DUKE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 
 

 

 
Che International Critical Commentary 
 on the §olv Scriptures of the Old and 
 
 New Testaments. 
 
 EDITORS PREFACE. 
 
 
 
 THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
 written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
 homiletical character. Zhe Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
 the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
 Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
 The Expositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
 speciai place and importance. But they do not enter into 
 the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
 series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
 Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette’s Kurzgefasstes exegetisches 
 Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
 mentar; Keil and Delitzsch’s Brblischer Commentar tiber das 
 A.T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiietisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s 
 Handkommentar zum A. T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar 
 zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
 and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
 speaking public; others are in process of translation. But 
 no corresponding series. by British or American divines 
 has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
 by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
 Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has 
 come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
 when it is practicable to combine British and American 
 scholars in the production ef a critical, comprehensive 
 
EDITORS PREFACE 
 
 Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- 
 ship, and in a measure lead its van. 
 
 Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
 T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
 series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
 under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Brices, D.D., in America, 
 and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
 the Rev. ALFRED PLumMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, 
 in Great Britain. 
 
 The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
 fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
 bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
 (he original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
 interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
 vlergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
 book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
 of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
 still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
 in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
 section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
 or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
 philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
 matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- 
 ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
 possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
 with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books 
 will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
 with critical notices of the most important literature of 
 the subject. Historical and Archeological questions, as 
 well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
 plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
 Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series, 
 
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. 
 
 Tue following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the Volumes 
 
 named below: 
 
 Genesis 
 
 Exodus 
 Leviticus 
 Numbers 
 Deuteronomy 
 Joshua 
 Judges 
 Samuel 
 
 Kings 
 
 Chronicles 
 
 Ezra and 
 Nehemiah 
 Psalms 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 Job 
 Isaiah 
 Isaiah 
 
 Jeremiah 
 
 Ezekiel 
 
 Daniel 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The Rev. JoHN SK1nnER, D.D., Professor of Old Tes- 
 tament Language and Literature, College of Pres- 
 byterian Church of England, Cambridge, England. 
 
 The Rev. A. R. S. KenneEpDy, D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 
 
 J. F. Srennine, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, 
 Oxford. 
 
 G. BUCHANAN GrRAy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
 Mansfield College, Oxford. [Vow Ready, 
 
 The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- 
 fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready. 
 
 The Rev. GEorGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
 fessor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. 
 The Rev. Georce Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
 Theology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
 [Mow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. H. P. Smiru, D.D., Professor of Biblical 
 History, Amherst College, Mass. [Vow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., 
 Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 
 Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 
 
 The Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of 
 St. Marks Church, New York City, sometime 
 Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 The Rev. Cuas. A. Brices, D.D., D.Litt., Pro- 
 fessor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological 
 Seminary, New York. 
 
 The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 [Now Ready. 
 
 The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
 
 Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
 
 Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., 
 D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
 Chaps. XL-LXVI. The late Rev. Prof. A. B. 
 
 Davipson, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 The Rev. A. F. Kirxpatrick, D.D., Master of 
 Selwyn College, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 
 Cambridge, England. 
 
 By the Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Fellow Mag- 
 dalen College, and the Rev. CHARLEs F. BURNEY, 
 M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. Johns 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 The Rev. Joun P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime 
 Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
 Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, 
 New York City. 
 
 Amos and Hosea W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the 
 
 University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready. 
 
 Micah to Malachi W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the 
 
 Esther 
 
 University of Chicago. 
 
 The Rev. L. B. PATon, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
 Hartford Theological Seminary. 
 
The Internationa Critica? Commentary, 
 
 Ecclesiastes 
 
 Ruth 
 
 Song of Songs 
 
 and Lamentations 
 
 St. Matthew 
 € 
 
 St. Mark 
 
 St. Luke 
 
 St. John 
 
 Harmony of the 
 Gospels 
 
 Acts 
 
 Romans 
 
 Corinthians 
 
 Galatians 
 
 Ephesians and 
 Colossians 
 
 Philippians and 
 Philemon 
 
 Thessalonians 
 
 The Pastoral 
 Epistles 
 Hebrews 
 
 St. James 
 
 Peter and Jude 
 
 The Epistles of 
 St. John 
 
 Revelation 
 
 Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of 
 Biblical Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. 
 
 Rev. CHARLES P. FAGNANI, D.D., Associate Profes- 
 sor of Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, 
 New York. 
 
 Rev. CHARLES A. Brices, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of 
 Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 
 New York. 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 The Rev. WILLoucHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
 Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 The late Rev. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime 
 Professor of New Testament Literature, P. E. 
 Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Wow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master 
 of University College, Durham. [Vow Ready. 
 
 The Very Rev. JoHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean 
 of St. Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, 
 University of Dublin. 
 
 The Rev. WiLL1AM SanpDAy, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
 Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the 
 Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
 Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 The Rev. FREDERICK H. CHASE, Norissonian Pro- 
 fessor of Divinity, President of Queens College 
 and Vice-Chancellor, Cambridge, England. 
 
 The Rev. WiLL1AM SanpaAy, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
 Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of 
 Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. 
 HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings College, 
 London. [Vow Ready. 
 
 The Right Rev. ArcH. RoBERTsoN, D.D., LL.D., 
 Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the Rev. RICHARD J. 
 KNow Linc, D.D., Professor of New Testament 
 Exegesis, Kings College, London. 
 
 The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of 
 New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 
 
 The Rev. T. K. Assott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime 
 Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, 
 Dublin, now Librarian of the same. [Mow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. Marvin R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor ot 
 Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, 
 New York City. [Now Ready. 
 
 The Rev. JAMes E. FRAME, M.A., Associate Profes- 
 sor in the New Testament, Union Theological 
 Seminary, New York. 
 
 The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble 
 College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 
 
 The Rev. A. NArIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew 
 in Kings College, London. 
 
 The Rev. JAmes H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of 
 New Testament Criticism in Harvard University. 
 
 The Rev. CHARLES Bice, D.D., Regius Professor 
 of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ 
 Church, Oxford. [Wow Ready. 
 
 The Rev. S. D. F. SALMonpD, D.D., Principal of the 
 United Free Church College, Aberdeen. 
 
 The Rev. Ropert H. Cuar.es, M.A., D.D., Profes- 
 sor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublis: 
 
Tab COSEED ACCORDING TO 
 Sy LURE 
 
 Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 
 

 
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 A 
 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 
 
 MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM 
 
 FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 SEVENTH EDITION 
 
 NEW YORK 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
 
 1906 
 

 
PREFACE 
 
 Gz ee 
 
 THIs volume has no such ambitious aim as that of being a 
 final commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. 
 The day is probably still far distant when any such com- 
 mentary can be written. One of the difficulties with which 
 the present commentator has had to contend is the im- 
 possibility of keeping abreast of all that is constantly 
 appearing respecting the Synoptic Gospels as a whole and 
 this or that detail in them. And the Third Gospel abounds 
 in details which have elicited special treatment at the hands 
 of a variety of scholars. Every quarter, indeed almost every 
 month, brings its list of new books, some of which the 
 writer wishes that he could have seen before his own words 
 were printed. But to wait is but to prolong, if not to 
 increase, one’s difficulties: it is waiting dum defluat amnis. 
 Notes written and rewritten three or four times must be 
 fixed in some form at last, if they are ever to be published. 
 And these notes are now offered to those who care to use 
 them, not as the last word on any one subject, but simply 
 as one more stage in the long process of eliciting from the 
 inexhaustible storehouse of the Gospel narrative some of 
 those things which it is intended to convey to us. They 
 will have done their work if they help someone who is far 
 better equipped entirely to supersede them. 
 
 The writer of this volume is well aware of some of 
 its shortcomings. There are omissions which have been 
 knowingly tolerated for one or other of two adequate 
 
 reasons. (1) This series is to include a Commentary on 
 
 472848 
 
iv PREFACE 
 
 the Synopsis of the Four Gospels by the Rev. Dr. Sanday, 
 Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and his dis- 
 tinguished pupil, the Rev. W. C. Allen, Fellow and Lecturer 
 of Exeter College. Various questions, especially as regards 
 the relations of the Third Gospel to the First and Second, 
 which have been but slightly touched or entirely passed 
 over in this volume, can be more suitably treated, and will 
 be much more efficiently treated, by those who are to com- 
 ment on the Synopsis. (2) Economy of space has had to 
 be considered and rigorously enforced. It has been 
 thought undesirable to allow more than one volume to 
 any one book in the New Testament: and therefore sub- 
 jects, which might with propriety be discussed at some 
 length in a work on the Gospel of S. Luke, have of 
 necessity been handled very briefly or left entirely un- 
 touched. Indeed, as editor of those New Testament 
 volumes which are written by British scholars, the present 
 writer has been obliged to strike out a good deal of what 
 he had written as contributor to this series. And it has 
 been with a view to economize space that the paraphrastic 
 summaries, which are so very valuable a feature in the 
 commentary on Romans, have been altogether omitted, as 
 being a luxury rather than a necessity in a commentary on 
 one of the Synoptic Gospels. For the same reason separate 
 headings to sections and to special notes have been used 
 very sparingly. The sub-sections have no separate head- 
 ings, but are preceded by an introductory paragraph, the 
 first sentence of which is equivalent to a heading. 
 
 The fact of the same person being both contributor 
 and editor has, in the case of this volume, produced short- 
 comings of another kind. Two heads are better than one, 
 and two pairs of eyes are better than one. Unintentional 
 and unnecessary omissions might have been avoided, and 
 questionable or erroneous statements might have been 
 amended, if the writer had had the advantage of another’s 
 supervision, Even in the humble but important work of 
 
PREFACE v 
 
 detecting misprints the gain of having a different reviser is 
 great. Only those who have had the experience know how 
 easy it is for the same eye to pass the same mistakes again 
 and again. 
 
 If this commentary has any special features, they will 
 perhaps be found in the illustrations taken from Jewish 
 writings, in the abundance of references to the Septuagint 
 and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in 
 the frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin Versions, 
 and in the attention which has been paid, both in the 
 Introduction and throughout the Notes, to the marks of S. 
 Luke’s style. 
 
 The illustrations from Jewish writings have been sup- 
 plied, not because the writer has made any special study 
 of them, but because it is becoming recognized that the 
 pseudepigraphical writings of the Jews and early Jewish 
 Christians are now among the most promising helps 
 towards understanding the New Testament; and because 
 these writings have of late years become much more 
 accessible than formerly, notably by the excellent editions 
 of the Book of Enoch by Mr. Charles, of the Psa/ms of 
 Solomon by Professor Ryle and Dr. James, and of the 
 Fourth Book of Ezra by the late Professor Bensly and Dr. 
 James.? 
 
 A very eminent scholar has said that the best com- 
 mentary on the New Testament is a good Concordance; 
 and another venerable scholar is reported to have said that 
 the best commentary on the New Testament is the Vulgate. 
 There is truth in both these sayings: and, with regard to 
 the second of them, if the Vulgate by itself is helpful, a2 
 fortiori the Vulgate side by side with the Latin Versions 
 which preceded it is likely to be helpful. An effort has 
 
 1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schiirer, Hast. of the 
 Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1886, Div. II. vol. iii. ; 
 W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, Edinburgh, 1891 ; J. Winter und A. Wiinsche, 
 Die jidische Literatur sett Abschiuss des Kanons, Trier: Part III. has just 
 
 appeared. 
 
 472848 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 been made to render those who use this commentary to a 
 large extent independent of a Concordance, and to some 
 extent independent of the invaluable edition of the Vulgate 
 now being produced by the Bishop of Salisbury and Mr. 
 White. Great trouble has been taken with the numerous 
 references to the Septuagint, the books of the New Testa- 
 ment, and other writings. The large majority of them 
 have been verified at least twice. But the difficulty of 
 excluding error in such things is so great that the writer 
 cannot suppose that he has succeeded in doing so. It is 
 possible that a few references have accidentally escaped 
 verification. A very few have been knowingly admitted 
 without it, because the reference seemed to be of value, 
 the source was trustworthy, and verification was not easy. | 
 Reasons are stated in the Introduction for regarding a 
 study of S. Luke’s style as a matter of great interest and 
 importance; and it is hoped that the analysis given of it 
 there will be found useful. A minute acquaintance with it 
 tells us something about the writer of the Third Gospel. 
 It proves to us that he is identical with the writer of the 
 Acts, and that the whole of both these books comes from 
 his hand. And it justifies us in accepting the unswerving 
 tradition of the first eight or nine centuries, that the writer 
 of these two books was Luke the beloved physician. 
 Dogma in the polemical sense is excluded from the plan 
 of these commentaries. It is not the business of the com- 
 mentator to advocate this or that belief. But dogma in the 
 historical sense must of necessity be conspicuous in a com- 
 mentary on any one of the Gospels. It is a primary duty 
 of a commentator to ascertain the convictions of the 
 writer whose statements he undertakes to explain. This 
 is specially true of the Third Gospel, whose author tells 
 us that he wrote for the very purpose of exhibiting the 
 historical basis of the Christian faith (i. 1-4). The 
 Evangelist assures Theophilus, and with him all other 
 Christians, that he knows, upon first-hand and carefully 
 
PREFACE vil 
 
 investigated evidence, that at a definite point in the history 
 of the world, not far removed from his own time, a Prophet 
 of God once more appeared in Israel to herald the coming 
 of the Christ (iii. 1-6), and that his appearance was im- 
 mediately followed by that of the Christ Himself (iii. 23, 
 iv. 14, 15), whose Ministry, Passion, Death, and Resur- 
 rection he then narrates in detail. On all these points 
 the student is again and again met by the question, What 
 does the Evangelist mean? And, although about this 
 or that word or sentence there may often be room for 
 discussion, about the meaning of the Gospel as a whole 
 there is no doubt. If we ask what were “the things 
 wherein” Theophilus “was instructed” and of “the 
 certainty ” concerning which he is assured, the answer is 
 not difficult. We may take the Old Roman Creed as a 
 convenient summary of it. 
 
