterth. § 82. 17. Kell. Archdol. I. p. 307 f. 


CHAP. I., 62-65. R2o1 


it would not be easy to perceive why she should not at the very beginning 
have carried out the giving of the divinely-appointed name. 

Ver. 62 f. ’Evévevov] They conveyed by signs to him the question (ré, see 
Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 17; Kithner, II. p. 188), how (ri = ri dvoua, 
comp. Aesch. Ag. 1205) he perchance (ay, see Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 808]) 
would wish that the child (airéd, see the critical remarks) should be named. 
The making signs does not presuppose deafness and dumbness (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Maldonatus, Lightfoot, Grotius, 
Wolf, and others, including Ewald), against which may be urged ver. 20 ; 
nor is it to be explained by the fact, that we are inclined to communicate 
by means of signs with dumb people as with deaf people (Bengel, Michaelis, 
Paulus, Olshausen, de Wette), which can only be arbitrarily applicd to 
Zacharias, since he had only been dumb fora short time, and people had pre- 
viously been accustomed to speak with him. Probably it was only from the 
wish to spare the mother that the decision of the father, who had all along been 
listening to the discussion, was called for not aloud, but by signs. — airfoac] 
épuotwc dia vebyaroc, ‘‘ likewise through a sign,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — 
mwvaxidtov] probably a little tablet covered with wax. ‘Tertullian, de idolol. 
23: ‘‘ Zacharias loquitur in stylo, auditur in cera,” ‘‘ Zacharias speaks with a 
stylus, hears in wax.” — typawe Aéywv] seripsit haec verba, ‘‘ wrote these words.” 
Comp. 2 Kings x. 6; 1 Macc. viii. 31, xi. 57. A Hebraism (Ae), The 
return of speech does not occur till ver. 64. Comp. vv. 18, 20. —'Iwdvuge éori 
rT. bv. avrov] Shortly and categorically, in the consciousness of what had been 
already divinely determined : 15¥ j3nv [the Hebrew characters probably 
written by Zacharias]. ‘‘ Non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat,” 
‘‘ He does not command, but indicates the divine command,” Bengel.— idabu.] ” 
because Zacharias agrced with Elizabeth in a name foreign to the family. 

Ver. 64. "Avedydn . . . Adoca avtav] a zeugma ; in the case of the tongue 
éAb3”y may be mentally supplied ; comp., on the other hand, Mark vii. 35. 
This recovery of speech is to be regarded not as the effect of lively emotion 
(Gell. v. 9; Val. Max. i. 8. 3), or of the deliverance of his soul from the 
reproach that had oppressed it (Lange), or of his own will (Paulus), but of 
divine causation (ver. 20). 

Ver. 65 f. An historical digression, narrating the impression which these 
marvellous events at the circumcision produced in wider circles. — ¢6foc] 
not amazement, but fear, the first impression of the extraordinary (comp. 
Mark iv. 41 ; Acts ii. 43). — avrotc] applies to Zacharias and Elizabeth.? — 
Suedadeiro|] were mutually talked of, Polyb. i. 85. 2, ix. 82. 1.— ra pyyara 
ravta] these utterances, which had occurred with such marvellous signifi- 
cance at the circumcision of the child from ver. 59 to ver. 64; ii. 19. 
—l9evro . . . év TH xapd. abrav}] Comp. a4 by oy (1 Sam. xxi. 12) [A. V. 
‘laid up . . . in his heart], and the Homeric ri9nuz év orf9eoat, év gpeai, 
and see Valckenaer in loc. They made those utterances the subject of their 


10On the same usage in the Syriac, see Kypke, I. p. 211; Krebs, p. 98. 
Gesenius in Rosenmiiller's Rep. I. p. 185. 2 On weptoccety rrva, comp. Herod. v. 78; 
An example from Josephus is found in Xen. Anad. vy. 6. 16; Plut. Crass. 34. 


252 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


further reflection. Comp. ii. 19. — ri dpa] quid igitur, under these circum- 
stances, according to these auspices, what then now will, etc.’ On the 
neuter ri, whichis more in keeping with the uncertainty and the emotion of 
the inquirers than ric, comp. Acts xii. 18; Schaefer, Melet. p. 98; Bornemann, 
Schol. p. 15. — wal yap yeip xupiov Fv per’ avtov] An observation of Luke, in 
which he would indicate that the people rightly asked this question, expecting 
something unusual of the child: for also (xai ydp, see the critical remarks) 
the hand of the Lord was with him. The emphasis rests on yelp xvpiov, which, 
with «ai, makes known to us the mighty help of God (so yeip xvpiov very 
frequently in the O. T. ; comp. also Hermann, ad Vig. p. 732) as in keeping 
with the ominous phenomena, Others, like Storr, Kuinoel, Paulus, Ewald, 
place these words too in the mouth of those asking the question (so also 
Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 219, who, following the Recepta, places 
a colon afterxai : and others said). But thisreflective specifying of a reason 
would have been superfluous in the mouth of those people, and little in 
keeping with the emotion of their question. And instead of #w they would 
have said éori, inferring, namely, the help of God from the events at the cir- 
cumcision ; while the xai would be but tame and cumbrous. 

Ver. 67. After the historical episode of ver. 65 there now follows, in 
reference to evAoyav r. Oedv, ver. 64, the hymn itself (the so-called Benedictus) 
into which Zacharias broke forth, and that on the spot (Kuinoel erroneously 
suggests that it was only composed subsequently by Zacharias). At the 
same time the remark érAgodn rvebu. dy. is repeated, and the hymn is in 
respect of its nature more precisely designated as prophecy. It is, like that 
of Mary, ver. 46 ff., constructed in strophes, containing five strophes, each 
of three verses. See Ewald. — xpoegfrevoe] denotes not merely prediction, 
but the utterance of revelation generally stimulated and sustained by the 
Spirit, which includes in it prediction proper. See on 1 Cor. xii. 10. 

Ver. 68 f. Zacharias’ hymn of praise concerns the great cause, which his 
new-born son is to serve—the Messianic deliverance and blessing of the people, 
which he now at once looks upon as already accomplished, for in his new- 
born son there has, in fact, already appeared the preparer of the way for 
the Messiah (ver. 16 f.). Comp. on ver. 51. The entire hymn bears the 
priestly character, which even the apostrophe to the infant, ver. 76, docs 
not efface. [Scc Note XVII., p. 260.] — evAoynroc «.7.4.] 8c. city, Comp. Ps. 
xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, cvi. 48. — Airpworv (comp. ii. 38) applies primarily to the 
Messianic deliverance under its political aspect. Comp. vv. 71, 51 ff.; Plut. 
Arat. 11: Abrp. aizyeiorav. With this, however, Zacharias knew (comp. 
also ver. 16 f.) that the religious and moral regeneration of the people was 
inseparably combined, so as to form the one Messianic work, vv. 75, 77, 79.? 
The izeoxéy. is absolute, as in Ecclus. xxxii. 17: he has looked to, he has 
made an inspection. Comp. Acts xv. 14. —7yempe] still dependent upon 


1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176; Niigelsbach, Olshausen), that the purity of the Messianic 
Anm, z. Ilias, ed. 8, p. 10f. Comp. vill. 25, views of Zacharias consists in the unadul- 
xif. 42. terated reproduction of Old Testament 

? Hofmann appropriately remarks, Weis- knowledge. 
eag.u. Erfal. Il. p. 258 (in opposition to 


a te ee 


CHAP. 1, 70-75. | 253 


tt. —xépag awrnpias] a horn of deliverance (genitive of apposition), 7. 6, a 
strong, mighty deliverance, according to the figurative use of the Hebrew ].' 
népac’ 7) ioxvc mapa TH Seia ypagy, Ex peTagopac Tav COowy tov KabuTicptvwy Toi¢ 
xépaot Kal robrote Guvvouévwv, ‘* strength, in the divine scripture, from the meta- 
phor of animals armed with horns and defending themselves with these,” 
Suidas. Comp. the Latin cornua addere, cornuasumere, and the like. [8Sce 
Note XVIIL., p. 260 seq.] It is true that Jensius (Fere. lit. p. 34), Fischer 
(de vit. Lex. p. 214), and Paulus find the reference in the horns of the altar of 
burnt-offering which served as anasylum.* But apart from the inappropriate 
relation to the frequent use of the O. T. figure elsewhere, how inadequate 
for the due and distinct expression of the Messianic idea would be the con- 
ception of the mere protection, which was afforded by the laying hold of the 
horns of the altar ! — jyecpe) excitarit, t.e., according to the context, he has 
made to grow up (éavareAd, Ps. cxxxii. 17). — tov raidde avrov] Acts iv. 25. 

Ver. 70. No parenthesis. —rév dyiwy) not used substantivally (Borne- 
mann), but see Bernhardy, p. 322 ; Kriiger, § 50. 9. 7. [See critical note ; 
the omission of second rav renders the substantive sense inadmissible. | — 
an’ ai@voc] not absolutely, as though there had been prophets even ab orbe con- 
dito, ‘‘from the foundation of the world” (‘‘imo per os Adami,” ‘‘ indeed 
‘through the mouth of Adam,” Ceslovius), but relatively ; when the oldest 
prophets emerged (and Moses already was such an one), was the commencc- 
ment of prophecy since the beginning of the world. Comp. Gen. vi. 4 ; Acts 
iil. 21 ; Longin. 84: rote am’ aidvog AgGropac. [See Note XVIII, p. 260 seq. ]’ 

Ver. 71 f. Lwrypiavy] might be attached to é24Anoe, ver. 70 (Beza, Grotius, 
Ewald, and others), but it is simpler to retain xadac «.7.4. a8 a paranthetical 
clause, like ver. 55, so that xépac cwrnp., ver. 69, is resumed by owrnpiav (yet 
only as to the fact, without the figure) for the sake of adding the more 
precise definition. Such a resumption may occur with dé (Rom. iii. 22) 
and without it (Rom. iii. 26). See generally, Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 1. 
Without dé the expression is more rhetorical. —The enemies and haters are 
the heathen, as in ver. 51 ff., not the demons, sin, and the like. — rozjoac] 
Infinitive of the aim, as at ver. 54. In this our deliverance God designed 
to show mercy to (werd, BD), ver. 58, x. 37) our fathers (comp. ver. 55, deeply 
afflicted by the decline of their peuple), and to remember (practically, by 
the fulfilment of what was therein promised) His holy covenant. Euthymius 
Zigabenus : dialpxyy yap Aéyec tiv érayyediav’ pvfunv d2 avtig Ti meparworr, 
‘* We calls the promise a covenant; but the fulfilment is remembrance of it.” 

Vv. 73-75. "Opxov] neither accusative of more precise definition (Calvin, 
Beza, L. Bos, Rosenmiiller), nor governed by uryod7va: (Euthymius Ziga- 
benus, Olshausen, Bleek *), but climactic apposition to d:adfane dy. avrov, in 
which the accusative is attracted by dv, Matt. xxi. 42; 1 Cor. x. 16; Butt- 


11 Sam. if. 10; Ps. xvill. 8, Ixxxix. 18, p. 478 f.; Knobel on Ex. xxvil. 2. 
exxxii. 16 f., cxlvill. 14; Ecclus. xlvil. 5, 7, 3 MiusrijoncerOa is not seldom joined with 
11, al.; Gesenius, 7hes. III. p. 1288; Grimm an accusative by the classical writers (Hom. 
on 1 Macc. ii. 48. See Rabbinical passages i. vi. 222; Herod. vil. 18; Soph. 0.2. 1057), 
in Schéttgen, Zor. p. 258 f. but never in the N. T., although it is so in 
31 Kings 1. 50, il. 28 ff.; Bahr, Symdol. I. the LXX. and Apocrypha. 


204 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


mann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288] ; Bornemann, Schol. p. 16 f. —xpéc] de- 
notes the swearing to. Comp. Hom. Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288. The expression 
with the dative is more usual. See the oath itself in Gen. xxii. 16-18. — rov 
Sovvac x.t.4.] in order to grant to us, the purpose, on account of which God 
swore the oath. [See Note XVIII, p. 260 seq. ] — é« yetpoc x.7.A.] more pre- 
cisely defines the previous apé63wc, and that as regards its objective relation.’ 
— Ver. 75. Religious-moral restoration of the people of God. As to the 
distinction between docéry¢ and dixacoobyy (Plat. Prot. p. 829 C), see on Eph. 
iv. 24. Holiness is the divine consecration and inner truth of righteousness, 
so that the latter without the former would be only external or seeming ; 
both together constitute the justitia spiritualis. 

Ver. 76 f. ’Erecta peraBaivec ry mpogyreig xal mpd¢ éavtov raida Iwavrny, ‘* Then 
he passes on with the prophecy even to his own son John,” Euthymius 
Zigabenus. — xai oi dé] but thou also (see the critical remarks).? The xai 
places the za:diov—for even of him he has only what is great to say—on a 
parallel with the subject, to which hitherto in his song of praise to God his 
prophetic glance was directed (with the Messiah), and dé is the continuative 
autem. — xporop. yap mpd mpocdmov xvp.] as at ver. 17, hence xiproc is God. — 
érotmdaat odove at'tov}] sce on Matt. iii. 8. — row dovva x.r.A.] Aim of éroudoae 
k.7.A., and so final aim of xpomopetay . . . xupiov. — év agéoes auapr. avt.] In 
Sorgiveness of their sins, which isto be imparted to them through the Messiah 
(see ver. 78 f.) for the sake of God’s mercy (which is thereby satisfied ; dca 
ord, &4. Geni), they are to discern deliverance ; they are to discern that salva- 
tion comes through the Messianic forgiveness of sins (comp. on Mark i. 4), 
and to this knowledge of salvation John, is to guide his people. Accord- 
ingly, év ag. du. air. does not belong to owrypiac alone (cic yevouevae év TE 
agedjvat x.t.2., ‘* which takes place in the being forgiven,” etc., Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Beza, Bengel, Kuinocl, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Bleek, and others), but to yvéow ournpiac (Theophylact) = yravac 
owTnpiay év ad. T. du. avt. So also Luther, Ewald, and others. Calvin aptly 
remarks : ‘‘Praecipuum evangelii caput nunc attingit Zacharias, dum 
scientiam salutis in remissione peccatorum positam esse docet,” ‘‘ A special 
principle of the gospel Zacharias now touches upon, when he teaches that 
the knowledge of salvation is placed in the remission of sins.” ([Sce Note 
XVIII., p. 260 seq. ] 

Ver. 78 f. Ara orAdyyxva édfove x.7.A.] ig not to be separated from what 
precedes by punctuation, but to -be immediately connected with év ag. dp. 
abr.: év adéoer dé duaptiov . . . TH didouévy bcd tiv ovuTdVetav Tov EAéove abrzod, 
‘*but in forgiveness of sins . . . given on account of the sympathy of His 
mercy,” Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. Theophylact. The reference to 
all that is said from mporopetoy onwards, ver. 76 (Grotius, Kuinoel, de 
Wette, and others), is the more arbitrary, in proportion to the natural and 
essential connection that subsists between the forgiveness of sins and God’s 
compassion. — é:4] not through, but for the sake of, sce on ver. 77 ; oxAdyxva 

1 On the accusative pycdévras (not dative), 2See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 181 f.; El- 


see Bornemann, é.c. ; Pflugk, ad Kur. Med. _lendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 884. 
815; Kriiger, Gramm. Unters. IIL § 148. 


CHAP. I., 80. 255 
is not merely, according to the Hebrew 0° (see Gesenius), but also in 
the Greek poetical language, the seat of the affections, as, for instance, of 
anger (Arist. Ran. 1004) and of sympathy (Aesch. Ch. 407). So here. 
Comp. Col. iii. 12; Phil. ii. 1. éAéoug is genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘ genitive of 
quality,” and Geov juov depends on o/dyyva éAéove : for the sake of the com- 
passionate heart of our God. — iv cic] instrumental: by virtue of which. — 
ixeoxéwato uac avarody és vp.] to be taken together : has oisited us, etc., 
has become present to us with Ilis saving help (comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 10; 
Ecclus. xlvi. 14 ; Judith viii. 33 ; Luke vii. 16). [See critical note, and Note 
XVIIT., p. 260 seq.] Itis appropriate to avaz. é& by., as the latter is personified. 
The figurative designation of the Messiah : Dayspring from on high, is bor- 
rowed from the rising of the sun (Rev. vii. 2; Matt. v. 45; Tom. Qd. xii. 
4; Herod. iv. 8), or as is more in keeping with the é¢ iyerov, from the 
rising of a bright-beaming star of the night (Num. xxiv. 17 ; Valck. ad Zur. 
P.wen, 506), not (in opposition to Beza, Scultetus, Lightfoot, Wetstein) 
from an ascending shoot (Md¥, Isa. iv. 2; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 ; Zech. 
ili. 8, vi. 12), against which may be urged é¢ iy. and émigavac.' Comp. Isa. 
ix, 2.—émigavat] Infinitive of the aim. On the form see Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 25 £. — roi¢ ev oxdbree x. ox. Oav. xadnp.] those who sit in darkness and 
(climactic) the shadow of death—a picturesque delineation of the people totally 
destitute of divine truth and the true fu4 (quay, ver. 79). — The shadow of 
death (NY 9¥) is such a shadow as surrounds death (personified), and they 
are sitting in this shadow, because death is ruling among them, namely, in 
tho spiritual sense, the opposite of the true life whose sphere is the light 
of divine truth. [See Note XVIII., p. 260 seq.] Moreover, comp. Isa. ix. 2, 
and on Matt. iv. 16 ; on xadyu. also, Niigelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 65. 
—Tov xatevdivat x.7.7.] The aim of émipavac x.t.A., and so the final aim of 
éxeoxéWaro x.7.2. Comp. on rod dovvas, ver. 77. ‘‘Continuatur translatio, nam 
lux dirigit nos,” ‘‘The metaphor is continued, for the light guides us,” 
Grotius. Observe also the correlation of rovc wédac with the preceding 
xadnutvoic, — eig dddv eipty.] in ciam ad salutem (Messianam) ducentem, ‘‘ lead- 
ing into the way to (Messianic) salvation.” eipfvy = 0!W, opposite of all the 
misery denoted by oxérog x.r.4. (hence not merely peace). It has another 
sense in Rom. iii. 17. But comp. Acts xvi. 17. 

Ver. 80. A summary account (comp. Judg. xiii. 24) of the further de- 
velopment of John. More particular accounts were perhaps altogether 
wanting, but were not essential to the matter here. —7bfave] the bodily 
growing up, and, connected therewith: éxpar. xveiu., the mental gain- 
ing of strength that took place ei¢ rév fow dvipwr. (Eph. ui. 16). Comp. 
the description of the development of Jesus, ii. 40, 52. yuvyg is not men- 
tioned, for the rvevua is the yyeuovexdy, In whose vigor and strength the 


1 Bleek wishes to combine the two senses, 
and infers from this that the source whence 
Luke drew was Greek and not Hebrew, 
because JID¥ would not have admitted a 
reference to the rising of the sun. But the 
whole mixing up of two incongruous figures 


is excluded by ver. 79; hence the inference 
drawn by Bleek (see also his Linieit. p. 277 
f.), and approved by Holtzmann, falls to tho 
ground. The source may have been Greek; 
but if it was Hebrew, FV3¥ need not havo 
stood in it. 


256 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


¢vx4 shares. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. £17. — qv iv core éptuotc] in the 
well-known desert regions. It is the desert ef Judah naz’ iSoxqv that is meant 
(see on Matt. ili. 1). In that desert dwelt also the Hesenes (Plin. WN. H. v. 
17). How far their principles and askesis, which at least could not have re- 
mained unknown to John, may have indirectly exercised an influence on his 
peculiar character, cannot be determined ; a true Essence this greatest and 
Jast phenomenon of Israclitish prophecy certainly was not ; he belonged, 
jike some God-sent prophet higher than all partisan attitudes in the people, 
to the whole nation. — avadcitews atrov zpic t. "Icp.] His being publicly made 
known to Israel, when he was announced to the Israclites as the forerunner 
of the Messiah. This was done on the command of God by John himself. 
Bee lil. 2-6. dvdderEec is the making known (renuntiatio) of official nomina- 
tion ; Polyb. xv. 26. 4; Plut. Mur. 8; sce Wetstein. Comp. x. 1. 


Nores sx AMERICAN EpITor. 


IV. Ver. 1. oAAoi «.7.A. 


In regard to the writings here referred to Weiss agrees with Meyer, but doubts 
the propriety of including the ‘‘ Gospel to the Hebrews,” about which little 
can be proven that will warrant the assumption of its existence prior to the 
Gospel of Luke. 

It is very improbable that Mark’s Gospel is included here. 1. It is impos- 
sible to prove the dependence of Luke upon Mark, and this dependence is 
implied if the latter is included here. 2. Luke here refers to a class of writings 
then existing. Now, if the class is represented by the Gospel of Mark, there 
were many somewhat detailed and complete histories of our Lord’s ministry 
in existence when Luke wrote. This is extremely improbable. Literature of 
that kind could not so entirely disappear. 3. Luke’s language does not imply 
incorrectness in these ‘ narratives,’’ but it certainly contains an allusion to tho 
insufficiency of these writings. Weissed. Mey. calls attention to the fact that 
Luke elsewhere uses the verb ériyeuéw Of unsuccessful attempts (Acts ix. 29 ; 
xix. 13). Suchan estimate of Mark’s Gospel would not agree with the fact that 
Luke’s narrative contains so much matter in common with it ; nor would the 
latter be likely to speak thus of n. document which from the first was received 
as an authentic record of the life of Jesus. It was the existence of such his- 
tories as our canonical Gospels that swept out of view even the names of the 
efforts here referred to. 

Godet (Luke, p. 563, Am. ed.) thus describes tho class of writings which the 
Evangelist had in mind: ‘‘ They were not organic works, all the parts of which 
were regulated by one idea, like our Gospels, and so they are lost : they were 
accidental compilations, simple collections of anecdotes or discourses ; but 
those works had their importance as a second stage in the development of 
Gospel historiography and a transition to the higher stage.’’ The first stago 
he regards as oral tradition, the last as that of our canonical Gospels, It will be 
seen that this view meets the requirements of Luke’s language, has historical 
and psychological probability in its favor, but of necessity rules out such a 
writing as the Gosp:1 of Mark from the class of narratives spoken of by Luke, 


NOTES. 25% 


V. Ver..1. wepi rav wAnpogopnuévur x.7.A. 


The rendering of the R. V. text (‘‘ which have been fulfilled ’’) follows the 
Vulgate ; Godet and Weiss ed. Mey. prefer ‘‘ have been accomplished,” but 
virtually accept the idea of a fulfilment. They urge, against Meyer, that the 
sense ‘bring to full conviction’ cannot be applied to things. The R. Y. 
margin, ‘fully established,” seeks to avoid this difficulty by referring the par- 
ticiple to the objective proof rather than to the subjective conviction or belief. 
Either of these views is lexically more defensible than that of Meyer. 


VI. Ver. 3. xabecFe. 


This claim to chronological accuracy is not contrary to the view now held by 
most Harmonists, that Mark is more chronological in his arrangement than 
Luke. If he hasin mind the fragmentary sketches of many writers (see Note 
IV., p. 256), then he only claims to reduce themto order. If he had the Gospel 
of Mark in his hands, then he follows its order closely enough, in the common 
matter, to vouch for its accuracy. Doubtless the harmonizers have done vio- 
lence to the Gospel narratives, but their labors have not been rendered unnec- 
essary, still less overthrown entirely, by recent exegesis. Textual criticism 
has, in fact, confirmed some of their positions on important points. 


VO. Ver. 4. iva émcyvgc x.1.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. rightly calls attention to the beautiful comments of Godet on 
this clause. Inasmuch as Meyer speaks of Luke’s dispassionate consciousness 
that Christianity ‘‘ had its firm basis of truth in the evangelical history of sal- 
vation,’’ and insists, moreover, on his ‘critical procedure” (see p. 219, foot- 
note), we have from him an argument against his own positions respecting 
some of the statements made by Luke in chaps. i. ii. The language of the Evan- 
gelistsin this prologue gives us something more than Luke's ‘‘ dispassionate 
consciousness ;’’ it shows how unlikely it is that any of his statements are his- 
torically untrue. He tells us how he proceeded in writing his history, hints at the 
sources of his information, and only when he has given an objective ground of 
conviction speaks of the subjective certainty. Since Luke, of a}] authors, has 
been most abundantly proven to be an accurate historian, what he states re- 
specting events in the first century must be held for truth, until positive evi- 
dence of greater weight overthrows his testimony. 

Here, too, if anywhere, we are to find the clue to the origin of the Synoptic 
Gospels. We have, in this prologue, intimations of oral apostolic tradition 
(ver. 2), of fragmentary written narratives (ver. 1), of patient individual re- 
search (ver. 3), for a given purpose (ver. 4). Given a man who could write a 
historical work such as the book of the Acts, it would seem that he could, under 
the conditions thus indicated, write a life of the Lord, in whom he fally 
believed, without manipulating the Gospel of Mark or copying some other ex- 
tended work unknown to us. Whatever influence the Holy Ghost wronght 
upon such 8 man would make against the style of book-making involved in 
the theory of interdependence. 


17 


258 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


VITI. Ver. 5 sqq. 


The two classes of phenomena, namely, the unexampled number of Hebra- 
izing peculiarities, and the constant recurrence of Luke's characteristic expres- 
sions, can best be accounted for by supposing that Luke translated an Aramean 
document (or set of documents) obtained through his own research (ver. 3). 
But this does not involve a ‘‘manipulation,”’ if by that is meant a material 
inodification, On the lyrical passages, see in locis. 


IX. Ver. 9. elceaAQady ei¢ rov vadv Tov xvpiov. 


The R. Y. renders: ‘‘ His lot was to enter into the temple of the Lord and 
burn incense,” thus agreeing with the Vulgate (and Winer). Certainly this 
view is grammatical. Meyer objects to it as ‘‘quite idle.” But the clause eigeA- 
@ov «.7.A. ig in emphatic position, and Meyer's view does not suggest any 
ground for sach emphasis. On the other hand, since the revelation through 
the angel took place in the sanctuary while Zacharias was burning incense, the 
author adds this clause to bring the place into prominence. So Godet, who, un- 
necessarily, however, takes the aorist participle as a pluperfect. The entering 
and offering are rather regarded as synchronous, as so often whfen an aorist 
participle is used. 


X. Ver. 27. && oixav Aavid. 


While the grammatical connection favors the reference of this phrase to 
Joseph, it by no means follows that Luke did not regard her as a descendant of 
David. (See on the genealogy, chap. iii.) Indeed, vv. 32, 69 are simply non- 
sense, unless Luke believed in her Davidic descent. Weiss ed. Mey. is disposed 
to refer the phrase to Mary alone, because Joseph's lineage is afterward spoken 
of (chap. ii. 4), and the mention of it here would have no significance. But it 
is difficult to account for the introduction of rj¢ rap6évov in the next clause, if 
the phrase refers to Mary exclusively. 


XI. Ver. 32. rév Opdvov A. x.1.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. substitutes here the following note: ‘If, however, the Son 
of Mary is clearly described as the Son of David promised in 2 Sam. vii. 13, 
Mary herself must be regarded as a descendant of David, since it is a mere 
evasion to say that the Messiah, as successor on the throne of David, can be 
called his Son and David His father (Bleek, Meyer).”’ 


XII. Ver. 35. 16 yevvapevoy dytov «.7.A. 


The R. V. text accepts the view of Tertullian, Bengel, and others, but the 
Am. appendix gives substantially the view of Meyer: ‘‘ Wherefore also the holy 
thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God,’’ which seems to be the 
only strictly grammatical rendering. 


XIII. Vv. 26-38. The Annunciation. 


Weiss ed. Mey. rejects most of the positions taken in Meyer's remark. The 
followitig points of Weiss’ view are here presented : 1. This narrative is ‘not 
incompatible’ with that of Matthew. 2. He omits the statement: ‘‘in conse- 


NOTES. 259 © 


quence of the circumstance,” etc. 3. The history of Joseph's perplexity (Matt. i. 
19 sqq.) does not exclude the annunciation to Mary ; and her silence was neither 
‘*psychologically unnatural,’’ nor a violation of her duty as betrothed, since 
she could not expect Joseph to believe it. 4. Weiss further remarks: ‘‘The 
question, whether the presupposition lying at the foundation of both accounts 
(namely, that Jesus was not begotten naturally by Joseph, but, in consequence of 
® supernatural operation of God, born of Mary) rests upon historical tradition 
or doctrinal hypothesis, cannot be settled by exegetical means.’’ But he insists 
strongly that the silence of Jesus, the unbelief of His brethren, and the demeanor 
of Mary are not incompatible with the historical character of the story of the 
miraculous conception. 

Godet (Luke, p. 59, Am. ed.) well observes: ‘‘A narrative so perfect could 
only have emanated from the holy sphere within which the mystery was accom- 
plished, A later origin would have inevitably betrayed itself by some foreign 
element.” 

In the story of the angelic announcement to Zacharias, to which also Meyer 
ascribes a legendary origin, the same internal evidence of truthfulness appears. 
‘¢The unhistorical inventions in the apocryphal Gospels’ do much to prove the 
historical character of this narrative of Luke. It is only necessary to add that 
this part of the Gospel is obviously the result of the individual research made 
by the Evangelist. Are we then to think that such an author failed to assure 
himself of the truthfulness of his material? Doubtless he was as faithful in this 
respect as any modern historian, and it is yet to appear that he was not as 
competent to determine what constitutes valid historical testimony as any 
critic of modern times. 


XIV. Ver. 46. 7 puy7 pov. 


Weiss. ed. Mey. (in accordance with his views as expressed in his Biblical 
Theology) denies the existence of any specific distinction between yuyf and 
rvedua in N. T. usage. ‘The soul is the mrvetua which has entered into the 
flesh, and the rvevza becomes soul in man. Both therefore stand here also 
only as varied designations for the same inner life of man, in which the praise 
of the Lord, now beginning with the mouth, must occur at the same time, if 
it is of the right kind, and in which is aroused the triumphant joy that contin- 
ually calls forth this thanksgiving,”’ 


XV. Ver. 56, iecve x.r.A. 


How long she remained is not stated, but ver. 57 does not forbid the view 
that she tarried until the birth of John, for Luke frequently anticipates thus in 
a closing sentence. Still, it is more probable that she returned to Nazareth 
before Elizabeth was delivered. The events recorded in Matt. i. 18-24 seem 
to have occurred after her return (so Andrews) ; see next Note. 


XVI. Vv. 39-56. 


Meyer does not notice here the far more natural supposition that the revelation 
to Joseph took place when Mary’s condition, after her return from the long visit 
to Elizabeth, was necessarily obvious. Weiss ed. Mey. objects to each point 
raised by Meyer against the possibility of reconciling the narratives. In fact, 


260 ; THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


he distinctly says that most of the difficulties indicated in Meyer's remark have 
no importance whatever. It is not necessary to give details; ‘‘the historical 
character of the Visitation of Mary stands or falls with that of the Annun- 
ciation.’’ All the considerations urged in Note XIII. (p. 258 seq.) are quite as 
valid here. 

The Magnificat bears every internal evidence of early composition : the tone 
is that of the Old Testament believer on the threshold of the New Dispensation. 
A Christian, even a Jewish Christian, would have written in a somewhat differ- 
ent tone, emphasizing with more distinctness some of the prominent facts of 
salvation. Weiss ed. Mey. denies that the poetic splendor lifts this lyric out of 
the historical sphere, adding that ‘its poetic truth stands or falls with the hy- 
pothesis of the supernatural conception of Jesus,’’ No one was more likely to 
discover the truth on this point than a historian in the first century who made 
patient research, and was in all probability rewarded by the discovery of docu- 
ments containing the Magnificat and Benedictus. 


XVII. Vv. 68-79. The Benedictus. 


The song of Zacharias, as here recorded, bears every mark of genuineness, It 
is priestly, pious, paternal, poetic, and can well be regarded as uttered under 
the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost (ver. 68). ‘The entire absence of 
erroneous Messianic expectations stamps it as an inspired prophecy, while all 
the other internal phenomena indicate that Zacharias was its human author, in 
substance, and doubtless to a large extent in form. It therefore furnishes in 
itself a strong proof of the historical character of the whole group of incidents 
narrated in this chapter. ‘‘ Taking it as an expression of religious feeling, we 
discover the hopes of the human educator of John the Baptist, and thus obtain 
a hint of the real views of John himself and of the churacter of his ministry” 
(Int. Rev. Commentary, Luke, p. 21). 


XVII. Vv. 69, 70, etc. 


We group together in this note comments ona number of phrases in the 
Benedictus, differing from the views presented by Meyer. 

Ver. 69. Weiss ed. Mey. does not take owrypiac as a genitive of apposition, 
but explains the phrase: ‘‘a power of salvation, a power bringing salvation’’ 
(so Godet). 

Ver. 70. The Am. R. V. renders ‘‘ of old” instead of ‘‘ since the world began;” 
so Weiss ed. Mey., who regards the Greek phrase (a7’ aidvoc) as popularly hyper- 
bolical. 

Ver. 73. row doiva: is regarded by Weiss as expressing the purpose of God in 
raising up the horn of salvation (ver. 69), or in the salvation itself (ver. 71), 
because the latter thought recurs in ‘‘ being delivered,’’ etc. 

Ver. 77. Weiss ed. Mey. joins ‘‘in the remission of their sins” with ‘‘ give,” 
regarding the remission preached by John the Baptist as that from which the 
people knew that deliverance was coming. But his grammatical objection to 
the other views is scarcely valid in interpreting a poetic passage of marked He- 
braizing character. 

Ver. 78. Weiss accepts the reading followed in the R.V. text ; the change to 
the future (ézoxéyerac) from the preceding aorists he regards as due to the 


NOTES. 261 


direct reference of the prophecy to John as the forerunner of the Messiah ; 
hence the Messianic salvation is future with respect to this forerunner. He 
explains ‘‘ dayspring” as meaning, not the Messiah Himself, but the Messianic 
salvation. But the future may, with equal correctness, be taken as more dis- 
tinctly prophetic of the speedy coming of the Messiah, over against the pro- 
phetic aorists, which are more general. 

Ver. 79. ‘‘ Death,” Weiss (ed. Mey.) thinks, is not personified, but ‘the 
shadow of death”’ is a “‘ figure of the deepest misery, such as death brings with 
it.” He also seeks to exclude any special reference to spiritual darkness ; but 
the entire context favors this reference, 


262 THE GOSPEL OF LUKB. 


CHAPTER II. 


[Vex. 2. The article after atrn is rejected by Tisch., recent editors, R.V. The 
evidence is strong (but see Meyer in exeg. notes). Tisch. has éyévero xpérz, 
following ®* D, but other editors do not accept this.]—Ver. 3. idicv] Lachm. 
Tisch. have éavrov, following B D L &** Eus. [So recent editors, R. V.] An in- 
terpretation, which is further found completely in D (éavrov marpida), &* has 
éavrav. — Ver. 5. peuvnot. See on i. 27. — yvvaixi] is wanting in B C* (F) DL 
% ¥, min. vss, Fathers. Deleted by Lachm., and now also again by Tisch. An 
addition ; éuvycrevuévy was objectionable, hence yvvacxi was added, and in part 
buynorevy. was even deleted (Ver. Vere. Colb.). There was less probability that 
offence might be taken after Matt. i. 24 at yuvacxi. Cyril of Jerusalem expresses 
himself too obscurely in this respect. — Ver. 7. 17 ¢drvy] rj is wanting in pre- 
ponderating witnesses. It is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. The article was added 
here and at ver. 12, in order to designate the definile manger, i.e., the well-known 
manger of the Saviour.— [Ver. 9. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit iduv, 
following ® B L, and versions.] — Ver. 12. «civevov] BL PS = ®** min. Syr. 
utr. Vulg. codd. It. Eus, Arnob. and Tisch. have xa) xeiu. ; xai was easily in- 
serted to connect the two participles. [Tisch. VIII. omits xeizevov also (so &* D), 
but recent editors, R. V., accept the strongly-attested «ai xeiuevov.] — Ver. 14. 
etdoxia] A B* D ®&, Goth. Sax. Vulg. It., Fathers, have evdoxias. So Lachm. and 
Tisch. Recommended by Beza, Mill, Bengel, and others. There is considerable 
evidence on both sides, but it preponderates in favor of the genitive. Now, as 
the unfamiliar expression dv@pwror etdoxiac is not to be put down tothe account 
of the transcribers, but, on the contrary, these, not apprehending the symmetry 
of the passage, had after the analogy of défaand eip7vn sufficient inducement to 
put instead of evdoxiac the nominative likewise, evduxiac is to be preferred. [So 
nearly all recent editors (and commentators), though the other reading is 
usually noticed in the margin (so R. V.). Godet, as usual, follows the Rec.}] — 
Ver. 15. xai of dvOpwro:] is wanting in B L = &, min. Syr. Perss. Ar. p. Copt. 
Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It. Eus. Aug. Bracketed by Lachm. Deleted by Tisch. [re- 
cent editors, R.V.]. But the homoeoteleuton (dyyeAo: . . . &vOpwror) the more 
easily gave occasion to the omission, as the words are superfluous and there was 
no motive for their addition. — Ver. 17. dseyvépioav] Lachm. Tisch. have é)1é- 
pwoay, following B D L =X, min. Eus. [So recent editors, R. V.] But the 
syllable AI after dé was more easily passed over than added, especially as the 
simple form was present in ver. 15. — Ver. 20. Instead of izorpepar, Elz. has 
évéotpewav ; and at ver. 21, instead of avrév: ré radiov, in opposition to pre- 
ponderant evidence. — Ver. 33. 'Iwo}d xa 7 pArnp aiTov] BDL ®&, min. vss. 
(also Vulg.) Or. and several Fathers have 6 warp airov x. 7 ufrnp. So Gries- 
bach and Tisch. (who after p#rnp retains airoi). The mention of the father gave 
offence, and inthis place the name might be introduced instead of it, but not 
appropriately also at ver. 48. — Ver. 37. é¢] Lachm. and Tisch. have éwe, in ac- 
cordance with AB L Z ®* min. Copt. Sahid. Ar. p. Vulg. codd, It. Aug. Rightly ; 


CHAP. II. 263 


the dc, frequently used in the case of numbers, intruded itself. — Ver. 38. airy] 
on preponderant evidence, and because xai airy presented itself mechanically 
from ver. 37, is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. —[{* BDL, and good 
versions, read 6¢¢ (instead of xupiw) ; accepted by Tisch., recent editors, R. V. 
The change is readily accounted for ; the clause was referred to Christ in conse- 
quence of the following atrov ; so Weiss.] — év ‘Iepove.] év is wanting in B & Il 
®, min. vss, (including Vulg. ms. and codd. It.) and Fathers, and is condemned 
by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition from misunderstand- 
ing. — Ver. 39. riv réAcv atrav] Lachm. and Tisch. have réArv éavrav. In ac- 
cordance with decisive evidence éavrav is to be adopted ; but the omission of 
tyv is only attested by B D* & 1. [This evidence is decisive agaiust ri ; 80 re- 
cent editors.) — Ver. 40. wvevuarc] has testimonies against it of such weight, 
and it can so little conceal its origin from i. 80, that with reason it is condemned 
by Mill and Griesb., excluded by Lachm. and Tisch. — Ver. 42. avaBdavruv] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have dvaGaivévtTwr, in accordance with A BK L X II 8, min. 
Vulg. codd. It. Acopyist’s error ; the aorist is necessary. [Recent editors, R.V., 
accept the present ; Weiss thinks the aorist is a conformation to ver. 43.] — cic 
‘Iepoo.] is wanting in B DL ®&, min. vss. Tisch. It betrays itself by the form 
‘Tepooi2vuza as an addition of another hand. — Ver. 43. éyvw 'Twoig x. f uAtyp avrov) 
BDL X&, min. vss. (including Vulg. and codd. It.) Jerome have éyrvwoav ol yoveic 
avrot. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. also 
Rinok on Matt. xxiv. 36, I regard of yovei¢ avrov as written in the margin from 
ver. 41. Comp. on ver. 33. Were it original, and had "Iwo. x. 4 u#tnp avrov been 
subsequently put for it, why should not this alteration have been already un- 
dertaken before at ver. 41 (where only codd. It. have: Joseph e¢ Maria)? and 
why should éyywoav (which would have stood originally) not have been left? 
This plural so naturally suggested itself, even with the words of the Recepta, 
that some witnesses for the Recepia (A, for instance) actually read it. [Meyer's 
explanation assumes more consistency on the part of the copyists than can be 
proven. So Weiss, who, with recent editors (and R. V.), follows the weighty 
uncials.] — Ver. 45. After edpévrec Elz. Scholz have avrév (Lachm. in brackets), 
in oppdsition to B C* DL &, min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. codd. It. A current ad- 
dition. — {nrovvrec] nearly the same witnesses have avalnroivres. So Lachm. 
and Tisch. From ver. 44. [But the evidence is decisive for the compound 
form ; so recent editors, R. V.] 


The genuineness of the portion from ch, i. 5 to the end of ch. ii. has been contested 
-by Evanson (The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, etc., Ipswich 
1792), J. E. Chr. Schmidt (in Henke’s Magaz. vol. III. p. 473 ff.), Horst (Henke's 
Museum, I. 3, p. 446 ff.), C. C. L. Schmidt (in the Repert. f. d. Literat. d. Bibel, 
I. p. 58 ff.), Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., London 1803), Eich- 
horn, Hinl. I. p. 630f. Baur reckons the section among the portions which have 
been introduced into our Gospel by the agency of a reviser (the author of the 
Acts of the Apostles). See his Markusevang. p. 218 ff. Butthe genuineness was 
defended by Ammon ( Nova Opuse. p. 32 ff.), Siskind (Symbolae, II. p. 1 ff.), von 
Schubert (de infantiae J. Ch. historiae a Malth. et Luc. exhibitae authentia atque 
indole, Gripeswald. 1815), Reuterdahl (Obss. crit. in priora duo ev. Luc. capita, 
Lond. 1823), Bertholdt, Panlus, Schott, Feilmoser, Credner, Nendecker, 
Kuinoel, Volkmar, Guericke, and almost all the more recent writers. In oppo- 
sition to Baur, see also Késtlin, p. 306 ff. — The genuineness is rendered certain 


264 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


by the external testimonies without exception. It is true that the section was 
wanting in the Gospel of Marcion (see Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 7); but Marcion 
mutilated and falsified the Gospel of Luke in accordance with his dogmatic 
aims, and thus formed his Gospel, which, according to Tertullian, Epiphanius, 
Origen, and others, began: 'Ev érec mevrexasdexaty tic tyeuoviag TiBepivy Kai- 
aapog 6 Ocd¢ xarzAQev cig Kagapvaodu, 76d rie Tadcdaiag, xai nv diddoxwv év Toi¢ 0d3- 
Baow (iii. 1, iv. 31). And the inlernal character of the section, much as it differs 
from the preface by its Hebraic coloring in accordance with the sources made 
use of, contains the same peculiarities of Luke as are apparent in the other 
portions of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles (see Gersdorff, p. 160 ff.; 
Credner, I. p. 132 ff.), and betrays in the whole peculiar character of the repre- 
sentation documental sources, whose characteristic and in part highly poetic 
stamp Luke with correct tact has known how to preserve in working them up. 
We may add, that a reason against the genuineness can as little be derived from 
Acts i. 1 as a conclusion in its favor can be gathered from Luke i. 3. For there 
me#tion of the Gospel is made only as regards ils main contenis ; and the dvwHev 
at Luke i. 3 would, even if i. 5-ii. 52 were not genuine, find warrant enough in 
the beginning of the history from the emergence of John and in the genealogy 
contained in the third chapter. 


Vv. 1, 2. See especially Huschke, a. den z. Zeit d. Geburt J. Chr. ge- 
halt. Census, Breslau 1840 (Hoeck, Rom. Gesch. Bd. I. Abth. II.); Wieseler, 
chronol. Synopse, p. 73 ff. ; vonGumpachin the Stud. wv. Krit. 1852, p. 663 ff., 
‘where also the older literature is specified, and in his Aritik und Antikritik, 
Heidelb. 1853 ; Zumpt, Commentatt. epigraph. WI. p. 73 ff. ; Kohler in 
Herzog’s Encykl. XIII., p. 463 ff.; Aberle in the theol. Quartalschr. 1865, 
p-103ff.; Gerlach, @. Rémischen Statthalter in Syr. u. Judéa, 1865, p. 22 f£., 
44 ff. ; Strauss, die IIalben u. d. Ganzen, 1865, p. 70 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his 
ZLeitschr. 1865, p. 408 ff. — [See Note XIX., p. 287. ] 

Ver. 1. ’Ev raic hutpaic éx. Fapproximate specification of time in relation to 
the principal contents of what precedes, the birth of the Baptist.— déyza] an 
ordinance, an edict.'— aroypadecSa | that there should be recorded, cannot at all 
be meant of a mere registration, which Augustus had caused to be made (if 
also with the design of regulating in future a taxing of the Jews) for a statis- 
tical object, possibly with a view to the Breviarium imperii which he wrote 
with his own hand (in which ‘‘ opes publicae continebantur ; quantum civ- 
jum sociorumque in armis ; quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vecti- 
galia et necessitates ac largitiones,” Tacitus, Ann. i. 11), as isheld by Kuinoel, 
Olshausen, Ebrard, Wieseler, Ewald, and older expositors, but must, on ac- 
count of ver. 2, be placed on the same footing in respect of its nature with 
the census Quirinii, and is therefore to be regarded as the direct registration 
into the taz-lists, belonging to the census proper (a7oriunore, tiunua) and form- 
ing its essential elements, as, in fact, droypdgerv, aroypdgeoSa, aroypagh (Acts 
v. 37) are the standing expressions for the recording of estate, whether in af- 
fairs of law-procedure (see Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 63 f.; Hermann, Staatsal- 
terth. § 186. 13), or in those of taxing (Plato, Legg. vi. p. 754.D ; Polyb. x. 


1 Acts xvii. 7; Theodotion, Dan. fi. 18; Dem. 278. 17, 774. 19; Plat. Zegg. 1. p. 644D; and 
the passages in Wetstein. 





CHAP. II., 2. 265 
17. 10; and see Elsner and Wetstein).’— xacav r7v oixovp.}] not : the whole 
of Palestine (Flacius, Clavis ; Paulus, Hug, and others), to which the ex- 
pression is never limited,*® not even in Josephus, Anté. viii. 13. 5, but, as the 
context by mapa Kaicapog Avyoborov imperatively requires, the whole Roman 
empire (orbis terrarum).6 Hence the Roman emperors were called xbpcoe ric 
oixovzévyg (Franz, Corp. Inser. III. p. 205). Luke narrates a general census 
of the empire (Huschke); and even the limitation of the meaning merely to 
« gencral provincial census (Wicseler) has no foundation at all in the text, 
any more than the fanciful suggestion of Lange (L. J. II. 1, p. 93), that 
Mary, who is assumed as the source of information for the history of the in- 
fancy, had, ‘‘in accordance with the policy of a lofty feminine sentiment,” 
referred the determination of Herod, to undertake a census in Palestine, back 
to the Emperor Augustus as its originator, and that Luke ‘‘in his kindly 
truth,” had not wished to alter the account, and hence had ‘‘by way of 
gentle correction” inserted ver. 2.4 

Ver. 2. In a critical respect no change is to be made. Lachmann has, 
indecd, struck out the article before aroyp. (in which Wieseler, and now 
also Tischendorf agree with him), but the witnesses which omit it are only 
BD (the latter having éyéivero aroypag? mpdr7), 8 (2) 181, Eus. ; and how 
easily might 7}, which in itself is superfluous (sce Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 105 
[E. T. 221]; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. II. p. 436 ff.), be merged in the last letter 
of air7 | If 7 is not read, ary is the subject, and aroyp. mp. is the predicate 
(this became the first axoypagy). [See critical note, and note XX., 
p. 287.] Beza, ed. 1, 2, 8, Pfaff, Valckenaer have declared the entire verse to 
be an interpolated scholion ; but this is a violent suggestion opposed to all 
the evidence. Conjectures arc given by Huetius: Kviyr:Aiov; Heumann : 
Kpoviov (= Saturnini); Valesius : Larobprvivov ; Michaelis: rpdéry tyévero pd 
THC Hyepovebovrog x.t.A., al.; see Bowyer, Conject. I. p. 117 ff. — The observa- 
tion contained in ver. 2, which, moreover, is not to be put in a parenthesis, 
is intended to tell the reader that this census was the first of those held 
under the presidency of Quirinius, and consequently to guard against con- 
founding it with that which was held about eleven years later (Acts v. 87). 
The words signify : This census was the first while Quirinius was praeses of 
Syria.’ There was known, namely, to the reader a second census of Quiri- 
nius (Acts, /.¢.); but the one recorded at present was the jirst, which oc- 
curred undcr the Syrian presidency of this man.* It is true that history is 


10n the subject-matter itself, see 
Huschke, 2. d. Census u.d. Steuerverfass. 
ad. frithern Rom. Katserzett, Berl. 1847. 


* Not: it took place first, when,—came to 
be carried out not earlier than when Quiri- 
nius, etc. Lichtenstein, p. 81 f., comes ulti- 


2 Justin, c. Tr. 78, has: aroypadis ovons ev 
ty lovdaig rére xpwrns. But this év ri lov’. 
manifestly has its reference to mpwrys. 
Comp. Ap. 1, &, p. 75 E. 

* See the passages in Wetstein, and comp. 
Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 215; Maotzner, 
Lycurg. p. 100. 

4 See, in opposition to this, Ebrard, p. 169 f. 
Comp. also Auberlen, Dante u. d. Apok. 
p. 248 f. 


mately to this meaning. How can this be 
expressed by rpwrn? Instead of spwrn Luke 
must have written precisely the opposite, 
namely, vorepoy, or vorspov 8% eyevero x.1.A. 
Hofmann {is similarly mistaken, Schriftbew. 
II. 1, p. 120 f. 

* Quite definitely Justin also says, in 
agreement with Luke, that Christ was 
born éwi Kupyyiov (Apol. 1. 46), and even that 
His birth was to be seen é« trav azoypapwy 


266 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


at variance with this clear meaning of the words as they stand. For at the 
time of the birth of Jesus, according to the definite testimony of Tertullian 
(c. Mare. iv. 19), Q. Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria ; Publius Sul- 
picius Quirinius did not become so till about ten years later.!. But this va- 
riance does not entitle us to have recourse to explanations inconsistent with 
linguistic usage or with the text. Explanations of this nature, which must, 
nevertheless, leave untouched the incorrect statement about the taxation as 
an imperial census, are (1) that of Herwart (Chronol. 241 f.), Bynaeus, 
Marck, Er. Schmid, Clericus, Keuchen, Perizonius (de Augustea orbia terrar. 
descript., Oxon. 1638), Ussher, Petavius, Calovius, Heumann, Storr, Siis- 
kind, and others, including Tholuck (Glaubwirdigk. d. evang. Gesch. p. 184), 
Huschke, Wieseler, who holds that wpéry pyeu. x.7.A. means: sooner than 
Quirinius was praeses. Comp. also Bornemann, Schol. p. lxvi., and Ewald 
(Gesch. Chr. p. 140), who compares the Sanscrit and translates : ‘‘ this tax- 
ation occurred much earlier (superlative) than when Quirinius ruled.” But 
instead of citing passages in which, as at John i. 15, xv. 18, mparde revor, 
according to the real meaning, is sooner than some one,* proofs ought to have 
been adduced for such a participial connection as in the passage before us ; 
but certainly not Jer. xxix. 2, where éeAddvroc x.7.A. is a genitive absolute, 
even apart from the fact that the use of icrepov there cannot vouch for our 
apoty. Ina similarly erroneous manner Wiescler has adduced Soph. Ant. 
637 f., 701 f., 703 f. Luke would have known how to express the meaning : 
sooner than, etc., simply, definitely, and acourately, by pd rot #yeyovebecv 
x.t.A. (comp. ver. 21, xil. 15 ; Acts xxiii. 15), or by xpi, or mpiv 7.* (2) The 
expedient of Beza, Casaubon (Ezercitatt. Antibaron. p. 126 f.), Jos. Scali- 
ger (de emend. temp. 4, p. 417), Grotius, Wernsdorf (de censu, quem Caes. 
Oct. Aug. fecit, Viteb. 1720), Deyling (Obss. I. ed. 3, p. 242 f.), Nahmmacher 
(de Augusto ter censum agente, Helmst. 1758), Volborth (de censu Quir., 
Gott. 1785), Birch (de censu Quir., Havn. 1790), Sanclemente (de vulg. aerac 
Dionys. emend., Rom. 1793), Ideler (Handb. d. Chronol. II. p. 394), Minter, 


Tay yevoudvwy ert Kupnviov tov vuerépov év 
‘lovdaig mpwrov yevonévouv ewmitpdérov 
[procurator], Apol. 1. 84; so that he in 
another erroneous manner (see Credner, 
Beitr. I. p. 230) makes the man to be Roman 
procurator in Judaea. This was Copontus, 
Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 1. 

1 Between these two Quinéilius Varus had 
been invested with this dignity, Joseph. 
Antt. xvii. 5.2 But the position that Quirt- 
nius had not been already governor of Syria 
at an earlier date (according to Zumpt, 
from 4 to 1 before Christ) must be adhered 
to, according to all the accounts given of 
him by Josephus (especially Antt. xvii. 1. 
1). Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p.140f. The 
words ITERVM. sYRIAM. Of the Tiburtine in- 
scription are of too uncertain interpreta- 
tion, if the inscription applies to Quirinius, 
precisely to prove his twofold praesidium 
Syriae, since we know neither what stood 


after Syriam, etc., nor whether iferum is to 
be referred forward or backward. Comp. 
Strauss, p. 7%. What still remains of the 
whole damaged inscription runs thus (ac- 
cording to Mommsen in Bergmann) :— 
GEM. QVA. REDACTA. POT 
AVGV8TI. POPVLIQVE. ROMANI. SENATV 
SVPPLICATIONES. BINAS. OB. RES. PROSP 
IPSI. ORNAMENTA. TRIVMPH 
PRO. CONSVL. ASIAM. PROVINCIAMOP 
DIVI. AVGYSTI. ITERVM. SYRIAM. ET. Pil. 
See Bergmann, de inscript. Lalina ad P. 
Sulp. Quir. Cos. a 742 ul videtur refer. 1851. 

2 Bernhardy, ad Dionys. Perteg. p. 770, 
and Eratosth. p. 122; Wesseling, ad Herod. 
il. 2, ix. 27; Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. c. v. 
p. 228; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 421. 

8 ‘* Profecto mirandum est, homines eru- 
ditissimos in ejusmod! interpretationum 
ludibria a praejudicatis opinionibus per 
ductos labi,** Valckenaer, p. 68. 


CHAP. II., 2. 267 
(Stern d, Weisen, p. 88 ff.j, Neander, Hug (Gutacht.), and others: that 
wyeuovetovr. is here to be taken in a wider meaning, and that Quirinius had 
held that first aroypagf in Syria as extraordinary commissioner of the em- 
peror, as to which appeal is made, partly in general to the imperial favor 
which Quirinius enjoyed, partly to Tac. Ann. iii. 48, according to which he 
was nearly about that time in the East with extraordinary commissions, 
partly to the analogy of the Gallic census held by Germanicus (Tac. Ann. i. 
81), and so forth. This expedient would only be possible, if jyeuov. stood 
by itself in the passage, and not ra Zvpiac beside it. And if #yexov. were 
meant proleptically : under the subsequent praeses (Lardner in Bowyer, Con- 
ject. I. p. 120; Miinter), Luke could hardly have proceeded more awkwardly 
- than by thus omitting the point whereon his being understood depended 
(it must have been expressed in some such way as Kupyviov tov vorepov pyep. 
TH¢ Zupiac). (8) Gerlach thinks that at the time of Christ’s birth Varus, 
indeed, was #yeudv of Syria, but Quirinius was placed by his side as legatus 
Caesaris proconsulari potestate for the purpose of making war upon the Ho- 
monades, and hAd at that time — consequently likewise as #yeuév —under- 
taken the census, which, however, he brought to no right conclusion, and 
only carried out subsequently under his second praesidium. But granted 
that the Tiburtine inscription (see upon that subject Gerlach, p. 25, 39 ff.), 
which Huschke refers to Agrippa, Zumpt to Saturninus, is rightly referred, 
with Sanclemente, Nipperdey, Bergmann, and Gerlach, to Quirinius, and 
that a twofold legatio of the latter to Asia took place: how could Luke 
with his simple and plain words intend to designate that complicated his- 
torical relation and leave the reader to guess it? To the latter Quirinius 
presented himself only as ordinary and single praeses of Syria. Compare, 
moreover, what is said afterwards in opposition to von Gumpach. (4) At 
variance with the text is the expedient of Paulus, who substantially is fol- 
lowed by Gersdorf, Gléckler, Krabbe, Mack (Bericht ub. Strauss, krit. Bearb. 
d. Leb. J. p. 84 ff.), Hofmann, Weissag. uw. Hrf. Il. p. 54, Ebrard, Lange, 
L. J. Il. 1, p. 94 (comp. also Tholuck, Glaubwirdigk. p. 184 ff., and Olshau- 
sen): that the word is to be accented as atry (ipsa): the first recording itself 
took place while Quirinius, etc.; the issuing of the edict ensued at the time 
of the birth of Jesus, but the census itself did not occur till under Quirinius.' 
This is crroneous, as in fact ver. 8 relates the very carrying out ? of the dzoy- 
pégeoda:, and this ver. 3 ff. must be conceived as following immediately upon 
the edict. (5) Von Gumpach lays stress on éyfvero,® whereby he regards 


1 Gléckler, Krabbe, Mack, and Tholuck, 
however, do not hold the accentuation 
atrj as requisite, and Kohler rejects it. 

* Ebrard, p. 177, wishes to set aside this 
difficulty by the explanation that while an 
awoypadec@a: in the sense of a registration 
already occurred at the time of the birth of 
Jesus, Luko availed himself of the double 
meaning of aroypady, which also signifies 
the actual cenaus, “in an easy and unre- 
strained manner’ to set forth how the work 
begun in the registration was completed in the 


taxation of Quirinius. This is a makeshift, 
which imputes to Luke a very enigmatical 
and awkward use of the word aroypady. 

® So also does Kohler, who besides, with 
Hofmann and Ebrard, lays stress on the 
fact that the passage runs not as 7 spwm, 
but simply zpwry. Luke Is thus made to 
say: this taxation scas completed as the first 
taxation, etc. ; it was, namely, begun doubt- 
less, but was soon stopped and was only 
carried out under Quirinius. Comp. already 
Calvin and Gerlach above. Nothing of this 


268 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
Luke as indicating that in ver. 1 he has spoken’ only of the placing on the 
register, and would not have the same confounded with the actual levying of 
taxation, which was not carried into execution until under Quirinius. Against 
this it may be urged that Luke would have known how to express the real- 
zation, as contrasted with what was intended, otherwise than by the simple 
éyévero, or that he would at least have placed this word, and that witha more 
precise definition (évrwe dé éyévero, or the like), at the head of the sentence ; 
as well as that he, in order to have the aroypagq7 recognized as something 
different from and later than the mere registration, must have made use of 
another word, and not again of azoypagq so similar to the aroypdgecSa:. (6) 
Aberle seeks by learned combination to show that even before the death of 
Herod Quirinius had actually become praeses Syriae, but that as rector juven- 
tutis to the emperor’s grandson Caius, he was still temporarily detained in 
Rome by Augustus,’ and his governorship remained virtually unknown in 
the east and west, but is to be assigned to the year 749. But while there is 
certain attestation that he was rector jurentutis to Caius (Tacitus, Ann. iii. 
48), in which post he was:succeeded by Lollius (see Zumpty p. 102), there is 
no evidence at all for the assumption of a contemporary praesidium Syriae, 
which he must have held nominally (thus somewhat like an episcopus in par- 
-tibus). And how should this state of things, which had remained unknown 
and was only noticed by jurists and notaries for the sake of the dating of 
documents, have become known to Luke in particular, and have been left 
by him without any explanation, in such a way that from his words we can 
only understand the praeses Syriaein the primary and usual sense, according 
to which the praeses resides in his province and administers the same ? — It 
is not to be inferred, moreover, from the ignorance which Luke betrays at 
Acts v. 86 ff., that the addition zpdz7 proceeds not from Luke, but from an 
older Jewish-Christian writer (Késtlin, p. 245); for that ignorance con- 
cerned not the census of Quirinius, but the time of the insurrection of Theu- 
das. — 7yeyov.] the general word for the post of a chief, here shown by the 
context (r7¢ Lvpiacs) to be used of the provincial chief, praeses (proconsul). 
Comp. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 2: Zupiac rH Hyepoviay Exov. In Luke iii. 1, 
used of the Procurator. — Kupyviov] P. Sulpicius Quirinius previously in the 
year 742 consul, praeses of Syria in the years 6-11 after Christ, died in Rome 
in the year 21 after Christ. See Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 18 f.; Gerlach, le. 
His name is usually written Quirinus; by others (so Wetstein, Valckenaer, 
Ewald, Gerlach, al.), Quirinius. In the case of the Roman writers (espe- 
cially Florus, iv. 12. 41; Tacitus, Ann. ii. 30, iil. 22. 48) the manuscripts 
vary ; from a coin and inscription, which have Quirinus, nothing can be 


already, at the time of Christ's birth, filled 


appears in the text, and the article with 
the office of governor in Syria, which, 


spom™ would make no difference at all, 





since, as is well known, the ordinal num- 
bers may stand with or without an article 
(Poppo, ad Thuceyd. ii. 70. 5, iv. 90. 8, Goth.). 

1 Varus having in the mean while contin- 
ued still to exercise the powers of goy- 
ernor. As well according to Gerlach as 
according to Aberle, Varus is held to have 


moreover, Norisius, Cenotaph. Pis. II. p. 8 
f., and others maintained. But this is at 
variance with Tertullian, Z.c., comp. c. 7, 
where it can only be regarded as a very 
arbitrary assumption that Saturninus is no 
longer meant as governor, 


CHAP. II., 2. 269 


decided in view of the great doubt as to their genuineness.’ But it is ccr- 
tain that among the Greeks (Strabo, xii. 6, p. 569; Josephus, Justin Martyr) 
the name is written with the termination IO ; and, as this manner of writ- 
ing is at all events decidedly correct in our passage (C D E F, etc., includ- 
ing ®, likewise Eusebius, Chrysostom, etc.), whereas among the codices 
only B reads Kupefvov (hence Lachmann reads Kupivov), the form Qutrinius, 
which easily became confounded with the familiar Roman word Quirinus 
(= Quirinalis), is to be preferred. The confusion occurred the more easily, 
as Quirinus, Kupivoc (Plutarch), or Kupivoc (Leon. phil. 1) was also a Roman 
name. At all events, Luke himself had in his mind the name Quirinius. 


Remarx.—([See Note XXI., p. 287 seq.] The statement of Luke, so far as it 
affirms that at the time of the birth of Christ an imperial census was taken, and 
that it was the first that was provincially carried out bythe Syrian prueses Qui- 
rinius, is manifestly incorrect. For (1) the praesidium of Quirinius is placed 
about ten years too early ; and (2) an imperial census, if such an one should 
have been held at all at the time of the birth of Jesus (which, however, cannot 
from other sources be proved, for the passages of Christian authors, Cassiodorus, 

Var. iii. 52, Suidas, s.v. droypagy, plainly depend on the narrative of Luke, as 
also does the chronologically erroneous statement, of Isidor. Orig. v. 36. 4), can- 
not have affected Palestine at all,? since it had not yet become a Roman province, 
which did not happen till 759. And, indeed, the ordaining of so abnormal and 
disturbing a measure in reference to Palestine—a measure, which assuredly 
would not be carried through without tumultuary resistance—would have been 
so uncommonly important for Jewish history, that Josephus would certainly 
not have passed it over in absolute silence (Anti. xvii. 1. 1 does not bear on it); 
especially as it was not the rer socius himself, Herod, but the Roman governor, 
who was, according to Luke (in opposition to Wieseler), the authority conduct- 
ing it. But (3) the holding withal of a general census of the empire under 
Augustus is historically altogether unvouched for; it isa matter of history (see 
the Monum. Ancyran. in Wolf, ed. Sueton. II. p. 369 ff.; comp. Sueton. Aug. 27) 
that Augustus thrice, in 726, 746, and 767, held a census populi, i.e., a census of 
the Roman citizens, but not also of the whole provinces of the empire (see, in 
opposition to Huschke, Wieseler, p. 84 ff.). Should we, on the other hand, as- 
sume, with Wieseler, that the census had only the provinces in view and had 
been taken up in the different provinces in different years, and with the utmost 
indulgence to provincial peculiarities,—the object aimed at being the settling of 
an uniform system of taxation (comp. Savigny in the Zeilschr. fiir qeschichtl. 
Rechtswiss. VI. p. 350), —the text of Luke would stand opposed toit. For, accord- 
ing to that text, (a) the whole Roman empire is subjected to a census ; (b) this quite 
universal census is ordained at once in the edict, which, on Wieseler’s hypothe- 
sis of the gradual and indulgent mode of its execution by the politic Augus- 
tus, would have been imprudent ; and (c) it is represented as an actual taz- 
census, as was the well-known (according to Luke, second) census Quirinii, in 
which case the alleged indulgence is imported. 

Nevertheless, criticism pronounces judgment on itself, when it designates the 
whole account as to the census as an invention of legend (Strauss ; comp. 


1 See Gerlach, p. 87. who cites another from Marini, Ac/. IJ. 782. 
insoription, which actually reads Qutrinio, 3 See Mommecn in Bergm. p. tv. ff. 


270 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Kern, Urspr. des Evang. p. 113 ff.; Weisse, I. p. 236), or even of Luke (B. 
Bauer), which is made in order to bring Mary with Joseph to Bethlehem. Comp. 
the frivolous opinion of Eichthal, II. p. 184 f. What o strange and dispropor- 
tionate machinery for this purpose! No; something of the nature of a census, 
and that by command of the emperor, must have taken place in the Roman 
empire '—n registration, as regards which it is quite an open question whether 
it was taken with or without a design to the future regulation of taxation, or 
merely had for its aim the levying of statistics. The consolidating aims of the 
government of Augustus, and, in reference to Palestine, the dependence of the 
vassal-king Herod, take away from it all historical improbability, even apart 
from the analogous measure—that had already preceded it--of the survey of 
the whole Roman empire instituted by Augustus (Frontinus in the Aucl. rei. 
agrar., ed. Goes, p. 109; Aethicus Ister, Cosmogr., ed. Gronov. p. 26). Further, 
as Quirinius was not at that time praeses, he can only have acted in this 
statistical measure as extraordinary commissioner, which is the less improbable, 
’ because apart from this he was then in the East by order of the emperor (see 
above), and because the politic Augustus very naturally as to that business put 
more confidence in an approved impartial commissioner than in the reges socii 
themselves or in the interested proconsuls. And this action of Quirinius en- 
ables ug to understand how tradition, in the gradual obscuring and mixing up 
of its recollections, should have made him praeses Syriae at that time, since he 
was so subsequently, and how the registration in question was made into a census, 
because subsequenily he actually as Syrian governor? had charge of a census ; and 
from this mixing up of times and matters resulted at the same time the desig- 
nation of the avoypagy as mpérn, which occurred fye“ovetovrocg ti¢ Lupiac Kv- 
pnviov. Thus Luke has narrated what actually happened in the erroneous form 
which it received from the tradition. But if we conceive of the doypagy as 
merely a revision of the genealogical family registers (Schleiermacher, Olshausen, 
ed. 1, Bleek), which probably was ordained only by the spiritual authorities, 
and perhaps had reference merely to the family of David, it is no longer easy to 
see how Luke, or the source from which he drew, could make out of it some- 
thing thoroughly and specifically different. According to Schweizer in the 
theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 1 ff., Luke has really in the passage before us, at variance 
with iii. 1, made Jesus be born in the year of the taxing of Quirinius, Acts v. 
37, and thus long after the death of Herod,—in spito of his own distinct state- 
ment, i. 5 !—The hypotheses, moreover, that Luke intended by the enrolment 
of Jesus (?) in the register of the Empire to point to the universal destination of 
the Redeemer (Wieseler ; comp. Erusmus, Bengel, and already Theophylact and 
Euthymius Zigabenus), or to the coincidence of the birth of the Messiah and the 
redemption of Israel with the political bondage of the people (Ebrard), or to the 
manner in which Jesus in His mother’s womb was most surprisingly dealt with 


1 Possibly of the population, of the civil 
and military resources, of thé finances, etc., 
as, according to Tacitus, Ann. {. 11, the 
Breviarium totius imperit (Sueton. Ootav. 
28,101) of Augustus contained columns of 
that kind. See above onver. 1. 

2 Aberle, indeed, calls this in question, 
holding that Quirinius was at the later 
census mcrely a simple Legatus Caesaris. 


_Although Josephus does not expressly name 


him jyevoy, he is still, in Anéé. xviii. 1. 1, 
sufficiently indicated as such. Comp. Hil- 
genfeld, p. 418 ff. Apart from this, the ex- 
pression 7yenovevorros in the passage before 
us is only an erroneously anticipating reflex 
of that, which subsequently Quirinius was in 
fact, and notoriously, as respects his real 
census attended by consequences 80 grave. 


CHAP. II., 3. atl 


as @ Roman subject (Hofmann), are purely arbitrary creations of that subjectiv- 
ity, which has the utmost delightin discovering a mystical reference behind 
every simple historical statement. 


Ver. 3 ff. Mdyrec] in the Jewish land, for which ver. 2 has prepared, and 
see ver. 4. Obviously only all those are meant, who did not dwell in their 
idia wéduc ; éxaoroc isa distributive apposition (Ameis on Homer, Od. x. 397). 
—elg r. idiav 1éAv] the more precise definition is furnished by ver. 4. [Sec 
critical note.] This statement, too, does not suit a census proper ; for to 
this every one was required to subject himsclf at his dwelling-place, or at 
the place where he had his forum originis (see Huschke, p. 116 ff.), where- 
as in our passage the Jewish principle of tribe is the basis. And if the mat- 
ter were not a census, but a mere registration (sce above), there was no 
reason for departing from the time-hallowed division of the people, or for 
not having the matter carried out in Jewish form. The actual historical state 
of the casc shines here through the traditional dress of a census. — 7éAcy Aav. ] 
The city where David was born, 1 Sam. xvii. 11. — BedAecéu] see on Matt. 
ii. 1. — é oixov x. marpia¢ Aav.] The tribes proceeding from the sons of Jacob 
were called ¢vdai (MD) ; the branches proceeding from the sons of these 
patriarchs, zarpai (MNPYD) ; the single families of such a tribal branch, 
oino. (NIK 1V3).! Joseph was thus of the family descending from David, 
and belonged to the same branch of the tribe to which David had belonged. 
A circumstantial designation of this important relationship. As to rarpid, 
moreover, sce on Eph. iii. 15. — civ Mapcdu] does not belong to avéBy (Pau- 
lus, Hofmann, Ebrard), but to aroypdéy. beside which it stands : in order to 
hace himself enrolled with Mary, etc. But that Mary had of necessity to 
share the journey with him (which was not requisite in the case of a census, 
when only the names of the women and children had to be specified,* 
is the less to be supposed, as in the main the form of the execution 
of the aroypagf was the Jewish one, ver. 8. Nevertheless, wives (in this 
case Mary as one betrothed, who according to Jewish law was placed on 
the same footing as the wife) had to be likewise entered in the register, which 
must have been amatter of Roman enactment, but for which it was not nec- 
essary that they should come personally with their husbands to the spot. 
We have consequently to abide by the view that Mary undertook the jour- 
ney with her husband voluntarily, iccording to her own and Joseph’s wish, 
in order to remain under the protection of her betrothed (not exactly on ac- 
count of the troublous times,—an idea which Ebrard imports). There are 
various arbitrary hypotheses, such as : that she travelled with him on account 
of the poll-taz (Huschke) ; that she wished still as a maiden to represent 
her father’s house, and longed after Bethlehem in the theocratic feeling 
of maternity (Lange) ; that the command for the taxing extended also 
to the children and contained a definite point of time, just about which 
Mary expected her delivery (von Gumpach). And the hypothesis that 


1 See Kypke, J. p. 218; Winer, Realtcdrterd. 3 Dion. Hal. iv..14; See Strauss, I. p. 285, 
sv. Stdmme; Gesenius, These. I. p. 198, III. and Huschke, p. 121, in opposition to Tho- 
p. 1463. luck, p. 191. 


Ri2 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Mary was an heiress, who had an estate in Bethlehem (Michaelis, Kui- 
noel, Olshausen ; with hesitation Bleek and Kéhler), is utterly unfounded as 
regards Luke in particular, since he has not the smallest trace of.any carlier 
connection with Bethlehem and makes Mary in her travail not find even 
friendly lodging there. — 9 éuvyor. aitG@] Thus, according to Luke, she was 
still only his betrothed (i. 27 ; Matt. i. 18), and the marriage was not yct 
completed. At variance with Matt. i. 24. [See Note XXII, p. 288.] A dif- 
ferent form assumed by the tradition of the virgin birth. Evasive sug- 
gestions arc resorted to by Beza, Grotius, and others, including Schegg and 
Bisping (that Luke expresses himself thus, because Joseph had only con- 
ducted himself as one betrothed towards Mary). — otey éyxty] not; because 
she was pregnant (von Gumpach), but : who was pregnant (Acts xxiv. 24 ; 
Rom. i. 16, and frequently). The observation forms the transition to what 
follows. 


RemarE.—From Mary’s sharing in the journey we are not to conclude that 
she likewise was of the family of David (Grotius, Kuinoel, and others). [See 
Notes X., XL, p. 258.] She journeyed voluntarily with Joseph as his future 
wife, and Joseph journeyed as a member of the house of David. If Luke had 
had in his mind the thought that Mary shared the journey as a descendant of 
David, he must have written, and that at the end of ver. 5, déa rd elvat abrot¢ 
x.7.A. But comp. on i. 36, and on Matt. i. 17, Remark 2. 


Ver. 6 f. ’ExAfoSnoav ai iuépat tov Texeiv ati] comp. i. 57. The suppo- 
sition (sec as early as Proterang. Jac. 17) that Mary was surprised by the 
pains of labor on the way, is set aside by the év ro elvac atrotg éxei. And 
probably she had hoped to be able to finish the journey before her delivery. 
‘‘Non videtur scisse, se vi prophetiae (Mic. v. 2) debere Bethlehemi parere,; 
sed providentia coelestis omnia gubernavit, ut ita fieret,” ‘‘she does not 
seem to have known that by virtue of prophecy (Mic. v. 2) she ought to bring 
forth at Bethlehem, but heavenly providence ruled all things so that it 
might thus occur,” Bengel.— That Mary was delivered «without pain and 
injury is proved by Fathers and expositors, such as even Maldonatus and 
Estius, from the fact that she herself swaddled the child and laid it in 
the manger !—rév mpwréroxov] See on Matt. i. 25. The evasive sug- 
gestion resorted to, that this word is used without reference to later 
born children, appears the more groundless in view of the agreement of 
Matthew and Luke, —éorxapyav.] She sewaddled him; frequently used in 
Greek writers. — év ddrvq] without the article (see the critical remarks) : 
she deposited him in a@ manger. Many, including Paulus and Kuinoel, 
have, contrary to linguistic usage, made of it a stable.’ —iv 7@ xaradtpare] 


1That a stable (in opposition to Ebrard) 
was the place of the birth, follows from ev 
garryp, oiére x.7.A. It is possible that the 
stable was a rock-care, which an old legend 
(Justin. c. Tryph. 78; Orig. ¢c. Cels.i. 51; 
Protevang. Jac. 18) designates as the place of 
the birth, not without suspicion, however, 
by reason of its appeal to Isa. xxxiif. 16, 


LXX. Moreover, that tradition transfers 
the cave expressly only to the neighborhood 
of the little town, and states withal of 
Joseph : ovx elyev év ty Kamp exeivy wou xara- 
Atca, “he did not have in that village 
where to lodge,” Justin, Zc. Over this 
grotto designated by the legend Helena 
built the church Jfariae de praesepio. Comp. 


CHAP. II., 8-10. 273 


an the inn (x. 34), where they lodged—probably on account of the number 
of strangers who were present on the same occasion. If we should wish to 
understand it as : the house of a friendly host (for the signification of nataAtua 
is generally @ place of shelter, lodging, comp. xxii. 11), it would remain im- 
probable that a friendly host, even with ever so great restriction of room, 
should not have made a chamber in the house available for such an exigency. 
[See Note XXIII., p. 288.] The text suggests nothing indicative of an inhos- 
pitable treatment (Calvin). 

Ver. 8 f. Mocuévec] not oi rouuévec. — aypavacivrec] staying out in the open 
fields ; Plut. Num. 4; Parthen. Hrot. xxix. 1, and the woévec dypavac: al- 
ready in Homer, JJ. xviii. 162. — gvadoo. gvdaxde] often conjoined also among 
the Greek writers.! The plural applies to the different watch-stations. — 
tic vuxréc] not belonging to ¢vAaxdc, but : by night, definition of time for 
aypava. and ¢vaAdco. — According to this statement, Jesus cannot have been 
born in December, in the middle of the rainy season (Robinson, Fal. II. 
.p. 505 f.), as has been since the fourth century supposed with a probable join- 
ing on of the festival to the Natales solis incicti (see Gieseler, Kirchengesch. 
I. 2, p. 287 f. ed. 4). [See Note XXIV., p. 288.] Just as little can He have 
been born on the sixth day of January, which in the East was even earlier fixed 
as the festival of the birth and baptism (still other times fixed as the day of 
birth may be seen in Clement Al. Strom. I. p. 839 f. Sylb.). According to the 
Rabbins, the driving forth of the flocks took place in March, the bringing in of 
them in November (see Lightfoot); and if this is established at least as the 
usual course, it certainly is not in favor of the hypothesis (Wieseler) that Jesus 
was born in February (750), and necessitates precarious accessory assumptions. 
— [On idot, see critical note.] éréory] Comp. xxiv. 4; Acts xii. 7, xvii. 5. 
In the classical writers it is used also of theophanies, of appearances in 
dreams, and the like, frequently since Homer (J/.' xxiii. 106, x. 496), denot- 
ing their sudden emergence, which nevertheless is implied not in the word 
in itself, but in the text. — dééa xvpiov] MN N33, radiance by which God 
is surrounded. Comp. Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 311. God's glorious radiance 
(comp. Acts vii. 2) had streamed down with the angel. ‘‘In omni humilia- 
tione Christi per decoram quandam protestationem cautum est gloriae ejus 
divinae,” ‘‘In all the humiliation of Christ there was through a certain 
seemly protestation a care for His divine glory,” Bengel. 

Ver. 10 ff. Mavri rg Aag] to the whole (Israclitish) people. —éréydy iniv] 
that (that, namely) there was born to you this day, ctc. The tyiv, in reference to 
the shepherds, is individualizing. -—awrip x.t.A.] @ delicerer—and now comes 
His special more precise definition : who is Messiah, Lord! Xpcorig xtprog is 
not to be taken together, as it never occurs thus in the N. T, — év 7éA, Aav. | 
belonging to éréydy. ‘‘Haec periphrasis remittit pastores ad prophetiam, 
quae tum implebatur,” ‘‘ This periphrasis refers the shepherds to the proph- 
ecy which is now being fulfilled,” Bengel. Mic. v. 2. —1ré onpeiov] the ap- 


also Robinson, Fad. II. p. 264 ff.; Ritter, and the passages in Kypke. Comp. 
Erdk, XVI. p. 202 ff. See,ontheotherhand, NAVWWD Ww [A.V.: “keep the charge,” 
Gersdorf, p. 221; Bornemann, Schol. p. 18. io ; 99 

1 Plat. Phaedr. p. 940; Xen. Anad.1j.6,10, +» “ wateb the watch"}, Num. 1. 68, al. 


18 


274 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

pointed sign of recognition.’ — Bpégoc] not : the child (Luther), but : a child. 
The word denotes either the still unborn child (as i. 41; Hom. 4. xxii. 
266), or, as in this case (comp. xviii. 15 ; Acts vii. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 2; also as 
a strong expression of the thought, 2 Tim. ili. 15) and very often in the clas- 
sical writers, the new-born child. — éorapy.] adjectival : a swaddled child, 
ver. 7. 

Ver. 13. T12990¢ orp. obp.] a multitude of the heavenly host (DWT RIY), a 
multitude of angels. The (satellite-) host of the angels surrounds God’s 
throne. 1 Kings xxii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xviii. 18 ; Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2; Matt. 
xxvi. 53; Rev. xix. 14, al.?— Ver. 14. déga év biota x.r.A. According to 
the reading cidoxiag (see the critical remarks, and Nésselt, Hzercitatt. 
p. 171 ff.): Glory (is, comp. 1 Pet. iv. 11) in the hearen to God, and on earth 
salvation among men who are well-pleasing/! The angels declare to the praise 
of God (ver. 18) that on account of the birth of the Messiah God is glorified 
in heaven (by the angels), and that on the earth there is now salvation 
among men, to whom in and with the new-born child has been imparted 
God's good pleasure.* They thus contemplate the Messiah’s work as having 
already set in with His birth, and celebrate it in a twofold manner in refer- 
ence to heaven and earth (comp. Isa. vi. 8). Their exclamation is not a 
wish, as it is usually rendered by supplying éorw or ein, but far stronger,—a 
triumphant affirmation of the existing blessed state of things. The év adpor. 
evdoxiag (genitive of quality, see Winer, p. 211 f. [E. T. 236 f.]) adds to the 
- scene of the eipfvy the subjects, among whom it prevails (comp. Plat. Symp. 
p. 197 C); these, namely, are those who believe in the Messiah, designated 
in reference to God whose grace they possess, as men who are well pleasing 
(to Him). Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 587 : nai evdoxhoee xiptog ext toig dyatn- 
toig avtov éwe aidvwy, ‘‘ And the Lord will be well pleased (evdoxgoe:) with 
Ilis beloved unto eternity” (é¢ aidvev). Observe, moreover, the correla- 
tion which exists (1) between défa and eipyry ; (2) between év ivicrac and 
ext y#¢ 3 and (8) between Oe and év av¥parog eddoxiac. By év tnpiorog (in 
regions, which are the highest of all, xix. 38) the angels declare what takes 
place in the highest heaven, whence they have just come down. Comp. 
Matt. xxi. 9; Wisd.ix. 17; Ecclus. xliii. 9; Job xvi. 19; Heb. i. 8. — By 
tipivy they mean not only peace (usually understood of the peace of reconcil- 
lation), but the entire salvation, of which the new-born child is the bearer ; 
comp. 1.79. [See Note XXV., p. 288 seq.] — With the Recepta cidoxia, the 
hymn would also consist of only two parts, divided by «ai, which is not for 


1 According to the notice oyjpepor, and in 
view of the smallness of Bethlehem, the 
sign specified by xecuevoy ev darvy was suf- 
Jciéntly certain at once to guide inquiry to 
the child in the village. Olshausen, but 
not the text, adds to this the secret impulse 
of the Spirit, which led the shepherds to 
the right place. 

2 On yiveoOar ovv rim, Co be associated with 
any tone, comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 8.8. On orpa- 
mia, comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 246 E: orpania 


Getwy Tré xai Satpdvery, 


* Olshausen (following Alberti, Odss., and 
Tittmann, Diss., Viteb. 1777) places a stop 
after yys, so that the first clause says: 
‘* God is now praised asin heaven, 80 also in 
the earth.’’ This is erroneous, because, ac- 
cording to the order of the words in Luke, 
the emphatic point would be not eri yis, as 
in the Lord's Prayer, but ev vyicrors. 

4 Nevertheless Ebrard (on Olshausen) still 
defends the threefold dirision. According 
to him, the angels exult (1) that in hearen 
honor is given to God for the redemption 


CHAP. II., 15. 275 
(Bengel, Paulus, Kuinoel, and others, comp. Theophylact), but and. And 
the second part would consist of two parallel clauses, of which the first lays 
down the state of things in question after a purely objective manner (émi y#¢ 
eipfvn), while the second designates it from the point of view of God’s sub- 
jectivity (év avOp. etdoxia): on earth is salvation, among men is (God's) good 
pleasure ; év avfp., namely, would not be in the case of men (Matt. ili. 17 ; 
so usually), but local, as previously év tyior. and éi y%c. Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. TI. p. 372, takes eidoxia as delight; ‘‘in genere humano (Messia nato) 
coluptas est et laetitia,” ‘‘in the human race (the Messiah being born) there is 
delight and joy.”” But evdoxia nowhere expresses this strong idea, but only 
the state of well-pleased satisfaction (as Ps. cxliv. 16, LXX.), and the latter 
idea would in this place be too weak ; we could not but expect yapa xai 
ayaAdiaotc, or the like. Moreover, according to ver. 13 (aivotvruy r. Ody) it 
is more in harmony with the text to understand cidoxia on the part of God, in 
which case the quite usual meaning of the word (éravdravotcg rov Ocov, Theo- 
phylact) is retained ; ‘‘ quod sc. Deus gratuito suo favore homines dignatus 
sit,” ‘‘ which signifies, that God deems men worthy of His own gratuitous 
favor” (Calvin). The opposite : Eph. ii. 8. Bornemann, Schol. p. 19 ff., 
considers the whole as affirmed of Christ: ‘‘Xpioréc 6 xipeog déga éorae tv 
twierorg bvre Ocg x.7.A., A. €. Messias celebrabit in coelis Deum et in terram de- 
ducet pacem dicinam, documentum (in apposition) benevolentiae divinae erga 
homines,” ‘‘that is, the Messiah will praise God in the heavens, and will 
bring down to earth divine peace, a proof (in apposition) of divine benevo- 
lence toward men.”” But Luke himself specifies the contents as praise of 
God (ver. 18); and the assumption of Bornemann (after Paulus), that Luke 
has given only a small fragment of the hymn, is the more arbitrary, the 
more the few pregnant words are precisely in keeping with a heavenly song 
of praise. 

Ver. 15 f. Kai ol dv@p.] This xai is not also, but the simple and after iyé- 
vero; see On V. 12.—ol dvOpwro: ol roméveo [see critical note], not: the 
shepherd people (Grotius, Paulus, and others), against which the second 
article is decisive (comp. Matt. xviii. 28, xxii. 2, al.; see Bernhardy, p. 48; 
Kiihner, II. p. 120), but a contrast to oi dyyeAo, in which case, however, we 
must not lay upon the expression a stress which is foreign to the connection 
(‘‘totum genus humanum quodammodo repracsentantes,” ‘‘ representing in 
a certain sense the whole human race,” Bengel), but rather must adhere to 
the simple and artless mode of representation : after the departure of the 
angels the people too, the shepherds, said, etc. — d:éA@wuev] through the ficlds 
as far as to Bethlehem, Acts ix. 38, xi. 19. — é4%] denotes what is definitive, 
without more ado.'—1d pjya}] which has been said ; 8 5 kbp. hu. is an epexc- 


now brought about; (2) that upon earth a 
kingdom of peace is now founded ; (8) that 
between hearen and earth the right relation is 
restored, that God’s eye may again rest 
with good pleasure on mankind. This 
alleged third clause of necessity contains 
somowhat of tautology; and the text itself 
by its «ai and by its contrast of heaven and 


earth yields only (wo clauses. Lange also, 
L. J. Il. 1, p. 108, understands It in a three- 
fold sense, but very arbitrarily takes evdoxia 
of the divine good pleasure manifested ina 
Person, referring to passages such as Epb. 
i. 5, 6. 

1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 895; Nagelsbach, 
Anm. tz. Ilias, ed. 2, p. 488 f. 


276 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


gesis of it. —aveipor] they discovered (after previous search, in conformity 
with the direction at ver. 12). The word only occurs in the N. T. again 
at Acts xxi. 4, comp. 4 Macc. iii. 14; more frequently among Greek 
writers. 

Ver. 17 f. Aceyvépioav] they gave exact information (d:é). [But see critical 
note.] The word is only found besides in Schol. in Beck. Anecd. p. 787, 
15, but in the sense of accurate distinguishing, which it cannot have in 
this place (Vulg.: cognoverunt); comp. rather éyvdpicev, ver. 15. At the 
birthplace to the parents and others who were present they made accurate 
communication of the angelic utterance addressed to them, and all who 
heard this communication marvelled, but Mary (ver. 19), etc. — repi ra» 
7aA76.| does not belong to axotoavrec (Gersdorf), but to é¥atu., with which 
indeed zepi is very rarely associated elewhere ; but the thought is: they 
fell into amazement in consideration of that, which, etc.) 

Ver. 19 f. Aé] leading over to the special thing, which Mary amidst this 
general amazement did—she, who, in accordance with the revelations 
made to her, was more deeply struck with the tidings of the shepherds, 
and saw matters in a deeper light. She kept all these utterances (ra Afyuara) 
of the shepherds. Observe in the narrative the emphasis of mévra, as well 
as the purposely chosen adumbrative tense cvverfpe: (previously the aorist).? 
— ouuBddrovea x.t.A.] The Vulgate well renders : conferens, inasmuch as 
she put them together, i.e., in silent heart-pondering she compared and inter- 
preted them to herself.* — ixéorpew.] to their flocks, ver. 8. — dofafovreg xai 
aivowrec] Glorifying and giving approval. The latter is more special than 
the former. — én? raowv x.7.A.}] over all things, which they had just heard and 
seen in Bethlehem after such manner as was spoken to them by the angel at 
vv. 10-12. 


ReMarE.— To make of these angelic appearances a natural (phosphoric) phe- 
nomenon, which had first been single and then had divided itself and moved to 
and fro, and which the shepherds, to whom was known Mary’s hope of bring- 
ing forth the Messiah, interpreted to themselves of this birth (Paulus ; comp. 
Ammon, L. J. I. p. 203, who likewise assumes a meteor), is a decided and un- 
worthy offence against the contents and purpose of the narrative, which is to 
‘be left in its charming, thoughtful, and lofty simplicity as the most distin- 
guished portion of the cycle of legend, which surrounded the birth and the 
early life of Jesus. The truth of the history of the shepherds and the angels 
‘lies in the sphere of the idea, not in that of historical reality, although Luke 
‘narrates it as a real event. Regarded as reality, the history loses its truth, as 
® premiss, with which the notorious subsequent want of knowledge and non- 
recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, as well as the absolute silence of evangelic 
preaching as to this heavenly evangelium, do not accord as a sequel,—apart 
from the fact, that it is not at all consistent with Matthew’s narrative of the 
Magi and of the slaying of the children, which is to be explained from the cir- 


2 Comp. Plat. Zim. p. 80 C: ra Oavpage- xxxix. 2, xxviii. 3. 
yleva NAEKTpwY rept THs EAgews. 3 Comp. Plat. Crat. p. 848 A: ovpBarecy 
3On cuvrnpeiv, alla mente repositum ser-  rnv Kparvdov pavteiay, p. 412 C; Soph. Oed. 
ware, comp. Dan. vii. 28; Ecclus. xili. 12, C. 1472; Pind. Nem, xi. 48; Eur. Or, 1894. - 


CHAP. IL., 21, 22. 277 
cumstance that various wreaths of legend, altogether independent one of 
another, wove themselves around the divine child in His lowliness.! The con- 
trast of the lowliness of Jesus and of His divine glory, which pervade His en- 
tire history on earth until His exaltation (Phil. ii. 6 ff.), is the great truth, to 
which here, immediately upen the birth, is given the most eminent and most 
exhaustive expression by the living and creative poetry of faith, in which with 
thoughtful aptness members of the lowly and yet patriarchally consecrated 
class of shepherds receive the first heavenly revelation of the Gospel outside 
the family circle, and so the rrwyol evayyeAifovras (vii. 22) is already even now 
realized. [See Note XXVI., p. 289.] 


Ver. 21. Tov mepirepeiv avrév] The genitive, not as at ver. 22, i. 57, ii. 6, 
but as genitive of the aim: in order to circumcise Him, that He might be 
circumcised. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 230 [E. T. 267]. — nat éxAgOn] 
was also named, indicating the naming as superadded to the rite of circum- 
cision. See Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, ed. 8, p. 164. And the Son of God had 
to become circumcised, as yevduevoc ix yuvaxéc, yevduevog id véuov, Gal. iv. 4. 
This was the divine arrangement for His appearing as the God-man in 
necessary association with the people of God (Rom. ix. 5). There is much 
importation of the dogmatic element here among the older commentators. * — 

TO KAnOev x.T.A.] See i. 81. Comp. Matt. i. 21, where, however, the legend 
quite differently refers the giving of the name to the angel. 

Ver. 22. Women after childbirth, when the child was a boy, were unclean 
for seven days, and had besides to stay at home thirty-three days more (at 
the birth of a girl these periods were doubled). Then they were bound to 
present in the temple an offering of purification, namely, a lamb of a year 
old as a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or turtle-dove as a sin-offering ; 
. or else, if their means were too small for this, two turtle-doves or young 
pigeons, the one as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering.* Accord- 
ingly ai juépac tov xabapiop. avtrov: the days, which (i.e., the lapse of them) 
were appointed for their legal cleansing (xa%apiouéc, passive, comp. ver. 14). 
Mary brought the offering of the poor, ver. 24. — avrav] applies contextu- 
ally (av#yayov avrév) not to the Jews (van Hengel, Annot. p. 199), but to 
Mary and Joseph. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, also Bleck. The purifica- 
tion in itself indeed concerned only the mother ; but in the case before us 


1 In opposition to Schlefermacher, who in 
the case of our passage lays stress, in oppo- 
sition to the mythical view, on the absence 
of lyrical poetry, failing to see that precise- 
ly the most exalted and purest poetry is 
found in the coniéents of our passage with all 
its simplicity of presentation; see the ap- 
propriate remarks of Strauss, I. p. 24. 
Lange, L. J. II. p. 108, in his own manner 
transfers the appearances to the souls of the 
shepherds, which were of such elevated and 
supramundane mood that they could dis- 
cern the joy of an angelic host; and holds 
that the appearance of the angel and the 
glory of the Lord, ver. 9, point toa vision 


of the Angel of the Covenant. 

3 Calovius says that Christ allowed Him- 
self to be circumcised ‘‘ dum ob demonstran- 
dam naturae humanae veritatem.. . tum ad 
probandam ¢ semine Abrahae originem .. . 
tum imprimis ob merili et redemptionis 
Christi certificationem,"’ ‘first for demon- 
strating the realy of His human nature... 
then to prove His origin from the seed of 
Abraham... then especially as a cerlifica- 
tion of the merit and redemption of Christ.” 

* See Lev. xil.2 ff.: Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., 
ed. Wolf, p. 751; Michaelis, Mos. R. § 192; 
Ewald, Aiterth. p. 178 f.; Kell, Archdol. I. 
p. 296. 


248 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Joseph was, and that by means of the presentation of the first-born son as- 
sociated therewith, also directly interested ; hence the expression by way of 
synecdoche, which is usually referred to the mother and the child (so also by 
Kuinoel, Winer, de Wette). — xara rév véuov M.] applies to érAnoOnoay «.7.A., 
indicating the legal duration thereof. — av#yayov, like avaBaivew of the jour- 
neying to Jerusalem. — rapaorgoac] All first-born sons were the property of 
Jehovah, destined to the temple-service originally and before the institution 
of the Levites (Num. viii. 14 ff.); hence they had to be presented in the 
temple to God as His special property, but were redeemed from Him for five 
shekels.’ 

Ver. 23. Not to be putin a parenthesis. — A very free quotation from Ex. 
Xi. 2.—diavoiyov pyrpav) DIV VOD ; comp. LXX. Hardly according to 
the passage before us has Luke conceived, with Ambrosius and many others, 
that Mary brought forth clawso utero and only voluntarily subjected herself 
to this law (as Bisping still holds). | 

Ver. 24. Kai rov dovvac] continues the narrative after the interposed sen- 
tence ver. 23: and in order to give an offering. —xard rd ecipyy. x.7.A.] Lev. 
xii. 8. —veoscoi¢] On the later form rejected by the Atticists, vooaobs (so 
Tischendorf), see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 185 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 206 f. 

Ver. 25 f. Who this Simeon was (‘‘ primus propheta, qui diceret Christum 
venisse,” ‘‘ the first prophet who said that Christ had come,” Bengel), is 
utterly unknown. The supposition that he was son of Hillel, and father of 
Gamaliel (Michaelis, Paulus, and older commentators), who became presi- 
dent of the Sanhedrim in a.p. 13, does not agree with vv. 26, 29, where he 
appears as an aged man ; and there is generally the less ground for enter- 
taining it, in proportion to the frequency of the name }1}")U, — dixaog x. 
evAaBico]* The word eviafi¢ is only used in the N. T. by Luke. It denotes 
rcligious conscientiousness.* — rapdxAyow] The Messianic blessing of the na- 
tion, as its practical consolation after its sufferings (comp. Airpworr, ver. 88), is 
called, according to prophetic precedent (Isa. xl. 1), in the Rabbinical 
literature also very often 1211).4 The same in substance is : mpoodeydu. r9v 
Baotdelav rov Oeov, Mark xv. 43. — én’ airéy] having come upon. — xeypnua- 
riou. | & divine responsum, see on Matt. ii. 12. There is no hint of a dream 
(Kuinoel). — zpiv 7] See on Matt. i. 18. — rdv Xprordy xvpiov] comp. ix. 20: 
the Messiah of God (whom God has destined and sent as Messiah). — For 
the expression to see death, comp. Heb. xi. 5 ; John viii. 51; Ps. lxxxix. 48.° 

Ver. 27 f. 'Ev r@ wvebpati] by virtue of the Holy Spirit, ‘‘instigante 
Spiritu,” Grotius ; comp. Matt. xxii. 48. — The expression roi¢ yovei¢ (pro- 
creators) is not appropriate to the bedily Sonship of God, which Luke nar- 
rates, and it betrays an original source resting on a different view. [See 


2 Ex. xill. 2; Num. vill. 16, xvili. 15 f.; ® Comp. Delitzsch on Heb. v. 7 f., p. 191. 
Lightfoot, p. 753 ; Lund, /.c. p. 753; Michae- 4 See Vitringa, Obs. V. p. 88; Lightfoot 
lis, Hos. R. § 227, 246; Saaischiitz, Hos. R. and Wetstein in foc. The Messiah Himself : 
p. 97. DTI. See Schottgen, Hor. II. p. 18. 

2Comp. Plat. Polit. p. 811 B: rd &nacov x. § On the classical use of dpay in the sense 
evAaBeés, and shortly before: 76 evAaBy cai of erperiundo cognoscere, Dorvill. ad Char. 
Sixata, p. 488; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 108. 


CHAP. II., 29. 279 


Note XXVII., p. 289.] Comp. ver. 41. On the form yoveic, see Lobeck, 
ad Phryn. p. 69. — xara 1d eiOtopévov tov véuov] According to the custom pre- 
scribed by the law. — xai aivréc] also on His part, for the parents had just 
carried Him in, ver. 27. The reference to the priest, ‘‘qui cum ‘Domino 
sistendum amplexus erat,” ‘‘who had taken Him in his amns to be pre- 
sented to the Lord” (Wolf ; Kuinoel also mixes up this), is erroneous, since 
it is in the bringing in that the child is also taken into his arms by Simeon. — 
Simeon has recognized the Messiah-child immediately through the Spirit. He 
needed not for this ‘‘the august form of the mother” (in opposition to 
Lange). 

Ver. 29 ff. Now (after I have scen the Messiah, vv. 26, 30) Thou lettest Thy 
servant depart, O Ruler, according to Thine utterance (ver. 2), in bliss (so that 
he is happy, see on Mark v. 34) ; now the time is come, when Thou lettest 
me die blessed.’ — arodvecc] present, of that which is nearly and certainly im- 
pending. There is no need to supply row $7, or éx tH¢ ye, OF the like (as is 
usually done), as the absolute dzodtew is at all events used (comp. Soph. 
Ant. 1254 ; Gen. xv. 2; Num. xx. 29; Tob. iii. 6), but Simeon conceives 
of his death figuratively as an enfranchisement jrom service, as is signified by 
the context in r. dovAdv cov, déorora. The servant of God dies and is thereby 
released from his service. — eldov prefixed with emphasis, in retrospective 
reference to ver. 26. — rd awrypidv cov] the deliverance bestowed by Thee, the 
Messianic deliverance, which has begun with the birth of the Messiah. 
Comp. iil. 6; Acts xxvili. 28. —xard mpdowrov ravr. tr. Aadv] in the face of 
all peoples, so that this deliverance is set forth before all peoples, is visible 
and manifest tothem.* The prophet sees the owrfpiov already in its unfolded 
manifestation to all. This is then, in ver. 32, further specially characterized 
as respects the two portions of the wdvrev ray Aaov, in which ¢ac and dégav 
are appositional definitions to ré owrjpidv cov: light, which is destined to bring 
retelation to the heathen, and glory of Thy people Israel. The progression of 
the climax lies in gd¢ and défa. For the heathen the ourfpiov is light, when, 
namely, they come in accordance with the time-hallowed promise (Isa. ii. 
2 ff., xi. 10, xliv. 5, lx. 1 ff., and many other passages), and subject them- 
selves to the Messianic theocracy, whereby they become enlightened and 
sharers in the unveiling of the divinetruth. For the people Israel the 
owthpiov is glory, because in the manifestation and ministry of the Messiah 
the people of God attains the glory, through which it is destined to be dis- 
tinguished above all peoples as the seat and possessor of salvation. Adgav 
might be included as still dependent on ei¢ (Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga- 
benus, Luther, Bleck, and others), but by taking it independently, the 
great destination of the owr7pcov for the people of Israel is brought into more 
forcible prominence. — Ver. 88. And there was (on the singular 7v and the 
plural participles that follow, see Kithner, § 433, 1; comp. Matt. xvii. 3) 
His father and His mother in amazement, etc. In this there is no inconsis- 


1 Euthymius Zigabenus well remarks: the freedom of Israel.” 
mnadre Auwovrevoy vwdp rie dAevOepias Tov 2 Comp. on «cara wpécwr., Jacobs, ad Ach. 
*IepayjA, ‘no longer grieved on behalf of Tat. lil. 1, p. 612. 


280 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


tency with the earlier angelic revelations (Strauss). The thing was great 
enough in itself, and they learned it here in another form of revelation, the 
prophetic. 

Ver. 84. Avroic] the parents, ver. 33. — After he has blessed them (has in 
prayer promised them God's grace and salvation), he again specially ad- 
dresses the mother, whose marvellous relation to the new-born infant he has, 
according to Luke, recognized év xveipart. — xeita:] He is placed there, i.e., 
He has the destination, see on Phil. 1. 16. — eig wroow «.r.A.] designates, in 
reference to Isa, viii. 14 (comp. Matt. xxi. 22, 44 ; Acts iv. 11; Rom. ix. 
33 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6), the moral judgment (John iii. 19 ff.), which is to set in 
by means of the appearance and the ministry of the Messiah. According to 
divine decree many must take offence at Him and /all—namely, through 
unbelief—inte obduracy and moral ruin ; many others must arise, inasmuch 
as they raise themselves—namely, through faith in Him—to true spiritual 
life. [See Note XXVIII, p. 289.] The fulfilment of both is abundantly at- 
tested in the evangelic history ; as, for example, in the case of the Pharisees 
und scribes the falling, in that of the publicans and sinners the rising, in 
that of Paul doth ; comp. Rom. xi. 11 ff. — xai cic onpeiov avriAeyéu.] What was 
previously affirmed was His destination for others; now follows the special 
personal experience, which is destined for Him. His manifestation is to be 
a sign, a marvellous token (signal) of the divine counsel, which experiences 
cemtradiction from the world (see on Rom. x. 21). The fulfilment of this 
prediction attained its culmination in the crucifixion ; hence ver. 35. 
Comp. Heb. xii. 8. But it continues onward even to the last day, 1 Cor. 
XV. 25. 

Ver. 35. Since the construction does not indicate that xa? . . . pougaia is 
to be made a parenthesis, and since the importance of this prophetic intima- 
tion in the address directed to Mary is not in keeping with a mere intercala- 
tion, drwe x.r.A. is to be referred to xai... pougaia, not to onpeior avridcy. 
(Kuinoel, de Wettc, Ewald, and many others). —x«ai cow dé] See on 1. 76. 
This xai and air7¢ places the anguish of the mother herself on a parallel with 
the fate of her Son intimated by onpeiov avridey. ; and cov dé avri¢ is a bring- 
ing of the contrast into stronger relief than oceavri¢ dé.'— pougaia] Not the 
martyr-death of Mary, as Epiphanius and Lightfoot hold ; poydaiay dé wréuace, 
THY TuUNTiKwTaTAY Kal oeiay Odivyv,? Arig 6770 Ti Kapdiav TH¢ GeouHTopoc, OTE 6 vier 
abti¢ mpoon2a9n TP oravp@, ‘* He gives the name sword to that most piercing 
and bitter pang, which went through“the heart of the mother of God, when 
her Son was nailed to the cross,” Euthymius Zigabenus. Similar figurative 
designations of pain may be scen in Wetstein. Bleek is mistaken in refer- 
ring it to doubts of the Messiahship of her Son, which for a while were to 
cause division in Mary’s heart. For this thought the forcible expression 
would be quite out of proportion, and, moreover, unintelligible ; and the 
thought itself would be much too special and subordinate, even apart from 
the consideration that there is no direct evidence before us of temporary un- 


1 See Schaefer, ad Dem. de Cor. 319, 6. 
2 Comp. Hom. J. xix. 125: roy 3 dxos df) xara ppdva rupe Baberar, 


CHAP. II., 36, 37. 281 


belief on the part of Mary (at the most, Mark iii. 21). — édmu¢ «.7.4.] a divine 
aim, which is to be attained by ovrog xeira: . . . pougaia ; & great crisis in the 
spiritual world is to be brought to light, John ix. 89, ili. 19, v. 22; 1 Cor. 
i..28f.; 2 Cor. ii. 15. The conditional dy expresses : in order that, when 
that which is just predicted to thee sets in. — éx roAd. xapd.] forth from many 
hearts. Comp. Rom. i. 17. — dsatoy:opot] not ol dtadoy.; thoughts, conse- 
quently what is otherwise hidden. The revealing itself takes place through 
declared belief or unbelief in Him who is put to death. 

Ver. 86 ff. 'Hv] aderat, as at Mark viii. 1, xv. 40; also 1 Cor. xiv. 48, — 
After airy, ver. 36, the copula 7 is not unnecessarily to be supplied, in 
which case (so usually, as also by Lachmann and Tischendorf) a point is 
placed after ver. 37 ; but this airy is the subject to which avdupodoyeiro be- 
longs as verb, so that all that intervenes contains accompanying definitions 
of the subject, namely thus: This one, being advanced in great age, after she 
had liced with a husband seven years from her virginity, she too a widow up to 
eighty-four years, who departed not from the temple, with fastings and prayers 
rendering service to God night and day and having come forward at that same 
hour, offered praise to the Lord, etc. Observe as to this—(1) that foaca... 
airgc, ver. 86, is subordinate to the mpoBeBnx. év pu. roAA.; (2) that at ver. 37 
there is to be written, with Tischendorf and Ewald, xa? avr# (not as usually, 
kai airy), so that the definition xai avr? yipa.. . éxtotaca, VV. 37, 88, con- 
tains a further description of the woman co-ordinated with the rpoBeByx. év 
yp. TOAA.; (8) that xai avrg rH Spg émcoraca (see the critical remarks) without 
any separation links itself on continuously to the preceding participial defini- 
tion ; finally, (4) that xai atr#, ver. 37, she too, places Anna on a parallel 
with Simeon ; as the latter had come forward a pious aged man, s0 she also 
a pious aged woman. — mpogqric]’ Hebrew WI), an interpretress of God, a 
woman with the gift of apocalyptic discourse, Rev. ii. 20 ; Acts xxi. 9, ii. 17. 
She makes use of this gift, ver. 88. — érrd] consequently a drief and (avd r. 
wapOev. ait.) her only marriage, after which she remained in widowhood, 
which among the ancients was accounted very honorable. See Grotius and 
Wetstein on 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 9. 

Ver. 37. *Eug (see the critical remarks) ér. oydofx.: even to eighty-four years, 
she had come even to this age of life in her widowhood. Comp. Matt. 
xvili. 21 f. Rettig is mistaken in his judgment upon éu¢ in the Stud. wu. 
Krit. 1888, p. 221. Comp. Dem. 262, 5.—otx« agioraro x.r.A.] a popular 
description of unremitting zeal (comp. Hom. Od. ii. 845, 41, xxiv. 72) in the 
public worship of God. Comp. xxiv. 53. — vi«ra «. fuép.] Thus also at Acts 
xxvi. 7; Mark iv. 28; 1 Tim. v. 5. Elsewhere the order is inverted.” In 
this place véxra is prefized in order, as in Acts, l.c., and 1 Tim. v. 5, to make 
the fervency of the pious temple-service the more prominent. The case is 
otherwise, where it is simply a question of definition of time, at Esth. 
iv. 15. 


1 Plat. Phaedr. p. 244 A; Eur. Jon. 42,821; seen in Bornemann, Scho. p. 37; Lobeok, 
LXX. Ex. xv. 20; Isa. viil. 3, ai. Paralip. p. 62 f., and from the Latin : Hein- 
2 Instances of both arrangements may be — dorf on Horat. Sat. 1. 1. 77. 





282 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Ver. 38. Avrg r7 dpa] in which occurred the previously described scene 
with Simeon. — émoraca] having made her appearance, namely, to speak.! 
The suddenness and unexpectedness in the demeanor of the aged widow is 
implied also here (comp. on ver. 9) in the context. On ar Oouodroyeiodat 
(comp. LXX. Ps. Ixxix. 18 ; 8 Macc. vi. 38), in the case of which apri ‘‘ref- 
erendi reprehendendique sensum habet,” see Winer, de cerbor. compos. usu, 
Ill. p. 18 ff. The tenor of her utterance of praise to God (r@ xupiw) is after 
what was related of Simeon obvious of itself, and is therefore not more pre- 
cisely specified. [See critical note ; 6e@ is correct.] — epi avtai] bre ovrd¢ 
éoriv 6 Avtpurgc, Euthymius Zigabenus. Jesus is the subject still present, as 
a matter of course, in the conception of the narrator (from ver. 34 f. onwards), 
although not mentioned in the context (Winer, p. 132 [E. T. 146 f.}). — roi¢ 
mpoasexou. Aitpworv) Comp. ver. 25. With the reading 'Iepove. without év 
(see the critical remarks), delicerance of Jerusalem is not essentially distinct 
from srapdxAnoce rov 'Iop., Ver. 25, comp. i. 68, since Jerusalem is the theocratic 
central seat of God’s people. Comp. Isa, xl. 2. We may add, the éAdAc 
x.t.A. took place on her part likewise air# r7 Spe, namely, after she had pre- 
sented her praise to God. The pious ones waiting for the Messiah are with 
her in the temple, and to them all she makes communication about the child 
that is present. But this is not to be conceived of as a public utterance, for 
which the limitation roi¢ rpoodey. would not be appropriate. 

Ver. 39. Nafapér] therefore not in the first instance again to Bethlehem. 
Of the Magi, of the slaughter of the children, of the flight to Egypt, Luke 
has nothing. They belong to quite another cycle of legend, which he has 
not followed. Reconciliation is impossible; a preference for Luke, how- 
ever, at the expense of Matthew (Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, Sieffert, 
and others), is at least in so far well founded, as Bethlehem was not, as 
Matthew reports (see on Matt. ii. 23, Rem.), the original dwelling-place of the 
parents of Jesus, but became the birth-place of the latter on occasion of the 
aroypagh. [See Note XXIX., p. 289 seq.] If Bethlehem had been the original 
dwelling-place, it was natural, considering the Davidico-Messianic tendency 
of the legend, that no change should be made under these circumstances. 
But, in opposition to the bold assumption of the more recent exponents of 
the mythical theory,* that Jesus was born in Nazareth, so that both the ear- 
lier residence of the parents at Bethlehem (Matthew) and their journey thither 
(Luke) are held to be the work of tradition on the basis of Mic. v. 1 (but 
only ‘Matthew bases his statement upon this prophecy !), sce on Matt. J.¢. 
Even de Wette finds this probable, especially on account of John vii. 42, 
comp. i. 46 ff., where John adds no correction of the popular view. But to 
infer from this that John knew nothing of the birth in Bethlehem is unwar- 
ranted, since the tradition of Matthew and Luke, agreeing in this very par- 


1Comp. Aeschin. p. 65, 5; Ken. Anab. v. macher, LZ. J. p. 56 f., leaves the birth-place 
8. 9, Sympos. il. 7. altogether doubtful ; holding that the ques- 
2 See also Weisse, Evangelien/r. p.181f., tion is wholly indifferent for our faith, 
who holds that the reference to the Lord's which remark, however, is Inappropriate 
place of birth by the name of Bethlehem is —_ on account of the prophetic promise. 
to be understood wvevuariucas. Schieier- 


CHAP. II., 40-43. 283 

| ticular, certainly suggests the presumption that the birth at Bethlehem was 
generally known among the Christians and was believed, so that there was 
not at all any need for a correcting remark on the part of John. 


Remark. — As the presentation of Jesus in the temple bears of itself in its le- 
gal aspect the stamp of history, so what occurred with Simeon and Anna cannot 
in its general outlines be reasonably relegated to the domain of myth (see, in 
opposition to Strauss and B, Bauer, Ebrard, p. 225 ff.), although it remains 
doubtful whether the prophetic glance of the seers (to whose help Paulus 
comes by suggesting, in spite of the remark at ver. 33, communications on 
the part of Mary ; and Hofmann, p. 276, by the hypothesis of acquaintance 
with the history of the birth) expressed itself so definitely as the account about 
Simeon purports. The hypothesis that Luke received his information from 
Anna’s mouth (Schleiermacher, Neander) hangs on ver. 36 f., where Anna is so 
accurately described, and consequently on so weak a thread, that it breaks 
down atonce when we take into account the lesser degree of vividness and 
fulness of detail in the narrative of what Anna did. ; 


Ver. 40. Similar to i. 80, but more distinctive and more characteristic, in 
keeping with the human development of the Son of God, who was to grow 
up to be the organ of truth and grace. Comp. ver. 52. — rAnpoty. cog.) the 
internal state of things accompanying the éxparaovro ; He became a vigorous 
child (éxpar.!), while at the same time He became jilled, etc. — yapic Ocov] not 
tu be taken of distinguished bodily gracefulness (Raphel, Wolf, Wetstein), but 
as: the favor of God, which was directed upon Him. Comp. ver. 52. On 
éx’ avré, comp. Acts iv. 33. 

Ver. 41 f. Tj éoprg] Dative of time. Comp. Winer, p. 195, 198 [E. T. 218, 
215]. The three great festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) were 
according to the Mosaic law to be celebrated, although with the gradual 
dispersion of the people this could not strictly be adhered to, by every male 
Israelite at the national sanctuary,—an excellent means of maintaining and 
elevating the common theocratic spirit ; Ex. xxiii. 14 ff., xxxiv. 23 ; Deut. 
xvi. 16.2. The annual passover-journey was shared also by Mary, doubtless 
independently of Hillel's precept to that effect (Tanchuma, f. 88, 4), and in 
virtue of her piety (comp. 1 Sam. i. 7 ; Mechilta, f. 17, 2). As to the Pass- 
over, see on Matt. xxvi. 2. — dddexa] At this age in the case of the boy, who 
now was called 771A 3, [‘‘son of the law”), began the instruction in the 
law, the accustoming to worship, fasting, and the like, see Lightfoot, 
p. 739; Wetstein. [See critical note, and Note XXX., p. 290.] 

Ver. 43 f. Tac }uépac] the well-known seven days of festival, Ex. xii. 15 ; 
Lev. xxiii. 6 f. ; Deut. xvi. 3.— How it happened that the parents knew 
nothing of the staying behind of their son, is not expressly narrated by Luke. 
The charge, however, of negligent carelessness * is unwarranted, as vouicavres 


1 Cyril of Alexandria says : cwuarcxas ydp 
nvgave xai exparatovro, Twy pedwy cuvadpuvomd- 
vey ty avéjce, “for He grew bodily and 
waxed strong, the members being matured 
with the growth.’ Observe that in our 
passage zvevuar: is not added as at I. 80; the 


mental development follows in #Anp. cod. 

2 See Ewald, Allerth. p. 406 ff.; Saal- 
schiitz, M. R. p. 421 ff. 

® Schuderoff in the Magaz. von Festpred. 
ITI. p. 68 ff., and in his JaArd. X. 1, p. 7 ff. ; 
Olshausen. 


284 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

d2 airdv év Th ovvodia eiva: presuppose @ circumstance unknown to us, which 
might justify that want of knowledge. In the case of Jesus it was an irresisti- 
ble impulse towards the things of God, which carried Him away to postpone 
His parents to the satisfaction of this instinct, mightily stimulated as it was 
on this His first sojourn in Jerusalem,—a momentary premature breaking 
forth of that, which was the principle decidedly expressed and followed out 
by Him in manhood (Mark iii. 32 f.). — cvvodia] company sharing the journey. 
See Kypke, I. p. 220f. The inhabitants of one or more places together 
formed a caravan ; Strabo uses the word also of such a company (iv. p. 204, 
xi. p. 528). —avet7#row] when they assembled together to pass the night.— 
Ver. 45. Zyrovvrec] present participle: ‘‘ubi res aliqua nondum quidem 
peragitur, sed tamen aut revera aut cogitatione instituitur paraturve,” ‘‘ when 
something is not yet accomplished, but either really or in purpose is in- 
stituted or prepared,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 3. 16. Comp. Dissen, ad 
Pind. Ol. vii. 14, p. 81. [See critical note. } 

Ver. 46. ue? quépac tpeig]) is reckoned, in most accordance with the text, 
from the point at which the search meant by (yr. atrév began, consequently 
from their return to Jerusalem, the day of this return being counted as the 
first, and that of the finding as the third. Comp. the designation of the time 
of Christ's resurrection as ‘‘ after three days.” Others explain it otherwise. 
Grotius : ‘‘ Diem unum iter fecerant, altero remensi erant iter, tertio demum 
quaesitum inveniunt,” ‘‘ One day they had journeyed, on another they had 
journeyed back, on the third they at length find Him they sought.” So also 
Paulus, Bleek [Godet, Weiss], and others, following Euthymius Zigabenus. 
— tv t@ iepo] We are to think of the synagogue, which ‘‘ erat prope atrium 
in monte templi,” ‘‘ was near the forecourt on the mount of the temple,” 
Gloss. Joma, f. 68, 2 ; Lightfoot in loc. ; Deyling, Obdss. III. ed. 2, p. 285 f.— 
xabeCéuevov|] The Rabbinic assertion : ‘‘a dicbus Mosis ad Rabban Gamalielem 
non didicerunt legem nisi stantes,”’ ‘‘ from the days of Moses to Rabbi Gama- 
liel they did not learn the law, unless they were standing,” Megillah, f. 21, 1 
(Wagenseil, ad Sotah, p. 993), according to which Jesus would thus already 
appear as a teacher, is rightly rejected as unfounded in the N.T., by Vitringa, 
Synag. p. 167, and more recent expositors. —év puécw] has its reference to 
the seeking of the parents ; Jesus was not hidden, but He sat there in the 
midst among the teachers. We may conceive of Him at the feet of a teaching 
Rabbi, sitting in their circle (comp. on Acts xxii. 3). In this there is nothing 
extraordinary to be discerned,’ since Jesus was already a ‘‘ son of the law” 
(see on ver. 42). But to find here a sitting on an equality with the teachers * 


1 Lange, II. 1, p. 180, invents the idea that 
“the genius of the new humanity soared 
above the heroes of the old decorum.” 

7 So also older dogmatic writers. ‘‘Ceu 
doctor doctorum,” ‘' As If Teacher of teach- 
ers,”’ says Calovius, who specifies the four- 
fold aim: ob gloriae templi posterioris illus- 
trationem, ** for tllustration of the glory of the 
latter temple," Hag. ii. 10: ob advenius sui 
manifestationem ; ob saptentiae dirinae de- 
monstrationem,; ob doctorum tnformatton- 


¢ 


em, “for manifestation of His own adtent ; 
for demonstration of divine wisdom ; for ine 
Sormation of the teachers.“— Into what apoc- 
ryphal forms the conversation of Jesus 
with the doctors might be fashioned, may 
be seen in the £rang. infant. 0 ff. Even 
by Chemnitz He Is said to have discoursed 
already ‘‘ de persona ct officiizn Messiae, de dis- 
crimine legis et evangelii,” ‘* concerning the 
person and offices of the Messiah, concern- 
ing the distinction of law and gospel,” etc. 


CHAP. II., 47. 285 


(Strauss, comp. de Wette) is not in accordance with the text, since the re- 
port would not otherwise have limited the action of the child to the dxobew 
and érepwr. — érepwr. avtot¢ | The Rabbinical instruction did not consist mere- 
ly in teaching and interrogating the disciples, but these latter themselves also 
asked questions and received answers. See Lightfoot, p. 742 ff. ; Wetstein 
in loc. The questioning here is that of the pure and holy desire for knowledge, 
not that of a guest mingling in the conversation (in opposition to de Wette). 

Ver. 47 ff. ‘Emi 19 ovvéces cal x.t.4.] over His understanding in general, and 
especially over His answers. — idévrec] Joseph and Mary. They were aston- 
ished ; for they had not expected to find Him either in this place, or 80 occu- 
pied. —} pitnp abrov)] not merely because maternal feeling is in general more 
keen, quick, and ready to show itself, nor yet because Joseph had not been 
equal to this scene (Lange), but rightly in accordance with Luke’s view of 
the maternal relation of Mary. Bengel : ‘‘non loquebatur Josephus ; major 
erat necessitudo matris,” ‘‘ Joseph did not speak ; the connection with the 
mother was closer.’’ — ri drt] wherefore? See on Mark ii. 16. — é roi¢ row 
marpdbc pov] i.é, in the house of my Father. See examples of this well-known 
mode of expression in Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 100. So, following Syr. and 
the Fathers, most modern commentators [R. V. text]. Others, such as Cas- 
talio, Erasmus, Calvin, Maldonatus, Jansen, Wolf, Loesner, Valckenaer, 
Rosenmiiller, Bornemann, de Wette, Ewald, al.: in the affairs of my Father. 
This also is linguistically correct.'| But as Jesus in His reply refers expressly 
to the search of the parents, which He represents as having been made need- 
lessly, it is most natural to find in this answer the designation of the locality, 
in which they ought to have known that He was to be found, without seek- 
ing Him in rebus Patris. He might also be elsewhere. To combine both 
modes of taking it (Olshausen, Bleek) is a priori inappropriate. — dei] as 
Son. This follows from rod zarpé¢ pov. This breaking forth of the conscious- 
ness of Divine Sonship?’ in the first saying which is preserved to us from 
Jesus, is to be explained by the power of the impressions which He experi- 
enced on His first participation in the holy observances of the festival and 
the temple. According to ver. 50, it could not previously, amidst the quiet 
course of His domestic development, have asserted itself thus (‘‘ non multum 
antea, nec tamen nihil, de Patre locutus erat,” ‘‘not much hitherto, not 
however nothing, had He spoken concerning the Father,” Bengel on ver. 
50), but now there had emerged with Him an epoch in the course of devel- 
opment of that consciousness of Sonship,—the first bursting open of the 
swelling bud. [Sce Note XXXI., p. 290.] Altogether foreign to the ingenu- 
ous, child-like utterance, unnatural and indelicate, is the intention of draw- 
ing a contrast which has been imputed to Him : ric ydp wapbévov trav 'Iwone 
nartpa ettotone avrov Exeivog Onciv' ovK avTod¢ éariv 6 adnOhe pov warp, 
} yap dv iv tO olxp avrod juny, 22’ 6 Oedc fori pov rarhp, nat did TovTO Ev TY 
olxy avrod eiui, ‘‘ For the Virgin having spoken of Joseph as His father, He 


1g8ee 1 Tim. iv. 15; Bornemann, Schol. sentiment, yet not with the conception 
p. 29; Bernhardy, p. 210; Schaefer, Meet. fully unfolded, but in the dawning appre- 
p. 31 f. hension of the child, which could only very 
* At allevents already in Messianic pre- gradually give place to clearness, ver. 52. 


286 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


says : He is not my true father, for then I would be in his house, but God is 
my Father, and therefore I am in His house,” Theophylact. Erroneous in 
an opposite manner is the opinion of Schenkel, that the boy Jesus named 
God His Father, ‘‘ just as ecery pious Jewish child might do.” Such a conclu- 
sion could only be arrived at, if He had said +. rarpéc }uav; but with 
Jesus in the connection of His entire history r. rarpéc pov points to a higher 
individual relation. And this too it was, which made the answer unintelli- 
gible to the parents. What every pious Jewish child might have answered, 
they would have understood. See, besides, Keim, geschichtl. Chr. p. 48 f. 

Ver. 50 f. If the angelic announcement, i. 26 ff., especially vv. 82, 85, 
and ii. 10 ff. (comp. especially ver. 19), be historical, it is altogether incom- 
prehensible how the words of Jesus could be unintelligible to His parents. 
[See Note XXXII., p. 290.] Evasive explanations are given by Olshausen, and 
even Bleek and older expositors (that they had simply not understood the 
deeper meaning of the unity of the Son and the Father), Ebrard (that Mary 
had no inner perception of the fact that the Father's word could become so 
absolutely exclusive a comfort of souls, and be so even in the boy), and others. 
Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 78, gives a candid judgment. — t-roracodu. avroic] 
That mighty cxaltation of the consciousness of divine Sonship not only did 
not hinder, but conditioned with moral necessity in the youthful devclop- 
ment of the God-man the fulfilment of filial duty, the highest proof of which 
was subsequently given by the Crucified One, John xix. 26 ff. — + d2? ufrnp 
x.T.A.] significant as in ver. 19; dcarypeiv denotes the careful preservation. 
Comp. Acts xv. 29; Gen. xxxvii. 11. 


Remarx.—The rejection of this significant history as a myth (Gabler in Neu- 
est. theol. Journ. III. 1, 36 ff. ; Strauss, Weisse,! I. p. 212 ff.), as regards which 
the analogies of the childhood of Moses (Joseph. Ant. ii. 9. 6 ; Philo, de vita 
Mos. II. p. 83 f.) and of Samuel (1 Sam. iii. ; Joseph. Anti. v. 10. 4) have been 
made use of, is the less to be acquiesced in, in proportion to the greatness of 
the impression that must naturally have been made on the Son of God, in the 
human development of His consciousness of fellowship with God, at His first 
taking part in the celebration of the festival in the grand sanctuary of the © 
nation,* and in proportion to the unadorned simplicity of the narrative and its 
internal truth as contrasted with the fabulous disfigurements of it in the apoc- 
ryphal Evangelium infantiae, and even with the previous portions of the history 
of Luke himself. Comp. Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 80 f. The objection of an 
unnatural mental precocity applies an unwarranted standard in the case of 
Jesus, who was xatd mvevua God's Son. 


Ver. 52. Comp. 1 Sam. ii. 26. — #Axig] not age (so Vulgate, Luther, 
Erasmus, and most expositors), which would furnish an intimation alto- 
gether superfluous, but growth, bodily size (Beza, Vatablus, Grotius, Er. 
Schmid, Bengel, Ewald, Bleck, and others). See on Matt. vi. 27; Luke xix, 3. 


1 Weisse interprets it allegorically: that Jewlsh law and from the wisdom of the 
the youthful spirit of Christianity withdrew ancestral schools, etc. 
itself from the care and the supervision of 2Comp. Beyschlag, Chrisfol. ad. N. T. 
its parents, #.¢., from the restrictions of p. 45. 


NOTES. 287 
Comp. 7ifave nat éxparavro, ver. 40. ‘‘ Justam proceritatem nactus est ac 
decoram,” ‘‘ He attained a stature which was-proper and befitting,” Bengel. 
Luke expresses His mental (cogig) and bodily (jA:xia) development.’ In favor 
of this explanation we have also the evidence of 1 Sam. l.c.: émopetero peya- 
Avvéuevov, which element is here given by #Acxig. — ydpit:] gracious favor, as 
at ver. 40. But here, where one twelve years old is spoken of, who now 
the longer He lives comes more into intercourse with others, Luke adds xai 
aviporoc.* Observe, moreover, that the advancing in God’s gracious favor 
assumes the sinless perfection of Jesus as growing, as in the way of moral 
development. Comp. on Mark x. 18. But this docs not exclude child-like 
innocence, and does not include youthful moral perplexities. Comp..Keim, 
geschichtl. Chr. p. 110 ff. It isa normal growth, from child-like innocence to 
full holiness of the life. Comp. also Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. 7. p. 47 ff. 


Nores ey AMERICAN Eprror. 


XIX. Vv. 1, 2. 


Weiss ed. Mey. adds the following references: ‘‘Caspari, chronologisch. 
geograph. Einleitung in das Leben J. chr., 1869, p. 30 ff.; Steinmeyer, Apologedl. 
Beitr., 1873, IV., p. 29 ff.; Schitrer, Lehrbuch d. Neutestamentl. Zeitgeschichte, 
1874, p. 262 ff.” The last-named author is quite full. Schaff (History of the 
Christian Church, I., pp. 121 ff., new ed.) discusses the question, as do Plumptre 
and Woolsey in Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Amer. ed., IV., 3185, article ‘‘ Tax- 
ing’). It is necessary to warn the reader that some writers on this subject fail 
to properly adjust the twofold enumeration of years from the Roman and Chris- 
tian eras, 


XX. Ver. 2. airy aroypagn mpdrn tyévero x.1.A. 


Accepting the above reading and order, the R.V. renders: ‘‘This was the first 
enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.’’ The article (Rec.) 
would of course make aroypagy the subject. In English the definite article is 
properly used with the predicate: “the first enrolment,’’ while Greek usage, 
especially with avry as subject, would omit it, however definite the predicate 
might be in itself. The force of éyévero is not fally given by the English 
‘‘was ;'' it might be brought out by this paraphrase: ‘‘ This occurred as the 
first enrolment,’’ etc. 


XXI. Ver. 2. The Accuracy of Luke's Stalement. 


Weiss ed. Mey. has not altered the notes to any great extent, except in re- 
gard to the omission of 7. His additions consist mainly of single references to 


1 In this place he prefixes co¢ie, because 
he has just related so brilliant a trait of 
the mental development of Jesus. — What 
shifts, moreover, have been resorted to, 
especially since the time of Athanasius and 
Ambrose, to fence with reservations the 
progress of Jesus in wisdom in such a way 


as to leave no progress, but merely a suc- 
cessive revealing of Hisinherent wisdom, or 
else only a growth in the wisdom to be at- 
tained through human expertence (scientia 
acquisita) ! 

* Comp. 1 Sam. i.c.; MVD BD] Iw! 
O'WIR-Dy Dv; Test. XI. Patr. p. 628. 


288 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Schiirer (Neut. Zeitgeschichte) and to Zumpt, who holds that Quirinius was first 
governor of Syria from 8.c. 4~1 (a.v. 750 to 753). This, indeed, places his term 
of office after the birth of Christ, since the latter occurred some little time be- 
fore the spring of 750. But if Quirininus had been governor in 750, Luke could 
properly associate the census with him: 1. As probably completed under him. 
2. As giving an easy distinction from the second census under the same gov- 
ernor. It must be granted that this view of Zumpt is not positively established, 
though a passage in Tacitus is urged as supporting it (Annal. 3. 48). But on 
the other hand the probability of Luke’s confusing the matter is very slight. 
He is an accurate historian ; he shows a knowledge of the political relations of 
Judaea ; he refers to the well-known census under Quirinius in Acts v. 37. 
Meyer admits enough in the latter part of his ‘‘remark” to qualify his strong 
assertion of Luke’s incorrectness. 

It is certain that syeuovetery can be used in a wide sense ; and it is possible to 
interpret it here as referring to some official position in Syria with special charge 
of this enrolment. We can admit such a usage on the part of Luke far more 
readily than to believe him, after his own careful research, confused ‘‘ by a mix- 
ing up of times and matters” through gradually obscuring tradition. 

Enough has been gained by the admission of the presence of Quirinius in the 
East at the time of the birth of Christ to warn all candid investigators against 
too hasty a denial of Luke’s historical accuracy in this verse. The evidence in 
regard to the whole matter is not abundant enough, as yet, to prove a negative. 
Of the two solutions indicated above, that of Zumpt still seems to be the more 
satisfactory, even admitting, as we must, ‘that the earlier governorship of 
Quirinius could not have begun until shortly after the death of Herod, and 
hence after the birth of Christ. 


XXII. Ver. 5. ry éuvyjorerpévy av7o. 

Weiss ed. Mey. rightly objects to the comment of Meyer on this phrase. 
The marriage was not yet completed, only in the sense indicated in Matt. i. 25. 
‘*But could Luke have really supposed that she, contrary to all custom, made 
the journey with her betrothed?’ He suggests s view similar to that of Brs- 
ping. The interpretation ‘‘ who was pregnant’’ is also rejected by Weiss, 
who cancels the ‘‘ remark’’ of Meyer against the Davidic origin of Mary. 


XXDOL Ver. 7. év 1 xaTadtpare. 


Weiss ed. Mey. also holds that this refers to ‘‘the house of a friendly host,’’ 
urging that so small a place as Bethlehem would scarcely have a caravanserai. 


XXIV. Ver. 9. The Time of the Nativity. 


For a clear statement on this subject, with an argument against the position 
of Robinson, accepted by Meyer, see Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 16-22. 


XXV. Ver. 14. dé&a év tpiororc, x.7.A. 


The genitive must be accepted, if textual criticism has any validity. Meyer's 
view of the passage is, in the main, accepted by those who reject the received 
reading ; comp. R. V. text. It is probable, however, that more emphasis should 


NOTES. 289 


be laid upon the thought of God’s good pleasure as the ground of peace. The 
angels would not be perplexed with the dogmatic difficulty of reconciling this 
with the free agency of the ‘‘ men of His good pleasure.’’ The popular view of 
the passage is even farther from the angelic utterance than the incorrect read- 
ing and worse rendering of the A. V. 


XXVI. Vv. 8-20. The Angelic Appearance to the Shepherds. 


It is difficult to understand how Meyer could have written both parts of his 
‘‘remark” on this topic. Weiss ed. Mey. either cancels or alters all but the 
first sentence of the entire passage. He denies that the story of Luke is in- 
consistent with ‘‘the subsequent want of knowledge,’’ etc., and asserts that 
nothing is said here of the divine glory of Jesus, which, as contrasted with His 
lowliness, Meyer holds to be ‘‘ the great truth.’’ In other words, he denies the 
validity of Meyer's objection to the historical character of this part of the nar- 
rative. 

This is not the place to discuss the question fully ; but when a history is said 
to find its truth ‘‘in the sphere of the idea, not in that of historical reality,’’ 
although narrated by the historian as a reul event, then the only possible mean- 
ing is, that the historian is either mistaken or tells a wilful untruth. Meyer 
seems to have in mind the former explanation, but he is more likely to be 
mistaken than Luke. Meyer's proper repugnance to ‘‘ mystical references” (see 
p. 270) ought to have guarded him against an explanation “in the sphere of the 
idea ;” while his exegetical ability might have revealed to him the real signifi- 
cance of his own Janguage. No praises of ‘the living and creative poetry of 
faith’’ can hide his implication that some one fabricated this story. If the 
supernatural is admitted at all, then the story of the angelic Announcement - 
seems more credible than the theory of its origin suggested by Meyer. ‘‘ Crea- 
tive poetry’? would have given us & complicated anthem, and “‘faith,’’ in 
Luke’s day at least, cannot be proven to have been false to truth, even under 
poetic impulse, 

XXVIII. Vor. 27. rove yoveic. 


Meyer's remark on this word presses into service an etymological notion which 
had disappeared from the common word. His inference is properly rejected by 
Weiss ed. Mey. 


XXVIII. Ver. 34. ei¢ rréow xai avdoracey x.7.A. 


The reference to two classes is preferred in A. R. V., ‘‘the falling and the 
rising up of many.’ The A. V. seems to refer to one class, and the R. V. 
(Eng. com.) is ambiguous. 


XXIX. Ver. 39. Nacapér. 


In regard to the difficulty of reconciling Luke's account with that of Mat- 
thew, Weiss ed. Mey. here remarks that such a reconciliation is unnecessary, 
‘‘since the difference is the natural result of the fact that these traditions cir- 
culated separately, and none of our Evangelists had an exact and uninterrupted 
knowledge of the history of the birth and youth of Jesus,’’ The difficulty seems 
incompatible with the view that Luke had any knowledge of the Gospel of 
Matthew, and hence the independence of the witnesses makes for the truthful- 
ness of each. The only important question is, Do we know enough of the facts 

19 


290 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


(about which it is declared the Evangelists had not ‘‘ exact and uninterrupted 
knowledge”) to justify us in asserting a positive contradiction? We think not ; 
and, in the absence of complete knowledge, a theory that reconciles the accounts 
of two such witnesses is presumably more correct than a theory that does not. 
Moreover, we do not know how much either Evangelist knew beyond what he 
has recorded. 


XXX. Ver. 42. avafawérruv. 


The present participle must be accepted as the correct reading (see critical 
note), although Meyer deems the aorist ‘‘ necessary.” Even Godet, who usu- 
ally clings to the Recepta, favors the present participle, as indicating customary 
action. Weiss ed. Mey. more correctly accounts for the present, as showing 
that during this going up to Jerusalem there occurred what is afterwards nar- 
rated. The present participle has the force of the imperfect indicative in its 
various forms ; comp. ver. 45, where it answers to the conative imperfect. 


XXXII. Ver. 49. ot« gdetre «.1.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. properly finds in ovx #decre a reason for doubting Meyer's sug- 
gestion in regard to ‘‘an epoch, in the course of development, of that conscious- 
ness of Sopship.’’ The language of the answer presupposes that they ought to 
know where to find Him, and this implies some knowledge of His peculiar posi- 
tion. The quietude of the answer shows that Jesus Himself had before known 
of His relation to the Father. This view does not involve the extreme explana- 
tion given by Theophylact. 


XXXII. Ver. 50. 


It is ‘‘altogether incomprehensible’’ how Luke could attempt to write his- 
tory, and succeed in getting a permanent place in literature, without knowing 
how to make a story more consistent with itself than this one is, if Meyer’s ob- 
jection is valid. That Joseph and Mary should fail to understand, ought not to 
be surprising to an acute observer of human nature. Weiss ed. Mey. finds the 
cause of this failure to understand in the apparent opposition to filial duty in 
which the consciousness of divine Sonship now manifested itself, which would 
be all the more remarkable in view of the constant subjection of the child 
hitherto and afterward. The revelations had been respecting the future call. 
ing of the child, and intimated nothing of this kind. Godet (Luke, p. 93) finds 
here another indication that Mary herself is the original source of the narra- 
tive: ‘‘It was only by the light Mary received afterward from the ministry of 
her Son that she could say what is here expressed: that she did not under- 
stand this saying at the time.’’ 


CHAP. III., 1, 2. 291 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 2. Instead of én? apyepéuc, Elz, has én’ apyepéwy, in opposition to de- 
cisive evidence. — Ver. 4. Afyovroc] is wanting in BD LA &, min. Copt. Arm. 
Vulg. It. Or. Eus. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. ; 
taken from Matt. iii. 3.— Ver. 5. eifeiav]}B D =, min. Vulg. It. Or. Ir. have 
eiicicg. So Lachm. and Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.]. A mechanical 
repetition from ver. 4. The verse bears no trace of its having been altered to 
agree with the LXX. — Ver. 10. zofoouev] wochowpev, which Griesb. has recom- 
mended, and Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have adopted, is here and at vv. 12, 14 de- 
cisively attested.—[Ver. 11. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., accept éAcyev (instead 
of Afye:), following ® B C L and versions.]— Ver. 14. The arrangement ri 
Tothowpev Kai jueic is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted, following B C* L 
¥, min. Syr. Ar. Vulg. Rd. Ver. Brix. Colb.; xai jucig¢ was omitted, because xai 
follows again, —an omission which, mareover, the analogy of vv. 10, 12 readily 
suggested,—and was afterwards restored in the wrong place (before ri ro4o.). — 
mpoc¢ avtovc} Lachm. has avroic¢, following BC* D L 2, min. Vulg. It. [So recent 
editors, but not Tisch.] The Recepiais a repetition from ver. 13. ‘Tisch. has 
pydéva a second time, following & ; but recent editors retain uydé (Rec.), which 
is well attested. ]— Ver. 17. xai dtaxaOapui] Tisch. has dcaxafapa:, as also after- 
wards x. ovvayayeiv, on too weak attestation. [Recent editors, R. V., agree with 
Tisch., following ®* B.] — Ver. 19. After yvvacxdc, Elz. has @c2irrov, in opposi- 
tion to decisive evidence. — Ver. 22. 2éyovcar'] is wanting in B D L X&, Copt. 
Vulg. codd. of It. Ambr. Condemned by Griesb. and Rinck, deleted by Lachm. 
Tisch. Taken from Matt. iii. 17. Comp. on ver. 4.— ove . . . qidéxyoa] D, 
Cant. Ver. Vere. Colb. Corb.* Rd. Clem. Method. Hilar. ap., also codd. in Au- 
gustine, have vide pov el ob, ty ofpepov yeyévonnd ce. An old (Justin, c. Tryph. 
88) Ebionitic (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 13) addition, which, echoing the expression 
in Acts xiii. 33, found its way into the narrative, especially in the case of Luke. 
— Ver. 23. Many various readings, which, however, are not so well attested as 
to warrant a departure from the Received text (Lachm. and Tisch. have adopt- 
ed ov vidc, wc évopilero, and Tisch. has dpydu. after ’Ijocvc). [The order of 
Tisch. is attested by ® B L, Origen, and minor witnesses ; accepted by recent 
editors, R. V. See exegetical notes. ] — Ver. 23 ff. Many variations in the writ- 
ing of the proper names. — Ver. 33. rot ’Apdu] Tisch. has rov ’Adyety rov ’Apvel, 
following BL XI &, Copt. SyrP. So also Ewald. Rightly ; the Recepta is a 
correction in accordance with Matt. i. 4 ; 1 Chron. ii. 9. 


Vv. 1, 2. As, on the one hand, Matt. iii. 1 introduces the appearance of 
the Baptist without any definite note of time, only with év dé raic jutpace éxei- 
vacc ; 80, on the other, Luke (‘‘the first writer who frames the Gospel his- 
tory into the great history of the world by giving precise dates,” Ewald), in 
fulfilment of his intention, i. 8, gives for that highly important starting- 
point of the proclamation of the Gospel (‘‘ hic quasi scena N. T. panditur,” 


292 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 

‘‘here, as it were, the scene of the New Testament opens,” Bengel) a date 
specified by a sixfold reference to the history of the period, so as to indicate 
the emperor at Rome and the governors of Palestine, as well as the high 
priest of the time ; namely—(1) in the jisteenth year of the reign of Tiberius 
Caesar. Augustus, who was succeeded by his step-son Tiberius, died on 
the 19th August 767, or the fourteenth year of the era of Dionysius. Sce 
Suetonius, Octav. 100. Accordingly, it might appear doubtful whether Luke 
reckons the year 767 or the year 768 as the first ; similarly, as Tiberius be- 
came co-regent at the end of 764, or in January 765,’ whether Luke begins 
to reckon from the commencement of the co-regency (Ussher, Voss, Pagius, 
Clericus, Sepp, Lichtenstein, Tischendorf, and others), or of the sole-govern- 
ment. Since, however, no indication is added which would lead us away 
from the mode of reckoning the years of the emperors usual among the Ro- 
mans, and followed even by Josephus,” we must abide by the view that the 
fifteenth year in the passage before us is the year from the 19th August 781 to 
the same date '782.* [See Note XXXIII., p. 302.] — (2) When Pontius Pilate 
(see on Matt. xxvii. 2) was procurator of Judaea. He held office from the 
end of 778, or beginning of 779, until 789, in which year he was recalled 
after an administration of ten years ; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 2.— (3) When 
Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. Herod Antipas (see on Matt. ii. 22, xiv. 1); 
this crafty, unprincipled man of the world became tetrarch after the death 
of his father Herod the Great in 750, and remained so until his deposition 
in 792. —(4) When Philip his brother was tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis. 
This paternal prince (see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 45 f.) became prince in 750, 
and his reign lasted till his death in 786 or 787, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 6. 
His government extended also over Batanaea and Auranitis, Joseph. Antt. 
xvii. 11. 4, as that of Herod Antipas also took in Peraea. For information 
as to Ituraea, the north-castern province of Palestine (Minter, de rebus Itu- 
racor. 1824), and as to the neighboring Trachonitis between the Antilibanus 
and the Arabian mountain ranges, see Winer, Iealwért. — (5) When Lysa- 
nias was tetrarch of Abilene.‘ The Lysanias, son of Ptolemaeus, known from 
Josephus, Anti. xv. 4. 1 ; Dio Cass. 49, 32, as having been murdered by 
Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra in 718, cannot here be meant, unless 
Luke has perpetrated a gross chronological blunder ; which latter case, in- 
deed, Strauss, Gfrérer, B. Bauer, Hilgenfeld take for granted ; while Vale- 
sius, on Eus, Jf. £. i. 10 ; Michaelis, Paulus,® Schneckenburger in the Stud. 


1 Tacit. Ann. 1.8; Sueton. 7¥W. 2 f.; Vel- 
leilus Paterculus, ii. 121. 

3 Also Antl. xviil. 6. 10, where coxa avros 
Thy apxyv does not refer back to an earlier 
co-regency of Tiberius, so that avrés would 
be equivalent to novos; but this avros indi- 
cates simply a contrast between him and 
Caius, who had been nominated his suc- 
cessor. 

3 See aleo Anger, zur Chronologie da. Leh- 
ramtes Christi, I., Leipzig 1848; Ideler, 
Chronol. I. p. 418. Authentication from 
coins ; Saulcy, Athen. francais. 1855, p. 689 f. 


“See especially, Hug, Gutacht. I. p. 119 
ff.; Ebrard, p. 180 ff.; Wieseler, p. 174 ff.; 
Schweizer in the Theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 1 ff. 
(who treats the chronology of Luke very 
unfairly); Wieseler in Herzog’s ZncyH., I. 
p. 64 ff.; Lichtenstein, p. 181 ff.; Bleek in 
loc. 

8 In his Commentary. But in his Freget. 
JTandb. he acquiesces in the text as it stands, 
and forces upon it, contrary to the letter, 
the meaning: when Philip the tetrarch of 
dturaea and Trachonitis was also tetrarch 
over Abilene of Lysanias, Thus, indeed, the 


CHAP. III., 1, 2. 293 
u. Krit. 1833, p. 1064, would mend matters uncritically enough by omitting 
retpapyowvroc (which is never omitted in Luke, see Tischendorf) ; and the re- 
maining expression : «ai r7¢ Avoaviov'ABiAyvg¢ some have attempted to con- 
strue, others to guess at the meaning. After the murder of that older Lysa- 
nias who is mentioned as ruler of (dvvaoreitwy) Chalcis, between Lebanon and 
Antilibanus (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 4), Antony presented a great part of his 
possessions to Cleopatra (see Wiescler, p. 179), and she leased them to Her- 
od. Soon afterwards Zenodorus received the lease of the olxo¢ rov Avoaviov 
(Joseph. Antt. xv. 10.1 ; Bell. Jud.i. 20.4); but Augustus in 724 compelled 
him to give up a portion of his lands to Herod (Joseph. as abore), who after 
the death of Zenodorus in 734 obtained the rest also, Antt. xv. 10.8. After 
Herod’s death a part of the olxov rov Zyvoddpov passed over to Philip (Antt. 
xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6, 3). It is consequently not to be proved that no 
portion of the territory of that older Lysanias remained in his family. This 
is rather to be assumed,’ if it is supposed that Abilene also belonged to the 
principality of that elder Lysanias. But this supposition is itself deficient 
in proof, since Josephus designates the territory of the elder Lysanias as 
Chalcis (see above), and expressly distinguishes the kingdom of a later Ly- 
sanias, which Caligula (Antt. xviii. 6. 10) and Claudius bestowed on Agrip- 
par. (Antt. xix. 5. 1, xx. 7.1; Bell. ii. 11. 5, ii. 12. 8) from the region of Chal- 
cis (Bell. ii. 12. 8). But since Abila is first mentioned as belonging to the 
tetrarchy of this /ater Lysanias (Antt. xix. 5. 1), and since the kingdom of 
the elder Lysanias is nowhere designated a tetrarchy, although probably the 
territory of that younger one is so named,’ it must be assumed that Josephus, 
when he mentions "Ajiaav riv Avoaviov (Anit. xix. 5.1), and speaks of a 
tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antti. xx. 7.1; comp. Bell. ii. 11. 5, ii. 12. 18), still 
designates the region in question after that older Lysanias ; but that before 
790, when Caligula became emperor, a tetrarchy of a later Lysanias existed 
to which Abila* belonged, doubtless as his residence, whereas it is quite 
another question whether this latter Lysanias was a descendant or a relation 
of that elder one (see Krebs, Obss. p. 112). Thus the statement of Luke, by 
comparison with Josephus, instead of being shown to be erroneous, is con- 
Jirmed.4— (6) When Annas was high priest, and Caiaphas. Comp. Acts iv. 6. 
The reigning high priest at that time was Joseph, named Caiaphas (see on 


former ad Lysanias would also here be 
meant. 

1 Casaubon, Krebs, Sfiskind the elder, 
Kulnoel, Siiskind the younger in the Stud. 
u. Krit. 1836, p. 481 ff.; Winer, and others. 

20Of whon, therefore, we have to think 
even in respect of the Greek inscription 
which Pococke (Morgenl. II. § 177) found 
at Nebi Abel (the ancient Abila), and in 
which Lysanias is mentioned as (efrarch. 
Comp. Béckh, Jnser. 4521, 4522. 

It was situated in the region of the Leb- 
anon, etghteen miles north from Damascus, 
and thirty eight miles south from Heliopo- 
lis. Ptolem. v. 18; Anton. Jtiner. ; Ritter, 


Erdk. XV. p. 1060. To be distinguished 
from Abilain Decapolis, and other places of 
this name (Joseph. v. 1. 1; Bell. ii. 18. 2, 
iv. 7. 5). 

