Te ee 
 
 Ξ Saas 
 
 Saas 
 
 i 
 ἢ 
 
 a 
 
 ie 
 Ι 
 f 
 
 τ 
 Ki 
 
 i ἮΝ 
 
 Se eee 
 SSS 
 
 by tf! 
 
 
 

 

 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 
 
 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticO2meye 
 
LF ἣν dine 
 ht 
 
 an ἢ 
 
 
 

 
᾿ | } 
 ΔᾺΝ i 
 . ' ' 
 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 HAND-BOOK 
 
 TO THE 
 
 GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE. 
 
 BY 
 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tx.D., 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 4 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 REV. ROBERT ERNEST WALLIS, Pu.D. 
 
 THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR 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, 
 
 Sat Prince, ᾿ 
 
 (3 τ) 
 a eager Ὁ «ὦ 
 New ¥Xork 
 
 FUNK ἃ WAGNALLS COMPANY | 
 LONDON AND TORONTO 
 
 1893. = 
 
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. 
 
 Turs 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. In 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- 
 lem, 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, his 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 1 became a student in theology, I am deeply grate- 
 ful. Novolume of the German edition has been in my hands oftener 
 than that containing Mark and Luke. But because Meyer is such a 
 master in interpretation, his efforts in historical criticism suffer by com- 
 parison. To interpret what is written is a scientific task ; 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. His 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 Meyer 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 
 
vi PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN 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 materia] 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. Vii 
 
 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 
 I 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. 
 
 Hartrorp THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, December 10, 1884. 
 

 
 τ γι 
 oy ᾿ 
 ἐν 
 fo +} τ Ὁ 
 a γῆν ina Φ 1 
 
 
 
 Khia: ‘eat Aiba ies tA 
 
 
 
 ἢ i 
 r - 
 i ἢ ¥ a 
 4 ASE AN ᾿ 
 , 
 7 Γ 
 ἥν, εν ΤΩ ‘ 
 ἣ 
 γ] rics 
 : i ) ᾿ - ἦ᾿ ‘ 
 τὸς hs Pa ᾿ 
 ͵ '- 
 i. 
 ain esit. 
 ᾿ ΕἾΝ 
 ; 
 . é 
 ‘ 
 SINS, } - Ἷ 
 ἢ hel = ᾿ 
 Ζ Τὰ 
 -- 
 ᾿ 3 i 
 a: 
 i 
 , 
 ᾿ 
 ἱ 
 -- = » 
 | i 
 ᾿ 
 " 
 ' 
 πλοῦ { 5 
 * ‘ ἱ 
 : t 
 = 
 i 3 
 : 
 a 
 ᾿ 
 ἁ 
 Δ 
 & ω 
 . “ . 
 τ 
 ~ 
 , 
 - 
 4 
 ' 
 - 
 ͵ 
 ‘ 
 - 
 PA 
 Η ὺ 
 ᾷ - 
 ἤ 7 = 
 ‘ > ‘ i 
 Pe 
 is Α 
 a 
 ν Ls Κ Py) ee 
 
 
 
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE ENGLISH EDITOR. 
 
 Tue translation of the Commentary on the Gospels of Mark and Luke 
 has 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 St. 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 
 its 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 
 aname, 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 laboriously 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. X1 
 
 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 issue 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.. BP. DICKSON: 
 
 Guascow CoLLEGcE, February, 1880. 
 
 1 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. 
 
1h 
 
 oa τὴ ἐν ; ΠΣ ante eee G & 728 
 = 41. γ (2>- 7 ἐν vine 
 ® its or ia ae ‘aa 2 rl 
 
 =k 
 
 
 
 7 ᾿ - ᾿ ᾿ « 
 = πὰ δὲ 
 τῳ a ? τὰν Ων "7 hs! bP [- 
 a7 o iba? (Patra i we aatlin (2 
 ad is ay - 
 rr . ΤΊ 
 - = It μ᾿ 7 
 4 Lea 7 "Δ > ‘ i 
 ὰ 7 ἢ Φ 
 — ἀν, ‘i ᾿ » 
 δ: A 
 5 = 4. ᾿ : 
 7 ᾿, ὦ mn 
 «.. wnt * 
 δ _ 
 = 
 [ 
 4 
 4 
 a! > 
 - 
 = 
 δ, 
 : * = 
 Ά 
 : 
 Ὕ 
 » 
 ι 
 ἢ 
 ᾿ 
 ᾿ Ν 
 -- 
 Γ = ¢. 
 ~ =~ 
 Poke ee 
 < ω -- 
 <2 
 
 
 
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE, 
 
 Tue 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 thus 
 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 thorongh criticism. In this way there is no attempt to 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—for. 
 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. 
 
 2 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.). 
 
 3 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. Krit. 1866, p. 649 ff. ; 
 Stawars, ib. 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 Testamentes 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 I no 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 Ideal 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 Ideal 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 Hvangelica. 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 septima. Iam 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 I 
 have retired from my position as a member of the Royal Consistory here, 
 ἐς 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 laborious 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 evenhere 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 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in itself, but to the whole 
 conception of the Messiah, and would be the leading thought of the argument, 
 even if quite another 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 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ 
 ἀνθρώπου, as, indeed, this expression in itself does not lexically contain the 
 very slightest hint thereof.—We may add, thatit 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 yehemence which it 
 has already so largely experienced. 
 
xvi 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. 
 
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 ; ὁ. = circa, an approximation to it. ] 
 
 Recent Eprrors.=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.) 
 
 Weiss 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 Kecl, Hist. at 
 Princeton : The Gospel according to Mark explained. 
 
 8°, New York, 1858, al. 
 
 ame, + 397, Bishop of Milan: Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. 
 
 pera. 
 
 Baur ΓΑ νὰν, Christian), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Das Markus- 
 
 evangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter. 89, Tibing. 1851. 
 
 BorNEMANN (Friedrich August), + 1848, Pastor at Kirchberg : Scholia in Lucae 
 
 Evangelium ad supplendos reliquorum interpretum commentarios. ... 
 
 8°, Lips. 1830. 
 
 CaTenaz. See CorpErtus, Niceras, and Possrnvs. 
 
 Coox (Εἰ. 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. 
 
 CorpErius [Corprer] (Balthasar), + 1650, Jesuit: Catena sexaginta quinque 
 Patrum Graecorum in ὃ. 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. 
 
 Exsner (Jakob), + 1750, Consistorialrath at Berlin : Commentarius critico-phil- 
 ologicus in Evangelium Marci . . . Edidit Ferd. Stosch. 
 4°, 118]. ad Rhen, 1773. 
 
xvii 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. 
 
 FrirzscHe (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 Εἰ. W. Shalders and 
 Ὁ. W. Cusin. 2 vols. 8°, Edin, 1875.] 
 [An American edition of this translation, in the volume, edited by John 
 Hall, D.D., published by I. K. Funk & Co. 8°, New York, 1881.] 
 
 ΞΈΡΕΙ, (Georg Friedrich), Theological Tutor at Wittenberg: Marci Evange- 
 lium notis grammatico-historico-criticis illustratum. 
 
 8°, Argent. 1716. 
 
 HinGenFre pd (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 zusammenhingend untersucht. 
 
 Achter Theil. Das Evangelium des Lukas. Cap. i.-xxil. 66... . 
 
 8°, Nordlingen, 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. 
 
 Junius (Franciscus) [Francois pu Jon], + 1602, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Analyt- 
 ica expositio Evangelii Marci. [Opera. ] 
 
 KiostEerMann (August), Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Das Markusevangelium nach 
 seinem Quellenwerthe fiir die evangelische Geschichte. 
 8°, Gotting. 1867. 
 
 MicHeEtsEN (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. 
 Morus (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 erliutert. 
 
 2 Theile. 8°, Bremen, 1777-81. 
 Pareus [WaENnGLER] (David), + 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Adversaria in 
 S. Marcum, 8S. Lucam . . . [Opera.] 
 
 Prrrer (George), Min. at Bread, Sussex: A learned, pious, and practical com- 
 mentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. 2 vols. 2°, Lond. 1661. 
 Piscator [Fisscner] (Johann), + 1626, Conrector at Herborn: Analysis logica 
 Evangelii secundum Lucam. 8°, Sigenae, 1596, al. 
 Prumptre (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 ©. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of 
 Gloucester and Bristol. 4°, Lond. 1878. 
 Posstnus (Peter), + ὁ. 1650, Jesuit at Rome: Catena Graecorum Patrum in 
 Marcum Graece et Latine. Interprete P. Possino. 2°, Romae, 1673. 
 
 Rermuarpd (Lorenz), + 1752, Superintendent at Biittstadt : Observationes phil- 
 
 ologicae et exegeticae in Evangelium Marci selectissimae. 
 4°, Lips. 1737, 
 

 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, ΧΙΧ 
 
 Scuarr (Philip), Prof. in Union Theol. Sem., N. Y.: 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. 
 
 ScHLEIERMACHER (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. 
 
 ScHoLTEN (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. 
 
 SeGaaar (Carolus), { 1803, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Observationes philologicae 
 et theologicae in Evangelii Lucae capita xi priora. 8°, Utrecht, 1766. 
 
 Stem (Karl Wilhelm), Pastor at Niemegk ; Commentar zu dem Evangelium des 
 Lucas, nebst einem Anhange iiber den Brief au die Laodicier. 
 
 8°, Halle, 1830. 
 
 Stevia [Esteiia] (Diego), { 1578, Spanish monk: In Evangelium secundum 
 
 Lucam enarrationes. 2 voll. 2°, Compluti, 1578, al. 
 
 Titus Bostrensis? + c. 370: Commentarius in Lucam. [Bibl. Max. Patrum. iv. ] 
 Troiope (William), M. A. : Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel. 
 
 12°, Lond. 1849. 
 
 Victor, 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 aanmerkingen. 
 
 8°, Utrecht, 1852-54. 
 
 Weiss (Bernhard), Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Das Markusevangelium und seine 
 synoptischen Parallelen erklirt. 8°, Berl. 1872. 
 
 Das Matthiusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen erklirt. 
 8°, Halle, 1876. 
 Wutes (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, 
 
“Ὁ 
 
 ἥν 
 Le 45 
 ἣς: © 
 7 
 ΄ 
 i 
 γ᾽ 
 ον 
 =: 
 γι: 
 ar 
 a 
 “" 
 ᾿ 
 
 τ 
 
 πρὸ 
 + 
 
 ΠΙᾺ i) rte 
 
 ΤΠ 
 
 ἵν 
 
 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
ate Wee 
 
 
 
 ῃ 
 [3 
 
 Ψ 
 
 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 §1.—ON THE LIFE OF MARK. 
 
 HE evangelist Mark, a Jew by birth (Col. iv. 10 f.), is the same? 
 
 who, in the Acts of the Apostles, is sometimes called John Mark 
 
 ee (xii. 12, 25, xv. 87), sometimes John only (xiii. 5, 13), sometimes 
 only Mark (xv. 39 ; comp. Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; Philem. 
 
 24; 1 Pet. 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. 13, he was 
 converted by Peter (υἱός μου) ; he entered, however, into the service of Bar- 
 nabas and Paul, when they commenced their missionary journeys (Acts xii. 
 25), but subsequently became the occasion of a difference between them and 
 of their separation from one another, when he accompanied Bari ab:s, 
 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. ὃ 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. 13 we find him again 
 with his spiritual father Peter in Babylon. His special relation to Peter is 
 
 1 The supposition that there were two dif- not to the Petrine, but to the Pauline Mark, 
 Jerent Marks (Grotius, Calovius, and sey- whom Papias had already confounded 
 eral others, including Schleiermacher in with the former. 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 760) is absolutely 2Thence Hitzig (7b. Johannes Markus u. 
 without any sufficient foundation. It is seine Schriften, Ziirich 1843) could hold him 
 nevertheless again taken up by Kienlenin to be the author of the Apocalypse, which, 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 423 ff., and in op- however. is decidedly incorrect. See 
 position to the tradition of the church fur- Liicke, Hind, in ἃ. Offend. p. 781, 
 ther made use of for ascribing the Gospel 
 
 1 
 
2 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 specified by the unanimous testimony of the ancient church as having been 
 that of interpreter (ἑρμηνεύτης ; Papias, in Eus. iii. 39 ; Iren. iii. 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 
 ἑρμηνεύτης, ‘‘ 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 secretary, 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) Titwm interpretem,” 
 ‘“‘Therefore he (Paul) had Titus as an interpreter” (in drawing up the 
 second Epistle to the Corinthians), ‘‘ siewt 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- 
 tibus,” ‘‘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 παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσ- 
 βυτέρων, ‘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 aHeged 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, 
 43, Martyrol. Rom., 25 Apr.). 
 
 ὃ 2.—ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 It is related, first of all by Papias (in Eus. iii. 39), and then unanimously 
 by the entire ancient church, that Mark wrote his Gospel under the special 
 influence of Peter, whose ἑρμηνεύτης, ‘‘ interpreter,” he was. This account 
 
 1 That this occurred before the compo- numerous body of Jews. Still the expres- 
 
 sition of the Epistle to the Romans, Thiersch 
 concludes (d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. 
 p. 104 f.) from Rom. xv. 19 ff. Certainly it 
 isin itself probable that even at that early 
 date Christianity existed, as in Rome, so 
 also in Alexandria, where there was a very 
 
 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 says 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 receive 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 
 ἀπομνημονεύματα Πέτρου, ‘‘ the memorabilia of Peter ;”? and Tertull. ¢. Mace. 
 iv. 5, says: ‘‘ Marcus quod edidit evangelium, Petri adfirmatur, cujus inter- 
 pres Marcus,” ‘‘ The Gospel which Mark put forth is established as Peter’s, 
 whose interpreter Mark was” (comp. Iren. iii. 1: ra ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα 
 ἐγγράφως, ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε, ‘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 κωλύσαι, ‘‘hindering,” nor a προτρέψασθαι, ‘‘furthering.” But in 
 the course of tradition the apostolic confirmation also* does not fail to ap- 
 pear, and even Eusebius himself,‘ ii. 15, relates : γνόντα δὲ πραχθέν φασι τὸν 
 ἀπόστολον. . . κυρῶσαί τε THY γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ‘‘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. ill. 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 Papias, 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, Schenkel and Weiz- 
 sicker, vib. d. Evang. Gesch. 1864. Recently 
 Weiss and Tischendorf have decidedly de- 
 clared themselves against the hypothesis of 
 a primitive Mark [Urmarkus]. 
 
 2 See on John, Introd. p. 7 f.; Ritschl in 
 the theol, Jahrb, 1851, p, 499 f.; Késtlin, 
 
 Urspr. α΄. synopt. Huang. p. 368 f.; Weiss in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 677. 
 
 3 The view which finds mention of the 
 literary services of Mark even by Paul, 
 namely at 2 Cor. viii. 18 (Storr, Hitzig), isa 
 pure fancy. 
 
 4 Eusebius does not here quote Clement’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 in his own per- 
 son. See Credner, Mini. I. p. 113; Thiersch, 
 Hist. Standp. 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, vill. 22-26, xi. 1-14, xiii. 33-37, 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.4 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. 
 
 tendency’ than any kind of acknowledg- 
 ment, be it ever so limited, of the indepen- 
 dence of Mark.’ Nevertheless, Eichthal 
 
 2The best conjoint view of all that can 
 be said on behalf of this hypothesis is given 
 by Bleek in his Beitrdge, p. 72 ff., and Hinl. 
 p. 243 ff. The most forcible refutation is 
 found in Holtzmann, Synopt. Hvang. p. 113 
 ff., 344 ff. Comp. Weiss in the Stud. τι. 
 Kit. 1861, p. 652 ff., 680 ff. 
 
 3 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-conerete 
 conception. Ké6éstlin and others speak of 
 Mark’s ‘‘mannerism.” Weisse, Hvangeli- 
 enfr. Ὁ. 73, rightly says: “in fact, nothing 
 can be more dangerous to the ἡ criticism of 
 
 (les Evangiles, Paris 1863) 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 isin many ways 
 interpolated. In this Eichthal goes to 
 work with very 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. 11. p. 203 f.; 
 Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit, 1861, p. 67 ff., 
 646 ff. ; Holtzmann, p. 284 f., 448 f. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 gradual formation of our Matthew, and then also for Luke. It is simply 
 inconceivable that Mark could have passed over, in particular, the rich 
 materials which Luke has peculiar to himself (as is still the opinion of Kést- 
 lin, p. 334), 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 evangelic 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 ὃ 8), and with the aid of a 
 Papian primitive-Mark ; while Hilgenfeld withal, following Augustine and 
 Hug, insists upon 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 
 Judaea (chap. χ.). 
 
 Remark 1.—Although Mark was chiefly dependent on the communications 
 of Peter, still the Petrine tendency is not to be attributed to his Gospel (in op- 
 
 1 According to Fritzsche and Bleek, Mark 
 is alleged to have used not merely Matthew 
 and Luke, but even the Gospel of John. 
 The state of the case is directly the re- 
 verse. 
 
 2So not only Weisse and Wilke, but also 
 Lachmann, Uitzig, Reuss, Ewald, Ritschl, 
 Thiersch, Volkmar, Tobler, Plitt, Holtz- 
 mann, Weiss, Schenkel, Weizsiicker, and 
 others (see also Giider in Herzog’s Encykl. 
 IX. p. 47 f.) 
 
 3Thiersch, Kirche im 
 
 Apost. Zeitalt, 
 
 p- 102. 
 
 4 Especially since 1850, then in his long 
 controversy with Baur, and once more in 
 his Kanon u. Kritik d. N. T. 1863, and in his 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 287 ff. 
 
 9. Neue wnters. Ub. d. Entsteh. u. Ant. ad. ka- 
 non. Hwang. 1., 1853. 
 
 δ See on the other hand Baur, Markus- 
 evang. p. 119 ff.; Ritschl in the fheol. 
 Jahrb. 1851, p. 482 ff. ; Weiss in the Stud. wu. 
 Krit. 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. 1383 ff. Comp. on viii. 29; also Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, 
 p. 674 f. 
 
 Remark 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 (Ritschl) or 
 against the dependence of Matthew on Mark ; see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, 
 p. 89 f. Comp. on i, 2 ἢ. 
 
 ὃ 3.—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. 
 
 2 Schwegler, Baur, K6stlin, 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. 
 
 3 The opinion of Volkmar (d. Relig. Jesu 
 u. ihre erste Entwickelung, 1857, and ge- 
 schichtstreue Theol. 1858)—that the Gospel of 
 Mark as an Epos is a Pauline treatise with a 
 set purposein opposition to the Judaistic reac- 
 tion, and has 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 criti- 
 cal extravagance. See, in opposition to it, 
 Hilgenfeld in the ¢heol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 387 
 ff., and in his Zeitschr. 1859, p. 252 ff., 1861, 
 p. 190 ff., also in Kanon u. Kritik, p. 175 ff, 
 
INTRODUCTION. is 
 
 drawn from the O. T. (excepting only i. 2 f., see in loc.) and of Judaistic 
 elements of doctrine (Késtlin, p. 314), 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, vil. 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. 18, 24, 
 30, 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 (Kichhorn, Hug, Fritzsche), and were too much of a doctrinal nature 
 (Weizsiicker), 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 (Hus. H. #. 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 view Weisse also (‘‘ under the influences of the lively 
 impression of the conquest”’) is inclined ; K6stlin, assigning to the 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 130-170. 
 
 The place of composition is not known with certainty, but the preponder- 
 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 ἔξοδον, not: departure, as Mill, Grabe, Aberle, and others will have it. See Hilgen- 
 feld in his Zeitschr. 1864, 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 a very early 
 period Alexandria was assigned to Mark asa sphere of labor. It is true 
 that Chrysostom names Alexandria 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 twofold 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.” 
 
 ὃ 4.—PRIMARY LANGUAGE, ORIGINALITY, INTEGRITY. 
 
 Mark wrote in Greek, as the Fathers are unanimous either in presuppos- 
 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 Romans. 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, /.c. and p. 205 1) 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 εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον had come into existence. 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 
 
 ing or in expressly testifying. 
 
 1Comp. also Ebedjesu, in Assem. Bidi. 
 O71, p..9: 
 
 2 See Dobrowsky, fragment. Pragense ev. 
 St. Marci vulgo autographi, Prag. 1778; 
 Michaelis, orient. Bibl. XII. 108, Hind. ΤΙ. 
 p. 1073 ff. 
 
 3 See Schleiermacher in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1832, Ὁ. 758 ff. ; Credner, Hint. I. p. 193. 
 
 4 Subsequently Credner (see his work, 
 
 das neue Test. nach Zweck, Ursprung, Inhalt, 
 1843, II. p. 213 ff.) has declared in favor of 
 the genuineness of our Gospel, and has look- 
 ed upon the testimony of Papias as affirm- 
 ing that the order of events in the three 
 Synoptics does not correspond to the re- 
 ality. But even this does not follow from 
 the words of Papias rightly apprehended, 
 
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 
 in a 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 Markusevang. p. 131 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 is al- 
 leged to have delivered on his apostolic 
 journeys. 
 
 3 Ewald, comp. Hitzig, Weisse, Holtz- 
 mann, Schenkel, Weizsicker, also Reuss, 
 KOostlin, and others. 
 
 3 On the hypothesis of the Gospel being 
 prepared with ὦ special 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, Huang. p. 565. As if 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. 
 
 Note By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 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: 
 particularily 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 Synoptischen 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.¢., 
 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 Introduction 
 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. To many 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, or one 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.e., 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. 
 
 Evayyédiov κατα Μάρπον. 
 
 BE δὲ have merely κατὰ Μάρκον. Others: τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον. 
 Others: ἐκ τοῦ x. Μ. ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου. Comp, on Matt., note respecting the 
 title. 
 
 CHAPTER. E. 
 
 Ver. 2. The Recepta has ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, following A E F G**H K MPS U 
 VT, min. Iren. and other Fathers and vss. Defended by Rinck on account of 
 Matt. 111. 3; placed by Lachm. in the margin. But Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. 
 Tisch. have ἐν (ἐν τῷ, Lachm. Tisch ) Ἡσαΐᾳ (in Lachm. always with the 
 spiritus lenis) τῷ προφήτῃ. So BDL Δ δὲ, min. and many vss. and Fathers. 
 Rightly ; the Recepta was introduced because the quotation is from two proph- 
 ets. — After ὁδόν cov Elz. has ἔμπροσθέν cov, from Matthew and Luke. — Ver. 5. 
 πάντες] which in Elz. Scholz, and Fritzsche stands after ἐβαπτίζοντο, is rightly 
 placed by Griesb. Iiachm. and Tisch. after ἹἹεροσολ. (Β Ὁ L A &, min. vss. Or. 
 Kus.). Τῇ καὶ ἐβαπτ. πάντες had been the original arrangement and πάντες had 
 been put back, it would, conformably to usage (πᾶσα ἡ ’Iovdaia), have been 
 placed before oi ‘IepocoA. The Recepta is explained from the circumstance that 
 πάντες was omitted (so stillin min. and Brix.), and that it was then restored be- 
 side éBuntifovro, because in Matt. iii. 5 also Ἱεροσόλυμα stands alone. — Ver. 10. 
 ἀπό] So also Scholz. But Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκ, which also Griesb. 
 approved of, following B D L A δὲ, min. Goth.; ἀπό is from Matt. iii. 16. — Ver. 
 11. ἐν ᾧ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν coi, following B Ὁ L P δὲ, min. vss. The latteris 
 right ; ἐν ᾧ isfrom Matt. iii. 17. — Ver. 13. Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche have ἐκεῖ after 
 ἦν. It is wanting in AB Τ 1, δὲ, min. vss. Or.; it was, however, very easily passed 
 over as superfluous (K. min. omit ἐν τ. ép.) between jv and ἐν. [Rejected by 
 Tisch. and recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 14. τῆς βασιλείας) is not found in B L 
 8, 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. περιπατῶν δέ] Lachm. and Tisch. read καὶ παράγων, which 
 Griesb. also approved, following Β D L δὲ, min. Vulg. It. al. The Recepta is 
 from Matt. iv. 18, from which place also came subsequently αὐτοῦ, instead of 
 which Σιμῶνος (Lachm.: τοῦ Σιμῶνος) is with Tisch. to be read according to B 
 LM 8. — ἀμφιβάλλ.] Elz. has βάλλοντας, contrary to decisive evidence. From 
 Matt. iv. 18. — Ver. 18. αὐτῶν] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B C L 8, 
 min. vss., to be deleted as a familiar addition, as also in ver. 31 αὐτῆς. --- Ver.19. 
 éxeifev] 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 εἰσελθών (Tisch.) is attested indeed by Ο L A δὲ, min, Syr. 
 Copt. Colb. Or. (twice), which assign various positions to ἐδιδ, (Tisch,: édd. 
 εἰς τ. ovvuywyyv), but might easily be produced by a clerical crror on occasion 
 
GHAP, πο, 1-4. 13 
 
 of the following εἰς, and it has the preponderance of the witnesses against it. 
 [Bracketed by Treg., retained by W. and Hort in text (marg. omits), Weiss and 
 R.V.] — Ver. 24. ἔα] 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. ἐξ αὐτοῦ] Lachm.: am ᾿αὐτοῦ 
 without preponderating testimony. From Luke iy. 35. — Ver. 27. Instead of 
 πρὸς αὐτούς, read with Lachm., in accordance with decisive evidence, πρὸς ἑαυτούς 
 [so Treg., W. and Hort, margin]. Tisch. |W. and Hort text, Weiss] following 
 only B &, have merely αὐτούς. --- τί ἐστι τοῦτο ; τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη; ὅτι κατ᾽ 
 κ.τ.}.1 Lachm.: τί ἐστιν τοῦτο ; διδαχῇ καινὴ" Kar’ κ.τ.λ. Just so Rinck and Tisch., 
 who, however, connect 6.0. καινὴ κατ᾽ ἐξουσ. together. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
 R. V., accept the punctuation of Lachmann.] The authority of this reading de- 
 pends on B LA δὲ, min.; it is to be preferred, since manifestly the original 
 διδαχὴ καινὴ κατ’ ἐξουσίαν was conformed to the question in Luke, τίς ὁ λόγος 
 αὕτος, ὅτι κ.τ.λ., and thus arose τίς ἡ διδαχὴ ἡ καινὴ αὕτη, ὅτι. — Ver. 28. In- 
 stead of ἐξῆλθε δέ, preponderating attestation favors καὶ ἐξῆλθεν (Lachm. Tisch. ). 
 — After εὐθύς Tisch. has πανταχοῦ. So Β ΟἽ, &8** min. codd. It. Copt. 
 Rightly so ; the superfluous word, which might easily be regarded as inappro- 
 priate (δὲ ὃ min. omit εὐθύς also), dropped away. — Ver. 31. εὐθέως after πυρ. is 
 wanting in B C L δὰ, min. Copt. Arm.; and D, Vulg. Cant. have it before 
 ἀφῆκεν. 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 ἄγωμεν, B C L δὲ, 33, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Arr. Tisch. 
 have ἀλλαχοῦ. To be adopted (comp. Bornem. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, 
 p. 127) ; being unnecessary and without corresponding element in Luke iy. 43, it 
 was very easily passed over ; comp. on πανταχοῦ, i. 28. — Instead of ἐξελήλυθα, 
 BCL&, 33 have ἐξῆλθον, which Griesb. and Scholz have approved, and 
 Tisch. has adopted. Rightly ; the explanation of procession from the Father 
 suggested the Johannine ἐλήλυθα, which, moreover, A and min. actually read. 
 — Ver. 39. εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς] So also Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. on preponderant 
 attestation. The Recepta ἐν ταῖς cvvuywyaic is an emendation, [See Note IX., 
 p. 26.] — Ver. 40. καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτόν] 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 
 αὐτόν, but following only L δὲ, min. vss. — Ver, 41. ὁ δὲ ’Iyjcovc] Β Ὁ δὲ, 102, 
 Cant. Vere. Corb. 2 have merely καί. So Lachm. and Tisch. But comp. Matt. 
 viii. 3; Luke v.13. From these passages comes also the omission of εἰπόντος 
 αὐτοῦ, ver. 42, in BDL δὲ, min. vss, Lachm, Tisch. [Both omissions accepted 
 by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 44. μηδέν] deleted by Lachm., following A D 
 L A δὲ, min. vss. Vict. Theophyl. The omission occurred in conformity with 
 Matt. viii. 4; Luke v. 14. — Ver. 45. Elz. reads πανταχόθεν. But πάντοθεν 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 ὡς 
 γέγραπται. . . τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ belongs also to the superscription, so that with 
 
 1 Τὴ 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. [See 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, see- 
 ing that he places the beginning of the Gospel, 1.6., 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 
 vy. 21-28), he even, contrary to his custom, elsewhere appends a prophetic 
 utterance, in conformity with which that ἀρχή 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 ἀρχή itself does not begin till ver. 4, the want of a 
 particle with ἐγένετο, ver. 4, is quite in order. Comp. Matt. i. 2. If! we con- 
 strue : ἀρχὴ . . - ἐγένετο Ιωάννης βαπτίζων, then ὡς γέγραπται x.t.2. becomes a 
 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 merely 
 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 ὡς γέγραπται 
 becomes protasis of ἐγένετο x.7.4., but thereby the citation, instead of being 
 probative of the ἀρχή 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: 7, 
 the beginning . . . was, as it stands written,* doubtless the want of the article 
 with ἀρχή is not against this course,‘ nor yet the want of a γάρ 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 jv is unnecessary, and even injurious to the vivid concrete rep- 
 resentation. Moreover, 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) 
 
 the evangelist further added the familiar 
 passage of Malachi. In this way at all 
 
 1 With Fritzsche, Lachmann, Hitzig, 
 Holtzmann. The conjecture of Lachmann 
 
 (Stud. τ. Krit. 1830, p. 84, and praefat. 11. Ὁ. 
 vi.), that vv. 2, 3 are a later interpolation, 
 is critically quite unwarranted. According 
 to Ewald and Weizsicker, p. 105, 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 is 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 ἐν Ἡσαΐᾳ to 
 stand,—he would have appropriated to 
 Isaiah what belongs to Malachi; and the 
 difficulty would remain unsolved. There 
 is therefore no call for the appeal to the 
 primitive-Mark. 
 
 2 So Bengel, Paulus, de Wette. 
 
 3 Theophylact, Euthymius 
 Vatablus, Maldonatus, 
 and others. 
 
 4 See Winer, p. 113 [E. T. 124]. 
 
 Zigabenus, 
 Jansen, Grotius, 
 
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 
 ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγ. --- Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] See on Matt. i. 1. When the genitive with 
 evayy. is not a person, it is always genitive of the object, as evayy. τῆς βασιλ- 
 είας, τῆς σωτηρίας K.T.A. (Matt. iv. 23 ; Eph. 1. 13, vi. 15, al.). If Θεοῦ 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 μου stands with it (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess. 
 1. 5, al.). But if Χριστοῦ is associated therewith (Rom. i. 9, xv. 19; 1 Cor. 
 ix. 12, al.), it may be either the genitive swbjecti (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”), τοῦ evayy. 
 I. X. would have reference to ver. 14 f.; but in that case the non-origi- 
 nality of vv. 2, 3 is presupposed. —viod τ. Θεοῦ] 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. 44 f.). The supernatural generation is by 
 υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ neither assumed (Hilgenfeld) nor excluded (Késtlin) ; even vi. 
 3 proves nothing. — ἐν ‘Hoaia|] The following quotation combines Mal. iii. 1 
 and Isa. xl. 3. 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 first (see Surenhusius, καταλλ. p. 45). Matt. xxvii. 9 was a 
 
 1The absence of υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ in &, two the more readily by reason of the homoeote- 
 
 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 ἀρχὴ τοῦ 
 evayy., aS initself a complete idea, was taken 
 together with the following ὡς yéyp.; and 
 thence all the genitives, "I. X. ὑ. τ. ©., which 
 could be dispensed with, were passed over 
 
 leuta. So stillinIr.int.and Epiph. Others 
 allowed at least Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to remain, 
 or restored these words. Besides, υἱοῦ τ. 
 Θεοῦ 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 ail vss.) have read it; for 
 which reason merely a sporadic diffusion is 
 to be assigned to the reading without viod 
 τ. Θεοῦ, [See Note 1Π.. 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 have placed jirst 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, see on Matt. 111. 3, 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 primitive-Mark, in which, according to Holtzmann and others, it 
 is alleged not to have held a place at all. — ἐγένετο] might be connected with 
 * 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. ili. 1. — βάπτισμα μετανοίας) a baptism involving an obligation to re- 
 pentance (see on Matt. 111. 2), genitive of the characteristic quality. — εἰς ἄφεσιν 
 duapt.| Comp. Luke iii. 83. The aim of this baptism, in order that men, pre- 
 pared for the purpose by the μετάνοια, should receive forgiveness 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. τ. 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. 38), 
 give to those, who allowed themselves to be baptized and thereby under- 
 «ok the ohligation to repentance, the certain prospect of the ἄφεσις 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. iii. 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. — πᾶσα ἡ ᾿Ιουδ. «:7.A.] Ιουδ. is an adjective (see on John iii. 
 22), and χώρα is in contrast to the metropolis (see on John xi. 54 f.), the 
 whole Judaean region, and the people of Jerusalem collectively. In πᾶσα and 
 πάντες there isa popular hyperbole. — Ver. 6. Instead of ἐσθίων, we must 
 
 βαιττίζων. 
 
 1 Anger and others, in favor of Matthew ; 
 Ritschl and others, in favor of Mark. 
 
 2 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, and 
 others, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 273 
 Γι: Lobeck, ad Aj. 588; Kiihner, IT. p. 40. 
 
 3 Ewald (comp. Hitzig) connects ἐγένετο 
 with κηρύσσων, reading ὃ βαπτίζων in accord- 
 ance with B LAWS (comp. vi. 14), wd omit- 
 ting thesubsequent καί with B, mi “John 
 
 the Baptist was just preaching,”’ ete. 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 Pecepta. 
 
 4 Comp. John i. 6; 1 John ii. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 
 1; Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 49, iv. 3. 29, αἰ. Comp. 
 παραγίνεται, Matt. iii. 1, and on Phil. ii. 7, 
 
CHAP. I., 9-13. 17 
 
 write, with Tischendorf, éofwv.1— Ver. 7. ἔρχεται] present: ‘‘ut Christum in- 
 telligas jam fuisse in via,” ‘‘that you may know Christ is already on the way,” 
 Beza. —xiryac] belongs to the graphic character on Mark, whose delineation 
 is here certainly more original than that of Matthew. —év πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ] 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. 33.7 It would not have been ‘‘ abrupt” (Holtzmann) even in Mark. 
 
 Vv. 9-11. See on Matt. iii. 13-17; Luke iii. 21 f. — εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην] 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 ἀναβ.: 
 immediately (after He was baptized) coming up. A hyperbaton (Fritzsche 
 refers εὐθ. to εἶδε) just as little occurs here as at Matt. iil. 16. — εἶδε] Jesus, 
 to whom also ἐπ᾽ αὑτόν refers (see on Matt. U.c.). Mark harmonizes with Mat- 
 thew,* who gives a further development of the history of the baptism, but 
 whose statement : ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ oip., ‘‘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. — σχιζομένους, conveying a more vivid sensuous im- 
 pression than Matthew and Luke. — Lange’s poetically naturalizing process 
 of explaining (ZL. 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, etc. See, moreover, the Remark subjoined to Matt. iii. 17. 
 
 Vv. 12, 13. See on Matt. iv. 1-11 ; Luke iv. 1 ff. — ἐκβάλλει] He drives, 
 urges Him forth ; more graphic than the ἀνήχθη of Matthew and the ἤγετο 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 historicus, ‘‘ historical 
 present.” — And He was there (éxei, see the critical [and supplementary] re- 
 marks) in the desert (whither the Spirit had driven Him), 7.¢., 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. — καὶ ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων] 
 
 1 See on this poetical form, which occurs this form is to be read. 
 
 also in the LXX. and Apocrypha, Duncan, 2 Jn opposition to Ewald, Késtlin, Holtz- 
 Lex. ed. Rost, p. 457; Winer, p. 79 [E. T. mann, and others. 
 86]; Buttmann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 51 [E. T. 58]. 3In opposition to Strauss, Weisse, de 
 
 Also at xii. 40, Luke vii. 33 f., x. 7, xxii. 30, | Wette, 
 2 
 
18 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 and He was with the wild beasts. This is usually’ 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. 20), 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 ἄγγελοι] The article denotes the category. — διηκό- 
 νουν αὐτῷ] 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, see 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 ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (which, according 
 to Hilgenfeld, merely serves to color and embellish the meagre extract), 
 should have remained unnoticed. But the entire interest attached itself to 
 Satan and to his anti-Messianic agency. The brevity ® with which Mark re- 
 lates the temptation, and which quite corresponds ἢ to the still undeveloped 
 summary beginning of the tradition, is alleged by Baur to proceed from the 
 circumstance that with Mark 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 ἀρχὴ τοῦ evayy., ‘‘ beginning of the gospel,” earlier.” 
 
 Ver. 14 f. See on Matt. iv. 12, 17; Luke iv. 14 f. —eic τ. Ταλιλ.] 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 ἀναχώρησις, “8 
 withdrawal.” — κηρύσσων] present participle with ἦλθεν. ---- τὸ evayy. τοῦ Θεοῦ] 
 
 1 So also von Engelhardt (de Jesu Christi has dropped out also after ver. 5 or 6, and 
 
 tentatione, Dorp. 1858, p. 5). 
 
 2 Virg. Aen. ili. 646, and see Wetstein én loc. 
 
 8 Usteri in the Stud. κι. Krit. 1834, p. 789; 
 Gfrorer, Olshausen, comp. Bengel, and also 
 Baur, Hvang. pp. 540, 564; Hilgenfeld, 
 Evang. p. 126; Schenkel, Holtzmann. 
 
 4 Ex. xxiv. 48, xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 18. 
 
 5 For the idea that x. ot ayy. dunk. αὐτῷ is 
 only the closing sentence of an originally 
 longer narration (Weisse, Hvangelienfr. p. 
 163) is fanciful. Only the short, compact 
 account is in harmony with all that sur- 
 rounds it. Weisse supposes that something 
 
 after ver. 8. 
 
 δ 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. Késtlin, p. 322. 
 
 8 See Weizsicker, ἢ. 333. 
 
 9 5366 Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 14, Ὁ. 81; 
 Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 17; Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C. 
 
CHAP. I., 16-20. 19 
 
 See on ver. 1. — ὅτι7 recitative. — ὁ καιρός] the period, namely, which was to 
 last until the setting up of the Messiah’s kingdom, ὁ καιρὸς οὗτος, x. 80. It 
 is conceived of as a measure. Sce on Gal. iv. 4. — πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ evayy.| Be- 
 lieve on the gospel.' The object of faith is conceived as that in which the 
 faith is fixed and based. Fritzsche takes ἐν 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 τὸ evayy. is just the news itself, which Jesus gave in πεπλήρωται k.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. 
 -- παράγων (see the critical remarks), as He passed along by the sea. This as 
 well as ἀμφιβάλλ. ἐν τ. θαγ. (casting around) is part of the peculiar vividness 
 of representation that Mark loves. — Ver. 19. καὶ αὐτούς) et ipsos in nave, 
 likewise in the ship. It does not belong to καταρτίζοντας (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 ἐν τῷ 
 πλοίῳ, SO that καταρτ. x.r.A. then subjoins a further circumstance. The for- 
 mer explanation in the sense assigned to it would only be possible, if 
 ἀμφιβάλλ., in ver. 16, and καταρτ. were included under one more general 
 idea. — Ver. 20. μετὰ τ. wicfwr.| 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 carried on his business not altogether on a small scale, and 
 
 1 As to mor. with ev, see on Gal. iii. 26; 
 Eph. i. 13; frequently in the LXX. 
 
 2Comp. Weizsacker, p. 364. But the 
 teaching begins with the announcement of 
 the kingdom, which has as its presupposi- 
 tion the Messianic self-consciousness (Weiz- 
 sacker, p. 425). Without reason Schenkel 
 maintains, p. 370, that Jesus could not at 
 all have regarded Himself at the beginning 
 of His work as the Messiah. He might do 
 so, without sharing the political Messianic 
 hopes. See Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 250 f.; 
 Keim, Geschichtl. Chr. p.44f. But the view 
 which makes the beginning of the teaching 
 and miracle-working even precede the bap- 
 tism (Schleiermacher) 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 Keim (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. 31 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 said 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, /.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. 31-387, who in substance follows Mark ; in 
 opposition to the converse opinion of Baur, see especially Weiss, p. 653. 
 Matthew, freely selecting, has not the history, but has, on the other hand, 
 the more striking casting out of demons contained in Mark ν. 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, 3, 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 Peter in 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. εἰσπορεύονται) 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 ἔνια, which the fragment of Papias pronounced to be wanting in τάξις 
 (see on Matt. Introd. p. 30 f.). — εὐθέως τοῖς σά ββ.] t.e., immediately on the next 
 Sabbath, not : on the several Sabbaths,* which is forbidden by εὐθέως. 
 σάββατα, as in li. 23; Matt. xii. 1; Luke iv. 6; Col. 11. 16. — ἐδίδασκε] 
 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. 382, 
 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 sees 
 a sure indication of dependence on Matthew, to find in the fact, that Mark 
 already here makes Capernawm appear as the scene of the ministry of Jesus 
 just asin ver, 29, the Petrine character of the Gospel. See, on the other 
 hand, Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 56 ff. — As to ἦν διδάσκ. and ὡς ἐξουσ. 
 ἔχων, see on Matt. vii. 28 ἢ, 
 
 Ver. 23 f. Ἔν πνεύμ. ἀκαθάρτῳ] to be connected closely with ἄνθρωπος : a 
 
 1Comp. xvi. 1; Luke viii. 3; John xix. ing Luke. 
 
 27. 3 Euthymius Zigabenus, Wolf, and many 
 2 Thus Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, others. 
 
 Euthymius Zigabenus, and others, follow- 
 
CHAP. I., 25-27. 21 
 
 man in the power of an unclean spirit.' As to the demoniacs, see on Matt. iv. 
 24; and as to the miracles of Jesus in general, see on Matt. viii. 4. — ἀνέ- 
 κραξε] 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. — ἡμᾶς] me and those like tome. ‘‘Communem inter se cau- 
 sam habent daemonia,” ‘‘demons make common cause with each other,” 
 Bengel. — ἀπολέσαι] by relegation to Hades, like βασανίσαι in Matt. l.c. —é 
 ἅγιος Tov θεοῦ] the hallowed One of God (John x. 36) κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν," 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 
 ἅγιοι Tov θεοῦ. The demon does not name Him thus as κολακεύων αὐτόν 
 (Euthymius Zigabenus, and before him Tertullian), but rather by way of 
 giving to His ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς the impress of hopeless certainty. 
 
 Ver. 25 f. Αὐτῷ] 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 (σπαράξαν) him. Comp. ix. 26 ; Luke ix. 42. 
 
 Ver. 27. Πρὸς ἑαυτούς] is equivalent to πρὸς ἀλλήλους (Luke iv. 36). The 
 reason why the reflexive 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 συζητεῖν stands opposed to 
 this, designating as it does action im common, ix. 10, xii. 28 ; Luke xx. 23, 
 xxiv. 15, al.; so also in the classics. — τί ἐστι τοῦτο :] 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 : διδαχὴ καινὴ Kar’ 
 ἐξουσίαν᾽ Kai τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις. . . ai’td! 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 κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν to καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι K.T.A. But this 
 is manifestly opposed to the connection, according to which κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν 
 looks back to the foregoing ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. This ap- 
 plies also in opposition to Ewald, who reads διδαχῇ καινῇ : ‘‘ 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 ἐν Matthiae, p. 1141. Comp. v. demon’s declaration of the Messiahship of 
 
 2; 2 Cor. xii. 2; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 84 
 ({E. T. 96]. 
 
 2 See Origen and Victor Antiochenus in 
 Possini Catena. 
 
 8 Luke iv. 34; Acts iv. 27; Rev. iii. 7; 
 John vi. 69. 
 
 4566 Knapp, Opusc. I. Ὁ. 33 f. 
 
 δ᾽ To refer φιμώθητι, 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 victor in general: Be silent and go 
 out! Strauss appeals to i. 34, 111. 12. But 
 these prohibitions refer to the time after the 
 going out. 
 
 ὁ See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 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 ὅτι the two elements of the exclamation would 
 be very definitely correlative to the two elements of the ministry of Jesus in 
 the synagogue respectively. — κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν] defines the reference of καινή : 
 new in respect to power, which has never yet occurred thus with the impress 
 of higher authorization. 
 
 Ver. 28. Εἰς ὅλην τ. περίχ. τ. Ταλιλ.} not merely therefore into Galilee 
 itself, but also into the whole region that surrounds Galilee. [See Note VIIL., 
 p. 26.] Comp. Luke iii. 3, viii. 87. This wide diffusion, the expression of 
 which is still further strengthened by πανταχοῦ (see the critical remarks), is 
 not at variance with the εὐθύς (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. — πανταχοῦ] with the verb of motion, as is often the case 
 among the Greeks: every-whither. Comp. on ἀλλαχοῦ, 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). 
 
 Vy. 29-39. In connection and narrative, Luke iv. 38—44 is parallel. 
 compare also Matt. viii. 14-17, which proceeds by way of abridgment. 
 
 Ver. 29 ff. See on Matt. viii. 14 f. — ἐξελθόντες] Jesus, Peter and Andrew. 
 James and John are thereupon specially named as accompanying.—The 
 short narrative is condensed, animated, graphic,’ not subjected to elabora- 
 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. Ὀψίας. . . ἥλιος] 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 afferrent,” ‘‘ Religion restrained the Jews from bringing their 
 sick before the close of the Sabbath,” Wetstein, and, earlier, Victor Antio- 
 chenus. — πρὸς αὐτόν] presupposes that before the evening He has returned 
 again to His own dwelling (ii. 1, 15). It is not Peter’s house that is meant.— 
 πάντας τοὺς κ.τ.}.} 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. — ἡ πόλις ὅλη] Comp. Matt. 111. ὅ.3 π 
 
 Ver. 84. πολλοὺς. . . πολλά] 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. — 
 ἤφιε] as in xi. 16. Imperfect, from the form ἀφίω, with the augment on the 
 
 But 
 
 kept to the διδαχή of Jesus in the sense of 
 Matthew, without himself rightly under- 
 standing in what relation the καινὴ διδαχή 
 stood to the ἐπιτάσσειν κιτιλ. Baur, Markus- 
 evang. p. 11; comp. theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 69 
 f. See, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld, 
 Evang. p. 128. 
 
 1 In this point of view the sickness is de- 
 noted by the words κατέκειτο πυρέσσ. 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 as a worker 
 of miracles. 
 
 3 50. also in the classical writers (Thue. 
 vii. 82. 1; Soph. O. R. 179); comp. Niagels- 
 bach, Anm, z. Ilias, ed. 3, p, 108, 
 
CHAP. I., 35-39. 2d 
 
 preposition ; see Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 81]. —Aadeiv . . . ὅτι] He allowed 
 them not to speak, enjoined on them silence, because they knew Him. They 
 would otherwise, had they been allowed to speak, have said that He was the 
 Messiah. Kuinoel, Bleek, and others erroneously take it as if the expression 
 was λέγειν. . . ὅτι. 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 
 λαλεῖν, br. —As to the reason of the prohibition, see on v. 43 and Matt. 
 vill. 4. 
 
 Vv. 35-39. Luke iv. 42-44 is less characteristic and more generalized, — 
 Evvuyov λίαν] when it was still very dark. évvvyov is the accusative neuter of 
 the definition of time, as σήμερον, αὔριον, νέον, etc. The word itself is often 
 found also in classical writers, but not this adverbial use of the accusative 
 neuter.’ Comp. ἐννυχώτερον, Aesop, Fab. 79. The plural form ἔννυχα (in 
 Lachmann and Tischendorf, following BC DL &, min.) is, however, de- 
 cisively attested, although likewise without sanction from Greek usage ;? in 
 Soph. Aj. 930, πάννυχα is adjective. —éi7Afe] out of his house, ver. 29. 
 Comp. 11. 1. --- κατεδίωξαν) only occurring here in the N. T., more significant 
 than the simple form, expressive of the following up till they reached Him.* — 
 καὶ of μετ’ αὐτοῦ] 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. — πάντες] puts Jesus in mind of the multitude of yesterday, vv. 32, 
 34. — ἀλλαχοῦ] with a verb of direction, comp. ver. 28 and on Matt. ii. 22. 
 The following εἰς τὰς éyou. κωμοπ., into the nearest * villages, is a More pre- 
 cise definition of ἀλλαχοῦ. --- κωμοπόλεις] villages, only used here in the N. T., 
 but see the passages in Wetstein. — εἰς τοῦτο yap ἐξῆλθον] for that (namely, 
 to preach abroad also) is 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 ἐξῆλθον of having come forth from the Father.® 
 A harmonizing with Luke iv. 43. 
 
 Ver. 39. Κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς ovvaywy. αὐτῶν x.t.A.| There is the conception of 
 direction in εἰς : 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 εἰς ὅλην τὴν TadsAaiay specifies 
 the geographical field, into which the κηρύσσειν εἰς τὰς συναγωγ att. 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 Mace. y. 5; see, however, Grimm in Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 127; Fritzsche, ad 
 loc. Mare. p. 22. 
 
 2 Hesychius has the adverb vvxa, equiva- 
 lent to νύκτωρ. 
 
 8 Thue. ii. 84.3; Polyb. vi. 42. 1; Ecclus. 
 ἘΝ 1... Ps) xxii. 18. 
 
 4 Herod. i. 134; Xen. Anabd. i. 8, iv. 9; 
 Joseph. Antt. xi. 8. 6, and frequently; 
 comp. Acts xiii. 44, xxi. 26. See Borne- 
 mann, Schol. in Lue. iy, 28, γ. 35, and in the 
 
 5 So Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, 
 Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and others; comp. 
 Baumgarten-Crusius. 
 
 8 Comp. the well-known modes of expres- 
 sion: és τὸν δῆμον εἰπεῖν, Thuc. vy. 45, εἰς τὴν 
 στρατίαν εἰπεῖν, Xen. Anab. v. 6. 37; John 
 Vili. 26, ταῦτα λέγω εἰς Tov κόσμον, Comp. 
 xiv, 10; Rom. xvi. 26. 
 
24 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 Hilgenfeld assumes it to be, which is a vagary in the interest of antagonism 
 to the independence of Mark. Holtzmann appropriately observes that vv. 
 35-89 is one of the most telling passages in favor of Mark’s originality. 
 
 Vv. 40-45. Comp. on Matt. viii. 2-4, where this history follows imme- 
 diately after the sermon on the Mount, and that in a shorter, more compre- 
 hensive form in accordance with Mark. In Luke (y. 12 ff.) the narrative of 
 the draught of fishes is previously inserted. — γονυπετῶν αὐτόν] See on Matt. 
 xvii. 14. — Ver. 41." σπλαγχνισθ.] subordinated to the participle éxreivac.2 — 
 Ver. 42. ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ] so also Luke. But he has omitted the following 
 k. éxaflap., to which Matthew has adhered. — Ver. 48. ἐμβριμησάμ. αὐτῷ] after 
 He had been angry at him, wrathfully addressed him (comp. xiv. 5, and on 
 Matt. ix. 30). We are to conceive of a vehement begone now ! away hence! 
 With this is connected also the forcible ἐξέβαλεν. Observe the peculiar way 
 in which Mark depicts how Jesus with very earnest zeal desired and urged 
 the departure of the man that was healed. Moreover, the statement that 
 the cure took place in ὦ house (ἐξέβαλεν) 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. xiii. 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 σεαυτόν 
 (thyself) is in keeping with the emotion, with which the withdrawal of the 
 person 15. required. — περὶ τοῦ καθαρ. cov] on account of thy cleansing, i.e., τι 
 order to become Levitically clean. — Ver. 45. Comp. Luke v. 15 f. Mark 
 has peculiar matter. — ἐξελθών] from the house. Comp. ver. 43. — ἤρξατο] 
 εὐγνώμων OV ὁ λεπρὸς, οὐκ ἠνέσχετο σιγῇ καλύψαι THY εὐεργεσίαν, ‘‘ 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. — τὸν λόγον] Euthymius Zigabenus : ὃν εἴρηκεν αὐτῷ ὁ Χρισ- 
 τὸς, δηλαδὴ τὸ θέλω, καθαρίσθητι, ‘which Christ hath spoken to him, 
 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 (so usually ; 
 even de Wette and Bleek), which λόγος in the N. T. never directly means 
 (not even at ii. 2, viii. 832 ; 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 is under 
 discussion, or the like.* --- μηκέτι] no longer, as He could hitherto, — δύνασθαι) 
 
 1 Τῇ the leper had come to Jesus when he mouth of Peter. 
 
 was already substantially healed, as Schen- 2 See Winer, p. 308 [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 3 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. 373), Mark is as- φήμη, see Bremi, ad 1500}, Paneg. p. 82. 
 sumed to have had the narrative from the 
 
NOTES. 25 
 
 moral possibility, if, namely, He would not occasion any tumult. — καί] 
 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. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 11. Punctuation of vv. 1-4. 
 
 The verses are pointed variously, in accordance with the different views of 
 the grammatical connection. Tischendorf places acomma 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 vy. 2, 3a protasis. This is the view of the ἢ. 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 εὐαγγέλιον in the N. T. 
 never means a book, he meets by referring the term to the contents of the glad 
 tidings. 
 
 III. Ver. 1. υἱοῦ θεοῦ. 
 
 The article is omitted inS* Β DL, 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 υἱοῦ θεοῦ 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. ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ. 
 
 The evidence for this reading is decisive, yet the R. V. retains the plural in 
 the margin. Meyer seems to reject the first τῷ, which is found in δὲ B L A 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 a 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. ὁ βαπτίζων x.T.A. 
 
 The article is found in δὲ Β L A 33, Copt., accepted by recent critical editors 
 (so Weiss ed. Meyer), and R. ἡ. W. and Hort omit, mainly on the authority of 
 Band 33. The latter reading compels us to give ὁ βαπτίζων a substantive force 
 
 1 Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and others. 
 
26 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 (comp. chap. vi. 14, 24), and to take κηρύσσων as a modal participle qualifying 
 ἐγένετο, With which verb ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ would then be more naturally connected ; 
 so Weiss ed. Mey. Retaining the well-sustained καί, the R. V. properly ren- 
 ders : ‘‘ who baptized in the wilderness and preached,’ etc. 
 
 VI. Ver. 13. ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ x.7.A. 
 
 Meyer retains ἐκεῖ 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 last 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 a real 
 difference, all ordinary legal testimony is invalidated. 
 
 VIL. Ver. 27. διδαχὴ καινή, .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 κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν, 
 and also to καί (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 his 
 habit of joining prepositional qualifications with verbs rather than nouns ; the 
 explanation, ‘‘new in respect to power,” is very artificial. 
 
 VIII. Ver. 28. τὴν περίχωρον τῆς Ταλιλαίας. 
 
 The R. V. renders: ‘‘ the region of Galilee round about,” while the A. Υ. 
 has: ‘‘the region round about Galilee.” The former is preferable (against 
 Meyer). The word περίχωρος is strictly an adjective, and the feminine article 
 shows that γῆν isto be supplied. Ταλιλαίας is then 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 asabove. Weiss ed. 
 Mey. properly objects to Meyer’s view that it takes εἰς in the sense of ‘‘as far 
 as.”’ 
 
 IX. Ver. 39. καὶ ἦλθεν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγάς. 
 
 The above reading is abundantly attested. Meyer accepts εἰς, but takes no 
 notiee of 7A9ev, which is found in 8 BL Copt. The received reading (ἢν) was 
 probably taken from Luke, and then εἰς substituted for ἐν. 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 (εἰς) 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. 27 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Ver. 1. The order εἰσῆλθε παλιν (Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz) would need to be 
 adopted on decisive evidence. But Tischendorf has εἰσελθὼν πάλιν without the 
 subsequent καί, which Lachm. brackets. Rightly ; the attestation by BDL &, 
 min, vss. is sufficient ; the Recepta is an attempt to facilitate the construction 
 by resolving it. — εἰς οἶκον] Lachm. Tisch. [W. and Hort, R. V.] have ἐν οἴκῳ, 
 following B DL &, min. An interpretation. — Ver. 4. [Tisch., W. and Hort, 
 Weiss, R. V. marg., with δὲ B L, 33, Copt. Vulg., read προσενέγκαι] --- ἐφ᾽ 6] 
 Lachm.: ὅπου, according to BD L δὲ. So now also Tisch. [recent editors]. Me- 
 chanical repetition from the foregoing.— Ver. 5. ἀφέωνται] B 28, 33 have ἀφίενται. 
 So Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors] here and at ver. 9 (where also δὲ has the 
 same reading). But B has the same form at Matt. ix. 2. An emendation.— 
 Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have σοὶ ai ἁμαρτίαι cov, the latter bracketing cov. But 
 BDGLA 8, min. have σου ai ἁμαρτίαι (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 Recepta 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. Aade 
 βλασφημίας Lachm. Tisch. read λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ, following B DL 8, Vulg. It. 
 Rightly ; the Recepta has smoothed the expression in accordance with Luke. — 
 Ver. 8. οὕτως] is deleted by Lachm. upon too weak evidence. — αὐτοί is adopted 
 after οὕτως 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. ἔγειρε] Elz. Rinck 
 have ἔγειραι (1st aorist middle). The former is here quite decisively attested, 
 and, indeed, in all places ἔγειρε 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 ἔγειραι and ἐγείρου (B L 28 have here the latter form). 
 [Treg., W. and Hort: éyeipou here ; in Matt. ix. 5, 6 éyecpe.| The middle form 
 ἐγείρεσθε 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 ἔγειρε Elz. Lachm. 
 Tisch. have «ai, which C Ὁ L, min. vss. omit. An addition in accordance with 
 Matt. ix. 5; Luke v. 23. — Instead of cov τὸν κραβββ. we must read, with Lachm. 
 Scholz, Tisch., in accordance with decisive testimony, τὸν kp. cov. — παριπάτει 
 Tisch. viii : ὕπαγε, but against such decisive weight of evidence, that περιπάτει 
 is not to be regarded as derived from the parallel passages, but ὕπαγε is to be 
 referred to a gloss from ver. 11. — Ver. 10. Elz. has ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς afler ἀφιέναι. So 
 AEFGal. But B has ἀφ. ἀμ. ἐπὶ τ. y.; CDLMA δὲ, al. min. vss. have ἐπὶ 
 τ. y. ἀφ. au. So Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., viii. [W. and Hort 
 agree with B in their text (so Weiss) ; and with δὲ in their margin.] The latter 
 is a reading conformed to Matthew and Luke. The various readings have 
 arisen through omission (Augustine) and diversity in the restoration of ἐπὶ τ. 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 ἀφιέναι and ἁμαρτίας from one 
 another by the insertion of ἐπὶ τ. y. — Ver. 15. The reading x. γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι 
 (Tisch.) is based on BL δὲ, and is to be preferred ; ἐγένετο is from Matthew, 
 and ἐν τῷ is explanatory. — Ver. 16. k. οἱ γραμμ. x. of Papio.] Tisch. : x. ypap- 
 ματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων, following B L A δὲ, 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 καί before ἰδόντες, as this καί owes its origin 
 to the erroneous connection of καὶ γραμμ. With 7xoA006. —'The simple ὅτι (Tisch.), 
 instead of τί ὅτι, is too feebly attested. [See Note XIII., p. 36.] — καὶ πίνει] is 
 wanting, no doubt, in B Ὁ δὲ, 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 δὲ, min. vss. 
 Fathers have added ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν. -- Ver. 17. After duapr. Elz. has εἰς μετά- 
 νοίαν, 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 οἱ Φαρισαῖοι instead of the Recepta οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων. 
 The former has decisive testimony in its favor, the latter is from Luke vy. 33.— 
 οἱ τῶν] Tisch. : of μαθηταὶ τῶν, following B C* L δὰ, 33. Rightly ; the super- 
 fluous word was passed over. — Ver. 20. Instead of the Recepta ἐκείναις ταῖς 
 ἡμέραις (which Fritzsche maintains), ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ is received by Griesb. 
 Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. according to decisive evidence. The plural is from 
 what precedes. — Ver. 21. The Recepta is καὶ οὐδείς, against decisive witnesses, 
 which have not «ai. — ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ] Lachm. and Tisch. : ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν, 
 according to BC DL δὲ, 33. Rightly ; it was altered in conformity with Matt. 
 ix. 16. — αἴρει - ὃ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ] Many variations. A K Δ, 
 min. Syr. p. : αἴρει ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ TA, τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλ.; BL δὲ (yet without the 
 first τό), min. Goth. : αἴρει τὸ TA. ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ (Β : ag’ ἑαυτοῦ) τὸ καιν. τοῦ Tad, (SO 
 Lachm. and Tisch.) ; D, min. vss. : αἴρει τὸ TA. τὸ καινὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ παλ. (So Rinck). 
 [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., agree with Tisch.] The Recepia is to be rejected 
 no less than the reading of D, etc. Both are from Matthew. Of the two read- 
 ings that still remain, that of A, etc., is to be preferred, because in that of 
 Lachm, and Tisch. the collocation of αἴρει τὸ 7A. likewise betrays its being 
 shaped according to Matthew. Hence we read: αἴρει ax’ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα τὸ 
 καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ. --- Ver. 22. proce] Lachm. ῥήξει, following BC Ὁ L 8, 33, 
 Vulg. codd. of It. Soalso Tisch. From Luke v. 37, whence also subsequently 
 has come ὁ νέος, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
 R. V., agree with Tisch. in both readings, Weiss in the latter only. ] — καὶ ὁ οἶνος 
 . . . βλητέον] Instead of this there is simply to be read, with Tisch., follow- 
 ing BLD, codd. of It.: καὶ ὁ olvog ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί (BS leave out of 
 ἀλλὰ κιτ.λ. 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 βλητέον of the Rec. is taken from Luke.] The Recepta is from the 
 parallels. — Ver. 23. παραπορ] Lachm. διαπορ., following B C Ὁ. But comp. 
 Luke vi. 1. — ὁδὸν ποιεῖν] Lachm.: ὁδοποιεῖν, only after Β G H. — Ver. 24. ἐν] 
 is on decisive evidence condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
 From ver. 23. — Ver. 25. αὐτός after the first καί is suspected by Griesb., 
 bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. It is wanting indeed 
 in BCD LR, min. vss., but it was very easily mistaken in its reference, and 
 
OHAP. II., 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. ἐπὲ ᾿Αβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερ. is wanting in D, 271, Cant. 
 Ver. Vere. Vind. Corb. 2. Condemned, after Beza, by Gratz (neuer Versuch, ἃ. 
 Entst. ἃ. drei erst. Ev. 2. 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 τοῦ 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 
 εἰσελθών (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.'— Sv ἡμερῶν] interjectis diebus, after the lapse 
 of intervening days. See on Gal. 1]. 1. — εἰς οἶκον ἔστι) just our: ‘He is 
 into the house.” [See Note X., p. 86.] The verb of rest assumes the pre- 
 vious motion ; xili. 16; John i. 18; Herod. i. 21, αἱ. The house where 
 Jesus dwelt is meant (but not expressly designated, which would have re- 
 quired the use of the article).—Ver. 2. μηκέτι] 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. — τὸν λόγον] 
 kat’ ἐξοχήν : the Gospel. Comp. vill. 32; 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 wpper chamber, ὑπερῷον (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 
 ὑπερῷον---Π 8 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 (ἀπεστέγασαν τὴν στέγην, 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 
 μηδέ, 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. 
 
 1See Buttmann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 256 [E. T. Tischendorf, προσενέγκαι, following B 1, δὲ, 
 298]. min. vss., is a correct interpretation of the 
 2 See Buttmann, p. 286 [E. T. 333]. Comp. word, which only occurs here in the N. T. 
 even εἰς δόμους μένειν, Soph. Aj. 80, and This view is more in keeping with the vivid 
 Lobeck in loc. ; Ellendt, Lea. Soph. 1. 537. description than the usual intransitive ac- 
 3 Προσεγγίσαι, active (Aquila, 1 Sam. xxx. cedere, 
 7; Lucian, Amor. 53), hence the reading of 
 
30 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 Joseph. Antt. 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, in 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 κράββατος, or κράβατος, or κράβατ- 
 τος (Lachmann and Tischendorf), a couch-bed, a word rejected by the Atti- 
 cists, see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 175 f.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 62 f£. — ἀφέωνται 
 x.T.A.] See on Matt. ix. 2.—Ver. 6. τῶν γραμματ.}] Socorrectly also Matthew. 
 But Luke introduces already here (too early, see in Mark ii. 16) the Pharisees as 
 well. Asto διαλογιζ. comp. on Matt. xvi. 7.—Ver. 7. According to the reading 
 βλασφημεῖ (see the critical remarks), this word answers to the question, What 
 speaketh this man thus ? by saying what He speaks. — οὗτος οὕτω] this man in this 
 manner, an emphatic juxtaposition. The former is contemptuous (Matt. 
 xiii. 54) ; the latter designates the special and surprising manner, which is 
 immediately pointed out in what follows.—Ver. 8. Observe the intentional 
 bringing into prominence of the immediate knowledge of the thoughts.— 
 αὐτοί] is not the unaccented they, but designates with ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ipsi in semet 
 ipsis, the element of se/f-origination, the cogitationes sua sponte conceptas. 
 [See critical note.] — As to vv. 9-12,! see on Matt. ix. 5-8, 33. — σοὶ λέγω] 
 σοί prefixed with emphasis, because the speaker now turns to the sick man. 
 Comp. Luke v. 34. According to Hilgenfeld, the ‘‘awkward structure of 
 the sentence,” ver. 10 f., betrays the dependence on Matt. ix. 6. Why, 
 then, not the converse ? — καὶ ἄρας x.t.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. —ottwe . . . εἴδομεν] 
 not equivalent to τοιοῦτο eid. (see on Matt. ix. 33), but : so we have never seen, 
 i.e., ὦ sight in such a fashion we have never met with. Comp. the frequent 
 
 1 Respecting the Messianic designation— 
 which presupposes Messianic consciousness 
 —coming from the mouth of Jesus: ὃ υἱὸς 
 τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, see on Matt. viii. 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 early 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 i. 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. 13, 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. 11.. 13-17. 31 
 
 ὡς ὁρᾶτε. It is not even requisite to supply τί (Fritzsche), to say nothing of 
 mentally adding the manifestation of the kingdom of God, or the like. 
 
 Vv. 13-17. See on Matt. ix. 9-13 ; Luke v. 27-32. Matthew deals 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. 36.] — ἐξῆλθε] out of Capernaum. Comp. ver. 1. 
 — πάλιν] looks back to i. 16. —Mark has peculiar to himself the statements 
 παρὰ τ. θάλασσαν as far as ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς, but it is arbitrary to refer them to 
 his subjective conception (de Wette, comp. Késtlin, p. 885). — Ver. 14. παράγων] 
 in passing along, namely, by the sea, by the place where Levi sat. Comp. 
 ver. 16. — On Levi (i.e., Matthew) and Alphaeus, who is not to be identified 
 with the father of James,! see Introd. to Matthew, ὃ 1. Hilgenfeld, in his 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 301 f., tries by arbitrary expedients to make out that Levi 
 was not an apostle. — Ver. 15. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ] is understood by the expos- 
 itors of the house of Levi.? Comp. Vulg.: ‘‘in domo illius.” [See Note 
 XII., p. 36.] In itself this is possille, but even in itself improbable, since by 
 αὐτόν 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: ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷς Moreover, the absolute καλέσαι (to invite), ver. 
 17, which Matthew and Mark have, while Luke adds εἰς μετάνοιαν, appears 
 as a thoughtful reference to the host, the καλεῖν 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 indeed expressly 
 said in our text that Jesus went again into the city ; this is nevertheless in- 
 directly evident from the progress of the narrative (παράγων... . . ἠκολούθησαν 
 αὐτῷ. . .. κατακεῖσθαι K.T.A.). — ἦσαν yap πολλοὶ k.t.A.] A statement serving to 
 elucidate the expression just used : πολλοὶ τελῶναι κ.τ.1., and in such a way 
 that ἦσαν is prefixed with emphasis : for there were many (τελ. x. duapt.); 
 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 unmeaning, and that ἠκολούθησαν 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 lies 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 His disciples. 
 To attach this «. ypaup. τ. bapic. to the previous ἠκολούθ. (Tischendorf) is un- 
 suitable, because ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοί, taken by itself alone, would be absolutely 
 pleonastic, and because ἠκολοίθ., in accordance with the context, can only 
 mean the following of adherents. — Respecting ἰδόντες x.t.A., comp. on Matt. 
 ix. 11. Here the direct seeing (coming to Him) of the γραμματ. 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 Ἰάκωβον (instead of Aeviv) in D, p. 409 ἢ, 
 min., codd. in Or, and Vict. and codd of It. 
 
82 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 not : cum intelligerent, ‘‘ when they knew” (Grotius and others, de Wette). 
 - τί bre] quid est, quod, ‘‘ How is it that,” so that there needs to be supplied 
 after τί, not γέγονεν (Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. Ὁ. 591), but the simple ἐστί. 
 Comp. Luke ii. 49 ; Acts v. 4, 9. [See Note XIIL., p. 36.] 
 
 Vv. 18-22. See on Matt. ix. 14-17. Comp. Luke v. 33-38. — καὶ ἦσαν 
 
 . . νηστεύοντες) considered by Késtlin, p. 339, 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.!); we should at least expect with νηστεύ- 
 ovrec Some such general addition as πολλά (Matt. ix. 14). Itis 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. — ἔρχονται x.t.4.] 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 τινές (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). — οἱ μαθηταὶ Iwavvov x.7.A. | Not in- 
 appropriate, but more definite and more suited to their party-interest than 
 ἡμεῖς (in opposition to de Wette). — σοί] might be the dative (the disciples 
 belonging to Thee), see Bernhardy, p. 89 ; Kiihner, II. p. 249. But in ac- 
 cordance with the use—frequent also in the N. T.—of the emphatic σός, it 
 is to be taken asits plural. Comp. Luke τ. 33. — Ver. 19. ὅσον χρόνον k.7.A. | 
 superfluous in itself, but here suited to the solemn answer.’ — pel’ ἑαυτῶν in 
 the midst of themselves. — Ver. 20. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ] Not a negligence (de 
 Wette) or impossibility of expression (Fritzsche), but : τότε is the more gen- 
 eral statement of time : then, when, namely, the case of the taking away 
 shall have occurred, and ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ is the special definition of time sub- 
 ordinate to the τότε : on that day, ἐκεῖνος having demonstrative force and 
 consequently a tragic emphasis (on that atra dies/). Comp. Bernhardy, 
 p. 279. Ifthe plwral were again used, the time previously designated by ἐλεύσ. 
 δὲ ἡμέραι 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 wnuws auferendi sponsi, dies multi ejuasdem 
 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. εἰ δὲ μή] In the contrary case, even 
 after a negative clause, Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 392], and see on 
 2 Cor. xi. 16.—The correct reading : aipe: ἀπ’ αὑτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα τὸ καινὸν τοῦ 
 παλαιοῦ (see the critical remarks), is to be explained : the new patch of the 
 old (garment) breaks away from it. See on Matt. ix.16f. The Recepta sig- 
 nifies ; his new patch (that which is put on by him) breaks away from the 
 
 1 Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. XXxix, 
 
CHAP, II., 23-28. 33 
 
 old garment. According to Ewald, αἱρεῖ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ought to be read (follow- 
 ing B, which, however, has the ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ after τὸ πλήρωμα), and this is to be 
 interpreted : ‘‘ thus the new filling up of the old becomes of itself stronger.” 
 He compares the phrase ὁ λόγος αἱρεῖ," 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. See 
 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. — παραπορεύεσθαι) not: 
 to walk on, ambulare (Vulgate, Luther, and many others, including de 
 Wette), so that παρά 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. — ὁδὸν ποιεῖν κιτ.}.} is usually ex- 
 plained as though it stood : ὁδὸν ποιούμενοι τίλλειν τοὺς στάχυας, 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. 448 f.]), 
 and here in particular the active ποιεῖν is opposed to it, since ὁδὸν ποιεῖν is 
 always viam sternere, and ὁδὸν ποιεῖσθαι (as also πορείαν ποιεῖσθαι) 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) by 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 via,” ‘‘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 place 
 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 a path, which they do by plucking the ears of corn 
 that stand in their way. According to Matthew and Luke, the chief point 
 lies in the fact that the disciples pluck the ears and eat them ; and the 
 Pharisees find fault with their doing this—which in itse/f is allowable—on the 
 Sabbath. According to Mark, however, who has not a word’ of the disciples 
 
 1 Ratio evincit, Polyb. vi. 5.5; comp. also 
 Herod. ii. 33; Plat. Crit. p. 48 C, a. 
 
 2 As to the form ῥήσσω instead of ῥήγνυμι, 
 see Ruhnken, Zp. crit. I. p. 26. 
 
 3 Comp. Matt. xxvii. 39; Mark xi. 20, xv. 
 29. 
 
 4 See Hermann, ad Aj. 1113; Hlectr. 1305 ; 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 136; Phil. p. 58. 
 
 5 See Viger. ed. Herm. p. 116; Kypke, I. 
 p. 154; Krebs, p. 81; Winer, p. 228 [E. T. 
 320]. Comp. also odomoety (Xen. Anabd.-v. 1. 
 14; Dem. 1274, 26, frequently in the LXX.) 
 
 3 
 
 and ὁδὸν ὁδοποιεῖν ; Ktihner, ad Xen. Anab. 
 iv. 8. 8. 
 
 δ. 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 is 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 is the ὁδὸν ποιεῖν ; While in 
 
34 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 eating, their act consists in this, that by the plucking of the ears of corn they 
 open a way 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 ὁδὸν 
 ποιεῖν abandoned by Matthew and Luke, and by the less obvious con- 
 nection of it with the eating of the shew-bread, the original narrative, which 
 perhaps proceeded from Peter himself. — τοὺς στάχυας] 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) uwnallowable.— Ver. 
 25. αὐτός] and He on His part, replying to them. He put a counter-question. 
 — ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχε] 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 ὦ 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. ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερ. | 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. Antté. 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.).2. The supposition that father and son both 
 had both names,? is only apparently supported by 2 Sam. viii. 17, 
 1 Chron. xviii. 16, comp. xxiv. 6, 315; 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 ealing on account of hunger. υἱαηι sternere, and even in the middle voice 
 
 The occasions of the necessity, in which the 
 disciples were placed, are different; in the 
 former case, the ὁδοποΐα ; in the latter, the 
 hunger. 
 
 1 To this view Holtzmann and Hilgenfeld 
 have acceded, as also Ritschl, altkath. K. 
 p. 29; Schenkel, Charakterbdild, p. 86; and as 
 regards the ὁδὸν ποιεῖν 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 reading of Lachmann (odomoev); for 
 this also never means anything else than 
 
 ouly means to make for oneself a path. Weiss 
 (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1865, p. 363) 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. 
 295 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. /.c. ; Bertheau 
 judges otherwise, ὦ. Biicher 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. καὶ ἔλεγ. αὐτοῖς] 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 ὁ οὐκ ἔξεστι, ver. 24, 
 He now also refutes the censure expressed by ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν, ver. 24. 
 Namely: as the Sabbath has been made (brought into existence, 7.¢., ordained) 
 Jor the sake of man, namely, as a means for his highest moral ends (Gen. ii. 
 3; 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 ὥστε depends on the fact 
 that the υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, i.e., 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. --- κύριος] emphatically at the beginning : is not dependent, 
 but Zord,* etc.; whereby, however, is expressed not the prerogative of ab- 
 solute abolition (see against this Matt. v. 17 ff., and the idea of the πλήρωσις 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 πλήρωσις of the Sabbath-law.° — καί] also, 
 along with other portions of His κυριότης. 
 
 1In opposition to Michaelis and Saunier, erally so peculiar. The connecting link of 
 
 Quellen d. Mark. p. 58. 
 
 2 Comp. Mechilta in Ex. xxxi. 13: ‘‘ Vobis 
 sabbatum traditum est, et non vos traditi 
 estis sabbato,”’ ‘‘ For you the Sabbath is de- 
 livered, and not you 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. 39, 
 vii. 15 ff. Weizsacker 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- 
 
 the argumentation preserved by him might 
 more easily have been omitted as something 
 foreign, than have been added. 
 
 3 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. Ritschl, 
 altkathol. Kirche, p. 29 ff. 
 
 4 With this the freedom of worship is given 
 as well as assigned to its necessary limit, 
 but not generally ‘‘ proclaimed” (Schenkel). 
 
 5 Comp. Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, 
 p. 811; Weizsacker, p. 391. 
 
36 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 Norres spy AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 X. Ver. 1. ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν. 
 
 The reading of the Rec., εἰς οἶκον, must be rejected. It is true that it is 
 lectio difficilior, yet 8 Β 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 is an allowable 
 rendering, despite the absence of the article. 
 
 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 I., 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. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 
 
 That this refers to the house of Levi (Matthew), Meyer admits as in itself 
 possible. The pronoun αὐτὸν undoubtedly means Jesus, but αὐτοῦ can follow 
 immediately with a different reference. There would be no necessity for in- 
 troducing the name (τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ) in the leading clause, if αὐτοῦ did not point to 
 Levi. Moreover, as Weiss ed Mey. remarks, “‘ the call of a publican 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 καλέσαι 
 (ver. 17) refers to the invitation of Jesus as host. An unnecessary variation 
 between the narratives is created by Meyer's view. 
 
 XIII. Ver. 16. ὅτι μετὰ x.7.A. 
 
 The briefer reading ὅτε (instead of ri ὅτι, Rec., Meyer) is now generally ac- 
 cepted, on the evidence of B L 33, supplemented by the fact of the existence of 
 another variation (δὲ D, διὰ τί), which was taken from Matthew and Luke. The 
 ὅτι 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 γραμματεῖς, which 
 Tisch. omits, and reject his view of the punctuation. 
 
 XIV. Ver. 23. ὁδὸν ποιεῖν x.T.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 στάχος is the ear in 
 contrast with the stalk.”” He finds the 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. ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. 
 
 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. 
 
 Ver. 2. Instead of παρετήρουν, read with Lachm. παρετηροῦντο, following A ΟΣ 
 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 κα etc., and accepted by re- 
 cent editors ; the middle seems to have been taken from the parallel passages. ] 
 — κατηγορήσουσιν, instead of κατηγορῆσωσιν, is not sufficiently attested by C Ὁ 
 (Lachm.).— Ver. 3. Lachm. has τῷ τὴν χεῖρα ἔχοντι ξηράν, following B L 102, 
 Vere. [So recent editors, R. V.] In favor of ξηράν C also tells, which has τῷ τ. 
 ξηρὰν ἔχ. y., and A δὲ, which have τῷ τ. ξηρὰν χ. ἔχ. So Tisch. viii. The Re- 
 cepta τῷ ἐξηραμμένην ἔχοντι τὴν χεῖρα is from ver. 1.— Ver. 5. At the end Elz. has 
 ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἀλλη. This is indeed defended by Matthiae, but in opposition to 
 decisive evidence. It is from Matt. xii. 13. — Ver. 7. The order of the words : 
 μετὰ τῶν μαῆητ. αὐτοῦ dvexop.(Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepta ave- 
 χώρ. μ. τ. pad. αὐτ., has in its favor BC DL A δὲ, 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 aveyép. — Instead of πρός (Elz. Scholz), Griesb. Fritzsche, 
 Lachm. Tisch. have εἰς, which is attested, indeed, only by ἢ H P, min. 
 Theophy]., but was explained by πρός (in some min. by παρά) as a gloss. — ἠκολ- 
 οὐθησαν ἠκολούθησεν, in favor of which D, min. also concur by ἠκολούθει, is con- 
 siderably attested, partly with and partly without αὐτῷ (which Lachm. 
 brackets). Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche and Lachm.  [Treg., 
 W. and Hort, R. V., have the singular, but after Γαλιλαίας, with A B L, Copt.] 
 The plural flowed mechanically from the conception of the multitude ; αὐτῷ is 
 supplied, and is with Tisch. to be deleted. — Ver. 8. ἀκούσαντες] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. [recent editors, R, V.] read ἀκούοντες, following only B A &, min. — Ver. 
 11. Instead of ἐθεώρει, προσέπιπτεν, and ἔκραζε, 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. θεραπεύειν τὰς νόσους kai] is wanting in BC* LA δὲ, 102, 
 Copt. Deleted by Tisch. Anaddition, in recollection of Matt. x. 1.— Ver. 16. 
 Fritzsche has πρῶτον Σιμῶνα before καὶ ἐπέθηκε, 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 Kavavirny, but Kavavaiov. — Ver. 20. μήτε] Read 
 with Fritzsche and Lachm. μηδέ, 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 
 may explain the placing of καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς 
 δώδεκα at the beginning of the verse. So 
 BCtAS. Defended by Hitzigand Ewald; 
 adopted by Tisch. [So W. and Hort, 
 Weiss, R. V. marg.] In such awkwardly 
 
 constructed passages ‘‘ correctio parit cor- 
 rectionem: alter enim alterum cupit ante- 
 cellere ingenio,” “correction begets cor- 
 rection ; but one desires to surpass another 
 in ingenuity ’’ (Matthiae, ed. min. ad h. 1.). 
 
CHAP. III., 1-6. 39 
 
 26. W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., read καὶ (Xe A B C? L) ἐμερίσθη (8° B Τὴ od. ]—Ver. 
 27. The Recepta is : οὐ δύναται οὐδείς. So also Fritzsche and Tisch., the latter 
 having, in accordance with B C (?) LA δὲ, min. vss., adopted ἀλλ᾽ previously (a 
 connective addition). But οὐδεὶς δύναται (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm.) is the 
 more to be retained, since the mechanical] repetition of the οὐ δύναται was so 
 readily suggested from what precedes. [The presence of ἀλλ᾽ is against the 
 theory of a ‘“‘ mechanical repetition.” Recent editors agree with Tisch., follow- 
 ing B C* A &.]— Ver. 28. The verbal order: τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἁμαρ- 
 τήπατα (sanctioned by Griesb,, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), has, with A B 
 CDLA δὲ, min. vss., the balance of evidence in its favor, and is also to be ac- 
 counted genuine, as being the more unusual.—The article before βλασῴ. is 
 adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. on decisive evidence ; it 
 became absorbed through the preceding kai. — ὅσας] Lachm. and Tisch. read ὅσα, 
 folowing BD ἘΣ GH AII* &, min. The Recepta is a correction. — Ver. 29. 
 Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have κρίσεως (A C** E FG, etc. Syr.), instead of which 
 Griesb. approved ἁμαρτήματος (Β 1, Δ &; D has ἁμαρτίας), and this Lachm. and 
 Tisch. have adopted. κρίσεως (al. κολάσεως) is a gloss.—Ver. 31. The reading 
 καὶ ἔρχονται (Lachm.) certainly has preponderant evidence (D GS, Tisch, ed. VIII. 
 have καὶ ἔρχεται), but is a mechanical alteration, in which the retrospective 
 reference of the οὖν was not attended to. —The Recepta is οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ 
 αὐτοῦ. But B Ο D GLA &, min. vss. have ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ κ. οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ 
 (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. ed. 8), with which also the reading ἔρχεται is 
 connected. Still the Recepta (and that with αὐτοῦ 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 
 &, etc., is still better sustained. ] — φωνοῦντες] Lachm. and Tisch. have καλοῦντες, 
 following BCL δὲ, min. (A: ζητοῦντες). Rightly ; the meaning of καλοῦντες 
 was more precisely defined by φωνοῦντες. --- Ver. 32. The verbal order περὶ αὐτὸν 
 ὄχλος (Lachm. Tisch.) is preponderantly attested, as also is καὶ λέγουσιν (Lachm, 
 Tisch.) instead of εἶπον dé.—The addition καὶ ai ἀδελφαί σου is rightly adopted 
 by Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. It certainly has important evi- 
 dence against it (BC GKLA IL®, 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 καί, 
 following BCL VA, min. vss, A mechanical repetition from ver. 32; and 
 comp. Matt. — Ver. 34. The verbal order: τοὺς περὶ αὐτ. κύκλῳ (Lachm. Tisch.) 
 [recent editors, R. V.], which is found in BC L A 8, min. Copt., arose from the 
 fact, that the κύκλω, which with περιβλεψ. was superfluous, was omitted (so 
 still in min. vss.), and then restored in the place that appeared fitting. — Ver. 
 35. The omission of γάρ (Lachm. Tisch. Weiss) is too weakly attested. [W. and 
 Hort omit in text, insert in margin.] On the other hand, μου after ἀδελφή is, 
 with Lachm. and Tisch., following AB DLA 8, min, vss., 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.]— πάλιν] see i. 21. —el¢ τ. ovva- 
 γωγήν] at Capernaum. See ii. 15. — ἐξηραμμένην] ‘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): ξηράν. -- παρετηροῦντο] of hostile observing, spying 
 (comp. Luke vi. ἢ, al.; Polyb. xvii. 8. 2: ἐνεδρεύειν καὶ παρατηρεῖν), 
 which, however, is implied, not in the middle, but in the context. [See 
 
 critical note.]— Ver. 3 ff. ἔγειρε εἰς τ. μέσον] arise (and step forth) into - 
 
 the midst. Comp. Luke vi. 8. --- ἀγαθοποιῆσαι ἢ κακοποιῆσαι] to act well (Tob. 
 xii. 13), or to act ill (Heclus. xix. 25). Comp. καλῶς ποιεῖν, Matt. xii. 12 ; 
 Ep. ad Diogn. 4: God does not hinder καλόν τι ποιεῖν 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 not to 
 be explained : to render a benefit (1 Macc. xi. 33), 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 wsus loguendi, which 
 in fact admits of either explanation. The reading in D: τι ἀγαθὸν ποιῆσαι, 
 is a correct gloss of the late Greek word (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 200), 
 comp. 1 Pet. 11. 15, 20, ili. 6; 3 John 11.— ψυχὴν σῶσαι] to rescue a soul, 
 that it be not transferred to Hades, but, on the contrary, the man may be 
 preserved in life. Comp. viii. 35, 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. -- ἀποκτεῖναι] to be taken by itself, not to be connected 
 with ψυχήν. 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. — συλλυπούμενος] feel- 
 ing compassion over, οἷο." 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.—azexareora@y] with 
 double augment (Winer, p. 67 [E. T. 72]) is, in accordance with Lachmann, 
 to be read. Comp. on Matt. xii. 13. — Ver. 6. εὐθέως x.7.2.] ““ crevit odium,” 
 ‘‘hatred grew,” Bengel. They instituted a consultation, in order that, ete. 
 Comp. on Matt. xxii. 5. That the Herodians are introduced into this place 
 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 vy. 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 
 
 1 Erasmus, Bengel, Beza, de Wette, Bleek, 2 Herod. ix. 94, vi. 89; Polyb. vii. 3. 2; 
 and others. Aelian, V. 77. vii. 3. 
 
CHAP. 11., 13-19. 41 
 
 Mark, which is more accurate and more fresh, and does not blend heteroge- 
 neous elements (Hilgenfeld). — εἰς] direction whither. — Ver. 8, ᾿Ιδουμαίας] 
 on the south-eastern border of Palestine.—A point is not to be placed, as by 
 Beza, Er. Schmid, and Fritzsche, after Ἰορδάνου, but—as is required by the 
 two distinct predicates based on the local relations, ἠκολούθησεν and ἦλθον πρὸς 
 αὐτόν --- before καὶ ἀπὸ τ. "Iovdaiac: It is first of all stated, who followed Jesus 
 from Galilee, where He Himself was, to the sea, and then, from καὶ ἀπὸ τ. 
 Ἰουδ. onward, who came to Him from other regions. Namely: and from 
 Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea and Peraea (kai πέραν τοῦ Tops. ; 
 observe that here ἀπό is not repeated), and those (the Jews) about Tyre and 
 Sidon, in great multitudes (πλῆθος πολύν 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 πλῆϑος 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. — ἐποίει] 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. — διὰ τὸν ὄχλον x.t.A.] therefore not for 
 the purpose of crossing over ; ἔμελλε yap ἐμβὰς εἰς αὐτὸ μὴ ἐνοχλεῖσθαι; 
 “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. —éepdrevoev] not sanaverat, ‘‘had healed” 
 (Castalio, Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but He healed just at that time. The ὥστε 
 ἐπιπίπτειν αὐτῷ, 80 that they fell upon Him, depicts the impetuous thronging 
 unto Him of those seeking aid. ‘‘ Admirabilis patientia et benignitas Dom- 
 ini,” ‘‘admirable patience and kindness of the Lord,” Bengel. προσέπιπτ. 
 αὐτῷ in ver. 11 is different : they fell down before Him (v. 88, vii. 25). — μάσ- 
 τιγας] plagues, v. 29, 34; Luke vii. 21; Ps. xxxv. 15; Ecclus. xl. 9; 
 2 Mace. vii. 87. In accordance with the context : plagues of sickness. — τὰ 
 πνεύματα κ.τ.2.} a statement in conformity with the appearance ; the sick 
 people identified themselves with the demons. —érav] with the praeterite in- 
 dicative: whenever they saw Him, i.e., 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 (ἄν) has become completely blended 
 with ὅτε, 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. ἵνα] 
 design of the πολλὰ ἐπετίμα αὐτοῖς (the demons). How colorless is Matt. xii. 
 16! According to Hilgenfeld, Mark has exaggerated. 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 ὄρος] upon the 
 mountain there. See on Matt. v. 1. — οὖς ἤθελεν αὐτός] 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. T. 109]. 
 
42 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 doubt of the actual selection of the latter (Schleiermacher, Z. 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. ἐποίησε] He made, 
 that is, He ordained, appointed. Comp. Acts ii. 86 ; 1 Sam. xii. 6. On the 
 clause iva ὦσι per’ αὐτοῦ, comp. Acts i. 91. --- ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτούς) namely, 
 subsequently. See vi. 7. -- καὶ ἔχειν] conjoined with the κηρύσσειν as an 
 aim of the sending forth, in which it was contemplated that they were to 
 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. Inexact- 
 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, asif he had narrated it in connection with ἐποίησε, continues by 
 καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον, which still depends on éroiyce,—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, see 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 ὀνόματα (for 
 which’D reads ὄνομα) depends on the conception that the names bestowed 
 
 ¥ 
 on the two brothers are included in Boanerges. Boavepyéc] Sa 
 
 Wi) 3. The Sheva, according to Aramaic pronunciation (see Lightfoot) : 
 oa. 17, in the Hebrew, a noisy crowd, Ps. lv. 15 ; in the Syriac, thander ; 
 
 comp. the Arabic uo y, tonvit.? 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, Le. 
 
 1 Observe the correctness of the expres- 
 sion ἔχειν ἐξουσ. x.7.A. (in opposition to de 
 Wette). For the destination of the apostles 
 in fact was not: to teach and to drive out the 
 demons, but to 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. 
 
 2 Zeller in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1865, 
 p. 396 ff. 
 
 3 Jerome’s reading (in Dan. i., Isa. ]xii.): 
 Benereem, is an emendation (Dj), thunder). 
 
 4 Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, Eu- 
 thymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Wetstein, 
 Michaelis, and others, comp. Luther’s gloss. 
 
 5 Heumann, Kuinoel, comp. also Gurlitt 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 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 elsewhere, although 
 it was given by Jesus. — Θαδδαῖον] see on Matt. x. 8. As to ὁ Kavavaioc, see 
 on Matt. x. 4. 
 
 Vv. 20,’ 21. Peculiar to Mark, but in unity of connection with ver. 22 f. 
 — καὶ épy. εἰς οἶκον] 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. 13. Now they come back again to the house, namely, 
 in Capernaum, as in 11. 2, to which also the subsequent πάλιν 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 εἰς οἶκον even a misunderstanding of Matt. 
 xii. 1.—The accusation ὅτι ἐξέστη, ver. 21, and that expressed at ver. 22, ὅτι 
 Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει, 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). 
 
 1 Before καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς οἶκον 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 Hwangelienfrage, 1858, p. 14) assumes that 
 the Gospel in its original form had actually 
 contained that discourse, although abridg- 
 ed, in this place,—which Weiss (Zvangeli- 
 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 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς οἶκον, 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 Jahrb. ἢ. 
 Deutsche Theol. 1864, p. 63 ff., and Weizsick- 
 er, p. 46, with reason oppose, while Schenk- 
 
 See, moreover, Weiss, /.c. p. 80 ff. Mark, however, does not 
 
 elalso regards the dropping out as proba- 
 ble, although as unintentional.—In respect 
 of the absence from Mark of the history of 
 the centurion at Capernaum (Matt. viii. 5 ff.; 
 Luke vii. 1 ff.), the non-insertion of which 
 K6stlin 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 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς οἶκον, 
 and that in Matthew and Luke it still has 
 the tinge of Mark’s language, in which re- 
 spect ἱκανός and σκύλλειν are referred to 
 (but comp. Matt. iii. 11, ix. 36; Luke iii. 16, 
 viii. 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 Τῷ 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, Hvangelienfr. 
 p. 162). 
 
44 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 represent the mother and the brethren as ‘‘ confederates of the Pharisees” 
 (Baur, Markusevang. p. 23) ; their opinion ὅτι ἐξέστη is an error (not malicious), 
 and their purpose is that of care for the security of Jesus. — αὐτούς] He and 
 His disciples. — μηδέ] not even, to say nothing of being left otherwise undis- 
 turbed. [See critical note.] Comp. ii. 3. According to Strauss, indeed, 
 this is a ‘‘palpable exaggeration.” --- ἀκούσαντες] 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 παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ] those on His side, i.e., His own people.’ By this, how- 
 ever, the disciples cannot here be meant, as they are in the house with Jesus, 
 ver. 20 ; but only, as is clearly proved by vv. 31, 32, His mother, His brethren, 
 His sisters. — ἐξῆλθον] 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 ἐξῆλθον, 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 εἰς 
 οἶκον. 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. — κρατῆσαι αὐτόν] to lay hold upon Him, 
 to possess themselves of Him.? — ἔλεγον) namely, οἱ rap’ αὐτοῦ. After ἐξῆλθον 
 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 ἔλεγον, ver. 21, and 
 ἔλεγον, 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. — ἐξέστη) He is out of His mind, has become frantic. ὃ 
 This strong meaning (erroneously rendered, however, by Luther : He will 
 go out of his mind) is incontestably required by the forcible κρατῆσαι, as well 
 as by the subsequent still stronger analogous expression Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει. 
 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. 3) 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. Anab. vi. 6. 243; Cyrop. vi. 2. καὶ μαίνεται, and see Wetstein. Comp. Xen. 
 1; Polyb. xxiii. 1. 6; 1 Macc. ix. 44. See Mem. i. 3. 12: τοῦ φρονεῖν ἐξίστησιν, 
 Bernhardy, p. 256. 4 It is entirely arbitrary for Theophylact, 
 
 2 Comp. vi. 17, xii. 12, xiv. 1; Matt. xxvi. Beza, Maldonatus, Bisping, and others to 
 4; Judg. xvi. 21; Tob. vi. 3; Polyb. viii. 20. desire to exclude Mary from sharing in the 
 8, al. judgment ὅτι ἐξέστη. No better is the eva- 
 
 32 Cor. v.13; Arist. 77. A. vi. 22: ἐξίσταται sion in Olshausen, of a moment of weakness 
 
 Se eae ee rr SF? 
 
CHAP. ἘΠῚ 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 ante- 
 cedents, were the eccentric activity of the frenzy which had taken posses- 
 sion of Him. Comp. Theophylact (who regards ἐξέστη as directly equivalent 
 to δαίμονα ἔχει), 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, οὐ al. The 
 omission of the surprising historical trait in Matthew and Luke betrays a 
 later sifting process. [See Note XVIIL., p. 47 seq. ] 
 
 Remarxs.— 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 ἔλεγον the subject τινὲς φθονεροί, and adduces, even in his day, 
 two other but unsuitable explanations.! According to Schoettgen and Wolf, 
 the disciples (οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ) 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 debilitatum 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 (ἔλεγον γάρ) 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 eat, and they say, with the view 
 of pressing back the people: mawime defatigatus est! Comp. Késter, Imman. 
 p. 185, according to whom they wish to hold Him on account of faintness. So 
 again Linder in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1862, p. 556. According to Ebrard, § 70, 
 notwithstanding the εἰς οἶκον and the πάλιν, Jesus is not in Capernaum, but at 
 the house of a host; and in spite of vy. 31, 32, οἱ wap’ αὐτοῦ 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 for her 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! 
 
 14. ἐξῆλϑον οἱ οἰκεῖοι αὐτοῦ κρατῆσαι αὐτὸν, 
 ἵνα μὴ ὑποχωρήσῃ, ἔλεγον γάρ τινες, 
 ὅτι ἐξέστη, ἤγουν ἀπέστη ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν διὰ 
 τὸν ὄχλον. 2. ἐξῆλθον, 
 ἔλεγον γὰρ, ὅτι. 
 
 . παραβοηθῆσαι, 
 .--. παρελύϑη τὸν τόνον 
 τοῦ σώματος, ayav κοπιάσας, “1. His rela- 
 
 tives went forth to lay hold on Him, that 
 He might not withdraw, for some were say- 
 ing, 67 ἐξέστη, that is, He is gone away from 
 them on account of the crowd. 2. They went 
 forth .. . toaid Him, for they were saying 
 .. . He has relaxed the tone of His body 
 by exerting Himself too much.” 
 
 2 Even Schleiermacher (LZ. J. p. 190 f.) 
 presents the matter as if they had learnt by 
 rumor that He wasin an unsettled condition, 
 and that they thought it better to detain 
 Him (κρατεῖν) in domestic life. 
 
 3 Kahnis (Dogm. I. p. 428 f.) also explains 
 it of the hosts 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, L.J. II. 2, p. 834, takes ἐξέστη 
 rightly, but regards it as the presupposition of the popwar 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, between 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 : ‘‘ Hune lo- 
 cum difficiliorem pietas facit... ; pio quodam studio nonnulli rejecta verbo- 
 rum proprietate alias, quae minus a pietate abhorrere 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 ἔλεγον ὅτι ἐξέστη, 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. 22-80. See 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. 
 προσκαλεσόμ. αὐτούς] 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. —caravac σατανᾶν] not : one Satan . . . the other, 
 but : Satan . . . himself ; see on Matt xii. 26. Comp. ὁ σατανᾶς . .. ἐφ᾽ 
 ἑαυτόν, ver. 26. The want of the article with the proper name is not opposed 
 to this. — Ver. 24. Now, in order to make good this πῶς δύναται (.€., ov 
 δύναται k.t.A.), there come, linked on by the simple and (not γάρ), two 
 illustrative analogues (ἐν παραβολαῖς), after which at ver. 26, but likewise by 
 the simple and, not by a particle of inference, is added the point, quod erat 
 demonstrandum. This symmetrical progression by means of καί 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: πάντα ἀφεθ. τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα places 
 them so apart, as to lay ἃ great emphasis on πάντα.; The expression τοῖς υἱοῖς 
 τ. av6p., not a singular reminiscence from Matt. xii. 32 (Weiss), is rather a 
 trait of Mark, depicting human weakness, —aiwviov duapt.| 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. 4? 
 
 spect of the gwzlt, ‘‘nunquam delendi,” ‘‘ never to be effaced,” Beza. [See 
 Note XIX., p. 48.]— Ver. 30. ὅτε ἔλεγον: (He spake thus) because they said. 
 Comp. Luke xi. 18. — πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον] not again as at ver. 22: Βεελζεβοὺλ 
 ἔχει, because of the contrast with πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. The less is it to be said that 
 Mark places on a par the blasphemy against the person of Jesus (Matt xii. 
 81 1.) and that against the Holy Spirit (Késtlin, p. 318), or that he has “" al- 
 ready given up” the formes blasphemy (Hilgenfeld). It is included, in fact, 
 in ver. 28. 
 
 Vv. 31-35. See on Matt. xii. 46-50. Comp. Luke viii. 19-21. — ἔρχονται 
 οὖν] οὖν points back, by way of resuming, to ver. 21.’ ἔρχονται corresponds 
 with ἐξήλϑον, ver. 21, where Bengel pertinently observes : ‘‘ Exitum sequetur 
 τὸ venire, ver. 31,” ‘‘The coming (ver. 31) follows the going forth.” Eb- 
 rard resorts to harmonistic evasions. — oi ἀδελφοί] They are named at vi. 3. 
 Of a ‘‘ position ef 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. — ἔξω] outside, in front of the 
 house, ver. 20, Matt. xii. 47. — Ver. 32. The mention of the sisters here for 
 the first time is an inaccuracy. [See Note XX., p. 48.] — Ver. 34. περιβλεψ. 
 κύκλῳ] 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 ! 
 
 Notes BY AMERICAN EDITorR. 
 
 XVI. Vv. 1-6. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. thinks it probable that Mark blended some features of another 
 Sabbath healing (Luke xiy. 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. 
 
 XVII. Ver. 8. ἠκολούθησεν k.T.A. 
 
 The evidence in favor of the singular seems decisive ; also that for the omis- 
 sion of ait». Tisch. wrongly places the verb after Ἰουδαίας, while Meyer 
 retains the article before περί, against the evidence of S*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. 
 
 XVIII. Ver. 21. ὅτι ἐξέστη. 
 
 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 Kriiger, Cyrop. i. 5. 14; Klotz, αἱ  Phaed.72B, and the passages in Sturz, Lex, 
 Devar. p. 718. Xen, II. p. 803 f. 
 2 Hom. Od. viii. 278 ; Herod. iv. 182; Plat. 
 
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 Jesus 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 later school of litlerateurs than the Evangelists, 
 and stands on the same moral level with ‘‘ additions from later reflection,’’ ete. 
 
 XIX. Ver. 28. aiwviov ἁμαρτήματος. 
 
 As the word ἁμάρτημα, 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 ἔνοχος ; the ground of it is in the ““ eternal sin,’’ which therefore in- 
 volves eternal guilt. 
 
 XX. Ver. 32. ai ἀδελφαί σου. 
 
 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 here, as well as 
 Matt. xii. 50, suggests their presence. 
 
CHAP. IY. 49 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Ver. 1. συνήχθη] Lachm. and Tisch. read συνάγεται, following BC LA αὶ, 
 min. Rightly ; the alteration was made from Matt. xili. 2, partly to συνήχθησαν 
 (so A, min.), partly to συνήχθη. --- Instead of πολύς, according to the same evi- 
 dence, πλεῖστος is to be adopted, with Tisch. — Ver. 3. τοῦ σπεῖραι) Lachm. and 
 Tisch. [W.and Hort, Weiss] have merely σπεῖραι, ΤΟ] πρὶ only B δὲ 102.—Ver. 4. 
 After πετεινά Elz. has τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is 
 taken from Luke viii. 5.— Ver. 5. Instead of ἄλλο δέ read, with Lachm. and 
 Tisch., καὶ ἄλλο, according to B ΟἿ, M** A &, min. vss. The Recepta is from - 
 Matt. xiii. 5. — Ver. 6. ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος] Lachm. and Tisch. read καὶ ὅτε 
 ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος, following BC DLA δὰ, Copt. Vulg. Cant. Vind. Corb. 2, Rd. 
 The Recepta is from Matt. xiii. 6. — Ver. 8. ἀλλο] B Ο L δὲ, min. have the reading 
 ἄλλα (Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch.). [So W. and Hort, R. V., and Weiss.] It is 
 from Matt. and was favored by the tripartite division that follows. — αὐξάνοντα 
 ACDLA, 238 have αὐξανόμενον. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. [B (wrongly cited in Meyer) have αὐξανόμενα, accepted by W. and 
 Hort, R. V., Weiss; the participles then agreeing with ἄλλα.] Rightly, be- 
 cause the intransilive αὐξάνειν is the prevailing form in the N. T. — Instead of 
 the threefold repetition of ἔν, Tisch. has εἰς three times, following Β C* L A, 
 min. Yet BL have ΕἸΣ once and EN twice. [So W. and Hort, and, appar- 
 ently, Weiss.] The reading of Tisch. is to be regarded as original ; the ἐν, 
 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 ἔν. In ver. 20 also the ἕν is not to be written three times, but with 
 all the uncials, which have breathings and accents: ἐν, as also Tisch. has it. — 
 Ver. 9. 6 ἔχων] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὃς ἔχει, following BC* Ὁ Δ δῦ, The 
 Recepta is from Matt. xiii. 9; Luke viii. 8. —Ver. 10. ἠρώτησαν] Fritzsche, 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have 7pé7wv! on preponderant evidence (D has ἐπηρώτων). 
 To be adopted. If the imperfect had been introduced from Luke viii. 9, 
 ἐπηρώτων Would be more diffused. — τὴν παραβολήν] Tisch. has τὰς παραβολάς, 
 following B C L A 8, vss. The singular is a correction; comp. Luke. — 
 Ver. 11. γνῶναι] is wanting in ABC* KL &, 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: τ. vor. 
 dé, τ. Bao. — Ver. 12. τὰ ἁμαρτήματα] is wanting in BC L δὲ, min. Copt. Arm. 
 Cr. (twice) ; condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche 
 and Tisch. An addition, instead of which is found also τὰ παραπτώματα (min. ). 
 —Ver. 15. ἐν ταῖς καρδ, αὐτῶν] C L A τὲ, Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Colb. : ἐν 
 αὐτοῖς (so Tisch.), and in favor of this B and min. testify by the reading εἰς 
 
 1 Ined. VIII. Tisch., following C &, has the evidence in its favor is the case in Matt. xv. 
 form ἠρώτουν, which probably is only a 23. The Ionic form of the verb in ew is en- 
 transcriber’s error, as with still stronger  tirely foreign to the N, T. 
 
 t 
 
50 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 αὐτούς. [The latter reading is accepted by Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] The 
 Recepta is explanatory after Matt. xiii. 19, comp. Luke viii. 12, but at the same 
 time its testimony is in favor of ἐν αὐτοῖς, not of εἰς αὐτούς. --- Ver. 18. καὶ οὗτοί 
 εἰσιν] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. read καὶ ἄλλοί εἰσιν, following B C*DL AR, 
 Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ver. Colb. Vind. Germ. Corb. Rightly; the Recepta originated 
 by mechanical process after vy. 15, 16, comp. ver. 20. When this οὗτοι came 
 in, there emerged at once an incompatibility with the subsequent οὗτοί εἰσιν, 
 therefore this laiter was omitted (A ΟἿΣ EGHK MSU VII, min., Copt. Syr. 
 p. Goth. Slav. Brix. Theophyl. Matth. and Fritzsche), while others removed 
 the first οὗτοί εἰσιν (min. Arm.). — Ver. 19. τούτου after αἰῶνος is rightly deleted 
 by Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. in conformity with very considerable 
 testimony. A current addition. — Ver. 20. οὗτοι] Tisch. has ἐκεῖνοι, following 
 BCLA 8; οὗτοι is a mechanical repetition, and comp. Matt. and Luke. — 
 Ver. 21. The order ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
 according to BC DL A δὲ ; min, vss. — ἐπιτεθῇ] τεθῇ is attested by B CLA 8, 
 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 τὶ (which Lachm. brackets) was easily 
 omitted after ἐστε as being superfluous. — ὃ ἐὰν v7] many variations, among 
 which ἐὰν μή has the strong attestation of AC Καὶ L, min. It is commended by 
 Griesb., andis to be adopted. The apparent absurdity of the sense! suggested 
 partly the addition of 6, partly, in conformity with what follows, readings with 
 iva, namely, ἀλλ᾽ iva (Ὁ, vss.) and ἐὰν μὴ iva (so Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., W. and 
 Hort, R. V.], following B D δὲ), εἰ μὴ iva (min.). [Meyer’s explanation is unsatis- 
 factory, since ὁ is the latest reading ; ἐὰν μὴ iva is found in the oldest mss., and 
 is probably the original form.] — Ver, 24. After the second ὑμῖν, Elz. Fritzsche, 
 Scholz have τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, which also Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence 
 have deleted (it is a gloss), while Griesb. strikes out the whole καὶ προστεθῇ, ὑμῖν 
 τοῖς ἀκ. (only in accordance with Ὁ G, Codd. It.), and Fritzsche places these 
 words after ἀκούετε (according to Arm.). The course followed by Griesb. and 
 Fritzsche must be rejected on account of the very weakness of the eyvi- 
 dence ; the reading of Griesb. arose from the fact that the eye of the tran- 
 scriber passed from the first ὑμῖν directly to the second. — Ver. 25. ὃς yap dv ἔχῃ] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have ὃς γὰρ ἔχει, following B C L Δὲ, min., to which, 
 moreover, D ἘΠ F, al. are added with the reading ὃς yap dv ἔχει. According to 
 this, ἔχει alone is to be read ; ἄν was added probably in recollection of Luke 
 vill. 18, and then ἔχει was transmuted into ἔχῃ. --- Ver. 28. γάρ is to be deleted, 
 with Lachm. and Tisch., following very important authorities. A connective 
 addition, instead of which D has ὅτι ait. — πλήρη σῖτον] Lachm. and Tisch. 
 [Weiss] read πλήρης σῖτος, following B, to which D should be added with the 
 reading πλήρης ὁ σῖτος. πλήρης σῖτος is the original, which it was subsequently 
 thought necessary to help by a structural emendation. [But δὲ supports the 
 Rec., and the reading of B is very peculiar ; W. and Hort retain the accusative. ] 
 —Ver. 30. ti] B CL Δ δὲ, min. Ver. have πῶς, which Griesb. has recom- 
 mended, Fritzsche and Tisch. have adopted. tim is from Luke xiii. 18.— ἐν 
 ποίᾳ παραβολῇ παραβάλωμεν αὐτήν] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν rive αὐτὴν 
 παραβολῇ θῶμεν, following BC*L Δ δὲ, min. Ver. Or. Rightly ; ποίᾳ came in 
 
 1 The reading ἐὰν μή is in no wise absurd (Fritzsche, de Wette), but it gives the same 
 logical analysis as x. 30, See in Joc, 
 
CHAP. IV., 1-9. 51 
 
 as a gloss upon τίνι, after the analogy of the preceding πῶς ; and the more dif- 
 ficult θῶμεν was explained by παραβαλώμεν. --- Ver. 31. κόκκον] Elz. Fritzsche, 
 Tisch. read κόκκῳ, following BD AII®&. As after the second half of ver. 30 
 the accusative (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.) more readily suggested itself (in con- 
 nection with θῶμεν or παραβάλωμεν), the dative is to 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. — μικρότερος] Lachm. reads 
 μικρότερον, following Β Ὁ 1 ΜΔ δὰ, min. He adds, moreover, ὄν according to 
 BLA δὲ, omitting the subsequent ἐστί, and encloses τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Which is 
 wanting in C. Ver., in brackets. Tisch. also has μικρότερον ὄν, omitting ἐστί. 
 The Recepta is to be retained ; μικρότερον is a grammatical correction,! that has 
 originated from a comparison with Matt., and the added 6v, having arisen from 
 the writing twice over of the ON which had gone before, or from the marginal 
 writing of ON over the final syllable of μικρότεροΣ, dislodged the subsequent 
 ἐστί, Whereupon, doubtless, the connection was lost. [Recent editors, R. V., 
 agree with Tisch., against Meyer.]— Ver. 34. τ. ua. αὐτοῦ] Tisch. reads τ. 
 ἰδίοις μαθ., following BC LA. Rightly ; the Receptais the usual expression. 
 — Ver. 36. The reading πλοῖα instead of πλοιάρια (as Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have 
 it) is so decisively attested, that but for that circumstance the more rare πλοιάρια 
 would have to be defended. — Ver. 37. Instead of αὐτὸ ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι, Griesb. 
 approved, and Lachm. and Tisch. read, ἤδη γεμίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον, following ΒΟ 
 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 ἐπὶ before 
 τ. πρ., Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ἐν on decisive evidence. — Ver. 40. 
 οὕτω] is deleted by Lachm., following B DLA δὲ, Copt. Aeth, Vulg. It., and 
 subsequently, instead of πῶς οὐκ, he has, with Griesb., οὔπω according to the 
 same and other authorities. [So'Treg., W.and Hort, R. V. The evidence is too 
 strong to be set aside.] But the Recepta is, with Tisch. [Weiss], to be main- 
 tained. For in accordance with Matt. viii. 26 οὕτω was very easily dropped, 
 while οὔπω just as easily crept in as a modifying expression, which at the same 
 time dislodged the πῶς. 
 
 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 
 seven,—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). — πάλιν, see 
 111. 7. — ἤρξατο] For from καὶ συνάγεται onward is related what happened 
 after the commencement of His teaching. — Ver. 2. ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ) in His 
 doctrinal discourse. Of the many (πολλά) Mark adduces some. — Ver. 7. 
 συνέπνιξαν] choked the germinating seed, compressing it. Comp. Theophy- 
 Ἰδοῦ, c. pl. vi. 11. 6 : δένδρα συμπνιγόμενα. --- Ver. 8. ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ αὐξανό- 
 μενον (see the critical remarks) is predicate of καρπόν, hence ἐδίδου καρπόν 
 (and consequently also καρπὸν οὐκ ἔδωκε, ver. 7) is to be understood not of 
 the grains of corn, but of the corn-stalks ascending and growing (shooting 
 
 1 μείζων, too, ver. 89, became changed in codd. into μεῖζον. SoA ΟΕ ΤΥ δὲ, 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 : καὶ ἔφερεν x.t.A. In the clas- 
 sics also καρπός means generally that which grows in the field.' Comp. 
 καρποφορεῖ, ver. 28. — With the Recepta ἕν τριάκοντα is to be taken as : one 
 bore thirty (neuter : nothing to be supplied), 1.6., according to the connec- 
 tion : one grain, which had been sown, bore thirty grains, another sixty, 
 and soon.* With the reading εἰς τριάκοντα (see the critical remarks) we 
 must render : it bore up to thirty, and up to sixty, etc. If ἐν τριάκοντα be 
 read, the meaning is: it bore im (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. καὶ ἔλεγεν] ‘‘ 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. — καταμόνας 
 therefore, according to Mark, no longer in the ship, ver. 1. — οἱ περὶ αὐτόν] 
 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 XXIL., 
 p. 60.] We may add that Matthew could not have better made use of the 
 expression οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν σὺν τοῖς δώδεκα (Holtzmann, who therefore pronounces 
 it not to belong to the primitive-Mark), nor could he not use it at all 
 (Weiss in the Zeitschr. 7. 1). 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. — τὰς παραβ.] 
 see ver. 2. — Ver. 11. δέδοται] of the spiritual ‘giving brought about by 
 making them capable of knowing ; hence γνῶναι (which here is spurious) in 
 Matthew and Luke. —roic ἔξω] that is, to those who are outside of our 
 circle, to the people. The sense of οἱ ἔξω 15. 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 ὕστερον πρότερον 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 
 not profess the doctrine of the D'33—the Ὁ ΣΙΝ ; see Lightfoot, p. 609. 
 — iv παραβ. τὰ πάντα γίνεται) ἐν παραβ. 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 γίνεται, comp. Herod. ix. 46: ἡμῖν οἱ 
 λόγοι γεγόνασι, Thucyd. ν. 111, al. — Ver. 12. ἵνα] not: ita ut, as Wolf, 
 
 
 
 1 Hom. 7), i. 156; Xen. de venat. v.5; Plat. υτἱῖ. 4. 27: ἕν μέρος ἔλαβον ᾿Αργεῖοι, ἕν δὲ On- 
 Theaet. p. 149 E, Crat. p. 410 C,as in the ator, ἕν δὲ ᾿Αρκάδες, ἕν δὲ Μεσσήνιοι, Arist. 
 German Frucht, Friichte. Eth. Nic. vi. 1.5 ; Ecclus. xxxi. 23 f. 
 
 2 On 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. 13. 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 μυστήριον contained in 
 them—and has thus acknowledged their question in ver. 10 as justified, He 
 addresses Himself now, with anew commencement of His discourse (καὶ 
 λέγει αὐτοῖς, comp. vv. 21, 24, 26, 30, 35), 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 τ. παραβολὴν ταύτην), 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 wnseasonable 
 reproach. But Mark himself pronounces decisively against the entire sup- 
 position of this connection by his καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, whereby he separates the 
 discourse of ver. 13 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 οὐκ οἴδατε must have used perhaps καὶ ὑμεῖς οὐκ 
 οἴδατε, or some similar link of connection with what precedes. Moreover, 
 ver. 13 is to be read as one question (comp. Lachmann and Tischendorf [W. 
 and Hort.]), and in such a way that καὶ πῶς κ.τ.1. still depends on οὐκ οἴδατε 
 (comp. Ewald) ; not, as Fritzsche would have it, in such a way that καί in- 
 dicates the consequence, and there would result the meaning : ‘‘ Ye wnder- 
 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. 13 is divided into two questions (so, too, de 
 Wette), and πάσας is taken as equivalent to: all the rest ; but this is done 
 quite without warrant, since the idea of λοιπάς would be precisely the point 
 in virtue of the contrast which is assumed. — γνώσεσθε] 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 ὅπου and the temporal 
 ὅταν, in connection with which καί is not adversative (Kuinoel, de Wette), 
 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 have 
 heard, cometh straightway Satan, etc.— Ver. 16. ὁμοίως] 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 have 
 not root in themselves, etc. It is more in keeping with the simplicity and 
 vividness of the discourse not to take the καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι along with oi. — 
 Ver. 18 f. And there are others, who are sown among the thorns ; these are they 
 who, etc. If ἀκοίοντες be read,—which, however, would arise more easily 
 from the similar parallel of Matthew than ἀκούσαντες (B Ο Ὁ L A 8, Tisch.) 
 from the dissimilar one of Luke,—the course of events is set forth from the 
 outset, whereas ἀκούσαντες sets it forth from the standpoint of the result 
 (they have heard, and, etc.). — τὰ λοιπά] 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 εἰσπορ. is probably an erroneous explana- 
 tion of the πορευόμενοι in Luke. — Ver. 20. ἐν (not ἕν ; see the critical re- 
 marks on ver. 8) τριάκοντα «.7.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. 
 
 Vy. 21-23. Comp. Luke viii. 16 f. Meaning (comp. Matt. v. 15, x. 26) : 
 ‘“‘the light, i.e, the knowledge of the μυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας, 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 
 
 others. But the kindled light 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, since with ver. 21 a new 
 portion of the discourse commences ; and 
 
 1 According to others, Jesus gives an 
 allegorical exhortation to virtue; “ut 
 lucerna candelabro imponenda est, sic vos 
 oportet, discipuli, 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,’’ ete., 
 Fritzsche, comp. Theophylact, Grotius, and 
 
 our view is 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 οὐ τάξει, 
 ‘‘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 XXIIIJ., p. 60.] Comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. 7. Ὁ. 
 Theol. 1864, p. 88. — ἔρχεται) Doth the lamp then possibly come, etc. ? ἔρχεσθαι 
 is used of inanimate things which are brought ; very frequently also in clas- 
 sical writers. — ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον] See on Matt. ν. 1. --- κλίνην] a table-couch. 
 Comp. vii. 4. After κλίνην there is only a comma to be placed : the ques- 
 tion is one as far as τεθῇ. --- According to the reading ἐὰν μὴ davep. (see the 
 critical remarks), the rendering is : nothing is hidden, if it shall not (in fu- 
 ture) be made manifest.1 So surely and certainly does the φανέρωσις set in ! 
 [But see additional critical note.] — ἀλλ᾽ iva εἰς dav. ἔλθῃ] The logical refer- 
 ence of ἀλλ᾽ is found in a pregnant significance of ἀπόκρυφον : nor has there 
 anything (after οὐδέ, τί 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. — βλέπετε] Be heedful as to what ye hear ; 
 how important it is rightly to understand what is delivered to you by me! 
 ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ κ.τ.2.1 A ground of encouragement to heedfulness. It is other- 
 wise in Matt. vii. 2. In our passage the relation of heedfulness to the knowl- 
 edge thereby to be attained is described. Euthymius Zigabenus well says : ἐν 
 ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε τὴν προσοχὴν, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν ἡ γνῶσις, τουτέστιν" 
 ὅσην εἰσφέρετε προσοχὴν, τοσαύτη παρασχεθήσεται ὑμῖν γνῶσις, καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ 
 αὐτῷ μέτρῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλέον, ““ 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 fore- 
 going καὶ προστεθήσεται. 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 προστεθήσεται) ; but if ye (through heedlessness) are 
 poor in knowledge, ye shall also lose even your little knowledge. Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus erroneously refers δοθήσεται, ‘‘ shall be given,” only to the 
 γνῶσις, ‘‘ knowledge,” and ἔχῃ, ‘* hath,” to the προσοχήν, ‘‘ attention.” So also 
 Theophylact. 
 
 Vv. 26-29. Jesus now continues, as is proved by ver. 33 f. (in opposition 
 to Baur, Markusevang. p. 28), His parabolic discourses to the people ; hence 
 ἔλεγεν is here used without αὐτοῖς (vv. 21, 24), and vv. 10-25 are to be re- 
 garded as aninserted episode (in opposition to de Wette, Hinl. ὃ 946, who 
 
 tion, these words spoken at ver. 11 would 
 quite annul the apostolic calling. History 
 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 vobis 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 «Τῇ fit successive in hoe 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. iv. 5,’’ Bengel. 
 
56 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 holds ὅτε δὲ ἐγένετο καταμόνας 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. /.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. xili., to have been brought into it by the first evangelist ; 
 while Strauss (in Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1863, p. 209) has recourse to the neuw- 
 tral character of Mark, in accordance with which he is held to have removed 
 the ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος, ““ enemy” (by which Paul is meant !). See, on the other 
 hand, Klépper in the Jahrb. 7. D. Theol. 1864, p. 141 ff., who, with Weiz- 
 siicker, 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 Weizsiicker (p. 118) 
 finds in the parable a proof that our Gospel of Mark was not written till 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the delaying 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. —7 βασιλεία τ. Θεοῦ] The Messianic kingdom, conceived of 
 as preparing for its proximate appearance, and then (ver. 29) appearing at 
 its time. — τὸν σπόρον] the seed concerned. — Observe the aorist βάλῃ, and 
 then the presents which follow : has cast, and then sleeps and arises, ete. — 
 νύκτα x. ἡμέραν] With another form of conception the genitives might also 
 be used here. See on the distinction, Kiihner, 11. p. 219. The prefixing 
 of νύκτα is here occasioned by the order of καθεύδῃ καὶ ἐγείρ. See, further, 
 on Luke ii. 57. Erasmus erroneously refers ἐγείρ to the seed, which is only 
 introduced as subject with 32acr. — μηκύνηται] is extended, in so far, namely, 
 as the shoot of the seed comes forth and mounts upwards (inerescat, Vulgate). 
 Comp. LXX. Isa. xliv. 14. In the shoot the seed extends itself. — ὡς οὐκ oidev 
 αὐτός] ina way unknown to ‘himself (the sower) ; he himself knows not how 
 it comes about. See the sequel. — αὐτομάτη] of itself, without man’s assist- 
 ance.” Comp. Hesiod, ἔργ. 118 ; Herod. ii. 94, viii. 138 ; and Wetstein in 
 loc. — εἶτα πλήρης σῖτος ἐν τ. στ. the nominative (see the critical remarks) 
 with startling vividness brings before us the result as standing by itself : then 
 JSull (developed to full size) grain in the ear! See on this nominative stand- 
 ing forth in rhetorical relief from the current construction, Bernhardy, 
 Ῥ. 68 f.—Ver. 29. παραδῷ] is usually explained intransitively, in the sense : 
 shall have delivered itself 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 ἑαυτόν (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- the seed is conditioned by the immanent 
 ary nature,” in that of Weizsiicker. power of the earth, which acts upon it. 
 2Hence there is no inconsistency with 
 
CHAP. Iy., 30-32. δὴ 
 
 διδόναι.: But of this use of παραδιδόναι there is found no quite certain in- 
 stance” (not even in 1 Pet. ii. 38, see Huther) ; moreover, the expression 
 itself, ‘‘ the fruit has offered itself,” would be foreign to the simplicity of 
 the style, and has a modern sound. Hence (comp. Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων. 
 not. p. 49) παραδιδ. is rather to be explained as to allow, in accordance with 
 well-known usage: * but when the fruit shall have allowed, i.e., when it is suf- 
 ficiently ripe. Quite similar is the expression : τῆς ὥρας παραδιδούσης, Polyb. 
 xxii. 24. 9: when the season permitted. Bleek assents to this view. — ἀποσ- 
 τέλλει τὸ δρέπανον] 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, etc., without further intervention, to the earth’s own power, but at 
 the time of ripening reaps the harvest, so 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 (δικαιοσύνη -- this is 
 the parabolic reference of the πλήρης σῖτος), but will, when the time for the es- 
 tablishment of His kingdom comes, cause the δικαίους to be gathered into it (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 αὐτομάτη, 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 δικαιοσύνη (by means of His 
 ἱλαστήριον 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 excluded by αὐτομάτη, although the parable is opposed also to the 
 conception of a so-called plan of Jesus.* 
 
 Vv. 30-82. See on Matt. xiii. 31 f. Comp. Luke xiii. 17 f. — πῶς] how 
 are we to bring the Messianic kingdom into comparison ?— ἢ ἐν rive air. 
 παραβολῇ θῶμεν (see the critical remarks) : or in what parable are we to place 
 at, set it forth? The expression inclusive of others (we) isin keeping with the 
 deliberative 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 τίνι. -- ὡς κόκκῳ ow.] ὡς is correlative to the πῶς of 
 ver. 30: so as itis likened to a grain of mustard seed. — The following * is 
 
 1See Viger., ed. Herm. p. 132; Valck- 
 enaer, Diatr. p. 233; Jacobs, ad Philostr. 
 p. 363 ; Kriiger, § 52. 2. 9; and see in general, 
 Bernhardy, p. 339 f.; Winer, p. 225 [E. T. 
 315]. 
 
 2TIn Josh. xi. 19 the reading varies much 
 and is doubtful; in Plat. Piaedr. p. 250 EB, 
 παραδούς is not necessarily reflexive. 
 
 3 Herod. v. 67, vii. 18; Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 
 84: Polyb. iii. 12. 4. 
 
 4 Comp. Schleiermacher, ZL. ./. p. 348 ff. 
 
 5 From the collection 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 in existence. Comp. (in 
 opposition to Holtzmann) Weiss in the 
 Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1864, p. 938. [See Note 
 XXVL., p. 60.] 
 
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. 111. 28, vii. 17. See on Matt. xiii. 3.—Observe the twofold ὅταν 
 σπαρῇ, VV. 31, 32. In the first the emphasis is on ὅταν, in the second on 
 σπαρῇ. ““ Exacte definit tempus illud, quum granum desinit esse parvum et 
 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. 84.—From τοιαύταις it follows that Mark 
 knew yet more parables that were spoken at that time. — καθὼς ἠδύναντο 
 ἀκούειν) 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 itself, in which the teaching was veiled, 
 so that they were thus qualified only in this form (καθώς) to hear the doctrine. 
 Accordingly, ἀκούειν here is neither : to understand, nor equivalent to βαστά- 
 few, John xvi. 12 (Bengel, Kuinoel, and others), but the simple to hear, to 
 perceive. — οὐκ ἐλάλει] at that time. See on Matt. xiii. 34. 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 ἃ svbstitute for it. But Mark 
 himself certainly has doctrinal utterances of Jesus enough, which are not 
 parabolical. 
 
 Vv. 35-41. See on Matt. viii. 18, 23-27. Comp. Luke vili. 22-25. — ἐν 
 ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ] ver. 1 f.; a difference in respect of time from Matt. vill. 18, 
 Luke viii. 22 is altogether indefinite. — ὡς ἦν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ] 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. — καὶ ἄλλα δέ] but other ships also’ were in His train 
 (μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ) during the voyage ; a characteristic descriptive trait in Mark.— 
 Ver. 37. On λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου, comp. Hom. Jl. xvii. 57; Anthol. Anacr. 82. 
 On the accent of λαίλαψ, see Lipsius, gramm. Untersuch. p. 36 f. — ἐπέβαλεν] 
 intransitive (comp. on νυ. τ. 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 κύματα, 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; more strictly, ac- 
 cording to Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, p. 296 ff.), the cushion 
 of the rower’s bench. — Ver. 39. σιώπα, πεφίμωσο] be silent! be dumb! asyn- 
 detic, and so much the more forcible (Nigelsbach, Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 3, 
 p. 247, 359), Eur. Hee. 532. The sea is personified ; hence the less are we 
 to conjecture, with Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 230, that Jesus has addressed 
 the disciples (ye shall see that it will immediately be still). — ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος] 
 Herod. vii. 191. Comp. Mark vi. 51; Matt. xiv. 32, from which passage 
 
 1 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 182; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. 1. p. 884. 
 
NOTES. 59 
 
 de Wette arbitrarily derives the expression of Mark. — Ver. 40. πῶς] 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. ἐφοβήθησαν) not the people (Grotius and 
 others), which agrees with Matthew but not with the context, but the disei- 
 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 
 As to φοβεῖσθαι φόβον μέγαν, comp. on Matt. ii. 10. On 
 tic ἄρα, in which the perplexity is not expressed by the ἄρα, but is implied 
 in the context (in opposition to Hartung), and dpa means : igitur, rebus ita 
 comparatis, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176. Comp. Nigelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, 
 ed. Sp: 10:f. 
 
 Remarg.—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). Ritschl] 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 (theol. 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. 
 
 (τίς ἄρα οὗτος, etc.). 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 KOK Ver 8. GANG. = we 
 
 The above reading, sustained throughout by δὲ and B and in the earlier part 
 by other weighty witnesses, is to be accepted. The change to αὐξανόμενον was 
 first made, then to the much later form αὐξάνοντα. Weiss ed. Meyer rightly ex- 
 plains that the participles agree with ἀλλα, showing the process of growth up to 
 bearing fruit. Meyer’s view of καρπόν 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.”’ 
 
 ἀναβαίνοντα καὶ αὐξανόμενα. 
 
 1 With this agrees neither the half-natu- 
 ralizing view of Lange, Z. J. II. p. 314, that 
 the immediate causes of the calm setting in 
 lay in the atmosphere, and that so far the 
 threatening word of Jesus was prophetical 
 (comp. Schleiermacher) ; nor the complete 
 breaking up of the miracle by Schenkel, 
 who makes the matter amount 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 not. 
 Keim, p. 123, 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- 
 siicker. 
 
60 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 XXII. Ver. 10. οἱ rept αὐτόν. 
 
 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. 
 
 XXIII, 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 vy. 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. xiii., 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 
 arule, 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. παραδοῖ. 
 
 Meyer improperly rejects this form of the subjunctive. Here it is attested 
 by δὲ BD A, 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 mus- 
 tard-seed of narrative, what great and diverse branches of theory have sprung ! 
 
 XXVII. Ver. 40. Τί δειλοί ἐστε; οὕπω ἔχετε πίστιν; 
 
 For the above reading, omitting οὕτως and substituting οὔπω for πῶς οὐκ, We 
 have five of the best uncials (δ Β Ὁ 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. Ταδαρηνῶν] Here also, as in Matt. viii. 28, occur the various readings 
 Τερασηνῶν (B D &* Vulg. Sax. Nyss., so Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, 
 R. V.]) and Tepyeonvov (L A &** min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Or.). The Recepta 
 is to be retained, according to A C Τὰ, ete., with Fritzsche and Scholz. See on 
 Matt. — Ver. 2. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ] is here more strongly attested (Β Ο LA ἃ, 
 min. Ver. Brix., to which D also with ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν falls to be added) than in 
 Matt. vili. 28. To be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch. ; ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ (Elz.), 
 is from the parallel passages. — εὐθέως] which Lachm. has deleted, is only 
 wanting in B, Syr. Arm. Ver. Brix. Vind. (010. Corb. 2. [Bracketed by Treg., 
 W. and Hort.] The omission is explained from the parallels, from which also 
 has arisen the reading ὑπήντησεν (BC DLA δὲ, min. Lachm.). [The latter reading 
 is accepted by Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort.]— Ver. 3. οὔτε]. BCD L A ®, 33 
 have οὐδέ. So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. ; and of necessity rightly. — ἁλύσεσιν 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have ἁλύσει, following B C L 33, Colb. ; the Recepta is from 
 what follows. — οὐδείς] Lachm. and Tisch. have οὐκέτι οὐδείς, following B C Ὁ 
 1, Δ δὲ, 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. εἶπε] 
 λέγει has preponderating evidence ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, 
 Lachm, and Tisch. ; εἶπε is from Luke viii. 28. But Mark is fond of the his- 
 torical present. In ver. 9 also the simple λέγει αὐτῷ (instead of ἀπεκρίθη λέγων 
 in Elz.) is rightly adopted by Griesb. on preponderant evidence. — Ver. 9. 
 Λεγεών] B* CD LA δὲ 69, Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. have Λεγιών, and this Lachm., 
 and Tisch. have adopted, The Recepta is from Luke. — Ver. 11. Instead of πρὸς 
 τῷ Opel, Elz. has πρὸς τὰ ὄρη, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 12. 
 After αὐτόν Elz. Matt. have πάντες, which Lachm. brackets and Tisch. deletes. 
 It is wanting in BC Ὁ ΚΙ, MAW8, min. vss. Afterwards Elz. Matth. Scholz, 
 Lachm. have οἱ δαίμονες, which Griesb. rejected, and Fritzsche and Tisch. have 
 deleted, following B Ο L Δ δὲ, min. Copt. Aeth. [Recent editors, R. V., rightly 
 omit the entire phrase.] The Recapta πάντες oi δαίμονες 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. ἦσαν δέ] is on considerable 
 evidence to be deleted as supplied (Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of amjyy. Elz. 
 has ἀνήγγ. But the former is decisively attested. — ἐξῆλθον] has come in from 
 Matt. and Luke instead of the genuine ἦλθον (A B K L MU &** min. vss.), 
 which Griesb. approved, Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. — Ver. 15. The 
 omission of the «ai before ἱματ. (Tisch.) proceeded from Luke. [But καί is sup- 
 ported only by A C among weighty authorities, and is properly rejected by 
 recent editors, ἢ. V. The omission leaves the description more graphic. ]— 
 Ver. 18. ἐμβάντος] A BC DK L MAX, min. Vulg. It. have ἐμβαίνοντος. Ap- 
 proved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is 
 from Luke viii. 37.— Ver. 19. Instead of καὶ οὐκ, Elz. has ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοὺς οὐκ, 
 against decisive evidence. — ἀνάγγειλον] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 
 
62 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 have ἀπάγγειλον, following B C A δὲ 50, 258. A mechanical change in conform- 
 ity to ver. 14. —Instead of πεποίηκε, Elz. has ἐποίησε, contrary to decisive evi- 
 dence. — Ver. 22. ἰδού] before épy. is wanting in Β Ὁ L A δὲ 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. παρεκάλει 
 A CLR, min. have παρακαλεῖ. Recommended by Griesb. 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 σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ has preponderant 
 attestation by B C DLA, min. (adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.) ; ὅπως (Elz. 
 Fritzsche, Scholz) instead of iva may be suspected of being an amendment of 
 style, and the more current ζήσεται flowed easily from Matt. ix. 18. — Ver. 25. 
 τις} is wanting in A BCL A, 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 αὐτῆς, 
 Elz. Tisch. have ἑαυτῆς, against so preponderant evidence that it is manifestly 
 the result of a gloss, as also is the omission of παρ᾽ (D, min. Syr. utr. Vulg. It.). 
 [Recent editors, with A B L, and many others, have zap’ αὐτῆς, but W. and 
 Hort, marg., give ἑαυτῆς.  --- Instead of περί, Tisch, has τὰ περί. So B C¥ A δὲ, τά, 
 being superfluous, dropped out after the preceding syllables. — Ver. 33. ἐπ’ 
 αὐτῇ] tx’ is wanting in BC DL δὲ, 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 ἐπ᾽, sometimes by ἐν (F A). — Ver. 36. εὐθέως deleted by Tisch. 
 following Β Ὁ LAX, 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 παρακούσας, it became omitted the more 
 easily in accordance with Luke viii. 50. — ἀκούσας] Β 1, A δὲ have παρακούσας. 
 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. ἔρχεται] A BC DF AX, min. vss. have ἔρχονται. 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 θόρυβον 
 Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderant evidence, added xai. 
 Being superfluous, it was the more easily absorbed by the first syllable of κλαί- 
 ovrac. — Ver. 40. 6 δέ] Lachm. has αὐτὸς δέ [so Tisch., recent editors, R. V.], 
 on evidence considerable doubtless, but not decisive. From Luke viii. 54. — 
 After παιδίον Elz. and Scholz have ἀνακείμενον, which Lachm. has bracketed, 
 Tisch. has deleted. It is wanting in Β D LAX, min. vss. An addition by 
 way of gloss, instead of which are also found κείμενον, κατακείμενον, and other 
 readings. 
 
 Vv. 1-20. See on Matt. viii. 28-34. Comp. Luke viii. 26-39. 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. ἐξελϑόντος αὐτοῦ... ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ] 
 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.'— ἄνϑρω- 
 πος ἐν πνεύματι ax. See on i, 23, —Ver. 3. οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς 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 (οὐκέτ). On 
 the accumulation of negatives, see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 57 f. — Ver. 4. διὰ 
 τὸ αὐτὸν k.7.A.] because he often... was chained. See Matthaei, p. 1259. — 
 πέδαι are fetters, but ἁλύσεις 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. 3. 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 jfetters in particular (which might consist of cords) 
 he rubbed to pieces (συντετρίφϑαι, 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. ἀπὸ μακρόϑεν] as in Matt. xxv. 58. — Ver. 7. 
 ὁρκίζω σε τὸν Θεόν] not inappropriate in the mouth of the demoniac (de Wette, 
 Strauss), but in keeping with the address υἱὲ τ. Θεοῦ τ. ὑψ., and with the 
 desperate condition, in which the πνεῦμα ἀκάϑαρτον sees himself to be. On 
 ὁρκίζω as a Greek word (Acts xix. 13 ; 1 Thess. v. 27), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 361. — μῇ με Bacavic.| is not—as in Matthew, where πρὸ καιροῦ is associated 
 with it—to be understood of the torment of Hades, but of tormenting gener- 
 ally, and that by the execution of the éeA¥e, 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. ἔλεγε γάρ] 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 (ὅτι πολλοί 
 ἐσμεν ; Otherwise in Luke), is intended to move Jesus the more to compas- 
 sion. — Ver. 10. ἔξω τῆς χώρας] 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. : πρὸ καιροῦ), 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 
 
 1 See Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. Ὁ. 307, 185 ; 2 The word is also used in Rabbinic He- 
 Pflugk, ad Hur. Med. 910; Winer, p. 186 brew W722, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1123; 
 [Ε΄ T. 207]. Lightfoot, p. 612. 
 
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 XXVIIL., p. 68.] — Ver. 13. ὡς δισχί- 
 uot] without ἧσαν dé (see the critical remarks) is in apposition to ἡ ἀγέλη. 
 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 “" affecta- 
 tion of knowing details ;” according to Wilke, an interpolation ; according 
 to Bleek, an exaggerating later tradition. — Ver. 15. ἦλθον] 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. ἔρχονται πρὸς τ. 
 Ἰησοῦν, is meant the special act of the coming to Jesus. — καθήμ.1 He who 
 was before so fierce and intractable was sitting peacefully. So transformed 
 was his condition. — ἱματισμένον)] 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 subsequent 
 elaboration on the narrator’s part (Wilke), or the former betraying an (inex- 
 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 ἱματίζω 
 is not preserved except in this place and at Luke viii. 35. — τὸν ἐσχηκ. τ. 
 Aey.] contrast, ‘‘ad empbasin miraculi,” Erasmus. — Ver. 16. καὶ περὶ τ. 
 xoip.| still belongs to διηγῆσ. --- Ver. 17. ἤρξαντο] The first impression, ver. 
 15, had been : καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν, 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 καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν and καὶ ἤρξαντο is overlooked. — Ver. 
 18. ἐμβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ] at the embarkation. —rapexadec x.7.2.] entreaty of 
 grateful love, to remain with his benefactor. Fear of the demons was 
 hardly included as a motive (μὴ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ τοῦτον εὑρόντες πάλιν ἐπιπηδήσωσιν 
 αὐτῷ, ‘‘lest having found this one apart from him they might again possess 
 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 σωφρονῶν. --- Ver. 19. οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν] 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 way to serve the work of 
 Christ. According to Hilgenfeld, Mark by this trait betrays his Jewish- 
 Christianity, which is a sheer figment. — ὁ κύριος] God. — καὶ ἠλέησέ σε] and 
 how much He had compassion on thee (when He caused thee to be set free from 
 the demons, aorist). It is still to be construed with ὅσα, but zeugmatically, 
 so that now ὅσα is to be taken adverbially (Kiihner, 11. p. 220). On ὅσος, 
 quam insignis, ‘‘ how noteworthy,” comp. Ellendt, Lev. Soph. 11. p. 877. — 
 Ver. 20. ἤρξατο] a graphic delineation from the starting-point. — Δεκαπόλει} 
 See on Matt. iv. 25. — ἐποίησεν] aorist, like ἠλέησε. On the other hand, in 
 ver. 19, πεποίηκε, 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 
 
 ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς] ὁ μὲν Χριστὸς μετριοφρονῶν τῷ πατρὶ τὸ ἔργον ἀνέθηκεν" ὁ δὲ θεραπευθεὶς 
 εὐγνωμονῶν τῷ Χριστῷ τοῦτο ἀνετίϑει, ‘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. — rapa τὴν ϑάλ.] 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. 23. ὅτι] recitative. — 
 τὸ ϑυγάτριόν pov]! This diminutive expression of paternal tenderness is 
 peculiar to Mark. Comp. vii. 25. It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. 
 - ἐσχάτως ἔχει] a late Greek phrase.?—iva ἐλϑὼν «.7.4.] His excitement 
 amidst grief and hope speaks incoherently. We may understand before iva: 
 this I say, in 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. — τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ] 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. ἀκούσασα] subordinated as 
 a prior point to the following ἐλϑοῦσα. Comp. on 1. 41.— The charac- 
 teristic addition τοῦ κρασπέδου 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. ἔλεγε yap] without ἐν ἑαυτῇ 
 (see the critical remarks) does not mean : for she thought (Kuinoel, and many 
 others), which, moreover, 28 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. ἡ πηγὴ τ. αἷμ. avr. | like WpP 
 Dd (Ley. 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@ σώματι) διὰ τοῦ 
 σώματος μηκέτι ῥαινομένου τοῖς σταλαγμοῖς, ‘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. — μάστιγος] as at iii. 10.— Ver. 30. ἐπιγνούς] stronger than the 
 previous ἔγνω. — ἐν ἑαυτῷ] in His own consciousness, therefore immediately, 
 not in virtue of an externally perceptible effect. — τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύν. ἐξελθ.] 
 the power gone forth from Him. What feeling in Jesus was, according to 
 
 1 Comp. Athen. xiii. p. 581 C; Long. i. 6; 2 See Wetstein and Kypke, also Lobeck, 
 Plut. Mor. p. 179 E; Lucian, Tox. 22, ad Phryn. p. 389, 
 
 ῦ 
 
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 Weizsiicker), 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 Lange), 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 we read in Matthew. [See Note XXIX., p. 68.] Calovius made 
 use of the passage against the Calvinists, ‘‘ vim divinam carni Christi dero- 
 gantes,” ‘‘ detracting from the divine power of the flesh of Christ.” —ri¢ μου 
 ἥψατο τῶν ἱμ.] 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. 32. περιεβλέπετο ἰδεῖν] namely, by any re- 
 sulting effect that might make manifest the reception of the power. The 
 Seminine τὴν τ. ποιήσασαν is said from the standpoint of the already known 
 fact. [See Note XXX., p. 69.] — Ver. 33. πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήϑειαν] the whole truth, 
 so that she kept back nothing and altered nothing.* — εἰς εἰρήνην] Didw, 
 1 Sam. i. 17; 2 Sam. xv. 9; Luke vii. 50, al.: unto bliss, unto future 
 happiness. In ἐν εἰρήνῃ (Judg. xviii. 6 ; Luke ii. 29 ; Acts xvi. 36 ; Jas. 
 ii. 16) the happy state is conceived of as combined with the ὕπαγε, as simul- 
 taneous. —iod: ὑγιὴς x.7.A.] definitive confirmation of the recovery, which 
 Schenkel indeed refers merely to the woman’s ‘‘religious excitement of 
 mind” as its cause. 
 
 Vv. 35-43. See 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. — ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 ἀρχισυν.] τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκείας τοῦ ἀρχίσυν, ‘‘ that is, from the house of the 
 ruler of the synagogue,” Euthymius Zigabenus. —ér:] since now there is 
 no longer room for help. — Ver. 86. According to the reading παρακούσας, 
 this (comp. Matt. xviii. 17) is to be taken as the opposite of ὑπακούειν, 
 namely : immediately He left this speech unnoticed ; He did not heed it for 
 one moment, but let 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 Trach. 91; and see Kriiger on Thue. Vi. 
 conduct of Jesus only amounts to an ap-_ 87. 1. 
 
 pearance ; “δ let Hiseyes move as if (2) 3 Which, however, all the more precludes 
 inquiringly over the crowd” (περιεβλέπ. ἰδεῖν the thought of a mere apparent death of 
 «.7.A.). the maiden (such as Schleiermacher and 
 
 2 Comp. Plat. Apol. p.17 B,20 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 μὴ φοβοῦ k.r.2. which he addresses to Jairus. The Itala in the 
 Cod. Pal. (6. in Tisch.) correctly has neglexit. — μὴ φοβοῦ κ.τ.}.} as though 
 now all were lost, all deliverance cut off. — Ver. 37. 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 XXXIL., 
 Ρ. 69.] — Ver. 38. ϑόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας κ. ἀλαλ.} an uproar and (especially) 
 people weeping and wailing. The first καί attaches to the general term 
 ϑόρυβον the special elements that belong to it, as ini. 5, and frequently. 
 ἀλαλάζω not merely used of the cry of conflict and rejoicing, but also, al- 
 though rarely, of the ery of anguish and lamentation. See Plutarch, Lue. 
 28 ; Eur. Hl. 848. — Ver. 39. εἰσελϑών] into the house. A later point of 
 time than at ver. 38.—Ver. 40. ἐκβαλών] irritated, commanding ; He 
 ejected them. Among the πάντας, those who are named immediately after- 
 wards (παραλαμβ. κ.τ.}.) are not included, and so not the three disciples (in 
 opposition to Baur). — Ver. 41. ταλιϑὰ, κοῦμι] ™4P xD, 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 smu, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 875. — τὸ κοράσιον] nomina- 
 tive with the article in the imperative address, Bernhardy, p. 67; Kiihner, 
 II. 155. —ooi λέγω] a free addition of Mark, ‘‘ ut sensum vocantis atque im- 
 perantis exprimeret,” ‘‘that he might express the sense of one calling and 
 commanding” (Jerome). — ἔγειρε] out of the sleep, ver. 39. — Ver. 42. ἦν 
 yap ἐτῶν δώδεκα] not as giving areason for the word κοράσιον (Euthymius 
 Zigabenus, Fritzsche), but in explanation of the previous remark, that the 
 maiden arose and walked about ; she was no longer a /itt/le 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. 43. 
 διεστείλατο] He gave them urgently (πολλά) injunction, command. See on 
 Matt. xvi. 20. — αὐτοῖς] those brought in at ver. 40..—iva] the purpose of 
 the διεστείλ. πολλά. Comp. Matt. xvi. 20 ; Mark vii. 36, ix. 9. — γνῷ] τοῦτο: 
 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, vil. 36, vill. 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, i. 34, 111. 12, any prohibition of the 
 kind (ji. 11 f., iii. 5, v. 84, ix. 27, x. 52). Mark therefore ought not to 
 
 1 The subjunctive form γνοῖ (like Sot, etc.), crept in by error of the transcribers from 
 which Lachmann and Tischendorf have the language of 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 BD L) andagainst it referred to, by nearly all recent critical 
 (including δ), 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, Huang. 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 Schenkel), 
 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. 30, 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.— καὶ εἶπε δοϑῆναι x.t.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. 
 
 Notres py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XXVIII. Ver. 10. ἔξω τῆς χώρας. 
 
 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. τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν. 
 
 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. τὴν τοῦτο ποιήσασαν. 
 
 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. παρακούσας. 
 
 Meyer retains εὐθέως, which is very poorly supported, and not found in any 
 of the authorities which have παρακούσας. He usesthe former to sustain his 
 view of the participle : ‘‘ He did not heed it for a moment,” etc. The R. V. 
 also renders : “ποὺ 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. 
 
 XXX. Ver. 37. 
 
 Luke viii. 51 may mean simply : ‘‘ When he came to the house” (so R. 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. 
 
70 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Ver. 1. Instead of ἦλθεν, we must read with Tisch., following BCLAR®, 
 ἔρχεται. ἦλθεν was introduced in accordance with the preceding ἐξῆλθεν. --- 
 Ver. 2. After αὐτῷ (instead of which B C L A 8,as before, read τούτῳ ; so Tisch.) 
 Elz. has ὅτι, which Fritzsche defends. But the evidence on the other side so 
 preponderates, that ὅτε must be regarded as an inserted connective addition, 
 instead of which C* Ὁ K, min. give iva (and then γίνωνται), while Β L A Shave 
 changed γίνονται into γενόμεναι, Which is only another attempt to help the con- 
 struction, although it is adopted (with ai before διά upon too weak evidence) by 
 Tisch, [Tisch. VIII. accepts the readings approved by Meyer ; but recent edi- 
 tors read αἱ before dvvayerc, and γινόμεναι at the close of the verse. Comp. 
 rendering of R. V.]—-Ver. 3. ὁ τέκτων] The reading ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός (and 
 then merely καὶ Μαρίας), although adopted by Fritzsche, is much too weakly at- 
 tested, and is from Matt. xiii. 35. —’Ioo7] The form ᾿Ἰωσῆτος (Lachm. Tisch. 
 [recent editors]) has in its favor B Ὁ L A, min. vss, ᾿Ιωσῆφ (&, 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 καὶ ἔλεγεν (δὲ B Ο Ὁ L A, 33, Copt. 
 Vulg.), and add αὐτοῦ (B C* L Copt. Vulg.) after συγγενεῦσιν. 1 ---- Ver. 9. The 
 Recepta, defended by Rinck, Fritzsche, is ἐνδύσασθαι. But ἐνδύσησθε (so Griesb. 
 Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) has decisive attestation ; it was altered on account of 
 the construction. — Ver. 11. ὅσοι ἄν] Tisch. has ὃς dv τόπος (and afterwards 
 δέξηται), following Β L A &, min. Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin). A peculiar and 
 original reading, which became altered partly by the omission of τόπος (C¥? 
 min.), partly by ὅσοι, in accordance with the parallels.—After αὐτοῖς Elz. Matth. 
 Fritzsche, Scholz, have: ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται Σοδόμοις ἢ Τομόῤῥοις ἐν 
 ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως, ἢ τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ, Which is not found in BC Ὁ Τ|, Δ δὲ, min. vss. 
 An addition in accordance with Matt. x. 15. --- Ver. 12. ἐκήρυξαν (Tisch.), 
 instead of the Recepta ἐκῆρυσσον, is still more strongly attested than μετανοῶσιν 
 (Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors]). The former is to be adopted from BC DL 
 Δ δὲ ; the latter has in its favor Β D L, but easily originated as a shorter form 
 from the Recepta μετανοῆσωσι. --- Ver. 14. ἔλεγεν] Fritzsche, Lachm. [W. and 
 Hort text, Weiss, R. V. marg.] have ἔλεγον only, following Β Ὁ), 6, 271, Cant. 
 Ver. Vere. Mart. Corb. Aug. Beda (Ὁ has éAéyooav). An alteration in accordance 
 with ver. 15; comp. ver. 16. — ἐκ vexp. ἠγέρθη] Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, 
 R. V.} have ἐγήγερται ἐκ vexp., following B D L Δ δὲ, min.; but A K, min. 
 Theophyl. have ἐκ vexp. ἀνίστη. The latter is right ; ἀνέστη became supplanted 
 by means of the parallel passages and ver. 16. — Ver. 15. dé after the first ἄλλοι 
 is wanting in Elz. Fritzsche, but is guaranteed by decisive evidence. Decisive 
 evidence condemns the # read before ὡς in Elz. and Fritzsche. — Ver. 16. οὗτός 
 ἐστιν, αὐτὸς 7y.| Β Ὁ LA, min. Vulg. Cant. Colb. Corb. Germ. 1, 2, Mm. Or. 
 have merely οὗτος ἦγ. So Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. [recent editors, 
 R..V.] (Lachm. has bracketed ἐστ. αὐτ.). Certainly the Recepta might have 
 arisen out of Matt. xiv. 2. But, if merely οὗτος ἦγ. were original, it would not 
 
CHAP. VI. ras 
 
 be at all easy to see why it should have been altered and added to. On the 
 other hand, the transcribers might easily pass over from οὐΤῸΣ at once to 
 avTOZ. Therefore the Recepta is to be maintained, and to be regarded as made 
 use of by Matthew. — ἐκ νεκρῶν] is, in accordance with Tisch., to be deleted as 
 an addition, since in BLA 8, vss. it is altogether wanting ; in D it stands 
 before 7y.; and in C, Or. it is exchanged for ἀπὸ τ. vexp. — Ver. 17. The article 
 before φυλακῇ is deleted, in accordance with decisive evidence.—Ver. 19. ἤθελεν] 
 Lachm. has ἐζήτει, although only following Οὗ Cant. Ver. Vere. Vind. Colb. An 
 interpretation, — [Ver. 20. AC Ὁ Δ, and most read ἐποίει ; but δὲ BI, Copt. 
 have ἠπόρει, accepted by recent editors, R. V. text. The critical note in the 
 original confuses this variation with a similar one in ver. 21.]—Ver. 21. ἐποίει] 
 BCDLA 8, min. have ἐποίησεν. So Lachm. [Tisch, and recent editors].—Ver. 
 22. αὐτῆς] BD LA 8, min. [W. and Hort, R. V. marg.] have αὐτοῦ. A wrong 
 emendation. [See Note XXXVIIL., p. 83.] — καὶ ἀρεσάσ.) Β C* LA δὲ have ἤρεσεν. 
 So Lachm. and Tisch., the latter then, upon like attestation, having ὁ dé Bac. 
 élmev (Lachm., following A, has εἶπε dé 6 Bac.). Rightly ; the Recepta is a me- 
 chanical continuation of the participles, which was then followed by the 
 omission of δέ (Elz. has : εἶπεν ὁ Bac.). — Ver. 24. αἰτήσομαι] αἰτήσωμαι is deci- 
 sively attested ; commended by Griesb., and adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm, and 
 Tisch. — Ver. 30. πώντα καί] This καί 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 ὑπάγοντας Elz. 
 has οἱ ὄχλοι, in opposition to decisive evidence ; taken from Matt. and Luke. 
 —After ἐπέγνωσαν (for which Lachm., following B* D, reads ἔγνωσαν) Elz. 
 Scholz have αὐτόν, which is not found in B D, min. Arm. Perss. Vulg. It., while 
 AKLMU AB, min., vss. have αὐτούς. So Tisch. But αὐτόν and αὐτούς are ad- 
 ditions by way of gloss. [Recent editors, R. V., agree with Lachmann, 7 — ἐκεῖ] 
 Elz. Scholz have : ἐκεῖ, καὶ προῆλθον αὐτοὺς καὶ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν. Griesb, : 
 καὶ ἦλθον ἐκεῖ. Fritzsche: ἐκεῖ καὶ ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτόν. Lachm. Tisch.: ἐκεῖ καὶ 
 προῆλθον αὐτούς. So, too, Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 298. The latter reading (Β L 
 &) is to be regarded as the original one, and the variations are to be derived 
 from the fact that προσῆλθον was written instead of προῆλθον. Thus arose the 
 corruption καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτούς (so still L, min.). This corruption was then 
 subiected to very various glosses, namely, καὶ προσῆλθον πρὸς αὐτούς (220, 225, 
 Arr.), καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτοῖς (A), καὶ συνῆλθον αὐτοῦ (Ὁ, Ver.), καὶ συνέδραμον πρὸς 
 αὐτόν (A), καὶ συνῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν (Elz.), al.; which glosses partly supplanted the 
 original καὶ προῆλθον αὐτούς (D, min. vss.), partly appeared by its side with or 
 without restoration of the genuine προῆλθον. 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 εἶδεν Elz. and Scholz have ὁ Ἰησοῦς, which in 
 witnesses deserving of consideration is either wanting or differently placed. 
 An addition. — ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, following impor- 
 tant witnesses ; the Recepta is from Matt. xiv. 14 (where it is the original read- 
 ing). — Ver. 36. ἄρτους" τί yap φάγωσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν] BL A, min. Copt. Cant. Vere. 
 Corb. Vind. have merely τί φάγωσιν, which Griesb. approves and Tisch. reads. 
 D has merely τί φαγεῖν, which Fritzsche reads, adding, however, without any 
 evidence : οὐ γὰρ ἔχουσιν. Lachm. has [ἄρτους"] τί [yap] φάγωσιν [οὐκ ἔχουσιν]. 
 