 Muotevw eis Gcdv watépa mavroxpdtopa (i. 37, iii. 8, xi. 2—4, 
 xii, 32, etc.). Kat eis Xprotév “Inoniy, uidv adtod tdv povoyerh 
 (i. 31, fi. 21, 49, ix. 35, X. 21, 22, xxii, 29, 70, xxiii. [33] 46: 
 comp. iv. 41, Vili. 28), Tov KUpioy tpov (i. 43, ii. 11, Vii. 13, xX. 1, 
 xi. 39, xii. 42, xvii 5, 6, xix. 8, 31, xxii, 61, xxiv. 3, 34) Tov 
 yevrnPévra éx mvedpatos dyiou Kal Mapias tis mapOdvou (i.31-35, 43, 
 ii, 6, 7), tev éwt Movtiou Mudtou oraupobévra Kai tapévta (xxii, 
 Xxili.), TH tpity hepa dvactdvra éx vexpav (xxiv. 1-49), dvaBdvra 
 cis Tods odpavots (xxiv. 50-53), Ka0jpevoy év Seéia tod marpds 
 (xxii. 69), S0ev Epxetat Kpivar Lavras Kal vexpods (comp. ix. 26, 
 xii. 35-48, xviii. 8). Kat eis mvedpa dyvov (i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 26, 
 iv. I, 14, Xl. 13, Xli, 10, 12)* dytav éxxAnolav (comp. i. 74, 75, 
 ix. 1-6, x. 1-16, xxiv. 49)" ddeow duaptiay (i. 77, iii. 3, xxiv. 47)° 
 capKos dvdotacw (xiv. 14, XX. 27-40). 
 
 The Evangelist’s own convictions on most of these 
 points are manifest; and we need not doubt that they 
 include the principal things in which Theophilus had been 
 instructed, and which the writer of the Gospel solemnly 
 affirms to be well established. Whether in our eyes they 
 
viii PREFACB 
 
 are well established depends upon the estimate which we 
 form of his testimony. Is he a truth-loving and competent 
 witness? Does the picture which he draws agree with 
 what can be known from other authorities? Could he or 
 his informants have invented the words and works which 
 he attributes to Jesus Christ? A patient and fair student 
 of the Third Gospel will not be at a loss for an answer. 
 
 ALFRED PLUMMER. 
 
 University College, Durham, 
 Feast of S. Luke, 1896. 
 
 mi 
 i) 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 INTRODUCTION “Shoe kesh 
 
 § 1. The Author Gout Ma kd fo 
 was the Author of the Acts . 
 
 a Companion of S. Paul 
 SKE rich, - a) she 
 S. Luke the Evangelist . . 
 
 § The Sources of the Gospel ° 
 No Ebionite Source . e 
 Supposed Dislike of Duplicates 
 
 § 4. Time and Place. = : e 
 
 So Object and Plan. ~. «. « 
 Analysis of the Gospel. 
 
 § 6. Characteristics, Style, and Language 
 The Gospel of S. Paul. 
 
 of Prayer. . 
 of Praise . . 
 “terary, historic, domestic 
 S. uke’s Command of Greek 
 Ex; essions peculiar to S. Luke 
 tohimandS. Paul. . 
 to both with Hebrews . 
 to S. Luke with Hebrews 
 Expressions frequent in S. Luke 
 possibly medical . 
 His Diction compared aa that of 
 andS. Mark . 
 
 § 7. The Integrity of the Gospel 
 
 Soo.Phe:rext (03!) <. *' 
 
 § 9. Literary History ° 
 Clement of Rome. 
 The Didaché . ° 
 Gospel of Peter . 
 Testaments of XII. Patriarchs 
 
 ix 
 
 Sel sta ewel alnseel c. wvine We pita ele ese “ee te a6 As (Ole ae nee 
 
 : 
 i 
 
 EEE, 
 
 oReubttebul lela blues EI 
 
 ay 
 
 Ei 
 
 ey 
 
$10. Commentaries . .« «© ec 
 Abbreviations . « eo e 
 
 COMMENTARY e e e e e 
 
 SPECIAL NOTES 
 On the use of éyévero «lw 
 The Decree of Augustus ° 
 The fifteenth year of Tiberius 
 The Genealogy . ° - 
 Demoniacal Possession. . 
 The Miraculous Draught of Fishes 
 The title “Son of Man” ears 
 The word devrepompdro. . e 
 The Sermon éri rérov redtyod =n 
 Christ’s Raising the Dead . 
 The Journeyings towards Jerusalem 
 The word dvadnpis 2. wi‘ 
 The Mission of the Seventy... 
 
 The Idea of Hades or Sheol in the O. 
 
 The Blind Manat Jericho . . 
 The Parable of the Pounds . 
 The Question about Psalmcx. . 
 The Apocalypse of Jesus . . 
 Readings in Chapters xxii. and xxiii. 
 The Narratives of the Resurrection 
 Western Non-interpolations . . 
 Interpolations in the Sinaitic Syriac 
 
 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 I. General . . 1. 
 II. Writers and Writings . 
 III. Greek Words . - 
 IV. English and Latin Words 
 
 T. 
 
 e oe @ e e e e e 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § 1. THE AUTHOR. 
 
 As in the case of the other Gospels, the author is not named in 
 the book itself. But two things may be regarded as practically 
 certain, and a third as highly probable in itself and much more 
 probable than any other hypothesis. (i.) The author of the Third 
 Gospel is the author of the Acts. (ii.) The author of the Acts 
 was a companion of S. Paul. (iii.) This companion was S. Luke. 
 
 (i.) Zhe Author of the Third Gospel is the Author of the Acts. 
 
 This position is so generally admitted by critics of all schools 
 that not much time need be spent in discussing it. Both books 
 are dedicated to Theophilus. The later book refers to the former. 
 The language and style and arrangement of the two books are so 
 similar, and this similarity is found to exist in such a multitude of 
 details (many of which are very minute), that the hypothesis of 
 careful imitation by a different writer is absolutely excluded. The 
 idea of minute literary analysis with a view to discover peculiarities 
 and preferences in language was an idea foreign to the writers of 
 the first two centuries; and no known writer of that age gives 
 evidence of the immense skill which would be necessary in order 
 to employ the results of such an analysis for the production of an 
 elaborate imitation. To suppose that the author of the Acts 
 carefully imitated the Third Gospel, in order that his work might 
 be attributed to the Evangelist, or that the Evangelist carefully 
 imitated the Acts, in order that his Gospel might be attributed to 
 the author of the Acts, is to postulate a literary miracle. Such an 
 idea would not have occurred to any one; and if it had, he would 
 not have been able to execute it with such triumphant success 
 as is conspicuous here. Any one who will underline in a few 
 chapters of the Third Gospel the phrases, words, and constructions 
 which are specially frequent in the book, and then underline the 
 
 x1 
 
xii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 1. 
 
 same phrases, words, and constructions wherever they occur in the 
 Acts, will soon have a strong conviction respecting the identity of 
 authorship. The converse process will lead to a similar result. 
 Moreover, the expressions which can be marked in this way by no 
 means exhaust the points of similarity between the two books. 
 There are parallels of description ; e.g. about angelic appearances 
 (comp. Lk. i. 11 with Acts xii. 7; Lk. i. 38 with Acts 1. 11 and 
 x. 7; Lk. ii. 9 and xxiv. 4 with Acts i. 10 and x. 30); and about 
 other matters (comp. Lk. i. 39 with Acts i. 15; Lk. ii. 39 with 
 Acts xiii. 29; Lk. ili. 8 with Acts xxvi. 20; Lk. xx. 1 with Acts 
 iv. 1; Lk. xxi. 18 with Acts xxvii. 34; Lk. xxi. 35 with Acts 
 xvii. 26; Lk. xxiii. 2 with Acts xxiv. 2-5; Lk. xxiii. 5 with Acts 
 x. 373 Lk. xxiv. 27 with Acts viii. 35).! And there are parallels 
 of arrangement. The main portion of the Gospel has three marked 
 divisions: The Ministry zz Gadilee (iii. 1-1x. 50), between Galilee 
 and Jerusalem (ix. 51—xix. 28), and im Jerusalem (xix. 29-Xxiv. 11). 
 And the main portion of the Acts has three marked divisions: 
 Hebraic (ii.—v.), Transitional (vi.—xii.), and Gentile (xiti.—xxviii.). 
 In the one case the movement is from Galilee through Samaria, 
 etc. to Jerusalem: in the other from Jerusalem through Samaria, 
 etc. to Rome. And in both cases there is an introduction con- 
 necting the main narrative with what precedes. 
 
 (ii.) Zhe Author of Acts was a Companion of S. Paul. 
 
 A full discussion of this statement belongs to the commentary 
 on the Acts rather than to the present volume: but the main 
 points in the evidence must be noted here. It is perhaps no 
 exaggeration to say that nothing in biblical criticism is more 
 certain than this statement. 
 
 There are the “we” sections in which the writer uses the first 
 person plural in describing journeys of S. Paul. This “we” is 
 found in Codex Bezae as early as xi. 28 at Antioch, and may 
 represent a true tradition without being the original reading.” 
 It appears certainly xvi. 10 at Troas* and continues to Philippi 
 (xvi. 17). Several years later it reappears at Philippi (xx. 5)® and 
 continues to Jerusalem (xxi. 18). Finally, it reappears at the 
 departure for Italy (xxvii. 1)* and continues to Rome (xxviii. 16).® 
 
 1 J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Afostelgeschichte Werke 
 desselben Verfassers, Halle a.S., 1890. The value of this useful pamphlet is 
 somewhat lessened by want of care in sifting the readings. The argument as a 
 whole stands; but the statistics on which it is based are often not exact. 
 
 2 For dvacras 6é els €€ atrav D has oUvEoT pay pevey 6é quay épn els && 
 airay, revertentibus autem nobis ait unus ex ipsis. This reading is also found 
 in Augustine (De Serm. Dom. ii. 7 [xvii. )). 
 
 3 étprjcaper éfehOeciv. iuiv expafer. 5 uevoy Hpas. 
 
 6 elayer 6 Laddos ody quiv. 770d dwomdety quads. * elofdOapev els ‘Puynr. 
 
§1.] THE AUTHOR xiii 
 
 The “we” necessarily implies companionship, and may possibly 
 represent a diary kept at the time. That the “we” sections are 
 by the same hand as the rest of the book is shown by the simple 
 and natural way in which they fit into the narrative, by the refer- 
 ences in them to other parts of the narrative, and by the marked 
 identity of style. The expressions which are so characteristic of 
 this writer run right through the whole book. They are as 
 frequent inside as outside the “we” sections, and no change of 
 style can be noted between them and the rest of the treatise. 
 The change of person is intelligible and truthlike, distinguishing 
 the times when the writer was with the Apostle from the times 
 when he was not: but there is otherwise no change of language. 
 To these points must be added the fact that thé author of the 
 Acts is evidently a person of considerable literary powers, and the 
 probability that a companion of S. Paul who possessed such 
 powers would employ them in producing such a narrative as the 
 Acts. 
 
 (iii.) Zhe Companion of S. Paul who wrote the Acts and the 
 Third Gospel was S. Luke. 
 
 Of the companions of S. Paul whose names are known to us 
 no one is so probable as S. Luke; and the voice of the first eight 
 centuries pronounces strongly for him and for no one else as the 
 author of these two writings. 
 
 If antiquity were silent on the subject, no more reasonable 
 conjecture could be made than “ Luke the beloved physician.” 
 He fulfils the conditions. Luke was the Apostle’s companion 
 during both the Roman imprisonments (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 
 2 Tim. iv. 11), and may well have been his companion at other 
 times. That he is not mentioned in the earlier groups of Epistles 
 is no objection ; for none of them coincide with the ‘‘ we” sections 
 in the Acts. Moreover, the argument from medical language, 
 although sometimes exaggerated, is solid and helpful. Both in 
 the Acts and in the Third Gospel there are expressions which are 
 distinctly medical; and there is also a good deal of language 
 which is perhaps more common in medical writers than elsewhere. 
 This feature does not amount to proof that the author was a 
 physician ; still less can it prove that, if the author was a physician, 
 he must have been Luke. The Apostle might have had another 
 medical companion besides the beloved physician. But, seeing 
 that there is abundance of evidence that Luke was the writer of 
 these two documents, the medical colour which is discernible here 
 and there in the language of each of them is a valuable con- 
 firmation of the evidence which assigns the authorship of both to 
 Luke. 
 
xiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 2. 
 