4It is, however, altogether precarious 
with Lichtenstein, folowing Hofmann, to 
gather from the passage before us a proof 
that Luke did not write till after the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, because, namely, 
after that crumbling to pieces of the Hero- 
dian territories, no further interest would 
be felt in discovering to whom Abilene 
belonged at the time of Tiberius. But why 
not? Not even a chronological interest? 


294 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Matt. xxvi. 3), who had been appointed by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor 
of Pontius Pilate, Joseph. Anét. xviii. 2, 2. His father-in-law Annas held 
the office of high priest some years before, until Valerius Gratus became pro- 
curator, when the office was taken away from him by the new governor, and 
conferred first on Jsmael, then on Eleazar (a son of Annas), then on Simon, 
and after that on Caiaphas. See Josephus, l.c. This last continued in office 
from about 770 till 788 or 789. But Annas retained withal very weighty in- 
fluence (John xviii. 12 ff.), so that not only did he, as did every one who had 
been apytepeic, continue to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also par- 
tially discharged the functions of high priest. In this way we explain the 
certainly inaccurate expression of Luke (in which Lange, Z. J. II. 1, p. 165, 
finds a touch of irony, an element surely quite foreign to the simply chrono- 
logical context), informing the reader who may not be acquainted with the 
actual state of the case, that Annas was primarily and properly high priest, 
and next to him Caiaphas also. But according to Acts iv. 6, Luke himself 
must have had this view, so that it must be conceded as a result that this 
expression is erroneous,—an error which, as it sprang from the predominat- 
ing influence of Annas, was the more easily possible in proportion to the 
distance at which Luke stood from that time in which the high priests had 
changed so frequently ; while Annas (whose son-in-law and five sons besides 
filled the office, Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 1) was accustomed to keep his hand on 
the helm. To agree with the actual historical relation, Luke would have 
been obliged to write : ém) dpyiepéwe Kaidga nat "Avva. [See Note XXXIV., 
p. 302 seq.] Arbitrary shifts have been resorted to, such as : that at that 
period the two might have erchanged annually in the administration of the 
office ;' that Annas was vicar (j10, Lightfoot, p. 744 f.) of the high priest (so 
Scaliger, Casaubon, Grotius, Lightfoot, Reland, Wolf, Kuinoel, and others, 
comp. de Wette), which, however, is shown to be erroneous by his name be- 
ing placed first ; that he is here represented as princeps Synedriit (¥'W), 
Lightfoot, p. 746). But as dpyiepet¢ nowhere of itself means president of 
the Sanhedrim, but in every case nothing else than chief priest, it can in this 
place especially be taken only in this signification, since «ai Kaidga stands 
alongside. If Luke had intended to say : ‘‘ under the president Annas and 
the high priest Caiaphas,” he could not have comprehended these distinct 
offices, as they were at that time actually distinguished (which Selden has 
abundantly proved), .under the one term dpyepéwe. [See Note XXXIV., 
p. 802 seq.] Even in xxii. 54, apyiep. is to be understood of Annas. — éyévero 
papa Ocov x.7.4.] Comp. Jer. i. 2; Isa. xxxvili. 4f. From this, as from the 
following xai 746ev x.r.A., ver. 8, itis plainly manifest that Luke by his chro- 
nological statements at vv. 1, 2 intends to fix the date of nothing else than 
the calling and first appearance of John, not the year of the death of Jesus,® but 
also not of a second appearance of the Baptist and his imprisonment (Wiese- 


1 Beza, Chemnitz, Selden, Calovius, Hug, * Sanclemente and many of the Fathers, 
Friedlieb, Archdol. d, Leidensgesch. p. 78 ff. who, following Luke tv. 19, comp. Isa. Lxi. 
2 So Selden, Saubert, Hammond, and re- 1 ff., erroneously ascribe to Jesus only one 
cently Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 186 ff., year of His official ministry. 
and in Herzog’s Encyk. I. p. 354. 


CHAP, I11., 3-6. 295 
ler’), or of his beheading (Schegg). The mention of the imprisonment, vv. 
19, 20, is rather to be regarded only as a digression, as the continuance of 
the history proves (ver. 21). The first appearance of John, however, was 
important enough to have its chronology fixed, since it was regarded as the 
appx? Tov evayyediov (Mark i. 1). It was the epoch of the commencement of 
the work of Jesus Himself (comp. Acts i. 22, x. 87, xiii. 24), and hence 
Luke, having arrived at this threshold of the Gospel history, ver. 22, when 
Jesus is baptized by John, makes at this point a preliminary pause, and 
closes the first section of the first division of his book with the genealogical 
register, ver. 23 ff., in order to relate next the Messianic ministry of Jesus 
ch. iv. ff. 

Ver. 3. See on Matt. iii. 1 f. ; Mark i. 4. — repiywpov rov 'Iopd.] Matthew 
and Mark have év rij épf7uy. There is no discrepancy ; for the apparent dis- 
crepancy vanishes with #A6e in Luke, compared with the narrative of the 
baptism in Matthew and Mark. [Sce Note XXXYV., p. 303.] 

Vv. 4-6. Sce on Matt. iii. 8. Luke continues the quotation of Isa. xl. 3 
down to the end of ver. 5, following the LXX. freely. The appeal to this 
prophetic oracle was one of the commonplaces of the evangelic tradition in re- 
spect of the history of John, and betokens therefore, even in Luke, no spe- 
cial source [see Note XXXV., p. 303] ; he only gives it—unless a Pauline pur- 
pose isto be attributed to his words (Holtzmann)—more fully than Matthew, 
Mark, and John (i. 23). —In de yfyparra: the same thing is implied that 
Matthew expresses by ovrog ydp éori 6 pnbels. — gdpay£] Ravine.* This and 
the following particulars were types of the moral obstacles which were to be 
removed by the repentance demanded by John for the restoration of the 
people well prepared for the reception of the Messiah (i. 17). There is 
much arbitrary trifling on the part of the Fathers and others in interpreting * 
the particulars of this passage. — The /utures are not imperative in force, 
but declare what will happen in consequence of the command, éroudoare 
x.T.A. Kai dyerac «.r.A. ought to have guarded against the taking the ex- 
pressions imperatively.4 — cic evOeiav] scil. ddév. Bee Lobeck, Paralip. p. 863 ; 
Winer, p. 521 [E. T. 590 f.]. —al rpayeia] scil. édvi, from what follows, the 
rough, uneven ways. — Aziac] smooth. Comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 1: rd rpayéa 
kal ta Agia. —1d owrhp. tr. Geov] Sce on ii. 30. It is an addition of the LXX. 
The salvation of God is the Messianic salvation which will appear in and 
with the advent of the Messiah before all eyes (dyera: raca odp£). As to raca 
odpt, all flesh, designating men according to their need of deliverance, and 
pointing to the unicersal destination of God's salvation, see on Acts ii. 16. 


1 See in opposition to Wleseler, Ebrard, 
p. 187; Lichtenstein, p. 187 ff. 

3 Thuo. fl. 67.4; Dem. 798.6; Polyb. vil. 
15. 8; Judith il. 8. 

® Well says Grotius : ‘‘ Nimirum est anxia 
eorum sepiepyia, qui In dictis aAAnyopoupdvoce 
singulas partes minutatim excutlunt... 
cum satis sit in re tota comparationem In- 
telligi,” ‘‘ Doubtless there is an anxious 
overexactness (repcepyia) In the case of those 


who, on what is spoken figuratively, ex- 
amine piecemeal the various parts... 
when it is enough to know the agreement 
in the matter as a whole.” 

On the use of the Cyrenaic (Herod. 
iv. 199) word fovrds, Ai, in Greek, see 
Schweighfuser, Lex. Herod. I. p. 1% f.; 
Sturz, Dial, Al. p. 154; Lobeck, ad PAryn. 
p. 836, 


296 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Vv. 7-9. See on Matt. iii. 7-10. — dy2o0¢] Kuinoel erroneously says : 
‘¢ Pharisaei et Sadducaei.”” See rather on Matt. ili. 7.’— éxrop.] the present. 
The people are represented as still on their way. — ovv] since otherwise you 
cannot escape the wrath to come. — xai uA dp&node x.r.A.] and begin not to 
think, do not allow yourselves to fancy ! do not dispose yourselves to the 
thought ! ‘‘Omnem excusationis etiam conatum praecidit,” ‘‘He cuts off 
the very attempt at excuse,” Bengel. Bornemann explains as though the 
words were xal yu? wddcv (he likens it to the German expression, ‘‘ das alte 
Lied anfangen”) ; and Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 540, as if it meant xai pydé, 
ne quidem. Comp. also Bengel. 

Vv. 10, 11. Special instructions on duty as far as ver. 14 peculiar to Luke, 
and taken from an unknown source. — ovy] in pursuance of what was said 
vv. %-9.— rohowpev| (see the critical remarks) is deliberative. On the ques- 
tion itself, comp. Acts ii. 37, xvi. 80. — weradérw) namely, a yirdv. — 6 Fxuv 
Bpouata] not: ‘qui cibis abundat,” ‘‘who has abundance of food,” Kui- 
noel, following older commentators. The demand of the stern preacher of 
repentance is greater ; it is that of self-denying loce, as it is perfected from 
the mouth of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. 

Vv. 12, 13. TeAdvar] See on Matt. v. 46. — apa rd diarerayp. ipiv] over and 
above what is prescribed to you (to demand in payment). See Winer, p. 215 
[E. T. 240]. The unrighteousness and the exactions of those who farmed 
the taxes are well known. See Paulus, Hreget. Handb. I. p. 3538 f.? 

Ver. 14. Xrparevéuevo:] those who were engaged in military service, an idea 
less extensive than orpari@rat. See the passages in Wetstein. Historically, 
itis not to be more precisely defined. See references in regard to Jewish 
military service in Grotius. According to Michaelis, there were Thracians, 
Germans, and Galatians in the service of Herod in his war against Arctas ; 
but this war was later, and certainly Jewish soldiers are meant. According 
to Ewald : soldiers who were chiefly engaged in police inspection, e.g. in 
connection with the customs. — xai jueic] we also. They expect an injunc- 
tion similar (xaf) to that which the publicans received. — dcaceiecv] to do vio- 
lence to, is used by later writers of eractions by threats and other kinds of 
annoyance (to lay under contribution), as concutere. Comp. 3 Macc. vii. 
21; see Wetstein, and Schneider, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1. — cvxogavreiv, in its 
primitive meaning, although no longer occurring in this sense, is fo be a fig- 
shower. [On urdé, sce critical note.] According to the usual view (yet see 
in general, Ast, ad Plat. Rep. p. 362 ; Westermann, ad Plut. Sol. 24), it was 
applied to one who denounced for punishment those who transgressed the 
prohibition of the export of figs from Attica. According to the actual 
usage, it means to denounce falsely, to traduce, and, as in this place, to be 
guilty of chicane. It is often thus used also in the Greek writers. 


1The generalization proves nothing on 
behalf of Luke's having been ignorant of 
our Matthew (Weiss). From such individ- 
ual instances an easy argument {is drawn, 
but with great uncertainty, especially as 
Lake knew and made use of a multitude of 


evangelistic sources of which we know 
nothing. 

20On spagceyr, to demand payment, to 
exact, see Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 
482; Krfiger, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 17. 

3 See Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1888, 


CHAP. IIl., 15-22. 297 

Ver. 15. Statement of the circumstances which elicited the following 
confession ; although not found in Matthew and Mark, it has not been 
arbitrarily constructed by Luke (Weisse) in order to return again to the con- 
nection, ver. 9 (Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann), but was probably derived from the 
same source as ver. 10 ff., and at all events it is in keeping with the impres- 
sion made by the appearance of John, and his preaching of baptism and re- 
pentance. Comp. John i. 25, where the more immediate occasion is nar- 
rated. — rpoodoxivrog] while the people were in expectation. The people were 
eagerly listening—for what ? This is shown in what follows, namely, for an 
explanation by John about himself. Comp. Acts xxvii. 33. — pfrore] 
whether not perchance. Comp. on Gal. ii. 2. — avréc] ipse, not a third, whose 
forerunner then he would only be. 

Ver. 16. See on Matt. ii. 11; Mark i. 7 f. —azexpiv.] ‘‘interrogare 
cupientibus,” ‘‘to those desiring to ask,” Bengel. — épyera:] placed first for 
emphasis. — od . . . avrov] Comp. Mark i. 7, vii. 25 ; Winer, p. 134 [E. T. 
148 f.]. — avréc] he and no other. 

Ver. 17. See on Matt. iii. 12. 

Vv. 18-20. See on Matt. xiv. 8 ff. ; Mark vi. 17 ff. On pév ovr, quidem 
igitur, so that uév, ‘‘rem praesentem confirmet,” ‘‘ confirms the matter in 
hand,” and ody, ‘‘ conclusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficiat,” ‘‘ deduces 
a conclusion from matters thus placed together,” see Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 662 f. — xai érepa] and other matters besides, different in kind from those al- 
ready adduced.’ — ebzyyeAizero r. Aadv] he supplied the people with the glad 
announcement of the coming Messiah.” — 6 dé 'Hpdédy¢ x.r.A.] an historical 
digression in which several details are brought together in brief compass 
for the purpose of at once completing the delineation of John in its chief 
features. To that description also belonged the contrast between his work 
(evyyyeail. rt. Aaév) and his destiny. The brief intimation of vv. 19, 20 was 
sufficient for this. — éAeyyduevoc «.7.4.] See Matt. xiv. 3 f. —xat wep? révrov 
x.7.A.] peculiar to Luke, but, as we gather from Mark vi. 20, essentially 
historical. The rov7pav, attracted with it, stands thus according to classical 
usage.*—éri rac:] to all his wicked deeds. — xai xaréxAecoe] simplicity in 
the style is maintained at the expense of the syntax (Kihner, § 720). — év ra 
¢vAaxg]| in the prison, whither he had brought him.‘ 

Vv. 21, 22. See on Matt. iii, 13-17 ; Mark i. 9-11. —éyévero 62 x.1./.] 
resumes the thread dropped at ver. 18 in order to add another epitomized 
narrative, namely, that of the baptism of Jesus. —év rq Barrio f#vatc x.7.A.] 
Whilst ® the assembled people (an hyperbolical expression) were being bap- 
tized, it came to pass when Jesus also (xai) was baptized and was praying, 


p. 7% ff.; Becker, Char. I. p. 280 ff. Wornpdr, 
wovnpoy 6 cucodarrys ati cat Bacxavoy, Dem. 
807. 28; Herbst, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 80, p. 79 f. 

1 As to xai with woAAd, see Blomfield, ad 
Aesch, Pers. 249; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 
2. 94; and as to érepa, see on Gal. i. 7. 

20On the construction, comp. Acts vill. 
2%, 40, xiv. 21, xvi. 10; Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 268. 


*See Matthiae, § 478, quoted by Dissen, 
ad Dem. de Cor. p. 177, 349. 

“Comp. Acts xxvi. 10; Herodian, v. 8. 12, 
and elsewhere; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 4. 10. 

§ Bleek jis in error (following de Wette) 
when he translates: when .. . He was bap- 
tized. See fi. 27, vill. 40, ix. 36, xi. 87, xiv. 1, 
xix. 15, xxiv. 30; in general, Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 226 f. [E. T. 264]. 


298 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
the heaven was opened, etc. The entire people was therefore present (in 
opposition to Kuinoel, Krabbe, and others). (See Note XXXVI., p. 303.] 
The characteristic detail, xai mpocevy., is peculiar to Luke.— owyarine eider Soet 
septor.| 80 that He appeared as a bodily dove. Sce, moreover, on Matthew. 
Ver. 23. Avrécg] as Matt. ili. 4 : He Himself, to whom this divine onyeioy, 
ver. 22, pointed. (On the order of the words, see critical note.] — 4v doe 
érév tptdxovta apyduevoc] He was about thirty years of age (comp. ii. 42 ; 
Mark v. 42), when He made the beginning,’ viz. of His Messianic office. This 
limitation of the meaning of apyduevog results from ver. 22, in which Jesus 
is publicly and solemnly announced by God as the Messiah.? With the re- 
ception of his baptismal consecration, Jesus entered on the commencement 
of His destined ministry. Comp. Mark i. 1; Acts i. 21 f., x. 87. [See Note 
XXXVII., p. 303.] The interpretation given by others : ‘‘ Incipiebat autem 
Jesus annorum esse fere triginta,” ‘‘ but Jesus was beginning to be about 
thirty years of age,” Castalio (so Luther, Erasmus, Beza [A.V.], Vatablus, 
and many more), could only be justified either by the original running : 
hpEato eivat woci éTav tpidxovra, OF qv a@oel Erovg tptaxocrov apyduevoc. It is true 
that Grotius endeavors to fortify himself in this interpretation by including 
in the clause the following a», so that dpyoua: Sv érayv rpidxovra might mean: 
incipio jam esse tricenarius. But even if gv...» be conjoined in Greek 
usage (see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 18, p. 207, Leipzig), how clumsy 
would be the expression 7 apyduevoc oy, incipiedat esse! ‘‘ was beginning to 
be,” and, according to the arrangement of the words, quite intolerable. 
Even épyéuevog has been conjectured (Casaubon). — dv] belongs to vide *Iwofe, 
and wc évouivero, as he was considered (a¢ éddxee toig "Iovdaioc’ we yap ) GAfVea 
eixev, ovx tv vid¢ avrov, ‘as it seemed to the Jews ; for the truth lay, He was 
not his son,” Euthymius Zigabenus), is a parenthesis. Paulus, who con- 
nects av with apyéu., explains : according to custom (Jesus did not begin His 
ministry sooner). Comp. on Acts xvi. 13. It is true the connecting of the 
two participles apyéuevoe dv would not in itself be ungrammatical (see 
Pflugk, ad Hec. 358); but this way of looking at the matter is altogether 
wrong, because, in respect of the appearance of the Messiah, there could be 
no question of a custom at all, and the fixing of the age of the Levites (Num. 
iv. 8, 47), which, moreover, was not a custom, but a daw, has nothing to do 
with the appearance of a prophet, and especially of the Messiah.* Others 
(quoted by Wolf, and Wolf himself, Rosenmiiller, Osiander) refer &v to rov 
‘HAi : existens (cum putaretur filius Josephi) filius, i.e., nepos Eli. So also 


1S8o also Paulus, only that, after the 
example of Calvisius, he further attaches 
@y to apxdémevos, in which case, however, it 
would be useless, and the subsequent gen- 
ealogy would be without any connecting 
link. Wieseler, Chronol. Synons. p. 125, 
placing apxéuevos before wcei (80 Lachmann 
in the margin and Tischendorf), explains: 
“and he was—namely, Jesus when He 
began—about thirty years of age."’ There- 
fore in the most essential point his view is 


in agreement with ours. 

2$So Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jan- 
sen, Er. Schmid, Spanheim, Calovius, Clerl- 
cus, Wolf, Bengel, Griesbach (in Velthu- 
sen, Comment. I. p. 858), Kuinoel, Anger 
(Tempor. rat. p. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, and 
others. 

§ Comp. further, on as évoutg., Dem. 1022, 
16 : of vopsgopevor pev vies, pn GvTes 36 yever ef 
avray, and the passages in Wetstein. 





CHAP. III., 23. 299 


Schleyer in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 540 ff. Even Wiescler (in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 861 ff.) has condescended in like manner (comp. 
Lightfoot, p. 750) to the desperate expedient of exegetically making it out 
to be a genealogical tree of Mary thus: ‘‘being a son, as it was thought, of 
Joseph (but, in fact, of Mary), of Eli,” etc. Wieseler supports his view by the 
fact that he reads, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, d¢ évouit. after vids (B 
L %&), and on weaker evidence reads before ‘Iwo#¢ the rov which is now 
again deleted even by Tischendorf. [See Note XXXVIII., p. 303.] But as, 
in respect of the received arrangement of dc évou., it is only the dv vld¢ "Iwoh, 
and nothing more (in opposition to Bengel), that is marked out as coming 
under the d¢ évouifero, so also is it in the arrangement of Lachmann (only 
that the latter actually brings into stronger prominence the supposed filial 
relationship to Joseph) ; and if row is read before ’Iwo7g, no change even in 
that case arises in the meaning.’ For it is not vids that would have to be 
supplied in every following clause, so that Jesus should be designated as the 
son of each of the persons named, even up to rod Oecd inclusively (so Light- 
foot, Bengel), but viov (after rov), as the nature of the genealogical table in 
itself presents it,? making rot Ocov also dogmatically indubitable ; since, 
according to Luke’s idea of the divine sonship of Jesus, it could not occur 
to him to represent this divine sonship as having been effected through Adam. 
No ; if Luke had thought what Wieseler reads between the lines in ver. 28, 
that, namely, Eli was Mary's father, he would have known how to express it, 
and would have written something like this: dv, d¢ pév évouilero, vide "Iwope, 
dvrw¢ (xxiii. 47, xxiv. 34) dé Mapiag tov "Hii «.7.A. But he desires to give the 
genealogy of Jesus on the side of His foster-father Joseph: therefore he writes 
simply as we read, and as the fact that he wished to express required. As 
to the originally Hiionitic point of view of the genealogies in Matthew and 
Luke, see on Matt. i. 17, Remark 3. 


Remanx.—aAll attempts to fix the year in which Jesus was born by means of 
the passage before us are balked by the doce of ver. 23. Yet the era of Dionysius 
bases its date, although incorrectly (754 after the foundation of Rome), on 
Luke iii. 1, 23. Hase, Z.J. § 26, follows it, setting aside, because of its myth- 
ical associations, the account of Matthew, that the first childhood of Jesus 
occurred as early as the time of the reign of Herod the Great. But these legend- 
ary ingredients do not justify our rejecting a date fixed by a simple reference 
to the history of the time, for it is rather to be regarded as the nucleus around 
which the legend gathered. As, however, Herod died in 750 (Anger, Mat. tem- 
por. p. 6 f.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 50 ff.), the era of Dionysius is at any | 
rate at least about four yearsin error. If, further, it be necessary, according 
to this, to place the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod, which occurred in 
the beginning of April, then, even on the assumption that He was born as early 
as 750 (according to Wieseler, in February of that year), it follows that at the 


1 This indifferent rov came into the text afterthe other by rod are found in Herod. 
with extreme facility, in accordance with iv. 157, vil. 204, vill. 181, and others in Wet- 
the analogy of all the following clauses. stein. The Vulgate is right in simply read- 

2 Instances of a quite similar kind of, Ing, ‘‘fillus Joseph. qui futt Hell, qui /ydé 
stringing on the links ofa genealogy one Matthat,” etc. 


300 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

time when the Baptist, who was His senior only by a few months, appeared— 
according to iii. 1, in the year from the 19th August 781 to 782—He would be 
about thirty-one years of age, which perfectly agrees with the dcei of ver. 23, 
and the round number rpidxorvra ; in which case it must be assumed as certain 
(comp. Mark i. 9) that He was baptized very soon after the appearance of John, 
at which precise point His Messianic apy7 commenced. If, however, as accord- 
ing to Matt. ii. 7, 16 is extremely probable, the birth of Jesus must be placed 
as early as perhaps a year before the date given above,’ even the age that thus 
results of about thirty-two years is sufficiently covered by the indefinite state- 
ment of the passage before us; and the year 749 as the year of Christ's birth 
tallies well enough with the Baptist beginning to preach in the fifteenth year 
of the reign of Tiberius.? [See Note XXXIX., p. 303 seq. ] 


Ver. 27. Tot ZopoBéBea, tov EadadijA] The objection that in this place Luke, 
although giving the line of David through Nathan, still introduces the same 
two celebrated names, and at about the same period as does Matt. i. 12, is 
not arbitrarily to be got rid of. The zdentity of these persons has been denied 
(so, following older commentators, Paulus, Olshausen, Osiander, Wieseler, 
Bleek), or @ levirate marriage has been suggested as getting quit of the 
difficulty (so, following older commentators, Ebrard, who says that Matthew 
mentions the legal, Luke the natural father of Salathiel), or it has been 
supposed (so Hofmann, Weissag. vu. Erfill. Il. p. 87) that Salathiel adopted 
Zerubbabel. But the less reliance can be placed on such arbitrary devices 
in proportion as historical warranty as to details is wanting in both the 
divergent genealogies, although they both profess to give a genealogy of 
Joseph. The attempt to reconcile the two must be given up. [See Note 
XL., p. 304.] It is otherwise in respect of the names Amos and Nahum, ver. 
25, which cannot be identified with the well-known prophets, and in respect 
of the names Leri, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, vv. 29, 30, which cannot be iden- 
tified with the sons of Jacob, as (in opposition to B. Bauer) is shown by the 
great difference of time. 

Ver. 36. Tot Kaivdv] In Gen. x. 24, xi. 12 ; 1 Chron. i. 24. Shalach (ad's) 
is named as the son of Arphaxad. But the genealogy follows the LXX. in 
Gen. (as above) ; and certainly the name of Kenan also originally stood in 
Genesis, although the author of 1 Chronicles may not have read it in his 
copy of Genesis. See Bertheau on 1 Chron. p. 6. [On ver. 88, see Note 
XLI., p. 304. ] 


1 Not “at least two years, probably even 
Jour or more years,”’ Kelm, D. geschichil. 
Christus, p. 140. 

2¥From the fact that, according to the 
evangelists, Jesus after His baptism began 
His public official ministry without the in- 
tervention of any private teaching, the 
opinion of the younger Bunsen (7he Hidden 
Wisdom of Christ, etc., London 1865, II. 
p. 461 ff.}—that the Lord, at the beginning 
of His official career, was forty-six years of 
age—loses all foundation: It rests upon 
the misunderstanding of John li. 20f., viii. 


57, which had already occurred in the case 
of Irenaeus. See, on the other hand, Résch 
in the Jahrb. J. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 4 ff. 
The assumption of the latter, that the year 
2 before the era of Dionysius was the year 
of Christ's birth, rests in accordanen with 
ancient tradition, to be sure, yet on the 
very insecure foundation of the appearance 
of the star in the history of the Magi, and 
on distrust of the chronology of Herod and 
his sons as set forth by Josephus, for which 
Rosch has not adduced sufficient reasons. 


CHAP. III. 301 

Remanr. — The genealogy in Luke, who, moreover, in accordance with his 
Pauline universalism carries on the genealogical line up to Adam, is appropri- 
ately inserted at this point, just where the Messianic consecration of Jesus and 
the commencement therewith made of His ministry are related. Hence, also, 
the genealogy is given in an ascending line, as Luke did not intend, like Mat- 
thew, to begin his Gospel just at the birth of Jesus, but went much further 
back and started with the conception and birth of the Baptist ; so in Luke the 
proper and, in so far as the historical connection was concerned, the right 
place for the genealogy could not have been, as in Matthew, at the beginning of 
the Gospel. Comp, Késtlin, p. 306.—In its contents the genealogy is extremely 
different from that in Matthew, since from Joseph to David, Luke has far more 
and almost throughout different links in the genealogy ; since Matthew gives the 
line of Solomon, while Luke gives that of Nathan (2 Sam. v. 14; 1 Chron. iii. 
5), although he introduces into it from the former ZaAa6e7A and ZopoBdBea., 
Seeking in several ways to get rid of this last-mentioned difficulty (see on ver. 
27), many have assumed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke 
gives that of Mary. [See Note XXXVIIL., p. 303.] To reconcile this with the 
text, rov ‘HAi has been taken to mean: the son-in-law of Eli, as, following many 
older commentators (Luther, also Chemnitz, Calovius, Bengel), Paulus, Ols- 
hausen, Krabbe, Ebrard, Riggenbach, Bisping, and others will have it ; but this, 
according to the analogy of the rest of the links in the chain, is quite impos- 
sible. The attempt has been made to connect with this the hypothesis of 
Epiphanius, Grotius, Michaelis, and others, that Mary was an heiress, whose 
husband must therefore have belonged to the same family, and must have had 
his name inscribed in their family register (Michaelis, Olshausen); but this 
hypothesis itself, while it is equally objectionable in being arbitrary, and in 
going too far in its application, leaves the question altogether unsolved whether 
the law of the heiress was stil] in force at that time (see on Matt. i. 17, Rem. 2), 
even apart from the fact that Mary’s Davidic descent is wholly without proof, 
and extremely doubtful. See oni. 36, ii. 4. Another evasion, with a view to 
the appropriation of the genealogy to Mary, as well as that of Wieseler, is al- 
ready refuted! at ver. 23. See also Bleek, Beitr. p. 101 f.—Hence the conclu- 
sion must be maintained, thai Luke also gives the genealogy of Joseph. But if this 
be so, how are we to reconcile the genealogy with that given in Matthew? It 
has been supposed that Joseph was adopted (Augustine, de consens. ev'angel. ii. 
3; Wetstein, Schegg), or more usually, that he sprang from a levirate marriage 
(Julius Africanus in Eusebius, H.£. i. 7), so that Matthew adduces his natural 
father Jacob, while Luke adduces his legal father Eli (Julius Africanus, Theo- 
phylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine), or vice vers@ (Ambrosius, Grotius, 
Wetstein, Schleiermacher). But what a complication this hypothesis, in itself 
quite arbitrary, involves! In this way Eli and Jacob must be taken to be mere 
half-brothers, because they have different fathers and forefathers! So in re- 
spect of Salathiel’s mother, we must once more call in the help of a levirate 
marriage, and represent Neri and Jechonia as in like manner half-brothers ! 


1 That Eli was the father of Mary is also 
inferred by Delltzschon Hebr. p. 290, who 
suggests that after the premature death of 
bis father Jacob, Joseph was adopted, 
namely, by this Eli as his foster son, and 
brought up along with Mary; that thus, 


therefore, Eli was Joseph's foster father, but 
Mary's actual father. What groundless de- 
vices! And yet the passage itself is “as 
simple as possible until we want to force it 
to say what it does not say,’ Hofmann, 
Schriflbew, 11. 1, p. 112% 


302 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


In addition to this, the obligation to the levirate marriage for the half-brother is 
not authenticated, and the importing of the natural father into the legal gene- 
alogy was illegal; finally, we may make the general remark, that neither 
Matthew nor Luke adds any observation at all in citing the name of Joseph’s 
father, to call attention to any other than the ordinary physical paternal rela- 
tionship. No; the reconciliation of the two genealogical registers, although 
they both refer to Joseph, is impossible ; but it is very natural and intelli- 
gible that, as is usual in the case of great men, whose descent in its individual 
steps is obscure, no anxiety wasfelt to investigate his ancestry until long after 
the death of Jesus—until the living presence of his great manifestation and 
ministry no longer threw into the shade this matter of subordinate interest. 
[See Note XLII., p. 304.] The genealogical industry of the Jewish Christians 
had collected from tradition and from written documents several registers, 
which, appearing independently of one another, must have given very different 
results, as far back as David, in consequence of the obscurity of Joseph’s gene- 
alogy. The first Evangelist adopted a genealogy in accordance with the David- 
Solomon line ; but Luke adopted a totally different one, following the David- 
Nathan line.! But that Luke, as a matter of fact, rejected the genealogy of 
Matthew, is according to i. 3 to be regarded asa result of his later inquiries, as 
in general the great and irreconcilable divergence of his preliminary history 
from that of Matthew suggests the same conclusion. Only the motives of his 
decision are so completely unknown to us, that to concede to his genealogy the 
preference (v. Ammon, L. J. I. p. 179) remains unsafe, although the derivation 
of the Davidic descent of Jesus from the Nathan (therefore not the royal) line 
presupposes an investigation, in consequence of which the derivation of that 
descent through Solomon, which doubtless had first presented itself, was aban- 
doned in the interest of rectification (according to Késtlin, indeed, in the 
Ebdionitic interest, in opposition to the royal line stained with crime, and in op- 
position to worldly royalty in general).—As the genealogy in Matthew is 
arranged in accordance with a significant numerical relation (three times four- 
teen), a similar relation is also recognizable in the genealogy by Luke (eleven 
times seven), even although no express reference is made to it. See already 
Basil. M. II. p. 399 C. 


Notes spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


XXXII. Ver. 1. ’Ev érec dé mevrexacdexdty x.7.A. 


That the reckoning may be made from the beginning of the joint reign, 
appears from the citations in Zumpt, das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 293-296, and 
Wieseler, Beilrage, VIII., p. 193. So Weiss ed. Mey., Godet, and many others. 
This would give as the ‘fifteenth year’’ from Jan. 1, 779, to Jan. 1, 780, a period 
which accords with the other chronological indications. (See Note XXXIX., 
p. 303 seq.) 


XXXIV. Ver. 2. él apytepiwe "Avra «7.4. 


Weiss ed. Mey. properly objects to the view that Luke's expression is erro- 
neous, and that Acts iv. 6 proves him to have thought ‘‘that Annas was prima- 


1 This variation In the Davidic descent of theology. See Delitzsch in the Zeilechr. f. 
the Messiah occurs also in the later Jewish Luth. Theol. 1860, 3, p. 460 f. 


NOTES. 303 


rily and properly high priest.’’ He suggests that the name of Annas as the 
older person necessarily comes first. He also refers to Schiirer, Zeilgeschichle, 
p. 411 ff., against Meyer’s view that there was ‘‘a president of the Sanhedrim.” 


XXXV. Ver. 3. mepizupovr x.r.A. 


Weiss (in his commentary on Matthew, p. 109) finds in the similarity of this 
expression with Matt. iii. 5 a proof of its presence in ‘‘ the older source,’’ while 
Mark’s description is in accordance with the prophecy. But the variations, in 
this first narrative statement common to the Synoptists, furnish a strong proof 
of independence. Weiss regards the citation from the prophet as also derived 
from ‘‘the older source.’’ 


XXXVI. Ver. 21. azavra rov Aadv. 


Meyer’s explanation is unsatisfactory. Weiss ed. Mey. and Godet more cor- 
rectly regard the verse as indicating that the baptism of Jesus took place during 
the period of John’s active labors in baptizing the people. Certainly ¢v points 
to this sense, and the aorist Bazrio6jva: is used because the writer conceives of 
John’s labors as a whole, 


XXXVII. Ver. 23. gv ‘Inoove apyduevog woei érav Tpidxovra. 

The above order is now generally accepted (see critical note), and serves to 
confirm the interpretation of Meyer (see his foot-note, p. 298). So Weiss ed. Mey. 
Comp. R. V.: ‘‘And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about thirty 
years of age.’’ 

XXXVITI. Ver. 23. dv vide, wg Evopilero, "Iwo. 

This order is well attested and now generally accepted. It favors the view 
which makes what follows a genealogy of Mary. Weiss ed. Mey. throughout 
opposes the theory of Meyer in regard to the genealogy. He omits the stric- 
tures upon Wieseler’s interpretation, and says: ‘‘It cannot be denied that, 
through the critically-attested absence of the article before 'Iwof¢, this is con- 
nected more closely with évouifero and separated from the following genitives.” 
This, it will be seen, is emphatically true with the above order. Meyer does 
not fairly face the question as it is presented by the correct text. As regards his 
exegetical position Weiss says: ‘‘ But the assumption that Luke would here 
give the genealogy of the foster-father Joseph, which Meyer still so emphat- 
ically presses, is, notwithstanding, exegetically impossible. For he isnot here 
described as a foster-father, but as his supposed father, and the genealogy of 
such an one can have for Jesus absolutely no significance. Hence all the fol- 
lowing genitives, although they certainly could be subordinated one to the 
other, must be co-ordinated, so that all are alike dependent on vide, and Jesus 
is described as the son of all these men in the sense in which elsewhere He is 
called a son of David, a sonof Abraham, etc. For it is self-evident that Jesus, 
who was only reputed 4 son of Joseph, could be ason of Heli only through His 
mother, whose ancestors were all these further-named men, that are then at the 
same time all His ancestors.” (See further below, Note XLII.) 


XXXIX. Ver. 23. The Year. 


The chronological question is much simplified by reckoning ‘the fifteenth 
year” (ver. 1) from the beginning of the joint reign of Tiberius, as Weiss ed. 
Mey. remarks. If we reckon from the sole reign, the first passover of our Lord’s 


304 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


ministry would fall in 782; on the Tripaschal theory, this would make the 
year of His death 784 ; on the Quadripaschal, it would be 785. Both dates are 


- too late, according to the testimony of Tertullian. Moreover, since the date of 


Christ’s birth must be placed before the death of Herod, Meyer's date (Aug. 
19, 781-2) would make the beginning of the ministry when our Lord was 
nearly, if not fully, thirty-two years of age, since allowance must be made for 
the preceding ministry of the Baptist, and also for the interval between the 
Nativity and the death of Herod. The term ocei might cover two additional 
years, but it is unlikely that Luke would use it so loosely. Many authors, here 
also, are quite confused in their reckoning. 


XL. Ver. 27. rob ZopoBdper, rov Sarabrha. 


The identity of these persons with those named in Matthew's genealogical list 
cannot be proven: the fact that other identical names refer to different per- 
sons in the two lists at least forbids the creating of a difficulty by insisting upon 
the identity here. 


XLL Ver. 38. roi Add, Tow Ge0i. 


Weiss ed. Mey. remarks upon this: ‘‘It cannot possibly indicate that Adam 
was the son of God as Seth was the son of Adam. For even if it were pos- 
sible to regard the creation of Adam by God in the biblical sense as a begetting 
by Him, the mention of this circumstance would be here entirely superfluoas, or 
it would present the ‘Divine Sonship of Jesus as mediated through Adam (and 
all his posterity),’ which certainly cannot be the design of Luke. This exeget- 
ical impossibility is avoided only by accepting the genitives as co-ordinate, and 
allowing Jesus to be described both as the son of His human ancestors (on the 
side of Mary) and as the son of God, which in this connection indeed can be 
understood only of His being physically begotten by the miraculous power of 
God (comp. i. 35). Thus the conclusion of the genealogy confirms the result 
reached in regard to ver. 23.” 


XLII. The Two Genealogies. 


Meyer's explanation of the difference between the two genealogies is rendered 
unnecessary by the view, so strongly advocated by Weiss, that on exegetical 
grounds that of Luke must be regarded as containing the ancestry of Mary. 
Moreover, this explanation is in itself improbable, since obscurity of lineage 
was uncommon among the Jews. Chaps. i. 27, ii. 4 imply that the genealogy 
of Joseph was well known. It follows that all the artificial attempts at recon- 
ciliation cited by Meyer from Julius Africanus to Schleiermacher are also un- 
necessary. ‘‘ But the exegetical result remains untouched by these futile at- 
tempts... . Luke presupposes the Davidic descent of Mary (against Meyer), as 
also Justin (Dial. § 100) and other Fathers do, and the Talmud (Tr. Chagig. 77, 4) 
calls her a daughter of Heli. To this may be added that our genealogy is 
derived from the same source as the preliminary history” (Weiss ed. Mey.). 
This last consideration, in view of the probability that this source was origi- 
nally connected with the family circle of Mary, is of much weight. That Luke 
confused the genealogy of Mary with that of Joseph, is as unlikely in itself as it 
is contrary to the results of exegesis. The inconsequence of his introducing a 
genealogy of Joseph, knowing it to be such, has already been sufficiently indi- 
cated. 


CHAP. IV. . 305 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 1. cig ti Epnuov] BD L &, Sahid. codd. of It. have éy ry épfuy. Ap- 
proved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepia is a mechanical 
alteration in accordance with the parallels. — Ver. 2. Before ézeivace Elz. Scholz 
have iorepov, in opposition to B DL &, vss, Cyr. Beda. From Matt. iv. 2. — 
Ver. 3. Following nearly the same evidence, read with Lachm. and Tisch. elrev 
dé instead of xai elwev. — Ver. 4. GAA’ énl ravri pyyatt Ocov)} is wanting in BL &, 
Sahid. Left out by Tisch. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., bracketed by Treg.]. 
But almost all the versions and Fathers vouch for these words; if they had 
been added, they would, especially in an expression so well known and fre- 
quently quoted, have been more closely and perfectly adapted to Matthew. — 
Ver. 5. 6 d:4;30A0¢] is wanting in B D L &, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Cant. Con- 
demned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition from Matthew. There is 
almost quite as strong evidence against ei¢ dpo¢ in., which nevertheless is found 
in D, but with the addition of Aiavy. Lachm. has bracketed eic¢ dp0¢ ty. Tisch. 
has rightly deleted it. The expression avay. by itself seemed to be in need of 
the more exact definition, and so it was added from Matthew. — Ver. 7. Instead 
of zaoc, Elz. has rdvra, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matt. iv. 9. 
— Ver. 8. Instead of yéypamra: by itself, Elz. has: iraye oriow pov carava: yéypa- 
ara yép. So also has Scholz, but without yép; Lachm. has fr. oz. p. o. in 
brackets, and has deleted ydép. Against oz, oz. p.c. are BDL & ®, min. and 
most of the vss. Or. Vigil. Ambr. Bede ; against ydp there is decisive evidence. 
Both the one and the other, deleted by Tisch., are interpolations ; see on Matt. 
iv. 10. — Ver. 9. Instead of vidg Elz. has 6 vidc, in opposition to evidence so de- 
cisive that vidc without the article is not to be derived from ver. 3. — Ver. 11. 
Instead of xai Elz. and the Edd. have xai dr:. Asthis or: has by no means the 
preponderance of evidence against it, and as its omission here may be so easily ac- 
counted for by its omission in the parallel passage in Matthew, it ought not to 
have been condemned by Griesb.— [Ver. 16. Weiss calls attention to the fact that 
the form Nagapd is attested by weighty authorities only here (8 B =) and Matt. 
iv. 13.-— Recent editors, R. V., with A B A, etc., read re6paupévoc (Rec.), for which 
Tisch. substitutes avarefp., with & L, 33, 69.] — Ver. 17. avaxrigtac] ABL = 33, 
Syr. Copt. Jer. have avoifa¢. So Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.]; butit is an 
interpretation of the word avarr., which occurs in the New Testament only in 
this place. — Ver. 18. The form civexey (Elz. évexev) is decisively attested. Not 
so decisively, but still with preponderating evidence, is evayyeAicaofa: (Elz. 
evayye2icecOa) also attested. — After améoradxé pe Elz. and Scholz (Lachm. in 
brackets) have idcacOaz roi¢ ouvrerpiuplvove tiv xapdiav, which is not found in 
BDL= &, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. It. Sax. Or. and many Fathers. An 
addition from the LXX. — Ver. 23. Instead of cic Kaz. (Tisch. following B [and 
%] : cig rv Kar.) Elz. Scholz have év rj Kaz., in opposition to BD L &, min. 
Marcion, the reading in these authorities being cic. An amendment. Comp. 
the following éy ry rarp. o. — Ver. 25. én? ér7] B D, min. vss. have merely ér, 


20 


306 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 

So Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, text]. But how easily EIII would drop out as 
superfluous, and that too when standing before ETH, a word not unlike EIII in 
form !— Ver. 26. Xidavoc] ABCD LXT ®&, min. vss., including Vulg. It. Or., 
have Yidwriac, Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. From the 
LXX. 1 Kings xvii. 9. [But recent editors, R. V., accept the abundantly attested 
Xidwriac.] — Ver. 29. Before ogpio¢ Elz. and Lachm. (the latter by mistake) have 
T7/¢, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Instead of ore Elz. and Scholz have 
ei¢ 6, in opposition to B D L &, min. Marcion, Or. An interpretation.—[Ver. 
33. 2Zeyov is probably from Mark ; omitted by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, 
R. V., with & BL.] —Ver. 35. &] BD LV = &, min. Vulg. It. Or. have az’. 
Approved by Griesb. and Schulz. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; 
Luke always expresses himself thus. See immediately afterwards the expres- 
sion é£746ev az’ avrov, which is in correspondence with Christ’s command. 
[Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® A BCL, and most, read rd péoov.] — 
Ver. 38. fk] BCDLQR, min. Or. Cant. have azré. Approved by Griesb., 
adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; é« is from Mark i. 29. — The article before rev6rpa 
(in Elz.) has decisive evidence against it. — Ver. 40. éeic] Lachm. and Tisch. 
have éririeic, following B D Q =, min. Vulg. It. Or. émdieig was the form 
most familiar to the transcribers. [The same authorities sustain éOepdmevev ; ac- 
cepted by Tisch., recent editors. ]— Ver. 41. «pdaSovra] Lachm. Tisch. have xpav- 
yacovra, following ADEGHQU VI 4, min. Or. Rightly ; the more current 
word was inserted. [Treg. text, W. and Hort, R. V., have xpdfovra.] After ov ei 
Elz. Scholz have 6 Xpioréc, which has such weighty evidence against it that it 
must be regarded as a gloss. — Ver. 42. Instead of éme(f#rovy Elz. has é{#rovy, in 
opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 43. cig tovro aztoraAua:] Lachm. and 
Tisch. have évi rovro areordAny. Rightly ; éxi isin BL &, min., and areorddyy 
in BD LX &, min. Both the ei¢ and the perfect form are taken from Mark i. 
38, Elz.—[Ver. 44. Tisch. Treg. W. and Hort, R. V., with ®& B D, read ei¢ r. 
ovvaywydc. — Instead of Tad:Aaiacg (Rec. Tisch. Treg. text, W. and Hort marg., 
R. V. text, following A D and most, Vulg.) the reading 'Iovdaia¢ is found in 
X BCL, Copt. It is the more difficult, hence probably altered ; accepted by 
Treg. marg., W. and Hort. text, Weiss, R. V. marg. | 


Vv. 1-13. Sce on Matt. iv. 1-11. Comp. Mark i. 13.— According to 
the reading év rg épjuy (see the critical remarks), Luke says : and He was led 
by the (Holy) Spirit in the wilderness, whilst He was for forty days tempted of 
the devil. Thus the Spirit had Him in His guidance as His ruling principle 
(Rom. viii. 14). Luke relates besides, varying from Matthew, that Jesus 
(1) during forty days (comp. Mark i. 13) was tempted of the devil (how ? 
is not specified), and that then, (2) moreover, the three special temptations 
related in detail occurred.'' (See Mark, Note VI., p. 26.] This variation 
from Matthew remained also in the Recepta cig riv Epnuov, in respect of which 


1 According to Hilgenfeld, Luke’s depen- 
dence on Matthew and Mark is said to be 
manifested with special clearness from his 
narrative of the temptation. But just in 
regard to this narrative he must have fol- 
lowed a distinct source, because otherwise 
his variation in the sequence of the temp- 


tations (see on Matt. iv. 5, Rem.), and the 
omission of the angels’ ministry, would be 
incomprehensible (which Hilgenfeld there- 
fore declares to be a pure invention), as, 
moreover, the axpt xacpod (ver. 13) peculiar 
to Luke points to another source. 


CHAP, IvV., 1-13. 307 
the translation would be . He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness in order 
to be tempted of the devil during the space of forty days (by reason of the 
present participle, see on ii. 45). — Ver. 3. +g Aifw robrw] more concrete than 
Matt. iv. 4. — Ver. 5. avayaydév] (see the critical remarks) he led Him up- 
wards from the wilderness to a more loftily situated place. The ‘‘ very high 
mountain” (Matthew) is a more exact definition due to the further devel- 
oped tradition. Luke has drawn from another soutce. — év or:ypy xp.] ina 
point of time,’ in a moment, a magically simultaneous glimpse ; a peculiar 
feature of the representation.* — Ver. 6. avrév] trav BacrAccav. — Observe the 
emphasis of col. . . éuoi. . . ob (ver. 1). — wapadédorac] by God, which the 
boastful devil cunningly intends to have taken for granted. — Ver. 10 f. are] 
not recitative, but: that, and then «at érz: and that. Comp. vii. 16. 
[See Note XLIII., p. 815.] Otherwise in Matt. iv. 6. — p#rore] ne unguam, 
‘lest at any time,” not necessarily to be written separately (Bornemann).’ — 
Ver. 13. xdvra zecpacu.| every temptation, so that he had no further temptation 
in readiness. ‘‘ Omnia tela consumsit,” ‘‘ He exhausted all his darts,” Bengel. 
— dypt xatpou] until a sitting season, when he would appear anew against Him 
to tempt Him. It is to be taken subjectively of the purpose and idea of the devil > 
he thought at some later time, at some more fortunate hour, to be able with 
better success to approach Him. Historically he did not undertake this again 
directly, but indirectly, as it repeatedly occurred by means of the Pharisecs, 
etc. (John viii. 40 ff.), and at last by means of Judas, xxii. 34; but with 
what glorious result for the tempted ! Comp. John xiv. 80. The difference of 
meaning which Tittmann, Synon. p. 87, has asserted (according to which 
dype xaipov is said to be equivalent to gw¢ réAove) is pure invention. Sce 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 808 f. Whether, moreover, the characteristic ad- 
dition dyp: xatpov is a remnant of the primitive form of this narrative 
(Ewald) or is appended from later reflection, is an open question. But it 
is hardly an addition inserted by Luke himself (Bleck, Holtzmann, and 
others), since it is connected with the omission of the ministry of the angels, 
This omission is not to be attributed to a realistic effort on the part of Luke 
(Holtzmann, but see xxii. 43), but must have been a feature of the source 
used by him, and hence the dypz xa:pov must also have already formed part 
of it. 


1On the expression, comp. Plut. Mor. 
p. 104 A; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 126. 

2 The various attempts to make this év 
ory xpovov intelligible may be secn in 
Nebe, d@. Versuch. d. Herrn, Wetzlar 18357" 
p. 109 ff. The author himself, regarding 
the temptation as an actual external his- 
tory, avails himself of tho analogy of tho 
Satum morganum, but says that before tho 
eye of the Lord the magical picture imme- 
diately dissolved. But according to the 
connection ¢v orcypz. xp. does not mean that 
the appearance lasted only a single moment, 
but that the whole of the kingdoms were 
brought within the view of Jesus, not as {t 
were successively, but in one moment, not- 


withstanding their varied local situation 
upon the whole earth. Bengel says appro- 
priately, ‘“‘ acuta tentatio,” ‘‘an acule temp- 
tation.” 

3 See rather Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 107 
Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 129 f. 

4 According to Wieseler, Synopse, p. 201, 
the persecutions on the part of the Jewa aro 
meant, which had begun, John v. 15-18 ff. ; 
there would therefore be a longer interval 
between vv. 18, 14. But a comparison of 
ver. 14 with ver. 1 shows that this Interval 
is introduced in the harmonistioc interest; 
moreover, Hofmann's reference to the 
agony in Gethsemane (Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 817) 
is introduced, since not this, but probably 


308 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Ver. 14. Comp. on Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14. - The public Galilean min- 
istry of Jesus begins, ver. 14 forming the introduction, after which, in ver. 
15 ff., the detailed narrative follows. Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 50, 
arbitrarily, and contrary to the analogy of the parallels, says: that ver. 15 f. 
was the conclusion of a document which embraced the baptism, the gen- 
ealogy, and the temptation. — éy r. duvau. rov zv.] invested with the power 
of the Holy Spirit: ‘‘ post victoriam corroboratus,” ‘‘ strengthened after 
victory,” Bengel. — «ai ¢fun «.7.A.] and rumor went forth, etc., not anticipat- 
ing what follows in ver. 15 (de Wette) ; but it is the rumor of the return of 
the man who had been so distinguished at his baptism, and had then for 
upwards of forty days been concealed from view, that is meant. — xa 62n¢ 
K.T.A.] round about the whole neighborhood, Acts viii. 31, 42. 

Ver. 15. Airéc] He Himself, the person as opposed to their report. 

Ver. 16. As to the relation of the following incident to the similar one in 
Matt. xiii. 53 ff., Mark vi. 1 ff., see on Matthew. No argument can be 
drawn from ver. 23 against the view that the incidents are different, for 
therein a ministry at Capernaum would already be presupposed (Schleier- 
macher, Kern, de Wette, Weiss, Bleek, Holtzmann, and others), as a pre- 
vious ministry in that same place in the course of a journey (not while re- 
siding there) is fully established by vv. 14, 15. According to Ewald (comp. 
also his Gesch. Chr. p. 345), who, moreover, rightly distinguishes the pres- 
ent from the subsequent appearance at Nazareth, there are incorporated 
together in Luke two distinct narratives about the discourses of Jesus in 
Nazareth. But with reference to the mention of Capernaum at ver. 23, see 
above ; the connection, however, between vv. 22 and 23 is sufficiently 
effected by ovy ovrd¢ éoriy 6 vidg "Iwofp. In ver. 81 ff. it is not the first ap- 
pearance of Jesus at Capernaum in gencral that is related, but the first por- 
tion of His ministry after taking up His residence there (ver. 31), and a spe- 
cial fact which occurred during that ministry is brought into prominence 
(ver. 33 ff.). According to Késtlin, p. 205, Luke met with the narrative at 
a later place in the Gospel history, but placed it here earlicr, and allowed 
the yevdu. ei¢ Kagapyv. inappropriately to remain because it might at a pinch 
be referred to ver. 15. Assuredly he did not proceed so frivolously and 
awkwardly, although Holtzmann also (comp. Weizsicker, p. 398), follow- 
ing Schleiermacher, etc., accuses him of such an anticipation‘ and self- 
contradiction, and, moreover, following Baur and Hilgenfeld, makes this 
anticipation find its motive withal in the supposed typical tendency of ver. 
24. [See Note XLIV., p. 315.]— ov 7 reOpauy.] an observation inserted to 
account for the circumstances mentioned in vv. 22, 23. — xara 7d ew. aire] 
refers to His visiting the synagogue on the Sabbath, not also to the avéorn. 
The aicici visit to the synagogue was certainly His custom from His 
youth up.’ — avéory avayvavac] for the Scripture ¥ was read standing (Vitringa, 
Synag. p. 185 f.; Lightfoot, p. 760 f.; Wetstein in loc.) ; so when Jesus 


the whole opposition of the hierarchy (John devil. 
viii. 44), and finally the crime of Judas 1 Comp. Bengel and Lange, Z. J. IL. 2, 


{John xill. 2, 27), appears as the work of the pp. 545. 
BS 


i a Sl SS = csc 86h SMe ame = canes —s 








CHAP. Iv., 17-19. 309 
stood up it was a sign that He wished to read. It is true, a superintendent 
of the synagogue was accustomed to summon to the reading the person 
whom he regarded as being fitted for it ; but in the case of Jesus, His offer- 
ing Himself is as much in keeping with His peculiar pre-eminence, as is the 
immediate acquiescence in His application. 

Ver. 17. ’Exedd@n] it was given up to Him—that is to say, by the officer of 
the synagogue, Lightfoot, p. 763. — ‘Hoaiov] the reading of the Parascha 
(section out of the law), which preceded that of the Haphthara (prophetic 
section), appears to have been already concluded, and perhaps there was ac- 
tually in the course a Haphthara from Isaiah.' But in accordance with His 
special character (as xbpio¢g rov oaBBdrov, Matt. xii. 8), Jesus takes the section 
which He lights upon as soon as it is unrolled (avarr., comp. Herod. i. 48, 
125), and this was a very characteristic Messianic passage, describing by 
very definite marks the Messiah’s person and work. By avarrigéag [see crit- 
ical note] 7d £:84. and etpe the lighting exactly on this passage is repre- 
sented as fortuitous, but just on that account as being divinely ordered (ac- 
cording to Theophylact : not xara ovvrvyiav, but avrov beAfoavros). 

Vv. 18, 19. Isa. Ixi. 1, 2, following the LXX. freely. The historical 
meaning is : that He, the prophet, is inspired and ordained by God to an- 
nounce to the deeply unfortunate people in their banishment their liberation 
from captivity, and the blessed future of the restored and glorified theoc- 
racy that shall followthereupon. The Messtanic fulfilment of this announce- 
ment, i.e., the realization of their theocratic idea, came to pass in Christ 
and His ministry.? — od eivexev] in the original text J. : because, and to this 
corresponds ov civexev : propterea quod, because, as obvexev i8 very frequently 
thus used by the classical writers. The expression of the LXX., which 
Luke preserves, is therefore not erroneous (de Wette and others), nor do 
the words ov civexev introduce the protasis of a sentence whose apodosis is 
left out (Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 96).? — éypior] a concrete de- 
scription, borrowed from the anointing of the prophets (1 Kings xix. 16) 
and priests (Ex. xxviii. 41, xxx. 80), of the consecration, which in this in- 
stance is to be conceived of as taking place by means of the spiritual investi- 
ture. —rrwyoic] the poor DIY. See on Matt. v. 8. They—in the original 
Hebrew the unhappy exiles—are more precisely designated by aizpaddr., as 
well as by the epithets, which are to be taken in their historical sense typi- 
cally, rugAcic and refpavopuévorve (crushed to pieces), whereby the misery of the 
ntwyoi is represented asa blinding and a bruising. . According to the typi- 
cal reference to the Messiah, these predicates refer to the misery of the spirit- 
ual bondage, the cessation of which the Messiah was to announce and (arov- 
reiAa:) to accomplish. Moreover, the LXX. varies considerably from the 


1 The arrangement of the present Hapb- 
tharas was not yet settled at the time of 
Jesus. See Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdge d. Juden, 
p. 6. 

2 Comp. Schlefermacher, L. J. p. 270 f. 

The form civexey (2 Cor. vil. 12) is, 
moreover, classical; it occurs in Pindar, 
Iethm. viii. 69, frequently in Herodotus (see 


Schweighatser, Lex. sud. verb.), Dem. 4. 11. 
See generally, Kritiger, II. § 68. 19. 1 f. 

4 Observe the difference of tense, expice... 
awéoradxe: He anointed me, He hath sent me 
(and Iam here !) ; also the lively asyndeton 
in the two verbs (aréor. without xa‘), a well 
as also in the three infinitives. 


310 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

original Hebrew (doubtless the result of a various reading which mixed 
with this passage the parallel in Isa. xlii. 7), and Luke again does not agree 
with the LXX., especially in amooreiAa: tefpavop. iv agécer, which words are 
from Isa. lviii. 6, whence Luke (not Jesus, who indeed read from the roll of 
the book) or his informant relating from memory having taken them erro- 
neously, but by an association of ideas casily explaincd mixed them up in 
this place. — évavrdv xupiov dexrév| an acceptable year of the Lord, i.e., a wel- 
come, blessed year belonging to Jehovah, whereby is to be understood in 
the typical reference of the passage the Messianic period of blessing, while 
in the historical sense the blessed future of the theocracy after the exile is de- 
noted by the words MYT? pW-NIW, ie., a year of satisfaction for Jehovah, 
which will be for Jehovah the time to show His satisfaction to His people 
(comp. ii. 14). The passage before us is strangely abused by the Valentin- 
tans, Clemens, Hom. xvii. 19, Clemens AJexandrinus, Origen, and many 
more, to limit the ministry of Jesus to the space of one year,’ which even 
the connection of the original text, in which a day of tengeance against the 
enemies of God’s people follows, ought to have prevented. Even Wieselcr, 
p. 272, makes an extraordinary chronological use of évavré¢ and of ofuepor, 
ver. 21, in support of his assumption of a parallel with John vi. 1 ff. in re- 
gard to time, according to which the sojourn of Jesus in Nazarcth is said to 
have fallen on the Sabbath after Purim 782. The year is an allusion to the 
year of jubilee (Lev. xxv. 9), as an inferior prefigurative type of the Messian- 
ic redemption. The three infinitives are parallel and dependent on aréoraAné 
pe, whose purpose they specify. — év ag¢éoec] 8 well-known constructio preg- 
nans: so that they are now in the condition of deliverance (Polybius, i. 79. 
12, xxii. 9. 17), comp. il. 39. 

Vv. 20, 21. To ixnpéry] [IN, to the officer of the synagogue, who had to 
take the book-roll back to its place, after it had been folded up by Jesus 
(rrtEa¢ corresponding to the avarrtéac of ver. 17). — éxdfice}] in order now 
to teach upon the passage which had been read,—this was done sitting 
(Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdge d. Juden, p. 337). —ipiaro| He began. Bengel ap- 
propriately says: ‘‘Sollenne initium,” ‘‘a solemn beginning.” — év roi¢ 
doiv indy] in your ears is this Scripture (this which is written, see on Mark 
xii. 10) fulfilled—to wit, by the fact that the voice of Him of whom the 
prophet prophesied has entered into your ears. A concrete individualizing 
mode of expression. How decisively the passage before us testifies in favor 
of the fact that from the beginning of His ministry Jesus already had the 
clear and certain consciousness that He was the Messiah !? Moreover, that 
nothing but the theme of the discourse delivered by Jesus is here given is 


1 Keim also, D. geschichil. Chr. p. 140ff., place. But the Gospel of John stands de- 


has very recently arrived at this conclusion 
in view of Origen’s statement, de princip. 
iv.5: ‘‘a year and a few months,” and that 
too on the ground of the calculation of the 
Baptist’s death, according to the account of 
Josephus, Aniéé. xviii. 5, concerning the war 
of Antipas against Aretas. The testing of 
this combination does not belong to this 


cidedly opposed to the one-year duration of 
Christ's official teaching. Sec, besides, the 
discussions on the subject in Weizsiicker, 
p. 806. ff. 

2 Comp. 1. 44, ix. 44; Acts xi. 22; Jas. v. 
4: Ecclus. xxv. 9; 1 Macc. x.7; Bar. 1.3 f.; 
LXX. Isa. v. 9. 

® Comp. Beyschlag, Christ. d. N. T. p. 86 f. 


CHAP. I1V., 22-24. 311 


manifest from the passage itself, as well as from ver. 22; but He has 
placed it remarkably close to the beginning of Tis discourse, and so led 
the hearer all at once in-mediam rem (comp. Zunz, as above, p. 858). 
Grotius well says : ‘‘ Hoc exordio usus Jesus explicavit prophetae locum et 
explicando implevit,” ‘‘By this exordium of application Jesus explained 
the passage of the prophet, and by explaining fulfilled it.” 

Ver. 22. 'Evaprip. aitd] testified in His behalf, praising Him.' — éni roic¢ 
Adyotg tHE xapiToc] at the sayings of graciousness (genitivus gualitatis).* — kai 
fAeyov] not: at nonnulli dicebant, ‘‘ but some were saying,” Kuinoel, Paulus, 
and older commentators ; but their amazement, which ought to have been 
expressed simply at the matter of fact, showed itself, after the fashion 
of the Abderites, from the background of a limited regard for the per- 
son with whom they knew that these Adyoug r. ydpirog did not corre- 
spond. [See Note XLV., p. 815]. —é vid¢ "Iwof] If Luke had intended to 
anticipate the later history of Matt. xiii. and Mark vi., for what purpose 
would he have omitted the brothers and sisters ? 

Vv. 28, 24. Whether what follows, as far as ver. 27, is taken from the 
Iogia (Ewald), or from some other written source (Késtlin), or from oral 
tradition (Holtzmann), cannot be determined. But the Logia offers itself 
most obviously as the source. [See Note XLVI., p. 315. ] — révruc¢] certainly ; 
a certainty that this would be the case. See on 1 Cor. ix. 10. —iarpé x.1.A. ] 
a figurative proverb (rapafoag, Ovi) that occurs also among the Grecks, the 
Romans, and the Rabbins. See Wetstein and Lightfoot. The meaning here 
is : If thou desirest to be a helper of others (vv. 18, 19, 21), jirst help thyself 
JSrom the malady under which thou art suffering, from the want of consideration 
and esteem which attaches to thee ; which healing of Himself, as they think, 
must be effected by means of miracle asa sign of divine attestation. Sce 
what follows. Others understand it : Help thine own fellow-townsmen (Theo- 
phylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, and 
others, also Paulus, de Wette, Schegg, Bisping). This is opposed to the 
meaning of the words, as ceavréy and iarpé can only be one person. More- 
over, the parabolic word concerning the physician is retained only in Luke, 
whom it might specially interest. — cig Kagapvaotu] (the name is to be writ- 
ten thus in Luke also, with Lachmann and Tischendorf) indicates the direc- 
tion of yevéueva, which took place at Capernaum (Bernhardy, p. 220), comp. 
on xxvili. 6. The petty jealousy felt by the small towns against Caper- 
naum is manifest here. — dde éy rp. warp. cov] here in thy birth-place. After 
the adverb of place comes the place itself, by way of a more vivid designa- 
tion.? — Ver. 24. But the hindrance to the fulfilment of that rapafoA7, and 
also to the working here as at Capernaum, is found in the fact that no proph- 
et, etc. According to this, it is unfounded for Baur, Hoang. p. 506, to as- 
sume that the writer here understood zarpic in a wider reference,* so that 


1 See Kypke, Loesner, and Krebs. Fre- 16, xxxvil. 21. 


quently in the Acts, Rom. x. 2, Gal. fv. 15, 3 Bornemann, Schol. p. 341; Fritzsche, ad 
and elsewhere. Mare. p. 2. : 
2 Comp. on Col. iv. 6; Hom. Od. vill. 175: Comp. Hilgenfeld, Frang. p. 1068, ‘** the 


xdpis audimepiorégerat dwdeoow ; Ecclus. xxi. Jewish home of Christianity ;"? Holtzmannu 


312 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Paul’s experience in the Acts of the Apostles—of being compelled, when re- 
jected by the Jews, to turn to the Gentiles—had already had its precedent 
here in the history of Jesus Himself. That the whole section—to wit, from 
kai dun, ver. 14, to ver. 30—is an interpolation from the hand of the re- 
dactor, is asserted by Baur, Markuserang. p. 218. —eime dé] after ver. 23 Ict 
a significant pause be supposcd. 

Vv. 25, 26. In order, however, to quote to you historical eramples, in which 
the miraculous power of the prophets was put forth, not for countrymen, but 
for strangers, nay, for Gentiles, I assure you, etc. Jesus knew that here this 
sternness and open decisiveness on His part were not at all out of place, and 
that He need not hope to win His hearers ; this is only confirmed by the 
later similar incident in Matt. xiii. 54 ff. — éni éry rpia x. pijvag é£] 80 also 
Jas. v. 17. But according to 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1, the rain returned in 
the third year. Jesus, as also James (see Huther zn loc.), follows, according 
to Luke, the Jewish tradition (Jalkut Schimoni on 1 Kings xvi. in Surenhu- 
sius, xaradA. p. 681), in which in general the number 84 (= 4 of 7) in the 
measurement of time (especially a time of misfortune, according to Dan. xii. 
7) had become time-honored (Lightfoot, p. 756, 950 ; Otto, Spicileg. p. 142). 
It was arbitrary and unsatisfactory to reckon (before 1 Kings xvii. 1), in ad- 
dition to the three years, the naturally rainless six months preceding the rainy 
season (Benson on Jas. v. 17 ; Wetstein, Wiesinger, and others ; comp. also 
Lange, II. p. 547 f.), or to date the third year (Beza, Olshausen, Schegg) 
from the flight of Elijah to Sarepta (1 Kings xvii. 9). — wacav r. yzv] not the 
whole region (Beza), but the whole earth ; popularly hyperbolical.—On Sarep- 
ta, situated between Tyre and Sidon, and belonging to the territory of the lat- 
ter, now the village of Surafend, see Robinson, Palestine, III. p. 680 ff. — 
Sidavog] the name of the town of Sidon, as that in whose territory Sarepta lay. 
{See critical note. ] — péyac] in xv. 14 Aude is feminine, as it passed over from 
the Doric into the xo:w# (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 188). But in this place the 
reading peydAy, approved by Valckenaer, is so weakly attested that it cannot 
be thought of. — ei 44] not sed (Beza, Kuinoel), but nisi ; see on Matt. xii. 4. 

Ver. 27. See 2 Kings v. 14. — éri] at the time, iii. 2. 

Ver. 29. ‘Ew ogpioc rov dpouc] up to the lofty brink (supercilium) of the hill.’ 
This situation of Nazareth upon a hill (é¢' ov), t.e., hard by a hill,is still entire- 
ly in accordance with its present position, —‘‘ the houses stand on the lower 
part of the slope of the western hill, which rises steep and high above 
them,” Robinson, Pal. III. p. 419. Especially near the present Maronite 
church the mountain wall descends right down from forty to fifty feet,* 
Robinson, /.c. p. 423 ; Ritter, Hrdk. XVI. p. 744. — dove] of what, as they 
figured to themselves the result was to be. See on Matt. xxiv. 24, xxv. 1; 


1 See Duncan, Lez. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 877, 
and Wetstein. 


also, p. 214. Whether in general Luke 
looked onthe rejection of Christ in Naza- 


reth asa ‘‘significant prelude for the re- 
jection of Christ by His whole people” 
(Weiss inthe Stud.u. rit. 1861, p. 697, 
cannot be decided at all, as he gives no bint 
on the subject. 


2 The place which is pointed out by tra- 
dition as the spot in question is at too great 
n distance from the town. See Robinson, 
i.c., and Korte, Reisen, p. 215 ff. 


CHAP. IV., 30-37. 313 


comp. Luke ix. 52, xx. 20. — xaraxpyyyv.] 2 Chron. xxv. 12 ; Dem. 446. 11 ; 
Josephus, Anté. ix. 9. 1. 

Ver. 30. Abric dé] But He, on His part, while they thus dealt with Him.— 
61a pésov] emphatically : passed through the midst of them. According to 
Paulus, it was sufficient for this, ‘‘that aman of the look and mien of Jesus 
should turn round with determination in the face of such a mobdile culgus.” 
Comp. Lange, Z. J. II. p. 548: ‘‘an effect of His personal majesty ;” and 
III. p. 376: ‘‘a mysterious something in His nature.” Comp. Bleek. Ac- 
cording to Schenkel, the whole attempt on the person of Jesus is only a 
later tradition. On the other hand, the old commentators have : ¢povpobue- 
vog TH Hvautvy avTe Oedryre, ‘‘ guarded by the Deity united with Him,” Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus ; comp. Ambrosius, in addition to which it has been further 
supposed that He became invisible (Grotius and others). The latter view is 
altogether inappropriate, if only on account of dca uéoov air. But certainly 
there is implied a restraint of his enemies which was miraculous and depend- 
ent onthe will of Jesus. It is otherwise in John viii. 59 (éxpi37). Why 
Jesus did not surrender Himself is rightly pointed out by Theophylact : ot 
rb mabeiv getywr, GAAd Tdv Katpdv avapévur, ‘not fleeing from the suffering, but 
awaiting the proper time.” — éropebero] went on, that is to say, towards Ca- 
pernaum, ver. 81, and therefore not back again to Nazareth as has been har- 
monistically pretended. 

Vv. 31-37. See on Mark i. 21-28, whom Luke with some slight variations 
follows. — xar7A9ev] Down from Nazareth, which lay higher up, to Caper- 
naum, which was situated on the shore. Comp. Matt. iv. 13. —éAw r. 
Ta%ua.] for here Capernaum occurs for the first time in Luke in the course of 
the history (it is otherwise at ver. 23). — 7 diddon.] expresses the constant 
occupation of teaching on the Sabbaths (otherwise in Mark), comp. on Matt. 
vii. 29. [See Note XLVIL., p. 315.]— Ver. 83. mvevya daipoviov axafiprov] 
The genitive is a genitive of apposition or of nearer definition (Winer, 
p. 470 [E. T. 531-2]) ; and dauévov, which, according to Greck usage, is 
in itself applicable to either good or evil spirits, being used by Luke for the 
Jirst time in this passage, is qualificd by axafdprov. — éa] not the imperative 
of édw (Vulg.: sine; Euthymius Zigabenus, ad Mare. dgec udc, comp. Syr.), 
but ‘‘ interjectio admirationis metu miztae,” ‘‘ an interjection of wonder min- 
gled with fear” (Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 465): ha! Plato, Prot. p. 314 D. 
Seldom occurring elsewhere in prose, even in the New Testament only in this 
place (not Mark i. 24). See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 82 f., who, nevertheless, 
traces back the origin of the expression to the imperative form. — 7Afe¢ 
x.7.A.] not interrogatively. The words themselves are simply taken from 
Mark ; all the less therefore is any hint to be read into them of the redeem- 
ing ministry of Jesus to the Gentile world (Baur, Kerang. p. 429 f.). — Ver. 
35. pipav] is to be accented thus. '— cic zéoov}] Ile threw him down into the 
midst in the synagogue. The article might be, but és not necessarily added.” 
[Sce critical note.] Observe, morcover, that here Luke describes more 


1 See Bornemann, p. 4; comp., neverthe- 2 See the instances from Homer in Dun- 
less, Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 81 ff. can, ed. Rost ; Kriger, ad Xen. Anabd. i. 8, 13 


314 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
vividly than Mark, although his description is too unimportant ‘to glorify 
the miracle” (Holtzmann). — Ver. 86. ri¢ 6 Adyo¢ ovroc] not : guid hoc rei est ? 
(Beza, Er. Schmid, Grotius, Kuinoel, de Wette) ; but : what sort of a speech 
as this? to wit, that which is related in ver. 35 ; comp. Theophylact : rig # 
apébaraéic avty ijv wpoordacer, bre &FeAGe && avrov kai geuGOyri, ‘* what is this com- 
mand which He commands, that it went forth from him and was still.” It 
is otherwise at ver. 32, where Adyoc is the discourse which teaches ; here, 
the speech which commands. Mark i. 27 has, moreover, given the former 
particular (the didaz7) here again as the object of the people’s astonishment 
and conference ; but Luke, working after him, distinguishes the two, using 
for both, indeed, the general expression Aéyoc, but clearly limiting this ex- 
pression in ver. 32 by diday7, and in ver. 36 by émirdoce. Baur decides 
otherwise in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 70. —6r:] since he, etc., accounts for 
this question asked in astonishment. — év éfovgie x. duvdy.] with authority and 
power. The former is the authority which He possesses, the latter the power 
which He brings into operation. — Ver. 87. fyoc] noise (Acts ii. 2; Heb. 
xii. 19), a stronger expression for rumor. The classical writers use 77d thus 
(Herod. ix. 24; Pind. Ol. xiv. 29). 

Vv. 38-41. See on Matt. viii. 14-16 ; Mark i. 29-34. Matthew places the 
narrative later, not till after the Sermon on the Mount.'— ad ry ovvaywy.] He 
went from the synagogue into the house of Simon. The article before revdepa 
isnot needed. [See Note XLVIII., p. 315.] Winer, p. 108f. [E. T. 119 ff. ]. 
Luke, the physician, uses the technical expression for violent fever-heat : mupe- 
roc péyag (the opposite : pexpdéc). See Galen, De diff. febr. 1, in Wetstein. — 
ypotyoarv] they asked ; Peter, to wit, and the members of the family, —hence it 
is not the plural introduced here without reason only from Mark i. 30 (Weiss). 
— izdvw aiz7¢| so that He was bending over her. —ézeriu. tO muper@] the 
fever regarded as a hostile power, and as personal. Mark, whom Matthew fol- 
lows, has not this detail ; whereas both have the touching with the hand. 
A divergence in the tradition as to the miraculous method of cure. — airoic¢] 
refers to Jesus, Simon, and the other members of the family. Comp. 7pé- 
thoav, Ver. 38. — Ver. 40. aodevotvrac vécorc] according to Matthew, demoniacs 
and sick persons (comp. Mark), with which Luke nevertheless also agrees at 
ver. 41.°— rag yeipac imirdbeic] Matthew has Ady», with reference, however, 
to the demoniacs. In évi ékéorw, which need not be pressed (Weiss, Holtz- 
mann), are implied the solicitude and the indefatigableness of this miracu- 
lous ministry of love. — 2aAciv, dri] to speak, because. See on Mark i. 34. 

Vv. 42-44. Sec on Mark i. 85-39, who is more precise and more vivid. — 
The bringing of so many sick folks to Him, ver. 40, is to be explained, not 
by this hasty departure, the appointment of which had been known (Schleier- 


ing Jesus had remained in the house of Simon, 


1 The arrangement {in Luke, so far as he 
places (ch. v.) the call of Peter later, is in 
any case not arbitrarily produced, although 
he follows the tradition which (as Matthew) 
does not include the companfonship of 
James and John (so Mark). 

2 All three also agree essentially as to the 
time of day (Svvovros rov nAcov). Until the even- 


therefore the sick were first brought to 
Him there. Thus it was neither with a 
view to avoiding the heat of the sun, nor to 
choosing, from ‘delicacy of feeling,” as 
Lange supposes, the twilight for the public 
exhibition of infirmities. 


NOTES. 315 


macher), but, in accordance with the text (ver. 87), by the fame which the 
public healing of the demoniac in the synagogue had brought Him. — éw¢ 
avrov} not simply : to Him, but: even up to Him, they came in their search, 
which therefore they did not discontinue until they found Him. Comp. 1 
Mace. iii. 26 ; Acts ix. 38, xxiii. 283. —ei¢ rovro] namely, to announce not 
only here, but everywhere throughout the land, the kingdom of God. — 
aréoradua| It is otherwise in Mark i. 86, whose expression is original, but 
had already acquired in the tradition that Luke here follows a doctrinal de- 
velopment with a higher meaning. — [Ver. 44. See critical note and Note 
XLIX., below. ] 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprrok. 


XLITI. Ver. 10 £. dre. . . nad drt. 


The R. V. properly takes 5rz in both cases as recitative ; so Weiss ed. Mey., 
who regards xai as indicating an omission in the citation which Luke has ex- 
plained by the phrase : rot duagvAdfac oe. Comp. also chap. vii. 16. 


XLIV. Ver. 16 ff. The Rejection at Nazareth. 


Weiss ed. Mey. identifies this occurrence with that narrated by Matthew and 
Mark, assigning it to the later period indicated by those Evangelists. The ar- 
guments he presents are the usual ones in defence of this position. See against 
the identity, Godet, Luke, pp. 154, 155, Am. ed. 


XLV. Ver. 22. xai fAcyov. 


Here Weiss (ed. Mey.) explains the saying in accordance with his view of the 
chronological position, finding a certain indistinctness, occasioned by a rem- 
iniscence of Mark vi. 2,3. But this seems fanciful. 


XLVI. Vv, 23, 24. 


Meyer's theory that these verses are from the Logia implies that the lan- 
guage was not uttered on this occasion. But there is every reason to believe 
that such proverbial sayings were repeated. 


XLVI. Ver. 31. Hy diddaxwr. 


Weiss ed. Mey. explains this as referring to whet was taking place when 
what follows occurred ; so in Mark i. 22. 


XLVIII. Ver. 38. ’Avaorde d2 ard rig ovvaywyic. 


The R. V. properly joins these words together : a consiructio praegnans ; 80 
Weiss ed. Mey. Meyer apparently connects ard r. oc. with the main verb. 


XLIX. Ver. 44. ric 'Ioudatac. 


The evidence for this difficult reading is preponderant. The copyists would 
readily alter it to TadcAaiac. Godet naively says: ‘‘The absurd reading ric 


316 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


‘Iovdaias, which is found in the six principal Alexandrian mss., should bea 
caution to blind partisans of this text.’’ But the presence of sich a reading 
seems rather to attest the accuracy of these authorities. 

Weiss ed. Mey. accepts the above reading, and explains the term as referring 
to the entire Jewish country in general (so i. 5, vii. 17). ‘‘ Luke probably 
gives here a general sketch of our Lord's first circuit in Galilee, and includes 
also the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in John v., which took place not very 
long afterward (or before, according to some). It is characteristic of Luke to 
sum up or anticipate thus.’’ (Inter. Rev. Comm. Luke, p. 73.) The verse forms 
®& separate paragraph in the R. V. 


CHAP. VY. 317 


CHAPTER V. 


[Vzer. 1. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., following ® A B L and versions, have 
nai axovery, instead of tov ax.] — Ver. 2. The mss. have azérAvvay (so Elz. Scholz), 
ErxAvvay, ExAvvov, atéxAvvov, Tisch. has the second reading, Lachm. the third. 
[So Treg., W. and Hort text, Weiss, R. V.] The preponderance of evidence 
wavers between é7Avvev (B D) and érAvvay (C* L Q X 8), and excludes the com- 
pound form. But since, according to this, even the mss. which read the 
Recepta (AE F G, eto.):add to the evidence in favor of érAvvAN, this form re- 
ceives the critical preponderance. The compound form is either a mero 
clerical error (as Ev. 7 has even éxéfrAvvov), or a gloss for the sake of more pre- 
cise specification.— [Ver. 5. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit av7., follow- 
ing & B, Copt., and read ra dixrva, attested by ®& B D L, Copt., and others. ] 
— Ver. 6. rA70a¢ tx8iwv] So Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch., following the greater 
number of the uncials, but not BD, which have iy@fuv 7A760c, which Lachm. 
has again restored. Comp. Vulg. and codd. of It. The reading of Griesb. is to 
be preferred on account of its preponderating evidence, and still more because 
the words rAjfo¢ oA would more readily be brought together by the transcrib- 
ers than separated. — Ver. 15. Astz’ avrov is wanting in important authorities, 
in others stands after dxotev, and A has a7’ airod, it is rightly condemned 
by Griesb., struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — 
Ver. 17. éAnAvOére¢] Lachm. has ovveAnd., following only A* D, min. Goth. Verc. 
— avrobe] Tisch, has aizév, following BL = &. Rightly ; avrots arose from a 
misunderstanding, because an accusative of the object appeared necessary. — 
Ver. 19. moiac] Elz. has dia zoias, in opposition to decisive evidence. An in- 
terprotation. -— Ver. 21. With Lachm. and Tisch. read duapriac ageivar, accord- 
ing tt B DL =, Cyr. Ambr. The Recepia is from Mark ii. 7, But in ver. 24 
the form adeivac (Tisch.) is too weakly attested [Tisch. VIII. has a¢cévar]. — Ver. 
22° The omission of azoxp. (Lachm.) is too feebly accredited. — Ver. 24. 
rapadeAuuévy] Lachm. has rapadurexg, following important authorities, but it 
is taken from the parallels. — Ver. 25. Instead of é¢’ 6, Elz. Scholz, Lachm. 
have é¢’ ~ But the former has a preponderance of evidence in its favor, 
and more naturally occurred to the transcribers. — Ver. 28. 7xoAoi@yorr] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have 7xoAofGe:, following B DL = 69. The Recepta is 
taken from the parallels.— Ver. 29. Before Aevic (Tisch. has on very good 
authority Aeveic) the article (Elz.) is on decisive evidence deleted. — Ver. 30. 
avrov] is wanting in D F X &, min. vss., and is regarded with suspicion by 
Griesb., but it was omitted as being superfluous and apparently irrelevant. 
The arrangement oi api. x. ol yp. adr. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted 
in accordance with BC DL &, min. Vulg. It. and others. The Recepta is 
taken from Mark ii.16. The article before reAwvéy, which is not found in Elz., 
is adopted on decisive evidence by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. xa? ayuapr., 
also, is so decisively attested that it is now rightly defended even by Tisch. — 
Ver. 33, dd ri] is wanting in B L =, 33, 157, Copt.; deleted by Tisch. An ad- 


318 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


dition from the parallels. — Ver. 36. ivaziov xavou] B DLX = &, min. vas. have 
ard luatiov xawvoi cxioag (yet oxicas is not found in X, and also otherwise too 
weakly attested). Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Butit is mani- 
festly a gloss inserted for explaining the genitive, for which there appeared a 
reason in this place although not in the parallels. [Recent editors, R. V., accept 
the abundantly attested a7é and oytoac.] — oyice: is well attested by BC DL X 
®, min., and cuudurjcer still better (by the additional evidence of A). Approved 
by Schulz, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; cyi{ec occurred at once in 
consequence of the preceding é7:BéAAec and of aipecin the parallels, and then 
drew after it ovugwvei. — Elz. has ériBAnua rd a.7. x. Soalso Scholz, Lachm. 
Tisch. But with Griesb. and Rinck é7iSAnua is to be condemned, as it is want- 
inginA EF K MRS U VI 4, min. Goth. Slav. Theophyl.; in D it stands 
after xacvov, and betrays itself as a gloss added to the ahsolute 1é. [Recent edi- 
tors, R. V., following ® BC L and many minor authorities, accept rd émi- 
fAnua t6 azé. The omission Meyer defends can readily be accounted for.] — 
Ver. 38. xai aud. cuvrnp.] is wantingin BL &, min. Copt. Suspected by Griesb., 
deleted by Tisch. An addition from Matt. ix. 17, from which passage also 
Mark ii. 22 has been expanded. — Ver. 39. evfiwc] is wanting in B C* L &, min. 
Copt. Arm. Acth. Deleted by Tisch. An addition for more precise specifica- 
tion. [The reading ypyord¢ is found in & B L, Copt. Syr., and is accepted by 
Tisch., W. and Hort, Treg. text, Weiss (so R. V. text). Theo Rec.: ypyorérepog, 
igs an explanatory alteration ; so even Godet, who rarely follows the Alexan- 
drian text. ] 


Vv. 1-11. Matt. iv. 18-22 and Mark i. 16-20 are parallel passages. Nev- 
ertheless, the history of the calling in Luke, as compared with it in Matthew 
and Mark, is essentially different, for in these latter the point of the incident 
is the mere summons and promise (without the miracle, which, without alter- 
ing the nature of the event, they could not have passed over ; in opposition 
to Ebrard and others) ; in Luke it is the miracle of the draught of fishes. 
Moreover, in Matthew and Mark no previous acquaintance on the part of 
Jesus with Peter is presupposed, although, probably, it is in Luke iv. 38 ff., 
whereby, at the same time, Luke falls into self-contradiction, since v. 8 
does not allow it to be supposed that such miraculous experiences have pre- 
viously occurred to him as, according to iv. 88 ff., Peter had already in 
connection with Jesus. Luke follows a source of later and more plastic 
tradition (in opposition to Schleiermacher, Sicffcrt, Neander, v. Ammon, 
who ascribe to Luke the merit of being-the earliest), which, fastening in 
pursuit of symbolic meaning upon the promise in ver. 10 (Matt. iv. 19 ; 
Mark i. 17), glorified the story of the call of the fishermen by joining to it 
a similar story of the draught of fishes, John xxi. (comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. 
p. 288) ; but in the historical sequence after iv. 38 ff. Luke has become 
confused. [See Note L., p. 323 seq. ] — xat airéc] not : he also, but : and he; 
he on his part, in respect of this pressing (écxeiofac) of the people upon him. 
Comp. on vv. 15, 17; as to «ai after éyévero, sce on ver. 12. — éxAvvar] ‘ut 
peracto opere,” ‘‘as though their work was finished,” Bengel ; see ver. 5. 
[See Note LI., p. 8324.]—Ver. 4. éxavéyaye, the special word for going out 
into the deep sea (Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 28 ; 2 Macc. xii. 4) ; the s¢ngular in ref- 


CHAP. V., 1-ll. — 319 


erence to Peter alone, who was the steersman of the craft ; but yaAdoare 
in reference to the whole fisher company in the vessel. Changes of number, 
to be similarly accounted for by the connection, are often found in the clas- 
sical writers.! — Ver. 5. ¢xordra] Superintendent (see in general, Gatacker, 
Op. posth. p. 877 ff., and Kypke, I. p. 228) occurs only in Luke in the New 
Testament, and that, too, always addressed to Jesus, while he has not the 
paB;3i which is so frequent in the other cvangelists. Peter does not yet 
address Him thus as his doctrinal chief, but generally (vv. 1, 3). Comp. 
Xvii. 13. — vuxréc¢] when fishing was accustomed to be carried on success- 
fully.” — ézi] of the reason : for the sake of Thy word (on the ground of Thy 
word). Comp. Winer, p. 851 [E. T. 394]: ‘‘Senserat Petrus virtutem 
verborum Jesu,” ‘‘Peter had discerned the virtue of the words of Jesus,” 
Bengel. Oirwe gv rpv wiote Aeppd¢ Kal pd tig wiotewc, Theophylact. — yadrdow]) 
Simon speaks thus in his capacity of captain. Comp. afterwards zo:joavrec. 
— Ver. 6. dte)piyyvvro] The tearing asunder® actually began, but was only 
beginning. Sec oni. 69. The assistance for which they signalled prevented 
further damage. The subscquent phrase dore Bvdi{echa: is similar. Hence 
there is no ezaggeration (Valckenaer, de Wettc). — Ver. 7. xarévevoar] they 
made signs to, according to Euthymius Zigabenus : pi duvdyevor Aarjoa ard 
THe ExrrAnfews K. Tov g6Bov, ‘‘not being able to speak from thcir amazement 
and their fear.” So also Theophylact. This would have needed to be said. 
In the whole incident nothing more is implied than that the other craft still 
lying close to the shore, ver. 2, was too far away for the sound of the 
voice to reach, and hence they were restricted to making signs, which, 
moreover, for the fishermen of the other boat—who, according to ver. 4, 
were doubtless eagerly giving attention—was quite sufficient. As to ov4a3., 
sce on Phil. iv. 3.— Ver. 8. On mpooérece +. yévacr, comp. Soph. O. C. 
1604. It might also be put in the accusative (Eur. J/ec. 339, and thereon 
Pflugk). — ée/de] out of the ship. He dimly recognizes in Christ a some- 
thing superhuman, the manifestation of a holy divine power, and in the 
consciousness of his own sinful nature he is terrified in the presence of 
this power which may, perchance, cause some misfortune to befall him ; 
just as men feared the like on the appearances of God or of angels.4 Elsner 
and Valckenaer are mistaken in saying that Peter speaks thus in accordance 
with the notion that one ought not to stay on board a ship with any 
criminal.* He docs not indeed avow himself a criminal, but only as a sinful 
man in general, who as such cannot without risk continue in the presence 
of this Ociog xai irxepdry¢ dvOpuroc, ‘‘ divine and marvellous man” (Euthymius 
Zigabenus). See the later exaggeration of the sinfulness of the apostles 


1 See Bornemann, Schol. p. 85 f. ; Kibner, 
ad Xen. Anad. 1. 2. 27. 

2See Aristotle, 77. A. viii. 19; Heindorf, 
ad Plat. Soph. p. 7. 

§ Augustine has interpreted this tearing 
of the nets allegorically of the heresies, and 
the Saxon Anonymus (p. 212 f.) of Judaism 
and the law; both interpretations being 
equally arbitrary. There is much allegort- 


cal interpretation of the whole narrative in 
the Fathers (the ship, the church ; the net, 
the doctrine; the sea, the heathen world, 
ete.). . 

4 Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 18. Euthymius Ziga- 
benus and Grotlus in loc. 

® (ic. De Nat. Deor. ill. 87; Diog. Laert. {. 
85: Horat. Od. iil 2. 26 ff. 


320 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


before their call, in Barnabas 5.— Ver. 9. dypa] in this place is not the 
draught, as at ver. 4, but that which was caught (1d Onpdurvov, Pol. v. 1), as 
Xen. De Venat. xii. 3, xiii. 18, and frequently. — Ver. 10. This mention of 
James and John at the end is one of the traces that the narrative grew out 
of the older history of the call. But certainly Andrew was not found in 
the source from which Luke drew. [See Note LII., p. 324.]— ar@pdzove] 
instead of fishes. — (wypév] vivos capiens, ‘taking them alice,”—in character- 
tstic keeping with this ethical draught (winning forthe Messiah's kingdom), 
as well as with the figure taken from fishermen (Aristaen. Ep. ii. 23). 

Vv. 12-14. See on Matt. viii. 1-4 ; Mark i. 40-44. According to Matthew, 
immediately after the Sermon on the Mount ; in Luke (comp. Mark), with- 
out any definite statement of place or time, as a fragment of the evangelic 
tradition. [See Note LII., p. 324.]—é;fvero . . . nai] ag 11. 15 ; Matt. ix. 10. 
Kai is not nempe, ‘‘namely” (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 341), but, in accord- 
ance with Hebraic simplicity, the and, which, after the preparatory and yct 
indefinite éyévero, leads the narrative farther on. The narrator, by means of 
éyévero together with a note of time, first calls attention to the introduction 
of a fact, and then, in violation of ordinary syntax, he brings in afterwards 
what occurred by the word «ai. —év wid tr. 764.] according to Mark: ina 
house. — x?fpnc] & high degree of the sickness. — Ver. 14. xa? av7éc¢] and He, 
on His part. — azeAOcyv x.r.A.] a transition to the oratio directa. See on Mark 
vi. 8. 

Vv. 15, 16. Comp. Mark i. 45. — dijpyero] The report ran throughout, 
was spread abroad.’— yadd.] in a still higher degree than before ; only all the 
more.7 — aivtéc] He, however, He on his part, in contrast with the multitudes 
who were longing for Him. — #w troyupiv év roig Epnu.] t.e., He was engaged 
in withdrawing Himself into the desert regions (that were there), and in 
praying, so that He was therefore for the present inaccessible. — xai mpocev- 
xéuevoc] This detail is given on several occasions by Luke alone.® 

Vv. 17-26. See on Matt. ix. 1-8; Mark ii. 1-12. Between this and the 
foregoing history Matthew has a series of other transactions, the sequence 
of which he accurately indicates. Luke vaguely says: éy mua rév quépur, 
which, however, specifies approzvimately the time by means of the connec- 
tion (‘‘on one of those days,” namely, on the journey entered upon at iv. 
43 f.). Comp. viii. 22. — nai avréc] and He, as ver. 1, but here in opposition 
to the Pharisces, etc., who were surrounding Him. — éx wdoy¢ xopne «.7.A.] 
popularly hyperbolical. As to voyodiddox., sce on Matt. xxii. 35. — divayic 
xupiov x.t.A.| and the power of the Lord (of God) was there (praesto erat, as at 
Mark viii. 1) in aid of His healing. So according to the reading avrév (see 
‘the critical remarks). According to the reading avrofs, this would 
have to be taken as a vague designation of the sufferers who were pres- 
ent, referring back to ver. 15 ; atrév is the sulject, avrote would be the 
object. [See Note LIV., p. 324.] Others, as Olshausen and Ewald, have incor- 


1 Soabsolutely, Thuc. vi. 46: dwecdh &cHAGew = Ap. p. 830 A ; Niigelsbach on the Iliad, ed. 3, 
6 Adyos, Ste x.7.A. ; Soph. Af. 978; Ken. Anab. pp. 227. 
1.4.7; Plat. Ep. vil. p. 348 B. ® See fij. 21, vi. 12 f., ix. 18, 20, and else- 
2 Comp. xviii. 89. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. where. 





CHAP. Y., 27-39. 321 


rectly referred xvpiovto Jesus, whose healing power was stirred up (vi. 19). 
Wherever Luke in his Gospel calls Christ the Lord, and that, as would here 
be the case, in narrative, he always writes 6 xipiog with the article.'— In 
the following narrative the precedence of Mark is indeed to be recognized, 
but the tracing out of the features of dependence must not be carried too 
far (in opposition to Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 708 f.). — Ver. 19. 
eioevéyx. | into the house, where Jesus and His hearers (ver. 17) were. Comp. 
afterwards rd d&ua. —-roiac] qualitative : in what kind of away. On the 
édov, which must be supplied in analyzing the passage, see Bos, Eilips., ed. 
Schaefer, p. 388 ; on the genitive of place (comp. xix. 4), see Bernhardy, 
p. 188 ; Kriger on Thucyd. iv. 47. 2. Accordingly, although no instance 
of rolac and éxeivys used absolutely occurs elsewhere, yet the conjecture -rofg 
and éxeivg (Bornemann) is not authorized. — dia trav xepdywy] through the tiles, 
with which the flat roof was covered, and which they removed from the 
place in question. Mark ii. 4 describes the proceeding more vividly. Sec 
the details, sub loco, and Hug. Gutacht. Il. p. 21 f.— Ver. 21. fpgavro] a 
bringing into prominence of the point of commencement of these presumptu- 
ous thoughts. A vivid description. —diadoyifeoda: . . . Aéyovres] See on 
Matt. xvi. 7. They expressed their thoughts to one another ; hence ver. 22 
is not inappropriate (in opposition to Weiss). — Ver. 24. elxe r¢ mapaded. | is 
not to be put in parenthesis, but see on Matt. ix. 6. — oi] placed first for 
the sake of emphasis. — Ver. 25. dpag é¢’ 8 xaréxecto] he took up that on which 
(till now) he lay, an expression purposely chosen to bring out the changed 
relation, With reference to é¢’ 5, on which he was stretched out, comp. the 
frequent elva: ér) ySéva, and the like. See in general, Kiihner, § 622 b. — 
Ver. 26. The narrative is summary, but without precision, since the impres- 
sion said to be produced by the miraculous incident * applies indeed to the 
people present (Matt. ix. 8), but not to the Pharisees and scribes. 

Vv. 27-39. See on Matt. ix. 9-17 ; Mark ii. 13-22. — 2f7A6e] out of the 
house, ver. 19. — é#edcaro] He looked at him observingly. — Ver. 28. The 
order of events is: after he had forsaken all, he rose up and followed Him. 
The imperfect (sce the critical remarks) is used for the sake of vividness, 
dravra, as in ver. 11, refers to the whole previous occupation and position 
in life. Bengel well adds: ‘‘quo ipso tamen non desiit domus esse sua,” 
‘“by which indecd his house did not cease to be his,” ver. 29. — Ver. 29. 
ai fv] et aderat, as in ver. 17. — Ver. 80. avriv] of the dwellers in the town. 
— mpéc] an antagonistic direction. — Ver. 83. of 62 elrov] Asto this variation 
from Matthew and Mark, see on Matt. ix. 17, Remark. On the association 
of fasting and making prayers, comp. ii. 87, and on oceiofa: defoerc, 1 Tim. 
ii. 1. —éod. x. rivovoww] the same thing as ov yyoretove: in the parallels, but more 
strongly expressed. In accordance with the deletion of dcari (see the crit- 
ical remarks), there remains no question, but an affirmatice reflection. —Ver. 
34. yi divacbe x.7.4.] ye cannot, ctc., brings out the inappropriateness of that 
reflection in a more concrete form than in Matthew and Mark. — Ver. 85. 


1 See vil. 18 (81), x. 1, xf. 80, xff. 42, xffl. 15, Comp. Wisd. xvi. 17, xix. 5; 2 Macc. ix. %4; 
xvil. 5, 6, xviii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 81, 61. _ Xen. Cyr. vil. 2, 16. 
97a wapa Séfay yyvdmeva, Polyb. ix. 16. 2. 
21 


822 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


xai] might be taken explicatively (and indeed) (Bornemann, Bleek). But it 
is more in kceping with the profound emotion of the discourse to take éAe6- 
covrat x.t.A, by itself as a thought broken off, and xai in the sense of : and: 
But days shall come (and not tarry) . . . and «hen shall be taken away, etc. — 
év exeiv, Taig yuép.] & painful solemnity of expression, whereby the emphasis 
is laid upon éxeivacc. Comp. on Mark ii. 20. — Ver. 86. ériBaAnua luar. Kacvov} 
t.e., a patch cut off from a new garment. By the use of luariov the incan- 
gruity of the proceeding comes still more strongly into prominence than by 
paxorc, which is used in Matthew and Mark. [See Note LYV., p. 824 seq.] An 
unintentidnal modification of the tradition—not an alteration proceeding from 
the Paulinism of the writer, and directed against the syncretism of the Jewish 
Christians, as Késtlin, p. 174, ingeniously maintains, Even Lange explains 
the expression by supposing that there floated already before the mind of 
the Pauline Luke a clearer vision of the Christian community as distinct 
from Judaism (ZL. J. HII. p. 395). — kat 1d xarviv oyices kai x.t.A.] comprises the 
twofold mischief which will ensue (future, see the critical remarks) if one 
does not obey that principle taken from experience ; He will not only cut 
the new (garment) in twain (in taking off the piece), but, moreover, the (piece) 
of the new (garment) will not be in keeping with the old (garment). Comp. 
Kypke, Paulus, de Wette, Bleek, Schegg, even as carly as Erasmus. On 
oxioe, comp. John xix. 24; Isa. xxxvii.1. But usually 7d xacvéy is explained 
as the subject, and cither cyicec is taken intransitively (‘‘ seindet se a veteri,” 
“Sacill rend itself from the old,” Bengel), or +o wadaidv indriov is regarded as 
its object : the new piece will rend asunder the old garment (comp. Kuinoel). 
Incorrectly ; since this supplying of the object is not required by the con- 
text, but is obtruded for the sake of the harmony with Matt. ix. 16, Mark 
ii, 21, and 76 axzd rov xarvot (it is not 7d xarvdv) clearly shows that even to ré 
xaivov we are to understand only ivdriov, not éx/BAnua ; and, moreover, rd azd 
tov xavoy would be altogether superfluous and clumsy. — Ver. 89. Peculiar 
to Luke ; but it is as little to be explained as resulting from later reflection 
on the difficulty of the mission to the Jews (Weizsiicker), as is the emphasis 
laid upon the incompatibility of the two, ver. 36. As Jesus in vv. 86-38 
made it manifest how unsuitable and injurious it would be to bind up the 
essence and the life of the new theocracy with the forms and institutions of 
the old, so now at ver. 89 He once more, by means of a parabolic expression, 
makes it intelligible how natural it is that the disciples of John and of the 
Pharisees should not be able to consent to the giving up of the oup forms and in- 
stitutions which had become deur to them, and to the exchanging of them for the 
NEW life in accordance with rts fundamental principles. We says that this 
should be as little expected as that any one when he has drunk old wine 
should long for new, since he finds that the old is better. So in substance 
Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, 
Wolf, Bengel, Paulus, Olshausen, Lange, and others ;* and rightly, since 


1 Baur, Markusevang. p. 202 (comp. Zel- _codd. of It., as an anti-heretical addition. 
ler, Apost. p. 15: Hilgenfeld, Avit. Unters. But :the omission is explained simply from 
p. 408, and inthe 7/eul. Jahrb. 1853, p. 200 f.), . the apparent incongruity of the sense, and 
“regards ver. 89, which is wanting in Dand from the lack of any expression of the kind 





NOTES. 323 


even in ver. 37 f. the contrast of the old and new wine typified the contrast- 
ed old and new theocratic life. Hence we are neither, with Wetstein, to 
suppose the meaning reversed : ‘‘ Pharisaeorum austeritas comparatur vino 
novo, Christi lenitas vino veteri,” ‘‘ The austerity of the Pharisees is com- 
pared with new wine, the gentleness of Christ with old wine ;” nor, with 
Grotius (comp. Estius and Clericus), to interpret : ‘‘Homines non subito 
ad austeriorem vitam pertrahendos, sed per gradus quosdam assucfaciendos 
esse,”’ ‘‘Men are not suddenly to be drawn into a more austere life, but to 
be habituated through certain degrees” (Jesus, in truth, had no wish to accus- 
tom them to an ‘‘austeriorem vitam !” ‘‘more austere life!’’); nor, with 
Schegg, to substitute the meaning : ‘‘that not till the old wine is expended 
(in reference to ver. 35) is the new drunk (which refers to fasts, etc., as a 
remedy for their being deprived of the presence of Christ).” But by the 
objection that the old wince is actually better (Ecclus. ix. 10, and see Wolf 
and Wetstein) the parable is unduly pressed (in opposition to de Wette and 
others), since in vv. 37-39 the point of comparison is not the quality of 
the wine in itself, but the relation of the old and the new. Outside the point 
of comparison, every parable is apt to be at fault. Moreover, ypyordc denotes 
the agreeable delicious taste. Comp. Plut. Mor. p. 240 D, 1073 A. The new 
has, as it were, no taste if the old has been found agreeable. [See Note 
LVI., p. 325.] But trony is as little to be found in ver. 89 as in ver. 87 f., 
and the gentle exculpatory character of the discourse, ver. 39 (which must 
in no wise be taken to mean full approval, in opposition to Hilgenfeld in the 
Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 215), is perfectly explained from the fact that, accord- 
ing to Matt. ix. 14, it is to be supposed that this conversation about fasting 
did not originally take place with the Pharisees, but with the disciples of 
John. See on Matthew. Comp. also Volkmar, Heang. Marcions, p. 219 ff. 
If in the two parables it were desired to abide by the general thought of un- 
suitableness (as it would be unsuitable to pour new wine into old skins, 
and after old wine immediately to drink new ; so also it would be unsuit- 
able if my disciples desired to bind themselves to the old institutions), 
the figure of ver. 89 would be very much out of harmony with the appro- 
priate figure in ver. 38, and the unsuitable matter would at ver. 39 be rep. 
resented in direct contradiction to fact (in opposition to de Wette) ; apart 
from this, moreover, that @é2ec (not mivec) applies the saying subjectively. 
According to Kuinoel and Bleck, Jesus spoke the words in ver. 39 at an- 
other time. But it is in keeping with the conncction, and is certainly 
taken from the Logia. 


Nores py AMERICAN Eprror. 


L. Vv. 1-11. The miraculous Draught of Fishes. 


It is unlikely that Luke’s source of information confuses the call of the 
fishermen with the later event recorded in John xxi. ‘Is it not much more 
simple to admit that, when Jesus desired to restore Peter to his apostleship 


in the parallel passages, glthough Lach- purely critical hesitation, was doubtfal 
mann also (Pra¢ef. p. xxxvi.), but from about the genuineness of the verse. 


324 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


. after the denial, He began by placing him in a situation similar to that in 
which he was when first called, in the presence of another miraculous draught 
of fishes? and that it was by awakening in him the fresh impressions of earlier 
days that He restored to him his ministry ?” (Godet, Lwce, p. 166, Am. ed.) The 
many vivid details, directly connected as they are with the main fact, discredit 
all theories which deny the accuracy of Luke in associating the miracle with the 
call of the fishermen. That Mark omits the event does not prove that it did 
not happen to Peter as Luke states ; for Mark’s narrative shows the reticence 
of Peter in regard to matters wherein he was specially prominent. Nor does 
ver, 8 involve Luke in ‘‘self-contradiction ;” for Peter's doubt might express 
itself after he had seen many a miracle wrought by Jesus. Moreover, the same 
argument would discredit either John’s account respecting the previous ac- 
quaintance with Jesus, or that of the Synoptists, who do not anywhere indicate 
such intercourse of the fishermen with Jesus in Judwa. That Luke’s sources 
of information gave him many accurate details omitted by Matthew and Mark, 
is self-evident. It may, however, be added, that Mark i. 29, 30 implies the pre- 
vious call of the fishermen, and hence that vv. 1-11 of this chapter find their 
proper chronological position before chap. iv. 32. Such a transposition can 
readily be admitted ; but to accept Meyer's theory is really to deny that Luke 
had any competence as a historian. 


LI. Ver. 2. érAvvor. 


The imperfect is well attested (see critical notes) and is more suitable, but 
perhaps to be suspected on that account. 


LIT. Ver. 10. "IéxwBov nai "Iwdvyyy. 


The mention of these names shows that Luke refers to the call of the four 
fishermen ; but Weiss ed. Mey. thinks the Evangelist added this notice to 
‘‘the original narrative.’’ It is difficult to prove how much constituted ‘‘ the 
original narrative,” and an ingenuity of criticism to take such a notice as a 
proof of manipulation. It is rather a strong incidental evidence of trathful- 
ness. 

LOI. Vv. 12-14. The Healing of the Leper. 


The leper’s state of mind, as indicated by the narratives of both Matthew and 
Luke, point to the earlier date. The position assigned the event by Mat- 
thew can readily be accounted for by his preference for the topical arrangement. 


LIV. Ver, 17. ei¢ 7d tdoGaz avréy. 


The R. V. text accepts the above reading, but renders ‘‘to heal,’’ explaining 
fn the margin : Greek, that he should heal. Yet, in view of the evidence for 
avrobts (A C D, etc., with most versions), another margin is added : Many ancient 
authorities read, that He should heal them. These renderings accord with Mey- 
er’s view of the grammatical construction of the two readings respectively. 


LY. Ver. 36. ovioas. 


Meyer, against the weightiest authorities, rejects this word (see critical note). 
It is another variation from the parallel passages, and another incidental proof 


NOTES. 325 


of the independence of this Evangelist. So, too, rd ériBAnua, which Meyer 
also rejects, against preponderant evidence (see critical note), is not found in 
Matthew and Mark in the same connection. The three Synoptists, in fact, 
present so many verbal variations in their accounts of this saying of our Lord, 
as to afford the strongest internal evidence against the theories of dependence on 
each other or on an earlier written source. 


LVI. Ver. 39. ypyordc. 


This seems to be the original reading (see critical note), and might readily be 
altered by the copyists. ‘‘'‘The one accustomed to the old wine says: ‘The old 
is pleasant, good enough for me ; I have no desire to try the new.’ This is pre- 
cisely the attitude of a false conservatism” (Int. Rev. Commentary, Luke, p. 85). 
Weiss ed. Mey. refers vv. 36-38, not to the disciples of Jesus, but to those of 
John ; since otherwise ver. 39 would not be suitable in this connection. Any 
use of the passage to maintain the intrinsic excellence of what is old because 
it is old, is simply preposterous. 


326 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER VI. 


Ver. 1. devreporpary] is wanting in BL ® and seven min. Syr. Arr. Perss. 
Copt. Aeth. codd. of It. Condemned by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. and 
Tisch. Sy-op*- [Retained by Tisch. VIII., but omitted by Treg. text, W. and 
Hort text, Weiss, R. V. text.] See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 2. airoic] 
bracketed by Lachm., is, with Tisch., to be struck out, as it is wanting in 
B C*¥L X &, min. Copt. Verc. Colb., while D, Cant. read airg: ide. An addition 
in accordance with the parallels. Of zozeiv év, the év alone is to be deleted, with 
Tisch., on decisive evidence, but not, with Lachm., the zoeiy also. — Ver. 3. 
érére] Lachm. has 67e, in accordance, indeed, with BC D L X A 8, min. [so 
Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] ; but taken from the parallels, from which, moreover, 
the omission of dvre¢ (Lachm. [W. and Hort, Weiss, with ® B D L, 1, 33, 69, 
Copt. ]) is to be explained, as well asin ver. 4 the reading rac (Lachm., following 
L RX &8**, min.). — Ver. 4. The omission of o¢ (B D, Cant. Marcion) is to be 
regarded as a transcriber’s error (occasioned by the subsequent EI). If nothing 
had originally been found there, only 7réc, not dc would have been added. — 
EAaj3e xai] Lachm. has Aafdér, following B C* L X 33, Syr. Copt. Theophyl. [So 
recent editors, R. V.] The Recepiais to be maintained. The words were left out, — 
an omission occasioned the more easily by the similar é¢aye xai which follows, as 
the parallels have not 2/afe xai. The omission occurs, moreover, in D K 8, 
min. vss. Ir, Then 2a/cv was introduced as a restoration in better syntactical 
form. — xa? roic] B L. 1, 112, Syr. Arr. Pers. Arm. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. Ir. 
Ambr. have merely roic¢. [So Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss (not Tisch.).] In view 
of these important authorities xai must be traced to Mark ii. 26 (where the evi- 
dence against it is weaker), and should be deleted. —[Ver. 5. W. and Hort, 
R. V., with ® B, omit xai before r. caf.]— Ver. 6. dé xai] Lachm. has dé, in ac- 
cordance with B L X ¥&, min. vss. Cyr. But why should «ai have been added? 
Rather the possibility of dispensing with it alongside of érép» gave rise to its 
omission. [Tisch., recent editors, omit xai; so R. V.]— Ver. 7. With Lachm. 
and Tisch. read raperypovvro (approved also by Griesb.), in accordance with pre- 
ponderating evidence. See on Mark iii. 2. — After dé Elz. has avréy on weighty 
evidence [so W. and Hort., R. V., following & B D L, etc.], indeed, but it is an 
addition. Comp. xiv. 1; Mark iii. 2. — 6eparetce:] Lachm, and Tisch. have 
Geparcier ; the future is taken from Mark. — xar7zyopiavy] B 8 X &, min, and vss. 
have xaryyopeiv. So Tisch. D also vouches for the infinitive by reading xary- 
yopyoaz, the infinitive being explained in the later reading by the use of the sub- 
stantive.—Ver. 8. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read elzev dé, following ® B L and 
min. ]— arApdozy] BL &, min. Cyr. have avdpi. Approved by Griesb., adopted 
by Tisch. Rightly ; r@ avdpi was omitted by reason of the following r@ (so still 
D, Cant.), and then r@ ar-pory was inserted, in accordance with ver. 6 and 
Mark iii. 3, instead of r@ avdp/. — 6 dé] Lachm. and Tisch, have xai, following 
‘BDLX ¥, 1, 33, Valg. It. Copt. Cyr. The former suggested itself more read- 
ily to the transcribers, Comp. ver. 10,— Ver. 9. oiv] Lachm, and Tisch. 


CHAP. VI. 327 


have éé, following BDL ¥, min. Vulg. It. Goth. [So recent editors, R. V.] 
Not to be decided ; ov», it is true, is not frequently employed in the Gospel of 
Luke for continuing the narrative, and the reading wavers mostly between oiv 
and dé; yet it is established in iii. 7, xix. 12, xxii. 36. — erepwriow] Tisch. has 
érepurd, following BL &, 157, Copt. Vulg. Brix. For. Rd. The Recepia has re- 
sulted from a reminiscence of xx. 3; Mark xi. 29. The present is extremely 
appropriate to the vivacity of the whole action. — 7 or ri] Lachm. and Tisch. 
have ¢i, following B DL &, 157, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Aug. In view of these im- 
portant authorities, and because « fits in with the reading évepwra, which, 
according to the evidence, is to be approved (see above), ei is to be preferred. — 
arodécat] also retained by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L X &, vss. even 
Vulg. It. Griesb. and Scholz have azoxreiva:, which is introduced from Mark 
iii, 4, whence also comes roic od;33acrv, instead of which Lachm. and Tisch. 
have adopted 7 oaf3ary, following BDL X&, Cant. Rd. Colb. Corb. For. Aug. 
— Ver. 10. Instead of airo Elz. has r¢ avOpo7y, in opposition to preponderating 
evidence. — After évoigoev (instead of which D X 8, min, and most of the vss. 
read ééérecvev, which is from Matt. xii. 13 ; Mark iii. 5) Elz. Scholz, Lachm. 
have oirwe, which is wanting in important but still not preponderating [?] author- 
ities, and is deleted by Griesb., but defended by Schulz, in accordance with ix. 
15, xii. 43. It is to be adopted. The possibility of dispensing with it and the 
ancient gloss ¢gérecvev occasioned the dropping out of the word. [But it is re- 
jected by Tisch., recent editors, R. V., since it is not found in any of the oldest 
uss, ] — After avrov Elz. has vy:i¢, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from 
Matt. xii. 13. Moreover, we 7) d2A7 (condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., 
deleted by Tisch.), which is wanting in B L 8, min. Copt. Vulg. Sax. Vere. For. 
Corb. Rd., is from Matthew. — [The oldest authorities have zo:jcaev, accepted 
by Tisch., recent editors.]— Ver. 12. &57/Hev] Lachm. and Tisch. have éfeAGeiv 
avréyv ; which, in accordance with the preponderance of the mss., is to be pre- 
ferred. —- Vv. 14-16. Before 'Iaxwf3., before diAiw7., before Maré., before ’Idéxu3., 
and before 'Iotd. 'Iax., is to be inserted «ai, on external evidence (Tisch.), — 
Ver. 16. 8¢ xai] Lachm. and Tisch. have only éc, following BL &, min. vss. even 
Vulg. It. Marcion. Rightly ; «ai is from the parallels. — [Ver, 17 ; Tisch., W. 
and Hort, Weiss, R. V., insert zoAic after é6x/0¢, following ® B L.]— Ver. 18. 
oxAoiu.|] Tisch, has évox2., following very important mss. The compound form 
was overlooked. — Instead of a7 6 Elz. has t 76, in opposition to decisive evi- 
dence. An alteration arising from misunderstanding, because azé zy. axa. was 
believed to be dependent upon the participle (comp. Acts v. 16), which error, 
moreover, gave rise to the xai before é@epaz. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly 
deleted this xa, in accordance with preponderating evidence. — [Ver. 19. Tisch., 
recent editors, follow & B L, etc., and read ¢f7rovv.]— Ver. 23. Instead of 
xapyre Elz. has yalpere, in opposition to decisive evidence. —raira or raid] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have ra atrdé, following B D Q X =, min. Marcion. The Re- 
cepta is a transcriber’s error. The same reading is to be adopted in ver. 26 on 
nearly the same evidence ; so also in xvii. 30. —- Ver. 25. twiv before oi ye. 
(suspected also by Griesb.) is, in accordance with B K LS X = X&, min. Or. Ir., 
with Tisch., to be struck out. An addition to conform with what- precedes. 
Elz. has tiv also before érav, ver. 26, in opposition to decisive evidence. But 
viv is, with Tisch., following very important evidence, to be inserted after ép- 
eva, — Ver. 26. of dvip.] Elz, Lachm. Tisch. have zévre¢ oi vip. The prepon- 


328 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


derance of evidence is in favor of rdvrec, and it is to be maintained in opposition 
to Griesb. The omission was occasioned by the apparently inappropriate 
relation to oi marfpec avrav. — Ver. 28. tuiv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm, Tisch. have 
tuac. [So recent editors.] There are weighty authorities on both sides, although 
the evidence is stronger for tuac ; but iuiv is the more unusual, and is attested 
even so early as by Justin (?) and Origen ; izac is from Matt. v. 44. — Before 
mpoceiy. Elz. has «ai, in opposition to decisive evidence. —[Ver. 30. Tisch., 
recent editors, R. V., omit d? 7, following 8 B, etc. The words were probably 
inserted from Matthew. ]— Ver. 34. The reading daveifere, although approved 
by Griesb., is a transcriber’s error. Comp. on Rom. xiv. 8. Lachm, has da- 
veloyre (Tisch. : davionre), following only B = &, 157. [Recent editors agree with 
Tisch. ] — Before duaprwAoi Elz. has oi, in opposition to decisive evidence. — On 
evidence as decisive rov (in Elz.) before iy., ver. 35, is condemned. But pydéiva 
(Tisch.) instead of pu7dév is too weakly attested by = &, Syr.*', especially as it 
night easily result from a transcriber’s error. [Treg., W. and Hort text, Weiss, 
R. V. text, retain pydév.] — Ver. 36. otv] is wanting in BD LE ®&, min. vss. 
and Fathers. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A con- 
nective particle, although not directly taken from Matt. v. 48. [Tisch., W. 
and Hort, Weiss, R. V., following ®& BL, etc., omit xai after xaféc, and in 
ver. 37 insert it before x7) xarad., in ver. 38 omit it before both ceoad. and trepex., 
in ver. 28 read o yap “étpy.] — Ver. 39. dé] Lachm. and Tisch. have dé xai, fol- 
lowing preponderating evidence ; the «ai, which might be dispensed with, was 
passed over. — recovvra:] Lachm. and Tisch. have éurecovvrar. The Recepia is 
from Matt. xv. 14. —[Ver. 40. Recent editors omit av7ci in the first clause. ] — 
Ver. 43. ovdé] BL = &, min. Copt. Arm. Vere. Germ. add rdéA, which Lachm. 
has in brackets. With Tisch. to be adopted; the omission of the word that 
might be dispensed with resulted from Matt. vii. 18. — Ver. 45. Read the sec- 
ond half of the verse : x. 6 movypd¢ &x Tow Tovnpod mpopéper rd Tovnpév (Tisch.). In 
view of BD L &, min. vss. the dvfipwro¢ and @ycavpod ri¢ xapdiag atvtod of the 
Recepia (both condemned by Griesb., and bracketed by Lachm.) are to be re- 
garded as supplementary additions, as also in the next clause rov and r7¢ (deleted 
by Lachm. and Tisch.). — Ver. 48. refleuer. yap éxi ry réitpav] Tisch. has dca rd 
nadac oixodopeicbar [otxodoujota: in Tisch. VIII.] atr#y, following BL = &, 33, 157, 
Syr.P (in the margin), Copt. The Recepia is a gloss from Matt. vii, 25. — Ver. 49. 
éxece] cuvézece, Which Griesb. has recommended and Tisch. has adopted, is so 
strongly attested by BD LR E X, that érece is to be referred to Matthew. 


Vv. 1-5. See on Matt. xii. 1-8 ; Mark ii. 23-28, whom Luke, with some 
omission, however, follows (see especially ver. 5). Between the foregoing 
and the present narrative Matthew interposes a series of other incidents, — éy 
oaBf. devreporpoty] all explanations are destitute of proof, because devrepé- 
mpwrocg never occurs elsewhere. According to the analogy of devrepoyduor, 
devrepoBddoc, devreporéxoc, etc., it might be: a Sabbath which for the second 
time is the first. Comp. devrepodexarn, the second tenth, in Jerome, ad Hz. 
45. According to the analogy of devreptayaroc, penultimus, Heliodorus in 
Soran. Chirurg. vet. p. 94, it might—since from éoyaroc the reckoning must 
be backwards, while from zpéroc it must be forwards, in order to get a 
debrepoc—be the second first, i.e., the second of two firsts. All accurate gram- 
matical information is wanting. As, howevcr, if, any definite Sabbaths at 





CHAP. VI., 1-5. 329 
all had borne the name of o48Barov devrepérpwrov (and this must be assumed, 
as Luke took for granted that the expression was 8 familiar one), this name 
would doubtless occur elsewhere (in the Old Testament, in the LXX., in 
Philo, Josephus, in the Talmud, etc.) ; but this is not the case, as the whole 
Greek literature has not even one instance of the peculiar word in itsel/ to 
show ;' as among the Synoptics it was precisely Luke that could least of 
all impute to his reader a knowledge of the name; and as, finally, very 
ancient and important authorities have not got devreporpéry at all in the pas- 
sage before us (see the critical remarks), just as even so early an authority 
as Syr?. remarks in the margin: ‘‘ non est in omni exemplari,”—I regard 
devreporpéry as not being genuine, although, moreover, the suspicien suggests 
itself that it was omitted ‘‘ignoratione rei,” ‘‘ from ignorance of the matter” 
(Bengel, Appar. Crit.), and because the parallel places have nothing simi- 
lar to it. In consideration of év érépw oaBf., ver. 6, probably the note 
cpézy wus written at the side, but a comparison with iv. 31 occasioned the 
corrective note devrépy to be addcd, which found its way into the text, 
partly without (so still Ar’. and Ar*.), partly with mpdérp (thus devrépp 
cpaty, so still RT, min.), so that in the next place, seeing that the two 
words in juxtaposition were meaningless, the one word devreporpéry was 
coined. Wilke also and Hofmann, according to Lichtenstein ; and Lichten- 
stcin himself, as well as Bleek and Holtzmann (comp. Schulz on Griesbach), 
reject the word ; Hilgenfeld regards it as not being altogether certain.” Of 
the several attempts at explanation, I note historically only the following : 
(1) Chrysostom, Hom. 40 in Matth.: brav dimaq 4 apyia 9 Kai rov caBBarov tov 
xvpiov Kal érépacg éoptijg dtadexoufvnc, ‘* whenever the rest from labor was 
double, both on the Sabbath of the Lord and on another succeeding feast- 
day,” so that thus is understood a@ feast-day immediately following the Sabbath.* 
(2) Theophylact understands a Sabbath, the day before which (rapacxevh) had 
been a feast-day.‘ (3) Isidore of Pclusium, Zp. iii. 110 (comp. Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Calvin, Surenhusius, Wolf), thinks that the rpéry rév alipyer is 
meant, and was called devrepomparn : éretd) debrepov pév iw rob wéoyxa. Tparov 
82 Trav asipwn’ tartpag yap Obovres 7d wéoxa rH EERE TV TOV Aliyev Exavyytpiloy 
opti, fv wat devrepérpurtov éxddovy, ‘since it was the second of the Passover, 
but the first of unleavened bread ; for sacrificing the Passover in the even- 
ing they celebrated on the next day the feast of unleavened bread, which 
was also called ‘second-first,’’’ —that every festival was called a Sabbath. 
Comp. Saalschiitz : ‘‘ the second day of the first feast (Passover).” (4) Most 


1In Eustathius in Vita Eutych. n. 9, the 
Sunday after Easter is called 8cvreporpwry 
avpcaxy: but this epithet manifestly origi- 
nated from the passage before us. 

3 Tischendorf had deleted it In his edition 
of 1849, but in ed. 7 (1859) [also In ed. 8 
(1869)] had restored and defended it; now 
[1867] (in the Synops. ed. 2) he has, with 
Lachmann, bracketed it. 

* Comp. Epiphanius, Haer. 30,81. So also 
Beza, Paulus, and Olshausen. 


4 Comp. Luther's obscure gloss: ‘the 
second day after the high Sabbath.” 
Schegg explains the expression even asa 
Chrtatian designation, namely, of the Saé- 
urday after Good Friday. In opposition to 
Serno (Taq des letzt. Pacsahmahls, 1859, 
p. 48 ff.), who, according to his mistaken 
supposition of the doubling of the first and 
last feast-days, brings out tho sixteenth Nt- 
ean, eee Wieseler in Reuter's Repert. 1860, 
p. 188. 








330 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


prevalent has become the view of Scaliger (Zmend. tempor. VI. p. 557) and 
Petavius, that it is the jiret Sabbath aster the second day of the Passover. 
Comp. already Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 31. From the second Easter day (on 
which the first ripe ears of corn were offered on the altar, Lev. xxiii. 10 ff. ; 
Lightfoot, p. 340) were numbered seven Sabbaths down to Pentecost, Lev. 
Xxilil. 15.2? (5) According to the same reckoning, distinguishing the three 
first Sabbaths of the season between Easter and Pentecost from the rest, 
Redslob in the Intell. Bl. der allgem. Lit. Zeit., Dec. 1847, p. 570 f., says 
that it was the second Subbath after the second Easter day, devrepétpwro¢g being 
equivalent to defrepog rév tpdtuv, therefore about fourteen days after Easter. 
Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. XI. p. 254: that it was the second of the two first 
Sabbaths of the Passover month. (6) Von Til and Wetstein: that it 
was the first Sabbath of the second month (Igar). So also Storr and others. 
(7) Credner, Beitr. I. p. 357, concludes that according to the xypiyya 
rov Ilérpou (in Clem. Strom. vi. 5, p. 760, Pott) the Sabbath at the 
full moon was called zpdrov (a mistaken explanation of the words, see 
Wieseler, p. 232 f.), and hence that a Sabbath at the new moon was to be un- 
derstood. (8) Hitzig, Ostern und Pfingst. p. 19 ff. (agreeing with Theophy- 
lact as to the idea conveyed by the word), conceives that it was the fifteenth 
Nisan, which, according to Lev. xxiii. 11, had been called a Sabbath, and 
was named Jevrepérp., because (but sec, on the other hand, Wieseler, 
p. 353 ff.) the fourteenth Nisan always fellonaSaturday. (9) Wieseler, J.c. 
p. 231 ff.2 thinks that it was the second-first Sabbath of the year in a cy¢le 
of seven years, 7.¢., the first Sabbath of the second year in a week of years, Al- 
ready L. Capellus, Rhenferd, and Lampe (ad Joh. II. p. 5) understood it to 
be the first month in the year (Nisan), but explained the name from the 
fact that the year had two first Sabbaths, namely, in Tisri, when the civil 
year began, and in Nisan, when the ecclesiastical year began. (10) Ebrard, 
p. 414 f., following Krafft (Chron. und Harm. d. vier Evang. p. 18 f.), 
regards it as the weekly Sabbath that occurs between the first and last Easter 
days (feast-Sabbaths). For yet other interpretations (Grotius and Valcke- 
naer : that the Sabbath before Easter was called the first great one zpu7é- 
mpurtov, the Sabbath before Pentecost the second great one devrepérpwrov, the 
Sabbath before the feast of Tabernacles rpirézpurov*), see in Calovius, Bibl. 
fll., and Liibkert, J.c. 


1 The explanation of Scaliger is followed 
by Casaubon, Drusius, Lightfoot, Schoett- 
gen, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, and 
many more; and is defended, especially 
against Paulus, by Lfibkert in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1835, p. 671 ff. Opposed to Scaliger 
are Wieseler, Synopse, p. 280; Saalschiitz, 
Mor. FR. p. 394 f.; and aptly Grotius in loc. 
Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 813, tries to improve 
the explanation of Scaliger by assuming 
that preceding the cycle between Easter 
and Pentecost there is a shorter cycle from 
1 Nisan to Easter; that the first Sabbath 
of this first cycle is therefore the first-first, 
while the first Sabbath of that second cycle 


(from Easter tq Pentecost) is the second-first. 
{See Note LVII., p. 340.] 

2Comp. also Winer, Realwérterd. IT. 
p. 348 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 72, and Gesch. 
Chr. p. 804. 

* Tischendorf, Synopse, ed. 2, now op- 
poses the explanation of Wieseler, with 
which in ed. 1 he agreed. 

4V. Gumpach also (wd. d. altjiid. Kalend., 
Briissel 1848) understands a Sabbath of the 
second rank. Very peculiarly Weizsicker, 
p. 59, says: ‘“‘that Luke iv. 16, 31 recounts 
two Sabbath narratives, and now vi. 1, 6 
recounts other two,” and that the Sabbath 
in the passage before us is therefore the 





CHAP. VI., 6-49. 331 

Vv. 1-5. [See Note LVIII., p. 340.] — rove ord yvac] the ears of corn that 
offered themselves on the way. — jothov Woyovrec x.7.A.] they ate (the con- 
tents), rubbing them out. The two things happened at the same time, so 
that they continually conveyed to their mouths the grains set free by this 
rubbing. — Ver. 8. ovd2 rovro] have you never 80 much as read this? ete. — 
érére] quandoguidem, since.’ — Ver. 4. é&eor:] with an accusative and infini- 
tive, occurring only here in the New Testament, frequently in the classical 
writers, Plat. Polit. p. 290 D ; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, iii. 12. 8, and elsewhere ; 
also after a preceding dative (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 57, ed. 2). — Ver. 5. 
&Jeyev atr.] as Mark, but without the auxiliary thought found in Mark 
which introduces the conclusion. 


Remark. — In D, which does not read ver. 6 till after ver. 10, the following 
passage occurs after ver. 4: 17 aiT7 huépg Geacdpevdc Tiva Epyaléuevov tw oaf33aT® 
elrev avty’ GvOpwre, et pev oldacg Ti moreic, waxdprocg el- et d2 ui) oldac, Exixatdpatog 
kai wapaBarne el tov véuov, **On the same day seeing one working on the Sab- 
bath, He said to him : Man, if thou knowest what thou doest,thou art blessed ; 
but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed and a transgressor of the law.” In 
substance it certainly bears the stamp of genius, and is sufficiently liberal-mind- 
ed to admit of its being original, even although it is not genuine. I regard it as 
an interpolated fragment of a true tradition. ) 


Vv. 6-11. See on Matt. xii. 9-14; Mark iii. 1-6, in comparison with 
which Luke’s narrative is somewhat weakened (sec especially vv. 10, 11).— 
d2 xai] for that which now follows also took place on a Sabbath. [But see 
critical note.]—év érépy oc83.] inexact, and varying from Matthew. 
Whether this Sabbath was actually the next following (which Lange finds 
even in Matthew) is an open question. [See Note LIX., p. 340.]— Ver. 9. 
According to the reading érepwré ipvas, et (see the critical remarks) : J ask 
you whether. With the Recepta, the mss. according to the accentuation rz or 
ri favor one or other of the two different views : I will ask you something, ia 
at lawful, etc. ? or: Twill ask you, what is lawful? The future would be in 
favor of the former. Comp. Matt. xxi. 24. — Ver. 11. dvoiac] want of un- 
derstanding, dementia (Vulg. : insipientia).* As to the Holic optative form 
roajceav (comp. Acts xvii. 27), sce Winer, p. 71 [E. T. 76]. Ellendt, ad Ar- 
rian. Alex. I. p. 853. Lachmann and Tischendorf have rocgoaev (a correc- 
tion). [But see critical note. ] 

Vv. 12-49. Luke inserts at this point the choice of the Twelve, and then 
a shorter and less original (see also Weiss in the Jahrd. f. d. Th. 1864, 


Ara of this second series of narratives, con- 
sequently the second-Arst. But what reader 
would have been able to discover this ref- 
erence, especially as between iv. 81 and vi. 1 
so many other narratives intervened? Weiz- 
sicker, moreover, pertinently observes, in 
opposition to every hypothesis of an expla- 
nation {n accordance with the calculation 
of the divine services, that our Gospel 
stands much too remote from things of this 
kind. 


1 Plato, Legg. x. p. 80 B; Euthyd. 
p. 297 D; Xen. Anaé. ill. 2.2; not elsewhere 
in the New Testament. Comp. Hermann, 
ad Soph. O. C. 1696. 

22 Tim. ifi.9; Wisd. xix. 8, xv. 18; Prov. 
xxil. 13; Herod. vi. 69; Plat. Gorg. p. 514 E, 
and elsewhere. Also Thucyd. ili. 48. Usu- 
ally : madness. Comp. Plat. 7ém. p. 86 B: 
8vo .. . avoias yévn, TO wey waviay, Td Se aua- 
diary, 


332 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

p. 52 ff.) edition of the Sermon on the Mount.’ According to Matthew, the 
choice of the Twelve had not yet occurred before the Sermon on the Mount ; 
nevertheless it is implicd in Matthew, not, indeed, sooner than at x. 1, but 
after the call of Matthew himself. Luke in substance follows Mark in what 
concerns the choice of the apostles. But he here assigns to the Sermon on 
the Mount—which Mark has not got at all—a position different from that in 
Matthew, following a tradition which attached itself to the locality of the 
choice of the apostles (rd dpo¢) as readily as to the description and the con- 
tents of the sermon. (See Note LX., p. 340 seq.] See, moreover, Commen- 
tary on Matthew. According to Baur, indeed, Luke purposely took from 
the discourse its place of distinction, and sought in the Pauline interest 
to weaken it as much as possible. 

Vv. 12, 18. Comp. Mark iii. 18-15. — rd dpoc] as Matt. v. 1. — mpocettacbas 
x.T.A.] comp. on v. 16. — év r9 rpocet yp Tov Oeov] in prayer to God. Genitive 
of the object (see Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 185 f.]). — rove pabyrac airot] in the 
wider sense. Comp. ver. 17. — nal éxAefdy. x.7.A.] The connection is.: ‘‘ And 
after He had chosen for Himself from them twelve . . . and (ver. 17) had 
come down with them, He took up His position on a plain, and (scil. éorn, 
there stood there) a crowd of His disciples, and-.a great multitude of people 
. . - who had come to hear Him and to be healed ; and they that were tor- 
mented were healed of unclean spirits: and all the people sought,” etc. 
The discovery of Schleiermacher, that éxAe&éu. denotes not the actual choice, 
but only a bringing them together, was a mistaken idea which the word itself 
ought to have guarded against. Comp. Acts i. 2. — ob¢ xai am. Gvdu.] An 
action concurring towards the choice, and therefore, according to Luke, con- 
temporaneous (in opposition to Schleiermacher). Comp. Mark iii. 14, which 
is the source of this certainly anticipatory statement. [But see Note LX., 
p. 340 seq. } 

Vv. 14-16. Comp. on Matt. x. 2-4; Mark ili. 16-19. — (yAwr7v] Comp. 
Acts i. 18. See on Matt. x. 4. — 'Iotday 'IaxéBov] Usually (including even 
Ebrard and Lange) : Judas the drother of James, and therefore the son of 
Alphaeus ; but without any foundation in exegesis. At least Jude 1 might 
be appealed to, where both Jude and James are natural brothers of the Lord. 
In opposition to supplying adcAgé¢, however, we have to point out in general, 
that to justify the supplying of the word a special reference must have pre- 
ceded (as Alciphr. Zp. ii. 2), otherwise we must abide by the usual vide, as 
at ver. 15 ; further, that Matt. x. 2 mentions the pairs of brothers among 
the apostles most precisely as such, but not among them James and Lebbaeus 


1That Matthew and Luke gave two dis- 
tinct discourses, delivered in immediate 
succession (which Augustine supposed), 
that were related to one another as esoteric 
(given to the disciples exclusively) and 
exoteric (in the ears of the people), is neither 
to be established exegetically, nor is it rec- 
oncilable with the creative power of dis- 
course manifested by Jesus at other times, 
in accordance with which He was certainly 
capable, at least, of extracting from the 


original discourse what would be suitable 
for the people (in opposition to Lange, Z. J. 
TI, 2, p. 566 ff.). And how much does the 
discourse in Matthew contain which there 
was no reason for Jesus keeping back from 
the people in Luke's supposed exoteric dis- 
course! Comp. also Matt. vii. 28, from 
which passage it is clear that Matthew 
neither regarded the discourse as esoterio, 
nor knew anything of ¢zo discourses. 


CHAP. VI., 17-19. - 333 
(who is to be regarded as identical with our Judas; see on Matt. x. 2’). 
Hence (so also Ewald), here and at Acts i. 13, we must read Judas son of 
James, of which James nothing further is known.*— [See Note LXI., 
p. 841.] — xpodérnc] Traitor (2 Macc. v. 15, x. 13, 22 ; 2 Tim. iii. 4); only 
here in the New Testament is Judas thus designated. Matthew has rapa- 
dobc, comp. Mark. Yet comp. Acts vii. 52.— Observe, moreover, that Luke 
here enumerates the four first-named apostles in pairs, as does Matthew ; 
whereas in Actsi. 13 he places first the three most confidential ones, as does Mark. 
We see from this simply that in Acts i. 18 he followed a source containing 
the latter order, by which he held impartially and without any mechanical 
reconciliation with the order of the passage before us. The conclusion is 
much too hasty, which argues that Mark was not before him till Acts i. 18, 
and that when he wrote the Gospel he had not yet become acquainted with 
Mark’s work (Weizsiicker). 

Ver. 17. ’Eri rérov redtvov] according to the connection of Luke (ver. 12, 
eig Td bpog ; ver. 17, xaraBdc), cannot be otherwise understood than: on a 
plain; not: over a plain (Michaclis and Paulus) ; nor: ona small over- 
hanging place of the declivity (Tholuck) ; comp. Lange, who calls the dis- 
course in Matthew the Summit-sermon, and that in Luke the Terrace-sermon. 
[See Note LXII., p. 841.] The divergence from Matt. v. 1 must be admitted, 
and remains still, even if a plateau is supposed on which jutted out a crest 
previously ascended by Jesus (Ebrard ; comp. Grotius, Bengel, and others ; 
a vacillating arbitrariness in Olshausen). Matthcw’s narrative is original ; 
Luke has a later tradition. As the crowd of hearers, according to this later 
tradition, came from greater distances, and were thus represented as more 
numerous, a plain was needed to accommodate them. According to Baur, 
Evang. p. 457, thig divergence from Matthew is due also to the tendency of 
Luke to degrade the Sermon on the Mount, which would surely be a very petty 
sort of levelling. —xal dxAo¢ x.7.A.] scil. torn. [See critical note.] See on 
ver. 13. A similar structure in the narrative, viii. 1-3. 

Vv. 18, 19. ‘Ard wvevu. axaf.] belongs to éepar. Comp. ver. 17, tafyvar 
anxé. The xai before éfepar. is not genuine. Sce the critical remarks. After 
éOepar. Only a colon is to be placed ; the description of the healings is con- 
tinued. — xa? iaro rdvr.] not to be separated from what precedes by a comma, 
but divaycc is the subject. Sce v. 17. — é&fpx.] Comp. viii. 46 : ‘‘ Significa- 
tur non adventitia fuisse efficacia, sed Christo intrinseca éx ric Aiag dtoews,” 
‘the efficacy is indicated to have been, not external to, but intrinsic to 
Christ from the divine nature,” Grotius. 


1 Ewald takes a different view, that even 
during the lifetime of Jesus ‘Iovéas ‘laxcwBov 
had taken the place of the Thaddaeus 
(Lebbaeus), who had probably been cut off 
by death. See his Geech. Chr. p. 823. In 
this way, indeed, the narrative of Luke in 
the passage before us, where the choice of 
the Twelve fs related, would be incorrect. 
That hypothesis would only be capable of 
reconciliation with Acts 1 13. According to 


Schlelermacher also, Z. J. p. 869, the per- 
sons of the apostolic band were not always 
the same, and the different catalogues 
belong to different periods. But when the 
evangelists wrote,the Twelve were too well 
known in Christendom, nay, too world-his- 
torical, to have allowed the enumeration 
of different individual members. 

* Comp. Nonnus, Paraphrase of John xiv. 
QW: ‘lovsa¢ vide “laxwBoro, 


334 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Vv. 20, 21. Kai atréc¢] And He, on His part, as contrasted with this mul- 
titude of people seeking His word and His healing power. Comp. v. 1, 16. 
—el¢ rot¢ pafyr. avrov] in the wider sense, quite as in Matt. v. 2 ; for see vv. 
13,17. As in Matthew, so here also the discourse is delivered first of all for 
the circle of the disciples, but in presence of the people, and, moreover, for 
the people (vii. 1). The lifting up of His eyes on the disciples is the solemn 
opening movement, to which in Matthew corresponds the opening of His 
mouth. — paxdpiot x.7.2.] Luke has only four beatitudes, and omits (just as 
Matthew does in the case of zefotvrec) all indication, not merely that x«2aiov- 
tec, but also that rroyoi and xevarvtec should be taken ethically, so that 
according to Luke Jesus has in view the poor and suffering earthly position 
of His disciples and followers, and promises to them compensation for it in 
the Messiah’s kingdom. The fourfold tee, then, in ver. 24 ff. has to do with 
those who are rich and prosperous on earth (analogous to the teaching in 
the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus) ; comp. i. 58. Certainly Luke 
has the later form of the tradition, which of necessity took its rise in con- 
sequence of the affliction of the persecuted Christians as contrasted with the 
rich, satisfied, laughing, belauded vicic roi aiévoc rofrov ; comp. the analo- 
gous passages in the Epistle of James, ii. 5, v.1 ff., iv. 9. [See Note LXTII., 
p. 841 seq.] This also is especially true of the denunciations of woe, which 
were still unknown to the first evangelist.’ That they were omitted in 
Matthew from motives of forbearance (Schenkel) is an arbitrary assumption, 
quite opposed to the spirit of the apostolic church ; just as much asthe notion 
that the poverty, etc., pronounced blessed in Matthew, should be interpreted 
spiritually. The late date of Luke’s composition, and the greater originality in 
gencral which is to be attributed to the discourse in Matthew, taken as it is from 
the Logia,? which formed the basis in an especial manner of this latter Gospel 
make the reverse view less probable, that* the general expressions, as Luke 
has them, became more specific at a later date, as may be seen in Matthew, 
by reason of possible and partly of actually occurring misunderstanding. 
Moreover, the difference in itself is not to be got rid of (Tholuck says that the 
outer misery awakens the inner ; Olshausen, that +r. rvebuat: must in Luke 
be supplied /) ; probably, however, it is to be conceded that Jesus assumes 
as existing the ethical condition of the promise in the case of His afflicted 
people (according to Luke’s representation) as in His believing and future 
members of the kingdom ; hence the variation is no contradiction. {See Note 
LXIII., p. 341 seq.] The £vionitic spirit is foreign to the Pauline Luke (in © 
opposition to Strauss, I. p. 603 f.; Schwegler, and others). — iperépa] 





1 Comp. Weiss in the Jahrv. f. d. Theol. 
1864, p. 58 f. (in opposition to Holtzmann). 

2¥For the Zogia, not a primitive Mark 
(Holtzmann), was the original source of the 
discourse. The form of it given by Luke is 
derived by Weizsiicker, p. 148, from the 
collection of discourses of the great inter- 
calation (see on ix. 51), from which the 
evangelist transplanted it into the earlier 
period of the foundation of the church. 


But for the hypothesis of such a disruption 
of the great whole of the source of thisin- . 
tercalation, ix. 51 ff., there is no trace of 
proof elsewhere. Moreover, Weizsiicker 
aptly shows the secondary character of 
this discourse in Luke, both in itself and in 
comparison with Matthew. 

So also Ewald, p. 211; comp. Wittichen ~ 
in the Jahrd. f. d. Theol. 1862, p. 328. 


CHAP. VI., 22—25. 335 


‘¢ Applicatio solatii individualis ; congruit attollens, nam radii oculorum in- 
digitant,” ‘‘ The application of the comfort is individual; ‘lifting up’ agrees 
with this, for the glances of His eyes are indicated,” Bengel.— yopraof. and 
yeAdo.] corresponding representations of the Messianic blessedness. 

Ver. 22. Comp. Matt. v. 11 f. —agopioworv] from the congregation of the 
synagogue and the intercourse of common life. This is the excommuni- 
cation “17) (Buxtorf, Zev. Talm. 8.o.). Comp. John ix. 22. But that at 
that time there were already beside this simple excommunication one (OW) 
or two (ON and nov) still higher degrees (see, in general, Grotius on 
this passage ; Winer, Realw.) is improbable (Gildemeister, Blendwerke d. 
tulgar. Ration. p. 10 ff.), and, moreover, is not to be inferred from what 
follows, whercin is depicted the hostility which is associated with the ex- 
communication. —xai éxPdawor tr. bv. tu. O¢ wovnp.] ExBaAdAev is just the 
German weguerfen, in the sense of contemptuous rejection ;* but rd dvoua is not 
auctoritas (Kypke), nora designation of the character or the faith (de Wette), 
nor the name of Christian (Ewald) [Weiss ed. Mey. ]. which idea (comp. Matt. 
x. 42; Mark ix. 41) occurs in this place for the first time by means of the follow- 
ing évexa tov vlov +. dvOp.; but the actual personal name, which designates the 
individual in question. Hénce : when they shall have rejected your name (e.g. 
John, Peter, etc.) as evil, i.e., as being of evil meaning, because it repre- 
sents an evil man in your person,—on account of the Son of man,— ye know 
yourselves as His disciples. The singular dvoua is distributice.* Others in- 
terpret wrongly : When they shall have exiled you (Kuinoel), to express 
which would have required invac d¢ rovypots ; or : when they shall have 
struck out your names from the register of names (Beza and others quoted by 
Wolf, Michaclis also), which even in form would amount to an unusual 
tautology with ddopic.; or : when they shall have spread your name abroad 
as evil (defamed you) (Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Schegg), which is un- 
grammatical, and not to be established by Deut. xxii. 19 ; or : when they 
declare it as evil (Bleek), which, nevertheless, would be very different from 
the classical ér7 éxdAAewv, to cast up words, verba proferre (Hom. Il. vi. 324 ; 
Pind. Pyth. ii. 148); and, withal, how feeble and inexpressive ! 

Ver. 28. 'Ev éxeivy r. juép.] in which they shall have thus dealt with you. 
oxipthoare : leap for joy. — Moreover, sce on Matt. v. 12 ; and as to the re- 
peated yd, the second of which is explanatory, on Matt. vi. 32, xviil. 11 ; 
Rom. viii. 6. 

Vv. 24, 25. The woes of the later tradition closely corresponding to the 
beatitudes. Comp. on ver. 20. [See Note LXIV., p. 342.]— Amv] on the 
other hand, verumtamen, so that 4224 also might be used as at ver. 35, xi. 41, 
and elsewhere. See Klotz, ad Decar. p. 725. — ituiv] Conceive Jesus here 
extending His glance beyond the disciples (ver. 20) to a wider circle. — 
aréyere| see on Matt. vi. 2. — ray rapd«A. tay] instead of receiving the con- 
solation which you would receive by possession of the Messiah’s kingdom 


1Plato, Pol. il. p. 877 C, Crié. p. 46 B; 2Comp. Ael. 7. A. 5.4; Polyb. xvill. 28. 
Soph. O. C. 687, 642; -Lel. H. .f. xi. 10; 4; Kriiger, § 44.1.7; Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 
Kypke, I. p. 238. 174]. 


336 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


(comp. ii. 25), if you belonged to the rrwyol, you have by anticipation what is 
accounted to you instead of that consolation | Comp. the history of therich 
man, ch. xvi. Here the Messianic retributice punishment is described nega- 
tively, and by recvdcere, tev, x. kAabe., positively. — turetAnopévor] ye now are 
Jilled up, satisfied, Herod. i. 112. Comp. on Col. ii. 28. For the contrast, 
Luke i. 58. On the nominative, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 123 [E. T. 141]. 

Ver. 26. This woe also, like the previous ones, and opposed to the fourth 
beatitude, ver. 22, must refer to the unbelievers, not to the disciples (so 
usually, see Kuinoel and de Wette), when perchance these latter should fall 
away, and thereby gather praise of men. This is not justified by the refer- 
ence to the false prophets of earlier times, which rather shows that in this 
avai Jesus has in His view, as opposed to His disciples, who had incurred 
hatred and persecution (ver. 23), the universally praised dignitaries of the 
Jewish theocracy and teachers of the people, whose business was Cyreiv av- 
Opdrac aptoxery (Gal. i. 10). Jesus does not address His discourse very defi- 
nitely and expressly to His followers until ver. 27. —ol rar. avréyv] (ré&v av- 
O@péruv, those regarded as Jews) so that they all lavished praise upon the 
false prophets ; comp. Jer. v. 81, xxiii. 17 ; Mic. ii. 11. 

Vv. 27, 28. Nevertheless, as far as concerns your conduct, those denunci- 
ations of woe are not to deter you, etc. Hence there is here no contrast 
destitute of point (Késtlin), although the sayings in vv. 27-86 are in Matthew 
more originally conceived and arranged (comp. Weiss in the Jahrd. f. d. 
Theol, 1864, p. 55 f.). — roi¢ axotovew] to you who hear, i.c., whogive heed, roic 
mecouévorg pov, Euthymius Zigabenus. This is required by the contrast. 
Moreover, comp. Matt. v. 44. — xarapéu.] with a dative.’ Elsewhere in the 
New Testament, in accordance with later usage (Wisd. xii. 11; Ecclus. 
iv. 5 f.), with an accusative. [See critical note. ] — ér7pedfecv] to afflict, is con- 
nected by the classical writers with revi, also with rivéc. 

Ver. 29. Sce on Matt. v. 89 f. —az6 rod x.1.2.] nwAfery and tevoc, to keep 
back from any onc.” Erasmus says aptly : ‘‘Subito mutatus numerus facit 
ad inculcandum praeceptum, quod unusquisque sic audire debeat quasi sibi 
uni dicatur,” ‘‘The sudden change of number tends to inculcate the pre- 
cept, because cach one ought so to hear as if it were spoken to him alone.” 

Ver. 30. Comp. Matt. v. 42. Exegetically, the unconditional submission 
here required cannot to any extent be toned down by means of limitations 
mentally supplied (in opposition to Michaelis, Storr, Kuinoel, and others). 
The ethical relations already subsisting in each particular case determine 
what limitations must actually be made. Comp. the remark after Matt. v. 
41, — wavri] to everyone. Exclude none, noteven yourenemy. But Augus- 

stine says appropriately : ‘‘ Omni petenti te tribue, non omnia petenti ; ut 
id des, quod dare honeste et juste potes,” ‘‘ Bestow upon every one asking 
thee, not everything he asks ; that thou mayst give what thou canst hon- 
estly and justly give.” — araire:] demand back what he has taken from thee.? 


1 Hom. Od. xix. 880; Herod. iv. 184; Dem. xxilfi. 6. 

270. 20, 881.15; Xen. Angad. vil. 7. 48. ® Herod. 1. 3: awairday ‘EAdémy, cal Sixas 
2 Xen. Cyrop.i. 8 11: awd cov xwdveav; ris apwayis airdecy. 

fil. 3. 51: ard trav aicxpay cwdAtca; Gen. 