%2 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 The reading of Griesb. is to be preferred ; ἄρτους was written in the margin as 
 a gloss, and adopted into the text. Thus arose ἄρτους, τι φάγωσιν (comp. &: 
 βρώματα τι φάγωσιν, Vulg.: ‘‘ cibos, quos manducent’’). This was then filled up 
 from viii. 2, Matt. xv. 32, in the way in which the Recepta has it. The reading 
 of D (merely τι φαγεῖν) would be preferable, if it were better attested. — Ver. 37. 
 δῶμεν] Lachm. has δώσομεν, following A B [marked doubtful by Meyer, but it has 
 the future] L A 65, It. Vulg. [so recent editors]. Comp. D &, min., which have 
 δώσωμεν. The future is original ; not being understood, it was changed into 
 δῶμεν, and mechanically into δώσωμεν (Tisch.). — Ver. 38. καί before ἴδετε is 
 wanting in Β D L 8, min. vss., and is an addition which Griesb. has con- 
 demned, Lachm. has bracketed, and Tisch. has deleted. — Ver. 39. dvaxAivar] 
 Lachm. has ἀνακλιθῆναι [so W. and Hort, R. V.], not sufficiently attested ; from 
 Matt. xiv. 19. — Ver. 40. Instead of avd, Lachm. and Tisch. have κατά both 
 times, in accordance with B D δὲ, Copt. Rightly ; ἀνά is from Luke ix. 14, — 
 Ver. 44. Elz. has after ἄρτους : ὡσεί, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 
 45. ἀπολύσῃ] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀπολύει, following BD 1, Δ δ 1. The 
 Recepta is from Matt. xiv. 22. — Ver. 48. cidev] BD 1, Δ δὲ, min. Vulg. It. Copt. 
 have ἰδών. So Lachm. and Tisch., omitting the subsequent καί before περί. 
 Rightly ; the participle was changed into εἶδεν, because the parenthetic nature 
 of the following ἦν γὰρ... αὐτοῖς was not observed. — Ver. 51. καὶ ἐθαύμαζον] is 
 wanting, it is true, in Β L A δὲ, min. Copt. Vulg. Vind. Colb. Rd., and is con- 
 demned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm.,, cancelled by Tisch.; but after ἐξίσ- 
 tavto it was, as the weaker expression, more easily passed over than added. 
 [Rejected by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 52. The order αὐτῶν ἡ καρὸ. is, with 
 Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be preferred on far preponderating evidence. [Ver. 
 53. See Note XLI., p. 84.]—Ver. 54. After αὐτόν Lachm. has bracketed oi ἄνδρες 
 τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου, Which A-G A, min. vss. read ; from Matt. xiv. 35. — Ver. 55. 
 [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8B LA, 33, Copt. read repiédpayov . .. χώραν 
 and καὶ 7p§.] — ἐκεῖ] is not found in B L A 8, 102, Copt. Vulg. Vind. Brix. Colb. 
 Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. Passed over as super- 
 fluous. — Ver. 56. ἥπτοντο] Lachm. reads ἥψαντο, following BD LA 8, 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. — ἐξήλϑεν ἐκεῖϑεν] 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 τάξις. --- ἤρξατο] 
 for the jirst emergence and its result are meant to be narrated. — After elim- 
 ination of ὅτι, the words from πόϑεν to αὐτῷ are to be taken together as an 
 interrogative sentence, and καὶ δυνάμεις on to γίνονται forms again a separate 
 question of astonishment. [See Note XXXIII., p. 82.] -- δυνάμεις τοιαῦται] 
 presupposes that they have heard of the miracles that Jesus had done (in 
 Capernaum and elsewhere); these they now bring into association with His 
 teaching. — διὰ τῶν yep. αὐτοῦ] that is, by laying on of His hands, by taking 
 
CHAP. VI., 1=6. 73 
 
 hold of, touching, and the like ; ver. 5. Comp. Acts v. 12, xix. 11. — Ver. 
 3. ὁ τέκτων] According to the custom of the nation and of the Rabbins,' 
 Jesus Himself had learned a handicraft. Comp. Justin. 6. Tryph. 88, 
 p. 316, where it is related that He made? ploughs and yokes ; Origen, 6. 
 Celsum, vi. 4. 8, where Celsus ridicules the custom ; Theodoret, H. £. 
 lil. 23; Hvang. infant. 38; and see generally, Thilo, ad Cod. Apoer, 
 I. p. 368 f. The circumstance that Mark has not written ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος 
 υἱός, aS in Matt. xiii. 55, is alleged by Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 185 (‘‘ 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 τέκτων (Holtzmann, Weizsiicker), 
 but simply bears the character of the reflection, that along with the mother 
 the father also would have been mentioned. And certainly 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: ὁ τέκτων, ὁ υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσὴφ (Holtzmann). —’Iwo7] Matthew, by 
 way of correction, has ᾿Ιωσήφ. See on Matt. xiii. 55. [On the form, see 
 critical note.] The brother of James of Alphaeus was called Joses. See on 
 Matt. xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40. — Ver. 4. The generic προφήτης is not to be 
 misapplied (so Schenkel) to make good the opinion that Jesus had not yet 
 regarded Himself as the Messiah. —— καὶ ἐν τοῖς ovyy. x.t.4.3] 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. οὐκ 
 ἠδύνατο] neither means noluit, ‘‘ would not” (Vere. Vind. Brix. Germ. 2), 
 nor is ἡδύν superfluous ; but see on Matt. xiii. 58. Theophylact says well : οὐχ 
 ὅτι αὐτὸς ἀσϑενὴς ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἐκεῖνοι ἄπιστοι ἧσαν, ‘‘not because he was weak, 
 
 1 Lightfoot, p. 616; Schoettgen, II. 
 p. 898; Gfr6rer in the 7 δ. Zeitschr. 1838, 
 
 21; John vii. 5. —Wemay add that, accord- 
 ing to the opinion of Baur, Mark here, 
 
 p. 166 ff. 
 
 2 Whether exactly ‘‘ with an ideal mean- 
 ing,” so that they became symbols under 
 His hand, as Lange, Z. «7. 11. p. 154, thinks, 
 may be fitly left to the fancy which is 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 the other hand, iii. 
 
 with his ὁ τέκτων, ‘‘stands quite on the 
 youndary line between the canonical and 
 the apocryphal ” (Markusevang. p. 47). 
 
 3The form ovyyevedor, which, though er- 
 roneous, had been in use, is here recom- 
 mended by Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 22 [E. T. 
 25]; and itis so adequately attested by B 
 D** EF 6, al. (in &* the words x. ἐ. τ. ovyy. 
 are wanting) that it is, with Tischendorf 
 {[Treg., W. and Hort], to be adopted. In 
 Luke ii. 44 the attestation is much weaker. 
 Mark has not further used the word. 
 
V4 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 but because they were unbelieving.” — Ver. 6. διὰ τὴν ἀπιστ. αὐτῶν] on account 
 of their unbelief. Διά is never thus used with ϑαυμάζειν 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 περιῆγε x.t.A.] seeking in the country a better field for His 
 ministry. — κύκλῳ] as iii. 34, belonging to περιῆγε. 
 
 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. — ἤρξατο] 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 
 ἤρξατο. --- δύο δύο] binos, in pairs. Ecclus. xxxvi. 25. A Hebraism ; Winer, 
 p. 223 [E. T. 312]. The Greek says κατά, avd, εἰς dbo, or even συνδύο. 
 Wherefore in pairs? ‘‘ Ad plenam testimonii fidem,” ‘‘for full trustwor- 
 thiness of testimony,” Grotius. Comp. Luke vii. 19, ix. 1. — Ver. 8. αἱρωσιν] 
 should take up, in order to carry it with them, 1 Macc. iv. 30. — εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον 
 μόνον] The variation in Matthew and Luke betokens the introduction of ex- 
 aggeration,*® but not a misunderstanding of the clear words (Weiss). [See 
 Note XXXIYV., p. 82seq.] There isan attempt at a mingling of interpretations 
 at variance with the words in Ebrard, p. 382 ; Lange, L. J. 11. 2, p. 712. 
 It ultimately comes to this, that εἰ μὴ ῥ. μ. 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 as a weapon of defence. — Ver. 9. ἀλλ᾽ 
 ὑποδεδεμ. σανδάλ.} There is no difference from μηδὲ ὑποδήματα, Matt. x. 10, 
 not even a correction of this expression (Bleek, comp. Holtzmann). See on 
 Matt. J.c. The meaning is, that they should be satisfied with the simple 
 light foot-covering of sandals, in contrast with the proper calceus (ὑπόδημα 
 κοῖλον), Which had upper leather, and the use of which was derived from the 
 Phoenicians and Babylonians (Leyrer in Herzog’s Hneykl. VII. p. 729). 
 Comp. Acts xii. 8. The construction is anacoluthic, as though παρήγγειλεν 
 αὐτοῖς πορεύεσϑαι had been previously said. Then the discourse changes 
 again, going over from the obliqua into the directa (ἐνδύσησϑε). A lively 
 non-periodic mode of representing the matter ; comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. 
 Ῥ. 330 [E. T. 384 f.] — Ver. 10. καὶ ἔλεγ. αὐτ.1 a new portion of the direc- 
 tions given on that occasion. Comp. on iy. 13. — ἐκεῖ] in this house: but 
 ἐκεῖϑεν : from this τόπος (see the critical remarks). — Ver. 11. εἰς παρτύριον 
 αὐτοῖς] 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. iva] the aim of the ἐκήρυξαν, 
 
 1Comp. Ael. V. H. xii. 6, xiv. 36: αὐτὸν the “veasoning’ Mark had modified the 
 
 ϑαυμάζομεν διὰ τὰ ἔργα. expression. Comp. Holtzmann and Hil- 
 2 See Valckenaer, ad Herod. Ὁ. 311; Hein- _genfeld. 
 dorf, ad Plat. Parm, Ὁ. 289. 4See Kiihner, IJ. p.598 f., and ad Xen, 
 
 3Inverting the matter, Baur holds that Mem. i. 4. 15, iii. δ, 14, iv. 4. 5. 
 
CHAP. VI., 14-16. "5 
 
 — ἤλειφον ἐλαίῳ] 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. 
 Weizsiicker), 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: εἰκὸς dé, καὶ τοῦτο παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου dida- 
 χϑῆναι τοὺς ἀποστόλους, ‘‘ 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 wnctio 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. 
 — ὁ βασιλεύς] in the wider sense ἀδιαφόρως χρώμενος τῷ ὀνόματι, ““ using the 
 name indifferently ” (Theophylact) : the prince (comp. the ἄρχων βασιλεύς of 
 the Athenians, and the like), a more popular but less accurate term than in 
 Matthew and Luke : ὁ τετράρχης. Comp. Matt. ii. 22.— φανερὸν γὰρ éyév. τ. 
 ὄν. αὐτοῦ] is not to be put in a parenthesis, since it does not interrupt the 
 construction, but assigns the reason for the ἤκουσεν, after which the narrative 
 proceeds with καὶ ἔλεγεν. --- As object to ἤκουσεν (generalized in Matthew and 
 Luke) we cannot, without arbitrariness, think of aught but the contents of 
 vv. 12, 18. Comp. ἀκούσας, 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, 7.e., for it did not 
 remain asecret, that these itinerant teachers and miracle-workers 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 ἤκουσεν is : τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, so that gav. y. éyév. would be 
 parenthetic. This is at variance with the simple style of the evangelist. 
 
 1 See Lightfoot, p. 304, 617; Schoettgen, I. p. 1033; Wetstein in loc, 
 
"6 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 According to de Wette, Mark has been led by the alleged parenthesis φανερὸν 
 . . . αὐτοῦ to forget the object, so that merely something indefinite, perhaps 
 ταῦτα, would have to be supplied. But what carelessness! and still the 
 question remains, to what the ταῦτα applies. Ewald (comp. Bengel) takes 
 . προφητῶν as a parenthesis, which was intended to explain what 
 Herod heard, and holds that in ver. 16 the ἤκουσεν of ver. 14 is again taken 
 up (that instead of ἔλεγεν in ver. 14 ἔλεγον 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). — ὁ βαπτίζων] substantival 
 (see on Matt. ii. 20). Observe with what delicacy the set evangelic expres- 
 sion ὁ βαπτιστής 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. — διὰ τοῦτο] πρότερον yap ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης 
 
 φανερὸν... 
 
 οὐδὲν σημεῖον ἐποίησεν" ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐνόμισεν ὁ Ἡρώδης προσλαβεῖν αὐτὸν 
 τῶν σημείων τὴν ἐργασίαν, ““ For John had previously wrought no miracle ; but 
 from his resurrection Herod supposed he had obtained the working of mira- 
 cles,” Theophylact. — ai δυνάμεις) the powers κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, .6., the miraculous 
 powers, the effluence ef 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 one 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 ὡς could only be occasioned by the expression not being 
 understood.’— Ver. 16. ἀκούσας} namely, these different judgments. Mark 
 now relates the more special occasion of the utterance of Herod. —év... 
 ᾿Ιωάννην] a familiar form of attraction. See Winer, p. 148 [E. T. 164]. — 
 ἐγώ] has the stress of an evil conscience. Mockery (Weizsiicker) is, in 
 accordance with ver. 14 f., not to be thought of. —oiroc] anaphorically 
 with emphasis (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 19) : this is he. —airéc] 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 : This oneit is: He is risen! [See Note XXXVL., p. 83.] 
 
 Vv. 17-29. See on Matt. xiv. 3-12. Mark narrates more circumstan- 
 tially? 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. --- αὐτός] is a commentary upon the ἐγώ of ver. 
 
 1The Recepta ὅτι προφ. ἐστίν, ἣ ws els τῶν 
 προφ. would have to be explained: δὲ ἐδ a 
 prophet, or (at least) like to one of the 
 prophets. 
 
 2 Mentioning even the name of Philip. 
 Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5.4, names him by 
 the family name Jlerodes, which does not 
 
 necessitate the supposition of a confusion 
 as to the name on the part of Mark (Ewald, 
 Gesch. Chr.p. 51). Only we may not under- 
 stand Philip the fetrarch, but a half-brother 
 of his, bearing a similar name. See on 
 Matt. xiv. 3. 
 
CHAP. VI., 17-29. 7? 
 
 16. Herod himself, namely, etc. —év φυλακῇ] in a prison, without the 
 article. At ver. 28, on the other hand, with the article..— Vv. 19, 
 20. The ϑέλειν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι is here, in variation from Matthew, 
 denied in the case of Herod. It is not merely an apparent variation 
 (Ebrard, p. 384; Lange), but a real one, wherein Mark’s narrative 
 betrays a later shape of the tradition (in opposition to Schneckenburger, 
 erst. kan. Ho. p. 86 1.) ; while with Matthew Josephus also, Antt. 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 ἐνεῖχεν (she gave close heed to him), 
 see on Luke xi. 53. — ἐφοβεῖτο] 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. — 
 συνετήρει] 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 : 
 ‘‘eustodiebat 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. — ἀκού- 
 σας] when he had heard him. Observe afterwards the emphasis of ἡδέως 
 (and gladly he heard him).— πολλὰ ἐποίει) namely, which he had heard from 
 John. Very characteristic is the reading : π. ἠπόρει, which has the strong- 
 est internal probability of being genuine, although only attested by Β 1, δὲ, 
 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 
 ἤκουε 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 Wieseler, 
 p. 297, assumes.—Ver. 21. ἡμέρας εὔκαιρου] eixaipoc, inreference to time, means 
 nothing else than at the right time, hence : a rightly-timed, fitting, appropri- 
 ate day. 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 Mace. ix. 53; Thue. iii. 34; Plut. 
 Mor. Ὁ. 162 B; Plat. Zeg. ix. 864 E: ἐν 
 δημοσίῳ δεσμῷ δεϑείς. 
 
 2 Matt. ix. 17; Luke v. 38; Tob. iii. 15; 2 
 Mace. xii. 42; Polyb. iv. 60. 10; Herodian, 
 Ἅ11: Ὁ}: 
 
 3 Comp. Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1860, p. 349. Itis to be explained: he was 
 perplexed about many things; what he 
 heard from John was so heart-searching 
 
 and so closely touched him. On ἀπορεῖν τι 
 as equivalent to περί τινος, see Kriiger on 
 Thuc. v. 40. 3; Heindorf, ad Plat. Crat. 
 p. 409 D. 
 
 4Beza, Grotius, Jansen, Fritzsche, de 
 Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and many others. 
 Comp. Heb. iv. 16; Ps. civ. 27 ; 2 Mace. xiv. 
 29: Soph. Ὁ. C. 82; Herodian, i. 4. 7, i. 9. 
 $5, v. 8. 16; and see Plat. Def. p. 413 C. 
 
 5 The appropriateness of the day is then 
 
48 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 festivus (210 DY), At the most, according 
 to a later use of εὐκαιρεῖν (Phrynich. p. 125 ; comp. below, ver. 31), ἡμέρα 
 εὔκαιρος might mean : a day, on which one has convenient time, 1.€., a leisure 
 day,’ which, however, in the connection would be inappropriate, and very 
 different from the idea of a dies festivus. —On μεγιστᾶνες, magnates, a word 
 in current use from the Macedonian period.? — καὶ τοῖς πρώτοις τῆς Ταλ.} The 
 first two were the chief men of the civil and military service of the tetrarch. 
 Moreover, the principal men of Galilee, people who were not in his service 
 (‘‘status provinciales,” ‘‘ provincial estates,” Bengel), were called in. — 
 Ver. 22. αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρωδ. of Herodias herself. The king was to be capti- 
 vated with all the greater certainty by Herodias’ own daughter ; another 
 dancer would not have made the same impression upon him. [See Note 
 XXXVIIL., p. 83.] — Ver. 28. ἕως ἡμίσους x.7.2.] in accordance with Esth. 
 v. 3. See in general, Koster, Hrléut. p. 194. It is thus that the unprinci- 
 pled man, carried away by feeling, 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 ϑέλω iva (x. 85: 7 
 will that thou shouldst, etc.), see on Luke vi. 31. — Ver. 26. περίλυπος] on 
 account of what was observed at ver. 90. -- διὰ τοὺς ὅρκους κ. τ. ovvavak. | 
 emphatically put first, as the determining motive. — αὐτὴν ἀϑετῆσαι) eam 
 repudiare. Examples of ἀϑετεῖν, referred to persons (comp. Heliod. vii. 26: 
 εἰς ὅρκους ἀϑετοῦμαι), 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. σπεκουλάτωρα)] 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 spiewlwm, as Beza and many 
 others hold) is also adopted into the Hebrew mw 7pa0.4 The spelling σπεκου- 
 λάτορα (Lachm. Tisch.) has decisive attestation. 
 
 Vv. 30-44. See on Matt. xiv. 13-21. 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. 13. 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 detail by ote Ἡρώδης κιτιλ. Hence p. 182; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 197. 
 
 T do not deem it fitting to write, with Lach- 3 Seneca, de ira, i. 16, benef. iii. 25, al.; 
 mann (comp. his Prolegom. p. xliii.), 0, τε. Wetstein in loc. 
 
 1 Comp. εὐκαίρως ἔχειν, to be at leisure, 4 See Lightfoot and Schoettgen, also Bux- 
 Polyb. v. 26. 10, al., εὐκαιρία, leisure. * torf, Lex. Talm. Ὁ. 1538. 
 
 2 See Kypke, I. p. 167; Sturz, Dial. Mac. 
 
CHAP. VI., 30-44. 9 
 
 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. — ἀπόστολοι] only used here in Mark, but ‘‘apta huic 
 loco appellatio,” ‘‘an apt appellation for this passage,” Bengel. — συνάγονται] 
 returning from their mission, ver. 7. — πάντα] What? is told by the follow- 
 ing καί. . . καί : aswell. . . as also, — Ver. 31. ὑμεῖς αὐτοί] vos ipsi,’ ye for 
 yourselves, ye for your own persons, without the attendance of the people. 
 Comp. on Rom. vii. 25. See the following ἦσαν yap k.t.A. — καὶ οὐδὲ φαγεῖν] 
 Comp. ii. 2, iii. 20. — Ver. 33. And many saw them depart and perceived it, 
 namely, what was the object in this ὑπάγειν, whither the ὑπάγοντες wished 
 to go (vv. 31, 32), so that thereby the intention of remaining alone was 
 thwarted. πολλοί is the subject of both verbs. — πεζῇ] emphatically prefixed. 
 They came partly round the lake, partly from its sides, by land. — éxei] 
 namely, to the ἔρημος τόπος, whither Jesus with the disciples directed His 
 course. — προῆλϑον αὐτούς] they anticipated them. Comp. Luke xxii. 47. 
 Not so used among the Greeks, with whom, nevertheless, φϑάνειν τινά 
 (Valck. ad Hur. Phoen. 982), and even προϑεῖν τινά (Ael. N. A. vii. 26 ; 
 Oppian. Hal. iv. 431) is analogously used. — Ver. 34. ἐξελϑών] not as in 
 Matt. xiv. 14, but from the ship, as is required by the previous προῆλϑον αὐτούς. 
 In ver. 32 there was not as yet reported the arrival at the retired place, but 
 the direction of the course thither. — ἤρξατο] His sympathy outweighed the 
 intention, under which He had repaired with the disciples to this place, 
 and He began to teach. — Ver. 35 ff. καὶ ἤδη ὥρας πολλ. yevou.] and when much 
 of the day-time had already passed (comp. subsequently : καὶ ἤδη ὥρα πολλή), 
 that is, when the day-time was already far advanced, τῆς ὥρας ἐγένετο ὀψέ, 
 Dem. 541 pen. Πολίύς, according to very frequent usage, applied to time.? — 
 λέγουσιν] more exactly in John vi. 7. — dyvap. διακος. Comp. John vi. 7, by 
 whom this trait of the history, passed over by Matthew and Luke, nota 
 mere addition of Mark (Bleek, 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, 13s., and con- 
 sequently not quite one-third of a penny per man) specify a sum as that 
 which would be required. It is otherwise at John vi. 7. Moreover, the an- 
 swer of the disciples bears the stamp of a certain irritated surprise at the 
 suggestion δότε αὐτοῖς x.t.2.,—a giving, however, which was afterwards to 
 be realized, ver. 41.—With the reading δώσομεν, ver. 37 (see the critical re- 
 marks), the note of interrogation is to be placed, with Lachmann, after 
 ἄρτους, so that καί is then the consecutive ; and so shall we, etc. The reading 
 ἀπελϑόντες On to φαγεῖν together without interrogation (Ewald, Tischendorf), 
 is less in keeping with the whole very vivid coloring, which in vv. 37-40 
 exhibits a very circumstantial graphic representation, but not a paraphrase 
 (Weiss).—Ver, 39 f, συμπόσια συμπόσια] Accusatives: after the fashion of a meal, 
 
 1 Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 63 C ; Κα που, ἄχρι πολλῆς ὥρας ; Polyb. y. 8. 8; Joseph. 
 § 630, A 3. Antt. viii. 4. 3. 
 2Comp. Dion, Hal. ii, 54: ἐμάχοντο... 
 
80 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 so that the whole were distributed into companies for the meal. The distribu- 
 tive designation, as also πρασιαὶ πρασιαί (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). — χλωρῷ] Mark depicts ; it was spring (John vi. 4). — εὐλόγησε] refers 
 to the prayer at a meal. It is otherwise in Luke. See on Matt. xiv. 19. — 
 Ver. 41. καὶ τ. δύο ἰχϑ.] also the two fishes. — ἐμέρισε πᾶσι] 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, κλασμάτων is emphatically pre- 
 Jjixed. Yet probably Mark wrote κλάσματα δώδεκα κοφίνων πληρώματα (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 
 κοφίνους), aS well as by δὲ, which has κλασμάτων δώδ. κοφίνων πληρώματα ['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 up in fragments twelve baskets 
 full. — καὶ ἀπὸ τ. ἰχθ.} also of the fishes, that it might not be thought that the 
 κλάσματα 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 τί is supplied (so also Grotius 
 and Bleek).—Why ver. 44 should have been copied, not from Mark, but 
 from Matt. xiv. 21 (Holtzmann), it is not easy to 866. --- τοὺς ἄρτους] 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. — ἠνάγκασε 
 k.t.A] remaining behind alone, He could the more easily withdraw Himself 
 unobserved from the people. — τὸ πλοῖον] the ship, in which they had come. 
 Βηθσαϊδάν] 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, see on Matt. xiv. 22, 
 Remark. [See Note XL., p. 83.] As to the relation of this statement to 
 Luke ix. 10, see in loc. — ἀπολύει (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.? — ἀποταξάμ. αὐτοῖς) after He had taken leave of them (of the people), 
 an expression of later Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 24 ; Wetstein in 
 loc. — Ver. 48. A point is to be placed, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, 
 after θαλάσσης, and then a colon after αὐτούς ; but ἣν γὰρ ὁ ἄνεμ. évavt. air. 18 
 
 
 
 1 According to Hilgenfeld, Mark pur- the later representation, which, however, 
 posely suppressed the incident under the is merely a further embellishment not be- 
 influence of a Petrine tendency, because longing to history. [See Note XXXIX., 
 Peter had shown weakness of faith. In p. 83.] 
 this case he would have been inconsistent 2See Kiihner, II. p. 594 f., and ad Xen- 
 enough in narratives such as at viii. 33. Anad. i. 3. 14; Bernhardy, p. 389, 
 Weizsicker rightly recognizes in Matt, /.c, 
 
CHAP. VI., 45-56. 81 
 
 a parenthesis. When He had seen them in distress (ἰδών, 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). — περὶ τετάρτ. φυλακ.] The diffi- 
 culties suggested by the lateness of the time at which they were still sail- 
 ing, after having already ὀψίας γενομένης reached the middle of the lake 
 (Strauss, B. Bauer), are quite explained by the violence of the contrary 
 wind.! — παρελϑεῖν αὐτούς] The Vulgate rightly has : praeterire eos (Hom. 17. 
 viii. 239 ; Plat. Alc. i. 123 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 rapép- 
 χεσϑαι, to come to any one, with the accusative ; moreover, after ἔρχεται 
 πρὸς αὐτούς 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. ἐκ περισσοῦ] is further strengthened by λίαν : very much above 
 all measure.* — év ἑαυτοῖς] in their own hearts, without giving vent to their 
 feelings in utterances, as at iv. 14.— évatuafov] The imperfect denotes 
 (comp. Acts ii. 7) the continuance of the feeling after the first amazement. 
 —Ver. 52. yap] 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 sea.” 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 γὰρ κ.τ.1.] 
 informs us of the internal reason of their not attaining insight in the matter 
 of the loaves ; their heart, 7.e., 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. vili 7. — Ver. 53. dvatepdc.] points back to ver. 45. — ἐπὶ τ. 
 γῆν Τεννησ,} not : into the country, but wnto the country of Gennesareth ; 
 
 1Comp. Ebrard, p. 392; Robinson, Pal. 
 ΤΙ. p. 527, 572. 
 
 2 Antevertere, see Hom. Qd. viii. 230; 
 Sturz, Lex. Xen. 111. p. 453; Ameis and 
 Nagelsbach on Hom. J/. i. 132. 
 
 3Comp. λίαν ἄγαν (Meineke, Menand. 
 p. 152), and similar expressions (Lobeck, Pa- 
 ralip. Ὁ. 62), also λίαν βέλτιστα, Plat. Eryx. 
 p. 393 E. 
 
 4 Mark therefore regarded the walking 
 on the sea quite differently from Lange, 
 
 6 
 
 L. J. ΤΙ. 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, Ὶ 
 
82 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 for the landing (rpoowpyiod.) and disembarking does not follow till afterwards 
 [See Note XLI., p. 84.] —Ver. 55. repidpaydvrec] in order to fetch the sick, 
 -- ἤρξατο] belongs to the description of the quick result. Immediately they 
 knew Him, they ran round about and began, etc. — περιφέρειν] 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 swmmarily of the sick ; these were carried about—one hither, 
 another thither, wherever Jesus was at the time (comp. ver. 56).—Hence 
 ὅπου ἤκουον, ὅτι ἐκεῖ ἐστι Cannot mean : from all the places, at which (ὅπου) they 
 heard that He was there (in the region of Gennesareth), but both ὅπου and 
 éxei, although we may not blend them after the analogy of the Hebrew 
 DW-IWS into the simple whi (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 conceive 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. εἰς κώμ. ἢ πόλεις] therefore not merely limiting Himself 
 to the small district of Gennesareth, where He had landed. The following 
 ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς, however, is not in keeping with ἀγρός (country-places). A 
 want of precision, which has suggested the reading ἐν ταῖς πλατειαῖς in D, 
 Vulg. It. The expression is zeugmatic. — κἂν τοῦ κρασπ. x.t.A.] Comp. V. 
 28. As to the mode of expression, see Acts v. 15 ; 2 Cor. xi. 10. -- ὅσοι ἂν 
 ἥπτοντο] all whosoever, in the several cases. Comp. above : ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπο- 
 pevero.! [See Note XLII., p. 84.]— ἐσώζοντο] analogously to the case of the 
 woman with an issue of blood, vv. 29, 30, yet not independent of the knowl- 
 edge and will of Jesus. And αὐτοῦ refers to Jesus, no matter where they 
 touched Him. 
 
 Notts py AMERICAN EDrrTor. 
 
 XXXII. Ver. 2. ai δυνάμεις τοιαῦται . . . γινόμεναι ; 
 
 The variations are very numerous. Meyer seems to retain aitw against the 
 strangely attested τούτῳ. The above reading is sustained by 8* 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). The R. 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. εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον. 
 
 These words intimate the permission to take the staff usual in walking ἃ long 
 distance. That the prohibition 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. av, p. 26 ff. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 145; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 186 ὦ 
 [E. T. 216], 
 
NOTES. 83 
 
 of εἰ μὴ in the N. T. is elliptical, and not strictly exceptive. The same 
 elliptical form occurs in Aramean. ‘‘ 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.). 
 
 ΧΧΧΥ. Ver. 14. ὁ βαπτίζων. 
 
 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 after the 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. οὐτὸς ἠγέρθη. 
 
 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. 
 
 XXXVII. Ver. 19. ἤθελεν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι. 
 
 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. αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρωδιάδως. 
 
 The reading αὐτοῦ, which would give the sense: ‘his daughter Herodias ” 
 (R. 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. ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἦλθον εἰς Γεννησαρέτ. 
 
 Meyer takes no notice of this reading, which is attested by δὲ 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 Gennesaret.” So Weiss ed. Mey. 
 
 XLII. Ver. 56. ὅσοι ὧν ἥψαντο. 
 
 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 VIL. 
 
 Ver. 2. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BL A, 33, read ὅτε... ἐσθί- 
 συσιν, instead of ἐσθίοντας. --- ἄρτους] Lachm. and Tisch. read τοὺς ἄρτους, fol- 
 lowing B DL A, min. Rightly ; the article was passed over, because it was 
 regarded as superfluous. The reading ἄρτον (Fritzsche) has in its favor only &, 
 min, and vss., and is from Matt. xv. 2. — After ἄρτους Elz. and Fritzsche have 
 ἐμέμψαντο, which, however, is absent from witnesses so important, that it must 
 be regarded as an addition ; instead of it D has katéyvwoav. —[Ver. 4. See Note 
 XLV., p. 941 Treg., Weiss, R. V. marg., retain καὶ κλινῶν, omitted by Tisch., 
 W. and Hort, R. V. text, with 8 BL A, Copt.]— Ver. 5. ἔπειτα] BDL δὲ, min. 
 Syr. Copt. Vulg. It. have καί (A has ἔπειτα καί). Recommended by Griesb., and 
 adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; ἔπειτα was written on the 
 margin on account of the construction, and then displaced the καί. --- κοιναῖς] 
 Elz. Scholz have ἀνίπτοις, in opposition to BD &, min. vss. An interpretation. 
 — Ver. 8. γάρ] is wanting in Β Ὁ L A δὲ, min, Copt. Arm. It. Goth. Lachm. 
 Tisch. A connecting addition. — βαπτισμοὺς. . . ποιεῖτε is wanting in BLA 
 δὲ, 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, ποτη- 
 ρίων καὶ ξεστῶν, and, as in ver. 13, not ἄλλα ; 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 ποτηρίων x. ξεστῶν 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 ἀνθρώπων. --- 
 Ver. 12. καί] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.], following 
 BD 8, min. Copt. Cant. Ver. Vere. Corb. Vind. Colb. Omitted as confusing, 
 because the apodosis was found here, — Ver. 14. πάντα] Β Ὁ LA 8s, Syr. p. (in 
 the margin) Copt. Aeth. Sax. Vulg. It. have πάλιν. Recommended by Griesb., 
 adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Rightly ; πάντα was written in the mar- 
 gin on account of the following πάντες, and the more easily supplanted the 
 πάλιν, because the latter finds no definite reference in what has preceded. — 
 Instead of ἀκούετε and συνίετε, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀκούσατε and σύνετε, fol- 
 lowing BDHLA. The Recepta is from Matt. xv. 10.— Ver. 15, The reading 
 τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενα (Lachm. Tisch.) has in its favor B DL Δ δὲ, 33, 
 Copt. Goth. Aeth. Pers. p. Vulg. It. The Recepta τὰ ἐκπορ. ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ appears to 
 have originated from the copyist, in the case of the above reading, passing over 
 from the first ἐκ to the second (éxrop.). Thus came the reading τὰ ἐκπορευόμενα, 
 
86 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 which is still found in min. Then, after the analogy of the preceding εἰς αὐτόν, 
 in some cases ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, in others ἐξ αὐτοῦ (min. Fritzsche) was supplied. — Ver. 
 16 is wanting in BL δὲ, 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. περὶ τῆς rapaB.] BD LA 8, 
 min. It, Vulg. have τὴν παραβολήν. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche 
 Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta is a gloss. — Ver. 19. καθαρίζον] ABEFGHLS 
 Χ A 8, min. Or. Chrys. have καθαρίζων (Ὁ : καταρίζει). So Lachm. and Tisch. 
 Not a transcriber’s error, but correct (see the exegetical remarks), and needlessly 
 emended by the neuter. —[Ver. 21, 22. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B 
 L A, Copt., have the order : πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι. --- Ver. 24. μεθόρια] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors] have ὅρια, following B Ὁ L A δὲ, min. Or. 
 But μεθόρια does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and was supplanted by the 
 current ὅρια (comp. Matt. xv. 22), — καὶ Σιδῶνος] is wanting in Ὁ 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 καὶ Σιδῶνος, which also came in at 
 ver. 31, and there supplanted the original reading ἦλθε διὰ Σιδῶνος (approved by 
 Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in conformity with B DLA 8, 
 33, Arr. Copt. Aeth. Syr. hier. Vulg. Sax. It.), and changed it into the Recepta 
 καὶ Σιδῶνος nAGev. [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. ἀκούσασα yap γυνή] Tisch. has ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνῆ, following 
 BLA 8, 33, vss. The witnesses are very much divided (D: γυνὴ dé εὐθέως ὡς 
 ἀκούσασα) ; 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 é«42n*(Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) Elz. has 
 ἐκβάλλῃ. The evidence for the aorist is not decisive, and the present is in 
 keeping with Mark’s manner. [A B D δὲ and many others read the aorist, ac- 
 cepted by recent editors, R. V.]— Ver. 27. Instead of ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Lachm. 
 and Tisch. have καὶ ἔλεγεν, following B L A 8, 33, Copt. Cant. (Ὁ) has καὶ λέγει; 
 Vulg. : qui divit), The Recepta is an alteration arising from comparison of Matt. 
 xv. 26. — Ver. 28. ἐσθίει] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐσθίουσιν, following B D LA 
 δὲ, min. The Recepta is from Matthew. — Ver. 30. Lachm. and Tisch have 
 adopted the transposition : τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον (instead of τὴν θυγατ. βεβλη- 
 μένην) ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην κ. τὸ δαιμόν. ἐξεληλυθός, following B DL A δὲ, 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 καὶ 
 after ἐξεληλυθός immediately to the καί in ver. 31. Thus καὶ τὴν θυγατ. down to 
 κλίνης was omitted, and afterwards restored at the wrong, but apparently more 
 suitable place. From the circumstance that Ovy. . . . κλίνης. and not τὸ δαιμόν. 
 ἐξεληλ., 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, R. V., agree with Tisch.]— Ver. 31. See on ver. 24. — As in iii. 
 7, so also here, instead of πρός we must read, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm., 
 following evidence of considerable weight, εἰς. --- Ver. 32. After κωφόν Lachm, 
 
CHAP, VII., 1-16. 87 
 
 and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have καί, following B Ὁ A 8, vss. A connect- 
 ing addition. — Ver. 35. εὐθέως 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 εὐθύς before ἐλύθη 
 (so Weiss), but Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., omit altogether. ]— Instead of διηνοί- 
 χθησαν Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠνοίγησαν, following B D A 8, 1 (L has ἠνοίχθη. 
 σαν). The Recepta arose from the previous διανοίχθητι. --- Ver. 36. αὐτός] is 
 wanting in ABLXA κα, min. Vulg. Lachm. Tisch. ; but superfluous as it isin 
 itself, how easily it was absorbed by the following airoic! [The evidence seems 
 decisive against it ; deleted by recent editors, R. V.]— Before μᾶλλον Lachm. 
 and Tisch. have αὐτοί, following B D L A 8, min. Copt. Goth. Syr. Arm. To 
 be adopted ; correlative to the αὐτός, but passed over, as not being recognized 
 in this reference and so regarded as superfluous. — [Ver. 37. Tisch., recent ed- 
 itors, R. V., δὲ BL A, 33, omit τούς before ἀλάλους. 
 
 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. 3, 4. Throughout the sec- 
 tion Matthew has abridgments, transpositions, and alterations (in opposition 
 to Hilgenfeld and Weiss). [See Note XLIII., p. 94.] —ovvéyovra:] 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 (Weizsiicker), is purely gratuitous. — ἐλϑόντες] applies to both ; 
 on the notice itself, comp. 111. 22. — With the reading καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν, 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 
 ἐλϑόντες, runs on easily and simply as far as ἄρτους, 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 
 a parenthesis. But with καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν in ver. 5, a new sentence begins, 
 which continues the narrative. [So, substantially, W. and Hort., R. V.] — 
 ἰδόντες] not in Jerusalem (Lange), but on their present arrival, when this 
 gave them a welcome pretext for calling Jesus to account. — τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἀνίπ- 
 τοις] Mark explains for his Gentile readers (for whom also the explanation 
 that follows was regarded by him as necessary) in what sense the κοιναῖς is 
 meant. Valckenaer, 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 ἀνίπτοις " stands in con- 
 trast with the prescribed washing. Theophylact well says : ἀνίπτοις χερσὶν 
 ἤσϑιον ἀπεριέργως καὶ ἁπλῶς, ‘‘ with unwashen hands they were eating unaf- 
 fectedly and simply.”— Ver. 8. πάντες οἱ "Iovd.] A more popular expression 
 —not to be strained—indicating the general diffusion of the Pharisaic 
 maxims among the people. —mvyu7] Vulg. : erebro (after which Luther : 
 manchmal) ; Gothic : ufta (often) ; Syr.: diligenter*—translations of an 
 
 1 Wilke holds the entire passage, vy. 2-4, 2 Hom. 71. vii. 266; Hesiod, Op. 725; Lu- 
 as well aS kat... ποιεῖτε, yer. 13, to be a cian. Rhet. praec. 14. 
 later interpolation. 3 Some Codd. of the It. have pugillo, some 
 
88 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 ancient reading πυκνά (as in δὰ) or πυκνῶς (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 πυγμῇ itself cannot be made 
 to bear the meaning of πυκνά (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 manner 
 wash their hands (νίψωνται) with the fist. Comp. Beza, Fritzsche. Similar- 
 ly Scaliger, Grotius, Calovius, and others, except that they represent the 
 matter as if the text were πυγμὴν. . . ταῖς χερσί. The explanations: μέχρι 
 τοῦ ἀγκῶνος, ‘‘up to the elbow” (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), and : 
 “up 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 towards the arm’”),* Mark 
 would with the mere πυγμῇ 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. [See Note XLIV., p. 94.]— 
 Ver. 4. καὶ ἀπὸ ἀγορᾶς] The addition in D, ἐὰν ἔλϑωσι, 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 ἐὰν μὴ βαπτισ. 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, 7.e., in this case, according to the context : 
 to take a bath.* [See 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- 
 max; before eating they observe the washing of hands always, but the 
 bathing, when they come from market and wish to eat. Accordingly it is 
 obvious that the interpretation of Paulus :*4‘‘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 βαπτίζειν, not βαπτίζεσϑαι) and in 
 respect of the sense, to which the notion of special strictness would have 
 required to be mentally supplied. — βαπτισμούς] is likewise to be understood 
 of the cleansing of things ceremonially impure, which might be effected 
 partly by immersion, partly (κλινῶν) by mere sprinkling ; so that βαπτισμ. 
 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 vessels (χαλκίων) follows, and 
 earthen vessels, when they were ceremonially defiled, were broken into pieces 
 (Lev. xv. 12).°— κλινῶν] not couches in general (de Wette), for the whole con- 
 text refers to eating ; but couches for meals, triclinia,® which were rendered 
 
 8530 also Luke xi. 38. Comp. Ecclus. 
 
 xxxi. 25; Judith xii. 7. 
 
 primo, some momento, some crebro, some 
 subinde. Aeth. agrees with Syr. ; and Copt. 
 
 Syr. p. with Vulgate. 
 
 1Paulus; comp. Drusius, Cameron, 
 Schoettgen, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller. 
 
 2See Kypke and Loesner; Winer, G7. 
 p. 547 [E. T. 621] ; Fritzsche in loc. 
 
 4 Kuinoel, Olshausen, Lange, Bleek. 
 
 5 See Keil, Arcidol. I. § 56; Saalschiitz, 
 Mos. Recht, I. p. 269. 
 
 6 iy. 21; Luke viii. 16; Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 
 6; Herod. ix. 16. 
 
CHAP. VII., 17-23. 89 
 
 unclean by persons affected with haemorrhage, leprosy, and the like (Light- 
 foot, p. 620 f.). [See critical note.] — Ver. 5. With καὶ érepwr. a 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 
 καλῶς 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. ἀφέντες and κρατεῖτε 
 (2 Thess. ii. 15) are intentionally chosen as correlative. — ἀλλὰ παρόμοια τοι- 
 avta πολλά] Such accumulations of homoeoteleuta were not avoided even by 
 classical writers.’ τοιαῦτα defines παρόμοια as respects the category of qual- 
 ity. — Ver. 9. καλῶς] Hecellently, 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. κορβᾶν] 13 =ddpov, namely, to the 
 temple.* See on Matt. xv. 5. — The construction is altogether the same as 
 that in Matt. /.c., so that after ὠφελ. there is an aposiopesis (he is thus bound 
 to this vow), and ver. 12 continues the reproving discourse of Jesus, setting 
 forth what the Pharisees do in pursuance of that maxim. — Ver. 12. οὐκέτι] 
 no more, after the point of the occurrence of the κορβᾶν ; previously they had 
 nothing to oppose to it. — Ver. 13. ἡ παρεδώκ.] quam tradidistis, ‘‘ which ye 
 delivered.” The tradition, which they receive from their predecessors, they 
 have again transmitted to their disciples. — καὶ παρόμοια x.7.A.] a repetition 
 of solemn rebuke (comp. ver. 8). — Ver. 14. πάλιν (see the critical remarks) 
 has no express reference 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 ἀνϑρώπου. 
 — éxeiva] emphasizing the contrast to that which is εἰσπορευόμενον. Observe, 
 further, the circwmstantiality 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.]— εἰς οἶκον] peculiar to Mark in 
 this place : into a house. Jesus is still in the land of Gennesareth (vi. 58), 
 where He is wandering about. — ἐπηρώτων x.t.A.] 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. Ὁ. 53 f. would gladly give it to thee. But it is Kor- 
 22 Cor. xi. 4; Soph. Ant. 735; Arist. Av. ban; I employ it better by giving it to God 
 139; Ael. V. H. i. 16. than to thee, and it is of more service to 
 
 3 The following is Luther’s gloss: ‘‘is,in thee also.” 
 brief, as much as to say: Dear father, I 
 
90 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 who prefers to divert the reproach upon a// the disciples in general ; but it in 
 truth betokens the older representation of the scene. — Ver. 18. οὕτω] siccine, 
 accordingly, since you must ask this question. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 5. — καὶ 
 ὑμεῖς} like persons, who have not the benefit of my guidance (οἱ ἔξω, iv. 11). 
 — Ver. 19.’ οὐκ εἰσπορ. αὐτοῦ εἰς τ. xapd.] it enters not into his heart. —The word 
 ἀφεδρών does not occur among the Greeks, but adodoc. — The reading καϑαρίζον 
 (see the critical remarks) would have to be explained : which (i.e., which 
 ἐκπορεύεσϑαι εἰς Tov adedpOva) 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 καϑαρίζον would be 
 an appositional addition, which contains the judgment upon the εἰς τὸν aged- 
 pova ἐκπορεύεται. See Kiihner, II. p. 146; Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 624] ; 
 Fritzsche in loc. But the latter arbitrarily changes καϑαρίζον 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 agedpév. With the 
 reading καϑαρίζων 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- 
 ceiving the impurities therefrom (the excretions). Thus καϑαρίζων refers to 
 Tov ἀφεδρῶνα, and is put not in the accusative, but in the nominative, as 
 though καὶ ὁ ἀφεδρὼν δέχεται or something similar had been said previously, 
 so that the ἀφεδρών 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, newt. 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 ὅτε onward requires that καὶ εἰς τ. 
 ἀφεδρῶνα éxrop. should still be dependent on ὅτε (in opposition to Fritzsche). 
 — Ver. 21 f. διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοί] 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 ἀσέλγεια, excess, especially unchaste excess ; see on Rom, xiii. 
 13 ; Gal. ν. 19) matters approximately homogeneous are placed together, — 
 πονηρίαι] malignities, ill-wills, Rom. i. 29 ; Eph. iv. 31 ; Col. 111. 8. —ogdaa- 
 μὸς πονηρ.} an envious eye, as at Matt. xx. 16. -- ἀφροσύνη] wnreason, morally 
 irrational conduct, Wisd. xii. 98. Foolishness of moral practice. Comp. 
 on Eph. v. 17 ; Beck, Seelenl. p. 63 (its opposite is σωφροσίνη), not merely 
 in loquendo, to which, moreover, ὑπερηφανία (arrogance) is arbitrarily limited _ 
 (in opposition to Luther’s gloss ; Fritzsche also, and de Wette, and many 
 others). — Ver. 23. 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 Ῥ. 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. 53; Kriiger, § 56. 9. 4. 
 unfairly criticised by Baur, krit. Unters. 3Comp. also Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. 
 
 p. 554, and Markusev. Ὁ. 55, as awkward ip. 81 A. 
 and unsuitable; and in this view KO6stlin, 
 
CHAP. VII., 24-30, 91 
 
 Vv. 24-30. See on Matt. xv. 21-29, who in vv. 23-25 has added what is 
 certainly original. — ἐκεῖϑεν] out of the land of Gennesareth, vi. ὅ8. --- εἰς ra 
 μεϑόρια Τύρου] 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 καὶ Σιδῶνος. [But see 
 critical note. ] — εἰς οἰκίαν] into a house. Comp. ver. 17. It was doubtless 
 the house of one who honored Him. --- οὐδένα ἤϑελε γνῶναι] 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. — ἠδυνήϑη] corresponds to the ἤϑελε : He wished . . . and could 
 not. — ἧς αὐτῆς] See Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 148]. On ϑυγάτρ., comp. v. 23. — 
 Ver. 26. Ἑλληνίς] a Gentile woman, not a Jewess, Acts xvii. 12. — Syrophoe- 
 nice means Phoenicia (belonging to the province of Syria), as distinguished 
 from the Λιβοφοίνικες (Strabo, xvii. 3, p. 835) in Libya. The (unusual) form 
 Συροφοινίκισσα is? to be received on account of the preponderance of the wit- 
 nesses in its favor, with which are to be classed those which read Συραφοινί- 
 κισσα OY Lipa Φοινίκισσα (so Tischendorf), which is explanatory (a Phoenician 
 Syrian). The Recepta Συροφοίνισσα (so also Fritzsche) is an emendation, since 
 Φοίνισσα was the familiar name for a Phoenician woman.? But the form 
 Συροφοινίκισσα is not formed from Συροφοίνιξ (Luc. D. Concil. 4), but from 
 Φοινίκη. The Xavavaia of Matthew is substantially the same. See on Matt. 
 XV. 22. — ἐκβάλλῃ} (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. 
 πρῶτον] 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 Iovdaiw τε πρῶτον 
 καὶ “Ἕλληνι, ‘‘ 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 set pur- 
 pose—to say nothing of an anti-Judaistic purpose in opposition to Matthew 
 
 1 Xen. Cyr.i. 4. 16; Thue. ii. 27. 2, iv.56. 3. 2. 
 
 2, iv. 99; Herodian, v. 4. 11; Lucian, V. H. 4 According to Schenkel, indeed, Jesus 
 i. 20. was not at all in earnest with this answer of 
 
 2 With Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz,and _ harsh declinature, and this the woman per- 
 Lachmann. ceived. Butsee on Matt., and comp. Keim, 
 
 3 Xen. Hell. iii. 4. 1, iv. 3.6; Herodian, vy.  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. διὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ὕπαγε] on account 
 of this saying (which gives evidence of so strong a confidence in me), go thy 
 way. In ὕπαγε is implied the promise of compliance, hence it is fittingly as- 
 sociated with διὰ τοῦτον τ. Δ. Comp. Matt. viii. 13 ; Mark v. 34. — Ver. 30. 
 εὗρε k.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). — βεβλημ. ἐπὶ τ. κλίνην] weary and ex- 
 hausted, but κειμένην ἐν εἰρήνῃ, ‘‘lying in peace,” Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 which the demon did not previously permit. [See Note XLVIL., 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). — πάλιν ἐξελϑών] his 
 reference to ἀπῆλϑεν εἰς, ver. 24. — διὰ Σιδῶνος] (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 Σιδῶνος not of the city, but of the region of 
 Sidon,’ the analogy of Τύρου would be opposed to us, as indeed both names 
 always designate the cities themselves. — ava μέσον τῶν ὁρίων τ. Δεκαπόλεως] 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, viii. 10. — Ver. 32. κωφὸν poy:- 
 λάλον] 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, μογιλάλος means speaking with difficulty, it corresponds in 
 the LXX. to the 028, dumb. See Isaiah xxxv. 6.2 Hence it is to be under- 
 stood as: a deaf-mute,* which is also confirmed by ἀλάλους, ver. 37, and 
 is not refuted by ἐλάλει ὀρϑῶς, ver. 35. The reading μογγιλάλον, speaking 
 hollowly,* is accordingly excluded of itself as inappropriate (comp. also ver. 
 35). — Ver. 33. The question why Jesus took aside the sick man apart from 
 the people, cannot without arbitrariness be otherwise answered than to the 
 
 1 Σιδονία, Hom. Od. xiii. 285; Ewald, 3 Vulgate, Luther, Calovius, and many 
 
 Lange also and Lichtenstein. others, including Ewald. 
 3 Comp. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo- 4B** EF HL XT A, Matthaei. 
 
 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 XLVIII., 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, Opusc. II. 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 
 spittle? (like the oil in vi. 13) is to be regarded as the vehicle of the mirac- 
 ulous power. Comp. on John ix. 6. Itis not, however, to be supposed that 
 Jesus wished in any wise to vei] the marvellous element of the cures (Lange, 
 L. J. Vl. 1, p. 282), which would amount to untruthfulness, and would 
 widely differ from the enveloping of the truth in parable. — πτύσας] namely, 
 on the tongue of the patient ;* this was previous to the touching of the 
 tongue (comp. i. 41, viii. 22, x. 13), which was done with the fingers, and 
 not the mode of the touching itself. — Ver. 84 f. ἐστέναξε] Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus well says : ἐπικαμτόμενος τοῖς πάϑεσι τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου, ‘‘ being moved by 
 the sufferings of the man” (comp. Grotius and Fritzsche). Certainly (see 
 ἀναβλ. εἰς τ. οὐρανόν) it was asigh 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. 352), 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.). ἘΠ τ A AL}, imperative 
 Ethpael. — διανοίχϑητι] 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.* — ἐλύϑη κ.τ.2.1 The tongue, with which one cannot speak, is con- 
 ceived as bound (comp. the classical στόμα λύειν, γλώσσας λύειν, and see Wet- 
 stein), therefore the expression does not justify the supposition of any other 
 cause of the dumbness beside the deafness. — ὀρϑῶς] consequently, no 
 
 1 Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, Eu- 
 thymius Zigabenus, and many others. 
 
 2 According to Baur, there is betrayed in 
 the narrative of the πτύειν, as also at vi. 13, 
 “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. 
 
 3 As in viii. 23 He spits into the eyes of 
 
 the blind man. It is not therefore to be 
 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 said. 
 
 4 Eur. Phoen. 1494; Luc. Philop. 1; Hero- 
 dian, iv. 5. 3; comp. 2 Macc. 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. 
 αὐτοῖς] to those present, to whom He now returned with the man that was 
 cured. — αὐτός] and the subsequent αὐτοί (see the critical remarks) corre- 
 spond to one another: He on His part. . . they on their part.—toov... 
 μᾶλλον περισσότερον] 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 κηρύσσειν 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. — μᾶλλον "] along with another comparative, strengthens the latter.? — 
 Ver. 87. καλῶς πάντα πεποίηκε] Let πεποίηκε be distinguished from the subse- 
 quent ποιεῖ. The former relates to the miraculous cure at that time, which 
 has taken place and is now accomplished (perfect) ; and καὶ (even) τοὺς κωφοὺς 
 ποιεῖ k.T.A. is the general judgment deduced from this concrete case. In 
 this judgment, however, the generic plurals κωφούς, ἀλάλους 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. aad. Aad.] the speechless to speak.® 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EpDIToR. 
 
 XLII. 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. πυγμῇ. 
 
 This reading should be retained (against Tisch.), but its sense is doubtful. 
 The R. V. renders it ‘‘ diligently’ 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. βαπτίσωνται. 
 
 Meyer passes over the remarkable reading of δὲ B and some cursives (ῥἀντίσων- 
 rat), 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, 3). 
 
 1 Here in the sense of “only all the more.” pp. 719 f.; Stallbaum, ad Phaed. p. 79 E; 
 See Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. iii. p. 397 A ; Niigels- Pflugk, ad Hecub. 377. 
 bach’s note on the J//iad, ed. 3, p. 227. 3. On ἄλαλος, comp. Plut. Mor. p. 488 B; 
 2See on Phil. i. 23; Hermann, ad Viger. Ps. xxxvii. 14, xxx. 22. 
 
NOTES. 95 
 
 XLVI. Ver. 19. καθαρίζων κ.τ.1. 
 
 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 Rec., seems unsatisfactory. The fact that the girl lay 
 upon the couch was first noticed, and the departure of the demon inferred from 
 this. Thisis 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. 
 
 XLVIII. 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 a cure wrought before the 
 whole multitude.’’ The gradual healing was probably in consequence of some 
 spiritual need of the man himself. 
 
96 THE GOSPEL OF MARK, 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Ver. 1. παμπόλλου] BD G L M NAB, min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Goth. 
 Vulg. It. have πάλιν πολλοῦ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. But the former being an ἅπαξ Aeyéu. in the 
 N. T., might very easily have been changed into πάλιν πολλοῦ, as πάλιν was 
 used in Mark so frequently, and in this place (it is otherwise at vii. 14) was so 
 appropriate. — Ver. 2. Instead of ἡμέραι, Elz. has ἡμέρας. A correction, in op- 
 position to decisive evidence, as is Matt. xv. 32. — poi] is, according to Β 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 δὲ BDL 
 A, 33, Copt., read καί twec.] — ἥκουσιν] As A D 8, min. have ἥκασιν (so Lachm.), 
 and BL A Copt. have εἰσίν (so Tisch.), ἥκουσιν is condemned by preponderant 
 counter-evidence. But as, moreover, almost all the versions deviate from the 
 simple εἰσίν, we must abide by the reading of Lachm. [Tisch, VIII. has ἥκασιν ; 
 so Treg., but W. and Hort (so Weiss) have εἰσίν, following a group of authorities 
 which they usually regard as decisive.] If εἰσίν 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 ἥκειν only in this 
 place. — Ver. 6. παρήγγειλε] Β Ὁ L A ® have παραγγέλλει. So Lachm. and 
 Tisch. Rightly ; the historical present was lost in the connection with the 
 praeterite. —Ver. 7. εὐλογήσας εἶπε παραθεῖναι καὶ αὐτά] Many variations. 
 Griesb. regards merely evAoy. εἶπε παραθεῖναι as genuine. Lachm. has ταῦτα 
 εὐλογ. εἶπεν παρατεθῆναι καὶ αὐτά. Fritzsche : εὐλογ. εἶπε παραθ. αὐτά. Tisch. : 
 εὐλογ. αὐτὰ παρέθηκεν. 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: εὐλογήσας αὐτὰ (BC L A 8, min. Copt.), 
 εἶπεν καὶ ταῦτα παρατιθέναι (B L A &**, to which, on account of the pronoun and 
 its position, C also falls to be added with: εἶπεν" καὶ ταῦτα παράθετε). [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 8*. — Ver. 
 9. οἱ φαγόντες] is wanting in BL A τὲ, min. Copt. Condemned by Griesb., de- 
 leted by Tisch. It is from vi. 44.— Ver. 12. σημ. ἐπιζητεῖ] Schulz, Lachm. 
 Tisch. read ζητεῖ onu., in accordance with BC DL A δὲ, min. vss. The Recepta 
 is from Matt. xvi. 4. — Ver. 13. ἐωβὰς πάλιν] B C Ὁ L A 8, min. Copt. Arm. 
 have πάλιν ἐμβάς. This is to be adopted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., as the 
 better attested order. — εἰς τὸ πλοῖον] Lachm. reads εἰς πλοῖον, following A E F 
 GMSVX, min. Fritzsche and Tisch. have entirely deleted it, following B C 
 L A δὲ, Corb. Germ. 1, Tol. The latter is right ; ἐμβάς had its notion completed. 
 —Ver. 16. λέγοντες] is wanting in BD δὰ, min, Jt, Deleted by Lachm, and 
 
CHAP. VIII. 9 
 
 Tisch.; the former has subsequently, with B, min. It., ἔχουσιν (comp. D: elyov). 
 [See Note XLIX., p. 104.] As well λέγοντες as the first person of the verb was 
 introduced in accordance with Matt. xvi. 7.— Ver. 17. ἔτι] is wanting in ΒΟ D 
 L A &, min. Copt. Verc. Lachm. and Tisch. As well the omission as the addi- 
 tion might have been occasioned by the last syllables of συνίετε; but more easily 
 the addition, as the connection (οὔπω) so readily suggested an érv. — [Ver. 19. 
 Recent editors, R. V. (against Tisch.), omit καί before πόσους, with A B L, 
 Copt., ete., and in ver. 20, Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. with δὲ BCL Δ, 
 Vulg. Copt., read καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῳ, instead of οἱ δὲ eizov.] —Ver. 21. πῶς ov] 
 Lachm. has πῶς οὔπω, following A Ὁ M U X, min. Syr. utr. Perss. Goth. Vulg. 
 It. Theophyl. Tisch. has merely οὔπω, following CK LA δὲ, min. The latter 
 is to be regarded as the original. To this οὔπω, πῶς was added (Lachm.) from 
 Matt. xvi. 11 ; and in accordance with the same parallel, πῶς οὔπω passed into 
 πῶς ov (B, Elz.). — Ver. 22. ἔρχεται] ἔρχονται isrightly approved by Griesb., and 
 adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. See on v. 38. —[Ver. 23. Tisch., recent editors, 
 R. V., with δὲ B CL, 88, read ἐξήνεγκεν, and W. and Hort, Weiss, R.V., with BC 
 Ὁ A, Copt., have βλέπεις, which was easily altered into the indirect form : βλέπει" 
 (Rec. Tisch.) in δὲ A and most.]— Ver. 24. ὡς δένδρα] Lachm. and Tisch. read 
 ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ, following decisive evidence. The Recepta is an abbreviation 
 to help the construction.—Ver. 25. καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν ἀναβλέψαι] 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 καὶ διέβλεψεν, and this is adopted by Tisch., following BC* LA 8, 
 min. Copt. Aeth. Kai διέβλεψεν, not being understood, was variously glossed.— 
 ἐνέβλεψε] Lachm. Tisch., following Β L &** min. (A, min. have ἀνέβλεπεν), read 
 ἐνέβλεπεν, Which is to be adopted, as the aorist was easily introduced mechani- 
 cally from what preceded. — Instead of ἅπαντα (approved by Griesb., adopted 
 by Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), Elz. has ἅπαντας. But the former is at- 
 tested by BC DL MA 8, min. vss. also Vulg. It. (Ὁ has πάντα). ἅπαντας is to 
 be regarded as an emendation, on account of τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ver. 24. — Ver. 26. 
 μηδὲ εἰς. . . κώμῃ] Very many variations, arising out of the apparent inappro- 
 priateness of the meaning ; but not such as to justify the striking out of the 
 second half of the sentence (μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινὶ ἐν τ. κώμη), 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 μηδὲ at the beginning of the first clause. Tisch. ac- 
 cepts μὴ (comp. grammatical notes) which has no support except 8*.]—Ver. 28, 
 ἕνα] Lachm. Tisch. have ὅτι εἷς, following B C* L &, Copt. The Recepta is an 
 alteration on account of the construction. If ὅτε εἷς had come in in accordance 
 with Luke ix. 19, ἀνέστη would also be found in Codd. — Ver. 29. λέγει αὐτοῖς] B 
 C D* LA 8, 53, Copt. Cant. Vere. Corb. Colb. have ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς. Recom- 
 mended by Griesb., approved by Schulz, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.; the 
 Recepla is from Matt. xvi. 15. — Ver. 31. ἀπό] BC DGKLY, min. have ὑπό. 
 Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.; ἀπό is from 
 the parallel passages. — Ver. 34. [recent editors, R. V., with 8B Οὐ DLA 
 Vulg., have εἴ τις.  --- Instead of ἀκολουθεῖν (which Griesb. Scholz, and Tisch. have 
 adopted), Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] read ἐλθεῖν. Both 
 readings have weighty attestations ; but ἐλθεῖν is from Matt. xvi. 24.— Ver. 35. 
 Instead of τ. ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆν in the second half of the verse (Griesb. Scholz), Elz. 
 
 { 
 
98 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have τ. αὐτοῦ ψ., again following A B C* LA &, 
 [These authorities support τ. ψ. αὐτοῦ in the second clause. Tisch. VIII. agrees 
 with Griesb. in text, but his notes defend the reading of A B 8, etc. (corrected 
 by Gebhardt). W.and Hort follow B (τ. ἑαυτοῦ ψ.} 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 οὗτος, and in ver. 36 with δὲ BL, 
 read ὠφελεῖ, κερδῆσαι, δημιωθῆναι.  --- Ver. 36. ἄνθρωπον read, with Lachm. and 
 Tisch., following A C* D, min. Or.: τὸν ἄνθρωπον. ['Tisch. VIII., recent editors, 
 reject the article.] As well the omission of the article as the reading ἄνθρωπος 
 (E F GH LMXTA %* min.) is from the parallels. — Ver. 37. ἢ τί] Tisch. 
 reads ti γάρ, following B L A δὲ, 28, Copt. Or. ; ἢ τί is from Matt. xvi. 26. 
 [Tisch., recent editors, R.V., with δὲ B (L indirectly) have dot ; (comp. Note 
 XXYV., p. 60.] 
 
 Vv. 1-10. See on Matt. xv. 32-39. — ἐν ἐκ. τ. ἡμέρ. An unessential differ- 
 ence from Matthew, but still a difference. — παμπ. ὄχλου ὄντος] 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).!_ Οπ πάμπολυς, only found in this place in the N. T., see Wetstein.? 
 [See critical note. ]— Ver. 2. In the nominative ἡμέραι τρεῖς, Hilgenfeld finds 
 an indication of dependence on Matt. xv. 32. Why not the converse ?— 
 Ver. 3. τινὲς yap «.t.A.] information peculiar to Mark concerning the previous 
 ἐκλυϑ. ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, but still belonging to the words of Jesus: hence ἥκασιν 
 (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 744), have come; not: had come (Luther). [See 
 critical note. ]— Ver. 4. πόθεν] With surprise the disciples thus ask, as on 
 the desert surface (ἐπ᾽ ἐρημίας) 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 : καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτὰ 
 εἶπεν καὶ ταῦτα παρατιϑέναι (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 eiAoy. there is 
 nothing to be found of itself higher than in εὐχαρ. (Lange : ‘‘ the pre-cele- 
 bration of the glorioussuccess”). The thanksgiving of Jesus was a prayer of 
 praise (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 16). On εὐλογεῖν, 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 (1393), blessing it. — Ver. 8. περισσ. κλασμ. 
 ἑπτὰ orup., remains left over in pieces seven baskets. The definition of measure 
 is added, according to the Greek usage, in the form of an apposition ; 
 Kiihner, II. p. 117. — Ver. 10. Δαλμανουϑά, named nowhere else, was doubt- 
 less (comp. Matt. xv. 39) a village or hamlet on the western side of the lake, 
 in the neighborhood of Magdala (or else Magada ; see on Matt. xv. 39). 
 See Robinson, III. p. 530 f. Ewald, indeed, Gesch. Chr. p. 376 (comp. 
 
 1On εἶναι, equivalent to παρεῖναι, comp. dus... ὄχλος), Polit. p. 291 As; Lucian, 
 xv. 40; John vii. 39 ; Dorvill. Charvit. p. 600. Herm. 61. 
 2 Comp. Plato, Legg. vii. p. 819  (πάμπο- 
 
CHAP. VIII., 11-21. 99 
 
 Lightfoot), conjectures that in Dalmanutha we have the Galilean pronuncia- 
 tion of the name of the town py, where, according to the Mishna, many 
 Jews dwelt. But comp. on Matt. xv. 39. 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. 11-13. See on Matt. xvi. 1-4, who narrates more fully out of the col- 
 lection of Logia, and from the tradition adds the Sadducees. — ἐξήλϑον] 
 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. 87 (Holtzmann). Between Dalmanutha 
 and the place of the feeding there lay in fact only the lake. —jpzavro συζ. 
 αὐτῷ] How they made the beginning of disputing with Him, is told by ζητοῦν- 
 τες K.T.A.: 80 that they asked, etc. — Ver. 12. ἀναστενάξας) after 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. 94. --- τί] 
 why—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. — εἰ δοϑήσεται] a thoroughly Hebraistic expression 
 of asseveration (never 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 σημεῖον is altogether refused 
 to this generation of Pharisees.? Hor them—these hardened ones, for whom 
 the signs already given did not suffice—none should be given ; the σημεῖα, 
 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. — πάλιν 
 ἐμβάς] without εἰς τὸ πλοῖον (see the critical remarks), which is, however, by 
 means of πάλιν obvious from ver. 10." --- εἰς τὸ πέραν] 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. — ἐπελάϑοντο] 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 ; 
 
 1 This is 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 judicial power, and so forth. 
 
 2See Koster, Hridut. Ὁ. 104 ff. ; Winer, 
 
 ts, 
 
 p. 444 [E. T. 500]. 
 
 3 By passing over the sign of Jonah, 
 Mark has effaced the point of the answer, 
 which Matthew and Luke have furnished. 
 
 4 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. v.7. 7: ὥστε ἐμβαίνειν, 
 ὁπόταν Νότος πνέῃ, 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. — εἰ μὴ ἕνα x.7.2.] 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. ὁρᾶτε is absolute; and ἀπὸ τῆς ζ. x.7.A. belongs only to 
 βλέπετε, the construction of which with ἀπό (comp. xii. 33) is not, with Titt- 
 mann, Synon. Ὁ. 114, and Kuinoel, to be analyzed : avertere oculos, ‘‘ to 
 turn away the eyes,” but : take heed on account of, etc. Comp. προσέχειν ἀπό 
 (Matt. xvi. 6) ; φόβος ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμίων (Xen. Cyr. 111. 3. 53), al. — τῆς ζύμης 
 τῶν Φαρισαίων] According to Matthew (see on xvi. 6), ζύμη 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 (see 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 ζύμη ‘Hpddov. A 
 wrong 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 καὶ Σαδδουκαίων. ---- Ver. 16. According to the correct 
 reading (see 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. [See Note 
 L., p. 104 seq. ] — πόσων σπυρίδ. πληρώματα κλασμάτων] See on vi. 43. Observe 
 here, also, as well as in Matthew, the alternation of κοφίνους and σπυρίδων, 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 οὔπω συνίετε, ver. 21 (see the critical re- 
 marks), the οὕπω applies to the instruction that has just been catechetically 
 conveyed vv. 19, 20, and is therefore a later οὕπω than that in ver. 17, stand- 
 ing related thereto by way of climax. 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 western 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),4 from which Jesus goes forth and comes north- 
 
 i With respect to the indicative present 
 ἔχουσι, comp. on vi. 45, and Dissen, ad Dem. 
 
 3 Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 Heumann, Heupel, K6stlin, Holtzmann ; 
 
 de Cor. p. 203. 
 
 2 On the thought of ver. 18, comp. besides 
 Isa. vi. 9.0. Xen: Cyr iii 1. 20's 
 Tate ἄνθρωπε, σὺ δέ ye οὐδὲ ὁρῶν γινώσκεις. οὐδὲ 
 
 Ξ ; 
 ὦ θαυμασιώ- 
 
 ἀκούων μεμνησαι, Dem. 797. 3: οὕτως ὁρῶντες 
 . ὥστε τὺ τῆς παροιμίας ὁρῶντας μὴ ὁρᾶν καὶ 
 
 ἀκούοντας μὴ ἀκούειν, 
 
 comp. Bleek and several others. 
 
 4 See Josephus, Bell. ii. 9.1, iii. 3.5; Antt. 
 Xvi. 2, 1, xvili. 4: 6) Pliny Wea wee. 
 Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 273 f. τ Robin- 
 son, Pal. III. p. 566f.; Ritter, Hrdk. XV. 
 p. 280; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 46. 
 
CHAP. VIII., 22-26. 101 
 
 wards into the region of Caesarea-Philippi (ver. 27) ; see ver. 13. [See Note 
 LL, p. 105.] The weakly-attested reading Βηϑανίαν (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 κώμη, 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. ἐξήγαγεν] see on vii. 33. — The spitting is to be apprehended as at 
 vii. 33. As in that place, so here also, Jesus held it as necessary to do more 
 than had been prayed for. — Ver. 24. ἀναβλέψας] after he had looked up 
 (vi. 41, vil. 84). Erasmus erroneously interprets it : to become seeing again 
 (x. 51), which is only conveyed in καὶ ἀποκατεστ. x.t.A. — According to the 
 reading ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περιπατοῦντας (see 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 ὅτε 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- 
 DUS : ἀτελῶς δὲ τὸν τυφλὸν τοῦτον ἐθεράπευσεν ὡς ἀτελῶς πιστεύοντα᾽ διὸ καὶ ἐπηρώ- 
 τησεν αὐτὸν, εἴ τι βλέπει, ἵνα μικρὸν ἀναβλέψας ἀπὸ τῆς μικρᾶς ὄψεως πιστεύσῃ τελεώ- 
 τερον, καὶ ἰαϑῇ τελεώτερον" σοφὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἰατρός, ‘‘ 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 woud 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 enough. 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. καὶ διέβλεψεν 
 (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, 
 
 1 Τῇ fact, Baur, Markusev. Ὁ. 58, thinks not-seeing to seeing primarily in the case 
 that thereby the writer was only making ἃ of one corporeally blind. Thus the proced- 
 display of his physiological knowledge on {186 related by Mark would be invented by 
 the theory of vision. And Hilgenfeld says, Mark! 
 that Mark desired to set forth the gradual 2 Plato, Phaed. p. 86 D; comp. on Matt. 
 transition of the disciples from spiritual vii. 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 ἐνέβλεπεν (see the critical remarks) 
 τηλαυγῶς ἅπαντα] Notice the imperfect, which defines the visual activity from 
 this time continuing; and how keen this was! He saw everything from 
 afar, so that he needed not to come close in order to behold it clearly. 
 ἐμβλέπειν, intueri, see Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 10, al. In the classical writers 
 used with ri,’ but also with τινά (Anthol. xi. 3). τηλαυγῶς (far-shining) 
 with ἐμβλέπειν denotes that the objects at a distance shone clearly into his 
 eyes.? — Ver. 26. εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ] He did not dwell in Bethsaida, but was from 
 elsewhere, and was brought to Jesus at Bethsaida. See the sequel. — μηδὲ 
 εἰς τ. κώμην K.T.A.| This μηδέ is not wrong, as de Wette and Fritzsche judge, 
 under the impression that it ought to be μή only ; but it means : not even: 
 so 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 even into the village (although it is so 
 near, and thou hast just been in it) enter thou. The second μηδέ is : nor yet. 
 — The second clause [see critical note, and Note LII., p. 105}, μηδὲ εἴπῃς 
 k.T.2., 18 no doubt rendered quite superfluous by the first ; but Fritzsche 
 pertinently remarks: ‘‘ Jesu graviter interdicentis cupiditatem et ardorem 
 adumbrari. . . Non enim, qui commoto animo loquuntur, 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 τινὲ ἐν τ. κώμῃ 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 τίνι ἐκ τῆς κώμης ὃ As 
 to the prohibition in general, comp. on v. 48. 
 
 Vv. 27-88. See on Matt. xvi. 13-27. Comp. Luke ix. 18-26. — ἐξγλϑεν] 
 from Bethsaida (Julias), ver. 22. — εἰς τ. κώμας Kaicap.] into the villages be- 
 longing to the region of Caesarea. —Ver. 28. With the reading ὅτε εἷς τῶν 
 προφητῶν (see the critical remarks), εἰ 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 μὴ δόξῃ χαριζόμενος 
 τῷ Πέτρῳ κ.τ.λ., ‘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 in the 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- 
 
 
 
 1 Cyrop. i. 3. 2; Plat. Pol. x. p. 609 Ὁ. ὁρᾶν, Suidas: τηλαυγές, πόῤῥωθεν φαῖνον. 
 2Comp. Diod. Sic. i. 50: τηλαυγέστερον 3 Comp. Wetstein, Michaelis, and others. 
 
CHAP, VIII., 27-38. 103 
 ing it inthis narrative, and that probably from some sort of consideration, 
 which appeared to him necessary, for Gentile-Christian readers.!_ [See Note 
 LII., 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, Markusevang. 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 (see especially, Késtlin, p. 366 f.), is to enter on a 
 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. 31.3 τῶν πρεσβ. κ- τῶν apy. κ- τῶν ypaup.| 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. — μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρ. } after the lapse of threedays. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 
 63. More definitely, but ex eventu, Matt. and Luke have: τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, 
 with which μετὰ tp. ju., according to the popular way of expression, isnot at 
 variance.4 — Ver. 32. καὶ παῤῥησίᾳ x.t.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). παῤῥησίᾳ stands opposed to speaking in mere hints, 
 obscurely, figuratively (John xi. 14, xvi. 25, 29). —émiriy.] to make reproaches’ 
 namely, ὡς εἰς θάνατον ῥίπτοντ ἑαυτὸν ἐξὸν μηδὲν παθεῖν, ‘as flinging himself into 
 death, it being possible to suffer nothing,” Theophylact. But ““ Petrus dum 
 increpat, increpationem meretur,” ‘‘ while Peter rebukes, he merits rebuke,” 
 Bengel. Comp. ἐπετίμησε, ver. 33. — Ver. 33. καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ) 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 but set an example to the disciples, whom He beheld 
 as witnesses of the scene. Moreover, in ἐπιστραφείς there is a different 
 conception from that of στραφείς, Matt. xvi. 23. — Ver. 34. Jesus now 
 makes a pause ; for what He has to say now is to be said to all who follow 
 Him. Hence He calls to Him the multitude that accompanies Him, etc. 
 Mark alone has clearly this trait, by which the ὄχλος 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 illud Tw es Petrus, si eccle- 
 siae Christianae fundamentum in his verbis 
 situm 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 ¢heol. Jahrb. 1853, 
 
 p. 58 f. 
 
 3 The view that Jesus Himself now for 
 the first time clearly foresaw His death 
 (Weizsiicker, p. 475; Keim, geschichtl. Chr. 
 p. 45), conflicts, even apart from the narra- 
 tive of John, with ii. 20. Comp. on Matt. 
 Xvi. 21. Moreover, we cannot getrid of the 
 mention of the Parousia, Matt. x. 23, and 
 the interpretation of the sign of Jonah, 
 Matt. xii. 39 f. (comp. on Luke xi. 30). 
 
 4 See Krebs, Obs. Ὁ. 97 ἢ. 
 
104 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 Comp. vii. 14. This is to be explained by the originality of the Gospel, not 
 by the πρὸς πάντας of Luke ix. 23 (which de Wette thinks Mark misunder- 
 stood).’— ὅστις] guicunque, not at variance with the sense (Fritzsche), but as 
 appropriate as εἶ τίς. [See critical note. ] — ἀκολουθ.} both times in the same 
 sense of discipleship. See, moreover, on Matt. x. 38. — Ver. 35. See on 
 Matt. x. 39. τ. ἑαυτοῦ w.] expression of self-sacrifice ; His own soul He spares 
 not. [But see additional critical notes. ]— Ver. 37. τί yap (see the critical 
 remarks) gives the reason for the negative sense of the previous question.— 
 Ver. 38. γάρ] 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 ἐπαισχυνθ., comp. on Rom. i. 10. --- τῇ μοιχαλίδι] see on Matt. xii. 39. 
 This bringing into prominence of the contrast with the Lord and His words, 
 by means of ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ . . . ἁμαρτωλῷ 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 γενεά 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 σώσει, ver. 35 (Matt. : εὑρήσει, 
 ‘which Luke also has), is supposed to tell. Nevertheless, κ. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 
 ver. 35, is an addition of later tradition. — ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀνθρώπ.] 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 to this mighty decision, how soon 
 shall it emerge ! ix. 1. What warning and encouragement in this promise! 
 
 Nores By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XLIX. Ver. 16. πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὅτι ἄρτους δὺκ ἔχουσιν. 
 
 The reading and interpretation are alike open to discussion. It seems, how- 
 ever, safe to reject λέγοντες, 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. ἔχομεν). Meyer accepts the reading 
 given above, but regards ὅτι 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 ὅτι would be recitantis ; or if λέγοντες 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.) 
 
 Τὸ Viv. 185.19: 
 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 καί (δὲ Ο Ὁ A), before πόσους favors this 
 view. In ver, 20 X A have xai, A D, etc. Rec. δέ, while B Li have ὅτε 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. 
 
 LIT. Ver. 26. μηδὲ εἵπης τινὶ ἐν τῇ κώμη. 
 
 This clause is omitted by the most judicious critics, also by Weiss ed. Mey. 
 Tisch. improperly reads μή (instead of μηδέ), at the beginning of the previous 
 clause. It is found only in δὲ ἢ, and corrected to μηδέ by δὲ", The R. V. rightly 
 renders it ‘‘ not even.” 
 
 1177. 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: ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκ., in Tisch., following B D* and one 
 codex of the It., is correct ; τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκ. is from the parallels. — Ver. 3. éyé- 
 vero] Lachm. and Tisch. [not VIII.] have ἐγένοντο, 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.] — ὡς χιών] 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 ὡς 
 χιών (comp. Matt. xxviii. 3), but ὡς τὸ φῶς, that would have been supplied from 
 Matt. xvii. 2, as Or. min. actually have. — Before λευκᾶναι, Β ΟΊ, A 8, min. 
 vss. Or. have οὕτως, which Tisch. has adopted. Rightly ; as it was found to be 
 superfluous and cumbrous, it was omitted. — Ver. 6. Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz, 
 Lachm. have λαλήσῃ. But a preponderance of evidence favors λαλήσει, which, 
 with Matth., is the more to be preferred, as the future seemed objectionable to 
 copyists lacking nice discernment ; hence also in &, Or. the reading ἀπεκρίθη 
 (according to ver. 5), whence again proceeded, as an emendation, ἀποκριθῇ 
 (Tisch., following B C* L A, min. Copt.). [Recent editors, R. V., accept this 
 better sustained reading. ] — ἦσαν γὰρ ἔκφοθοι] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., fol- 
 lowing BC DL A & 33, Copt. Sahid. It. Chrys., to be changed into ἔκφ. y. éyé- 
 vovto, — Ver. 7, ἦλθε] BC LA δὰ, Syr. in the margin, Copt. Arm. have ἐγένετο. 
 Recommended by Griesb. [Accepted by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] It 
 is from Luke ix. 35. — After νεφέλης Elz. Lachm. have λέγουσα, in opposition to 
 very considerable witnesses (yet not to ADL A; the latter has λέγων). From 
 Matt. xvii. 5. —airov ἀκούετε) Lachm. Tisch. have ἀκ. ait. The Recepta is from 
 the parallels. — Ver. 8. ἀλλά] Β Ὁ δὲ, min. vss. have εἰ μή, 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 δὲ ΒΟ D L, 33, Vulg. Copt., have καὶ καταβ., and W. and Hort text, 
 Weiss, with B Ὁ, 33, substitute ἐκ for ἀπό.] --- Ver. 10. τὸ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι) 
 D, min. Syr. Perss. Vulg. Jer. have ὅταν ἐκ ν. ἀναστῇ. 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 γραμμ. Tisch. has οἱ 
 Φαρισ. καί, only following Τὶ δὲ, 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. ἀποκρ. εἶπεν] BC L A κα, Syr. 
 Perss. p. Copt. have ἔφη. Commended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. — Rightly ; 
 the more prevalent expression crept in from Matth.; ἔφη is only further found 
 in the Text. rec. of Mark at xiv. 29. — ἀποκαθιστᾷ] on decisive evidence read, 
 with Lachm. Tisch., ἀποκαθιστάνει. [Recent editors, with B D (and indirectly 
 other mss.), give the form : ἐξουδενηηῇ. Rec. (A C) has ἐξουδενωθῇ ; Tisch. (with δὲ) 
 ἐξουθενωθῇ, while Lachmann (with L) has ἐξουθενηηῇ. Ver. 14. Tisch., recent 
 editors, R. V., with δὲ BL A, have ἐλθόντες and εἶδον : and πρὸς αὐτούς, at 
 close of verse, with &* B C L A, Vulg.] — Ver, 15. ἰδὼν air. ἐξεθαμβήθη] ΒΟ 
 
CHAP, IX. 107 
 
 ΤΙ, ΔΝ, min. vss. have ἰδόντες ait. ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. Rightly approved by 
 Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Not the plural, but the singular 
 had its origin in correction. — Ver. 16. Instead of ἐπηρ. αὐτούς Elz. Scholz have 
 ἐπηρ. τοὺς γραμματεῖς, Which Lachm. has in the margin. But BD LA δὲ, min. 
 Copt. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. It. have αὐτούς ; τοὺς γραμματεῖς is plainly an interpreta- 
 tion in accordance with ver. 14. — Ver. 17. Following B C Ὁ LA 8, 33, Copt. 
 Cant. Ver. Vere. read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καὶ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ele ἐκ. τ. ὄχλ. 
 — Ver. 18. [Recent editors (against Tisch.) retain αὐτόν, after ῥήσσει, with A B 
 CLA.] After ὀδόντας Elz. Scholz have αὐτοῦ ; it is wanting in Β Οὗ Ὁ LAR, 
 min, Vulg. It. By Lachm. it is only bracketed, by Tisch. deleted. <A familiar 
 addition. — Ver. 19. Instead of αὐτοῖς Elz. has αὐτῷ, which Rinck, Lucubr. crit. 
 Ρ. 300, defends. But αὐτοῖς has preponderant attestation, and was changed, as 
 the father has just spoken, into the singular. — Ver. 20. ἐσπάραξεν] BC LAR, 
 33 have συνεσπάραξεν. So Lachm. Tisch. [W. and Hort, R. V.]. It is from Luke 
 ix. 42. The reading ἐτάραξεν in D also tells in favor of the Recepia. — Ver. 21. 
 ἐκ παιδιόθεν (Lachm. Tisch.) is found in BC GIL A κα, min., and is, moreover, 
 supported by D, Chrys., which have ἐκ παιδός. The pleonastic ἐκ was passed 
 over.—Ver. 22. πῦρ] Griesb, Fritzsche, Scholz have τὸ πῦρ, following A EF α 
 KMVTI,min. From Matth. — δύνασαι] Lachm. and Tisch. have δύνῃ here and 
 at ver. 23, following Β DILA&, min. To be adopted; the usual form was 
 substituted. — Ver. 23. πιστεῦσαι] is, with Tisch. (comp. Ewald), following B ΟΣ 
 L A δὲ, min. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Arr., to be deleted. An addition to the simple 
 εἰ δύνῃ, Which was not understood. — Ver. 24. μετὰ daxp.] is wanting in A* B 
 C* LA 8, 28, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent 
 editors ; R. V. puts it in margin only]. It is a gloss on κράξας. --- After πισ- 
 tevw Elz, Fritzsche have κύριε, in opposition to preponderant evidence. — Ver. 
 26. κράξαν. . . σπαράξαν] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have κράξας. . . σπαράξας, 
 following B ΟΣ Τὸ Τὶ δὲ, min. (A has κράξας. . . σπαράξαν) ; the neuter is a cor- 
 rection. — ἀυτόν] is, in accordance with nearly the same witnesses and yss., to 
 be deleted, with Griesb. and Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it). — πολλούς] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have τοὺς πολλούς, following A BL Δ &, 33. The article, in 
 itself superfluous, was more easily omitted than added. — Ver. 27. αὐτὸν τῆς 
 χειρός Lachm. Tisch. have τῆς χειρ. αὐτοῦ, following B Ὁ 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 εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ (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 αὐτόν. [The evidence is again 
 strongly against Meyer’s theory, Recent editors, R. V., accept the genitive. ] — 
 Ver, 29. The omission of κ. νηστείᾳ (Tisch.) is sufficiently attested by B 8* and 
 one codex of the It., since the addition from Matthew so very easily suggested 
 itself. — Ver. 30. παρεπορεύοντο] Lachm. has ἐπορεύοντο, following only B* D. 
 Vere. Brix. Colb. The compound, not being understood, was set aside. — 
 [Tisch., recent editors, with δὲ B C D L, have the form yvoi ; comp. Note XXV., 
 p. 60.] — Ver. 31. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ] B ΟΣ Ὁ LA 8, vss. have μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας 5 
 approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. From viii. 31. If τ. τρίτῃ 
 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 μετά is the form most clearly attested 
 
108 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 throughout this Gospel ; and accepted by recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 33. 7AGev] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have ἦλθον, following B Ὁ δὲ, 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 διελογ. Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have πρὸς ἑαυτούς, which Griesb. 
 condemned, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted. It is wantingin BC DLA δὶ, 
 vss., also in Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.), while several cursives place it after διελογ., 
 and it is to be regarded as added for more precise definition. — Ver. 34. ἐν τῇ 
 ὁδῷ] is wanting in A D A, Goth. Cant. Ver. Vere. Brix. Vind. Bracketed by 
 Lachm., deleted by Fritzsche. But, if it had been added from ver. 33, it would 
 appear before διελέχθ. Understood of itself, it was easily overlooked. [Ver. 
 37. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 B L., read déynze, instead of the 
 second δέξηται of the Rec.]— Ver. 38. ἀπεκρίθη dé] Β L A δὲ, Syr. Copt. Tisch. 
 have merely ἔφη. Rightly ; comp. on ver, 12.— The Recepia, Lachm. Tisch. 
 read: ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. cov. Griesb. Scholz have deleted ἐν. 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 ἐν, partly, in accord- 
 ance with vv. 37, 39, by ἐπί (so Fritzsche, although following only U, min.). 
 [Recent editors, R. V., retain ἐν, attested by δὲ B C DL Δ, Vulg.]— After 
 δαιμόνια Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have : ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν. But 
 this is wanting in BCL Δ 8, min. Syr. Arr. Perss. Aeth. Copt. Brix., while Ὁ 
 X, min. vss., including Vulg. It. (exc. Brix.), omit the following ὅτε οὐκ ἀκολ. 
 ἡμῖν (so Schulz, Fritzsche, Rinck). Accordingly Griesb. regards both as an ad- 
 dition from Luke. But both are to be retained. The former dropped out, 
 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, μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν 
 would have been written instead of ἡμῖν; but this only occurs in L, [Treg. 
 brackets, W. and Hort, R. V., omit the first clause, Tisch. Weiss retain both.] 
 - ἐκωλύσαμεν] BD LA δὲ, min. have ἐκωλύομεν. So Rinck and Tisch. The 
 aorist is from Luke, [Tisch,, recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B A, read ἠκολού- 
 θει, instead of the present, in the last clause. ]— Ver. 40. Elz. Fritzsche, Tisch. 
 have both times ἡμῶν. But A Ὁ E F GHK MS VT, min. and most of the 
 vss., including Vulg. and It., read ὑμῶν ; ἡμῶν is an emendation, as it is also in 
 Luke ix. 50. [BC A 8, Copt., etc. have ἡμῶν twice ; accepted by recent editors, 
 R. V.]—Ver. 41. Elz. has: ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. wov. But τῷ and μου are wanting in 
 very considerable witnesses, which condemn, although not unanimously, both 
 readings as additions. — Before ov μή, ὅτι is to be adopted, following Β C* DL 
 A δὲ, min., with Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. — Lachm. and Tisch. [not VIII.] 
 read ἀπολέσει, following only B D E, min. -— Ver. 42. After μικρῶν Fritzsche, 
 Lachm. [Tisch. VIII., recent editors, R. V.] have τούτων, in accordance, doubt- 
 less, with A B C*¥* D LN A 8, min. vss., including Vulg. It. ; but from Matt. 
 xviii. 6, whence also has come the reading μύλος ὀνικός (Lachm. Tisch. [and 
 Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] following BC DL A 8, min. vss., including Vulg. 
 and It.). [Weiss apparently prefers the latter.] — Ver. 43. καλόν σοί ἐστι] Lachm. 
 and Tisch. rightly read : καλόν ἐστίν σε, following B C L A δὲ, min. Vere. The 
 Recepta is from Matt. xviii. 8; but to derive thence the order εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ. ζ. 
 (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is forbidden by its decisive attestation. — Ver. 45. 
 cot] σε is still more strongly attested here than at ver. 43, and is likewise to be 
 adopted (with Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch.) — εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον] is wanting 
 
CHAP, IX., 1—13. 109 
 in BCLA 8, 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 εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, 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 ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν ov τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ πῦρ ov σβέννυται are only 
 found in all witnesses at ver. 48, whereas in vv. 44 and 46 they are wanting in 
 BCAR®, 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. τοῦ πυρός] falls, according to B DL A τὲ, min. Arr, 
 Copt. Arm. Slav. Cant. Vere. 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 ἅλας there is to be 
 adopted ἅλα, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A* B DL A 8, 1, 28, 209. 
 ἅλας is a mechanical repetition. 
 
 Ver. 1. See on Matt. xvi. 28. Comp. Luke ix. 27. — εἰσὶ τινὲς ὧδε x.7.A.] 
 see the critical remarks : there are some here among the bystanders. — ἐληλυϑ.] 
 having come ; otherwise conceived of in Matthew : ἐρχόμενον. --- ἐν δυνάμει] 
 in power ; comp. Rom. i. 3. 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, Hvangelienfr. p. 232), the triumph of the 
 gospel (Schenkel), and the like. See viii. 38. With interpretations of this 
 nature the specification of time εἰσὶ τινὲς x.7.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. 
 28-36 f. [See Note LIV., p. 124.]— τὸν ’Idk. x. Iwdvy.] The one article em- 
 braces the pair of brothers. — Ver. 3. ἐγένοντο! plural (see the critical re- 
 marks), indicates the different articles of clothing, which became white (a 
 vivid delineation), see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. I. 2. 33. [See additional 
 critical note. ] — οἷα γναφεὺς x.7.4.] ὁ.6., of such nature (they became) as that 
 a fuller on earth is not able to furnish such a whiteness (οὕτως λευκᾶναι, see the 
 critical remarks). ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is added with reference to the heavenly nature 
 of that lustre. Bengel well says, moreover : ‘‘ χιών natura, Aevkava arte,” 
 “‘ snow by nature, whiten by art.” [But ὡς χιών is not sufficiently attested. ] 
 — Ver. 6.4 τί λαλήσει] what he shall say (future, see the critical remarks), not 
 
 1In opposition to Schwegler, I. p. 467; 
 Baur, Hvang. p. 561; Kostlin, p. 383. 
 
 2 A definite specification of time, similar 
 to μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας ἐξ in this case, is only found 
 again in Mark at xiy. 1, and there, too, of a 
 very important turning-point of the his- 
 tory. 
 
 3In opposition to Schenkel and Weiz- 
 sdcker. 
 
 4 Τῇ this remark (by way of excuse) about 
 Peter, Hilgenfeld finds Petrinism; and 
 Baur, a dependence of the writer on Luke 
 ix. 33. As to the latter, the converse is 
 the case. The former springs from the en- 
 deavor to discover tendency everywhere, 
 even when, as here, it is the most innocent 
 explanatory remark, in which indeed Baur 
 only sees (Markusev. Ὁ. 68) the character of 
 
110 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 inappropriate (Fritzsche) ; but 7de: has reference to the point of time, when 
 Peter was just desiring to begin the utterance of what is said at ver. 5 ; and 
 τί λαλήσει expresses the unknown more strongly and more vividly than the 
 deliberative ri λαλήσῃ (what he should say). — ἔκφοβοι yap ἐγένοντο (see the 
 critical remarks): for they became full of terror,’ namely, by reason of the 
 appearances, VV. 3, 4. — Ver. 7. καὶ ἐγένετο] and there became (there arose, 
 came into manifestation) a cloud. Comp. Luke ix. 384. — Ver. 8. And of a 
 sudden, having looked around, they saw, etc. ἐξάπινα occurs only here in the 
 N. T., frequently in the LXX., but elsewhere is rare and late. — ovdéva] ap- 
 plies to the persons who had appeared ; hence ἀλλά is: but, on the contrary, 
 not equivalent to ei μή (Beza, and many others), which Matthew has. — The 
 Jear 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 falldown, 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 
 Markusevang. 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 ; see 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. τὸν λόγον] what Jesus had just 
 said to them, ver. 9, not the occurrence of the glorification (Beza) ; see the 
 following question. — ἐκράτησαν] kept the saying fast ; did not let it go out of 
 their consideration, ‘‘ non neglectim habuerunt,” ‘‘ did not hold it heedlessly” 
 (Bengel).?, To explain it in harmony with the ἐσίγησαν in Luke ix. 36, we 
 must neither attach to the κρατεῖν in itself the meaning : to keep concealed,* 
 nor bring out that meaning by the addition to it of πρὸς ἑαυτούς (Vulg. : 
 continuerunt apud se) ;* but simply explain it with Fritzsche, comp. Bret- 
 
 πᾶσαν γνῶσιν ov κρατήσει. Comp. Bar. iv. 1; 
 Cant. iii. 4: ἐκράτησα αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκα 
 
 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 
 
 αὐτόν. 
 3 On behalf of which Theodotion, Dan. v. 
 
 Mark, inasmuch as he does not even ac- 
 knowledge the excusing character of the 
 ov yap ἥδει x.7.A., Which even Bleek, Weiss, 
 and Hilgenfeld have recognized. 
 
 1 Heb. xii. 21; Deut. ix. 19; Plut. Fab. 6; 
 Arist. Physiogn. 6. 
 
 2Comp. Test. XII. patr. p. 683: ἐν ψυχῇ 
 gov μὴ κρατήσῃς δόλον, Ecclus. xxi. 14: 
 
 12, and the Scholiast <Aesch. Choéph. 78, 
 have wrongly been appealed to. 
 
 4Comp. Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Lach- 
 mann, Ewald, and many others, including 
 even Euthymius Zigabenus; see, on the 
 other hand, ver. 16, i. 27; Luke xxii. 23; 
 Acts ix, 29; comp. Schulz. 
 
OHAP. 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 πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς 
 συζητοῦντες k.T.2., Wherein is contained the accompanying more precise defini- 
 tion of the κρατεῖν τὸν λόγον. --- πρὸς ἑαυτούς prefixed with emphasis: among 
 themselves discussing, not questioning Jesus thereupon. To Him they have 
 another question, ver. 11. Comp. on i. 97. -- τί ἐστι τὸ ἐκ vexp. ἀναστ.] 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. ὅτι λέγουσιν x.7.4.] wherefore say, etc. ; that, 
 indeed, is not in keeping with thy prohibition ! It is, with Lachmann, to 
 be written : 6, τι (‘‘ quod est διὰ τί, simillimum illi notissimo εἴ interrogativo,” 
 ‘that is, διὰ τι, very much like the well-known εἴ interrogative,” Praefat. 
 p. xliii.); 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 ὅτε 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. [See Note 
 LV., p. 124.] — Ver. 12. Ἠλίας... πάντα] 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. 11. 4. — What 
 follows is, with Heinsius and Lachmann, to be punctuated thus: καὶ πῶς 
 γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ; ἵνα πολλὰ πάϑῃ κ. ἐξουδ. : and how stands 
 it written as to the Son of man? He is to suffer many things, and be set at 
 nought. The truth of that proposition of Hlijah 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. καί 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 μέν, to have 
 followed it up by δέ ; but he passes over in an anacoluthic fashion from the 
 form of contrast with which he began into the subjunctive.* The answer fol- 
 lows in ἵνα κιτ.1., and that conceived under the form of the design of the 
 γέγραπται ἐπὶ τ. υἱὸν x.t.A2. The entire καὶ πῶς . .. ἐξουδ. 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. Huth. p. 271A; richer Monatsschr. 1856, p. 64: ἀποκαθιστώναι, 
 Liicke on John viii. 25, p. 311f.; Buttmann, is quite as unnecessary as it is grammat- 
 neut. Gr. Ὁ. 218 [E. T. 253]. Comp. ver. 28, ically clumsy. 
 and Homer, 71. x. 142: 6, τι δὴ χρειὼ τόσον 3See Niagelsbach on the Ziad, Exc. i. 
 ἵκει, Barnab. 7, and Dressel in Joc. p. 173; Maetzner, ad@ Antiph. p. 257; Klotz, 
 
 2The conjecture of Hitzig in the Z- ad Devar. Ὁ. 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 ve- 
 nit Elias, Johannes baptista. ..et eum tractarunt, 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, Hlijah is come al- 
 ready, John the Baptist... . and they did, etc. ; therefore better things are 
 not to be hoped for in my case,” Kuinoel.! [See Note LVI. p. 124 seq.] 
 In opposition to this entire view, it may be decisively urged that it would 
 need an adversative particle instead of καί, and that, in ver. 13, instead of 
 ὅτι καὶ ᾿Ηλίας ἐλήλυϑε, the expression would have run : ὅτι καὶ ἐλήλυϑεν ᾿Ἤλίας. 
 Fritzsche, following the reading’ καϑώς too weakly attested (instead of καὶ 
 πῶς), 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 see the 
 want of internal connection herein, and hence he conjectures as to vv. 12, 13: 
 Hiiac μὲν ἐλϑὼν πρῶτον, ἀποκαϑιστᾷ πάντα᾽ ἀλλὰ λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ 
 ὅσα ἠϑέλησαν, καϑὼς γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα πολλὰ K.T.2. Ewald 
 also, with whom Holtzmann agrees, comes ultimately to a conjecture that in 
 Mark, ver. 13, there is wanting before καϑὼς γέγραπται the clause of Matt. 
 XVii. 12: οὕτως Kai ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου μέλλει πάσχειν ὑπ’ αὑτῶν. 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, doubtless, 
 its truth ; but also what the Holy Scripture says about a suffering of the Messiah 
 (as in Isa. liii. 7 1.) must be fulfilled ; if, thus, both are to be true, the Elijah 
 who is to precede the historical Messiah must in fact have come already, and have 
 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, καὶ πῶς γέγραπται k.T.A 18 
 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. 18 : ‘‘ the doctrine of the prior advent and 
 the prior work of Hlijah 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 Hlijah 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- 
 
 1 Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophy- 
 lact, Grotius, Bengel, and many others, in- 
 cluding de Wette. In substance so also 
 Hofmann, Weissag. und Erfiill. Il. p. 80 f. 
 
 2 Which Linder also follows in the Stud. 
 u. Krit. 1862, p. 558, arbitrarily enough sup- 
 pling a /iet. 
 
 3 Which does not exhibit a distinction be- 
 
 tween Scripture and fulfilment, as Weiz- 
 sacker judges, but the harmony of the two. 
 Weizsiicker is also mistaken in his extend- 
 ing the question from πῶς to ἐξουδ, Ac- 
 cordingly it is assumed to have the mean- 
 ing, that the Messiah’s suffering, according 
 to the prevailing view, is nod treated of, 
 
CHAP. IX., 14—29. 113 
 ready fulfilled.” The suppression of this sad closing inference, to which Mat- 
 thew, ver. 12, gives expression, 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.! — éovdevwd4 | 
 The form ἐξουδενηϑῇ (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, liii. 6 ; 1 Macc. iii. 14 ; Ecclus. xxxiv. 22 ; or: to be an- 
 nihilated, as Ps. xliv. 6 (5), Ix. 14, οχῖχ. 117 ; Judith xiii. 17 ; Ecclus. xlvii. 
 7%. The latter is here most in harmony with the context after πολλὰ παϑῇ. --- 
 Ver. 13. ἀλλά] is the continuative jam vero, atqui, which introduces a new 
 thought in contrast with the previous one. If the continuation of the dis- 
 course were formed purely syllogistically (consequently without λέγω ὑμῖν, 
 dre), the classical language would have chosen ἀλλὰ μήν (Becker, Anecd. II. 
 p- 899). --- καὶ ’Haiac] Elijah 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 καί therefore is and. De Wette wrongly 
 considers the two uses of καί as corresponding, et... et ; in that case καὶ 
 ἐλήλ. Ἤλίας must have been read. — καϑὼς γέγραπται ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν] has reference 
 to the immediately preceding καὶ ἐποιήσαν κ.τ.1., not to "HAiac ἐλήλ., as Kuthy- 
 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 ἐπ’ αὐτόν, but 
 what the Scripture relates of the fute of Elijah (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. — ov{yjr.] 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. — ἐξεθαμβ. ] they were very much amazed.t 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 (καὶ γὰρ εἰκὸς ἐφέλκεσθαί τινα χάριν ἐκ THE μεταμορφώσεως, ““ for it is also 
 likely that a certain grace was retained from the transfiguration,” comp. 
 
 1 Holtzmann thinks that in the question 
 and answer Mark lays the stress upon the 
 resurrection of the dead, while Matthew em- 
 phasizes the appearance of Elijah. 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. 
 
 2On 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, Christol. III. 2, p. 89. 
 
 4 Orph. Arg. 1217; Ecclus. xxx. 9; Polyb. 
 xx. 10.9: ἔκθαμβοι γεγονότες ; in the N. T, 
 used by Mark only, 
 
114 THE GOSPEL OF MARE. 
 
 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 προστρέχειν and ἀσπάζειν. 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 Himself came to their aid. 
 According to Fritzsche, there is denoted generally : ‘‘ quanta fuerit Jesu 
 . et admiratio in plebe 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 προστρέχοντες k.t.2. 18 
 not in keeping therewith. According to Baur, Markusev. 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. 
 ἐπηρώτ. αὐτούς] This αὐτούς 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 συζητεῖν, 
 so that there συζητοῦντας also applies jointly to the ὄχλον πολύν. So also 
 Bleek ; comp. Ewald. The usual reference to the γραμματεῖς 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 merely 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 πρὸς αὑτούς (so usually; 
 hence also the readings πρὸς ἑαυτούς, A, &*, and ἐν ὑμῖν, Ὁ, Vulg.), but πρὸς 
 αὐτούς (with Bengel, Fritzsche, Lachmann, Tischendorf), since αὐτούς, like 
 αὐτοῖς in ver, 14, applies to the disciples—Ver. 17. The father, included 
 among this ὄχλος, 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, 
 as εἷς ἐκ τ. ὄχλου, since it is by his utterance that he first shows himself as 
 father. — πρός σε] that is, thither, where I might presume Thy presence, 
 because Thy disciples were there. — ἄλαλον] 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. καὶ ὅπου ἂν x.1.2.] 
 and wherever he has taken hold of him. The possession (ver. 17) is ποῦ 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 : μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς εἰς αὐτόν. The ἔχοντα of ver. 17 
 
 
 
 1Comp. Theophylact and Victor Anti- 2To whose ἠσπάζοντο αὐτόν Jesus replies 
 ochenus. with His question. 
 
CHAP, Ix., 14-29, 115 
 is not opposed to this (de Wette), for the son had the demon—even although 
 at intervals the latter left him—so long as the μηκέτι εἰσέλθῃς was not yet 
 realized. — ῥήσσει] he tears him, which convulsive effect is not more precisely 
 to be defined (Euthymius Zigabenus and many others : καταβάλλει εἰς γῆν, 
 ‘‘ throws to the ground”).’— ἀφρίζει] change of the subject ; Winer, p. 556 
 [E. T. 632]. The permanent effect of these paroxysms is: ξηραίνεται, be- 
 comes withered, wasted away. Comp. iii. 1. See generally the description 
 of the morbus comitialis in Celsus, III. 298. --- εἶπον. . . ἵνα] Itoldit... 
 ᾿ that they. — Ver. 19. αὐτοῖς] the disciples, ver. 18. See, moreover, on Matt. 
 -xvil. 17. —Ver. 20. ἰδὼν αὐτὸν «.r.2] when the demoniac (not : the demon, 
 -Bleek) had looked upon Jesus, the demon tore him (the patient).? [See 
 Note LVIL., p. 125.]—émi τ. γῆς] belongs to πεσών (comp. xiv. 35 ; Xen. 
 Cyr. iv. 5. 54). — Vv. 21-24. It is only the specially graphic Mark that has 
 this dialogue. — Ver. 21. ὡς] Particle of time : how long ago is it, when this 
 Sell upon him ? — Ver. 22. kai εἰς πῦρ] even into fire. In John xv. 6 also the 
 article is not necessary (in opposition to Fritzsche), although critically at- 
 tested. — εἴ τε δύνῃ] Euthymius Zigabenus rightly says: ὁρᾶς, πῶς οὐκ εἶχε 
 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.? — ἡμῖν] the father of the family speaks. — Ver. 23. After deletion of 
 πιστεῦσαι (see the critical remarks), τὸ εἰ δύνῃ is to be regarded (Winer, 
 Ρ. 163, 506 [E. T. 181, 574]) as nominative absolute: The ‘if thou canst”... 
 “* Huerything is possible to him that believeth,” i.e., as far as concerns thy just 
 expressed ‘‘ {7 thow canst,” the matter depends on the faith ; the believer is 
 able to attain everything. The article embracing the εἰ δύνῃ substantivally 
 (Kiihner, ὃ 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 τὸ εἰ δύνῃ interrogatively, and πάντα div. τ. πιστ. aS an- 
 swering it : ‘‘Tu ne dubitans si potes aiebas ἢ Nihil non in ejus, qui con- 
 fidat, gratiam fieri 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 τί τὸ εἰ δύνῃ, or the like), and so we are 
 not warranted in mentally supplying an aiebas or askest thou?+ With the 
 Recepta πιστεῦσαι or δύνῃ the explanation is : if thow canst believe (I will help 
 thee) ; everything is possible, etc., in which interpretation, however, the τό 
 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 
 
 πίστιν ἀδίςτακτον. 
 
 283 ; Bernhardy, p. 479; Winer, p. 501 [E. T. 
 568]. Comp. also Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, 
 ed. 3, p. 385 f. 
 
 1 See on the word, Ruhnken, ep. crié. I. 
 p. 26; Duncan, Zex., ed. Rost, p. 1016. 
 Comp. ῥάσσειν (of the gladiators); Salma- 
 
 sius, ad Ach. Tat. p. 657; and Jacobs, 
 p. 821. 
 
 2 On the anacoluthic use of the nominative 
 participle, .ee Matthiae, ad Hurip. Phoen. 
 
 3 On the form δύνῃ instead of δύνασαι, see 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 359. 
 
 4 Comp. Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1843, p, 122, 
 
116 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 the direct discourse” (de Wette).' | Lachmann? places no point at all after 
 πιστεῦσαι, and we might accordingly explain it thus : if thou art in a position 
 to believe that everything is possible to him that believeth (so in my second 
 edition). But even thus the τό 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 thow canst means : canst believe.” How enigmatically would Jesus 
 have so spoken! Bleek takes εἰ interrogatively. But neither the delibera- 
 tive character of this question (see on Matt. xii. 10) nor the τό would be 
 appropriate. Bengel’s interpretation also is impossible: ‘‘Hoc, 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 conjectwred either : εἶπεν αὐτῷ" 
 εἰ δύνασαι; πίστευε᾽ πάντα δυνατὰ K.T.A., OY : εἶπεν avTg’ τί ἐστι TO εἰ δύνασαι; 
 πίστευε" πάντα κ.τ..., and Bornemann, ἐ.6. p. 198 : εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ πάντα δυνατὰ 
 τῷ πιστ. --- Ver. 24. βοήθει μου τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ] 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 βοήθει (ver. 22). More- 
 over, the answer of the father, who has just said πιστεύω, 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 ἀπιστία, is quite 
 in keeping with the alternation of vehemently excited feeling. Victor An- 
 tiochenus rightly says : διάφορός ἐστιν ἡ πίστις" ἡ μὲν εἰσαγωγικὴ, ἡ δὲ τελεία, 
 ““the faith is different ; in the one case elementary, in the other full 
 grown.”—The substantive τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ brings more strongly into prominence 
 the condition than would have been done by an adjective.* And the pre- 
 fixed μὸν 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. ὅτι ἐπισυντρέχει ὄχλος] that people were thereupon 
 running together. We wished to avoid still greater publicity. —éyo] em- 
 phatically, in contrast to the disciples. — μηκέτι] no more, as hitherto. See 
 on ver. 18. — Ver. 26. κράξας. . . σπαράξασ] κράξας : erying out, not speak- 
 ing. The masculines belong to the constructio κατὰ σύνεσιν ; Mark has con- 
 ceived to himself the πνεῦμα as a person (as δαίμων), and has used the attrib- 
 utive participles accordingly, not therefore by mistake (Fritzsche, de 
 Wette).° — τοὺς πολλούς] 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. wu. Krit. 1862, 
 p. 559. 
 
 2 Who nevertheless, Praef. II. p. vii., con- 
 jectures TISTQSAL: ‘‘Istud si potes,”’ in 
 quo dubitatio est, facito ut certum et con- 
 firmatum des, ut fiat ‘‘ potes,’ ‘‘ This if 
 thou canst, in which thereis doubt, I declare 
 thou mayst concede as certain and con- 
 firmed, that it may become ¢how canst.” 
 
 Ingenious, but very artificial; and πιστοῦν 
 only occurs in the N. T. at 2 Tim. iii. 14. 
 
 3 Who, however, also admits our view. 
 
 4See Winer, p. 211 [E. T. 236]. 
 
 5 Comp. Xen. Cyr. vii. 3.8: φεῦ, ὦ ἀγαθὴ 
 καὶ πιστὴ ψυχὴ, οἴχῃ δὴ ἀπολιπὼν ἡμᾶς ; 566 
 in general, Matthiae, p. 975; Bornemann in 
 the Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 40. 
 
CHAP. Ix., 30-37. ἘΠῚ 
 
 miracle. — Ver. 28 f. εἰς οἶκον] as vii. 17. — ὅτι] is to be written ὅ, τι, and, as 
 at ver. 11, to be explained as wherefore. — τοῦτο τ. γένος] this kind of demons 
 —a view of the words which Ewald also, in his Gesch. Chr. p. 385 (not in 
 his Huang. p. 78, 277), recognizes ‘‘in the present Mark,” but not in Mat- 
 thew. —év οὐδενί] by nothing, by no means. That prayer (x. νηστ. 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 ὦ 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. 
 — ἐκεῖθεν] out of the region of Caesarea Philippi, vili. 27. — raperopetovto] 
 they journeyed along through Galilee, i.e., they passed through in such a way, 
 that (until Capernaum, ver. 33) they never tarried anywhere. Comp. Deut. 
 ii. 4, 14; Bar. iv. 43; also Mark ii. 23. The travelling along by-ways 
 (Lange) is not implied in the verb. — καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν, iva τὶς γνῷ (Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf read yvoi ; see on v. 48) : similar to vii. 34. But here (iva) the 
 contents of the wish is conceived as its design. The reason why Jesus 
 wished to journey unknown is given by ἐδίδασκε γὰρ x.t.A., ver. 31, for which 
 deeply grave instruction He desired to be entirely undisturbed with His 
 disciples. This ἐδίδασκε was the continuance of the ἤρξατο διδάσκειν of vill. 
 81 ; hence there is no reason for understanding in the passage before us not 
 the Twelve, but the scattered adherents in Galilee (Lange). Moreover, 
 αὐτούς in ver. 33 is decisive against this. Comp. ver. 35. — παραδίδοται] the 
 near and certain future realized as present. — καὶ ἀποκτανθείς] 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. 7/40. εἰς Kar. in ver. 33 is not at vari- 
 ance (in opposition to de Wette). [See Note LYIII., p. 125.]— Mark is more 
 original in the historical introduction of the point in question, ver. 33 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. 97 (Matthew has the thought 
 already at x. 40). — ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ] See ver. 80. --- ἐσιώπων] from being conscience- 
 struck. — πρὸς ἀλλήλ.} emphatically prefixed : with one another, so that they 
 one against the other claimed the higher place. It was not the general ques- 
 tion τίς μείζων in abstracto, but the concrete question of personal jealousy in 
 their own circle of disciples. — τίς μείζων] This brief, certainly primitive, in- 
 terrogation is in Matthew more precisely defined by ἐν τῇ βασιλ. τ. ovp. from 
 the answer (ver. 3). This more precise definition, however, is not, with 
 Beza, Heupel, and many others, to be imported also here, but it stands 
 
 1 Comp. Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 25. 
 
118 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 simply : who ts of higher rank, although it is self-evident that they had also 
 included in their view their position in the kingdom of heaven. — καθίσας 
 ἐφών. τοὺς δώδεκα] by way of solemn preparation. — 77 a man desires to be of the 
 Jirst rank, he must, etc. This éora expresses the result (comp. on Matt. xx. 
 26 f.),—the state of things that will arise in consequence of that wish,—and 
 thereby defines the right θέλειν πρῶτ. εἶναι. ---- Ver. 36 does not come in un- 
 connectedly (Weisse, Holtzmann), but the progression is : ‘‘ Of all servants, 
 even of the least, the affectionate reception of whom is a service shown to 
 myself,” etc. — ἐναγκαλισ. ) 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. οὐκ. . . ἀλλά] not non tam 
 . guam, but with conscious rhetorical emphasis the ἐμὲ δέχεται is abso- 
 
 ate negatived (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 ἐπὶ τᾷ ὀνόμ. μου. . . τῷ ὀνόμ. σου ; the disciples had done the 
 opposite of the δέχεσθαι in the case of one, who had uttered the name of Jesus.” 
 So John came to his question. Bengel well says: ‘‘dubitationem hance vi- 
 detur in pectore aliquamdiu gessisse, dum opportune eam promeret.” 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 ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. μου, 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. — τῷ ὀνόμ. 
 cov.| by means of Thy name, by the utterance of it. [See critical note, 
 p- 108.] Comp. Matt. vii. 22 ; Actsiii. 6, xix. 13. 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. — ὃς οὐκ ἀκολ. ἡμῖν, and then again ὅτε οὐκ ἀκολ. 
 ἡμῖν) John brings this point very 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. 1 --- ἐκωλύομεν (see the critical remarks) : the imperfect, following the 
 aorist, makes us dwell on the main point of the narrative. See Kiihner, IT. 
 Ῥ. 74.— Ver. 39 f. Application: Of such aman, 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- 
 
 1 See Winer, p. 4389 ff. [E. T. 495 ff.]; 2 Comp. Schleiermacher, Luk. p. 153 f. 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 0 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 1.1 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 duv- 
 ἤσεται designates the ethical possibility. —rayt] soon,? not : lightly, which 
 might be signified by τάχα, 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. — γάρ 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 ὃς οὐκ ἔστι καθ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἔστιν. ‘* 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. — ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι k.t.A.] 850 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. 36), and administers 
 the warning that none should give offence to such child-like ones (ver. 42). 
 To comply with this, we need 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. 48-48). 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. —Katév . . . μᾶλλον] namely, than that he should have accomplished 
 such a seduction. — περίκειται and βέβληται bring vividly before us the state 
 of the case, in which he 7s 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 Késtlin, 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 ὅπου ὁ 
 
 1 Hilgenfeld, Hvang. p. 140. See also his 2 Matt. v. 25, al. ; Ecclus. vi. 18, xlviii. 20; 
 Zeitschr. 1864, p. 317 f., where likewise quite Plato, Conv. p. 184 A; Tim. p.73 A; Xen. 
 untenable grounds are adduced for the Cyt Aas 
 above opinion. In the answer of Jesus, 3 Comp. Winer, p. 346f. [E. T. 387]. On 
 Eichthal sees even a specimen of good but εἶναί τινος, addictum esse alicui, see Bremi, 
 not moral tactics, and holds that the narra- ad Dem. Phil. Il. p. 125, 56; Seidler, ad 
 tive is an interpolation. Eur. El. 1098; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 621. 
 
120 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 σκώληξ k.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 dai, ver. 49, the counterpart of πυρί, 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 closelyin view: (1) The logical connection (γάρ) is 
 argumentative, and that in such a way that yap is related to the πῦρ in ver. 
 48 (because to this the πυρί must correspond), not to the entire thought, ver. 
 43 ff. (2) Πᾶς 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 αὐτῶν (comp. Luke vi. 40), 
 because afterwards with πᾶσα θυσία another class is distinguished from that 
 meant by zac, and something opposed to what is predicated of the latter is 
 affirmed of it. (8) Πυρί and aé are contrasts ; like the latter, so also the 
 former can only be explained instrwmentally (not therefore : for the fire, as 
 Baumgarten-Crusius and Linder in the Stud. wu. 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. 111. 13), as Theo- 
 phylact and others (including Koéstlin, p. 326 1.) would take it, nor yet to 
 the sanctifying fire of the divine word (Lindemann). (4) Kai may not be 
 taken as : just as (ὡς, καθώς), to which, following the majority, Lindemann 
 also ultimately comes, but which καί never expresses ; but rather : and, join- 
 ing on to those who are meant by πᾶς 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 πᾶσα θυσία 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 is 
 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, 
 vy. 49, 50 are “an artificial elaboration” of 
 Matt. v. 13. But how specifically different 
 are the two utterances! And what would 
 
 there have been to elaborate in the plain 
 saying of Matt. vy. 13? and to elaborate in 
 such a way? According to Weizsiicker, 
 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. 
 
 2See on the passage, Schott, Opusc. II. 
 p. 5 ff., and Dissert. 1819; Grohmann in the 
 bibl. Stud. Sachs. Geistl. 1844, p. 91 ff.; Biihr 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 673; Lindemann 
 in the Mecklenb, Zeitschr. 1864, p. 299 ff. 
 
CHAP. IX., 49. 121 
 
 (7) The meaning of ἁλισθήσεται 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. 13, where meat-offerings are spoken of),? 
 It was, namely, salt of the covenant (3 m1) of God (comp. also Num. 
 xviii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xiii. 5), .6., 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 fire (ver. 48) ; for every one of those who come into Gehenna will be 
 salted therein with fire, i.e., none of them will escape the doom of having 
 represented in him by means of fire that which is done in sacrifices by means 
 of salt, namely, the imperishable validity of the divine covenant, and (to add 
 now the argumentum ὁ 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. εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ. ζωήν, VV. 
 43-47), by reception of higher wisdom (comp. ver. 50 ; Col. iv. ὁ ; 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 every 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 ἁλίζεσθαι. (3) Analogous to the twofold distinction of 
 ἁλίζεσθαι in the passage before us, although different in the figurative con- 
 ception, is the βαπτίζειν πυρί and πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, Matt. 11. 11. — Of the many 
 diverging 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, we 
 may note historically the following :—(1) Euthymius Zigabenus : πᾶς πιστὸς 
 πυρὶ τῆς πρὸς θεὸν πίστεως, ἢ τῆς πρὸς τὸν πλησίον ἀγάπης ἁλισθήσεται, ἤγουν τὴν 
 σηπεδόνα (corruption) τῆς κακίας ἀποβαλεῖ. . . πᾶσα θυσία πνευματικὴ, εἴτε δι᾽ 
 εἰ χῆς, εἴτε δ ἐλεημοσύνης, εἴτε τρόπον ἕτερον γινομένη, τῷ ἄλατι τῆς πίστεως ἢ τῆς 
 ἀγάπησ ἁλισθήσεται, εἴτουν ἁλισθῆναι ὀφείλει, ‘‘ 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. inrespect of the animal offerings, Symbol. d. Mos. Cult. ΤΙ. p. 824; and Stud. u. 
 Ezek. xliii. 24; Joseph. Anfét. iii. 9. 1; and Krit. l.c. p. 675 ff. ; Knobel on Lev. p. 369 f. 
 see in general, Lund. Jiid. Heiligth., ed. 2 Comp. Pressel in Herzog’s Hncyki, XIII. 
 Wolf, p. 648; Ewald, Alterth. p. 37; Biihr, p. 343 f. 
 
122 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 the salt of faith or of love, that is to say, ought to be salted.” (2) Luther: 
 ‘Tn 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.’ (8) 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 et in aeternum duret torquendus, prout sal 
 tuetur a corruptione: . . . at is, quivero Deo victima, condietur sale gratiae 
 ad incorruptionem gloriae,” ‘‘For each 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 
 aeternam 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 πῦρ, 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, prae- 
 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 sup- 
 plicio Geennae sunt obnoxii) nune demum hoe igne sale (quod ipsis in vita ter- 
 restri. versantibus defuit) imbuetur, i.e., nunc demum poenis vitae futurae 
 discet resipiscere. <Alio sensu illi salientur, quam victimae Deo sacrae, de quibus 
 loco illo scriptum legitur: victima quaevis sale est conspergenda, Tis enim 
 similes 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), 1.6., 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 “Ὁ As every sacrifice is salted by salt, #.e., [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, Opuse. II. p. 458 ff. 
 
CHAP. IX., 49. 123 
 
 victim is sprinkled with salt.” (8) According to Fritzsche, γάρ assigns the 
 reason of the exhortation to suffer rather the 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 Bleek. (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, πυρὶ ἁλίζεσθαι is nearly (?) tantamount to ‘‘ the receiving by purifica- 
 tion the holy seasoning and consecration (of purity and wisdom),” and καί 
 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) Bihr : ‘‘ 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 ;. . . this refining 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 
 is 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. 19, 
 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.e., 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, 
 Ῥ. 376 f., on linguistic grounds that are wholly untenable, to be spurious ; 
 and, as it is wanting also in B L A δὲ, min. and some vss. (on account of the 
 twice occurring ἁλισθήσ. 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. Καλὸν... ἀρτύσετε] amaxim of experience drawn from common 
 life, in which τὸ ἅλας is to be taken literally. Then follows with ἔχετε κ.τ.λ. 
 the application, in which the spiritual meaning of the salt (wisdom, see on 
 ver. 49, and Buxtorf, Lev. Talm. p. 1208) emerges. The connection with 
 what precedes is: In order to experience in yourselves on the establishment 
 of the kingdom the truth : πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται, 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 again at the close points 
 back. This contest about precedence had been foolish (opposed to the ἅλας) 
 and unpeaceful. — ἐὰν dé τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον κ.τ.λ.} Comp. on Matt. v. 13. — αὐτὸ 
 ἀρτύσετε] wherewith shall ye restore it? so that it shall again be provided with 
 saline efficacy (comp. on Col. iv. 6). —éyere] emphatically placed first : 
 keep, preserve, which is not done, if the analogue of the ἄναλον γίνεσθαι sets 
 in with you. — ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] in yourselves, correlative to the subsequent ἐν ἀλλή- 
 λοις (reciprocally). Comp. Bengel : ‘‘prius officium respectu nostri, alte- 
 rum erga alios,” ‘‘ The former a service with respect to ourselves, the latter 
 over against others.” — da (see the critical remarks) from ὁ diac. See 
 Lobeck, Paralip. p. 93. — καὶ εἰρην. ἐν ἀλλ.) 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. 
 
 Nores py AMERICAN EprItTor. 
 
 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. ὅτι λέγουσιν k.7.A. 
 
 Here Meyer defends a probable view, which seems even more necessary at 
 ver. 28, where the absence of λέγοντες before ὅτι makes any other sense very 
 harsh. Stillit is more grammatical to take ὅτι in both cases as the sign of quota- 
 tion (ὅτι 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,” ete. 
 Comp. chap. ii. 16. It is very doubtful whether any other N. T. passage re- 
 quires us to read 6, τι. 
 
 LVI. Ver. 12. καὶ πῶς γεγράπται x.7.A. 
 
 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. 10: ἁλίσθητε ἐν αὐτῳ (Χριστῷ), ἵνα μὴ διαφθαρῇ τις ἐν ὑμῖν. 
 
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. 
 
 LVII. Ver. 20. ἰδὼν αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ. 
 
 Recent critical editors omit εὐθύς, which the Rec. has before πνεῦμα. Weiss 
 ed. Mey. objects to Meyer’s explanation of the anacoluthic use of the nomina- 
 tive participle, and refers ἰδών to the demon. 
 
 LVIII. 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. καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἔστιν. 
 
 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. 50, 
 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 
 outward 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. 121). 
 
 LX. Ver. 49. καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἅλι ἁλισθήσεται. 
 
 This clause is omitted in δὲ BL Δ, 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 (ἁλισθήσεται). 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- 
 rifice 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 γάρ a reason for the entire warning (vv. 43-48), taking ‘‘ every one” in 
 a general sense. Most of the explanations are open to serious objections, es- 
 pecially these which take καί 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. διὰ τοῦ] is wanting in C**D G A, min. Syr. Pers. Aeth. Goth. Vulg. It. 
 On the other hand, B C* L δὲ, Copt. have καί. So rightly Lachm. and Tisch. 
 This καί was, in some cases, deleted in accordance with Matt. xix. 1 ; in others, 
 more precisely defined by the description contained in διὰ τοῦ. [Ver. 2, Gries- 
 bach, Lachm., Treg., Weiss, R. V., omit oi before Φαρισαῖοι, following A Β Δ, 
 etc., W. and Hort enclose in brackets.]—Ver. 4. With Lachm. and Tisch. the 
 order ἐπέτρεψεν Μωύσῆς, following B C D L A min., is to be preferred. — Ver. 
 6. ὁ Θεός is wanting in BCL AX, 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. πρὸς τ. yuv.] Lachm. has τῇ γυναικί, follow- 
 ing ACL Ν Δ, min. codd. It. Jer. From Matthew. Tisch. has now again de- 
 leted κ. προσκολλ. πρὸς τ. γυν. αὐτοῦ, 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. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν] So also Lachm. and 
 Tisch., following B Ὁ L A δὲ, min. Cant..Ver. The Recepta ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (Fritzsche, 
 Scholz) is an emendation. — αὐτοῦ περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ] On decisive evidence we must 
 read, with Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., merely περὶ τούτου. The first αὐτοῦ 
 is a current addition to οἱ μαθηταί ; by τοῦ αὐτοῦ (D: τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου) τούτου was 
 glossed for the purpose of more precise definition. — Ver. 12. Tischendorf’s 
 reading [recent editors, R. V.]: καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς yaunon 
 (B CL Sand A, which, however, has καί before γαμ.), is a stylistic emendation. 
 — γαμηῆῇ ἄλλῳ] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have γαμήσῃ ¢7/0v, follow- 
 ing BC* DL Δ δὲ, min. A mechanical repetition from ver. 11 (whence A has 
 even ἄλλην instead of aa/ov!).—[Ver. 13. W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., in the 
 δ BCL ACopt. read airoi¢ instead of τοῖς προσφέρουσιν.  --- Ver. 14. Before μή 
 Elz. Fritzsche, Lachm. have xa/, which is wanting in witnesses deserving con- 
 sideration, and is added from the parallels. — Ver. 16. Instead of ηὐλόγει Lachm. 
 (as also Scholz) has εὐλόγει. But BCA, min. Vict. have κατευλόγει (L Ν : 
 κατηυλ.). 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 τιθείς (omitting the last αὐτώ) is attested by B C LA 8, min. Copt. 
 Syr. p. ms. Vict. (Fritzsche, Tisch.). But it was precisely the threefold αὐτά 
 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 μὴ φον., μὴ μοιχ. (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 Rec.] — Ver. 21. The article before πτωχοῖς 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. — 
 ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν] is wanting in B C DAR, 406, Copt. Vulg. It. Clem. Hilar, 
 Aug. Ambr. Other witnesses have it before δεῦρο. Bracketed by Lachm. [Re- 
 
CHAP. 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. τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ 
 τοῖς χρήμ.] is notfound in B A δὲ, 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 
 πεποιθότας, etc., as quite excluded. — Ver. 25. διελθεῖν] The εἰσελθεῖν, commended 
 by Griesb., has indeed considerable attestation [ δὲ 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. ἠκολουθήσαμεν] Lachm. and Tisch. [recent 
 editors, R. V.] have ἠκολουθήκαμεν, following B CD. A mechanical similarity 
 of formation with ἀφήκαμεν, occurring also in some witnesses in Matthew and 
 Luke. — Ver. 29. Only B A & (é. αὐτῷ ὁ Ἴ.), Copt. have the simple ἔφη 6 "Ino. 
 (Tisch.) instead of droxp. ὁ ᾽Ἴ. εἶπεν, but they are correct. Comp. on ix. 12, 38. 
 — ἢ πατέρα ἢ μητέρα] The reverse order is found in BC A 106, Copt. Goth. Colb. 
 Brix. Lachm. and Tisch. It is to be preferred. ἢ πατέρα 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. Hazrl.). 
 On account of ver. 30 ἢ γυναῖκα has also been omitted (B DA δὲ, min. Copt. Arm. 
 Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]). — After καί the second éve- 
 kev is added by Griesb. and Tisch., following preponderating evidence. The 
 omission is explained from viii. 35.— Ver. 30. μητέρας] Lachm. has μητέρα, 
 following A C D, Verss.; the plural was objectionable. — Ver. 31. The article 
 before the second ἔσχατοι is indeed deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. [retained 
 in Tisch. VIII.]; but following Matt. xix. 30 it dropped outso easily, and, more- 
 over, it is found still in such important testimonies, that it must be restored.— 
 Ver. 32. καὶ dxodov§.] BC* L A δὲ, 1, Copt. have οἱ δὲ ἀκολουθ. This is rightly 
 followed by Ewald, and is now adopted by Tisch. The oi dé not being under- 
 stood was set aside by καί. But the attestation is to be the more regarded as 
 sufficient, that D K, min. Vere. Ver. Chrys. are not to be reckoned in favor of 
 the Recepla, because they altogether omit «. axod. ἐφοβ., of which omission the 
 homoioteleuton was manifestly the cause. — Ver. 33. The article before γραμμ. 
 (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 ἐμπτύσουσιν air. κ. 
 μαστιγ. ait. (Lachm. Tisch. Rinck) is found in BC L A 8, min. vss., including 
 Vulg. and codd. It. [accepted by recent editors, R. V.]. But the ἐμπαίξ. and 
 ἐμπτύσ. were considered as belonging together. Comp. Luke xviii. 33. — Elz. has 
 τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ; so also Fritzsche, Scholz. But BC DLA δὲ, vss. have pera 
 τρεῖς ἡμέρας. Approved by Griesb. Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Tisch. [recent 
 editors, R. V.]. The Recepta 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 A B C L A 8** min. vss. To be adopted. It was easily passed over 
 as being superfluous. D K have it before the verb. An incorrect restoration. 
 δὲ ἘΞ has entirely omitted ὃ ἐάν down to δὸς ἡμῖν. --- Ver. 36. ποιῆσαί με ὑμῖν] Lachm, 
 Tisch. have ποιήσω ὑμῖν, which was also approved by Griesb. [Treg., W. and 
 Hort (text) omit με, which Tisch., Weiss (δὲ B) place before ποιήσω. An al- 
 teration in remembrance of passages such as x. 51, xiv. 12, Matt. xx. 32, in 
 
128 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 which also the bare subjunctive was sometimes completed by iva ποιῆσω. ---- Ver. 
 38. Instead of καί (in Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche) read, with Rinck, Lachm. and 
 Tisch., 7, which Griesb. also approved, following B Οὗ DL Δ &, min. Copt. 
 Arm. Ar. Vulg. It. Or.; καί came from ver. 39.—In ver. 40 also 7 is to be 
 adopted on almost the same evidence (with Rinck, Lachm., and Tisch.) ; καί 15 
 from Matt. xx. 23. — After εὐων. Elz. has μου, which is deleted on decisive evi- 
 dence. — Ver. 42. Read καὶ προσκαλ. αὐτοὺς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
 following BC D LA κα, 406, Syr. Copt. codd. It. The Recepta is from Matt. 
 xx. 25. — Ver. 43. Instead of the first ἔσται, Lachm, and Tisch. have ἐστίν, which 
 Schulz also approved, in accordance with Β Οὗ DLA δὲ, Vulg. It. The future 
 came in from Matt., and on account of what follows. — Ver. 44. ὑμῶν γενέσθαι 
 Lachm. has ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, following important evidence [W. and Hort, R. V., 
 with δὲ Β ΟΣ L A, Vulg. Copt.], but it is from Matt. xx. 27. [Weiss accepts a 
 combined text : ὑμῶν εἶναι, so D.|— Ver. 46. After τυφλός read with Tisch. προ- 
 σαίτης, omitting the subsequent προσαιτῶν. So Β LACopt. Comp. 8, τυφλὸς 
 καὶ προσαίτης. The Recepta is from Luke xviii. 35.— Ver. 47. [Tisch., recent 
 editors, R. V., with BL A, Vulg., read Ναζαρηνός. 1---ὁ υἱός] Lachm. has υἱέ, follow- 
 ing BC L A 8, min. [So Tisch., recent editors, R.V.] From Luke. Comp. 
 ver. 48. — Ver. 49. αὐτὸν φωνηθῆναι) BC L A &, min. Copt. have φωνήσατε αὐτόν. 
 So Fritzsche and Tisch. And rightly ; the accusative with the infinitive was 
 introduced through the fact of ἐκέλευσεν being written instead of εἶπεν after Luke 
 xviii. 40 (so still Ev. 48, It. Vulg.), and remained, after εἶπεν was restored, the 
 more easily because Luke has it also. — ἔγειρε] See on ii. 9. — Ver. 50. ἀναστάς 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναπηδήσας, according to Β D LA δὲ, min, vss. (in- 
 eluding Vulg. It.) Or. The Recepia is a “‘scriptorum jejunitas’’ that mistakes 
 the peculiarity of Mark (Tisch.). — Ver. 51. The form ῥαββουνί (Elz. fa  ovi) 
 has decisive evidence. [W. and Hort have ῥαββουνεί, following B (and A: ῥαβ- 
 Bwvei), Other variations occur.]— Ver. 52. Instead of τῷ ’Inoov (Elz., Scholz, 
 Rinck), ABC DLA ®& have αὐτῷ (Tisch.), which attestation is decisive. 
 
 Vv. 1-9. See on Matt. xix. 1-8. — κἀκεῖθεν] points back to ix. 89. --- καὶ 
 πέραν Tov Ἰορδάνου] see the critical remarks. He came to the borders of Judaea, 
 and that’ on the further side of Jordan, ‘‘ipsa Samaria ad dextram relicta,” 
 ‘* Samariaitself was left to the right” (Beza). At Jericho He came again to 
 this side, ver. 46. See, moreover, on Matt. xix. 1. — καὶ συμπορ. x.t.A.] 
 And there gathered together to Him again crowds of people. πάλιν, 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.: κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν (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; 2 Bleek, Weiss, Holtzmann, Schenkel, 
 Hartung, Partikeil. I. p. 145. Harless, Hhescheid. 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 does 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 Pharisees, 
 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 elicit this Mosaic évroA7#—on the right estima- 
 tion of which depended the point at issue—from the mouth of the ques- 
 tioners themselves, in order thereupon to attach to it what follows.—Ver. 
 4. ἐπέτρεψε] emphatically prefixed (see the critical remarks) : Moses per- 
 mitted, in saying which their ἔξεστιν, ver. 2, is present to their minds. See, 
 moreover, on Matt. v. 31. They prudently refrain from saying ἐνετείλατο. ---- 
 Ver. 5. τ. ἐντολὴν ratr.| the commandment of the putting forth a writing of 
 divorcement. — Ver. 6. The subject (as ὁ Θεός is not genuine) is to be taken 
 out of κτίσεως (ὁ κτιστής).᾽ --- Ver. 7. Christ makes Adam’s words at Gen. il. 
 44 His own. It is otherwise, but less directly and concisely, given in 
 Matthew. — ἕνεκεν τούτου] because God created men as male and female—in 
 order to correspond with this arrangement of the Creator. — The futwres 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 merely to His disciples (ver. 11 with the not original 
 amplification of ver. 12) is withal an essential element of the reply to the 
 Pharisees, 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 LXIL., p. 137.]— εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν] having come into 
 the house (in which at that time they were lodging). The same brevity of 
 expression occurs at xiii. 9.— πάλιν οἱ μαθηταί] again the disciples, as previ- 
 ously the Pharisees. — περὶ τούτου] (see the critical remarks) : upon this sub- 
 ject. — Ver. 11. ἐπ’ αὐτήν | in reference to her, the woman that is put away.°— 
 Mark has not the μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (Matt.), which makes no essential difference, 
 as this ground of divorce is obvious of itself as such. See on Matt. v. 32.° 
 — Ver. 12. καὶ ἐὰν γυνὴ ἀπολύσῃ x.7.2.] Matthew has quite a different saying. 
 
 Comp. Calvin and Bengel: ‘‘in illam,” 
 “toward her.” It is only thus that its em- 
 
 1 See Kiihner, IT. p. 36, 4. 
 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 αὐτήν to 
 the second wife. Erasmus appropriately 
 says: ‘‘in injuriam illius,” “to herinjury.” 
 
 9 
 
 phatic bearing is brought out; the marry- 
 ing of the second wife makes him an adul- 
 terer towards the first. 
 
 3 Comp. also Hofmann, Schrifibew. 11. 2, 
 p. 410. 
 
130 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 2 
 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, Antt. 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 LXIL., 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 said as much, as the 
 question had reference to the Jewish relation of divorce. — μοιχᾶται] the sub- 
 ject is the woman (comp. v. 11), not the ἄλλος. 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 ἐπ’ airév,” ‘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 ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν 
 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. — ἅψεται] From the mere touch on the 
 part of the holy man, who assuredly was also knownas 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 towch, there is already in- 
 troduced here the more definite laying on of hands, which was performed by 
 Jesus at ver. 16. — Ver. 15 ἠγανάκτησε) ‘‘ propter impedimentum amori suo a 
 discipulis oblatum,” ‘‘on account of the hindrance opposed to His love by 
 the disciples” (Bengel). — Ver. 15 is alsoadopted by Luke xviii. 17, but not 
 by the abbreviating Matthew. Whosoever 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 
 says: τῶν ἔχοντων ἐξ ἀσκήσεως τὴν ἀκακίαν, ἣν τὰ παιδία ἔχουσιν ἀπὸ φύσεως, 
 “those having by exercise the guilelessness which children have by nature.” 
 —In δέξηται the kingdom (which the coming Messiah establishes) is con- 
 ceived as coming (ix. 1 ; Matt. vi. 10 ; Luke xvii. 20, al.). It iserroneous to 
 explain the βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ as the preaching of the kingdom.4— Ver. 16. ἐναγκαλ] 
 as at ix. 86. —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- 
 
 1See on 1 Cor. vii. 18, and Wetstein in 3 According to Baur, from a reflection of 
 loc. ; also Danzin Meuschen, WV. 7. ex Talm. Mark on the equalrights of the two sexes. 
 il. Ὁ. 680 ff. 4Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 
 2 See Saalschiitz, Mos. 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. — 
 εἰς ὁδόν] out of the house, ver. 10, in order to prosecute His journey, ver. 32. 
 — yovurer.] not inappropriate (de Wette), but, in connection with προσδρα- 
 pov, representing the earnestness of the inquiry ; both words are peculiar to 
 the graphic Mark. With an accusative, as at i. 40. See on Matt. xvii. 14. 
 — Ver. 18. The variation from Matthew is so far unessential, as in the lat- 
 ter also the predicate ἀγαθός 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 
 LXIII., p. 137.] — τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς x.7.A.] Ingeniously and clearly 
 Jesus makes use of the address διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, 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 to turn aside 
 Srom Himself and to ascribe to God only the predicate ἀγαθός, 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 is alleged, indeed, 
 by Hilgenfeld (in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 
 414 ff.; comp. in his Zeitschr. 1863, 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, c. Tryph. 101, and among 
 the Marcosians (similarly in Marcion) : τί με 
 λέγ. ἀγαϑόν ; εἷς ἐστὶν ἀγαϑὺὸς, ὁ πατήρ μου, ὃ 
 ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς : 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. 
 But the Gnostic exegesis might find this pro- 
 bative force just as suitably in our form of 
 
 ὥ, 
 
 the text (in behalf of which Justin, Apolog. 
 i. 16, testifies), if it laid stress, in the εἷς ὃ 
 Θεός, on the reference to the supreme God, 
 the Father of Christ. See also on Luke 
 XVili. 19. 
 
 2 Hucellent teacher, Plat. Mem. Ὁ. 93 C; 
 comp. the familiar Attic ὦ ἀγαϑέ or ὦ ᾽γαϑέ; 
 and see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 642. 
 
 3 Comp. Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. 
 Opuse. Ὁ. 78 ff. 
 
 4Comp. Dorner, Jesu stindlose Vollkom- 
 menh. Ὁ. 14. 
 
 5 Luke ii. 52; Heb. v. 8; Luke iv. 13, 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. 137.] This is 
 overlooked from dogmatic misunderstanding in the often attempted (see 
 as early as Augustine, c. Mavim. 111. 23 ; Ambros. de fide, 11. 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 ὅ thinks that the young 
 man had been ambitious, had said διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ as captatio benevolentiae, 
 ‘a feint of good-will,” and presupposed the existence of ambition also in 
 Jesus ; that, therefore, Jesus wished to point his attention by the τί με λέγεις 
 ἀγαθόν to his fault, and by the οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς x.7.2. 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, ἐ.6., 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 
 οὐδεὶς k.T.A., λέγεται cannot be supplied, but only ἐστί, as it so frequently is in 
 general propositions (Kiihner, II. p. 40), and since οὐδεὶς εἰ μή means nothing 
 else than nemo nisi, i.e., according to the sense, no one eacept (Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 524). — Ver. 19. The certainly original position of the μὴ φονεύσ. 
 is to be regarded as having at that time become traditional. Comp. Weiz- 
 sicker, p. 856. —,7 ἀποστερ. is not a renewed expression of the seventh 
 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 (οὐκ ἀποστερήσεις μισθὸν πένη- 
 τος [A. V., ‘‘ thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy”, 
 where the Roman edition has οὐκ ἀπαδικήσεις μ. 7.), 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 (οὐκ ἀδικήσεις K.7.2.), With which, however, the char- 
 acteristic ἀποστερήσῃς is not in accordance. Least of all it can be taken 
 together with τίμα x.7.2., so that it would be the prohibitory aspect of the 
 commanding τίμα x.7.2.,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 τίμα x.7.2. ; moreover, Mark must have written 
 μὴ ἀποστερ. τιμὴν τὸν πατέρα K.T.A., in Order to be understood. In Matthew 
 this command does not appear ; while, on the other hand, he has the aya- 
 πήσεις τὸν πλησίον x.T.A., Which is wanting in Mark and Luke. These are 
 various forms of the tradition. But since ἀγαπήσεις x.t.A. (which also 
 occurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews) is most appropriate and charac- 
 
 1 Comp. Keim, geschichtl. Chr. p. 39 ff., 2, p. 1106 f. 
 and, moreover, at p. 108 ff. 3 In the Stud. wv. Krit. 1845, p. 115 ff. 
 2See Theophylact, Erasmus, Bengel, 4 So Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391. 
 Olshausen, Ebrard ; comp. also Lange, 11. 
 
CHAP. X:, 17=27. 133 
 
 teristic, and the μὴ ἀποστεῤήσῃς is so peculiar that it could hardly have been 
 added as an appendix to the tradition, Ewald’s conjecture (Jahrb. I. p. 132) 
 that the original nwmber 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 Weizsicker) added. — Ver. 20. διδάσκαλε] not ἀγαθέ 
 again. — Ver. 21. ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν] 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 ἐμβλέπειν αὐτῷ:ςἁ 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 merituwm de con- 
 gruo is altogether foreign to the passage. Grotius appropriately remarks : 
 ‘‘amat 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 fo love.? 
 — ἕν σοι ὑστερεῖ] see on John ii. 2. Yet, instead of σοι, aecording to B C M 
 D 8, min., oe is, with Tischendorf, to be read. Comp. Ps. xxiii. 1. The 
 σοι occurred more readily (comp. Luke) to the transcribers. — ἄρας τ. oravp. | 
 Matt. xvi. 24; Mark viii. 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 his own 
 inward life to the divine law, was the rock on which he made shipwreck. 
 [But see critical notes. ]— Ver. 22. orvyvacac] having become sullen, out of 
 humor. Except in the Schol. Aesch. Pers. 470, and Matt. xvi. 3, the verb 
 only occurs again in the LXX. at Ezek. xxvii. 35, xxviii. 19, xxxii. 10. — 
 ἦν yap ἔχων] for he was in possession of much wealth. [See Note LXV., p. 
 138.]— Ver. 23. On the significant and solemn περιβλέπειν, comp. 11]. 5, 34 5 
 Luke vi. 10. Comp. also ἐμβλέψας, vv. 21, 27.— οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες] The 
 article ra is to be explained swmmarily. 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 (τέκνα) and 
 milder (τοὺς πεποιθότας κ.τ.}.}, 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 τοὺς πεποιθότας x.t.2. there is not to be found a modification by tradition 
 interpreting the matter in an anti-Hbionitic 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. διὰ τῆς τρυμαλ. 
 k.t.2.] through the eye of the needle. The two articles are generic ; see Bern- 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Casaubon, Wolf, Grotius, Wetstein, namely, thus as 7 do now, when I have em- 
 Kuinoel, Vater, Fritzsche, and others. braced thee, ete., v. 207 f. 
 
 2 Penelope in this passage says to her 3 Baur, Kostlin, p. 329, Hilgenfeld, Holtz- 
 husband : be not angry that Jloved theenot mann. 
 thus (ὧδ᾽ ἀγάπησα) as soon as I saw thee,— 
 
134 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 hardy, p. 315. Observe also the vivid change : to go through... to enter 
 into. — Ver. 26. καί] 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. 28-30. 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. — ἤρξατο] ‘‘ spe ex verbis salvatoris concepta,” ‘‘ hope 
 being received from the word of the Saviour,” Bengel. — The question in 
 Matthew, τί dpa ἔσται ἡμ., 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, t.e., 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 καί ; which is : and respectively. The prin- 
 ciple of division of ver. 30 is: He is (1) to receive 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 promised com- 
 pensation in the καιρὸς οὗτος is not to be understood literally, but generally, 
 of very abundant compensation. Nevertheless, the delicate feeling of Jesus 
 has not said γυναῖκας also. So much the more clumsy was Julian’s scoff (see 
 Theophylact) that the Christians were, moreover, to receive a hundred 
 wives ! The promise was realized, in respect of the καιρὸς οὗτος, by the re- 
 ciprocal manifestations of love,? 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 μετὰ διωγμῶν (comp. Matt. v. 10 ff., x. 23, xiii. 21, xxiii. 34). 
 The latter does not mean : after persecutions (Heinsius conjectured μετὰ 
 διωγμόν, as 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. 3. 10; Hartung, 
 Partikell, I. p. 146 ἢ, Comp. John ix. 36, 
 xiv. 22. 
 
 2 Comp. Luther’s gloss: “He who _ be- 
 lieveth must suffer persecution, and stake 
 everything upon his faith. Nevertheless he 
 has enough; whithersoever he comes, he 
 
 finds father, mother, brethren, possessions 
 more than ever he could forsake.” See, 6.0.» 
 on μητέρας, Rom. xvi. 13; on τέκνα, 1 Cor. 
 iv. 14 ff.; on ἀδελφούς, all the Epistles of the 
 New Testament and the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles (also ii. 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 earlier 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 πρῶτο). 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. 31-33. Mark is 
 more detailed and more characteristic than Matthew. — ἦσαν δὲ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ] 
 The occurrence with the rich young man had happened, while they went out 
 εἰς ὁδόν, ver. 17 ; now they were on the way (ἀναβαίνοντες is not to be 
 taken with ἦσαν). 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 a 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 μετὰ δίωγμ., ver. 80, 
 and the declaration, ver. 81. Comp. John xi. 7-16. — πάλιν] refers neither 
 to xi. 31 (de Wette), where there is nothing said of any παραλαμβάνειν, nor 
 to ix. 35 (Fritzsche), where the ἐφώνησε τοὺς δώδεκα, Which happened in the 
 house, is withal something 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 Himself all the Twelve (hence in this place there 
 is put not merely αὐτούς, but τοὺς dédexa). — ἤρξατο] so that He broke the 
 previous silence. — Ver. 34. The Gentiles are the subject of ἐμπαίξ. as far as 
 ἀποκτ. (comp. Matthew). Instead of ἀποκτενοῦσιν Matthew has the definite, 
 but certainly later, erucifying. 
 
 Vv. 35-45. 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 153 to be regarded as the historically correct form, see on Mat- 
 thew. — θέλομεν, ἵνα] as at vi. 25; John xvii. 24; and comp. on Luke vi. 
 35. — Ver. 87. ἐν τῇ δόξῃ 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. 38. ἢ] o7, in other words. —The presents πίνω and 
 βαπτίζομαι 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 οἱ δὲ ἀκολ. epof- them who followed Jesus as He went for- 
 οὔντο ; see the criticalremarks. The matter, ward did so only fearfully. As to this use 
 namely, is to be conceived in this way, that of οἱ δέ, see on Matt. xxviii. 17. 
 the majority of the disciples stayed behind 2%In opposition to MHoltzmann, Weiz- 
 on the way in perplexity, but those among _siicker, 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 καταδύειν and βαπτίζειν, to 
 plunge (immergere) into sufferings, sorrows, and the like.’— Ver. 40. 7] 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. 
 — ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἡτοίμασται) Matthew has added the correctly explanatory amplifi- 
 cation : ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός pov. — Ver. 41. ἤρξαντο] Jesus, namely, at once ap- 
 peased their indignation. — Ver. 42. οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν] peculiar to Mark 
 and original, denoting the essential basis of the Gentile rule,—the having 
 the repute of rulers,—not equivalent to oi ἄρχοντες," but: ‘‘ qui censentur 
 imperare, 7.e., quos gentes habent et agnoscunt, quorum imperio pareant,” 
 ‘*who are accounted to rule, ¢.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] ; MGller, newe Ansichten, p. 158 ff., who, 
 however, as Fritzsche also explains : who imagine themselves to rule, which in 
 itself (as τῶν ἐθνῶν 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 ἐστίν is as little inap- 
 propriate (in opposition to Fritzsche) as Matt. xx. 26. — Ver. 45. καὶ γάρ] 
 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. —Bapriuauc| The patronymic “80 13, as 
 was often the case (comp. Βαρθολομαῖος, Βαριησοῦς, BapoaBac), had become al- 
 together a proper name, so that Mark even expressly prefixes to it ὁ υἱὸς 
 Τιμαίου, which, however, may be accounted for by the fact of Timaeus being 
 well known, possibly as having become a Christian of note. —7rv@id¢ προσαί- 
 τῆς] (see the critical remarks) : a blind beggar. — Ver. 47. ‘‘ Magna fides, 
 quod caecus filium Davidis appellat, quem ei Nazaraeum 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. θάρσει, 
 ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε] a hasty asyndeton.* — Ver. 50. ἀποβαλ. τὸ ἱμάτ.] depicts the 
 joyous eagerness, with which also the ἀναπηδήσας is in keeping (see the crit- 
 ical remarks),4— Ver. 51. ῥαββουνί] °113, usually ; domine mi, ‘‘ my Lord.” 
 
 1Xen. Cyrop. vi. 1. 87; Wesseling, ad Rosenmiiller, and many more. 
 
 Diod. 1. p. 433. On the construction, comp. 3 Comp. Niigelsbach, Anm. z. Itias, ed. 3, 
 Ael. H. A. iii. 42: ὃ πορφυρίων λούεται τὸ τῶν p. 80. 
 
 περιστερῶν λουτρόν, a. See in general, Lo- 4 Comp. Hom. 71]. ii. 183: βῆ δὲ ϑέειν, ἀπὸ δὲ 
 beck, Paralip. p. 520. χλαῖναν βάλε, Acts iii. 8; Dem. 403, 5. 
 
 2Gataker, Raphel, Homberg, Kypke, 
 
NOTES. 137 
 
 See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2179. Yet the yod, as in°25, may also be only 
 paragogic (Drusius, Michaelis, Fritzsche) ; and this latter view is precisely 
 on account of the analogy of ‘3 more probable, and is confirmed by the in- 
 terpretation διδάσκαλε in John xx. 16. The form 73135 is, we may add, 
 more respectful than "39, Comp. Drusius. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EpriTor. 
 
 LXI. Ver. 2. εἰ ἔξεστιν k.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. 
 
 LXII. Ver. 10. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. 
 
 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. τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; 
 
 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 thou 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. μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς. 
 
 There seems to be no valid objection to regarding this prohibition, contain- 
 ing a 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. Mey., however, while favoring the view 
 that this takes the place of the tenth commandr nt, 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. ἦν yap ἔχων. 
 
 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 ἦν 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 ΧΙ: 139 
 
 on 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Ver. 1. Lachm, and Tisch. read (instead of εἰς Βηθῴ. x. By6.) merely καὶ εἰς 
 Βηθανίαν ; but the evidence is not sufficient (Ὁ, Vulg. codd. It. Or. (twice) Jer.) 
 to entitle us to derive the Recepta from Luke xix. 29. An old clerical error, oc- 
 casioned by the similar beginnings of the two local names ; and καί was inserted 
 to connect them. Οὐ δὲ have εἰς Βηῆφ. x. εἰς Βηθ. If this were the original form, 
 the omission would occur still more easily. [But Treg., W. and Hort (text), 
 Weiss, R. V., accept : εἰς Βηθφ. x. Βηθ. 1 --- The form Ἱεροσόλυμα is to be adopted, 
 with Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., following BC DL Δ δὲ, min. Sahid. Or. 
 Ἱερουσαλήμ does not occur elsewhere in Mark, and only in Matthew at xxiii. 37 
 (see in loc.) ; in Luke it is the usual form. — ἀποστέλλει] Lachm. reads ἀπέστειλεν, 
 in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from the parallels. — Ver. 2. οὐδείς] 
 Lachm. has οὐδεὶς οὔπω ; Fritzsche: οὐδέπω οὐδείς. The latter is much too 
 weakly attested. The former has considerable attestation [A Β L A, Vulg., 
 accepted by recent editors, R. V.], but with a different position of the οὔπω 
 (Tisch. οὐδ. avép. οὔπω), instead of which A has πώποτε (from Luke). The 
 Recepta is to be defended ; the idea expressed in adhuc was very variously 
 brought in. — λύσαντες αὐτὸν ἀγάγετε] BC L Δ δὲ, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. have 
 λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. (Lachm. has 
 Avoate ait. x. ἀγάγετε). Rightly ; the Recepta is from Luke xix. 30; comp. 
 Matt. xxi. 2, whence also originated the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 3. ἀποστέλλει] 
 Elz. Fritzsche have ἀποστελεῖ, in opposition to decisive evidence. Comp. on 
 Matt. xxi. 3. — πάλιν, which BC* Ὁ L Δ δὲ, min. Vere. 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 
 ὧδε, and taking the words as being still a portion of what was to be said by the 
 disciples. — Ver. 4. The article before πῶλον (Elz.) is, in accordance with deci- 
 sive evidence, deleted. [Recent editors, with B L A, Copt., omit τὴν (before 
 θύραν) also.]— Ver. 6. Instead of εἶπεν (so also Lachm. and Tisch.) Elz. Scholz 
 have ἐνετείλατο. But εἶπεν is so weightily attested by B C L A δὲ, min. Or, 
 Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm. Or. that ἐνετείλατο appears a gloss. D has εἰρήκει. 
 which likewise tells in favor of εἶπεν, andis only a change into the pluperfect.— 
 Ver. 7. ἤγαγον] BLA &** Or. have φέρουσιν ; approved by Griesb., adopted by 
 Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallel passages. — ἐπέβαλον] BC DLAR, 
 min. Vulg. Cant. Ver. Corb, Vind. Or. have ἐπιβάλλουσιν. Adopted by Griesb. 
 Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta was derived from the reading ἤγαγον. --- 
 ἐπ’ αὐτῷ] BC DLA, min. have ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, which Griesb. approved, Fritzsche, 
 Lachm. Tisch. adopted. The Recepta isa mechanical repetition of the previous 
 αὐτῷ. -- Ver. 8. δένδρων] B CLA, Syr. p. (in the margin) Or. Sahid. have 
 ἀγρῶν, which Fritzsche and Tisch. have rightly adopted. With Tisch., however, 
 instead of the whole passage ἔκοπτον. . . ὁδόν we must read briefly and simply : 
 κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν. The Recepta is an expansion from Matthew, whence 
 also came λέγοντες in ver. 9, Thisis wanting in BC L A 8, 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 βασιλεία Elz. has ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, against 
 preponderating evidence. An awkward repetition from ver. 9.— Ver. 11. καὶ 
 εἰς τ. ἱερόν] καί is wanting in BC L Μ Δ δὲ, min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Perss. Arm. 
 Vulg. It. Or. Lachm. Tisch.; inserted by way of connection. — Ver. 13. To 
 μακρόθεν, with Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., there is to be added 
 ἀπό, upon preponderating evidence. Comp. v. 6, [See Note LXX., p. 147.] — 
 Ver. 14. The arrangement εἰς τ. ai. ἐκ. o., aS Well as μηδείς (instead of οὐδείς in 
 Elz.), is decisively attested. — Ver. 17. λέγων αὐτοῖς B Ο L A®, min. Copt. 
 have kai ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς. So Tisch. The Recepta is from Luke. — ἐποιήσατε] Β L 
 A, Or. have πεποιήκατε. Adopted by Tisch. The aorist, in itself more familiar, 
 came from Luke. Comp. on Matt. xxi. 13. — Ver. 18. The arrangement oi 
 ἀρχιερεῖς κ. οἱ γραμμ. is decisively attested (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), as is also 
 the subjunctive ἀπολέσωσιν (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), instead of aroAécovow.— 
 Ver. 19. ὅτε] BC K L A δὰ, min. have ὅταν. 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 to a number 
 of days ; accepted by Treg. text., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]— ἐξεπορεύετο] 
 A B Καὶ M A, min. vss. have ἐξεπορεύοντο. 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 παραπορ., ver. 20 !— Ver. 20. The order 
 Tpwi παραπορ. is not necessary (in opposition to Fritzsche), but suggested itself 
 most naturally after ver. 19, on which account, however, παραπορ. πρωΐ (B C 
 1, Δ δὰ, min. Ver. Cant.) is precisely to be preferred, with Lachm. and Tisch. 
 —Ver. 23. γάρ] is wanting in Β D U8, min. vss. Deleted by Lachm. and 
 Tisch. A connective addition. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with δὲ B 
 L A, read πιστεύῃ. ] --- λέγει] Lachm., and Tisch. have λαλεῖ, following BL Ν Δ 8, 
 min. ; the more familiar λέγ. slipped in involuntarily. — ὃ ἐὰν εἴπῃ] is wanting 
 in BC DL Δ δὰ, min. Copt. Vulg. It. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., con- 
 demned also by Griesb. A confusing gloss, following the foregoing ὃς dv εἴπῃ. 
 —Ver. 24. ἄν] is wanting in B C DL Δ δὲ, min. An addition from Matt. 
 xxi. 22. — προσευχόμενοι] BC Ὁ 1, AS, Cant. Vere. Colb. Cypr. have προσεύ- 
 χεσῆῇε καί. So Lachm. and Tisch. The participle is an emendation, because 
 it was thought necessary (comp. Matt. xxi. 22) to make ὅσα dependent on 
 αἰτεῖσθε. --- λαμβάνετε] BC L Δ δὰ, Copt. have ἐλάβετε. Commended by Griesb., 
 adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the aorist was not understood, and 
 was changed partly into the present, partly into the future (D). — Ver. 25. 
 στήκητε] A Ο Ὁ HLM, min. have στήκετε. So Lachm. and Tisch. The 
 Recepta is an emendation introduced from ignorance. — Ver. 26.'] is wanting 
 in B LS Δ δὲ, 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 vy. 25 and 26. But what M., min. 
 further add after ver. 26 is an interpolation from Matt. vii. 7, 8. — Ver. 28. 
 [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 BC L A, Copt. read ἔλεγον. 1 — Instead of 
 
 1 Ver. 26 is wanting in all the original editions of Luther’s translation, 
 
CHAP. χα: 15 1]: 141 
 
 καὶ τίς read, with Tisch., ἢ τίς, which is considerably attested and is supplanted 
 by καὶ τίς in Matthew. — Ver. 29. κἀγώ] 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 ὑμᾶς [so Weiss]. It has come in from the parallels. — Ver. 30. 
 Before Ἰωάνν, here, as in Matt. xxi, 25, τό 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. ἐλογίζοντο] B C 
 DGKLMA &S*™* min. read: διελογίζοντο, 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. δὲ 
 has the manifest clerical error προσελογίζοντο, which, however, does not pre- 
 suppose the simple form. — οὖν] 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: ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἐὰν εἴπωμεν. But ἐάν has against it decisive evidence, and is an addition easily 
 misunderstood. — ὅτε ὄντως Tisch. has ὄντως ὅτι, following B C L &** min, 
 The Recepta 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.). — εἰς Βηθφ. x. Βηθ.] amore precise local definition to εἰς Ἵερος. : 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 εἰς, ver. 11. —Ver. 2. εἰς τὴν κώμην κ.τ.}] 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.]— πῶλον] 
 without more precise definition, but, as is obvious of itself, the foal of an ass. 
 Judg. x. 4, xii. 14 ; Zech. ix. 9; Gen. xlix. 11. —颒 ὃν οὐδεὶς x.7.4] 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, II. 
 p. 276 f. —On φέρετε (see the critical remarks), comp. Gen. xlvii. 16 : φέρετε 
 τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν, Hom. Od. iii. 117. Therefore it is not unsuitable (Fritzsche) ; 
 even the change of the tenses (λύσατε . . . φέρετε) has nothing objectionable in it. 
 See Kiihner, II. p. 80. — Ver. 3. ri] wherefore ; to this corresponds the sub- 
 sequent ὅτι, because. — καὶ εὐθέως x.7.2] 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. — ὧδε, hither.? [See Note 
 LXVIIL., p. 147.] Not yet so used in Homer. — Ver. 4. εὗρον . . .. augddov] 
 a description characteristic of Mark ; τὸ ἄμφοδον and ἡ ἄμφοδος (comp. ἀμφό- 
 
 1By no means obvious of itself, more- Lange and others. 
 over, in the case of the ass’s cold in the nar- 2 Plato, Prot. p. 828 D; Soph. Trach. 496 ; 
 trative of Matthew, since it was already OMT ἘΠῚ 1149. 
 large enough for riding,—in opposition to 
 
142 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 διον in Lucian, Rhet. praec. 24, 25) is not simply the way, but the way that 
 leads round (winding way).'— Ver. 5. τί ποιεῖτε κ.τ.}.1 Comp. Acts xxi. 13.— 
 Ver. 8. On the only correct form στιβάς, not στοιβάς, see Fritzsche. The 
 meaning is: litter, ἀπὸ ῥάβδων καὶ χλωρῶν χόρτων στρῶσις Kai φύλλων, “ἃ 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 (ἀγρῶν, see the critical remarks). — Ver. 10. ἡ ἐρχομένη βασι- 
 λεία τοῦ πατρ. ἡμ. Δ. 7 1.6., 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 : βασιλεύς, which Weizsicker regards as the most original), 
 easily came into the tradition. — Ver. 11. εἰς ‘Iepoc. εἰς τὸ ἱερόν] After the 
 rejection of καί (see the critical remarks) the second εἰς is to be understood 
 as ὦ more precise specification, similar to that in ver. 1.---ὀψίας ἤδη οὔσης τῆς 
 ὥρας) as the hour was already late. ὀψίας is here an adjective. Taken as a 
 substantive, τῆς ὥρας (evening of the daytime) would not be applicable to 
 it ; expressions with ὀψέ ὃ are different. On the adjective ὄψιος, see Lobeck, 
 ad Phryn. p. 51. It was already the time of day, which in the classical 
 writers iscalled ὀψία δειλή. 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 (Markusevang. 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. — repif- 
 AeWdu. πάντα 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). 
 