 For the voice of antiquity is not silent on the subject ; and we 
 are not left to conjecture. There is no need to argue whether 
 Timothy, or Titus, or Silas, or some unnamed companion of the 
 Apostle is more likely than S. Luke to have written these two 
 books. The evidence, which is both abundant and strong, is 
 wholly in favour of Luke. Until we reach the blundering state- 
 ment in Photius near the end of the ninth century, there is no 
 hint that any one ever thought of any person but Luke as the 
 author of either treatise. Photius has this statement: “Some 
 say that the writer of the Acts was Clement of Rome, others 
 Barnabas, and others again Luke the Evangelist; but Luke 
 himself decides the question, for at the beginning of his preface 
 he mentions that another treatise containing the acts of the Lord 
 had been composed by him” (Ampfi?. Qu. 123). Here he seems 
 to be transferring to the Acts conjectures which had been made 
 respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. But at any rate the 
 statement shows that the Third Gospel was regarded as un- 
 questionably by Luke. 
 
 The Pauline authorship of Romans and Galatians is now com- 
 monly regarded as certain, and the critic who questions it is held 
 to stultify himself. But is not the evidence for the Lucan author- 
 ship of the Third Gospel and the Acts equally strong? If these 
 are not named by any writer earlier than Irenzeus, neither are 
 those Epistles. And the silence of the Apostolic Fathers respect- 
 ing the Third Gospel and the Acts is even more intelligible than 
 their silence respecting Galatians and Romans, because the two 
 former, being addressed to Theophilus, were in the first instance 
 of the nature of private writings, and because, as regards the 
 Gospel narrative, the oral tradition still sufficed. But from 
 Irenzus onwards the evidence in all these cases is full and 
 unwavering, and it comes from all quarters of the Christian 
 world. And in considering this third point, the first point must 
 be kept steadily in view, viz. the certainty that the Third Gospel 
 and the Acts were written by one and the same person. Con- 
 sequently all the evidence for either book singly is available for 
 the other book. Every writer who attributes the Third Gospel 
 to Luke thereby attributes the Acts to Luke and vice verséd, 
 whether he know anything about the second book or not. Thus — 
 in favour of Luke as the author of the Third Gospel we have 
 three classes of witnesses: viz. those who state that Luke wrote 
 the Third Gospel, those who state that Luke wrote the Acts, and 
 those who state that he wrote both treatises. Their combined 
 testimony is very strong indeed; and there is nothing against it. 
 At the opening of his commentary on the Acts, Chrysostom says 
 that many in his day were ignorant of the authorship and even of 
 the existence of the book (Migne, lx. 13). But that statement 
 
§1]} THE AUTHOR xv 
 
 creates no difficulty. Many could be found at the present day, 
 even among educated Christians, who could not name the author 
 of the Acts. And we have seen that the late and confused state- 
 ment in Photius, whatever it may mean respecting the Acts, 
 testifies to the universal conviction that the Third Gospel was 
 written by Luke. 
 
 But we obtain a very imperfect idea of the early evidence in 
 favour of the Third Gospel when we content ourselves with the 
 statement that it is not attributed to Luke by any one before 
 Irenzeus and the Muratorian Fragment, which may be a little 
 earlier than the work of Irenzus, but is probably a little later. 
 We must consider the evidence of the existence of this Gospel 
 previous to Irenzus; and also the manner in which he himself 
 and those who immediately follow him speak of it as the work of 
 S. Luke. 
 
 That Justin Martyr used the Third Gospel (or an authority 
 which was practically identical with it) cannot be doubted. He 
 gives a variety of particulars which are found in that Gospel 
 alone ; ¢.g. Elizabeth as the mother of the Baptist, the sending of 
 Gabriel to Mary, the census under Quirinius, there being no room 
 in the inn, His ministry beginning when Jesus was thirty years 
 old, His being sent by Pilate to Herod, His last cry, “ Father, into 
 Thy hands I commend My spirit” (1 Afol. xxxiv.; Z7ry. 
 Ixxxvili., C., Ciii., cv., cvi.). Moreover, Justin uses expressions 
 respecting the Agony, the Resurrection, and the Ascension which 
 show that the Third Gospel is in his mind. 
 
 That his pupil Tatian possessed this Gospel is proved by the 
 Diatessaron. See Hemphill, Diatessaron of Tatian, pp. 3 ff. 
 
 Celsus also knew the Third Gospel, for he knew that one of 
 the genealogies made Jesus to be descended from the first man 
 (Orig. Con. Cels. ii. 32) 
 
 The Clementine Homilies contain similarities which are pro- 
 ably allusions (iii. 63, 65, xi. 20, 23, xvii. 5, xvili. 16, xix. 2). 
 
 The Third Gospel was known to Basilides and Valentinus, and 
 was commented upon by Heracleon (Clem. Alex. S¢vom. iv. 9, 
 p. 596, ed. Potter). 
 
 Marcion adopted this Gospel as the basis for what he called 
 the “Gospel of the Lord” or “Gospel of Christ.” He omitted a 
 good deal as being inconsistent with his own teaching, but he 
 does not appear to have added anything. See § 7; also Wsctt., 
 is to Gospels, App. D; Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, 
 
 Pp: 
 In the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the 
 Churches in Asia there is a quotation of Lk. i. 6 (Eus. HZ. v. 1. 9). 
 
 1 What Pseudo-Tert. says of Cerdo is perhaps a mere transfer to Cerdo of 
 what is known of Marcion. 
 
xvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 1. 
 
 These instances, which are by no means exhaustive, may suffice 
 as evidence for the early existence of the Third Gospel. It re 
 mains to notice the way in which Irenzus and his later contem- 
 poraries speak of the book. Irenzus, who represents the traditions 
 of Asia Minor and Rome and Gaul in the second half of the 
 second century, quotes it many times and quotes from nearly every 
 chapter, especially from those which are wholly or in the main 
 peculiar to this Gospel, e.g. i., ii., ix—xix., xxiv. In a very remark- 
 able passage he collects together many of the things which this 
 Gospel alone narrates and definitely assigns them to Luke: “ Now 
 if any one reject Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will 
 manifestly be casting out the Gospel of which he claims to be a 
 disciple. For very many and specially necessary elements of the 
 Gospel we know through him, as the generation of John, the 
 history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary,” etc. etc. 
 (ili. 14. 3. Comp. iii. 10. 1, 22. 4, 12. 12, 14. 4, etc.). It will be 
 observed that he does not contemplate the possibility of any one 
 denying that Luke was the author. Those who may reject it will 
 do so as thinking that Luke’s authority is inadequate; but the 
 authorship is unquestioned. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190-202) had had teachers from 
 Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Palestine, and had received the tradition 
 handed down from father to son from the Apostles (Strom. i. 1, 
 p- 322, ed. Potter). He quotes the Gospel very frequently, and 
 from many parts of it. He definitely assigns it to Luke (Strom. 
 i. 21, p. 407, ed. Potter). 
 
 Tertullian (A.D. 190-220) speaks for the African Church. He 
 not only quotes the Gospel frequently in his other works, but in 
 his treatise against Marcion he works through the Gospel from 
 ch. iv. to the end, often calling it Luke’s. 
 
 The Muratorian Fragment (A.D. 170-200) perhaps represents 
 Rome. The first line of the mutilated Catalogue probably refers 
 to S. Mark; but the next seven unquestionably refer to S. Luke, 
 who is twice mentioned and is spoken of as medicus. (See Lft. on 
 Supernatural Religion, p. 189.) 
 
 It would be waste of time to cite more evidence. It is mani- 
 fest that in all parts of the Christian world the Third Gospel had 
 been recognized as authoritative before the middle of the second 
 century, and that it was universally believed to be the work of 
 5. Luke. No one speaks doubtfully on the point. The possibility 
 of questioning its value is mentioned; but not of questioning its 
 authorship. In the literature of that period it would not be easy 
 to find a stronger case. The authorship of the four great Epistles 
 of S. Paul is scarcely more certain. In all these cases, as soon as 
 we have sufficient material for arriving at a conclusion, the evidence 
 is found to be all on one side and to be decisive. And exactly 
 
§1.) THE AUTHOR xvii 
 
 the same result is obtained when the question is examined as to 
 the authorship of the Acts, as Bishop Lightfoot has shown (art. 
 “ Acts” in D.Z.*). Both the direct and the indirect argument for 
 the Lucan authorship is very strong. 
 
 With this large body of historical evidence in favour of S. Luke 
 before us, confirmed as it is by the medical expressions in both 
 books, it is idle to search for another companion of S. Paul who 
 might have been the author. Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, 
 Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Trophimus are all excluded by 
 Acts xx. 4, 5. And it is not easy to make Silas fit into the “ we” 
 sections. ‘Titus is possible: he can be included in the “we” and 
 the “us” without contradiction or difficulty. But what is gained 
 by this suggestion? Is a solution which is supported by no evi- 
 dence to be preferred to an intrinsically more probable solution, 
 which is supported by a great deal of evidence, and by evidence 
 which is as early as we can reasonably expect? 
 
 Those who neglect this evidence are bound to explain its 
 existence. Irenzeus, Clement, and Tertullian, to say nothing of 
 other authorities, treat the Lucan authorship as a certainty. So far 
 as their knowledge extends, Luke is everywhere regarded as the 
 writer. How did this belief grow up and spread, if it was not 
 true? There is nothing in either treatise to suggest Luke, and he 
 is not prominent enough in Scripture to make him universally 
 acceptable as a conjecture. Those who wanted apostolic authority 
 for their own views would have made their views more conspicuous 
 in these books, and would have assigned the books to a person of 
 higher position and influence than the beloved physician, e.g. to 
 Timothy or Titus, if not to an Apostle. As Renan says, ‘There 
 is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the 
 author of the Gospel which bears his name. Luke was not yet 
 sufficiently famous for any one to make use of his name, to give 
 authority to a book” (Les Lvangzles, ch. xiii. p. 252, Eng. tr.. 
 p. 132). “The placing of a celebrated name at the head of a 
 work . . . was in no way repugnant to the custom of the times. 
 But to place at the head of a document a false name and an 
 obscure one withal, that is inconceivable. . . . Luke had no place 
 in aa in legend, in history” (Les Ajétres, p. xvii., Eng. tr. 
 Pp 1).? 
 
 1 Even Jiilicher still talks of ‘‘ the silence of Papias” as an objection (Zzv/. 
 tn das N.T. § 27, 3, Leipzig, 1894). In the case of a writer of whose work 
 only a few fragments are extant, how can we know what was not mentioned in 
 the much larger portions which have perished? The probabilities, in the 
 absence of evidence, are that Papias did write of Luke. But we are not quite 
 without evidence. In the ‘‘ Hexeemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai is a passage in 
 which Papias is mentioned as an ancient interpreter, and in which Lk, x. 18 is 
 quoted in illustration of an interpretation. Possibly the illustration is borrowed 
 from oe Lft. Supernatural Religion, pp. 186, 200. Hilgenfeld thinks 
 
xV111 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 2. 
 
 § 2. S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST. 
 
 The name Lucas is probably an abbreviation of Lucanus, but 
 possibly of Lucilius, or Lucius, or Lucianus. ‘There is, however, 
 no froof that Iucanus was shortened into Lucas.!_ Nevertheless 
 some of the oldest Latin MSS. (e.g. Cordetensis and Vercellensis) 
 have secundum Lucanum as the title of the Third Gospel. Lucas, 
 like Apollos, Artemas, Demas, Hermas, and Nymphas, is a form 
 not found in classical literature, whereas Lucanus is common in 
 inscriptions. Lobeck has noticed that these contracted proper 
 names in -és are common in the case of slaves (Fatholog. Proleg. 
 p- 506). Slaves were sometimes physicians, and S. Luke may 
 have been a freedman. Antistius, the surgeon of Julius Cesar, 
 and Antonius Musa, the physician of Augustus, were freedmen. 
 
 That Lucas=Lucanus is probable. But that Lucanus=Silvanus, because 
 lucus=stlva, and that therefore Luke and Silas are the same person (Van 
 Vloten), looks like a caricature of critical ingenuity. Equally grotesque is the 
 
 idea that Luke is the Aristion of Papias (Eus. Z. Z. iii. 39. 4, 6), because dpic- 
 Tevew =lucere (Lange). 
 
 Only in three places is Lk. zamed in Scripture ; and it is worth 
 noting that in all three of them the other Evangelist who is not an 
 Apostle is named with him (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 
 iv. 11). These passages tell us that “the physician, the beloved 
 one” (6 iatpds 6 dyayrds),® was with S. Paul during the first 
 Roman imprisonment, when the Epistles to the Colossians and to 
 Philemon were written, and also during the second imprisonment, 
 when 2 Timothy was written. Besides telling us that Luke was a 
 physician very dear to the Apostle, they also tell us that he was his 
 “ fellow-worker ” in spreading the Gospel. But apparently he was 
 not his ‘fellow-prisoner.” In Col. iv. 10 Aristarchus is called 
 ovvatxudAwros, and in Philem. 23 Epaphras is called such ; but Lk. 
 in neither place. 
 
 Almost all critics are agreed that in Col. iv. 14 Luke is 
 
 that the preface to Papias shows that he was acquainted with the preface 
 to Luke. Salmon is disposed to agree with him (Zr. p. 90, ed. 5). 
 
 1The argument from the Greek form (that Aevxavds, not Aovuxarés, is the 
 equivalent of Lucanus) is inconclusive. After about A.D. 50 forms in Aovx- 
 begin to take the place of forms in Aeuk-. 
 
 2Comp. Annas for Ananus; Apollos for Apollonius (Codex Bezae, Acts 
 xviii. 24); Artemas for Artemidorus (Tit. iii, 12; Mart. v. 40); Cleopas for 
 Cleopatros; Demas for Demetrius, Demarchus for Demaratus, Nymphas for 
 Nymphodorus, Zenas for Zenodorus, and possibly Hermas for Hermodorus, 
 For other examples see Win. xvi. 5, p. 127; Lft. on Col. iv. 15 ; Chandler, 
 Grk, Accent. § 34. 
 
