RSS θαι oer HP πο στὰς REP αἰ Ah ne DED “ «τ τις pS and ta ln Pant Rp Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY TPES PRESENTED BY Mrs. Huston Dixon Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 httos://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticoOOmeye d d i "Ὁ is ΣῊΝ ΔΝ Fs, ΒᾺΝ. ! /| J. Meyer CRITICAL AND EXEGE NICAL BAND BOOK TO THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE. / BY Y HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Ta.D., OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 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. NEW YORK: FUNK & WAGNALLS, PuBLisHERs, 10 ΑΝ 12 Dry STREET. 1884. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884, τῇ By FUNK & WAGNALLS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washin, J a " PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Tus volume contains the Edinburgh translation of Dr. Meyer’s Com- mentary on Mark and Luke, and supplementary matter by the American editor, consisting of brief critical remarks and more extended exegetical notes. The Edinburgh translation was made ‘‘from the fifth edition of the original,’’ and not from the “‘ sixth edition,’’ which is only in part the work of Dr. Meyer. It is necessary to call attention to the fact that the English editor, Prof. Dickson, in his prefatory note to this part of the Commentary (p. ix.), expresses his views in regard to the last-named ‘‘ edition.”? With these views the present writer fully agrees. The edition of Prof. Weiss, however valuable its contents, is not ‘¢Meyer’s Commentary.’’ Indeed, the matter in that edition is so arranged that a careful comparison with Meyer is necessary in order to know when Weiss speaks for himself, and not for his author. Yet it seemed desirable that the reader should have the benefit of the contributions of Prof. Weiss. 1n the German edition (Weiss’s edition of Meyer) these are substituted for Meyer’s views ; in the English edition they are ignored; in this volume they are added to the work of the orig- mal 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- iv 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. ν 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. αὐ 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. No volume 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 isin 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. 1115 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 necessary 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 (y 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 éditors, 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 (VIIL.), 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. VIIT.’’ appears in the same connection. It is my hope that some students of this volume will find in these added notes convenient material for their own critical judgments, and be stimulated to devote more attention to textual criticism than is now common among us. The problem of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels cannot be fairly discussed until the questions of textual criticism are sufficiently settled to furnish proper material for the discussion. The two topics are so closely related, that the prominence given by Meyer in this volume to the former seemed to demand from me a fuller statement of facts in the latter field. The translations of the Latin and Greek citations appended to the original in this volume may prove convenient to some readers. They have been made as literal as possible, too literal for my own taste ; but in many cases the citations present verbal allusions or such forms of speech as called for more or less of verbal correspondence in the Eng- PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Vil 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 Zextus 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 Rey. 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. 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 suflice 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 ats 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 himseif 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 dijferent editors, whose methods of procedure and standards of judgment are necessarily various, breaks up the unity and consistency of the Com- mentary as stamped throughout with the impress of its author ; and introduces a confusion, which cannot but materially interfere with the pertinence of the numerous references from one portion of the Commen- PREFATORY NOTE BY THE ENGLISH EDITOR. Xi tary to another (introduced by ‘‘ see on,’’ or ‘‘comp. on’’), that form amain 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. Wo Ῥ. DICKSON, Guascow CoLLEeGE, February, 1880. 1 These have been rendered unnecessary by the fuller comparison with Tisch- endorf presented in this edition, and hence haye been omitted. See p. vi.— Amer. Ep. 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 thorough criticism. In this way there is no attempt to meet a justifiable requirement, and no clearness even as regards insight into the stalus 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.). 8 Some minor works reached me too late for a consideration of their sugges- tions: e.g., Hilgenfeld, Markus zwischen Matth. und Luk., in his Zeitschr. 1866, p. 82 ff. ; Zahn, Papias von Hierapolis, in the Stud. u. 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 Zdeal 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. Tn 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 (editzo 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 asa member of the Royal Consistory here, “* Deus nobis haec otia fecit,’’—this I have (in another sense, indeed, than the Roman poet meant it) to acknowledge with humble thanks to the everlasting Love, which has in great long-suffering and grace up- held me during many most 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, that it is much to be wished that the antagonism, which the work of Beyschlag will still abundantly encounter and must needs encounter, may be kept clear of the passionate 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 afew 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 ; Ἐ marks the date of the author’s death ; c. = 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 Eccl. Hist. at & Princeton : The Gospel according to Mark explained. 8°, New York, 1858, al. Ameprosius, + 397, Bishop of Milan: Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. Opera. | Baur arcamara Christian), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen : Das Markus- evangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter, 8°, Titbing. 1851. BorNEMANN (Friedrich August), + 1848, Pastor at Kirchberg : Scholia in Lucae Evangelium ad supplendos reliquorum interpretum commentarios. .. . 8°, Lips. 1830. Catrenan. See Corpertus, Niceras, and Possrnvus. Cook (F. C.), Canon of Exeter : Commentary and critical notes on the Gospel according to St. Mark. Vol. I. of Bible Commentary (N. T.), edited by Canon Cook. Lond. 1878. CorpErtus [Corprer] (Balthasar), + 1650, Jesuit: Catena sexaginta quinque Patrum Graecorum in 8. Lucam. . . . Latinitate donata et annota- : tionibus illustrata. . . 2, Antv. 1628. Costa (Isaac Da), Pastor at Amsterdam : Beschouwing van het Evangelie van Lucas, 8°, Amst. 1850-52. Exsnex (Jakob), { 1750, Consistorialrath at Berlin : Commentarius critico-phil- ologicus in Evangelium Marci . . . Edidit Ferd. Stosch. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1773. ΧΥΙΙΪ EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, Forp (James), M.A., Prebendary of Exeter: The Gospel of St. Mark [and of St. Luke], illustrated from ancient and modern authors. 8°, Lond. 1849-51. Frirzscue (Karl Friedrich August), + 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Evange- lium Marci recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit D. Car. F. A. Fritzsche. 8°, Lips. 1830. Gover (Frédéric), Prof. Theol. at Neuchatel : Commentaire sur l’Evangile de saint Lue. 2 tomes. 8°, Neuchatel, 1871. [Translated from the second French edition by E. W. Shalders and D. 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. Κα. Funk & Co. 8°, New York, 1881.] Hevpet (Georg Friedrich), Theological Tutor at Wittenberg: Marci Evange- lium notis grammatico-historico-criticis illustratum. 8°, Argent. 1716. HincenFretp (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 zusammenhiingend untersucht, Achter Theil. Das Evangelium des Lukas. Cap. i.-xxii. 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) [FRancors pu Jon], + 1602, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Analyt- ica expositio Evangelii Marci. [Opera.] KnosterMann (August), Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe fiir die evangelische Geschichte. 8°, Gétting. 1867. MicneEtsen (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. Morvs (Samuel Friedrich Nathan), + 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Praelecti- ones in Evangelium Lucae. Ed. K. A. Donat. 8°, Lip. 1795 Nicetas Serrariensis, ὁ. 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 erlintert. 2 Theile. 8°, Bremen, 1777-81. Pangvus [WarnGLER] (David), + 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Adversaria in S. Mareum, 5. Lucam . . . [Opera.] Perrer (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 [Fisscuer] (Johann), + 1626, Conrector at Herborn : Analysis _ logica Evangelii secundum Lucam. 8°, Sigenae, 1596, al. Puiumptre (E. H.), Prof. at King’s Coll., Lond. : The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. In. Vol. I. of New Testament Com- mentary for English Readers. Edited by C. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 4°, Lond. 1878. Posstnus (Peter), + ὁ. 1650, Jesuit at Rome: Catena Graecorum Patrum in Marcum Graece et Latine. Interprete P. Possino, 2°, Romae, 1673. REINHARD (Lorenz), + 1752, Superintendent at Biittstadt : Observationes phil- ologicae et exegeticae in Evangelium Marci selectissimae. __ 4°, Lips. 1737. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. X1X Scuarr (Philip), Prof. in Union Theol. Sem., N. Y.: A popular commentary on the New Testament by English and American scholars. Vol. 1. In- troduction and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke by the editor and Matthew B. Riddle, Prof. in Harttord Theol, Sem. 8°, N. Y. 1879. ScHLEIERMACHER (Friedrich Daniel Ernst), { 1834, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Ueber die Schriften des Lukas kritischer Versuch. 80, Berl: 1817. [Translated with an introduction by Connop Thirlwall, D. D. 8°, Lond. 1825. ScHotteN (Johan Hendrik), Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Het oudste Evangelie ; eritisch 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. SEeGAAR (Carolus), { 1803, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Observationes philologicae et theologicae in Evangelii Lucae capita xi priora. 8°, Utrecht, 1766. STEN (Karl Wilhelm), Pastor at Niemegk : Commentar zu dem Evangelium des Lucas, nebst einem Anhange tiber den Brief au die Laodicier. 8°, Halle, 1830. Stevia [Esrernia] (Diego), { 1578, Spanish monk: In Evangelium secundum Lucam enarrationes, 2 voll. 2°, Compluti, 1578, al. Titus Bostrensis? + ec. 370: Commentarius in Lucam. [Bibl. Max. Patrum. iv.] TROLLOPE (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. VinKE (Hendrik Egbert), + 1862, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Het Nieuwe Testa- ment met ophelderende en toepasslijke aanmerkingen. 8°, Utrecht, 1852-54. Wess (Bernhard), Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Das Markusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen erklirt. 8°, Berl. 1872. Das Matthiiusevangelium und seine Lucas-Parallelen erklirt. 8°, Halle, 1876. Wu11es (Bartus van), + 1844, Pastor at Niewland : Specimen hermeneuticum de iis quae ab uno Marco sunt narrata aut copiosius et explicatius ab eo exposita. 8°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1812. THE GOSPEL OF MARK. ΤΙ Ὡς, 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 (xii. 12, 25, xv. 87), sometimes John only (xiii. 5, 18), 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. 19). Jerusalem may therefore be regarded as the birthplace of Mark. According to 1 Pet. v. 19, 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 Barnabas, whose cousin he was (see on Col, iv. 10), on his journey to Cyprus (Acts xv. 36 ff.). It is probable that a want of dauntless perseverance (Acts xiii. 13, xv. 58) 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 Liph., 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- ferent Marks (Grotius, Calovius, and seyv- eral others, including Schleiermacher in the Stud. u. Kit. 1832, p. 760) is absolutely without any sufficient foundation. It is nevertheless again taken up by Kienlen in the Stud. u. Kit. 1843, p. 423 ff., and in op- position to the tradition of the church fur- ther made use of for ascribing the Gospel 1 not to the Petrine, but to the Pauline Mark, whom Papias had already confounded with the former. 2Thence Hitzig (δ. Johannes Markus u. seine Schriften, Ziirich 1843) could hold him to be the author of the Apocalypse, which, however, is decidedly incorrect. See Liicke, Hint. in ἃ. Offend. p. 781. 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. 111. 1, 111. 10, 6 ; Tertull. contr. Mare. iv. 5 ; Eusebius, Jerome, ef 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), ‘‘ sieut 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. 19, where Babylon was taken as a designation of Rome (Eus. 11. 15 ; Jerome, Vir, il. 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 Alexandria, and there— where, according to Eus. iii. 39, he is alleged to have founded the church’— to have died as bishop (Eus. ii. 16 ; Epiph. Haer. li. 6 ; Jerome, Vir. ill. 8), and, according to later tradition, in the character of a martyr (Niceph. ii, 43, Martyrol. Rom., 25 Apr.). ὃ 2.—ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL. It is related, first of all by Papias (in Eus. iii. 89), and then unanimously by the entire ancient church, that Mark wrote his Gospel under the special influence of Peter, whose ἑρμηνεύτης, ‘‘ interpreter,” he was. This account 17That this occurred before the compo- sition of the Epistle to the Romans, Thiersch concludes (ὦ. Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 104 f.) from Rom. xv. 19 ff. Certainly it numerous body of Jews. Still the expres- sion in Rom. /.c. is too indefinite as respects its geographical limits for any one to be able to maintain that Egypt belongs to the isin itself probable that even at that early date Christianity existed, as in Rome, so also in Alexandria, where there was a very 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, ὁ. Tryph. 106, quotes it as τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα Πέτρου, ‘the memorabilia of Peter ;”? and Tertull. ὁ. Mace. iv. 5, says: ‘‘ Marcus quod edidit evangelium, Petri adfirmatur, eujus inter- pres Marcus,” ‘‘The Gospel which Mark put forth is established as Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was” (comp. Iren. 111. 1: τὰ 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, Ὁ. 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 ἃ κωλύσαι, ‘‘hindering,” nor ἃ 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 τὴν γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ‘it is said, however, that the apostle, knowing what was done . writing for reading in the churches.” 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- also confirmed the Comp. Epiph. Haer. li. 6 ; Jerome, 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 thzol, Jahrb, 1851, p, 499 f.; Kéostlin, Urspr. α΄. synopt. Evang. p. 368 f.; Weiss in the Stud. τι. 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, Hinl.I. p. 113; Thiersch, Kist. 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 isnot 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. 885). But every kind of procedure in the way of epitome and compilation (according to the hypothesis of Griesbach, there would only be left to Mark as his own peculiar portions, iv. 26-29, vii. 32-37, viii. 22-26, xi. 1-14, xiii. 33-87, 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. 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. Ὁ. 113 ff., 344 ff. Comp. Weiss in the Stud. wu. 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-concrete conception. Késtlin and others speak of Mark’s ‘‘mannerism.” Weisse, Hvangeli- enfr. Ὁ. 73, rightly says: “in fact, nothing can be more dangerous to the ὁ criticism of tendency’ than any kind of acknowledg- ment, be it ever so limited, of the indepen- dence of Mark.’? Nevertheless, Eichthal (les Hvangiles, 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 ney- ertheless, as it now stands, is full of inter- polations. And so Luke too isin many ways interpolated. In this FEichthal 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, Jahrd. IT. Ὁ. 203 f.; Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 67 ff., 646 ff. ; Holtzmann, p. 284 f., 448 f. INTRODUCTION. 5 gradual formation of our Matthew, and then also for Luke. It is simply inconceivable that Mark could have passed over, in particular, the rich materials which Luke has peculiar to himself (as is still the opinion of Kost- 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 ἢ 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 (Késtlin, in the most complex fashion) contend against it with their hypothesis of a special ‘‘ tendency” (see ὃ 3), 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. x.). 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. 2 So not only Weisse and Wilke, but also Lachmann, Hitzig, Reuss, Ewald, Ritschl, Thiersch, Volkmar, Tobler, Plitt, Holtz- mann, Weiss, Schenkel, Weizsiicker, and others (see also Giider in Herzog’s Hncyki. IDG Ὁ, fe 1H) 3Thiersch, Airche im Apost. Zeitalt, p- 102. 4 Especially since 1850, then in his long controversy with Baur, and once more in his Kanon τι. Kritik d. N. T. 1863, and in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 287 ff. 5 Neue unters. ub. ad. Entsteh. τι. Anl. a. ka- non. Huang. 1., 1853. 6 See on the other hand Baur, Markus- evang. p. 119 ff.; Ritschl in the theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 482 ff.; Weiss in the Stud. wu. irit. 1861, p. 691 ff.; Holtzmann in his synopt. Hvang. 0 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. 1858, p. 56 ff., and Markus- evang. p. 133 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. 111. 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. 89f. Comp. on i, 2 f, § 8.—PURPOSE, TIME, PLACE. Like all the canonical Gospels, ours also has the destined purpose of his- torically proving the Messiahship of Jesus : it seeks to accomplish this es- pecially by setting forth the deeds of Jesus, but in doing so does not bear any special dogmatic color.’ It leaves out of consideration the doctrinal differences that agitate the subsequent apostolic period, and goes to work quite objectively. We must not on this account, however, assume a mediat- ing aim in the interest of the idea of catholicity, and consequently a neutral character accordant with that tendency,’ ora mediating between the Jewish- Christian Matthew and the Pauline Luke (Hilgenfeld), for assumptions of which sort it was thought that a welcome external support was to be found in the very fact, that Mark’s place was from old assigned to him only after Mat- thew, and relatively (according to Clem. Al.) even only after Luke. The omis- sion of a genealogy and preliminary history does not betray the design of a neutral attitude (Schwegler alleges even that a Docetic reference is implied), but simply points to a time of its origin, in which, among Gentile Chris- tians, such matters as these had not yet attained the importance of being regarded as elements of the Gospel. And the work is composed for Gentile Christians, as is evident beyond any doubt from the total absence of proofs 1 Not even the character of artistic con- struction, which (according to Hilgenfeld) 3 The opinion of Volkmar (d. Relig. Jesu u. thre erste Wntwickelung, 1857, and ge- 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 Peler and the companion of Paul. schichtstreue Theol. 1858)—that the Gospel of Mark asan 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 Tilvs, it became the founda- tion for the rest of the Gospels—is a criti- eal extravagance. See, in opposition to it, Hilgenfeld in the theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 887 ff., and in his Zeitschr. 1859, p. 252 ff., 1861, p. 190 ff., also in Hanon u. Kritik, p. 175 ff. INTRODUCTION. vi drawn from the O. T. (excepting only i. 2 f., see in Joc.) and of Judaistie 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, vii. 1 ff., xi. 17, and others. With respect to the time of composition, the Gospel must, in accordance with the eschatological statements in chap. xill. (see especially, vv. 13, 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, ili. 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 (Eus. 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 ; Késtlin, 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 as a sphere of labor. It is true that Chrysostom names Alevandria 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- ing or in expressly testifying. It is true that there occurs in the Peshito as a subscription, and in the Philoxenian on the margin,’ the remark that at Rome he preached in the Roman tongue, and several manuscripts of the Greek text (see Scholz, p. xxx.; Tisch. p. 325) distinctly affirm that he wrote in Latin, but this entire statement is a hasty inference from the sup- position that Mark wrote at Rome and for 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 asa 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, 1.6. and p. 205 4) 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 das neue Test. nach Zweck, Ursprung, Inhalt, 1843, IT. p. 213 ff.) has declared in favor of 1Comp. also Ebedjesu, in Assem. Bédl. Or. TIT. 1, p. 9. 2 See Dobrowsky, fragment. Pragense ev. St. Marci vulgo autographi, Prag. 1778; Michaelis, orient. Bibl. XIII. 108, Hénd. ΤΙ. p. 1073 ff. 8. See Schleiermacher in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 758 ff. ; Credner, Hin. I. p. 128. 4 Subsequently Credner (see his work, 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 Synopties 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 111. 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. 2 Ewald, comp. Hitzig, Weisse, Holtz- mann, Schenkel, Weizsiicker, also Reuss, Ko6stlin, and others. 3 On the hypothesis of the Gospel being prepared with @ 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, Hvang. Ὁ. 565. Asif this would have been a sufficient reason for the exclusion of the entire discourse! Just as little as the alleged Ebionitic commencement of the discourse. 10 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. Nore spy American Eprror. I. Origin of the Gospel. The remarks of Meyer on this subject assume the correctness of his own theory respecting the relation of the Synoptic Gospels to each other, and their dependence, though in different ways, upon the Logia-collection of Matthew, which, as he thinks, consisted simply of discourses, and is the work referred to by Papias. The full discussion of the question belongs to the volume on Matthew, but it will be necessary here to state some points affecting more particularly the Gospel of Mark. Weiss, who in many respects agrees with Meyer, especially in rejecting the theory of a Proto-Mark, and in upholding the originality and priority of this Gospel, differs from him in regard to its relation to the Logia-collection. He regards the work referred to by Papias as ‘‘the older source,” but admits that it includes narrative as well as didactic portions. Ina detailed commentary (Das Markusevangelium und seine 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.e., the first and third Gospels. The frequent references to Weiss ed. Meyer in the following pages call for this statement of his view in advance. But it does not seem more satisfactory than the other attempts to show the interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels. Why does Mark have such brief didactic portions, if the Logia-collection was a collection of discourses such as are now preserved in the Gospel of Matthew? Orif ‘the older source” contained narrative also, how can we account for the verbal variations as well as agree- ments in the three Gospels? A repeated comparison of the parallel passages has left the writer more firmly convinced of the independence of the Synoptic Gospels. (On the qvestion 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. Lule, Ὁ. 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, ete. 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. {7 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: ‘‘]t 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. Fer this explanation involves amoral contradiction. Most of our present critics are so wellaware 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 1116. 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 δ have merely κατὰ Μάρκον. Others: τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον. Others: ἐκ τοῦ x. Μ. ἁγίου ξὐαγγελίου. Comp. on Matt., note respecting the title. CHAPTER I. Ver. 2. The Recepta has ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, following AE F G**H KMPSU VT, min. Iren. and other Fathers and vss. Defended by Rinck on account of Matt. iii. 3; placed by Lachm. in the margin. But Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν (ἐν τῷ, Lachm. Tisch.) Ἡσαΐᾳ (in Lachm. always with the spiritus lenis) τῷ προφήτῃ. SoBDL Δ δὰ, min. and many vss, and Fathers. Rightly ; the Recepta was introduced because the quotation is from two proph- ets. — After ὁδόν cov Elz. has ἕμπροσθέν cov, from Matthew and Luke. — Ver. 5. πάντες] which in Elz, Scholz, and Fritzsche stands after ἐβαπτίζοντο, is rightly placed by Griesb. Iachm. and Tisch. after “Ἱεροσολ. (B Ὁ L A δὲ, min. vss. Or. Kus.). If καὶ ἐβαπτ. πάντες had been the original arrangement and πάντες had been put back, it would, conformably to usage (τᾶσα ἡ ’Iovdaia), have heen placed before οἱ Ἵεροσολ. The Recepta is explained from the circumstance that πάντες was omitted (so stillin min. and Brix.), and that it was then restored be- side ἐβωπτίζοντο, 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 Ὁ L A δὲ, min. Goth.; ἀπό is from Matt. iii. 16. — Ver. 11. ἐν ᾧ] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν coi, following B Ὁ L Ῥ 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 Ὁ Τὶ δὲ, min. vss. Or.; it was, however, very easily passed over as superfluous (K. min. omit ἐν τ. ép.) between ἣν and ἐν, [Rejected by Tisch. and recent editors, R. V.] — Ver. 14. τῆς βασιλείας] is not found in BL δὰ, 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 B D Τὶ 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 δὲ, min. vss., togbe 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 C L A 8, min, Syr. Copt. Colb. Or. (twice), which assign various positions to ἐδιδ, (Tisch.: édcd. εἰς τ. ovvaywyhv), but might easily be produced by a clerical error on cecasion CHAP. I., 1—4. 15 of the following eic, 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 Β 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 iv. 35. — Ver. 27.4instead 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 ἣ καινὴ αὕτη; ὅτι κατ᾽ k.T.A.] Lachm.: τί ἐστίν τοῦτο ; διδαχὴ καινὴ" κατ᾽ «.T.2. Just so Rinck and Tisch., who, however, connect did. καινὴ κατ᾽ éfovo. 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 Kar’ ἐξουσίαν was conformed to the question in Luke, τίς ὁ λόγος αὕτος, ὅτι x.7.A4., and thus arose τίς ἡ διδαχὴ 7 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 (8* min. omit εὐθύς also), dropped away. — Ver. 31. εὐθέως after rup. is wanting in Β C L δὲ, 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 ΟἿ᾽, δὲ, 33, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Arr. Tisch. have ἀλλαχοῦ. To be adopted (comp. Bornem. in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1843, p. 127) ; being unnecessary and without corresponding element in Luke iy. 43, it was very easily passed over ; comp. on πανταχοῖ, 1. 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 cvvaywyac] So also Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. on preponderant attestation. The Recepta ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς 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 &, min. vss. — Ver. 41. ὁ dé ᾿Ιησοῦς] B D 8, 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 Ὁ L A δὰ, 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 jirst section, so also has Mark. This, however, does not embrace merely ver. 1, but ὡς γέγραπται... τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ belongs also to the superseription, so that with 1 In the text of the Synops. of Tisch. it is omitted by mistake. 14 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. ver. 4 the section itself (which goes on to ver. 8, according to Ewald to ver. 15) begins. [See Note 11., 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, 7.e., 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 ¢/és initial point (and see also the remarks on vv. 21-28), he even, contrary to his custom, elsewhere appends a prophetic utterance, in conformity with which that 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.A. 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: ἦν, the beginning. . . was, as it stands written,* doubtless the want of the article with ἀρχή 15 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 ἦν 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) 1 With Fritzsche, Lachmann, Hitzig, the evangelist further added the familiar Holtzmann. The conjecture of Lachmann passage of Malachi. In this way at all (Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 84, and praefat. II. Ὁ. vi.), that vv. 2,3 are a later interpolation, is critically quite unwarranted. According to Ewald and Weizsiicker, 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 Zigabenus, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Jansen, Grotius, and others. 4 See Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 124]. CHAP. I., 1--4. 15 exhibited the original type of the view which was taken of the Gospel his- tory,—a type which again, after the terminus a quo had been extended in Matthew and Luke so as to embrace the preliminary histories, presents it- self in John, inasmuch as the latter, after his general introduction and even in the course of it (ver. 6), makes his historical commencement with the emergence of the Baptist. Undoubtedly, traditions of the preliminary his- tory were also known to Mark ; in leaving them unnoticed he does not re- ject them, but still he does not find in them—lying as they do back in the gloom prior to the great all-significant epoch of the emergence of John—the 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 ebayy. τῆς βασιλ- εἴας, τῆς σωτηρίας K.T.A. (Matt. iv. 23 5 Eph. 1. 13, vi. 15, ad.). If Θεοῦ is as- sociated therewith, it is the genitive of the subject (1. 15 ; Rom. i. 1, xv. 16, al.), as is the case also when μου stands with it (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess. i. 5, al.). But if Χριστοῦ is associated therewith (Rom. i. 9, xv. 19 ; 1 Cor. ix. 12, al.), it may be either the genitive subjecti (auctoris) or the genitive objecti, a point which must be determined entirely by the context. In this case it decides (see vv. 2-8) in favor of the latter. Taken as genitive swb- 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. — viov τ. Θεοῦ] not as in Matt. 1. 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. ili. 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 Ἡσαΐᾳ] The following quotation combines Mal. iii. 1 and Isa. xl. ὃ. In this case, instead of all sorts of hypotheses (see them in Fritzsche), we must abide by the simple admission, that by @ mistake of memory (of which, indeed, Porphyry made a bitter use, see Jerome, ad Matt. iii. 3) Mark thought of the whole of the words as to be found in Isaiah,—a mistake which, considering the affinity of the contents of the two sayings, and the prevalence of their use and their interpretation, is all the more con- ceivable, as Isaiah was ‘‘ copiosior et notior,” ‘‘more full and better known” (Bengel). A different judgment would have to be formed, if the passage of Isaiah stood jirst (see Surenhusius, καταλλ. p. 45). Matt. xxvii. 