 Vy. 12-14. Comp. on Matt. xxi. 18-20, whose more compressed narrative 
 represents a later form taken by the tradition. —¢i ἄρα] whether under these 
 
 1 Jer. xvii. 27, xlvii. 27; Aristot. de part. 2 Schoettgen, Hor. II. p. 10 f. 
 ani. 1Π. 2, p. 663,36 (codd., see Lobeck, 3 As Dem. 541, ult. ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας ἐγίγνετο, 
 Pardip. p. 248), and the examples in Wet- Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 14, al. 
 stein, also Koenig and Schaefer, ad Gregor. 4 Herod. viii. 6; Thue. viii. 26; Polyb. vii. 
 
 Cor. p. 505. 16.4; Ruhnken, 77). Ὁ. 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. -- οὐ yap ἦν καιρὸς 
 σύκων] 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 οὐ γάρ ἦν Karp. σύκ. 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 swmmer jigs, but had none,* 
 because in the month Nisan it was not the time for figs, so tat 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 οὐ yap ἣν x. σ. 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, Z. J. II. 1, 
 p. 321: for it was not a good jig-year (see, 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: “(δὲ enim fuit, tempus erat 
 Jicuum,” ‘‘ where it was, was the season of figs” (so that οὗ 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 (ov = 
 οὔπω) jfig-harvest ; compare also Baumgarten-Crusius. Fritzsche has the 
 correct view, although he reproaches Mark with having subjoined the 
 
 1 See Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 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. 
 
 3 Comp. de Wette, Strauss, Schenkel ; ac- 
 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 of leaves had in- 
 duced Him to expect fruit—namely, fruit 
 before the time (comp. Tobler, Denkbl. aus 
 Jerus. p. 101 ff.). 
 
 5 Comp. Dahme in Henke’s Magaz. I. 2, 
 p. 252. 
 
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 
 fruits. Toup (Emendatt. in Suid. 11. 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 καιρός could only acquire the meaning 
 of ‘‘favorable weather” by more precise definition in the conteat, as in the 
 passage quoted by Bornemann, Eur. Hee. 587, by ϑεόϑεν, and hence this 
 interpretation is not even favored by the reading ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων," 
 for the time was not fig-time, which reading easily originated from an ὁ καιρός 
 written on the margin by way of supplement, whence also is to be derived 
 the reading of Lachmann (following D, Or.): οὐ y. ἦν ὁ καιρὸς o. [See 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. ἀποκριϑείς] 
 Appropriately Bengel adds: ‘‘arbori fructum neganti,” ‘‘ to the tree deny- 
 ing fruit.”” — φάγοι] According to Mark (it is otherwise in Matt. xxi. 19) the 
 cursing is expressed in the form of ὦ wish, as imprecation, Acts viii. 20.— 
 καὶ ἤκουον οἱ wad. αὐτοῦ] 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). — ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν) but afterwards : xaré- 
 otpewe, So that thus the latter occurred after the beginning and before the 
 ending of the expulsion. — Ver. 16. ἵνα] The object of the permission is 
 conceived as its purpose. The form ἤφιε, as 1. 34. — διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ 
 iepov| In the estimation also of the Rabbins it was accounted a desecration 
 of the temple, if anybody carried the implements of common life (σκεῦος, 
 household furniture, pots, and the like) through the temple-enclosure, διὰ 
 τοῦ ἱεροῦ (not ναοῦ), in order to save himself a circuit ; they extended this 
 even to the synagogues.4 Olshausen is mistaken in explaining διαφέρειν as to 
 carry to and fro; and Kuinoel and Olshausen, following Beza and Grotius, 
 arbitrarily limit σκεῦος to implements used for the purpose of gain. — Ver. 17. 
 ἐδίδασκε] on what subject ? What follows leaves no doubt as to the princi- 
 pal theme of this teaching. — πᾶσι τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν) Dativus commodi : (destined) 
 for 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 πᾶσι τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν from 
 
 1 Τὴ the Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. xlix. ἔν, and in yearat the Feast of Tabernacles (John vii.). 
 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 131 ff. 4 See Lightfoot, p. 632 f. ; Wetstein in loc. 
 2B C* LAR, Copt. Syr.; so Tischendorf. 5 Ezra ii. 48 ff., vii. 7; Neh. iii. 26, xi. 21. 
 3 Nay, they even compelled Bleek to the 6 According to the Israelitish command, 
 
 conjecture that the event had occurred at Lev. xvii. 8 ff., xxii, 19 ff.; Num. xv. 14ff. . 
 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. ἀπολέσωσιν] (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).'— ἐφοβοῦντο yap 
 αὐτόν] The reason why they sought to destroy Him. — ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ, αὐτοῦ] 
 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 διδάσκειν 
 from Luke. — Ver. 19. ὅτε ὀψὲ ἐγένετο] on that day, ver. 12 ; hence not ὅταν 
 (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 in other 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). — παραπορευόμενοι πρωΐ] 
 Fritzsche is wrong in rejecting this order, because ‘‘ πρωΐ is opposed to the 
 preceding ὀψέ." In fact παραπορ. is the leading idea (and passing by in the 
 morning), pointing out the modal definition to the following εἶδον «.7.2. — 
 Ver. 22. πίστιν Θεοῦ] confidence in God; genitive of the object.? — Ver. 24. 
 διὰ τοῦτο] because the confidence has so great effect. — ὅτε ἐλάβετε] (see the 
 critical remarks): The praeterite is not ‘‘ineptum” (Fritzsche), but the hav- 
 ing received, which one believes has its ground in the counsel of God. Comp. 
 xiii. 20. The real de facto bestowal is future (ἔσται ὑμῖν). [See Note LXXII., 
 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- 
 
 1 See Kiihner, IT. p. 489 f. ; Stallbaum, ad the Jahrb. 7. D, Theol. 1864, p. 63, to be sup- 
 Plat. Symp. p. 225 C. ported by the argument that Mark has no- 
 2 Comp. Acts iii. 16; Rom. iii. 22; Gal. ii. where else the expression : ὃ πατὴρ ὃ ἐν Tots 
 20, iii. 22; Eph. iii. 8; Dem. 300, 10; Eur. οὐρ. For Mark hasno place at all, in which 
 Med. 414. this designation would have been applica- 
 3 Which, however, is not, with Weiss in ble instead of another that he has used. 
 
 10 
 
146 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 ed insertion (Hilgenfeld). [See Note LXXIIL., p. 148.] —orjxere] Comp. on 
 ἑστῶτες, Matt. vi. 5. The indication is not incorrect, but dv has its relation 
 merely to the particle ὅτε, and does not affect the verb ; see on iii. 11. — 
 Ver. 26. Observe the antithesis, in which οὐκ (not μή, as in Matthew) is close- 
 ly associated with ἀφίετε 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. — περιπατοῦντος] Accord- 
 ing to Matthew and Luke Jesus taught, which, however, is not excluded by 
 Mark’s statement. — Ver. 28. ταῦτα] the cleansing of the temple, comp. on 
 Matt. xxi. 23. —iva ταῦτα ποιῇς] not a paraphrase of the infinitive, but : in 
 order that thou mayest do these things, purpose of τὴν ἐξουσίαν τ. Edwxev.— Ver. 
 29. ἐπερωτήσω] not : post interrogabo, ‘‘ afterwards I will ask” (Fritzsche), 
 but, as always in the N. T.: to inquire of, so that ἐπί expresses the direc- 
 tion.? — Ver. 31. οὖν] therefore, since it comes from heaven. [But see critical 
 notes. ] — Ver. 32. ἀλλ᾽ εἴπωμεν᾽ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων] 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 LXXTYV., 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 to openly ascribe fear to one’s self.” *— εἶχον 
 τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ὄντως, ὅτι προφ. ἦν] (see the critical remarks) : they really per- 
 ceived * that John (in his lifetime) was a prophet. ᾿Ιωάννην. . . ὅτι is to be 
 taken according to the well-known attraction.’ 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 LXVII. Ver. 2. εἰς τὴν κώμην k.T.A. 
 
 Meyer is probably correct in referring this to Bethphage ; but a better reason 
 can be given than he adduces. 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. Ὁ. 330 [E. T. 
 f. [ἘΞ T. 476 f.]; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p.29% 885]. 
 
 [E. T. 346]. 4Perspectum habebant, see Ast, Lex. 
 2Comp. Plat. Soph. Ὁ. 249 E: δικαίως ἂν Plat. I. p. 873. 
 ἐπερωτηϑεῖμεν ἅπερ αὐτοὶ τότε ἠρωτῶ- 5 See Winer, p. 551 [E. T. 626] ; Buttmann, 
 
 μεν (be inquired of, as we ourselves asked Ὁ. 822 [E. T. 376]. 
 questions), 
 
NOTES. 147 
 
 LXVIII. Ver. 3. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀποστέλλει πάλιν ode. 
 
 The evidence for this form is decisive. Meyer objects to πάλιν, 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 
 more literal : ‘‘and straightway he sendeth him again hither.’’ The present 
 tense and the proper sense of πάλιν compel us to regard this as part of what 
 the disciples are 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. ὀψίας ἤδη οὔσης τῆς ὥρας. 
 
 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. ὁ yap καιρὸς οὐκ ἣν σύκων. 
 
 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 καιρός and 
 σύκων 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 erops— 
 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. ὅταν ὀψὲ ἐγένετο. 
 
 If ὅταν 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 
 ὅτε (Rec.), since ὅταν 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: ἐξεπο- 
 ρεύοντο is sufficiently attested to claim attention. The evidence is quite evenly 
 balanced. 
 
 LXXII. Ver. 24. ὅτι ἐλάβετε. 
 
 The aorist is undoubtedly the correct reading, though the evidence for it is » 
 not quite so full as that for ὅταν (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. R. 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.”’ 
 
 LXXIII. Vv. 25, 26. 
 
 The evidence against ver. 26 is sufliciently 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, xvili. 35, not in Matt. vi. 
 14, 15. 
 
 LXXIV. Ver. 32. ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν" ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ; 
 
 Recent editors place an interrogation point after ἀνθρώπων, accepting ἀλλά 
 instead of ἀλλ᾽ ἐάν. 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 
 ὄντως ὅτι must be accepted, but the adverb may be joined with ἦν (trajection) ; 
 so Weiss ed. Mey., and R. V. margin. 
 
CHAP. XII. 149 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Ver. 1. λέγειν] BG LA δὲ, min. Syr. Vulg. It. have λαλεῖν. So Lachm. and 
 Tisch. The testimony of the codd. in favor of λέγειν remains doubtless strong 
 enough, nevertheless λαλεῖν is to be preferred, because there immediately fol- 
 lows what Jesus said, and therefore the change into λέγειν was readily suggested. 
 
 Comp. iii. 23. — Ver. 3. oi dé] Lachm. Tisch. have καί, following Β Ὁ 1, ΔΚ, 
 min. Copt. Cant. Ver. Vere. Vind. Itis from Matt. xxi. 25. — Ver. 4. λιθοβολήσ. 
 is wanting in B DLA, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Almost all the above wit- 
 nesses have afterwards instead of ἀπέστ. ἠτιμωμ. : ἠτίμησαν. Fritzsche, Lachm. 
 Tisch. have followed the former omission and this reading, and rightly ; λιθοβολ. 
 is a gloss on ἐκεφαλ. from Matt. xxi. 35, and ἀπέστ. ἠτιμωμένον is a reading con- 
 formed to the conclusion of ver. 3. [On ἐκεφαλίωσιν, see Note LXXVI., p. 158.] — 
 Ver, 5. καὶ ἄλλον] Elz. Scholz have καὶ πάλιν ἄλλ., in opposition to preponder- 
 ating evidence ; πάλιν isa mechanical repetition from ver. 4. — Instead of τούς is 
 to be written oi¢ both times, following BL Δ δὲ, min. with Fritzsche, Lachm. 
 Tisch. — The Aeolic form ἀποκτέννοντες is on decisive evidence to be adopted, 
 with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Comp. the critical remarks on Matt. x. 28. — 
 Ver. 6. The arrangement ἕνα ἔχων υἱόν is required by decisive evidence (Fritzsche, 
 Lachm., comp. Tisch.), of which, however, B ΟΥ̓Χ L A δὰ, 33 have εἶχεν instead 
 of ἔχων (so Tisch. rightly, as ἔχων is an emendation of the construction). 
 Almost the same witnesses omit the οὖν after érz ; it is, with Tisch., to be de- 
 leted as a connective addition, as, moreover, αὐτοῦ after ἀγαπ. is a decidedly 
 condemned mechanical addition. — Ver. 8. Such preponderating evidence is in 
 favor of the superfluous αὐτόν after ἐξέβαλ., that it is to be adopted with Lachm. 
 and Tisch. — Ver, 14. oi dé] BC DLA, 33, Copt. codd. of the It. have καί. 
 So Fritzsche, Lachm. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V.]. From Luke xx. 21, whence 
 also many variations with ἐπηρώτων have come into our passage. — Ver. 17. The 
 arrangement τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδ. Καίσαρι (Tisch.) is to be preferred, in accordance 
 with BCLA 8, 28, Syr. Copt. The placing of ἀπόδοτε first (Elz. Lachm.) is from 
 the parallels. — ἐδαύμασαν] Lachm. has ἐθαύμαζον. But among the codd. which 
 read the imperfect (B Ὁ 1, Δ δὲ), Β & have ἐξεθαύμαζον (D* has ἐξεθαυμάζοντο). 
 This ἐξεθαύμαζον (Tisch.) is to be preferred. The simple form and the aorist 
 are from the parallels. — Ver. 18. ἐπηρώτησαν]Ἵ Lachm. Tisch. have ἐπηρώτων, 
 following BC DL A δὲ, 88 ; the aorist is from the parallels. — Ver. 19. τὴν γυναῖκα 
 αὐτοῦ] αὐτοῦ is wanting in BC L Δ δὲ, min, Copt., and is from Matthew. — Ver. 
 20. After ἑπτά Elz. Fritzsche have οὖν, against decisive evidence ; it is from 
 Luke xx. 29 ; instead of which some other witnesses have dé (from Matthew). — 
 Ver. 21. καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε] BCL A 8, 33, Copt. have μὴ καταλιπών. Approved 
 by Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 133, adopted by Tisch. [recent 
 editors, R. V.]. But if the Recepta had originated from what precedes and 
 follows, it would have run simply καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκε ; the καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός does not look 
 like the result of a gloss, and might even become offensive on account of its 
 emphasis. — Ver. 22, ἔλαβον αὐτήν] is wanting in B M, min. Colb., also C LA δὲ, 
 
150 THE GOSPEL OF MARK, 
 
 min. Copt., which, moreover, omit καί before οὐκ. Fritzsche has deleted ἔλαβον 
 αὐτ., Lachm. has merely bracketed it ; Tisch. has struck out, besides ἔλαβ. air., 
 the καί also before οὐκ. Rightly ; the short reading : καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ οὐκ ἀφῆκαν σπέρμα, 
 was completed in conformity with ver. 21. —écydtn] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 
 [recent editors, R. V.] have ἔσχατον, certainly on considerable attestation ; 
 but it is an emendation (comp. Matthew and Luke: ὕστερον), on account of the 
 difference of the genders (écy. feminine, πάντ. masculine). — The order καὶ ἡ 
 γυνὴ ἀπέθ. is, with Fritzsche, Lachm, Tisch.,to be adopted. The Recepta is 
 from the parallels. — Ver. 23. After ἐν τῇ Elz. Lachm. Scholz have οὖν, which 
 important witnesses omit, others place after avacr. From the parallels. — ὅταν 
 ἀναστῶσι] is wanting in BC Ὁ 1, Δ δὲ, 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 ἀναστάσει and ἀναστῶσι, occasioned the omission. — Ver. 25. γαμίσκονται- 
 A F H, min, have ἐκγαμίσκονται. BCGLUAR®, min. have γαμίζονται. Con- 
 sequently the testimonies in favor of the Recepta are left so weak (even 
 D falls away, having γαμίζουσιν), and γαμίζονται has so much the preponder- 
 ance, that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted. Comp. on 
 Matt. xxii. 30. — Before ἐν Elz, has oi. The weight of the evidence is divided. 
 But since this oj after ἄγγελοϊ 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 δὲ C Ὁ L A, Copt.] 
 — Ver. 26. Instead of τοῦ βάτου Elz. has τῆς βάτου, in opposition to decisive ev- 
 idence. — Decisive evidence condemns in ver. 27 the article before Θεός, and 
 then Θεός before ζώντων ; just as also ὑμεῖς οὖν before πολὺ πλανᾶσθε is, following 
 BCLAR, Copt., to be struck out, with Tisch., as being an addition to these 
 short pithy words.— Ver. 28. εἰδώς] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἰδών (Fritzsche : 
 καὶ ἰδών). So, with or without καί (which is a connective interpolation), in 
 C DL &8* min. vss., including Syr. Arm. Vulg. It. Aug. But these witnesses are 
 not preponderating, and εἰδώς might easily seem unsuitable and give way to the 
 more usual ἰδών ; comp. ver. 94. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., accept εἰδώς. ] --- The 
 order ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς has been preferred by Schulz, Fritzsche, and Tisch. (follow- 
 ing Gersd. p. 526) [so recent editors], in accordance with BC LA δὲ, 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 intention with 
 which αὐτοῖς was prefixed was not observed. It is otherwise at xiv. 40. — 
 Instead of πάντων Elz. has πασῶν, contrary to decisive evidence. [Tisch., recent 
 editors, R. V., with δὲ B C L A, 33, Copt., have the order: ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων. 
 — Ver. 29. The Recepta is ὅτι πρώτη πασῶν τῶν ἐντολῶν. Very many variations. 
 Griesb. and Fritzsche have ὅτε πρώτη πάντων ἐντολή, following A, min. Scholz 
 reads ὅτι mp. πάντων τῶν ἐντολῶν, following EF GHS,min. Lachm. has ὅτι zp. 
 πάντων [ἐντολή ἐστιν]. Tisch. has ὅτε πρώτη ἐστιν, following B L Δ δὲ, 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 ἐστίν was 
 partly dropped. — Ver. 30. αὕτη πρώτη ἐντολῇ] is wanting in BEL A δὲ, Copt. 
 Deleted by Tisch. An addition in accordance with Matthew, with variations 
 in details, following vv. 28, 29. — Ver. 31. Instead of καὶ deur. read, with Tisch., 
 merely devr, — Elz. Griesb. Scholz have ὁμοία αὕτη ; Fritzsche, Lachm, have ὁμ. 
 
 
 
CHAP. XII., 1-12. 151 
 αὐτῇ ; Tisch. merely airy. The last is attested by BL A δὲ, Copt., and is to be 
 preferred, since ὁμοία very readily suggested itself to be written on the margin 
 from Matthew. — Ver. 32. After εἷς ἔστε Elz. has Θεός ; a supplement in oppo- 
 sition to preponderant evidence. — Ver. 33. καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχ.} is wanting in 
 BLA δὰ, min. Copt. Vere. 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 inserted after καρδίας (comp. ver. 30). On the other 
 hand, the arrangement different from ver. 30 might easily draw after it the 
 omission. — The article before θυσιῶν (in Elz.) is decisively condemned. [Tisch. 
 retains ; rejected by recent editors.]|— Ver. 36. γάρ] is wanting in BLA τὲ, 
 min. Copt. Vere., while D, Arm. read kai αὐτός, and Col. Corb. have autem. 
 Lachm. has bracketed γάρ, and Tisch. has deleted it. The latter is right. The 
 connection was variously supplied. — Ver. 37. οὖν] is wanting in BDLAR, 
 min. Copt. Syr. p. codd. It. Hil. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An 
 addition from the parallels. — Ver, 43. εἶπεν] instead of the Recepta λέγει (which 
 Scholz, Rinck, Tisch. defend), is decisively attested, as also is ἔβαλε (Lachm.) 
 instead of the Recepta βέβληκε. In place of βαλόντ. (Elz.), βαλλόντ. must be 
 written on decisive attestation. 
 
 Vv. 1-12. See on Matt. xxi. 33-46. 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. 28-32), 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 LXXY., p. 158.]— ἤρξατο] after that dismissal of 
 the chief priests, etc. — αὐτοῖς] therefore not as Luke has it : πρὸς τὸν λαόν, 
 to which also Matthew is opposed. — ἐν παραβολαῖς] parabolically. The plural 
 expression is generic ; comp. iii. 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, ὅ.᾽ --- κἀκεῖνον] The concep- 
 tion of maltreatment lies at the foundation of the comparative also, just as at 
 ver. 5. Comp. on Matt. xv. 8. — ἐκεφαλαίωσαν] they beat him on the head. 
 [See Note LXXVI., p. 158.] The word is not further preserved in this 
 signification (Vulg.: in capite vulnerarunt), 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 Wakefield,* to be 
 changed into the meaning : ‘‘ they made short work with him.” 4 We have 
 
 1 All the less ought the several δοῦλοι to 
 be specifically defined ; as, for instance, ac- 
 cording to Victor Antiochenus, by the first 
 servant is held to be meant Ziijah and the 
 contemporary prophets; by the second, 
 Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos; by the third, 
 Hekiel and Daniel. That the expression in 
 vy. 244 is in the singular, notwithstanding 
 the plurality of prophets, cannot in a figu- 
 
 rative discourse be surprising, and cannot 
 justify the conjecture that here another par- 
 able—of the three years of Christ’s ministry 
 —has been interwoven (Weizsacker). 
 
 2 Thue. iii. 67. 5, viii. 538. 1; Herod. iii. 159 ; 
 Ecclus. xxxv. 8. 
 
 3 Silv. crit. ΠῚ Ὁ. 76 f. 
 
 4 This explanation is set aside by αὐτόν, 
 which, moreover, is opposed to the view of 
 
152 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 here a veritable solecism ; Mark confounded κεφαλαιόω with κεφαλίζω, perhaps 
 after the analogy of γναϑόω and yudw 1 — ἠτίμησαν (see the critical remarks) : 
 they dishonored him, treated him disgracefully, the general statement after the 
 special ἐκεφαλ. The word is poetical, especially epic,? as also in this sense 
 the later form ἀτιμόω, of frequent use in the LXX. (Eur. Hel. 462, al.), which 
 in the prose writers is used in the sense of inflicting dishonor by depriving 
 of the rights of citizenship.*—Ver. 5. κ. πολλοὺς ἄλλους] Here we have to sup- 
 ply: they maltreated—the dominant idea in what is previously narrated (comp. 
 κἀκεῖνον, VV. 4, 5, where this conception lay at the root of the xai), and to 
 which the subsequent elements δέροντες and ἀποκτεννόντες 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 ἔτι ἕνα εἶχεν υἱὸν ay. (see the critical remarks), which 
 is peculiar to the graphic Mark, has in it something touching, to which the 
 bringing of ἕνα 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. Not a 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 element of outrage even against the corpse, 
 which is not, however, intended to be applied by way of special interpretation 
 to Jesus. — Ver. 9. ἐλεύσεται x.7.2.] not an answer of the Pharisees (Vatablus, / 
 Kuinoel, following Matt. xxi. 41) ; but Jesws Himself is represented by Mark 
 as replying to His own question.*— Ver. 10. οὐδέ] 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. exviii. 22; 
 hence He continues : have ye not also read this Scripture, etc.? [See Note 
 LXXVII., p. 158.] On γραφή, that which is drawn up in writing, used of 
 individual passages of Scripture, comp. Luke iv. 21 ; John xix. 37 ; Actsi. 
 16, vill. 35. — Ver. 12. καὶ ἐφοβ. τ. ὅχλ.] καί connects adversative clauses 
 without changing its signification.” It is an emphatic and in the sense of : 
 and yet. Especially frequent in John. — The words ἔγνωσαν yap. . . 
 which are not to be put in a parenthesis, are regarded as illogically placed, ® 
 
 εἶπε, 
 
 Theophylact: συνετέλεσαν καὶ ἐκορύφωσαν τὴν 
 ὕβριν, ‘they finished and brought to a head 
 (ἐκορύφωσαν) the outrage.”? The middle is 
 used in Greek with an accusative of the 
 person (τινά), but in the sense: briefly to de- 
 scribe any one. See Plat. Pol. ix. p. 576 B. 
 
 1 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 95. 
 
 2 Hom, 1’ 1. 1 ix. 111: (Od. xvi. 274) al. 7 
 Pind. Pyth. ix. 138; Soph. Aj. 1108; Ellendt, 
 Lex. Soph. I. p. 251. 
 
 3 Also in Xen. Ath. i. 14, where ἀτιμοῦσι is 
 to be read. 
 
 4 Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 252 [E. T. 
 293]. 
 
 5 See Bornemann, ad Xen. Sympos. iv. 53; 
 Hermannn, ad Viger. p. 770; Nigelsbach, 
 Anm., 2. Ilias, ed. 8, Ὁ. 179. 
 
 ‘That the opponents themselves are 
 compelled to pronounce judgment (Mat- 
 thew), appears an original trait. But the 
 Form of their answer in Matthew (κακοὺς 
 κακῶς «.7.A.) betrays, as compared with 
 Mark, a later artificial manipulation. 
 
 7 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 147 ἢ. ; Winer, 
 p. 388 [E. T. 487]. 
 
 8 See Beza, Heupel, Fritzsche, Baur, Hil- 
 genfeld, and others. 
 
CHAP, XII., 19. 153 
 and are held to have their proper place after κρατῆσαι. But wrongly. Only 
 let ἔγνωσαν be referred not, with these interpreters, to the chief priests, 
 scribes, and elders, but to the ὄχλος, 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 (πρός) them (the chief priests, etc., as the yewp- 
 γούς), 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 seen 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 Him, and went their way. In this manner also Luke xx. 19 is to be 
 understood ; he follows Mark. 
 
 Vv. 138-17. See on Matt. xxii. 15-22. Comp. Luke xx. 20-26. Mark is 
 more concise and vivid than Matthew. — ἀποστέλλουσι] 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. ἀγρεύσ. λόγῳ] 
 in order that they (these messengers) might ensnare Him by means of an utter- 
 ance, 1.€., by means of a question, which they were to address to Him. See 
 ver. 14. Comp. xi. 29. The hunting term ἀγρεύω 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. 111. 11. 7: τὸ πλείστου ἄξιον 
 ἄγρευμα φίλους ϑηράσειν. ---- Ver. 14. ἐπ᾽ ἀληϑείας] equivalent to ἀληϑῶς, Luke 
 iv. 25, xx. 21, xxii. 59, iv. 27, x. 84.". δῶμεν, ἢ μὴ ὃ. The previous question 
 was theoretical and general, this is practical and definite. — Ver. 15. εἰδώς] 
 as knowing hearts (John 11. 25).* —r. ὑπόκρισιν] ‘* 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 Caesar’s, pay to Caesar, οἵα. --- ἐξεθαύμαζον] see the critical remarks. 
 The aorist would merely narrate historically ; the imperfect depicts, and is 
 therefore not inappropriate (in opposition to Fritzsche). The compound 
 ἐκϑαυμ. strengthens the notion ; Ecclus. xxvii. 23, xliii. 18 ; 4 Macc. xvii. 
 17, also in the later Greek 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. — ἐπηρώτων] Imperfect, as at ver. 17. — 
 Ver. 19. ὅτε 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).°— 
 
 1See Valckenaer, ad Herod. vii. 162; 
 Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 193. 
 
 2See Wetstein in loc. ; Schaefer, Melet. 
 p. 83; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 137 f. 
 
 3 Comp. Matt. xii. 25; Luke vi. 8, xi. 17. 
 
 4 See Kiihner, II. p. 79, and ad Xen. Anab. 
 vii. 1. 13. Comp. v. 20, vi. 6. 
 
 5 Hitzig, Joh. Mark. p. 219 ff., places the 
 Pericope of the adulteress, John vii. 53 ff., 
 after ver. 17, wherein Holtzmann, p. 92 ff., 
 comparing it with Luke xxi. 37f., so far 
 
 follows him as to assume that it had stood 
 in the primitive-Mark, and had been omitted 
 by all the three Synoptists. Hilgenfeld (in 
 his Zeitschr. 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 ὅτι before the imperative, 
 Plat. Crit. p. 50 C: tows ἂν εἴποιεν (the 
 laws), or. . . μὴ ϑαύμαζε τὰ λεγόμενα. 
 
154 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 The ἐπιγαμβρεύσει, 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. ἑπτά] emphatically prefixed, and introduced in 
 a vivid way without oiy. — Ver. 21. καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός] and also not he. — καὶ ὁ τρίτος 
 ὡσαύτ. | namely, he took her and died without children ; comp. what has gone 
 before.—Ver. 23. ὅταν ἀναστῶσι] when they shall have risen, not an epexegesis 
 of ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει : but the discourse goes from the general to the particular, 
 so. that the seven brothers and the woman is the subject of ἀναστῶσι. --- Ver. 24. 
 διὰ τοῦτο] 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 ezpressed, but forward to the participle which 
 follows : do ye not err on this account, because ye do not understand ?’— 
 Ver. 25. ὅταν. . . ἀναστῶσιν] generally, not as at ver. 238. — γαμίζονται] The 
 form γαμίσκω (Arist. Pol. vii. 14. 4) is not indeed to be read here (see 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. 
 ὅτι ἐγείρονται] that they, namely, etc. ; this is the conclusion to be proved— 
 the doctrinal position denied by the interrogators. — ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου] belongs to 
 what has preceded (in opposition to Beza) as amore precise specification 
 of ἐν τᾷ βιβλ. M. : at the (well-known) thorn-bush, i.e., there, where it is spo- 
 ken of, Ex. iii. 6.2, Polybius, Theophrastus, and others have βάτος as mas- 
 culine. It usually occurs as feminine (Luke xx. 37 ; 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. See on Matt. xxii. 34-40. — 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 ἀκούσας 
 is subordinated to the προσελϑών, and εἰδώς belongs to ἐπηρώτηρεν as its deter- 
 mining motive. — εἰδώς] not inappropriate (Fritzsche, de Wette) ; but the 
 scribe knew from his listening how aptly Jesus had answered them (αὐτοῖς, 
 emphatically placed before arexp.) ; and therefore he hoped that He would also 
 give to him an apt reply. — πάντων] neuter. Compare Xen. Mem. iv. 7. 70: 
 ὁ δὲ ἤλιος . . . πάντων λαμπρότατος ὦν, Thucyd. vii. 52. 2.°— Vv. 29, 30. 
 Deut. vi. 4,5. This principle of morality, which binds all duties into unity 
 (see J. Miiller, ὁ. d. Siinde, I. p. 140 f.), was named pre-eminently ΤΙΝ 9, or 
 also from the initial word YDW, and it was the custom to utter the words 
 daily, morning and evening.*— icytoc] LXX. δυνάμεως. 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. 32. After διδάσ- 
 
 
 
 1 See Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 219; Borne- 
 mann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 137 f.; 
 Winer, p. 146 ἢ. (E. T. 161 f.), 
 
 2See on quotations of a similar kind, 
 Jablonsky, Bibl. Hebr. praef. § 37 ; Fritzsche, 
 ad Rom. xi. 2. 
 
 3 See Winer, p. 160[E. T. 178] ; Dorvyill. 
 
 ad Charit. p. 549. 
 
 4 See Vitringa, Synag. ii. 8. 15; Buxtorf, 
 Synag. 9. 
 
 5 The variations of the wordsin Matthew, 
 Mark, and Luke represent different forms 
 of the Greek tradition as remembered, 
 which arose independently of the LXX. (for 
 
CHAP. XII., 28-34. 155 
 καλε there is only to be placed a comma, so that ἐπ’ ἀληϑείας (comp. on ver. 
 14) isa more precise definition of καλῶς. ----ὅτι εἷς ἐστι] 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- 
 miss for the duty that follows ; hence it isnot an improbable trait (K6stlin, 
 p. 351), which Mark has introduced here in the striving after completeness 
 and with reference to the Gentile world. — Ver. 33. συνέσεως] a similar notion 
 instead of a repetition of διανοίας, ver. 30. It is the moral intelligence which 
 comprehends and understands the relation in question. Its opposite is ἀσύ- 
 νετος (Rom. i. 21, 31), Dem. 1894, 4 : ἀρετῆς ἁπάσης ἀρχὴ ἡ σύνεσις. Comp. 
 on Col. i. 9. --- ὁλοκαυτ.] ‘‘ Nobillissima species sacrificiorum,” ‘‘ the most 
 noble kind of sacrifices,” Bengel. πάντων τῶν applies inclusively to ϑυσιῶν. 
 Kriiger, ὃ 58. 8. 2. Ver. 84. ἰδὼν αὐτὸν, ὅτι] Attraction, as at xi. 32 and fre- 
 quently. — νουνεχῶς] intelligently, only here in the N. T. Polybius associates 
 it with φρονίμως (i. 88. 8) and πραγματικῶς (ii. 13. 1, v. 88. 2). On the char- 
 acter of the word as Greek, instead of which the Attics say νουνεχόντως (its 
 opposite : ἀφρόνως, Isocr. v. 7), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 599. — ov μακρὰν 
 x.T.2.| 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. — καὶ οὐδεὶς οὐκέτι x.7.A. ποῦ 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 πειράζων (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 δύναμις, which is in the 
 LXX.). 
 
 1 He follows the method of reconciliation 
 proposed by Theophylact : πρῶτον μὲν αὐτὸν 
 ὡς πειράζοντα ἐρωτῆσαι" εἶτα ὠφεληϑέντα ἀπὸ 
 τῆς ἀποκρίσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ νουνεχῶς ἀπο- 
 κριϑέντα ἐπαινεϑῆναι, ‘‘ First indeed that he 
 asks as one tempting ; then, profited by the 
 response of Christ, he is 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. 35-37. See on Matt. xxii. 41-46. Comp. Luke xx. 41-44. — Mark is 
 distinguished from Matthew in this respect, that the latter represents Jesus 
 as 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, 37), the question re- 
 specting the Son of David. —azoxpiSeic] 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 γραμματεῖς. 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 
 πόϑεν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἐστιν 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. — πῶς] how then? ““ Quomodo 
 consistere potest, quod dicunt,” ‘‘In what way can what they say hold to- 
 gether,” Grotius. — Ver. 37. The twofold emphatic αὐτὸς Δαν. places the 
 declaration of David himself in contrast to the point held by the scribes. — 
 καὶ πόϑεν] breaking in with surprise. Comp. Luke i. 43. πόϑεν is the cau- 
 sal unde : whence comes it that.1— ὁ πολὺς ὄχλ.] the multitude of people, which 
 was present. — 7xovev αὐτοῦ ἡδέως] 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. — βλέπετε ἀπό] as viii. 1ὅ. --- τῶν ϑελόντων] quippe qui volunt, 
 desire, i.e., 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 
 
 1 Τὴ opposition to the whole N. T., the 
 question is, according to Schenkel (comp. 
 Strauss), intended to exhibit the Davidic 
 descent of the Messiah as a phantom. This 
 descent in fact forms of necessity the pre- 
 supposition of the words καὶ πόϑεν k.7.A., the 
 concessum on the part of Jesus Himself. 
 And it is the postulate of the whole of the 
 N. T. Christology, from Matt. i. 1 to Rev. 
 xxii. 16. Comp., moreover, the appropriate 
 remarks of Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. 7. p. 
 
 61f. But the pre-existence of Jesus, which 
 certainly must have been in His conscious- 
 ness when He asked the question, is not ea- 
 pressed (in some such way as in John viii. 
 58), nor is the recognition of it claimed jor 
 the Psalmist by ἐν πνεύματι. The latter 
 merely asserts that David, as ὦ prophet, des- 
 ignated his Son as his Lord. [See Note 
 LXXX. p. 159.] Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 269 
 D. ; Dem. 241, 17; Wolf, ad Lept. p. 238. 
 
CHAP. XII., 41-44. 157 
 
 evil,” Bengel. — ἐν στολαῖς] 1.6., in long stately robes, as στολή, even without 
 more precise definition, is frequently used.’ Grotius well remarks that the 
 στολή is ‘‘ gravitatis index,” ‘‘indication of importance.” — καὶ ἀσπασμοίς] 
 governed by ϑελόντων. — Ver. 40. οἱ κατεσϑίοντες k.7.2.] 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 οἱ κατεσϑίοντες anew sentence, which runs on to κρῖνα : the devour- 
 ers of widows’ houses... these shall (in the Messianic judgment) receive a 
 greater condemnation !— καί] 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). — τῶν χηρῶν] ὑπεισήρχοντο yap τὰς 
 ἀπροστατεύτους yuvaikac ὡς δῆϑεν προστάται αὑτῶν ἐσόμενοι, ‘‘ For they came in 
 unawares upon the unprotected women, as if forsooth becoming their protec- 
 tors,” Theophylact. —xai προφάσει μακρὰ προσευχ.}] προσχήματι εὐλαβείας καὶ 
 ὑποκρίσει ἀπατῶντες τοὺς ἀφελεστέρους, ‘‘ By ἃ show of piety and by hypocrisy 
 deceiving the simpler ones,” Theophylact. — περισσότερον κρίμα] ὅσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον 
 τετίμηνται Tapa τῷ λαῷ καὶ τὴν τιμὴν εἰς βλάβην ἕλκουσι τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον καταδι- 
 κασϑήσονται᾽ δυνατοὶ γὰρ δυνατῶς ἑτασϑήσονται, ‘‘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. Τί 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. —rov γαζοφυλακίου] comp. Jo- 
 sephus, Antt. xix. 6. 1, where Agrippa hangs a golden chain ὑπὲρ τὸ γαζοφυ- 
 λάκιον. According to the Rabbins it consisted of thirteen trumpet-shaped 
 brazen chests (M11D1W), 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 (γαζοφυλάκια) 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. — χαλκόν] not money 
 in general (Grotius, Fritzsche, and others), but copper money, which most of 
 the people gave. See Beza. — ἔβαλλον] imperfect, as at vv. 17,18. The read- 
 ing ἔβαλον (Fritzsche) is too weakly attested, and is not necessary. — Ver. 
 42 f. μία] in contrast with the πολλοί πλούσιοι : one single poor widow. A 
 λεπτόν, so called from its smallness,® was 4th of an as in copper. See on 
 
 11 Mace. vi. 16; Luke xy. 22; Marc. 4 Doubtfully also Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 183]. 
 Anton. i. 7. 5 See, generally, Lightfoot, Hor. p. 539 f. ; 
 
 2 See Winer, p. 509 [E. T. 577]. Reland, Anft. i. 8. 14. 
 
 3 See Bernhardy, p. 68 f.; Buttmann, newt. 6 Xen. Cyr.i. 4.11: τὸ λεπτότατον τοῦ χαλκοῦ 
 
 Gram. p, 69 [E. T. 79]. νομίσματος. 
 
158 THE GOSPEL OF MARK, 
 
 Matt. v. 26. It is the same definition in the Talmud, that two N)0)95 make 
 a DOIN TP ; see Lightfoot, p. 688 f—On the fact that it is not ‘‘a quad- 
 rans,” but λεπτὰ δύο, 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 λεπτόν in cistam 
 eleemosynarum,” ‘‘A man shall not put a λεπτόν into the chest of alms” 
 (Bava bathra f. 10. 2), has no bearing here (in opposition to Schoettgen), 
 for here we have not to do with alms. — προσκαλεσάμ.} ““ de re magna,” 
 ‘* concerning the important matter,” Bengel. — πλεῖον πάντων] 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 ; τὴν ἑαυτῆς προαίρεσιν ἐπεδείξατο εὐπορωτέραν τῆς δυνάμεως, 
 ‘‘she showed her own good-will to be more rich than her ability,” Theo- 
 phylact. —The present participle βαλλόντων (see the critical remarks) is not 
 inappropriate (Fritzsche), but designates those who were throwing, whose 
 βάλλειν was present, when the widow éBare. — Ver. 44. ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσ. αὐτῆς] 
 (not αὑτῆς) is the antithesis of ἐκ τοῦ περισσ. avr. in ver. 43.! 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 βίος, victus, that whereby one lives, comp, Luke vill. 43, xv. 
 12, 30.? 
 
 Norrs py 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. ἐκεφαλίωσαν. 
 
 Meyer’s lexical remarks here are rendered entirely unnecessary by the above 
 reading, which he passes over without notice, although it is attested by 8B L, 
 and accepted by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. This form of the verb 
 (κεφαλιόω) occurs only here; hence the transcribers altered it to the better 
 known κεφαλαιόω. Mark has not ‘‘ confounded” the verbs, but the later copy- 
 ists. Here the discovery of δὲ has relieved us of a lexical difficulty, for its testi- 
 mony has decided the matter. 
 
 LXXVII. Ver. 10. οὐδέ. 
 
 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 αὕτη 
 to κεφαλήν, but the LXX. is not always exact in its use of the pronouns. 
 
 1 Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 14; Phil. iv. 12. Soph. Phil. 919, 1266; Dem. 869, 25; Plat. 
 2 Hesiod, Op. 230; Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 63 Gorg. p. 486 Ὁ ; and Stallbaum in doc, 
 
NOTES. 159 
 
 LXXVIII. Ver. 12. ἔγνωσαν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. 
 \ 
 
 It is by no means clear that the subject of ἔγνωσαν is the people composing 
 the ὄχλος. ‘This view leaves the reference of αὐτούς in doubt, and does not so 
 well account for the γάρ. 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. Vy. 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 οὐ 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. καὶ πόθεν k.7.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. ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος ἤκουεν k.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 (vy. 38-40), and Matthew a very full one (Matt. 
 Xxiil.). 
 
160 THE GOSPEL OF MARK, 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Ver. 2. ἀποκριθείς] is, with Tisch., to be deleted, as at xi. 33, following BL 
 δὲ, min. vss. — Ver, 2. ὧδε is adopted before λίθος by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, 
 Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], in accordance doubtless with BD GL 
 U A δὲ, min. vss., 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 ἐπηρώτα. --- Ver. 4. εἰπέ] 
 BDL 8, min. have εἰπόν. So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. This rarer form is to 
 be adopted in accordance with so considerable testimony ; εἰπέ is from Mat- 
 thew. — With Tisch., following B L &, we must write ταῦτα συντελ. πάντα ; dif- 
 ferent attempts to rectify the order produced the variations. — Ver. 8. Before 
 the second ἔσονται we must, with Tisch., delete καί, in accordance with Β L 
 δ **, καὶ tapayai] Suspected by Griesb., struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. 
 [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], in accordance with BDL δὲ, 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 8, 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 ἄγωσιν Elz. has ἀγάγωσιν, 
 in opposition to decisive evidence. — μηδὲ μελετᾶτε] 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 after ti AaAnonre. Luke xxi. 14, moreover, 
 testifies in favor of their genuineness. — Ver. 14. After ἐρημώσεως Elz., 
 Scholz, Fritzsche (Lachm. in brackets) have: τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, 
 which words are not found in B DL δὲ, Copt. Arm. It. Vulg. Sax. Aug. 
 They are from Matthew. — ἑστώς] Lachm. has ἑστηκός, following Ὁ 28 ; 
 Tisch. has ἑστηκότα, following BL δὲ. [So recent editors, R. V.] Fritzsche : 
 ἑστός, according to AEF GH V A,min. Under these circumstances the Recepta 
 has preponderant evidence against it ; itis from Matt. xxiv. 15. Of the other 
 readings ἑστηκός is to be adopted, because B L δὲ 4180 testify in its favor by 
 ἑστηκότα 3! while ἑστός likewise betrays its origin from Matthew (var.; see the 
 critical remarks on Matt. xxiv. 15). — Ver. 16. ὧν] is wanting in BDLA 8, 
 min. Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. But how easily it dropt out after 
 dypON! the more easily, because ὦν stood also in ver. 15. — Ver. 18. ἡ φυγὴ 
 ὑμῶν] is wanting in BD L A &* min. Arm. Vulg. It., and in other witnesses is 
 represented by ταῦτα. 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 χειμῶνος added : μηδὲ σαββάτῳ, or μηδὲ σαββάτου, ΟΥ̓ 
 
 1 The masculine was introduced by the reference, frequent in the Fathers, to the statue 
 (τὸν ἀνδριάντα) of the conqueror. 
 
CHAP. XIII., 1-8. 161 
 
 ἢ σαββάτου, and the like. — Ver. 19. 7c] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 
 have ἦν, following B C* L δὰ, 28. A correction. The omission of ἧς éxr. ὁ Θεός 
 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 καί. ] ]— In- 
 stead of πιστεύετε Elz. has πιστεύσητε, in opposition to preponderant evidence ; 
 it is from Matt. xxiv. 23. — Ver. 22. Although only on the evidence of D, min. 
 codd, It., ψευδόχριστοι καί is to be deleted, and ποιήσουσιν is to be written in- 
 stead of δώσουσι. [So Weiss; but Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., retain 
 ψευδόχ. καί, while all but Tisch. read δώσουσιν.) Moreover (with Tisch.), καί 
 is to be omitted before τοὺς ἐκλ. (B Ὁ &). The Recepta is a filling up from Mat- 
 thew. — Ver. 23. idov] is wanting in B L 28, Copt. Aeth. Vere. Bracketed by 
 Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition from Matthew. — Ver. 25. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
 ἔσονται) A BC &, min. vss. have ἔσονται ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. So Fritzsche, Lachm. 
 Tisch. Instead of ἐκπίπτ. BC DL δὲ, min. codd. It. have πίπτοντες (so Fritzsche, 
 Lachm. Tisch.). Thus the most important codices are against the Recepta 
 (Ὁ has οἱ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔσονται πίπτοντες), in place of which the best attested of 
 these readings are to be adopted. Internal grounds are wanting ; but if it had 
 been altered from Matthew, ἀπό would have been found instead of é«. — Ver. 
 27. αὐτοῦ] after ἀγγέλ. is wanting in B Ὁ L, Copt. Cant. Vere. Vind. Corb. 
 Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.; it is from Matthew. — Ver. 28. The 
 verbal order ἤδη ὁ κλάδος αὐτῆς (Fritzsche, Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort]) has 
 preponderating evidence [δὲ 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. 
 — γινώσκετε] A B*¥* DL Δ, min. have γινώσκεται, which is approved by Schulz 
 and adopted by Fritzsche and Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. has γενώσκετε ; so recent ed- 
 itors, R. V.] The Recepta is from the parallels. — Ver. 31. Instealof παρελεύ- 
 σεται, Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have παρελεύσονται. The plural (B DK UT δ) is to 
 be maintained here and at Luke xxi. 33 ; the remembrance of the well known 
 saying from Matth. suggested παρελεύσεται in the singular. Moreover, it tells in 
 favor of the plural, that BL &, min. (Tisch.) have παῤελεύσονται again after- 
 wards instead of παρέλθωσι, although this isa mechanical repetition. [Treg., W. 
 and Hort, read παρελεύσονται a second time, but omit μή. ] --- Ver. 32. Instead of 
 7 Elz. has καί, in opposition to decisive evidence. -— Ver. 33. καὶ προσεύχεσθε] is 
 wanting in B D 122, Cant. Vere. 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. καί is to be deleted before 
 ἑκάστῳ (with Lachm. and Tisch.), in conformity with Β ΟἿ D L &, min. codd. 
 It. —[Ver. 35. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BCLA, Copt., insert 7 
 before ὀψέ. | --- 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 6is an unnecessary emendation, although it is now preferred by Tisch. 
 (BCR, etc.). [So recent editors, R. V.] D, codd. It. have ἐγὼ dé A. du. ypny. 
 
 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 elaborated, in its greatest com- 
 
 1 
 
162 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 pleteness from the collection of Logiaand with some use of Mark ; and that 
 down to the consummation of the last judgment.! [See Note LXXXIL., 
 p. 167 seq. ] — ποταποὶ λίθοι] quales lapides ! ὠκοδομήθη ὁ ναὺς ἐκ λίθων μὲν λευκῶν τε 
 καὶ καρτερῶν, τὸ μέγεθος ἑκάστων περὶ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι πηχῶν ἐπὶ μῆκος, ὀκτὼ δὲ ὕψος, 
 εὖρος δὲ περὶ δώδεκα, ‘‘ The sanctuary was built of stones both white and vast, 
 the greatness of each of them about twenty-five cubits in length, the height 
 eight, the breadth about twelve,” Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 3. See Ottii Spicileg. 
 p. 175. Who uttered the exclamation? (Was it Peter? or Andrew ?) Prob- 
 ably Mark himself did not know. — On the ποταπός, belonging to later usage, 
 see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 56 f.; Fritzsche, p. 554 f. — Ver. 2. ὃς οὐ μὴ xara. ] 
 for ov μή 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. 30.— Ver. 3. As previously, Mark here also re- 
 lates more vividly (κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ) and more accurately (Πέτρος x.7.A.) 
 than Matthew. According to de Wette (comp. Saunier, p. 182 ; Strauss, 
 Baur), Mark is induced to the latter statement by the κατ᾽ ἰδίαν of Matthew— 
 a specimen of the great injustice which is done to Mark as an alleged com- 
 piler. — εἰπόν] Thus, and not εἶπον, is this imperative (which is also current 
 among the Attic writers ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 348) to be accented in 
 the N. T.? τὸ σημεῖον] scil. ἔσται : what will be the fore-token (which appears), 
 when all this destruction is to enter on its fulfilment ?— ταῦτα συντελ. πάντα] 
 (see the critical remarks) applies not to the buildings of the temple (Fritzsche, 
 who takes συντελεῖσθαι as simul exscindi, ‘‘ destroyed together,” comp. Beza), 
 but, just like ταῦτα, to the destruction announced at ver. 2. To explain it of 
 “the whole world” (as ταῦτα is well known to be so used 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 LXXXIIL., p. 168.] Moreover, the state 
 of the case is here climactic ; hence, while previously there stood merely ταῦτα, 
 now πάντα is added ; previously : ἔσται, now συντελεῖσθαι (be consummated). 
 —Ver. 5. Jesus now begins His detailed explanation as to the matter 
 (jpEaro). — Ver. 7. τὸ τέλος] the end of the tribulation (see ver. 9), not the 
 end of the world (so even Dorner, Lange, Bleek), which only sets in after the 
 end of the tribulation. See on Matt. xxiv. 6. [See also Note LXXXIII., 
 Ῥ. 168.] — Ver. 8. καὶ ἔσονται... καὶ ἔσονται] solemnly. — καὶ ταραχαί] Famines 
 and (therewith connected) disturbances, not exactly revolts (Griesbach), which 
 the context does not suggest, but more general.4 
 
 1 Weizsicker, p. 125, conjectures from 
 Barnabas 4 (8), where a saying of Enoch is 
 quoted about the shortening (συντέτμηκεν) 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]. 
 
 3 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. 3. Comp. also Dorner, de orat. Chr. 
 eschatologica, p. 45. 
 
 4Plat. Legg. ix. p. 861 A: ταραχή τε καὶ 
 ἀξυμφωνία, Theaet. p. 168 A: tap, καὶ ἀπορία, 
 
CHAP. XIII., 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.— ἀρχαί] prefixed with emphasis: beginnings of sorrows (comp. τὸ τέλος, 
 ver. 7) are these. — βλέπετε δὲ x.7.2.] 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 βλέπ. ἑαυτ., 2 John 8; Gal. vi. 1.—ovvédpia] 
 judicial assemblies, as Matt. x. 17. —kai εἰς ovvaywy.| attaches itself, as εἰς 
 συνέδρια precedes, most naturally to this,’ so that with δαρήσεσθε begins a 
 further step of the description. The more usual connection with δαρήσεσθε, 
 preferred also by Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 287 [E. T. 333] and Bleek, is in- 
 admissible, because εἰς cannot be taken in the pregnant meaning (instead of 
 ἐν ; for the element of ‘‘ motion towards” is not implied in δαρήσ.), 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 
 xxii. 19. [See Note LXXXIV., p. 168.] That dapjo. comes in asyndetically, 
 is in keeping with the emotional character of the discourse. — εἰς waprip. 
 αὐτοῖς] 1.6., in order that a testimony may be given to them, the rulers and 
 kings, namely, regarding me (comp. previously ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ), regarding my 
 person and my work (not: ‘‘intrepidi, quo causam meam defendatis, 
 animi,” ‘‘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 εἰς κατηγορίαν κ. ἔλεγχον αὐτῶν, ‘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 (πάντα has the emphasis) must jirst (before the 
 end of the sorrows appears, comp. ἀρχαὶ ὠδίνων, 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 κ. τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Matt. 
 x. 18 (Weiss). — Ver. 11. μελετᾶτε the proper word for the studying of dis- 
 courses. See Wetstein. The opposite of extemporizing. ὅ--- δοθῇ | has the 
 emphasis. — οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑμεῖς] 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. παραδιδόντες, ver. 11), neither the 
 relationship of brother nor of child, etc., will protect my confessors. — Ver. 
 13. ὑπομείνας] according to the context here : in the confession of my name. 
 See above, διὰ τὸ ὄνομά pov. See, moreover, on Matt. xxiv. 13. The τέλος is 
 that of the ὠδίνων, ver. 9, not that ““ of the theocratic period of the world’s 
 history” (Schenkel). 
 
 Vv. 14-23. See on Matt. xxiv. 15-26. Comp. Luke xxi. 20-24, who, 
 however, has freely elements that are peculiar. — ὅπου οὐ dei] thoughtful, 
 
 Ale. ii. p. 146, 15: tap, τε καὶ ἀνομία, 2 Macc. vius, Elz., Lachmann. 
 xiii. 16. Comp. τάραχος, Acts xii. 18, xix. 23. 2 Comp. Dem. 1129, 9: μελετᾶν τὴν ἀπολογίαν 
 1 Luther, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calo- ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν. 
 
 Cas 
 
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 τὸ βδέλ. τ. ἐρημ.) to Dan. 
 ix. 27, betrays a later manipulation. — Ver. 16. ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν ὦν] 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 μηδὲ σαββάτῳ, which was in 
 the collection of Logia, in Matt. xxiv. 20.— Ver. 19. ἔσονται. . . θλίψις 
 ‘*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,” Wetstein. — οἷα οὐ γέγονε x.7.2.] Comp. 
 Plato, Rep. vi. p. 492 E : οὔτε yap γίγνεται, οὔτε γέγονεν, οὔτ᾽ οὖν μὴ γένηται. ---- 
 τοιαύτη] after οἵα. See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 14; Kiihner, II. p. 527. — 
 κτίσεως ἧς ἔκτισ. ὁ Θεός] Comp. ver. 20 : διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς οὗς ἐξελέξατο, Herod. 
 111. 147: ἐντολάς τε, τὰς . . . ἐνετέλλετο, Philostr. V. Ap. iv. 18. 150: τῆς 
 μήνιδος ἣν ἐμήνισας. The mode of expression has for its object ‘‘ gravius ean- 
 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 κτίσις (Lange) is fanciful. κτίσις, that which is created, see on Rom. 
 vill. 19. —azorAav.] 1 Tim. vi. 10. — Ver. 23. In Matthew at this point the 
 saying about the lightning 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. — ἀλλ᾽] 
 breaking off and leading over to a new subject. Hartung, Partikell. 11. 
 p. 34 f. — ἐν ἐκείναις τ. ἡμέρ μετὰ τ. θλιψ. 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 εὐθέως of Matthew 
 is not thereby avoided (de Wette, Bleek, and others), but this εὐθέως is only 
 a still more express and more direct definition, which tradition has given to 
 the saying. To refer ἐν ἐκ. τ. ju. to the times of the church that are still 
 continuing, is an exegetical impossibility. Even Baur and Hilgenfeld are 
 in error in holding that Mark has conceived of the Parousia as at least not 
 following so immediately close upon the destruction. [See Note LXXXV., 
 p. 168.]— Ver. 25. οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ x.7.A.] the stars of heaven shall be, 
 etc., which is more simple (comp. Rey. vi. 13) than that which is likewise 
 linguistically correct : the stars shall from heaven, etc.?— ἔσονται ἐκπίπτ. | more 
 graphic and vividly realizing than the simple πεσοῦνται (Matt.). — Ver. 26. 
 Mark has not the order of sequence of the event, as Matthew depicts it ; he 
 relates summarily. — Ver. 27. ἀπ’ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ) From the outmost 
 border of the earth (conceived as a flat surface) shall the ἐπισυνάγειν begin, 
 and be carried through even to the opposite end, where the outmost border of 
 
 1Jtis, in fact, to impute great thought- ness of the Parousia in the same expressions 
 lessness and stupidity to Mark, if people as Matthew used. This course must cer- 
 can believe, with Baur, Markusev. p. 101, tainly be followed, if the composition of 
 that Mark did not write till after Matthew Mark (comp. also Késtlin, p. 383) is brought 
 and Luke, and yet did not allow himself to down to so late a date. 
 be deterred by all that had intervened be- 2 Hom. Gd. xiv. 31, Zl. xi. 179; Soph. Aj. 
 tween the composition of Matthew’s Gos- 1156; Aesch. ii, 84; Gal. v. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 17, 
 pel and his own, from speaking of the near- 
 
CHAP. XIII., 28-32. 165 
 
 the heaven (κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον of the horizon) sets limit to theearth. The ex- 
 pression is more poetical than in Matthew ; it is the more arbitrary to think 
 (with Bleek) in the case of γῆς of those still living, and in that of op. of 
 those who sleep in bliss. 
 
 Vv. 28-32. See on Matt. xxiv. 32-36. Comp. Luke xxi. 29-33. — αὐτῆς] 
 prefixed with emphasis (see the critical remarks) as the subject that serves 
 for the comparison : When of it the branch shall have already become tender, 
 so that thus its development has already so far advanced. The singular ὁ 
 κλάδος, the shoot, belongs to the concrete representation. — τὸ θέρος] is an image 
 of the Messianic period also in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 725. — Ver. 30. ἡ 
 γενεὰ αὔτη] .6., the present generation, which γενεά with αὕτη 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 Jive 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., 
 Ῥ. 168 seq.] — Ver. 32. οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός] 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 ὁ rarf#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 1.) gave it as their judgment that Jesus meant the 
 not-knowing of His human nature only ;4 while Augustine ἢ and others were 
 
 ΤΡ αὶ. 16, xii. 41, 42) 45. xxiit. 36's 
 Mark viii. 12,13; Luke vii. 31, xi. 29, 30, 31, 
 82, 50,51. Comp. Heb. iii. 10 (Lachmann). 
 
 2The signification ‘‘ people” is rightly 
 not given either by Spitzner on Homer, Zi. 
 Exe. ix. 2, or in Stephani 7hes., ed. Hase, I. 
 p. 559 f.; in the latter there are specified— 
 (1) genus, progenies ; (2) generatio, genitura ; 
 (8) aetas, seculum. Comp. Becker, Anecd. 
 p. 231, 11; also Ellendt, Zea. Soph. I. p. 353. 
 
 3 Matthew has not οὐδὲ ὁ vids ; according 
 to K6éstlin, 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 Zeitschr. 1865, p. 308 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 erroneous assumptions 
 with resvect 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. viii. 88; 2 Thess. i. 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, f7om the 
 Jact that Mark (and Luke) attaches so stu- 
 dious importance to the narratives of the 
 expulsion of demons. 
 
 4 Gregor. Zpist. viii. 42: ‘‘in natura qui- 
 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.” 
 
 5 Dé Genesit c. Manich, 22, de Trinit. i. 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, L. J. II. 3, p. 1280, invents 
 the view that He willed 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 κατὰ κτῆσιν (by 
 possession) He was omniscient, but that κατὰ χρῆσιν (by use) He had not 
 everything in promptu (at hand).* See Calovius. Ambrosius, de fide, v. 8, 
 cut the knot, and declared that οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός was an interpolation of the Arians. 
 Nevertheless, itis contained implicite also in the εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ μόνος 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. 34. ὡς] an anantapodoton, as at Matt. xxv. 14. 
 See in loc. With ὡς the plan of the discourse was, after ver. 34, to subjoin : 
 so do I also bid you: watch! Instead of this, after iva γρηγορῇ, with an 
 abandonment of the plan of sentence introduced by ὡς, there follows at once, 
 with striking and vivid effect, the exhortation itself : γρηγορεῖτε, which now, 
 just because the ὡς is forgotten, is linked on by οὖν. — ἀπόδημος] is not 
 equivalent to ἀποδημῶν (Matt. xxv. 14), but : who has taken a journey.* At 
 the same time ἐνετείλατο is not to be taken as a pluperfect, but: ‘‘as ὦ 
 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 doorkeeper also command, in order that 
 he should watch.” In this we have to observe : (1) the ἐνετείλατο took place 
 after the ἀπόδημος had gone out of his house ; (2) καὶ δοὺς «.7.A., in which 
 καί is also, is subordinate to the ἀφεὶς x.7.4., because prior to the leaving of 
 the house ; (8) ἄνθρωπος ἀπόδημ.] forms one notion : a man finding himself on 
 a journey, a traveller ;* (4) the ἐξουσία, the authority concerned in the case, is 
 according to the context the control over the household. This He gave to 
 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 
 ἀφείς. . . καὶ δούς dependent on ἀπόδημος : ‘* 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. 3 Pind. Pyth. iv. 8; Plut. Mor. p. 299 E. 
 Pers. u. Werk. I. p. 156 ἢ, 4 Comp. ἄνϑρωπος ὁδίτης, Hom. 11. xvi. 263; 
 
 2 Baur, Markusev. p. 102, comp. his neut. Od. xiii, 123; ἄνϑρ. ἔμπορος, Matt. xiii. 45, 
 Theol. Ὁ. 102, αἰ. 
 
NOTES. 167 
 
 etc. . . . went away toa foreign country.” Against this may be urged, partly 
 that ἀφεὶς τ. oix. αὐτοῦ would be a quite superfluous definition to ἀπόδημος, 
 partly that δοὺς «.7.2. would need to stand before ἀφεὶς x.7.A., because the man 
 Jirst made the arrangement and then left the house. — Ver. 35. γρηγορεῖτε οὖν] 
 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 night-season is in keeping with the figurative γρηγορεῖτε, 
 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. 37. The reference to one thought 
 is not at variance with the use of the plural ἅ (see the critical remarks).’ 
 [But 6 is accepted by all recent critical editors.]—ao:] to all who confess 
 me. 
 
 Notres py AmERIcAN Eprror. 
 
 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 : 
 
 Vy. 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. 82-- 
 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 two 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 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. iii. 5. 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) the Lord’s 
 second coming is prominent, until in the close of the chapter (vy. 32-37) it is 
 exclusively treated of.’’ 
 
 LXXXIII. Ver. 4. ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα. 
 
 In view of the emphatic position of πάντα, the question should not be ap- 
 plied exclusively to the 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 συντελεῖσθαι πάντα." 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 τὸ τέλος (ver. 7) 
 to the end of the world. 
 
 LXXXIV. Ver. 9, καὶ εἰς συναγωγάς. 
 
 The R. V. retains the connection with δαρήσεσθε : 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. ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις. 
 
 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 to 10. This accords with his 
 view of τέλος (ver. 7), and certainly agrees better with the whole scope of the dis- 
 course. The ““ exegetical impossibility ” of a 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 εὐθέως in Matt. xxiv. 29, which Weiss 
 attributes to the older source, but Meyer attributes to tradition. 
 
 LXXXVI. Ver. 30. ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη. 
 
 The same utterance is found, though not in 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 a 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 γενεά 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] BC* DL δὲ, vss. have γάρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta 
 is from Matt. xxvi. 5. — Ver. 3. καί before συντρ. is, with Tisch., following Β Τὰ 
 δὲ Copt., to be deleted. A connective addition. — τὸ d/43.] Fritzsche, Lachm. 
 [Tisch. VIII.] read τὸν ἀλάβ., which is attested by [N*] ADEFHKSUVX 
 T, min. Tisch., following B C L A &**, has τὴν ἀλάβ., and this is to be pre- 
 ferred. [So recent editors, R. V.] The ignorance of the transcribers brought in 
 τό and τόν. --- κατά] is wanting in BC LAX, min. Deleted by Lachm, and 
 Tisch. A supplement, instead of which D has ἐπί. --- Ver. 4. καὶ λέγοντες] is 
 with Tisch., in accordance with B C* L δὲ, Copt., to be deleted. It is a gloss 
 after Matthew, instead of which D reads καὶ ἔλεγον. -- Ver. 5. τὸ μύρον] is want- 
 ing in Elz., but is decisively attested. The omission is explained from Matt. 
 xxvi. 9 (where τοῦτο alone is genuine). The preponderance of evidence forbids 
 the supposition that it is an interpolation from John xii. 5. D, min. have it 
 before τοῦτο, and in ὃὲ τοῦτο is wanting. —- Ver. 6. Instead of ἐν ἐμοί Elz, has εἰς 
 ἐμέ, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew. — Ver. 8. airy] is 
 only wanting, indeed, in B L 8, min. Copt. Syr. utr. (bracketed by Lachm.), 
 but is rightly deleted by Tisch. It is an addition, which is not found till after 
 ἐποίησεν in A. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 12.—Ver. 9. After ἀμῆν very considerable 
 evidence supports δέ, 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. — τοῦτο] is wanting in BD L δὲ, min. 
 Cant. Vere. Vind. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. It is from 
 Matt. xxvi. 13.—[Ver. 10. Tisch., recent editors, read "Iovdac (8 ABC Ὁ L A) 
 Ἰσκαριώθ (Treg. ᾿Ισκαριώτης) ὁ εἷς (8 B C* L, Copt.), and, with B Ὁ, zapadoi.] — 
 Ver. 14. After κατάλυμα Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. (in brackets) Tisch. read μου, 
 following B C DLA 8, min. Sax. Vulg. It. (not all the codices). As μου 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 ἀνάγαιον (Elz. : ἀνώ- 
 yeov) is decisively attested. — Before ἐκεῖ is to be read with Tisch. καί, in accord- 
 ance with BC DL 8, 346, vss. It dropped out in accordance with Luke xxii. 
 12. [Tisch. VIII, κἀκεῖ. ---- Ver. 19. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, 
 Copt., omit οἱ dé.] — καὶ ἄλλως" μῆτι ἐγώ] is wanting in BC L Ῥ A 8, 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 
 μήτι ἐγώ 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. 171 
 
 R. V., with δὲ BL, Copt., insert ὅτε before ὁ μέν. ] --- After λάβετε, ver, 22, Elz. 
 has φάγετε, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matthew. — Ver. 23. 
 The article before ποτήριον (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) has in this place 
 even stronger evidence against it than in Matt. xxvi. 27, and is, as there, to be 
 struck out. — Ver. 24. τὸ τῆς] This τό is, as in Matt. xxvi. 28, to be deleted on 
 considerable evidence with Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it). — καινῆς] is want- 
 ing in BC DL &, Copt. Cant. Deleted by Tisch., and rightly, as also at Matt. 
 xxvi. 28. --- περί] BC DLA δὲ, min.: ὑπέρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. Περί is from 
 Matthew, from whom also codd. and vss. have added εἰς ἄφεσιν duapr. — Ver. 
 27. ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] So Elz. and the editors, except Fritzsche and Tisch., 
 read after oxavdaA. 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 ἐν ἐμοί, and others 
 still ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ. Lachm. has the latter in brackets. — διασκορπισθήσεται is 
 an emendation (comp. on Matt. xxvi. 31), instead of which, with Lachm. and 
 Tisch., διασκορπισθήσονται is to be read, and that with Tisch., after πρόβατα (B 
 C DL, min.). — Ver. 29. καὶ εἰ] Fritzsche, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] read 
 εἰ καί. Hither is appropriate, and with the evidence divided no decision can be 
 arrived at, even if εἰ καί was introduced in Matthew. — Ver. 30. σύ after ὁτι is 
 wanting in Elz., in opposition to decisive evidence. — ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] ΒΟ D 
 L &, min. Lachm. Tisch. have ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί. 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 τρίς μὲ ἀπ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be written. The received order 
 is from Matthew. — Ver. 31. ἐκ περισσοῦ] B Ο D &, min. have ἐκπερισσῶς. So 
 Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the unusual word was partly exchanged for the 
 simple περισσῶς (L, min.), partly glossed by ἐκ περισσοῦ. --- ἔλεγε] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. have ἐλάλει, following BDL &. The Recepta is a correction. Comp. on 
 xi. 23. — μᾶλλον] is wanting in BC Ὁ L δὲ, vss., including Vulg., It. Deleted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss on ἐκ περισσοῦ ; 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 Γεθσημανεί ; only in 
 cursives does the form 17 occur.|— Ver. 35. As at Matt. xxvi. 39, so here also 
 προσελθών is strongly attested, but it is to be rejected. [W. and Hort, Weiss, 
 R. V., with δὲ B L, Copt., read ἔπιπτεν.  --- Ver. 36. τὸ ποτήρ. an’ ἐμοῦ τοῦτο] D, 
 Hil. : τοῦτο τ. π. an’ ἐμοῦ; KM: ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ t.7.7.; ABC GLUXARX, min. 
 Or. vss., including Vulg. : τ. 7. τοῦτο dx’ ἐμοῦ. In this variety of readings the 
 last is so preponderantly attested that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to 
 be adopted. — Ver. 40. ὑποστρέψας] Lachm. has πάλιν ἐλθών, following BL 8, 
 Copt. Pers. w. Ar. p. (Ὁ and cod. It. have merely ἐλθών). πάλιν ἐλθών is the 
 more to be preferred, seeing that Mark is fond of the word πάλιν, and that he 
 nowhere has the word ὑποστρέφω. But transcribers referred and joined the 
 πάλιν to εὗρ. αὐτοὺς καθεύδ., in accordance with which ἐλθών then became glossed 
 and supplanted by ὑποστρέψ. Accordingly the subsequent πάλιν, which by Elz, 
 Scholz, Tisch. is read after αὐτούς, and is not found in B DL X&, min. vss., is, 
 with Lachm., to be deleted. [Recent editors, R.V., agree with Meyer. 7 — Instead 
 of καταβαρυνόμενοι, Elz. Scholz have βεβαρημένοι, in opposition to preponderant 
 evidence, It is from Matthew. — Ver. 41. Elz. Scholz., Tisch. [Treg., Weiss] 
 have τὸ λοιπόν. 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 ᾿Ιούδας Fritzsche has ᾿Ισκαριώτης, Lachm. and Tisch. ὁ Ἴσκαρ. ; 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 Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit.] — ὦν] after εἷς has 
 against 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, — πολύς] is wanting in BL δὲ, min. vss. Condemned by Rinck, brack- 
 eted by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Matthew. — Ver. 45. Lachm. only 
 reads afi once, following B C* DL M A 8, min. yss., including Vulg., codd. 
 It. [So Tisch. VIII., recent editors, R. V.] But this reading is from Matt. xxvi. 
 49, whence also χαῖρε has intruded into codd. and vss. — Ver. 46. ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τ. 
 χεῖρας αὐτῶν] Many various readings, of which Lachm. has τ. χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ adr. ; 
 Tisch. : τ. χεῖρας αὐτῷ: The latter is attested by B Ὁ L 8** 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. tic] 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 ὠτίον read, with Lachm. and 
 Tisch., following BD δὲ, 1, ὠτάριον. The former is from Matthew. — Ver. 48. 
 The form ἐξήλθατε (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested. — Ver. 51. 
 εἷς τις νεανίσκ. Lachm. Tisch. read νεανίσκ. τις, following B C L δὲ, Copt. Syr. 
 It. Vulg. (Ὁ : veaviox. δέ τις, without xa‘). The Recepta is to be maintained ; 
 νεανίσκος τις is the most prevalent mode of expression. ['Tisch. VIII. returns to 
 the Rec., recent editors, R. V., follow B δὲ, etc.] —Instead of ἠκολούθει, read, 
 in accordance with B CL δὲ, συνηκολούθει (so Lachm. and Tisch.), The current 
 simple form has crept in also at v. 37. — οἱ νεανίσκοι 15 wanting in BC* DLA 
 &, Syr. Arr. Pers. Copt. It. Vulg. 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 τὸν νεανίσκον, which was written in the margin 
 beside αὐτόν, as Slav. still renders τὸν νεανίσκον instead of αὐτὸν οἱ νεανίσκοι. 
 The τὸν νεανίσκον written in the margin was easily changed into οἱ νεανίσκοι, 
 since the absence of a fitting subject for κρατοῦσιν might be felt. — Ver. 52. ἀπ᾽ 
 αὐτῶν] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., has considerable testimony 
 against it ; yet, a8 being quite superfluous, it was more easily passed over than 
 added. [Rejected by recent editors, R. V.]— Ver. 53. αὐτῷ after ovvépy. is 
 wanting in DLA δὲ, Vulg. It. Or. Deleted by Tisch. [W. and Hort text ; but 
 retained by Treg., Weiss, R. V.] An omission from misunderstanding. —[Ver. 
 61. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B C L, 33, Copt., read οὐκ ἀπεκρ. ovdév.] 
 — Ver. 65. ἔβαλλον] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔλαβον on decisive evidence. ἔλαβον 
 not being understood, was variously altered. — Ver. 67. ᾿Ιησοῦ jo6a] BCL ®& 
 have ἦσθε τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ. So Lachm. and Tisch. D A, min. vss., including Vulg. 
 and codd. It., have τοῦ "Ino. before τοῦ Nag. The latter is in accordance with the 
 usual mode of expression, and with Matt. xxvi. 69. ἧσθα τοῦ ᾿Ἰησοῦ is to be 
 adopted ; this τοῦ ᾿Τησοῦ following was omitted (so still in min., Fritzsche), and 
 was then variously restored. — Ver. 68. οὐκ... οὐδέ] Lachm. has otre.. . 
 οὔτε, following B DL δὲ, Eus. So now Tisch. also; and rightly. See Matthew. 
 - τί od λέγεις Lachm. and Tisch. have σὺ τί λέγεις, following BC L A 8, min. 
 Rightly ; σύ was omitted (so still in D, Vulg. It.), and then was restored at the 
 
OBAP. XIVUS 1 2: 173 
 
 place that first presented itself after τί. --- καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε] is wanting, 
 indeed, in B L δὲ, 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. καὶ ἡ λαλία cov 
 ὁμοιάζει] So Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, after Ταλιλ. ci. But the words are wanting 
 inBC DLR, 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.), ὁμοιάζει. 
 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 ὀμνύειν 
 (comp. Matthew), ὀμνύναι is sufficiently vouched for by BE HL SUVXT, 
 min. — Ver. 72. εὐθέως after καί is wanting in Elz., but it is attested by B D G@ 
 L & (which, with L, has not ἐκ devr.), 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 for 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 εὐθύς, 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 τὸ ῥῆμα 0, the Recepta has τοῦ ῥήματος οὗ, in opposition to decisive witnesses, 
 among which, however, A B C L A δὲ, min. Copt. Sahid. read τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς. 
 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 of 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. — τὸ πάσχα κ. τὰ ἄζυμα] the Passover and the unleavened 
 (MSDN), 1.6... the feast of the Passover and (which it likewise is) of the un- 
 leavened. Comp. 3 Esdr. i. 19: ἠγάγοσαν... τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν τῶν 
 ἀζύμων. On τὰ ἄζυμα as a designation of the feast, comp. 3 Esdr. i. 10 : 
 ἔχοντες Ta ἄζυμα κατὰ τὰς φυλάς. --- ἔλεγον γάρ] This γάρ (see the critical re- 
 marks) informs us of the reason of the ἐζήτουν πῶς 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 : τὴν μὲν ἑορτὴν ὑπερθέσθαι βούλονται οὐ συγχω- 
 ροῦντο δὲ, ἐπειδὴ τὴν προφητείαν ἔδει πληροῦσθαι τὴν ἐν τῇ νομικῇ διατυπώσει, ἐν ἡ τὸ 
 πάσχα ἐδύετο, μηνὶ πρώτῳ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ" ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ μηνὶ καὶ ἐν 
 ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τὸ ἀληθινὸν πάσχα ἔδει θυτῆναι, ‘‘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 true passover should be slain.” A 
 view right in itself ; 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.] 
 — ἔσται] shall be, certainty of what was otherwise to be expected.! 
 
 Vv. 3-9.? See on Matt. xxvi. 6-13. [See Note LXXXVII., p. 183.] Comp. 
 John xii. 1-8, who also has the peculiar expression πιστικῆς, either directly 
 from Mark, or from the form of tradition from which Mark also adopted it. 
 Luke has at vii. 36 ff. a history of an anointing, but a different one. — 
 μύρου νάρδου] On the costliness of this, see Pliny, H. N. xiii. 2. — πιστικῆς}" 
 πιστικός, in demonstrable usage, means nothing else than (1) convincing, per- 
 suading (Xen. Cyrop. i. 6. 10: πιστικωτέρους . . . λόγους, Plato, Gorg. p. 455 
 . πιστικὸς μόνον), thus being equivalent to πειστικός : (2) 
 Saithful, trustworthy (Artemidorus, Oneir. 11. 32, p. 121: γυνὴ πιστικὴ καὶ 
 οἰκουρός, Comp. πιστικῶς, Plut. Pel. 8 ; Scymn. orb. descr. 42), thus equivalent 
 The latter signification is here to be maintained : nard, on which 
 one can rely, .6., unadulterated genuine nard, as Eusebius, Demonstr. ev. 9, 
 calls the gospel ‘‘the good cheer of the genuine (τοῦ πιστικοῦ) mixed wine 
 (κράματος) of the new covenant " (where the contextual reference to the drink- 
 ing lies not in πιστικοῦ, but in κράματος). The opposite is ‘‘ pseudo-nardus” 
 (Plin. H. NV. 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 kind 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 πίνω) derives it from πιπίσκω, and explains it as nardus potabilis. 
 Certainly anointing oils, and especially oil of spikenard, were drunk mingled 
 with wine ;* but the actual wsws loguendi stands decidedly opposed to this 
 view, for according to it πιστός doubtless’ has the signification of drinkable, 
 but not πιστικός, even apart from the facts that the context does not point 
 to this quality, and that it is asserted not of the ointment, but of the nard 
 (the plant). The wsws loguendi, moreover, is decisive against all other ex- 
 planations, such as that of the Vulgate :° spicati ;’ and that of Scaliger : 
 pounded nard (equivalent to πιστικῆς), from πτίσσω, although this etymology 
 in itself would be possible (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 31). Others have derived 
 
 A: ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐστι. 
 
 ἴο πιστός. 
 
 1 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 140. 
 
 2 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 »amed Judas as the murmur- 
 er. Now Mark has τινές in general, and 
 Matthew designates ot μαϑηταί as the mur- 
 murers. John is the first to name Judas. 
 
 3 See on this word, Fritzsche in Joc., and 
 inthe Hall. Lit. Z. 1840, p. 179 ff.; Liicke 
 on John xii. 3; Winer, p. 89 [E. T. 97 f.]; 
 Wichelhaus, Leidensgesch. Ὁ. 74f.; Stephani 
 
 Thes., ed. Hase, VI. p. 1117. 
 
 4 Athen. xy. p. 689; Lucian, Wigrin. 31; 
 Juvenal, Sat. vi. 303; Hirtius, de dell. Hisp. 
 33.5; Plin. H. WV. xiv. 19.5; and see in gen- 
 eral, Hermann, Privatalterth. § 26. 8, 9. 
 
 5 Aesch. Prom. 478; Lobeck, Technol. 
 p. 131. 
 
 6Comp. Castalio, Hammond, Grotius, 
 Wetstein, Rosenmiiller. 
 
 7™ Mark having retained the Latin word, 
 but having given to it another form. See 
 also Estius, Annot. p. 892.—Several codd. of 
 the It., too, have the translation spicati ; 
 others: pistici, Vere. : optimi. 
 
CHAP. XIv., 10-16. 175 
 πιστικῆς from the proper name of some unknown place (Pistie nard), as did 
 Augustine ; but this was a eutting of the Κπού." --- πολυτελοῦς] belongs to 
 μύρου, not to νάρδου, which has its epithet already, and see ver. 5. Comp. 
 Matt. xxvi. 7. ---- συντρίψασα] neither: she rubbed it and poured, ete. 
 (Kypke), nor : she shook the vessel,’ but: she broke it,* namely, the narrow 
 (Plin. H. ἮΝ. ix. 35) neck of the vessel, for she had destined the entire con- 
 tents for Jesus, nothing to be reserved. — τὴν ἀλάβ.] ἀλάβαστρος occurs in all 
 the three genders, and the codices vary accordingly. See the critical re- 
 marks. —airov τῆς κεφαλῆς) (see the critcal remarks) on him upon the head, 
 without the preposition usual in other cases,‘ κατά before τῆς κεφαλῆς. ---- Ver. 
 4, But there were some, who grumbled to one another (uttered grumblings to 
 one another). πρὸς éavr., as at xi. 31, x. 26, al. What they murmured, is 
 contained in what follows, without καὶ λέγοντες. — Ver. 5. ἐνεβριμ. αὐτῇ] they 
 were angry at her. Comp. i. 43. — Ver. 7. καὶ ὅταν θέλητε x.t.4.] certainly 
 an amplifying addition of tradition, found neither in Matthew nor in John. 
 — Ver. 8. What she was able (to do) she has done; the greatest work of love 
 which was possible to her, she has done. Comp. Xen. Mem. 11. 1. 80 : διὰ τὸ 
 μηδὲν ἔχειν, ὅ τι ποιῆς. -- προέλαβε κ.τ.λ.}] Beforehand she hath anointed my 
 body on behalf of embalming (in order thereby to embalm it). <A classical 
 writer would have said προλαβοῦσα ἐμύρισε.Ϊ[ 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 explanatory tradition. — Ver. 9. εἰς ὅλον 
 τ. κόσμον] asin i, 39. The relation to ὅπου is as at Matt. xxvi. 13. 
 
 Vv. 10, 11. See on Matt. xxvi. 14-16. Comp. Luke xxii. 3-6. — εἷς τῶν 
 δώδεκα] has a tragic stress. 
 
 Vv. 12-16. See on Matt. xxvi. 17-19. Comp. Luke xxii. 7-13. The 
 marvellous character of the ordering of the repast, which is not as yet found 
 in Matthew with his simple πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, 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 δεῖνα, to whom Jesus sent them, in the 
 street with a pitcher of water. [See 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 Scholiast, Aesch. 
 Pers. 1, expressly says: τάδε μὲν Περσῶν 
 πιστὰ καλεῖται. , , πόλις ἐστι Περσῶν Πίστειρα, 
 καλουμένη, ἣν συγκόψας ὃ ποιητὴς Πίστα ἔφη, 
 ““These Persian things are called πιστά... 
 there is a city of Persia called Pisteira, 
 abridging which the poet saysPista.” Lo- 
 beck, Pathol. p. 282, remarks on this: ‘‘Som- 
 nium hoc est, sed nititur observatione licen- 
 tiae popularis, qua nomina peregrina varie 
 et 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 xii. 3, although in the present pas- 
 sage it gives spicati. 
 
 2 Knatchbull, Hammond, Wakefield, Silv. 
 crit. VY. p. 57. 
 
 3 Ecclus. xxi. 14; Bar. vi. 17; Dem. 845, 
 18; Xen., e al. 
 
 4 Plato, Rep. iii. p. 397 E. 
 
 5 Plato, Leg. vii. p. 814 Ὁ ; Herod. iv. 62. 
 
 6 Comp. the use of ϑαυμάζειν, mirabundum 
 quaerere, in Sturz, Lex. Xen. 11. p. 511 f. 
 
 7 Xen. Cyr. i. 2. 3; Thue. 111. 8; Dem. 44, 
 8, al. 
 
176 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 nal, however, is the sending of only two disciples in Mark, whom thereupon 
 Luke xxii. 8 names. — ὅτε τ. πάσχα ἔθυον] on which day they killed the paschal 
 lamb (Ex. xii. 21 ; Deut. xvi. 2; 3 Esdr. i. 1, vii. 12), which occurred on the 
 14th Nisan in the afternoon.’ See on Matt. xxvi. 17. [See Note XC., p. 184. ] 
 — Ver. 13. ἄνθρωπος] The connection (see ver. 14) shows that the man in 
 question was a slave ; his occupation was the carrying of water, Deut. xxix. 
 10; Josh. ix. 21; Wetstein in loc. — κεράμιον ὕδατος] an earthen vessel with water. 
 Comp. ἀλάβαστρον μύρου, ver. 8. ‘ The water-pitcher reminds one of the begin- 
 ning of a meal, for which the hands are washed,” Ewald. — Ver. 14. τὸ 
 κατάλυμά μου] the lodging destined for me, in which (ὅπου) I, etc. The word 
 κατάλ., lodging, quarters, is bad Greek, Thom. M. p. 501.*— Ver. 15. αὐτός] 
 He himself, the master of the house. On the form ἀνάγαιον instead of ἀνώ- 
 yaov (Xen. Anab. v. 4. 29), which is preserved in the old lexicographers, see 
 Fritzsche in loc. In signification it is equivalent to ὑπερῷον, my, upper 
 chamber, used as a place of prayer and of assembling together. Comp. on 
 ii. 3, 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. — ἑτοιμάσ. ἡμῖν] 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. — μετὰ 
 τῶν δώδεκα] Those two are to be conceived as having returned after the prep- 
 aration. — Ver. 18 f. ὁ ἐσθίων μετ’ ἐμοῦ] not said for the purpose of making 
 known the fact, but the expression of deeply painful emotion. — εἷς καθεῖς] 
 man by man. See on this expression of late Greek, wherein the preposition 
 is adverbial, Wetstein in loc.4—xai ἄλλος] an inaccuracy of expression, as 
 though there had been previously said not εἷς καθεῖς, but merely εἷς. Mark 
 in particular might be led into this inaccuracy by his graphic manner. — 
 Ver. 20. ὁ éuBarr.] not at this moment, and so not a definite designation of 
 the traitor (as Bleek 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 vesei consuevit,” ‘‘ who was wont to eat 
 with me,” Beza ; but, like ὁ ἐσθίων per ἐμοῦ, 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. εἶπεν] namely, while 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 Wette), but at the 
 
 1 Neither here nor elsewhere have the 2 But see Pollux, i. 73, and Eustathius, ad 
 Synopties expressed themselves ambiguous- Od. iy. 146, 33, Rom. 
 ly as to the day of the Last Supper. See 3 Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 12 [E. T. 13]. 
 
 Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 96 ff. (in 4 Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 249]; Buttmann, 
 opposition to Aberle in the ἐλεοί. Quartal- neut, Gr. Ὁ. 27 ΠΤ ΒΟΟΣ 
 schr. IV. p. 548 ff.), 
 
CHAP. XIy., 26-42. Lal 
 
 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), — 
 τὸ αἷμά pov τῆς διαθήκης] my covenant-blood, as Matt. xxvi. 28. The definition, 
 ‘‘the new covenant,” came in later ; as also ‘‘ for the forgiveness of sins” is a 
 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. See on Matt. xxvi. 30-35. — Ver. 29. καὶ εἰ] even if. On the 
 difference between this and εἰ καί (which here occurs as a various reading), 
 see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 1. --- ἀλλ] in the apodosis of a connecting sen- 
 tence, at certe.* — Ver. 30. ci] has the emphasis of the contrast with ἀλλ᾽ 
 οὐκ ἐγώ. --- σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί] (see the critical remarks) impassioned cli- 
 max : to-day, in this night. As to πρὶν ἤ, see on Matt. i. 18. — δίς] a later 
 form assumed by the utterance than in Matthew. Comp. vv. 68, 72. Even 
 John xiii. 388 has it not. There was no occasion for a later simplification 
 (Weiss), if the characteristic δίς was there from the first. — Ver. 31. ἐκπερισσῶς 
 ἐλάλει] (see the critical remarks): but he was speaking exceedingly much. 
 Observe the difference between this ἐλάλει and the subsequent ἔλεγον (comp. 
 on 1. 84) ; the latter is the simple, definite saying ; the former, with ἐκπε- 
 ρισσῶς, isin keeping with the passionate nature of Peter not even yet silenced 
 by ver. 30. The word ἐκπερισσ. is not preserved elsewhere. — ἀπαρνήσομαι] 
 ov μή, With the future,* denotes the right sure expectation. Comp. on Matt. 
 xXxvi, 35. 
 
 Vv. 32-42. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 36-46. Comp. Luke xxii. 40-46. — 
 Ver. 33. ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι)] 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 λυπεῖσθαι. ---- ἕως θανάτου] See on Matt. xxvi. 38, and comp. Ecclus. xxxvii. 
 2; Clem. 1 Cor. 4: ζῆλος ἐποίησεν ᾽Τωσὴφ μέχρι θανάτου διωχθῆναι, Test. XII. 
 Patr. p. 520. — παρέλθῃ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ] Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 527 : ηὔξατο 
 
 . ἵνα παρέλθῃ ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ἡ ὀργὴ κυρίου. ----ἡ ὥρα] the hour κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, hora fatalis. 
 It passes over from the man, when the latter is spared from undergoing 
 its destiny. — Ver. 36. ’AGBa] S38 ; so spoke Jesus in prayer to His Father. 
 This mode of address assumed among the Greek-speaking Christians the 
 nature of a proper name, and the fervor of the feeling of childship added, 
 moreover, the appellative address ὁ πατήρ,--ἃ juxtaposition, which gradually 
 became so hallowed by usage that here Mark even places it in the very mouth 
 of Jesus, which is an involuntary LHysteron proteron. The usual view, that 
 ὁ πατήρ is an addition by way of interpreting, is quite out of place in the 
 
 1 Comp. also Riickert, Abendm. p. 72. that these very words contain a later mod- 
 
 2 But observe how the idea of reconciliation ification of the narrative. 
 is already in the case of Mark implied in 3 See Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. Ὁ. 341 f.; 
 
 the simple ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. Even Baur (neut. Klotz, p. 93. 
 Theol. p. 102) acknowledges this, but thinks 4 See Ellendt, Lex. Soph, 11. 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. 0. --- παρένεγκε] 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 σάρξ. 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 μὴ γνῶναι ἁμαρ- 
 tiav, which is incompatible with incitements to sin from His own σάρξ. --- 
 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ] The following interrogative τί shows how the utterance emotionally 
 broken off is here to be completed. Hence somewhat in this way: but 
 there comes not into question, not : ἀλλ᾽ ob yevécbw. — Ver. 41. καθεύδετε λοιπὸν 
 k.7.4.] as 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, 49). Then his mood of painful irony 
 breaks off, and with urgent earnestness He now goes on in hasty, unconnected 
 exclamations : there is enough (of sleep) ! the hour is come! see, the Son of 
 man is 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 ἀπέχει, ac- 
 cording to which it refers to the sleep of the disciples, that corresponds to 
 the immediate connection with what goes before (καθεύδετε x.7.2.) 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 watching (Hammond, Fritzsche). The usus lo- 
 quendi of ἀπέχει, sufficit (Vulgate), depends onthe passages, which certainly 
 are only few and late, but certain, (pseudo-)Anacreon, xxviii. 33 ; Cyrill. 
 in Hagg. ii. 9, even although the gloss of Hesychius : ἀπέχει, ἀπόχρη, ἐξαρκεῖ, 
 is critically very uncertain.? Others interpret at variance with linguistic 
 usage : abest, ‘‘it is gone,” sc. anxietas mea, ‘‘my anxiety” (see Heumann, 
 Thiess), or the betrayer ;* ἀπέχειν, in fact, does not mean the being removed 
 in itself, but denotes the distance.4 Lange also is linguistically wrong in 
 rendering : ‘‘it is all over with it,” it will do no longer. The comparison of 
 οὐδὲν ἀπέχει, nothing stands in the way,—in which, in fact, ἀπέχει 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. — δεδώκει] without augment.® — σύσσημον] a concert- 
 
 1 Comp. Erasmus, Bengel (‘‘suas jam 
 peractas habet sopor vices; nune alia res 
 est’), Kuinoel, Ewald, Bleek. 
 
 2 See Buttmann in the Stud. wv. Krit. 1858, 
 p. 506. He would leave ἀπέχει without any 
 idea to complete it, and that in the sense: 
 it is accomplished, it is the time of fulfilment, 
 the end is come, just as Grotius, ad Matt. 
 xxvi. 45 (peractum est), and as the codex 
 Brixiensis has, adest finis, while D and min. 
 add to ἀπέχει: τὸ τέλος. The view deserves 
 consideration. Still the usual ἐξ 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 τετέ- 
 λεσται οἵ John xix. 30 even now, when the 
 consummation was only just beginning. 
 
 3 Bornemann in the Stud. u. Arit. 1843, 
 p. 108 f. 
 
 4Xen. Anabd. iv. 8. 5; Polyb. i. 19. 5; 2 
 Macc. xi. 5, xii. 29. 
 
 5 See Winer, p. 67 f. [E. T. 72 f.]. 
 
CHAP. XIV., 53, 54. 179 
 ed signal, belongs to the later Greek.’ — ἀσφαλῶς] securely, so that He can- 
 notescape. Comp. Acts xvi. 23. — Ver. 45. ῥαββὲ, ῥαββ] The betrayer him- 
 self is under excitement. [But see critical note.]— Ver. 49. ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα x.7.A.] 
 8¢.: ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε k.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. συνηκολούθει aitg] (see the critical remarks) : he followed 
 Him along with, was included among those who accompanied Jesus in the 
 garden.— σινδόνα] 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. 
 — ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ] not to be supplemented by σώματος, but a neuter substantive. 
 Comp. τὰ γυμνά, the nakedness, and see in general Kiihner, II. p. 118. —If 
 οἱ νεανίσκοι 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 ὄχλος, ver. 43. 
 — Who the young man was, is not to be defined more precisely than as : an 
 adherent of Jesus,® but not one of the Twelve. [See Note XCII., p. 184.] The 
 latter point follows not from ver. 50 (for this young man also, in fact, had 
 fled), but from the designation εἷς τις νεανίσκ. 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 τὸ ζητούμενον 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. — γυμνός] ‘‘ pudorem vicit timor in magno periculo,” ‘‘In great dan- 
 ger fear conquers shame,” Bengel. 
 
 Vv. 53, 54. See on Matt. xxvi. 57 f. Comp. Luke xxii. 54 f. [See Note 
 XCIII., p. 184 seq.]— πρὸς τ. apyuep.] t.e., Caiaphas, not Annas, as appears 
 from Matthew. — συνέρχονται αὐτῷ] is usually explained ; they come together to 
 
 1 See Wetstein and Kypke, Sturz, Dial. 
 Al. p. 196. 
 
 2Not possibly Saw (the subsequent 
 
 Apostle Paul), who had run after Him from ~ 
 
 curiosity, as Ewald, Gesch. der apost. Zeit. 
 p. 339, conjectures. 
 3 Ambrose, Chrysostom, Gregory, Moral. 
 
 xiv. 23. 
 
 4 Epiphanius, Haer. lxxxyii. 13, as also in 
 Theophylact. 
 
 5 According to Baur, only a piquant ad- 
 dition of Mark; according to Hilgenfeld, it 
 is connected with Mark’s conception of a 
 more extended circle of disciples (ii. 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 συν : with him, i.e., at his 
 house, they assemble. But always in the N. T.,’ even in John xi. 38, ovvép- 
 to come with any one, una cum aliquo venire ;? and αὐτῷ, 
 in accordance with the following ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, is most naturally to be 
 referred to Jesus. Hence : and there came with Him all the chief priests,* 
 i.€., 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. — πρὸς τὸ φῶς] 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. καὶ ἴσαι x.7.4.] and the 
 testimonies were not alike ® (consonant, agreeing). At least two witnesses had 
 to agree together ; Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15.° The καί is the simple: and. 
 Many testified falsely and dissimilarly. — Ver. 58. ἡμεῖς] we, on our part : 
 the ἐγώ also which follows has corresponding emphasis. — χειροποίητον. . . 
 ἄλλον 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. —ayerpor.| isan appositional more precise definition to a/.2ov." 
 Comp. on Luke xxiii. 32. — Ver. 59. οὐδὲ οὕτως] and not even thus (when they 
 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. Two questions, as at Matt. xxvi. 62. If 
 we assume only one, like the Vulgate, and take τί for ὅ,τε : answerest thou 
 nothing to that, which, etc.,° it is true that the construction ἀποκρίνεσθαί τι is 
 not opposed to it (see on Matthew), but the address is less expressive of the 
 anxiety 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 ὁ, 7. — Ver. 61. Well-known parallelismus antitheticus, with em- 
 
 χεσθαί τινι Means : 
 
 gave this statement) was their testimony consonant. 
 
 1 Luke xxiii. 55; Acts i. 21, ix. 39, al. 
 2 Comp. Winer, p. 193 [E. T. 215]. 
 
 Menandr. fragm. p. 538, ed. Meinek. ; 
 Brunck, ad Arist. Plut. 11138; Lipsius, 
 
 3 Whither ? is clearly shown from the con- 
 text, namely, to the ἀρχιερεύς. This in op- 
 position to Wieseler, Synops. p. 406. 
 
 4See Raphel, Polyb. p. 151; Sturz, Lea. 
 Xen. IV. Ὁ. 519 f. 
 
 5It is not to be accented toos, as in 
 Homer, but ἴσος, as with the Attic and later 
 writers. See Fritzsche in loc.; Bentley, ad 
 
 grammat, Unters. p. 24. Ξ 
 
 6 Lightfoot, p. 658; Michaelis, Mos. ἢ. 
 § 299 ; Saalschiitz, p. 604. 
 
 7 See van Hengel, Annotat. p. 55 ff. 
 
 ® Comp. Michaelis, Mos. FR. § 299, p. 97. 
 
 9 Bornemann in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1843, 
 p. 120 f.; Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ewald, 
 Bleek, and various others. 
 
CHAP. XIV., 66-72. 181 
 phasis. Inversely at Acts xviii. 9.— ὁ εὐλογητός] κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, JAN, God. 
 Used absolutely thus only here inthe N. T. The Sanctus benedictus of the 
 Rabbins is well known (Schoettgen, 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 ἀπ’ ἄρτι 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 figurative 
 meaning is, moreover, required in Mark by ἐκ δεξιῶν καθῆμ. τ. dvv., 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. τοὺς χιτῶνας] ἃ More accurate statement, in accord- 
 ance with the custom of rending the garments, than the general τὰ ἱμάτια in 
 Matt. xxvi. 65; see in loc. People of rank wore two under-garments 
 (Winer, Realw.) ; hence τοὺς yur. — Ver. 64. κατέκριναν k.t.A. | they condemned 
 Him, to be guilty of death.? On κατακρ. with an infinitive, comp. Herod. vi. 
 85, ix. 93 ; Xen. Mier. vil. 10. — Ver. 65. ἤρξαντο! when the ‘‘ guilty !” had 
 been uttered. A vivid representation of the sequel. — τινές] comp. pre- 
 viously οἱ δὲ πάντες, hence : some of the Sanhedrists. The servants, i.e., the 
 servants of the court, follow afterwards. — προφήτευσον] usually : who struck 
 thee, according to the amplifying narratives of Matthew and Luke. Mark, 
 however, does not say this, but generally : prophesy ! which as Messiah thou 
 must be able to do! They wish to bring Him to prophesy by the κολαφίζειν ! 
 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 servants 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 ἔλαβον (see the critical remarks). On 
 the explanation of the reading ἔβαλλον, they struck Him, see Bornemann in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 188. As to ῥαπίσμασιν, see on Matt. xxvi. 67. 
 The dative denotes the form, the accompanying circumstances, with which 
 on the part of the servants the ἔλαβον took place. Bernhardy, p. 100 1.5 
 Vv. 66-72. See Matt. xxvi. 69-75. Comp. Luke xxii. 56-62. — κάτω] be- 
 low, in contrast with the buildings that were situated higher, which sur- 
 
 1 On μετὰ τ. νεφελ., comp. Dan. vii. 13 (DY) ; 
 Ἦδν. 1 ἡ. 
 
 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. PR. 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 spiritual tribunal un- 
 der the title of blasphemy, and before the 
 Roman tribunal under that of high treason. 
 And into the question as to the ground and 
 truth of the claim—although in the con- 
 fession of Jesus there was implied the ex- 
 ceptio veritatis—they prudently did not en- 
 ter at all. 
 
 3 Comp. the Latin accipere aliquem ver- 
 beribus (Cic. Tuse. ii. 14. 84). 
 
182 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 rounded the court-yard (see on Matt. xxvi. 3). — Ver. 68. οὔτε οἶδα, οὔτε 
 ἐπίσταμαι] (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 οὐκ. . . ovdé.? On the 
 manner of the denial in the passage before us, comp. Test. XII. patr. 
 p. ‘715 : The doubling of the expression denotes earnestness ; 
 Bornemann, Schol. in Luk. Ὁ. xxxi. f. — προαύλιον] Somewhat otherwise in 
 Matt. xxvi. 71. See in loc. — καὶ a2. ἐφ.} and a cock crew ; peculiar to Mark 
 in accordance with xiv. 30. [See critical note.]— Ver. 69. ἡ παιδίσκη] con- 
 sequently the same; a difference from Matt. xxvi. 71. It is still other- 
 wise in Luke xxii. ὅ8, --- πάλ] would, if it belonged to ἰδοῦσα αὐτόν (as 
 taken usually), stand before these words, since it would have logical em- 
 phasis in reference to ἰδοῦσα, ver. 67. Comp. subsequently πάλιν ἠρνεῖτο. 
 Hence it is, with Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, and Fritzsche, to be attached 
 to ἤρξατο, on Which account, moreover, C L A κα have placed it only after 
 ypé. 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 Aéyew here is not addressed again to Peter. 
 — ἤρξατο] graphic. — Ver. 70. ἠρνεῖτο] Tempus adumbrativum (as so often in 
 Mark). The second πάλιν introduces a renewed address, and this, indeed, 
 ensued on the part of those who were standing by. Hence it is not : πάλεν 
 ἔλεγον οἱ rap., but : πάλιν οἱ παρ. ἔλεγον. ---- καὶ γὰρ Tawa. εἰ] 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, specifies. — Ver. 72. ἐπιβαλών] not : coepit flere, 
 ‘‘Degan 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 ἤρξατο κλαίειν, which certainly also 
 those versions have read ; expressed with ἐπιβάλλειν, it must have run ἐπέ- 
 βαλε κλαίειν, 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 : cwm se foras projecisset, 
 ‘‘when he had rushed out of doors” (Beza, Raphel, Vater, and various 
 others), since ἐπιβαλών 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- 
 
 οὐκ olda ὃ λέγεις. 
 
 1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 706 f. 
 
 2Lange: “he rushed out thereupon,” 
 namely, on the cock crowing as the 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. 
 
 3 Theophylact, Salmasius, de foen. Trap. 
 p. 272; Calovius, L. Bos, Wolf, Elsner, Krebs, 
 Fischer, Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Fritzsche, 
 and others. So also Linder in the Stud. wu. 
 Krit. 1862, p. 562 f., inappropriately com- 
 paring περιβάλλειν, and appealing to 2 Kings 
 viii. 15 (where the word, however, does not 
 at all stand absolutely) and to Ley. xiii. 45 
 (where the middle voice is used), 
 
NOTES. 183 
 out precedent in connection with ἐπιβάλλειν, and would, moreover, 
 require the middle voice; neither, and that for the same reason, is 
 it : after he had cast his eyes upon Jesus (Hammond, Palairet) ; nor : addens, 
 ‘‘adding,” i.e., praeterea, ‘‘ thereafter” (Grotius), which is at variance with 
 linguistic usage, or repetitis vicibus flevit, ‘‘ with repeated turns he wept” 
 (Clericus, Heupel, Miinthe, Bleek), which would presuppose a weeping as 
 having already previously occurred (Theophrastus, Char. 8 ; Diodorus Sic- 
 ulus, Ὁ. 345 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 (κατανοήσας) :? when he had attended thereto, namely, to this ῥῆμα of 
 Jesus, when he had directed his reflection to it.2 [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 ἀνεμνήσϑη x.7.2. precedes, so that ἐπιβαλών 
 corresponds to the ἀνεμνήσϑη as the further mental action that linked itself 
 thereto, and now had as its result the weeping. Peter remembers the word, 
 reflects thereupon, weeps 1 
 
 Notts py AMERICAN EDITOR, 
 
 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 
 (so 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.” 
 
 LXXXVIII. Ver. 3. μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς. 
 
 Nothing need be added to Meyer’s statement of the sense of πιστικῆς 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, liquid. The Amer. 
 Rey. 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. i. 80. 1, xxiii. 1. 8; Stephani 
 Thes., ed. Hase, III. p. 1526; Schweighauser, 
 Lex. Polyb. Ὁ. 244 f. 
 
 2Then Wetstein, Kypke, Gléckler, de 
 Wette, Bornemann (in the Stud. τ. Krit. 
 1843, p. 139), Buttmann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 127 
 
 [ΕἸ T. 145]. 
 
 3 See the examples for this undoubted 
 use of ἐπιβάλλειν with and without τὸν νοῦν 
 or τὴν διάνοιαν, in Wetstein, p. 632 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 points 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. ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον. 
 
 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 the 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 was already well known, whether designedly supplementary to the 
 Synoptic Gospels or not), and should be explained accordingly. 
 
 XCI. Ver. 41. καθεύδετε λοιπὸν k.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 ἀπέχει 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. καὶ νεανίσκος τις. 
 
 The above isthe reading of Treg., W. and Hort, R. V. (so Weiss), following 
 δ BOL; Meyer and Tisch. retain καὶ εἷς τις νεανίσκος, 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.”’ 
 
 XOIII. 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. 18, 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. 
 
 Ver. 1. ἐπὶ τὸ πρωΐ] BC DL καὲ 46, Or. Lachm. Tisch, [recent editors, R. V.] 
 have merely πρωΐ, But why should ἐπὶ τό 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 ποιῆσ. Tisch. has ἑτοιμάσ., fol- 
 lowing only C L &, without min. vss. and Fathers. [Treg., W. and Hort text, 
 R. V., retain ποιήσαντες But it is worthy of consideration, as rojo. might 
 easily come from iii. 6.—[Ver. 2. Tisch., recent editors, R. V. with δὲ BC D, 
 Copt., Arm., read αὐτῷ λέγει instead of εἶπεν αὐτῷ. --- Ver. 3. The clause : αὐτὸς 
 δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρ., is an addition from the parallel passages, not found in any im- 
 portant uncial.]— Ver. 4. καταμαρτ.] B C Ὁ δὰ, Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. have κατηγο- 
 ροῦσιν. So Lachm. and Tisch. ; the Recepta is from Matt. xxvii. 13.—[Ver. 6. 
 Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8* A B,* read ὃν παρήτοῦντο, which 
 was easily changed into ὅνπερήτοῦντο. In A the transition is indicated by the 
 reading ov" περητουντο.] --- Ver. 7. συστασιαστῶν] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch, [Treg., 
 W. and Hort, R. V.] have στασεαστῶν, following BC Ὁ Καὶ 8, min. Sahid. But 
 how easily the syllable ΣΎ dropped away before ZT, even although no seruple 
 might be felt at the unusual ovorac.! ΣΎ 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. 
 ἀναβοήσας] Lachm. Tisch. have ἀναβάς, following Β D &*, Copt. Sahid. Goth. 
 Vulg. It. Approved also by Schulz and Rinck. The ἀναβάς was not under- 
 stood, and, in accordance with what follows (vv. 13, 14), it was awkwardly 
 changed into the ἀναβοῆσας, which was as yet in this place premature.— [Tisch., 
 W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with δὲ B A, Copt., omit dei. — Ver. 12. W. and 
 Hort, Weiss, R. V., with δὲ Β Ο A, Copt., omit θέλετε.  --- ὃν λέγετε] Lachm. has 
 deleted this, on too slight evidence. If it had been added, it would have taken 
 the form τὸν λεγόμενον from Matt. xxvii. 22. But τόν is to be adopted before 
 βασιλ. (with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.), according to A B C A &, min., to which 
 also D may be added as reading τῷ βασιλΔ. Out of the swerving from ὃν to τόν 
 is explained the omission of ὃν λέγετε, which happened the more easily after 
 ver. 9. — Ver, 14. The reading περισσῶς (Lachm.), instead of the Recepta περισ- 
 σοτέρως, is so decisively attested that it may not be derived from Matt, xxvii. 
 23. Somewhat more weakly, but still so considerably, is ἔκραζον (Lachm.) in 
 the sequel attested (A Ὁ ἃ K M, min.; A: ἔκραζαν), that this also is to be 
 adopted, and ἔκραζαν is to be regarded as a repetition from ver. 13. [But 
 Tisch., recent editors, R. V.; accept ἔκραξαν, following B C δὲ, etc.]— Ver. 17. 
 évdvovow] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐνδιδύσκουσιν, which Griesb. also 
 recommended, and Schulz approved, following BC DFA, min, Rightly ; 
 the familiar verb supplanted the unusual one. — Ver. 18. The Recepta βασιλεῦ 
 is to be maintained ; ὁ βασιλεύς (Griesb. Scholz) is from Matthew and John. The 
 evidence is divided.— Ver. 20. cravpicwaw] Lachm. and Tisch. have σταυρώσουσιν, 
 following AC DLP A, min. (B has not got iva cravp, αὐτ at all). With this 
 
CHAP. XV. 18% 
 
 preponderant attestation, and as the subjunctive so easily intruded itself, the 
 future 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 αὐτόν. There are a number of minor variations in this verse. ]| 
 — Ver. 22. Before ToAy. Fritzsche and Tisch. have τόν, following B C** FLA 
 8, min. Rightly ; the article, superfluous in itself, was left out in accordance 
 with Matthew. — Ver. 23. πιεῖν] is with Tisch., following B C* L A 8, Copt. 
 Arm., to be struck out as being an addition from Matt. xxvii. 34.— Ver. 24. 
 Instead of διαμερίζονται Elz. has διεμέριζον, in opposition to all the uncials. 
 [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with B L, Copt., read σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν καί ; the par- 
 ticipial form is from Matthew. ]— Ver. 28. The whole of this verse is wanting 
 in ABCD X 8, min. Cant. Sahid. Condemned by Griesb., Schulz, and 
 Fritzsche, deleted by Tisch. It isanancient, but in the case of Mark a foreign, 
 interpolation from a recollection of Luke xxii. 37 (comp. John xix. 24), — Ver. 
 29. ἐν τρισὶν ἡμ. oixod.] Lachm. and Tisch. have oi. tp. yu. As well the omis- 
 sion of ἐν 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. 
 καὶ κατάβα] Lachm. Tisch. have καταβάς, following B Ὁ L A δὲ, Copt. Vulg. codd. 
 It. The Recepta is a resolution of the participle ; comp. P, min.: καὶ κατάβηθι 
 (in accordance with Matthew). — Ver. 33. καὶ γενομ. (uachm. and Tisch.) is to be 
 adopted instead of yevou. dé on preponderating evidence ; but in ver. 34 the 
 Recepta τῇ ὥρᾳ τῇ ἐνάτῃ is, following A C E G, etc., to be maintained. — Lachm. 
 Tisch, [recent editors] read τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ, which suggested itself in accordance 
 with Matt. xxvii. 46. — Ver. 34. The words éAwi «.t.A, are very variously writ- 
 ten in codd. and vss. The Recepta λαμμᾶ is in any case rejected by the evi- 
 dence ; between the forms Acud (Lachm.), λαμά (Tisch.), and λεμᾶ (Fritzsche), in 
 the equal division of the evidence, there is no coming to a decision, [Tisch. 
 VIII. has λεμά ; recent editors (BD), Aaud.] — 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, καὶ περιθ. would have been writ- 
 ten (Matt. xxvii. 48), which, however, is only found in a few cursives. On the 
 other hand, previously instead of εἷς, τίς is to be read with Tisch., and the fol- 
 _ lowing καί to be deleted with Lachm. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]. The Re- 
 cepta is moulded after Matthew. — Ver. 39. κράξας] 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 οὗτος ὁ 
 ἄνθρωπ. in Lachm. and Tisch. is attested by BD 1, Δ δὲ, min. The Recepta is 
 from Luke xxiii. 47. [Ver. 40. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8 BL, 
 omit ἦν (from Matthew), and Tisch., recent editors, with 8° B Ὁ L A, 33, Copt., 
 read Ἰωσῆτος ; so ver. 47 ; comp. on chap. vi. 3, and exegetical note on ver. 47.] 
 — Ver. 41. ai καί] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ai. So also Rinck, [W. and 
 Hort, R. V., omit καί. Treg. brackets καί in text, and ai in margin.] But the 
 collocation of the two almost similar sylables was the occasion of the dropping 
 away partly of ai (A Ο L A, min. vss.), partly of καί (B δὰ, min. vss.). — Ver. 42. 
 The reading πρὸς σάββατον in Lachm. (instead of προσάββατον) is nothing but a 
 clerical error. — Ver. 43. ἦλθεν] Decisive evidence gives ἐλθών. So Matthaei, 
 Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., approved also by Griesb. ἐλθών... τολμ. εἰσῆλθε 
 was resolved into ἦλθεν. . . καὶ τ. ἐς Thisxai before τολμ. occurs still in min. 
 Syr. utr. Vulg. Euthym. — Ver. 44. πάλαι] Lachm., has ἤδη, in accordance with 
 
188 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 Β Ὁ, Syr. hier. Arm. Copt. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. [So Treg. text, W. and 
 Hort text, R. V. marg.] A repetition of the previous 767. — Ver. 45. σῶμα] Β Ὁ 
 L &: πτῶμα. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; σῶμα appeared more worthy. 
 —Ver. 46. καί before καθελ. is wanting in B D L δὲ, Copt. Lachm, Tisch. A 
 connective addition. — κατέθηκεν] Β ΟἿΣ D Τὶ &, min. have ἔθηκεν. So Fritzsche, 
 Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] But how easily the syllable κατ dropped 
 out after καί, especially since Matthew and Luke also only have the simple 
 form ! — Ver. 47. τίθεται] In accordance with decisive evidence read, with 
 Lachm. and Tisch., τέθειται. 
 
 Ver. 1. See on Matt. xxvii. 1, 2. Comp. Luke xxiii. 1. [See Note XCIV., 
 p. 195.1] -- ἐπὶ τὸ πρωΐ] on the morning (xiii. 35), ὁ.6., during the early morning, 
 so that ἐπί expresses the duration stretching itself out.?| Comp. Acts. ili. 1, 
 iv. 5. As to συμβ. ποι., comp. on iii. 6. They made a consultation. Ac- 
 cording to the more significant reading ἑτοιμάσ. (see 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. — καὶ ὅλον τὸ 
 συνέδρ.] and indeed the whole Sanhedrim. Mark has already observed, xiv. 
 53 (πάντες), that the assembly was a full one, 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 does 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. See 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. πάλιν] See ver. 2. — Ver. 5. οὐκέτι] At ver. 2 he had 
 still answered. 
 
 Vv. 6-14. See on Matt. xxvii. 15-23. Comp. Luke xxiii. 13-23. — Ver. 
 6. ἀπέλυεν] ‘‘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. — ὅνπερ] quem quidem (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 724), the very one 
 whom they, etc. [But see critical note.] — Ver. 7. μετὰ τῶν συστασιαστ. ] with 
 his fellow-insurgents. συστασιαστής occurs again only in Josephus, Antt. xiv. 
 2.1. {Rejected here by recent editors, see critical notes.] In the classical 
 writers it is συστασιώτης. -- ἐν τῇ στάσει] in the insurrection in question, just 
 indicated by συστασιαστ. 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 xiii. 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. — 
 ἀναβάς] having gone up before the palace of Pilate (see the critical remarks), — 
 αἰτεῖσϑαι, καϑώς) so to demand, as, to institute a demand accordingly, as, i.e., 
 according to the real meaning : to demand that, which.'— Ver. 9. τὸν βασιλέα 
 τ. Iovd.| not inappropriate (Késtlin), but said in bitterness against the 
 chief priests, etc., as John xvill. 39. — Ver. 10. ἐγίνωσκε] he perceived ; 
 Matthew has ἤδει, but Mark represents the matter as it originated. — Ver, 11. 
 iva μᾶλλον] aim of the ἀνέσεισαν," in order that he (Pilate) rather, etc., in order 
 that this result might be brought about. — Ver. 13. πάλιν] supposes a re- 
 sponsive cry already given after ver. 11 on the instigation of the chief 
 priests. An inexact simplicity of narration. 
 
 Vv. 15-20. See on Matt. xxvii. 26-31. Comp. Luke xxiii. 24, 25. — τὸ 
 ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι] satisfacere, to do what was enough, to content them.* — Ver. 
 16. Matthew has : εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον ; the vividly descriptive Mark has: ἔσω 
 τῆς αὐλῆς, 6 ἐστι πραιτώριον, into the interior of thecourt, which is the praetorium, 
 for they did not bring Him into the house and call the cohorts together 
 thither, but into the inner cowrt 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 (πυλών, comp. on Matt. xxvi. 71) 
 they found themselves in the praetorium. Accordingly αὐλή is not in this 
 place to be translated palace (see on Matt. xxvi. 3), but cowrt, 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. πορφύραν] a purple 
 robe. Matthew specifies the robe mcre definitely (χλαμύδα), and the color 
 differently (κοκκίνην), following another tradition. [See Note XCV., p. 195.] 
 — Ver. 18. ἤρξαντο] after that investiture ; a new act. 
 
 Ver. 20. See on Matt. xxvii. 32. Comp. Luke xxiii. 26. — iva σταυρώ- 
 σουσιν.} See the critical remarks. On the futwre after iva, see Winer, p. 257 f. 
 [E. T. 287 f.].— Ver. 21. Only Mark designates Simon by his sons. 
 Whether Alexander be identical with the person named at Acts xix. 338, 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. 13. 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 
 ayyap., see on Matt. v. 41. The notice ἐρχόμενον am’ ἀγροῦ, 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 
 
 1See Lobeck, ad Phryn. Ὁ. 427; Schaef. and so forth, in Wetstein and Kypke. 
 
 O. Θ᾽ 1124. Comp. λαμβάνειν τὸ ἱκανόν, Acts xvii. 9. 
 3 Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 204 [E. T. 4Comp. Bleek, Beitr. p. 137; Ebrard, 
 236]. p. 513. 
 
 3 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 
 ἀγγαρεύοντες 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 XCVL., p. 195.] 
 Vv. 22-27. See on Matt. xxvii. 33-38. Comp. Luke xxiii. 33 f., who 
 here narrates summarily, but yet not without bringing in a deeply vivid and 
 original trait (ver. 34), and has previously the episode of the daughters of 
 Jerusalem, — τὸν Γολγοϑᾶ τόπον] ToAy. corresponds to the subsequent κρανίου, 
 and is therefore to be regarded asa genitive. According to Mark, the place 
 was called the ‘‘ Place of Golgotha,” which name (6) interpreted is equiva- 
 lent to ‘‘Place of a skull.” — Ver. 23. ἐδίδουν] they offered. This isimplied in 
 the imperfect. See Bernhardy, p. 579. --- ἐσμυρνισμ.1 See, 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 feeling, Wetstein in 
 loc.; Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 42. — Ver. 24. ἐπ’ αὐτά] 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, Zer., ed. Rost, p. 635), is a question that must be 
 left open. — τίς τί ἄρῃ] .6., who should receive anything, and what he was to 
 receive. See, on this blending of two interrogative clauses, Bernhardy, 
 p. 444; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. 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 
 xxiii. 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.] .-- καὶ ἐστ. ait.] ἐστ. 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 καί." ‘ 
 
 1 Euthymius Zigabenus here gives ἃ livery made to Pilate.’ With more shrewd- 
 
 warning illustration of forced harmonizing : 
 ἣν Se, φησίν͵, wpa τρίτη, OTe δηλονότι Hp- 
 ξατο ὑπὸ τῶν στρατιωτῶν 
 
 τοῦ Πιλάτου. 
 
 πάσχειν 
 Εἶτα τὸ ἑξῆς ἀναγνωστέον 
 καθ᾽ ἑαυτό' καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν, ἐν ἕκτῃ 
 δηλαδὴ ὥρᾳ, “It was, he says, the third 
 hour, namely, when He began to 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 facta,’ “the third hour from the de- 
 
 ness Grotius suggests: “jam audita erat 
 tuba horae tertiae, 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 Thue. i. 50, iii. 108; Xen. Anab. fi. 1. 
 ἡς vii. 4. 12. Comp. on Luke xix. 43. Stall- 
 baum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 220C. 
 
CHAP. XV., 29-41. 191 
 
 Vv. 29-41. See on Matt. xxvii. 39-56. Comp. Luke xxiii. 35-49. — οὐά] 
 the Latin vah/ an exclamation of (here ironical) amazement. Dio Cass. 
 Ixili. 20; Arrian, pict. 111. 23. 24 ; Wetstein in loc. —6é καταλύων κ.τ.1.] 
 gives us a glimpse of the original affirmation of the witnesses, as it is pre- 
 served in Matt. xxvi. 61 (not in Mark xiv. 58). — Ver. 31. πρὸς ἀλλήλ., inter 
 se invicem, belongs to ἐμπαίζ. ---- Ver. 32. Let the Messiah the King of Israel 
 come down now, etc., —a bitter mockery! The ὁ Χριστός applies to the 
 confession before the supreme council, xiv. 61 f., and ὁ βασιλ. τ. Ἴσρ. 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 double address 
 at the head of what follows is more in keeping with the malicious triumph. 
 —voteto.|namely, that he is the Messiah, the King of Israel. καὶ οἱ ovve- 
 otavp.| agrees with Matthew, but not with Luke. See on 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 preserved more special traits of the great event of the 
 crucifixion, but with which the historical character of the exceedingly 
 characteristic scene is not lost. See on Luke, U.c. — Ver. 34.1 ἐλωΐ] the Sy- 
 riac form for ‘98 (Matthew), which latter appears to have been what Jesus 
 uttered, as is to be inferred from the scoff : "HAiav duvet. — Ver. 36. λέγων] 
 a difference from Matt. xxvii. 49, whose account is more original (in oppo- 
 sition to Holtzmann), because to remove the aspect of friendliness must ap- 
 pear more in keeping with the later development. In consequence of this 
 difference, moreover, ἄφετε is to be understood quite otherwise than ἄφες in 
 Matthew, namely, allow it, what I am doing, let me have my way,—which 
 has reference to the scoffing conception, as though the proffered draught 
 would perserve the life till Elijah should come. The view that in ver. 35 f. 
 JSriends of Jesus are meant who misunderstood His cry of éAwi, 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 accourt 
 of the well-known cry of the Psalm, as indeed the ἄφετε, idwuev x.7.4., comp. 
 ver. 80, sounds only like malicious mockery. —Ver. 37. ἐξέπνευσε] He 
 breathed out, i.e., He died. It is often used in this meaning absolutely in 
 the Greek writers (Soph. Aj. 1025 ; Plut. Arist. 20).— Ver. 39. 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 ὦ voice (ver. 37), 
 that He wasa hero. The extraordinary power (οὕτω δεσποτικῶς ἐξέπνευσε, 
 ‘“so masterfully gave up the ghost,” Theophylact, comp. Victor Antiochenus: 
 per’ ἐξουσίας ἀπέϑανε, ‘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. Schleiermacher, Z. J. 
 Jesus on the cross, and Schenkel regards Ρ. 451, takes offence at this very saying, and 
 only this one as absolutely undoubted,— only finds it conceivable as a reference to 
 in which opinion he does great injustice the 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 it a favor of the gods. But in order to express this, there would have 
 been necessary under the circumstances before ἐξέπν. an accompanying 
 definition, such as ἤδη or εὐϑέως. 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 XCVIII., p. 195. ]—7] in His life.—Ver. 40. ἦσαν] aderant, 
 ‘“were present; comp. viii. 1. — καὶ Map.] among others also Mary. — τοῦ 
 μικροῦ] 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 μικρός 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, /.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 a way very liable to be mis- 
 understood ; comp. on Matthew. — Ver. 41. ai καὶ κιτ.}.} as they were now 
 in the company around Jesus, so also they were, while He was in Galilee, 
 in His train. αἵ applies, 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. — ἐπεί 
 as far as προσάββ. 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, etc., would not have been allowable.? Hence 
 the words are not to be put in parenthesis. Mark has not ἐπεί elsewhere, 
 and it is noteworthy that John also, xix. 31, has it here precisely at the 
 
 1 Hom. Zl. v. 801: Τυδεύς τοι μικρὸς μὲν Env narrative otherwise of the Synoptics,—also 
 δέμας, Xen. Cyr. viii. 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 itself was already a festal day, Comp. on yer. 21. Bleek, Beitr. p. 115 ff. 
 although it was really so according to the 
 
CHAP. XV., 42-47. 193 
 mention of the παρασκευή, and in his Gospel the word only occurs elsewhere 
 in xiii. 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.] — ὃ ἐστι προσάββ.] which—namely, the 
 expressien tapackev7—is as much as Sabbath-eve, the day before the Sabbath. 
 On προσάββ., 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 applied. — 
 ὁ ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαϑ. The article designates the well-known man. See Kihner, ad 
 Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 5, iv. 6. 20. — εὐσχήμων βουλευτ. | is usually explained : a coun- 
 sellor of rank.’ But, as the characteristic of rank is already involved in βουλ- 
 evtyc, there is the less reason to depart from the old classical meaning of the 
 word. Hence: a seemly, stately counsellor, so that the nobleness (the σεμ- 
 νότης) of his external appearance and deportment is brought into prominence. 
 — That by βουλευτής 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. — καὶ αὐτός] on his part also, like other adherents 
 of Jesus. Comp. John xix. 38. — rpoodeyéu.] comp. Luke il. 25, 38 ; Acts 
 xxiii, 21, xxiv. 15.— rv βασιλ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] the kingdom of the Messiah, 
 whose near manifestation—that subject-matter of fervent expectation for 
 the devout ones of Israel—Jesus had announced. The idea of the kingdom 
 is not Petrine (Lange), but one belonging to primitive Christianity gener- 
 ally. — τολμήσας] having enboldened himself, absolutely ; see Maetzner, ad An- 
 tiph. p. 173. Comp. Rom. x. 20.— Ver. 44. εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκε] he wondered {7 
 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. εἰ after θαυμάζω denotes 
 that the matter is not as yet assumed to be beyond a doubt.?— πάλαι | the 
 opposite of ἄρτι. 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 “τάλαι, dudum, ‘‘ formerly,” as 
 a relative antithesis to the present time, Wolf, ad Plat. Symp. Ὁ. 20 ; Stall- 
 baum, ad Apol. Socr. p. 18 B. — Ver. 45. ἐδωρήσατο] 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. καθαιρεῖν] 
 the proper word for the taking away from the cross, Latin : detrahere, refi- 
 gere.* —ielar. ἐκ πέτρας] hewn out of a rock. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 60, The 
 
 1 See on the latev use of εὐσχήμ.. in con- 
 trast with the plebeians, Wetstein in loc.; 
 Phryn. p. 333 and Lobeck thereupon; Acts 
 “ἘΠῚ 00; Xvi 12: 
 
 2 The 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 arbitrariness. 
 
 3 See Boissonade, ad Philostr. Her. p. 424; 
 Kiihner, II. p. 480 ἢ. ; Frotscher, Hier. i. 6; 
 Dissen, a@ Dem. de cor. p. 195. 
 
 4Comp. ver. 36. See Raphel, 
 p. 157; Kypke and Loesner én loc, 
 
 Polyd. 
 
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. — ποῦ τέθειται] 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. 
 
 Remark.—In ver. 47, instead of ’Iwo7 Lachmann and Tischendorf have 
 adopted ἡ ᾿Ιωσῆτος, following B A (Lhas merely ᾿Ιωσῆτος) »**, as they also at 
 ver. 40 have ᾿Ιωσῆτος, 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, R. V., accept 7.] Another reading is ἡ ᾿Ιωσήφ, 
 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, out of the 
 correct reading of Matt. xiii. 55 (Iwo7¢, see 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 ᾿Ιωσήφ, but M. 7 τοῦ ᾿Ιωσήφ., 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 
 (ver. 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 two sons (comp. Matt. xxvii. 56), and then—because she was 
 wont to be designated both as Maria Jacobi (comp. Luke xxiv. 10) and as Maria 
 Josis—at ver. 47 in the latter, and at xvi. 1 in 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 
 
 Norrs By AMERICAN EpDItor. 
 
 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 ἑτοιμάσαντες, accepted by Meyer. Comp. on Luke xxii. 66-71. Weiss 
 ed. Mey. rejects the reading ἐπὶ τὸ πρωΐ, regarding it an emendation, in the sense 
 of ““ toward morning,”’ not ““ during the early morning” (Meyer). 
 
 XCV. Ver. 17. πορφύραν. 
 
 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. 
 
 XOVI. Ver. 21. ἐρχόμενην ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ. 
 
 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. ἣν dé dpa τρίτη. 
 
 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. 
 
 XCVIII. 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. 
 
 XCIX. Vv. 42-47. ἐπεί x.7.A. 
 
 The presence of ἐπεί 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. τῆς μιᾶς Lachm. has μιᾷ τῶν, following Β 1. From John xx. 1, as is 
 also τῇ μιᾷ τῶν in LA &, Eus. Tisch. [The latter reading is accepted in R. V. 
 Treg., Weiss, agree with B, while W. and Hort bracket 77. All accept the da- 
 tive. — Ver. 4. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, read ἀνακεκύλισται. 
 —Ver. 8. After ἐξελθ. Elz. has ταχύ. in opposition to decisive evidence, from 
 Matt. xxviii. 8.—[Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B Ὁ, Vulg., Copt., ete., 
 read yap after εἶχεν. — Ver. 9. ἀφ᾽ ἧς] Lachm. has παρ᾽ ἧς, following C Ὁ L 33. 
 Rightly ; ἀφ᾽ is from Luke viii. 2. — Ver. 14. [R. V. adds δέ after ὑστερόν ; W. 
 and Hort bracket.] After ἐγηγερμ. A C* X A, min. Syr. p. Ar. p. Erp. Arm. have 
 ἐκ νεκρῶν, Which Lachm. has adopted. A mechanical addition. — Vv. 17,18. The 
 omission of xavaic, as well as the addition of καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσίν before ὄφεις, is 
 too feebly attested. The latter is an exegetical addition, which, when adopted, 
 absorbed the preceding xacvaic. [So recent editors, R. V. text, but marg. omits 
 καιναῖς.] —Instead of βλάψῃ Elz. has βλάψει, in opposition to decisive evi- 
 dence. — Ver. 19. After κύριος read, with Lachm, and Tisch., ᾿Ιησοῦς, which 
 is found in C* Καὶ L A, min., most of the vss. and Ir. [So Treg., R. V., but W. 
 and Hort bracket.] As an 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 ΚΣ. IS. it dropped out the more easily, as the expression ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς 
 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 δὲ, Arm. mss. Ar. vat. and in cod. K of the It. (in Tisch.), which 
 has another short apocryphal conclusion (comp. subsequently 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 σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς ἀντιγρά- 
 φοις, ‘* well-nigh in all the copies” the Gospel closes with ἐφοβοῦντο yap. Comp. 
 qu. 3, p. 72, where he names the manuscripts which contain the section only 
 τινα τῶν ἀντιγράφων, ‘‘some of the copies.’’ The same authority in Victor Ant. 
 ed. Matth. II. 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. 11. 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 
 
 lNamely: πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς Tov κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας. After that 
 περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν" μετὰ δὲ L goes on: ἔστην δὲ καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ 
 ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι τὸ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ' ἀναστάς δὲ κιτ.λ, 
 δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλε δι᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρ- 
 
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, moreover, 
 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 (ἄλλος δέ τις οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν 
 τολμῶν ἀθετεῖν τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ἐν TH τῶν εὐαγγελίων γραφῇ φερομένων, διπλῆν εἶναί φησι 
 τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν ἑτέροις πολλοῖς, ἑκατέραν TE παραδεκτέαν ὑπάρχειν, τῷ μὴ 
 μᾶλλον ταύτην ἐκείνης, ἢ ἐκείνην ταύτης, παρὰ τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ εὐλαβέσιν ἐγκρίνεσθαι, 
 “ 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, Hinl. I. p. 107. And when Euthymius Zigabenus, IT. p. 183, designates 
 those who condemn the section as τινὲς τῶν ἐξηγητῶν, ‘‘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 sects 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 
 εὐθύς, DO πάλιν, 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 Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1843, p. 450); it does not, 
 moreover, presuppose what has been previously related (see especially ver. 9: 
 ag’ ἧς ἐκβεβλ. ἑπτὰ δαιμ., and the want of any account of the meeting in Galilee 
 that was promised at ver. 7), and has even apocryphal disfigurements (ver. 18 : 
 ὄφεις. . . βλάψῃ). --- Τῇ, 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 
 ἐφοβοῦντο 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 Vy. 15-18 occur in the Evang. Nicod. 14, Apol. 21. But scarcely with warrant, for 
 in Thilo, p. 618; Tischendorf, p. 242 f. 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, as is upon the tradition in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 well known, is worked up in the Gospel of foreign to the Synoptics, regarding the 
 Nicodemus. Ritschl, in the theol. Jahrb.1851, forty days. Σ 
 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 
 ease the point remains withal undecided whether the author was a Jewish or a 
 Gentile Christian (Credner), as indeed at least πρώτῃ σαββάτων, ver. 9 (in oppo- 
 sition to Credner), might be used by one who had been a Jew and had become 
 conversant with Hellenic life. — Against 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 ([sag. p. 94 ff., contrary to 
 his Opusc. IL. p. 129 ff.), Paulus (exeget. Handb.), Credner, Wieseler (Commentat. 
 num. loci Mare. 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. II. 2, p. 4). In 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 δὲ do not have it), Vulg. It. Syr., etc. 
 We may add that he did not regard it as genuine (see Stud. ιν. Krit. 1830, 
 Ῥ. 849). 7 
 
 Notre py AMERICAN EprTor. 
 
 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. 
 
 1That it isa fragment, which originally 
 stood in connection with matter preceding, 
 is plain from the fact that in ver. 9 the sub- 
 ject, ὁ Ἰησοῦς, is not named. 
 
 2 K6stlin, p. 378 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 
 
 that which was subsequently completed. 
 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 (see his Last Twelve Verses 
 
 . Vindicated, 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 a scribe or editor. They suggest, 
 *©on the contrary, (1) that the true intended continuation of vy. 1-8 either was 
 very early lost by the detachment of a leaf or was never written down ; and (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 
 a 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 : ἄλλως. (The disputed pas- 
 sage in John they place on a separate page, distinct from that Gospel.) 
 
 III. 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 ona 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. — διαγενομ. 
 τοῦ caBB.] 1.96., 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, Rosenmiiller, and others, by taking 7yépacav as a pluper- 
 fect... [See Note CI., p. 208.] They bought aromatic herbs (ἀρώματα, 
 Xen. Anab. i. 5. 1; Polyb. xiii. 9. 5) to mingle them with ointment, and so 
 to anoint the dead body therewith (ἀλείψ.). This is no contradiction of 
 John xix. 40. See on Matt. xxvii. 59. — Ver. 2 f. πρωΐ] with the genitive. 
 Comp. Herod. ix. 101, and see generally, Kriiger, § 47. 10. 4. — τῆς μιᾶς 
 σαββ.] on the Sunday. [See critical note.] See on Matt. xxviii. 1. — avarer- 
 λαντ. tow ἡλίου] after sunrise ; not : when the sun rose (Ebrard, Hug, follow- 
 ing Grotius, Heupel, Wolf, Heumann, Paulus, and others), or : was about 
 to rise (so Krebs, Hitzig), or: had begun to rise (Lange), which would be 
 ἀνατέλλοντος, 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 πρωΐ 
 strengthened by λίαν ; we must conceive it so, that the sun had only just 
 appeared above the horizon. — πρὸς ἑαυτούς) in communication with each 
 other. But of a Roman watch they know nothing. — ἐκ τῆς θύρας] The stone 
 was rolled into the entrance of the tomb, and so closed the tomb, John xx. 
 1. — Ver. 4. ἦν γάρ μέγας σφόδρα] Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 35, 
 would transpose this back to ver. 3 after μνημείου, as has actually been done 
 in Ὁ. Most expositors (including Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek) proceed thus 
 as respects the meaning ; holding that γάρ brings in the reason for ver. 3. 
 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. Ὁ. 120 1.) 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 was very 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 σφόδρα at the end, comp. on 
 Matt. ii. 10. — Ver. 5. νεανίσκον] Mark and Luke (who, however, differ in 
 the number : ἄνδρες dio) relate the angelic appearance as it presented itself 
 (κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον, ‘‘according to appearance”’); Matthew (who, however, 
 places it not in the tomb, but upon the stone), as that which it actually was 
 (ἄγγελος κυρίου). [See Note CIL, p. 208.] On the form of ὦ young man as- 
 sumed by the angel, comp. 2 Macc. iii. 26 ; Joseph. Antt. v. 8. 2f., and Gen. 
 xix. 5 f. —év τ. deé.] 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. ἀλλ᾽] breaking 
 off, before the summons which suddenly intervened, Kiihner, II. p. 439 ; 
 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 78 f. — καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ] to His disciples and (among 
 these especially) to Peter. Comp. i. 5 ; Acts i. 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 διαγίνεσθαι used of the 833. 14; Acts xxv. 13, xxvii. 9), see Raphel, 
 lapse of an intervening time (Dem. 541. 10, Polyd. p. 157 ; Wetstein én loc, 
 
ΘῊΡ: XVI. ὁ; LO; 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. — ὅτι] recitative, so that ὑμᾶς and ὑμῖν ap- 
 ply to the disciples as in Matthew. — καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν] xiv. 28. It relates to 
 the whole of what precedes : προάγει ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ. and ἐκεῖ avt. dp. The latter 
 was indirectly contained in xiv. 28. — The circumstance that here prepara- 
 tion is 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- 
 cause Mark, according to our passage and xiv. 28, must of necessity have 
 assumed such a meeting,’ 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 yap has found its way into codd. and vss. (Lachmann, Tischen- 
 dorf [following 8 B D, etc., so Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]). — οὐδενὶ 
 οὐδὲν εἶπον] 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 self-evi- 
 dent ; but they did not execute it. — εἶχε δὲ [yap] αὐτὰς x.7.A.] Hom. Jl. vi. 137; 
 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 evangeli- 
 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), πὰρ ἧς ἐκβεβλ. 
 ἑπτὰ daiu., 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). — πρωὶ πρώτῃ σαββ.] is joined by Beza, Castalio, Heupel, Wolf, 
 Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Fritzsche, de Wette, Ewald, and others with ἀναστὰς 
 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. 319) that the conclusion is 
 lost. Such a supposition doubtless lay in 
 his interest as opposed to the bodily resur- 
 rection ; but even ver. 7 and xiv. 28 ought 
 to have made him too prudent not to see 
 
 (p. 333) 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 
 ii. 82, iii. 15, 
 
202 THE GOSPEL OF MARK, 
 
 Zigabenus, Victor, Grotius, Mill, Bengel, Kuinoel, Schulthess, and others, 
 with ἐφάνη. We cannot decide the point, since we do not know the connec- 
 tion with what went before, in which the fragment originally occurred. Τῇ 
 it were an integral part of our Gospel, it would have to be connected with 
 ἐφάνη, 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 πρώτῃ as the singular 
 σαββάτου (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’ ἧς] 
 (see the critical remarks) : away from whom (French : de chez). See Matthiae, 
 p. 1878. The expression with ἐκβάλλειν is not elsewhere found in the N. T. 
 — Ver. 10. Foreign to Mark is here—(1) ἐκείνη, 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 κἀκεῖνοι in ver. 11, but not at ver. 15, as 
 also ἐκείνοις in ver. 18 and ἐκεῖνοι at ver. 20 are emphatic. (2) πορευθεῖσα, 
 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 τοῖς μετ’ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, instead of τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ (the latter does 
 not occur at all in the section), is foreign to the Gospels. The μαθηταί 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 oi évdexa, as 
 at Luke xxiv. 9, 33 ; Acts ii. 14. — πενθοῦσι x. κλαίουσι] 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 θεᾶσθαι 
 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 ἐθεάθη 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. — 
 ἀπιστεῖν does 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, 18. A meagre statement of the contents of Luke xxiv. 13-35, yet 
 provided with a traditional explanation (ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ), and presenting a 
 variation (οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευσαν) which betrays as its source * not Luke him- 
 self, but a divergent tradition. [See Note CIYV., p. 208.] —yera ταῦτα] (after 
 what was narrated in vy. 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. — ἐξ 
 αὐτῶν] τῶν μετ’ αὐτοῦ γενομένων, ver. 10. -- περιπατοῦσιν] euntibus, not while 
 they stood or sat or lay, but as they walked. More precise information is 
 then given in πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν : while they went into the country. — 
 
 1De Wette wrongly thinks (following of Mark (how unskilfully otherwise must he 
 Storr, Kuinoel, and others) here and repeat- have gone to work!), but independently of 
 edly, that an interpolator would not have Mark, for the purpose of completing whose 
 allowed himself to extract so freely. Our Gospel, however, this fragment was subse- 
 author, in fact, wrote not as an interpolator quently used. 
 
CHAP. XVI., 14. 203 
 
 ἐφανερώθη] 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 
 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ, point to a supernatural element in the bodily mode of appear- 
 ance of the risen Lord. This ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ 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. 13. κἀκεῖνοι) these also, as 
 Mary had done, ver. 10. — τοῖς λοιποῖς] to the others γενομένοις μετ’ αὐτοῦ, VV. 
 10, 12. — οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις éxiot.| not even them did they believe. A difference of 
 the tradition from that of Luke xxiv. 34, 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 consens. evang. 111. 25, Theophylact, and others, 
 including Kuinoel, that under λέγοντας 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 believed ! 
 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. Ὕστερον] not found elsewhere in Mark, does not mean : at last 
 (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Schulthess, and many others), although, according 
 to our text, this appearance was the last (comp. Matt. xxi. 37), but : after- 
 wards, subsequently (Matt. iv. 2, xxi. 39 ; John xiii. 36), 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 ἀνακειμένοις (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 συναλιζόμενος 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 (οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν), furnished a certain basis. — αὐτοῖς τοῖς 
 évdexa] ipsis undecim. Observe the ascending gradation in the three appear- 
 ances—(1) to Mary ; (2) to two of His earlier companions ; (3) to the eleven 
 themselves. Of other appearances in the circle of the eleven our author knows 
 nothing ; to him this was the only one. See ver, 19, --- ὅτι] equivalent to εἰς 
 
 1 Beza, Calovius, and others wrongly explain ἀνακειμ, as: wna sedentibus. Comp. xiv. 18, 
 
204 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 
 
 ἐκεῖνο ὅτι, Luke xvi. 8; Johua i, 18, ix. 17, xi. 51, xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. 118; 
 xin 10. 
 
 Ver. 15. Continuation of the ~me act of speaking. — πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει] to the 
 whole creation, i.e., to all crea. ‘es, by which expression, however, in this 
 place, as in Col. i. 23, all men are designated, as those who are created κατ᾽ 
 ἐξοχήν, as the Rabbinic 41737 is also used (see Lightfoot, p. 6738, and Wet- 
 stein in loc.). Not merely the Gentiles (who are called by the Rabbins con- 
 temptuously 11737, see Lightfoot, /.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 ail believers without distinction, 
 nor with ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ, ver. 20, wherein is included the entire missionary 
 activity, not merely the preaching to the Gentiles. Comp. on πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, 
 Matt. xxviii. 19. Nor yet is there a pointing in τῇ κτίσει 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... ὁ δέ). As in Col. 1.6., so here also the 
 designation of the universal scope of the apostolic destination by πάσῃ ry 
 κτίσει has in it something of solemnity. 
 
 Ver. 16. He who shall have become believing (see on Rom. xiii. 11), and have 
 been baptized, shall attain the Messianic salvation (on the establishment of the 
 kingdom). The necessity of baptism—of baptism, namely, regarded as a 
 necessary divinely 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 (see on 
 1 Cor. vii. 14). [See Note CVI., p. 209.] —6 dé ἀπιστήσας] 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. Σημεῖα) marvellous significant appearances for the divine con- 
 firmation of their faith. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 99. -- τοῖς πιστεύσουσι] those who 
 have become believing, generically. The limitation to the teachers, especially 
 the apostles and seventy disciples (Kuinoel), is erroneous. See ver. 16. The 
 σημεῖα adduced inde.d actually occurred with the believers as such, not 
 merely with the teac ers. See 1 Cor. xii. Yet in reference to the serpents 
 and deadly drinks, s e on ver. 18. Moreover, Jesus does not mean that every 
 one of these signs sh :1 come to pass in the case of every one, but in ne case 
 this, in another that »ne. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 4. — παρακολ. | shall follow them 
 that believe, shall accompany them, after they have become believers. The 
 word, except in Luke i. 3, is foreign to all the four evangelists, but comp. 
 1 Tim. iv. 6 ; 2 Tim. iii. 10. --- ταῦτα] which follow.' — ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου] in 
 my name, which they confess, shall the ground be, that they, etc. It refers 
 to all the particulars which follow. — dai. ἐκβαλ.} Comp. ix. 38, — γλώσσ. 
 
 1 See Kriiger, Xen. Anabd. ii. 2. 2; Kiihner, ad Anab. ii. 5, 10, 
 
CHAP. XVI., 138. 205 
 
 dad. καιναῖς] 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 espe” Slly known from the Corinthian 
 church, had been converted by the traditibn 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 to 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 a common possession of believers, while Luke limits it solely to 
 the unique event of Pentecost. [See Note CVIL., p. 209.] We must accord- 
 ingly understand the γλώσσ. λαλεῖν καιναῖς 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, Hneykl. 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 : γλώσσαις ξέναις, 
 διαλέκτοις ἀλλοεθνέσιν, ‘‘ with strange tongues, with the dialects of other na- 
 tions.” 
 
 Ver. 18. "Oger ἀροῦσι] 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 σημεῖον 
 of believers, and betrays quite the character of apocr phal legend, for which, 
 perhaps, a traditional distortion of the fact record d in Acts xxviii. 2 f. 
 furnished a basis, whilst the serpent-charming so “widely diffused in the 
 East! hy analogy supplied material enough. The p’omise in Luke x. 19 is 
 specially distinct. Others have adopted for aipew*the meaning of taking 
 out of the way (John xvii. 5 ; Matt. xxiv. 39 ; Acts xxi. 36), and have under- 
 stood it either of the driving away, 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 notbe sufficiently marvellous. The meaning; ‘‘ to 
 
 1 Elsner, Odss. Ὁ. 168; Wetstein 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 σημεῖα (Isa. v. 26, xi. 12), as the classical 
 writers express raising a signal by αἴρειν σημεῖον (comp. Thue. i. 49. 1, and 
 Kriiger thereon).—xav θανάσ. τι πίωσιν κ.τ.1.] Likewise an apocryphal append- 
 age, not from the direct contemplation of the life of believers in the apostolic 
 age. [See Note CVII., 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. 4. 111. 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 (see 
 Fabricius in Abd. p. 576). — καλῶς ἔξουσιν] the sick.4 Comp. Acts xxviii. 
 8 f. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. The Lord Jesus therefore (see the critical remarks). οὖν 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 μὲν. . . dé Accordingly, the 
 transition by means of μὲν οὖν is not incongruous (Fritzsche), but logically 
 correct. But the expression μὲν οὖν, as well as ὁ κύριος ᾿Τησοῦς, is entirely foreign 
 to Mark, frequently as he had occasion to use both, and therefore is one of 
 the marks of another author. —wera τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς] cannot be referred 
 without harmonistic violence to anything else than the discourses just uttered, 
 vv. 14-18 (Theophylact well says: ταῦτα δὲ λαλήσας, ‘‘ 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 appear- 
 ances after His resurrection. The forty days are quite irreconcilable with 
 the narrative before us generally, 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. 
 
 2Lange knows how to rationalize this 
 σημεῖον also. In his view, there is symbol- 
 ically expressed ‘‘ the subjective restoration 
 of life to invulnerability.”’ Christ is held 
 to declare that the poison-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 θανάσιμον, Which only occurs here in 
 the N. T., equivalent to θανατηφόρον (Jas. iii. 
 8), see Wetstein, and Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 Rep. p. 610 C. 
 
 4 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 καὶ αὐτοί (and they on their part). 
 
CHAP. XVI., 20. 207 
 
 heaven (ἀνελήφθη, see Acts x. 16, i. 2, xi. 22; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Lukeix. 51), 
 it is not withal to be gathered from this very 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 ἐκεῖνοι dé ἐξελθόντες 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 μετὰ τὸ λαλῆσαι αὐτοῖς and the ἀνελή- 
 φθη there is at least, as may be understood of itself, sufficient space for a 
 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. — καὶ ἐκάϑισεν ἐκ 
 δεξιῶν τ. Θεοῦ] 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 ἀνελήφθη ; 
 not, however, to be explained away as a merely symbolical expression (so, 
 forexample, Euthymius Zigabenus : τὸ μὲν καϑίσαι δηλοῖ ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ ἀπόλαυ- 
 σιν τῆς ϑείας βασιλείας" τὸ δὲ ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκείωσιν καὶ ὁμοτιμίαν πρὸς τὸν 
 πατέρα, ‘‘ 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; see on Eph. i. 20), from-which hereafter He will 
 descend to judgment. Comp. Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opuse. 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 evangelic, and belonged to the region of the apostolic, history ; 
 hence even the effusion of the Spirit is not narrated here. — ἐκεῖνοι] the ἕνδεκα, 
 ver. 14. — dé] prepared for by μέν, ver. 19. — ἐξελϑόντες] namely, forth from 
 the place, in which at the time of the ascension they sojourned. Comp. 
 πορευϑέντες, ver. 15 ; Jerusalem is meant. — πανταχοῦ] 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. —rov κυρίου] nor God (Grotius, and 
 also Fritzsche, comparing 1 Cor. iii. 9 ; Heb. ii. 4), but Crist, as in ver. 
 19. The σημεῖα are wrought by the exalted One. Comp. Matt. xxviii. 20. 
 That the writer has made use of Heb. ii. 3, 4 (Schulthess, Fritzsche), is, con- 
 sidering the prevalence of the thought and the dissimilarity of the words, 
 arbitrarily assumed. — διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουϑ. σημείων] by the signs that followed 
 ‘(the λόγος). The article denotes the signs spoken of, which are promised at 
 vy. 17, 18, and indeed promised as accompanying those who 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 σημεῖα promised at vv. 17, 18 occurred.— éraxoAovs. is for- 
 eign to all the Gospels; it occurs elsewhere in the N. T. in 1 Tim. ν. 10, 24 ; 
 1 Pet. ii. 21 ; in classical Greek it is very frequently used. 
 
 Remark.—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 
 
 seq. | 
 ΝΟΤΕΒ py AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 CI. Ver. 1. διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου. 
 
 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. 
 
 CIII. Ver. 8. καὶ οὐδενὶ x.t.2. 
 
 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. 
 
 σεν. Vive 12, 195: 
 
 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. βαπτισθείς. 
 
 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. 
 
 CVII. Ver. 17. γλώσσαις λαλήσουσιν καιναῖς. 
 
 The oldest manuscripts which contain the passage omit καιναῖς. 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 little 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, 74 56α. ; 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 parables, 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-Pheenician 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; exhorts 
 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: His interview with the 
 scribe, 154 seq.; 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. 
 
 E. 
 
 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. 
 
 α. 
 
 Gethsemane, 177 seq. 
 God, His goodness, 132. 
 Golgotha, 19. 
 
 Growth, Spiritual, 56 seq. 
 
 Ἐς 
 
 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. 
 
 ME 
 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-Phenician wom- 
 an’s daughter, 91 seq.; curing a 
 deaf-mute, 92 seq.; 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 Bartimeus, 
 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 INDEX. 
 
 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, dispute 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. 
 
 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-Phcenician woman, The, 91 seq. 
 
 ἐμ 
 
 Temple, The, desecrated, 144; its 
 destruction, 161 seq., 167. 
 
 Toleration, Christian, 118 seq., 125. 
 
 Transfiguration of Christ, The, 109 
 
 seq. 
 Tribute to Caesar, 153. 
 
 ἣν: 
 
 Watchfulness enjoined, 166 seq. 
 Wealth, its influence, 133. 
 Wisdom, 123 seq. 
 
 Women at the cross, The, 192. 
 
 Y. 
 Youth, The unknown, 179, 184. 
 
et 
 
 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 

 
TRE Οὐ} OF BU E: 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 §1.—ON THE LIFE OF LUKE. 
 
 XCEPTING what the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline 
 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. Κ΄. 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 Lucanus (some codd. of the 
 
 Itala have ‘‘secundum Lucanwm” in the superscription and in subscrip- 
 
 tions), or from Lweilius (see Grotius, and Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 135), but 
 
 not from Lucius.‘ Moreover, in the Constitt. 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 
 
 those whom Paul calls οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς." 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 (ZL. J. p. 158, 168), that Luke 
 is the person named Avistion in the frag- 
 ment of Papias, quoted by Eusebius, iii. 39 
 (ἀριστεύειν = lucere ἢ), is a preposterous fan- 
 cy. Comp. Lekebusch, Composit. d. Apos- 
 telgesch. Ὁ. 390. 
 
 2 This passage tells against everything 
 with which Tiele in the Stud. τ. Krit. 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 importance 
 partly in view of the like character which, it 
 is to 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, Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 99, who starts 
 from the postulate, which is utterly inca- 
 pable of proof, that ail the N. T. writings 
 are of Israelitish origin. See on Col. iy. 
 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. Ε. ii. 43) that he had been at the same time @ 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). In the 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 Naziamzus, makes him even a martyr (Martyrol. Rom.: 18 
 Oct.), yet not unanimously, since accounts of a natural death also slip in. 
 Where he died, 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. 30—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 (Weizsiicker, p. 17 ; see 
 
 
 
 1JIn opposition to Kuinoel, Riehm, de tus, and others. 
 Sontibus Act. Ap. p. 17f., Guericke, Bleek. 3 According to some mentioned by 
 2 Haer. li. 12; also the pseudo-Origenes, Theophylact, he is alleged to have been 
 de recta in Deum fide, in Orig. Opp. ed. de one of the two disciples going to Emmaus, 
 la Rue, I. p. 806; Hippolytus, Theophylact, which Lange, Z. .7. I. p. 252, considers prob- 
 Euthymius Zigabenus, Nicephorus Callis- able. See on xxiy. 13. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 219 
 on vi. 14 f.)—the Gospel of Mark. [See NoteI., p. 225 seq.] Assuming this, 
 as in 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, Weizsiicker, 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 is ὦ 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 Tf a use of our Matthew by Luke is quite 
 rejected, recourse must be had to the hy- 
 pothesis (see especially, Weiss in the Jahrb. 
 Sf. Deutsch. Theol. 1865, p. 319 ff.) that the 
 apostolic collection of Logia already con- 
 tained very much historical 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 λογία 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 λογία 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 συγγραφὴ τῶν λογίων, 
 which Papias claims for Matthew, we get 
 already an historical eéyynovs—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 
 I, Ὁ. 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. 39 is cited (see 
 especially Weiss and Holtzmann), and the 
 genealogy of Jesus, so far as it goes by 
 way of Nathan,—ii. 39 being held to show 
 that the preliminary history of Matthew 
 did not lie within the horizon of Luke. 
 Certainly it did not lie within it ; for he has 
 critically eliminated it, and given another, 
 which lay in fis horizon. And the fact 
 that he gave a genealogical table 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 critical 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, i. 3, affirms of his work, 
 also in relation to the Gospel of Matthew. 
 Schenkel in particular (p. 345) lightly pro- 
 nounces judgment over the criticism of the 
 third Gospel. 
 
 3 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. 7. 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 : Λουκᾶς dé ὁ 
 ἀκόλουϑος Παύλου τὸ ix’ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέϑετο, ** 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 Jerome find 
 our Gospel of Luke designated in the expression of Paul τὸ evayyédcév μου. 
 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. 23 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, Jerome, the pseudo-Origen, and others. 
 
 1 Τῇ reference to this, Thiersch, K. im for Luke written records in accordance 
 apost. Zeitalt. p. 158, 177, is bold enough ar- with 2 Tim. iv. 13. 
 bitrarily to assume that Paul had procured 
 
INTRODUCTION. R21 - 
 
 Remark 1.— The view, acutely elaborated by Schleiermacher, that the 
 whole Gospel is a stringing together of written documents (krit. Versuch iiber 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., G6tt. 1819 ; Roediger, 
 Symbolae ad Ν. 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 Credner and others, especially Lekebusch, 
 Composit. d. Apostelgesch. p. 37 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. ἡ. 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. Marcions in s. urspr. Gestalt., 
 K6nigsb. 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 
 Volkmar (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 veter. monum. descr. by Hahn,—see Thilo, Cod. Apocr. I. p. 401 ff. 
 
 ὃ 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. 8) 
 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 acertain 
 Theophilus, for whom he made it his aim to bring about by this presentation 
 
 1 Ritschl, ἃ. Huang. Marcions τι. d. kanon. 
 Ev. d. Luk., e. krit. Unters., Tiib. 1846 ; Baur, 
 krit. Unters. vib. ἃ. kanon. Evangelien, Tiib. 
 1847, p. 393 ff.; Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. 
 I. p. 261 ff. See, on the other hand, Har- 
 ting: quaestionem de Marcione Lucani 
 evang. adulteratore, etc., novo examini sub- 
 misit, 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, so faras we 
 can distinguish it, to be regarded as tanta- 
 mount to avery ancient manuscript. But 
 still Volkmar and Hilgenfeld often overes- 
 timate its readings. 
 
222 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. Alex., 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. 3, xxvi. 
 25, probable, that the address κράτιστε points to a man of rank (comp. Otto 
 in Ep. 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 
 follower 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 wniversalistic 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 subjective 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 
 
 1 Whether this follows from the passage 
 of the Muratorian Canon as to the Acts of 
 the Apostles (Ewald, Jahrb. 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 omniuwm apostolo- 
 
 rum sub uno libro scripta Lucas optimo Theo- 
 philo comprehendit, omittens quae sub prae- 
 sentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicut et non 
 modo passionem Petri evidenter decerpit (or 
 decollat), sed et profectionem,” ete. 
 