 3 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps because he thought that an Evan- 
 gelist ought not to devote-himself to anything so contemptible as the human 
 body ( Zexte und Unters. viii. 4, p. 40). 
 
22.] Ss. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xix 
 
 separated from ‘‘those of the circumcision,” and therefore was a_ 
 Gentile Christian.1 Hofmann, Tiele, and Wittichen have not suc- 
 ceeded in persuading many persons that the passage does not 
 necessarily imply this. Whether he was a Jewish proselyte before 
 he was a Christian must remain uncertain: his knowledge of 
 Jewish affairs and his frequent Hebraisms are no proof. That he 
 was originally a heathen may be regarded as certain. He is the 
 only one of the Evangelists who was of Gentile origin; and, with 
 the exception of his companion S. Paul, and possibly of Apollos, 
 he was the only one among the first preachers of the Gospel who 
 had had scientific training. 
 
 If Luke was a Gentile, he cannot be identified with Lucius, 
 who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). This 
 Lucius was Paul’s kinsman, and therefore a Jew. ‘The identifica- 
 tion of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1) is less impossible. 
 But there is no evidence, and we do not even know that Lucas 
 was ever used as an abbreviation of Lucius. In <Afgost. Const. 
 _ vi. 18. 5 Luke is distinguished from Lucius. Nor can he be iden- 
 tified with Silas or Silvanus, who was evidently a Jew (Acts xv. 22). 
 Nor can a Gentile have been one of the Seventy, a tradition which 
 seems to have been adopted by those who made LK. x. 1-7 the 
 Gospel for S. Luke’s Day. ‘The tradition probably is based solely 
 on the fact that Luke alone records the Mission of the Seventy 
 (Epiph. “er. ii. 51. 11, Migne, xli. 908). The same reason is fatal 
 to Theophylact’s attractive guess, which still finds advocates, that 
 Lk. was the unnamed companion of Cleopas in the walk to 
 Emmaus (xxiv. 13), who was doubtless a Jew (vu. 27, 32). The 
 conjecture that Luke was one of the Greek proselytes who applied 
 to Philip to be introduced to Christ shortly before His Passion 
 (Jn. xii. 20) is another conjecture which is less impossible, but is 
 without evidence. In common with some of the preceding guesses 
 it is open to the objection that Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, 
 separates himself from those “who from the beginning were eye- 
 witnesses and ministers of the word” (i. 2). The Seventy, these 
 Greeks, and the companion of Cleopas were eye-witnesses, and 
 Lk. was not. In the two latter cases it is possible to evade this 
 objection by saying that Luke means that he was not an eye-witness 
 from the beginning, although at the end of Christ’s ministry he 
 became such. But this is not satisfactory. He claims to be 
 believed because of the accuracy of his researches among the best 
 
 1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus 
 Justus) are doubly bracketed together: (1) as ol Byres éx mepitoujs, (2) as pdvor 
 ouvepyol els THv Bacthelav Tod Qeod, z.e. the only Jewish converts in Rome who 
 loyally supported S. Paul. The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not 
 bracketed together. In Philem. 23 Epaphras is cuvatyuddAwros, and Mark, 
 
 ee ee, Demas, and Luke are of cuvepyol ov, while Justus is not men- 
 tioned. 
 
xx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 2 
 
 authorities. Had he himself been an eye-witness of any portion, 
 would he not have let us know this? Why did he not use the first 
 person, as in the “we” sections in the Acts? He belongs to the 
 second generation of Christians, not to the first. 
 
 It is, however, possible that Chrysostom and the Collect for 
 S. Luke’s Day are right in identifying “the brother whose praise 
 in the Gospel is spread through all the Churches” (2 Cor. viii. 18) 
 with S Luke. But the conjectures respecting this unnamed 
 brother are endless ; and no more can be affirmed than that Luke 
 is a reasonable conjecture. 
 
 The attempt to show that the writer of the Third Gospel and ees Acts is a 
 Jew is a failure ; and the suggestion that he is S. Paul is absurd. See below 
 (§ 5) for evidence that our Evangelist is a Gentile writing for Gentiles, 
 
 Besides the three passages in the Pauline Epistles and the 
 preface to the Gospel, there are three passages of Scripture which 
 tell us something about S. Luke, viz. the “we” sections. The first 
 of these (Acts xvi. 10-17) tells us that during the second missionary 
 journey Luke accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi (A.D. 51 or 
 52), and thus brings the physician to the Apostle about the time 
 when his distressing malady (2 Cor. xii. 7) prostrated him in Galatia, 
 and thereby led to the conversion of the Galatians (Gal. iv. 13-15). 
 Even without this coincidence we might believe that the relation 
 of doctor to patient had something to do with drawing Luke to 
 the afflicted Apostle, and that in calling him “the physician, the 
 beloved one,” the Apostle is not distinguishing him from some 
 other Luke, but indicating the way in which the Evangelist earned 
 his gratitude. The second section (xx. 5—xxi. 18) tells us that about 
 six years later (A.D. 58), during the third missionary journey, Luke 
 was again at Philippi! with Paul, and went with him to Jerusalem 
 to confer with James and the elders. And the third (xxvii. 1- 
 xxviii. 16) shows that he was with him during the voyage and 
 shipwreck until the arrival in Rome. 
 
 With these meagre notices of him in the N.T. our knowledge 
 of Luke ends. We see him only when he is at the side of his 
 magister and illuminator (Tertull. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2) S. Paul. 
 That he was with the Apostle at other times also we can hardly 
 doubt,—znseparabilis fuit a Paulo, says Ireneus: but how often he 
 was with him, and in each case for how long a time, we have no 
 means of knowing. ‘Tertullian perhaps means us to understand 
 that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul, and this is in itself 
 probable enough. And it is not improbable that it was at Tarsus. 
 
 1 Renan conjectures that Luke was a native of Philippi. Ramsays takes the . 
 game view, suggesting that the Macedonian whom S. Paul saw in a vision (Acts 
 xvi. 9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first time at Troas 
 (S. Paul the Traveller, p. 202). 
 
§ 2.) S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xx 
 
 where there was a school of philosophy and literature rivalling 
 those of Alexandria and Athens (Strabo, xiv. 5. 13), that they first 
 met. Luke may have studied medicine at Tarsus. Nowhere else 
 in Asia Minor could he obtain so good an education: ¢:Aocopiav 
 Kal tT. GAAnv aideiav éyxvKAvov aacav (/.c.). Our earliest authori- 
 ties appear to know little or nothing beyond what can be found in 
 Scripture or inferred from it (Iren. i. 1. 1, 10. 1, 14. I-4, 15. 1, 
 22. 3; Canon Murator. sub init.; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12 sub 
 jin.; Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2). Nor can much that is very 
 trustworthy be gleaned from later writers. The statement of 
 Eusebius (Z. Z£. iii. 4. 7) and of Jerome (De wir. i. vii.), which 
 may possibly be derived from Julius Africanus (Harnack, Zex‘e 
 und Unters. viii. 4, p. 39), and is followed by Theophylact, Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus, and Nicephorus, that Luke was by family of 
 Antioch in Syria, is perhaps only an inference from the Acts. 
 Aovkas 8€ 70 pev yevos dv tay am "Avtioxeias (Eus.) need not mean 
 more than that Luke had a family connexion with Antioch ; but it 
 , hardy ‘amounts to an assertion that Luke was not an Antiochian.” 
 ‘67 Jerome says expressly Lucas medicus Antiochensis. This is probable 
 in itself and is confirmed by the Acts. Of only one of the deacons 
 are we told to which locality he belonged, “‘ Nicolas a proselyte of 
 Antioch” (vi. 5)1: and we see elsewhere that the writer was well 
 acquainted with Antioch and took an interest in it (xi. 19-27, 
 xiii. 1, XIV. 19, 21, 26, xv. 22, 23, 30, 35, XVili. 22). 
 
 Epiphanius states that Luke ‘‘ preached in Dalmatia and Gallia, in Italy and 
 Macedonia, but first in Gallia, as Paul says of some of his companions, in his 
 Epistles, Crescens in Gallia, for we are not to read 2 Ga/atia, as some errone- 
 ously think, but 27 Gallia” (Her. ii. 51. 11, Migne, xli. 908) ; and Oecumenius 
 says that Luke went from Rome to preach in Africa. Jerome believes that his 
 bones were translated to Constantinople,” and others give Achaia or Bithynia as 
 the place of his death. Gregory Nazianzen, in giving an off-hand list of primi- 
 tive martyrs—Stephen, Peter, Andrew, etc.—places Luke among them (Orat. 
 adv. Jul. i. 79). None of these statements are of any value. 
 
 The legend which makes Luke a painter is much more ancient 
 than is sometimes represented. Nicephorus Callistus (&. Z. ii. 43) 
 in the fourteenth century is by no means the earliest authority for 
 it. Omitting Simeon Metaphrastes (¢c. a.D. 1100) as doubtful, the 
 Menology of the Emperor Basil 11., drawn up A.D. 980, represents 
 
 1It has been noted that of eight narratives of the Russian campaign of 
 1812, three English, three French, and two Scotch, only the last (Alison and 
 Scott) state that the Russian General Barclay de Tolly was of Scotch 
 extraction. 
 
 2 His words are: Sepultus est Constantinopoli [vixit octoginta et quatuor 
 annos, uxorem non habens] ad guam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno ossa ejus 
 cum reliquits Andrew apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia]. The words in 
 brackets are not genuine, but are sometimes quoted as such. The first insertion 
 is made in more than one place in De vir. ill. vii. 
 
xxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. 1UKE [§ 2 
 
 S. Luke as painting the portrait of the Vitgin. ‘he oldest witness, 
 however, is Theodorus Lector, reader in the Church of Constantin- 
 ople in the sixth century. Some place him as late as the eighth 
 century ; but the name is common, and between A.D. 500 and 80¢ 
 there may have been many readers of that name at Constantinople 
 He says that the Empress Eudoxia found at Jerusalem a picture of 
 the @coujrwp painted by Luke the AZost/e, and sent it to Constantin- 
 ople as a present to her daughter Pulcheria, wife of Theodosius 11. 
 (Collectan. i. 7, Migne, Patr. Gr. Ixxxvi. 165). In 1204 this 
 picture was brought to Venice. In the Church of S. Maria 
 Maggiore at Rome, in the Capella Paolina, is a very ancient picture 
 of the Virgin ascribed to S. Luke. It can be traced back to 
 A.D. 847, and may be still older.1 But although no such legend 
 seems to be known to Augustine, for he says, egue novimus factem 
 virginis Mariz (De Trin. viii. 5. 7), yet it is many centuries older 
 than Nicephorus (Kraus, Real-Enc. d. Christ. Alt. ii. p. 344, which 
 quotes Glukselig, Christus-Archdol. 101; Grimouard de S. Laurent, 
 Guide de Part chrét. iii. 15-20). And the legend has a strong ele- 
 ment of truth. It points to the great influence which Luke has 
 had upon Christian art, of which in a real sense he may be called 
 the founder. The Shepherd with the Lost Sheep on His shoulders, 
 one of the earliest representations of Christ, comes from Lk. xv 
 (Tert. De Pud. vii. and x.): and both medieval and modern artists 
 have been specially fond of representing those scenes which are 
 described by S. Luke alone: the Annunciation, the Visit of Mary 
 to Elizabeth, the Shepherds, the Manger, the Presentation in the 
 Temple, Symeon and Anna, Christ with the Doctors, the Woman 
 at the Supper of Simon the Pharisee, Christ weeping over Jeru- 
 salem, the Walk to Emmaus, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal 
 Son. Many other scenes which are favourites with painters might 
 be added from the Acts. See below, § 6. i. d. 
 
 The four symbolical creatures mentioned in Ezek. i. and Rev. 
 iv., the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle, are variously ex- 
 plained by different writers from Irenzus (iii. 11. 8) downwards. 
 But all agree in assigning the Ox or Calf to S. Luke. “This 
 sacerdotal animal implies Atonement and Propitiation ; and this 
 exactly corresponds with what is supposed to be the character of 
 St. Luke’s Gospel, as one which more especially conveys mercy to 
 the Penitent. . . . It begins with the Priest, dwelling on the 
 Priestly family of the Baptist; and ends with the Victim, in our 
 Lord’s death” (Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 
 Pt. I. sect. vi.). 
 
 1 For an interesting account of this famous picture, and of others attributed 
 to the Evangelist, see Ze Madonna of St. Luke, by H. I. Bolton, Putnam, 
 1895, 
 
§3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xii 
 
 § 3. THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 The idea of a special revelation to the Evangelist is excluded 
 by the prologue to the Gospel: his narrative is the result of care- 
 ful enquiry in the best quarters. But (2) which “eye-witnesses 
 and ministers of the word” were his principal informants, 
 
 6) whether their information was mostly oral or documentary, 
 3 whether it was mostly in Aramaic or in Greek, are questions 
 about which he is silent. Internal evidence, however, will carry 
 us some way in finding an answer to them. 
 