CHAP. VI., 31-35. 337 


Ver. 81. Comp. Matt. vii. 12. To the injunction given and specialized at 
ver. 27 ff. of the love of one’s enemy, Jesus now adds the general moral rule 
(Theophylact : vépzov gugurov év raic xapdiac uev éyyeypaupévor, ‘‘ the innate law 
written in your hearts’’), from which, moreover, results the duty of the love 
of one’s enemy. It is self-evident that while this general principle is com- 
pletely applicable to the love of one’s enemy in itself and in general, it is 
applicable to the special precepts mentioned in vv. 29, 30 only in accord- 
ance with the idea (of self-denial), whose concrete representation they con- 
tain : hence ver. 81 is not in this place inappropriate (in opposition to dc 
Wette). — xai xaOae¢ x.r.A.] a simple carrying forward of the discourse to the 
general principle : and, in general, as ye, etc. — iva] Contents of the OéAere 
under the notion of purpose—ye will, that they should, etc. 

Vv. 32-34. Comp. Matt. v. 46 f. — xa:] simply continuing : And, in order 
still more closely to lay to heart this gencral love —if ye, etc. — rota tyiv 
xapec iati; | what thanks hace you? 7.e., what kind of a recompense is there 
for you? The divine recompense is meant (ver. 35), which is represented as 
a return of beneficence under the idea of thanks (‘‘ob benevolum dantis 
affectum,” ‘‘on account of the benevolent disposition of the one giving,” 
Grotius) ; Matthew, pco6éc. — of duaprwioi] Matthew, of reAdvac and of i 9vexoi. 
But Luke is speaking not from the national, but from the ethical point of 
view : the sinners (not to be interpreted : the heathen, the definite mention 
of whom the Pauline Luke would not have avoided). As my faithful 
followers, ye are to stand on ahigher platform of morality than do such 
unconverted ones. — ra ica] (to be accented thus, sce on Mark xiv. 56) the 
return equivalent to the loan. Tischendorf has in ver. 84 the forms of davifew 
(Anth. XI. 390). (Comp. critical note. ] 

Ver. 85. TWAgv] but, verumtamen, as at ver. 24. — pndév aneAricovres] The 
usual view, ‘nihil inde sperantes”’ (Vulgate [comp. A. V., ‘‘ hoping for 
nothing again”] ; so also Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, 
Calvin, Castalio, Salmasius, Casaubon, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Krebs, 
Valckenacr, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, Bleck, and others), is 
in keeping with the context, ver. 84, but is ungrammatical, and therefore 
decidedly to be given up. The meaning of areArifecv is desperare ,; it belongs to 
later Greek, and frequently occurs in Diodorus and Polybius, which latter, 
moreover (xxxi. 8. 11), has aveAmoudc, desperatio. Comp. Wetstein. An 
erroneous use of the word, however, is the less to be attributed to Luke, that 
it was also familiar to him from the LXX. (Isa. xxix. 19) and the Apocry- 
pha (2 Macc. ix. 18, where also the accusative stands with it, Ecclus. xxii. 
21, xxvii. 21 ; Judith ix. 11). Hence the true meaning is ‘‘ nihil desperantes” 
(codd. of It. ; so also Homberg, Elsner, Wetstein, Bretschneider, Schegg). 
[Comp. R. V. text: ‘‘never despairing.”] It qualifies ayaforoeire x. 
daveifere, and yndév is the accusative of the object : inasmuch as ye consider 
nothing (nothing which ye give up by the ayaforociv and daveiferv) as lost 
(comp. azeArifev rd C7v, Diod, xvii. 106), bring no offering hopelessly (name- 


1Comp. Mark vi. 2, ix. 30, x. 35; John xvil. 24; 1 Cor. xiv. & See also Nigelsbach, 
Anm, z. Ilias, ed. 8, p. 62 f. 


338 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


ly, with respect to the recompense, which ye have not to expect from men),— 
and how will this hope be fulfilled | Your reward will be great, etc. Thus 
in undév areArifovres is involved the rap’ éArida én’ EAridt wiorevecy (Rom. iv. 18) 
in reference to a higher reward, where the temporal] recompense is not to be 
hoped for, the ‘‘ qui nil potest sperare, desperet nihil,” ‘‘ who can hope for 
nothing will despair of nothing” (Seneca, Med. 1638), in reference to the 
everlasting recompense. — xal éocofe viot iy.] namely, in the Messiah's king- 
dom. See xx. 86, and on Matt. v. 9, 45. In general, the designation of be- 
lievers as sons of God in the temporal life is Pauline (in John : réxra Ocot), 
but not often found in the synoptic Gospels. See Kaeuffer in the Sdchs. 
Stud. 1843, p. 197 ff. — dre airdg x.r.4.] Since He, on His part, etc. The reason 
here given rests on the ethical presupposition that the divine Sonship in the 
Messiah’s kingdom .is destined for those whose dealings with their fellow- 
men are similar to the dealings of the Father. 

Vv. 36-38. From this exemplar of the divine benignity in general Jesus 
now passesover (without otv, see the critical remarks) to the special duty of 
becoming compassionate (yiveofle) after God’s example (éor/), and connects 
therewith (ver. 87 f.) other duties of love with the corresponding Messianic 
promises. On ver. 87 f. comp. Matt. vii. 1 f. —azodtere] set free, xxii. 68, 
xxiii. 16. The opposite of what is previously forbidden. — pérpov xadov x.t.A. ] 
a more explicit explanation of dofjcera:, and a figurative description of the 
fulness of the Messianic blessedness, ov yép getdopévus avrimerpet 6 xhproc, aaa 
n2ovoiuc, ‘for the Lord measures again, not sparingly, but richly,” Theo- 
phylact. — xaAév] @ good, i.e., not scanty or insufficient, but a full measure ; 
among the Rabbins, 1210 3, see Schoettgen, I. p. 273. Observe the eli- 
maz of the predicates, in respect of all of which, moreover, it is a measure 
of dry things that is conceived of even in the case of omepexy., in connection 
wherewith Bengel incongruously conceives of fluidity. [On the form of 
the clause, see critical note.] Instead of imepexyzivw, Greek writers (Diodo- 
rus, Aelian, etc.) have only the form trepexyéw. Instead of careiw, of close 
packing by means of shaking, Greek writers use caddcou, '— décovow | tives; of 
evepyernoévres mavTw¢. Tov Ocot yap arodidévrog brép avTGy avroi doxovery arrodidévat, 
‘Who ? certainly those who were benefited ; for when God recompenses 
on their behalf they themselves seem to recompense,” Euthymius Zigabe- 
nus. But the context offers no definite subject at all. Hence in general : 
the persons who give (Kihner, II. p. 35 f.). It is not doubtful who they are- 
the servants who execute the judgment, i.¢., the angels, Matt. xxiv. 81. 
Comp. on xvi.9.— xéAroc] the gathered fold of the wide upper garment bound 
together by the girdle.*— ri jap abrg uétpy] The identity of the measure ; 
e.g. if your measure is giting, beneficence, the same measure shall be applied in 
your recompense. [But see critical note.] ‘The do640. tuiv does not exclude 
the larger quantity of the contents at the judgment (see what precedes). 
Theophylact appropriately says : Zor: yap didévac TH avTH LETPY, Ov pHV TodobT, 
‘‘ For it is to give with the same measure, not, indeed, with so much.” 


1 See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 87; Jacobs, ad 2 Jer. xxxil. 18; Isa. Ixv.6; Ruth lil. 15; 
Anthol. VIL p. 95, XI. p. 70. Wetstein and Kypke in loc. 


CHAP. VI., 39-49. 339 


Ver. 89 has no connection with what precedes ; but, as Luke himself indi- 
cates by ecize x.7.4., beginsa new, independent portion of the discourse. — 
The meaning of the parable : He, to whom on his part the knowledge of 
the divine truth is wanting cannot lead others who have it not to the Messi- 
anic salvation ; they will both fall into the Gehenna of moral error and con- 
fusion on the way. Comp. Matt. xv. 14, where is the oriyinal place of the 
saying. 

Ver. 40. The rationale of the preceding statement : Both shall fall into a 
ditch,—therefore not mercly the teacher, but the disciple also. Otherwise 
the disciple must surpass his teacher—a result which, even in the most for- 
tunate circumstances, is not usually attained. This is thus expressed : A 
disciple is not abore his teacher, but every one that is fully prepared shall be as 
his teacher, t.e., when he has received the complete preparation in the school 
of his teacher he will be equal to his teacher. He will not surpass him. 
But the disciple must surpass his teacher (in knowledge, wisdom, disposi- 
tion, etc.) if he were not to fall into perdition along with him. The view : 
he will be trained as his teacher (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others), i.¢., 
he will be like him in knowledge, disposition, etc., satisfies neither the 
idea of the specially chosen word xarypr., nor its emphatic position, nor the 
correlation of ixép and dr. As to xarnpriop., see On 1 Cor. i. 10. Theo say- 
ing in Matt. x. 24 f. has a different significance and reference, and cannot 
be used to limit the meaning here (in opposition to Linder’s misinterpreta- 
tion in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 562). 

Vv. 41, 42. Luke is not, with confused reminiscence, turning back to 
Matt. vii. 3f. (in opposition to de Wette), but the train of thought is: 
‘* but in order not to be blind leaders of the blind ye must, before ye would 
judge (ver. 41) and improve (ver. 42) the moral condition of others, first 
scriously set about your own knowledge of yourself (ver. 41) and improve- 
ment of yourself (ver. 42).” Luke puts the two passages together, but he 
does it logically. 

Vv. 43, 44. Comp. Matt. vii. 16-18, xii. 33 f. For'a man’s own moral 
disposition is related to his agency upon others, just as is the nature of the 
trees to their fruits (there is no good tree which produces corrupt fruit, etc.), 
for (ver. 44) in the case of every tree the peculiar fruit is that from which 
the tree is known. — ovsd2 radAry bévdpov] (see the critical remarks) nor, on the 
other hand, vice cersa, etc.* 

Ver. 45. The application. Comp. Matt. xii, 85. — mpogépe: «.1.4. refers 
here also to spoken words, Sce éx yap x.1.A. 

Ver. 46. The terification, however, of the spoken word which actually 
goes forth out of the good treasure of the heart lies not in an abstract con- 
fessing of Me, but in joining therewith the doing of that which I say. 

Vv. 47-49. See on Matt. vii. 24-27. — foxaype x. éB40vve] not a Hebraism 
for : he dug deep (Grotius and many others), but a rhetorically emphatic de. 


1 Bengel aptly says on this yép: ‘‘Quisaa § own beam seeks another's moto, is like an 
trabe laborans alienam festucam petit, est evil tree pretending to good fruit.” 
similis arbor! malae bonum fructum affec- 2 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. ii. 1.4; Plat. Gorg. 
tant!,”» ‘He who when afflicted with his pp. 482 D, and clsewhere. 


340 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


scription of the proceeding : he dug and deepened. See Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 
469]. Even Beza aptly says: ‘‘Crescit oratio.” —émi r. rérpav] down to 
which he had deepened (sunk his shaft). This is still done in Palestine in 
the case of solid buildings. See Robinson, Palestine, III. p. 428. — &:a ro 
Kaddc oixodopeiofac ari] (see the critical remarks) because it (in respect cf 
its foundation) was well built (namely, with foundation laid upon the rock). 
—axobcag . . . rooac] shall have heard . .. shall have done, namely, in 
view of the irruption of the last times, full of tribulation, before the 
Parousia. — nai éyévero x.r.A.] in close connection with érece, and both with 
evbiwe : and the ruin of that house was great ; a figure of the ézé4ea in con- 
trast with the everlasting [w4, ver. 48, at the Messianic judgment. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 


LVII. Ver. 1. devreporpary. 


The word is omitted by such important authorities, and its meaning is so 
uncertain, that it must be regarded as furnishing no solid basis for any theory 
respecting the time of year. Harmonists have used it to fix the relative date of 
the second Passover (so Robinson and others), but all that can be proven is that 
the time was that of early harvest. This does indeed favor the Quadripaschal 
theory, since it is unlikely that this harvest was that following the first Pass- 
over (John ii. 13 ff.). But whether John v. should be placed immediately 
before this Sabbath controversy or before the entire Galilean ministry, cannot 
‘be determined from this passage. 


LVI. Vv. 1-11. The Text of Luke's Narrative. 


In these verses Meyer himself accepts nine readings not found in the Rec., 
where the transcribers have made Luke’s narrative conform to the parallel ac- 
counts. Many editors accept more. These phenomena, showing as they do 
what is the influence of a similar document, seem to make against the theory 
that Luke himself used either of the Gospels which have thus influenced the 
transcribers. There was no motive, that we can perceive, for a purposed varia- 
tion in such minute details, many of them of no special significance. 


LIX. Ver. 6. 9 de&é. 


Luke alone mentions that it was the right hand ; another striking proof of an 
independent source of information. 


LX. Ver. 12 ff. The Position of the Sermon on the Mount. 


Weiss ed. Mey. finds here no contradiction to Matt. v. 1 ff. It is not neces- 
sary to suppose that Matthew has attempted to place the Sermon on the Mount 
in its proper chronological position, nor that Luke followed a different tradi- 
tion. Matthew implies that the disciples had been chosen, Mark and Luke 
give in detail the circumstances attending the choice, Luke gives the discourse 
which followed. That Matthew and Luke do not give two distinct discourses, 








NOTES. 341 


Meyer himself asserts (see foot-note, p. 332). Onthe alleged difference of local- 
ity see Note LXII., below. It should be noticed that Mark places the descrip- 
tion of the multitude before the choice of the Twelve, while Luke reverses the 
order. This would indicate that he did not follow Mark, as do many minor 
details of his account, especially the form of this list of the apostles. No the- 
ory of the order of events is so satisfactory as that which accepts both the 
identity of the discourses and the relative chronological position assigned to 
the event by Luke, namely, immediately after the choice of the Twelve. 

The view of Weiss ed. Mey. is that Luke found here a suitable position for 
the first great discourse which he found in his other source, namely, the apos- 
tolic document which lies at the basis of all the Synoptists. He thinks that 
the discourse had no connection with the choice of the apostles and is dis- 
connected from it by vv. 17-19. Yet this fails to account for the exact details 
of ver, 17 ff., unless we admit that Luke invented the local setting for the 
discourse, 


LXI. Ver. 16. 'Totdag 'TaxdBov. 


The B. V. text renders: ‘‘Judas, the son of James.” Weiss ed. Mey. also 
identifies him with Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus), adding that, since his proper name 
was Judas, Luke, who places him together with the like-named traitor, distin- 
guishes him from the latter by adding the name of his father. The variations 
from Mark are quite numerous, and of such a character as to oppose the view 
that Luke here follows Mark. But for that very reason we may believe that the 
Evangelist has placed the Sermon on the Mount in its proper position ; all the 
more since Matthew’s list is given a position altogether disconnected from the 
choice of the Twelve. 


LX. Ver. 17. éxi rérov redivoi. 


Weiss ed. Mey. finds here no opposition to Matt. v. 1, ‘‘since the expression 
cannot possibly indicate a plain, in opposition to a mountain height, but only a 
level place on the mountains,’’ So R. V., ‘‘a level place.” Nor is there any 
discrepancy implied in the expression ‘‘stood,’’ since this does not refer to 
our Lord’s position during the delivery of the discourse. 


LX. Ver. 20 ff. ol wrrwyot, x.7.A. 


Meyer's comment on Luke’s form of the beatitudes seems to imply that the 
later Christian tradition modified the earlier records of the Sermon on the 
Mount to suit the persecuted condition of the early believers. But in his con- 
cluding remarks on this paragraph he virtually concedes that the ethical con- 
dition is the prominent one, and the external afflictions only incidental. This 
is substantially the view taken by those who accept the truthfulness of both 
records and reconcile them accordingly. It may be added that the form of 
the entire discourse and the many verbal variations from Matthew indicate 
that Luke did nof use the Gospel of Matthew, and that the common source 
of both discourses is not either the Logia-collection or the so-called ‘older 
source.’ In general it may be said: a common source (or dependence) 
would forbid so many verbal variations ; a ‘‘later tradition,” modifying in lit- 
erary or dogmatic interest, would have led to more decided variations of 
thought. Godet thinks the points of difference here between Matthew and 
Luke prove that Luke’s report is more exact, and that Matthew’s version 


342 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


was originally made with a didactic rather than a historical design (Luke, p. 201, 
Am. ed.). That the discourses in Matthew are often placed out of their chrono. 
logical position, is the view of all Harmonists. 

We append the following outline of the discourse as here reported: ‘‘1. The 
character of the citizens of the kingdom of God ; vv. 20-26. 2. The new prin- 
ciple (of love) in this kingdom ; vv. 27-38. 3. Application of this principle to 
judgment of others and instruction of others ; vv. 39-45. 4. Conclusion, set- 
ting forth in a parable the judgment which will be passed upon all who claim 
to be members of this kingdom ; vv. 46-49.” (Inter. Rev. Commentary, Luke, 
p. 93.) A comparison with Matt. v.—-vii. will show that the report of Matthew 
submits less readily to logical analysis. This seems to contirm the view that 
Luke is both independent of Matthew and exact in his historical setting of 
the discourse. Others may prefer to find in it another proof of his ‘‘edi- 
torial ability,’’ in judiciously combining the ‘later tradition’’ with the 
‘¢ original apostolic document’’ referred to by Papias. 


LXIV. Ver. 24 f. The Woes. 


Weiss ed. Mey. thinks this part of the discourse was added by Luke, since 
the classes addressed were not present when the Sermon onthe Mount was 
delivered. But with equal reason it may be argued that these verses, pointirg 
to mixed audience, indicate that Luke has given the discourse in its proper 
position and circumstances. 


CHAP. VII. 343 


CHAPTER VII. 


Ver. 1. évei dé] Lachm. and Tisch. have é7e.d7, following A B C* X, 254, 299. 
This evidence is decisive, especially as D (comp. codd. of It.) is not opposed, 
for it has xai éyévero Gre. K has évecdy df, whence is explained the rise of the 
Recepia. — Ver. 4. xapé&g} So also Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is wapise, 
in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 10. ao8evovvra] is not found, indeed, 
inBL &, min. Copt. codd. of It. (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) [recent edi- 
tors, R. V.] ; but it is to be maintained, as the evidence in its favor is prepon- 
derating ; the omission is very easily to be explained from the possibility of 
dispensing with the word, but there was no reason to suggest its addition. — 
Ver. 11. Instead of év rp é£7¢, which Griesb. has approved, and Lachin. has in 
the margin, the edd. have év 7g éS7¢. The evidence for the two readings is 
about equally balanced. We must come to a conclusion according to the usage 
of Luke, who expresses ‘‘on the following day’’ by 19 éi7c, always withoul & 
(Acts xxi. b, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18 ; moreover, in Luke ix. 37, where év is to be de- 
leted) ; we must therefore read in this place év rq é¢é7¢. Comp. viii. 1. [Treg. 
text, W. and Hort text, Weiss, R. V. text, have rm following A B Land other 
uncials, Vulg., etc. Tisch. retains ry.] Otherwise Schulz. — ixavoi] is wanting 
in BD FL X&, min. and most of the vss. Bracketed by Lachm. [Rejected by 
Treg. text, W. and Hort, R. V.] It is to be retained (even against Rinck, 
Incubr. Crit. p. 321), the more so on account of the frequency of the simple oi 
pabyrai avrov, and the facility, therefore, wherewith IK ANOI might be passed over 
by occasion of the following letters KAIO. — Ver. 12. After ixavéc Elz. Scholz., 
Tisch. have 7, which is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm.; it is want- 
ing in authorities so important that it appears as supplementary, as also does 
the #7, which Lachm. Tisch. read before y#pa, although this latter has still 
stronger attestation. [But 7 is found twice in ® B L, Copt., etc., once in C, 
Vulg. Hence it is accepted in both cases by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 16. 
tyyyepta}] A BCLE ®&, min. have 7yéo67, in favor of which, moreover, D bears 
witness by efzyép07. On this evidence it is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to bo 
preferred. —[Ver. 19. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with B L, and good minor 
authorities, read x(-pcov instead of 'I7ootv.] — Ver. 21. Instead of avrg dé, Tisch. 
has éxcivy on evidence too feeble, and without sufficient internal reason. [But 
recent editors agree with Tisch., following ®* BL, Copt., etc.] — Elz. Scholz 
have ro fAérecv. This ré might, in consequence of the preceding é yapicaTO, 
have just as easily dropt out as slipped in. But on the ground of the decidedly 
preponderating counter evidence, it is by Lachm. and Tisch. rightly deleted. —- 
Ver. 22. [4 Inccte is rejected by Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B D, Vulg., 
Copt.] — dr:] is wanting, it is true, in important authorities (although they are 
not preponderating), and is deleted by Lachm.; but the omission is explained 
from Matt. xi. 5. — Vv. 24-26, Instead of éfeAnAibare, AB DL = ® (yet in ver. 
26 not A also) have é£728are; so Lachm. It is from Matt. xi. 7-9. — Ver. 27. 
éyo] is wanting in B D.L = 8, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. codd. of It. Marcion, and 


344 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


is left out by Lachm. and Tisch. Anaddition from Matth. — Ver. 28. xpogfrnc] 
is deleted, indeed, by Lachm. [so W. and Hort, Weiss, R. Y.] (in accordance 
with BK L MX & &, min. vss, and Fathers), but was omitted in accordance 
with Matt. xi. 11, from which place, on the other hand, was added row Barriarov 
(rightly deleted by Tisch.). — Ver. 31. Before ri: Elz. has elie d2 5 xbpce, in op- 
position to decisive evidence. [It is found only in cursive mss.] An exeget- 
ical addition, in respect of which the preceding passage was taken as his- 
torical narration. — Ver. 32. Instead of xai Aéyovorv, Tisch. has, on too feeble 
evidence, Aéyovrec. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., read a Aye, following &* B, 1.] 
— Ver. 34. The arrangement 9i2o¢ reAuyv. is decisively attested. The reverse 
order (Elz.)'is from Matth. — Ver. 35. wavrwy)] Lachm. and Tisch, 8y.°p*- [not 
Tisch. VIII.] have this immediately after azé [so Treg., W. and Hort text], 
but in opposition to preponderating evidence. It was omitted in accordance 
with Matt. xi. 19 (so still in D F L M X, min. Arm. Syr.), and then restored to 
the position suggested by the most ordinary use. — Ver. 36. Tho readings rév 
oixov and xarexdiig (Lachm. Tisch.) are, on important evidence, to be adopted ; 
avaxA, was more familiar to the transcribers ; Luke alone has xaraxA. — Ver. 37. 
yti¢ qv} is found in different positions, BL = 8, vss. Lachm. Tisch. rightly 
have it after yw7. In D it is wanting, and from this omission, which is to be 
explained from the possibility of dispensing with the words, arose their restora- 
tion before duapr., to which they appeared to belong. [Tisch., recent editors, 
R. V., insert xai before ércy., following ® A B, and many others. ] -— Instead of 
avdxetrat is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., xardxecraz. Comp. on ver. 36. 
Yue [Ver. 39. The article is inserted before zpog#ry¢ in B =, so Weiss, bracketed 
hy W. and Hort, noticed in R. V. marg.] — Ver. 42. dé, both here and at ver. 43, 
has authorities so important against it that it appears to have been inserted as 
a connective particle ; it is deleted by Tisch. — cizvé is wanting in BDL = X&, 
mnin. Syr. Arr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Aug. Suspected by Griesb., de- 
leted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V., on this preponderant evi- 
dence}. But why should it have been added? The entire superfluousness of 
it was the evident cause of its omission. — Ver. 44. After @p:ti Elz, has ric 
xega/7zc, in opposition to decisive evidence. An addition from ver. 38. 


Vv. 1-10. See on Matt. viii. 5-13. In the present form of Mark's Gospel 
the section must have been lost at the same time with the Sermon on the 
Mount, iil. 19 (Ewald, Holtzmann) ; both are supposed to have existed in 
the primitive Mark. [See Note LXV., p. 352 seq.] Comp. on Mark iii. 19.— 
éwAnpwoe] cum absolrisset, ‘when he had completed,” so that nothing morc of 
them was wanting, and was left behind.!. Comp. ovveréiece, Matt. vii. 28. 
—axoac] as Mark vii. 85. — The healing of the leper, which Matthew intro- 
duces before the healing of the servant, Luke has inserted already at v. 12 ff. 
— Ver. 3. mpea3vrépovc] as usually : elders of the people, who also on their 
part were sufficiently intcrested in respect of the circumstance mentioned at 
ver. 5. Hence not: chiefs of the synagogue ; apxiovvayéyouc, Acts xiii. 15, 
Xviil. 8, 17. — d£éed¢ éorev, ©] equivalent to dfcéc éoriv, iva avrg. See Kiihner, 
§ 802. 4; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 198 [E. T. 229]. — Air] Subsequently, 
in ver. 6, he changed his mind ; his confidence rose to a higher pitch, so that 


1 Comp. 1 Mace. iv. 19 (cod. A); Eusebius, 277. EZ. iv. 15: rAnpacavros thy rpooevyyy. 


CHAP. VII., 11, 12. 345 
he is convinced that he needs not to suggest to Him the coming at all. [See 
Note LXV., p. 8352 seq.] — Ver. 4. mapé&n] The Recepta mapée:, as the second 
person, is not found anywhere ; for dpec and BobAe: (Winer, p. 70 (E. T. 76]) 
are forms sanctioned by usage, to which also is to be added ole ; but other 
verbs are found only in Aristophanes and the tragic writers (Matthaei, 
p. 462 ; Reisig, ad Soph. Oed. C. p. xxii. f.). If mwapé&ec were genuine, it 
would be the third person of the future active (min.: rapéferc), and the 
words would contain the utterance of the petitioners among themselves. — 
Vv. 5, 6. avrdc] ipse, namely, of his own mcans.' The Gentile builder did 
not prejudice the sanctity of the building, because that came by means of 
the consecration. Sce Lightfoot, p. 775. — gidovc] as xv. 6 ; Acts x. 24, kins- 
Jolk, relatives ; see Niigelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 8, p. 374. — Ver. 7. 6:6] 
on account of my unworthiness. — ovdé] not at all. — iuavrév] in reference to 
those who had been sent, who were to represent him, ver. 8. — zaic] equivalent to 
dovdoc, ver. 2. That Luke erroneously interpreted the rai¢ of his original source, 
and nevertheless by oversight allowed it to remain iu this place (Holtzmann) 
iS an unmerited accusation, in accordance with Baur. [See Note LXV., 
p- 852 seq.] — Ver. 8. td éfove. racodu.} an expression of military subordi- 
nation : one who is placed under orders. Luke might also have written reray- 
pévoc, but the present depicts in a more lively manner the conerete relation 
as it constantly occurs in the service. — Ver. 10. rdv aobevoivra J. tyaiv.] the 
sick slave well (not : recovering). acbevovvra, present participle, spoken from 
the point of view of the reygOévrec, ver. 6.* [But see critical note.] Asan ex- 
planation of this miraculous healing from a distance, Schenkel can here 
suggest only the ‘‘ extraordinary spiritual excitement” of the sick person. 
Vv. 11, 12. The raising of the young man at Nain (}"8), @ pasture ground 
situated in a south-easterly direction from Nazareth, now a little hamlet of 
the same name not far from Endor ; sce Robinson, Pal. III. p. 469 ; Ritter, 
Erdk. XV. p. 407) is recorded in Luke alone ; it is uncertain whether he 
derived the narrative from a written source or from oral tradition. — év rg 
S7c¢] in the time that followed thereafter, to be construed with éyév. Comp. 
viii. 1. — uabyrai] in the wider sense, vi. 18, xvii. 20. — ixavoi] in considerable 
number.* [But see critical note. ] — we dé 7yyioe . . . xai idob] This xai intro- 
ducing the apodosis is a particle denoting something additional : also. 
Comp. ii. 21. When He drew near, behold, there also was, etc. See, more- 
over, Acts i. 11, x. 17. —79 pnrpi airov] Comp. ix. 38.4— The tombs (é£exo- 
«Seto, comp. Acts v. 6) were outside the towns. See Doughty, Anal. II. 
p. 50 ff. — ai airy yhpa] scil. 4v, which, moreover, is actually read after airy 
by important authorities. ([Sce critical note.] It should be written in its 


1 He was sucha friend of Judaism, and 
dwelt in the Jewish land. This was a suffi- 
cient reason for Jesus treating him quite 
differently from the way in which He after 
wards treated the Syrophveniclan woman. 
Hilgenfeld persists in tracing Matt. viii. 5 ff. 
to the supposed universalistic retouching 
of Matthew. See his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 48 ff. 


2 Ov yap dua... vyiaivee re xai voce 3 


aviperos, Plat. Gorg. 

® Mehlhorn, De adjectivor. pro adverb. pos. 
ratione ct usu, Glog. 1828, p. 9 ff.; Ktibner, 
ad Xen. Anabd. i. 4. 12. 

4 Herod. vil. 221: rdw 8 waida . . . edvra ot 
pouvoyerda ; Aeschyl. Ag. 872 : novoyevds réxvov 
warp; Tob. ffl. 15; Judg. xi. 84; Winer, 
p. 189 (E. T. 211]. 


346 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


simplest form, airy (Vulg. and most of the codd. of It. have : haec). Beza: 
Kk. avty xhpg (et tpet quidem viduae). [See Note LXVI., p. 353. ] 

Vv. 18-15. The sympathy with the mother was in itself sufficiently well 
founded, even without the need of any special (perhaps direct) acquaintance 
with her circumstances. — 7 xAaie] ‘‘ Consolatio ante opus ostendit operis ° 
certo futuri potestatem,” ‘‘ The consolation before the deed shows the power 
of certainly working the future deed,” Bengel. — The coffin ( } copéc) was an 
uncovered chest.'— The mere touch without a word caused the bearers to 
stand still. A trait of the marvellous. — veavioxe, coi A.] The preceding 
touch had influenced the bearers. —avexaftcev] He sat upright.* — iduxer'] 
Comp. ix. 42. J/is work had now been done on him. 

Vv. 16, 17. $680¢] Fear, the first natural impression, v. 26.—ér: . . . xa 
&r:] not recitative (so usually), but argumentatice (Bornemann), asi. 25 : (we 
praise God) because ... and because. [See Note LXVIL., p. 353.] The reci- 
tative dre occurs nowhere (not even in iv. 10), éecice in the same discourse ; 
moreover, it is quite arbitrary to assume that In the second half, which is by 
no means specifically different from the first, we have the words of others 
(Paulus, Kuinoel, Bleek). — They saw in this miracle aonyeiov of a great 
prophet, and in His appearance they saw the beginning of the Messianic de- 
liverance (comp. i. 68, 78). — é Adyoc ovroc] This saying, namely, that a great 
prophet with his claim made good by araising from the dead, etc. — év dry 
. 7. Iovd.] & pregnant expression : in the whole of Judaea, whither the saying 
had penetrated.? Judaea is not here to be understood in the narrower sense 
of the province, as though this were specified as the theatre of the incident 
(Weizsiicker), but in the wider sense of Palestine in general (i. 5); and by év 
rdéoy Ti meptxopw, Which is not to be referred to the neighborhood of Nain 
(Késtlin, p. 231), it is asserted that the rumor had spread abroad even 
beyond the limits of Palestine. — repi avrov] so that He was mentioned as 
the subject of the rumor. Comp. v. 15. 


Remark. — The natural explanation of this miracle as of the awakening of 
a person only apparently dead (Paulus, Ammon; comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. 
p. 233) so directly conflicts with the Gospel narrative, and, moreover, places Jesus 
in so injurious a light of dissimulation and pretence, that it is decisively to be 
rejected, even apart from the fact that in itself it would be improbable, nay 
monstrous, to suppose that as often as dead people required His help, He 
should have chanced every time upon people only apparently dead (to which 
class in the end even He Himself also must have belonged after His crucifix- 
ion!). Further, the allegorical explanation (Weisse), as well as also the idenii- 
fication of this miracle with the narrative of the daughter of Jairus (Gfrérer, Heil. 
Sage, I. p. 194), and finally, the mythical solution (Strauss), depend upon subjec- 
tive assumptions, which are not sufficient to set aside the objective historical 
testimony, all the more that this testimony is conjoined, in respect of the na- 
ture of the miracle, with that of Matthew (Jairus’ daughter) and that of John 


1 See Wetstein in loc. ; Harmar, Beod. I. and thereon Stallbaum. 

p. 141. * Comp. Thucyd. fv. 42: éy Aevxadiq amjje- 
2 Comp. Acts Ix. 40; Xen. Cyr.v. 19; Plat. cay. 

Phaed. p. 60 B: dvaxcadigéuevos ewi Thy xAivny, 


CHAP. VII., 18—35. 347 


(Lazarus) ; and to suspect the three narratives of raisings from the dead taken 
together because of the gradual climax of their attendant circumstances (Wool- 
ston, Strauss : death-bed, coffin, grave) is inadmissible, because Luke has not 
the history of the raising on the death-bed until later (viii. 50 ff.), and therefore 
was not consciously aware of that progression to awlimax. The raisings of the 
dead, attested beyond all doubt by all the four evangelists, referred to by Je- 
sus Himself among the proofs of His divine vocation (Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 
22), kept in lively remembrance in the most ancient church (Justin, Ap. i. 48. 
22 ; Origen, c. Cels. ii. 48), and hence not to be let on one side as problematical 
(Schleiermacher, Weizsiicker), are analogous onueia of the specific Messianic 
work of the future avacrtaorce vexpav, 


Vv. 18-35. See on Matt, xi. 2-19. Matthew has for reasons of his own 
given this history a different and less accurate position, but he has related it 
more fully, not omitting just at the beginning, as Luke does, the mention 
of the Baptist’s imprisonment. Luke follows another source. [See Note 
LXVIII., p. 353. ] — wept révtwv robrwy] such as the healing of the servant 
and the raising of the young man.'— Ver. 21. Luke also, the physician, here 
and elsewhcre (comp. vi. 17 f., v. 40 f.) distinguishes between the naturally 
sick people and demoniacs. Besides, the whole narrative passage, vv. 20, 
21, isan addition by Luke in his character of historian. — xai rvga.] and es- 
pecially, etc. — éyapicaro] ‘‘ magnificum verbum,” Bengel. — Ver. 25. rpvg#] 
not to be referred to clothing, but to be taken generally, /uzury. — Ver. 27. 
Mal. iii. 1 is here, as in Matt. and in Mark i. 2, quoted in a similarly pecu- 
liar form, which differs from the LXX. The citation in this form had 
already become sanctioned by usage. — Ver. 28. rpog#r7¢] The reflectiveness 
of a later period is manifest in the insertion of this word. Matthew is orig- 
inal. — Vv. 29, 30 do not contain an historical notice introduced by Luke by 
way of comment (Paulus, Bornemann, Schleiermacher, Lachmann, Késtlin, 
Hilgenfeld, Bleek, following older commentators), for his manner elsewhere 
is opposed to this view, and the spuriousness of cime d2 6 xipioc, ver. 81 (in 
Elz.), is decisive ; but the words are spoken by Jesus, who alleges the differ- 
ing result which the advent of this greatest of the prophets had produced 
among the people and among the hierarchs. In respect of this, it is to be 
conceded that the words in their relation to the power, freshness, and rhe- 
torical vividness of what has gone before bear a more historical stamp, and 
hence might reasonably be regarded as a later interpolation of tradition 
(Weisse, II. p. 109, makes them an echo of Matt. xxi. 31 f. ; comp. de Wette, 
Holtzmann, and Weiss); Ewald derives them from the Logia, where, however, 
their original place was, according to him, after ver. 27. [See Note LXIX., 
p- 853 seq. ]— édixaiwoav rt. Oedv] they justified God, i.e., they declared by 
their act that His will to adopt the baptism of John was right. — Barriof. is 
contemporaneous. — tiv BovAiy tov Beov|] namely, to become prepared by the 
baptism of repentance for the approaching kingdom of Messiah, This coun- 


1 Luke also thus makes the sending of (épya). This opposition to Wieseler (in the 
John's disciples to be occasioned by the Gobtt. Vierteljahreschr. 1845, p. 197 ff.). 
works, the doings of Jesus, as Matthew 


348 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


sel of God’s will (GovAZ, comp. on Eph. i. 11) they annulled (#6ér.), they 
abolished, since they frustrated its realization through their disobedience. 
Bezasays pertinently : ‘‘ Abrogarunt, nempe quod ad ipsius rei exitumattinet, 
quo evasit ipsis exitii instrumentum id, quod eos ad resipiscentiam et salutem 
vocabat,” ‘‘ They abrogate, namely, it pertains to the termination of the thing 
itself, since that which was inviting them to recovery and salvation became 
an instrument of destruction to themselves,” — eig éavrote] with respect to them- 
seltes, a closer limitation of the reference of 70éryoav.' Bornemann (comp. 
Castalio) : ‘‘quantum ab ipsis pendebat” (‘‘alios enim passi sunt,’’ etc.), 
‘as far as it depended upon themselves” (‘‘ for they permitted others,” etc.). 
This would be rd ei¢ éavrote (Soph. Oecd. R. 706 ; Eur. Iph. T. 697, and 
elsewhere). — Ver. 81. rote av6p. r. yev. r.] 18 related not remotely to ver. 29 
(Holtzmann), but Jesus means to have the general designation applied (see 
also ver. 34) to the hierarchs, ver. 30, not to mac 6 Aadc. Comp. Matt. xii. 
39, xvi. 4. — eloiv éu.] eioivy has the emphasis. — Ver. 33. As to the form éc6uv 
{so Treg., W. and Hort], as we must write with Tischendorf [Tisch. VIII. 
has fofiwy], comp. on Mark i. 6. The limitations dprov and olvov, which are 
not found in Matthew, betray themselves to be additions of a later tradition, 
the former being an echo of Matt. iii. 4 ; Mark i. 6. — Ver. 35. See on Matt. 
xi. 19, and observe the appropriate reference of the expression éd:xaid@y x.T.A. 
to édixacéoav rt. Ocdv, ver. 29. Even Theophylact, who is mistaken in his inter- 
pretation of Matt. U.c., expresses in this place the substantially correct view 
that the divine wisdom which revealed itself in Jesus and the Baptist re- 
ceived its practical justification in the conduct of their followers.?_ Borne- 
mann considers these words as a continuation of the antagonistic saying idob 
. duaprwAav, and, indeed, as bitterly ironical: ‘‘Et (dicitis) : probari, 
spectari solet sapientia, quae Johannis et Christi propria est, in filiis ejus 
omnibus, 7.e., in fructibus ejus omnibus,” ‘‘ And (ye say): the wisdom, 
which is peculiar to John and Christ, is wont to be approved, to be tested, 
in all its sons, z.¢., in all its fruits.” It is against this view that, apart from 
the taking of the aorist in the sense of habitual action (see on Matt. l.c.), 
réxva TH¢ codiag can denote only persons; that, according to the parallelism 
with ver. 83, the antagonistic judgment does not go further than duaprwAdy ; 
and that Jesus would scarcely break off His discourse with the quotation of 
an antagonistic sarcasm instead of delivering with His own judgment a final 
decision in reference to the contradictory phenomena in question. — rdvruv] 
added at the end for emphasis [see critical note], not by mistake (Holtz- 
mann, Weiss), serves to confirm what is consolatory in the experience de- 
clared by édixacéOy x.1.A. 
Ver. 35. This narrative of the anointing is distinct from that given in 
Matt. xxvi. 6 ff. ; Mark xiv. 8 ff. ; John xii. 1 ff. See on Matt. xxvi. 6. 
The supposition that there was only one incident of the kind, can be in- 


1 Bengel justly observes: ‘‘nam ipsum Fvang. Matih. (Schulprogramm), Ulm 1865, 


Dei consilium non potuere tollere,” ‘‘For p.38f., who nevertheless takes awd in the 
the counsel of God itself they could not sense of in (Matt. vii. 16 and elsewhere), 


annul.” without essential difference of meaning. 
2Comp. Pressel, Philolog. Miscelien tid. d. : 


CHAP. VII., 37, 38. o49 


dulged only at Luke's expense. He must either himself have put aside the 
actual circumstances, and have added new circumstances (Hug, Gutacht. II. 
p. 98), which is in itself quite improbable, or he must have followed a tra- 
dition which had transferred the later incident into an earlier period ; com). 
Ewald, Bleek, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Weizsiécker ; Schleiermacher also, ac- 
cording to whom Luke must have adopted a distorted narrative ; and [Iil- 
genfeld, according to whom he must have remodelled the older narrative on 
a Pauline basis. But the accounts of Mark and Matthew presuppose a tra- 
dition so constant as to time and place, that the supposed erroneous (John 
xii. 1 ff.) dislocation of the tradition, conjoined with free remodelling, as 
well as its preference on the part of Luke, can commend itself only less than 
the hypothesis that he is relating an anointing which actually occurred ear- 
lier, and, on the other hand, has passed over the similar subsequent inci- 
dent ; hence it is the less to be conceived that Simon could have been the 
husband of Martha (Hengstenberg). Notwithstanding the fact that the rest 
of the evangelists relate an anointing, Baur has taken our narrative as an 
allegorical poem (see his Evang. p. 501), which, according to him, has its 
parallel in the section concerning the woman taken in adultery. Strauss 
sought to confuse together the two narratives of anointing and the account 
of the woman taken in adultery. According to Eichthal, II. p. 252, the 
narrative is an interpolation, and that the most pernicious of all from a 
moral point of view ! 

Vv. 87, 88. "Hrig qv év r. wéAec duapr.] According to this arrangement (sce the 
critical remarks) : who in the city was a sinner: she was in the city a person 
practising prostitution.’ The woman through the influence of Jesus (it is 
unknown how ; perhaps only by hearing His preaching and by observation 
of His entire ministry) had attained to repentance and faith, and thereby to 
moral renewal. Now the most fervent love and reverence of gratitude to her 
deliverer urge her to show Him outward tokens of these sentiments. Shc 
does not speak, but her tears, etc., are more eloquent than speech, and they 
are understood by Jesus. The imperfect qv does not stand for the pluper- 
fect (Kuinoel and others), but Luke narrates from the standpoint of the 
public opinion, according to which the woman still wae (ver. 39) what she, 
and that probably not long before, had been. The view, handed down from 
ancient times in the Latin Church (see Sepp, Z. J. II. p. 281 ff. ; Schegy 
an loc.), and still defended by Lange,* to whom therefore the ré/uc is Mag- 
dala, which identifies the woman with Mary Magdalene (for whose festival 
the narrative before us is the lesson), and further identifies the latter with 
the sister of Lazarus, is, though adopted even by Hengstenberg, just as 
groundless (according to viii. 2, moreover, morally inadmissible) as the sup- 


1 Grotlus says pertinently: ‘‘Quidmirom, “sinful woman In the general sense.’ She 


See on 


tales ad Christum confugisse, cum et ad 
Johannis baptismum venerint?’ ‘“* What 
wonder that such fled for succor to Christ, 
when they had also come to the baptism 
of John?" Matt. xxi 82 Schlefermacher 
ought not to have explained it away as the 


had been a scpyy (Matt. xxi. 81). 
auapredés in this sense, Wetstein in loc. : 
Dorvill, ad Char. p. 220. Comp. on John - 
vill. 7. 

2 Heller follows him in Herzog’s Encyki. 
TX. p. 104. 


350 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


position that the réa:¢ in the passage before us is Jerusalem (Paulus in his 
Comment. u. Exeg. Handb. ; in his Leben Jesu: Bethany). Nain may be 
meant, ver. 11 (Kuinoel). It is safer to leave it indefinite as the city in 
which dwelt the Pharisee in question. — ériow rapa tr. 16d. air.) According to 
the well-known custom at meals, Jesus reclined, with naked feet, and these 
extended behind Him, at table. — #pfaro] vividness of description attained 
by making conspicuous the jirst thing done. — ric xepadq¢] superfluous in 
itself, but contributing to the vivid picture of the proof of affection. — xare- 
¢idec] as Matt. xxvi. 49.1 Among the ancients the kissing of the feet was a 
proof of deep veneration (Kypke, I. p. 242; Dorvill, ad Charit. p. 203), 
which was manifested especially to Rabbins (Othonius, Ler. p. 233 ; Wet- 
stein in loc.). — The tears of the woman were those of painful remembrance 
and of thankful emotion. 

Vv. 89, 40. To the Pharisee in his legal coldness and conceit, the essence, 
the moral character of the proceeding, remains entirely unknown ; he sees 
in the fact that Jesus acquiesces in this homage of the sinful «woman the 
proof that He does not know her, and therefore is no prophet, because He 
allows Himself unawares to be defiled by her who is unclean. — oiroc] placed 
first with an emphasis of depreciation. — orang] of what character, i. 29. — 
qrig ant. avrov] she who touches, comes in contact with Him. — ri] that she, 
namely. — Ver. 40. Jesus saw into the thoughts of the Pharisee. The éyw 
x.r.A. is a ‘‘comis praefatio,” ‘‘ courteous preface,” Bengel. Observe that 
the Pharisee himself, in respect of such a scene, does not venture to throw 
any suspicion of immorality on Jesus. . 

Vv. 41-48. By the one debtor ® the woman is typified, by the other Simon, 
both with a view to what is to be said at ver. 47. The supposition that 
both of them had been healed by Jesus of a disease (Paulus, Kuinoel), does 
not, so far as Simon is concerned, find any sure ground (in opposition to 
Holtzmann) in the 6 Aetpé¢ of the later narrative of the anointing (in Mat- 
thew and Mark). The creditor is Christ, of whose debtors the one owes 
Him a ten times heavier debt (referring to the woman in her agony of repent- 
ance) than the other (the Pharisee regarded as the righteous man he fancied 
himself to be). [See Note LXX., p. 354.] The difference in the degree of 
guilt is measured by the difference in the subjective consciousness of guilt ; 
by this also is measured the much or little of the forgiveness, which again has 
for its result the much or little of the grateful loce shown to Christ, ver. 
41 ff. — yp? éxydvrev] ‘‘ Ergo non solvitur debitum subsequente amore et grato 
animo,” ‘‘ Therefore the debt is not paid by the subsequent love and grateful 
spirit,” Bengel. — On the interpolated eciré, which makes the question more 
pointed, comp. Bremi, ad Dem. advo. Phil. I. p. 119. [But see critical 
note. ] . 
Vv. 44-46. Jesus places the affectionate services rendered by the woman 
in contrast with the cold respectable demeanor of the Pharisee, who had 
not observed towards Him at all the customs of courtesy (foot-washing, kiss- 


1 Comp. Polyb. xv. 1. 7: ayevvins rods wé8ag = of writing, xpeod. is on decisive evidence to 
Katapidoiey tay dv ry cuvedpin. be adopted, along with Lachmann and 
* Instead of xpewd., the late inferior form Tischendorf (Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 691). 


CHAP. VII, 47. 351 


ing) and of deference (anointing of the head). — cov eio r. oix.] I came into 
thy house. The oov being placed first sharpens the rebuke. — That, more- 
over, even the foot-washing before meals was not absolutely a rule (it was ob- 
served especially in the case of guests coming off a journey, Gen. xviii. 4 ; 
Judg. xix. 21; 1 Sam. xxv. 41; 2 Thess. v. 10) is plain from John xiii., 
and hence the neglect on the part of the heartless Pharisec is the more easily 
explained. — éS8pegé pov r. 16d.) moistened my feet. Comp. on John xi. 32 ; 
Matt. viii. 8. — Observe the contrasts of the less and the greater : — (1) idup 
and roi¢ ddéxpvotv ; (2) ¢iAnua, which is plainly understood as a kiss upon the 
mouth, and ov d:éA. xarag. p. Tovg médac 3 (8) éAaiw rv Kegad. and pipy FA. pu. Tod¢ 
médac (ubpov is an aromatic anointing oil, and more precious than ?Aaoy, see 
Xen. Conv. ii. 8). — ag’ 7¢ eta7AGov] loosely hyperbolical in affectionate con- 
sideration,—suggested by the mention of the diss which was appropriate at 
the entering. 

Ver. 47. Ov ydpiv, by Beza, Grotius, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others, is separated from Aéyw oo: by 8 comma, 
and connected with agéwvrar. But the latter has its limitation by érz x.1.A. 
It is to be interpreted : on account of which I say unto thee; on behalf of 
this her manifestation of love (as a recognition and high estimation thereof) 
I declare to thee. — ag¢éwrraz x.r.A.] her sins are forgiven, the many (that she 
has committed, vv. 87, 89), since she has loved much. This iri 7ydérnoe rod 
expresses not the cause, and therefore not the antecedent of forgiveness. That 
the words do express the antecedent of forgiveness is the opinion of the 
Catholics, who maintain thereby their doctrine of contritio charitate formata 
and of the merit of works; and lately, too, of de Wette, who recognizes 
love for Christ and faith in Him as one ; of Olshausen, who after his own 
fashion endeavors to overcome the difficulty of the thought by regarding 
love as @ receptive activity ; of Paulus, who drags in what is not found in 
the text ; of Baumgarten-Crusius, and of Bleek. Although dogmatic theol- 
ogy is not decisive against this opinion (see the pertinent observations of 
Melanchthon in the Apol. iii. 31 ff. p. 87 f.), yet perhaps the context is, be- 
cause this view directly contradicts the zapafoaf4, vv. 41, 42, that lies at its 
foundation, as well as the @ d2 dAiyov adiera: x.r.4. which immediately fol- 
lows, if the love does not appear as the consequent of the forgiveness ; the 
antecedent, i.e., the subjective cause of the forgiveness, is not the love, but 
the faith of the penitent, as is plain from ver. 50. Contextually it is right, 
therefore, to understand br: of the ground of recognition or acknowledgment : 
Her sins are forgiven, etc., which is certain, since she has manifested love in 
an exalted degree. Bengel says pertinently : ‘‘ Remissio peccatorum, Simoni 
non cogitata, probatur a fructu, ver. 42, qui est evidens et in oculos incurrit, 
quum illa sit occulta,” ‘‘ The remission of sins, not considered by Simon, 
is proved from the fruit, ver. 42, which is evident and falls under the cye, 
when the former may be hidden ;” and Calovius: ‘‘ probat Christus @ pos- 
teriori,” ‘‘Christ proves a posteriori.” Comp. Beza, Calvin, Wetstein, 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 603 f.; Hilgenfeld also, Hoang. p. 175. The 
objection against this view, taken by Olshausen and Bleek, that the 
aorist qyérnce ia inappropriate, is quite a mistake, and is nullified by 


352 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


passages such as John iii. 16. The a¢éwrrae expresses that the woman 
is in the condition of forgiveness (in statu gratiae, ‘‘in a state of grace”), 
and that the criterion thereof is the much love manifested by her. It is 
thereafter in ver. 48 that Jesus makes, even to herself, the express dec- 
laration.— © dé dAiyov addgierat, éAiy. ayana] a general decision in pre- 
cise opposition to the first half of the verse, with intentional application 
to the moral condition of the Pharisee, which is of such a kind that on/y « 
little forgiveness falls to his share, the consequence being that he also manifests 
but little love (vv. 44-46). There was too much want of self-knowledge and 
of repentance in the self-righteous Simon for him to be a subject of much 
forgiveness. [See Note LXX., p. 354.]  ° . 

Ver. 48. The Pharisee is dismissed, and now Jesus satisfies the woman's 
need, and gives her the formal and direct assurance of her pardoned condi- 
tion. Subjectirely she was already in this condition through her faith (ver. 
50), and her love was the result thereof (ver. 47) ; but the objective assurance, 
the declared absolution on the part of the forgiver, now completed the 
moral deliverance (ver. 50) which her faith had wrought. 

Ver. 49. "Hpéavro] The beginning, the rising up of this thought, is note- 
worthy in Luke’s estimation. — ri¢ otré¢ éoriy x.7.A.] & question of displeas- 
ure. — xai : even. 

Ver. 50. Jesus enters not into explanation in answer to these thoughts, 
but closes the whole scene by dismissing the woman with a parting word, 
intended to confirm her faith by pointing out the ground of her spiritual de- 
liverance. — # mioric o.] ‘‘ fides, non amor ; fides ad nos spectat, amore con- 
vincuntur alii,” ‘‘ Faith, not love ; faith concerns us, others are convinced 
by love,” Bengel. — cic cipfym] as vili. 48. See on Mark v. 34. 


Remark. — From the correct interpretation of this section it is manifest of 
itself that this passage, peculiar to Luke, contains nothing without an adequate 
motive (ver. 37) or obscure (ver. 47) ; but, on the contrary, the self-consistency 
of the whole incident, the attractive simplicity and truth with which it is set 
forth, and the profound clearness and pregnancy of meaning characteristic of 
the sayings of Jesus, all bear the stamp of originality ; and this is especially 
true also of the description of the woman who is thus silently eloquent by 
means of her behavior. This is in opposition to de Wette (comp. also Weiss, 
II. p. 142 ff.). A distorted narrative (Schleiermacher), a narrative from ‘a 
somewhat confused tradition'’ (Holtzmann), or a narrative gathering together 
ill-fitting elements (Weizsacker), is not marked by such internal truth, sensibil- 
ity, and tenderness. 


Notres spy American Eprror. 


LXV. Vv. 2-10. The Centurion at Capernaum. 


Weiss ed. Mey. denies that this passage is from the primitive Mark. He 
thinks it was derived from the same source as Matt. viii. 5-13, but given here 
with ‘‘traditional enlargement.’’ In the ‘older source” it was, he affirms, 
separated from the Sermon on the Mount only by the healing of the leper, 


NOTES. 353 


which Luke introduces at chap. v. 12 ff. He further intimates that the ‘older 
source” knew nothing of the mediation of the elders and friends, objecting to the 
view of Meyer respecting the increase of confidence on the part of the centu- 
rion. But these difficulties are created by the theory that Matthew and Luke 
derived their narratives from a common source, or that the latter used the 
former. The needless discussions as to the use of dovAoc (ver. 2) and aic (ver. 7) 
grow out of the same assumption of a common written source. Either term 
ig correct enough, and the use of dovAoc in Matt. viii. 9 implies that Matthew 
also understood zraic in the sense given to it by Luke. 


LXVI. Ver. 12. airy i xhpa. 


The above reading is that of Tischendorf (see critical note), but W. and 
Hort and R. V. prefer the pointing avr?, answering to the common emphatic 
avréc: ‘‘and she was & widow.”’ : 


LXVI. Ver. 16. Gre . . . wal bre. 


Here also, as in iv. 10, the RB. V. takes dr: as recitative in both cases. 
Meyer's objection is scarcely conclusive, since the second clause indicates a . 
higher expression of faith, and may well be regarded as the utterance of 
others. 


LXVII. Vv. 18-35. The Messengers from the Baptist. 


The position assigned this event by Luke is properly correct. That Luke 
knew of the imprisonment of John the Baptist is quite likely, even though he 
does not mention it here. The notice of miracles in ver, 21 is not a contradic- 
tion of Matthew, since Matt. xi. 4, 5 implies something of the kind. The more 
accurate reference to “two of his disciples” (ver. 19) would indicate an inde- 
pendent source of information, but it is not necessary to suppose that Luke 
has added details of his own invention or of a later incorrect tradition, nor 
that vv. 20, 21 are supplied by him ‘in his character of historian.’’ On the 
other hand, Weiss ed. Mey, holds that both Matthew and Luke have derived 
their narratives from the same ‘‘earlier source,’’ urging in favor of this the 
numerous verbal correspondences. But thenumber of these is diminished in 
the correct text, and such an argument is not conclusive in the presence of so 
many peculiarities. 


LXIX. Vv. 29, 30. 


There is great difference of opinion respecting these verses. W. and Hort 
put a dash before and after, to indicate the view that they are a comment 
of the Evangelist. In that case the aorist participle (Gaxriofévrecs) would be 
rendered ‘‘having been baptized ;” so R. V. marg. But Weiss ed. Mey., 
Godet and others sustain the view of Meyer, that they were spoken by Jesus 
Himself. The main arguments are: that Luke never elsewhere introduces such 
a comment, and that the rejection of the clause in ver. 31 disposes of the only 
evidence supporting the other view. As to the source from which the language 
was derived, there is the usual disagreement. Matthew (xii. 12-15) has quite 
different language in this connection, but in chap. xxi. 31, 32 something 
similar. Hence Meyer’s view, that Luke's words are an echo of the latter pas- 
sage. But Weiss ed. Mey. thinks that they, with the preceding parable (Matt. 

23 


354 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


xxi. 28-30), stood in the position assigned them by Luke in ‘the source,”’ and 
that he ‘“‘ omitted Matt. xi. 12-15, which preceded, because, in order to explain 
vv. 12,13, he transferred them to chap. xvi. 16, and thus lost the point of con- 
nection for vv. 14, 15.” Godet, after discussing another complicated theory, 
well says (Luke, p. 225, Am. ed.): ‘‘ As to Luke, he follows his own sources of 
information, which, as he has told us, faithfully represent the oral tradition, 
and which furnish evidence of their accuracy at every fresh test.” 


LXX. Ver. 41. dbo ypeopecAéraz. 


Weiss ed. Mey. objects to Meyer's explanation of the parable, but the more 
general reference he accepts would naturally seem to involve the very applica- 
tion which Meyer makes, and which is implied in our Lord’s own use of the 
figure. In his comment on ver. 47, Weiss shows why he thus objects, since he 
there intimates that ‘little’ does not apply to the Pharisee, because he is not 
@ subject of forgiveness at all. 


CHAP. VIII. 355 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 3. Instead of atr@ Scholz and Tisch. have avrois, on preponderating evi- 
dence. The singular more readily occurred to the transcribers, partly because 
goay releparveuz. had gone before, partly by reminiscences of Matt. xxvii. 55 ; 
Mark xv. 41. — Instead of dé we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., on deci- 
sive evidence, éx. —[Ver. 6. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., following B L &, read 
xatérecev, instend of the simple verb.]— Ver. 8. Elz. has éri. But eic¢ has 
decisive attestation. — Ver. 9. Aéyovrec] is wanting in BD LREé B®, min, Syr. 
Perss. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Suspected by Griesb., rejected by Wassenb. and 
Schulz, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.]. But the 
oratio obligua was the cause rather of its omission than of its addition. — [Ver. 
12. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read axof-cavrec (¥& B L =), instead of axobovres. ] — 
Ver. 16. ézrifjowv] Lachm. and Tisch, have rifjow. See on Mark iv. 21. — Ver. 
17. ob yowotjcera:] Lachm. and Tisch. have ov 7 yowofg, in accordance with B L 
= &, 33. [So Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. Meyer's objection is invalid.] 
An alteration for the sake of the following #7. — Ver. 20. Acyévrwr] is wanting 
in BDLAZN, min. vas., also Vulg. It. Bas. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
It is to be maintained; the looseness of construction occasioned in some 
authorities its simple omission, in others the substitution of 571, as read by 
Tischendorf. [Treg , W. and Hort, and Weiss (apparently) reject both Acyévruv 
and 67, also substituting «ai for dé, at the beginning of the verse. — Ver. 24. 
Tisch. Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., follow ®& B L, and read dceyepfeic, instead of 
the simple verb.] — Ver. 26. Tadapyvav] Lachm. and Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. has Tep- 
yeorvor)}, following B C? D, Vulg. It., have Tepaoqvayv, L X &, min. vss. Epiph. 
have Tepycoyvov, See on Matt. [Here also recent editors accept T'espacyzvav ; 80 
R. V. text. Comp. on Mark. — Ver. 27. Tisch. and recent editors have : éyuwv da:- 
péua, Kai ypévw ixav@ ovt Evedicaro iudriov, following ®& B, Copt., and others.] — Ver. 
29. Instead of mapiyystte we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., srap/yeAAev,on de- 
cisive evidence. — Ver. 31. mapexdAec] xapexadovy (Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors]), 
although strongly attested, is an alteration to suit the connection and following 
the parallels. — Ver. 32. Booxozévwy] Lachm. has Booxouévy, in accordance with 
BD KU 8, min. Syr. Aeth. Vere. [So W. and Hort, R. V.] From the par- 
allels, — mapexadAovy] Lachm. and Tisch. have zapexddccav, in accordance with B 
C* L =, min. In Matthew the former, in Mark the latter reading. The evi- 
dence is not decisive, but probably the imperfect is from Matthew, as itis only 
in that Gospel that the reading is without variation. — Ver. 33. Instead of eia7A- 
ev, evo7fov is decisively attested (Lachm. Tisch.). — Ver. 34. yeyevnyévov] With 
Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., who follow decisive evidence, read yeyovds, — 
areAbévrec] which Elz. has before avfyy., is condemned on decisive evidence. — 
[Ver. 35. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. (8 B) have é£7A@ev.]— Ver. 36. 
xai] ig not found inB C DL P X &, min. Syr. Pers.P Copt. Arm. Slav. It. 
Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. [Tisch. VIII. and recent edi- 
tors]. But as it might be dispensed with, and, moreover, as it is not 


356 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


read in Mark v. 16, it came easily to disappear. — Ver. 37. jpwrycav] Lachm. 
has qporyoev, in accordance with A BC K M P X &, min. Vere. [So recent 
editors, R. V., against Tisch.] An emendation. —[Ver. 38. Tisch., recent 
editors, R. V.(® B D L) omit 6 Iyooic. —- Ver. 40. Instead of t-toorpfya: & B have 
troorpégerv ; 80 Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] — Ver. 41. avréc] Lachm. has 
ovroc¢, in accordance with B D R, min. Copt, Brix. Verc. Goth. The Recepta is 
to be maintained ; the reference of avréd¢ was not perceived. — Ver. 42. év dé 6 
wrayer} Lachm, and Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. has ¢v dé ro iwdyecv] read kai éyéveto iv TO 
mopevecta:, but only on the authority of C D* P, Vulg. also, It. Marcion. The 
Recepta is to be adhered to in consideration of the preponderance of evidence 
in its favor, and because the frequently used sopeiecfiae would be more readily 
imported than izdyev. — Ver. 43. [Tiach., recent editors, R. V., read iarpoic (8 
and uncials generally), but B omits tarp. . . . Biov; 80 W. and Hort, R. V. 
marg. |] —vz’| Lachm. and Tisch. have az’, in accordance with AB R = 254. The 
Recepta is a correction, instead of which 69 has rap’, — Ver. 45. Instead of oiw 
av7@ Elz. Scholz have per’ avvov, in opposition to decisive evidence (in B, min. 
and a few vss. [so W. and Hort, R. V. marg.] the words xai of ovy av7@ are want- 
ing altogether). — x. Aéyere: tig 6 ay. w.] is, with Tisch., following BL &, min. 
Copt. Sah. Arm., to be deleted. Taken from Mark, on the basis of ver. 45. — 
{Ver. 46. Instead of é5e/forcav (Rec.), recent editors have éeAnauthiay (RW B L, 
33); the former is from Mark. In vv. 47, 49 aviv» is omitted after amjyyedev 
and Acywv (& B Land others) by recent editors. ] — Ver. 48. @apcec] An addition 
from Matthew ; deleted by Lachm. Tisch. — Ver. 49. Instead of p77 Lachm. 
Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort] have pyxéti, in accordance with B D &, Syr.? 
(marked with an asterisk), Cant. This y7xér:, in consequence of Mark v. 35 (ri 
ér:), was written in the margin by way of gloss, and was afterward taken in, 
sometimes alongside of uy (thus B: pi uyxérs), sometimes instead of it. — [Ver. 50. 
Tisch., recent editors, R. V., omit 2é);uv (NX BL, 1, 33) and substitute wtiorercoy 
(BL) for sicreve; the latter is from Mark.]— Ver. 51. Instead of éA@av 
(Griesb. Scholz, Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]) Elz. has cioeA@dv, in ac- 
cordance with D V, min. Copt. Aeth. This latter is to be restored ; the simple 
form is from Matt. ix. 23, Mark v. 38, and was the more welcome as distinguished 
from the following eiceAfeiv (‘‘ et cum venisset domum, non permisit intrare,”’ etc., 
Vulg.). [The order "Iwaivyy xai laxw3ov is well attested (BC D, etc.), accepted 
by Tisch., recent editors, R. V.; the Rec. is from Mark. ] — ovdéva] Lachm. and 
Tisch. have tiva ov av7@, upon sufficient evidence. ovdéva is from Mark v. 37. 
— Ver. 52. otk] BC DF L X AB, min. vss. have ov yap. Commended by 
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] and Tisch. [Tisch. 
VIII. has oix]. From Matt. ix. 24, whence also in many authorities rd xopdatoy 
is imported after a7é@. — Ver. 54. éxatav éSw rav7. cai] is wanting in BD LX 
8, min. Vulg. It. Syr.ce" Ambr. Bede. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. Ifthe words had been genuine, they would hardly, as recording a 
detail of the narrative mado familiar by Matthew and Mark, have been 
omitted here. — éyeipov] with B C D X & 1, 33, é;erpe is in this place also (comp. 
v. 23 f., vi. 8) to be written. So Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss] and Tisch. 
[Tisch. VIII. has éyeipov]. Comp. on Matt. ix. 5. 


Vv. 1-8. A general historical statement in regard to the continued official 
teaching in Galilee, and the ministry of women connected therewith. — év 
r¢ xabeé.] Comp. vii. 11.—xai airéc] «ai is that which carries forward the 


CHAP. VIII., 4-15. 357 
narrative after éyévero (see on v. 12), and avré¢ prepares the way for the 
mention of the followers of Jesus (ai of dddexa x.7.A.). — xara méAcy] as ver. 
4. — Mayd.] see on Matt. xxvii. 56. She is neither the woman that anointed 
Jesus, vii. 37, nor the sister of Lazarus. — aq’ 7¢ daudv. éxra éfeAnA.]. Comp. 
Mark xvi. 9. <A simultaneous possession by seven devils is to be conceived 
of, so far similar to the condition of the possessed man of Gadara, viii. 30. 
Comp., even at so early a period, Tertullian, De Anim. 25. Lange, L. J. 
II. 1, p. 292, rationalizes :' ‘‘a convert whom Jcsus had rescued from the 
heavy curse of sin.” Comp. also Hengstenberg on John, II. p. 206, accord- 
ing to whom she was ‘‘an emancipated roman” who found in Christ the 
tranquillizing of the tumult of her emotional nature. The express refe- 
parevuévat, healed, should certainly have guarded against this view. — ém- 
tporov] Matt. xx. 8. He had probably deen a steward, and she was his widow. 
She is also named at xxiv. 10. —‘Hpddov] Probably Antipas, because without 
any distinguishing limitation. Neither Joanna nor Susanna is known in 
any other relation. — diyxévovv] with means of living and other kinds of 
necessaries, Matt. xxvii. 55. 

Vv. 4-15. See on Matt. xiii. 1-23; Mark iv. 1-20. The sequence of 
events between the message of the Baptist and this parabolic discourse is in 
Matthew wholly different. —ovviovrog dé] whilst, howerer, a great crowd of 
people came together, also of those who, city by city, drew near to Him, révx.r.A. 
depends on éyAov roAdov, and xai, also, shows that this dyA0¢ roAt¢, besides 
others (such, namely, as were dwelling there), consisted also of those who, 
city by city, i.¢., by cities, etc. ‘‘ Ex quavis urbe erat cohors aliqua,” ‘‘ Out 
of every city whatever there was a certain throng,” Bengel. — émcropetecbai, 
not : to journey after (Rettig in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1838, p. 486), but to jour- 
ney thither, to draw tovards.?, Nowhere else in the New Testament; in 
the Greck writers it is usually found with an accusative of place, in the 
sense of peragrare terram, and the like. — dia zapa3.] by means of a parable. 
Luke has the parable itself as brief and as little of the pictorial as possible 
(see especially vv. 6, 8) ; the original representation of the Logia (which 
Weiss finds in Luke) has already faded away. [Sce Note LXXL., p. 362.] — 
Ver. 5. The collocation é oreipwy rot omeipat zov axépov has somewhat of 
simple solemnity and carnestness, — yév] xai follows in ver. 6. See on Mark 
ix. 12.— xa? xaterar.] not inappropriate, since the discourse is certainly 
of the footpath (in opposition to de Wette), but an incidental detail not in- 
tended for exposition (ver. 12). — Ver. 7. év uéow] The result of the érecev.* 
— ovpoveica:] ‘‘ una cum herba segetis,” ‘‘at the same time with the blade 


1 That what is here meant fs ‘the ethi- only serve the purpose of the parable. Be- 


cally culpable and therefore metaphor- 
ical possession of an erring soul that was 
completely under the power of the spirit of 
the world.”’ This explaining away of the 
literal possession (in which, moreover, 
Fathers such as Gregory and Bede have 
already preceded him) is not to be defended 
by comparison of Matt. xl 48 ff., Luke xx. 
24 ff., where certainly the seven demons 


sides, it is pure invention to find in the 
seven demons the representation of the 
spirit of the world in its whole power. At 
least, according to this the demon in Matt. 
xii. 45 would only have needed to take with 
with him siz other demons. 

2 Comp. Bar. vi. 62; Polyb. fv. 9. 2 

3 See on Matt. x. 16; and Kriiger, ad Dion, 
Hal, Hist. p. S02. 


358 ; THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


of the grain,” Erasmus. — Vv. 9-11. ric... airy] namely, xara rhv épunveiay, 
‘“‘according to the interpretation,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — roi¢ d2 Aciroic¢ 
év ranaB.] but to the rest the mysterics of the kingdom of God are given in 
parables, that they, etc. What follows, viz. iva BAémovrec yu) BAtmwot x.7.A., is 
the contrast to yvavat. — tors 62 airy 4 rapafBodq] but what follows is the parable 
(according to its meaning). — oi 2 mapa r7v é6dév] to complete this expression 
understand ozapévrec, which is to be borrowed from the foregoing 6 orépoc. 
But since, according to ver. 11, the seed is the Gospel, a quite fitting form 
into which to put the exposition would perhaps have been 1d dé rapa r7v dddv 
tobruv éorir, of x.t.A. Wv. 14, 15 come nearer to such a logically exact mode 
of expression. — Ver. 13. Those, however, (sown) upon the rock are they who, 
when they shall have heard, receice the word with joy ; and these, indeed, have 
no root, who for a while believe, etc. — Ver. 14. But that which fell among the 
thorns, these are they who have heard, and, going away among cares, etc., they 
are choked. The ovro: (instead of rovro) is attracted from what follows 
(Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 42), as also at ver. 15. — td pepiuray x.7.A.] 8 
modal limitation to rropevéuevor, so that i7é6 marks the accompanying relations, 
in this case the impulse, under which their ropebeoOat, that, is, their movement 
therefrom (that is, their further life-guidance), proceeds.’ The connecting of 
these words with cvumviy. (Theophylact, Castalio, Beza, Elsner, Zeger, 
Bengel, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, Schegg, and others) has against it the fact 
that without some qualifying phrase ropevéuevoe would not be a picturesque 
(de Wette), butan unmeaning addition, into which the interpreters were the 
first to introduce anything characteristic, as Beza, Elsner, Wolf, Valckenaer : 
digressi ab audito verbo, ‘‘ gone apart from the word heard,” and Majus, 
Wetstein, Kuinoel, and others : sensim ac paulatim, ‘‘ gently and gradually” 
(following the supposed meaning of 307, 2 Sam. iii. 1, and clsewhere). 
Comp. Ewald, ‘‘ more and more.” [See Note LX:XILI., p. 362. ] — rod Biov] be- 
longs to all the three particulars mentioned. Temporal cares (not merely 
with reference to the poor, but in general), temporal riches, and temporal 
pleasures are the conditioning circumstances to which their interest is en- 
chained, and among which their zopeiec0a: proceeds. —ovurviyovra] the 
same which at ver. 7 was expressed actively: ai dxavOar avémvgav avré. Hence 
ovurviyovraris passive ; not: they choke (what was heard), but: they are choked. 
That which holds good of the seed as a type of the teaching is asserted of 
the men in whose hearts the efficacy of the teaching amounts to nothing. 
This want of precision is the result of the fact that the /earers referred to 
were themselves marked out as the seed among the thorns. —x. ob redAcog.] 
consequence of the ouumviy., they do not bring to maturity, there occurs in 
their case no bringing to maturity. Examples in Wetstein and Kypke. — 
Ver. 15. rd da év 7. x. yj] 8¢. weodv, ver. 14. — év xapdig «.7.2.] belongs to xazé- 
govor (keep fast, see on 1 Cor. xi. 2), and axoboavres rov Ady. 18 8 qualifying 
clause inserted parenthetically. — «aA x. ayap] in the truly moral meaning 
(comp. Matt. vii. 17), not according to the Greek idea of evyévera denoted 
by-xaddg xayabbs (Welcker, Theogn. Proleg. p. xxiv. ff.; Maetzncr, ad Antiph. 


* Bornemann tn loc.; Bernhardy, p. 2608; Ellendt, Lez. Soph. IT. p. 881. 


CHAP. VIII., 16-21. 359 


p. 187; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. 8, p. 569 A). But the heart is morally 
beautiful and good just by means of the purifying efficacy of the word that 
is heard, John xv. 3. —é tropovg] perseveringly. Comp. Rom. ii. 7. A 
contrast is found in dgioravra:, ver.138. Bengel well says: ‘‘est robur animi 
spe bona sustentatum,” ‘‘it is strength of mind sustained by a good hope,” 
and that therein lies the ‘‘ summa Christianismi,” ‘‘sum of Christianity.” 

Vv. 16-18. See on Mark iv. 21-25 ; Matt. v. 15, x. 26, xiii. 12. The con- 
nection in Luke is substantially the same as in Mark : But if by such explana- 
tions as I have now given upon your question (ver. 9) I kindle a light for 
you, you must also let the same shine further, etc. (see on Mark iv. 21), and 
thence follows your obligation (BAé7ere otv, ver. 18) to listen aright to my 
teaching. On the repeated occurrence of this saying the remark of Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus is sufficient : cixd¢ dé, xara deagdpovc Katpodg ra ToradTa Tov 
Xpiordv eiveiv, ‘‘ but it is probable that Christ spake such things on differ- 
ent occasions.’’ — Ver. 17. xai eig gav. 2487] a change in the idea. By the 
Suture yrwoficerac that which is to come is simply asserted as coming to 
pass ; but by the subjunctive (éA9y) it is in such a way asserted that it leads 
one to expect it out of the present, and that without dv, because it is not con- 
ceived of as dependent on a conditioning circumstance (Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 158 f.) : There is nothing hidden which shall not be known and is not bound 
to come to publicity.' [But see critical note. ] — Ver. 18. ré¢] xp7 yap orovdaiug 
x. Ermelog .. . axpoaoba, ‘For it is needful to hear. . . earnestly and care- 
fully,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — 8¢ yap dv yy x.r.4.] @ ground of encourage- 
ment. The meaning of the proverbial sayings in this connection is as in 
Mark iv. 25, not as in Matt. xiii. 12. —8 doxei éyewv] even what he fancies he 
possesses : it is not the liability to loss, but the se/f-delusion about possession, 
the fanciful presumption of possession, that isexpressed ; the pu? éyerv, in fact, 
occurs when the knowledge has not actually been made a man’s own ; aman 
believes he has it, and the slight insight which he regards as its possession is 
again lost. It is not reproach against the apostles (Baur, Hilgenfeld), but 
warning that is conveyed in the form of a general principle. In xix. 26 the 
expression with doxei would have been inappropriate. But even here the 
mere 8 éye:, as in Mark iv. 25, would have been not only allowable, but even 
more significant. The doxei «.r.A. already shows the influence of later re- 
flection. 3 

Vv. 19-21. See on Matt. xii. 46-50 ; Markiii. 81-85. [See Note LXXIIL., 
p. 862.] Luke has the section in accordance with Mark, but in a shortened 
form,*® without anything to indicate chronological sequence or connection of 
subject, and he gives it a different position. — Ver. 20. Aeyévrwy] by tts being 
said.2 [Sce critical note. ]— Ver. 21. oro] my mother and my brethren are 
those who, etc. 


*Comp. on tho latter clause, Plato, Gor- = xeipa abrov éwl +. padyrac «.7.4,, in an inter 
gias, p. 480 C: eis rd havepdy dyav rd adicnna; est adverse to the Twelve. It is not the 
Thucoyd. i. 6. 8, 28. 5. Twelve alone that are meantin Matthew. 

® Therefore it is not to be said, with Baur, 3See Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 588) ; Bernhardy, 
Hoang. p. 467 f., that Luke purposely omit- _p. 481; Bornemann, Schol. p. 53. 
ted the words in Matthew: «ai dcreivas r. 


360 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Vv. 22-25. See on Matt. viii. 18, 28-27 ; Mark iv. 85-41. In Luke thereis 
no precise note of time, but the voyage is the same ; abridged from Mark. 
[On vv. 22-56, asa whole, see Note LXXIV., p. 862.] — Ver. 23 f. adurvoiy] 
which means to wake up (therefore equivalent to agurri{ecfac), and also (as in 
this case) to fall asleep (consequently equivalent to xafurvoin"), belongs to the 
late and corrupt Greck. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 224. — xaréBn] from the high 
ground down to the lake.* — owerAnpovvro] What happened to the ship is 
said of the sailors. Examples in Kypke, I. p. 248. Observe the imperfects 
in relation to the preceding aorist. — difyeipav] they awoke him (Matt. i. 24); 
but subsequently éyepfeic : haring arisen (Matt. ii. 14). [But sce critical note. | 
— Ver. 25. #40,376.] the disciples, as Mark iv. 41: — The first xai is: even. 

Vv. 26-89. See on Matt. viii. 28~34 ; Mark v. 1-20. Luke follows Mark 
freely. — xarérA.] they arriced. See Wetstein. — Ver. 27. éx rie méAewe] does 
not belong to izfyrycev, but to arfp tic, alongside of which it stands. To 
connect the clause with i#»r7cev would not be contradictory to év olxia.. . 
pvhpaow, but would require the presupposition, not presented in the text, that 
the demoniac had just rushed out of the city. [Seeon the rest of the verse, 
critical note.]— Ver. 28. u# ve Bacav.| as at Mark v. 7. — Ver. 29. wapfyyea- 
Aev] not in the sense of the pluperfect, but like 2eyev, Mark v. 8. — Nothing is 
to be put in a parenthesis. — roAAvic yap ypdvorg x.t.A.] To account for the com- 
mand of Jesus the description of his frightful condition is given : for dur- 
ing a long time it had fared with him as follows.? In opposition to usage, 
Erasmus and Grotius render the words : often. So also Valckenaer. — ov- 
vyprdxer] may mean : it had hurried him along with it (Acts vi. 12, xix. 29, 
xxvii. 15, and very frequently in the classical writers), but also : i¢ had (ab- 
solutely and entirely, ovr) seized him (Ar. Lys. 487; 4 Macc. v. 8). It is 
usually taken in the latter sense. But the former is the more certain of the 
two according to the usage of Luke, corresponds better with its use else- 
where, and likewise agrees perfectly with the connection. For édeopeiro 
x.t.A. then relates what was accustomed to be done with the sufferer in 
order to prevent this tearing and dragging by the demon ; observe the im- 
perfect, he was (accustomed to be) chained, etc. [Recent editors follow & BL, 
33, and give the form édeopeiero.] — Ver. 81. avroic] as Mark v. 10, from the 
standpoint of the consciousness of the several demons possessing the man. — 
afvocov] abyss, i.c., Hades (Rom. x. 7). The context teaches that in partic- 
ular Gehenna is meant (comp. Apoc. ix. 1 f., xi. 7, xx. 3). The demons 
know and dread their place of punishment. Mark is different and more orig- 
inal ; in opposition to Baur, Markuserang. p. 42. — Ver. 33. arerviyn] of 
choking by drowning.‘ Even Hug (@utacht. II. p. 17 f.) attempts to 
justify the destruction of the swine in a way which can only remind us of the 


1 It corresponds exactly to the German 
*“entschlafen,” except that this word is not 
used in the sense of becoming free from 
sleep, which cadvrvoiv might have accord- 
ing to the connection. 

2Comp. Polyb. xxx. 14. 6: AaiAards rivos 
aarentoxvias eis avrovs, : 


®Comp. Rom. xvi. 23; Acts viif. 11; John 
fi. 20; Herodian, {. 6.24: ov rodAp xpdry; 
Plut. Thes. vi. : xpdévots wodAots torepoy. See 
generally, Bernhardy, p. 81; Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. I. p. xl. 

* Dem. 833, pen.; Raphel, Polyd. p. 1993 
Wakefield, Silv. Crit. II. p. 7. 


CHAP. VIII., 40-56. 361 


maxim, ‘‘ gui excusat, aceusat.” — Ver. 35. é&7A8ov] the people from the city 
and from the farms. — zapé r. zédac] as a scholar with his teacher. The 
whole of this description, indeed, and the subsequent prohibition, ver. 89, 
is intended, according to Baur, Eeang. p. 430 f., to set forth the demoniac 
ns a representative of the converted heathen world. — Ver. 86. xni ol idévrec] the 
disciples and others who had seen it together. The «ai places these in con- 
trast even with the people who came thither and found the cure accom- 
plished, and to whom the eye-witnesses also of the proceeding narrated it. [But 
see critical note. ] — Ver. 88. édéero] See on this Ionic form, which, however, 
was also frequent among Attic writers." The reading édeiro (B L) is a cor- 
rection, and édecizo (A P, Lachmann) is a transcriber’s mistake for this cor- 
rection.— Ver. 89. 7éA:v] Gadara, ver. 27. Mark, certainly with greater ac- 
curacy, has év rm AexaréAer. 

Vv. 40-56. See on Matt. ix. 1, 18-26 ; Mark v. 21-48. In Matthew the 
sequence is different. The narrative of Luke, indeed, is not dependent on 
that of Mark, but has it in view, without, however, on the whole attaining 
to its clearness and vividness. — azedéfaro] is usually understood of a joyous 
reception (a¢ evepyétav kal owrgpa, ‘Sas benefactor and Saviour,” Euthymius 
Zigabenus) ; but quite arbitrarily. Comp. Acts xv. 4. The narrative says 
simply : that on His return the crowd received Him (comp. ix. 11), because 
all had been in expectation of His coming back ; so that thus immediately 
His ministry was again put in requisition. — Ver. 41. xai airé¢] and He, after 
mention of the name comes the personal position. Comp. xix. 2. —aré- 
Grn70Kxev] died (imperfect), t.¢., was dying, not : ‘‘obierat, absente mortuamque 
ignorante patre,” ‘‘has died, the father being absent and not knowing that 
she was dead” (Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 348). That the death had not yet 
taken place is indicated.* — ovvérveyov] a vivid picture : they stifled Him ; in 
point of fact the same as owéfA:Bov, Mark v. 24.— Ver. 48. mpocavaad- 
caca| then she eren in addition (over and above her suffering) had expended.* 
[See critical note. ] —iarpoi¢] on physicians. [Sce critical note.] As to ddov r. 
Biov, comp. Mark xil. 44. — Ver. 45. 6 lérpog pév Geto mepi drAne magic Aéyew 
tov Xpeordv . . . avrdc d2 ov wept roatryng Eheyer, GAAG wept THe yevoutvnc ex wi- 
crews, ‘Peter supposed that Christ was speaking of a simple touch... but 
He was not speaking of this, but of that which came of faith,” Euthymius 
Zigabenus. — Ver. 49. ric rapa rov apy.] 2.6., one of his dependants. Comp. 
on Mark iii. 21. — réOvyxev] placed first for emphasis : she is dead.4— Ver. 
51. eioeAfciv] into the chamber of death. — Ver. 52 relates to the bewailing 
crowd assembled in the house (not in the death-chamber), with whom oc- 
curred this conversation, ver. 52 f., while Jesus and those named at ver. 51 
trere passing into the chamber where the dead body lay. Among those who 
laughed, the three disciples are as little intended to be reckoned ° in Luke as 


1 Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 220: Schaefer, ad On the distinction from awedéynener, ver. 
Greg. Cor. p. 481; Kriger, ad Xen. Anad. 42, comp. Plat. Phaed. p. O44 A: arodricaey 


vil. 4. & ve xai reOvdvat, 
* Bernhardy, p. 873; Wyttenbach, ad *They would not, moreover, have to be 
Flat. Phaed. p. 142 ff. understood as associated with those who 


® Dem. 460. 2, 1025. 20; Plat. Prot. p.311D. were put out, if éxBar. éfw wdvr. were genu- 


362 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


in Mark, whom he follows, — éxérrovro atr#v] a well-known custom, to ex- 
press one’s grief by beating on one’s breast. As to the construction of xé- 
ateoda (also rirrecfa:) and plangere with an accusative of the object (xxiii. 
27) on whose account one beats oneself, see Heyne, Obss. ad Tibull. i. 7. 28, 
p. 71. — Ver.-55. éxéorpepe x.t.A.] purposely narrates the reanimation of one 
that was actually dead,' whose spirit had departed. In Acts xx. 10 also this 
idea is found. — Ver. 56. wapfyy. avroi¢ «.7.A.] following Mark v. 48. 


Nores By AMERICAN Eprror. 


LXXI. The Parable of the Sower. 


‘ yed. Mey. thinks Luke has preserved the parable in a form nearer that 
of ‘‘the Apostolic source” than Mark. This difference from Meyer, with whose 
theory in general Weiss agrees, respecting a parable which occurs in all three 
Synoptists, shows how uncertain all these judgments must necessarily be. This 
parable least of all confirms any theory of dependence ona common source. (See 
Mark, Note XXI., p. 59.) 


LXXII. Ver. 14. 670 pepiyvon «.r.A. 


Despite Meyer’s objection, this phrase seems to qualify the main verb, and 
mopevouevoe may be taken as in the R. V.: ‘‘and as they go on their way they are 
choked,” etc. 


LXXIII. Vv. 19-21. 


The position of this paragraph and the entire omission of all the important 
circumstances which, according to Mark’s account, give it special significance, 
make decidedly against Luke's use of Mark, although Weiss has a complicated 
theory to account for its position and form. 


LXXIV. Vv. 22-56. 


The remaining part of this chapter is made up of events narrated by all three 
Synoptists in the same order. But the connection in Matthew is very differ- 
ent, and the account of Mark presents many peculiarities. In view of these 
facts, the theory of a common oral tradition is more satisfactory here than that 
of dependence on Mark, with (Weiss) or without (Meyer) the use of ‘‘ the earlier 
Apostolic source.’’ 


ine (but see the critical remarks). Kdstlinis remain even a shadow of uncertainty as to 
right in adducing this against Baur, whode- how the matter is to beregarded (Welsz- 
tected in this passage a Pauline side-glance s&cker). Jesus Himself will not leave the 
to the original apostles. crowd in any doubt, but declares (ver. 52) 

1 How opposed, therefore, {s thisto the in His pregnant style what must tmmedi- 
view of an apparent death / There cannot ately of itself be evident. 


CHAP. IX. 363 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 1. After dddexa Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have pafyrac avrov, which is not 
foundinABDKMSVTI 4, min. vss. Fathers. An addition, instead of which 
other authorities of importance have azoordAove. Luke always writes oi dddexa 
absolutely. Soalso do Mark and John, but not Matthew. — Ver. 2. svt¢ aofe- 
vouvracg] ADL = ®&, min. have r. dofeveic. Approved by Griesb., adopted by 
Lachm. But since in B, Syr.« Dial. the words are altogether wanting, and, 
moreover, in the variants occur rov¢ vocovvrac, ravtacg Tove GoflevoivTas, and omnes 
infirmitates (Brix.), the simple iaofa: (as Tisch. also now has) isto be regarded as 
original. [So recent editors, R. V. marg.] — Ver. 3. pafdore in Elz., instead of 
pé8dov in Lachm. and Tisch., has evidence of importance both for and against 
it. In accordance with A B [B has pafdov] A, it is to be maintained, since the 
singular might be introduced from Matt. x. 10 (see on the passage), and me- 
chanically also from Mark vi. 8, just as easily as it could be retained by reason 
of the singulars alongside of it. [The singular is attested by ® B C*D L, 1, 33, 
69, vss., accepted by recent editors, R. V.— ava is wanting in & BC L, omitted 
by W. and Hort, R. V., retained by Tisch. Weiss. }]— Ver. 5. déSwvrar] in Elz, 
instead of dfyuvra: (the latter is approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and 
Tisch.), has against it authorities so important, that it must be referred to the 
parallels. -— «air. xov.] This xai (bracketed by Lachm.) is wanting in B C* D 
LXER, 1, 124, Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Omitted, in accordance with the 
parallels. [Tisch. retains, but recent editors omit ; so R. V.] — Ver. 7. én’ atrov] 
is wanting in B C* DL &, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by 
Lachm., deleted by Tisch, An addition for the purpose of more precise 
specification. —[Tisch., recent editors, R. V., following ® BCL, etc., substitute 
éyép6n for éyizyeptat ; in ver. 8, ri¢ foreic ; in ver, 9, dé for xai, at the beginning, 
omitting é¢yo before axoi'w.] — Ver. 10. rémav fonu. 716A. kad. Bybc.] Many variants; 
the reading which is best attested is wéArv xadovpuévyy Byfc., which Tisch., follow- 
ing B L X., 33, Copt. Sahid. Erp., has adopted. Rightly ; ei¢ xdAcvx.7.A. would 
of necessity arouse objection, as what follows did not take place in a city, but 
in a desert (comp. ver. 12, and also Mark vi. 31). — Ver. 11. dr&au.] Lachm. and 
Tisch. have arodeféu., in accordance with B D LX [also =] &, min. Rightly ; 
the Recepia is a neglect of the compound form, which form in the New Testament 
occurs only in Luke. — Ver. 12. Instead of ropeviévrec, Elz. Scholz have dre2- 
Odvrec, in opposition to decisive evidence ; it is from the parallels. — Ver. 14. 
Before dvé, BC DLBREX, 33, 157, Sahid. Cant. Or. have deel, which Tisch.8s"°rs 
has adopted. (Tisch. VIII. omits; recent editors, R. V., accept.] Rightly ; 
it was omitted, because even Mark has no indefinite qualifying word. — [Ver. 15. 
Tisch., recent editors, R. V. (with 8 B L, 1, 33, etc.), read xarixAvav instead of 
avéxdvay. — Ver. 16. Tisch., recent editors (with & B C, etc.) read rapadeciva: in- 
stead of rapari3iva:.] — Ver. 22. tyepd.] Lachm. has avactiva:. The authorities 
are greatly divided, but éyepd. is from Matthew (r. rpirg fuépetyepd.). [X& BL A, 
ete., have éyepd., accepted by Tisch., recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 23. Instead of 


364 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Epxeodat, apyvyodoSw Elz. Scholz have éA%eiv, amapvyoéo9u, in opposition to pre- 
ponderating mss. and Or. From the parallels. — xaW suépav] condemned by 
Griesb., deleted by Scholz, Lachm. It has preponderating evidence in its 
favor ; the omission is due to the words being omitted in the parallels. — Ver. 
27. dde] BL = 8, 1, Cyr. have airov. Commended by Griesb., approved by 
Rinck, adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; cde is from the parallels. — The readings 
éoréruy and yetowvra: (Elz. : éoryxéruov and yetcovra) have (the latter strongly) 
preponderating evidence in their favor. [But éor7xéruv is accepted by Tisch. 
and recent editors, with ®& B L, etc. — Ver. 34. The same authorities and edi- 
tors have the imperfect ézeoxiafev.] -— Ver. 35. ayaxyréc] B LE ®&, vss, have 
éxAcheypévoc, Commended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Tisch. The Re- 
cepta is from the parallels. — Ver. 37. év rg é7c] &, in accordance with BLS 
¥, 1, 69, is to be deleted. See on vii. 11. — Ver. 38. aveZ.] Lachm. has éBégcev, 
in accordance with BC DL &, min. [so Tisch., recent editors, R. V.]. A neg- 
lect of the compound form, which form occurs elsewhere in the New Testament 
only in Matt. xxvii. 46, and even there is disregarded by several authorities. — 
Instead of €71,32é ac (to be accented thus) [Tisch. é7if22ya.], Elz. Lachm. have 
évi3zeyov, Authorities of importance on both sides. The Jatter is an inter- 
pretation. The infinitive EIIIBAEYAI was taken for an imperative middle. 
—([Ver. 40. All uncials have éxfd2worv ; so recent editors. ] — Ver. 43. ésoizoet] 
Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have érotee ; decisively attested. [X A BC D L, vss., have 
the imperfect, most of them omitting 6 'Ijcvtc ; so recent editors.]— Ver. 48. 
instead of ‘ori, which is approved by Griesb., and, moreover, adopted by 
Lachm. and Tisch., Elz. Scholz have icra. But éori is attested by BCL X 
= &, min. vss. (also Vulg. It.) Or. (thrice) ; the future was introduced in refer- 
ence to the future kingdom of heaven. — [Ver. 49. Recent editors, with ® B L, 
etc., read év instead of ézi (Rec. Tisch.), also omit the poorly supported 7a be- 
fore daz. — The imperfect éxw7iouev is found in ® B L, and accepted by W. 
and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]— Ver. 50. Instead of tyay Elz, has 7yav both times, in 
opposition to preponderating evidence. See on Mark ix. 40.—Ver. 54. o¢ x. 
"HA, éx.)] is wanting in B L& &, 71, 157, ves. (Vulg. also and codd. of It.) Jer. 
(?). Suspected by Griesb. (following Mill), deleted by Tisch. But how easily 
the indirect rebuke of Elijah, contained in what follows, would make these words 
objectionable ! — Ver. 55. xai elrev . . . tuetc] is wanting in A BC BH, etc., also 
®, min. Copt. Aeth. Sax. Germ. 1, Gat. Fathers. Condemned by Griesb., de- 
leted by Lachm. and Tisch. The words have such a weight of evidence against 
them that they would have to be rejected, if it could be explained how they 
got into the text. How easily, on the other hand, might an intentional omission, 
out of consideration for Elijah, occur! Moreover, the simple, short, and preg- 
nant word of rebuke is so unlike a transcriber’s addition, and so worthy of 
Jesus Himself, as, on the other hand, it is hardly to be conceived that Luke 
would have limited himself on an occasion of so unprecedented a kind only to 
the bare éreriuyoev avroic. [Despite Meyer's argument, it is safest to reject the 
doubtful clauses in vv. 54, 55. It is trne there is an increase of evidence 
against the passages from vv. 54 to 56, but even the first clause lacks the 
support of the best uncials. The readings deserve notice, but all recent edi- 
tors reject them from the text (so R. V.), as they must, if manuscript evidence 
is decisive.] But the additional clause which follows in Elz. is decidedly 
spurious : 6 yap vide Tub dvOpdrov vin WAVE Yyuxae avOporuv arodtoat, a2AG odcaz. 





CHAP. IX., 1-9. 365 


— Ver. 57. éyévero 6é] Lachm. Tisch. have xai, in accordance with BC LX = RB, 
min. Syr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm, Rightly ; a new section was here begun (a 
lection also), and attention was called to this by adding éyévero to xai (so D, 346, 
Cant. Verc. Colb.), or by writing éyévero dé, in accordance with ver. 51. — xbpe] 
is wanting in BDL & &, min. Copt. Arm. Valg. codd. of It. Condemned by 
Griesb., deleted by Lachm. But since it stood at the end of the sentence, and 
since the parallel passage, Matt. viii. 19, had no corresponding word at the end, 
xipce would the more easily drop out. [Rejected by Tisch., recent editors, R. V. 
— In ver. 59 the same word is omitted by Tisch., W. and Hort, following BD. 
Probably added from Matt.] — Ver. 62. ei¢ r7v Baowd.] B LE ®&, 1, 33, Vulg. It. 
Clem. Or. have 79 Baoizig. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is explanatory. 


Vv. 1-6. See on Matt. x. 1,7, 9-11, 14; Mark vi. 7-13. Luke follows 
Mark, and to that circumstance, not to any depreciation of the Twelve by 
contrast with the Seventy (Baur), is due the shorter form of the succeeding 
discourse. — xai vécove Oepar. | depends on divau. x. EEovo. (power and author- 
ity, iv. 36). The reference to éduxev (Bengel, Bornemann) is more remote, 
since the vécouc Oeparetery is actually a divauec x. Efovoia. — Ver. 8. uhre ava 
dio wir. Exev] nor even to have two under-garments (one in use and one to 
sparc). <A mingling of two constructions, as though p7déy aipew had been 
previously said.' For the explanation of the infinitive with ele there is no 
need of supplying deiv (Lobeck, ad Phryn. pp. 758 f., 772) ; but this idea 
is implied in the infinitive itself.* | It would be possible to take the infini- 
tive for the imperative (Kuinoel and many of the. earlier critics, comp. also 
Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 238 [E. T. 271 f.], who understands Aéyw) only if 
the connection brought out a precise injunction partaking of the nature of 
an express command,’ which, however, in this case, since the imperative 
precedes, and, moreover, immediately follows, is not applicable. — Ver. 5. 
nai tr. xov.| Even the dust also ; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 184. [But see 
critical note.]— én’ air.] against them, more definite than Mark : airoic. 
Theophylact : ei¢ tAeyyov aitay xai xardxpiotv, ‘‘ for their conviction and con- 
demnation.” 

Vv. 7-9. See on Matt. xiv. 1 f.; Mark vi. 14-16. — To the sxovoerv of 
Mark vi. 14, which Luke in this place evidently has before him, he adds a 
definite object, although taken very generally, by means of ra y:véyueva ravra: 
everything which was done, whereby is meant, which was done by Jesus (ver. 9). 
— diprépet] he was in great perplerity, and could not in the least arrive at 
certainty as to what he should think of the person of Jesus. This was the 
uncertainty of an evil conscience. Only Luke has the word in the New 
Testament. It very often occurs in the classical writers.4— Ver. 8. é¢dv7] 
‘*Nam Elias non erat mortuus,” ‘‘For Elijah had not died,” Bengel. — 
Ver. 9. What Matthew and Mark make Herod utter definitely, according 
to Luke he leaves uncertain ; the account of Luke is hardly more original 
(de Wette, Bleek), but, on the contrary, follows a more faded tradition, for 


1See Ellendt, ad Arrian. Al. I. p. 167; Bernhardy, p. 358; Pflugk, ad Kur. Hera, 
Winer, p. 283 [E. T. 816). $14. 

3 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. v. 7. 34. * On the accentuation two river, see Lip- 

8 See generally, Winer, p. {E. T.316);  sius, Gramm. Unters. p. 49. 


366 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


the character of the secondary writer is to be discerned in the entire narra- 
tive (in opposition to Weizsicker). The twofold iyé has the emphasis 
of the terrified heart. — é¢yree ieiv airév] he longed to see Him. Comp. 
xxili. 8. He hoped, by means of a personal conference (viii. 20) with 
this marvellous man, to get quit of his distressing uncertainty. That Herod 
seemed disposed to greet Him as the risen John, and that accordingly 
Christ had the prospect of a glowing reception at court, Lange reads into 
the simple words just as arbitrarily as Eichthal reads into them a partiality 
for Herod on the part of Luke. 

Vv. 10-17. See on Matt. xiv. 18-21 ; Mark vi. 80-44 ; John vi.1ff. Ac- 
cording to the reading cic réAcv xadouutvyy Brfc. (sec the critical remarks), 
eic¢ is to be understood of the direction whither (cersus), and ver. 11 ff. is to be 
conceived as said of what happened on the tcay to Bethsaida. The Bethsaida 
meant at Mark vi. 45, on the western shore of the lake (The Brfo. r7¢ Tata, 
John xii. 21 ; Matt. xi. 21), is not the one intended, but Bethsaida-Julias, 
on the eastern shore in lower Gaulonitis (see on Mark viii. 22), as Michaclis, 
Fischer, Paulus, Robinson, Ebrard, Lange, Ewald, Schegg, and others sup- 
pose, on the ground of Mark vi. 45, where from the place of the miraculous 
feeding the passage is made across to the western Bethsaida. For the denial 
of this assumption, and for the maintenance of the view that Luke, in 
variation from the parallel passages, transposed the miraculous feeding to 
the western shore (Winer, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Eichthal, and 
with somc hesitation Bleek), there is no foundation at all in Luke's text. 
For although Jcsus had returned from Gadara to the western side of the 
lake (viii. 37, 40), yet between this point of time and the miraculous feed- 
ing come the sending forth of the Twelve, and the period that elapsed until 

their return (ix. 1-10). Where they, on their return, met with Jesus, Luke 
’ does not say, and for this meeting the locality may be assumed to have been 
the eastern side of the lake where Bethsaida-Julias was situated. But if it 
is supposed, as is certainly more natural, that they met with Him again aé 
the place whence they had been sent forth by Him on the western border of 
the lake, it is no contradiction of this that Jesus, according to Luke, wished 
to retire with His disciples by the country road to that Bethsaida which was 
situated at the north-eastern point of the lake (Bethsaida-Julias); and it is 
just this secking for solitude which can alone be urged in favor of the more 
remote Bethsaida on the further side. The whole difference therefore 
comes to this, that, according to Luke, they went to the place of the 
miraculous feeding by land, but according to Mark (and Matthew), by ship. 
[See Note LXXV., p. 377.] — Ver. 11. amodeg.] Hedid not send them back, 
although He desired to be alone, but received them. — émortiopév] Provisions, 
a word which occurs only in this place in the New Testament, but is 
often found in the classical writers. Comp. Judith ii. 18, iv. 5. — Ver. 18. 
sAziov i] These words do not fit into the construction. — ei p#ri x.7.A.] unless, 
perchance, etc.; this is neither to be regarded as a direct question (Kypke, 
Rosenmiiller), nor is the thought ; ‘‘ even therewith we cannot feed them,” 


1See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410: Kriiger, ad Dion. p. 287; Schoemann, ad Js. p. 444. 


CHAP. 1x., 10-17. 367 


to be previously supplicd (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, and others). On the 
contrary, the two parts of the sentence are closely connected : We have not 
more than . . . unless, perchance, we shall hace bought. The tone of the ad- 
dress is not’ one of irony (Camerarius, Homberg, Kuinoel), as is often 
expressed by ei 4,’ but of embarrassment at the manifest impossibility of carry- 
ing the order into effect (jusic . . . ei¢ wdvta rov Aadv). On ei with a 
subjunctive, which is to be recognized even in the Attic writers, although 
rarcly, but is of frequent use in the later Greek, see Winer, p. 268 [E. T. 
204 f.]*. Winer is mistaken in regarding the mood in this case as a delibera- 
tive subjunctive not dependent on ci, as Buttmann, p. 191 [E. T. 221], also 
takes it. See above for the connection ; and on the difference of mean- 
ing between the subjunctive with and without dv (condition absolutely, 
without dependence upon circumstances that may or may not happen), sce 
Hermann, De part. av, ii. 7, p. 95 ; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 301. —qyeic] 
with emphasis ; for previously they had advised to leave the people them- 
selves to procure food. — Ver. 14. Observe the numerical relation, jive loaves, 
Jive thousand, ranks of companies by jifty. To form such companies is, in 
Luke, said to have been commanded even by Jesus Himself. The tradition 
is gradually rounded into shape as we advance from Matthew (and John) to 
Luke. — Ver. 16. evAdy. aitotc] an intimation of the benediction uttered in 
prayer, which was effectual in causing the increase. Matthew and Mark 
have it otherwise. — Ver. 17. xAaoudrtwr] is, in accordance with the opinion 
of Valckenaer, Lachmann; and Tischendorf [not Tisch. VIII.], to be regard- 
ed as governed by xégivoe dddexa. If, in accordance with the usual view, it 
had been construed with 1rd repioc. air., it would have been rav xAacu. (comp. 
Matt. xiv. 20; Soph. #7. 1280: ra pév meptonebovta tov Adyuy agec ; Plat. 
Legg. ix. p. 855 A) or ra wepioceboavra abroig xAdopuata (John vi. 12). Luke 
reproduces the xAacudruv dadexa xogivove Of Mark. [Sec Note LXXVI., 
p. 878.] Since, moreover, «Aacudrev contains a reference to xaréxAace, ver. 
16, it is manifest that the fanciful view of Lange, ZL. J. II. p. 309 f., is un- 
tenable : that Jesus, indeed, miraculously fed the thousands ; but that the 
superfluity arose from the fact that the people, disposed by the love of Jesus 
to brotherly feeling, had immediately laid open their own stores. Thus the 
miraculous character of the transaction is combined with the natural expla- 
nation of Paulus and Ammon. With what a unanimous untruthfulness 
must in this case all the four reporters of the history hare been silent about 
the people’s private stores. Just as persistent are they in their silence 
about the symbolic nature of the feeding behind which the marvellous How 
of the incident is put out of sight (Weizsicker). Schenkel mingles to- 
gether most discordant elements for explaining away the miracle, not 
rejecting even provisions brought with them, and in part procured in 
haste. But what is the meaning of Mark viii. 18-20? And are all six nar- 
ratives equally a misunderstanding ? 


’ Kiihner, IT. p. 561; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. ad Cyrop. ill. 8. 380; Klotz, ad Devar. 
én Leoer. p. 317. p. 500 ff.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 491. 
* Kabner, ad Xen. Mem. il. 1.12; Poppo, 


@ 


368 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Vv. 18-20. See on Matt. xvi. 18-16 ; Mark viii. 27-29. As to the second 
miraculous feeding Luke is silent ; a silence which Schleiermacher and 
many others,even Weizsicker, make use of in opposition to the reality of the 
second miracle (see in general on Matt. xv. 38). But this silence is related 
to the enigmatical hiatus which Luke has left between vv. 17 and 18, en- 
tirely passing over everything that occurs in Mark vi. 45—viii. 27, and in the 
parallel passage of Matthew. [See Note LXXVIIL., p. 378.] No explanation 
is given of this omission, and it seems to have been occasioned by some 
casualty unknown to us. Possibly the only reason was that in this place he 
had before him another written source besides Mark, which did not com- 
prise the fragments in question, and from which, moreover, he borrowed 
the peculiar situation with which ver. 18 begins. Special purposes for the 
omission (Hilgenfeld, Weiss, p. 699 f.) are arbitrarily assumed, as if in his 
idea the portion omitted were, on the one hand, not of sufficient importance, 
on the other, too detailed (as the history of the Canaanitish woman), and 
the like. Weizsiicker, p. 66 f., proceeds more critically, but still unsatis- 
factorily, when he relegates the events to ix. 51 ff., where occur several 
points of contact with the fragments here passed over. — Ver. 19. dAdo dé] 
without a previous of wév. See on Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark x. 32. The 
opinion : "Iwdvy. r. Barr., as that of the majority, is first of all declared with- 
out limitation. — Ver. 20. 6 Mérpoc] rpomnda tiv Aowray cai oréua wdvtuv yevd- 
pevoc, ‘‘he springs before the rest, becoming also the mouth of all,” Theo- 
phylact. —rdv Xmordv. r. Ocov] See on ii. 26. 

Vv. 21, 22. See on Matt. xvi. 20 f.; Mark ix. 80 f. Neither the dis- 
course of Jesus about the rock (Matt. xvi. 17-19), nor His reproof of Peter 
as Satan (Matt. xvi. 22 f.; Mark viii. 32 f.), is found in the Pauline Luke, 
who did not find the former in Mark (see on Mark viii. 29). If he had 
omitted the saying concerning the rock because of a tendency (Baur and 
others), he could not in the same interest have passed over the rebuke of 
Peter as Satan. — Ver. 22. ér:] argumentative. [See Note LXXVIIL., p. 378.] 
Tell no one, etc., since it is the appointment of God (xxiv. 26) that the 
Messiah, after many sufferings, etc., should attain to His Messianic attes- 
tation by the resurrection (Rom. i. 4). Thus, for the present, the Lord 
quenches the ardor of that confession, that it may not interfere with that 
onward movement of the divine appointment which is still first of all neces- 
sary. — a76] on the part of. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 826}. 

Vv. 23-27. See on Matt. xvi. 24-28; Mark vill. 34-ix. 1. — rpoc rdvrac] to 
all, isnot to be taken as: in reference to all, nor is it said in contrast to Peter, 
so that what Matthew relates, xvi. 22 f., may be unconsciously presupposed 
(de Wette leaves the choice between the two); but as avroic, ver. 21, refers to 
the apostles, wdvrag must refer to a wider circle. Luke leaves it to the 
reader to conclude from zéyra¢ that there were still others close by to whom, 
beside the disciples, that which follows was addressed. Comp. on Mark 
viii. 84. Ver. 18 does not exclude the approach of others which may have 
occurred meanwhile. But with ver. 22 closed the confidential discourse 
with the Twelve ; what Jesus has now yet further to enter upon in contin- 
uation of the communication of ver. 22 is to be said not merely to them, 


CHAP. IX., 28-36. 369 
but to all. — xa? juépav| involuntarily suggested by the experience of a 
later period ; 1 Cor. xv. 81; Rom. viii. 36 ; 2 Cor. iv. 16 f.— Ver. 25. 
éavrov dé amoA. % Sn.) if he. . . however, shall have lost himself, or have suffered 
damage (7, not equivalent to xaf, but introducing another word for the same 
idea). Himself, i.¢., not ‘‘ his better self” (de Wette), but, according to ver. 
24, his own life. Excluded from the Messiah’s kingdom, the man is in the 
condition of @dvarog ; not living (in the fa? aidvios), he is dead ; he is dead 
as well as no more present (aix cici, Matt, ii. 18), he has lost Aimse/f. — Ver. 
26. év rp défy x.7.2.] A threefold glory::— (1) His own, which he has abso- 
lutely as the exalted Mtssiah (comp. xxiv. 26); (2) The glory of God, which 
accompanies Him who comes down from the throne of God ; (3) The glory 
of the angels, who surround with their brightness Him who comes down 
from God’s throne.! The genitives have all the same reference, genitives of 
the subject. — Ver. 27. aAnOic] not belonging.to Aéyw (in that case it would 
be a translation of azfv, and would come first, as in xii. 44, xxi. 8), but to 
what follows. — atrov] (see the critical remarks) here.* — rj Baad. r. Ocoi} the 
kingdom of the Messiah, not less definite, but simpler than Matthew and Mark. 

Vv. 28-86. See on Matt. xvii. 1-138 ; Mark ix. 2-18. —doei juépae oxrd] 
not in grammatical construction (comp. ver. 18), see on Matt. xv. 82.8 The 
&oei protects Luke from the reproach of representing himself as paying more 
attention than Mark to chronology (Holtzmann). — rpoceitacBa:] See on v. 
16. — Ver. 29. rd eidoc] the appearance of His countenance : ‘‘ Transformatio 
splendorem addidit, faciem non subtraxit,” ‘‘The transformation added 
splendor, and did not remove the countenance,” Jerome. — Aevxdc] not in- 
stead of an adverb, but éfaorp. is a second predicate added on by way of 
climax without xai (Dissen, ad Pind. p. 304), white, glistening.4— Ver. 31. 
ray é€odov avrov| His departure, namely, from His life and work on earth : 
through His death, resurrection, and ascension (Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 2).° 
Corresponding to this is eicodog, Acts xiii. 24. This subject of the ovAAaieir, 
of which neither Matthew nor Mark has any hint, first appeared in Luke from 
the later tradition which very naturally attained to this reflection, and, more- 
over, might gather it from Mark ix. 9; Matt. xvii. 9.°— aAypovy] The 
departure is conceived of as divinely foreordained, therefore as being fulfilled 
when it actually occurred. See Kypke, I. p. 253.— Ver. 82. But Peter 
and his companions, while this was going on before them, were weighed down 
with sleep (drowsy); a8 they nevertheless remained awake, were not actually 
asleep, they saw, etc.’ — diaypyy.] 1s not to be explained as it usually is, 
postquam experrecti sunt, ‘‘after they became awake” (Castalio), but (so also 
Schegg), when, however, they had thoroughly awakened.* [Sec Note LXXIX., 


1Comp. Matt. xxvifil. 8 and elsewhere ; 
Hahn, J7heol. d. N. T. § 116. 

2 Acts xv. 84; Matt. xxvi. 86; Plato, 
Polit. 1. p. 827 C, and elsewhere. 

® Winer, pp. 438, 497 [E. T. 516, 568]; Buatt- 
mann, Neutest. Gr. p. 122 [(E. T. 189]. 

4On éfacorp., comp. LXX. Ezek. 1. 4, 7; 
Nah. fli. 3; Thryphiod. 108. 

’Comp. Wisd. iil. 2, vil. 6; 2 Pet. {. 13, 


a4 


and the passages in Suicer, Fhes. I. p. 287, 
1142; Elsner, Odes. p. 219. 

*Comp. Weizsiicker, Hvang. Gesch. p. 481. 

7On BeBapnu. vrvw, comp. Matt. xxvi. 43; 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 77. 

® Comp. Herodian, fil. 4. S: wacns ris 
vuaros ... Staypryryopycayres; Vulg. (Lacle 
mann): vigilantes. 


370 THE GOSPEL OF LUEE. 


p. 878.] — Ver. 38. According to Luke, Peter desires by his proposal to pre- 
vent the departure of Moses and Elijah. — p9 eidac 8 Aéyer] He was not con- 
scious to himself of what he said (so much had the marvellous appearance 
that had presented itself to him as he struggled with sleep confused him), 
otherwise he would not have proposed anything so improper. + The whole 
feature of the drowsiness of the disciples belongs to a later form of the tra- 
dition, which, even as early as Mark, isno longer so primitive as in Matthew. 
Reflection sought to make the saying about the building of tabernacles 
intelligible ; but the tendency-critics were the first to suggest that there 
was & design of throwing the primitive apostles, especially Peter, into the 
shade.’— Ver. 34 f. éreoxiacev avrot¢] avrot¢, as at ver. 33, refers to Moses 
and Elijah, who are separating from Jesus, not to the disciples (see on Matt. 
xvii. 5). It is otherwise in Matthew, who has not the detail év rg dsaywpife- 
afat aitotg an’ avrov. — While Peter speaks with Jesus, the cloud appears 
which overshadows the departing Moses and Elijah. [See critical note; the 
imperfect suits this explanation.] These (continuing their departure) pass 
away into the cloud ; the voice resounds and the entire appearance is past, 
Jesus is alone. — éxAeAeyy.] Sce the critical remarks ; comp. xxiii. 35. — Of 
the conversation on the subject of Elijah Luke has nothing. It was remote 
from his Gentile-Christian interest. But all the Iess are we to impute an 
anti-Jewish purpose (such as that he would not have John regarded as 
Elijah) to Luke, whose style, moreover, elsewhere tends to abbreviation (in 
opposition to Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 80). — Ver.:86. ésiynoav] Of 
the command of Jesus, with a view to this result, the abbreviating Luke 
has nothing. 

Vv. 87-45. See on Matt. xvii. 14-23 ; Mark ix. 14-32, the latter of which 
Luke follows on the whole, but abbreviating. — ri é&#¢ #uépe] According to 
Luke, the transfiguration took place at night, ver. 32.— Ver. 88. ériBAépaz] 
to look upon, with helpful pity to cast eyes upon.* See the critical remarks. 
The middle voice does not occur. jovoyevf¢ in this passage, as at viii. 42, is 
found only in Luke. — Ver. 39. xpdjec] does not refer to the demon (Borne- 
mann), but to the son, since xa? iaidyn¢ introduces the result which is 
brought about in the possessed one by the rvevpua Aap dver airév. The sudden 
change of the subjects is the less surprising when we take into account the 
rapid impassioned delincation.? — néyic] hardly, with trouble and danger ; 
used only here in the New Testament. — ovvrpiBov abrév] whilst he bruises him 
(even still—as he yields). Conceive of a paroxysm in which the demoniac 
ferociously beats and knocks and throws himself down. This literal mean- 
ing of owrp. is, on account of the vivid description in the context, to be 
preferred to the jigurative meaning—/rets, wears away (Kypke, Kuinoel, 
Bornemann, Ewald), although Mark has £é7paivera:, in another collocation, 
however. — Ver. 42. éri d2 xpocepy. avrov] but as he was still coming—not yet 
altogether fully come up. — éppyfev . . . ovveawépagev] a climax describing 


1 Baur, Evang. p. 485, Markusevang. p. 68; 8, 15; Judith xiii. 4. 
Hilgenfeld, Zvang. p. 179, 181 ; see, on the 2 See Winer, p. 556 [E. T 682], and Schoe- 
other hand, Késtlin, p. 200. mann, ad Ie. p. 204 f. 

2 Comp. L 48; Ecclus. xxxill. 1; Tob. fil. 


CHAP. IX., 46-50. 371 


the convulsive action, he tore him, and conoulsed him (comp. orapaypuds, cramp). 
— idearo t. +.) namely, by the expulsion of the demon. — émi r. peyadecér. r. 
Occ] at the majesty’ of God. "Qtovro yap, oix éf Wiag duvduewc GAA’ éx Ocod ravra 
teparoupyeiy avrév, ‘* For they supposed that He wrought these wonders, not 
from His‘own power, but from God,” Euthymius Zigabenus, — ézofec] Im- 
perfect (sec the critical remarks). Their wonder was excited by the miracles 
of Jesus as a whole, among which was te be reckoned also that special case. 
— Ver. 44. fiofe ipeicx.t.A.] Place ye, on your part, etc. The disciples were to 
continue mindful of this expression of amazement (roi¢ Adyovg rovrove) on ac- 
count of the contrast (6 yap vidg x.r.A.) in which his own destiny would soon 
appear therewith. They were therefore to build no hopes thereupon, but 
only thence to recognize the mobile vulgua/ Bornemann, de Wette, Schegg 
refer r. Ady. robr. to 6 yap vide x.7.A., 80 that yép would be explanatory (to 
wit). So already Erasmus. [See Note LXXX., p. 878.] But the above ref- 
erence of the plural roic A. .robr. most readily suggests itself according to the 
context ; since, on the onc hand, wdvruy d2 favualévrev preceded (comp. subse- 
quently the singular 7d jjua, ver. 45) ; and, on the other, the argumentative 
use of yép scems the most simple and natural. — cic yeip. avOpdr. ] into the hands 
of men, He, who has just been marvelled at as the maniféstation of the majesty 
of God. — Ver. 45. iva} purely a particle of purpose, expressing the object of the 
divine decree. —aiofurra:] that they should not become aware of it. The idea 
of the divine decree is that their spiritual perception through the internal - 
cicfyrypia (Heb. v. 14), their intellectual aicfyorg (Phil. i. 9), was not to attain 
to the meaning of the saying. The verb occurs only here in the New Testa- 
ment. — xai EpoBovvra x.r.A. See on Mark ix. 82. —The whole description of 
this failure to understand is only a superficial expansion of Mark. ix. 82, and 
not an intentional depreciation of the Twelve in the Pauline interest (Baur, 
Hilgenfeld). 

Vv. 46-50. Sec on Matt. xviii. 1-5 ; Mark ix. 38-40. — eioqABe x.1.A.] then 
came @ thought in their hearts. A well-known pregnancy of expression in re- 
spect of év, wherein the result of the cicépzraflac—the being in them—is the 
predominant idea. See Bernhardy, p. 208. Another mode of regarding the 
rising of thoughts in the mind is expressed at xxiv. 88. — ric av x.1.4.] who 
probably (possibly, sec Kiihner, II., p. 478) tweould be greater, i.e., more to be 
preferred among them.* Comp. on 1 Cor. xiii. 18. This question of rank, 
which Mark introduces with greater historical detail, is not referred in Mark 
and Luke specially to the Messiah’s kingdom, as is the case in Matthew. Sec 
on Mark ix. 88. The occasion of the question is not stated in Mark and Luke 
(otherwise in Matt. xviii. 1), and is by Theophylact quite arbitrarily sought in 
the cure of the demoniac, which the disciples had not been able to accomplish, 
and in view of the failure were throwing the blame upon one another. — rap’ 
éavrq] close to Himself, In such a position opposite to the disciples, as clearly 


1 Josephus, Ani. Prooem. p.5; Athen. iv. so devoid of understanding is shown, more- 
p. 180 F. over, by pixporepos ev waciw vyir, ver. 48. 
* Not: greater than they, as Weiss in the Luke therefore had no wish to set aside 
Jahrb. f. D. Theol. p. 96, supposes. That the contcst about rank. 
their question, according to Luke, was not 





372 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

to make common cause with Jesus Himself (see ver. 48). — Ver. 48. The mean- 
ing and trainof thought in Luke are substantially the same as in Mark ix. 36 f., 
as also in Matt. xviii. 2 ff. ; the same principles are enunciated in the 
same sense. The child placed there is the living type of the humble disciple 
as he, in opposition to that arrogant disposition in ver. 46, ought to be. And 
this child standing there as such a moral type, i.¢e., every disciple of Christ 
like to him in unassuming humility, is so highly esteemed before God, that 
whosoever lovingly receives him, etc. For (,ép, introducing a confirmatory 
explanation) he who is less (than the others) among you all (to wit, subjec- 
tively, according to his own estimation of himself) is great (objectively, in 
accordance with his real worth). Therefore the saying of Jesus in Luke 
ought not to have been explained as wanting in point (de Wette) or without 
connection (Strauss), nor should it have been maintained that the placing of 
the child before the disciples was originally without reference to the dispute 
about rank (Weisse). — Ver. 49. As to the connection of thought with what 
precedes, see on Mark ix. 38. Luke follows him with abbreviations. But 
any reference to an attack on the ministerial efficiency of the Apostle Paul 
(Késtlin, p. 201) is quite arbitrarily read into ver. 50. —émi r. ovdu. cov] on 
the ground of Thy name, giving out Him as the authority which the demons 
had to obey. [But see critical note.] In this sense they used the name of 
Jesus in the expulsion of demons. Comp. xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Actsiv. 17 f. ; 
‘ and for actual cases, Acts iii. 6, 16, xvi. 18. — axod. pe judy] a frequent 
construction in the classical writers also, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 853 f. Comp. 
Rev. vi. 8, xiv. 13. 

Ver. 51 ff. [See Note LXXXI., p. 378 seq.] Luke now enters upon his nar- 
rative of the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem at the close of His carthly career, 
and transfers to this journey all that follows as far as xviii. 30.' Not until 
Xvili. 15 does he again go parallel with Matthew and Mark. The journey is 
not direct, for in that case only three days would have been necded for it, 
but it is to be conceived of as a slow circuit whose final goal, however, is 
Jerusalem and the final development there. The direct journcy towards Je- 
rusalem does not begin till the departure from Jericho, xviii. 35. Jesus, 
with his face towards Jerusalem, wishes to pass through Samaria (vv. 52, 
53); but being rejected, He turns again towards Galilee, and does not appear 
again on the borders of Samaria till xvii. 11,? whence it is plain that Luke 
did not transfer the history of Martha and Mary (x. 38) to Bethany, in which 
respect, according to John, he was assuredly in error. This being conceded, 
and in consideration of Luke in general having so much that is peculiar to 


1 That there is actually before us in this 
place a narrative of a journey has indecd 


makes the chief part of the journey pass 
through Samaria, whereby, according to 


been denied, but only under the pressure 
of harmonistic criticism. Even Weiss right- 
ly maintains its character as the narrative 
of a journey whose goalis Jerusalem. Still 
its contents are not to be limited to the 
ministry of Jesus outside of Galilee. See 
also Weizsiicker, p. 207. 

2 Therefore it fs not to be said that Luke 


Baur (Zvang. p. 488 f.), he wished to support 
the Pauline universalism by the authority 
of Jesus. In ver. 51 ff. Luke relates only 
an attempt to pass through Samaria, which, 
however (ver. 56), was abandoned. This, 
moreover, {s opposed to Baur's comparison 
of the Gospel of Luke with that of Johu 
(p. 488), and opposed to KGstlin, p. 189. 


CHAP. Ix., 51. 373 


himself,—since he, following his sources and investigations (i. 8), so fre- 
quently varies from Matthew and Mark in the sequence of events and the 
combination of discourses,—the judgment of de Wette appears wrong : that 
the whole section, namely, is an unchronological and unhistorical collection, 
probably occasioned by the circumstance that Luke had met with much evan- 
gelical material which he did not know how to insert elsewhere, and there- 
fore threw together in this place (comp. also Reuss, § 206; Hofmann, 
Schriftb. II. 2, p. 855). In that case the very opposite of Luke’s assurance 
(i. 8) would be true, and Bruno Bauer’s sneer on the subject of the journey 
would not be without reason. He must actually have found the chronolog- 
ical arrangement of what is recorded in this large section as belonging to 
the end of the sojourn in Galilee, and this must have determined his special 
treatment, in respect of which he intersperses at xiii. 22 and xvii. 11 hints 
for enabling the reader to make out his whereabouts in the history (comp. 
Ewald). But Kuinoel (following Marsh and Eichhorn) quite arbitrarily de- 
duces the section ix. 51-xviii. 14 from a gnomology bearing upon the last 
journey of Christ, on the margin of which also much belonging to an earlier 
time was written. The assumption of Schleiermacher, moreover, is incapa- 
ble of proof (comp. Olshausen and Neander, Ebrard also, and Bleek): that 
there are here blended together the narratives of teco journeys to Jerusalem 
—to the feast of the Dedication and to the Passover. So also Hofmann, 
Weissag. u. Erfill. Il. p. 118. Decidedly opposed to this, however, is the 
fact that the intercalation of other historical elements (x. 25-xviii. 31) must 
again be assumed, Finally, the assertion of Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, 
p. 319 ff.), that ix. 51-xiii. 21 is parallel with John vii. 10-x. 42 (then xiii. 
22—xvii. 10 with John xi. 1-54 ; and lastly, xvii. 11-xix. 28 with John xi. 
55—xii. 11), so that thus Luke in ix. 51 is introducing, not the last journey 
to Jerusalem, but the last but two, is negatived on purely exegetical-grounds 
by ri¢ avaAgwews (see subsequently). The older harmonistic schemes also 
placed the journcy in question parallel with John vii. 10, but got themselves, 
awkwardly enough, out of the difficulty of ri avaAfpews by means of the 
evasion: ‘‘non enim Lucas dicit, dies illos jam impletos esse, sed factum 
hoc esse, dum complerentur,” ‘‘for Luke does not say, that these days are 
now completed, but that this is done, while they are completed,” Calovius. In 
various ways attempts have been made to solve the question, whence Luke 
derived his narrative (see especially Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 222, and Erang. 
p. 282 ff.; Weizsiicker, p. 209 ff.). Yet, apart from his general sources, in 
regard to which, however, it is not needful, in view of the Logia, to presup- 
pose a later treatment and transposition (Ewald), it can scarcely be inferred 
as to the general result that in this peculiar portion of his Gospel down to 
xviii. 14 a special evangelical document, a special source containing a jour- 
ney, must have been in Luke’s possession, and that this was rich in fragments 
of discourse, partly, indeed, in such as occur also in the Logia, although 
differently arranged, and in part differently put together, but pre-cminently 
rich in parabolic and narrative discourses, such as were in accordance with 
the Pauline views ; for the entire omission of these discourses by Matthew 
and Mark sufficiently proves that (in opposition to Holtzmann) they did not 


374 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

as yet appear in the Zogia, but formed an anthology of the Lord's original 
sayings that grew up out of a later development. Weizsicker, p. 141 ff., 
has ingeniously endeavored to indicate the relations of the several portions 
to the doctrinal necessities of the apostolic age, in regard to which, however, 
much remains problematical, and in much he takes for granted tendencies 
whose existence cannot be proved. It is totally unfounded to attribute to 
Luke any modification of his accounts brought about by motives of partisan- 
ship’ (Baur, Késtlin, and others), in respect of which Kostlin, p. 236, sup- 
poses that he vaguely and contradictorily worked up an older narrative 
about the journey through Samaria and Peraea, because after he had once 
brought Jesus to Samaria he would not wish to mention expressly His leav- 
ing this region again immediately. (But see on ver. 56.) 

Ver. 51. ’Ev 1@ cuptAnpovofa: x.t.A.] when the days of His taking up (i.e., the 
days when their consummation ordained by God, His assumption, was to 
occur) were entirely completed, i.e., when the period of His receiving up (assump- 
tio, Vulg.) was very near. Euthymius Zigabenus aptly says: suépac r9¢ ava- 
Ampews avrov 2éyet Tov Katpdv Toy agoploflévta pi ypt THE avaAgpeu avTOD THE ATO YRC 
eic ovpavév, ‘* The day of His assumption He calls the season set apart until 
His assumption from earth to heaven.” In the New Testament advdAnypec 
occurs only in this place. But it appears in the same sense of the taking up 
into heaven, and that likewise of the Messiah, in the Zest. XII. Patr. p. 585: 
nal peyaduOyoerat év TH oixouplyy Ewe Gvadfpew avrov ; and in the Fathers (see 
Suicer, Thes. I. p. 282); although in the New Testament the verb avadaufd- 
veofa is the customary word to express this heavenly reception, Mark xvi. 19; 
Acts i. 2, 11, 22; 1 Tim. iii. 16.2 The objections of Wieseler are unfound- 
ed : that the plural ra¢ juépac, as well as the absence of any more precise 
limitation for avaAfp. (cic rov ovpavév), is opposed to this view. The plural is 
as much in place here? as at ii. 6, 22 ; Acts ix. 23; and avéAnyic, without 
more precise limitation, in no way needed such a limitation, because by 
meuns of avrov it leaves it absolutely without doubt that the current idea of 
Christ’s assumption is meant, as, moreover, aveA#g67, Acts i. 2, and 1 Tim. 
iii. 16, although without any local definition, presented no ambiguity to the 
Christian consciousness. Comp. the ecclesiastical usus loguendi of assumptio 
without qualification. Wieseler himself explains : ‘‘when the days drew to 
an end in which He found a reception (in Galilee, to wit), He journeyed 


1 That thus, for instance, by the narrative erant instar parasceves. Instabat adhuo 


of the fiery zeal of the sons of Zebedee he 
just desired to prove how little they were 
capable of going beyond the limits of Juda- 
ism. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 182 f. 
2Comp.1 Macc. ii. 58; Ecclus. xlviil. 9; 
2 Kings if. 11; Ecclus. xlix. 14; Tobit ill. 6. 
2 1f Luke had writtenriny yu dpav 7. avad. 
he would thereby have declared that what 
followed happened on (he very day of the 
assumption. Comp. Acts il. 1. But Bengel 
well says: ‘‘unus erat dies assumtionis in 
coelum, sed quadraginta dies a resurrec- 
tione, imo etiam hi dies ante passionem 


passio, crux, mors, sepulcrum, sed per haeo 
omnia ad metam prospexit Jesus, cujus 
sensum imitatur stylus evangelistae,”’ 
“There was one day of assumption into 
heaven, but forty days after the resurrec- 
tion, yet indeed these days before the pas- 
sion were also equivalent to days of prep- 
aration. There was still impending the 
passion, the cross, death and sepulchre, 
but through all these Jesus looked forward 
to the goal, and His perception the pen of 
the Evangelist imitates." Comp. John xii. 
28, xill. 8, 31, xvii., and elsewhere. 


CHAP. IX., 52-56. 375 


towards Jerusalem in order to work there.” An erroneous device, the neces- 
sary result of harmonistic endeavors. Nobody could guess at the supple- 
mentary ‘‘in Galilee ;” and what a singularly unsuitable representation, 
since, indeed, Jesus up to this time almost always, and even so late as at 
ver. 43, found appreciation and admiration in Galilee !|—airéc] ipse, in 
view of the subsequent sending forward of His messengers. — 1d mpéour. abrov 
éorhp.] He settled (steadfastly directed) His countenance,—a Hebraism (0°#N 
D5), Jer. xxi. 10, xlii. 15, xliv. 12; Gen. xxxi. 21 ; 2 Kings xii. 18 ; Dan. 
xi. 17, to be traced to the source that he made use of. The meaning is : 
He adopted His settled purpose to journey to Jerusalem (rot ropeiecba:, gen- 
ttive of purpose); apdpicev, éxipwoev, totnoe BovaAgv, ‘‘ He determined, settled, 
formed an intention,” Theophylact. 

Vv. 52, 53. ’AyyéAove does not as yet mean the Seventy (Neander), and 
Gore is a8 at iv. 29. —érotmudoa: aird] to make preparation for Him (comp. 
Mark xiv. 15), ¢.¢. in this case : érocudcas drodoyiy mpd¢ Kataywyizv abrov, ‘to 
prepare entertainment for His coming,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — Ver. 53. 
xat ovx édéSavto avrév] which rejection was accomplished by the refusal given 
to the messengers that He had scnt before, see ver. 52. That Jesus Him- 
self followed them is not implied in the passage. — dr: rd xpécwrov, not 
because generally He was journeying towards Jerusalem (évavriug yap of Zapua- 
peiras mpd¢ rove ‘lepocoAvupirac diéxecvro, ‘‘ for the Samaritans adversely disposed 
towards the Jerusalemites,” Euthymius Zigabenus ; so [ Wciss, and] usually), 
for through Samaria passed the usual pilgrim’s road of the Galilacans, 
Josephus, Ant. xx. 6.1; Vit. 52; comp. John iv. 4 ; nor yet because they 
were unwilling to lodge ‘‘ so large a Jewish procession” os the train of disci- 
ples (Lange, of which, however, nothing appears), —but because they regarded 
an alleged Messiah journeying towards Jerusalem as not being the actual Messiah. 
We must think of the messengers themselves announcing Jesus as the Mes- 
siah, although, besides, according to John iv., the knowledge of His Mes- 
sianic call might have already penetrated from Galilee to the Samaritan 
villages ; but the Samaritans did not expect of the Messiah (sce the exposi- 
tors on John iv. 25) the observance of festivals in Jerusalem, but the resto- 
ration and glorification of the worship upon Gerizin. (Comp. Bertholdt, 
Christol. p. 21 f.) The expression 13 rpéour. airod Gv wopevéu. is a Hebraism, 
Ex. xxxiil. 14 ; 2 Sam. xvii. 11. 

Vv. 54-56. [Comp. the added critical note.] "Idévrec] they saw it in the 
return of the messengers, who would not otherwise have come back. — The 
two disciples are not to be identified with the messengers (Euthymius Ziga- 
benus, Erasmus). — rip] Fire, not : fulmen (Wetstein, Kuinoel), a modern 
mode of explaining away, of which, neither in 2 Kings i. 10-12 (when at 
the word of Elijah fire from heaven devours the people of Ahaziah) nor on 
the part of the disciples is there any notion. — ov« oidare «.7.4.] As in respect 
of iueic the emphatic contrast with Elijah is not to be disregarded (‘‘ retun- 
ditur provocatio ad Eliam,” ‘‘the appeal to Elijah is checked,” Bengel), 


1Comp. Gesenius (who points out the Syriac),in Rosenmiiller, Rep.I. p. 186, and 
existence of the same usage in Arabic and Thesaur. II. p. 1109. 


376 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


so it is objectionable to explain, with Bornemann : ‘‘Nonne perpenditis, 
qualem vos ... animum prodatis? Certenon humaniorem, quam modo vobis 
Samaritani praestiterunt,” ‘‘Do you not consider what spirit you are dis- 
closing? Certainly not more humane than the Samaritans exhibited to you.” 
The Samaritans had not, indeed, refused to receive Jesus from lack of hu- 
munity ; see on ver. 538. Rightly the expositors have explained oiov rvet- 
parog of a spirit which is differently disposed from that displayed by Elijah. In 
that respect the form of the saying has been taken by some affirmatively (so 
Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Grotius, and others ; latest of all, Ewald), 
some interrogatively (so Luther, Zeger, and most of the later critics) ; but 
the matter of it has been so understood that Jesus is made to say to the dis- 
ciples either (a) that they knew not that they were allowing themselves to 
be guided by a wholly different spirit from that of Elijah (see as early as 
Augustine, C. Adimant. 17, Calvin, Grotius : ‘‘ Putatis vos agi Spiritu tali, 
quali olim Elias... ; sed erratis. Habetis quidem (7Aov, sed ov xa?’ éi- 
}vworv, et qui proinde humani est affectus, non divinac motionis”), ‘‘ You think 
that you act with the same Spirit as Elijah formerly... ; but you err. 
You have a certain ‘zeal,’ but ‘not according to knowledge,’ and which 
is therefore of human passion, not of divine impulse,” so in substance Ch. 
F. Fritzsche, also in his Noo. Opusc. p. 264 ; or (0) that they knew not that 
they as His disciples were to follow the guidance of a wholly different spirit 
from that of Elijah,—the evangelical spirit of meckness, not the legal spirit 
of severity (so Theophylact, Erasmus, Zeger, Jansen, Bengel, and most of 
the later commentators). The view under (a) bears on the face of it the 
motives on which it depends, viz. to avoid making Jesus rebuke the spirit of 
Elijah, The view under (0) is simply in accordance with the words, and is 
to be preferred in the interrogative form, as being more appropriate to the 
carnestness of the questioner ; yet rvetuaroc is not to be explained, as most 
of the later commentators explain it, of the human spirit (‘‘ affectus animi,” 
Grotius), but (rightly, even so early as Euthymius Zigabenus) of the Holy 
Spirit." To this objective rveiya the categorical éoré points (which does not 
mean : ye ought to be).?— Ver. 56. érépav] into a village which was not Sa- 
maritan. Theophylact : é7¢ ovx édéfavro avtrév, ovdé eiogABev ei¢ Laudperav, 
‘* because they did not reccive Him, He did not even enter Samaria.” Thus 
the journey at its very commencement diverged from the dircct course that 
had been decided on (in opposition to Wiescler, p. 826). To suppose the 
further progress of the journey through Samaria (in this place consequently 
Schenkel misplaces the incident in John iv.) is altogether without authority 
in the text. 

Vv. 57-60. See on Matt. viii. 19-22, who has placed the incidents carlier. 
These little narratives circulated probably in general without definite histor- 


1 Tovro yap ayadéy eore xat avefixaxoy, ‘* For 
this is good and forbearing,”’ Euthymius 
Zigabenus. But not as though Jesus indi- 
rectly denied to Elijah the Holy Spirit (comp. 
already on 1.17), but in His disciples the 
Holy Spirit is in His operations diffcrent 


from what He was in the old prophets, see- 
ing that He was in them the instrument of 
the divine chastisement. 

2 Asto etvai rivos, whereby is expressed 
the relation of dependence,see on Mark ix. 
41, and Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 195]. 


NOTES. 377 


ical arrangement. [See Note LXXXII., p. 379.] Arbitrarily enough, Lange’ 
finds the three unnamed ones that follow, vv. 57, 59, 61, in Judas Iscariot, 
Thomas, and Matthew. According to Luke, they were assuredly none of 
the twelve (vi. 13 ff.). — ropevouéven avrav] to wit, eig érépav xduny, ver. 56. 
— év ry 6d@] is to be taken with what follows (Lachmann). If, as is usually 
the case, it were connected with op. avr., it would simply be useless. — 
ame7févr.] Case of attraction, Kiihner, II., p. 344. — Ver. 60. didyyeAre x.1.A.] 
announce everywhere (d:4, comp. Rom. ix. 17) the kingdom of God, the immi- 
nent establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. 

Vv. 61, 62. Peculiar to Luke. — arordgacfla x.7.A.] to say farewell to my 
Jamily. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 18, and see on Mark vi. 45; Vulg. : ‘‘renun- 
tiare.” So also Augustine, Maldonatus, and others. Literally, and likewise 
rightly (see xiv. 88 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 24). But the answer of Jesus, 
ver. 62, gives for azoréé. the idea of attachment, not of renunciation. — roic 
cig x.7.4., according to the above explanation of axordg., must be masculine 
not neuter. (Vulgate in Lachmann, Augustine, Maldonatus, Paulus.) — cic] 
not instead of év (thus de Wette, however), but a case of attraction, such as 
we very frequently mect with in the classical writers. The two ideas, arép- © 
zeaflac cig rév olxéy pov and arordé. roic év TO olxw pov, are so blended together 
that the former is forced into the latter, and has driven out éy for eic.* — 
Ver. 62. The meaning of the proverbial saying, in which, moreover, ‘‘ cum 
proverbio significatur, cui rei aptetur proverbium,” ‘‘ together with the prov- 
erb there is signified, to what the proverb.applies” (Grotius), is, Vo one who 
has offered to labor in my service, and, withal, still attaches his interest to his 
earlier relations (Biénuv ndduv int rv xécpov, ‘looking again upon the world,” 
Theophylact), is well fitted (adapted, available) for the kingdom of the Mes- 
siah (to labor for it). Entire devotion, not divided service !* 


Norges spy AMERICAN EDIToR. 


LXXV. Ver. 10. ByrOcaidd. 


Weiss ed. Mey. accepts the view that this was Western Bethsaida, admitting 
that Luke has made a mistake. He objects to Meyer's explanation of the meet- 
ing with the disciples on the eastern side of the Lake as ‘‘ 4 harmonistic inter- 
polation.’’ But this phrase implics that we have no right to explain the omis- 
sions of one Evangelist by the direct statements of another. Furthermore, if, 
as Weiss confidently asserts, Luke used Mark, how could he make this mistake, 
or how could he be ignorant of what Mark tells as occurring in the interval. 
Yet the most conclusive answer to Weiss is this : there is no proof, direct and 
conclusive, that there was a Western Bethsaida ; hence the assumed contradiction 
rests on an unproven topographical theory. (See Mark, Notes XL., LI.) 


rf 


1 He—just as arbitrarily, since the brief 3 See in gencral, Kiihner, IT. p. 818 f., ad 
narratives omit all such details—represents Xen. Anab.i. 1.5. Comp. Buttmann, Newt. 
the first as being of a sanguine, the second Gr. p. 286 [E. T. 382). 
of a melancholic, the third of a phlegmatic 4 On eis rs BAéwecy, oculos aliquo convertere, 
temperament. See Z. J. III. p. 424. see Tittmann, Synon. p. 112. 


378 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


LXXVI. Ver. 17. xAacpdtuv xégevor dddexa. 


Tisch. VIII. inserts » comma after xAacudrwy, to indicate that what follows is 
in apposition with 1d wepiocetcav; so R. V. The dependence of Luke on 
Mark, which Meyer asserts here, is impossible, for in Mark the correct text 
is either: kAacudruv dud. xogivwv rAnpopata (&, Tisch.) or, more probably : 
wAdopara dw. Kogivwy tAnpduara (B, partly L A, W. and Hort, R. V.). If the for- 
mer is correct, Luke agrees with Mark in the form of but one word ; if the 
latter, he differs in every word, besides omitting zAypaara, whatever reading 
be accepted. Such phenoniena seem to prove conclusively the independence 
of the Evangelists. 


LXXVI. Vv. 18-20. 


The fact that Luke omits all notice of the events recorded by Mark vi. 45- 
viii. 26, proves a great stumbling-block to the advocates of the theory of his de- 
pendence on the latter. To suppose it due to ‘‘some casualty unknown to us” 
(Meyer) is an easy solution, but it does not help usinany way. Weiss attempts 
to show that it was intentional, but admits that his theory is a pure hypothesis. 
For another and more probable view see Godet, Luke, pp. 261, 262, Am. ed. 
. When great divergences appear in the Synoptic narratives the theories respect- 
ing their interdependence must necessarily depend on clever guessing. Yet 
we might at least demand a consistent view from the advocates of these 
theories. 


LXXVII. Ver. 22. dre, «.1.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey., R. V., and others rightly take dr: as recitative. Meyer’s 
view is logically correct, but eirav is the emphatic word, suggesting that what He 
thus said was the reason for the prohibition. So Weiss ed. Mey. substantially. 


LXXIX. Ver. 32. dtaypzyophoarrec. 


Weiss ed. Mey. rejects Meyer's view of the meaning of this word, which oc- 
curs nowhere else in the N. T. But he finds it necessary to assert that Luke 
here (and, as he thinks, elsewhere) uses a compound verb inexactly for the 
simple verb. The R. V. text renders: ‘‘ when they were fully awake,” with 
the margin : ‘‘having remained awake.’’ Godet refers the peculiar term to 
** their return to self-consciousness through a momentary state of drowsiness,” 
suggesting that it indicates an awakening of the soul (see his Luke, p. 273, Am. 
ed.). It by no means follows from this expression of Luke that this inci- 
dent ‘‘ belongs to a later form of the tradition,’’ since Mark’s account gives a 
hint of it. 


LXXX. Ver. 44. rove Adyoug robrove. 


It is far more natural to refer this phrase to what follows, or to similar inti- 
mations of our Lord’s passion. Weiss ed. Mey. rightly regards Meyer's view 
as ‘‘ singular.’’ 

LXXXI. Ver. 51 ff. The Journey to Jerusalem. 


The division of Luke’s Gospel which begins here and extends to chap. xviii. 
14 presents great difficulties, alike to the harmonist and to the critic. Matthew 
and Mark are silent respecting most of the events here narrated, and John, 
while he probably gives in detail much that occurred after the final departure 





NOTES. 879 


from Galilee, does not present a parallel account. Meyer’s view of the journey 
in genera] may well be accepted, but his objections to the various harmonistic 
schemes necessarily imply that Luke is unhistorical in many of his statements. 
(We can only refer the reader to the harmonies for a discussion of the questions 
which arise ; especially, however, to Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 346 ff.) It 
will appear, from the notes on the separate sections, that a considerable part 
of this division is made up of incidents that probably belong earlier. 

Godet agrees, in the main, with Meyer, finding here a preaching journey in 
South Galilee and Peraea, which, however, he transfers until after John vii.—x. 
21. Weiss ed. Mey. inserts the following remarks: ‘“‘ But it must be mentioned 
that,in any case, there would belong to a proper ‘ report of a journey ’ the marking 
of single stations, which here fails entirely before chap. xviii. 35, where it is 
conditioned through Mark, since even chap. xvii. 11 has evidently only the 
design of explaining the presence of a Samaritan among the Jews in the follow- 
ing account (ver. 16). That ‘a special source containing a journey’ is the basis 
(Meyer) is altogether improbable. . . . But since Luke from chap. xviii. 15 on 
follows Mark up to that point, aside from some insertions from the source 
peculiar to him, he essentially follows the second main source common to him 
and the first Gospel, without its being necessary to assume a later modification 
and transposition of the same (Ewald, Weizsicker). We have here also a sec- 
ond (greater) insertion from this source, which Holtzmann has indeed attempted 
to essentially reconstruct out of this (comp. against this Weiss, Mat. p. 57 ff.), 
which, however, from the eclectic character of Luke, is only possible to a limited 
extent. The point on which he took up the thread of this source must have 
given occasion, under the certainly erroneous supposition that its material was 
arranged chronologically, to the supposition that what was narrated from this 
point on followed the withdrawal from Galilee (comp. on chap. ix. 57, x. 13 ff.). 
So he gives all derived from this source, together with that taken from Mark 
x. 13 ff., as a description of the activity of Jesus outside of Galilee (to which 
Mark x. 1 really belongs), which presented itself to him as a continuous circuit 
of Jesus, having its goal in Jerusalem (ix. 51, xiii. 22, xvii. 11, xviii. 31, xix. 
11).” 

It may be questioned whether harmonistic invention, ancient or modern, has 
devised any theory for which there is fo little support as this. It assumes that 
Luke was misled by both his sources and made up a patchwork of narrative, 
which he joined together by notices due entirely to his own misconception. 
The Tibingen critics at least gave the Evangelists the credit of having a definite 
purpose ; this criticism invents sources and then denies that the Evangelists 
knew how to use them. 


LXXXTI. Vv. 57-62. 


The position assigned by Matthew (just before the departuve to Gadara) 
seems the more probable one. Luke places the incidents here because they 
seem appropriate to the final departure from Galilee, with which the third 
incident (vv. 61, 62) may have been actually connected. Weiss ed. Mey. 
thinks vv. 57-60 were derived from “the Apostolic source,’’ and seeks, by a 
comparison of the Synoptists, to sustain the theory indicated in Note LXXXI. 
Comp. his Matthew, pp. 29, 30, 237. It may be added that few conjectures in 
interpretation are so utterly baseless as that of Lange respecting theso three 
persons. 