9 was a 1 The absence of υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ in &, two min., and some Fathers (including Iren. and Or.) has not so much critical impor- tance as to warrant the deletion of these words by Tischendorf (ed. maj. viii.). In his Synopsis, Tischendorf had still rightly preserved them. The omission of them has just as little dogmatical reason as the addition would have had. But ἀρχὴ τοῦ evayy., as initself a complete idea, was taken together with the following ὡς γέγρ.: and thence all the genitives, I. X. ὑ. τ. ©., which could be dispensed wi:h, were passed over the more readily by reason of the homoeote- 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 aii vss.) have read it; for which reason merely a sporadic diffusion is to be assigned to the reading without υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ, [See Note IIL., p. 25.] 10 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. similar error of memory. [See Note IV., p. 25.] According to Hengsten- berg, Christol. I. 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. [See Note V., p. 25 seq.] As to the desert (the well-known desert), see on Matt. 11]. 1. — βάπτισμα μετανοίας] a baptism involving an obligation to re- pentance (see on Matt. 111. 2), genitive of the characteristic quality. — εἰς ἄφεσιν auapt.] Comp. Luke iii. 3. The aim of this baptism, in order that men, pre- pared for the purpose by the yerdvord, should receive forgiveness of sins from the Messiah. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus. This is not anaddition derived from a later Christian view (de Wette, comp. Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 61), but neither is it to be taken in such a sense as that John’s baptism itself secured the forgiveness (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 606 ; Ewald). This baptism could, through its reference to the Mediator of the forgiveness who was approaching (John i. 29, 83, 111. 5 ; Acts ii. 38), give to those, who allowed themselves to be baptized and thereby under- took the obligation 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 Iovd. «.7.2.] "Iovd. 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 is a popular hyperbole. — Ver. 6. Instead of ἐσθίων, we must BairtiCov. tf Ss 1 Anger and others, in favor of Matthew ; titschl and others, in favor of Mark. 2 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 278 f.; Lobeck, ad Aj. 588; Kiihner, IT. p. 40. 3 Ewald (comp. Hitzig) connects ἐγένετο with κηρύσσων, reading ὁ βαπτίζων in accord- ance with B LA δὲ (comp. vi. 14), and omit- ting the subsequent καί with B, min. ‘“ 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 Recepta. 4 Comp. John i. 6; 1 John ii. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Xen. Anab. iii. 4. 49, iv. 3. 29, ad. Comp. παραγίνεται, Matt. iii. 1, and on Phil. ii. 7. CHAP. I., 9-13. ip write, with Tischendorf, ἔσθων." --- Ver. 7. ἔρχεται] present: ‘ut Christum in- telligas jam fuisse in via,” ‘‘that you may know Christ is already on the way,” Beza. — κύψας] 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. 88.325 It would not have been ‘‘ abrupt” (Holtzmann) even in Mark. Vv. 9-11. See on Matt. tii. 18-17; Luke iii. 21 f. — εἰς τὸν "Iopdavyv] 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 εὖθ. to εἶδε) just as little occurs here as at Matt. 111. 16. — εἶδε] Jesus, to whom also ἐπ’ αὐτόν refers (see on Matt. J.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 (Z. 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, ete. See, moreover, the Remark subjoined to Matt. ili. 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 (ἐκεῖ, 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 ἣν 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 In opposition to Ewald, Késtlin, Holtz- Lex. ed. Rost, p. 457; Wimer. p. 79 [E. T. mann, and others. 86]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 51 [E. T. 58]. 3In opposition to Strauss, Weisse, de Also at xii. 40, Luke vii. 88 f., x. 7, xxii. 80, | 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. 96), 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- vovy 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, sec on Matt. iv. 11, Remark) appears in Mark in its oldest, almost still germinal, form. It is remarkable, indeed, that in the further development of the evangelic history (in Mat- thew and Luke) the wonderful element 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 ebayy., ‘‘ 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, ‘a withdrawal.” — kypicowr] present participle with 720ev.° — τὸ ebayy. τοῦ Θεοῦ] 1 So also von Engelhardt (de Jesu Christi has dropped out also after ver. 5 or 6, and tentatione, Dorp. 1858, p. δ). 2 Virg. Aen. iii. 646, and see Wetstein in loc. 3 Usteri in the Stud. u. Writ. 1834, p. 789; Gfrorer, Olshausen, comp. Bengel, and also Baur, Hvang. pp. 540, 564; Hilgenfeld, Evang. Ὁ. 126; Schenkel, Holtzmann. 4 Ex. xxiv. 48, xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 18. © For the idea that κ. ot ayy. dunk. αὐτῷ is only the closing sentence of an originally Jonger 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. ὁ How awkwardly Mark would here haye 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 Weizsiicker, p. 333. ®See Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 14, p. 81; Bornemann, ad Xen. παν. vii. 7. 17; Stall- baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 116 C. CHAP. I., 16-20. is See on ver. 1. — ὅτι] 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. See 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 ebayy. is just the news itself, which Jesus gave in πεπλήρωται x.7.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. —rapdywv (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 wswal 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, 80 that καταρτ. «.7.2. 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. μισθωτ.] 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 ἐν, see on Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 13; frequently in the LXX. 2Comp. Weizsicker, p. 364. But the teaching begins with the announcement of the kingdom, which has as its presupposi- tion the Messianic self-consciousness (Weiz- sicker, 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, 1.0. Ὁ. 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. 31-37, 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 v. 1 ff. Mark lays special stress on these healings. —It is only with ver. 21 that Mark's peculiar mode of handling his materials begins,—the more detailed and graphic treatment, which presents a very marked contrast to the brevity of outline in the annalistic record of all that goes before. Perhaps up to this point he has followed an old documentary writing of this character ; and if this comprised also in its contents vv. 1-3, the introduction of the Bible quotation in vv. 2, 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. 90 f.). — εὐθέως τοῖς σάββ. | ὁ.6., tmmediately on the neat Sabbath, not: on the several Sabbaths,* which is forbidden by εὐθέως. σάββατα, as in ii. 23; Matt. xii. 1; Luke iv. 6; Col. ii. 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 in any doubt. This synagogue-dis- course has nothing to do with the sermon on the Mount, as if it were intended to occupy the place of the latter (Hilgenfeld). Ver. 22. Comp. Matt. vii. 28 f., where the notice of Mark is reproduced unaltered, but placed after the sermon on the Mount ; and Luke iv. 82, where the second part of the observation is generalized and divested of the contrast. It is very far-fetched, however, in Hilgenfeld, who in ver. 22 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 f. Ver. 23 f. Ἔν πνεύμ. ἀκαθάρτῳ] to be connected closely with ἄνθρωπος : a 1 Comp. xvi. 1; Luke viii. 8; John xix. ing Luke. 27. 8 Euthymius Zigabenus, Wolf, and many 3 Thus Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, others. Euthymius Zigabenus, and others, follow- ΄ CHAP. 1., 25-27. 21 man in the power of an unclean spirit.' As to the demoniacs, sce on Matt. iv. 24; and as to the miracles of Jesus in general, see on Matt. viii. 4. — avé- «page| he cried aloud (see Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. compos. usu, 111. 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. 1.6. -- ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ 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 τοῦ 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 in common, ix. 10, xii. 28 ; Luke xx. 23, xxiv. 15, al.; so also in the classics. — ri 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 κατ’ ἐξουσίαν" καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι τοῖς ἀκαθάρτοις . . See the critical remarks. [See also Note VIL. p. 26.] They give vent by way of exclamation to what has thrown them into such astonishment and isso incomprehensible to them, and do soin the unperiodic mode of expression that is appropriate to excited feeling : ὦ doctrine new in power ! and He commands the unclean spirits, etc. ! They marvel at these to marked points, as they have just perceived them in Jesus. But this is manifestly opposed to the connection, according to which κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν looks back to the foregoing ἦν yap διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. αὐτῷ ! Lachmann attaches κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν to καὶ τοῖς πνεύμασι K.T.A. 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. 1See on ev Matthiae, p. 1141. Comp. v. demon’s declaration of the Messiahship of 2; 2 Cor. xii. 2; Buttmann, neut. Gr. Ὁ. 84 [E. T. 96]. 2 See Origen and Victor Antiochenus in Possini Catena. 8 Luke iv. 34; Acts iv. John vi. 69. 4 See Knapp, Opusc. I. p. 33 f. 5 To refer φιμώθητι, with Strauss, IT. Ὁ. 21, following older expositors, merely to the is ERGWer Π|. 45 Jesus, is, in view of the general character of the word, arbitrary. It is the command of the victorin general: Be silent and go out! Strauss appeals to i. 34, iii. 12. But these prohibitions refer to the time after the going out. ® 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 καινῇ : new in respect to power, which has never yet occurred thus with the impress of higher authorization. Ver. Ταλιλ.1 not merely therefore into Galilee itself, but also into the whole region that surrounds Galilee. [See Note VIIL., p. 26.] Comp. Luke iii. 8, 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). Vv. 29-89. 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.2.} 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 6An] comp. Matt. 111, 5.2 Ver. 34. πολλοὺς. πολλά] therefore not all, which, nevertheless, does not presuppose attempts that were without result. It was already /ate, 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 28. Hic ὅλην τ. περίχ. .τ. 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- 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 evang. p. 11; comp. theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 69 f. See, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 128. ᾿ 1 Τῇ this point of view the sickness is de- noted by the words κατέκειτο πυρέσσ. as Se- yere enough not to allow the event to be sensation produced by Jesus asa worker of miracles. 2So also in the classical writers (Thuc. vii. 82. 1; Soph. O. R. 179); comp. Niigels- bach, Anm, 2, Ilias, ed. 3, p. 103, CHAP. 1., 35-39. 29 preposition ; see Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 811. --- λαλεῖν. . . 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. The two verbs (comp. on John villi. 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 ‘‘ éo say that” is never expressed by λαλεῖν, br. —As to the reason of the prohibition, see on v. 43 and Matt. viii. 4. " . OTL. Vv. 35-39. Luke iv. 42-44 is less characteristic and more generalized. — ἔννυχον λίαν] when it was still very dark. ἔννυχον is the accusative neuter of the definition of time, as σήμερον, αὔριον, νέον, ete. 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 (Gin 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. — ἐξῆλθε] 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 οἱ 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. kwuor., 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 συναγωγ. αὐτῶν κ.τ.}.} There is the conception of direction in εἰς : announcing (the Gospel) into their synagogues. [See Note IX., p. 26.j; He is conceived of as coming before the assembly in the syna- gogue and speaking to them.® The following εἰς ὅλην τὴν Tadcdaiay specities the geographical field, into which the κηρύσσειν εἰς τὰς cvvaywy αὖτ. extended. Comp. ΧΙ]. 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. v. 5; see, however, Grimm in Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 127; Fritzsche, ad loc. Mare. p. 22. 2 Hesychius has the adverb vvya, equiva- §So Euthymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, lent to νύκτωρ. 3 Thue. ii. 84.3; Polyb. vi. 42. 1; Ecclus. ἜΧΗΙ Ivey lech peas 18: 4Herod. i. 184; Xen. Anabd. i. 8, iv. 9; Joseph. Antt. xi. 8. 6, and frequently ; comp. Acts xiii. 44, xxi. 26. See Borne- mann, Schol.in Luc. iv, 23, v. 85, and in the Grotius, Bengel, Lange, and others; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius. ὁ Comp. the well-known modes of expres- sion: és τὸν δῆμον εἰπεῖν, Thuc. y. 45, ets τὴν στρατίαν εἰπεῖν, Xen. Anad. v. 6. 87; John Vili. 26, ταῦτα λέγω εἰς τὸν 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. 35-39 is one of the most telling passages in favor of Mark’s originality. Vy. 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 (vy. 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 x. éxafap., 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 a 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 is required, — περὶ τοῦ καθαρ. σου] on account of thy cleansing, i.e., in 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 6 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 (sousually ; even de Wette and Bleek), which λόγος in the N. T. never directly means (not even at ii. 2, viii. 32 ; 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 Tf 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 λόγος and cording to Schenkel (p. 873), Mark is as- φήμη, see Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 32. sumed to have had the narrative from the NOTES. 2d 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 EprTor. 11. Punctuation of vv. 1-4. The verses are pointed variously, in accordance with the different views of the grammatical connection. Tischendorf places a comma at the end of ver. 1, and a period at the close of ver. 3, thus agreeing with Meyer's view. W. and Hort place ver. 1 by itself as a title, putting a comma at the end of ver. 3, thus making vv. 2, 8 ἃ protasis, This is the view of the R. V. Weiss ed. Mey. re- gards ver. 1 as the title of the entire Gospel, and not of the first section only. The lexical objection to this, namely, that the word 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* B 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. VY. 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 Tt», which is found in δὲ BL Δ 99, ete. — 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 k.T.A. The article is found in δὲ B L A 33, Copt., accepted by recent critical editors (so Weiss ed. Meyer), and R. V. W.and Hort omit, mainly on the authority of Band 33. The latter reading compels us 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 K.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. VII. Ver. 27. διδαχὴ καινή, K.7.2. 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. VY. 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 notice 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 Τὰ. 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 (cic) 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 δὲ, min. An interpretation. — Ver. 4. [Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V. marg., with δὲ B L, 33, Copt. Vulg., read προσενέγκαι] -- ἐφ᾽ ᾧ 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 andat 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 co? ai ἁμαρτίαι cov, the latter bracketing cov. But BDGLA δὲ, min. have cov 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 Recepia has but very weak attesta- tion, and from Matthew it easily passed over into our passage. ‘There is the same diversity of reading also at ver. 9, but with the authorities so divided that in ver. 5 and ver. 9 only the like reading is warranted. — Ver. 7. λαλεῖ βλασφημίας Lachm. Tisch, read λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ, following BDL δὲ, 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, ete.). Being unnecessary and not understood, it was passed over. [Rejected by Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort.] — Ver. 9. ἔγειρε] Elz. Rinck have éyecpaz (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: éye/pov here ; in Matt. ix. 5, 6 éyespe.] The middle form éyeipecte 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 καί, which Ο D L, min. vss. omit, An addition in accordance with Matt. ix. 5; Luke v. 23. — Instead of cov τὸν κραββ. 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 after ἀφιέναι. So AEFGal. But Bhas ἀφ. ἀμ. ἐπὶ τ. y.; CDL Μ Δ δὰ, al. min. vss. have éx? τ. y. ἀφ. ἀμ. 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 isa reading conformed to Matthew and Luke. The various readings have arisen through omission (Augustine) and diversity in the restoration of én? 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 8, and is to be preferred ; ἐγένετο is from Matthew, and ἐν τῷ is explanatory. — Ver. 16. x. οἱ γραμμ. x. of Φαρισ. Tisch. : k. ypap- ματεῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων, following BL A 8, 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 ἠκολούῦ. --- ΤῊ 6 simple ὕτι (Tisch.), instead of τί ὅτι, is too feebly attested. [See Note XIII., p. 36.] — καὶ πίνει] is wanting, no doubt, in B D 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, Ο 1, D δὲ, min. vss. Fathers have added ὁ διδάσκαλος ὑμῶν. --- Ver. 17. After duapr. Elz. has εἰς pera- votav, Which on decisive testimony is deleted as an addition from Luke y. 32 by Griesb. and the later editors. —Ver. 18. Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Fritzsche have rightly adopted οἱ Φαρισαῖοι instead of the Recepla οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων. The former has decisive testimony in its favor, the latter is from Luke y. 33.— οἱ τῶν] Tisch. : οἱ μαθηταὶ τῶν, following B C* L δὲ, 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 ἱμώτιον παλαιόν, according to BC DL 8, 33. Rightly ; it was altered in conformity with Matt. ix 16.22 αἴρει +) πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν Tov παλαιοῦ] Many variations. A Καὶ Δ, min. Syr. p. : αἴρει ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ TA, τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλ.; BL δὲ (yet without the first τό), min. Goth. : αἴρει τὸ πλ. ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Β : ag’ ἑαυτοῦ) τὸ καιν. τοῦ παλ. (SO Lachm. and Tisch.) ; D, min. vss. : αἴρει τὸ TA. τὸ καινὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ παλ. (50 Rinck). [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V., agree with Tisch.] The Recepia is to be rejected no less than the reading of D, ete. Both are from Matthew. Of the two read- ings that still remain, that of A, etc., is to be preferred, because in that of Lachm, and Tisch. the collocation of αἴρει τὸ wd. likewise betrays its being shaped according to Matthew. Hence we read: αἴρει az’ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα τὸ Ver. 22. ῥήσσει] Lachm. ῥήξει, following BC Ὁ L 8, 33, Vulg. codd, of It. Soalso Tisch. From Luke vy. 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 6 οἷνος . . . βλητέον] Instead of this there is simply to be read, with Tisch., follow- ing BLD, codd. of It.: καὶ ὁ olvog ἀπόλλυται καὶ oi ἀσκοί (BS leave out of ἀλλὰ κιτ.}. only βλητέον). [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 Recepla is from the parallels. — Ver. 23. παραπορ] Lachm. d:arop., following B C Ὁ. But comp. Luke vi. 1. — ὁδὸν ποιεῖν] Lachm.: ὁδοποιεῖν, only after B 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 LX, min. vss., but it was very easily mistaken in its reference, and καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ. CHAP, 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. ἐπὶ ᾿Α βιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερ.] is wanting in D, 271, Cant. Ver. Vere. Vind. Corb. 2. Condemned, after Beza, by Gratz (neuer Versuch, d. 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.'— δ ἡμερῶν] interjectis diebus, after the lapse of intervening days. See on Gal. ii. 1. — εἰς οἶκον ἔστι] just our: ‘He is into the house.” [See Note X., p. 36.] The verb of rest assumes the pre- vious motion ; xiii. 16; John i. 18; Herod. i. 21, αἰ.2 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, — μηδέ] not even the space at the door, to say nothing of the house. Késtlin, p. 839, arbitrarily finds exaggeration here. — τὸν λόγον] κατ᾽ ἐξοχῆν : the Gospel. Comp. viii. 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 upper 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 jrepgov—the material of which the floor of the roof consisted, and let down the sick man through the opening thus made. The conception that Jesus was in the vestibule, and that the sick man was lowered down to Him after breaking off the parapet of the roof (Faber, Jahn, Késter, Jmman. 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, neut. Gr. p. 256 [E. T. Tischendorf, προσενέγκαι, following B L &, 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 cis δόμους μένειν, Soph. Aj. 80, and This view is more in keeping with the vivid Lobeck én loc. ; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. 1. 537. description than the usual intransitive ac- 8 Προσεγγίσαι, active (Aquila, 1 Sam. xxx. _—_cedere. 7; Lucian, Amor. 53), hence the reading of 90 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. Joseph. “πη. 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.7.4.] See on Matt. ix. 2.—Ver. 6. τῶν γραμματ.] So correctly also Matthew. But Luke introduces already here (too early, see in Mark ii. 16) the Pharisees as well. As to 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 self-origination, the cogitationes sua sponte conceptas. [See critical note.] — As to vv. 9-12,! see on Matt. ix. 5-8, 33. — σοὶ λέγω] coi prefixed with emphasis, because the speaker now turns to the sick man. Comp. Luke v. 24. According to Hilgenfeld, the ‘‘awkward structure of the sentence,” ver. 10 f., betrays the dependence on Matt. ix. 6. Why, then, not the converse ? —xai 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. —oirtw¢ . . . εἴδομεν] not equivalent to τοιοῦτο eid. (see on Matt. ix. 33), but : so we have never seen, i.e., a 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: ὁ υἱὸς Tov 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, ἢ. 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 ree- 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, 91 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. 18-17. See on Matt. ix. 9-13 ; Luke v. 27-82. 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 swbjective conception (de Wette, comp. Késtlin, p. 835). — 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.2 Comp. Vulg.: ‘‘in domo dilius.” [See Note XIL., p. 36.] In itself this is possible, 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 αὐτῷ: 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 x.T.2.] A statement serving to elucidate the expression just used : πολλοὶ τελῶναι x.7.A., and in such a way that ἦσαν is prefixed with emphasis : for there were many (red. x. duapr.) ; there was no lack of a multitude of such people, and they followed after Jesus. Against the explanation of Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek : aderant, it may be at once decisively urged that such an illustrative state- ment would be unmeaning, and that ἠκολούθησαν may not be turned into a pluperfect. And mentally to supply with ἧσαν, 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 x. γραμμ. τ. Φαρισ. to the previous ἠκολούθ. (Tischendorf) is un- suitable, because ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοί, taken by itself alone, would be absolutely pleonastic, and because ἠκολούθ., in accordance with the context, can only mean the following of adherents. — Respecting ἰδόντες «.7.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, Dog. I. the reading Ιάκωβον (instead of Aeviv) in D, p. 409 f, min., codd. in Or, and Vict. and codd of It. 32 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. not : cum intelligerent, ‘‘ when they knew” (Grotius and others, de Wette). —ri ὅτι] quid est, quod, ‘‘ How is it that,” so that there needs to be supplied after ri, not γέγονεν (Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. Ὁ. 591), but the simple ἐστί. Comp. Luke ii. 49 ; Acts v. 4, 9. [See Note XIII., p. 36.] Vv. 18-22. See on Matt. ix. 14-17. Comp. Luke v. 33-38. — 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- οντες some such general addition as πολλά (Matt. ix. 14). It is to be explain- ed : And there were the disciples of John, ete., 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 κ.τ.λ.] 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 ᾽Τωάννου κ.τ.λ.1 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 as its plural. Comp. Luke v. 33. — Ver. 19. ὅσον χρόνον x.7.A.] superfluous in itself, but here suited to the solemn answer.’ — μεθ᾽ 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 plural 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 wnus auferendi sponsi, dies multi ejusdem ablati et absentis,” ‘‘the day of the bridegroom’s removal is one, the days when he is removed and absent are many.” The Lord from the beginning of His ministry had made Himself familiar with the certainty of a violent death. Comp. John ii. 19. — Ver. 21. εἰ δὲ μή] In the contrary case, even after a negative clause, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 336 [E. T. 392], and see on 2 Cor. xi. 16.—The correct reading : aipe: ax’ αὐτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα TO 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. 10 1. 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. 1., 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 aipei,’ the meaning of which (reason teaches it) is, however, here foreign to the subject. — Ver. 22. A combination from Matthew and Luke is here contained only in the interpolated Recepta. 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. — παραπορείεσθαι) 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 «.7.2.] is usually ex- plained as though it stood : ὁδὸν rovotpevor τίλλειν τοὺς στάχυας, to pluck the cars 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 1.7), 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 ὦ path, which they do by plucking the ears of corn that stand in their way. According to Matthew and Luke, the chief point liesin the fact that the disciples pluck the ears and eat them ; and the Pharisees find fault with their doing this—which in itself 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. 83; Plat. Crit. Ὁ. 48 C, al. 2 As to the form ῥήσσω instead of ῥήγνυμι, see Ruhnken, Zp. crit. I. p. 26. 3 Comp. Matt. xxvii. 39; Mark xi. 20, xy. 29. 4See 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; Wimer, p. 228 [Εἰ T. 820]. Comp. also ὁδοποιεῖν (Ken. Anabd. v. 1. 14; Dem. 1274, 26, frequently in the LXX.) 3 and ὁδὸν δδοποιεῖν ; Kiihner, 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 earsis the ὁδὸν ποιεῖν ; while in bt THE GOSPEL QF MARK. eating, their act consists in this, that by the plucking of the ears of corn they open away 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) wnallowable.— Ver. 25. αὐτός] απ He on His part, replying to them. He put ἃ 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 @ majori ad minus. David in a case of necessity dealt apparently unlawfully even with the shew- bread of the temple, which is yet far less lawful to be touched than the ears of grain in general. — Ver. 26. éxi ᾿Αβιάθαρ τοῦ apyrep.| tempore Abiatharis ponti- Jicis maximi, %.e., under the pontificate of Abiathar. Comp. Luke iil. 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. Antt. 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, 31; 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 viam sternere, and even in the middle voice ouly means to make for oneself a path. Weiss Matthew it is the ealing on account of hunger. The occasions of the necessity, in which the disciples were placed, are different: in the former case, the odorota; in the latter, the hunger. 1 To this view Holtzmann and Hilgenfeld have acceded, as also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 29; Schenkel, Charaklerbild, 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 (oSo7orew); for this also neyer means anything else than (Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1865, p. 368) calls my explanation “somewhat odd; this, however, can matter nothing, if only it is linguistically correct, and the usual one linguistically erroneous. 2See 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. 1.6. ; Bertheau judges otherwise, @. 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 ἐπί; for, if it is assumed to be coram (Wetstein, Scholz), 1 Sam. 1.6. stands historically opposed to it ; but if itis 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 ἀνέγνωτε. --- 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 ov« 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.e., ordained) for the sake of man, namely, as a means for his highest moral ends (Gen. ii. 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, ἐ.6.. 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 Mace. v. 19. -- κύριος] emphatically at the beginning : is not dependent, but Lord,* etc. ; whereby, however, is expressed not the prerogative of ab- solute abolition (see against this Matt. v. 17 ff., and the idea of the 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. 1 Tn opposition to Michaelis and Saunier, erally so peculiar. The connecting link of Quellen d. Mark. Ὁ. 58. 2 Comp. Mechilta in Ex. xxxi. 18: ‘‘ 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. Weizsiicker finds in the passage before us a later reflection. This would only be admissible, if the idea facilitated the concluding inference, which is not the ease, and if Mark were not in this narrative gen- the argumentation preserved by him might more easily have been omiéied 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, alikathol. Kirche, p. 29 ff. 1 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. τ. Arit. 1854, p. 811; Weizsacker, p. 391. 90 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. Norres py AMERICAN Eprror. X. Ver. 1. ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν. The reading of the Rec., εἰς oikov, must be rejected. It is true that it is lectio difficilior, yet 8 B D L 33, Copt., Vulg. constitute decisive evidence, even against this consideration. Meyer's explanation (pregnant construction) is therefore unnecessary. The R. V. marg. has “‘ at home,” which 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 ὅτι (instead of τί 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 ὕτι is rightly taken as recitantis ; 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 οἱ 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 earin 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 thé 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 infringementon 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. 98 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. CHAPTER III. + Ver. 2. Instead of παρετήρουν, read with Lachm. παρετηροῦντο, following A C* DA, 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 δὲ etc., and accepted by re- cent editors ; the middle seems to have been taken from the parallel passages. ] — κατηγορήσουσιν, instead of κατηγορήσωσιν, is not sufficiently attested by C Ὁ (Lachm.).— Ver. 3. Lachm. has τῷ τὴν χεῖρα ἔχοντι ξηράν, following Β L 102, Vere. [So recent editors, R. V.] In favor of ξηράν C also tells, which has τῷ τ. ξηρὰν ἔχ. x., and A &, which have τῷ τ. ξηρὰν χ. ἔχ. So Tisch. viii. The Re- cepla 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 isfrom Matt. xii. 13. — Ver. 7. The order of the words : μετὰ Tov wabnr. αὐτοῦ dveydp.(Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepta ave- χώρ. μ. τ. μαθ. aiz., has in its favor BC DL A 8, min. vss., and is on this evi- dence to be adopted, the more especially as the Recepta easily presented itself from the connection, according to which the important element for the progress of the narrative lies in dveyap. — Instead otf 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 fayor of which D, min. also coneur by ἠκολούθε:, 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 δὲ, 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 καί] is wanting in B C* LA 8, 102, Copt. Deleted by Tisch. An addition, 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. μῆτε] 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 constructed passages ‘‘ correctio parit cor- may explain the placing of καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα at the beginning of the verse. So BC* A. Defended by Hitzigand Ewald; adopted by Tisch. [So W. and Hort, Weiss, R. VY. marg.] In such awkwardly rectionem: alter enim alterum cupit ante- cellere ingenio,”’ “correction begets cor- rection ; but one desires to surpass another in ingenuity ” (Matthiae, ed. min. ad Δ. Z.). CHAP. III., 1-6. 39 26. W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., read καὶ (δὸς A B C? L) ἐμερίσθη (δὲς Β 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 ov 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- τήματα (sanctioned by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.), has, with A B CDLA δὰ, 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, following BD ἘΣ GH AIl* 8, min. The Recepta is a correction. — Ver. 29. Elz. Fritzsche, Scholz have κρίσεως (A C** E FG, etc. Syr.), instead of which Griesb. approved ὠμαρτήματος (BL A δὲ ; D has ἁμαρτίας), and this Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. κρίσεως (al. κολάσεως) 15 a gloss.—Ver. 31. The reading καὶ ἔρχονται (Lachm.) certainly has preponderant evidence (D G8, Tisch, ed. VII. have καὶ ἔρχεται), but is a mechanical alteration, in which the retrospective reference of the οὖν was not attended to. —The Recepla is οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ 4 μήτηρ αὐτοῦ. But Β Ο D GLA 8, min. vss. have? 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 δὲ, etc., is still better sustained. ]— φωνοῦντες] Lachm. and Tisch. have καλοῦντες, following BC L 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 6é.—The addition καὶ ai ἀδελφαί cov is rightly adopted by Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. It certainly has important evi- dence against it(BC GKLA IIS, 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 8, 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 foundin BCL A δὲ, min. Copt., arose from the fact, that the κύκλω, which with περεβθλεψ. was superfluous, was omitted (so still in min. vss.), and then restored in the place that appeared fitting. — Ver. 85. 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 δὲ, 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.] γωγήν] at Capernaum. See ii. 15. — ἐξηραμμένην] ‘‘non ex utero, sed morbo πάλιν] see 1. 91. --- εἰς τ. ovva- 40 THE GOSPEL OF MARK, aut vulnere ; haec vis participii,” “πού 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 (cofhp. Luke vi. 7, al.; Polyb. xvii. 3. 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 (Ecclus. 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 jormer 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 usus loguendi, which in fact admits of either explanation. The reading in D: τὶ ἀγαθὸν ποιῆσαι, is a correct gloss of the late Greek word (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 200), comp. 1 Pet. ii. 15, 20, ili. 6 ; 3 John 11. — ψυχὴν σῶσαι] to reseue 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 Wetstcin, 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. —cvdi,urotuevoc] feel- ing compassion over, etc.” Anger and compassion alternated. The preposi- tion denotes not the emotion of the heart collectively, but the fellowship, into which the heart enters, with the misfortune (in this case moral) of the persons concerned. Comp. Plato, Pol. v. p. 462 E.—azexateoraty] 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 «.7.2.] “τονε 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 vv. 7, 8) was sufficiently fitted to induce their being now drawn by the Pharisees into the hostile effort. Hence the mention of them here is no meaningless addition (Késtlin). Vv. 7-12. Comp. Matt. xii. 15 f., Luke vi. 17-19, who with their differ- ence of historical arrangement make but brief use of the description in ! Erasmus, Bengel, Beza, de Wette, Bleek, 2 Herod. ix. 94, vi. 89; Polyb. vil. 3. 2; and others. 5 Aelian, V. 7/7. vii. 8. CHAP. 111., 13-19. 41 Mark, which is more accurate and more fresh, and does not blend heteroge- neous elements (Hilgenfeld). — εἰς] direction whither. — Ver. 8. "Idovuaiac| on the south-eastern border of Palestine.—A point is not to be placed, as by Beza, Er. Schmid, and Fritzsche, after ’Iopdavov, but—as is required by the two distinct predicates based on the local relations, ἠκολούθησεν and ἦλθον πρὸς αὐτόν --- before καὶ ἀπὸ τ. ᾿Τουδαίας. It is first of all stated, who followed Jesus from Galilee, where Tie Himself was, to the sea, and then, from καὶ ἀπὸ τ. *Iovd. onward, who came to Him from other regions. Namely: and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idu maea and Peraea (καὶ πέραν τοῦ ᾿Τορὸ. ; observe that here ἀπό is not repeated), and those (the Jews) about Tyre and Sidon, in great multitudes (πλῆθος πολύ; belongs to the whole as a more precise definition of the subject), they came to Him. [See Note XVII., τ 5 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. —éxoier] imperfect, used of the continuous doing. — Ver. 9. wa] What He said to them is conceived of as the design of the speaking (comp. on Matt. iv. 3) : in order that a ves- sel should be continually at His service. — διὰ τὸν ὄχλον κ.τ.λ.} therefore not for the purpose of crossing over ; ἔμελλε yap ἐμβὰς εἰς αὐτὸ μὴ ἐνοχλεῖσθϑαι, ‘*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 ΠΊΠῚ. --- ἐθεράπευσεν] 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. 33, vii. 25). — μάσ- τ Ὁ] plagues, Vv. 29, 95 uke vu. 21: Ps. xxxva loss Heeluss πὶ]: 5 o = 2 Mace. vii. 37. In accordance with the context : plagues of sickness. —ra πνεύματα κ.τ...} a statement in conformity with the appearance ; the sick people zdentijied themselves with the demons. — ὅταν) with the praeterite in- dicative: whenever they saw Him, 7.¢., 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 (dv) 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. iva] 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. vill. 4; Mark v. 43. Vv. 138-19. Comp. Matt. x. 2-4; Luke vi. 12-16. — τὸ 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. 910 [E. T. 109]. 42 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. doubt of the actual selection of the latter (Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 870), 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 μετ’ αὐτοῦ, comp. Acts i. 91. --- ἀποστέλλῃ airoic] 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, as if he had narrated it in connection with ἐποίησε, continues by καὶ ᾿Τάκωβον, Which still depends on ézoiyoe,—an awkwardness which is scarcely to be attributed to a reflecting reviser.—As to the arrangement— generally according to rank, but in Mark and Acts i. 13 giving precedence to the three most intimate disciples—of the twelve names in three quater- nions, sce on Matt. x. 2; Ewald, p. 205 f.—Mark narrates the naming of Peter as having taken place at that time, which is not incompatible with Matt. xvi. 18 (see in loc.), although it is doubtless with John i. 43.—Ver. 17. And he assigned to them names (namely) Boanerges. The plural ὀνόματα (for which D reads ὄνομα) depends on the conception that the names bestowed v on the two brothers are included in Boanerges. Boavepyéc! Sen a wi} 3. The Sheva, according to Aramaic pronunciation (see Lightfoot) : oa. V1, in the Hebrew, a noisy crowd, Ps. lv. 15 ; in the Syriac, thunder ; comp. the Arabic (uo .» tonuit.2 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, 1.6. 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 (Dy, thunder). 4 Victor Antiochenus, Theophylact, Eu- thymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Wetstein, Michaelis, and others, comp. Luther’s gloss. δ Wieumann, Kuinoel, comp. also Gurlitt in the Stud. κι. Krit. 1829, p. 715 ff. CHAP. III., 20, 21. 48 there is nothing at all said about thunder. Moreover, it is historically demonstrable that the disciples were of impetuous, ardent temperament (ix. 88 ; 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. 3. on Matt. x. 4. Vv. 20,1 21. Peculiar to Mark, but in unity of connection with ver. 22 f. — καὶ ἔρχ. 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 ii. 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. xiii. 1.—The accusation ὅτι ἐξέστη, ver. 21, and that expressed at ver. 22, ὅτε 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 As to 6 Kavavaioc, see (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 Hvangelienfrage, 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 uneonnected mode of adding one account to another, as here by the καὶ ἔρχονται cis olkov, 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 ourselyes 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. 7. Deutsche Theol. 1864, p. 63 ff., and Weizsiick- 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 KO6stlin is only able to conccive 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. 836; Luke iii. 16, Vili. 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. 28) ; 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. — μηδὲ] 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, Mis sisters. — ἐξῆλθον) namely, not from a place in Capernauim (in opposition to ver. 20), but from the place where they were sojourning, from Nazareth. Comp. i. 9, vi. 8. 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 ἐξλθον, and the coming down of the scribes from Jerusalem, and the arrival of the mother, ete., 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, oi zap’ 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.* This strong meaning (erroneously rendered, however, by Luther : He τοῦδ 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. 1; Polyb. xxiii. 1. 6; 1 Mace. ix. 44. See Bernhardy, p. 256. 2 Comp. vi. 17, xii. 12, xiv. 1; Matt. xxvi. 4; Judg. xvi. 21; Tob. vi. 3; Polyb. viii. 20. 8, al. 32 Cor. v.13; Arist. ZZ. A. vi. 22: ἐξίσταται καὶ μαίνεται, and see Wetstein. Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 3. 12: τοῦ φρονεῖν ἐξίστησιν. 4 It is entirely arbitrary for Theophylact, Beza, Maldonatus, Bisping, and others to desire to exclude Mary from sharing in the judgment ὅτι ἐξέστη. No better is the eva- sion in Olshausen, of a moment of weakness GHAPS Τρ 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, et al. The omission of the surprising historical trait in Matthew and Luke betrays a later sifting process. [See Note XVIII, p. 47 seq. ] Remarks.— 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 wap’ αὐτοῦ) heard thatt 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, Bleck, 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 dhe house, where He was so greatly thronged, for the report? had spread abroad (ἔλεγον γάρ) that He had fainted (according to Ewald, Gesch. Chr. Ὁ. 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 defatiqatus est! Comp. Késter, Imman. p. 185, according to whom they wish to hold Him on account of faintness. So again Linder in the Stud. u. 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 vv. 31, 32, οἱ παρ᾽ 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, OTe. . . παραβοηθῆσαι, . παρελύϑη τὸν τόνον τοῦ σώματος, ἂγαν κοπιάσας, “1. His rela- tives went forth to lay hold on Him, that He might not withdraw, for some were say- ing, ὅτι 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 (Z. J. p. 190 f.) presents the matter as if they had learnt by rumor that He wasin an wnsettled 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 40 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. His mind, end 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. 11. 2, p. 834, takes ἐξέστη rightly, but regards it as the presupposition of the popular 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, beliceen 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: ‘‘ Hunce lo- cum difficiliorem pietas facit... ; pio quodam studio nonnulli rejecta verbo- rum proprictate alias, quae minus a pietate abhorrere viderentur, interprétationes 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. 22-30. 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. 28. 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 (i.e., ob δύναται «.7.4.), 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. avOp., not a singular reminiscence from Matt. xii. 32 (Weiss), is rather a trait of Mark, depicting human weakness, ---- αἰωνίου duapr. |] namely, in re- they wished to bring Him into the house by 1See Bornemann and Herbst, ad Xen, saying that 116 was in the ecstatic state like | Mem. ii. 10. 2. the prophets. NOTES. 47 ν spect of the guilt, ‘‘nunquam delendi,” ‘‘ never to be effaced,” Beza. [866 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. 31 1.) and that against the Holy Spirit (Késtlin, p. 318), or that he has ‘ al- ready given up” the former blasphemy (Hilgenfeld). It is included, in fact, in ver. 28. Vv. 31-85. 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 ἐξῆλϑον, 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. — οἱ 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. 8, 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. kixAw] Comp. vi. 0." --- 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 py American Eprror. XVI. Vv. 1-6. Weiss ed. Mey. thinks it probable that Mark blended some features of another Sabbath healing (Luke xiv. 2-6), which belongs to ‘‘the earlier source,’’ and which Matthew has more fully used. As between this view and that of Meyer, there is little ground for decision, XVII. Ver. 8. ἠκολούθησεν x.7.A. The evidence in favor of the singular seems decisive ; also that for the omis- sion of ait». Tisch. wrongly places the verb after ’Iovdaiac, while Meyer retains the article before περί, against the evidence of 8*and’ BC L A. The view of Meyer, as to the two parts of the crowd, seems correct ; comp. the punctuation of the Τὸ. Y. 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, ad Phaed. 72 B, and the passages in Sturz, Zea, Devar. p. 718. Xen. 11. p. 808 f. 2 Hom. Od. viii. 278; Herod. iv. 182; Plat. 48 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. φ 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 narratgves of Matthew and Luke. Moreover, if Meyer holds that the other Synoptists omit this ‘‘ surprising his- torical trait’? because of ‘‘a later sifting process,” with what reason can he object to Schenkel’s ‘‘ reading between the lines,’’ or to Baur’s laying the bur- den of what is offensive on the ‘‘compiler’’ ? All the verse asserts is that on a given occasion the friends of Jesns said, ‘‘ He is beside Himself.’’ It is writing between the lines to say that this contradicts the story of His birth. The ‘‘sifting process” belongs to a later school of litterateurs than the Evangelists, and stands on the same moral level with ‘‘ additions from later reflection,’’ ete. XIX. Ver. 28. αἰωνίου 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 cov. This phrase is wanting in the best authorities (see critical notes), and only accepted by Tischendorf and others, because it does not occur in parallel pas- sages. Meyer calis 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 CHEAP THI Ly. Ver. 1. συνήχθη] Lachm. and Tisch. read συνάγεται, following B C LA 8, min. Rightly ; the alteration wasmade from Matt. xiii. 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 ozeipac,following 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 dé read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καὶ ἄλλο, according to B ΟἿ, ΜῈΝ A δὲ, 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, Copt. Vulg. Cant. Vind. Corb. 2, Rd. The Recepta is from Matt. xiii. 6. — Ver. 8. ἀλλο] BC L &, 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 ἀλλα.] Rightly, be- cause the intransitive αὐξάνειν is the prevailing form in the N. T. — Instead of the threefold repetition of ἔν, Tisch. has εἰς three times, following B ΟΣ L A, min. Yet BL have EIS 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: év, as also Tisch. has it. — Ver. 9. ὁ ἔχων] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὃς ἔχει, following BC* Ὁ Δ δ 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 δὲ, vss. The singular is a correction; comp. Luke. — Ver. 11. γνῶναι] is wanting in A B Οὗ Καὶ L δὲ, 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: 7. vor. Jé0, 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 xapd, αὐτῶν] C L A τὲ, Copt. Syr. p. (in the margin) Colb. : ἐν αὑτοῖς (so Tisch.), and in favor of this B and min. testify by the reading εἰς 1 Ined. VIII. Tisch., following Ο &, 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 yerb in ew is en- transcriber’s error, as with still stronger tirely foreign to the N. T. 4 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 Β C*DL A®, Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ver. Colb. Vind. Germ. Corb. Rightly; the Recepta originated by mechanical process after vv. 15, 16, comp. ver. 20. When this οὗτοι came in, there emerged at once an incompatibility with the subsequent οὗτοί εἰσιν, therefore this lalter was omitted (A C*¥* E GHK MSU VII, min., Copt. Syr. p. Goth. Slay. 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. odro:] Tisch. has ἐκεῖνοι, following BCLA &; 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 toBC DL A δὲ ; min, vss. — ἐπιτεθῇ] τεθῇ is attested by BC LA 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 ἔστε as being superfluous. — ὃ ἐὰν wz] many variations, among which ἐὰν μή has the strong attestation of AC K L, min. It is commended by Griesb., and is to be adopted. The apparent absurdity of the sense! suggested partly the addition of 6, partly, in conformity with what follows, readings with iva, namely, ἀλλ᾽ iva (Ὁ, vss.) and ἐὰν μὴ iva (so Lachm. Tisch. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], following B Ὁ 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 προστεῇ. ὑμῖν τοῖς ἀκ. (only in accordance with Ὁ G, Codd. It.), and Fritzsche places these words after dxovere (according to Arm.). The course followed by Griesb. and Fritzsche must be rejected on account of the very weakness of the evi- dence ; the reading of Griesb. arose from the fact that the eye of the tran- seriber passed from the first ὑμῖν directly to the second. — Ver. 25. ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἔχῃ} Lachm. and Tisch. have ὃς γὰρ ἔχει, following B C L Δ δὲ, min., to which, moreover, D E* ¥, al. are added with the reading ὃς γὰρ dv ἔχει. According to this, ἔχει alone is to be read ; ἄν was added probably in recollection of Luke viii. 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 abr. — 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 if 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. τίν BCL A, min. Ver. have πῶς, which Griesb. has recom- mended, Fritzsche and Tisch. have adopted, tiv is from Luke xiii. 18. — ἐν ποίᾳ παραβολῇ παραβάλωμεν αὑτήν] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν tive αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν, following BC*L A δὰ, min, Ver. Or. Rightly ; ποίᾳ came in 1The reading ἐὰν μή is in no wise absurd (Fritzsche, de Wette), but it gives the same logical analysis as x. 80, See in loc, CHAP. ΙΝ. 1-9: δ] 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 AIL 8. 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 BDLMA8, min. He adds, moreover, ὄν according to BLA δὰ, omitting the subsequent ἐστί, and encloses τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, which is wanting in C. Ver., in brackets. Tisch. also has jcxpdérepev ὄν, omitting ἐστί. The Recepla is to be retained ; μικρότερον is a grammatical correction,! that has originated from a comparison with Matt., and the added ὄν, 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. 7. wa. avrov] Tisch. reads τ. ἰδίοις μαῇ., following BC LAS. 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 BC DLA δος 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 8, 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, ἢ. V. The evidence is too strong to beset aside.] But the Recepla 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). — a/v, 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- lact, 6. 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. 32, became changed in codd. into μεῖζον. SoA ΟΕ ΤΟΥ͂ δὰ, 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.7.2. 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), 7.e., according to the connec- tion : one grain, which had been sown, bore thirty grains, another sixty, and so on.? With the reading εἰς τριάκοντα (see the critical remarks) we must render : it bore wp to thirty, and up to sixty, etc. If ἐν τριάκοντα be read, the meaning is: it bore in (at the rate of) thirty, etc., so that the fruit-bearing was consummated in thirty, and so on. Observe, further, how ver. 8 has changed the primitive form of the Logia-collection still preserved in Matthew, especially as to the climax of the fruitfulness, which in Mat- thew is descending, in Mark ascending. — Ver. 9. καὶ ἔλεγεν] ‘‘ pausa fre- quens, sermonibus gravissimis interposita,” ‘‘a frequent pause, interposed in the most weighty discourses,” Bengel. Comp. li. 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. — oi 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 XXII., 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. f. D. Theol, 1864, p. 86 f.). He has only changed the detailed description of Mark into the usual expression, and he goes to work in general less accurately in delineating the situation. — 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. — τοῖς 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.}3N—the DNS" ; 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. v. 111, al.— Ver. 12. wa] not: ita ut, as Wolf, 1 Hom, Jl. 1.156; Xen. de venat. v.53; Plat. vii. 4, 27: ὃν μέρος ἔλαβον ᾿Αργεῖοι, ἕν δὲ On- Theact. p. 149 EB, Crat. p. 410 C,as in the ator, ἕν δὲ "Apxddes, ἐν δὲ Μεσσήνιοι, Arist. German Frucht, Friichte. Eth, Nic. vi. 1.5 ; Eeclus. xxxi. 23 f. 2On the wsus loguendt, comp. Ken. Hell. rf 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 unseasonable 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 x.7.2. 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 under- stand not this parable, and are ye to understand all parables?” But this would rather result in the meaning : Ye understand not this parable ; how is it, consequently, possible that ye shall understand αὐ 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 of ' 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. Ii ἀκούοντες 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, ete.). —7a λοιπά] besides riches : sensual pleasure, honor, ete. —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 x.7.4. is, it is true, so far out of keeping, that by retaining the numbers the discourse falls back from the interpretation into the figure ; but the very repetition of the striking closing words of the par- able, in which only the preposition is here accidentally changed, betokens the set purpose of solemn emphasis. Vv. 21-23. Comp. Luke viii. 16 f. Meaning (comp. Matt. v. 15, x. 26) : ‘the light, i.e., the knowledge of the 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 1 According to others, Jesus gives an others. But the kindled light would, in allegorical exhortation to virtue; “ut fact, be already the symbol of virtue, and lucerna candelabro imponenda est, sic vos Jesus would forbid the exercise of it in oportet, discipuli, non quidem vitam um- secret! Moreover, this view is not re- bratilem sine virtutis splendore agere ; quired by ver. 20, since with ver. 21 a new sed,” ‘‘That as a lamp should be placed portion of the discourse commences ; and upon a lamp-stand, so it behoves you, dis- our view is not forbidden by ver. 11 (comp. ciples, not to lead a life of retirement with- ver. 34), since in ver. 11 Jesus is only speak- out the brightness of virtue; but,” etc., ing of the then unsusceptible multitude, Fritzsvhe, comp. Theophylact, Grotius, and 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 XXIII, p. 60.] Comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. 7. D. 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] Sce on Matt. v. 10. --- 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.!_ So surely and certainly does the φανέρωσις set in ! [But see additional critical note. ] — ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα εἰς φαν. ἔλθῃ] The logical refer- ence of ἀλλ᾽ is found in a pregnant significance of ἀπόκρυφον : nor has there anything (after οὐδέ, τὸ is again to be mentally supplied) taken place as secret, i.¢., what is meant tobe secret, but what in such a case has come to pass, has the destination, ete. Vv. 24, 25. Comp. Luke viii. 18. — βλέπετε] Be heed ful as to what ye hear ; how important it is rightly to understand what is delivered to you by me ! ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ κ.τ..1 A ground of encouragement to heedfulness. It is other- wise in Matt. vii. ὃ. In our passage the relation of heedfulness to the δηοιοί- 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" ὕσην εἰσφέρετε προσοχὴν, τοσαύτη παρασχεθήσεται ὑμῖν γνῶσις, καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ αὑτῷ 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 forc- 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. Ὁ. 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, Hint. ὃ 94b, 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 nune 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 “Td fit successive in hoe saeculo, et fiet plene, quum lux omnia illustrabit,”’ ‘‘ This oceurs successively in this age, and will occur fully, when the light shall illumine all things, 1 Cor. iy. 5,”’ Bengel. δ0 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. 1.6., 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. xiii., to have been brought into it by the first evangelist ; while Strauss (in Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1863, p. 209) has recourse to the new- 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 k. 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 καθείδῃ καὶ éyeip. See, further, on Luke ii. 57. Erasmus erroneously refers éye/p to the seed, which is only introduced as subject with βλαστ. --- 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 oldev 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 i loc. —elra πλήρης σῖτος ἐν τ. ot.| the nominative (see the critical remarks) with startling vividness brings before us the result as standing by itself: then Sull (developed to full size) grain in the ear! See on this nominative stand- ing forth in rhetorical relief from the current construction, Bernhardy, p. 68 f.—Ver. 29. παραδῷ] is usually explained intransitively, in the sense : shall have delivered itself over, namely, by its ripeness to the harvesting. [See Note XXY., p. 60.] Many transitive verbs are confessedly thus used in an intransitive signification, in which case, however, it is inappropriate to supply ἑαυτόν (Kiihner, 11. p. 9 f.). 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. * Hence there is no inconsistency with CHAP. 1Υ., 30-32. 57 didéva.! But of this use of παραδιδόναι there is found no quite certain in- stance? (not even in 1 Pet. ii. 23, 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 aiwv. not. Ὁ. 49) παραδιδ. is rather to be explained as fo 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. 18 ; Rev. xiv. 15. — The teaching of the parable is : Just as a man, after performing the sowing, leaves the germination and growth, ete., without further intervention, to the earth's own power, but at the time of ripening reaps the harvest, 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 ereluded by αὐτομάτη, although the parable is opposed also to the conception of a so-called plan of Jesus. * Vy. 30-32. See on Matt. xiii. 31 f. Comp. Luke xiii. 17 f. — πῶς] how are we to bring the Messianic kingdom into comparison ?— ἢ ἐν τίνι air. παραβολῇ θῶμεν (see the critical remarks) : or in what parable are we to place it, set it forth? The expression inclusive of others (we) is in keeping with the 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 σιν.] ὡς is correlative to the πῶς of ver. 90 : so as it is likened to a grain of mustard seed. —The following ® is 1See Viger., ed. Herm. p. 132; Valck- 4 Comp. Schleiermacher, Z. J. Ὁ. 348 ff. enaer, Diatr. Ὁ. 233; Jacobs, ad Philostr. 5 From the collection of Logia, and ina p. 263 ; Kriiger, § 52.2.9; and seein general, shape more original than Matthew and Bernhardy, p. 339 f.; Winer, p. 225 [E. T. Luke, who add the historical form. Mark 3815]. would least of all have divested it of this, if 2JTn Josh. xi. 19 the reading varies much he had found it in existence. Comp. (in and is doubtful; in Plat. Phaedr. Ὁ. 250 E, opposition to Holtzmann) Weiss in the παραδούς is not necessarily reflexive. Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1864, p. 93. [See Note 3 Herod. v. 67, vii. 18; Ken. Anab. vi. 6. XXVLI., p. 60.] 84: Polyb. iii. 12. 4. ! 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. ili. 23, 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. 34.—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- fev, John xvi. 12 (Bengel, Kuinoel, and others), but the simple to hear, to perceive. —ovx ἐλάλει] at that time. See on Matt. xiii. 84. Baur indeed (see Markusevang. p. 24 f.) will not allow a limitation to the teaching at that time, but would draw the conclusion that Mark has perhaps not even re- garded the Sermon on the Mount, such as Matthew has it, as being histori- cal, and has given the foregoing parables as a substitute for it. But Mark himself certainly has doctrinal utterances of Jesus enough, which are not parabolical. Vv. 35-41. See on Matt. viii. 18, 23-27. Comp. Luke viii. 22-25. — ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ] ver. 1 f.; a difference in respect of time from Matt. viii. 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. Ὁ. 36 f. — ἐπέβαλεν] intransitive (comp. on τ. 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 τὰ δὲ 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, πεόίμωσο] be silent! be dumb! asyn- detic, and so much the more forcible (Niigelsbach, Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 3, p- 247, 359), Eur. Hee. 532. The sea is personified ; hence the less are we to conjecture, with Schleiermacher, LZ. 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, Lex. Soph. I. p. 884. NOTES. a9 de Wette arbitrarily derives the expression of Mark. — Ver. 40. πῶς] how is at 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 disci- ples, who were thrown (psychologically) into fear at the quite extraordinary phenomenon, and were not yet clear as to the divine causa efficiens in Jesus As to φοβεῖσθαι φόβον μέγαν, comp. on Matt. ii. 10. On tic dpa, in which the perplexity is not expressed by the dpa, but is implied in the context (in opposition to Hartung), and ἄρα means : igitur, rebus ita comparatis, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176. Comp. Niigelsbach, Anm. ¢. Ilias, ἘΠ ΡΒ. ΤΠ: Remarx.—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 (dheol, 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. 490 f. (τίς ἄρα οὗτος, etc.). Notes py ΑΜΈΠΙΟΑΝ Eprror. XXI. Ver. 8. GdAAa... 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 ἄλλα, 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. Il. p. 314, that the ¢mmediate 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 avted, 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. 00 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. XXII. Ver. 10. of περὶ 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. XXII, Vv. 14-20. Vv. 21-23. Although Ewald and Meyer find in these verses ‘‘ words of Christ Himself,” so uncertain is the critical method that Weiss (Mark, p. 146) opposes this view. —The latter (ed. Mey.) omits under vv. 21-23 the sentence: ‘‘the collection of Logia is sufficient as a source,’’ and gives a different theory of the origin, He thinks the sayings belong to two different places, and are here combined entizely 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. 