 (2) During a large portion of the time in which he was being 
 prepared, and was consciously preparing himself, for writing a 
 Gospel, he was constantly with S. Paul; and we may be sure that 
 it was among S. Paul’s companions and acquaintances that Luke 
 obtained much of his information. It is probable that in this way 
 he became acquainted with some of the Twelve, with other 
 disciples of Christ, and with His Mother and brethren. He 
 certainly was acquainted with S. Mark, who was perhaps already 
 preparing material for his own Gospel when he and S. Luke were 
 with the Apostle in Rome (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24). S. Paul 
 himself could tell Luke only that which he himself received (1 Cor. 
 xv. 3); but he could help him to first-hand information. While 
 the Apostle was detained in custody at Casarea, Luke would be 
 able to do a good deal of investigation, and as a physician he would 
 perhaps have access to people of position who could help him. 
 
 (4) In discussing the question whether the information was 
 given chiefly in an oral or a documentary form, we must remember 
 that the difference between oral tradition and a document is not 
 great, when the oral tradition has become stereotyped by frequent 
 repetition. A document cannot have much influence on a writer 
 who already knows its contents by heart. Luke tells us that many 
 documents were already in existence, when he decided to write ; 
 and it is improbable that he made no use of these. Some of his 
 sources were certainly documents, e.g. the genealogy (iii. 23-38) : 
 and we need not doubt that the first two chapters are made up of 
 written narratives, of which we can see the conclusions at i. 80, 
 ii. 40, and ii. 52. The early narrative (itself perhaps not primary), 
 of which all three Synoptists make use, and which constitutes the 
 main portion of S. Mark’s Gospel, was probably already in writing 
 when Lk. made use of it. S. Luke may have had the Second 
 Gospel itself, pretty nearly in the form in which we have it, and 
 may include the author of it among the zoAdo/ (i. 1). But some 
 phenomena are rather against this. Luke omits (vi. 5) “the 
 sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mk. 
 ii. 27). He omits the whole of Mk. vi. 45-viii. 9, which contains 
 
xxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO Ss. LUKE [§ 3. 
 
 the digression into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and the incident 
 with the Syrophenician woman, which is also in Matthew 
 (xv. 21-28). And all this would have been full of interest to 
 Luke’s Gentile readers. That he had our First Gospel is much 
 less probable. There is so much that he would have been likely 
 to appropriate if he had known it, that the omission is most easily 
 explained by assuming that he did not know it. He omits the 
 visit of the Gentile Magi (Mt. ii. 1-15). At xx. 17 he omits 
 “‘ Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away 
 from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
 thereof” (Mt. xxi. 43). At xxi. r2-16 he omits “ And this gospel 
 of the kingdom shad/ be preached in the whole world for a testimony 
 unto a// the nations” (Mt. xxiv. 14; comp. Mk. xiii. 10). Comp. 
 the omission of Mt. xvii. 6, 7 at Lk. ix. 35, of Mt. xvii. 19, 20 at 
 Lk. ix. 43, of Caesarea Philippi (Mt. xvi. 13 ; Mk. viii. 27) at Lk. 
 ix. 18; and see p. xli. Both to S. Luke and his readers such 
 things would have been most significant. Again, would Luke have 
 left the differences between his own Gospel and that of Matthew as 
 they are, if he had been aware of them? Contrast Mt. ii. 14, 15 
 with Lk. ii. 39, Mt. xxviii. 7, 10, 16 with Lk. xxiv. 49; and gener- 
 ally mark the differences between the narratives of the Nativity and 
 of the Resurrection in these two Gospels, the divergences in the 
 two genealogies, the “eight days” (Lk.) and the “six days” (Mt. 
 and Mk.) at the Transfiguration, and the perplexing phenomena in 
 the Sermon on the Mount. These points lead us to the conclusion 
 that Lk. was not fami/iar with our First Gospel, even if he knew it 
 at all. But, besides the early narrative, which seems to have been 
 nearly coextensive with our Second Gospel, Matthew and Luke 
 used the same collection, or two similar collections, of ‘ Oracles ” 
 or “ Sayings of the Lord”; and hence the large amount of matter, 
 chiefly discourses, which is common to Matthew and Luke, but is 
 not found in Mark. This collection, however, can hardly have 
 been a single document, for the common material is used very 
 differently by the two Evangelists, especially as regards arrange- 
 ment.! A Book of “ Oracles” must not be hastily assumed. 
 
 In addition to these two main sources, (1) the narrative of 
 events, which he shares with Matthew and Mark, and (2) the 
 collection of discourses, which he shares with Matthew ; and be- 
 sides (3) the smaller documents about the Infancy incorporated 
 in the first two chapters, which are peculiar to himself,—Luke 
 
 1 There are a few passages which are common to Mark and Luke, but are 
 not found in Matthew: the Demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28 = Lk. iv. 33-37); 
 the Journey in Galilee (Mk. i. 35-39 = Lk. iv. 42-44); the Request of the 
 Demoniac (Mk. v. 18 = Lk. viii. 38); the Complaint of John against the 
 Caster out of Demons (Mk. ix. 38 = Lk. ix. 49); the Spices brought to the 
 
 Tomb (Mk. xvi. 1 = Lk. xxiv. 1). Are these the result of the time when 
 S. Mark and S. Luke were together (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24) ? 
 
§3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXxv 
 
 evidently had (4) large sources of information respecting the 
 Ministry, which are also peculiar to himself. These are specially 
 prominent in chapters ix. to xix. and in xxiv. But it must not be 
 forgotten that the matter which S. Luke alone gives us extends over 
 the whole range of Christ’s life, so far as we have any record of 
 it. It is possible that some of these sources were oral, and it is 
 probable that one of them was connected with the court of Herod 
 (iii. 1, 19, Vili. 3, ix. 7-9, Xiii. 31, xxiii, 7-12; Acts xiii. 1). But 
 we shall probably not be wrong if we conjecture that most of this 
 material was in writing before Luke made use of it. 
 
 It is, however, begging the question to talk of an “ Zdionitic 
 source.” First, is there any Ebionism in §. Luke? And secondly, 
 does what is called Ebionism in him come from a portion of his 
 materials, or wholly from himself? That Luke is profoundly im- 
 pressed by the contrasts between wealth and poverty, and that, 
 like S. James, he has great sympathy with the suffering poor and 
 a great horror of the temptations which beset all the rich and to 
 which many succumb, is true enough. But this is not Ebionism. 
 He nowhere teaches that wealth is sinful, or that rich men must 
 give away all their wealth, or that the wealthy may be spoiled by 
 the poor. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which is sup- 
 posed to be specially Ebionitic, the rich Abraham is in bliss with 
 the beggar, and Lazarus neither denounces on earth the super- 
 fluity of Dives, nor triumphs in Hades over the reversal of posi- 
 tions. The strongest saying of Christ against wealth, “It is easier 
 for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to 
 enter into the Kingdom of God” is in Matthew (xix. 24) and Mark 
 (x. 25) as well as in Luke (xviii. 25). So also is the story of Peter 
 and Andrew, James and John leaving their means of life and 
 following Christ (Mt. iv. 18-22; Mk. i. 16-20; Lk. v. 1-11). So 
 also is the story of Matthew or Levi leaving his lucrative calling to 
 follow Christ (Mt. ix.9; Mk. ii. 14; Lk. v. 27, 28). In both these 
 cases Luke expressly states that they forsook aé/ (v. 11, 28), which, 
 however, is sufficiently clear from the other narratives. In the 
 story about Zacchzus, which is peculiar to Luke, this head tax- 
 collector retains half his great wealth, and there is no hint that he 
 ought to have surrendered the whole of it. Elsewhere we find 
 touches in the other Gospels which are not in Luke, but which 
 would no doubt have been considered Ebionitic, if they had been 
 found in Luke and not in the others. Thus, in the description of 
 the Baptist, it is Matthew (iii. 4) and Mark (i. 6) who tell us of 
 John’s ascetic clothing and food, about which Luke is silent. In 
 the parable of the Sower it is the others (Mt. xiii. 22; Mk. iv. 19) 
 who speak of “ the deceitfulness of riches,” while Luke (viii. 14) has 
 simply “riches.” It is they who record (Mt. xix. 29; Mk. x. 29) 
 that Christ spoke of the blessedness of leaving relations and Jro- 
 
xxvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 3. 
 
 erty (dypots) for His sake, where Luke (xviii. 29) omits dypovs. 
 He alone preserves Christ’s declaration that he who sits at meat 
 is superior to him who serves (xxii. 27), and there is no hint that 
 to have servants is wrong. While the others tell us that Joseph 
 of Arimathza was a man of rank (Mk. xv. 43) and wealth (Mt. 
 xxvil. 57), Luke is much more explicit than they are about his 
 goodness and rectitude (xxiii. 50, 51), which does not look like 
 prejudice against the rich. And it is Luke alone who tells us of 
 the women, presumably well-to-do, who “ ministered unto them of 
 their substance” (viii. 3). To which may perhaps be added the 
 fact that in the quotation from Ps. cvii. ro in Lk. i. 79 those “fast 
 bound in poverty” (zrw yea) are omitted. Throughout the Third 
 Gospel there is a protest against worldliness; but there is no 
 protest against wealth. And there is no evidence that the protest 
 against worldliness is due to some particular source from which he 
 drew, and from which the others did not draw. Rather it is 
 something in the writer himself, being apparent in the Acts, as 
 well as in the Gospel; and it shows itself, sometimes in what he 
 selects from his materials, sometimes in the way in which he treats 
 it. As Jiilicher says, 1/an hat von dem ebionitischen charakter dieses 
 Evang. gesprochen und nach den judischen Einjfiussen oder Quellen 
 gesucht: sehr mit Unrecht.... Von tendenzidser Ebionitisirung 
 des Evangeliums kann bei ihm nicht die Rede sein (Einl. § 27, 
 p. 206). 
 
 (¢) Frequent Hebraisms indicate that a great deal of Luke’s 
 material was originally in Aramaic. These features are specially 
 common in the first two chapters. In translating Aramaic sources 
 Luke would have ample opportunity for exhibiting his own pre- 
 dilection for certain words, phrases, and constructions. If the 
 materials were already in Greek when Luke made use of them, 
 then he could and did somewhat alter the wording in appropriat- 
 ing them. But it will generally be found that wherever the ex- 
 pressions which are characteristic of him are less frequent than 
 usual, there we have come upon material which is common to him 
 and the others, and which he has adopted without much alteration. 
 Thus the parable of the Sower (viii. 4-15) has few marks of his 
 style (€v pécw, ver. 7; 6 Adyos Tod @eod, ver. 11; d€xovrae and 
 adioravrat, ver. 13) which are not also in Mt. (rod ovetpar, ver. 5) 
 or in both (é& 7 ozetpew, ver. 5). But absence or scarcity of 
 Luke’s characteristics is most common in those reports of dis- 
 courses which are common to him and Matthew: ¢.g. ill. 7-9, 17= 
 Mt. iil. 7-10, 12 ; vil. 6~g = Mt. viii. 8-10; ix. 57, 58 = Mt. viii. 19, 
 20; Vii. 22-28 = Mt. x1. 4-11; vii. 31-35 = Mt. xi. 16-19. This last 
 passage is one of those which were excised by Marcion. As we 
 might expect, there is much more variation between the Gospels 
 in narrating the same facts than in reporting the same sayings; 
 
$8] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXVil 
 
 and the greater the variation, the greater the room for marks of 
 individual style. But we cahnot doubt that an immense amount 
 of what Luke has in common with Matthew, or with both him 
 and Mark, was already in a Greek form before he adopted it. 
 It is incredible that two or three independent translations should 
 agree quite or almost word for word. 
 
 It is very interesting to notice how, in narratives common to 
 all three, individual characteristics appear: e.g. vill. 22-56= Mk. 
 iv. 35-41, V. 1-43 = Mt. viii. 23-34, ix. 18-25. These narratives 
 swarm with marks of Luke’s style, although he keeps closely to 
 the common material (see below, § 6. ii.). Thus he has etzrev zpos 
 avrovs, émiatata, Séouar cov, eSeAOciv a2, ikavds, edeiTo avrov, civ, 
 broorpepe, Tapa Tovs TOdas, Tapaxpyua, etc., where Mark has dé€yer 
 avrots, duddoKade, opKile oe, cEeAOciv ex, pweyas, TapeKdAct avTov, pera, 
 Umraye, mpos Tors mddas, evOvs, etc. Moreover Luke has & 76 
 ¢. infin., Kat odrTos, Kal avrTds, trdpxew, Tas OF Gras, povoyevys, etc., 
 where the others have nothing. The following examples will repay 
 examination: iv. 38-41 = Mk. 1. 29-34 = Mt. viii. 14-17; v. 12-16 
 = Mk. i. 40-45 =Mt. viii. 1-43; v. 17-2 =6Mk. ii, 1-12 = Mt. ix. 
 1-8 ; ix. 10-17 = Mk. vi. 30-44 =Mt. xiv. 13-21; ix. 38-40 = Mk. 
 ix. 17, 18= Mt. xvii. 15, 16; and many others. It is quite evident 
 that in appropriating material Luke works it over with his own 
 touches, and sometimes almost works it up afresh; and this is 
 specially true of the narrative portion of the Gospel. 
 