380 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. 1. [xai before érépove is wanting in B L, Copt., etc., omitted by W. and 
Hort, R. V., suspected by Weiss. ] — é8doufjxorvra] B D M, 42, Syr.ce* Perss. Arm. 
Vulg. Cant. Vere. Colb. For. Rd. Sax. and many Fathers add dio here, and most 
of them likewise at ver. 17; Lachmann has adopted the latter in brackets. [W. 
and Hort insert in both places in brackets ; R. V. notes the addition in the 
margin. ] Supposed to be a more exact fixing of the number in accordance with 
the relation (12 times 6). — Ver. 2. Instead of the first oiv, Lachm. Tisch, have 
dé; see on vi. 9. [So recent editors, following ® B D L, 1, 33, 69, vss.]— Ver. 
3. €yo) is wanting in A B &, min. Arm. Vulg. ms. codd. of It. Lachm. Tisch. 
It is from Matt. x. 16. — [Ver. 4. Instead of u7dé, Tisch., recent editors, with & B 
DL have pf ; soR. V.} — Ver. 5. eioépynode] Here and at ver. 10 eioéA 3 nre must be 
read, on preponderating evidence. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. If it were not original, but an alteration, siofpynode at ver. 8 
would not have been acquiesced in. — Ver. 6f. Lachm. and Tisch. have 
rightly deleted pév after édv, the article before vids, and éovi; ver. 7.— 
Ver. 8. 0 dv] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V., with & B C D, ete.] 
have dv, according to evidence not preponderating; and how easily the 0, 
that might be dispensed with, would drop away, since already the connecting 
particle was found in xai!— Ver. 11. After inzeov Griesb. has added etc rove rédag 
quay, in accordance with decisive authorities, among which, however, B D R X&, 
min. Sax. It, want judy, which therefore Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, 
R. V.] have not adopted with the rest. But it was just this word yar that occa- 
sioned the omission of the words in question, because the transcriber passed 
on immediately from itpav to 7uev. Hence the reading of Griesbach is to be 
maintained in ils integrity. — After iyyuev, Elz. Scholz have é¢’ tuac, in opposi- 
tion to authorities so important that it can only appear as a repetition from 
ver. 9. — Ver. 12. After Aéyw Elz. ['Tisch. VIII. also] has dé (Lachm. in brackets), 
opposed to very important evidence. [A B C L, many others ; recent editors 
reject.] A connective addition. — Ver. 13. éyévovro] B D L 8, min. have éyevg- 
Yyoav. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepia is from Matt. xi. 21. — xadqyuevar] 
Lachm, and Tisch. have xa¥iuevor, in accordance with decisive evidence. The 
Recepta is & grammatical alteration. — Ver. 15. 1) Ewe rov ovpavod twVIeioa] 
Lachm. Tisch. have py éw¢ otpavov inwifoy, in accordance with B DLE &, 
Syr.c* Aeth. Copt. It. To be rejected as at Matt. xi. 24. [So Weiss ; but Treg., 
W. and Hort, R. V., follow the oldest authorities. ] — Ver. 19. didwu:.] Tisch. has 
déduxa, following B C* L X &, vss. Or. Caes. Bas. Cyr. Epiph. Chrys. Rightly ; 
the present tense more readily occurred to the transcribers. — adixjoy] Lachm. 
and Tisch. have dd:xfoe:, on authority so important that adicfoy must be regarded 
ns & grammatical alteration. — Ver. 20. After yaip. dé Elz. has uaAdov, in oppo- 
sition to largely preponderating evidence. An addition for toning down the 
expression. — Instead of éypé¢y Tisch. has éyyfyparra, following B L X &, 1, 
33, Eus. Bas. Cyr. [Tisch. VIII. adopts, with 8 B, the form évyfyparvaz ; recent 


CHAP, X., 1. 381 


editors, R. V., accept the compound perfect.] But the compound, as well as 
the perfect tense, looks like a more precise definition of the original éypa¢7. — 
Ver. 21. After rveipare B CDK LX & II &, min. vss. (even Vulg. It.) have 7o 
ayy. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. A pious addition ; 
the transcribers would hardly have omitted the adjective, especially us in ver. 
20 ra mveiyara had just gone before in an entirely different sense. — Ver. 22 is 
introduced in Elz. Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. VIII. ] by nai orpageic xpog rot¢ paSyrac 
eixe. ‘The words are to be retained, in opposition to Griesb.; they are wanting 
inBDLM& &, min. vss. (even Vulg. codd. of It.) Ir., but they were omitted 
partly in accordance with Matthew, partly because, on account of ver. 23, they 
seemed inappropriate in this place. [Rejected by recent editors, R. V.] If they 
had been adopted out of ver. 23, xar’ idiav also, which in ver. 23 is omitted only 
by D, vss., would have been taken up with them, and the words would be 
wanting in ver. 23 in one set of the authorities. —[Ver. 25. Recent editors, 
R. V., with & B L., Copt., omit xai before 2£ywv,] — Ver. 27. Lachm. and Tisch. 
have, indeed, éF 8An¢ 7. xapdiac o., but then év ban tr. puyg o. x. év 6A 7, ioxtia. x. 
év dAn T. dtavoia o., on evidence so important that the Recepta, which throughout 
reads éx, must be traced to the LXX. D, min. It. have throughout é, from 
Matt. xxii. 37. — Ver. 29. dixaswtv] Lachm. Tisch. have dixa:doa, on decisive 
evidence. — Ver. 30. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with &* B C*, omit 
dé after tiroAafdv.] — rvyxévovra] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance 
with BD L& 8, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. It was altogether superfluous, and 
was therefore passed over ; there was no motive for adding it. [Rejected by 
recent editors, R. V.]— Fora similar reason yevduevoc, ver. 32, is to be main- 
tained, in opposition to Tisch. (Tisch. VIII. restores it, but recent editors, 
R. V., with B L, 1, 33, Copt., omit.] — Ver. 33. avrév] is wanting in BC L& X&, 
1, 33, 254, Vere. Vind. Colb. Rd. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. 
Rightly. It is from ver. 31. — Ver. 35. éfcAdav] is wanting in BDLXE X, 
min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Aeth. Copt. Vulg. It. Chrys. Condemned by Griesb. and 
Schulz (by the latter as ‘‘ vox molestissima’’), deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
{The evidence against the word ia deemed decisive by recent editors, R. V.] 
To be maintained. The similar éxSaddév which follows occasioned the omission 
of the word, which, besides, appeared cumbrous. — Ver. 36. ovv] bracketed by 
Lachm., deleted by Tisch., in accordance with BL = &, min. vas. A connec- 
tive addition. The arrangement 7Ayciov doxei cot (Elz. Lachm, have dox. o. Ayo.) 
is decisively attested. — [Ver. 38. Treg. text, W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. (against 
Tisch.) read (with x B L, 33, Copt.) ‘Ev dé r@ wopeverdac avrove avréc. ] — Instead 
of rapaxaicaca, read, with Tisch. in ver. 39, zapaxadcoeioca, in accordance 
with ABC*L2&. The Recepia is the easier reading. — [Recent editors, R. V., 
accept mpéc instead of rapa, and in vv. 39 and 41 substitute xvp. for ’I7c., with 
® B* L, etc.] — Ver. 41. rupBdiy] Lachm. has Yopu;3dsy, in accordance with B 
CD L ¥&, 1, 33, Bas. Evagr. (So Tisch. and all recent editors, R. V.} An inter- 
pretation in accordance with the frequently occurring $épv30¢. — The reading 
odiyuy dé earivy xzpela } évdg (B C** L &, 1, 33, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Arr. Fathers) 
[W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. marg.] and similar readings have originated from 
the explanation which takes the passage as meaning one dish. 


Ver. 1. The appointment and mission of the Seventy are transferred by 
Luke to this last journey of Christ. and are narrated as.if they were sup- 
posed by the author to have some reference to ix. 52 (aréorecAev . . . avroi'). 


382 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Hence : «ai [see critical note] érépove, which does not refer to the Twelve 
(Bleek and others), but to the intimation, which is nearer to it, both in 
place and meaning in ix. 52 ; and werd raira, which points back to ix. 57— 
62, although de Wette regards the reference as obscure and inappropriate. 
With arbitrary erroneousness Olshausen says that in this communication 
there is adopted a fragment from an earlier period, and that pera raiza is 
not chronological (after this, sce v. 27, xvili. 4), but besides (following 
Schleiermacher, p. 169). — avédectev] renuntiavit, He announced them as 
nominated, Acts i. 24 ; 2 Macc. ix. 25, x. 11, xiv. 26 ; 3 Esdr. i. 37, ii. 8; 
occurs often in the classical writers ; comp. avdde:fec, i. 80. — éBdopfxovra] 
In accordance with the apostolic number of twelve, so far as this had refer- 
ence to the tribes of the people, it is probable that Jesus had in view the 
ancient Hebrew analogue of the seventy (originally seventy-two) elders of 
the people.' It is unlikely that there is any reference to the Gentile nations 
numbering seventy, according to Gen. x.,? since there is no mention at all 
of any destination for the Gentiles (a subject on which Luke, least of all, 
would have been silent ; in opposition to Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, 
Gieseler, and others, especially Baur and his school, Késtlin also) ; nay, 
according to ix. 538-56, and according to the particulars of the journey, Sc- 
maria should not at all be regarded (in opposition to Wieseler, p. 326 f., 
Baur, and others) as the theatre of their ministry. Moreover, no reference 
is to be assumed (as with Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Valla, and 
others) to the seventy palm-trees of Ex. xv. 27. — ov] sec Winer, p. 419 
(E. T. 472]. Lange, II. p. 1057 f., is wrong in explaining : into the places 
which He had Himself previously designed to visit; that Jesus, namely, sent 
the Seventy through Samaria ; that He Himself did not make this circuit, 
but that, nevertheless, He was not willing to gire up the Samaritan people 
(as representatives of the seventy Gentile nations), and therefore determined 
to convey the gospel to them by means of the Seventy. Against this inven- 
tion of a ‘‘ gencrous revenge,” mpd rpooorov avrov and the imperfect jycaArev 
are decisive. In general it is a mistake to assume that the mission of the 
Seventy went beyond the bounds of Judaism—on which assumption Baur and 
his school base the supposed Pauline tendency of the narrative. The region 
of the Samaritans is scarcely trodden before itis again forsaken, ix. 56, 
prior to the appointment of the Seventy. Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, 
p. 711, is right in saying : ‘‘ Of any appointment of the seventy disciples 
for Samaria, or for the heathen world at all, there is not a single word said.” 
Comp. Holtzmann, p. 393. 


Remarx.—The narrative of the Seventy has been relegated into the unhistorical 
domain by Strauss, de Wette, Gfrérer (Jakr. d. Heils, II. p. 371), Theile (z. Biogr. 
J. p. 51 f.), von Ammon (Z. J. II. p. 355 ff.), Baur (Evangq. p. 498 ff.), Schweg- 
ler, Bruno Bauer, Késtlin, Zeller, Ritschl, and others. [See Note LXXXIII., p. 
395.] But (1) as they accept the position that this was only a temporary and 
special appointment for the present journey, and not a permanent function, 


1 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 284 f.; Saalschiitz, 2 Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenthum, IL 
Hos. R. p. 89. p. 3, 786 f.; Gleseler, Versuch, p. 128. 





CHAP, X., 1. 383 


ver. 1, the silence of the rest of the evangelists, who indeed have not in gen- 
eral the detailed thread of this journey, as well as the silence of the subsequent 
history about their doings, is very easy to understand. — (2) That Jesus in 
general had around Him a larger circle of constant disciples, besides the Twelve, 
from whom He could appoint seventy for a special commission, is in itself, and 
from the evidence of such passages as Acts i. 15, 21, 1 Cor. xv. 6, as well as 
John vi. 60, not to be doubted. — (3) The tradition would hardly have restrained 
itself within these narrow limits, but would have gone further than simply 
to allow the Seventy to be appointed and sent forth, and then to return and 
‘vanish ; and would especially have passed over intu the apostolic history. — 
(4) That Jesus gave them a commission similar to that which He gave the 
Twelve, arose from the similar character of their temporary relation, in respect 
whereof, moreover, it is to be conceded that the tradition involuntarily mingles 
elements out of the two commissions.! — (5) If the narrative had been, as has 
been supposed (see especially Baur, Evang. p. 435 ff., 498 ff.), an invention 
of the author, intended typically to keep the apostolic call of Paul in inces- 
sant contrast with that of the Twelve, it would have been just as necessary as 
it was easy to the inventor to relate what they did, or at least to inweave into 
the commission characteristic references to the ministry of Paul, yet these are 
entirely wanting (comp. rather xxiv. 47 f.; Acts i. 8); moreover, the Acts of the 
Apostles would not have been perfectly silent about the Seventy. In like 
manner as Bauer, Késtlin also, p. 267 £., judges, deriving the narrative, as an 
account typically prefiguring the mission to the heathen,*? from the supposed 
Gospel of Peter, without, however, acquiescing in the opposilion to the Twelve 
asserted by Baur. Ewald (Evang. p. 285, Gesch. Chr. p. 349), with whom in 
substance Holtzmann, p. 392 f., agrees, refers the narrative toa later period, 
in which the gradual disappearance of the Twelve gave to the Lord’s remaining 
companions so much more importance, that what was at first true only of the 
Twelve was involuntarily transferred to a wider circle ; comp. also Weizsicker, 
p. 161 f,409f. But against this also the reasons specified under 1-4 hold good. 
Ewald, in his Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p, 158, supposes that they belonged to 
the hundred and twenty persons mentioned in Acts i. 15. The purpose of the 
Mission was not in any way to further the personal faith of those who 
were sent (Hase, p. 200 ; Krabbe, p. 306), but, asis evident from the commis- 
sion itself (see especially ver. 9), to prepare, by miraculous cures and by 
preaching, for the imminent advent of the Messiah. This entire journey of 
Jesus was intended to afford the people an opportunity for a final decision 
before the Lord’s departure from what had up to this time been His field of 
action, and to be in every quarter that Messianic entry which culminated in the 
final entry into Jerusalem. This function of forerunners, which, according to 
ver. 1, was held in that respect by the Seventy, is at variance neither with ver. 
7, which assumes no relatively long sojourn, but only forbids the change of 


1 According to Baur, elements of the 
commission given to the Twelve are trans- 
ferred tendentially by the evangelist to the 
discourse to the Seventy, in order to give 
the preference to the latter, as belng the 
true and genuine disciples. Comp. also 
Baur, Das Christenthum der drei ersten 
* Jahkrh. p. 76f.; OUligenfeld, Zvang. p. 183 ff. 


See, in general, against such supposed ten- 
dencles of Luke in regard to the primitive 
apostles, Holtzmann, p. 894 f.; Weiss, 
p- 700 ff. ‘Weizsicker, p. 168, rightly empha- 
sizes the fact that itis just these sayings 
which, in an eminent measure, must have 
been the common property of tradition. 
2 Comp. Weizsackcer, p. 409. 


384 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
quarters, nor with the return at ver. 17, which was necessary for pointing out 
the route of the journey.—The source from which Luke derived the section is 
none other than that of the entire narrative of the journey (see on ix. 51). 
That he gave to a fragment of the Logia ‘‘an expansion of the original title, 
from a mere calculation of what was probable,” is too hastily concluded by 
Holtzmann, p. 146. 


Ver. 2. Comp. Matt. ix. 87 f. First of all, Christ makes them appre- 
hend the greatness of their task, and (ver. 3) their risk, and then gives them 
(ver. 4 ff.) rules of conduct.'— ddiyor] notwithstanding your numbers, ye 
are still far from sufficient? mpd¢ rd rAHO0¢ TH peAAdvTwY moreberv, ‘‘in refer- 
ence to the multitude of those who are to believe” (Euthymius Zigabenus) ! 
— &x8é2y] In this is contained the importance, the urgency of the mission : 
should drive forth (comp. oa Mark i. 12 ; 1 Macc. xii. 27). 

Ver. 3. See on Matt. x. 16, where zpéZara, appears. <A different form of 
the tradition, not to be explained as though Jesus called the Twelve zpé,3ava 
as being reAecorépove, ‘‘ more mature ” (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. John 
xxi, 15-17. 

Ver. 4. Comp. ix. 3; Matt. x. 9. — BadAdvriov] a purse ; found only in 
Luke in the New Testament, frequently in the Greek writers. The spelling 
with 24 is decisively attested in the New Testament, although in itsclf the 
spelling with one 4 would be more correct. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Teg. I. 
p. 3848 D. —ypndéva . . . aordoyobe] not a prohibition of the desire of good- 
will (Olshausen, B.-Crusius), or of making a bustle (as Lange conjectures), 
which would have to be found in the context, but which has opposed to it 
xara tiv 6d6v ; but a command to make haste, so as to avoid every delay upon 
the road that might not be necessary for the performance of their task. In 
this respect there is no need of any reference to the circumstantial modes of 
greeting (embraces, benedictions, kisses, and the like). Comp. 2 Kings iv. 
29. Jesus impresses on them the properare ad rem! in accordance with the 
object of the mission, vv. 1, 9, and in a concrete form, which should not 
be pressed to a literal meaning. Theophylact well says: dia 70 pi} azo- 
oxoreicba: zepi arfpwrivove aoracpore Kai dtAogpovhoetc, kai Ex TobTov Tpd¢ Td Kipvypa 
éurodivecba, ‘that they might not take leisure for human greetings and 
friendlinesses, and thus be hindered in their preaching.” 

Vv. 5, 6. See on Matt. x. 12 f. — The construction ei¢ fv x.7.4. is the same 
as in ver. 8. Comp. on Matt. x. 14. — vio¢ eipfune] a son of salration, i.e., one 
who is fit to receive salvation, not different in substance from the déco¢ in 


Matthew. 


1 But the prohibition against going to the 
heathens and the Samaritans, Matt. x. 5, He 
does not give to the Seventy, and that for 
the simple reason that they had precisely 
to make the journey only as it was defi- 
nitely marked out to them in ver. 1 (through 
Galilee). For this that prohibition would 
not have been at all appropriate. 

? According to Weiss, Jesus, in respect of 


Its opposite is vid¢g dpy7¢ (Eph. ii. 8), ry atwdeiac (John xvii. 12), 


dA‘yor, must have thought originally of Him- 
self, while Luke thought of the Twelve. 
The former view contradicts the words of 
the passage, the latter the context. But 
that the discourse was originally addressed 
to the Twelve does not follow from xxii. 35, 
for the passage there alluded to Is to be 
sought in ix. 3 (although with certain coin- 
cidences from x. 4). 


CHAP. X., 7-16. 385d 


tig ameBeiag (Eph. v. 6), yeévyne (Matt. xxiii. 15). Comp. in general on Matt. 
Vili, 12. 

Ver. 7. Comp. ix. 4; Matt. x. 11. — év airg dé 19 oixig] not : in eadem au- 
tem domo (Vulgate, Luther, Bleek), but as it does not run év rq airg oixia: 
but in the house (in question) ztsel/, which has inhabitants so worthy. — pévere] 
the more specific explanation py) peraBaivere x.7.A. follows.’ — 1d rap’ avrav] 
that which is theirs (comp. Mark v. 26). Sce Bernhardy, p. 255. Not dif- 
ferent from this is 7a rapariOéueva iuir, ver. 8. The messengers were to partake 
without hesitation of the provisions of the people, for, etc. This statement 
of the reason, however, should have prevented Baur from explaining it of 
the unhesitating partaking of heathen meats (according to 1 Cor. ix. 7 f., x. 
27), even apart from the fact that no mention is made of heathen houses at 
all.? 

Vv. 8, 9. 1f6acv] It is seen from this that in the direction previously given, 
ver. 5 ff., Jesus had contemplated villages and single dwelling-houses. 
[See Note LX XXTY., p. 395.] Thus ver. 5 ff. corresponds to the xa? rérov, and 
ver. 8 ff. to the rédv, ver. 1. — xal déy. tu.] a transition into the demonstra- 
tive expression instead of the continuance of the relative form ; comp. 
Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 177; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 328 [E. T. 883]. — 
éoficre| as though «ai éav «.r.A. had been previously said. An emphatic an- 
acoluthon. Sce Bornemann, Schol. p. 65 f. —avroig] the inhabitants. Comp. 
déxwvrat. — jyyixev] a promise of participation in the kingdom of Messiah 
near at hand. On é¢’ ivac, comp. Matt. xii. 28; Ps. xxviii. 2 ; 1 Macc. v. 
40, 42. 

Vv. 10, 11. Comp. ix. 5; Matt. x. 14. The refusal torcceive them is 
represented as following immediately upon their entrance ; hence the present 
elaépy. The representation of ver. 8 was different : eicé?@yre (see the crit- 
ical remarks). — éfeaOdvrec] out of the house into which ye have entered. — 
tuiv} so that ye should have it again ; a symbol of the most contemptuous 
renunciation, asin Matthew. — #yy:xev x.7.4.] a threatening reference to their 
penal exclusion from the salvation of the kingdom. See ver. 12 ff. Observe 
that é¢’ dude is wanting this time ; see the critical remarks. 

Ver. 12. Comp. Matt. x. 15. 

Vv. 13-15. See on Matt. xi. 21-24. Luke has not here any mistaken 
reminiscence (de Wette), but the disaster of these Galilaean cities-lay suffi- 
ciently close to the heart of Jesus to force from Him the denunciation of 
woe more than once, and here, indeed, in very appropriate connection, since 
this woe brings into the light and confirms what has just been said at ver. 12 
by the example of the cities which had rejected Jesus Himself. — xaBjyevor 
(sce the critical remarks) : the inhabitants, namely. See Buttmann, Neut. 
Gram. p. 114 [E. T. 130]. 

Ver. 16. Comp. Matt. x. 40; John xiii. 20, xii. 48. A confirmation in 
principle of the fact that He placed on equal grounds the cities that reject 


1 As to éodorres, as itis also to be read sop. 234; Hilgenfeld, Erang. p. 188, and Weiz- 
here, see on vil. 88. sacker, p. 163, 
* This ia also in opposition to Késtlin, 


20 


386 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

them with those that reject Himself. In the second part the saying rises toa 
climax (a6e7. r. atoor. ye). A deepening of the emotion ; 8 solemn conclusion. 
' Vv. 17-20. The fact that the account of the return of the Seventy follows 
immediately cannot prove that in the history of this journey (from ix. 51 
onward) Luke is not holding the chronological thread (Olshausen). In ac- 
cordance with the purpose of the mission (ver. 1), some must have returned 
very soon, others later, so that Jesus might anticipate the return of one por- 
tion of them before the return of those who had gone farther, and Luke might 
equally exclude the summary narration of the return without passing over 
anything of importance that intervened. —xai ra darpévia x.7.4.] over which 
Hie had not given to them, as He had to the Twelve (ix. 1), an express 
authority : ‘‘ Plura in effectu experti sunt, quam Jesus expresscrat,” ‘‘ They 
attempted more in their doings than Jesus had expressed,” Bengel. This is 
necessarily implied in xaf ; but it is not to be inferred, as Késtlin assumes, 
that Luke regarded the casting out of demons as the highest ydpopa. —iv ro 
ovdu. o.} by means of Thy name, by the fact of our utterance of it. Comp. 
on ix. 49; Matt. vil. 22. Otherwise in Mark xvi. 17.— Ver. 18. This I 
saw happen in this wise when I sent you forth (éGedpovv, imperf.) ! This 
your victorious agency against Satan (whose servants the demons are) was 
not hidden from me. J beheld at that time (in the spirit, in idea) Satan fallen 
like a lightning flash from heaven, 1.e., I then! perceived the swift overthrow 
of Satan from his lofty power, in so lively a manner that it presented itself 
to me in my inward perception, as if he were like a flash of lightning (so 


1 Without any ground in the context, 
éSewpovy has been dated farther back in 
various ways. Lange, LZ. J. II. 2, p. 1070 f. 
(comp. also Philippi, Glaudenslehre, IIT. 
p. 308), refers it to the temptation in the desert, 
and conceives that with the rebuke of 
Christ, Get thee hence from me! Satan was 
‘“cast forth from the heavenly circle of 
Christ and His people."’ Gregory Nazian- 
zen and other Fathers, Euthymius Ziga- 
benus, Maldonatus, and others, refer it to 
the time of Christ's incarnation, by which 
Satan was cast down, a result which Christ 
here describes as a “ dux bell! suas narrans 
victorias,” “leader in war narrating his 
victories" (Maldonatus). Other Fathers, 
including Origen and Theophylact, Eras- 
mus and others, refer it to the fall of the 
devil by sin, whereby he lost his place in 
heaven. Thus also Hofmann, Schrifibevw. 
I. p. 448, who indeed would have “ the fall 
from heaven" to signify only the loss of 
the fellowship of the supramundane life of 
God (p. 458). According to this, the imper- 
fect must have its reference to a fact of 
which Christ was a witness when He was 
still the Adyos dvapxos. But against the ex- 
planation of Satan's fall by sin, it is dect- 
sive that with this overthrow of Satan his 
power on earth was not broken, but it then 


first began. The explanation Is therefore 
quite opposed to the connection in which 
our passage stands, since Jesus is not at all 
desirous of warning against arrogance (the 
view of many Fathers), but must certainly 
be speaking of the destruction of the devil's 
power, of the overthrow of the devilish 
strength. Hence also Hilgenfeld Is quite 
mistaken, Kvang. p. 184, in making it refer 
to Rev. xii. 9, saying that Jesus saw how 
the devil ‘Seven now is working with. spe- 
cial energy upon the earth,” that with the 
near approach of the passion of Jesus (not 
for the first time shortly before the last day) 
came therefore the point of time when the 
devil, who had been driven out of the field, 
should develop his power anew. More- 
over, Hahn, 7heol. d. N. T. I. p. S42, rightly 
referring éGewpovy to the time of sending out 
the Seventy, finds the meaning to be: I 
beheld Satan descend from heaven with the 
rapidity of lightning to hinder your work ; 
but fear ye not, behold I give you power, 
etc. In accordance with the context, 
wecoyra must mean the knocking down of 
the devil, not his descent from heaven ; 
but the connection which Hahn makes with 
ver. 19 is neither intimated (in any wise by 
add’ gov «.7.A,), nor does it suit the correct 
reading Sé5exa, 


CHAP. X., 17-20. 387 
swift, s0 momentary !) hurled out of heaven (resdvra, not the present). The 
whole reply of Jesus (comp. vv. 19, 20) is rich in imagination, full of vivid 
imagery, confirming the triumphant assertion of the disciples in equally 
joyous excitement.' Comp. Rev. xii. 9 ; and on the fact itself, John xii. 31, 
where no more than here is intended any allusion to the downfall of the 
hierarchical party (Schenkel). He does not mean to speak of a tision (von 
Ammon, L. J. II. p. 359), since such a thing nowhere occurs in His expe- 
rience, inasmuch as in consideration of His direct perception He had no 
need of such intermediate helps ; but He means an intuition of His knowl- 
edge, and speaks of it under a vivid, lifelike form, which the imagination is 
able to grasp. The relative tense éfedpovy might also be referred to the 
time of the disciples’ ministry (de Wette, Bleck, Schegg [Weiss ed. Mey. ] ; 
comp. Bengel, tentatively, ‘‘quum egistis,” ‘‘ when you acted)” ; yet this is 
the less appropriate to the assertion of the instantaneous recéyra, and to the 
comparison with the lightning’s flash, that the ministry of the Seventy 
lasted for a time. — The representation éx rov ovpavov teadvta* does not in 
any way presuppose Satan’s abode in heaven (as to Paul’s representation of 
the abode of the demons in the atmosphere, sce on Eph. ii. 2), but corre- 
sponds to the thought of highly exalted power, as above, ver. 15, and Isa. 
xiv. 12 ; the representation, however, of its swiftness and suddenness by 
comparison with a flash of lightning was by reason of the rci ovpavod as nat- 
ural and appropriate as is the comparison of the lightning in Matt. xxiv. 27. 
— Ver. 19. According to the reading déduxa (see the critical remarks), Jesus 
gives them not a mere supplementary explanation (objection by de Wette), 
but He explains to them what a much greater power still they had received 
from Him and possessed (perfect) than that which they had experienced in 
the subjection of the demons. This investiture with power occurred before 
the sending of them forth, although it is not expressly mentioned in the 
commission, ver. 2 ff.; but it was left to become clear to their consciousness 
through experience, and they had already partially begun to be conscious of 
it in the subjection of the demons to their power. — roi rareiv éexdvw bdewy x. 
oxopz.] a figurative description (in accordance with Ps. xci. 13, and see the 
Rabbinical passages in Wetstein) of the dangerous Satanic powers, which the 
Seventy were to tread under their feet, as warriors do their conquered foes — 
(Rom. xvi. 20). —xai] and generally. — The emphasis of the discourse as it 
advances lics on zacev and ovdév. — Tov éxApov] of the enemy, of whom our 
Lord is speaking, and that is none other than Satan, *— ovdév] is the accu- 


1 Against this view Hofmann objects that 
it is foreign to the connection (wherefore f), 


who, moreover, takes painsin his Vorles. 2, 
d. L. J. p. 833 ff., with subtlety at variance 


and that it gives tothe mission an fmpor- 
tanco that does not belong to it. But was 
it then something of little importance to 
send forth soventy new combatants against 
Satan's power? Could not the commander 
of this new warrior band behold, in tho 
spirit, when He sent them forth, the devil's 
overthrow? 

3 éx rov ovpavov is not to bo taken with 
éc7paryy, a8 Schlelermachcr would havo it, 


with true excgesis, to exclude the doctrine 
of the devil from the teaching of Jesus. 
He says that Jesus speaks of the devil ac- 
cording toa current representation,—just 
as people speak of ghosts, without beliey- 
ing in their reality, and as we say that the 
sun rises, though everybody knows that 
the sun does not In reality rise. 

3 Comp. Jest. XII. Pair. p. 67: xpocéxere 
davrois azd rov arava... Karévayrs. ris 


388 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ° 


sative neuter : and in nothing will it (the divayrc rod txOpov) harm you ; comp. 
Acts xxv. 10; Gal. iv. 12 ; Philem. 18; Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 348. — 
aducfoer (see the critical remarks) : as to the future after ov 7, see on Matt. 
xxvi. 85 ; Mark xiv. 31.— Ver. 20. Nevertheless your rejoicing should 
have for its object a higher good than that authority over spirits. Theo- 
phylact well says : racdetwv dé abrove py tpndodpoveiv, got’ rAny Ev TobTY K.T.A., 
‘* But training them not to be high-minded, he says : howbeit in this, etc.” 
In accordance with his presuppositions, Baur, Hvang. p. 489, thinks that the 
evangelist had Rev. xxi. 14 in view, and that he in a partisan spirit referred ! to 
the Serenty the absolute significance in respect of the kingdom of God which 
the apocalyptic writer attributes to the T'welee. — ur) yaipere x.t.A.] rejoice not 
. . . but rejoice. Not arelative (non tam... quam, ‘‘not so much as,” 
see Kuinoel, de Wettc, and many others), but an absolute negation with 
rhetorical emphasis (Winer, p. 439 [E. T. 495]), although ‘‘ gaudium non 
vetatur, sed in ordinem redigitur,” ‘‘the joy is not forbidden, but reduced 
into order,” Bengel. — dr: ra dvéu. «.7.A.] an embodiment of the thought : 
that ye are destined by God to be in the future participators in the eternal Messt- 
ante life, in accordance with the poetic representation of the Book of Life 
kept by God,? in which their names had been written (éypd¢7). The pre- 
destination thereby set forth is that which occurred before the beginning of 
time in Christ (Eph. i. 4). See on Phil. iv. 3. 

Vv. 21, 22. See on Matt. xi. 25-27.? [See Note LXXXV., p. 396.] Luke 
places this thanksgiving prayer in immediate chronological conncction (in 
the same hour) with the return of the Seventy. Theophylact says: éorep 
satip ayabog waidag idav Kkatopwoavrds tt, obtw kal 6 owrhp aydAAerac bri ToLovTWW 
dyabay 728ncav ol améoroAa, ‘‘As a good father when seeing his sons suc- 
ceeding in something, so the Saviour rejoices, because the apostles were 
deemed worthy of such good things.” Still this chronological position is 
hardly the historical one. See on Matt. —1r@ mvebuar:] not the Holy Spirit 
(see the critical remarks). Comp. i. 47. It is His own wrvetya aywotrne, 
Rom. i. 4. The opposite of this, 7ya44. r. xv., occurs in John xi. 83. — 
tavra] findsin Luke its reference in dr: rd dvéuara tudv x.t.A., ver. 20, and is 
hence to be understood * of the knowledge of the life eternal in the kingdom 
of Messiah (comp. viii. 10; yuavae rd prvorhpia tHe Baotdelac). — Ver. 22. xal 


Bactreias Tov éxdpov orjceraz,. Matt. xii. 
25; 1 Pet. v. 8. 

1 Which, however, by a glance at Rev. 
ffl. 5, xvii. 8, Is shown to be erroneous. 
Moreover, according to Weizsiicker, vv. 18- 
20 are said to be of the “‘ latest origin,” 

2 Ex, xxxil. 82 f.; Ps. Ixix. 29; Isa. iv. 8; 
Phil. iv. 8; Rev. fil. 5; comp. on Matt. v. 12. 

® Keim, Geschichtl, Christus, p. 51, sees 
here the climaz reached of the consciousness 
of the divine Sonship, and that hence there 
now appears, instead of the * your Father,” 
as hitherto, the designation ‘my Father.” 
But on the one hand “your Father ”’ is still 
said at the same time and later (xii. 80, 8; 


Matt. x. 20, xviii. 14, xxiii. 9), and on the 
other Jesus, not to mention ii. 49, says “ my 
Father’’ even as early as in the Sermon on 
the Mount (Matt. vil. 21). Baur, indeed 
(Neutest. Theol. p. 86), knows no other way 
of getting rid of the offence which this ex- 
pression of Matt. vil. 21 gives him than by 
attributing the words toaJater period of 
the ministry of Jesus. Itis easy inthis way’ 
to set aside what will not fit into our no- 
tions. 

4Not, of the power over the demons, as 
Wittichen, @. Jdee Govtes ale dea Valers, 1865, 
p. 80, wishes to have it. To that also be 
longs wdvra, ver. 22. 


CHAP. X., 23-25. 889 


otpagelc x.7.A.] (see the critical remarks). [See Note LXXXV., p. 896.] 
From the prayer to God He turns in the following words to the disciples (the 
Seventy and the Twelve). — mpd¢ rote zaf.}] belongs to orpageic. Comp. vii. 
44, xiv. 25. Astothe idea of the wévra pot waped., which is not, as with 
Baur, Schenkel, and others, to be referred merely to the spiritual and moral 
region, sce on Matt. xxviii. 18.— yivdéoxer] That the Marcionite reading 
éyvw is the original one, and not a gnostic alteration, is rendcred probable 
by the very ancient date at which it is found (Justin, the Clementines, the 
Marcosites). Comp. on Matt. xi. 27. The gnostic interpretation of éyve, 
which is contested by the Clementines (xviii. 13 f.), very easily brought 
about the change into the present tense. See (after Baur, Hilgenfeld, 
Semisch, Késtlin, Volkmar) Zeller, Apostelg. p. 13 f. — ric] in respect of 
His nature, counsel, will, thought, etc. In what way, however, rig gore 6 
rathp is said to be gnostic rather than biblical (Késtlin, p. 161) it is not 
easy to see. The Father who has sent the Son has His perfect revelation 
for the first time in Him. Comp. John xiv. 9. — @ éav Bota.] Comp. con- 
cerning the Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 11. This will of the Son, however, in virtue 
of His essential and moral unity with the Father, is no other than the 
Father’s will, which the Son has to fulfil, Comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 18 f. 
Observe, again, that the negation, which is not to be relatively explained 
away, ovdcic . . . et wy, establishes a relation of a unique kind, namely, that 
of the metaphysical fellowship. 

Vv. 28, 24. See on Matt. xiii. 16 f., where the historical connection is 
quite different. [Sce Note LXXXV., p. 396.] But the significant beati- 
tude may have been spoken on different occasions, especially with a dif- 
ferent reference of meaning (as here in particular BAérer has a different 
sense from what it has in Matthew). — «ai orpageic x.r.A.] Here we have a 
further step in the narrative (comp. ver. 22), which is marked by xar’ idiav, 
to be taken along with orpageic. This turning, which ercluded the others 
who were present (sce ver. 25), is to be regarded as perceptible by the move- 
ment and gesture of the speaker. ‘‘ Lucas accurate notare solet pausas et 
flexus sermonum Domini,” ‘‘ Luke is wont to note accurately the pauses and 
turns of the Lord’s discourses,” Bengel. Consequently the reproach of inap- 
propriateness, occasioned by the omission of dette rpd¢ pe révres (in Matthew), 
does not touch Luke (Holtzmann, p. 147; Weiss). — xai BacrAci¢] peculiar 
to Luke. Think of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and others. —ideivy . . . 
axotere] The point of the contrast varies: to see what ye see... and to 
hear what ye (actually) hear. Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 29. 

Ver. 25 ff. This transaction is different from the later narrative of Matt. 
xxii. 85 ff. (comp. Mark xii. 28 ff.). [See Note LXXXVI., p. 396.] The 
fact that the same passages of the law are quoted cannot outweigh the 
difference of time and place, of the point of the question, of the person 
quoting the passages, and of the further course of the conference. Comp. 
Strauss, I. p. 650 f., who, however, also holds Matthew and: Mark as dis- 
tinct, and thus maintains three variations of the tradition upon the one sub- 
ject, viz., that Jesus laid stress on the two commandments as the foremost 
of the law ; while Kostlin, p. 275, supposes that Luke arbitrarily took the 


390 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


question, ver. 25, out of its original place in Matthew and Mark, and him- 
self made it the entire introduction to the parable (ver. 30 ff.). Comp. Holtz- 
mann : ‘‘two independent sections brought by Luke within one frame.” — 
éxrepdgwy aurév] mrpooedéxncev mayidevoae tov Xprordv ei¢ 1d wdévtwo exirdfae re 
évavriov T@ véuy, ‘‘ He expected to ensnare Christ into enjoining something 
altogether contrary to the law,” Euthymius Zigabenus. As to éxzecpat, 
to try thoroughly, see on 1 Cor. x. 9. 

Vv. 26, 27. [dg avay:véoxerc] NIP “KD, a customary Rabbinical formula 
to give occasion to a scriptural citation, Lightfoot, p. 794. — za¢] how, that 
is, with what words, not instead of ri (Kypke and others). Comp. zée ¢ic, 
ming Aéyetg rac doxeic, and the like. Observe that év 76 véuy is placed first for 
the sake of emphasis, and that the doubled expression of the question indi- 
cates the urgency of the questioner. Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 
802, is wrong in explaining the passage as if it were rae ot avay. — Ver. 27. 
The lawyer quotes Deut. vi. 5 along with Lev. xix. 18. The Jews had to 
repeat daily morning and evening the former passage, together with Deut. 


- x1. 13 ff. (Berac. f. 3. 83; comp. on Mark xii. 29) ; a appeared also on the 


phylacteries (see on Matt. xxiii. 5), but not Lev. xix. 18 ; hence the opinion 
of Kuinoel : ‘‘ Jesum digito monstrasse thecam illam, qua se ornaverat legis 
peritus,” ‘‘that Jesus pointed with His finger to that box with which the 
lawyer had adorned himself,” must be rejected. The reason why the 
lawyer answered entirely in the meaning of Jesus, and especially adds the 
passage from Leviticus, is found in the fact that his attention was directed 
not to what had immediately preceded, but to the problem ti¢ éori pov wAnaiov ; 
and that he used the question ri rocfoac «.7.4., ver. 25, only as an introduc- 
tion thereto. To this question, familiar as he was with the principles of 
Jesus, he must have expected an answer in which the duty of the love of 
one’s neighbor was not wanting, and thereto he would then attach the spe- 
cial question meant to tempt him, viz., ric zori pov rAyoiov; But since the 
dialogue takes such a turn that he himself becomes the respondent, he gives 
the answer which he had expected from Jesus; and now for his own self- 
justification—to show, to wit, that notwithstanding that correct answer, he 
did not ask his question without reason, but still needs more detailed in- 
struction, he adds the problem under cover of which the temptation was to 
be brought in. The questioner, unexpectedly made to play the part of the 
respondent, thus keeps his object in view with presence of mind and crafti- 
ness, and it can neither be asserted that by his reply, in keeping with the 
meaning of Jesus, he at once gave himself up as a captive (de Wette), nor 
that this reply was not suggested till the question of Jesus was interposed 
(Bleck). 


Vv. 28, 29. Totro rolec] rovro has the emphasis corresponding to the ri of 


‘ ver. 25. — Chon] Cun, aidviov kAnpovugoerc, ver. 25. It is thus that Jesus de- 


clared the fundamental law of the divine retribution, as Paul, Rom. ii. 13. 
But as to the manner in which this moral, fundamental law leads to the ne- 
cessity of the righteousness of faith (see on Romans, loc. eit.), there was no 
occasion for Him to explain further in the presence of the legal tempter. — 
Ver. 29. dixasioas éavrév] namely, in reference to his question, to prove that 


CHAP. X., 30, 31. 391 
he had put it with reason and justice ; sec on ver. 26 f.1 The view that he - 
wished to represent himself as being honestly disposed, xvi. 15 (so usually), has 
against it? the purpose with which the scribe had presented himself, éxzecpa- 
{wy avrdv, in spite of which he himself has still answered rightly, ver. 27. — 
xai tic «.r.A.] See on the «ai occurring thus abruptly and taking up the other's 
discourse, Hartung, Partzkell. I. p. 146 f.; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 879 f.; 
‘* Mire ad 760¢ facit,” ‘‘ He acts wonderfully according to custom,” Bengel. 
— rAyciov] without an article, hence : who is neighbor tome?* The element of 
temptation consisted in this, that from the mouth of Jesus was expected 
some sort of heterodox reply which should deviate from the Rabbinical deti- 
nition that the Jew’s nearest neighbor is his fellow-Jew. 

Vv. 30, 81. ‘YroAauBavev, in the sense of ‘‘ taking up the discourse of an- 
other by way of reply,” occurs only here in the New Testament, and hence 
is probably taken by Luke from the source used by him. It is frequent in 
the LXX. (JY) and in the classical writers.‘— a0pumé¢ tic] without any 
more definite limitation, which, however, is not to be regarded as inten- 
tional (Paulus thinks that it is meant to intimate that the Samaritan asked 
no questions about his nationality, comp. also Schenkel), but leaves it to be 
understood of itself, by means of the context, that a Jew is meant (not a 
heathen, as Olshausen takes it), in virtue of the contrast between Jew and 
Samaritan. — 'Iepcxo] See on Matt. xx. 29. It was separated from Jerusa- 
lem by a desert region (Joseph. Bell. iv. 8. 8), which was unsafe because of 
robbers (Jerome on Jer. iii. 2). It was not a priestly city. — repiérecer] he 
met with robbers, fell among them, as repirimrecy revi, incidere in aliquem, is 
very often used in the classical writers.’ There is no question here about 
chancing upon unfortunate circumstances, for this would have required the 
dative of an abstract noun (such as ovugopt, tiyn x.1.A.). —o? xal x.7.4.] This 
and the subsequent «ai correspond to onc another ; et. . . et. They took 
his clothes off him in order to rob him of them, and while doing so they 
beat him (because he resisted). The two participles therefore stand in the cor- 
rect sequence of what actually occurred (in opposition to de Wette.) — rvyza- 
vovra] not equivalent to dyra, but: they left him when he was just half dead ° 
(this was the condition to which he was reduced).’ [But see critical note. | 
— avrimapyAbev] ex adverso praeteriit (Winer, de verb. compos. III. p. 18), he 
passed by on the opposite side. This avr gives a clear idea of the cold be- 
havior of the hard-hearted passer-by. The word occurs elsewhere only in 
Strat. vii. 2 (Jacobs, Anthol. III. p. 70) and Wisd. xvi. 10 (in which place, 


1 Comp. also Maldonatus, de Wette, Bleek, 
Schegg. 

2 Lange, L. J. II. p. 1076, conjectures that 
the scribe wished, as the disciples had just 
returned from Samaria, to call Jesus to ac- 
count in respect of this fellowship with the 
Samaritans—which could not bo the way 
to life. But the Seventy had not been to 
Samaria at all. Comp. on ver. 1 and Ix. 
56. 

* Comp. ver. 8. See Bornemann, Schol. 
p. 60; Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 180]. 


4 Comp. Herod. vil. 101: 6 8@ vroAaBaw ey ; 
Dem. 594. 21, 600. 20; Polyb. iv. 85. 4, xv. 8. 1. 

® Herod. vi. 105, vill. 94, vi. 41; Dem. 1264. 
26; Xen. Anad. vil. 8. 88; Polyb. iil. 53. 6. 

* The expression makes us feel the un- 
concernedness of the robbers about the un- 
fortunate man whom they left to his fate 
Just as he was. 

™Comp. Plat. Prof. p. 318 E, and else- 
where. See Ast, Ler. Plat. III. p. 420. ovra 
might have been added besides, Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 277. 


392 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


however, it means ez adverso advenire, ‘“‘to arrive over against ;” see 
Grimm).' 

Ver. 82. Observe the climax in the description—having reached the place 
(in question), he went, when he had come (approached) and seen (the state of 
the case), by on the other side.* 

Ver. 84. ’Emyzéwy x.t.4.] while he, as he was binding them up, poured on 
them oil and wine, the ordinary remedy in the case of wounds (see the pas- 
sages in Wetstein and Paulus), which he carried with him for any casual 
need. — éi rd lWiov xrivoc} on his own beast (his ass), so that thus he himself 
yave up its use. — ravdoyeiov] instead of the Attic ravdoxeiov, Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 807. The word has also passed over into the Rabbinical vocabu- 
lary : P1212, sce Lightfoot, p. 799. We must picture to ourselves a cara- 
eanserai, over which presided an ordinary landlord. 

Vv. 35, 86. ’Evi] as in Mark xv. 1; Acts ili. 1 : towards the morrow, 
when it was about to dawn. — éeA@dv] out of the inn. He gave the money 
to the landlord outside (past participle). The small amount, however, that 
he gave him presupposes the thought of a very early return. — éxBadrdr] a 
vivid picture ; out of his purse. Comp. Matt. xiil. 52. — mpoodaray.]} thou 
shalt hace expended in addition thereto, besides.* — éy4] with emphasis ; the 
unfortunate man was not to have the claim made on him. — ézavépyeofac} 
signifies ‘‘reditum in eum ipsum locum,” ‘‘ return to this very place,” Titt- 
mann, Synon. p. 232. Very frequently in use in the classical writers. — 
yeyovévat] to have become by what he had done.‘ Flacius, Clav. I. p. 330, 
well says : ‘‘omnes quidem tres erant jure, sed unicus facto aut officio,” 
‘¢all three indeed were by law, but only one by deed and service.” — rov 
iures. cic T. A.] who fell among the thieces. See Sturz, Ler. Xen. IIL. p. 158. 

Ver. 37. ‘0 mogoag x.t.A.] Bengel : ‘‘ Non invitus abstinet legisperitus ap- 
pellatione propria Samaritae,” ‘‘ Not unwillingly does the lawyer abstain 
from the proper appellation of Samaritan.” On the expression, comp. i. 
72. —rd Aeoc] the compassion related ; xa? ob : thou also ; not to be joined to 
ropetov (Lachmann), but to woiex. Comp. vi. 31. 


Remarx.—Instead of giving to the theoretical question of the scribe, ver. 29, 
a direct and theoretical decision as to whom he was to regard as his neighbor, 
Jesus, by the feigned (according to Grotius and others, the circumstance actu- 
ally occurred) history of the compassionate Samaritan, with all the force of the 
contrast that puts to shame the cold Jewish arrogance, gives a practical lesson 
on the question: how one actually becomes the neighbor of ANOTHER, nanely, by the 
exercise of helpful love, independently of the nationality and religion of the 
persons concerned. And the questioner, in being dismissed with the direction, 
Kal od roiec duotwc, has therein indirectly the answer to his question, ri¢ eori pov 
rAnoiov ; namely : Every one, without distinction of people and faith, to whom 
the circumstances analogous to the instance of the Samaritan direct thee to ex- 
ercise helpful love in order thereby to become his neighbor, thou hast to re- 


1 Comp. avriwaptévar, Xen. Anad.iv.3.17; vil. 1. 14, and elsewhere. Comp. ver. 33. 
FTetl. v. 4. 38. 3 Lucian, Zp. Sat. xxxix.; Corp. tnacr. 108, 8. 

2On yevdp. xara, comp. Herod. fli. 86: ws 4On yiveoGa, in the sense of s¢ praestare, 
KaTa TOUTO TO xwpioy eyévorto; Xen. Cyrop. sec Kiihner, ad Xen. Anas. i. 7. 4. 


ee” arr... = 
- 


CHAP. x., 38-40. 393 
gard as thy neighbor. This turn on the part of Jesus, like every feature of the 
improvised narrative, bears the stamp of originality in the pregnancy of its 
meaning, in the insight which suggested it, and in the quiet and yet perfectly 
frank way in which the questioner, by a direct personal appeal, was put to the 
blush.! 


Ver. 88. [See Note LXXXVII., p. 8396.] ‘Ev r@ ropetecfa] to be under- 
stood of the continuation of the journey to Jerusalem. Sce ix. 51, 57, x. 1. 
{See also critical note.] But Jesus cannot yet be in Bethany (sce xiii. 22, 
xvii. 11), where Martha and Mary dwelt (John xi. 1, xii. 1 f.), and hence it 
is to be supposed that Luke, because he was unacquainted with the more 
detailed circumstances of the persons concerned, transposed this incident, 
which must have occurred in Bethany, and that on an earlier festal journey, 
not merely to the last journey, but also to some other village, and that a 
village of Galilee. The tradition, or the written source, which he followed 
had preserved the fact and the names of the persons, but not the time and 
place of the incident. If we regard Luke as unacquainted with those par- 
ticulars, the absence of all mention of Lazarus is the less surprising, seeing 
that the substance of the history concerns the sisters only (in opposition to 
Strauss, I. p. 751).— «ai airéc] xai is the usual and after éyévero [but sec 
critical note], and airés brings Jesus Himself into prominence above the 
company of travellers (avrotc). He, on His part, without the disciples, went 
into the village and abode at the house of Martha.—The notion that Martha 
was the wife (Bleek, Hengstenberg) or widow (Paulus) of Simon the leper, 
is based upon mistaken harmonistics. See on vii. 36 ff. and Matt. xxvi. 6 f. 
Whether she was a widow at all (Grotius) does not appear. She was the 
housekeeper and manager of the household, and probably the elder sister. 

Vv. 39, 40. Tgde] This word usually réfers to what follows, but here in a 
vividly realizing manner it points to what has gone before, as sometimes also 
occurs in the classical writers.* — 4 «ai] «ai is not : even (Bornemann), which 
would have no reference to explain it in the context ; but : moreorer, bring- 
ing into prominence the fact that Mary, besides whatever elsc she did in her 
mind after the coming of Jesus, moreover seated herself at His fect, etc. See 
Klotz, ad Decar. p. 636. — The form rapaxafeofeica] (see the critical remarks), 
from mapaxabéfoua, to sit down near to, belongs to later Greek. Joseph. Antt. 
vi. 11. 9.—Mary sits there as a learner (Acts xxii. 8), not as a companion at 
table (at the right of Jesus, where His outstretched feet were), as Paulus and 


1 The Fathers, a8 Origen, Ambrose, Au- 
gustine, Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga- 
benus, have been able to impart mystical 
meanings to the individual points of the his- 
tory. Thus the ar@pwrds 1s signifies Adam ; 
Jerusalem, paradise; Jericho, the world ; 
the thieves, the demons; the priest, the lav; 
tho Levite, the prophets; the Samaritan, 
Christ; the beast, Christ's body ; the inn, 
the church ; the landlord, the dishop; the 
Denaril, the O’d and New Testaments ; tho 
return, the Parousia. See especially Origen, 


Tlom,. 84 in Lue., and Theophylact, sud loc, 
Luther also similarly allegorizes in his ser- 
mons. Calvin wisely says: ‘‘Scripturae 
major habenda est reverentia, quam ut 
germanum ejus sensum hac licentia trans- 
figurare liceat,"’ ‘* There should be a great- 
er reverence for Scripture than allows its 
real sense to be transformed with this li- 
cense.”’ 

2 See Bernhardy, p. 278; Kihner, ad Xen. 
Mem, 1. 2 8, fil. 8 12. 


394 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Kuinoel will have it (women sat at table ; see Wetstein tn loc.). For 
the text as yet says nothing of the meal, but only of the hospitable reception 
in gencral (ver. 38), and, moreover, ver. 40 alludes generally to the attend- 
ance on and entertainment of the honored and beloved Guest, wherein 
Martha was exhausting her hospitality. There is no trace of any reclining 
at table ; the context in x. fxove 7. 20). avr. points only to the idea of the- 
Semale disciple. — repioxaofa, in the sense of the being withdrawn from at- 
tention and solicitude by reason of occupations, belongs to later Greek.’ The 
expression zrpi tz, about something, connected with verbs of being busied, of 
taking trouble, and the like, is also very frequent in Greek writers. — xazé- 
Acre] reliquit ; she had therefore gone away from what she was doing, and 
had placed herself at the feet of Jesus. — iva] therefore speak to her in order 
that. Comp. on Matt. iv. 3. — As to ovvavriAauBdvecbai tim, to gite a hand 
with anybody, i.e., to help anybody, comp. on Rom. viii. 26. 

Vv. 41, 42. [epi roa2a] Thou art anxious, and weariest thyself (art in the | 
confusion of business) about many things, sce ver. 40.* — évog dé tots zpeia] A 
contrast with 70724 : but of one thing there is need ; one thing is necessary, 
that is to say, as an object of care and trouble. By these words Jesus, in ac- 
cordance with the context, can mean nothing else than that from which 
Martha had withdrawn, while Mary was bestowing pains upon it—the un- 
divided derotion to His word for the sake of salcation, although in tenderness 
He abstains from mentioning it by name, but leaves the reference of the ex- 
pression, in itself only general, to be first discovered from the words which 
follow. [See Note LXXXVIIL., p. 396.] In respect of the neuter évé¢ noth- 
ing is to be supplemented any more than there is in respect of ro#4d. Fo!- 
lowing Gregory, Bede, Theophylact, Zeger, Michaelis, and others (comp. 
Erasmus in the Annotations), Paulus understands : one dish, ‘‘ we need not 
many kinds,” and 77 ayabjy pepida is then taken as meaning the really goot 
portion,* which figuratively represents the participation in communion with 
Jesus. The former, especially after the impressive Mdp6a, Mdp#a, would 
have heen just as trivial and out of harmony with the serious manner of Jesus 
as the latter would have been discourteous to the well-intentioned hostess. 
Nachtigall also mistakes (in Henke’s Mugaz. VI. p. 355), and Stolz agrees 
with him in interpreting : one person is enough (in the kitchen), in opposi- 
tion to which the contrast of zoAA¢ is decisive, seeing that according to it éd¢ 
must be neuter. —riv ayafyy uspida] the good part. That, namely, about 
which care and pains are taken, consists, according to the various kinds of 
these objects, of sevcral parts. Mary has selected for herself among these, 
for her care and pains, the good part ; and this is, in accordance with the 
subject, nothing else than precisely that év which is necessary—that portion 
of the objects of solicitude and labor which is the good one, the good portion, 
which only one can be. More vaguely Grotius, Elsner, Kypke, Kuinoel, and 
others put it : the good occupation ; and de Wette, generalizing this : the 


1See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 415. Comp. comp. Aristoph. Ran. 1007. 
Plut. Mfor. p. 517 C: weptomacpis x. peOodAny ’ Comp. the form of speech, wpds pepisas 
TRS woAUTpayuLOocUMNS. 8ecrveiv, to dine in portions, and see examples 
3 On rupBacgerda [see critical note] repi 71, in Wetstein. 


NOTES. 395 


good destination of life. Comp. also Euthymius Zigabenus : dbo pepides zoAu- 
telag émasvetal, } pév mpaxtixh, ) d2 Aewpytixy, ‘‘ Two portions of the way of 
living are praiseworthy, one practical, the other theoretical.” — ry ayatf] 
neither means optimam (Kuinoel and others), nor does it imply that the care 
of Martha, in which assuredly love also was expressed, was mala (Fritzsche, 
Conject. I. p. 19) ; but it designates the portion as the good one rar’ étoxiv. — 
qT ovK agaip. an’ avt.] refers certainly, first of all, to Martha’s appeal, ver. 40. 
Hence it means: which shall not be taken away from her ; she shall keep it, 
Mark iv. 25, whereby, however, Jesus at the same time, in thoughtful refer- 
ence to further issues, points, in His characteristically significant manner, to 
the everlasting possession of this pepic. By grec, which is not equivalent to 7, 
what follows is described as belonging to the essence of the ayai) pepic: 
quippe quae. ‘‘Transit amor multitudinis et remanet caritas unitatis,” 
‘¢ The desire for many things passes away, and the love of the one thing re- 
mains,’? Augustine. — Those who have found in Mary's devotion the repre- 
sentation of the Pauline ziercc, and in the nature of Martha that of zeal for 
the law, so that the evangelist is made to describe the party relations of his 
own day (Baur, Zeller, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld), have, by a coup quite as un- 
justifiable as it was clumsy, transferred this relic of the home life of Jesus 
into the foreign region of allegory, where it would only inaptly idealize the 
party relations of the later period. 


Notes By AMERICAN Eprror. 


LXXXIII. The Mission of the Seventy. 


Weiss ed. Mey., in accordance with his view of the construction of this Gos- 
pel, thinks that the instruction to the Seventy is derived from the older source, 
but that Luke in chap. ix. 3-5 followed Mark, who gave the same as instruction 
to the Twelve. Hence Luke is represented as borrowing uncritically from two 
sources without knowing that the matter was identical, and as supposing that 
there was a second mission of a larger number of disciples. Weiss holds that 
the same confusion exists in the account of the return of the Seventy (vv. 
17-20). It is far easier to suppose that Luke knew something about the facts 
of the case, and wrote intelligently as well as honestly. Weiss has modified 
the comments of Meyer on the discourse to favor his theory ; but it does not 
seem necessary to indicate the alterations in detail. As to the time and place 
of the mission and return of the Seventy there has been much discussion, 
which cannot be outlined here. See Andrews (Life of our Lord, pp. 352-356). 


LXXXIV. Ver. 8. rdAcv. 


Godet, Weiss and others refer this to the city in which they might find the 
reception previously referred to (vv. 5-7), and not to cities in distinction from 
villages and single dwellings. This view seoms to be supported by the phrase 
(ver. 7): ‘‘ go not from house to house.’’ 





396 ' THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


LXXXYV. Vv. 21, 22. 


Weiss ed. Mey. thinks that in the ‘‘source’’ these verses belonged here, and 
not in the position assigned them by Matthew. But in view of his theory re- 
specting Luke's conception of the narrative here, the opinion does not aid us 
in deciding which is the historical position. It is probable enough that these 
weighty words were repeated, and that both Matthew and Luke are correct in 
their view of the connection. So Meyer holds in regard to vv. 23, 24, while 
Weiss (Matthew, p. 342) thinks Luke gives them in their proper place. He 
rejects the view that they were repeated (ed. Mey.). In ver. 22 it seems best to 
reject the clause: xal orpageic x.7.A. (see critical note). Meyer’s explanation, 
which is otherwise unsatisfactory, thus becomes unnecessary. 


LXXXVI. Vv. 25-37. The Parable of the Good Samaritan. 


Weiss ed. Mey., despite the remarkable points of difference between the 
narrative here and the later one, which Luke himself refers to (chap. xviii., 
18 ff.), holds the two to be identical. ‘‘ But Luke at least has himself proved, 
through the omission of Mark xii. 28-34, that he holds the passages to be iden- 
tical, and tHe deviation of Matthew from Mark can only he explained through 
his return to the older source (comp. Weiss, Mark, p. 400 f., Matthew, p. 479 f.), 
which, however, is very freely worked over by Luke.’’ But what reliance 
can be placed upon any of Luke’s statements, if he can be guilty of such con- 
fusion or manipulation as this? That two ‘‘lawyers’’ on two different occa- 
sions would cite the same passages of the law is more than probable, when the 
passages themselves are taken into the account. 


LXXXVII. Vv. 38-42, Martha and Mary. 


The better-supported reading in ver. 38 seems to connect this incident even 
more closely with what precedes. Since John tells of journeys to Jerusalem 
during this period of our Lord’s ministry, it cannot be safely affirmed that He 
could not have been in Bethany at this time. Hence the assumption that Luke 
transferred the incident to the wrong time and place is unnecessary. Weiss ed. 
Mey. also objects to this assumption, but does not admit that the incident 
could have occurred during the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in John x, This 
accords with his view of the whole narrative in this part of Luke’s Gospel. 
Andrews, Godet and others place the visit to Martha and Mary at the time of 
the Feast of Dedication ; Robinson somewhat earlier. 


LXXXVIIL. Ver. 42. dAtywv 2 xpeia, } évéc. 


The above reading has very strong support, and was probably altered to 
avoid ‘‘the explanation which takes the passage as meaning one dish” (see 
Meyer's critical note). Yet it does not necessarily involve this explanation. 
At least only the oAiywy is a gentle rebuke of Martha’s overdoing in her service 
of hospitality, while 7 éé¢ immediately turns to the one real need, which Meyer 
correctly explains. So Weiss ed. Mey.; comp. Godet in loco. 


CHAP, XI. 397 


CHAPTER XI. 


Vv. 2-4. Elz. and Scholz have after rdrep: nudv 6 év roic cvpavoic, and after 
BaotaA. cov: yevi7Sitw Td BéAnud cov, O¢ Ev otparve, nai exi tag yoo. After wecpacudv 
Elz. has GAAa pioas jude ard rod wovnpov. Lachm. also (not Tisch.) reads all this ; 
but he has we év ovpave nai ext y7i¢ (without rc) in brackets. The important au- 
thorities both for and against these additions lead us to regard them as supple- 
ments taken from the usual form of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt. vi. 6, 9 ff. Ac- 
cording to Gregory of Nyssa (comp. Maxim.), instead of eASérw . . . cov Luke 
must have written éAérw rd aytov mvevud cov éd’ ud¢ Kal kadaptodtw yuac. An 
ancient gloss.' — Ver. 4. The form a¢g/ouev is, on decisive evidence, to be adopt- 
ed,. with Lachm. and Tisch. — Vv. 9, 10. The authorities for avorcyjocra: and 
avorxd#oeTa: are about equally balanced. Tisch. has rightly adopted the latter. 
[Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., retain the former, supported by RX ABC L, 
and most, though in ver. 10 B presents a peculiar reading.] The Recepla is 
from Matt. vii. 7 f.— Ver. 11. Instead of é£ tvov Elz. has simply tudy, in oppo- 
sition to decisive evidence, On similar evidence, moreover, 7 is subsequently 
adopted instead of ei (Elz.), and at ver. 13 déuara ayada (reversed in Elz.). [B 
has some peculiar rendings in this verse also, accepted by W. and Hort.}] — 
Ver. 12. Instead of # xai e4v Tisch. has merely # xai, following B L &, min. [So 
recent editors, R. V.] But éév was the more easily omitted, since it does not 
occur in the foregoing verse. On the other hand, aityoe: is so decisively at- 
tested that it is, with Tisch., to be adopted instead of the Recepla airjoy. — 
Ver. 15. 7 before dpyorvre is wanting in Elz. Scholz, but is decisively attested ; 
the omission is explained from Matt. xii. 24. — Ver. 19. xpirai tua avroi] BD, 
Lachm. [W. and Hort, Weiss] have avroi tyev xpirai. ACK LM U, min. Vulg. 
It. have avroi xpizai vyuav. So also has &, which, however, places écovra: before 
tu. [so Tisch. VIII.]. Accordingly, the evidence is decisive against the Re- 
cepla. The omission of avroi (it is wanting still in 113) occasioned its being 
very variously placed when it was reintroduced. The place assigned to it by 
Lachm. is the rather to be preferred, as B D, the authorities in its favor, have 
in Matt. xii. 27 : avrol xperai écovr. duGy, and have not therefore borrowed their 
arrangement in this passage from Matthew. The Vulgate, on the other hand, 
has also in Matt. l.c.: avrol xprrai tudv Eoovrat ; hence the reading of A C, etc., 
is probably due to a conformity with Matthew. — Ver. 22. The article before 
ioxupér. is wanting in BD LT &, and is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. 


1 Thus or similarly Marcion read the frat 
petition, and Hilgenfeld, Aritik. Unters. 
p. 470, and Volkmar, p. 196, regard the petl- 
tion in this place about the Holy Ghost as 
original (because specifically Pauline), and 
the canonical text as an alteration in ac- 
cordance with Matthew; see also Hilgen- 
feld in the Theol. Jahkrd. 1853, p. 222 f., and 


in his Zrangel. p. 187 f.; Zeller, Aposteqesch. 
p. 14. But ver. 18 easily occasioned the al- 
teration, welcome as it was to the one-sided 
Paulinism, seeing that by its means the Holy 
Spirit was represented as the chief of what 
was to be asked for from God. Comp. Tho- 
luck, Bergpred. p. 847 f. 


398 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

It was introduced in accordance with 6 iayupd¢, ver. 21.— Ver. 25. Instead 
of éA3év, important authorities (but not A BL &) have éA3a». Rightly ; see on 
Matt. xii. 44. [But recent editors follow the weighty authorities, and retain 
éaddv. In ver. 28 recent editors (with ® A B L) read pevoty and omit- av7dv at the 
end of the verse,] — Ver. 29. After ’Iwva Elz. Scholz have rot zpog¢qrov, in oppo- 
sition to important evidence. It is from Matt. xii. 39, whence, however, the 
Recepta éxiSy7et was also derived, instead of which (y7<i, with Tisch., is to be 
read. Moreover, in accordance with Lachm. and Tisch., yevea is again to be 
inserted before sovrpa. — Ver. 32. Nev] ABC E**GLMUXTARX, min. 
Syr. Vulg. It. have Neveviraz. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, 
Lachm. [Tisch. VIII. has Neveveirac]. Rightly ; Luke has followed Matthew (xii. 
41) verbatim. —[Ver. 33. Recent editors, R. V. (with & BC D, etc.), omit dé, and 
read xpurrfiv.] — Ver. 34. After the first d¢SaAuéc, Griesb. and the later editors 
have rightly added cov. The omission is explained from Matt. vi. 22; its in- 
sertion, however, is decisively attested. — oi7] after érav is wanting in prepon- 
derating authorities. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It 
is an addition from Matt. vi. 23. — Ver, 42. After ravra Griesb. has inserted 
8é, which Lachm. brackets, while Tisch. has deleted it; it is too weakly at- 
tested, and is from Matt. xxiii. 23. [Inserted by Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., 
with &* BC L, etc.] — ageévac] Lachm. and Tisch. have zapsiva:, in accordance 
with B* L 8** min. The Recepta is from Matthew. A has a fusion of the 
two: rapagévac ; D, Ver. have not got the word at all, — Ver. 44. After tiv 
Elz. (and Lachm. in brackets) has ypappareic x. apicaio, ixoxpitai. So also 
Scholz, but in opposition to evidence so important, that it can only be regarded 
asan addition from Matt. xxiii. 27. — ol before repr. is, on preponderating 
evidence, to be deleted. It arose from the preceding syllable. Suspected by 
Griesb., deleted by Lachm, [Retained by recent editors, with 8 BC Land most. ]-— 
Ver. 48, zaprupeire] Tisch. has pdprupéic écre, in accordance with B L 8, Or. The 
Recepta is from Matt. xxiii. 31. — avray ra prnyeia] is not found in B D L &, Cant. 
Ver. Verc. Rd. Vind. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by 
Tisch. The words, both read and arranged differently by different authorities, 
are 2 supplement, in accordance with Matthew. — Ver. 51. The article before 
aiuatoc in both cases is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with important 
evidence, to be struck outas an addition. — Ver. 53. Aéyovrog dé avout ratra rpo¢ 
aitots] BC L &, 33, Copt. have xaxciver é£eAddvtog avrov. This is, with Tisch., 
to be adopted. The authorities in favor of the Recepia have variations and ad- 
ditions, which indicate that they have originated as glosses. — Ver. 54. Many 
variations in the form of glosses." Lachm. follows the Recepfa, only omitting 
kei before (qr. Tisch. has simply évedp., Onpevoal te éx tov orduatuc avrov, found- 
ing it mainly on BL &. All the rest consists of additions for the sake of 
more explicit statement. [So recent editors, but they retain avrdy after éved., 
following A BC L A, etc.] 


Vv. 1-4. See on Matt. vi. 9 ff. In Luke it is only apparent that the 
Lord’s Prayer is placed too late,’ to the extent of his having passed it over 


1 Schenkel, p. 891, transposes the circum-  any,x. 38f., wasalreadyrelated. But Luke 
stance of the giving of the prayer to the didnot think of Bethany at all as the loval- 
disciples even to the period afterthearrival ity of this scene. 
in Judaea, since, indeed, the scene at Beth- 


CHAP. XI., 5-8. 399 


in the Sermon on the Mount, and from another source related a latter occa- 
sion for it (which, according to Baur, indeed, he only created from his own 
reflection). lence its position in Luke is not to be described as historically 
more correct (Calvin, Schieiermacher, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Bleck, 
Weizsicker, Schenkel, and others), but both the positions are to be regarded 
us correct.’ Comp. on Matt. vi. 8. [See Note LX XXIX., p. 410.] So far as con- 
cerns the prayer itself, we have the full flow of its primitive fulness and 
excellence in Matthew. The peculiar and shorter form in Luke (see the 
critical remarks) is one of the proofs that the apostolic church did not use 
the Lord’s Prayer as a formula. — The matter of fact referred to in xaflac xa? 
"Iwdvvyg x.7.A4. is altogether unknown. Probably, however, John’s disciples 
had a definitely formulated prayer given them by their teacher. — The ric rav 
pabyrav is to be regarded as belonging to the wider circle of disciples. After 
so long and confidential an intercourse of prayer with the Lord Himself, 
one of the Zwelve would hardly have now made the request, or had need to 
do so. Probably it was a later disciple, perhaps formely one of John’s dis- 
ciples, who, at the time of the Sermon on the Mount, was not yet in the 
company of Jesus. The sight, possibly also the hearing of the Lord pray- 
ing, had now deeply stirred in him the need which he expresses, and in an- 
swer he receives the same prayer in substance which was given at an carlicr 
stage to the jirst disciples. — airoic, ver. 2: to the disciples who were present, 
one of whom had made the request, ver. 1. — émoto:ov] crastinum [for the 
morrow], see on Matt. vi. 11.7 [See Note XC., p. 410. ] — 1rd xa? juépav] needed 
day by day, daily. See Bernhardy, p. 329. — xa? yap airot] The special 
consideration placed before God for the exercise of Iis forgiveness, founded 
in the divine order of grace (Matt. vi. 14; Mark xi. 25), is here more direct- 
ly and more strongly expressed than in Matthew. — a¢giouer] (see the criti- 
cal remarks from the form d¢iw., Eccles. ii. 18; Mark i. 84, xi. 16. See 
generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 174. — mavri dgeidtovre juiv] to every one, 
when he is indebted to us (in an ethical sense). Comp. Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 
111]. The article before ogeiAovr: is too weakly attested, and is a grammati- 
cal addition. 

Vv. 5-8. After He had taught them to pray, He gives them the certainty 
that the prayer rill be heard. The construction is interrogatice down to 


1 Without, however, by means of har- 
monistic violence, doing away with the his- 
turical difference of the two situations, as 
does Ebrard, p. 86f. In Luke, time, jdace, 
and occasion are different from what they 
arc in Matthew, comp. Luke vi. 17 ff. 

2The attempt of Hitzig (In the Theol. 
Jikrb. 1854, p. 181) to explain the enigmati- 
cal word, to wit, by é#t icov, according to 
which it is made to mean, the nourishment 
equivalent to the hunger, is without any real 
etymological analogy, and probably was 
only a passing fancy. Weizsiacker, p. 407, 
is mistaken in finding as a parallel the word 
vwe€ovocos in respect of the idea panen ne- 


cessarium, This, indeed, does not come 
from oveoia, but from efovcia, and this latter 
from ¢feors. Moreover, the “TW of the 
Gospel to the Hebrews cannot betray that 
the first understanding of the word had 
become lost at an early date, but, consider- 
ing the high antiquity of this Gospel, it can 
only appear as a preserration of the first 
mode of understanding it, especially as the 
Logia was written in Hebrew. In order to 
express the idea: necessary (thus avayxaios, 
émit#Secos), there assuredly was no need of 
any free and, for that purpose, faulty word- 
making. 


400 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

wapabijow avTo, ver. 0; at Kaxeivoc, ver. 7, the interrogative construction is 
abandoned, and the sentence proceeds as if it were a conditional one (éév) in 
accordance with which also the apodosis beginning at ver. 8 (Aéyo tyiv «.7.2.) 
is turned. Comp. on Matt. vii. 9. This anacoluthon is occasioned by the 
long dialogue in the oratio directa: gide x.t.4., after which it is not obscrved 
that the first ely (ver. 5) had no édv to govern it, but was independent.’ — 
tig && tudv eee x.t.A.] The sentence has become unmanageable ; but its drift, 
as originally conceived, though not carried out, was probably : which of you 
shall be 80 circumstanced as to have a friend, and to go to him, etc., and would 
not receive from him the answer, etc.? Nevertheless I say unto you, etc. — xa? 
eirg av7@] The sentence passes over into the deliberative form.” — Ver. 7. 7a 
maidia pov] the father does not wish to disturb his little children in their 
sleep. —ei¢ r. xoirnv] they are into bed. See on Mark ii. 1.— Ver. 8. dia ye 
x.7.A.] at least on account of his impudence. On the structure of the sentence, 
comp. xviii. 4 f.* 

Vv. 9,10. Comp. Matt. vii. 7f. Practical application of the above, extend- 
ing to ver. 13, in propositions which Christ may have repeatedly made use 
of in His exhortations to prayer. ——xayo tyiv Aéyw] Comp. Luke xvi. 9. Also 
I say unto you. Observe (1) that cay places what Jesus is here saying in an 
incidental parallel with the ddéoe avrg d0uv xphfec which immediately pre- 
cedes : that according to the measure of this granting of prayer, to that ex- 
tent goes also His precept to the disciples, etc. ; (2) that next to xayé the 
emphasis rests on juiy (in ver. 8 the emphasis rested upon Aéyw), inasmuch as 
Jesus declares what He also, on His part, gives to the disciples to take to 
heart. Consequently xayé corresponds to the subject of ddéce, and ixiv to the 
avr@ of ver. 8. The teaching itself, so far as Jesus deduces it from that 
mapafoa#, depends on the argument @ minori ad majus: If a friend in your 
usual relations of intercourse grants to his friend even a troublesome petition, 
although not from friendship, yet at least for the sake of getting quit of the 
petitioner’s importunity ; how much more should you trust in God that He 
will give you what you pray for! The tendency of the zapafoaq points 
therefore not, as if is usually understood, to perseverance in prayer, for of 
this, indeed, Jesus says nothing in His application, vv. 9, 10, but to the cer- 
tainty of prayer being heard. [Sce note XCI., p. 410.] 

Vv. 11-13. Comp. on Matt. vii. 9-11. Still on the hearing of prayer, but 
now in respect of the object petitioned for, which is introduced by the parti- 
cle dé expressing transition from one subject to another. — The construction 
here also is an instance of anacoluthon (comp. on ver. 5), so that the sentence 
is continued by p# Aifov «.7.4., a3 if instead of the question a conditional prota- 


1 Hence the less difficult reading of Lach- 
mann, éper, ver. 5, following AD, etc., is a 
correct indication of the construction, 
namely, that not with etry, ver. 5 (Bleek, 
Ewald), but, first of all, with xaxeivos, ver. 
7, does the sentence proceed as if what went 
before were conditionally stated. If, with 
Lachmann and Tischendorf, a point is 
placed before Aéyw vpiy, yer. 8, a complete 


break in the sentence needlessly arises. 

2 The converse case is found in Antiph. 
Or.i. 4: mpds tivas ody AGH Tis Bondous, 7 Tot 
thy kataduyny wojoerae ... 3 See thereon, 
Maetzner, p. 130. 

3 On the position of yé before the idea to 
which it gives emphasis, see Nagelsbach, 
Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 8, p, 118. 


CHAP, XI., 14—22. 401 


sis (as at ver. 12) had preceded. — réyv rarépa} Whom of you will his son ask 
as his father for a loaf ? — é é& otpavod ddéce:) Attraction, instead of 6 év obpave 
é€ obpavot doce. See on ix. 61, and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 323 [E. T. 377]. 
— rvevpa aytov) this highest and best gift ; a more definite, but a later form 
of the tradition than that which is found in Matthew. Comp. the critical 
remarks on ver. 2. 

Vv. 14-22. Sce on Matt. xii. 22-29 ; Mark iii. 22 ff. Luke agrces with 
Matthew rather than with Mark. [See Note XCIL., p. 410 seq. ] — gv éxfaaa. ] 
he was busied therein. — xai avré] and he himself, the demon, by way of dis- 
tinguishing him from the possessed person. — xw¢év] See on Mark ix. 17. — 
Ver. 16. A variation from Matthew in the conncction of this (in Luke pre- 
mature) demand for a sign (see on Matt. xii. 38), and in its purport (é 
ovpavov). — Ver. 17. nat olxog ext olxov wimre] a graphic description of the 
desolation just indicated by épyyotra:: and house falleth upon house. This 
is to be taken quite literally of the overthrow of towns, in which a building 
tumbling into ruins strikes on the one adjoining it, and falls upon it. Thus 
rightly Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and others, Bleek also." This meaning, 
inasmuch as it is still more strongly descriptive, is to be preferred to the 
view of Buttmann, which in itself is equally correct (Neut. Gr. p. 291 [E.T. 
838]) : House after house. Many other commentators take olxoc as meaning 
Jamily, and explain either (Bornemann), ‘‘and one family falls away after 
another” (on évi, comp. Phil. ii. 27), or (80 the greater number, Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Valckenaer, Kuinocl, Paulus, de Wette) they sup- 
ply dcapzepiobeic after oixov, and take éri oixey as equivalent to é¢’ gavrdy : ‘ct 
familia a se ipsa dissidens salva esse nequit,” ‘‘a family divided against it- 
self cannot be preserved” (Kuinoel). It may be argued against the latter 
view, that if the meaning expressed by ég’ éavréy had been intended, the 
very parallelism of the passage would have required é¢’ éavrdv to be inserted, 
and that oixog éi oixov could not in any wise express this reflexive meaning, 
but could only signify : one house against the other. The whole explanation 
is the work of the Harmonists. It may be argued against Bornemann, that 
after gp7uovra: the thought which his interpretation brings out is much too 
weak, and consequently is not sufficiently in accordance with the context. 
We are to picture to ourselves a kingdom which is devastated by civil war. 
— Ver. 18. xa? 6 Zarav.] Satan also, corresponding with the instance just re- 
ferred to. — bri Aéyere x.7.A.] the reason of the question. — Ver. 20. év daxriaw 
Ocov] Matthew : év rveiuare Ocot. Luke’s mode of expressing the divine 
agency’ appeals more to the senses, especially that of sight. It is a more 
concrete form of the later tradition. —Ver. 21. 6 iezupdc]} a8 tov ioxupod, Matt. 
xii, 29. —xafwrdcuévoc] not the subject (Luther), but : armed. — ri éavrot 
aiAqv] not: his palace (see on Matt. xxvi. 8), but: his own premises, at 
whose entrance he keeps watch. — év eipfvg éovi x.r.2.] This is the usual re- 
sult of that watching. But the case is otherwise if a stronger than he, ete. 
Sce what follows. Thus in me has a stronger than Satan come upon him, 


and vanquished him ! — ra cxvia airod) the spoils taken from him. 
1 Comp. Thucyd. ff. 84. 2: vais re vn rpo- 3 Ex. viil. 19; Ps. will. 8; Philo, }%¢. Mos. 
dwuwre. p. 619C; Sulcer, Tes. I. p. 880. 


26 





402 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Ver. 23. After Jesus has repelled the accusation : éy BeeAleBovA x.7.1., 
ver. 15, He pronounces upon the relation to Him of those men spoken of in ver. 
15 (see on Matt. xii. 80), and then adds— 

Vv. 24-26, a figurative discourse, in which He sets forth their incorrigi- 
bility. See on Matt. xii. 43-45. Luke, indeed, gives the saying concerning 
the sin against the Holy Ghost (Mark iii. 28 f.; Matt. xii. 31 f.), but not 
until xii. 10; and therefore it is wrong to say that he omitted it in the 
interest of the Pauline doctrine of the forgiveness of sins (Baur). 

Vv. 27, 28. A woman (assuredly a mother), following without restraint 
her true understanding and impulse, publicly and earnestly pays to Jesus 
her tribute of admiration. Luke alonc has this feminine type of character 
also (comp. x. 88 ff.), which bears the stamp of originality, on the one hand, 
in the genuine naiveté of the woman (‘‘ bene sentit, sed muliebriter loquitur,” 
‘she thinks well, but speaks womanly,” Bengel); on the other, in the reply 
of Jesus forthwith turning to the highest practical interest. This answer con- 
tains so absolutely the highest truth that lay at the heart of Jesus in His 
ministry, that Strauss, I. p. 719 (comp. Weizsiicker, p. 169), concludes, very 
erroneously, from the resemblance of the passage to viii. 21, that there were 
two different frames or moulds of the tradition in which this saying of Christ 
was set. Theincident is not parallel even with Mark iii. 31 ff. (Holtzmann), 
even although in its idea it is similar. [Sce Note XCIIL., p. 411.] — érdpaca] 
tywoaca’ opddpa sap arodeEauévy totg Adyoug avTov, pEeyahopovucg tuaxdpioe ry 
yevvfoacay aitov we rowobtov unréipa yevéobar akwhieioav, ‘lifting up; for wel- 
coming His words exceedingly, she blessed with a loud voice her who had 
borne Him as deemed worthy to be the mother of such an one,” Euthymius 
Zigabenus. — éx rov dyAav] out of the crowd she lifted up her voice. — paxapia 
x.t.a.] See analogous beatitudes from the Rabbins and classical writers in 
Wetstein, Schoettgen, and Elsner, Obss. p. 226. — Ver. 28. jevovvye] may 
serve as corrective (imo tero) as well as confirmatory (utigque).’ [See critical 
note.] In this passage it is the former, comp. Rom. ix. 20, x. 18; Jesus 
does not deny His mother’s blessedness, but He defines the predicate paxdpzoc, 
not as the woman had done, as a special erternal relation, but as a general 
moral relation, which might be established in the case of every one, and under 
which even Mary was brought, so that thus the benediction upon the 
mother, merely considered as mother, is corrected. The position of yevoty 
and pevovvye at the beginning of the sentence belongs to the later Greek 
usage, ? 

Vv. 29-32. See on Matt. xii. 39-42. Jesus now, down to ver. 36, turns 
His attention to the dismissal of those érepoc who had craved from Him a 
onuetov é€ obpavov (ver. 16). — 7#péaro] He first began this portion of His ad- 
dress when the crowds were still assembling thither, 7.¢., were assembling in 
still greater numbers (#rafpo:t.), comp. Plut. Anton. 44. But it is arbitrary 
to regard this introductory notice of the assembling of the people as deduced 
by Luke himself from the condemnation of the entire generation (Weizsiick- 


1See generally, Hartung, Partikell. I. 2 See examples in Wetstein, Sturz, Dial. 
p. 400; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1.3. 9, ff. 7. 5. Al, p. 208; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 342. 


CHAP. XI., 33-36. 403 
er). — Ver. 80. Comp. Matt. xvi. 4. Jonah was for the Ninevites a sign 
(divinely sent) by means of his personal destiny, dre imeppuas Ex THE KotAiag Tod 
Khtoug Epptab” tpthuepoc, ‘‘ because he was marvellously delivered from the 
belly of the whale after three days.” Jesus became for that generation a 
sign (divinely sent, and that as Messiah) likewise by His personal destiny, 
ére umepovag ex THe KoLAlag THo y7o avéory Tpiyuepoc, ‘‘ because He marvellously 
rose again from the belly of the earth after three days,” Euthymius Ziga- 
benus. In opposition to those who interpret the sign of Jonah only of 
Christ’s word (as even Schenkel and Weizsiicker, p. 431), sec on Matt. xii. 
40, Remark. The sign of Jonah belongs entirely to the future (doOfeera . . . 
éorac). — Ver. 31 f. does not stand in a wrong order (de Wettc), although 
the order in Matthew is probably the original, while that in Luke is arranged 
chronologically and by way of climax. — pera rov avdpdv x.7.4.] she will ap- 
pear with the men, etc., brings into greater prominence the woman's con- 
demning example. — avdpeg Nevevira:] without an article : Men of Ninecveh. 
Vv. 33-36. Comp. viii. 16 ; Mark iv. 21 ; and sec on Matt. v. 15, vi. 22 f. 
— No awkward (Baur), unconnected (Bleek, Ritschl) interpolation, but the 
introduction of the passage in this place depends on the connection of thought : 
‘¢ Here is more than Solomon, more than Jonah (vv. 31, 82). But this knowl- 
edge (the exceeding knowledge of Christ, Phil. iii. 8), once kindled at my . 
word, ought not to be suppressed and made inoperative, but, like a light 
placed upon a candlestick, it ought to be allowed to operate unrestrainedly 
upon others also ;' for the attainment of which result (ver. 34 ff.) it is in- 
decd necessary to preserve clear and undimmed one’s own inner light, 7.¢., 
the power of perception that receives the divine truth.” Certainly the train 
of thought in Matthew is easier and clcarer, but Luke found them in the 
source whence he obtained them in the connection in which he gives them. 
— tic xpurrfyv] not instead of the neuter, for which the feminine never stands 
in the New Testament (not even in Matt. xxi. 42), nor is it according to the 
analogy of cic paxpdy, cic ziav, and the like (see Bernhardy, p. 221) adverbial 
(see Bornemann), since no instance of such a use of xpurrfy can be produced, 
but the accent must be placed on the penult, cic xptrryv : into a concealed 
passage, into a vault (cellar).* The certainty of the wsus loqguendi and the ap- 
propriateness of thc meaning confirm this explanation, although it occurs 
in none of the versions, and among the mss. only in ©. Yet Euthymius 
Zigabenus seems to give it in rv ardéxpudov oixiav, ‘‘ the hidden house :” in 
recent times, Valckenacr, Matthuaci (ed. min. I. p. 395), Kuinoel, Bretschnei- 
der, Bleek, Holtzmann, Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 238], have it. Comp. Beza. 
Ver. 35. See therefore; take care, lest, etc. Beza well says: ‘‘ Considera, 
num,” ‘‘consider, whether.” Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 
243]. Gal. vi. 1 isnot quite similar, for there 7 stands with the subjunctive, 


1 These words have nothing further to do 
with the refusal of the sign. This is in op- 
position to Hilzenfeld, who regurds the con- 
nection as being: that there is no need at 
all of such a sign, since, indeed, Jesus does 
not conceal His Hght. eto. Comp. also 
Wolzsiicker, p. 157. Besides, the discourse, 


ver. 88, manifestly does not describe a pro- 
cedure that takes place, but a duly. 

2 Thus » xpywry in Athen. Iv. p. 205 A. 
Comp. the Latin crypta, Sueton. Calig. 58; 
Vitruv. vi. 8; Prudent. Mppol. 14: ** Mersa 
latebrosis crypta patet foveis,"’ 





404 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 


and means: that not. — 1d ¢é¢ rd év aol] 5 vove 6 gutaywyde Tio Wuxie cov, ‘the 
illuminating mind of thy soul,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — oxéro¢ éoriv] id trav 
rafiav, ‘‘by thy passions,” Euthymius Zigabenus. 

Ver. 36. Oty] taking up again the thought of ver. 84 : cai dAov 13 cHud cov 
gurecvdév éorev, —In the protasis the emphasis lics on 8Aov, which therefore is 
more precisely explained by yp? Exov r? pep. oxor. ; but in the apodosis gure:vdv 
has the emphasis, and the kind and degree of this light are illustrated (comp. 
ver, 84) by dc érav «.r.A.: ‘If therefore thy body is absolutely and entirely 
bright, without having any part dark, then bright shall it be absolutely and 
entirely, as when the light with its beam enlightens thee.” For then is the eye 
rightly constituted, fulfilling its purpose (see on Matt. vi. 22) ; but the eye 
stands to the body in the relation of the light, ver. 34. It is complete en- 
lightenment, therefore, not merely partial, of which this normal condition of 
light (é¢ érav «.7.A.) is affirmed. ‘Ard rov xara rd cia mapadeiypartog rept rig 
wugic didwat voeiv . . . "Edv airy GAy guretvy ely, uy Eyovoa undév ut pos Ecxoriopévov 
waGet, uste TO AoytoriKoy, pATE TO Avuckdy, phre Td ExcGuucxoy, Eotas duTerv? bAy ovTwe, 
w¢ brav 6 Abyvoe TH Gorpary abrov purify ce, ‘‘ From the example of the body He 
permits us to think concerning the soul . . . If this is altogether full of 
light, not having any part darkened by passion, either the reason, or the 
temper, or the desires, it shall be altogether full of light, as when the lamp 
with its bright shining doth give thee light,” Euthymius Zigabenus. The 
observation of the above diversity of emphasis in the protasis and apodosis, 
which is clearly indicated by the varied position of éAov with respect to 
gwrecvév, removes the appearance of tautology in the two members, renders 
needless the awkward change of the punctuation advocated by Vogel (de con- 
jecturae usu in crist N. T. p. 37 f.) and Rinck : e oby 76 cud cov dAov, gwrecvor 
pn Exov te p£poc, axorevdv, Eorat dutecvdy dAov k.7.A., and sets aside the conjectures 
that have been broached, such as those of Michaelis (Zinl. I. p.739) : éo7az 
gur. Td d20v (body and soul), or dAodv ; of Bornemann : that the first dAoy 1s 
a gloss ; of Eichthal : that instead of ‘‘ thy body” must be meant ‘‘ thine eye” 
(comp. already Maldonatus). — 6 Abyvoc] the lamp of the room, ver. 33. 

Vv. 37-54. See on Matt. xxiii. 1. [See Note XCIV., p. 411.] 

Ver. 87. 'Ev d2 r@ Aadgoac] that is to say, what had preceded at ver. 29 ff. 
—<dpiorfoy] refers no more than dporov at Matt. xxii. 4 to the principal 
meal, but to the breakfast (in opposition to Kuinoel, de Wette, and others). 
See xiv. 12. — "Hider piv tiv tov Papicaiwy oxaétyta 6 xbptoc, GAA’ buwe ovveotia- 
rat avroic dt’ avrd rovro, Sti rovnpol 7oav Kai dtopOdoews Expysov, ‘* The Lord knew 
indeed the rudeness of the Pharisces, but He accepts entertainment with 
them for this very reason, that they were evil and needing correction,” Theo- 
phylact. — In the following discourse itself, Luke, under the guidance of the 
source he is using, gives a much more limited selection from the Logia, ab- 
breviating and generalizing much of the contents. 

Vv. 88, 39. ’EBarr. rpd r. apior.| See on Mark vii. 2.2. Luke does not say 
that the Pharisee erpressed his surprise ; Jesus recognizes his thoughts im- 

‘ Jesus had just come out of the crowd, cleanse Himself by a dath before the morn- 


nay, He had just expelled a demon, ver. 14. ing meal (comp. on Mark vii. 4). ° 
Hence they expected that Lic would first 


CHAP. XI., 40. - 405 


mediately. Comp. Augustine. Schleiermacher, p. 180 f., directly contradicts 
the narrative when he places these sayings of Jesus after the meal, saying 
that they were first spoken outside the house. See, on the other hand, Strauss, 
I. p. 654, who, however, likewise takes objection to their supposed awk- 
wardness (comp. Gfrérer, Heil. Sage, I. p. 248, de Wette, Ritschl, Holtz- 
mann, Ejichthal). This judgment applies an inappropriate standard to the 
special relation in which Jesus stood to the Pharisces, seeing that when con- 
fronting them He felt a higher destiny than the maintenance of the respect 
due to a host moving Him (comp. vii. 39 ff.) ; and hence the perception of 
the fitness of things which guided the tradition to connecting these sayings 
with a meal was not in itself erroncous, although, if we follow Matt. xxiii., 
we must conclude that this connection was first made at a later date. Apart 
from this, however, the connection is quite capable of being explained, not, 
perhaps, from the mention of cups and platters, but from the circumstance 
that Jesus several times when occasion offered, and possibly about that period 
when He was a guest in the houses of Pharisees, gave vent to His righteous 
moral indignation in His anti-Pharisaic sayings. Comp. xiv. 1 ff.— viv] a 
silent contrast with a better méAa: : as it now stands with you, as far as things 
have gone with you, etc. Comp. Grotius, who brings into comparison : 4 
yevea airy. —1d dé tower budv] tudv does not belong to doz. x. wovnp. (Kypke, 
Kuinoel, Paulus, Bleek, and others, following Beza’s suggestion), so that 
what is inside, the contents of the cup and platter, ra évévra, ver. 41, would 
be meant, which would agree with Matt. xxiii. 25, but is opposed to the 
order of the words here. On the contrary, the outside of the cup, etc., is 
contrasted with the intoard nature of the persons. Ye cleanse the former, 
but the latter is full of robbery and corruption (comp. on Rom. i. 29). The 
concrete expression dpzayf, as the object of endeavor, corresponds to the 
disposition of mAcovefia, which in Mark vii. 22, Rom. i. 29, is associated 
with rovnpia. — Matt. xxili. 25 has the saying in a more original form. The 
conception in Luke, although not in itself inappropriate (Weiss), shows traccs 
of the influence of reflective interpretation, as is also evident from a compar- 
ison of ver. 40 with Matt. xxiii. 26. 

Ver. 40. Jesus now shows how irrational (d¢povec) this is from the religious 
point of view. — oby 6 rofoac x.7.A.] dtd not He (God) who made that which is 
without (i.e., everything external in general, res externas) also make that which 
ts within (res internas) ? How absurd, therefore, for you to cleanse what 
belongs to the rebus erternis, the outside of the cup, but allow that which 
belongs to the rebus internis, your inner life and effort, to be full of robbery, 
etc.; that ye do not devote to the one and to the other (therefore to both) 
the cleansing care that is due to God's work ! Consequently rd éw6ev is the 
category to which belongs 1d é£u0ev r. ror. x. tT. riv., ver. 89, and 1d fowbev 
the category to which belongs 1d fouwSev tua, ver. 39. In opposition to the 
context, others limit the words to the relation of body and spirit (Theophy- 
lact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and many others, Bornemann also), which is not 
permitted by rd éuHev rot rornpiov, ver. 89. Others limit them to the mate- 
rials patinae et poculi, ‘‘matcrial of the cup and platter,” and the cibum et 
potum, ‘‘food and drink,” which rd ZowGev dudv, ver. 89, does not allow (in 


406 : THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

opposition to Starck, Notae select. p. 91, and Wolf, Paulus also and Bleek). 
Kuinoel (following Elsner and Kypke) makes the sentence affirmative : ‘‘ Non 
qui exterius purgavit, pocula patinasque (eadem opera) etiam interius pur- 
gavit, cibos, ‘‘ He who cleaned the exterior, cups and platters, did not also 
(as the same work) clean the interior’s food ;” but this view, besides being 
open to the objection drawn from rd éowfey ivav, ver. 39, is opposed to the 
usus loguendi of the words éroince and rogoac. 

Ver. 41. A prescription how they are to effect the true purification. [Ag 
is cerumtamen (see on vi. 24): Still, in order to set aside this foolish incon- 
gruity, give that which is therein (the contents of your cups and platters) as 
alma, and behold everything is pure unto you. . . this loving activity will then 
make your entire ceremonial purifications superfluous for you. All that you 
now believe you are compelled to subordinate to your customs of washings 
(the context gives this as the reference of the wéyra) will stand to you (to 
your consciousness) in the relation of purity. On the idea, comp. Hos. vi. 
6 (Matt. ix. 18, xii. 7). 1a évdévra has the emphasis : yet what is in them, etc. 
Moreover, it is of itself obvious, according to the meaning of Jesus, that He 
sets this value not on the external work of love in itself, but on the disposi- 
tion evinced thereby. Comp. xvi. 9. The more unnecessary was the view 
which regarded the passage as ironical (Erasmus, Lightfoot, and others, 
including Kuinoel, Schiciermacher, Neander, Bornemann), and according to 
which Jesus repeats the peculiar maxim of the Pharisees for attaining right- 
cousness by works : ‘‘Attamen date modo stipem pauperibus, tunc ex ves- 
tra opinione parum solliciti esse potestis de victu injuste comparato, tunc 
vobis omnia pura sunt,” ‘‘ Nevertheless only give a contribution to the poor, 
then in your opinion ye can be not particularly solicitous about food unjust- 
ly acquired, then all things are pure unto you,” Kuinoel. Irony would 
come in only if in the text were expressed, not date, but datis. Moreover, 
the Pharisees would not have said ré évévra, but éx rév évévrwv. Besides, 
notwithstanding the Old Testament praise of this virtue (Prov. xvi. 6 ; Dan. 
iv. 24; Eccles, iii. 80, xxix. 12; Tob. iv. 10, xii. 9, and elsewhere), and 
notwithstanding the Rabbinical ‘‘ Eleemosyna aequipollet omnibus virtuti- 
bus,” ‘‘ Almsgiving equals in value all the virtues” (Baca bathra, f. 9. 1), char- 
itableness (apart from ostentatious almsgiving, Matt. vi. 2) was so far from 
being the strong side of the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 18, 14; Mark vii. 11) that 
_ Jesus had sufficient reason to inculcate on them that virtue instead of their 
worthless washings. — ra évévra] that which is therein. It might also mean, 
not : guod superest, ‘‘ what is over,” 7.¢., 7d Aosréy (Vulgate), but perhaps : 
that which is at hand, that which ye have (Theophylact : ra trdpyovra ipiv, 
‘‘your possessions ;” Euthymius Zigabenus : 7a évaroxeiyeva, ‘‘ what is laid 
up ;” Luther : Of that which is there), or which is possible (Grotius, Morus), 
to justify which doiva: would have to be understood ; but the connection , 
requires the reference to the cups and platters. 

Vv. 42, 43. See on Matt. xxiii. 23, 6 f. But woe unto you, ye have quite 
different maxims ! — raptpyec6e] ye leave out of consideration, as at xv. 29, 
and frequently in Greek writers, Judith xi. 10. —ayarare] ye place a high 
value thereupon. Comp. John xii. 43. 


CHAP. XI., 44-48. 407 


Ver. 44. See on Matt. xxiii. 27. Yet here the comparison is different. — 
7a ddndal the undiscernible, which are not noticeable as graves in consequence 
of whitewash (Matt. /.c.) or otherwise. — xai] simplicity of style ; the period- 
ic structure would have linked on the clause by means of a relative, but this 
loose construction adds the point more independently and more emphatical- 
ly. — weptrarovvrec| without an article (see the critical remarks): while they 
walk. — ovx oidacw]| know it not, that they are walking on graves. 

Ver. 45. This vouinés was no Sadducee (Paulus, yet see his Exeget. Handb.), 
because he otherwise would not have applied these reproaches to himself as 
well as to the Pharisees, and Jesus would not have continued to discourse 
so entirely in an anti-Pharisaic tone, but he likewise was a Pharisee, as in 
general were most of the voyxoi. That he only partially professed the prin- 
ciples of the Pharisees is assumed by de Wette on account of xa? gua, in 
which, however, is implied ‘‘ not merely the common Pharisces (the laity), 
but even us, the learned, thou art aspersing.” The scribe calls what was a 
righteous dvecdifecy (Matt. xi. 20; Mark xvi. 14) by the name of ifpifew 
(xviii. 82 ; Acts xiv. 5; Matt. xxii. 6). Although this episode is not men- 
tioned in Matthew, there is no sufficient ground to doubt its historical char- 
acter. Comp. on xii. 41. Consequently, all that follows down to ver. 52 
is addressed to the ropexoi, as they are once again addressed at the close by 
name, ver. 52. But it is not to be proved that Luke in his representation 
had in view the legalists of the apostolic time (Weizsicker), although the 
words recorded must needs touch them, just as they were also concerned in 
the denunciations of Matt. xxiii. 

Ver. 46. See on Matt. xxiii. 4. 

Vv. 47, 48. See on Matt. xxiii. 29-31. The sting of the discourse is in 
Matthew keener and sharper. — rz oixodopeire . . . of d2 marépec x.1.A.] because 
ye build... but your fathers slew them. By this building, which renews the 
remembrance of the murder of the prophets, ye actually give testimony and 
consent to the deeds of your fathers, ver. 48. Otherwise ye would leave to 
ruin and forgetfulness those graves which recall these deeds of shame! It 
is true the graves were built for the purpose of honoring the prophets, but 
the conduct of the builders was such that their way of regarding the proph- 
ets, as proved by this hostile behavior, was reasonably and truly declared by 
Jesus to be a practical contradiction of that purpose. He declares how, in 
accordance with this behavior, the matter objectizely and actually stood. 
Consequently, there is neither any decper meaning to be supposed as need- 
ing to be introduced, as Lange, ZL. J. II. 2, p. 840, has unhappily enough 
attempted ; nor is dpa to be taken as interrogative (Schleiermacher). The 
second clause of the contrast, of 62 rarépec x.7.A., is introduced without any 
preparation (without a previous péy ; otherwise at ver. 48), but just with 
so much the greater force, and hence no ,éy is to be supplicd.’— In view 
of the reading tyeic d2 otxnodopeire, ver. 48 (without atray ré prqueia, see the 
critical remarks), we must translate : but ye build! ye carry on buildings. 


? Kuinoel; see, on the other hand, Klotz, az Devar. p. 856 f.; Fritzsche, a? Porn, I. 
Pp. 428. 


408 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
That this building had reference to the tombs of the prophets is self-evident. 
The brief expression is more passionate, pregnant, incisive. 

Vv. 49-51. Sec on Matt. xxiii. 34-89. — did rotro] on account of this your 
agreement with your fathers as murderers of the prophets, which affinity 
the wisdom of God had in view when it gave its judgment. Under the 
guidance of the doctors of the law, the people among whom the gospel 
teachers were sent (ci¢ avrotc) rejected these latter, etc. See ver. 52.— 4 
cogia tr. Gcot] Doubtless a quotation, as is proved by elev and avrotc, but not 
Jrom the Old Testament, since no such passage occurs in it (Olshausen men- 
tions 2 Chron. xxiv. 19 interrogatively, but what a difference !), and quota- 
tions from the Old Testament are never introduced by 9 cogia r. Ocov.1 To 
suppose a lost Jewish writing, however, which either may have had this 
title (Ewald, Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weizsicker) or may have intro- 
duced the 7 NDIN as speaking (Paulus),* is contrary to the analogy of 
all the rest of the quotations made by Jesus, as well as to the evangelical 
tradition itself, which, according to Matt. xxiii. 34, attributed these words 
to Jesus. Accordingly, it is to be supposed * that Jesus is here quoting one 
of His own earlier utterances (observe the past tense elwev), so that He repre- 
sents the wisdom of God (Wisd. vii. 27 ; Matt. xi. 19 ; Luke vii. 35) as hav- 
ing spoken through Him. Allied to this is the idea of the Aédyoc. [See 
Note XCV., p. 411.] According to this, however, the original form of 
the passage is not to be found in Luke (Olshausen, Bleek) ; for while 
Matthew gives this remarkable utterance in a directly present form, Luke’s 
method of recording it transfers to the mouth of Jesus what rather was a 
later mode of citing it, and gives it in the shape of a result of reflective 
theology akin to the doctrine of the Logos.‘ — éxé.dg.] to drive out of the 


1 The passage ig very inaccurately treated 
by Kostlin, p. 168, according to whom Luke 
has here heaped misunderstanding on mis- 
understanding. He is said to have referred 
the entire utterance to the Old Testament 
prophets [so Weiss ed. Mey.], and on that 
account to have placed before it x. 7 codia 
tT. Ocod eiwey, in order to give to ft the char- 
acter of an ancient prophecy, which, how- 
ever, had no existence at all, etc. 

2 Strauss also, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeilechrift, 
1863, p. 87 ff., who is thinking entirely of a 
Christian document. 

* Neander, Z. J. p. 655; Gess, Person Chr. 
p. 29; comp. also Ritschl, Evang. Marctons, 
p. 89. 

‘The utterance in Matthew, é¢yw aroo- 
réAAw «.7.A.,was historically indicated in the 
Church by : 9 codia rod Geov elev: arocredw 
x.t.A. And Luke here makes Jesus Himself 
speak in thislater mode of indicating it. 
It is a borepoy mporepov in form. According 
to Hofmann, Schriflbew. I. p. 101 (comp. also 
Schegg), Jesus announces God's counsel in 
the form of a word of God. Comp. Grotius 
and van Hengel, Annot. p. 16f. To this 


view cis avrovs (instead of eis & pas) would 
certainly not be opposed, since those whom 
the speech concerned might be oppored as 
third persons to the wisdom of God which 
was speaking. Butinstead of elrey might 
be expected Aéyec; for now through Jesus 
the divine wisdom would declare its coun- 
sel (Heb. fii. 10, to which Hofmann refers, is 
different, because there elror in connection 
with spoowxdica actually relates to the 
past). Moreover, if by 7 codia rov Geov were 
not meant the personal wisdom of God that 
appeared in Christ, and emitted the utter- 
ance, it would not be conceivable why it 
should not simply have been said: da rovro 
kat 6 @eds Aéyer. Nowhere else inthe New 
Testament is a declaration of God called a 
declaration of the divine wisdom. Besides, 
according to Matt. xxiii. 34, Jesusis the sub- 
ject of dwocreA@ ; and this is also the case 
in the passage before us, if 7 codia r. Geov is 
understood of the person of Christ as being 
the personal self-revelation of the divine 
wisdom. Christ sends to His Church the 
prophets and apostles (x. 3), Eph. fv. 11. 
Riggenbach's explanation (Stud. u. Xrit. 


CHAP. XI., 52-54. 409 


land. — iva éx{yr. x.7.A.] an appointment in the divine decree. The expres- 
sion corresponds to the Hebrew D7 Yp3, 2 Sam. iv. 11; Ezek. iii. 18, 20 
[A. V. ‘‘ require (his) blood], which sets forth the vengeance for blood. — 
The series of prophets in the more general sense begins with Adel as the first 
holy man. 

Ver. 52. Sec on Matt. xxiii. 14. The genitive of the thing with r. xreida 
denotes that which is opened by the key (Matt. xvi. 19 ; Rev. i. 18, ix. 1, 
xx. 1), since here we are not to supply rice Baodeiag with xAeida, and take r. 
yvdcews as a genitive of apposition (Diisterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, 
p. 750). Comp. Isa. xxii. 22. — The yraarc, the knowledge xar’ éfoy#, 7.€., the 
knowledge of the divine saving truth, as this was given in the manifestation 
and the preaching of Christ, is compared to a closed house, to get into which 
the key is needed. The voyexoi have taken away this key, 4.¢., they have by 
means of their teaching, opposed as it is to the saving truth (because only 
directed to traditional knowledge and fulfilling of the law), made the people 
incapable of recognizing this truth. —#pare] tulistis (Vulgate) ; the reading 
arexptware found in D isa correct gloss. If they had recognized and taught, 
as Paul did subsequently, the law as ra:daywyds ei¢ Xprordv (Gal. ili. 24), they 
would have wsed the key for the true knowledge for themselves and others, 
but not taken it away,’ and made it inaccessible for use. They have taken i¢ 
away ; so entirely in opposition to their theocratic position of being the 
xAedovyor have they acted. — On the figurative idea of the key of knowledge, 
comp. Vili. 10: tiv dédorac yrovar ra pvorhpia tig Baotdsiag r. Oecov. The 
aorists are altogether to be taken in the sense of the completed treatment ; 
they indicate what the voucxot hare accomplished by their efforts : roi¢ cicep- 
xouévovc, however, are those who were intending to enter. 

Vv. 53, 54. KaxeiOev t€eA@bvrog avrov] (see the critical remarks) and when 
He had gone forth thence (from the Pharisec’s house, ver. 87). — As to the 
distinction between ypaypareic and voutxoi, see on Matt. xxii. 35. The vopcxoi 
are included in the ypayyar. x. dapeo. Comp. on ver. 45. —évéyerv] not: to 
be angry (as usually interpreted), which would require a qualifying addition 
such as yédov (Herod. 1. 118, vi. 119, viii. 27), but: they began terribly to 
give heed to Him, which in accordance with the context is to be understood 
of hostile attention (enmity).? — aroorozari{erv®] means first of all: to recite 
auvay from the mouth, i.c., by heart (Plat. Huthyd. p. 276C, 277 A ; Wetstein 


1835, p. 599 f.) is similartothatof Hofmann, _ else instead of jpare the participle would 
—though more correct in taking the go¢ia have required to be used. Many of the older 


7. @cov in the Logos-sense, but Interpreting 
the past tense «lsey by an ‘‘at all times” 
arbitrarily supplied. 

1 Ahrens, Amt d. Schiiiesel, p. 9 ff., takes 
Hpare as: ye bear (more strictly: ye have 
taken to you) the key of knowledge, to wit : 
as those who ought to be Its oixorduo, 
“‘stewards."" Thus, however, the reason of 
the ovei would not yet appear in dr jpare 
«.7.A,, noruntll the following avroi ov« «.7.4.; 
and hence the latter would have required 
to be linked on by aAAd, orat least by 84; or 


commentators, as Erasmus, Elsner, Wolf, 
Maldonatus, took jpare as: ye have arro- 
gated to yourselves, which, however, it does 
not mean. 

280 also Mark vi. 19; Gen. xlix. 28; 
Test. XII. Pair. p. 682; in the good sense: 
Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 6. 

*The Vulgate has os efus opprimere, 
whereby it expresses the reading é¢mero- 
pigeyv, which still ocours in a few cursives. 
Luther follows the Vulgate. 


410 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 

in loc.) ; then transitively : to get out of one by questioning (Pollux, ii. 102 ; 
Suidas : drocroparivery gaci tov diddoxadov, brav xedeber tov maida Aéyey Grra and 
otéuaroc, ‘* The teacher is said dzocroparifecy, when he commands the boy to 
say something by rote”). See Ruhnken, Zim. p. 48 f. So here; it is the 
amaiteiy abvroozedioug x. avemcoxémrove amoxploec épwrnudtuyv dodepay, ‘‘ demand- 
ing off-hand and ill-considered replies to deceitful questions,” Euthymius 
Zigabenus. — Ver. 54. According to the corrected reading (see the critical 
remarks) : while they lay in wait for Him, in order to catch up (to get by 
hunting) something out of His mouth. See instances of @ypevoa: in this meta- 
phorical sense, in Wetstein. 


Nores By AMERICAN EpITor. 


LXXXIX. Vv. 1-4. 


Godet also regards the position of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke as historically 
more cofrect. Certainly the definite statements of ver. 1, as well as the subse- 
quent context, oppose the view that a part of the Sermon on the Mount was 
transferred by the Evangelist to this place. The only question that remains 
is : whether the form was repeated, or did Matthew incorporate it, with other 
matter spoken on different occasions, in the Sermon on the Mount? Meyeris 
disposed to accept the former, while Weiss ed. Mey. adopts the latter view. 
‘‘ From this portion of the oldersource, here fully preserved, the first Evangelist 
has interwoven into the Sermon on the Mount the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. vi. 
9-13) and the promise respecting the answer to prayer (Matt. vii. 7-11).’’ He 
also finds in the peculiar word ézitorov, occurring in both Gospels, a proof that 
both reports were derived from the same Greek source. But the very numer- 
ous divergences more than offset this agreement (so Godet). 


XC. Ver. 3. ercobaior. 


This word, occurring only here and in Matt. vi. 11, is fully discussed in notes 
on the latter passage. The R. V. marg. has ‘‘Greek, our bread for the coming 
day ;’’ the Am. Com. add, “our needful bread.” 


XCI. Ver. 8. The Lesson of the Parable. 


Weiss ed. Mey. rightly thinks the lesson is one of perseverance in prayer also, 
since ver. 8 speaks of ‘‘importunity.’’ What is shameless importunity in the 
parable represents proper perseverance in prayer to God, since He can never 
be wearied out by our asking. 


XCII. Ver. 14 ff. The Chronological Position. 


Many harmonists identify the miracle and discourse in vv. 14-26 with those 
narrated in Matt. xii. and Mark iii. So Weiss ed. Mey., without reference to the 
harmony. But since what follows, as far as the close of chap. xii., is directly 
connected with this section, and, moreover, presents points of resemblance to 
the portions of Matthew and Mark which follow at the earlier point, the whole 
portion from chap. xi. 14 to xii. 56 (and even to xiii. 9) is regarded by 


NOTES, 411 


these harmonists os belonging to the ministry in Galilee. More definitely, the 
position assigned is immediately before the discourse in parables. (So Robin- 
son and others.) But Godet maintains quite strongly the correctness of Luke's 
position. Andrews doubtfully assumes this. The critical results which Weiss 
claims to have reached favor strongly the identity of the miracle recorded here 
with that narrated by the other Synoptists. Everywhere from ver. 14 to the 
end of chap. xii. the reader will readily discover striking correspondences with 
passages in Matthew and Mark which belong to the earlier ministry. If the 
order of Mark is accepted all the parts of the narrative can be readily arranged 
in their proper positions. 


XCHI. Vv. 27, 28. 


Those who place this portion of Luke earlier, in the Galilaean ministry, 
connect this occurrence with the presence of the mother and brethren of Jesus 
(Matt. xii. 46-50 ; Mark iii, 31-35; Luke viii. 19-21). That incident preceded 
the discourse in parables. So Weiss ed. Mey. While this incident is not 
strictly parallel, the two may readily be combined : the appearance of Mary in 
the crowd might have occasioned the exclamation of this woman. 


XCIV. Vv. 37-54. Discourse against the Pharisees. 


Weiss ed. Mey. regards this as derived from the same source as the great 
denunciatory discourse in Matt. xxiii. He has sought (Matt. p. 483 ff.) to 
restore the original text and circumstances. But against this view it may be 
urged that both Mark and Luke refer to the later denunciation, that the oir- — 
cumstances are entirely different, that a repetition of these utterances is highly 
probable. The discourse here naturally follows the demand fora sign, and 
may with propriety be placed earlier, during the Galilaean ministry. 


XCV. Ver. 49. 17 cogia r. 8. 


Godet explains this difficult passage : ‘‘ The book of the O. T. which in the 
primitive church as well as among the Jews, in common with the books of 
Jesus Sirach and Wisdom, bore the name of cogia, or wisdom of God, was that 
of Proverbs.’’ He then cites Prov. i. 20-31: ‘‘ Wisdom uttereth her voice,’’ 
etc., finding the special reference to the latter part of the passage. See his 
Luke, pp. 335, 336, Am. ed. 


412 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER XII. 


Ver. 4. Here also (comp. on Matt. x. 28 ; Mark xii. 5) read, following AE K 
LU VIAR, min., with Lachm. and Tisch., aroxrevydvrev. [W. and Hort, R. V. 
(B) have the sorist ; so Rec.’ — Ver. 7. ov] is wanting in B-L K 157, Copt. 
Sahid. codd. of It. Ambr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From 
Matt. x. 31.— Ver. 11. zpocgépworv] B L X &, min. Vulg..codd. of It. have 
etogépworv. So Tisch. [and recent editors, R. V.] D, Clem. Or. Cyr. of Jerus. 
Ver. have ¢épworv. The latter is to be preferred ; the compound forms are at- 
tempts at more Accurate definition ; had either of them been original there was 
no occasion for substituting the simple form. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., 
with ®& BL, etc., have pepipevgonre.] — Ver. 14. dixactriv} Lachm. and Tisch. have 
xpith#y, in accordance with B L &, min. Sahid., as also D, 28, 33, Cant. Colb. 
Marcion, which have not # pepior. — dixaor. was introduced by way of gloss, 
through a comparison of Acts vii. 27, 356. — Ver. 15. méone mAecoveé. is to be 
adopted on decisive evidence (Elz. Scholz have ric A.). — Instead of the second 
avrov, Lachm. and Tisch. have aizy, in favor of which is the evidence of B D F 
L R &** min. Bas. Titus of Bostra, Cyr. Rightly ; avrov is a mechanical repeti- 
tion of what has gone before.— [Ver. 20. Recent editors, with Tisch (8 AB D L, 
etc.) read dgpdv.]— Ver. 22. After yuvy7 Elz. Scholz have tzav. Condemned by 
Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence. It is from Matt. 
vi. 25 ; whence also in B, min. vss. i6v has also been interpolated after cayare. 
{So W. and Hort, R. V.] — Ver. 23. 7 yap yvyx4 is indeed attested by authorities 
of importance (BDL MS V X &, min. vss. Clement); yet ydép (bracketed by 
Lachm., deleted by Tisch.) betrays itself as a connective addition, in opposi- 
tion to which is the evidence also of ovyi 7 ywy7 in min. (following Matthew). 
[Recent editors, R. V., accept yap.]— Ver. 25. The omission of pepimvav 
(Tisch.) is too weakly attested by D and two cursives for us to be able to regard 
the word as an addition from Matthew [Tisch. VIII. has restored it]. The Ho- 
moioteleuton after iuGv might easily cause its being dropped out. [Tisch., 
recent editors, R. V. (with &* B D, Copt.), omit ia; from Matthew. ] — 
Ver. 26. ore] Lachm. and Tisch. have ovdé. Necessary, and sufficiently attest- 
ed by BL X, ete. — Ver. 27. mae aitdver ov nor. ovdi vie] D, Verc. Syr.c* 
Marcion? Clem. have é¢ obre viSet obre tpaiver. So Tisch., and rightly [but not 
recent editors, the evidence against being too slight]; the Recepta is from Matt. 
vi. 28. — Ver. 28. rév yépTov év TH aypy ofu. dvra] many variations. Both the word 
7@ and the order of the Recepta are due to Matt. vi. 30. Following BL 8, etce., 
we must read with Tisch. év ayp@ tov yéprov ofpepov dvra [Tisch. VIII., following 
* BL A, 262, Sah. Copt., has évra ojuepov] (Lachm. has r. ydprov ofp. év ayp. 
bvra). [Recent editors agree with Tisch., and also in ver. 29, substituting xai te 
for # ti.] — Ver. 31. Elz. Scholz have roi Geot. But the well-attested avrot was 
supplanted by rov Geo, following Matt. vi. 33, whence also was imported zd»ra 
after ravta (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 36. dvaAtce:] avadtoy is decisively attested, and 
is hence, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred. — Ver. 38. [The first éAdz 


CHAP. XII., 1. 413 


of the Rec. is rejected by Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with * BL, etc., and 
xiv substituted for xai édv, as well as for the second xal. ] — ol dovAor] is wanting in B 
DL X&, vss. Ir. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition in accord- 
ance with ver. 37 [Tisch. VIII. has also deleted éxsivo:, which is wanting in 8*]. 
-— Ver. 40. otv] is to be struck out with Lachm. and Tisch., as also is avrq [not 
omitted by Tisch. VIII., but by Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], ver. 41. — Ver. 42. 
[Recent editors (X B D L, etc.) have xa? cizev.] — Instead of 6 ¢pév., Elz. Scholz 
have xai ¢pév., in opposition to preponderating evidence. «ai is from Matt. xxiv. 
45. — Ver. 47. éavroj] Lachm. and Tisch. have airov on very weighty ovidence. 
[So recent editors, R. V., with 8 BDL, etc.] The Recepia is to be maintained. 
The significance of the reciprocal pronoun was very often not observed by the 
transcribers. — Ver. 49. Instead of etc, Lachm. and Tisch. have ézi. [So recent 
editors, R. V., with 8 A BL, ctc.] The authorities aro much divided, but éxi 
bears the suspicion of having come in through a reminiscence of Matt. x. 34. 
— Ver. 53. dtazeptodfoera:] Lachm. and Tisch. (both of them joining it to what 
has gone before) have diazepodfoovra:, in accordance with important uncials (in- 
cluding B D &) and a few cursives, Sahid. Vulg. codd. of It. Fathers. Rightly ; 
it was attracted to what follows (so also most of the editions), which appeared 
to need a verb, and therefore was putin the singular. According to almost 
equally strong attestation we must read rv Jvyarépa and ry pryrépa instead of 
Vuyarpi and uyrpi (Lachm. and Tisch. omitting the unequally attested article). 
The Recepta resulted from involuntary conformity to what precedes. — Ver. 54. 
tiv vegéd.] The article is wanting in A B LX A &, min. Lachm. Tisch. [Recent 
editors, R. V.] But how easily was r#v, which in itself is superfluous, passed 
over between id/TE and Negia.! — [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., agree with Tisch. ] 
(® BL) in reading évi instead of azé.] — Ver. 58. wapadg] Lachm. and Tisch. 
have wapadwoe:. Rightly ; the transcribers carried on the construction, as in 
Matt. v. 25. So also subsequently, instead of BéAAy (Elz.) or Bady (Griesb. 
Scholz) is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., Sadi. 


Ver. 1. During what was narrated in xi. 53, 54 (év otc), therefore while 
the scribes and Pharisees are pressing the Lord after He has left the house 
with captious questions, the crowd, without number, had gathered to- 
gether (ér:ovvay0.), and now at various intervals He holds the following dis- 
course, primarily indeed addressing His disciples (xpd¢ rove pabyrag airod, 
ver, 22), yet turning at times expressly to the people (vv. 15 ff., 54 ff.), and 
in gencral in such a manner (ver. 41) that the multitude also was intended 
to hear the whole, and in its more gencral reference to apply it to them- 
selves, With the exception of the interlude, vv. 13-21, the discourse is orig- 
inal only in this way, that very diverse, certainly in themselves original, 
fragments of the Logia arc put together ; but when the result is compared 
with the analogous procedure of Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount, 
Matthew is found to be the more original of the two. Among the longer 
discourses in Luke none is so much of o mosaic as the present. [Sce Notc 
XCVI., p. 425.] Although the historical situation of ver. 1 is not invented, 
yet by the designed and plainly exaggerated bringing together of a great 
multitude of people it is confused. It would be too disproportioned an ap- 
paratus mercly to illustrate the contents of ver. 2 f. (Weizsicker). — ra» 
pupidduy| The article denotes the innumerable assembled mass of the people 


414 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

(very hyperbolically, comp. Acts xxi. 20).—dore xararar. aAAgA.] obruc 
igepevoe Exactog wAjod sev avT@ ‘longing each one to get near Him,” Theo- 
phylact. — jptaro] He began, pictorial style. — pédrov] before all, is to be 
taken with mpooéyere, comp. ix. 61, x. 5; Gersdorf, p. 107. It does not be- 
long to what precedes (Luther, Bengel, Knapp, Schulz, Scholz, Paulus, 
Lachmann, Tischendorf), in connection with which it would be absolutely 
superfluous, although A C D X, etc., do take it thus. [See Note XCVIL, 
p. 425.] Ewald well says, ‘‘ As a jirst duty."—ric Ctunc] see on Matt. xvi. 
G6; Mark viii. 15. Here also is not meant the vice of hypocrisy (the usual in- 
terpretation), because in that case the next clause would have 7 imréxpiorc 
(with the article) ; but it glances back to the subject of the previous con- 
versation at the table,’ and means: the pernicious doctrines and principles. 
Of these He says : their nature is hypocrisy ; therein lies what constitutes the 
reason of the warning (ric, guippe quae). 

Vv. 2-10. Sce on Matt. x. 26-38. The connection is indicated by means 
of the continuative dé : ‘‘Ye must the more, however, be on your guard 
against this hypocritical ¢iuy, since your teaching is destined to the greatest 

ré publicity for the future.” Comp. Mark iv. 22. Publicity which lies open 
to the world’s judgment, and hypocritical character which must shun dis- 
closure, are irreconcilable. If you would not dread the former, the latter 
must remain far from you. According to Weiss, Luke has given to the 
whole saying only the meaning, that everything concealed by hypocrisy 
nevertheless on2 day comes to light, and therefore, even every word, how- 
ever secretly it is spoken, shall come one day to publicity. But this suppo- 
sition, without any ground for it, attributes to Luke a complete misappre- 
hension of the meaning. — Ver. 3. av? cv] quare, wherefore. See Hermann, 
ad Viger. p. 710; Schaefer, Appar. Dem. I. p. 846. — boa év ty oxorig «7.2. | 
Everything which (in dread of persecutions) ye shall have spoken in the 
darkness, i.e., shall have tdught in secret, shall (in the triumph of my cause) 
be heard in the clear daylight, ¢.¢., shall be known in full publicity by your 
preaching and the preaching of others. The expression év 79 oxorig used of 
the apostolic agency is not inappropriate (de Wette), since it characterizes it 
not in general, but only under certain circumstances (ver. 4). But certainly 
the original form of the saying is found in Matt. x. 27, while in Luke it 
was altered to suit the apostolic experiences after these had often enough 
proved the necessity of teaching in secret what at a later period came to be 
publicly proclaimed before the whole world,* when the gospel, as in Luke’s 
time, was triumphantly spread abroad. — éy 76 gwri] in the clear day ; Hom. 
Od. xxi. 429 ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 26; Wisd. xviii. 4.— Ver. 4. If Jesus re- 
minded His disciples by év ry oxorig and mpdc 7d ot¢ . . . év Tt. Tapetorc, Ver. 


1 Therefore not to bo interpreted of the chiefly limited themselves (fo the circle of 
Judaizers of the apostolic times (Wclzsiicker, Judaism. It is not indeed in, agreement 
p. 864); just as little fs xvi. 14. with this that thal which is secret should so 

3 According to HMilgenfeld, Erang. p. 192 purposely be made prominent. The Twelve 
(comp. his Zetéschrif/, 1865, p. 192), and neither limited their ministry merely to 
K6stlin, p. 147, this publicity is regarded as Judaism, nor did they minister among the 
having been meant as a contrast to the Jews in quietness and secrecy like preachers 
ministry Of Ue Trcelce, because they had ina corner. 


CHAP. XII., 11-13. 415 
8, of the impending pressure of persecutions, He now exhorts them to fear- 
lessness in presence of their persecutors. — roic gizorg ov] for as such they were 
the object of persecution. — pera tavra] peta Td Groxreivac. The plural de- 
pends on the idea of being put to death, comprising all the modes of taking 
away life. See Kihner, II., p. 423.— Ver. 5f. Observe the marked empha- 
sis on the ¢ofiyre. — Vv. 8-10. Not an admonition for the disciples to re- 
main faithful, for ver. 10 would not be appropriate to that, inasmuch as 
there was no occasion to be anxious at all about their speaking against the 
Son of man, and it would have been even inappropriate to bid them beware 
of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ;’ but Jesus adds to the previous 
encouragements a new one (Afyw dé iviv, comp. ver. 4), saying to them how 
momentous for the eternal destiny of men is the apostolic work conducted by 
the Holy Spirit, how even the decision of the judgment on men would be given in 
accordance with the result of the work of the apostles among them. Hence, ver. 
10 has been wrongly regarded as not pertinent to this (Kuinocl, de Wette); 
while, on the other hand, Schleiermacher considers the arrangement of 
Matt. xii. as less appropriate, in that he introduces a contrast of the present 
time (in which the Son is resisted) with the future (when the more rapid 
and mighty agency of the Spirit is blasphemed). In itself the saying is ap- 
propriate in both places, nay, it may have been uttered more than once ; 
but in Matthew and Mark we have its closest historical connection and 
position. — As to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, see on Matt. xii. 
81 f. 

Vv. 11, 12. But when they bring you—following out this denial of me 
and blasphemy against the Spirit—to the synagogues, etc. — mac # ri] Care 
not about the kind and manner, or the substance of your defence. See also 
on Matt. x. 19 ; Mark xiii. 11.? ; 

Vv. 18-21. Peculiar to Luke ; from his source containing the account of the 
journey.— Ver. 18 f. ric} certainly no attendant of Jesus (Lightfoot, Kuinoel, 
and others), as Luke himself points out by éx rev 5yAov ; besides, such a one 
would have known Jesus better than is betrayed by this uncongenial request. 
It was a Jew on whom the endowments and authority of Jesus produced 
such an impression that he thought he might be able to make usc of Him in 
the matter of his inheritance. Whether he was a younger brother who 
grudged to the first-born his double share of the inheritance (Ewald), must 


1 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 842, in- 
sists on regarding the blasphemy against 
the Spirit in this place as not distinct 
from the denial of Jesus. He says that 
this denial in the case of those, namely, 
who had not only had the earthly human 
manifestation of Jesus before them, but had 
received the Holy Spirit, is blasphemy 
against the Spirit. But it is very arbitrary 
to assume, in contradiction to Matt. xii. 
31, Mark {iL 20, that the blasphemy against 
the Holy Spirit presupposes that the Spirit 
has already been received. The blasphem- 
ers of the Spirit are malevolently con- 


Bcious and hardened opposers of Christ. 
They may certainly have already had the 
Spirit and have apostatized and become 
such opposers (Heb. x. 29); but if such 
people were to be understood in this pas- 
sage, some clearer indication should have 
been given. Still,how far from the Lord 
must even the mere thought have been, 
that the disciples, His friends, ver. 4, could 
ever change into such malignant blas- 
phemers ! 

2 On awodoy. ri, comp. Xen. Mem, iv. 8. 4; 
Dem. 227. 18; Plat. Gorg. p. 821 A, Phaed. 
p. 69 D, Polié. 4, p. 400 B; Acts xxiv. 10. 


416 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
be left in doubt. — é r. 5yA.] belongs to elze, as is shown by the order. The 
mode of address, d-6pu7e, has a tone of disapproval.’ Observe that Jesus 
instantly rejects the application that concerns a purely worldly matter ; on 
the other hand, He elsewhere gives a decision on the question of divorce.® 

Ver. 15. Jesus recognized rieoretia as that which had stirred up the 
quarrel between the brothers, and uses the occasion to utter a warning 
against it. — mpoc atrotc] t.¢., rpdg Tov SyAov, ver. 18. — bre ovx év TH repicoeberv 
‘x.t.A.] fornot by the fact of aman's possessing abundance does his life (the sup- 
port of his life) consist in his possessions. This—the fact that one’s life con- 
sists in one’s possessions—is not dependent on the abundance of the posses- 
sion, but—this, the contrast unexpressed, but resulting from ver. 20—on the 
will of God, who calls away the selfish collector of treasures from the midst 
of his abundance. The simple thought then is: ft is not superfluity that 
avails to support a man’s life by what he possesses. ‘‘ Vivitur parvo bene,” 
‘‘ One can live well with little.” [See Note XCVIII., p. 425.] To this literal 
meaning, moreover, the following parable corresponds, since it does not 
authorize us to understand (u# in its pregnant reference : true life, awz7pia, 
or the like (Kuinoel, Bornemann, Olshausen, Ewald, and the older commen- 
tators) ; on the other hand, Kaeuffer, De (ume aiwv. not. p. 12 f.2 Observe, 
moreover, that ovx has been placed at the beginning, before év r¢ zepicc., 
because of the contrast which is implied, and that rvi, according to the 
usual construction, that of the Vulgate, goes most readily with repiscetery 
(xxi. 4; Tob. iv. 16; Dion. Hal. iii. 11), and is not governed by what 
follows. An additional reason for this construction lies in the fact that thus 
the following atrot is not superfluous. Finally, it is to be noted that eira: 
éx is the frequent proficisci ex, prodire ez, ‘‘ proceed from,” ‘‘ spring from.” De 
Wette is wrong in saying : ‘‘for though any one has superfluity, his life is not 
a part of his possessions, i.¢., he retains it not because he has these possessions.” 
In this manner eivac éx would mean, to which belong ; but it is decisive against 
this view entirely that ov« év 7@ repiooeiecy must be taken together, while in 
respect thereof, according to the former view, no contrast can be conceived ; 
for the life is in no case a part of our possessions (in the above sense). 

Vv. 16-19. On the idea of this parable, comp. Ps. xlix. 18 ; Ecclus. x1. 
17 ff. — etddpyoev] not in the sense of the pluperfect (Luther, Castalio, and 
others), but: bore well.‘—7 xépa] the estate, Xen. Cyr. viii.4. 28; Jerome, x. 5, 


1 Rom. il. 1, ix. 20; Plat. Profag. p. 350 D; 
Soph. Aj. 778, 1182. 

2 This is worthy of consideration also in 
respect of the question: whether matters 
of marriage belong to the competency of 
the spiritual or the temporal tribunal? 

* Kuinoel: ‘Non si quis in abundantia 
divitiarum versatur, felicitas ejus a divitiis 
pendet,”’ ‘Not if one is placed in abun- 
dance of riches, does his happiness depend 
on riches.” Bornemann (Schol. p. 82, and in 
the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 128 ff.) : ‘‘ Nemini 
propterea, quod abunde habet, felicitas 
paratur ex opibus, quas possidet (sed ex 
pietate et fiducia in Deo posita),’ ‘‘ For no 


one, because he has abundantly, {s happi- 
ness provided from the wealth which he 
possesses (but from piety and faith placed 
in God)."* Olshausen says that there are 
two propositions blended together: ‘* Life 
consists not in superfluity” (the true life), 
and “nothing spiritual can proceed from 
earthly possessions.” Ewald says: “If 
man has not from his external wealth in 
general whut can be rightly called his life, 
he has it not, or rather he has it still less by 
the fact that this, his external wealth, in- 
creases by his appeasing his covetousness.”* 

«Examples of this late and rare verb 
(Hipp. Zp. 1274, 20; Joseph. Bell. ii. 21. 2) 


CHAP, XII., 20, 21. 417 


and elsewhere. — Ver. 17 ff. Observe the increasing vivacity of the descrip- 
tion of the ‘‘ animi sine requie quieti,” ‘‘ mind without quiet repose” (Bengel). 
— obx Exw row] ‘‘ quasi nusquam essent quibus pascendis possent impendi,” ‘‘as 
if there are nowhere those whom they can be employed in feeding,” Gro- 
tius. — xafeAd pov x.t.A.|] Iwill pull down my storehouses (Matt. iii. 12). — ra 
yevvipara] see on Matt. xxvi. 29. — «alr. ay. p.] and in general, my posses- 
sions. — 9 yuy% pov] not equivalent to mihi, but : to my soul, the seat of 
the affections ; in this case, of the excessive longing for pleasure.’ How 
frequently also in the Greek writers the actions of the Ego are predicated of 
the soul, may be seen in Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. II. p. 865 A. — avaratov 
x.t.A.] An instance of ‘‘ asyndeton,”’ expressing eager anticipation of the en- 
joyment longed for.* 

Vv. 20, 21. Ele x.r.2.] is not to be converted into a decrevit, ‘‘ determined ” 
(Kuinoel), etc. We have, indeed, no history ; rAdrrera: yap ravra 4 rapaBoAh, 
‘‘ for these things are represented as a parable,” Theophylact. — ratry) with 
emphasis. — dara:rovorv] the categoric plural (sec on Matt. ii. 20), which 
therefore does not prevent our regarding God Himse/f as the author of what 
was done, although the subject is left undetermined. The thought of a 
rower and murderer (Paulus, Bornemann) is not to be allowed on account 
of ver. 21. — rive oraz] not to thee will it belong, but to others ! — Ver. 21. 
So, having incurred the loss of his happiness by the unexpected appearanco 
of death, is he who collects treasure for himself (for his own possession and 
enjoyment), and is not rich in reference to God ; i.e., is not rich in such wise 
that his wealth passes over to God (Rom. x. 12), by his possession, namely, 
of treasures in heaven, which God saves up in order to impart them to the 
man when Messiah’s kingdom shall be set up. See on Matt. v. 12, vi. 20. 
Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 19, and on Col. i. 5. [See Note XCIX., p. 425.] The 
aAoureiv et¢ Oedv (unless, however, ei¢ is to be taken for év, as Luther, Beza, 
Calovius, and others would have it) is substantially the same as éyev 6yoav- 
pove év obpavd (comp. ver. 38), and it is realized through dixacocfvy, and in 
the case of the rich man, especially through loving activity (Matt. xix. 21 ; 
Luke xvi. 9), such as Christ desires, Matt. vi. 2-4. It is not temporal pos- 
session of wealth which 7s applied in usum et honorem Dei, ‘‘to the use and 
honor of God” (Majus, Elsner, Kypke, comp. Méller, Neue Ansichten, 
p. 201 ff.), but the higher zdeal possession of wealth, the being rich in 
Messianic possessions laid up with God, and one day to be reccived from 
Him, which is wanting to the cgoistic @ycavpifuv éavro. Against the former 
view, entertained by Majus and the rest, it is decisive that the negation of 
the deing rich in relation to God (not of the becoming rich) is regarded as 
bound up with the selfish heaping up of treasure. This withal in opposition 
to Bornemann : ‘‘ qui quod dives cst prospcroque in augendis divitiis suc- 
cessu utitur, sbi tributi, non Deo,” ‘‘he who because he is rich and has 
good success in increasing riches, gives to himself, not to God.” 


may be found in Kypke. Comp. civddpes dé- 20On the thought, comp. Ecclus. xf. 18; 
pew (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 588). Tob. vil. 9; Plant. Miz. Glor. ili. 1.88; Soph. 
1 Comp. on i. 46, and see Jacobs, ad Del. Dan. VI. (181, Dind.) : ¢H, wive, d¢pBov. 
Epigr. VIT. 1. 
27 


418 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Vv. 22-31. Sce on Matt. vi. 25-38. Jesus now turns from the people (ver. 
16) again to His disciples. [Sce NoteC., p. 426.]— dca rovro] because this 
is the state of things with the @7cavpifwv égaur@ x. pp eig Gedv rAovTav. — 
Ver. 24, rot¢ xépaxac] not in reference to the young ravens forsaken by the 
old ones (Job xxxviii. 41 ; Ps. cxlvii. 9) ; but a common and very numerous 
species of bird is mentioned (the pulli corvorum, ‘‘ young ravens,” must 
otherwise have been expressly named : in opposition to Grotius and others). 
— Ver. 28. According to the Recepta (but sce the critical remarks),  r¢ 
ayp@ would have to be connected with é»ra ; on the other hand, following 
the reading of the amended texts : but if in the field God in such wise clothes 
the grass, which to-day is here and to-morrow is cast into an oven, etc. Instead 
of augiévvver, We must read, with Lachmann, ayd¢idfe:, or, with Tischendorf, 
augiése. Both forms belong to later Greek (Themist., Plut., LXX.). — 
Ver. 29. xai iueic] as the ravens and the lilies. — yu? yerewpifeobe] The Vul- 
gate rightly translates: ‘‘nolite in sublime tolli ;” and Luther : ‘‘be not 
high-minded.” Fralt not yourselves; lift not yourselves up to lofty claims, 
which is to be taken as referring not to mere cating and drinking, but gen- 
erally. The usus loquendi of nerewpileobat, efferri, ‘‘ to be lifted up,” physi- 
cally and psychically ‘is well known. Sce also the passages from Philo in 
Loesner, p. 116. But others (Castalio, Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, Ham- 
mond, Wolf, Bengel, Krebs, Valckenaer, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Paulus, 
Bleek, and many more) have: nee inter spem metumque fluctuctis, ‘* nor 
fluctuate between hope and fear.” Comp. Ewald: ‘‘ waver not, lose not 
your balance.”” The view of Euthymius Zigabenus also is that Christ refers 
to Trav repioracpdv Tov axd Tov ovpaviny ext ta yfiva, ‘‘the distraction from 
heavenly things to earthly.” Certainly, as peréwpo¢ may mean : flactuans,* 
uetewpifery may signify : to make wavering ; * but there appears no reason in the 
connection for departing from the above, which is the wsual meaning in 
which the word is currently employed, even in the LXX. and in the apoc- 
ryphal writers (2 Macc. vii. 34, v. 17; 8 Macc. vi. 5). This perewp. has 
for its opposite the ovvardyeoba: roig tarecvoic, Rom. xii. 16. 

Ver. 32. Peculiar to Luke. An encouragement to fearlessness in the 
endeavor after the Messiah’s kingdom, by means of the promise of the 
divinely-assured final result. — x? ¢of8ov] in consideration of their external 
powerlessness and weakness (7d puixp. woiunov). But Christians generally, as 
such, are not the little‘ flock (which is not to be changed into a poor op- 
pressed band, as de Wette, following Grotius, does), but the little commu- 
nity of the disciples (ver. 22), as whose head He was their shepherd (comp. 
John x. 12 ; Matt. xxvi. 31). — evdéxyoev] it has pleased your Father. See 
on Rom. xv. 26; Col. i. 19. — dovva: tiv r. B.] see xx. 29 f. 

Vv. 33, 34. Comp. Matt. vi. 19-21. This end is so important that, in 
order to strive thereafter with your whole interest (ver. 34), ye must re- 


1 Aristoph. Av. 1447; Polyb. iff. 70. 1,1v. Soph. Oed. R. 924; Eurip. Or. 1587. 


59. 4, vil. 4.6; Diodor. xi. 82. 41. ‘Yet wroizmoy is not a diminutive, as 
2See Schweighduser, Ler. Pol. p. 887; Bengel supposed, but isa contraction for 
Josephus, Anf/t. iv. 8. 1, Ball. iv. 2. 5. wousévcoy. 


2 Dem, 169, 23; Polyb. v. 70.10; Schol. ad 


CHAP, XII., 35-37. 419 


nounce your earthly possessions, etc. This selling and giving up of the 
proceeds as alms (éAeyuoc., a8 xi. 41) is not required of all Christians (ver. 
22), as de Wette will have it [so Weiss ed. Mey.], but of the disciples, who, 
in the discharge of their office, needed perfect release from what is temporal. 
All the less do the words furnish a basis for the consilium evangelicum and 
the cow of poverty (Bisping). — éavroic¢] while ye give to others. — BadAdyria 
(x. 4) ye madaovpeva is explained by the following @ycavpév . . . ovpavoic.' 
As to this @ycavpéc, comp. on ver, 21. 

Vv. 35, 36. Only echoes of the following references to the Parousia occur 
at Matt. xxiv. 42 ff. [See Note CL, p. 426.] All the less is the originality 
to be attributed only to Luke (Olshausen) or to Matthew (Kuinovel). In 
Luke the exhortations to preparedness for the Parousia are readily account- 
ed for by the previous promise of the Messiah’s kingdom (ver. 32) and the 
requirement associated therewith (ver. 83). —éorwoav . . . xasduevor] The 
meaning stripped of figure is : Be in readiness, upright and faithful to your 
calling be prepared to receive the coming Messiah. The nimble movement that 
was necessary to the servant made requisite the girding up of the outer gar- 
ment round the loins (1 Pet. i. 18, and see Wetstein), and slaves must 
naturally have had burning lamps for the reception of the master when he 
returned home at night. The tuév emphatically placed first, as ipeic at ver. 
36, corresponds to the special duty of disciples; that your loins should be 
girded, . . . and that ye like mien, etc. — avOpdrac] t.¢., according to the 
context : slaves, as it is frequently used in the classical writers, Mark xiv. 
12. —éx rév ydyov] not: from Ais marriage, but from the marriage, aé 
which he (as a guest) has been present. For his marriage is after the Parousia 
(see on Matt. xxii. 2, xxv. 1). The detail of the figure is not to be pressed 
into interpretation further than to imply the blessed condition (riv dvw evppoot- 
vv kK. ayaddiacy, ‘‘the mirth and joy above,” Euthymius Zigabenus) from 
which the Messiah returns. —iiOévro¢g.. . avoig. avo] a well-known con- 
struction, Winer, p. 186 [E. T. 207].? 

Ver. 37. A symbolic representation of the most blessed recompense, which 
the servants of Christ, who are faithful to their calling, shall receive from 
Him at His Parousia. It is not the idea of the great and general Messianic 
banquets (Matt. viii. 11) that underlies this, but it isthe thought of a special 
marriage-feast for those servants (the disciples). That the washing of the 
disciples’ feet by Jesus, John xiii., gave occasion (de Wettc) to the mode of 
representation, according to which the Lord Himself serves (‘‘ promissio 
de mintstrando honorificentissima et maxima omnium,” ‘‘the promise con- 
cerning being served is the most honorable and greatest of all,” Bengel), is 
the less probable the greater the difference is seen to be between the idea 
expressed by the foot-washing and that which is here set forth. The thought 
of the Saturnalia (Grotius, comp. Paulus and Olshausen) brings in some- 
thing wholly foreign, as also the calling of the slaves to partake in certain 


1To refer the BadAdrr. py wart. to the (ZL. J. TT. 2, p. 851). 
“ecerlastingly fresh power of apprehension in * On the direct wore, see Buttmann, Neul, 
respect of the eternal possessions,” was a Gr. p. 215 f. [E. T. 251]. 
fancy of Lange's opposed to the context 


420 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


sacred feasts according to the law, Deut. xii. 17 f., xvi. 11 f., is something 
very different from the idea of this feast (in opposition to Kuinoel, de 
Wette, and others), in respect of which, moreover, it has been assumed (see 
Heumann, Kuinoel, de Wette) that the Lord brought with Him meats from 
the wedding jseast,—an assumption which is as needless as it is incapable of 
proof. — repiCdoera: x.t.A.] & vivid representation of the individual details 
among which even the drawing near to those waiting (zapeAddér) is not 
wanting. — The parable, xvii. 7-10, has an entirely different lesson in view ; 
hence there is no contradiction between the two. 

Ver. 38. The earlier or later time of the Advent will make no difference 
in this blessed recompense, Jesus does not mention the jirst of the four 
night-watches (see on Matt. xiv. 25), because in this the marriage-feast took 
place ; nor the fourth, because so late a return would have been unusual, 
and in this place contrary to the decorum of the events that were repre- 
sented. [See Note CII., p. 426.] 

Vv. 89, 40. See on Matt. xxiv. 43 f. The less, however, should ye be 
wanting in watchfulness, since the Messiah will appear unexpectedly like a 
thief in the night. A sudden change of figures, but appropriate for sharp- 
cning the warning in question, and not at all startling to people accustomed 
to the sudden turns of Oriental imagery. Whether, moreover, the passage 
has received its true historical place here or in the discourse on the end of 
the world, Matt. xxiv., cannot be decided. 

Ver. 41. Certainly original (in opposition to de Wette, Holtzmann, Weiz- 
siicker, Weiss), the more certainly, the finer are the threads with which 
what follows down to ver. 48 is linked on to such a question. The succeed- 
ing passage at least offered no occasion for either the tradition or Luke in- 
venting the question. If it had been suggested to Luke by Mark xiii. 37, 
the answer of Jesus would also have been in closer agreement with the mean- 
ing of the passage in Mark. —mpéc] in reference to, for us, comp. xx. 19 ; 
Rom, x. 21. —riv rapa. rabr.] to wit, of the slaves who wait for their lord, 
ver. 86 ff. See ver. 42 ff. The reference to the master of the house and 
the thief, ver. 39, belonged also thereto as a concrete warning example. — 
4 xai] Peter asks whether the parable is intended for the disciples, or also 
(or at the same time also) has a general reference. 

Vv. 42-44. In the pregnant style characteristic of Jesus as it most of all 
appears in John, He makes no direct reply to that question, but procecds 
with His parable of the servants, and among these He now for the first time 
begins to speak of that one (the apostles generally cannot be described in vv. 
42-46) whom He, before His departure, would set over the rest of the house- 
hold as oixovéuoc (the post destined for Peter /). He depicts his great rec- 
ompense in the event of his being faithful, and his heavy punishment in the 
event of his being unfaithful (down to ver. 48) ; and He consequently made 
Peter, whose question betrayed an inconsiderate exaltation above the crowd, 
understand His reply to mean : Instead of meddling with that question, 
thou hast thine own consequent position to keep in view with fear and 
trembling! Then, however, ver. 47 f., he links on the general law of retri- 
bution under which every one comes, and which erery one has to lay to heart. 


CHAP. XII., 45-48. 421 


As to the reference of ric dpa, and the relation of the question to ver. 43, 
see on Matt. xxiv. 45 f. 

Vv. 45, 46. But if that slave, whom the lord will place over his servants 
a3 olxovéuog (ver. 42), instead of being faithful, shall have thought, etc.— 
Moreover, see on Matt. xxv. 48-51. — pera trav amior.] with the faithless (ver. 
42), whose final destiny is the punishment of Gehenna (ver. 5). 

Vv. 47, 48. This passage, which is peculiar to Luke, gives explanatory 
information of a general kind, yet related to Matt. xxv. 14 ff., to account 
for the severity of the punishment, ver. 46. This will ensuc, in accordance 
with the general rule of retribution coming into operation at the return of 
the Lord : that that slave, etc. 'Exeivoc, though placed first for emphasis, 
does not refer to the single concrete person indicated at ver. 45, but isa 
general term indicating the class to which the oixovéyoc also belongs ; and 
dé carrics on the meaning with an explanatory force (Hermann, ad Viger. 
p. 845; Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1). — éavrod] of his own Lord, makes the 
responsibility to be felt the more strongly. — érocudoac] éavrév is not to be 
supplied (Luther, Kuinoel, and many others), but : and has not made ready, 
has made no preparation. Comp. ix. 52. It belongs also to rpd¢ rd 6£A. 
avrov. — daphoerat roAAdc] wAnyag dyAovéri, rouréots noAaadjoovra: yaderac, didre 
eidéreg xaredpévycay, ‘‘ Evidently * ‘ stripes,’ that is, they shall be punished 
severely, because knowing they slighted,” Euthymius Zigabenus.* — Ver. 
48. 6 d2 pa yvotc] but the slave, eho shall not have learnt to know it. Sucha 
one cannot be left without punishment, not because he has not obeyed the 
Lord's will (for that has remained unknown to him), but because he has 
done that which deserves punishment ; even for such a one there is that 
which deserves punishment, because, in general, he had the immediate moral 
consciousness of his relation to his Lord as a subjective standard (comp. 
Rom. ii. 12 ff.), even although he did not possess the objective law of the 
Lord’s will positively made known to him, on which account also a lighter 
punishment ensues. Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus are wrong in 
thinking here of such as could have learnt to know the Lord’s will, but from 
laziness and frivolity have not learnt to know it. An arbitrary limitation ; 
and can such an ignorance diminish the responsibility ? Rom. i. 28 ff We 
can the less regard the responsibility as diminished when we remember that 
by 6 dé u3 yvot¢ is described the case of a slave of Christ, who has remained 
ignorant of his Lord's will. — avr? d2 «.7.A.] but of every one, in order, more- 
over, still to add this general law as explanatory information on the subject 
of that so severe punishment, ver. 46, etc. — 2668 mob] in official duties, as 
to the oixovduo¢. — odd Cyrhoerar] in official efficiency. The collocation of zoAi, 
woAb, and then odi, repiocdérepov, has a special emphasis. — The second 
member ¢ apéSevro (the categoric plural, as at ver. 20: in reality xbpio¢ is 
the subject) «.r.4. 13 a parallel similar in meaning to the first, but with the 
climax: mepiooérepov, which is not to be taken as : ‘‘ plus quam aliis, quibus 
non tam multa concredita sunt,” ‘‘more than others, to whom so much was 

? Bee Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 887; Valck- *On the accusative, comp. pacriyovrbas 


enaer, Schol. p. 214; Winer, p. 620 [E. T. wAnyés, Plat. Legg. villi. p. 845 B, and sce 
659). Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 164 [E. T. 189). 


422 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

not committed ” (Kuinoel, Bleek, following Beza, Grotius, and others, which 
would be insipid, and a mere matter of course), but : in the case of him to 
whom much has been entrusted (with whom a large sum has been deposited), 
still more than this entrusted odd will be required of him. In this statement 
is implied the presupposition that the capital sum must have been inereased 
by interest of exchange or by profit of commerce. Comp. Matt. xxv. 
15 ff. The deposit was not to lie idle.' 