31-387 ; 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. XXY. Ver. 29. παραδοῖ. Meyer improperly rejects this form of the subjunctive. Here it is attested by 8 BD A, and accepted by recent editors ; so in chap. xiv. 10, 11 ; comp. also yvot (vy. 48, ix. 30), doz (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 itin 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 ! XXVIII. 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 (δὲ BD 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. Υ. 61 CHAPTER V. Ver. 1. Ταδαρηνῶν] Here also, as in Matt. viii. 28, occur the various readings Τερασηνῶν (Β Ὁ &* Vulg. Sax. Nyss., so Lachm. and Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]) and Τεργεσηνῶν (L A 8** min. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Or.). The Recepta is to be retained, according to A C EH, ete., with Fritzsche and Scholz. See on Matt. — Ver. 2. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ] is here more strongly attested (B C LA 8, min. Ver. Brix., to which D also with ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν falls to be added) than in Matt. viii. 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. Colb. 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 &, min. Lachm.). [The latter reading is accepted by Tisch., Treg., W. and Hort.]— Ver. 3. οὔτε] BCD L A 8, 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 Τ, 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 δὲξ 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 ὄρει, 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 DKL ΜΔ δὶ, min. vss. Afterwards Elz. Matth. Scholz, Lachm. have οἱ δαίμονες, which Griesb. rejected, and Fritzsche and Tisch, have deleted, following BC L A δὲ, min. Copt. Aeth. [Recent editors, R. V., rightly omit the entire phrase.] The Recepta πάντες οἱ 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 azjyy. Elz. has avjyy. But the former is decisively attested. — ἐξῆλθον] has come in from Matt. and Luke instead of the genuine ἦλθον (A B K L M U 8&** 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, R. V. The omission leaves the description more graphic. ]— Ver. 18. ἐμβάντος] ABC DK L MAY, min. Vulg. It. have ἐμβαίνοντος. Ap- proved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepla is from Luke viii. 37. — Ver. 19. Instead of καὶ οὐκ, Elz. has ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοὺς οὐκ, against decisive evidence. —avdyyevAov] Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] 62 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. have ἀπάγγειλον, following B C A & 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 B 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 ACLS, min. have παρακαλεῖ. Recommended by Griesh. and Scholz, adopted by Fritzsche and Tisch. The imperfect is from Luke viii. 41 ; the present is in keeping with Mark’s manner, — The reading iva σωθῇ καὶ Gjon has preponderant attestation by BC DL AX, 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. ric] is wanting in A BCLA 8, min. Yulg. 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, Kilz. Tisch. have ἑαυτῆς, against so preponderant evidence that it is manifestly the result of a gloss, as also is the omission of παρ᾽ (1), 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 ΟἹ A 8. τά, being superfluous, dropped out after the preceding syllables. — Ver. 33. ἐπ’ αὐτῇ] ἐπ’ is wanting in BC DL 8, 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 B 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 B L Δ 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 Δ κα, 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 fafor of the plural. — After θόρυβον Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderant evidence, added καί. Being superfluous, it was the more easily absorbed by the first syllable of «Aai- ovrac. — Ver. 40, ὁ δέ] Lachm. has αὐτὸς dé [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 Τὶ Δ δὲ, 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. 8. οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς κιτ.λ. (See the critical remarks) : not even with a chain could thenceforth any one, ete. 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. Ὁ. 57 f. — Ver. 4. διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν «.7.2.] 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. ὃ. It means here also nothing else than chains ; let them be put upon any part of the body whatever, he rent them asunder ; but the fetters in particular (which might consist of cords) he rubbed to pieces (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 axadaprov sees himself to be. On ὁρκίζω as a Greek word (Acts xix. 13 ; 1 Thess. v. 27), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 861. — μή 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 ἔξελϑε, 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 yap] 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. 807, 135; 2 The word is also used in Rabbinic He- Pflugk, ad Hur. Med. 910; Winer, p. 186 brew a5, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. "Ὁ. 1123; [Ἐπ᾿ T. 207]. Lightfoot, p. 612. 01 4 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. was not included originally also in the account of Mark (in opposition to Ewald, Jatrb. VII. p. 65). [See Note XXVIII, p. 68.] — Ver. 13. ὡς δισχί- λιοι] without ἧσαν δέ (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. 43, 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. —kabju.] He who was before so fierce and intractable was sitting peacefully. So transformed was his condition. — ivaticuévov] which in his unhealed state would not have been the case. This Mark leaves to be presupposed (comp. Hilgenfeld, Markusevang. Ὁ. 41) ; Luke has expressly narrated it, viii. 57. 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 ἐσχῆκ. τ. Aecy.] contrast, ‘‘ad empbasin miraguli,” Erasmus. — Ver. 16. καὶ περὶ τ. xoip.| still belongs to διηγήσ. ---- 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. — παρεκάλει 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, Lex. 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. 69 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. 43 ; 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. — παρὰ 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 ov]! This diminutive expression of paternal tenderness is peculiar to Mark. Comp. vii. 25. It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. —toyatwc ἔχει) a late Greek phrase.*— iva ἐλϑὼν κ.τ.}.1 His excitement amidst grief and hope speaks incoherently. We may understand before iva: this I say, in order that, ete. 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 rap’ 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 i. 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 γάρ] without ἐν ἑαυτῇ (see the critical remarks) does not mean : for she thought (Kuinoel, and many others), which, moreover, 8 used absolutely never does mean, not even in 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. ai. αὐτ.} like Wp 51 (Lev. xii. 7, xx. 18), ‘‘issue,” or, ‘‘ fountain, of blood,” not a euphe- mistic designation of the parts themselves affected by the haemorrhage, but designation of the seat of the issue of blood in them. --- τῷ 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 éyvw. — 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. ἡ. 179 E; Lucian, Tox. 22. ad Phryn. p. 389. Se i, ‘ 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 dater 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 weread in Matthew. [See Note XXIX., p. 68.] Calovius made use of the passage against the Calvinists, ‘‘oim divinam carni Christi dero- gantes,” ‘‘ detracting from the divine power of the flesh of Christ.” —ri¢ μου ἥψατο τῶν iu.| 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 Jeminine τὴν τ. ποιήσασαν 18 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] Ὁ), 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. —io. 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 ἀρχισυν, *‘ that is, from the house of the ruler of the synagogue,” Euthymius Zigabenus. — ἔτι] since now there is no longer room for help. — Ver. 36. 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 ; “ΠῚ let His eyes 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 K.7.A,). the maiden (such as Schleiermacher and 2 Comp. Plat. Apol. p. 17 B, 20 D; Soph. Schenkel assume), CHAP. V., 35-43. 6% at once let it pass unattended to. [See Note XXXI., ἢ. 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 «.7.2. which he addresses to Jairus. The Itala in the Cod. Pal. (6. in Tisch.) correctly has neglextt. — μὴ φοβοῦ x.7.2.] as though now all were lost, all deliverance cut off.— Ver. 87. According to Mark, Jesus sends back the rest (disciples and others who were following Him) before the house } according to Luke viii. 51, in the house. [See Note XXXII, p. 69.] — Ver. 88. ϑόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας x. aAad.] an uproar and (especially) people weeping and wailing. The first xai 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 ef anguish and lamentation. See Plutarch, Lue. 28 ; Eur. Hi. 843.-— Ver. 89. εἰσελϑών] into the house. A later point of time than at ver. 88.—Ver. 40. ἐκβαλών] irritated, commanding ; He ejected them, Among the πάντας, those who are named immediately after- wards (παραλαμβ. k.7.A.) are not included, and so not the three disciples (in opposition to Baur). — Ver. 41. ταλιϑὰ, κοῦμι] “P4P NID, puella, surge. It is a feature of Mark’s vivid concrete way of description to give significant words in Hebrew, with their interpretation, 111. 18, vii. 12, 84, xiv. 36. On the Aramaean mu, see Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 87. --- τὸ κοράσιον] nominas tive with the article in the imperative address, Bernhardy, p. 67; Kiihner, 11. 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). —éyecpe] out of the sleep, ver. 89. — 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 /ittle 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. ---- ἵνα] the purpose of the διεστείλ. πολλά, Comp. Matt. xvi. 20 ; Mark vii, 36, ix, 9. —yv6"] 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, vii, 86, viii, 26. When Jesus heals pub- licly in presence of the multitude there is not found even in Mark, except in the cases of the expulsion of demons, i. 34, iii. 12, any prohibition of the kind (i. 11 f., iii. 5, v. 84, ix, 27, x. 52). Mark therefore ought not to 1 The subjunctive form yvot (like S07, etc.), which Lachmann and Tischendorf have (comp. ix. 80; Luke xix, 15), has important codices in its favor (A B D L) and against it (ineluding &), but it is unknown to the N. T. elsewhere, and has perhaps only erept in by error of the transcribers from the language of common life. [But this form is accepted, here and in the other instances referred to, by nearly all recent critical editors, Comp. Note XXYV., p. 60.] 08 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” (Kostlin, p. 817 ; 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, Hvang. 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. 80, ix. 9; Matt. xvi. 20, xvii. 9), such as His miraculous healings were calculated in the most direct and hazardous way to excite among the people.—;xai εἶπε δοϑῆναι «.7.A.] not for dietetic reasons, nor yet in order that the revival should not be regarded as only apparent (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), but in order to prove that the child was delivered, not only from death, but also from her sickness. ΝΟΤΕΞ spy AMERICAN EprITor. 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 ποιῆσασαν. 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,” ete. The R. V. also renders : ‘‘not heeding,” but puts in the margin : ‘‘overhearing,’’ which gives the original sense of the word, though it is not so common in later use as the former meaning. Weiss ed. Mey. defends the latter sense here. XXXII. Ver. 37. Luke viii. 51 may mean simply : ‘‘ When he came to the house” (so 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 Tiseh.) 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 B L.A Shave changed γίνονται into γινόμεναι, 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 δυνάμεις, 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.—’Iwo7] The form Ιωσῆτος (Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors]) has in its favor B D L A, min. vss, ᾿Ιωσήφ (8, 121, Aeth. Vulg. codd. of the It.) is here too weakly attested, and is from Matt. xiii. 55. — [Ver. 4. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., read καὶ ἔλεγεν (δὲ B C DL A, 33, Copt. Vulg.), and add αὐτοῦ (B C* L Copt. Vulg.) after συγγενεῦσιν. Ἵ ---- Ver. 9. The Recepta, defended by Rinck, Fritzsche, is ἐνδύσασθαι. But ἐνδύσησθε (so Griesk. 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 τὲ, 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 Β Ο Ὁ 1 Δ δὲ, min. vss. An addition in accordance with Matt. x. 15.— Ver. 12. ἐκήρυξαν (Tisch.), instead of the Recepta ἐκήρυσσον, 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 B Ὁ L, but easily originated as a shorter form from the Recepta petavonowor. — Ver. 14. ἔλεγεν] Fritzsche, Lachm. [W. and Hort text, Weiss, R. V. marg.] have ἔλεγον only, following B D, 6, 271, Cant. Ver. Vere. Mart. Corb. Aug. Beda (D has ἐλέγοσαν). An alteration in accordance with ver. 15; comp. ver. 16. — ἐκ vexp. 7yép§n] Lachm, Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have ἐγήγερται ἐκ vexp., following B Ὁ L A δὲ, min.; but A K, min. Theophyl. have ἐκ vexp. ἀνέστη. The latter is right ; ἀνέστη became supplanted by means of the parallel passages and ver. 16. — Ver. 15. δέ after the first ἄλλοι is wanting in Elz. Fritzsche, but is guaranteed by decisive evidence. Decisive evidence condemns the 7 read before ὡς in Elz. and Fritzsche. — Ver. 16. οὐτός ἐστιν, αὐτὸς hy.| Β D 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. air.). Certainly the Recepfa might have arisen out of Matt. xiv. 2. But, if merely οὗτος ἦγ. were original, it would not CHAP. VI. 71 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 ovTOX at once to avTOS. 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 Ο, 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 A, and most read ἐποίει ; but S BL, 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 κα, min. [W. and Hort, R. V. marg.] have αὐτοῦ. A wrong emendation. [See Note XXXVIIL., p. 83.] — καὶ ἀρεσάσ.) BC* LA δὲ have ἤρεσεν. So Lachm. and Tisch., the latter then, upon like attestation, having 6 dé Bac. εἶπεν (Lachm., following A, has εἶπε δὲ ὁ 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 3ac.). — Ver. 24. αἰτήσομαι] αἱτήσωμαι is deci- sively attested ; commended by Griesb., and adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm, and Tisch. — Ver. 30. πώντα καί] This cai 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 of 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, whichis not found in Β D, min. Arm. Perss. Vulg. It., while AKLMU AS, 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 8) is to be regarded as the original one, and the variations are to be derived from the fact that προσῆλθον was written instead of mpoyAfov. 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 γὰρ 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 : ov yap ἔχουσιν. Lachm. has [ἄρτους"] τί [yap] φάγωσιν [οὐκ ἔχουσιν]. 72 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 vili. 2, Matt. xv. 92, in the way in which the Recepta has it. The reading of D (merely τὶ 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 δὲ, 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 B D L &, min. vyss., and is an addition which Griesb. has con- demned, Lachm. has bracketed, and Tisch. has deleted. — Ver, 39. dvaxiivac] Lachm. has ἀνακλιθῆναι [so W. and Hort, Τὶ. V.], not sufficiently attested ; from Matt. xiv. 19.— Ver. 40. Instead of ava, Lachm. and Tisch. have κατά both times, in accordance with B D $8, 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 LAWN1. The Recepta is from Matt. xiv. 22. — Ver. 48, εἶδεν] BD Τὶ 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 B L A &, min, Copt. Vulg. Vind. Colb. Rd., and is con- demned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm.,, cancelled by Tisch.; but after é£/o- 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 capo. 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 πῇ τόπου ἐκείνου, which A G Δ, min. vss. read ; from Matt. xiv. 35. — Ver. 55. [Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with SB L A, 33, Copt. read weprédpayov . .. χώραν and καὶ ἤρξ. 1 ---- ἐκεῖ] is not found in B L A δὲ, 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 B DLA δὲ, min. Matt. xiv. 36. [Tisch., recent editors, Τὶ. 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 éxeidev| from the house of Jairus. Matthew has an entirely different historical connection, based. on a distinct tradition, in which he may have furnished the more correct trafic. — ἤρξατο] for the first 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 /eard of the miracles that Jesus had done (in Capernaum and elsewhere); these they now 1 ring 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, Ρ. 316, where it is related that He made* ploughs and yokes ; Origen, c. Celsum, vi. 4. 8, where Celsus ridicules the custom ; Theodoret, H. £. iii. 23; Hvang. infant. 88; and see generally, Thilo, ad Cod. —are quite irrelevant ; for (1) Figs that have hung through the winter were not at all associated with a tree’s being in leaf, but might also be found on trees without leaves ; the leafy tree promised summer jigs, but had none,* because in the month Nisan it was not the time for figs, so that 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 /eaves it ought also to have had fruit ; the ov yap ἣν x. c. 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 ; e.g., that of Hammond, Clericus, Homberg, Paulus, Olshausen, Lange, ἢ. J. II. 1, p- 321: for it was not a good jig-year (see, on the other hand, Strauss, IT. 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 jiys ; the interrogative view of Majus, Ὁ) 255: Type ἡ: of figs ?;” that of Heinsius and Knatchbull : ‘‘wbi enim fuit, tempus erat Jficuum,” ‘‘ where it was, was the season of figs” (so that ob would have to be read); the notion of Mill, that Jesus only feigned as if He were seeking figs, in order merely to do a miracle (Victor Antiochenus and Euthymius Ziga- benus had already taken even His hunger as simulated ; compare recently again Hofmann, p. 374); the view of Kuinoel :° for it was not yet (ob = οὔπω) jfig-harvest ; compare also Baumgarten-Crusius. Fritzsche has the correct view, although he reproaches Mark with having subjoined the The objections against this ‘‘nonne enim tempus erat ficuum,” ‘‘ for was it not the season 1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 178 f. 2 Not as to the point, that only a symbol- ical demonstration was here in question (Weizsiicker, 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.). δ Comp. Dahme in Henke’s Wagaz. 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 (Hinendatt. in Suid. Il. 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 context, as in the passage quoted by Bornemann, Eur. Hec. 587, by ϑεόϑεν, and hence this interpretation is not even favored by the reading ὁ yap καιρὸς οὐκ ἣν 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 σ. [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 wat. 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 : κατέ- otpepe, So that thus the latter occurred after the beginning and before the ending of the expulsion. — Ver. 16. iva] The object of the permission is conceived as its purpose. The form ἤφιε, as 1. 384. — διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ] 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.‘ 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 1Jn the Schol. in Luc. Ὁ. xlix. f., and in year at the Feast of Tabernacles (John vii.). the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 131 ff. 4 See Lightfoot, p. 632 f. ; Wetstein in loc. 2BC* LAN, Copt. Syr.; so Tischendorf. 5 fizra ii. 43 ff., vii. 7; Neh. iii. 26, xi. 21. 3 Nay, they even compelled Bleek to the ® According to the Israelitish command, conjecture that the event had occurred at Lev. xvii. 8 ff., xxii. 19 ff. ; Num. xy. 14 ff. another lime 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 it is 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 δεδα χῇ, 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 more in 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). —zaparopevduevor 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 κ.τ.λ.. — Ver. 22. πίστιν Θεοῖ"] confidence in God; genitive of the object.* — Ver. 24. διὰ τυῦτο] 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. 14 f. 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- ' See Kiihner, IT. p. 489 f. ; Stallbaum, ad the Jahrb. 7. D, Theol. 1864, p. 63, to be sup- Piat. Symp. p. 225 C. ported by the argument that Mark has no- 2 Comp. Acts 111. 16; Rom. 111. 22; Gal. ii. where else the expression : 6 πατὴρ ὃ ἐν τοῖς 20, ill. 22; Eph. iii. 8; Dem. 3800, 10; Eur. ovp. For Mark has no 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 : 140 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. ed insertion (Hilgenfeld). [See Note LXXIIL., p. 148.7 --- στήκετε] Comp. on ἑστῶτες, Matt. vi. 5. The éndication is not incorrect, but ἄν has its relation merely to the particle ὅτε, and does not affect the verb ; see on iii. 11. — Ver. 26. Observe the antéthesis, 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] Aceord- 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. — ia ταῦτα ποιῇς] not a paraphrase of the infinitive, but : ix 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᾽ εἵπωμεν᾽, 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 LXXIV., p. 148.] Rinck, LIncubr. 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. ἣν] (see the critical remarks) : they really per- ceived * that John (in his lifetime) was, ὦ prophet. ᾿Ιωάννην. . . ὅτι is to be taken according to the well-known attraction. ὅ Notes By AMERICAN Eprror. LXVII. Ver. 2. εἰς τὴν κώμην κ.τ.λ. 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, newt. Gr. Ὁ. 330 [E. T. f. [E. T. 476 f.]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 297 385]. [E. T. 346]. 4 Perspectum habebant, see Ast, Lex. 2Comp. Plat. Soph. p. 249 E: δικαίως ἂν Plat. 1. p. 878. ἐπερωτηϑεῖμεν ἅπερ αὐτοὶ τότε ἠρωτῶ- 5 See Winer, p. 551 [E. T. 626] ; Buttmann, μεν (be inquired of, as we ourselves asked pp. 822 (E. T. 376]. questions). NOTES. 147 LXVIII. Ver. 3. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀποστέλλει πάλιν ὧδε. 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 πάλεν 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 vy. 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 crops— an early ripe fig, which is crude, and without flavor and valueless, and a later fig, which is full of flavor and sweetness, and highly esteemed. Now, the tree our Lord saw had not the second, for the time of that had not yet come ; but it had not even the first, for it had nothing but leaves, and the lack of the first was sure evidence that the second would also be wanting,”’ LXXI. Ver. 19. ὅτων 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 (Ree.), 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 eame.’’ 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 sufficiently strong to destroy the force of Meyer’s suggestion as to the source of vv. 25, 26. The number of variations in the form of the verse, as well as the additions, in some of the authorities that contain it, overbear the probability of omission from ‘‘ similar ending.”’ If the verse is not genuine, then ver. 25, standing by itself, does not suffi- ciently resemble any passage in Matthew to give a clue to the common origin. Weiss ed. Meyer finds here a reminiscence of ‘‘ the older source,’’ but thinks the original form is to be sought in Matt. vi. 12, xviii. 35, not in Matt. vi. 14, 15. LXXIV, Ver. 32. 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 ὕτι must be accepted, but the adverb may be joined with ἣν (trajection) ; so Weiss ed. Mey., and R. V. margin. ΘΗΞΑΙ ΡΣ ΤΗΣ 149 CHAPTER: XLT, Ver. 1. λέγειν] BG LA 8, 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. 111. 23. — Ver. 3. οἱ dé] Lachm. Tisch. have καί, following BDLAX, min. Copt. Cant. Ver. Vere. Vind. Itis from Matt. xxi. 25. — Ver. 4. λιθοβολήσ. is wanting in B DLA 8, 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 azéor. ἠτιμωμένον is a reading con- formed to the conclusion of ver. 3. [On ἐκεφαλίωσιν, see Note LXXVL., 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 of¢ both times, following BL A 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 ἔγων υἱόν is required by decisive evidence (Fritzsche, Lachm., comp. Tisch.), of which, however, B C** L A &, 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 ἔτει ; 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. οἱ dé] BC DLA δὲ, 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 B CLA δὰ, 28, Syr. Copt. The placing of ἀπόδοτε first (Elz. Lachm.) is from the parallels. — ἐθαύμασαν] Lachm. has ἐθαύμαζον. But among the codd. which read the imperfect (B DLA), Β δὲ 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] Lachm. Tisch, have ἐπηρώτων, folowing BC DL A 8, 33; the aorist is from the parallels. — Ver. 19. τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ͵] αὐτοῦ is wanting in BC L A 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 δέ (from Matthew). — Ver. 21. καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε] BCL A 8, 33, Copt. have μὴ καταλιπών. Approved by Bornemann in the Stud. τι. 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 Ο LA δὲ, > 150 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. min. Copt., which, moreover, omit καί before οὐκ. Fritzsche has deleted ἔλαβον avt., 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. --- ἐσχάτη] 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 (ἐσχ. 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. BCGLUAS, min. have γαμίζονται. Con- sequently the testimonies in favor of the Recepla are left so weak (even D falls away, having γωμίζουσιν), 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 of. The weight of the evidence is divided. But since this οἱ after ἄγγελοι 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 DL A, Copt. ] — Ver. 26. Instead of τοῦ; βάτου Elz. has τῆς βάτον, in opposition to decisive ey- 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 ἐδών (Fritzsche : καὶ Ἰδών). So, with or without καί (which is a connective interpolation), in CD 1, δὲ" 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. 34. [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 infention 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 8 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 7p. πάντων [ἐντολή ἐστιν]. Tisch. has ὅτε πρώτη ἐστιν, following B L A δὰ, 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 δευτ. read, with Tisch., merely devt, — Elz. Griesb, Scholz have ὁμοία αὕτη ; Fritzsche, Lachm. have ὁμ. CHAP. XII., 1—12. 151 αὑτῇ ; Tisch. merely αὕτη. The last is attested by Β L 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 cic ἔστι 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, min. Copt. Vere., while D, Arm. read καὶ αὐτός, and Col. Corb. have aulem. Lachm. has bracketed γάρ, and Tisch. has deleted it. The latter is right. The connection was variously supplied. — Ver. 37. οὖν] is wanting in BDLARX, 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. 38-46. 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 LXXV., p. 158.]— ἤρξατο] after that dismissal of the chief priests, etc. —airoic] therefore not as Luke has it : πρὸς τὸν λαόν, to which also Matthew is opposed. — ἐν παραβολαῖς] parabolically. The plurak 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, 5.’— κἀκεῖνον] The concep- tion of maltreatment. lies at the foundation of the comparative also, just as at ver. 5. Comp. on Matt. xv. 3. — ἐκεφαλαίωσαν] they beat him on the head. [See Note LXXVL., 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 /ijah and the contemporary prophets; by the second, Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos; by the third, Ezekiel and Daniel. That the expression in vv. 9.4 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 (Weizsiicker). 2 Thue. ili. 67. 5, viii. 538. 1; Herod. iii. 159 ; Ecclus. xxxv. 8. 3 Sicv. crit. II. p. 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 xegataibu with κεφαλίζω, perhaps after the analogy of γναϑόω and γυιόω | — 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. Z/e/. 462, al.), which in the prose writers is used in the sense of inflicting dishonor by depriving of the rights of citizenship.*—Ver. 5. «. 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 xa‘), and to which the subsequent elements dépovrec 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 ére 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 éva 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 ἃ 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.7.4.] not an answer of the Pharisces (Vatablus, Kuinoel, following Matt. xxi. 41) ; but Jesus 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. exvili. 22; [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, vili. 35. — Ver. 12. καὶ ἐφοβ. τ. 5yA.] καί connects adversative clauses without changing its signification.” and yet. hence He continues : have ye not also read this Scripture, ete. ? It is an emphatic and in the sense of : Especially frequent in John. — The words ἔγνωσαν yap . εἶπε, which are not to be put in a parenthesis, are regarded as illogically placed, *® 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 Ὁ. 1 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 95. 2 Hom, 171, ΔΤ ix, Atl; Od. xvi. ‘274; al. Pind. Pyth. ix. 188; Soph. 47.1108; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. Ὁ. 251. 3 Also in Xen. Adh. i. 14, where ἀτιμοῦσι is to be read. 4 Comp. Buttmann, neul. Gr. Ὁ. 252 [E. T. 293]. δ Sce Bornemann, ad Xen. Sympos. iv. 533 Hermannn, ad Viger. p. 770; Nigelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 179. ® That the opponents themselves are compelled to pronounce judgment (Mat- thew), appears an original trait. But the Jorm of their answer in Matthew (κακοὺς κακῶς «.7.A.) betrays, as compared with Mark, a later artificial manipulation. 7 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 147 f. ; Winer, p. 388 [E. T. 437]. 8 See Beza, Heupel, Fritzsche, Baur, Hil- genfeld, and others. CHAP, XII., 13-27. 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 éyAoc, 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- yoic), 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. 13-17. 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. ἄγρευμα φίλους Bnpacew. — Ver. 14. ἐπ’ ἀληϑείας) equivalent to ἀληϑῶς, Luke iv. 25, xx. 21, xxii. 59, iv. 27, x. 34.°—déuev, ἢ μὴ ὃ. The previous question . was theoretical and general, this is practical and definite. -— Ver. 15. εἰδώς] as knowing hearts (John 11. 25).* — τ. 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 Caesars, pay to Caesar, οἷα. ---- 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. villi. 7 ; Eph. v. 33).°— 11. ἢ : τὸϊ πλείστου ἄξιον 1See Valckenaer, ad Πεγοά. vii. 162; follows him as to assume that it had stood Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 193. 2See Wetstein tn loc. ; Schaefer, Jeet. p. 83; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 137 f. 3 Comp. Matt. xii. 25; Luke vi. 8, xi. 17. 4 See Ktihner, II. p. 78, and ad Xen. Anad. vil. 1. 18. 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 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. 8 Comp. on ὅτι before the imperative, Plat. Crit. p. 50 C: laws), ὅτι... ἴσως ἂν εἴποιεν (the . 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 obv. — 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 expressed, 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. 23. — yayifovra:] The form γαμίσκω (Arist. Pol. vil. 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 τῷ 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. 387 ; 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- εἰδώς] not inappropriate (Fritzsche, de Wette) ; but the scribe knew from his listening how aptly Jesus had answered them (αὐτοῖς, emphatically placed before axexp.) ; and therefore he hoped that He would also mining motive. give to him an apt reply. — πάντων] neuter. Compare Xen. Mem. iv. 7. 