 It is impossible to reach any certain conclusion as to the 
 amount of material which he had at his disposal. Some suppose 
 that this was very large, and that he has given us only a small 
 portion of it, selected according to the object which he is sup- 
 posed to have had in view, polemical, apologetic, conciliatory, 
 or historical. Others think that his aim at completeness is too 
 conspicuous to allow us to suppose that he rejected anything 
 which he believed to be authentic. Both these views are probably 
 exaggerations. No doubt there are cases in which he de/iberately 
 omits what he knew well and did not question. And the reason 
 for omission may have been either that he had recorded something 
 very similar, or that the incident would be less likely to interest or 
 edify Gentile readers. No doubt there are other cases in which 
 the most natural explanation of the omission is zgzorance: he does 
 not record because he does not know. We know of a small amount 
 which Mark alone records; of a considerable amount which 
 Matthew alone records; of a very considerable amount which 
 John alone records; and of an enormous amount (Jn. xxi. 25) 
 which no one records. To suppose that Luke knew the great 
 part of this, and yet passed it over, is an improbable hypothesis. 
 And to suppose that he knew scarcely any of it, is also improbable. 
 But a definite estimate cannot be made. 
 
xxviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [§ 8. 
 
 The statement that Luke avoids duplicates on principle has been 
 made and accepted too hastily. It is quite possible that he has 
 deliberately omitted some things, because of their similarity to 
 others which he has recorded. It is possible that he has omitted 
 the feeding of the 4000, because he has recorded the feeding of 
 the 5000; and the anointing by Mary of Bethany, because of the 
 anointing by the sinner; and the healing of the Syrophenician’s 
 daughter at a distance, because of the centurion’s servant at a 
 distance ; and the cursing of the barren fig-tree, because of the 
 parable of the same; and the mocking by Pilate’s soldiers, because 
 of the mocking by Herod’s soldiers. But in many, or even most, 
 of these cases some other motive may have caused the omission. 
 On the other hand, we must look at the doublets and triplets 
 which he has admitted. If he made it a rule to exclude duplicates, 
 the exceptions are more numerous than the examples, and they 
 extend all through the Gospel. 
 
 The Mother of the Christ has a song (i. 46 ff.), and the father of 
 the Baptist has a song (68 ff.). The venerable Simeon welcomes 
 the infant Christ in the temple (ii. 28), and so does the venerable 
 Anna (38). Levi the publican is converted and entertains Jesus 
 (v. 27 ff.), and Zacchzeus the publican also (xix. 1 ff.). The 
 mission of the Twelve (ix. 1) is followed by the mission of the 
 Seventy (x. 1). True disciples are equal to Christ’s relations 
 (viii. 21), and to His Mother (xi. 28). Twice there is a dispute as 
 to who is the greatest (ix. 46, xxii. 24). Not content with the 
 doublets which he has in common with Mt. (viii. 19-22, ix. 16, 17, 
 xxiv. 40, 41), he adds a third instance (ix. 61, 62, v. 39, xvil. 36?) ; 
 or where Mt. has only one example (xxiv. 37-39), he gives two 
 (xvii. 26-29). So also in the miracles. We have the widow’s son 
 raised (vii. 14), and also Jairus’ daughter (viii. 54), where no other 
 Evangelist gives more than one example. There are two instances 
 of cleansing lepers (v. 13, xvii. 14); two of forgiving sins (v. 20, 
 vii. 48); three healings on the sabbath (vi. 6, xiii. 10, xiv. 1); 
 four castings out of demons (iv. 35, viii. 29, ix. 42, xi. 14). Similar 
 repetition is found in the parables. The Rash Builder is followed 
 by the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep by the Lost Coin 
 (xv. 1-10); and the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5) does not involve 
 the omission of the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1). The exceptions 
 to the supposed principle are still more numerous in the shorter 
 sayings of Christ: viii, 16=xi. 33; vill. 17=xii. 2; vili. 18 = xix. 
 26; 1X. 23 =XIV. 27; 1X. 24=XVll. 33; 1x. 26—=xil_ 9; X 25 — xvilleog 
 Xie 43 =xx. 463 xii. 11, 12=xxi.* 14, I55 xiv. 1f— vine 
 xix. 44=xxi. 6; and comp. xvii. 31 with xxi. 21, and xxi. 23 
 with xxiii. 29. These instances, which are not exhaustive, suf- 
 fice to show that the Evangelist cannot have’ had any very 
 strong objection to recording duplicate instances of similar inci- 
 
§ 4] TIME AND PLACE xxix 
 
 dents and sayings. Could more duplicates be found in any other 
 Gospel P 
 
 For recent (since 1885) discussions of the Synoptic problem see Badham, 
 The Formation of the Gospels, 1891; Blair, The Apostolic Gospel, 1896 ; Jolley, 
 The Synoptic Problem, 1893; Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books of 
 the N.T., 5th ed. 1891 ; Wright, Zhe Composition of the Gospels, 1890; Synopszs 
 of the Gospels in Greek, 1896; Holsten, Dze synopt. Evang. nach Form 
 thres Inhalts dargestelit, 1886 ; Holtzmann, Einlertung in das N.T. 1892; 
 Jiilicher, Zzz/. in das N.T. 1894; Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, being Part 
 I. of Gesch. der N.T. Offenbarung, 1891; H. H. Wendt, Die Lehre und das 
 Leben Jesu, 1885-1890. Other literature is mentioned on p. Ixxxv. 
 
 See especially Sanday in Book by Book, 1893, p. 345 ff.3 in Dect. of the 
 Bible, 2nd ed. 1893, supplement to the article on ‘‘ Gospels,” pp. 1217-1243 ; 
 and in the Zxosztor, 4th series, Feb. to June, 1891. 
 
 § 4. TIME AND PLACE. 
 
 (i.) It is a disappointment that Bishop Lightfoot’s admirable 
 article on the Acts (D.&.? i. pp. 25-43) does not discuss the Daze. 
 The Bishop told the present writer that he regarded the question 
 of date as the province of the writer of the article on S. Luke, an 
 article which has not yet been rewritten. The want has, how- 
 ever, been to a large extent supplied in the Bampton Lectures for 
 1893 (Lect. vi.), and we may safely accept this guidance. 
 
 The main theories respecting the date of the Third Gospel 
 contend respectively for a time in or near the years A.D. 100, A.D. 
 80, and A.D. 63. 
 
 (a) The strongest argument used by those who advocate a 
 date near the close of the first century or early in the second? is 
 the hypothesis that the author of the Third Gospel and of the 
 Acts had read the Amziguzties of Josephus, a work published about 
 A.D. 94. But this hypothesis, if not absolutely untenable, is highly 
 improbable. The coincidences between Luke and Josephus are 
 not greater than might accidentally occur in persons writing in- 
 dependently about the same facts; while the divergences are so 
 great as to render copying improbable. At any rate Josephus 
 must not be used both ways. If the resemblances are made to 
 prove that Luke copied Josephus, then the discrepancies should 
 not be employed to prove that Luke’s statements are erroneous. 
 If Luke had a correct narrative to guide him, why did he diverge 
 from it only to make blunders? It is much more reasonable to 
 suppose that where Luke differs from the Axtiguities he had in- 
 dependent knowledge, and that he had never read Josephus. 
 Moreover, where the statements of either can be tested, it is Luke 
 who is commonly found to be accurate, whereas Josephus is often 
 
 1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Over- 
 
 beck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsacker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The 
 more moderate of these suggest A.D. 95-105, the more extreme A.D. 120-135. 
 
~- 
 
 xxx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 4. 
 
 convicted of exaggeration and error. See the authorities cited by 
 Lft. D.B.2 p. 39; by Holtzmann, Zind. in d. N.T. p. 374, 1892, 
 and by Schanz, Comm. iiber d. Evang. d. h. Lukas, p. 16, 1883. 
 
 The relation of Luke to Josephus has recently been rediscussed ; on the one 
 side by Clemen (Dze Chronologie der paulin. Briefe, Halle, 1893) and Krenkel 
 (Josephus und Lukas ; der schriftstellerische Einfluss des jidischen Geschicht- 
 schretbers auf den christlichen, Leipzig, 1894), who regard the use of Josephus 
 by Luke as certain; on the other by Belser (Z%eo/. Quartalschrift, Tiibingen, 
 1895, 1896), who justly criticizes the arguments of these writers and especially 
 of Krenkel.! It is childish to point out that Luke, like Josephus, uses such 
 words as dmogréA\Xewv, ddixvetcbar, avédverv, mardlov, méumev, TUN, K.T.As, in 
 their usual sense: and such phrases as poéxorrev rn copla kat nAckla (Lk. ii. 52) 
 and éloravro wdvtes ol dxovovres avrod éml TH civeoe Kal Tals dmoxploeow avrod 
 (ii. 47) are not strikingly similar to els peydAnv madelas mpovKorrov émldoow, 
 prin Te Kal ovvéce doxay diadépew (Jos. Vita, 2) and Oavpuacas Thy dmbkpiow 
  abrod cophy otrw yevouevny (Ant. xii. 4. 9). Far more striking resemblances 
 may be found in writings which are indisputably independent. Luke alone in 
 N.T. calls the Sea of Galilee 7 Aluvn Tevyvnoapér. Could he not call it a /ake 
 without being prompted? Josephus also calls it a Aluvy, but his designations 
 all differ from Luke’s: Tevynoap 7 Aluvyn, A. Tevvnodp, d. ) Vevvnoapiris, 
 Tevynoapins dX. (B. J. ii. 20. 6, iii. 10. 7; Azz. xviii. 2. 1; Veta, 65), and other 
 variations. Luke has mpocérecey rots yévacw “Incod (v. 8), and Josephus has 
 Tois yovacw avrovd mpoomécovres (Ant. xix. 3. 4). But Josephus more often 
 writes mpoomlrreyv tit mpds Ta yévara, and the more frequent phrase would 
 more probably have been borrowed. Comp. cuvexouévn muper@ meyddy (Lk. 
 iv. 38) with rerapraly muper@ cuoxebels (Ant. xiii. 15. 5); mh merewplfeobe 
 (xii. 29) with Azz. xvi. 4. 6, sub fin. (where, however, vevewrépioro is the more 
 probable reading) ; dpavros éyévero dm’ atra&y (xxiv. 31) with ddavis éyévero 
 (Ant. xx. 8. 6). In these and many other cases the hypothesis of copying is 
 wholly uncalled for. The expressions are not very uncommon. Some of them 
 perhaps are the result of both Luke and Josephus being familiar with LXX. 
 Others are words or constructions which are the common material of various 
 Greek writers. Indeed, as Belser has shown, a fair case may be made out to 
 show the influence of Thucydides on Luke. In a word, the theory that Luke 
 had read Josephus ‘‘ rests on little more than the fact that both writers relate 
 or allude to the same events, though the differences between them are really 
 more marked than the resemblances” (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 
 278). As Schiirer and Salmon put it, if Luke had read Josephus, he must 
 very quickly have forgotten all that he read in him. 
 
 In itself, the late date A.D. 100 is not incredible, even for those 
 who are convinced that the writer is Luke, and that he never read 
 Josephus. Luke may have been quite a young man, well under 
 thirty, when he first joined S. Paul, a.D. 50-52; and he may have 
 been living and writing at the beginning of the second century. 
 But the late date has nothing to recommend it; and we may 
 believe that both his writings would have assumed a different 
 form, had they been written as late as this. Would not o Xpioros, 
 which is still a title and means “the Messiah” (ii. 26, iii. 15, iv. 41, 
 ix. 20, XX. 41, xxii. 67, xxili. 35, 39, xxiv. 26, 46), have become a 
 
 1¥F. Bole, Flavius Josephus tiber Chrestus und die Christen in den Jiidischen 
 
 Alterthiimern, Brixen, 1896, defends the disputed passage about Christ (xviii. 
 3- 3) rather than the independence of S. Luke. 
 
§ 4.] TIME AND PLACE xxxi 
 
 proper name, as in the Epistles? Would not 6 Kupuos, as a 
 designation of Jesus Christ, have been still more frequent? It is 
 not found in Matthew or Mark (excepting in the disputed 
 appendix); but it is the invariable designation in the Gosfel of 
 ier. in Luke (vil. 13, x. 1, Xi. 39, Xil. 42, xiil. 15, xvii. 5, 6, 
 XViii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 61, xxiv. 34) and in John this use is begin- 
 ning, but it is still exceptional. Above all, would xxi. 32 have stood 
 
 as it does, at a date when “this generation” had “‘ passed away” ~ 
 
 without seeing the Second Advent? Moreover, the historical 
 atmosphere of the Acts is not that of A.D. 95-135. Inthe Acts the 
 Jews are the persecutors of the Christians; at this late date the 
 Jews were being persecuted themselves. Lastly, what would have 
 induced a companion of S. Paul, whether Luke or not, to wait so long 
 before publishing the results of his researches? Opportunities of 
 contact with those who had been eye-witnesses would have been 
 rapidly vanishing during the last twenty years. 
 
 (4) The intermediate date of a.pD. 75-80 has very much 
 more to recommend it.) It avoids the difficulties just men- 
 tioned. It accounts for the occasional but not yet constant 
 use of o Kvpuos to designate Jesus. It accounts for the omis- 
 sion of the very significant hint, “let him that readeth under- 
 stand” (Mk. xiii. 14; Mt. xxiv. 15). When the first two Gospels 
 (or the materials common to both) were compiled, the predicted 
 dangers had not yet come but were near; and each of these 
 
 ‘Evangelists warns his readers to be on the alert. When the Third 
 Gospel was written, these dangers were past. It accounts for the 
 greater definiteness of the prophecies respecting the destruction of 
 Jerusalem as given by Luke (xix. 43, 44, xxi. 10-24), when com- 
 pared with the records of them in Mark (xiii. x4-19) and Matthew 
 (xxiv. 15-22). After the destruction had taken place the tradition 
 of the prediction might be influenced by what was known to have 
 happened; and this without any conscious tampering with the 
 report of the prophecy. ‘The possibility of this influence must be 
 admitted, and with it a possibility of a date subsequent to A.D. 70 
 for the Gospel and the Acts. Twice in the Gospel (viii. 51, ix. 28), 
 as in the Acts (i. 13), Luke places John before his elder brother 
 James, which Mt. and Mk. never do; and this may indicate that 
 Luke wrote after John had become the better known of the two. 
 Above all, such a date allows sufficient time for the “many”? to 
 “draw up narratives” respecting the acts and sayings of Christ. 
 