Ver. 49 f. The sequence of thought is found in this, that the whole of 
that earnest sense of responsibility, which characterizes the faithfulness 
just demanded, must be only infinitely intensified by the heavy trials of the 
near future, which the Lord brings vividly before His view. — rip] Fire, 
is a figurative designation, not of the Holy Spirit, as most of the Fathers 
and others, including Bengel, will have it, nor of the word of God with its 
purifying power (Bleek) ; but, as is manifest from ver. 51 ff., of the vehe- 
ment spiritual excitement, forcing its way through all earthly relations, and 
loosing their closest ties, which Christ was destined to kindle. The light- 
ing up of this fire, which by means of His teaching and work He had already 
prepared, was to be effected by His death (see aré rov viv, ver. 52), which 
became the subject of offence, as, on the other hand, of His divine courage 
of faith and life (comp. ii. 35). The expression itself Bcteiv éxi r. y#v pro- 
ceeded from the consciousness of His heavenly origin. Comp. Matt. x. 34. 
—kalt ti Aw x.r.A.) It is the usual and the correct view, held also by 
Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, which interprets : and how earnestly 
I wish, if (that) it were already kindled! éiniowebdec yap ri avayev robrov tov 
aupéc, ‘* For he is zealous for the kindling of this fire,” Theophylact. Re- 
garding the ri, see on Matt. vii. 14. Moreover, the wavs loguendi of ei with 
3éAw (instead of the more confident dr, as with Yavudfu, etc.; seeon Mark 
xv. 44) is not to be disputed.? Accordingly, there is no sufficient: reason 
for the view of Grotius, which disjoins the utterance into question and 
answer : And what do I wish? If it should be already kindled / This is less 
simple, and fails to bring out the correspondence between the expression in 
question and the parallel exclamation in ver. 50. The particle et is used not 
merely with the optative (see Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 836), but also with the 
indicative in the imperfect and aorist in the sense of wtinam, dummodo ; in 
the latter case the non-accomplishment is known to the person who utters the 
wish.* Bornemann takes ri for cur, and ei as érei: ‘‘ et cur ignem volo in 
terram conjicere, cum jam accensus sit? remota quaestione: non opus est 
accendam,” ‘and why do I wish to cast fire upon the earth, when it is already 
kindled? the question being removed : there is no need to kindle it.” But 
without considering the extremely insipid thought which is thus expressed, 
ver, 52 in this way requires that the kindling of the fire should be regarded 


1On waparidecOa, comp. Herod. vi. 86; 2 See Ecclus. xxiff. 14: @eArjoess et ph eyer- 


Xen. FR. Ath. ii. 16; Polybius, ifi. 17. 10, 
xxxiff. 12.8; Tob. 1. 14; 1 Macc. ix. 35. The 
construction 1n both members is a well- 
known form of attraction, Kihner, II. 
p. 512; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 27 [E. T. 
288]. 


whOns ; Herod. ix. 14, also vi. 52: BovAopérvyr 
82 ei news auddrepoe yevoiato BaciAées. 

$ Comp. xix. 42; Josh. vil. 7; Grotius in 
loc.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 516; in the Greek 
prose writers it is usual to find «0 or ei yap 
in such a sense. 


CHAP. XII., 50-56. 423 


as still future. This, moreover, is in opposition to Ewald: and what will 
I (can I be surprised), if it be already kindled? [See Note CIII., p. 426.] — 
Jesus entertains the wish that the fire were already kindled, because between 
the present time and this kindling lay His approaching grievous passion, which 
must still first be undergone ; see ver. 50. 

Ver. 50. dé] places in face of the ei #7 avfo9n | just wished for, what is 
still to happen first : But I have a baptism to be baptized with. This baptism 
is His deep passion awaiting Him, into which He is to be plunged (comp. 
on Mark x. 88) ; and He fas this baptism as the destiny ordained for Him, 
and consequently appropriated to Him. — xai wag ovvéxopuat x.t.A4.] and how 
am I distressed (comp. viii. 87 ; Dem. 1484. 28, 1472. 18) till the time that 
it shall be accomplished! A true and vivid expression of human shrinking 
at the presentment of the agonies that were imminent, similar to what we 
find in Gethsemane and at John xii. 27. It was a misapprehension of the 
human feeling of Jesus and of the whole tenor of the context, to make out 
of ovvéyouac an urgency of longing (acavei aywrtd dia tHv BpaduT#za, ‘‘T am, 
as it were, distressed on account of the slowness,” Euthymius Zigabenus, 
comp. Theophylact). So also de Wette and Bleck, who wrongly appeal 
to Phil. i. 23. See on the passage, also on 2 Cor. v. 14. Jesus does 
not long for and hasten to death, but He submits Himself to and obeys the 
counsel of God (comp. John xil. 27; Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v. 19, and elsec- 
where), when His hour is come (John xiii. 1 and elsewhere). Ewald takes 
the question as making in sehse a negatire assertion: I must not make my- 
self anxious (comp. on 7dr, ver. 56), I must in all patience allow this worst 
suficring to befall me. This agrees with Ewald’s view of ri 3éAu «.7.A., Ver. 
49; but, according to our view, it does not correspond with the parallelism. 
And Jesus actually experienced anguish of heart (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 4, owoxy 
xapdiac) at the thought of His passion, without detracting from His patience 
and subinissiveness. 

Vv. 51-53. Sce on Matt. x. 84 f., where the representation is partly sim- 
plified, partly, on the model of Mic. vil. 6, enriched. — aan’ 4] but only, origi- 
nated from 4140 and 7, without, however, its being required to write 
Gav’ ¥.'—and rod viv] Jesus already realizes His approaching death. 
Comp. xxii. 69. —In ver. 53 are three hostile couples ; the description there- 
fore is different from that at ver. 52, not a more detailed statement of the 
circumstances mentioned in ver. 52 (Bleek). 

Vv. 54-56. See on Matt. xvi. 2 f. The reason of those hostile separations, 
spoken of in ver. 52 f., lay, on the part of the people in whose bosom they 
were sure to arise, in the mistaking of the Messianic period as such. Tence 
the rebuke that now follows is addressed to the people ; it is otherwise in the 
historical connection that appears in Matthew. Sill the significant saying, 
in different forms, may have been uttered on two different occasions. [Sec 
Note CIV., p. 426.] — raw vegédmn] the cloud, which shows itself. — ad dvep.] 
therefore from the region of the sea, Comp. 1 Kings viii. 44, and see Robin- 


1 See on this expression in general, Krii- Derar. p. 81 ff. Comp. on 2 Cor. 1. 13. 
ger, de formula aAX' ¥ et afinium particu, etc. Otherwise Stallbaum, ad Jilat. Phaedr. 
natura et usu, Braunsvig. 1884; Klotz, ad p. 81 B. 





424 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


son, Pal. IL. p. 805. — eidéuc] so undoubted it is to you. — Ver. 55. »érop 
mvéovta] scil, idyre, to wit, in the objects moved by it. — Ver. 56. toxp:rai] 
see on Matt. xvi. 8. Not unsuitable as an address to the people (de Wette), 
but it Aas in view among the people, especially through pharisaical influence 
(xii. 1), the untrue nature (the izdéxpiocc) which, as such, made them blind 
to the signs of the times | —rév d2 xaspdv rovrov] but this season, the phe- 
nomena of which so unmistakably present to you the nearness of the Mes- 
siah’s kingdom (and Jesus Himself as the Messiah), how is it possible that 
ye should leave it so unexamined ? 

Vv. 57-59. See on Matt. v. 25 f. Pott (de natura . . . orat. mont. p. 13) 
Kuinoel, de Wette refuse to acknowledge any connection (comp. Euthymius 
Zigabenus : é¢’ grepov petéBy Adyov, ‘‘ He passes to a different subject ”), 
and assume & mistaken reminiscence, suggested by the affinity of doxiuélew 
and xpivey. But Luke did not weave together the discourses of Jesus in so 
thoughtless a manner. The train of thought, even although the connection 
is less clear and appropriate, is as follows : As, however, it turns to your 
reproach that ye do not rightly estimate the present time, so not less also is 
it your reproach that ye do not of your own selves judge what is duty. Jesus 
refers to the duty of repentance which is still seasonable, and by means of 
the rhetorical figure metaschematismus—since He pictures repentance as an 
agreement with an adversary who has a pecuniary claim to make, but by 
this adversary He means (not the devil, Euthymius Zigabenus, nor the poor, 
Michaelis ; but) God, to whom man is a debtor—He represents this duty of 
repentance as still seasonable, in order not to incur the divine punishment, 
like the accused person who still seasonably comes to terms with his cred- 
itor. — xal ag’ éavréiyv] even of yourselves, even of your own independent judg- 
ment. Comp. Bengel : ‘‘ sine signis et citra considerationem hujus temporis,” 
‘‘ without signs and aside from the consideration of this time.” These 
words indicate the progressice advance of the discourse. Comp. on xxi. 30. 
— Ver. 58. yép] explanatory. — dc] is the simple sicuti, ‘‘ just as :” As thou, 
namely, artin the act of going away with thine adversary to an archon (in 
i Selden with this condition of time and circumstance), give diligence 
on the way, etc. ; while you are still on the way, before it is too late, make 
the attempt, that may avert the danger. widye has the emphasis (comp. 
subsequently év rg 639) ; so close is the time of decision | Both the dpyuv 
and the xpir#¢ must be considered as local magistrates (xpir#¢o NOt as an assessor 
of the Sanhedrim, with which xaracipy is not in accord, for this certainly 
cannot be taken as a dragging to Jerusalem). Comp. xpiocc, Matt. v. 21, and 
the remark thereafter. By one of the archons, 7.e., of the chief city officials, 
who, namely, is a competent person in matters of debt, the accused is recog- 
nized as liable to pay, and in default of payment the xpcr#¢, who happens to 
be subordinate to the épyuy, orders compulsion to be used. For the rest, 
this handing over from one official to another belongs to the details of civic 
procedure, without being intended for special interpretation. — doc épyaciav} 
da operam, a Latin idiom, probably taken from the common speech, Hermo- 
genes, de Invent. iii. 5. 7 ; Salmasius and Tittmann (Synon. p. 102), follow- 
ing Theophylact, erroneously interpret : give interest. This is not the mean- 


NOTES. 425 


ing of épyacia, and the Israelites were forbidden to take interest from one 
another (Michaelis, Mos. R. § 154 f.; Saalschiitz, HM. BR. pp. 184, 278, 857).— 
annAAdxdat an’ avrov] in order to be delivered from him.’ The genitive might 
also stand alone.* Settlement is to be conceived of as obtained by payment 
or by arrangement. Comp. Dem. 84. 22.—6 mpd«rwp] evactor, collector, 
bailiff. In Athens the collector of the court fees and fines was so called.® 
The zpdéatwp also is part of the imagery, without contemplating thereby any 
special interpretation (otherwise, the angels would have to be understood, 
Matt. xiii. 41 f.).— 7d oy. Aewrév] (Mark xii. 42) : to wit, of the debt sued 
for. But this terminus in the punitive condition depicted (in the Gehenna) 
is never attained. Comp.on Matt. xvili. 34. 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


XCVI. Ver. 1. The Discourse in Chap. XIL 


Certainly Luke meant to connect this discourse with what precedes. To call 
it a ‘“‘mosaic” is to deny his competence as a historian. It must, of course, 
be admitted that the chapter has less purity and logical sequence than most 
of our Lord’s recorded discourses. The resemblance of many parts to sayings 
given on different occasions by the other Synoptists is obvious. Vv. 13-21 
alone are peculiar to Luke. 


XCVIL Ver. 1. xpérov. 


Weiss ed. Mey., It. V. text, follow Tischendorf, and connect with what pre- 
cedes ; ‘Bo Westcott and Hort. KR. V. margin presents Meyer's view. Weiss ed. 
Mey. objects to referring vv. 2-10 to the disciples’ teaching (Meyer), finding 
in ver. 11 the first hint of this. Godet agrees with Meyer, but properly urges 
the different form of the warning (vv. 8-10) in all three Synoptists as a strong 
argument against their use of a common written source. 


XCVIII. Ver. 15. Sre ova ev 7 mepstoceberv x.7.A, 


Weiss ed. Mey. agrees with Meyer, that the contrast resulting from ver. 20 
is, that a man’s life depends on the will of God, but goes on to explain: ‘‘Since 
this, however, is concealed from the man, in the case when he possesses abun- 
dance, which apparently suffices to guarantee his life (ver. 19), it is especially 
denied for this case (év T@) «.7.4,)."" The R. V. margin : ‘* Greek, for not in a 
inan’s abundance consisteth his life, from ‘the things which he possesseth,”’ 
accepts the grammatical construction which makes é« r. vr. a resumption of év 
tg rep, So Olshausen. This view favors the reference to ‘' true life,’’ 


XCIX. Ver. 21. cic Gedy rAovrav. 


Weiss ed. Mey. explains : ‘‘ To be rich in possessions in which God is well- 
pleased, so that one is rich for Him also, in His judgment, as one becomes 
through the Cyreiv rv Bao, abrod (ver, 31).” 


1Xen. Anad. vit. 1. 4; Plat. Legg. ix. elsewhere, and the passages in Kypke and 
p. 868 D; Josephus, Anét. x. 6.2, and else- Loesner. 
where. 3 B6ckh, Staatshaush. I. pp. 167, 408; Her- 
* Thuo. if]. 68; Dem. 11. 16, 237. 14,and mann, Stlaatsallerth. § 151. 3, 


426 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


C. Ver. 22 ff. 


It is evident that Luke connects this in time with what precedes. But it by 
no means follows that Matthew transferred it to the Sermon on the Mount, still 
less that he and Luke made use of the same “‘ source,’’ in which their passages 
stood together (Weiss ed. Mey.). This attributes to Matthew an arbitrary 
method of selection. 


CI. Vv. 35-48. Origin of the Discourse. 


Here Weiss ed. Mey. finds a working over by Luke of a brief parabolic dis- 
course in the ‘‘source.’’ He regards vv. 35, 36 as containing the elements of 
the parable of the Ten Virgins (Matt. xxv. 1-13), which, however, was not 
formed from this passage, but reduced by Luke so as to conform to ver. 37 ff. 


CII. Ver. 38. The Lord's Return. 


Weiss ed. Mey. regards the verse as making the recompense dependent on 
the watchfulness of the disciples in spite of delay. He also attributes the 
omission of any mention of the fourth watch to the Jewish usage of divid- 
ing the night into three watches (Mark uses the Roman mode, Mark xiii. 40), 
objecting to Meyer’s explanation as arbitrary. ° 


CIII. Ver. 49. nat ri OfAw et 96n avhgn. 


The Am. Com. (R. V.) give a margin expressing Meyer’s view: ‘‘ how I 
would that it were already kindled.” The R. V. text apparently accepts the 
view that the fire is represented as ‘‘ already kindled.”’ 


CIV. Vv. 54-56. 


Weiss ed. Mey. objects to the view that the language was uttered on two 
different occasions, but in this case it is Matthew (xvi. 2, 3) whom he regards 
as freely modifying and transposing the Lord’s words. Godet properly holds 
that the passage in Matthew is not parallel. ‘The idea is wholly different” 
(Luke, p. 354, Am. ed.). 


CHAP. XIII. 427 


CHAPTER XIII. 


[Ver. 2. Tisch., recent editors, R. V. (with ® BL, Vulg., etc.) omit 6 'Iyovir, 
and substitute ravra (& B D L) for roatra.] — Vv. 3and 5. The evidence in the 
two verses is so divided between peravo#re (Elz.) and peravofenre (Lach.), as also 
between aoatruc and éduolwe (Lachm. has in both places duoiuc, which Elz. reads 
only in ver. 5), that it affords us no means of decision. Tisch. reads in ver. 3, 
Heravoyre . . . duoiac, but in ver. 5, ueravofjonre . . . woabrwc. [So recent editors, 
R. V.] It is certain that the one passage was changed in accordance with the 
other,—most probably ver. 5 in accordance with ver. 3, and that consequently 
both passages are not, as by Lachm., to be read alike, because in that case no 
reason would have been suggested for the variation. — Ver. 4. Instead of ovra: 
Lachm, and Tisch. have, on preponderating evidence, avroi. The Recepia isa 
frequent alteration.— [Tisch. Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with 8 A B L, ete., in- 
sert rot¢ before av pdrouc.] — Ver. 6. The arrangement megurevy. év T. Gur. avr. 
(Lachm. Tisch.) is preponderatingly attested, and still more strongly is (yrév 
kapt. (Elz. has xapr. ¢.). — Ver. 7. After ér7 Tisch. has a¢’ ot, following B D L 
T® 8, al. Rightly ; it was passed over because it could be dispensed with. — 
Ver. 8. Elz. has xorpfav, But decisive authorities have xérpiua. The feminine 
form was more common from its use in the LXX. — [Ver. 9. Tisch., recent edi- 
tors, R. V. (with * B L, Copt.), place ei¢ rd péAAov after xapwév.] — Ver. 11. qv] 
is wanting after yv-f7 in B L T® X &, min. vss. Lachm. Tisch. A frequent addi- 
tion. — Ver. 12. r7c] Lachm. has ad rc, in accordance with A D X II &, min. 
An exegetical expansion. — Ver. 14. rafraic] A BL, etc., have atraic. So too 
Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; rafrac¢ occurred readily to the transcribers ; 
comp. on ver. 4. — Ver. 15. Instead of droxpird (Elz.), ioxpirai is rightly ap- 
proved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with con- 
siderably preponderating evidence. The singular was introduced in accord- 
ance with the foregoing avr@. In the previous clause instead of o’y read dé, 
with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B D L &, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. 
Vulg. It. This dé easily dropped out after the last syllable of azexpi37 (thus still 
in one cod. of It.), and the connection that was thus broken was wrongly re- 
stored in some authorities by otv, in others by «ai (16, Aeth.). —On the other 
hand, in ver. 18, instead of dé we are to adopt ovv with Tisch., following BL &, 
min. Vulg. It. al., the reference of which was not understood. — Ver. 19. péya] 
is wanting in B D L T5 &, 251, vss. Ambr. Suspected by Griesb., bracketed by 
Lachm. [Omitted by Tisch., tecent editors, R. V.] Omitted in accordance 
with Matt. xiii. 32.— [Ver. 21. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with B L, etc., read 
Expupev.] — Ver. 24. ziAnc} Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have @ipac. The Recepta is 
from Matt. vii. 13. — Ver. 25. We are here to read xipe only once, with Tisch., 
following B L ®, 157, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Sax. The repetition is from 
Matt. xxv. 11.—[Ver. 27. Recent editors omit tua (with B L) against Tisch., 
also on stronger evidence omit (with Tisch.) of and ri¢.]— Ver. 31. uépe] 


428 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Tisch. has Ope, which is so weightily attested by A B* DL RX &, min., and is 
so frequent in Luke, that juépg appears as having come in by means of the 
subsequent numeration of days. — Ver. 32. ém:reAw] Lachm. and Tisch. have 
a7oreA@, in accordance with BL &, 33, 124, to which also D is associated by 
Groredovpat,—it was displaced by the more familiar word émcreA. — Ver. 35. 
After tudv Elz. has épnyoc, in opposition to preponderating evidence, An exe- 
getical addition in this place and at Matt. xxiii. 38.— éwe dv] this dv is wanting 
inBDKLR, min., in accordance with Matt. xxiii. 39.— én] Lachm. and 
Tisch. have 75e, in accordance with AD VAA, min. The weight of these au- 
thorities is all the more considerable in this place that BL M R X ®& have not 
néy ore at all, which omission occurred in accordance with Matthew. [Treg., 
W. and Hort, R. V., omit av 7fe Gre, and also ér: after iziv, while Tisch. and 
all recent editors omit auf. Tisch. (&* L) omits dé, but recent editors, R. V., 
have, with ** A BD, Vulg. Copt., Aéyw dé. ] 


Vv. 1-9. Peculiar to Luke ;' from the source of his account of the jour- 
ney. At the same moment (when Jesus had spoken the foregoing discourse) 
there were some there with the news * of the Galileans (roy Tada. indicates by 
the article that their fate was known) whose blood Pilate had mingled with 
their sacrifices. [See Note CV., p. 488.] This expression is a tragically vivid 
representation of the thought : ‘‘whom Pilate caused to be put to death 
while engaged in their sacrifices.” See similar passages in Wetstein. That 
the communication was made with evil intention to represent the murdered 
people as special sinners (Lange), is a hasty inference from the answer of 
Jesus. — pera tov Svordyv avr.] not instead of vera rod aiuutog tév Yue. abr., 
which abbreviation, although in itself allowable, would here be arbitrarily 
assumed ; but we may regard the people as actually engaged in the slaugh- 
ter or cutting up, or in otherwise working with their sacrifice at the altar (in 
the outer court) (Saalschiitz, M. R. p. 318), in which they were struck down 
or stabbed, so that their blood streamed forth on their offering. — The ¢nei- 
dent itself, which the riwéc who had arrived mention as a novelty, is not 
otherwise known to us. Josephus, Anté. xviii. 5, is speaking of the Samar- 
étans, and what he says belongs to a later date (in opposition to Beza). To 
think of followers of Judas the Gaulonite (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabe- 
nus, Grotius, and others) is arbitrary ; but the conjecture that they were 
enthusiastic devotees of Jesus (Lange) is preposterous, because it does not 
agree with the subsequent explanation of the Lord. Probably they had 


1 The narrative, vv. 1-5 (also vv. 6-9), was 
not found, according to Epiphanius and 
Tertullian, in the text of Marcion. This 
omission is certainly not to be regarded as 
intentional, or proceeding from dogmatic 
motives, but yet it is not to be explained by 
the supposition that the fragment did not 
originally appear in Luke (Baur, Markuse- 
wang. p. 195 f.). It bears in itself so clearly 
the stamp of primitive originality that 
Ewald, p. 202, is able to ascribe it to the 
oldest evangelical source, Késtlin, p. 281, to 
a Jewish local source. In opposition to 


Volkmar’s attempt (p. 102 f.) to prove the 
omission in Marcion as having been dog- 
matically occasioned (comp. also Zeller, 
Apostelg. p. 21), sew Hiigenfeld in the Theo. 
Jahrd. 1858, p. 224 ff. Yet even Késtlin, 
p. 304, seeks dogmatically to account for 
the omission by Marcion, on assumptions, 
indeed, in accordance with which Marcion 
would have been obliged to strike out no 
one can tell how much more. 

3 rapyody ties amayyéAdorres, Diod. Sic. 
xvii. 8. 


CHAP. XIII., 2-9. 429 
made themselves suspected or guilty of (secret) sedition, to which the 
Galileans were extremely prone.' It is possible also that in the tumult that 
arose on account of the aqueduct built by Pilate (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 8. 
2) they also had been drawn in (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 40), with which 
building, moreover, might be connected the falling of the tower, ver. 4. 

Vv. 2, 8. Jesus makes use of this news by way of warning, and to stir 
them up to repentance. He points to the slaughter of those people as an 
example of the divine punishment, which teaches not that the persons con- 
cerned are the most deserving of punishment, but that punishment, if car- 
ried into effect against indiciduals, must fall upon all (to wit, the whole 
class, so that in the application the Messianic punishment of eternal d7éAea 
is intended *) if they should not have repented. — rapa] more than.* — tyévor- 
to] not were (foav), but became*—to wit, declaratory : that they became 
known as sinners by the fact, namcly, that they suffered such things (er6v0.), 
perf., see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 271]. 

Vv. 4, 5. Likewise historically unknown. — 6 rfpyo¢] the well-known tower. 
What sort of a one it was is altogether uncertain ; perhaps a tower of the 
town-walls (Joseph. Bell. v. 4. 2), so that the spring of Siloah is here meant 
(Joseph. J.c. says of the walls of the ancient city, mpig vérov imip tiv DiAwdp 
éxiorptdov wyyhv, ‘* turning toward the south beyond the spring of Siloam”). 
As to the spring (on the south-cast side of the ancient city) and the pool of 
Siloah, see on John ix. 7. — év r. £:A.] év of the immediate neighborhood, 
at.° —xai arékr. avrots] a genuine Greek transition from a relative to a de- 
monstrative sentence on account of the different government of the two verbs. 
Comp. on x. 8. —airoi] (see the critical remarks) they on their part, in op- 
position to the others, taking them up emphatically. Observe that dcatrur 
is stronger than dyolwc, and hence most appropriately used at ver. 5. 

Vv. 6-9. Doctrine: the forbearance of God (of the Lord of the vineyard) 
endures only a short time longer; the ministry of me (the auredovpyéc) to 
you is the last attempt, and on it follows the decision—the decision of the 
Messianic judgment. Comp. iii. 9. Explanations entering more into de- 
tail, for instance, of the three years (Augustine, Theophylact, Bisping, and 
others: the times of the law, the prophets, and Jesus ; Euthymius Ziga- 
benus: the rpei¢ rodcreiac of the judges, the kings, and the high priests), in 
which, moreover, are not to be found the years of the ministry of Jesus 
(Jansen, Bengel, Michaclis, Wieseler, Synopse, p. 202, but that there would 
appear, besides the three years, a fourth also, in which the results of the 
manuring were to show themselves), mistake the coloring of the parable 
for its purpose.’ — ovaqy elxé tic] @ certain person possessed a fig-tree. The 


' Joseph. Anité. xvil. 9.8; Wetstein on tho 
passage ; see especially Rettig in the Siud. 
und Krttik. 1838, p. 980 f. 

8 Not the destruction of Jerusalem, as 
Grotius and many will have it. 

3 See Bernhardy, p. 259 ; Battmann, Neu. 
Gr. p. 202 [E. T. 889]. 

“See generally, C. F. A. Fritzache in 
Fritzechior. Opuse. p. 2A f. 


5 Comp. Xen. Anad. iv. 8. 8, and thereon, 
Ktthner, Hom. 7. xviil. 521, and elsewhere. 

¢ Bornemann, ad Sympos. iv. 63, p. 14; 
Bernhardy, p. 290. 

T Grotius aptly says that the three ycars 
indicate in general the whole period before 
Christ: ‘“‘quo Deus patientissime expecta- 
vit Judaeorum emendationem,” ‘‘ when 
God most patiently awaited the improre- 


430 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Jig-tree in the vineyard is not opposed to Deut. xxii. 9, for there ¢rees are 
not spoken of.— Ver. 7. According to the reading rp. éry a¢’ ob (see the 
critical remarks) : It is three years since I, etc. Comp. Thucyd. i. 18. 3. — 
ivari xat x.1.2.] wherefore also (besides that it itself bears nothing).' The xai 
belongs, as is often the case in questions, to the whole sentence (Baeumlein, 
Partikeln, p. 152).—xarapyei] it makes the land useless—to wit, by useless 
occupation of the space, by exhausting and shading it.*— Ver. 8. xai rovro rd 
grog] the present year also—as already those three ineffectual past years. — éu¢ 
vou x.t.A.] until the time that I shall have dug, etc.—whereupon there shall oc- 
cur, even according to the result, what is said at ver. 9. — xav pév roigoy xaprér} 
und in case perchance it shall have brought forth fruit—even in the classical 
writers a frequent aposiopesis of the apodosis xcadas Exe. On the interchange 
of éav and ei in such antitheses, in whichthe first conditional sentence is 
spoken with reference to the result, comp. Sauppe, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 37; 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B, Gorg. p. 470 A; Winer, p. 263 [E. 
T. 263 f.].—eig rd péAAov] se. Eroc, at the following year, which therefore 
comes in with the next year’s fig-harvest, thou shalt cut it down. ([See 
Note CVI., p. 438.] Let it still therefore remain so long. Comp. on i. 
20. To supply éro¢ is by means of the correlation to retro rd érog, ver. 8, 
more strictly textual than the gencral notion postea, ‘‘ afterwards” (as it is 
usually taken. —éxxdéwerc] ‘‘ Non dicit vinitor: erscindam, coll. ver. 7, sed 
rem refert ad dominum; desinit tamen pro ficu deprecari,” ‘‘ The vine- 
dresser does not say: I will cut it down (comp. ver. 7), but refers the matter 
to his lord; yet he ceases to intercede for the fig-tree,” Bengel. 

Vv. 10-17. A Sabbath cure peculiar to Luke, without any more precise 
specifying of time and place. He might find a motive for inserting it just 
in this place in his source of the narrative of the journey itself. But to ex- 
plain its position here from the fact that the three years of ver. 7 had re- 
minded him of the eighteen years of ver. 11 (Holtzmann, p. 153) would be 
fantastic. — Ver. 11. #v] aderat. [Meyer omits, see critical note. ]— rveiya 
aobeveiac] a spirit of weakness, i.e., a demon (see ver. 16), who paralyzed her 
muscular powers, so that she could not straighten herself. This conception 
of ao#év. is more in accordance with the context than the gencral one of sick- 
ness. — sig 70 wavreAéc] comp. Heb. vii. 25, and thereon Bleek ; Ae/. xii. 20, 
v. 7. It belongs adverbially not to pu divay. (de Wette, Bleek, and most 
commentators), but to avaxiy~a:, with which it stands. She was bowed to- 
gether (Ecclus. xii. 11, xix. 26 f., and in the Greek writers), and from this 
position to straighten herself up perfectly was to her impossible. — Ver. 12. 
aro7éAvoa] thou art loosed ; that which will immediately occur is represented 
as already completed, — Ver. 14. azoxpiWeis} See on Matt. xi. 25.—r9 dy20] 


ment of the Jews.”” Within three years,as ad Devar. p. 685 ff. 


a rule, the tree when planted bore fruit, * Examples of xarapyeiy, inertem facere, 
Wetstein in loc. The people addressed are Eur. Phoen. 760; Ezra iv. 21, %, v. 5, vi. & 
the ruéds, ver. 1 ag ver. 2, but as members of * See Valckenaer, Schol. p. 217 ; Hermann, 
God’s people (the vineyard), not as inhab- ad Viger. p. 833; Buttmann, Neul. Gr. 
itants of Jerusalem (Weizsicker). p. 839 [E. T. 896]. 


1 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 837; Klotz, 


CHAP. XIII., 18-23. 431 


Taking his stand upon Deut. v. 13, he blames—not directly Jesus, for he 
could not for shame do so, but —the people, not specially the woman at all : 
Jesus was to be attacked indirectly. — Ver. 15. troxpcrai] Euthymius Ziga- 
benus aptly says: téroxpirdc avéuace trois Kara Tov apxiouvaywyov, ‘‘ He calls 
those like the ruler of the synagogue hypocrites” (the class of men to which 
he belonged, the hierarchical opposition, comp. ver. 17), &¢ iroxpevopuévous piv 
Tiyuav tov oaBBdrov véyov, Exdixovvrac dé Tov dOdvov EavTdy, ‘‘as pretending to 
honor the law of the Sabbath, but avenging their own envy.” — arayaywr] 
pictorially, ‘‘ad opus demonstrandum,” ‘‘ to describe the labor,” Bengel. — 
Ver. 16. The argument is @ miuori ad majus (as xiv. 5), andthe majus is sig- 
nificantly indicated py the doubled description @vyarépa 'Afp. oboav (comp. 
xix. 9) and 4» édyoev 6 Laravac «.t.A. ‘‘ Singula verba habent emphasin,”’ 
‘*Kach word is emphatic” (Grotius),—a remark which holds good also of 
the vividly introduced ido, comp. Deut. viii. 4. Asadaughter of Abraham, 
she belongs to the special people ef God, and must hence be wrested from 
_ the deril. Of spiritual relationship with Abraham (Lechler in the Stud. wu. 
Arit. 1854, p. 821) nothing is said. — iv édyoev 6 car.] since he, namely, by 
means of one of his servants, a demon, has taken away her liberty in the 
manner mentioned at ver. 11. —-déxa «.7.4. is not a nominative, but an accu- 
satice of the duration of time. Comp. ver. 8, xv. 29, and elsewhere. — Ver. 
17. xatgoxzbv. ravr. of avrex. avr.) Comp. Isa. xlv. 16. — yevopuévore] serene 
describing the glorious work of Jesus as continuing. 

Vv. 18-20. Comp. on Matt. xiii. 31-83; Mark iv. 31 f.— deve odv] 
does not introduce the parables which follow in an indefinite and random 
manner (Strauss, I. p. 626; comp. de Wette and Holtzmann), which is 
erroneously inferred from ver. 17 regarded as a closing remark, and denies 
to Luke even the commoncst skill in the management of his materials ; but 
after the conclusion of the precedingincident (ver. 17) Jesus, in conse- 
quence (ody, see the critical remarks) of the joy manifested by the people, 
sees Himself justified in conceiving the fairest hopes on behalf of the Mes- 
sianic kingdom, and these He gives utterance to in these parables. This is 
how we find it in Luke ; and his mode of connecting them with the context 
is so consistent with the facts, that from this quarter there is no opposition 
to our assuming as original in this place what, if not an exact repetition of 
the two parables already spoken at Matt. xiii. and Mark iv., was at least 
an express reference to them. Even in the source of his narrative of the 
journey from which Luke draws from ix. 51 onwards, they might have 
been connected with the foregoing section, vv. 10-17. [Sce Note CVIL., 
p- 488.] — Ver. 19. ei¢ xprov éavrov] into a garden belonging to himself, where 
it was protected, where he could observe and foster it, etc. — Ver. 20. dv] 
once more; for the question of ver. 18 is repeated. 

Ver. 22. Introduction of a new act in the progress of the journey 
(ix. 57, x. 88, xvii. 11). The mention of the journey holds the historical 
thread. [See Note CVIII., p. 438.] — xai xop. xotovp.] teaching, and at the 
same time, etc. 

Ver. 23. This questioner was certainly a confessor of Jesus, ver. 24 ff. 
There is nothing besides this that we can define more precisely, except that 





432 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
the question itself might be called forth by the stringency of the claims of 
Jesus. — As to ei,’ see on Matt. xii. 10. 

Ver. 24. Ilpd¢ atrobc] refers to those who were present, of whom the ques- 
tioner was one. Jesus, giving after Ilis manner a practical application to 
the theoretical question, answers not directly, but by means of the admoni- 
tion : Strice to enter in (to the Messiah’s kingdom, to which that question 
referred, conceived of as a house) by the narrow door, since many in vain shall 
attempt to enter. Therein is implied : ‘* Instead of concerning yourselves 
with the question whether they who attain to salvation are only few, reflect 
rather that many shall not attain it, and set out therefore on the right road 
to attaining it.” — did rij¢ orevic Bipac] (see the critical remarks) reminds us 
of a house which has, besides the usual door, also a distinct small one, and 
only by means of this is admission possible : so the attainment of salvation 
is possible only by means of the yerdvoc. The figurative representation, 
which Jesus has already made use of in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. vii. 
13, is here repeated and modified ; the simple 0:4 cic crev. Gip., without any 
more definite explanation (comp., on the other hand, Matt. U.c.), bears the 
stamp of a reference to something already previously propounded (in oppo- 
sition to de Wette, Weiss, and others, who are in doubt as to the originality 
of the saying in this placc). — {yrfaovory] weaker than dyuri{eofe. — ciae?feiv] 
In general ; dia ric orevijc Gbpac is not repeated. —x. ovx iaxtoovorv] because 
they omit aywrilecbar eiceAOeiv dia rij¢ otevic Obpac, t.e., they have not repented. 
[See Note CIX., p. 438. ] 

Vv. 25-27." If you are excluded from the kingdom of Messijah, you shall 
then in vain urge your external connection with me! TWAdrret yap otxodeox6- 
ty Tid Kafyuevoy x. trodexduevorv, ‘‘ For He represents a certain master of a 
house sitting and entertaining” (at the repast, ver. 29), rote giAove abrod, 
‘*his friends ” (rather his family ; sce subsequently on wd@ev), elra éyeipéuevov 
k. aroxAciovta THY Bipav Tov oikov avrov, K. 7) GvyxwpodvTa ToIg GAO ElceAfeiv, 
‘‘then rising and shutting to the door of his house, and not allowing the 
others to enter,” Euthymius Zigabenus. The construction is such that the 
apodosis begins with rére, ver. 26 (Bengel, Bornemann), and continues down 
to adixiac, ver. 27, in accordance with which the punctuation should be 
adjusted. The apodosis does not begin as early a8 xai aroxp:6eic, ver. 25 (the 
usual mode of punctuation), so that with ver. 26 a new sentence would begin ; 
for the former «ai, which would not be a sign of the apodosis (de Wette), 


' That in direct questions ei should be 
used as the recitative or, which would have 
to be explained by a transition of the oratio 
obligua into the oratio directa, even after 
the learned investigation of Lipstus, Paudin. 
Rechtferriqungslehre, 1838, p. 80 ff., I must 
doubt, since we should find this use of e 
much more frequently elsewhere, and since 
in the isolated places whero /t occurs it is 
just the meaning of the doudi{ful question 
(whether tndeed ?) which ts very appropriate 
Matt. xif. 10, xix. 8; Luke xill. 23, xxi. 
49; Acts 1. 6, vil. 1, xIx. 2 xxl. 87, xxff. 25). 


On the classical beginnings of this usage, 
nothing likewise is to be decided other 
than on the New Testament usage, to 
wit, with Ast, Ler. Plat. I. p. 601: “* Du- 
bitanter interrogat, ita ut interrogatio vide- 
atur directa esse,” “He asks doubdtingty, 
that thus the question may appear to be 
direct.” 

2 Down to ver. 29 we have a series of 
reminiscences of very varied discourses 
linked together in Luke's source of the 
journey, which are found in sevcral por- 
tions of Matthew taken from the Logia. 


CHAP. XIII., 25-27. 433 
but would mean also, would be superfluous and confusing, whereas rére pre- 
sents itself, according to a usage known to every one (v. 35, xxi. 20, and 
elsewherc), of itself, and according to the meaning, as the division of the 
sentence. It is according to the meaning, for thus the apodosis brings out 
the principal point, namely, the urging of the relation of external connection 
and (observe only the continuation of the apodosis through ver. 27) its fruit- 
lessness, Lachmann (following Beza) connects a¢’ ov. . . dvortov jyiv (after 
which he places a full stop) with xai ovx icyboovary, ver. 24. Schegg follows 
him. But opposed to this is the second person dpfyofe, which is not in ac- 
cordance with ioyicove:y, but carries forward the address that began with 
Gyuvifecte. Ewald conceives the apodosis as beginning as early as xai dpé7ofle, 
ver. 25, but in such a manner that this apodosis is transformed into a second 
protasis. The harshness of this supposition is increased still more by the 
fact that if we read dpéno6e, ver. 26, the force of the protasis must come up 
anew with the repetition of the sound.’ — «ai apfyo6e] can only arbitrarily be 
limited to xpofecv, as though it ran dp& &&w éorare¢ xpoberv (Fritzsche, ad 
Matth. p. 541). It refers to doth the infinitives. The people have begun the 
persistent standing there and knocking, in respect of which they say : Lord, 
open to us ; then the master of the house answers that he knows them not 
(Matt. xxv. 12), etc. ; next, they begin to say something else, to wit, their 
égayouev x.7.A. Thus there appears in dpfqofle and dpfeofe, ver. 26, a very 
vivid representation of their several fruitless attempts. — nal azroxp. épei tu. | 
a graphic transition to the future: after that. . . ye shall have begun. . . 
and he shall say. At the same time, however, it is a departure from the 
regular construction,’ as though dv had not gone before (Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 142).—otx olda tuac ré0ev tort] Comp. John vii. 27; Winer, p. 551 
[E. T. 626]. — rdfev] t.¢., of what family (see on John vii. 27) ; ye are not 
members of my house, but of another that.is unknown to me. — Ver, 26 f. 
Evdiridv cov] before thine eyes, as thy guests, but corresponding in a more 
lively manner to the expression of the master of the house than the mere 
perd cov. — év raicg waar. gu. éedida&.| A divergence from the person describing 
to the person described, which occurs in ver. 27 in améoryre. . . adixiac,* 
and at ver. 28f. Bengel aptly says on ver. 27: ‘‘Iterantur eadem verba ; 
stat sententia ; sed iterantur cum emphasi,” ‘‘ The same words are repeated ; 
the verdict holds good ; but it is repeated with emphasis.” For the rest, 
comp. on Matt. vii. 22 f. According to the tendency-critics, the doers of 
iniquity in Matthew must be Pauline-Christians, but in Luke Jewish-Chris- 
tians.* What crafty turns the evangelists have got credit for ! Antinomians 
(Weizsicker) are not meant at all, but immoral adherents. 


1This reading, indeed, has in its favor 
ADKLMT*XIANR® and many min., 
but it is a mechanical repetition of the sub- 
junctive from ver. 25. Yet it isnow adopted 
by Tischendorf [Tisch. VIII. has apfeode). 

20On the question discussed in so many 
ways whether in the classical writers (ex- 
cept Homer) av stands with the future 
(Brunck, Heindorf, Hermann, Hartung, 
Stalibaum, Relsig, KOhner, Kroger, and 


28 


many others) or not, see especially Mer- 
mann, de part, ay, p. 80 ff.; Hartung, Parti- 
kell, TI. p. 282 ff. (both in favor of tO; and 
Klotz, ad Derar. p. 118 ff. (againatl tO. 

*On épydrys, a doer of good or evil (so 
only in this place inthe New Testament), 
comp. Xen. Mem. il. 1. 2: trav cadwv cai 
oeuver épydrny ; 1 Macc. Sil. 6. 

4See Hilgenfeld, Arit. Unters. p. 184 f., 
Evang. p. 196, Zeitechr. 1805, p. 192. 


434 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Vv. 28, 29. Comp. on Matt. viii. 11 f. The words of Jesus. — ixsi] there, 
in the place to which ye shall thus be turned away. For the most part it is 
understood temporally, év éxeivy 7G xaip@, ‘‘in that season,” Euthymius Zig- 
abenus. Rarely thus in the classical writers (Soph. PAil. 894 ; Bornemann, 
Schol. p. 90 f.), but never (yet comp. éxei@ev, Acts xiii. 21) in the New Tes- 
tament ; and here the context points definitely by aréoryre an’ Exot to the 
well-known locality, as, moreover, the standing type of this formula sane- 
tioned by use (Matt. xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 18, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30) with éxei leads 
one to think only of that locality. — bray dy7ofe] What contrasts! They 
saw the patriarchs and prophets established in the kingdom, but in themselves 
experience the sense of being cast, out, and instead of them come heathens from 
the east and west, ctc.’—’ASp. «. ’Io. «x. 'Iaxd3] Comp. Matt. viii. 11. The 
Marcionite reading révrag rove duxaiouc is an intentional removal of the patri- 
archs (Volkmar, comp. Zeller, Apostelg. p. 17). It was not original, so that 
the canonical reading cannot be said to have been introduced in accordance 
with Matt. 7.c., or in opposition to Marcion’s views (Hilgenfeld, Baur). — 
ixBardou. t&w] agrees with the figure, although the persons concerned are not 
admitted at all; for they are members of the family, and as such, #.6., as orig- 
inally belonging to the theocratic community of the patriarchs and prophets, 
they are by their rejection practically éxGaAAduevor 2&w. The present tense is 
justifiable, since the dpav x.r.A. at the time of the fora: 9 xAavOude will be 
already past. Hence: if ye shall hate seen yourselves 4s such, become (not are) 
the cast out. After they shall have seen this measure carried out, they shall 
be in hell, where there shall be weeping, etc. 

Ver. 30. Comp. on Matt. xix. 30, xx. 16.—eiciv] (before the establish- 
ment of the kingdom ; ésovraz) after it, in the kingdom. — éoyara] i.¢., those 
who have not become believers till very late (as such, born heathens, ver. 
29). — éoorrat rporoc}] Members of the first rank in the kingdom of Messiah. 
The originality of this maxim, uttercd in several forms and in various con- 
nections, is to be claimed exclusively for no particular place. 

Ver. 81 ff. as far as ver. 83 peculiar to Luke from the source of his narra- 
tive of the journey. — According to xvii. 11, the incident occurred in Gal- 
ilee, with which ix. 51 ff. (see on the passage) is not inconsistent. [See 
Notes LXXXI., p. 878 seq., CVIIL., p. 488.] — That the Pharisees did not 
mercly give out on pretence their statement in reference to Antipas (Theophy- 
lact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, and others, including Olshausen and 
Ebrard), but actually had instructions from him, because he himself wished 
to be rid of the dreaded miracle-worker (ix. 7, 9) out of his dominions, is 
plain from rg GAadrex: rafry, ver. 82, whereby is declared His penetration of 
the subtle cunning’ of Herod (not of the Pharisees) ; in the contrary case, 
Jesus would have had no ground for characterizing him just as He did, and 


LY 


1On the subjunctive form doyncde, see Schriftbew. IT. 1, p. 815, to suppose that by 
Buttmann, Neu. Gr. p. 81 [E. T. 36]. the fox is meant the destroyer of the cine- 

2 Asatype of cunning and knavery, the yard (comp. Cant. ii. 15). References to 
epithet foz is so generally frequent, and the Song of Songs are not in general to be 
this figure is here so appropriate, that it discerned anywhere in the New Testament, 
appears quite groundless for Hofmann, comp. on John iil. 20. 


CHAP. XIIl., 32, 33. 435 


that too in the consciousness of His higher prophetic and regal dignity. 
But that Herod used even the enemies of Jesus for this purpose was not un- 
wisely calculated, because he could rely upon them, since they also, on their 
part, must be glad to sce Him removed out of their district, and because the 
cunning of the Pharisees for the execution of such like purposes was at all 
events better known to him than were the frequent exposures which they 
had experienced at the hands of Jesus.’ 

Ver. 82. ‘Idod, éxBd2Aw . . . teAecotpac] Behold, I cast out demons, and I 
accomplish cures to-day and to-morrow, and on the third day I come to an end ; 
to wit, not in general with my work, with my course (Acts xx. 24), or the 
like, but, according to the context, with these castings out and cures. A defi- 
nitely appropriate answer, frank and free, in opposition to timid cunning. 
To-day and to-morrow I allow myself not tobe disturbed in my work 
here in the land of Herod, but prosecute it without hindrance till 
the day after to-morrow, when I come to a conclusion with it. Jesus, 
however, mentions precisely His miraculous working, not His teaching, 
because He knew that the former, but not the latter, had excited the appre- 
hension of Herod. — reAccotuac] (the present of the certain future, not the 
Attic future) might be the middle (Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 158) ; but in all 
the passages of the New Testament, and, as a rule, among the Greek writ- 
ers, teAeovc0a is passive. So also here ; comp. Vulg. It.: consummor. 
reZecovy Means ad finem perducere, ‘‘tobring to an end,” the passive reAecot- 
ofa: ad finem percenire, ‘‘to come to an end.” Hence: I come to a conelu- 
sion, I hace done; with what? the context shows, sce ubove. Against the 
explanation of the end of life, so that the meaning would amount to morior,* 
are decisive even the statements of the days which, in their definiteness,* 
could not be taken (as even Kuinocl, Ewald, and others will have them) 
proverbially (cfpepov x. abp.: per breve tempus, ‘‘ after a little while,” and rg 
tpiryg : paulo post, ‘‘shortly after,» comp. Hos. vi. 2), as also ropepeofa:, ver. 
33. [See Note CX., p. 488 seq.] Just as little reason is there for sceing 
prefigured in the three days, the three years of the official ministry of Jesus 
(Weizsiicker, p. 312). 

Ver. 83. Nevertheless (although I am not, through your advice, discon- 
certed inthat three days’ ministry) the necessity still lies before me, to-day and 
to-morrow and the next day, to obey your ropetov évrever, since it is not allow- 
able that a prophet, etc. Jesus means to say, ‘‘ Nevertheless it cannot at all 
be otherwise than that I should conjoin with this work, which is still to be 
done to-day and to-morrow and the next day, the departure from Galilee, 
since I shall not perish in Galilee, as Herod threatens, but in order to per- 
ish must proceed to Jerusalem, which after all has the monopoly, that a 
prophet must not be slain out of it.” In the answer, which as looking ap- 


1 On the proverbial dAwrnf, comp. Pind. many others; comp. also Neander, Baum- 
Pyth. ii. 141; Plat. Pol. il. p..865 C; and = garten-Crusius, Schegg, Bisping, Linder in 
thereupon, Stallbaum ; Plut. Sol. 30. Comp. the Stud. u. Arit. 1862, p. 564. 

GAwwexigew in Aristoph. Vesp. 1241; also * F.g. the expression is different in Dem. 
aivasos, Dem. 281. 22, 807. 28; Soph. AJ. 108. De Cor. § 105: wia audpa nai 8¥o cat rpeis. 

*Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, See Dissen on the passage, p. 362. 

Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Kypke, and 


436 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
proaching death in the face at once boldly contemns the threatening of the 
timid prince, are accordingly involved the three positions—(1) I have under- 
taken to labor three days more in Galilee, and in that undertaking I will 
not be disconcerted ; (2) nevertheless, I must in these three days contrive my 
departure from Galilee ;' and wherefore this? in order to escape the death 
with which Herod threatens me? No; (3) I must do this because I must 
not in Galilee—not outside of Jerusalem, but just in that place of the mur- 
der of prophets—die ; and therefore must make for Jerusalem.*? — rapeieoOaz] 
depart, ver. 31. It is not in contradiction with ver. 22, for while travelling 
Jesus was accustomed to cast out demons, and to perform cures. If He 
wished to do the latter, He could at the same time do the former. Most of 
the commentators (even Grotius, Kuinocl, Olshausen) are grammatically and 
contextually wrong (see ver. 31) in the explanation : trarel about undis- 
turbed in my occupations. When others, following S8yr., limit sopetecfac 
merely to ri éxouévy, interpreting it either as to depart (Theophylact, Casau- 
bon) or fo die (Euthymius Zigabenus, Elsner), they supply (comp. also 
Neandcr) after aiprov a thought such as épydleo8ac or évepyqjoa: a eixov. This is 
indeed to make the impossible possible ! — ot« évdéyerac] it cannot be done, #& 
is not possible (2 Macc. xi. 18, and see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. vi. p. 501 C), 
with ironically excited emotion makes the frequent and usual hyperbolically 
to appear as necessary (for all the prophets were not actually slain in Jerusalem, 
as is shown even in the instance of the Baptist) for the purpose of showing 
how empty the threatening of Herod appears to Jesus, since He must rather 
go to Jerusalem to die. The opinion (Grotius, Drusius, Knatchbull, Light- 
foot, Wolf, and others) that He refers to the right belonging exclusively to 
the Sanhedrim of judging prophets and condemning them to death (Sanhedr. 
f. 2. 1, f. 89. 1, and elsewhere) is mistaken, since the mattcr here in ques- 
tion is of the actual aroAfcOa:, and since Jesus could not place Himself on a 
level with those who were condemned as false prophets. *® 

Vv. 34, 35. See on Matt. xxiii. 37ff. The original place of this exclama- 
tion isin Matthew (in opposition to Olshausen, Wieseler, Holtzmann, and 
others), although the connection in which Luke gives it from his source of 
the journey is not to be called inappropriate (in opposition to Schleiermach- 


1 The inference is not here to be drawn 
(so Wieseler, Synopee, p. 821) that Jesus was 
still distant three days’ journey from the 
end of His expedition (Jerusalem, not Beth- 
any, as Wieseler will have it, see ver. 23, 
and on ix. 51 ff.). The occupation of these 
three days is rather, according to ver. 32, 
principally the casting out of demons and 
healings; but the journey must have been 
bound up therewith, so that Jesus intends 
on the third day to reach the limit to which 
in xvii. 11 He has already come. 

2 Schleiermacher is wrong in assuming 
(Schr. d. Luk. p. 195) that Jesus means to 
say that He must still abide two days in 
the place, and then for taco days more jour- 
ney quielly, etc. In ver. 83 they are indeed 


the same Gays as in ver. 8%. De Wette con- 
siders the saying as unimportant,—that it 
fs probably incorrectly reported; and 
Holtzmann finds the section so obscure 
that on that account Matthew omitted it. 
According to Baur, Jesus marks out the 
mopeveodar, the progress on Ilis journey 
never to be interrupted as His proper task, 
which would be in harmony with the Paul- 
ine character of the Gospel. With this con- 
flicts the statement giving the reason ére 
oun évddxeraix.t.A. Bleek conjectures that 
oyu. x, avp. cai was introduced from ver. 33 
by a transcriber's error at an early period. 

* Comp. Winer in Zimmerman’s Monats- 
schr. II. 3, p. 208. 


CHAP. XIII., 34, 35. 437 


er, de Wette, Bleek). The painful reminder and announcement appears 
on the part of Jesus natural enough after ver. 83, and in the face of the 
theocratic hypocrites, ver. 35 is a striking dismissal. — rv éavrij¢ vooodv] her 
own nest, namely, with the chickens therein, her own brood.’ As to the tes- 
timony of the passage before us to an already frequent ministry of Jesus in 
Jerusalem, sce on Matt. xxiii. 838 f., Remark. Comp. Weizsiicker, p. 310. 
But Schenkel, in opposition to all the evangelical notices, conjectures that 
during His supposed single sojourn in Judea (where He now is) He was 
oftener in Jerusalem. According to Keim (D. geschichil. Chr. p. 34), Luke: 
must at least have understood all the Jews as the children of Jerusalem, 
which, however, according to the context (vv. 33, 35), is not correct. In 
Luke the apostrophe refers to the remote inhabitants of the central seat of 
the theocracy. — Ver. 35. Continued apostrophe to the inhabitants of Jeru- 
salem. — Aéyw dé [see critical note] tpiv x.r.A.] cannot refer to the festal pro- 
cession that was close at hand (Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Stein ; Paulus, accord- 
ing to whom the meaning must be, ‘‘ before the festival caravans I shall 
not come !” *), which would yield the most nugatory and inappropriate 
thought in a pompous form, as the conclusion of a solemn denunciation of 
threatening. ft refers to the Parousia (see already Theophylact), and the 
train of thought is : ‘The divine protection departs from your city (agiera 
tuiv 6 oix. tu., see on Matt. xxiii. 88), and in this abandonment I shall not 
appear to you as a helper,—ye shall not see me until I come to the estab- 
lishment of my kingdom, and shall receive your (then no further to be with- 
held) homage as the Messiah.” The meaning is somewhat different from 
what it is in Matthew. Observe, namely—(1) that Luke has not the ardpre 
of Matthew (and, morcover, could not have it, since he has the saying before 
the festal entry) ; (2) that, therefore, in Luke the time of the ov uf pe idyre 
must be the duration of the previously declared abandonment ; (3) that 
instead of Aéyw ydp (Matt.) Luke places 2éyw dé, which dé is not to be taken 
as explanatory, in the sense of ydp (because it is not followed by azdpr: as in 
Matthew), but as tn continuation, autem, as an advance towards a new point 
in the announcement : ‘‘ Ye shall be abandoned, but how long? abandoned 
even till my Parousia.” [See Note CXI., p. 489.] Comp. the expression 
tnrhoert pe kK. ovy etppoere in John vii 34 : the restoration of Israel, so that by 
Ewc x.t.A. would be meant the conversion of the people (Hofmann, Schriftb. 
If. 2, p. 90 ff.), is neither here nor elsewhere taught in the New Testament. 
— fue 7fec (sec the critical remarks) dre elwyre] till it (the point of time) shall 
be, when ye shall have said. The subjunctive after dre without dy : ‘‘si res non 
ad cogitationem refertur et eventus tantummodo spectatur,” ‘‘ if the matter 
is not referred to reflection and simply regarded as a result,” Klotz, ad Devar. 
p- 688.% In this place to consider the subjunctive as occasioned by éwe (Butt- 
mann, Newt. Gr. p. 199 [E. T. 281 f.]) is arbitrary. 


‘Comp. Plat. Pol. vill. p. 54S A; Herod.- sees here nothing but the dismissal ‘* unté 
ill. 111, often in the LXX. the next Passover festival.” 

2 Comp. Wieseler, Synopee, p. 822, whom 8 See on this specially Homerio use, even 
this erroneous reference drives tocxplain Thierschin the Act. Monac. I. p. 18 ff.; Bern- 
the passage in Matthew asa spurious addi- _ hardy, p. 397 f., 400. 
tion. Seeon Matthew. Even Holtzmann 


438 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Norges sy American Eprror. 


CV. Ver. 1. év att re narp9. 


Meyer presses the above phrase when he interprets it ‘‘at the same moment.”’ 
Still it is quite probable that no great interval is implied. This would favor 
the view that places vv. 1-9 (together with chap. xii.) in the Galilaean minis- 
try. Others think that at this point the account of the ministry in Peraea 
begins. Aside from the opening clause we have no hint as to time or place. 


CVI. Ver. 9. xaprav etc 1d péAAov. 


The above reading, which is strongly attested (see critical note), is not no- 
ticed by Meyer. The reference to the “following year” is thus joined with the 
bearing fruit, not with the cutting down. The R. V., however, while accepting 
the correct reading, gives ‘‘henceforth’’ as the rendering of ei¢ rd péAdov. 
Weiss ed. Mey. objects even to interpreting the owner of the vineyard as mean- 
ing God and the vine-dresser as pointing to Christ. 


CVII. Vv. 18-21. Parables of Mustard Seed and Leaven. 


Even Weiss ed. Mey. says these parables must have occupied this place in 
Luke's main source. He, however, thinks the first Evangelist has transferred 
them to the position after Matt. xiii. 31-33, in accordance with Mark iv. 30 ff. 
But why should two Evangelists, and these the earlier (as Weiss holds), transfer 
them to the wrong position, and Luke alone, whom Weiss so often credits with 
‘working over,’’ retain the proper order? Meyer’s view is far more satisfac- 
tory. 

CVIIL. Ver. 22 ff. The Continuance of the Journey. 


It would appear that the entire passage from ver. 21 to chap. xvii. 10, after 
which there follows a new notice of journeying, is closely connected in time. 
The region was somewhere in Herod’s dominions (comp. ver. 31), but whether 
it was in Peraea or Galilee is uncertain. Those who connect this part of Luke 
with the final journey to Jerusalem necessarily place it in Peraea, but many 
agree with Meyer in thinking that the locality was in Galilee. Weiss ed. Mey. 
places the incident of ver. 31 ff. in Pernea. 


CIX. Vv. 24, 25. 


Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, R. V. marg., connect these verses together. 
This would make a new sentence begin with rére (ver. 26). But Meyer’s view of 
the construction of vv. 25, 26 is preferable. 


CX. Ver. 32. 79 pity TeAeovpat, 


Weiss ed. Mey. agrees in the main with Meyer, but thinks the three days should 
not be taken literally. He refers them to ‘‘a definitely fixed period, irrespec- 
tive of the counsels and threatenings of Herod.” He regards the literal view 
in both vv. 32, 33 as a misunderstanding of the proverbial character of ‘‘ three 


NOTES. 439 


days.’’ The Am. BR. V. properly renders the verb: ‘‘ I end my course." It is 
quite possible that our Lord three days after this discourse passed out of the 
territory of Herod ; but, as it is uncertain where the incident occurred (see Note 
CVIIL.), and as the literal interpretation is not a necessary one, no theory of the 
order of events in the Gospel history can be established from this passage. 


CXI. Ver. 35. Afyo dé x.1.A. 


The dé is to be retained (see critical note). Weiss ed. Mey. does not re- 
gard it as continuative, but as forming the antithesis to the notion that they 
could, in their forsaken condition, hope to see Him come asa helper. In op- 
position to Meyer's opinion that the restoration of Israel ‘‘is neither here nor 
elsewhere taught in the New Testament,” Weiss says: ‘‘ Here also, therefore, is 
the final delivering interposition of the Messiah (at His return) made to depend 
on the conversion of the people ; but whether this will ever occur is in no way 
decided thereby.’’ So Godet, who, however, emphasizes the certainty of this 
restoration, 


440 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Ven. 3. ei] is wanting in B D L &, min. Pers. Copt. Syr.Je'- Cant. Brix. Con- 
demned by Griesb. and Schulz, deleted by Tisch. It is from Matt. xii. 10. — 
Yeparevey] B D L &, min. have Yepareioa:, to which these authorities and vasa. 
add job. This Separevoa: f ob is, with Lachm. (who, however, brackets 7 od) 
and Tisch., to be adopted. The Recepta is from Matt. xii. 10. — Ver. 5. [Treg., 
W. and Hort, BR. V., omit aroxpdeic (K °* BL, Copt.); retained by Tisch. ( &* 4nd eb 
A, Vulg., etc.), since it is wanting in Matthew.] —Instead of évoc in Elz., 
vidg is to be read, on preponderating evidence. Recommended by Griesb., 
adopted by Matth. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. ; comp. also Rinck. (So recent edi- 
tors (R. V. marg.), with A B A, etc., Cyril.] The heterogeneous collocation vide 
77 Bove excited objection, so that viédc was displaced in some authorities by dvo¢ 
(following xiii. 15), in others by zpdgarov (D, Cant., following Matt. xii. 11).— 
[Ver. 6. Recent editors, R. V., with ® B D L, omit avr ; so Tisch.] — Ver. 10. 
Elz. has ardzecoyv, which on decisive evidence is to be rejected. The most im- 
portant mss, are divided between avdrece (Matth. Scholz, Rinck, Lachm. Tisch.) 
and avdzeca (Griesb. Schulz, Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 640). Although the attesta- 
tion of avédreoe (A B*¥ EH KSU VI 8, min.) is still stronger than that of avd- 
meoat, yet the latter is to be preferred. The less familiar form gave place to one 
that was better known. To regard avdmeca: asa clerical error (so Tisch. and 
Winer, p. 69 [E. T. 74]) is the more precarious, as the same clerical error must 
be assumed also at xvii. 7. [Recent editors agree with Tisch., and with him read 
épet (*% BL) and insert wdévruv (8 A B L) after évameq. — Ver. 15. Recent edi- 
tors, R. V. (with &*B L, 1, Copt., Syr.) substitute dorz¢ for o¢.] — Ver. 16. 
{Recent editors, R. V., with ® B, read éroie.]— péya] B** D A, min. Clem. 
have péyav. So Lachm. Rightly; uéya is an amendment [Tisch. VIII. and 
recent editors have uéya}.— [Ver. 17. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., omit wavra, 
with &* B L.] — Ver. 18. The order ravrec rapacr. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to 
be preferred on decisive evidence.— [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with XB D 
L, read éfeAdcév.] — Ver. 21. After dovAoc Elz. has éxetvoc, which is condemned 
by Griesb., and on decisive evidence struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An ex- 
egetical addition. — ywAois x. rvpActc] Lachm. and Tisch. have rupdoie x. xwAote. 
Rightly ;*the evidence in favor thereof preponderates ; the omission of xa? ywA. 
(A, min. Syr.Jer) occasioned the restoration in the order given at ver. 13. — Ver. 
27. rév cratp. éavrov is found in A B L** M A, min. Lachm. Tisch. The Recepia 
r. oT. avrov is from Matt. x. 38. — Ver. 28. Elz. has rd mpo¢ arapr., in opposition 
to decisive evidence. With Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. merely e¢ azapr. is to be 
read, in accordance with BD LR, min. 1é was added as a completion (A EG 
HKM SUTAAVR, min. Lachm. have ra cic), and e¢ was explained by zpdéc. 
Comp. ver. 32. — Ver. 31. The arrangement érépy Baad. oun. (Lachm. Tisch.) 
is decisively attested, as well as also travrijca:.— [Tisch. W. and Hort, Weiss, 
R. V., with & B, Latin versions, read fovdcicerac instead of the present /tevAct- 
evaz,] — Ver. 34. Instead of «aAdv read, with Tisch., following B L X &, min. 


CHAP. XIV., 1-6. 441 
vas., xadov ovv. Being apparently inappropriate, ovv dropped out the more 
easily after the syllable ON. — edv dé] BD LX 8, min. vss. Fathers have édyv dé xal. 
So rightly, Lachm. and Tisch. «ai was passed over in accordance with Matt. 
v. 13; Mark ix. 50. 


Vv. 1-6 peculiar to Luke from his source of the narrative of the journey. 
[See Note CXII., p. 447 seq. ]. —’Ev r@ éAbeiv x.7.4.] when He came, to wit, in 
the progress of the journey, xiii. 83. — rdv apydvruv 7. bapioaiuy] not : of the 
members of the Sanhedrim belonging to the Pharisees (Grotius, Kuinoel, and 
many others), such as Nicodemus therefore, John iii. 1 ; for the incident is 
in Galilee (not Jerusalem, as Grotius ; not Judea, as Schenkel will have it), 
and, literally, it means nothing more than : of the Pharisee leaders, i.e., of the 
chiefs of the Pharisees. It is not to be defined more precisely ; but men such 
as Hillel, Schammai, Gamaliel, and others belong to this category. — oaf- 
B47] the holiness of which (the preparation occurred previously) was not op- 
posed to it, nay, ‘‘lautiores erant isto die illis mensae . . . idque ipsis judi- 
cantibus ex pietatc et religione,” ‘‘ their tables were more sumptuous on this 
day. . . and this, according to their own decision, from motives of piety 
and religion,” Lightfoot.! — gayeiy dprov] comp. Matt. xv. 2. Jesus was in- 
vited, ver. 12. —xai avroi] This is the common use of xai after éyévero ; avrol, 
they on their part, the Pharisees. — raparypotu.] generally, whether He would 
give them occasion forcharge or complaint. Otherwise, vi. 7. — Ver. 2. And 
behold a dropsical man was there in His presence. This denotes the unexpected 
sight of the presence (not as a guest, see ver. 4) of the sick man, who #w 
lordpuevoc, Kai pi ToAuav pdv Cyrnoa: Oepareciay da Td 04,33aTov Kai Tovg aproaiouc 
garvdpevog dé pdvov, iva iddv olxtephoy rovrov ag’ Eavrov Kal aTadAd£y Tov vdpwroc, 
‘‘was standing, and not daring to seek healing on account of the Sabbath 
and the Pharisees ; but only appearing, in order that sceing He might have 
pity on this one of Himself and relieve him of the dropsy,” Euthymius Ziga- 
benus. The view of many (sce also Wetstein, Kuinoel, Gléckler, Lange), 
that the sick man was intentionally brought in by the Pharisees, is the 
more arbitrary, as ver. 2 is not linked on by ydp. Moreover, the cure oc- 
curred before the dinner, ver. 7. — Ver. 3. azoxpi0.] at this appearance of the 
sick man. — Ver. 4. im:Aafduevoc] a taking hold which brought about the 
miraculous cure, stronger than adyduevog.? Otherwise Mark viii. 23.*— Ver. 
5. Comp. on Matt. xii. 11. The construction is such that the nominative of 
tivoc tudv is the subject in the second half of the sentence.‘— In respect of 
the reading vide (see the critical remarks ; Mill, Bornemann, and Lachmann, 
Praef. Ul. p. vii., unjustifiably conjecture dic), which is not inappropriate 
(de Wette), the conclusion of Jesus is not drawn, as xiii. 15 f., a minori ad 
majus,® but from the ethical principle that the helpful compassion which we 


1 Comp. Neh. viil. 10; Tob. fl. 1; also John 
xil. 2; Wetstein in loc. ; Spencer, de leg. rit. 
p. 87 ff. 

* Paulus after his fashion makes use of 
the word for the naturalizing of the mira- 
cle: '* Probably Jesus took him aside, and 
looked after the operation of the means 


previously employed.” 

3 The acousative avréy is not dependent on 
éwiA. See Buttmann, Neul. Gr. p. 140 [E. 
T. 160). 

Comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 468; 
Stallbaum, ad Fiat. Phaed. p. 72 B. 

’ This reading, moreover, sets aside tho 





442 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


show in reference to that which is our own (be it son or beast) on the Sab- 
bath, we are also bound to show ¢o others (love thy neighoor as thysel/’). 

Vv. 7-11. On the special propriety of this table conversation,' comp. on 
xi, 88 f. Here, again, the circumstance especially which had just occurred 
with the dropsical man had prepared a point of view widely different from 
that of customary politeness. — rapaBoafv] ‘‘sumtam a moribus externis, 
spectantem interna,” ‘‘ taken from external customs, having in view inter- 
nal,” Bengel. The moral significance of this figurative apophthegm COD) 
may be seen at ver. 11. — éréyzuv] attendens, ‘‘taking heed of,” comp. on 
Acts iii. 5, and see Valckenaer. —pwroxdic.] See on Matt. xxiii. 6 ; Light- 
foot, p. 836. — Ver. 8. eic yéuovc] not generally : to an entertainment, but : 
to a wedding, in respect of which, however, a special purpose is not to be 
assumed (Bengel thinks that ‘‘ civilitatis causa,” ‘‘ for the sake of courtesy,” 
Jesus did not name a feast in general); but the typical representation of the 
future establishment of the kingdom as as wedding celebration obviously 
suggested the expression (Matt. xxii.).— Ver. 9. 6 o2 «. avrdv xadécac] not : 
who invited thyself also (Bornemann), which would lay upon of an unfounded 
emphasis, so much as: qui fe e illum vocavit (Vulgate), the impartial 
host who must be just to both. — epei oor] future, not dependent on péaore 
(comp. on Matt. v. 25), but an independent clause begins with xa? é2@é». — 
nad réte dpéy] the shame of the initial movement of taking possession of the 
last place'in which he now must acquiesce,’ after his previously assumed 
mputoxioia is here made prominent. — Ver. 10. avéreca:] 1 aor. imperative 
middle, which tense occurs also in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 4 (dcexwéoac8a) ; 
Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 641, takes it as future, formed after the analogy of 
géyeca: and ieca (xvii. 8). But these forms come from the future forms 
¢éyouac and rioua:, and hence are not analogous to the one befure us. [But 
see critical note.]—iva] corresponds to the p#rore, ver. 8, and denotes the 
purpose of the avdreca cic r. icy. rérov. The result is then specified by rére 
éorat. — mpooavdfnf| The host occupies the position where the higher place 
is (rpéc = hither). Comp. moreover, Prov. xxv. 7. — Ver. 11. Comp Matt. 
xxiii. 12. A general law of retribution, but with an intentional application 
to the Messianic retribution. Comp. Hrubin, f. xiii. 2: ‘‘ Qui semet ipsum 
deprimit, cum S. B. exaltat ; et qui se ipsum exaltat, cum 8. B. deprimit,” 
‘‘ He who depresses himself, him does the Ever-Blessed exalt ; and who ex- 
alts himself, him does the Ever-Blessed depress.” 

Vv. 12-14. Doubtless the collocation of the company at table suggested 
these words, which likewise are meant not probably as an actual table ar- 
rangement, but parabolically, as a foil to the customary teaching, that in- 
stead of arranging the manifestations of human friendliness with a view to 
receiving s return, we should make such manifestations just to those who 
cannot repay them again ; then shall we receive requital in the kingdom of 


opinion of Schlelermacher, p. 196, that in 3 For the intervening places are already 
respect of the quotation of this expression rightly arranged, and not to be changed. 
there is no reference back to xiii. 10. **Qui semel cedere jubetur, longe remove- 


1In opposition to Gfrérer, Heil. Sage, I. tur,"’ “‘ He who is once ordered to give place, 
p. 265, de Wette, Schenkel, Eichthal. is far removed,” Bengel. 


CHAP. XIV., 15. 443 


the Messiah. At the root of this lies the idea that the temporal requital 
striven after excludes the Messianic compensation, the idea of the aréyecv rv 
pucOév (Matt. vi. 2, v. 16). There is no allusion in this place to the calling 
of the heathen (Schenkel). — u4] not : non tam, ‘not so much,” or non tan- 
tum, ‘‘not only” (Kuinoel, and many others), which here would be even 
logically wrong on account of p#rore x. avroi ce avr. Jesus gives, indeed, 
only a figurative discourse. — ¢dve:] purposely chosen ; the manifest, obvious 
element of the xadciv (ver. 13) is denoted. — rAovciovcs] belongs only to yeiro- 
vag (in opposition to Grotius). — pfrore x.r.4.] ‘‘ Hic metus mundo ignotus 
est, ut metus divitiarum,” ‘‘ This fear is unknown to the world, like the fear 
of riches,” Bengel. — dvrixatécwor] Comp. Xen. Symp. i. 15.'—In respect 
of xa? avrot the general idea of the invitation has presented itself. — Ver. 13. 
avarfpouc| maimed.*— Ver. 14. avrarodobfoera:]* placed first for emphasis. 
—év TH Gvacrdoe tov dtxaiwy] This is the avderacic Suge, see on John v. 28. 
The Jewish doctrine of a double resurrection is confirmed not only by Paul 
(1 Cor. xv. 22 f.; 1 Thess, iv. 16; comp. Acts xxiv, 15), but also in this 
place by Christ (comp. also Matt. xxiv. 31). Comp. xx. 84-86. Otherwise 
tav dixaiuy would be a superfluous and unmeaning addition.‘ Moreover, it 
could not be taken by the Pharisaic hearers in any other sense than in the 
particularistic one, but not in such a manner as that Jesus, because He had 
the d:xaiovg directly in view, only mentioned the resurrection of these, with- 
out thereby excluding that of the remaining people as contemporary (in op- 
position to Kaeufer, De (wie aiwv. not. p. 52). The doctrine of the millen- 
nial kingdom between the first and second resurrection adopted in the 
Apocalypse (Bertholdt, Christol. § 88) is not, however, confirmed, nor aro 
the Rabbinical traditions, partly varying very much among themselves on 
the several stages of the resurrection (Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. II. 
p- 901 ff.); further, the assumption is not confirmed, according to which 
tho Israelites in themselves were understood as the dcaiove who should first 
arise (Bertholdt, § 35 ; Eisenmenger, II. p. 902), or at least the righteous 
among the Israclites (Eisenmenger, J.c.). Jesus means the righteous in the 
moral sense, as the context shows (sce vv. 13 f., 16 ff.), without limitation 
of race. The specific definition of the idea of those first to be awakened as 
ol rov Xprorad (1 Cor. xv. 23 ; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16) lay of necessity in the 
‘development of the Christian consciousness of the dixacoctvy only to be at- 
tained in Christ. 

Ver. 15. To the idea of the avéoracig rév dixaivy is very naturally linked 
in the case of this fellow-guest the thought of the future eating (¢éyeray, 
Suture) with the patriarchs of the nation *® in the (millennial) Messianic 
kingdom about to be set up. This transporting prospect, in which his mis- 
taken security is manifested, compels his exclamation. 


1 obra’ why ws ayrixAnOncdpevos, caret pd ree, It would be so also if it did noé presup- 
dwelt wdvres icaccy, Ore apxhy ovde vomiferac cis pose any avagracis rey a8lxuv al all. This is 
Thy éuhv oixiay Sairvoy eiaddpecGat, against Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, I. 

* Plat. Cri. p. 58 A: xwAoi nai rugdci xal = pp. 14 f., who finds in the Synoptic Gospels 
GAAot avdwypos. only a resurrection of the pious. 

* Thuoyd. fil. 40; Plat. PhAzedr. p. 26 C; 5 Matt. vill. 11; Luke xifl. 28 f.; Bertholdt, 


Rom. xi. 85; 1 Thess, ili. 9. Christol. § 389. 


444 THE GOSPEL OF LUKR. 


Vv. 16, 17. [See Note CXIII., p. 448.] Jesus answers with a parable which 
comes from the source of the account of the journey (not identical, but sim- 
ilar is Matt. xxii. 1 ff., see iz loc.), in which He keeps to the idea of a ban- 
quet, and thereby depicts the Messianic blessedness, but without reserve cuts 
off the prospect of that guest in reference to it and its like by teaching fig- 
uratively that they, the representatives of the theocracy, would deprive 
themselves of the Messianic salvation (ver. 24), because for the sake of their 
earthly objects of ambition they despised the repeated invitation to the 
Messianic kingdom (vv. 17-20). On the other hand, the poor and the un- 
fortunate of the people (ver. 21), and even the heathen (ver. 23), are called, 
and being obedient to the cull are adopted into the kingdom. ‘“ Pro- 
greditur vocatio ad remotiores, vi semper majore pensans moram,” ‘‘ The 
call proceeds to the more remote, considering the delay with ever greater 
force,” Bengel. — yuéyav (sce the critical remarks): the masculine form deimvo¢ 
is rare and late.’—éxddece] refers in the interpretation to the call by the 
prophets, — Ver. 17. rév dovAov avrov] xar’ éEoxfv. Grotius well says vocato- 
rem, to be interpreted of the Messiah at whose advent 7yyiace 7) Sacideia Tov 
ovpavev, Matt. iv. 17. — On the custom even now in use in the East of a rep- 
etition of the invitation when all is preparcd, see Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. 
p. 192 f. 

Vv. 18-20. "Mpfavro] brings into prominence the beginning as a striking 
contrast to what has gone before. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 541. — 
azd yuac] ‘‘ Utut enim diversas causas adferant, in eo tamen conveniunt, 
quod sua practexant negotia,” ‘‘ For whatever different reasons they produce, 
in this they yet unite, that they assign their own affairs as a pretext,” Calo- 
vius. On the adverbial use of ad pac, comp. amd ri ione (Thue. 1. 15. 3), 
aw’ eifeiag (Plut. Symp. i. 4. 8), 2& apf (Polyb. xv. 27), dia wéone (Thucyd. 
i. 14. 3), and many others. It may be explained on the principle-that the 
prepositions which originally express concrete local relations, come in timg 
to denote the more abstract relations of mode ; see especially, Lobeck, Par- 
alip. p. 363. — mapacreicGac] to deprecate; praying to excuse, 2 Macc. ii. 31 ; 
Acts xxv. 11, and elsewhere. * — xai éyw avdyxyv x.7.2.] not as though he had 
bought the estate without seeing it (Wetstein, de Wette, and others), which 
ig unnatural, even if a recommendation of it on the part of others, and the 
like, is supposed ; but because even after a completed purchase there is the : 
natural necessity to make a proper inspection of one’s new possession in or- 
der to become acquainted with it, to make further arrangements, and the 
like. The excuses are therefore not in themselves absurd, which, according 
to Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 876, must be the intention in order to represent the 
vehement confuscdness. —?ye pe xapyr.] hace me as one who is begged off ; 
not a Latinism (Kuinoel, Bleck, and many older commentators), nor to be 
interpreted : regard me as one, etc. (Kypke), but éyew za, with an 
added accusative of a substantive, participle, or adjective, expresses the 
relation of possession according to a special quality.* Hence : Place thyself 


1 Aesop. Fragm. 129. See Bast, Zp. Cr. leon, p. 496. 
App. p. 22, 61. 3 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. ili. 1. 85: o dappourra 
2See Wetstein and Held, ad Plut. Timo- pe tfacs ; Ages. vi. b: rovs ye why wodepious ele 


CHAP. XIV., 21-24. 445 


in such wise to me that I am an excused person ; let me be to thee an excused per- 
son, t.e., according to the meaning : accept my apology. — Ver. 19. zopet- 
ovat] Already in idea he is just going forth. — Ver. 20. ‘‘ Hic excusator, quo 
speciosiorem et honestiorem videtur habere causam, eo est ceteris importu- 
nior,” ‘‘ This one in excusing himself, since he seems to have a more plausi- 
ble and honest reason, is all the more uncivil than the others,” Bengel. On 
the excuse itself, comp. Deut. xxiv. 5.’ 1 Cor. vii. 33 is to the point. 

Vv. 21-24. Ei¢ rag xAareiac x. Abuac] into the (broad) streets and (narrow) 
lanes. Comp. Isa. xv. 3. On piyy = orevwrdc, see Phrynichus, p. 404, and 
thereon Lobeck. — Ver. 22. Here the narrative is supposed to be silent, leav- 
ing it to be understood that the servant went away again, and after fulfil- 
ment of the commission returned. But with what reason is this supposed in 
the narrative, otherwise so circumstantial ? No ; the servant, when repulsed 
by those who had been invited, did of his own accord what the master here 
directs him, so that he can say at once to this behest : zt 28 done, etc. [See 
Note CXIV., p. 448.] This point in the interpretation is, moreover, strik- 
ingly appropriate to Jesus, who, by the preaching of the gospel to the poor 
and miscrable among the people, had already before His return to God ful- 
filled this divine counsel, in regard to which He did not need further 
instruction. — Ver. 23. This commission to the servant is fulfilled by Him 
through the apostles, comp. Eph. ii. 17. — ¢paypotc}] not : places fenced in, 
which the word does not mean, but : go forth into the ways (highways and 
other roads outside the town) and hedges (beside which wanderers, beggars, 
houseless folk have camped). In the interpretation : al xarocias tov tvar, 
‘‘the settlements of the Gentiles,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — avdéyxacov] as 
Matt. xiv. 22. The time presses! A strikingly picturesque touch, which, 
moreover, found its corresponding history in the urgent holy zcal of the 
apostles (especially of Paul) for winning the heathen to the faith ; but its 
pernicious abuse, in the case of Augustine and many others, in their approv- 
al of the coercion of heretics (see, on the other hand, Grotius and Calovius). 
Maldonatus well says : ‘‘adeo rogandos, adeo incitandos, ut quodammodo 
compelli videantur,” ‘‘ not so much to be asked, nor incited, as in a measure 
they scem to be compelled.” — yeurof#] ‘‘ Nec natura nec gratia patitur vac- 
uum. Multitudo beatorum : extremis mundi temporibus maximam plenitu- 
dinis suae partem nanciscens,”’ ‘‘ Neither nature nor grace permits a vacuum. 
The multitude of the blessed : receiving the greatest part of its fulness from 
the remotest periods of the world,” Bengel. —Ver. 24. Not anasscrtion of Jesus 
(Kuinoel, Paulus, and others), but of the master of the house, which is 
certain from pov rov deixvov (none shall taste of my supper), since Jcsus in the 
parable appears as the servant. — yép] for the empty place is not to be occu- 
pied by you. — wiv] spoken to the servant, and to those who were supposed 
to be elsewhere than there present. Euthymius Zigabenus, moreover, says 
aptly : dia roirov obv roy Adyov 4 bAn mapaBoAn avveréOn, ‘*On account of this 
saying, therefore, the whole parable was composed.” Comp. ver. 15, to the 
Pdyewr pev ov dyvandvove, x.7.A.; 2 Maco. xv. sus declines for his son the Mysian pro- 


86; 8 Macc. ix. 21. See also on Matt. xiv.5. posal fora hunting expedition: vedyapucs re 
4 Hom. Ji. ii. 281; Herod. 1. 8, where Croe- = ydp dors xai tava of wiy pddar, 


446 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

substance of which this conclusion reverts. [Sec Note CXV., p. 448.] Those 
who are ercluded are thus those Jews who have despised the call of Christ, 
but who, as the representatives and chiefs of God's people, were first of all 
by the gospel invited and laid under obligation to follow the invitation to 
the kingdom (xexAnuévor and rapacrofyevor, ver. 17 ff.) ; not the Jews in gener- 
al, as Baur supposes, in accordance with his assumption of a Gentile-Chris- 
tian tendency. 

Vv. 25, 26. After the meal was over, Jesus goes forward on His journey 
towards Jerusalem, and draws with Him much people, as they thronged 
everywhere in Galilee upon the marvellous teacher (xii. 1, ix. 11, and else- 
where). But the nearer He is to His own painful self-surrender, the more 
decidedly and ideally His claims emerge. To the dependent and undecided 
people going with Him He addresses Himself with the claim of the perfect, 
most self-denying surrender required of His disciples. Comp. Matt. x. 37, 
where the same claim, although less ideal in form, is made, and is addressed 
exclusively to the apostles. With the Christian communions (Weizsicker) 
these instructions have even in Luke nothing to do. — el tig épxerae rpde pe] 
namely, with a view to hearken to me as a confessor and follower. — zoei] 
not minus amat, ‘‘loves less,” or the like (Kuinoel, de Wette, and many 
others); see, on the other hand, on Matt. vi. 24. Father, mother, etc., as 
even also the special desire for the preservation of one’s own life (comp. 
Matt. x. 89), are assumed as being in opposition to fellowship with Christ 
(comp. xii. 58), so that, according to Matt. vi. 24, comp. Luke xvi. 3, in re- 
spect of the love of the one Lord the hatred of others must find place.’ — ér: 
6& xat] besides, also, moreover ; the extreme case of all is yet added. ‘‘Saepe 
qui inferiorem sancti odii gradum visus erat assequi, in altiore deficit,” ‘‘ Oft- 
en he who had appeared to show an inferior degrce of sacred hatred is lack- 
ing in this higher,” Bengel. — paOnrijc eivac] ver. 27, eivac pabythe. The empha- 
sis in both cases rests on yafyrfc, but in ver. 27 more strongly. 

Ver. 27. Comp. Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24 ; Mark viii. 34, x. 21 ; Luke ix. 23. 
He who does not as the bearer of his own cross follow me, etc. 

Vv. 28-88. Peculiar to Luke from the source that he has followed since 
ix. 51. — yép] Reason for the ov divarac... pafyrgs. Since he, namely, is 
as little able to fulfil this great and heavy task ® as any one is able to build a 
tower if he has not the necessary means, etc.: thus the latter serves for cor- 
roboration of the former. Comp. ver. 38. —@éAur] if he will. The article 
(zoho will) is unnecessary, and too weakly attested (in opposition to Borne- 
mann). —kaGicac yndifer] ‘ut intelligas diligentem atque exactam supputa- 
tionem,” ‘‘that thou mayest have a diligent and exact computation,” 
Erasmus. — ei éyec] 8c. tiv dardvnv. —arapriouss, completion, only to be 
found in Dion. Hal. De compos. verb. 24.>— Ver. 380. ovrocg] with scornful 


1 Comp. Hofmann, Skriftéew. II. 2, p. 827 f. 

4 More precise interpretations of the fig- 
ures are not justified. Especially the second 
ought not to have been expounded, as it has 
often been, of the struggle against the devil 
(Augustine: ‘‘ simplicitatem Christiani dim- 
icaturi cum duplicitate diaboli,” “the sim- 


plieity of the Christian is to contend with 
the duplicity of the devil’*’), to which, in- 
deed, the peacemaking of ver. 82 would be 
wholly inappropriate. 

2 On the use of awaprigev in Greek, see 
Lobeck, ad Paryn. p. 447. 


NOTES. 447 


emphasis : this man, forsooth !— Ver. 81. cvyBadciv] intransitive: to en- 
counter, confligere, 1 Macc. iv. 84 ; 2 Macc. viii. 23, xiv. 17. See Wetstein 
and Kypke. — eic wéAeuzov] belongs to ovuBadreiv: for a battle. Thus fre- 
quently ovpBaArrecy rive ig udxav (See Kypke) ; cic in the sense‘of the purpose." 
— Bovaebera:] deliberates with his generals and counsellors. Comp. Acts v. 
83, xv. 87. —év déxa yA.] év, in the midst of, surrounded by, amongst. Comp. 
Jude 14. — Ver. 82. ei dé pfye] sc. dvvaric ein. See on Matt. vi. 1, and Din- 
dorf, ad Dem. Praef. p. v. f£. — 1d mpd¢ eipfyi] quae ad pacem componendam 
spectant, ‘‘ which have reference to concluding a peace,” arrangements for peace.* 
— Ver. 83. The application, and consequently the doctrine, of both exam- 
ples as a commentary of the yép of ver. 28.— mao: roic éavrot tmépy.] the 
general statement to which the special instances, ver. 26, belong. éavrod has 
the emphasis of the self-denial. Comp. ver. 27. 

Vv. 34, 35. Comp. on Matt. v. 13; Mark ix. 50. Jesus uttered the say- 
ing about salt more than once, and with differences in the details. Here 
He commits to His hearers by 6 éywv dra axoterv, axovérw, the charge of them- 
selves giving the interpretation according to what has gone before. But 
this interpretation depends on the fact that ré Gaa¢ must represent the pre- 
ceding ov eivas pabyrhc. [See Note CXVI., p. 448.] Comp. Matt. 7.c. Hence: 
It is therefore (obv, see the critical remarks) something glorious—to wit, in re- 
spect of this all-renouncing decision which is appropriate to it—to be my 
disciple, and as such to effect the maintenance of the power of spiritual life 
among men, as salt is the means of maintaining the freshness of life in the 
region of nature. Butif ever my disciple (through turning back to selfish 
interests) loses this his peculiarity, this spiritual salting power, by what means 
can he again attain it? Sucha paénrhe is then absolutely useless, and he is 
excluded (at the judgment) from the Messiah's kingdom. — éav 62 nai] (see the 
critical remarks) : if, however, even the salt, etc., which is no longer to be 
expected from this substance according to its nature. — obre cig yqv «.7.A.] 4€ 
is fitted neither for land nor for manure (to improve neither the former nor 
the latter). In respect of the salt that has become insipid, no other use 
would be conceivable than to be employed as manure, but neither imme- 
diately nor mediately is it of use for that ; it is perfectly useless/ Guard 
against such interpretations as that of Euthymius Zigabenus : yj pév Aéyer 
tovg wabytéc . . . xomplay dé toi¢ didacxdAovc! ‘‘ He calls the disciples land... 
but the teachers dunghill |” — 2s] with strong emphasis placed first—out 
it is cast ! 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprron. 


CXII. Chap. XIV. 


Meyer places the incidents of this chapter also in Galilee, but Weiss ed. Mey. 
omits all reference tothis. The latter thinks that the first Evangelist found the 


1 Comp. spds mdxyy, Polyb. x. 87.4, also = rd. wpds rdw wéAcuov, Xen. Anad. iv. 3.10. On 
Xen. Cyrop. vil. 1. 20: eis povopaxiay wpéde the whole sentence, comp. Xen. Mem. Ill. 
twa; Strabo. xiv. p. 676. 6. 8, 

2 Comp. Jest. XZ]. Patr. p. 809. Contrast: 


448 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


incident of the man with the dropsy in the ‘‘main source,” but in Matt. xii. 
9-13 mixed some features of it with the Sabbath cure narrated in Mark iii. 1-5. 
This seems an arbitrary judgment. The following remark on ver. 1 will serve 
to indicate anew tbe view Weiss takes of Luke’s literary method : ‘‘As in chap. 
xi. 37 Luke lets the following find its scene at the entertainment of a Pharisee, 
in order to gain a situation which gives a motive for the parable in ver. 16 ff. ; 
but beside the Sabbath cure he interpolates two other utterances of Jesus that 
seemed to him here to find a fitting situation.’’ This, however, is the method 
of a writer of romances, not of a historian who claims to have made accurate 
research. 


CXIII. Vv. 16-24. The Parable of the Great Supper. 


Weiss ed. Mey. says this parable, ‘‘ which Luke indeed found in his source 
after chap. xiii. 31-33, and which seemed to him in his choice of material to 
have its best motive as spoken at an entertainment, is not only similar to Matt. 
xxii. 1-14 (Meyer), but identical with it (Comp. Weiss, Matt. in loco, who seeks 
from the two modifications to ascertain the original form).” See onthe other 
side Godet, Luke, IT. pp. 137, 138. 


CXIV. Ver. 22. yéyovey «.7.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. objects to Meyer's view that the servant had already of his 
ownaccord invited others, holding that the fulfilment of the commission is as- 
sumed as self-evident, just as in vv. 17, 24. 


CXV. Ver. 24. Aéyw yap tyiv «.7.A. 


While these are the words of the giver of the feast in the parable, there must 
be a reference in the expression to those present with Jesus, especially in view 
of ver. 15, which occasioned the parable. 


CXVI. Vv. 34, 35. Kady ovy rd adac. 


Weiss ed. Mey. thinks the saying about salt was not repeated, but is original 
here, and refers not to the disciples, but to discipleship. He thus keeps closer 
to the figure but reaches no different result. He also objects to Meyer's favor- 
ite reference to ‘‘the Messiah’s kingdom” in ver. 35, which is of course excluded 
by the application of the figure of salt not to disciples, but to being a dis- 
ciple. Godet agrees with Meyer, except in the Jast point, but introduces a 
somewhat fanciful explanation of the first clause of ver. 35. 


CHAP. XV. 449 


CHAPTER XV. 


Ven. 2. of tapic.] With Lachm. and Tisch. read of r. apic., in accordance 
with BDL &. The ce is certainly not an addition of the transcribers. — Ver, 
9. Instead of ovyxadcirac Tisch. has ovyxadeci, on important yet not preponder- 
ating evidence. (Tisch, VIII., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ® B L A, etc., 
have the active, usually in the form ovrxadei.] It is from ver. 6, where ovyxadei 
is decisively attested. — Ver. 14. icyupéc] AB DL B®, min. have ioxupd. Rec- 
ommended by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Those mss. prepon- 
derate, and the masculine is an amendment, in accordance with customary 
usage, and according to iv. 25. Comp. on Acts xi. 28.— Ver. 16. yemioae rijv 
Kotdiav avtov aré}] B DL RB X&, min. vas. have yopracdyva éx. [So recent editors, 
R. V., but Am. Com. add the other in the margin.}] An interpretation. — Ver. 
17, xepiocetoverv] AB Pand a few min. Tit. have repiocebovrac. Rightly ; the 
active was introduced, in accordance with the wonted usage. [So recent editors, 
RK. V., against Tisch.]— The ade added by Griesb. is not found, indeed, in im- 
portant authorities, and it stands in B L &, Lachm. after Aue, but it has plainly 
been absorbed by éyo dé ; hence also the placing of it before Aue, in accordance 
with D RU, min. vas. Chrys., is, with Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., to be preferred. 
(Tisch. VIII, W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., have Ajuq dde.] — Ver. 19. Before 
omeére Elz. has xai, but in opposition to decisive evidence. Moreover, at ver. 21 
this xai is to be deleted, on preponderating evidence. [W. and Hort add in 
brackets (ver. 21) toinodv pe o¢ éva tT. pe. cov, with & B D, Latt., so R. V. marg.]} 
— Ver. 22. Lachm. and Tisch. have rayt before écevéyxare, in accordance with 
BL X &, vss., also Vulg. It. Jer. D also adds weight to the evidence with 
tayluc. Taz is to be regarded as genuine. [So W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., but 
not Tisch. VIII.] Copyists would have added a more familiar word as evdéwc, or 
at least as, with D, rayfuc (xiv. 21). razyi does not occur at all elsewhere in 
Luke ; still the omission is not to be explained by this fact, but simply as an 
old clerical error. — rv oroAfy] +7 has decisive mss. against it, and is, accord- 
ing to Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as an addition. — Ver. 23. évéyKavrec | 
BLRERX ¥, Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. have ¢épevre. So Tisch. The participle is an 
attempt to improve the style. D also testifies in favor of the imperative by 
evéyxate (ver. 22). — Ver. 24. xai azro2.] xai is rightly condemned by Griesb., on 
decisive evidence, and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The second #, however, 
has against it, in D Q, min., evidencw too feeble for it to be deleted. Yet, ac- 
cording to A B L &*, it must be placed before aod, (Lachm. Tisch.). The posi- 
tion after arod, is a harmonizing of it with vexp. fv. — [Ver. 26. Treg., W. and 
Hort, R. V., add dv after r/, with B and a few others. — Ver, 28. Tisch., recent edi- 
tors, R. V., substitute dé for ov, with & A BD L, etc. — Ver. 29. With A BD, 
Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., add avrov after zarpi against Tisch. — Ver. 30, Treg., 
R. V., with A D L, Copt., insert rév before zopvév.] — Ver. 32. Instead of avé- 
Cnoev, read with Tisch., following B LRA X&, min., é70ev. The former is from 
ver, 24. In the same manner is to be expluined the omission of xal before 


29 


450 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


arod. in Tisch. (following D X &). [Recent editors, R. V., retain xai.] But wis 
here to be deleted, on decisive mss. (Lachm. Tisch. ; condemned also by 
Griesb. ). 


Vv. 1, 2. Introduction to a new, important, and for the most part para- 
bolic set of discourses (down to xvii. 10), which were uttered after the inci- 
dents previously narrated on the continuance of the journey (xiv. 25), and are 
set forth by Luke in accordance with his source of the story of the journey. 
[See Note CXVII., p. 456.] After that exacting discourse, to wit, xiv. 25-35, 
many of the publicans and sinners at once attached themselves to Jesus 
(which psychologically was intelligible enough) ; and He was so far from 
rejecting them, that He even fraternized with them at table. This arouses 
the murmuring of the Pharisees, and thereupon He takes the opportunity of 
directing the discourse as far as xv. 82 to these (ver. 3), and then of addreas- 
ing xvi. 1-13 to His followers ; whereupon He again being specially induced 
(xvi. 14) discourses anew against the Pharisees (xvi. 15-31), and finally 
closes the sccne with instructions to His disciples. —joav éyy:2.] They were 
actually engaged in, busied with, drawing near to Him. The usual view : 
solebant accedere, ‘‘were wont to draw near,” is arbitrary, because in that 
way the connection with what precedes is needlessly abandoned. — rdvrec] a 
hyperbole of simple narrative. The throng of such people became greater 
and greater. Comp. v. 29 f. —xal of duapr.] as Matt. ix. 10. — dteydyy2For] 
6:4 ‘‘ certandi significationem addit,” ‘‘ adds the signification of contending,” 
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856. Hence always of several, whose alternate mur- 
muring is meant.! —poodéyerac] receives them, Goes not reject them. It is 
quite general, and only with «. ovveoGie: avroi¢ does any special meaning come 
in. 

Vv. 4-7. Comp. on Matt. xviii. 12-14. But in Luke there is still the prim- 
itive freshness in the pictorial representation, nevertheless the reference and 
the application are different. —ézi] after, with the purpose of fetching it. 
See Bernhardy, p. 252. — Ver. 5. émt r. duovg éavrov] on his own shoulders ; 
éavrov strengthens the description of the joyous solicitude which relieves the 
beloved creature from further running alone. — gidove] kinsmen, as at vii. 6. 
— Ver. 9. fora:] The future refers to every circumstance of the kind that 
occurs. — # ér) x.7.4.] As to 7 without a preceding comparative, see on Matt. 
xviii. 8, and Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 309 [E. T. 360]. By the ninety and 
nine righteous Jesus means the legally righteous, whom He charactcrizes by 
otrives (quippe gui, ‘‘of such a kind as”), ov ypeiav éy. werav. from the legal 
standpoint, not from that of the inner character. They need not repentance, 
so far as they have not swerved from the standard prescribed by the law, 
while in a purely moral relation their condition may be altogether different, 
and as a rule was altogether different (as in the case of the Pharisees). 
IIence, moreover, is explained the greater joy over a single sinner that re- 
pents. The eldest son in the parable of the prodigal son is distinctively and 
tiptly described as such a righteous man, so that, in accofdance with the con- 


} xix. 7; Ecclus. xxxiv. 2%; Ex. xvi. 2, 8, xvil. 3, and elsewhere ; Hellodor. vil. 27. 





CHAP. xVv., 8-11. 451 


text, an actually virtuous man [s0 Weiss ed. Mey.] (as usually) cannot be 
conceived of, for in that case the greater joy would have to be regarded as 
only an anthropopathic detail (‘‘ quia insperata aut prope desperata magis nds 
afficiunt,” ‘‘ because what is unhoped for or nearly hopeless affccts us the 
more,” Grotius). 

Vv. 8-10. The same tcaching by mcans of a similar parable, which, how- 
ever, is not found also in Matthew, yet without express repetition of the 
comparative joy. — ovyxadeira:] convocat sibi, *‘ calls to herself,” describing the 
action more precisely than ovyxadei, ver. 6. [But see critical note.]?— tvér. 
tT. ayyéAuy rt. Geov] & special expression of what is meant by év r@ ovparg, 
ver. 7. The joy of God is rendered perceptible, as He, surrounded by the 
angels, allows it to be recognized in the presence of them. Comp. xii. 8. 

Ver. 11. Jesus Himself has very definitely declared the doctrinal contents 
of the two foregoing parables, vv. 7, 10. In order now by more special 
detail and by all the liveliness of contrast to make palpable this doctrine, 
and especially the growth and course of sin, the growth and course of repent- 
ance, the joy of God thereupon, and the demeanor of the legally righteous 
towards this joy, He adds a third parable, as distinguished and complete in 
its psychological delicacy and its picturesque truth in depicting human cir- 
cumstances and affections as in its clear and profound insight into the divine 
disposition,—the pearl among the doctrinal utterances of Jesus, which aro 
preserved to us by Luke alone, and among all parables the most beautiful 
and most comprehensive. [See Note CXVIII., p. 456 seq.] The parable has 
nothing to do with Matt. xxi. 28-30 (in opposition to Holtzmann, p. 155), 
nor is it a new form of the parable of the lost sheep (Eicthhal). By the young- 
est son Jesus denotes generally the sinner who repents, by the eldest son gen- 
erally the legally righteous ; not specially by the former the pubdlicans, and by 
the latter the Pharisees (so also Wittichen, Jdee Gottes als d. Vaters, p. 35 ff.) ; 
the application, however, of the characteristic features in question to both of 
these could not be mistaken any more than the application of the doctrine 
declared in ver. 7. The interpretation of the two sons—of the eldest by the 
Jews, of the youngest by the Gentiles, in accordance with the relation of both 
to Christianity *— confuses the applicability of the parable with its occasion 
and purpose, and was in the highest degree welcome to the vicw which at- 
tributed to the gospel a tendential reference to later concrete conditions ; 
but, in accordance with the occasion of the whole discourse as stated at vv. 
1, 2, and in accordance with the doctrine of the same declared at vv. 7, 10, 
it is wholly mistaken, comp. Késtlin, p. 225 ff. It did not at all enter into 
the purpose of the compilation to refer to such a secondary interpretation (in 
opposition to Weizsiicker), Moreover, the more this parable is a triumph of 
the purely cthical aspect of the teaching of Jesus, and the morc important 


' Comp. ix. 1, xxill. 18; Acts x. 94, xxvill. Baur, d. zanon. Hwang. p. 510 f.; comp. 
1. Schwegler, Nachapoet. Zeitalter, Il. p. 47 f.; 
2 Already Augustine, Quaest. Hv. 11. 88; Ritschl, Hvang. Marcions, p. 82 f.; Volkmar, 
Bede, and others; recently carried out in Zvang. Marcions, p. 66 f., 248; Hilgenfeld, 
great deta!l, especially byZellerinthe Theo’. Krang. p. 198: Schenkel, p. 195. 
Jahrd. 1848, p. 81 f.; Baur, ibid. 1845, p. 522 f.; 


452 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


it is on the side of practical Christianity, so much the more have we to guard 

ainst attaching undue significance to special points which constitute the 
drapery of the parable, and to details which are merely artistic (Fathers, and 
especially Catholic expositors down to the time of Schegg and Bisping, par- 
tially also Olshausen). Thus, for example, Augustine understood by the 
squandered means, the image of God; by the Arudg, the indigentia verbi veri- 
tatis ; by the citizen of the far country, the devil ; by the swine, the demons ; 
by the husks, the doctrinas saeculares, etc.’ 

Vv. 12, 18. ‘0 vedrepoc] vedrepov dé dvoudle Trav duaprwddy d¢ variddpova Kal 
evetardryrov, ‘‘ He names the sinner the younger, as childish and easily de- 
ceived,” Euthymius Zigabenus. —rd éiBddrov ptpoc] the portion falling to 
my share, that which belongs to me.* According to the Hebrew law of in- 
heritance, there fell to the younger son only half as much as the first-born 
received (Deut. xxi. 17 ; Michaelis, Mos. R. § 79; Saalschiitz, p. 820 f.). 
The son asks that this his future portion of inheritance be given to him in 
advance. The father grants ‘‘ non quod oportebat, sed quod liccbat facere,” 
‘‘not what he must, but what he might do,” Maldonatus. An agreement, 
according to an approximate estimate, must be presupposed. But the grant- 
ing of his request is a necessary part of the parable, on account of human 
Freedom. ‘‘Discedentes a se non prohibet, redeuntes amplectitur,” ‘‘ He 
does not prohibit them when they depart from Him, He embracesthem when 
they return,” Maldonatus. — dieiAev avroic] to both the sons, in such wise, 
however, as to reserve to himself until his death the right of wsufruet over 
the portion of the eldest, and the latter remained in his service, vv. 29-81. — 
rov Biov] Mark xii. 44 ; Luke viii. 43: that whereon the family lived, 1.¢., 
nothing else than their means.* Paulus (comp. Michaelis) makes, without 
reason, adistinction between this and ovcla, which, according to hin, is the 
whole means, saying that the father, however, divided merely his stock of 
provisions, not his capital. See, on the other hand, ver. 31. — Ver. 18. per’ 
ov roAA. uép.] The greediness for unlimited pleasure urged him to haste. — 
aravra] what, namely, he had received as his portion of the inheritance, 
partly in natura, partly in money in settlement of what could not be taken 
with him. — dodruc] recklessly.‘ The sinful nature is developed from an indepen- 
dence which, under the influence of sinful longing, shakes itself loose from God 
{comp. Ps, Ixxiii. 27) by the satisfaction of immoral pleasure. 

Vv. 14-17. The divine ordinance of external misery, however, tn connection 
with the consequences of sin, reawakens consideration and self-knowledge and the 
craving after God ! — icxvpa] (see the critical remarks) comp. on iv. 25. — 
Kata Tv yopav] card of extension, throughovt, as viii. 89. Winer, p. 856 
[E. T. 400]. — xat airé¢] and he, on his part. — 7pfaro] The commencement 
of his new state is regarded as important. — Ver. 15. éxoAA#@7] he clave to, 


1 So, insubstance, Ambrose, Jerome, and __ I. p. 289. 
others. Diverging in certain particulars, 3 Hesiod. On. 280, 575 ; Herod. {. 81, vill. 51, 
Theophylact and Euthymlus Zigabenua. and frequently. 

3 Herod. iv. 115; Dem. 812. 2, 317. 1; Diod. | 4 Dem. 1025. 19; Josephus, Anté. xii. 4.8 
Sic. xiv. 17; Polyb. xviii. 24. 1, vi. 84.1,and § Comp. on Eph. vy. 18. 
elsewhere. See also Wetstein and Kypke, 


CHAP. xv., 18, 19. 453 
attached himself to, makes the obtrusivencss of his action palpable. — xa? 
Exeuwev avtév] The previous object becomes the subject.’ — Béoxerv xoipove] to 
keep swine ; what an ignominious occupation for the ruined Jew / — Ver. 16. 
yepicas Tr. xotdiav avrov] to fill his belly (comp. Themist. Or. xxiii. p. 293 D) ; 
a choice expression forthe impetuous craving of the hungry man. — aré] from, 
i.e., by means of a portion, as with verbs of eating, Winer, p. 179 [E. T. 199}. 
—xepatiov] Cornicle, the sweetish fruit of the locust-tree (ceratonia siliqua of 
Linnaeus), used as food for swine, and by the poor as a means of nourish- 
ment, Galen. VI. p. 855.* — x. obdele Edidov aire] not food (Wolf, Rosenmiiller, 
Paulus), but, according to the context, xeparia. When the swine driven 
home were fed therewith, which was the occupation of others, he was hun- 
gry even for that brutish provender, and no one gave it to him. No man 
troubled himself concerning the hungry one, to satisfy him even in this man- 
ner. That he should eat with the swine is appropriately not regarded as a 
possibility. Morcover, itis not presupposed that he received still worse food 
than xepdria (Kuinoel, de Wette), but only that he received his maintenance 
on account of the famine in excessively small quantity, by reason whereof 
his hunger was so great that he, ctc. — Ver. 17. eg éaurdy dé EAAOY] cig éavTdv 
preceding, in contrast to the external misery, but having come to himself (i.e., 
having recovered his senses).* It is the moral self-understanding, which had 
become strange and remote to him, in respect of his condition and his need. 
— nepic. and Auuo are correlative ; dpruv is not contrasted with xeparioce 
(Olshausen), but repo. apr. is the contrast to the little bread, which did not 
appease his hunger. epiocebovra: (see the critical remarks) is passive. They 
are provided with more than enough, receive superfluity of bread, Matt. xiii. 
12, xxv. 29.4 

Vv. 18, 19. With this coming to himself and longing is associated the 
corresponding determination, namely, to turn back to God, to confess to Him 
his guilt and unworthiness, and to petition for grace. In this petition, how- 
ever, the humility which belongs to the consciousness of guilt sets aside 
the thought of complete restoration. — ci¢ rév ovpavdv] against heaven.* Heaven 
does not denote God, but is, as the abode of the Godhead and of the pure 
spirits, personified, so that this holy heavenly world appears as injured and | 
offended by sin. — évdriov ao ]* The meaning is: I have so sinned that I have 
transgressed before Thee, i.e., in relation to Thee. The moral relation of the 
decd to the offended subject is thus rendered palpable; as though this sub- 
ject had suffered in respect of the deed ; the moral reference is sct forth as 
visible. Grotius, moreover, well says: ‘‘Non in aetatem, non in malos 
consultatores culpam rejicit, sed nudam parat sine excusatione confession- 
em,” ‘‘ He does not refer his fault to his age, nor to evil counsellors, but’ 
prepares a simple confession without excuse.” — Ver. 19. ovxérz] not : not yet 


1 §ee Stallbaum, ad Protag. p. 820 A,B; 
Kthner, ad Xen. Anab. |. 4. 5; Bernhardy, 
p. 468. 

2 See Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 708; Rosen- 
miiller, Aforgend. VY. p. 198 f ; Robinson, Pal. 
IL. p. 272. 

3 See examplesin Kypke. Comp. év eavry 


yiverdar, Xen. Anad, i. 5.17; Acts xil. 11. 

4Comp. reprocevey revd, 1 Thess. iii. 12; 
Athen. fi. p. 42 B. 

® Comp. Matt. xvill. 15, 21, and elsewhere ; 
eig 7d Decor, Plat. Phaedr. p. 248 C. 

® Comp. 1 Sam. vii. 6, x. 1; Ps. ll. 4; Tob. 
fil. 8; Judith vy. 17; Susann. 23. e 


454 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


(Paulus), but : no longer. — roinady pe x.7.4.] t.e., place me in the position of 
being as one of thy day-laborers.’ Without dc the petition would aim at the 
result of making him a day-laborer ; «with d¢ its purport is : although he is 
a son, yet to place him no otherwise than if he were one of the day-laborers. 

Vv. 20-24. God's compassion in the carrying out of the repentant resolve ; 
after it is carried out, the joyous receiving of him again to perfect sonship. — 
xai avaorag x.t.A.] the resolution is no sooncr taken than its execution begins. 
— mpd¢ tr. rattpa éavroi] to his own father ; no other became the refoge of the 
unhappy son. There is an affecting touch in éavrov. — xaregidyoev] he kissed 
him again and again ; sec on Matt. xxvi. 48. — Ver. 21. The zoijodv pe dc iva 
tr. pof, cov Of ver. 19 [see critical note] is repressed by the demeanor of his 
father’s love ; the deeply moved son cannot bring these words to his lips in 
the presence of such paternal affection. A psychologically delicate and 
significant representation. — Ver. 22. ‘‘Filio respondet re ipsa,” ‘‘ He 
answers the son with the very thing,” Bengel. —ocrodjy mv rpdzm] @ robe, 
the first that we have in the house—to wit, according to its rank and worth, 
i.¢., THv Tyuwtdtyv, Euthymius Zigabenus. The idea—the one that had pre- 
viously been worn by him (Theophylact, Calovius), which would be the right- 
eousness lost in Adam—is opposed to ver. 13 in the service of dogmatic in- 
terpretation. Morcover, avrov would have been added in that connection. 
With regard to the article after the anarthrous substantive, see Winer, p. 126 f. 
[E. T. 139 f.]. The oroag is the long and wide overcoat of the people of 
distinction, Mark xii. 88, xvi. 5; Rev. vi. 11. The daxriduoc, 7.6., signet ring 
(Herod. ii. 38), and the tmodiuara (slaves went barefooted), are signs of the 
Jree man, which he who had returned was to be as a son of the house. — 
Ver. 23. rov pécyor rov o:r.] the well-known one which stands in the stall. — 
Ovoare] slaughter, as at ver. 80, not : sacrifice (Elsner). — gaydvre¢ evdpari. } 
not : laeti epulemur, ‘‘ rejoicing Ict us feast” (Kuinoel), but : epulantes laet- 
emur, ‘‘feasting Ict us rejoice.” Beware of forced interpretations like the 
following : according to Qlshausen (comp. Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
and others), the croA) mpdéz7 denotes the divine righteousness (Rev. iii. 18, 
vii. 18, xix. 8) ; the ring, the seal of the Spirit ; the sandals, the capacity 
to walk in God’s ways (Eph. vi. 15): according to Jerome, Ambrose, Augus- 
tine, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, and others, the fatted calf is 
Christ ! Comp. also Lange, J. J. II. 1, p. 381. — Ver. 24. vexpoc fv x. avét. 
x.t.A.] is meant by the father in a moral sense : véxpworv uév nat atddAcar gyot 
tiv ard Tie duapriac, avaldwoww d2 nal cipecty tiv and THE UeTavoiac, ‘‘The dead 
and lost condition spoken of is that from sin ; but tho living again and 
being found that from repentance,” Euthymius Zigabenus. A well-known 
mode of speaking of death and life.* In favor of this view it is manifest of 
itself that the father says absolutely vexpdc 4, which he cannot mean in the 
literal sense of the words ; further, that after the approach related in ver. 
20 f. his soul could be full only of the moral change of his son’s condition ; 
finally, that he utters the same words, ver. 82, to the eldest son, who, being 


1 Comp. Gen. xlviil. 20; Isa. xli. 15. bins, Schoettgen, J7or. p. 877 f.; from the 
2 Matt. iv. 16, vill. 22; 1 Tim. v. 6; Eph. classical writers, Bornemann, Sehol. p. 97. 
vy. 14; Rom. vi. 13; passages from the Rab- 


CHAP. XV., 25-32. 455 


acquainted with the previous condition of his brother (ver. 30), could undcr- 
stand them only morally. The utterance of the servant, Sr: bysaivovra airiv 
axé7aBev, ver. 27, is not opposed to this ; for he speaks thus of the returned 
son of the house, only generally of his condition as it first presents itself to 
him, beyond which the slave has not to go. [See Note CXVIII., p. 456 seq. ] 
He has the right feeling of discretion, that respectfully, in accordance with 
his position, it does not become him to repeat the judgment of the father, 
but rather to abide by that external circumstance (that he has received him 
back sound). Even this feature belongs to the lifelike delicate points of this 
history. On all accounts the view is to be dismissed of Paulus, de Wette, 
and Bleek : vexpéc, dead as far as I am concerned (by his remoteness and his 
dissolute life, and aroAwAdc : lost, in the sense of disappeared). — evgpaivecfac] 
to be glad. The feast is naturally understood according to ver. 23. 

Vv. 25-32. The legally righteous one. (See Note CXVIII., p. 456 seq.] In- 
stead of sharing the divine joy over the converted sinner, he is envious, re- 
gards himself—in respect of his legality, according to which he has been on 
his guard against momentary transgression—as neglected, and judges unlov- 
ingly about his brother, and discontentedly about God. A striking com- 
mentary on ver. 7 ; and how fitted to put to the blush the murmuring Phar- 
isees and scribes, ver. 2 ! —ovuguv. x. yopav] not: the singing and the dancing 
(Luther), but, without the article : concert and choral dance, haley min. 
Music and dancing (commonly given by hired people) belonged to the en- 
tertainments of solemn festivals. See Matt. xiv. 6 ; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. 
in loc.; Wetstein. — Ver. 26. ri ely ravra] what this would be likely to signify.' 
— Ver. 27. The slave mentions only the fatted calf, because this happened 
to be most closely associated with the festival of music and dancing. — 
bytaivovra] not: morally safe and sound (avoBaddvra rH vécov 614 THC peTavoiac, 
‘having driven away the disease through his repentance,” Euthymius Ziga- 
benus, Kypke, Kuinoel, and many more), but, as is only fitting in the 
mouth of the slave (comp. on ver. 24), bodily safe and sound. — Ver. 28. ovv] 
in consequence of this refusal of the son. Yet, as with Lachmann and 
Tischendorf, the more strongly attested dé is to be read. — mapexdAec] he ex- 
horted him to come in,—he spoke him fair ; see on 1 Cor. iv. 18. — Ver. 29. 
xai éuoi) The éuoi placed first has the emphasis of wounded selfish feeling. 
Contrast ver. 30. — épipov] a young kid, of far less value than the fatted 
calf! Still more significant is the reading épigsov in B, Sahid. (a young 
kidling), which Ewald approves, and the delicacy of which the transcribers 
might easily have passed over. Comp. Matt. xxv. 83 ; Tob. ii. 11. — Ver. 
30. 4 vid¢ cov oiroc] this son of thine, in the highest degree contemptuous. 
He was not going to call him his brother. On the other hand, the father, 
ver. 32: 6 adeAgéc cov ovroc. How bitter, moreover, is : ‘‘ who has devoured 
Sor thee thy living,” and perd mopvay, as contrasted with werd rav giddy pov | 
— Ver. 81. réxvov] full of love. — od rdvrore x.r.A.] represents to the heart of 
the jealous brother the two great prerogatives that he had above his brother 
(hence the emphatic ct), Thy constant association with me (while, on the 


1 Comp. Acts x. 17. See Matthiac, § 488.7; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anabd. . 10. 14. 


456 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


other hand, thy brother was separated far and long from me), and the cir- 
cumstance that my whole possessions belong to thee (as to the future heir of all, 
ver. 12), ought to raise thee far above such envious dispositions and judgments! 
— Ver. 82. cigpavOjva:] stands first with the emphasis of contrast, in oppo- 


_ sition to such ill-humor. — éée:] not to be supplemented by of, but generally 


it was sitting or necessary,—a justification of the prearranged joy of the 
house, which, under the circumstances, was a moral necessity. — 27oev] 
(see the critical remarks) was dead, and has become alive, Matt. ix. 18 ; 
John v. 25; Rom. xiv. 9. 


Remarx.—(1) The exclusive title to the xAypovopia, which, according to ver. 
31, is adjudged to those who are legally upright, has its justification in principle ; 
ol wourral véuou dixauwjoovTa, Rom. ii. 13. — (2) For the adoption of sinners into 
this prerogative, which belongs in principle to the legally righteous, the para- 
ble indicates the method of self-knowledge, of repentance, and of confidence 
in the grace of God (faith). But the interposition of this grace through the 
death of reconciliation, and consequently the more specific definition of that 
confidence, Jesus leaves unnoticed, leaving these particulars to the further de- 
velopment of faith and doctrine after the atoning death had taken place ; just 
as, moreover, He in general, according to the synoptic Gospels, limits Himself 
only to single hints of the doctrine of reconciliation as seed-corn for the future 


- (Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28 ; otherwise in John). —(3) As the reality does not cor- 


respond to the idea of legal righteousness, He points to the example of the son 
who has continued in outward conformity to the law, but therewith is proud of 
his virtue, unbrotherly and unfilial, and consequently holds up to the Pharisees 
a mirror for self-contemplation, the picture in which must tell them how very 
much they also needed repentance (in order to see the title in principle to legal 
righteousness realized in themselves), instead of censuring the fellowship of 
Jesus with publicans and sinners (vv. 7, 1, 2). 


Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror. 


CXVII. The Discourse in Chaps. XV., XVI, ete. 


Weiss ed. Mey. objects to the view that this is taken from Luke’s ‘‘ source of 
the story of the journey,’’ in accordance with his theory respecting this part of 
Luke’s Gospel (from chap. ix. 51 to xvii. 10). He cannot find any indication, 
even in chaps. xvi. 1, xvii. 1 or 5, of such a direct connection. But few com- 
mentators agree with this opinion. As vv. 3-7 resemble Matt. xviii. 12-14, 
Weiss thinks that the two parables bere are derived from the ‘‘ source’’ common 
to Matthew and Luke, in which they belonged to the discourse about stum- 
bling-blocks, But if that were the case, Luke would have ‘‘ invented’’ the oc- 
casion. Noteven the beauty of the parable of the Prodigal Son can excuse such 
a method of writing professed history, 


CXVIII. Vv. 11-32. The Parable of the Prodigal Son. 


For convenience the points of difference indicated in Weiss ed. Mey. are 
grouped in one note. In general, Weiss thinks Meyer is not altogether free 


NOTES. ‘ 457 


from that tendency of ‘‘ attaching undue significance to special points,” to which 
the latter objects in his prefatory remark. He also doubts whether ‘‘the growth 
and course of sin, the growth and course of repentance’ are represented in the 
parable. In the utterance of the servant (ver. 27) he fails to discover any in- 
dication of ‘‘ the right feeling of discretion”’ to which Meyer refers. He re- 
gards the elder son as representing ‘‘neither the Pharisee (Godet), nor the 
legally righteous man in general (Meyer), but a good son,,yet one who, in cor- 
respondence with the human circumstances out of which the material of the 
parable is chosen, is not without pride of virtue (ver. 29), and is envious over 
the apparent preference shown to his deeply fallen brother (ver. 30).” How, 
he asks, can ver, 31 seem appropriate in the mouth of God as addressed to the 
Pharisee or the legally righteous man? But, as Meyer himself indicates, the 
description of the elder son serves to show that the man who claims legal 
righteousness fails to be true to that principle, 


458 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


. CHAPTER XVI. 


(Ver. 1. As so often, the Rec. inserts airot after padyrdg ; wanting in ® B D 
L, rejected by recent editors, R. V.]— Ver. 2. dvvjcy7] B D P &, min. have divy, 
which Bornemann in the Sud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 121, approves, and Tisch. has 
now adopted. [So recent editors, R. V.] But if it were genuine, it would have 
been changed, not into duvycy, but into divacaz. The present came more readily 
to the transcribers, hence also divy was introduced. — [Ver. 4. Recent editors, 
R. V., with %& BD, Copt., Syr., have é before r. otxov.]— Ver. 6. xai eixer] 
Lachm. and Tisch. have 6 dé eirev, in accordance with AB L R &, min. Copt. 
Theophyl. (D has ¢cizev dé). The Recepta easily originated in the desire to vary 
the expression used in the preceding clause. — rd ypéupya] Lachm. and Tisch. 
have rd ypadupara, in accordance with B D L &, Copt. Goth. codd. of It. Soalso 
in ver. 7. Rightly ; the singular came more readily to the transcribers, because 
one writing was thought of (Vulg. : cautlionem, Cod. Pal.: chirographum, X : 7d ypap- 
pareiov), — Ver. 7. xai Aéyet] xal is to be struck out, as with Lachm. and Tisch., in 
accordance with B L R, min. vss., as a connective addition, instead of which 
D has 6 dé. — Ver. 9. extimyre] EG HK MS VTA A, min. have éxdeizyre (A has 
éxdeinecte). B* DLR &®* have éxdiry; A B** X, éxdeiry. Several versions also 
read one of these two. Hence the Recepia has decisive evidence against it. 
Since to understand the everlasting habitations as the word for death, and con- 
sequently to change it into the plural so readily suggested itself, I regard the 
singular as original, though not éxAiry (Schulz, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), but 
exAeizy, since the important authorities which read éxAciryre (so Matthaei) are 
also in favor of this present form ; just as, moreover, the aorist in itself, accord- 
ing to the sense (cum defecerit), presented itself most readily to the uncritical 
transcribers. [But recent editors, R. V., properly accept the more strongly at- 
tested aorist. — Ver. 12. W. and Hort text, R. V. marg., have #uérepor, which is 
found in B L. — Ver. 14. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B D L, Vulg., 
Copt., omit xai before dap. — Ver. 15. The final éor is poorly attested, and in 
ver. 16 néype is accepted by Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with & BL, 1. 69.] — 
Ver. 18. The second ac has evidence so important against it that (condemned 
by Griesbach, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) it must be regarded as a mechan- 
ical repetition. — Ver. 20. jv and é¢ are wanting in B DL X X&, min. vss. Clem. 
Suspected by Griesbach, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But if 7 had 
been added, xai would have been inserted instead of 6¢, after the model of ver. 
19. On the other hand, after AaSap0 it was easy to pass over é¢, which then 
also caused the omission of 7v. [Both words are rejected by recent editors, 
R. V., in accordance with the stronger evidence.] — Ver. 21. yyiev ror] is 
wanting in B L &* min. vss. Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck 
and Tisch. A gloss, following Matt. xv. 27. — Instead of aréAeyor is to be 
written, with Lachm. and Tisch., éré/e: yor, in accordance with A BL X &® (D 
has éAecyov). — Ver. 25, ot, which Elz. Lachm. have after azéAafec, is not found 
in BDGHL 8, min. vas. (including Vulg. It.), Fathers ; and in A it does not 


CHAP, XVI., 1. ) 459 


come in till after cov. An addition for the sake of the contrast. — dde is so de- 
cisively attested, that dde (Elz.) can only appear as an alteration for the sake of 
the contrast. — Ver. 26. [Tisch., recent editors (except Treg. text), R. V., have 
év, with NBL, Valg., Copt., instead of éi.]— Instead of ivJev Elz. has 
évre(Vev, in opposition to decisive evidence. The more frequent form forced 
itself in (é.3ev does not elsewhere occur in the N.T.). The entire omission 
of the word is too weakly attested by D, Cant. Colb. Dial. c. Marc. — oi éxeiVev)} 
B D &* Arm. Valg. It. Ambr. Lachm. have merely éxet¥ev. Rightly ; of is an 
addition in accordance with what has gone before. — [Ver. 29, Tisch., W. and 
Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ® A BD L, and others, insert dé, but omit aivro, with 
* BL.) 


On the parable of the dishonest steward, see Schreiber, historico. critica 
explicationum parabolae de improbo oecon. descriptio, Lips. 1803 (in which the 
earlier literature is detailed) ; Loeffler in the Magaz. f. Pred. III. 1, p. 80 ff. 
(in his KZ. Schr. II. p. 196 ff.) ; Keil in the Anal. II. 2, p. 152 ff. ; Ber- 
tholdt in five Programmes, Erl. 1814-1819; Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. 
1817, p. 203 ff. ; D. Schulz, aber die Parad. vom Verualter, Bresl. 1821 ; 
Miller, neue Ansichten, p. 206 ff.; Grossmann, de procurat. parab. Christi ex 
re provinciali Rom. illustr., Lips. 1824 ; Rauch in Winer’s Krit. Journ. 18285, 
p. 285 ff. ; Niedner, Dissert., Lips. 1826, in the Commentatt. Theol. ed. 
Rosenmiller et Maurer, II. 1, p. 74 ff; Bahnmeyer in Klaiber’s Stud. I. 1, 
p. 27 ff. ; Gelpke, noo. tentam. parab. etc., Lips. 1829 ; Jensen in the Stud. 
und Krit. 1829, p. 699 ff; Hartmann, Comm. de oecon. impr., Lips. 1880 ; Zyro 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 776 ff. ; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 53 ff. ; 
Dettinger in the Tibingen Zeitschr. 1834, 4, p. 40 ff.; Steudel, ibid. p. 96 ff. ; 
Fink in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 813 ff.; Steinwerder, ab. d. Gleichn. 
vom ungerecht. Haushalt., Stuttg. 1840 ; Brauns in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, 
p. 1012 ff.; Francke in the Stud. d. Sdchs. Geistl. 1842, p. 45 ff.; Heppe, 
Diss. d. loco Luc. xvi. 1-9, Marb. 1844 (in opposition to Francke) ; H. 
Bauer in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb. 1845, 8, p. 519 ff.; Eichstidt, parabolam J. 
Chr. de oeconomo impr. retractavit, Jen. 1847; Harnisch also, ¢. Erkladrung des 
Gleichn. etc., Magdeburg, 1847 ; Wieselcr in the Gétt. Viertelj.-Schr. 1849, 
p. 190 ff.; Meuss, in parab. J. Chr. de oecon. injusto, Vratisl. 1857 ; Hélbe 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 527 ff.; Engelhardt in ‘‘ Gesetz und Zeugniss," 
1859, p. 262 ff.; (Eylau) in Meklenb. Kirchenbl. 1862, Nr. 4-6 ; Lahmeyer, 
Lineb. Schulprogr. 1863 ; Késter in the Stud, u. Krit. 1835, p. 725 ff. [See 
Note CXIX., p. 481.] 

Ver. 1. After Jesus has given, as far as xv. 82, the needful explanation 
to the Pharisecs and scribes in reference to their murmuring at His associat- 
ing Himself with the publicans and sinners, He now turns also (dé kai) to 
His disciples with the parabolic discussion of the doctrine how they were to 
use carthly possessions tn order to come into the Messiah’s kingdom. FY or accord- 
ing to ver. 9 nothing else is the teaching of the following parable, which 
consequently is, even in its vocabulary (Késtlin, p. 274), similar to the 
parable at xii. 16 ff. Every other doctrine that has been found therein has 
first been put there. The évOpwro¢ rAoiatog is Mammon, comp. ver. 13; the 
oixovéuog represents the pafyrai. Just as (1) the steward was denounced for 


ee 


460 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


squandering the property of his lord, so also the pa@yrai, maintaining in 
Christ an entirely different interest and a different purpose of life from that 
of collecting earthly wealth (Matt. vi. 19 f.; Luke xii. 33, xviii. 22), must 
needs appear to the enemies, the rather that these were themselves covetous 
(ver, 14), as wasteful managers of the riches of Mammon (Matt. vi. 24), and 
as such must be decried by them, ver. 1. As, further, (2) the steward 
came into the position of having his dismissal from his service announced to 
him by the rich man, so also it would come upon the pa@yrai that Mammon 
would withdraw from them the stewardship of his goods, 7.e., that they 
would come into poverty, ver. 2 f. As, however, (3) the steward was 
prudent enough before his dismissal, while he still had the disposal of his 
lord’s wealth, to make use of the latter for his subsequent provision by 
making for himself friends therewith who would receive him into their 
houses, which prudence the rich man praised in spite of the dishonesty of 
the measure ; so also should the yafyrai by liberal expenditure of the 
goods of Mammon, which were still at their disposal, provide for themselves 
friends, so as subsequently to attain in their impoverishment provision for 
eternity, the reception into the Messiah’s kingdom. The more detailed ex- 
planation will be found on the special passages. The text in itself does 
not indicate any definite connection with what has preceded, but is only 
linked on externally, without any mention of an internal progress in the 
discussion : but He said also—as the foregoing tothe Pharisees, so that which 
now follows to His disciples.' But Jesus very naturally comes dircct to the 
treatment of this theme, because just at that time there were very many pub- 
licane among His paGyrai (xv. 1) on whom, after their decision in His favor, 
devolved as their first duty the application of the goods of Mammon in the 
way mentioned (xii. 33). It is just as natural that, at the same time, the 
contrast with the Pharisees, just before so humiliétingly rebuked, those 
covetous ones (ver. 14) to whom the mo:eiv éavroi¢ gidove éx T. wa. THE adixiag 
was so extremely foreign (xi. 41, xx. 47), helped to urge to this theme. [See 
Note CXIX., p. 481.] Other attempts to make out the connection are arbi- 
trary, as, for instance, that of Schleiermacher (besides that it depends on an. 
erroneous intcrpretation of the parable itself), that Jesus is passing over to 
a vindication of the publicans, so far as they showed themselves gentle and 
beneficent toward their people ; or that of Olshausen, that He wishes to 
represent the compassion that in ch. xv. He has exhibited in God, now also 
in ch. xvi. asthe duty of men. But there is no reason for denying the exist- 
ence of any connection, as de Wette does. — mpd¢ r. uabyr. avrov] not mercly 
the Twelve, but the disciples in the more extended sense, in contrast with 
the opposition which was likewise present. Comp. Matt. viii. 21; Luke 
vi. 18, vii. 11, xix. 37, and elsewhere. The parable had the first reference 
to the publicans that happened to be among them (xv. 1), but it con- 
cerned also, so far as there were generally still wealthy people among them, 
the disciples in general. See above. — dv@pwré¢ tie Hv mAoboog] not to be de- 
fined more particularly than these words themselves and vv. 5-7 indicate. 


1 Not as Wieseler will have it, beside the Pharisees, to His disciples also. 


CHAP. XVI., 1. 


461 


To think of the Romans (Schleiermacher), or the Roman Emperor (Gross- 


mann’), in the interpretation, is quite foreign to the subject. 


Moreover, it 


is not, as is usually explained, God* that is to be understood [see Note 
CXX., p. 481}; with which notion ver. 8 would conflict, as well as the 
circumstance that actually the dismissal from the service of the rich man 
brings with it the same shelter to which, in the application, ver. 9 corre- 


sponds,® the reception into the everlasting habitations. 


But neither is it 


the devil, as dpyuv rod xéopov rofrov, a8 Olshausen* would have it, that is 


1 He finds tn the oixovduos @ Roman pro- 
tincial governor, who, towards the end of 
his oppressive government, has adopted 
indulgent measures, in order to earn for 
himself the favor of the inhabitants of the 
province. He says that thence Jesus, ver.. 
9, draws the doctrine that as such a one in 
worldly things behaved himself wisely for 
an earthly end, so in divine things prna- 
dence should be manifested, in order to at- 
tain eternal life. Schlelermacher thinks 
that the rich man represents the Romans, 
the steward the publicans, the debtors the 
Jewish people, and that Christ intends to 
say, that if the publicans in their calling 
show themselves gentle and beneficent, the 
Romans, the enemies of the people, will 
themselves praise them in their hearts ; and 
thus also have ye every cause to concede 
to them, even {n anticipation of the time 
when this relation ceases (according to the 
reading éxAirp, ver. 9), the citizenship In 
the BacrrAcg 7. 9. 

2QObserve that this Interpretation pro- 
ceeds on an a priori basis, and is therefore 
fmprobable ; because In both the other 
passages, where in Luke avdpwirds ts wAov- 
ovos Is the subject of a parable (xii. 16, xvi. 
19), the rich man represents a very unholy 
personality, in which is typified the service 
of Mammon and of luxury. 

*The usual interpretation (substantially 
followed also by Wicseler, Blcek, Késter) 
is in its leading features that of Theophy- 
lact and Euthymius Zigubenus: that the 
possessor of earthly wealth is not the 
actual proprietor, that being God, but only 
the steward. If he has not used the wealth 
according to God's will, he is accused, but 
dismissed by death. Hence he should be 
pradent enough, while there fs still time, to 
apply the wealth entrustod to him _ chari- 
tably according to God's will, in order to 
get into heaven. Comp. Ewald, p. 299: 
‘* Every rich man, since he must again sur- 
render all earthly riches at least at death, 
is yet only placed over them as a steward 
by God, as by a lord who Is far removed, 
but who one day will claim a reckoning ; 
and ho Is certainly wiso and prudent not to 


allow the riches to lie useless, but rather, 
by his effectual application of them, to 
make to himself friends forthe right time; 
but one ought only to gain for himself 
friends with his riches for the purpose that 
in the moment when he must, at least as 
constrained by death, give them up, he 
should be recelved by them Into the ever- 
lasting tabernacles of heaven."’ Baur, 
Evang. p. 450 ff., proceeding from the fun- 
damentally Zdionitic view, says that the 
rich man is God in His absolute dominion 
over all; that in the steward is represent- 
ed the aiwy otros, whose doings, however, 
are determined by the adequate relation 
of the means to the end; that this pru- 
dence is a quality which even the children 
of Nght need, since they must know how 
to net the aiwy obros in the right relation to 
the atwy péAAwy, and hence to be willing to 
renounce all that pertains to the former in 
order to attain the latter; that ver. 9 
means that he is not at all to trouble him- 
self with Mammon, but entirely to rid him- 
self of wealth, and hence to use it for an 
object of beneficence, because the aiwy 
obros and the aiwv péAAwy reciprocally ex- 
clude oneanother. To this Ebionitic view 
of wealth, as of a benefit In itself un- 
lawful and foreign to the kingdom of God, 
Hiflgenfeld also recurs. 

‘His view is that the publicans may be 
conceived of as being, by their external re- 
lations, in the service of the apywy rot «o- 
opov. According to ver. 18, God was to be re- 
garded as the other true Lord who stood 
opposed (as the representative of the 8x0- 
prevoas eig Tas aiwviovs oxnvas, ver. 9) to this 
oixoserrétns. It was just the prudent 
Siacxoprigwey Ta Undpyovra rou avdpdwov 
wAovoiov, who in a right manner serves 
this true Lord ; he despises the one in order 
wholly to belong to the other ; he labors 
with the possessions of the one for the pur- 
pose of the other. But in opposition to his 
true advantage, therefore not prudently, 
does he act who, like the Pharisees, seeks 
to place the service of the one on an equal- 
ity with that of the other. Scc, in oppo- 
sition to Olshausen, Schneckenburger, ?.c. 


462 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

meant, since in the connection of the parable the relation to the xéopoc' in 
general, and its representatives, is not spoken of, but specially the relation 
to temporal zealth.2 Hence its representative, 7.e., Mammon, is to be under- 
stood ; but we must not, with de Wette, give the matter up in despair, and 
say that the rich man has xo significance [Weiss ed. Mey.], or (Ebrard) 
that he serves only as filling up (comp. also Lahmeyer) ; he has the signifi- 
cance of a definite person feigned, who, however, as such, was «ell known to 
the hearers (Matt. vi. 24), and also at ver. 13 is expressly named. The con- 
cluding words of ver. 13 are the key of the parable ; hence, also, it is not 
to be maintained, with Késter [Weiss ed. Mey.], that a rich man is only 
conceived of with reference to the steward. — oixovéuov] a@ house steward, 
trauinc, who had to take the supervision of the domestics, the stewardship of 
the household, the rental of the property, etc.? Such were usually slaves ; 
but it is implied in vv. 8, 4 that the -case of a free man is contemplated 
in this passage. To conceive of the oixovéuoc as a farmer of portion of 
the property, is neither permitted by the word nor by the context (in oppo- 
sition to Hélbe). In the interpretation of the parable the oixovéuoc neither 
represents men in general, nor specially the wealthy (thus most interpreters, 
following the Fathers), nor yet the Jsraelitish people and their leaders (Meuss), 
nor sinners (Maldonatus and others), not even Judas Iscariot (Bertholat), 
also neither the Pharisees (Vitringa, Zyro, Baumgarten-Crusius‘), nor the 


1 Midway between Olshausen’s interpre- 
tation and mine (of Mammon, see subse- 
quently), Schegg makes the rich man mean 
the personified xécpos. But the idea of 
xéo,os is here doo wide, the point in the sub- 
ject is definitely the Leing rich ; hence also 
at ver. 14, ¢dtAdpyvpo.. Schenkel also has 
adopted the interpretation of the rich 
man as of Mammon. Comp. Lange, L. J. I. 
1, p. 391, ITI. p. 463. 

2 This also in opposition to H. Bauer, J.c. 
p. 529 ff., who finds in the rich man the 
theocratic chiefs of the peome, whose chief 
wealth was the theocracy itself. The 
oixovcuos must have been the Jewish Chris- 
tians ; the dedlors, the apaptrwaAo: and édrixol, 
to whom the primitive community more 
and more conceded a share in the Messi- 
anic blessings. The dismissal of the oixord- 
os Was the excommunication of the primi- 
tive church ; the friends were the Gentiles, 
to whom a portion of the legal claims had 
been remitted by the Christians. The dig- 
ging and legging must be a new subjec- 
tion under the chiefs of Israel, with which 
the primitive church will no longer ex- 
change their free position! The é¢xecdar 
eis oixovs probably points to the necessity 
of restoring a perfect living intercourse 
with the converted Gentiles ! An arbitrary 
exercise of ingenuity, making an tcrepoy 
spétepov of the parables of Jesus, by which 
they are wrenched away from the living 


present and changed into enigmatical pre- 
dictions. According to the Sdchs. Anony- 
mus, the steward is even held to be Paul, 
who disposed of the wealth of salvation 
for the benefit of the Gentiles. 

? Comp. xii. 42, and see Heppe, p.9 ff. ; 
Abrens, Ami d. Schliissel, p. 12 ff. 

* According to Zyro, the meaning of the 
parable is : Ye Pharisees are stewards of a 
heavenly treasure—the law; but ye are un- 
faithful stewards, indulgent towards your- 
selves, strict towards others ; nevertheless, 
even ye are alrcady accused, as was he in 
the parable; and even your power and 
your dignity will soon disappear. Therc- 
fore, as ye are like to him in your aéucia, 
be ye also like to him in your dporners, strict 
towards yourselves, benevolent towards 
others, and that at once. According to 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Christ desires—disap- 
proving of the disposition and conduct of 
the Pharisees in respect of the works of 
love—to direct the disciples to appropriate 
to themselves something thereof in a 
better manner. That, namely, which the 
Pharisees did as sinners in order to cover 
their sins, andin so-called good works, the 
disciples were to do, not as sinners, but in 
order to smooth by sympathetic benefi- 
cence the inequality of the relations of life. 
Bornemann also explains the oixovopos of 
the Pharisees. See on ver. 9. Weizsicker 
similarly distinguishes, as in the parable of 


CHAP. XVI., 1. 463 
publicana (Schleiermacher, Hélbe), but the pafyrai, as is plain from ver. 9, 
where the conduct analogous to the behavior of the oixovéuo¢ is enjoined 
upon them. [See Note CXIX., p. 481.] The paéyrai, especially those who 
were publicans before they passed over to Christ, were concerned with tem- 
poral wealth, and were therefore stewards, not of God, but of Mammon. — 
dieBAGOn avg] he was denounced to him.’ Although the word, which occurs 
only in this place in the New Testament, is not always used of groundless, 
false accusations, though this is mostly the case (see Schweighiuser, Ler. 
Herod. I. p. 154), yet it is still no voz media, but expresses, even where a 
corresponding matter of fact lies at the foundation,’ hostile denunciation, 
accusation, Niedner, p. 82 ff.* So also here ; Luther aptly says: ‘‘he was 
all spoken of.” Vulg.: ‘‘ diffamatus est.” There was some foundation in 
fact (hence, moreover, the steward does not defend himself), but the manner 
in which he was denounced manifested a hostile purpose. Thus, morcover, 
in the relation portrayed in that of the uafyrai to temporal riches, as the un- 
faithful stewards of which they manifested themselves to the covetous 
Pharisees by their entrance into the Christian conversion, there lay at the 
foundation the fact that they had no further interest in Mammon, and were 
no longer ¢:Adpyvpo. Compare the instance of Zacchaeus. Késter says 
wrongly that the hitherto faithful steward had only been slandered, and 
had only allowed himself to be betrayed into a knavish trick for the 
first time by the necessity arising from the dismissal. No; this knavish 
trick was only the path of unfaithfulness on which he had hitherto walked, 
and on which he took a new start to get out of his difficulty. Against the 
supposition of the faithfulness of the steward, see on ver. 3. — d¢ dcacxopzi- 
Cav] as squandering (xv. 13), t.e., so he was represented.4 Comp. Xen. Hell. 
ii. 8. 23 : dtéBaAAov dc Avuarvéuevov, and thus frequently ; Jas. ii. 9. It might 
also have been &¢ with the optative ; Herod. viii. 90, and elsewhere. Erro- 
neously, moreover, in view of the present, the Vulg. reads (comp. Luther) : 
quasi dissipasset. — td tmdpyovra airov} therefore the possessions, the means 
and property (xi. 21, xii. 15, 33, xix. 8), of his lord.*® 


the prodigal son (see on xv. 11), the primi- 
tive meaning (according to which the stew- 
ard was a heathen funclionary who oppress- 
ed the Jows, but afterwards took their part) 
from the meaning attached to i[t by the 
compiler, according to which the steward 
was a type of the unbelieving rich Jews, 
who might receive a reversion of the king- 
dom of heaven if they took up the cause of 
their fellow-believers who had become 
Christians. This is a sort of double mean- 
ing, which neither in {itself nor in its two- 
fold contents has any foundation in the 
text, : 

1 On the dative, comp. Herod. vy. 85, viil. 
22: Plat. Poliz. viil. p. 566 B ; Soph. PAil. 578 ; 
Eur. Hee. 863, and thereon, Pfiugk ; else- 
where also with cis or wpdés with accusative. 

2As Num. xxil. 22; Dan. fil. 8 vi. 25; 2 
Macc. fll. 11; 4 Macc. fv. 1, and In the pas- 


sages in Kypke, I. p. 296. 

$ Comp. the passages from Xenophon in 
Slurz, I. p. 673. See also Dem. 155. 7, where 
the daBdAdovres and the «ddAaxes are con- 
trasted. 

*To gather from os that the indebted- 
ness was unfounded (Holbe) ts unjustifi- 
able. os might also be usedin the case of 
@ well-founded &aBdAdAcodar, and hence in 
itself decides nothing at all. Comp. Butt- 
mann, Neut. Gr. p. 268 (E. T. 807]. 

5 Therefore not the possessions of tho 
debtors, to which result van Oosterzec 
comes, assuming that tho steward had 
made the debtors (who were tenants) pay 
more than he had given up and pald over 
to his lord; in the alteration of the leases 
he had only the right sums introduced 
which he had hitherto brought into ac- 
count. 


464 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Ver. 2. Ti rovro axobw rep? cov ;] what is this that I hear concerning thee? 
quid hoc est, quod de te audio? A well-known contraction of a relative 
clause with an interrogative clause ; Plat. Gory. p. 452 D, and elsewhere.’ 
The frequency of this usus loguendi, and the appropriateness of the sense 
just at the opening of the reckoning, gives to the interpretation the prefer- 
ence over this : wherefore do I hear, etc., Kuinoel, de Wette, Meuss, and 
others (comp. Luther, and so early as the Gothic version). — améddog x.1.A.] 
give the (due) reckoning of thy stewardship. The master desires to see the 
state of affairs made plain.* — ov ydp] for thou shalt not, etc. The master de- 
cides thus according to what he had heard, and what he regards as estab- 
lished. 

Ver. 8. This reflexion of the steward issued from the consciousness that 
he cannot deny his guilt, for he sees his dismissal as the near and certain 
result (ag¢acpeiras, present) of the rendering of the account demanded of him. 
[See Note CXXI., p. 482.] If he were to be represented as innocent, the par- 
able must nceds have placed in his mouth a justification, or at least have as- 
signed to him the corresponding epithet. This is also in opposition to 
Francke,* Hélbe. —ér:] equivalent to ei¢ éxeivo Src, see On Mark xvi. 14. — 
oxéxrev] in fields, gardens, vineyards ; it is represented in Greck writers 
also as the last resource of the impoverished ;‘ Aristoph. Av. 1432 : oxdrrew 
yap obk éxioraua. See Wolf and Kypke. — oix ioxziw] not being accustomed 
to such labor, he feels that his strength is not equal to it. — éra:reity] injini- 
tive, not participial.5 These reflections are not inserted with a view to the 
interpretation, but only for the depicting of the crisis. 

Ver. 4. The word £yywy, coming in without any connecting particle, de- 
picts in a lively manner what was passing in his mind, and is true to nature. 
The aorist is not used as being the same as the perfect, although de Wette 


1See Kihner, IT. § 8&1. 1; Fritzsche, ad 
Marc. p. 780; Bornemann, Schol. p. 97, and 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p.120. Comp. 
Test. XTT. Patr. p. 715: ri radra axovw ; Acts 
xiv. 15. 

20On Adyow &S6var, awoddddvac (Matt. xi. 
86; Acts xix. 40; Rom. xiv. 12), sce 
Schweighduser's Lex. Herod. Il. p. 74. 
Comp. rdv Acyor amyrovy, Dem. 868. 5. 

3 According to Francke, Jesus desires to 
represent the risks of being rich in the 
passionate rich man, who arranges the dis- 
missal without any inquiry. He is the in- 
debted chief person. The steward is false- 
ly accused : he fs driven from the house as 
not aé«os; but the rich man, first of all, 
drives him by his cruelty to the aéc«ia, 


which, moreover, was only a momentary - 


one, as the (inequitable) ypéupzara were only 
once used; while, on the other hand, they 
were only used for the purpose of putting 
matters on an equitable footing again. In 
the latter reference Day. Schulz precedes 
with the assumption, that the steward 
wished before his dismissal to do some 


eS 

good. He assumes with equal oontradic- 
tion of the text, that the setting down of 
the items of account was done with the 
knowledge of the master. Comp. also Schneck- 
enburger, p. 57. 

4Hence—for the steward, defore he de. 
cides on the expedient, ver. 4, sees digging 
and begging before him—it is not to be sup- 
posed, with Brauns, that he paid the 
amounts written down, ver. 6 f., from his 
own funds. Contrary to the text, contrary 
to ver. 8f., and contrary to 7ijs adcxias, ver. 
8, which refers to that writing down. This, 
moreaver, is in opposition to Hélbe, who, 
in a similar misinterpretation of vv. 6, 7, 
brings out as the meaning of the parable, 
that ‘the publicans, decried by the Phart- 
sees as robbers, etc., are frequently not so. 
In spite of their being repudiated, they are 
equitable people, and frequently combine 
with great expcrience of life and prudence 
a heart so noble that they acquire friends 
as soon as this is only known.” 

On the distinction in sense, see Maetz- 
ner, ad Lycurg. p. 165. 


CHAP. XVI., 5-8. 465 


will have it so, but expresses the moment of occurrence : I have come to the 
knowledge. Bengel well says: ‘‘Subito consilium cepit,” ‘‘Suddenly he 
adopted a plan.”—drav peracrafe] when (quando) J shall have been dis- 
missed. He thus expresses himself to indicate the critical point of time, im- 
minent to him by reason of the near experience that he is expecting, after 
the occurrence of which the déyeofa: x.r.A. is to take place. Comp. ver. 9. 
— défwvra:] the debtors of his master, of Ayfyjvac pédAovres, ‘“ who are about 
to be spoken of,” Euthymius Zigabenus. See Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 117 
[E. T. 134]. — oixovc] houses, not families (Schulz), comp. ver. 9. 

Vv. 5-7. Tav zpewpeca.] of the debtors, they had borrowed the natural prod- 
ucts named from the stores of the rich man. [See Note CXXIL., p. 482.] 
This agrees better with the word, the opposite of which is daveorfe (vii. 41; 
Plut. Caes. 12), than the notion of tenants. — From éva éxaorov it is seen 
that subsequently the ¢wo debtors are mentioned by way of example. — rod 
xupiov éavrov| By the debtors of his own master he knew how to help himself. 
—— récov dpeidee x.7.A.] Going to work promptly and surely, he questions 
their own acknowledgment of obligation, which must agree with the con- 
tents of the bond. — Ver. 6. Bdrove] 6 d2 Barog (13) dSivara: yupHoat Séora¢ 
é3doufxovra dio, ** But the Baro contains seventy-two pints,” Josephus, Antt. 
viii. 2.9. Therefore equal to an Attic petpyric. — défac] take away. The 
steward, who has the documents in his keeping, gives up the bill (ra 
ypaupara, that which is written, in the plural used even of one docu- 
ment, see on Gal. vi. 11), that the debtor may alter the number. Usually, 
that he may write a new bond with the smaller amount. But this is not 
contained in the words; moreover, for that purpose not the surrender 
of the document, but its destruction, would have been necessary. — xaficas] 
pictorial. rayfwe belongs not to this graphic detail, xa@icag (Luther and 
others, including Ewald), but to ypdayov ; the latter corresponds to the haste 
to which the carrying out of an injustice urges. — Ver. 7. érépw] to another. 
Comp. xix. 20. —x«dpong] 6 d2 xédpog (15) divara: nedizvore arrixode déxa, ‘ But 
the cor contains ten Attic Medimni [about 120 gallons],” Josephus, Antt. xv. 
9. 2. — The diversity of the deduction, vv. 6, 7, is merely the change of 
the concrete picturing without any special purpose in view. Comp. already 
Euthymius Zigabenus. 