 2 With which the circumstance is easily 
 reconcilable that in the Constitutt. Ap. vii. 
 46. 1heis adduced as the third bishop of 
 Caesarea. And that in that place ou The- 
 ophilus is meant, is more than probable 
 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. Ὁ. 223 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 early 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, § 3), 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 (ἄχρις πληρω- 
 ϑῶσι καιροὶ ἐϑνῶν), Luke must have written within these καιροὶ ἐϑνῶν, 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. 413 ff.) ; Késtlin, p. 286 ff. ; Giider in Herzog’s Encykl. ; Tobler, Hvan- 
 gelienfr., Ziirich 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. 32 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 γενεά 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 Note III., p. 226 seq.] The testimony of Irenaeus, 111. 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 itis. The Prot- 
 evangelium Jacobi, which contains historical references to Matthew and Luke 
 (Tischendorf : ‘‘ Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst ὃ.) 1865, p. 30 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, Weiss in the Stud. wu. 22, xii. 6 f., xiii. 1-5, xvi. 17, xix. 18-46, xxi. 
 Krit. 1861, p. 708 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 389 ff. 18, also probably xi. 30-32, 49-51, xiii. 28-35, 
 2 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. 30 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 Alezandria magna, 
 comp. Grabe, Spicileg. patr. I. p. 32 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 (KG6stlin), 
 are not capable of proof. 
 
 ὃ 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. 111. 1, i. 27. 2, iii. 14. 3 f., 111. 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. 39, 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, ὁ. 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 *—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. 
 
 Remarx.—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. Justins, Ὁ. 142 ff.; particular that of Luke. 
 
 Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 26 ff. Comp. also 2See Uhlhorn, Homil. wu. Recognit. des 
 Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 45. He, never- Clemens, Ὁ. 120 ff.; Zeller, p. 53 ff. 
 theless, in this, his last work, calls in ques- 3 See Gieseler, Hnisteh, d, schriftl. Evange- 
 
 tion Justin’s direct wse of our Gospels, and lien, p. 149 ff. 
 enly 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. 11. has been called in question ; but see the 
 critical remarks on ch. ii. 
 
 Notes By ΑΜΈΒΙΟΑΝ EDIToR. 
 
 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 
 inhis 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—vili. 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). Thelate 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). 
 
 11. The Relation of Inke 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 both 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. 
 
 III. 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 (Ike, Ὁ. 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 
 
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. 
 
 ? ~ 
 Evayyédiov κατὰ Aovuay. 
 
 BF δὲ have only κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Others: τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν ἅγιον evayy. Others: 
 ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ A. Others: ἐκ τοῦ κ. A. (ἁγίου) εὐαγγελίου. See on Matthew. 
 
 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 Ver. 5. ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ] B C* Ὁ 1, Χ 8, min. codd. It. Jer. Aug. Beda have γυνὴ 
 αὐτῷ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepla is 
 an exegetical alteration—which also holds true of the order of the words at 
 ver. 10 in Elz. τοῦ λαοῦ ἣν, instead of which ἦν τοῦ λαοῦ is preponderatingly at- 
 tested. —[Ver. 6. ἐνώπιον] Tisch., recent editors, R. V., accept ἐναντίον, follow- 
 ing SBC. The latter is unusual in Luke.]— Ver. 14. Instead of γενέσει, Elz. 
 has γεννήσει, in opposition to decisive evidence. From γεννήσει, ver. 13. 
 Comp. on Matt. i. 18. — Ver. 20. πληρωθήσονται D, Or. have πλησθήσονται. Τῇ 
 it were more strongly attested, it would have to be adopted (comp. on xxi. 22).— 
 [Ver. 26. Tisch. and recent editors read ἀπό, following δὲ B L, instead of ὑπό. 
 —Ver. 27. The form ἐμνηστευμ. (Lachm, Tisch.), instead of the reduplicated 
 μεμνηστευμ., has in this place, and still more at ii. 5, such important codd. in 
 its favor, that it is to be preferred, and μεμνηστευμ. must be attributed to the 
 transcribers (Deut. xxii. 23, xx. 7). — Ver. 28. ὁ ἄγγελος] is wanting in B L, min. 
 Copt. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch.; the more rightly, that in F A 
 δ, 69, Syr. Arm. Brix. Rd. Corb. it is placed after αὐτήν, and was more easily 
 supplied than omitted. — εὐλογημένη od ἐν yuv.] is wanting in Β L δὲ, 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, 
 καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου. [Treg. brackets, Weiss rejects, W. and 
 Hort mark as a Western addition, R. V. inserts in marg. only.] — Ver. 29. Elz. 
 Scholz, Lachm. have ἡ δὲ ἰδοῦσα διεταράχθη ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ. Griesb. and 
 Tisch. have 7 δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ διεταράχθη. So Β Ὦ Τ, Χ 8, min. Arm. Cant. 
 Damase. (Ὁ : ἐταράχθη). This reading is to be preferred. From AE the 
 transcriber passed immediately to ΔΙ ταράχθη (hence, also, in D, the mere sim- 
 ple form), by which means ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ Aropped out, and this is still wanting in 
 C* min. The bare ἡ dé διεταράχθη was then glossed by ἰδοῦσα (comp. ver. 12) 
 (another gloss was : cum audisset, Vulg. al.), which, being adopted before διεταρ., 
 was the cause of ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ being placed after διεταρ. when it was restored (in 
 which case, for the most part, αὐτοῦ was inserted also). — Ver. 35. After γεννώμ. 
 C, min. and many vss. and Fathers (see especially, Athanasius), as also Valen- 
 tinus in the Philos., have ἐκ σοῦ (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 συγγενίς is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A C*** Ὁ E 
 GHLARB, min. συγγενής is a correction, — Instead of γήρει, Elz. has γήρᾳ, in 
 
CHAP.) Eh. 229 
 opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 37. παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ] Tisch. has παρὰ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, following B Ὁ L δὲ ; the dative suggested itself as being closer to the pre- 
 vailing conception (Gen. xviii. 14),— Ver. 41. The verbal order : τὸν ἀσπασμὸν 
 τῆς Map. ἡ "Edo. (Lachm. Tisch.), is attested with sufficient weight to induce 
 us to recognize ἡ Educ. τ. aor. τ. Map. (Elz.) as a transposition. —[Ver. 42. 
 Tisch, and recent editors have κραυγῇ, instead of φωνῇ ; so B L, Origen.] — Ver. 
 44, Following BC D* FL 8, Vulg. It. Or., the verbal order of the Recepta ἐν 
 ἀγαλλ. τὸ βρέφος is to be maintained (Griesb. Scholz have τὸ βρεφ. ἐν ἀγαλλ.). -- 
 Ver. 49. μεγαλεῖα] Lachm. Tisch. read μεγάλα, in accordance with B D* L & 180. 
 So also probably Vulg. It., magna (not magnalia, as at Acts ii. 11). To be pre- 
 ferred, since μεγαλεῖα might easily have been introduced as a more exact defini- 
 tion by a recollection of Ps. Ixxi. 19. — Ver. 50. εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν] Very many 
 variations. among which εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς (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, εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν (commended, by Griesb.). The 
 former is to be preferred ; the Recepta, although strongly attested, arose out of 
 the current expression in saecula saeculorum. — Ver. 55. The Codd. are divided 
 between εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (Elz. Lachm. Tisch.) and ἕως αἰῶνος (Griesb. Scholz). The 
 former has the stronger attestation, but is the expression so current in the N. T. 
 that ἕως, etc., which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., but is in keeping 
 with the usage of the LXX. after τ. σπέρμ. αὐτοῦ (Gen. xiii. 15, etc.), here de- 
 serves the preference. [Recent editors, R. V., agree with Tisch., following § A B 
 D and most authorities. ] — Ver. 59. ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ] BC Ὁ L δὲ, min. have ἡμέρᾳ τῇ 
 Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Preponderantly 
 attested, and therefore to be preferred. — Ver. 61. ἐν τῇ συγγενείᾳ cov] Lachm. 
 and Tisch. read ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας σου, 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. αὐτόν] BD F G δὲ, min. 
 have αὐτό. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the reference to τὸ παιδίον, ver. 
 59, was left unnoticed, and the masculine was mechanically put in κατὰ σύνεσιν. 
 — Ver. 66. καὶ χείρ] Lachm. Tisch, have καὶ γὰρ χείρ, following B C* D L 8, 
 Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Goth. Approved by Rinck also, who, however, rejects jv 
 on too slight evidence. γάρ is the rather to be adopted, because of the facility 
 with which it may have dropt out on occasion of the similarly sounding γείρ 
 which follows, and of the difficulty with which another connective particle was 
 inserted after the already connecting καί. --- Ver. 70. τῶν dy. τῶν] the second 
 τῶν, 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 ἡμέρας 
 Elz. has τῆς ζωῆς, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 76. καὶ σύ] Tisch. 
 has καὶ od dé (so also Scholz, following Bornem. in Rosenm. Repert. II. p. 259), 
 on very considerable evidence ; καὶ... dé was often mutilated by copyists 
 lacking discernment. — Ver. 78. ἐπεσκέψατο] so Tisch., and most uncials, but &* 
 B L have -era: ; so W. and Hort, Weiss., R. V. text. ] 
 
 ὀγδόῃ. 
 
 Ver. 1.} ᾿Ἐπειδήπε uoniam quidem, since indeed, not found elsewhere in 
 ρ q ) ’ 
 
 1 According to Baur and others, this pre- truth in concreto. Ewald aptly observes, 
 
 face, vv. 1-4, was only added by the last 
 hand that manipulated our Gospel, after 
 the middle of the second century. Thus, 
 the Gospel would bear on the face of it un- 
 
 Jahrb. 11. p. 182 f., of this preamble, that in 
 its homely simplicity, modesty, and brevity, 
 it may be called the model of a preface to 
 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. Ὁ. 342 f. Observe that ἐπειδή 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, Lex. Soph. I. p. 040. --- πολλοί] 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 πολλοί he must have thought of it with others (see Introd. 
 § 2), although not as an apostolic writing, because the πολλοί are distinct 
 from the eye-witnesses, ver. 2. The apostolic collection of Logia was no διή- 
 γῆσις περὶ τῶν k.7T.A., and its author, as an apostle, belonged not to the πολ- 
 But the Gospel to the Hebrews, if and so 
 far as it had then already assumed shape, belonged to the attempts of the 
 πολλοί. [See Note IV., p. 256.] — ἐπεχείρησαν] have undertaken, said under a 
 sense of the loftiness and difficulty of the task, Acts xix. 13. In the N. T. 
 only used in Luke ; frequently in the classical writers.2 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. — διήγησιν] a narrative.* 
 Observe the singular. Of the πολλοί each one attempted a narrative περὶ τῶν 
 x.T.2., thus comprising the evangelic whole. Loose leaves or detached 
 essays (Ebrard) Luke does not mention. — ἀνατάξασϑαι] to set up according to 
 order.° Neither διήγησ. nor avaracc. occurs elsewhere in the N. T. — περὶ τῶν 
 πεπληροφορ. ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμ.} of the facts that have attained to full conviction 
 among us (Christians). [See Note V., p. 257.] πληροφορεῖν, 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 : 
 πληροφορεῖταί τι, Something attains to full belief (2 Tim. iv. 17), it is brought 
 to full conviction (πληροφορία πίστεως, Heb. x. 22) among others. So here 
 
 Aoi, but to the an’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. 
 
 hostility to Christianity (Aberle in the ¢heol. 
 Quart. 1855, p. 173 ff.). 
 
 Holtzmann, p. 243 ff: Aberle in the 7vb. 
 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 oecasioned 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 
 
 2 Comp. also Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valcke- 
 naer): ἐπειδήπερ περὶ τούτον πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν 
 ἀπολογήσασθαι. 
 
 3 Τὴ Jerome: ‘‘ Matthaeus quippe et Mar- 
 cus et Johannes et Lucas non sunt conati 
 seribere, sed scripserunt,” ‘‘Matthew in- 
 deed and Mark and John and Luke have 
 not undertaken to write, but have written.” 
 Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus. 
 
 4 See especially, Plato, Rep. fii. p. 899 Ὁ ; 
 Arist. Rhet. iii. 16; 2 Mace. ii. 32. 
 
 5 Plut. Moral. Ὁ. 968 C, εὐτρεπίσασθαι, Hesy. 
 chius. 
 
CHAP. 1... 2: 231 
 
 (it is otherwise where πληροφορεῖσϑαι 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 : οὐ yap ἁπλῶς xara 
 ψιλὴν παράδοσιν εἰσὶ τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ καὶ πίστει BeBaia καὶ μετὰ 
 πάσης πληροφορίας, ‘‘ 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, as πληροφορεῖν is never, even in 2 Tim. iv. 5, equivalent to 
 πληροῦν, and therefore it cannot be conceived as applying, either, with 
 Schneckenburger (comp. Lekebusch, p. 30), 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. Καϑώς] neither guatenus, ‘‘ since,” nor belonging to πεπληροφ. (in op- 
 position, as respects both, to Kuinoel, as respects the latter also to Olshausen), 
 but introducing the How, the modal definition of ἀνατάξ. διήγησιν. --- παρέδοσαν] 
 have 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 παρέδοσαν and the πολλοί 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 πολλοί, as for Luke him- 
 self, who associates himself with them by κἀμοί, the παράδοσις of the αὐτόπται 
 was the proper source, in accordance with which therefore he must have criti- 
 cally sifted the attempts of those πολλοί, so far as he knew them (ver. 3). — ἀπ’ 
 ἀρχῆς] namely, of those πραγμάτων. But it isnot 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 αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται 
 τοῦ λόγου are the same persons, and therefore under the αὐτόπται there are not 
 to be understood, in addition to the first disciples, Mary also and other 
 members of the family. az’ ἀρχῆς therefore is not to be taken absolutely, but 
 relatively. — ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου] ministri evangelii (the doctrine κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 
 Acts viii. 7, xiv. 25, xvi. 6, xvii. 11). These were the Twelve and other 
 μαθηταί 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 τοῦ λόγου ἴῃ the sense 
 of the matter concerned, of the contents of the history spoken of (see on Acts 
 
 1 Konigsm. de fontibus, etc., in Pott’s Syl- of the αὐτόπται we know with certainty only 
 loge, 111. p. 281; Hug. the λόγια of Matthew according to Papias, 
 2 Of the written materials of this παράδοσις 
 
232 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 vili. 21); but it would be just as inappropriate to ὑπηρέται asit would be quite 
 superfluous, since τοῦ λόγου must by no means be attached to αὐτόπται also. 
 Finally, it isa mistake to refer it to Christ in accordance with John i. 1.? 
 It is only John that names Christ ὁ 2éyoc. —Theophylact, moreover, aptly 
 observes : ἐκ τούτου, ‘‘from this” (namely, from καϑὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν κ.τ.}.) 
 δῆλον, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ὁ Λουκᾶς ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μαϑητὴς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑστερόχρονος" ἄλλοι yap ἦσαν οἱ 
 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μαϑητευϑέντες . .. οἵ καὶ παρέδοσαν αὐτῷ x.t.A., ‘it 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,” etc. By ἡμῖν the writer places himself in the second generation ; 
 the jirst were the immediate disciples of Christ, οἱ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπη- 
 pérat. This ὑπηρέται, 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. 36; 
 ΠΟΥ iy... 1. 
 
 Ver. 3. Apodosis, which did not begin already in ver. 2. — ἔδοξε κἀμοί] in 
 itself neither excludes nor includes inspiration. Vss. add to it : et Spiritut 
 sancto. By the use of κἀμοί Luke places himself in the same category with 
 the πολλοί, in so far as he, too, had not been an eye-witness ; ‘‘sic tamen ut 
 etiamnum aliquid ad ἀσφάλειαν ac firmitudinem Theophilo conferat,” ‘‘in such 
 a way, however, that he bestows on Theophilus something toward ἀσφάλειαν 
 and solidity,” Bengel. — παρηκολουϑ.]} after having from the outset followed 
 everything with accuracy. ἸΠαρακολ., 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. 344 f. Comp., more- 
 over, Thucyd. 1. 22. 2: ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ περὶ ἑκάστου ἐπεξελϑών. --- πᾶσιν] 
 namely, those πράγμασι, not masculine (Syr.). — ἄνωϑεν] not: radicitus, fun- 
 damentally (Grotius), which is comprised in ἀκριβ., but : from the first, see 
 on John iii. 3. 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 πολλοί expresses itself 
 in παρῆκ. ἄνωϑεν. --- καϑεξῆς] 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 iii. 24, xi. 4, xviii. 23); it occurs also in Aelian, Plu- 
 tarch, et al., but the older classical writers have ἐφεξῆς. ---- κράτιστε Θεόφιλε] 
 See Introd. ὃ 3. That in Acts i. 1 he is addressed merely ὦ Θεόφελε, proves 
 nothing against the titular use of κράτιστε. See on the latter, Grotius. 
 
 Ver. 4. "Iva ἐπιγνῷς}] ut accurate cognosceres, ‘‘ that thou mightest accu- 
 
 1 So Origen, Athanasius, Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus, Valla, Calovius, and others, includ- 
 ing Stein (ommentar, Halle 1830). 
 
 2 Τὴ the case of this καθεξῆς 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. 73. 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 καθεξῆς. [See Note 
 Vi, p. 257.) 
 
OHAP,, τι. Ὁ. 233 
 
 rately know;” see on Matt. xi. 27 5 1 Cor. xiii. 12. — περὶ dv κατηχήϑης λόγων] 
 The attraction is not, with the Vulgate and the majority of commentators, 
 to be resolved into : τῶν λόγων, περὶ dv κατηχήϑης, as the contents of the in- 
 struction is put with κατηχεῖσϑαι in the accusative (Acts xvili. 25 ; Gal. vi. 
 6), and only the more remote object to which the instruction relates is ex- 
 pressed by περί (Acts xxi. 21, 24), but into: περὶ τῶν λόγων, od¢ κατηχήθης: 
 that thou mightest know in respect of the doctrines, in which thou wast in- 
 structed, the unshaken certainty. Comp. Késtlin, p. 132, and Ewald. The 
 λόγοι are not the πράγματα, res, ‘‘ matters” (comp. ver. 2), as is usually 
 supposed ; but it is just the specifically Christian doctrines, the individual 
 parts of the λόγος, ver. 2 (τῶν λόγων τῆς πίστεως, ‘‘ doctrines of the faith,” 
 Euthymius Zigabenus), that stand in the most essential connection with the 
 history of Jesus and from it receive their ἀσφάλεια ; in fact, they are in great 
 part themselves essentially history. — κατηχήϑης 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). —ryv ἀσφάλειαν] 
 the unchangeable certainty, the character not to be shaken. Comp. τὴν ἀσφά- 
 Aevav εἶναι λόγου, 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 ἀσφάλεια 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 
 Wil. p: 257. | 
 
 Ver. 5. The periodic and Greek 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 made 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 γένεσις of Jesus (Mat- 
 thew), and even to the conception of His forerunner (Luke). — ἐγένετο] ezti- 
 tit, emerged in history. Comp. on Mark i. 4. --- ἱερεύς τις] therefore not high 
 priest. — On the twenty-four classes of priests (APIND, in the LXX., ἐφημερία, 
 also διαίρεσις, in Josephus also ἐφημερίς), which, since the time of Solomon, 
 had the temple-service for a week in turn, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 315 ; Keil, 
 Archéol. I. p. 188 f. —Afia] 1 Chron. xxiv. 10. From this successor of 
 
234 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Eleazar the eighth ἐφημερία 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 fwice 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.— καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ] 
 (see the critical remarks) scil. jv. — ἐκ τῶν ϑυγατ. ’Aap.| John’s descent on 
 both sides was priestly. Comp. Josephus, Vit. ν. 1. See Wetstein. —’E/u- 
 σάβετ] Such was also the name of Aaron’s wife, Ex. vi. 23 φῶς, Deus 
 juramentum). 
 
 Ver. 6 f. Δίκαιοι] wpright, such as they ought to be according to God’s 
 will. — ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ] a familiar Hebraism : 717 "59, characterizing the 
 ἀλη ϑὴς δικαιοσύνη, ‘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. 13. [See critical note. ]— πορευόμενοι x.7.A. | ἃ More 
 precise explanation of the foregoing, likewise in quite a Hebraizing form 
 (1 Kings viii. 62, al.), wherein δικαίωμα is legal ordinance (LXX. Deut. Iv, J; 
 vi. 2, xxx. 16; Ps. cxix. 93, al. ; see on Rom. i. 32, v. 16), ἐντολή joined 
 with dix. (Gen. xxvi. 5; Deut. iv. 40) isa more special idea. The distine- 
 tion that ἐντολή applies to the moral, δικαιώμα to the ceremonial precepts, is 
 arbitrary (Calvin, Bengel, and others). We may add that the popular testi- 
 mony to such δικαιοσύνη does not exclude human imperfection and sinfulness, 
 and hence is not opposed to the doctrine of justification. — ἄμεμπτοι] not 
 equivalent to ἀμέμπτως, but proleptic: so that they were blameless. Comp. 
 1 Thess. iii. 23 ; Winer, p. 549 f. [E. T. 624 f. ].—The Attic καϑότι, here 
 as at xix. 9, Acts ii. 24, Tobit i. 12, xiii. 4, corresponding to the argumen- 
 tative καϑώς : as then, according to the fact that, occurs in the N. T. only in 
 Luke. — προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμ.] of advanced age, D'D°2 O83, Gen. xviii. 11 5 
 Josh. xxiii. 1 ; 1 Kings i. 1.2 Observe that κ᾿ ἀμφ. προβ. κιτ.λ. is no longer 
 connected with καϑότι, but attached to οὐκ ἣν ait. τέκν. by way of further 
 preparation for the marvel which follows. 
 
 Ver. 8f. ’Eyévero . . . ἔλαχε] thus without interposition of καί. Both 
 modes of expression, with and without καί, are very frequent in Luke. See 
 generally, Bornemann in loc. — κατὰ τὸ ἔϑος τῆς iepar. | according to the cus- 
 tom of the priesthood, does not belong to what precedes (Luther, Kuinoel, 
 
 1 See Paulus, exeg. Handb. I. Ὁ. 83 ; Wiese- xiii. p. 592 Ὁ), also τὴν ἡλικίαν, and the like 
 ler, chronol. Synopse, p. 141. (Herodian, ii. 7.7; comp. 2 Mace. iv. 40; Ju- 
 
 2The Greeks say προβεβηκὼς τῇ ἡλικίᾳ, dith xvi. 23), see Wetstein, and Pierson, ad 
 Lys. p. 169, 37, τοῖς ἔτεσιν (Machon in Athen. Moer. p. 475. 
 
CHAP. I., 10-14. 235 
 
 Bleek), to which ἔϑος would be inappropriate, but to ἔλαχε τοῦ ϑυμιᾶσαι ; 
 the usual 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 by 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 τοῦ ϑυμιᾶσαι (not to be accented ϑυμιάσαι ἢ) is governed 
 by ἔλαχε. See Matthiae, p. 800 ; Ellendt, Lez. Soph. 11. p. 2. On the 
 mode of burning incense, see Lightfoot, p. 715 ; Lund, /.c. p. 618 ff. ; Leyrer 
 in Herzog’s Hncykl. 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. — Whether, 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. — εἰσελϑὼν x.7.2.] can neither be something that follows after the 
 ἔλαχε τ. Suu. (so Luther and others, de Wette and Bleek), nor can it belong 
 merely to ϑυμιᾶσαι (so Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 353], and Gléckler, following 
 the Vulgate), in which case the words would be quite idle. [See Note IX., 
 Ρ. 258.] Rather must they be, in the same relation as the following καὶ πᾶν τὸ 
 πλῆϑος. . . ἔξω τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ ϑυμιάματος, an essential portion of the descrip- 
 tion. It is, namely, the moment that preceded the ἔλαχε τοῦ ϑυμιᾶσαι : 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. — εἰς 
 τὸν ναόν] not εἰς τὸ ἱερόν (See on Matt. iv. 5), for the altar of incense, the 
 ϑυσιαστήριον, 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 ; 
 see Biihr, Symbol. I. p. 463-469 ; Leyrer, 1.6. p. 510 1.) allotted to him was 
 taking place 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 (ἦν) in the forecourts, silently praying. This 
 was implied in the arrangments for worship ; see Deyling, Obss. III. p. 3438 f. ; 
 Leyrer, l.c. p. 509. —rov ϑυμιάματος] not: of burning incense (ϑυμίασις), 
 but : of incense,* namely, at which this was burnt. 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. *Q¢97] nota vision, but a real angelic appearance, xxii. 43. — ἐκ 
 δεξιῶν] on the propitious side of the altar, at which Zacharias was serving.‘ 
 — ἄγγελος] an angel. Who it was, see ver. 19. --- φόβος ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ait.] 
 Comp. Acts xix. 17; Ex. xv. 16; Judith xv. 2; Test. Χ ΤΙ. Patr. p. 592. 
 Among the Greeks usually found with a dative, as Eur. Andr. 1042 : σοὶ 
 μόνᾳ ἐπέπεσον λῦπαι. 
 
 Vv. 18, 14. Εἰσηκούσϑη κ.τ.}.1 By ἡ δέησίς 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 xviii. 21; Ecclus. xlv. 6; 1 Macc. iv. 49; 2 
 Paulus, exeget. Handb.; Lund, Jud. Heiligth., Macc. ii. 5; Plat. Pol. ii. p.373 A, Legg. viii. 
 
 ed. Wolf, p. 804 f. p. 847 C; Herod. i. 198, iv. 71, viii. 99 ; Soph. 
 2 Comp. generally, Lipsius, Gramm. Un- O. R. 4. 
 ters. p. 38 ff. 4 See Schoettgen, and Wetstein, ad Matt, 
 
 3 See ver. 11; Rev. v. 8, viii. 3,4; Wisd. xxy. 33; 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 sti// 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 ἡ δέησίς 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, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 Erasmus, Jansen, Calovius, Ewald, and others), ἐλϑέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, ‘* thy 
 kingdom come.” The context which follows is not opposed to this, but on 
 the contrary the connection is : ‘‘ Has preces angelus dicit exauditas ; jam 
 enim prae foribus esse adventum Messiae, 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. —xadécerc k.7.2.] see on Matt. i. 21. — Ἰωάννης is the Hebrew [ΣΤΡ or 
 }20" (God is gracious, like the German Gotthold). The LXX. have Ἰωνά 
 (2 Kings xxv. 23), Ἰωνάν (Neh. vi. 18), ᾿Ιωανάν (Neh. xii. 13 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 
 15, xxiii. 1), ᾿Ιωάνης (2 Chron. xxviii. 12). — γένεσις here is birth (often so in 
 the Greek writers and in the LXX.) ; Xen. Hp. 3: ὁδοῦ ἀνθρωπίνης ἀρχὴν μὲν 
 γένεσιν, τέλος δὲ ϑάνατον. 
 
 Ver. 15. Μέγας ἐνώπ. τ. κυρ. A designation of a truly great man ; ‘‘talis 
 enim quisque vere est, qualis est coram Deo,” ‘‘ for whoever is truly so, is so 
 before God,” Estius. Comp. on ver. 6. --- καὶ οἶνον x«.r.2.| Description of a 
 "11, (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).!— τὸ σίκερα (DW), which does not occur in the Greek writers, is any ex- 
 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. N. xiv. 19), and so forth. Eusebius, Praep. Hvang. vi. 10, has 
 the genitive cixepoc. — ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας K.7.2.] ἔτι never stands for ἤδη, but : of 
 the Holy Spirit,? he shall be full even from his mother’s womb, so that thus already 
 in 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. — ἐπιστρέψει] for through sin they 
 
 1 See in general, Ewald, Alterth. Ὁ. 96 ff. ; 
 Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 361 f. ; Keil, Archdol. 
 1. §67; Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, 
 p. 438 ff. 
 
 2 Tt is quite arbitrary in Olshausen to sup- 
 port the rationalistic opinion that the ex- 
 
 pression here is to be understood not of the 
 distinctive Holy Spirit, but of the holy power 
 of God in general. 
 
 3 Comp. Plutarch, consol. ad Apoll. p. 104: 
 ἔτι am’ ἀρχῆς ἠκολούθηκεν (having therefore 
 already followed ἐν ἀρχῇ). 
 
CHAP: I., 16, 1%. 237 
 
 have turned themselves away from God. — κύριον τ. Θεὸν αὐτ. not the Mes- 
 siah (Euthymius Zigabenus, and many of the older commentators), but God. 
 —kai αὐτός] He will turn many to God, and he himself will, etc. — προελεύ- 
 σεται] not : he will emerge previously (de Wette), but : he will precede (Xen. 
 Cyr. vi. 3, 9), go before Him (Gen. xxiii. 3, 14 ; Judith ii. 19, xv. 13).— 
 ἐνώπ. αὐτοῦ] 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 Himsel? 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 αὐτοῦ to 
 the Messiah (Heumann, Kuinoel, Valckenaer, Winer), as regards which 
 appeal is made to the emphatic use of 81, αὐτός, and ipse (comp. the Pyth- 
 agorean αὐτὸς ἔφα), whereby a subject not named but well known to every 
 one is designated (Winer, p. 132 [E, T. 146 f.]). — ἐν πνεύματι x. δυνάμ. HA. | 
 furnished therewith. Spirit and power (power of working) of Elijah (ac- 
 cording to Mal. iii. 23 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 Hiijah, whose antitype John is, 
 not as amiracle-worker (John x. 41), but as preacher of repentance and pro- 
 phetic preparer of the way of the Τιοτῆ. --- ἐπιστρέψαι x.7.4.] according to 
 Malachi, 1.6. : in order to turn fathers’ hearts to children ; to be taken liter- 
 ally of the restoration of the paternal love, 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 πατέρων means the patri- 
 archs, 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 !— 
 καὶ ἀπειθεῖς ἐν φρον. τ. δικ.] 86. ἐπιστρέψαι. The discourse passes over from the 
 special relation to the general one. ἀπειθεῖς is the opposite of τῶν δικαίων, 
 and therefore is not to be understood of the children (Olshausen), but of the 
 immoral in general, whose characteristic is disobedience, namely, towards 
 God. — ἐν φρονήσει] connected immediately in a pregnant way with the verb 
 of direction, in which the thought of the result was predominant. See 
 Kihner, II. p. 316. ‘‘Sensus eorum, qui justi sunt, in conversione protinus 
 induitur,” ‘‘the disposition of those who are just is directly involved in 
 conversion,” Bengel. φρόνησις (see Arist. Hth. Nic. vi. 5. 4), practical intel- 
 ligence. Comp. on Eph. i. 8. The practical element follows from ἀπειθεῖς. --- 
 ἑτοιμάσαι] to put in readiness, etc. Aim of the ἐπιστρέψαι x.7.2., and so final 
 aim of the προελεύσεται x.t.2. --- κυρίῳ] for God, as at vv. 16, 17. ---- λαὸν κατε- 
 oxevacu. | ὦ people adjusted, placed in the right moral state (for the setting up 
 
238 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 of the Messianic kingdom), is related to ἑτοιμάσαι as its result. ‘‘ Parandus 
 populus, ne Dominus populum imparatum inveniens majestate sua obterat,” 
 ‘*A people must be prepared, lest the Lord coming upon an unprepared 
 people should destroy them with His majesty,” Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 18. Like Abraham’s question, Gen. xv. 8.— κατὰ τί] According to 
 what. Zacharias asks after a σημεῖον (ii. 12), in conformity with which he 
 should know that what had been promised (rotro)—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. — 
 Γαβριήλ] ON 723, vir Dei, one of the seven angel-princes (Ὁ 9) or archangels 
 (comp. Auberlen in Herzog’s Encykl. TV. p. 6341), who stand for service at 
 the throne of God (ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ), 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 — σιω- 
 πῶν] It is only the subsequent x. μὴ δυνάμ. λαλῆσαι 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 mé- 
 raculous penalty. —av¥ ὧν] 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 either by the assumption 
 of a greater guilt which the Omniscient recognized (Calvin, comp. Lange, 
 I. J. 11. 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 nearer the dawn of the Messianic time, the more inviolably must 
 the requirement of jaith in the promise—and the promise was here given 
 through an angel and a priest—come into prominent relief. — oirivec] quali- 
 tative (Kiihner, II. p. 407), ita comparati ut, wherein is implied a reference 
 that justifies the penal measure. — εἰς τ. καιρὸν ait. | denotes the space of time 
 appointed for the λόγοι, till the completion of which it is still to hold that 
 their fulfilment is setting in.® See 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, Schrifibew. I. p. 3483 f., makes 
 some unimportant objections against the ac- 
 curacy of the explanation of archangels. 
 See in opposition to him, Hahn, Zheol. ἃ. 
 ΕΟ Ὁ: 5850 
 
 3 ὃ παρεστηκώς, comp. thereon Rev. viii. 2, 
 and see Valckenaer. 
 
 3 See later Jewish fictions in respect to 
 
 Gabriel, set forth in Eisenmenger, entdecktes 
 Judenth. 11. p. 363 ff., 378 ff., 390, 874. 
 
 4 xix. 44; Acts xii. 23 ; 2 Thess. ii. 10: Her- 
 mann, ad Viger. p. 710; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
 I. p. 170. 
 
 5 Comp. the classical és καιρόν, εἰς χρόνον, 
 εἰς ἑσπέραν, 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- 
 self as a reason of their wonder, — ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτόν] not over (ἐπί, iv. 22, 
 al.), or on account of (Mark vi. 6, διά), but on occasion of his failure to appear. 
 So also Ecclus. xi. 21; Isa. Ixi. 6. Rightly, Gersdorf, Ewald, render : 
 when he, ete. 
 
 Vv. 22, 28. ᾿Επέγνωσαν, ὅτι ὀπτασίαν κ.τ.}.} by the inference αὖ 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. 23, al. In spite of the οὐκ ἠδύνατο λαλῆσαι, Olshausen thinks that this 
 ἐπέγνωσαν does not refer to the silence of Zacharias, but probably to the ex- 
 citement in his whole appearance, which Bleek also mixes up. — αὐτός, he 
 on his part, corresponding to that which they perceived. — ἦν διανεύων αὐτοῖς] 
 he was employed in making signs to them (Kcclus. xxvii. 22 ; Lucian, V. H. 
 44), namely, that he had seen a vision. — ὡς ἐπλήσϑ. «.7.A.] namely, the 
 week in which the class of Abijah (see ver. 5) had the temple service.? — εἰς 
 τ. olk. αὐτοῦ] ver. 39 f., also ver. 56 : εἰς τ. οἶκον αὐτῆς. 
 
 Ver. 24 f. Μετὰ dé ταύτ. τ. ἡμέρ.] 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. — περιέ- 
 κρυβεν ἑαυτήν] she hid herself, withdrew her own person completely (περί, see 
 Valckenaer) from the view of others. — μῆνας πέντε] 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. —Aéyovoa’ ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] the reason which 
 was uttered by her for this withdrawal ; hence 67: is not recitative, but to 
 be rendered because, as at vii. 16 : because thus hath the Lord done to me in 
 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 asswre 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,” 
 
 
 
 1See Hieros. Joma, f. 48,2; Babyl. f. 53, 2On the verb, comp. ver. 57, ii. 6, 21 f. ; 
 2; Deyling, Odss. IIT. ed. 2, p. 455 f. also Gal. iv. 4; Eph. i. 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. — αἷς] 
 without repetition of the preposition. '— ἐπεῖδεν] looked to it, 1.e., took care for 
 it. So more frequently ἐφοράω is used of the providence of the gods in the 
 classical writers ; Herod. i. 124 ; Soph. #7. 170. Comp. Acts iv. 29. — τὸ 
 ὄνειδός μου] Comp. Gen. xxx. 23. Unfruitfulness was a disgrace, as being a 
 token of the divine disfavor (Ps. exiii. 9; Isa. iv. 1, xliv. 3; xlvii. 9; 
 Hos. ix. 11); the possession of many children was an honor and blessing 
 (Ps. exxvii., exxviii.).*— ἐν avdpéroc] belongs to ἀφελεῖν ; among men she 
 had dishonor. 
 
 Vv. 26, 27. Τῷ ἕκτῳ] see ver. 24. — Ναζαρέτ] According to Matthew, Beth- 
 lehem was the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. See on Matt. ii. 23, Re- 
 mark, and Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 51 ff. — ἐξ οἴκου Aavid] applies not to 
 Mary and Joseph (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, 
 Calovius, and others, including Wieseler in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1845, p. 395), 
 but merely to the latter, ii. 4, 111. 23 ff. The descent of Mary from David 
 cannot at all be proved in the N. T. See on Matt. i. 17, Remark 2. Comp. 
 on ver. 36, 11. 41. [See Note X., p. 258.] 
 
 Vv. 28, 29. Εἰσελϑών] namely, ὁ ἄγγελος (see the critical remarks). Paulus 
 erroneously puts it : ‘a person who came in said to her.” — κεχαριτωμένη] 
 who has met with kindness (from God).* Well remarks Bengel : ‘‘ non ut 
 mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratiae,” ‘not as mother of grace, but as daugh- 
 ter of grace.” See ver. 30 ; and on χαριτόω in general, see Eph. i. 6. — On 
 εὐλογ. σὺ ἐν γυναιξ. in the Textus receptus (but see the critical remarks), see 
 Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 246]. It would be not a vocative, like κεχαριτωμένη, 
 but a nominative, as the added ot indicates : The Lord is with thee, blessed 
 (κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν) 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 ἰδοῦσα 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 ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ 
 αὐτοῦ, as is shown by the text which follows καὶ διελογίζετο x.7.2. — ποταπός] 
 qualis, what sort of a: a question of wonder. Comp. on Mark xiii. 1 1. In 
 accordance with its whole tenor raising her to so high distinction the greet- 
 ing was to her enigmatical. 
 
 Ver. 31. See on Matt. i. 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 !— υἱὸς 
 ὑψίστου κληϑήσ.] Description of His recognition as Messiah, as whom the an- 
 gel still more definitely designates Him by καὶ δώσει x.7.2. The name Son of 
 
 1See Bernhardy, p. 203; Bornemann, sound in the words χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη. 
 
 Schol. p. 5; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 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; Miiller, Dor. II. p. 192. of ave and Leva, 
 
 3 Observe the ingenious similarity of 
 
 4 
 
CHAP. I., 34. 241 
 
 God is not explained in a metaphysical reference until ver. 35. — τὸν ϑρόνον 
 Δαυ. τοῦ πατρ. αὐτοῦ] ἐ.6., the royal throne of the Messianic kingdom, which 
 is the antitypical consummation of the kingdom of David (Ps. exxxii. 11, 
 cx.), as regards which, however, in the sense of the angel, which excludes 
 the bodily paternity of Joseph, David can be meant as ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ 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. [See Note XL, 
 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. ---- εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας] 
 from Isa. ix. 6 ; Dan. vii. 13 f. The conception of an everlasting Messianic 
 kingdom (according to Ps. cx. 4) is also expressed in John xii. 84 ; comp. 
 the Rabbins in Bertholdt, Christol. p. 156. The ‘‘ house of Jacob” 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). — βασιλ. ἐπί] as xix. 14; Rom. vy. 14. 
 
 Ver. 34 f. How is it possible that this shall be the case ?* namely, τὸ συλλαβεῖν 
 ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τεκεῖν υἱόν, Euthymius Zigabenus. — ov yivdcxw| comp. Matt. i. 
 18 ; Gen. xix. 8; Judg. xi. 39; Num. xxxi. 17, since Ihave 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 she 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 ἄνδρα οὖ γινώσκω is thus simply the confes- 
 sion of the immaculate virgin conscience, and not (a misunderstanding, which 
 Mary’s very betrothal 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). — πνεῦμα ἅγιον] 
 In accordance with the nature of a proper name, without the article. More- 
 over, see on Matt. i. 18. — ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ] will descend upon thee (Acts i. 
 8). This, as well as ἐπισκιάσει σοι, 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 yet under the notion of a 
 bird which covers its eggs (Theophylact, comp. Grotius).? Certainly the 
 expressions are correlates of γινώσκω, but as regards the effect, not as regards 
 the form, since éredeto. expresses simply the descent of the Spirit, and ἐπι- 
 
 1 This question is only appropriate to the whereas the meaning of the question of 
 virgin heart as a question of doubt on the Zacharias, ver. 18, is the converse. 
 ground of conscious impossibility, and not 2 Approved also by Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. 
 as an actual wish to learn the how (τὸν p. 116 f., and Bleek. But this conception is 
 τρόπον τοῦ πράγματος, ‘‘themode of themat- here yery much out of place, and is not im- 
 ter,” Theophylact) ; comp. already Augus- plied even in HT, Gen. i. 2, which, be- 
 tine: ‘“‘inguirendo dixit, non desperando,” sides, has nothing to do with the passage 
 “she spoke inguiringly, not hopelessly,” before us. 
 
 16 
 
242 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 σκιάσ. the manifestation of divine power associated therewith in the form of a 
 cloud (after the manner of the Old Testament theophanies, 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 ἐπίσκ. on the notion of 
 coolness (in contrast to procreation in lust); comp. σκιάζειν τὸ καῦμα in Alci- 
 phr. ili. 2. — δύναμις ὑψίστου] without the article : power ef the Highest will 
 overshadow thee, will be that, which shall overshadow thee. This will set 
 in in immediate consequence (kai) of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ. 
 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 power 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 more 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.’ — τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον] the holy thing that is 
 being begotten shall (after His birth), be called Sonof God. Most interpreters 
 take τὸ γεννώμενον as that which is to be born (comp. ver. 13), which view, 
 moreover, has drawn after it the old addition ἐκ σοῦ from Matt. i. 16. But 
 the context which immediately precedes points only to the begetting (Ben- 
 gel, Bleek); and to this also points the newter, which applies to the embryo 
 (comp. on Matt. i. 20, and see Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Thesm. 564), as well 
 as the parallel Matt. i. 20. The subject, we may add, is τὸ ἅγιον, not τὸ 
 yevvou. (Kuinoel : ‘ proles veneranda,” ‘‘ offspring which is to be revered” 
 = τὸ γεννώμ. τὸ ἅγιον), as also Bornemann assumes, when he (comp. de Wette) 
 takes ἅγιον predicatively : ‘‘ proles tua, cwm divina sit,” ‘‘thy offspring when 
 it is divine.” Not as holy, but as begotten by God’s power (διό), 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 Bengel and Bleek. [See Note XII., p. 258.] But the asyndet- 
 ic form, in which υἱὸς Θεοῦ would be subjoined, tells against this view all the 
 more, that we should of necessity, in direct accordance with what precedes 
 (καὶ δύναμις x.T.A.), expect καὶ υἱὸς Θεοῦ, especially after the verb, where no 
 reader could anticipate a second predicate without «ai. Comp, Justin, 6. 
 Tryph. 100 : διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἅγιόν ἐστιν υἱὸς Θεοῦ, ‘‘ 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 (ἐν 
 γήρει), and so far presented an analogy, although only in an inferior sense, 
 
 1 Calovius : ‘‘ Supervenit Spiritus non qul- 
 dem σπερματικῶς sed δημιουργικῶς, guttu- 
 las sanguineas Mariae, e quibus concipienda 
 caro Domini, sanctificando, easdem foecundas 
 reddendo, et ex tisdem corpus humanum effor- 
 mando.” Justin, Apol. I. 33, already rightly 
 gives the simple thought of the chaste and 
 delicate representation: κνοφορῆσαι παρθένον, 
 
 οὖσαν πεποίηκε, ‘hath caused her, being a 
 virgin, to be pregnant.’ Schleiermacher, Z. 
 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 ἰδοὺ «.7.4. an ἐστί was as little needed as an εἰμί at ver. 38. — ovyyevic] 
 The nature of this relationship, which is not at variance with Johni. 36, 
 although questioned by Schleiermacher and others, is wholly unknown. It 
 is, however, possible that Mary was of the stock of Levi [see Note XL., 
 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 γήρει, Winer, p. 60 [E. T. 73 f.]. — οὗτος] subject: and this is the siath 
 month. — ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατ. κ.τ.λ.1 Confirmation of that which has just been said of 
 Elizabeth by the omnipotence of God. It is to be observed (1) that οὐκ... 
 πᾶν do not belong to one another, but of πᾶν ῥῆμα it is said : οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει 
 (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 
 ἀδυνατεῖν, to be unable (Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 210), any more than 
 of a ῥῆμα, utterance (ver. 38), especially with the reading παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ (see 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. xvii. 14. Comp. Beza: 
 ‘* ῥῆμα, 1.6., quicquid Deus semel futurum dixerit,” ‘‘ whatever God at any 
 time in future shall have spoken.” 
 
 Ver. 38. Behold the handmaid of the Lord! without a verb. Comp. ver. 
 36, v. 12, 18. — γένοιτο] λοιπὸν οὐ μόνον ἐπίστευσεν, ἀλλὰ ηὔξατο γενέσϑαι αὐτῇ, 
 καϑὼς ὁ ἄγγελος εἴρηκε, Euthymius Zigabenus ; ‘‘eximio fiduciae exemplo,” 
 ‘‘ extraordinary example of trust,” Grotius. 
 
 Remarx.—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. II. 1, p. 67). [See Note XIII, 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, 6.4., 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. xxiii.9; and recently, Schleier- 
 macher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 26; Hilgenfeld, 
 Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 177, and others. 
 
 2 Thus the descent from the Davidie and 
 priestly race might have been used for the 
 glorification of Jesus. But from the height 
 of the history of Jesus so little importance 
 
 was attached to things of this nature that 
 only the Davidic descent, as it was neces- 
 sary in the case of the Messiah, had stress 
 laid on it, and the family of Mary was not 
 expressly specified at all. Comp. Ewald, 
 Gesch. Chr. Ὁ. 177 f. 
 
 3 Comp. Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 59 ff. 
 
244 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 a 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 ((utacht. I. p. 81 ff.), Krabbe, Ebrard, and others. Ac- 
 cording to the yiew 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 only 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. 5, 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 as a 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 
 XIIT., 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. Τὶ 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. 11. p. 83 f., rightly acknowl- 
 edges this, but, following older writers, 
 thinks that 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 i. 18. And what Lange further 
 (p. 89) adds, that during Mary’s absence a 
 
 severe struggle arose in his soul, and this 
 state of feeling became the medium of the 
 revelation made to him, is simply added. 
 
 2 Schleiermacher 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. 39. The angel’s communication, ver. 36, occasions Mary to make a 
 journey to Elizabeth, and that with haste (μετὰ σπουδῆς, 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. 
 35 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. 38 
 and 39, to the moment when the child leaped in the womb of Elizabeth, 
 which he concludes from γάρ in ver. 44. --- εἰς τὴν ὀρεινήν] into the mountain- 
 region — κατ’ ἐξοχήν, Aristot. H. A. v. 28; Judith i. 6, 11. 22, iv. 7, al.; 
 Plin. H. N. v.14. The mountainous country in the tribe of Judah is meant. 
 See Robinson, Pal. II. p. 422 ff., III. p. 188 ff. — εἰς πόλιν "Iotda] into a city 
 of the tribe of Judah. Wuke 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 εἰς τὴν ὀρείνην [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 
 a matter of course under the ‘‘ city of Judah” (see Ewald, p. 182), is not to 
 be assumed, because in that case πόλιν 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 N0¥ or 10! (Josh. 
 xxi. 16, xv. 55 ; comp. Robinson, II. p. 417), so that the name is wrongly 
 
 1See, in general, R. Hofmann, das Leben 2 Valesius, Epp. 669; Reland, Pal. p. 870; 
 Jesu nach ἃ. Apokr, 1851; also Gelpke, Ju- Wetstein, Paulus, Kuinoel, Crome, Beitr. 
 gendgesch. des Herrn, 1842 (who, moreover, p. 45, e¢ al.; comp. also Robinson, Pal. IIL 
 gives the Jewish legends). p. 193, and Ritter, Hrdk. 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 ἀσπασμ. τ. 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. 23) 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. τι. Hrfill. 
 II. p. 251 f. Calvin, Michaelis, Paulus, Olshausen, and many others re- 
 verse the matter, holding that the mental 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 Israelitae ad mare rubrum plus viderunt quam Ezechiel propheta ; 
 imo etiam embryones, qui in utero matris erant, viderunt id, et Deum 8S. 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. ᾿Ανεφώνησε] She cried out (only occurring here in the N. T.; 
 comp. 1 Chron. xv. 28, xvi. 5 ; 2 Chron. v. 12; Polyb. 111. 33. 4 ; frequent 
 in Plutarch), expressing the owtburst of the being filled by the Spirit. [Comp. 
 critical note.]—6 καρπὸς τ. κοιλ. cov] Designation of the embryo, that 
 Mary bears inher womb. For the expression, comp. Gen. xxx. 2 ; Lam. ii. 
 920. -- καὶ πόϑεν x.7.A.] sc. γέγονεν. After the first outburst now follows a 
 certain reflection, a humble pondering, from what cause (πόϑεν, comp. on 
 Mark xii. 37) she was deemed worthy of this great happiness : ἀναξίαν ἑαυτὴν τῆς 
 τοιαύτης ἐπιδημίας τῆς δεσποίνης ὁμολογεῖ, ‘‘ She confesses herself unworthy of such 
 sojourning of the queen,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — iva x... ] not equivalent 
 to τὸ ἐλϑεῖν τὴν unt. x.7.A., but telic: that the mother of my Lord (the Mes- 
 siah, comp. Ps. ex. 1) should come to me,—this is the τοῦτο, in reference to 
 which she asks πόϑεν μοι. 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. — ὅτι] may either be the specifica- 
 tion of the reason attached to μακαρία (Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, Beza, 
 Lange, and others), or the statement of the contents to πιστεύσασα (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 
 λελαλημένα, 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. 31 ff.), etc. As to τελείωσις, comp. Judith x. 9 ; John 
 mix, 28. 
 
 1 Older Lutherans (see Caloyius) have something unique in character and miracu- 
 
 wrongly used this passage asa proof of the lous. The child of Elizabeth has already in 
 Jjides infantum. There is, in fact, here the womb the Holy Spirit, ver. 15. 
 
CHAP. I., 46-51. R47 
 
 Ver. 46 ff. An echo of the lyrical poetry of the Old Testament, especially 
 of the song of praise of Hannah the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. ii.). This 
 psalm-like effusion from the heart of Mary (the so-called Magnificat) divides 
 itself into four strophes, namely, (1) vv. 46-48 (as far as αὐτοῦ); (2) ver. 48 
 (from ido onward) as far as ver. 50; (8) vv. 51-53 ; and (4) vv. 54,55. Each 
 of these four strophes contains three verses. See Ewald, p. 181. — ἡ ψυχή 
 pov] the mediating organ between πνεῦμα and body (Beck, bibl. Seelent. 
 p. 11 ff.; Delitzsch, δέ]. 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 πνεῦμα (hence ἠγαλλίασε in the aorist). [See Note 
 XIV., p. 259.] The πνεῦμα 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 : ἐπλήσϑη πνεύματος dy., would now have been inappropriate in 
 reference to Mary. ἀγαλλιάω, in the active, is only found here and at Rev. xix. 
 7 (Lachmann, Tischendorf), which reason, however, does not warrant the 
 conjecture of ἀγαλλιάσεται (Valckenaer, Bretschneider). — σωτῆρι] benefactor. 
 ‘Ts est nimirum σωτήρ, qui salutem dedit,” ‘‘ He is truly σωτήρ, who gave 
 safety,” Cicero, Verr. 11. 638. — dre ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τ. Tam. τ. δούλ. ait.] as at 
 1Sam. i. 11. Comp. Ps. xxxi. 8 ; also Luke ix. 38. The expression 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. — ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] 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. — πᾶσαι ai yeveai| all generations. 
 
 Ver. 49 f. Because the Mighty One did to me great things, in making me the 
 mother of the Messiah. — καὶ ἅγιον x.t.A.] not for ob τὸ ὄν. ἅγιον (Luther, 
 Castalio, Bengel, and many, including Kuinoel), but lyrically unperiodic : 
 and holy is His name! Hence, also, a full stop is not to be placed after 
 δυνατός (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bleek), but only acomma. To the might 
 the holiness attaches itself. — εἰς γενεὰς x. γενεάς] Comp. Isa. li. 8 ; 1 Mace. 1]. 
 61; Zest. XII. Patr. p. 568 : unto generations and generations, i.e., ever on- 
 ward from one generation to the following. The Recepta εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν 
 would mean : to the uttermost generations ; these would be conceived of as 
 forming a superlative.” —roic φοβουμ. αὐτ.] sc. ἐστι. It denotes the essence of 
 theocratic piety. Comp. Ex. xx. 6 ; Ps. ciii. 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, ad Oedip. R. 466; 
 2 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 good as completed ; in that way she sees 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 exaltation of 
 the deeply-oppressed theocratic people (comp. vv. 68, 71, 74) ; the former are 
 set forth by the words ὑπερηφάνους, δυνάστας, πλουτοῦντας ; the latter, by 
 ταπεινούς and πεινῶντας. This intended concrete application of the general 
 expressions is put beyond doubt by ἀντελάβετο ᾿Ἰσραὴλ κ.τ.λ., ver. 54 f. — 
 ὑπερηφάνους] such as are arrogant in the thoughts of their heart ; διανοίᾳ is the 
 dative of more precise definition ; and on the notion (thinking and willing 
 as directed outwards), comp. Beck, Seelenl. p. 58 ; on καρδία as the centre 
 of the spiritual and psychic life, Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 248 ff. ; finally, 
 in διεσκόρπ. the haughty are conceived of as congregated and keeping together ; 
 comp. Matt. xxvi. 31 ; 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 times of the Messiah, Wisd. v. 23; Enoch xxxviii. 4, and Dillmann 
 thereon. — Ver. 53. ἀγαθῶν] not merely means of subsistence (Valckenaer, 
 Bornemann, de Wette), but earthly possessions in general, among which the 
 means of subsistence are included. Comp. xii. 18 f. De Wette, moreover, 
 is in error in saying (comp. Olshausen) that it is spiritual hunger and spir- 
 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.— 
 ἐξαπέστ. κενούς] So that they retain 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 descriptively in vv. 51-53, and that by 
 means of antitheses, is now definitely and particularly condensed in ἀντελά- 
 Bero Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ (comp. Isa. xli. 8 f.), which is the swmmary of what 
 has been previously said. The aorist is to be taken quite like the previous 
 aorists. — ἀντελάβετο] He has interested Himself for Israel His servant (13¥). 
 Comp. on ἀντελάβ., Acts xx. 35 ; Thue. iii. 22 ; Diod. Sic. xi. 13. Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus explains it : ἐπεσκέψατο τὸν ᾿Ισραηλιτικὸν λαὸν, τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ, 
 ‘the visited the Israelitish people, His servant.” Others, including Paulus, 
 Glickler, Kuinoel, take παιδός as filii (comp. Ex. iv. 22; Hos. xi. 1). But 
 the theocratic notion of sonship is never expressed by παῖς (not even in Acts 
 111. 18). — μνησϑῆναι ἐλέους] not: ‘ita ut perpetuo memor sit,” “80 that the 
 
 10Qn the expression, comp. xx. 10 f.; Job xxii. 9; Judith x. 11; Hom. 7]. ii. 298, Od. 
 xiii. 214. 
 
CHAP. 1., 54. 249 
 
 remembrance is perpetual,” etc. (Kuinoel, Bleek), but : in order to be mind- 
 ful of mercy. We have to note the connection with the ἕως αἰῶνος [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. — καϑὼς ἐλαλ. πρὸς τ. rar. ἡμ.} not indeed a parenthesis, but 
 an inserted clause, which makes one feel that the telic μνησϑῆναι ἐλέους takes 
 place in consequence of the divine truthfulness. — τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ k. τ. σπέρμ. 
 αὐτ.] Dativus commodi to μνησθῆναι. Comp. Ps. xevill. 3; Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 
 12; Bornemann, Schol. p. 14 f. It might belong to ἐλάλησε (Kuthymius 
 Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Kuinoel), since λαλεῖν may be 
 joined as well with πρός as with a dative ; but against this may be urged 
 k. τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, Which denotes’ the whole posterity of Abraham with- 
 out limitation, and therefore cannot be included in apposition to πρὸς τοὺς 
 πατέρας ἡμῶν. -- 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 liveth unto God, xx. 38. — 
 ἔμεινε δὲ k.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, L. J. 11. 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. 
 
 Remark 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. exclude 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 between 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 poelic 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 σπέρμα thequestion. 
 ᾿Αβραάμ that actually received the com- 2 Isa. xxix. 22 f.; Mic. vii. 20. Comp. John 
 passion (Rom. iv., Gal. iv.), was not here viii. 56; Test. XZ. Pair. 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. 
 xian, tf ). 
 
 Ver. 57 f. Τοῦ τεκεῖν ait.] genitive governed by ὁ χρόνος : the time, which 
 had to elapse until her delivery. Comp. ii. 7, 22; Gen. xxv. 24. — ὅτι 
 ἐμεγάλυνε κ.τ.λ.] 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 expres- 
 sion is quite as in Gen. xix. 19. — συνέχαιρον] they rejoiced 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 ἢ. 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.! — ἧλϑον] 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).? 
 — ἐκάλουν] They actually uttered this name (this took place immediately 
 after the circumcision was performed ; see Lund, 1.6., 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, /.c. 18). On ἐπί, comp. Neh. vii. 63 ; Plut. Demetr. 2. 
 The idea is : in reference to. — οὐχί, ἀλλὰ κληϑ. "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. 18, is the more arbitrary, the less it is in keep- 
 ing with the miraculous impress of the whole history. Theophylact is right 
 in saying : ἡ δὲ ᾿Ελισάβετ ὡς προφῆτισ ἐλάλησε περὶ τοῦ σνόματος, ‘* But 
 Elizabeth spake asa prophetess concerning the name ;” and Euthymius 
 Zigabenus : ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ αὐτὴ τὸ ὄνομα Tov παιδὸς μεμάϑηκε, ‘‘ 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 ἐκάλουν, ver. 59, else 
 
 1 See Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 44f.; Her- 2See Lund, Jieiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 949; 
 mann, Privatalterth. § 32. 17. Keil. Archdol. I. p. 307 f. 
 
CHAP. I., 62-65. 251 
 
 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 (τό, see 
 Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 17 ; Kihner, 11. p. 138), how (ri = τί ὄνομα, 
 comp. Aesch. Ag. 1205) he perchance (ἄν, see Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 8087) 
 would wish that the child (αὐτό, 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 applied 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. — αἰτήσας] 
 ὁμοίως διὰ νεύματος, ‘‘ likewise through a sign,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — 
 πινακίδιον] probably a little tablet covered with wax. Tertullian, de édolol. 
 23: ‘‘ Zacharias loquitur in stylo, auditur in cera,” ‘‘ Zacharias speaks with a 
 stylus, hears in wax.” — ἔγραψε λέγων] scripsit haec verba, ‘‘ wrote these words.” 
 Comp. 2 Kings x. 6; 1 Mace. viii. 31, xi. 57. A Hebraism (082).1. The 
 return of speech does not occur till ver. 64. Comp. vv. 13, 20. —’Iwavvne ἐστὲ 
 τ. ὄν. αὐτοῦ] Shortly and categorically, in the consciousness of what had been 
 already divinely determined : 12¥ {1M [the Hebrew characters probably 
 written by Zacharias]. ‘‘ Non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat,” 
 “(Ἢ 6 does not command, but indicates the divine command,” Bengel.— ἐϑαύμ.] 
 because Zacharias agreed with Elizabeth in a name foreign to the family. 
 
 Ver. 64. ᾿Ανεῴχϑη.. . . λῶσσα αὐτοῦ] ὦ zeugma ; in the case of the tongue 
 ἐλύϑη 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. — φόβος] 
 not amazement, but fear, the first impression of the extraordinary (comp. 
 Mark iv. 41 ; Acts ii. 43). — αὐτούς] applies to Zacharias and Elizabeth.? — 
 διελαλεῖτο])] were mutually talked of, Polyb. 1. 85. 2, ix. 32. 1. --- τὰ ῥήματα 
 ταῦτα] these utterances, which had occurred with such marvellous signifi- 
 cance at the circumcision of the child from ver. 59 to ver. 64; ii. 19. 
 —itevto . . . ἐν τῇ καρ. αὐτῶν] Comp. a5 oy oy (1 Sam; xxi. 1/2) [AsV 
 “laid up . . . in his heart”’], and the Homeric τίϑημει ἐν στήϑεσσι, ἐν φρεσί, 
 and see Valckenaer in loc. They made those utterances the subject of their 
 
 1On the same usage in the Syriac, see Kypke, I. ἢ. 211; Krebs, p. 98. 
 Gesenius in Rosenmiiller’s Rep. I. p. 135. 2 On περιοικεῖν τινα, comp. Herod. y. 783 
 An example from Josephus is found in Xen. Anabd. y. 6. 16; Plut. Crass. 84. 
 
252 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 further reflection. Comp. ii. 19. — τί ἄρα] quid igitur, under these circum- 
 stances, according to these auspices, what then now will, etc.’ On the 
 neuter τί, 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. — καὶ yap χεὶρ κυρίου ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ] An observation of Luke, in 
 which he would indicate that the people rightly asked this question, expecting 
 something unusual of the child: for also (καὶ γάρ, see the critical remarks) 
 the hand of the Lord was with him. The emphasis rests on χεὶρ κυρίου, which, 
 with καί, makes known to us the mighty help of God (so χεὶρ κυρίου 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. τι. Krit. 1838, p. 219, who, following the Recepta, places 
 a colon after καί : and others said). But this reflective specifying of ὦ reason 
 would have been superfluous in the mouth of those people, and little in 
 keeping with the emotion of their question. And instead of ἦν they would 
 have said éori, inferring, namely, the help of God from the events at the cir- 
 cumcision ; while the καί would be but tame and cumbrous. 
 
 Ver. 67. After the historical episode of ver. 65 there now follows, in 
 reference to εὐλογῶν τ. Θεόν, 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 ἐπλήσϑη πνεύμ. 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. — προεφήτευσε] 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, does 
 not efface. [See Note XVIIL., p. 260.] — εὐλογητὸς x.7.2.] se. εἴη. Comp. Ps. 
 xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, evi. 48. — λύτρωσιν (comp. ii. 88) applies primarily to the 
 Messianic deliverance under its political aspect. Comp. vv. 71, 51 ff.; Plut. 
 τ Arat. 11: Abrp. αἰχμαλώτων. 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 ἐπεσκέψ. is absolute, as in Ecclus. xxxii. 17: he has looked to, he has 
 made an inspection. Comp. Acts xv. 14. — ἤγειρε] still dependent upon 
 
 1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176; Niigelsbach, Olshausen), that the purity of the Messianic 
 Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p.10f. Comp. viii. 25, views of Zacharias consists in the unadul- 
 xii. 42. terated reproduction of Old Testament 
 
 2 Hofmann appropriately remarks, Weis- knowledge. 
 sag. u. Erfiill. 11, p. 253 (in opposition to 
 
CHAP. 1., 70--78. 253 
 
 ὅτι. --- κέρας σωτηρίας ὦ horn of deliverance (genitive of apposition), 7. 6., a 
 κέρας" ἡ ἰσχὺς παρὰ TH Vela γραφῇ, ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ζώων τῶν καθωπλισμένων τοῖς 
 κέρασι καὶ τούτοις ἀμυνομένων, “" 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, cornua sumere, and the like. [See 
 Note XVIII., p. 260 seq.| It is true that Jensius (Fere. lit. p. 34), Fischer 
 (de vit. Lex. Ὁ. 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 ! — ἤγειρε] excitavit, i.e., according to the context, he has 
 made to grow up (ἐξανατελῶ, Ps. exxxii. 17). —rov παιδὸς αὐτοῦ] Acts iv. 25. 
 
 Ver. 70. No parenthesis. —rév ἁγίων] not used substantivally (Borne- 
 mann), but see Bernhardy, p. 322 ; Kriiger, ὃ 50. 9. 7. [See critical note ; 
 the omission of second τῶν renders the substantive sense inadmissible. |] — 
 an’ αἰῶνος] 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,” Calovius), but relatively ; when the oldest 
 prophets emerged (and Moses already was such an one), was the commence- 
 ment of prophecy since the beginning of the world. Comp. Gen. vi. 4 ; Acts 
 11. 21 ; Longin. 84 : τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ῥήτορας. [See Note XVIIL., p. 260 seq. | 
 
 Ver. 71 f. Σωτηρίαν] might be attached to ἐλάλησε, ver. 70 (Beza, Grotius, 
 Ewald, and others), but it is simpler to retain καϑὼς «.7.4. as a paranthetical 
 clause, like ver. 55, so that κέρας σωτηρ., ver. 69, is resumed by σωτηρίαν (yet 
 only as to the fact, without the figure) for the sake of adding the more 
 precise definition. Such a resumption may occur with δέ (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. — ποιῆσαι] 
 Infinitive of the aim, as at ver. 54. In this our deliverance God designed 
 to show mercy to (werd, DY, ver. 58, x. 87) our fathers (comp. ver. 55, deeply 
 afflicted by the decline of their people), and to remember (practically, by 
 the fulfilment of what was therein promised) His holy covenant. Euthymius 
 Zigabenus : διαθήκην γὰρ λέγει τὴν éExayyediav’ μνήμην δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν περάτωσιν, 
 “Ἢ calls the promise ἃ 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 μνησθῆναι (Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus, Olshausen, Bleek 5), but climactic apposition to διαϑήκης ay. αὐτοῦ, in 
 which the accusative is attracted by ὅν, Matt. xxi. 42 ; 1 Cor. x. 16 ; Butt- 
 
 Same 1. 10} ἘῪῚ vill. olxxxixs 18) p. 478 f.; Knobel on Ex. xxvii. 2. 
 cxxxii. 16 f., cxlviii. 14; Ecclus. xlvii. 5, 7, 3 Μιμνήσκεσθαι is not seldom joined with 
 11, al.; Gesenius, 7hes. III. p. 1238; Grimm an accusative by the classical writers (Hom. 
 on 1 Macc. ii. 48. See Rabbinical passages (J. vi. 222; Herod. vii. 18; Soph. 0.2. 1057), 
 in Schottgen, Hor. p. 258 f. but never in the N. T., although it is so in 
 21 Kings i. 50, ii. 28 ff.; Bahr, Symbol. I. the LXX. and Apocrypha. 
 
254 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 mann, newt. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288] ; Bornemann, Schol. p. 16 f. — πρός] 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. — τοῦ 
 δοῦναι k.t.2.] in order to grant to us, the purpose, on account of which God 
 swore the oath. [See Note XVIII., p. 260 seq. ] — ἐκ χειρὸς x.7.2.] more pre- 
 cisely defines the previous ἀφόβως, and that as regards its objective relation.’ 
 — Ver. 75. Religious-moral restoration of the people of God. As to the 
 distinction between ὁσιότης and δικαιοσύνη (Plat. Prot. p. 329 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. "Ἔπειτα μεταβαίνει τῇ προφητείᾳ καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτοῦ παῖδα Τωάννην, ‘‘ Then 
 he passes on with the prophecy even to his own son John,” Euthymius 
 Zigabenus. — καὶ σὺ δέ] but thow also (see the critical remarks).? The καί 
 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. — προπορ. yap πρὸ προσώπου Kvup.| as at ver. 17, hence κύριος is God. — 
 ἑτοιμάσαι ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ) see on Matt. 11. 3. — τοῦ δοῦναι x.7.A.] Aim of ἑτοιμάσαι 
 x.t.A., and so final aim of προπορεύσῃ . . . κυρίου. --- ἐν ἀφέσει duapt. avt.| In 
 Sorgiveness of their sins, which is to be imparted to them through the Messiah 
 (see ver. 78 1.) for the sake of God’s mercy (which is thereby satisfied ; διὰ 
 ori. ἐλ. Θεοῦ), 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, ἐν ἀφ. du. ait. does not belong to σωτηρίας alone (τῆς γινομένης ἐν τῷ 
 ἀφεϑῆναι x.t.2., ‘‘ which takes place in the being forgiven,” etc., Euthymius 
 Zigabenus, Beza, Bengel, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
 Wette, Bleek, and others), but to γνῶσιν σωτηρίας (Theophylact) = γνῶναι 
 σωτηρίαν ἐν ad. τ. ἀμ. ait. 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.” [See Note 
 XVIII., p. 260 seq. | 
 
 Ver. 78 f. Διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους κ.τ.}. is not to be separated from what 
 precedes by punctuation, but to be immediately connected with ἐν ag. dy. 
 αὐτ. : ἐν ἀφέσει δὲ ἁμαρτιῶν. . . τῇ διδομένῃ διὰ τὴν συμπάϑειαν τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ, 
 ἐγ 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 προπορεύσῃ 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, — διά) not through, but for the sake of, see on ver. 77 ; σπλάγχνα 
 
 1 On the accusative ῥυσϑέντας (not dative), 2See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 181 f.; El- 
 
 see Bornemann, /.c. ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Med. lendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 884. 
 815; Kriiger, Gramm. Unters. III. § 148. 
 
CHAP, I., 80. 255 
 is not merely, according to the Hebrew ὉΠ (sce 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. 11. 1. ἐλέους is genitivus qualitatis, ‘‘ genitive of 
 quality,” and Θεοῦ ἡμῶν depends on σπλάγχνα ἐλέους : for the sake of the com- 
 passionate heart of our God. — ἐν οἷς] instrumental: by virtue of which. — 
 ἐπεσκέψατο ἡμᾶς ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψ.] to be taken together : has visited us, etc., 
 has become present to us with His saving help (comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 10; 
 Ecclus. xlvi. 14 ; Judith viii. 33 ; Luke vii. 16). [See critical note, and Note 
 XVIII., p. 260 seq.|] Itis appropriate to avar. ἐξ ὕψ., as the latter is personified. 
 The figurative designation of the Messiah : Dayspring from on high, is bor- 
 rowed from the rising of the swn (Rev. vii. 2; Matt. v. 45; Hom. Od. xii. 
 4; Herod. iv. 8), or as is more in keeping with the ἐξ ὕψιστου, from the 
 rising of a bright-beaming star of the night (Num. xxiv. 17 ; Valck. ad Hur. 
 Phoen. 506), not (in opposition to Beza, Scultetus, Lightfoot, Wetstein) 
 from an ascending shoot (ΤῊΝ, Isa. iv. 2; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 ; Zech. 
 iii. 8, vi. 12), against which may be urged é i. and émigavat.! Comp. Isa. 
 ix. 2.—éxava] Infinitive of the aim. On the form see Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 25 1. -- τοῖς ἐν σκότει x. ox. Oav. καϑημ.] 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 ζωή (ἡμῶν, ver. 79). — The shadow of 
 death (N93) is such a shadow as surrounds death (personified), and they 
 are sitting in this shadow, because death is ruling among them, namely, in 
 the 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 καϑημ. also, Niigelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 65. 
 —Tov κατευϑῦναι κ.τ.2.1 The aim of ἐπιφᾶναι x.7.A., and so the final aim of 
 ἐπεσκέψατο k.T.A. Comp. on τοῦ δοῦναι, ver. 77. ‘‘Continuatur translatio, nam 
 lux dirigit nos,” ‘‘The metaphor is continued, for the light guides us,” 
 Grotius. Observe also the correlation of τοὺς πόδας with the preceding 
 καϑημένοις. --- εἰς ὁδὸν εἰρήν.] in viam ad salutem (Messianam) ducentem, ‘‘ lead- 
 ing into the way to (Messianic) salvation.” εἰρήνη = piv, opposite of all the 
 misery denoted by σκότος κ.τ.2. (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. —yigave] the bodily 
 growing up, and, connected therewith: ἐκρατ. πνεύμ., the mental gain- 
 ing of strength that took place εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνϑρωπ. (Eph. iii. 16). Comp. 
 the description of the development of Jesus, ii. 40, 52. ψυχῇ is not men- 
 tioned, for the πνεῦμα is the ἡγεμονικόν, 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 ΤῊΝ 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 Hinleit. p. 277 
 f.), and approved by Holtzmann, falls to the 
 ground. The source may have been Greek; 
 but if it was Hebrew, ΓΝ need not have 
 stood in it. 
 
256 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 ψυχή Shares. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 217. — qv ἐν τοῖς ἐρήμοις] in the 
 well-known desert regions. It is the desert of Judah κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν that is meant 
 (see on Matt. iii. 1). In that desert dwelt also the Hssenes (Plin. NV. 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 Essene this greatest and 
 Jast phenomenon of Israelitish prophecy certainly was not ; he belonged, 
 like some God-sent prophet higher than all partisan attitudes in the people, 
 to the whole nation. — ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τ. Ἴσρ.} His being publicly made 
 known to Israel, when he was announced to the Israelites as the forerunner 
 of the Messiah. This was done on the command of God by John himself. 
 Bee iil. 2-6. ἀνάδειξις is the making known (renuntiatio) of official nomina- 
 tion ; Polyb. xv. 26. 4; Plut. Mar. 8; see Wetstein. Comp, x. 1. 
 
 Norres By AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 IV. Ver. 1. πολλοὶ x.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’slanguage does not imply 
 incorrectness in these ‘‘ narratives,’’ but it certainly contains an allusion to the 
 insufficiency of these writings. Weiss ed. Mey. calls attention to the fact that 
 Luke elsewhere uses the verb ἐπεχειμέω of unsuccessful attempts (Acts ix. 29 ; 
 xix. 13). Such an 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 a 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 the 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 stage 
 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 Gospel of Mark from the class of narratives spoken of by Luke. 
 
NOTES. 257 
 
 V. Ver. 1. περὶ τῶν πληροφορημένων k.T.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. V. 
 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. 
 Hither of these views is lexically more defensible than that of Meyer. 
 
 VI. Ver. 3. καθεξῆς. 
 
 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 them to 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. 
 
 VII. Ver. 4. iva ἐπιγνῷς κ.τ.λ. 
 
 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 all 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 fully 
 believed, without manipulating the Gospel of Mark or copying some other ex- 
 tended work unknown to us. Whatever influence the Holy Ghost wrought 
 upon such a man would make against the style of book-making involved in 
 the theory of interdependence, 
 
 17 
 
258 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 VIII. 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 
 modification, On the lyrical passages, see in locis. 
 
 IX. Ver. 9. εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναὸν Tov κυρίου. 
 
 The R. V. 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 εἰσελ- 
 θὼν «.7.A. is in emphatic position, and Meyer’s view does not suggest any 
 ground for such 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 when an aorist 
 participle is used. 
 
 X. Ver. 27. ἐξ οἴκου Δαυΐδ. 
 
 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 τῆς παρθένου in the next clause, if 
 the phrase refers to Mary exclusively. 
 
 XI. Ver. 32. τὸν θρόνον A. k.7.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. τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κ.τ.λ. 
 
 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. 
 
 XTII. Vv. 26-38. The Annunciation. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. rejects most of the positions taken in Meyer’s remark. The 
 following 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 
 a 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. ἡ ψυχή μου. 
 
 Weiss. ed. Mey. (in accordance with his views as expressed in his Biblical 
 Theology) denies the existence of any specific distinction between ψυχή and 
 πνεῦμα in N. T. usage. ‘‘The soul is the πνεῦμα which has entered into the 
 flesh, and the πνεῦμα 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. ἔμεινε k.7.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 character of his ministry” 
 (Int. Rev. Commentary, Luke, p. 21), 
 
 XVIII. Vv. 69, 70, etc. 
 
 We group together in this note comments on a number of phrases in the 
 Benedictus, differing from the views presented by Meyer. 
 
 Ver. 69. Weiss ed. Mey. does not take σωτηρίας 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 (ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος) as popularly hyper- 
 bolical. 
 
 Ver. 73. τοῦ δοῦναι 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 (ἐπισκέψεται) 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 LUKE. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 [Ver. 2. The article after αὕτη is rejected by Tisch., recent editors, R.V. The 
 evidence is strong (but see Meyer in exeg. notes). Tisch. has ἐγένετο πρώτη, 
 following δὲ D, but other editors do not accept this. ]—Ver. 3. ἰδίαν] Lachm. 
 Tisch. have ἑαυτοῦ, following B Ὁ L 8** Eus. [So recent editors, R. V.] An in- 
 terpretation, which is further found completely in D (ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδα). &* has 
 éavtov. — Ver. 5. μεμνηστ. See on i. 27. — γυναικί] is wanting in B Οὗ ( D L 
 =, min. vss, Fathers. Deleted by Lachm., and now also again by Tisch. An 
 addition ; ἐμνηστευμένῃ was objectionable, hence γυναικί was added, and in part 
 ἐμνηστευμ. Was even deleted (Ver. Vere. Colb.). There was less probability that 
 offence might be taken after Matt. i. 24 at γυναικί. Cyril of Jerusalem expresses 
 himself too obscurely in this respect. — Vor 7. τῇ φάτνῃ] τῇ 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 definite manger, i.e., the well-known 
 manger of the Saviour.— [Ver. 9. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit ἰδού, 
 following δὲ B L, and versions.] — Ver. 12. κείμενον] BL PS Ξὶ &** min. Syr. 
 utr. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Arnob. and Tisch. have καὶ κείμ. ; kai was easily in- 
 serted to connect the two participles. [Tisch. VIII. omits κείμενον also (so &* D), 
 but recent editors, R. V., accept the strongly-attested καὶ κείμενον. --- Ver. 14. 
 εὐδοκία] A B® Ὁ δὲ, Goth. Sax. Vulg. It., Fathers, have εὐδοκίας. 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 ἄνθρωποι εὐδοκίας is not to be put down to the account 
 of the transcribers, but, on the contrary, these, not apprehending the symmetry 
 of the passage, had after the analogy of δόξα and εἰρήνη sufficient inducement to 
 put instead of εὐδοκίας the nominative likewise, εὐδοκίας 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 Ree. ] — 
 Ver. 15. καὶ of ἄνθρωποι] is wanting in B L = δὰ, 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 (ἄγγελοι... ἄνθρωποι) the more 
 easily gave occasion to the omission, asthe words are superfluous and there was 
 no motive for their addition. — Ver. 17. διεγνώρισαν) Lachm. Tisch. have ἐγνώ- 
 picav, following B Ὁ L Ξὶ δὶ, min. Eus. [So recent editors, R. V.] But the 
 syllable AI after δέ was more easily passed over than added, especially as the 
 simple form was present in ver. 15. — Ver. 20. Instead of ὑπέστρεψαν, Elz. has 
 ἐπέστρεψαν ; and at ver. 21, instead of αὐτόν : τὸ παιδίον, in opposition to pre- 
 ponderant evidence. — Ver. 33. ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] BDL δὲ, min. vss, 
 (also Vulg.) Or. and several Fathers have ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ κ. ἡ μήτηρ. So Gries- 
 bach and Tisch. (who after μήτηρ retains αὐτοῦ). 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. ὡς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἕως, in ac- 
 cordance with AB L = &8* min. Copt. Sahid, Ar. p. Vulg. codd. It. Aug. Rightly ; 
 
CHAP. II. 263 
 
 the ὡς, frequently used in the case of numbers, intruded itself. — Ver. 38. airy] 
 on preponderant evidence, and because καὶ αὕτη presented itself mechanically 
 from ver. 37, is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.— [δὲ BDL, and good 
 versions, read θεῷ (instead of κυρίῳ) ; 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 αὐτοῦ ; so Weiss. ] — ἐν Ἱερουσ.] ἐν 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. τὴν πόλιν αὑτῶν] Lachm. and Tisch. have πόλιν ἑαυτῶν. In ac- 
 cordance with decisive evidence ἑαυτῶν is to be adopted ; but the omission of 
 τὴν is only attested by B D* δὲ 1. [This evidence is decisive against τήν ; so re- 
 cent editors. ] — Ver. 40. πνεύματι] 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. ἀναβάντων] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀναβαινόντων, in accordance with A BK L XII 8, min. 
 Vulg. codd. It. A copyist’s error ; the aorist isnecessary. [Recent editors, R.V., 
 accept the present ; Weiss thinks the aorist is a conformation to ver. 43.]— εἰς 
 ‘Iepoo.] is wanting in BDL δὲ, min. vss. Tisch. It betrays itself by the form 
 Ἱεροσόλυμα as an addition of another hand. — Ver. 43. ἔγνω Iwan k. ἣ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] 
 BDL, min. vss. (including Vulg. and codd. It.) Jerome have ἔγνωσαν οἱ γονεῖς 
 αὐτοῦ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Comp. also 
 Rinck on Matt. xxiy. 36, I regard οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ as written in the margin from 
 ver.41. Comp, on ver. 33. Were it original, and had Iwo. k. ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ 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 et Maria)? and 
 why should ἔγνωσαν (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 Recepta (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 εὑρόντες Elz. Scholz have αὐτόν (Lachm. in brackets), 
 in opposition toB Οὗ Ὁ. 1, δὲ, min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. codd. It. A current ad- 
 dition. — ζητοῦντες] nearly the same witnesses have ἀναζητοῦντες. 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. ἃ. Bibel, 
 I. p. 58 ff.), Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., London 1803), Hich- 
 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 Opusce. p. 32 ff.), Siiskind (Symbolae, 11. p. 1 ff.), von 
 Schubert (de infantiae J. Ch. historiae a Matth. et Luc. exhibitae authentia atque 
 indole, Gripeswald. 1815), Reuterdahl (Obss. crit. in priora duo ev. Luc. capita, 
 Lond. 1823), Bertholdt, Paulus, Schott, Feilmoser, Credner, Neudecker, 
 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. Mare. 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: ᾿Εν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Kai- 
 σαρος ὁ Θεὸς κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοῦμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἣν διδάσκων ἐν τοῖς σάβ- 
 βασιν (iii. 1, ἵν. 861). And the internal characler 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 
 mention of the Gospel is made only as regards its main contents ; and the ἄνωθεν 
 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, iid. den 2. Zeit ἃ. Geburt J. Chr. ge- 
 halt. Census, Breslau 1840 (Hoeck, Rém. Gesch. Bd. I. Abth. II.) ; Wieseler, 
 chronol. Synopse, p. 73 ff. ; von Gumpachin the Stud. wu. Krit. 1852, p. 663 ff., 
 where also the older literature is specified, and in his Kritik und Antikritik, 
 Heidelb. 1853 ; Zumpt, Commentatt. epigraph. 11. p. 73 ff. ; Kohler in 
 Herzog’s Eneykl. XIII., p. 463 ff.; Aberle in the theol. Quartalschr. 1865, 
 p-103 ff. ; Gerlach, d. Rémischen Statthalter in Syr. u. Judéa, 1865, p. 22 f£., 
 44 ff. ; Strauss, die Halben wu. d. Ganzen, 1865, p. 70 ff.; Hilgenfeld in his 
 Zeitschr. 1865, p. 408 ff. — [See Note XIX., p. 287. ] 
 
 Ver. 1. Ἔν ταῖς ἡμέραίς éx.] approximate specification of time in relation to 
 the principal contents of what precedes, the birth of the Baptist.— δόγμα] an 
 ordinance, an edict.’ — ἀπογράφεσϑαι] 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 is held 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 taa-lists, belonging to the census proper (ἀποτίμησις, τίμημα) and form- 
 ing its essential elements, as, in fact, ἀπογράφειν, ἀπογράφεσϑαι, ἀπογραφή (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. § 136. 13), or in those of taxing (Plato, Legg. vi. p. 754 ; Polyb. x. 
 
 1 Acts xvii. 7; Theodotion, Dan. ii. 13; Dem. 278. 17, 774. 19; Plat. Legg. i. p. 644D; and 
 the passages in Wetstein. 
 
CHAP ITs, 2. 265 
 17. 10 ; and see Elsner and Wetstein).’— πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμ. not : the whole 
 of Palestine (Flacius, Clavis ; Paulus, Hug, and others), to which the ex- 
 pression is never limited,? not even in Josephus, Ant. vili. 13. 5, but, as the 
 context by παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου imperatively requires, the whole Roman 
 empire (orbis terrarum).* Hence the Roman emperors were called κύριοι τῆς 
 οἰκουμένης (Franz, Corp. Inser. III. p. 205). Luke narrates a general census 
 of the empire (Huschke); and even the limitation of the meaning merely to 
 a general provincial census (Wieseler) has no foundation at all in the text, 
 any more than the fanciful suggestion of Lange (Z. J. II. 1, p. 98), 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, 
 indeed, struck out the article before aroyp. (in which Wieseler, and now 
 also Tischendorf agree with him), but the witnesses which omit it are only 
 B D (the latter having ἐγένετο ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη), 8 (2) 131, Eus. ; and how 
 easily might ἡ, which in itself is superfluous (see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 105 
 [E. T. 221]; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. II. p. 436 ff.), be merged in the last letter 
 of αὕτη ! If ἡ is not read, αὕτη is the subject, and ἀπογρ. zp. is the predicate 
 (this became the first ἀπογραφῆ). [See critical note, and note XX., 
 p. 287.] Beza, ed. 1, 2, 3, Pfaff, Valckenaer have declared the entire verse to 
 be an interpolated scholion ; but this is a violent suggestion opposed to all 
 the evidence. Conjectures are given by Huetius: Κυϊντιλίου; Heumann : 
 Κρονίου (= Saturnini); Valesius : Σατούρνίνου ; Michaelis: πρώτη ἐγένετο τρὸ 
 τῆς ἡγεμονεύοντος k.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. 37). 
 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, l.c.); but the one recorded at present was the jirst, which oc- 
 
 curred under the Syrian presidency of this man.® 
 
 10Qn the subject-matter itself, see 
 Huschke, wb. d. Census u. d. Steuerverfass. 
 d. friihern Rim. Kaiserzeit, Berl. 1847. 
 
 2 Justin, c. Tr. 78, has: ἀπογραφῆς οὔσης ἐν 
 But this ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδ. 
 manifestly has its reference to πρώτης. 
 Comp. Ap. i. 34, p. 75 E. 
 
 3 See the passages in Wetstein, and comp. 
 Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 215; Maetzner, 
 Lycurg. p. 100. 
 
 4 See, in opposition to this, Ebrard, p. 109 f. 
 Comp. also Auberlen, Daniel wu. d. Apok. 
 p. 248 f. 
 
 τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ τότε πρώτης. 
 
 It is true that history is 
 
 δ᾽ Not: it took place jirst, when,—came to 
 be carried out not earlier than when Quiri- 
 nius, ete. Lichtenstein, p. 81 f., comes ulti- 
 mately to this meaning. How can this be 
 expressed by πρώτη ἢ Instead of πρώτη Luke 
 must have written precisely the opposite, 
 namely, ὕστερον, Or ὕστερον δὴ ἐγένετο K.T.A. 
 Hofmann is similarly mistaken, Schrifibew. 
 Lips 120 
 
 ὁ Quite definitely Justin also says, in 
 agreement with Luke, that Christ was 
 born ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου (Apol. i. 46), and even that 
 His birth was to be seen ἐκ τῶν ἀπογραφῶν 
 
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 
 (6. 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 orbis terrar. 
 descript., Oxon. 1638), Ussher, Petavius, Calovius, Heumann, Storr, Siis- 
 kind, and others, including Tholuck (Glaubwiirdigh. d. evang. Gesch. p. 184), 
 Huschke, Wieseler, who holds that πρώτῃ ἡγεμ. κιτ.2. means : sooner than 
 Quirinius was praeses. Comp. also Bornemann, Schol. p. 1xvi., 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, πρῶτός τίνος, 
 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 ἐξελϑόντος x.t.4. is a genitive absolute, 
 even apart from the fact that the use of ὕστερον there cannot vouch for our 
 πρώτη. Ina similarly erroneous manner Wieseler has adduced Soph. Ant. 
 637 f., 701 f., 708 f. Luke would have known how to express the meaning : 
 sooner than, etc., simply, definitely, and accurately, by πρὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονεύειν 
 κιτ.λ. (comp. ver. 21, xii. 15 ; Acts xxiii. 15), or by πρίν, or πρὶν 7.° (2) The 
 expedient of Beza, Casaubon (Hvercitatt. 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 (Odss. 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. aerae 
 Dionys. emend., Rom. 1793), Ideler (Handb. ἃ. Chronol. 11. p. 394), Miinter, 
 
 τῶν γενομένων ἐπὶ Κυρηνίον τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἐν 
 Ιουδαίᾳ πρώτου γενομένον ἐπιτρόπον 
 [procurator], Apol. i. 34; so that he in 
 another erroneous manner (see Credner, 
 Beitr. I. p. 230) makes the man to be Roman 
 procurator in Judaea. This was Coponius, 
 Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 1. 
 
 1 Between these two Quintilius Varus had 
 been invested with this dignity, Joseph. 
 Antt. xvii. 5.2. But the position that Quiri- 
 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 «ἀπ. xviii. 1. 
 1). Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p.140f. The 
 words ITERYM. 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, ete., nor whether iferwm is to 
 be referred forward or backward. Comp. 
 Strauss, p. 75. What still remains of the 
 whole damaged inscription runs thus (ac- 
 cording to Mommsen in Bergmann) :— 
 GEM. QVA. REDACTA. POT 
 AYGYSTI. POPVLIQVE. ROMANI. SENATV 
 SVPPLICATIONES. BINAS. OB. RES. PROSP 
 IPSI. ORNAMENTA. TRIVMPH 
 
 PRO. CONSYL. ASIAM. PROVINCIAMOP 
 
 DIVI. AVGVSTI. ITERVM. SYRIAM. ET. PH. 
 See Bergmann, de inscript. Latina ad P. 
 Sulp. Quir. Cos. a 742 ut videtur refer. 1851. 
 
 2 Bernhardy, ad Dionys. Perieg. p. 770, 
 and Eratosth. p. 122; Wesseling, ad Herod. 
 ij. 2, ix. 27; Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. ο. Vv. 
 p. 228; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 421. 
 
 3 ** Profecto mirandum est, homines eru- 
 ditissimos in ejusmodi interpretationum 
 ludibria a praejudicatis opinionibus per 
 ductos labi,’’ Valckenaer, >. 68. 
 
CHAP. II., 2. 267 
 (Stern d. Weisen, Ὁ. 88 ff.), Neander, Hug (Gwtacht.), and others: that 
 ἡγεμονεύοντ. is here to be taken in a wider meaning, and that Quirinius had 
 held that first ἀπογραφή 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. 1. 
 31), and so forth. This expedient would only be possible, if ἡγεμον. stood 
 by itself in the passage, and not τῆς Συρίας beside it. And if ἡγεμον. 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 τοῦ ὕστερον ἡγεμ. 
 τῆς Συρίας). (3) Gerlach thinks that at the time of Christ’s birth Varus, 
 indeed, was ἡγεμών 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 ἡγεμών ---ἀη 6 γ- 
 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 ib. Strauss, krit. Beard. 
 ἃ. Leb. J. p. 84 ff.), Hofmann, Weissag. u. Hrf. ΤΙ. p. δά, Ebrard, Lange, 
 L. J. V1. 1, p. 94 (comp. also Tholuck, Glaubwiirdigk. p. 184 ff., and Olshau- 
 sen): that the word is to be accented as αὐτή (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 erroneous, as in fact ver. 3 relates the very carrying out? of the ἀπογ- 
 ράφεσϑαι, and this ver. 3 ff. must be conceived as following immediately upon 
 the edict. (5) Von Gumpach lays stress on ἐγένετο, whereby he regards 
 
 1 Gl6ckler, Krabbe, Mack, and Tholuck, taxation of Quirinius. This is a makeshift, 
 
 however, do not hold the accentuation 
 αὐτή as requisite, and Kohler rejects it. 
 
 2 Ebrard, p. 177, wishes to set aside this 
 difficulty by the explanation that while an 
 ἀπογράφεσθαι in the sense of a registration 
 already occurred at the time of the birth of 
 Jesus, Luke availed himself of the double 
 meaning of ἀπογραφή, which also signifies 
 the actual census, ‘in an easy and unre- 
 strained manner” to set forth how the work 
 begun in the registration was completed in the 
 
 which imputes to Luke a very enigmatical 
 and awkward use of the word ἀπογραφή. 
 
 3 So also does Kohler, who besides, with 
 Hofmann and Ebrard, lays stress on the 
 fact that the passage runs not as ἡ πρώτη, 
 but simply πρώτη. Luke is thus made to 
 say: this taxation was 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- 
 ization, as contrasted with what was intended, otherwise than by the simple 
 ἐγένετο, or that he would at least have placed this word, and that witha more 
 precise definition (ὄντως dé ἐγένετο, or the like), at the head of the sentence ; 
 as well as that he, in order to have the ἀπογραφή recognized as something 
 different from and later than the mere registration, must have made use of 
 another word, and not again of ἀπογραφή so similar to the ἀπογράφεσϑαι. (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 juventutis to Caius (Tacitus, Ann. 111. 
 48), in which post he was succeeded by Lollius (see Zumpt, 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. 36 ff., that the addition πρώτη 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. — ἡγεμον.} the general word for the post of a chief, here shown by the 
 context (τῆς Συρίας) to be used of the provincial chief, praeses (proconsul). 
 Comp. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 2: In Luke iii. 1, 
 used of the Procurator. — Κυρηνίου] 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, 1.6. 
 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, iii. 22. 48) the manuscripts 
 vary ; from a coin and inscription, which have Qwirinus, nothing can be 
 
 Συρίας τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. 
 
 appears in the text, and the article with already, at the time of Christ’s birth, filled 
 
 πρώτη would make no difference at all, 
 since, as is well known, the ordinal num- 
 bers may stand with or without an article 
 (Poppo, ad Thucyd. ii. 70. 5, iv. 90. 3, 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 
 
 the office of governor in Syria, which, 
 moreover, Norisius, Cenotaph. Pis. 11. p. 82 
 f., and others maintained. But this is at 
 variance with Tertullian, /.c., comp. ec. 7, 
 where it can only be regarded as a very 
 arbitrary assumption that Saturninus is no 
 longer meant @s governor, 
 
CHAPS il... 2: 269 
 
 decided in view of the great doubt as to their genuineness.! But it is cer- 
 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 (Ὁ Ὁ E F, etc., includ- 
 ing x, likewise Eusebius, Chrysostom, etc.), whereas among the codices 
 only B reads Κυρείνου (hence Lachmann reads Κυρίνου), the form Quirinius, 
 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 Quwirinius. 
 
 RemarK.—[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 by the Syrian praeses 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. ἀπογραφή, 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 (Antt. xvii. 1. 1 does not bear on it); 
 especially as it was not the rex 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 Zeitschr. fiir geschichtl. 
 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 (0) it is represented as an actual tax- 
 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. 
 
 1See Gerlach, p. 37, who cites another from Marini, Ac¢. IT. 782. 
 inscription, which actually reads Quirinio, 2 See Mommsen in Bergm. p. iv, ff, 
 
270 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Kern, Urspr. des Evang. p. 118 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 Hichthal, IT, p. 184 f. What a 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 '—a 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 Auct. 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 us 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 subsequently 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 ἀπογραφή as πρώτη, Which occurred ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας 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 ἀπογραφή 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 spite of his own distinct state- 
 ment, i. 5 !—The hypotheses, moreover, that Luke intended by the enrolment 
 of Jesus (Ὁ) in the register of the Empire to point to the universal destination of 
 the Redeemer (Wieseler ; comp. Erasmus, 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 the finances, etc., 
 as, according to Tacitus, Anm. i. 11, the 
 Breviarium totius imperii (Sueton. Octav. 
 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 merely a simple Legatus Caesaris. 
 
 Although Josephus does not expressly name 
 him ἡγεμών, he is still, in Anft. xviii. 1. 1, 
 sufficiently indicated as such. Comp. Hil- 
 genfeld, p. 413 ff. Apart from this, the ex- 
 pression ἡγεμονεύοντος in the passage before 
 us is only an erroneously anticipating 7eflex 
 of that, which subsequently Quirinius was in 
 fact, and notoriously, as respects his real 
 census attended by consequences so grave. 
 
CHAP, ἘΠῚ 3: 271 
 
 as a 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. Πάντες] 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 
 ἰδία πόλις ; ἕκαστος 15 ἃ distributive apposition (Ameis on Homer, Od. x. 397). 
 — εἰς τ. ἰδίαν πόλιν] the more precise definition is furnished by ver. 4. [See 
 critical note.] This statement, too, does not suit a census proper ; for to 
 this every one was required to subject himself 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 (see 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 case shines here through the traditional dress of a census. — πόλιν Aav. | 
 The city where David was born, 1 Sam. xvii. 11. — Βεϑλεέμ] see on Matt. 
 11. 1. —é& οἴκου x. πατριᾶς Aav.| The tribes proceeding from the sons of Jacob 
 were called φυλαί (MWD) ; the branches proceeding from the sons of these 
 patriarchs, πατριαί (MINDY) ; the single families of such a tribal branch, 
 οἶκοι (MAN 3).! 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 πατριά, 
 moreover, see on Eph. iii. 15. — civ Μαριάμ] does not belong to ἀνέβη (Pau- 
 lus, Hofmann, Ebrard), but to ἀπογράψ. beside which it stands : in order to 
 have 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 ἀπογραφή was the Jewish one, ver. 3. 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, according 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-tax (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, I. p. 213 ; Winer, Realwérterd. 2 Dion. Hal. iv. 14; See Strauss, I. p. 285, 
 8.0. Stimme ; Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 198, III. and Huschke, p. 121, in opposition to Tho- 
 p. 1463. luck, p. 191. 
 
R72 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Mary was an heiress, who had an estate in Bethlehem (Michaelis, Kui- 
 noel, Olshausen ; with hesitation Bleek and Kohler), is utterly unfounded as 
 regards Luke in particular, since he has not the smallest trace of any earlier 
 connection with Bethlehem and makes Mary in her travail not find even 
 friendly lodging there. — τῇ ἐμνηστ. αὐτῷ] Thus, according to Luke, she was 
 still only his betrothed (i. 27 ; Matt. i. 18), and the marriage was not yet 
 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 are 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). — οὔσῃ éyxiw] not : because 
 she was pregnant (von Gumpach), but : whe was pregnant (Acts xxiv. 24 ; 
 Rom. i. 16, and frequently). The observation forms the transition to what 
 follows. 
 
 Remark.—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., XI, 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, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς 
 x.7.A. But comp. on i. 36, and on Matt. i. 17, Remark 2. 
 
 ΠῚ 
 
 Ver. 6 f. ᾿Επλήσϑησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτήν] Comp. 1. 57. The suppo- 
 sition (see as early as Protevang. Jac. 17) that Mary was surprised by the 
 pains of labor on the way, is set aside by the ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ. 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 ! --- τὸν πρωτότοκον] 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, —éorapydv.] She swaddled him ; frequently used in 
 Greek writers. — ἐν ¢drvy] 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.‘ —év τῷ καταλύματι] 
 
 1That a stable (in opposition to Ebrard) 
 was the place of the birth, follows from ἐν 
 φάτνῃ, διότι x.7.A. It is possible that the 
 stable was a vock-cave, which an old legend 
 (Justin. c. Tryph. 78; Orig. 6. Cels.i. 51; 
 Protevang. Jac. 18) designates as the place of 
 the birth, not without suspicion, however, 
 by reason of its appeal to Isa. xxxiii, 16, 
 
 LXX. Moreover, that tradition transfers 
 the cave expressly only to the neighborhood 
 of the little town, and states withal of 
 Joseph : οὐκ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ ἐκείνῃ ποῦ κατα- 
 λῦσαι, “he did not have in that village 
 where to lodge,’ Justin, 15. Over this 
 grotto designated by the legend Helena 
 built the church Mariae de praesepio. Comp. 
 
CHAP. II., 8-10. 273 
 
 in 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 καταλύμα 
 is generally a 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 swch an exigency. 
 [See Note XXIII., p. 288.] The text suggests nothing indicative of an inhos- 
 pitable treatment (Calvin). 
 
 Ver. 8 f. Ποιμένες] not οἱ ποιμένες. --- ἀγραυλοῦντες] staying out in the open 
 fields ; Plut. Num. 4; Parthen. Hrot. xxix. 1, and the ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι al- 
 ready in Homer, 171. xviii. 162. — φυλάσσ. φυλακάς] often conjoined also among 
 the Greek writers.! The plural applies to the different watch-stations. — 
 τῆς νυκτός] not belonging to φυλακάς, but : by night, definition of time for 
 aypava. and φυλάσσ. --- According to this statement, Jesus cannot have been 
 born in December, in the middle of the rainy season (Robinson, Pal. 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 invicti (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. 339 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 ἰδού, see critical note.] ἐπέστη] 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 swdden emergence, which nevertheless is implied not in the word 
 in itself, but in the text. — δόξα κυρίου] MT 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. Παντὶ τῷ λαῷ] to the whole (Israelitish) people. —éréydy bur) 
 that (that, namely) there was born to you this day, etc. The ὑμῖν, in reference to 
 the shepherds, is individualizing. ---- σωτὴρ x.7.2.] a deliverer—and now comes 
 His special more precise definition : who is Messiah, Lord! Χριστὸς κύριος is 
 not to be taken together, as it never occurs thus in the N. T. — ἐν 762. Aav.] 
 belonging to ἐτέχϑη. ‘‘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. 3. --- τὸ σημεῖον] the ap- 
 
 also Robinson, Pal. II. p. 284 ff.; Ritter, and the passages in Kypke. Comp. 
 Erdk. XVI. p. 292 ff. See, ontheotherhand, i DW Ww [A.V.: ‘keep the charge,” 
 Gersdorf, p. 221; Bornemann, Schol. p. 18. Bs ΣῈ ἕ : 
 Ε ᾿ ? Π|ῦ" tch th h’’], Num. i. 53, αἰ. 
 1 Plat. Phacdr. p. 240E; Xen, Anab.ii, 6.10, it» Wateh the watch], Num. 
 
 18 
 
274 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 pointed sign of recognition.’ — βρέφος] not : the child (Luther), but : a child. 
 The word denotes either the still unborn child (as 1. 41 ; Hom. 47. xxii. 
 266), or, as in this case (comp. xviii. 15 ; Acts vil. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 2; also as 
 a strong expression of the thought, 2 Tim. iii. 15) and very often in the clas- 
 sical writers, the new-born child. —iorapy.] adjectival : a swaddled child, 
 Venn de 
 
 Ver. 13. Πλῆϑος orp. obp.] a multitude of the heavenly host (D.2W 83¥), a 
 multitude of angels. The (satellite-) host of the angels surrounds God’s 
 throne. 1 Kings xxii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xviii. 18 ; Ps. cili. 21, cxlviii. 2 ; Matt. 
 xxvi. 58; Rev. xix. 14, al.?— Ver. 14. δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις x.7.2. According to 
 the reading εὐδοκίας (see the critical remarks, and Nosselt, Hzercitatt. 
 p. 171 ff.): Glory (is, comp. 1 Pet. iv. 11) in the heaven to God, and on earth 
 salvation among men who are well-pleasing! 'The angels declare to the praise 
 of God (ver. 13) 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. 3). Their exclamation is not a 
 wish, as it is usually rendered by supplying ἔστω or εἴη, but far stronger,—a 
 triumphant affirmation of the existing blessed state of things. The ἐν ἀϑρώπ. 
 εὐδοκίας (genitive of quality, see Winer, p. 211 f. [E. T. 236 1.1) adds to the 
 scene of the εἰρήνη the subjects, among whom it prevails (comp. Plat. Symp. 
 p. 197 Οὐ; 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. Χ ΤΙ. Patr. p. 587 : καὶ εὐδοκήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγαπη- 
 τοῖς αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰώνων, ‘* And the Lord will be well pleased (εὐδοκήσει) with 
 His beloved unto eternity” (ἕως αἰώνων). Observe, moreover, the correla- 
 tion which exists (1) between δόξα and εἰρήνη ; (2) between ἐν ὑψίστοις and 
 ἐπὶ γῆς ; and (3) between Θεῷ and ἐν ἀνϑρώποις εὐδοκίας. By ἐν ὑψίστοις (im 
 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. 3. — By 
 εἰρήνη they mean not only peace (usually understood of the peace of reconcil- 
 iation), but the entire salvation, of which the new-born child is the bearer ; 
 comp. i. 79. [See Note XXV., p. 288 seq.] — With the Recepta εὐδοκία, the 
 hymn would also consist of only two parts, divided by xai,* which is not for 
 
 1 According to the notice σήμερον, and in 
 view of the smallness of Bethlehem, the 
 sign specified by κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ was suf- 
 Jiciently 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 γίνεσθαι σύν τινι, to be associated with 
 any one, comp. Xen. Cyr. vy. 3.8. On στρα- 
 γιά, comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 340 E: στρατιὰ 
 
 κῶν τε καὶ δαιμόνων. 
 
 3 Olshausen (following Alberti, Odss., and 
 Tittmann, Diss., Viteb. 1777) places a stop 
 after γῆς, so that the first clause says: 
 “God is now praised asin heaven, so also in 
 the earth.*’ This is erroneous, because, ac- 
 cording to the order of the words in Luke, 
 the emphatic point would be not ἐπὶ γῆς, as 
 in the Lord’s Prayer, but ἐν ὑψίστοις. 
 
 4 Nevertheless Ebrard (on Olshausen) still 
 defends the fhreefold division. According 
 to him, the angels exult (1) that in heaven 
 honor is given to God for the redemption 
 
CHAP: 1. 1); “70 
 (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 (ἐπὶ γῆς 
 εἰρήνη), While the second designates it from the point of view of God’s sub- 
 jectivity (ἐν ἀνθρ. εὐδοκία) : on earth is salvation, among men is (God's) good 
 pleasure ; ἐν avOp., namely, would not be in the case of men (Matt. 11. 17 ; 
 so usually), but local, as previously ἐν ὑψίστ. and ἐπὶ γῆς. Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. 11. p. 372, takes εὐδοκία as delight ; ‘‘in genere humano (Messia nato) 
 voluptas est et laetitia,” ‘‘in the human race (the Messiah being born) there is 
 delight and joy.” But εὐδοκία nowhere expresses this strong idea, but only 
 the state of well-pleased satisfaction (as Ps. exliv. 16, LXX.), and the latter 
 idea would in this place be too weak ; we could not but expect χαρὰ καὶ 
 ἀγαλλίασις, or the like. Moreover, according to ver. 13 (αἰνούντων τ. Θεόν) it 
 is more in harmony with the text to understand εὐδοκία on the part of God, in 
 which case the quite usual meaning of the word (ἐπανάπαυσις τοῦ Θεοῦ, 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: ‘‘Xpuictoc ὁ κύριος δόξα ἐσται ἐν 
 ὑψίστοις ὄντι Θεῷ k.7.A., ἢ. 6. Messias celebrabit in coelis Deum et in terram de- 
 ducet pacem divinam, 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. 13); 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 oi av@p.] This καί is not also, but the simple and after éyé- 
 veto ; see On Vv, 12,—oi ἄνθρωποι oi ποιμένες [see critical note], not: the 
 shepherd people (Grotius, Paulus, and others), against which the second 
 article is decisive (comp. Matt. xviii. 23, xxii. 2, al.; see Bernhardy, p. 48; 
 Kihner, II. p. 120), but a contrast to oi ἄγγελοι, in which case, however, we 
 must not lay upon the expression a stress which is foreign to the connection 
 (‘totum genus humanum quodammodo repraesentantes,” ‘‘ 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. — διέλθωμεν] through the fields 
 as far as to Bethlehem, Acts ix. 38, xi. 19. — 07] denotes what is definitive, 
 without more 8600. --- τὸ ῥῆμα] which has been said ; ὃ ὁ Kip. ἡμ. is an epexe- 
 
 now brought about ; (2) that wpon earth a earth yields only two clauses. Lange also, 
 
 kingdom of peace is now founded ; (3) that 
 between heaven 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 
 somewhat of tautology ; and the text itself 
 by its καί and by its contrast of heaven and 
 
 L. J. UW. 1, p. 108, understands it in a three- 
 fold sense, but very arbitrarily takes εὐδοκία 
 of the divine good pleasure manifested in a 
 Person, referring to passages such as Eph. 
 isd: 6. 
 
 1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 395; Nagelsbach, 
 Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 2, p. 438 f. 
 
276 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 gesis of it. —avetpov] 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. 11. 14; more frequently among Greek 
 writers. 
 
 Ver. 17 f. Aveyvépicav| they gave exact information (διά). [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 ἐγνώρισεν, 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 marvelied, but Mary (ver. 19), etc. — περὶ τῶν 
 λαληθ.} does not belong to ἀκούσαντες (Gersdorf), but to ἐϑαύμ., with which 
 indeed περί is very rarely associated elewhere ; but the thought is: they 
 fell into amazement in consideration of that, which, οἷο." 
 
 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 sept all these utterances (τὰ ῥήματα) 
 of the shepherds. Observe in the narrative the emphasis of πάντα, as well 
 as the purposely chosen adumbrative tense συνετήρει (previously the aorist).? 
 — συμβάλλουσα x.7.2.] 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.* —izéorpew.] to their flocks, ver. 8. — δοξάζοντες καὶ 
 αἰνοῦντες] Glorifying and giving approval. The latter is more special than 
 the former. — ἐπὶ πᾶσιν 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 
 vy. 10-12. 
 
 Remarx.— 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 
 a 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- 
 
 1Comp. Plat. Zim. p. 80 C: τὰ θαυμαζό- XXxix. 2, xxviii. 8. 
 μενα ἠλέκτρων περὶ τῆς ἕλξεως. 3 Comp. Plat. Crat. p. 348 A: συμβαλεῖν 
 2On συντηρεῖν, alla mente repositum ser- τὴν Κρατύλον μαντείαν, Ὁ. 412 C; Soph. Oed. 
 vare, comp. Dan. vii. 28; Ecclus. xiii. 12, C. 1472; Pind. Nem. xi. 48; Eur, O7, 1394. 
 
CHAP. II., 21, 22. Qv7 
 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 upon 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 πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται (vii. 22) is already even now 
 realized. [See Note XXVI., p. 289.] 
 
 Ver. 21. Τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν] The genitive, not as at ver. 22, 1. 57, 0: 
 but as genitive of the aim: in order to circumcise Him, that He might be 
 circumcised. Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 230 [E. T. 267]. — καὶ ἐκλήθη] 
 was also named, indicating the naming as swperadded to the rite of circum- 
 cision. See Nigelsbach, z. Ilias, ed. 8, p. 164. And the Son of God had 
 to become circumeised, as γενόμενος ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενος ὑπὸ νόμον, 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. * — 
 τὸ κληθὲν κιτ.2.1 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- 
 the days, which (i.e., the lapse of them) 
 were appointed for their legal cleansing (καθαρισμός, passive, comp. ver. 14). 
 Mary brought the offering of the poor, ver. 24. — αὐτῶν] applies contextu- 
 ally (ἀνήγαγον αὐτόν) not to the Jews (van Hengel, Annot. p- 199), but to 
 Mary and Joseph. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, also Bleek. The purifica- 
 tion in itself indeed concerned only the mother ; but in the case before us 
 
 ingly ai ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμ. αὐτῶν : 
 
 1 In opposition to Schleiermacher, 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 contents of our passage with all 
 its simplicity of presentation; see the ap- 
 propriate remarks of Strauss, I. p. 245. 
 Lange, Z. J. II. p. 103,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 to a vision 
 
 of the Angel of the Covenant. 
 
 2 Calovius says that Christ allowed Him- 
 self to be circumcised ‘‘ twm οὗ demonstran- 
 dam naturae humanae veritatem.. . tum ad 
 probandam 6 semine Abrahae originem.. .« 
 tum imprimis ob meriti et redemptionis 
 Christi certificationem,”’ “first for demon- 
 strating the reaiity of His human nature... 
 then to prove His origin from the seed of 
 Abraham... then especially as a certifica- 
 tion of the merit and redemption of Christ.” 
 
 3 See Ley. xii. 2 ff.; Lund, Jud. Heiligth., 
 ed. Wolf, p. 751; Michaelis, Mos. R. § 192; 
 Ewald, Alterth. p. 178 f.; Keil, Avchdol. 1. 
 p. 296. 
 
278 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). — κατὰ τὸν νόμον M.] applies to ἐπλήσθησαν k.T.2., 
 indicating the /egal duration thereof. — ἀνήγαγον, like ἀναβαίνειν of the jour- 
 neying to Jerusalem. — παραστῆσαι) 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. 
 xii. 2. —dvavoiyov μήτραν) DIV) 102; comp. LXX. Hardly according to 
 the passage before us has Luke conceived, with Ambrosius and many others, 
 that Mary brought forth elawso utero and only voluntarily subjected herself 
 to this law (as Bisping still holds). 
 
 Ver. 24. Kai τοῦ δοῦναι) continues the narrative after the interposed sen- 
 tence ver. 23: and in order to give an offering. —xard τὸ εἰρημ. κ.τ.1.} Lev. 
 xli. 8.—veocooic] On the later form rejected by the Atticists, νοσσούς (so 
 Tischendorf), see Sturz, Dial. Mae. 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 })P~2W. — δίκαιος κ. 
 εὐλαβής] " The word εὐλαβής is only used in the N. T. by Luke. It denotes 
 religious conscientiousness.* — παράκλησιν] The Messianic blessing of the na- 
 tion, as its practical consolation after its sufferings (comp. λύτρωσιν, ver. 38), is 
 called, according to prophetic precedent (Isa. xl. 1), in the Rabbinical 
 literature also very often 19N1.4 The same in substance is : 
 βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Mark xv. 43. — ἐπ’ αὐτόν] having come wpon. — κεχρημα- 
 tio. | a divine responsum, see on Matt. ii. 12. There is no hint of a dream 
 (Kuinoel). —xpiv ἢ] See on Matt. i. 18. —rdv Χριστὸν κυρίου] 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. 1xxxix, 48.° 
 
 Ver. 27 f. Ἔν τῷ πνεύματι] by virtue of the Holy Spirit, ‘‘ instigante 
 Spiritu,” Grotius ; comp. Matt. xxii. 48, — The expression τοὺς γονεῖς (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 
 
 προσδεχόμ. τὴν 
 
 1 Ex. xiii. 2; Num. viii. 16, xviii. 15 f. ; 
 Lightfoot, p. 753 ; Lund, 1.6. p. 753; Michae- 
 lis, Mos. R. § 227, 276; Saalschiitz, Mos. R. 
 p. 97. 
 
 2Comp. Plat. Polit. p. 311 B: τὸ δίκαιον x. 
 εὐλαβές, and shortly before : ἤθη εὐλαβῆ καὶ 
 δίκαια. 
 
 3 Comp. Delitzsch on Heb. vy. 7 f., p. 191. 
 
 4See Vitringa, Obs. V. p. 83; Lightfoot 
 and Wetstein in loc. The Messiah Himself: 
 DMI. See Schéttgen, Hor. Il. p. 18. 
 
 5 On the classical use of ὁρᾶν in the sense 
 of experiundo cognoscere, Dorvill. ad Char. 
 p. 483; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 108. 
 
CHAP. II., 29. 279 
 
 Note XXVII., p. 289.] Comp. ver. 41. On the form γονεῖς, see Lobeck, 
 ad Phryn. p. 09. --- κατὰ τὸ εἰθισμένον τοῦ νόμου] According to the custom pre- 
 scribed by the law. — καὶ αὐτός] also on His part, for the parents had just 
 carried Him in, ver. 27. The reference to the priest, ‘‘qui eum Domino 
 sistendum amplexus erat,” ‘‘who had taken Him in his arms 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 Ihave seen 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 ν. 34) ; now the time is come, when Thou lettest 
 me die blessed.’ — ἀπολύεις] present, of that which is nearly and certainly im- 
 pending. There is no need to supply τοῦ ζῆν, or ἐκ τῆς γῆς, or the like (as is 
 usually done), as the absolute ἀπολύειν 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 from service, as is signified by 
 the context in τ. δοῦλόν cov, δέσποτα. The servant of God dies and is thereby 
 released from his service. — εἶδον prefixed with emphasis, in retrospective 
 reference to ver. 26. — τὸ σωτήριόν σου] the deliverance bestowed by Thee, the 
 Messianic deliverance, which has begun with the birth of the Messiah. 
 Comp. iii. 6 ; Acts xxviii. 28. —xara πρόσωπον πάντ. τ. λαῶν] 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 σωτήριον already in its unfolded 
 manifestation to all. This is then, in ver. 32, further specially characterized 
 as respects the two portions of the πάντων τῶν λαῶν, in which φῶς and δόξαν 
 are appositional definitions to τὸ σωτήριόν σου : light, which is destined to bring 
 revelation to the heathen, and glory of Thy people Israel. The progression of 
 the climax lies in φῶς and δόξα. For the heathen the σωτήριον 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 divine truth. For the people Israel the 
 σωτήριον 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 εἰς (Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus, Luther, Bleek, and others), but by taking it independently, the 
 great destination of the σωτήριον for the people of Israel is brought into more 
 forcible prominence. — Ver. 33. And there was (on the singular ἣν and the 
 plural participles that follow, see Kiihner, ὃ 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.’’ 
 μηκέτι λυπούπενον ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας τοῦ 2 Comp. on κατὰ πρόσωπ., Jacobs, ad Ach. 
 Ἰσραήλ, “πὸ longer grieved on behalf of Tat. iii. 1, p. 612. 
 
280 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 tency with the earlier angelic revelations (Strauss). The thing was great 
 enough in itsel7, and they learned it here in another form of revelation, the 
 prophetic. 
 
 Ver. 84. Αὐτούς] the parents, ver. 83. — 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 ἐν πνεύματι. --- κεῖται] He is placed there, i.e., 
 He has the destination, see on Phil. i. 16.— εἰς πτῶσιν «.7.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 jfal/—namely, through 
 unbelief—into obduracy and moral ruin ; many others must arise, inasmuch 
 as they raise themselves—namely, through faith in Him—to true spiritual 
 life. [See Note XXVUL., p. 289.] The fulfilment of both is abundantly at- 
 tested in the evangelic history ; as, for example, in the case of the Pharisees 
 and scribes the falling, in that of the publicans and sinners the rising, in 
 that of Paul both ; comp. Rom. xi. 11 ff. — καὶ εἰς σημεῖον ἀντιλεγόμ.] 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 
 contradiction from the world (see on Rom. x. 31). The fulfilment of this 
 prediction attained its culmination in the crucifixion ; hence ver. 380. 
 Comp. Heb. xii. ὃ. But it continues onward even to the last day, 1 Cor. 
 XV. 20. 
 
 Ver. 35. Since the construction does not indicate that καὶ... ῥομφαία 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, ὅπως x.7.2. is to be referred to kai... ῥομφαία, not to σημεῖον ἀντιλεγ. 
 (Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, and many others). —xai σοῦ δέ] See on 1. 76. 
 This καί and αὐτῆς places the anguish of the mother herself on a parallel with 
 the fate of her Son intimated by σημεῖον ἀντιλεγ. ; and σοῦ dé αὐτῆς is a bring- 
 ing of the contrast into stronger relief than σεαυτῆς δέ." --- ῥομφαία] Not the 
 martyr-death of Mary, as Epiphanius and Lightfoot hold ; ῥομφαίαν δὲ ὠνόμασε, 
 τὴν τμητικωτάτην καὶ ὀξεῖαν ὀδύνην," ἥτις διῆλθε τὴν καρδίαν τῆς θεομήτορος, ὅτε ὁ υἱὸς 
 αὐτῆς προσηλώϑη τῷ σταυρῷ, ‘* 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 seen 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. 
 2Comp. Hom. 11. xix. 125; τὸν δ᾽ ἄχος ὀξὺ Kara φρένα τύψε βαθεῖαν. 
 
CHAP. II., 36, 3’. 281 
 
 belief on the part of Mary (at the most, Mark iii. 21). — ὁπως x.7.4.] a divine 
 aim, which is to be attained by οὗτος κεῖται... ῥομφαία ; a great crisis in the 
 spiritual world is to be brought to light, John ix. 389, iii. 19, v. 22 ; 1 Cor. 
 i. 23f.; 2 Cor. ii. 15. The conditional ἄν expresses : in order that, when 
 that which is just predicted to thee sets in. —ékx πολλ. xapd.| forth from many 
 hearts. Comp. Rom. i. 17. — διαλογισμοί] not οἱ διαλογ. ; 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. 36 ff. Ἦν] aderat, as at Mark viii. 1, xv. 40; also 1 Cor. xiv. 48. — 
 After αὕτη, ver. 36, the copula ἦν is not unnecessarily to be supplied, in 
 which case (so usually, as also by Lachmann and Tischendorf) a point is 
 placed after ver. 87 ; but this airy is the subject to which ἀνϑωμολογεῖτο 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 lived 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 (joaca.. . 
 αὐτῆς, ver. 36, is subordinate to the προβεβηκ. ἐν yu. ToAA.; (2) that at ver. 37 
 there is to be written, with Tischendorf and Ewald, καὶ αὐτή (not as usually, 
 καὶ αὕτη), SO that the definition καὶ αὐτὴ χήρα. .. ἐπιστᾶσα, VV. 87, 38, con- 
 tains a further description of the woman co-ordinated with the προβεβηκ. ἐν 
 ἡμ. TOAK. ; (3) that καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα (see the critical remarks) without 
 any separation links itself on continuously to the preceding participial defini- 
 tion ; finally, (4) that καὶ αὐτή, ver. 37, she too, places Anna on a parallel 
 with Simeon ; as the latter had come forward a pious aged man, so she also 
 a pious aged woman. — προφῆτις] Hebrew M8"), an interpretress of God, a 
 woman with the gift of apocalyptic discourse, Rev. ii. 20; Acts xxi. 9, 11. 17. 
 She makes use of this gift, ver. 38. — ἑπτά] consequently a brief and (ἀπὸ τ. 
 παρθεν. avt.) 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. “Ἕως (see the critical remarks) ἐτ. ὀγδοήκ. : 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 ἕως in the Stud. u. 
 Krit, 1838, p. 221. Comp. Dem. 262, ὅ. ---οὐκ ἀφίστατο x.t.A.] a popular 
 description of unremitting zeal (comp. Hom. Od. ii. 345, 41. xxiv. 72) in the 
 public worship of God. Comp. xxiv. 58. — νύκτα x. juép. | Thus also at Acts 
 xxvi. 7 ; Mark iv. 28 : 1 Tim. v. 5. Elsewhere the order is inverted.? In 
 this place νύκτα is prefixed 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, 321 ; seen in Bornemann, Schol. p. 27; Lobeck, 
 LXX. Ex. xv. 20; Isa. viii. 3, ad. Paralip. p. 62 f., and from the Latin : Hein- 
 2 Instances of both arrangements may be dorf on Horat. Sat. i. 1. τῇ. 
 
282 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Ver. 38. Αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ] in which occurred the previously described scene 
 with Simeon. —ézoraca] 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 ἀνθομολογεῖσϑαι 
 (comp. LXX. Ps. lxxix. 13 ; 3 Macc. vi. 33), in the case of which ἀντί ‘‘ref- 
 erendi reprehendendique sensum habet,” see Winer, de verbor. compos. usu, 
 III. p. 18 ff. The tenor of her utterance of praise to God (τῷ κυρίῳ) is after 
 what was related of Simeon obvious of itself, and is therefore not more pre- 
 cisely specified. [See critical note ; θεῷ is correct.]— περὶ αὐτοῦ] ὅτι οὗτός 
 ἐστιν ὁ λυτρωτής, 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.]). — τοῖς 
 προσδεχομ. λύτρωσιν] Comp. ver. 25. With the reading ‘Iepovc. without ἐν 
 (see the critical remarks), deliverance of Jerusalem is not essentially distinct 
 from παράκλησις τοῦ "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 ἐλάλει 
 κιτ.. took place on her part likewise airy τῇ ὥρᾳ, 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 τοῖς tpoodey. would not be appropriate. 
 
 Ver. 39. Ναζαρέτ] 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. 11. 28, Rem.), the original dwelling-place of the 
 parents of Jesus, but became the birth-place of the latter on occasion of the 
 ἀπογραφή. [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 !), see on Matt. 1.6. 
 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; Xen. ἅπαν. νυ. macher, Z. J. p. 56 f., leaves the birth-place 
 8. 9, Sympos. ii. 7. altogether doubtful; holding that the ques- 
 2See also Weisse, Hvangeliensr. Ὁ. 181 f., 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 πνευματικῶς. Schleier- 
 
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- 
 galaspect 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. — πληρούμ. σοφ.] the 
 internal state of thingsaccompanying the ἐκραταιοῦτο ; He became a vigorous 
 child (éxpar.'), while at the same time He became /illed, etc. — γάρις Θεοῦ] not 
 to be taken of distinguished bodily gracefulness (Raphel, Wolf, Wetstein), but 
 as : the favor of God, which was directed upon Him. Comp. ver. 52. On 
 ἐπ’ αὐτό, comp. Acts iv. 33. 
 
 Ver. 41 f. Τῇ ἑορτῇ) Dative of time. Comp. Winer, p. 195, 193 [E. Τὶ, 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. 33, 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. — δώδεκα] At this age in the case of the boy, who 
 now was called 717 43, [‘‘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 ἡμέρας] the well-known seven days of festival, Ex. xii. 15 ; 
 Lev. xxiii. 6 f. ; Deut. xvi. 2. — 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 ὃ is unwarranted, as νομίσαντες 
 
 1 Cyril of Alexandria says : σωματικῶς yap mental development follows in πληρ. god. 
 
 ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο, τῶν μελῶν συναδρυνομέ- 2 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 406 ff.; Saal- 
 νων τῇ αὐξήσει, “for He grew bodily and schiitz, W. FR. p. 421 ff. 
 waxed strong, the members being matured 3 Schuderoff in the Magaz. von Festpred, 
 
 with the growth.’ Observe that in our III. p. 63 ff., and in his Jahrb. X. 1, p. 7 ff. 5 
 passage πνεύματι is not added as ati. 80 ; the Olshausen, 
 
284 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ εἶναι presuppose a 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. 32f.). — συνοδία] company sharing the journey. 
 See Kypke, I. p. 220 f. The inhabitants of one or more places together 
 formed a caravan ; Strabo uses the word also of such a company (iv. p. 204, 
 xl. p. 528). — ἀνεζήτουν] when they assembled together to pass the night.— 
 Ver. 45. Ζητοῦντες] 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. Anabd. i. 3. 16. Comp. Dissen, ad 
 Pind, Ol. vii. 14, p. 81. [See critical note. ] 
 
 Ver. 46. μεθ᾽ ἡμέρας τρεῖς] is reckoned, in most accordance with the text, 
 from the point at which the search meant by ζητ. αὐτόν 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 deémum 
 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. 
 — ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ] 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, Obss. IIT. ed. 2, p. 285 f.— 
 καθεζόμενον) The Rabbinic assertion : ‘‘a diebus 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 μέσῳ] 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, 11. 1, p. 130, invents the idea that 
 “the genius of the new humanity soared 
 above the heroes of the old decorum.” 
 
 3 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 illustration of the glory of the 
 latter temple,” Hag. ii. 10; ob adventusesui 
 manifestationem ; ob sapientiae divinae de- 
 monstrationem ; ob doctorum information- 
 
 em, “ἴον manifestation of His own advent ; 
 for demonstration of divine wisdom ; for in- 
 Formation of the teachers.”— Into what apoc- 
 ryphal forms the conversation of Jesus 
 with the doctors might be fashioned, may 
 be seen in the Hvang. infant. 50 ff. Even 
 by Chemnitz He is said to have discoursed 
 already ‘t de persona et officiis Messiae, de dis- 
 crimine legis et evangelii,” ‘* concerning the 
 person and offices of the Messiah, concern- 
 ing the distinction of law and gospel,” ete. 
 
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 ἀκούειν 
 and ἐπερωτ. ---- ἐπερωτ. αὐτούς} 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. ᾿Επὲὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ x.7.A.| 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 so occu- 
 pied. —7 μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] 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.”’ — τί ὅτι] wherefore? See on Mark ii. 16. — ἐν τοῖς τοῦ 
 πατρός μου] t.€., 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 @ priori inappropriate. — δεῖ] as 
 Son. This follows from τοῦ πατρός μου. 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. [See Note XXXI., p. 290.] Altogether foreign to the ingenu- 
 ous, child-like utterance, unnatural and indelicate, is the intention ef draw- 
 ing a contrast which has been imputed to Him : τῆς γὰρ παρθένου τὸν ᾿Ιωσὴφ 
 πατέρα εἰπούσης αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖνος φησίν οὐκ αὐτὸς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀληθῆς μου πατὴρ, 
 ἢ γὰρ ἂν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ἤμην, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Θεὸς ἐστί μου πατὴρ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν τῳ 
 οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ εἰμί, ‘‘ For the Virgin having spoken of Joseph as His father, He 
 
 1See 1 Tim. iv. 15; Bornemann, Schol. sentiment, yet not with the conception 
 p. 29; Bernhardy, p. 210; Schaefer, Jeet. fully unfolded, but in the dawning appre- 
 91 Ὁ: hension of the child, which could only very 
 2 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 every pious Jewish child might do.” Such a conclu- 
 sion could only be arrived at, if He had said τ. πατρὸς ἡμῶν 3 but with 
 Jesus in the connection of His entire history τ. πατρός μου 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. 32, 35, 
 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, Z. J. p. 78, gives a candid judgment. — ὑποτασσόμ. αὐτοῖς] 
 That mighty exaltation of the consciousness of divine Sonship not only did 
 not hinder, but conditioned with moral necessity in the youthful develop- 
 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. — ἡ δὲ μήτηρ 
 x.T.2.] significant as in ver. 19 ; διατηρεῖν denotes the careful preservation. 
 Comp. Acts xv. 29; Gen. xxxvil. 11. 
 
 Remark.—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. Antt. 11. 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, ἢ. J. p. 80 f. The objection of an 
 unnatural mental precocity applies an unwarranted standard in the case of 
 Jesus, who was κατὰ πνεῦμα God's Son. 
 
 Ver. 52. Comp. 1 Sam. ii. 26.'— ἡλικίᾳ] 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 Jewish law and from the wisdom of the 
 the youthful spirit of Christianity withdrew ancestral schools, ete. 
 itself from the care and the supervision of 2Comp. Beyschlag, Christol. ἃ. N. T. 
 its parents, i.¢e.,from the restrictions of Ρ. 45. 
 
NOTES. 287 
 Comp. ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο, ver. 40. ‘‘ Justam proceritatem nactus est ac 
 decoram,”’ ‘‘ He attained a stature which was proper and befitting,” Bengel. 
 Luke expresses His mental (σοφίᾳ) and bodily (ἡλικίᾳ) development.' In favor 
 of this explanation we have also the evidence of 1 Sam. 1.6. : ἐπορεύετο peya- 
 Avvéuevov, Which element is here given by ἡλικίᾳ. --- χάριτι] 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 καὶ 
 ἀνθρώποις." 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 does 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. T. p. 47 ff. 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 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, Apologet. 
 Beitr., 1873, IV., p. 29 ff.; Schiirer, Lehrbuch d. Neutestamentl. Zeitgeschichte, 
 1874, p. 262 ff.” The last-named author is quite full. Schaff (History of the 
 Christian Church, 1., 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. aitn ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο K.T.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 ἀπογραφή the subject. In English the definite article is 
 properly used with the predicate ; ‘the first enrolment,’’ while Greek usage, 
 especially with αὕτη as subject, would omit it, however definite the predicate 
 might be in itself. The force of ἐγένετο is not fully 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 Statement. 
 
 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 Tn this place he prefixes σοφίᾳ, 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 His inherent wisdom, or 
 
 else only a growth in the wisdom to be at- 
 
 tained through human experience (scientia 
 acquisita) | 
 
 2 Comp. 1 Sam. 1.6... ΤΙ Ὁ} DI 30) 
 DWIN-DY DIM; Test. XU. Patr. p. 528. 
 
288 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Schiirer (Newt. Zeitgeschichte) and to Zampt, who holds that Quirinius was first 
 governor of Syria from 8.6. 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 Quirinius 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 goy- 
 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 ἡγεμονεύειν can be used in ἃ 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. τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ. 
 
 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 a view similar to that of Bis- 
 ping. The interpretation ‘‘who was pregnant’’ is also rejected by Weiss, 
 who cancels the ‘‘ remark’’ of Meyer against the Davidie origin of Mary. 
 
 XXIII. Ver. 7. ἐν τῷ καταλύματι. 
 
 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. δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, k.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.+ext. 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 real 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 language. 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 a complicated anthem, and “‘faith,’’? in 
 Luke’s day at least, cannot be proven to have been false to truth, even under 
 poetic impulse, 
 
 XXVITI. Ver. 27. τοὺς γονεῖς. 
 
 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. εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀνάστασιν k.T.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. Ναζαρέτ. 
 
 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. ἀναβαινόντων. 
 
 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. οὐκ ἤδειτε .7.A. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. properly finds in οὐκ #devre a reason for doubting Meyer’s sug- 
 gestion in regard to ‘‘an epoch, in the course of development, of that conscious- 
 ness of Sonship.’’ 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. ΤΠ} 1, 2. 291 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Ver. 2. Instead of ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως, Elz. has ἐπ’ ἀρχιερέων, in opposition to de- 
 cisive evidence. — Ver. 4. λέγοντος] is wanting in B DL A δὲ, min. Copt. Arm. 
 Vulg. It. Or. Eus. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. ; 
 taken from Matt. iii. 3.— Ver. 5. εὐθεῖαν] B D =, min. Vulg. It. Or. Ir. have 
 εὐθείας. 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. ποιήσομεν] ποιήσωμεν, 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 ἔλεγεν (instead 
 of λέγει), following δὲ B C L and versions.]— Ver. 14. The arrangement τί 
 ποιήσωμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς is, with Lachm, and Tisch., to be adopted, following B C* L 
 ᾿ξ, min. Syr. Ar. Vulg. Rd. Ver. Brix. Colb.; καὶ ἡμεῖς was omitted, because καί 
 follows again, —an omission which, moreover, the analogy of vv. 10, 12 readily 
 suggested,—and was afterwards restored in the wrong place (before τί ποιήσ.). --- 
 πρὸς αὐτούς] Lachm. has αὐτοῖς, following Β C* D L =, min. Vulg. It. [So recent 
 editors, but not Tisch.] The Receptais a repetition from ver. 19. ['Tisch. has 
 μηδένα a second time, following δὲ ; but recent editors retain μηδέ (Rec.), which 
 is well attested. ]— Ver. 17. καὶ διακαθαριεῖ] Tisch. has διακαθᾶραι, as also after- 
 wards «. συναγαγεῖν, on too weak attestation. [Recent editors, R. V., agree with 
 Tisch., following δὲς B.]— Ver. 19. After γυναικός, Elz. has Φιλίππου, in opposi- 
 tion to decisive evidence. — Ver. 22. λέγουσαν] is wanting in B Ὁ L δὲ, Copt. 
 Vulg. codd. of It. Ambr. Condemned by Griesb. and Rinck, deleted by Lachm. 
 Tisch. Taken from Matt. iii.17. Comp. on ver. 4. -- σὺ εἰ. . . ηὐδόκησα] 1), 
 Cant. Ver. Vere. Colb. Corb,* Rd. Clem. Method. Hilar. ap., also codd. in Au- 
 gustine, have υἱός μου el σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά oe. An old (Justin, ec. 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 ὧν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, and Tisch. has ἀρχόμ. after ’Ijcovc). [The order of 
 Tisch. is attested by 8 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. τοῦ ᾿Αράμ] Tisch. has τοῦ ᾿Αδμεὶν τοῦ ’Apvel, 
 following BL XT δὲ, 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 ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκεί- 
 vaic ; 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. 3, 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 asixfold 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 fifteenth 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. See 
 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. —(8) When 
 Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. Werod 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 1.) 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-eastern province of Palestine (Miinter, de rebus Itu- 
 raeor. 1824), and as to the neighboring Tvrachonitis between the Antilibanus 
 and the Arabian mountain ranges, see Winer, Realwort. — (5) When Lysa- 
 nias was tetrarch of Abilene.* The Lysanias, son of Ptolemaeus, known from 
 Josephus, Antt. 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, ZZ. #. i. 10 ; Michaelis, Paulus,* Schneckenburger in the Stud. 
 
 1 Tacit. Ann. 1.3; Sueton. 7%d. 20 f.; Vel- 
 leius Paterculus, ii. 121. 
 
 2 Also Antt. xviii. 6. 10, Where σχὼν αὐτὸς 
 τὴν ἀρχήν does not refer back to an earlier 
 co-regency of Tiberius, so that αὐτός would 
 be equivalent to μόνος; but this αὐτός indi- 
 cates simply a contrast between him and 
 Caius, who had been nominated his suc- 
 cessor. 
 
 3 See also Anger, χη) Chronologie αἰ. Leh- 
 ramtes Christi, Το. Leipzig 1848; Ideler, 
 Chrono. I. p. 418. Authentication from 
 coins ; Sauley, Athen. frangdis, 1855, p. 639 f. 
 
 4 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 Hncyki. I. 
 p. 64 ff.; Lichtenstein, p. 131 ff.; Bleek in 
 loc. 
 
 5 In his Commentary. But in his Exeget. 
 Tlandb. he acquiesces in the text as it stands, 
 and forces upon it, contrary to the letter, 
 the meaning: when Philip the tetrarch of 
 Iturvaea and Trachonitis was also tetrarch 
 over Abilene of Lysanias. Thus, indeed, the 
 
GHAP, ΠῚ 152. 293 
 u. Krit. 1833, p. 1064, would mend matters uncritically enough by omitting 
 τετραρχοῦντος (which is never omitted in Luke, see Tischendorf) ; and the re- 
 maining expression : καὶ τῆς Λυσανίου Αβιληνῆς 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 (δυναστεύων) Chalcis, between Lebanon and 
 Antilibanus (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 4), Antony presented a great part of his 
 possessions to Cleopatra (see Wieseler, p. 179), and she leased them to Her- 
 od. Soon afterwards Zenodorus received the lease of the οἷκος τοῦ Λυσανίου 
 (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 above), who after 
 the death of Zenodorus in 734 obtained the rest also, Antt. xv. 10.3. After 
 Herod’s death a part of the οἴκου τοῦ Ζηνοδώρου passed over to Philip (Antt. 
 xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 8). 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- 
 pat. (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 later 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 "Af:Aav τὴν Λυσανίου (Antt. xix. 5.1), and speaks of a 
 tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antt. xx. 7.1; comp. Bell. 11. 11. 5, ii. 12. 18), still 
 designates the region in question after that o/der Lysanias ; but that before 
 790, when Caligula became emperor, a tetrarchy of a Jater 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 old Lysanias would also here be Erdk. XV. p. 1060. To be distinguished 
 
 meant. 
 
 1 Casaubon, Krebs, Siiskind the elder, 
 Kuinoel, Siiskind the younger in the Stud. 
 u. Krit. 1836, p. 431 ff.; Winer, and others. 
 
 2 Of whom, therefore, we have to think 
 even in respect of the Greek inscription 
 which Pococke (Morgenl. 11. ὃ 177) found 
 at Nebi Abel (the ancient Abila), and in 
 which Lysanias is mentioned as ¢etrarch. 
 Comp. Béckh, Juscr. 4521, 4523. 
 
 3It was situated in the region of the Leb- 
 anon, eighteen miles north from Damascus, 
 and thirty eight miles south from Heliopo- 
 lis, Ptolem. y. 18; Anton. Jdiner. ; Ritter, 
 
 from Abilain Decapolis, and other places of 
 this name (Joseph. y. 1. 1; Bell. ii. 13. 2, 
 ἵν: 7.5): 
 
 4It is, however, altogether precarious 
 
 _ with Lichtenstein, following 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. Antt. 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 Ismael, then on Hleazar (a son of Annas), then on Simon, 
 and after that on Caiaphas. See Josephus, 1.6. 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 ἀρχιερεύς, 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, Ὁ. 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 : ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Καϊάφα καὶ "Αννα. [See Note XXXIV., 
 p. 802 seq.] Arbitrary shifts have been resorted to, such as : that at that 
 period the two might have eachanged annually in the administration of the 
 office ;’ that Annas was vicar (120, Lightfoot, p. 744 f.) of the high priest (so 
 Sealiger, 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 Synedrii (δ 2), 
 Lightfoot, p. 746).2 But as ἀρχιερεύς 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 καὶ Καϊάφα 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 ἀρχιερέως. [See Note XXXIV., 
 p. 302 seq.] Even in xxii. 54, ἀρχίερ. is to be understood of Annas. — ἐγένετο 
 ῥῆμα Θεοῦ x.7.A.| Comp. Jer. i. 2 ; Isa. xxxviii. 4f. From this, as from the 
 following καὶ ἦλθεν x.7.A., ver. 8, it is 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, 8 Sanclemente and many of the Fathers, 
 Friedlieb, Archdol. d. Leidensgesch. p. 73 ff. who, following Luke iv. 19, comp. Isa. Ixi. 
 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 Hncyhi. 1. p. 354. 
 
CHAP, III., 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 
 ἀρχὴ Tov εὐαγγελίου (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. 8. See on Matt. iii. 1 f. ; Mark i. 4. — περίχωρον τοῦ ’Iopd.] Matthew 
 and Mark have ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. There is no discrepancy ; for the apparent dis- 
 crepancy vanishes with ἦλθε in Luke, compared with the narrative of the 
 baptism in Matthew and Mark. [See Note XXXV., p. 303.] 
 
 Vv. 4-6. See on Matt. iii. 3. 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 XXXYV., 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 ὡς γέγραπται the same thing is implied that 
 Matthew expresses by οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθείς. --- φάραγξ] 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 ὅ 
 the particulars of this passage. —The futures are not imperative in force, 
 but declare what will happen in consequence of the command, ἑτοιμάσατε 
 k.T.2. Καὶ ὄψεται x.7.2. ought to have guarded against the taking the ex- 
 pressions imperatively.+ — εἰς εὐθεῖαν] scil. ὁδόν. See Lobeck, Paralip. p. 363 ; 
 Winer, p. 521 [E. T. 590 f.]. —ai τραχεῖαι] scil. ὁδοί, from what follows, the 
 rough, uneven ways. — λείας] smooth. Comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 10. 1: τὰ τραχέα 
 καὶ τὰ Agia. —7d σωτήρ. τ. Θεοῦ] See 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 (ὄψεται πᾶσα σάρξ). As to πᾶσα 
 σάρξ, all flesh, designating men according to their need of deliverance, and 
 pointing to the wniversal destination of God’s salvation, see on Acts ii. 16. 
 
 1 See in opposition to Wieseler, Ebrard, 
 p. 187; Lichtenstein, p. 137 ff. 
 
 2 Thue. ii. 67.4; Dem. 793.6; Polyb. vii. 
 15. 8; Judith ii. 8. 
 
 3 Well says Grotius : ‘‘ Nimirum est anxia 
 eorum περιεργία, qui in dictis ἀλληγορουμένοις 
 singulas partes minutatim excutiunt... 
 cum satis sit in re tota comparationem in- 
 telligi,”’ ‘“‘ Doubtless there is an anxious 
 overexactness (περιεργια) 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.” 
 
 4On the use of the Cyrenaic (Herod. 
 iv. 199) word Bovvos, hill, in Greek, see 
 Schweighaduser, Lex. Herod. I. p. 125 f.; 
 Sturz, Dial, Al. p. 154; Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 356. 
 
296 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Vv. 7-9. See on Matt. 11. 7-10. — ὄχλοις Kuinoel erroneously says : 
 “* Pharisaei et Sadducaei.” See rather on Matt. 111. 7.’— éxzop.] the present. 
 The people are represented as still on their way. — οὖν] since otherwise you 
 cannot escape the wrath to come. — καὶ μὴ ἄρξησϑε κ.τ.}.} 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 καὶ μὴ πάλιν (he likens it to the German expression, ‘‘ das alte 
 Lied anfangen”) ; and Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 540, as if it meant καὶ μηδέ, 
 ne quidem. Comp. also Bengel. 
 
 Vy. 10, 11. Special instructions on duty as far as ver. 14 peculiar to Luke, 
 and taken from an unknown source. — οὖν] in pursuance of what was said 
 vv. 7—-9.— ποιήσωμεν] (see the critical remarks) is deliberative. On the ques- 
 tion itself, comp. Acts ii. 37, xvi. 30. — μεταδότω] namely, a χιτών. --- ὁ ἔχων 
 βρώματα) 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 love, as it is perfected from 
 the mouth of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 Vv. 12, 13. τελῶναι) See on Matt. v. 46. — παρὰ τὸ διατεταγμ. ὑμῖν] 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, Hxeget. Handb. I. p. 358 f.? 
 
 Ver. 14. Στρατευόμενοι) those who were engaged in military service, an idea 
 less extensive than στρατιῶται. 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 Aretas ; 
 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. — καὶ ἡμεῖς) we also. They expect an injunc- 
 tion similar (καί) to that which the publicans received. — διασείειν] to do vio- 
 lence to, is used by later writers of exactions by threats and other kinds of 
 annoyance (to lay under contribution), as coneutere. Comp. 3 Mace. vii. 
 21; see Wetstein, and Schneider, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1. — συκοφαντεῖν, in its 
 primitive meaning, although no longer occurring in this sense, is to be a jig- 
 shower. [On μηδέ, see 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.* 
 
 1 The 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 
 Luke knew and made use of a multitude of 
 
 evangelistic sources of which we know 
 nothing. 
 
 2On πράσσειν, to demand payment, to 
 exact, see Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 
 482; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anabd, vii. 6. 17. 
 
 5 See Rettig in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1838, 
 
CHAP, III., 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. — προσδοκῶντος] 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. — μήποτε] 
 whether not perchance. Comp. on Gal. ii. 2. — αὐτός] tpse, not a third, whose 
 forerunner then he would only be. 
 
 Ver. 16. See on Matt. ii. 11; Mark i. 7 f.—amexpiv.] ‘‘interrogare 
 cupientibus,” ‘‘to those desiring to ask,” Bengel. — ἔρχεται] placed first for 
 emphasis. — οὗ. . . αὐτοῦ] Comp. Mark i. 7, vii. 25 ; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 
 148 f.]. — αὐτός] he and no other. 
 
 Ver. 17. See on Matt. iii. 12. 
 
 Vv. 18-20. See on Matt. xiv. 3 ff. ; Mark vi. 17 ff. On μὲν οὗν, quidem 
 igitur, so that μέν, ‘rem: praesentem confirmet,” ‘‘ confirms the matter in 
 hand,” and οὖν, ‘‘ conclusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficiat,” ‘‘ deduces 
 a conclusion from matters thus placed together,” see Klotz, ad Devar. 
 Ῥ. 662 f. — kai érepa] and other matters besides, different in kind from those al- 
 ready adduced.’ — εὐηγγελίζετο τ. λαόν] he supplied the people with the glad 
 announcement of the coming Messiah.” — ὁ δὲ Ἡρώδης «.7.2.] 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 
 (εὐηγγελίζ. τ. λαόν) and his destiny. The brief intimation of vv. 19, 20 was 
 sufficient for this. — ἐλεγχόμενος x.t.A.] See Matt. xiv. 3 f.— καὶ περὶ πάντων 
 k.T.2.] peculiar to Luke, but, as we gather from Mark vi. 20, essentially 
 historical. The πονηρῶν, attracted with it, stands thus according to classical 
 usage.*—éri πᾶσι] to all his wicked deeds. — καὶ κατέκλεισε] simplicity in 
 the style is maintained at the expense of the syntax (Kiihner, ὃ 720). — ἐν τῇ 
 φυλακῇ] in the prison, whither he had brought him.4 
 
 Vv. 21, 22. See on Matt. iii. 18-17 ; Mark i. 9-11. —Zéyévero δὲ x.1.A.] 
 resumes the thread dropped at ver. 18 in order to add another epitomized 
 narrative, namely, that of the baptism of Jesus. — ἐν τῷ βαπτισϑῆναι k.T.A. | 
 Whilst ° the assembled people (an hyperbolical expression) were being bap- 
 tized, it came to pass when Jesus also (kai) was baptized and was praying, 
 
 p. 775 ff.; Becker, Char. I. p. 289 ff. Πονηρὸν, 
 πονηρὸν ὁ συκοφάντης ἀεὶ καὶ βάσκανον, Dem. 
 807. 23; Herbst, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 30, p. 79 f. 
 
 1 As to καί with πολλά, see Blomfield, ad 
 Aesch. Pers. 249; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 
 2. 24; and as to ἕτερα, see on Gal. i. 7. 
 
 2 On the construction, comp. Acts viii. 
 25, 40, xiv. 21, xvi. 10; Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 268, 
 
 3 See Matthiae, § 473, quoted by Dissen, 
 ad Dem. de Cor. p. 177, 349. 
 
 4 Comp. Acts xxvi. 10; Herodian, v. 8. 12, 
 and elsewhere ; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 4. 10. 
 
 5 Bleek is in error (following de Wette) 
 when he translates: when .. . He was bap- 
 tized. See ii. 27, viii. 40, ix. 36, xi. 37, 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, καὶ rpocevy., is peculiar to Luke.— σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡσεὶ 
 περιστ. | so that He appeared as a bodily dove. See, moreover, on Matthew. 
 Ver. 23. Αὐτός] as Matt. iii. 4: He Himself, to whom this divine σημεῖον, 
 ver. 22, pointed. [On the order of the words, see critical note.] — ἦν ὡσεὶ 
 ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος) 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 ἀρχόμενος 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. 37. [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 : 
 ἤρξατο εἶναι ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, OF ἦν ὡσεὶ ἔτους τριακοστοῦ ἀρχόμενος. It is true 
 that Grotius endeavors to fortify himself in this interpretation by including 
 in the clause the following ὦν, so that ἄρχομαι ὧν ἐτῶν τριάκοντα might mean: 
 incipio jam esse tricenarius. But even if jv... ὧν be conjoined in Greek 
 usage (see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 18, p. 207, Leipzig), how clumsy 
 would be the expression ἦν ἀρχόμενος ὧν, incipiebat esse! ‘* was beginning to 
 be,” and, according to the arrangement of the words, quite intolerable. 
 Even ἐρχόμενος has been conjectured (Casaubon). — ὧν) belongs to υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσήφ, 
 and ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as he was considered (ὡς ἐδόκει τοῖς ᾿Τουδαίοις᾽ ὡς yap ἡ ἀλήϑεια 
 εἶχεν, οὐκ ἦν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, ‘‘as it seemed to the Jews ; for the truth lay, He was 
 not his son,” Euthymius Zigabenus), isa parenthesis. Paulus, who con- 
 nects ὧν with apydu., 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 ἀρχόμενος ὧν 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. 3, 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 ὧν to τοῦ 
 ‘HAi : existens (cum putaretur filius Josephi) filius, i.e., nepos Eli. So also 
 
 1S0 also Paulus, only that, after the 
 example of Calvisius, he further attaches 
 ὧν to ἀρχόμενος, in which case, however, it 
 would be useless, and the subsequent gen- 
 ealogy would be without any connecting 
 link. Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p. 125, 
 placing ἀρχόμενος before ὡσεί (so 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. 
 
 2So Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jan- 
 sen, Er. Schmid, Spanheim, Calovius, Cleri- 
 cus, Wolf, Bengel, Griesbach (in Velthu- 
 sen, Comment. I. p. 358), Kuinoel, Anger 
 (Tempor. rat. Ὁ. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, and 
 others. 
 
 3 Comp. further, on ὡς évoui¢g., Dem. 1022. 
 16 : οἱ νομιζόμενοι μὲν υἱεῖς, μὴ ὄντες δὲ γένει ἐξ 
 αὐτῶν, and the passages in Wetstein. 
 
CHAP. III., 23. 299 
 
 Schleyer in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 540 ff. Even Wieseler (in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 361 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, ὡς ἐνομίζ. after υἱός (B 
 L δ), and on weaker evidence reads before ᾿Τωσήφ the τοῦ which is now 
 again deleted even by Tischendorf. [See Note XXXVIIL., p. 303.] But as, 
 in respect of the received arrangement of ὡς évoy., it is only the ὧν υἱὸς ᾿Τωσήφ, 
 and nothing more (in opposition to Bengel), that is marked out as coming 
 under the ὡς ἐνομίζετο, so also is it in the arrangement of Lachmann (only 
 that the latter actually brings into stronger prominence the supposed jilial 
 relationship to Joseph) ; and if τοῦ is read before ’Iwo7#, no change even in 
 that case arises in the meaning.’ For it is not υἱός 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 τοῦ Θεοῦ inclusively (so Light- 
 foot, Bengel), but υἱοῦ (after τοῦ), as the nature of the genealogical table in 
 itself presents it,? making τοῦ Θεοῦ 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. 23, 
 that, namely, Eli was Mary’s father, he would have known how to express it, 
 and would have written something like this: dv, ὡς μὲν ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσὴφ, 
 ὄντως (xxiii. 47, xxiv. 34) δὲ Μαρίας τοῦ Ἣλί κιτ.2Δ. 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 Hbionitic point of view of the genealogies in Matthew and 
 Luke, see on Matt. i. 17, Remark 3. 
 
 Remarx.—All attempts to fix the year in which Jesus was born by means of 
 the passage before us are balked by the ὡσεί 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. ὃ 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, Rat. tem- 
 por. p. 5 f.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 50 ff.), the era of Dionysius is at any 
 rate at least about four years in 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 τοῦ came into the text after the other by rod are found in Herod. 
 with extreme facility, in accordance with iy. 157, vii. 204, viii. 131, and others in Wet- 
 the analogy of all the following clauses. stein. The Vulgate is right in simply read- 
 
 2TInstances of a quite similar kind of img, “‘filius Joseph. qui fuit Heli, qui fuit 
 stringing on the links of a 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 111. 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 ὡσεί of ver. 23, 
 and the round number τριάκοντα ; 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 ἀρχῇ 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. Τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, τοῦ Σαλαϑιώλ)] 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 identity of these persons has been denied 
 (so, following older commentators, Paulus, Olshausen, Osiander, Wieseler, 
 Bleek), or a 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. uv. Hrfill. ΤΙ. p. 37) 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 Levi, 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. Τοῦ Kaivay] In Gen. x. 24, xi. 12 ; 1 Chron.i. 24. Shalach (Aw 
 is named as the son of Arphaxad. But the genealogy follows the LXX. in 
 yen. (as above) ; and certainly the name of Aenan 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. 38, see Note 
 
 XLI., p. 304. ] 
 
 Not “ αὐ least two years, probably even 
 Jour or more years,’ Keim, D. geschichtl. 
 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 (7/e 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 ii. 20 f., viii. 
 
 57, which had already occurred in the ease 
 of Irenaeus. See, on the other hand, Résch 
 in the Jahrb. f. 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 accordance 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 
 Résch has not adduced sufficient reasons, 
 
CHAP. 111. 301 
 
 Remark. — 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, asin Matthew, at the beginning of 
 the Gospel. Comp, Késtlin, p. 306.—Inits contents the genealogy is extremely 
 ditferent 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 Σαλαθιήλ and Ζοροβάβελ. 
 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, τοῦ ‘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 still in force at that time (see on Matt. i. 17, Rem. 2), 
 even apart from the fact that Mary’s Davidie 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 £.—Hence the conclu- 
 sion must be maintained, that Lule 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. evangel. 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 versé (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 therefore, Eli was Joseph's foster father, but 
 inferred by Delitzschon Hebr. p. 290, who Mary’s actual father. What groundless de- 
 suggests that after the premature death of | vices! And yet the passage itself is ‘as 
 his father Jacob, Joseph was adopted, simple as possible until we want to force it 
 namely, by this Eli as his foster son, and to say what it does not say,’’ Hofmann, 
 brought up along with Mary; that thus, Schriftbew. II, 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 was felt to investigate his ancestry until long after 
 the death of Jesus—until the living presence of his great manifestation and 
 ministry nolonger 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, LZ. J. I. p. 179) remains unsafe, although the derivation 
 of the Davidie 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 
 Ebionitic 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. III. p. 399 C. 
 
 Notrs py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 XXXIII. Ver. 1. Ἔν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ K.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, Beitrage, 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. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως ἔΑννα k.T.A. 
 
 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 Zeitschr. 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, Zeitgeschichte, 
 p. 411 ff., against Meyer’s view that there was ‘“‘a president of the Sanhedrim.” 
 
 XXXV. Ver. 3. περίχωρον x.7.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. ἅπαντα τὸν λαόν. 
 
 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 év points 
 to this sense, and the aorist βαπτισθῆναι is used because the writer conceives of 
 John’s labors as a whole. 
 
 XXXVI. Ver. 23. ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα. 
 
 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.”’ 
 
 XXXVIII. Ver. 23. ὧν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, ᾿Ιωσήφ. 
 
 This order is well attested and now generally accepted. Itfavors 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 ᾿Ιωσήφ, this is con- 
 nected more closely with ἐνομίζετο 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 is not 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 υἱός, 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 a son of Joseph, could be a son 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, dhirty-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 ὡσεί 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. τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, τοῦ Σαλαθιήλ. 
 
 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. 
 