 1 Some year between A.D. 70 and 95 is advocated by Beyschlag, Bleek, 
 Cook, Credner, De Wette, Ewald, Giider, Holtzmann?, Jiilicher, Keim?, 
 K6stlin, Lechler, Lekebusch, Mangold, Ramsay, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, 
 Schenkel, Trip, Tobler, Weiss, and others. And the more trustworthy of these, 
 e.g. Ramsay, Sanday, and Weiss, are disposed to make A.D. 80 the latest date 
 that can reasonably be assigned to the Gospel, or even to the Acts. 
 
oad THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 4. 
 
 (c) The early date of about a.p. 63 still finds advocates ;1 and 
 no doubt there is something to be said for it. Quite the scmplest 
 explanation of the fact that S. Paul’s death is not recorded in the Acts 
 is that it had not taken place. If that explanation is correct the 
 Third Gospel cannot be placed much later than a.D. 63. Again, 
 the writer of the Acts can hardly have been familiar with the 
 Epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians: otherwise he would 
 have inserted some things and explained others (Salmon, sé. 
 Int. to N.T. p. 319, ed. 5). How long might Luke have been 
 without seeing these Epistles? Easily till a.p. 63; but less easily 
 till A.D. 80. Once more, when Luke records the prophecy of 
 Agabus respecting the famine, he mentions that it was fulfilled 
 (Acts xi. 28). When he records the prophecy of Christ respecting 
 the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 5-36), he does not mention that 
 it was fulfilled. The simplest explanation is that the destruction 
 had not yet taken place. And, if it be said that the prediction of 
 it has been retouched in Luke’s record in order to make it more 
 distinctly in accordance with facts, we must notice that the words, 
 “Let them that are in Judzea /fee to the mountains,” are in all three 
 reports. The actual flight seems to have been, not to the moun- 
 tains, but to Pella in north Persea; and yet “to the mountains” 
 is still retained by Luke (xxi. 21). Eusebius says that there was 
 a “revelation” before the war, warning the Christians not only to 
 leave the city, but to dwell in a town called Pella (7. Z£. iii. 5. 3). 
 This “revelation” is evidently an adaptation of Christ’s prophecy ; 
 and here we reasonably suspect that the detail about Pella has been 
 added after the event. But there is nothing of it in Luke’s report. 
 
 Nevertheless, the reasons stated above, and especially those 
 derived from the prologue to the Gospel, make the intermediate 
 date the most probable of the three. It combines the advantages 
 of the other two dates and avoids the difficulties of both. It may 
 be doubted whether any of the Gospels, as we have them, was 
 written as early as A.D. 63; and if the Third Gospel is placed 
 after the death of S. Paul, one main reason for placing it before 
 A.D. 70 is gone. 
 
 (ii.) As to the Place in which Luke wrote his Gospel we 
 have no evidence that is of much value. The Gospel itself gives 
 no sure clue. The peculiarities of its diction point to a centre 
 in which Hellenistic influences prevailed; and the way in which 
 places in Palestine are mentioned have been thought to in- 
 dicate that the Gospel was written outside Palestine (i. 26, 
 ii. 4, iv. 31, Vili. 26, xxiii. 51, xxiv. 13). The first of these 
 considerations does not lead to anything very definite, and the 
 
 1 Among them are Alford, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guerike, 
 Hahn, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Nésgen, Oosterzee, Resch, 
 Riehm, Schaff, Schanz (67-70), Thiersch, Tholuck, and Wieseler. 
 
§ 5.) OBJECT AND PLAN Xxxili 
 
 second has little or no weight. The fact that the Gospel was 
 written for readers outside Palestine, who were not familiar with 
 the country, accounts for all the topographical expressions. We 
 do not know what evidence Jerome had for the statement which 
 he makes in the preface to his commentary on S. Matthew: 
 Tertius Lucas medicus, nattone Syrus Antiochensts (cujus laus in 
 Evangelio), gui et discipulus apostoli Pault, in Achaize Bceotizeque 
 partibus volumen condidit (2 Cor. viil.), guxedam altius repetens, 
 et ut tpse in prowmio conjitetur, audita magis, quam visa describens 
 (Migne, xxvi..18), where some MSS. have Azthynize for Beotiz. 
 Some MSS. of the Peshitto give Alexandria as the place of com- 
 position, which looks like confusion with Mark. Modern guesses 
 vary much: Rome (Holtzmann, Hug, Keim, Lesebusch, Zeller), 
 Cesarea (Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch, Tholuck), Asia Minor 
 (Hilgenfeld, Overbeck), Ephesus (Kostlin), and Corinth (Godet). 
 There is no evidence for or against any of them. 
 
 § 5. OBJECT AND PLAN. 
 
 (i.) The immediate Odyect is told us in the preface. It was 
 written to give Theophilus increased confidence in the faith which 
 he had adopted, by supplying him with further information 
 respecting its historical basis. That Theophilus is a real person, 
 and not a symbolical personage representing devout Christians in 
 general,! is scarcely doubtful, although Bishop Lightfoot, with 
 characteristic caution, has warned us not to be too confident of 
 this. A real person is intrinsically more probable. The name 
 was a very common one,—fairly frequent among Jews, and very 
 frequent among Gentiles. It is thus quite unlike such obviously 
 made up names as Sophron and Neologus in a modern book, 
 or Philotheus, to whom Ken dedicates his Manual of Prayer for 
 Winchester scholars. Moreover, the epithet xpdrurre is far more 
 likely to have been given to a real person than to a fictitious one. 
 It does not however necessarily imply high rank or authority (Acts 
 Xxlil. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), and we must be content to be in ignor- 
 ance as to who Theophilus was and where he lived. But the tone 
 of the Gospel leads us to regard him as a representative Gentile 
 convert, who was anxious to know a good deal more than the few ’ 
 fundamental facts which were taught to catechumens. The topo- 
 graphical statements mentioned above, and such remarks as “the 
 
 1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as 
 Origen (Hom. i. ix Luc.), and is adopted by Ambrose: scriptum est evangelium 
 ad Theophilum, hoc est ad eum quem Deus diligit (Comm. in Luc. i. 3). 
 Epiphanius regards the name’s denoting was dvOpwaos Ocdv ayarav asa possible 
 alternative (Her. ii. 1. 51, Migne, xli. 900). 
 
 < 
 
XxxiV THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 5. 
 
 feast of unleavened bread which is called the passover” (xxii. 1), 
 would not have been required for a Jewish convert. 
 
 But, although Theophilus was almost certainly an actual person 
 well known to Luke, we need not suppose that the Evangelist had 
 only this one reader in view when he wrote. It is evident that he 
 writes for the instruction and encouragement of all Gentile con- 
 verts, and possibly Greek-speaking converts in particular. Theo- 
 philus is to be the patron of the book with a view to its 
 introduction to a larger circle of readers. Perhaps Luke hoped 
 that Theophilus would have it copied and disseminated, as he 
 probably did. 
 
 Among the many indications that the book is written by a 
 Gentile for Gentiles are the substitution of Greek for Hebrew names, 
 0 Zndwrys for o Kavavaios (vi. 15; Acts i. 13), and Kpavioy for 
 ToAyoa (xxiil. 33); his never using “PaGGel as a form of address, 
 but either d:ddcxake or ériordra;1 his comparatively sparing use 
 of duyv (seven times as against thirty in Matthew), for which he 
 sometimes substitutes a\76as (ix. 27; xii, 44, XXi. 3) or éx dAnOcias 
 (iv. 25, xxii. 59); his use of voyixds for ypappareds (Vil. 30, X. 255 
 xl. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3); his adding dxdaprov as an epithet to 
 darponov (iv. 33), for Gentiles believed in good daiuéma, whereas 
 to a Jew all dapdva were evil; his avoiding perenopdaby (Mk. 
 ix. 2; Mt. xvii. 2) in his account of the Transfiguration (ix. 29), a 
 word which might have suggested the metamorphoses of heathen 
 deities ; his notice of the Roman Emperor (ii. 1), and using his 
 reign as a date (iii. 1); his tracing the Saviour’s descent to Adam, 
 the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (iii. 38). Although full 
 honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (ii. 21, 
 27) 39, V- 14, X. 26, xvi. 17, 29-31, XVii. 14, xvill. 20), yet there is 
 not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no 
 parallels to Mt. v. 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, 31, 33, Xli. 5-7, 17-20, 
 xv. I-20. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as 
 compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings 
 of Christ (iv. 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, Vi. 4, Vil. 27, Vill. 10, xii. 19, 
 28, 29, 35; XVili. 20, xix. 46, XX, 17, 37, 42, 43) XXl. 10; 24;emee 
 35, Xxii. 33 69, xxiii. 32 46) or of others (i. 15, 17, 37, 46-55, 
 68-79, ii. 30, 31, 32, iv. 10, I1, X. 27, Xx. 28). Very little is said 
 about the fulfilment of prophecy, which would not greatly interest 
 Gentile readers (iii. 4, iv. 21, xxi. 22, xxii. 375 Xxiv. 44); and of 
 these five instances, all but ‘the first occur in sayings of Christ 
 addressed to Jews. Many of the quotations noted above are mere 
 
 1 The following Hebrew or Aramaic words, which occur in the other Gospels, 
 are not found in Luke: ’ABBG (Mk.), Boovepyés (Mk.), TaSBaea (Jn.), 
 *EBpatorl (Jn.), "Eupavoujh (Mt.), é¢pad (Mk.), KopSav (Mk.), KopBavds 
 (Mt.), Megolas (Jn.), wcavvd (Mt. Mk. Jn.), together with the sayings, raAeda 
 xooys (Mk.) and Awi, edwt, «.7.d. ie Mk.). 
 
§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XxXxv 
 
 reproductions, more or less conscious, of the words of Scripture ; 
 but the following are definitely given as citations: il. 23, 24, ili. 4, 
 Waa, o, 10, 11, 12, 1, FO, Vil. 27, X. 27,) XVill. 20, XIx. 46, XX. 17, 
 28, 37, 42, 43, Xxli. 37. Excepting vii. 27, they may all have come 
 from LXX.! And vil. 27 does not agree with either the Hebrew 
 or LXX of Mal. iii. 1, and is no evidence that the Evangelist 
 knew Hebrew. On the other hand it agrees verbatim with Mt. 
 xi. 10, and we need not doubt that both Evangelists used the same 
 source and copied it exactly. Add to these his command of the 
 Greek language and his use of “ Judzea” for the land of the Jews, 
 z.e. the whole of Palestine (i. 5, iv. 44?, vii. 17, xxili. 5; Acts ii. 9, 
 X. 37, xi. 1,29). This combination of non-Jewish features would 
 be extraordinary in a treatise written by a Jew or for Jews. It is 
 thoroughly intelligible in one written by a Gentile for Gentiles. 
 
 In his desire to give further instruction to Theophilus and 
 many others like him, it is evident that Luke aims at fudness. He 
 desires to make his Gospel as comp/eze as possible. This is clearly 
 indicated in the prologue. He has “traced up the course of a// 
 things accurately from the first” (dvwHev maowv), in order that 
 Theophilus may “know iz full detail” (ériyvds) the historic 
 foundations of the faith. And it is equally clearly seen in the 
 Gospel itself. Luke begins at the very beginning, far earlier than 
 any other Evangelist ; not merely with the birth of the Christ, but 
 with the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. And he goes on 
 to the very end: not merely to the Resurrection but to the Ascen- 
 sion. Moreover his Gospel contains an immense proportion of 
 material which is peculiar to himself. According to one calcula- 
 tion, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 
 sections, of these 172 Luke has 127 (?), Matthew 114 (%), and 
 Mark 84 (4); and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are peculiar to 
 himself (7), Matthew has 22 (3), and Mark has 5 (34). According 
 to another calculation, if the total be divided into 124 sections, of 
 these Lk. has 93, Matthew 78, and Mark 67; and of these 124 
 Luke has 38 peculiar to himself, Matthew 17, and Mark 2.2 The 
 portions of the Gospel narrative which Luke alone has preserved 
 for us are among the most beautiful treasures which we possess, 
 and we owe them in a great measure to his desire to make his 
 collection as full as possible. 
 
 1Jerome (Comm. in Is. vi. 9, Migne, xxiv. 100) says, Evangelistam Lucam 
 tradunt veteres Eccclesizw tractatores medicine artis fuisse sczentissimum, et 
 magis Grecas litteras scisse quam Hebrxas. Unde et sermo ejus, tam in Evan- 
 gelo quam in Actibus Apostolorum, td est in utrogue volumine .omptior est, et 
 secularem redolet eloguentiam, magzsque testimontzs Grects utitur quam Hebreis. 
 
 2 Six miracles are peculiar to Luke, three to Matthew, and two to Mark. 
 Eighteen parables are peculiar to Luke, ten to Matthew, and one to Mark. 
 See p. xli. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the 
 Synoptists see Westcott, utr. to Gospels, pp. 194 ff. 
 