Ver. 8. 'O xipeog}] not Jesus (Erasmus, Luther, Pred., Weizsicker also, 
p. 213 f.), but, a3 is proved by ver. 9, the master of the steward, to whom the 
measure taken by the latter had become known. — rap oixavéu. ric adix.) aden. 
is a genitive of quality (see on il. 14), the unrighteous steward ; of such o 
quality he had shown himself in his service, as well by the waste in gen- 
eral as specially by his proceeding with the debtors.' The dogmatic idea 
(Schulz) is out of place in the coatext. Schleiermachcr and Bornemann 


1 The expression r#s adcaias contains the steward was honest, and {tis only a device 
judgment of Jesus on the conduct of the springing from neceasity to which Hdélbo 
oicovouos, VV. 5-7, which, nevertheless, the clings, that the faithful steward is called 
master praised with reference to the pru- _—oixov. ras adixias Only tn the sense Of his ca- 
dence employed. Hence ri adtxiagisdecid- lumniatore. 
edly opposed to the assumption that the 


30 


466 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

(comp. also Paulus) construe ri¢ adixiag with éxgvecev : iniquitatis causa, 
‘‘ because of his iniquity... Grammatically correct, but here it is in contra- 
diction with the parallel expression : é« rot papwra riz¢ adixiac, ver. 9. Comp. 
also 6 xpir7¢ ti adcxlac, xviii. 6. And it is not the adi«ia, but the prudence, 
that is the subject of the praise,* as is shown from the analogy of ver. 9. 
tie adcxiag is intended to make it clear that the master praised the steward 
even in spite of his dishonest behavior, because he had dealt prudently. In 
the dishonest man he praised ‘‘his procedure, so well advised and to 
the purpose, with the property that still remained under his control” 
(Schulz, p. 108), even although from a moral point of view this pru- 
dence was only the wisdom of the serpent (Matt. x. 16), so that he was not 
the weord¢ oixavduoc 6 gpdvimog (xii. 42), but only gpévyocs, who had hit 
on the practical savotr faire. — dr: oi vioi x.7.A.] Immediately after the words 
gpovipwes éxoincev, Jesus adds a gencral maxim,® in justification of the pred- 
tcate used (gpoviuwc). Consequently: ‘‘Et merito quidem illius prudentiam 
laudavit, nam quod prudentiam quidem attinet, filii hujus saeculi, etc.,” 
‘‘And justly indeed he praises the prudence of this one, for as far as pru- 
dence is concerned, the sons of this world, ctc.,” Maldonatus, Francke er- 
roncously says (compare the ‘‘ perhaps,” etc., of de Wette) that dre of vint 
x.7.A. refers to the éxyrecev 6 xipiog. This the context forbids by the corre- 
lation of gpovizws and gporndrepor. The sons (see on Matt. viii. 12) of this 
generation (WIN Dy, sce on Matt. xii. 82) are those who belong in their 
moral nature and endeavor to the period of the world prior to the Messianic 
times, not men who are aspiring after the Bac:Acia tov Geod xai ri Sixacootryy 
avtov (Matt. vi. 33).4 The sons of light are those who, withdrawn from tem- 
poral interests, have devoted themselves wholly to the divine aAffea reveal- 
ed by Christ, and are enlightened and governed by it, John xii. 36 ; 1 
Theses. v. 5 ; Eph. v.8. The former are more prudent than the latter, not ab- 
_solutely, but cig rv yeveay ri éavtav, in reference to their own generation, i.c., 
in relation to their own kindred, if they have to do with those who, like them- 
selves, are children of this world, as that steward was so prudent in refer- 
ence to the debtors. The whole body of the children of the world—a cate- 
gory of like-minded men—is described as a generation, a clan of connections; 
and how appropriately, since they appear precisely as vloi ! Observe, more- 
over, the marked prominence of ry éavrav, which includes the contrasted say- 


1 Dion. Hal. Rhet. xiv.; Joseph. Anté. xil. 
4.5; Bernhardy, p. 152; Kiihner, II. p. 192; 
Bornemann, S-hol. p. 98. 

2 We may imagine the master calling out 
to the steward from his own worldly stand- 
point something Hke this: Truly thou hast 
accomplished a prudent stroke! Thy prac- 
tical wisdom is worthy of all honor! Comp. 
Terent. J/eaut. ill. 2.26. But to conclude 
that the steward remained tn his service, is 
altogether opposed to the teaching of tho 
parable (In opposition to Baumgartcn- 
Crusius, H6lbe). 

§ Not a picce of irony upon the Pharisees 


(Zyro), as Brauns also assumes, understand- 
ing by the children of this world the pudfi- 
cans, who were contemned as children of the 
world; and by the children of light, the 
Pharisees, as the educated children of light. 
So also Holbe. Extorted by an erroneous 
interpretation of the whole parable. Text- 
ually the children of the world could only 
be ‘hose to whom the steward belonged by 
virtue of his unrighteous dealing (ris aduccas). 

¢ Comp. xx. 84. Seo examples of the Rab- 
bintcal #953? *)D in Schoettgen, Hor. 
p. 208, and Wetstein. 


CHAP. XVI., 9. 467 


ing that that higher degree of prudence is not exercised, if they have to deal 
with others who are not of their own kind. With unerring sagacity they 
know, as is shown by that steward in his dealiag with the debtors, how, in 
their relations to companions of their own stamp, to turn the advantage of the 
latter to their own proper advantage. On the other hand, in relation to 
the children of light, they are not in a condition for such prudent measures, 
because these are not available for the immoral adjustment of the selfish 
ends of those men, as was the case with those debtors who by thcir own dia- 
honesty were serviceable to the dishonest sagacity of the steward by the fal- 
sification of their bonds.’ Kuinoc] and Paulus, following older commenta- 
tors, explain: in relation to their contemporaries. But how unmeaning 
would be this addition, and how neglected would be the emphatic ry éav- 
trav! Grotius, in opposition to the words themselves, explains : ‘‘in rebus 
suis,” ‘‘ their own affairs ;” Wiescler : for the duration of their life, for the 
brief time of their earthly existence ; Hélbe : in their own manner, accord- 
ing to their own fashion. Comp. Schulz, Lange, and others : after their 
kind ; de Wettc, Eylau : in their sphere of life. — Moreover, ei¢ r. yev. «.1.A. 
is not to be referred to both classes of men (Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, 
Baumgarten Crusius, Brauns, and others), but merely to the viote r. xédoxu. tr. 
(comp. Dettinger, as above, p. 60 f.), as the words themselves require it as 
well as the sense ; for the prudence of the children of light in general, not 
merely in their relation to those like them, is surpassed by that prudence 
which the children of the world know how to apply ei¢ ri yevedv roy éavrav. 
On such wisdom the latter concentrate and use their effort, whereas the , 
children of light can pursue only holy purposes with moral means, and con- 
sequently (as sons of wisdom) must necessarily fall behind in the worldly 
prudence, in which morality is of no account. [See Note CXXIII., p. 482.] 
As, however, He also from them (xaya tiv) requires prudence, Jesus says, 
Ver. 9, giving the application of the whole parable for His disciples who 
were present—aayd ipiv Aéyw, not: xayd Aéyw tyiv ; comp. on xi. 9. Kayo 
corresponds to the preceding 6 xipioc, and tipiv to rov oixov. rH¢ adi. As 
the master praised that steward on account of his prudence, so also must I 
commend to you an analogous prudent course of conduct,’ but in how much 
higher a sense ! — wojoare éavroic pidovg x.7.2.] provide for yourselves friends, 
etc. Itis evident whom Jesus means by these friends from the final sen- 
tence, iva défwrrat tua x.7.A. Those who receive you, to wit, are the angels 
(Matt. xxiv. 81; Mark xiii. 27) ; and these are made friends of by the 
beneficent application of riches (comp. xv. 10; Matt. xviii. 10, xxv. 31, 
xxiv. 31). Thus they correspond to the ypewperderaic of the parable, but 
indirectly. Ambrose, at so early a period, has this truc interpretation, and 


1 eis Is therefore to be taken in the quite Jaudari potuit {lle ... quanto amplius 
usual sense of : in reference to, but not to be ~— placent Domino,” “if this one could be 
twisted Into: afler the manner, or after the praised ... how much more they please 
measure (Lahmeyer), and to be explaincd the Lord,” etc. Augustine, comp. Eathy- 
from the mode of expreasion : reAety és "EA- mius Zigabenus, Grotius, Cornelius a 
Ayvas, and the like (see Saupp, ad Xen. Mem. Lapide, Maldonatus, and others, including 
iv. 2. 87). Ebrard, p. 4%) is a pure importation. 

3 An argument @ minort ad majus (‘‘u! 


468 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


very recently Ewald. Thereference to God (Wolf, Kuinoel, Niedner, and 
others) orto Christ (Olshausen), either alone or with the addition of the 
angels (sce also Bleek), is not appropriate, since the reception into the 
Messiah’s kingdom is the duty of the ministering spirits, accompanied by 
whom the Lord appears in His glory (ix. 26). According to the wsual in- 
terpretation, those to whom deeds of lore have been done, the poor, etc., are 
meant (so also Wiescler, Meuss, Lahmeyer [Weiss ed. Mey.]), whose grat- 
itude is earned as the steward has earned the gratitude of the debtors. But 
in this case iva déwvra: tud¢ must be subjected to a strained interpretation. 
See below. The éavroic, to yourselves, standing emphatically even before rouge. 
in B LR x* Tisch., corresponds to the idea that the (higher) analogy of 
an application for their own use, as in the case of that steward, is to be 
admitted. —éx rov pau. tH¢ adix.] é denotes that the result proceeds from 
making use of Mammon.’ But Mammon, the idea of which is, moreover, 
in no way to be extended to the totality of the earthly life (Eylau), is not to 
be taken in this place as at ver. 18, personally (comp. on Matt. vi. 24), 
but as neuter, as at ver. 11, eealth. — rio adixiag] Genitivus qgualitatis, as at 
ver. 8: of the unrighteous Mammon. As at ver. 8 this predicate is attached 
to the steward, because he had acted unrighteously towards his lord, so here 
it is attached to trealth, because it, as in the case of that steward, serves, 
according to usual experience (comp. xviii. 24 f.), as an instrument of un- 
righteous dealing. The moral characteristic of the use of it is represented 
us adhering to itself. Other explanations, instead of being suggested by 
the context, are read into the passage isolated from the context, to wit, that 
of Jerome, Augustine,* Calvin, Olearius, Maldonatus, Lightfoot, Bertholdt, 
Rosenmiiller, Méller, Bornemann, and others : opes injuste partae, ‘‘ wealth 
unjustly procured” (comp. Euthymius Zigabenus : d¢ é& adtxiag Oncavprofiéyta, 
Tic ék TOD pH diapepiLecOae Ta mepitra TovTov Toig wévyow, ‘‘as treasured up 
from unrighteousness, that of not dividing the surplus of this with the 
poor”); that of Drusius, Michaelis, Schreiter, Kuinocl, Wieseler, and others 
(comp. Dettinger and H. Bauer): opes fallaces, ‘‘ deceitful wealth,” or 
wealth which allures (Loffler, Koster [Weiss ed. Mey.]) ; that of Paulus 
(Ereg. Handb.) : that Mammon is designated as unrighteous towards the 
disciples, to whom he has communicated little ; that of Schulz and Olshausen : 
opes impias (Olshausen : ‘‘the bond by which every individual is linked 
to the aid ovrog and its princes”) ; that of Heppe : that wealth is so desig- 
nated as being no true actual possession (ver. 11) ; and others. Moreover, 
a hidden irony (Eylau) against an Ebionitic error of the disciples, as if they 
had imputed to what is earthly in itself the character of ad:x/a, is remote 
from the words, since the predicate is taken from the conduct of the 
steward. There are analogous expressions of the Targumists, in which the 
characteristic peculiarity of Mammon is given by means of a superadded 


1 Matthiae, p. 1888; Bernhardy, p. 280; alter non habet, tu abundas et alter eget,” 
Elliendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 559 f. *‘ since it is of itself iniquity, that thou hast 

2 Still Augustine admits (Comment.in Ps. and another has not, thou aboundest and 
xlviil.) even the communiatic interpretation: anotherisin want.” This is foreign to the 
** quia ea ipsa iniquitas est, quod tu habes, context. 


CHAP. XVI., 9. 469 
substantive (as TPWT {1D, [1D YW) ; see in Lightfoot, p. 844. The 
value of the predicate r7¢ ddix., so far as the structure of the discourse is 
concerned, seems to be, that this application of wealth for selfish advantage 
is entirely conformable to the improba indoles thereof, according to which it 
allows itself to be used, instead of only for the purpose of serving the interest 
of its possessor (Mammon), for the selfish advantage of those who have it 
to administer. The epithet is contemptuous. Ye cannot, considering its 
nature, better make use of so worthless a thing! Bornemann, Schol. 
p. 98 ff., and in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1843, p. 116 ff., finds the whole precept 
mothoate x.t.A. to be in contradiction with the moral teaching of Christ, and 
conjectures : ov roijoere x.t.A., ‘‘non facietis (nolite facere) vobis amicos ex 
opibus injuste collectis,” ‘‘ye will not make (are unwilling to make) friends 
for yourselves out of wealth unjustly collected,” etc.,’ without any trace in 
the evidence for the text. And the doubt of Bornemann is solved by the 
consideration that (1) Jesus does not bid the disciples provide themselves 
with Mammon in a similiar way to the steward (the steward did not provide 
himself with wealth at all, rather he bestowed it on the debtors, but for his 
own advantage), but to apply the riches which they, as having hitherto 
been oixovéuo: of Mammon, still had at their disposal, in a similar way to 
that steward, to make themselves friends ; (2) that Jesus requires of His 
disciples to forsake all (v. 27, xviii. 22 ff., comp. xii. 83) is the less in 
conflict with the passage before us, that at that time there were around Him 
so many publicans and sinners who had previously entered into His service 
(out of the service of Mammon), and for these the words of Jesus contained 
the command to forsake all just in the special form appropriate to the rela- 
tions in which they stood. In respect of pafyrds, ver. 1, we are not to 
conceive exclusively only of the Twelve, and of such as already fad forsaken 
all ; (8) ourtext does not conflict with the context (ver. 138), as it rather 
cjaims in substance the gizing up of the service of Mammon, and its claim 
corresponds to the 7 Oyoaupifere tyiv «.7.A., besides allowing the idea of laying 
up treasure in heaven (see iva érav éxA. x.7.A.) to appear in a concrete form. 
— bray éxAciry] (see the critical remarks) when it fails, i.c., when it ceases.” 
This éray éxA. indecd corresponds to the point of the parable : érav peracraba, 


1 Bornemann assumes as the meaning of 
the parable: ‘‘ Pharisaeos Christus ait 
de alienis bonis liberales esse, idque sul 
commodi causa, atque eorum praefectos 
(dvOpwwos wAovoros, ver. 1) non modo hanc 
in subditis perversitatem et vitiositatem 
non vituperare et punire, sed etiam laudare 
prudentiam eorum et calliditatem. At suos 
id nunquam imitaturos esse Christus certo 
confidit,” ‘‘Christ says that the Pharisees 
are liberal in regard to the goods of others, 
and that too for the sake of their own ad- 
vantage ; and yet their chiefs (a»@pwrror 
wAovovos, Ver. 1) not only do not con- 
demn and punish this perversity and vice 
in their subordinates, but even praise 
thelr prudence and cunning. But Christ 


certainly trusts that His followers will 
never imitate this,’ etc. This interpreta- 
tion is erroneous, if only for the reason 
that the steward is liberal with the prop- 
erty of his own master. Consequently the 
Pharisees would be represented as liberal, 
not de bonis alienis, ‘* in regard to the goods 
of others,” but with the property @f their 
own chiefs. In general, however, it Is de- 
cisive against Bornemann that no par 
able is intended to teach the opposite of 
itself. 

2 Comp. xxii. 82; Heb. i. 12; Xen. Hell. |. 
5. 2: €xwy 3t Reev rdAavra wevraxcoia: dav be 
rauta éxdivy x.7.A.; 1 Sam. {x.7; 1 Mace. ill. 
29,45; Ecclus. xiv. 19, xiii. 24; and fre- 
quently in the LXX. and in the Apocrypha. 


470 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

ver, 4, but signifies in the application intended to be madec—the catas- 
trophe of the Parousia, at the appearance of which, in the oyqua roi xoouov 
robrov which precedes it, the temporal riches comes to an end and cease to 
exist (vi. 24; Jas. v. 1 ff. ; Luke xvii. 26 ff.), whereas then the treasures 
laid up in heaven (Matt. vi. 20; Luke xii. 88, xviii. 22) occupy their 
place (comp. also 1 Tim. vi. 19), and the complete azdry of riches (Matt. 
xiii. 22) is revealed. This reference to the Parousia is required in the con- 
text by the aiwviovg oxyvdc, whereby the setting up of the kingdom (here also 
conceived of as near) is referred to. The Pecepta éxAimyre* would mean : 
when ye shall have died.* But after death that which is first to be expected 
is not the kingdom of Messiah, or the life in heaven to which reference is 
usually made (even by Bleek), but the paradise in Sheol (ver. 22), to 
which, however, the predicate aiwviove is not appropriate (in opposition to 
Engelhardt). Moreover, Jesus could not refer His disciples to the condi- 
tion after their death, since, according tothe synoptic Gospels (and see 
also on John xiv. 3), He had placed the Parousia and the setting up of the 
kingdom in the lifetime even of that generation? (Luke xxi. 32, ix. 27). 
Hence the Recepta is to be rejected even on these internal grounds, and to 
be traced to the idea of the later eschatology. The everlasting tabernacles 
correspond to the ei¢ roi¢ oixove airov in the parable, ver. 4, and typically 
denote, probably in reference to the movable tabernacles in the wilderness 
(comp. Hos. xii. 10; Zech. xiv. 16; Ps. cxviil. 15), the kingdom of 
Messiah in respect of its everlasting duration. Thus God promises in 4 
Esdr. ii. 11: ‘‘ Et dabo cis tabernacula aeterna, quae praeparaveram illis,” 
‘“‘And I will give to them eternal tabernacles, which I have prepared for 
them,” where, in accordance with the context, doubtless the kingdom of 
Messiah is meant. — difwyrac] not .impersonal (Késter and others), but in 
respect of gidovg, and according to the analogy of ver. 4, the friends provided 
are to be understood, consequently the angels (see above) ; comp. Ambrose. 
If gidove be explained as denoting men, the poor and the like [Godet, 
Weiss, and many others], since the text hints nothing of a future elevation 
of these to the dignity of stewards (in opposition to Meuss), dffu1rae must 
be understood of the thankful and welcoming reception ; but in this inter- 
pretation it would be strangely presupposed that the ¢ito: tcould be already in 
the everlasting habitations when the benefactors come thither, or there must 
somehow be understood a mediate déyeofa: (Grotius: ‘‘efficiant ut recip- 
iamini,” ‘‘ they may bring to pass that ye are reccived”) wherein there would 


1 Luther translates: “‘ when ye faint,”’ but 
explains this of dying, when ye “ must 
leave all behind you.’ Comp. Ewald 
(reading éxAecryre): when ye can no longer 
help yourselves, i. ¢., when ye die. Context- 
ually Meuss refers (éxAetrnre) it to the last 
judgment ; but with what far-fetched and 
artificial interpretation: “ quandoemigratis, 
acil.é¢ mammone iniquitatia, qui adhuc re- 
fugio vobis fult,*’ ** when ye remove, namely, 
Srom the mammon of unrighteousness, which 


hitherto was a refuge for you !"" 

2 Plat. Jegg. vi. p 759 E, ix. p. 886 E; 
Xen. Cyr. vili. 7. 26; Isa. xl. 10, LXX.; Gen. 
xxv. 8 xllx. 88; Tob. xiv. 11; Zeal. XJI. 
Pair. p. 329. 

? Hence also the reading which gives the 
singular éxAery (Wieseler éxAirp) is not to 
be understood, with Wieseler : if he leares 
you in the lurch (in death); which, apart 
from there being no tuas expressed, would 
be very harsh. 


CHAP. XVI., 10-12. 471 
be especial reference to the meritoriousness of alms (xi. 41, see especially 
Maldonatus and Hilgenfeld, the latter of whom recalls the prayer of the 
poor in the Pastor of Hermas) ; but for an interpretation of that kind there 
is, according to ver. 4, absolutely no justification, and as little for an ex- 
planation according to the idea contained in Matt. xxv. 40 (Beza, Calvin, 
and others, including Wieseler) ; comp. Luther (Pred.) : ‘‘ Men shall not 
do it, but they shall be witnesses of our faith which is proved to them, for 
the sake of which God receives us into the everlasting habitations.” Luther, 
however, further adds appropriately that in this there is taught no merit of 
works. 


Remanzx, — The circumstance that Jesus sets before His disciples the prudence 
of a dishonest proceeding as an example, would not have been the occasion of 
such unspeakable misrepresentations and such unrighteous judgments (most 
contemptibly in Eichthal) if the principle : ov divacvde Seq dovdebery cai papwrd, 
ver. 13, had been kept in view, and it had been considered accordingly that even 
the padrrai, in fact, by beneficent application of their property, must hav@acted 
unfaithfully towards Mammon in order to be faithful towards their contrasted 
Master, towards God.' In this unfaithfulness their prudence was to consist, 
because that was the way to attain for themselves the Messianic provision. [But 
see Note CXXIII., p. 482.] If further objection has been taken on the ground 
that in the expedient of the steward no special prudence is contained, it is to be 
considered that the doctrinal precept intended at ver. 9 claimed to set forth 
just such or a similar manifestation of prudence as the parable contains. On 
the other hand, the device of a more complicated and refined subtlety would 
not have corresponded with that simple doctrine which was to be rendered pal- 
pable, to make to themselves friends of the unrighteous Mammon, ete. 


Vv. 10-12. [See Note CXXIV., p. 482.] These verses give more detailed 
information regarding the precept in ver. 9. ‘‘ Without the specified appli- 
cation of the possessions of Mammon, to wit, ye cannot receive the Messianic 
riches... This is shown, on the ground of a general principle of experience 
(ver. 10) from a twofold specific peculiarity of both kinds of wealth, by the 
argument a minori ad majus.—The faithful in the least is also faithful in 
much ; and the unrighteous in the least is also unrighteous in much *—a locus com- 
munis which is to be left in its entire proverbial generality. It is fitted for 


1 Hence also the expedient which many 
have adopted of maintaining that attention 
is not directed to the morality of the 
steward's conduct, bat only to the prudence 
in itself worthy of imitation (see Luther, 
Calvin, Grotius, Michaelis, Loffler, Bleek, 
and many others) must be regarded as mis- 
taken, as on general grounds it is unworthy 
of Christ. The unfaithfulness which {3 rep- 
resented is manifested towards Mamunon, 
and fhis was intended to appear to the dis- 
ciples not merely as prudence, but also as 
duty. Hence also there was no need for at- 
tempting to prevent the misunderstanding, 
that for a good end an cvil means was com- 
mended (which Késter finds in vv. 10-13). 


Ebrard (on Olsbausen, p. 678 f.) says: that 
the dishonest steward 1s not so much a 
symbol as an instance of a man who, in the 
ephere of unrighteousness and sin, practises 
the virtue of prudence; that from him tho 
Christian was to learn tho practice of pru- 
dence, but tn (he sphere of righteousner:. 
But thus the contrast in which the polnt 
would le is first of all put into the passage. 
[See Note CXXIIT., p. 482.] 

2 Views in harmony with vv. 10 and 12 
occur in Clem. Cor. if.8; but to concludo 
therefrom that there fs a relationship with 
the Gospel of tho Egyptians (K¢stlin, p. 233 
{s very arb'trary. . 





472 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


very varied application to individual cases. For whut special conclusion it 
is here intended to serve as a major proposition is contained in ver. 11 f. — 
matoc év éday. is conceived as one united idea. Comp. on Gal. iii. 26 ; Eph. 
iv. 1.—Ver. 11. In the unrighteous Mammon (here also neuter, and alto- 
gether as in ver. 9) those are faithful who, according to the precept in ver. 9, 
so apply it that they make for themselves friends therewith. This faith- 
fulness is meant not from the standpoint of the mammon-mind, but of the 
divine mind (ver. 18). — é}évecfe] have become, before the Messianic decision, 
—an expression of the moral devclopment. — rd a2nfivév] placed first as a 
more emphatic contrast to év 76 ddixp pap. (comp. ix. 20, xxiii. 81) : thai 
which is true, which is not mercly a wealth that is regarded as such, but 
(‘‘ Jesus loquitur e sensu coelesti,” ‘‘ Jesus speaks from a heavenly sense,” 
Bengel) the ideally real and genuine riches (comp. on John i. 9), 1.¢., the sal- 
cation of the kingdom of Messiah. Observe the demonstrative force of the 
article. De Wette, Bleek, and many others, following older writers, wrongly 
understand the spiritual wealth, the Spirit ; compare Olshausen : ‘‘ heavenly 
powers of the Spirit.”” It must be that which previously was symbolized by 
the reception into the everlasting habitations ; hence also it cannot be ‘‘the 
revealed truths, the Gospel” (Ewald), or ‘‘ the spiritual riches of the king- 
dom of heaven” (Wieseler), the ‘‘ gifts of grace’ (Lahmeyer), and the like. 
The objection against our view, that morefce: is not in harmony with it 
(Wiescler), is not fatal, comp. xix. 17. The contrast indeed is not verbally 
complete (ad:cov . . . dixacov), but substantially just, since anything that is 
unrighteous cannot be rd aAnfivév, Dut the two are essentially in contrast. — 
Ver. 12. év r@ aAdAorpiw| another specific attribute of the temporal riches, zn 
what isalien, i.c., in that which belongs to another. For ye are not the possessor, 
but Mammon (in the parable the rich man whose wealth the oixovéyoc did not 
possess, but only managed). [See Note CXXV., p. 482.] Altogether arbi- 
trary is the spiritualizing explanation of de Wette, that it is ‘‘ what does 
not immediately belong to the sphere of light and Spirit” (comp. Lahmeyer), 
as well as that of Hélbe, ‘‘in the truth which belongs to God.” The con- 
trary : rd tuérepov, that which is yours, by which again is characterized not 
spiritual wealth, but the salvation of the Messianic kingdom,—to wit, as that 
which shall be the property of man, for that is indeed the hereditary posses- 
sion, the «Anpovouia (Acts xx. 82; Rom. viii. 17; Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 14 ; 
Matt. xxv. 34, and elsewhere), the treasure laid up by him in heaven (Matt. 
vi. 19-21), his zodirevxza in heaven (Phil. iii. 20), not a mere possession by 
stewardship of that which belongs to another as its owner, as is the case in 
respect of earthly wealth. Itis an arbitrary interpolation in H. Bauer, op. cit. 
p. 540 f., who understands éAdyeorov and aAdAdrpiov as the adixocg pap. of the 
legal condition, to which is to be attributed no absolute significance. 

Ver. 18. [See Note CXXVI., p. 483.] A principle which does not cohere 
with what follows (Holtzmann), but proves as indubitable the denial which 
is implied in the previous question: ‘‘ ye shall in the supposed case not re- 
ceive the Messianic salvation.” Ye are, to wit, in this case servants of 
Mammon, and cannot as such be God’s servants, because to serve two masters 
is morally impossible. Morcover, see on Matt. vi. 24. 


CHAP. XVI., 14-17. Pe: 


Vv. 14,15. [See Note CXXVIL., p. 483.] The mocking snecr ' of the Phar- 
isecs, who indced so well knew their pretended sanctity to be compatible 
with their striving after temporal possessions, Jesus, in ver. 15, discloses at 
its source, which was the self-conceit of their righteousness. — iueic éore x.7.A. | 
yeare the people who make yourselves righteous (i.e., declare yourselves as right- 
eous) before men. Contrast : the divine dixalwoic as it especially became the 
substance of the Pauline gospel.?, The Pharisee in the temple, xviii. 11 f., 
gives a repulsive illustration of the dicacoty éavrdv, and he even ventures it in 
the presence of God. — ar: rd év avOpdrog typ. x.7.A.] since, indeed, that which 
is lofty (standing in high estimation) among men is an abomination before God. 
Comp. Ps. cxxxviii. 6. Thence it is plainly evident that God knows your 
(evil) hearts, otherwise that which is lofty among men would also be highly 
esteemed with Him, and not appear as an abomination. This generally ex- 
pressed judgment of God has as its concrete background the seemingly holy 
condition of the Pharisees, and hence is not indeed to be arbitrarily limited 
(multa, quae, etc., Kuinoel); but, moreover, neither is it to be pressed to 
an absolute and equal application to all, although in relative variation of 
degrees it is valid without exception. Schleiermacher and Paulus find a 
concealed reference to Herod Antipas ; but this without the slightest hint 
in the connection could not possibly present itself to the hearers ; the less 
that even ver. 18 cannot be referred to the relation of Herod to Herodias 
(see already Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 34), since this latter was not forsaken 
by Philip, but had separated herself arbitrarily from him. 

Vv. 16,17. [Sce Note CXXVII., p. 483.] The sequence of thought is : 
after Jesus had declared His judgment on His adversarics, according to 
which, moreover, they belong to the category of the 8dé21yya évdimiov r. Oecd, 
He now tells them on the ground of what standard this judgment has refer- 
ence to them, namely, on the ground of the Mosaic law (comp. John v. 45), of 
which not the smallest element should lose its validity by the fact that 
since John the kingdom of the Messiah was announced, and every man en- 
deavored forcibly to come into it. The stress lies on ver. 17, and ver. 16 is 
preparatory, but finds its motive in the fact that the announcement of the 
kingdom, and the gencral endeavor after the kingdom which had begun 
from the time of John, might casily throw upon Jesus the suspicion of put- 
ting back the old principle, that of the law, into the shade. But no; no 
single xepaia of the law fails, and that is the standard according to which 
ye are an abomination in the sight of God.* The want of connection is only 


1 dxpvernpigey, xxiil. 85; 2 Sam. xix. 21; postulat temporum ratio... . Mosis et 
Pa. fi. 4, xxxiv. 19; 8 Esdr. i. 58. prophetarum libri... functl sunt velut 
"To attribute Sicatocvyn as the funda- puerorum magisterio;...aJohanne incipit 


mental demand of Christianity to the influ- 
ence of Pharisaism on the development of 
Christ (see especially, Keim, Der Geschichu. 
Chr. p. 3%) is the more doubtful, as this 
fundamental thought prevails throughout 
the whole Old Testament. 

* Grotius and others assume as the connec- 
tlon: “Ne miremini, si majora dilectionis 
opera nunc quam olim exigantur; id enim 


aetas melior,’’ ‘* Do not wonder, if greater 
works of love are required now than for- 
merly; for the condition of the times de- 
mands this... . Moses and the books of 
the prophets served as a master of boys; 

. with John a better age begins,” etc. 
Against this is ver. 17, and, in general (comp. 
Calovius), the manner in which Jesus hon- 
ors the law (comp. ver. 31). : 


474 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

external, not in the sequence of thought, and hence is not, as with Schulz, 
Strauss, and de Wette (comp. also Bleek), to be referred to mistaken recol- 
lections from Matthew. Already the source of Luke’s account of the jour- 
ney had here operated in vv. 16-18, which in Matthew has its historical 
position. Luke follows his source of information, but it is not without 
plan that he has supplemented from the Zogia (Holtzmann), nor has he 
pieced the passages together like mosaic (Weizsicker).— 6 véuog x. ol mpopqrae 
Ewe ‘luévy.] We are not to supply (following Matt. xi. 13) mpoed#revoay 
(Euthymius Zigabenus, and many others), but from what follows (see Kith- 
ner, II. p. 605), éxzptocovro.’ As the law and the prophets were announced 
down to the time of John, so from that time onwards (even through John him- 
self) the joyful tidings of the kingdom of the Messiah appeared, and with what 
result! Every man’? presses forcibly into it ; ‘‘ vilngruit pia,” ‘‘ assaults with 
pious force,” Bengel.* See on Matt. xi. 12. — receiv] to fall into decay, with ref- 
erence to its obligation, the opposite of remaining in force.‘— The véyoc, 
ver. 17, is not to be taken in any other sense than in ver. 16 (in opposition to 
Volkmar, p. 208, who understands the moral law contained in the legal 
code) ; but assuredly the continuance here declared, the remaining in force 
of the véuo¢, is referred to its ideal contents. The reading of Marcion : rav 
2dyuv pov, instead of rod véuov, is not the original text, as though Luke had 
transposed Matt. v. 18 into its opposite, but an inappropriate dogmatic al- 
teration (in opposition to Baur, Hilgenfeld).* Against the supposed anti- 
nomianism of Luke, sce gencrally Holtzmann, p. 397 ; Lechler, Apost. Zett. 
p. 157 f. 

Ver. 18. See on Matt. v. 82, xix. 9. Of what Christ has just said of the 
continual obligation of the law he now gives an isolated evample, as Luke 
found it here already in his original source. For the choice of: this place 
(not the original one) a special inducement must have been conceived of, 
which Luke does not mention [but see Note CXXVII., p. 483] ; perhaps 


1 Others supplement fcay (de Wette 
[Weiss ed. Mey.], comp. Ewald), which like- 
wise {s allowable, and instead of this Theo- 


law. See his Geschichtl. Chr. p. 57 f. 
3 A popular expression of, the general ur- 
gency. Hence aas is neither to be pressed, 


phylact, correctly explaining, places «lxor 
rov xaipov. In the place of the Old Testa- 
ment preaching has now appeared since 
John the New Testament preaching. 
But thereby the annulling of the law is not 
declared (in opposition to Baur, according 
to whom Luke must have transformed the 
words of Matt. xi. 13 to this meaning), but, 
as ver. 17 shows, the obligation of the law 
is established in a higher sense. This is 
also in opposition to Schenkel, p. 385, who, 
mistaking the connection, considers ver, 17 
as an assertion of the Pharisees, and ver. 18 
as its confutation, but that already Luke 
himself has ceased to perceive the relation 
between the two verses. Nay, Schenkel 
even strikes at Matt. v. 18f. Keim rightly 
says that Jesus nowhere in the synoptic 
Gospels has declared the abolition of the 


nor, with Bengel, to be supplemented by 
Biagopevos. Moreover, Bragerac is not to be 
taken of that “ quod fierl debeat,” ** which 
ought to be done” (so Elwert, Quaest. ¢é 
observatt. ad philol. sacr. 1860, p. 20). 

2 Comp. Aen. Cyr. iii. 3. 69: €t cai Brawavro 
eiow ; Thucyd. 1. 68. 4: Bidcaadat és Thy Mori- 
Saray, vil. 69.4: Bedoacrdar és rd cfm. 

Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 8; Rom. ix. 6; Ruth 
ili. 18; Judith vi. 9, and elsewhere ; Herod. 
vil. 18; Plat. Zuéd. p. 14 D. Moreover, see 
on Matt. v. 18. 

® Comp. Ritschl in the 7heol. Jahr’. 1851, 
p. 351 f.; Késtlin, p. 808 f.; Zeller, Apost. 
p. 15 f.; Franck in the Stud, u. A7rit. 1855, 
p. 311 f.; Volkmar, p. 207 ff., whose conject. 
ure, rav Adywr Tov @eou, is, Moreover, Quito 
superfluous. 


RE 


CHAP. XVI., 19. 475 


only, in general, the remembrance of the varictics of doctrine prevailing at 
that time on the question of divorce (see on Matt. xix. 3) ; perhaps also, 
the thought that among those Pharisees were such as had done that which 
the verse mentions (comp. Euthymius Zigabenus). — The saying, however, 
in the mind of Jesus, serves as a voucher for the obligation of the law with- 
out exception, on the ground of Gen. ii. 24. See on Matt. xix. 4 ff.; Mark 
xvi. 6 ff. Olshausen explains this of spiritual fornication,’ that what God 
had joined together (i.e, the law according to its everlasting significance, 
ver. 17), the Pharisees had arbitrarily loosed (in that they loved money and 
wealth more than God), and that which God had loosed (?.¢., the Old Testa- 
ment theocracy in its temporary aspect, ver. 16), they wished to maintain 
as obligatory, and had thus practised a twofold spiritual adultery. How 
arbitrary, without the slightest hint in the text! [See Note CXXVIII., 
p. 483.] The supposed meaning of the second member would be altogether 
without correspondence to the expressions, and the Pharisees might have 
used the first member directly for their justification, in order to confirm 
their prohibition of any accession to the Gospel. As to the obviousness of 
the exception which adultery makes in reference to the prohibition of divorce, 
see on Matt. v. 82. 

Ver. 19. After Jesus in vv. 15-18 has rebuked the Pharisees, He now 
justifies in opposition to them the doctrines, vv. 9-13, on account of which 
they had derided Him,—showing them in the following fictitious doctrinal 
narrative (which is not, as with Hengstenberg, to be transferred to the re- 
past of Bethany) to what riches lead if they are not applied in the manner pre- 
scribed in ver. 9, to the roreiv éaurg@ gidovc.2 Comp. Theophylact. De Wette 
(comp. Holtzmann) wrongly denies all connection with what goes before, 
and finds sct forth only the thought : Blessed are the poor; woe to the rich 
(vi. 20, 24), so that there is wanting any moral view of the future retribution, 
and hence the suspicion arises that in the first portion, vv. 19-26, 
‘*the well-known prejudice ” of Luke [comp. Weiss ed. Mey.], or of his in- 
formant, against riches and in favor of poverty, is arbitrarily introduced. 
Comp. Schwegler, I. p. 59 ; also Kostlin, p. 271, and Hilgenfeld, according 
to whom the parable no longer appears in its primitive form, and must have 
received from Luke an appendix hostile to the Jews. The moral standard 
of the retribution is at ver. 27 ff., 80 emphatically made prominent * that it is 


1 Comp. also H. Bauer, op. cit. p. 544, who 
thinks the meaning is that Israel is not to 
separate himself from the Mosaic law, and 
not to urge it upon the heathens. 

*The opinion, that by the rich man is 
meant Jferod Antipas (Schlelermacher, 
Paulus), is a pure Invention. 

® See also If. Bauer in Zeller's Theol. Jahrb. 
1845, 8, p. 525, who, however, understands 
by the rich man the Jewish popular rulers, 
and by Lazarus the poor Jewish Christians 
(Ebionites), to the assistance of whom, in 
their bodily needs. the Gentile Christians 
(the x¥ves) had come (Acts x1. 20 f., xxiv. 17, 


_ and elsewhere). Such forced interpreta- 


tions readily occur if the parable is to be 
explained according to assumed tenden- 
clesofthe author. Zellerin the Theol. Jahrb. 
1843. p. 83 f., explains riches and poverty in 
the parable before us in a spiritual sense of 
Judaism and heathenism; according to 
Schwegler, however, the similitude is, at 
least from ver. 27 onward, carried on inthe 
anti-Judaic sense. Baur {s of the same opin- 
jon, and lays stress upon the manner in 
whieh the conclusion oxhibits the relation 
of the Jews (who did not belicve in the 
risen Christ) to Christianity ; comp. also Hil- 


476 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
unreasonable to separate it from the first part of the narrative, and ' to speak 
of the Hesene-like contempt of riches (Josephus, Bell. ii. 8. 3). — dé] transi- 
tional, but to put the matter now, 80 as to act upon your will, etc. See above. 
— xai évedidbox.] & simple connective link, where the periodic style would 
have turned the phrase by means of a relative, as is done subsequently in 
ver. 20. — mopgtp. x. Bioc.] His upper garment was of purple wool, his 
underclothing of Egyptian byssus (white cotton), which among the 
Hebrews was frequently used for delicate and luxurious materials. — Jesus 
docs not give any name for the mch man, which is not to be taken, as 
by many of the Fathers, as a suggestion of reproach (Euthymius Zigabenus 
refers to Ps. xv. 4), and in general, the absence of the name is to be regarded 
as unintentional ; for the poor man, however, even a significant name rene 
presented itself to the sympathy of Jesus. Tradition calls the rich man 
Nevertjc, Which, according to a Scholiast, appeared also in certain mss. ; as, 
moreover, the Sahidic version has the addition : cujus erat nomen Nineue. 
Vv. 20, 21. In view of the significance of the name, we can the less con- 
clude, with Calvin and others, following Tertullian, that this isan actual 
history, since even at so early a period Theophylact describes this as occurring 
‘‘senselessly.".? AdZapoc, 4.€., y9, abbreviated for WOR, Deus auszilium, 
‘*God a help,” as frequently also among the Rabbins. See Lightfoot on John 
xl. 1. Not : Wy? ne, auzilio destitutus, ‘‘no-help ” (Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, ond others). But that any kind of confusion with the Lazarus from 
Bethany had arisen (de Wette) is a quite arbitrary conjecture. Just as 
groundless, moreover, is it either to doubt of the historical reality of the 
Lazarus of the fourth Gospel and his resurrection, because of the Lazarus of 
the parable being fictitious ; or, on the other hand, to support this historical 
character by the assumption that Jesus in the parable referred to the actual 
Lazarus (Hengstenberg). The two men called Lazarus have nothing to do 
with one another. The name which the Lazarus of Bethany actually bore is 
here a symbolically chosen namc, and how appropriate it is | — 23é82y70] not : 
eas laid down (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius), but pluperfect, had been thrown 
down. The poor sick man had been cast down there in order to procure for 
him what fell from the rich man’s table. Even in Matt. viii. 6, ix. 2, the 
idea is not merely that of lying, but of being cast down. — xpic¢ trav rvAdra) 
there at the gate (see on Matt. xxvi. 71), which led from the rpvatdcov into 
the house. The form ciAxwufvoc (Lachmann, Tischendorf), afflicted with ul- 
cers (from éAxéw), is convincingly attested, and that in opposition to the 


over, the whole parable, as given by Luke, 
ig turned into a Utorepow mpérepoy on the 
ground of the abstractions of church his- 


genfeld, Evang. p. 201 f. Weizsacker also 
finds in it the influence of Ebionitic ideas. 
Comp. on ver. 1, xv. 11. But in his opinion 


(see p. 215) the parable concerning Lazarus 
received a wider development, according to 
which it now typifies the unbelieving Juda- 
ism, which does not allow itself to be con- 
verted by Moses and the prophets, and does 
not believe, moreover, in the risen Christ ; 
the rich Judaism as opposed to the poor Jew- 
ish Christianity (comp. p. 602). Thus, more- 


tory. 
1 Strauss, I. p. 682; comp. Schwegler, 
Baur, Zeller. 
2 Nevertheless, the houses of the rich 
man and of Lazarus are still shown to this 
day on the Via dolorosa (Robinson, L 


p. 387). 






CHAP. XVI., 22, 23. 477 
usage elsewhere ;’ but it was probably formed by Luke, according to the anal- 
ogy of the argument of ZAcw and éAxiw (Lobeck, Paral. p. 85 f.). — Ver. 21. 
émcOupév] desiring, craving after it. Whether he received of what fell or not 
is left undecided by the expression in itself, and de Wette (comp. Bleck) 
leaves the matter as it is, there being, as he thinks, nothing at all said about 
what was done or not done, but only about a lot and a condition. But the 
following GAAd cai x.r.A. shows that the craving was not satisfied, which, more- 
over, presents itself a@ priori according to the purpose of the description as the 
most natural thing. The addition borrowed from xv. 16: xai oideic édidov 
avr, in min. and vas., after rAovciov, is hence (comp. xv. 16) a gloss correct in 
sense, — GAG kal ol xbvec x.7.A.] but, instead of being satisfied, even still (xai, , 
sce Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134) the dogs came, etc. An aggravation of the 
misery, and that too not mercly as depicting the negative evil of neglect (aAAa 
Kal pnuoc Tay Oeparevodvtuy, ‘‘ but also destitute of those who healed, Theophy- 
lact ; comp. Euthymius Zigabenus), but also positicely : the unclean beasts 
and their licking (éréAecyov) aggravating the pain of the helpless creature ! 
According to others,” even the dogs appeared to have compassion upon him. 
But the idea of contrast which 4A24é must introduce would not thus be made 
prominent, nor the accumulation which xaiindicates, nor would the whole 
strength of the contrast between vv. 21, 22 remain. [See Note CXXIX., 
p. 483.] According to Bornemann, the meaning is: ov pévoy éxoptdoty .. . 
GA2G cai «.7.A., ‘‘egestati ejus micae de divitis mensa allatae, vulncribus 
succurrebant canes,” ‘‘the crumbs from the rich man’s table aided his pover- 
ty, the dogs were relieving his wounds.” This is opposed to the purpose of the 
doctrinal narrative, to which purpose corresponds rather the unmitigated 
greatness of the suffering (ver. 25 ; moreover, the rich man’s suffering in 
Hades is not mitigated). 

Vv. 22, 28. 'AreveyOjvar avréy] not his soul merely (‘‘ non possunt ingredi 
Paradisum nisi justi, quorum a@nimae eo feruntur per angclos,” ‘‘none can 
enter Paradise except the just, whose souls are borne thither by the angels,” 
Targum on Cantic. iv. 12), but the dead person who is not buried (as the rich 
man was, ver. 23), but instead thereof is carried away by the angels (‘' ante- 
quam egrederentur socii ex hac area, mortui sunt R. Jose ect R. Chiskia et 
R. Jesa ; et viderunt, quod angeli sancti eos deportarent in illud velum ex- 
pansum,” ‘‘ before the confederates departed from that place, Rabbi Jose and 
R. Chiskia and R. Jesa died ; and they saw that holy angels carricd them 
away into that opened covering,” Idra Rabba, 1137 f.), and that too into 
Abraham's bosom, where he lives once more and is blessed (ver. 24 f.) 
Ewald also, and Schegg, hold the correct view. [See Note CXXX., p. 493. ] 
The usual device, that the burial of the poor man was Icft without mention, 
as being worthy of no considtration [Godet], is an evasion, the more arbitra- 
ry in proportion as the narrative is a fictitious one, the doctrine of which in- 
decd concerns only the condition of the souls in Hadcs, while its concrete 


1 Eur. Alc. 878: jAcwoey; Plat. Phoc. 2: Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
Ta HAcwoudva. Ewald, Bleek. So also Klinckhardt, evper 
2 Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Wetstein, Mi- parabd. de hom. divite et Lazaro, Lips. 1881. 

chaelis, and others, including Kuinoel, 


“N 


478 


THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


poetic representation concerns the whole man ; hence Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 
p. 359, mistaking very inconsiderately the poetic character of the descrip- 
tion, calls our explanation folly.—ei¢ rév xéAr.’ABp. ] ONIN ov iP'N3, among 
the Rabbins also a frequent sensuous representation of special blessedness in 
Paradise,’ where the departed referred to are in intimate fellowship with the 
patriarch who loves them (resting on his breast). Comp. Wetstein. See also 
4 Macc. xiii. 16, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob receive the dead into 
their bosom. The xéAr. 'Afp. is therefore not of the same import as Paradise, 
xxili. 48, but Abraham is in Paradise (comp. on John viii. 56), and has there 
received Lazarus to his bosom. The representation of a repast (Grotius, Ben- 
gel, Michaclis, Kuinoel, and others) does not belong to this place, but refers 
to the Messianic kingdom (Matt. viii. 11.) — xa? érdgy] so that therefore it 
was not with him as it was with Lazarus, who was carried by the angels, etc. 
It is usually supposed by way of addition to this : splendidly, in accordance 


with his position, and the like. 


This is purely arbitrary. — Ver. 283. Hades 


corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol, which in the LXX. is translated by gdyc, 
and hence denotes the whole subterranean place of abode of departed souls 
until the resurrection, divided into Paradise (xxiii. 48) for the pious, and 


Gehenna for the godless. 


Ruth R. i. 1: ‘Dili descendunt in Paradisum, hi 


vero descendunt in Gehennam,” ‘‘ Those descend into Paradise, but these 


into Gehenna.” 


That ady¢ in itself does not mean the place of punishment 


alone—hell, although the context may bring with it the reference thereto, is 
very clearly evident in the New Testament from Acts ii. 27, 81." From the 
Old Testament, compare especially Gen. xxxvii. 35. The reward and punish- 
ment in Hades is a preliminary one until the full retribution after resurrec- 


tion and judgment. 
confounded with that lower one. 


region of Hades is meant, is shown by the context. 


The wpper Paradise, which is in heaven, is not to be 
Sec on 2 Cor. xii. 3 f. —év 16 Gdn] which 


Moreover, let it be ob- 


served that the poetry of the narrative transfers even the rich man as to his 
whole person to Hades, see ver. 24, whither he, however, comes down from 
the grave.* — éndpac tr. 090. dpa ’ABp.] for ‘‘ Paradisus et Gehenna ita posita 


1 Not of the hearenly blessedness, in re- 
epect of which the «éAmos "Afp. has been 
made into “sinus gratiae divinae, in quem 
Abraham pater credentium receptus esf,"’ 
“the bosom of divine grace, in which Abra- 
ham the father of believers was received ” 
(Calovius). In this way dogmatic the- 
ology is at no lossto come to terms with ex- 
egesis, maintaining thatthe sinus A>rahaeis 
not to be understood suljectizrely, ‘‘ quasi ab 
Abrahamo et in ipsius sinu receptus Laza- 
rus sit,” ‘‘as if Lazarus were received by 
Abraham and in his bosom” (and this is 
nevertheless the only correct view), but ob- 
jectively, as that bosom which *‘ Abrabam- 
um cen objectum fovet in complexu suo,” 
“cherishes in its embrace Abraham as ob- 
ject.” Even Lechler in the Stud, u. Ari?. 
1854, p. 820 f., doubts that an abode of Abra- 
ham in Hades may be meant; but without 


sufficient reason. His reason, at least.— 
that the angels elsewhere bring about the 
intercourse between earth and heaven, not 
between earth and Shéol,—is not to the pur- 
pose. For the angels have also, in the pas- 
sage before us, the service of mediation 
between heaven and earth; they are sent 
from heaven to the earth to bear Lazarus 
into Abrabam’s bosom in the paradise of 
Sheol. The reveries of the Jater Jews about 
the angels in the lower paradise, see in 
Eisenmenger, II. p. 800 ff. 

2 Comp. Gilder in Herzog’s Zncyklop. V. 
p. 442, and see Grotins on the passage. This 
isin opposition to West In the Stud. u. Ait. 
1858, p. 265. 

$ In view of the poetic character of these 
representations, it 1s very precarious (see 
Delitzsch, Bidl. Psychol. p. 429 ff.) to seek 
to gather from them anything on the con- 


\ : 


® CHAP. XVI., 24, 25. 479 
sunt, ut ex unoin alterum prospiciant,” ‘‘ Paradise and Gehenna are so situ- 
ated, that they can see from one to the other,” Mfidr. on Eccles. vii. 14. 
Paradise is not conceived of as higher in situation (see, on the other hand, 
ver. 26), but the rich man in his torment has not yet until now lifted up his 
eyes in order to look around him, beyond his nearest neighborhood. — év 
toi¢ xéAmoc] the plural, as is often the case also in the classical writers 
since Homer. 

Ver. 24. Kai atréc} and he, on his part, as opposed to the patriarch and to 
Lazarus. — The poetical discourse as it advances now gives us a conversation 
from the two parts of Hades,’ in which, however, the prayer for the service 
of Lazarus is not on the part of the rich man continued presumption * (Lange, 
L. J. 1. 1, p. 894: ‘‘ that Lazarus was to be sent on an errand for him”), 
but finds its motive simply in the fact that it is precisely Lazarus whom he 
sees reposing on Abraham's bosom. The text does not go further, but leaves 
to be felt with sufficient profundity what is the humiliating reversal of the 
relation (that the despised beggar was now to be the reviver of the rich 
man). — Td dxpov tr. daxv.} even only such a smallest cooling, what a favor it 
would be to him in his glowing heat ! Lange grotesquely conjectures that 
he asks only for such a delicate touching, because he had seen Lazarus in the 
impurity of his sores. In his condition he certainly had done with such rc- 
flections. — idazoc] Genitivus materiae.® 

Ver. 25. Téxvorv] an address of sympathizing patriarchal love. — The em- 
phasis of the refusal lics on azéAafec, which is hence placed first : that thou 
hast received thy good things ; there is nothing more in arrear for thee as thy 
due acquittance (see on xviii. 80), hence to thy lot cannot fall the refreshing 
craved. Compare the axéyew ryv rapaxdAnory, vi. 26. If the rich man had not 
used his treasurcs for splendor and pleasure, but charitably for others (ver. 9), 
he would, when that splendor and pleasure had passed away from him, have 
still retained as arrears in his favor the happiness which he had dispensed with. 
— 7a ayafd cov] t.¢., the sum of thy happiness. — époiwe] 7.¢6., ariAaBev év rh Gag 
avrov. — ra xaxa] 1.e., the sum of the evil, corresponding by way of contrast to 
the ré ayaa cov. Observe that abrov is not added. — viv dé x.7.4.] but nov, 
the reversed condition ! He has the happiness left in arrear for him ; thou, 
the sufferings Icft in arrear for thee ! That Lazarus is not to be conccived 
of as simply o poor man and unfortunate, but as a pious man, who, without 
special deserving, is a suffering victim, is plain by virtue of the contrast from 
the unconverted state of the rich man, which brought him into Gehenna, 
ver. 28 ff. Ife was one of those to whom applied the paxdprot of trwyol x.7.A., 
vi. 21. Only this is not to be concluded from the silence of Lazarus before 
the rich man’s door and in the bosom of Abraham (Lange: ‘‘a princely 


stitation of a psychical body in the inter- 
mediate state (to give instruction on which 
subject Js not at all the purpose of the nar- 
rative). Scripture (even 2 Cor. v. 1 ff.) 
leaves us without any disclosure on this 
point; hence all the less are we to give 
heed to declarations of clairvoyants, and 
to theosophic and other kind of specula- 


tions. 

1 For Rabbinical analogies, see in Light- 
foot, p. 804 f. 

2 Comp. also Bengel: ‘* Adhuo vilipendit 
Lazarum heluo,” “‘ The glutton still despises 
Lazarus.” 

®§ See Bernhardy, p. 168; Buttmann, Veut. 
Gr, p. 148 [E. T. 170]. 


NN 


480 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. P 


proud, silent beggar—a humble blessed child of God without self-exaltation 
in the bosom of glory’), for the chief person, and therefore the speaker, is 
the rich man, — napaxadzita:] see on Matt. v. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 16. The notion 
that the carthly happiness of the rich man had been the recompense for his 
riva aperqv, ‘‘some virtue on his part,” and the misery of Lazarus the pun- 
ishment for his riva xaxiay, ‘‘ some evil on his part” (Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Theophylact ; comp. Rabbius in Wetstein), is an incongruous reflection. 

Ver. 26. ’Emi mao: robroc] Moreocer, inaddition to all. Comp. iii. 20. See on 
Eph. vi. 16, and Wetstein. There follows now after the argumentum ad aequa, 
ver. 25, still the argumentum ab impossibili for the non-compliance with the 
request. — ydopa] @ yawning chasm, cleft, frequently found in the classical 
writers ; comp. ydova péya in the LXX. 2 Sam. xviii. 17. The idea of such 
a separation between the two portions of Hades docs not occur among the 
Rabbins, among whom sometimes a separating wall is mentioned, sometimes 
it is said that the intervening spacé is only a hand, nay, only a thread in 
breadth.’ The chasm belongs to the poetical represcntation ; the thought is 
the unalterable separation.? — éorypixra:] 18 established, so that it is never 
again closed. — d7zw¢] purpose of the perafi down to éorfp. — diaByvar] pase 
over. — dé x.t.2.] omitting the article before éxeiOev : and therewith they may 
not cross over thence tous. Thesubject is self-evident. The Recepta oi éxeidev 
would have to be explained cither, with Buttmann, by supplying éAovre¢ 
dia37var, or as & case of attraction instead of of éxei ExeiVev.* 

Vv. 27-31. What riches lead to when they are not applied according to 
ver. 9, is shown vv. 19-26. In order, however, to escape from this perdi- 
tion while there is still time, repentance is necessary, and for this the law and 
the prophets are the appointed means (comp. vv. 16, 17) ; and, indeed, these 
are so perfectly sufficient that even the return of a dead person to life would 
not be more effectual. — Ver. 28. ézwc] Purpose of the sending ; éyw . . . 
ade29. is a parenthetic clause ; his style is pathetic. — dtauaprip.] that 
he may testify to them, to wit, of the situation in which I am placed, because 
I have not repented. ‘Opa mac td rH¢ KoAdaeus Eig cvvaicdyaw 7ABev, ** See 
how through punishment he came to a fellow-feeling,” Theophylact. — Ver. 
29. axovedrwoar avrar] they should give heed (listen) to them /— Ver. 80. ot yi] 
nay / they will not hear them. The echo of his own experience gained in 
the position of secure obduracy !— azé vexpar] belongs to zopevd. — Ver. 31. 
ovdé édv] not even (not at all), if. —ecodjoovra] not exactly equivalent 
to moretaovorv, ‘* will believe” (Vulg. Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, and 
others), but: they will be mored, will be won over, namely, to repent.—A 
reference to the resurrection of Jesus (Olshausen), or to the manifestation 
of Elijah (Baumgarten-Crusius), is altogether remote, although the word of 
Abraham has certainly approved itself historically even in reference to the 
risen Christ. The illustration, moreover, by the example of Lazarus of Beth- 
any, who brought intelligence from Hades, and whom the Jews would have 


1See Lightfoot, p. 857; Eisenmenger, Eur. Phoen. 1599), is inappropriate. 
Entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 314 f. 3 Kiihner, II. p. 319. Comp. Plat. Cratyl. 
2The reference to Hesiod, Theog. 740, p. 403 D; Thuc. vill. 107. 2. 
wherein Zurtarus itself is a xdoua (comp. ~ 


NOTES. 481 


killed, John xii. 10, is not to the point (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus). 


Norges spy Amerwan Eprror. 


CXIX. Vv. 1-18. The Parable of the Unjust Sleward. 


To the literature Weiss ed. Mey. adds only : Goebel in the Stud. u Krit. 1875, 
3. 4. 

Regarding the parable as probably derived from Luke’s ‘‘main source,” the 
same author fails to find any connection with what precedes, objecting to 
Meyer’s suggestion of the sequence of discourses. 

In the interpretation Weiss differs from Meyer: ‘‘ The parable teaches, from 
the conduct of a child of this world, who according to his nature is specially 
skilful in spending earthly goods and therewith dees not avoid that dishonesty 
which is peculiar to children of this world (see on ver. 8), the true prudence 
in the use of riches, i.¢., how His disciples should use earthly goods in order 
to enter into the Messiah's kingdom. All other interpretations rest upon arbi- 
trary allegorizing, the varied multiplicity of which in connection with this very 
parable shows how it cannot reduce it to a certain exposition. To this also 
belongs the interpretation of Meyer, according to which the dv0puro¢ mAobatoc 
is Mammon and the oixovépyoc are the zadyrai, That to the money-loving Phari- 
sees (ver. 14), on account of their mode of life turned away to*earthly things, 
these appeared as spendthrifts of earthly possessions, and now, before Mammon 
entirely withdrew from them their possessions (i.e., left them in poverty), 
should secure for themselves an eternal provision through the benevolent use of 
riches, cannot be represented by the parable. In it the steward does not appear 
as wasteful, but he is so (see on ver. 3), and is expressly described as unright- 
eous (ver. 8), because he acts prudently indeed in his own interest, but does not 
desire to benefit his lord’s creditors. Mammon, however, cannot be the lord in 
the parable, because fo him neither through the alleged waste nor through this 
benevolent use does an injustice occur, which the parable assumes. And even 
if this were the case, Jesus could not teach that one should deceive an unjust 
master for a good end (comp. Lahmeyer, p. 19).’’ So faras Weiss interprets in 
detail, he agrees rather with the usual view. It seems best to indicate in the 
text the particular points with which he agrees. 


CXX. Ver. 1. advdpwrog . . .rAcbotos. 


Godet also explains this phrase as representing God, the steward referring to 
the possessor of earthly wealth. ‘‘In relation to his neighbor, every man may 
be regarded as the proprietor of his goods ; but in relation to God no one is 
more than a tenant. This great and simple thought, by destroying the right of 
property relatively to God, gives it its true basis in the relation between man 
and man. Every man should respect the property of his neighbor, just because 
it is not the latter’s property, but that of God, who has entrusted it to him*’ 
(Iuke, p. 383, Am. ed.). 

Despite Meyer’s objections this view seems preferable. It has certainly 
found more currency than any other and presents fewer difficulties. The in- 
terpretation of vv. 8 and 9 remains difficult, whatever view is taken of the per- 
sonages in the parable. 


31 


482 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CXXI. Ver. 3. drt . . . agacpeirac. 


Weiss ed. Mey. regards the dismissal not as ‘“‘the near and certain result,’’ 
but as having already occurred (ver. 2) ; hence érz, in his view, is to be rendered 
as usual: ‘‘ because.” But ver. 4 indicates that the dismissal was still future. 
The R. V., with its rendering: ‘‘ seeing that,’ seems to suggest Meyer's inter- 
pretation. Comp. the apt rendering of the next clause : ‘‘I have not strength 
to dig.” 

CXXII. Ver. 5. rav xpewperderar. 

These may have been merchants and others, who obtained supplies on credit 

from the steward, making reckoning after sales (so de Wette, Godet, Weiss). 


CXXIIT. Ver. 8. etc riv yeveay ry savor. 


Weiss ed. Mey. differs here from Meyer, and, in answer to the objection 
that our Lord uses something blameworthy as a means of instruction (de Wette), 
remarks : ‘‘ He gives, not an example, but a parable, the materia) of which is 
taken from a sphere suiting His purpose.’’ He thinks the only correct concep- 
tion of the parable leaves out of view the immorality of the steward's conduct, 
and concerns only the prudence, ‘‘ which naturally should be exercised in the 
sphere of righteousness, as that of the steward was in the sphere of unright- 
cousness. . . . Meyer's insisting on the representation of an unfaithfulness 
(toward Mammon), in accordance with duty, is still a remnant of false allegoriz- 
ing that, as respects the parable, cannot be carried out, and, further, compels us 
to interpolate jn ver. 11 an antithesis of faithfnlness toward God, which is at 
the same time unfaithfulness toward Mammon, of which there is no hint in 
the text.'’ These objections are of great weight. Few expositors have accepted 
Meyer's peculiar explanation. His interpretation of ¢iAovc as ‘* angels’’ seems 
unnecessary. 

CXXIV. Vv. 10-12. Application of Parable. 


If Meyer's view of the parable be rejected, it will be necessary to modify his 
explanation of these verses, especially in the reference to Mammon. Weiss ed. 
Mey. properly insists that there is no thought of unfaithfalness to Mammon (as 
represented by the rich man in the parable). As there is no direct indication of 
connection with what precedes, Weiss ‘‘surmises that here there has fallen out 
the second member of a pair of parables which treated of prudence and faithful- 
ness in the use of earthly possessions, namely, the basis of Matt. xxv. 14-30, 
parallel with Luke xix. 12-27.’’ But apparent want of connection here hardly 
justifies a discovery of it in those passages. 


CXXV. Ver. 12. év re addorpip. 


** Earthly wealth is held in trust; the true riches are described as ‘your 
own.’ Wealth can never form a part of our being, is never permanently in our 
possession : we can have the use of it, yet in no true sense own it. But that 
which God gives to us as true riches will form a part of our eternal being, is 
our inalienable possession” (Inter. Rev. Commentary, Luke, p. 242). Godet says 
God is the real owner of our earthly possessions, hence the term here used. 
Weiss ed. Mey. objects that spiritual possessions are also God’s. He thinks 
the term is used because earthly possessions belong to ‘‘this world” and 
will disappear with it. All explanations must agree in defining earthly 
wealth as ‘‘ that which is another’s,”’ 


NOTES, 483 


CXXVI. Ver. 13. ovdets otxérne x.7.A. 


This saying of our Lord probably became proverbial in His discourses, 
though Weiss ed. Mey. thinks it was inserted in the Sermon on the Mount from 
this place. The connection is not difficult : if we use what is dnother’s (earthly 
wealth) unfaithfully we become the servants of Mammon, become servants of 
that of which we assume to be owners. 


CXXVII. Vv. 14-18. 


The connection in these verses is difficult to trace. Hence Weiss ed. Mey. 
finds a mosaic: the substance is taken, he thinks, from Luke's peculiar 
‘*gource,’” but ver. 14 is inserted by the Evangelist to connect what follows 
with the Pharisees, while vv, 16-18 are from the common soarce, the true posi- 
tion being indicated in the first Gospel. He also speaks of Luke’s thus finding 
‘‘ opportunity to limit reciprocally two apparently contradictory sayings of 
Jesus, and to explain them by the following parable.’ Against all this Godet’s 
remarks holds good : ‘‘ A discourse invented by the Evangelist would not have 
failed to present an evident logical connection as much as the discourses which 
Livy or Xenophon put into the mouth of their heroes, The very brokenness 
suffices to prove that the discourse was really held and existed previously to 
the narrative” (Luke, p. 389, Am. ed.). 


CXXVIII, Ver. 18. wae 6 arroAtwy, «.1.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. also regards the verse as used by Luke ‘‘allegorically ” with 
reference to the relation to the law and the new ordinance of God’s kingdom 
(comp. Rom. vii. 1-3). ‘* Whoever on account of the latter separates himself 
from the former commits in God's sight the sin of adultery, just as he who, 
after God has loosed from the law through the proclamation of the kingdom of 
God, desires to continue the old relation. The former sins against ver. 17, the 
latter against ver. 16.’’ Of this there is not ‘‘ the slightest hint in the text.” It 
is far safer to say that we do not know what there was in tho moral status of 
the audience which gave to this example from the law its appropriateness, than 
to allegorize in this fashion. ‘Weiss too is especially hostile to allegorizing in 
other cases. 


CXXIX. Ver. 21. aAAd xai ol xivec x.7.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. does not admit either the view of aggravation or that of com- 
passion. ‘ Both the contrast (a4Ad) and the accumulation (xa/) seem to me suf- 
ficiently explained, when it is assumed that he who, like a dog, lurked before 
the door for the remnants of the table (Matt, xv. 27), was also treated by the 
unclean beasts as their equal,” 


CXXX. Ver. 22. areveySivat atrov id trav ayyéwv. 


Meyer's view, that the whole person of Lazarus is meant, is rejected by Weiss 
as ‘simply opposed to the context.” Hethinks the burial of the beggar is not 
mentioned possibly because he was not buried, but chiefly ‘‘ because with the 
higher honor which occurs to him through the angels the transformation of 
his fate begins.” 


484 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER XVII. 


Ver. 1. [Quite unusually the Rec. here omits avrov, which is attested by the 
best uncials and versions, accepted by all recent editors.] Instead of rot uy 
Elz. [not Stephens] has merely uy. But rov is decisively attested. Tischen- 
dorf has the arrangement rod ra ox. yu?) £A9., following B L.X &; the usual order 
of the words was favored because of Matt. xviii. 7. — ova? dé] B D L ®&, min. 
vas. Lachm. have Av ovai. [Treg. text., W. and Hort, R. V.] From Matt. xviii. 
7. -— Ver. 2. pvdoc dvixéc] B D L ®&, min. vss., including Vulg. It., have Ai6uc 
pevdixog. Recommended by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; the 
Receptu is from Matt. xviii. 6. [Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with ®* B 
L, place éva after rodrwv.] — Ver. 3. dé] is wanting in B D L X ¥&, min. vss., 
also Vulg. It. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. A 
connective addition, in accordance with Matt. xviii. 15, from which place, 
moreover, ei¢ oé is intruded, in Elz. Scholz, after dudpry. — Ver. 4. dudpry] 
Decisive authorities have ducpricy. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. ; gudpry isa mechanical repetition from ver. 3.— The second ri¢ 
7uépacs has such important evidence against it, that Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. have 
rightly deleted it. An exegetical addition to balance the previous clause.— 
After éwiorpiyy Elz. adds éri of. In any case wrong; since ABDLXAR, 
min. Clem. have mpé¢ ce (approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), 
while E F GH K MS U VIA, min. vas. Or. Dam. have nothing at all (so 
Griesb. Matth. Scholz). smpdéc¢ ce is preponderatingly attested ; it was variously 
supplied (ézi, ei¢) when passed over as superfluous. — Ver. 6. Instead of eixere 
there is stronger evidence in favor of éyere (so Tisch.) ; the former is an emen- 
dation. — Ver. 7. [Recent editors, with Tisch., § B D L, Copt., Vulg., add 
avr after épci. This reading favors the connection of ev0éwe with what follows. } 
— avuarccat] Between this form and avd-rece (Matth. Lachm. Tisch. [recent edi- 
tors, with ®& B D, and others]), the authorities are very much divided. The 
former was corrected by the latter asin xiv. 10. — Ver. 9. éxeivy] is not found 
in decisive witnesses ; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition for the sake 
of more precise statement, which, moreover, is accomplished in Elz. by adding 


abr after diatax9. — ov doxa] is wanting in BL X 8, min. Copt. Arm, Aeth. - 


Vere. Cypr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
R. V., but not by Weiss]. But how easily might the following obrw become an 
occasion for the omission! For the addition just of these superfluous and yet 
peculiar words there was no reason. — Ver. 10. The second ér: is wanting in A 
BDL &, min. Slav. Vulg. It. Or. and other Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., delet- 
ed by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective addition. — Ver. 11. dia p&éoov] D has 
merely pécov, which, dependent on dinpyero, is to be considered as an exegetic 
marginal note. The pécov written on the margin occasioned the readings dea 
péoov (B L &, 28, Lachm.), which usus loquendi is foreign to the New Testament, 
and avd pécov (i. 13. 69, al.). [Tisch. VIII., Treg., W.and Hort, R. V., have da 
Hécov, and with ® BL, omit avréy after wopeveota:. — Ver. 21. Tisch., W. and 





CHAP. XVII., 1-4. 485 


Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ® B L, omit the second iJov.] — Ver. 23. Before the 
second idov Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have 7, but in opposition to B D K L X Tl, 
min. Slav. Valg. ms. Theophylact. An addition, according to the analogy of 
Matt. xxiv. 23. Tisch. has the arrangement idod éxei, idod dde, following B L, 
Copt. [so recent editors, R. V.], and in any case it occurred more naturally to 
the transcribers, partly on its own account, partly following ver. 21 and Matt. 
xxiv, 23, to place cde first. — Ver. 24. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 
x BL, eto., omit 7 after dorpary.] — After éora: Elz. has xai; bracketed by 
Lachm., deleted by Tisch. A very easily occurring addition (comp. ver. 26), 
which has preponderating evidence against it. Comp. on Matt. xxiv. 27. — év 
TG huépg avroi] is, indeed, deleted by Lachm., but is wanting only in B D, 220, 
codd. of It., and is to be maintained. [W. and Hort, R. V. marg., omit.] If it had 
been added, ev 77 rapovcia atrov would have been written, according to Matt. 
xxiv. 27, and this would have had not merely a few (248, codd. of It. Ambr.), 
but preponderating authorities. The omission may easily have arisen by means 
of the homoeoteleuton avépwr0T . . . avrOY. — Ver. 27. ééeyapuifavro] Lachm. 
Tisch., on preponderating evidence, have éyauifovro, Rightly ; the former is a 
kind of gloss, following Matt. xxiv. 38. —[Ver. 28. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., 
with 8 BL, Vulg., read xafec, instead of xai oc.) — Ver. 30. Here also, as at 
vi. 23, ra avré is to be read, in accordance with B D K X IT ®** min. — [Ver. 
33. There are a number of variations. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read zepi- 
romnoacta: (with B L), as unusual, and, with ® B D, 1, 33, omit the second 
avuryv.|— Ver. 34 f. The articles before eile and before pia in Elz. Tisch. (the 
second also in Scholz, Lachm.) have such strong evidence against them, that 
they appear to have been added, according to the analogy of 6 frepoc and # érépa, 
(Tisch. VIII. omits the first, but retains the second.]— After ver. 35 Elz. 
Scholz [R. V. marg.] have (ver. 36): Ato écovra: év Te aypy’ 6 etc Tapa2.ndOyoeTa, 
x. 6 Erepog ageflno. Against such decisive evidence, that we cannot suppose an 
omission occasioned by the homoeoteleuton (Scholz), but an interpolation from 
Matt. xxiv. 24. — ovvay@yjoovrat of aerof] Tisch. has xai ol derot éEmtovvaybyjoovrat, 
on very important evidence, [So recent editors, R. V.] The Recepla is from 
Matt. xxiv. 28. 


Vv. 1-4. The Pharisees (xvi. 14) are despatched and dismissed (xvi. 
15-81), and Jesus now again turns Himself, as at xvi. 1, to His disciples, 
and that with an instruction and admonition in reference to oxdvdada, a sub- 
ject which He approached the more naturally that it was precisely the con- 
duct of the Pharisees which had occasioned the entire set of discourses (xv. 2), 
and especially had introduced the last portion (xvi. 14), that was of a very 
offensive nature to the disciples of Jesus, and might become injurious to 
their moral judgment and behavior. Comp. already Theophylact. The 
course of the previous discourse therefore still goes on, and it is unfair to 
Luke to deny to the formula ele 62 x.r.4. the attestation of the point of 
time, and to maintain that there is no connection with the entire section, vv. 
1~10 (de Wette, Holtzmann ; comp. Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel). [See Note 
CXXXI., p. 495.] — The contents of vv. 1-4 are of sucha kind that these 
sayings, especially in a dissimilar form, might be used several times on 
various occasions (comp. Matt. xviii. 7, 6, 15, 21 f.), In the form in which 





486 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
Luke gives them, he found them in his original source of the journey.’ — 
avévdextév iaz:] equivalent to otx évdéxerar, xiii. 33, not preserved elsewhere 
than in Gregor. Cor. and Artem. Oneir. ii. 70.7— rot yA éAVeiv] the genitive 
dependent on the neuter adjective used as a substantive (Kiihner, I. p. 122): 
the impossible (impossibility) of their not coming occurs. Winer views it 
otherwise, p. 293 [E. T. 328]. — Avocredet aizg, ci] it is profitable for him, if. 
In what follows observe the perfects, cast around, and he is thrown, by which 
the matter is declared as completed, and in its completion is made present. 
—4,] as xv. 7. —iva] than to deceive, t.e., than if he remained alive to deceire. 
The being drowned is here conceived of as before the completion of the de- 
ceiving. Matthew has it otherwise, xviii. 6. —rdav pexpdv robrwr] pointing 
to those present, not, however, children (Bengel and others), but disciples, 
who were still feeble, and therefore easily led astray,—little ones among 
the disciples, beginners and simple ones. [See critical note.] According to 
xv. 1, 2, it is to be supposed that some of them at least were converted pub- 
licans and sinners. To explain the expression from Matt. xviii. 6 or x. 42 
is not allowable, since there it has in its connection a reason for its inser- 
tion, which does not occur here. [See Note CAXXTI., p. 495.]— Ver. 3. 
‘Considering that offences against the weak are thus inevitable and pun- 
ishable, I warn you: Be on guard for yourselres, take care of yourselves lest 
offences occur in your own circle.” Jn what way especially such offences are 
to be avoided, the following exhortation then declares, to wit, by indefati- 
gable forgiving lore, by that disposition therefore which was, in fact, so 
greatly wanting to the Pharisees, that they could murmur, as at xv. 2. — 
audpry] shall hace committed a fault, namely, against thee, which the context 
proves by dve¢ a’rp and ver. 4, —éxirip. airg] censure him, éxin? ncov adeAginog 
te Kai dwopdurixac, ‘rebuke both fraternally and correctingly,” Euthymius 
Zigabenus. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 2. — ixorpéyy] a graphic touch, shall have 
turned round, t.e., shall have come back to thee (xpdé¢ ce belongs to this). He 
has previously turned away from him, and departed. — The representation 
by means of éxrdxcc x.7.A. (comp. Ps. cxix. 164) finds its justification in its 
purpose, to wit, to lay stress upon forgiveness as incapable of being wearted out 5 
hence we are not to think of the possible want of principle of such an 
ofiender, nor to regard the expression either as a misunderstanding (Mi- 
chaelis) or as a transformation from Matt. xviii. 21 f. (de Wette, Weiss). 
Whether ver. 4 stood in the Logia after Matt. xviii. 15 is an open question, 
at least it does not form the necessary pre-supposition of Matt. xvili. 21. 
Vv. 5, 6. At the conclusion of the whole of the great set of discourses, 
now at length appear separately the Twelve (oi axéoro20, not to be identified 
with the vadyraic in gencral, ver. 1, xvi. 1) with a special request. [See Note 
CXXXII., p. 495.] They feel that the moral strength of their faith in 


1 According to Holtzmann (comp. Weisse), 
Luke attempts the return to Mark ix. 42 
(Matt. xviii. 6), but finds the assertions of 
Mark ix. 43-47 “too glaring and paradoxi- 
cal." But these assertions were already 
from the Zogia too widely known and cur- 
rent for this; and how wanting in motive 


would be that return, which still would not 
be carried out! Comp. Weiss In the Jahrd. 
J. D. Theol. 1864, >. 101. 

2The expression @ydexréy core occurs in 
Apollonius, de Conair. p. 1&1, 10, de Ade. 
p. 544, 1. 


CHAP. XVII., 7-10. 487 
Jesus, z.¢., just the loving power of their faith, is not great enough for that 
great task which is just set them at ver. 4, and ask openly, and with entire 
confidence in His divine spiritual power, Give us more faith, i.¢., stronger 
energetic faith ! It is addition in the sense of intensifying the quality. To 
suppose a want of connection (Paulus, Schiciermacher, de Wette, Holtzmann), 
would be: justifiable only if it were necessary for riors¢ to mean belief in 
miracles (comp. Matt. xvii. 20); but this the answer in nowise requires. The 
answer, ver. 6, says: ‘‘ This your prayer shows that faith (which Jesus, 
indeed, conceives of in the ideal sense, as it ought to be) is still wholly want- 
ing to you! If you had it even only in very small measure, instead of find- 
ing obedience to that rule too difficult, ye would undertake and see accom- 
plished that even which appears impossible (which requires the highest 
moral power and strength).” According to the reading éyere (see the 
critical remarks) the idea changes. In the protasis the relation is simply 
stated, but the apodosis is conditioned by the idea that that which is stated 
is not, however, actually present.’ — imfxovoev] not again imperfect, but aorist: 
ye would say, . . . and it would have obeyed you (immediately even upon 
your saying).? [See Note CXXXIII., p. 495.] 

Vv. 7-10. To such efficiency will faith bring you, but guard yourselves 
withal from any claim of your own meritoriousness ! Thus, instead of an 
immediate fulfilment of their prayer, ver. 5, as conceived by them, Jesus, 
by the suggestion, quite as humbling as it was encouraging, that is contained 
in ver. 6, and by the warning that is contained in ver. 7 ff., opens up to 
His disciples the way on which He has to lead them in psychological devel- 
opment to the desired increase of faith. Here also Maldonatus, Kuinoel, de 
Wette, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmann [Godet, Weiss] deny the connection. — 
é¢ x.7.2.] éori is to be supplied before.— ei6éuc] is connected by ‘Erasmus, 
Beza, Calvin, de Wette, Bleek, and others with épei. But that it belongs 
to what follows (Luther, Bengel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ewald [Treg., 
W. and Hort, R. V.], and others) is indicated in the context by yerd ravra 
odyroa: x.T.A., which is the opposite of eiPtwe rapeAd. avdreca. As to avarecat, 
see on xiv. 10. — Ver. 8. aad’ obyi «.7.A.] but will he not say to him? ad2a re- 
fers to the negative meaning of the foregoing question.?— we ddywx.r.a] until 
I shall have eaten and drunk, so long must the draxoveiv last.— gdayeoat x. wicca) 
Sutures. See Winer, pp. 81, 82 [E. T. 88, 89]. — Ver 9. uy) xdpev Exec) still 
he does not feel thankful to the servant, does-he ? which would be the case if 
the master did not first have himself served.4 — ré d:araxy3.] the ploughing 


1 Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 4; Kfihner, ad Xen. 
Anab. vii. 6.15. Otherwise Buttmann inthe 
Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 483: ‘Ye ask for an 
increase of your faith? Have ye then not 
enough? Verily, and if ye only had faith 
as na grain of mustard seed, ye would be 
able, if ye wished (i.e., If yo had confidenco 
in your own faith,—the courage of fafith,— 
or made the right use of your faith), to say 
to this fig tree,’’ cto. But the “if ye would” 
{s interpolated ; the av with éAdyere simply 


signifies: in a case that may happen if the 
case of such a miraculous transplantation 
were supposed. 

2 Comp. Xen. Anad. v. 8.18. On the mul- 
berry tree, see Pliny, V. H. xiil. 14; Dioscor. 
1. 182. 

* See Kriiger, ad Anabd. il. 1.10; Kilhner, 
ad Mem. \. 2. 2. 

On xdpew exer, comp. 1 Tim. {. 12: it is 
purely classical, Bremi, ad Lys. p. 152. 


488 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

or tending. — Ver. 10. otrw xat duet x.7.A.] like the slaye, to whom no thanks 
are due. We are not to supply éoré after tyeic.— dypeior] unprofitable slaves.’ 
The point of view of this predicate * is, according to the context (see what 
follows), this, that the profit does not begin until the servant goes beyond 
his obligation. If he do less than his obligation, he is hurtful; if he come 
up to his duty, it is true he has caused no damage, but still neither has he 
achieved any positive ypeia, and must hence acknowledge himself a dev2o0¢ 
aypeioc, who as being such has no claims to make on his Lord for praise 
and reward. Judged by this ethical standard, the ypeia lies beyond the point 
of duty, for the coming up to this point simply averts the damage which, 
arising from the defect of performance, would otherwise accrue. The im- 
possibility, however, even of coming up to this point not only excludes all 
opera supererogatica, but, moreover, cutting off all merit of works, forms the 
ethical foundation of justification by faith. The meaning ‘‘ worthless” (J. 
Miiller, o. d. Siinde, I. p. 74) is not the signification of the word (any 
more than in LXX. 2 Sam. vi. 22, ODw), but it follows at once from this. 
Moreover, the passage before us does not stand in contradiction to xii. 87, 
since the absence of merit on the part of man, by which Jesus here desires 
to humble him, does not exclude the divine reward of grace, by which in 
xii. 87 He encourages him. It is incorrect to say that Jesus promised to 
His disciples no other reward than that which is found in the fulfilment of 
duty itself (Schenkel). 

Vv. 11-19. The great discussion from xv. 1 onwards is now concluded. 
Now, before proceeding with his narration, Luke first gives into the reader's 
hands again the thread of the account of the journey (comp. ix. 51, xiii. 22). 
[See Note CXXXIV., p. 495 seq.] According to de Wette, indeed, this 
is a confused reminiscence of the journey, and according to Schleiermacher 
an original introductory formula left standing by the compiler. —xai atré¢] 
As to xai, see on v.12. airég: he on his part, independently of other 
travellers to the festival who were wont to travel direct through Samaria, 
Joseph. Antt. xx. 6. 1. — dia wéoov Zapap. x. Tada.] According to the usage 
of zéoov (with or without an article, see Sturz, Ler. Xen. III. p. 120) with 
a genitive, this may mean either through the midst of Samaria and Galilee,* 
or through the strip of country forming the common boundary of Samaria and 
Galilee, i.e., between the two countries on the borders.‘ The former (Vulg. 
and many others, including de Wette) is opposed to the context, since 
Samaria is named first, but the ropebecdar cic ‘Iepovoadgu led first through 


3 Comp. Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 54: 6 re axpeiov 7 
cai avwhedds. On the contemptuous meaning, 
see Lobeck, ad Aj. 745. 

2 Otherwise Matt. xxv. 80. The different 
reference in the two passages is explained 
from the relative nature of the conception. 
Bengel aptly says: ‘*‘ Miser est, quem Dom- 
inus servum Inutilem appellat Matt. xxv. 
80; beatus, qui se ipse.... Etlam angeli 
possunt se servos inutiles appellare Dei," 
**He is miserable, whom the Lord calls an 


unprofitable servant, Matt. xxv. 380; happy, 
who calls himself so... .. Even angels can 
call themselves unprofitable servants of 
God.” 

3iv. 80; Jer. xxxvii. 4; Amos v. 17; 
Bornemann, ad Xen. Anad. 1. 2. 2. 

4So Xen. Anabd, i. 4. 4: da péoou (in the 
midst through between the two walls) 8 pec 
tovrwy ‘morazos; Plat. Leg. vil. p. 80 E. 
Comp. ava uéooy, Ezek. xxii. 296; Judg. xv. 
4; 1 Kings v. 12. 


CHAP. XVII., 11-19. 489 
Galilee.’ No; according to Luke, Jesus Himself journeyed in the midst, be- 
tween (‘‘in confinio,” ‘‘in the borders,” Bengel), through the two countries, 
so that He kept on the boundary, having before Him on the south Samaria, 
on the north Galilee.? His direction is to be regarded as from west to cast, 
as in xviii. 35 He comes into the neighborhood of Jericho. Now as Jericho 
is situated not far from the Jordan, but Luke says nothing of any passing 
over to Peraea (nevertheless Wetstein assumes this crossing over, which is 
said to have occurred at Scythopolis, so also Lichtenstein, p. 818), it is 
thus, according to Luke, to be assumed that Jesus journeyed across on the 
boundary of Samaria and Galilee eastward as far as the Jordan, and then 
passing downwards on the Jordan reached Jericho. [See Note CXXXIV., 
p. 495 seq.] A disagreement with Matthew and Mark, who make Him jour- 
ney through Peraea. Sec on Matt. xix. 1.— That Zayapelac is named first, has 
its natural reason in the previous statement of the direction ei¢ 'Iepove., in ac- 
cordance with which, in mentioning the borders, Luke has first of all in 
view the forward movement corresponding to this direction. The narrative 
contained in ver. 12 ff. Luke has not ‘‘constructed out of tradition” 
(Holtzmann), but has borrowed it from his source of the journey. —déxa] oi 
évvéa pév "Tovdaio: joav, 6 dé eig Lapnapeirnc’ 9 xovwvia 62 rig vécou tére ovvfyS pacer 
avrovc axobcavrac, Sr diépyerac 6 Xptordc, ** The nine were Jews, but the one a 
Samaritan : and the fellowship of disease then gathered them when they 
heard that Christ was passing through,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — xéppwder] 
Hh) ToApavree tyyioa, ‘* not daring to draw near” (Theophylact)—to wit, as 
being unclean, to whom closer intercourse with others was forbidden (Lev. 
xiii. 46; Num. v. 2f.).*— Ver. 13. avrot] they on their part took the initiative. 
— Ver. 14. iddv] when He had looked upon them, had His attention first di- 
rected to them by their cry for help. — ropevPévrec x.r.A.] for on the road their 
leprosy was to disappear ; see what follows, where indeed Paulus, in spite of 
the év ro érdyecv (which is made to mean: when they agreed to go!), interprets 
éxadapiad., they were declared to be not infectious ! — roic¢ lepevo.] the Samaritan 
to be inspected and declared clean must go to a Samaritan priest. — Ver. 15. 
idov, bre i487] even before his coming to the priest,‘ who had therefore 
communicated to him no remedy (in opposition to Paulus).— Ver. 16. «. 


1 According to this understanding Jesus 2See also Wetstein, Schleiermacher, 


must have journeyed, not southwards, but 
northwards, which Paulus and Olshausen 
actually suppose, understanding it of a 
subordinate journcy from Ephraim (John 
xi. 54). But this is totally opposed to the 
direction (eis ‘lepove.) specified in the con- 
text, in respect of which Jesus is wrongly 
transferred already at x. 38 to Bethany. 
Sce on ix. 51. Schlelermacher's view of 
this passage is altogether untenable, as 
well as that of de Wette, according to 
whom (comp. Strauss, II. p. 202) the notice 
is only intended to explain the presence of 
a Samariian, and therefore Sapapeias is put 
first. As though Luke would have written 
+ in suoh a thoughtless mechanical fashion ! 


Bleek [Godet, Weiss ed. Mey.], Hofmann, 
Welssag. u. Er fall. II. p. 118; Lange, Z. J. 
II. 2 p. 1065. 

* See on Mark |. 43, and the relative Rab- 
binical regulations in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, 
and Wetstein. 

‘If the Samaritan had first been to tho 
priest (Calvin, Schleiermacher), Jesus could 
not have put the question which He asks at 
ver. 17 f., since the nine Jews had a much 
farther journey to the priests. The return 
of the Samaritan is to be concelved of as 
very soon after the departure, so that the 
whole scene took place while still in the 
village. 


490 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


avrac #v Sayapsir.] andas for him, hewas a Samaritan (by way of distinction 
from the rest). This is made use of (Strauss, II. p 53f.) for the view 
that the entire narrative is woven together from traditions of the healings 
of leprosy and from parables which recorded Samaritan examples. This 
audacious scepticism is emulated by Eichthal, II. p. 285 f.— Ver. 17. o 
déxa} all the ten; of évvta, the remaining nine. Sec Kiihner, II. p. 135 f. — 
Ver. 18. ovy eiipéd. x.r.2.] have they not been found as returning, etc.? Comp. 
on Matt. i. 18. —1ré 89] who through me has accomplished their cure. 
Comp. ver. 15. Proper gratitude to God does not detract from him who is 
the medium of the benefit. Comp. ver. 16.— 6 dAdoyevgc}] heightens the 
guilt of the nine. The word does not occur in classical Greek ; often in 
the LXX. and the Apocrypha, especially of Gentiles. The Greeks use 
aAAddvaoc, aA2oedvhc. The Samaritans were of foreign descent, on account of 
their Cuthaic blood. Comp. on Matt. x. 5; 2 Kings xvii. 24.— Ver. 19. 
Jesus dismisses the thankful one, giving him, however, to understand what 
was the cause of his deliverance—a germ for the further development of his 
inner life! Thy /aith (in my divine power, ver. 15) hath delivered thee. 
This faith had not yet the specific Messianic substance ; as yet, Jesus to 
him was only a divine, miraculously powerful teacher. See ver. 13. 

Vv. 20, 21. What follows, and indeed as far as xviii. 30, still belongs to 
these border villages, ver.12. It is not till xviii. 31 that the further journey 
is intimated, on which, at xviii. 35, follows the approach to Jericho. — To 
consider the question of the Pharisees as a mocking one (Theophylact, 
Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Paulus, Kuinoel, and others), is unfounded. 
According to the analogy of other Pharisaic questions, and according to the 
indirect manner of the answer of Jesus, an intention fo tempt Him is rather 
to be supposed. They wished to perplex Him, since He represented Himself 
by words and (as just at this moment) by deeds as the Messiah, by the prob- 
lem, When is the kingdom of Messiah coming ?— pera raparnphoewc)] pera 
of accompanying circumstances (Bernhardy, p. 255) : under observation, 7.¢., 
the coming of the Messiah’s kingdom is not so conditioned that this coming 
could be observed as a visible development, or that it could be said, in conse- 
quence of such observation, that here or there is the kingdom. See what 
follows. The coming is azaparfpyrov—it develops itself unnoticed. This 
statement, however, does not deny that the kingdom isa thing of the future 
(Ewald : ‘‘ as something which should first come in the future, as a won- 
derful occurrence, and for which men must first be on the watch”), but only 
that in its approach it will meet the eye. In the signification of watching and 
waiting for, waparhpyocg would convey the idea of malice (insidiosa obsercatio, 
‘insidious observation,” Polyhius, xvi. 22. 8) ; but in the further descrip- 
tive ovdé (not even) ipovory x.r.A., is implied only the denial of the visibility of 
the event which, developing itself (‘‘ gradatim ct successive,” ‘‘ gradually 
and successively,” Bengel), might be able to be observed (comp. zaparfproic 
tov dorpav, Diod. Sic. i. 28). But if the advent of the kingdom happens in 
such a manner that it cannot be subjected to human observation, it is there- 
by at the same time asserted that neither can any limited point of time then 
it shall come (dre, ver. 20) be specified. The idea: with pomp (Becza, 


CHAP. XVII., 20, 21. 491 
Grotius, Wetstein, comp. Kuinoel and others), conveys more than the 
text, which, moreover, does not indicate any reference to heathenish 
astrology or augury (Lange). — ovdé épovorv] Grotius aptly says : ‘‘non erit 
quod dicatur,” ‘‘it will not be because it may be said.” ’— idod yép] a lively 
and emphatic repetition of the ido at the beginning of the argument 
urged against them. This, as well as the repetition of the subject, 4 
Baad. tr. Oeov, has in it something solemn. — évrd¢ tudv] the contrary of 
éxréc, Sw: intra vos, in your circle, in the midst of you.2 So Euthymius Zi- 
gabenus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel [R. V. marg.], and others, 
including Kuinoel, Paulus, Schleiermacher, Fleck in Winer’s Ereg. Stud. I. 
p. 150 ff., Bornemann, Kaeuffer, de fwij¢ ai. not. p. 51, de Wette, Ewald, 
Bleek, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 146. In the midst of them the 
Messianic kingdom was, so far as He, the Messiah, was and worked (comp. 
xi. 20 ; Matt. xii. 28) among them (uéoo¢ tudv, John i, 26). For where He was 
and worked, He, the legitimate King and Bearer of the kingdom, ordained 
thereto of the Father (xxii. 29), there was the Messianic kingdom (which 
was to be formally and completely established at the Parousia) in its temporal 
development, like the seed, the grain of mustard seed, the leaven, etc. 
Rightly, therefore, does Jesus argue (yap) from the évrd¢ ipdr éore that it 
comes unnoticed, and not in an appearance to be observed, wherein He cer- 
tainly evades the point of the Pharisaic question which referred to the 
currently expected appearing of the kingdom (comp. ix. 27, xxi. 28) in so far 
as the épyeofa:., which He means refers to the development in time; an 
evasion, however, which was fully calculated to make them fecl the impu- 
dent prying spirit of the question they had started, and to bring near to the 
questioners the highest practical necessity in respect of the coming of the 
kingdom (the perception of the Messiah who was already in the midst of 
them). If others* have explained évrdg indy by in animis cestris, ‘‘in your 
souls” (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Vatablus, and 
others, including Ch. F. Fritzsche in Rosenmiiller, Repert. TI. p. 154 ff., 
Olshausen, Glickler, Schaubach in the Stud. vu. Krit. 1845, p. 169 ff, 
KGstlin, Hilgenfeld, Schegg [Godet]), there is, it is true, no objection to be 
raised on the score of grammar; ‘ but it is decidedly opposed to this that tua 
refers to the Pharisees, in whose hearts nothing certainly found a place less 
than did the ethical kingdom of God,° as well as the fact that the idea itself 
—to wit, of the kingdom of God, as of an ethical condition in the internal 
nature of the Ego (‘a divine-human heart-phenomenon,” Lange)—is modern, 
not historico-biblical (not even contained in Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20; 
Col. i. 18). 


1On the more definite future after the 
more general present, see Dissen, ad Dem. 
de Gor. p. 388 f. 

2Comp. Xen. Anad,1. 10. 8: dwéca évrd¢ 
aurey xai xpyparaKcai avdpwrot eyiverto ; fell, 
fl. 3.19; Thue. vil. 5. 3; Dem. 97. 7; Plat. 
Leg. vii. p. 139 At evrog ray davtory pyrdper ; 
Aelfan, Hist, il. 5. 15, 

3So also Lange, L. J. II. 2. p. 108, yet 
blending with It the other explanation. 


Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 45 B, Soph. p. 268 F, 
Pol. ii. p. 401 D; Ps. xxxvill. 4, clx. 22, cill. 
1; Ecclus. xix. 98; Matt. xxlil. 26. 

® Quite opposed to the words of the pas- 
sage is the evasion of Olshausen, that the 
expression only establishes the possibilily of 
the reception of the Pharisees into the king- 
aom, iuasmuch as tho inwardness of {ts 
revelation is latd down as its general erile- 
tivn, 


492 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Ver. 22. The Pharisees have got their answer. Yet Jesus does not allow 
the point of their question to be lost thereby, but turns now to His disciples 
(probably after the departure of the Pharisees, as they do not appear again 
in what follows, and as the discourses themselves bear an unreserved char- 
acter, wholly different from ver. 20 f.), in order to give to them instructions 
in reference to the question raised by the Pharisees, and that not on the 
temporal development of the kingdom of the Messiah wherewith He had 
despatched them, but on the actual solemn appearing of the Messiah in the 
Parousia. ‘‘ Calamities will arouse in them the longing after it, and false 
Messiahs will appear, whom they are not to follow ; for, like the lightning, 
so immediately and universally will He reveal Himself in His glorious mani- 
festation,” vv. 22-24. See further on ver. 25. We have here the discourse 
of the future from the source of the account of the journey. [See Note 
CXXXV., p. 496.] Thisand the synoptic discourse on the same subject, xxi. 
5 ff., Luke keeps separate. Comp. Weizsiicker, pp. 82 f., 182, and see the 
remark after ver. 37. — pia rev gyuepdv rod viov 7. avip. idetv] t.€., to see the 
appearance of a single day of the Messianic period (of the aidy péAAuy), in 
order, to wit, to refresh yourselves by its blessedness. Comp. Grotius, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Lange, Bleek. Your longing will be: Oh, for only 
one 1 _vssianic day in this time of tribulation !— a longing indeed not to be 
icalized, but a natural outbreak under the pressure of afflictions. — Usually, 
yet not in harmony with ver. 26: ‘‘erit tempus, guo vel uno die meo con- 
spectu, mea consuetudine, qua jam perfruimint, fruit cupiatis,” ‘* there will be 
a time, when you will long to enjoy for even one day my presence, my com- 
panionship, which you now fully enjoy,” Kuinoel ; comp. Ewald. — xai ovx 
dpec0e}] because, to wit, the point of time of the Parouwsia is not yet come; it 
has its horas et moras. 

Vv. 23, 24. [See Note CXXXVI, p. 496 seq.] See on Matt. xxiv. 23-27. — 
épovow x.t.A.] on the occasion of the appearance of false Messiahs. A local- 
ity of fixed limits, moreover (comp. ver. 21), does not characterize the 
solemn appearing of the kingdom. — idoi. . . dde] namely: is the Messiah! 
— py aréAd. unde dtGE.] & climax : Go not forth, nor follow after (sectamini), 
to wit, those of whom this is asserted. — Ver. 24. The lightning which light- 
ens [but see critical note]; comp. similar expressions in Lobeck, Paral. 
p. 503. — é« ric] Supply ydépac:' flashing out from the one region under the heaven 
(which expands under the heaven, ixé with an accusative) lightens even to 
the other (opposite one *). — otrwc] in such a manner of appearance as mani- 
fests itself in a moment and universally. 

Ver. 25. What will yet first precede the Parousia, and (1) in respect of the 
Messiah Himself: He must (comp. ix. 22, xxiv. 26) first suffer and be re- 
jected, ver. 25 ; and (2) in respect of the profane world : it will continue 
in security in its usual earthly doing and striving, until the crisis, universally 
ruinous for it, shall suddenly break in as in the days of Noah and of Lot, 
vv. 26-80. See further on ver. 31. 


1 See Bos, Filipe. ed. Schaefer, pp. 560, ‘from the old world to the new,” is not 
562; Winer, p. 522 [E. T. 591]. there at all. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 27. 
2 What Lange reads into the passage, 


CHAP. XVII., 26-35. 493 


Vv. 26, 27. [See Note CXXXVI., p. 496 seq.] Comp. Matt. xxiv. 37 f. — 
xaiog éyévero x.7.A.] to wit, that men carelessly and securely pursued their 
accustomed striving till they were overtaken by the flood. — év rai¢ juépace 
rt. vlov tr. GvOpdrov] in the days in which the appearance of the Messiah will 
come. — Ver. 27. joftov, érivov x.t.A.] @ vividly graphic asyndeton. — xa? 
#Abev] not to be connected with dyp: 7 fuépac (Bleek). See Gen. vii. 4, 10. 

Vv. 28-80. ‘Opoiwc} does not belong to adravrag (Bornemann, who assumes 
a Latinism : perdidit omnes pariter atque ut accidit), against which is to be 
set the similarity of the twofold xa? amdAecev Gravrac, vv. 27 and 29. More- 
over, we are not to conceive of égora: again after dy. caf (Paulus, Bleek), 
against which is ver. 80; but similiter quoque, sicutt accidit, etc. This 
éuolwe xai is afterwards again taken up by xara ra aird, ver. 80, and the 7ofiov 

. amavrac that lies between the two is eperegetically annexed to the o¢ 
éyévero, a8 in vii. 11, viii. 40, and frequently ; so that gofiov . . . aravrac is 
not to be put in a parenthesis at all (Lachmann), but neither is any point 
to be placed after adravrac (Tischendorf). — Ver. 29 f. 'Spefe] scil. Oedc. 
Comp. Matt. v. 45 ; Gen. xix. 24. In remembrance of the latter passage 
the subject is presupposed as known, and hence the verb is not intransitive, 
as at Rev. xi. 6 (Grotius).'— rip x. Oeiov] Comp. Hom. Od. xxii. 493 ; it is 
not to be transformed into lightnings (Kuinoel) ; Jesus follows the repre- 
sentation of Gen. xix. — aroxadtrrera] is revealed, 1 Pet. v. 4; 1 John ii. 
28, iii. 2. Up to that time He is hidden with God in His glory, Col. iii. 
3 f.; 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 7, iv. 18. 

Vv. 31-33. [See Note CXXXVI., p. 496 seq.] At that day it is well to 
abandon all earthly possession, wherefore I call to your remembrance the ex- 
ample of Lot’s wife. Even the temporal /i/e must be abandoned by him who 
wishes not to lose the life eternal. — é¢ goras é? rod dép. x.7.A.] indicates cer- 
tainly the undelayed flight with abandonment of earthly possession, but not, as 
at Matt. xxiv. 17, Mark xiii. 15, the flight in the destruction of Jerusalem, 
of which here there is no mention, but the flight for deliverance to the coming 
Messiah at the catastrophe which immediately precedes His Parousia, Matt. 
xxiv. 29-31. Then nothing of temporal possession should any more fetter 
the interest. Hence de Wette is wrong in regarding (comp. Weiss) the ex- 
pression as unsuitably occurring in this place. — xa? r. ox. avrov| see Bern- 
hardy, p. 804. — Ver. 82. ric yuvarndg Adr.] whose fate was the consequence 
of her looking back contrary to the injunction (Gen. xix. 26), which she 
would not have done if she had given up all attachment to the perishing 
possessions, and had only hastened to the divine deliverance. Comp. Wisd. 
x. 7 f. — Ver. 88. (See Note CXXXVI., p. 496 seq.] Comp. ix. 24, and on 
Matt. x. 80; Mark viii. 85.—yrfoy . . . admodéoy] in the time of that final 
catastrophe arodéce: . . . Cwoyov.: in the decision at the Parousia.—{woyoveiv, 
to preserve alive, as Acts vii. 19, and in the LXX. See Biel and Schleusner. 

Vv. 84, 85. But the decision at the Parousia, what a separation it will be! 
—a separation of those who are in the temporal life united in a perfectly 
common position, This is symbolically represented in two examples. 


1Qn the use of the word in classical Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 291. 


494 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Comp., moreover, on Matt. xxiv. 40 f. —ratrg rg vexri] which Bengel, in 
opposition to the context, explains ; in this present night, is neither to be 
interpreted in tempore illo calumitoso, ‘‘in that calamitous time” (Kuinoel, 
who says that the night is imago miseriae, ‘‘a figure of misery ;” Micah iii. 
6 ; comp. Grotius and Bleek), nor to be pressed to the conclusion that the 
Parousia is definitely ordained to take place by night (de Wette, who 
finds the ground for this view in the comparison of the Messiah with a thief 
in the night), in respect of which the following grinding at the mill as an 
occupation of the day-time is held as left standing inappropriately from 
Matthew, but the horror of the night belongs to the imagery of the concrete 
representation.’ [See Note CX XXVI., p. 496 seq.}] At ver. 35, however, there 
is again a departure from this feature, because a graphic touch of a different 
kind is added to the idea. Day and hour, even the Son knowcth not, Matt. 
xxiv. 86 ; comp. Acts 1. 7. — éxi KAivyce udc] not in general: they shall be 
bed-fellows (Lange), but, according to the words and the concrete representa- 
tion : they shall find themselves on one bed. A warning against precipitate 
separation of mingled domestic relations (Lange) is altogether foreign to 
this passage. 

Ver. 37. Tot] not : guomodo (Kuinoel), against which ungrammatical ren- 
dering even the following érov ought to have guarded him ; but: where will 
this separation occur? As to what follows, see on Matt. xxiv. 28.* [See 
Note CXXXVI., p. 496 seq. ] 


REeMank. —With regard to the discourses which are set forth here, vv. 22-37, 
but in Matt. xxiv. at another time and in another connection, viz. in that of 
the great discourse on the end of the world (comp. Luke xxi.), some have at- 
tributed (Schleiermacher, p. 215 ff., 265 ff., Neander, Olshausen, Bleek), 
others have denied (de Wette), originality to Luke. The latter view depends 
upon the assertion of a want of connection, and partial inappropriateness of 
the expressions in Luke, which assumption, however, is not justified by the 
exposition. But the former cannot be allowed at the expense of Matthew 
(see especially Schleiermacher, who supposes in Matthew a mingling of tho 
originally separate discourses [Weiss ed. Mey.], Luke xvii. 22 ff. and xxi. 
5 ff.), since even in Matthew everything stands in strictly linked connection ; 
but Luke xxi., in the same way as Matthew, places the Parousia in connec- 
tion with the destruction of Jerusalem, xxi. 25 ff. (comp. Strauss, I. p. 338). 
Without doing injustice to the one or the other evangelist, originality is to 
be conceded to both, so that Luke xvii. 22 ff. has preserved, in accordance 
with his original source, a discourse spoken by Jesus, which, not preserved by 
Matthew, and belonging to an earlier period than Matt. xxiv. and Luke xxi., 
has the characteristic feature that it remains entirely apart from connection scith 
the destruction of Jerusalem. That the substance of its contents was repeated by 
Jesus Himself in the great discourse of Matt. xxiv., is, in respect of the similar- 
ity of the material, intelligible enough, and this holds good especially of the 


1Itisnotonaccount oftheexample ofthe night-time suggested that illustration. 
two in bed together that the night is named 2On copa, corpse (of man or beast, the 
(Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 626 [Weiss latter here), see Duncan, Ler. Homer. ed. 
ed. Mey.]), but conversely the idea uf the Rost, p. 1069. Comp. xxiil. 52; Acts ix. <0. 


NOTES. 495 


characteristic words—lightning, deluge, eagles. [See Note OXXXV., p. 496.] 
But it cannot be decided how much in the execution and form is carried over 
from the one discourse into the other by the mingling processes of reminis- 
cence and tradition, the rather that in general we can ascribe to the dis- 
courses in the synoptic Gospels on the end of the world originality only within 
certain limits, i.¢., originality modified by the reflection and expectation of the 
church (see on Matt. xxiv., Remarks). 


Notes BY AMERICAN Eprrok. 


CXXXI. Ver. 1 ff. The connection. 


Despite the objections of Weiss ed. Mey. (and here of Godet also), it seems 
best to regard this asa continuation of the previous discourse. Vv. 15, 16 are 
peculiar to Luke, and yet are in their proper position. That the sayings of 
vv. 14 might be repeated is as little improbable as that several occasions 
might arise when they were appropriate to the disciples. Weiss, however, says 
that Luke, ‘‘ after the interpolation (chap. xvi. 14-31), returns to his oldest 
source, in which there accordingly followed the discourse about stumbling-blocks 
now substantially preserved in Matt. xviii.’’ In ver. 2 Weiss objects to the 
reference to converted publicans and sinners (as his view of the position of 
the discourse compels him to do), referring ‘these little ones’’ to the dis- 
ciples. 


CXXXII. Ver. 5. Kai elrayv ol arécrodot x.t.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. regards this request of the Apostles as ‘‘composed’’ by 
Luke, to lead over to the saying of Matt. xvii. 20, ‘‘that in the source probably 
formed the conclusion of the story of the lunatic, which Luke has already 
given in chap. ix. 28-43, together with the account of the transfiguration. 
Thus, too, is explained the reference of the saying specially to the Apostles, 
who on that account were not able to effect the cure (comp. Weiss, Mait., 
p. 405).’’ But there are differences in the saying as well as in the circum- 
stances. Godet properly thinks these divergences fatal to the theory of a com- 
mon written source. 


CXXXIII. Ver. 6. tmfxovoey av tyiv. 


The R. V. renders: ‘‘it would have obeyed you,’’ but the Am. Com. 
substitute : ‘‘it would obey.” The former is not correct, eitheras conveying 
the idea of the Greek aorist in the clause, or as a specimen of English. Meyer 
does not really uphold it. The aorist, with dv in the apodosis, does not neces- 
sarily point to something antecedent (have obeyed), but to a single, synchronous 
occurrence: when ye would say, etc., this would at once happen—all this on 
the supposition that you have faith. Whether they had any or not is not stated, 
since the clause is purely hypothetical. 


CXXXIV. Vv. 11-19. The Ten Lepers. 


It is very difficult to decide what journey is referred to in ver. 11, and hence 
to determine tho time of this incident. The better supported reading dia pécov 
~. seems to settle the question of route. It can properly mean only : between, 


496 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


i.e, along the borders of Samaria and Galilee. See R. V., American text and 
margin. But there is no indication that our Lord ever returned to Galilee 
after the departure referred to in chap. ix. 51; comp. Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1. 
Meyer, it is true, places all the preceding incidents in Galilee, and regards this 
as the resumption of the journey. But since this involves a direct journey 
to Jerusalem, he is forced to accept a disagreement with ‘‘ Matthew and Mark, 
who make Him journey through Peraea.” 

Robinson places this incident immediately after the rejection by the Sumari- 
tan village (chap. ix. 52-56); the intervening events, except those referred to 
in one passage of considerable length, are placed in Peraea. Andrews, however, 
places the healing of the ten lepers during the journey from Ephraim to Jeru- 
salem, the raising of Lazarus having occurred after the discourse in vv. 1-10. 
But this fails to account for the mention of Galilee. The language of the 
verse is indefinite ; the omission of avrév, which Meyer does not notice, leaves 
it uncertain what is the subject of ropebec0ar. The R. V. text has: ‘‘as they 
were,” the margin: ‘‘as he was.’’ No historical notice in Luke's account 
agrees so readily with a theory of transposed position. Samaria is mentioned 
first, either for the reason that Meyer assigns, or to account for the presence of 
the Samaritan leper (Weiss ed. Mey.). 


CXXXYV. Ver. 20 ff. The Eschatological Discourse. 


This discourse, as here recorded, must be connected with what precedes, 
either with ver. 19, or, if vv. 11-19 be placed earlier, with ver. 10. Weiss ed. 
Mey. thinks this discourse is from the oldest source, and that its main portions 
are in Matt. xxiv. interwoven with those of another found in the same 
source (namely, that reported in Luke xxi., 5 ff.). So Schleiermacher. But 
Meyer’s view (stated in his closing remark, p. 494 seq.) is preferable. Both 
discourses are original; the striking sayings common to them both were 
repeated. 


CXXXVI. Ver. 23 ff. The Views of Weiss. 


Weiss ed. Mey. differs in the following places from Meyer: Ver. 23. He 
finds here no hint of the appearance of false Messiahs, but thinks the discourse 
in the oldest source referred to premature announcements of the Messiah. In 
ver. 24 he refers ydép to the universally visible appearance which renders the 
matter of locality (‘lo there, lo here’’) unnecessary. Properly rejecting the 
article after acrpar7, he renders dorpérovea : ‘‘ when it lighteneth” (so R. V.). 
He surmises that ver. 25 is modified from the oldest source, but, as it stood there, 
formed the basis of Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, which isimprobable. Vv. 26-30, 
he thinks, stand in their original connection. Ver. 31 is explained by Weiss, not 
as referring to “the flight for deliverance to the coming Messiab,” but as enjoining 
the relinquishment of all earthly things in order to be prepared for His coming. 
In his view the verse is added by Luke. Ver. 33 he regards as out of its 
original connection (comp. Matt. x. 39). Heaccepts repitojoacda: ; comp. R. V., 
‘‘ shall seek to gain.” The various readings seem, however, to attest the orig- 
inality of the verse in this connection. In accordance with his view of the 
composition of the discourse, he thinks that in the ‘‘source’’ ver. 34 joined di- 
rectly on ver. 30. ‘‘ In that night” he regards as not original, nor as an image 
of horror, but chosen by Luke to indicate a closer companionship, ‘‘ in one bed.” 


NOTES. 497 


Ver. 37. The first part of the verse Weiss holds to be one of Luke's “‘ transi- 
tion questions,’’ but which, moreover, proves that Luke found what follows in 
this place. The original discourse he therefore thinks closed with the reference 
to the ‘‘ eagles,” which presents parabolically the main thought of the previous 
sayings, that the judgment will overtake all the ungodly. Against this theory 
- of the discourse see Meyer’s closing remark. 


32 





498 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


Ver. 1. dé cai] BLM &, min. Copt. codd. of It. Or. have dé So Lachm. 
Tisch. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]. But the xai, which might be dispensed 
with, was easily passed over; it is wanting also in ver. 9 in not unimportant 
authorities (bracketed by Lachm.). After zpocevy. Lachm. and Tisch. have 
avrovc. It is preponderatingly attested ; there would have been no reason for 
its addition ; while in favor of its omission, the word being superfiuous, it may 
be noticed that mpocevyeof#AI would the more readily be followed by «AI, that 
in the doctrine of the parable the generality of the reference most readily pre- 
sented itself. —[Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, with ® A B* D, have évxaxeiv ; 
Treg., R. V., éyxaxecyv (B* L), instead of the poorly-attested éxxaxeiv, which Meyer 
retains. — Ver. 4. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 A BD L, versions, read 
7Oecev, and, with ® B L, ovdé dvOpurov instead of xai dvOp. ovx.]— Ver. 5. trw- 
mia(y] Griesb. recommends tromaly on insufficient attestation. It was altered 
from misunderstanding, as also in the case of the variant tromély. Comp. on 
1 Cor. ix. 27. — Ver. 7. toiwjoet] roujoy is so decisively attested that, with Lachm. 
Tisch., it is to be adopted. The future was introduced by anticipation of ver. 
8.— [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B L, read av7q, instead of zpd¢ atrov.] 
— paxpofvuei (Lachm. Tisch.) is also attested quite decisively, instead of which 
HaxpoOupoyv (Elz.) was intended to assist the construction of the sentence. — 
Ver. 18. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with & B L, Copt., read 6 dé reA.] 
—ei¢ before r, or73o¢ is wanting in BD K LQX TI &, min. Slav. Arm. Vulg. 
It. Or. Antioch. Cypr. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [So recent editors, BR. V.] 
But why should it have been added? As being perfectly superfluous (comp. 
xxili. 48, xxii. 64), it was overlooked. — Ver. 14. Elz. has 7 éxeivoc, which, on 
decisive evidence, is to be condemned. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. have 4 yap 
éxeivoc, following AEG H KMPQSUVXTIAA, min. Syr. Goth. Bas. ms. 
Theophyl. Grot. and Lachm. [Treg. text, W. and Hort, Weiss] have zap’ éxei- 
vov, in accordance with B L &, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Naz. (Vulg. : ab illo). To 
these is added also indirectly D, with pdAdov rap’ exeivov rov Saptcaioy (comp. 
Syr. Pers.P It. Cypr. Hilar. Ambr. Aug.). The reading of Lachm. is consequently 
the oldest ; and since } ydp éxeivoc is opposed to the sense, it is to be judged 
that TAP came into the text instead of ITAP by a transcriber's error of ancient 
date, and became blended with the gloss } éxeivoc.— Ver. 15. érxetipnoay] 
BDGL VX, min. Lachm. Tisch. have éverizwv ; the Receptais from Matt. xix. 
13. — [Ver. 16. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 BL, Copt., read mpocexa- 
Aécaro abra Aeywv. — Ver. 21. Tisch., recent editors, have égvAafa with 8 A BL, 
while Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., omit the second oov in ver. 20, with A B D L, 
Vulg.] — Ver. 22. diddocg] ADL M RAR, min. Fathers have dé¢. So Lachm. 
It is from the parallels, from which, moreover, came also év otpave, instead of 
which is to be read, with Lachm. [Treg., Weiss, R. V.] and Tisch., following 
B D, év roi¢ otpavoic (A L B® [Tisch, VII.] read : évo tpavoic). — [Tisch., re- 
cent editors, R. V., with & BD L, 1, 33, 69, Copt., Syrr., omit raira after axot- 





CHAP. XVIII., 1-3. 499 


cag dé, — Ver. 23. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with & BL, read éyevy6y.] — 
Ver. 24. repidur. yevdu.] is wanting in BL &,.min. Copt. ; deleted by Tisch. 
[recent editors, R. V.]. But it was in accordance with the parallels more easily 
passed over than added. — [Tisch., recent editors, read eionopevovrar, with B L, 
placing it at the close.] — Ver. 25. rpuzadcac] Lachm. and Tisch. have tpnueros, 
in accordance with B D &, 49. Rightly; in accordance with Matthew and 
Mark, there was introduced in some authorities tpurjyaroc (L R, min.), in 
others rpvyaiids (A E F G, etc., Elz.). — Instead of Jagidog read, with Lachm. 
and Tisch., BeAdvyc, in accordance with BDL &, min. The former is from 
the parallels. — eiceAeiv] Lachm. has dieZGciv. It is more weakly attested, and 
the reading is to be decided as at Matt. xix. 24. — Ver. 28. agjxapev xavra xui} 
Lachm. and Tisch. have dgévrec rd ida, in accordance with B D L X** min. 
vss., and this Griesb. also recommended. The Recepta is from the parallels. — 
[Ver. 29. Tisch., W. and Hort, R. V., with ® BL, Copt., have this order: yv- 
vaixa,# ddeAgouc, }} yoveic.] — Ver. 30. azoAd3y] B D M, min. have 2487. So Lachm. 
The simple form is from the parallels, just as D, in particular, takes éay 9 Adpy 
from Mark x. 30. -— [Ver. 35. Tisch., recent editors, with ® BDL, Origen, have 
exatrav.}] — Ver. 39. oiwr70y] The preponderatingly attested oty7oy is adopted 
by Schulz, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallels. In the New 
Testament only Luke and Paul have the verb ocydv. — Ver. 41. A¢ywv before ri 
is, with Tisch., to be deleted, in accordance with BD L X &, 57, as a familiar 
addition, instead of which Or. has eizwy. 


Ver. 1. What Jesus has hitherto said of His Parousia was of such 
weighty and everlastingly decisive concern for His disciples, that it was 
calculated to stimulate them to unremitting prayer, that they might become 
partakers of the éxdixyor¢ which the Parousia was to bring to them (ver. 7). 
Hence (without the omission of any intervening dialogue, Schleiermacher, 
Olshausen) now follows the parable of the widow and the unjust judge, 
peculiar to Luke, and its application (vv. 1-8). This parable is no addi- 
tion inserted without a motive (Késtlin, Holtzmann), nor is it taken from 
the Logia ; but it comes from the source of the account of the journey. 
[See Note CKXXVII., p. 506.] Weizsiicker alleges that it must have been 
a later growth, annexed by Luke to his source of the narrative of the journey; 
that the judge is the heathen magistracy ; the widow, the church bereaved 
after the departure of Christ; her adversary, the hostile Judaism. Here 
also (comp. on xv. 11, xvi. 1, 19) is a transferring of later relations to an 
early period without sufficient reason. — rpé¢]| in reference to. — révrore] It is 
not the continual disposition of prayer (‘‘as the breath of the inner man,” 
Olshausen) that is meant, but the constant actual prayer, in respect of 
which, however, zévrore is not to be pressed, but to be taken in a popularly 
hyperbolical sense. Comp. ver. 7; 1 Thess. i. 17. — éxxaxeiv] to become dis- 
couraged, not : in their vocation (Schleiermacher), but, according to the con- 
text : in their prayers. As to the form éxx., for which Lachm. has éyx. 
(and Tischendorf : év«.), which, although here preponderatingly attested, 
is to be regarded as an improvement, seo on 2 Cor. iv. 1. [But sce criti- 
cal note. ] 

Vv. 2, 3, Tov Gedy... x. avOpwr. «.7.4.] Similar charactcrizations from pro- 


500 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

fane writers may be seen in Wetstein. Bengel well says : ‘‘ Horum respec- 
tuum alterutrum certe plerosque mortalium movere solet et injustitiam (ver. 
6) judicum cohibere,” ‘‘ One or the other of these considerations is cer- 
tainly wont to move the most of mortals and to check the injustice (ver. 6) 
of judges.” — évrpexdu.] standing in awe of, Matt. xxi. 87; Luke xx. 13; 
2 Thess. iii. 15 ; Heb. xii. 9. In the Greek writers more frequently used with 
a genitive. The disposition implied by évtperdu. is respect and regard. — ip- 
zero] Grotius aptly says: rentitabat, ‘‘ kept coming.” — See Kiihner, IT. p.76 f. 
— éxdixnody pe ard x.t.Aa.] revenge me (and deliver me by this my judicial 
restitution) o/, etc.’ 

Vv. 4, 5. "Ext ypdvav] for a time.* — didye] as at xi. 8. — iva ua x.7.A.] 18 ex- 
plained : that she may not contin ried (cic TéAog equal to dia réAove, see Kypke 
and Wetstcin ; comp. 13°, ny)? 7) come and plague me. See also Luther's 
gloss. But that trumdZw (to strike any one’s eyes black and blue, see Wetstein) 
is to be taken in the general sense of harass, annoy, there is no proof, since it 
is an error to adduce not merely 1 Cor. ix. 27, but also Aristoph. Paz 541, 
where the wéAeg trwriacuéva: are represented as smitten and wounded 
persons, and hence the word is to be taken in the literal sense, to beat black 
and blue. But the assumption of a Latinism, after the manner of obtundere 
(Beza, Grotius), is arbitrary, and does not at all correspond with the special 
idea of the Greek word. Accordingly there is nothing left us but to inter- 
pret : that she may not at last come and beat my face black and blue. The 
judge mockingly puts the case of the woman at length becoming desperate, 
and actually laying hands on him and beating his face black and blue. [See 
Note CXXXVIIL., p. 506.] The Vulgate rightly has it : sugillet me. Comp. 
also Bleek and Schegg.? 

Vv. 6, 7. Hear what the unrighteous judge (6 xpitn¢ rig adixiac, see on xvi. 8) 
says ! But God, will He not, etc. In this contrast lies the conclusion that 
the éxdixyorc, on which that worthless judge decided in respect of the perse- 
veringly praying widow who was so troublesome to him, is the more cer- 
tainly to be expected from God in respect of the elect, who are so dear to 
Him, and who so constantly cry to Him for the final decision. On od pf 
in a question, see Winer, pp. 449, 454 [E. T. 506, 511 f.). — According 
to the reading x. paxpofuyei ex’ atroig (see the critical remarks), the most 
‘simple explanation is : but God, will He not fulfil the avenging of His 
elect, and does He tarry‘ for their sakes? and is it His concern, in reference 
to them, to delay His interposition, or postpone His aid?® In respect 
of the delay which nevertheless, according to human judgment, does 
occur, Grotius rightly observes: ‘‘illud ipsum tempus, quamvis longum 
interdum ferentibus videatur, re vera cxiguum est imo momentaneum, 





1Comp. Judg. xi. 86: wotyoar gor xvprov 
éxSicnow .. . ard Tay vievy Aupuwy, 

2Hom. 12. fi. 299; Plat. Protag. p. 844 B, 
Phaed. p. 84 C; Naigelsbach, Anm. z. Jlias, 
ed. 8, p. 284. 

3On ets réAos, at the end, finally, comp. 
Herod. fii. 40, ix. 87; Xen. Oec. xvii. 10; 
Soph. PAU. 407, and thereupon Hermann; 


Gen. xlvi. 4, and elsewhere. réAos, without 
any preposition, might also have been used. 

4The expression paxpoOuzet corresponds 
to the idea of the éxdicnors, whigh includes 
within it the punishment of the enemies. 

§See Ecclus. xxxii. 18. Comp. Maldona- 
tus, Grotius, Bornemann in the Stud. d. 
Sachs. Geist. 1842, p. 69 f., Bleek. 


' CHAP. XVIII, 8. 501 
unde 13 rapavrixa rie OAipewc, dixit Paulus, 2 Cor. iv. 17,” ‘‘ That very time, 
however long it may seem meanwhile to those enduring, isin fact short, nay 
momentary, hence Paul spoke of ‘ affliction, which is for the moment,’ 2 Cor. 
iv. 17.” According to Bengel and Ewald, xa? paxpoOupei én’ abr. is connected 
hebraistically with trav Bodvrwy : and over them He te forbearing ; whereby 
the delay of the éxdixyore would be derived from the patience with which 
God still allows to His elect further time for more perfect sanctification 
(2 Pet. iii. 9). According to the construction, this would be harder, and 
in its meaning less in correspondence with the subsequent év réyer. 
The Recepta would have to be understood : will He not .. . fulfil, even al- 
‘though He delays in reference to them ? '— that is to say, with that éxdixnacc of 
them ; kairo: paxpofunay Kai gaivduevog avynxovoreiv tov deopévwv avtot vuxrdg Kai 
yuépac, ‘* although long-suffering and seeming to be deaf to those praying to 
Him night and day,” Theophylact, not, with Hassler (in the 7iib. Zeitschrift, 
1832) : since He zs still patient towards them, i. c., does not lose patience as 
that judge did. For, apart from the incorrect view of the use of the xai, the . 
thought itsclf is unsuited to the doctrinal narrative, siuce it tas actually 
through the judge's loss of patience (rather : his becoming annoycd) that the 
éxdixnorg Of the woman was brought about. Moreover, de Wette is wrong in 
remarking against the reading vaxpoOvyei, and its meaning, that if the thought 
that God delays were removed, the parable would have no meaning at all, 
since paxpo?. corresponds to the ovx 70eA. ét? yxpdvor, ver. 4. Therein is lost 
right of the fact that the example of the unrighteous judge teaches ¢ con- 
trario (see already Augustine, Serm. 86) the procedure of God. [See Note 
CXXXIX., p. 506.] — The éxdixnore rév éxAsxrav consists in the deliverance 
from their enemies who are punished at the Parousia, and in their own ex- 
altation to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom for which they are chosen. 
Comp. xxi. 22. The idea of this éxdixyoce enters so essentially into the 
texture of the New Testament eschatology, that in various forms it runs 
through the entire New Testament, and hence it is not casily to be seen why 
it should be regarded as standing apart from the views of our evangelist, 
and should remind us of the fiery zeal of the apocalyptic writer (Késtlin, 
Hilgenfeld). Comp. preceding passages in Luke (i. 51 ff., 71 ff.). 
Ver. 8. An answer to the two parts of the preceding question : (1) rorors 
. avray, and (2) iv rd yer. — This év réyec is the opposite of delay (uaxpo- 
Quuci, ver. 7): quickly, without delay,’ declaring the speedy advent * of the 
Parousia (ix. 27), at which shall follow the éadixyorc. [See Note CXL., 
p- 506 seq. ] — zAqv 6 vide x.7.7.] It 18 to be accentuated dpa (so also Lachmann 


1 Lange is wrong in saying : although even 
over them He rules high-mindedly (and 
therefore inscrutably). 

* Acts xii. 7, xxii. 18, xxv. 4: Rom. xvi. 
20; 1 Tim. ili. 14; Rev. fi. 1, il. 5, xxil. 6; 
Wisd. xviii. 14; Pind. Nem. v. 85 ; Xen. Cyr. 
vi. 1. 12. 

* It is in vain to weary onesclf and twist 
about in the attempt to explain away this 
simple meaning of the words, as, fur exam- 


ple, Ebrard does on Rev. 1.1, p. 104. “* There 
is only this to be said, that the final deliver- 
ance, how long soever it may appear to be 
delayed as to its beginning, shall still be so 
internally and potentially hastened that it 
shall be made an unexpectedly hasty ending 
to the condition of tribulation that precedes 
it.” See, on the other hand, Diisterdieck. 
[Seo Note CXL., p. 506 seq.) 


508 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER XIX. 


VER. 2. otro¢ 7] Lachm. has aizd¢ [jv]. BK 1, min. Arm. Vulg. Ver. For. 
Vind. have only airdéc. [So Treg., W. and Hort text, R. V.] Tisch. has 7» only, 
following L &, min. Copt. Goth. only. [Weiss has ovro¢ without iv.] The 
Recepta isto be maintained ; otru¢ was in some authorities altered mechani- 
cally into avrdéc, in accordance with the foregoing word; in others, omitted 
as being superfluous, on which assumption, sometimes also #v, nay, even 
xat (D), dropped away also. — Ver. 4. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 
NBL, insert ei¢ rd before Eurpoo%ev.] — cvxopnopéav] see the exegetical remarks. 
—Instead of éxeivnc Elz. has di’ exeivnc, in opposition to decisive evidence, 
on the strength of which, also at ver. 7, wavrec is to be read instead of 
amavrec. — Ver. 5. eldev avrdv xai] is wanting in BL ®&, min. ves. Tisch. [So 
Treg., W. and Hort, R.V.] The transcriber passed at once from Eldev to Elrev. — 
Ver. 13. fac] ABD K LR X®, min. Or. Lucif. have éy 6. Approved by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; é@é¢ is an interpretation. — Ver. 15. iduxe] 
Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have deddxe:, in accordance with B D 
L &, min. Cant. Vero. (Or. : ededwxec), An emendation. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
R. V., with ®& BD L, Copt., Or., have ri diexpayparevoavro, without ric. Tisch. 
retains the reading of the Rec., Meyer and Weiss do not notice the variation. ] 
— Ver. 17. ed] Lachm. and Tisch. have edye, following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. 
Lucif. The Recepla is from Matt, xxv. 23. — Ver. 20. érepoc] Lachm. and Tisch. 
[recent editors, R.V.] have 6 érepoc, in accordance with BD LR &8** min. A 
mechanical repetition of the article, in accordance with vv. 16, 18. — [Ver. 22. 
Recent editors, R. V., with Tisch. (8B, others, Vulg., Copt.) omit dé] — Ver. 23. 
77v} is wanting in authorities so decisive, that, with Matth. Lachm. Tisch., it 
must be deleted. -- The position of ai7é immediately after dv has, it is true, A 
B L & in its favor (Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors]), yet the old reading avémpaia 
in Ais against it, as it manifestly originated from the collocation of dv and 
ézpafa. So in A, ANEIIPAZA is written as one word, although translated as 
two words. The separation might easily be marked by avré placed between 
them. — Ver. 26. Since ydp is wanting in important authorities, while Vulg. It. 
have autem, it is to be regarded, with Tisch., as a connective addition, in 
accordance with Matt. xxv. 29. — dan’ avtot] is bracketed by Lachm., deleted 
by Tisch. It is wanting in B L &, min. Lucif., and has slipped in mechani- 
cally from Matt. xiii. 12, although there the construction is different. Comp. 
Mark iv. 25. — Ver. 27. éxefvovc] BK L M 8, min. Didym. have rovrovc. 
To bo preferred, with Bornem. and Tisch. ; éx. is an amendment by way of 
designating the absent. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with & B L, Copt., 
add avrovc, after xaracg., and in ver. 29 omit the frequently interpolated aurav 
after na§nrav.] — Ver. 31. attra] is wanting in B D F L RX, min. vss. Or. 
Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. [So recent editors, R. V.] The 
omission is occasioned by its absence in the parallels. — Ver. 34. Before 4 «t- 
poc Lachm. Tisch, [recent editors, R. V.. 8 A B DL, Vulg., Copt., Syrr.] have 


CHAP. XIx., 1-4. 509 


érc, certainly on preponderating evidence, but it is repeated from ver. 31. — 
[Ver. 35. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® BD L, have atrav, but in ver. 36 
Treg., W. and Hort, with A B, have éavrav.] — Ver. 37. racdv] Lachm. has zdv- 
twy, following BD. But xévrwy came in through the reading y:voulywy (instead 
of duvéu.), which is still found in D, — Ver. 40. Lachm. and Tisch. have oww- 
mnoove.y, in accordance with AB LB A X, min., to which also D adds confirma- 
tion by orynooverv. The Recepta is by way of an improvement. —[Tisch., W. 
and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ® BL, Copt., omit avrotc.] — Instead of xexpafovrac 
- BL & have xpdéovo.y, which rare form Tisch. has rightly adopted, — Ver. 41. Elz. 
Griesb. Scholz have éz atrj. But én’ airy is decisively attested. So Schulz, 
Lachm. Tisch. — Ver. 42, xa? od kai ye év T7 Hu. cov rary] Lachm. has bracketed 
xal ye, and deleted cov ; the former is wanting in BDL ®, 157, vss. Or. ; the 
latter in AB DL &, min. vss. Or, Eus. Bas. Both are to be retained ; xai ye 
dropped out in consequence of the preceding «xa? ov, and then this drew after it 
the omission of cov, which after the simple xa? ov (without «ai ye) did not seem in 
place. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. text, have: év r. #u. ravry cul ov, omitting xai 
yeand cov, as also after eipjv7v. This order is better supported ; the Am. R. V. 
marg. accepts cov in both instances.]— The second oov is, indeed, wanting in 
BL 8, 259, Or. Ir. (bracketed by Lachm.); but how easily might the word, 
which, moreover, might be dispensed with, drop out between the syllables NHN 
and NYN ! — Ver. 45. év airg] is wanting in B CL ®&, min. Copt. Arm. Goth. 
Rd. Or. In most of these authorities xa? ayopdlovrac is also wanting. Tisch. 
deletes both, and both are from the parallels, from which D A, vas. have added 
still more. — Ver. 46. Tisch. has xa? Zora: 6 olx. nov olx. mpooevy., following B L 
R & (in which, however, «x. éora: is wanting by the first hand), min. Copt. Arm. 
Or. Rightly ; the Recepia is from the parallels, from which, moreover, appears 
in C** xAnOjcerac instead of éoriy. 


Vv. 1, 2. This history’ with the stamp of Luke’s language is worked up 
by him from tradition. [See Note CXLIII., p. 517. |—ovéuare xadotp.} Comp. 
i. 61. Classical writers would have said dvoya xadA. (Herod. i. 178; Plat. 
Crat. p. 483 B). — Zaxyaios] = *3!, pure, Ezra ii. 9; Neh. vii. 14. Even 
the name (among the Rabbins also, see Lightfoot, p. 870) shows him to be 
a Jew. See on ver. 9 and Castalio in loc. The Clementines represent him 
as a companion of Peter, and by him consecrated as bishop of Caesarea.* — 
avréc] after the name (as viii. 41), his personal condition. —apyireAcunc] chief 
publican or taz-collector, probably a steward of the Roman farmer of the taxes, 
entrusted with supervision of the ordinary tax-collectors.? The tribute in 
Jericho may have had to do especially with the trade carried on there in the 
production and export of balsam (a trade which now no longer exists, see 
Robinson Pal. II. p. 537). — nai ot roc 7] a prolix simplicity of style. [But 
see critical note.] Comp. ii. 87, vii. 12, xx. 28. 

Vv. 8, 4. Tic éore] i.e, which among those who were passing by is Jesus. 
‘¢‘ Fama notum cultu noscere cupiebat,” ‘He desired to know in person 


1 Acoording to Elchthal, II. p. 201, a mis- Constit. Apost. vi. 8. 8, vil. 46. 1. 
taken copy of the call of Matthew (Matt. 3 Comp. Salmasius, de foen. (rapes. p. 245 f.; 
ix.) ! Burm. vectig. populi Rom. p. 184. 

8 See Hom. ili. 63, Recogn. til. 65. Comp. 


§10 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Him known by report,” Grotius. — xpodpapyiy Euxpoobter] (See Note CXLIV., 
p. 517 seq.] Comp. Tob. xi. 2; Plat. Gorg. p.497 A ; Xen. Cyrop. iv. 2. 28. 
—avxouoptav] The form yopéa occurs in Nicander as quoted by Athen. L 
p. 51, and oveoyzopéa, Geop. x. 3. 7 ; more frequently ovxduopo¢ (Dioscor. i. 184; 
Aq. Am. vii. 14; Suidas). The authorities, however, are very much divided 
between ovxouopéay (so now Tischendorf also [recent editors], following 
BLD &) and cvxoywpéay (Lachmann) ; Galen also has pupéa, de comp. med. 
5 (in Wetstein on xvii. 6). As, nevertheless, the reading ovxoyopaiav also 
adds to the support of cvxoudp., although it is plainly a transcriber’s error, 
the Recepta is to be maintained. The word itself is = ovxducvog (see Dioscor. 
i. 184) : Egyptian fig tree, xvii. 6.— éxelvyc] see on v. 9. —dcépyeoSa:] to 
pass through, through the city, ver. 1. 

Vv. 5-7. Whether Jesus had any personal knowledge of Zacchaeus, is a 
matter which could be decided only by circumstances unknown to us ; and 
hence to bring in the higher knowledge of Jesus (Olshausen), as seeing him 
nevertheless directly in his inner nature, is in the case before us 8 course 
without sufficient justification, although Strauss, I. p. 575 f., builds thereon 
the view that the history is a variation of the theme of the intercourse with 
the publicans. According to Paulus, some one named the man to him. 
— ofuepov] emphatically, comp. ver. 9. This day is the day so important to 
thee, when I must abide in thy house (stay the night, John i. 39). dei is 
spoken from the consciousness of the divine appointment (ver. 10), ‘‘ asif He 
could not dispense with Zacchaeus, whom, nevertheless, everybody else 
avoided as a great sinner” (Luther, Predigt.). — Ver. 7. The murmurers 
(dteyoyy., sec on xv. 2) are Jews, who accompanied Jesus to the house 
of Zacchaeus, situated (ver. 1) before the city on the way towards Jeru- 
salem [but see Note CXLIII., p. 517], and here at the entrance, prob- 
ably in the forecourt where the pyblican came to meet Jesus, saw, how 
joyously he receives Him. Comp. on ver. 11. — rapa ap. avdpi] belongs to 
karaAveoat. 

Ver. 8. The supposition ‘‘ Jesu cohortationes et monitiones tantam vim 
habuisse in Zacchaei animum,” ‘‘ that the exhortations and admonitions of 
Jesus had such effect on the mind of Zacchaeus,” etc. (Kuinoel, comp. Grotius), 
and that the murmuring and the vow did not occur till the morning of the 
departure (Schleiermacher, Olshausen), has no foundation in the text, in 
accordance with which it was rather the immediate personal impression of 
Jesus that seized and took possession of the wealthy chief publican in that 
manner. His cow includes the consciousness of his unworthiness of the 
great happiness that has befallen him through the entertainment of the 
Messiah, and his determination, for the sake of this happiness, to make 
abundant compensation for his former guilt. According to Paulus, the 
publican wished to confute the charge wapa auapr. avdpi, and said el rtivdg re 
éovnog. x.T.A. in the conviction of his innocence. This is opposed to the 
context, opposed to the preceding rd jyic. x.r.A., and opposed to ver. 10; 
moreover, his whole style of asserting his innocence would be an unbecom- 
ing piece of parade. — craveic] he stood forth before Jesus,—a joyful confi- 
dence. Comp. on ‘xviii. 11. — quioy] The form juicea (Lachmann), which 


OHAP. XIX., 9, 10, S11 
Attic writers approve, is a correction either from juioy or from guloea.’’ As 
to the substantival neuter, see Kihner, §479 b; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyrop. 
viii. 8. 41.:— él revde re govnog.] If I havetaken anything from any one by fraud.? 
The ci is not to-make the matter uncertain, as though he were conscious to 
himself of no such extortion, but ef . . . rz is the milder expression of self- 
confession instead of 4,rz. See Dissen, ad Dem. decor. p. 195. — rerpardovv} 
he professes himself ready for a measure of compensation, such as was 
ordained for theft, Ex. xxi. 837; 1 Sam. xii. 8.* In respect of breach of trust 
and the like, it was ordained only that a fifth part above the value should 
be restored (Lev. v. 21 ff.; Num. v. 6 f.). 

Vv. 9, 10. Mpdc airév] to him, rpdc, a8 vv. 5, 8; not : in reference to him 
(Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, de Wette [Weiss ed. Mey.], and others), so 
that Jesus spoke to the disciples or to the people (Paulus). He speaks to 
Zacchaeus, but not in the second person (r@ oix cov), because what He said 
was to serve at the same time as 4 correction for those murmurers (ver. 7, 
comp. on ver. 11), and consequently was to have a more gencral destina- 
tion. Hence it is also at least unnecessary, with Ewald; to assume an 
audible soliloquy of Jesus, and to read spd¢ airév (to himself) (comp. mpd¢ 
éaurév, XVili. 11). — xabére xa? abrdg x.t.A.] in accordance with the fact that (i. 7 ; 
Acts ii, 21; in the New Testament used only by Luke) he also (as other 
Jews, although he is despised as a sinner) is @ son of Abraham,—as which 
he belongs to the saving solicitude of the Messiah. Comp. xiii. 16. It is 
not the worthiness (Grotius, Kuinoel, Bleek, and others), but the theocratic 
claim that is meant. Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Maldonatus, and 
others, including Schenkel, who regard Zacchaeus as a Gentile, are compelled 
to take vidc ’Aj3p. in an ethical sense (‘‘quamvis gencre non sit, tamen fide 
est,” ‘‘ although he be not by race, yet he is by faith,” Maldonatus). But that 
he was a Gentile is in itself (see also on ver. 2), and according to ver. 8, 
not to be supposed, and is not implied in ver. 7. — Ver. 10. ydp] justifies 
what is said at ver. 9: with full right doI say that this day is salvation 
come to this house (the family of this house), etc., for the Messiah has come 
to seek and to save that which is lost, i.e., those who have incurred eternal ruin. 
The collective neuter used of persons, as in John xvii. 2; on the thought, 
see 1 Tim. 1. 15. —4A6e] emphatically placed first ; for Jesus declares the 
purpose of His appearance. — (yr#ca:] might be suggested by the idea of a 
shepherd (xv. 4) ; still the text contains no closer reference of that kind. 
Hence it is rather‘a general expression of the seeking of the love that 
ts solicitous for souls, Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14. Moreover, comp. on Matt. 
xviii. 11. 


1 Mschendorf, namely, has adopted 1d 
yuioea, in accordance with BLQ AR. [But 
*% BQ have yuleve, 80 W. and Hort.) Cer. 
tainly in the classical writers nurcea (sci. 
oipa OF pepis) is the substantival feminine of 
Hacovs, Thuo. vi. 62.4; Plat. Leg. 12, p. 956 D, 
Pp. vit. p. 847 C; Dem. 430.8; Lucian. Herm. 
48; while ra yuiceca occurs also at least in 
Antonin. Lid. il, p. 16; bence it 1s all tho 


more probable that Luke wrote it, but it 
was then changed into yyioea, and finally 
into yyion. 

3 The verb (lf. 14) is construed like awoere- 
pecy ntivdg te (Plut. Dem. iv.; Soph. PAdd. 1287), 
amroAavery Tivds re (Xen. Hier. vil. 9, Mem. 1. 
6.2; Plat. Crit. p.b4 A; Arist. Nud. 1281); 
among the Greeks with wapd, Lys. p. 177, 82. 

* Comp. Keil, Argh. § 154. 3 





512 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Ver. 11. As to the relation of the following parable to Matt. xxv. 14-80,' 
see on Matthew ; the form in Luke is not the original one ; see also Weiss in the 
Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1864, p. 128 ff. [See Note CKLV., p. 518. ] — dxovdvrwy d2 airav 
ravra] But because they heard this (ver. 8 ff.), whereby their Messianic antic- 
ipations could only be strengthened ; see what follows. Not the disciples 
(Grotius and others), but only those murmurers, ver. 7, could be the subject 
—the single plural-subject which preceded. The scene is this—the peoplo 
in attendance have accompanied Jesus as far as the entrance into the house 
(as far as into the forecourt), when they also observe how Zacchaeus joy- 
ously welcomes Jesus, and they murmur ; whereon Zacchaeus speaks the 
words, ver. 8, and Jesus the rejoinder, vv. 9 and 10.— Both utterances 
therefore are spoken while they are still at the entrance, so that the mur- 
muring crowd also listens to what is said. The connection is neither dis- 
closed first of all from the contents of the parable (Weizsicker), nor is it 
obscure (de Wette, Holtzmann), but it is darkened by the interpreters (see 
also Schleiermacher). — rpocSeic] adding to, still continuing—a Hebraism, 
as at Gen. xxxvili. 5, Job xxix. 1, and elsewhere ; Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 
648]. In pure Greek the expression would run xpoodei¢ rapaB. elev. — elrre 
napap.}] Comp. xviii. 9.— éyytc] 150 stadia, Joseph. Bell. iv. 8. 8. — re 
mapaxpiua k.7.A.| UréAaBov, Ste did tovTo avecot viv ei¢ ‘Iepove., tva Baccdeboy év 
avrg, ‘‘ They supposed that on this account they approached Jerusalem, in 
order that He might reign in it,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — dvagaiver9ar] to 
come to light. — The people think of the glorious setting up of the kingdom 
believed in by them. This verse, moreover, does not exclude from the con- 
nection of Luke the history of the entrance, ver 29 ff., which Marcion re- 
jected. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Krit. Unters. p. 466. | 

Vv. 12, 13. Here is represented a man of noble descent, a nobleman, who 
journeys into the far country to the governor, who possesses the supremacy, 
in order to receive, as a vassal, from him regal power over those who have 
been his fellow-citizens up to that time. [See Note CXLY., p. 518.] This 
representation is borrowed from the circumstances of governors in Palestine 
at that time, the kings of which, the Herods, received from Rome their 
Bastieia ; especially the instance of Archelaus, in respect of the fruitless pro- 
test raised against him by the Jews (Joseph. Anté. xvii. 11. 1), is sufficiently 
similar, reasonably to derive the parabolic narrative, so far as that part of 
it is concerned, from the remembrance of that transaction.? — cig ydpav 
Haxpav] a contrast with the wapaypqua, ver. 11, for Jesus must first go into 
heaven to the Father, but not consequently removing the Pargusia beyond 
the duration of the lifetime of the generation (Baur, Zeller), since the reck- 
oning at the return has to do with the same servants. — éavrg] he wished 


1 In affinity with the contents of this par- 
able is the word which Christ, according to 
Clem. Homi. {1. 51, 111. 50, xviii. 20, and Apel- 
les in Epiphan. Haer. 44. 2, is said to have 
spoken : yiveode d6ccuoe rparegiras, ‘‘ Become 
approved bankers.” The wide publication 
of this saying in Christian antiquity (Clem. 
Alex., Origen, etc.) makgs it probable (in 


opposition to Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 458) 
that it actually was a word of Christ's. 

2 Possibly even the locality suggested to 
Jesus the reference to Archelaus. For in 
Jericho stood the royal palace which Arche- 
laus had built with great magnificence, 
Joseph. Anti. xvil. 18. 1. 


CHAP. XIX., 14-17. 513 
to receive the kingly dignity for himself, although till then there had been 
another king. — Ver. 13. éavrov] ten slaves of his own, of whom therefore he 
might rightly expect the care of his interest. Comp. on Matt. xxv. 14. — 
déxa pvac] to wit, to each one.’ The Attic mina = 100 drachmas, i.e., accord- 
ing to Wurm, de ponderum, etc., rationibus, p. 266, = from 22 thal. 16 grosch. 
to 24 thal. 3 grosch. Vienna standard money [seil. = from $16.50 to $17.60). 
The small sum astonishes us (even if we should understand thereby Hebrew 
minae ; one 11)') = 100 shekels, 1 Kings x. 17; 2 Chron. ix. 16). Compare, 
on the other hand, the talents, Matt. xxv. Butin Matt. U.c. the lord transfers 
to his servants his whole property ; here, he has only devoted a definite sum of 
money to the purpose of putting ten servants to the proof therewith, and the 
smallness of this amount corresponds to what is so carefully emphasized in our 
parable, viz. the relation of faithfulness in the least to its great recompense, ver. 
17, which relation is less regarded in the parable in Matthew ; hence in his 
Gospel (xxv. 21, 23) it is only said éz? oAiya (not as in Luke xix. 17, év éAa- 
xio7@) ; and the recompense of the individuals is stated indefinitely and in 
similar terms. The device that the lord took most of his money with him on 
the journey (Kuinoel) explains nothing ; but the assumption of a mistake in the 
translation (Michaelis), whereby out of minae is made portions (N3'9), is sheer 
invention. — rpaypar.] follow commercial pursuits.?—iv © Epyoua] during 
which (to wit, during this your zpayyaretecdar) I come, i.e., in the midst of 
which I return. As to épy. in the sense of coming again, which the context 
affords, see on John iv. 16. 

Vv. 14, 15. The embassy sent forth after him (d7iow avrov) goes to the 
bestower of the kingdom ; hence rovrov ; ‘‘ fastidiose loquuntur,” ‘‘ they speak 
scornfully,” Bengel. — oi wodirac avrow] his fellow-citizens, Plat. Protag. p. 315 
C, and frequently ; Gen. xxiii. 11. —ov dédouev x.7.A.] not instead of FéAouev 
tovrov ov Baca. (Markland, ad Lys. I. p. 280 f.; Bornemann), but definite 
rejection: we will not that this man shall be king.?— Ver. 15. In respect of 
the form yvoi (Lachmann, Tischendorf [recent editors]), see on Mark v. 43. 
—ri¢ ri] who gained anything, and what he gained? [But sec critical note. ] 
See on Mark xv. 24.—diatpaypar.| not : ‘‘ negotiando lucratus esset,” ‘‘ gain- 
ed by trading ” (Castalio, so usually), but : had undertaken.‘ 

Vv. 16, 17. 'H pva cov x.r.4.] ‘* Modeste lucrum acceptum fert herili pecu- 
niae, non industriae suae,”” ‘‘ He modestly offers the gain as the receipts of 
his lord’s money, not of- his own industry,” Grotius, comparing 1 Cor. xv. 
10.°— eiye (see the critical remarks) : well done! bravo! Comp. on Matt. 
xxv. 21.— Since thou in the least hast become faithful (actually, not : hast 
been), be thou ruler over ten citics. Comp. xvi. 10. 


1 An essential variation from Matt. xxv. 
The equality of the pecuniary sum which is 
given to all shows that it was not the (very 
varled) charismatic endowment for office, 
bat the office itself, that was meant to be 
typified, whose equal claims and duties, 
however, were observed by the Individuals 
very differently and with very unequal 
result. 

9Plut. Sull. vil. 17, Cat. min. 64; Lucian, 


33 


Philone, 86. 

3 On BagiAevoas (Aor.), see Schaefer, App. 
ad Dem. VII. p. 457. 

4 Comp. Dion. Hal. ill. 72. Passages where 
&tampays. means perscrutari, “to investi- 
gate, are not In point here, Plat. Phaed. 
p. 77 D, 95 E. 