 XLI. Ver. 38. τοῦ Αδάμ, τοῦ θεοῦ. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. remarks upon this: “Τὸ 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 superfluous, or 
 it would present the ‘Divine Sonship of Jesusas 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 Davidie 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 onr 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. εἰς τὴν ἔρημον] BD L δὲ, Sahid. codd. of It. have ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Ap- 
 proved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepia is a mechanical 
 alteration in accordance with the parallels. — Ver. 2. Before éreivace Elz. Scholz 
 have ὕστερον, in opposition to Β D 1, δὲ, vss. Cyr. Beda. From Matt. iv. 2. — 
 Ver. 3. Following nearly the same evidence, read with Lachm. and Tisch. εἶπεν 
 δέ instead of καὶ elmev. — Ver. 4. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ] is wanting in BL 8, 
 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. ὁ διάβολος] is wanting in BD 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 εἰς ὄρος ὑψ., which nevertheless is found 
 in Ὁ, but with the addition of λίαν. Lachm. has bracketed εἰς ὄρος iy. Tisch. 
 has rightly deleted it. The expression ἀναγ. by itself seemed to be in need of 
 the more exact definition, and so it was added from Matthew. — Ver. 7. Instead 
 of πᾶσα, Elz. has πάντα, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matt. iv. 9. 
 — Ver. 8. Instead of γέγραπται by itself, Elz. has: ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου σατανᾶ" yéypa- 
 πται yap. So also has Scholz, but without yap; Lachm. has ὕπ. ὁπ. μ. o. in 
 brackets, and has deleted γάρ. Against Or. 67. μ. σ. are BDL Ξὶ δὲ, 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 υἱός Elz. has ὁ υἱός, in opposition to evidence so de- 
 cisive that υἱός without the article is not to be derived from ver. 3. — Ver. 11. 
 Instead of καί Elz. and the Edd. have καὶ ὅτι. Asthis ὅτε 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 Natapd is attested by weighty authorities only here (δὲ B =) and Matt. 
 iv. 13.-— Recent editors, R. V., with A B A, ete., read τεθραμμένος (Rec.), for which 
 Tisch. substitutes ἀνατεθρ., with δὲ L, 33, 69.] — Ver.17. ἀναπτύξας] ABL Ξ 338, 
 Syr. Copt. Jer. have ἀνοίξας. So Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] ; but it is an 
 interpretation of the word ἀναπτ., which occurs in the New Testament only in 
 this place. — Ver. 18. The form εἵνεκεν (Elz. évexev) is decisively attested. Not 
 so decisively, but still with preponderating evidence, is εὐαγγελίσασθαι (Elz. 
 εὐαγγελίζεσθαι) also attested. — After ἀπέσταλκέ we Elz. and Scholz (Lachm. in 
 brackets) have ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, which is not found in 
 Β 1, Ξ δὲ, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. It. Sax. Or. and many Fathers. An 
 addition from the LXX. — Ver. 23. Instead of εἰς Kar. (Tisch. following B [and 
 8] : εἰς τὴν Kar.) Elz. Scholz have ἐν τῇ Kaz., in opposition to BD L δὲ, min. 
 Marcion, the reading in these authorities being εἰς. An amendment. Comp. 
 the following ἐν τῇ πατρ. σ. — Ver. 25, ἐπὶ ἔτη] B D, min. vss, have merely ἔτη, 
 
 20 
 
306 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 So Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, text]. But how easily ἘΠῚ would drop out as 
 superfluous, and that too when standing before ETH, a word not unlike ἘΠῚ in 
 form !— Ver. 26. Σιδῶνος] ABC DL XT δὲ, min. vss., including Vulg. It. Or., 
 have Σιδωνίας. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. From the 
 LXX. 1 Kings xvii. 9. [But recent editors, R. V., accept the abundantly attested 
 LiWwviac.] — Ver. 29. Before ὀφρίος Elz. and Lachm. (the latter by mistake) have 
 τῆς, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Instead of ὥστε Elz. and Scholz have 
 εἰς τό, in opposition to B D 1, δὲ, min. Marcion, Or. An interpretation.—[Ver. 
 33. Aeyov is probably from Mark ; omitted by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, 
 R. V., with δὲ B L.] — Ver. 35. ἐξ] BDLV ZX, min. Vulg. It. Or. have a7’. 
 Approved by Griesb. and Schulz. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; 
 Luke always expresses himself thus. See immediately afterwards the expres- 
 sion ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, which is in correspondence with Christ’s command. 
 [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 A BCL, and most, read τὸ μέσον. ] --- 
 Ver. 38. &] BCDLQS8, min. Or. Cant. have ἀπό. Approved by Griesb., 
 adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; ἐκ is from Mark i. 29. — The article before πενθερά 
 (in Elz.) has decisive evidence against it. — Ver. 40. ἐπιθείς] Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have ἐπιτιθείς, following B Ὁ Q 2, min. Vulg. It. Or. ἐπιθείς was the form 
 most familiar to the transcribers. [The same authorities sustain ἐθεράπευεν ; ac- 
 cepted by Tisch., recent editors.]— Ver. 41. κράζοντα] Lachm. Tisch. have xpav- 
 γάζοντα, following ADEGHQUVTI Δ, min, Or. Rightly ; the more current 
 word was inserted. [Treg. text, W. and Hort, R. V., have κράζοντα.] After σὺ εἶ 
 Elz. Scholz have 6 Χριστός, which has such weighty evidence against it that it 
 must be regarded as a gloss. — Ver. 42. Instead of ἐπεζήτουν Elz, has ἐζήτουν, in 
 opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 43. εἰς τοῦτο ἀπέσταλμαι] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. have ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην. Rightly ; ἐπί isin BL δὲ, min., and ἀπεστάλην 
 in BDLX 8, min. Both the εἰς and the perfect form are taken from Mark i. 
 38, Elz.—[Ver. 44. Tisch. Treg. W. and Hort, R. V., with 8 B D, read εἰς τ. 
 ovvaywyac. —Instead of Γαλιλαίας (Rec. Tisch. Treg. text, W. and Hort marg., 
 R. V. text, following A D and most, Vulg.) the reading Ἰουδαίας is found in 
 δὲ BCL, Copt. It is the more difficult, hence probably altered ; accepted by 
 Treg. marg., W. and Hort. text, Weiss, R. V. marg. | 
 
 Vv. 1-18. See on Matt. iv. 1-11. Comp. Mark 1. 13.— According to 
 the reading ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (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 εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, 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 ἄχρι καιροῦ (ver. 13) peculiar 
 to Luke points to another source. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 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. τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ] more concrete than 
 Matt. iv. 4. — Ver. 5. ἀναγαγών] (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 source. — ἐν στιγμῇ χρ.] in a 
 point of time,’ in a moment, a magically simultaneous glimpse ; a peculiar 
 feature of the representation.? — Ver. 6. αὐτῶν] τῶν βασιλειῶν. --- Observe the 
 emphasis of σοὶ... . σύ (ver. 7). — παραδέδοται) by God, which the 
 boastful devil cunningly intends to have taken for granted. — Ver. 10 f. ὅτι] 
 not recitative, but : that, and then καὶ ὅτι : and that. Comp. vii. 16. 
 [See Note XLIII., p. 315.] Otherwise in Matt. iv. 6. — μήποτε] ne unguam, 
 ‘“lest at any time,” not necessarily to be written separately (Bornemann).?— 
 Ver. 13. πάντα πειρασμ. } every temptation, so that he had no further temptation 
 in readiness. ‘‘Omnia tela consumsit,” ‘‘ He exhausted all his darts,” Bengel. 
 — ἄχρι καιροῦ] until a fitting 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 Pharisees, 
 etc. (John viii. 40 ff.), and at last by means of Judas, xxii. 34; but with 
 what glorious result for the tempted !_ Comp. John xiy. 30. The difference of 
 meaning which Tittmann, Synon. p. 37, has asserted (according to which 
 ἄχρι καιροῦ is said to be equivalent to ἕως τέλους) is pure invention. See 
 Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 308 f. Whether, moreover, the characteristic ad- 
 dition ἄχρι καιροῦ is a remnant of the primitive form of this narrative 
 (Ewald) or is appended from Jater reflection, is an open question. But it 
 is hardly an addition inserted by Luke himself (Bleek, 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 ἄχρι καιροῦ must also have already formed part 
 of it. 
 
 ’ / 
 ΡΘΕ . 
 
 1On the expression, comp. Plut. Mor. 
 p. 104 A ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 126. 
 
 2 The various attempts to make this ἐν 
 στιγμῇ χρόνου intelligible may be seen in 
 Nebe, d. Versuch. d. Herrn, Wetzlar 185% 
 p. 109 ff. The author himself, regarding 
 the temptation as an actual external his- 
 tory, avails himself of the analogy of the 
 Satum morganum, but says that before the 
 eye of the Lord the magical picture imme- 
 diately dissolved. But according to the 
 connection ἐν στιγμ. 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 it 
 were successively, but in one moment, not- 
 
 withstanding their varied local situation 
 upon the whole earth. Bengel says appro- 
 priately, “ acuta tentatio,” ‘‘an acute 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 Jews are 
 meant, which had begun, John y. 15-18 ff. ; 
 there would therefore be a longer interval 
 between vv. 13, 14 But a comparison of 
 ver. 14 with ver. 1 shows that this interval 
 is introduced in the harmonistic interest ; 
 moreover, Hofmann’s reference to the 
 agony in Gethsemane (Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 317) 
 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. — ἐν r. δυνάμ. τοῦ πν.] invested with the power 
 of the Holy Spirit : ‘‘ post victoriam corroboratus,” ‘‘ strengthened after 
 victory,” Bengel. — καὶ φήμῃ x.7.2.] 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. — καθ᾽ ὅλης 
 k.7.A.] round about the whole neighborhood, Acts viii. 31, 42. 
 
 Ver. 15. Αὐτός] 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 vy. 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 οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ. In ver. 31 ff. it is not the first ap- 
 pearance of Jesus at Capernaum in general 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 earlier, and allowed 
 the yevdu. εἰς Kapapy. 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. Weizsiicker, 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.]— οὗ ἦν τεθραμμ.} an observation inserted to 
 account for the circumstances mentioned in vv. 22, 23. — κατὰ τὸ εἰωθ, αὐτῷ] 
 refers to His visiting the synagogue on the Sabbath, not also to the ἀνέστη. 
 The Sabbath visit to the synagogue was certainly His custom from His 
 youth up.'— ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι] for the Scripture was read standing (Vitringa, 
 Synag. p. 135 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. II. 2, 
 (John xiii. 2, 27), appears as the work of the Ρ. 545. 
 
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 swmmon 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. ᾿Επεδόθη] it was given up to Him—that is to say, by the officer of 
 the synagogue, Lightfoot, p. 708. --- -Ἡσαΐου] 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 κύριος τοῦ σαββάτου, 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 ἀναπτύξας [see crit- 
 ical note] τὸ βιβλ. and εὗρε 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 κατὰ συντυχίαν, but αὐτοῦ θελήσαντος). 
 
 Vv. 18, 19. Isa. ΙΧ]. 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 follow thereupon. The Messianic fulfilment of this announce- 
 ment, i.¢., the realization of their theocratic idea, came to pass in Christ 
 and His ministry.? — οὗ εἵνεκεν] in the original text [¥” : because, and to this 
 corresponds οὗ εἵνεκεν : propterea quod, because, as ovvexev is 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 οὗ civexev introduce the protasis of a sentence whose apodosis is 
 left out (Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 96).*—éypice] a concrete de- 
 scription, borrowed from the anointing of the prophets (1 Kings xix. 16) 
 and priests (Ex. xxviii. 41, xxx. 30), of the consecration, which in this in- 
 stance is to be conceived of as taking place by means of the spiritual investi- 
 ture.4 — πτωχοῖς] the poor DIY. See on Matt. v. 3. They—in the original 
 Hebrew the unhappy exiles—are more precisely designated by αἰχμαλώτ., as 
 well as by the epithets, which are to be taken in their historical sense typi- 
 cally, τυφλοῖς and τεθραυσμένους (crushed to pieces), whereby the misery of the 
 πτωχοί 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 (ἀποσ- 
 τεῖλαι) to accomplish. Moreover, the LXX. varies considerably from the 
 
 1 The arrangement of the present Haph- 
 tharas was not yet settled at the time of 
 Jesus. See Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrage d. Juden, 
 p. 6. 
 
 2 Comp. Schleiermacher, LZ. J. p. 270 f. 
 3The form εἵνεκεν (2 Cor. vii. 12) is, 
 
 moreover, classical; it occurs in Pindar, 
 
 Isthm. viii. 69, frequently in Herodotus (see 
 
 Schweighaiiser, Lex. sub. verb.), Dem. 45. 11. 
 See generally, Kriiger, IT. § 68. 19. 1 f. 
 
 4 Observe the difference of tense, ἔχρισε... 
 ἀπέσταλκε : He anointed me, He hath sent me 
 (and Iam here !) ; also the lively asyndeton 
 in the two verbs (ἀπέστ. without xat), 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 ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμ. ἐν ἀφέσει, 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 easily explained mixed them up in 
 this place. — ἐνεαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν] an acceptable year of the Lord, 1.6... 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 mm) PSN, i.e., 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- 
 ians, Clemens, Hom. xvii. 19, Clemens Alexandrinus, 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 vengeance against the 
 enemies of God’s people follows, ought to have prevented. Even Wieseler, 
 p. 272, makes an extraordinary chronological use of ἐνιαυτός and of σήμερον, 
 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 Nazareth 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 ἀπέσταλκέ 
 ue, whose purpose they specify. — ἐν ἀφέσει) a well-known constructio preg- 
 nans: so that they are now in the condition of deliverance (Polybius, 1. 79. — 
 12, xxii. 9. 17), comp. ii. 39. 
 
 Vy. 20, 21. Τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ] JINN, 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 
 (πτύξας corresponding to the ἀναπτύξας of ver. 17). — ἐκάθισε] in order now 
 to teach upon the passage which had been read,—this was done sitting 
 (Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrige d. Juden, p. 557). ---- ἤρξατο] He began. Bengel ap- 
 propriately says: ‘‘Sollenne initium,” ‘‘a solemn beginning.” — ἐν τοῖς 
 ὠσὶν ὑμῶν] 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. geschichtl. Chr. p. 140 ff., 
 has very recently arrived at this conclusion 
 in view of Origen’s statement, de princip. 
 ἦν. δ: “ἃ 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, Antt. xviii. 5, concerning the war 
 of Antipas against Aretas. The testing of 
 this combination does not belong to this 
 
 place. But the Gospel of John stands de- 
 cidedly opposed to the one-year duration of 
 Christ’s official teaching. See, besides, the 
 discussions on the subject in Weizsiicker, 
 p. 306. ff. 
 
 2 Comp. i. 44, ix. 44; Acts xi. 22; Jas. v. 
 4; Ecclus. xxv. 9; 1 Macc. x.7; Bar. 1.3 f.; 
 LXX. Isa. v. 9. 
 
 3 Comp. Beyschlag, Christ. ἃ. N. T. p. 36 f. 
 
CHAP. IV., 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 His discourse, and so led 
 the hearer all at once in mediam rem (comp. Zunz, as above, p. 353). 
 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. ’Euaprip. αὐτῷ] testified in His behalf, praising Him.! — ἐπὶ τοῖς 
 λόγοις τῆς χάριτος] at the sayings of graciousness (genitivus qualitatis).* — καὶ 
 ἔλεγον] 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 λόγους τ. χάριτος did not corre- 
 spond. [See Note XLV., p. 315]. —é υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσήφ] 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. 23, 24. Whether what follows, as far as ver. 27, is taken from the 
 Logia (Ewald), or from some other written source (K6stlin), or from oral 
 tradition (Holtzmann), cannot be determined. But the Logia offers itself 
 most obviously as the source. [See Note XLVL., p. 315.] — πάντως] certainly ; 
 a certainty that this would be the case. See on 1 Cor. ix. 10. —iarpé κ.τ.1.} 
 a figurative proverb (παραβολή, wid) that occurs also among the Greeks, 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), first help thyself 
 Srom 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. See 
 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 σεαυτόν and iatpé can only be one person. More- 
 over, the parabolic word concerning the physician is retained only in Luke, 
 whom it might specially interest. — εἰς Καφαρναούμ] (the name is to be writ- 
 ten thus in Luke also, with Lachmann and Tischendorf) indicates the direc- 
 tion of γενόμενα, Which took place at Capernaum (Bernhardy, p. 220), comp. 
 on xxviii. 6. The petty jealousy felt by the small towns against Caper- 
 naum is manifest here. — ὧδε ἐν τῇ. πατρ. 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 παραβολή, 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, Hvang. p. 506, to as- 
 sume that the writer here understood πατρίς in a wider reference,* so that 
 
 1 See Kypke, Loesner, and Krebs. Fre- 16, xxxvii. 21. 
 
 quently in the Acts, Rom. x. 2, Gal. iv. 15, 3 Bornemann, Schol. p. 84; Fritzsche, ad 
 and elsewhere. Mare. p. 22. 
 2 Comp. on Col. iv. 6; Hom. Od. viii. 175: 4 Comp. Hilgenfeld, Hvang. p. 168, ‘‘ the 
 
 χάρις ἀμφιπεριστέφεται ἐπέεσσιν ; Ecclus. xxi. Jewish home of Christianity ;’ Holtzmann 
 
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 
 καὶ φήμη, ver. 14, to ver. 30—is an interpolation from the hand of the re- 
 dactor, is asserted by Baur, Markusevang. p. 218. — εἶπε δέ] after ver. 23 let 
 a significant pause be supposed. 
 
 Vv. 25, 26. In order, however, to quote to you historical examples, 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. — ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία x. μῆνας ἔξ] So 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 in Joc.), follows, according 
 to Luke, the Jewish tradition (Jalkut Schimoni on 1 Kings xvi. in Swrenhu- 
 sius, καταλλ. p. 681), in which in general the number 34 (=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). — πᾶσαν τ. γῆν] 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. 690 ff. — 
 Σιδῶνος] the name of the town of Sidon, as that in whose territory Sarepta lay. 
 [See critical note. ] — μέγας] in xv. 14 λιμός is feminine, as it passed over from 
 the Doric into the κοινή (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 188). But in this place the 
 reading μεγάλη, approved by Valckenaer, is so weakly attested that it cannot 
 be thought of. — εἰ μή] not sed (Beza, Kuinoel), but nisi ; see on Matt. xii. 4. 
 
 Ver. 27. See 2 Kings v. 14. — ἐπί] at the time, 111. 2. 
 
 Ver. 29. "Ewe ὀφρίος τοῦ ὄρους] up to the bofty brink (supercilium) of the hill.’ 
 This situation of Nazareth upon a hill (ἐφ᾽ od), 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, 1.6. p. 428 ; Ritter, Hrdk. XVI. p. 744. — ὥστε] of what, as they 
 figured to themselves the result was to be, See on Matt, xxiv. 24, xxvii. 1; 
 
 also, p. 214. Whether in general Luke 
 looked on the rejection of Christ in Naza- 
 reth asa ‘‘significant prelude for the re- 
 
 1 See Duncan, Zea. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 877, 
 and Wetstein. 
 2 The place which is pointed out by tra- 
 
 jection of Christ by His whole people” 
 (Weiss inthe Stud. u. Kvrit. 1861, p. 697), 
 cannot be decided at all, as he gives no hint 
 on the subject. 
 
 dition as the spot in question is at too great 
 a distance from the town. See Robinson, 
 l.c., and Korte, Reisen, p. 215 ff. 
 
CHAP. Iv., 30-37%. 313 
 
 comp. Luke ix. 52, xx. 20. — κατακρημν.} 2 er xxv. 12 ; Dem. 446. 11; 
 Josephus, Anté. ix. 9. 1. 
 
 Ver. 30. Αὐτὸς δέ] But He, on His part, while they thus dealt with Him.— 
 διὰ μέσου] 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 mobile vulgus.” 
 Comp. Lange, ZL. J. Il. p. 548: ‘‘an effect of His personal majesty ;” and 
 Ill. p. 876 : ‘‘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 : φρουρούμε- 
 voc τῇ ἡνωμένῃ αὐτῷ θεότητι, ‘‘ 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 διὰ μέσου ait. 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 (ἐκρύβη). Why 
 Jesus did not surrender Himself is rightly pointed out by Theophylact : ov 
 τὸ παθεῖν φεύγων, ἀλλὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἀναμένων, ““ ποῦ fleeing from the suffering, but 
 awaiting the proper time.” — ἐπορεύετο] went on, that is to say, towards Ca- 
 pernaum, ver. 31, 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. — κατῆλϑεν] Down from Nazareth, which lay higher up, to Caper- 
 naum, which was situated on the shore. Comp. Matt. iv. 198. -- πόλιν τ. 
 Tawa. ] for here Capernaum occurs for the first time in Luke in the course of 
 the history (it is otherwise at ver. 23). —7v didacx.] expresses the constant 
 occupation of teaching on the Sabbaths (otherwise in Mark), comp. on Matt. 
 vil. 29. [See Note XLVII., p. 315.]— Ver. 33. πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου] 
 The genitive is a genitive of apposition or of nearer definition (Winer, 
 p. 470 [E. T. 581-2]) ; and δαιμόνιον, which, according to Greek usage, is 
 in itself applicable to either good or evil spirits, being used by Luke jor the 
 Jirst time in this passage, is qualified by ἀκαθάρτου. ---- ἔα] not the imperative 
 of ἐάω (Vulg.: sine; Euthymius Zigabenus, ad Mare. ἄφες ἡμᾶς, 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 Ὁ. 
 Seldom occurring elsewhere in prose, even in the New Testament only in this 
 place (not Mark i. 24). See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 32 f., who, nevertheless, 
 traces back the origin of the expression to the imperative form. — ἦλθες 
 x.7.4.] 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, Hvang. p. 429 f.). — Ver. 
 35. pipav] is to be accented thus. — εἰς μέσον] He threw him down into the 
 midst in the synagogue. The article might be, but is not necessarily added.’ 
 [See critical note.] Observe, moreover, that here Luke describes more 
 
 1 See Bornemann, Ὁ. 4; comp., neverthe- 2 See the instances from Homer in Dun- 
 less, Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 31 ff. can, ed. Rost ; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. i, 8,15 
 
314 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 vividly than Mark, although his description is too unimportant ‘‘ to glorify 
 the miracle” (Holtzmann). — Ver. 36. τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος) not : guid hoe rei est ὃ 
 (Beza, Er. Schmid, Grotius, Kuinoel, de Wette) ; but: what sort of a speech 
 is this? to wit, that which is related in ver. 35 ; comp. Theophylact : τίς ἡ 
 πρόσταξις αὕτη ἣν προστάσσει, bre ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ Kai φιμώθητι, ‘‘ What is this com- 
 mand which He commands, that it went forth from him and was still.” It 
 is otherwise at ver. 32, where λόγος is the discourse which teaches ; here, 
 the speech which commands. Mark i. 27 has, moreover, given the former 
 particular (the d:day7) 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 λόγος, but clearly limiting this ex- 
 pression in ver. 32 by διδαχή, and in ver. 36 by ἐπιτάσσει. Baur decides 
 otherwise in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 70. — ὅτι] since he, etc., accounts for 
 this question asked in astonishment. — ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ x. δυνάμ. |] with authority and 
 power. The former is the authority which He possesses, the latter the power 
 which He brings into operation. — Ver. 37. ἦχος) noise (Acts ii. 2; Heb. 
 xii. 19), a stronger expression for rwmor. The classical writers use ἠχώ 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.'’— ἀπὸ τῆς cvvaywy. | He 
 went from the synagogue into the house of Simon. The article before πενϑερά 
 isnotneeded. [See Note XLVIII., p. 315.] Winer, p. 108 f. [E. T. 119 ff. ]. 
 Luke, the physician, uses the technical expression for violent fever-heat : πυρε- 
 τὸς μέγας (the opposite : μικρός). See Galen, De diff. febr. 1, in Wetstein. — 
 ἠρώτησαν] 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). 
 — ἐπάνω αὑτῆς] so that He was bending over her. —ézeriu. τῷ πυρετῷ] 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. — αὐτοῖς] 
 refers to Jesus, Simon, and the other members of the family. Comp. ἠρώ- 
 tyoav, ver. 38. — Ver. 40. ἀσϑενοῖντας νόσοις] according to Matthew, demoniacs 
 and sick persons (comp. Mark), with which Luke nevertheless also agrees at 
 ver. 41.?— τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιτιθείς] Matthew has λόγῳ, with reference, however, 
 to the demoniacs. In ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ, Which need not be pressed (Weiss, Holtz- 
 mann), are implied the solicitude and the indefatigableness of this miracu- 
 lous ministry of love. —areiv, ὅτι] to speak, because. See on Mark i. 34. 
 
 Vv. 42-44. See on Mark i. 35-89, 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- 
 
 1 The arrangement in Luke, so far as he 
 places (ch. v.) the call of Peter later, is in 
 any case nol arbitrarily produced, although 
 he follows the tradition which (as Matthew) 
 does not include the companionship of 
 James and John (so Mark). 
 
 2 All three also agree essentially as to the 
 time of day (δύνοντος τοῦ nAtov), Until the even- 
 
 ing Jesus had remained in the house of Simon, 
 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. — ἕως 
 αὐτοῦ] 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. 23. — εἰς τοῦτο] namely, to announce not 
 only here, but everywhere throughout the land, the kingdom of God. — 
 ἀπέσταλμαι] It is otherwise in Mark i. 36, 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. | 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDIToR. 
 
 DDIM Wierd MOS τος τος καὶ ὅτι: 
 
 The R. V. properly takes ὅτι in both cases as recitative ; so Weiss ed. Mey., 
 who regards καί as indicating an omission in the citation which Luke has ex- 
 plained by the phrase : τοῦ διαφυλάξαι 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. 
 
 XLY. Ver. 22. kai éAeyov. 
 
 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. 
 
 XLVII. Ver. 31. ἦν διδάσκων. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. explains this as referring to what was taking place when 
 what follows occurred ; so in Mark i. 22. 
 
 XLVIII. Ver. 38. ᾿Αναστὰς δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς συναγωγῆς. 
 
 The R. V. properly joins these words together : a constructio praegnans ; so 
 Weiss ed. Mey. Meyer apparently connects ἀπὸ τ. o. with the main verb. 
 
 XLIX. Ver. 44. τῆς Iovdaiac. 
 
 The evidence for this difficult reading is preponderant. The copyists would 
 readily alter it to Ταλιλαίας. Godet naively says: ‘‘The absurd reading τῆς 
 
316 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 ‘Iovdaiac, which is found in the six principal Alexandrian mss., should be 8 
 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 
 a separate paragraph in the R. VY. 
 
CHAP. V. 317 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 [Ver. 1. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., following δὲ A B L and versions, have 
 kai ἀκούειν, instead of τοῦ ax.] — Ver. 2. Thess. have ἀπέπλυναν (so Elz. Scholz), 
 ἔπλυναν, ἔπλυνον, ἀπέπλυνον. Tisch. has the second reading, Lachm. the third. 
 [So Treg., W. and Hort text, Weiss, R. V.] The preponderance of evidence 
 wavers between ἔπλυνον (Β D) and ἔπλυναν (C* L Q X 8), and excludes the com- 
 pound form. But since, according to this, even the mss. which read the 
 Recepta (A E F G, etc.) add to the evidence in favor of érAvvAN, this form re- 
 ceives the critical preponderance. The compound form is either a mere 
 clerical error (as Ev. 7 has even ἐπέπλυνον), or a gloss for the sake of more pre- 
 cise specification.— [Ver. 5. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit αὐτῷ, follow- 
 ing δὲ B, Copt., and read τὰ δίκτυα, attested by δὲ Β Ὁ L, Copt., and others. ] 
 — Ver. 6. πλῆθος ἰχθύων] So Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch., following the greater 
 number of the uncials, but not BD, which have ἰχθύων πλῆθος, 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 πλῆθος πολὺ Would more readily be brought together by the transcrib- 
 ers than separated. — Ver. 15. Asiz’ αὐτοῦ is wanting in important authorities, 
 in others stands after ἀκούειν, and A has az’ αὐτοῦ, it is rightly condemned 
 by Griesb., struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — 
 Ver. 17. ἐληλυθότες Lachm. has συνεληλ., following only A* D, min. Goth. Vere. 
 -- αὐτούς] Tisch. has αὐτόν, following BL Ξ δὰ. Rightly ; αὐτούς arose from a 
 misunderstanding, because an accusative of the object appeared necessary. — 
 Ver. 19. ποίας] Elz. has διὰ ποίας, in opposition to decisive evidence. An in- 
 terpretation. -— Ver. 21. With Lachm. and Tisch. read ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι, accord- 
 ing to B DL Ξ, Cyr. Ambr. The Recepta is from Mark ii. 7, But in ver. 24 
 the form ἀφεῖναι (Tisch.) is too weakly attested [Tisch. VIII. has ἀφιέναι]. --- Ver. 
 22. The omission of ἀποκριθ. (Lachm.) is too feebly accredited. — Ver. 24. 
 παραλελυμένῳ] Lachm. has παραλυτικῷ, following important authorities, but it 
 is taken from the parallels. — Ver. 25. Instead of ἐφ᾽ 6, Elz. Scholz, Lachm. 
 have ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. But the former has a preponderance of evidence in its favor, 
 and ᾧ more naturally occurred to the transcribers. — Ver. 28. ἠκολούθησεν] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠκολούθει, following B DL Ξ 69. The Recepta is 
 taken from the parallels. — Ver. 29. Before Λευίς (Tisch. has on very good 
 authority Aeveic) the article (Elz.) is on decisive evidence deleted. — Ver. 30. 
 αὐτῶν] is wanting in Ὁ F X δὲ, min. yss., and is regarded with suspicion by 
 Griesb., but it was omitted as being superfluous and apparently irrelevant. 
 The arrangement οἱ Φαρισ. x. οἱ yp. ait. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted 
 in accordance with B C D L 8, min. Vulg. It. and others. The Recepta is 
 taken from Mark 11. 106. The article before τελωνῶν, which is not found in Elz., 
 is adopted on decisive evidence by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. καὶ duapr., 
 also, is so decisively attested that it is now rightly defended even by Tisch. — 
 Ver. 33, διὰ τί] is wanting in B 1, &, 33, 157, Copt.; deleted by Tisch. An ad- 
 
318 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 dition from the parallels. — Ver. 36. ἱματίου καινοῦ] BD LX Z δὲ, min. vss. have 
 ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας (yet σχίσας is not found in X, and also otherwise too 
 weakly attested). Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Butitis 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 ἀπό and σχίσας.  --- σχίσει is well attested by BC DL X 
 &, min., and συμφωνήσει still better (by the additional evidence of A). Approved 
 by Schulz, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; σχίζει occurred at once in 
 consequence of the preceding ἐπιβάλλει and of αἴρει in the parallels, and then 
 drew after it συμφωνεῖ. --- Ἐ1]Ζ. has ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀ. τ. κει Soalso Scholz, Lachm. 
 Tisch. But with Griesb. and Rinck ἐπίβλημα is to be condemned, as it is want- 
 inginA EF K MRS U VIA, min. Goth. Slav. Theophyl.; in D it stands 
 after καινοῦ, and betrays itself as a gloss added to the absolute τό. [Recent edi- 
 tors, R. V., following δὲ B C L and many minor authorities, accept τὸ ézi- 
 βλημα τὸ ἀπός The omission Meyer defends can readily be accounted for.] — 
 Ver. 38. καὶ ἀμφ. συντηρ. is wantingin Β L δὲ, 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. εὐθέως] is wanting in B C* L δὲ, min. 
 Copt. Arm. Aeth. Deleted by Tisch. An addition for more precise specifica- 
 tion. [The reading χρηστός is found in δὲ B L, Copt. Syr., and is accepted by 
 Tisch., W. and Hort, Treg. text, Weiss (so R. V. text). The Rec.: χρηστότερος, 
 is 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. 38 ff., Peter had already in 
 connection with Jesus. Luke follows a source of later and more plastic 
 tradition (in opposition to Schleiermacher, Sieffert, 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. 
 Ῥ. 288) ; but in the historical sequence after iv. 38 ff. Luke has become 
 confused. [See Note L., p. 323 seq. ] — καὶ αὐτός] not : he also, but : and he ; 
 he on his part, in respect of this pressing (ἐπικεῖσθαι) of the people upon him, 
 Comp. on vv. 15, 17; as to καί after ἐγένετο, see on ver. 12. — ἔπλυναν] ‘ut 
 peracto opere,” ‘‘as though their work was finished,” Bengel ; see ver. 5. 
 [See Note LL. p. 824.]—Ver. 4. éravdyaye, the special word for going out 
 into the deep sea (Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 28 ; 2 Macc, xii. 4) ; the singular in ref- 
 
CHAP, Y., 1-11. 319 
 erence to Peter alone, who was the steersman of the craft ; but χαλάσατε 
 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. ἐπιστάτα] 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 
 ῥαββί which is so frequent in the other evangelists. Peter does not yet 
 address Him thus as his doctrinal chief, but generally (vv. 1, 3). Comp. 
 xvii. 18. --- νυκτός] when fishing was accustomed to be carried on success- 
 fully.? — ἐπί] of the reason : for the sake of Thy word (on the ground of Thy 
 word). Comp. Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 394]: ‘‘Senserat Petrus virtutem 
 verborum Jesu,” ‘‘Peter had discerned the virtue of the words of Jesus,” 
 Bengel. Οὕτως ἦν τὴν πίστιν θερμὸς καὶ πρὸ τῆς πίστεως, Theophylact. — χαλάσω] 
 Simon speaks thus in his capacity of captain. Comp. afterwards ποιήσαντες. 
 — Ver. 6. διεῤῥήγνυτο] The tearing asunder? actually began, but was only 
 beginning. See oni. ὅθ. The assistance for which they signalled prevented 
 further damage. The subsequent phrase ὥστε βυϑίζεσθαι is similar. Hence 
 there is no eraggeration (Valckenaer, de Wette). — Ver. 7. κατένευσαν] they 
 made signs to, according to Euthymius Zigabenus : μὴ δυνάμενοι λαλῆσαι ἀπὸ 
 τῆς ἐκπλήξεως κ. Tov φόβου, ‘‘not being able to speak from their 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 συλλαβ., 
 see on Phil. iv. 3. — Ver. 8. On προσέπεσε τ. γόνασι, comp. Soph. Ο. Ὁ. 
 1604. It might also be put in the accusative (Eur. Hec. 339, and thereon 
 Pflugk). — ἔξελθε] 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 does 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 θεῖος καὶ ὑπερφυὴς ἄνθρωπος, ‘divine and marvellous man” (Euthymius 
 Zigabenus). See the later exaggeration of the sinfulness of the apostles 
 
 1 See Bornemann, Schol. p. 35 f. ; Kiihner, 
 ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 27. 
 
 2See Aristotle, H. A. viii. 19; Heindorf, 
 ad Plat. Soph. p. 287. 
 
 3 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 allegori- 
 
 cal interpretation of the whole narrative in 
 the Fathers (the ship, the church ; the net, 
 the doctrine ; the sea, the heathen world, 
 etc.): 
 
 4 Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 18. Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus and Grotius in doc. 
 
 5 Cic. De Nat. Deor. iii. 37; Diog. Laert. 1. 
 86; Horat. Od. iii. 2. 26 ff. 
 
320 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 before their call, in Barnabas 5.— Ver. 9. ἄγρα] in this place is not the 
 draught, as at ver. 4, but that which was caught (τὸ θηρώμενον, Pol. v. 1), as 
 Xen. De Venat. xii. 3, xiii. 13, 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. ]— ἀνθρώπους] 
 instead of fishes. —Cwypév] vivos capiens, ‘‘ taking them alive,”—in character- 
 istic keeping with this ethical draught (winning for the Messiah’s kingdom), 
 as well as with the figure taken from fishermen (Aristaen. Hp. ii. 28). 
 
 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 LIIL., p. 324.]— ἐγένετο. . . καί] as ii. 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 yet 
 indefinite ἐγένετο, leads the narrative farther on. The narrator, by means of 
 ἐγένετο 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 kai. —év μιᾷ τ. πόλ.] according to Mark: ina 
 house. — πλήρης] a high degree of the sickness. — Ver. 14. καὶ αὐτός] and He, 
 on His part. — ἀπελθὼν κ.τ.}.} a transition to the oratio directa. See on Mark 
 vi. 8. 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. Comp. Mark i. 45. — διήρχετο] The report ran throughout, 
 was spread abroad.*— μᾶλλ.] in a still higher degree than before ; only all the 
 more.” -- αὐτός] He, however, He on his part, in contrast with the multitudes 
 who were longing for Him. — ἦν ὑποχωρῶν ἐν τοῖς épnu.| 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. — καὶ προσευ- 
 χόμενος] 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: ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμέρων, 
 which, however, specifies approximately 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. — καὶ αὐτός] and He, as ver. 1, but here in opposition 
 to the Pharisees, etc., who were surrounding Him. —éx πάσης κώμης x.T.A.] 
 popularly hyperbolical. As to νομοδιδάσκ., see on Matt. xxii. 35. — δύναμις 
 κυρίου k.t.2.] 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 αὐτόν (see 
 the critical remarks). According to the reading αὐτούς, this would 
 have to be taken as a vague designation of the sufferers who were pres- 
 ent, referring back to ver. 15; αὐτόν is the subject, αὐτούς would be the 
 object. [See Note LIV., p. 324.] Others, as Olshausen and Ewald, have incor- 
 
 1 Soabsolutely, Thue. vi. 46 : ἐπειδὴ διῆλϑεν Α}. p. 30 A; Nigelsbach on the Iliad, ed. 3, 
 ὁ λόγος, ὅτι x.7.A. ; Soph. Aj. 978; Xen. Anadb. p. 227. 
 1. 4.7; Plat. Zp. vii. p. 348 B. 3 See iii. 21, vi. 12 f., ix. 18, 29, and else- 
 2 Comp. xviii. 39. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. where, 
 
CHAP. V., 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 ὁ κύριος 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. wu. Krit. 1861, p. 703 f.). — Ver. 19. 
 eloevéyk. | into the house, where Jesus and His hearers (ver. 17) were. Comp. 
 afterwards τὸ δῶμα. --- ποίας] qualitative : in what kind of a way. On the 
 ὁδοῦ, Which must be supplied in analyzing the passage, see Bos, Hllips., ed. 
 Schaefer, p. 333 ; on the genitive of place (comp. xix. 4), see Bernhardy, 
 p- 138 ; Kriiger on Thucyd. iv. 47. 3. Accordingly, although no instance 
 of ποίας and ἐκείνης used absolutely occurs elsewhere, yet the conjecture ποίᾳ 
 and ἐκείνῃ (Bornemann) is not authorized. — διὰ τῶν κεράμων] 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. See 
 the details, sub loco, and Hug. Gutacht. 11. p. 21 f.— Ver. 21. ἤρξαντο] a 
 bringing into prominence of the point of commencement of these presumptu- 
 ous thoughts. A vivid description. —draioyifecda: . . . λέγοντες] See on 
 Matt. xvi. 7. They expressed their thoughts to one another ; hence ver. 22 
 is not inappropriate (in opposition to Weiss). — Ver. 24. εἶπε τῷ παραλελ. | 15 
 not to be put in parenthesis, but see on Matt. ix. 0. --- σοί] placed first for 
 the sake of emphasis. — Ver. 25. ἄρας ἐφ᾽ ὃ κατέκειτο] he took up that on which 
 (till now) he lay, an expression purposely chosen to bring out the changed 
 relation. With reference to ἐφ᾽ 6, on which he was stretched out, comp. the 
 frequent εἶναι ἐπὶ χϑόνα, and the like. See in general, Kiihner, ὃ 622 b. — 
 Ver. 26. The narrative is swnmary, 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. — ἐξῆλθε] out of the 
 house, ver. 19. --- ἐθεάσατο] 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 (see the critical remarks) is used for the sake of vividness. 
 ἅπαντα, as in ver. 11, refers to the whole previous occupation and position 
 in life. Bengel well adds : ‘‘quo ipso tamen non desiit domus esse sva,” 
 ‘“by which indeed his house did not cease to be his,” ver. 29. — Ver. 29. 
 καὶ ἦν] et aderat, as in ver. 17. — Ver. 30. αὐτῶν] of the dwellers in the town. 
 — πρός] an antagonistic direction. — Ver. 33. οἱ δὲ εἶπον] As to this variation 
 from Matthew and Mark, see on Matt. ix. 17, Remark. On the association 
 of fasting and making prayers, comp. ii. 37, and on ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις, 1 Tim. 
 ii. 1. —éod. x. πίνουσιν] the same thing as οὐ νηστεύουσι in the parallels, but more 
 strongly expressed. In accordance with the deletion of διατί (see the crit- 
 ical remarks), there remains no question, but an affirmative reflection. —Ver. 
 94. μὴ δύνασθε x.7.2.| ye cannot, etc., brings out the inappropriateness of that 
 reflection in a more concrete form than in Matthew and Mark. — Ver. 35. 
 
 1 See vii. 13 (81), x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, Comp. Wisd. xvi. 17, xix. 5; 2 Mace. ix, 24; 
 xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 31, 61. Xen. Cyr. vii. 2, 16. 
 3 τὰ παρὰ δόξαν γιγνόμενα, Polyb. Ix, 16, 2; 
 
 “1 
 
822 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 καί] might be taken explicatively (and indeed) (Bornemann, Bleek). But it 
 is more in keeping with the profound emotion of the discourse to take ἐλεύ- 
 σονται x.t.A. by itself as a thought broken off, and καί in the sense of : and: 
 But days shall come (and not tarry) . . . and when shall be taken away, ete. — 
 ἐν ἐκείν. ταῖς ἡμέρ. 1 a painful solemnity of expression, whereby the emphasis 
 is laid upon ἐκείναις. Comp. on Mark ii. 20. — Ver. 36. ἐπίβλημα ἱματ. καινοῦ] 
 i.e., a patch cut off from a new garment. By the use of ἱματίου the incon- 
 gruity of the proceeding comes still more strongly into prominence than by 
 ῥάκους, Which is used in Matthew and Mark. [See Note LV., p. 324 seq.] An 
 unintentional 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 (LZ. J. III. p. 395). —xai τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ x.r.2.] 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 early as Erasmus. On 
 σχίσει, comp. John xix. 24; Isa. xxxvii.1. But wswally τὸ καινόν is explained 
 as the subject, and either σχίσει is taken intransitively (‘‘ scindet se a veteri,” 
 “will rend itself from the old,” Bengel), or τὸ παλαιὸν ἱμάτιον 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 τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ (it is not τὸ καινόν) clearly shows that even to τὸ 
 καινόν We are to understand only ἱμάτιον, not ἐπίβλημα ; and, moreover, τὸ ἀπὸ 
 τοῦ καινοῦ would be altogether superfluous and clumsy. — Ver. 39. 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 vy. 36-38 
 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. 39 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 oLD forms and in- 
 stitutions which had become dear to them, and to the exchanging of them for the 
 NEW life in accordance with rvs fundamental principles. He 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. Ὁ. 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. 403, and in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 200 f.), the apparent incongruity of the sense, and 
 regards yer. 39, 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 assuefaciendos 
 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 wine 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, χρηστός 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 
 LVL., p. 325.] But irony is as little to be found in ver. 39 as in ver. 37 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, Hoang. Marcions, p. 219 ff. 
 If in the two parables it were desired to abide by the general thought of wn- 
 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. 39 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 θέλει (not πίνει) applies the saying subjectively. 
 According to Kuinoel and Bleek, Jesus spoke the words in ver. 39 at an- 
 other time. But it is in keeping with the connection, and is certainly 
 taken from the Logia. 
 
 Notes 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, although Lach- purely critical hesitation, was doubtful 
 mann also (Praef. 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, Luke, 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 Judea. 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 vy. 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. ἔπλυνον. 
 
 The imperfect is well attested (see critical notes) and is more suitable, but 
 perhaps to be suspected on that account. 
 
 1.11. Ver. 10. ᾿Ιάκωβον καὶ ᾿Τωάννην. 
 
 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 truthful- 
 ness. 
 
 LIII. Vy. 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. εἰς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι αὐτόν. 
 
 The R. V. text accepts the above reading, but renders ‘‘to heal,’’ explaining 
 in the margin : Greek, that he should heal. Yet, in view of the evidence for 
 αὐτούς (A CD, ete., 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. σχίσας. 
 
 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, τὸ ἐπίβλημα, 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. χρηστός. 
 
 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. δευτεροπρώτῳ] is wanting in Β 1, δὲ and seven min. Syr. Arp. Perss. 
 Copt. Aeth. codd. of It. Condemned by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. and 
 Tisch, ὅσπορβ: [Retained by Tisch. VIII., but omitted by Treg. text, W. and 
 Hort text, Weiss, R. V. text.] See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 2. αὐτοῖς] 
 bracketed by Lachm., is, with Tisch., to be struck out, as it is wanting in 
 B C* L X 8, min. Copt. Vere. Colb., while Ὁ), Cant. read αὐτῷ: ide. An addition 
 in accordance with the parallels. Of ποιεῖν ἐν, the ἐν alone is to be deleted, with 
 Tisch., on decisive evidence, but not, with Lachm., the ποιεῖν also. — Ver. 3. 
 ὁπότε] Lachm. has ὅτε, in accordance, indeed, with BC Ὁ LX A 8, min. [so 
 Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] ; but taken from the parallels, from which, moreover, 
 the omission of ὄντες (Lachm. [W. and Hort, Weiss, with δὲ B Ὁ L, 1, 33, 69, 
 Copt. }) is to be explained, as well asin ver. 4 the reading πῶς (Lachm., following 
 L R X &**, min.). — Ver. 4. The omission of ὡς (B Ὁ, Cant. Marcion) is to be 
 regarded as a transcriber’s error (occasioned by the subsequent ΕἸΣ). If nothing 
 had originally been found there, only πῶς, not ὡς would have been added. — 
 ἔλαβε καῇ Lachm. has λαβών, following B ΟἿ L X 33, Syr. Copt. Theophyl. [So 
 recent editors, R. V.] The Recepta is to be maintained. The words were left out, — 
 an omission occasioned the more easily by the similar ἔφαγε καί which follows, as 
 the parallels have not ἔλαβε καί. The omission occurs, moreover, in D K 8, 
 min. vss. Ir, Then λαβών was introduced as a restoration in better syntactical 
 form. — καὶ τοῖς] Β 1, 1, 112, Syr. Arr. Pers. Arm. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. Ir, 
 Ambr. have merely τοῖς. [So Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss (not Tisch.).] In view 
 of these important authorities καί 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 δὲ B, omit καί before τ. caZ.] — Ver. 6. δὲ καί] Lachm. has δέ, in ac- 
 cordance with B L X δὲ, min. vss. Cyr. But why should καί have been added ὃ 
 Rather the possibility of dispensing with it alongside of ἑτέρῳ gave rise to its 
 omission. [Tisch., recent editors, omit καί ; so R. V.] — Ver. 7. With Lachm. 
 and Tisch. read παρετηροῦντο (approved also by Griesb.), in accordance with pre- 
 ponderating evidence. See on Mark iii. 2. — After dé Elz. has αὐτόν on weighty 
 evidence [so W. and Hort., R. V., following 8 B Ὁ L, ete.], indeed, but it is an 
 addition. Comp. xiv. 1; Mark iii, 2. --- θεραπεύσει) Lachm, and Tisch. have 
 θεραπεύει ; the future is taken from Mark, — κατηγορίαν] Β 5 Χ δὲ, min, and yss. 
 have κατηγορεῖν. So Tisch. D also vouches for the infinitive by reading κατη- 
 γορῆσαι, the infinitive being explained in the later reading by the use of the sub- 
 stantive.—Ver. 8. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read εἶπεν δέ, following δὲ B Land 
 min. |] — ἀνθρώπῳ] BL δὲ, min. Cyr. have ἀνδρί, Approved by Griesb., adopted 
 by Tisch. Rightly ; τῷ ἀνδρί was omitted by reason of the following τῷ (so still 
 D, Cant.), and then τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ was inserted, in accordance with ver. 6 and 
 Mark iii. 3, instead of τῷ ἀνδρί. --- ὁ dé] Lachm. and Tisch, have καί, following 
 BDLX 8, 1, 33, Vulg. It. Copt. Cyr. The former suggested itself more read- 
 ily to the transcribers, Comp, ver. 10,— Ver. 9, οὖν] Lachm. and Tisch, 
 
CHAP. VI. 827% 
 
 have dé, following Β Ὁ 1, δὲ, min. Vulg. It. Goth. [So recent editors, R. V.] 
 Not to be decided ; οὖν, it is true, is not frequently employed in the Gospel of 
 Luke for continuing the narrative, and the reading wavers mostly between οὖν 
 and δέ ; yet it is established in iii. 7, xix. 12, xxii. 36. — ἐπερωτήσω] Tisch. has 
 ἐπερωτῶ, following BL δὲ, 157, Copt. Vulg. Brix. For. Rd. The Recepta has re- 
 sulted from a reminiscence of xx. 3; Mark xi. 29. The present is extremely 
 appropriate to the vivacity of the whole action. — τὶ or τί] Lachm, and Tisch. 
 have εἰ, following B DL δὲ, 157, Copt Vulg. It. Cyr. Aug. In view of these im- 
 portant authorities, and because εἰ fits in with the reading ἐπερωτῶ, which, 
 according to the evidence, is to be approved (see above), εἰ is to be preferred. — 
 ἀπολέσαι also retained by Lachm. and Tisch., following B Ὁ L X δὲ, vss. even 
 Vulg. It. Griesb. and Scholz have ἀποκτεῖναι, which is introduced from Mark 
 111. 4, whence also comes τοῖς σάββασιν, instead of which Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have adopted τῷ σαββάτῳ, following BDL δὲ, Cant. Rd, Colb. Corb. For. Aug. 
 — Ver. 10. Instead of αὐτῷ Elz. has τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, in opposition to preponderating 
 evidence. — After ἐποίησεν (instead of which D X δὲ, min, and most of the vss. 
 read ἐξέτεινεν, which is from Matt. xii. 13 ; Mark iii. 5) Elz. Scholz, Lachm. 
 have οὕτως, 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. Itis to be adopted. The possibility of dispensing with it and the 
 ancient gloss ἐξέτεινεν 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 
 mss. ] — After αὐτοῦ Elz. has ὑγεῆς, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from 
 Matt. xii. 13. Moreover, ὡς ἡ ἄλλη (condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., 
 deleted by Tisch.), which is wanting in B L &, min. Copt. Vulg. Sax. Vere. For. 
 Corb. Rd., is from Matthew. — [The oldest authorities have ποιήσαιεν, accepted 
 by Tisch., recent editors.]— Ver. 12. ἐξῆλθεν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐξελθεῖν 
 αὐτόν ; which, in accordance with the preponderance of the mss., is to be pre- 
 ferred. —- Vv. 14-16. Before "Iaxw., before Φίλεππ., before Maré., before ’Iéxwf., 
 and before ’Iovd. Ἴακ., is to be inserted καί, on external evidence (Tisch.), — 
 Ver. 16. ὃς καί] Lachm. and Tisch. have only ὅς, following BL &, min. vss. even 
 Vulg. It. Marcion. Rightly ; καί is from the parallels. —[Ver. 17 ; Tisch., W. 
 and Hort, Weiss, R. V., insert πολύς after ὄχλος, following 8 B L.]— Ver. 18. 
 ὀχλούμ.] Tisch, has évoy/., following very important mss. The compound form 
 was overlooked. — Instead of az 6 Elz. has ὑπό, in opposition to decisive evi- 
 dence. An alteration arising from misunderstanding, because ἀπὸ mv. ἀκαθ. was 
 believed to be dependent upon the participle (comp. Acts v. 16), which error, 
 moreover, gave rise to the καί before ἐθεραπ. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly 
 deleted this καί, in accordance with preponderating evidence. — [Ver. 19. Tisch., 
 recent editors, follow δὲ B L, etc., and read é{jrovv.]— Ver. 23. Instead of 
 χάρητε Elz. has χαίρετε, in opposition to decisive evidence. —rairta or ταὐτά] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have τὰ αὐτά, following Β Ὁ Q X Ξ, 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. ὑμῖν before οἱ yea. 
 (suspected also by Griesb.) is, in accordance with BK LS X = δα, min. Or. Ir., 
 with Tisch., to be struck ont. An addition to conform with what precedes. 
 Elz. has ὑμῖν also before ὅταν, ver. 26, in opposition to decisive evidence. But 
 νῦν is, with Tisch., following very important evidence, to be inserted after ἐμ- 
 mend, — Ver, 26, οἱ ἄνθρ.1 Elz. Lachm, Tisch. have πάντες οἱ ἄνθρ. The prepon- 
 
328 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 derance of evidence is in favor of πάντες, and it is to be maintained in opposition 
 to Griesb. The omission was occasioned by the apparently inappropriate 
 relation to oi πατέρες αὐτῶν. --- Ver. 28. ὑμῖν] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm, Tisch. have 
 iuac. [So recent editors.] There are weighty authorities on both sides, although 
 the evidence is stronger for ὑμᾶς ; but ὑμῖν is the more unusual, and is attested 
 even so early as by Justin (Ὁ) and Origen ; ὑμᾶς is from Matt. v. 44. — Before 
 προσεύχ. Elz. has καί, in opposition to decisive evidence. —[Ver. 30. Tisch., 
 recent editors, R. V., omit dé τῷ, following 8 B, etc. The words were probably 
 inserted from Matthew.]— Ver. 34. The reading δανείζετε, although approved 
 by Griesb., is a transcriber’s error. Comp. on Rom. xiy. 8. Lachm, has da- 
 veionte (Tisch. : δανίσητεν), following only B = δὲ, 157. [Recent editors agree with 
 Tisch. ] — Before ἁμαρτωλοί Elz. has oi, in opposition to decisive evidence. — On 
 evidence as decisive τοῦ (in Elz.) before iy., ver. 35, is condemned. But μηδένα 
 (Tisch.) instead of μηδέν is too weakly attested by = δὲ, Syr."'', especially as it 
 might easily result from a transcriber’s error. [Treg., W. and Hort text, Weiss, 
 R. V. text, retain μηδέν. Ἱ --- Ver. 36. οὖν] is wanting in Β Ὁ 1, &, 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 δὰ BL, etc., omit καί after καθώς, and in 
 ver. 37 insert it before μὴ xatad., in ver. 38 omit it before both σεσαλ. and ὑπερεκ., 
 in ver, 28 read ὦ yap uétpy.] — Ver. 39. dé] Lachm. and Tisch. have δὲ καί, fol- 
 lowing preponderating evidence ; the καί, which might be dispensed with, was 
 passed over. — πεσοῦνται] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐμπεσοῦνται. The Recepta is 
 from Matt. xv. 14. —[Ver. 40. Recent editors omit αὐτοῦ in the first clause. ] — 
 Ver. 43. οὐδέ] BL = 8, min. Copt. Arm. Vere. Germ. add πάλιν, 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 : k. ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν (Tisch.). In 
 view of BDL δὲ, min. vss. the ἄνθρωπος and θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ of the 
 Recepta (both condemned by Griesb., and bracketed by Lachm.) are to be re- 
 garded as supplementary additions, as also in the next clause τοῦ and τῆς (deleted 
 by Lachm. and Tisch.). — Ver. 48. τεθεμελ. yap ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν] Tisch. has διὰ τὸ 
 καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι [οἰκοδομῆσθαι ἴτι Tisch. VIII.] αὐτήν, following BL = δὲ, 33, 157, 
 Syr.P (in the margin), Copt. The Recepta is a gloss from Matt. vii, 25. — Ver. 49. 
 ἔπεσε] συνέπεσε, Which Griesb. has recommended and Tisch. has adopted, is so 
 strongly attested by BD LR Ξ 8, that ἔπεσε 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. — ἐν 
 σαββ. δευτεροπρώτῳ ] all explanations are destitute of proof, because δευτερό- 
 πρῶτος never occurs elsewhere. According to the analogy of δευτερογάμος, 
 δευτεροβόλος, δευτεροτόκος, etc., it might be: a Sabbath which for the second 
 time is the first. Comp. δευτεροδεκάτη, the second tenth, in Jerome, ad Ez. 
 45. According to the analogy of δευτερέσχατος, penultimus, Heliodorus in 
 Soran. Chirurg. vet. p. 94, it might—since from ἔσχατος the reckoning must 
 be backwards, while from πρῶτος it must be forwards, in order to get a 
 debtepoc—hbe the second first, i.e., the second of two firsts. All accurate gram- 
 matical information is wanting. As, however, if any definite Sabbaths at 
 
CHAP. VI., 1-5. 329 
 all had borne the name of σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον (and this must be assumed, 
 as Luke took for granted that the expression was a 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 itself 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 δευτεροπρώτῳ 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 
 δευτεροπρώτῳ as not being genuine, although, moreover, the suspicion 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 ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββ., ver. 6, probably the note 
 πρώτῳ Was written at the side, but a comparison with iv. 31 occasioned the 
 corrective note δευτέρῳ to be added, which found its way into the text, 
 partly without (so still Arte. and Ar*'.), partly with πρώτῳ (thus δευτέρῳ 
 πρώτῳ, 80 still RT, min.), so that in the next place, seeing that the two 
 words in juxtaposition were meaningless, the one word δευτεροπρώτῳ was 
 coined. Wilke also and Hofmann, according to Lichtenstein ; and Lichten- 
 stein 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.: ὅταν διπλῆ ἡ ἀργία ἢ Kai τοῦ σαββάτου τοῦ 
 κυρίου καὶ ἑτέρας ἑορτῆς διαδεχομένης, ‘‘ 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 (παρασκευή) had 
 been a feast-day.* (3) Isidore of Pelusium, Zp. iii. 110 (comp. Euthymius 
 Zigabenus, Calvin, Surenhusius, Wolf), thinks that the πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων is 
 meant, and was called δευτεροπρώτη : ἐπειδὴ δεύτερον μὲν ἦν τοῦ πάσχα, πρῶτον 
 δὲ τῶν ἀζύμων" ἑσπέρας γὰρ θύοντες τὸ πάσχα᾽ τῇ ἑξῆς τὴν τῶν ἀζύμων ἐπανηγύριζον 
 ἑορτὴν, ἣν καὶ δευτερόπρωτον ἐκάλουν, ‘‘ 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 
 
 Τὴ Eustathius in Vita Hutych. n. 95, the 
 Sunday after Easter is called δευτεροπρώτη 
 xuptaxy ; but this epithet manifestly origi- 
 nated from the passage before us. 
 
 2 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. 
 
 3 Comp. Epiphanius, Haer. 30,31. So also 
 Beza, Paulus, and Olshausen. 
 
 4 Comp. Luther’s obscure gloss: ‘the 
 second day after the high Sabbath.” 
 Schegg explains the expression even as a 
 Christian designation, namely, of the Sat- 
 urday after Good Friday. Τὰ opposition to 
 Serno (Tag des letzt. Passahmahls, 1859, 
 p. 48 ff.), who, according to his mistaken 
 supposition of the doubling of the first and 
 last feast-days, brings out the sixteenth Ni- 
 san, see Wieseler in Reuter’s Repert. 1860, 
 p. 138. 
 
330 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 prevalent has become the view of Scaliger (mend. tempor. VI. p. 557) and 
 Petavius, that it is the first Sabbath after 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. 
 xxiii, 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 Jntell. Bl. der allgem. Lit. Zeit., Dec. 1847, p. 570 f., says 
 that it was the second Sabbath after the second Easter day, δευτερόπρωτος being 
 equivalent to δεύτερος τῶν πρώτων, 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 κήρυγμα 
 tov Πέτρου (in Clem. Strom. vi. 5, p. 760, Pott) the Sabbath at the 
 full moon was called πρῶτον (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 Ley. xxiii. 11, had been called a Sabbath, and 
 was named δευτερόπρ., because (but see, on the other hand, Wieseler, 
 p. 353 ff.) the fourteenth Nisan always fell onaSaturday. (9) Wieseler, 1.6. 
 p. 231 ff.* thinks that it was the second-first Sabbath of the year in a cycle 
 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 Kaster 
 days (feast-Sabbaths). For yet other interpretations (Grotius and Valcke- 
 naer : that the Sabbath before Easter was called the first great one πρωτό- 
 πρωτον, the Sabbath before Pentecost the second great one δευτερόπρωτον, the 
 Sabbath before the feast of Tabernacles τριτόπρωτον ἅ), see in Calovius, Bibl. 
 Ill., and Liibkert, 1.6. 
 
 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 Liibkert in the Stud. τ. 
 
 ‘rit. 1835, p. 671 ff. Opposed to Scaliger 
 are Wieseler, Synopse, p. 230; Saalschiitz, 
 Mos. R. Ὁ. 894f.; and aptly Grotius in loc. 
 Lange, Z. J. II. 2, p. 818, 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 jirst-jirst, 
 while the first Sabbath of that second cycle 
 
 (from Easter to Pentecost) is the second-first. 
 [See Note LVIL., p. 340.] 
 
 2Comp. also Winer, ealwdérterb. TI. 
 p. 348 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 72, and Gesch. 
 Chr. p. 304. 
 
 3 Tischendorf, Synopse, ed. 2, now op- 
 poses the explanation of Wieseler, with 
 which in ed. 1 he agreed. 
 
 4-V. Gumpach also (vb. d. altjiid. Kalend., 
 Briissel 1848) understands a Sabbath of the 
 second rank. Very peculiarly Weizsiicker, 
 p. 59, says: “that Luke iy. 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.] — τοὺς στάχυας] the ears of corn that 
 offered themselves on the way. — ἤσθιον ψώχοντες x.t.A.] they ate (the con- 
 tents), rubbing them out. The two things happened at the same time, so 
 that they continually conveyed tc their mouths the grains set free by this 
 rubbing. — Ver. 3. οὐδὲ τοῦτο] have you never so much as read this? ete. — 
 ὁπότε] gquandoquidem, since.’ — Ver. 4. ἔξεστι] 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, 111. 12. 8, and elsewhere ; 
 also after a preceding dative (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 57, ed. 2). — Ver. 5. 
 ἔλεγεν avt.| aS Mark, but without the auxiliary thought found in Mark 
 which introduces the conclusion. 
 
 Remark. —In D, which does not read ver. 5 till after ver. 10, the following 
 passage occurs after ver. 4 : τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ 
 εἶπεν αὐτῷ" ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἷδας τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἰ" εἰ. δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος 
 καὶ παραβάτης ei τοῦ νόμου, ““Οπ 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 (see especially vv. 10, 11).— 
 δὲ καί] for that which now follows also took place on a Sabbath. [But see 
 critical note.]—év ἑτέρῳ σαββ.1 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 ἐπερωτῶ ὑμᾶς, εἰ (see the critical remarks) : J ask 
 you whether. With the Recepta, the mss. according to the accentuation τί or 
 τί favor one or other of the two different views : I will ask you something, is 
 it lawful, etc. ? or : I will ask you, what is lawful? The future would be in 
 favor of the former. Comp. Matt. xxi. 24. — Ver. 11. ἀνοίας] want of un- 
 derstanding, dementia (Vulg. : insipientia).? As to the folic optative form 
 ποιήσειαν (comp. Acts xvii. 27), see Winer, p. 71 [E. T. 76]. Ellendt, ad Ar- 
 rian. Alex. I. p. 353. Lachmann and Tischendorf have ποιήσαιεν (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 Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1864, 
 
 Jirst of this second series of narratives, con- 
 sequently the second-first. But what reader 
 would have been able to discover this ref- 
 
 1 Plato, Legg. x. p. 895 B; Euthyd. 
 p. 297 Ὁ ; Xen. Andab, iii. 2. 2; not elsewhere 
 in the New Testament. Comp. Hermann, 
 
 erence, especially as between iv. 31 and vi. 1 
 so many other narratives intervened? Weiz- 
 sicker, moreover, pertinently observes, in 
 opposition to every hypothesis of an expla- 
 nation in accordance with the calculation 
 of the divine services, that our Gospel 
 stands much too remote from things of this 
 kind, 
 
 ad Soph. O. C. 1696. 
 
 22 Tim. iii. 9; Wisd. xix. 8, xv. 18; Prov. 
 xxii. 15; Herod. vi. 69; Plat. Gorg. p. 514 E, 
 and elsewhere. Also Thucyd. iii. 48. Usu- 
 ally : madness. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 86B: 
 d¥0 .. . ἀνοίας γένη, TO μὲν μανίαν, TO δὲ ἀμα- 
 diav, 
 
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 implied 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 (τὸ ὄρος) 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, 13. Comp. Mark iii. 13-15. — τὸ ὅρος] as Matt. v. 1. — προσεύξασθαι 
 κιτ.λ.7 comp. on v. 16. — ἐν τῇ προσεὺχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ] in prayer to God. Genitive 
 of the object (see Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 185 f.]). — τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ] in the 
 wider sense. Comp. ver. 17. — καὶ ἐκλεξάμ. x.7.2.] 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 (sei. ἔστη, 
 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 ἐκλεξάμ. 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¢ καὶ ἀπ. ovéu.] 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 iii. 16-19. —¢yAwr#v] Comp. 
 Acts i. 18. See on Matt. x. 4. —’Iotdav ᾿Τακώβου] Usually (including even 
 Ebrard and Lange) : Judas the brother 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 ἀδελφός, 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 υἱός, 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. 
 II. 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 exoterie dis- 
 course! Comp. also Matt. vii. 28, from 
 which passage it is clear that Matthew 
 neither regarded the discourse as esoteric, 
 nor knew anything of ¢wo discourses, 
 
OHAP. 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. 341.] — προδότης] Traitor (2 Macc. v. 15, x. 18, 22 ; 2 Tim. iii. 4) ; only 
 here in the New Testament is Judas thus designated. Matthew has παρα- 
 δούς, 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 566 from this simply that in Acts i. 13 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. Ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ] according to the connection of Luke (ver. 12, 
 εἰς τὸ ὄρος ; ver. 17, καταβάς), cannot be otherwise understood than: on a 
 plain ; ποῦ : over a plain (Michaelis and Paulus) ; nor: ona small over- 
 hanging place of the declivity (Tholuck) ; comp. Lange, who calls the dis- 
 course in Matthew the Swmmit-sermon, and that in Luke the Terrace-sermon. 
 [See Note LXII., p. 341.] 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). Matthew’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, this 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. —xai ὄχλος κ.τ.}.} scil. ἔστη. [See critical note.] See on 
 ver. 13. A similar structure in the narrative, viii. 1-3. 
 
 Vv. 18, 19. ᾿Απὸ πνευμ. ἀκαθ.] belongs to éepar. Comp. ver. 17, ἰαθῆναι 
 ἀπό. The καί before ἐθεραπ. is not genuine. See the critical remarks, After 
 ἐθεραπ. Only a colon is to be placed ; the description of the healings is con- 
 tinued, — καὶ ἰᾶτο πάντ. | not to be separated from what precedes by acomma, 
 but δύναμις is the subject. See v. 17. — ἐξήρχ.] Comp. viii. 46 : ‘‘ Significa- 
 tur non adventitia fuisse efficacia, sed Christo intrinseca ἐκ τῆς θείας φύσεως," 
 ‘“‘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 Schleiermacher also, Z. J. p. 369, the per- 
 
 during the lifetime of Jesus ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου 
 had taken the place of the Thaddaeus 
 (Lebbaeus), who had probably been cut off 
 by death. See his Gesch. Chr. Ὁ. 323. In 
 this way, indeed, the narrative of Luke in 
 the passage before us, where the choice of 
 the Twelve is related, would be incorrect. 
 That hypothesis would only be capable of 
 reconciliation with Acts i, 13, According to 
 
 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. 
 
 2 Comp. Nonnus, Paraphrase of John xiy, 
 22; ᾿Ιούδας vids ᾿Ιακώβοιο, 
 
334 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. Kai αὐτός] And He, on His part, as contrasted with this mul- 
 titude of people seeking His word and His healing power. Comp. v. 1, 16. 
 - εἰς τοὺς μαθητ. αὐτοῦ] in the wider sense, quite as in Matt. v. 2 ; for see vv. . 
 13,17. Asin 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. — μακάριοι x.7.A.| Luke has only four beatitudes, and omits (just as 
 Matthew does in the case of πενθοῦντες) all indication, not merely that κλαίον- 
 τες, but also that πτωχοί and πεινῶντες 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 zoe, 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. 53. 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 υἱοῖς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ; comp. the analo- 
 gous passages in the Epistle of James, ii. 5, ν. 1 ff., iv. 9. [See Note LXUIL., 
 p- 341 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 
 general 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 τ. πνεύματι must in Luke 
 be supplied !) ; probably, however, it is to be conceded that Jesus asswmes 
 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. 841 seq.] The Hvionitic spirit is foreign to the Pauline Luke (in 
 opposition to Strauss, I. p. 603 f.; Schwegler, and others), — ὑμετέρα] 
 
 1 Comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. But for the hypothesis of such a disruption 
 
 1864, p. 58 f. (in opposition to Holtzmann). 
 2¥For the Logia, 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. 
 
 of the great whole of the source of this in- 
 tercalation, ix. 51 ff., there is no trace of 
 proof elsewhere. Moreover, Weizsacker 
 aptly shows the secondary character of 
 this discourse in Luke, both in itself and in 
 comparison with Matthew. 
 
 3 So also Ewald, p. 211; comp. Wittichen 
 in the Jahrb. 7. ἃ. Theol. 1862, p. 323. 
 
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.— χορτασθ. and 
 γελάσ. | corresponding representations of the Messianic blessedness. 
 
 Ver. 22. Comp. Matt. v. 11 ἢ. — ἀφορίσωσιν] from the congregation of the 
 synagogue and the intercourse of common life. This is the excommuni- 
 cation "31 (Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. s.v.). Comp. John ix. 22. But that at 
 that time there were already beside this simple excommunication one (ὉΠ 
 or two (ὉΠ and ND ?W) still higher degrees (see, in general, Grotius on 
 this passage ; Winer, Realw.) is improbable (Gildemeister, Blendwerke d. 
 voulgér. Ration. p. 10 ff.), and, moreover, is not to be inferred from what 
 follows, wherein is depicted the hostility which is associated with the ex- 
 communication. — καὶ ἐκβάλωσι τ. bv. tu. ὡς πονηρ.} ἐκβάλλειν is just the 
 German wegwerfen, in the sense of contemptuous rejection ;* but τὸ ὄνομα 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 ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. avOp.; but the actual personal name, which designates the 
 individual in question. Hence : 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 ὄνομα is distributive.? Others in- 
 terpret wrongly : When they shall have exiled you (Kuinoel), to express 
 which would have required ὑμᾶς ὡς πονηρούς 3; or : when they shall have 
 struck out your names from the register of names (Beza and others quoted by 
 Wolf, Michaelis also), which even in form would amount to an unusual 
 tautology with agopic.; 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 ἔπη ἐκβάλλειν, to cast up words, verba proferre (Hom. 11. vi. 324 ; 
 Pind. Pyth. ii. 148); and, withal, how feeble and inexpressive ! 
 
 Ver. 23. Ἔν ἐκείνῃ τ. jjuép.|] in which they shall have thus dealt with you. 
 σκιρτήσατε : leap for joy. — Moreover, see on Matt. v. 12; and as to the re- 
 peated yap, the second of which is explanatory, on Matt. vi. 32, xviii. 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.]— πλήν] on the 
 other hand, verumtamen, so that ἀλλά also might be used as at ver. 35, xi. 41, 
 and elsewhere. See Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 725. — ὑμῖν] Conceive Jesus here 
 extending His glance beyond the disciples (ver. 20) to a wider circle. — 
 ἀπέχετε] see on Matt. vi. 2. — τὴν παράκλ. ὑμῶν] instead of receiving the con- 
 solation which you would receive by possession of the Messiah’s kingdom 
 
 1 Plato, Pol. ii. p. 377 C, Crit. p. 46 B; 2 Comp. Ael. H. A. 5.4; Polyb. xviii. 28. 
 Soph. O. C. 687, 642; Ael. H. A. xi. 10; 4: Kriiger, § 44.1.7; Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 
 Kypke, I. p. 236. 174]. 
 
336 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 (comp. ii. 25), if you belonged to the πτωχοί, you have by anticipation what is 
 accounted to you instead of that consolation ! Comp. the history of the rich 
 man, ch. xvi. Here the Messianic retributive punishment is described nega- 
 tively, and by πεινάσετε, πενθ, κ. κλαύσ., positively. — ἐμπεπλησμένοι) ye NOW are 
 Jilled up, satisfied, Herod. i. 112. Comp. on Col. ii. 23. For the contrast, 
 Luke i. 53. 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 
 ovai 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 ζητεῖν av- 
 θρώποις ἀρέσκειν (Gal.i. 10). Jesus does not address His discourse very defi- 
 nitely and expressly to His followers until ver. 27. —oi raz. αὐτῶν] (τῶν av- 
 θρώπων, those regarded as Jews) so that they all lavished praise upon the 
 false prophets ; comp. Jer. v. 31, 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. 27-36 are in Matthew 
 more originally conceived and arranged (comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. 7. d. 
 Theol. 1864, p. 55 f.). — τοῖς ἀκούουσιν] to you who hear, i.e., who give heed, τοῖς 
 πειθομένοις μου, Euthymius Zigabenus. This is required by the contrast. 
 Moreover, comp. Matt. v. 44. — καταρώμ.] 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. ] — ἐπηρεάζειν] to afflict, is con- 
 nected by the classical writers with τινί, also with τινός. 
 
 Ver. 29. See on Matt. v. 39 f. — ἀπὸ τοῦ κ.τ.}.] κωλύειν ἀπό τινος, to keep 
 back from any one. 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 each one ought so to hear as if it were spoken to him alone.” 
 
 Ver. 30. Comp. Matt. v. 42. Hzegetically, 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. - παντί] to everyone. Exclude none, not even yourenemy. But Augus- 
 tine 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.” --- ἀπαίτει] demand back what he has taken from thee.* 
 
 1 Hom. Od. xix. 330; Herod. iv. 184; Dem. xxiii. 6. 
 
 270. 20, 381. 15; Xen. Anabd. vii. 7. 48. 3 Herod. i. 3: amacréecy Ἑλένην, καὶ δίκας 
 2Xen. Cyrop.i. 3. 11: ἀπὸ σοῦ κωλύων; τῆς ἁρπαγῆς αἰτέειν, 
 
 jii, 3. 51; ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσχρῶν κωλῦσαι ; Gen, 
 
CHAP. VI., 31-35. 3387 
 
 Ver. 31. Comp. Matt. vii. 12. ΤῸ the injunction given and specialized at 
 ver. 27 ff. of the love of one’s enemy, Jesus now adds the general moral rule 
 (Theophylact : νόμον ἔμφυτον ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν ἐγγεγραμμένον, ““ 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 vy. 29, 30 only in accord- 
 ance with the idea (of self-denial), whose concrete representation they con- 
 tain : hence ver. 31 is not in this place inappropriate (in opposition to de 
 Wette). — καὶ καθὼς «.7.A.] a simple carrying forward of the discourse to the 
 general principle : and, in general, as ye, etc. — iva] Contents of the θέλετε 
 under the notion of purpose—ye will, that they should, etc.? 
 
 Vv. 32-34. Comp. Matt. v. 46 f. — καί] simply continuing : And, in order 
 still more closely to lay to heart this general love —7f ye, etc. — ποία ὑμῖν 
 χάρις ἐστί; | what thanks have you ? 1.6., 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, μισθός. ---- οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί] Matthew, οἱ τελῶναι and οἱ ἐϑνικοί. 
 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 a higher platform of morality than do such 
 unconverted ones. — τὰ ica] (to be accented thus, see on Mark xiv. 56) the 
 return equivalent to the loan. Tischendorf has in ver. 34 the forms of δανίζειν 
 (Anth. XI. 390). [Comp. critical note. ] 
 
 Ver. 35. Πλήν] but, verumtamen, as at ver. 94. --- μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες] 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, 
 Valckenaer, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others), is 
 in keeping with the context, ver. 34, but is ungrammatical, and therefore 
 decidedly to be given up. The meaning of ἀπελπίζειν is desperare ; it belongs to 
 later Greek, and frequently occurs in Diodorus and Polybius, which latter, 
 moreover (xxxi. 8. 11), has ἀπελπισμός, 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 ἀγαθοποιεῖτε x. 
 δανείζετε, and μηδέν is the accusative of the object : inasmuch as ye consider 
 nothing (nothing which ye give up by the ἀγαθοποιεῖν and δανείζειν) as lost 
 (comp. ἀπελπίζειν τὸ ζῆν, Diod, xvii. 106), bring no offering hopelessly (name- 
 
 1Comp. Mark vi. 25, ix. 30, x. 35; John xvii. 24; 1 Cor. xiy, 5, See also Nagelsbach, 
 Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 62 f- 
 
 22 
 
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 μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες is involved the rap’ ἐλπίδα ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι πιστεύειν (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. 163), in reference to the 
 everlasting recompense. — καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ iw.] namely, in the Messiah’s king- 
 dom. See xx. 36, 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 : τέκνα Θεοῦ), 
 but not often found in the synoptic Gospels. See Kaeuffer in the Siéichs. 
 Stud. 1843, p. 197 ff. — ὅτι αὐτὸς x.r.2.] 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. 36-88. From this exemplar of the divine benignity in general Jesus 
 now passesover (without οὖν, see the critical remarks) to the special duty of 
 becoming compassionate (γίνεσθε) after God’s example (ἐστί), and connects 
 therewith (ver. 37 f.) other duties of love with the corresponding Messianic 
 promises. On ver. 37 f. comp. Matt. vii. 1 f. — ἀπολύετε] set free, xxii. 68, 
 xxiii. 16. The opposite of what is previously forbidden. — μέτρον καλὸν κ.τ.}.} 
 a more explicit explanation of δοθήσεται, and a figurative description of the 
 fulness of the Messianic blessedness, οὐ γὰρ φειδομένως ἀντιμετρεῖ ὁ κύριος, ἀλλὰ 
 πλουσίως, ‘‘for the Lord measures again, not sparingly, but richly,” Theo- 
 phylact. — καλόν] a good, i.e., not scanty or insufficient, but a full measure ; 
 among the Rabbins, 1310 71, see Schoettgen, I. p. 273. Observe the eli- 
 max 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 irepexy., in connection 
 wherewith Bengel incongruously conceives of fluidity. [On the form of 
 the clause, see critical note.] Instead of izepexyivw, Greek writers (Diodo- 
 rus, Aelian, etc.) have only the form ὑπερεκχέω. Instead of σαλεύω, of close 
 packing by means of shaking, Greek writers use σαλάσσω." --- δώσουσιν | τίνες ; οἱ 
 εὐεργετηθέντες πάντως. τοῦ Θεοῦ yap ἀποδιδόντος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν αὐτοὶ δοκοῦσιν ἀποδιδόναι, 
 (ὝΥΒΟ ? 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 (Kiihner, II. p. 85f.). It is not doubtful who they are: 
 the servants who execute the judgment, i.e., the angels, Matt. xxiv. 31. 
 Comp. on xvi. 9.— κόλπος] the gathered fold of the wide upper garment bound 
 together by the girdle.?— τῷ γὰρ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ] The identity of the measure ; 
 e.g. if your measure is giving, beneficence, the same measure shall be applied in 
 your recompense. [But see critical note.] The δοθήσ. ὑμῖν does not exclude 
 the larger quantity of the contents at the judgment (see what precedes). 
 Theophylact appropriately says : ἔστι yap διδόναι τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ, Ov μὴν τοσούτῳ, 
 ‘‘For it is to give with the same measure, not, indeed, with so much.” 
 
 1See Lobeck, Pathol. p. 87; Jacobs, ad 2 Jer, xxxii. 18; Isa. Ixy. 6; Ruth iii. 15; 
 Anthol. VIL. p. 95, XI. p. 70. Wetstein and Kypke in lec. 
 
CHAP. VI., 39-49. 339 
 
 Ver. 39 has no connection with what precedes ; but, as Luke himself indi- 
 cates by εἶπε «.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 original place of the 
 saying. 
 
 Ver. 40. The rationale of the preceding statement : Both shall fall into a 
 ditch,—therefore not merely 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 above 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 egual to his teacher. He will not swrpass him. 
 But the disciple must swrpass 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.e., 
 he will be like him in knowledge, disposition, etc., satisfies neither the 
 idea of the specially chosen word xatypr., nor its emphatic position, nor the 
 correlation of ὑπέρ and ὡς. As to κατηρτισμ., see on 1 Cor. i. 10. The 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. uv. Krit. 1862, p. 562). 
 
 Vv. 41, 42. Luke is not, with confused reminiscence, turning back to 
 Matt. vii. 3 ἢ. (in opposition to de Wette), but the train of thought 18 : 
 ‘¢ put 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 
 seriously 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. 48, 44. Comp. Matt. vil. 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. — οὐδὲ πάλιν δένδρον] (see the critical remarks) nor, on the 
 other hand, vice versa, οἷο." 
 
 Ver. 45. The application. Comp. Matt. xii. 35. — προφέρει x.7.A. refers 
 here also to spoken words. Sce ἐκ yap «.t.A. 
 
 Ver. 46. The verification, 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. — éoxaye x. ἐβάθυνε] not a Hebraism 
 for : he dug deep (Grotius and many others), but a rhetorically emphatic de- 
 
 1 Bengel aptly says on this yap: “ Qui sua own beam seeks another’s mote, is like an 
 trabe laborans alienam festucam petit, est evil tree pretending to good fruit.” 
 similis arbori malae bonum fructum affec- 2 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. ii. 1.4; Plat. Gorg. 
 tanti,” ‘‘He who when afflicted with his p. 482 D, and elsewhere. 
 
940 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.” —ézi τ. πέτραν]. down to 
 which he had deepened (sunk his shaft). This is still done in Palestine in 
 the case of solid buildings. See Robinson, Pclestine, 111. p. 428. — διὰ τὸ 
 καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι αὐτήν] (see the critical remarks) because it (in respect of 
 its foundation) was well built (namely, with foundation laid upon the rock). 
 - ἀκούσας. . . ποιήσας} shall have heard . . . shall have done, namely, in 
 view of the irruption of the last times, full of tribulation, before the 
 Parousia. — καὶ ἐγένετο x.7.4.] in close connection with ἔπεσε, and both with 
 εὐθέως : and the ruin of that house was great ; a figure of the ἀπώλεια in con- 
 trast with the everlasting ζωή, ver. 48, at the Messianic judgment. 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 LVII. Ver. 1. δευτεροπρώτῳ. 
 
 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 y. 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. ἡ δεξιά. 
 
 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, 
 
o 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. ’Iotdac Taxa Gov. 
 
 The R. 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. 
 
 LXII, Ver, 17. ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. 
 
 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. 
 
 LXIII. Ver. 20 ff. of πτωχοι, 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 not 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: “41. 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 ina 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 confirm 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 on the Mount was 
 delivered. But with equal reason it may be argued that these verses, pointing 
 to mixed audience, indicate that Luke has given the discourse in its proper 
 position and circumstances. 
 
CHAP. VII. 343 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Ver. 1. ἐπεὶ dé] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπειδή, following A Β C* X, 254, 299. 
 This evidence is decisive, especially as D (comp. codd. of It.) is not opposed, 
 for it has καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε. Καὶ has ἐπειδὴ δέ, whence is explained the rise of the 
 Recepta. — Ver. 4. παρέξῃ) So also Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is παρέξει, 
 in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 10. ἀσθενοῦντα] is not found, indeed, 
 inBL δὲ, 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 ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς, which Griesb. has approved, and Lachm. has in 
 the margin, the edd. have ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς. 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 τῇ ἑξῆς, always without ἐν 
 (Acts xxi. 1, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18 ; moreover, in Luke ix. 37, where év is to be de- 
 leted) ; we must therefore read in this place ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς. Comp. viii. 1. [Treg. 
 text, W. and Hort text, Weiss, R. V. text, have τῷ following A BL and other 
 uncials, Vulg., etc. Tisch. retains 77.] Otherwise Schulz. — ἱκανοί] is wanting 
 in BD FL 8, 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, 
 Iueubr. Crit. p. 321), the more so on account of the frequency of the simple οἱ 
 μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, and the facility, therefore, wherewith IK ANOI might be passed over 
 by occasion of the following letters KAIO.— Ver. 12. After ἱκανός Elz. Scholz., 
 Tisch. have7v, 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 ἦν, which Lachm. Tisch. read before χήρα, although this latter has still 
 stronger attestation. [But ἦν is found twice in δὲ B L, Copt., etc., once in C, 
 Vulg. Hence it is accepted in both cases by recent editors, R. V.]— Ver. 16. 
 ἐγήγερται] A Β ΟἿ, &, min. have ἠγέρθη, in favor of which, moreover, D bears 
 witness by ἐξηγέρθη. On this evidence it is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be 
 preferred. —[Ver. 19. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with B L, and good minor 
 authorities, read κύριον instead of ᾿Ιησούν.] --- Ver. 21. Instead of αὐτῇ dé, Tisch. 
 has éxeivy on evidence too feeble, and without sufficient internal reason. [But 
 recent editors agree with Tisch., following δὲ BL, Copt., etc.] — Elz. Scholz 
 have τὸ βλέπειν. This τό might, in consequence of the preceding ἐχαρίσατο, 
 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. [ὁ Τησοῦς is rejected by Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ Β Ὁ, Vulg., 
 Copt.] — ὅτι] 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 ἐξεληλύθατε, AB DL & δὲ (yet in ver. 
 26 not A also) have ἐξήλθατε ; so Lachm. It is from Matt. xi. 7-9. — Ver. 27. 
 ἐγώ] is wantingin BDL = δὲ, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. codd. of It. Marcion, and 
 
844 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 is left out by Lachm. and Tisch. Anaddition from Matth. — Ver. 28. προφήτης 
 1s deleted, indeed, by Lachm. [so W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] (in accordance 
 with BK L MX & δὲ, min. vss. and Fathers), but was omitted in accordance 
 with Matt. xi. 11, from which place, on the other hand, was added τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ 
 (rightly deleted by Tisch.). — Ver. 31. Before ri Elz. has εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριος, 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 καὶ λέγουσιν, Tisch. has, on too feeble 
 evidence, λέγοντες. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., read ἃ λέγει, following &* B, 1.1 
 ~— Ver. 34. The arrangement φίλος τελων. is decisively attested. The reverse 
 order (Elz.) is from Matth, — Ver. 35. πάντων] Lachm. and Tisch, Sy°P*- [not 
 Tisch. VII.] have this immediately after ἀπό [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. The readings τὸν 
 οἶκον and κατεκλίθη (Lachm. Tisch.) are, on important evidence, to be adopted ; 
 avaki, was more familiar to the transcribers ; Luke alone has κατακλ. -- Ver. 37. 
 ἥτις ἦν] is found in different positions. Β L = δὲ, vss. Lachm. Tisch. rightly 
 have it after γυνή. 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 καί before éxvy., following δὲ A B, and many others.] -— Instead of 
 ἀνάκειται is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., κατάκειται. Comp. on ver. 36. 
 —[Ver. 39. The article is inserted before προφήτης in B Z, so Weiss, bracketed 
 by W. and Hort, noticed in R. V. marg.]— Ver. 42. δέ, 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. — εἰπέ is wanting in BDL Ξ RX, 
 min. 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 θριξί Elz. has τῆς 
 κεφαλῆς, 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 wifh the Sermon on the 
 Mount, iii. 19 (Ewald, Holtzmann) ; both are supposed to have existed in 
 the primitive Mark. [See Note LXV., p. 352 seq.] Comp. on Mark iii. 19.— 
 ἐπλήρωσε] cum absolvisset, ‘when he had completed,” so that nothing more of 
 them was wanting, and was left behind.!’ Comp. συνετέλεσε, Matt. vii. 28. 
 — ἀκοάς] as Mark vii. 35. — 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. πρεσβυτέρους] as usually : elders of the people, who also on their 
 part were sufficiently interested in respect of the circumstance mentioned at 
 ver. 5. Hence not: chiefs of the synagogue ; ἀρχισυναγώγους, Acts xiii. 15, 
 xviii. 8, 17. — ἀξιός ἐστιν, ᾧ] equivalent to ἄξιός ἐστιν, ἵνα αὐτῷ. See Kihner, 
 § 802.4; Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 198 [E. T. 229]. — ἐλθών] Subsequently, 
 in ver. 6, he changed his mind ; his confidence rose to a higher pitch, so that 
 
 1 Comp. 1 Mace. iy. 19 (cod. A); Eusebius, 77. 7. iy. 15: πληρώσαντος τὴν προσευχήν. 
 
CHAP: “vit. 1112. 345 
 he is convinced that he needs not to suggest to Him the coming at all. [See 
 Note LXV., p. 352 seq.] — Ver. 4. παρέξῃ] The Recepta παρέξει, as the second 
 person, is not found anywhere ; for ὄψει and βούλει (Winer, p. 70 [E. T. 767) 
 are forms sanctioned by usage, to which also is to be added οἴει ; but other 
 verbs are found only in Aristophanes and the tragic writers (Matthaei, 
 p. 462; Reisig, ad Soph. Oed. C. p. xxii. f.). ΤΆ παρέξει were genuine, it 
 would be the third person of the future active (min.: παρέξεις), and the 
 words would contain the utterance of the petitioners among themselves. — 
 Vv. 5, 6. αὐτός] 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. See Lightfoot, p. 775. — φίλους] as xv. 6 ; Acts x. 24, kins- 
 folk, relatives ; see Nigelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 3874. — Ver. 7. διό] 
 on account of my unworthiness. — οὐδέ] not at all. — ἐμαυτόν] in reference to 
 those who had been sent, who were to represent him, ver. 3. — παῖς] equivalent to 
 δοῦλος, ver. 2. That Luke erroneously interpreted the παῖς of his original source, 
 and nevertheless by oversight allowed it to remain in this place (Holtzmann) 
 is an unmerited accusation, in accordance with Baur. [See Note LXV., 
 p- 352 seq.]— Ver. 8. ὑπὸ ἐξουσ. racodu.] an expression of military subordi- 
 nation : one who is placed under orders. Luke might also have written teray- 
 μένος, but the present depicts in a more lively manner the concrete relation 
 as it constantly occurs in the service. — Ver. 10. τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα ὃ. ὑγιαίν.) the 
 sick slave well (ποῦ : recovering). ἀσθενοῦντα, present participle, spoken from 
 the point of view of the πεμφθέντες, ver. 6.2 [But see critical note.] As an 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 (1 32, ὦ pasture ground 
 situated in a south-easterly direction from Nazareth, now a little hamlet of 
 the same name not far from Endor ; see 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. — ἐν τῷ 
 ἑξῆς} in the time that followed thereafter, to be construed with éyév. Comp. 
 viii. 1. -- - μαθηταί] in the wider sense, vi. 18, xvii. 20. — ἱκανοί] in considerable 
 number.’ [But see critical note. ]— ὡς δὲ ἤγγισε. . . καὶ ἰδού] This καί 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. — τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ] Comp. ix. 38.4— The tombs (ἐξεκο- 
 μίζετο, comp. Acts v. 6) were outside the towns. See Doughty, Anal. I. 
 p- 50 ff. — καὶ αὕτη χήρα] scil. ἦν, which, moreover, is actually read after airy 
 
 by important authorities. 
 
 1 He was such afriend 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 Syrophoenician woman. 
 Hilgenfeld persists in tracing Matt. viii. 5 ff. 
 to the supposed universalistic retouching 
 of Matthew. See his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 48 ff. 
 
 2 Οὐ yap Gua... ὑγιαίνει Te Kal νοσεῖ ὁ 
 
 [See critical note.] It should be written in its 
 
 ἄνϑρωπος, Plat. Gorg. 
 
 3 Mehlhorn, De adjectivor. pro adverb. pos. 
 ratione et usu, Glog. 1828, p. 9 ff.; Kiihner, 
 ad Xen. Anab. i. 4. 12. 
 
 4 Herod. vii. 221: τὸν δὲ παῖδα. . . ἐόντα οἱ 
 μουνογενέα ; Aeschyl. Ag. 872 : μονογενὲς τέκνον 
 πατρί; Tob. iii. 15; Judg. xi. 34; Winer, 
 p. 189 [E. T. 211]. 
 
346 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 simplest form, αὕτη (Vulg. and most of the codd. of It. have: haec). Beza: 
 k. αὐτῇ χήρᾳ (et ipsi quidem viduae). [See Note LXVI., p. 353. ] 
 
 Vv. 13-15. The sympathy with the mother was in itself sufficiently well 
 founded, even without the need of any special (perhaps direct) acquaintance 
 with her circumstances. — μὴ κλαῖε] ‘‘ 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 ( ἡ σορός) was an 
 uncovered chest.1— The mere towch without a word caused the bearers to 
 stand still. A trait of the marvellous. —veavicke, coi 2.] The preceding 
 touch had influenced the bearers. —avexaticev| He sat upright.? — ἔδωκεν] 
 Comp. ix. 42. His work had now been done on him. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. Φόβος] Fear, the first natural impression, v. 90.-- ὅτε. . . καὶ 
 ὅτι] not recitative (so usually), but argumentative (Bornemann), asi. 25 : (we 
 praise God) because ... and because. [See Note LXVII., p. 353.] The reci- 
 tative ὅτι occurs nowhere (not even in iv. 10), ¢eice 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 ἃ σημεῖον of a great 
 prophet, and in His appearance they saw the beginning of the Messianic de- 
 liverance (comp. i. 68, 78). — ὁ λόγος οὗτος] This saying, namely, that a great 
 prophet with his claim made good by a raising from the dead, etc. — ἐν ὅλῃ 
 τ. Iovd.] ἃ 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 ἐν 
 πάσῃ TH περιχώρῳ, 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. — περὶ αὐτοῦ] 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 identi- 
 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, Beob. Il. and thereon Stallbaum. 
 
 p. 141. 3 Comp. Thucyd. iy. 42: ἐν Aevxadia ἀπηε- 
 2 Comp. Acts ix. 40; Xen. Cyr. v. 19; Plat. σαν. 
 
 Phaed. p. 00 B: ἀνακαϑιζόμενος ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην, 
 
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 a climax, 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, Weizsicker), are analogous σημεῖα of the specific Messianic 
 work of the future ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν. 
 
 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. ] — περὶ πάντων τούτων] such as the healing of the servant 
 and the raising of the young man.'— Ver. 21. Luke also, the physician, here 
 and elsewhere (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. — καὶ τυφλ.] and es- 
 pecially, etc. — ἐχαρίσατο] ‘‘ magnificum verbum,” Bengel. — Ver. 25. τρυφή] 
 not to be referred to clothing, but to be taken generally, luaury. — 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. προφήτης] 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, KGstlin, 
 Hilgenfeld, Bleek, following older commentators), for his manner elsewhere 
 is opposed to this view, and the spuriousness of εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριος, ver. 31 (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 Zogia, where, however, 
 their original place was, according to him, after ver. 27. [See Note LXIX., 
 p. 353 seq. ]— ἐδικαίωσαν τ. Θεόν] they justified God, i.e., they declared by 
 their act that His will to adopt the baptism of John was right. — βαπτισθ. is 
 contemporaneous. — τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ] 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 (ἔργα). This opposition to Wieseler (in the 
 John’s disciples to be occasioned by the Gott, Vierteljahrsschr. 1845, p. 197 ff.). 
 works, the doings of Jesus, as Matthew 
 
348 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 sel of God’s will (βουλή, comp. on Eph. i. 11) they annulled (ἠθέτ.), 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.” — εἰς ἑαυτούς] with respect to them- 
 selves, a closer limitation of the reference of ἠθέτησαν.' Bornemann (comp. 
 Castalio) : ‘‘ quantum ab ipsis pendebat” (‘‘alios enim passi sunt,” etc.), 
 ‘Cas far as it depended upon themselves” (‘‘ for they permitted others,” etc.). 
 This would be τὸ εἰς ἑαυτούς (Soph. Oed. R. 706 ; Eur. Iph. T. 697, and 
 elsewhere). — Ver. 81. τοὺς ἀνθρ. τ. γεν. τ. is 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 πᾶς ὁ λαός. Comp. Matt. xit. 
 39, xvi. 4. — εἰσὶν ou.|eioiv has the emphasis. — Ver. 33. As to the form ἔσθων 
 [so Treg., W. and Hort], as we must write with Tischendorf [Tisch. VIII. 
 has ἐσθίων], comp. on Mark i. 6. The limitations ἄρτον 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 ἐδικαιώθη k.T.A. 
 to ἐδικαιώσαν τ. Θεόν, ver. 29. Even Theophylact, who is mistaken in his inter- 
 pretation of Matt. 7.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.2. Borne- 
 mann considers these words as a continuation of the antagonistic saying idob 
 . . . ἁμαρτωλῶν, and, indeed, as bitterly éronical: ‘‘Et (dicitis) : probari, 
 spectari solet sapientia, quae Johannis et Christi propria est, in filiis ejus 
 omnibus, ὁ.6., 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, é.e., 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.), 
 τέκνα τῆς σοφίας can denote only persons ; that, according to the parallelism 
 with ver. 33, the antagonistic judgment does not go further than ἁμαρτωλῶν 5 
 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. — πάντων] 
 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 ἐδικαιώθη κ.τ.λ. 
 
 Ver. 35. This narrative of the anointing is distinct from that given in 
 Matt. xxvi. 6 ff. ; Mark xiv. 3 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 Evang. Matth. (Schulprogramm), Ulm 1865, 
 Dei consilium non potuere tollere,” ‘* For p. 3f., who nevertheless takes ἀπό 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. Miscellen vib. d. 
 
 eee 
 
CHAP. VII., 87, 38. 349 
 
 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 ; comp. 
 Ewald, Bleek, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Weizsiicker ; Schleiermacher also, ac- 
 cording to whom Luke must have adopted a distorted narrative ; and Hil- 
 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. 37, 38. Ἥτις ἦν ἐν τ. πόλει duapt. | According to this arrangement (see 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. She 
 does not speak, but her tears, etc., are more eloquent than speech, and they 
 are understood by Jesus. The imperfect ἦν 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 was (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, L. J. II. p. 281 ff. ; Schegg 
 in loc.), and still defended by Lange,? to whom therefore the πόλις 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 Grotius says pertinently : ‘‘ Quid mirum, 
 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. 32. Schleiermacher 
 ought not to have explained it away as the 
 
 ‘sinful woman in the general sense.”” She 
 had been ἃ πόρνη (Matt. xxi. 31). See on 
 ἁμαρτωλός in this sense, Wetstein in Joc. ; 
 Dorvill, ad Char. p. 220. Comp. on John 
 Viii. 7. 
 
 2 Heller follows him in Herzog’s Encyki. 
 IX. p. 104, 
 
350 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 position that the πόλις 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. --- ὀπίσω παρὰ τ. πόδ. abr.] According to 
 the well-known custom at meals, Jesus reclined, with naked feet, and these 
 extended behind Him, at table. — ἤρξατο] vividness of description attained 
 by making conspicuous the jirst thing done. — τῆς κεφαλῆς] superfluous in 
 itself, but contributing to the vivid picture of the proof of affection. — κατε- 
 φίλει] 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. 208), 
 which was manifested especially to Rabbins (Othonius, Lez. p. 233 ; Wet- 
 stein in loc.). — The tears of the woman were those of painful remembrance 
 and of thankful emotion. 
 
 Vv. 39, 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. — οὗτος] placed 
 first with an emphasis of depreciation. — ποταπή] of what character, i. 29. — 
 ἥτις ἅπτ. αὐτοῦ] she who touches, comes in contact with Him. — ὅτι] that she, 
 namely. — Ver. 40. Jesus saw into the thoughts of the Pharisee. The ἔχω 
 x.7.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 ¢mmorality on Jesus. 
 
 Vv. 41-43. 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 ὁ λεπρός 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 love shown to Christ, ver. 
 41 ff. — μὴ ἐχόντων] ‘‘ 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 εἰπέ, which makes the question more 
 pointed, comp. Bremi, ad Dem. adv. 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: ἀγεννῶς τοὺς πόδας οἵ writing, χρεοφ. is on decisive evidence to 
 καταφιλοῖεν τῶν ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ. be adopted, along with Lachmann and 
 2 Instead of χρεωφ., the late inferior form Tischendorf (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 691). 
 
CHAP. VII., 47. 351 
 
 ing) and of deference (anointing of the head). —oov εἰσ τ. oix.] I came into 
 thy house. The σου 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; 1Sam. xxv. 41; 2 Thess. v. 10) is plain from John xiii., 
 and hence the neglect on the part of the heartless Pharisee is the more easily 
 explained. — ἔβρεξέ μου τ. πόδ.] moistened my feet. Comp. on John xi. 82 ; 
 Matt. viii. 3. — Observe the contrasts of the less and the greater : — (1) ὕδωρ 
 and τοῖς δάκρυσιν ; (2) φίλημα, which is plainly understood as a kiss upon the 
 mouth, and οὐ διέλ. καταφ. μ. τοὺς πόδας ; (8) ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλ. and μύρῳ 7A. μ. τοὺς 
 πόδας (μύρον is an aromatic anointing oil, and more precious than ἔλαιον, see 
 Xen. Conv. 11. 3). — ἀφ᾽ ἧς εἰσῆλθον] loosely hyperbolical in affectionate con- 
 sideration,—suggested by the mention of the kiss which was appropriate at 
 the entering. 
 
 Ver. 47. Οὗ χάριν, by Beza, Grotius, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
 de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others, is separated from λέγω σοι by acomma, 
 and connected with adéovra. But the latter has its limitation by ὅτι x.7.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. — ἀφέωνται k.t.4.] her sins are forgiven, the many (that she 
 has committed, vv. 37, 39), since she has loved much. This ὅτι ἠγάπησε πολύ 
 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 a 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. 111. 31 ff. p. 87 f.), yet perhaps the context is, be- 
 cause this view directly contradicts the παραβολή, vv. 41, 42, that lies at its 
 foundation, as well as the ᾧ δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται k.r.A. 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 ὅτι 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 eye, 
 when the former may be hidden ;” and Calovius: ‘‘ probat Christus a pos- 
 teriori,” ‘Christ proves a posteriori.” Comp. Beza, Calvin, Wetstein, 
 Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 608 f.; Hilgenfeld also, Huang. p. 175. The 
 objection against this view, taken by Olshausen and Bleek, that the 
 aorist ἠγάπησε is inappropriate, is quite a mistake, and is nullified by 
 
 Ἧς 
 
352 “THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 passages such as John iii. 16. The ἀφέωνται 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. —& δὲ ὀλίγον ἀφίεται, ὀλίγ. ἀγαπᾷ] 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 only a 
 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 Phavisee is dismissed, and now Jesus satisfies the woman's 
 need, and gives her the formal and direct asswrance of her pardoned condi- 
 tion. Subjectively 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. "HpZavto] The beginning, the rising up of this thought, is note- 
 worthy in Luke’s estimation. — τίς οὗτός ἐστιν κ.τ.2.} a question of displeas- 
 ure. — kai : 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. — ἡ πίστις σ.} ‘‘ fides, non amor ; fides ad nos spectat, amore con- 
 vincuntur alii,” ‘‘ Faith, not love ; faith concerns us, others are convinced 
 by love,” Bengel. — εἰς εἰρήνην] as viii. 48. See on Mark v. 34. 
 
 Remarx. — 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, 
 Il. 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. 
 
 Notes spy AMERICAN EprTor. 
 
 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 δοῦλος (ver. 2) and παῖς (ver. 7) 
 grow out of the same assumption of a common written source. Either term 
 is correct enough, and the use of δοῦλος in Matt. vili. 9 implies that Matthew 
 also understood παῖς in the sense given to it by Luke. 
 
 LXVI. Ver. 12. αὕτη ἦν χήρα. 
 
 The above reading is that of Tischendorf (see critical note), but W. and 
 Hort and R. V. prefer the pointing αὐτῇ, answering to the common emphatic 
 αὐτός : ““ἃ πα she was a widow.”’ 
 
 EVE Vers ἴδ, ocho ἰδ. 
 
 Here also, as in iv. 10, the R. V. takes.é7: 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 (βαπτισθέντες) 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 
 vy. 12,13, he transferred them to chap. xvi. 16, and thus lost the point of con- 
 nection for vy. 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. δύο χρεοφειλέται. 
 
 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 
 a subject of forgiveness at all. 
 
CHAP. VIII. 355 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Ver. 3. Instead of αὐτῷ Scholz and Tisch. have αὐτοῖς, on preponderating evi- 
 dence. The singular more readily occurred to the transcribers, partly because 
 ἦσαν τεθεραπευμ. had gone before, partly by reminiscences of Matt. xxvii. 55 ; 
 Mark xv. 41. — Instead of ἀπό we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., on deci- 
 sive evidence, éx. —[Ver. 6. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., following B L 2, read 
 κατέπεσεν, instead of the simple verb.]— Ver. 8. Elz. has ἐπί. But εἰς has 
 decisive attestation. — Ver. 9. λέγοντες] is wanting in BD Τί Τὸ Ξ δὲ, 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 obliqua was the cause rather of its omission than of its addition, — [Ver. 
 12. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read ἀκούσαντες (8 BL =), instead of ἀκούοντες. ] | — 
 Ver. 16, ἐπιτίθησιν] Lachm. and Tisch, have τίθησιν. See on Mark iv. 21. — Ver. 
 17. ov γνωσθήσεται] Lachm. and Tisch. have οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ, 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 ἔλθῃ. --- Ver. 20. λεγόντων is wanting 
 inBDLA£R®, min. vss., 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 ὅτι, as read by 
 Tischendorf. [Treg., W. and Hort, and Weiss (apparently) reject both λεγόντων 
 and ὅτι, also substituting καί for dé, at the beginning of the verse, — Ver. 24. 
 Tisch. Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., follow δὲ B L, and read διεγερθείς, instead of 
 the simple verb.] — Ver. 26. Ταδαρηνῶν] Lachm. and Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. has Τὲρ- 
 γεσηνῶν], following B C? Ὁ, Vulg. It., have Γερασηνῶν. L Χ δὲ, min. vss. Epiph. 
 have Tepyeoyvov. See on Matt. [Here also recent editors accept Γερασηνῶν ; so 
 R. V. text. Comp. on Mark. — Ver. 27. Tisch. and recent editors have : ἔχων da- 
 μόνια͵ καὶ χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτιον, following δὲ B, Copt., and others.] — Ver. 
 29. Instead of παρήγγειλε we must read, with Lachm. and Tisch., rapiyeAAev,on de- 
 cisive evidence. — Ver, 31. παρεκάλει] παρεκάλουν (Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors}]), 
 although strongly attested, is an alteration to suit the connection and following 
 the parallels. — Ver. 32. βοσκομένων] Lachm. has βοσκομένη, in accordance with 
 BDKU 8, min. Syr. Aeth. Vere. [So W. and Hort, R. V.] From the par- 
 allels. — παρεκάλουν] Lachm. and Tisch. have παρεκάλεσαν, 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 it is only 
 in that Gospel that the reading is without variation. — Ver. 33. Instead of εἰσῆλ- 
 θεν, εἰσῆλθον is decisively attested (Lachm. Tisch.). — Ver. 34. γεγενημένον] With 
 Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., who follow decisive evidence, read yeyovdc. — 
 ἀπελθόντες] which Elz. has before ἀπήγγ., is condemned on decisive evidence. — 
 [Ver. 35. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. (δ B) have ἐξήλθεν.] --- Ver. 36. 
 καῇ is not found inB C DL P X 8, 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 vy. 16, it came easily to disappear. — Ver. 37. ἠρώτησαν] Lachm. 
 has ἠρώτησεν, in accordance with A BC K M P X 8, min. Vere. [So recent 
 editors, R. V., against Tisch.] An emendation. —[Ver. 38. Tisch., recent 
 editors, R. V. (δ B Ὁ Τὴ omit ὁ Τησοῦς. --- Ver. 40. Instead of ὑτοστρέψαι 8 B have 
 ὑποστρέφειν ; 50 Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] — Ver. 41. αὐτός] Lachm. has 
 οὗτος, in accordance with B Ὁ R, min. Copt. Brix. Verc. Goth. The Recepta is 
 to be maintained ; the reference of αὐτός was not perceived. — Ver. 42. ἐν δὲ τῷ 
 ὑπάγειν] Lachm, and Tisch. [Tisch. VIII. has ἐν dé τῷ ὑπάγειν] read καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ 
 Topevecta, 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 πορεύεσθαι would be more readily 
 imported than ὑπάγειν. --- Ver. 43. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read ἰατροῖς (δὲ 
 and uncials generally), but B omits iavp. .. . βίον ; so W. and Hort, R. V. 
 marg.|—7’| Lachm. and Tisch, have az’, in accordance with AB R = 254. The 
 Recepta is a correction, instead of which 69 has zap’, — Ver. 45. Instead of σὺν 
 αὐτῷ Elz. Scholz have μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, in opposition to decisive evidence (in B, min. 
 and a few yss. [so W. and Hort, R. V. marg.] the words καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ are want- 
 ing altogether). — x. λέγεις" τίς ὁ ay. μ.} is, with Tisch., following Β 1, δὲ, min. 
 Copt. Sah. Arm., to be deleted. Taken from Mark, on the basis of ver. 45. — 
 [Ver. 46, Instead of ἐξελθοῦσαν (Rec.), recent editors have ἐξεληλυθυίαν (δὲ B L, 
 33) ; the former is from Mark. In wv. 47, 49 αὐτῷ is omitted after ἀπήγγειλεν 
 and Aeywv (δὲ B Land others) by recent editors.] — Ver. 48. θάρσει] An addition 
 from Matthew ; deleted by Lachm. Tisch. — Ver. 49. Instead of μή Lachm. 
 Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort] have μηκέτι, in accordance with B Ὁ δὲ, Syr.P 
 (marked with an asterisk), Cant. This μηκέτι, in consequence of Mark ν. 35 (ri 
 ἔτι), was written in the margin by way of gloss, and was afterward taken in, 
 sometimes alongside of μῇ (thus B : μὴ μηκέτι), sometimes instead of it. — [Ver. 50. 
 Tisch., recent editors, R. V., omit λέγων (δὲ BL, 1, 33) and substitute πίστευσον 
 (BL) for πίστευε ; the latter is from Mark.]— Ver. 51. Instead of ἐλθών 
 (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]) Elz. has εἰσελθών, 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 εἰσελθεῖν (“‘ et cum venisset domum, non permisit intrare,’’ etc., 
 Vulg.). [The order Idavyyv καὶ ᾿Τάκωβον is well attested (B C D, etc.), accepted 
 by Tisch., recent editors, R. V.; the Rec. is from Mark. ]— οὐδένα] Lachm, and 
 Tisch. have τινὰ σὺν αὐτῷ, upon sufficient evidence. οὐδένα is from Mark v. 37. 
 —Ver. 52. οὐκ] BC Ὁ F L Χ AX®, min. vss. have ov yap. Commended by 
 Griesb., adopted by Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.] and Tisch. [Tisch. 
 VIII. has οὐκ]. From Matt. ix. 24, whence also in many authorities τὸ κοράσιον 
 is imported after ἀπέθ. --- Ver. 54. ἐκβαλὼν ἔξω πάντ. καί] is wanting in B DL X 
 δὲ, min. Vulg. It. Syr.c" 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 made familiar by Matthew and Mark, have been 
 omitted here. — éye/pov] with B C Ὁ Χ & 1, 33, ἔγειρε 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 ἐγείρου]. Comp. on Matt. ix. 5. 
 
 Vy. 1-3. A general historical statement in regard to the continued official 
 teaching in Galilee, and the ministry ef women connected therewith. — ἐν 
 τῷ καθεξ.1 Comp. vii. 11. — καὶ αὐτός] καί is that which carries forward the 
 
CHAP. VIII., 4-15. 357 
 narrative after ἐγένετο (see on v. 12), and αὐτός prepares the way for the 
 mention of the followers of Jesus (καὶ oi δώδεκα κ.τ.}.}. -- κατὰ πόλιν] as ver. 
 4, — Mayd.] see on Matt. xxvii. 56. She is neither the woman that anointed 
 Jesus, vii. 37, nor the sister of Lazarus. — ἀφ᾽ ἧς δαιμόν. ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλ.} 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 Jesus had rescued from the 
 heavy curse of sin.” Comp. also Hengstenberg on John, I. p. 206, accord- 
 ing to whom she was ‘‘an emancipated woman” who found in Christ the 
 tranquillizing of the tumult of her emotional nature. The express τεθε- 
 parevuévat, healed, should certainly have guarded against this view. — ém- 
 τρόπου] Matt. xx. 8. He had probably been 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. — διηκόνουν] 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. —cvviovroc δέ] whilst, however, a great crowd of 
 people came together, also of those who, city by city, drew near to Him. τῶν κ.τ.λ. 
 depends on ὄχλου πολλοῦ, and καί, also, shows that this ὄχλος πολύς, besides 
 others (such, namely, as were dwelling there), consisted also of those who, 
 city by city, 1.6., by cities, etc. ‘‘ Ex quavis urbe erat cohors aliqua,” ‘‘ Out 
 of every city whatever there was a certain throng,” Bengel. — ἐπιπορεύεσθαι, 
 not : to journey after (Rettig in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1838, p. 486), but to jour- 
 ney thither, to draw towards.* Nowhere else in the New Testament ; in 
 the Greek writers it is usually found with an accusative of place, in the 
 sense of peragrare terram, and the like. — διὰ rapa. | 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. [See Note LXXI., p. 362. ] — 
 Ver. 5. The collocation ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον has somewhat of 
 simple solemnity and earnestness. — μέν] καί follows in ver.6. See on Mark 
 ix. 12.— καὶ 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. ἐν μέσῳ] The result of the ἔπεσεν. 
 — ovudveicac| ‘‘ una cum herba segetis,” ‘‘at the same time with the blade 
 
 1 That what is here meant is “‘ 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. xii. 43 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 inits whole power. At 
 least, according to this the demon in Matt. 
 xii. 45 would only have needed to take with 
 with him six other demons. 
 
 2 Comp. Bar. vi. 62; Polyb. iv. 9. 2. 
 
 3 See on Matt. x. 16; and Kriiger, ad Dion, 
 Hal, Hist. p. 302. 
 
358 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 of the grain,” Erasmus. — Vv. 9-11. ric... atry] namely, κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν, 
 ‘‘according to the interpretation,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς 
 ἐν παραβ.] but to the rest the mysteries of the kingdom of God are given in 
 parables, that they, etc. What follows, viz. iva βλέποντες μὴ βλέπωσι k.T.A., 18 
 the contrast to γνῶναι. ---- ἔστι δὲ αὕτη ἡ παραβολή] but what follows is the parable 
 (according to its meaning). — oi δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν] to complete this expression 
 understand σπαρέντες, Which is to be borrowed from the foregoing ὁ σπόρος. 
 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 τὸ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν 
 τούτων ἐστίν, οἵ k.t.2. Vv. 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, receive 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 οὗτοι (instead of τοῦτο) is attracted from what follows 
 (Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 42), as also at ver. 15. — ὑπὸ μεριμνῶν x.7.2.] ἃ 
 modal limitation to πορευόμενοι, so that ὑπό marks the accompanying relations, 
 in this case the impulse, under which their πορεύεσθαι, that is, their movement 
 therefrom (that is, their further life-guidance), proceeds. The connecting of 
 these words with συμπνίγ. (Theophylact, Castalio, Beza, Elsner, Zeger, 
 Bengel, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, Schegg, and others) has against it the fact 
 that without some qualifying phrase πορευόμενοι would not be a picturesque 
 (de Wette), but an 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 on, 2 Sam. iii. 1, and elsewhere). 
 Comp. Ewald, ‘‘ more and more.” [See Note LXXIL., p. 362.] — τοῦ βίου] 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 πορεύεσθαι proceeds. — ovurviyovra| the 
 same which at ver. 7 was expressed actively: ai ἄκανθαι ἀνέπνιξαν αὐτό. Hence 
 συμπνίγονται 15 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 hearers referred to 
 were themselves marked out as the seed among the thorns. —x. od τελεσφ. ] 
 consequence of the συμπνίγ., they do not bring to maturity, there occurs in 
 their case no bringing to maturity. Examples in Wetstein and Kypke. — 
 Ver. 15. τὸ δὲ ἐν τ. κι γῇ] 86. πεσόν, ver. 14. — ἐν καρδίᾳ x.t.2.] belongs to κατέ- 
 χουσι (keep fast, see on 1 Cor. xi. 2), and ἀκούσαντες τὸν Ady. is a qualifying 
 clause inserted parenthetically. — καλῇ x. ἀγαθῇ} in the truly moral meaning 
 (comp. Matt. vii. 17), not according to the Greek idea of εὐγένεια denoted 
 by καλὸς κἀγαθός (Welcker, Theogn. Proleg. p. xxiv. ff.; Maetzner, ad Antiph. 
 
 1 Bornemann in Joc.; Bernhardy, p. 268; Ellendt, Zex. Soph. II. p. 881, 
 
CHAP. VIII., 16-21. 359 
 p. 137; 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. —év ὑπομονῇ] perseveringly. Comp. Rom. ii. 7. A 
 contrast is found in ἀφίστανται, ver. 13. 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 : Butif 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 (βλέπετε οὖν, ver. 18) to listen aright to my 
 teaching. On the repeated occurrence of this saying the remark of Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus is sufficient : εἰκὸς δὲ, κατὰ διαφόρους καιροὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα τὸν 
 Χριστὸν εἰπεῖν, ““ but it is probable that Christ spake such things on differ- 
 ent occasions.” — Ver. 17. καὶ εἰς φαν. ἔλθῃ] a change in the idea. By the 
 Suture γνωσθήσεται that which is to come is simply asserted as coming to 
 pass ; but by the subjunctive (ἔλϑῃ) it is in such a way asserted that it leads 
 one to expect it out of the present, and that without av, 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. πῶς] χρὴ yap σπουδαίως 
 k. ἐπιμελῶς... ἀκροᾶσθαι, ‘‘ For it is needful to hear. . . earnestly and care- 
 fully,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — ὃς yap ἂν ἔχῃ κ.τ.}.} a 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. —6 δοκεῖ ἔχειν] even what he fancies he 
 possesses : it is not the liability to loss, but the self-delusion about possession, 
 the fanciful presumption of possession, that is expressed ; the μὴ ἔχειν, 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 δοκεῖ would have been inappropriate. But even here the 
 mere ὃ ἔχει, as in Mark iv. 25, would have been not only allowable, but even 
 more significant. The δοκεῖ κιτ.λ. already shows the influence of later re- 
 flection. 
 
 Vv. 19-21. See on Matt. xii. 46-50 ; Markiii. 31-35. [See Note LXXIIL., 
 p. 362.] 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. λεγόντων] by its being 
 said.? [See critical note.] — Ver. 21. οὗτοι] my mother and my brethren are 
 those who, etc. 
 
 1 Comp. on the latter clause, Plato, Gor- 
 gias, Ὁ. 480 C: cis τὸ φανερὸν ἄγειν τὸ ἀδίκημα ; 
 Thucyd. i. 6. 8, 23. 5. 
 
 3 Therefore it is not to be said, with Baur, 
 Hvang. p. 467 f., that Luke purposely omit- 
 ted the words in Matthew: καὶ ἐκτείνας τ. 
 
 χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τ. μαϑητὰς K.T.A,, in an inter- 
 est adverse to the Twelve. It is not the 
 Twelve alone that are meantin Matthew. 
 
 3 See Winer, p. 519 [E. T. 588] ; Bernhardy, 
 p. 481; Bornemann, Schol. p. 53. 
 
360 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Vv. 22-25. See on Matt. viii. 18, 23-27 ; Mark iv. 35-41. In Luke there is 
 no precise note of time, but the voyage is the same ; abridged from Mark. 
 [On vv. 22-56, asa whole, see Note LXXIV., p. 362.] — Ver. 23 ἢ. ἀφυπνοῦν] 
 which means to wake up (therefore equivalent to ἀφυπνίζεσθαι), and also (as in 
 this case) to fall asleep (consequently equivalent to καθυπνοῦν᾽), belongs to the 
 late and corrupt Greek. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 224. — κατέβη] from the high 
 ground down to the lake.? — συνεπληροῦντο] 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. — διήγειραν] they awoke him (Matt. i. 24); 
 but subsequently ἐγερθείς : having arisen (Matt. ii. 14). [But see critical note. ] 
 — Ver. 25. ἐφοβήθ.] the disciples, as Mark iv. 41. — The first καί is: even. 
 
 Vv. 26-39. See on Matt. viii. 28-34 ; Mark v. 1-20. Luke follows Mark 
 freely. — κατέπλ.] they arrived. See Wetstein. — Ver. 27. ἐκ τῆς πόλεως] does 
 not belong to ὑπήντησεν, but to ἀνήρ τις, alongside of which it stands. To 
 connect the clause with ὑπήντησεν would not be contradictory to ἐν οἰκίᾳ... 
 μνήμασιν, but would require the presupposition, not presented in the text, that 
 the demoniac had just rushed out of the city. [See on the rest of the verse, 
 critical note. ] — Ver. 28. μή we Bacav.] as at Mark v. 7. — Ver. 29. παρήγγελ- 
 dev] not in the sense of the pluperfect, but like ἔλεγεν, Mark v. 8. — Nothing is 
 to be put in a parenthesis. — πολλοῖς yap χρόνοις x.7.2. | 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- 
 νηρπάκει]} 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 : ἐξ had (ab- 
 solutely and entirely, συν) seized him (Ar. Lys. 487; 4 Mace. v. 3). 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 édecyeiro 
 κιτ.λ. 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 ἃ B L, 
 33, and give the form ἐδεσμεύετο. ] ] — Ver. 31. αὐτοῖς] as Mark v. 10, from the 
 standpoint of the consciousness of the several demons possessing the man, — 
 ἄβυσσον] abyss, i.e., 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, Markusevang. p. 42. — Ver. 33. ἀπεπνίγη) of 
 choking by drowning.* Even Hug (Gutacht. Il. p. 17 f.) attempts to 
 justify the destruction of the swine in a way which can only remind us of the 
 
 1 Tt corresponds exactly to the German 
 “entschlafen,” except that this word is not 
 used in the sense of becoming free from 
 sleep, which καϑυπνοῦν might have accord- 
 ing to the connection. 
 
 2Comp. Polyb. xxx. 14. 6: λαίλαπός τινος 
 ἐκπεπτωκυΐας εἰς αὐτούς. 
 
 3 Comp. Rom. xvi. 25; Acts viii. 11; John 
 ii. 20; Herodian, i. 6.24: οὐ πολλῷ χρόνῳ 5 
 Plut. 7hes. vi. : χρόνοις πολλοῖς ὕστερον. See 
 generally, Bernhardy, p. 81; Fritzsche, ad 
 Rom. I. p. ἘΠ: 
 
 4 Dem. 833, pen.; Raphel, Polyb. p. 199; 
 Wakefield, Silv. Crit. IL. p. 75. 
 
CHAP, VIII., 40-56. 361 
 
 maxim, ‘‘ gui excusat, accusat.” — Ver. 85. ἐξῆλθον] the people from the city 
 and from the farms. — παρὰ τ. πόδας] as a scholar with his teacher. The 
 whole of this description, indeed, and the subsequent prohibition, ver. 39, 
 is intended, according to Baur, Evang. p. 430 f., to set forth the demoniac 
 as a representative of the converted heathen world. — Ver. 36. καὶ oi ἰδόντες] the 
 disciples and others who had seen it together. The καί 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. ἐδέετο] See on this Ionic form, which, however, 
 was also frequent among Attic writers.'. The reading ἐδεῖτο (B L) is a cor- 
 rection, and ἐδεεῖτο (A P, Lachmann) is a transcriber’s mistake for this cor- 
 rection.— Ver. 39. πόλιν] Gadara, ver. 27. Mark, certainly with greater ac- 
 curacy, has ἐν τῇ Δεκαπόλει. 
 
 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. — ἀπεδέξατο] is usually understood of a joyous 
 reception (ὡς εὐεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα, ‘as 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. καὶ αὐτός] and He, after 
 mention of the name comes the personal position. Comp. xix. 2. -- ἀπέ- 
 θνησκεν] died (imperfect), i.e., 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.? — συνέπνιγον] a vivid picture : they stifled Him ; in 
 point of fact the same as συνέθλιβον, Mark v. 24.— Ver. 48. προσαναλώ- 
 σασα] when she even in addition (over and above her suffering) had expended.* 
 [See critical note. 1 --- ἰατροῖς] on physicians. [See critical note.] As to ὅλον τ. 
 βίον, comp. Mark xii. 44. — Ver. 45. ὁ Πέτρος μὲν wero περὶ ἁπλῆς ἐπαφῆς λέγειν 
 τὸν Χριστὸν... αὐτὸς dé ov περὶ τοιαύτης ἔλεγεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς γενομένης ἐκ πί- 
 στεως, ““ 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. τις παρὰ τοῦ apy.] z.e., one of his dependants. Comp. 
 on Mark iii. 21. — τέθνηκεν] placed first for emphasis : she is dead.4— Ver. 
 51. εἰσελθεῖν] 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 
 were 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 Phryn. p. 220; Schaefer, ad 4 On the distinction from ἀπέϑνησκεν, Ver. 
 Greg. Cor. p. 431; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. 42, comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 64 A: ἀποϑνήσκειν 
 vii. 4. 8. τε Kal τεθνάναι. 
 
 3 Bernhardy, p. 373; Wyttenbach, ad 5They would not, moreover, have to be 
 Plat. Phaed. p. 142 ff. understood as associated with those who 
 
 8 Dem. 460. 2, 1025. 20; Plat. Prot. p. 311 Ὁ. were put out, if ἐκβαλ, ἔξω πάντ, were genu- 
 
362 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 in Mark, whom he follows. — ἐκόπτοντο αὐτήν] a well-known custom, to ex- 
 press one’s grief by beating on one’s breast. As to the construction of κό- 
 πτεσθαι (also τύπτεσθαι) and plangere with an accusative of the object (xxiii. 
 27) on whose account one beats oneself, see Heyne, Obss. ad Tibull. i. ἢ. 28, 
 Ῥ. 71. — Ver. 55. ἐπέστρεψε x.7.2.] 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. παρήγγ. αὐτοῖς x.7.2.] following Mark y, 48, 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 LXXI. The Parable of the Sower. 
 
 Weiss ed. 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 on a common source. (See 
 Mark, Note XXI., p. 59.) 
 
 LXXII. Ver, 14. ὑπὸ μεριμνῶν k.7.A. 
 
 Despite Meyer’s objection, this phrase seems to qualify the main verb, and 
 πορευόμενοι ay be taken as in the R. V.: ‘‘and as they goon their way they are 
 choked,” etc. 
 
 ΤΙ ΧΧΙΤΙ. 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 criticalremarks). Késtlin is 
 right in adducing this against Baur, who de- 
 tected in this passage a Pauline side-glance 
 to the original apostles. 
 
 1 How opposed, therefore, is this to the 
 view of an apparent death! There cannot 
 
 remain even a shadow of uncertainty as to 
 how the matter is to beregarded (Weiz- 
 siicker). Jesus Himself will not leave the 
 crowd in any doubt, but declares (ver. 52) 
 in His pregnant style what must immedi- 
 ately of itself be evident. 
 
CHAP. IX. 363 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Ver. 1. After δώδεκα Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, which is not 
 found in A BDKMSVI Δ, min. vss. Fathers. An addition, instead of which 
 other authorities of importance have αποστόλους. Luke always writes οἱ δώδεκα 
 absolutely. So also do Mark and John, but not Matthew. — Ver. 2. τοὺς ἀσθε- 
 γνοῦντας ADL £ δὲ, min. have τ. ἀσθενεῖς. Approved by Griesb., adopted by 
 Lachm. But since in B, Syr.‘" Dial. the words are altogether wanting, and, 
 moreover, in the variants occur τοὺς νοσοῦντας, πάντας τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας, and omnes 
 infirmitates (Brix.), the simple ἰᾶσθαι (as Tisch. also now has) is to be regarded as 
 original. [So recent editors, R. V. marg.] — Ver. 3. ῥάβδους in Elz., instead of 
 ῥάβδον in Lachm. and Tisch., has evidence of importance both for and against 
 it. In accordance with A B [B has ῥάβδον] 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 δὲ B ΟΥ̓ L, 1, 33, 
 69, vss., accepted by recent editors, R. V.— ἀνὰ is wanting in 8 B C L, omitted 
 by W. and Hort, R. V., retained by Tisch. Weiss.]— Ver. 5. δέξωνται] in Elz., 
 instead of δέχωνται (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. — καὶ τ. xov.] This καί (bracketed by Lachm.) is wanting in B C* Ὁ 
 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. ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ] 
 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 δὲ BC L, etc., substitute 
 ἐγέρθη for ἐγήγερται ; in ver. 8, τίς for εἷς ; in ver, 9, δέ for καί, at the beginning, 
 omitting ἐγώ before axotw.] — Ver. 10. τόπον épnu. πόλ. kar. Byfo.] Many variants; 
 the reading which is best attested is πόλεν καλουμένην Byfo., which Tisch., follow- 
 ing B L X., 33, Copt. Sahid. Erp., has adopted. Rightly ; εἰς πόλιν κ.τ.λ. 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. defau.] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. have ἀποδεξάμ., in accordance with Β Ὁ LX [also Z] δὲ, min. Rightly ; 
 the Recepta is a neglect of the compound form, which form in the New Testament 
 occurs only in Luke. — Ver. 12. Instead of πορευθέντες, Elz. Scholz have ἀπελ- 
 ϑόντες, in opposition to decisive evidence ; it is from the parallels. — Ver. 14. 
 Before ava, BC DL REX, 33, 157, Sahid. Cant. Or. have ὡσεί, which Tisch.Sy2°ps 
 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 δὲ BL, 1, 33, etc.), read κατέκλιναν instead of 
 ἀνέκλιναν. — Ver, 16. Tisch., recent editors (with δὲ B C, ete.) read παραϑεῖναι in- 
 stead of παρατιϑέναι. --- Ver. 22. ἐγερϑ.] Lachm. has ἀναστῆναι. The authorities 
 are greatly divided, but ἐγερϑ. is from Matthew (τ. τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερϑ.). [δὲ BL Δ, 
 etc., have ἐγερϑ., accepted by Tisch., recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 23. Instead of 
 
364 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 ἔρχεσϑαι, ἀρνησάσϑω Elz. Scholz have ἐλϑεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσϑω, in opposition to pre- 
 ponderating mss, and Or. From the parallels. — xa ἡμέραν] 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. ὧδε] BL = δὲ, 1, Cyr. have αὐτοῦ. Commended by Griesb., approved by 
 Rinck, adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; ὧδε is from the parallels. — The readings 
 ἑστώτων and γεύσωνται (Elz. : ἑστηκότων and yetcovra:) have (the latter strongly) 
 preponderating evidence in their favor. [But ἑστηκότων is accepted by Tisch. 
 and recent editors, with δὲ B L, etc. — Ver. 34. The same authorities and edi- 
 tors have the imperfect ἐπεσκίαζεν.  --- Ver. 35. ἀγαπητός] Β L Z δὲ, vss, have 
 ἐκλελεγμένος. Commended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Tisch. The Re- 
 cepta is from the parallels. — Ver, 37. ἐν τῇ ἑξῆς} ἐν, in accordance with BLS 
 X, 1, 69, is to be deleted. See on vii. 11. — Ver. 38. ave3.] Lachm. has ἐβόησεν, 
 in accordance with BC DL δὲ, 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 ἐπιβλέψαι (to be accented thus) [Tisch. ἐπίβλεψαι.1, Elz. Lachm. have 
 ἐπίβλεψον. Authorities of importance on both sides. The latter is an inter- 
 pretation. The infinitive ἘΠΙΒΛΈΨΑΙ was taken for an imperative middle. 
 —[Ver. 40. All uncials have ἐκβάλωσιν ; so recent editors. ]— Ver. 43. ἐποίησεν 
 Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐποίει ; decisively attested. [ὃ A BC D L, vss., have 
 the imperfect, most of them omitting ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς ; so recent editors.]— Ver. 48. 
 instead of ἐστί, which is approved by Griesb., and, moreover, adopted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch., Elz. Scholz have ἔσται. But ἐστί is attested by BCL X 
 = δὰ, 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 δὲ Β Τὶ, 
 etc., read ἐν instead of ἐπί (Rec. Tisch.), also omit the poorly supported τά be- 
 fore day. —'The imperfect ἐκωλύομεν is found in δὲ B L, and accepted by W. 
 and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]— Ver. 50. Instead of ὑμῶν Elz. has ἡμῶν both times, in 
 opposition to preponderating evidence. See on Mark ix. 40.—Ver. 54. ὡς k. 
 "HA. éx.] is wanting in B L Ξ 8, 71, 157, vss. (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. καὶ εἶπεν... ὑμεῖς] is wanting in A BC E, etc., also 
 ἐξ, 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 ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς. [Despite Meyer's argument, it is safest to reject the 
 doubtful clauses in vy. 54, 55. It is true there is an increase of evidence 
 against the passages from vy. 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 : ὁ yap vide Tov ἀνϑρώπου οὐκ ἦλϑε ψυχὰς ἀνϑρώπων ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι. 
 
CHAP. IX., 1-9. 365 
 
 — Ver. 57. ἐγένετο dé] Lachm, Tisch. have καί, in accordance with BC LX & 8, 
 min. Syr. Perss. Copt. Aeth. Arm, Rightly ; a new section was here begun (a 
 lection also), and attention was called to this by adding ἐγένετο to καί (so 1), 346, 
 Cant. Vere. Colb.), or by writing ἐγένετο δέ, in accordance with ver. 51. --- κύριε] 
 is wanting in BD L& δὲ, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. 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, 
 κύριε 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 Β Ὁ. 
 Probably added from Matt.] — Ver. 62. εἰς τὴν βασιλ. B L Ξ δὰ, 1, 33, Vulg. It. 
 Clem. Or. have τῇ βασιλείᾳ. 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. — καὶ νόσους Gepar. | depends on δύναμ. x. ἐξουσ. (power and author- 
 ity, iv. 36). The reference to ἔδωκεν (Bengel, Bornemann) is more remote, 
 since the νόσους θεραπεύειν is actually a δύναμις x. ἐξουσία. --- Ver. 3. μήτε ava 
 δύο χιτ. ἔχειν] nor even to have two under-garments (one in use and one to 
 spare). A mingling of two constructions, as though μηδὲν αἴρειν had been 
 previously 5816.} For the explanation of the infinitive with εἶπε there is no 
 need of supplying δεῖν (Lobeck, ad Phryn. pp. 753 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. 233 [E. T. 271 f.], who understands λέγω) 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. 
 καὶ τ. xov.| Hven the dust also ; see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 184. [But see 
 critical note.]— ἐπ’ airt.| against them, more definite than Mark : αὐτοῖς. 
 Theophylact : εἰς ἔλεγχον αὐτῶν καὶ κατάκρισιν, ‘‘ for their conviction and con- 
 demnation.” 
 
 Vv. 7-9. See on Matt. xiv. 1 f.; Mark vi. 14-16. — To the ἤκουσεν 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 τὰ γινόμενα πάντα: 
 everything which was done, whereby is meant, which was done by Jesus (ver. 9). 
 — διηπόρει] he was in great perplexity, 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. ἐφάνη] 
 ‘‘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 Hur. Heracl. 
 Winer, p. 283 [E. T. 316]. 314. 
 
 2 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. v. 7. 34. 4 On the accentuation ὑπό τινων, see Lip- 
 
 8 See generally, Winer, p. 282 [E. T.316]; ἴιβ, Gramm, Unters. Ὁ. 49, 
 
366 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 the character of the secondary writer is to be discerned in the entire narra- 
 tive (in opposition to Weizsiicker). The twofold ἐγώ has the emphasis 
 of the terrified heart. — ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν αὐτόν] he longed to see Him. Comp. 
 xxiii. 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. 13-21 ; Mark vi. 30-44 ; John vi.1ff. Ac- 
 cording to the reading εἰς πόλιν καλουμένην Βηθσ. (see the critical remarks), 
 εἰς is to be understood of the direction whither (versus), and ver. 11 ff. is to be 
 conceived as said of what happened on the way to Bethsaida. The Bethsaida 
 meant at Mark vi. 45, on the western shore of the lake (The Βηθσ. τῆς Ταλιλ.» 
 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 Michaelis, 
 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 some hesitation Bleek), there is no foundation at all in Luke’s text. 
 For although Jesus had returned from Gadara to the western side of the 
 lake (viii. 87, 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 at 
 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 seeking 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. azodeé.] He did not send them back, 
 although He desired to be alone, but received them. — ἐπισιτισμόν] 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. 
 πλεῖον ἢ] These words do not fit into the construction. — εἰ μήτι 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,” 
 
 1 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410: Kriiger, ad Dion. p. 287 ; Schoemann, ad Js. Ὁ. 444. 
 
CHAP. Ix., 10-17. 367 
 
 to be previously supplied (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 have bought. The tone of the ad- 
 dress is not one of irony (Camerarius, Homberg, Kuinoel), as is often 
 expressed by ei μή,᾽ but of embarrassment at the manifest impossibility of carry- 
 ing the order into effect (ἡμεῖς. . . εἰς πάντα τὸν λαόν). On εἰ with a 
 subjunctive, which is to be recognized even in the Attic writers, although 
 rarely, but is of frequent use in the later Greek, see Winer, p. 263 [E. T. 
 294 f.]°. Winer is mistaken in regarding the mood in this case as a delibera- 
 tive subjunctive not dependent on εἰ, 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 ἄν (condition absolutely, 
 without dependence upon circumstances that may or may not happen), see 
 Hermann, De part. ἄν, il. 7, p. 95 ; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 901. --- ἡμεῖς] 
 with emphasis ; for previously they had advised to leave the people them- 
 selves to procure food. — Ver. 14. Observe the numerical relation, five 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. αὐτούς] an intimation of the benediction uttered in 
 prayer, which was effectual in causing the increase. Matthew and Mark 
 have it otherwise. — Ver. 17. κλασμάτων] is, in accordance with the opinion 
 of Valckenaer, Lachmann, and Tischendorf [not Tisch. VIII. ], to be regard- 
 ed as governed by κόφινοι δώδεκα. If, in accordance with the usual view, it 
 had been construed with'r6 repioo. αὐτ., it would have been τῶν κλασμ. (comp. 
 Matt. xiv. 20 ; Soph. H7. 1280: τὰ μὲν περισσεύοντα τῶν λόγων ἄφες ; Plat. 
 Legg. ix. p. 855 A) or τὰ περισσεύσαντα αὐτοῖς κλάσματα (John vi. 12). Luke 
 reproduces the κλασμάτων δώδεκα κοφίνους of Mark. [See Note LXXVI., 
 p. 378.] Since, moreover, κλασμάτων contains a reference to κατέκλασε, ver. 
 16, it is manifest that the fanciful view of Lange, LZ. 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 wntruthfulness 
 must in this case all the four reporters of the history have 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 ? 
 
 1 Kiihner, Il. p. 561; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. ad Cyrop. iii. 3. 50; Klotz, ad Devar. 
 in Leocr. Ὁ. 317. p. 500 ff. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 491. 
 3 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 12; Poppo, 
 
368 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Vv. 18-20. See on Matt. xvi. 13-16 ; Mark viii. 27-29. As to the second 
 miraculous feeding Luke is silent ; a silence which Schleiermacher and 
 many others,even Weizsiicker, make use of in opposition to the reality of the 
 second miracle (see in general on Matt. xv. 33). 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 LXXVIL., 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. ἄλλοι dé] 
 without a previous οἱ μέν. See on Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark x. 32. The 
 opinion : Ἰωάνν. τ. βαπτ., as that of the majority, is first of all declared with- 
 out limitation. — Ver. 20. ὁ Πέτρος] προπηδᾶ τῶν λοιπῶν καὶ στόμα πάντων yevd- 
 μενος, ‘‘he springs before the rest, becoming also the mouth of all,” Theo- 
 phylact. —7rdv Χριστὸν. τ. Θεοῦ] See on ii. 26. 
 
 Vv. 21, 22. See on Matt. xvi. 20 f.; Mark ix. 30 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. ὅτι] 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. —aré] on the part of. See Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 326]. 
 
 Vv. 23-27. See on Matt. xvi. 24-28; Mark viii. 34-ix. 1. — πρὸς πάντας] 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 αὐτοῖς, ver. 21, refers to 
 the apostles, πάντας must refer to a wider circle. Luke leaves it to the 
 reader to conclude from πάντας that there were still others close by to whom, 
 beside the disciples, that which follows was addressed. Comp. on Mark 
 viii. 34. 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. —xaf ἡμέραν] involuntarily suggested by the experience of a 
 later period ; 1 Cor. xv. 31; Rom. viii. 36; 2 Cor. iv. 16 f. — Ver. 25. 
 ἑαυτὸν dé ἀπολ. ἢ ζημ.] if he. . . however, shall have lost himself, or have suffered 
 damage (ἢ, not equivalent to καί, but introducing another word for the same 
 idea). Himself, i.e., 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 θάνατος ; not living (in the ζωὴ αἰώνιος), he is dead ; he is dead 
 as well as no more present (οὐκ εἰσί, Matt. 11. 18), he has lost himself. — Ver. 
 26. ἐν τῇ δόξῃ x.7.A.] A threefold glory :— (1) His own, which he has abso- 
 lutely as the exalted Messiah (comp. xxiv. 26); (2) The glory of God, which 
 accompanies Him who comes down from the throne of God ; (8) 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. ἀληθῶς) not belonging to λέγω (in that case it would 
 be a translation of ἀμήν, and would come first, as in xii. 44, xxi. 3), but to 
 what follows. — αὐτοῦ] (see the critical remarks) here.” — τὴν βασιλ. τ. Θεοῦ] the 
 kingdom of the Messiah, not less definite, but simpler than Matthew and Mark. 
 
 Vv. 28-36. See on Matt. xvii. 1-13 ; Mark ix. 2-13. — doei ἡμέραι ὀκτώ] 
 not in grammatical construction (comp. ver. 13), see on Matt. xv. 32.3 The 
 ὡσεί protects Luke from the reproach of representing himself as paying more 
 attention than Mark to chronology (Holtzmann). — προσεύξασθαι See on v. 
 16. — Ver. 29. τὸ εἶδος] the appearance of His countenance : ‘‘ Transformatio 
 splendorem addidit, faciem non subtraxit,” ‘‘The transformation added 
 splendor, and did not remove the countenance,” Jerome. — λευκός] not in- 
 stead of an adverb, but ἐξαστρ. is a second predicate added on by way of 
 climax without καί (Dissen, ad Pind. p. 304), white, glistening.4— Ver. 31. 
 τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ] 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 εἴσοδος, Acts xiii. 24. This subject of the συλλαλεῖν, 
 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.°— πληροῦν] The 
 departure is conceived of as divinely foreordained, therefore as being fulfilled 
 when it actually occurred. See Kypke, I. p. 253.— Ver. 32. But Peter 
 and his companions, while this was going on before them, were weighed down 
 with sleep (drowsy); as they nevertheless remained awake, were not actually 
 asleep, they saw, etc.’— διαγρηγ.} is 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.* [See Note LXXIX., 
 
 1Comp. Matt. xxviii. 3 and elsewhere ; and the passages in Suicer, Tes. I. p. 287, 
 
 Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. § 116. 1142; Elsner, Odss. Ὁ. 219. 
 2 Acts xv. 34; Matt. xxvi. 36; Plato, ὁ Comp. Weizsacker, Huang. Gesch. Ὁ. 481. 
 Polit. i. p. 327 C, and elsewhere. 7 On βεβαρημ. ὕπνῳ, comp. Matt. xxvi. 43; 
 3 Winer, pp. 458, 497 [E. T. 516, 563]; Butt- Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 77. 
 mann, Wevtest. Gr. Ὁ. 122 [E. T. 139]. 8 Comp. Herodian, iii. 4. 8: πάσης τῆς 
 4On ἐξαστρ., comp. LXX. Ezek. i. 4, 7; νυκτὸς... διαγρηγορήσαντες ; Vulg. (Lach- 
 Nah. iii. 3; Thryphiod. 103. mann): vigilantes. 
 
 5 Comp. Wisd. iii. 2, vii. 6; 2 Pet. i. 15, 
 24 
 
370 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 p. 378. ] — Ver. 33. According to Luke, Peter desires by his proposal to pre- 
 vent the departure of Moses and Elijah. — μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει] 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 a design of throwing the primitive apostles, especially Peter, into the 
 shade.’1— Ver. 34 f. ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς} αὐτούς, 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 ἐν τῷ διαχωρίζε- 
 σθαι αὐτοὺς an’ αὐτοῦ. --- 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. — ἐκλελεγμ.} See 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 less 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. 36. ἐσίγησαν] Of 
 the command of Jesus, with a view to this result, the abbreviating Luke 
 has nothing. 
 
 Vv. 37-45. See on Matt. xvii. 14-23; Mark ix. 14-82, the latter of which 
 Luke follows on the whole, but abbreviating. — τῇ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ] According to 
 Luke, the transfiguration took place at night, ver. 32. — Ver. 38. émBrépar] 
 to look upon, with helpful pity to cast eyes upon.? See the critical remarks, 
 The middle voice does not occur. μονογενής in this passage, as at vill. 42, is 
 found only in Luke. — Ver. 39. κράζει] does not refer to the demon (Borne- 
 mann), but to the son, since καὶ ἐξαίφνης introduces the result which is 
 brought about in the possessed one by the πνεῦμα λαμβάνει αὐτόν. The sudden 
 change of the subjects is the less surprising when we take into account the 
 rapid impassioned delineation.* — μόγις] hardly, with trouble and danger ; 
 used only here in the New Testament. — συντρίβον αὐτόν] 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 Jiteral mean- 
 ing of συντρ. is, on account of the vivid description in the context, to be 
 preferred to the figurative meaning—frets, wears away (Kypke, Kuinoel, 
 Bornemann, Ewald), although Mark has ξηραίνεται, in another collocation, 
 however. — Ver. 42. ἔτι δὲ προσερχ. αὐτοῦ] but as he was still coming—not yet 
 altogether fully come up. — ἔῤῥηξεν, . . συνεσπάραξεν] a climax describing 
 
 1 Baur, Lvang. p. 435, Markusevang. p.68; 8, 15; Judith xiii. 4. 
 Hilgenfeld, Hvang. Ὁ. 179, 181 ; see, on the 3 See Winer, p. 556 [E. T 632], and Schoe- 
 other hand, Ké6stlin, p. 200. mann, ad Js. p. 294 f. 
 
 2 Comp. i. 48; Ecclus. xxxiii. 1; Tob. fii. 
 
CHAP. ΤΣ. 46-50. 371 
 
 the convulsive action, he tore him, and convulsed him (comp. σπαραγμός, cramp). 
 - ἰάσατο τ. r.] namely, by the expulsion of the demon. — én? τ. μεγαλειότ. τ. 
 Θεοῦ] at the majesty’ of God. ’Quvto yap, οὐκ ἐξ ἰδίας δυνάμεως ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ Θεοῦ ταῦτα 
 τερατουργεῖν αὐτόν, ‘* For they supposed that He wrought these wonders, not 
 from His own power, but from God,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — ἐποίει] Im- 
 perfect (see the critical remarks). Their wonder was excited by the miracles 
 of Jesus as a whole, among which was to be reckoned also that special case. 
 — Ver. 44. θέσθε ὑμεῖς x.t.A.] Place ye, on your part, etc. The disciples were to 
 continue mindful of this expression of amazement (τοὺς λόγους τούτους) On ac- 
 count of the contrast (ὁ yap υἱὸς x.7.4.) In which his own destiny would soon 
 appear therewith. They were therefore to build no hopes thereupon, but 
 only thence to recognize the mobile vulgus/ Bornemann, de Wette, Schegg 
 refer τ. Ady. τούτ. to ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς x.7.2., So that γάρ would be explanatory (to 
 wit). So already Erasmus. [See Note LXXX., p. 378.] But the above ref- 
 erence of the plural τοὺς A. rovr. most readily suggests itself according to the 
 context ; since, on the one hand, πάντων δὲ θαυμαζόντων preceded (comp. subse- 
 quently the singular τὸ ῥῆμα, ver. 45) ; and, on the other, the argumentative 
 use of γάρ seems the most simple and natural. — εἰς χεῖρ. ἀνθρώπ. | into the hands 
 of men, He, who has just been marvelled at as the manifestation of the majesty 
 of God. — Ver. 45. iva] purely a particle of purpose, expressing the object of the 
 divine decree. —aicfwvra:| that they should not become aware of it. The idea 
 of the divine decree is that their spiritual perception through the internal 
 αἰσθητήρια (Heb. v. 14), their intellectual αἴσθησις (Phil. i. 9), was not to attain 
 to the meaning of the saying. The verb occurs only here in the New Testa- 
 ment. — καὶ ἐφοβοῦντο x.t.A. See on Mark ix. 32. —The whole description of 
 this failure to understand is only a superficial expansion of Mark. ix. 32, and 
 not an intentional depreciation of the Twelve in the Pauline interest (Baur, 
 Hilgenfeld). 
 
 Vv. 46-50. See on Matt. xviii. 1-5 ; Mark ix. 33-40. — εἰσῆλθε κ.τ.}.] then 
 came a thought in their hearts. A well-known pregnancy of expression in re- 
 spect of ἐν, wherein the result of the eicépyeofa:—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. 38. — τίς dv κ.τ.λ.] who 
 probably (possibly, see Kiithner, II., p. 478) would be greater, z.e., more to be 
 preferred among them.? Comp. on 1 Cor. xiii. 13. 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. See 
 on Mark ix. 33. 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’ 
 ἑαυτῷ] close to Himself. In such a position opposite to the disciples, as clearly 
 
 1 Josephus, Antt. Prooem. p. 5; Athen. iv. so devoid of understanding is shown, more- 
 p. 130 F. over, by μικρότερος ἐν πᾶσιν ὑμῖν, ver. 48. 
 2 Not: greater than they,as Weiss in the Luke therefore had no wish to set aside 
 Jahrb. f. D. Theol. p. 96, supposes. That  thecontest 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 train of thought in Luke are substantially the same as in Mark ix. 86 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 tobe. 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 (γάρ, 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) 7s 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. δύ. --- ἐπὶ τ. 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 wsed the name of 
 Jesus in the expulsion of demons. Comp. xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Acts iv. 17 f. ; 
 and for actual cases, Acts iii. 6, 16, xvi. 18. — ἀκολ. we? ἡμὼν] a frequent 
 construction in the classical writers also, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 353f. 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 earthly career, 
 and transfers to this journey all that follows as far as xviii. 30.1! Not until 
 xviii. 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 needed for it, 
 but it is to be conceived of as a slow cirewit whose final goal, however, is 
 Jerusalem and the final development there. The direct journey 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 indeed 
 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 Weizsicker, p. 207. 
 
 2 Therefore it is not to be said that Luke 
 
 makes the chief part of the journey pass 
 through Samaria, whereby, according to 
 Baur (Hvang. p. 433 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, is opposed to Baur’s comparison 
 of the Gospel of Luke with that of John 
 (p. 488), and opposed to Kostlin, 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, isan 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, ὃ 206; Hofmann, 
 Schriftb. 11. 2, p. 355). 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 two journeys to Jerusalem 
 —to the feast of the Dedication and to the Passover. So also Hofmann, 
 Weissag. τι. Erfill. II. p. 113. ' 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-xili. 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-x1i. 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 τῆς ἀναλήψεως (see subsequently). The older harmonistic schemes also 
 placed the journey in question parallel with John vii. 10, but got themselves, 
 awkwardly enough, out of the difficulty of τῆς ἀναλήψεως by means of the 
 evasion: ‘‘non enim Lucas dicit, dies illos jam impletos esse, sed factum 
 hoe 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. II. p. 222, and Hvang. 
 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-eminently 
 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 Logia, but formed an anthology of the Lord’s original 
 sayings that grew up out of a later development. Weizsiicker, 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. Ἔν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι κ.τ.λ.] 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: ἡμέρας τῆς ava- 
 λήψεως αὐτοῦ λέγει τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἀφορισθέντα μέχρι τῆς ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀπὸ γῆς 
 εἰς οὐρανόν, ‘* The day of His assumption He calls the season set apart until 
 His assumption from earth to heaven.” In the New Testament ἀνάληψις 
 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 Test. XII. Patr. p. 585: 
 καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ἕως ἀναλήψεως αὐτοῦ ; and in the Fathers (see 
 Suicer, Thes. I. p. 282); although in the New Testament the verb ἀναλαμβά- 
 veoba 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 τὰς ἡμέρας, as well as the absence of any more precise 
 limitation for ἀναλήψ. (εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν), is opposed to this view. The plural is 
 as much in place here® as at ii. 6, 22 ; Acts ix. 23; and ἀνάληψις, without 
 more precise limitation, in no way needed such a limitation, because by 
 means of αὐτοῦ it leaves it absolutely without doubt that the current idea of 
 Christ’s assumption is meant, as, moreover, ἀνελήφθη, Acts i. 2, and 1 Tim. 
 iii. 16, although without any local definition, presented no ambiguity to the 
 Christian consciousness. Comp. the ecclesiastical wsus loguendi of asswmptio 
 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 
 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, Hvang. p. 182 f. 
 
 2Comp.1 Mace. ii. 58; Ecclus. xlviii. 9; 
 2 Kings ii. 11; Eeclus. xlix. 14; Tobit fii. 6. 
 
 $Tf Luke had writtentHnv ἡμέραν τ. ἀναλ. 
 he would thereby have declared that what 
 followed happened on the very day of the 
 assumption. Comp. Acts ii. 1. But Bengel 
 well says: ‘‘unus erat dies assumtionis in 
 coelum, sed quadraginta dies a resurrec- 
 tione, imo etiam hi dies ante passionem 
 
 erant instar parasceves. Instabat adhuc 
 passio, crux, mors, sepulerum, sed per haec 
 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. 
 23, xiii. 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 --- αὐτός] tpse, in 
 view of the subsequent sending forward of His messengers. —16 πρόσωπ. αὐτοῦ 
 éothp.| He settled (steadfastly directed) His cowntenance,—a Hebraism (Ὁ 
 6°33), Jer. xxi. 10, xlii. 15, xliv. 12; Gen. ἘΣΣΙ. 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 (τοῦ πορεύεσθαι, gen- 
 itive of purpose); ἀφώρισεν, ἐκύρωσεν, ἔστησε βουλήν, ‘‘He determined, settled, 
 formed an intention,” Theophylact. 
 
 Vv. 52, 58. ᾿Αγγέλους does not as yet mean the Seventy (Neander), and 
 ὥστε is as at iv. 929. -- ἑτοιμάσαι αὐτῷ] to make preparation for Him (comp. 
 Mark xiv. 15), 1.6. in this case : ἑτοιμάσαι ὑποδοχὴν πρὸς καταγωγὴν αὐτοῦ, ‘‘ to 
 prepare entertainment for His coming,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — Ver. 53. 
 καὶ οὐκ ἐδέξαντο αὐτόν] which rejection was accomplished by the refusal given 
 to the messengers that He had sent before, see ver. 52. That Jesus Him- 
 self followed them is not implied in the passage. —érc τὸ πρόσωπον, not 
 because generally He was journeying towards Jerusalem (ἐναντίως yap οἱ Σαμα- 
 ρεῖται πρὸς Tove Ἱεροσολυμίτας διέκειντο, ‘for the Samaritans adversely disposed 
 towards the Jerusalemites,” Euthymius Zigabenus ; so [ Weiss, and] usually), 
 for through Samaria passed the wsual pilgrim’s road of the Galilaeans, 
 Josephus, Antt. xx. 6.15; Vit. 52; comp. John iv. 4 ; nor yet because they 
 were unwilling to lodge ‘‘so large a Jewish procession” as 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 (see the exposi- 
 tors on John iy. 25) the observance of festivals in Jerusalem, but the resto- 
 ration and glorification of the worship upon Gerizim. (Comp. Bertholdt, 
 Christol. p. 21 f.) The expression τὸ πρόσωπ. αὐτοῦ ἦν πορευόμ. is a Hebraism, 
 Ex. xxxiil. 14 ; 2 Sam. xvii. 11. 
 
 Vv. 54-56. [Comp. the added critical note.] "Idévrec] they saw ἐξ 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. — οὐκ οἴδατε x.7.2.] As in respect 
 of ὑμεῖς 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. TI. p. 136, and 
 existence of the same usage in Arabic and Thesaur, 11. p. 1109. 
 
376 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 so it is objectionable to explain, with Bornemann : ‘‘Nonne perpenditis, 
 qualem vos ... animum prodatis? Certe non 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. 53. Rightly the expositors have explained οἵου πνεύ- 
 ματος 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 ζῆλον, sed οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπί- 
 γνωσιν, et qui proinde humani est affectus, non divinae 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 Nov. Opuse. p. 264 ; or (Ὁ) 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 meekness, 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 
 earnestness of the questioner ; yet πνεύματος is not to be explained, as most 
 of the later commentators explain it, of the hwman spirit (‘‘ affectus animi,” 
 Grotius), but (rightly, even so early as Euthymius Zigabenus) of the Holy 
 Spirit.’ To this objective πνεῦμα the categorical ἐστέ points (which does not 
 mean : ye ought to be). — Ver. 56. ἑτέραν] into a village which was not Sa- 
 maritan. Theophylact : ὅτε οὐκ ἐδέξαντο αὐτόν, οὐδὲ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Σαμάρειαν, 
 ‘* because they did not receive Him, He did not even enter Samaria.” Thus 
 the journey at its very commencement diverged from the direct course that 
 had been decided on (in opposition to Wieseler, p. 326). 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 earlier. 
 These little narratives circulated probably in general without definite histor- 
 
 1 Τοῦτο yap ἀγαϑόν ἐστι καὶ ἀνεξίκακον, ‘ For 
 this is good and forbearing,” Euthymius 
 Zigabenus. But not as though Jesus indi- 
 rectly denied to Elijah the Holy Spirit (comp. 
 already on i. 17), but in His disciples the 
 Holy Spirit is in His operations different 
 
 from what He was in the old prophets, see- 
 ing that He was in them the instrument of 
 the divine chastisement. 
 
 2 Asto εἶναί twos, whereby is expressed 
 the relation of dependence,see on Mark ix. 
 41, and Winer, p. 176 [E. T. 195]. 
 
NOTES. 37% 
 
 ical arrangement. [See Note LXXXIL., 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.). — πορευομένων αὐτῶν] to wit, εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην, ver. 56. 
 — ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ] is to be taken with what follows (Lachmann). If, as is usually 
 the case, it were connected with πορ. air., it would simply be useless. — 
 ἀπελθόντι] Case of attraction, Kiithner, II., p. 344. — Ver. 60. διάγγελλε x.7.A. | 
 announce everywhere (διά, comp. Rom. ix. 17) the kingdom of God, the immi- 
 nent establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. 
 
 Vv. 61, 62. Peculiar to Luke. — ἀποτάξασθαι κ.τ.λ.}] to say farewell to my 
 family. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 13, and see on Mark vi. 45; Vulg. : ‘‘renun- 
 tiare.” So also Augustine, Maldonatus, and others. Literally, and likewise 
 rightly (see xiv. 33 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 94). But the answer of Jesus, 
 ver. 62, gives for ἀποτάξ. the idea of attachment, not of renunciation. — τοῖς 
 εἰς K.T.2., according to the above explanation of ἀποτάξ., must be masculine 
 not neuter. (Vulgate in Lachmann, Augustine, Maldonatus, Paulus.) — εἰς] 
 not instead of ἐν (thus de Wette, however), but a case of attraction, such as 
 we very frequently meet with in the classical writers. The two ideas, ἀπέρ- 
 nectar εἰς τὸν οἷκόν μου and ἀποτάξ. τοῖς ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ μου, are so blended together 
 that the former is forced into the latter, and has driven out ἐν for εἰς. --- 
 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, Wo one who 
 has offered to labor in my service, and, withal, still attaches his interest to his 
 earlier relations (βλέπων πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον, ‘‘ 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 ! ὃ 
 
 Norres py ΑΜΈΒΙΟΑΝ Eprror. 
 
 LXXV. Ver. 10. Βηθσαϊδά. 
 
 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 ‘‘ a harmonistic inter- 
 polation.’’ But this phrase implies 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 telis 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.) 
 
 1 He—just as arbitrarily, since the brief 2 See in general, Kiihner, IT. p. 318 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. Ὁ. 286 [E. T. 332]. 
 of a melancholic, the third of a phlegmatic 3 On εἴς τι βλέπειν, Oculos aliquo converteré, 
 temperament. See ἢ. ./. III. p..424. see Tittmann, Synon. Ὁ. 112. 
 
378 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 LXXVI. Ver. 17. κλασμάτων κόφινοι δώδεκα. 
 
 Tisch, VIII. inserts ἃ comma after κλασμάτων, to indicate that what follows is 
 in apposition with τὸ περισσεῦσαν ; so R. V. The dependence of Luke on 
 Mark, which Meyer asserts here, is impossible, for in Mark the correct text 
 is either: κλασμάτων δωδ. κοφίνων πληρώματα (δὰ, Tisch.) or, more probably : 
 κλάσματα δωδ. κοφίνων πληρώματα (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 πληρώματα, whatever reading 
 be accepted. Such phenomena seem to prove conclusively the independence 
 of the Evangelists. 
 
 LXXVII. 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 us inany 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. 
 
 LXXVIII. Ver. 22. ὅτι, «.7.A. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey., R. V., and others rightly take ὅτε as recitative. Meyer's 
 view is logically correct, but εἰπὼν is the emphatic word, suggesting that what He 
 thus said was the reason for the prohibition. So Weiss ed. Mey. substantially. 
 
 LXXIX. Ver. 32. διαγρηγορήσαντες. 
 
 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 
 κε 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. τοὺς λόγους τούτους. 
 
 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. 379 
 
 from Galilee, does not present a parallel account. Meyer’s view of the journey 
 in general 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, Weizsiicker). 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, Matt. 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 so 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. 
 