70: ὁ δὲ ἥλιος. . . πάντων λαμπρότατος ὦν, Thucyd. vii. 52. 2.°— Vv. 29, 80. Deut. vi. 4,5. This principle of morality, which binds all duties into unity (see J. Miiller, 7. d. Siinde, I. p. 140 f.), was named pre-eminently ΤΙΝ Ἢ, or also from the initial word » 2), and it was the custom to utter the words daily, morning and evening.* — ἰσχύος] 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. 82. After διδάσ- 1 See Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 219; Borne- ad Charit. p. 549. mann in the Stud. u. Avit. 1843, p. 187 f.; 4See Vitringa, Synag. ii. 3. 15; Buxtorf, Winer, p. 146 f. (Ε. T. 161 f.). Synaq. 9. 2See on quotations of a similar kind, δ The variations of the wordsin Matthew, Jablonsky, Bibl. Hebr. praef. § 37; Fritzsche, Mark, and Luke represent different forms ad Rom. xi. 2. of the Greek tradition as remembered, 3 See Winer, p. 160 [E. T. 178] ; Dorvill. which arose independently of the LXX. (for CHAP. XII., 28-34. 155 cade there is only to be placed a comma, so that ἐπ’ ἀληϑείας (comp. on ver. 14) is a more precise definition of καλῶς. --- ὅτε 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 is not an improbable trait (Késtlin, 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- veroc (Rom. i. 21, 31), Dem. 1394, 4: ἀρετῆς ἁπάσης ἀρχὴ ἡ σύνεσις. Comp. on Col. i. 9. — dAoxavt.] ‘‘ Nobillissima species sacrificiorum,” ‘‘ the most noble kind of sacrifices,” Bengel. πάντων τῶν applies inclusively to ϑυσιῶν. ~ Kriiger, ὃ 58. 3. 2. Ver. 34. ἰδὼν αὐτὸν, 674] Attraction, as at xi. 32 and fre- quently. — vovveyac] intelligently, only herein the N. T. Polybius associates it with φρονίμως (i. 88. 8) and πραγματικῶς (ii. 18. 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. — οὐ μακρὰν x.7.4.] 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 k.7.A. | not inappropriate (de Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Bleek) ; but it was just this peculiar victory of Jesus—that now the result of the questioning was even agreement with Him—which took from all the further courage, etc. Remarz.—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. 493,1 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,” ete. 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 ΤΟΣ .: 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 4150 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 a3 laying the theological problem before the assembled Pharisees, and then re- lates that they were thereby brought to silence, so that they put no further questions to Him ; whereas Mark relates that the conversation as to the most important commandment had had this result, and thereafter Jesus had thrown out before the people, while He was teaching (vv. 35, 37), the question re- -specting the Son of David. —aroxpieic] 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 Aav. places the declaration of David himself in contrast to the point held by the scribes. — καὶ 769ev| breaking in with surprise. Comp. Luke i. 48. πόϑεν is the cau- sal unde. : whence comes it that.'— ὁ πολὺς ὅχλ.] the multitude of people, which was present. — ἤκουεν αὐτοῦ ἡδέως} a triumph over those put to silence. [See Note LXXXI., p. 159.] Vv. 88-40. 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. 16. ---- 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 61f. But the pre-eristence of Jesus, which question is, according to Schenkel (comp. Strauss), intended to exhibit the Davidice descent of the Messiah as a phantom. This descent in fact forms of necessity (he pre- supposition of the words καὶ πόϑεν x.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. ἃ. N. 7. p. certainly must have been in Tis conscious- ness when He asked the question, is not ex- pressed (in some such way as in John viii. 58), nor is the recognition of it claimed for the Psalmist by ἐν πνεύματι. The latter merely asserts that David, as © prophet, des- ignated his Son as his Lord. [See Note LXXX. p. 159.] Comp. Plat. Phaedr. Ὁ. 269 D. ; Dem. 241, 17; Wolf, ad Lept. p. 288. CHAP. ΧΙ], 41--44, 157 evil,” Bengel. — ἐν στολαῖς] ἐ.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 ἀσπασμούς] governed by ϑελόντων." --- Ver. 40. οἱ κατεσϑίοντες x.7.4.] 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 γυναΐκασ 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 mpocevy.| προσχήματι εὐλαβείας καὶ ὑποκρίσει ἀπατῶντες τοὺς ἀφελεστέρους, “ΒΥ a show of piety and by hypocrisy deceiving the simpler ones,” Theophylact. — περισσότερον κρῖμα] bo δὲ μᾶλλον τετίμηνται Tapa τῷ λαῷ Kai 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. It is surprising that this highly char- acteristic and original episode, which, according to Eichthal, indeed, is an interpolation and repeated by Luke, has not been adopted in Matthew. But after the great rebuking discourse and its solemn close, the little isola- ted picture seems not to have found a place. —7rov 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 (NY1D1W), 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, 80 called from its smallness,* was 4th of an as in copper. See on 17 Mace: vi. 16; Luke xy. 22; Mare: 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, Anté. i. 8. 14. 3 See Bernhardy, p. 68 f.; Buttmann, veut. 6 Xen. Cyr.i. 4.11: τὸ λεπτότατον τοῦ χαλκοῦ Gram. p. 09 [E. T. 79). νομίσματος. 158 THE GOSPEL OF MARK. Matt. v. 26. It is the same definition in the Talmud, that two )0)19D make a 001111) ; see Lightfoot, p. 638 f.—On the fact that it is not “ἃ quad- rans,” but λεπτὰ dio, 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. —xpockatecau.] ‘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 greatnéss ; 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 ‘fare. — Ver. 44. ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσ. αὐτῆς] (not αὑτῆς) is the antithesis of ἐκ τοῦ περισσ. αὐτ. in ver. 43.1 Out of her want, out of her destitution, she has cast in all that (in cash) she possessed, her whole (present) means of subsistence. Observe the earnest twofold des- ignation. On βίος, victus, that whereby one lives, comp. Luke viii. 43, xv. 12, 30.? Norres 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 δὲ Β Τὶ, 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. 380; Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 6; Gorg. p. 486 Ὁ ; and Stallbaum in loc. 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 yap. Rather: the rulers perceived the application of the parable, and they feared that by laying hold on Him they would show the more clearly to the people that the parable pointed to them (i.e., the rulers), and thus arouse greater interest on behalf of Jesus ; so substantially Weiss ed. Mey. LXXIX. Vv. 28-34. It seems quite as reasonable to suppose that honest writers, telling of the same narrative, but with difference of detail, choose the details in accordance with the exact facts of the case, as to infer from the difference of detail the existence of previous modifications which affect the truthfulness of one or the other. ‘‘ Harmonizing combination” has its own mistakes to answer for, but it does not, as a rule, assume incorrectness on the part of some one of the authors of the Gospels. LXXX. Ver. 37. καὶ πόθεν x.T.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 éxaltation (Klostermann), but in this, that He does not have His specific dignity, because He is a son of Dayid, 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 κ.τ.λ. The R. V. marg. is correct, the rendering of the text being retained from the A. V., probably because the other could not command a majority of two thirds. The imperfect ‘‘was hearing” implies continued action, and suggests the reason our Lord could venture to utter the warning against the scribes, of which Mark gives a brief report (vv. 38-40), and Matthew a very full one (Matt. xxiii. ). 100 - THE GOSPEL OF MARK. CHAPTER XIII. Ver. 2. ἀποκριθείς is, with Tisch., to be deleted, as at xi. 33, following B L S, min. vss. — Ver, 2. ὧδε is adopted before λίθος by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.], in accordance doubtless with Β Ὁ GL U A δὰ, 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 δὰ BL, 33, Copt., read éxypora.]—Ver. 4. εἰπέ] BDL &, 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 δὲ, 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 BL 8, 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 dapya/. — 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 dyaywou, in opposition to decisive evidence. — μηδὲ μελετᾶτε] is wanting in BDL δὰ, min. Copt. Aeth. Ar. p. Erp. Vulg. It. Vigil. _ Condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. But the Homoioteleuton the more easily occasioned the omission of the words, since they follow immediately afler ti Aadyonre. 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 Ὦ 1, δὲ, Copt. Arm. It. Vulg. Sax. Aug. They are from Matthew. — ἑστώς] Lachm. has ἑστηκός, following D 28 ; Tisch. has ἑστηκότα, following BL δὲ. [So recent editors, Τὶ. 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 BL ®& also testify in its favor by ἑστηκότα ;' while ἑστός likewise betrays its origin from Matthew (var.; see the critical remarks on Matt. xxiv. 15). — Ver. 16. dv] is wanting in BDLA ®&, min. Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.]. But how easily it dropt out after dypON! the more easily, because dv stood also in ver. 15,— Ver, 18. ἡ φυγὴ ὑμῶν is wanting in BD L Δ δὲ 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, or Γ ' The masculine was introduced by the reference, frequent in the Fathers, to the statue (τὸν ἀνδριάντα) ot the conqueror. CHAP, ΤΙ t=3- 161 ἢ σαββάτου, and the like. — Ver. 19. ἧς] Lachm. Tisch. [recent editors, R. V.] have ἦν, following Β C* L δὰ, 28. A correction. The omission of ἧς ἔκτ. 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. ] -- - Τη- stead of πεστεύετε 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, Τὰ. V., retain ψευδόχ. καί, while all but Tisch. read δώσουσιν.) Moreover (with Tisch.), καί is to be omitted before τοὺς ἐκλ. (B Ὁ δ). The Recepta is a filling up from Mat- thew. — Ver. 23. ἰδού] 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 δὲ, 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 ἐκ. --- Ver. 27. αὐτοῦ] after ἀγγέλ. is wanting in B D L, Copt. Cant. Vere. Vind. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.; it is from Matthew. — Ver. 28. The verbal order ἤδη 6 κλάδος αὐτῆς (Fritzsche, Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort]) has preponderating evidence [δ A BCD L, Vulg.], but it is from Matthew. The manifold transpositions in the codices would have no motive, if the reading of Tachm. 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. VIIT. has γινώσκετε ; 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 Ὁ Καὶ Ὁ Τ' 8) 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 δὲ, min. (Tisch.) have παρελεύσονται again after- wards instead of παρέληωσι, 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 B C* Ὁ L δὲ, min. codd. It. —[Ver. 35. Tisch., recent editors, R. V., with δ 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 6 is an unnecessary emendation, although it is now preferred by Tisch. (BCR, ete.). [So recent editors, R. V.] D, codd. It. have ἐγὼ dé 2. ὑμ. 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- al 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 6 ναὺς ἐκ λίθων μὲν λευκῶν τε καὶ καρτερῶν, τὸ μέγεθος ἑκάστων περὶ πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι πηχῶν ἐπὶ μῆκος, ὀκτὼ δὲ ὕψος, εὗρος 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 cight, the breadth about twelve,” Joseph. Antt. xv. 11. 8. See Ottii Spieileg. 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 ob μὴ καταλ.] for ov μή in the relative clause, see Winer, p. 450 [E. T. 507 1.1 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 κ.τ.}.) than Matthew. According to de Wette (comp. Saunier, p. 132 ; 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.?—70 σημεῖον] 801]. 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. 3. 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- {ion 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 : Ver. 5. Jesus now begins His detailed explanation as to the matter (ἤρξατο). --- Ver. 7. τὸ τέλος] the end of the tribulation (see ver. 9), not the end of the world (so even Dorner, Lange, Bleck), which only sets in after the end of the tribulation. See on Matt. xxiv. 6. [See also Note LXXXIIL., p. 108,17 --- 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 ἔσται, NOW συντελεῖσθαι (be consummated). 1 Weizsiicker, Ὁ. 125, conjectures from Barnabas 4 (S$), 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. 1.6. 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. 108. A: tap. καὶ ἀπορία, CHAP? ΧΙΠ; ‘9-23: 165 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.— apyai] prefixed with emphasis: beginnings.of sorrows (comp. τὸ τέλος, ver. 7) are these. — βλέπετε δὲ «.7.A.] but look ye (ye on your part, in the midst of these sorrows that surround you) to yourselves, how your own con- duct must be. Comp. on βλέπ. ἑαυτ., 2 John 8; Gal. vi. 1. --- συνέδρια] judicial assemblies, as Matt. x. 17. -- καὶ εἰς συναγωγ.} 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, neut. Gr. p. 287 [E. T. 333] and Bleek, is in- admissible, because εἰς cannot be taken in the pregnant meaning (instead of éy ; for the element of ‘‘ motion towards” is not implied in dapjc.), and be- cause the explanation (see my first edition) : ye shall be brought under blows: cf 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 δαρῇσ. comes in asyndetically, is in keeping with the emotional character of the discourse. — εἰς μαρτύρ. αὐτοῖς] 1.6., in order that a testimony may be given to them, the rulers. and ings, namely, regarding me (comp. previously ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ), regarding my person and my work (not: ‘‘intrepidi, quo causam meam defendatis, enimi,” ‘‘of the intrepid mind with which you shall defend my cause,” Tritzsche)—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” (uthymius 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 (iTilgenfeld), 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. "--- δοθῇ ] has the emphasis. — od yap 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 kat ἀνομία, 2 Mace. vius, Elz., Lachmann. xiii. 16. Comp.tdpaxos, Acts xii. 18, xix. 23. 2 Comp. Dem+1129, 9: μελετᾶν τὴν ἀπολογίαν 1 Luther, Castalio, Erasmus, Beza, Calo- ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν. 104 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 ὧν] 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,” Wetstcin. — οἷα ob 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 od¢ ἐξελέξατο, Herod. il. 147: ἐντολάς τε, τὰς . . . ἐνετέλλετο, Philostr. V. Ap. iv. 13. 150: rae 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 ὃ human κτίσις (Lange) is fanciful. κτίσις, that which is created, see on Rom. vili. 19. — ἀποπλαν.} 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. —aA7’] breaking off and leading over to a new subject. Hartung, Partihell. 11. p. 34 f. — év ἐκείναις τ. ἡμέρ μετὰ τ. θλιψ. ἐκ. Thus in Mark also the Parousia is predicted as setting in ¢mmediately 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. yu. 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 Sollowing so immediately close upon the destruction. [See Note LXXXY., p. 168.] — Ver. 25. οἱ ἀστέρες τοῦ otpavod x.7.4.| the stars of heaven shall be, ete., which is more simple (comp. Rev. 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 1Ttis, 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, MZarkusev. p. 101, tainly be followed, if the composition of that Mark did not write till after Matthew Mark (comp. also Késtlin, p. 888) 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- 2Hom. Od. xiv. 31, Zl. xi. 179; Soph. Aj. tween the composition of Matthew’s Gos- 1156; Aesch. ii. 84; Gal. vy. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 17. pel and his own, from speaking of the near- OHARA ΧΙ, 2-2. 165 the heaven (κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον of the horizon) sets limit to the earth. 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 οὐρ. of those who sleep in bliss. Vy. 28-82. 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 ἐΐ 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 conerete representation. — τὸ θέρος] is an image of the Messianic period also in the Test. XII. Patr. Ὁ. 725. — Ver. 30. ἡ γενεὰ αὔτη) 1.6., 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- ἡ 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 LXXXVIL., p- 168 seq. ] — Ver. 82. 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 πατήρ),--ἃ 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. Il. p. 163 f.) gave it as their judgment that Jesus meant the not-knowing of His human nature only ;4 while Augustine * and others were 1 Matt. xi. 16, xii. 41, 42, 45, xxiii. 36; Mark viii. 12, 138; Luke vii. 31, xi. 29, 30, 31, 82, 50,51. Comp. Heb. iii. 10 (Lachmann). 27The signification ‘‘people” is rightly not given either by Spitzner on Homer, 7, Exc. ix. 2, or in Stephani 7/es., ed. Hase, II. p. 559 f.; in the latter there are specified— (1) genus, progenies ; (2) generatio, genitura ; (3) actas, seculum. Comp. Becker, Avecd. p. 231, 11; also Ellendt, Zex. Soph. I. Ὁ. 353. 3 Matthew has not οὐδὲ ὃ υἱός ; according to Ké6stlin, 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. 808 ff.) finds in the words, because they attribute to Christ a nature exalted above the angels, an indica- tion that our Mark was not written until the first half of the second century ; but his view is founded on erroneous assumptions with respect to the origin of the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians, and of the fourth Gospel. Moreover, Paul places Christ above the angels in other pas- sages (Rom. vili. 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, f70m the Jjact 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,” ‘‘im human nature indeed he knew the day, and hour, but did not know itfvom human nature.” 5 De Genesi c. Manich. 22, de Trinit. i. 12. 106 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 jide, v. 8, cut the knot, and declared that οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός was an interpolation of the Arians. Nevertheless, itis contained tmplicite 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. 33-87. 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 @ 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 «.7.2., In which καί is also, is subordinate to the ἀφεὶς κ.τ.2., because prior to the leaving of the house ; (8) ἄνθρωπος ἀπόδημ.} forms one notion : a man jinding 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, Ch’. 3 Pind. Pyth. iv. 8; Plut. Mor. p. 299 E. Pers. u. Werk. 11. Ὁ. 156 f. 4 Comp. ἄνϑρωπος ὁδίτης, Tom. J/. xvi. 2635 2 Baur, Markusev. p. 102, comp. his neut. Od. xiii, 128; ἄνϑρ. ἔμπορος, Matt. xiii. 43, Thecl Ὁ. 102. al. NOTES. 167 etc. . . . went away toa foreign country.” Against this may be urged, partly that ἀφεὶς τ. οἰκ. αὐτοῦ Would be a quite superfluous definition to ἀπόδημος, partly that δοὺς x.7.2. would need to stand before ἀφεὶς x.7.2., 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 a (see the critical remarks).’ [But ὃ is accepted by all recent critical editors. ]— πᾶσι] to all who confess me. Norrs By AMERICAN EDITOR. LXXXII. The Eschatological Discourse. Τὸ 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. ‘ sides, has nothing to do with the passage before us. 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 éxicx. on the notion of coolness (in contrast to procreation in lust); comp. o«dfew τὸ καῦμα in Alci- phr. iii, 2. — δύναμις ὑψίστου] without the article : power of the Highest will overshadow thee, will be that, which shall overshadow thee. This will set in in immediate consequence (ai) of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελείσεται 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 cov from Matt. 1. 16. But the context which immediately precedes points only to the begetting (Ben- gel, Bleek); and to this also points the neuter, 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 γεννώμ. (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, cum 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 Bengeland Bleck. [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 K.7.A.), expect καὶ υἱὸς Θεοῦ, especially after the verb, where no reader could anticipate a second predicate without καί. Comp. Justin, e. Tryph. 100 : διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἅγιόν ἔστιν 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 Calovins : “ Supervenit Spiritus non qul- dem σπερματικῶς sed δημιουργικῶς, gullu- las sanguineas Mariae, e quibus concipienda caro Domini, sanctificando, easdem foecundas reddendo, εἰ exiisdem corpus humanum effor- mindo.’? Justin, Apol. I. 38, 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, ἤν 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. dn, 98: 243 “* En domesticum tibi exemplum,” ‘‘ Lo, a family example for thee !” Grotius. After ἰδοὺ x.7.2. an ἐστί was as little needed as an εἰμέ at ver. 38. — ovyyevic] The nature of this relationship, which is not at variance with John i. 36, although questioned by Schleiermacher and others, is wholly unknown. It is, however, possible that Mary was of the stock of Levi [see Note XL, p. 208],’ as the Test. XI. 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 cuyyevic, 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.}.} 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. 11. 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 Hence the meaning is not : ‘‘ With God nothing is im- possible ;”” but rather : not powerless (but of success and efficacy) shall any utterance on the part of God be. So also Gen. xviii. 14. Comp. Beza: ‘* ῥῆμα, t.e., quicquid Deus semel futurum dixerit,” ‘‘ whatever God at any critical remarks). time in future shall have spoken.” Ver. 38. Behold the handmuid of the Lord! without a verb. 36, v. 12, 18. — γένοιτο] λοιπὸν ob μόνον ἐπίστευσεν, ἀλλὰ ηὔξατο γενέσϑαι αὐτῇ, καϑὼς ὁ ἄγγελος εἴρηκε, Euthymius Zigabenus ; ‘‘eximio fiduciae exemplo,” ἐς extraordinary example of trust,” Grotius. Comp. ver. Remark.—The natural explanation of the annunciation to Mary (Paulus) is at variance with the evangelic account ; and as the latter unfolds simply, clear- ly, and delicately an external procedure, the objective is not to be rendered subjective and transferred, as a reciprocal operation of the theocratic Spirit of God and the emotional feeling of the Virgin, by means of poetic coloring to the soul of the latter (Lange, 1. 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, e.g., it is clear that the history, adopted at Matt. 1. 19 ff., of Joseph’s perplexity and of the angelic message which came to him does not presuppose, 1 So Faustus the Manicheanin Augustine, c. Faust. xxiii.9; and recently, Schleier- macher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 26; Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Gesch. Chr. Ὁ. 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 Dawvidic descent, as it was neces- sary in the case of the Messiah, had stress laid on it, and the family of dZary was not expressly specified at all. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. Ὁ. 177 3 Comp. Schleiermacher, Z. J. Ὁ. 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 (Gulacht. I. p. 81 ff.), Krabbe, Ebrard, and others. Ac- cording to the view invented by the last-named, it is assumed that Joseph had learned Mary’s pregnancy, immediately after the appearance of its earliest signs, from the pronubae (‘‘ suspicious women”) ; that immediately there ensued the appearance of the angel to him, and forthwith he took her home ; and that for all this a period of at most fourteen days sufficed. Mark and John have rightly excluded these miracles of the preliminary history from the cycle of the evangelical narrative, which 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 XTII., p. 258seq.] Asin the case of the annunciation to Mary the metaphysical divine Sonship of Jesus, so in the announcement to Zacharias the extraordi- nary divine destination and mission of John (John i. 6) is the real element on which the formation of legend became engrafted ; but to derive the latter merely from the self-consciousness of the church (Bruno Bauer), and conse- quently to take away the objective foundation of the history, is at variance with the entire N. T. and with the history of the church. For the formation of the legend, moreover, the historical circumstances, that John was the son of the priest Zacharias and Elizabeth, and a son born late in life, are to be held fast as premisses actually given by history (in opposition to Strauss, I. p. 135), all the more that for these simple historical data their general notoriety could not but bear witness. This also in opposition to Weiss and B. Bauer, who de- rive these traditions from the laboratory of religious contemplation. Further, as to what specially concerns the late birth of John, it has its historical precedents in the history of Isaac, of Samson, and of Samuel; but the general principle deduced from such cases, ‘‘ Cum alicujus uterum claudit, ad hoe facit, ut mira- bilius denuo aperiat, et non libidinis esse quod nascitur, sed divini muneris 1 Lange, LZ. J. I. p. 88 f., rightly acknowl- severe struggle arose in his soul, and this edges this, but, following older writers, state of feeling became the medium of the thinks that Mary made the communication revelation made to him, is simply added. to Joseph before her journey to Elizabeth, 2 Schleiermacher is right in saying, Z. «J. but that he nevertheless (‘‘ the first Ebion- . 71: ‘‘ These occurrences have been en- ite’) refused to believe her. This is not tirely without effect as regards the coming compatible with Matthew’s narrative, es- forward of Christ or the origination of faith pecially i. 18. And what Lange further in Him.” (p. 89) adds, that during Mary’s absence a CHAP. 155739, 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) ; for how 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. 90 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 — kar’ ἐξοχήν, Aristot. H. A. v. 28; Judith i. 6, ii. 22, iv. ἢ, 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 ᾽Τούδα] into a city of the tribe of Judah. uke 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. 11. 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 NUY 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, Zpp. 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, et al.; comp. also Robinson, Pal. 1Π. gives the Jewish legends). p. 198, and Ritter, Hrdk. XY. 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. Τὸν 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. 28) at the presence of the Messiah’ now in the womb of His mother. Elizabeth immediately through the Holy Spirit recognizes the cause of the leaping. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfiill. 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 Hz. 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 S. B. cele- brarunt.” A symbolical significance, expressive, namely, of the thought, that at the appearance of a higher Spirit the ideas that lie still unborn in the womb of the spirit of the world and of the people are quickened (Weisse), is foreign to the narrative,—a modern abstraction. Ver. 42 f. ᾿Ανεφώνησε] She eried out (only occurring here in the N. T.; comp. 1 Chron. :xv. 28, xvi. 5 ; 2 Chron. v. 12; Polyb. iii. 33. 4 ; frequent in Plutarch), expressing the owtburst of the being filled by the Spirit. [Comp. critical note.]|— ὁ καρπὸς τ. KoA. cov] Designation of the embryo, that Mary bears inher womb. For the expression, comp. Gen. xxx. 2 ; Lam. ii. 20. --- καὶ πόϑεν x.7.A.] 86. γέγονεν. After the first outburst now follows a certain reflection, a humble pondering, from what cause (πόϑεν, comp. on Mark xii. 37) she wasdeemed 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 κιτ.λ.} not equivalent to τὸ ἐλϑεῖν τὴν unr. K.t.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, Xvil. ὃ. 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. 81 ff.), ete. As to τελείωσις, comp. Judith x. 9 ; John xix.. 28. } Older Lutherans (see Calovius) have something unique in character and miracu- wrongly used this passage asa proof ofthe lous. The child of Elizabeth has already in Jides infantum. There is, in fact, here the womb the Holy Spirit, ver. 15. CHAP. 1., 46-51. 247 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 idob 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. Seelenl. Ῥ. 11 ff.; Delitzsch, δὲ. 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 (Aus. 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). —cwrjp.] benefactor. “Ts est nimirum σωτήρ, qui salutem dedit,” ‘‘ He is truly σωτήρ, who gave safety,’ Cicero, Verr. 11. 63. — dre ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τ. Tar. τ. δούλ. αὐτ.] as at 1Sam. i. 11. Comp. Ps. xxxi. 8; also Luke ix. 58. 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. —azé τοῦ viv] from henceforth ; for now, after Elizabeth’s inspired words, no further doubt could remain to Mary respecting her con- dition as mother of the Messiah ; from henceforth, therefore, she could not but be the object of the general congratulation, whereof Elizabeth herself had just made a beginning. — 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.7.A.] not for ov 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‘a comma. To the might the holiness attaches itself. — εἰς γενεὰς x. γενεάς] Comp. Isa. li. 8 ; 1 Mace. ii. 61; Vest. 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.* — τοῖς φοβουμ. αὐτ.] 86. ἐστι. It denotes the essence of theocratic piety. Comp. Ex. xx. 6; Ps. 611. 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, αὐ Oedip. 10. 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. — ὑπερηφάνοῦς] 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 diabolieae 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. 28; 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 ave included. Comp. xii. 18 f. De Wette, moreover, is in error in saying (comp. Olshausen) that it is spéitwal 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- Beto Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ (comp. Isa. xli. 8 f.), which is the summary of what has been previously said. The aorist is to be taken quite like the previous norists. —dvre2éBero] He has interested Himself for Israel His servant (133). Comp. on ἀντελάβ., Acts xx. 85 ; Thue. iii. 22 ; Diod. Sic. xi. 18. Euthy- mius Zigabenus explains it : ἐπεσκέψατο τὸν ᾿Ισραηλιτικὸν λαὸν, τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ, ‘‘he visited the Israelitish people, His servant.” Others, including Paulus, Gléckler, Kuinoel, take παιδός as jilii (comp. Ex. iv. 22 ; Hos. xi. 1). But the theocratic notion of sonship is never expressed by παῖς (not even in Acts iii. 13). — μνησϑῆναι ἐλέους] not: ‘ita ut perpetuo memor sit,” “80 that the 1 On the expression, comp, xx. 10 f.; Job xxii. 9; Judith x. 11; Hom. 17]. ii, 298, Od. xiii. 214, CHAP. 1., 54. 249 remembrance is perpetual,” etc. (Kuinoel, Bleek), but : in order to be mind- Jul 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. —Kadoc ἐλαλ. πρὸς τ. rat. ἧἡμ.} 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. —7@'ABpaau κ. 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.2.| 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, LZ. J. 11. 1, p. 84 ff., Mary is driven to Elizabeth by her erief 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 1J%In what manner it was the σπέρμα the question. "ABpaa that actually received the com- 3 158. xxix. 22 f.; Mic. vii. 20. Comp. John passion (Rom. iv., Gal. iv.), was not here viii. 56; Test. XI. Patr. p. 587. 250 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. lofty a triumph (Mark 111, 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, ec. 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. St Ε.}. ' Ver. 57 f. Τοῦ τεκεῖν avt.] genitive governed by ὁ χρόνος : the time, which had to elapse until her delivery. Comp. ii. 7, 22; Gen. xxv. 24, — ὅτι ἐμεγάλυνε x.7.A.| that he has magnified (Matt. xxiii. 5; 2 Cor. x. 15; 1 Sam. xii. 24), namely, by this birth still bestowed, contrary to all expectation, in which they saw a proof of especially great divine compassion. The 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 f. With the circumcision was associated the giving of the name, Gen. xxi. 3. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 110. Among the Greeks and Romans it took place on the dies. lustricus.! — ἡλϑον] 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, /.c., Buxtorf, Synagog. 4): but the mother (for the father was still dumb) took exception to it, ver. 60. ‘‘ Vere enim incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu,” ‘‘ For the act really begins, but fails of result on account of impediments,” Schaefer, ad Phoen. 81 ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. 205].—The naming of the child after the father (Tob. i. 9; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 1. 3) or after a relative (ver. 61 ; Lightfoot, p. 726) was very common, asit was also among the Greeks (Hermann, 1.6. 18). On ἐπί, comp. Neh. vii. 63 ; Plut. Demetr. 2. The idea is ; in reference to. — ob yi, ἀλλὰ κληϑ. "Iwdvv.] The usual supposition (Paulus, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bleek, following Calvin and others), that Zacha- rias after his return from the temple made known to Elizabeth by writing the words of the angel, ver. 13, is the more arbitrary, the less it is in keep- ing with the miraculous impress of the whole history. Theophylact is right in saying : ἡ δὲ ᾿Ελισάβετ ὡς προφῆτισ ἐλάλησε περὶ τοῦ σνόματος, “ But Elizabeth spake asa prophetess concerning the name ;” and Euthymius Zigabenus : ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ αὑτὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ 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. 44 f. ; Her- 2See Lund, Jfeiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 949; mann, Privatalterth. § 82. 17. Keil. Archdol. I. p. 307 f. CHAP. I., 6 Ξ- 08. 201 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 ; Kiihner, II. p. 138), how (τί = 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. — airfoac] 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] seripsit haec verba, ‘‘ wrote these words.” Comp. 2 Kings x. 6; 1 Macc. viii. 31, xi. 57. A Hebraism (0982).! The return of speech does not occur till ver. 64. Comp. vv. 13, 20. —’Iwdvyye ἐστὶ τ. ὄν. αὑτοῦ] Shortly and categorically, in the consciousness of what had been already divinely determined : 2¥ {3nY [the Hebrew characters probably written by Zacharias]. ‘‘ Non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat,” ‘*He does not command, but indicates the divine command,” Bengel.—édaiv. | because Zacharias agreed with Elizabeth in a name foreign to the family. Ver. 64. ᾿Ανεῴχϑη. . . λῶσσα αὐτοῦ] a 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 11. 43). — αὐτούς] applies to Zacharias and Elizabeth. — dteAadcito| were mutually talked of, Polyb. i. 85. 2, ix. 89. 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. —iH¥evro . . . ἐν τῇ Kapd. αὐτῶν] Comp. 22 IY DW (1 Sam. xxi. 12) [A. V. “Jaid up... in his heart”), and the Homerie τέϑημι ἐν στήϑεσσι, ἐν φρεσί, and see Valckenaer in loc. They made those utterances the subject of their 10n the same usage in the Syriac, see Kypke, I. p. 211; Krebs, p. 98. Gesenius in Rosenmiiller’s ep. I. p. 135. 2 On περιοικεῖν τινα, comp. Herod. y. 783 An example from Josephus is found in Xen. Arnab. y. 6. 16; Plut. Crass. 34. ἘᾺΝ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. further reflection. Comp. ii. 19.— τί dpa] 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. Ὁ. 98; Bornemann, Schol. p. 15. — καὶ yap χεὶρ κυρίου ἦν per’ 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 yap, 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. wu. Krit. 1888, Ὁ». 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 ἐστί, 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. ay. 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 XVII., p. 260.] — εὐλογητὸς x.7.A.] 86. εἴη. Comp. Ps. xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, evi. 48. --- λύτρωσιν (comp. ii. 38) applies primarily to the Messianic deliverance under its political aspect. Comp. vv. 71, 51 ff.; Plut. Arat. 11: itp. 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. — yee] still dependent upon 1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176; Niigelsbach, Olshausen), that the purity of the Messianic Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 3, Ὁ. 10f. Comp. viii. 25, views of Zacharias consists in the unadul- xii. 42. terated reproduction of Old Testament 3 Tofmann appropriately remarks, Weis- knowledge. sag. κι. Brfill. ΤΙ. p. 2538 (in opposition to CHAP. 1., 70-75. 253 ὅτι. --- κέρας cwrnpiac] a horn of deliverance (genitive of apposition), 7. ¢., a strong, mighty deliverance, according to the figurative use of the Hebrew 11. κέρας" ἡ ἰσχὺς παρὰ TH ϑείᾳ γραφῇ, Ex μεταφορᾶς TOV ζώων τῶν καθωπλιαμένων 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 XVIIL., p. 260 seq.] It is true that Jensius (Here. lit. p. 34), Fischer (de vit. Lex. p. 214), and Paulus find the reference in the horns of the altar of burnt-offering which served as anasylum.? But apart from the inappropriate relation to the frequent use of the O. T. figure elsewhere, how inadequate for the due and distinct expression of the Messianic idea would be the con- ception of the mere protection, which was afforded by the laying hold of the horns of the altar ! --- ἤγειρε] excitavit, i.e., according to the context, he has made to grow up (ἐξανατελῶ, Ps. exxxil. 17). — τοῦ 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. ] — ax αἰῶνος] not absolutely, As though there had been prophets even ab orbe con- dito, ‘‘from the foundation of the world” (‘timo 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 iii. 21; Longin. 34: τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ῥήτορας. [See Note XVIUL., p. 260 seq. | Ver. 71 f. Σωτηρίαν] might be attached to ἐλάλησε, ver. 70 (Beza, Grotius, Ewald, and others), but it is simrler to retain καϑὼς «.7.A. as a paranthetical clause, like ver. δῦ, 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 δέ 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 (μετά, DO}, ver. 58, x. 37) 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 yap λέγει τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν" μνήμην δὲ αὐτῆς THY περάτωσιν, ‘‘ He calls the promise ἃ covenant; but the fulfilment is remembrance of it.” Vv. 73-75. Ὅρκον] 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 dy. αὐτοῦ, in which the accusative is attracted by ὅν, Matt. xxi. 42; 1 Cor. x. 16 ; Butt- 1.1. Sam) 11. 10 Psi oxviliards) xoxox 18) p. 473 f.; Knobel on Ex. xxvii. 2. exxxii. 16 f., exlviii. 14; Ecclus. xlvit. 5, 7, 3 Μιμνήσκεσθαι is not seldom joined with 11, αἰ. Gesenius, 7hes. III. p. 1288; Grimm an accusative by the classical writers (Hom. on 1 Mace. ii. 48. See Rabbinical passages 11. vi. 222; Herod. vii. 18; Soph. 0.2. 105%), 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, Symodol. I. the LXX. and Apocrypha. 254 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. mann, veut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288] ; Bornemann, Schol. p. 16 f£. —xpéc] de- notes the swearing to. Comp. Hom. Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288. The expression with the dative is more usual. See the oath itself in Gen. xxii. 16-18. —rov δοῦναι x.7.2.] in order to grant to us, the purpose, on account of which God swore the oath. [See Note XVII, p. 260 seq. | — ἐκ χειρὸς x.7.A.] 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 δικαιοσύνῃ (Plat. Prot. p. 329 C), see on Eph. iv. 24. Joliness 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 dé] but thou 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 δέ is the continuative autem. — mporop. yap πρὸ προσώπου xup.| as at ver. 17, hence κύριος is God. — ἑτοιμάσαι ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ] see on Matt. 111. 8. — τοῦ δοῦναι κ.τ..} Aim of ἑτοιμάσαι κιτ.λ., and so final aim of προπορεΐσῃ . .. Kupiov. — ἐν ἀφέσει ἅμαρτ. αὐτ.] In Sorgiveness of their sins, which is to be imparted to them through the Messiah (see ver. 78 f.) for the sake of God’s mercy (which is thereby satisfied ; διὰ ox. 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. au. ait. does not belong to σωτηρίας alone (τῆς γινομένης ἐν τῷ ἀφεϑῆναι k.7.2., ‘* 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 ἀφ. τ. du. avt. So also Luther, Ewald, and others. Calvin aptly remarks ἢ ‘‘Praecipuum evangelii caput nunc attingit Zacharias, dum scientiam salutis in remissione peccatorum positam esse Aocet,” ‘* 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. ἀμ. avr. ἐν ἀφέσει δὲ ἁμαρτιῶν. . . τῇ διδομένῃ διὰ τὴν συμπάϑειαν τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ, ‘‘but in forgiveness of sins . . . given on account of the sympathy of His mercy,” Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. Theophylact. The reference to all that is said from προπορείσῃ 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 ef, see on ver. 77 ; σπλάγχνα 1 On the accusative ῥυσϑέντας (not dative), 2See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 181 f.; El- see Bornemann, 1.6. ; Pflugk, ad Hur. Med. lendt, Lea. Soph. I. p. 884. 815; Kriiger, Gramm. Unters. IIL. § 148. YS) cae) CHAP Spite 0s is not merely, according to the Hebrew 9°93 (see Gesenius), but also in the Greek poetical language, the seat of the affections, as, for instance, of anger (Arist. Ran. 1004) and of sympathy (Aesch. Ch. 407). So here. Comp. Col. iii. 12; Phil. 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.— iv oic| instrumental: by virtue of which. — éxeoképato 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 asis more in keeping with the ἐξ ὕψιστου, from the rising of a bright-beaming star of the night (Num. xxiv. 17 ; Valck. ad Hur. Pioen. 506), not (in opposition to Beza, Scultetus, Lightfoot, Wetstein) from an ascending shoot (ΤῚΝ, Isa. iv. 2; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiil. 15 ; Zech. iii, 8, vi. 12), against which may be urged ἐξ i. and éxdavar.! Comp. Isa. ix. 2.—éni@avac] Infinitive of the aim. On the form see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 25 Τ᾿ -- τοῖς ἐν σκότει κ. 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 (ny 93) 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. 2. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 65. --- τοῦ κατευϑῦναι κ.τ.}.1 The aim of ἐπιφᾶναι x.t.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 = DI, opposite of all the misery denoted by σκότος x.7.4. (hence not merely peace). It has another sense in Rom. iii. 17. But comp. Acts xvi. 17. Ver. 80. A summary account (comp. Judg. xiii. 24) of the further de- velopment of John. More particular accounts were perhaps altogether wanting, but were not essential to the matter here. —ybgave] the bodily growing up, and, connected therewith: éxpar. zveip., the mental gain- ing of strength that took place εἰς τὸν ἔσω dvb por. (Eph. 11. 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, is excluded by ver. 79 ; hence the inference and infers from this that the source whence drawn by Bleek (see also his Hindett. Ὁ. 277 Luke drew was Greek and not Hebrew, f.), and approved by Holtzmann, falls to the because ΤῊΝ would not have admitted a ground. The source may have been Greek; reference to the rising of the sun. But the but if it was Hebrew, T1738 need not have whole mixing up of two incongruous figures —_ stood in it. 9250 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ψυχή shares. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 217. — ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἐρήμοις] in the well-known desert regions. It is the desert of Judah κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν that is meant (see on Matt. 111. 1). In that desert dwelt also the Zssenes (Plin. WV. HZ. v. 7). 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 Sast 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. Iop.| 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, See 111. 2-6. ἀνάδειξις is the making known (renwntiatio) of official nomina- tion ; Polyb. xv. 26. 4; Plut. Mar. 8 ; see Wetstein. Comp. x. 1. Notrres py AMERICAN EDITOR. IV. Ver. 1. πολλοῦ 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’s language 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). Suchan estimate of Mark’s Gospel would not agree with the fact that Luke’s narrative contains so much matter in common with it ; nor would the latter be likely to speak thus of 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 x.7.A. Weiss ed. Mey. rightly calls attention to the beautiful comments of Godet on this clause. Inasmuch as Meyer speaks of Luke’s dispassionate consciousness that Christianity ‘‘ had its firm basis of truth in the evangelical history of sal- vation,’’ and insists, moreover, on his ‘‘critical procedure” (see p. 219, foot- note), we have from him an argument against his own positions respecting some of the statements made by Luke in chaps. i. ii. The language of the Evan- gelistsin this prologue gives us something more than Luke’s ‘‘ dispassionate consciousness ;’’ it shows how unlikely it is that any of his statements are his- torically untrue. He tells us how he proceeded in writing his history, hints at the sources of his information, and only when he has given an objective ground of conviction speaks of the subjective certainty. Since Luke, of 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. any, [9] Or [9.6] THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. VIII. Ver. 5 sqq. The two elasses 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 τοῦ 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. κ.τ.λ. Weiss ed. Mey. substitutes here the following noie: ‘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 k.7.A. The R. V. text accepts the view of Tertullian, Bengel, and others, but the Am. appendix gives substantially the view of Meyer: ‘‘ Wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God,’’ which seems to be the only strictly grammatical rendering. XIII. Vv. 26-38. The Annunciation. Weiss ed. Mey. rejects most of the positions taken in Meyer’s remark. The 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,” ete. 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 resuit 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 pov. 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 x.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, itis 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, 200 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, ἃ 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᾽ ai@voc) as popularly hyper- bolieal. Ver. 73. tov 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,”’ ete. 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 Τὰ. 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 S* D, but other editors do not accept this.]—Ver. 3. ἰδίαν] Lachm. Tisch. have ἑαυτοῦ, following B D L 8** Eus. [So recent editors, R. V.] An in- terpretation, which is further found completely in D (ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδα). S* has ἑαυτῶν. --- Ver. 5. μεμνηστ. See on i. 27. — γυναικί] is wanting in Β C* (F) DL =, 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. 1. 24 at γυναικί. Cyril of Jerusalem expresses himself too obscurely in this respect. — Ver. 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 definile 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 & δ δὲ 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 δὲ Ὁ Ὁ), 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 ἃπᾷ 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 οἱ 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... avOpwror) the more easily gave occasion to the omission, asthe words are superfluous and there was no motive for their addition. — Ver. 17. dveyvépicav] Lachm, Tisch. have ἐγνώ- ρίσαν, following B D L =, min. Eus. [So recent editors, R. V.] But the syllable AI after dé was more easily passed over than added, especially as the simple form was present in ver. 15. — Ver. 20, Instead of 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] BD L 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 airod). 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 Ξ &* 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. —[® 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 ‘Tepova.] ἐν is wanting in B = Π 8, 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 τῆν 1s only attested by Β D* δὲ 1. [This evidence is decisive against τῆν ; 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 Χ Π &, min. Vulg. codd. It. A copyist’s error ; the aorist is necessary. [Recent editors, R.V., accept the present ; Weiss thinks the aorist is a conformation to ver, 43.] — εἰς Ἵεροσ.]} is wanting in B DL δὲ, min. vss. Tisch. It betrays itself by the form Ἱεροσόλυμα as an addition of another hand, — Ver. 43. ἔγνω ᾿Τωσὴφ «. ἣ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ] ΒΤ, δὰ, 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. xxiv. 36, Iregard οἱ γονεῖς αὑτοῦ as written in the margin from ver. 41. Comp. on ver. 33. Were it original, and had "Iwo. κ. 4 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 οὐ {πὸ 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 Τὺ. V.), follows the weighty uncials.] — Ver. 45. After εὑρόντες Elz. Scholz have αὐτόν (Lachm. in brackets), in opposition to B C* DL δὰ, 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. d. Bibel, I. p. 58 ff.), Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc., London 1803), Kich- horn, Hinl. I. p. 6908, 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. But the genuineness was defended by Ammon (Nova Opuse. p. 32 ff.), Siiskind (Symbolae, IL. p. 1 ff.), von Schubert (de infantiae J. Ch. historiae a Malth. et Luc. exhibitae authentia atque indole, Gripeswald. 1815), Reuterdahl (Obss. crit. in priora duo ev. Luc. capita, Lond. 1823), Bertholdt, 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, ὁ. 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, Epiphanins, Origen, and others, began: ’Ev ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Kai- capoc ὁ Θεὸς κατῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοῦμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἣν διδάσκων ἐν τοῖς σάβ- βασιν (iii. 1, ἵν. 31). And the internal character of the section, much as it differs from the preface by its Hebraic coloring in accordance with the sources made use of, contains the same peculiarities of Luke as are apparent in the other portions of the Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles (see Gersdorff, p. 160 ff. ; Credner, I. p. 132 ff.), and betrays in the whole peculiar character of the repre- sentation documental sources, whose characteristic and in part highly poetic stamp Luke with correct tact has known how to preserve in working them up. We may add, that a reason against the genuineness can as little be derived from Acts i. 1 as a conclusion in its favor can be gathered from Luke i. 8. 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, ib. den 2. Zeit d. Geburt J. Chr. ge- halt. Census, Breslau 1840 (Hoeck, Rim. Gesch. Bd. I. Abth. II.) ; Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 73 ff. ; von Gumpachin the Stud. uw. Krit. 1852, p. 669 15, where also the older literature is specified, and in his Aritik und Antikritik, Heidelb. 1853 ; Zumpt, Commentatt. epigraph. II. p. 73 ff. ; Kohler in Herzog’s Encykl. XIII., p. 463 ff.; Aberle in the theol. Quartalschr. 1865, p-103 ff. ; Gerlach, d. Réimischen Statthalter in Syr. u. Judiéa, 1865, p. 22 ff, 44 ff. ; Strauss, die Hulben u. 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- ium sociorumque in armis ; quot classes, regna, provinciae, tributa aut vecti- galia et necessitates ac largitiones,” Tacitus, Ann. i. 11), as isheld by Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ebrard, Wieseler, Ewald, and older expositors, but must, on ac- count of ver. 2, be placed on the same footing in respect of its nature with the census Quirinii, and is therefore to be regarded as the direct registration into the tazx-lists, belonging to the census proper (ἀποτίμησις, τίμημα) and form- ing its essential elements, as, in fact, ἀπογράφειν, ἀπογράφεσϑαι, ἀπογραφῇ (Acts vy. 87) are the standing expressions for the recording of estate, whether in af- fairs of law-procedure (see Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 63 1.; 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. 644. Ὁ ; and the passages in Wetstein. CHAPY Tate: 265 17. 10 ; and see Elsner and Wetstein).*— πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμ. 1 not : the whole of Palestine (Flacius, Clavis ; Paulus, Hug, and others), to which the ex- pression is never limited,? not even in Josephus, Aft. viii. 13. 5, but, as the context by παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου imperatively requires, the whole Roman empire (orbis terrarum).® ence the Roman emperors were called κύριοι τῆς οἰκουμένης (Franz, Corp. Inscr. 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 (LZ. J. II. 1, p. 99), 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 ἀπογρ. (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), δὲ ([) 1381, Eus. ; and how easily might ἡ, which in itself is superfluous (see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 105 [E. T. 221]; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc. 11. p. 436 ff.), be merged in the last letter of airy! If ἡ is not read, αὕτη is the subject, and aroyp. xp. is the predicate (this became the first axoypagy). [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.2., 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, /.c.); but the one recorded at present was the jirst, which oc- curred under the Syrian presidency of this man.* It is true that history is 10n the subject-matter itself, see Huschke, wb. d. Census u. d. Steuerverfass. αἰ. friihern Rém. Kaiserzeit, Berl. 1847. 2 Justin, c. Tr. 78, has: ἀπογραφῆς οὔσης ev τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ τότε πρώτης. 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. 169 f. Comp. also Auberlen, Daniel u. d. Apok. p. 248 f. 5 Not: it took place jirst, when,—came to be carried out not earlier than when Quiri- nius, etc. Lichtenstein, p. 81 f., comes ulti- mately to this meaning. How can this be expressed by πρώτη Ὁ Instead of πρώτη Luke must have written precisely the opposite, namely, ὕστερον, or ὕστερον δὴ ἐγένετο K.T.A. Hofmann is similarly mistaken, Schriftbew. ΠΡ ΠΟ ὁ Quite definitely Justin also says, in agreement with Luke, that Christ was born ἐπὶ Kupyviov (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 (c. Mare. iv. 19), Q. Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria ; Publius Sul- picius Quirinius did not become so till about ten years Ἰαΐου. 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 πρώτη ἡγεμ. x.7.A. 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 τινος, 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 «.7.2. is a genitive absolute, even apart from the fact that the use of ὕστερον there cannot vouch for our πρώτη. In a similarly erroneous manner Wieseler has adduced Soph. Ant. 637 f., 701 f., 703 f. Luke would have known how to express the meaning : sooner than, etc., simply, definitely, and accurately, by πρὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονεύειν x.T.2. (comp. ver. 21, xii. 15 ; Acts xxiii. 15), or by πρίν, or πρὶν ἢ." (2) The expedient of Beza, Casaubon (Hvercitatt. Antibaron. p. 126 f.), Jos. Seali- ger (de emend. temp. 4, p. 417), Grotius, Wernsdorf (de censu, quem. Caes. Oct. Aug. fecit, Viteb. 1720), Deyling (Obss. I. ed. 3, p. 242 f.), Nahmmacher (de Augusto ter censum agente, Helmst. 1758), Volborth (de censu Quir., Gott. 1785), Birch (de censu Quir., Havn. 1790), Sanclemente (de vulg. aerae Dionys. emend., Rom. 1793), Ideler (Handb. d. Chronol. 11. p. 394), Miinter, τῶν γενομένων ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἐν ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ πρώτου γενομένον ἐπιτρόπου [procurator], Apol. i. 84; so that he in another erroneous manner (see Credner, Beitr. Το Ὁ. 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 An/t. xviii. 1. 1). Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p.140f. The words 1reryM. syriAm. of the Tiburtine in- scription are of too uncertain interpreta- tion, if the inscription applies to Quirinius, precisely to prove his twofold praesidium Syriae, since we know neither what stood after Syriam, etc., nor whether t/erum 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 AVGVSTI. POPVLIQVE. ROMANI. SENATV SVPPLICATIONES. BINAS. OB. RES. PROSP IPSI. ORNAMENTA. TRIVMPH PRO. CONSVL. ASIAM. PROVINCIAMOP DIVI. AVGYSTI. ITERVM. SYRIAM. ET. PI. See Bergmann, de inscript. Latina ad P. Sulp. Quir. Cos. a 742 ut videtur refer. 1851. 2 Bernhardy, ad Dionys. Perieg. Ὁ. ὅτ, and Eratosth. p. 122; Wesseling, ad Προ. ii. 2, ix. 27; Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. c. v. p. 228; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 11. Ὁ. 421. 3. Profecto mirandum est, homines eru- ditissimos in ejusmodi interpretationum ludibria a praejudicatis opinionibus per- ductos labi,’? Valckenaer, p. 68. CHAR ligne: 267 (Stern d. Weisen, p. 88 ff.), Neander, Hug (Guwtacht.), and others: that ἡγεμονεύοντ. 1s 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. i. 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 Jegatus Caesaris proconsulari potestate for the purpose of making war upon the Ho- monades, and had at that time — consequently likewise as ἡγεμών —under- taken the census, which, however, he brought to no right conclusion, and only carried out subsequently under his second praesidium. But granted that the Tiburtine inscription (see upon that subject Gerlach, p. 25, 39 ff.), which Huschke refers to Agrippa, Zampt 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. Bearb. d. Leb. J. p. 84 ff.), Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. 11. p. 54, Ebrard, Lange, L. J. 11. 1, p. 94 (comp. also Tholuck, Glaubwiirdigh. 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, ἡ 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 Koéhler, 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, ete. ; it was, namely, begun doubt- less, but was soon sfopped 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 éyévero, 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 azoypagy 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. iii. 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, le. His name is usually written Quirinus ; by others (so Wetstein, Valckenaer, Ewald, Gerlach, al.), Quirinius. In the case of the Roman writers (espe- cially Florus, iv. 12. 41; Tacitus, Ann. ii. 30, iii, 22. 48) the manuscripts vary ; from a coin and inscription, which have Quirinus, nothing can be Συρίας τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. already, at the time of Christ’s birth, filled 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, 1.6... comp. c. 7, appears in the text, and the article with 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. 8, Goth.). 1 Varus having in the mean while contin- ued still to exercise the powers of goy- ernor. As well according to Gerlach as according to Aberle, Varus is held to have where it can only be regarded as a very arbitrary assumption that Saturninus is no longer meant as governor, CHAP: TI, 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 ΤΟΣ ; and, as this manner of writ- ing is at all events decidedly correct in our passage (C D E F, etc., includ- ing δὲ, 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. Remarx.—[See Note XXI., p. 287 seq.] The statement of Luke, so far as it affirms that at the time of the birth of Christ an imperial census was taken, and that it was the first that was provincially carried out by the Syrian praeses Qui- rinius, is manifestly incorrect. For (1) the praesidiwm 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. ΤΙ. 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 ; (Ὁ) this quite universal census is ordained at once in the edicl, which, on Wieseler’s hypothe- sis of the gradual and indulgent mode of its execution by the politic Augus- tus, would have been imprudent ; and (c) it is represented as an actual taa- census, as was the well-known (according to Luke, second) census Quirinii, in which case the alleged indulgence is imported. Nevertheless, criticism pronounces judgment on itself, when it designates the whole account as to the census as an invention of legend (Strauss ; comp. 1 See Gerlach, p. 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. 113 ff.; Weisse, I. p. 236), or even of Luke (B. Bauer), which is made in order to bring Mary with Joseph to Bethlehem. Comp. the frivolous opinion of Hichthal, II. p. 184 f. What a strange and dispropor- tionate machinery for this purpose! No; something of the nalure 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 Auet. 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 socit themselves or in the interested proconsuls. And this action of Quwirinius 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 azoypady 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 (?) 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, ete., as, according to Tacitus, Ann. i. 11, the Breviarium totius imperii (Sueton. Octar. 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 Andé. xviii. 1. 1, sufficiently indicated as such. Comp. Hil- ° genfeld, p. 418 ff. Apart from this, the ex- pression ἡγεμονεύοντος in the passage before us is only an erroneously anticipating veflex of that, which subsequently Quirinius was in fact, and notoriously, as respects his real census attended by consequences so grave. CHAPS ΤΠ Ὁ: 271 as ὦ 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 3 ἕκαστος isa 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 himsclf at his dwelling-place, or at the place where he had his forum originis (see Huschke, p. 116 ff.), where- as in our passage the Jewish principle of tribe is the basis. And if the mat- ter were not acensus, 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. ii. 1. — ἐξ 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 (DW) ; 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. 16. --- σὺν 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 ἀπογραφῇ 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. 218 ; Winer, Realwérterd. 3 Dion. Hal. iv. 14; See Strauss, I. p. 235, 8.v. Stimme ; Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 193, III. and Huschke, p. 121, in opposition to Tho- p. 1463. luck, p. 191. R02 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. —rj ἐμνηστ. αὐτῷ͵] Thus, according to Luke, she was still only his betrothed (i. 27 ; Matt. 1. 18), and the marriage was not yet completed. At variance with Matt. i. 24. [See Note XXIL., 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 : who was pregnant (Acts xxiv. 24 ; Rom. i. 16, and frequently). _ The observation forms the transition to what follows. Remarx.—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 «.t.A. But comp, oni. 36, and on Matt. i. 17, Remark 2. Ver. 6 f. ᾿Επλήσϑησαν ai 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 Matt. gestion resorted to, that this word is used the manger ! ----τὸν πρωτότοκον] See on i. 25. The evasive sug- without reference to later born children, appears the more groundless in view of the agreement of Matthew and Luke, —éorapydv.| She sewaddled him ; frequently used in Greek writers. —év φάτνῃ} without the article (see the critical remarks) : she deposited him in a manger. Many, including Paulus and Kuinoel, have, contrary to linguistic usage, made of it a stable.’ —iv τῷ καταλύματι] 1That a sfatle (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 rock-cave, which an old legend (Justin. c. Tryph. 78; Orig. c. Cels.i. 51; Protevang. Jac. 18) designates as the place of the birth, not without suspicion, however, by reason of its appeal to Isa. 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, 1.5. Over this grotto designated by the legend Helena built the church Jfariae de praesepio. Comp. CHAP. 11., 8—10. 2713 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 achamber in the house available for such an exigency. [See Note XXIIL., 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 Jjields ; 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 ἀγραυλ. and φυλάσσ. --- According to this statement, Jesus cannot have been born in December, in the middle of the rainy season (Robinson, Pal. IL. 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. 339f. 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] WW W33, 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 (Israclitish) people. —éréy97 ὑμῖν] that (that, namely) there was born to you this day, ete. The ὑμῖν, in reference to the shepherds, is individualizing. ---- σωτὴρ x.t.2.