5 On xpocepyéc., has gained to it, comp. 
Xen. Zell. ili. 1. 28. 


514 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Ver. 21. As to this apology and its rejection, ver. 22 f., see on Matt. 
xxv. 24 ff. — alpecc x.r.A.] a closer reference to the meaning of dvip. avarzpic 
el, comp. ver. 22, hence no longer dependent on dr:, thou takest up what thou 
hast not laid down. This is to be left in the generality of its proverbial form 
as an expression of the unsparingness of the property of others, which, how- 
ever, is here conceived of not as dishonest, but in stringent vindication of 
legitimate claims. The servant pretends that he was afraid for the possible 
case of the loss of the mina ; that the rigorouslord would indemnify himself 
for it from his property. De Wette and Bleek are wrong in reading : thou 
claimest back what thou hast not entrusted,—opposed to which is the literal 
meaning of alpecc and its correlation with é9yxac. Moreover, ver. 23 is notin 
harmony therewith.’ The austere character (avorypéc) consists in the regard- 
Jessness of the inhumanity, in respect of which is experienced the “‘ summum 
jus, summa injuria.” The epithet oxAnpés in Matthew denotes the same 
thing, but under a different figurative representation (in opposition to 
Tittmann, Synon. p. 189). 

Vv. 28, 24. The question comes in abruptly with «a/, laying bare the con- 
tradiction between the clauses. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 147. — éxi 
cparetay (without an article, see the critical remarks), on @ banker's table. 
The sign of interrogation is to be placed, with Lachmann and Tischendorf 
[W. and Hort], after rpdrefav. «at éy® (Lachmann, Tischendorf: xayd) 
x.r.4. is then the result which, in the event hinted at by dé ri «.1.2.,” would 
have followed. — Ver. 24. r. rapeor.] 7.¢., the satellites, i. 19. —ré¢ déxa pvac] 
the ten minae mentioned at ver. 16, therefore not those which he had from tha 
beginning, but thoge which he has acquired for himself with the mina that 
was entrusted to him. 

Ver. 25 interrupts the discourse, since at ver. 26 the king (not Jesus) con- 
tinues, as is proved by ver. 27 ; hence, with Lachmann and Ewald, ver. 25 
is to be put in parentheses, but not, with Bleek, to be set aside as an inter- 
polation. — Ver. 26 justifies (even without ydp, see the critical remarks) the 
direction contained in ver. 24 by a general principle ; but the parenthesis of 
ver. 25 contains the reason wherefore the king added this justification. 

Ver. 27. TlAgv] Besides—breaking off. The further arrangement of the king 
turns away now, that is to say, from the slaves just conferred with, and has 
to do with those enemies, ver. 14, about whom the decision is still pending. 
— tobvrovg (see the critical remarks), although referring to those who were 
absent, describes them as present in the idea of the speaker and the hearers.’ 
—xatacg¢at.] Slay them ; the strong expression is chosen as shadowing forth 
the completeness of the condemnation to everlasting death at the final 
judgment.‘ 

The doctrine of the parable, according to Luke’s form of it, concerns, on 


3 Comp.rather the injunction in Josephus $ Wolf, ad Dem. Lent. p. 295; Heindorf, 
c. Ap. 2:5 pn xarédyxé tis, ox avarpicerar, ad Phaed. p. 6&0; Bornemann, Schol. p. 120. 
and the law of Solon in Diog. Laert. {. 2. 9: 4Comp. Xen. Anad. iv. 1.28; Herod. viil. 
& wh ESov, wh avéAp. 127; Soph. O. B. 78; Diod. Sic. xil. 76; 


2 ay, see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p.187[E.T. 2 Macc. v. 12. 
216). 


OHAP. XIX., 28-38. 515 


the one hand, the Jewish people that would not receive Jesus as the Messiah 
(comp. John i. 11) ; and, on the other, the disciples who were to make ap- 
plication of the official charge entrusted to them (the u»a which each had 
equally received) zealously as far as possible in the interest of the Messiah 
until His Parousia. The Messiah thus appears in atwofold relation : to His 
perverse people and to His servants. The latter are to be called to account 
at the Parousia, and according to the measure of the actual discharge of 
official duty committed equally to all, will be exalted to a proportionally 
high degree of participation in the Messianic dominion (comp. Rom. v. 17, 
viii. 17 ; 1 Cor. iv. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 12). This happiness, however, will be so 
far from falling to the lot of the indolent servant, who in any case is inex- 
cusable,' that he was rather to be deprived of the official position of service 
which he had received, and consequently was to receive no kind of share in 
the future glory of the kingdom, to which, nevertheless, he also had been 
appointed. But the former, the antagonistic Jews, are to be dealt with by 
the returning Messiah with the heaviest punishments. 

Ver. 28. The narrative is wanting in precision, since, according to ver. 5 f., 
this éropetero did not take place till the next morning. —2éumpoodev] He 
went before (‘‘ praecedebat,” Vulg.), ¢.¢., according to the context (ver. 29), 
at the head of His disciples, Comp. Mark x. 82. Erasmus, Kypke, Kuinoel, 
Ewald, and others have : He went forwards, He pursued His journey. This 
. would be the simple éropevero (xiii. 38 and elsewhere) or érop. ei¢ rd &urpoodev. 

Vv. 29-88. Sce on Matt. xxi. 1-9 ; Mark xi. 1-10. Luke follows Mark, 
yet not without something peculiar to himself towards the end. With 
Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 794 f., Lachmann, and Tischendorf, we must cer- 
tainly place the accent thus on the word é/a:éyv, olive-grove, olivetum ; not as 
though, if it were Aad» [Rec., W. and Hort], the article would in itself be 
necessary (after éAa:. 5p0¢ would have to be repeated), but because Luke, 
when he designates the mountain as the ‘‘ Mount of Olives,” constantly has 
the article (ver. 87, xxii. 89) ; but besides, in Acts i. 12, where he likewise 
adds xadobu., he undoubtedly uses the form éja:idv as aname. Hence, at 
Luke xxi. 87 also, éAaév is to be written. Comp. Joseph. Anté. vil. 9. 2: 
dua tov éAaravog Spovc.* — Ver. 31. Sr] because, an answer to dia ri. — Ver. 88. 
oi xbpoc] the actual possessor and those belonging to him. — Ver. 85. éavrév] 
they use their own upper garments for a riding cushion in their reverence and 
love for the Lord. So éavrév serves for a vivid coloring of the narrative. 
[But see critical note.] — Ver. 87. éyyiSovrocg . . . mpdg rH xaraB.] zpdc, not 
of the movement whither (de Wette), but a pregnant union of the direction 
(éyyif.) with the where (when He approached at the declivity). See gener- 
ally, Kiihner II. p. 316. In Homer xpéc is often found thus with the dative. 
—‘p§avro} for this was only the last station of the Messiah’s entry. — rav 
padyrov] in the wider sense. — eldoy] for all the Messianic mighty works 


1 Ver. 23 serves to mark this inexcusable- the church or the congregation to which the 
ness in the concrete illustration. The text office might have been given back. 
does not give any further verbal interpreta- 3 On the nominalire, with a verb of nam- 
tion of the banker’s counter. Lange, Z.J.II ing, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 517 ; Fritzsche, 
1, p. 414, finds that by the rpdregaisdepicted i.¢.; Bernhardy, p. 66. 


516 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
which they, as companions of Jesus, had seen. — Ver. 38. év dvéu. x.] belongs 
to épyéu., according to a frequent transposition: — eiphvg x.t.A.] The thought 
that ‘‘tith God is salvation (which He is now purposing to communicate by 
means of the Messiah), and He is praised (for it) in the height (by the angels, 
comp. ii. 14),”’ is expressed in a hymnic form by the parallelism : ‘‘ Salva- 
tion is in the heaven, and glory in the highest.” Luke gives the acclama- 
tion, according to a tradition, which had avoided the Hebrew Hosanna. 
Ver. 89 ff. Peculiar to Luke, and as far as ver. 44 taken from tradition. — 
Grd Tov dxAov] from out of the multitude, among whom they found themselves. 
— émiripnoov] rebuke (this crying). — otwrfoovory] (see the critical remarks) in- 
dicative after av, so that the meaning of dv clings wholly to the condition- 
ing particle, and does not affect the verb: 7 these become silent. See 
Klotz, ad Decar. p. 474. —oi Aidor wpd=.] The sense is: this outbreak of 
the divine praise is not to be restrained.? See also the passages in Wet- 
stein. — Ver. 41. éx’ avrhv] over it, comp. xxiii. 28. The direction of the 
weeping to its object ; in the classical writers with a simple accusative, also 
with ézi rac (Rev. xviii. 11). Observe, further, the audible weeping of 
Jesus at the view of Jerusalem, not the silent daxpiev as at the grave of 
Lazarus, John xi. 35. [See Note CXLVI., p. 518.] — et Eyvuc x.7.4.] of only 
thou hadst known and, indeed, in this thy day, what belongs to thy salration / 
[Comp. critical note and rendering of R. V.] Pathetic aposiopesis, and 
consequently an expression of the fruitlessness of the wish.? Euthymius Ziga- 
benus aptly says: eiwdacr yap of xAaiovrec éwexdmreacSac toig Adyoue vid THE TOU 
savdove agodpéryroc, ‘‘for those wailing are wont to cut short their words 
through the violence of their suffering.” What served for the salvation of 
Jerusalem was the reception of Jesus as the Messiah. — at ci] as my padyrai. 
—nai ye] et quidem. Sceon Actsii. 18. — év rp Hu. cov] t.e., in this day given 
to thee for thy deliverance.‘ — viv dé] as, however, now the circumstances 
actually are, but thus; often thus since Homer after conditional clauses 
(John viii. 40 ; 1 Cor. xii. 20). — éxpi8y7] by divine decree ; see John xiL 
37 ff. ; Rom. xi. 7 f.— Ver. 48. Src gSovow x.17.2.] dre does not introduce 
what has been conccaled (this is rather 7a rpd¢ eipf#v7 cov), but it brings a 
prophetic confirmation of the viv d2 x.r.A. that has just been said : for there 
shall come (not tarry), etc. The certainty of this miserable future prores 
that what serves for thy salvation has become veiled from thine eyes. Fol- 
lowing Lachmann, only a comma is to be placed beforeér:. In what follows, 
observe the solemn five-fold repetition of xai in the affecting unperiodic dis- 
course. The first takes the place of ére.°— yépaxa] masculine : a palisaded 
wall, Polyb. i. 29. 8, viii. 34. 3, x. 39. 1, xvii. 1. 1.° Asa feminine, it is 


1 See Bornemann, Schol. p. 121 f.; Ktib- 
ner, ad Xen. Anad. iv. 2.18 Comp. xxiii. 
48. 
2 Comp. Hab. ii. 11; Servius, ad Virg. Eel. 
v. 28 ; Chagiga, f. 16. 1:‘*Ne dicas : quis tes- 
tabitur contra me? Lapidesdomus ejus... 
testabuntur contra eum,” ‘‘ Do not say: 
Who shall testify against me? the stones of 
his house .. . will witness against him.” 


> Comp. on xxii. 42, and on John vi. &; 
Buttmann, Neul. Gr. p. 339 [E. T. 396]. 

Comp. rdv xcapay ris éxtoxoxys gov, Ver. 
44; Ps. cxviil. 24. 

® xvil. 22, xxiii. 44; Rom. fl. 16; John iv. 
21; and see on Mark xv. 2. 

On xdpaxa BadAcy, see Plut. Aem. P. 17, 
Marcell. 18. 





NOTES. 517 


limited by the grammarians to the signification of vine-prop, but sce Lobeck, 
ad Phryn. p. 61 f.— oo] Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 14: raig wédcow épipara 
mepiBaadAovraz, According to Herod. i. 163, and elsewhere, cé might also be 
used. In the Jewish war the rampart was actually erected (hence Schenkel 
considers this point as vaticinium ez eventu), burnt up by the Jews, and re- 
placed by Titus with a wall. See Joseph. v. 6. 2, v. 12. 2 ff. — owétova] 
keep close, see on Phil. i. 28. — Ver. 44. édagcovai oe] they shall level thee (Polyb. 
vi. 83. 6), i.e., make thee like to the ground.’ The following x. ra réxva o. év coi 
is added by a zeugma, so that now ééagif~w has the signification, frequent in 
the LXX., to dash on the ground (Hos. xiv. 1; Nah. iii. 10 ; Ps. exxxvii. 9). 
The children of the city are its inhabitants, Matt. xxiii. 37 ;, Luke xiii. 34 ; 
Gal. iv. 25. The city is jiguratively regarded as a mother, hence ré réxva 
are not to be understood (Kuinoel) of the actual children (infantes). — rav 
nap. T. Extox. cov] the time of the solicitude concerning thee, when God intcrested 
Himself for thee by means of the offer of the Messianic salvation through 
me.” éroxorh in itself is @ voz media, and in the LXX. and Apocrypha 
(Wisd. xiv. 11, xix. 15) is frequently also used when God concerns Himself 
with any one in punishment. The word does not occur in the classical writ- 
ers. 

Vv. 45, 46. See on Matt. xxi. 12 f. ; Mark xi. 15-17. Luke proceeds by 
brief extracts, and, moreover, gives the saying in Isa. lvi. 7 not as Mark 
gives it, but in the abbreviated form of Matthew. — #pfaro] He began there- 
with His Messianic ministry in the temple. Schleiermacher erroneously re- 
gards vv. 45, 46 as the concluding formula of the narrative of the journey. 

Vv. 47, 48. Kai oi rparo r. Aaov] The worldly aristocracy, yet with special 
emphasis, — é£expéuato «.1.A.} the people hung upon Him as they hearkened to 
Him. ‘Populi assiduitas aditum hostibus obstrucbat,” ‘‘ The constant 
presence of the people hindered the approach of His enemies,” Bengel.* 


Notes spy AMERICAN EprI tor. 


CXLIIT. Ver. 1. d:fpyero. 


This imperfect, properly rendered: ‘‘ was passing through” (R. V.), has not 
been sufficiently regarded. It indicates that what is narrated afterward took 
place while he was passing through. Hence it is not certain that Zacchaeus 
lived outside the city on the way to Jerusalem (Meyer), but rather that our 
Lord met him in the city (ver. 4) ; so Weiss ed. Mey. The use of this tense, in 
connection with chap. xviii. 35, favors the view that Luke is giving in the two 
passages the general direction of the journey. (See Note CXLIL., p. 507.) 


CXLIV. Ver. 4. cig rd sumpooder. 


This reading is probably explained by Weiss ed. Mey. : ‘‘to that part of the 
city lying before Him (not yet passed throngh by Him), which He hud yet to 
pass through. The Rec. would be simply : he ran before.”’ 


1 Comp. Amos ix. 14; also xcaracedsrevecis 8 Macc. v. 42, and thereon Grimm. 
é8apos, Thuc. iv. 109. 1. Comp. fff. 68. 2 8On édxcpéuauar with a genitive, comp. 
2 Comp. 1 Pet. if. 12; Prov. xxix. 18; Job Pint. Mar. 12, and the passages in Wetstein. 
xxix.4; Wisd. 11. 10, ii. 7; Eoolas. xvill.19; With de,Gen. xliv. 80; Plat. Leg. v. p. 781 E. 


618 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CXLV. Vv. 11-27. The Parable of the Pounds. 


Both Meyer and Weiss regard this as a recasting of the parable of the talents 
(Matt. xxv.) ; the former, however, with Ewald and Bleek, suggesting the mix- 
ing of two different parables. The dialogue and main incident in the two para- 
bles are the same, but the Evangelists detail particularly the differing circum- 
stances, present very diverse details, and clearly indicate distinct purposes and 
lessons. Hence Weiss ed. Mey. is compelled to assert a deliberate variation 
from Matthew on the part of Luke, who, as he thinks, used the same written 
source, Accordingly this dilemma presents itself : either the parables are 
different, or the Evangelists not only invented historical setting for our Lord's 
teachings, but also, to suit their didactic purpose, modified decidedly what 
they knew to be His teachings. Modern criticism has not as yet compelled us 
to accept the latteralternative. But Weiss ed. Mey. insists that the principal 
character (the nobleman) was not introduced by Jesus Himself—that His para- 
bles never have such allegorizing features. Yet how naturally, as Meyer re- 
marks, this distinct feature of the parable suggested itself in Jericho. 


CXLVI. Vv. 42-44. The Lamentation over Jerusalem. 


Weiss ed. Mey. thinks ‘‘this prophecy takes the place, in a measure, of that 
contained in the symbolical action of Mark xi. 11-14, with which Mark xi. 19-26 
naturally falls out.’’ But he does not indicate whether he regards this passage, 
which Godet aptly calls ‘‘one of the gemsof our Gospel,’’ as one of the many 
inventions of Luke. Ver. 41 fixes the locality. Are we to regard this as 
another of those transition verses by means of which this Evangelist, according 
to Weiss, so often weaves in incidents that belong elsewhere? A believing 
Evangelist who could in literary interest ‘‘ invent” such a scene would bea 
moral monstrosity. It is significant that here, at least, such critical surmises 
are repressed by the pathos of the simple narrative. 


CHAP, XX. 519 


CHAPTER XX. 


Veg. 1. éxeivay] is wanting in the authorities of greatest importance. Con- 
demned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition for greater pre- 
cision. — apyepeics] AEG HKUVIA A, min. Goth. Slav. Theophyl. have 
lepeic. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. and Tisch. The Recepta 
[Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with §& B C D L, Vulg., Copt.] is from the parallels. 
— Ver. 3. éva] is wanting in B L RB X&, min. Syr. Copt. Colb. For. Tol. It stands 
after Ady. in A KK M U* min. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. It is from the parallels, from which also ody is introduced after did tT, 
ver. 5. —[Ver. 9. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® BC DL, Vulg., Copt., 
omit ri¢.] — Ver. 10. [Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R, V., with & BD L, 33, 
omit év before xaipq.] — ddatv] ddcovorv is so strongly attested by ABL MQ, 
min., that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., and déow to be re- 
garded as a grammatical emendation. — Ver. 13. idévrec] is wanting in BC D L 
Q &, min. vss. Ambr., and is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and 
Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. The superfluous word was omitted on account 
of the parallels ; there was no reason for its addition. — Ver. 14. éavrovg] Tisch. 
has aAAjAove, following BD LR &, min. vss. The Recepia is from ver. 5 and 
Mark xii. 7; comp. Matt. xxi. 38. From the parallels also comes dere, which, 
in accordance with very important evidence, is deleted by Rinck, Lachm. and 
Tisch. Luke nowhere has the word. — Ver. 19. With Lachm. and Tisch., on 
preponderant evidence, read : of ypayy. xal ol apxrep. — Ver. 20. ei¢ r6] BOD L 
*% have dore, which, with Bornemann, Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted ; the 
ei¢ ré6, foreign to Luke, is an interpretation. —[Ver. 22. Tisch., recent editors, 
R. V., with & A BL, 33, read fudc.] — Ver. 23. ri we retpdfere] condemned by 
Griesb. and Rinck, deleted by Tisch., following B L ®, min. Copt. Arm. 
Rightly ; it is from Matt. xxii. 18, whence also in C troxpiral, too, is interpo- 
lated. — Ver. 24. Instead of deiSare Elz. has éridelgare, in opposition to decisive 
evidence ; it is from Matth. — After dyvdprov Lachm. has in brackets of d2 
edecEav, xat elev, Not strongly enough attested by BL &, min. vas. to appear 
otherwise than a gloss in accordance with the parallels. — [Tisch., W. and Hort, 
Weiss, R. V., with ® B L, Copt., read of instead of aroxp:Oévrec. In ver. 25 the 
same mss. have mpdc avrobc, and roivuy amddore ; accepted by recent editors, the 
latter by R. V.]— Ver. 27. dvr:Atyovres] BC DL ®&, min, vas. have Aéyovreg. 
Approved by Schulz and Fritzsche, ad Marc. XII. 8. [Accepted by Treg., W. 
and Hort, R. V.} An emendation, according to the parallels. — Ver. 28. Instead 
of the second dzo0Sdvy, BL. P ®** min. ves. (including Vulg. It.) Lachm. have 
merely 9. [So Tisch., recent editors, R. V.] An attempt at improvement sug- 
gested by ignorance. — Vv. 30, 31. Much confusion among the authorities. 
Lachm. has retained the Recepia, nevertheless he places before doatrws another 
doatre¢ in brackets, and throws out the «ai which Elz. has after érré, with 
Griesb. and Scholz. I agree with Tisch. in regarding as original the text of 
BDL ®&, 167: xat 6 detrepog nat 6 rpirog tAaBev aurnv: doavtuc d2 xal ol éxrd ov 


520 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


xaréia, téxva x. até). [So recent editors, R. V.] Comp. Bornem. in tho Stud. u 
Krit. 1843, p. 136; also Rinck, Zucubr. p. 333. To this text the gloss ia er 
abtry was added too devr.; this occasioned the dropping out of these words in 
their true place, and there appeared: xai 6 devrepog éAaBev airiy x. 6 Tpitog K.T.4. 
Thus still Copt. The deleting of é4aGev atvryv in this spurious place, without 
restoring them again to the genuine one, occasioned the text of D: xai 6 devrepoc 
Kk. 6 rpirog (without éA. atvr.). The Recepta has grown up out of circumstantial 
glosses. Even the double dcavrug (A EH VI‘ A, min. Goth. Syr., taken by 
Matth. into the tert) is a gloss ; it was thought to be necessary to complete the 
simple éAa3ev avryv. The xai, which Elz. has after éc7a, is indeed defended by 
Rinck, but decisively condemned by the authorities. A connective addition 
made from misunderstanding. — Ver. 32 is, as by Tisch., to be read : torepoy xai 
# yur) aréGavev (Lachm.: dor. a7éO. x. 7 y.). The Recepta is from Matth. — Ver. 
33. The order of the words : 4 yvv? odv tv rH dvacr. (B L), is, with Tisch., to be 
preferred ; it was altered in accordance with the parallels. —[W. and Hort, 
R. V., with ® D L, 1, 33, Copt., read éora: instead of yivera:, and in ver. 34 Tisch., 
recent editors, R. V., with & B DL, Copt., Vulg., omit aoxpiOeic.] — Ver. 34. 
éxy2zploxovtat] objectionable, since A K M P U I A, min. have éxyayifovrar, while 
BL &, min. Or. Epiph. Nyss. have yayioxovra:z, Read the latter, with Lachm. 
and Tisch. The Recepia and éxyapuigovra: are glosses to give greater precision. 
Equally, however, at ver. 35 also is not to be read yapifovra:, with Matth. Lachm. 
Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], in accordance with DL QRA &, but 
yapickovrat, in accordance with B. — [Ver. 36. Recent editors (against Tisch.), 
R. V., with A BDL, read ovde before yup. — Ver. 37. Tisch., Treg., W. and 
Hort, R. V., with & B D L, omit rév before Oedv the second and third time.] 
— Ver. 40. dé] BL &, min. Copt. Tisch. have yép. Rightly ; ydo was not un- 
derstood. — [Ver. 42. Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with & B L, Copt., 
read avrd¢ ydp instead of xai avrdc. | 


Vv. 1-8. See on Matt. xxi. 23-27 ; Mark xi. 27-33. Luke follows Mark 
with some abbreviation, and with some material peculiar to himself, as also 
in the further portions of this chapter. — év pia vOv yuepdv] (without éxeivor, 
see the critical remarks) is, as v. 17, viii. 22, an approximate statement of 
the date ; the days in question are meant, to wit, of the stay in Jerusalem. 
Schleiermacher is arbitrary in seeing here the beginning of a special docu- 
ment. — éxéarnoav] came upon. The idea of suddenness and unexpectedness is 
not of itself contained in the word, and nceded to be expressed,’ or at least 
suggested by the context (comp. on ii. 9). —. Ver. 2. 7] introduces a more 
definite idea of the point of the question. — Ver. 3. xai cizaré wor] xai is the 
simple and : I will ask you, and tell me (what I shall ask you). Then fol- 
lows the question itself. —ovvedoy.] they reckoned, they considered. Only 
here in the New Testament, frequently in the classical writers. — Ver. 6. 
mag 6 Aadc xaradd. yuac] a later form of the tradition. The word is not 
elsewhere retained.* It denotes the stoning down. 

Vv. 9-19. Sec on Matt. xxi. 38-46 ; Mark xii. 1-12. [See Note CXLVII., 
p. 524.] —#p£aro] after that despatch of the members of the Sanhedrin. — 


1 As xxi. & ; Isocr. vill. 41; Philo Flacc. 2 Comp. caraAcJovr in Josephus, «aradcdo- 
p. 981 C, ai. in Loesner. Bode, Ex. xvii. 4. 


CHAP, XX., 20-26. 621 


cpoc T. Aadv] ‘*muniendum contra interpellationem antistitum,” ‘‘ to defend 
himself against the questioning of the priests,” Bengel. Otherwise in Matt. 
and Mark, according to whom the discourse is addressed directly to the 
members of the Sanhedrim, and these, according to Luke, are also present 
(ver. 19). — Ver. 10. ddcovorr] (see the critical remarks): see on 1 Cor. ix. 
18 ; Eph. vi. 8. — atre@] to him, the possessor of the vineyard, by the ser- 
vants. — Ver. 11. mpoofSero réuya:] & Hebraism, Gen. iv. 2, and elsewhere.’ 
— Ver. 18. icwe] perchance. The corresponding German word (vielleicht) ex- 
presses not mere conjecture, but, although in a still doubting form, his ez- 
pectation (‘‘spem rationi congruentem,” ‘‘a hope agreeing with reason,” 
Bengel).? Only here in the New Testament. — Ver. 14. idévreg d2 abrév] 
with emphasis, corresponding to the previous rovrov idévrec. — Ver. 16. elroy] 
Persons from the people in ver. 9, who have comprehended, although dim- 
ly, the foreshadowing of evil. — v7? yévo:ro] (see on Rom. iii. 4), to wit, that 
the yewpyoi lay hands themselves on the son, kill him, and bring about the 
aroAgoet x.t.A.!— Ver. 17. otv] what then, if your py? yévorro is to be allowed, 
what then is this scriptural saying, etc. It is meaningless, there is nothing in 
it. — Ver. 19. xa? égof.] xai, and yet ; comp. on Mark xii. 12. — Awwcar] the 
people, to wit,* whose undcrstanding the passage of Scripture, ver. 17 f., ac- 
companied by the heart-penetrating glance of Jesus (éuAépec), has opened. 
Vv. 20-26. Sce on Matt. xxii. 15-22 ; Mark xii. 18-17. — raparnpjo.] having 
watched, so that they‘had thus further lain in wait for Him after that hour, 
ver. 19, in order to be able to entrap Him. — éyxadérovc] people instigated, se- 
cretly commissioned.‘ — éavrov¢ dixatove eivac] who feigned that they themselees 
were strict observers of the law, who, therefore, by the pressure of their own A, 
consciences (not instigated by other people), came with the following ques- 
tion. These therefore are such ‘‘qui tum, quum maxime fallunt, id agunt, 
ut virt boni videantur,” Cicero, Off. i. 18. —ér:A63.] The subject is the 
members of the Sanhedrim. — atrov Adyov] in order to take hold of Him ona 
word. avrov docs not depend on 2éyov (Kypke, Kuinocl, Bleek), but on 
ém:AéB., and Aéyov is the secondary object. The Vulgate rightly has: 
‘*eum in sermone.”’ — Gore (see the critical remarks), as iv. 29 ; Matt. xxiv. 
24. — rp apx7 x. ty égove. r. fy.] to the supremacy and (and especially) the power 
of the procurator. To combine the two (‘‘ the supremacy and power of the 
magistrate,”” Beza, de Wette, Bleek) is not indeed forbidden by the repetition 
of the article, but it is opposed by it, because this repetition would have no 
motive. — Ver. 21. AauBav. zpéowr.] art not a partisan. See on Gal. ii. 6. — 
Ver. 22. gépov] capitation and land-tribute, to be distinguished from ON. 
the indirect tribute (the tax on merchandise). Luke uses the Greek instead \ 


1 Comp. on xix. 11, and see Valokenaer, all to the hierarchs. 


p. 238 f. 4 Plat. Azioch. p. 368 E; Dem. 1483. 1; 

2 See Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 218; Borne- Polyb. xiii. 5.1; Joseph. Anéé. vi. 5. 2 
mann, Schol. p. 123 f.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. ® See Job xxx. 18. Xen. Anad. iv. 7. 12: 
P. 855. éwtAapBaveras avrov THs iTvos. 


*Seeon Mark xii. 12 The reference to 6 See Kypke, II. p. 188 f., and already 
the scribes and chief priests involves usin Thomas Magister, p. 900, ed. Bern. Comp. 
subtleties as in Grotids, Lange, L. J. ITI. Rom. xiii. 7. 

p. 434, and others. wpds avrovs refers first of 


522 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
of the Roman word xfrvoorv, found in Matthew and Mark. — Ver. 26. Observe 
the careful depicting of the triumph of Jesus. Comp. ver. 89 f. 

Vv. 27-40. See on Matt. xxii. 28-88 ; Mark xii. 18-27. — oi avrcAtyovrec] 
does not belong by an abnormal apposition to ray Laddovcariy (thus usually, in- 
cluding Winer, p. 471 [E. T. 582]), but to rvéc. [See critical note. The read- 
ing Aéyovree favors the other view.] These rivéc, namely, so far as they were 
rivet Tov Laddove., are More precisely characterized by ol avriAty. «.1.A.: People 
who there concerted together (participle with article, see Ktihner, II. p. 131). 
—avdor. pu?) elvac] On uf and infinitive after avriAty., comp. Ken. Anab. ii. 
5. 29, and see in general Bernhardy, p. 864 ; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 168. 
— Ver. 28. xa? ovroc x.r.A.] and indeed shall have died without children. See 
Matthiae, p. 1040. — Ver. 29. otv] for the subsequent procedure took place 
in consequence of that law. — Ver. 80 f. According to the rectified text (see 
the critical remarks) : And the second and the third took her ; in like manner, 
moreover, also (as those three who had taken her and died childless) the seven 
(collectively, comp. xvii. 17) left behing no children, and died. Logically 
aréSavoy ought to precede, but the emphasis of ob xaréA. téxva has occasioned 
the torepov rpérepov.’— Ver. 84 f. ol vlot rov alavoe robrov] Comp. on xvi. 8. 
Yet here what is meant is not according to the ethical, but the physical 
idea : the men of the pre-Messianic periods of the world. — ol 62 xaraftw. x.7.A.} 
but they who (at the Parousia) shall be counted worthy (comp. 2 Thess. i. 5) 
to become partakers of the future age (the Messianic period), and of the resur- 
rection from the dead. Herein is to be observed—(1) that here is likewise a 
apérepov torepov.(comp. on ver. 81), for the resurrection discloses the participa- 
tion in the aidy éxeivoc ; but the context (see also r7¢ avacrdo. viol dvrec, ver. 
86) shows that Jesus has in view only those who are to be raised, apart from 
those who are still living here at the Parousia, comp. Rom. viii. 11 ; (2) ac- 
cording to the connection (xarafw., and see ver. 36), the resurrection here 
meant is defined as the jirst, the avdoracic trav dixaiwy (see on xiv. 14). — The 
genitives tov aidv. ix. and rij¢ avaor. are governed by rvyeiv.* Moreover, comp, 
the Rabbinical dignus futuro saecculo RIN DY TIM", in Schoettgen and Wet- 
stein. — Ver. 86. With Lachmann, following A B DLP, we must write 
ovdé* (Winer, p. 484 f. [E. T. 490] ; Buttmann, p. 315 [E. T. 368]) : jor 
neither can they die anymore. The immortality of those who have risen 
again, even if it does not exclude the difference of sex absolutely (comp. 
Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. p. 4594), still excludes marriage among them, since 
propagation presupposes a mortal race ; évrai0a pév yap éret Ydvarog, did 





1See Kfihner, I. p. 629; Bornemann, 
Schol. p. 125. 

* Comp. Aesch. Prom. 230: rotovrov ruxeiy 
ovx nicodny ; Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 609]. 

®Comp. the critical remarks on xii. 2% 


[also critical note in this verse]. The Re — 


cepta ovre is to be regarded as a mechanical 
repetition from what has gone before. Bor- 
memann defends ovre by the supposition 
that it corresponds with the following xaf. 
But in that case igcayy. ydp cios must be 


placed in a parenthesis, which, indeed, 
Lachmann does, although it is nowise noti- 
fied, not even by the twofold eici, whereby 
the two predicates are emphatically kept 
apart. 

‘Who nevertheless assumes withort 
proof (p. 102) that Adam's body, before the 
creation of the woman, was externally eith- 
out sex, and that this also is the case with 
the bodies of the risen. 


CHAP. XXx., 27-40. 523 
rovro yéuoc, ‘for now since there is death, there is therefore marriage,” 
Theophylact. —iodyy. . . . dvrec] gives the reason of the obd2 anodaveiv tre 
dtvavra: ; their immortality depends upon their changed nature, which will 
be—{1) equality with the angels ; and (2) sonship of God. The former in re- 
spect of their higher and no longer fleshly corporeality (in opposition to 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 816 f.; Delitzsch, and others ; comp. on Matt. 
xxii. 80) ; the latter plainly not in the moral, but in the metaphysical 
sense ; they, as risen again, have entered into the participation of divine life 
and divine glory (comp. on Matt. v. 9, 45), in respect of which the freedom 
from death is essential. See on viot Geov, so far as it is used in Matthew 
and Luke (in Mark this designation does not occur) of the faithful only in 
respect of their condition after the Parousia, the apt remarks of Kaeuffer in 
the Sdchs. Stud. 1848, p. 202 ff. But the expression cannot be borrowed 
from the Old Testament designation of the angels as sons of God (so Wit- 
tichen, Jdeen Gottes ale d. Vatere, p. 48), since the risen ones shall only be 
angel-like, not angels. — Ver. 87. Observe the special selected word éufvvcer, ° 
which denotes the announcement of something concealed.’ — xat M.] i.e., even 
Moses, to whom ye are nevertheless appealing for a proof of the contrary, 
ver. 28. — d¢ Atyec xbpiov «.7.A.] ‘‘narrando sc. quod Deus dixerat,” ‘‘in 
narrating, namely, what God had said,” Grotius. — Ver. 88. mévre¢ yap airo 
Caow] for all (whose God He is) are living to Him. The emphasis lies on 
advrec : no one is dead to Him. air is the dative of reference : ii respect 
of Him, that is, in relation to Him who is their God, they are—even although 
dead in relation to men—living.’? This state of living actually has place in 
the intermediate state of Paradise,* where they, although dead in reference 
to living men, continue to live to God, and therewith is established the 
future resurrection as the necessary completion of this state of living. The 
argumentation in Luke is accordingly, by the addition of ver. 88, not differ- 
ent from that in Matthew and Mark, and it takes no inappropriate turn (de 
Wette), whereby the thought must have suffered (Weizsicker), but is the 
same grand application of the divine utterance as in Matthew and Mark (see 
on Matthew), only enriched by that short explanatory clause aAAa Cdérruy, 
which was introduced into the tradition,‘ certainly at a later date, but with- 


John xi. 57; Acts xxiii. 30; 1 Cor. x. 
28; Thuo. iv. 89; Herod. 1 28; Soph. 0. &. 
102 ; Plut. 7¥m. p. 27 B. 

24 Macc. xvi. 2%: of &a roy Gedr darodvi- 
oxovres Guo. Te Oey, womep ABpads, ‘Ioadx, 
aai "laxwB, xas wdéytes of warpidpya, “* those 
dying for the sake of God live to Gad, as 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the 
patriarchs,” is so far parallel as in that 
place fac: r¢ Gee is likewise sald of the 
state of existence in relation to God in 
Paradise. Moreover, 4 Macc. vil. 19 belongs 
to this subject, as being a passage in har- 
mony with the text before us. Comp. 
Grimm thereupon, p. 882. 

The ¢eccw subsists not merely in the 
eiew of God, who considers them in refer- 


ence to their future resurrection as living, 
as J. Miller, v. d@. Sinde, II. p. 807, makes 
out. 

4 The syllogism of the passage is correctly 
and clearly expressed in substance by Beza : 
**Quorum Deus est Deus, ill! vivunt, ver. 
88; Abrahami, Isaacl et Jacobi Deus est 
Deus, ver. 87; ergo illi vivant, et quam non- 
dum revixerint corpore, necesse est, ut suo 
tempore sint corporibus excitatis revio- 
turi,”’ “Those of whom God is God, live, 
ver. 88; God its the God of Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob, ver. 87; therefore they 
live, and since they have not yet been re- 
vived in body, it is necessary that in due 
time they shall be revived with animated 
bodies.”” On the penetrating and fruitfal 


B24 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


out affecting the substance, except in the way of indicating the point of the 
argument. The air, however, cannot without arbitrariness be taken, ac- 
cording to Acts xvii, 28, as though it were év airo (Ewald : ‘‘all men, so 
far as they have a true life, have it only in God”). — Ver. 40. yap] (see the 
critical remarks) gives an explanation as to ver. 39. The tables had been 
turned ; 8 few praised Him, for any further hostile putting of questions, such 
as might be expected instead of praise, was no more to be thought of. So 
completely He stood as rictor there again (comp. on ver. 26). With the 
narrative of the greatest commandment, Mark xii. 28-84, of which Luke is 
said to have retained only the beginning and the end (vv. 39, 40), the evan- 
gelist has here nothing at all to do (in opposition to Holtzmann). [See 
Note CXLVIIL., p. 524 seq.] There is nothing of a reminiscence of Mark xii. 
28 (Weiss) in ver. 39 ; there appears no sort of reason to attribute such pov- 
erty to Luke. 

Vv. 41-44. See on Matt. xxii. 41-46 ; Mark xii. 85-37. lire 62 rpdc air. ] 
to the scribes, ver. 39 f., and indeed (otherwise Matthew and Mark) imme- 
diately after what is before related. Without reason, Grotius says : de illis, 
“* concerning them,” as ver. 19. 

Vv. 45-47. See on Matt. xxiii. 1, 6, 7, 14; Mark xii. 38-40 ; which 
latter Luke closely follows after he has proceeded with considerable abbre- 
viation in vv. 41-44. 


Norres By AMERICAN Eprrorn. 


CXLVII. Vv. 9-19. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandman. 


‘‘ According to Weiss (Matt., p. 466) the parable was, in its original form and 
connection with the oldest source, really addressed to the people; and this 
could have been in Luke's mind, although he otherwise entirely follows the 
rich allegorizing representation in Mark, (see, however, ver. 18) ;’’ Weiss ed. 
Mey. Ver. 18 is not found in Mark butin Matthew. Moreover, Luke omits 
some details in ver. 9 found in both the otRer accounts, and in vv. 11, 12 
uses & Hebraism not occurring in them. Precisely such variations are most 
conclnsive against the theory of a common written source. Throughout the 
entire chapter, despite its general agreement with the parallel narratives of 
Mark, there are divergences which this theory can only account for by assum- 
ing, on the part of the Evangelist, an unwarranted tampering with the statements 
of his alleged documentary source. 


CXLVIII. Vv. 40-47. The Conclusion of the Conflicts inthe Temple. 


Luke omits the narrative of the greatest commandment (Mark xii. 28-34), 
but scarcely because he mentioned it in chap. x. 25 ff. (Weiss ed. Mey.), since 
this identifies two distinct occurrences (see Mey. in loco). Ver. 40 seems rather 


exegesis of Jesus which leaves untouched _v. 17), see the apt remarks in Welzsiacker, 
the historical meaning, but is able to de-  p. 859f. 
velop its ideal contents (comp. Matt. 


NOTES. 525 


to refer to that conversation with the scribe, which Luke might well indicate 
without deriving his information from Mark, On the question of our Lord 
see Mark, Note LXXXI., p. 159, and comp. the admirable note of Godet, Luke, 
pp. 439-442, Am.ed. Ver. 45 is peculiar to Luke. In view of the great resem- 
blance between vv. 46, 47 and the parallel passages in Mark, it is difficult to 
understand why Luke should vary here, if he had Mark before him. Nor are 
there any indications of abbreviation (from Mark at least) in vv. 41-44, as 
‘Meyer intimates. 





526 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER XXI. 


Ver. 2. Kaf] bracketed by Lachm. Itis wanting in BK L MQ XII &, min. 
Or. BubtAEGHSU VI AA, min. have it after reva. This is correct. From 
ignorance objection was taken to this arrangement, and xci was sometimes 
placed before, and sometimes was struck out altogether. [Tisch. VIII., recent 
editors, R. V., omit.]— Ver. 3. xAeiov] Lachm. and Tisch. have Aco, which 
would have to be adopted if it were not too feebly attested by D Q X, min. 
— Ver. 4. rot Gcot] is wanting in BL X &, min. Copt. Syr.c*- Syr.ie- Deleted 
by Tisch. An exegetical addition. — Ver. 6. After 4%» Lachm. and Tisch. 
have ode, in accordance with B L &, min. Copt. [Tisch. VIII. omits, but W. and 
Hort, RB. V., insert.] Other authorities have it before A@oc. D, codd. of It. have 
év toiyy ode. An addition from Matthew. — Ver. 8. ovv] is to be deleted, with 
Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B D LX &, min. vss. A connective 
addition. —[Ver. 11. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B L, 33, Copt., read 
kai xara térou, and recent editors, with B, Vulg., have Aoiuot kai Awol, regard- 
ing the Rec. as a conformation to Matthew. — Ver. 12. Tisch., recent editors, 
R. V., with x» B D L, read arayoutvouc ; and, with ® B D, insert rac before 
ovvaywydc, — Ver. 13. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with ®* B D, omit dé.] 
— Ver. 14, The reading év rai¢ xapdiarc (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of ei¢ rag x., is 
decisively attested. — [So also 6ére (8 A B* D L, 33), accepted by Tisch., recent 
editors, R. V.]— Ver. 15. Elz. Matth. Scholz have avrereiv oid? avrior#va. But 
instead of ovdé, A K MR, min. Slav. Brix. Or. Cyr. Didym. Griesb. have#. Some- 
times with 7, sometimes with oidé, D L &, min. Ar. p. Erp. Arm. Slav. Vulg. Or. 
have the two verbs in the reverse order. Hence Lachm. has avrior#va: ovdé avret- 
weiv, and Tisch. has avriorjva: } avrecreiv. [So recent editors (Treg. brackets 
# avrer,), R. V.,on the preponderant evidence.] These variations are to be ex- 
plained from the fact that avre:teiv, with 7 or otdé, on account of the similar be- 
ginning of the following verb, was passed over. So according to D, Syr. Pers. 
Vulg. ms. codd. of It. Cypr. Aug. Rinck. When the passage was restored, the 
verbs were placed in different order ; and instead of 7 after the previous ov, ovdé 
was inserted. Accordingly, read with Griesbach : avre:veiv } avriat, — Ver. 19. 
Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. have xrfoacée. But A B, min. Syr.o™= Arr, Aeth. 
Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Or. Macar. Marcion, according to Tertullian, have 
xrhocote. [So recent editors, R. V.] Recommended by Griesb., approved by 
Rinck, adopted by Lachm. The Recepia is an interpretation of the future taken 
imperatively. -— Ver. 22. Elz. has wAnpwhjva. But rAnodpva is decisively 
attested. — Ver. 23. dé] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B DL, Arr. 
It. Theophy}. An addition from the parallels. — After opy# Elz. has éy, in 
opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 24. dyp:] Lachm. Tisch. have dypic¢ 
(Tisch. dyp:) ot, on decisive evidence. Luke always joins a4yp: to a genitive. 
— Ver. 25. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® BD, Copt., read Zoovra: instead 
of ora:.] —év aropig, nxobonc] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have év aropig fou, on 
decisive evidence. The Recepta is an interpretation. — Ver. 33. wapfAdwor] 





CHAP. XXI., 1-6. 527 


Lachm. and Tisch, have rapedeboovra, in accordance with B DL ¥%, min. 
Rightly. See on Mark xiii. 31.— Ver. 35. Lachm. and Tisch. place ydp after 
éweAeboerat, 80 that a¢ mayic belongs to ver. 34. Thus B D L &, 157, Copt. It. 
Meth. Marcion, according to Tertull. I regard the Recepia as being right, as 
the preceding clause contains a qualifying word (aigvidwe), but what follows in 
ver. 35 needed a similar qualification (¢ rayic), Through mistaking this, and 
attracting o¢ raylc asa correlative of aigvid. to the preceding clause, yép has 
been put out of its right place. [But recent editors, R. V., accept the position 
éveccedeboera: yap, which is even more strongly attested than the double com- 
pound which Meyer accepts.] Instead of éreAebcera:, however, read with Lachm. 
and Tisch., in accordance with BD X, éwecceAcboeraz, The doubly sompounded 
form disappeared through error on the part of the transcribers, as frequently 
happened. — Ver. 36. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with *B D, read dé, in- 
stead of obv.] — xaraf.] Tisch. has carioyboryre, following BL X x, min. Copt. 
Aeth. Ar. p. Rightly; the Recepta is a very old gloss in accordance with xx. 
85, comp. 2 Thess. i: 5. — ravra is deleted by Matth. and Tisch. But most of 
the principal mss. (not &) and vss. have it. Nevertheless, it remains doubtful 
whether it is to be read before (B D L X, Elz. Lachm.) or after mévra (A O* M). 
If révra ravra ré is original, the omission of the superfluous raira is the more 
easily explained. [Tisch. VIII. restores ratra, and with recent editors, R. V., re- 
tains the better attested order: raira rdévra, which is found in ®&€ also. ]— 
After ver. 38 four cursives have the section concerning the woman taken in 
adultery, John vii. 53-viii. 11. , 


Vv. 1-4. Bee on Mark xii. 41-44. — avaf2tyac] previously, xx. 45 ff., 
Jesus spoke to His disciples surrounding Him ; now He lifts up His glance 
from these to the people farther off, and sees, etc. He must therefore have 
stood not far from the yalogvAd«. —roicg BéAAovrac . . . rAovoiovg] is con- 
nected together : the rich men casting in. After rAovoiove might also be 
supplied éyvrag (Bornemann), in which case, however, the meaning comes 
out less appropriately, for they were not rich people only who were casting 
in (comp. Mark. xii. 41). — Ver. 2. reva xat xfpav (see the critical remarks): 
aliquam, eamque viduam egenam, ‘‘a certain one, and she a poor widow” 
[but xa? is not well attested].? Kai is: and indeed. — Ver. 4. ovro: refers to 
the more remote subject (Fértsch, Obes. in Lys. p. 74; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 
157]). Jesus points to the persons in question. — ei¢ ré ddpa] to the gifts 
(that were in the treasury), not ; guae donarent (Beza), to which the article’ 
is opposed. 

Vv. 5-38. Sce on Matt. xxiv., xxv.; Mark xiii. In Luke a very free repro- 
duction from the Logia and Mark. [See Note CXLIX., p. 534.] That this 
discourse was spoken on the Mount of Olives (Matt. Mark), there is in him 
no trace. Rather, according to him, it still belongs to the transactions in 
the temple, which began xx. 1 (comp. ver. 87); hence, moreover, the 
avadjuara are found only in Luke, 

Vv. 5, 6. Kai revoy dey. «.7.2.] These expressions gave the occasion for 
Jesus to utter the following discourse, and that, as is plain from the dis- 


1Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 88 D, and thereon Stalibaum. 





528 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

course itself, to His disciples (the apostles also included), to whom, more- 
over, the revéc belonged. — avadjuacc}' On the many totive offerings of the 
temple, partly also such as the two Herods had given, and even Ptolemy 
Euergetes, see Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 2; Antt. xv. 11. 8, xvii. 6. 3 5 ¢. Apion. 
I. 1064 ; Ottii Spicileg. p. 176 f., and generally, Ewald, Alterth. p. 81 ff. 
The most splendid was the golden vine, presented by Herod the Great. 
See Grotius. For the votive gifts of Julia, see in Philo, p. 1036 D. — raiza 
& Jewp.] Nominative absolute.* 

Vv. 7-10. *’Exnpoér.] those revéc. — ob] since in consequence of this assur- 
ance of thine that destruction shall occur ; when, therefore, shall it occur ? 
— ri td onpeiov x.t.A.] not an incorrect departure from Matt. xxiv. 3 (de 
Wette), but substantially as Mark xiii. 4, from whom Matthew differs by a 
more precise statement of the point of the question. — Ver. 8. é-xacpé¢] the 
Messianic point of time—that of the setting up of the kingdom. — Ver. 9. 
axataor.] tumults ; see on 2 Cor. vi. 5. — Ver. 10. rére EAeyev avrvic] then, 
after these preliminary warnings, entering upon the further description of 
the impending judgment. Casaubon, following Beza, connects rére with 
éyep3. In that case the insertion of éAeyev avroi¢ would be absolutely with- 
out motive. The motive is found precisely in rére, which, however, notifies 
simply only a resting-point of the discourse, not ‘‘a much later point of 
time,” to which what follows would belong (Holtzmann, following Késtlin), 
which variation as to time Luke might have put into the mouth of Jesus as 
easily as at ver. 12. 

Ver. 11. 'Az’ ovpavov belongs not only to onpeia (B, Lachmann : ax’ viparor 
onu.), but also to ¢6Byrpa, because in the conncction the latter needs some 
qualifying clause. yeyéda belongs to both. Moreover, comp. with reference 
to this detail which Luke has here, 4 Esdr. v. 4.3 

Vv. 12, 18. Ilpd 62 robrwv r.] otherwise in Matthew and Mark. But Luke 
follows a later modification of the tradition moulded after the result./ [See 
Note CL., p. 534.] In opposition to the words of the passage (for zpé means 
nothing clse than before, previously), but with a harmonistic end in view, 
Ebrard, Diss. adv. erron. nonnullor. opinion. etc., p. 34, says: ‘‘ persecutiones 
non post ceteras demum calamitates, sed inter primas esse perferendas,” ‘‘ the 
persecutions are not precisely after other calamities, but among the chief’ ones 
to be endured.” — Ver. 138. cig papripiov] but it shall turn (comp. Phil. i. 19) to 
you for a witness, t.e., not: ei¢ EAeyxov tov pi) morevodrtur, ‘for a proof to 
those that believe not” (Euthymius Zigabenus), but it will have for you the re- 
sult that ye bear witness for me. The context requires this by means of évexev 


1 Lachmann and Tischendorf, following xxiv. t. [See algo critical note.] 


AD X®&, have the Hellenistic form avadé- 
pace (see Lobeck, ad@ Phryn. p. 249, 445; 
Pardip. p. 891 ff., 417, 424). (Treg., W. and 
Hort, R. V., retain avadypacr.] 

2See on Matt. vil. 24; Bernhardy, p. 69; 
Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 825f. [E. T. 879 f.]. 

3 On $687 pa (terrific appearances), comp. 
Plat. dz. p 867A; Lucian, Philop. 9; Isa. 
xix. 17. As to «xara téwovs, see on Matt. 


4In respect of this Baur, Evang. p. 477 
(comp. his Markuserang. p. 99 f.), thinks 
that Luke desires to claim what has been 
previously said by Jesus “ altogether spe- 
cially for his Apostle Paul.’? Comp. also 
KG6stlin, p. 158, and Holtzmann. But then 
it would have been an easy thing for bim 
to name more specially Pauline sufferings. 
Compare rather Mett. x. 17 f. 


CHAP. XXI., 14-22. 529 


rov ovéu. pov, ver, 12, and see ver. 14f. The matter itself is regarded as 
somcthing great and honorable (ei¢ paprvpiov dégar, ‘‘for the glory of the 
testimony,” Theophylact). Comp. Acts v. 41. For the testimony itself, 
sce for example Acts iv. 11 f. The reference to martyrdom (Baur, Hilgen- 
feld, Holtzmann) is opposed to the context and brings in a later usus lo- 
quendi, 

Vv. 14, 15. Comp. xii. 11 f.; Matt. x. 19 f.; Mark xiii. 11 f. —éyd] stands 
with great emphasis at the beginning, opposed to the zpopeder. arodoy. of 
the disciples. Bengel well says : ‘‘Jesus loquitur pro statu exaltationis 
suae,” ‘* Jesus speaks in the position of His exaltation.’ — oréuea] a concrete 
representation of speech.’— avrerzeiv] corresponds to aréuc, and avrior. to 
cogiav (comp. Acts vi. 10).— The promise was to be fulfilled by the Holy 
Ghost as the Paraclete, John xiv. Comp. Acts vi. 10. But a reference to 
the fate of Stephen (Holtzmann) is not sufficiently indicated. 

Ver. 16. Kai] Bengel rightly says : ‘‘non modo ab alienis,” ‘‘not only 
by strangers." Comp., besides, Mark xiii. 12 f. 

Vv. 18, 19. Comp. 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kingsi. 52; 
Acts xxvii. 34. But the meaning cannot be, ‘‘ ye shall remain unharmed in 
life and limb,” against which interpretation the preceding xa? Yavar. && tyucn, 
ver. 16, is decisive, since Yavar. cannot be taken, as by Volkmar, of mere 
danger of death ; rather azéAyra: is to be taken in a Messianic sense. Comp. 
the following «rfceode rac Yuya iuoy. Hence: no hair of your head shall 
be subject to the everlasting arddea, 1.e., you shall not come by the slightest 
harm as to the Messianic salcation ; but rather, ver. 19 : through your endur- 
ance (Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13; Mark xiii. 13), in these persecutions, ye shall 
gain your souls, whereby is denoted the acquisition of the Messianic salva- 
tion ; the latter is regarded as the life, and the opposite as death.? The 
form of the expression pig éx r. xed. x.7.A, has therefore a proverbial character 
(Matt. x. 30), and is not to be taken in such a manner as that God would 
restore again every hair at the resurrection.? The omission of the verse in 
Marcion shows that at an early period there was already found therein a 
contradiction to ver. 16, as Gfrérer, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and others still find 
there. This apparent impropricty makes it the more improbable that ver. 
18 should be a later addition (Wilke, Baur, Hilgenfeld), perhaps from Acts 
xvii. 34. 

Vv. 20-22. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 15-18 ; Mark xiii. 14-16. What was to 
happen xpd tobrwy rdévrwv, ver. 12, is now concluded. From this point the 
discourse continues where it broke off at ver. 12. [See Note CLI, p. 534.] 
— Kxuxdovz.] representing the object as already conceived in the situation 
and therein perceived (Bernhardy, p. 477 ; Kihner, II. p. 857), being sur- 
rounded on all sides.4— Ver. 21. of év 7. "Iovd.] refers to the Christians; this 


1Comp. Soph. Oed. FR. 671, Oed. C. 685. 4 Wieseler, inthe profound discussion in 


A kindred idea, Ex. iv. 16; Isa. xv. 19. the Goll. Vierteljahrechr. 2 Jahrg. 2 Heft, 
3 Comp. Lx. 25, xvii. 88, also ¢yucoveda: rn» = p 210, finds in the words «v«A. vd orparor. 
uy}, Mark viil. 36. «.7.A. an explanation of the A&dAvyma ras 
* Zeller inthe Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 836;  épnuwoews, Matt. xxiv. 15, which Luke gave 
comp. his Aposteg. p. 18 f. for his Gentile-Christian readers. He there- 


34 


530 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

follows from ver. 20. —avryc] has reference to Jerusalem, as subsequently 
ei¢ airyv. Theophylact : éxrpayydei otv ra deeva & rére ryv wbAw meprothoerac 
- . « £ TpoodoKaTwoar, ott  wbALe Tetxhpne ovoa guAd—éee avrote, ‘‘ He pictures 
. then tragically the terrible things which will then encompass the city .. . 
Iet them not expect that the city when it is besieged will protect them.” — 
év tai¢ xdpaic}] not in the provinces (de Wette), but in the fields (xii. 16), 
in contrast to the city into which one eistpyera: from the country. People 
are not to do this, but to flee.’ — Ver. 22. rov rAyodfvat «,7.A.] astatement of 
the divine counsel : that all may be fulfilled which is written. Without this 
day of vengeance, an essential portion of the prophetic predictions, in which 
the desolation of the city and the country is in so many different ways an- 
nounced as a judgment, must remain unfulfilled. The prophecy of Daniel 
is, moreover, meant along with the others, but not exclusively. Comp. 
already Euthymius Zigabenus. 

Vv. 23, 24. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 19 ff.; Mark xiii. 17 ff., to both of which 
Luke is related sometimes by abridgment, sometimes by more precise state- 
ments ex etentu. [But see Note CLL, p. 534.]— Ei ri¢ ypc] on the earth, 
without special definition (comp. v. 24, xviii. 8, xxi. 25). The latter is 
then introduced in the second member (r@ 2a6 robrg) by xai (and especially) ; 
but pzeyéan belongs to both.* — rp 2. r.] dependent on éora:. — Ver. 24. ovéyare 
payaipac] by the mouth of the sword, Heb. xi. 34.3 The sword is poetically 
(Hom. Jl. xv. 389 ; Porson, ad Eurip. Or, 1279 ; Schaefer) represented as 
a biting animal (by its sharpness ; hence péy. dicrouoc, two-edged).4 The 
subject of mec. and aizuad. is : those who belong to this people. — aiypawre. ] 
According to Joseph. Bell. vi. 9. 2, ninety-seven thousand were taken 
prisoners, and, for the most part, dragged to Egypt and into the provinces. 
— 'Iepovead.] when conquered and laid waste (ver. 20), in opposition to 
Paulus, who finds merely the besetting of the city by a hostile force here ex- 
pressed. — fora: raroup. tnd éSvin] shall be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, 
a contemptuous ill-treatment ; the holy city thus profaned is personified.* 
—dypt.. . édvav] till the ames of the Gentiles shajl be fulfilled, i.e., till the 
time that the periods which are appointed to the Gentile nations for the 
completion of divine judgments (not the period of grace for the Gentiles, as 
' Ebrard foists into the passage) shall hate run out. Comp. Rev. xi. 2. Such 


by maintains his interpretation of the 
BsdAvy~a of the Roman standards, and of 
the romos ayros, Matt. i.c., of the environs of 
Jerusalem. Certainly our passage corre- 
sponds to the BddAvypza ris epyuec. in Mat- 
thew and Mark. But Lake did not want to 
explain the expression of Daniel, but instead 
of it he stated something of a more general 
character, and that from his later stand- 
point, at which the time of the abomina- 
-tion of desolation on the temple area must 
needs appear to him a term (oo late for 
flight. We have here an alteration of the 
original er erentu. (See Note CLI., p. 534.] 
§ But the expressions are too general for 
a reference directly to the flight of the 


Christians to Pella (Volkmar, Zrang. Mar- 
cion’s, p. 69). 

2 On the divine dpy#, which is punitively 
accomplished in such calamities, comp. 
1 Mace. i. 64, 1.49; 2 Maoc. v. 17; Dan. 
vill. 19. 

3 Thus frequently I°fy °D, Gen. xxxIv. 
26: Deut. xiil. 16, and elsewhere. Comp. 
Ecclus. xxviii. 18; Judith fl. 27; 1 Macc. 
Vv. B. 

¢Comp. roAduov orépa, Hom. Ji. x. 8, xix. 
$18. 

6 Comp. Isa. x. 6; 1 Maco. fll. 45 (see 
Grimm, in loc.) iv. 60; Rev. xi.2; Philo, 
In Flace. p. %4C; Soph. Anf, 741. 





CHAP. XXI., 25, 26. 531 
times of the Gentiles are ended in the case in question by the Parousia (vv. 
25 f., 27), which isto occur during the lifetime of the hearers (ver. 28) 
[see Note CLII., p. 534]; hence those xacpof are in no way to be regarded 
as of longer duration,’ which Dorner, de orat. Ch. eschatolog. p. 78, ought. 
not to have concluded from the plural, since it makes no difference with re- 
spect to duration whether a period of time is regarded as unity, or according 
to the plurality of its constituent parts.* In opposition to Schwegler, who 
likewise finds betrayed in the passage a knowledge of a long duration, and 
therein the late composition of the Gospel ; sce Franck in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1855, p. 847 f. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 648, erroneously dates the 
beginning of the xa:pot é9vav not from the taking of Jerusalem, supposing, 
on the contrary, the meaning to be : till the time, in which the world belongs 
to the nations, shall be at an end, and the people of God shall receive the 
dominion. In answer to this, it may be said, on the one hand, that the 
thought of the dominion of the world (according to Dan. vii. 14, 27) is a pure 
interpolation ; on the other, that the xacpo? é9vav would be the xacpoi, which 
were familiar to all from the prophecies, and which had already begun to run 
their course, so that at the time of Jesus and long before they were regarded 
as in process of fulfilment. This isthe reason for our having of xa:poi with the 
article (comp. xix. 44). By a perverse appeal to history, it has been ex- 
plained as having reference to the fall of heathenism under Constantine 
(Clericus), and to the conversion‘ of the heathen-world (sce in Wolf ; also 
Dorner, l.c. p. 68). Comp. Lange, who suggests withal the thought of the 
Mohammedans. 

Vv. 25, 26. There now follows what should come to pass at the end of 
the said times of the Gentiles before the Parousia. Since Luke, writing in 
the time in which such xa:poi é6vdv are still passing, has adopted these also 
into the prophecy from the tradition expanded ez eventu, the Parousia in his 
statement could not be immediately linked on to the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, as was the case in Mark xiii. 24, and still more definitely by means of 
ev0éwc in Matt. xxiv. 29. [See Note CLIII., p. 585.] In the midst between 
these two catastrophes actually already came those xa:poi. — ovvox? EOvov x.1.A. ] 
Distress (2 Cor. ii. 4) of nations in perplerity at the roaring of the seas and 
waves. Luke alone has this fearful feature. The genitive 7yoic® (see the 
critical remarks) indicates that to which the aropia refers.‘ Groundlessly 
Bornemann conjectures év areipig. The nai ‘‘ vocem angustiorem (odAoc, break- 
ers) anncctit latiori,” ‘‘ joins the more particular word (odAoc, breakers) to the 
wider one,” Kypke. — Ver. 26. arowwy. avdpdr.] while men give up the ghost * 


1“*WNon infertur hinc, templum cul- 4{Comp. Luther’s gloss: “till the hea- 


tamque umbratilem instauratum iri,” * It 
is not to be hence inferred that the temple 
and the shadowy worship was to be re- 
stored," Bengel. Comp. Calov. in loc., and 
our remark after Rom. xi. 27. 

2 See, for example, 2 Tim. ifi.1 comp. 
with iv. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1; Eoolus. xxxix. 31; 
1 Maco. iv. 59; 2 Macc. xil. 30. 

®Comp. on «apoi without the article, 
Tob. xiv.5; Acts ill. 20, 21. 


thens shall be converted to the faith, é.¢., 
till the end of the world.”’ 

6 From the nominative ys (not #xos); 
hence not to be accented #xovs [Tisch.], 
but gxot¢ [W. and Hort]. 

Comp. Herod. iv. 88: rev Zcvddwr rhe 
awepinv ; Herodian, iv. 14.1: dy... awoptg 
rou wpaxréov. ° 

¥ Thue. f. 1%. 8; Blon, 1.90; Alciphr. Zp. 
iil. 72; 4 Maco. xv. 15. 


552 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


for fear, etc. It might be taken, moreover, of mere faintness (Hom. Od. xxiv. 
348), but the stronger expression corresponds more to the progressive col- 
oring of the description. — al yép duvdéy. x.7.A.] not a clause limping after 
(de Wettc), but an energetic declaration coming in at the close as to the 
cause of these phenomena. See, besides, on Matt. xxiv. 29. 

Vv. 27, 28. Comp. on ver. 27; Matt. xxiv. 80; Mark. xiii. 26. — Kai 
tére] and then; after the previous occurrence of these onpeia. — apyou. 6? 
rotruv] but when these begin; these appearances, ver. 25 f. They are there- 
fore not conceived of as of long continuance. —dvaxiware x.t.a.] life your- 
selves up, raise yourselves (till then bowed down under afflictions, ver. 12 f£., 
comp. xii. 32) erect (hopefully).’—# aroAtrp. iu.] which shall follow by 
means of my Parousia, Comp. the éxdixnotg tov éxAextov, xviii. 7. 

Vv. 29-33. Sce on Matt. xxiv. 82-85; Mark xiii. 28-81. —a¢’ éavray)} 
‘‘etiamsi nomo vos doceat,” ‘‘even though no one teach you,” Bengel. 
Comp. xii. 57 ; John xviii. 84, xi. 51 ; 2 Cor. iii. 5. — ycvdoxere is indicative 
in ver. 80, imperative in ver. 31. 

Vv. 84-36, peculiar to Luke. ‘Eavroic¢ has the emphasis ; from the exter- 
nal phenomena the attention of the hearers is directed to themselees. The 
tpov placed first contains a contrast with others who are in such a condition 
as is here forbidden.* — Bap7facry] even in the classical writers often used of 
the psychical oppression that presses down the energy of the spiritual activ- 
ity by means of wine, sorrow, etc.* The figurative interpretation (Bleek) of 
want of moral circumspection is arbitrary. Comp. xii. 45; Eph. v.18. This 
want is the consequence of the Sapré., whereby it happens ‘‘ that the heart 
cannot turn itsclf to Christ’s word,” Luther, Predigt. — pepipv. Bwrixaic] 
with cares, ‘‘quae ad victum parandum vitaeque usum faciunt,” ‘‘ which 
have to do with the preparation of sustenance and with the needs of life,” 
Erasmus, ‘ — aigvidsog] as one who is unexpected (1 Thess. v. 3, often in Thucy- 
dides) ; thus conceived adjectivally, not adverbially.°—<é’ tya¢ éxiorg] 
should come upon you, which, according to the context, is conceived of as 
something sudden (comp. on il. 9). The day is personified. — Ver. 35. d¢ 
mayi¢ yap x.r.A.] gives a reason for the warning xa? (ufrore) aigvidiog é¢’ tude 
x.r.A. [See Note CLIV., p. 535.] All the more were they to guard against 
this, as the Parousia will come upon all as a snare (Isa. xxiv. 17), thus unod- 
served, and suddenly bringing destruction on them. This must arouse you to 
hold yourselves in readiness for it, because otherwise ye also shall be over- 
taken and hurried away by this universal sudden ruin. For the figure, 
comp. Rom. xi. 9. It is a snare which is thrown over a wild beast. — ére- 
oeAeboera] (see the critical remarks) it will come in upon all. In the doubly 


1 Comp. Dorville, ad Charit. p. 177. 

2Comp. on these warnings the expression 
quoted by Justin, c. 7r. 47, a8 a saying of 
Christ: év ols av Vuds caraAdBw, év rovrots cai 
xpwve, “In whatever I shall find you, in 
these will I also judge you.” Similarly 
_ Clem. Alex., guis dives salv. 40, quotes it. 

3 Hom. Od. ili. 189; Theocr. xvil. 61; Plut. 
Aem. P. 84. See generally, Jacobs, ad An- 


thol. VI. p. 77. On the distinction between 
xpaurdAyn, giddiness from yesterday's de- 
bauch, and pédy, see Valckenaer, Schal. 
Pp. 262. 

Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 8; Polyb. iv. 78. 8: 
Prurixai xpecae ; and see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 355. 

¢See Krier, § 57. 5,44; Winer, p. 412 
{E. T. 465]. 


} 


CHAP. XXI., 37, 38. 533 


compounded form (comp. 1 Macc. xvi. 16, often in the classical writers) ét 
denotes the direction, and ei¢ the coming in from without (from heaven), — 
xafyuévovg] not generally : who dwell, but : who si¢ (comp. Jer. xxv. 29), 
expressing the comfortable, secure condition. Comp. on Matt. iv. 16. Theo- 
phylact : év auepipvig didyovres wat apyig, ‘* passing the time in carelessness and 
idleness.” — Ver. 36. év mavri xaip@] belongs to deduevo. Comp. xviii. 1, 7. 
Others, as Luther and Bleek, connect it with ayp. —iva] the purpose, and 
therefore contents of the prayer. — xarioxioyre| (see the critical remarks) have 
the power; be in the position. So «ary. with infinitive, Wisd. xvii. 5 ; Isa. 
xxii. 4, and often in the later Greek writers. — éxgvyeiy x.1.A.] to escape from 
all this, etc., t.e., in all the perilous circumstances whose occurrence I have 
announced to you as preceding the Parousia (from ver. 8 onward), to deliver 
your life, which is to be understood in the higher meaning of ver. 19. — xai 
orabjvar «.7.A.|] and to be placed before the Messiah. This will be done by the 
angels who shall bring together the éxAexrobe from the whole earth to the 
Messiah appearing in glory. Matt. xxiv. 31 ; Mark xili. 27. Nothing is said 
here about standing in the judgment (in opposition to Erasmus, Beza, Gro- 
tius, Kuinoel, and many others). 

Vv. 37, 38. The discourse, begun at xx. 1, with its varied scenes, is now 
closed. There is even now a general historical communication upon those 
last days of Jesus in Jerusalem, from which it is plain that according to 
Luke He still continued to teach in the temple. There is a difference from 
Matthew (comp. Mark xiii. 1), according to whom He is no longer in the 
temple when He delivers His eschatological discourse, and does not again 
set foot in it after xxiii. 39. [See Note CXLIX., p. 534.] — éAacdv] Thus to 
be accented in this place also. See on xix. 29. — éepyéuevoc] participle 
present, because yvaifero (with cic, comp. Tob. xiv. 10) is conceived of in 
the sense of the direction : going out (from the temple into the open air) He 
went to His nightly abode on the Mount of Olives. — Ver. 88. dpOpile mpd¢ abréy] 
rose up early to resort to Him, to hear Him in the temple. Thus rightly Lu- 
ther (comp. Vulgate), Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and many others, including 
Lange, Ewald, Bleek, and as early as Tertullian and Theophylact. Others, 
including de Wette, have: there sought Him eagerly, following LXX. Ps. 
Ixxviii. 34 ; Ecclus. iv. 12, vi. 36 (not Job. viii. 5). But the context, ac- 
cording to ver. 37, justifies only the above explanation, which, moreover, 
corresponds to the general classical usage of dp§pebw (for which, according 
to Moeris, épApiZw is the Hellenistic form).' 


1See Theocritus, x. 58; Eurip. 7vo. 182; Naowp); Evang. Nicod. 15 (wppicar. . . aie 
Luc. Gall. 1.; also the LXX.in Blel and = rdv olxow Nixodjnov). Comp. in general, 
Schleusner, sud voce dpdpigw; 1 Macc. iv. 52, Grimm on Wisd. vi. 14 
vi. 38, xi. 67 (wpdpicay Td wows aig 7d wediov 


534 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Nores py American Eprror. 


CXLIX. Vv. 5-38. The Eschatological Discourse. 


On the relation of the accounts see Mark, Note LXXXII., p.167. The re- 
port of Luke bears many marks of originality ; hence even Meyer must speak 
of ‘‘a very free reproduction from the Logia and Matthew.” As to the view 
that Luke represents this discourse as belonging to the transactions in the tem- 
ple, Godet remarks: ‘‘ This opinion does not agree either with vv. 5 and 6, where 
the temple buildings are contemplated by the interlocutors, which supposes 
them to be at some distance from which they can view them asa whole, or, with 
ver. 7, which conveys the notion of a private conversation between the disciples 
and the Master.’’ It may be asked : How could Luke have such an impression 
and convey it by his narrative, if he had Mark before him? The latter is most 
specific in his account of the circumstances. Weiss ed. Mey. divides Luke’s 
account very much as he does that of Mark, but connects vv. 10-19 (in which 
Luke’s account shows great independence) with the first paragraph. Vv. 8-19 : 
The foretokens ; vv. 20-24: The conquest of Jerusalem ; vv. 25-33: the Parou- 
sia ; vv. 34-38 : Hortatory conclusion. 

The account of Luke applies most fully to the overthrow of Judaism and is 
less full in regard to the coming of Christ. See chap. xvii. 20-37, where there 
is much resemblance to the matter inserted by Matthew and Mark in this dis- 
course. On some of the details comp. Mark, Notes LXXXIIL-LXXXVL, p. 168. 


CL. Ver. 12. Tpd 82 rotruy x.r.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. does not regard this as “‘ a later modification of the tradition 
moulded sfter the result,’’ but due to the fact that the persecutions predicted 
in Mark (xiii. 9-13) had already begun, and hence are placed ‘‘before.” But the 
accounts of Matthew and Mark do not contradict that of Luke. Godet’s remark 
applies here : ‘‘Can we suppose our Evangelist, to whom Jesus is the object 
of faith, allowing himself deliberately thus to put words into His mouth after 
his fancy?” Nor need we take zpé in any other than its natural sense in order 
to reconcile the statements. 


CLI. Ver. 20. ‘Orav dé x.r.A. 


Weias ed. Mey. objects to the view that the discourse broken off at ver. 12 is 
here resumed. He thinks the resumption does not occur until ver. 25. As to 
Meyer’s view that Luke has altered the original ex eventu, this is objected to by 
Weiss ed. Mey. It rests upon an improper theory as to the date of the Gos- 
pel and explains nothing. ‘‘If Jesus really predicted, as we have no doubt He 
did, the taking of Jerusalem, the substitution of Luke’s term for the synonym 
of Daniel might have been made before the event as easily as after.” Godet, 
Inuke, p. 449, Am. ed, 

CLIT. Ver. 24. dype ov x«.7.2. 

On the view that the Parousia was predicted as ‘‘to occur during the lifetime 
of the hearers,” see Mark, Notes LXXXII., LXXXIII., LXXXV., LEXXVI., p. 167 
seq. On the use made of this phrase to prove that the Gospel was written after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, see Note IIT., p. 226. 


fale att fon sl oe eee 


NOTES. 535 


CLI. Vv. 25, 26. Luke's View of the Time of the Parousia. 


The notion that Luke has adopted the times of tho Gentiles ‘‘into the proph- 
ecy from the tradition expanded ex eveniu” involves a more serious difficulty 
than that which it proposes to meet. Weiss ed. Mey. objects to Meyer’s state- 
ment in part, but apparently accepts the later moulding. Now, if Luke had be- 
fore him, as both these writers hold, the Gospel of Mark, and if, as they hold 
also, he believed in Jesus as a prophet and Redeemer, they fairly imply that 
Luke knowingly and deliberately altered a written report of our Lord’s sayings 
to suit his own afterthought respecting its correctness. This is a kind of falsifi- 
cation which, under the circumstances, is worse than falsehood. It is easier 
to believe that the other accounts admit of an interval (which has occurred) 
than to believe that Luke writes history in this way. 


CLIV. Ver. 35. o¢ rayic. 


The better attested reading (see critical note) compels us to join this phrase 
with the preceding verse ; see R. V. Weiss ed. Mey. properly objects to Mey- 
er’s statement that the verb ézeceAcicerae needs a modal qualification. Standing 
alone it is more emphatic and gives the reason for watchfulness : ‘‘for it will 
come,” etc. 


536 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CHAPTER XXII. 


[Ver. 3. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with * BDL, Copt., have the simple 
form xadoipevov. — Ver. 4. Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with & A B L, etc., 
omit roig before orpartiyoic.| — Ver. 5. apytpuv] A CK U X, min. Syr. Slav. Eus. 
Theophyl. have apytpra. See on Mark xiv. 11. — Ver. 6. xai éfau62.] is wanting 
in Lachm., in opposition to decisive evidence. The omission occurred the 
more readily that KAI EZ follows, and Matthew and Mark have ncthing simi- 
lar. — Vet. 10. ob] A K MPR, min. have ov t4v. BCL, Vulg. It. have 
etc 7v. So Lachm. and Tisch. As the Recepia, according to this, has prepon- 
derating evidence against it, while ov éév is grammatically erroneous (édy is 
from Mark xiv. 14), we must read ei¢ 7, instead of which was placed, in inexact 
recollection of Mark xiv. 14, ob (157 : drov). — Ver. 12. avdyasoy (Elz.: avéyeor) 
is decisively attested. Comp. on Mark xiv. 15.—[Ver. 13. Tisch., recent editors, 
R. V., with & B CD L, read eipfxe:.] — Ver. 14. dddexa] is wanting in BD ®, 
157, vss., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was written in the margin 
in agreement with the parallels, and came into the text in some authorities 
alongside of ardor., in others instead of it (L X). Comp. also on ix. 1. — Ver. 
16. ovxér:] is wanting in A B C*? HL &, min. Copt. Sahid. Vere. Epiph. 
Marcion. Rejected by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. [Retained by Tisch., re- 
jected by W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] But how easily, being in itself super- 
fluous, it came to be overlooked between ér: and ov! If it had crept in from 
Mark xiv. 25, it would rather have found its place at ver. 18. — é£ avrov] av7é 
is read by Lachm., in accordance with [8] BC? L, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. It. 
Vulg. Epiph. [So Tisch. VIII., recent editors, R. V.] The Recepia is to be 
maintained. The accusative was introduced in accordance with ver. 15. Op- 
posed to it, moreover, is the evidence of D, min. Cant., which have az’ airoi, 
wherein the preposition was altered in conformity with ver. 18.— Ver. 17. A 
D K M U, min. Lachm. have 16 rorf#p. The article forced itself in here from 
the form used in the Lord's Supper (ver. 20).— [Tisch., recent editors, R. V.,with 
BCL, Vulg., Copt., read etc éavrofc¢, instead of éavroic, and in ver. 18, with & 
B DL, Copt., insert ad rod viv after iw, — Vv. 19, 20. D, with a few early 
Latin mss., omit from 1d izép (ver. 19) to the close of ver. 20. W. and Hort 
bracket, comp. R. V. marg.] — Ver. 20. woavr. x. t. rorhp.] Tisch. has x. r. worgp. 
ooaut., following B L &, Copt. Sahid.; the Recepia is from 1 Cor. xi, 25. — Ver. 
22. xai] Tisch. has or, following B D L &, 157, Copt. Sahid. Rightly ; dre 
dropped out before OYI (see subsequently on pév), as it is still wanting in Vero. 
Cant. Or.; and then xai was interpolated asa connecting particle. — ué is, 
with Tischendorf, to be placed after vidc, following, B L T &® **(D has it before 
6). The usual position before vidg is from Matthew and Mark. —In what fol- 
lows read, with Lachm. and Tisch., xara rd dpicopévov rop. The arrangement 
in the Recepta is in accordance with the parallels. — [Ver. 26. Tisch., recent 
editors, R. V., with & B DL, read yiécOe, which is even more strongly at- 
tested in ver. 42.]— Ver. 30. Elz. Scholz have xa@ioyo6e. But Matth. Lachm. 


pn eee 
a eee. 


CHAP. XXII. 537 


Tisch. [R. V.] have, on preponderating evidence, xaficeofe [Tisch. VIII. has 
xabjoecbe, W. and Hort text, with B* A, have xafjofe}. This was changed, on ac- 
count of the construction, into the subjunctive, as though dependent on iva. — 
Ver. 32. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with B L, Copt., omit else d2 6 xbpcoc. ] — 
ExAzizy] Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have éxAiry, in accordance with BD K LMU X 
®%, min.; it is accordingly to be preferred. The present offered itself more 
readily to the transcribers. But orfpicov instead of orfp:fov is decisively at- 
tested (Lachm. Tisch.). — Ver. 34. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., have ov (instead 
of ov z7), with & B L.] — piv 7] BLT ®, min.: go. So Lachm. and Tisch. 
[recent editors, R. V.]. D has éu¢ érov ; K M X, min. have éwe ob. Moreover, 
vss. (Syr. Vulg. It. al.) have donec. piv (Q) and mpiv7 (AEG HSU VITA A) 
were written in the margin from Matthew and Mark. —I regard éwe drov or éwe ov 
as genuine. See on xxi. 24. — arapy. pi ecdévat pe) Lachm. Tisch. have ue azapv. 
eidévat, in accordance with BD LM QT X ®& [so Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., 
but Tisch. VIII. has returned to azapyv. pu) cidéva: pe]. The pf was omitted as 
superfluous, but »é was pushed forwards in accordance with Mark xiv. 30 (see 
thereupon the critical remarks). — Ver. 35¢ On decisive evidence faAAavriov is 
to be written, and in ver, 36: BadAdvriov. —[Ver. 36. Tisch., recent editors, 
R. V., with ®& B DL, Copt., read dé instead of otv.] — Ver. 37. ére] is not 
found, indeed, in ABD HLQX X&, min. vas. (except Vulg.), but after dr: its 
omission occurred too easily to be rightly suspected, according to Griesbach ; 
rejected, according to Schulz ; deleted, according to Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., W. 
and Hort, R. V., Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B D L, Copt., have ré 
instead of rd.] — Ver. 42. rapeveyxeiv] Lachm. has rapéveyxe [so Treg., W. and 
Hort], in accordance with B D, min, Vnlg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Syr.P Syr.e* Or. 
‘Dam. Tert. Ambr.; Tisch. has zapevéyxa:, in accordance with KLM RII &, 
min. Both readings were meant to help out the construction in accordance 
with Mark xiv. 36. Subsequently is to be written, with Rinck and Tisch., 
rovro td worfp. The order in the Recepia, rd ror. rovro, is from the parallels. — 
Vv. 43 and 44 are bracketed by Lachm. [and by W. and Hort, see R. V. marg.]. 
They are wanting in A B R T, Sahid. and some cursives ; are marked with aster- 
isks in E SV ATI, min. ; in others with obelisks ; in the lectionaries adopt- 
ed into the section Matt, xxvi. 2—xxvii. 2 ; and as early as Epiphanius, Hilary, 
and Jerome their omission in Mss. is observed. But they are already acknowl- 
edged by Justin. Iren. Hippol. Epiphan., etc. See Tisch. The verses are 
genuine. Their omission is the work of the orthodox, to whom their contents 
appeared objectionable in respect of the divinity of Christ. See already Epiph. 
Ancor. 31. According to Ewald, Luke wrote ver. 44 from the ‘‘ Book of the 
higher history” only in the margin, but ver. 43 was excluded by the compar- 
ison with Matthew and Mark. — Ver. 47. dé] has so important evidence against 
it (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) that it seems to be a connective addition. — 
Instead of avro(¢ Elz. has airayv, in opposition to decisive evidence. A odrrec- 
tion. —[Ver. 52. Treg., W. and Hort, with ® B D L, have &#A6are, which 
Tisch. thinks is from the parallel passages. } — Ver. 55. dydvruv] B L T &, Eus. 
Tisch. have repiaydrruv ; the Recepia is a neglect of the compound verb, which 
is elsewhere foreign to the New Testament. — airév after ovyxaé. is, with Lachm. 
and Tisch., to be deleted as a frequent addition. — év pfoy] Tisch. has péco, 
following B L T, min. The former is an interpretation. —[Ver. 58. Tisch., 
recent editors, R, V. ( B L) read 2$7.]— Ver. 61. After ¢uwxjoa: Tisch. has 


538 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


ojuepov, following BK L MT XII &, min. vss. The omission came from the 
parallels. [W. and Hort, B. V., with XBL, have pfyaroc, and, with Tisch., 
omit 4 before atéxrup, in ver. 60. The article is found only in min.]— Ver. 62. 
After é£u, 6 Ilerpoc is to be maintained, against Griesb. and Tisch. [recent edi- 
tors, R. V.], although it is wanting in important authorities. [*% B D L, Copt., 
etc.] Being troublesome, and not occurring in the parallels, it was passed 
over. —Ver. 63. Instead of airédv, Elz. Matth. Scholz have rév ‘Iyooin. 
The subject was written in the margin because another subject precedes. 
— Ver. 64. érurroyv atrov 1d mpéowzoy xai] is wanting in BK LMI &, 
Copt. Vind. Corb. Ver. Colb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck and 
Tisch. It is an expansion by way of a gloss, which in D, vss. is not the 
same, and which the omission of dépovrec, ver. 63, drew after it. The glossing 
process began with the writing on the margin at the first avrdv: avrov Td mpdou- 
gov, a8 1, 209, vss. still read instead of airév; then érvrrov was added in some 
authorities before, in others after, because dépovrec was attracted to what pre- 
ceded. — Ver. 66. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B D, Or., read am 
yayov.] Elz. Lachm, have éavraéyv ; Matth. Scholz, Tisch.: avrav. [So recent 
editors, R. V., with ® BDL, Or.] The Recepia is to be retained in accordance 
with A A, min.: it was not understood. — Ver. 68. Read, with Tisch., simply 
éav dé (even Lachm, has deleted xai) épwrfow, ob ui droxpdpre, in accordance with 
BLT ¥&, min. vss. Cyr. Theaddition yo: 9 droAtoyre is an unsuitable expan- 
sion. — Ver. 69. After viv is to be added, with Lachm. and Tisch., dé, on de- 
cisive evidence. — Ver. 71. The order of the words, ri ére &y. papt. ypeiar, is to 
be preferred, with Tisch., following BLT, The order in the Tezxtus receptus, 
T. é&. yx. & p., is from the parallels. 


Vv. 1, 2. With more detail and definiteness Matt. xxvi. 1-5 and Mark 
xiv. 1 f. (Luke follows Mark with abbreviation). — é¢oB. y. rdv Aadv] the ad- 
herents that Jesus found among the people (xxi. 38) made them afraid ; 
hence they endeavored to discover ways and means to remove Him, 7.¢., yé- 
Oodov, mag aveadvres avtov ob mivdvveboovow, ‘a plan how they in killing Him 
will incur no danger,” Theophyl. 

Vv. 3-6. See on Matt. xxvi. 14-16 ; Mark xiv. 10f. Luke passes over 
the history of the anointing, having already related an earlier one (vii. 37). 
—eioyAbe] The part played by the devil, who ‘‘sensus omnes occupat,” 
‘occupies all the senses” (Calvin), is conceived of as an actual intrusion, as 
eicfpxeoba: is the word constantly used to express the intrusion of demons 
into bodies (viii. 80, 82 f., xi. 27). Comp. John xiii. 27 (in regard to John 
xiii, 2, see on the passage). —'Ioxap.] See on Matt. x. 4. — dvra éx row ap. tr. 
é.] familiar to the reader (vi. 16), but a tragic addition. — Ver. 4. roi¢ [see 
critical note] orparnyoi¢] Aséorparnyé¢ isthe chief of all the Levitical temple 
guards (Acts iv. 1, v. 26 ; Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 8), WAN W1 WR, probably the 
leaders of the several guards who were placed under Him are here meant 
also, consequently the entire Levitical body of officers.!— Ver. 5. ovvéfevro] 
The several moments in the incident, as these are accurately traced by Luke, 
are : (1) Judas opens the correspondence, ver. 4 ; (2) they are pleased there- 


2 Comp. xtAdapxot, 8 Esdr. 1.9. See Lightfoot, p. 8792. 


CHAP, XXII., 7-18. 539 
at; (8) they engage! to give him money ; and the last step is, (4) Judas makes 
his acknowledgment, promises,* and seeks henceforth a favorable opportu- 
nity, etc. — Ver. 6. drep dyAov] without attracting a crowd. The opposite is 
pera dydov, Acts xxiv. 18.5 The word drep, frequently occurring in the 
pocts, occurs only here and at ver. 35 in the New Testament.‘ 

Vv. 7-18. See on Matt. xxvi. 17-19 ; Mark xiv. 12-16. Luke names the 
disciples, and makes Jesus take the initiative. [See Note CLV., p.555.] The 
latter is a quite immaterial difference ; the former is a more precise state- 
ment of the later tradition, in respect of which a special tendency is as- 
sumed (Baur supposes that the two are intended to represent the Judaism 
of the older apostles). — 740c] there came, there appeared the day. Comp. 
v. 35, xxiii. 29 ; Acts ii. 20, and elsewhere.*— 7 jutpa] not 4 éopr4 again, as 
in ver. 1, because the latter denotes the whole festival, not the single day 
of the feast (in opposition to Wieseler, Synopse, p. 897). — Ver. 11. épeire] a 
future with the force of animperative : and ye shall say. —16 oixodeonéry Tic 
oix.] See, on such pleonastic combinations, Bornemann in loc. ; Lobeck, 
Paralip. p. 586 f. ; also Valckenaer, Schol. p. 264 f. 

Vv. 14-18. On ver. 14 comp. Matt. xxvi. 20 ; Mark xiv. 17. ‘‘ Describitur, 
vv. 15-18, quaedam quasi prolusio s. coenae, coll. Matth. xxvi. 29,” ‘‘ There 
is described (vv. 15-18) a prelude as it were to the holy supper, comp. Matt. 
xXvi. 29,” Bengel. — Ver. 15. éxcOuyia éreObunoa)] Ihave earnestly longed, Gen. 
xxxi. 80. See Winer, p. 413 [E. T. 466]. This longing rested on the fact (see 
ver, 16) that this Passover meal was actually His last, and as such was to be of 
special importance and sacredness. Thus He could only earnestly wish that 
His passion should not begin before the Passover ; hence : mpd rod pe raveiv. 
—rovro] pointing to: this, which is already there. — Ver. 16. ov«ére x.r.A.] 
namely, after the present meal. — é£ avrov] of the Passover. — éw¢ drov x.7.A.] 
till that it (the Passover) shall be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. The'ration- 
alistic interpretation : ‘‘sed aliquando vos in coelo mecum gaudiis propriis 
ac summis perfruemini,” ‘‘ but you shall hereafter enjoy with me in heaven 
more intimate and supreme joy” (Kuinoel), is purely arbitrary. Jesus means 
actually a Passover (specifically such a one, not merely the Messianic feasts 
in general, Matt. viii. 11 ; Luke xxii. 80, xiv. 15) in the Messiah’s kingdom, 
which should hold the same relation to the temporal Passover as that which 
is perfect (absolute) holds to the ineemplete. This corresponds to the idca 


1 Herod. ix. 53; Xen. Anad.i. 9. 7, Hed. lil. 
5.6; Herodian, v. 8. 23; Joseph. Andé. xlil. 
4.7; 4 Macc. iv. 16. 

3 éfepod., spopondit,‘* binds himself;"’ else- 
where only the simple form is used in this 
sense, as Plat. Symp. p. 196 C; Jer. xliv. 
2%; Joseph. Anié. vill. 4. 8. 

3 Comp. Hom. Ji, v. 473: és wou drep Aawy 
wéAw efduey, 

4 Comp. 2 Maoc. xif. 15; rarely, moreover, 
in the later Greek prose writers, as Plut. 
Num, xiv. ; Dion. Hal. iii. 10. 

® Paschke 1s in crror when ho says, in the 
Theok. Quartalschr. 1851, p. 410 ff., that }Ave 


means here: he came near; and that at 
Matt. xxvi. 17, Mark xiv. 12, ry porn yudpe 
tev acvuey Means: on the day defore the 
Passover. Moreover, Ewald (Geach. Chr. 
p. 459 f.) decides that, in so faras the words 
of Luke are concerned (not also of Matthew 
and Mark), the day d<fore the Passover 
might be meant. But by éy j ee «.7.A., as 
well as by tho further course of the narra- 
tive, the day is definitely enough indicated 
as the same as in Matthew and Mark. [On 
the apparent difference as to the date of the 
Lord's Supper, see Wark, Note XCL., p. 184.) 


540 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


of the new world (of the azoxardoracts, madsyyevecia), and of the perfected 
theocracy in the aidr péAAwv. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 29. The impersonal view 
(Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius), according to which the meaning is said to 
be : till the establishment of the kingdom shall be brought about, is an 
evasion opposed to the context. Completely without foundation, moreover, 
Schenkel says that the adoption of the Gentiles into the divine covenant is the 
fulfilment of the Old Testament Passover. — Ver. 17f. According to Luke, 
Jesus, after He had spoken quite at the beginning of the meal the words, 
vv. 15, 16, receives a cup handed to Him (de&dyevoc, not the same as AaPéy, 
ver, 19), and after giving thanks hands it to the disciples that they might 
share it (the wine in it) among themselves (observe the emphatic [ei¢ éavrci¢] 
éavroic), for He assures them that He should certainly not drink, etc. He 
therefore, according to Luke, declines to drink of the Passover wine, wherefore 
also in ver. 18 the absolute ot uf, but in ver. 16 the relative ovxére ov ua, is 
used. [See Note CLVI., p. 556.] 


Remark.—Although this refusal to drink the wine, which is not to be ex- 
plained away, is in itself psychologically conceivable in so deeply moved and 
painful a state of mind, yet it is improbable in consideration of the character- 
istic element of the Passover. In respect of this, the drinking of the Passover 
wine was certainly so essential, and, in the consciousness of the person cele- 
brating the rite, s0 necessary, that the not drinking, and especially on the part 
of the Host Himself, would have appeared absolutely.as contrary to the law, 
irreligious, scandalous, an interruption which, on the part of Jesus, can hardly 
be credible. Since then Mark and Matthew, moreover, have nothing at all 
about a refusal of the wine, but rather do not bring in the assurance, ob pe Tri 
x.T.A., until the conclusion of the meal, Mark xiv. 25, Matt. xxvi. 29 ; and since 
Matthew uses the emphatic az’ dori, wherein is intimated that Jesus had just 
drunk with them once more,—the narrative of Luke, vv. 17, 18, is to be regard- 


ed as not original, and it is to be assumed that Jesus indeed spoke, vv. 15, 16, 


at the beginning of the meal (in opposition to Kuinoel and Paulus), but that 
what is found in Matt. xxvi. 29 has been removed back by the tradition on ac- 
count of the analogy of ver. 16, and placed after ver. 16, beside which ver. 17 
easily appeared as a link, without the necessity of attributing to Luke the con- 
struction of a piece of mosaic from a twofold source (as Holtzmann wishes to 
do), especially as ver. 17 is not yet the cup of the Lord's Supper. [See Note 
CLVL., p. 556.] According to Baur, Evang. p. 482 f., Luke must have been led 
by 1 Cor. x., where, moreover, the torfpiov tHe evaoyiag is emphatically placed 
first, to distinguish two acts in the Lord’s Supper (comp. also Ritschl, Evang. 
Marcion’s, p. 108), one with the leading idea of xo:vwrvia, and the other with that 
of avduvyory. He must have here represented the first by the help of Matt. 
xxvi. 29. He must thus probably still have expressly brought in the supposed 
leading idea of xo:vwria, as Paul also has done in respect of the bread. In gen- 
eral, the use made by Luke of the Pauline Epistles, which here even Hilgenfeld 
(comp. Holtzmann, p. 237) considers as unmistakable, is quite incapable of 
proof. 


Vv. 19, 20. See on Matt xxvi. 26-28 ; Mark xiv. 22 f.; 1 Cor. xi. 23 ff. 
Luke agrees with Paul, not, however, repeating, in the case of the cup, the 





CHAP. XXII., 19, 20. 541 
expression rovro roceire x.7/A., which is not found at all in Matthew and 
Mark. — 1d trép tay didduevov] which for your advantage (to procure your 
reconciliation and justification, and your Messianic salvation, comp. on 
Matt. xx. 28) is given up. The entire context suggests the qualifying clause 
ei¢ Odvarov.' — rovto moceire] to wit, the breaking of the bread after thanks- 
giving, and the distribution and partaking of thesame.*? [See Note CLVII., 
p. 556. ] — ele rev éugy avéyv.| for the remembrance of me." See Winer, p. 188 
[E. T. 153]. It is a mistake to say that this purpose of the Lord’s Supper 
must be appropriate only to the partaking of the real body and blood of 
Christ (sec Kahnis, Lehre 0. Abendm. p. 87). Rather in respect of such o 
partaking that statement of purpose appears too disproportioned and weak, 
since it would already certify far more than the remembrance ; in opposition 
to which the idea of the avauvyore of that which the symbols represent, is in 
keeping with the symbolic character of the celebration.*— Ver. 20. dcatruc] 
to wit, AaBov evyapiothoag ESuxev avtoic. — 71d rorfpiov] the cup before them. 
— pera rd decrvgoa:| ‘‘ facto transitu ad majora et ultima,” ‘‘the transition 
being made to what was greater and final,” Bengel. It was, to wit, the 
fourth cup which made the conclusion of the whole meal. See on Matt. 
XXVi. 27. —rovro rd morhpiov K.T.A.] this cup ts the new covenant by means of my 
blood, 2.¢., it is the new covenant by the fact that it contains my blood, which 
is shed for your salvation. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi, 25. In the wine which is 
poured into the cup Jesus sees His (atoning, Rom. iii. 25, v. 8) blood, which 
is on the point of being shed ; and because through this shedding of His 
blood the new covenant is to be established, he explains the cup, by virtue 
of its contents, as the new covenant—a.symbolism natural to the deeply- 
moved, solemn state of mind, to which no greater wrong can be done than 


1 Comp. Gal. 1. 4; Rom. vifi. 82; 1 Tim. {iL 
6; Tit. ii. 16. In respect of the expression, 
Wetstein justly compares Libanius, Orat. 
85, p. 705: cat 7d cwua Urép Huey érddmxey, and 
simnilar passages. 

2 On wouiy, occupying the place of more 
definite verbs, which the context suggests, 
see Bornemann, and Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
fil. 8. 2; Schoemann, ad Js. de Ap. her. 3. 

%To lay a contrasted emphasis on éujp 
(not in remembrance of the deliverance from 
E7ypt ; so Lindner, Adendm. p. 91 f., and 
Hofmann, Schriflbew. II. 2, p. 218) is mis- 
taken, because not suggested in the con- 
text. See Rickert, Abend. p. 200 f. 

4Kahnis says: “Only when body and 
blood are essentially present and essentially 
living can the remembrance of the death 
which they have passed through and swal- 
lowed up in victory and life be made prom- 
{nent as a separate point, without giving 
rise to a feeble and bungling tautology.” 
But the point on which stress {s Iatd in this 
assertion, ‘‘ which they have passed through 
and swallowed up in victory and life,’ does 
not in reality appear at all there, but is 


added in thought and read into the passage. 
Rightly does Keim bring forward in the 
Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 94, that the 
significance of the last suppcr as a remem- 
brance cannot be maintained together with 
the orthodox interpretation of the words of 
institution. He aptly shows that the sym- 
bolical understanding of the words of insti- 
tution, ‘* this is,’ etc., is the correct one, 
and comes to the conclusion that the essen- 
tial actual body was spiritually represented 
by the word to faith, but was not dodily 
given in corporeal presence to every recip- 
tent. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 26, and on 1 
Cor. xi. 24. How even Kahnls subsequently 
guve up the orthodox doctrine of the Lord's 
Supper, seo in his Dogmat. I. p. 616 ff. But 
how even to this day the Catholics make 
out the continuity of tho sacrifice of Jesus 
by the priests, see in Ddllinger, Christenth. 
und Kirche. p. 88, and Schegg. 

Plat. Phaed. p. 74 A: thy avauynow elvas 
pey ad’ opoiay, Comp. Justin, Ap. I. 66, 
where It is said of the cup: eis avdprnacy rod 
aiparos avrod, 





542 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


is perpetrated by the controversies about the est, which Luke has not at all ! 
Paul, in 1 Cor. xi. 25, inserts éoriv after d:abfxn, and consequently also, in 
so far as the passage before us is concerned, forbids the affixing é 16 aipari 
pov tO 1) kav diafjxn, as many of the older (not Luther‘) and of the more 
recent writers (not Kahnis, Osiander, Riickert, p. 232) do. So also even 
Ebrard (d. Dogma vom heil. Abendm. I. p. 113), who, besides, lays an em- 
phasis upon pov not belonging to it, at least according to the expression of 
Luke, when he interprets the passage: ‘‘the new covenant made in my 
blood, not in the sacrificial blood of the Old Testament.” — 4 xasv) diabfxy] 
opposed to the old Mosaic covenant, whose condition was the fulfilling of 
the law (in the new : faith). See on1 Cor. xi. 25.—1nm. . . ixyvvduevor] 
belongs, although in the nominative, to r@ aivari pov, as an epexegetical 
clause. The abnormal use of the case is occasioned by the fact that, accord- 
ing to ver. 19, the idea prevails : that the cup (in respect of its contents) is 
the blood of the new covenant which is shed. Consequently rd . . . éxy- 
vouevov is applied to ré aivari wou because rd alvd pov has floated before the 
mind of the speaker as the logical predicate, even although it did not become 
the grammatical predicate. Thus the nominatival expression more emphat- 
ically brings into prominence what is declared of the blood (rd . . . éxyw.) 
than would be the case if it were joined on in the dative. Comp. Jas. iii. 
8 (where peor? iov is joined to the logical subject yAaécoa, which, however, 
is not the grammatical subject).* According to Baur’s view, 1d. . . éxyuvéz. 
comes back to a very awkward transposition of the words from Matt. xxvi. 
28. Comp. also Riickert, p. 208, and Bleek and Holtzmann. Erroneously 
Euthymius Zigabenus, Calovius, Jansen, Michaelis, and others, including 
Bornemann, read : ‘‘ poculum, quod in vestram salutem effunditur,” ‘‘ the cup, 
which is poured out unto your salvation.” What is this supposed to mean ? 
Calovius answers : ‘‘Dicitur effusum pro nobis propter sanguinem, quem 
Christus mediante poculo praebebat,” ‘‘It is said to be poured out for you 
-on account of the blood, which Christ was proffering by means of the cup.” 
A forcible dislocation which, moreover, occurs in other old dogmatical 
writers, Chemnitz, Gerhard, and others. See Kahnis, Abendm. p. 103. This 
reference to the cup appeared to give a support to the explanation of the 
actual blood. 


Remang.—In the words of institution all four narrators vary from one 
another, although not essentially, which serves to prove that a mode of formn- 
lating them had not yet taken any fixed shape. Luke agrees the most closely 
with Paul, which is explained by his relation to him. The Pauline narrative, 
however, attains great weight, indeed, through his éyo yap wapfAafov ard rov 
xupiov, 1 Cor. xi. 23 (see on the passage), and the ministry of the apostle makes 
it conceivable how his formula might fix itself liturgically ; this, however, does 
not prevent our recovering the most primitive form of the words of Jesus in 
the simple narrative of Mark, which gradually underwent expansions, [See 


1In his Gr. Bekennin.: “for the reason 14; Kfihner, § 677; Winer, pp. 471, 473 (E. T. 
that Christ's blood is there.” 588, 585 f.}. 
® Rey. iil, 12, vill. 9; Mark xif. 40; John 1. 


CHAP. XXII., 21-30. §43 


Note CLVIII., p. 556.] Wilke, Urevang. p. 142, is wrong in regarding ver. 20 in 
Luke as a later addition. The first distribution of the cup, ver. 17, does not 
indeed yet belong entirely to the Lord's Supper, and as yet has no symbolism. 
According to Ewald (see his Jahrb. ITI. p. 194 f.), the agreement between Luke 
and Paul is explained by the fact that both have in this particular used one 
source (the oldest Gospel, probably composed by Philip the evangelist). But 
in general there is no proof of Paul’s having made use of a written Gospel ; 
neither in particular is the passage in 1 Cor. xi, 23, éy® ydp mwapéAaBov ard Tov 
xupiov, in any way favorable to that supposition. 


Vv. 21-23. Luke has this reference to the traitor (which, according to 
Luke, diverges from all the rest, without any more precise statement) in a 
wrong position, where it probably has been placed by way of transition to the 
following dispute about precedence. [See Note CLIX., p. 556.] According to 
Matt. xxvi. 21 ff., Mark xiv. 18 ff., it is to be placed at the beginning of the 
meal, and that in such a manner that the departure of Judas ' ensued before the 
institution of the Lord’s Supper ; comp. on Matt. xxvi. 25, and see the re- 
mark after John xiii. 88. — rAgv] notwithstanding, although my blood is shed 
for you. Nota limitation of the trép tuayv (Hofmann), but, without such a 
reflection, a contrast to that love which is on the point of offering its own 
life. In spite of this 74%», which carries on the Lord’s discourse, to place 
the departure of the traitor, even according to Luke, before the Lord’s Sup- 
per, is only possible to the greatest harmonistic arbitrariness, in respect of 
which, indeed, the statement that Luke does not relate according to the or- 
der of time (Ebrard, p. 522 ; Lichtenstein, p. 401) is the most convenient 
and ready resource. — # yeip x.7.4.] The hand of my betrayer, etc. It was still 
on the table (é7? rij¢ rpazéinc), after the eating of the bread, for the sake of par- 
taking of the cup (ver. 20), and Jesus mentions the hand as the correlative of 
the idea rapadidéva:. There is contained therein a tragic feature. — Ver. 22. ar: 
6 uldg pév (see the critical remarks) x.r.4. discloses the objective ground of 
this mournful experience, ver, 21—to wit, the divine appointment of the 
death of the Messiah, which none the less (7A7v ova? «.7.A.) leaves the person 
concerned under the imputation (of the subjectively free action). — Ver. 23. 
ovvrreiv, to confer, disputare, and pic éavrots, among themselves, as Mark i. 
27. —rovto] t.6., the rapadidévac. With the emphasis of horror rovro is placed 
before the governing verb. On rpéoced of traitorous transactions, comp. 
Thucyd. iv. 89. 3, 110. 2. 

Vv. 24-80. Earlier fragments of discourses (Matt. xx. 25 f., xix. 28 ; comp. 
Mark x. 42 ff.), for whose appropriateness in this place the occasion narrated 
by Luke, éyfvero 62 xai ¢:2overxia év air., is neither psychologically probable, 
nor is it, from an historical point of view, adequately accounted for. [See 
Note CLIX., p. 556.] Many have considered ver. 24 ff. as giving occasion to 
the footwashing (Paulus, Kuinocl, Sieffert, Lange, and others, including 
Strauss), which, however, would have any probability only if Luke placed 


1 According to Schenkel, Jesus allowed against all external ecclesiastical discipline 
Judas to take part in the Lord's Supper, (even against confession) | 
which (he thinks) is a convincing proof 


544 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


the contest about precedence at the beginning of the meal. Nay, the already 
past footwashing, which, according to John, is to be assumed, only makes 
the situation of this contest about precedence in Luke still more improbable. 
That, moreover, only the association of ideas between the questions of ver. 23 
and ver. 24 caused Luke to insert herethis contest about precedence (Strauss, 
I. p. 723 f. ; Holtzmann) is the more unfounded that Luke has already at 
ix. 46 related one dispute about precedence. Rather, he must have followed 
a definite tradition, which certainly may have taken its rise from the idea 
embodied in the story of the footwashing, and may have attracted here into 
a wrong position what is historically earlier. — dé xai} but also, in addition 
to that ovsnreiv. — doxei] is esteemed, Gal. ii. 6. Bengel well says: ‘‘ Quis sit 
omnium suffragiis,” ‘‘ Who may be with the voice of all.” — pei{av] of higher 
rank ; to regard éy r9 BaorAcig rov oipavev as understood (Kuinoel and others) 
is an arbitrary proceeding, according to Matt. xviii. 1. Comp. on ix. 46 ; 
Mark ix. 33. — Ver. 25. rév iGvav] of the Gentiles. — ol t€avordl. ait.] These 
are the magnates (Matt. xx. 25), rulers of the Gentiles after their kings. — 
evepyéras, & title of honor : benefactors, i.e., of great merit in respect of the 
state, possibly in respect of the government (Herod. viii. 85). Similarly our 
‘¢ Excellencies.” — Ver. 26. ot x virwc} It is sufficient to supply éoré (others 
take roeire). See what follows. Ye are not to be thus, as that one should 
let himself be distinguished in rank from the others. — é pelfwr] not: ‘qui 
cupit maximus esse,” Kuinoel, but : he that is greater among you, who really 
is so, let him condescend so as to place himself on an equality with the 
younger, and claim no more than he. 4 vedrepoc does not mean the less, and 
does not refer to one in the circle of the twelve, but it means one who is 
younger than the others, and denotes a believing youth. It must be supposed 
that such were present, performing the service. Comp. the parallel dcaxovar. 
See also Acts v. 6, 10. —6 #yotpevoc] he eho rules, standing at the head.” 
This use, moreover, is so frequent among the Greek writers,* and the desig- 
nation is so gencral, that the expression does not need to be derived actually 
from later times (Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. Ep. p. 29). — Ver. 27. To this con- 
descending renunciation my example engages you. For although I stand to 
you in the relation of the avaxeiuzevoc to the d:axévorc, yet I bear myself in the 
midst of you no otherwise than as if I were your servant. The reference to 
the footwashing, which has been here assumed (even by de Wette and Bleek), 
could not be expected by Luke to be discovered by anyreader. It is, more- 
over, superfluous ; for the present repast might of itself give sufficient occa- 
sion for the designation of the relation by means of dvaxeiz. and didxov., and 
Jesus was in the highest sense of self-surrender actually the didxovoc of His 
disciples, as this found its indelible expression just at this time in the dis- 
tribution of the last supper. Comp. Matt. xx. 28. — év péoy tuav] more sig- 


1Comp. «vepyérny awoypadqva, Herod. 2Comp. Matt. li. 6; Acts xv. 22; Heb. 
vill. 85; Thue. i. 129. 8; Xen. Rep. Ath. iii.  xff. 7, 17, 24; 8 Esdr. viil. 44; 1 Macc. ix. $0, 
11; Lys. pro Polystr. 19. Wndigec9ai ret evep- and elsewhere. 
yeoiavy, Dem. 475. 10; Wolf, Lent. p. 282: 3 Dem. 654. 22; Soph. Phi. 886; Polyb. 1 
Meler, de proxenia, Hal. 1843, p. 10,15; Her- 15. 4, 81. 1, fil. 4.6; Herodian, vii. 1. 22; La- 
mann, Staatsailterth. § 116. 6. clan, Alex. 44; Diod. Sic. 1. 72. 





CHAP, XXII, 31-34. 545 


nificant (in the midst of you) than év tuiv ; He did not separate Himself from 
them as one more distinguished than they. — Ver. 28. tweic dé «.7.A.] in order 
now, after this humiliation of His disciples’ desire of precedence, to induce 
them to seck their true exaltation, to wit, by means of the assurance of their 
future dominion and honor in the kingdom of the Messiah, He proceeds in 
such a way as to contrast with Zis relation to them (éya dé év péow tuay, ver. 
27) their relation to Him (ieic d? . . . per’ éuov), as the recompense of which 
He then assures to them the Messianic glory : But ye are they who have con- 
tinued with mein my temptations, etc. Erasmus aptly paraphrases the zre:pa- 
cuove : ‘‘quibus pater coelestis voluit: exploratam ac spectatam esse meam 
obedientiam,” ‘‘ with which the Heavenly Father willed that my obedience 
should be established and proved.” These were the many injuries, perse- 
cutions, snares, perils of life, etc. (comp. Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15), for the bitter 
experience of which neither recpacude nor d:avévecy are expressions too strong 
(in opposition to de Wette) ; the former in respect of its relative idea being 
not too strong, nor the latter, if we consider the contrast of the Messianic 
anticipations of the time. — Ver. 29. «ayé] and J, on my part, as a recom- 
pense for it. — dcariBexat] I ordain for you (herewith) dominion, as my Father 
(in His counsel known to me) has ordained forme dominion—both in the king- 
_ dom of the Messiah. #ao:A. belongs to both verbs, not merely as a parenthesis, 
s0 that iva «.7.A. contains the object of d:arifepac iu. (Ewald, Bleek, and 
others), since ver. 30 contains the idea of the ovuBaoieterv. — diazif. is not said 
of testamentary appointment,’ since the same meaning could not be retained 
in the second member, but in gencral dispono, [ordain for you.*? On the idea, 
comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12. — Ver. 30. iva] purpose of this assignment of dominion. 
— éxir.tpar. u.] at the table takes place the eating and drinking. Comp. 
ver. 21. This is said not merely of the Messianic Passover (vv. 16, 18), but 
of the Messianic table fellowship in general. Comp. xiii. 29 ; Matt. viii. 
11. — According to the reading «xaficeofe (see the critical remarks), the con- 
struction of the ira does not run on, but the saying is promissory: and ye 
shall sit, etc., whereby this highest point comes forward more emphatically 
than if the future were made dependent on iva (as is done by Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 202 [E. T. 234]). —éri Opdvuv] dddexa is not added, as in Matt. 
xix. 28, on account of Judas. Christ is the divine Lord-superior of the 
BaorAcia till the consummation of all things (1 Cor. xv. 28), and gives to His 
disciples a share therein. 

Vv. 31-34. The conversation with Peter concerning his denial is found 
in John also at the supper, while Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, 
place it on the way to Gethsemane. But how possible it is that the momen- 
tous word, which had already been spoken at the supper, was returned to 
again on the journey by night ! so that in this way both narratives are cor- 
rect in regard to the point of time. [See Note CLX., p. 556.] The words 
addressed to Peter in ver. 31 f. are peculiar to Luke, and are so character- 
istic in substance and in form, that they seem to be original, and not the 


1 Er. Schmid, Alberti, Krebs; sco Plat. 32 Chron. vil. 18; Gen. xv. 18; 1 Maco. 1. 
Leg. ii. p. 922 B, E, 923 C; Dem. 1067.1; 11; Xen. Cyr. v. 2.9, and elsewhere. . 
Joseph. Anté. xfil. 16.1; Arist. Po. il. 0. 


35 


Cd 


546 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

offspring of tradition. The words ele dé 6 «ipso (which, nevertheless, are 
not found in B LT, Copt. Sahid., and are hence suspicious [see critical 
note], and deleted by Tischendorf), if they are genuine, separate what fol- 
lows from what precedes as a special opening of a discourse the occasion of 
which Luke does not state, and probably, moreover, could not, and hence 
the question at issue cannot be decided. — Xipnwv, Sine] urgently warning, 
as x. 41; Acts ix. 4.— é£yrfoaro tua] he has demanded you (thee and thy 
fcllow-disciples) for himself, longed for you into his power, sibi tendendos 
postulavit ; namely, from God, as he once did in the case of Job (Job i.).' 
The compound é£yr. refers to the contemplated. surrender out of God’s power 
and protection.*. Moreover, the meaning is not to be reduced to a mere 
“imminent vobis tentationes,” ‘‘ temptations are imminent for you” (Kuinoel), 
but the actual will of the devil (6 yap dtdBodog mrodic éréxetto Cnteiv buag éexBadreiv 
rig éune otopyi¢ Kai mpodérag amodet£ar, ‘‘ for the devil greatly presses in seek- 
ing to cast you out of my love and to prove you traitors,”’ Theophylact), 
which is known to Jesus, is by Him declared, and only the form of the 
expression by means of ‘fyr#earo is, in allusion to the history of Job, 
figurative, so that the meaning is : The devil wishes to have you in his 
power, as he once upon a time asked to have Job in his power. — rod oevdeaz] 
so far as the ancient Greek writers are concerned, the verb omdZw? is 
not to be found; but according to Photius, p. 512, 22, Hesychius, 
Suidas, and the Greek Fathers,‘ the meaning is without doubt : in order to 
sift you (KooKxveberv); civiov yap mapa tice Kadeirat TO rap’ Huiv Kdoxvov, ev @ é 
aitog tHde Kaxeioe peragepduevoc tapdocera, ‘‘for among some that is called 
civov, which is with us a sieve, into which the wheat is transferred and there 
shaken,’? Euthymius Zigabenus. The point of comparison is the rapdcceww 
which puts to the test. As the wheat in the sieve is shaken backwards and 
forwards, and thus the refuse separates itself from the grains, and falls out ; 
s0 Satan wishes to trouble you and toss you about (by vexations, terrors, 
dangers, afflictions), in order to bring your faithfulness to me to decay. — 
Ver. 32. éya dé] spoken in the consciousness of the greater power which He 
by His prayer has in opposition to the demand of Satan. ‘‘ Ostenderat peri- 
culum, ostendit remedium,” ‘‘ He has shown the peril, He shows the 
remedy,” Maldonatus. — rep? cot] Comp. previously tya¢ ; ‘‘ totus sane hic 
sermo Domini praesupponit, Petrum esse primum apostolorum, quo stante 
aut cadente ceteri aut minus aut magis periclitarentur,” ‘‘this entire dis- 
course of the Lord truly presupposes, that Peter is first of the Apostles, by 
whose standing or falling the others would be more or less put to the test,” 
Bengel. Jesus here means a more special intercession than in John xvii. 15. 
—iva pi éxreixg x.t.A.] that thy faith in me cease not, that thou mayest not 
be unfaithful, and fallaway from me. Jesus knows this prayer is heard, in 


1A similar allusion to the history of Job 
may be found in the Test. XII. Patr. 
Pp. 729: dav ra wvevuara rou Bedrdp eis wacay 
sovnpiay GrAipews efacrjcwrvras vas. Comp. 
Const. Apost. vi. 5. 4. 

2 Comp. Herod. j. 74: ot yap... éfedi8ov 
Tous ScvGas éfacréovre Kvafdpei ; Plat. Menez. 


p. 245 B ; Polyb. iv. 66. 9, xxx. 8. 6. 

* Ignatius, Smyrn. Interpol. 7, has ovria- 
odnvat, plainly in reference to the passage 
before us. 

4See Suicer, 7hes. II. p. 961 f.; van Hen- 
gel, Annof. p. 81 f. 


CHAP. XXII., 35-38. 547 


spite of the temporary unfaithfulness of the denial, the approaching occur- 
rence of which He likewise knows. ‘‘ Defecit in Petro 9 évépyeta rH¢ riorews 
ad tempus,” ‘‘ There was lacking in Peter ‘ the inworking of faith’ for the oc- 
casion,” Grotius. Therefore He goes on : and thou at a future time (xai of, 
opposed to the éya dé), when thou shalt be converted (without figure : restpueris, 
petavojcac, Theophylact), strengthen thy brethren (thy fellow-disciples) ; be 
their support, which maintains and strengthens them, when they become 
wavering in their faith. Even here we have the dignity and duty of the 
primate, which was not to cease through the momentary fall. For the idea 
of ornpifev, see especially Acts xiv. 22." According to Bede, Maldonatus, 
Grotius, Bengel, van Hengel, Annot. p. 1 ff., Ewald, and others, ériorp. is a 
Hebraism (13%) : rureus, vicissim, so that the meaning would be : what I 
have done to thee, do thou in turn to thy brethren. This is contrary to the 
usus loguendi of the New Testament (even Acts vii. 42, xv. 86). But it is 
inconsistent with the context when Wetstein takes émorp. actively: ‘‘ con- 
vertens fratres tuos,” ‘‘ converting thy brethren,” since Jesus has the fall of 
Peter (ver. 34) in His view. — Ver. 88 f. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 82-35 ; 
Mark xiv. 20-31. The émorpéwac provoked the self-confidence of the apostle. 
— pera cov] stands with passionate emphasis at the beginning ; éx-roAAge 
ayénn¢e Opactverat Kai brioxveira Ta Tkag avtg adivara, ‘‘ from much love he is 
emboldened and promises what was meanwhile impossible for him,” Theo- 
phylact. —Tlérpe] not Xivov this time. The significant ‘name in contra- 
diction with the conduct. — y4] after arapv., as xx. 27. 

Vv. 35-38. Peculiar to Luke, from tradition or from some other unknown 
source. But the utterance itself is in respect of its contents so remarkably 
significant, that we are bound to hold by its originality, and not to say that 
it was introduced into this place for the sake of explaining the subsequent 
stroke with the sword (Schleiermacher, Strauss, de Wette), or the reason 
why Judas is afterwards represented as appearing with armed men (Holtz-. 
mann). [See Note CLXI., p. 556 seq. |] —xa? elev atroic] A pause must be sup- 
posed as occurring before what follows, the connection of the thought being : 
not without reasor have I uttered words so momentous (vv. 81-84), for now 
your position, when I am no more with you, will be entirely different from: 
what it was formerly ; there comes for you the time of care for yourselves: 
and of contest | —ére aréorecdAa x.t.2.] ix. 8; comp. x. 4. — Ver. 86. obv] in. 
consequence of this acknowledgment. [But see critical note. ] — dpéru] not : 
‘*tollat, ut emat gladium,” ‘‘ let him take it that he may buy a sword” (Eras- 
mus, Beza, and others), but : lethim takeit up, in ordertobear it. Therepre- 
sentation of the thought now refers to the time when ye can no more be uncon- 
cerned about your maintenance, but must yourselves care for it in the world 
which for you is inhospitable. — xai 6 us) 2xuv] to wit, BadAdvriov nal rhpav. The 
contrast allows nothing else. [See Note CLXI., p. 556 seq.] Hence uézapay 
is erroneously suggested as implied (Beza, Jansen, Paulus, Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius, Lange, Ewald, Bleek, and others), and equally erroneously is the general 
reference suggested ; he who is without means (Kuinoel, Olshausen, Schegg). 


1 On the form orjpoor, see Winer, p. & (KE. T. 89). 


548 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
Jesus means to say, how far more necessary still than purse and scrip, nay, even 
more necessary than the upper garment, should now be tothem a sword, for de- 
fence and protection against hostile attacks. But observe in this connection 
(1) that He wishes for the purchase of the sword, not by those merely who have 
no purse and knapsack, but, on the contrary, whilst He requires it of these, yea, 
requires it with the sacrifice of the cloak, othcrwise so needful, yet He regards 
it as asclf-evident duty on the part of those who have the means for the 
purchase. The form of His utterance is a parallclism, in which the second 
member supplements and throws a new light upon the first. (2) Neverthe- 
less Jesus does not desire that His disciples should actually carry and use 
the sword (Matt. xxvi. 52), but He speaks in such a manner as jiguratirely 
to represent in what a hostile relation they should henceforth find the world 
arrayed against them, and what resistance and struggle on their part would 
now be necessary in their apostolic missionary journeys. That the discourse 
is in reference to these is clearly proved by Badddvr. and rfpav, in opposition 
to Olshausen, who perversely allegorizes the whole passage, so that BaAAdvr. 
‘and rfp. are taken to signify the means for the spiritual life, and udy. the 
sword of the Spirit, Eph. vi. 17 (comp. also Erasmus). — Ver. 37. A con- 
firmation of the a2Aa viv x.r.A. For since, moreover, that (‘‘etinamnum hoc 
extremum post tot alia,” ‘‘yet this at last after so many others,” Bengel) 
must still be fulfilled on me which is written in Isa, liii. 12 ; so ye, as my 
disciples, cannot expect for yourselves anything better than what I have 
announced to you, ver. 86. The cogency of the proof follows from the pre- 
supposition that the disciple is not above his master (Matt. x. 24 f.; John 
xv. 20). Onthe dei of the divine counsel, comp. Matt. xxvi. 54 (Acts ii. 
23), and observe how inconsistent therewith it is to regard the passion of 
Jesus as a fortuitous occurrence (Hofmann), —xai peta av. tdoy.] Kai, and, 
adopted together with the rest as a constituent part of the passage quoted. 
The completion (the Messianic fulfilment, xviii. 31) of the prophecy began 
with the arrest (ver. 52), and comprehended the whole subsequent treat- 
ment until the death. —xai yap rad mepi iuov réA. Exe] for, moreover, that 
which concerneth me has come to an end ; 7.e., for, moreover, with my destiny, 
as with the destiny of him of whom Isaiah speaks, there 1s anend. Observe 
that Jesus did not previously say roei¢ tud yeypaupévov x.t.A. or the like, but 73 
yeyp. det reAeof, év éuoi, 80 that He does not erplain the passage immediately of 
' Himself (Olshausen), but asserts that it must be fulfilled in Him, in respect of 
which itis plain from xai yép «.r.2. that He conceived of another as the subject 
of the first historical meaning of the passage (whom ? is another question, 
comp. Acts viii. 34), of whom He was the antitype, so that in Him is found the 
antitypal historical fulfilment of that which is predicted in reference to the 
servant of God.! Most commentators (Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, Beza, 
Calvin, Bengel, and many others, including Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, 
Bleek) read : for, moreover, that which is written of me, like other prophecies, 
is about to be accomplished, as though yeypaupéva formed part of the sentence, 


1On ra wepi éuov, seo Kiibner, II. p. 119; pp. 892C:; Dem. 982. 4, and the examples from 
on téAos éxet, Mark fil, 26; Plat. Pol. li | Xenophon in Sturz, IV. p. 275. 


CHAP. XXII., 39-46. 549 
as at xxiv. 44, or flowed from the context, as at xxiv. 27. Comp. Fritzsche, 
ad Rom. Il. p. 380. But what a nugatory argument ! and what is the mean- 
ing of the xai (which certainly most of them leave wholly unnoticed), since, 
indeed, it is just the Messianic prophecies which constitute the main sub- 
stance of prophecy, and do not come in merely by the way ?— Ver. 38. The 
disciples, not understanding the utterance about the sword, imagined that 
Christ required them to have swords actually ' ready for defence from im- 
pending violence. Peter had one of the two swords (ver. 50). They may 
have been worn on the last journey, or even on account of the risk of these 
days they may have been first procured with a view to circumstances that 
might occur. Butcher's knives (from the cutting up of the lamb, as supposed 
by Euthymius Zigabenus, following Chrysostom) they could not be, accord- 
ing to ver. 36, although the word, so early as the time of Homer (Déderlein, 
Glossar. I. p. 201 f.), but never in the New Testament, has this significa- 
tion. — ixavéy éorc] a gentle turning aside of further discussion, with a touch 
of sorrowful irony : i¢ 7s enough! More than your two swords ye need not ! 
Comp. Castalio on the passage. The disciples, carrying out this idea, 
must have at once concluded that Jesus had still probably meant something 
else than an actual purchase of swords, ver. 86.° The significance of the an- 
swer so conceived gives to this view the preference over the explanation of 
others (Theophylact, Calovius, Jansen, Wolf, Bisping, Kuinoel) : enough of 
this matter / Compare the Rabbinical ]" in Schocttgen, p. 314 ff. Ols- 
hausen and de Wette combine the two, saying that Jesus spoke in a two- 
fold sense; comp. Bleck. Without sufficient reason, since the setting aside 
of the subject is found also in our view.—Boniface vu. proves from the 
passage before us the double sword of the papal sovereignty, the spiritual 
and temporal jurisdiction |! ‘‘ Proteroum ludibrium,” ‘‘ Wanton mockery ” 
(Calvin). 

Vv. 39-46. See on Matt. xxvi. 36-46 ; Mark xiv, 32-42. The originality 
is on the side of Matthew and Mark. Luke by condensing disturbs the 
clearness of the single narrative, and mixes up with it legendary elements. 
— Ver. 40. éx? rot rérov] at the place whither He wished to go,—had arrived 
at the spot.* — mpocstyeofe, x.r.A.] which Matt. xxvi. 41 and Mark xiv. 88 do 
not insert till later. Luke abbreviates, but to the prejudice of the appro- 
priateness of the narrative. He is not to be supposed capable of having 
confounded the prayer of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 86) with that of the disciples 
(de Wette).— 41. airéc] He on His part, in contrast with the disciples. — 
amveordo0y| Aculsus est, Vulgate ; Le was drawn away from them, not invol- 
untarily, but perchance in the urgency of His emotion, which forced Him to 
be alone, so that He, as it were, was forcibly separated from His disciples, 


t Sohlefermacher even has forced this mis- 
understanding (L. J. p. 417 f.) to a ground- 
less combination; namely, that Jesus 
wished the swords for the case of an unof- 
Jcial assault. 

* Comp. Luther's gloss : “ It isof no more 
avail to fight with the bodily sword, but 
henceforth it is of avail to suffer fur the 


sake of the gospel, and to bear the cross; 
for the devil cannot be fought against with 
steel, therefore there is need to venture all 
on that, and only to take the spiritual 
sword, the word of God.” 

7 On yiverSar in the sense of come, see 
Nagelsbach, Ans. 2. llias, ed. 3, p. 295. 


550 THE GUSPEL OF LUKE. 

with whom He otherwise would have remained.' It might indeed also 
mean simply : secessit (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and many others); comp. 
2 Macc. xii. 10, 17; Ken. Anabd. ii. 2. 12; but the above view explains the 
choice of the word, which is not elsewhere used in the New Testament for 
the frequent idea, ‘‘ He withdrew Himself.” — dcei Aiov Boagy] a distance of 
about a stone’s throw, therefore not so far that He could not be heard by the 
disciples in the still night.?— Ver. 42. ei BobAe: wapeveyxeivy x.t.2.] if Thor 
art willing to bear aside (Mark xiv. 86) this eup from me.— The apodosis 
(xapéveyxe) is in the urgency of the mental excitement suppressed by the fol- 
lowing thought (comp. xix. 41). The momentary longing after deliverance 
yields immediately to unconditional submission.* — #éAjzua] not Bovag or 
BobaAnua, which would not have been appropriate to nov. Comp. on Matt. 1. 
19 ; Eph. i. 11.— Ver. 48. The appearance of the angel, understood by Luke 
historically and externally (gy az’ ovpavowv), is by Olshausen (see, in answer 
to him, Dettinger in the Tib. Zeitechr. 1838, p. 46 f.) erroneously taken as 
an internal phenomenon (but see i. 11, xxiv. 84; Acts ii. 3, vil. 2, 30, ix. 
17, xvi. 9, xxvi. 16), and interpreted as signifying an ‘‘influx of spiritual 
powers,” But of the strengthening itself is not tobe made a bodily invigora- 
tion, as at Acts ix. 19 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 891 ; Schegg), but it is 
to be left as an enhancement of spiritual powers,‘ as, according to the just 
narrated prayerful disposition, the context suggests. His submission to the 
Father’s will, just expressed in the prayer, was the subjective condition of 
this strengthening, and on this submission being manifested the strengthen- 
ing was objectively effected by the angel. Thus the narrative of Luke ; 
but the circumstance that neither Matthew (John does not give the narra- 
tive of the agony at all) nor Mark relates this singular and remarkable 
angelic strengthening, although the latter would have had the testimony of 
Peter on his side, authorizes all the more the view of a legendary origination 
of the narrative,* the nearer the decisive resolve of Jesus (whether regarded 
in itself, or as compared with the history of the temptation and such expres- 
sions as Johni. 52) approached to such an increase of strength, which 
decisive resolve, however, in the tradition took the shape of an external 
fact perceived by the senses. [See Note CLXII., p. 557.] Dettinger, Z.c. > 
Ebrard, p. 528 ; Olshausen, Schegg ; Lange also, Z. J. Il. 8, p. 1430, and 
others, adduce insufficient grounds in favor of the historical view. The 
older dogmatic devices to explain the manner in which this strengthening 
came about, wherein orthodoxy comforted itself with the doctrine of the 
xévwors, May be seen in Calovius, — Ver. 44. Further particulars. Accord- 





1 Ancient scholiuam on Soph. Aj. 1008, 
anzoomay Td Biaiws xwpigey ra Kexod\Anpéva, 
Comp. Acts xxi. 1, and the passages in 
Kypke, also Pfhlugk, ad Eur. Hec, 225. 

2 On the expression, comp. 77. xxiii. 529; 
Thue. v. 65.1; LXX. Gen. xxi. 16. On the 
accusative of measure, see Kfihner, § 556. 

§ See Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 600]; Buttmann, 
p. 339 [E. T. 896]. 

4 Theodore of Mopsuestia (ed. Fritzsche, 


Pp. 16) says: SecdAeg Tov Pdvaroy xara Gvoww av 
Opwmwy kai evxerat Kai emoxverat Ved ayydAov, 
** He fears death according to the nature of 
men and prays, and is strengthened by an 


angel."’ 
5Gabler in Theolog. Journ. I. pp. 109 ff., 
217 ff.; Schlelermacher, Strauss, Hase, 


Theile, Holtzmann, comp. Bleek, Schenkel, 
and others. 


CHAP. XXII., 47-53. 551 


ing to Luke, the decisive resolve of Jesus : 73 civ yevéodw, was crowned with 
the strengthening angelic appearance ; and thus decided and equipped for 
resistance, He now endured (comp. Heb. v. 7 f., and thereupon Liinemann 
and Delitzsch) the agony (aywvia, Dem. 236.19 ; Polyb. viii. 21. 2 ; 2 Macc. 
ili. 14, xv. 19), which was now beginning, fervently praying (as before the 
appearance), which agony increased even to the bloody sweat. Luke has 
conceived the strengthening influence as increasing as the agony increased. 
The sweat of Jesus (in the height of the agony) was like to drops of blood fall- 
ing down, This is referred by Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, 
Calixtus, Hammond, Michaelis, Valckenaer, and most of the later commen- 
tators, including Paulus, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Bleck, merely to the size and 
consistence of the drops of sweat.'' Thus ina naturalistic direction the point 
of comparison found in aiuarog is robbed of its characteristic importance, 
and Luke would have concluded his description, rising to a climax, with 
nothing but this : and Jesus fell into the most violent sweat ! No ! aiuaro¢ 
only receives its due in being referred to the nature of the sweat, and this 
nature is viewed as foreshadowing the coming bloodshedding. Hence also 
the strongly descriptive word 3pduGo is chosen ; for SpduBoc is not simply @ 
drop (crayév, orddaypa), but a clot of coagulated fluid (milk and the like), and 
is often used especially of coagulated blood.* Consequently that sweat of 
Jesus was indeed no mass of blood (opposed to which is doei), but a profu- 
sion of bloody sweat, which was mingled with portions of blood, and as it 
flowed down appeared as clots of blood trickling duwn to the ground.* 8o 
in substance most of the Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, 
and others, including Strauss, Ebrard, Schegg. s to the historical charac- 
ter of the matter, it would come under the same judgment as that of the 
angelic strengthening, were it independent of the analogies of sweat of 
blood elsewhere occurring.‘ — Ver. 45. amd rij¢ Abrne] by reason of the sorrow 
in which they were. An attempt to explain the strange sleep which had 
overmastered the whole band of disciples. Is it, however, sufficient ? 
Hardly in this case, where in the chilly night of spring (John xviii. 18) 
Jesus was so ncar, and was in a situation exciting the deepest interest and 
the most intense participation in the sympathy of His disciples. In itself 
there is justice in the observation that continuous deep grief relaxes into 
sleep.® Calvin suggests Satanic temptation as the cause first of this sleep, 
and then of the blow with the sword. 

Vv. 47-58, See on Matt. xxvi. 47-56, Mark xiv, 43-52, in both of which 


180 also Dettinger, 7.c.. and Hug, @Gu-  riation from the passage before us. For 
elachkt, II. p. 145. Comp. Lange, II. 3, @pdufos, even inthe classical writers, is used 


p. 1488. without aiuaros of @ coagulated mass of 
4 Aesch. Hum. 184; Choeph. 588, 545; Plat. Wood. See Blomfield. l.c. 
Crit. p. 120 A: SpéuBor évéBarAoy aiparos ; * Aristotle, J/, 4. ill. 19; Bartholinus, de 


Dioscor. 18: dpéufore aiuaros. See Jacobs, Cruce, pp. 184 ff., 198 ff.; Gruner, de J. C’. 
ad Anthol. VII. p. 870; Blomfteld, Gloes. morte rera, pp. 33 ff., 109 f.; Loenartz, de 
\ Choeph. 526. sudore sanguin., Bonn 1850. 
® Justin, c. Zy. 108, relates from the dwo- ®See examples in Pricaeus, ad Apuk). 
pynnovevnact Simply: Sri ispieg weet Spdufor Mefam. p. 600f., and Wetstein. 
xarexeito, Therein is found no essential va- 


552 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

the linking on of what follows by means of ér: aired Aad. is better suited to 
the sense. Luke in this part uses in general less original sources. — 6 Aeyéu. 
'Iotd.] who is called Judus. Comp. ver. 1; Matt. ii. 28, xxvi. 3, 14, xxvii. 
33, and clsewhere. — tig rav dédexa] as ver. 3.— mpofpxero avtoic] See on 
Mark vi. 33. — Ver. 48. ¢:7juat«] placed first for emphasis ; ¢itov govacne 
éxd pov Epyov tiv rpodociay pryvirerg; ‘* with the salutation of a friend dost thou 
join this betrayal, the deed of an enemy ?” Theophylact. That the kiss 
was concerted with the enemics (Mark xiv. 44) Luke leaves to be gathered 
only mediately from the words of Jesus. — Ver. 49.' ei xardgopev x.7.7.] 
whether we shall smite by meana of the scord? Comp. xiii. 23; Acts it 6, and 
elsewhere. Secon Matt. xii. 10 and on Luke xiii. 23. Grotius says rightly: 
‘‘Dubii inter id, quod natura dictabat, et saepe inculcata patientiae prae- 
cepta dominum quid faciendum sit rogant. At Petrus non expectato Domini 
responso ad vim vi arcendam accingitur,” ‘‘ Doubting between this which na- 
ture dictated, and the precepts of patience so often inculcated, they ask the 
Lord what should be done. But Peter, without awaiting the Lord’s answer, 
is prepared to hinder force by force.” — Ver. 50. ré defcév] as also John 
xviii. 10 has it. — Ver. 51. éare éwe rotrov] is a prohibitory summons to the 
disciples : sinite usque huc (Vulg.), which Augustine, de cons. ev. iii. 5, apt- 
ly explains : ‘‘ permittendi sunt hucusque progredi,” ‘‘ they were to be permit- 
ted to proceed thus far.” Let them go so far as even to take me prisoner !? 
Grotius, Bengel, Wetstcin, Kuinocl, Olshausen, Bleek [Weiss ed. Mey.]}, 
and others have explained : cease (comp. Acts v. 38 ; Hom. Jl. xxi. 221, 
al.) ! so far! (not farther ! comp. Lev. xxvi.18 ; Job xxxviii. 11). To this 
it stands opposed that herein is found no disapproval of the blow with the 
sword, but only the prohibition to go any further ; and, moreover, this not 
at all negatively expressed, as it would have most obviously occurred by 
means of some such expression a8 47) toppwrépw or the like.. Others take the 
words as an address to those who were taking Him prisoner, and thus rotrov 
cither as neuter and temporal : ‘‘ missum facite me usque ad id tempus, quo vul- 
nus illius hominis sanavero,”’ ‘‘ let me go until I shall have healed the wound 
of this man,"’® or roi:rov as neuter, indeed, but local: let me go thither where 
the wounded man is (Paulus), or rotrov as masculine: let me go to this man 
in order to heal him (Stolz, Baumgarten-Crusius). Against these views the 
objection is that the context in the word aroxp:Seic shows nothing else than 
a reply to the disciples, as Jesus does not turn to His enemies till ver. 52. — 
xal dpdy. «.7.A.] On account of dgeidev, ver. 50, this is to be referred to the 
place and the remains of the car that had been cut off ; and idcaro avrév to the heal- 
ing of the zround (not : replacing of the ear). With desperate arbitrariness 
Paulus says that He touched the wound in order to examine it, and told the 
man what he must.do to heal it! Luke alone records the healing; and it can 


1 Vv. 49-51,as also already at vv. 85--38, 
was objectionable to Marcion, and was 
omitted In his gospel. See Volkmar, p. 69 f. 
Hilgenfeld decides otherwise inthe Theol. 
Jahrb. 1858, p. 240 f., where he, indeed, like- 
wise concedes the genuineness, but suppos- 
es that the deletion may have happened in 


the Romish Church even defore Marcion. 

2 Comp. Luther, Maldonatus, and others; 
recently also Hofmann, Schriftdew. I. 2, 
p. 437, and Schegg. 

§ Bornemann, so also Hammond, Kypke, 
de Wette, Lange, II. 3, p. 1461, IIL. p. 512. 





CHAP. XXII., 54-62. 553 


the less be cleared of the suspicion of being a legendary accretion,’ like vv. 438, 
44, that even John, who narrates the blow with the sword so circumstan- 
tially, says nothing about it. [See Note CLXIIL., p. 557.] — Ver. 52. mpoc rove 
wapayevou. x.T.A.] These chief priests, etc., were therefore, according to Luke, 
associated with that dyA0¢, ver. 47. Inappropriate in itself, and in opposi- 
tion to the rest of the evangelists. An error on the part of tradition, prob- 
ably through confusion with John xviii. 20 f. Comp. on Matt xxvi. 47, 
55. Ebrard, p. 532, is in error when he says that Luke is speaking of those 
who had just then newly approached. So also Lange. Opposed to this is the 
aorist participle. — Ver. 58. GAA’ airy «.r.A.] informs us of the reason that 
they had not laid hands on Him sooner in spite of His daily association with 
them : But this (the present hour) 7s your (that which is ordained for you 
for the execution of your work, according to divine decree) hour, and (this, 
this power in which ye now are acting) the power of darkness, i.e., the power 
which is given to darkness (in the ethical sense, the power opposed to the 
divine aA73eca, opposed to gc). Observe the great emphasis on the ipzay by 
being placed so near the beginning of the clause. The expression rot oxérovc, 
not r7¢ duapriac (So Kuinoel and Olshausen explain it), not rov dia3dAov (80 
Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, and 
others), is chosen in reference to the actual night, which it was at this time ; 
but it is not the actual darkness of night that is meant (‘‘ only the darkness 
gives you courage and power to lay hold of me,” de Wette [Weiss ed. Mey. ], 
comp. Neander, Bleek, and older commentators), for this quite common- 
place thought would declare nothing on the destiny of that hour and power. 

Vv. 54-62. Sce on Matt. xxvi. 57 f., 60-75 ; Mark xiv. 53 f., 66-72. 
Jesus is led into the house of the high priest, in the court of which (vv. 61, 
63), according to Luke, who follows a diverging tradition, He is kept and 
subjected to mockery till daybreak (ver. 66), when the Sanhedrim comes 
together. According to Matthew and Mark, the Sanhedrim assemble imme- 
diately after the arrival of Jesus, and examine Him. The two narratives 
cannot be reconciled, but the preference is to be given to Luke in so far as 
he agrees with John. [See Note CLXIV., p. 557.] See below on rob dpxeep. 
Moreover, Luke is not self-contradictory (in opposition to Strauss), as the chief 
priests and elders mentioned at ver. 52 ure to be regarded only as individ- 
uals, and probably as deputed by the Sanhedrim. — rod apyep.] As Luke 
did not regard Caiaphas (the general opinion), but Annas, as the officiating 
high priest (see on iii. 2 and Acts iv. 6), the latter is to be understood in 
’ this place. Comp. Bleek, Beitr. p. 39 ff., and Holtzmann. [But sce Note 
XXXIV., p. 302 seq.] Luke, indeed, thus falls into a new variation from 
Matthew, but partially comes into harmony with John so far, that is, as the 
latter likewise represents Jesus as brought at first to Annas, and so far also 
as in Luke and in John the denials occurin the court of Annas. But of a 
trial before Annas (John xviii. 19 ff.) Luke has nothing, yet it finds 
its historical place naturally enough immediately after cic rav oixov tev 
apxup., when the prisoner, as may be supposed, was announced. Wiescler 


1 Comp. Strauss, I. p. 461: Baumgarten-Crusius, Holtzmann, and others. 


554 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


also, Synopse, p. 405, comes to the result that Luke xxii. 54-65 belongs to 
what occurred in the house of Annas, but comes to it in another way. 
Comp. on iii. 2. — Ver. 55. mepiaydvrwr] (see the critical remarks) after they 
had kindled around (Phalaris, Ep. p. 28), i.¢e., had set it in full blaze. The 
insertion of airéy was not needful, Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 17. — Ver. 
56. arevicaca] after she had looked keenly upon him, iv. 20, and very often in 
the Acts of the Apostles. See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 259. — Ver. 58. 
érepoc] A variation from Matthew and Mark. For Luke does not think of a 
maid ; rather he distinguishes the interrogator here as masculine, by érepus 
and dv3pwre, from the female questioner of ver. 56 f.; hence Ebrard (comp. 
Wetstein) is wrong in contenting himself with the indefinite sense, ‘‘ some- 
body else.” — Ver. 59. dAdo¢g ric] several, according to Matthew and Mark. 
As to the variations of the four Gospels in the account of the denials, see in 
general on Matt. xxvi. 75, Remark. — Ver. 61. According to Luke, there- 
fore, Jesus is still also in the court, and, down to ver. 66, is kept there in 
custody (ver. 63). Certainly it is psychologically extremely improbable 
that Petcr should have perpetrated the denials in the presence of Jesus, 
which, moreover, is contrary to the other Gospels. But a reconciliation of 
them with Luke is impossible ; and, moreover, the assumption that Jesus 
looked upon Peter as He was led from Annas to Caiaphas and passed close 
by the disciple in the court (John xviii. 24, so Olshausen, Schweizer, 
Ebrard), is inadmissible, as, according to John, it is already the second de- 
nial that occurs about the same time as this leading away of Jesus, but ac- 
cording to Luke, ver. 59, there is an interval of about an hour between the 
second and third denial. [See Note CLXV., p. 557.]— évéSiepe] What a 
holy power is in this silent glance, according to the narrative of Luke ! 

Vv. 63-65. See on Matt. xxvi. 67 f.; Mark xiv. 65. [See Note CLXVI., 
p. 557 seq.] Luke follows an entirely different tradition—different in respect 
of the time, the place, and the persons who were engaged in the mockery. 
The same characteristic ill-treatment (smiting—demand for prophecy), the 
original connection of which is in Matthew and Mark (in opposition to 
Schlciermacher), had arranged itself variously in tradition. Against the 
supposition of many times repeated mockery must be reckoned the identity 
and peculiarity of its essential element (in opposition to Ebrard and others). 
— déperv and aie are distinguished as to scourge (Jacobs, Del. Epigr. vi. 
63) and fo smite in general. 

Vv. 66, 67. [See Note CLXVIL., p. 558.] According to Luke, the Sanhedrim 
now first comes together after daybreak, and Jesus is led infor trial. Where 
it assembled Luke does not say, and there is nothing therefore opposed to 
our finding in this place the leading away from the court of Annas (see on 
ver. 54) into the house of Caiaphas (John xviii. 24). The trial itself, as to 
its matter, is plainly the same which Matthew—although immediately after 
the bringing in of Jesus—makes to be held in the house of Caiaphas. See 
Matt. xxvi. 59 ff Luke relates the matter and proceedings in amerely 
summary and imperfect manner. —ré xpeo,3uréprov x.t.A.] the elders of the 
people, (the) chief priests, and scribes. These are the three constitutent ele- 
ments of the Sanhedrim. Comp. ix. 22, xx. 1. On xpeofvurépiov, denoting 


NOTES. | BBB 


the elders as a corporation, comp. Acts xxii. 5. By the non-repetition of 
the article the three parts are bound into a unity, in respect of which the 
difference of the gender and number is no difficulty,’ especially in respect 
of the collective nature of xpecBurépwov. See in general, Kriiger, § 58. 2. 1; 
Winer, p. 115 f. [E. T. 126 f.]. —avyyayov] The subject is the assembled 
members of the Sanhedrim who had caused Him to be brought up. ava in- 
dicates a locality situated higher, as contrasted with the court of Annas, in 
which locality the Sanhedrim were met. [But see critical note. ]— ei¢ rd 
ouvédp. éavtdv] into their own concessus, into their own council gathering, in 
order now themselves to proceed further with Him." [See critical note. ]— 
Ver. 67. ei od «.7.A.] may mean: If thou art the Messiah, tell us (Vulgate, 
Luther, and most commentators), or: Tell us whether thou art the Messiah 
(Castalio, Bornemann, Ewald, and others), or: Js it the case that thou art 
the Messiah? TgJl us (Erasmus). The first is the simplest, and corresponds 
to the purpose of framing the question so as to elicit an affirmative 
answer. 

Vv. 68, 69. Matthew and Mark have not the evasive answer, ver. 68 ; and 
the explanation of Jesus : dd rov viv x.7.4., does not come in there till after 
the distinct affirmation. Their narrative has the advantage of internal prob- 
ability. Luke has worked up the material more catechetically. — édy d2 xa? 
Epur.] but in case [also (should not limit myself merely to the confession 
that I am He, but also) should ask, should put before you questions which are 
connected therewith, ye would certainly not answer (see the critical remarks). 
— ard tov viv dé] ‘‘Ad hoc puncto, quum dimittere non vultis. Hoc ipsum 
erat iter ad gloriam,” ‘‘ From this point, when you will not let me go. This 
very thing was the way to glory,” Bengel. On the position of dé, see Klotz, 
ad Devar. p. 878 f. Moreover, see on Matt. xxvi. 64 ; yet Luke has avoided 
the certainly original dyeo3e, and thus made the utterance less abrupt. 

Vv. 70, 71. '0 uldg r. Ocov] This designation of the Messiah is suggested 
by éx de&iay . . . cod, in recollection of Ps.cx.; for ‘‘ colligebant ex prac- 
dicato ver. 69,” ‘‘they concluded from the statement of ver. 69,” Bengel. 
And their conclusion was right. — dre éyé eius] bre, argumentatively [so 
R. V. marg. and Am. text], comp. John xviii. 87 ; éyé, with emphasis, cor- 
responding to the of of vv. 67 and 70. —aprvplac] that He gives Himself 
out to be the Messiah. 


Norrs py AMERICAN Eprror. 


CLV. Ver. 8. Wérpov xad "Iudvvqv. 


It is altogether unnecessary to suppose these names are inserted from “ later 
tradition,’? and impossible to discover any ‘‘special tendency.” As leaders 
of the Apostles and the most confidential friends of Jesus, it was natural that 
these two should be sent on this occasion (so Weiss ed. Mey.). 


1 Comp. Plato, Pol. vi. p. 601 D: rod dyres = phictyonic council, also of the Roman and 
ranai ddndeias epaords; Soph. Oed. C. 880: the Carthaginian Senate (Polyb. xl. 6. 6, 1. 
warpisa re Thy chy Kai didrovs. 11. 1, 81. §). 

3 Comp. the use of ovvéspor of the Am- 


556 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


CLVI. Ver. 14. Luke’s Account of the Lord’s Supper. 


In view of the great divergence from Mark in order and details, Weiss ed. 
Mey. regards Luke's account as derived from his peculiar ‘‘ source,” aside from 
the Pauline tradition (1 Cor. xi. 24, 25). He does not agree with Meyer in re- 
gard to the removal of what is contained in Matt. xxvi. 29 to an earlier place, 
but thinks ‘‘this improbable feature only arose through the linking of Mark 
xiv. 25 with the representation of his other source.” But since the passage 
does not assert, and by no means necessarily implies, that Jesus did not Him- 
self partake of this Passover cup (ver. 17) before the institution of the Supper, 
the improbability of which Meyer and Weiss speak furnishes an argument, not 
against Luke’s accuracy, but against their gratuitous implication. 


CLVIL. Ver. 19. rovro sroteire. 


Weiss ed. Mey., with over-refinement, infers from the absence of AdSere or 
gayere that rovro here cannot refer to the partaking of the bread, but only to 
the breaking and distribution, probably to the repetition of the words of insti- 
tution. : 

CLVIH. Vv. 19, 20. Zhe Form of Institution. 


It is impossible to reconcile Paul's statement with the theory that he made 
use of a written Gospel; there is no evidence that Luke copied his form from 
1 Cor. From these points Godet argues in favor of the originality of the gen- 
eral form given by Paul and Luke. See his Luke, p. 467, Am, ed. 


CLIX. Vv. 21-30. The Order of Events. 


Godet accepts the order of Luke, and places the incident narrated in vv. 21- 
30 after the Supper. This, however, is not only contrary to the order of Matthew 
and Mark, but unlikely for other reasons. The mention of the traitor (vv. 
21-23) is most naturally placed at the beginning of the institution, and the 
‘‘contention’’ (vv. 24-30) can scarcely be placed after the washing of the dis- 
ciples’ feet, which preceded the announcement of the betrayal. Hence the 
chronological order would be: vv. 24-30 (followed by John xiii. 2-20) ; vv. 
21-23, vv. 19, 20. So Meyer, apparently. Weiss ed. Mey. regards vv. 24-30 as 
the strife about rank from the oldest source, which occurred in Galilee (chap. 
ix. 46), transferred by Luke to this place. But this is very improbable. It is 
difficult to account for the obvious displacement on any theory. That this 
dispute might have occasioned the foot-washing is very probable, even though 
Luke gives no hint of the latter. 