 LXXXII. Vv. 57-62. 
 
 The position assigned by Matthew (just before the departure 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 these three 
 persons, 
 
380 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Ver. 1. [καί before ἑτέρους is wanting in B L, Copt., ete., omitted by W. and 
 Hort, R. V., suspected by Weiss. ] — ἑβδομήκοντα] B Ὁ M, 42, Syr.™ Perss. Arm. 
 Vulg. Cant. Vere. Colb. For. Rd. Sax. and many Fathers add δύο 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 οὖν, Lachm. Tisch, have 
 dé ; see on vi. 9. [So recent editors, following δὲ B Ὁ L, 1, 33, 69, vss.]— Ver. 
 3. ἐγώ] is wanting in A B δὲ, min. Arm. Vulg. ms. codd. of It. Lachm. Tisch. 
 It is from Matt. x. 16. —[Ver. 4. Instead of μηδέ, Tisch., recent editors, with 8 B 
 DL have μή ; so R. V.] — Ver. 5. εἰσέρχησϑε] Here and at ver. 10 εἰσέλϑητε must be 
 read, on preponderating evidence. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. If it were not original, but an alteration, εἰσέρχησϑε at ver. 8 
 would not have been acquiesced in. — Ver. 6f. Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 rightly deleted μέν after ἐάν, the article before υἱός, and ἐστί, ver. 7. --- 
 Ver. 8. δ᾽ ἄν] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V., with 8 B C D, ete.] 
 have ἄν, according to evidence not preponderating; and how easily the δ᾽, 
 that might be dispensed with, would drop away, since already the connecting 
 particle was found in cai !— Ver. 11. After ὑμῶν Griesb. has added εἰς τοὺς πόδας 
 ἡμῶν, in accordance with decisive authorities, among which, however, B Ὁ R &, 
 min. Sax. It. want ἡμῶν, which therefore Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, 
 R. V.] have not adopted with the rest. But it was just this word ἡμῶν that occa- 
 sioned the omission of the words in question, because the transcriber passed 
 on immediately from ὑμῶν to ἡμῶν. Hence the reading of Griesbach is to be 
 maintained in its integrity. — After ἤγγικεν, Elz. Scholz have ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, in opposi- 
 tion to authorities so important that it can only appear as a repetition from 
 ver. 9. — Ver. 12. After λέγω 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. ἐγένοντο] Β D L δὲ, min. have ἐγενή- 
 ϑησαν. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Matt. xi. 21. — καϑήμεναι 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have καϑήμενοι, in accordance with decisive evidence. The 
 Recepta is a grammatical alteration. — Ver. 15. ἡ ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ipwieioa] 
 Lachm. Tisch. have μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωϑήσηῃ, in accordance with B Ὁ LE ®, 
 Syr.cv* 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. δίδωμι. Tisch. has 
 δέδωκα, following B C* L X &, vss. Or. Caes. Bas. Cyr. Epiph. Chrys. Rightly ; 
 the present tense more readily occurred to the transcribers. — ἀδικήσῃ] Lachm. 
 and Tisch. have ἀδικήσει, on authority so important that ἀδικήσῃ must be regarded 
 as a grammatical alteration. — Ver. 20. After yaip. dé Elz. has μᾶλλον, in oppo- 
 sition to largely preponderating evidence. An addition for toning down the 
 expression. — Instead of ἐγράφη Tisch. has ἐγγέγραπται, following B L X 8, 1, 
 33, Eus. Bas. Cyr. [Tisch. VIII. adopts, with δὲ B, the form ἐνγέγραπται ; recent 
 
OHAP,. X.,; 1. 9851 
 
 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 ἐγράφη. -- 
 Ver. 21. After πνεύματε BC DK LX = Π 8, min. vss. (even Vulg. It.) have τῷ 
 ἁγίῳ. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. A pious addition ; 
 the transcribers would hardly have omitted the adjective, especially as in ver. 
 20 τὰ πνεύματα had just gone before in an entirely different sense. — Ver. 22 is 
 introduced in Elz. Scholz, Lachm. [Tisch. VIII.] by καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαϑητὰς 
 εἶπε. ‘Che words are to be retained, in opposition to Griesb.; they are wanting 
 inBDLM& 8, 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, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν 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 δὲ B L., Copt., omit καί before 2éywv.]— Ver. 27. Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have, indeed, ἐξ ὅλης τ. καρδίας σ., but then ἐν ὅλῃ τ. ψυχῇ o. κ. ἐν ὅλῃ τ. ἰσχύϊ σ. κ. 
 ἐν ὅλῃ τ. διανοίᾳ σ., on evidence so important that the Recepta, which throughout 
 reads ἐκ, must be traced to the LXX. D, min. It. have throughout ἐν, from 
 Matt. xxii. 37. — Ver. 29. δικαιοῦν] Lachm. Tisch. have δικαιῶσαι, on decisive 
 evidence. — Ver. 30. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8* B ΟἿ, omit 
 δέ after ὑπολαβών.  ---- τυγχάνοντα] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance 
 with BD LZ δὲ, 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 γενόμενος, 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. αὐτόν] is wanting in BCL &, 
 1, 33, 254, Vere. Vind. Colb. Rd. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. 
 Rightly. It is from ver. 31. —Ver. 35. ἐξελϑών}] is wanting in BD LXER, 
 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 is deemed decisive by recent editors, R. V.] 
 To be maintained. The similar ἐκβαλών which follows occasioned the omission 
 of the word, which, besides, appeared cumbrous. — Ver. 36. οὖν] bracketed by 
 Lachm., deleted by Tisch., in accordance with BL = δὲ, min. vss. A connec- 
 tive addition. The arrangement πλησίον δοκεῖ σοι (Elz. Lachm, have δοκ. 6. πλησ.) 
 is decisively attested. —[Ver. 38. Treg. text, W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. (against 
 Tisch.) read (with » B L, 33, Copt.) ᾿Εν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσϑαι αὐτοὺς avtéc.] — Instead 
 of παρακαϑίσασα, read, with Tisch. in ver. 39, παρακαϑεσϑεῖσα, in accordance 
 with ABC*LZ8. The Receptais the easier reading. — [Recent editors, R. V., 
 accept πρός instead of παρά, and in vv. 39 and 41 substitute κυρ. for Iyo., with 
 δὲ B* L, etc.]—Ver. 41. τυρβάζῃ] Lachm. has ϑορυβάζῃ, in accordance with B 
 CDL¥, 1, 33, Bas. Evagr, [So Tisch. and all recent editors, R, V.] An inter- 
 pretation in accordance with the frequently occurring ϑόρυβος. --- The reading 
 ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός (B ΟὟ L 8, 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 (ἀπέστειλεν. . . αὐτοῦ). 
 
382 ae THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Hence : καὶ [see critical note] ἑτέρους, 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 μετὰ ταῦτα, which points back to ix. 57- 
 62, although de Wette regards the reference as obscure and inappropriate. 
 With arbitrary ~roneousness Olshausen says that in this communication 
 there is adoptet . fragment from an earlier period, and that μετὰ ταῦτα is 
 not chronological (after this, see v. 27, xvill. 4), but besides (following 
 Schleiermacher, p. 109). --- ἀνέδειξεν) renuntiavit, He announced them as 
 nominated, Acts i. 24 ; 2 Macc. ix. 25, x. 11, xiv. 26 ; 3 Esdr. i. 37, ii. 3; 
 occurs often in the classical writers ; comp. ἀνάδειξις, 1. 80. — ἑβδομήκοντα] 
 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. 53-56, and according to the particulars of the journey, Sa- 
 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.—oi] see 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 give wp 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 ‘‘ generous revenge,” πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ and the imperfect ἤμελλεν 
 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 it is again forsaken, ix. 56, 
 prior to the appointment of the Seventy. Weiss in the Stud. uw. 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 (Jahr. d. Heils, ΤΙ. p. 371), Theile (z. Biogr. 
 J. p. 51 f.), von Ammon (LZ. J. IL. p. 355 ff.), Baur (Evang. p. 498 ff.), Schweg- 
 ler, Bruno Bauer, Késtlin, Zeller, Ritschl, and others. [See Note LXXXIIIL., 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. Ὁ. 284 f.; Saalschiitz, 2 Hisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenthum, ΤΙ. 
 Mos, R. p. 89, p. 3, 736 f.; Gieseler, Versuch, Ὁ. 128. 
 
GHAP: |X. ἢ: 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 τ. 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 into 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 f., 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 opposition 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 7welve are trans- 
 ferred tendentially by the evangelist to the 
 discourse to the Seventy, in order to give 
 the preference to the latter, as being the 
 true and genuine disciples. Comp. also 
 Baur, Das Christenthum der drei ersten 
 Jahrh. p. 76 f.; Hilgenfeld, Huang. p. 183 ff. 
 
 See, in general, against such supposed ten- 
 dencies of Luke in regard to the primitive 
 apostles, Holtzmann, p. 394 f.; Weiss, 
 p. 709 ff. Weizsiicker, p. 163, 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. Weizsicker, 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 ofthe 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. 37 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.'— ὀλίγοι] notwithstanding your numbers, ye 
 are still far from sufficient? πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν, ‘‘in Tefer- 
 ence to the multitude of those who are to believe” (Euthymius Zigabenus) ! 
 — ἐκβάλῃ] In this is contained the importance, the urgency of the mission : 
 should drive forth (comp. on Mark i. 12 ; 1 Macc. xii. 27). 
 
 Ver. 3. See on Matt. x. 16, where πρόβατα, appears. <A different form of 
 the tradition, not to be explained as though Jesus called the Twelve πρόβατα 
 as being τελειοτέρους, ‘‘ more mature ” (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. John 
 xxi. 15-17. 
 
 Ver. 4. Comp. ix. 3 ; Matt. x. 9.— βαλλάντιον] 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 itself the 
 spelling with one 2 would be more correct. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Leg. I. 
 p- 348 Ὁ. --- μηδένα. . . ἀσπάσησθε] 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 
 κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν 3 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: διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀπο- 
 σχολεῖσθαι περὶ ἀνθρωπίνους ἀσπασμοὺς καὶ φιλοφρονήσεις, καὶ ἐκ τούτου πρὸς TO κήρυγμα 
 ἐμποδίζεσθαι, ‘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 εἰς ἣν κιτ.}. is the same 
 as in ver. 8. Comp. on Matt. x. 14. — υἱὸς εἰρήνης] a son of salvation, ἐ.6., one 
 who is fit to receive salvation, not different in substance from the ἄξιος in 
 Matthew. Its opposite is υἱὸς ὀργῆς (Eph. ii. 8), τῆς ἀπωλείας (John xvii. 12), 
 
 1 But the prohibition against going to the 
 heathensand 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. 
 
 2 According to Weiss, Jesus, in respect of 
 
 ὀλίγοι, 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 eoin- 
 cidences from x. 4), 
 
CHAP, X., 7-16. 385 
 
 τῆς ἀπειθείας (Eph. v. 6), γεέννης (Matt. xxiii. 15). Comp. in general on Matt. 
 viii. 12. 
 
 Ver. 7. Comp. ix. 4; Matt. x. 11. — ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ] not : in eadem au- 
 tem domo (Vulgate, Luther, Bleek), but as it does not run ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ οἰκίᾳ: 
 but in the house (in question) itself, which has inhabitants so worthy. — μένετε] 
 the more specific explanation μὴ μεταβαίνετε κ.τ.λ. follows.*—7ra παρ᾽ αὐτῶν] 
 that which is theirs (comp. Mark v. 26). See Bernhardy, p. 255. Not dif- 
 ferent from this is τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν, 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. Πόλιν] It is seen from this that in the direction previously given, 
 ver. 5 ff., Jesus had contemplated villages and single dwelling-houses. 
 [See Note LXXXIV., p. 395.] Thus ver. 5 ff. corresponds to the καὶ τόπον, and 
 ver. 8 ff. to the πόλιν, ver. 1. — καὶ δέχ. ὑμ.] 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. Ὁ. 328 [E. T. 383]. — 
 ἐσθίετε] as though καὶ ἐὰν x.7.2. had been previously said. An emphatic an- 
 acoluthon. See Bornemann, Schol. p. 65 Ὁ. --- αὐτοῖς] the inhabitants. Comp. 
 δέχωνται. --- ἤγγικεν] a promise of participation in the kingdom of Messiah 
 near at hand. On ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, comp. Matt. xii. 28; Ps. xxviii. 2 ; 1 Macc. v. 
 40, 42. 
 
 Vv. 10, 11. Comp. ix. 5; Matt. x. 14. The refusal to receive them is 
 represented as following immediately wpon their entrance ; hence the present 
 eloépy. The representation of ver. 8 was different : εἰσέλθητε (see the crit- 
 ical remarks). — ἐξελθόντες] out of the house into which ye have entered. — 
 ὑμῖν] so that ye should have it again ; a symbol of the most contemptuous 
 renunciation, asin Matthew. — ἤγγικεν x.7.2.] a threatening reference to their 
 penal exclusion from the salvation of the kingdom. See ver. 12 ff. Observe 
 that ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς 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 Galilacan 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. — καθήμενοι 
 (see the critical remarks) : the inhabitants, namely. See Buttmann, Newt. 
 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 ἔσϑοντες, as itis alsoto be read p. 234; Hilgenfeld, Hvang. p. 183, and Weiz- 
 here, see on Vii. 33. sicker, p. 163. 
 2'This is also in opposition to Késtlin, 
 
 20 
 
386 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 them with those that reject Himself. In the second part the saying rises to a 
 climax (άθετ. τ. ἀποστ. we). A deepening of the emotion ; a 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. — καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια «.7.2.] over which 
 He had not given to them, as He had to the Twelve (ix. 1), an express 
 authority : ‘‘Plura in effectu experti sunt, quam Jesus expresserat,” ‘‘ They 
 attempted more in their doings than Jesus had expressed,” Bengel. This is 
 necessarily implied in καί ; but it is not to be inferred, as Késtlin assumes, 
 that Luke regarded the casting out of demons as the highest χάρισμα. --- ἔν τῷ 
 ὀνόμ. σ.] by means of Thy name, by the fact of our utterance of it. Comp. 
 on ix. 49; Matt. vii. 22. Otherwise in Mark xvi. 17. — Ver. 18. This I 
 saw happen in this wise when I sent you forth (ἐθεώρουν, 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, 7.e., 1 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, 
 édewpovy has been dated farther back in 
 various ways. Lange, L. J. Il. 2, p. 1070 f. 
 (comp. also Philippi, Glaubenslehre, III. 
 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 belli 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, Schrifibew. 
 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 λόγος ἄσαρκος. But against the ex- 
 planation of Satan’s fall by sin, it is deci- 
 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, Huang. p. 184, in making it refer 
 to Rey. xii. 9, saying that Jesus saw how 
 the devil ‘‘even 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, Theol. ἃ. N. T.1. p. 342, rightly 
 referring ἐθεώρουν 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, 
 πεσόντα 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 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἰδοὺ «.7.A.), nor does it suit the correct 
 reading δέδωκα. 
 
CHAP. X., 17-20. 387 
 swift, so momentary !) hurled out of heaven (πεσόντα, 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 vision (von 
 Ammon, JL. 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 knozl- 
 edge, and speaks of it under a vivid, lifelike form, which the imagination is 
 able to grasp. The relative tense ἐθεώρουν might also be referred to the 
 time of the disciples’ ministry (de Wette, Bleek, Schegg [Weiss ed. Mey. ] ; 
 comp. Bengel, tentatively, ‘‘guwm egistis,” ‘‘ when you acted)” ; yet this is 
 the less appropriate to the assertion of the instantaneous πεσόντα, and to the 
 comparison with the lightning’s flash, that the ministry of the Seventy 
 lasted for a time. —The representation ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα " 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, see 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 τοῦ οὐρανοῦ as nat- 
 ural and appropriate as is the comparison of the lightning in Matt. xxiv. 27. 
 — Ver. 19. According to the reading δέδωκα (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. — τοῦ πατεῖν ἐπάνω ὄφεων κ. 
 σκορπ.] 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 lies on πᾶσαν and οὐδέν. --- τοῦ ἐχθροῦ] of the enemy, of whom our 
 Lord is speaking, and that is none other than Satan. *— οὐδέν] is the accu- 
 
 1 Against this view Hofmann objects that 
 it is foreign to the connection (wherefore ἢ), 
 and that it gives to the mission an impor- 
 tance that does not belong to it. But was 
 it then something of little importance to 
 send forth seventy new combatants against 
 Satan’s power? Could not the commander 
 of this new warrior band behold, in the 
 spirit, when He sent them forth, the devil’s 
 overthrow? 
 
 3 ἐκ tod οὐρανοῦ is not to be taken with 
 ἀστραπήν, as Schleiermacher would have it, 
 
 who, moreover, takes painsin his Vorves. vib. 
 d. L. J. p. 333 ff., with subtlety at variance 
 with true exegesis, to exclude the doctrine 
 of the devil from the teaching of Jesus. 
 He says that Jesus speaks of the devil ac- 
 cording to a 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. Zest. XII. Patr. Ὁ. 657: 
 
 ἑαυτοῖς ἀπὸ Tov Σατανᾶ, 
 
 προσέχετε 
 ., Κατέναντι τῆς 
 
388 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 sative neuter : and in nothing will it (the δύναμις τοῦ ἐχθροῦ) harm you ; comp. 
 Acts xxv. 10; Gal. iv. 12; Philem. 18; Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 348. — 
 ἀδικήσει (see the critical remarks) : as to the future after ov μή, see on Matt. 
 xxvi. 35; 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 : παιδεύων δὲ αὐτοὺς μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, φησί᾽ πλὴν ἐν τούτῳ 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. 439, thinks that the 
 evangelist had Rey. xxi. 14 in view, and that he in a partisan spirit referred ! to 
 the Seventy the absolute significance in respect of the kingdom of God which 
 the apocalyptic writer attributes to the T'welve. — μὴ χαίρετε κ.τ.λ.] rejoice not 
 . . . but rejoice. Not arelative (non tam... quam, ‘‘not so much as,” 
 see Kuinoel, de Wette, and many others), but an absolute negation with 
 rhetorical emphasis (Winer, p. 4389 [E. T. 495]), although ‘‘ gaudium non 
 vetatur, sed in ordinem redigitur,” ‘‘the joy is not forbidden, but reduced 
 into order,” Bengel. —6érv τὰ ὀνόμ. x.7.A2.] an embodiment of the thought : 
 that ye are destined by God to be in the future participators in the eternal Messi- 
 anic life, in accordance with the poetic representation of the Book of Life 
 kept by God,? in which their names had been written (ἐγράφη). 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. 25-27.3 [See Note LXXXV., p. 396.] Luke 
 places this thanksgiving prayer in immediate chronological connection (in 
 the same hour) with the return of the Seventy. Theophylact says: ὥσπερ 
 πατὴρ ἀγαθὸς παῖδας ἰδὼν κατορθώσαντάς τι, οὕτω Kal ὁ σωτὴρ ἀγάλλεται ὅτι τοιούτων 
 ἀγαθῶν ἠξιώθησαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ‘‘As ἃ 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. —7r@ πνεύματι] not the Holy Spirit 
 (see the critical remarks). Comp. i. 47. It is His own πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, 
 Rom. i. 4. The opposite of this, ἠγαλλ. τ. πν., occurs in John xi. 33. — 
 ταῦτα͵] findsin Luke its reference in ὅτι τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν k.7.2., ver. 20, and is 
 hence to be understood 4 of the knowledge of the life eternal in the kingdom 
 of Messiah (comp. viii. 10 ; γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας). ---- Ver. 22. καὶ 
 
 βασιλείας τοῦ ἐχϑροῦ στήσεται. Matt. xiii. 
 Ὁ 91 Pet. v. 8. 
 
 1 Which, however, by a glance at Rev. 
 iii. 5, xvii. 8, is shown to be erroneous. 
 Moreover, according to Weizsiicker, vv. 18- 
 20 are said to be of the “ latest origin.” 
 
 2k, KEK. 85. δ Pss lsix. 99... Isa iv. 8.0 
 Phil. iv. 3; Rev. iii. 5; comp. on Matt. v. 12. 
 
 3 Keim, Geschichtl. Christus, p. 51, sees 
 here the climax 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. 30, 32; 
 
 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. vii. 21). Baur, indeed 
 (Neutest. Theol. p. 86), knows no other way 
 of getting rid of the offence which this ex- 
 pression of Matt. vii. 21 gives him than by 
 attributing the words to a /ater period of 
 the ministry of Jesus. Itis easy in this way 
 to set aside what will not fit into our no- 
 tions. 
 
 4 Not, of the power over the demons, as 
 Wittichen, ὦ. Idee Gottes als des Vaters, 1865, 
 p. 30, wishes to have it To that also be- 
 longs πάντα, ver. 22. 
 
CHAP. X., 23-25. 389 
 
 στραφεὶς x.t.A.] (see the critical remarks). [See Note LXXXV., p. 396.] 
 From the prayer to God He turns in the following words to the disciples (the 
 Seventy and the Twelve). — πρὸς τοὺς μαθ.} belongs to στραφείς. Comp. vil. 
 44, xiv. 25. Astothe idea of the πάντα μοι raped., which is not, as with 
 Baur, Schenkel, and others, to be referred merely to the spiritual and moral 
 region, see on Matt. xxviii. 18. --- γενώσκει)] That the Marcionite reading 
 ἔγνω is the original one, and not a gnostic alteration, is rendered 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 ἔγνω, 
 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.— τίς] in respect of 
 His nature, counsel, will, thought, etc. In what way, however, τίς ἐστιν ὁ 
 πατήρ 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. — ᾧ ἐὰν βούλ.] 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, οὐδεὶς. . . εἰ yf, establishes a relation of a unique kind, namely, that 
 of the metaphysical fellowship. 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. See on Matt. xiii. 16 f., where the historical connection is 
 quite different. [See 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 βλέπειν has a different 
 sense from what it has in Matthew). —xai στραφεὶς x«.7.2.] Here we have a 
 further step in the narrative (comp. ver. 22), which is marked by κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, 
 to be taken along with στραφείς. This turning, which excluded the others 
 who were present (see 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 δεῦτε πρός we πάντες (in Matthew), 
 does not touch Luke (Holtzmann, p. 147 ; Weiss). — καὶ βασιλεῖς] peculiar 
 to Luke. Think of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and others. —ideiv . . . 
 ἀκούετε] 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. 35 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 Késtlin, 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.” — 
 ἐκπειράξων αὐτόν] προσεδόκησεν παγιδεῦσαι τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸ πάντως ἐπιτάξαι τι 
 ἐναντίον τῷ νόμῳ, ‘* He expected to ensnare Christ into enjoining something 
 altogether contrary to the law,” Euthymius Zigabenus. As to ἐκπειράζ, 
 to try thoroughly, see on 1 Cor. x. 9. 
 
 Vy. 26, 27. Πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις) NXP “8, a customary Rabbinical formula 
 to give occasion to a scriptural citation, Lightfoot, p. 794. — πῶς] how, that 
 is, with what words, not instead of ri (Kypke and others). Comp. πῶς φῆς, 
 πῶς λέγεις πῶς δοκεῖς, and the like. Observe that ἐν τῷ νόμῳ is placed first for 
 the sake of emphasis, and that the doubled expression of the question indi- 
 cates the wrgency of the questioner. Lechler in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1854, p. 
 802, is wrong in explaining the passage as if it were πῶς σὺ 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. 
 xi, 13 ff. (Berac. f. 3. 3; comp. on Mark xii. 29) ; ἐξ 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 τίς ἐστί μου πλησίον 5 
 and that he used the question τί ποιήσας x.7.2., ver. 25, only as an introdue- 
 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., τίς ἐστί μου πλησίον; 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. Τοῦτο ποίει] τοῦτο has the emphasis corresponding to the ri of 
 ver. 25. — Chon] ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονμήσεις, 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. cit.), there was no 
 oceasion for Him to explain further in the presence of the legal tempter. — 
 Ver. 29, δικαιῶσαι ἑαυτόν] namely, in reference to his question, to prove that 
 
CHAP. X., 30, 31. 991 
 
 he had put it with reason and justice ; see on ver. 90 f.'_ The view that he 
 wished to represent himself as being honestly disposed, xvi. 15 (so usually), has 
 against 103 the purpose with which the scribe had presented himself, ἐκπειρά- 
 Cav αὐτόν, in spite of which he himself has still answered rightly, ver. 27. — 
 καὶ τίς «.7.A.] See on the καί occurring thus abruptly and taking up the other’s 
 discourse, Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 146 f.; Ellendt, Lev. Soph. I. p. 879 f.;° 
 ‘* Mire ad ἦθος facit,” ‘‘ He acts wonderfully according to custom,” Bengel. 
 — πλησίον] 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 defi- 
 nition that the Jew’s nearest neighbor is his fellow-Jew. 
 
 Vv. 30, 31. Ὑπολαμβάνειν, 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. (71}) and in the classical writers.4— ἄνθρωπός τις] 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. —‘Iepey] 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, 111. 2). It was not a priestly city. — περιέπεσεν] he 
 met with robbers, fell among them, as περιπίπτειν τινί, 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 συμφορή, τύχη K.T.2.). — οἵ καὶ «.7.A.] This 
 and the subsequent καί correspond to one another ; e¢. . . 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.) — τυγχά- 
 νοντα] not equivalent to ὄντα, but : they left him when he was just half dead © 
 (this was the condition to which he was reduced).’_ [But see critical note. ] 
 — ἀντιπαρῆλθεν] ex adverso praeteriit (Winer, dé verb. compos. III. p. 18), he 
 passed by on the opposite side. This ἀντι 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, 4 Comp. Herod. vii. 101: ὁ δὲ ὑπολαβὼν ἔφη 5 
 
 Schegg. 
 
 2 Lange, LZ. J. 11. 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 be the way 
 
 to life. But the Seventy had not been to 
 Samaria at all. Comp. on ver. 1 and ix. 
 56 
 
 3 Comp. ver. 36. See Bornemann, Schol. 
 p. 69; Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 130]. 
 
 Dem. 594. 21, 600. 20 ; Polyb. iv. 85. 4, xv. 8. 1. 
 
 5 Herod. vi. 105, viii. 94, vi. 41 ; Dem. 1264. 
 26; Xen. Anabd. vii. 3. 88; Polyb. iii. 53. 6. 
 
 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. 
 
 7Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 318 E, and else- 
 where. See Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 420. ὄντα 
 might have been added besides, Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 277, 
 
392 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 however, it means ev adverso advenire, ‘‘to arrive over against ;” see 
 Grimm).’ 
 
 Ver. 32. 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, 34. ᾿Ἐπιχέων x.7.4.] 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, — ἐπὶ τὸ ἔδιον κτῆνος] on his own beast (his ass), so that thus he himself 
 gave up its use. — πανδοχεῖον] instead of the Attic πανδοκεῖον, Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 307. The word has also passed over into the Rabbinical vocabu- 
 lary : P7219, see Lightfoot, p. 799. We must picture to ourselves a cara- 
 vanserai, over which presided an ordinary landlord. 
 
 Vv. 35, 36. Ἐπί] as in Mark xv. 1; Acts iii. 1: towards the morrow, 
 when it was about to dawn. — ἐξελθών] 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. — ἐκβαλών] a 
 vivid picture ; out of his purse. Comp. Matt. xiii. 52.— rpoodarav.] thou 
 shalt have expended in addition thereto, besides.* —éya] with emphasis ; the 
 unfortunate man was not to have the claim made on him. — ἐπανέρχεσθαι] 
 signifies ‘‘reditum in eum ipsum locum,” ‘‘return to this very place,” Titt- 
 mann, Synon. p. 232. Very frequently in use in the classical writers. — 
 γεγονέναι) to have become by what he had done.* Flacius, Clav. IL. p. 330, 
 well says: ‘‘omnes quidem tres erant jure, sed unicus facto aut officio,” 
 ‘Call three indeed were by law, but only one by deed and service.” — τοῦ 
 ἐμπεσ. εἰς τ. 2.] who fell among the thieves. See Sturz, Ler. Xen. 11. p. 153. 
 
 Ver. 87. Ὁ ποιήσας κ.τ.λ.} 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 ἔλεος] the compassion related ; καὶ ob : thow also ; not to be joined to 
 πορεύου (Lachmann), but to ποίει. Comp. vi. 31. 
 
 Remark.— 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, namely, 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, 
 καὶ od ποίει ὁμοίως, has therein indirectly the answer to his question, τίς ἐστί μου 
 πλησίον ; 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. ἀντιπαριέναι, Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 17; vii. 1. 14, and elsewhere. Comp. ver. 33. 
 Hell. v. 4. 38. 3 Lucian, Zp. Sat. xxxix.; Corp. inscr. 108, 8. 
 2 On γενόμ. κατά, comp. Herod. iii. 86: ws 4 On γίνεσθαι, in the sense of se praestare, 
 
 κατὰ τοῦτο τὺ χωρίον éyévovtro; Xen. Cyrop. see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. i. 7. 4. 
 
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. 38. [See Note LXXXVIL., p. 396.] Ἔν τῷ πορεύεσθαι] to be under- 
 stood of the continuation of the journey to Jerusalem. See ix. 51, 57, x. 1. 
 [See also critical note.] But Jesus cannot yet be in Bethany (see 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). — καὶ αὐτός] καί is the usual and after ἐγένετο [but see 
 critical note], and αὐτός brings Jesus Himself into prominence above the 
 company of travellers (αὐτούς). 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. Τῇδε] This word usually refers 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.? — 7 καί] καί is not : even (Bornemann), which 
 would have no reference to explain it in the context ; but : moreover, bring- 
 ing into prominence the fact that Mary, besides whatever else she did in her 
 mind after the coming of Jesus, moreover seated herself at His feet, etc. See 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636. — The form παρακαθεσθεῖσα] (see the critical remarks), 
 from παρακαθέζομαι, to sit down near to, belongs to later Greek. Joseph. Antt. 
 vi. 11. 9.—Mary sits there as a learner (Acts xxii. 3), not as a companion at 
 table (at the right of Jesus, where His outstretched feet were), as Paulus and 
 
 1 The Fathers, as 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 ἄνθρωπός τις signifies Adam ; 
 Jerusalem, paradise; Jericho, the world ; 
 the thieves, the demons ; the priest, the daw ; 
 the Levite, the prophets; the Samaritan, 
 Christ ; the beast, Christ’s body ; the inn, 
 the church; the landlord, the bishop ; the 
 Denarii, the Old and New Testaments ; the 
 return, the Parousia. See especially Origen, 
 
 Hom. 84 in Luc., and Theophylact, sub 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. i. 2. 3, ili. 3. 12. 
 
394 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Kuinoel will have it (women sat at table ; see Wetstein in loc.). For 
 the text as yet says nothing of the meal, but only of the hospitable reception 
 in general (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. ἤκουε τ. Ady. avr. points only to the idea of the 
 Semale disciple. — περισπᾶσθαι, in the sense of the being withdrawn from at- 
 tention and solicitude by reason of occupations, belongs to later Greek.1 The 
 expression περί τι, about something, connected with verbs of being busied, of 
 taking trouble, and the like, is also very frequent in Greek writers. —xaré- 
 dire] 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 συναντιλαμβάνεσθαί τινι, to give a hand 
 with anybody, i.e., to help anybody, comp. on Rom. viii. 26. 
 
 Vv. 41, 42. Περὶ πολλά] Thou art anxious, and weariest thyself (art in the 
 confusion of business) about many things, see ver. 40.? — ἑνὸς δέ ἐστι χρεία] A 
 contrast with πολλά : 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 wn- 
 divided devotion to His word for the sake of salvation, 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 ἑνός noth- 
 ing is to be supplemented any more than there is in respect of πολλά. ἘῸ]- 
 lowing Gregory, Bede, Theophylact, Zeger, Michaelis, and others (comp. 
 Erasmus in the Annotations), Paulus understands : one dish, ‘‘ we need not 
 many kinds,” and τὴν ἀγαθὴν μερίδα is then taken as meaning the really good 
 portion,® which figuratively represents the participation in communion with 
 Jesus. The former, especially after the impressive Μάρθα, Μάρθα, would 
 have been 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 Magaz. 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 πολλά is decisive, seeing that according to it ἑνός 
 must be neuter. —rtyv ἀγαθὴν μερίδα) the good part. That, namely, about 
 which care and pains are taken, consists, according to the various hinds of 
 these objects, of several 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 é which is necessary—that portion 
 ofthe 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 
 
 1 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 415. Comp. comp. Aristoph. Ran. 1007. 
 Plut. Mor. p. 517 C: περισπασμὺς x, μεθολκὴ 3 Comp. the form of speech, πρὸς μερίδας 
 τῆς πολυπραγμοσύνης. δειπνεῖν, to dine in portions, and see examples 
 2 On τυρβάζεσϑαι [see critical note] περί τι, in Wetstein, 
 
NOTES. 395 
 
 good destination of life. Comp. also Euthymius Zigabenus : δύο μερίδες πολι- 
 τείας ἐπαινεταὶ, ἡ μὲν πρακτική, ἡ δὲ θεωρητική, ‘‘ Two portions of the way of 
 living are praiseworthy, one practical, the other theoretical.” — τὴν ἀγαθήν] 
 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 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. ---- 
 ἥτις οὐκ adap. ἀπ’ 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 μερίς. By ric, which is not equivalent to 7, 
 what follows is described as belonging to the essence of the ἀγαθὴ μερίς: 
 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 πίστις, 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. 
 
 Notrs By AMERICAN EpITor. 
 
 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. πόλιν. 
 
 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 seems 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: καὶ στραφείς x.7.A. (See critical note). Meyer’s explanation, 
 which is otherwise unsatisfactory, thus becomes unnecessary. 
 
 LXXXVI. Vy. 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. Vy. 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, 
 
 LXXXVIII. Ver. 42. ὀλίγων δὲ χρεία, ἢ ἑνός. 
 
 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 ὀλίγων is a gentle rebuke of Martha’s overdoing in her service 
 of hospitality, while ἢ ἑνός 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 πάτερ : ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and after 
 βασιλ. cov: γενηϑήτω τὸ ϑέλημά cov, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ, Kai ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. After πειρασμόν 
 Elz. has ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Lachm. also (not Tisch.) reads all this ; 
 but he has ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (without τῆς) 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 éAvérw . . . cov Luke 
 must have written ἐλϑέτω τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ καϑαρισάτω ἡμᾶς. AN 
 ancient gloss.!— Ver. 4. The form ἀφίομεν is, on decisive evidence, to be adopt- 
 ed, with Lachm. and Tisch. — Vv. 9, 10. The authorities for ἀνοιγήσεται and 
 ἀνοιχϑήσεται are about equally balanced. Tisch. has rightly adopted the latter. 
 [Treg., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., retain the former, supported by δὲ ABC L, 
 and most, though in ver. 10 B presents a peculiar reading.] The Recepta is 
 from Matt. vii. 7 f.— Ver. 11. Instead of ἐξ ὑμῶν Elz. has simply ὑμῶν, in oppo- 
 sition to decisive evidence, On similar evidence, moreover, 7 is subsequently 
 adopted instead of εἰ (Elz.), and at ver. 13 δόματα ἀγαϑά (reversed in Elz.). [B 
 has some peculiar readings in this verse also, accepted by W. and Hort.] — 
 Ver. 12. Instead of ἢ καὶ ἐάν Tisch. has merely ἢ καί, following BL &, min. [So 
 recent editors, R. V.] But ἐάν was the more easily omitted, since it does not 
 occur in the foregoing verse. On the other hand, αἰτήσει is so decisively at- 
 tested that it is, with Tisch., to be adopted instead of the Recepta αἰτήσῃ. --- 
 Ver. 15. τῷ before ἄρχοντι is wanting in Elz. Scholz, but is decisively attested ; 
 the omission is explained from Matt. xii. 24. — Ver. 19. κριταὶ ὑμῶν αὐτο BD, 
 Lachm, [W. and Hort, Weiss] have αὐτοὶ ὑμῶν κριταί. A CK LM U, min. Vulg. 
 It. have αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ὑμῶν. So also has δὲ, which, however, places ἔσονται before 
 iu. [so Tisch. VIII.]. Accordingly, the evidence is decisive against the Re- 
 cepla. The omission of αὐτοί (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 : αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ἔσοντ. ὑμῶν, and have not therefore borrowed their 
 arrangement in this passage from Matthew. The Vulgate, on the other hand, 
 has also in Matt, 1.6.: αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ὑμῶν ἔσονται ; hence the reading of A OC, etc., 
 is probably due to a conformity with Matthew. — Ver. 22. The article before 
 ἰσχυρότ. is wanting in Β D LT δὲ, and is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. 
 
 1 Thus or similarly Marcion read the first 
 petition, and Hilgenfeld, A7vitik. Unters. 
 p. 470, and Volkmar, p. 196, regard the peti- 
 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. Jahrb. 1853, p. 222 f., and 
 
 in his Hvangel. Ὁ. 187 f.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. 
 p. 14. But ver. 13 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. 347 f. 
 
398 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 It was introduced in accordance with ὁ ἰσχυρός, ver. 21.— Ver. 25. Instead 
 of ἐλϑόν, important authorities (but not A BL δὲ) have ἐλϑών. Rightly ; see on 
 Matt. xii. 44. [But recent editors follow the weighty authorities, and retain 
 ἐλϑόν. In ver. 28 recent editors (with δὲ A B Τὴ read μενοῦν and omit αὐτόν at the 
 end of the verse.] — Ver. 29. After "Iwva Elz, Scholz have τοῦ προφήτου, in oppo- 
 sition to important evidence. It is from Matt. xii. 39, whence, however, the 
 Recepta ἐπιζητεῖ was also derived, instead of which ζητεῖ, with Tisch., is to be 
 read. Moreover, in accordance with Lachm. and Tisch., γενεά is again to be 
 inserted before πονηρά. --- Ver. 32. Νινευ] ABC E** GL MU XT AR, min. 
 Syr. Vulg. It. have Nvvevitra. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Scholz, 
 Lachm. [Tisch. VIII. has Nvveveirac]. Rightly ; Luke has followed Matthew (xii. 
 41) verbatim. —[Ver. 33. Recent editors, R. V. (with 8 B C D, etc.), omit δέ, and 
 read κρυπτῆν.  --- Ver. 34. After the first ὀφϑαλμός, Griesb. and the later editors 
 have rightly added cov. The omission is explained from Matt. vi. 22 ; its in- 
 sertion, however, is decisively attested. — οὖν] after ὅταν is wanting in prepon- 
 derating authorities. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm, and Tisch. It 
 is anaddition from Matt. vi. 23. — Ver, 42. After ταῦτα Griesb. has inserted 
 δέ, 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 8* BC L, οἵο.ἕ  ---- ἀφιέναι] Lachm., and Tisch. have παρεῖναι, in accordance 
 with B* L 8** min. The Receptais from Matthew. A has a fusion of the 
 two: παραφιέναι ; 1), Ver. have not got the word at all. —Ver. 44. After ὑμῖν 
 Elz. (and Lachm. in brackets) has γραμματεῖς x. Φαρισαῖοι, ὑποκριταί. So also 
 Scholz, but in opposition to evidence so important, that it can only be regarded 
 as an addition from Matt. xxiii. 27.— οἱ before zepiz. 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. μαρτυρεῖτε] Tisch. has μάρτυρές ἐστε, in accordance with B L δὲ, Or. The 
 Receptais trom Matt. xxiii. 31. — αὐτῶν τὰ μνημεῖα] isnot found in B Ὁ L 8, Cant. 
 Ver. Vere. Rd. Vind. Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by 
 Tisch. The words, both read and arranged differently by different authorities, 
 are a supplement, in accordance with Matthew. — Ver. 51. The article before 
 αἵματος in both cases is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with important 
 evidence, to be struck outas an addition. — Ver. 58. λέγοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα πρὸς 
 αὐτούς] BC L δὲ, 33, Copt. have κἀκεῖϑεν ἐξελϑόντος αὑτοῦ. This is, with Tisch., 
 to be adopted. The authorities in favor of the Recepta 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 Recepta, only omitting 
 καί before (qr. Tisch. has simply évedp., ϑηρεῦσαί τι ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, found- 
 ing it mainly on BLS. All the rest consists of additions for the sake of 
 more explicit statement. [So recent editors, but they retain αὐτόν after éved., 
 following A BCL Δ, 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. 391, transposes the cireum- any, x. 38f., was already related. But Luke 
 stance of the giving of the prayer to the did not think of Bethany at all as the local- 
 disciples even to the period after the arrival 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). Hence its position in Luke is not to be described as historically 
 more correct (Calvin, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, Bleek, 
 Weizsiicker, Schenkel, and others), but both the positions are to be regarded 
 as correct. Comp. on Matt. vi. 8. [See Note LXXXIX., 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 καθὼς καὶ 
 Ἰωάννης κ.τ.. is altogether unknown. Probably, however, John’s disciples 
 had a definitely formulated prayer given them by their teacher. — The τὶς τῶν 
 μαθητῶν 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 Twelve 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 earlier 
 stage to the jirst disciples. — αὐτοῖς, ver. 2: to the disciples who were present, 
 one of whom had made the request, ver. 1. — ἐπιούσιον] erastinum [for the 
 morrow], see on Matt. vi. 11.? [See Note XC., p. 410. -- τὸ καθ’ ἡμέραν] needed 
 day by day, daily. See Bernhardy, p. 8529. --- καὶ yap αὐτοί] The special 
 consideration placed before God for the exercise of His 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. — ἀφίομεν] (see the criti- 
 cal remarks from the form ἀφίω., Eccles. ii. 18 ; Mark i. 34, xi. 16. See 
 generally, Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 174. — παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν] to every one, 
 when he is indebted to us (in an ethical sense). Comp. Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 
 111]. The article before ὀφείλοντε 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 will be heard. The construction is interrogative down to 
 
 1 Without, however, by means of har- 
 monistic violence, doing away with the his- 
 torical difference of the two situations, as 
 does Ebrard, p. 356 f. In Luke, time, place, 
 and occasion are different from what they 
 are in Matthew, comp. Luke vi. 17 ff. 
 
 2The attempt of Hitzig (in the Theol. 
 Jahrb. 1854, p. 131) to explain the enigmati- 
 cal word, to wit, by ἐπὶ ἴσον, 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. Weizsicker, p. 407, 
 is mistaken in finding as a parallel the word 
 ὑπεξούσιος in respect of the idea panem ne- 
 
 cessarium. This, indeed, does not come 
 from οὐσία, but from ἐξουσία, and this latter 
 from ἔξεστι. Moreover, the ἽΓΠ 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 preservation of the first 
 mode of understanding it, especially as the 
 Logia was written in Hebrew. In order to 
 express the idea: necessary (thus ἀναγκαῖος, 
 ἐπιτήδειος), there assuredly was no need of 
 any free and, for that purpose, faulty word- 
 making. 
 
400 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 παραθήσω αὐτῷ, ver. 6; at κἀκεῖνος, ver. 7, the interrogative construction is 
 abandoned, and the sentence proceeds as if it were a conditional one (ἐάν) in 
 accordance with which also the apodosis beginning at ver. 8 (λέγω ὑμῖν Kk...) 
 is turned. Comp. on Matt. vii. 9. This anacoluthon is occasioned by the 
 long dialogue in the oratio directa: φίλε x.7.4., after which it is not observed 
 that the first εἴπῃ (ver. 5) had no ἐάν to govern it, but was independent.’ — 
 τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει κιτ.}.1 The sentence has become unmanageable ; but its drift, 
 as originally conceived, though not carried out, was probably : which of you 
 shall be so cireumstanced 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. — καὶ 
 εἴπῃ αὐτῷ] The sentence passes over into the deliberative form.* — Ver. 7. τὰ 
 παιδία μου] the father does not wish to disturb his Jittle children in their 
 sleep. —ei¢ τ. κοίτην] they are into bed. See on Mark ii. 1. — Ver. 8. διά ye 
 x.T.A.]| at least on account of his impudence. On the structure of the sentence, 
 comp. xviii. 4 1.5 
 
 Vy. 9,10. Comp. Matt. vii. 7f. Practical application of the above, extend_ 
 ing to ver. 18, in propositions which Christ may have repeatedly made use 
 of in His exhortations to prayer. ——xayo ὑμῖν λέγω] Comp. Luke xvi. 9. Also 
 I say unto you. Observe (1) that κἀγώ places what Jesus is here saying in an 
 incidental parallel with the δώσει αὐτῷ ὅσων χρήζει 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 κἀγώ the 
 emphasis rests on ὑμῖν (in ver. 8 the emphasis rested upon λέγω), inasmuch as 
 Jesus declares what He also, on His part, gives to the disciples to take to 
 heart. Consequently κἀγώ corresponds to the subject of δώσει, and ὑμῖν to the 
 αὐτῷ of ver. 8. The teaching itself, so far as Jesus deduces it from that 
 παραβολή, depends on the argument ὦ 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 παραβολή points 
 therefore not, as it 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. [See 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 μὴ λίθον x.7.2., as if instead of the question a conditional prota- 
 
 1 Hence the less difficult reading of Lach- 
 mann, ἐρεῖ, ver. 5, following A D, etc., is a 
 correct indication of the construction, 
 namely, that not with εἴπῃ, ver. 5 (Bleek, 
 Ewald), but, first of all, with κἀκεῖνος, ver. 
 7, does the sentence proceed as if what went 
 before were conditionally stated. If, with 
 Lachmann and Tischendorf, a point is 
 placed before λέγω ὑμῖν, ver. 8, a complete 
 
 break in the sentence needlessly arises. 
 
 2 The converse case is found in Antiph. 
 Or. i. 4: πρὸς τίνας οὖν ἔλϑῃ τις βοηϑούς, ἣ ποῖ 
 τὴν καταφυγὴν ποιήσεται... ; See thereon, 
 Maetzner, p. 180. 
 
 3 On the position of yé before the idea to 
 which it gives emphasis, see Nigelsbach, 
 
 Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 118. 
 
CHAP. XI., 14—22, 401 
 
 sis (as at ver. 12) had preceded. — τὸν πατέρα] Whom of you will his son ask 
 as his father for a loaf ? — ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει] Attraction, instead of ὁ ἐν οὐρανῷ 
 ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει. See on ix. 61, and Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 323 [E. T. 377]. 
 — πνεῦμα 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. See on Matt. xii. 22-29; Mark iii. 22 ff. Luke agrees with 
 Matthew rather than with Mark. [See Note XCIL., p. 410 seq. ] — ἦν ἐκβάλλ.] 
 he was busied therein. —xai αὐτό] and he himself, the demon, by way of dis- 
 tinguishing him from the possessed person. — κωφόν] See on Mark ix. 17. — 
 Ver. 16. A variation from Matthew in the connection of thig (in Luke pre- 
 mature) demand for a sign (see on Matt. xii. 38), and in its purport (ἐξ 
 ovpavov). — Ver. 17. καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει] a graphic description of the 
 desolation just indicated by ἐρημοῦται: 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 (Weut. Gr. p. 291 [E.T. 
 338]) : House after house. Many other commentators take οἶκος as meaning 
 Samily, and explain either (Bornemann), ‘‘ and one family falls away after 
 another” (on ἐπί, comp. Phil. 11. 27), or (so the greater number, Euthymius 
 Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Paulus, de Wette) they sup- 
 ply διαμερισθείς after oixov, and take ἐπὶ οἶκον as equivalent to ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτόν : ‘et 
 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 ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτόν had been intended, the 
 very parallelism of the passage would have required ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτόν to be inserted, 
 and that οἷκος ἐπὶ 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 ἐρημοῦται 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. καὶ ὁ Σαταν.} Satan also, corresponding with the instance just re- 
 ferred to. — ὅτι λέγετε x.7.A.] the reason of the question. — Ver. 20. ἐν δακτύλῳ 
 Θεοῦ] Matthew : ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ. 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. ὁ ἰσχυρός] as τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, Matt. 
 xii. 29. ---καθωπλισμένος] not the subject (Luther), but : armed. —riv ἑαυτοῦ 
 αὐλήν] not: his palace (see on Matt. xxvi. 3), but: his own premises, at 
 whose entrance he keeps watch. — ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἐστί κ.τ.}.1 This is the usual re- 
 sult of that watching. But the case is otherwise if a stronger than he, etc. 
 See what follows. Thus in me has a stronger than Satan come upon him, 
 
 and vanquished him ! —ra σκῦλα αὐτοῦ] the spoils taken from him. 
 “~T Comp. Thucyd. ii. 84. 2: ναῦς τε νηϊ προσ- 2 Ex. viii. 19; Ps. viii. 3; Philo, Vit. Mos. 
 ἔπιπτε. p. 619C; Suicer, 7.68. I. p. 820. 
 
 26 
 
402 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Ver. 23. After Jesus has repelled the accusation : ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ x.7.A., 
 ver. 15, He pronounces upon the relation to Him of those men spoken of in ver. 
 15 (see on Matt. xii. 30), and then adds— 
 
 Vv. 24-26, a figurative discourse, in which He sets forth their incorrigi- 
 bility. See on Matt. xii. 48-45. 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 alone has this feminine type of character 
 also (comp. x. 38 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. The incident is not parallel even with Mark iii. 31 ff. (Holtzmann), 
 even although in its idea it is similar. [See Note XCHL., p. 411.] — érapaca] 
 ὑψώσασα᾽ σφόδρα yap ἀποδεξαμένη τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ, μεγαλοφώνως ἐμακάρισε τὴν 
 γεννήσασαν αὐτὸν ὡς τοιούτου μητέρα γενέσθαι ἀξιωθεῖσαν, ‘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. — ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου] out of the crowd she lifted up her voice. — μακαρία 
 x.7.4.] See analogous beatitudes from the Rabbins and classical writers in 
 Wetstein, Schoettgen, and Elsner, Obss. Ὁ. 226. — Ver. 28. μενοῦνγε] may 
 serve as corrective (imo vero) as well as confirmatory (utique).’ [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 μακάριος, 
 not as the woman had done, as a special external 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 μενοῦν 
 and pevorvye 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 ἕτεροι who had craved from Him a 
 σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (ver. 16). — ἤρξατο] He first began this portion of His ad- 
 dress when the crowds were still assembling thither, z.e., were assembling in 
 still greater numbers (ἐπαθροιζ.), 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. ΤΙ. 2 See examples in Wetstein, Sturz, Dial. 
 p. 400; Kithner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 9, ii. 7. 5. Al. p. 208; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 342. 
 
CHAP. XI., 33-36. 403 
 er). — Ver. 30. Comp. Matt. xvi. 4. Jonah was for the Ninevites a sign 
 (divinely sent) by means of his personal destiny, ὅτε ὑπερφυῶς ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τοῦ 
 κήτους ἐῤῥύσθη τριήμερος, ‘‘ because he was marvellously delivered from the 
 belly of the whale after three days.” Jesws became for that generation a 
 sign (divinely sent, and that as Messiah) likewise by His personal destiny, 
 ὅτι ὑπερφυῶς ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τῆς γῆς ἀνέστη τριήμερος, ‘‘ 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), see on Matt. xii. 
 40, Remark. The sign of Jonah belongs entirely to the future (δοθήσεται. 
 ἔσται). ---- Ver. 31 f. does not stand in a wrong order (de Wette), although 
 the order in Matthew is probably the original, while that in Luke is arranged 
 chronologically and by way of climax. — μετὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν x.t.4.] she will ap- 
 pear with the men, etc., brings into greater prominence the woman’s con- 
 demning example. — ἄνδρες Νινευῖται] without an article : Men of Nineveh. 
 Vv. 33-36. Comp. viii. 16 ; Mark iv. 21 ; and see 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, 32). 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- 
 deed necessary to preserve clear and undimmed one’s own inner light, 1.6., 
 the power of perception that receives the divine truth.” Certainly the train 
 of thought in Matthew is easier and clearer, but Luke found them in the 
 source whence he obtained them in the connection in which he gives them. 
 —eic κρυπτήν] 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 εἰς μακράν, εἰς μίαν, and the like (see Bernhardy, p. 221) adverbial 
 (see Bornemann), since no instance of such a use of κρυπτήν can be produced, 
 but the accent must be placed on the penult, εἰς κρύπτην : into a concealed 
 passage, into a vault (cellar).?_ The certainty of the wsws Joguendi and the ap- 
 propriateness of the meaning confirm this explanation, although it occurs 
 in none of the versions, and among the mss. only in Tr. Yet Euthymius 
 Zigabenus seems to give it in τὴν ἀπόκρυφον οἰκίαν, ‘‘the hidden house :” in 
 recent times, Valckenaer, Matthaei (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, Newt. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 
 243]. Gal. vi. 1 isnot quite similar, for there μή stands with the subjunctive, 
 
 1 These words have nothing further to do 
 with the refusal of the sign. This is in op- 
 
 ver. 33, manifestly does not describe a pro- 
 cedure that takes place, but a duty. 
 
 position to Hilgenfeld, who regards the con- 
 nection as being: that there is no need at 
 all of such a sign, since, indeed, Jesus does 
 not conceal His light, etc. Comp. also 
 Weizsicker, p. 157. Besides, the discourse, 
 
 2Thus ἡ κρύπτη in Athen. iv. p. 205 A. 
 Comp. the Latin crypta, Sueton. Caliq. 58; 
 Vitruv. vi. 8; Prudent. Hippol. 154: ‘‘ Mersa 
 latebrosis crypta patet foveis.”’ 
 
404 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 and means: that not. —76 φῶς τὸ ἐν coi] ὁ νοῦς 6 φωταγωγὸς τῆς ψυχῆς cov, *‘ the 
 illuminating mind of thy soul,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — σκότος ἐστίν] ὑπὸ τῶν 
 παθῶν, ‘* by thy passions,” Euthymius Zigabenus. 
 
 Ver. 36. Οὖν] taking up again the thought of ver. 34 : καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου 
 φωτεινόν éotw. —In the protasis the emphasis lies on ὅλον, which therefore is 
 more precisely explained by μὴ ἔχον τὶ μέρ. σκοτ. ; but in the apodosis φωτεινόν 
 has the emphasis, and the kind and degree of this light are illustrated (comp. 
 ver. 34) by ὡς ὅταν x.7.2.: “ΤῈ 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 (ὡς ὅταν «.7.4.) is affirmed. ᾿Απὸ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα παραδείγματος περὶ τῆς 
 ψυχῆς δίδωσι νοεῖν... ᾿Εὰν αὕτη ὅλη φωτεινὴ εἴη, μὴ ἔχουσα μηδὲν μέρος ἐσκοτισμένον 
 πάθει, μῆτε τὸ λογιστικὸν, μῆτε τὸ θυμικὸν, MATE τὸ ἐπιθυμικὸν, ἔσται φωτεινὴ ὅλῃ οὕτως, 
 ὡς ὅταν ὁ λύχνος τῇ ἀστραπῇ αὐτοῦ φωτίζῃ σε, ‘‘ 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 ὅλον with respect to 
 φωτεινόν, removes the appearance of tautology in the two members, renders 
 needless the awkward change of the punctuation advocated by Vogel (de con- 
 jecturaeusu in crisi N. T. p. 37 1.) and Rinck : εἰ οὖν τὸ σῶμά σου ὅλον, φωτεινὸν 
 μὴ ἔχον τι μέρος, σκοτεινὸν, ἔσται φωτεινὸν ὅλον κ.τ.2., and sets aside the conjectures 
 that have been broached, such as those of Michaelis (Hinl. I. p.739) : ἔσται 
 φωτ. τὸ bAov (body and soul), or ὁλοόν ; of Bornemann : that the first ὅλον is 
 agloss ; of Eichthal : that instead of ‘‘ thy dody’ must be meant ‘‘ thine eye” 
 (comp. already Maldonatus). —6 λύχνος) the lamp of the room, ver. 33. 
 
 Vv. 37-54. See on Matt. xxiii. 1. [See Note XCIV., p. 411.] 
 
 Ver. 37. Ἔν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι] that is to say, what had preceded at ver. 29 ff. 
 - ἀριστήσῃ] refers no more than ἄριστον at Matt. xxii. 4 to the principal 
 meal, but to the breakfast (in opposition to Kuinoel, de Wette, and others). 
 See xiv. 12. —"Hudex μὲν τὴν τῶν Φαρισαίων σκαιότητα ὁ κύριος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως συνεστιᾶ- 
 ται αὐτοῖς δ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, bre πονηροὶ ἦσαν καὶ διορθώσεως ἔχρηζον, ‘*The Lord knew 
 indeed the rudeness of the Pharisees, 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. 38, 39. Ἔβαπτ. πρὸ τ. ἀρίστ. See on Mark vii. 2.1 Luke does not say 
 that the Pharisee expressed his surprise ; Jesus recognizes his thoughts im- 
 
 1 Jesus had just come out of the crowd, cleanse Himself by a bath before the morn- 
 
 nay, He had just expelled a demon, ver. 14. ing meal (comp. on Mark vii. 4). 
 Hence they expected that He 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 aiwk- 
 wardness (comp. Gfrérer, Heil. Sage, I. p. 243, de Wette, Ritschl, Holtz- 
 mann, Eichthal). This judgment applies an inappropriate standard to the 
 special relation in which Jesus stood to the Pharisees, 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 erroneous, 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 cirewmstance 
 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 πάλαι : as it now stands with you, as far as things 
 have gone with you, etc. Comp. Grotius, who brings into comparison : ἡ 
 γενεὰ αὕτη. --- τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν] ὑμῶν does not belong to dpz. Kk. πονηρ. (Kypke, 
 Kuinoel, Paulus, Bleek, and others, following Beza’s suggestion), so that 
 what is inside, the contents of the ewp and platter, τὰ ἐνόντα, 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 inward 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 ἁρπαγή, as the object of endeavor, corresponds to the 
 disposition of πλεονεξία, which in Mark vii. 22, Rom. i. 29, is associated 
 with πονηρία. --- Matt. xxiii. 25 has the saying in a more original form. The 
 conception in Luke, although not in itself inappropriate (Weiss), shows traces 
 of the influence of reflective interpretation, as is also evident from a compar- 
 ison of ver. 40 with Matt. xxili. 26. 
 
 Ver. 40. Jesus now shows how irrational (ἄφρονες) this is from the religious 
 point of view. — οὐχ ὁ ποιήσας x.7.A.| did not He (God) who made that which is 
 without (i.e., everything external in general, res externas) also make that which 
 is within (res internas)? How absurd, therefore, for you to cleanse what 
 belongs to the rebus externis, 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 τὸ ἔξωθεν is the 
 category to which belongs τὸ ἔξωθεν τ. ποτ. x. τ. πίν., ver. 389, and τὸ ἔσωθεν 
 the category to which belongs τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, 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 τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου, ver. 39. Others limit them to the mate- 
 riale patinae et poculi, ‘‘material of the cup and platter,” and the cibum et 
 potum, ‘‘food and drink,” which τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, ver. 39, 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 τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν, ver. 39, is opposed to the 
 usus loquendi of the words ἐποίησε and ποιήσας. 
 
 Ver. 41. A prescription how they are to effect the true purification. Πλήν 
 is verumtamen (see on vi. 24): Still, in order to set aside this foolish incon- 
 eruity, give that which is therein (the contents of your cups and platters) as 
 alms, 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 πάντα) will stand to you (to 
 your consciousness) in the relation of purity. On the idea, comp. Hos. vi. 
 6 (Matt. ix. 18, xii. 7). τὰ ἐνόντα 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, Schleiermacher, Neander, Bornemann), and according to 
 which Jesus repeats the peculiar maxim of the Pharisees for attaining right- 
 eousness 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 τὰ ἐνόντα, but ἐκ τῶν ἐνόντων. 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” (Bava 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. — τὰ ἐνόντα] that which is therein. It might also mean, 
 not : quod superest, ‘‘ what is over,” ὁ.6., τὸ λοιπόν (Vulgate), but perhaps : 
 that which is at hand, that which ye have (Theophylact : τὰ ὑπάρχοντα ὑμῖν, 
 ‘your possessions;” Euthymius Zigabenus : τὰ ἐναποκείμενα, ‘‘ what is laid 
 up ;” Luther : Of that which is there), or which is possible (Grotius, Morus), 
 to justify which δοῦναι 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 ! — παρέρχεσθε] ye leave out of consideration, as at xv. 29, 
 and frequently in Greek writers, Judith xi. 10. -- ἀγαπᾶτε] ye place a high 
 value thereupon. Comp. John xii. 43. 
 
CHAP. XI., 4448. 407 
 
 Ver. 44. See on Matt. xxiii. 27. Yet here the comparison is different. — 
 τὰ ἄδηλα] the undiscernible, which are not noticeable as graves in consequence 
 of whitewash (Matt. /.c.) or otherwise. — καί] 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. — περιπατοῦντες] without an article (see the critical remarks): while they 
 walk. — οὐκ οἴδασιν] know it not, that they are walking on graves. 
 
 Ver. 45. This νομικός was no Sadducee (Paulus, yet see his Hxeget. 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 voukoi. That he only partially professed the prin- 
 ciples of the Pharisees is assumed by de Wette on account of καὶ ἡμᾶς, in 
 which, however, is implied ‘‘not merely the common Pharisees (the laity), 
 but even us, the learned, thou art aspersing.” The scribe calls what was a 
 righteous ὀνειδίζειν (Matt. xi. 20; Mark xvi. 14) by the name of ὑβρίζειν 
 (xviii. 32 ; 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 νομικοί, 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 (Weizsiicker), 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. — ὅτε οἰκοδομεῖτε... οἱ δὲ πατέρες k.7.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 objectively and actually stood. 
 Consequently, there is neither any deeper meaning to be supposed as need- 
 ing to be introduced, as Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 840, has unhappily enough 
 attempted ; nor is ἄρα to be taken as interrogative (Schleiermacher). The 
 second clause of the contrast, οἱ δὲ πατέρες x.7.4., is introduced without any 
 preparation (without a previous μέν ; otherwise at ver. 48), but just with 
 so much the greater force, and hence no μέν is to be supplied.’— In view 
 of the reading ὑμεῖς δὲ οἰκοδομεῖτε, ver. 48 (without αὐτῶν τὰ μνημεῖα, see the 
 critical remarks), we must translate : but ye build! ye carry on buildings. 
 
 1 Kuinoel; see, on the other hand, Klotz, ad Devar. Ὁ. 356 f.; Fritzsche, αὐ Rom. TI. 
 p. 423. 
 
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. See on Matt. xxiii. 34-39. — διὰ τοῦτο] 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 (εἰς αὐτούς) rejected these latter, ete. See ver. 52. —7 
 σοφία τ. Θεοῦ] Doubtless a quotation, as is proved by εἶπεν and αὐτούς, 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 ἡ σοφία τ. Θεοῦ. To. 
 suppose a lost Jewish writing, however, which either may have had this 
 title (Ewald, Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius, Weizsiicker) or may have intro- 
 duced the 17 NIN 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 εἶπεν), 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 λόγος. [See 
 Note XCY., 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.4— ἐκδιώξ.) to drive out of the 
 
 1 The passage is very inaccurately treated 
 by Kostlin, p. 163, 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. ἡ σοφία 
 τ. Θεοῦ εἶπεν, in order to give to it the char- 
 acter of an ancient prophecy, which, how- 
 ever, had no existence at all, ete. 
 
 2 Strauss also, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 
 1863, p. 87 ff., who is thinking entirely of a 
 Christian document. 
 
 3 Neander, Z. J. p. 655; Gess, Person Chr. 
 p. 29; comp. also Ritschl, Hvang. Marcions, 
 p. 89. 
 
 4The utterance in Matthew, ἐγὼ ἀποσ- 
 τέλλω k.T.A., Was historically indicated in the 
 Church by : ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶπεν: ἀποστελῶ 
 κιτιλ, And Luke here makes Jesus Himself 
 speak in thislater mode of indicating it. 
 It is a ὕστερον πρότερον in form. According 
 to Hofmann, Schriftbew. 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 εἰς αὐτούς (instead of εἰς ὑ μ ἃ ς) would 
 certainly not be opposed, since those whom 
 the speech concerned might be opposed as 
 third persons to the wisdom of God which 
 was speaking. But instead of εἶπεν might 
 be expected λέγει ; for now through Jesus 
 the divine wisdom would declare its coun- 
 sel (Heb. iii. 10, to which Hofmann refers, is 
 different, because there εἶπον in connection 
 with προσώχϑισα actually relates to the 
 past). Moreover, if by ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ 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: διὰ τοῦτο 
 Nowhere else in the New 
 Testament is a declaration of God called a 
 declaration of the divine wisdom. Besides, 
 according to Matt. xxiii. 34, Jeswsis the sub- 
 ject of ἀποστελῶ ; and this is also the case 
 in the passage before us, if ἡ σοφία τ. Θεοῦ 15 
 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. iv. 11. 
 Riggenbach’s explanation (Stud. u. Krit, 
 
 καὶ ὃ Θεὸς λέγει. 
 
CHAP. XI., 52-54. 409 
 land. — iva ἐκζητ. x.7.2.] an appointment in the divine decree. The expres- 
 sion corresponds to the Hebrew 01 Wp3, 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 Abdel as the first 
 holy man. 
 
 Ver. 52. See on Matt. xxiii. 14. The genitive of the thing with τ. κλεῖδα 
 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 τῆς βασιλείας with κλεῖδα, and take τ. 
 γνώσεως as a genitive of apposition (Diisterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, 
 p. 750). Comp. 158. xxii. 22. —The γνῶσις, the knowledge κατ’ ἐξοχήν, 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 νομικοί have taken away this key, i.e., 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. —jpare]| tulistis (Vulgate) ; the reading 
 ἀπεκρύψατε found in D isa correct gloss. If they had recognized and taught, 
 as Paul did subsequently, the law as παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν (Gal. ili. 24), they 
 would have used the key for the true knowledge for themselves and others, 
 but not taken it away,’ and made it inaccessible for use. They have taken it 
 away ; so entirely in opposition to their theocratic position of being the 
 κλειδοῦχοι have they acted. — On the figurative idea of the key of knowledge, 
 comp. vill. 10 : ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τ. Θεοῦ. The 
 aorists are altogether to be taken in the sense of the completed treatment ; 
 they indicate what the νομικοί have accomplished by their efforts : 
 xouévovc, however, are those who were intending to enter. 
 
 Vv. 58, 54. Κἀκεῖθεν ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ] (see the critical remarks) and when 
 He had gone forth thence (from the Pharisee’s house, ver. 37). — As to the 
 distinction between γραμματεῖς and νομικοί, see on Matt. xxii. 35. The νομικοί 
 are included in the γραμματ. x. Φαρισ. Comp. on ver. 46. --- ἐνέχειν] not: to 
 be angry (as usually interpreted), which would require a qualifying addition 
 such as χόλον (Herod. i. 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).? — arocrouarifecv?] means first of all: to recite 
 away from the mouth, i.e., by heart (Plat. Huthyd. p. 276 C, 277 A ; Wetstein 
 
 τοὺς εἰσερ- 
 
 1855, p. 599 f.) is similar to that of Hofmann, 
 —though more correct in taking the σοφία 
 τ. Θεοῦ in the Logos-sense, but interpreting 
 the past tense εἶπεν by an ‘‘at all times” 
 arbitrarily supplied. 
 
 1 Ahrens, Amt d. Schliissel, p. 9 ff., takes 
 ἤρατε as: ye bear (more strictly: ye have 
 taken to you) the key of knowledge, to wit : 
 as those who ought to be its οἰκονόμοι, 
 “*stewards.”” Thus, however, the reason of 
 the ovat would not yet appear in ὅτι ἤρατε 
 «.7.A., nor until the following αὐτοὶ οὐκ κ.τ.λ.; 
 and hence the latter would have required 
 to be linked on by ἀλλά, orat least by δέ; or 
 
 else instead of ἤρατε the participle would 
 have required to be used. Many of the older 
 commentators, as Erasmus, Elsner, Wolf, 
 Maldonatus, took ἤρατε as: ye have arro- 
 gated to yourselves, which, however, it does 
 not mean. 
 
 2So also Mark vi. 19; Gen. xlix. 23; 
 Test. XIT. Patr. p. 682; in the good sense: 
 Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 6. 
 
 3 ΠῚ 6 Vulgate has os ejus opprimere, 
 whereby it expresses the reading ἐπιστο- 
 μίζειν, which still occurs 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 : ἀποστοματίζειν φασὶ τὸν διδάσκαλον, ὅταν κελεύει τὸν παῖδα λέγειν ἅττα ἀπὸ 
 στόματος, ‘* The teacher is said ἀποστοματίζειν, when he commands the boy to 
 say something by rote’). See Ruhnken, Zim. p. 43 f. So here ; it is the 
 ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτοσχεδίους k. ἀνεπισκέπτους ἀποκρίσεις ἐρωτημάτων δολερῶν, ‘* 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 θηρεῦσαι in this meta- 
 phorical sense, in Wetstein. 
 
 Notrs py AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 LXXXIX. Vv. 1-4. 
 
 Godet also regards the position of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke as_ historically 
 more correct. 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 older source, 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 ἐπιούσιον, 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. ἐπιούσιον. 
 
 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 vy. 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 as 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. 
 
 XCIII. 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 111. 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 cir- 
 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. ἡ σοφία τ. 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 σοφία, or wisdom of God, was that 
 of Proverbs.’’ He then cites Proy. 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 A E K 
 LU VIAR, min., with Lachm. and Tisch., ἀποκτεννόντων. [W. and Hort, R. V. 
 (B) have the aorist ; so Rec] — Ver. 7. οὖν] is wanting in B L R 157, Copt. 
 Sahid. codd. of It. Ambr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From 
 Matt. x. 31.— Ver. 11. προσφέρωσιν] B 1, Χ δὲ, min. Vulg. codd. of It. have 
 εἰσφέρωσιν. So Tisch. [and recent editors, R. V.] D, Clem. Or. Cyr. of Jerus. 
 Ver. have φέρωσιν. 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 8 B L, etc., have μεριμνήσητε. ] --- Ver. 14. δικαστήν] Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 κριτήν, in accordance with B L %&, min. Sahid., as also D, 28, 33, Cant. Colb. 
 Marcion, which have not ἢ μεριστ. --- δικαστ. was introduced by way of gloss, 
 through a comparison of Acts vii. 27, 35. — Ver. 15. πάσης πλεονεξ. is to be 
 adopted on decisive evidence (Elz. Scholz have τῆς πλ.). --- Instead of the second 
 αὐτοῦ, Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτῷ, in favor of which is the evidence of Β Ὁ F 
 1, ἢ &** min. Bas. Titus of Bostra, Cyr. Rightly ; αὐτοῦ is amechanical repeti- 
 tion of what has gone before.— [Ver. 20. Recent editors, with Tisch (δὲ AB Ὁ L, 
 etc.) read ἀφρών.] --- Ver. 22. After ψυχῇ Elz. Scholz have ὑμῶν. Condemned by 
 Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. on decisive evidence. It is from Matt. 
 vi. 25 ; whence also in B, min. vss. ὑμῶν has also been interpolated after σώματι. 
 [So W. and Hort, R. V.] — Ver. 23. ἡ yap ψυχή is indeed attested by authorities 
 of importance (B DL MS V X &, min. vss. Clement); yet γάρ (bracketed by 
 Lachm., deleted by Tisch.) betrays itself as a connective addition, in opposi- 
 tion to which is the evidence also of oi yi ἡ ψυχή in min. (following Matthew). 
 [Recent editors, R. V., accept γάρ. ] --- Ver. 25. The omission of μεριμνῶν 
 (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 ὑμῶν might easily cause its being dropped out. [Tisch., 
 recent editors, R. V. (with 8* B D, Copt.), omit éa; from Matthew.] — 
 Ver. 26. οὔτε] Lachm. and Tisch. have οὐδέ, Necessary, and sufficiently attest- 
 ed by BL δὲ, etc. — Ver. 27. πῶς αὐξάνει: ov κοπ. οὐδὲ νήϑει] Ὁ, Vere. Syr.ce¥ 
 Marcion? Clem, have πῶς οὔτε νήϑει οὔτε ὑφαίνει. So Tisch., and rightly [but not 
 recent editors, the evidence against being too slight]; the Recepta is from Matt. 
 vi. 28. — Ver. 28. τὸν χόρτον ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ oh. ὄντα] many variations. Both the word 
 τῷ and the order of the Recepta are due to Matt. vi. 30. Following B L δὲ, ete., 
 we must read with Tisch. ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον σήμερον ὄντα [Tisch. VIIL., following 
 8 BL A, 262, Sah. Copt., has ὄντα σήμερον] (Lachm. has τ. χόρτον σήμ. ἐν ayp. 
 ὄντα). [Recent editors agree with Tisch., and also in ver. 29, substituting καὶ τί 
 for ἢ τί.] — Ver. 31. Elz. Scholz have τοῦ Θεοῦ. But the well-attested αὐτοῦ was 
 supplanted by τοῦ Θεοῦ, following Matt. vi. 33, whence also was imported πάντα 
 after ταῦτα (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 36. ava? ὑσει] ἀναλύσῃ is decisively attested, and 
 is hence, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred. — Ver. 38. [The first 22d, 
 
CHAP, ΧΙ: 413 
 
 ot the Rec. is rejected by Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὰ B L, etc., and 
 κἄν substituted for καὶ ἐάν, as well as for the second καί. ] ] — οἱ δοῦλοι] is wanting in B 
 D L δὲ, vss. Ir. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition in accord- 
 ance with ver. 37 [Tisch. VIII. has also deleted ἐκεῖνοι, which is wanting in &*]. 
 — Ver. 40. οὖν] is to be struck out with Lachm. and Tisch., as also is αὐτῷ [not 
 omitted by Tisch. VIII., but by Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], ver. 41. — Ver. 42. 
 [Recent editors (δ Β D L, etc.) have καὶ cizev.] — Instead of ὁ φρόν., Elz. Scholz 
 have καὶ ¢pdv., in opposition to preponderating evidence. καί is from Matt. xxiv. 
 45. — Ver. 47. ἑαυτοῦ] Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτοῦ on very weighty evidence. 
 [So recent editors, R. V., with 8 BDL, ete.] The Recepta is to be maintained. 
 The significance of the reciprocal pronoun was very often not observed by the 
 transcribers. — Ver. 49.-Instead of εἰς, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπί, [So recent 
 editors, R. V., with 8 A BL, ete.] The authorities are much divided, but ἐπί 
 bears the suspicion of haying come in through a reminiscence of Matt. x. 34. 
 — Ver. 53. διαμερισϑήσεται] Lachm. and Tisch. (both of them joining it to what 
 has gone before) have διαμερισϑήσονται, in accordance with important uncials (in- 
 cluding B D δὰ) 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 averb, and therefore was putin the singular. According to almost 
 equally strong attestation we must read τὴν ϑυγατέρα and τὴν μητέρα instead of 
 ϑυγατρί and μητρί (Lachm. and Tisch. omitting the unequally attested article). 
 The Recepia resulted from involuntary conformity to what precedes. — Ver. 54. 
 τὴν νεφέλ.} The article is wanting in A B LX Δ &, min. Lachm. Tisch. [Recent 
 editors, R. V.] But how easily was τῆν, which in itself is superfluous, passed 
 over between id7/TE and NegéA.! — [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., agree with Tisch. | 
 (δὲ B L) in reading ἐπί instead of ἀπό. ] -- Ver. 58. παραδῷ] Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have παραδώσει. Rightly ; the transcribers carried on the construction, as in 
 Matt. v. 25. So also subsequently, instead of βάλλῃ (Elz.) or βάλῃ (Griesb. 
 Scholz) is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., βαλεῖ. 
 
 Ver. 1. During what was narrated in xi. 53, 54 (ἐν οἷς), 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 (ériovvay.), and now at various intervals He holds the following dis- 
 course, primarily indeed addressing His disciples (πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, 
 ver. 22), yet turning at times expressly to the people (vv. 15 ff., 54 ff.), and 
 in general in such a manner (ver, 41) that the multitude also was intended 
 to hear the whole, and in its more general 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 are 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 a mosaic as the present. [See Note 
 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 merely to illustrate the contents of ver. 2 f. (Weizsiicker). —rov 
 μυριάδων] The article denotes the innumerable assembled mass of the people 
 
414 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 (very hyperbolically, comp. Acts xxi. 20).—déore καταπατ. ἀλλήλ.] οὕτως 
 ἐφιέμενοι ἕκαστος πλησιάζειν αὐτῷ ‘‘ longing each one to get near Him,” Theo- 
 phylact. — ἤρξατο] He began, pictorial style. — πρῶτον] before all, is to be 
 taken with προσέχετε, 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 Ὁ x, etc., do take it thus. [See Note XCVIL., 
 p. 425.|] Ewald well says, ‘‘ As a jirst duty.”—rijc ζύμης] see on Matt. xvi. 
 6; 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 ἡ ὑπόκρισις 
 (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 (ἥτις, guippe quae). 
 
 Vv. 2-10. See on Matt. x. 26-33. The connection is indicated by means 
 of the continuative δέ : ‘‘Ye must the more, however, be on your guard 
 against this hypocritical ζύμη, since your teaching is destined to the greatest 
 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 one 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. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν] quare, wherefore. See Hermann, 
 ad Viger. p. 710; Schaefer, Appar. Dem. I. p. 846. —éca ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ k.7.A.] 
 Everything which (in dread of persecutions) ye shall have spoken in the 
 darkness, 7.e., shall have taught in secret, shall (in the triumph of my cause) 
 be heard in the clear daylight, 7.¢., shall be known in full publicity by your 
 preaching and the preaching of others. The expression ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ 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. — ἐν τῷ φωτί] 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 ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ and πρὸς τὸ οὖς. . . ἐν τ. 
 
 1: Therefore not to be interpreted of the 
 Judaizers of the apostolic times (W eizsiicker, 
 p. 364) ; just as little is xvi. 14. 
 
 2 According to Hilgenfeld, Hvang. p. 192 
 (comp. his Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 192), and 
 K6stlin, p. 147, this publicity is regarded as 
 having been meant as a contrast to the 
 ministry of the Twelve, because they had 
 
 ταμείοις, Ver. 
 
 chiefly limited themselves to the circle of 
 Judaism, Tt is not indeed in agreement 
 with this that that which is secret should so 
 purposely be made prominent. The Twelve 
 neither limited their ministry merely to 
 Judaism, nor did they minister among the 
 Jews in quietness and secrecy like preachers 
 in a 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. — τοῖς φίλοις μου] for as such they were 
 the object of persecution. — μετὰ ταῦτα] μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι. The plural de- 
 pends on the idea of being put to death, comprising all the modes of taking 
 away life. See Kiihner, IL, p. 423. — Ver. 5f. Observe the marked empha- 
 sis on the φοβήθητε. -- 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 (λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, 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 (Kuinoel, 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 futwre (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. 
 31 f. 
 
 Vy. 11, 12. But when they bring you—following out this denial of me 
 and blasphemy against the Spirit—to the synagogues, etc. — πῶς ἢ τί] Care 
 not about the kind and manner, or the substance of your defence. See also 
 on Matt. x. 19 ; Mark xiii. 11.? 
 
 Vv. 13-21. Peculiar to Luke ; from his source containing the account of the 
 journey.— Ver. 13 f. ric] certainly no attendant of Jesus (Lightfoot, Kuinoel, 
 and others), as Luke himself points out by ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου ; 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 use 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. 342, 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 iii. 29, that the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Spirit presupposes that the Spirit 
 has already been received. The blasphem- 
 ers of the Spirit are malevolently con- 
 
 scious 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 ἀπολογ. τί, comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 4; 
 Dem. 227.13; Plat. Gorg. Ὁ. 521 A, Phaed. 
 p. 69 Ὁ, Polit. 4, p. 420 B; Acts xxiv. 10. 
 
416 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 be left in doubt. — ἐκ τ. ὄχλ.} belongs to εἶπε, as is shown by the order. The 
 mode of address, ἄνθρωπε, 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 πλεονεξία as that which had stirred up the 
 quarrel between the brothers, and uses the occasion to utter a warning 
 against it. — πρὸς αὐτούς] 1.6., πρὸς τὸν ὄχλον, ver. 13. — ὅτι οὐκ ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν 
 κιτ.λ.} for not 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: 7} 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 XCVIIL., p. 425.] Τὸ this literal 
 meaning, moreover, the following parable corresponds, since it does not 
 authorize us to understand ζωή in its pregnant reference : true life, σωτηρία, 
 or the like (Kuinoel, Bornemann, Olshausen, Ewald, and the older commen- 
 tators) ; on the other hand, Kaeuffer, De ζωῆς aiwy. not. p. 12 f.4 Observe, 
 moreover, that οὐκ has been placed at the beginning, before ἐν τᾷ epioc., 
 because of the contrast which is implied, and that τινί, according to the 
 usual construction, that of the Vulgate, goes most readily with περισσεύειν 
 (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 αὐτοῦ is not superfluous. Finally, it is to be noted that εἶναι 
 ἐκ is the frequent proficisci ex, prodire ex, ‘‘ 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.e., he retains it not because he has these possessions.” 
 In this manner εἶναι ἐκ would mean, to which belong ; but it is decisive against 
 this view entirely that οὐκ ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν 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. xi. 
 17 ff. — εὐφόρησεν] not in the sense of the pluperfect (Luther, Castalio, and 
 others), but: bore well.A—7 χώρα] the estate, Xen. Cyr. viii.4. 28; Jerome, x. 5, 
 
 1 Rom. ii. 1, ix. 20; Plat. Protag. Ὁ. 350 Ὁ; 
 Soph. Aj. 778, 1132. 
 
 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? 
 
 3 Kuinoel: ‘‘Non si quis in abundantia 
 divitiarum versatur, felicitas ejus a divitiis 
 pendet,’’ ‘‘ Notif one is placed in abun- 
 dance of riches, does his happiness depend 
 on riches.’’ Bornemann (Schol. Ὁ. 82, and in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, Ὁ. 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, is 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: “ἡ 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 what 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.” 
 
 4Examples of this late and rare verb 
 (Hipp. Zp. 1274, 20; Joseph. Bell. ii. 21. 2) 
 
CHA P-XIT., 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). 
 --οὐκ ἔχω ποῦ] ‘‘ quasi nusquam essent quibus pascendis possent impendi,” ‘‘as 
 if there are nowhere those whom they can be employed in feeding,” Gro-, 
 tius. — καθελῶ μου x.7.2.] L will pull down my storehouses (Matt. iii, 12). — τὰ 
 γεννήματα] see on Matt. xxvi. 29. --- καὶ τ. ay. μ.] and in general, my posses- 
 sions. — τῇ ψυχῇ μου] 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. Tl. p. 365 A. — dvaratov 
 x.7.A.] An instance of ‘‘ asyndeton,” expressing eager anticipation of the en- 
 joyment longed for.? 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. Εἶπε x.7.2..] is not to be converted into adecrevit, ‘‘ determined ” 
 (Kuinoel), etc. We have, indeed, no history ; πλάττεται yap ταῦτα ἡ παραβολή, 
 “‘ for these things are represented as a parable,” Theophylact. -— ταύτῃ] with 
 emphasis. — ἀπαιτοῦσιν] the categoric plural (see on Matt. ii. 20), which 
 therefore does not prevent our regarding God Himself as the author of what 
 was done, although the subject is left undetermined. The thought of a 
 robber and murderer (Paulus, Bornemann) is not to be allowed on account 
 of ver. 21. — rive ἔσται] not to thee will it belong, but to others !— Ver. 21. 
 So, having incurred the loss of his happiness by the unexpected appearance 
 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 
 πλουτεῖν εἰς θεόν (unless, however, εἰς is to be taken for ἐν, as Luther, Beza, 
 Calovius, and others would have it) is substantially the same as ἔχειν θησαυ- 
 ροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ (comp. ver. 33), and it is realized through δικαιοσύνη, 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, Meuwe Ansichten, 
 p. 201 ff.), but the higher ddeal possession of wealth, the being rich in 
 Messianic possessions laid up with God, and one day to be received from 
 _ Him, which is wanting to the egoistic θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷς Against the former 
 view, entertained by Majus and the rest, it is decisive that the negation of 
 the being rich in relation to God (not of the becoming rich) is regarded as 
 bound up with the selfish heaping wp of treasure. This withal in opposition 
 to Bornemann : ‘‘ qui quod dives est prosperoque in augendis divitiis suc- 
 cessu utitur, sibi 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. εὐφόρως φέ- 2 On the thought, comp. Ecclus. xi. 19; 
 ρειν (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 533). Tob. vii. 9; Plaut. Mil. Glor. iii. 1. 83; Soph. 
 
 1 Comp. on i. 46, and see Jacobs, ad Del. Dan. V1. (181, Dind.) : ζῆ, πῖνε, φέρβου. 
 Epigr, Vi. 1. 
 
 al 
 
418 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Vv. 22-31. See on Matt. vi. 25-33. Jesus nowturns from the people (ver. 
 16) again to His disciples. [See NoteC., p. 426.]— διὰ τοῦτο] because this 
 is the state of things with the θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷ κ. μὴ εἰς θεὸν πλουτῶν. ---- 
 Ver. 24. τοὺς κόρακας] not in reference to the young ravens forsaken by the 
 old ones (Job xxxvili. 41 ; Ps. cxlvii. 9) ; but a common and very numerous 
 species of bird is mentioned (the pulls corvorum, ‘‘ young ravens,” must 
 otherwise have been expressly named : in opposition to Grotius and others). 
 — Ver. 28. According to the Recepta (but see the critical remarks), ἐν τῷ 
 ἀγρῷ would have to be connected with ὄντα ; 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 ἀμφιέννυσι, We must read, with Lachmann, ἀμφιάζει, or, with Tischendorf, 
 ἀμφιέζει. Both forms belong to later Greek (Themist., Plut., LXX.). — 
 Ver. 29. καὶ ὑμεῖς] as the ravens and the lilies. — μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε] The Vul- 
 gate rightly translates : ‘‘nolite in sublime tolli ;” and Luther : ‘‘ be not 
 high-minded.” zalt not yourselves; lift not yourselves up to lofty claims, 
 which is to be taken as referring not to mere eating and drinking, but gen- 
 erally. The usus loquendi of μετεωρίζεσθαι, efferri, ‘‘to be lifted up,” physi- 
 cally and psychically is well known. See 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: nec 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 τὸν περισπασμὸν τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν οὐρανίων ἐπὶ τὰ γήϊνα, ‘‘the distraction from 
 heavenly things to earthly.” Certainly, as μετέωρος may mean : fluctuans,* 
 μετεωρίζειν May signify : to make wavering ;* but there appears no reason in the 
 connection for departing from the above, which is the wswal meaning in 
 which the word is currently employed, even in the LXX. and in the apoc- 
 ryphal writers (2 Macc. vii. 34, v. 17; 3 Macc. vi. 5). This μετεωρ. has 
 for its opposite the συναπάγεσθαι τοῖς ταπεινοῖς, 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. — μὴ φοβοῦ] in consideration of their external 
 powerlessness and weakness (τὸ μικρ. ποίμνιον). 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. 81). — εὐδόκησεν) it has pleased your Father. See 
 on Rom. xv. 26; Col. 1. 19. — δοῦναι ὑμῖν τ. β.] see xx. 29 f. 
 
 Vv. 33, 84. 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. iii. 70. 1,iv. Soph. Oed. R. 924; Eurip. Ov. 1537. 
 
 59. 4, vii. 4.6; Diodor. xi. 82. 41. 4 Yet ποίμνιον is not a diminutive, as 
 2See Schweighiiuser, Lex. Pol. p. 887; Bengel supposed, but isa contraction for 
 Josephus, Antt. iv. 3. 1, Bell. iv. 2. 5. TOLMEVLOV, 
 
 3 Dem. 169, 23; Polyb. γ. 70.10; Schol. ad 
 
CHAP. XII., 35-37. ᾿ς 419 
 
 nounce your earthly possessions, etc. This selling and giving up of the 
 proceeds as alms (ἐλεημοσ., as 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 vow of poverty (Bisping). — ἑαυτοῖς] while ye give to others. — βαλλάντια 
 (x. 4) μὴ παλαιούμενα is explained by the following θησαυρὸν... cipavoic.* 
 As to this θησαυρός, comp. on ver. 21. 
 
 Vv. 35, 36. Only echoes of the followirg references to the Parousia occur 
 at Matt. xxiv. 42 ff. [See Note CI., p. 426.] All the less is the originality 
 to be attributed only to Luke (Olshausen) 07 to Matthew (Kuinoel). 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. 99). --- ἔστωσαν. . . καιόμενοι] 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 wp 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 ὑμῶν emphatically placed first, as ὑμεῖς at ver. 
 36, corresponds to the special duty of disciples ; that your loins should be 
 girded, . . . and that ye like men, οἷο. --- ἀνθρώποις] ἐ.6., according to the 
 context : slaves, as it is frequently used in the classical writers, Mark xiv. 
 12. --- ἐκ τῶν γάμων] not: from his marriage, but from the marriage, αὐ 
 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 (τὴν ἄνω εὐφροσύ- 
 γὴν κ. ἀγαλλίασιν, ‘‘the mirth and joy above,” Euthymius Zigabenus) from 
 which the Messiah returns. —é206vto¢.. . ἀνοίξ. αὖ τῷ] 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 Wette) to the mode of 
 representation, according to which the Lord Himself serves (‘‘ promissio 
 de ministrando 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 βαλλάντ. μὴ mar. to the (Go J: TW 2) Ῥὶ 851): 
 “everlastingly fresh power of apprehension in 2 On the direct πότε, see Buttmann, Newt. 
 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. 11f., 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 feast,—an assumption which is as needless as it is incapable of 
 proof. — περιζώσεται x.7.2.] ἃ vivid representation of the individual details 
 among which even the drawing near to those waiting (παρελϑών) 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 CIL., p. 426.] 
 
 Vv. 39, 40. See on Matt. xxiv. 43 ἢ. 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- 
 ening 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. —rpéc] in reference to, for us, comp. xx. 19 ; 
 Rom. x. 91. --- τὴν rapa. ταύτ.] to wit, of the slaves who wait for their lord, 
 ver. 36 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. — 
 ἢ καί] Peter asks whether the parable is intended for the disciples, o7 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 proceeds 
 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 vy. 
 42-46) whom He, before His departure, would set over the rest of the house- 
 hold as οἰκονόμος (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 every one has to lay to heart, 
 
CHAP. XII., 45-48, 421 
 
 As to the reference of τίς ἄρα, 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 
 as οἰκονόμος (ver. 42), instead of being faithful, shall have thought, etc.— 
 Moreover, see on Matt. xxv. 48-51. — μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστ.] 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 ensue, 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 is a 
 general term indicating the class to which the οἰκονόμος also belongs ; and 
 δέ carries on the meaning with an explanatory force (Hermann, ad Viger. 
 p. 845; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1). — ἑαυτοῦ] of his own Lord, makes the 
 responsibility to be felt the more strongly. — ἑτοιμάσας] ἑαυτόν 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 πρὸς τὸ θέλ. 
 αὐτοῦ. --- δαρήσεται πολλάς] πληγὰς δηλονότι, τουτέστι κολασϑήσονται χαλεπῶς, διότι 
 εἰδότες κατεφρόνησαν, ‘‘ Evidently * ‘ stripes,’ that is, they shall be punished 
 severely, because knowing they slighted,” Euthymius Zigabenus.? — Ver. 
 48. ὁ dé μὴ γνούς] but the slave, who shall not have learnt to know it. Such a 
 one cannot be left withowt 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 ὁ δὲ μὴ γνούς is described the case of a slave of Christ, who has remained 
 ignorant of his Lord’s will. — παντὶ δὲ «.7.4.] 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. — ἐδόϑη πολύ] in official duties, as 
 to the οἰκονόμος. ---- πολὺ ζητήσεται] in official efficiency. The collocation of πολὺ, 
 πολύ, and then πολὺ, περισσότερον, has a special emphasis. —'The second 
 member ¢ παρέϑεντο (the categoric plural, as at ver. 20: in reality κύριος is 
 the subject) «.7.4. is a parallel similar in meaning to the first, but with the 
 climax : περισσότερον, which is not to be taken as : ‘“‘ plus quam aliis, quibus 
 non tam multa concredita sunt,” ‘‘ more than others, to whom so much was 
 
 1 See Schaefer, ad Bos. Hil. p. 387; Valck- 2On the accusative, comp. μαστιγοῦσθαι 
 enaer, Schol. p. 214; Winer, p. 520 [E. T. πληγάς, Plat. Legg. viii. p. 845 B, and see 
 539]. 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 πολύν will be required of him. In this statement 
 is implied the presupposition that the capital sum must have been increased 
 by interest of exchange or by profit of commerce. Comp. Matt. xxv. 
 15 ff. The deposit was not to lie idle.! 
 
 Ver. 49 ἢ. 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. — zip] 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 (Bleck) ; 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 ἀπὸ τοῦ viv, ver. 52), which 
 became the subject of offence, as, on the other hand, of His divine courage 
 of faith and life (comp. ii. 85). The expression itself βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τ. γῆν pro- 
 ceeded from the consciousness of His heavenly origin. Comp. Matt. x. 34. 
 —kai τί ϑέλω x.t.4.] It is the usual and the correct view, held also by 
 Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, which interprets : and how earnestly 
 Twish, if (that) it were already kindled! ἐπισπεύδει γὰρ τὴν ἄναψιν τούτου τοῦ 
 πυρός, ‘* For he is zealous for the kindling of this fire,” Theophylact. Re- 
 garding the ri, see on Matt. vii. 14. Moreover, the usus loquendi of εἰ with 
 ϑέλω (instead of the more confident ὅτι, as with ϑαυμάζω, etc.; see on 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 εἰ is used not 
 merely with the optative (see Pflugk, ad Hur. Hec. 836), but also with the 
 indicative in the imperfect and aorist in the sense of utinam, dummodo ; in 
 the latter case the non-accomplishment is known to the person who utters the 
 wish.? Bornemann takes τί for cur, and εἰ as ἐπεί : “" 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 
 
 1 On παρατίθεσθαι, comp. Herod. vi. 86; 
 Xen. #. Ath. ii. 16; Polybius, iii. 17. 10, 
 xxxiii. 12.3; Tob. i. 14; 1 Macc: ix. 35. The 
 construction in both members is a well- 
 known form of attraction, Kiihner, II. 
 p. 512; Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 947 [E. T. 
 288]. 
 
 2 See Ecclus. xxiii. 14: θελήσεις εἰ μὴ ἐγεν- 
 νήθης ; Herod. ix. 14, also vi. 52: βουλομένην 
 δὲ εἴ κως ἀμφότεροι γενοίατο βασιλέες. 
 
 3 Comp. xix. 42; Josh. vii. 7; Grotius in 
 loc.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 516; in the Greek 
 prose writers it is usual to find εἴθε or εἰ 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 εἰ ἤδη av7¢dy ! 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. 38) ; and He has this baptism as the destiny ordained for Him, 
 and consequently appropriated to Him. — καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι x.7.2.] and how 
 am I distressed (comp. viii. 87 ; Dem. 1484. 23, 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 συνέχομαι an urgency of longing (ὡσανεὶ ἀγωνιῶ διὰ τὴν βραδυτῆτα, “41 am, 
 as it were, distressed on account of the slowness,” Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 comp. Theophylact). So also de Wette and Bleek, 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 xii. 27; Phil. ii. 8; Rom. v. 19, and else- 
 where), when His hour is come (John xiii. 1 and elsewhere). Ewald takes 
 the question as making in sense a negative assertion: I must not make my- 
 self anxious (comp. on πῶς, ver. 56), I must in all patience allow this worst 
 suffering to befall me. This agrees with Ewald’s view of ri ϑέλω k.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. 11, 4, συνοχὴ 
 καρδίας) at the thought of His passion, without detracting from His patience 
 and submissiveness. 
 
 Vy. 51-58. See on Matt. x. 34 f., where the representation is partly sim- 
 plified, partly, on the model of Mic. vii. 6, enriched. — ἀλλ᾽ ἢ] but only, origi- 
 nated from ἄλλο and 7%, without, however, its being required to write 
 ἄλλ ἢ." --ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] 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 amore detailed statement of the 
 circumstances mentioned in ver. 52 (Bleek). 
 
 Vy. 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. Hence 
 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. [See 
 Note CIV., p. 426.] — τὴν νεφέλην] the cloud, which shows itself. — ἀπὸ δυσμ.] 
 therefore from the region of the sea, Comp. 1 Kings viii. 44, and see Robin- 
 
 1 See on this expression in general, Krii- Devar. p. 31 ff. Comp. on 2 Cor. i. 18. 
 ger, de formula ἀλλ᾽ ἢ et affinium particul. ete. Otherwise Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaedr, 
 natura et usu, Brunsyig. 1834; Klotz, ad Ὁ 81 B. 
 
424 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 son, Pal. II. p. 805. —eidéuc] so undoubted it is to you. — Ver. 55. νότον 
 πνέοντα] scil. ἴδητε, to wit, in the objects moved by it. — Ver. 56. ὑποκριταί] 
 see on Matt. xvi. 3. Not unsuitable as an address to the people (de Wette), 
 but it has in view among the people, especially through pharisaical influence 
 (xii. 1), the wntrue nature (the ὑπόκρισις) which, as such, made them blind 
 to the signs of the times ! --- τὸν δὲ καιρὸν τοῦτον] 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. 18) 
 Kuinoel, de Wette refuse to acknowledge any connection (comp. Euthymius 
 Zigabenus : ἐφ᾽ ἕτερον μετέβη λόγον, ‘‘ He passes to a different subject”), 
 and assume a mistaken reminiscence, suggested by the affinity of δοκιμάζειν 
 and κρίνειν. 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. — καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν] 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 progressive advance of the discourse. Comp. on xxi. 30. 
 — Ver. 58. γάρ] explanatory. — ὡς] is the simple siewti, ‘‘ just as :” As thou, 
 namely, artin the act of going away with thine adversary to an archon (in 
 correspondence 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. ὑπάγεις has the emphasis (comp. 
 subsequently ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ) ; so close is the time of decision ! Both the ἄρχων 
 and the xpit#¢ must be considered as local magistrates (κριτῆς 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. κρίσις, Matt. v. 21, and 
 the remark thereafter. By one of the archons, i.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 κριτής, who happens to 
 be subordinate to the ἄρχων, 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. — δὸς ἐργασίαν] 
 da operam, a Latin idiom, probably taken from the common speech, Hermo- 
 
 -genes, de Invent. 111. 5. 7 ; Salmasius and Tittmann (Synon. p. 102), follow- 
 ing Theophylact, erroneously interpret : give interest. This is not the mean- 
 
NOTES. 425 
 
 ing of ἐργασία, and the Israelites were forbidden to take interest from one 
 another (Michaelis, Mos. R. § 154 f.; Saalschiitz, WM. R. pp. 184, 278, 857).— 
 ἀπηλλάχϑαι ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ] 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. 34. 92. -- ὁ πράκτωρ] exactor, collector, 
 bailiff. In Athens the collector of the court fees and fines was so called.* 
 The πράκτωρ also is part of the imagery, without contemplating thereby any 
 special interpretation (otherwise, the angels would have to be understood, 
 Matt. xiii. 41 f.). — 1d ἔσχ. λεπτόν] (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. xviii. 34, 
 
 Notrs py AMERICAN EprITor. 
 
 XOVI. Ver. 1. The Discourse in Chap. XII. 
 
 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. 
 
 XCVII. Ver. 1. πρῶτον. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey., R. V. text, follow Tischendorf, and connect with what pre- 
 cedes ; so Westcott and Hort. R. 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. ὅτε οὐκ ἐν τῷ περισσεύειν K.T.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 (ἐν τῷ «.7.4.),’” The R, V. margin : ““ Greek, for not in a 
 man’s abundance consisteth his life, from the things which he possesseth,”’ 
 accepts the grammatical construction which makes ἐκ τ. ὑπ. a resumption of ἐν 
 τῷ wep. So Olshausen. This view favors the reference to “ true life,”’ 
 
 XCIX. Ver. 21. εἰς θεὸν πλουτῶν. 
 
 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 ζητεῖν τὴν βασιλ. αὐτοῦ (ver, 31).” 
 
 1Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 4; Plat. Legg. ix. elsewhere, and the passages in Kypke and 
 p. 868 Ὁ ; Josephus, Antt. x. 6.2, and else- Loesner. 
 where. 5 3 Bockh, Staatshaush. I. pp. 167, 403 ; Her- 
 2 Thue. iii. 63; Dem. 11. 16, 287. 14,and mann, Staatsalterth. ὃ 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 vy. 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. καὶ τί θέλω εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη. 
 
 The Am. Com. (R. V.) give a margin expressing Meyer’s view: “ΠΟΥ 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 δὲ B L, Vulg., ete.) omit ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, 
 and substitute ταῦτα (δὲ B D L) for τοιαῦτα. --- Vv. 3and 5. The evidence in the 
 two verses is so divided between μετανοῆτε (Elz.) and μετανοήσητε (Lach.), as also 
 between ὡσαύτως and ὁμοίως (Lachm. has in both places ὁμοίως, which Elz. reads 
 only in ver. 5), that it affords us no means of decision. Tisch. reads in ver. 3, 
 μετανοῆτε.. . ὁμοίως, but in ver. 5, μετανοήσητε. . . ὡσαύτως. [So recent editors, 
 R. V.] Itis 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 οὗτοι 
 Lachm, and Tisch. have, on preponderating evidence, αὐτο. The Receplaisa 
 frequent alteration.— [Tisch. Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with 8 A B L, etc., in- 
 sert τούς before avbparouc.] — Ver. 6. The arrangement πεφυτευμ. ἐν τ. aur. adr. 
 (Lachm. Tisch.) is preponderatingly attested, and still more strongly is ζητῶν 
 καρπ. (Elz. has καρπ. ¢.). —Ver. 7. After ἔτη Tisch. has ἀφ᾽ οὗ, following B Ὁ L 
 T> 8, al. Rightly ; it was passed over because it could be dispensed with. — 
 Ver. 8. Elz. has κοπρίαν. But decisive authorities have κόπρια. The feminine 
 form was more common from its use in the LXX. —[Ver. 9. Tisch., recent edi- 
 tors, R. V. (with δὲ BL, Copt.), place εἰς τὸ μέλλον after xaprév.] — Ver. 11. ἦν] 
 is wanting after yuvy in B L T° X 8, min. vss. Lachm. Tisch. A frequent addi- 
 tion. — Ver. 12. τῆς] Lachm. has ἀπὸ τῆς, in accordance with A Ὁ X II 8, min. 
 An exegetical expansion. — Ver. 14. ταύταις A BL, etc., have αὐταῖς. So too 
 Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; ταύταις occurred readily to the transcribers ; 
 comp. on ver. 4. — Ver. 15. Instead of ὑποκριτά (Elz.), ὑποκριταί 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 αὐτῷς In the previous clause instead of οὖν read δέ, 
 with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B DL δὲ, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. 
 Vulg. It. This dé easily dropped out after the last syllable of ἀπεκρίϑη (thus still 
 in one cod. of It.), and the connection that was thus broken was wrongly re- 
 stored in some authorities by οὖν, in others by καί (16, Aeth.).— On the other 
 hand, in ver. 18, instead of dé we are to adopt οὖν with Tisch., following BL 8, 
 min. Vulg. It. al., the reference of which was not understood. — Ver. 19. μέγα] 
 is wanting in B Ὁ L ΤΆ &, 251, vss. Ambr. Suspected by Griesb., bracketed by 
 Lachm. [Omitted by Tisch., recent editors, R. V.] Omitted in accordance 
 with Matt. xiii. 32.— [Ver. 21. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with B L, etc., read 
 ἔκρυψεν. | — Ver. 24. πύλης] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have Gipac, The Recepta is 
 from Matt. vii. 13. — Ver. 25. We are here to read κύριε only once, with Tisch., 
 following Β L δὲ, 157, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Sax. The repetition is from 
 Matt. xxv. 11.—[Ver. 27. Recent editors omit ὑμᾶς (with B L) against Tisch., 
 also on stronger evidence omit (with Tisch.) of and τῆς.] --- Ver. 31. ἡμέρᾳ] 
 
428 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Tisch. has épa, which is so weightily attested by A B* DL R X 8, min., and is 
 so frequent in Luke, that ἡμέρᾳ appears as having come in by means of the 
 subsequent numeration of days. — Ver, 32. ἐπετελῶ) Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 ἀποτελῶ, in accordance with BL δὲ, 33, 124, to which also D is associated by 
 ἀποτελοῦμαι, ---ἰῦ was displaced by the more familiar word ἐπετελ. --- Ver. 35. 
 After ὑμῶν Elz. has ἔρημος, in opposition to preponderating evidence, An exe- 
 getical addition in this place and at Matt. xxiii. 38.— ἕως av] this ἄν is wanting 
 in BD KLR, min.,, in accordance with Matt. xxiii. 39.— 7g] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. have ἥξει, in accordance with AD V A A, min. The weight of these au- 
 thorities is all the more considerable in this place that BL M ἢ Χ δὲ have not 
 7&4 ὅτε at all, which omission occurred in accordance with Matthew. [Treg., 
 W. and Hort, R. V., omit ἂν ἤξει ὅτε, and also ὅτε after ὑμῖν, while Tisch. and 
 all recent editors omit ἀμήν, Tisch. (δὲ L) omits dé, but recent editors, R. V., 
 have, with δὲς A Β Ὁ, Vulg. Copt., λέγω 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 (τῶν Ταλιλ. indicates by 
 the article that their fate was known) whose blood Pilate had mingled with 
 their sacrifices. [See Note CY., p. 438.] 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. — μετὰ τῶν ϑυσιῶν αὐτ.] not instead of μετὰ τοῦ αἵματος τῶν Yue. αὖτ., 
 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 inei- 
 dent itself, which the τινές who had arrived mention as a novelty, is not 
 otherwise known to us. Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5, is speaking of the Samar- 
 itans, 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 vy. 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 isnot to be explained by 
 the supposition that the fragment did not 
 originally appear in Luke (Baur, Markuse- 
 vang. p.195f.). It bears in itself so clearly 
 the stamp of primitive originality that 
 Ewald, p. 292, is able to ascribe it to the 
 oldest evangelical source, Késtlin, p. 231, 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), see Hilgenfeld in the Theol. 
 Jahrb. 1858, p. 224 ff. Yet even Ko6stlin, 
 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 παρῆσάν τινες ἀπαγγέλλοντες, 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. 3. 
 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, 3. 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 individuals, must fall upon ali (to wit, the whole 
 class, so that in the application the Messianic punishment of eternal ἀπώλεια 
 is intended ὅ) if they should not have repented. — παρά] more than.* — éyévov- 
 to] not were (ἦσαν), but became*—to wit, declaratory : that they became 
 known as sinners by the fact, namely, that they suffered such things (πεπόνϑ.), 
 perf., see Winer, p. 242 [E. T. 271]. 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. Likewise historically unknown. — ὁ πύργος] 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. ἐ.6. says of the walls of the ancient city, πρὸς νότον ὑπὲρ τὴν Σιλωὰμ 
 ἐπιστρέφον πηγῆν, ‘ turning toward the south beyond the spring of Siloam”). 
 As to the spring (on the south-east side of the ancient city) and the pool of 
 Siloah, see on John ix. 7. — ἐν τ. Σιλ.} ἐν of the immediate neighborhood, 
 αἱ." —xai ἀπέκτ. αὐτούς] 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. —airo/] (see the critical remarks) they on their part, in op- 
 position to the others, taking them up emphatically. Observe that ὡσαύτως 
 is stronger than ὁμοίως, 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 ἀμπελουργός) 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 τρεῖς πολιτείαι 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, Michaelis, 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.” — συκῆν εἶχέ τις] a certain person possessed a fig-tree. The 
 
 1 Joseph. Antt. xvii. 9.3; Wetstein on the 5 Comp. Xen. Anabd. iv. 8. 32, and thereon, 
 
 passage ; see especially Rettig in the Stud. 
 und Kritik. 1838, p. 980 f. 
 
 2 Not the destruction of Jerusalem, as 
 Grotius and many will have it. 
 
 8 See Bernhardy, p. 259 ; Buttmann, Weut. 
 Gr. p. 292 [E. T. 339]. 
 
 4See generally, C. F. A. Fritzsche in 
 Friteschior. Opusc. p. 284 f, 
 
 Kiihner, Hom. 11. xviii. 521, and elsewhere. 
 
 6 Bornemann, ad Sympos. iv. 68, p. 154; 
 Bernhardy, p. 290. 
 
 7 Grotius aptly says that the three years 
 indicate in general the whole period before 
 Christ: ‘‘quo Deus patientissime expecta- 
 vit Judaeorum emendationem,” ‘‘ when 
 God most patiently awaited the improve- 
 
450 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Jig-tree in the vineyard is not opposed to Deut. xxii. 9, for there trees are 
 not spoken of.— Ver. 7. According to the reading rp. ἔτη ἀφ᾽ ob (see the 
 critical remarks) : Jt is three years since I, etc. Comp. Thucyd. 1. 18. 2, — 
 ἱνατί καὶ K.t.2.] wherefore also (besides that it itself bears nothing).! The καί 
 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. καὶ τοῦτο τὸ 
 ἔτος] the present year also—as already those three ineffectual past years. — ἔως 
 ὅτου K.7.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. — κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν] 
 and in case perchance tt shall have brought forth fruit—even in the classical 
 writers a frequent aposiopesis of the apodosis καλῶς éyer.? On the interchange 
 of ἐάν and εἰ in such antitheses, in which the 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. 2638 f.].—eic τὸ μέλλον] se. ἔτος, 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 ἔτος is by means of the correlation to τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος, ver. 8, 
 more strictly textual than the general notion postea, ‘‘ afterwards” (as it is 
 usually taken. —éxkxdyerc] ‘‘ Non dicit vinitor: evscindam, 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. 158) would be 
 fantastic. — Ver. 11. ἦν] aderat. [Meyer omits, see critical ποίθ.] ---- πνεῦμα 
 ἀσθενείας) 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 ἀσθέν. ismore in accordance with the context than the general one of sich- 
 ness. — εἰς τὸ παντελές] Comp. Heb. vii. 25, and thereon Bleek ; Ae. xii. 20, 
 v. 7. It belongs adverbially not to μὴ δύναμ. (de Wette, Bleek, and most 
 commentators), but to ἀνακύψαι, with which it stands. She was bowed to- 
 gether (Ecclus. xii. 11, xix. 26f., and in the Greek writers), and from this 
 position to straighten herself up perfectly was to her impossible. — Ver. 12. 
 ἀπολέλυσαι) thow art loosed ; that which will immediately occur is represented 
 as already completed, — Ver. 14. ἀποκριθείς] See on Matt, xi, 25.—76 ὄχλῳ] 
 
 
 
 ment of the Jews.” Within three years, as ad Devar. Ὁ. 635 ff. 
 
 a rule, the tree when planted bore fruit, 2 Examples of καταργεῖν, inertem facere, 
 Wetstein in loc. The people addressed are Eur. Phoen. 760; Ezra iv. 21, 28, v. 5, vi. 8. 
 the τινές, ver. 1 as ver. 2, but as members of 3 See Valckenaer, Schol. p. 217 ; Hermann, 
 God's people (the vineyard), not as inhab- ad Viger. Ὁ. 833; Buttmann, εμέ. Gr. 
 itants of Jerusalem (Weizsiicker). p. 339 [E. T. 396]. 
 
 1See Hermann, ad Viger. Ὁ. 887 ; 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. ὑποκριταί] Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus aptly says: ὑποκριτὰς ὠνόμασε τοὺς κατὰ τὸν ἀρχισυνάγωγον, ‘‘ He calls 
 those like the ruler of the synagogue hypocrites” (the class of men to which 
 he belonged, the hierarchical opposition, comp. ver. 17), ὡς ὑποκρινομένους μὲν 
 τιμᾶν τοῦ σαββάτου νόμον, ἐκδικοῦντας δὲ τὸν φθόνον ἑαυτῶν, ‘‘as pretending to 
 honor the law of the Sabbath, but avenging their own envy.” --- ἀπαγαγών] 
 pictorially, ‘‘ad opws demonstrandum,” ‘‘to describe the labor,” Bengel. — 
 Ver. 16. The argument is ὦ minori ad majus (as xiv. 5), andthe majus is sig- 
 nificantly indicated py the doubled description θυγατέρα ’ABp. οὖσαν (comp. 
 xix. 9) and ἣν ἔδησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς κ.τ.}. ‘‘Singula verba habent emphasin,” 
 ‘Hach word is emphatic” (Grotius),—a remark which holds good also of 
 the vividly introduced ἰδού, comp. Deut. viii. 4. As adaughter of Abraham, 
 she belongs to the special people ef God, and must hence be wrested from 
 the devil. Of spiritual relationship with Abraham (Lechler in the Stud. τ. 
 Krit. 1854, p. 821) nothing is said. — ἣν ἔδησεν ὁ 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. --- δέκα x.7.2. is not a nominative, but an accu- 
 sative of the duration of time. Comp. ver. 8, xv. 29, and elsewhere. — Ver. 
 17. κατῃσχύν. πάντ. of ἀντικ. αὐτ.] Comp. Isa. xlv. 10. --- γινομένοις] Present ; 
 describing the glorious work of Jesus as continuing. 
 
 Vv. 18-20. Comp. on Matt. xiii, 31-383; Mark iv. 31 f.—Zéeye οὖν] 
 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 commonest skill in the management of his materials ; but 
 after the conclusion of the preceding incident (ver. 17) Jesus, in conse- 
 quence (οὖν, 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. [See Note CVIL., 
 p. 498. ] --- Ver. 19. εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ] into a garden belonging to himself, where 
 it was protected, where he could observe and foster it, etc. — Ver. 20. πάλιν! 
 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. 38, xvii. 11). The mention of the journey holds the historical 
 thread. [See Note CVIIL., p. 438.] — καὶ πορ. ποιούμ.] teaching, and at the 
 sume time, ete. 
 
 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. Πρὸς αὐτούς] refers to those who were present, of whom the ques- 
 tioner was one. Jesus, giving after His manner a practical application to 
 the theoretical question, answers not directly, but by means of the admoni- 
 tion : Strive 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.””— διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας] (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 μετάνοια. 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 διὰ τῆς orev. θύρ., without any 
 more definite explanation (comp., on the other hand, Matt. l.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 place). — ζητήσουσιν] weaker than ἀγωνίζεσθε. --- εἰσελθεῖν] 
 in general ; διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας is not repeated. —xk. οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν] because 
 they omit ἀγωνίζεσθαι εἰσελθεῖν διὰ τῆς στενῆς θύρας, i.e., they have not repented. 
 [See Note CIX., p. 438. ] 
 
 Vv. 25-27.? If you are excluded from the kingdom of Messiah, you shall 
 then in vain urge your external connection with me ! 
 τὴν τινὰ καθήμενον kK. ὑποδεχόμενον, ‘* For He represents a certain master of a 
 house sitting and entertaining” (at the repast, ver. 29), τοὺς φίλους αὐτοῦ, 
 ‘‘his friends ” (rather his family ; see subsequently on πόθεν), εἶτα ἐγειρόμενον 
 
 Πλάττει yap οἰκοδεσπό- 
 
 κ. ἀποκλείοντα τὴν θύραν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ, κ. μὴ συγχωροῦντα τοῖς ἄλλοις εἰσελθεῖν, 
 ‘‘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 τότε, ver. 26 (Bengel, Bornemann), and continues down 
 to ἀδικίας, ver. 27, in accordance with which the punctuation should be 
 adjusted. The apodosis does not begin as early as καὶ ἀποκριθείς, ver. 25 (the 
 usual mode of punctuation), so that with ver. 26 anew sentence would begin ; 
 for the former καί, which would not be a sign of the apodosis (de Wette), 
 
 1 That in direct questions εἰ should be 
 used as the recitative ὅτι, which would have 
 
 On the classical beginnings of this usage, 
 nothing likewise is to be decided other 
 
 to be explained by a transition of the oratio 
 obliqua into the oratio directa, even after 
 the learned investigation of Lipsius, Pavlin. 
 Rechtfervigungslehre, 1853, p. 30 ff., I must 
 doubt, since we should find this use of εἰ 
 much more frequently elsewhere, and since 
 in the isolated places where it occurs it is 
 just the meaning of the doubtful question 
 (whether indeed ?) which is very appropriate 
 Matt. xii. 10, xix. 8; Luke xiii. 23, xxii. 
 49; Acts i. 6, vil. 1, xix. 2, xxi. 87, xxii. 25). 
 
 than on the New Testament usage, to 
 wit, with Ast, Zea. Plat. I. p. 601: “‘ Du- 
 bitanter interrogat, ita ut interrogatio vide- 
 atur directa esse,” ‘He asks doubtingly, 
 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 several por- 
 tions of Matthew taken from the Logia, 
 
CHAP. XIII., 25-27. 433 
 but would mean also, would be superfluous and confusing, whereas τότε pre- 
 sents itself, according to a usage known to every one (v. 35, xxi. 20, and 
 elsewhere), 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 ἀφ᾽ ot . . . ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν (after 
 which he places a full stop) with καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύσουσιν, ver. 24. Schegg follows 
 him. But opposed to this is the second person ἄρξησθε, which is not in ac- 
 cordance with ἰσχύσουσιν, but carries forward the address that began with 
 ἀγωνίζεσθε. Ewald conceives the apodosis as beginning as early as καὶ ἀρξησθε, 
 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 ἄρξησθε, ver. 26, the force of the protasis must come up 
 anew with the repetition of the sound.’ — καὶ ἄρξησθε] can only arbitrarily be 
 limited to κρούειν, as though it ran ἄρξ. ἔξω ἑστῶτες κρούειν (Fritzsche, ad 
 Matth. p. 541). It refers to both 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 
 ἐφάγομεν x.t.A. Thus there appears in ἄρξησθε and ἄρξεσθε, ver. 26, a very 
 vivid representation of their several fruitless attempts. — καὶ ἀποκρ. ἐρεῖ ty. | 
 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 av had not gone before (Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 142).—ovk οἶδα ὑμᾶς πόθεν ἐστέ] Comp. John vii. 27; Winer, p. 551 
 [E. T. 626]. — πόθεν] i.¢e., 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. 
 ἐνώπιόν σου] 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 
 μετά cov. — ἐν ταῖς πλατ. ju. ἐδίδαξ. A divergence from the person describing 
 to the person described, which occurs in ver. 27 in ἀπόστητε. . . 
 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 1 Antinomians 
 (Weizsiicker) are not meant at all, but immoral adherents. 
 
 ἀδικίας," 
 
 1 ΠῚ 15 reading, indeed, has in its favor 
 ADKLMT*®>XTATN 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 ἄρξεσϑε]. 
 
 2On the question discussed in so many 
 ways whether in the classical writers (ex- 
 cept Homer) av stands with the future 
 (Brunck, Heindorf, Hermann, Hartung, 
 Stallbaum, Reisig, Kiihner, Kriiger, and 
 
 28 
 
 many others) or not, see especially Her- 
 mann, de part. av, Ὁ. 30 ff.; Hartung, Parii- 
 kell. II. p. 282 ff. (both in favor of it); and 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 118 ff. (against it). 
 
 3 On ἐργάτης, a doer of good or evil (so 
 only in this place in the New Testament), 
 comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 27: τῶν καλῶν καὶ 
 σεμνῶν ἐργάτην ; 1 Macc. iii. 6. 
 
 4See Hilgenfeld, Avit. Unters. Ὁ. 184 f., 
 Evang. p. 196, Zeitschr. 1865, p. 192. 
 
434 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 Vv. 28, 29. Comp. on Matt. viii. 11 f. The words of Jesus. — ἐκεῖ] there, 
 in the place to which ye shall thus be turned away. For the most part it is 
 understood temporally, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ, ‘Sin that season,” Euthymius Zig- 
 abenus. Rarely thus in the classical writers (Soph. PAil. 394 ; Bornemann, 
 Schol. p. 90 f.), but never (yet comp. ἐκεῖθεν, Acts xiii. 21) in the New Tes- 
 tament ; and here the context points definitely by ἀπόστητε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ to the 
 well-known locality, as, moreover, the standing type of this formula sane- 
 tioned by use (Matt. xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30) with ἐκεῖ leads 
 one to think only of that locality. — ὅταν ὄψησθε] 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, etc.1—’A{p. x. ’Io. x. "Iaxé8] Comp. Matt. viii. 11. The 
 Marcionite reading πάντας τοὺς δικαίους 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. 1.6., or in opposition to Marcion’s views (Hilgenfeld, Baur). — 
 ἐκβαλλομ. ἔξω] agrees with the figure, although the persons concerned are not 
 admitted at all; for they are members of the family, and as such, 7.é., as orig- 
 inally belonging to the theocratic community of the patriarchs and prophets, 
 they are by their rejection practically ἐκβαλλόμενοι ἔξω. The present tense is 
 justifiable, since the ὁρᾶν x.r.4. at the time of the ἔσται ἡ κλαυθμός will be 
 already past. Hence : if ye shall have seen yourselves as such, become (not are) 
 the cast out. A/ter 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. --- εἰσίν] (before the establish- 
 ment of the kingdom ; ἔσονται) after it, in the kingdom. — ἔσχατοι] 7.e., those 
 who have not become believers till very late (as such, born heathens, ver. 
 29). — ἔσονται πρῶτοι] Members of the first rank in the kingdom of Messiah. 
 The originality of this maxim, uttered in several forms and in various con- 
 nections, is to be claimed exclusively for no particular place. 
 
 Ver. 31 ff. as far as ver. 33 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., CVIII., p. 438.] —That the Pharisees did not 
 merely 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 τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ, ver. 32, 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 
 
 1On the subjunctive form ὄψησϑε, see 
 Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 31 (E. T. 36]. 
 
 2 Asa type of cunning and knavery, the 
 epithet fox is so generally frequent, and 
 this figure is here so appropriate, that it 
 appears quite groundless for Hofmann, 
 
 Schriftbew. ΤΙ. 1, p. 815, to suppose that by 
 the fox is meant the destroyer of the vine- 
 yard (comp. Cant. ii. 15). References to 
 the Song of Songs are not in general to be 
 discerned anywhere in the New Testament, 
 comp. on John iii. 99, 
 
CHAP, XIII., 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 see 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. Ἰδοὺ, ἐκβάλλω. . . τελειοῦμαι] 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 im 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. — τελειοῦμαι) (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, τελειοῦσθαι is passive. So also here ; comp. Vulg. It.: conswmmor. 
 τελειοῦν means ad finem perducere, ‘‘tobring to an end,” the passive τελειοῦ- 
 σθαι ad finem pervenire, ‘‘to come to an end.” Hence: I come to a conelu- 
 sion, I have done; with what? the context shows, see above. 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 Kuinoel, Ewald, and others will have them) 
 proverbially (σήμερον x. aip.: per breve tempus, ‘‘ after a little while,” and τῇ 
 τρίτῃ : paulo post, ‘shortly after,” comp. Hos. vi. 2), as also πορεύεσθαι, ver. 
 33. [See Note CX., p. 488 seq.] Just as little reason is there for seeing 
 prefigured in the three days, the three years of the official ministry of Jesus 
 (Weizsiicker, p. 312). 
 
 Ver. 33. Nevertheless (although I am not, through your advice, discon- 
 certed in that three days’ ministry) the necessity still lies before me, to-day and 
 to-morrow and the next day, to obey your πορεύου ἐντεῦθεν, 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.” 
 
 1 On the proverbial ἀλώπηξ, comp. Pind. 
 
 yin. Ai. 141 Plat. Pol. ii) p. 365 Οἱ and 
 thereupon, Stallbaum ; Plut. So/. 30. Comp. 
 ἀλωπεκίζειν in Aristoph. Vesp. 1241; also 
 κίναδος, Dem. 281. 22, 307. 23; Soph. Aj. 103. 
 
 2Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Kypke, and 
 
 In the answer, which as looking ap- 
 
 many others ; comp. also Neander, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, Schegg, Bisping, Linder in 
 the Stud. κι. rit. 1862, p. 564. 
 
 3 #.qg. the expression is different in Dem. 
 De Cor. § 195: μία ἡμέρα καὶ δύο Kat τρεῖς. 
 See Dissen on the passage, p. 362. 
 
456 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) Ihave 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.” — πορεύεσθαι] 
 depart, ver. 81. 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, Kuinoel, Olshausen) are grammatically and 
 contextually wrong (see ver. 31) in the explanation : travel about undis- 
 turbed in my occupations. When others, following Syr., limit πορεύεσθαι 
 merely to τῇ ἐχομένῃ, interpreting it either as to depart (Theophylact, Casau- 
 bon) or to die (Euthymius Zigabenus, Elsner), they supply (comp. also 
 Neander) after αὔριον a thought such as ἐργάζεσθαι or ἐνεργῆσαι ἃ εἶπον. This is 
 indeed to make the impossible possible !— οὐκ ἐνδέχεται] it cannot be done, ἐξ 
 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 matter here in ques- 
 tion is of the actual ἀπολέσθαι, and since Jesus could not place Himself on a 
 level with those who were condemned as false prophets.* 
 
 Vy. 34, 35. See on Matt. xxiii. 37ff. The original place of this exclama- 
 tion is in 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, Synopse, p. 321) 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. 22, 
 and on ix. 51 ff.). The occupation of these 
 three days is rather, according to ver. 82, 
 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. 
 
 * Schleiermacher is wrong in assuming 
 (Schr. ἃ. Luk. p. 195) that Jesus means to 
 say that He must still abide two days in 
 the place, and then for two days more jour- 
 ney quielly, etc. In ver. 83 they are indeed 
 
 the same days as in ver. 82. De Wette con- 
 siders the saying as unimportant,—that it 
 is probably incorrectly reported; and 
 Holtzmann finds the section so obscure 
 that on that account Matthew omitted it. 
 According to Baur, Jesus marks out the 
 πορεύεσϑαι, the progress on His journey 
 never to be interrupted as His preper task, 
 which would be in harmony with the Paul- 
 ine character of the Gospel. With this con- 
 flicts the statement giving the reason ὅτε 
 οὐκ ἐνδέχεται x.t.A. Bleek conjectures that 
 σήμ. κ. αὔρ. καί was introduced from ver. 32 
 by a transcriber’s error at an early period. 
 
 3 Comp. Winer in Zimmerman’s Monate 
 scar. II, 3, p. 206. 
 
CHAP. XIII., 34, 35. 437 
 
 er, de Wette, Bleek). The painful reminder and announcement appears 
 on the part of Jesus natural enough after ver. 33, and in the face of the 
 theocratic hypocrites, ver. 35 is a striking dismissal. — τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιάν] 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, see on Matt. xxiii. 88 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. geschichtl. 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. — λέγω dé [see critical note] ὑμῖν κ.τ.1.}] 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. It refers to the Parousia (see already Theophylact), and the 
 train of thought is : ‘‘The divine protection departs from your city (ἀφίεται 
 ὑμῖν ὁ οἷκ. tu., see on Matt. xxiii, 38), 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 isin Matthew. Observe, namely—(1) that Luke has not the ἀπάρτι 
 of Matthew (and, moreover, could not have it, since he has the saying before 
 the festal entry) ; (2) that, therefore, in Luke the time of the οὐ μή με ἴδητε 
 must be the duration of the previously declared abandonment ; (3) that 
 instead of λέγω yap (Matt.) Luke places λέγω dé, which δέ is not to be taken 
 as explanatory, in the sense of γάρ (because it is not followed by ἀπάρτι as in 
 Matthew), but as in 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. 439.] Comp. the expression 
 ζητήσετέ με k. οὐχ εὑρήσετε in John vii. 34 : the restoration of Israel, so that by 
 ἕως κιτ.λ. would be meant the conversion of the people (Hofmann, Schrift. 
 Il. 2, p. 90 ff.), is neither here nor elsewhere taught in the New Testament. 
 — ἕως ἥξει (see the critical remarks) ὅτε εἴπητε] till it (the point of time) shall 
 be, when ye shall have said. The subjunctive after ὅτε without ἂν : ‘‘ 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. 688.8 In this place to consider the subjunctive as occasioned by ἕως (Butt- 
 mann, Neut. Gr. p. 199 [E, T. 231 f.]) is arbitrary. 
 
 1 Comp. Plat. Pol. viii. p. 548 A; Herod. sees here nothing but the dismissal ‘* until 
 11, 111, often in the LXX. the next Passover festival.” 
 
 2 Comp. Wieseler, Synopse, p. 322, whom 3 See on this specially Homeric use, even 
 this erroneous reference drives to explain Thierschin the Act. Monac. I. p. 13 ff.; Bern- 
 the passage in Matthew asa spurious addi- _ hardy, p. 397 f., 400. 
 tion. See on Matthew. Even Holtzmann 
 
438 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Nores py AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 CY. Ver. 1. ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ. 
 
 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 vy. 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. καρπὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον. 
 
 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 εἰς τὸ μέλλον. 
 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. Vy. 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. 
 
 CVIII. 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 Peraea. 
 
 CIX. Vv. 24, 25. 
 
 Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, R. V. marg., connect these verses together. 
 This would make a new sentence begin with τότε (ver. 26). But Meyer’s view of 
 the construction of yy. 25, 26 is preferable. 
 
 CX. Ver. 32. "τῇ τρίτῃ τελειοῦμαι. 
 
 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 vy. 32, 33 as a misunderstanding of the proverbial character of ‘‘ three 
 
NOTES. 439 
 
 days.’’ The Am. R. V. properly renders the verb: “1 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. λέγω δὲ k.7.A. 
 
 The δέ 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. 
 
 Ver. 3. ci] is wanting in B Ὁ L δὲ, min. Pers. Copt. Syr.ier- Cant. Brix. Con- 
 demned by Griesb. and Schulz, deleted by Tisch. It is from Matt. xii. 10. — 
 ϑεραπεύειν] BD L δὲ, min. have ϑεραπεῦσαι, to which these authorities and vss. 
 add ἢ οὔ. This ϑεραπεῦσαι ἢ οὔ is, with Lachm. (who, however, brackets ἢ οὔ) 
 and Tisch., to be adopted. The Recepta is from Matt. xii. 10. — Ver. 5. [Treg., 
 W. and Hort, R. V., omit ἀποκριϑ εἰς (δὰ ** BL, Copt.); retained by Tisch, (&* 4nd eb 
 A, Vulg., etc.), since it is wanting in Matthew.] —Instead of ὄνος in Elz, 
 υἱός 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 υἱὸς 
 ἢ βοῦς excited objection, so that υἱός was displaced in some authorities by ὄνος 
 (following xiii. 15), in others by πρόβατον (Ὁ, Cant., following Matt. xii. 11),— 
 [Ver. 6. Recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B Ὁ L, omit αὐτῷ ; so Tisch.] — Ver. 10, 
 Elz. has ἀνάπεσον, which on decisive evidence is to be rejected. The most im- 
 portant mss. are divided between ἀνάπεσε (Matth. Scholz, Rinck, Lachm. Tisch.) 
 and ἀνάπεσαι (Griesb. Schulz, Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 640). Although the attesta- 
 tion of ἀνάπεσε (A ΒΞ" EH KS U VT 8, min.) is still stronger than that of ava- 
 πεσαι, yet the latter is to be preferred. The less familiar form gave place to one 
 that was better known. To regard ἀνάπεσαι as a 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 
 ἐρεῖ (δὰ BL) and insert πάντων (δὲ A BL) after ἐνώπιον. -- Ver. 15. Recent edi- 
 tors, R. V. (with 8*B L, 1, Copt., Syr.) substitute ὄστις for ὅς.] --- Ver. 16. 
 [Recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B, read ἐποίει. ] ---- μέγα] B** Ὁ A, min. Clem. 
 have μέγαν. So Lachm. Rightly ; μέγα is an amendment [Tisch. VIII. and 
 recent editors have uéya].—[Ver. 17. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., omit πάντα, 
 with &* BL.]— Ver. 18. The order πάντες παραιτ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to 
 be preferred on decisive evidence.— [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B Ὁ 
 L, read ἐξελϑών. 7 --- Ver. 21. After δοῦλος Elz. has ἐκεῖνος, which is condemned 
 by Griesb., and on decisive evidence struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An ex- 
 egetical addition. — χωλοὺς x. τυφλούς] Lachm. and Tisch. have τυφλοὺς x. χωλούς. 
 Rightly ; the evidence in favor thereof preponderates ; the omission of καὶ yw. 
 (A, min. Syr.i¢) occasioned the restoration in the order given at ver, 13. — Ver. 
 27. τὸν σταυρ. ἑαυτοῦ is found in A B L** M A, min. Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta 
 τ. στ. αὑτοῦ is from Matt. x. 38, — Ver. 28. Elz. has τὰ πρὸς azapr., in opposition 
 to decisive evidence. With Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. merely εἰς azapr. is to be 
 read, in accordance with B D LR, min. τά was added as a completion (AE α 
 HKMSUTAAX, min. Lachm. have τὰ εἰς), and εἰς was explained by πρός. 
 Comp. ver. 32. —Ver. 31. The arrangement ἑτέρῳ βασιλ. συμβ. (Lachm. Tisch.) 
 is decisively attested, as well as also ὑπαντῆσαι.--- [Tisch. W. and Hort, Weiss, 
 R. V., with & B, Latin versions, read βουλεύσεται instead of the present BovAet- 
 erat. ] — Ver. 34. Instead of καλόν read, with Tisch., following B Τὶ Χ &, min 
 
CHAP. XIV., 1-6. 441 
 vss., καλὸν οὖν. Being apparently inappropriate, οὖν dropped out the more 
 easily after the syllable ON. — ἐὰν δέ] BD LX 8, min. vss. Fathers have ἐὰν δὲ καί. 
 So rightly, Lachm. and Tisch. καί 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 τῷ ἐλθεῖν x.7.A.] when He came, to wit, in 
 the progress of the journey, xiii. 88. -- τῶν ἀρχόντων τ. Φαρισαίων] 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. — σαβ- 
 βάτῳ] 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 pietate et religione,” ‘‘ their tables were more sumptuous on this 
 day. . . and this, according to their own decision, from motives of piety 
 and religion,” Lightfoot.! — φαγεῖν ἄρτον] comp. Matt. xv. 2. Jesus was in- 
 vited, ver. 12. —xai αὐτοί] This is the common use of καί after ἐγένετο ; αὐτοί, 
 they on their part, the Pharisees. — raparnpotu.] generally, whether He would 
 give them occasion for charge or complaint. Otherwise, vi. 7.— Ver. 2. And 
 behold a dropsical man was therein His presence. This denotes the unexpected 
 sight of the presence (not as a guest, see ver. 4) of the sick man, who ἦν 
 ἱστάμενος, καὶ μὴ τολμῶν μὲν ζητῆσαι θεραπείαν διὰ τὸ σάββατον καὶ τοὺς Φαρισαίους" 
 φαινόμενος δὲ μόνον, ἵνα ἰδὼν οἰκτειρήσῃ τοῦτον ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἀπαλλάξῃ τοῦ ὕδρωπος, 
 ‘‘was standing, and not daring to seek healing on account of the Sabbath 
 and the Pharisees ; but only appearing, in order that seeing He might have 
 pity on this one of Himself and relieve him of the dropsy,” Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus. The view of many (see 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 γάρ. Moreover, the cure oc- 
 curred before the dinner, ver. 7. — Ver. 8. ἀποκριθ.} at this appearance of the 
 sick man. — Ver. 4, ἐπιλαβόμενος] a taking hold which brought about the 
 miraculous cure, stronger than ἁψάμενος." Otherwise Mark viii. 23.*— Ver. 
 5. Comp. on Matt. xii. 11. The construction is such that the nominative of 
 τίνος ὑμῶν is the subiect in the second half of the sentence.*— In respect of 
 the reading υἱός (see the critical remarks ; Mill, Bornemann, and Lachmann, 
 Praef. 11. p. vii., unjustifiably conjecture dic), which is not inappropriate 
 (de Wette), the conclusion of Jesus is not drawn, as xiii. 15 f., ὦ minori ad 
 majus,® but from the ethical principle that the helpful compassion which we 
 
 1 Comp. Neh. viii. 10; Tob. ii. 1; also John 
 xii. 2; Wetstein in loc. ; Spencer, de leg. rit. 
 p. 87 ff. 
 
 2 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 accusative αὐτόν is not dependent on 
 émaA, See Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 140 [E. 
 T. 160). 
 
 4Comp. generally, Bernhardy, p. 468; 
 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 72 B. 
 
 5 This reading, moreover, sets aside the 
 
442 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 show in reference to that which is owr own (be it son or beast) on the Sab- 
 bath, we are also bound to show to others (love thy neighoor as thyself). 
 
 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. — παραβολήν) ‘‘sumtam a moribus externis, 
 spectantem interna,” ‘‘ taken from external customs, having in view inter- 
 nal,” Bengel. The moral significance of this figurative apophthegm (Own) 
 may be seen at ver. 11. — ἐπέχων] attendens, ‘‘ taking heed of,” comp. on 
 Acts iii. 5, and see Valckenaer. — πρωτοκλισ.} See on Matt. xxiii. 6 ; Light- 
 foot, p. 836. — Ver. 8. εἰς γάμους] 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 a wedding celebration obviously 
 suggested the expression (Matt. xxii.),— Ver. 9. ὁ σὲ x. αὐτὸν καλέσας] not : 
 who invited thyself also (Bornemann), which would lay upon σέ an unfounded 
 emphasis, so much as: qui ¢e et illum vocavit (Vulgate), the impartial 
 host who must be just to both. —épet σοι] future, not dependent on μήποτε 
 (comp. on Matt. v. 25), but an independent clause begins with καὶ ἐλθών. ---- 
 καὶ τότε ἄρξῃ] the shame of the initial movement of taking possession of the 
 last place in which he now must acquiesce,’ after his previously assumed 
 πρωτοκλισία is here made prominent. — Ver. 10. ἀνάπεσαι) 1 aor. imperative 
 middle, which tense occurs also in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 4 (διεκπέσασθαμ) ; 
 Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 641, takes it as futwre, formed after the analogy of 
 φάγεσαι and πίεσαι (xvii. 8). But these forms come from the future forms 
 φάγομαι and πίομαι, and hence are not analogous to the one before us. [But 
 see critical note.]—tva] corresponds to the μήποτε, ver. 8, and denotes the 
 purpose of the avareca εἰς τ. ἔσχ. τόπον. The result is then specified by τότε 
 ἔσται. ----προσανάβηθι] The host occupies the position where the higher place 
 is (πρός = 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 5. B. exaltat ; et qui se ipsum exaltat, cum S. 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 a 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 Schleiermacher, p. 196, that in 2 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. ““Quisemel 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 remoyed,”’ 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 ἀπέχειν τὸν 
 μισθόν (Matt. vi. 2, v. 16). There is no allusion in this place to the calling 
 of the heathen (Schenkel). — μή] 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 μήποτε κ. αὐτοί ce ἀντικ. Jesus gives, indeed, 
 only a figurative discourse. — φώνει] purposely chosen ; the manifest, obvious 
 element of the καλεῖν (ver. 13) is denoted. — πλουσίους] belongs only to yeiro- 
 νας (in opposition to Grotius). — μήποτε κ.τ.λ.} “ΗΟ metus mundo ignotus 
 est, ut metus divitiarum,” ‘‘ This fear is unknown to the world, like the fear 
 of riches,” Bengel. — ἀντικαλέσωσι)] Comp. Xen. Symp. i. 15.!—In respect 
 of καὶ avroi the general idea of the invitation has presented itself. — Ver. 13. 
 ἀναπήρους] maimed.? — Ver. 14. ἀνταποδοθήσεται] ὃ placed first for emphasis, 
 —év τῇ ἀναστάσει τῶν δικαίων] This is the ἀνάστασις ζωῆς, 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. 34-36. Otherwise 
 τῶν δικαίων 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 δικαίους 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 ζωῆς αἰων. not. p. 52). The doctrine of the millen- 
 nial kingdom between the first and second resurrection adopted in the 
 Apocalypse (Bertholdt, Christol. § 38) is not, however, confirmed, nor are 
 the Rabbinical traditions, partly varying very much among themselves on 
 the several stages of the resurrection (Eisenmenger, Hntdeckt. Judenth. ΤΙ. 
 p- 901 ff.); further, the assumption is not confirmed, according to which 
 the Israelites in themselves were understood as the δικαίους who should first 
 arise (Bertholdt, § 35 ; Eisenmenger, II. p. 902), or at least the righteous 
 among the Israelites (Eisenmenger, /.c.). Jesus means the righteous in the 
 moral sense, as the context shows (see vv. 13 f., 16 ff.), without limitation 
 of race. The specific definition of the idea of those first to be awakened as 
 oi τοῦ Χριστοῦ (1 Cor. xv. 23 ; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16) lay of necessity in the 
 development of the Christian consciousness of the δικαιοσύνῃ only to be at- 
 tained in Christ. 
 
 Ver. 15. To the idea of the ἀνάστασις τῶν δικαίων is very naturally linked 
 in the case of this fellow-guest the thought of the future eating (φάγεται, 
 future) 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 οὔτε μὴν ws ἀντικληθησόμενος, καλεῖ μέ τις, 4 Τῦ would be so also if it did noé presup- 
 ἐπεὶ πάντες ἴσασιν, OTL ἀρχὴν οὐδὲ νομίζεται εἰς pose any ἀνάστασις τῶν ἀδίκων at all. This is 
 τὴν ἐμὴν οἰκίαν δεῖπνον εἰσφέρεσθαι. against Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, I. 
 
 3 Plat. Crit. p.53 A: χωλοὶ καὶ τυφλοὶ καὶ ρ. 14 f., who finds in the Synoptic Gospels 
 ἄλλοι ἀνάπηροι. only a resurrection of the pious. 
 
 3 Thucyd. iii. 40; Plat. Phaed@r. p. 9866 ; 5 Matt. vili. 11; Luke xiii. 28 f.; Bertholdt, 
 
 Rom. xi. 35; 1 Thess, iii, 9. Christol, § 39. 
 
444 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 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 im 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 (vy. 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 call 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. — μέγαν (see the critical remarks) : the masculine form δεῖπνος 
 is rare and Ἰαΐρ. -- ἐκάλεσε] refers in the interpretation to the call by the 
 prophets. —Ver. 17. τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ] Kaz’ ἐξοχήν. Grotius well says vocato- 
 rem, to be interpreted of the Messiah at whose advent ἤγγικε ἡ βασιλεία τῶν 
 οὐρανῶν, Matt. iv. 17. — On the custom even now in use in the East of a rep- 
 etition of the invitation when all is prepared, see Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. 
 p. 192 f. 
 
 Vv. 18-20. Ἤρξαντο)] brings into prominence the beginning as a striking 
 contrast to what has gone before. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 541.— 
 ἀπὸ μιᾶς] ‘‘ Utut enim diversas causas adferant, in eo tamen conveniunt, 
 quod sua praetexant 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 ἀπὸ μιᾶς, comp. ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης (Thue. i. 15. 8), 
 an’ εὐθείας (Plut. Symp. i. 4. 8), ἐξ ὀρθῆς (Polyb. xv. 27), διὰ πάσης (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 time 
 to denote the more abstract relations of mode ; see especially, Lobeck, Par- 
 alip. p. 363. — παραιτεῖσθαι] to deprecate ; praying to excuse, 2 Mace. ii. 31 ; 
 Acts xxv. 11, and elsewhere.® — καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην x.t.2.] not as though he had 
 bought the estate without seeing it (Wetstein, de Wette, and others), which 
 is 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, Z. J. Il. 1, p. 376, must be the intention in order to represent the 
 vehement confusedness. —éye μὲ παρῃτ.} have me as one who is begged off ; 
 not a Latinism (Kuinoel, Bleck, and many older commentators), nor to be 
 interpreted : regard me as one, ete. (Kypke), but ἔχειν τινα, 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, Hp. Cr. leon, p. 496. 
 
 App. p. 22, 61. 3 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. iii. 1. 85: ob ϑαῤῥοῦντά 
 2See Wetstein and Held, ad Plut. Timo- pe ἕξεις ; Ages. Vi. 5: τούς ye μὴν πολεμίους εἶχε 
 
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, 1.6., according to the meaning : accept my apology. — Ver. 19. πορεύ- 
 oua] 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. Εἰς τὰς πλατείας x. ῥύμας] into the (broad) streets and (narrow) 
 lanes. Comp. Isa. xv. 8. On ῥύμη = στενωπός, 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 : it is done, etc. [See 
 Note CXIV., p. 448.] This point in the interpretation is, moreover, strik- 
 ingly appropriate to Jesws, who, by the preaching of the gospel to the poor 
 and miserable 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. 238. This commission to the servant is fulfilled by Him 
 through the apostles, comp. Eph. ii. 17. — φραγμοὺς) 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 : ai κατοικίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, 
 “‘the settlements of the Gentiles,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — ἀνάγκασον] as 
 Matt. xiv. 22. The time presses! A strikingly picturesque touch, which, 
 moreover, found its corresponding history in the urgent holy zeal 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 seem to be compelled.” — γεμισθῃ}) ‘‘ 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 an assertion of Jesus 
 (Kuinoel, Paulus, and others), but of the master of the house, which is 
 certain from μου τοῦ δείπνου (none shall taste of my supper), since Jesus in the 
 parable appears as the servant. — γάρ] for the empty place is πού to be occu- 
 pied by you. — ὑμῖν] spoken to the servant, and to those who were supposed 
 to be elsewhere than there present. Euthymius Zigabenus, moreover, says 
 aptly : διὰ τοῦτον οὖν τὸν λόγον ἡ ὕλῃ παραβολὴ συνετέθη, ‘‘On account of this 
 saying, therefore, the whole parable was composed.” Comp. ver. 15, to the 
 ψέγειν μὲν ov δυναμένους, x.T.A.; 2 Macc. xv. sus declines for his son the Mysian pro- 
 
 36; 3 Macc. ix. 21. See also on Matt. xiv. 5. posal for a hunting expedition : νεόγαμός τε 
 1 Hom. 77. ii, 231; Herod.i. 36, where Croe- γάρ ἐστι kal ταῦτά οἱ νῦν μέλει. 
 
446 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 substance of which this conclusion reverts. [See Note CXV., p. 448.] Those 
 who are ereluded 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 (κεκλημένοι and παραιτούμενοι, ver. 17 ff.) ; not the Jews in gener- 
 al, as Baur supposes, in accordance with his assumption of a Gentile-Chris- 
 tian tendency. ὁ 
 
 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 (Weizsiicker) 
 these instructions have even in Luke nothing to do. — εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρός με] 
 namely, with a view to hearken to me as a confessor and follower. — μισεῖ] 
 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. 39), are assumed as being in opposition to fellowship with Christ 
 (comp. xii. 53), 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.’ — ἔτε 
 δὲ καί] 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 degree of sacred hatred is lack- 
 ing in this higher,” Bengel. — μαθητὴς εἷναι] ver. 27, εἶναι μαθητής. The empha- 
 sis in both cases rests on μαθητής, 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, ete. 
 
 Vv. 28-33. Peculiar to Luke from the source that he has followed since 
 ix. 51. — γάρ] Reason for the ov δύναται... μαθητής. 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. 89. --- θέλων] if he will. The article 
 (who will) is unnecessary, and too weakly attested (in opposition to Borne- 
 mann). —kafioag ψηφίζει) ‘‘ut intelligas diligentem atque exactam supputa- 
 tionem,” ‘‘that thou mayest have a diligent and exact computation,” 
 Erasmus. —¢i ἔχει] 80. τὴν δαπάνην. --- ἀπαρτισμός, completion, only to be 
 found in Dion. Hal. De compos. verb, 3.4." -- Ver. 30. οὗτος] with scornful 
 
 1 Comp. Hofmann, Shriftbew. ΤΙ. 2, Ὁ. 327 f. plicity of the Christian is to contend with 
 2 More precise interpretations of the fig- the duplicity of the devil’’), to which, in- 
 ures are not justified. Especially the second deed, the peacemaking of ver. 32 would be 
 ought not to have been expounded, asithas | wholly inappropriate. 
 often been, of the struggle against the devil 3 On the use of ἀπαρτίζειν in Greek, see 
 (Augustine: ‘‘simplicitatem Christianidim- | Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. 
 icaturi cum duplicitate diaboli,” ‘the sim- 
 
NOTES. 4447 
 
 emphasis : this man, forsooth !— Ver. 31. συμβαλεῖν) intransitive: to en- 
 counter, confligere, 1 Macc. iv. 34 ; 2 Mace. vill. 23, xiv. 17. See Wetstein 
 and Kypke. — εἰς πόλεμον] belongs to συμβαλεῖν : for a battle. Thus fre- 
 quently συμβάλλειν τινι εἰς μάχην (see Kypke) ; εἰς in the sense of the purpose." 
 — βουλεύεται] deliberates with his generals and counsellors. Comp. Acts v. 
 33, xv. 37. —év δέκα χιλ.] ἐν, in the midst of, surrounded by, amongst. Comp. 
 Jude 14. — Ver. 32. εἰ δὲ μήγε] sc. δυνατὸς εἴη. See on Matt. vi. 1, and Din- 
 dorf, ad Dem. Praef. p. v. £. — τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην] quae ad pacem componendam 
 spectant, ‘‘ which have reference to concluding a peace,” arrangements for peace.? 
 — Ver. 33. The application, and consequently the doctrine, of both exam- 
 ples as a commentary of the γάρ of ver. 28.— πᾶσι τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ὑπάρχ.] the 
 general statement to which the special instances, ver. 26, belong. ἑαυτοῦ 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 ὁ ἔχων dra ἀκούειν, ἀκουέτω, the charge of them- 
 selves giving the interpretation according to what has gone before. But 
 this interpretation depends on the fact that τὸ ἄλας must represent the pre- 
 ceding μου εἶναι μαθητής. [See Note CXVI., p. 448.] Comp. Matt. 1.56. Hence: 
 It is therefore (οὖν, 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. But if 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? Such a μαθητῆς is then absolutely useless, and he is 
 excluded (at the judgment) from the Messiah’s kingdom. — éav δὲ καί] (see the 
 critical remarks) : if, however, even the salt, etc., which is no longer to be 
 expected from this substance according to its nature. — obte εἰς γῆν x.t.A.] τ 
 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 : γῆν μὲν λέγει 
 τοὺς μαθητάς. . . κοπρίαν dé τοὺς διδασκάλους! ‘*‘ He calls the disciples land... 
 but the teachers dunghill !” — ἔξω] with strong emphasis placed first—out 
 it is cast ! 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EprItTor. 
 
 CXII. Chap. XIV. 
 
 Meyer places the incidents of this chapter also in Galilee, but Weiss ed. Mey. 
 omits allreference tothis. The latter thinks that the first Evangelist found the 
 
 1Comp. πρὸς μάχην, Polyb. x. 37. 4, also τὰ πρὸς Tov πόλεμον, Xen. Anad. iv. 3.10. On 
 Xen. Cyrop. vii. 1. 20: eis μονομαχίαν mpos the whole sentence, comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 
 twa; Strabo, xiv. p. 676. 6. 8. 
 
 2 Comp. Test. XI. Patr. p. 599. 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 the 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 on the other 
 side Godet, Luke, II. pp. 137, 138. 
 
 CXIV. Ver. 22. γέγονεν k,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. 
 
 CXY. Ver. 24. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν k.T.A. 
 POLY oi 
 
 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. Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἄλας. 
 
 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. 
 
 Ver. 2. of Φαρισ.] With Lachm. and Tisch. read οἵ τ. apic., in accordance 
 with BDL δὲ. The τε is certainly not an addition of the transcribers. — Ver, 
 9. Instead of συγκαλεῖται Tisch. has συγκαλεῖ, on important yet not preponder- 
 ating evidence. [Tisch, VIII., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with δὲ B L Δ, etc., 
 have the active, usually in the form συνκαλεῖ.] It is from ver. 6, where συγκαλεῖ 
 is decisively attested. — Ver. 14. ἰσχυρός] AB DLE, min, have ἰσχυρά. 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. γεμίσαι τὴν 
 κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ ἀπό] BD LB δὲ, min. vss. have χορτασϑῆναι ἐκ. [So recent editors, 
 R. V., but Am. Com. add the other in the margin.] An interpretation. — Ver. 
 17. περισσεύουσιν] A BP and a few min. Tit. have περισσείονται. Rightly ; the 
 active was introduced, in accordance with the wonted usage. [So recent editors, 
 RK, V., against Tisch.]— The ὧδε added by Griesb. is not found, indeed, in im- 
 portant authorities, and it stands in B Τὶ &, Lachm. after λιμῷ, but it has plainly 
 been absorbed by ἐγὼ dé ; hence also the placing of it before λιμῷ, in accordance 
 
 ‘with D RU, min. vss. Chrys., is, with Griesb. Scholz, Tisch., to be preferred. 
 [Tisch. VIII., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., have λιμῷ dde.]— Ver. 19. Before 
 οὐκέτι Elz. has καί, 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) ποίησόν pe ὡς ἕνα τ. μ. σου, With δὲ B D, Latt., so R. V. marg. | 
 — Ver. 22, Lachm. and Tisch. have ταχύ before ἐξενέγκατε, in accordance with 
 BL Χ 8, vss., also Vulg. It. Jer. D also adds weight to the evidence with 
 ταχέως. Tay 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 εὐθέως, or 
 at least as, with D, ταχέως (xiv. 21). ταχὺ 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. — τὴν στολήν] τὴν has decisive Mss. against it, and is, accord- 
 ing to Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as an addition. — Ver, 23. ἐνέγκαντες] 
 BLREX 8, Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. have φέρετε. So Tisch. The participle is an 
 attempt to improve the style. D also testifies in favor of the imperative by 
 ἐνέγκατε (ver. 22). — Ver. 24. καὶ ἀπολ.] καί is rightly condemned by Griesb., on 
 decigive evidence, and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The second ἦν, however, 
 has against it, in D Q, min., evidence too feeble for it to be deleted. Yet, ac- 
 cording to A Β L &*, it must be placed before ἀπολ. (Lachm. Tisch.). The posi- 
 tion after azo. is a harmonizing of it with vexp. 7v.—[Ver. 26. Treg., W. and 
 Hort, R. V., add ἄν after τί, with B and a few others. — Ver. 28. Tisch., recent edi- 
 tors, R. V., substitute dé for οὖν, with δὲ A B Ὁ L, etc. — Ver. 29. With A BD, 
 Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., add αὐτοῦ after πατρί against Tisch. — Ver. 30. Treg., 
 R. V., with A Ὁ L, Copt., insert τῶν before ropviv.] — Ver. 32. Instead of ἀνέ- 
 ζησεν, read with Tisch., following ΒΤ RA δὲ, min., ἔζησεν. The former is from 
 ver. 24, In the same manner is to be explained the omission of καί before 
 
 29. 
 
450 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 aro. in Tisch. (following D X δὲ). [Recent editors, R. V., retain xai.] But ἦν is 
 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. 32 to these (ver. 3), and then of address- 
 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 scene with instructions to His disciples. —joav ἐγγιζ.} 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. — πάντες] a 
 hyperbole of simple narrative. The throng of such people became greater 
 and greater. Comp. v. 29 f. —xal οἱ ἁμαρτ.Ἷ as Matt, ix. 10. — διεγόγγυζον] - 
 διά ‘* certandi significationem addit,” ‘‘ adds the signification of contending,” 
 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856. Hence always of several, whose alternate mur- 
 muring is meant.! —poodéyerar] receives them, does not reject them. It is 
 quite general, and only with κ. συνεσθίει αὐτοῖς 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. —éri] after, with the purpose of fetching τέ. 
 See Bernhardy, p. 252. — Ver. 5. ἐπὶ τ. ὥμους ἑαυτοῦ] on his own shoulders ; 
 ἑαυτοῦ strengthens the description of the joyous solicitude which relieves the 
 beloved creature from further running alone. — φίλους] kinsmen, as at vii. 6. 
 —Ver. 9. ἔσται] The future refers to every circumstance of the kind that 
 occurs. — ἢ ἐπὶ x.t.2.] 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 characterizes by 
 οἵτινες (quippe qui, ‘‘of such a kind as”), οὐ χρείαν ἔχ. μεταν. 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). 
 Hence, 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 
 aptly described as such a righteous man, so that, in accordance with the con- 
 
 1 xix. 7; Ecclus, xxxiv. 24; Ex. xvi. 2, 8, xvii. 3, and elsewhere ; Heliodor. vii. 27. 
 
CHAP. xv., 8-11. 451 
 
 text, an actually virtuous man [so Weiss ed. Mey.] (as usvally) 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 nos 
 afficiunt,” ‘‘ because what is unhoped for or nearly hopeless affects us the 
 more,” Grotius). 
 
 Vv. 8-10. The same teaching by means of a similar parable, which, how- 
 ever, is not found also in Matthew, yet without express repetition of the 
 comparative joy. — συγκαλεῖται] convocat sibi, ‘‘ calls to herself,” describing the 
 action more precisely than συγκαλεῖ, ver. 6. [But see critical note. | *— ἐνώπ. 
 τ. ἀγγέλων τ. θεοῦ] a special expression of what is meant by ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
 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 are 
 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 publicans, and by 
 the latter the Pharisees (so also Wittichen, [dee 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 view 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 ethical aspect of the teaching of Jesus, and the more important 
 
 1 Comp. ix. 1, xxiii. 13; Acts x. 24, xxviii. Baur, d. kanon. Huang. p. 510 f.; comp. 
 17. Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, Il. p. 47 f.; 
 2 Already Augustine, Quaest. Hv. ii. 33; Ritschl, Hwang. Marcions, Ὁ. 282 f.; Volkmar, 
 Bede, and others; recently carried out in Evang. Marcions, p. 66 f., 248; Hilgenfeld, 
 great detail, especially byZellerin the Theol. Evang. Ὁ. 198; Schenkel, p. 195. 
 Jahrb, 1843, 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 
 against 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 λιμός, 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, 19. Ὁ νεώτερος] νεώτερον δὲ ὀνομάζει τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν ὡς νηπιόφρονα καὶ 
 εὐεξαπάτητον, ‘‘ He names the sinner the younger, as childish and easily de- 
 ceived,” Euthymius Zigabenus. —7d ἐπιβάλλον μέρος] 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. ὃ 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 licebat 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 
 Jreedom. ‘‘ Discedentes a se non prohibet, redeuntes amplectitur,” ‘‘ He 
 does not prohibit them when they depart from Him, He embraces them when 
 they return,” Maldonatus. — διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς] to both the sons, in such wise, 
 however, as to reserve to himself until his death the right of wswfruct over 
 the portion of the eldest, and the latter remained in his service, vv. 29-31. — 
 τὸν βίον] Mark xii. 44 ; Luke viii. 48 : that whereon the family lived, 1.¢., 
 nothing else than their means.* Paulus (comp. Michaelis) makes, without 
 reason, adistinction between this and οὐσία, which, according to him, 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. 13. yer’ 
 ov πολλ. ἡμέρ.} The greediness for unlimited pleasure urged him to haste. — 
 ἅπαντα] 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. —dcdérwe] recklessly. The sinful nature is developed from an indepen- 
 dence which, under the influence of sinful longing, shakes itself loose from God 
 (comp. Ps. lxxili. 27) by the satisfaction of immoral pleasure. 
 
 Vv. 14-17. The divine ordinance of external misery, however, in connection 
 with the consequences of sin, reawakens consideration and self-knowledge and the 
 craving after God ! — Ἰσχυρά] (see the critical remarks) comp. on iv, 25. — 
 κατὰ τὴν χώραν] κατά of extension, throughout, as viii. 39. Winer, p. 356 
 [E. T. 400}. — καὶ αὐτός] and he, on his part. — ἤρξατο] The commencement 
 of his new state is regarded as important. — Ver. 15. ἐκολλήθη] he clave to, — 
 
 1 So, insubstance, Ambrose, Jerome, and I. p. 289. 
 
 others. Diverging in certain particulars, 3 Hesiod. Op. 230. 575 ; Herod. i. 31, vili. 51, 
 Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus. and frequently. 
 
 3 Herod. iv. 115; Dem. 312. 2, 317. 1; Diod. 4 Dem. 1025. 19; Josephus, Antt. xii. 4. 8. 
 Sic. xiv. 17; Polyb. xviii. 24. 1, vi. 34. 1, and Comp. on Eph. v. 18, 
 
 elsewhere, See also Wetstein and Kypke, 
 
OMAP, Xv¥.; 185: 19. 453 
 
 attached himself to, makes the obtrusiveness of his action palpable. — καὶ 
 ἔπεμψεν αὐτόν] The previous object becomes the subject.’ — βόσκειν χοίρους] to 
 keep swine ; what an ignominious occupation for the ruined Jew / — Ver. 16. 
 γεμίσαι τ. κοιλίαν αὐτοῦ] to fill his belly (comp. Themist. Or. xxill. p. 293 Ὁ) ; 
 a choice expression forthe impetuous craving of the hungry man. — ἀπό] from, 
 i.e., by means of a portion, as with verbs of eating, Winer, p. 179 [E. T. 199]. 
 —epdatiov| 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. 355.7 — x. οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ] not,food (Wolf, Rosenmiiller, 
 Paulus), but, according to the context, κεράτια. 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. Moreover, it is not presupposed that he received still worse food 
 than κεράτια (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, etc. — Ver. 17. εἰς ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐλθών] εἰς ἑαυτόν 
 preceding, in contrast to the external misery, but having come to himself (i.e., 
 having recovered his senses).* It is the moral self-wnderstanding, which had 
 become strange and remote to him, in respect of his condition and his need. 
 - περισσ. and λιμῷ are correlative ; ἄρτων is not contrasted with κερατίοις 
 (Olshausen), but περισσ. ἄρτ. is the contrast to the little bread, which did not 
 appease his hunger. περισσεύονται (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. — εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν] 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. — ἐνώπιον σοῦ]" The meaning is: I have so sinned that I have 
 transgressed before Thee, i.e., in relation to Thee. The moral relation of the 
 deed to the offended subject is thus rendered palpable, as though this sub- 
 ject had suffered in respect of the deed ; the moral reference is set 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. οὐκέτι] not : not yet 
 
 1See Stallbaum, ad Protag. p. 320 A,B; yiveodor, Xen. Anad. i. 5.17; Acts xii. 11. 
 