| a deliverer—and now comes Ilis 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 πόλ. Aav. | belonging to ἐτέχϑη. ‘* Haee periphrasis remittit pastores ad prophetiam, quae tum implebatur,” ‘‘ This periphrasis refers the shepherds to the proph- ecy which is now being fulfilled,” Bengel. Mic. v. 2. --- τὸ σημεῖον] the ap- also Robinson, Pal. II. p. 284 ff.; Ritter, and the passages in Kypke. Comp. Eirdk. XVI. p. 292 ff. See, on the other hand, NINDwID Ww [A. V.: ‘keep the charge,” Gersdorf, p. 221; Bornemann, Schol. p. 18. lit.. “ ” : 2 ? 9 it., ‘‘ watch the watch’’], Num. i. 53, ad. 1 Plat. Phacdr. p. 240 E; Xen. Anao. ii. 6. 10, 1 18 14 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 i. 41 : Hom. 47. xxii. 266), or, as in this case (comp. xvill. 15 ; Acts vii. 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. —éorapy.] adjectival : ὦ swaddled child, Viera Ver. 13. Πλῆϑος orp. oip.] a multitude of the heavenly host (DXDWI N3I¥), a multitude of angels. The (satellite-) host of the angels surrounds God’s 1 Kings xxii. 19 ; 2 Chron. xviii. 18 ; Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2 ; Matt. xxvi. 53; Rev. xix. 14, al.?— Ver. 14. δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις «.7.2. According to the reading εὐδοκίας (see the critical remarks, and Noésselt, Hvercitatt. 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. 18) that on account of the birth of the Messiah God is glorified in heaven (by the angels), and that on the earth there is now salvation among men, to whom in and with the new-born child has been imparted God’s good pleasure.* They thus contemplate the Messiah’s work as having already set in with His birth, and celebrate it in a twofold manner in refer- ence to heaven and earth (comp. Isa. vi. 8). Their exclamation is not a wish, as it is usually rendered by supplying 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 f.]) adds to the scene of the εἰρήνῃ the subjects, among whom it prevails (comp. Plat. Symp. p. 197 C); these, namely, are those who believe in the Messiah, designated in reference to God whose grace they possess, as men who are well pleasing (to Him). Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 587 : καὶ εὐδοκήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγαπη- τοῖς αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰώνων, ‘‘ And the Lord will be well pleased (εὐδοκήσει) with Ilis 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 (in regions, which are the highest of all, xix. 38) the angels declare what takes place in the highest heaven, whence they have just come down. Comp. Matt. xxi. 9; Wisd.ix. 17; Ecclus. xliii. 9; Job xvi. 19 ; Heb. i. 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 καί," which is not for throne. 1 According to the notice σήμερον, and in view of the smallness of Bethlehem, the sign specified by κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ was suf- JSiciently 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 yiverOat σύν τινι, to be associated with any one, comp. Xen. Cyr. ν. 8. 8. tua, comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. θεῶν τε καὶ δαιμόνων. On στρα- 246 BE: στρατιὰ 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 threefold division. According to him, the angels exult (1) that in heaven honor is given to God for the redemption CHAR Ti. 3 he: 225 (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 (én? 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. iil. 17 ; so usually), but docal, as previously ἐν ὑψίστ. and ἐπὶ γῆς. Fritzsche, ad vom. 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. cxliv. 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 (éravaravore 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: ““ Χριστὸς 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, doeumentum (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. Καὶ οἱ dv0p.] This καί is not also, but the simple and after éyé- vero ; see ON V. 12.—oi ἄνθρωποι οἱ ποιμένες [see critical note], not: the shepherd people (Grotius, Paulus, and others), against which the second article is decisive (comp. Matt. xviii. 28, xxii. 2, al.; see Bernhardy, p. 48; Kihner, II. p.-120), but a contrast to οἱ 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, ete. — διέλθωμεν] through the fields as far as to Bethlehem, Acts ix. 38, xi. 19. — δὴ] denotes what is definitive, without more ado.'! —70 ῥῆμα] which has been said ; ὃ ὁ κύρ. ju. is an epexe- - now brought about; (2) that wpon earth a earth yields only ¢2vo 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. UL. 1, p. 103, understands it ina three- fold sense, but very arbitrarily takes εὐδοκία of the divine good pleasure manifested in a Person, referring to passages such as Eph. ΟΣ ΟΣ 1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 395; Nigelsbach, Anm. 2. Ilias, ed. 2, p. 433 f. 276 ' THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. gesis of it. — daveipov] 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 Greck writers. Ver. 17 f. Διεγνώρισαν] 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 im consideration of that, which, etc.' Ver. 19 f. Aé] leading over to the special thing, which Mary amidst this general amazement did—she, who, in accordance with the revelations made to her, was more deeply struck with the tidings of the shepherds, and saw matters in a deeper light. She kept all these utterances (ra 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.T.A.] The Vulgate well renders : conferens, inasmuch as she put them together, i.e., in silent heart-pondering she compared and inter- preted them to herself.* —ixéorpew.] to their flocks, ver. 8. — 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 vv. 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 médst 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. Ὁ. 80 C: τὰ θαυμαζό- Xxxix. 2, xxviii. 8. μενα ἠλέκτρων περὶ τῆς ἕλξεως, 8 Comp. Plat. Crat. p. 848 A: συμβαλεῖν 2On συντηρεῖν, alla mente repositum ser- τὴν Ἰζρατύλου μαντείαν, Ὁ. 412 C; Soph. Oed. ware, comp. Dan. vii. 28; Ecclus. xiii. 12, (΄. 1472; Pind. Nem, xi. 48; Eur, Or, 1894, CHAP FIL ον ΚΥΝῚ ecumstance 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, i. 57, ii. 6, but as genitive of the aim: in order to circumcise Him, that He might be circumcised. Comp. Buttmann, veut. Gr. p. 230 [E. T. 267]. — καὶ ἐκλήθη] was also named, indicating the naming as superadded to the rite of circum- cision. See Nigelsbach, z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 164. And the Son of God had to become circumcised, 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 x.t.A.| See i. 81. Comp. Matt. i. 21, where, however, the legend quite differently refers the giving of the name to the angel. Ver. 22. Women after childbirth, when the child was a boy, were unclean for seven days, and had besides to stay at home thirty-three days more (at the birth of a girl these periods were doubled). Then they were bound to present in the temple an offering of purification, namely, a lamb of a year old as a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or turtle-dove as a sin-offering ; or else, if their means were too small for this, two turtle-doves or young pigeons, the one as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering.* Accord- ingly ai ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμ. αὐτῶν : 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. 94. -- 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 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. 11. 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 ‘‘ tum ob demonstran- dam naturae humanae veritaiem... tum ad probandam 6 semine Abrahae originem .. . tum imprimis ob meriti et redemptionis Ohristi 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 certéfica- 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. Ὁ. 178 f.; Keil, Archdol. 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 legal 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. xill. 9. ---- διανοῖγον μήτραν] DIV] WS; comp. LXX. Hardly according to the passage before us has Luke conceived, with Ambrosius and many others, that Mary brought forth clawso utero and only voluntarily subjected herself to this law (as Bisping still holds). Ver. 24. Kai τοῦ δοῦναι) continues the narrative after the interposed sen- tence ver. 239 : and in order to give an offering. —xard τὸ εἰρημ. κ.τ.}.} Lev. xii. 8. —veoccoic] On the later form rejected by the Atticists, νοσσοὺς (so Tischendorf), see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 185 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 206 f. Ver. 25 f. Who this Simeon was (‘‘ primus propheta, qui diceret Christum venisse,” ‘‘ the first prophet who said that Christ had come,” Bengel), is utterly unknown. The supposition that he was son of Hillel, and father of Gamaliel (Michaelis, Paulus, and older commentators), who became presi- dent of the Sanhedrim in a.p. 13, does not agree with vv. 26, 29, where he appears as an aged man ; and there is generally the less ground for enter- taining it, in proportion to the frequency of the name 11} Ὁ), --- δίκαιος x. 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 23.4 The same in substance is : προσδεχόμ. τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Mark xv. 48. — ἐπ’ αὐτόν] having come wpon. — κεχρημα- rio. | ἃ divine responsum, see on Matt. ii. 19. There is no hint of a dream (Kuinoel). —zpiv ἢ] See on Matt. 1. 18. ---- τὸν 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. Ixxxix. 48," Ver. 27 f. Ἔν τῷ πνεύματι] by virtue of the Holy Spirit, ‘‘instigante Spiritu,” Grotius ; comp. Matt. xxii. 43. — The expression τοὺς γονεῖς (pro- creators) is not appropriate to the bodily Sonship of God, which Luke nar- rates, and it betrays an original source resting on a different view. [See LES. Sul. δ. Num. ὙΠ; 16, ΣΥΝ ἼΣΩΣ 3 Comp. Delitzsch on Heb. v. 7 f., p. 191. Lightfoot, p. 753 ; Lund, 1.6. p. 753; Michae- 4See Vitringa, Obs. V. p. 83; Lightfoot lis, Afos. 12. § 227, 26; Saalschiitz, Mos. 1, and Wetstein in doc. The Messiah Himself: p. 97. DMID. See Schéttgen, Z/or. 11. p. 18. 2 Comp. Plat. Polit. p. 811 B: τὸ δίκαιον x. 5 On the classical use of ὁρᾶν in the sense εὐλαβές, and shortly before : ἤθη εὐλαβὴ καὶ οἵ experiundo cognoscere, Dorvill. ad Char, δίκαια, p. 483; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIL. p. 108, CHAP, 11., 20: 279 Note XXVII., p. 289.] Comp. ver. 41. On the form γονεῖς, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. Ὁ. 69. — 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 v. 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. 111. 6; Acts xxvill. 28. ---κατὰ 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 manijestation 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. Δόξαν 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 3 Comp. on κατὰ πρόσωπ., Jacobs, ad Ach: *IopayA, “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 itself, and they learned it here in another form of revelation, the prophetic. ' Ver. 34. Αὐτούς] the parents, ver. 33.— After he has blessed them (has in prayer promised them God’s grace and salvation), he again specially ad- dresses the mother, whose marvellous relation to the new-born infant he has, according to Luke, recognized ἐν πνεύματι. ---- κεῖται] He is placed there, i.e., He has the destination, see on Phil. i. 16.— εἰς πτῶσιν «.7.2.] 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 jfall—namely, through unbelief—into obduracy and moral ruin ; many others must a7ise, inasmuch as they raise themselves—namely, through faith in Him—to true spiritual life. [See Note XXVIII., p. 289.] The fulfilment of both is abundantly at- tested in the evangelic history ; as, for example, in the case of the Pharisees 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. 21). The fulfilment of this prediction attained its culmination in the crucifixion ; hence ver. 35. Comp. Heb. xii. 3. But it continues onward even to the last day, 1 Cor. eves 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.A. is to be referred to kai... ῥομφαία, not to σημεῖον ἀντιλεγ. (Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald, and many others). —xai σοῦ δέ] See on i. 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 δὲ 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 αὑτῆς 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. 2 Comp. Hom. 71. xix. 125: τὸν δ᾽ ἄχος ὀξὺ κατὰ φρένα τύψε βαθεῖαν. CHAP. 11. 36, 3% eee ΘΗ belief on the part of Mary (at the most, Mark iil. 21). — ὅπως «.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. 39, iii. 19, v. 22 ; 1 Cor. i. 23f.; 2 Cor. ii, 15. The conditional dy expresses : in order that, when that which is just predicted to thee sets in. —éx πολλ. καρδ.) 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 αὔτη, 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. 37 ; but this αὕτη 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 ζήσασα.. .. αὐτῆς, Ver. 36, is subordinate to the προβεβηκ. ἐν yu. πολλ. ; (2) that at ver. 387 there is to be written, with Tischendorf and Ewald, καὶ αὐτή (not as usually, καὶ αὔτη), SO that the definition καὶ αὐτὴ yipa.. . ἐπιστᾶσα, VV. 37, 38, con- tains a further description of the woman co-ordinated with the προβεβηκ. ἐν nu. 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. —xpo¢fric|’ Hebrew 82], 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. xviii. 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.7.A.] a popular description of unremitting zeal (comp. Hom. Od. ii. 345, 2/1, xxiv. 72) in the public worship of God. Comp. xxiv. 53. — 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, /.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. PV LD: 1 Plat. Phaedr. Ὁ. 244 A; Eur. Jon. 42, 321 ; seen in Bornemann, Schol. p. 27; Lobeck, LXX. Ex. xv. 20; Isa. viii. 3, ai. Paralip. p. 62 f., and from the Latin : Hein- 2 Instances of both arrangements may be dorf on Horat. Sat. i. 1.77. 282 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Ver. 38. Αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ] In which occurred the previously described scene with Simeon, — ἐπιστᾶσα] 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, Ill. 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] ὅτε 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 x.T.A. took place on her part likewise αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ, namely, after she had pre- sented her praise to God. The pious ones waiting for the Messiah are with her inthe 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 tpocdey. 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. ii. 23, 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. 3ut, 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. l.c. 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. Anabd. v. macher, Z..7. p. 56 f., leaves the birth-place 8. 9, Sympos. ii. 7. altogether doubtful ; holding that the ques- 2 See also Weisse, Mvangelienfr. 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. 11., 40--43. 283 ticular, certainly suggests the presumption that the birth at Bethlehem was generally known among the Christians and was believed, so that there was not at all any need for a correcting remark on the part of John. Remark. — As the presentation of Jesus in the temple bears of itself in its le- gal aspect the stamp of history, so what occurred with Simeon and Anna cannot in its general outlines be reasonably relegated to the domain of myth (see, in opposition to Strauss and B. Bauer, Ebrard, p. 225 ff.), although it remains doubtful whether the prophetic glance of the seers (to whose help Paulus comes by suggesting, in spite of the remark at ver. 33, communications on the part of Mary ; and Hofmann, p. 276, by the hypothesis of acquaintance with the history of the birth) expressed itself so definitely as the account about Simeon purports. The hypothesis that Luke received his information from Anna’s mouth (Schleiermacher, Neander) hangs on ver. 36 f., where Anna is so accurately described, and consequently on so weak a thread, that it breaks down at once 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 ef God, who was to grow up to be the organ of érvth and grace. Comp. ver. 52. — πληρούμ. cog.| the internal state of thingsaccompanying the ἐκραταιοῦτο ; He became a vigorous child (éxpar.!), while at the same time He became jilled, etc. — χάρις 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’ αὑτό, comp. Acts iv. 33. Ver. 41 f. Τῇ ἑορτῇ] Dative of time. Comp. Winer, p. 195, 199 [E. T. 218, 215]. The three great festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles) were according to the Mosaic law to be celebrated, although with the gradual dispersion of the people this could not strictly be adhered to, by every male Israelite at the national sanctuary,—an excellent means of maintaining and elevating the common theocratic spirit ; Ex. xxiii. 14 ff., xxxiv. 23 ; Deut. xvi. 16.2 The annual passover-journey was shared also by Mary, doubtless independently of Hillel’s precept to that effect (Tanchuma, f. 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. 9. -- δώδεκα] At this age in the case of the boy, who now was called TV 73, [‘‘son of the law”], began the instruction in the law, the accustoming to worship, fasting, and the like, see Lightfoot, p. 799 ; Wetstein. [See critical note, and Note XXX., p. 290. | Ver. 43 f. Tac ἡμέρας] the well-known seven days of festival, Ex. ἘΠ ihe 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. σοφ. ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο, τῶν μελῶν συναδρυνομέ- 2 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 406 ff.; Saal- νων τῇ αὐξήσει, “for He grew bodily and schiitz, WZ. R. p. 421 ff. waxed strong, the members being matured 8 Schuderoff in the Magaz. von Festpred. with the growth.” Observe that in our Til. p. 63 ff., and in his Jard. X. 1, p. 7 ff. ; passage πνεύματι ἰ5 not added as ati. 80; the Olshausen. 284 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. dé 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. 32 f.). — συνοδία] company sharing the journey. See Kypke, I. p. 220f: The inhabitants of one or more places together formed a caravan ; Strabo uses the word also of such a company (iv. p. 204, xi. p. 528). — 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. Anab. i. 8. 16. Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 14, p. 81. [866 critical note. ] Ver. 46. pe? 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 demum quaesitum inveniunt,” ‘‘ One day they had journeyed, on another they had journeyed back, on the third they at length find Him they sought.” So also Paulus, Bleek [Godet, Weiss], and others, following Euthymius Zigabenus. — 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. III. 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. 998), 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 ἢ 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 adventus sui manifestationem ; ob sapientiae divinae de- monstrationem ; ob doctorum information- em, “ἴον manifestation of His own advent ; for demonstration of divine wisdom ; for in- Sormation of the teachers.”’— Into what apoe- 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 ‘ de persona εἰ 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? Tis, 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 érepwr. —érepor. 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 én 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. "Ex? τῇ συνέσει καὶ x.7.2. | 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] é.e., 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, 1t is most natural to find in this answer the designation of the locality, in which they ought to have known that He was to be found, without seek- ing Him in rebus Patris. He might also be elsewhere. To combine both modes of taking it (Olshausen, Bleek) is a priori inappropriate. — 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 of draw- ing ὦ contrast which has been imputed to Him : τῆς yap παρθένου τὸν ᾿Τωσὴφ πατέρα εἰπούσης αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖνος φησίν οὐκ αὐτὸς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀληθής μου πατὴρ, ἢ γὰρ ἂν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ἤμην, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Θεὸς ἐστί μου πατὴρ, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν TH 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, Ὁ. 210; Schaefer, J/eélet. fully unfolded, but in the dawning appre- Dao 1 hension of the child, which could only very 2 At all events 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 1 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 ἃ conclu- sion could only be arrived at, if He had said τ. πατρὸς ἡμῶν; 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.4.] significant as in ver. 19 ; διατηρεῖν denotes the careful preservation. Comp. Acts xv. 29; Gen. xxxvii. 11. Remarx.—The rejection of this significant history as a myth (Gabler in Neu- est. theol. Journ. III. 1, 36 ff. ; Strauss, Weisse,! I. p. 212 ff.), as regards which the analogies of the childhood of Moses (Joseph. Ant. ii. 9. 6; Philo, de vita Mos. II. p. 83 f.) and of Samuel (1 Sam. iii. ; Joseph. Antl. 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, ZL. J. p. 80 f. The objection of an unnatural mental precocity applies an unwarranted standard in the case of Jesus, who was κατὼ πνεῦμα God’s Son. Ver. 52. Comp. 1 Sam. ii. 90. --- 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, é.¢., from the restrictions of p. 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. ἐ.6. - ἐπορεύετο μεγα- λυνόμενον, 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.5 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. Notres py AMeRIcaAN Eprror. RIK Vive de Weiss ed. Mey. adds the following references: ‘‘Caspari, chronologisch. geograph. Kinleitung 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 (/istory 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. αὕτη 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 airy 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 ἢ it might be brought out by this paraphrase: ‘‘ This occurred as the first enrolment,’’ etc. ΧΧΙ. Ver. 2. The Accuracy of Lulce’s Statement. Weiss ed. Mey. has not altered the notes to any great extent, except in re- gard to the omission of ἡ. His additions consist mainly of single references to 1 Τῇ this place he prefixes σοφίᾳ, because as to leave no progress, but merely a suc- he has just related so brilliant a trait of cessive revealing of Hisinherent wisdom, or the mental development of Jesus. — What else only a growth in the wisdom to be at- shifts, moreover, have been resorted to, tained through human experience (scientia especially since the time of Athanasiusand — acquisita)! Ambrose, to fence with reservations the 2 Comp. 1 Sam. 1.6. : mn-oy DA 30) progress of Jesus in wisdom in such a way ὉΠ τ DI); Zest. XT. Patr. p. 528. 288 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Schiirer (Newt. Zeilgeschichie) and to Zumpt, who holds that Quirinius was first governor of Syria from B.c. 4-1 (a.v. 750 to 753). This, indeed, places his term of office after the birth of Christ, since the latter occurred some little time be- fore the spring of 750. But if 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 gov- ernor. It must be granted that this view of Zumpt is not positively established, though a passage in Tacitus is urged as supporting it (Annal. 3. 48). But on the other hand the probability of Luke’s confusing the matter is very slight. He is an accurate historian ; he shows a knowledge of the political relations of Judaea ; he refers to the well-known census under Quirinius in Acts v. 37. Meyer admits enough in the latter part of his ‘‘remark” to qualify his strong assertion of Luke’s incorrectness. It is certain that ἡγεμονεύειν can be used in a wide sense ; and it is possible to interpret it here as referring to some official position in Syria with special charge of this enrolment. We can admit such a usage on the part of Luke far more readily than to believe him, after his own careful research, confused ‘* by a mix- ing up of times and matters” through gradually obscuring tradition. Enough has been gained by the admission of the presence of Quirinius in the East at the time of the birth of Christ to warn all candid investigators against too hasty a denial of Luke’s historical accuracy in this verse. The evidence in regard to the whole matter is not abundant enough, as yet, to prove a negative. Of the two solutions indicated above, that of Zumpt still seems to be the more satisfactory, even admitting, as we must, that the earlier governorship of Quirinius could not have begun until shortly after the death of Herod, and hence after the birth of Christ. XXII. Ver. 5. τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ. ἡ I i i ¢ Ἷ 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 Davidic 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, κιτ.λ. The genitive must be accepted, if textual criticism has any validity. Meyer's view of the passage is, in the main, accepted by those who reject the received reading ; comp. R, V. text. It is probable, however, that more emphasis should NOTES. 289 be laid upon the thought of God’s good pleasure as the ground of peace. The angels would not be perplexed with the dogmatic difficulty of reconciling this with the free agency of the ‘‘men of His good pleasure.’’ The popular view of the passage is even farther from the angelic utterance than the incorrect read- ing and worse rendering of the A. V. XXVI. Vv. 8-20. The Angelic Appearance to the Shepherds. It is difficult to understand how Meyer could have written both parts of his “remark” on this topic. Weiss ed. Mey. either cancels or alters all but the first sentence of the entire passage. He denies that the story of Luke is in- consistent with “‘the subsequent want of knowledge,’’ etc., and asserts that nothing is said here of the divine glory of Jesus, which, as contrasted with His lowliness, Meyer holds to be ‘‘ the great truth.’’ In other words, he denies the validity of Meyer’s objection to the historical character of this part of the nar- rative. This is not the place to discuss the question fully ; but when a history is said to find its truth ‘in the sphere of the idea, not in that of historical reality,’’ although narrated by the historian as a 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 bis 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, XXVII. Ver. 27. τοὺς γονεῖς. Meyer’s remark on this word presses into service an etymological notion which had disappeared fromthe common word, His inference is properly rejected by Weiss ed. Mey. XXVIII. Ver. 34. εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀνάστασιν k.7.A. The reference to two classes is preferred in A. R. V., ‘‘the falling and the rising up of many.” The A. V. seems to refer to one class, and the R. V. (Eng. com.) is ambiguous. XXIX. Ver. 39. 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 a 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 conalive imperfect. XXXI. Ver. 49. οὐκ ἤδειτε x.7.A. Weiss ed. Mey. properly finds in οὐκ ἤδειτε 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. 111.. - ae 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 Ὁ Τῷ A 8, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Eus. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. ; taken from Matt. iii. 3. — Ver. 5. εὐθεῖαν] Β 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 Ο L and versions.]— Ver. 14. The arrangement τί ποιήσωμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted, following B C* Τὶ δὲ, 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 rov7jo.). — 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 k. συναγαγεῖν, on too weak attestation. [Recent editors, R. V., agree with Tisch., following 8* B.]— Ver. 19. After γυναικός, Elz. has Φιλίππου, in opposi- tion to decisive evidence. — Ver. 22. λέγουσαν] is wanting in B D Τῷ 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.— ove... ηὐδόκησα] D, Cant. Ver. Verc. Colb, Corb.* Rd. Clem. Method. Hilar. ap., also codd. in Au- gustine, have υἱός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. An old (Justin, 6. 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 ᾿Ιησοῦς). [The order of Tisch. is attested by δὲ BL, 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 ᾿Αρνεΐ, following BL XT δὲ, Copt. Syre. 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 ; sO, 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. Sce Suetonius, Ocfav. 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 782.8 [See Note XXXIII., p. 302.]— (2) When Pontius Pilate (see on Matt. xxvii. 2) was procurator of Judaea. He held office from the end of 778, or beginning of 779, until 789, in which year he was recalled after an administration of ten years ; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 2.— (3) When Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. Herod Antipas (see on Matt. ii. 22, xiv. 1); this crafty, unprincipled man of the world became tetrarch after the death of his father Herod the Great in 750, and remained so until his deposition in 792. —(4) When Philip his brother was tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis. This paternal prince (see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 45 1.) became prince in 750, and his reign lasted. till his death in 786 or 787, Joseph. Anftt. 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- racor. 1824), and as to the neighboring Trachonitis between the Antilibanus and the Arabian mountain ranges, see Winer, Realwért.— (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, 11. #. i. 10 ; Michaelis, Paulus,® Schneckenburger in the Stud. 1 Tacit. Ann. i.8; Sueton. Zid. 20 f.; Vel- 4See especially, Hug, Gutacht. I. p. 119 leius Paterculus, ii. 121. 2 Also Anti. 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 sue- cessor. * See also Anger, zr Chronologie d. Leh- ramtes Christi, I., Leipzig 1848; Ideler, Chrono. I. Ὁ. 418. Authentication from coins ; Sauley, Athen. frangais. 1855, p. 639 f. ff.; Ebrard, p. 180 ff.; Wieseler, p. 174 ff.; Schweizer in the J/eol. Jahrb. 1847, Ὁ. 1 ff. (who treats the chronology of Luke very unfairly) ; Wieseler in Herzog’s Ynecyki. 1. p. 64 ff.; Lichtenstein, p. 181 ff.; Bleek in loc. 5 In his Commentary. But in his Areget. Tlandb. he acquiesces in the text as it stands, and forces upon it, contrary to the letter, the meaning: when Philip the tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis was also tetrarch over Abilene of Lysanias, Thus, indeed, the CHAR AG a2. 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) Chaleis, between Lebanon and Antilibanus (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 4), Antony presented a great part of his possessions to Cleopatra (see Wiescler, p. 179), and she leased them to Her- od. Soon afterwards Zenodorus received the lease of the oixo¢g 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 Zyvoddpov passed over to Philip (Antt. xvii. 11. 4; Bell. Jud. ii. 6. 3). It is consequently not to be proved that no portion of the territory of that older Lysanias remained in his family. This is rather to be assumed,’ if it is supposed that Abilene also belonged to the principality of that elder Lysanias. But this supposition is itself deficient in proof, since Josephus designates the territory of the elder Lysanias as Chalcis (see above), and expressly distinguishes the kingdom of a later Ly- sanias, which Caligula (Antt. xviii. 6. 10) and Claudius bestowed on Agrip- 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 /ater Lysanias (Antt. xix. 5. 1), and since the kingdom of the elder Lysanias is nowhere designated a tetrarchy, although probably the territory of that younger one is so named,’ it must be assumed that Josephus, when he mentions "Af:Aav τὴν Λυσανίου (Antt. xix. 5.1), and speaks of a tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antt. xx. 7.1; comp. Bell. ii. 11. 5, ii. 12. 18), still designates the region in question after that older Lysanias ; but that before 790, when Caligula became emperor, a tetrarchy of a later Lysanias existed to which Abila® belonged, doubtless as his residence, whereas it is quite another question whether this latter Lysanias was a descendant or a relation of that elder one (see Krebs, Odss. 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. τ. 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. Il. 8 177) found at Webi Abel (the ancient Abila), and in which Lysanias is mentioned as fefrarch. Comp. Béckh, Juser. 