CLX. Vv. 31-34. The Prediction of Peter's Denial. 


It is quite probable, especially in view of John xiii. 36-38, that the denial of 
Peter was twice predicted, both in the room and onthe way to Gethsemane. 
Weiss ed. Mey. thinks there is no ground for accepting a repetition, though 
he does not make evident which position he deems more correct. 


CLXI, Ver. 36. 6 uy Eywv x.7.A. 


The R. V. renders this in accordance with Meyer’s view, but in the margin 
has: ‘Or, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one,’’ 


NOTES. 557 


This marginal rendering is based on the following improbable punctuation : 
Exywv, twdgaéta 7d iudtiey avtov Kal ayopyodru, uayatpav (see Scrivener’s Greek 
Test., with variations of Rev. Vers., Cambridge, 1881). As regards the entire 
paragraph, Weiss ed. Mey. thinks its basis is from the oldest source, but would 
not exclude the suggestions of Schleiermacher and Holtzmann, which Meyer 
rejects. 


CLXAII. Vv. 43, 44. 


Meyer rightly accounts for the omission of vv. 43, 44 in some manuscripts as 
‘the work of the orthodox, to whom their contents appeared objectionable in 
respect of the divinity of Christ.’’ But this is an argument against his as- 
sumption of the ‘‘ legendary ’’ character of a part of the contents. Tradition 
does not invent incidents that show weakness in a hero (so Godet). Weiss ed. 
Mey. apparently disapproves of this suggestion of Meyer, as well as of the 
notion that in ver. 45 the sleep of the disciples is not sufficiently accounted 
for. 


CLXIII, Ver. 51. xat dwapevog x.7.A, 


Meyer regards the naturalistic explanation of Paulus as involving ‘* desperate 
arbitrariness,’’ but relegates this incident to the region of legend, because 
Luke alone records it. Yet the silence of John proves nothing against it; and 
the act is in every respect a probable one, especially since the disciples were 
left unassniled. The objection to the mention of ‘the chief priests’’ in ver. 
52 is equally groundless. It is quite probable that some of them followed the 
band that took Jesus. 


CLXIV. Vv. 54-62. The Denial of Peter and the Trial. 


Against Meyer's view of the discrepancy between Luke and the other Synop- 
tista, which even Weiss ed. Mey. disapproves, see Mark, Note XCIIL., p. 184 seq., 
and Godet, Luke, pp. 479-481, Am. ed. The assumption of Meyer in regard to 
Luke's regarding Annas as officiating high-priest (see Note XXXIV., p. 302 Beq.) 
creates the variation from Matthew of which he speaks. 


CLXV. Ver. 61. xa? orpagede 5 xbpiog x.7.2. 


Weiss ed. Mey. finds no contradiction to John in the view that Jesus looked 
upon Peter as He was led from Annas to Caiaphas, but sees no indication of it 
here. He omits Meyer's remark about the impossibility of reconciling the 
other accounts with that of Luke. The Evangelist does not say that Jesus 
remained in the court, and the view that Annas and Cainphas lived in the same 
house, that Jesus was led through the court from o hearing before one to the 
more formal examination before the other, accounts for all the statements 
-made by fonr independent witnesses. Tho variations of the Evangelists 
here seem conclusive against every theory of interdependence. 


CLXVI. Vv. 63-65. The Mockery of Jesus. 


Probably this continued for some time, and hence the variation in position 
found in the accounts. That it was repeated on distinct occasions is unlikely. 
But the peculiar taunt (ver. 64, comp. Matthew and Mark) suggests that an 


558 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


examination preceded which gave the cue to the attendants. The identity of 
the mockery therefore involves a repetition of the trial; see Note CLX VIL. 
Weiss consistently opposes the notion that Luke represents the court of Annas 
as the scene of vv. 54-65. 


CLXVII. Vv. 66-71. The Trial of Jesus. 


Meyer identifies these verses with Matt. xxvi. 57-66 ; Mark xiv. 53-64. But 
both of the latter indicate that the Sanhedrim reassembled in the morning 
(Matt. xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1), which is quite likely, since the night examination 
was not strictly legal. Weiss ed. Mey. finds in Luke's account of the trial so 
much that is his own as to suggest the use of his ‘‘ peculiar source.” See the 
dialogue in vv. 68, 69, where Meyer thinks ‘‘ Luke has worked up the mate- 
rial more catechetically.”” ‘The answer of ver. 68 (peculiar to Luke) seems 
rather to suggest that the case had already been decided at the night session, 
hence it was needless to say anything more. The correct reading in ver. 66 
(arfyayov, ‘‘ was led away’’) disposes of Meyer's notion that Jesus was led up 
to a higher locality (avf#yayov). His interpretation of éavréy is superfluous. 
The word is obviously due to a transcriber’s error. See critical note on 
both points. 


CHAP, XXIII. 559 


CHAPTER XXIII. 


Ver. 1. Elz. has j7yayev. But 7yayov is decisively attested. — Ver. 2. After 
£Gvoc we find 7jzov in the more important authorities. So Lachm. and Tisch. 
As no reason occurred for adding it in the way of gloss, it has more probably 
been passed over as superfluous. — [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® BL, 
Vulg. Syrr., insert xa! before Aéyovra, and also in ver. 5 before apeduevoc, with the 
same authorities, except the Vulg.] — Ver. 6. TadcAaiay] is wantinginB LT ®&, 
Copt. Tisch. Passed over as superfluous and troublesome. [Rejected as a gloss 
by W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] — Ver. 8. && lxavod] éf lkavav ypdvev (B DLT &, 
Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]) and é& ixavov ypdvov (H M X, min. Vulg. 
It.) are expansions in the way of gloss, — 7oAAd is wanting in B DK L M [T 11] 
%, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition to make 
the statement more precise, which some cursives have after avrov. — Ver. 11. 
wepi8, avrév] avréu is wanting in B L T &, 52, Vulg. codd. of It. Bracketed by 
Lachm., deleted by Tisch. A superfluous exegetical addition, instead of which 
RSUTI, min, have airg. — (Ver. 12. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with X BL, 
Vulg., read ‘Hpdédy¢ xat 6 I.] — Ver. 16. avéreuwa yap iuac xp, airy] B K L 
M II &, min. vss. have avérepwev ydp airdv mpd¢ nuacg (B: tas). An alteration 
in accordance with ver. 11. [Tisch., W. and Hort., R. V. (Eng. text, Amer. 
marg.), follow & B, etc. ; Treg. text, Amer. Rev. text, retain Rec.] There are 
yet other attempts at improvement in the authorities. — After ver. 16 Elz. 
Scholz have (ver. 17) avdyxyy 62 elyev arodberv avroig xata éopriy Eva. This is 
wanting in A BK LT II, Copt. Sahid. Verc., and does not occur in D, Aeth. 
Syr.c? till after ver. 19. There are many variations also in the details. An old 
gloss. Condemned also by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm. and [omitted by] 
Tisch. [VIII.]. — Ver. 19. Instead of BeBAnu. cic r. ¢. Tisch. has BAnbetc bv 175 gv- 
Aaxg, in opposition to preponderating evidence ; and the aorist participle is not 
appropriate grammatically (comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 265 [E. T. 309 f.]). 
[Recent editors, R. V., accept the more difficult reading, with B L T.] — Ver. 
20. otvy] Lachm. and Tisch. have dé, on decisive evidence. —[W. and Hort, 
Weiss, R. V., with & BL, Copt., add airoic, after zpocepivycev.] — Ver, 21. Elz. 
Scholz have oratpwoov, ctatpwoov, But BD X&, Or. Eus. Cyr. have cravpov, orav- 
pov, which Griesbach approved (as perispomenon), Lachm. and Tisch. adopted 
(as paroxytone). The Recepta is from Mark xv. 13 f. ; John xix. 6, 15. — Ver. 
23. xai Tov apxiep.] bracketed by Lachm., condemned also by Rinck, deleted by 
Tisch. It is wanting in BL &, 130, al. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd. of It. [Ro- 
jected by W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] But for what purpose should it havo 
been added? It would be far easier to overlook it as superfluously straggling 
after airQN. — Ver. 24. 6 dé] Lachm. and Tisch. have xai, in accordance with 
BL &, 157, It. The Recepia is from Mark xv. 15, whence also, and from Matt. 
xxvii. 26, avroi¢ (ver. 25) came in, which Elz, reads after arfA. dé. — [Tisch., 
recent editors, R. V., with ®& B D, omit rf before gvAcx#y in ver. 25.] — Ver. 
26, Linevoc x.7.A.] Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have Zizurd rive 


560 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


Kupyvaiov epyouevov, on important evidence indeed [X B C DL, 33]; but the 
parallels suggested the accusative. Elz. has roi before zpy., in opposition to 
decisive evidence. — Ver. 27. ai xai] Lachm. has merely ai. Since the author- 
ities against xai are decisive (A B C* D L X, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. 
It. Theophyl.), it is to be deleted, and to be explained from ai having been 
written twice, or as an arbitrary addition, from the well-known usage in Luke. 
In 8 aixai is wanting. —Ver. 29. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 BC, in- 
sert al before korAiat.] — é042acav] B C* L 8, min. It. have é@peyav, to which, 
moreover, C** D approach with éfé@pevav, efpey. is to be adopted, with Lachm. 
and Tisch. The Recepfa is an interpretation. — [Ver. 33. Recent editors, R. V. 
(against Tisch.), read 7A8or, with 8 BC L, Vulg.] — Ver. 34. 6 dé "Inoot¢ . . . zotot~ 
ov] bracketed by Lachm. [W. and Hort, suspected by Weiss, omitted R. V. 
marg.] The words are wanting in B D* 8** 38, 435, Sahid. Cant. Ver. Verc. 
Variations in details. An ancient omission, according to the parallels, which have 
not this prayer. It bears, moreover, the stamp of originality in itself; it is 
also attested by Clem. Hom. xi. 20, and belongs to the peculiar features of the 
history of the passion which Luke has retained. — xAjpov] Tisch. has x/4porc, 
following A X, min. Syr.jer- Slav. Vulg. It. Aug. ; the singular [Rec., Treg. text, 
W. and Hort, R. V.] is from the parallel and Ps, xxii. 19. — Ver. 35. The «ai 
after dé is wanting in D &, min. Vulg. It. Eus. Lachm. Tisch. The subsequent 
ovy avroic is wanting in BC DL Q XBR, min. Syr. Pers.P Ar.P Erp. Copt. 
Aeth. Cant. Ver. Colb. Corb. Rd. Bracketed by Lachm. ; ovy avroic is to be 
deleted ; it was added in order, according to the parallels, to allow the mock- 
ing by the people also to take place ; xai, however, is to be maintained, partly 
on account of its preponderating attestation, partly because it suggested the 
addition of civ avroic, but appeared inappropriate without this addition. — Ver. 
36. xai] after xpooepyx. is, on preponderating evidence, with Tisch. (Lachm. has 
only bracketed it), to bedeleted. A connective addition. — Ver. 38. yeypaypévy] 
Since B L &, Copt. Sahid. have not this at all, while A D Q have ézryeyp. (so 
Lachm.), and C* X, min, have yeyp. after atv, the word is, with Tisch., to be 
deleted as an exegetical addition. —}jpdayuyaow .. . ‘Efp.jis wanting in B C* 
L, Copt. Sahid. Syr.c* Verc. Deleted by Tisch., by Lachm. only bracketed. It 
is a very ancient addition from John xix. 20. —otré¢ éortv] is wanting in C, 
Colb., and is found in others, sometimes with (D, 124, Cant. Corb.), sometimes 
without fariv (BL &, Verc.), not until after 'Iovdaiwy ; hence there is a strong 
suspicion of its being a supplemert. Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 
have 6 ;3accsei'¢ rT. Tovd. ot roc, although Lachm. brackets ovroc. — Ver. 39. ei ct 
el] Tisch. has ovyi ov el, according to B C* L ®&, vss. ; the Recepta is from ver. 
37, whence also the Aéyur, which precedes these words, and which is wanting in 
B L, has intruded. — [Ver. 40. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with® BCL, Copt., 
have éxiriyav arr@ éon.] — Ver. 42. xipee] is wanting in BC* DL M* 8, miu. 
Copt. Sahid. Syr.ier Cant. Vere. Or. (once). Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by 
Tisch. An addition, which Q, Corb. Brix. Syr.c* Hil. have before prjcf.! 
[W. and Hort text, R. V. marg., with B L, Vulg., have cic 77 Bac. o.] — Ver. 44. 
qv 6£} Lachm. Tisch. have xai 7 id¢7, in accordance with sufficient evidence. 
Both the insertion of dé and the omission of #7 were occasioned by the par- 
allels, — Ver. 45. xa? eoxor, 6 7A0¢] appeared unsuitable after ver. 44, and was 


1 Still in connection with this deletion Tisch., following BC* L&* Copt. Sahid.: 
of thexvpee isto be read previously with «ai éAcyer: Incov. [So recent editors, R. V.] 





CHAP. XXIII., 1-3. 561 


therefore in C**? 33 (not by Marcion, according to Epiphanius) omitted (which 
omission Griesb. commended), while others put in its place, as a gloss on what 
precedes, row 7Aiou éxAeimovroc (B) or éxdur. (C* L &, min. vss. Or. ; so Tisch.). 
[W. and Hort, R. V., follow B, but Weiss agrees with Tisch., who, with recent 
editors, R. V. (& BCL, 1, 33), reads éoylo@y dé, and in ver. 46 rovro dé instead 
of xa? ravra. |] —Ver. 46. wapabhooua:] raparifeva (commended by Griesb., adopted 
by Lachm. and Tisch.) is decisively attested. The Recepia is from LXX., Ps. 
xxxi. 5. —[Ver. 47. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read édéfacev, with 8 BD L.] 
— Ver. 48. Gewpoivre¢] Lachm. and Tisch. have @ewpfoavrec, which is founded on 
BCDLEX &, min. Colb. — A has omitted Oewp. r. y. The aorist is logically 
necessary. — Atter rir. Elz. Scholz have éav7ay, in opposition to A B C*D L 8, 
in spite of which authorities Lachm. has nevertheless retained it. A superfiu- 
ous addition, instead of which U X T have airérv, — Ver. 49. avrov] Lachm. and 
Tisch. have avr@, which is sufficiently attested by A B LP, 33, 64, for avrovd to 
be traced to the inaccuracy of the transcribers. Before paxp. Lachm. Tisch. 
[W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] have azd, in accordance with BDL &. From the 
parallels. — [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with & BC L, have the present par- 
ticiple, ovvaxoAuvboitca.] — Ver. 51. Elz. Scholz have &¢ xai zpooedé yero Kai ai'rée. 
But BCD L 8, 69, Copt. codd. of It. have merely &¢ rpocedéyev0. So Lachm. 
Tisch. From Matthew and Mark was written on the margin sometimes only 
xai, sometimes kai avréc, both of which readings are combined in the Recepla. 
There are many other variations, which together make the Recepia so much the 
more suspicious. — Ver. 53. Lachm. Tisch. have deleted the first atré, in ac- 
cordance, indeed, with BC DL &, min. Vulyg. It. (not Ver.) ; but being super- 
flnous, and being regarded as awkwardly in the way, it was easily passed over. 
[Rejected by recent editors, R. V.]-— nx. avré] Lachm. and Tisch. have &€yx. 
avrév, in accordance with B C D &, Vulg. It. Copt. Rightly ; avré is a repeti- 
‘tion from what precedes. — [Recent editors, R.V., with A BL, 1, have ovdeic obrru, 
while Tisch., with ® C, has ovdedc oidiru, the Rec. reversing the order. The 
first is to be preferred. ]-— Ver. 54. zapacxev#)] Lachm. Tisch. have zapaoxevic, 
in accordance with B C* L &, min. Vulg. codd. of It. Copt. Sahid. Since even 
the evidence of D is not in favor of the Recepia (it has zpé oa/?;3arov), the author- 
ities in favor of the genitive are all the stronger, especially as wapacxerf# was 
easily regarded by the transcribers ns a name. Hence the genitive is to be pre- 
ferred. — The xai before oa;3,3. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with 
BC*L &, min. vas., to be retained. It slipt out in consequence of the omis- 
sion of the entire clause x. 04/3;3. ered. (so still D, Colb.), and then was restored 
without the superfluous «ai. — Ver. 55. Elz. Scholz have dé xai yvvaixec. Cer- 
tainly erroneous, since the decisive authorities have sometimes left out xai al- 
together (so Tisch.), sometimes have instead of it ai (so Lachm.). The latter is 
right. From dé ai arose the dé xai so frequent in Luke. But the article is 
necessary, in accordance with ver. 49. — [Tisch., W. and Hort, R. V., with & 
BIL, place avr after Tad? alac.] 


Vv. 1-3. Comp. on Matt. xxvii. 2, 11; Mark xv. 1, 2. Luke relates the. 
special charge, ver. 2, very precisely.' The preliminary investigation of 
the case before the Sanhedrim, xxii. 66 ff., had yielded the result, that 


1 Marcion, as quoted by Epiph., has en- Avorra rbv vépor x. rods wpodyras, and after 
riched the accusation with two points acca. elvac: nat awoorpeporra rag yuvaixas x. 
more, namely, after ro @8vos num@y: cai xara- Ta Téxva. 


36 


562 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

Jesus asserted that He was the Messiah. This they now apply in presence 
of the political power to the political (anti-Roman) side. —#p£arro] Begin- 
ning of the accusation scene. — d:acrpt¢.] perverting, misleading.’ —ré iby. 
ju. ] our nation, John xi. 50. — xwAbovra] mediately, to wit, by representing 
Himself, etc.? — Xpiordv Baoitéa] a King-Messiah. (See Note CLXVIII., 
p. 569. ] Saor2éa is added in connection with the political turn which they gave 
to the charge. 

Vv. 4, 5. In the avowal itself Pilate finds the sign that nothing Wame- 
worthy, etc.,—to him it is the expression of the fixed idea of a harmless 
visionary. — érioxzvov] is not, as there is no object in connection with it, to 
be taken actively (they strengthened their denunciation) ; but, with the Vul- 
gate, Luther, Beza, and many others : they grew stronger, i.e., they became 
more emphatic, more energetic. Comp. Diod. v. 59 ; 1 Macc. vi. 6, and the 
correlative xaricyvov, ver. 28. Both kinds of usage are frequent in the 
LXX.—avaceie:] Observe, on the one hand, the present, denoting such a per- 
sistent urgency ; and, on the other, the stronger and more direct expression 
than ver. 2 (d:acrpég.) now used : he stirs up.* [Sce Note CLXIX., p. 569.] 
— aptdu. x.7.A.] a8 Matt, xx. 8. [See critical note. ] 

Vv. 6, 7. Pilate was glad to seize the opportunity, when he heard the 
name of Galilee (dxofcac Tadca.), instead of defending the guiltless, to draw 
himself out of the business at first, at least by a preliminary reference to the 
judgment of Herod,‘ which might cause him possibly to be transported to 
Galilee, and so he might be relieved of the transaction. Herod Antipas 
was tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. Comp. ili. 1. — avérepwer] he sent Him 
wp,—as the word, moreover, is used among the Greeks of the sending of 
delinquents to a higher judicature.* In the same manner avdyecy ; comp. 
on Acts xxv. 21; but at ver. 11 it is : he sent back (Philem. 11). 

Vv. 8, 9. The frivolous tetrarch, in an unkingly manner, on the assump- 
tion that he had only either to accept or to reject Him,* immediately upon the 
sight of Jesus begins to rejoice at the satisfaction of his curiosity. — yw yap 
SéAwy x.r.2.] for from a long time he had been desirous. — On é& ixaroi, comp. 
the Greek neutral expressions : 2x mToAAod, éx mAeiorov, é& oAlyou, é& éxeivov, and 
the like ; é9’ Ixavév, 2 Macc. viii. 25.— axobew] continually. — amie x.1.4.] 
‘ut oculos et animum re nova pasceret more aulae,” Grotius, — oidév arexpi- 
vato] is to be explained from the nature of the questions, and from Jesus 
seeing through Herod’s purpose. — avrd¢ dé] But He on His part. 

Vv. 10-12. Elorfxeccav] they stood there. They had brought Him to 
Herod. —etrévux] with passionate energy.’ — Ver. 11. Prudently enough 


1Comp. Polyb. v. 41. 1: adiorac@ac xai 
bidorpédery ; Ecclus. xi. 84. 

2 Thus, according to the Recepta. A¢yovra. 
Still the reading «cai A¢yowra (B L T &, vas.) 
is, with Tischendorf [see critical note]. to 
be preferred, in which the two points 
xwAvovra «.7.A. and Aé¢yovra «.7.A.‘are put 
forward independently. How easily the 
«Al might drop out after &8ovAT ! 

8 Mark xv. 11; Polyb. Fr. Fist. 66; Wes- 


seling, ad Diodor. I. p. 615. 

4 Scarcely merely for the sake of learning 
the opinion of Herod (Ewald), for this is not 
made self-evident by the simple avérepyer ; 
nor, moreover, for the sake of learning the 
truth from Herod (Neander). 

§ Comp. Polyb. i. 7. 12, xxix. 11. 9. 

* Comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 488. 

*Comp. 2 Macc. xii. 28; Acts xvilf. 2%, 
often in the Greek writers. 


CHAP. XXIII., 13-16. 563 


Herod does not enter into the charges,—frivolously enough he thinks that 
justice will be done to the obstinate enthusiast as to a fool, not by means of 
investigation and punishment, but by contempt and mockery. [See Note 
CLXX., p. 569.] — tv roicg orparetpacw airov) These troops are the body of 
satellites by whom He is surrounded. — ‘edyra Aaump.| a gorgeous robe, which 
is not to be defined more strictly. A toga candida (Polyb. x. 4. 8, x. 5. 1), 
which Beza, Kuinoel, Lange, and others suppose, is less in accordance with 
the situation, in which Jesus was to be caricatured, not as a candidate, but 
as aking. As such He was to appear again before Pilate splendidly clothed 
(but whether actually in purple or not is not expressed in the word).’ Ben- 
gel, moreover, aptly remarks : ‘‘ Herodes videtur contemtim voluisse signi- 
ficare, se nil metuere ab hoc rege,” ‘‘ Herod appears to have wished to signify 
contemptuously, that he feared nothing from this king.” — Ver. 12. dvrec] 
ulong with irdpyecv, for the sake of making the situation more strongly 
prominent.* — rpd¢ éavrofc] not aAAgAove this time, simply ‘‘ ut varietur ora- 
tio,” ‘that the discourse may be varied,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20. 
The cause of the previous enmity is unknown ; possibly, however, it had 
originated from disputes about jurisdiction, since that consideration of 
Hcrod’s jurisdiction (of the fori originis), even although Herod prudently 
made no further use of it, but sent back the accused, brought about the 
reconciliation. According to Justin, c. 7r. 103, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod 
to please him (yapifopevor). 


Remarx.—The narrative of the sending to Herod (comp. Acts iv. 27) has the 
stamp of originality, and might as an inierlude, having no bearing on the 
further course of the history, easily disappear from the connection of the 
tradition, so that its preservation is only due to Luke's investigation ; 
and even John, in his narrative of the trial before Pilate, leaves it en- 
tirely out of consideration. He leaps over it after the words: éyd ovdepiav 
aitiay ebpioxw, Ev adTd, xviii. 38 (not after ver. 40, ThoJuck, Olshausen), and 
hence makes Pilate immediately connect the words of ver. 39, which in the 
narrative of Luke correspond to the words of ver. 16. But not as though 
John had not known the intervening incident (de Wette ; a conclusion in it- 
self wholly improbable, and going much too far ; such, for example, as might 
be applied equally to the Lord’s Supper, to the agony in the garden, etc.) ; 
bat, on the contrary, in accordance with the freedom of his peculiar composi- 
tion, since all the evangelists did their work cclectically. Lightly Strauss, IT. 
p. 500, satisfied himself with the conjecture that the ‘‘anecdote’’ arose from 
the endeavor to place Jesus before all possible judgment-seats in Jerusalem. 
Baur, however (Evang. p. 489), derives the narrative from the endeavor to 
have the innocence of Jesus attested as conspicuously as possible in the anti- 
Judaic interest, to lay the guilt on Judaism, and to relieve Pilate as much as 
possible from the burden (so also Schenkel, p. 405) ; comp. Eichthal's frivolous 
judgment, ii. p. 308. 


Vv. 18-16. Kai rote dpyovr.] and in general the members of the Sanhedrim. 
Comp. xxiv. 20. — Ver. 14. #6] J, for my part, to which afterwards corre- 


1 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. il. 4. 5. 3 See Dissen, 4d Dem. da Cor. p. 268 f. 


564, THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

sponds 4A?’ ond? “Hpddne. — évdrcov tuov] having examined Him tn your pres- 
encé, according to ver. 8; but there is a variation in John xviii. 33 f. — 
ovdiy . . . alticv ov x.t.A.] I hace found nothing in this man which could be 
charged upon him, of that which ye (ovdéiv dv = ovdév tobruv, a) complain of 
against him.'— Ver. 15. aad’ ovdé ‘Hpddye] scil. et pev x.t.A., nor has ecen Herod 
(who yet knows the Jewish circumstances so accurately), etc.” [See Note 
CLXXI., p. 570.] — xa? idod x.7.4.] Result of what was done in presence of 
Herod, which now appears ; hence éor? mexpayzévov, which does not mean : 
has been done by Him ; but : is done by Him. — Ver. 16. The chastisement 
(what kind of chastisement is left indefinite) is here merely thrown out asa 
satisfaction ; hence there is no essential variation from John xviii. 39, and 
no confusion with John xix. 1-4. Comp. also on Matt. xxvii. 26. Bengel 
rightly says : ‘‘ Hic coepit nimium concedere Pilatus,” ‘‘Here Pilate begins 
to concede too much ;” and thereby he had placed the attainment of his 
purpose beyond his power. Madaxdc dé tig 6 McAdroc wal pxiora itp GArSeiac 
évotatixég’ ededoixes yap tiv ovxogavtiay, paru¢ dcaBAndy o¢ cov avrdpryy aroAt- 
sacs, ‘‘ But Pilate is somewhat cowardly and very little concerned about 
truth ; for he had showed sycophancy, lest he should be accused of having 
released the one they opposed,” Theaphylact. 

Vv. 18-23. A condensed account down to the final condemnation, ver. 
24 f. — Alpe] e medio tolle,—a demand for His death.* —daric] quippe qui, 
not equivalent to the simple gui, but : a man of such a kind that he, etc. — 
7v Be32nu.] not a paraphrase of the pluperfect, but denoting the condition. 
[See Note CLXXII., p. 570.]— Ver. 20. mpocegévyce] made an address. 
Comp. Acts xxi. 40.— Ver. 21. oratpov] Imperative active, not middle ; 
parorytone, not perispomenon, — Ver. 22. ydp] as Matt. xxvii. 23. — Ver. 23. 
éxéxecvto] they pressed, they urged, instabant, Vulg. Comp. v. 1; 3 Macc. i. 
22, often thus in the classical writers. — xariayvov] they became predominant, 
they prevailed.‘ 

Vv. 24, 25. ’Eséxpeve] he pronounced the final sentence.’ —aréAvoe x.t.4.] & 
tragic contrast. Comp. Acts ili. 14. 

Vv. 26-82. Luke proceeds in a very abbreviating fashion, yet with inter- 
calations of original matter, down to ver. 49. The observation épyou. ax’ 
aypov belongs (as Ebrard at an earlier period also supposed, but now, on 
Olshausen, ed. 4, p. 52, questions), as does ver. 56, to the synoptical traces 
of the working day. See on Mark xv. 21. [Comp. Mark, Note XCVIT.] 
— The following saying of Jesus to the women is preserved only by Luke, 
extremely appropriate to the love and fervor at the threshold of death, and 
certainly from an original tradition. — Ver. 27. x. yvvaidy] of women also, 
not ministering female friends, but other women ; and, indeed, according 
to ver. 28, from the city, as the female sex is accustomed in general to be 


1 On arcoy, guilty, punishable, comp. VV. 4, 
22: on «xarqyop, xard tives, very rare in the 
Greek writers, see Xen. Hell. 1.7.6: rev re 
KaryyopovyTwy Kara twy aorpammywy. Wolf, 
ad Dem. Lept. p. 218. 

2 Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche, in Frifzechior. 
Opec. p. 178. 


? Comp. Acts xxi. 36, xxii. 22; Dion Hal. 
iv. 4, and elsewhere. . 

Comp. Polyb. vi. 51.6, xx. & 6; Matt. 
xvi. 18. 

5 Plat. Leg. vi. p. 768A; Dem. 1477. 2, 
and elsewhere ; 2 Macc. iv. 48; 8 Macc. 
iv 


CHAP, XXIII., 33, 34. 565 


very sympathizing and tender at executions ; ixdrr., as vill. 52. — Ver. 28 f. 
The address is : that they were not to weep over Him (for He was on His way 
to meet a glorious future) ; nevertheless over themselves they ought to weep, 
etc., for (see ver. 29) over them was impending a terrible future (the de- 
struction of Jerusalem). The contrast of emphasis lies upon é7’ éué and é¢’ 
éaurdc ; by the position of the one at the end and of the other at the begin- 
ning, and the consequent juxtaposition as closely as possible of the two 
expressions, the emphasis is strengthened. — yaxdpcar] The maternal heart, 
in truth, feels, besides its own suffering, still more keenly the sufferings of 
beloved children, Eur. Andr. 395.'— Ver. 80. The mountains and hills were 
to—such is the wish of those who are in despair—not perchance hide them 
from the calamitous catastrophe and place them in security (comp. Isa. ii. 
19, 21), but, as the words themselves (comp. with Hos. x. 8; Rev. vi. 16) 
indicate, the destructive landslip which covers them was to take them away 
by sudden death from the intolerable evil. — apfovra:] an outbreaking of the 
greatest anguish. The subject is the people in general (the Jews), not the 
steriles, ‘‘ barren” (Bengel). — Ver. 81. Reason on which this announcement 
of evil was based, ver. 29 f. ‘‘If they thus treat the guiltless and the 
righteous, what shall happen to the godless (to themselves) ?”* This last 
saying of Jesus, vv. 28-31, is one great memorial more, at once of His self- 
denial and of His sinless consciousness, as well as of His certain insight into 
the counsel of the divine retribution, which now allows itself no longer to 
be averted, but to be even once more announced with the pain of rejected 
love, and not to be withheld. — Ver. 32. xaxovpyo:] defining more closely 
the érepoe dio. Comp. ver. 83.* 

Vv. 33, 34. Kpaviov] A Greck translation of ToAyoda, a skull, s0 named 
from its form. See on Matt. xxvii. 33, and Ewald, Geseh. Chr. p. 485, who 
discovers in the name Golgotha the hill named Gared in Jer. xxxi. 39. — 
Ver. 34. In ageg avroic Jesus refers to His enemies, who indeed were the sin- 
ning subjects, not to the Roman soldiers (Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Ewald, 
Wittichen, following older commentators, and as early as in Euthymius 
Zigabenus), who discharged the office of executioners only involuntarily and 
morally uninterested therein ; so that in their case there could be no: allu- 
sion either to imputation or to forgiveness. The mockery of the soldiers 
(Paulus, Kuinoel, Bleck also) is in respect of the crucifixion purely an in- 
vention. But in respect of the crucifizion (ri rover) is the prayer uttered 
in which from the innermost heart of Jesus breathes the deepest love which 
regards the crime in the mildest light, not indeed removing, but extenuat- 
ing‘ the guilt, as a result of the want of knowledge of the nature of the 
deed (for they were slaying the Messiah of the people, whom they, however, 
had not recognized as such), and consequently the deed was capable of for- 


10On d@pepay (see the critical remarks),  p. 460 [E. T. 530]; Kriiger, Anad. {. 4. 2. 
comp. Aesch. Choeph. 548: nwacbdy . . . cudy 4 Comp. J. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. p. 265; 
Opexrypror. Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 433 f. Against the 

2 On the figure of the green (Ps.i.5) and opinion of Buttmann in the Stud.wu. Kriz. 
the dry tree, comp. Ezek. xxi. 8; Sankedr. 1860, p. 858, see Graf in the same, 1861, 
f. 98. 1. p. 749 ff. 

* See Bornemann, Schol. p. 147 f.; Winer, 


566 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


giveness. Even this prayer is a relic of the Crucified One, which Luke 
alone has preserved for us from a written or oral source. In Acts iii. 17, 
vii. 60, its echo is heard. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8, and the same prayer of the 
dying James in Eusebius, li. 23. — diapepeZéu.] at the division. — xAgpove 
(sce the critical remarks) : lots. Comp. on Mark xv. 24. 

Vv. 35-38. According to the corrected text (see the critical remarks), it is 
not in Luke the people that mock (comp.,on the other hand, Matt. xxvii. 39 f. ; 
Mark xv. 29 f.), for they rather stand there as spectators, but the members 
of the Sanhedrim. dé «ai refers merely to the éxuvatypifev of the dpyorrec. 
To the standing by and looking on of the people (not further sympathizing) 
is added, however, also mockery on the part of the members of the Sanhedrim. 
On éfevuxr. comp. Ps. xxii. 8, and see on xvi. 14. — ovroc] this fellow! with 
scornful contempt. — é rov Ocov éxAexréc] ix. 85. — Ver. 36 is not a misunder- 
standing of Matt. xxvii. 48 (de Wette [so Weiss ed. Mey.]), but something 
special which the other evangelists have not got. A mocking offer, not an 
actual giving to drink ; for here the offer was not made by means of a 
sponge, so that naturally Jesus could not accept the drink. The proceeding 
was a prim joke !— Ver. 38. én’ air] over Him on the cross. The supple- 
mentary statement of the title on the cross (see on Matt. xxvii. 37) explains 
the fact that the soldiers scoffed at Him as the King of the Jews. 

Vv. 89-48. Eic] A difference from Mark xv. 32 and from Matt. XXVil. 44; 
see on the passages. — ovy? (see the critical remarks) oi el 6 Xp. is a jeering 
question, Art thou not the Messiah ? — Ver. 40. ovd2 ¢o8% ob] not : Dost not 
even thou fear (de Wette, Bleck, following the Vulg., Grotius, Lange, and 
others, that would be oidé od ¢.)? but : Hast thou no fear’ at all on thy part 
before God, since thou art in the same condemnation (as this Jesus whom 
thou revilest)? This similarity of position in suffering the judicial condem- 
nation of the cross is the reason wherefore he ought at least to be afraid be- 
fore God, and not continue to practise blasphemous outrage. — Ver. 41. 
oidév drorov] nothing unlawful ; see in general, Liinemann on 2 Thess, iii. 2. 
The very general expression marks the innocence so much the more strongly. 
— Ver. 42. Think on me (to raise me from the dead, and to reccive me into 
the Messiah’s kingdom) when Thou shalt have come in Thy kingly glory (as 
Matt. xvi. 28). The promises of Jesus in regard to His Parousta must 
have been known to the robber,—which might easily enough be the case in 
Jerusalem,—and does not actually presuppose the instructions of Jesus ; yet 
he may also have heard Him himself, and now have remembered what he 
had heard. The extraordinary element of the agonizing situation in the 
view of death had now as its result the extraordinary effect of firm faith in 
those promises ; hence there is no sufficient reason on account of this faith, 
in which he even excelled the apostles, to relegate’ the entire history into 
the region of unhistorical legend? (Strauss, IT. p. 519; Zeller in his Jahrh. 
1843, I. p. 78; Schenkel, Eichthal), in which has been found in the 


1To say nothing, moreover, of penitent ly linked themselves thereto, see Thilo, 
humility and resignation. ad Evang. Infant, 28, p. 148. 
2 For apocryphal fables, which subsequent- 


CHAP. XXIII., 44-46. 567 


different demeanor of the two robbers even the representation of the 
different behavior of the Jews and Gentiles towards the preaching of 
the crucified Christ (Schwegler, II. p. 50 f.). Others (Vulgate, Luther, 
and many others, including Kuinoel and Ewald) have taken év in a preg- 
nant sense as equal to eic [so B L, Vulg., W. and Hort, R. V. marg.|, 
which is erroneous, since Jesus Himself establishes His kingdom ; but to 
conceive of the supramundane kingdom (Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, 
Bornemann) brings with it the supposition, which in Luke is out of 
place, that the robber has heard the saying of Jegus at John xvili. 36. -- 
Ver. 48. ofurpov)| does not belong to Aéyw oo (a view already quoted in Theo- 
phylact, and rightly estimated by the phrase éxB:éfovra: rd pjua), in respect 
of which it would be idle and unmeaning (this also in opposition to Weitzel 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 957), but to what follows. The Lord knew 
that His own death and the robber’s would take place to-day. In the case 
of the robber it was accelerated by means of breaking the legs. — On the 
classical word mapddeooc, ‘* park,” see Poppo, ad Xen. Cyr. i. 3.14. The 
LXX. Gen. ii. 8 f. give this name to the dwelling-place of the first pair ; 
the blessedness of this place, however, very naturally occasioned the naming, 
in the later Jewish theology, of the portion of Hades in which the souls of the 
righteous after death dicell till the resurrection, paradise.’ In the answer of 
Jesus there was probably not implied a divergence from the kind and man- 
ner in which the petitioner conceived to himself the fulfilment of his peti- 
tion (Schleiermacher), but it presented simply and without veil, as well as 
in the most directly comforting form, the certainty of his petition being 
granted, since if his soul came into paradise, participation in the resurrec- 
tion of the just and in the kingdom of the Messiah could not fail him. 
Hofmann, Schrifthew. II. 1, p. 488, rationalizes the idea of paradise. Where 
the blessed communion of man with God is realized, there, he says, is para- 
dise. This abstraction is surely erroneous, for this reason, that according 
to it the risen souls must be in paradise, which is nowhere taught—they are 
in Messiah’s kingdom. By per évov Jesus expresses definitely His descensus 
ad inferos,” in respect of which the fact that here circumstances required 
the mention of paradise only, and not of Gehenna, does not exclude what is 
contained in 1 Pet. iii. 18 f., as though we had here ‘‘a passage contradict- 
ing the analogy of doctrine” (de Wette).’ 

Vv. 44-46. Sce on Matt. xxvil. 45, 50 f.; Mark xv. 33, 37 f. According 
to Luke, the connection of events was as follows : It was already about the 
sixth hour, when there is darkness over the whole earth till the ninth hour 
(yet the sun is still visible),—then the sun also vanishes in darkness [oppos- 
ed by the correct reading, see critical note]—the veil is rent—Jesus utters 
Ilis last cry, and dies. —xai] as xix. 43; Mark xv. 25. [But see critical 
note.}] —1d mveipud pov] my spirit, comprehending the whole spiritual 


41 Comp. also the Book of Enoch xxii. 9 f. * Kénig, Lehre von d. Hollenf. p. & ff.; 
Not to be confounded with the hearenly Gider, Lehre v. d. Erachein. Jesu Chr. unter 
paradise, 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. 11.7. See on @. Todlen, p. 33 ff. 

xvi. 2%; Lightfoot and Wetstein on the pas- 3 See, on the other hand. also Weat In the 
sage. Stud. u. Arit. 1858, p. 62 ff. 


‘ 


568 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


nature, contrasted with the dying body ; Acts vii. 59.'— Ver. 46. cic yeipde 
cov x.t.A.] from Ps. xxxi. 6, which words Jesus makes His own, committing 
His spirit wholly to the disposul of God ; and this perfect surrender to God, 
whose control extends even to Hades (xvi. 22 ; Wisd. ili. 1 ; Acts ii. 27), 
is not out of keeping with ver. 48. — This prayer is to be placed after the 
reréAcorae Of John xix. 30, and corresponds to the rapéduxev 1d rvevpya of 
John. Probably, however, the idea rapédwxev 1d rvevua was only by the 
more accurately explaining tradition moulded into the definite words, as 
Luke has them. [See Note CLXXIII., p. 570.] 

Vv. 47-49. See on Matt. xxvii. 54-56 ; Mark. xv. 89-41. rd yevéuevor] 
that which had happened, namely, how Jesus had uttered the last loud cry, 
and had expired. Comp. Mark xv. 39, whom Luke follows. To refer it 
still further back (even to include also what is narrated in ver. 44 f.) is for- 
bidden by the éoyioSy x.r.4., to which idjy cannot also refer. The plural 
expression, however, rd yevéueva, ver. 48, has a wider reference, since, in ac- 
cordance with ouurapay. éni r. Sewpiav rabr., it must include the entire proc- 
ess of the crucifixion down to ver. 46. — édéface r. Jedv] i.e., practically, by 
His confession, which redounded to the honor of God. Comp. John ix. 
24. In this confession, however, dixasog (instead of the Son of God in Mark 
and Matthew) is a product of later reflection. [See Note CLXXIV., p. 570.] 
— ini riv Yeupiay ratr.] objectively : ad hoc spectaculum, as Yewpia (occurring 
only here in the New Testament) is often applied by Greek writers to plays, 
public festivals, etc. — cérrovre¢ ra o7i79] grief (viii. 52, xviii. 13). Accord- 
ing to Luke, the people did not, indeed, join in the mockery (ver. 35), 
though they probably chimed in with the accusation and the demand for 
His death (vv. 4, 5, 18, 18, 21, 23), and hence they prove themselves the 
mobile vulgus. The special circumstances had made them change their tune. 
— Ver. 49. mdvre¢ ol yuworoi ait@] those, to wit, who were present in Jerusa- 
lem. Luke alone has this statement, which, however, is so summary that 
even by the expression azé paxpdédev it does not contradict the narrative of 
John xix. 25. — yvvaixec] viii. 2 f. — dpdoa r.] belonging to elor#xeoav. 

Vv. 50-56. See on Matt. xxvii. 57-61; Mark xv. 42-47. Luke follows 
Mark with abbreviations, although with some peculiarities. — irdpy.} be- 
longing to Bava. — dixacoc] justus, in the narrower meaning ; sce the follow- 
ing parenthesis. It is a special side of ayavéc (ercellent). — Ver. 51. ctx iw 
ovyx.] was not in agreement with their decision. Comp. on ver. 19.7 —x«. ry 
apace] and to the practice, the evil act.* —aibray] ray BovAeurév, as is implied 
in Bovdsvrfc, ver. 50, Winer, p. 182 [E. T. 146]. — Ver. 52. oiroc] recapitu- 
lating, Kihner, II. p. 830. — Ver. 53. 2agevrg] hewn in stone (Deut. iv. 49), 
therefore neither dug nor built. — ob obx qv x.7.A.] Comp. xix. 30 ; @ more 
definite mode of expressing the xa:v6 in Matthew. Comp. John xix. 41.‘— 
Ver. 54. And it was the preparation day (the day of preparation for the Sab- 
bath, rpécaB8farov), Even here (comp. on Mark xv. 42) no trace of a festival 


1 Comp. in general, Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. ® See on Rom. vilf. 18; Col. fil. 9. Comp. 
I. p. 410. Xen. Anab. vil. 6. 17. 

2 As to ovycararideurn, assentior, see Locel- ‘In respect of the emphatically camula- 
la, ad Xen. Eph. p. 209. tive negatives, see Winer, p. 448 [E. T. 499]. 





NOTES. 569 


day is to be found in the day of Jesus’ death. Comp. vv. 26, 56. — érédu- 
oxe] elsewhere of the breaking of the natural day (of the day light; see 
Matt. xxviii. 1); but here of the legal daybreak, which began with sunset. 
Not an inaccuracy of expression, in which only prevailed the idea of the be- 
ginning of the day, but according to the Jewish mode of expression, which 
still, moreover, gave to the legal beginning of the day, at the closing in of 
night, the name of VX, on account of the lighting of the lamps, which the 
natural evening made necessary.’ That this mode of designation specially 
applied to the beginning of the Sabbath, on account of the Sabbath lights 
(see Lightfoot, Zeger, Clarius, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Bleek, and others), cannot 
be proved. The imperfect means : it would begin, was on the point of begin- 
ning. See Bernhardy, p. 373. — Ver. 55. xaraxodovd.] following after, going 
after from the place of the cross, ver. 49, to the place of the grave, ver. 53. 
In the New Testament the word is found again only in Acts xvi. 17 ; comp. 
Jer. xvii. 16 ; Polyb. vi. 42. 2 ; Long. iii. 15. The meaning: ‘‘as far as 
down there into the grave,” is an addition of Lange’s ; in xazé is found the 
idea of going after. — Ver. 56. uév] to which corresponds the dé, xxiv. 1; 
hence at the end of the chapter only a comma is to be placed. — According 
to Mark, they did not buy the spices till later. See on Mark xvi. 1. (See 
Note CLXXV., p. 570.] In Luke there is no offence against the Jewish ob- 
servance (Schenkel), which assuredly was well enough known to him, but 
there is a trace of the working day in the tradition which he follows.? 
Ebrard on Olshausen, p. 53 f., gives explanations which are only evasions, 
but which are of the less importance, as in this place Luke, with his incon- 
sequent notice, stands alone. 


Notes spy AMERICAN EprTor. 


CLXVITI. Ver. 2. Xpordyv Baotréa. 


Weins. ed. Mey. prefers the rendering ‘‘ Messiah, a king ;’ comp. R. V. text. 
The margin of the R. V., ‘‘an anointed king,’’ gives a very improbable inter- 
pretation. 

CLXIX. Ver. 5. xa?’ dane r. Tovdaiac, 


In chap. iv. 44 the reading of the more ancient manuscripts indicates a min- 
istry extending throughout all Judaea. Otherwise Luke does not refer to any 
labors in Judaea proper. Tho statement here is an incidental confirmation of 
John’s narrative. It moreover suggests the wisdom of not assuming, as some 
modern critics do, that the Evangelists narrated all they knew of Christ’s 
labors. Comp. Meyer's remark, p. 563. 


CLXX. Ver. 11. Herod's Disposal of the Accusation. 


Weiss ed. Mey. infers from ver. 15 that Herod ‘‘had at least declared to 
Pilate that he had found no fault in Jesus, and thus appears to revenge him- 
self for his disappointed hopes (ver. 8), or for the contempt he encountered in 
the obstinate silence of Jesus (Godet).” But see next Note. 


1 See the passages from the Rabbinical 2 Comp. on ver. 2%; John xviii. 28, xiii. 
writers in Lightfoot, p. 892 f. Comp. Ev. 29; Bleek, Beitr. p. 187. 
Nicod. 12. 


570 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 


CLXXI. Ver. 15. 


The reading of Tisch. (see critical note) is rendered in the R. V. ‘‘for he 
sent Him back to us.’’ Pilate thus infers from the sending back that Herod 
deemed Jesus innocent. For this reason the reading is the less difficult one, 
since nothing is said of Herod’s examining the case. If it is accepted, it dis- 
poses of the suggestion of Weiss (see Note CLXX.). 


CLXXII. Ver. 19. q . . . Bardeic tv r. gua. 


Meyer rejects the above well-supported reading as ungrammatical. But, as 
Meyer indicates in the case of the other reading, the participle and the verb need 
not be taken together periphrastically. The participle simply tells that he was 
cast into prison to account for his being there (77). So Weiss ed. Mey. Butt- 
mann’s objection (see critical note) fails to recognize this view of the construc- 
tion, which is strictly grammatical. The preposition évy has then ‘a pregnant 
force, since it suggests where he was as well as where he had been cast. 


CLXXIII. Ver. 46. ei¢ yeipde cov x.7.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. takes n somewhat different view of the origin of this saying. 
Its accuracy need not be doubted. It 1s as likely that John simply narrated as 
fact what really was put into words by our Lord, as that Luke followed a 
‘* more accurately explaining tradition.’’ 


CLAXIV. Ver. 47. dixazog 7. 


The accounts of Matthew and Mark are probably more accurate, but dixaioc¢ 
is scarcely ‘‘a product of later reflection” (Meyer), or a toning down because 
the term’ ‘Son of God’’ seemed inappropriate in the mouth of a heathen 
(Weiss ed. Mey.). In view of all that the centurion must have known of the 
accusation against Jesus, the term used ‘implies something more ” (Godet). 


CLXXV. Ver. 56. xai 7rd pév o43Sarov x.7.A. 


The R. V. properly joins this clause with chap. xxiv. 1. Luke has, in the 
previous clause, mentioned the buying of the spices; but he often carries 
out one source of thought and then begins anew with something which pre- 
ceded. His account does not necessarily imply that the spices were bought 
before the Sabbath. 





CHAP. XXIV. | 571 


CHAPTER XXIV. 


Ver. 1. The reading BaStwe (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepla Babtoc, is 
so decisively attested by ABCD 8, ete., that the adjective form Baffoc must 
appear as the alteration of ignorant transcribers. — xai riveg ov avraic] is want- 
ing in B C* L &, 33, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. (not Brix.) Dionys. Alex, Eus. Aug. 
Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addi- 
tion, in accordance with ver. 10, for which occasion seemed the rather to be 
given that Luke neither mentions Salome (Mark xvi. 1) in this place nor at ver. 
10. D has further expanded the addition. — Ver. 3. Instead of xai eiceAPoicac 
is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence, eocAGoicar 
dé. ‘The former is from Mark. — [W. and Hort bracket rov xvp. ’I70., omitted in 
D, Latt.; so. R. V. marg.] — Ver. 4. eoffjoeaw aorp.| Lachm. Tisch. [recent edi- 
tors, R. V.] have éofijr: acrparrotoy, in accordance with BD &, Syr. al. Vulg. 
It. Eus. But the accustomed singular expression easily forced itself in. — Ver. 5. 
70 wpdowrov] Ta tpdowra is attested by a preponderance of authorities. So Tisch. 
It is the more to be preferred in proportion as the singular suggested itself 
the more readily to the transcribers. —[Ver. 6. W. and Hort bracket ov« éorcv 
... 7yépOn, omitted in D, Latt., R. V. marg. — Ver. 7. Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, 
R. V., with &* B C* L, place érz det after avOpdrov. — Ver. 9. D, Latt. omit azo 
tT. puyp, (so R. V. marg.), bracketed by W. and Hort.]— Ver. 10. Elz. Lachm. 
Tisch. have joav dé; Griesb.: 7 dé, on too feeble evidence. The words are 
wanting altogether in A D I’ and a few vss. The connection has not been ap- 
prehended, and for the restoration thereof, sometimes 7oav dé has been omitted 
(in order to connect it closely with what has preceded), sometimes ai has been 
intercalated afterwards (before éAcyov), sometimes both have been done. This 
ai is, with Lachm. Tisch., on decisive evidence, to be deleted. — After the 
second Mapia is to be inserted 7, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating 
evidence, —[Ver. 11. Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with & B DL, Vulg. 
Copt., have 7. pfuatra ravra. | — Ver. 12 is wanting in D, Syr.je* Cant. Ver. Vere. 
Rd. Rejected by Schulzand Rinck. [Tisch. VIII.] Bracketed by Lachm. [Treg., 
W. and Hort ; doubted by Weiss, omitted in R. V. marg.] But even if the great 
attestation is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision in favor of its genuine- 
ness (comp. on vv. 36, 39, 51 f.), still an interpolator from John xx. 5 ff. would 
have mentioned not only Peter, but also the dAAo¢ pafyrhe (comp. ver. 24) ; and 
the words 60é6va, wapaxizrev, and az7Abe mpd éavr. (John, loc. cid.) might, in- 
deed, have been suggested to Luke from a source emanating from a Johannine 
tradition ; on the other hand, it is just the incompleteness of the notice, as 
well as the want of agreement in the contents with ver. 24, that would furnish 
a very obvious occasion for objection and for deletion. [It may be added that 
in this chapter D has a number of omissions, see notes throughout, which in- 
dicate that the scribe had a defective copy.] Keiveva is suspicious, as it is 
wanting in B &, min. Copt. Sahid. Syr.c* Eus.; in other authorities it is placed 
after uéva. — [Ver. 17. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with X A* B L, Copt., read 





572 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


xal éordOyoav oxvipwroi.] — Ver. 18. [Recent editors, R. V., with ® B L, read 
ovépart, instead of » dvoza.] Elz. Lachm. have é ‘Iepove. But decisive authori- 
ties are in favor of ‘Iepovc. simply (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch.); év is an exe- 
getic insertion. The exceedingly weakly attested etc, which nevertheless Griesb. 
has commended, proceeds from the last syllable of mapocxeic. — Ver. 21. After 
a/Ad ye read, with Lachm. and Tisch., xai(B D L &), which disappeared because it 
could be dispensed with. — [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8 B L, Copt., 
omit ofuepov. — Ver. 22. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with SAB DL, read op- 
Opivai. — Ver. 24. Treg.,W. and Hort, R. V., with B D,Vulg., omit «ai, after xa@ac. 
— Ver. 27. Tisch., recent editors, R.V., with ®* BL, read dtepyfrevoev. | — Ver. 28. 
mpoceroeito] A BDL &, min. have spocezogoaro. Commended by Griesb., adopt- 
ed by Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. A correction, in accordance with 
the preceding and following aorists. — Ver. 29. After xéxdxev is to be adopted 
ion. Itis found in BL &, min. Arr. Copt. Syr. Slav. ms. Vulg. It., was easily 
passed over by occasion of the following H Hepa, and perhaps if it had been 
added, would rather have been annexed to the foregoing dre mpdc éor. tori, — 
Ver. 32. xai oc] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely oc, in accordance with B D L 
® 33,ealso codd. of It. Ambr. Aug. Or. (which, however, omit o¢ &A. 7u.). Right- 
ly ; xai was inserted for the connection, and in several versions even supplanted 
the oc. —[Ver. 33. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with ® B D, 33, have the simple 
form 7fpoopivovc. — Ver. 36. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with & B D L, omit 
6 “Inoovc.| — After eipyrvy tuiv Lachm. has in brackets ¢y0 sip, py popetobe, fol- 
lowing GP, min. vss. Ambr. Aug. An addition from John vi. 20. But, more- 
over, the preceding x. Aéy. avroic: eip. tuiv, although it is wanting only in D and 
codd. of It. (deleted by Tisch.), is extremely open to the suspicion of being 
added from John xx. 19. [Retained by Treg., bracketed by W. and Hort.] 
See also Lachm. inthe Slud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 843. A reason for its omission, 
if it had been original, would be hard to perceive. — Ver. 38. Instead of év rai¢ 
xapd. B D, codd. of It. al. Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular ; the plural isan 
amendment. — Ver. 39. avréc éyo eiuc] Several different arrangements of the 
words occur in the mss. and vss. Lachm. and Tisch. have éyé ely avrés, in 
accordance with B L & 33. — Ver. 4U 1s wanting only in D, codd. of It. Syr. 
but is deleted by Tisch. [bracketed by recent editors], and comes under the 
same suspicion of being added from John (xx. 20) as the words x. Aéy. avz. ip. 
ip., ver. 36.— Ver. 42. xai ard pedo. mp suspected by Griesb., deleted by 
Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with A B DL II §&, Cant. Clem. Or. Eus. Epiph. 
Ath. Cyr. An ancient omission on the part of a transcriber, probably only 
occasioned by xai . . . xat. The peculiarity of the food betrays no interpola- 
tion ; xai Gprov or kai dprov (comp. John xxi. 9) would rather have been added. 
[Treg. brackets the phrase ; W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. text, omit. — Ver. 44. 
Tisch., recent editors, read pd¢ avrotc, with 8B L, 33, Vulg., and add pov after 
7éya, with ABD L, 33.]— Ver. 46. kal ovrwc édec] ig wanting in B C* DL 8, 
Copt. Aeth. Arr. codd. of It. Fathers. Suspected by Griesbach and Rinck, 
bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition in the way of gloss. — 
Ver. 47. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. marg., with ® B, Copt., read ec, 
instead of kai, before d¢eorv.] — apédyevov] The reading apfayevoe in B C* LN 
X & 33, Copt. Aeth. Tisch. is to help out the construction, in connection with 
the omission of dé, ver. 48 (which Tisch., following B C* L &, has deleted). 
[Recent editors have apfdauevo, W. and Hort marg., R. V. marg., joining with 


CHAP. XXIV., 1-12. 573 
ver. 48 ; they also omit dé, and Tisch., W. and Hort, with BD, Aug., omit éore 
in ver. 48 ; Treg. brackets, Weiss suspects it. — Ver. 49. ‘Tisch., with ® DL, 
Vulg., reads xayd, instead of xai idot yd; with recent editors, &° C B L, 33, substi- 
tutes éfarooréAAw for the simple verb ; and with recent editors, ® BC DL, 
Copt. and Vulg., omits ‘IepovoaAju. — Ver. 50. Tisch.,recent editors, with ® B 
C L, 33, omit éw and substitute zpdéc for eic.] —Ver. 51 f. The omission of xai 
avegépero zig t. ovpavév, and at the same time of zpocxuvjcarrec airéy in the same 
set of authorities (D, Cant. Ver. Verc. Corb. Rd. Aug.), throws on both (the 
former is wanting also in &%*) the grave suspicion (comp. on vv. 36, 39) of 
being added for the sake of completeness. [W. and Hort bracket both clauses, 
R. V. marg. omits.]— Ver. 53. In a few authorities aivoivrec xai is wanting 
(which Griesb., in accordance with B C*L X, Ar. p., regards as suspicious) 
[W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit aivovyreg xai.]; in others cai evAoyotvres (which 
Tisch., in accordance with D, codd. of It. Copt. Aug., has kept out). The 
Recepta is to be maintained, since alveiv r. Oedv is especially frequent in Luke, 
but neither aivotwre¢ nor eiAoyoivrec offered occasion for an addition by way of 
gloss, But x«. cvA. might easily drop out in consequence of the homoeoteleuton 
in atvotvrecand eiioyovrvres. 


Vv. 1-12. Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 1-8 ; Mark xvi. 1-8. — The question of 
the special sources from which Luke has taken the considerable portion that is 
peculiar to him in the account of the resurrection (Griesbach : from the mouth 
of the Joanna named by him alone, ver. 10), as well asin all that still follows 
that account, cannot be decided ; but assuredly he did not as yet know the 
conclusion of Mark as it now stands. — Badéu¢ (see the critical remarks) : 
the adverb’ of degree is immediately annexed to a substantive. Sce on 
2 Cor. xi. 23. Hence : deep in the morning, 1.e., in the first morning twilight.* 
— Ver. 2, evpov d2 x.r.4.] agrees as littleas Mark xvi. 4 with the narrative of 
the rolling away of the stone in Matt. xxviii. 2. —Ver. 4. év r@ dtarop. avr. 
wept tobrov] while they were in great perplexity concerning this.* In the New 
Testament only in Luke. Still Lachmann and Tischendorf [recent editors, 
R. V.] have the simple form aropeicda: (B C D L &), but this easily crept 
in through neglect of the compound form. Also ix. 7, Acts ii, 12, the 
reading #ropeiro occurs. — érfor.] as ii. 9. — dvdpec] The angels (ver. 28) are 
designated according to the form of the appearance which they had in the 
view of the women.‘ Comp. Acts i. 10; Mark xvi. 5. And their clothes 
had a flashing brightness (aorparz.). — Ver. 5. ré Cyreire x.7.A.] indicating the 
groundlessness of their search. —rdv (ovra}] denotes Jesus not as Him «ho is 
TTimself the life (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following John i. 4), nor 
yet the conquering life (de Wette), but, according to the context, quite 


' Babdws might, it is true, be also the geni- 
fire of the adjective (see generally,-Lobeck, 
ad Phryn. p. 246 f.). Thus Bleek, Buttmann, 
and Schegg. Only no certain Instance of 
such a genitive form occurs in the New 
Testament. 

2 Comp. Plat. Cri/. p. 48 A, Prot. p. 810 A. 
The opposite is; 4 écxaros Spdpos, Thencr. 
xxiv. 63. 

* Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 237 A, Soph. p. 217 


A, Tim. p. 40 B. 

¢ Schleiermacher makes out of this, per- 
sons commissioned by Joseph of Arimathaea. 
By means of such, Joseph had had the body 
of Jesus brought away from the grave, in 
which it had been provisionally laid. See 
L. J. p. 471. At an earlier period Schleler- 
macher made another shift, but not a bet- 
ter. See Strauss In Hilgenfeld's Zetischr. 
1863, p. 386 ff. 





574 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
simply Him tho is alice, and no vexpéc. Comp. ver. 23. — pera réw vexpor} 
the grave is in general conceived of as the place where the dead are, where, 
therefore, he who issought, is sought among thedead. Ver. 6 f. &¢ 442.) ix. 
22, xviii. 82 f. The reference to Galilee (Matthew and Mark) Luke could 
not adopt ; see vv. 49, 50. — ray vidv rov ar¥p.] The designation of Himself 
previously used by Jesus. After the resurrection He no longer calls Him- 
eelf by this name. Comp. ver. 26. avdpdém. duapz.] heathens. Comp. xviii. 
32; Gal. 1.15. Otherwise Matt. xxvi. 45.— Ver. 8. It is psychologically 
improbable that the remembrance occurred to them now for the first time 
and at the prompting of the angel, if Jesus actually foretold His resurrection 
in terms so definite. But see on Matt. xvi. 21.— Ver. 9. «. maot roig Aoeroic] 
who adhered to the company of the disciples as followers of Jesus. — Ver. 
10 f. According to the corrected reading (sec the critical remarks), foav dé 
. 'Iaxd,3ov is a supplementary enumeration of the most eminent of the 
women who brought the tidings ; after which by means of xai ai Auxai 
x.t.a. the same bringing of the tidings is related also of their female com- 
panions, and then by «ai é¢dvqoayv x.7.A. the narration is further continued. 
There were, howerer (these women who returned and announced, ctc.), Mary 
Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, moreover (kai), the reat 
of the women with them told this to the apostles, and their words appeared to 
them asa fable, and they belieced them not. [See Note CLKXXVI., p. 590.] 
Asto Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, see on Matt. xxvii. 55 f. ; 
as to Joanna, on Luke viii. 3. — é¢év7oav] the plural of the verb with the 
neuter plural (sce, in general, Winer, p. 456 [E. T. 514]) denotes here the 
declarations of the several individual persons.’ — 7 poc} a foolish rumor, trick.* 
— Ver. 12. The disciples did not believe the women, but Peter, hasty and im- 
petuous as he was, desired to inform himself by his own sight about this en- 
igmatical state of affairs. To take @dpauev as a pluperfect (Paulus) Is on ac- 
count of 82é7e: impossible ; a perverted system uf harmonizing, in which even 
Calvin led the way. Of the dAdo¢ padnrfe of John xx. 3, Luke says nothing, 
but, according to ver. 24, does not exclude him. The account is vague in 
the connection of its several pyts, 3 as even ver. 34 presupposes something 
that is not related. — rapaxiy.] stooping down into the grave, John xx. 5, 11. 
—éva] so that thus the corpse was gone.‘—po¢ éavr.] not : with Himself 


1 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Afem. iv. 8. 12. Peter. 


2 Plat. Protag. p. 347 D, Hipp. maj. p. 804 
B: Ajpovs xa: gAvapias; Xen. Fist. iv. 8. 15; 
Arist. Plut. 28, and elsewhere; Soph. 
Trach. 485 : Aynpeiv avdpds ovxi cadpporvos. 

* Since vv. 24 and & presuppose what 
nevertheless is not previously narrated, it 
is certainly to be assumed that vv. 1-12 and 
ver. 18 ff. have been taken from two dis- 
tinct sources, which Luke in his working 
up has not sufficiently compared together. 
There has not been wanting here, more- 
over, the supposition of a tendency Accord- 
ing to Baur (7h-ol. Jahrb. 1858, p. 61), the 
scene at Emmaus is to put in the deckground 
the manifestation which was made only to 


‘ That the grave was empty is so decid- 
edly and clearly in the whole of the New 
Testament (in opposition to Weizsacker, 
p. 572) the correlative of the resurrection 
of Jesus (see also Rom. vi. 4; Col. fi. 12), 
that it is not at all to the purpose when 
Kelm (Geschichil. Chr. p. 184) adds to the 
expression of his belief in an appearance of 
Jesus in glorified corporeality, ‘* if makes no 
matter whether Ue grave was empty or not.” 
Keim, moreover, contends with force 
against the visionary view of the resurrec- 
tion. See against this kind of view, also 
Gebhardt, 2). Aufersteh. Christ. 1864, p. 18 ff.; 
Disterdieck, Apol. Betir. I. p. 8 ff.; Weiss 


CHAP. XXIV., 13, 14. 575 
(as Mark xiv. 4; Luke xviii. 11), so that it would belong to davudfwv (Lu- 
ther, Castalio, Grotius, Wolf, Schegg, and others, following the Vulgate), in 
which case, however, it would be superfluous, and its position before Sauud- 
Say would have no motive ; but it belongs to argAbe : to his home, i.e., mpd¢ 
tiv éautov diaywyfv, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. John xx. 10. Examples 
in Kypke, I. p. 837. —@avudz. 1d yeyovde] ourijne yap, dre ov petetéiby’ 7 yap av 
peta tov ofovioy pereréOy, Euthymius Zigabenus.’ Comp. John xx. 7 f. 

Vv. 13, 14. The journey to Emmaus, peculiar to Luke. Mark xvi. 12 isa 
meagre intimation of the same history from another source. — #oav rop.] were 
on the way. —é airév] in general: of the followers of Jesus, éx ray bAwy 
pobyrov, Euthymius Zigabenus. They did not belong to the twelve (see ver. 
83) ; whether they were of the serenty (Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, and 
others) cannot be determined. In other respects they are perfectly un- 
known. Luke, ver. 18, names only the one (KAedémag is the same as KAedrarpor, 
distinct from the Hebrew name K2wrac¢, John xix. 25, or Alphaeus), and 
that, indeed, accidentally, because he introduces him actually speaking. 
In this way it is left in doubt whether he knew the name of the other or 
not (Ambrose calls him Ammaon). From the fact of his not being named, 
there is neither to be concluded a greater (Bornemann) nor a less (Kuinocl) 
degree of knowledge regarding him ; and who he may have been is not at 
all to be conjectured, although Nathanael (so Epiphanius), Bartholomew, 
Peter, or another Simon (Origen, Cyril), nay, in spite of i. 2, Luke himself 
(in Theophylact, so also Lange, I. p. 252), and even, conjecturally (Holtz- 
mann), the younger James, as having made the journey with his father Al- . 
phaeus (but in 1 Cor. xv. 7 the Lord’s brother is meant)—have been guess- 
ed. — ’Eupaoic] in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 6. ‘Appaoic, a village, also accord- 
ing to Josephus 60 stadia (74 geographical miles) in a north-western direc- 
tion from Jerusalem—not to be confounded, as has often been done since 
Eusebius and Jerome (Robinson, Pal. III. p. 281 f.), with the town of 
Emmaus, 1 Macc. iii. 40, ix. 50, in the plain of Judaea, which since the 
third century after Christ has been named Nicopolis, and is 176 stadia from 
Jerusalem.? Zschokke, D. neutest. Emmayg, 1865, following tradition, is 
again in favor of the present village of Awbeibeh, and that on the ground of 


in the Sfud. uv. Krit. 1866, p. 178 f.; Uhlhorn, 
D. modernen Darstell. d. Leb, Jesu, 1866, 
p. 115 ff. 

1 Even this simple observation of Euthy- 
mius Zigabenas is sufficient to show that 
every other cause by which the corpse may 
have disappeared from the grave, apart 
from His resurrection, is inconcelvable. 
Schenkel, indeed (in his Zetlschr. 1865, 5), 
when he defines the resurrection as ‘* the 
real mysterious self-revelation of the personal- 
ily of Christ emerging living and imperisha- 
ble from death,” uses for this purpose no 
grave, since he makes the personality of 
Christ emerge only from death, not from 
the grave. But the certainty that Christ 
came forth from the grave is at the founda- 


tion of erery mention of the resurrection 
throughout the whole New Testament, in 
which reference, especially also the moral 
idea of cuvdarrecdac and cuveyciperdar 
Xptore (Rom. vi. 4; Col. il. 12, iif. 1; Eph. il. 
6) is of importance. 

2 Hence we find, in some mas. (including 
®) and ves., the reading éxardy ¢£jcovra, 
which Tisch.ty2ops. [not Tisch. VIII.] on 
insufficient evidence prefers. Even Arnold 
expresses himself as not averse to identify- 
ing it with Nicopolis. See, in general, 
Ritter’s Palestine, XVI. pp. 512, 545; Arnold 
in Herzog’s Hacykl. III. p. 778 f.; Thrupp in 
The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 
1860, p. 262 ff. 


576 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


the more recent measurement of the distance from Jerusalem. Others : 
Culonieh ; others : Kurjat et Enab.—Ver. 14. x. atroi] and they, on their 
part, said, in view of the appearance of Jesus to them, ver. 15 f.—zepi zdv- 
tov Tov ouufe3nx. totter] vv. 1-12. In their subsequent discourse with the 
unknown one at ver. 18 ff. they are more prolix.' 

Vv. 15, 16. xai avréc] xai is the usual form after éyéreTo (comp. ver. 4; see 
on v. 12), and airéc, He Himself, of whom they were speaking. — éyyicac] 
probably overtaking them from behind. — éxparotvro x.1.4.] they were held so 
8o that they knew Him not. Examples of xpareiofa: of organs of the body : 
impediri, quominus vim et actionem siti propriam exserant, ‘‘to be hindered 
from showing the power and action proper to them,” see in Kypke. The 
expression itself, which indicates a peculiar external influence, not to speak 
of its telic connection, .as well as the correlative divoiyOyoav x.7.4. in ver. 
$1, should have prevented their failure to recognize Him from being attrib- 
uted to an unfamiliar dress of Jesus, and to an alteration of His counte- 
ance by the tortures of crucifixion ; or, on the other hand, to the disciples’ 
own dejection (Paulus, Kuinoel, Lange, and others). The text represents 
only a wonderful divine effect. The matter is otherwise represented in Mark 
xvi. 12, where Jesus appears év érépg popdp. 

Vv. 17, 18. What are these discourses that yein turn throw out to one another as 
ye walk, andare of gloomy countenance? Instead of xai dvreg oxvOpwrol, the ad- 
dress passes over into the finite verb, bringing out this characteristic 
more emphatically, Matthiae, § 632; Kiihner, § 675. 4. After xci we are not to 
supply vi (Beza). The relative clause of¢ av7:Bé24. mp. GAA. corresponds to the 
idea of owWyreiv (disputare). [See Note CLXXVIL., p. 590.] — od pdvoc rapor- 
xei¢ x.7.2.] Dost thou alone diell as a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not 
learned, etc.? In respect of this question of surprise, it is to be considered 
—(1) that the destiny of Jesus is so entirely the only thought in the soul of 
the two disciples, and appears to them now so absolutely as the only possible 
subject of their conversation and their sadness, that from their standpoint 
they instantly conclude from the question of the unknown one that he 
cannot at all know what has come to pass, since otherwise he would not 
begin by asking of what they spedk and why they look sad ; (2) that pdvoc 
belongs to raporkeic and xai ov« Fyvug 3 80 that thus rapocneic 'Iep. cat atx Evrae 
(there is no comma to be placed before xai), taken together, constitute the 
ground of their question, whether it is he alone in whose experience this is the 
case. Hence it is wrong to take «ai in the place of a relative. Comp. John 
vii. 4. [See Note CLXXVIII., p. 590.] — wapocxeiv ‘Iepove. may either mean : 
dicell as a stranger in Jerusalem (thus often in the LXX.; usually with ¢, 
but also with the accusative, Gen. xvii. 8; Ex. vi. 4), or: dicell near, at 
Jerusalem ;* thus ‘Iepovo. would be in the datire. The former view is the 
usual and the correct one (comp. Heb. xi. 9; Acts vii. 6, xili. 17; 1 Pet. 1. 17, 
ii. 11), since the disciples might recognize the unknown, perchance, as a 
foreign pilgrim to the feast (even from his dialect), but not as a dweller in 

1 On dpurcty = StarAdyerOar, comp. Xen. tion, Bleek ; comp. Xen. De redié.i. 5; Isocr. 


Anabd. Iv. 8. 2. Panegyr. 162; Thac. iii. 98; Lucian, D. M. 
3 Grotiue, Rosenmifiller, and, with hesita- fi. 1. - 


Se A et 


CHAP. XXIV., 19-21. 577 
the vicinity of Jerusalem. Ungrammatically,' Theophylact, also Zeger and 
others, have taken sapoxeiy as simply to dwell; and Castalio, Vatablus, 
Clarius, and Kuinoel have taken it in the figurative sense of févov elva:, and 
hospitem esse: ‘‘de iis, qui quid agatur ignorant, art thou then alone so strange 
to Jerusalem?” 

Vv. 19-21. Mota] scil. otx Eyven yevduevan.t.a. The qualitatice word of in- 
terrogation presupposes things of a special kind which must have happened ; 
mpooroteirat Gyvorav, Euthymius Zigabenus. — ol 62 eizov] Probably here also 
Cleopas was the speaker, and the other added his own assent to what was 
said. — a¢ éyévero] not : who was (thus usually), but : who became, whereby 
the idea se praestitit, se praebuit (see Ktihner, ad Xen. Anab, i. 7. 4), is ex- 
pressed. — avip mpog.] an honorable expression, Bernhardy, p. 48. — duvard¢ 
év Epyw x. 26yy]* év marks the sphere wherein, etc. Comp. Acts xviii. 24, vii. 
22; Judith xi. 8; Ecclus. xxi. 8. In the classical writers the mere dative 
of the instrument is the usual form.’ In this place épyy is put first as con- 
taining the first ground of acknowledgment of the Messianic dignity. Comp. 
Actsi. 1; John x. 88; Acts x. 38. — évavriov x.r.A.] 4.¢., 50 that He repre- 
sented Himself as such to God and the whole people. — Ver. 20. druc re] et 
quomodo, ‘‘and in what way,” still depending on the ov« éyvwe of ver. 18, 
which is mentally supplicd as governing ra wepi "Incov x.r.A. On ei¢ xpiva 
Oavatov, to the condemnation of death, comp. xxiii. 24. —xai écrafpwoar] for it 
was their work that He was crucified by the governor. Comp. Acts. ii. 23. 
— Ver. 21. gusic 62 nArifouer] but we, on our part, were entertuining the hope 
(observe the imperfect), etc. This hope, demolished by the crucifixion, how . 
soon was itagain inflamed! Acts i. 6. — airécg] He, and no other—Avurpotoba] 
according to the politico-theocratic idea of the national Messiah. Comp. 
Acts i. 6, and sce Theophylact. — a/14 ye] but indeed, although we cherished 
this hope.‘ — xai] (see the critical remarks) : besides. —oiv zac tobror¢] civ 
denotes the accompanying circumstance: with all this, i.e., with the having 
undergone all this fate, namely, of being delivered up and crucified (ver. 
20).° — rpiryy rabryv jyuépav ayes oguepov| The subject is Jesus, who immcdi- 
ately before was the subject emphatically made prominent. rpirgy retry 
yuépav is equivalent to rabray rpiryy oboav yutpay, OF tabtyy, f Tpity éotiv nuipa.” 
Hence : But indeed, besides all this, He passes this present day as the third 
since, etc. In this case, it is true, ofmepov is superfluous, but it corresponds 





1 Not to be supported by passages such 
as Gen. xxiv. 387; Num. xx. 15; Ps. xv. 1, 
oxx. 6, where the LXX. have translated 
3M’ and jouw by terms more specific than the 
original. 

2 Comp. Thue. {. 189. 4, where Pericles is 
Called Adyew re cai spdoceww &vvarwraros. ° 

* See Bornemann, Schol. p. 159. See ex- 
amples of both arrangements: ¢pye¢ «. A. 
and Ady@ «. ¢., in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 64 f.; 
Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 8 6; Pflugk, 
ad Eur. Hee. 878. 

See Hermann, ad Eur. Ion. 1845, Praef. 
p. xx.; Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 2.12 On 
the immediate fuziaposttion of the two par- 


37 


ticles, a usage foreign to the older Greck 
writers, see Bornemann, Schol. p. 160 ; Klotz, 
ad Devar. pp. 15 f., 2; Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
Rep. I. p. 881 B. 

& Comp. Neh. v. 18; 8 Macc. 1. 22; and 
see, generally, Ellendt, Zer. Soph. II. p. 768. 

*Comp. Beza, Kypke. dyer, of time: & 
spend » as ¢.g. 8dxarov érog aye, fo be in the 
tenth year, and the like, does not belong 
merely to the later Greek. Sophocles, £7. 
258, has: éwara woias Hudpac Bonets ps’ ayew: 
What kind of days thinkeal thou lam spend- 
ing? Compare the passages in Kypke. 

7™See Kfihner, ad Xen. Anad. iv. 7. 5. 
Comp. ill. 5. 9. 


578 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


to the painful excitement of the words. [See critical note ; the word is to 
be omitted.] Comp. Mark xiv. 29. dye has been ungrammatically taken 
as impersonal: agitur (Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, de Wette, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Buttmann, Bleek, and others); while others 
grasp at arbitrary modes of supplying the subject, as 5 ypévog (Camera- 
rius), Ged (Heinsius), 6 #4:0¢ (Er. Schmid, Heumann). Bornemann regards 
‘lopaya as the subject: ‘‘ Is dies, guem Israel hodie celebrat, tertius est, ex 
quo,” ‘‘ This day, which Israel to-day celebrates, is the third, from which,” etc. 
But the context leads us neither to Isracl nor to the mention of the cele- 
bration of the festival. 

Vv. 22, 23. Nevertheless on this frustration of our hopes the following 
also has occurred, which has again aroused them, and still (ver. 24) has left 
them till now unfulfilled. —éi juav}] from our company, &¢ yeig ioral, 
Euthymius Zigabenus. — dp6p:ac:} an Attic form, instead of which, however, 
the later opép:vai' is preponderatingly attested, and is, with Lachmann and 
Tischendorf, to be preferred. [See critical note. ] — xai py? et'p.] nai. . . 728ov, 
instead of carrying on the participial expression in conformity with yevdzevai, 
continues with greater emphasis in an independent sentence. — xa? orrasiav 
x.T.A.] xai : and moreoter, besides the fact that they found not the body. — 
of A£yovory] indicutire, the direct vision mingling in a lively manner with the 
oratio obliqua.* 

Ver. 24. Tivéc] therefore not merely Peter, ver. 12. But did Luke con- 
ceive these several persons as having gone together? Probably, according to 
the analogy of ver. 22. Moreover, comp. on ver. 12.—otrw xaddc «.1.A.] 
namely, that the corpse was not in the grave. — avrav d2 ovx eldov] but Him, 
Him who yet, according to that angelic assurance narrated by the women, 
was to live, Him they saw not; a tragical conclusion ! 

Vv. 25, 26. Avréc] He on His part, after the disciples had thus helplessly 
expressed themselves. —avéyro (Rom. i. 14 ; Gal. ili. 2 f.), wethout intells- 

> gence, refers to the understanding, and fSpadeic rH xapdig to the whole internat 
licing activity, in respect of which (dative) its dulness, ¢.e., its deficiency in 
the proper susceptibility and fixedness of purpose, is reproved. oxAnpoxapdia, 
Mark xvi. 14, is stronger.® -— rov mioreiecv] a genitive of nearer definition de- 
pendent on fpadeic (see Winer, p. 290 [E. T. 824]) ; slow fo believing conji- 
dence in.4 — xacw] not merely referring to a single thing. There was want- 
ing to them the faith «ithout exception, otherwise they would have recognized 
even the suffering and death of the Messiah as prophesied, and have nightly 
discerned them ; éor: yap mioreterv nai pepixdc xai xaddAov, ‘for these a be- 
lieving both partial and entire,” Theophylact.— Ver. 26. Must not the 
Messiah, etc., namely, according to the prophctically announced divine de- 
cree. Comp. ver. 44 ff.—ratra] with emphasis: this, which He, to wit, 


1 See Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 186; Lobeck, ad posite: ayxtvovs, Plat. Phaed~. p. 239 A; 


Phryn. p. 51. Diog. Laert. vil. 93 ; also dgus, Plat. Rep. vil. 
2 Bernhardy, p. 299; Reisig, Conject.p.226f. p. 526 B. 
3 On Bpadvs as fardus, ‘‘ slow,’ in the spirit- 4On morever éxi with a dative, comp. 


wal sense, comp. Ji. x. 226; Plat. Defn. p.415 Matt. xxvil. 42; Rom. ix. $8, x. 11; 1Tim£ 
EB: dvcpaeia Bpaduris dv padyoe. Theophr. 16; 1 Pet. il. 6. 
Mor. not. 14: @ Bpadurns ris Yuxis. The op- 





mae 


1 


) 
CHAP. XXIV., 27-30. 579 


had in fact suffered, and which causes you to be so cast down. — kai eioeAd. 
ei¢ r. défav airov] not as though He had already by the resurrection in itself, 
and before the ascension, attained to His dééa (for His heavenly condition is 
not until His glory after death, see ix. 26, xxi. 27; Phil. ii. 9 f.; 1 Pet. i. 
21; 1 Tim. iii. 16; John xx. 17, xvii. 5, and elsewhere), but out of the 
foregoing de, dei is here to be supplied : and must Henot attain unto His 
glory? Wherefore, on the one hand, those sufferings needed first to pre- 
cede ; and, on the other, He must be again alive. The definite iced. cic 7. 
dé. is not to be evaporated into the general ‘‘ attain His destination” 
(Schleiermacher).! 

Ver. 27. Kai ard révtuv tr. mpog.| ap§duevoc is to be conceived of succes- 
sively: He began from Moses, and when He had finished with him, from all 
the prophets, taking them one by one in succession, consequently making of 
each one of them a new commencement of His d:epufvevorc. Thus the 
reproach of a careless (Winer), inevact (Buttmann, Bleek), or defective (de 
Wette) mode of expression (Acts iii. 24) becomes, to say the least, unneces- 
sary. What special passages Jesus referred to, Luke unfortunately does not 
tell us. Theophylact adduces many, and specially Jacob Capellus, from 
Gen. iii. 15 down to 2 Chron. Comp. dlso Erasmus, Paraphr.* — écepph- 
vevev| He interpreted,* to wit, by explanation according to their destination 
referred to Him, ¢.¢., having their fulfilment in Him. [The imperfect was 
substituted as more suitable, see critical note. ]— ra wep? abrov} scil. yeypap- 
péva, implied in ypagaic ; otherwise, xxii. 37. 

Vv. 28, 29. ’Eoynparilero roppwtipw ropeberSa: &¢ dade cvvodoirdpoc, ‘‘ He 
was assuming to go further as simply a fellow-traveller,” Euthymius Ziga- 
benus. He desired to prompt the invitation, which was a matter of decorum, 
but knew that it would follow. Comp. Mark vi. 48. The imperfect mpoce- 
waeito (He feigned, gave Himself the air) and then the aorist wapeBidcarro : 
a lively representation. — ropebecSa:] not : that He és constrained or wishes to 
go farther, but we must conceive that for appearance’ sake Ie actually 
began to move forward. — Ver. 29. On wapefiido., they constrained, to wit, 
by means of urgent entreaty.‘ They felt their holiest interests engaged to 
this stranger (ver. 32). That thesé two disciples dwelé in Emmaus is pos- 
sible, but follows just as little from peivov ped’ fudv (comp. rod peivar ov 
avroic) as from eio7Ade. For to the latter cxpression is not to be supplied 
ei¢ Tv oixiay avrav, but from ver. 28 : cig roy xdunv ; that invitation, how- 
ever, does not of necessity mean : stay in our lodging, but may just as well 
signify : stay in our company, pass the night with ue in the house of our host. 
Comp. John i. 39 f. 

Ver. 80. Jesus proceeds not as a guest, but as the master of the house, ac- 
cording to His accustomed manner in the circle of His disciples ; thus, it is 


1 As to supplying the verb in another general, Hengstenberg, Christo. IIL 2, 
tense, see Bornemann on xxiv. 27,ad Xen. sip. £8 ff. 
Apol. § 26; and, generally, Kriger, § 62. 4. § Acts ix. 86; 1 Cor. xii. 80; 2 Maco. 1. 36; 
1; also Niigelsbach, Anm. s. IHas, ed. 8, Polyb. fii. 22 3 
p. 76. ‘Comp. Acts xvi. 15; Gen. xix. 8; also 
2In respect of the prophecies bearing dvaycdfeyr, xiv. 23; Matt. xiv. 22, 
upon the sufferings of the Messiah, see, in 


580 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

true, that does not appear by which they recognize Him, but probably it is 
the external situation, corresponding to the opening of their eyes that now 
follows, which enhances the certainty and the impression of the recognition. 
Comp. ver. 85. — evadyyoe] ‘‘ Tres, qui simul comedunt, tenentur ad gratias 
indicendum,” ‘‘ Three who eat together are bound to give thanks,” Berac. 
f. 45, 1. It is the master of the house giving thanks before the meal. It 
is quite arbitrary for most of the church Fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, and many others) and Catholics (so also Sepp, not Schegg, 
but Bisping) to decide that Jesus celebrated the Lord’s Supper,’ from which 
even the év r@ xatax2.3. ought to have guarded them, since this in fact points 
to the time before the proper beginning of the meal (as they reclined). Comp. 
on iii. 21. 

Ver. 81. Avrav dé dipvoizSnoav ol d60aAuoi] is the opposite of of d¢9aApoi 
avtév éxparoivro, ver. 16. As the latter, so also the former, according to 
Luke, is to be referred to extraordinary divine causation. [See Note 
CLXXIX., p. 590.] This is opposed to the view (Paulus, Kuinoel, and 
others) that the disciples, only by means of the accustomed breaking of 
bread and giving of thanks by Jesus, wherein they had more attentively 
considered Him and had seen His pierced hands, arrived at the recognition 
of Him who until then had been unknown to them. Comp. on ver. 30. — 
avtav] with lively emphasis placed first. What Jesus did is previously de- 
scribed. — avo/yecv] (more strongly diavolyecv) roig d¢3aApots, which is often 
used of the healing of blind people,* describes in a picturesque manner the 
endowing with a capacity, bodily or spiritual, of recognizing what before was 
unknown.* — agavrocg éyiveto az’ aitév] He passed away from them invisibly.‘ 
Luke intends manifestly to narrate a sudden invisible withdrawal effected 
through divine agency ; hence those do wrong to his intention and to the ex- 
pression who, like Kuinoel, make out of it only a subito ab iis discessit, so 
that this departure would not have been observed till it occurred (Schleier- 
macher, DL. J. p. 474). Beza well says that Luke has not said airoic, but 
an’ avrav ; ‘‘ne quis existimet praesentem quidem Christum cum ipsis man- 
sisse, sed corpore, quod cerni non posset,” ‘‘ lest some should suppose that 
Christ indeed had remained with them, but in a body which could not be 
perceived.” The Ubiquists supported the doctrine of the invisible presence 
of Christ’s body by the passage before us. Comp. Calovius. — On the word 
é¢avroc—which is very frequent in the poets, but only rarely used in prose, 
and that of a late period, and, moreover, is not found in the LXX. and the 
Apocrypha—instead of the classical prose word agavgc, see Wesseling, 
ad Diod. iv. 65. 


The Catholics make use of vv. 80 and 85 
asa defence of their ZLucharistia sub una 
specie, “ under one element."" See the Confut. 
Confess, Aug. I¥.1. Even Medanchthon does 
not refuse to explain the passage before us 
of the Lord’s Supper, disapproving, never- 
theless, of the conclusion drawn from it: 
unam partem tantum datam esse; ‘‘ quia 
partis appellatione reliquum significatur 
communi consuetudine sermonis,’’ ‘‘ tha? 


one part only is given ; ‘since by the naming 
of a part the rest is signified by the common 
custom of speech,’ Apal. x. 7, p. 234. 

2 Matt. ix. 80, xx. 83; John ix J0, 14, 17, 
x. 21, xi. 37. 

* Gen. fii. 5, 7, xxl. 19; 2 Kings vi. 17, 20; 
comp. Acts xxvi. 8. 

4 Comp. on yiver@Oa: aro tivos, to withdraw 
from any one, Xen. fem, i. 2.25; Bar. lil 
21. 





CHAP. XXIV., 32-37. 581 


' Vv. 82, 88. Oy? 4 xapdia udv xasoptvy jv év juiv;] Was not our heart on 
Jire within us? The extraordinarily lively emotions are, as in all languages, 
represented under the image of burning, of heat, of being inflamed, and the 
like.! Hence the meaning : Was not our heart in an extraordinarily fervent 
commotion? Comp. Ps. xxxix. 4; Jer. xx. 9. Quite naturally the two 
disciples abstain from explaining more fully the excitement of feeling that 
they had experienced, because such an excitement, comprehending several 
affections, rises into consciousness, as divided into its special elements, the 
less in proportion as its experiences are deep, urgent, and marvellous. The 
connection of the question with what precedes is: ‘‘ Vere Christus est, nam 
non alia potuit esse causa, cur in via eo loquente tantopere animus noster 
inflammaretur,” Maldonatus. — d¢ d:jvotyev x.t.A.] without «ai (see the crit- 
ical remarks) adds the special to the general asyndetically, in which form 
that which is urgent and impressive of the recollection expresses itself. — 
Ver. 33. avrg r9 Spe) Certainly after such an experience the meal of which 
they had intended to partake was immediately given up. They had now 
no more irresistible necessity than that of communicating with their fellow- 
disciples in Jerusalem, and ‘‘jam non timent iter nocturnum, quod antea 
dissuascrant ignoto comiti, ver. 29,” ‘‘ now they do not dread the night jour- 
ney, from which they had previously dissuaded their unknown companion, 
ver. 29,” Bengel. 

Vv. 34, 85. Aéyovrac] belongs to rot¢ Evdexa nal roivg civ avroic, Who in a 
body met them as they arrived with the cry : #yépSn 6 «bptog x.r.A. On tho 
discrepancy with Mark xvi. 13, see on the passage.— yyép0y7 and ogty are 
placed first with triumphant emphasis, as contrasted with what is narrated 
at vv. 11, 12: The appearance to Peter, which Luke has not related further 
(but see 1 Cor. xv. 5), took place in the interval, after what is contained in 
ver. 12. ‘‘Apparitiones utrimque factae, quibus se invicem confirmabant 
illi, quibus obtigerant,” ‘‘The appearances took place to both parties, and 
those to whom they had happened mutually confirmed each other with: 
them,” Bengel. — Zizw] at that time the name which was still] the general 
favorite in the circle of the disciples. According to Lange's fancy, the 
apostle after his fall laid aside his name of Peter, as a priest his consecrated 
robe, and an officer his sword. Jcsus Himself named him, indeed, before, 
and after his fall, almost exclusively Simon.” In Luke xxii. 34, Mérpe hasa 
special significance. — Moreover, ver. 34 ought to have forbidden the as- 
sumption that Luke distinguishes the two disciples who went to Emmaus 
above the apostles (Hilgenfeld).— Ver. 35. xai avroi] and they on thcir part, 
as contrasted with those who were assembled.— ev rj «2dcer] not: in the 
breaking, but at the time of the breaking. Sce on ver. 81. [But see Note 
CLXXI1X., p. 590. ] 

Vv. 86, 37. Atri¢ fory év plow atzov] He Himself stood in the midst of them. 
These words point to the fact that Luke, who already at ver. 31 has related 
also a sudden disappearance and vanishing of Jesus, conceived of a marvel- 
lous, instantaneous appearance of the Risen One in the circle of His disciples, 


' Wetsteln and Kypke in loc.; Musgrave, 3 Matt. xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 87; Luke xxil 
ad Soph, Aj. 473. 8]; John xxi. 15.) 


582 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

and this is confirmed by the narrative in John xx. 19 of the appearance of 
Jesus within closed doors. The subsequently (ver. 37) related impression 
upon those who were assembled is, moreover, easily explained from this 
fact, although they had just before spoken as specified at ver. 34. —év plow} 
‘id significantius quam in medium,” Bengel. — cipfyy ipiv] Peace to you! 
The usual Jewish greeting p29 Doe, x. 5. — Ver. 37. rvevpa} a departed 
spirit, which, having come from Hades, appeared as an wmbra in an appar- 
ent body ; the same that Matthew, xiv. 26, calls ¢d»raoya. 

Ver. 38. Wherefore arise thoughts in your heart ? i.e., wherefore have ye 
not immediately and without any consideration (see on Phil. ii. 14) recognized 
me as the person Tam? 

Ver. 39. In the jirst half of the verse Jesus desires to remove from His 
disciples their consternation, and that by means of their being required to 
convince themselves that it is He Himself (no other) ; in the second half He 
desires to oppose the notion of a rveiyua, and that in such a way that they 
should be persuaded that it is He bodily. The two parts of ver. 89 corre- 
spond, that is to say, to the two parts of ver. 38. — rac yeipdc pov x. t. wédac 
p.] These, pointed to as a proof that it is He Himself, must afford this proof 
by the traces of the crucifixion, namely, by the wounds of the nails in the 
hands and fect (as to the nailing of the feet, sec on Matt. xxvii. 35). Comp. 
John xx. 20.’ According to Paulus and de Wette, Jesus pointed to His 
hands and feet as the uncovered parts, in order to oppose the notion of a 
spirit. In this way aird¢ éy4 would have to be understood of the reality, 
not of the identity of His appearance. But the hands and the feet were seen 
even without special pointing to them ; the latter presupposes a character- 
istic to be recognized by closer inspection. Even this characteristic, how- 
ever, could not prove the reality (since it might appear as well in a ¢dvracpa 
or eidwiov), but probably the identity though apart from the reality, for 
which latter the conviction was to be added by means of touch. — rc] is in 
both cases : that. [See Note CLXXX., p. 591.]? 

Vv. 41-48. "Er:] in the sense of still; see Schneider, ad Plat. Rep. 
p. 449 C. — ard rij¢ yapac] on account of the (presently experienced by them, 
comp. xxil. 45 ; Acts xii. 14; Matt. xiii. 44) joy. That a great and happy 
surprise keeps back and delays the full conviction of the truth of the happy 
event itsclf, is a matter of psychological experience.’ — eizev avroig’ éyeze 
K.T.A.] mpdc wAciova tiorw nal BeBasorépav arddecktv Tov pA doxeiv pdop., ‘* For 
greatcr faith and firmer demonstration of not being an apparition,” Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus. —xai a7zd pedioo. xnpiov| and (some) of a bee's honeycomb 
(favus). percooiov is added as a distinction from any other kind of honey. 
The word, however, does not elsewhere occur, but peAcooatoc (Nicander, TA. 


1 Without reason Schlelermacher says of 
these wounds: “ they may hare been tio or 
Sour” (p. 447). He has indeed taken up a 
position of great indifference about the 
question whether Jesus was actually or 
only apparently dead (in respect of which 
he sophistically misuses Acts ii. 27); but still 
a merely apparent death does not come to 


the same thing, and it is only opposed to 
the (true) view of the resurrection that the 
disciples took internal for external phenom- 
ena. See especially p. 471. 

20On cdpxa «, dboTéa ove Exet, Comp. Hom. 
Od. xi. 219. 

3 Liv. xxxix. 49: Viz sibimet ipsi prae nec 
opinato gaudio credenteés. 


.CHAP. XXIV., 44. 583 
611); 1 Sam. xiv. 27 : aypiov rot plditos. On didévae ard, comp. xx. 10. — 
Ver. 43. égayev] in respect of which what had already gone before (vv. 39, 
40) must keep at a distance the idea of a merely apparent eating, such as is 
attributed to angels, Tob. xii. 19 (comp. Gen. xviil. 8, xix. 3). Comp. 
Acts x. 41. 

Ver. 44. Elxev d2 airoic] after the eating ; a continuation of the same 
scene. According to the simple narrative, it is altogether unwarrantable to 
place an interval between these two passages.’ [See Note CLXXXI., 
p.'591.] No impartial reader could do this, and how easy would it have 
been for Luke to give a hint to that effect !— obroe oi Adyor x.1.A.] these 
(namely, that I—as ye have now convinced yourselves—after my sufferings 
aud death have actually arisen) are the words (in their realization, namely) 
which I spoke to youwhile I was yet with you, to wit, that all things must be 
Suljilled, etc. (the substance of the Ady). [See Note CLXXXII., p. 591. ] 
Jesus assuredly often actually said this to them, according to the substance 
generally.? — ir: Sy civ tu.] for by death He was separated from them, and 
the earlier association with them was not, moreover, now again after the 
resurrection restored.* — év r@ véuy M. x. mwpod. x. Wadpoic] certainly contains 
in itself that which is essential of the Jewish tripartite division of the 
Canon into law (TN), prophets (D°R'3}), and Hagiographa (0°33). Under 
the law was reckoned merely the Pentateuch ; under the prophets, Joshua, 
Judges, 1st and 2d Samuel, ist and 2d Kings (O°)}We) D'W'3)), and the 
prophets properly so called, except Daniel (0°))7M8 0°X'3)); under the 
Hagiographa, all the rest of the canonical Scriptures, including Daniel, 
ssther, Ezra and Nehemiah (the two reckoned together as one book), and 
Chronicles. Yet, according to the use of xpogyr. and yadpu. elsewhere 


1 But to say, with Ebrard, p. 596, that the 
passage vv. 44-49 depicts in general the 
whole of the leaching communicated to the disci- 
* ples by Christ after His resurrection, is just 
as marvellous a despairing clutch of har- 
monistics. So also older harmonists, and 
even Grotius. Wieseler, in the (hronoal. 
Synopse, p. 4% f., ike Bengel and others, 
places between ver. 48 and ver. 44 the forty 
days, after the lapse of which ver. 44 ff. is 
spoken on the day of the ascension. But 
his proof depends on the presupposition that 
in the Gospel and in Acts 1. Luke must 
needs follow the same tradition In respect 
of the time of the ascension. The separa- 
tion of ver. 44 from what precedes ought 
not only to have been prevented by the use 
of the 4 (comp. on ver. 50), but also by the 
use of the obro:, refcrring as it does to what 
goes before. Lange, LZ. J. IT. 8 p. 1679, 
represents ver. 43, beginning with rére &- 
voter «.r.A., as denoting the forty days’ 
ministry of Jesus begun on that evening; 
for he maintains that the unfolding of the 
knowledge did not occur in @ moment. But 
why not? At least there needed no longer 


time for that purpose than for the instruc- 
tions of ver. 27. Rightly, Hofmann, Schri/t- 
bew. II. 2, p. 5, declares himself opposed to 
separations of that kind ; nevertheless, he 
afterwards comes back toa similar arbi- 
trary interpolation of the forty days in vv. 
45-49. If the place for the forty days has 
first been found here, there {s indeed suffi- 
cient room to place the direction of ver. 
49, cadicare év Th woAee «.7.A., first after the 
return of the disciples from Galilee, as 
Lange does; but Luke does not, since he 
here absolutely excludes a withdrawal on 
their part to Galilee. Ewald rightly recog- 
nizes (Gesch. des Apost. Zeitalt. p. 98) that 
Luke limits all appearances of the Risen One 
to the resurrection Sunday. So also, im- 
partially, Bleek, Holtzmann. 

2Comp. xviii. 31 f., xxil. 87; Matt. xxv 
56, and elsewhere. 

§Grotius well says: ‘‘nam tunc tantum 
car’ oixovouiay Sllis aderat,’’ “for now He 
was only present with them car’ oixovouiay,”’ 

‘See Bava Bathraf. xiv. 2; Lightfoot, 
p. 900. 


584 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


(comp. xx. 42) from the mouth of Jesus, it is not to be assumed that He by 
these two designations intended to express that definite literary historical 
extent of the O°#°33, and the whole of the Hagiographa. He means the 
prophets proper who have prophesied of Him (ver. 25), from whom He cer- 
tainly; moreover, did not think Daniel excluded (Mutt. xxiv. 15); and by 
ya7u., the actual Psalms in the accustomed sense as that portion of the Script- 
ure in which, besides the law and the prophets, the Messianic prophecy is 
chiefly deposited. Moreover, observe the non-repetition of the article before 
mpoo. and yWa/y., Whereby the three portions appear in their connection as 
constituting one whole of prophecy. 

Vv. 46, 47. Kai otrue édec being deleted (see the critical remarks), the 
passage reads : for thus it is written that the Messiah should suffer and rise 
again, etc., and that there should be announced, etc. By means of or: Jesus 
adds the circumstance in the way of motite, on account of which He opened 
their ror, etc. [see Note CLXXXII,, p. 591] ; otvw, however, has its refer- 
cence in these instructions just given : in the manner, in such a way as T have 
just introduced you into the understanding of the Scripture. What follows, 
being conceived under the form of doctrinal positions (‘* the Messiah suffers,” 
etc.) as fer as the end of ver. 47, is then the Messianic summary of Old 
Testament prophecy. — éxi r@ oréu. ai-zowv] on the foundation of His name—on 
the confession of this name, to wit, by which the whole evangelic agency is 
supported—depends the announcement of repentance and forgiveness, as far 
as concerns their specific purpose and their characteristic nature. Comp. 
Acts. iii, 16, iv. 17 f.; v. 28, 40. — ap&duevov] for which Erasmus and Mark- 
land conjectured apfapévwr,' is the impersonal accusatice neuter : tncipiendo, 
“beginning” (Herodotus, iii. 91, and thereon Schweighduser), 7.¢., 0 that it 
(the office of the xypvxdivar) begins, 1. e., from Jerusalem (Ast, Ler. Plat. I. 
p. 288).?— azxé ‘Iepove.] as the metropolis of the whole theocracy. Comp. 
Isa. ii. 3, xl. 9, and elsewhere ; Actsi.8; Rom. xv. 19. —ei¢ wavraza iVry} 
among all nations, Matt. xxviii. 19. ; 

Ver. 48. ’Eore] indicative. — roirwy] is arbitrarily referred only to the suf- 
ferings and the resurrection (so also Kuinoel and de Wette). It must be- 
long to all the three points previously mentioned. Hence: ‘‘ But it is your 
business to testify that according to the prophecies of Scripture the Messiah 
actually suffered, and is risen again, and repentance and forgiveness are an- 
nounced on the ground of His name,” etc. Of the former two points the 
apostles were eye-witpesses ; of the last, they were themselves the first exec- 
utors, and could therefore in their office testify of their experience that ac- 
cording to the prophecies of Scripture is announced, etc. 

Ver. 49. Encouragement to this calling of bearing witness by assurance 
of the sending of the Spirit, and they were not to leave Jerusalem until after 
they had received this mission. Comp. Actsi. 4. They were therefore soon 
to receive it, and not before their reception of it to enter upon their calling. 


1 As D actually reads. Otherattemptsat  p. 591.] 
improvement : apfaueévny, apfanevos. In re- 2 See Winer, p. 550 [E. T. 684]; Borne- 
spect of apfdueva:, followed by Ewald. see mann, Schol. in loc. Comp. Buttmann, 
the critical remarks. [SeeNoteCLXXXIIL, Neutest. Gr. p. 821 [E. T. $74 f.]. 


CHAP. XxIv., 50. 585 
— iyd] it is Twho send. The present of the near and certain future. More- 
over, this assurance has as its presupposition the approaching ascension. 
Comp. John vii. 39, xvi. 7, 18-15 ; Acts ii. 833. — xaVioare x.7.4.] In respect 
of the difference of the evangelical traditions about the place of sojourn of 
the risen Lord and His disciples, see on Matt. xxviii. 10. On xadfew, to 
remain, to abide.in peace, comp. Acts xviil. 11. — Jesus characterizes the gifts 
of the Holy Ghost by the expression riv énayyediay tov ratpés pov (Acts 1. 4), 
80 far as God promised the bestowal thereof by prophetic prediction.’ The pour- 
ing out of the Spirit is the realization of the promise of the Father. — éu¢ ov 
évdionode divapuw tf byovg] till ye have been endued with (definitely ; hence 
without dv) power from on high (cim coelitus suppeditatam, ‘‘ power sup- 
plied from heaven’), to wit (comp. Acts i. 8), by the Holy Spirit, The power 
is distinct from the Spirit Himself, i. 35. The metaphoric use of évdtecdac 
and other verbs of clothing, to denote spiritual relations into which man is 
translated or translates himself,? is not a Hebraism, but is also frequently 
found in the classical writers. — i& inpovc] comp. Eph. iv. 8. 

Ver. 50. 'Efjyaye «.7.4.] namely, from Jerusalem (vv. 33, 49), and that 
after the scene just related (vv. 86-49). Observe in respect of this—(1) that 
this éé7y. «.7.2. does not agree with Acts x. 40, 41, because Jesus had openly 
showed Himself. (2) The immediate linking on by dé, and therein the absence 
of any other specification of time, excludes (compare also the similar circum- 
stance in Mark xvi. 19, 20) decisively the forty days, and makes the ascen- 
sion appear as if it had occurred on the day of the resurrection.‘ The usual 
nalve assumption is nothing else than an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing: 
ov réte aA2’ év TH TECGapaKooTH Huépe peTa Tiy avdoraaw' ta yap Ev Te plow mapé- 
dpauev 6 evayyedorhe, ‘‘ not then but on the forticth day after the resurrection ; 
for the evangelists passed over what intervened,” Euthymius Zigabenus.° 
Luke himself could neither wish to leave the reader to guess this, nor could 
the reader guess it. [See Note CLXXXIV., p. 591 seq.] That Luke also in 
other places goes on with dé without any definite connection (in discourses : 
xvi, 1, xvil. 1, xviii. 1, xx. 41; in events: xx. 27, 41, 45, xxi. 1; de Wette, 
comp. Ebrard) in such an extension as this (according tode Wette, he forgot 
in ver. 50 to specify the late date), is an entirely erroneous supposition. There 
remains nothing clse than the exegetic result—that a trofold tradition had 
grown up—to wit—(1) that Jesus, eren on the day of the resurrection, ascended 
into heaven (Mark xvi., Luke in the Gospel) ; and (2) that after His resur- 


‘The discrepancy, apparent indeed, 2Comp. also Rom. xiil. 14; Gal. iff. 27; 


though too much insisted on by Strauss, IT. 
p. 645 ff.. between the passage before us 
and John xx. 22 f. is perfectly explained 
when it is observed that in this passage the 
communication of the Spirit «ar’ efoxyy, 
which was the substance of the prophetic 
promise, is meant, and that this which was 
to follow at Pentecost does not exclude an 
earlicr and preliminary communication. 
Joel iff. 1,2; Isa. xliv. 1 ff.; Ezek. xxxvi. 
27, xxxix. 29. Comp. Acts il. 16 ff.; and on 
Eph. 1. 18; Gal. {il 14. 


Eph. fv. 24; Col. iif. 12. 

3 See Kypke, I. p. 845. Comp. 1 Maco. f. 
28; Ecolus. xxvil. 8; Zest, XII. Patr. p. 587. 
So the Latin induere, Liv. ill. 83; Quint. 1. 
1, and elsewhere ; and the Hebrew W), 
Judg. vi. 34; 1 Chron. xii. 18, 

‘Comp. Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 77 f.; 
Schiciermacher, ZL. J. p. 468. 

®& Comp. Theophylact, Kuinoel, Ebrard, 
and many others, including Gebhardt, 
Auferst. Chr. p. 51 f. 





586 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 

rection He abode still for a series of days (according to the Acts of the 
Apostles, forty days) upon the earth (Matthew, John). Luke in the Gospel 
followed the former tradition, but in the Acts the latter. Hence we may in- 
fer in regard to the latter account, either that he did not learn it until after 
the compiling of his Gospel, or, which is more probable, that he adopted it 
as the correct account. As to the variation in the traditions regarding the 
locality of the appearances of the risen Lord, see on Matt. xxviii. 10. — #£uw] 
with verbs compounded with éx.!— iwc cig Byd.] as far as to Bethany, not 
necessarily into the village itself, but (comp. Matt. xxi. 1) as far as to 
the part of the Mount of Olives where it enters into Bethany. [See critical 
note, and Note CLXXXYV., p. 592.] Comp. Acts i. 12. — émdpac 7. yeipas] the 
gesture of blessing, Lev. ix. 22. 

Ver. 51. 'Ev rq evdoy.] therefore still during the blessing.—not immedi- 
ately after, but actually engaged in the discourse and attitude of blessing on 
parting from them. According to the usual reading : diéory am’ atvav x. 
avegip. eic¢ t. ovpav., He separated Himself from them, and (more specific 
statement of this separation) was taken up into heaten. The passive voice 
does not require us to assume that there were any agents to carry Him up (ac- 
cording to de Wette, probably angels or a cloud). The imperfect is pictorial. 
Luke thinks of the ascension as a risidle incident, which he has more fully 
represented at Actsi. According to Paulus, indeed, x. avegép. cic Tr. obp. 18 
held to be only an inference! Moreover, if the words x. avegép. etg Tr. ovp. arc 
not genuine (see the critical remarks), then the ascension is certainly meant 
even by the mere diéorg a7 aizav ; but here it is not yet definitely zndicated, 
which indication, together with the detailed description, Luke reserves for 
the beginning of his second book,—till then, that d:éory az’ abrav was suf- 
ficient, —the matter of fact of which was already incidentally mentioned at 
ix. 51, and was elsewhere familiar.* 


Remark. [See Note CLXXXVI., p. 592 seq.] — On the subject of the ascension® 
the following considerations are to be noted :—(1) Considered in general, it is 
incontestably established as an actual fact by means of the testimony of the New 
Testament.‘ For, besides that in the passage before us it is historically 
narrated (comp. with Acts i. and Mark xvi.), it is also expressly predicted by 


1 See Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 3834, ad Fhryn. 
p. 10; Bornemann, Schol. p. 166. 

2 On &céorn, seceasit, comp. Hom. JI. xil. 86, 
xvi. 470; Valckenaer, Schol. in loc. 

3 Heaven is not herein to be taken in the 
sense of the omnipresence of the courts of 
God, as the old Lutheran orthodoxy, in the 
interest of the doctrine of Christ's ubiquity, 
would have it (thus also Thomasius, Christi 
Pers.u. Werk, TI. p. 282 ff.), or of the unex- 
tended ground of life which bears the entire 
expanse of space (Schoeberlen, Grund. d. 
Heils, p. 67), but locally, of the dwelling-place 
of the glory of God ; see on Matt. vi. 9; Mark 
xvi. 18; Acts fii. 21. Erroneously, Nkewise 
in the sense of ubiquity, says Gess, Pers. 
Chr. p. 205: “Where Jesus, according to 


His divinity, chooses to be essentially pres- 
ent, there He will also be according to His 
human corporeality."" No; according to the 
New Testament view, it must mean: L/e 
there effectuates this His presence by the Holy 
Spirit in whom He communicates Himself. 
See, especially, John xiv.-xvi.; Rom. viil. 
9,10. A becoming bodily present is a mar- 
vellous exception, as in the case of Paul's 
conversion, see on Acts ix. 8 Calvin, Jnsé. 
II. 16, rightly designates the being of Christ 
in heaven as a corporalis abseniia, “ bodily 
absence,” from the earth. 

4 Against the denial of the capability of 
histortcal testimony to prove the actuality 
of miracles in general, see, especially, 
Rothe, zur Dogmat. p. 84 ff. 





CHAP. XxIV., 51. 587 


Jesus Himself, John xx. 17 (comp. as early as the suggestion in vi. 62) ; it is 
expressly mentioned by the apostles as having happened! ; and it forms—and 
that, too, as a bodily exaitation into heaven to the throne of the glory of God— 
the necessary historical presupposition of the whole preaching of the Parousia 
(which is a real and bodily return) as of the resuscitation of the dead and trans- 
formation of the living (which changes have their necessary condition in the 
glorified body of Him who is to accomplish them, viz. Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff., 
8, 16, 22, 23 ; Phil. iii. 20, 21, and elsewhere). (2) But the idea of a visibly, yea, 
sensibly glorious event must the rather be considered as an addition of subse- 
quent tradition which grew up as a reflection of the idea of the Parousia, Acts 
i. 11, since only Luke, and that: certainly merely in the Acts (Mark not at all, 
xvi. 18), expressly relates an event of that kind; but the first and fourth evan- 
gelists, although John had been an eye-witness, are wholly silent on the sub- 
ject (including John vi. 62), which they hardly either morally could have been 
or historically would have ventured to be, since such a highest and final exter- 
nal glorification would have incontrovertibly made good, even from a literary 
point of view, the forcible impression which that event would have necessarily 
produced upon the faithful, and would have just as naturally and incontrovert- 
ibly put forward this most splendid Messianic onzeiov as the worthiest and most 
glorious copeatone—the return to heaven corresponding to the heavenly origin. 
The reasons by which it has been sought to explain and justify their silence* 
are nothing more than forced, feeble, and even psychologically untenable eva- 
sions. [See Note CLXXXVII., p. 593.] Comp. Strauss, II. p. 657 f. (3) The 
body of the risen Lord was not yet in the state of glorification (it has flesh and 
bones, still bears the scars of the wounds, is touched, breathes, eats, speaks, 
walks, etc., in opposition to Theophylact, Augustine,? Krabbe, Ewald, Thom- 
asius, Keim, and the old dogmatic writers) ; but, moreover, no longer of the 
same constitution as before the resurrection (Schleiermacher), but, as Origen 
already perceived, in a condition standing midway between‘ mundane cor- 
poreality and supramundane glorification—and immortal (Rom. vi. 9, 10). 
Although, on account of the want of any analogy within our experience, such 
@ condition of necessity does not admit of a more exact representation, yet still 
it explains in genera] the sort of estrangement between the risen Lord and His 
disciples,—the partial doubt of the latter as to His identity, His not being 
hindered by the crucifixion wounds, His marvellous appearance and disappear- 
ance, and the like ; moreover, by the consideration that Jesus rose again in a 
changed bodily constitution, the physiological scruples which have been raised 
against His rising from not merely apparent death are removed. The actual 
glorification whereby His body became the odpa rvevyarixdy (1 Cor. xv. 45-47), 


1 Acts fl. 32, 83, ffl. 21; 1 Pet. iil. 22; Col. | cealed from the eyes of the disciples rather 


ill. 1 ff.; Eph. il. 6,1v.10. Comp. Acts vil. 
56; 1 Tim. iff. 16; Heb. ix. 24. 

2 See ¢.7., In Flatt’s Magaz. VIII. p. 67; Ols- 
hausen; Krabbe, p. 58% f.; Hug, @Gutacht. 
Il. p. 24 ff.; Ebrard, p. 602; Lange, II. 
p. 1762 ff. 

® “Claritas in Christ! corpore, cum resur- 
rexit, ab oculis discipuloram potius abscon- 
dita fulsso, quam defulsse credenda est,” 
“Itisto be belleved that the splendor of the 
body of Christ, after Hie had risen, was cou- 


than that it was lacking,”’ Augustine, De civ, 
Dei, xxii. 9. 

*Comp. Martensen's Dogmat. § 172; 
Schmid, Bit. Theol. I. p. 118; Hasse, Leben 
d. verkldrt. Erids. p. 118, who, however, 
mingling truth and error, represents the 
resurrection body of Christ already as ewpua 
mvevpatexév (‘a confluence of spirit and 
body,”” p. 123). Moro accurately, Taute, 
Keligionsphilosophte, 1852, II. 1, p. 840 ff. 


588 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


the caua rij¢ d6£n¢ atrod (Phil. iii. 21), first began in the moment of the ascen- 
sion, when His body was transformed into the spiritual body, as they who are 
still living at the time of the Parousia shall be transformed (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52), 
still with this difference, that the body of the latter up to that moment is still 
mortal (1 Cor. xv. 53), whereas the body of Christ, even from the time of the 
resurrection, was immortal ; hence also an appeal to the marvellous healing 
power of Jesus, which was powerfully exercised on Himself (Hase, Z. J. § 118), 
is here insufficient andinapplicable. The perfecting of this glorification of the 
body of Christ is not to be regarded as a matter to be perceived by the senses, 
since in general a glorified bodily organ does not fall into the category of things 
perceptible by human sense. The same is the case with the taking up of the 
glorified Christ into heaven, which, according to the analogy of Luke xxiv. 31, 
is perhaps conceivable in the form of a vanishing. (4) Of the two traditions 
which had grown up in regard to the time of the ascension (see on ver. 50), in 
any case the one bearing that after His resurrection Jesus still abode on earth 
for a series of days, is decidedly to be preferred to the other, that even as early 
as the day of resurrection He also ascended. And this preference is to be given 
on the preponderating authority of John, with which is associated also Paul, by 
his account of the appearances of the risen Lord, 1 Cor. xv. 5-7,! and the notices 
of Acts x. 41, xiii. 31. Still there must remain o doubt therein whether the 
definite specification of forty days does not owe its origin to tradition, which 
fixed the approximate time (comp. Acts xiii. 31) at this sacred number. The 
remarkable testimony of Barnabas, Hp. 15 (dyouev tiv iuépay tiv oyddyy sig Evopo- 
oivyy, év 9 nai d"Inoot¢ avéotn éx vexpav Kal gavepwbeic avéBq cig Tove ovpavobc),* in 
no way agrees with the forty days.‘ (5) If the appearances of the risen Lord 
are transferred as products of the imaginative faculty into the subjective region 
(Strauss, Holsten, and others), or if, in spite of the unanimous attestation of 
the third day as being that on which they first began, they are viewed as spirit- 
ual visions of the glorified One in the deepest excitement of aspiration and 
prayer (Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 68 ff.) ; then, on the one hand, instead 
of the resurrection, in the sense of the New Testament, as an historical start- 
ing-point, there remains only the personal continuance of the exalted One 


1 Although at 1 Cor. xv. it is not possible into the heavens.’*] 





definitely to recognize whether al/ the ap- 
pearances, which are specified before ver. 
8, occurred before or afler the ascension. 
Very little to the point, moreover, does 
Strauss (Christus des Glaubens, p. 172) lay 
stress on the fact that Paul knows nothing 
of “louching and eating proofs.” These, 
indeed, did not at all belong to the purpose 
and connection of his representation, as 
little as in the Acts at the narrative of the 
conversion of Paul ‘ broiled fish and honey- 
comd*’ could find a place. 

2 But to seek to make out an agreement 
between the narrative of Luke about the 
appearances of the risen Lord with that 
of Paul (see e.g. Holtzmann) can in no way 
be successful. 

3 (““ We celebrate with joy the eighth day, 
on which Jesus both rose from the dead 
and having manifested Himself ascended 


4It may be supposed, with Weisse, that 
the ascension was here placed on the resur- 
rection Sunday, or, with Ebrard, Lange, and 
many others, that it was generally placed 
ona Sunday. In respect of the latter sup- 
position, indeed, the number forty has 
been given up, and it has been taken as a 
round number and increased to forty-two. 
But if, with Dressel, Pair. Ap. p. 36, a point 
be put after vexpwr, and what follows be 
taken as an independent clause, this isa 
very unfortunate evasion, by means of 
which «at davepwOcis «.7.A. is withdrawn 
from all connection, and is placed in the 
air. Not better is Gebhardt’s notion, 
Auferst. Chr. p. 52, that Barnabas, in men- 
tioning also the ascension, did not intend 
to make epecification of date at all for it. 
{See Note CLXXXVIII., p. 593.] 


CHAP. XXIV., 52. 589 
(Schenkel) ; and, on the other hand, the ascension does not appear as an ob- 
jective fact, but just as nothing more than the end of that powerful excite- 
ment, and this must carry with it the conclusion that from him to whom He 
in such wise appeared, the glorified One vanished again tranquilly into His 
everlasting glorification with God (Ewald, l.c. p. 95 ff.). Every spiritualizing 
of those appearances into internal experiences, “‘ into glorifications of the image 
of His character in the hearts of His faithful people ’’ (Schenkel), and the like, 
must convert a strange, widespread fanaticism into the fruitful mother of the 
mighty apostolic work, and into the foundation of the ecclesiastical edifice, 
but must regarfl the Gospel narratives on the matter as products and repre- 
sentations of self-deceptions, or as a kind of ghost stories,—a view which the 
narratives of the Apostle John in reference thereto most decisively forbid. 
Comp. on Matt., Remark after xxviii. 10. This, withal, is opposed to the gen- 
eralization of the concrete appearances into continued influences of the Lord, 
who still lived, and of His Spirit (Weizsa’cker), in which for the ascension, as 
such, there is left nothing historical. Weisse's view, moreover, is absolutely 
irreconcilable with the New Testament narratives, identifying as it does the as- 
cension with the resurrection, so that, according to apostolic view, the fact was 
no going forth of the body from the grave, but the taking up of the soul (with 
& spiritual corporeality) out of Hades into heaven, whence the exalted One 
announced Himself in visions.!. To make out of the ascension absolutely the 
actual death which Jesus, being awakened from apparent death, soon after 
died (Paulus), could only be attained at the height of naturalistic outrage on 
the New Testament, but is not avoided also by Schleiermacher in his wavering 
expressions. The mythical construction out of Old Testament recollections 
(Strauss), and the directly hostile crumbling and destruction of the Gospel 
narratives (Bruno Bauer), amount to subjective assnmptions contradictory of 
history ; whilst, on the other hand, the revival of the Socinian opinion of a 
repeated ascension * depended on erroneous interpretations of single passages 
(especially John xx. 17). Finally, the abandoning of all attempts historically 
to ascertain the fact (de Wette on ver. 53) does justice neither to the accounts 
and intimations of the New Testament itself, nor to the demands which 
science must make on the ground of those intimations. 


Ver. 52. Kat avroi] and they on their part, after the Lord was separated 
from them (and was taken up into heaven). To the avedgépero cig +. ovp. cor- 
responds in this place the cqually suspicious rpooxvy. avrév (see the critical 
rémarks on ver. 51 f.), which is referred to Him who was exalted to heav- 
enly dominion. — pera yapac peyaA.] at this final blessed perfecting of their 
Lord Himself (John xiv. 28), and at the blessing which they had just re- 





1See also Weisso, Erangelienfrage, p. 272 
ff.; Gebhardt, Auferst Chr. p. 72. 

2 Kinkel in the Stud. u. Aril. 1841, p. 07 
ff. Comp. moreover, Tante, Reigtonsphil- 
osophie, I. 1, p. 880 ff., according to whom 
the resurrection of Christis said to have 
becn His first descent out of tho intelligible 
region of the existence of all things, but 
the ascension His last resurrection appear- 
anco, so that resurrection and ascension 


are so related to one another as special 
epoch-making appearances of the Lord 
before the brethren after Fis death. With 
such extravagant imaginations of histort- 
cal details of faith is the philosophy of Her- 
b2zrl, even against its will, driven forth far 
beyond the characteristic limits which by 
Iferbart himself aro clearly and definitely 
laid down, 


590 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


ceived from Him. ‘‘ Praecludia Pentecostes,” ‘‘ The prelude of Pentecost,” 
Bengel. ‘‘ Corpus suum intulit coelo, majestatem suam non abstulit mundo,” 
‘He carried His body into heaven, He did not carry away His majesty from 
earth,” Augustine. 

Ver. 58. Kai joav dia ravrig év 16 lepp] nara rove xatpoic dnAovére Taw ovvdfewv, 
bre ecivar év aire ety, ‘‘ namely, at the seasons of assembly, when it was allow- 
able to be in it,” Euthymius Zigabenus, The popular expression did sravré¢ 
is not to be pressed (comp. ii. 37), hence it does not exclude the coming 
together in another locality (Acts i. 13, ii. 44) (in opposition to Strauss).' 
Morcover, after the pouring forth of the Spirit, they continued as pious 
Israelites daily in the temple, Acts ii. 46, iii. 1. [On the correct form of 
the verse, see critical note. | 


Nores By AMERICAN EDIToR. 


CLXXVI. Ver. 10. foav 62. . . nat al Aoirat x.7.A. 


The correct reading, as Meyer indicates, divides the women into two parties. 
This serves to confirm the theory that they were in two parties when they 
came to the gepulchre, and that the Evangelists speak of two visits, besides 
the separate appearance to Mary Magdalene; see Inter. Rev. Com. Luke, 
p. 352. 

CLXXVII. Ver. 17. xai éoré3noav oxvd3 puro. 


The above reading, which Meyer does not notice, is abundantly attested (see 
critical note), and, as the more difficult one, isto be accepted. The question 
breaks off at zepirarovvrec, and the abrupt statement: ‘‘And they stood still, 
looking sad” (R. V.), corresponds with the sudden halt as they walked. 


CLXXVIII. Ver. 18. ob pdvo¢ mapornei¢ x.7.A. 


The view of Meyer would be best expressed thus in English ; ‘‘ Art thou the 
only one sojourning in Jerusalem and not knowing," etc. The R. V. text is 
indefinite, and the margin is not so good an interpretation as that of Meyer. 
The A, V. is obviously inexact. 


CLXXIX. Vv. 31-35. The Recognition at Emmaus. 


Weiss ed. Mey. properly lays more stress than Meyer upon the external aids 
to recognition on the part of the disciples, without denying the ‘‘divine causa- 
tion.” The invitation to remain was not, he thinks, merely a matter of deco- 
rum, but was called forth by our Lord, that it might be a token of their desire 
for further intercourse. There must have been many things to aid the recog- 
nition when once their eyes were opened. Weiss admits a sudden remarkable 
disappearance, but finds no evidence of a ‘‘ withdrawal effected through divine 
agency.’’ Yet it must have been supernatural, probably through Christ’s own 
agency. Weiss, with good reason, renders : év rg xAdoe, ‘‘in the breaking,”’ 
since the recognition took place during this act and was in some proper sense 
causally connected with it. 


1 Comp. Lechler, Apost. u. Nachapost. Zettalt. p. 281. 





sy 


_ NOTES. 591 


OLXXX. Ver. 39. bre rvevya x.7.A, 


Weiss ed. Mey. renders ér: in this clause ‘‘because” (so R. V. ‘‘for’’). 
Meyer’s view is forced. 


CLXXXI. Vv. 44-49. Time of these Sayings. 


That Luke in his Gospel follows a tradition which placed the Ascension on 
the day of the Resurrection (Meyer) seems altogether improbable (see Note 
CLXXXIV., below). But there is an obvious difficulty in determining where the 
interval of forty days (Acts i. 3) should be inserted. Ver. 44 seems to be directly 
connected with ver. 43 (on the day of the Resurrection), and ver. 49 is not only 
directly connected with the Ascension, but forbids a departure from Jerusalem. 
Nor is there in vv, 45-48 any indication of a change of scene, though rére in 
ver. 45 may refer to a period of instruction following the discourse on the even- 
ing of the Resurrection day. Certainly Acts i. 3 asserts a course of instruction. 
We may regard vv. 45-49 as a summary of this teaching, or insert the forty days 
between vv. 44, 45. Either seems to involve less exegetical difficulty than the 
separation of vv. 43, 44 or vv. 49, 50. Any view, even that which, according 
to Meyer, is ‘‘a despairing clutch of harmonistics,” seems more credible than 
one which implies that Luke attempted to write the history of our Lord with- 
out knowing that He did not ascend to heaven on the day of the Resurrection. 


CLXXXIIL. Ver. 44. ovroz ol Aéyot x.7.A. 


Weiss ed. Mey. suggests that this phrase ‘‘can point forward to the follow- 
ing expositions of Scripture (ver. 45): When I said to you that the Scripture 
must be fulfilled, I meant as follows.’’ In ver. 46 he properly takes 5r: as reci- 
tative (so R. V.), not as introducing a motive (Meyer). 


CLXXXIII. Vv. 47, 48. ap&duevo: ard lepovoaagp. tyeic tore x.1.A, 


The correct text is difficult to determine ; the better attested readings are 
given above, though fore is wanting in Band D. The harsh anacoluthon in apfdpe- 
vot leads some to join that clause with ver. 48 (so R. V. marg.), but if fore is 
wanting this is impossible. If ap&déuevocis joined with what precedes, the nom. 
inative refers to the persons who should preach (namely, tyeic), indicated in the 
next clause. 


CLXXXIV. Ver. 50. The Time of the Ascension. 


Weiss ed. Mey. fails tosee why ver. 50 ‘‘does not agree with Acts x. 40, 
41," and omits Meyer’s statement under(I). Meyer's assumption, that Luke 
here follows a tradition which placed tho Ascension on the day of the Resurrec- 
tion, he regards as less credible than the usual view indicated by Euthymius 
Zigabenus. Luke, reserving the particulars of the Ascension for his second 
treatise, connects a hint of it with what precedes, without any definite specifi- 
cation of time (as he frequently does). 

But Meyer's view is altogether improbable. 1. Luke was with Paul shortly 
after the latter wrote First Corinthians (Acts xx. 6). 2. In that Epistle the 
Apostle shows his knowledge of an interval between the Resurrection and the 
Ascension (1 Cor, xv. 5-7). 3. It is psychologically impossible that Paul did 
not inform Luke on this point (comp. Acts xiii. 31). 4. If Luke investigated 


& 


592 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 


his subject he must have discovered the facts before he wrote the Gospel and 
not afterwards. 5. Luke frequently passes on with one topic, irrespective of 
direct chronological sequence, and then resumes; comp. i. 80; iii. 18-20, 
which speaks of John’s imprisonment, while ver. 21 reverts to the baptism of 
Jesus ; iv. 44, which is a very marked instance, if the reading "Iovdaiag be ac- 
cepted ; xxii. 18, 19, where the expression of desire suggests the account of the 
institution, other topics being reserved for subsequent narration (vv. 21-30) ; see 
the list of passages where dé is used without definite connection (p. 585). Even 
in the fuller account of the Ascension (Acts i. 4-11) Luke writes as if it occurred 
in Jerusalem itself; only in ver. 12 does he locate it on ‘‘the Mount called 
Olivet.”’ 

It may be added that the late date assigned to the Gospel by Meyer makes 
his theory even more improbable. See also Meyer, Acts, p. 37, American 
edition. 

CLXXXY. Ver. 50. éu¢ xpd¢ Bydaviar. 


The correct reading (see critical note) is properly paraphrased in the R. V., 
‘‘antil they were over against Bethany.” The apparent divergence from Acts 
i. 12 is thus removed. But Meyer is less strict than usual when he allows the 
same sense to the Rec. reading (cic). 


CLXXXVI. Ver. 51. The Ascension. 


Weiss ed. Mey. has discarded nearly one half of Meyer’s extended ‘‘ Remark” 
on the Ascension. He retains the parts numbered (1) and (5) respectively (the 
former asserting the fact of the Ascension, the latter objecting to the ‘‘ subjec- 
tive’ theories of the occurrence); but for the intervening matter (in which 
Meyer hints that tke account in Acts i. 11 is an addition of Jater tradition, that 
the body of the Lord was not yet glorified, that the period of ‘‘ forty days” is 
also due to tradition), Weiss substitutes his own remarks (here given entire) : 

‘‘The representation which is made of this fact [namely, the Ascension] will 
indeed vary according to the conception one has of the resurrection of Jesus 
and of the appearances of the Risen One. According to the biblical view the 
Resurrection is a proceeding from the grave in a glorified body, such as is alone 
qualified for the heavenly life. From this it follows that Jesus from His res- 
urrection onward has entered into the glory of the heavenly life (Luke xxiv. 
26, 44), and that too in a glorified body. His appearances to the disciples, so far 
as they bore a character appealing to the senses, were onuria (John xx. 30) rexuz- 
pea (Acts 1. 3), through which Jesus must assure them, who had known Him in 
earthly life, of the identity of His person and the corporeality (i.e., the reality) 
of His resurrection ; in fact, He appears to be no longer bound by the conditions 
of this earthly life (Luke xxiv. 31, 36, 51) and cannot be seen in His glorified 
body as such, These appearances, which still belong essentially to the close of 
’ His earthly labors, may be reckoned as still a part of the earthly life of Jesus, 
as He Himself (John xx. 17) represents Himself as still in the act of returning 
home ; as 2 matter of fact they are appearances of the Christ who has already 
entered upon the full divine glory and authority (comp. Matt. xxviii. 18), on 
which account they are also in no way distinguished by Paul from that which 
occurred to him (1 Cor. xv. 5-8), although the latter, as affecting one who had 
not known Jesus in the flesh, could assume another form. Certainly those ap- 
pearances must have had a definite close, at which Jesus said to His disciples 


> 


NOTES. 593 


that He would no longer appear to them, that His earthly Jabors had en end ; 
since otherwise the discontinuance of further appearances must have remained 
unintelligible to them and have shaken their faith in His resurrection and ex- 
altation. Whether at that last separation He, through a sensible sign, as nar- 
rated in Acts i. 9, gave His disciples the assurance that He would henceforth be 
permanently removed into the heavenly life, and whether the time of these 
appearances continued precisely forty days (Acts i. 3), depends on the question 
of the historical character of that narrative, which has nothing to do with the 
question of the reality of the Ascension, i.¢., of the exaltation into heaven of 
Him who had risen in a glorified body.’’ 

Meyer’s view, according to Weiss, seeks to unite antitheses which exclude 
each other, and ‘‘is opposed to the biblical representation of the Resurrection, 
namely, the transformation (1 Cor. xv. 52 ff.), with which this glorification is 
already of itself included.’’? Comp., against Meyer, the very candid article of 
Dr. T. D. Woolsey, Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1882 (‘‘The End of Luke’s Gospel 
and the Beginning of the Acts”). 


CLXXXVII. The Silence of Matthew and John. 


On the assumed difference between the Gospels in regard to the Ascension, 
growing out of the silence of Matthew and John, comp. Godet, Luke, pp. 
514-517, Am. ed. 


CLXXXVIII. The Testimony of the Episile to Barnabas. 


The passage Meyer cites may either mean that the Ascension took place on 
the first day of the week, or more probably it joins the Resurrection and As- 
cension as one fact, the glorification beginning with the rising from the dead. 
This accords with the view of Weiss (see Note CLXXXVL., p. 592), who 
however, omits as irrelevant the citation and Meyer's argument connected with 
it. It is worth noticing here that Barnabas was with Paul at Antioch in Pi- 
sidia, when the latter, according to Acts xiii, 31, asserted publicly that Jesus 
‘‘was seen for many days of them that came up with Him from Galilee to Je- 
rusalem, who are now His witnesses unto the people.’’ It is therefore improb- 
able that Barnabas (if, as is by no means likely, he wrote the Epistle bearing 
his name) could have placed the actual Ascension on the day of the Resurrec- 
tion. Moreover, the statement of Paul on that occasion seems to oppose di- 
rectly Meyer's theory respecting a twofold tradition. 


38 


TOPICAL 


A. 


Abraham's bosom, 477 seq. 

Adam, 301 seq., 304. 

Advent of Christ, The, 419 seq., 423 
seq.; to judgment, 501 seq., 532 
seq. 

Angelic chorus, The, 274 seq., 288 
seq., 276 seq. 

Anna, the prophetess, 281. 

Annas, the high priest, 294, 302 seq. 

Anointing of Christ, 348 seq. 

Apostles, The twelve, 332 seq. ; re- 
ceive Christ’s final instructions, 585 


8eq. 
Ascension of Christ, The, 586 seq., 
592 seq. 


B. 


Barabbas released, 564. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, 588 seq., 593. 

Beatitudes of Christ, The, 334 seq., 
341 seq. 

Benedictus, The, 252 seq., 260. 

Benevolence, Christian, 391 seq. ; true, 
527. 

Bethany, 586, 592. 

Bethsaida, 366 seq., 377 seq. 

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 
415 seq. 


0. 


Osiaphas, the high priest, 294. 

Census of Oaesar Augustus, 264 seq., 
287 seq., 269 seq. 

Centurion of Capernaum, The, 344 
seq., 352 seq. 

Christ, Jesus, is born, 272 .; His 
day of birth, 273, 288; visited by 
the shepherds, 275 seq. ; is circum- 
cised, 277 ; presented in the temple, 
279, 283; living in Nazareth, 282 
Beq., 289 -; among the Rabbis 
in the temple, 284 seq. ; avowing 
His Sonship, 285 seq., 289; His 
growth, 286 seq. ; baptized of John, 
297 seq.; begins His ministry, 298, 
303; His genealogy, 298 seq. , 301 seq.., 
303 seq. ; tempted of the devil, 306 


INDEX. 


neq.; begins His Galilean ministry, 
308 seq. ; expels an unclean spirit, 
313; cures Peter's wife’s mother, 314; 
and the miraculous draught of fishes, 
318 seq., 323 seq. ; cleansing of the 
leper, 320, 324; healeth one sick 
with the palsy, 321 ; teaches in par- 
ables ; 322 seq., 357 seq. ; healeth 
on the Sabbath, 331 ; chooses the 
twelve Apostles, 332 seq. ; retires 
for prayer, 332 ; delivers the sermon 
on the mount, 333 seq., 340 seq. ; 
heals the centurion’s servant, 344 
seq.,- 352 seq.; raises the young 
man at Nain ; testifieth of the Bap- 
tist, 347 ; is anointed, 348 seq. ; re- 
bukes the wind and tho sea, 360; 
expels the devils of Gadara, 360 
seq.; healeth a woman with a bloody 
issue, 361; raises Jairus’ daughter 
from the dead, 361 ; sends out His 
Apostles, 365 ; feeds the 5000, 366 
seq. ; foretelling His passion, 368 ; 
is transfigured, 369 seq. ; expels an 
unclean spirit, 370 seq.; teaches 
humility, 371 seq. ; journeys to 
Jerusalem, 372 seq., 378 seq.; sends 
out the Seventy, 382 seq., 395 ; His 
joy, 388 seq. ; teacheth the lawyer, 
389 seq.; at Bethany, 393 seq., 396 ; 
teaches how to pray, 399 seq. ; cast- 
ing out a dumb devil, 401 seq., 410 
seq. ; discourses against the Phari- 
sees, 404 seq., 411 seq., 413 seq. ; 
denounces hypocrisy, 414 seq. ; 
teaches God’s Providence, 418; 
foretells His passion, 423 seq. ; 
healeth an infirm woman, 430 seq. ; 
continuance of His journey, 431 
seq., 438 ; reproves Herod, 434 seq. ; 
bewails Jerusalem, 436 seq.; heals a 
man with dropsy, 441; heals the 
ten lepers, 488 seq.; journeys tow- 
ards Jerusalem, 488 seq. ; foretells 
the advent of the kingdom, 490 seq., 
531 seq.; also His own,493 ae en- 
joins prayer, 499 ; and the children, 
504 ; and the young ruler, 504 seq.; 
heals the blind man at Jericho, 505, 


596 


507; in the house of Zacchaeus, 
509 seq. ; His triumphal entry into 
Jerusalem, 516 seq. ; lamentation 
over Jerusalem, 516 seq., 518; His 
authority, 520; His eschatological 
discourse, 528 seq., 534 seq. ; eating 
the Passover meal, 539 seq. ; insti- 
tutes the Lord’s Supper, 540 seq., 
556 ; predicts Peter’s denial, 545 
seq., 556; discourses as to the 
sword, 547 seq. ; prays in Gethsem- 
ane, 549 seq.; is betrayed by Judas, 
552; heals the servant's ear, 552 
feq.; is led before the high priest, 
553 seq. ; is denied by Peter, 554; 
brought before the Sanhedrim, 554 
Beq., 558 ; is mocked, 554, 557 seq.; 
brought before Pilate, 562, 569; sent 
to Herod, 562 seq., 569 ; condemned 
to be crucified, 564 ; addresses the 
women, 564 seq. ; is crucified, 565 
seq. ; mocked on the cross, 566; His 
death, 568; and burial, 568 seq. ; 
His resurrection, 573 seq. ; appears 
unto the eleven, 581 seq. ; imparts 
His final instructions, 585 seq. ; His 
ascension, 586 seq., 592 seq. 
Christian prudence, 466 seq. 
Circumcision, ceremonies of, 250. 
Compassion to man, 338 seq. 
Confessing Christ, 368. 
Covetousness denounced, 415 seq. 
Crucifixion of Christ, The, 565. 
Cyrenius, governor of Syria, 265 seq.., 
287 seq. 


E. 


Elizabeth, 240 ; visited by Mary, 245 
seq. ; filled with the Holy Ghost, 
246 ; blesses Mary, 246. 

Emmaus, The disciples at, 575 seq., 
590. 

Eschatological discourse of Christ, 
The, 528 seq., 534. 

Excuses, vain, 444 seq. 


F. 


Faith and salvation, 352 ; and forgive- 
ness, 486 seq.; its power, 487. 

Fellowship with Christ, 446. 

Fidelity rewarded, 471 seq. 

Foot-washing, 351, 544. 

Forbearance of God, The, 429 seq. 

Forgiveness and love, 351 seq., 486 
seq. 

Friends, how secured, 468 seq. 


G. 


Gabriel, 238 ; sent to Mary, 240 seq. 
Gethsemane’s prayer, 549 seq.; and 
agony, 551. 


TOPICAL 


INDEX. 


Golgotha, 565. 

Gospel, The, its proclamation, 385; 
its effects, 423 seq.; its preserving 
power, 447, 448. 

Gospels, early writings of, 230 seq. 


H. 


Hades, 478 seq. 

Heaven, 470 seq., 477 seq. 

Herod Antipas, 292; reproved by 
Jesus, 434 seq. 

Hindrances to spiritual life, 358. 

Holy Spirit, The, blasphemy against, 
415 seq.; to be given to the disci- 
ples, 584 seq. 

Humility taught, 371 seq., 442, 487, 
503 seq., 544. 

Hypocrisy denounced, 414 seq. 


I. 
Infant faith, 246. 


J. 


Jerusalem, Christ’s last journey to, 
372 seq., 378 seq.; bewailed, 436 
seq.; destruction of the city and 
temple of, 528 seq. 

Jews, their restoration, 437, 439. 

John the Baptist, 236 seq.; his mirac- 
ulous birth, 244, 258 seq., 250 ; his 
circumcision and naming, 250 seq. ; 
his growth, 255 seq.; his preaching 
and baptism, 294 seq., 347 ; impris- 
oned by Herod, 297; baptizes 
Christ, 297 seq.; sends messengers 
to Christ, 347 seq., 353. 

Jonah as a sign, 403. 

Joseph, the husband of Mary, at 
Bethlehem, 271. 

Joy in God's kingdom, 388. 

Judas Iscariot, 538 seq.; judged by 
Christ, 543 ; betrays Christ, 552. 


L. 


Lawyer, The, and Christ, 389 seq. 

Law, The, its continual obligation, 
473 seq., 483. 

Lazarns and Dives, 476. 

Life, The true theory of, 416 seq. 

Lord's Prayer, The, 399 seq., 410. 

Lord's Supper, The, instituted, 540 
seq., 556 ; its doctrine, 541 seq., 580. 

Love and forgiveness, 351 seq., 486 


seq. 

Tove to mankind, 336 seq., 391 seq., 
396. 

Luke, his birth and life, 217 seq.; his 
death, 218; his relation to Paul, 
220, 226; as a historian, 257; his 
accuracy of statement, 287 seq. 

Luke, The Gospel of, its origin, 218 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


seq., 225 seq., 256; its relation to 
Mark, 220 ; its occasion and object, 
221 seq.; its time of composition, 
223, 226 seq., 256 seq.; its place of 
composition, 224; its genuineness 
and integrity, 224 seq. 

Lysanias, 292 seq. 


M. 


Magnificat, The, 247, 260. 

Mammon, its meaning, 460 seq., 468 
seq., 481. 

Marriage in Heaven, 522 seq. 

Martha and Mary, 393 seq., 396 seq. 

Mary, the Virgin, 240; her annuncia- 
tion, 240 seq., 243 seq. ; her virgin- 
ity, 241 ; visits Elizabeth, 245 seq., 
249 seq., 259 ; prophecies, 247 seq. ; 
goes to Bethlehem, 271 seq.; is pu- 
rified, 277 seq.; resides at Nazareth, 
282 seq., 289 seq.; visits Jerusalem, 
283 seq. 

Master and servant, 487 seq. 

Messengers from the Baptist, 347 seq., 
353. 

Messianic Kingdom, The, 241; its 
advent, 295, 309 seq., 423 seq., 490 
seq., 515 ; devotion to, 377; exclu- 
sion from, 432 seq. 

Millennial Kingdom, The, 443 ; its fut- 
ure advent, 490 seq. , 496 seq. 

Mina, The, value of, 513. 

Miracles of Christ, The : Expelling an 
unclean Spirit, 313 ; Curing Peter's 
wife’s mother, 314 ; the Miraculous 
Draught of Fishes, 318 seq., 323 
seq. ; Cleansing of the Leper, 320, 
324 ; Healing one sick with the Pal- 
sy, 321 ; Curing the man with the 
withered Hand, 331; Healing the 
Centurion’s Servant, 344 seq. ; Rais- 
ing the Young Man at Nain, 345 
seq.; Rebukes the Wind and the 
Sea, 360 ; Expels the Devils of Ga- 
dara, 360 seq. ; Healing a Woman 
with a bloody Issue, 361 ; Raising 
Jairus’ daughter from the Dead, 
361; Feeding of the 5000, 366 seq.; 
Expelling an unclean Spirit, 370 
seq. ; Casting out a Dumb Devil, 
401 seq., 410 seq.; Healing the In- 
firm Woman, 430 seq.; of the 
Man with Dropsy, 441 ; Healing of 
the Ten Lepers, 488 seq., 495 seq. ; 
Healing the Blind Man at Jericho, 
505, 507; Healing the Servant’s 
Ear, 652 seq. , 

Mount of Olives, 515. 


Nain, 345. 
Nazareth, 282, 289. 


597 


O 


Offences, and how avoided, 485 seq., 
490. 
P. 


Parables of Christ, The: the Bride- 
groom and his Friends, 322; the 
New Patch on the Old Garment, 
322, 324 ; the New Wine into old 
Bottles, 322, 325; the Blind lead- 
ing the Blind, 339 ; the House built 
upon a Rock, 339 seq.; the Chil- 
dren in the Market-Place, 348 ; the 
Two Debtors, 350, 354 ; the Sower, 
307 #eq.; the Candle, 359 ; the good 
Samaritan, 391 seq., 396; the Im- 
portanate Petitioner, 399 seq. ; the 
Candle undera Bushel, 403 sea. ; 
the Light of the Eye, 403 seq. the 
Rich Fool, 416 seq.; the Absent 
Lord,419 seq. ; the Fruitless Fig-tree, 
429 seq.; the Mustard Seed, 431, 438 ; 
the Leaven, 431, 438 ; the Great Sup- 
per, 444 seq.,448 ; the Lost Sheep, 
450 seq.; thePiece of Silver, 451 ; the 
Prodigal Son, 451 seq., 456 ; the Un- 
just Steward, 459 seq., 481; the Rich 
Man and Lazarus, 475 seq., 483 ; 
the Importunate Widow, 499 seq., 
506 ; the Pharisee and the Publican, 
503 seq. ; the Pounds, 512 seq. ; 
Hy Wicked Husbandman, 520 seq., 


Paradise, 477 seq., 523. 

Parousia, The, 419, 470 seq., 490 seq., 
496 seq., 512 seq., 531 seq., 535, 566, 
587. 

Penitent Thief, The, on the cross, 566 


seq. 

Peter, his denial predicted, 545 seq., 
556; denies Christ, 554, 557; at 
the Sepulchre, 574 seq. 

Pharisees, The, denounced by Christ, 
404 seq., 411 seq., 473. 

Pilate, 292; and the Galileans, 428 
seq.; and Christ, 562 seq., 569. 

Poor, The, provided for, 443, 445. 

Prayer, answered, 236 seq., 399; in 
retiracy, 332 ; taught by Christ, 499 
Beq. ; perseverance in, 400, 499 ; for 
faith, 486 seq. ; sincere and hypo- 
critical, 503 seq. 

Priesthood, The, classes of, 234 seq., 
258 ; their stay in the sanctuary, 
238 seq. 

Prophecy, fulfilled, 295, 309 seq., 583 
seq., 591. 

Providence of God, The, 418. 

Prudence, worldly, 460 seq., 481. 

Punishment for unfaithfalness, 421 
req., 471 seq., 479 seq.; method of 
the divine, 428, 500 seq. 


598 


Purification, outward and inward, 405 
seq. ; future, 515. 


Q. 


Quirenius, governor of Syria, 265 seq., 
287 seq. 


R. 


Raising from the dead, 346 seq. 

Rank and authority, 544 seq. 

Recompense for fidelity, 419 seq., 
471 seq., 479. 

Repentance, 451 seq., 480. 

Restitution, 510. 

Resurrection, The double, 443; of 
Christ, 573 seq. 

Riches and their use, 460 seq., 481 


seq. 
Righteousness, legal, 451 seq. 


8. 


Sabbath-day, The, teaching on, 308, 
313, 331 ; healing on, 313, 331, 430 
seq. 441; Christ's doctrine of, 330 
seq.; its observance, 569. 

Salt as a symbol, 447 seq. 

Salvation, its seriousness, 432. 

Sarepta, The widow of, 312. 


Satan and his power, 387; and Judas 


Iscariot, 538 seq. 

Scriptures, The, manner of reading, 
308, 

Self-denial practised, 446. 

Self-righteousness condemned, 503 
seq. 

Sennen on the Mount, The, 333 seq., 
340 seq. 

Seventy, The Mission of the, 382 seq., 
395 ; their return, 386 seq. 

Sex and immortality, 522 seq. 

Shepherds, The, at Bethlehem, 273 ; 


TOPICAL INDEX. 


their visit to the Christ-child, 275 


seq. 

Simeon, 278 seq.; his Messianic deliv- 
erance, 279. 

Sin and misery, 452 seq. 

Soldiers coming to the Baptist, 296. 

Stewardship on earth, 460 seq., 481 
Req. 


T. 


Talent, value of a, 513. 

Temptation of Christ, The, 306 seq. 

Theophilus, 221 seq. 

Tiberius Ceesar, 292. 

Transfiguration of Christ, The, 369 
seq. 

Tribute paying, 521. 


WwW. 


Watchfulness commended, 419 seq.; 
enjoined, 533. 

Widow’s mite, The, 527. 

Wisdom of God, The, 408 seq. 

Woes of Christ, The, 335 seq., 342 ; on 
the Galilean cities, 385 seq.; upon 
Pharisees and lawyers, 406 seq. 

Women at the Sepulchre, The, 573 


Beq. 
¥. 
Year, The, 299 seq., 303 seq. 


Z. 


Zacharias, 234 seq., 258; his prayer 
heard, 236 seq.; asking for and re- 
ceivihg a sign, 238, 258 seq.; at the 
circumcision of John, 251 seq.; 
prophecies concerning John, 254. 

Zacchaeus, 509 seq., 517. 

Zeal, intemperate, 375 seq.; lawful 
and unlawful, 4465.
Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes"

See other formats