 ᾿ Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. i. 4. 5; Bernhardy, 4 Comp. περισσεύειν τινά, 1 Thess. iii. 12; 
 p. 468. Athen. ii. p. 42 B. 
 2See Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 708; Rosen- 5 Comp. Matt. xviii. 15, 21, and elsewhere ; 
 miiller, Morgenl. V.p. 198 f ; Robinson, Pai. εἰς τὸ ϑεῖον, Plat. Phaedr. p. 2438 C. 
 II. p. 272. 6 Comp. 1 Sam. Vii. 6, x. 1; Ps. li. 4; Tob, 
 
 3 See examplesinKypke. Comp.¢véav7é _ iii. 3; Judith y. 17; Susann. 23. 
 
454 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 (Paulus), but : no longer. — ποίησόν με x.7.2.] t.€., place me in the position of 
 being as one of thy day-laborers.’ Without ὡς the petition would aim at the 
 result of making him a day-laborer ; with ὡς 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. — 
 καὶ ἀναστὰς .7.4.] the resolution is no sooner taken than its execution begins. 
 --- πρὸς τ. πατέρα ἑαυτοῦ] to his own father ; no other became the refuge of the 
 unhappy son. There is an affecting touch in ἑαυτοῦ. ---- κατεφίλησεν] he kissed 
 him again and again ; see on Matt. xxvi. 48. — Ver. 21. The ποίησόν pe ὡς ἕνα 
 τ. μισθ. 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. —croayv τὴν πρώτην] a robe, 
 the first that we have in the house—to wit, according to its rank and worth, 
 7.€., τὴν τιμιωτάτην, 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. Moreover, αὐτοῦ would have been added in that connection. 
 With regard to the article after the anarthrous substantive, see Winer, p. 126 f. 
 [E. T. 139 1.1. The στολή is the long and wide overcoat of the people of 
 distinction, Mark xii. 38, xvi. 5; Rev. vi. 11. The δακτύλιος, t.€., signet ring 
 (Herod. ii. 38), and the ὑποδήματα (slaves went barefooted), are signs of the 
 Jree man, which he who had returned was to be as a son of the house. — 
 Ver. 28. τὸν μόσχον τὸν ovr.| the well-known one which stands in the stall. — 
 θύσατε] slaughter, as at ver. 30, not: sacrifice (Elsner). —¢ayévrec εὐφρανθ.] 
 not : laeti epulemur, ‘rejoicing let us feast” (Kuinoel), but : epulantes laet- 
 emur, ‘‘feasting let us rejoice.” Beware of forced interpretations like the 
 following : according to Olshausen (comp. Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
 and others), the στολὴ πρώτη denotes the divine righteousness (Rev. iii. 18, 
 vii. 13, 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, Z. J. II. 1, p. 381. — Ver. 24. νεκρὸς ἦν x. ἀνέζ. 
 x.T.4.] is meant by the father in a moral sense : νέκρωσιν μὲν καὶ ἀπώλειαν φησὶ 
 τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἀναζώωσιν δὲ καὶ εὕρεσιν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς μετανοίας, ‘*The dead 
 and lost condition spoken of is that from sin ; but the 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 νεκρὸς ἦν, 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. 32, to the eldest son, who, being 
 
 1 Comp. Gen. xlviii. 20; Isa. xli. 15. bins, Schoettgen, Hor. p. 877 f.; from the 
 2 Matt. iv. 16, viii. 22; 1 Tim. v. 6; Eph. classical writers, Bornemann, Schol. p. 97. 
 y. 14; Rom. vi. 13; passages from the Rab- 
 
CHAP. XV., 25-32. 455 
 
 acquainted with the previous condition of his brother (ver. 30), could under- 
 stand them only morally. The utterance of the servant, ὅτι ὑγιαίνοντα αὐτὸν 
 
 him, beyond which the slave has not to go. [See Note CXVIIL., 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 : νεκρός, dead as far as I am concerned (by his remoteness and his 
 dissolute life, and ἀπολωλώς : lost, in the sense of disappeared). — εὐφραίνεσθαι) 
 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. 9. ! -- συμφων. k. χορῶν] not: the singing and the dancing 
 (Luther), but, without the article : concert and choral dance, Sinn, ΤΙ ΠΏ. 
 Music and dancing (commonly given by hired people) belonged to the en- 
 tertainments of solemn festivals. See Matt. xiv. 6 ; Rosenmiiller, Morgent. 
 in loc.; Wetstein. — Ver. 26. τί ein ταῦτα] 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. — 
 ὑγιαίνοντα] not: morally safe and sound (ἀποβαλόντα τὴν νόσον διὰ τῆς μετανοίας, 
 ‘‘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. οὖν] 
 in consequence of this refusal of the son. Yet, as with Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf, the more strongly attested δέ is to be read. — παρεκάλει] he ex- 
 horted him to come in,—he spoke him fair ; see on 1 Cor. iv. 18. — Ver. 29. 
 καὶ ἐμοί] The ἐμοί placed first has the emphasis of wounded selfish feeling. 
 Contrast ver. 30. — ἔριφον] a young kid, of far less value than the fatted 
 calf! Still more significant is the reading ἐρίφιον in B, Sahid. (a young 
 kidling), which Ewald approves, and the delicacy of which the transcribers 
 might easily have passed over. Comp. Matt. xxv. 33 ; Tob. ii. 11. — Ver. 
 30. ὁ vide σου οὗτος] 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. 82: ὁ ἀδελφός cov οὗτος. How bitter, moreover, is : ‘‘ who has devoured 
 Sor thee thy living,” and μετὰ πορνῶν, as contrasted with μετὰ τῶν φιλῶν μου ! 
 — Ver. 81. τέκνον] full of love. — σὺ πάντοτε x.7.A.] represents to the heart of 
 the jealous brother the two great prerogatives that he had above his brother 
 (hence the emphatic ot), Thy constant association with me (while, on the 
 
 1 Comp. Acts x. 17. See Matthiae, § 488.7; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anad. i. 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. 32. εὐφρανθῆναι] stands first with the emphasis of contrast, in oppo- 
 sition to such ill-humor. — ἔδει] not to be supplemented by σέ, but generally 
 it was fitting or necessary,—a justification of the prearranged joy of the 
 house, which, under the circumstances, was a moral necessity. — ἔζησεν] 
 (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 κληρονομία, which, according to ver. 
 31, is adjudged to those who are legally upright, has its justification in principle ; 
 οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται, 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). 
 
 Notes py 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 here 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, 
 
 OXVIII. 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. 80). 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 αὐτοῦ after μαϑητάς ; wanting in δὲ Β Ὁ 
 L, rejected by recent editors, R. V.]— Ver. 2. δυνήσῃ) Β D P δὲ, min. have δύνῃ, 
 which Bornemann in the Stud. ει. 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 δυνήσῃ, but into δύνασαι. The present came more readily 
 to the transcribers, hence also δύνῃ was introduced. —[Ver. 4. Recent editors, 
 R. V., with δὲ BD, Copt., Syr., have ἐκ before τ. oixov.]— Ver. 6. καὶ εἶπεν] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, in accordance with A B L R δὲ, min. Copt. 
 Theophyl. (Ὁ has εἶπεν dé). The Recepta easily originated in the desire to vary 
 the expression used in the preceding clause. — τὸ γράμμα] Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have τὰ γράμματα, in accordance with B D L δὲ, Copt. Goth. codd. of It. So also 
 in ver. 7. Rightly ; the singular came more readily to the transcribers, because 
 one writing was thought of (Vulg. : cautionem, Cod. Pal.: chirographum, X : τὸ γραμ- 
 pateiov), — Ver. 7. καὶ λέγει] καί 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 ὁ dé. — Ver. 9. ἐκλίπητε] EG HK MS VIA A, min. have ἐκλείπητε (A has we 
 ixdeirecte). B* DLR &* have ἐκλίπῃ ; A B** X, ἐκλείπῃ, Several versions also 
 read one of these two. Hence the Recepla 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 
 singuar as original, though not ἐκλίπῃ (Schulz, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), but 
 ἐκλείπῃ, since the important anthorities which read ἐκλείπητε (so Matthaei) are 
 also in favor of this present form ; just as, moreover, the aorist in itself, accord- 
 ing to the sense (ewm defeceril), 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 ἡμέτερον, which is 
 found in Β L. — Ver. 14. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ Β Ὁ L, Vulg., 
 Copt., omit καί before ap. — Ver. 15. The final ἐστίν is poorly attested, and in 
 ver. 16 μέχρι is accepted by Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BL, 1. 69.]— 
 Ver. 18. The second πᾶς 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. ἦν and ὅς are wanting in B DL X δὲ, min. vss. Clem. 
 Suspected by Griesbach, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But if ἦν had 
 been added, καί would have been inserted instead of 6c, after the model of ver. 
 19. On the other hand, after Λάζαρος it was easy to pass over ὅς, which then 
 also caused the omission of 7. [Both words are rejected by recent editors, 
 R. V., in accordance with the stronger evidence.] — Ver. 21. ψιχίων τῶν] is 
 wanting in B L &* min. vss. Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck 
 and Tisch. A gloss, following Matt. xv. 27. — Instead of ἀπέλειχον is to be 
 written, with Lachm. and Tisch., ἐπέλειχον, in accordance with A BL X αὶ Ὁ 
 has ?Aecyov). — Ver. 25. ot, which Elz. Lachm. have after ἀπέλαβες, is not found 
 inBDGHLRB, min. yss, (including Vulg. It.), Fathers ; and in A it does not 
 
DRA ORV, al. 459 
 
 come in till after cov. An addition for the sake of the contrast. — ὧδε is so de- 
 cisively attested, that ὅδε (Elz.) can only appear as an alteration for the sake of 
 the contrast. — Ver. 26. [Tisch., recent editors (except Treg. text), R. V., have 
 ἐν, with NBL, Vulg., Copt., instead of ézi.]— Instead of ἔνϑεν Elz. has 
 ἐντεύϑεν, in opposition to decisive evidence. The more frequent form forced 
 itself in (ἔνϑεν does not elsewhere occur in the N.T.). The entire omission 
 of the word is too weakly attested by Ὁ, Cant. Colb. Dial. c. Mare. — οἱ ἐκεῖϑεν 
 B D &* Arm. Vulg. It. Ambr. Lachm. have merely ἐκεῖϑεν. Rightly ; οἱ is an 
 addition in accordance with what has gone before. —[Ver. 29. Tisch., W. and 
 Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8 A Β D L, and others, insert δέ, but omit αὐτῷ, with 
 SBL.] 
 
 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 Κα 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 Parab. vom Verwalter, Bresl. 1821 ; 
 Moller, newe Ansichten, p. 206 ff.; Grossmann, de procurat. parab. Christi ex 
 re provinciali Rom. illustr., Lips. 1824 ; Rauch in Winer’s Arit. Journ. 1825, 
 p- 285 ff. ; Niedner, Dissert., Lips. 1826, in the Commentatt. Theol. ed. 
 Rosenmiiller et Maurer, 11. 1, p. 74 ff.; Bahnmeyer in Kiaiber’s Stud. I. 1, 
 p. 27 ff. ; Gelpke, nov. tentam. parabd. etc., Lips. 1829 ; Jensen in the Stud. 
 und Krit. 1829, p. 699 ff; Hartmann, Comm. de oecon. impr., Lips. 1830 ; Zyro 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 776 ff. ; Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 53 ff. 5 
 Dettinger in the Tiibingen Zeitschr. 1834, 4, p. 40 ff.; Steudel, ibid. p. 96 ff. ; 
 Fink in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 313 ff.; Steinwerder, wb. 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. ἃ. loco Luc. xvi. 1-9, Marb. 1844 (in opposition to Francke) ; H. 
 Bauer in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb. 1845, 3, p. 519 ff. ; Eichstidt, parabolam J. 
 Chr. de oeconomo impr. retractavit, Jen. 1847; Harnisch also, 6. Hrklarung des 
 Gleichn. etc., Magdeburg, 1847 ; Wieseler in the @étt. 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.; (Hylau) in Meklenb. Kirchenbl. 1862, Nr. 4-6 ; Lahmeyer, 
 Liineb. Schulprogr. 1863 ; Koster in the Stud, u. Krit. 1865, p. 725 ff. [See 
 Note CXIX., p. 481. ] 
 
 Ver. 1. After Jesus has given, as far as xv. 32, the needful explanation 
 to the Pharisees 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 earthly possessions in order to come into the Messiah’s kingdom. For 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 ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος is Mammon, comp. ver. 13 ; the 
 οἰκονόμος represents the μαθηταί. Just as (1) the steward was denounced for 
 
460 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 squandering the property of his lord, so also the μαθηταί, 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, soalso it would come upon the μαθηταί that Mammon 
 would withdraw from them the stewardship of his goods, ὁ.6., that they 
 would come into poverty, ver. 2 f. As, however, (8) 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 μαθηταί 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.1 But Jesus very naturally comes direct to the 
 treatment of this theme, because just at that time there were very many pub- 
 licans among His μαθηταί (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 humiliatingly rebuked, those 
 covetous ones (ver. 14) to whom the ποιεῖν ἑαυτοῖς φίλους ἐκ τ. μαμ. THE ἀδικίας 
 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 interpretation 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. — πρὸς τ. μαθητ. αὐτοῦ] not merely 
 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. 13, vii. 11, xix. 87, 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. — ἄνθρωπός τις ἣν πλούσιος] not to be de- 
 fined more particularly than these words themselves and vv, 5-7 indicate. 
 
 1 Not as Wieseler will have it, deside the Pharisees, to His disciples also, 
 
CHAP, xVi., 1. 
 
 461 
 
 ἢ 
 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 ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, as Olshausen* would have it, that is 
 
 1 He finds in the οἰκονόμος @ Roman pro- 
 vincial 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 pru- 
 dence should be manifested, in order to at- 
 tain eternal life. Schleiermacher 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 in anticipation of the time 
 when this relation ceases (according to the 
 reading ἐκλίπῃ, ver. 9), the citizenship in 
 the βασιλείᾳ τ. ϑ. 
 
 2Observe that this interpretation pro- 
 ceeds on an αὶ priori basis, and is therefore 
 improbable ; because in both the other 
 passages, where in Luke ἄνϑρωπός τις πλού- 
 σιος 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. 
 
 3The usual interpretation (substantially 
 followed also by Wieseler, Bleek, K6ster) 
 is in its leading features that of Theophy- 
 lact and Euthymius Zigabenus: 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 
 prudent enough, while there is still time, to 
 apply the wealth entrusted 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 he is certainly wise and prudent not to 
 
 allow the riches to lie useless, but rather, 
 by his effectual application of them, to 
 make to himself friends for the 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 received by them into the ever- 
 lasting tabernacles of heaven.’ Baur, 
 Evang. p. 450 ff., proceeding from the fun- 
 damentally Zbionitic view, says that the 
 rich man is God in His absolute dominion 
 over all; that in the steward is represent- 
 ed the αἰὼν οὗτος, 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 light need, since they must know how 
 to set the αἰὼν οὗτος in the right relation to 
 the αἰὼν μέλλων, 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 αἰὼν 
 οὗτος and the αἰὼν μέλλων 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, 
 Hilgenfeld also recurs. 
 
 4Tlis view is that the publicans may be 
 conceived of as being, by their external re- 
 lations, in the service of the ἄρχων τοῦ κό- 
 σμον. According to ver. 13, God was to be re- 
 garded as the other true Lord who stood 
 opposed (as the representative of the δεχό- 
 μενοι εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς, ver. 9) to this 
 It was just the prudent 
 ἀνϑρώπον 
 
 οἰκοδεσπότης. 
 διασκορπίζων τὰ ὑπάρχοντα τοῦ 
 πλουσίου, 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 piace the service of the one on an equal- 
 ity with that of the other. See, in oppo- 
 sition to Olshausen, Schneckenburger, /.c, 
 
462 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 meant, since in the connection of the parable the relation to the κόσμος  'π 
 general, and its representatives, is not spoken of, but specially the relation 
 to temporal wealth.? 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 no significance [Weiss ed. Mey.], or (Ebrard) 
 that he serves only as filling wp (comp. also Lahmeyer) ; he has the signifi- 
 cance of a definite person feigned, who, however, as such, was well 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 a 
 to be maintained, with Késter [Weiss ed. Mey.], that a rich man is only 
 conceived of with reference to the steward. —oixovéyuov] a house steward, 
 ταμίης, 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 vy. 3,4 that the case of a free man is contemplated 
 in this passage. To conceive of the οἰκονόμος 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 οἰκονόμος 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 (Bertholdt), 
 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 κόσμος. But the idea of 
 κόσμος is here too wide, the point in the sub- 
 ject is definitely ‘he being rich ; hence also 
 at ver. 14, φιλάργυροι. Schenkel also has 
 adopted the interpretation of the rich 
 man as of Mammon. Comp. Lange, Z. J. II. 
 1, p. 391, IIL. p. 463. 
 
 2 This also in opposition to H. Bauer, /.c. 
 p. 529 ff., who finds in the rich man the 
 theocratic chiefs of the people, whose chief 
 wealth was the theocracy itself. The 
 οἰκονόμος must have been the Jewish Chris- 
 tians ; the debtors, the ἁμαρτωλοί and ἐϑνικοί, 
 to whom the primitive community more 
 and more conceded a share in the Messi- 
 anic blessings. The dismissal of the οἰκονό- 
 μος 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 begging 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 δέχεσϑαι 
 eis οἴκους probably points to the necessity 
 of restoring a perfect living intercourse 
 with the converted Gentiles ! An arbitrary 
 exercise of ingenuity, making an ὕστερον 
 πρότερον 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. 
 
 3 Comp. xii. 42, and see Heppe, p. 9 ff. ; 
 Ahrens, Amt d. Schliissel, p. 12 ff. 
 
 4 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 already accused, as was he in 
 the parable; and even your power and 
 your dignity will soon disappear. There- 
 fore, as ye are like to him in your ἀδικία, 
 be ye also like to him in your φρόνησις, 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 οἰκονόμος of 
 the Pharisees. See on ver. 9. Weizsiaicker 
 similarly distinguishes, as in the parable of 
 
CHAP. XVI., 1. 463 
 publicans (Schleiermacher, Hélbe), but the μαθηταί, as is plain from ver. 9, 
 where the conduct analogous to the behavior of the οἰκονόμος is enjoined 
 upon them. [See Note CXIX., p. 481.] The μαθηταί, 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. — 
 διεβλήθη αὐτῷ] 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 Schweighiiuser, Lez. 
 Herod. 1. p. 154), yet it is still no vox 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 
 ill 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, moreover, 
 in the relation portrayed in that of the μαθηταί 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 φιλάργυροι. Compare the instance of Zacchaeus. Koster 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. — ὡς διασκορπί- 
 ζων] as squandering (xv. 13), t.e., so he was represented. Comp. Xen. Hell. 
 li. 8. 23 : διέβαλλον ὡς λυμαινόμενον, and thus frequently ; Jas. ii. 9. It might 
 also have been ὡς with the optative; Herod. viii. 90, and elsewhere. Erro- 
 neously, moreover, in view of the present, the Vulg. reads (comp. Luther) : 
 quasi dissipasset. — τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ] therefore the possessions, the means 
 and property (xi. 21, xil. 15, 33, xix. 8), of his lord.® 
 
 the prodigal son (see on xy. 11), the primi- 
 tive meaning (according to which the stew- 
 ard was a heathen functionary who oppress- 
 ed the Jews, but afterwards took their part) 
 from the meaning attached to it by the 
 compiler, according to which the steward 
 was a type of the unbelieving vich 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. v. 35, viii. 
 22; Plat. Polit. viii. Ὁ. 566 B; Soph. Phil. 578 ; 
 Eur. Hec. 863, and thereon, Pflugk ; else- 
 where also with εἰς or πρός with accusative. 
 
 2As Num, xxii. 22; Dan. iii. 8, vi. 25; 2 
 Macc, iii. 11 ; 4 Macc, iv, 1, and in the pas- 
 
 sages in Kypke, I. p. 296. 
 
 3 Comp. the passages from Xenophon in 
 Sturz, I. p. 6738. See also Dem. 155. 7, where 
 the διαβάλλοντες and the κόλακες are con- 
 trasted. 
 
 4To gather from ὡς that the indebted- 
 ness was unfounded (Hélbe) is unjustifi- 
 able. ὡς might also be usedin the case of 
 a well-founded διαβάλλεσϑαι, and hence in 
 itself decides nothing at all. Comp. Butt- 
 mann, Neut. Gr. p. 263 [E. T. 307]. 
 
 5 Therefore not the possessions of the 
 debtors, to which result van Oosterzee 
 comes, assuming that the steward had 
 made the debtors (who were tenants) pay 
 more than he had given up and paid 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 τοῦτο dxotw περὶ σοῦ 3] what is this that I hear concerning thee? 
 guid hoc est, quod de te audio? A well-known contraction of a relative 
 clause with an interrogative clause ; Plat. Gorg. p. 452 D, and elsewhere.’ 
 The frequency of this wsus loquendi, 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). — ἀπόδος x.7.A.] 
 give the (due) reckoning of thy stewardship. The master desires to see the 
 state of affairs made plain.? — ov γάρ] for thou shalt not, etc. The master de- 
 cides thus according to what he had heard, and what he regards as estab- 
 lished. 
 
 Ver. 3. 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 (ἀφαιρεῖται, 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 needs 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. —ére] equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο ὅτι, see on Mark xvi. 14. — 
 σκάπτειν) in fields, gardens, vineyards ; it is represented in Greek writers 
 also as the last resource of the impoverished ;* Aristoph. Av. 1432 : σκάπτειν 
 See Wolf and Kypke. — οὐκ ἰσχύω] not being accustomed 
 to such labor, he feels that his strength is not equal to it. — ἐπαιτεῖν] infint- 
 tive, not participial.’ These reflections are not inserted with a view to the 
 interpretation, but only for the depicting of the crisis. 
 
 Ver. 4. The word ἔγνων, 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 
 
 yap οὐκ ἐπίσταμαι. 
 
 1 See Kiihner, IJ. § 841. 1; Fritzsche, ad 
 Mare. p. 780; Bornemann, Schol. p. 97, and 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p.120. Comp. 
 Test. XI. Patr. Ὁ. 710 : τί ταῦτα ἀκούω ; Acts 
 xiv. 15. 
 
 2On λόγον διδόναι, ἀποδιδόναι (Matt. xii. 
 36; Acts xix. 40; Rom. xiv. 12), see 
 Schweighiuser’s Lex. Herod. Il. p. 74. 
 Comp. τὸν λόγον ἀπήτουν, 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. JZ is the in- 
 debted chief person. The steward is false- 
 ly accused: he is driven from the house as 
 not ἄδικος : but the rich man, first of all, 
 drives him by his cruelty to the ἀδικία, 
 which, moreover, was only a momentary 
 one, as the (inequitable) γράμματα 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 
 
 good. He assumes with equal contradic- 
 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, before 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. 3f., and contrary to τῆς ἀδικίας, ver. 
 8, which refers to that writing down. This, 
 moreover, 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 Phari- 
 sees as robbers, etc., are frequently not so. 
 In spite of their being repudiated, they are 
 equitable people, and frequently combine 
 with great experience of life and prudence 
 a heart so noble that they acquire friends 
 as soon as this is only known.” 
 
 5 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.” —dérav μετασταθῶ) when (quando) TI 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 δέχεσθαι «.7.2. is to take place. Comp. ver. 9. 
 — δέξωνται] the debtors of his master, οἱ ῥηθῆναι μέλλοντες, ‘‘ who are about 
 to be spoken of,” Euthymius Zigabenus. See Buttmann, Weut. Gr. p. 117 
 [E. T. 184]. — oixove] houses, not families (Schulz), comp. ver. 9. 
 
 Vv. 5-7. Τῶν χρεωφειλ.} 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 δανειστής (vii. 41; 
 Plut. Caes. 12), than the notion of tenants. — From ἕνα ἕκαστον it is seen 
 that subsequently the two debtors are mentioned by way of example. — τοῦ 
 κυρίου ἑαυτοῦ] By the debtors of his own master he knew how to help himself. 
 — πόσον ὀφείλεις κ.τ.}.}1 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. βάτους] ὁ δὲ βάτος (D3) δύναται χωρῆσαι ξέστας 
 ἑβδομήκοντα δύο, ‘‘ But the βάτος contains seventy-two pints,” Josephus, Avtt. 
 viii. 2.9. Therefore equal to an Attic μετρητής. --- δέξαι] take away. The 
 steward, who has the documents in his keeping, gives up the bill (ra 
 γράμματα, 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 swrrender 
 of the document, but its destruction, would have been necessary. — καθίσας] 
 pictorial. ταχέως belongs not to this graphic detail, καθίσας (Luther and 
 others, including Ewald), but to γράψον ; the latter corresponds to the haste 
 to which the carrying out of an injustice urges. — Ver. 7. ἑτέρῳ] to another. 
 Comp. xix. 20. — κόρους] ὁ δὲ κόρος (13) δύναται μεδίμνους ἀττικοὺς δέκα, ““ 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. Ὁ κύριος] not Jesus (Erasmus, Luther, Pred.; Weizsiicker also, 
 p. 213 f.), but, as is proved by ver. 9, the master of the steward, to whom the 
 measure taken by the latter had become known. — τὸν οἰκονόμ. τῆς adic. | ἀδικ. 
 is a genitive of quality (see on ii. 14), the unrighteous steward ; of such a 
 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 context. Schleiermacher and Bornemann 
 
 1 The expression τῆς ἀδικίας contains the steward was honest, and it is only a device 
 judgment of Jesus on the conduct of the springing from necessity to which Hdélbe 
 οἰκονόμος, VV. 5-7, which, nevertheless, the clings, that the faithful steward is called 
 master praised with reference to the pru- _oikov. τῆς ἀδικίας only in the sense of his ca- 
 dence employed. Hence τῆς ἀδικίας is decid-  lumniators., 
 edly opposed to the assumption that the 
 
 30 
 
466 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 £ 
 
 (comp. also Paulus) construe τῆς ἀδικίας With ἐπήνεσεν : iniquitatis causa, τ 
 
 ‘* because of his iniquity.” Grammatically correct,’ but here it is in contra- 
 diction with the parallel expression : ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας, ver. 9. Comp. 
 also ὁ κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας, xvii. 6. And it is not the ἀδικία, but the prudence, 
 that is the subject of the praise,? as is shown from the analogy of ver. 9. 
 τῆς ἀδικίας 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. 103), 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 πιστὸς οἰκονόμος ὁ φρόνιμος (xii. 42), but only φρόνιμος, who had hit 
 on the practical savoir faire. — ὅτι οἱ υἱοὶ x.7.2.] Immediately after the words 
 φρονίμως ἐποίησεν, Jesus adds a general maxim,* in justification of the pred- 
 icate used (φρονίμως). 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, etc.,”” Maldonatus. Francke er- 
 roneously says (compare the ‘‘ perhaps,” etc., of de Wette) that ὅτι οἱ υἱοὶ 
 κιτ.. refers to the érjvecev ὁ κύριος. This the context forbids by the corre- 
 lation of φρονίμως and φρονιμώτερο.. The sons (see on Matt. viii. 12) of this 
 generation (4 DY, see on Matt. xii. 32) 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 βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην 
 αὐτοῦ (Matt. vi. 33).4 The sons of light are those who, withdrawn from tem- 
 poral interests, have devoted themselves wholly to the divine ἀλήθεια reveal- 
 ed by Christ, and are enlightened and governed by it, John xii. 36; 1 
 Thess. v. 5; Eph. v.8. The former are more prudent than the latter, not ab- 
 solutely, but εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν, in reference to their own generation, 1.€., 
 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 υἱοί ! Observe, more- 
 over, the marked prominence of τὴν ἑαυτῶν, which includes the contrasted say- 
 
 - 
 
 1 Τίοη. Hal. het. xiv.; Joseph. Anté. xii. 
 4.5; Bernhardy, p. 152; Kiihner, II. p. 192; 
 Bornemann, Schol. p. 98. 
 
 2 We may imagine the master calling out 
 to the steward from his own worldly stand- 
 point something like this: Truly thou hast 
 accomplished a prudent stroke! Thy prac- 
 tical wisdom is worthy of all honor! Comp. 
 Terent. ZHeaut. iii. 2.26. But to conclude 
 that the steward remained in his service, is 
 altogether opposed to the teaching of the 
 parable (in opposition to Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Hélbe). 
 
 5 Not a piece of irony upon the Pharisees 
 
 (Zyro), as Brauns also assumes, understand- 
 ing by the children of this world the pudli- 
 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 Hélbe. Extorted by an erroneous 
 interpretation of the whole parable. Text- 
 ually the children of the world could only 
 be those to whom the steward belonged by 
 virtue of his wnrighteous dealing (τῆς ἀδικίας). 
 
 4 Comp. xx. 34. See examples of the Rab- 
 pinical NDS 2 in Schoettgen, Hor. 
 p. 298, and Wetstein. 
 
 4% 
 
 { 
 
CHAP: XVI. Ὁ. 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 dealing 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 their own dis- 
 honesty were serviceable to the dishonest sagacity of the steward by the fal- 
 sification of their bonds.’ Kuinoel 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 τὴν éav- 
 tov! Grotius, in opposition to the words themselves, explains : ‘‘ in rebus 
 suis,” ‘‘ their own affairs ;” Wieseler : 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 Wette, Eylau : in their sphere of life. — Moreover, εἰς τ. γεν. κ.τ.λ. 
 is not to be referred to both classes of men (Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, 
 Baumgarten Crusius, Brauns, and others), but merely to the υἱοὺς τ. κόσμ. τ. 
 (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 εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν. 
 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 (κἀγὼ ὑμῖν) requires prudence, Jesus says, 
 Ver. 9, giving the application of the whole parable for His disciples who 
 were present—xayo ὑμῖν λέγω, ποῦ : κἀγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ; comp. on Xi. 9. κἀγώ 
 corresponds to the preceding ὁ κύριος, and ὑμῖν to τὸν οἶκον. τῆς adic. ΑΒ 
 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 ! — ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς φίλους x.t.A.] provide for yourselves friends, 
 etc. It is evident whom Jesus means by these friends from the final sen- 
 tence, iva δέξωνται ὑμᾶς x.t.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. 91," 
 xxiv. 31). Thus they correspond to the χρεωφειλεταῖς of the parable, but 
 indirectly. Ambrose, at so early a period, has this true interpretation, and 
 
 1 εἰς is therefore to be taken in the quite laudari potuit ille ... quanto amplius 
 usual sense of : in reference to, butnot tobe placent Domino,” ‘if this one could be 
 twisted into : after the manner, or after the praised ... how much more they please 
 measure (Lahmeyer), and to be explained the Lord,” etc. Augustine, comp. Euthy- 
 from the mode of expression: τελεῖν ἐς "EA- mius Zigabenus, Grotius, Cornelius a 
 Anvas, and the like (see Saupp, ad Xen. Mem. Lapide, Maldonatus, and others, including 
 div; Ὁ, 50. Ebrard, p. 424) is ἃ pure importation. 
 
 2 An argument ὦ minori ad majus (‘‘si 
 
468 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 very recently Ewald. Thereference to God (Wolf, Kuinoel, Niedner, and 
 others) or to Christ (Olshausen), either alone or with the addition of the 
 angels (see 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 usual in- 
 terpretation, those to whom deeds of love have been done, the poor, ete., are 
 meant (so also Wieseler, 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 δέξωνται ὑμᾶς must be subjected to a strained interpretation. 
 See below. The ἑαυτοῖς, to yourselves, standing emphatically even before ποιήσ. 
 in B LR »w* 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. —é« τοῦ μαμ. τῆς adix.] ἐκ 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. 13, personally (comp. on Matt. vi. 24), 
 but as neuter, as at ver.. 11, wealth. — τῆς ἀδικίας] Genitivus gualitatis, 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 wealth, 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 
 as 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 : ὡς ἐξ ἀδικίας θησαυρισθέντα, 
 τῆς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ διαμερίζεσθαι τὰ περιττὰ τούτου τοῖς πένησιν, ‘‘as treasured up 
 from unrighteousness, that of not dividing the surplus of this with the 
 poor”); that of Drusius, Michaelis, Schreiter, Kuinoel, Wieseler, and others 
 (comp. Dettinger and H. Bauer) : opes fallaces, ‘‘ deceitful wealth,” or 
 wealth which allures (Loffler, Késter [Weiss ed. Mey.]); that of Paulus 
 (το. 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 αἰὼν οὗτος 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 ἀδικία, 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. 1833; Bernhardy, p. 230; 
 Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 559 f. 
 3 Still Augustine admits (Comment. in Ps. 
 
 xlviii.) even the communistic interpretation : 
 
 “quia ea ipsa iniquitas est, quod tu habes, 
 
 alter non habet, tu abundas et alter eget,”’ 
 ‘since it is of itself iniquity, that thou hast 
 and another has not, thou aboundest and 
 another isin want.’ This is foreign to the 
 context. 
 
OHAP. XVI., 9. 469 
 substantive (as TPW7 jIND, 5. YW) ; see in Lightfoot, p. 844. The 
 value of the predicate τῆς ἀδικ., 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 
 allowsitself 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. τ. Krit. 18438, p. 116 ff., finds the whole precept 
 ποιήσατε x.T.A. to be in contradiction with the moral teaching of Christ, and 
 conjectures : οὐ ποιήσετε K.7.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.,1 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 οἰκονόμοι 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. 33) 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 μαθητάς, ver. 1, we are not to 
 conceive exclusively only of the Twelve, and of suchas already had forsaken 
 all ; (9) our text does not conflict with the context (ver. 13), as it rather 
 claims in substance the giving up of the service of Mammon, and its claim 
 corresponds to the μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν x.7.A., besides allowing the idea of laying 
 up treasure in heaven (see iva ὅταν ἐκλ. «.7.A.) to appear in a concrete form. 
 — brav ἐκλείπῃ] (see the critical remarks) when it fails, i.e., when it ceases.? 
 
 This ὅταν ἐκλ. indecd corresponds to the point of the parable : ὅταν μετασταθῶ, 
 
 1 Bornemann assumes as the meaning of 
 the parable: ‘‘Pharisaeos Christus ait 
 de alienis bonis liberales esse, idque sui 
 commodi causa, atque eorum praefectos 
 (ἄνϑρωπος πλούσιος, ver. 1) non modo hance 
 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 (ἄνθρωπος 
 πλούσιος, ver. 1) not only do not con- 
 demn and punish this perversity and vice 
 in their subordinates, but’ even praise 
 their prudence and cunning. But Christ 
 
 certainly trusts that His followers will 
 never imitate this,’ ete. 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 adienis, ‘‘in regard to the goods 
 of others,’’ but with the property of 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. i, 
 5. 2: ἔχων δὲ ἥκειν τάλαντα πεντακόσια" ἐὰν δὲ 
 ταῦτα ἐκλίπῃ κιτ.λ.; 1 Sam. ἴχ. ἡ; 1 Macc. iii. 
 29,45; Ecclus. xiv. 19, xlii. 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 made—the catas- 
 trophe of the Parousia, at the appearance of which, in the σχῆμα τοῦ κοσμου 
 τούτου which precedes it, the temporal riches comes to an end and cease to 
 _evist (vi. 24; Jas. v. 1 ff. ; Luke xvii. 26 ff.), whereas then the treasures 
 laid up in heaven (Matt. vi. 20; Luke xii. 33, xviii. 22) occupy their 
 place (comp. also 1 Tim. vi. 19), and the complete ἀπάτη of riches (Matt. 
 xlli. 22) is revealed. This reference to the Parousia is required in the con- 
 text by the αἰωνίους σκηνάς, whereby the setting up of the kingdom (here also 
 conceived of as near) is referred to. The Recepta éxdimnre* 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 αἰωνίους 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 εἰς τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν 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. cxviii. 15), the kingdom of 
 Messiah in respect of its everlasting duration. Thus God promises in 4 
 Esdr. ii. 11: ‘‘ Et dabo eis 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. —défwvra] not impersonal (Késter and others), but in 
 respect of φίλους, and according to the analogy of ver. 4, the friends provided 
 are to be understood, consequently the angels (see above) ; comp. Ambrose. 
 If φίλους 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), δέξωνται must 
 be understood of the thankful and welcoming reception ; but in this inter- 
 pretation it would be strangely presupposed that the φίλοι would be already in 
 the everlasting habitations when the benefactors come thither, or there must 
 somehow be understood a mediate δέχεσθαι (Grotius : ‘‘efficiant ut recip- 
 iamini,” ‘‘ they may bring to pass that ye are received”) wherein there would 
 
 1 Luther translates : “ when ye faint,”’ but 
 explains this of dying, when ye ‘‘ must 
 leave all behind you.” Comp. Ewald 
 (reading ἐκλείπητε) : When ye can no longer 
 help yourselves, i. é., when ye die. Context- 
 ually Meuss refers (ἐκλείπητε) it to the last 
 judgment ; but with what far-fetched and 
 artificial interpretation : “ἢ quando emigratis, 
 501]. 6. mammone iniquitatis, qui adhuc re- 
 fugio vobis fuit,’’ ‘‘ when ye remove, namely, 
 Srom the mammon of unrighteousness, which 
 
 hitherto was a refuge for you!” 
 
 2 Plat. Legg. vi. Ὁ. 759 E, ix. p. 836 E; 
 Xen. Cyr. viii. 7. 26 ; Isa. xi. 10, LXX.; Gen. 
 xxv. 8, xlix; 88: Sob. xiv. tls) West ΩΝ, 
 Patr. p. 529. 
 
 3 Hence also the reading which gives the 
 singular ἐκλείπῃ (Wieseler ἐκλίπῃ) is not to 
 be understood, with Wieseler : if he leaves 
 you in the lurch (in death); which, apart 
 from there being no ὑμᾶς 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. 
 
 Remark. — 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 δύνασϑε ϑεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ, 
 ver. 13, had been kept in view, and it had been considered accordingly that even 
 the μαϑηταί, in fact, by beneficent application of their property, must have 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 CXXIIL., 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, etc. 
 
 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 ὦ 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, but 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 is rep- 
 resented is manifested towards Mammon, 
 and ‘his 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 evil means was com- 
 mended (which Koster finds in vy. 10-13). 
 
 Ebrard (on Olshausen, p. 678 f.) says: that 
 the dishonest steward is not so much a 
 symbol as an instance of a man who, in the 
 sphere of unrighteousness and sin, practises 
 the virtue of prudence; that from him the 
 Christian was to learn the practice of pru- 
 dence, but in the sphere of righteousness. 
 But thus the contrast in which the point 
 would lie is first of all put into the passage. 
 [See Note CXXIII., p. 482.] 
 
 2 Views in harmony with vv. 10 and 12 
 occur in Clem. Cor. ii.8; but to conclude 
 therefrom that there is a relationship with 
 the Gospel of the Egyptians (Késtlin, p. 223) 
 is very arbitrary. 
 
A419 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 very varied application to individual cases. For what special conclusion it 
 is here intended to serve as a major proposition is contained in ver. 11 £. — 
 πιστὸς ἐν éAay. 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). — ἐγένεσθε] have become, before the Messianic decision, 
 —an expression of the moral development. — τὸ ἀληθινόν] placed first as a 
 more emphatic contrast to ἐν τῷ ἀδίκῳ pay. (comp. ix. 20, xxiii. 81): that 
 which is true, which is not merely 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), i.e., the sal- 
 vation 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 ef grace’ (Lahmeyer), and the like. 
 The objection against our view, that πιστεύσει is not in harmony with it 
 (Wieseler), is not fatal, comp. xix. 17. The contrast indeed is not verbally 
 complete (ἄδικον. . . δίκαιον), but substantially just, since anything that is 
 unrighteous cannot be τὸ ἀληθινόν, but the two are essentially in contrast. — 
 Ver. 12. ἐν τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ] another specific attribute of the temporal riches, in 
 what is alien, i.e., in that which belongs to another. For ye are not the possessor, 
 but Mammon (in the parable the rich man whose wealth the οἰκονόμος 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 : τὸ ὑμέτερον, that which is yours, by which again is characterized not 
 spiritual wealth, but the salvation of the Messianic hingdom,—to wit, as that 
 which shall be the property of man, for that is indeed the hereditary posses- 
 sion, the κληρονομία (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 πολίτευμα in heaven (Phil. ili. 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 ἐλάχιστον and ἀλλότριον as the ἄδικος μαμ. of the 
 legal condition, to which is to be attributed no absolute significance. 
 
 Ver. 18. [See Note CXXYI., p. 483.] A principle which does not cohere 
 with what follows (Holtzmann), but proves as indubitable the denial which 
 isimplied 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. Moreover, see on Matt. vi. 24. 
 
CHAP. XvI., 14-17%. 473 
 
 Vv. 14,15. [See Note CXXVII., p. 483.] The mocking sneer! of the Phar- 
 isees, who indeed 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. — ὑμεῖς ἐστε k.7.A. | 
 ye are the people who make yourselves righteous (i.e., declare yourselves as right- 
 eous) before men. Contrast : the divine δικαίωσις as it especially became the 
 substance of the Pauline gospel.” The Pharisce in the temple, xviii. 11 f., 
 gives a repulsive illustration of the δικαιοῦν ἑαυτόν, and he even ventures it in 
 the presence of God. — ὅτι τὸ ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὑψ. k.7.A.]| since, indeed, that which 
 as lofty (standing in high estimation) among men is an abomination before God. 
 Comp. Ps. cxxxvili. 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. Mare. iv. 34), since this latter was not forsaken 
 by Philip, but had separated herself arbitrarily from him. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. [See Note CXXVII., p. 483.] The sequence of thought is : 
 after Jesus had declared His judgment on His adversaries, according to 
 which, moreover, they belong to the category of the βδέλυγμα ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ, 
 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 general endeavor after the kingdom which had begun 
 from the time of John, might easily throw upon Jesus the suspicion of put- 
 ting back the old principle, that of the law, into the shade. But no ; no 
 single κεραία 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 ἐκμυκτηρίζειν, xxiii. 85; 2 Sam. xix. 21; 
 Ps. ii. 4, xxxiv. 19; 3 Esdr. i. 53. 
 
 postulat temporum ratio .... Mosis et 
 prophetarum libri... functi sunt velut 
 
 3 ΠῸ attribute δικαιοσύνη as the funda- 
 mental demand of Christianity to the influ- 
 ence of Pharisaism on the development of 
 Christ (see especially, Keim, Der Geschichtl. 
 Chr. p. 35) is the more doubtful, as this 
 fundamental thought prevails throughout 
 the whole Old Testament. 
 
 3 Grotius and others assume as the connec- 
 tion: ‘‘Ne miremini, si majora dilectionis 
 opera nunc quam olim exigantur; id enim 
 
 puerorum magisterio ;...aJohanne incipit 
 aetas melior,” ‘‘ Do not wonder, if greater 
 works of loye 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,’ ete. 
 Against thisis ver. 17, and, in general (comp. 
 Calovius), the manner in which Jesus hon- 
 ors the law (comp. ver. 31). 
 
414 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 Matthewe Already the source of Luke’s account of the jour- 
 ney had here operated in vy. 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 (Weizsiicker).— ὁ νόμος κ. οἱ προφῆται 
 ἕως "Iudvy.] We are not to supply (following Matt. xi. 13) προεφήτευσαν 
 (Euthymius Zigabenus, and many others), but from what follows (see Kiih- 
 ner, II. p. 605), éxyptooovro.* 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! Hvery man? presses forcibly into it ; ‘‘ viingruit 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 νόμος, 
 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 νόμος, is referred to its ideal contents. The reading of Marcion : τῶν 
 λόγων μου, instead of τοῦ νόμον, 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, see generally Holtzmann, p. 397 ; Lechler, Apost. Zeit. 
 PasL bef: 
 
 Ver. 18. See on Matt. v. 32, xix. 9. Of what Christ has just said of the 
 continual obligation of the law he now gives an isolated example, 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 ἦσαν (de Wette 
 [Weiss ed. Mey.], comp. Ewald), which like- 
 wise is allowable, and instead of this Theo- 
 
 law. See his Geschichtl. Chr. Ὁ. 57 f. 
 2 A popular expression of the general ur- 
 gency. Hence πᾶς is neither to be pressed, 
 
 phylact, correctly explaining, places elyov 
 τὸν καιρόν. 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. ν. 18. Keim rightly 
 Says that Jesus nowhere in the synoptic 
 Gospels has declared the abolition of the 
 
 nor, with Bengel, to be supplemented by 
 βιαζόμενος. Moreover, βιάζεται is not to be 
 taken of that “quod fieri debeat,” ** which 
 ought to be done” (so Elwert, Quaest. et 
 observatt. ad philol. sacr. 1860, p. 20). 
 
 3 Comp. Xen. Cy7r. iii. 3. 69: εἰ καὶ βιάσαιντο 
 εἴσω ; Thucyd. i. 63. 4: βιάσασϑαι ἐς τὴν Ποτί- 
 δαιαν, Vii. 69. 4: βιάσασϑαι és τὸ ἔξω. 
 
 4 Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 8; Rom. ix. 6; Ruth 
 iii. 18; Judith vi. 9, and elsewhere ; Herod. 
 vii. 18; Plat. Hut. p. 14 Ὁ. Moreover, see 
 on Matt. v. 18. 
 
 5 Comp. Ritschl in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, 
 p. 351 f.; K6stlin, p. 303 ἔν; Zeller, Apost. 
 p. 15 f.; Franck in the Stud. τι. rit. 1855, 
 p. 311 f.; Volkmar, p. 207 ff., whose conject- 
 ure, τῶν λόγων Tod Θεοῦ, is, Moreoyer, quite 
 superfluous, 
 
CHAP. XVI., 19. 45 
 only, in general, the remembrance of the varieties 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 (i.e., the Old Testa- 
 ment theocracy in its temporary aspect, ver. 16), they wished to maintain 
 as oblizatory, and had thus practised a twofold spiritual adultery. How 
 arbitrary, without the slightest hint in the text! [See Note CXXVIIL., 
 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. 32. 
 
 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 ποιεῖν ἑαυτῷ gidovc.2 Comp. Theophylact. De Wette 
 (comp. Holtzmann) wrongly denies all connection with what goes before, 
 and finds set 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 Késtlin, 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., so emphatically made prominent * that it is 
 
 1 Comp. also H. Bauer, op. cit. ἡ. 544, who and elsewhere). Such forced interpreta- 
 
 thinks the meaning is that Israel is not to 
 separate himself from the Mosaic law, and 
 not to urge it upon the heathens. 
 
 2 The opinion, that by the rich man is 
 meant Herod Antipas (Schleiermacher, 
 Paulus), is a pure invention. 
 
 3 See also H. Bauer in Zeller’s Theol. Jahro. 
 1845, 3, 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 κύνες) had come (Acts xi. 29 f., xxiy. 17, 
 
 tions readily occur if the parable is to be 
 explained according to assumed tenden- 
 cies ofthe 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 in the 
 anti-Judaic sense. Baur is of the same opin- 
 ion, and lays stress upon the manner in 
 which the conclusion exhibits the relation 
 of the Jews (who did not believe 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 Hssene-like contempt of riches (Josephus, Bell. 11. 8. 3). — dé] transi- 
 tional, but to put the matter now, so as to act upon your will, etc. See above. 
 — καὶ évedidtox.] a simple connective link, where the periodic style would 
 have turned the phrase by means of a relative, as is done subsequently in 
 ver. 20. — ropdip. x. Bicc.] 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 
 does not give any name for the nch 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, evena significant name readily 
 presented itself to the sympathy of Jesus. Tradition calls the rich man 
 Νινευής, 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.”.? Adapoc, 7.€., ay, abbreviated for ἜΡΟΝ, Deus auxilium, 
 ‘*God a help,” as frequently also among the Rabbins. See Lightfoot on John 
 xi. τ Wot τ ἢ x), auxilio destitutus, ‘‘ no-help ” (Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, and 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 name, and how appropriate it is ! — ἐβέβλητο) not : 
 was 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. — πρὸς τὸν πυλῶνα] 
 there at the gate (see on Matt. xxvi. 71), which led from the προαύλιον into 
 the house. The form εἱλκωμένος (Lachmann, Tischendorf), afflicted with ul- 
 cers (from ἑλκόω), is convincingly attested, and that in opposition to the 
 
 genfeld, Hvang. p. 201 f. Weizsiicker 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. 502). Thus, more- 
 
 over, the whole parable, as given by Luke, 
 is turned into a ὕστερον πρότερον on the 
 ground of the abstractions of church his- 
 tory. 
 
 1 Strauss, I. p. 6382; 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, 1. 
 p. 387). 
 
CHAP. XVI., 22, 23. 47 
 
 usage elsewhere ;’ but it was probably formed by Luke, according to the anal- 
 ogy of the argument of ἕλκω and ἑλκύω (Lobeck, Paral. p. 35 f.). — Ver. 91. 
 ἐπιθυμῶν] desiring, craving after it. Whether he received of what fell or not 
 is left undecided by the expression in itself, and de Wette (comp. Bleek) 
 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 ἀλλὰ καὶ «.7.4. shows that the craving was not satisfied, which, more- 
 over, presents itself ὦ priori according to the purpose of the description as the 
 most natural thing. The addition borrowed from xv. 16: καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου 
 αὐτῷ, in min. and vss., after πλουσίου, is hence (comp. xv. 16) a gloss correct in 
 sense. — ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ κύνες «.7.A.| but, instead of being satisfied, even still (καί, 
 see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134) the dogs came, etc. An aggravation of the 
 misery, and that too not merely as depicting the negative evil of neglect (ἀλλὰ 
 καὶ ρημος τῶν θεραπευσόντων, ‘‘ but also destitute of those who healed,” Theophy- 
 lact ; comp. Euthymius Zigabenus), but also positively: the unclean beasts 
 and their licking (ἐπέλειχον) 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 ἀλλά must introduce would not thus be made 
 prominent, nor the accwmulation which καί indicates, 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 μόνον ἐχορτάσθη. . . 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ x.t.A., ‘egestati ejus micae de divitis mensa allatae, vulneribus 
 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 wnmitigated 
 greatness of the suffering (ver. 25 ; moreover, the rich man’s suffering in 
 Hades is not mitigated). 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. ᾿Απενεχθῆναι αὐτόν] not his sowd merely (‘‘ non possunt ingredi 
 Paradisum nisi justi, quorum animae eo feruntur per angelos,” ‘‘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 et 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 carried them 
 away into that opened covering,” Jdra 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. 483. ] 
 The usual device, that the burial of the poor man was left without mention, 
 as being worthy of no consideration [Godet], isan evasion, the more arbitra- 
 ry in proportion as the narrative is a fictitious one, the doctrine of which in- 
 ‘deed concerns only the condition of the sowls in Hades, while its concrete 
 
 1 Eur. Alec. 878: ἥλκωσεν ; Plut. Phoc. 2: Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, 
 τὰ ἡλκωμένα. Ewald, Bleek. So also Klinckhardt, super 
 2 Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Wetstein, Mi- parab. de hom. divite et Lazaro, Lips. 1831. 
 
 chaelis, and others, including Kuinoel, 
 
478 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 poetic representation concerns the whole man ; hence Hofmann, Schriftbew. 1. 
 p. 359, mistaking very inconsiderately the poetic character of the descrip- 
 tion, calls our explanation folly.—eic¢ τὸν KéAr.’ Ap. | DIAS ow 1p'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 Mace. xiii. 16, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob receive the dead into 
 their bosom. The κόλπ. ’Afp. is therefore not of the same import as Paradise, 
 xxiii. 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, Michaelis, Kuinoel, and others) does not belong to this place, but refers 
 to the Messianic kingdom (Matt. vill. 11.) --- καὶ ἐτάφη] 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. 23. Hades 
 corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol, which in the LXX. is translated by adye, 
 and hence denotes the whole subterranean place of abode of departed souls 
 until the resurrection, divided into Paradise (xxiii. 43) for the pious, and 
 Gehenna for the godless. Ruth R. i. 1: “ΠῚ descendunt in Paradisum, hi 
 vero descendunt in Gehennam,” ‘‘ Those descend into Paradise, but these 
 into Gehenna.” That ἅδης 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, 31.7 From the 
 Old Testament, compare especially Gen. xxxvil. 35. The reward and punish- 
 ment in Hades is a preliminary one until the full retribution after resurrec- 
 The upper Paradise, which is in heaven, is not to be 
 confounded with that lower one. See on 2 Cor. xii. 3 f. —év τῷ addy] which 
 region of Hades is meant, is shown by the context. 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.* — ἐπάρας τ. 660. ὁρᾷ ’ABp.] for ““ Paradisus et Gehenna ita posita 
 
 tion and judgment. 
 
 1 Not of the heavenly blessedness, in re- sufficient reason. His reason, at least,— 
 
 spect of which the κόλπος ᾿Αβρ. has been 
 made into “sinus gratiae divinae, in quem 
 Abraham pater credentium receptus est,” 
 “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 loss to come to terms with ex- 
 egesis, maintaining that the sinus Abrahaeis 
 not to be understood subjectively, *‘ quasi ab 
 Abrahamo et in ipsius sinu receptus Laza- 
 rus sit,” “85 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 “ἢ Abraham- 
 um ceu objectum fovet in complexu suo,” 
 “cherishes in its embrace Abraham as ob- 
 ject.” Even Lechler in the Stud. τι. K7it. 
 1854, p. 820 f., doubts that an abode of Abra- 
 ham in Hades may be meant; but without 
 
 that the angels elsewhere bring about the 
 intercourse between earth and heaven, not 
 between earth and Sheol,—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 Abraham’s bosom in the paradise of 
 Sheol. The reveries of the later Jews about 
 the angels in the lower paradise, see in 
 Eisenmenger, IT. p. 309 ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Giider in Herzog’s Hncyklop. V. 
 p. 442, and see Grotius on the passage. This 
 is in opposition to West in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1858, p. 265. 
 
 3 In view of the poetic character of these 
 representations, it is very precarious (see 
 Delitzsch, Bibl. 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,” Midr. 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. — ἐν 
 τοῖς κόλποις] the plural, as is often the case also in the classical writers 
 since Homer. 
 
 Ver. 24. Καὶ αὐτός] 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. 11. 1, p. 394: ‘‘ 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). —7d ἄκρον τ. δακτ.} 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 re- 
 flections. —idaroc] Genitivus materiae.® 
 
 Ver. 25. Téxvov] an address of sympathizing patriarchal love. — The em- 
 phasis of the refusal lies on ἀπέλαβες, 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. 30), hence to thy lot cannot fall the refreshing 
 craved. Compare the ἀπέχειν τὴν παράκλησιν, vi. 26. If the rich man had not 
 used his treasures 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. 
 the sum of thy happiness. — ὁμοίως] ἐ.6., ἀπέλαβεν ἐν τῇ ζωῇ 
 αὐτοῦ. --- τὰ κακά] 1.6., the sum of the evil, corresponding by way of contrast to 
 Observe that αὐτοῦ is not added. — νῦν dé κ.τ.2.} but now, 
 the reversed condition ! He has the happiness left in arrear for him ; thou, 
 the sufferings left in arrear for thee ! That Lazarus is not to be conceived 
 of as simply a 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. He was one of those to whom applied the μακάριοι of πτωχοὶ k.T.A., 
 vi. 91. 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 
 
 — ra ἀγαθά σου] 1.6., 
 
 the τὰ ἀγαθά σου. 
 
 stitution of a psychical body in the inter- 
 mediate state (to give instruction on which 
 subject is not at all the purpose of the nar- 
 rative). Scripture (even 2 Cor. vy. 1 ff.) 
 leaves us without any disclosure on this 
 point ; hence all theless are we to give 
 heed to deciarations of clairyoyants, and 
 to theosophic and other kind of specula- 
 
 tions. 
 
 1 For Rabbinical analogies, see in Light- 
 foot, p. 864 f. 
 
 2 Comp. also Bengel: ‘‘ Adhuc vilipendit 
 Lazarum heluo,” “ The glutton still despises 
 Lazarus.” 
 
 3 See Bernhardy, p. 168; 
 Gr. p. 148 [E. T. 170]. 
 
 Buttmann, NVeut. 
 
480 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 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. — παρακαλεῖται) see on Matt. v. 4 ; 2 Thess. ii. 16. The notion 
 that the earthly happiness of the rich man had been the recompense for his 
 τινα ἀρετήν, ‘*some virtue on his part,” and the misery of Lazarus the pun- 
 ishment for his τίνα κακίαν, ‘‘ some evil on his part” (Huthymius Zigabenus, 
 Theophylact ; comp. Rabbins in Wetstein), is an incongruous reflection. 
 
 Ver. 26. ’Exi πᾶσι τούτοις] Moreover, in addition to all. Comp. 111. 20. Seeon 
 Eph. vi. 16, and Wetstein. There follows now after the argumentum ab aequo, 
 ver. 25, still the argumentum ab impossibili for the non-compliance with the 
 request. — χάσμα] a yawning chasm, cleft, frequently found in the classical 
 writers ; comp. χάσμα μέγα in the LXX. 2 Sam. xviii. 17. The idea of such 
 a separation between the two portions of Hades does not occur among the 
 Rabbins, among whom sometimes a separating wall is mentioned, sometimes 
 it is said that the intervening space is only a hand, nay, only a thread in 
 breadth. The chasm belongs to the poetical representation ; the thought is 
 the unalterable separation.? —éorjpixra:] is established, so that it is never 
 again closed. — ὅπως] purpose of the μεταξύ down to éorhp. — διαβῆναι) pass 
 over. — μηδὲ k.t.2.] omitting the article before ἐκεῖθεν : and therewith they may 
 not cross over thence tous. Thesubject is self-evident. The Recepta oi ἐκεῖϑεν 
 would have to be explained either, with Buttmann, by supplying ϑέλοντες 
 διαβῆναι, or as a case of attraction instead of οἱ ἐκεῖ éxeidev.® 
 
 Vv. 27-81. What riches lead to when they are not applied according to 
 ver. 9, is shown vy. 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. vy. 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. ὅπως] Purpose of the sending ; ἔχω. . - 
 adeAg. is a parenthetic clause ; his style is pathetic. — διαμαρτύρ.} that 
 he may testify to them, to wit, of the situation in which I am placed, because 
 I have not repented. Ὅρα πῶς ὑπὸ τῆς κολάσεως εἰς συναίσϑησιν ἦλθεν, *‘ See 
 how through punishment he came to a fellow-feeling,” Theophylact. — Ver. 
 29. ἀκουσάτωσαν αὐτῶν] they should give heed (listen) to them / — Ver. 30. οὐχί] 
 nay / they will not hear them. The echo of his own experience gained in 
 the position of secure obduracy !— ἀπὸ νεκρῶν] belongs to πορευϑῇ. -- Ver. 31. 
 οὐδὲ ἐάν] not even (not at all), {7. --- πεισϑήσονται] not exactly equivalent 
 to πιστεύσουσιν, ““ will believe” (Vulg. Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, and 
 others), but: they will be moved, will be won over, namely, to repent.—A 
 reference to the resurrection of Jesus (Olshausen), or to the manifestation 
 of Hijah (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. ΤΙ. p. 314 f. 3 Kiihner, II. p. 319. Comp. Plat. Cratyl. 
 
 2The reference to Hesiod, Theog. 740, p. 403 D; Thue, viii, 107, 2, 
 wherein Yartarus itself is a χάσμα (comp. 
 
NOTES. 481 
 
 killed, John xii. 10, is not to the point (Chrysostom, eden Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus), 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 CXIX. Vy. 1-13. The Parable of the Unjust Steward. 
 
 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 does 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.e., 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 ἄνϑρωπος πλούσιος 
 is Mammon and the οἰκονόμος are the μαϑηταί. 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 to 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. ἄνϑρωπος. . «πλούσιος. 
 
 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 atenant. 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”’ 
 (Luke, 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. 
 
 91 
 
482 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 CXXI. Ver. 3. ὅτε... ἀφαιρεῖται. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. regards the dismissal not as “the near and certain result,”’ 
 but as having already occurred (ver. 2) ; hence ὅτι, in his view, is to be rendered 
 as usual: ‘‘ because.” But ver. 4 indicates that the dismissal was still future. 
 The R. V., with ifs 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. τῶν χρεωφειλετῶν. 
 
 These may have been’ merchants and others, who obtained supplies on credit 
 
 from the steward, making reckoning after sales (so de Wette, Godet, Weiss). 
 
 CXXIII. Ver. 8. εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν. 
 
 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 material 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- 
 eousness. . . . 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 in ver. 11 an antithesis of faithfulness 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 φίλους 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 unfaithfulness 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. ἐν τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ. 
 
 ‘* 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. Rey. 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. οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης k.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 another'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 ἃ mosaic: the substance is taken, he thinks, from Luke’s peculiar 
 ‘*source,’’ but ver. 14 is inserted by the Evangelist to connect what follows 
 with the Pharisees, while vy, 16-18 are from the common source, 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. πᾶς ὁ ἀπολίων, κ.τ.λ. 
 
 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 the 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. ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ κύνες k.T.A. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. does not admit either the view of aggravation or that of com- 
 passion. ‘‘ Both the contrast (ἀλλά) and the accumulation («a/) 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. ἀπενεχϑῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων. 
 
 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 αὐτοῦ, which is attested by the 
 best uncials and versions, accepted by all recent editors.] Instead of τοῦ μή 
 Elz. [not Stephens] has merely “7. But τοῦ is decisively attested. Tischen- 
 dorf has the arrangement τοῦ τὰ ox. μὴ €2.9., following B L X δὲ ; the usual order 
 of the words was favored because of Matt. xviii. 7. —ovai dé] B Ὁ L 8, min. 
 vss. Lachm. have πλὴν οὐαί. [Treg. text., W. and Hort, R. V.] From Matt. xviii. 
 7.-—Ver. 2. μύλος ὀνικός] B Τὸ L δὲ, min. vss., including Vulg. It., have λίθος 
 μυλικός. Recommended by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; the 
 Recepta is from Matt. xviii. 6. [Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with 8* B 
 L, place ἕνα after τούτων.] --- Ver. 3. dé] is wanting in B Ὁ L X 8, 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, εἰς σέ is intruded, in Elz. Scholz, after ἁμάρτῃ. --- Ver. 4. ἁμάρτῃ] 
 Decisive authorities have ἁμαρτήσῃ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. ; ἁμάρτῃ isa mechanical repetition from ver. 3.— The second τῆς 
 ἡμέρας has such important evidence against it, that Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. have 
 rightly deleted it. An exegetical addition to balance the previous clause.— 
 After ἐπιστρέψῃ Elz. adds ἐπὶ σέ. In any case wrong; since ABDLXAR, 
 min. Clem. have πρός ce (approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), 
 while E F GH K MS U VI Δ, min. vss. Or. Dam. have nothing at all (so 
 Griesb. Matth. Scholz). πρός σε is preponderatingly attested ; it was variously 
 supplied (ἐπί, εἰς) when passed over as superfluous. — Ver. 6. Instead of εἴχετε 
 there is stronger evidence in favor of ἔχετε (so Tisch.) ; the former is an emen- 
 dation. — Ver. 7. [Recent editors, with Tisch., δὲ B Ὁ L, Copt., Vulg., add 
 αὐτῷ after ἐρεῖ. This reading favors the connection of εὐθέως with what follows. ] 
 — avareca] Between this form and ἀνάπεσε (Matth. Lachm. Tisch. [recent edi- 
 tors, with δὲ B Ὁ, and others]), the authorities are very much divided. The 
 former was corrected by the latter as in xiv. 10. — Ver. 9. ἐκείνῳ] 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 
 αὐτῷ after διαταχῇ. --- ov δοκῶ] is wanting in BL X &, min. Copt. Arm. Aeth. 
 Vere. Cypr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
 R. Y., but not by Weiss]. But how easily might the following οὕτω become an 
 oceasion for the omission! For the addition just of these superfluous and yet 
 peculiar words there was no reason. — Ver. 10. The second ὅτι is wanting in A 
 BDL κα, min. Slav. Vulg. It. Or. and other Fathers. Suspected by Griesb., delet- 
 ed by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective addition. — Ver. 11. διὰ μέσου] D has 
 merely écov, which, dependent on διήρχετο, is to be considered as an exegetic 
 marginal note. The μέσον written on the margin occasioned the readings διὰ 
 μέσον (BL δὲ, 28, Lachm.), which usus loguendi is foreign to the New Testament, 
 and ἀνὰ μέσον (i. 13. 69, al.). [Tisch. VIII, Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., have διὰ 
 μέσον, and with 8 BL, omit αὐτόν after ropeveolar. — Ver, 21, Tisch., W. and 
 
CHAP. XVII., 1-4. 485 
 
 Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8 B L, omit the second idov.]— Ver. 23. Before the 
 second ἰδού Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have 7, but in opposition to B D K L Χ II, 
 min. Slav. Vulg. ms. Theophylact. An addition, according to the analogy of 
 Matt. xxiv. 23. Tisch. has the arrangement ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ, ἰδοὺ ὦδε, following BL, 
 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 ὧδε first. — Ver. 24. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 
 8 BL, οἷο, omit ἡ after dorpary.| — After ἔσται Elz. has καί ; 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 
 TH ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ] 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, ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ 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 av6pwrOY . . . αὐτο. --- Ver. 27. ἐξεγαμίζοντο)] 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 καθώς, instead of καὶ ὡς.] --- Ver. 30. Here also, as at 
 vi. 23, τὰ αὐτά is to be read, in accordance with B D K X II 8** min, — [Ver. 
 33. There are a number of variations. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read περι- 
 ποιήσασθαι (with B L), as unusual, and, with δὲ Β D, 1, 33, omit the second 
 avtyv.|— Ver. 34f. The articles before εἷς and before μία 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 ὁ ἕτερος and ἡ érépa, 
 [Tisch. VIII. omits the first, but retains the second.]— After ver. 35 Elz. 
 Scholz [R. V. marg.] have (ver. 36) : Ato ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ" ὁ εἷς παραληφθήσεται, 
 x. 6 ἕτερος ἀφεθῆσ. Against such decisive evidence, that we cannot suppose an 
 omission occasioned by the homoeoteleuton (Scholz), but an interpolation from 
 Matt. xxiv. 24. — συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί] Tisch. has καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ ἐπισυναχθήσονται, 
 on very important evidence. [So recent editors, R. V.] The Recepta 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 σκάνδαλα, 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 εἶπε δὲ «.7.2. 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.’— 
 avévdextov ἐστι] equivalent to οὐκ ἐνδέχεται, xiii. 38, not preserved elsewhere 
 than in Gregor. Cor. and Artem. Oneir. 11. '70.? — τοῦ μὴ ἐλϑεῖν] the genitive 
 dependent on the neuter adjective used as a substantive (Kiihner, ITI. p. 122): 
 the impossible (impossibility) of their not coming occurs. Winer views it 
 otherwise, p. 293 [E. T. 328]. — λυσιτελεῖ αὐτῷ, εἰ] 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. 
 —j7| as xv. 7. —iva] than to deceive, i.e., than if he remained alive to deceive. 
 The being drowned is here conceived of as before the completion of the de- 
 ceiving. Matthew has it otherwise, xviii. 6. --- τῶν μικρῶν τούτων] 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 [See Note CXXXI., p. 495.] — Ver. 3. 
 ‘Considering that offences against the weak are thus eee: and pun- 
 ishable, I warn you: Be on guard for yourselves, 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 love, by that disposition therefore which was, in fact, so 
 greatly wanting to the Pharisees, that they could murmur, as at xv. 2. — 
 ἁμάρτῃ] shall have committed a fault, namely, against thee, which the context 
 proves by ἄφες αὐτῷ and ver. 4. --- ἐπιτίμ. αὐτῷ] censure him, ἐπίπληξον ἀδελφικῶς 
 τε καὶ διορϑωτικῶς, ‘‘rebuke both fraternally and correctingly,” Euthymius 
 Zigabenus. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 9. -- ἐπιστρέψῃ) a graphic touch, shall have 
 turned round, i.e., shall have come back to thee (πρός ce belongs to this). He 
 has previously ἘΠΕ away from him, and departed. — The representation 
 by means of ἐπτάκις «.7.2. (comp. Ps. cxix. 164) finds its justification in its 
 purpose, to wit, to lay stress upon forgiveness as incapable of being wearied out ; 
 hence we are not to think of the possible want of principle of such an 
 offender, 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 ων not form the necessary pre-supposition of Matt. xviii. 21. 
 
 Vy. 5, 6. At the conclusion of the whole of the great set of discourses, 
 now at length appear separately the Twelve (οἱ ἀπόστολοι, not to be identified 
 with the μαϑηταῖς in general, ver. 1, xvi. 1) with a special request. [See Note 
 CXXXII., p. 495.] They feel that the moral strength of their faith in 
 
 not occur here. 
 
 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- 
 eal.”’ But these assertions were already 
 from the Logia 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 Jahrb. 
 J. D. Theol. 1864, Ὁ. 101. 
 
 2The expression ἔνδεκτόν ἐστι occurs in 
 Apollonius, de Constr. p. 181, 10, de Adv, 
 p. 544, 1. 
 
CHAP. XVII., 7-10. 487 
 Jesus, 7.¢., 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.e., stronger 
 energetic faith ! It is addition in the sense of intensifying the quality. To 
 suppose ὦ want of connection (Paulus, Schleiermacher, de Wette, Holtzmann), 
 would be justifiable only if it were necessary for πίστις 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 ἔχετε (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.’ — ὑπήκουσεν] 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. — 
 ὃς κιτ.}.} ἐστί is to be supplied before.— εὐθέως] is connected by Erasmus, 
 Beza, Calvin, de Wette, Bleek, and others with ἐρεῖ. 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 μετὰ ταῦτα 
 φάγεσαι k.T.A., Which is the opposite of εὐθέως παρελϑ. ἀνάπεσαι. As to ἀνάπεσαι, 
 see on xiv. 10. — Ver. 8. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ κ.τ.}.1 but will he not say to him? ἀλλά re- 
 fers to the negative meaning of the foregoing question.*— ἕως φάγω κ.τ.}] until 
 1 shall have eaten and drunk, so long must the διακονεῖν last.— φάγεσαι κ. πίεσαι 
 Sutures. See Winer, pp. 81, 82 [E. T. 88, 89]. — Ver 9. μὴ χάριν ἔχει] still 
 he does not feel thankful to the servant, does he ? which would be the case if 
 the master did πού first have himself served.4— τὰ διαταχϑ.} the ploughing 
 
 1 Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 4; Kiihner, ad Xen. 
 Anab. vii. 6.15. Otherwise Buttmann in the 
 
 signifies: in a case that may happen if the 
 ease of such a miraculous transplantation 
 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1858, Ὁ. 483: ‘‘ Ye ask for an 
 increase of your faith? Have ye then not 
 enough? Verily, and if ye only had faith 
 as a grain of mustard seed, ye would be 
 able, if ye wished (i.e., if ye had confidence 
 in your own faith,—the courage of faith, — 
 or made the right use of your faith), to say 
 to this fig tree,” etc. But the ‘‘if ye wowd”’ 
 is interpolated ; the av with ἐλέγετε simply 
 
 were supposed. 
 
 2 Comp. Xen. Anabd. v. 8.18. On the mul- 
 berry tree, see Pliny, WV. H. xiii. 14; Dioscor. 
 i. 182. 
 
 3 See Kriiger, ad Anab. ii. 1. 10; Kiihner, 
 ad Mem. i. 2. 2. 
 
 4On χάριν ἔχει, comp. 1 Tim. i. 12; itis 
 purely classical, Bremi, ad Lys. p. 152, 
 
488 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 or tending. — Ver. 10. οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς x.7.2.] like the slave, to whom no thanks 
 are due. We are not to supply ἐστέ after iueic.— ἀχρεῖοι] 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 Jess than his obligation, he is hurtful ; if he come 
 up to his duty, it is true he has caused no damage, but stillneither has he 
 achieved any positive χρεία, and must hence acknowledge himself a δοῦλος 
 ἀχρεῖος, Who as being such has no claims to make on his Lord for praise 
 andreward, Judged by this ethical standard, the χρεία 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 supererogativa, but, moreover, cutting off all merit of works, forms the 
 ethical foundation of justification by faith. The meaning ‘‘ worthless” (J. 
 “Miiller, v. d. Siinde, I. p. 74) is not the signification of the word (any 
 more than in LXX. 2 Sam. vi. 22, 23), but it follows at once from this. 
 Moreover, the passage before us does not stand in contradiction to xii. 37, 
 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). 
 
 Vy. 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 αὐτός] 
 As to καί, see on v. 12. αὐτός : he on his part, independently of other 
 travellers to the festival who were wont to travel direct through Samaria, 
 Joseph. Antt. xx. 6. 1. — διὰ μέσου Σαμαρ. x. Ταλιλ.} According to the usage 
 of μέσον (with or without an article, see Sturz, Lex. Xen. 111. 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 jirst, but the πορεύεσϑαι εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ led first through 
 
 1 Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 2.54: 6 τι ἀχρεῖον 7 
 καὶ ἀνωφελές. On the contemptuous meaning, 
 see Lobeck, ad Aj. 745. 
 
 2 Otherwise Matt. xxv. 30. The different 
 reference in the two passages is explained 
 from the relative nature of the conception. 
 Bengel aptly says: ‘‘ Miser est, quem Dom- 
 inus seryum inutilem appellat Matt. xxv. 
 30; beatus, qui se ipse.... Etiam angeli 
 possunt se servos inutiles appellare Dei,” 
 “Tle is miserable, whom the Lord calls an 
 
 unprofitable servant, Matt. xxv. 30; happy, 
 who calls himself so. ...Evenangels can 
 call themselves unprofitable servants of 
 God.” 
 
 3iy. 80: Jer. xxxvii. 4; Amos v. 17; 
 Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 23. 
 
 4So Xen. Anabd, i. 4. 4: διὰ μέσον (in the 
 midst through between the two walls) δὲ pet 
 τούτων ποταμός ; Plat. Leg. vii. p. 805 E. 
 Comp. ava μέσον, Ezek. xxii. 26; 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 east, 
 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. 318), 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. See on Matt. xix. 1.— That Σαμαρείας is named jirst, has 
 its natural reason in the previous statement of the direction εἰς ‘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] οἱ 
 ἐννέα μὲν ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ἦσαν, ὁ dé εἷς Σαμαρείτης" ἡ κοινωνία δὲ τῆς νόσου τότε συνήϑροισεν 
 αὐτοὺς ἀκούσαντας, ὅτι διέρχεται ὁ Χριστός, ‘‘ 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. — πόῤῥωθεν] 
 μὴ τολμῶντες ἐγγίσαι, ‘‘ 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. αὐτοί] they on their part took the initiative. 
 —Ver. 14. ἰδών] when He had looked upon them, had His attention first di- - 
 rected to them by their cry for help. — πορευϑέντες x.t.4.] for on the road their 
 leprosy was to disappear ; see what follows, where indeed Paulus, in spite of 
 the ἐν τῷ ὑπάγειν (which is made to mean: when they agreed to go!), interprets 
 éxadapios., they were declared to be not infectious ! — τοῖς ἱερεῦσι] the Samaritan 
 to be inspected and declared clean must go to a Samaritan priest. — Ver. 15. 
 ἰδών, ὅτι ἰάϑη) even before his coming to the priest,‘ who had therefore 
 communicated to him no remedy (in opposition to Paulus),— Ver. 16. x. 
 
 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 journey from Ephraim (John 
 xi. 54). But this is totally opposed to the 
 direction (εἰς ‘Iepovc.) specified in the con- 
 text, in respect of which Jesus is wrongly 
 transferred already at x. 38 to Bethany. 
 See on ix. 51. Schleiermacher’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 Samaritan, and therefore Σαμαρείας is put 
 first. As though Luke would have written 
 in such a thoughtless mechanical fashion | 
 
 Bleek [Godet, Weiss ed. Mey.], Hofmann, 
 Weissag. τι. Frfill. Tl. p. 113; Lange, ZL. J. 
 ΤΙ: 2, p. 1065. 
 
 3 See on Mark i. 48, and the relative Rab- 
 binical regulations in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, 
 and Wetstein. 
 
 4 Τῇ the Samaritan had first been to the 
 priest (Calvin, Schleiermacher), Jesus could 
 not have put the question which He asks at 
 ver. 17 f., since the nine Jews had amuch 
 farther journey to the priests. The return 
 of the Samaritan is to be conceived of as 
 very soon after the departure, so that the 
 whole scene took place while still in the 
 village. 
 
490 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 αὐτὸς ἦν Σαμαρείτ.Ἷ andas for him, hewas a Samaritan (by way of distinction 
 from the rest). This is made use of (Strauss, II. p 58 1.) 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. οἱ 
 δέκα] all the ten; οἱ ἐννέα, the remaining nine. See Kiihner, I. p. 135 f. — 
 Ver. 18. οὐχ εὑρέϑ. x.7.2.] have they not been found as returning, etc.? Comp. 
 on Matt. i. 18. --- τῷ ded] 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.— ὁ ἀλλογενής] 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 
 ἀλλόφυλος, ἀλλοεϑνής. 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 faith (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 to 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 ?— μετὰ παρατηρήσεως] μετά 
 of accompanying circumstances (Bernhardy, p. 255) : wnder observation, 7.é., 
 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 dzapatfpyrov—it develops itself wnnoticed. This 
 statement, however, does not deny that the kingdom is ὦ 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, παρατήρησις would convey the idea of malice (insidiosa observatio, 
 ‘insidious observation,” Polybius, xvi. 22. 8) ; but in the further descrip- 
 tive οὐδὲ (not even) ἐροῦσιν x.t.2., is implied only the denial of the visibility of 
 the event which, developing itself (‘‘ gradatim et successive,” ‘‘ gradually 
 and successively,” Bengel), might be able to be observed (comp. παρατήρησις 
 τῶν ἄστρων, 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 when 
 it shall come (πότε, ver. 20) be specified. The idea: with pomp (Beza, 
 
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). — οὐδὲ ἐροῦσιν] Grotius aptly says : ‘‘non erit 
 quod dicatur,” ‘‘it will not be because it may be said.” 1 — ἰδοὺ γάρ] a lively 
 and emphatic repetition of the ἰδού at the beginning of the argument 
 urged against them. This, as well as the repetition of the subject, 7 
 Baow. τ. Θεοῦ, has in it something solemn. — ἐντὸς ὑμῶν] the contrary of 
 ἐκτός, ἔξω : intra vos, in your circle, in the midst of you.? So Euthymius Zi- 
 gabenus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel [R. V. marg.], and others, 
 including Kuinoel, Paulus, Schleiermacher, Fleck in Winer’s Hzeg. Stud. I. 
 p. 150 ff., Bornemann, Kaeuffer, de ζωῆς ai. not. p. 51, de Wette, Ewald, 
 Bleek, Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11. 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 (μέσος ὑμῶν, 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 (γάρ) from the ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν 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 ἔρχεσθαι, which He means refers to the development in time; an 
 evasion, however, which was fully calculated to make them feel 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 ἐντὸς ὑμῶν by in animis vestris, ‘‘in your 
 souls” (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Vatablus, and 
 others, including Ch. F. Fritzsche in Rosenmiiller, Repert. II. p. 154 ff., 
 Olshausen, Gléckler, Schaubach in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 169 ΕἾ, 
 Ko6stlin, 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 ὑμῶν 
 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; 
 Coli. 1:3): 
 
 10On the more definite future after the 
 more general present, see Dissen, ad Dem. 
 de Cor. p. 368 f. 
 
 2Comp. Xen. Anabd.i. 10. 3: ὁπόσα ἐντὸς 
 αὐτῶν καὶ χρήματα καὶ ἄνϑρωποι ἐγίνοντο ; Hell. 
 li. 3.19; Thue. vii. 5. 3; Dem. 977. 7; Plat. 
 Leg. vii. p. 789 A: évtos τῶν ἑαυτῶν μητέρων ; 
 Aelian, Hist. ii. 5. 15. 
 
 3So also Lange, Z. J. II. 2, p. 1080, yet 
 blending with it the other explanation. 
 
 4 Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 45 B, Soph. p. 263 E, 
 Pol. iii. p. 401 Ὁ ; Ps. xxxviii. 4, cix. 22, ciii. 
 1; Ecclus. xix. 23; Matt. xxiii. 26. 
 
 5 Quite opposed to the words of the pas- 
 sage is the evasion of Olshausen, that the 
 expression only establishes the possibility of 
 the reception of the Pharisees into the king- 
 dom, inasmuch as the inwardness of its 
 revelation is laid down as its general erite- 
 rion, 
 
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 sowrce of the account of the journey. [See Note 
 CXXXYV., p. 496.] This and 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. — μίαν τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. avOp. ἰδεῖν] 1.€., to see the 
 appearance of a single day of the Messianic period (of the αἰὼν μέλλων), 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 Messianic day in this time of tribulation !—a longing indeed not to be 
 realized, 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 perfruimini, frui 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. — καὶ οὐκ 
 ὄψεσθε] because, to wit, the point of time of the Parousia is not yet come; it 
 has its horas et moras. 
 
 Vv. 23, 24. [See Note CXXXVL., p. 496 seq.] See on Matt. xxiv. 23-27. — 
 ἐροῦσιν K.t.2.] 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. — ἰδοὺ... ὧδε] namely: is the Messiah! 
 — μὴ ἀπέλθ. μηδὲ διώξ.] a 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. 
 Ῥ. 503. —é« τῆς] Supply yépac:' flashing out from the one region under the heaven 
 (which expands under the heaven, ὑπό with an accusative) lightens even to 
 the other (opposite one ὅ). --- οὕτως] 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. 
 
 1See Bos, Hilips. 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. Psy 405 
 
 Vv. 26, 27. [See Note CXXXVI., p. 496 seq.] Comp. Matt. xxiv. 37 f. — 
 καθὼς ἐγένετο κ.τ.}.} to wit, that men carelessly and securely pursued their 
 accustomed striving till they were overtaken by the flood. — ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις 
 τ. υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρώπου] in the days in which the appearance of the Messiah will 
 come. — Ver. 27. ἤσθιον, ἔπινον x.t.4.] a vividly graphic asyndeton. — καὶ 
 ἦλθεν] not to be connected with ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας (Bleek). See Gen. vii. 4, 10. 
 
 Vv. 28-30. Ὁμοίως] does not belong to ἅπαντας (Bornemann, who assumes 
 a Latinism : perdidit omnes pariter atque ut accidit), against which is to be 
 set the similarity of the twofold καὶ ἀπώλεσεν ἅπαντας, VV. 27 and 29. More- 
 over, we are not to conceive of ἔσται again after ὁμ. καί (Paulus, Bleek), 
 against which is ver. 30; but similiter quoque, sicuti accidit, etc. ‘This 
 ὁμοίως καί is afterwards again taken up by κατὰ τὰ αὐτά, ver. 30, and the ἤσθιον 
 
 . ἅπαντας that lies between the two is eperegetically annexed to the ὡς 
 ἐγένετο, as in vii. 11, viii. 40, and frequently ; so that ἤσθιον. . . ἅπαντας is 
 not to be put in a parenthesis at all (Lachmann), but neither is any point 
 to be placed after ἅπαντας (Tischendorf). — Ver. 29 f. ἔβρεξε] scil. θεός. 
 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).’— πῦρ x. θεῖον] Comp. Hom. Od. xxii. 493 ; it is 
 not to be transformed into lightnings (Kuinoel) ; Jesus follows the repre- 
 sentation of Gen. xix. — ἀποκαλύπτεται] is revealed, 1 Pet. v. 4; 1 Johnii. 
 28, iii. 2. Up to that time He is hidden with God in His glory, Col. iii. 
 ai se ΠΗ ΘΗ͂ΒΙ 1. 7 3-1 Cor, 1.073, Ὁ Pet<1:, 8, 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 /ife must be abandoned by him who 
 wishes not to lose the life eternal. — ὃς ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ δώμ. 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. — καὶ τ. ox. αὐτοῦ] see Bern- 
 hardy, p. 304. — Ver. 32. τῆς γυναικὸς Λώτ. 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 1, — Ver. 33. [See Note CXXXVI., p. 496 seq.] Comp. ix. 24, and on 
 Matt. x. 39; Mark viii. 856. -- ζητήσῃ. . . ἀπολέσῃ] in the time of that final 
 catastrophe ἀπολέσει... Cwoyov.: in the decision at the Parousia.—fwoyoveir, 
 to preserve alive, as Acts vii. 19, and in the LXX. See Biel and Schleusner. 
 
 Vv. 34, 35. 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. 
 
 1 On 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. —ratry τῇ νυκτί] which Bengel, in 
 opposition to the context, explains : in this present night, is neither to be 
 interpreted in tempore illo calamitoso, ‘‘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 CXXXVI., 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 knoweth not, Matt. 
 xxiv. 36; comp. Acts i. 7. —éxi κλίνης μιᾶς] 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. Ποῦ] not : guomodo (Kuinoel), against which ungrammatical ren- 
 dering even the following ὅπου ought to have guarded him ; but: where will 
 this separation occur? As to what follows, see on Matt. xxiv. 28.7 [See 
 Note CXXXVI., p. 496 seq. ] 
 
 Remark. —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 the 
 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, IT. 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 with 
 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 
 
 1Ttis not on account of the example of the night-time suggested that illustration. 
 two in bed together that the night is named 2On σῶμα, corpse (of man or beast, the 
 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. Il. 2, p. 626 [Weiss latter here), see Duncan, Lew. Homer. ed. 
 ed. Mey.]), but conversely the idea of the Rost, p. 1069. Comp. xxiii. 52; Acts ix. 40, 
 
NOTES. 495 
 
 characteristic words—lightning, deluge, eagles. [See Note CXXXV., 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.e., originality modified by the reflection and expectation of the 
 church (see on Matt. xxiv., Remarks). 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITor. 
 
 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. 
 
 OXXXII. Ver. 5. Kai εἶπαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι k.7.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. ὑπήκουσεν ἂν ὑμῖν. 
 
 The R. V. renders: ‘it would have obeyed you,’ but the Am. Com. 
 substitute : ‘‘it would obey.” The former is not correct, either as 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 av 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 the time of this incident. The better supported reading διὰ μέσον 
 x. 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 Samari- 
 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 αὐτόν, which Meyer does not notice, leaves 
 it uncertain what is the subject of πορεύεσϑαι. 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.). 
 
 CXXXY. 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 γάρ to the universally visible appearance which renders the 
 matter of locality (‘lo there, lo here’) unnecessary. Properly rejecting the 
 article after ἀστραπή, he renders ἀστράπουσα : ‘* 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 is improbable. 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). He accepts περιποιήσασϑαι ; 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, “ἴῃ 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 καῇ BLM 8, min. Copt. codd. of It. Or. have dé So Lachm. 
 Tisch. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.]. But the καί, which might be dispensed 
 with, was easily passed over ; it is wanting also in ver. 9 in not unimportant 
 authorities (bracketed by Lachm.). After προσεύχ. Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 αὐτούς. Itis preponderatingly attested ; there would have been no reason for 
 its addition ; while in favor of its omission, the word being superfluous, it may 
 be noticed that προσεύχεσθατῇ 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 δὲ A B* D, have ἐνκακεῖν ; 
 Treg., R. V., ἐγκακειν (B? L), instead of the poorly-attested ἐκκακεῖν, which Meyer 
 retains. — Ver. 4. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 A BD L, versions, read 
 ἤθελεν, and, with δὲ BL, οὐδὲ ἄνθρωπον instead of καὶ ἄνθρ. οὐκ. — Ver. 5. ὑπω- 
 πιάζῃ] Griesb. recommends ὑποπιάζῃ on insufficient attestation. It was altered 
 from misunderstanding, as also in the case of the variant ὑποπιέζῃ. Comp. on 
 1 Cor. ix. 27. — Ver. 7. ποιήσει] ποιήσῃ isso decisively attested that, with Lachm. ἡ 
 Tisch., it is to be adopted. The future was introduced by anticipation of ver. 
 8.— [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, read αὐτῷ, instead of πρὸς airév.] 
 — μακροθυμεῖ (Lachm. Tisch.) is also attested quite decisively, instead of which 
 μακροθυμῶν (Elz.) was intended to assist the construction of the sentence. — 
 Ver. 13. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with δὲ B L, Copt., read 6 dé reA.] 
 - εἰς before τ, στῆϑος is wanting in BD KLQXTII δὲ, min. Slay. Arm. Vulg. 
 It. Or. Antioch. Cypr. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. [So recent editors, R. V.] 
 But why should it have been added? As being perfectly superfluous (comp. 
 xxiii. 48, xxii. 64), it was overlooked. — Ver. 14. Elz. has 7 ἐκεῖνος, which, on 
 decisive evidence, is to be condemned. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. have ἢ yap 
 ἐκεῖνος, following AEGHKMPQSUVXTIAA, min. Syr. Goth. Bas. ms. 
 Theophyl. Grot. and Lachm. [Treg. text, W. and Hort, Weiss] have παρ᾽ ἐκεῖ- 
 νον, in accordance with Β L &, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Naz. (Vulg. : ab illo). To 
 these is added also indirectly D, with μᾶλλον παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν Φαρισαῖον (comp. 
 Syr. Pers.P It. Cypr. Hilar. Ambr. Aug.). The reading of Lachm. is consequently 
 the oldest ; and since ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος is opposed to the sense, it is to be judged 
 that TAP came into the text instead of ΠᾺΡ by a transcriber’s error of ancient 
 date, and became blended with the gloss ἢ éxeivoc.— Ver. 15. ἐπετίμησαν] 
 BDGLRX, min. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐπετίμων ; the Recepta is from Matt. xix. 
 13. —[Ver. 16. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, Copt., read προσεκα- 
 λέσατο αὐτὰ λέγων. ---- Ver. 21. Tisch., recent editors, have ἐφύλαξα with δὲ A BL, 
 while Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., omit the second cov in ver. 20, with A Β Ὁ L, 
 Vulg.]— Ver. 22. διάδος] ADL ΜΕ Δ δα, min. Fathers have δός. So Lachm, 
 It is from the parallels, from which, moreover, came also ἐν οὐρανῷ, instead of 
 which is to be read, with Lachm. [Treg., Weiss, R. V.] and Tisch., following 
 BD, ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (A L RR (Tisch, VIII.] read : évo ipavoic). — [Tisch., re- 
 cent editors, R. V., with δὲ Β Ὁ L, 1, 33, 69, Copt., Syrr., omit ταῦτα after ἀκού- 
 
CHAP. XVIII., 1-3. 499 
 
 σας dé. — Ver. 23. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BL, read ἐγενήθη.  --- 
 Ver. 24. περίλυπ. yevou.] is wanting in BL δὲ, 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 εἰσπορεύονται, with B ΤΙ, 
 placing it at the close.] — Ver. 25. τρυμαλιᾶς] Lachm. and Tisch. have τρήματος, 
 in accordance with B D8, 49. Rightly ; in accordance with Matthew and 
 Mark, there was introduced in some authorities τρυπήματος (L R, min.), in 
 others τρυμαλιᾶς (A E F G, etc., Elz.). — Instead of ῥαφίδος read, with Lachm, 
 and Tisch., βελόνης, in accordance with Β Ὁ 1 δὲ, min. The former is from 
 the parallels. — εἰσελθεῖν] Lachm. has διελθεῖν. It is more weakly attested, and 
 the reading is to be decided as at Matt. xix. 24. —Ver. 28. ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καί] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀφέντες τὰ ἴδια, in accordance with B Ὁ 1, N** min. 
 vss., and this Griesb. also recommended. The Recepta is from the parallels. — 
 [Ver. 29. Tisch., W. and Hort, R. V., with 8 BL, Copt., have this order : yv- 
 ναῖκα,ἢ ἀδελφούς, ἢ γονεῖς. ] --- Ver. 30. ἀπολάβῃ] Β Ὁ M, min. have λάβῃ. So Lachm. 
 The simple form is from the parallels, just as D, in particular, takes ἐὰν μὴ λάβῃ 
 from Mark x. 30. -— [Ver. 35. Tisch., recent editors, with 8 BDL, Origen, have 
 ἐπαιτῶν. ] — Ver. 39. σιωπῆσῃ] The preponderatingly attested σιγήσῃ is adopted 
 by Schulz, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallels. In the New 
 Testament only Luke and Paul have the verb σιγᾶν. --- Ver. 41. λέγων before τί 
 is, with Tisch., to be deleted, in accordance with Β Ὁ L X 8, 57, as a familiar 
 addition, instead of which Or, has εἰπών. 
 
 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 ἐκδίκησις 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 CXXXVII., 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) isa transferring of later relations to an 
 early period without sufficient reason. — πρός] in reference to. — πάντοτε] 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, πάντοτε is not to be pressed, but to be taken in a popularly 
 hyperbolical sense. Comp. ver. 7; 1 Thess. i. 17. — ἐκκακεῖν] 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 ἐγκ. 
 (and Tischendorf : év«.), which, although here preponderatingly attested, 
 is to be regarded as an improvement, see on 2 Cor. iv. 1. [But see criti- 
 cal note. | 
 
 Vv. 2, 3. Tov θεὸν... κ. ἄνθρωπ. x.t.4.] Similar characterizations 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.” — ἐντρεπόμ.] 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 ἐντρεπόμ. is respect and regard. — ijp- 
 yero] Grotius aptly says: ventitabat, ‘‘ kept coming.” — See Kiihner, II. p.76 f. 
 — ἐκδίκησόν μὲ ἀπὸ κ.τ.}.} revenge me (and deliver me by this my judicial 
 restitution) of, etc.’ 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. ᾿Επὶ χρόνον] for a time.? — διάγε] as at xi. 8. — ἵνα μὴ κ.τ.λ.] 15 ex- 
 plained : that she may not continually (εἰς τέλος equal to διὰ τέλους, see Kypke 
 and Wetstein ; comp. WW, ΤΙΣ) come and plague me. See also Luther's 
 gloss. But that ὑπωπιάζω (to strike any one’s eyes black and blue, see Wetstein) 
 is to be taken in the general sense of harass, annoy, thereis no proof, since it 
 is an error to adduce not merely 1 Cor. ix. 27, but also Aristoph. Paw 541, 
 where the πόλεις ὑπωπιασμέναι are represented as smitten and wounded 
 persons, and hence the word is to be taken in the Jiteral 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 (ὁ κρίτης τῆς ἀδικίας, see on Xvi. 8) 
 says! But God, will He not, etc. In this contrast lies the conclusion that 
 the éxgixyorc, 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 ery to Him for the final decision. On ov μῇ 
 in a question, see Winer, pp. 449, 454 [E. T. 506, 511 f.]. — According 
 to the reading x. μακροθυμεῖ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς (see the critical remarks), the most 
 simple explanation is : but God, will He not fulfil the avenging of His 
 clect, and does He tarry 4 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 exiguum est imo momentaneum, 
 
 1Comp. Judg. xi. 36: ποιῆσαι σοι κύριον 
 ἐκδίκησιν. . ἀπὸ τῶν viov ᾿Αμμών. 
 
 3 Hom. 71. ii. 299; Plat. Protag. Ὁ. 344 B, 
 Phaed. Ὁ. 84 C; Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, 
 ed. 3, p. 284. 
 
 7 On εἰς τέλος, at the end, finally, comp. 
 Herod. iii. 40, ix. 87; Xen. Oec. xvii. 10; 
 Soph. Phil. 407, and thereupon Hermann ; 
 
 Gen. xlvi. 4, and elsewhere. τέλος, without 
 any preposition, might also have been used. 
 
 4 The expression μακροθυμεῖ corresponds 
 to the idea of the ἐκδίκησις, which includes 
 within it the punishment of the enemies. 
 
 5 See Ecclus. xxxii. 18. Comp. Maldona- 
 tus, Grotius, Bornemann in the Stud. @ 
 Stichs. Geistl. 1842, p. 69 f., Bleek. 
 
CHAP. XVIII., 8. 501 
 unde τὸ παραυτίκα τῆς θλίψεως, dixit Paulus, 2 Cor. iv. 17,” ‘‘ That very time, 
 however long it may seem meanwhile to those enduring, is in fact short, nay 
 momentary, hence Paul spoke of ‘affliction, which is for the moment,’ 2 Cor. 
 iv. 17.” According to Bengel and Ewald, καὶ μακροθυμεῖ ἐπ᾽ ait. is connected 
 hebraistically with τῶν βοώντων : and over them He is forbearing ; whereby 
 the delay of the ἐκδίκησις 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 ἐν τάχει. 
 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 ἐκδίκησις of 
 them ; καίτοι μακροθυμῶν καὶ φαινόμενος ἀνηκουστεῖν τῶν δεομένων αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς καὶ 
 ἡμέρας, ““ although long-suffering and seeming to be deaf to those praying to 
 Him night and day,” Theophylact, not, with Hassler (in the Tiib. Zeitschrift, 
 1832) : since He is still patient towards them, i. e., does not lose patience as 
 that judge did. For, apart from the incorrect view of the use of the καί, the 
 thought itself is unsuited to the doctrinal narrative, since it was actually 
 through the judge’s /oss of patience (rather: his becoming annoyed) that the 
 ἐκδίκησις Of the woman was brought about. Moreover, de Wette is wrong in 
 remarking against the reading μακροθυμεῖ, and its meaning, that if the thought 
 that God delays were removed, the parable would have no meaning at all, 
 since μακροθ. corresponds to the οὐκ ἤθελ. ἐπὶ χρόνον, ver. 4. Therein is lost 
 sight of the fact that the example of the unrighteous judge teaches ὁ con- 
 trario (see already Augustine, Serm. 36) the procedure of God. [See Note 
 CXXXIX., p. 506.] — The ἐκδίκησις τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν 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 ἐκδίκησις 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 easily 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) ποιήσει 
 . . . αὐτῶν, and (2) ἐν τάχει. --- This ἐν τάχει is the opposite of delay (uaxpo- 
 θυμεῖ, ver. 7) : quickly, without delay,? declaring the speedy advent * of the 
 Parousia (ix. 27), at which shall follow the ἐκδίκησις. [See Note CXL., 
 p. 506 seq. |] — πλὴν ὁ υἱὸς x.7.2.] It is to be accentuated dpa (so also Lachmann 
 
 1 Lange is wronginsaying: althougheven ple, Ebrard does on Rey. i.1, Ὁ. 104. ‘‘ There 
 
 over them He rules high-mindedly (and 
 therefore inscrutably). 
 
 2 Acts xii. 7, xxii. 18, xxv. 4; Rom. xvi. 
 20); ΠῚ πῆρ 11 14 Revi. ἢ 1. ἢ 8. xxii. (6: 
 Wisd. xviii. 14; Pind. Nem. vy. 35; Ken. Cyr. 
 νἱ, 1.192. 
 
 3 Τῦ is in vain to weary oneself and twist 
 about in the attempt to explain away this 
 simple meaning of the words, as, for exam- 
 
 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 wnexpectedly hasty ending 
 to the condition of tribulation that precedes 
 it.” See, on the other hand, Diisterdieck. 
 [See Note CXL., p. 506 seq.] 
 
502 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 and Tischendorf) } comp. on Gal. ii. 17. In connection with the glad 
 promise, to wit, which Jesus has just given in reference to the elect, there 
 comes painfully into His consciousness the thought what a want of faith in 
 Him He would nevertheless meet with at His Parousia. This He expresses 
 in the sorrowful question : Nevertheless will the Son of man when He is come 
 Jind faith on the earth ὃ Theophylact well says : ἐν σχήματι ἐρωτήσεως τὸ σπά- 
 νιον τῶν τότε εὑρεθησομένων πιστῶν ὑποσημαίνων, ‘indicating in the form of 
 a question the fewness of those who will then be found faithful.” The 
 subject : ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀνθρ. and ἐλθών is, with a sorrowful emphasis, placed before 
 the interrogative dpa, on account of the contrast with what follows. See 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 188. The πίστις is the faith in Jesus the Messiah, which 
 many of His confessors not persevering unto the end will have given up, so 
 that they do not belong to the elect (Matt. xxiv. 5, 10 ff., 24), and He will 
 meet them as unbelievers.!. [See Note CXL., p. 506 seq.] Hence thereis no 
 reason for concluding from the passage before us (de Wette), that the put- 
 ting of the parable into its present shape probably belongs to a time when 
 the hope of the Parousia had begun somewhat to waver (2 Pet. iii. 3 f.). — 
 ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] is correlative with the coming down from heaven, which is meant 
 by ἐλθών. 
 
 Ver. 9. It is the more arbitrary to assume that the following doctrinal 
 narrative was originally delivered in another connection (Paulus, Olshausen, 
 de Wette ; comp. Kuinoel), that it rather affords a confirmation of the 
 probability (see on xvii. 22) that the Pharisees, after our Lord’s rejoinder to 
 them, xvil. 20 f., were no longer present. The historical connection with 
 what precedes is not more closely to be indicated than is pointed out by the 
 characterization of the τινές as τοὺς πεποιθ. κιτ.3. These men, according to 
 ver. 9, must in some way or another have made manifest their disposition, 
 and thereby have given occasion to Jesus to deliver the following discourse 
 as far as ver. 14. Who are the people? Assuredly not Pharisees, since it is 
 actually a Pharisee that Jesus presents as a warning example. Possibly they 
 were conceited followers of Jesus (Schleiermacher, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius), but more probably : Jews of a Pharisaic disposition, since Luke 
 does not here, as at ver. 1, designate the disciples expressly, and it was just 
 for Jews of this kind that not only the example of the Pharisee, but also that 
 of the publican, was the most humiliating. —zpdéc] He spoke to them. To 
 take it as at ver. 1 (Kuinoel, de Wette, and many others) is unsuitable, since 
 there are persons in this place, and the context suggests no occasion for de- 
 parting from the usual ad quosdam (Vulgate). — τέρας τοὺς πεποιθότας] desig- 
 nates the persons in the abstract indefinitely, but in the quality in question 
 specifically.? — ἐφ᾽ éavr.] they put on themselves the confidence that they were 
 righteous. For others they did not entertain this confidence, but assumed 
 the contrary and despised them. 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. Σταϑείς] See on Matt. vi. 5. He took his stand, a trait of 
 
 1 So many, as the Lord sees, shall be se- | whether He shall find faith. Herein lies a 
 duced into unbelief (as to the ἐνεστὼς αἰὼν sorrowful hyperbole of expression. 
 πονηρός, comp. on Gal. i. 4), that in grief 2See on Gal. i. 7, and Bornemann, Schol, 
 thereat He puts the question generally, p. 118 ; Bernhardy, p. 318. 
 
CHAP. XVIII., 13, 14. 503 
 assurance, comp. xix. 8; Acts ii. 14. See, on the other hand, ver. 18 : 
 μακρόϑεν ἑστώς. --- πρὸς ἑαυτόν] does not belong to σταϑείς, so that it would 
 mean apart (Syr., Beza, Grotius, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and 
 others), which would be «a ἑαυτόν," as D actually reads ; but to προσηύχετο 
 (Luther, Castalio, Bengel, Wetstein, and others, including Olshausen, de 
 Wette, Bleek *) : by himself, to himself, apud animum suum, as at 2 Mace. xi. 
 13, and frequently in the classical writers : λέγειν πρὸς ἑαυτόν, to speak in 
 thought, and the like. Naturally he would not allow such a prayer to be 
 heard. The publican is otherwise, ver. 13. — ὅτε οὐκ εἰμὶ x.7.2.] πρότερον yap 
 εἶπεν ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν, καὶ τότε κατέλεξεν ἅ ἐστιν, ‘‘ For he first tells what he is not, 
 and then recounts what he is,” Theophylact. — oi λοιποὶ τῶν avdp.] comp. 
 Rev. ix. 20 ; Kiihner, II. p. 122.2— ἄδικοι] unjust in the more limited sense. 
 — ὡς οὗτος ὁ τελώνης] contemptuously, this publican here! ‘* who skins and 
 scrapes every one, and clutches wherever he can,” Luther, Predigt. — Ver. 12. 
 νηστεύω] οἵ private fasting, which was observed twice in the week (τοῦ σαββ.; 
 Mark xvi. 9; 1 Cor. xvi. 2), on Thursday and Monday. See on Matt. vi. 
 16, ix. 14 ; Lightfoot, p. 866. — κτῶμαι] not possideo, ‘‘I possess” (Vulgate, 
 Castalio, Beza, and others), which would be κέκτημαι, but : what I acquire 
 Jor myself. He gives tithes of everything, what he gains in natural products, 
 everything without exception. The vainglorious πάντα ὅσα has the empha- 
 sis ; his payment of tithes is beyond what the law required, as at Matt. xxiii. 
 23. Moreover, comp. Pirke Aboth, 11. 13: ‘‘ Quando oras, noli in precibus 
 bona tua enumerare, sed fac preces misericordiarum et pro gratia impetran- 
 da coram Deo,” ‘‘ Whenever thou prayest, be unwilling to enumerate in thy 
 prayers thy good deeds, but make prayers of wretchedness and for the ob- 
 taining of grace with God.” 
 
 Vv. 13, 14. Maxpéfev] comp. xxiii. 49. The context gives as the mean- 
 ing neither: the forecourt of the Gentiles (the publican was a Jew), 
 nor: far from the sanctuary, but: far away from the Pharisee, of whom 
 hitherto our Lord has been speaking. Behind this bold, self-righteous man 
 the humble one in the diffidence of his consciousness of sin had remained 
 at a distance, not venturing to advance further. — ἑστώς] ‘‘ Nec orafeic, nec 
 in genua procumbens, ne spectetur orans,” ‘‘ Neither standing, nor bending 
 the knee, lest he should be observed while praying,” Bengel. — οὐδὲ τοὺς 
 ὀφθαλμούς) not even his eyes, to say nothing of his whole head and his hands 
 (1 Tim. ii. 8; and see Grotius).4 — The beating of the breast was the out- 
 ward sign of mourning. See on viii. 52. If the Pharisee had only a proud 
 thanksgiving, the publican has only a humble petition.— μοι τῷ duapt.] Ob- 
 serve the article. Bengel rightly says; ‘‘de nemine alio homine cogitat,” 
 
 1 Xen. Anab. v. 10. 11; Acts xxviii. 16. 
 das. ii. 17; Zech. xii. 12. 
 
 2 From this construction it is plain that in 
 B L X** min. Vulg. Copt. Arm. Slay. Or. 
 Bas. Cypr. πρὸς ἑαυτ. stands after ταῦτα. [So 
 recent editors, R. V., while Tisch. improp- 
 erly omits the phrase. ] 
 
 3“ Duas classes Pharisaeus facit ; in alte- 
 ram conjicit totum genus humanum, altera, 
 
 melior, ipse sibi solus esse videtur,’’ ‘‘ The 
 Pharisee makes two classes ; in the one he 
 places the whole human race; the other, 
 the better one, he himself seems alone 
 to be,” Bengel. 
 
 4 Comp. Tacitus, Hist. iv. 72: ‘‘ Stabant 
 conscientia flagitii moestae fixis in terram 
 oculis.”’ 
 
504 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 ‘the thinks about no other man.” — Ver. 14. κατέβη «.7.4.] ἃ lively picture 
 of the result, in which the emphasis rests on παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον, as is shown by the 
 following ὅτι πᾶς x.7.2.— δεδικ. ] in the Pauline sense : justified, i.e., accepted 
 by God as righteous. The Epistle to the Romans is the most complete com- 
 mentary on the whole of this doctrinal history, without, however, it being 
 necessary to take the publican as the representative of heathenism (Schenkel). 
 — The reading παρ᾽ ἐκεῖνον (see the critical remarks) is in the sense of the 
 comparison (xili. 2, 4; Bernhardy, p. 258 f.): prae illo, in respect of 
 which the context decides whether what is declared is applicable to the 
 other one in question, only in a lesser degree [Weiss ed. Mey.] (as xiii. 2, 
 4), or not at all (as here ; comp. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 14), whether, there- 
 fore, the expressed preference is relative or absolute.’ Comp. Luther’s 
 gloss: ‘‘ The former went home, not justified, but condemned.” It is 
 similar at Matt. xxi. 31; John iii, 19; 1 Tim. i. 4. The reading: ἢ 
 yap ἐκεῖνος, would have to be explained interrogatively, and that not in the 
 sense of the familiar interrogative form : 7 ydp, isit not true? (Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 594), but, with Bornemann (and Gléckler) : ‘‘ or did the former 
 one go justified to his house?” But how unsuitable in the connection (it is 
 otherwise at xx. 4), since λέγω ὑμῖν leads one to expect, and actually sup- 
 plies, only a categorical statement ἢ And this use of γάρ after the interroga- 
 tive ἢ is rationally conceivable, it is true, but no instance of it can be pro- 
 duced. The Recepta ἢ ἐκεῖνος, although critically objectionable, is founded 
 on the correct feeling that 7 in this place could only be the usual compara- 
 tive, but γάρ alongside of it would be meaningless.— ὅτε πᾶς κ.τ.}.} as Xiv. 
 11. [See Note CXLI., p. 507.] 
 
 Vv. 15-17. See on Matt. xix. 13-15 ; Mark x. 13-16. The peculiar 
 source of which Luke has hitherto availed himself, which supplied the ma- 
 terial from ix. 51, now ends, or Luke leaves it, and becomes substantially 
 synoptic again, following Mark especially, although, while he does so, he 
 still has special passages of his own (see especially xix. 1-10). The place 
 and time of what follows as far as ver. 31 are, according to Luke, still the 
 same as of what has preceded (from xvii. 11).— καὶ τὰ βρέφη] their children 
 also, so that not merely the people themselves came to Him. The word it- 
 self marks out the children more specially (infants, ii. 12, 16) than radia 
 in Matthew and Mark, the latter of whom Luke follows, although omitting 
 his conclusion, ver. 16, to which abbreviating treatment no special purpose 
 (in opposition to Hofmann, 11. 2, p. 194) is to be imputed. — ἅπτηται] the 
 present tense, brings the situation before us.— Ver. 16. προσκαλ. αὐτά] He di- 
 rected His call to the infants themselves (probably : come to me, little 
 ones !), and then spoke to those who carried them, ete. 
 
 Vv. 18-27. See on Matt. xix. 16-26 ; Mark x. 17-27.— ἄρχων] perhaps 
 aruler of the synagogue ; comp. Matt. ix. 18. Luke alone has this more 
 precise designation of the man from tradition, and herein diverges from 
 Matt. xix. 20.—In the answer of Jesus, ver. 19, Luke simply follows Mark, 
 abbreviating also at ver. 20. The Marcionite reading : ὁ γὰρ ἀγαθὸς εἷς ἐστὶν, 
 
 1 See also van Hengel, ad Rom. I. p. 138 f. 
 
CHAP. XVIII., 28-43. 505 
 
 ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, is nothing but an old gloss (in opposition to Volkmar, Hilgen- 
 feld), not more Marcionite than the reading of the text, and this latter is no 
 anti-Marcionite alteration. Both forms of the expression are already found in 
 Justin, and our gospel of Luke is to be regarded (Zeller, Apostelg. p. 32 f.) as 
 his source for the form which agrees with the passage before us (6. Tryph. 101). 
 Comp. on Mark x. 17.— Ver. 22. ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει] does not presuppose the 
 truth, but only the case of what is affirmed by the ἄρχων. It does not, 
 moreover, assert the necessity of selling one’s goods and distributing them 
 to the poor, in order to be perfect in general, but only for the person in 
 question, in accordance with his special circumstances, for the sake of 
 special trial. See on Matt. xix. 21. Hence there is not to be found, 
 with de Wette, in the words an application of the saying of Jesus that gives 
 any pretext for mistaken representations. 
 
 Vv. 28-30. See on Matt. xix. 27-29 ; Mark x. 28-30, the latter of whom 
 Luke follows with abridgment.— dc οὐ μὴ «.7.2.] Comp. Mark xiii. 2. In 
 respect of no one who has forsaken, etc., will it be the case that he does 
 not receive, etc. In the choice of ἀπολάβῃ there is implied the idea of what 
 he receives being due.’ 
 
 Vv. 31-34. See on Matt. xx. 17-19; Mark x. 32-34. Luke, it is true, 
 abridges Mark’s narrative, yet he also expands it by the reference to the 
 fulfilment of Scripture, ver. &1, and by the observation in ver. 34. — 
 παραλαβὼν «.t.A.| A continuation of the journey, on which at ver. 35 ff. the 
 narrative then again lingers at Jericho.—r6 vid τ. ἀνθρ.1 belongs to ra 
 yeypaup., next to which it stands : everything shall be completed, i.e., shall 
 come to its complete actual fulfilment (comp. xxii. 37), which is written by 
 the prophets with reference to the Son of man (with the destination for Him, in 
 order to become actual in Him).? The reading περὶ τοῦ vi. τ. ἀνθρ. (Ὁ, Vulg. 
 al.) is an inaccurate gloss on the correct construction. Others * connect it 
 with τελεσθ., and explain either : wpon the Son of man, as Matt. xiii. 14 (so 
 the majority), or of Him (Bornemann, following Beza), But even apart 
 from the fact that the position of the words rather suggests the connection 
 given above, the unlimited πάντα ra yeyp. is opposed to the latter, since the 
 prophets have written much, which was neither to be fulfilled wpon nor 47 
 the Messiah. Besides, the following ver. 32 f. is opposed to Bornemann, 
 seeing it is not there said what the Messiah should do, but what He should 
 suffer. — Ver. 34. An emphatic prolixity, even more than at ix. 45. The 
 failure to understand has reference not to the meaning of the words, but to 
 the fact as the Messianic destiny.— ἀπ’ αὐτῶν] comp. ix. 45, x. 21, xix. 42, 
 frequently in the LXX. 
 
 Vv. 35-43. See on Matt. xx. 29-34 ; Mark x. 46-52. Luke, reproducing 
 Mark’s narrative in an abridged form, adds nevertheless independently the 
 important conclusion (ver. 43), and follows a variation of the tradition in 
 
 1 Comp. xvi. 25, vi. 34, xxiii. 41; Dem. 78. comp. 3 Macc. vi. 41. 
 
 8: av τε λάβητε, av τ᾽ ἀπολάβητε ; 162. 17: 3 Castalio and many more, including Kui- 
 λαμβάνειν μὲν οὐκ εἴων, ἀπολαμβάνειν δὲ συνε- noel, Bornemann, Schegg, comp. Buttmann, 
 βούλενον. Neut. Gr. p. 154 [E. T. 178], who refers it to 
 
 2 On the dative of reference with γράφειν, both τελεσθ. and γεγραμμ. 
 
506 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 transposing the circumstance so as to make it precede the entry. [See Note 
 CXLII., p. 507.] But the purpose of annexing the history of Zacchaeus was 
 in no wise needed to occasion this departure from Mark (in opposition to 
 Bleek and Holtzmann). — Ver. 36. τί εἴη τοῦτο] without ἄν (see the critical re- 
 marks), asks, quite specifically, what this should be (not : what this might pos- 
 sibly be). — Ver. 43. The poetic αἶνος (see Buttmann, Levil. 11. p. 112 ff.) ap- 
 pears only here and in Matt. xxi. 16 (a quotation from the LXX.) in the 
 New Testament ; more frequently in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDITOR. 
 
 CXXXVII. Vv. 1-8. The Importunate Widow. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. thinks this passage was taken from the same “‘source’’ as 
 what precedes, and it formed the conclusion of the entire discourse. He 
 therefore supposes Luke has given to the passage by means of ver. 1 a too 
 general reference. But Meyer’s view is far more probable. 
 
 CXXXVIII. Ver. 5. ἵνα μὴ εἰς τέλος k.7.A. 
 
 The R. V. renders: ‘lest she wear me out (marg. Greek, bruise) by her 
 continual coming.’’ But this fails to give the correct force of εἰς τέλος ; hence 
 the Am. Com. add the margin: ‘‘lest at last by her coming she wear me out.” 
 This agrees with Meyer's interpretation. 
 
 CXXXIX. Ver. 7. καὶ μακροϑυμεῖ ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς. 
 
 This well-attested reading presents considerable difficulty. The verb means 
 “10 be slow to punish,’’ and hence the objects are not the elect, but those 
 whom He delays to punish. The αὐτοῖς, however, refers tothe elect, and must 
 therefore be explained, with Meyer, ‘for their sakes,” not ‘‘over them” 
 (R. V.). But Meyer regards it as a question: Is He slow to punish on their 
 behalf ? This requires a negative answer, whereas the delay to punish is as- 
 sumed, as Meyer admits, “‘ according to human judgment, does occur.” It may 
 be taken, with more propriety, as an affirmation : And His delay in punishing 
 is really on their behalf. Comp. Godet, who, as usual, clings to the reading 
 of the Rec. Weiss ed. Mey. rejects the teaching e contrario (Meyer), but says 
 that ‘‘the denial of a real delay does not exclude an apparent one.”’ 
 
 CXL. Ver. 8. ἐν τάχει. 
 
 It is difficult to see on what consistent principle Meyer insists that here the 
 speedy advent of the Parousia is declared, when in commenting on the previous 
 verse he admits that the ‘‘delay’’ does occur, according to human judgment ; 
 comp. the view of Weiss in Note CXXXIX. That there has been delay needs 
 no proof ; that Luke’s reports of our Lord’s discourses indicate a considerable 
 
 1See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 742. Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat, Lach. Ὁ. 190 B; Maetzner, 
 ad Antiph. p. 130. 
 
N ‘TES, 507 
 
 period is easy to prove. Moreov-., Meyer himself urges just such an indication 
 (See Note III., p. 226) as th only reason for dating the Gospel after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem. J* Luke had ‘‘ edited” his matter in the way Weiss 
 assumes, he ought, in al’ consistency, to have avoided using ἐν τάχει ; thatis, if 
 he used it in the sens, Meyer and Weiss give it (see below). The phrase τὴν 
 πίστιν does not ne‘ ssarily refer to ‘faith in Jesus as the Messiah.” Godet 
 more properly e-.plains : ‘‘ that special faith of which the widow’s is an image.”’ 
 The question in any case implies that the Lord’s delay to return will be of 
 great length. If referred to ‘“‘ faith” which perseveres in prayer, it suggests 
 that the trials during this long delay will be such as to leave it doubtful 
 whether many will be importunate in prayer for His return. 
 
 CXLI. Ver. 14. The Close of this Division of Luke. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey., in accordance with his view of the composition of the Gospel, 
 remarks : ‘‘ With this closes the great inserted portion of Luke. Passing over 
 the pericope about divorce which referred to legal regulations (Mark x. 1-10) 
 that had already become strange to his Gentile-Christian readers, and the con- 
 clusion of which (vv. 11,12) was already presented (chap. xvi. 18), he now 
 diverts to Mark, who likewise here after chap. x. 1 seems to narrate a journey 
 toward Jerusalem.” In view of the many peculiarities of Luke’s narrative, 
 which Meyer frankly admits, it is difficult to believe that he followed Mark 
 even here. (See in general, Note I., p. 225.) The attempts to find a motive for 
 his variations from Mark are as unsatisfactory as they are various. 
 
 CXLII. Vv. 35-43. The Blind Man at Jericho. 
 
 On the various accounts see Mark, Note LXVI., p. 138. Luke’s statement 
 seems to follow the general line of the journey, while Matthew and Mark give 
 the more exact relation to Jericho. Hence the theory of an excursion from the 
 city, during a brief stay there, remains the most probable explanation of the 
 variations. 
 
508 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 Ver. 2. οὗτος ἦν] Lachm. has αὐτὸς [ἦν]. BK II, min. Arm. Vulg. Ver. For. 
 Vind. have only αὐτός. [So Treg., W. and Hort text, R. V.] Tisch. has 7v only, 
 following L δὲ, min. Copt. Goth. only. [Weiss has οὗτος without ἦν.) The 
 Recepta is to be maintained ; οὗτος was in some authorities altered mechani- 
 cally into αὐτός, in accordance with the foregoing word ; in others, omitted 
 as being superfluous, on which assumption, sometimes also ἦν, nay, even 
 καί (Ὁ), dropped away also.— Ver. 4. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 
 & BL, insert εἰς τὸ before ἔμπροσθεν. ] — συκομορξέαν] see the exegetical remarks. 
 —Instead of ἐκείνης Elz. has δ ἐκείνης, in opposition to decisive evidence, 
 on the strength of which, also at ver. 7, πάντες is to be read instead of 
 ἅπαντες. --- Ver. 5. εἶδεν αὐτὸν καί] is wanting in BL δὲ, min. vss. Tisch. [So 
 Treg., W. and Hort, R.V.] The transcriber passed at once from ΕΤδεν to EIvev, — 
 Ver. 18. fac] AB DK LQ& κα, min. Or. Lucif. have ἐν 6. Approved by Griesb., 
 adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; ἕως is an interpretation. — Ver. 15. ἔδωκε] 
 Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have δεδώκει, in accordance with B D 
 L δὲ, min, Cant. Vere. (Or. : ἐδεδώκει). An emendation. [Treg., W. and Hort, 
 R. V., with δὰ B DL, Copt., Or., have τί διεπραγματεύσαντο, without τίς. Tisch. 
 retains the reading of the Rec., Meyer and Weiss do not notice the variation. } 
 — Ver. 17. εὖ] Lachm. and Tisch. have εὖγε, following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. 
 Lucif. The Recepta is from Matt, xxv. 23. — Ver. 20. érepoc] Lachm. and Tisch. 
 [recent editors, R.V.] have ὁ ἕτερος, in accordance with BD LR &** min. A 
 mechanical repetition of the article, in accordance with vy. 16, 18. —[Ver. 22. 
 Recent editors, R. V., with Tisch. (δὲ B, others, Vulg., Copt.) omit dé.]— Ver. 23. 
 τῆν] is wanting in authorities so decisive, that, with Matth. Lachm. Tisch., it 
 must be deleted. — The position of αὐτό immediately after ἄν has, it is true, A 
 B L 8 in its favor (Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors]), yet the old reading avérpaga 
 in Ais against it, as it manifestly originated from the collocation of ἄν and 
 ἔπραξα. So in A, ANEIIPAZA is written as one word, although translated as 
 two words. The separation might easily be marked by αὐτό placed between 
 them. — Ver. 26. Since γάρ 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.— ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ] is bracketed by Lachm., deleted 
 by Tisch. It is wanting in B L δὲ, min, Lucif., and has slipped in mechani- 
 cally from Matt. xiii. 12, although there the construction is different. Comp. 
 Mark iv. 25. — Ver. 27. ἐκείνου] Β Κα L M δὲ, min. Didym. have τούτους. 
 To be preferred, with Bornem. and Tisch. ; ἐκ. is an amendment by way of 
 designating the absent. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, Copt., 
 add αὐτούς, after κατασφ., and in ver. 29 omit the frequently interpolated αὐτοῦ 
 after μαθητῶν. --- Ver. 31. αὐτῷ] is wanting in B D F L R 8, 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 ὁ κύ- 
 pioc Lachm, Tisch, [recent editors, R. V., δὲ A B DL, Vulg., Copt., Syrr.] have 
 
CHAP. XIx., 1-4. 509 
 
 ὅτι, certainly on preponderating evidence, but it is repeated from ver. 31. — 
 [Ver. 35. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BD L, have αὐτῶν, but in ver. 36 
 Treg., W. and Hort, with A B, have ἑαυτῶν.] — Ver. 37. πασῶν] Lachm. has πάν- 
 των, following BD. But πάντων came in through the reading γενομένων (instead 
 of δυνάμ.), which is still found in Ὁ. — Ver. 40. Lachm. and Tisch. have ow- 
 πήσουσιν, inaccordance with A Β L BR Δ δὲ, min., to which also D adds confirma- 
 tion by σιγήσουσιν. The Receptais by way of an improvement. —[Tisch., W. 
 and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8 B L, Copt., omit avroic.] — Instead of κεκράξονται 
 BL δὲ have κράξουσιν, which rare form Tisch. has rightly adopted. — Ver. 41. Elz. 
 Griesb. Scholz have ἐπ αὐτῇ. But ἐπ’ αὐτῆν is decisively attested. So Schulz, 
 Lachm. Tisch. — Ver. 42. καὶ od kai ye ἐν τῇ ἦμ. cov ταύτῃ] Lachm. has bracketed 
 kai ye, and deleted cov ; the former is wanting in BDL 38, 157, vss. Or. ; the 
 latter in A BDL &, min. vss. Or, Eus. Bas. Both are to be retained ; καί ye 
 dropped out in consequence of the preceding καὶ σύ, and then this drew after it 
 the omission of cov, which after the simple καὶ σύ (without καί ye) did not seem in 
 place. [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. text, have: ἐν τ. qu. ταύτῃ καὶ σύ, omitting καί 
 ye and σου, as also after εἰρήνην. This orderis better supported ; the Am. R. V. 
 marg. accepts cov in both instances. ]— The second σου 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 ΝΥ͂Ν! — Ver. 45. ἐν αὐτῷ] is wanting in B CL &, min. Copt. Arm. Goth. 
 Rd. Or. In most of these authorities καὶ ἀγοράζοντας is also wanting. Tisch. 
 deletes both, and both are from the parallels, from which D A, vss. have added 
 still more. — Ver. 46. Tisch. has καὶ ἔσται ὁ oik. μου olk. προσευχ., following B Τὶ 
 R & (in which, however, x. ἔσται is wanting by the first hand), min. Copt. Arm. 
 Or. Rightly ; the Recepta is from the parallels, from which, moreover, appears 
 in O** κληθήσεται instead of ἐστίν. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. This history’ with the stamp of Luke’s language is worked up 
 by him from tradition. [See Note CXLIII., p. 517. 1---ὀνόματι καλούμ.} Comp. 
 i. 61. Classical writers would have said ὄνομα καλ. (Herod. i. 173 ; Plat. 
 Crat. p. 483 B). — Ζακχαῖος] = "31, pure, Ezra ii. 9; Neh. vil. 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.* — 
 αὐτός] after the name (as viii. 41), his personal condition. — ἀρχιτελώνης] chief 
 publican or tax-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. Il. p. 537). — καὶ οὗτος ἦν] a prolix simplicity of style. [But 
 see critical note.] Comp. ii. 37, vil. 12, xx. 28. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. Τίς ἐστι] i.e., which among those who were passing by is Jesus. 
 ἐς Fama notum vultu noscere cupiebat,” ‘He desired to know in person 
 
 1 According to Eichthal, II. p. 291, a mis- Constit. Apost. vi. 8. 3, vii. 46. 1. 
 taken copy of the call of Matthew (Matt. 3 Comp. Salmasius, de foen. trapez. p. 245 f.; 
 ix.) ! Burm. vectig. populi Rom. p. 134. 
 
 2 See Hom. iii. 63, Recogn. iii. 65. Comp. 
 
510 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Him known by report,” Grotius. — προδραμὼν ἔμπροσθεν] [See Note CXLIV., 
 p. 517 seq.] Comp. Tob. xi. 2 ; Plat. Gorg. p.497 A ; Xen. Cyrop. iv. 2. 23. 
 — συκομορέαν] The form μορέα occurs in Nicander as quoted by Athen. 1. 
 p. 51, and συκομορέα, Geop. x. 3. 7 ; more frequently συκόμορος (Dioscor. i. 184; 
 Aq. Am. vii. 14; Suidas). The authorities, however, are very much divided 
 between συκομορέαν (so now Tischendorf also [recent editors], following 
 BLD 8) and συκομωρέαν (Lachmann) ; Galen also has μωρέα, de comp. med. 
 5 (in Wetstein on xvii. 6). As, nevertheless, the reading συκομοραίαν 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 = συκάμινος (see Dioscor. 
 i. 184) : Egyptian jig tree, xvii. 6. — ἐκείνης) see on v. 9. --- διέρχεσϑαι] 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 a 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. 
 — σήμερον] 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). δεῖ 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 
 (Steyoyy., see 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 publican came to meet Jesus, saw how 
 joyously he receives Him. Comp. on ver. 11. — παρὰ ay. ἀνδρί] belongs to 
 καταλῦσαι. 
 
 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 vow 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 παρὰ ἁμαρτ. ἀνδρί, and said εἰ τινός τι 
 ἐσυκοφ. k.t.A. in the conviction of his innocence. This is opposed to the 
 context, opposed to the preceding τὰ ἡμίσ. κιτ.λ., and opposed to ver. 10 ; 
 moreover, his whole style of asserting his innocence would be an unbecom- 
 ing piece of parade. — σταϑείς] he stood forth before Jesus,—a joyful confi- 
 dence. Comp. on xviii. 11. — ἡμίση] The form ἡμίσεα (Lachmann), which 
 
OMAP: Kr, 95°10, 611 
 Attic writers approve, is a correction either from ἡμίση or from ἡμίσεια. As 
 to the substantival neuter, see Kitihner, ὃ 479 Ὁ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyrop. 
 vili. 3. 41. — ei τινός τι ἐσυκοφ.] If Ihave taken anything from any one by fraud.? 
 The εἰ is not to make the matter uncertain, as though he were conscious to 
 himself of no such extortion, but ei . . . τι is the milder expression of self- 
 confession instead of ὅ,τι. See Dissen, ad Dem. decor. p. 195. — τετραπλοῦν] 
 he professes himself ready for a measure of compensation, such as was 
 ordained for theft, Ex. xxi. 87; 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. Πρὸς αὐτόν] to him, πρός, as 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 (τῷ οἴκῳ cov), because what He said 
 was to serve at the same time as a correction for those murmurers (ver. 7, 
 comp. on ver. 11), and consequently was to have a more general destina- 
 tion. Hence it is also at least unnecessary, with Ewald, to assume an 
 audible soliloquy of Jesus, and to read πρὸς αὑτόν (to himself) (comp. πρὸς 
 ἑαυτόν, Xviil. 11). — καθότι καὶ αὐτὸς κ.τ.λ.] 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 a 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 υἱὸς ’ABp. in an ethical sense (‘‘ quamvis genere 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. γάρ] justifies 
 what is said at ver. 9: with full right do I 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. i. 1. --- ἦλθε] emphatically placed first ; for Jesus declares the 
 purpose of His appearance. — ζητῆσαι] 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 
 is solicitous for souls, Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14. Moreover, comp. on Matt. 
 xviii. 11. 
 
 1 Tischendorf, namely, has adopted τὸ 
 ἡμίσεια, in accordance with BLQ AWN. [But 
 NB Q have ἡμίσια, so W. and Hort.] Cer. 
 tainly in the classical writers ἡμίσεια (scil. 
 μοῖρα or μερίς) is the substantival feminine of 
 ἥμισυς, Thue. vi. 62.4; Plat. Leg. 12, Ὁ. 956 D, 
 Ep. vii. p. 347 C ; Dem. 430.8; Lucian, Herm. 
 48; while τὰ ἡμίσεια occurs also at least in 
 Antonin. Zid. ii. p. 16; hence it is all the 
 
 more probable that Luke wrote it, but it 
 was then changed into ἡμίσεα, and finally 
 into ἡμίση. 
 
 2 The verb (iii. 14) is construed like ἀποστε- 
 ρεῖν τινός τι (Plut. Dem. iv.; Soph. Phil. 1267), 
 ἀπολαύειν τινός τι (Xen. Hier. vii. 9, Mem. i. 
 6.2; Plat. Crit. p.54 A; Arist. Nub. 1281) ; 
 among the Greeks with παρά, Lys. p. 177, 82. 
 
 3 Comp. Keil, Avch. § 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 alsoWeiss in the 
 Jahrb. 7. D. Th. 1864, p. 128 ff. [See Note CXLV., p. 518. ] — ἀκουόντων δὲ αὐτῶν 
 ταῦτα] 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 people 
 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 (Weizsiicker), nor is it 
 obscure (de Wette, Holtzmann), but it is darkened by the interpreters (see 
 also Schleiermacher). — προσϑείς] adding to, still continuing—a Hebraism, 
 as at Gen. xxxviii. 5, Job xxix. 1, and elsewhere ; Winer, p. 416 [E. T. 
 648]. In pure Greek the expression would run προσϑεὶς παραβ. εἶπεν. --- εἶπε 
 παραβ.] Comp. xviii. 9.— ἐγγύς] 150 stadia, Joseph. Bell. iv. 8. 8. --- ὅτι 
 παραχρῆμα K.T.A.| ὑπέλαβον, ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο ἄνεισι νῦν εἰς Ἵερουσ., ἵνα βασιλεύσῃ ἐν 
 αὐτῇ, ‘‘ They supposed that on this account they approached Jerusalem, in 
 order that He might reign in it,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — ἀναφαίνεσθαι) 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, Arit. Unters. p. 466. 
 
 Vy. 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 CXLV., 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 . 
 βασιλεία ; especially the instance of Archelaus, in respect of the fruitless pro- 
 test raised against him by the Jews (Joseph. Antt. 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.? — εἰς χώραν 
 μακράν] a contrast with the παραχρῆμα, ver. 11, for Jesus must first go into 
 heaven to the Father, but not consequently removing the Parousia 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. — ἑαυτῷ] he wished 
 
 1 Tn affinity with the contents of this par- 
 able is the word which Christ, according to 
 Clem. Homil. ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20, and Apel- 
 les in Epiphan. Haer. 44. 2, is said to have 
 spoken : γίνεσϑε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται, ‘‘ Become 
 approved bankers.”’ The wide publication 
 of this saying in Christian antiquity (Clem. 
 Alex., Origen, etc.) makes 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. Antt, xvii. 18. 1. 
 
CHAP. XIX., 14-17. 513 
 to receive the kingly dignity for himself, although till then there had been 
 another king. — Ver. 13. ἑαυτοῦ] ten slaves of his own, of whom therefore he 
 might rightly expect the care of his interest. Comp. on Matt. xxv. 14. — 
 δέκα μνᾶς] to wit, to each one.’ The Attic mina = 100 drachmas, 7.e., accord- 
 ing to Wurm, de ponderum, ete., rationibus, p. 266, = from 22 thal. 16 grosch. 
 to 24 thal. 3 grosch. Vienna standard money [sci/. = from $16.50 to $17.60]. 
 The small sum astonishes us (even if we should understand thereby Hebrew 
 minae ; one J!) = 100 shekels, 1 Kings x. 17; 2 Chron. ix. 16). Compare, 
 on the other hand, the talents, Matt. xxv. Butin Matt. /.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 ἐπὶ ὀλίγα (not as in Luke xix. 17, ἐν ἐλα- 
 χίστῷ) ; 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 (13D), is sheer 
 invention. — πραγματ.] follow commercial pursuits.?—év ᾧ ἔρχομαι) during 
 which (to wit, during this your πραγματεύεσϑαι) 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 (ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ) goes to the 
 bestower of the kingdom ; hence τοῦτον ; ‘‘ fastidiose loquuntur,” ‘‘ they speak 
 scornfully,” Bengel. — οἱ πολῖται αὐτοῦ] his fellow-citizens, Plat. Protag. p. 315 
 C, and frequently ; Gen. xxiii. 11. —ovd ϑέλομεν x.7.2.] not instead of ϑέλομεν 
 τοῦτον ov βασιλ. (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 γνοῖ (Lachmann, Tischendorf [recent editors]), see on Mark v. 43. 
 —ric τί] who gained anything, and what he gained? {But see critical note. | 
 See on Mark xv. 24.—drarpayyuar.| not : ‘‘negotiando lucratus esset,” ““ gain- 
 ed by trading ” (Castalio, so usually), but : had undertaken.* 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. Ἢ μνᾶ σου κ.τ.λ.] ‘* 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." -- εὖγε (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 cities. Comp. xvi. 10. 
 
 1 An essential variation from Matt. xxy. 
 The equality of the pecuniary sum which is 
 given to all shows that it was not the (very 
 varied) charismatic endowment for office, 
 but 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. 
 
 2 Plut, Swi. vii, 17, Cat, min, 54 ; Lucian, 
 
 33 
 
 Philops. 36. 
 
 3 On βασιλεύσαι (Aor.), see Schaefer, App. 
 ad Dem. 111. p. 457. 
 
 4 Comp. Dion. Hal. iii. 72. Passages where 
 διαπραγμ. means perscrutari, *‘to investi- 
 gate,” are not in point here, Plat. Phaed. 
 p. 77 Ὁ, 95 E. 
 
 >On προσειργάσ., has gained to tt, comp. 
 Xen. Hell. iii. 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. — aipeve x.7.2.] a closer reference to the meaning of ἄνϑρ. αὐστηρὸς 
 el, comp. ver. 22, hence no longer dependent on ὅτι, thou takest wp 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 rigorous lord would indemnify himself 
 for itfrom 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 αἴρεις and its correlation with ἔϑηκας. Moreover, ver. 23 is notin 
 harmony therewith.’ The austere character (αὐστηρός) consists in the regard- 
 lessness of the inhumanity, in respect of which is experienced the ‘‘ swmmum 
 jus, summa injuria.” The epithet σκληρός in Matthew denotes the same 
 thing, but under a different figurative representation (in opposition to 
 Tittmann, Synon. p. 139). 
 
 Vv. 28, 24. The question comes in abruptly with καί, laying bare the con- 
 tradiction between the clauses. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 147. --- ἐπὶ 
 τράπεζαν (without an article, see the critical remarks), on ὦ bankers table. 
 The sign of interrogation is to be placed, with Lachmann and Tischendorf 
 [W. and Hort], after τράπεζαν. καὶ ἐγὼ (Lachmann, Tischendorf : κἀγώ) 
 x.7.2. is then the result which, in the event hinted at by διὰ τί «.7.2.,? would 
 have followed. — Ver. 24. τ. παρεστ.] ἐ.6., the satellites, 1.19. — τὰς δέκα μνᾶς] 
 the ten minae mentioned at ver. 16, therefore not those which he had from the 
 beginning, but those 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. πλήν] 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. 
 — τούτους (see the critical remarks), although referring to those who were 
 absent, describes them as present in the idea of the speaker and the hearers.* 
 -- κατασφάξ.} 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 
 
 1 Comp.rather the injunction in Josephus 3 Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 295; Heindorf, 
 c. Ap. 2: ὃ μὴ κατέϑηκέ Tis, οὐκ ἀναιρήσεται, ad Phaed. p. 60; Bornemann, Schol. p. 120. 
 and the law of Solon in Diog. Laert. i. 2. 9: 4 Comp. Xen. Anabd. iv. 1.23; Herod. viii. 
 ἃ μὴ ἔϑον, μὴ ἀνέλῃ. 127; Soph. Ο. R. 780; Diod. Sic. xii. 76; 
 
 2 av, see Buttmann, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 187 [E. T. 2 Macc. Υ. 12. 
 216]. 
 
CHAP. XIX., 28-38. δι. 
 
 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 μνᾶ 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. y. 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 ἐπορεύετο did not take place till the next morning. —éurpocdev| He 
 went before (‘‘ praecedebat,” Vulg.), ὁ.6., according to the context (ver. 29), 
 at the head of His disciples. Comp. Mark x. 32. Erasmus, Kypke, Kuinoel, 
 Ewald, and others have : He went forwards, He pursued His journey. This 
 would be the simple ἐπορεύετο (xiil. 33 and elsewhere) or érop. εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσϑεν. 
 
 Vv. 29-38. See 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 Marc. Ὁ. 794 f., Lachmann, and Tischendorf, we must cer- 
 tainly place the accent thus on the word ἐλαιών, olive-grove, olivetum ; not as 
 though, if it were ἐλαιῶν [Rec., W. and Hort], the article would in itself be 
 necessary (after éAaz. ὄρος would have to be repeated), but because Luke, 
 when he designates the mountain as the ‘‘ Mount of Olives,” constantly has 
 the article (ver. 37, xxii. 39) ; but besides, in Acts i. 12, where he likewise 
 adds καλούμ., he undoubtedly uses the form ἐλαιών as aname. Hence, at 
 Luke xxi. 37 also, ἐλαιών is to be written. Comp. Joseph. Antt. vil. 9. 2: 
 διὰ τοῦ ἐλαιῶνος ὄρους. --- Ver. 31. ὅτι] because, an answer to διὰ ri. — Ver. 99. 
 οἱ κύριοι] the actual possessor and those belonging to him. — Ver. 35. ἑαυτῶν] 
 they use their own upper garments for a riding cushion in their reverence and 
 love for the Lord. So ἑαυτῶν serves for a vivid coloring of the narrative. 
 [But see critical note.] — Ver. 37. ἐγγίζοντος. . . πρὸς τῇ καταβ.] πρός, not 
 of the movement whither (de Wette), but a pregnant union of the direction 
 (éyyig.) with the where (when He approached at the declivity). See gener- 
 ally, Kithner II. p. 316. In Homer πρός is often found thus with the dative. 
 — ἤρξαντο] for this was only the last station of the Messiah’s entry. — τῶν 
 μαϑητῶν)] in the wider sense. — εἶδον] 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- 2 On the nominative, with a verb of nam- 
 tion of the banker’s counter. Lange, Z../J.Il ing, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 517; Fritzsche, 
 1, p. 414, finds that by the tpamegaisdepicted  .¢.; Bernhardy, p. 66. 
 
516 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 which they, as companions of Jesus, had seen. — Ver. 38. ἐν ὀνόμ. x.] belongs 
 to ἐρχόμ., according to a frequent transposition.’ — εἰρήνη x.t.A.] The thought 
 that ‘‘ with 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. 39 ff. Peculiar to Luke, and as far as ver. 44 taken from tradition. — 
 ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου] from out of the multitude, among whom they found themselves. 
 — ἐπιτίμησον) rebuke (this crying). — σιωπήσουσιν]) (see the critical remarks) in- 
 dicative after ἐάν, so that the meaning of av clings wholly to the condition- 
 ing particle, and does not affect the verb: if these become silent. See 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 474. —oi λίϑοι κράξι)] The sense is: this outbreak of 
 the divine praise is not to be restrained.? See also the passages in Wet- 
 stein. — Ver. 41. ἐπ’ αὐτήν] over it, comp. xxili. 28. The direction of the 
 weeping to its object ; in the classical writers with a simple accusative, also 
 with ἐπί τινι (Rev. xviii. 11). Observe, further, the audible weeping of 
 Jesus at the view of Jerusalem, not the silent δακρύειν as at the grave of 
 Lazarus, John xi. 35. [See Note CXLVLI., p. 518.]— εἰ ἔγνως x.7.4.] if only 
 thou hadst known and, indeed, in this thy day, what belongs to thy salvation ! 
 [Comp. critical note and rendering of R. V.] Pathetic aposiopesis, and 
 consequently an expression of the frwitlessness of the wish.* Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus aptly says : εἰώϑασι yap οἱ κλαίοντες ἐπικόπτεσϑαι τοὺς λόγους ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ 
 πάϑους σφοδρότητος, ‘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. —xai σὺ] as my μαϑηταί. 
 - καί γε] et quidem. See on Actsii. 18. — ἐν τῇ ju. σου] ἴ.6., inthis day given 
 to thee for thy deliverance.4— νῦν dé] as, however, now the circumstances 
 actually are, but thus; often thus since Homer after conditional clauses 
 (John viii. 40 ; 1 Cor. xii. 20). --- ἐκρύβη] by divine decree ; see John xii. 
 37 ff. ; Rom. xi. 7 f.— Ver. 48. ὅτι ἥξουσιν x.7.A.] ὅτι does not introduce 
 what has been concealed (this is rather τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην cov), but it brings a 
 prophetic confirmation of the viv δὲ κ.τ.λ. that has just been said : for there 
 shall come (not tarry), etc. The certainty of this miserable future proves 
 that what serves for thy salvation has become veiled from thine eyes. Fol- 
 lowing Lachmann, only a comma is to be placed before ὅτε. In what follows, 
 observe the solemn five-fold repetition of καί in the affecting unperiodic dis- 
 course. The first takes the place of ὅτε. ---- χάρακα] masculine : ὦ palisaded 
 wall, Polyb. i. 29. 8, viii. 84. 8, x. 89. 1, xviii. 1. 1.° As a feminine, it is 
 
 1 See Bornemann, Schol. p. 121 f.; Kiih- 
 ner, ad Xen. Anab. iy. 2. 18. Comp. xxiii. 
 48. 
 
 2 Comp. Hab. ii. 11; Servius, ad Virg. Hel. 
 y. 28 ; Chagiga, f. 16. 1:‘*Ne dicas : quis tes- 
 tabitur contra me? Lapides domus ejus... 
 testabuntur contra eum,”’ ‘Do not say: 
 Who shall testify against me? the stones of 
 his house . . . will witness against him.” 
 
 3 Comp. on xxii. 42, and on John vi. 62; 
 Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 339 [E. T. 396]. 
 
 4 Comp. Tov καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς σου, Ver. 
 44; Ps. exviii. 24. 
 
 δ xvii. 22, xxiii. 44; Rom. ii. 16; John iv. 
 21; and see on Mark xv. 25. 
 
 © On χάρακα βάλλειν, see Plut. Aem. P. 17. 
 Marcell. 18, 
 
NOTES. 517 
 
 limited by the grammarians to the signification of vine-prop, but see Lobeck, 
 ad Phryn. p. 61 f.— σοι] Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 14 : ταῖς πόλεσιν ἐρύματα 
 περιβάλλονται. According to Herod. i. 163, and elsewhere, σέ might also be 
 used. In the Jewish war the rampart was actually erected (hence Schenkel 
 considers this point as vaticinium ex eventw), burnt up by the Jews, and re- 
 placed by Titus with a wall. See Joseph. v. 6. 2, v. 12. 2 ff. —ovvégovor] 
 keep close, see on Phil. 1. 23. — Ver. 44. ἐδαφιοῦσί σε] they shall level thee (Polyb. 
 vi. 88. 6), i.e., make thee like to the ground.’ The following κ. τὰ τέκνα o. ἐν σοί 
 is added by a zeugma, so that now édagifw has the signification, frequent in 
 the LXX., to dash on the ground (Hos. xiv. 1; Nah. iii. 10 ; Ps. cxxxvii. 9). 
 The children of the city are its inhabitants, Matt. xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 34 ; 
 Gal. iv. 25. The city is figuratively regarded as a mother, hence ra τέκνα 
 are not to be understood (Kuinoel) of the actual children (infantes). — τὸν 
 καιρ. τ. ἐπισκ. σου] the time of the solicitude concerning thee, when God interested 
 Himself for thee by means of the offer of the Messianic salvation through 
 me.” ἐπισκοπῇ in itself is ὦ vor 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. — ἤρξατο] 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 οἱ πρῶτοι τ. λαοῦ] The worldly aristocracy, yet with special 
 emphasis. — ἐξεκρέματο κ.τ.λ.] the people hung upon Him as they hearkened to 
 Him. ‘‘Populi assiduitas aditum hostibus obstruebat,” ‘‘ The constant 
 presence of the people hindered the approach of His enemies,” Bengel.* 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EpITor. 
 
 CXLIII. Ver. 1. διήρχετο. 
 
 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. εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσϑεν. 
 
 This reading is probably explained by Weiss ed. Mey. : ‘‘to that part of the 
 city lying before Him (not yet passed through by Him), which He had yet to 
 pass through. The Rec. would be simply : he ran before.”’ 
 
 1 Comp. Amos ix. 14; also κατασκάπτειν εἰς 8 Mace. v. 42, and thereon Grimm. 
 ἔδαφος, Thuc. iv. 109. 1. Comp. iii. 68. 2. 3On ἐκκρέμαμαι with a genitive, comp. 
 3 Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 12; Prov. xxix.13; Job  Plut. Mar. 12, and the passages in Wetstein. 
 xxix.4; Wisd. ii. 10, iii. 7; Ecclus. xviii. 19 ; With ἐκ, Gen. xliy. 30; Plat. Zeg. v. p. 731 E, 
 
518 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 CXLYV. 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 cireum- 
 stances, presené 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 latter alternative. 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.’’ Buthe 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. 
 
GEAR akuxe 519 
 
 CHAPTER XxX. 
 
 Ver. 1. ἐκείνων] is wanting in the authorities of greatest importance. Con- 
 demned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition for greater pre- 
 cision. — ἀρχιερεῖς] AE GHKUVTIA A, min. Goth. Slav. Theophyl. have 
 ἱερεῖς. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. and Tisch. The Recepta 
 [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with δὲ B C Ὁ L, Vulg., Copt.] is from the parallels. 
 — Ver. 3. ἕνα] is wanting in BL R δὲ, min. Syr. Copt. Colb. For. Tol. It stands 
 after λόγ. in A K Μ U* min. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and 
 Tisch. It is from the parallels, from which also οὖν is introduced after διά τι, 
 ver. 5. —[Ver. 9. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BC DL, Vulg., Copt., 
 omit τις.] --- Ver. 10. [Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with δὲ BD L, 33, 
 omit ἐν before kaipo.] — δῶσιν δώσουσιν is so strongly attested by ABLMQ 8, 
 min., that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., and δῶσιν to be re- 
 garded as a grammatical emendation. — Ver. 13. ἰδόντες] is wanting in BC Ὁ Τῷ 
 Q δὲ, 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. ἑαυτούς] Tisch. 
 has ἀλλήλους, following BD LR δὲ, min. vss. The Receptais from ver. 5 and 
 Mark xii. 7; comp. Matt. xxi. 38. From the parallels also comes δεῦτε, 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: οἱ γραμμ. καὶ οἱ apyvep. — Ver. 20. εἰς τό] ΒΟ DL 
 δὲ have ὥστε, which, with Bornemann, Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted ; the 
 εἰς τό, foreign to Luke, is an interpretation, —[Ver. 22. Tisch., recent editors, 
 R. V., with 8 A BL, 38, read judc.] — Ver. 23. ri we πειράζετε] 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 ὑποκριταί, too, is interpo- 
 lated. — Ver. 24. Instead of δείξατε Elz. has ἐπεδείξατε, in opposition to decisive 
 evidence ; it is from Matth. — After δηνάριον Lachm. has in brackets οἱ dé 
 ἔδειξαν, καὶ εἶπεν. Not strongly enough attested by B L τὲ, min. vss. to appear 
 otherwise than a gloss in accordance with the parallels. — [Tisch., W. and Hort, 
 Weiss, R. V., with δὲ B L, Copt., read oi instead of ἀποκριθέντες. In ver. 25 the 
 same Mss. have πρὸς αὐτούς, and τοίνυν ἀπόδοτε ; accepted by recent editors, the 
 latter by R. V.]— Ver. 27. ἀντιλέγοντες] BC DL, min. vss. have λέγοντες. 
 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 ἀποθάνῃ, Β Τί Ῥ &** min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Lachm. have 
 merely 7. [So Tisch., recent editors, R. V.] An attempt at improvement sug- 
 gested by ignorance. — Vy. 30, 31. Much confusion among the authorities. 
 Lachm. has retained the Recepta, nevertheless he places before ὡσαύτως another 
 ὡσαύτως in brackets, and throws out the καί which Elz. has after ἑπτά, with 
 Griesb. and Scholz. I agree with Tisch. in regarding as original the text of 
 BDL δὲ, 157: καὶ ὁ δεύτερος καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἔλαβεν αὐτῇν" ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ol ἑπτὰ οὐ 
 
520 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 κατέλ. τέκνα κ. ἀπέθ. [So recent editors, R. V.] Comp. Bornem. in the Stud. ει. 
 Krit. 1848, p. 136; also Rinck, Lucubr. p. 333. To this text the gloss éAaBev 
 αὐτὴν was added to ὁ δεύτ. ; this occasioned the dropping out of these words in 
 their true.place, and there appeared : καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν κ. ὁ τρίτος K.T.A. 
 Thus still Copt. The deleting of ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν in this spurious place, without 
 restoring them again to the genuine one, occasioned the text of D: καὶ ὁ δεύτερος 
 k. ὁ τρίτος (without ἔλ. αὐτ.). The Recepta has grown up out of circumstantial 
 glosses. Even the double ὡσαύτως (A EH VT A, min. Goth. Syr., taken by 
 Matth. into the text) is a gloss ; it was thought to be necessary to complete the 
 simple ἔλαβεν αὐτήν. The καί, which Elz. has after ἑπτά, 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 : ὕστερον καὶ 
 ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθανεν (Lachm.: tor. ἀπέθ. x. ἡ y.). The Recepta is from Matth. — Ver. 
 33. The order of the words: ἡ γυνὴ οὖν ἐν τῇ ἀναστ. (BL), is, with Tisch., to be 
 preferred ; it was altered in accordance with the parallels. —[W. and Hort, 
 R. V., with δὲ D L, 1, 33, Copt., read ἔσται instead of γίνεται, and in ver. 34 Tisch., 
 recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BDL, Copt., Vulg., omit ἀποκριθείς.] ---- Ver. 34. 
 ἐκγαμίσκονται] objectionable, since A K M P U I Δ, min. have ἐκγαμίζονται, while 
 BL δὰ, min. Or. Epiph. Nyss. have γαμίσκονται. Read the latter, with Lachm. 
 and Tisch. The Recepta and ἐκγαμίζονται are glosses to give greater precision. 
 Equally, however, at ver. 35 also is not to be read γαμίζονται, with Matth. Lachm. 
 Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], in accordance with DL QRA 8, but 
 γαμίσκονται, in accordance with B. —[Ver. 36. Recent editors (against Tisch.), 
 R. V., with A BDL, read οὐδέ before γάρ. --- Ver. 37. Tisch., Treg., W. and 
 Hort, R. V., with δὲ BD L, omit τόν before θεόν the second and third time. ] 
 — Ver. 40. δέ] B L &, min. Copt. Tisch. have γάρ. Rightly ; γάρ was not un- 
 derstood. —[Ver. 42. Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with 8 B L, Copt., 
 read αὐτὸς γάρ instead of καὶ αυτός. 
 
 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. — ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν] (without ἐκείνων, 
 see the critical remarks) is, as v. 17, vill. 22, an approximate statement of 
 the date ; the days im question are meant, to wit, of the stay in Jerusalem. 
 Schleiermacher is arbitrary in seeing here the beginning of a special docu- 
 ment. — ἐπέστησαν] came upon. The idea of suddenness and wnexpectedness is 
 not of itself contained in the word, and needed to be expressed,’ or at least 
 suggested by the context (comp. on ii. 9). — Ver. 2. ἢ] introduces ἃ more 
 definite idea of the point of the question. — Ver. ὃ. καὶ εἴπατέ μοι] καί 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. 
 πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καταλιϑ. ἡμᾶς] a later form of the tradition. The word is not 
 elsewhere retained.? It denotes the stoning down. 
 
 Vv. 9-19. See on Matt. xxi. 33-46 ; Mark xii. 1-12. [See Note CXLVIL., 
 p. 524.|]—#péaro] after that despatch of the members of the Sanhedrin. — 
 
 1 As xxi. 84; Isoer. viii. 41; Philo Flace. 2 Comp. καταλιϑοῦν in Josephus, καταλιϑο- 
 Ῥ. 981 C, @/. in Loesner. Bodeiv, Ex. xvii. 4. 
 
CHAP. XX., 20-26. 521 
 πρὸς τ. λαόν] ‘‘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. δώσουσιν] (see the critical remarks): see on 1 Cor. ix. 
 18 ; Eph. vi. 8. — αὐτῷ] to him, the possessor of the vineyard, by the ser- 
 vants. — Ver. 11. προσέϑετο πέμψαι] a Hebraism, Gen. iv. 2, and elsewhere.’ 
 — Ver. 13. ἴσως] 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. ἰδόντες δὲ αὐτόν] 
 with emphasis, corresponding to the previous τοῦτον ἰδόντες. --- Ver. 16. εἶπον] 
 Persons from the people in ver. 9, who have comprehended, although dim- 
 ly, the foreshadowing of evil. — μὴ γένοιτο] (see on Rom. iii. 4), to wit, that 
 the γεωργοί lay hands themselves on the son, kill him, and bring about the 
 ἀπολέσει k.t.2.!— Ver. 17. οὖν] what then, if your μὴ γένοιτο is to be allowed, 
 what then is this scriptural saying, etc. It is meaningless, there is nothing in 
 it. —Ver. 19. καὶ ἐφοβ.] καί, and yet ; comp. on Mark xii. 12. — ἔγνωσαν] the 
 people, to wit,? whose understanding the passage of Scripture, ver. 17 f., ac- 
 companied by the heart-penetrating glance of Jesus (ἐμβλέψας), has opened. 
 
 Vv. 20-26. See on Matt. xxii. 15-22 ; Mark xii. 138-17. — παρατηρήσ.] having 
 watched, so that they had thus further Jain in wait for Him after that hour, 
 ver. 19, in order to be able to entrap Him. — ἐγκαϑέτους] people instigated, se- 
 cretly commissioned. — ἑαυτοὺς δικαίους εἶναι] who feigned that they themselves 
 were strict observers of the law, who, therefore, by the pressure of their own 
 consciences (not instigated by other people), came with the following ques- 
 tion. These therefore are such ‘‘ qui tum, quum maxime fallunt, id agunt, 
 ut viri boni videantur,” Cicero, Off. 1. 18. --- ἐπιλάβ.] The subject is the 
 members of the Sanhedrim. — αὐτοῦ λόγου] in order to take hold of Him on a 
 word. αὐτοῦ does not depend on λόγου (Kypke, Kuinoel, Bleek), but on 
 ἐπιλάβ., and λόγου is the secondary object.° The Vulgate rightly has : 
 ‘¢eum in sermone.” — ὥστε (see the critical remarks), as iv. 29 ; Matt. xxiv. 
 24. - τῇ ἀρχῇ κ. τῇ ἐξουσ. τ. ἡγ.] to the supremacy and (and especially) the power 
 of the procurator. To combine the two (‘‘ tne 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. λαμβάν. πρόσωπ.] art not a partisan. See on Gal. ii. 6. — 
 Ver. 22. φόρον] capitation and land-tribute, to be distinguished from τέλος, 
 the indirect tribute (the tax on merchandise).° Luke uses the Greek instead 
 
 1 Comp. on xix..11, and see Valckenaer, 
 p. 253 ἢ. 
 
 2 See Loceta, ad Xen. Eph. p. 213 ; Borne- 
 mann, Schol. Ὁ. 122 f.; Ellendt, Lea. Soph. I. 
 Ῥ. 855. 
 
 3 See on Mark xii. 12. The reference to 
 the scribes and chief priests involves us in 
 subtleties as in Grotius, Lange, JZ. J. III. 
 p. 494, and others. πρὸς αὐτούς refers first of 
 
 all to the hierarchs. 
 
 4Plat. Azioch. p. 368 E; Dem. 1488. 1: 
 Polyb. xiii. 5. 1; Joseph. Anétt. vi. 5. 2. 
 
 5 See Job xxx. 18. Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 12: 
 ἐπιλαμβάνεται αὐτοῦ τῆς ἴτνος. 
 
 6 See Kypke, II. p. 183 f., and already 
 Thomas Magister, p. 900, ed. Bern. Comp. 
 Rom. xiii. 7. 
 
522 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 of the Roman word κῆνσον, found in Matthew and Mark. — Ver. 26. Observe 
 the careful depicting of the triumph of Jesus. Comp. ver. 39 f. 
 
 Vv. 27-40. See on Matt. xxii. 23-33 ; Mark xii. 18-27. — oi ἀντιλέγοντες] 
 does not belong by an abnormal apposition to τῶν Σαδδουκαιῶν (thus usually, in- 
 cluding Winer, p. 471 [E. T. 532]), but to τινές. [See criticalnote. The read- 
 ing λέγοντες favors the other view.] These τινές, namely, so far as they were 
 τινὲς τῶν Σαδδουκ., are more precisely characterized by οἱ ἀντιλέγ. «.7.2.: People 
 who there concerted together (participle with article, see Kiihner, II. p. 131). 
 - ἀνάστ. μὴ εἶναι] On μή and infinitive after ἀντιλέγ., comp, Xen. Anab. 11. 
 5. 29, and see in general Bernhardy, p. 364 ; Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 168. 
 — Ver. 28. καὶ οὗτος x.t.A.] and indeed shall have died without children. See 
 Matthiae, p. 1040. — Ver. 29. οὖν] for the subsequent procedure took place 
 in consequence of that law. — Ver. 30 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 behind no children, and died. Logically 
 aréSavov ought to precede, but the emphasis of οὐ κατέλ. τέκνα has occasioned 
 the ὕστερον πρότερον. --- Ver. 34 f. οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου] 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. — oi δὲ καταξιωϑ.. x.7.2. | 
 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 
 πρότερον ὕστερον (comp. on ver. 81), for the resurrection discloses the participa- 
 tion in the αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος ; but the context (see also τῆς ἀναστάσ. υἱοὶ ὄντες, ver. 
 36) 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 (καταξιωϑ., and see ver. 36), the resurrection here 
 meant is defined as the jirst, the ἀνάστασις τῶν δικαίων (see on xiv. 14). — The 
 genitives τοῦ αἰῶν. ἐκ. and τῆς ἀναστ. are governed by τυχεῖν." Moreover, comp, 
 the Rabbinical dignus futuro saeculo 810 DY TIN, in Schoettgen and Wet- 
 stein. — Ver. 36. With Lachmann, following A B DLP, we must write 
 οὐδέ ὃ (Winer, p. 484 f. [E. T. 490]; Buttmann, Ὁ. 315 [E. T. 368]) : for 
 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 ; ἐνταῦϑα μὲν yap ἐπεὶ ϑάνατος, διὰ 
 
 1 See Kiihner, II. p. 629; 
 Schol. p. 125. 
 2 Comp. Aesch. Prom, 239: τοιούτου τυχεῖν 
 
 placed in a parenthesis, which, indeed, 
 Lachmann does, although it is nowise noti- 
 fied, not even by the twofold εἰσί, whereby 
 
 Bornemann, 
 
 οὐκ ἠξιώϑην ; Winer, p. 537 [E. T. 609]. 
 