4521, 4523. 3 Τὸ was situated in the region of the Leb- anon, eighteen miles north from Damascus, and thirty eight miles south from Heliopo- lis, Ptolem. v, 18; Anton. Jdiner. ; Ritter, from Abilain Decapolis, and other places of this name (Joseph. v. 1. 1; Bell. ii. 13. 2, Ἵν. τ δ): 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, l.c. This last continued in office from about 770 till 788 or 789. But Annas retained withal very weighty in- fluence (John xviii. 12 ff.), so that not only did he, as did every one who had been apycepeic, 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, LZ. J. II. 1, p. 165, finds a touch of drony, 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., Ῥ. 302 seq.] Arbitrary shifts have been resorted to, such as: that at that period the two might have exchanged annually in the administration of the office ;’ that Annas was vicar (720, Lightfoot, p. 744 f.) of the high priest (so Scaliger, Casaubon, Grotius, Lightfoot, Reland, Wolf, Kuinoel, and others, comp. de Wette), which, however, is shown to be erroneous by his name be- ing placed first ; that he is here represented as princeps Synedrii (δ᾽), 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 Kaidga stands alongside. If Luke had intended to say : ‘‘ under the president Annas and the high priest Caiaphas,” he could not have comprehended these distinct offices, as they were at that time actually distinguished (which Selden has abundantly proved), under the one term ἀρχιερέως. [See Note XXXIV., Ῥ. 302 seq.] Even in xxii. 54, apyep. is to be understood of Annas. — ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ x.7.4.] Comp. Jer. i. 2; Isa. xxxviii. 4f. From this, as from the following καὶ ἦλθεν «.7.2., 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, 3 Sanclemente and many of the Fathers, Friedlieb, Archdol. d. Leidensgesch. p. 73 ff. who, following Luke iv. 19, comp. Isa. Lxi. 2 So Selden, Saubert, Hammond, and re- 1 ff., erroneously ascribe to Jesus only one cently Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, Ὁ. 186 fé., year of His official ministry. and in Herzog’s πον. I. Ὁ. 354. CHAP, 111., 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 τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Mark i. 1). It was the epoch of the commencement of the work of Jesus Himself (comp. Acts i. 22, x. 37, 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. i. Ver. 3. 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. ] Vy. 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 XXXV., p. 803] ; he only gives it—-unless a Pauline pur- pose isto be attributed to his words (Holtzmann)—wmore 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 * 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.A. Καὶ ὄψεται x.7.2. ought to have guarded against: the taking the ex- pressions imperatively.4 — εἰς εὐθεῖαν] scil. ὁδόν. See Lobeck, Paralip. p. 368 ς Winer, p. 521 [E. T. 590 f.]. —ai τραχεῖαι] scil. ὁδοί, from what follows, the rough, uneven ways. — λείας] smooth. Comp. Xen. Mem. 111. 10. 1 : τὰ τραχέα καὶ τὰ λεῖα. -- τὸ σωτήρ. τ. Oecd] 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 universal destination of God’s salvation, see on Acts ii. 16. 1Seein 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 (eptepyca) 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 Schweighauser, 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. iii. 7-10. — ὄχλοις] Kuinoel erroneously says : “Ὁ Pharisaei et Sadducaei.” See rather on Matt. 111. 7.) ---- ἐκπορ.} 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 theugh 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. Vv. 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 11. 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. Sce Paulus, Hzeget. Handb. I. p, 353 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 7- 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.® 1The generalization proves nothing on behalf of Luke’s having been ignorant of our Matthew (Weiss), From such individ- ual instances an easy argument is drawn, but with great uncertainty, especially as 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. 3 See Rettig in the Stud. u. Arit. 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 isin 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. 11. 2. — αὐτός] apse, not a third, whose forerunner then he would only be. Ver. 16; 566. ὉΠ Matty 11: ΤΠ: Marke 1. ‘¢interrogare cupientibus,” ‘‘to those desiring to ask,” Bengel. —épyerac| placed first for emphasis. — οὗ. . . αὐτοῦ] Comp. Mark i. 7, vil. 25 ; Winer, p. 134 [E. T. 148 f.]. — αὐτός] he and no other. Ver. 17. See on Matt. 111. 12. Vv. 18-20. See on Matt. xiv. 3 ff. ; Mark vi. 17 ff. On μὲν οὖν, 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. p. 662 f. — καὶ ἕτερα] 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 x«.7.A.] an historical digression in which several details are brought together in brief compass for the purpose of at once completing the delineation of John in its chief features. To that description also belonged the contrast between his work (εὐηγγελίζ. τ. λαόν) and his destiny. The brief intimation of vv. 19, 20 was sufficient for this. — ἐλεγχόμενος x.t.A.| See Matt. xiv. ὃ f.— καὶ περὶ πάντων k.T.A.] peculiar to Luke, but, as we gather from Mark vi. 20, essentially historical. The πονηρῶν, attracted with it, stands thus according to classical usage.*—ézi πᾶσι] to all his wicked deeds. — καὶ κατέκλεισε] simplicity in the style is maintained at the expense of the syntax (Ktihner, ὃ 720). — ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ] in the prison, whither he had brought him.* Vv. 21, 22. See on Matt. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11. —éyévero δὲ «.7.1.] 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 (κα) was baptized and was praying, i arexpiv. | p. 775 ff.; Becker, Char. I. p. 289 ff. Πονηρὸν, πονηρὸν ὃ συκοφάντης ἀεὶ Kat βάσκανον, Dem. 807. 23; Herbst, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 80, 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. Ὁ. 177, 849. 4 Comp. Acts xxvi. 10; Herodian, v. 8. 12, and elsewhere ; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 4. 10. 6 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. 80; in general, Buttmann, Neut. Gr. Ὁ. 226 f. [H. 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 XXXVL., p. 303.] The characteristic detail, καὶ tpocevy., is peculiar to Luke.— σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡσεὶ mepiot. | so that He appeared as a bodily dove. See, moreover, on Matthew. Ver. 23. Αὐτός] as Matt. 11, 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; Actsi. 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 εἷναι ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, OY 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: ineipio jam esse tricenarius. But even if jv... ὧν be conjoined in Greek usage (see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 13, 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 εἴχεν, οὐκ ἣν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, ‘Sas it seemed to the Jews ; for the truth lay, He was not his son,” Euthymius Zigabenus), is a parenthesis. Paulus, who con- nects ὧν with apyéu., explains : according to custom (Jesus did not begin His ministry sooner). Comp. on Acts xvi. 13. It is true the connecting of the two participles ἀρχόμενος ὧν would not in itself be ungrammatical (see Pflugk, ad Hee. 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 ‘HAL: evistens (cum putaretur filius Josephi) jilius, i.e., nepos Eli. So also 1 50. 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. 2 So 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. p. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten- Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, and others. 3 Comp. further, on ὡς ἐνομίζ,, Dem. 1022. 16 : οἱ νομιζόμενοι μὲν υἱεῖς, μὴ ὄντες δὲ γένει ἐξ αὐτῶν, and the passages in Wetstein. CHAP, απ. 99: 299 Schleyer in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 540 ff. Even Wiescler (in the Stud. τι. 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 vide (B L 8), and on weaker evidence reads before Ἰωσήφ the τοῦ which is now again deleted even by Tischendorf. [See Note XXXVIII., p. 303.] But as, in respect of the received arrangement of ὡς évou., 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 ᾿τωσήφ, 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 Jesws 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: ὧν, ὡς μὲν ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς ᾿Τωσὴφ, ὄντως (Xxiil. 47, xxiv. 34) δὲ Μαρίας τοῦ "HAi «.7.2. 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. RemarxK.—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, 28. Hase, Z.J. § 26, follows it, setting aside, because of its myth- ical associations, the account of Matthew, that the first childhood of Jesus occurred as early as the time of the reign of Herod the Great. But these legend- ary ingredients do not justify our rejecting a date fixed by a simple reference to the history of the time, for it is rather to be regarded as the nucleus around which the legend gathered. As, however, Herod died in 750 (Anger, fat. tem- por. p. 5 £.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 50 ff.), the era of Dionysius is at any rate at least about four yearsin error. If, further, it be necessary, according to this, to place the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod, which occurred in the beginning of April, then, even on the assumption that He was born as early as 750 (according to Wieseler, in February of that year), it follows that at the 1 This indifferent tod came into the text after the other by τοῦ are found in Herod. with extreme facility, in accordance with iv. 157, vii. 204, viii. 1381, and others in Wet- the analogy of all the following clauses. stein. The Vidgate is right in simply read- 2Instances of a quite similar kind of ing, ‘‘filius Joseph. qui fuit Heli, qui fuit stringing on the links of a genealogy one Matthat,”’ ete. 900 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. time when the Baptist, who was His senior only by a few months, appeared — according to iii. 1, in the year from the 19th August 781 to 782—He would be about thirty-one years of age, which perfectly agrees with the 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 apy7commenced. 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 Σαλαϑιήλ)] 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 ὦ 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. τι. Exfill. 11. p. 87) that Salathiel adopted Zerubbabel. But the less reliance can be placed on such arbitrary devices in proportion as historical warranty as to details is wanting in both the divergent genealogies, although they both profess to give a genealogy of Joseph. The attempt to reconcile the two must be given up. [See Note XL., p. 304.] It is otherwise in respect of the names Amos and Nahum, ver. 25, which cannot be identified with the well-known prophets, and in respect of the names Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, vv. 29, 80, 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 Kaivév] In Gen. x. 24, xi. 12 ; 1Chron. i. 94. Shalach (NIV) is named as the son of Arphaxad. But the genealogy follows the LXX. in Gen. (as above) ; and certainly the name of Kenan also originally stood in Genesis, although the author of 1 Chronicles may not have read it in his copy of Genesis, See Bertheau on 1 Chron, p. 6. [On ver. 38, see Note XLI., p. 304. ] 57, which had already occurred in the case of Irenaeus. See, on the other hand, Résch 1 Not “at least two years, probably even Jour or more years,” Keim, D. geschichil. Christus, p. 140. 2¥From the fact that, according to the evangelists, Jesus after His baptism began His public official ministry without the in- tervention of any private teaching, the opinion of the younger Bunsen (7he Hidden Wisdom of Christ, etc., London 1865, IT. 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. 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 Rosch has not adduced sufficient reasons. CHAP, III. 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, as in Matthew, at the beginning of the Gospel. Comp, Késtlin, p. 306.—In its contents the genealogy is extremely different from that in Matthew, since from Joseph to David, Luke has far more and almost throughout different links in the genealogy ; since Matthew gives the line of Solomon, while Luke gives that of Nathan (2 Sam. νυ. 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 f.—Hence the conclu- sion must be maintained, that Luke also gives the genealogy of Joseph. But if this be so, how are we to reconcile the genealogy with that given in Matthew? It has been supposed that Joseph was adopted (Augustine, de consens. evangel. 11. 3; Wetstein, Schegg), or more usually, that he sprang from a levirate marriage (Julius Africanus in Eusebius, H. 2. 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 inferred by Delitzschon Hebr. p. 290, who suggests that after the premature death of his father Jacob, Joseph was adopted, namely, by this Eli as his foster son, and brought up along with Mary; that thus, therefore, Eli was Joseph’s foster father, but Mary’s actual father. What groundless de- vices! And yet the passage itself is “as simple as possible until we want to force it to say what it does not say,’ Hofmann, Schrifibew, 11. 1, p. 112. 302 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. In addition to this, the obligation to the levirate marriage for the half-brother is not authenticated, and the importing of the natural father into the legal gene- alogy was illegal; finally, we may make the general remark, that neither Matthew nor Luke adds any observation at all in citing the name of Joseph’s father, to call attention to any other than the ordinary physical paternal rela- tionship. No; the reconciliation of the two genealogical registers, although they both refer to Joseph, is impossible ; but it is very natural and intelli- gible that, as is usual in the case of great men, whose descent in its individual steps is obscure, no anxiety wasfelt to investigate his ancestry until long after the death of Jesus—until the living presence of his great manifestation and ministry nolonger threw into the shade this matter of subordinate interest. [See Note XLIL., 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, J. 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 jirst presented itself, was aban- doned in the interest of rectification (according to Késtlin, indeed, in the Ebionilic 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 toit. See already Basil. M. 111. p. 399 C. Norrs py Amertcan Enprror. XXXII. 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, Beilrage, VIII., p. 193. So Weiss ed. Mey., Godet, and many others. This would give as the “ fifteenth year’’ from Jan, 1, 779, to Jan. 1, 780, a period which accords with the other chronological indications. (See Note XXXIX., p. 303 seq.) XXXIV. Ver. 2. ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως "Avva x.7.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 Davidie 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, Zeilyeschichte, p. 411 ff., against Meyer’s view that there was ‘‘a president of the Sanhedrim.” XXXV. Ver. 3. περίχωρον K.T.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. dravta 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 ἐν points to this sense, and the aorist βαπτισθῆναι is used because the writer conceives of John’s labors as a whole. XXXVII. 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. It favors the view which makes what follows a genealogy of Mary. Weiss ed. Mey. throughout opposes the theory of Meyer in regard to the genealogy. He omits the stric- tures upon Wieseler’s interpretation, and says: ‘‘It cannot be denied that, through the critically-attested absence of the article before ᾿Τωσήφ, 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 vidc, 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, ete. For it is self-evident that Jesus, who was only reputed a son of Joseph, could be ason of Heli only through His mother, whose ancestors were all these further-named men, that are then at the same time all His ancestors.” (See further below, Note XLII.) XXXIX. Ver. 23. The Year. The chronological question is much simplified by reckoning ‘the fifteenth year” (ver. 1) from the beginning of the joint reign of Tiberius, as Weiss ed. Mey. remarks. If we reckon from the sole reign, the first passover of our Lord’s 304 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ministry would fall in 782; on the Tripaschal theory, this would make the year of His death 784 ; on the Quadripaschal, it would be 785. Both dates are too late, according to the ‘testimony of Tertullian. Moreover, since the date of Christ’s birth must be placed before the death of Herod, Meyer's date (Aug. 19, 781-2) would make the beginning of the ministry when our Lord was nearly, if not fully, thirty-two years of age, since allowance must be made for the preceding ministry of the Baptist, and also for the interval between the Nativity and the death of Herod. The term 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 geneaiogical 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 Addu, τοῦ θεοῦ. Weiss ed. Mey. remarks upon this: ‘It cannot possibly indicate that Adam was the son of God as Seth was the son of Adam. For even if it were pos- sible to regard the creation of Adam by God in the biblical sense as a begetting by Him, the mention of this circumstance would be here entirely superfluous, or it would present the ‘Divine Sonship of Jesus as mediated through Adam (and all his posterity),’ which certainly cannot be the design of Luke. ‘This exeget- ical impossibility is avoided only by accepting the genitives as co-ordinate, and allowing Jesus to be described both as the son of His human ancestors (on the side of Mary) and as the son of God, which in this connection indeed can be understood only of His being physically begotten by the miraculous power of God (comp. i. 35). Thus the conclusion of the genealogy confirms the result reached in regard to ver. 23.” XLII. The Two Genealogies. Meyer's explanation of the difference between the two genealogies is rendered unnecessary by the view, so strongly advocated by Weiss, that on exegetical grounds that of Luke must be regarded as containing the ancestry of Mary. Moreover, this explanation is in itself improbable, since obscurity of lineage was uncommon among the Jews. Chaps. i. 27, ii. 4 imply that the genealogy of Joseph was well known. It follows that all the artificial attempts at recon- ciliation cited by Meyer from Julius Africanus to Schleiermacher are also un- necessary. ‘‘ But the exegetical result remains untouched by these futile at- tempts... . . Luke presupposes the Davidic descent of Mary (against Meyer), as also Justin (Dial. § 100) and other Fathers do, and the Talmud (7. Chagig. 77, 4) calls her a daughter of Heli. To this may be added that our genealogy is derived from the same source as the preliminary history” (Weiss ed. Mey.). This last consideration, in view of the probability that this source was origi- nally connected with the family circle of Mary, is of much weight. That Luke confused the genealogy of Mary with that of Joseph, is as unlikely in itself as it is contrary to the results of exegesis. 'The inconsequence of his introducing ἃ genealogy of Joseph, knowing it to be such, has already been sufficiently indi- cated. CHAP. IV. 305 CHAPTER, TY: 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 Recepta is a mechanical alteration in accordance with the parallels. — Ver. 2. Before ἐπείνασε Elz. Scholz have ὕστερον, in opposition to B D L 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 eizev. — 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 Β D L δὲ, 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 in)., which nevertheless is found in Ὁ, but with the addition of λίαν. Lachm. has bracketed εἰς ὄρος inp. Tisch. has rightly deleted it. The expression ἀναγ. by itself seemed to be in need of the more exact definition, and soit 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 pov σατανᾶ" yéypa- ma yap. So also has Scholz, but without γάρ; Lachm. has dz. ὁπ. μ. σ. in brackets, and has deleted yap. Against dz. or. μ. o. are BDL = δὲ, min. and most of the vss. Or. Vigil. Ambr. Bede ; against γάρ 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 vidc 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 Ναζαρά is attested by weighty authorities only here (SB =) and Matt. iv. 13.-— Recent editors, R. V., with A B A, ete., read τεθραμμένος (Rec.), for which Tisch, substitutes ἀνατεθρ., with 8 L, 33, 69.] — Ver. 17. ἀναπτύξας] ABL Ξ 33, Syr. Copt. Jer. have ἀνοίξας. So Lachm. [Treg., W. and Hort, R. V.]; but itis an interpretation of the word ἀναπτ., which occurs in the New Testament only in this place. — Ver. 18. The form εἵνεκεν (Elz. ἕνεκεν) 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 BDL ®&, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. It. Sax. Or. and many Fathers. An addition from the LXX. — Ver. 23. Instead of εἰς Kaz. (Tisch. following B [and 8]: εἰς τὴν Kar.) Elz. Scholz have ἐν τῇ Kaz., in opposition to Β Ὁ L &, min. Marcion, the reading in these authorities being εἰς. An amendment. Comp. the following ἐν τῇ warp. o. — Ver. 25, ἐπὶ ἔτη] BD, 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 DLXT δὰ, 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 Σιδωνίας. ---- Ver. 29. Before ὀφρύος 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 DL δὲ, min. Marcion, Or. An interpretation. —{Ver. 33, λεγών is probably from Mark ; omitted by Tisch., W. and Hort, Weiss, R. V., with 8 B L.] —Ver. 35. ἐξ] BD LV =, min. Vulg. It. Or. have az’. Approved by Griesb. and Schulz. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; Luke always expresses himself thus. See immediately aftérwards the expres- sion ἐξῆλθεν ax’ αὐτοῦ, Which is in correspondence with Christ’s command. [Tisch., recent editors, Τὰ. V., with δὲ ABCL, and most, read τὸ μέσον. ] --- Ver. 38. ἐκ] BC DLQ δὲ, min. Or. Cant. have ἀπό. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; ἐκ is from Mark 1. 29. — The article before πενθερά (in Elz.) has decisive evidence against it. — Ver. 40. ἐπιθείς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπιτιθείς, following B Ὁ Q =, 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. xpdfov7a] Lachm. Tisch. have kpav- yatovra, following ADEGHQUVTI Δ, min. Or. Rightly ; the more current word was inserted. [Treg. text, W. and Hort, R. V., have κράζοντα.] After od εἰ Elz. Scholz have ὁ 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 ; éxiisin BL δὲ, min., and ἀπεστάλην in BD LX 8, min. . Both the εἰς and the perfect form are taken from Mark i. 38, Elz.—[Ver. 44. Tisch. Treg. W. and Hort, Τὰ. V., with δὲ Β D, read εἰς τ. cvvaywydac. —Instead of Ταλιλαίας (Rec. Tisch. Treg. text, W. and Hort marg., KR. V. text, following A Ὁ and most, Vulg.) the reading ᾿Ιουδαίας is found in δὲ BCL, Copt. It is the more difficult, hence probably altered ; accepted by Treg. marg., W. and Hort. text, Weiss, R. VY. marg. ] Vv. 1-18. See on Matt. iv. 1-11. Comp. Mark i. 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- tations (see on Matt. iv. 5, Rem.), and the 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- omission of the angels’ ministry, would be incomprehensible (which Hilgenfeld there- fore declares to be a pure invention), as, moreover, the ἄχρι καιροῦ (ver. 18) peculiar to Luke points to another source. Ee 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 11. 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 amore 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 yp. |] in @ 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. . ov (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 671: and that. Comp. vii. 16. [See Note XLIII., p. 815.] Otherwise in Matt. iv. 6. -- μήποτε] ne unquam, ‘“lest at any time,” not necessarily to be written separately (Bornemann).*— Ver. 18. πάντα πείρασμ.]} every temptation, so that he had no further temptation in readiness. ‘‘ Omnia tela consumsit,” ‘‘ He exhausted all his darts,” Bengel. —dypt καιροῦ] until a fitting season, when he would appear anew against Him to tempt Him. It isto 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 xiv. 80. 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. 808 f. Whether, moreover, the characteristic ad- dition ἄχρι καιροῦ is a remnant of the primitive form of this narrative (Ewald) or is appended from Jdater 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. 48), but must have been a feature of the source used by him, and hence the ἄχρε καιροῦ must also have already formed part of it. aeUODe withstanding their varied local situation upon the whole earth. Bengel says appro- 10On 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, @. Versuch. d. Herrn, Wetzlar 1857> p. 109 ff. The author himself, regarding the temptation as an actual external his- tory, avails himself of the analogy of the Jatum 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 /asted 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- priately, “ acuta tentatio,” ‘‘an acute temp- tation.” 3.566 rather Ellendt, Zex. Soph. ΤΙ. 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 v. 15-18 ff. ; there would therefore be a longer interval between vv. 18, 14. But a comparison of ver. 14 with ver. 1 shows that this interval is introduced in the harmonistic interest; moreover, Hofmann’s reference to tho agony in Gethsemane (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 817) is introduced, since not this, but probably - 908 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 τ. δυνάμ. rod rv.] invested with the power of the Holy Spirit : ‘‘ post victoriam corroboratus,” ‘‘ strengthened after victory,” Bengel. — καὶ φήμη x.t.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 x.7.2.] 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 vv. 14, 15. According to Ewald (comp. also his Gesch. Chr. p. 345), who, moreover, rightly distinguishes the pres- ent from the subsequent appearance at Nazareth, there are incorporated together in Luke two distinct narratives about the discourses of Jesus in Nazareth. But with reference to the mention of Capernaum at ver. 23, see above ; the connection, however, between vv. 22 and 23 is sufficiently effected by οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς ᾿Τωσήφ. 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 Kapapv. 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 ἣν τεθραμμ.] an observation inserted to account for the circumstances mentioned in vy. 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 1Comp. Bengel and Lange, Z. J. 11. 2, (John xiii. 2, 27), appears as the work of the p. 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. 7609. ---- 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 (ἀναπτ., 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 fuljilment of this announce- ment, i.e., the realization of their theocratic idea, came to pass in Christ and His ministry.? — οὗ εἵνεκεν] in the original text 1} : because, and to this corresponds οὗ civexev : propterea quod, because, as οὕνεκεν 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 εἴνεκεν introduce the protasis of a sentence whose apodosis is left out (Hofmann, Weissag. wu. Hrf. 11. p. 96).*— ἔχρισε] 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 αἐχμαλώτ., 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- relat) to accomplish. Moreover, the LXX. varies considerably from the 1The arrangement of the present Haph- tharas was not yet settled at the time of Jesus. See Zunz, Gottesd. Vorirdge d. Juden, p. 6. 2 Comp. Schleiermacher, Z. 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, 11. § 68. 19. 1 f. 4 Observe the difference of lense, ἔχρισε... ἀπέσταλκε : He anointed me, He hath sent me (and Lam here !) ; also the lively asyndeton in the two verbs (ἀπέστ. without καί), a well as also in the three infinitives. 510 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 τεῆραυσμ. ἐν ἀφέσει, Which words are from Isa. lvili. 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, 7.e., a wel- come, blessed year belonging ta Jehovah, whereby is to be understood in the typical reference of the passage the Messianic period of blessing, while in the historical sense ee blessed future of the theocracy after the exile is de- noted by the words min PSNI, 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 pe, whose purpose they specify. — ἐν ἀφέσει] a well-known constructio preg- nans: so that they are now in the condition of deliverance (Polybius, i. 79. 12, xxii. 9. 17), comp. τ 39. Vv. 20, 21. Τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ] [INT, 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, Ὁ. 337). —pgaro| 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., place. But the Gospel of John stands de- has very recently arrived at this conclusion cidedly opposed to the one-year duration of in view of Origen’s statement, de princip. Christ’s official teaching. See, besides, the ἦγ. δ: “ἃ year and a few months,” and that discussions on the subject in Weizsiicker, too on the ground of the calculation of the p. 306. ff. Baptist’s death, according to the accountof 2 Comp. i. 44, ix. 44; Acts xi. 22; Jas. v. Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5, concerning the war 4; Ecclus. xxv. 9; 1 Mace. x.7; Bar.i3f.; of Antipas against Aretas. The testing of LXX.-Isa. v. 9. this combination does not belong to this 2 Comp. Beyschlag, Christ. ἃ. N. 7. Ὁ. 36 f. CHAP. IV., 22-24. 9511 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]. —6 υἱὸς ᾿Τωσήφ] If Luke had intended to anticipate the later history of Matt. xiii. and Mark vi., for what purpose would he have omitted the brothers and sisters ? Vv. 28, 24. Whether what follows, as far as ver. 27, is taken from the Logia (Ewald), or from some other written source (Késtlin), or from oral tradition (Holtzmann), cannot be determined. But the Logia offers itself most obviously as the source. [See Note XLVL., p. 315. | — πάντως] certainly ; a certainty that this would be the case. See on 1 Cor. ix. 10. —larpé x.7.A.] a figurative proverb (παραβολή, bwin) 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 ἰατρέ can only be one person. More- over, the parabolic word concerning the physician is retained only in Luke, whom it might specially interest. —eic Kagapvaotiu] (the name is to be writ- ten thus in Luke also, with Lachmann and Tischendorf) indicates the direc- tion of yevoueva, 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, xxxvil. 21. quently in the Acts, Rom. x. 2, Gal. iv. 15, 3 Bornemann, Schol. p. 24; Fritzsche, «@ and elsewhere. Mare. p. 22. 2 Comp. on Col. iv. 6; Hom. Qd. 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. 80—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. —ézi éry τρία x. μῆνας ξξ] 80. also Jas. v. 17. But according to 1 Kings xvii. 1, xviii. 1, the rain returned in the third year. Jesus, as also James (see Huther in loc.), follows, according to Luke, the Jewish tradition (Jalkut Schimoni on 1 Kings xvi. in Suwrenhu- sius, καταλλ. Ὁ. 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, 111. 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. — ei 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. “Ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους] up to the lofty brink (supereilium) of the hill.’ This situation of Nazareth upon a hill (ἐφ᾽ ov), i.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. 423 ; Ritter, Hrdk. XVI. p. 744. — ὥστε] of what, as they figured to themselves the result was to be, See on Matt, xxiy. 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- jection of Christ by His whole people” (Weiss inthe Stud. u. Kit. 1861, p. 697), cannot be decided at all, as he gives no hint on the subject. 1 See Duncan, Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 877, and Wetstein. 2The place which is pointed out by tra- dition as the spot in question is at too great a distance from the town. See Robinson, Z.c., and Korte, Zeisen, Ὁ. 215 ff. CHAP. Iv., 30-387. 313 comp. Luke ix. 52, xx. 20. — κατακρημν.} 2 Chron. xxv. 12 ; Dem. 446. 11 ; Josephus, Antt. ix. 9. 1. Ver. 80. 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, Z. J. IL. p. 548: ‘‘an effect of His personal majesty ;” and Ill. p. 376: “ἃ mysterious something in His nature.” Comp. Bleek.