 3 Comp. the critical remarks on xii. 26 
 [also critical note in this verse]. The Re- 
 cepta οὔτε is to be regarded as a mechanical 
 repetition from what has gone before. Bor- 
 nemann defends οὔτε by the supposition 
 that it corresponds with the following καί. 
 But in that case ἰσάγγ. γάρ εἰσι must be 
 
 the two predicates are emphatically kept 
 apart. 
 
 4Who nevertheless assumes without 
 proof (p. 102) that Adam’s body, before the 
 creation of the woman, was externally with- 
 out sex, and that this alsois the case with 
 the bodies of the risen, 
 
CHAP. Xx., 27-40. 523 
 τοῦτο γάμος, “ΤΟΥ now since there is death, there is therefore marriage,” 
 Theophylact. —icayy. . . . ὄντες] gives the reason of the οὐδὲ ἀποϑανεῖν ἔτι 
 δύνανται ; 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. 316 f.; Delitzsch, and others ; comp. on Matt. 
 xxii. 30) ; 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 υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, 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. 1843, p. 202 ff. But the expression cannot be borrowed 
 from the Old Testament designation of the angels as sons of God (so Wit- 
 tichen, deen Gottes als d. Vaters, Ὁ. 43), since the risen ones shall only be 
 angel-like, not angels. — Ver. 37. Observe the special selected word ἐμήνυσεν, 
 which denotes the announcement of something concealed.’ — καὶ M.] i.e., even 
 Moses, to whom ye are nevertheless appealing for a proof of the contrary, 
 ver. 28. — ὡς λέγει κύριον x.t.A.] ‘‘narrando sc. quod Deus dixerat,” ‘‘in 
 narrating, namely, what God had said,” Grotius. — Ver. 38. πάντες yap αὐτῷ 
 ζῶσιν] for all (whose God He is) are living to Him. The emphasis lies on 
 πάντες : no one is dead to Him. αὐτῷ is the dative of reference : in 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. 38, 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 ἀλλὰ ζώντων, 
 which was introduced into the tradition,‘ certainly at a later date, but with- 
 
 1 John xi. 57; Acts xxiii. 80 1 Cor. x. 
 28; Thuc. iv. 89 ; Herod. i. 23; Soph. O. R. 
 102 ; Plut. Tim. Ὁ. 27 B. 
 
 24 Macc. xvi. 25: οἱ διὰ τὸν Θεὸν ἀποϑνή- 
 σκοντες ζῶσι τῷ Θεῷ, ὥσπερ ᾿Αβραὰμ, ᾿Ισαὰκ, 
 καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ, καὶ πάντες οἱ πατριάρχαι, “ those 
 dying for the sake of God live to God, as 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all tke 
 patriarchs,” is so far parallel as in that 
 place ζῶσι τῷ Θεῷ is likewise said of the 
 state of existence in relation to God in 
 Paradise. Moreover, 4 Macc. vii. 19 belongs 
 to this subject, as being a passage in har- 
 mony with the text before us. Comp. 
 Grimm thereupon, p. 332. 
 
 3 The ζῶσιν subsists not merely in the 
 view of God, who considers them in refer- 
 
 ence to their future resurrection as tiving, 
 as J. Miller, v. d. Siinde, Il. p. 397, makes 
 out. 
 
 4The syllogism of the passage is correctly 
 and clearly expressed in substance by Beza : 
 “Quorum Deus est Deus, illi vivunt, ver. 
 38; Abrahami, Isaaci et Jacobi Deus est 
 Deus, ver. 37; ergo illivivunt, et quum non- 
 dum revixerint corpore, necesse est, ut suo 
 
 ‘tempore sint corporibus excitatis revic- 
 
 turi,’’ ‘‘ Those of whom Godis God, live, 
 ver. 38; God is the God of Abraham, 
 Isaac and Jacob, ver. 37; 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 fruitful 
 
524 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 out affecting the substance, except in the way of indicating the point of the 
 argument. The αὐτῷ, however, cannot without arbitrariness be taken, ac- 
 cording to Acts xvii. 28, as though it were ἐν αὐτῷ (Ewald : ‘‘all men, so 
 far as they have a true life, have it only in God”). — Ver. 40. γάρ] (see the 
 critical remarks) gives an explanation as to ver. 39. The tables had been 
 turned ; a 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 victor there again (comp. on ver. 26). With the 
 narrative of the greatest commandment, Mark xii. 28-34, 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 CXLVIII., 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. 35-87. εἶπε δὲ πρὸς 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, 
 “ὁ 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. 
 
 Notes By AMERICAN EDIToR. 
 
 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 other accounts, and in vv. 11, 12 
 uses a Hebraism not occurring in them. Precisely such variations are most 
 conclusive 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 in the 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 νγ. 17), see the apt remarks in Weizsicker, 
 the historical meaning, but is able to de- p. 859 ἢ. 
 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 LXXXL., 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 vy. 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. Kai] bracketed by Lachm. Itis wanting in BK LMQXII8, min. 
 Or. ButAEGHSUVTIAA, min. have it after ra. This is correct. From 
 ignorance objection was taken to this arrangement, and kai was sometimes 
 placed before, and sometimes was struck out altogether. [Tisch. VIII., recent 
 editors, R. V., omit.]__ Ver. 3. πλεῖον] Lachm. and Tisch. have πλείω, which 
 would have to be adopted if it were not too feebly attested by Ὁ Q X, min. 
 — Ver. 4. τοῦ Θεοῦ] is wanting in BL X δὲ, min. Copt. Syr.«- Syr.ie- Deleted 
 by Tisch. An exegetical addition. — Ver. 6. After λίθῳ Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have ὧδε, in accordance with B L &, min. Copt. [Tisch. VIII. omits, but W. and 
 Hort, R. V., insert.] Other authorities have it before λίθος. D, codd. of It. have 
 ἐν τοίχῳ Ode. An addition from Matthew. — Ver. 8. οὖν] is to be deleted, with 
 Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with Β D LX &, min. vss. A connective 
 addition. —[Ver. 11. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, 33, Copt., read 
 kai κατὰ τόπους, and recent editors, with B, Vulg., have λοιμοὶ καὶ λιμοί, regard- 
 ing the Rec. as a conformation to Matthew. — Ver. 12. Tisch., recent editors, 
 R. V., with » B Ὁ L, read ἀπαγομένους ; and, with δὲ B D, insert τὰς before 
 ovvaywyac. — Ver. 13. Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with &* B D, omit dé.] 
 — Ver. 14. The reading ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of εἰς τὰς κ., is 
 decisively attested. — [So also θέτε (δὲ A ΒΚ Ὁ L, 33), accepted by Tisch., recent 
 editors, R. V.]— Ver. 15. Elz. Matth. Scholz have ἀντειπεῖν οὐδὲ ἀντιστῆναι. But 
 instead of οὐδέ, AK MR, min. Slay. Brix. Or. Cyr. Didym. Griesb. have 7. Some- 
 times with 7, sometimes with οὐδέ, D L δὲ, min. Ar. p. Erp. Arm. Slav. Vulg. Or. 
 have the two verbs in the reverse order. Hence Lachm. has ἀντιστῆναι οὐδὲ ἀντει- 
 πεῖν, and Tisch. has ἀντιστῆναι ἢ ἀντειπεῖν. [So recent editors (Treg. brackets 
 ἢ ἀντειπ.), R. V., on the preponderant evidence.] These variations are to be ex- 
 plained from the fact that ἀντειπεῖν, with 7 or οὐδέ, on account of the similar be- 
 ginning of the following verb, was passed over. So according to D, Syr. Pers.P 
 Vulg. ms. codd. of It. Cypr. Aug. Rinck. When the passage was restored, the 
 verbs were placed in different order ; and instead of ἢ after the previous ov, οὐδέ 
 was inserted. Accordingly, read with Griesbach : ἀντειπεῖν ἢ avtiot. — Ver. 19. 
 Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. have κτήσασθε. But A B, min. Syr.o™ Arr. Aeth. 
 Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Or. Macar. Marcion, according to Tertullian, have 
 κτήσεσθε. [So recent editors, R. V.] Recommended by Griesb., approved by 
 Rinck, adopted by Lachm. The Recepta is an interpretation of the future taken 
 imperatively. — Ver. 22. Elz. has πληρωθῆναι. But πλησϑῆναι is decisively 
 attested. — Ver. 23. dé] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B De Amr 
 It. Theophyl. An addition from the parallels. — After ὀργή Elz. has ἐν, in 
 opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 24. ἄχρι] Lachm. Tisch. have ἄχρις 
 (Tisch. ἄχρι) οὗ, on decisive evidence, Luke always joins ἄχρι to a genitive. 
 — Ver. 25. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BD, Copt., read ἔσονται instead 
 of fora.] —év ἀπορίᾳ, ἠχοίσης] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ἤχους, on 
 decisive evidence, The Recepta is an interpretation. — Ver. 33. παρέλϑωσι]) 
 
CHAP. XXI., 1-6. 527 
 
 Lachm. and Tisch, have παρελεύσονται, in accordance with B DL 8, min. 
 Rightly. See on Mark xiii. 31.— Ver. 35. Lachm. and Tisch. place ydp after 
 ἐπελεύσεται, 50 that ὡς παγίς belongs to ver. 34, Thus B DL 8, 157, Copt. It. 
 Meth. Marcion, according to Tertull. Iregard the Recepta as being right, as 
 the preceding clause contains a qualifying word (αἰφνίδιος), but what follows in 
 ver. 35 needed a similar qualification (ὡς παγίς). Through mistaking this, and 
 attracting ὡς παγίς as a correlative of aidvid. to the preceding clause, yap has 
 been put out of its right place. [But recent editors, R. Y., accept the position 
 ἐπεισελεύσεται γάρ, which is even more strongly attested than the double com- 
 pound which Meyer accepts.] Instead of ἐπελεύσεται, however, read with Lachm. 
 and Tisch., in accordance with BD 8, ἐπεισελεύσεται. The doubly compounded 
 form disappeared through error on the part of the transcribers, as frequently 
 happened. — Ver. 36. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ Β Ὁ, read δέ, in- 
 stead of obv.] — καταξ.] Tisch. has κατισχύσητε, following BL Χ yx, min. Copt. 
 Aeth. Ar. p. Rightly ; the Recepta is a very old gloss in accordance with xx. 
 35, comp. 2 Thess. i. 5. — ταῦτα is deleted by Matth. and Tisch. But most of 
 the principal mss. (not δὲ) and vss. have it. Nevertheless, it remains doubtful 
 whether it is to be read before (B Ὁ L X, Elz. Lachm.) or after πάντα (A C* M). 
 If πάντα ταῦτα τά is original, the omission of the superfluous ταῦτα is the more 
 easily explained. [Tisch. VIII. restores ταῦτα, and with recent editors, R. V., re- 
 tains the better attested order: ταῦτα πάντα, which is found in δὲς also. ]— 
 After ver. 38 four cursives have the section concerning the woman taken in 
 adultery, John vii. 53—viii. 11. 
 
 Vv. 1-4. See on Mark xii. 41--44. -- ἀναβλέψας] 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 γαζοφυλάκ. --- τοὺς βάλλοντας. . . πλουσίδυς] 15. con- 
 nected together : the rich men casting in. After πλουσίους might also be 
 supplied ὄντας (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. τινα καὶ χήραν (see the critical remarks) : 
 aliquam, eamque viduam egenam, ‘‘a certain one, and she a poor widow” 
 [but καὶ is not well attested].’ Kai is : and indeed. — Ver. 4. οὗτοι refers to 
 the more remote subject (Fértsch, Obss. in Lys. p. 74 ; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 
 157]). Jesus points to the persons in question. — εἰς τὰ δῶρα] to the gifts 
 (that were in the treasury), not : guae donarent (Beza), to which the article 
 is opposed. 
 
 Vv. 5-88. See 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. 37); hence, moreover, the 
 ἀναϑήματα are found only in Luke. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. Καί τινων λεγ. x.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. 58 D, and thereon Stallbaum. 
 
528 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 course itself, to His disciples (the apostles also included), to whom, more- 
 over, the τινές belonged. — ἀναϑήμασι] } On the many votive 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; 6. 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. — ταῦτα 
 ἃ Yewp.| Nominative absolute.’ 
 
 Vv. 7-10. ’Exnpér.] those τινές. ---- οὖν] since in consequence of this assur- 
 ance of thine that destruction shall occur ; when, therefore, shall it occur ? 
 — τί τὸ σημεῖον k.7.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. ὁ καιρός) the 
 Messianic point of time—that of the setting up of the kingdom. — Ver. 9. 
 ἀκαταστ.] tumults ; see on 2 Cor. vi. 5.— Ver. 10. τότε ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς] then, 
 after these preliminary warnings, entering upon the further description of 
 the impending judgment. Casaubon, following Beza, connects rére with 
 éyep9. In that case the insertion of ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς would be absolutely with- 
 out motive. The motive is found precisely in τότε, which, however, notifies 
 simvly only a resting-point of the discourse, not ‘‘a much later point of 
 time,” to which what follows would belong (Holtzmann, following KGstlin), 
 which variation as to time Luke might have put into the mouth of Jesus as 
 easily as at ver. 12. 
 
 Ver. 11. ’Az’ οὐρανοῦ belongs not only to σημεῖα (B, Lachmann : ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ 
 onu.), but also to φόβητρα, because in the connection the latter needs some 
 qualifying clause. μεγάλα belongs to both. Moreover, comp. with reference 
 to this detail which Luke has here, 4 Esdr. v. 4.3 
 
 Vv. 12, 18. Πρὸ δὲ τούτων x. | otherwise in Matthew and Mark. But Luke 
 follows a later modification of the tradition moulded after the result.4 [See 
 Note CL., p. 534.] In opposition to the words of the passage (for πρό means 
 nothing else than before, previously), but with a harmonistic end in view, 
 Ebrard, Diss. adv. erron. nonnullor. opinion. etc., Ὁ. 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. 13. εἰς μαρτύριον] but it shall turn (comp. Phil. 1. 19) to 
 you for a witness, i.e., not: εἰς ἔλεγχον τῶν μὴ πιστευσάντων, ‘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 
 
 πχὶν. ἢ. 
 
 1 Lachmann and Tischendorf, following 
 AD XX, have the Hellenistic form ἀναϑέ- 
 μασι (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 249, 445; 
 Paralip. p. 891 ff., 417, 424). [Treg., W. and 
 Hort, R. Y., retain αναϑήμασι. 
 
 2See on Matt. vii. 24; Bernhardy, p. 69; 
 Buttmann, Neut. Gr. Ὁ. 325f. [E. T. 379 f.]. 
 
 3 On φόβητρα (terrific appearances), comp. 
 Plat. da. p. 367 A ; Lucian, Philop. 9; Isa. 
 xix. 17. As to’ κατὰ τόπους, see on Matt. 
 
 [See also critical note.] 
 
 4In respect of this Baur, Hvang. p. 477 
 (comp. his Markusevang. 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 
 K6stlin. p. 158, and Holtzmann. But then 
 it would have been an easy thing for him 
 to name more specially Pauline sufferings. 
 Compare rather Matt, x. 17 f, 
 
CHAP. XXI., 14-22. 529 
 
 Tov ὀνόμ. μου, ver. 12, and see ver. 14f. The matter itself is regarded as 
 something great and honorable (εἰς μαρτυρίου δόξαν, ‘for the glory of the 
 testimony,” Theophylact). Comp. Acts v. 41. For the testimony itself, 
 see for example Acts iv. 11 f. The reference to martyrdom (Baur, Hilgen- 
 feld, Holtzmann) is opposed to the context and brings in a later wsus lo- 
 quendi. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. Comp. xii. 11 f.; Matt. x. 19 f.; Mark xiii. 11 f. — ἐγώ] stands 
 with great emphasis at the beginning, opposed to the προμελετ. ἀπολογ. of 
 the disciples. Bengel well says : ‘‘Jesus loquitur pro statu exaltationis 
 suae,”’ ‘‘ Jesus speaks in the position of His exaltation.” — στόμα] a concrete 
 representation of speech.’—avrerreiv] corresponds to στόμα, and ἀντιστ. to 
 σοφίαν (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; 195. Comp. 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11... 1. Kings 1/02: 
 Acts xxvii. 84. But the meaning cannot be, ‘‘ ye shall remain unharmed in 
 life and limb,” against which interpretation the preceding καὶ ϑανατ. ἐξ ὑμῶν, 
 ver. 16, is decisive, since ϑανατ. cannot be taken, as by Volkmar, of mere 
 danger of death ; rather ἀπόληται is to be taken in a Messianic sense. Comp. 
 the following κτήσεσϑε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. Hence: no hair of your head shall 
 be subject to the everlasting ἀπώλεια, i.e., you shall not come by the slightest 
 harm as to the Messianic salvation ; 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 ϑρὶξ ἐκ τ. κεῴ. x.7.4. Das 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 impropriety makes it the more improbable that ver. 
 18 should be a later addition (Wilke, Baur, Hilgenfeld), perhaps from Acts 
 - Xvil. 84. 
 
 Vv. 20-22. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 15-18 ; Mark xiii. 14-16. What was to 
 happen πρὸ τούτων πάντων, ver. 12, is now concluded. From this point the 
 discourse continues where it broke off at ver. 12. [See Note CLL, p. 584. ] 
 — κυκλουμ. representing the object as already conceived in the situation 
 and therein perceived (Bernhardy, p. 477 ; Kiihner, II. p. 357), being sur- 
 rounded on all sides,4—Ver, 21. οἱ ἐν τ, "Iovd,] refers to the Christians ; this 
 
 1 Comp. Soph. Qed. R. 671, Oed. C. 685. 4 Wieseler, in the profound discussion in 
 A kindred idea, Ex. iv. 16; Isa. xy. 19. the Gott. Vierteljahrschr. 2 Jahrg. 2 Heft, 
 2 Comp, ix. 25, xvii. 33, also ζημιοῦσϑαι τὴν p 210, finds in the words κυκλ. ὑπὸ στρατοπ. 
 ψυχήν, Mark viii. 36. «,.7.A. an explanation of the βδέλυγμα τῆς 
 3 Zeller inthe Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 386; ἐρημώσεως, Matt. xxiv. 15, which Luke gave 
 comp. his Apostelg. p. 18 f. for his Gentile-Christian readers. He there- 
 
 94 
 
530 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 2 
 follows from ver. 90. ---- αὐτῆς] has reference to Jerusalem, as subsequently ὦ 
 εἰς αὐτήν. Theophylact : ἐκτραγῳδεῖ οὖν τὰ δεινὰ ἃ τότε τὴν πόλιν περιστήσεται 
 . . « μὴ προσδοκάτωσαν, ὅτι ἡ πόλις τειχήρης οὖσα φυλάξει αὐτούς, ““ He pictures 
 then tragically the terrible things which will then encompass the city . .. 
 let them not expect that the city when it is besieged will protect them.” — 
 ἐν ταῖς χώραις] not in the provinces (de Wette), but in the jields (xii. 16), 
 in contrast to the city into which one εἰσέρχεται from the country. People 
 are not to do this, but to flee.— Ver. 22. τοῦ πλησϑῆναι κ,τ.λ.] 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 eventu. [But see Note CLI, p. 534.|— - Ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] on the earth, 
 without special definition (comp. v. 24, xviii. 8, xxi. 25). The latter is 
 then introduced in the second member (τῷ λαῷ τοὐτῷ) by καί (and especially) ; 
 but μεγάλη belongs to both.? — τῷ Δ. r.] dependent on éora. — Ver. 24. στόματι 
 μαχαίρας] by the mouth of the sword, Heb. xi. 34.3 The sword is poetically 
 (Hom. Jl. xv. 389 ; Porson, ad Hurip. Or. 1279 ; Schaefer) represented as 
 a biting animal (by its sharpness ; hence pay. δίστομος, two-edged).4 The 
 subject of πεσ. and αἰχμαλ. is : those who belong to this people.— αἰχμαλωτ. } 
 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. 
 - Ἱερουσαλ.} 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. — ἔσται πατουμ. ὑπὸ ἐϑνῶν] shall be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, 
 a contemptuous ill-treatment ; the holy city thus profaned is personified.® 
 —aype.. . ἐϑνῶν] till the times of the Gentiles shall 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 have run out. Comp. Rev, xi, 2. Such 
 
 by maintains his interpretation of the Christians to Pella (Volkmar, Huang. Mar- 
 
 βδέλυγμα of the Roman standards, and of 
 the τόπος ἅγιος, Matt. .c., of the environs of 
 Jerusalem. Certainly our passage corre- 
 sponds to the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσ. in Mat- 
 thew and Mark. But Luke 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 ex eventu. [See Note CLL., p. 534.] 
 1 But the expressions are too general for 
 a reference directly to the flight of the 
 
 cion’s, Ὁ. 69). 
 
 2 On the divine ὀργή, which is punitively 
 accomplished in such calamities, comp. 
 1 Mace. i. 64, ii. 49; 2 Mace. v. 17; Dan. 
 viii. 19. 
 
 3 Thus frequently ΔΓ °5, Gen. xxxiy. 
 26: Deut. xiii. 16, and elsewhere. Comp. 
 Ecclus. xxviii. 18; Judith ii. 27; 1 Mace. 
 Vv. 28. 
 
 4 Comp. πολέμου στόμα, Hom. Il. x. 8, Xix. 
 318. ἣ 
 
 5 Comp. Isa. x. 6; 1 Mace. iii. 45 (see 
 Grimm, in Joc.), iv. 60; Rev. xi.2; Philo, 
 in Flace. p. 974C; Soph. Ant, 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 is to occur during the lifetime of the hearers (ver. 28) 
 [see Note CLIL., p. 584]; hence those καιροί 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 ; see Franck in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1855, p. 347 1. Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 6438, erroneously dates the 
 beginning of the καιροὶ ἐϑνῶν 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 καιροὶ ἐθνῶν would be the καιροί, 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 οἱ καιροί 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 (see in Wolf ; also 
 Dorner, ἴ.6. 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 καιροὶ ἐθνῶν 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 
 εὐθέως in Matt. xxiv. 29. [See Note CLIII., p. 535.] In the midst between 
 these two catastrophes actually already came those καιροί. ---- συνοχὴ ἐθνῶν K.T.A. | 
 Distress (2 Cor. ii. 4) of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the seas and 
 waves. Luke alone has this fearful feature. The genitive ἠχοῦς" (see the 
 critical remarks) indicates that to which the ἀπορία refers.° Groundlessly 
 Bornemann conjectures ἐν ἀπειρίᾳ. The καί ‘‘ vocem angustiorem (σάλος, break- 
 ers) annectit latiori,” ‘‘ joins the more particular word (σάλος; breakers) to the 
 wider one,” Kypke. — Ver. 26. ἀποψυχ. avOpdr.| while men give up the ghost” 
 
 1“Non infertur hine, templum cul- 4Comp. Luther’s gloss: “till the hea- 
 
 tumque umbratilem instauratum iri,” ‘ It 
 is not to be hence inferred that the temple 
 and the shadowy worship was to be re- 
 stored,’ Bengel. Comp. Caloy. in Joc., and 
 our remark after Rom. xi. 27. 
 
 2See, for example, 2 Tim. iii.1 comp. 
 with iv. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 1; Ecclus. xxxix. 31; 
 1 Mace. iv. 59 ; 2 Mace. xii. 30. 
 
 3Comp. on καιροί without the article, 
 Tob. xiv. 5; Acts iii. 20, 21. 
 
 thens shall be converted to the faith, @.e., 
 till the end of the world.” 
 
 5 From the nominative ἠχώ (not ἦχος) ; 
 hence not to be accented ἤχους [Tisch.], 
 but ἠχοῦς [W. and Hort]. 
 
 6 Comp. Herod. iv. 83: τῶν Σκυϑέων τὴν 
 ἀπορίην ; Herodian, iv. 14.1: ἐν, .. ἀπορίᾳ 
 τοῦ πρακτέου. 
 
 7 Thuc. i. 134. 3; Bion, ἱ. 9; Alciphr. Zp, 
 iii. 72; 4 Macc. xy, 15. 
 
532 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. — ai γὰρ δυνάμ. κ.τ.}.} not a clause limping after 
 (de Wette), 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. 30; Mark. xiii. 26. — Καὶ 
 τότε] and then; after the previous occurrence of these σημεῖα. --- ἄρχομ. δὲ 
 τούτων] but when these begin; these appearances, ver. 25 f. They are there- 
 fore not conceived of as of long continuance. — ἀνακύψατε x.t.4.] lift your- 
 selves up, raise yourselves (till then bowed down under afflictions, ver. 12 ff., 
 comp. Xil. 382) erect (hopefully).'—7 ἀπολύτρ. tu.] which shall follow by 
 means of my Parousia. Comp. the ἐκδίκησις τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν, Xvili. 7. 
 
 Vy. 29-33. See on Matt. xxiv. 32-35; Mark xiii. 28-31. — ag’ ἑαυτῶν] 
 ‘‘etiamsi nomo vos doceat,” ‘‘even though no one teach you,” Bengel. 
 Comp. xii. 57 ; John xviii. 34, xi. 51 ; 2 Cor. iii. 5. — γινώσκετε is indicative 
 in ver. 30, imperative in ver. 31. 
 
 Vv. 34-36, peculiar to Luke. ‘Eavroic has the emphasis ; from the exter- 
 nal phenomena the attention of the hearers is directed to themselves. The 
 ὑμῶν placed first contains a contrast with others who are in such a condition 
 as is here forbidden.” — βαρηθῶσιν)] even in the classical writers often used of 
 the psychical oppression that presses down the energy of the spiritual activ- 
 The jigurative interpretation (Bleek) of 
 want of moral circumspection is arbitrary. Comp. xii. 45 ; Eph. v.18. This 
 want is the consequence of the Bapyf., whereby it happens ‘‘ that the heart 
 cannot turn itself to Christ’s word,” Luther, Predigt. — μεριμν. βιωτικαῖς] 
 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.* — αἰφνίδιος] as one who is unexpected (1 Thess. v. 3, often in Thucy- 
 dides) ; thus conceived adjectivally, not adverbially.°— ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἐπιστῇ] 
 should come upon you, which, according to the context, is conceived of as 
 something sudden (comp. on ii. 9). The day is personified. — Ver. 35. ὡς 
 παγὶς yap K.t.A.| gives a reason for the warning καὶ (μήποτε) αἰφνίδιος ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς 
 x.7.2. [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 wnob- 
 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, — ἐπει- 
 σελεύσεται) (see the critical remarks) it will come in upon all. In the doubly 
 
 ity by means of wine, sorrow, οἷο. 
 
 On the distinction between 
 
 1 Comp. Dorville, ad Charit. p. 177. 
 
 2 Comp. on these warnings the expression 
 quoted by Justin, 6. 77. 47, as a saying of 
 Christ: ἐν ols av ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ 
 κρινῶ, ‘‘In whatever I shall find you, in 
 _these will I also judge you.” Similarly 
 Clem. Alex., guis dives salv. 40, quotes it. 
 
 8 Hom. Od. iii. 139; Theocr. xvii. 61; Plut. 
 Aem. P, 34. See generally, Jacobs, ad An- 
 
 thol. VI. p. 77. 
 κραιπάλη, giddiness from yesterday’s de- 
 bauch, and μέϑη, see Valckenaer, Schol. 
 ). 262. 
 4Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 3; Polyb. iv. 78. 8: 
 βιωτικαὶ χρεῖαι ; and see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 355. 
 
 5 See Kriiger,§ 57. 5,A 4; Winer, p. 412 
 [E. T. 465]. 
 
GHAP; XXI.,.57, 38; 533 
 
 compounded form (comp. 1 Macc. xvi. 16, often in the classical writers) ἐπί 
 denotes the direction, and εἰς the coming in from without (from heaven), — 
 καθημένους] not generally : who dwell, but : who si¢ (comp. Jer. xxv. 29), 
 expressing the comfortable, secure condition. Comp. on Matt. iv. 16. Theo- 
 phylact : ἐν ἀμεριμνίᾳ διάγοντες καὶ ἀργίᾳ, ‘‘ passing the time in carelessness and 
 idleness.” — Ver. 36. ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ] belongs to δεόμενοι. Comp. xviii. 1, 7. 
 Others, as Luther and Bleek, connect it with ayp. — iva] the purpose, and 
 therefore contents of the prayer. — κατισχύσητε] (see the critical remarks) have 
 the power; be in the position. So κατισχ. with infinitive, Wisd. xvii. 5 ; Isa. 
 xxii. 4, and often in the later Greek writers. — ἐκφυγεῖν «.7.2.] to escape from 
 all this, etc., i.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. — καὶ 
 σταθῆναι k.t.A.] and to be placed before the Messiah. This will be done by the 
 angels who shall bring together the ἐκλεκτούς from the whole earth to the 
 Messiah appearing in glory. Matt. xxiv. 31 ; Mark xiii. 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.] — ἐλαιών] Thus to 
 be accented in this place also. See on xix. 29. — ἐξερχόμενος] participle 
 present, because ηὐλίζετο (with εἰς, 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. 38. ὦρθριζε πρὸς αὐτόν] 
 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 ὀρθρεύω (for which, according 
 to Moeris, ὀρθρίζω is the Hellenistic form), 
 
 1See Theocritus, x. 58; Eurip. 770. 182; Naowp) ; Evang. Nicod. 15 (ὥρϑρισαν. . . εἰς 
 Luc. Gall. i.; also the LXX.in Biel and τὸν οἶκον Νικοδήμου). Comp. in general, 
 Schleusner, sub voce ὀρϑρίζω ; 1 Mace. iv. 52, Grimm on Wisd. vi. 14. 
 vi. 33, xi, 67 (ὥρϑρισαν τὺ mpwi εἰς τὸ πεδίον 
 
534 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EDITOR, 
 
 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 as a 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 vy. 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. Πρὸ δὲ τούτων k.7.A. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. does not regard this as ‘‘ a later modification of the tradition 
 moulded «after 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 πρό in any other than its natural sense in order 
 to reconcile the statements. 
 
 CLI. Ver. 20. Ὅταν δέ k.T.A. 
 
 Weiss 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, 
 Inke, Ὁ. 449, Am, ed. 
 
 CLIT. Ver. 24. ἄχρι οὗ k.7.A. 
 On the view that the Parousia was predicted as ‘to occur during the lifetime 
 of the hearers,” see Mark, Notes LXXXII., LXXXIII., LXXXV., LXXXVI., p. 167 
 
 seq. On the use made of this phrase to prove that the Gospel was written after 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, see Note III., p. 226. 
 
NOTES. 535 
 
 CLIII. Vv. 25, 26. Luke’s View of the Time of the Parousia. 
 
 The notion that Luke has adopted the times of the Gentiles ‘‘into the proph- 
 ecy from the tradition expanded ex eventu” involves a more serious difficulty 
 than that which it proposes to meet. Weiss ed. Mey. objects to Meyer's state- 
 mentin 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. ὡς παγίς. 
 
 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 ἐπεισελεύσεται needs a modal qualification. Standing 
 alone it is more emphatic and gives the reason for watchfulness : ‘for it will 
 come,” ete. 
 
536 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 [Ver. 3. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BDL, Copt., have the simple 
 form καλούμενον. --- Ver. 4. Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., with δὲ A B L, etc., 
 omit τοίς before στρατηγοῖς. ] -- Ver. 5. ἀργύριον] A C K U X, min. Syr. Slav. Eus. 
 Theophyl. have ἀργύρια. See on Mark xiv. 11. — Ver. 6. καὶ éwu6/.] is wanting 
 in Lachm., in opposition to decisive evidence. The omission occurred the 
 more readily that KAI EZ follows, and Matthew and Mark have nothing simi- 
 lar. — Ver. 10. οὗ A K MPR, min. have ov ἐάν. BCL, Vulg. It. have 
 εἰς ἦν. So Lachm. and Tisch. As the Recepta, according to this, has prepon- 
 derating evidence against it, while οὗ ἐάν is grammatically erroneous (ἐάν is 
 from Mark xiv. 14), we must read εἰς ἦν, instead of which was placed, in inexact 
 recollection of Mark xiv. 14, οὗ (157 : ὅπου). -- Ver. 12. ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον) 
 is decisively attested. Comp. on Mark xiv. 15.—[Ver. 13. Tisch., recent editors, 
 R. V., with δὶ B C DL, read εἰρήκει. ] --- Ver. 14. δώδεκα] is wanting in Β D 8, 
 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 ἀπόστ., in others instead of it (L X). Comp. also on ix. 1. — Ver. 
 16. οὐκέτι] is wanting in A B C*¥? HL δὰ, 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 ὅτε and oi! If it had crept in from 
 Mark xiv. 25, it would rather have found its place at ver. 18. — ἐξ αὐτοῦ] αὐτό 
 is read by Lachm., in accordance with [8] Β C? L, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. It. 
 Vulg. Epiph. [So Tisch. VIII., recent editors, R. V.] The Recepta 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 an’ αὐτοῦ, 
 wherein the preposition was altered in conformity with ver. 18.— Ver. 17. A 
 D K MU, min. Lachm. have τὸ ποτήρ. 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 εἰς ἑαυτούς, instead of ἑαυτοῖς, and in ver. 18, with & 
 BDL, Copt., insert ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν after πίω. --- Vv. 19, 20. D, with a few early 
 Latin mss., omit from τὸ ὑπέρ (ver. 19) to the close of ver. 20. W. and Hort 
 bracket, comp. R. V. marg.| — Ver. 20. ὡσαυτ. x. τ. ποτήρ.] Tisch. has x. τ. ποτήρ. 
 ὡσαυτ., following BL &, Copt. Sahid.; the Recepta is from 1 Cor, xi, 25. — Ver. 
 22. καί] Tisch. has ὅτι, following Β Ὁ L δὰ, 157, Copt. Sahid. Rightly ; ὅτι 
 dropped out before OYI (see subsequently on μέν), as it is still wanting in Vere. 
 Cant. Or.; and then καί was interpolated as a connecting particle. — μέν is, 
 with Tischendorf, to be placed after υἱός, following, Β L T δὲ **(D has it before 
 6). The usual position before υἱός is from Matthew and Mark. —In what fol- 
 lows read, with Lachm. and Tisch., κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον crop. The arrangement 
 in the Recepta is in accordance with the parallels. — [Ver. 26. Tisch., recent 
 editors, R. V., with δὲ B DL, read γινέσθω, which is even more strongly at- 
 tested in ver. 42.]—Ver. 30. Elz. Scholz have καθίσησθε. But Matth. Lachm, 
 
CHAP. X Xa; 5347 
 
 Tisch. [R. V.] have, on preponderating evidence, καθίσεσθε [Tisch. VIII. has 
 καθήσεσθε, W. and Hort text, with B* A, have καθῆσθε]. 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 εἶπε dé ὁ κύριος. --- 
 ἐκλείπῃ) Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκλίπῃ, in accordance with BD K LMU X 
 8, min.; it is accordingly to be preferred. The present offered itself more 
 readily to the transcribers. But στήρισον instead of στήριξον is decisively at- 
 tested (Lachm. Tisch.). — Ver. 34. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., have οὐ (instead 
 of ov μή), with δὲ Β L.] — πρὶν ἢ] BLT δὲ, min.: ἕως. So Lachm. and Tisch. 
 [recent editors, R. V.]. D has ἕως ὅτου ; K M X, min. have ἕως ov. Moreover, 
 vss. (Syr. Vulg. It. al.) have donec. πρίν (Q) and zpiv7 (AEG HSUVTA A) 
 were written in the margin from Matthew and Mark. —I regard ἕως ὅτου or éwe ov 
 as genuine. See on xxi. 24. —amapv. μὴ εἰδέναι we] Lachm. Tisch. have μὲ ἀπαρν. 
 εἰδέναι, in accordance with BD LM QT X ®& [so Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., 
 but Tisch. VIII. has returned to ἀπαρν. μὴ εἰδέναι με]. The μή was omitted as 
 superfluous, but μέ was pushed forwards in accordance with Mark xiv. 30 (see 
 thereupon the critical remarks). — Ver. 35. On decisive evidence βαλλαντίου is 
 to be written, and in ver, 36: Batdavriwv.-—[Ver. 36. Tisch., recent editors, 
 R. V., with & B DL, Copt., read dé instead of oiv.] — Ver. 37. ἔτι] is not 
 found, indeed, in ABDHULQX 8, min. vss. (except Vulg.), but after ὅτι 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 8 B Ὁ L, Copt., have τό 
 instead of ra.] — Ver. 42. παρενεγκεῖν)] Lachm. has παρένεγκε [so Treg., W. and 
 Hort], in accordance with Β D, min. Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Syr.p Syr.e* Or. 
 Dam. Tert. Ambr.; Tisch. has παρενέγκαι, 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., 
 τοῦτο τὸ ποτήρ. The order in the Recepla, τὸ ποτ. τοῦτο, 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 RT, Sahid. and some cursives ; are marked with aster- 
 isks in EK § V ΔΉ, 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., ete. 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. δέ] has so important evidence against 
 it (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) that it seems to be a connective addition. — 
 Instead of αὐτοῖς Elz. has αὐτῶν, in opposition to decisive evidence. A correc- 
 tion. —[Ver. 52. Treg., W. and Hort, with 8 B Ὁ L, have ἐξήλθατε, which 
 Tisch. thinks is from the parallel passages.] — Ver. 55. ἁψάντων] BL T δὲ, Eus. 
 Tisch. have περιαψάντων ; the Recepta is a neglect of the compound verb, which 
 is elsewhere foreign to the New Testament. — αὐτῶν after συγκαθ. is, with Lachm. 
 and Tisch., to be deleted as a frequent addition. — ἐν μέσῳ] Tisch. has μέσος, 
 following Β L T, min. The former is an interpretation. —[Ver. 58. Tisch., 
 recent editors, R. V. (δ᾽ B Τὴ read ἔφη. ] --- Ver. 61. After φωνῆσαι Tisch, has 
 
538 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 σήμερον, following BK LMT XII, min. vss. The omission came from the 
 parallels. [W. and Hort, R. V., with 8 Β L, have ρήματος, and, with Tisch., 
 omit ὁ before ἀλέκτωρ, in ver. 60. The article is found only in min.]— Ver. 62. 
 After ἔξω, ὁ Πέτρος is to be maintained, against Griesb. and Tisch. [recent edi- 
 tors, R. V.], although it is wanting inimportant authorities. [δὲ BD L, Copt., . 
 etc.] Being troublesome, and not occurring in the parallels, it was passed 
 over. —Ver. 63. Instead of αὐτόν, Elz. Matth. Scholz have τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. 
 The subject was written in the margin because another subject precedes. 
 —Ver. 64. ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον kai] is wanting in BK L MII ®&, 
 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 αὐτόν : αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσω- 
 πον, as 1, 209, vss. still read instead of αὐτόν ; then ἔτυπτον 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 8 B D, Or., read ἀπή- 
 yayov.] Elz. Lachm. have ἑαυτῶν ; Matth. Scholz, Tisch.: αὐτῶν. [So recent 
 editors, R. V., with δὲ BDL, Or.] The Receptais to be retained in accordance 
 with A A, min.: it was not understood. — Ver. 68. Read, with Tisch., simply 
 ἐὰν δὲ (even Lachm, has deleted kai) ἐρωτήσω, ov μὴ ἀποκριθῆτε, in accordance with 
 BLT 8, min. vss. Cyr. Theaddition μοι ἢ ἀπολύσητε is an unsuitable expan- 
 sion. — Ver. 69. After νῦν is to be added, with Lachm. and Tisch., dé, on de- 
 cisive evidence. — Ver. 71. The order of the words, τί ἔτε ἔχ. μαρτ. χρείαν, is to 
 be preferred, with Tisch., following BLT. The order in the Teatus receptus, 
 τ. & χ. ἐ. μ., 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). — ἐφοβ. y. τὸν λαόν] 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.é., μέ- 
 θοδον, πῶς ἀνελόντες αὐτὸν ob κινδυνεύσουσιν, ‘‘a plan how they in killing Him 
 will incur no danger,” Theophy]l. 
 
 Vv. 3-6. See on Matt. xxvi. 14-16; Mark xiv. 10 f. Luke passes over 
 the history of the anointing, having already related an earlier one (vii. 37). 
 — εἰσῆλθε] The part played by the devil, who ‘‘sensus omnes occupat,” 
 ‘“oecupies all the senses” (Calvin), is conceived of as an actual intrusion, as 
 εἰσέρχεσθαι is the word constantly used to express the intrusion of demons 
 into bodies (viii. 30, 32 f., xi. 27). Comp. John xiii. 27 (in regard to John 
 xiii. 2, see on the passage). —’Icxap.] See on Matt. x. 4. — ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀρ. τ. 
 δ.1 familiar to the reader (vi. 16), but a tragic addition. — Ver. 4. τοῖς [see 
 critical note] στρατηγοῖς] ΑΒ ὁ στρατηγός isthe chief of all the Levitical temple 
 guards (Acts iv. 1, v. 26 ; Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 8), 137 ὙΠ W'S, 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. συνέθεντο ] 
 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- 
 
 1 Comp. χιλίαρχοι, 3 Esdr. i. 9. See Lightfoot, p. 879. 
 
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. ἄτερ ὄχλου] without attracting a crowd. The opposite is 
 μετὰ ὄχλου, Acts xxiv. 18.3 The word ἄτερ, frequently occurring in the 
 poets, occurs only here and at ver. 35 in the New Testament.* 
 
 Vv. 7-13. See on Matt. xxvi. 17-19 ; Mark xiv. 12-16. Luke names the 
 disciples, and makes Jesus take the initiative. [See Note CLY., 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). — ἦλθε] there came, there appeared the day. Comp. 
 v. 35, xxiii. 29; Acts ii. 20, and elsewhere.’ —7 ἡμέρα] not ἡ ἑορτῇ 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. 397). — Ver. 11. ἐρεῖτε] a 
 future with the force of animperative : and ye shall say. —r6 οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς 
 oix.] See, on such pleonastic combinations, Bornemann in loc. ; Lobeck, 
 Paralip. p. 536 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. ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα] Ihave earnestly longed, Gen. 
 xxxi. 30. 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 : πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν. 
 -- τοῦτο] pointing to: this, which is already there. — Ver. 16. οὐκέτι x.7.A. ] 
 namely, after the present meal. — ἐξ αὐτοῦ] of the Passover. —éwe ὅτου k.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. 30, 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 incomplete, This corresponds to the idea ~ 
 
 1 Herod. ix. 53; Xen. Anabd.i. 9. 7, Hell. iii. 
 5.6; Herodian, v. 8. 28; Joseph. Anté. xiii. 
 4.7; 4 Macc. iv. 16. 
 
 2 ἐξωμολ., spopondit,** binds himself;”’ else- 
 where only the simple form is used in this 
 sense, as Plat. Symp. p. 196 C; Jer. xliy. 
 25; Joseph. Andtt. viii. 4. 3. 
 
 3 Comp. Hom. Jl. v. 473 : φῆς που ἄτερ λαῶν 
 πόλιν ἑξέμεν. 
 
 4 Comp. 2 Mace. xii. 15; rarely, moreover, 
 in the later Greek prose writers, as Plut. 
 Num. xiv. ; Dion. Hal. iii. 10. 
 
 5 Paschke is in error when he says, in the 
 Theol. Quartalschr. 1851, Ὁ. 410 ff., that ἦλϑε 
 
 means here: he came near, and that at 
 Matt. xxvi. 17, Mark xiv. 12, τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ 
 τῶν ἀζύμων Means: on the day before the 
 Passover. Moreover, Ewald (Gesch. Chr. 
 p. 459 f.) decides that, in so faras the words 
 of Luke are concerned (not also of Matthew 
 and Mark), the day before the Passover 
 might be meant. But by ἐν ἡ ἔδει «.7.A., as 
 well as by the 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 Mark, Note XCL., p. 184.] 
 
540 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 of the new world (of the ἀποκατάστασις, παλιγγενεσία), and of the perfected 
 theocracy in the αἰὼν μέλλων. 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. 17 f. According to Luke, 
 Jesus, after He had spoken quite at the beginning of the meal the words, 
 vy. 15, 16, receives a cup handed to Him (δεξάμενος, not the same as λαβών, 
 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 [εἰς ἑαυτούς] 
 ἑαυτοῖς), 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 οὐ μή, but in ver. 16 the relative οὐκέτι οὐ μῇ, is 
 used. [See Note CLVI., p. 556. ] 
 
 Remarx.—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, so necessary, that the not drinking, and especially on the part 
 of the Host Himself, would haye 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, ov μὴ πίω 
 k.T.2., until the conclusion of the meal, Mark xiv. 25, Matt. xxvi. 29 ; and since 
 Matthew uses the emphatic az’ ἄρτι, 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 
 CLVLI., p. 556.] According to Baur, Evang. p. 482 f., Luke must have been led 
 by 1 Cor. x., where, moreover, the ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας 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 κοινωνία, and the other with that 
 of ἀνάμνησις. 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 κοινωνία, 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. xxi 19> 20, 541 
 expression τοῦτο ποιεῖτε x.7.A., Which is not found at all in Matthew and 
 Mark. — τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον] 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 
 εἰς θάνατον." --- τοῦτο ποιεῖτε] to wit, the breaking of the bread after thanks- 
 giving, and the distribution and partaking of thesame.? [See Note CLVIL., 
 Ρ. 556. --- εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμν. ) for the remembrance of me.* See Winer, p. 198 
 [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 (see Kahnis, Lehre v. Abendm. p. 87). Rather in respect of such a 
 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 ἀνάμνησις of that which the symbols represent, is in 
 keeping with the symbolic character of the celebration.®°— Ver. 20. ὡσαύτως] 
 to wit, λαβὼν εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς. ---- τὸ ποτήριον] the cup before them. 
 - μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι) ‘‘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. ---τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον K.T.A.| this cup is the new covenant by means of my 
 blood, i.e., it isthe 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. 3) 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. i. 4; Rom. viii. 32; 1 Tim. ii. 
 6; Tit. ii. 16. In respect of the expression, 
 Wetstein justly compares Libanius, O7vat. 
 35, p. 705: καὶ τὸ σῶμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπέδωκεν, and 
 similar passages. 
 
 added in thought and read into the passage. 
 Rightly does Keim bring forward in the 
 Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, Ὁ. 94, that the 
 significance of the last supper as ὦ remem- 
 brance cannot be maintained together with 
 
 2 On ποιεῖν, occupying the place of more 
 definite verbs, which the context suggests, 
 see Bornemann, and Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
 iii. 8 2; Schoemann, ad Js. de Ap. her. 35. 
 
 3 ΤῸ lay a contrasted emphasis on ἐμήν 
 (not in remembrance of the deliverance from 
 Equpt ; so Lindner, Avendm. Ὁ. 91 ἔν, and 
 IIlofmann, Schrifibew. 11. 2, p. 218) is mis- 
 taken, because not suggested in the con- 
 text. See Riickert, Abend. Ὁ. 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- 
 inent as a separate point, without giving 
 rise to a feeble and bungling tautology.” 
 But the point on which stress is laid 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 
 
 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 bodily 
 given in corporeal presence to every recip- 
 ient. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 26, and on 1 
 Cor. xi. 24. How even Kahnis subsequently 
 gave up the orthodox doctrine of the Lord’s 
 Supper, see in his Dogmat. I. p. 616 ff. But 
 how even to this day the Catholics make 
 out the continuity of the sacrifice of Jesus 
 by the priests, see in Déllinger, Christenth. 
 und Kirche, p. 38, and Schegg. 
 
 5 Plat. Phaed. p. 74 A: τὴν ἀνάμνησιν εἶναι 
 μὲν ἀφ᾽ ὁμοίων. Comp. Justin, Ap. I. 66, 
 where it is said of the cup: εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ 
 αἵματος αὐτοῦ. 
 
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 ἐστίν after διαθήκη, and consequently also, in 
 so far as the passage before us is concerned, forbids the affixing ἐν τῷ αἵματί 
 pov to ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, 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 μου 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.” — ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη] 
 opposed to the old Mosaic covenant, whose condition was the fulfilling of 
 the law (in the new: faith). See on 1 Cor, xi, 25.—7rd.. . ἐκχυνόμενον] 
 belongs, although in the nominative, to τῷ αἵματί μου, 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 τὸ. . . ἐκχυ- 
 vouevov is applied to τῷ αἵματί μου because τὸ αἷμά μου 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 (τὸ. . . ἐκχυν.) 
 than would be the case if it were joined on in the dative. Comp. Jas. iii. 
 8 (where μεστὴ ἰοῦ is joined to the logical subject γλῶσσα, which, however, 
 is not the grammatical subject).?_ According to Baur’s view, τὸ... ἐκχυνόμ. 
 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. 108. This 
 reference to the cup appeared to give a support to the explanation of the 
 actual blood. 
 
 RemarK.—In the words of institution all four narrators vary from one 
 another, although not essentially, which serves to prove that a mode of formu- 
 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 ἐγὼ yap παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 κυρίου, 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 
 
 Τὴ his Gr. Bekennin.: “for the reason 14: Kiihner, § 677 ; Winer, pp. 471, 478 [E. T. 
 that Christ’s blood is there.” 588, 585 f.]. 
 2 Rev. iii. 12, viii. 9; Mark xii. 40; Johni. 
 
CHAP. XXII., 21-30. 543 
 
 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. II. 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, ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ 
 κυρίου, 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. 38. — πλήν] notwithstanding, although my blood is shed 
 for you. Not a limitation of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (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 πλήν, 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. — ἡ χεὶρ x.t.4.] The hand of my betrayer, etc. It was still 
 on the table (ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης), 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 παραδιδόναι. There is contained therein a tragic feature. — Ver. 22. ὅτι 
 ὁ υἱὸς μὲν (see the critical remarks) «.7.4. 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 (πλὴν οὐαὶ x.7.2.) leaves the person 
 concerned under the imputation (of the subjectively free action). — Ver. 23. 
 συζητεῖν, to confer, disputare, and πρὸς ἑαυτούς, among themselves, as Mark i. 
 27. —rovto] 7.é., the παραδιδόναι. With the emphasis of horror τοῦτο is placed 
 before the governing verb. On πράσσειν of traitorous transactions, comp. 
 Thucyd. iv. 89. 3, 110. 2. 
 
 Vv. 24-30. 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, ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία ἐν αὐτ., 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, Kuinoel, 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 here this 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. — δὲ καί] but also, in addition 
 to that συζητεῖν. ---- δοκεῖ] is esteemed, Gal. 11. 6. Bengel well says: ‘‘ Quis sit 
 omnium suffragiis,”” ‘‘ Who may be with the voice of all.” — μείζων] of higher 
 rank ; to regard ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν as understood (Kuinoel and others) 
 is an arbitrary proceeding, according to Matt. xviii. 1. Comp. on ix. 46 ; 
 Mark ix. 33. — Ver. 25. τῶν ἐθνῶν] of the Gentiles. — oi ἐξουσιάζ. αὐτ. These 
 are the magnates (Matt. xx. 25), rulers of the Gentiles after their kings. — 
 εὐεργέται, a 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. οὐχ οὕτως] It is sufficient to supply ἐστέ (others 
 take ποιεῖτε). See what follows. Ye are not to be thus, as that one should 
 let himself be distinguished in rank from the others. — ὁ μείζων] 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. ὁ νεώτερος 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 διακονῶν. 
 See also Acts v. 6, 10. —6 ἡγούμενος he who rules, standing at the head.? 
 This use, moreover, is so frequent among the Greek writers,* and the desig- 
 nation is so general, 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 ἀνακείμενος to the διακόνοις, 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 dvaxeiu. and διάκον., and 
 Jesus was in the highest sense of self-surrender actually the διάκονος 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. — ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν] more sig- 
 
 1Comp. εὐεργέτην ἀπογραφῆναι, Herod. 2Comp. Matt. ii. 6; Acts xv. 22; Heb. 
 viii. 85; Thue. i. 129. 3; Xen. Rep. Ath. iii. _ xiii. 7, 17, 24; 8 Esdr. viii. 44; 1 Macc. ix. 30, 
 11; Lys. pro Polystr. 19. ψηφίζεσϑαί τινι evep- and elsewhere. 
 yeoiav, Dem. 475. 10; Wolf, Zept. p. 282; 3 Dem. 654. 22; Soph. Phil. 386; Polyb. i. 
 Meier, de proxenia, Hal. 1843, p. 10, 15; Her- 15. 4, 31. 1, iii. 4. 6; Herodian, vii. 1. 22; Lu- 
 mann, Staatsalterth. § 116. 6. cian, Alex. 44; Diod. Sic, i. 72. 
 
CHAP. XXII., 31-34, 545 
 
 nificant (in the midst of you) than ἐν ὑμῖν ; He did not separate Himself from 
 them as one more distinguished than they. — Ver. 28. ὑμεῖς dé «.r.A.] in order 
 now, after this humiliation of His disciples’ desire of precedence, to induce 
 them to seek 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 His relation to them (ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, Ver. 
 27) their relation to Him (ὑμεῖς δὲ. . . μετ’ ἐμοῦ), 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 πειρα- 
 σμούς : **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 πειρασμός nor διαμένειν 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. κἀγώ] and J, on my part, as a recom- 
 pense for it. — διατίθεμαι) 1 ordain for you (herewith) dominion, as my Father 
 (in His counsel known to me) has ordained for me dominion—both in the king- 
 dom of the Messiah. βασιλ. belongs to both verbs, not merely as a parenthesis, 
 so that iva κ-τ.2. contains the object of διατίθεμαι iu. (Ewald, Bleek, and 
 others), since ver. 30 contains the idea of the συμβασιλεύειν. --- διατίθ. is not said 
 of testamentary appointment,’ since the same meaning could not be retained 
 in the second member, but in general dispono, I ordain for you.? On the idea, 
 comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12. — Ver. 30. iva] purpose of this assignment of dominion. 
 — ἐπὶ τ. τραπ. 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 καθίσεσθε (see the critical remarks), the con- 
 struction of the iva 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]). —éxi θρόνων] δώδεκα is not added, as in Matt. 
 xix. 28, on account of Judas. Christ is the divine Lord-superior of the 
 βασιλεία till the consummation of all things (1 Cor. xv. 28), and gives to His 
 disciples a share therein. 
 
 Vy. 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; see Plat. 22 Chron. vii. 18; Gen. xv. 18; 1 Mace. i. 
 Leg. ii. p. 922 B, E, 923 C; Dem. 1067. 1; 11; Xen. Cyr. ν. 2. 9, and elsewhere. 
 Joseph. Antz. xiii. 16.1; Arist. Pol. ii. 9. 
 
 39 
 
546 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 offspring of tradition. The words eize δὲ ὁ κύριος (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. — Σίμων, Σίμων] urgently warning, 
 as x. 41 ; Acts ix. 4. -- ἐξητήσατο ὑμᾶς] he has demanded you (thee and thy 
 fellow-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 ἐξῃτ. refers to the contemplated swrrender 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 διάβολος πολὺς ἐπέκειτο ζητεῖν ὑμᾶς ἐκβαλεῖν 
 τῆς ἐμῆς στοργῆς καὶ προδότας ἀποδεῖξαι, ‘‘ 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 ἐξῃτήσατο 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. —rov σινιάσαι] 
 so far as the ancient Greek writers are concerned, the verb σιενιάζω " 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 (κοσκινεύειν) ; σίνιον yap παρά τισι καλεῖται τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κόσκινον, ἐν ᾧ ὁ 
 σῖτος τῇδε κἀκεῖσε μεταφερόμενος ταράσσεται, ‘‘for among some that is called 
 σίνιον, Which is with us a sieve, into which the wheat is transferred and there 
 shaken,’? Euthymius Zigabenus. The point of comparison is the ταράσσειν 
 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 ; 
 so 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. ἐγὼ δέ] 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. — περὶ σοῦ] Comp. previously ὑμᾶς ; ‘‘ 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 μὴ ἐκλείπῃ κ.τ.}.1 that thy faith in me cease not, that thou mayest not 
 
 be unfaithful, and fall away from me, 
 
 1 A similar allusion to the history of Job 
 may be found in the Test. XII. Patr. 
 
 p. 729: ἐὰν τὰ πνεύματα τοῦ Βελιὰρ eis πᾶσαν 
 
 πονηρίαν ϑλίψεως ἐξαιτήσωνται ὑμᾶς. Comp. 
 Const. Apost. vi. 5. 4. 
 2Comp. Herod. i. 74: οὐ yap... ἐξεδίδου 
 
 τοὺς Σκύϑας ἐξαιτέοντι Κναξάρεϊ ; Plat. Menex. 
 
 Jesus knows this prayer is heard, in 
 
 p. 245 B ; Polyb. iv. 66. 9, xxx. 8. 6. 
 3Tgnatius, Smyrn. Interpol. 7, has συνια- 
 σϑῆναι, plainly in reference to the passage 
 before us. 
 4 See Suicer, Zhes. II. p. 961 f.; van Hen- 
 gel, Annot. p. 31 f. ν 
 
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 ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς πίστεως 
 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 (καὶ σύ, 
 opposed to the ἐγὼ dé), when thou shalt be converted (without figure : resipueris, 
 μετανοήσας, 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 στηρίζειν, see especially Acts xiv. 22.’ According to Bede, Maldonatus, 
 Grotius, Bengel, van Hengel, Annot. p. 1 ff., Ewald, and others, ἐπίστρ. is a 
 Hebraism (33¥) : rursus, 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. 36). But it is 
 inconsistent with the context when Wetstein takes ἐπίστρ. actively: ‘‘ con- 
 vertens fratres tuos,” ‘‘ converting thy brethren,” since Jesus has the fall of 
 Peter (ver. 34) in His view. — Ver. 33 f. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 32-35 ; 
 Mark xiv. 20-31. The ἐπιστρέψας provoked the self-confidence of the apostle. 
 - μετὰ σοῦ] stands with passionate emphasis at the beginning 3; ἐκ πολλῆς 
 ἀγάπης θρασύνεται καὶ ὑπισχνεῖται τὰ τέως αὐτῷ ἀδύνατα, ‘‘from much love he is 
 emboldened and promises what was meanwhile impossible for him,” Theo- 
 phylact. —Tlérpe] not Σίμων this time. The significant name in contra- 
 diction with the conduct. — μή] after arapy., 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. |] —xai εἶπεν αὐτοῖς] A pause must be sup- 
 posed as occurring before what follows, the connection of the thought being : 
 not without reason have I uttered words so momentous (vv. 31-34), 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 !—dére ἀπέστειλα x.t.A.] ix. 3 ; comp. x. 4. — Ver. 36. οὖν] in 
 consequence of this acknowledgment. [But see critical note. ] — ἀράτω] 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.— καὶ 6 μὴ ἔχων] to wit, βαλλάντιον καὶ πήραν. The 
 contrast allows nothing else. [See Note CLXI., p. 556 seq.] Hence μάχαιραν 
 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 στήρισον, see Winer, p. 82 [E. 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 to them 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, otherwise so needful, yet He regards 
 it as a self-evident duty on the part of those who have the means for the 
 purchase. The form of His utterance is a parallelism, 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 figuratively 
 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 βαλλάντ. and πήραν, in opposition 
 to Olshausen, who perversely allegorizes the whole passage, so that βαλλάντ. 
 and πήρ. are taken to signify the means for the spiritual life, and yay. the 
 sword of the Spirit, Eph. vi. 17 (comp. also Erasmus). — Ver. 37. A con- 
 firmation of the ἀλλὰ viv x.r.2. For since, moreover, that (‘‘etiamnum 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. 36. 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 δεῖ 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). — kai μετὰ ἀν. ἐλογ.} καί, 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. — καὶ γὰρ τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλ. ἔχει] for, moreover, that 
 which concerneth me has come to an end ; i.e., for, moreover, with my destiny, 
 as with the destiny of him of whom Isaiah speaks, there is anend. Observe 
 that Jesus did not previously say τὸ εἰς ἐμὲ γεγραμμένον x.7.A. or the like, but τὸ 
 γεγρ. δεῖ τελεσθῇ. ἐν ἐμοί, 80 that He does not explain the passage immediately of 
 Himself (O\shausen), but asserts that it must be fulfilled in Him, in respect of 
 which itis plain from καὶ yap x.7.2. that He conceived of another as the subject 
 of the first historical meaning of the passage (whom ? is another question, 
 comp. Acts villi. 84), 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, 
 Bleck) read : for, moreover, that which is written of me, like other prophecies, 
 is about to be accomplished, as though γεγραμμένα formed part of the sentence, 
 
 1On τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ, see Kiihner, IT. p. 119; p. 392 C ; Dem. 982. 4, and the examples from 
 on τέλος ἔχει, Mark iii. 26; Plat. Pol. iii. 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. 11. p. 380. But what anugatory argument ! and what is the mean- 
 ing of the καί (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. — ἱκανόν ἐστι] a gentle turning aside of further discussion, with a touch 
 of sorrowful irony : it is 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. 36.7. 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 7) in Schoettgen, p. 314 ff. Ols- 
 hausen and de Wette combine the two, saying that Jesus spoke in a two- 
 fold sense ; comp. Bleek. 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 ! ‘‘ Protervwm 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. ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου] at the place whither He wished to go,—had arrived 
 at the spot.* — προσεύχεσθε, «.7.2.| Which Matt. xxvi. 41 and Mark xiv. 38 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. 36) with that of the disciples 
 (de Wette).— 41. αὐτός] He on His part, in contrast with the disciples. — 
 ἀπεσπάσθη] Avulsus est, Vulgate ; He 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, 
 
 
 
 1 Schleiermacher even has forced thismis- sake of the gospel, and to bear the cross; 
 
 understanding (ZL. J. p. 417 f.) to a ground- 
 less combination; namely, that Jesus 
 wished the swords for the case of an wnof- 
 Jicial assault. 
 
 2 Comp. Luther’s gloss : ‘It isof no more 
 avail to fight with the bodily sword, but 
 henceforth it is of avail to suffer for the 
 
 for the devil cannot be fought against with 
 steel, therefore there is need to venture all 
 onthat, and only to take the spiritual 
 sword, the word of God.” 
 
 3 On γίνεσϑαι in the sense of come, see 
 Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 295, 
 
590 THE GOSPEL 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; Xen. 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.” — ὡσεὶ λίθου βολήν] 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. εἰ βούλει παρενεγκεῖν x.7.2.] if Thou 
 art willing to bear aside (Mark xiv. 36) this cup 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.* — θέλημα] not βουλῇ or 
 βούλημα, Which would not have been appropriate to μου. Comp. on Matt. i. 
 19 ; Eph. 1. 11. — Ver. 43. The appearance of the angel, understood by Luke 
 historically and externally (@¢67 az’ οὐρανοῦ), is by Olshausen (see, in answer 
 to him, Dettinger in the 7b. Zeitschr. 1838, p. 46 f.) erroneously taken as 
 an internal phenomenon (but see i. 11, xxiv. 34 ; Acts ii. 3, vii. 2, 30, ix. 
 17, xvi. 9, xxvi. 16), and interpreted as signifying an ‘‘influx of spiritual 
 powers.” But of the strengthening itself is not to be made a bodily invigora- 
 tion, as at Acts ix. 19 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 391 ; 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 John i. 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, J.c. ; 
 Ebrard, p. 528 ; Olshausen, Schegg ; Lange also, LZ. J. 11. 3, p. 1480, 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 
 κένωσις, may be seen in Calovius, — Ver, 44, Further particulars. Accord- 
 
 1 Ancient scholium on Soph. Aj. 1003, p. 16) says: δειλιᾷ τὸν ϑάνατον κατὰ φύσιν av- 
 
 ἀποσπᾶν τὸ βιαίως χωρίζειν τὰ κεκολλημένα. 
 Comp. Acts xxi. 1, and the passages in 
 Kypke, also Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee, 225. 
 
 2 On the expression, comp. JJ. xxiii. 529; 
 Thue. vy. 65. 1; LXX. Gen. xxi. 16. On the 
 accusative of measure, see Kiihner, § 556. 
 
 3 See Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 600]; Buttmann, 
 p. 339 [E. T. 396]. 
 
 4 Theodore of Mopsuestia (ed. Fritzsche, 
 
 θρώπων καὶ εὔχεται καὶ ἐνισχύεται ὑπὸ ἀγγέλου, 
 “He fears death according to the nature of 
 men and prays, and is strengthened by an 
 angel.” 
 
 5Gabler in Theolog. Journ. 1. pp. 109 ff., 
 217 ff.; Schleiermacher, Strauss, Hase, 
 Theile, Holtzmann, comp. Bleek, Schenkel, 
 and others, 
 
CHAP. XXII., 47-53. 551 
 ing to Luke, the decisive resolve of Jesus : τὸ σὸν γενέσϑω, 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 (ἀγωνία, Dem. 236.19 ; Polyb. viii. 21. 2 ; 2 Macc. 
 iii. 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, Bleek, merely to the size and 
 consistence of the drops of sweat.! Thus in a naturalistic direction the point 
 of comparison found in αἵματος 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 ἢ No ! αἵματος 
 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 ϑρόμθοι is chosen ; for ϑρόμβος is not simply ὦ 
 drop (σταγών, στάλαγμα), but a clot of coagulated fluid (milk and the like), and 
 is often used especially of coagulated blood.2 Consequently that sweat of 
 Jesus was indeed no mass of blood (opposed to which is dei), 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 down to the ground.? So 
 in substance most of the Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, 
 and others, including Strauss, Ebrard, Schegg. As 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. ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης] 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 near, 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 
 
 1 50. also Dettinger, /.c.. and Hug, Gu- 
 zacht. I. Ὁ. 145. Comp: Lange, ΠῚ’ 3, 
 
 riation from the passage before us. For 
 ϑρόμβος, even in the classical writers, is used 
 
 p. 1433. 
 
 2 Aesch. Hum. 184; Choeph. 533, 545; Plat. 
 Crit. Ὁ. 120 A: ϑρόμβον ἐνέβαλλον αἵματος : 
 Dioscor. 13: ϑρόμβοις αἵματος. See Jacobs, 
 ad Anthol. VI. p. 379; Blomfield, Gloss. 
 Choeph. 526. 
 
 3 Justin, ὁ. 77. 103, relates from the ἀπο- 
 μνημονεύμασι Simply: ὅτι ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ ϑρόμβοι 
 κατεχεῖτο. Therein is found no essential va- 
 
 without αἵματος of a coagulated mass of 
 blood. See Blomfield, 1.6. 
 
 4 Aristotle, H. A. iii. 19; Bartholinus, de 
 Cruce, pp. 184 ff., 193 ff.; Gruner, de J. C. 
 morte vera, pp. 38 ff., 109 f.; Loenartz, de 
 sudore sanguin., Bonn 1850. 
 
 5 See examples in Pricaeus, ad Apulej, 
 Metam. p. 660f., and Wetstein, 
 
552 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 the linking on of what follows by means of ἔτει αὐτοῦ λαλ. is better suited to 
 the sense. Luke in this part uses in general less original sources. — ὁ λεγόμ. 
 Ioid.] who is called Judas. Comp. ver. 1; Matt. ii. 23, xxvi. 8, 14, xxvii. 
 33, and elsewhere. — εἷς τῶν δώδεκα] as ver. 8.— xpofpyeto αὐτούς] See on 
 Mark vi. 33. — Ver. 48. φιλήματι] placed first for emphasis ; φίλου ἀσπασμῷ 
 ἐχϑροῦ ἔργον τὴν προδοσίαν μιγνύεις ; ‘‘ with the salutation of a friend dost thou 
 join this betrayal, the deed of an enemy ?” Theophylact. That the kiss 
 was concerted with the enemies (Mark xiv. 44) Luke leaves to be gathered 
 only mediately from the words of Jesus. — Ver. 49.1 εἰ πατάξομεν x.7.A.] 
 whether we shall smite by means of the sword? Comp. xiii. 23 ; Acts i. 6, and 
 elsewhere. See on 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 viarcendam 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. τὸ δεξιόν] as also John 
 xvili. 10 has it. — Ver. 51. ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου] is a prohibitory summons to the 
 disciples : sinite usque hue (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, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Bleek [Weiss ed. Mey.], 
 and others have explained : cease (comp. Acts v. 38; Hom. 11. 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 as μὴ ποῤῥωτέρω or the like. Others take the 
 words as an address to those who were taking Him prisoner, and thus τούτου 
 either 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 τούτου as neuter, indeed, but local : let me go thither where 
 the wounded man is (Paulus), or τούτου 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 ἀποκριϑείς shows nothing else than 
 a reply to the disciples, as Jesus does not turn to His enemies till ver. 52. — 
 καὶ ἁψάμ. k.7.2.] On account of ἀφεῖλεν, ver. 50, this is to be referred to the 
 place and the remains of the ear that had been eut off ; and ἰάσατο αὐτόν to the heal- 
 ing of the wound (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 
 
 1Vy. 49-51, as also already at vv. 35--88, the Romish Church even before Marcion. 
 
 was objectionable to Marcion, and was 
 omitted in his gospel. See Volkmar, p. 69 f. 
 Hilgenfeld decides otherwise in the Theol. 
 Jahrb. 1853, p. 240 f., where he, indeed, like- 
 wise concedes the genuineness, but suppos- 
 es that the deletion may have happened in 
 
 2 Comp. Luther, Maldonatus, and others ; 
 recently also Hofmann, Schriftbew. IL. 2, 
 p. 437, and Schegg. 
 
 3 Bornemann, so also Hammond, Kypke, 
 de Weite, Lange, II. 3, p. 1461, III. p. 512, 
 
CHAP. XXII., 54-62, 553 
 
 the less be cleared of the suspicion of being a legendary accretion,’ like vv. 43, 
 44, that even John, who narrates the blow with the sword so circumstan- 
 tially, says nothing about it. [See Note CLXIII., p. 557.] — Ver. 52. πρὸς τοὺς 
 παραγενομ. k.t-A.] These chief priests, etc., were therefore, according to Luke, 
 associated with that ὄχλος, 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, 
 δῦ. 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. 53. ἀλλ᾽ airy x.7.4.] 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) is 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 ἀλήϑεια, opposed to φῶς). Observe the great emphasis on the ὑμῶν by 
 being placed so near the beginning of the clause. The expression τοῦ σκότους, 
 not τῆς ἁμαρτίας (SO Kuinoel and Olshausen explain it), not τοῦ διαβόλου (so 
 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. See on Matt. xxvi. 57 f., 69-75 ; 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 τοῦ ἀρχίερ. 
 Moreover, Luke is not self-contradictory (in opposition to Strauss), as the chief 
 priests and elders mentioned at ver. 52 are to be regarded only as individ- 
 uals, and probably as deputed by the Sanhedrim. — τοῦ 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 see 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 occur in 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 εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ 
 ἀρχίερ., When the prisoner, as may be supposed, was announced. Wieseler 
 
 1 Comp. Strauss, II. 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. περιαψάντων] (see the critical remarks) after they 
 had kindled around (Phalaris, Ep. p. 28), .e., had set it in full blaze. The 
 insertion of αὐτῶν was not needful, Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 17. — Ver. 
 ὅθ. 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 érepo¢ 
 and ἄνϑρωπε, 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. ὅθ. ἄλλος tic] 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 Peter 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.]— ἐνέβλεψε] 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 
 Schleiermacher), 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). 
 — δέρειν and παίειν are distinguished as to scourge (Jacobs, Del. Epigr. vi. 
 63) and to smite in general. 
 
 Vv. 66, 67. [See Note CLXVII., p. 558.] According to Luke, the Sanhedrim 
 now first comes together after daybreak, and Jesusis 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 a merely 
 summary and imperfect manner. —rd πρεσβυτέριον x.7.2.] 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 πρεσβυτέριον, denoting 
 
NOTES. 555 
 
 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 πρεσβυτέριον. See in general, Kriiger, ὃ 58. 2.1; 
 Winer, p. 115 f. [E. T. 126 41. --- ἀνήγαγον] The subject is the assembled 
 members of the Sanhedrim who had caused Him to be brought up. ἀνα in- 
 dicates a locality situated higher, as contrasted with the court of Annas, in 
 which locality the Sanhedrim were met. [But see critical note. --- εἰς τὸ 
 συνέδρ. ἑαυτῶν] into their own concessus, into their own council gathering, in 
 order now themselves to proceed further with Him.’ [See critical note. ]— 
 Ver. 67. εἰ od «.7.2.] may mean : If thou art the Messiah, tell us (Vulgate, 
 Lutber, and most commentators), or: Yell us whether thou art the Messiah 
 (Castalio, Bornemann, Ewald, and others), or : Js it the case that thou art 
 the Messiah? Tell 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 : ἀπὸ τοῦ 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. — ἐὰν δὲ καὶ 
 ἐρωτ.} but in case I 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). 
 — ἀπὸ τοῦ viv dé] ‘‘ Ab hoe 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. 378 f. Moreover, see on Matt. xxvi. 64 ; yet Luke has avoided 
 the certainly original ὄψεσϑε, and thus made the utterance less abrupt. 
 
 Vv. 70, 71. Ὁ υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ] This designation of the Messiah is suggested 
 by ἐκ δεξιῶν. . . Θεοῦ, in recollection of Ps. cx.; for ‘‘ colligebant ex prae- 
 dicato ver. 69,” ‘‘they concluded from the statement of ver. 69,” Bengel. 
 And their conclusion was right. — ὅτε ἐγώ εἰμι] ὅτι, argumentatively [so 
 R. V. marg. and Am. text], comp. John xviii. 37 ; ἐγώ, with emphasis, cor- 
 responding to the σύ of vv. 67 and 70. --- μαρτυρίας] that He gives Himself 
 out to be the Messiah. 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN Eprror. 
 
 CLY. Ver. 8. Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην. 
 
 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. ἡ. 501 Ὁ : τοῦ ὄντος phictyonic council, also of the Roman and 
 τε Kat ἀληϑείας ἐραστάς ; Soph. Oed. C. 850: the Carthaginian Senate (Polyb. xl. 6. 6, i. 
 πατρίδα τε THY σὴν καὶ φίλους. < 11. 1, 31. 8). 
 
 3 Comp. the use of συνέδριον 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. 
 
 CLVII. Ver. 19. τοῦτο ποιεῖτε. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey., with over-refinement, infers from the absence of λάβετε or 
 φάγετε that τοῦτο 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. 
 
 CLVIII. Vv. 19, 20. The 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 vy. 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. ὁ μὴ ἔχων 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 : 
 ἔχων, πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀγορησάτω, μάχαιραν (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. 
 
 CLXII. 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. 
 
 CLXIIT, Ver. 51. καὶ ἁψάμενος 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 unassailed. 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- 
 tists, 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 seq.) 
 creates the variation from Matthew of which he speaks, 
 
 CLXV. Ver. 61. καὶ στραφεὶς ὁ κύριος k.T.A. 
 
 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 Caiaphas lived in the same 
 house, that Jesus was led through the court from a hearing before one to the 
 more formal examination before the other, accounts for all the statements 
 made by four independent witnesses. The 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 CLXVII. 
 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 
 (ἀπήγαγον, ‘*was led away’’) disposes of Meyer’s notion that Jesus was led up 
 to a higher locality (ἀνήγαγον). His interpretation of ἑαυτῶν 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 ἤγαγεν. But ἤγαγον is decisively attested. — Ver. 2. After 
 ἔθνος we find ἡμῶν 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 &-B L, 
 Vulg. Syrr., insert καί before λέγοντα, and also in ver. 5 before apeduevoc, with the 
 same authorities, except the Vulg.] — Ver. 6. Ταλελαίαν] is wanting inB L T δὲ, 
 Copt. Tisch. Passed over as superfluous and troublesome. [Rejected as agloss 
 by W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] — Ver. 8. ἐξ ἱκανοῦ] ἐξ ἱκανῶν χρόνων (B DLT 8, 
 Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]) and ἐξ ἱκανοῦ χρόνου (H M X, min. Vulg. 
 It.) are expansions in the way of gloss. — πολλά is wanting in B DK LM [T II] 
 δὲ, min. vss. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition to make 
 the statement more precise, which some cursives have after αὐτοῦ. --- Ver. 11. 
 περιβ. αὐτόν] αὐτόν is wanting in BL T δὲ, 52, Vulg. codd. of It. Bracketed by 
 Lachm., deleted by Tisch. A superfluous exegetical addition, instead of which 
 RSUT, min. have air@, —[Ver. 12. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, 
 Vulg., read ‘Hpédy¢ καὶ ὁ I.]— Ver. 15. avéreupa yap ὑμᾶς rp. αὐτόν] Β K L 
 ΜΠ δὰ, min. vss. have ἀνέπεμψεν yap αὐτὸν πρὸς ἡμᾶς (Β : ὑμᾶς). An alteration 
 in accordance with ver. 11. [Tisch., W. and Hort., R. V. (Eng. text, Amer. 
 marg.), follow δὲ 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) ἀνάγκην δὲ εἶχεν ἀπολύειν αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἑορτὴν ἕνα. This is 
 wanting in ἃ Β ΚΤ, Τ' II, Copt. Sahid. Vere., and does not occur in D, Aeth. 
 Syr. 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 βεβλημ. εἰς τ. φ. Tisch. has βληθεὶς ἐν τῇ φυ- 
 λακῇ, 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 Β L T.]— Ver. 
 20. οὖν] Lachm. and Tisch. have dé, on decisive evidence. —[W. and Hort, 
 Weiss, R. V., with δὲ BL, Copt., add αὐτοῖς, after προσεφώνησεν.  --- Ver. 21. Elz. 
 Scholz have σταύρωσον, cratpwoov, But BD δὲ, Or. Eus. Cyr. have oravpov, 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. καὶ Tov ἀρχιερ.] bracketed by Lachm., condemned also by Rinck, deleted by 
 Tisch. It is wanting in BL &, 130, al. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd. of It. [Re- 
 jected by W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] But for what purpose should it have 
 been added? It would be far easier to overlook it as superfluously straggling 
 after αὐτῶν. --- Ver. 24. ὁ δέ] Lachm. and Tisch. have καί, in accordance with 
 BL δὲ, 157, It. The Recepta is from Mark xv. 15, whence also, and from Matt. 
 xxvii. 26, αὐτοῖς (ver. 25) came in, which Elz. reads after ἀπέλ. dé. —[Tisch., 
 recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BD, omit τὴν before φυλακήν in ver. 25.] — Ver. 
 26. Σίμωνος x.7.A.] Lachm, and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have Σίμωνά τινα 
 
560 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον, on important evidence indeed [τὲ B C Ὁ L, 33]; but the 
 parallels suggested the accusative. Elz. has τοῦ before épy., in opposition to 
 decisive evidence. — Ver. 27. ai καί] Lachm. has merely ai. Since the author- 
 ities against καί are decisive (A B Οὐ Ὁ L X, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. 
 It. Theophyl.), it is to be deleted, and to be explained from ai haying been 
 written twice, or as an arbitrary addition, from the well-known usage in Luke. 
 In δὲ aixaiis wanting. —Ver. 29. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 B Ὁ, in- 
 sert ai before κοιλίαι. ---- ἐθήλασαν] B C* L δὲ, min. It. have ἔθρεψαν, to which, 
 moreover, C** D approach with ἐξέθρεψαν. ἔθρεψ. is to be adopted, with Lachm. 
 and Tisch. The Recepta is an interpretation. —[Ver. 33. Recent editors, R. V. 
 (against Tisch.), read ἤλθον, with δὲ BC L, Vulg.] — Ver. 34. ὁ dé Ἰησοῦς... ποιοῦ- 
 ow] bracketed by Lachm. [W. and Hort, suspected by Weiss, omitted R. V. 
 marg.] The words are wanting in B D* N** 38, 435, Sahid. Cant. Ver. Vere. 
 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. — κλῆρον] Tisch. has κλήρους, 
 following A X, min. Syr.ie: 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 καί 
 after δέ is wanting in D &, min. Vulg. It. Eus. Lachm. Tisch. The subsequent 
 σὺν αὐτοῖς is wanting in ΒΟ DL Q X 8, min. Syr. Pers.p Ar.p Erp. Copt. 
 Aeth. Cant. Ver. Colb. Corb. Rd. Bracketed by Lachm. ; σὺν αὐτοῖς 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 σὺν αὐτοῖς, but appeared inappropriate without this addition. — Ver. 
 36. καί] after προσερχ. is, on preponderating evidence, with Tisch. (Lachm. has 
 only bracketed it), to be deleted. A connective addition. — Ver. 38. γεγραμμένη] 
 Since B L δὲ, Copt. Sahid. have not this at all, while A D Q have éxvyeyp. (so 
 Lachm.), and C* X, min. have yeyp. after αὐτῷ, the word is, with Tisch., to be 
 deleted as an exegetical addition. —ypaypaow . . . Ἕβρ.] is wanting in B ΟΣ 
 L, Copt. Sahid. Syr.*" Vere. Deleted by Tisch., by Lachm. only bracketed. It 
 is a very ancient addition from John xix. 20. --- οὗτός ἐστιν) is wanting in C, 
 Colb., and is found in others, sometimes with (D, 124, Cant. Corb.), sometimes 
 without ἐστίν (Β 1, δὲ, Verc.), not until after Iovdaiwy ; hence there is a strong 
 suspicion of its being a supplement. Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 
 have ὁ βασιλεὺς τ, ᾿Ιουδ. οὗτος, although Lachm. brackets oiroc. — Ver. 39. εἰ σὺ 
 el] Tisch. has οὐχὶ σὺ εἶ, according to B C* L δὲ, vss. ; the Recepta is from ver. 
 37, whence also the λέγων, which precedes these words, and which is wanting in 
 B L, has intruded. — [Ver. 40. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 BCL, Copt., 
 have ἐπιτιμῶν αὐτῷ ion.) — Ver. 42. κύριε] is wanting in Β C* DL ΜῈ 8, min. 
 Copt. Sahid. Syr.jer Cant. Vere. Or. (once). Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by 
 Tisch. An addition, which Q, Corb. Brix. Syr.« Hil. have before μνήσθ.] 
 [W. and Hort text, R. V. marg., with B L, Vulg., have εἰς τὴν Bac. o.] — Ver. 44. 
 qv δέ] Lachm. Tisch. have καὶ ἦν ἤδη, in accordance with sufficient evidence. 
 Both the insertion of dé and the omission of ἤδη were occasioned by the par- 
 allels, — Ver. 45. καὶ ἐσκοτ, ὁ ἥλιος appeared unsuitable after ver. 44, and was 
 
 1 Still in connection with this deletion Tisch., following BC* LS&* Copt. Sahid.: 
 of the κύριε isto be read previously with καὶ ἔλεγεν" Ἰησοῦ. [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, τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος (B) or ἐκλιπ. (( L δὲ, min. vss. Or. ; so Tisch.). 
 [W. and Hort, R. V., follow B, but Weiss agrees with Tisch., who, with recent 
 editors, R. V. (δ BCL, 1, 33), reads ἐσχίσθη dé, and in ver. 46 τοῦτο dé instead 
 of καὶ ταῦτα. ] ] —Ver. 46. παραθήσομαι] παρατίθεμαι (commended by Griesb., adopted 
 by Lachm. and Tisch.) is decisively attested. The Recepta is from LXX., Ps. 
 xxxi. 5. —[Ver. 47. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read ἐδόξαζεν, with 8 BD L.] 
 — Ver. 48. θεωροῦντες] Lachm. and Tisch. have θεωρήσαντες, which is founded on 
 BCDLREX 8, min. Colb. —A has omitted θεωρ. τ. y. The aorist is logically 
 necessary. — After τύπτ. Elz. Scholz have ἑαυτῶν, in opposition to AB C*D Τὶ 8, 
 in spite of which authorities Lachm. has nevertheless retained it, A superflu- 
 ous addition, instead of which U X T have αὐτῶν. --- Ver. 49. αὐτοῦ] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. have αὐτῷ, which is sufficiently attested by A B LP, 33, 64, for αὐτοῦ to 
 be traced to the inaccuracy of the transcribers. Before μακρ. Lachm. Tisch. 
 [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V.] have ἀπό, in accordance with BDL &. From the 
 parallels. — [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ BC L, have the present par- 
 ticiple, συνακολουθοῦσαι. ] --- Ver. 51. Elz. Scholz have ὃς καὶ προσεδέχετο καὶ αὐτός. 
 But BCD L 8, 69, Copt. codd. of It. have merely ὃς προσεδέχετο. So Lachm. 
 Tisch. From Matthew and Mark was written on the margin sometimes only 
 kai, sometimes καὶ αὐτός, both of which readings are combined in the Recepta. 
 There are many other variations, which together make the Recepta so much the 
 more suspicious. — Ver, 53. Lachm. Tisch. have deleted the first αὐτό, in ac- 
 cordance, indeed, with BC DL δὲ, min. Vulg. It. (not Ver.) ; but being super- 
 fluous, and being regarded as awkwardly in the way, it was easily passed over. 
 [Rejected by recent editors, R. V.] — ἔθηκ. αὐτό] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔθηκ. 
 αὐτόν, in accordance with B C Ὁ τὲ, Vulg. It. Copt. Rightly ; αὐτό is a repeti- 
 tion from what precedes. — [Recent editors, R.V., with A BL, 1, have οὐδεὶς οὔπω, 
 while Tisch., with δὲ C, has ουδεὺς οὐδέπω, the Rec. reversing the order. The 
 first is to be preferred. ]— Ver. 54. παρασκευὴ] Lachm. Tisch. have παρασκευῆς, 
 in accordance with B C* Τὶ δὲ, min. Vulg. codd. of It. Copt. Sahid. Since even 
 the evidence of D is not in favor of the Recepta (it has πρὸ σαββάτου), the author- 
 ities in favor of the genitive are all the stronger, especially as παρασκευή was 
 easily regarded by the transcribers asa name. Hence the genitive is to be pre- 
 ferred. — The καί before σάββ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with 
 BC*L δὲ, min. vss., to be retained. It slipt out in consequence of the omis- 
 sion of the entire clause x. σάββ. ἐπεῴφ. (So still D, Colb.), and then was restored 
 without the superfluous kai. — Ver. 55. Elz. Scholz have dé καὶ γυναῖκες. Cer- 
 tainly erroneous, since the decisive authorities have sometimes left out καί al- 
 together (so Tisch.), sometimes have instead of it ai (so Lachm.). The latter is 
 right. From δὲ ai arose the dé καί so frequent in Luke. But the article is 
 necessary, in accordance with ver. 49.—[Tisch,, W. and Hort, R. V., with & 
 B L, place αὐτῷ after Ταλιλαίας.] 
 
 Vv. 1-8. Comp. on Matt. xxvii. 2, 11; Mark xv. 1, 2. Luke relates the 
 special charge, ver. 2, very precisely.1 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- λύοντα Tov νόμον K. τοὺς προφήτας, and after 
 riched the accusation with two points βασιλ. εἶναι : καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα Tas γυναῖκας κ. 
 more, namely, after τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν ; καὶ κατα- τὰ τέκνα. 
 
 90 
 
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) 5166. --- ἤρξαντο] Begin- 
 ning of the accusation scene. — διαστρέφ.] perverting, misleading.’ —rd ἔϑν. 
 ἡμ.} our nation, John xi. 50. — κωλύοντα] mediately, to wit, by representing 
 Himself, etc.? — Χριστὸν βασιλέα] a King-Messiah. [See Note CLXVIIL., 
 p. 569. ] βασιλέα isadded 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 blame- 
 worthy, etc.,—to him it is the expression of the fixed idea of a harmless 
 visionary. — ἐπίσχυον] 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 κατίσχυον, ver. 23. 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 (διαστρέφ.) now used : he stirs up.* [See Note CLXIX., p. 569.] 
 — apap. x.t.2.] as Matt. xx. 8. [See critical note. ] 
 
 Vv. 6, 7. Pilate was glad to seize the opportunity, when he heard the 
 name of Galilee (ἀκούσας Ταλιλ.), 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. iii. 1. — ἀνέπεμψεν] hesent Him 
 up,—as the word, moreover, is used among the Greeks of the sending of 
 delinquents to a higher judicature.’ In the same manner ἀνάγειν ; 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. — ἦν yap 
 ϑέλων K.t.2.] for from a long time he had been desirous. — On ἐξ ἱκανοῦ, comp. 
 the Greek neutral expressions : ἐκ πολλοῦ, ἐκ πλείστου, ἐξ ὀλίγου, ἐξ ἐκείνου, and 
 the like ; ἐφ᾽ ἱκανόν, 2 Mace. viii. 25.— ἀκούειν] continually. — ἤλπιζε x.7.2.] 
 ‘‘ut oculos et animum re nova pasceret more aulae,”’ Grotius. — οὐδὲν ἀπεκρί- 
 vato] is to be explained from the nature of the questions, and from Jesus 
 seeing through Herod’s purpose. — αὐτὸς δέ] But He on His part. 
 
 Vy. 10-12. Ἑἱστήκεισαν] they stood there. They had brought Him to 
 Herod. —eirévwc] with passionate energy. — Ver. 11. Prudently enough 
 
 1Comp. Polyb. v. 41. 1: ἀφίστασθαι καὶ 
 διαστρέφειν ; Ecclus. xi. 34. 
 
 2 Thus, according to the Recepta, λέγοντα, 
 Still the reading καὶ λέγοντα (Β 1, T 8, vss.) 
 is, with Tischendorf [see critical note], to 
 be preferred, in which the two points 
 κωλύοντα κιτιλ. and λέγοντα x.7.A. are put 
 forward independently. How easily the 
 «AI might drop out after édovAT ! 
 
 3 Mark xv. 11; Polyb. 277. Hist. 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 ἀνέπεμψεν ; 
 nor, moreover, for the sake of learning the 
 truth from Herod (Neander). 
 
 5 Comp. Polyb. i. 7. 12, xxix. 11. 9. 
 
 ὁ Comp. Schleiermacher, ZL. .7. p. 486. 
 
 7Comp. 2 Macc. xii. 23; Acts xviii. 28, 
 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.] —ovv τοῖς στρατεύμασιν αὐτοῦ] These troops are the body of 
 satellites by whom He is surrounded. — ἐσθῆτα λαμπρ. ] 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 a king. 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. ὄντες] 
 along with ὑπάρχειν, for the sake of making the situation more strongly 
 prominent.* — πρὸς ἑαυτούς] not ἀλλήλους 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 
 Herod’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, ὁ. 77. 103, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod 
 to please him (χαριζόμενος). 
 
 Remarx.—The narrative of the sending to Herod (comp. Acts iv. 27) has the 
 stamp of originality, and might as an interlude, 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: ἐγὼ οὐδεμίαν 
 αἰτίαν εὑρίσκω, ἐν αὐτῷ, xviii. 38 (not after ver. 40, Tholuck, 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.) ; 
 but, on the contrary, in accordance with the freedom of his peculiar composi- 
 tion, since all the evangelists did their work eclectically. Lightly Strauss, II. 
 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. 13-16. Καὶ τοὺς apyovr.| and in general the members of the Sanhedrim. 
 Comp. xxiv. 20. — Ver. 14. ἐγώ] I, for my part, to which afterwards corre- 
 
 1 Comp. Xen. Cyrop. ii. 4. 5. 2 See Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 258 f. Ὁ 
 
564 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 sponds ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ “Ηρώδης. ---- ἐνώπιον ὑμῶν] having examined Him in your pres- 
 ence, according to ver. 3; but there is a variation in John xviii. 33 f. — 
 οὐδὲν . . . αἴτιον ὧν x.7.A.| 1 have found nothing in this man which could be 
 charged upon him, of that which ye (οὐδὲν ὧν = οὐδὲν τούτων, a) complain of 
 against him.! — Ver. 15. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ “Ηρώδης] scil. εὑρεν x.t.2., nor has even Herod 
 (who yet knows the Jewish circumstances so accurately), etc.2 [See Note 
 CLXXI., p. 570. ] — καὶ ἰδοὺ «.r.2.|] Result of what was done in presence of 
 Herod, which now appears ; hence ἐστὲ πεπραγμένον, which does not mean : 
 has been done by Him ; but : 7s done by Him. — Ver. 16. The chastisement 
 (what kind of chastisement is left indefinite) is here merely thrown out as a 
 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 nimiwm concedere Pilatus,” ‘‘ Here Pilate begins 
 to concede too much ;” and thereby he had placed the attainment of his 
 purpose beyond his power. Μαλακὸς dé τις ὁ Πιλάτος καὶ ἥκιστα ὑπὲρ ἀληϑείας 
 ἐνστατικός" ἐδεδοίκει γὰρ τὴν συκοφαντίαν, μήπως διαβληϑῇ ὡς τὸν ἀντάρτην ἀπολύ- 
 σας, ‘‘ 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,” Theophylact. 
 
 Vy. 18-23. A condensed account down to the final condemnation, ver. 
 24 f. — Alpe] 6 medio tolle,—a demand for His death.’ —doric] guippe qui, 
 not equivalent to the simple gui, but : a man of such a kind that he, etc. — 
 ἦν βεβλημ.} not a paraphrase of the pluperfect, but denoting the condition. 
 [See Note CLXXII., p. 570.]— Ver. 20. προσεφώνησε] made an address. 
 Comp. Acts xxi. 40.— Ver. 21. oratpov] Imperative active, not middle ; 
 parozytone, not perispomenon, — Ver. 22. yap] as Matt. xxvii. 23. — Ver. 23. 
 ἐπέκειντο) they pressed, they urged, instabant, Vulg. Comp. v. 1; 3 Mace. i. 
 22, often thus in the classical writers. — xatioyvov] they became predominant, 
 they prevailed.* 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. ᾿Επέκρινε] he pronounced the final sentence.’ —arédvoe k.t.4.] ἃ 
 tragic contrast. Comp. Acts iii. 14. 
 
 Vv. 26-32. Luke proceeds in a very abbreviating fashion, yet with inter- 
 calations of original matter, down to ver. 49. The observation épyou. ἀπ’ 
 ἀγροῦ; 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 XCVII.] 
 — 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. γυναικῶν] 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 αἴτιον, guilty, punishable, comp. vv. 4, 3 Comp. Acts xxi. 36, xxii. 22; Dion Hal. 
 22; ON κατήγορ. κατά τινος, Very rare in the iv. 4, and elsewhere. 
 Greek writers, see Xen. Hell. i. 7.6: τῶν τε 4 Comp. Polyb. vi. 51. 6, xx. 5. 6; Matt. 
 κατηγορούντων κατὰ τῶν στρατηγῶν. Wolf, xvi. 18. 
 ad Dem. Lept. p. 213. δ Plat. Leg. vi. p. 768A; Dem. 1477. 22, 
 2 Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche, in Fritzschior. and elsewhere ; 2 Mace. iv. 48; 3 Macc. 
 
 Opusc. p. 178. iv. 2. 
 
CHAP. XXIII., 33, 34. 565 
 
 very sympathizing and tender at executions ; ἐκόπτ., as viii. 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 ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ and ἐφ᾽ 
 ἑαυτάς ; 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. — μακάριαι] The maternal heart, 
 in truth, feels, besides its own suffering, still more keenly the sufferings of 
 beloved children, Eur. Andr. 395.’— Ver. 30. 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; Rey. vi. 16) 
 indicate, the destructive landslip which covers them was to take them away 
 by sudden death from the intolerable evil. —dpZovra:] an outbreaking of the 
 greatest anguish. The subject is the people in general (the Jews), not the 
 steriles, ‘‘ barren” (Bengel). — Ver. 31. 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. κακοῦργοι] defining more closely 
 the ἕτεροι δύο. Comp. ver. 33.° 
 
 Vv. 33, 34. Kpaviov] A Greek translation of Τολγοϑᾶ, a skull, so named 
 from its form. See on Matt. xxvii. 33, and Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 485, who 
 discovers in the name Golgotha the hill named Gared in Jer. xxxi. 39. — 
 Ver. 34. In ἄφες αὐτοῖς 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, Bleek also) is in respect of the crucifixion purely an in- 
 vention. But in respect of the crucifixion (ri ποιοῦσι) 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- 
 
 1On ἔθρεψαν (see the critical remarks), p. 469 [E. T. 530] ; Kriiger, Anabd. i. 4. 2. 
 comp. Aesch. Choeph. 543: macOov . . . ἐμὸν 4 Comp. J. Miiller, v. d. Stinde, I. Ὁ. 285; 
 θρεπτήριον. Schleiermacher, Ζ.. J. p. 458 ἢ. Against the 
 
 2 On the figure of the green (Ps. i. 5) and opinion of Buttmann in the Stud. u. Kvrit. 
 the dry tree, comp. Ezek. xxi. 3; Sanhedr. 1860, p. 353, see Graf in the same, 1861, 
 ἔ. 93,1. p. 749 ff. 
 
 3 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, ii. 28. --- διαμεριζόμ. at the division. — κλήρους 
 (see the critical remarks) : lots. Comp. on Mark xv. 24. 
 
 Vy. 35-88. 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. 89 ἢ, ; 
 Mark xv. 29 f.), for they rather stand there as spectators, but the members 
 of the Sanhedrim. δὲ καί refers merely to the ἐκμυκτηρίζειν of the ἄρχοντες. 
 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 ἐξεμυκτ. comp. Ps. xxii. 8, and see on xvi. 14. --- οὗτος] this fellow! with 
 scornful contempt. —6 τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκλεκτός] 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 grim joke !— Ver. 38. ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ] 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. 39-43. Hic] A difference from Mark xv. 82 and from Matt. xxvii. 44; 
 see on the passages. — ovyi (see the critical remarks) σὺ el ὁ Xp. is a jeering 
 question, Art thou not the Messiah ? — Ver. 40. οὐδὲ φοβῇ σύ] not : Dost not 
 even thou fear (de Wette, Bleek, following the Vulg., Grotius, Lange, and 
 others, that would be οὐδὲ 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. 
 οὐδὲν ἄτοπον] 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 receive 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 Parousia 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 wnhistorical legend? (Strauss, II. p. 519 ; Zeller in his Jahrb. 
 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. 238, p. 148, 
 2 For apocryphal fables, which subsequent- 
 
CHAP. XXIII., 44-46. 56? 
 
 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 ἐν in a preg- 
 nant sense as equal to εἰς [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 Jesus at John xviii. 36. — 
 Ver. 43. σήμερον] does not belong to λέγω σοι (a view already quoted in Theo- 
 phylact, and rightly estimated by the phrase ἐκβιάζονται τὸ ῥῆμα), in respect 
 of which it would be idle and unmeaning (this also in opposition to Weitzel 
 in the Stud. wu. 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 παράδεισος, ‘‘ 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 dwell 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, Schriftbew. 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 wer’ ἐμοῦ 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. ii. 18 f., as though we had here ‘‘a passage contradict- 
 ing the analogy of doctrine” (de Wette).° 
 
 Vv. 44-46. See on Matt. xxvii. 45, 50 f.; Mark xv. 33, 857 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 ninch 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 
 His last cry, and dies. —xai] as xix. 43; Mark xv. 25. [But see critical 
 note.] —rd πνεῦμά pov] my spirit, comprehending the whole spiritual 
 
 1 Comp. also the Book of Enoch xxii. 9 f. 2K6nig, Lehre von dad. Hollenf. p. 45 δ; 
 Not to be confounded with the heavenly  Giider, Lehre v. d. Erschein. Jesu Chr. unter 
 paradise, 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rey. ii.7. See on ὦ. Todten, p. 33 ff. 
 
 xvi. 23; Lightfoot and Wetstein on the pas- 3 See, on the other hand, also West in the 
 sage. Stud, u. Krit, 1858, p. 252 ff. 
 
568 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 nature, contrasted with the dying body ; Acts vii. 59.1— Ver. 46. εἰς χεῖράς 
 σου κ.τ.}.} from Ps. xxxi. 6, which words Jesus makes His own, committing 
 His spirit wholly to the disposal of God ; and this perfect surrender to God, 
 whose control extends even to Hades (xvi. 22; Wisd. 111. 1 ; Acts ii. 27), 
 is not out of keeping with ver. 48. — This prayer is to be placed after the 
 τετέλεσται Of John xix. 30, and corresponds to the παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα of 
 John. Probably, however, the idea παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα 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. 39-41. τὸ γενόμενον] 
 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 ἐσχίσϑη «.7.2., to which ἰδών cannot also refer. The plural 
 expression, however, τὰ γενόμενα, ver. 48, has a wider reference, since, in ac- 
 cordance with ovurapay. ἐπὶ τ. Sewpiav ταύτ., it must include the entire proc- 
 ess of the crucifixion down to ver. 46. — ἐδόξασε τ. ϑεόν] 1.6., practically, by 
 His confession, which redounded to the honor of God. Comp. John ix. 
 24. In this confession, however, δίκαιος (instead of the Son of God in Mark 
 and Matthew) is a product of later reflection. [See Note CLXXIV., p. 570.] 
 — ἐπὶ τὴν ϑεωρίαν ταύτ.] objectively : ad hoc spectaculum, as Sewpia (occurring 
 only here in the New Testament) is often applied by Greek writers to plays, 
 public festivals, etc. —rirrovtec τὰ στήϑη] grief (viii. 52, xviii. 18). 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 cirewmstances had made them change their tune. 
 — Ver. 49. πάντες οἱ γνωστοὶ αὐτῷ] those, to wit, who were present in Jerusa- 
 lem. Luke alone has this statement, which, however, is so summary that 
 even by the expression ἀπὸ μακρόϑεν it does not contradict the narrative of 
 John xix. 25. — γυναῖκες] viii. 2 f. — ὁρῶσαι - | belonging to εἱστήκεισαν. 
 
 Vv. 50-56. See on Matt. xxvii. 57-61; Mark xv. 42-47. Luke follows 
 Mark with abbreviations, although with some peculiarities. — ὑπάρχ.] be- 
 longing to Bova. — δίκαιος] justus, in the narrower meaning, ; see the follow- 
 ing parenthesis. It is a special side of ἀγαϑός (excellent). — Ver. 51. οὐκ ἣν 
 συγκ.} was not in agreement with their decision. Comp. on ver. 19.7 —k. τῇ 
 πράξει] and to the practice, the evil act.*—airav] τῶν βουλευτῶν, as is implied 
 in βουλευτής, ver. 50, Winer, p. 182 [E. T. 146]. — Ver. 52. οὗτος] recapitu- 
 lating, Kiihner, IT. p. 830. — Ver. 58. λαξευτῷ] hewn in stone (Deut. iv. 49), 
 therefore neither dug nor built. — οὗ οὐκ ἦν 4.7.2.) Comp. xix. 30 ; ἃ more 
 definite mode of expressing the καινῷ in Matthew. Comp. John xix. 41.4— 
 Ver. 54. And it was the preparation day (the day of preparation for the Sab- 
 bath, πρόσαββατον). Even here (comp. on Mark xv. 42) no trace of a festival 
 
 1 Comp. in general, Hahn, 7heol. ἃ. N. T. 3 See on Rom. viii. 13; Col. iii. 9. Comp. 
 I. p. 410. Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 17. 
 2 As to συγκατατίθεμαι, assentior, see Locel- 4 Τῇ respect of the emphatically cumula- 
 
 la, ad Xen. Eph. p. 209. tive negatives, see Winer, p. 443 [E. Τὶ 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 VS, 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. 873. — Ver. 55. κατακολουϑ.] 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. 111. 15. The meaning: ‘‘as far as 
 down there into the grave,” is an addition of Lange’s ; in κατά is found the 
 idea of going after. — Ver. 56. μέν] 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. 
 
 Notrs py AMERICAN EDITor. 
 
 CLXVIII. Ver. 2. Χριστὸν βασιλέα. 
 
 Weiss. 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. καϑ' ὅλης τ. "Iovdaiac. 
 
 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. The 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. 26; John xviii. 28, xiii. 
 writers in Lightfoot, p. 892 f. Comp. 2. 29; Bleek, Beitr. p. 137, 
 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. ἦν. . . βληϑεὶς ἐν τ. φυλ. 
 
 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 (ἦν). 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 ἐν has then a pregnant 
 force, since it suggests where he was as well as where he had been cast. 
 
 CLXXIII. Ver. 46. εἰς χεῖράς σου k.7.A. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. takes a somewhat different view of the origin of this saying. 
 Its accuracy need not be doubted. It is 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.”’ 
 
 CLXXIV. Ver. 47. δίκαιος ἦν. 
 
 The accounts of Matthew and Mark are probably more accurate, but δίκαιος 
 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. καὶ τὸ μὲν σάββατον k.T.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 βαθέως (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepta βαθέος, is 
 so decisively attested by ABC Ὁ 8, etc., that the adjective form βαθέος must 
 appear as the alteration of ignorant transcribers. — καί τίνες σὺν αὐταῖς] is want- 
 ing in B ΟἹ L τὲ, 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 kai εἰσελθοῦσαι 
 is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence, εἰσελθοῦσαι 
 δέ. The former is from Mark. — [W. and Hort bracket τοῦ κυρ. ’Iyo., omitted in 
 D, Latt.; so. R. V. marg.] — Ver. 4. ἐσθήσεσιν ἀστρ.] Lachm. Tisch. [recent edi- 
 tors, R. V.] have ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ, in accordance with B D 8, Syr. al. Vulg. 
 It. Kus. But the accustomed singular expression easily forced itself in. — Ver. 5. 
 τὸ πρόσωπον] τὰ πρόσωπα 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 οὐκ ἔστιν 
 
 . ἠγέρθη, omitted in D, Latt., R. V. marg. — Ver. 7. Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort, 
 R. V., with 8* B C* L, place ὅτε dei after ἀνθρώπου. --- Ver. 9. D, Latt. omit ἀπὸ 
 τ. μνημ. (So R. V. marg.), bracketed by W. and Hort.]— Ver. 10. Elz. Lachm. 
 Tisch. have ἦσαν dé; Griesb.: ἦν dé, on too feeble evidence. The words are 
 wanting altogether in A D Τ' and afew vss. The connection has not been ap- 
 prehended, and for the restoration thereof, sometimes ἦσαν dé has been omitted 
 (in order to connect it closely with what has preceded), sometimes ai has been 
 intercalated afterwards (before ἔλεγον), 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 8 B DL, Vulg. 
 Copt., have τ. ρήματα tavta.] — Ver. 12 is wanting in D, Syr.iet 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 ἄλλος μαθητής (comp. ver. 24) ; and 
 the words ὀθόνια, παρακύπτειν, and ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτ. (John, loc. cit.) 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.] Κείμενα is suspicious, as it is 
 wanting in B &, min. Copt. Sahid. Syr.c« Eus.; in other authorities it is placed 
 after péva. —[Ver. 17. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 A* B L, Copt., read 
 
572 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 καὶ ἐστάθησαν σκυθρωποί. -- ον. 18. [Recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B L, read 
 ὀνόματι, instead of ᾧ dvoua.] Elz. Lachm. have ἐν Ἵερουσ. But decisive authori- 
 ties are in favor of ‘Iepovc. simply (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch.); ἐν is an exe- 
 getic insertion. The exceedingly weakly attested εἰς, which nevertheless Griesb. 
 has commended, proceeds from the last syllable of παροικεῖς. --- Ver. 21. After 
 ἀλλά ye read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καί (B D L §&),which disappeared because it 
 could be dispensed with. — [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8B L, Copt., 
 omit σήμερον. --- Ver. 22. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ AB DL, read ὀρ- 
 fpwai. — Ver. 24. Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.,with B D,Vulg., omit καί, after καθώς. 
 — Ver. 27. Tisch., recent editors, R.V., with 8° BL, read διερμήνευσεν. ἢ --- Ver. 28. 
 προσεποιεῖτο] A BD L δὲ, min. have προσεποιήσατο. 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 κέκλικεν is to be adopted 
 ἤδη. It is found in BL δὲ, min. Arr. Copt. Syr. Slav. ms. Vulg. It., was easily 
 passed over by occasion of the following H Hyepa, and perhaps if it had been 
 added, would rather have been annexed to the foregoing ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπ. ἐστί. --- 
 Ver. 32. καὶ ὡς] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ὡς, in accordance with B Ὁ L 
 & 33, also codd. of It. Ambr. Aug. Or. (which, however, omit ὡς ἐλ. 7ju.). Right- 
 ly ; καί was inserted for the connection, and in several versions even supplanted 
 the ὡς. —[Ver. 33. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δὲ B D, 33, have the simple 
 form ἠθροισμένους. --- Ver. 36. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with 8 Β D L, omit 
 ὁ "Ἰησοῦς. ] --- After εἰρήνη ὑμῖν Lachm. has in brackets ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, fol- 
 lowing GP, min. vss. Ambr. Aug. An addition from John vi. 206. But, more- 
 over, the preceding κ. λέγ. αὐτοῖς" εἰρ. ὑμῖν, 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. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 843. A reason for its omission, 
 if it had been original, would be hard to perceive. — Ver. 38. Instead of ἐν ταῖς 
 capo. B D, codd. of It. al. Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular ; the plural isan 
 amendment. — Ver. 39. αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι] Several different arrangements of the 
 words occur in the mss. and vss. Lachm, and Tisch, have ἐγώ eit αὐτός, in 
 accordance with B L δὲ 33. - Ver. 40 is 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 κ. λέγ. air. eip. 
 ὑμ., ver. 36.—Ver. 42. καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσ. κηρ suspected by Griesb., deleted by 
 Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with A Β Ὁ LII &, Cant. Clem. Or. Eus. Epiph. 
 Ath. Cyr. An ancient omission on the part of a transcriber, probably only 
 occasioned by καὶ. . . καὶ. The peculiarity of the food betrays no interpola- 
 tion ; καὶ ἄρτου or καὶ ἄρτον (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 πρὸς αὐτούς, with 8B L, 33, Vulg., and add μου after 
 λόγοι, With ABD L, 33.]— Ver. 46. kai οὕτως ἔδει] is wanting in Β ΟΣ DLR, 
 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 δὲ B, Copt., read εἰς, 
 instead of καί, before ἀφεσιν. --- ἀρξάμενον] The reading ἀρξάμενοι in B C*¥ L N 
 Χ & 33, Copt. Aeth. Tisch. is to help out the construction, in connection with 
 the omission of δέ, ver. 48 (which Tisch., following B ΟἹ L 8, has deleted). 
 [Recent editors have ἀρξάμενοι, 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 B D, Aug., omit ἐστε 
 in ver. 48; Treg. brackets, Weiss suspects it. — Ver. 49. Tisch., with δὲ Ὁ L, 
 Vulg., reads κἀγώ, instead of καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ; with recent editors, 8° C B L, 33, substi- 
 tutes ἐξαποστέλλω for the simple verb ; and with recent editors, δὲ BC DL, 
 Copt. and Vulg., omits “Ἱερουσαλήμ. --- Ver. 50. Tisch.,recent editors, with & B 
 ΟἹ, 33, omit ἔξω and substitute πρός for cic.] —Ver. 51 f. The omission of καὶ 
 ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ. οὐρανόν, and at the same time of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν in the same 
 set of authorities (Ὁ), Cant. Ver. Verc. Corb. Rd. Aug.), throws on both (the 
 former is wanting also in 8*) 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 αἰνοῦντες καί is wanting 
 (which Griesb., in accordance with B C* L 8, Ar. p., regards as suspicious) 
 [W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., omit αἰνοῦντες xai.]; in others καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (which 
 Tisch., in accordance with D, codd. of It. Copt. Aug., has kept out). The 
 Recepta is to be maintained, since αἰνεῖν τ. Θεόν is especially frequent in Luke, 
 but neither αἰνοῦντες nor εὐλογοῦντες offered occasion for an addition by way of 
 gloss, But κ. eA, might easily drop out in consequence of the homoeoteleuton 
 in αἰνοῦντες and εὐλογοῦντες. 
 
 Vv. 1-12. Comp. on Matt. xxviii. 1-8 ; Mark xvi. 1-8. — The question of 
 the special sowrces 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. — βαϑέως (see the critical remarks) : 
 the adverb’ of degree is immediately annexed to a substantive. See on 
 2 Cor, xi. 23. Hence : deep in the morning, 7.e¢., in the first morning twilight.? 
 — Ver. 2. εὗρον dé x.7.2.] agrees as littleas Mark xvi. 4 with the narrative of 
 the rolling away of the stone in Matt. xxviii. 2.—Ver. 4. ἐν τῷ διαπορ. air. 
 περὶ τούτου] while they were in great yerplexity concerning this.* In the New 
 Testament only in Luke. Still Lachmann and Tischendorf [recent editors, 
 R. V.] have the simple form ἀπορεῖσϑαι (B Ο Ὁ L&), but this easily crept 
 in through neglect of the compound form. Aiso ix. 7, Acts ii. 12, the 
 reading ἠπορεῖτο occurs. — ἐπέστ.] as 11. 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 brightuess (ἀστραπτ.). --- Ver. 5. τί ζητεῖτε κ.τ.1.} indicating the 
 groundlessness of their search. — τὸν ζῶντα] denotes Jesus not as Him who is 
 Himself the life (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following John i. 4), nor 
 yet the conquering life (de Wette), but, according to the context, quite 
 
 1 βαθέως might, it is true, be also the geni- 
 tive 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. Crit. p. 43 A, Prot. p. 310 A. 
 The opposite is: ὁ ἔσχατος ὄρϑρος, Theoer. 
 xxiv. 63. 
 
 3 Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 237 A, Soph. p. 217 
 
 A, Tim. p. 49 B. 
 
 4 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 
 LI. J. Ὁ. 411. At an earlier period Schleier- 
 macher made another shift, but not a bet- 
 ter. See Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zettschr. 
 1863, p. 386 ff, 
 
 Ζ 
 
574 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 
 
 simply Him who is alive, and no νεκρός. Comp. ver. 23. — μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν] 
 the grave is in general conceived of as the place where the dead are, where, 
 therefore, he who is sought, is sought among thedead. Ver. 6 f. ὡς ἐλάλ.] ix. 
 22, xviii. 82 f. -The reference to Galilee (Matthew and Mark) Luke could 
 not adopt ; see vv. 49, 50. — τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ avdp.] The designation of Himself 
 previously used by Jesus. After the resurrection He no longer calls Him- 
 self by this name. Comp. ver. 26. ἀνϑρώπ. duapr.] heathens. Comp. xviii. 
 32; Gal. 11, 16. 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. κ᾿ πᾶσι τοῖς λοιποῖς] 
 who adhered to the company of the disciples as followers of Jesus. — Ver. 
 10 f. According to the corrected reading (sec the critical remarks), ἧσαν δὲ 
 . . . ᾿Ιακώβου is a supplementary enumeration of the most eminent of the 
 women who brought the tidings ; after which by means of καὶ ai λοιπαὶ 
 κιτ.. the same bringing of the tidings is related also of their female com- 
 panions, and then by καὶ ἐφάνησαν x.t.2. the narration is further continued. 
 There were, however (these women who returned and announced, etc.), Mary 
 Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, moreover (καί), the rest 
 of the women with them told this to the apostles, and their words appeared to 
 them as a fable, and they believed them not. [See Note CLXXVL., p. 590.] 
 Asto Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, see on Matt. xxvii. 55 f. ; 
 as to Joanna, on Luke viii. 8. -- ἐφάνησαν) the plural of the verb with the 
 neuter plural (see, in general, Winer, p. 456 [E. T. 514]) denotes here the 
 declarations of the several individual persons.’ — λῆρος] 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 ἔδραμεν as a pluperfect (Paulus) is on ac- 
 count of βλέπει impossible ; a perverted system of harmonizing, in which even 
 Calvin led the way. Of the ἄλλος μαϑητής 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 parts,* as even ver. 34 presupposes something 
 that is not related. — rapaxi.] stooping down into the grave, John xx. 5, 11. 
 --- μόνα] so that thus the corpse was gone.4— πρὸς éavr.] not : with Himself 
 
 Peter. 
 4 That the grave was empty is so decid- 
 
 1 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 12. 
 2 Plat. Protag. p. 347 Ὁ, Hipp. maj. p. 304 
 
 Β : λήρους καὶ φλναρίας : Xen. Hist. iv. 8. 15; 
 Arist. Plut. 28, and elsewhere; Soph. 
 Trach. 435 : ληρεῖν ἀνδρὸς οὐχὶ σώφρονος. 
 
 3 Since vv. 24 and 34 presuppose what 
 nevertheless is not previously narrated, it 
 is certainly to be assumed that vv. 1-12 and 
 ver. 13 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 (Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 61), the 
 scene at Emmaus is to put in the background 
 the manifestation which was made only to 
 
 edly and clearly in the whole of the New 
 Testament (in opposition to Weizsiicker, 
 p. 572) the correlative of the resurrection 
 of Jesus (see also Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12), 
 that itis not at all to the purpose when 
 Keim (Geschichtl. Chr. p. 134) adds to the 
 expression of his belief in an appearance of 
 Jesus in glorified corporeality, ‘* it makes no 
 matter whether the 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, D. Aufersteh. Christ. 1864, p. 18 ff.; 
 Diisterdieck, Apol. Beitr. I. p. 8 ff.; Weiss 
 
CHAP. XXIV., 13, 14. 575 
 (as Mark xiv. 4; Luke xviii. 11), so that it would belong to θαυμάζων (Lu- 
 ther, Castalio, Grotius, Wolf, Schegg, and others, following the Vulgate), in 
 which case, however, it would be superfluous, and its position before ϑαυμά- 
 ζων would have no motive ; but it belongs to ἀπῆλθε : to his home, i.e., πρὸς 
 τὴν ἑαυτοῦ διαγωγήν, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. John xx. 10. Examples 
 in Kypke, I. p. 337. —@avuag. τὸ γεγονός] συνῆκε yap, ὅτι ov μετετέθη" ἡ yap av 
 μετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων μετετέθη, Euthymius Zigabenus.’ Comp. John xx. 7 f. 
 
 Vv. 18, 14. The journey to Emmaus, peculiar to Luke. Mark xvi. 12 isa 
 meagre intimation of the same history from another source. — ἦσαν rop. | were 
 on the way. —é£ αὐτῶν] in general: of the followers of Jesus, ἐκ τῶν ὅλων 
 μαθητῶν, Euthymius Zigabenus. They did not belong to the twelve (see ver. 
 33) ; whether they were of the seventy (Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, and 
 others) cannot be determined. In other respects they are perfectly un- 
 known. Luke, ver. 18, names only the one (Κλεόπας is the same as Κλεόπατρος, 
 distinct from the Hebrew name Κλωπᾶς, 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 (Kuinoel) 
 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. — ᾿μμαούς] in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 6. ᾿Αμμαοῦς, 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. II. 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. Emmaus, 1865, following tradition, is 
 again in favor of the present village of Kubeibeh, and that on the ground of 
 
 in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1866, Ὁ. 178 f.; Uhlhorn, 
 D. modernen Darstell. d. Leb. Jesu, 1866, 
 p. 115 ff. 
 
 1 Even this simple observation of Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus is sufficient to show that 
 every other cause by which the corpse may 
 have disappeared from the grave, apart 
 from His resurrection, is inconceivable. 
 Schenkel, indeed (in his Zeitschr. 1865, 5), 
 when he defines the resurrection as ‘‘ the 
 real mysterious self-revelation of the personal- 
 ity 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 every mention of the resurrection 
 throughout the whole New Testament, in 
 which reference, especially also the moral 
 idea of συνϑάπτεσϑαι and συνεγείρεσϑαι 
 Χριστῷ (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12, iii. 1 ; Eph. ii. 
 6) is of importance. 
 
 2 Hence we find, in some mss. (including 
 %) and yss., the reading ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα, 
 which Tisch.synops. [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 Encyki. Il. 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. κ᾿ αὐτοῇ and they, on their 
 part, said, in view of the appearance of Jesus to them, ver. 15 f.—repi πάν- 
 τῶν TOV συμβεβηκ. τούτων) VV. 1-12. In their subsequent discourse with the 
 unknown one at ver. 18 ff. they are more prolix.' 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. καὶ αὐτός] καί is the usual form after ἐγένετο (comp. ver. 4; see 
 on v. 12), and αὐτός, He Himself, of whom they were speaking. — ἐγγίσας] 
 probably overtaking them from behind. — ἐκρατοῦντο x.r.4.] they were held 80 
 80 that they knew Him not. Examples of κρατεῖσθαι of organs of the body : 
 impediri, quominus vim et actionem sibi 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 διηνοίχθησαν x.7.A. in ver. 
 31, 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 ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ. 
 
 Vv. 17, 18. What are these discourses that ye in turn throw out to one another as 
 ye walk, and are of gloomy countenance? Instead of καὶ ὄντες σκυθρωποί, the ad- 
 dress passes over into the finite verb, bringing out this characteristic 
 more emphatically, Matthiae, §632; Kiihner, ὃ 675. 4. After καί we are not to 
 supply τί (Beza). The relative clause οὖς ἀντιβάλλ. mp. ἀλλ. corresponds to the 
 idea of συζητεῖν (disputare). [See Note CLXXVIL., p. 590.] — σὺ μόνος παροι- 
 κεῖς k.T.2.] Dost thou alone dwell 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 speak and why they look sad ; (2) that μόνος 
 belongs to παροικεῖς and καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως ; so that thus παροικεῖς Ἵερ. καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως 
 (there is no comma to be placed before καί), taken together, constitute the 
 ground of their question, whether it is he alone in whose experience thisis the 
 case. Hence it is wrong to take καί in the place of a relative. Comp. John 
 vii. 4. [See Note CLXXVIIL, p. 590. ] — παροικεῖν Ἵερουσ. may either mean : 
 dwell as a stranger in Jerusalem (thus often in the LXX.; usually with ἐν, 
 but also with the accusative, Gen. xvii. 8 ; Ex. vi. 4), or : dwell near, at 
 Jerusalem ;* thus Ἵερουσ. would be in the dative. The former view is the 
 usual and the correct one (comp. Heb. xi. 9; Acts vii. 6, xiii. 17; 1 Pet. i. 17, 
 ii. 11), since the disciples might recognize the unknown, perchance, as ἃ 
 Soreign pilgrim to the feast (even from his dialect), but not as a dweller in 
 
 1On ὁμιλεῖν = διαλέγεσθαι, comp. Xen. tion, Bleek ; comp. Xen, De redit. i. 5; Isocr, 
 παν. iy. 3. 2. Panegyr. 162; Thue, iii. 93; Lucian, D. M. 
 2 Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and, with hesita- 1 
 
CHAP. XXIv., 19-21. 577 
 the vicinity of Jerusalem. Ungrammatically,! Theophylact, also Zeger and 
 others, have taken παροικεῖν as simply to dwell; and Castalio, Vatablus, 
 Clarius, and Kuinoel have taken it in the figurative sense of ξένον εἶναι, and 
 hospitem esse : ‘de iis, qui quid agatur ignorant, art thow then alone so strange 
 to Jerusalem?” 
 
 Vv. 19-21. Ποῖα] scil. οὐκ ἔγνων γενόμενα κιτ.Δ. The qualitative word of in- 
 terrogation presupposes things of a special kind which must have happened ; 
 προσποιεῖται ἄγνοιαν, Euthymius Zigabenus. — οἱ δὲ εἶπον] Probably here also 
 Cleopas was the speaker, and the other added his own assent to what was 
 said. — ὃς ἐγένετο] not : who was (thus usually), but : who became, whereby 
 the idea se praestitit, se praebuit (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. 1. 7. 4), is ex- 
 pressed. — ἀνὴρ mpog.| an honorable expression, Bernhardy, p. 48. — δυνατὸς 
 ἐν ἔργῳ κ. λόγῳ] 3 ἐν marks the sphere wherein, etc. Comp. Acts xviii. 24, vil. 
 22; Judith xi. 8 ; Ecclus. xxi. 8. In the classical writers the mere dative 
 of the instrument is the usual form.* In this place ἔργῳ is put first as con- 
 taining the first ground of acknowledgment of the Messianic dignity. Comp. 
 Acts i. 1; John x. 38 ; Acts x. 38. — ἐναντίον k.t.4.] ἐ.6., so that He repre- 
 sented Himself as such to God and the whole people. — Ver. 20. ὅπως τε] et 
 quomodo, ‘‘and in what way,” still depending on the οὐκ ἔγνως of ver. 18, 
 which is mentally supplied as governing τὰ περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ κ.τ.Δ. On εἰς κρίμα 
 θανάτου, to the condemnation of death, comp. xxili. 24. — καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν] for it 
 was their work that He was crucified by the governor. Comp. Acts. ii. 23. 
 — Ver. 21. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν] but we, on our part, were entertaining the hope 
 (observe the imperfect), etc. This hope, demolished by the crucifixion, how 
 soon was it again inflamed! Acts 1. 6. — αὐτός] He, and no other—Avrpoicbar] 
 according to the politico-theocratic idea of the national Messiah. Comp. 
 Acts i. 6, and see Theophylact. — ἀλλά ye] but indeed, although we cherished 
 this hope.* — καί] (see the critical remarks) : besides. — σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις] σύν 
 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).° -- τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον] The subject is Jesus, who immedi- 
 ately before was the subject emphatically made prominent.® τρίτην ταύτην 
 ἡμέραν is equivalent to ταύτην τρίτην οὖσαν ἡμέραν, OY ταύτην, ἣ τρίτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα. 
 Hence : But indeed, besides all this, He passes this present day as the third 
 
 since, etc. 
 
 1 Not to be supported by passages such 
 asiGens SklVe 5... ΝΠ ΣΧ 10: ΕΞ. ΧΥ. 1 
 ΟΧΧ. 6, where the LXX. have translated 
 Δ and [9 by terms more specific than the 
 original. 
 
 2 Comp. Thue. i. 139. 4, where Pericles is 
 called λέγειν τε καὶ πράσσειν δυνατώτατος. 
 
 3.566 Bornemann, Schol. p. 159. See ex- 
 amples of both arrangements: ἔργῳ k. A. 
 and λόγῳ κ. €., in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 64 f.; 
 Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 6; Pflugk, 
 ad Hur. Hee. 373. 
 
 4See Hermann, ad Zur. Ion. 1345, Praef. 
 p. xx. ; Ktihner, σα Xen. Mem. i. 2. 12. On 
 the immediate juxtaposition of the two par- 
 
 37 
 
 In this case, it is true, σήμερον is superfluous, but it corresponds 
 
 ticles, a usage foreign to the older Greek 
 writers, see Bornemann, Schol. p. 160 ; Klotz, 
 ad Devar. pp. 15 f., 25; Stallbaum, ad Plat. 
 Rep. I. p. 331 B. 
 
 5 Comp. Neh. y. 18; 3 Macc. i. 22; and 
 see, generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 763. 
 
 8 Comp. Beza, Kypke. ἄγειν, of time: to 
 spend ; as 6.0. δέκατον ἔτος ἄγειν, to be in the 
 tenth year, and the like, does not belong 
 merely to the later Greek. Sophocles, 271. 
 258, has: ἔπειτα ποίας ἡμέρας δοκεῖς μ᾽ ἄγειν: 
 What kind of days thinkest thou 1am spen@- 
 ing 5. Compare the passages in Kypke. 
 
 7See Kiihner, ad Xen, Anab, iv. 7. 5, 
 Comp. iii, 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. ἄγει 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 ὁ χρόνος (Camera- 
 rius), Θεός (Heinsius), ὁ ἥλιος (Er. Schmid, Heumann). Bornemann regards 
 Ἰσραήλ 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,” ete. 
 But the context leads us neither to Israel 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. —é& ἡμῶν] from our company, ὡς ἡμεῖς moral, 
 Euthymius Zigabenus. — ὄρθριαι] an Attic form, instead of which, however, 
 the later ὀρθριναί ' is preponderatingly attested, and is, with Lachmann and 
 Tischendorf, to be preferred. [See critical note. ] — καὶ μὴ εὑρ.] καὶ... ἦλθον, 
 instead of carrying on the participial expression in conformity with γενόμεναι, 
 continues with greater emphasis in an independent sentence. —xai ὀπτασίαν 
 k.T.2.] καί : and moreover, besides the fact that they found not the body. — 
 of λέγουσιν] indicative, the direct vision mingling in a lively manner with the 
 oratio obliqua.? 
 
 Ver. 24. Τινές] 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.—oirw καϑὼς k.7.A.] 
 namely, that the corpse was not in the grave. — αὐτὸν δὲ οὐκ εἶδον] but Him, 
 Him who yet, according to that angelic assurance narrated by the women, 
 was to live, Him they saw not ; a tragical conclusion ! 
 
 Vy. 25, 26. Αὐτός] He on His part, after the disciples had thus helplessly 
 expressed themselves. —dvéyroc (Rom. i. 14 ; Gal. iii. 2 f.), without intelli- 
 gence, refers to the understanding, and βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ to the whole internat 
 living activity, in respect of which (dative) its dulness, i.e., its deficiency in 
 the proper susceptibility and fixedness of purpose, is reproved. σκληροκαρδία, 
 Mark xvi. 14, is stronger.’ —— τοῦ πιστεύειν] a genitive of nearer definition de- 
 pendent on βραδεῖς (see Winer, p. 290 [E. T. 8947) ; slow to believing conji- 
 dence in.4 —xaow] not merely referring to a single thing. There was want- 
 ing to them the faith without exception, otherwise they would have recognized 
 even the suffering and death of the Messiah as prophesied, and have rightly 
 discerned them ; ἔστι yap πιστείειν καὶ μερικῶς καὶ καϑόλου, ‘for these a be- 
 lieving both partial and entire,” Theophylact.— Ver. 26. Must not the 
 Messiah, etc., namely, according to the prophetically announced divine de- 
 cree. Comp. ver. 44 ff,—Traira] with emphasis: ¢his, which He, to wit, 
 
 1 See Sturz, Dial. Mac. Ὁ. 186; Lobeck, ad posite: ἀγχίνους, Plat. Phaed”. p. 239 A; 
 
 Phryn. p. 51. Diog. Laert. vii. 93 ; also ὀξύς, Plat. Zep. vii. 
 2 Bernhardy, p. 299; Reisig, Conject. Ὁ. 226 f. p. 526 B. 
 3 On βραδύς as tardus, ‘ slow,” in the spirit- 4On πιστεύειν ἐπί with a dative, comp. 
 
 ual sense, comp. 11. x. 226; Plat. Defin. p.415 Matt. xxvii. 42; Rom. ix. 33, x. 11; 1 Tim. f. 
 E: δυσμαθία βραδυτὴς ἐν μαθήσει. Theophr. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 6. 
 Mor. not, 14: ἡ βραδύτης τῆς ψυχῆς. The op- 
 
CHAP. XXIV., 27-30. 579 
 had in fact suffered, and which causes you to be so cast down. — καὶ εἰσελϑ. 
 εἰς τ. δόξαν αὐτοῦ] not as though He had already by the resurrection in itself, 
 and before the ascension, attained to His δόξα (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 ἔδει, δεῖ 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 ciceAd. εἰς τ. 
 dog. is not to be evaporated into the general ‘‘ attain His destination” 
 (Schleiermacher).! 
 
 Ver. 27. Καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τ. προφ.] ἀρξάμενος 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 διερμήνευσις. Thus the 
 reproach of a careless (Winer), inevact (Buttmann, Bleek), or defective (de 
 Wette) mode of expression (Acts ili. 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. ili. 15 down to 2 Chron. Comp. also Erasmus, Paraphr.? — διερμή- 
 vevev] He interpreted,* to wit, by explanation according to their destination 
 referred to Him, ?.e., having their fulfilment in Him. [The imperfect was 
 substituted as more suitable, see critical note.]— τὰ repi αὐτοῦ] scil. yeypap- 
 μένα, implied in γραφαῖς ; otherwise, xxii. 37. 
 
 Vv. 28, 29. ᾿Εσχηματίζετο ποῤῥωτέρω πορεύεσϑαι ὡς ἁπλῶς συνοδοιπόρος, ‘‘ 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 προσε- 
 ποιεῖτο (He feigned, gave Himself the air) and then the aorist παρεβιάσαντο : 
 a lively representation. — πορεύεσϑαι] not : that He és constrained or wishes to 
 go farther, but we must conceive that for appearance’ sake He actually | 
 began to move forward. — Ver. 29. On παρεβιάσ., they constrained, to wit, 
 by means of urgent entreaty.4 They felt their holiest interests engaged to 
 this stranger (ver. 32). That these two disciples dwelé in Emmaus is pos- 
 sible, but follows just as little from μεῖνον pe ἡμῶν (comp. τοῦ μεῖναι σὺν 
 αὐτοῖς) as from εἰσῆλϑε. For to the latter expression is not to be supplied 
 εἰς THY οἰκίαν αὐτῶν, but from ver. 28 : εἰς τὴν κώμην ; 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 us in the house of our host. 
 Comp. John i. 39 f. 
 
 Ver. 30. 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 
 
 1As to supplying the verb in another general, Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, 
 
 tense, see Bornemann on xxiv. 27, ad Xen. 
 Apol. § 26; and, generally, Kriiger, § 62. 4. 
 1; also Nagelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, 
 p. 76. 
 
 2In respect of the prophecies bearing 
 upon the sufferings of the Messiah, see, in 
 
 p. 88 ff. 
 
 3 Acts ix. 36; 1 Cor. xii. 30; 2 Macc. i. 36; 
 Polyb. iii. 22. 3. 
 
 4Comp. Acts xvi. 15; Gen. xix. 3; also 
 ἀναγκάζειν, Xiv, 23; Matt. xiv. 22. 
 
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. 35. — εὐλόγησε] ‘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 ἐν τῷ κατακλιϑ. 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 111. 21. 
 
 Ver. 81. Αὐτῶν δὲ διηνοίχϑησαν οἱ ὀφϑαλμοί] is the opposite of of ὀφϑαλμοὶ 
 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. — 
 αὐτῶν] with lively emphasis placed first. What Jesus did is previously de- 
 scribed. — ἀνοίγει») (more strongly dcavoiyew) τοὺς ὀφϑαλμούς, 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.® — ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ’ αὐτῶν] He passed away from them invisibly.* 
 Luke intends manifestly to narrate ὦ 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 wis discessit, 80 
 that this departure would not have been observed till it occurred (Schleier- 
 macher, L. J. p. 474). Beza well says that Luke has not said αὐτοῖς, but 
 am αὐτῶν ; ‘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 
 davroc—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 
 
 αὐτῶν ἐκρατοῦντο, ver. 16. 
 
 Apocrypha—instead of the classical 
 ad Diod. iv. 65. 
 
 1 The Catholics make use of vv. 30 and 35 
 as a defence of their Hucharistia sub una 
 specie, “‘ under one element.” See the Confut. 
 Confess. Aug. ΤΙ. 1. Even Melanchthon does 
 not refuse to explain the passage before us 
 of the Lord’s Supper, disapproving, never- 
 theless, of the conclusion drawn from it : 
 unam “quia 
 partis appellatione reliquum  significatur 
 communi consuetudine sermonis,” * tat 
 
 partem tantum datam esse ; 
 
 prose word ἀφανής, see Wesseling, 
 
 one part only is given ; ‘since by the naming 
 of a part the rest is signified by the common 
 custom of speech,’ ’’ Apol. x. 7, p. 234. 
 
 2 Matt. ix. 30, xx. 33; John ix. 10, 14, 17, 
 Ki 1, RA Ore 
 
 3 Gen. iii. 5, 7, xxi. 19; 2 Kings vi. 17, 20; 
 comp. Acts xxvi. 8. 
 
 4 Comp. on γίνεσθαι ἀπό τινος, to withdraw 
 from any one, Xen, Mem, i. 2.25; Bar. iii. 
 
 21, 
 
CHAP. XXIV., 32-37. 581 
 
 Vv. 82, 88. Οὐχὶ ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν ἐν 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. — ὡς διήνοιγεν x.7.A.] without καί (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. αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ] 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 
 dissuaserant 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 τοὺς évdexa καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, Who in a 
 body met them as they arrived with the cry : ἠγέρϑη ὁ κύριος κιτ.Δ. On the 
 discrepancy with Mark xvi. 138, see on the passage.— ἠγέρϑη and ὠφϑη 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. — Σίμωνι] 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. Jesus Himself named him, indeed, before 
 and after his fall, almost exclusively Simon.? In Luke xxii. 34, Πέτρε 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. καὶ αὐτοί] and they on their part, 
 as contrasted with those who were assembled.— ἐν τῇ κλάσει] not : in the 
 breaking, but at the time of the breaking. See on ver. 31. [But see Note 
 CLXXIX., p. 590.] 
 
 Vv. 36, 37. Αὐτὸς ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν] 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, 
 
 1 Wetstein and Kypke in loc.; Musgrave, 2 Matt. xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 37; Luke xxii, 
 ad Soph, Aj. 418. 31; John xxi, 15,1 
 
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 μέσῳ] 
 ‘id significantius quam in medium,” Bengel. — εἰρήνη ὑμῖν] Peace to you! 
 The usual Jewish greeting p39 Dow, x. 5. —Ver. 37. πνεῦμα] a departed 
 spirit, which, having come from Hades, appeared as an wmbra in an appar- 
 ent body ; the same that Matthew, xiv. 26, calls φάντασμα. 
 
 Ver. 38. Wherefore arise thoughts in your heart? 1.6., wherefore have ye 
 not immediately and without any consideration (see on Phil, 11, 14) recognized 
 me as the person I am ὃ 
 
 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 πνεῦμα, and that in such a way that they 
 should be persuaded that it is He bodily. The two parts of ver. 39 corre- 
 spond, that is to say, to the two parts of ver. 38. — τὰς χεῖράς μου κ. τ. πόδας 
 μ.} 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 feet (as to the nailing of the feet, see on Matt. xxvii. 35). Comp. 
 John xx. 20.1. According to Paulus and de Wette, Jesus pointed to His 
 hands and feet as the wneovered parts, in order to oppose the notion of a 
 spirit. In this way αὐτὸς ἐγώ 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 φάντασμα 
 or εἴδωλον), but probably the identity though apart from the reality, for 
 which latter the conviction was to be added by means of towch. — ὅτι] is in 
 both cases : that. [See Note CLXXX., p. 591.]? 
 
 Vv. 41-43. Ἔτι] in the sense of still ; see Schneider, ad Plat. Rep. 
 p. 449 Ὁ. - ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς] on account of the (presently experienced by them, 
 comp. xxii. 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 itself, is a matter of psychological experience.* — εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" ἔχετε 
 K.t.2.| πρὸς πλείονα πίστιν καὶ βεβαιοτέραν ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν φάσμ., ““ For 
 greater faith and firmer demonstration of not being an apparition,” Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus. —kai ἀπὸ μελισσ. κηρίου] and (some) of a bee's honeycomb 
 ( favus). μελισσίου is added as a distinction from any other kind of honey. 
 The word, however, does not elsewhere occur, but μελισσαῖος (Nicander, Th. 
 
 1 Without reason Schleiermacher says of 
 these wounds: ‘ they may have been two or 
 Sour” (p. 447). THe 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. 
 
 2On σάρκα x, ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, Comp. Hom, 
 Od, xi. 219. 
 
 3 Liv. xxxix. 49: Via sibimet ipsi prae nec 
 opinato gaudio credentes. 
 
CHAP. XXIV., 44. 583 
 611); 1 Sam. xiv. 27: κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος. On διδόναι ἀπό, comp. xx. 10. — 
 Ver. 48. ἔφαγεν] 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. xviii. 8, xix. 3). Comp. 
 Acts x. 41. 
 
 Ver. 44. Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς] 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 CLXXXLI.,, 
 p- 591.] No impartial reader could do this, and how easy would it have 
 been for Luke to give a hint to that effect !— οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι x.7.A.] these 
 (namely, that I—as ye have now convinced yourselves—after my sufferings 
 and death have actually arisen) are the words (in their realization, namely) 
 which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, to wit, that all things must be 
 fulfilled, etc. (the substance of the λόγοι). [See Note CLXXXIL., p. 591.] 
 Jesus assuredly often actually said this to them, according to the substance 
 generally.? — ἔτι dv σὺν ὑμ.] for by death He was separated from them, and 
 the earlier association with them was not, moreover, now again after the 
 resurrection restored.* — ἐν τῷ νόμῳ M. k. προφ. x. ψαλμοῖς] certainly contains 
 in itself that which is essential of the Jewish tripartite division of the 
 Canon into law (WN), prophets (Ὁ 832), and Hagiographa (Ὁ) 3) 3). Under 
 the Jaw was reckoned merely the Pentateuch ; under the prophets, Joshua, 
 Judges, 1st and 2d Samuel, ist and 2d Kings (DWN) Ὁ. 332), and the 
 prophets properly so called, except Daniel (Ὁ 2 ΠΣ D0'83}); under the 
 Hagiographa, all the rest of the canonical Scriptures, including Daniel, 
 Esther, Ezra and Nehemiah (the two reckoned together as one book), and 
 Chronicles. Yet, according to the use of προφητ. and ψαλμ. elsewhere 
 
 1 But to say, with Ebrard, p. 596, that the 
 passage vy. 44-49 depicts in general the 
 whole of the teaching 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 Chronol. 
 Synopse, Ὁ. 423 f., like Bengel and others, 
 places between ver. 43 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 i. 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 δέ (comp. on ver. 50), but also by the 
 use of the οὗτοι, referring as it does to what 
 goes before. Lange, Z. J. II. 3, p. 1679, 
 represents ver. 45, beginning with τότε διή- 
 νοιξεν «.7.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 a moment. But 
 why not? Atleast there needed no longer 
 
 time for that purpose than for the instruc- 
 tions of ver. 27. Rightly, Hofmann, Schrift- 
 dew. ΤΙ. 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 is indeed suffi- 
 cient room to place the direction of ver. 
 49, καϑίσατε ἐν τῇ πόλει x.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. 93) that 
 Luke limits all appearances of the Risen One 
 to the resurrection Sunday. So also, im- 
 partially, Bleek, Holtzmann. 
 
 2 Comp. xviii. 31 f., xxii. 37; Matt. xxvi. 
 56, and elsewhere. 
 
 3 Grotius well says: ‘‘nam tune tantum 
 κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν illis aderat,”’ ‘‘for now He 
 was only present with them κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν." 
 
 4See 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 Ὁ 3), 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 (Matt. xxiv. 15); and by 
 ψαλμ., 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 
 mpod. and ψαλμ., whereby the three portions appear in their connection as 
 constituting one whole of prophecy. 
 
 Vv. 46, 47. Kai οὕτως ἔδει 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 ὅτι Jesus 
 adds the circumstance in the way of motive, on account of which He opened 
 their νοῦς, etc. [see Note CLXXXII., p. 591] ; οὕτω, however, has its refer- 
 ence in these instructions just given : in the manner, in such a way as I 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 far as the end of ver. 47, is then the Messianic summary of Old 
 Testament prophecy. — ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ] 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. — ἀρξάμενον] for which Erasmus and Mark- 
 land conjectured ἀρξαμένων," is the impersonal accusative neuter : incipiendo, 
 ‘‘beginning” (Herodotus, 111. 91, and thereon Schweighiiuser), ὁ.6., so that it 
 (the office of the κηρυχϑῆναι) begins, i. e., from Jerusalem (Ast, Lex. Plat. I. 
 p. 288).?— ἀπὸ ‘Iepovc.] as the metropolis of the whole theocracy. Comp. 
 158. 11. 8, xl. 9, and elsewhere ; Actsi.8; Rom. xv. 19. —eic¢ πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη] 
 among all nations, Matt. xxvili. 19. 
 
 Ver. 48. Ἔστε] indicative. — τούτων] 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-witnesses ; 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. 
 
 1As Ὁ actually reads. Other attempts at p. 591.] 
 improvement : ἀρξαμένην, ἀρξάμενος. In re- 2 See Winer, p. 550 [E. T. 624]; Borne- 
 spect of ἀρξάμενοι, followed by Ewald, see mann, Schol. in loe. Comp. Buttmann, 
 the critical remarks. [See Note CLXXXIIL., Neutest. Gr. p. 821 (E. T. 874 f.]. 
 
CHAP. XXIv., 50. 585 
 —-iyé] 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. 33. — καϑίσατε x.1.A.] 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 καϑίζειν, to 
 remain, to abide in peace, comp. Acts xviii. 11. — Jesus characterizes the gifts 
 of the Holy Ghost by the expression τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός μου (Acts i. 4), 
 so 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. — ἕως οὐ 
 ἐνδύσησϑε δύναμιν ἐξ ὕψους] till ye have been endued with (definitely ; hence 
 without ἄν) power from on high (vim 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 ἐνδύεσϑαι 
 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.? — ἐξ ὕψους] comp. Eph. iv. 8. 
 
 Ver. 50. ᾿Εξήγαγε x.t.A.] namely, from Jerusalem (vv. 33, 49), and that 
 after the scene just related (vv. 36-49). Observe in respect of this—(1) that 
 this ἐξήγ. «.7.4. 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.4 The usual 
 naive assumption is nothing else than an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing: 
 οὐ τότε ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ ἡμέρᾳ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν᾽ τὰ yap ἐν τῷ μέσῳ παρέ- 
 δραμεν ὁ εὐαγγελιστής, ““ not then but on the fortieth 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, xvii. 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 else than the exegetic result—that a twofold tradition had 
 grown up—to wit—(1) that Jesus, even on the day of the resurrection, ascended 
 into heaven (Mark xvi., Luke in the Gospel) ; and (2) that after His resur- 
 
 1The discrepancy, apparent indeed, 2Comp. also Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27; 
 
 though too much insisted on by Strauss, II. 
 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 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, 
 which was the substance of the prophetic 
 promise, is meant, and that this which was 
 to follow at Pentecost does not exclude an 
 earlier and preliminary communication. 
 Joel iii. 1,2; Isa. xliv.1 ff.; Ezek. xxxvi. 
 27, xxxix. 29. Comp. Acts ii, 16 ff.; and on 
 Eph. i. 13; Gal. iii. 14. 
 
 Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 12. 
 
 3 See Kypke, I. p. 3845. Comp. 1 Mace. i. 
 28; Ecclus. xxvii. 8; Vest. XII. Patr. p. 587. 
 So the Latin induere, Liv. iii. 33; Quint. i. 
 1, and elsewhere ; and the Hebrew wi, 
 Judg. vi. 84; 1 Chron. xii. 18. 
 
 4Comp. Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 77 f.; 
 Schleiermacher, Z. J. Ὁ. 463. 
 
 δ Comp. Theophylact, Kuinoel, Ebrard, 
 and many others, including Gebhardt, 
 Auferst, Chr. Ὁ. 51 £. 
 
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. — ἔξω] 
 with verbs compounded with éx.!— ἕως εἰς 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 1. 12. — ἐπάρας τ. χεῖρας] the 
 gesture of blessing, Lev. ix. 22. 
 
 Ver. 51. ’Ev τῷ 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 : 
 avedép. εἰς τ. ovpav., He separated Himself from them, and (more specific 
 statement of this separation) was taken up into heaven. 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 visible incident, which he has more fully 
 represented at Acts i. According to Paulus, indeed, x. ἀνεφέρ. εἰς τ. οὐρ. 15 
 held to be only an inference! Moreover, if the words x. avedép. εἰς τ. ovp. are 
 not genuine (see the critical remarks), then the ascension is certainly meant 
 even by the mere διέστη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ; but here it is not yet definitely indicated, 
 which indication, together with the detailed description, Luke reserves for 
 the beginning of his second book,—till then, that διέστη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν was suf- 
 ficient, —the matter of fact of which was already incidentally mentioned at 
 ix. 51, and was elsewhere familiar.? 
 
 διέστη ἀπ’ αὐτῶν κ. 
 
 Remark. [See Note CLXXXVL., 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.4 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 
 
 1See Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 384, ad Phryn. 
 p. 10; Bornemann, Schol. p. 166. 
 
 2 On διέστη, secessit, comp. Hom. 171. xii. 86, 
 xvi. 470; Valckenaer, Schol. in loc. 
 
 3 Teaven 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, ΤΙ. p. 282 ff.), or of the unex- 
 tended ground of life which bears the entire 
 expanse of space (Schoeberlen, Grundl. d. 
 Heils, p. 67), but locally, of the dwelling-place 
 of the glory of God; see on Matt. vi. 9; Mark 
 xvi. 18; Acts iii. 21. Erroneously, likewise 
 in the sense of ubiquity, says Gess, Pers. 
 Chr. p. 265: ‘* 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: He 
 there effectuates this His presence by the Holy 
 Spirit in whom He communicates Himself. 
 See, especially, John xiv.-xvi.; Rom. viii. 
 9,10. A becoming bodily present is a mar- 
 yellous exception, as in the cAse of Paul’s 
 conversion, see on Acts ix. 38. Calvin, Jnsé. 
 ΤΙ. 16, rightly designates the being of Christ 
 in heaven as a corporalis absentia, “ bodily 
 absence,” from the earth. 
 
 4 Against the denial of the capability of 
 historical 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 exaltation 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 σημεῖον ἃ5. the worthiest and most 
 glorious copestone—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. 657f. (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 ὁ 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 
 a condition of necessity does not admit of a more exact representation, yet still 
 it explains in general 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 σῶμα πνευματικόν (1 Cor. xv, 45-47), 
 
 1 Acts ii. 32, 33, 111. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 22; Col. 
 iii. 1 ff.; Eph. ii. 6,iv.10. Comp. Acts vii. 
 56; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ix. 94. 
 
 2 See e.g., in Hlatt’s Magaz. VIII. p. 67; Ols- 
 hausen; Krabbe, p. 532 f.; Hug, Gutacht. 
 Il. p. 254 ff.; Ebrard, p. 602; Lange, II. 
 p. 1762 ff. 
 
 3 **Claritas in Christi corpore, cum resur- 
 rexit, ab oculis discipulorum potius abscon- 
 dita fuisse, quam defuisse credenda est,” 
 “Tt isto be believed that the splendor of the 
 body of Christ, after He had risen, was con- 
 
 cealed from the eyes of the disciples rather 
 than that it was lacking,” Augustine, De civ. 
 Dei, xxii. 9. 
 
 Comp. Martensen’s Dogmat. § 172; 
 Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. p. 118; Hasse, Leben 
 d. verklairt. Hrids. p. 118, who, however, 
 mingling truth and error, represents the 
 resurrection body of Christ already as σῶμα 
 πνευματικόν (‘a confluence of spirit and 
 body,” p. 123). More accurately, Taute, 
 Religionsphilosophie, 1852, 11. 1, p. 340 ff. 
 
588 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 the σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (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, L. J. ὃ 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. 31.2 Still there must remain a 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 (ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφρο- 
 σύνην, ἐν ἡ καὶ ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς),3 in 
 no way agrees with the forty days.4 (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 
 definitely to recognize whether all the ap- 
 pearances, which are specified before ver. 
 8, occurred before or after 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 “touching 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- 
 comb” 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 
 
 into the heavens.”’] 
 
 4 Τί 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, Patr. Ap. p. 36, a point 
 be put after νεκρῶν, and what follows be 
 taken as an independent clause, this is a 
 very unfortunate evasion, by means of 
 which καὶ φανερωθεὶς x.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 specification of date at all for it, 
 [See Note CLXXXVIIL., 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 regard 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 (Weizsicker), 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 
 a 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 assumptions 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. Kai αὐτοί] and they on their part, after the Lord was separated 
 from them (and was taken up into heaven). To the ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ. obp. cor- 
 responds in this place the equally suspicious προσκυν. αὐτόν (see the critical 
 remarks on ver. 51 f.), which is referred to Him who was exalted to heay- 
 enly dominion. — μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλ.} at this final blessed perfecting of their 
 Lord Himself (John xiv, 28), and at the blessing which they had just re- 
 
 1See also Weisse, Hvangelienfrage, p. 272 
 ff.; Gebhardt, Auferst. Chr. p. 72. 
 
 2 Kinkel in the Stud. τι. Krit. 1841, p. 597 
 ff. Comp. moreover, Taute, eligionsphil- 
 osophie, 11. 1, p. 380 ff., according to whom 
 the resurrection of Christis said to have 
 been His first descent out of the intelligible 
 region of the existence of all things, but 
 the ascension His last resurrection appear- 
 ance, so that resurrection and ascension 
 
 are so related to one another as special 
 epoch-making appearances of the Lord 
 before the brethren after His death. With 
 such extravagant imaginations of histori- 
 cal details of faith is the philosophy of Her- 
 bart, even against its will, driven forth far 
 beyond the characteristic limits which by 
 Tlerbart himself are clearly and definitely 
 laid down, 
 
590 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 
 
 ceived from Him. ‘‘Praeludia Pentecostes,” ‘‘ The prelude of Pentecost,” 
 Bengel. ‘‘ Corpus suum intulit coelo, majestatem suam non abstulit mundo,” 
 ‘‘ Hecarried His body into heaven, He did not carry away His majesty from 
 earth,” Augustine. 
 
 Ver. 53. Kai ἧσαν διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ] κατὰ τοὺς καιροὺς δηλονότι τῶν συνάξεων, 
 ὅτε εἶναι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐξῆν, ‘namely, at the seasons of assembly, when it was allow- 
 able to be in it,” Euthymius Zigabenus. The popular expression διὰ παντός 
 is not to be pressed (comp. ii. 37), hence it does not exclude the coming 
 together in another locality (Acts i. 13, ii, 64) (in opposition to Strauss).’ 
 Moreover, after the pouring forth of the Spirit, they continued as pious 
 Israelites daily in the temple, Acts 11, 46, iii. 1. [On the correct form of 
 the verse, see critical note. | 
 
 Notes py AMERICAN EpDITor. 
 
 CLXXVI. Ver. 10. ἦσαν δὲ. . . καὶ ai λοιπαὶ k.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 sepulchre, 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. καὶ ἐστάϑησαν σκυϑρωποί. 
 
 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 περιπατοῦντες, and the abrupt statement: ‘‘ And they stood still, 
 looking sad” (R. V.), corresponds with the sudden halt as they walked. 
 
 CLXXVIII. Ver. 18. σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς k.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. Vy. 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 : ἐν τῇ κλάσει, ‘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. τι. Nachapost. Zeitalt, p. 281. 
 
NOTES. 591 
 
 CLXXX. Ver. 39. ὅτι πνεῦμα x.7.A, 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. renders ὅτε 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 τότε 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 vy. 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 vy. 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. 
 
 CLXXXII. Ver. 44. οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι k.7.A. 
 
 Weiss ed. Mey. suggests that this phrase ‘‘ can point forward to the follow- 
 ing expositions of Scripture (ver. 45): When 1 said to you that the Scripture 
 must be fulfilled, I meant as follows.’’ In ver. 46 he properly takes ὅτε as reci- 
 tative (so R. V.), not as introducing a motive (Meyer). 
 
 CLXXXIII. Vv. 47, 48. ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ. ὑμεῖς ἐστε κ.τ.λ. 
 
 The correct text is difficult to determine ; the better attested readings are 
 given above,though ἐστε is wanting in Band ΤΠ). The harsh anacoluthon in ἀρἔάμε-- 
 vot leads some to join that clause with ver. 48 (so R. V. marg.), but if ἐστε is 
 wanting this is impossible. If ἀρξάμενοι 15 joined with what precedes, the nom_ 
 inative refers to the persons who should preach (namely, ὑμεῖς), 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 the 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 Ιουδαίας 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 δέ 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. éw¢ πρὸς Βηϑανίαν. 
 
 The correct reading (see critical note) is properly paraphrased in the R. V., 
 ‘until 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 tke 
 same sense to the Rec. reading (εἰς). 
 
 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 the 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) : 
 
 “ΠῊ 6 representation which is made of this fact [mamely, 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 xxiy. 
 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 σημεῖα (John xx. 30) τεκμῇ- 
 pra (Acts i. 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 a 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 
 oceurred to him (1 Cor. xy. 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 labors 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.e., 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 Epistle 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 CLXXXVI., 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 
 seq. 
 
 Ascension of Christ, The, 586 seq., 
 592 seq. 
 
 B 
 
 Barabbas released, 564. 
 
 Barnabas, Epistle of, 588 seq., 598. 
 
 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. 
 
 C. 
 
 Caiaphas, the high priest, 294. 
 
 Census of Caesar Augustus, 264 seq., 
 287 seq., 269 seq. 
 
 Centurion of Capernaum, The, 344 
 seq., 352 seq. 
 
 Christ, Jesus, is born, 272 seq. ; 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 
 seq., 289 seq. ; 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. 
 
 seq.; 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 the sea, 360; 
 expels the devils of Gadara, 360 
 seq.; healeth a woman with a bloody 
 issue, 961 ; 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, 490 seq. ; 
 continuance of His journey, 431 
 seq., 438 ; reproves Herod, 434 seq.; 
 bewails Jerusalem, 436 seq.; healsa 
 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 seq.; en- 
 joins prayer, 499 ; and the children, 
 504 , and the young ruler, 504 seq.; 
 heals the blind man at Jericho, 505, 
 
596 TOPICAL INDEX. 
 
 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 
 seq.; is led before the high priest, 
 553 seq. ; is denied by Peter, 554 ; 
 brought before the Sanhedrim, 554 
 seq., 598 ; 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. 
 
 Golgotha, 565. 
 
 Gospel, The, its proclamation, 385 ; 
 its effects, 423 seq.; its preserving 
 power, 447, 448. 
 
 Gospels, early writings of, 230 seq. 
 
 ἘΠ. 
 
 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. 
 
 τ 
 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. 
 
 ΤΙ 
 
 Lawyer, The, and Christ, 389 seq. 
 
 Law, The, its continual obligation, 
 473 seq., 483. 
 
 Lazarus 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. 
 
 ores 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 
 
 er 
 
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, 552 seq. 
 
 Mount of Olives, 515, 
 
 Nain, 345. 
 Nazareth, 282, 289. 
 
 
 
 597 
 
 Oz 
 Offences, and how avoided, 485 seq., 
 495. 
 
 FP: 
 
 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, 
 357 seq.; the Candle, 359 ; the good 
 Samaritan, 391 seq., 396; the Im- 
 portunate Petitioner, 399 seq. ; the 
 Candle under a Bushel, 403 seq. ; 
 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. ; 
 the Wicked Husbandman, 520 seq., 
 524, 
 
 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 
 seq. ; 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 unfaithfulness, 421 
 seq., 471 seq., 479 seq.; method of 
 the divine, 428, 500 seq. 
 
598 TOPICAL 
 
 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. 
 
 Sermon 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, 278 ; 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 their visit to the Christ-child, 275 
 seq. 
 
 Simeon, 278 seq.; his Messianic deliy- 
 erance, 279. 
 
 Sin and misery, 452 seq. 
 
 Soldiers coming to the Baptist, 296. 
 
 Stewardship on earth, 460 seq., 481 
 seq. 
 
 i 
 
 Talent, value of a, 513. 
 
 Temptation of Christ, The, 306 seq. 
 
 Theophilus, 221 seq. 
 
 Tiberius Cesar, 292. 
 
 Transfiguration of Christ, The, 369 
 seq. 
 
 Tribute paying, 521. 
 
 W. 
 
 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 
 seq. 
 
 Ne 
 Year, The, 299 seq., 303 seq. 
 
 Z. 
 
 Zacharias, 234 seq., 258; his prayer 
 heard, 236 seq.; asking for and re- 
 ceiving 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 unlawtul, 445. 
 

 

 

 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Be ΕΥ xy Ak 
 1 esc 
 
 Vhs of Fr ὃ» 
 
 
 
LM