XXXVi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 5. 
 
 It is becoming more and more generally admitted that the old 
 view of the purpose of Gospel and Acts is not far off the truth. It 
 was Luke’s intention to write history, and not polemical or apolo- 
 getic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especi- 
 ally Gentile Christians, on how firm a basis of fact their belief was 
 founded. ‘The Saviour had come, and He had come to save the 
 whole human race. The work of the Christ and the work of His 
 Apostles proved this conclusively. In the Gospel we see the 
 Christ winning salvation for the whole world ; in the Acts we see 
 His Apostles carrying the good tidings of this salvation to the 
 whole world. Luke did not write to depreciate the Twelve in the 
 interests of S. Paul; nor to vindicate S. Paul against the attacks of 
 Judaizing opponents; nor yet to reconcile the Judaizers with the 
 disciples of S. Paul. A Gospel which omits the severe rebuke 
 incurred by Peter (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33), the ambitious 
 request of James and John (Mt. xx. 21; Mk. x. 37), the boastful 
 declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Mt. xxvi. 35; Mk. 
 xiv. 31), and the subsequent flight. of all (Mt. xxvi. 56; Mk. 
 xiv. 50); which promises to the Twelve their judgment-thrones 
 (xxii. 30), and trusts them with the conversion of “all the nations” 
 (xxiv. 47), cannot be regarded as hostile to the Twelve. And why 
 address a vindication of Paul to a representative Gentile? Lastly, 
 how could Judaizers be conciliated by such stern judgments on 
 Judaism as Luke has recorded? See, for instance, the following 
 passages, all of them from what is peculiar to Luke: iv. 28, 29, 
 X. 10, II, 31, 32,.XL 30, 40, xii. 47, Xill. I-5, 15, XVI UG vee, 
 XVlil. 10-14, xxili. 28-31 ; Acts ii. 23, v. 30, vii. 51-53, etc. It is 
 well that these theories as to the purpose of the Evangelist have 
 been propounded: the examination of them is most instructive. 
 But they do not stand the test of careful investigation. S. Luke 
 remains unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets 
 under the cover of fictitious history. 
 
 (ii.) The Plan of the Gospel is probably not elaborated. In 
 the preface Luke says that he means to write “in order” (xafe&js), 
 and this most naturally means in chronological order. Omitting 
 the first two chapters and the last chapter in each case, the 
 main features of the First and Third Gospels agree ; and in outline 
 their structure agrees te a large extent with that of the Second.? 
 Luke perhaps took the tradition which underlies all three Gospels 
 as his chief guide, and inserted into it what he had gathered from 
 other sources. In arranging the additional material he followed 
 chronology, where be had any chronological clue; and where he 
 
 1 As regards order, im the first half the Second and Third Gospels commonly 
 azres, whie *be First varies. In the second half the First and Second com- 
 paonly agree, while the Third varies. Matthew’s additions to the common 
 vsaterial are mostly in the first half; Luke’s are mostly in the second. 
 
§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXXVii 
 
 had none (which perhaps was often the case), he placed similar 
 incidents or sayings in juxtaposition. 
 
 But a satisfactory solution of the perplexing phenomena has not yet been 
 found: for what explains one portion of them with enticing clearness cannot be 
 made to harmonize with another portion. We may assert with some confidence 
 that Luke generally aims at chronological order, and that on the whole he 
 attains it; but that he sometimes prefers a different order, and that he often, 
 being ignorant himself, leaves us also in ignorance as to chronology. Perhaps 
 also some of his chronological arrangements are not correct. 
 
 The chronological sequence of the Acts cannot be doubted; and this is 
 strong confirmation of the view that the Gospel is meant to be chronological in 
 arrangement. Comp. the use of xa@eéfs viii. 1; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, xviil. 23. 
 
 That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate the development 
 and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the im- 
 pression which it everywhere gives of transparent simplicity. That there was 
 connexion and development in the life and work of Christ need not be doubted ; 
 and the narrative which reports that life and work in its true order will illustrate 
 the connexion and development. But that is a very different thing from the 
 supposition that Luke first formed a scheme, and then arranged his materials to 
 illustrate it. So far as there is “‘ organic structure and dogmatic connexion” in 
 the Third Gospel, it is due to the materials rather than to the Evangelist. 
 Attempts to trace this supposed dogmatic connexion are instructive in two 
 ways. They suggest a certain number of connexions, which (whether intended 
 or not) are illuminative. They also show, by their extraordinary divergences, 
 how far we are from anything conclusive in this direction. The student who 
 compares the schemes worked out by Ebrard (Gosf. Hzst. I. i. 1, § 20, 21), 
 McClellan (WV. 7. pp. 427 ff.), Oosterzee (Lange's Comm. Int. § 4), and West- 
 cott (Zt. to Gospels, ch. vii. note G) will gather various suggestive ideas, but 
 will also doubt whether anything like any one of them was in the mind of the 
 Evangelist. 
 
 The analysis which follows is obtained by separating the 
 different sections and grouping them under different heads. There 
 is seldom any doubt as to where one section ends and another 
 begins ; and the grouping of the sections is avowedly tentative. 
 But most analyses recognize a break between chapters ii. and iii., 
 at or about ix. 51 and xix. 28, and between chapters xxi. and xxii. 
 If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numer- 
 ous sections may be assigned. In the two main central divisions, 
 which together occupy nearly seventeen chapters, some subsidiary 
 grouping has been attempted, but without confidence in its cor- 
 rectness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if 
 nothing of the kind is intended by S. Luke.!_ The mark § indicates 
 that this portion is found in Luke alone; ° that it is common to 
 Luke and Mark ; { that it is common to Luke and Matthew; * that 
 it is common to all three. 
 
 1 The divisions and subdivisions of the Gospel in the text of WH. are most 
 instructive. Note whether paragraphs and sentences have spaces between them 
 or not, and whether sentences begin with a capital letter or not. The analysis 
 of the poste! by Sanday in Book by Book, pp. 402-404 (Isbister, 1893), will be 
 found very helpful. 
 
XXXVIIi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE I$ 5 
 
 There is a presumption that what is peculiar to Luke comes from some 
 source that was not used by Mark or Matthew ; and this presumption is in some 
 cases a strong one; ¢.g. the Examination of Christ before Herod, or the Walk 
 to Emmaus ; but all that we know is that Luke has preserved something which 
 they have not. Again there is a presumption that what is given by Luke and 
 Matthew, but omitted by Mark, comes from some source not employed by the 
 latter ; and this presumption is somewhat stronger when what is given by them, 
 but omitted by him, is not narrative but discourse; e.g. the Parable of the 
 Lost Sheep. Yet the book of ‘‘ Oracles,” known to Matthew and Luke, but 
 not known to Mark, is nothing more than a convenient hypothesis for which a 
 good deal may be said. And it would be rash to affirm that the few (p. xxiv) 
 sections which are found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, such as the 
 Widow’s Mite, come from some source unknown to Matthew. The frequency 
 of the ..ark § gives some idea of what we should have lost had S. Luke not 
 been moved to write. And it must be remembered that in the sections which 
 are common to him and either or both of the others he often gives touches of 
 his own which are of the greatest value. Attention is frequently called to these 
 in the notes. They should be contrasted with the additions made to the 
 Canonical Gospels in the apocryphal gospels. 
 
 I. i. 1-4. §THE Prerack. THE SourcES AND OBJECT OF 
 THE GOSPEL. 
 
 II. i. 5-ii. 52. § THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY. 
 1. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25). 
 2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38). 
 3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of 
 the Forerunner (39-56). 
 4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80). 
 5. The Birth of the Saviour (ii. 1-20). 
 6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour 
 21-40). 
 7. The Bopnead of the Saviour (41-52). 
 
 III. iii. r-ix. 50. THE MINISTRY, MAINLY IN GALILEE. 
 i. Zhe External Preparation for the Ministry ; The Preach- 
 ing of the Bapiist (iii. 1-22). 
 1. § The Date (1, 2). 
 2. * The New Prophet, his Preaching, Prophecy, and 
 Death (3-20). 
 3. * He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). 
 § The Genealogy of the Christ (23-38). 
 ii. Zhe Internal Preparation for the Ministry ; * The Tempta 
 tion (iv. 1-13). 
 iii. Zhe Ministry in Galilee (iv. 14-1x. 50). 
 1. Visit to Nazareth; °At Capernaum an unclean Demon 
 cast out (iv. 14-44). 
 2. §*The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon; 
 * Two Healings which provoke Controversy ; * The 
 Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incidents which 
 provoke Controversy (v. I-vi. 11). 
 
§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXxxix 
 
 3. *The Nomination of the Twelve; t The Sermon “on 
 the Level Place”; +The Centurion’s Servant ; 
 §The Widow’s Son at Nain; , The Message from 
 the Baptist; §The Anointing by the Sinner; §The 
 Ministering Women; * The Parable of the Sower ; 
 * The Relations of Jesus ; * The Stilling of the Tem- 
 pest ; * The Gerasene Demoniac ; * The Woman with 
 the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (vi. 12—-viil. 56). 
 
 4 *The Mission of the Twelve; * The Feeding of the 
 Five Thousand; * Peter’s Confession and the First 
 Prediction of the Passion; * The Transfiguration ; 
 *The Demoniac Boy; * The Second Prediction of 
 the Passion; * Who is the greatest? * Not against 
 us is for us (ix. 1-50). 
 
 IV. ix. 51-xix. 28. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM: 
 MINISTRY OUTSIDE GALILEE. 
 
 i. Zhe departure from Galilee and First Period of the 
 Journey (ix. 51-xiii. 35). 
 
 1. §The Samaritan Village; ¢§Three Aspirants to Dis- 
 cipleship; § The Seventy: The Lawyer’s Questions 
 and §the Good Samaritan; § Mary and Martha 
 (ix. 51-x. 42). 
 
 s. §Prayer ; * Casting out Demons by Beelzebub ; § True 
 Blessedness ; * The Demand for a Sign: § Denuncia- 
 tion of Pharisaism; 7+ Exhortation to Sincerity ; 
 § The Avaricious Brother; §The Rich Fool; God’s 
 Providential Care ; § The Signs of the Times (xi. 1- 
 
 xii. 59). 
 3- §Three Exhortations to Repentance; §The Woman 
 with a Spirit of Infirmity; *The Mustard Seed; 
 t The Leaven; The Number of the Saved; §The 
 Message to Antipas and {7 the Lament over Jeru- 
 salem (xiii. 1-35). 
 il, Zhe Second Period of the Journey (xiv. 1-xvii. 10). 
 1. §The Dropsical Man; §Guests and Hosts; § The 
 Great Supper; §The Conditions of Discipleship ; 
 t The Lost Sheep; §The Lost Coin; §The Lost 
 Son (xiv. I-xv. 32). 
 #. §The Unrighteous Steward; §¢ Short Sayings; § The 
 Rich Man and Lazarus ; Four Sayings on * Offences, 
 § Forgiveness, ¢ Faith, § Works (xvi. 1-xvii. 10). 
 ili. Zhe Third Period of the Journey (xvii. 11-xix. 28). 
 1. §The Ten Lepers; §* The coming of the Kingdom; 
 §The Unrighteous Judge; §The Pharisee and the 
 Publican (xvii. 11—xviii. 14). 
 
xl THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 5. 
 
 2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young’ Ruler; *The 
 Third Prediction of the Passion; *The Blind Man 
 at Jericho; § Zacchzus; §The Pounds (xviii. 15- 
 xix. 28). 
 
 V. xix. 29-xxi. 38. Last Days or Pusiic TEACHING: 
 MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM. 
 
 1. *The Triumphal Procession and § Predictive Lament- 
 ation; * The Cleansing of the Temple (xix. 29-48). 
 
 a. The Day of Questions. * Christ’s Authority and John’s 
 Baptism ; * The Wicked Husbandmen; * Tribute ; 
 * The Woman with Seven Husbands; * David’s Son 
 and Lord; *The Scribes; °The Widow’s Mite; 
 *§ Apocalyptic Discourse (xx. 1-xxi. 38). 
 
 VI. xai.—xxiv. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION. 
 i. Zhe Passion (xxii. 1-xxiii. 56). 
 
 1. * The Treachery of Judas (xxii. 1-6). 
 
 2, * The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist ; 
 * The Strife about Priority ; § The New Conditions 
 (xxii. 7-38). 
 
 3. *§The Agony; * The Arrest; * Peter’s Denials ; The 
 Ecclesiastical Trial; *The Civil Trial; § Jesus 
 sent to Herod; * Sentence; *Simon of Cyrene; 
 §The Daughters of Jerusalem ; * The Crucifixion ; 
 §The Two Robbers; *The Death (xxii. 39- 
 xxili. 49). 
 
 4. * The Burial (xxiii. 50-56). 
 
 ii. Zhe Resurrection and the Ascension (xxiv.). 
 
 1. *§The Women at the Tomb (1-11). 
 
 2. §[Peter at the Tomb (12).] 
 
 3. § The Walk to Emmaus (13-32). 
 
 4. § The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43). 
 
 5. § Christ’s Farewell Instructions (44-49). 
 
 6. § The Departure (50-53). 
 
 Note that each of the three divisions of the Ministry begins 
 with scenes which are typical of Christ’s rejection by His people: 
 the Ministry in Galilee with the attempt on His life at Nazareth 
 (iv. 28-30); the Ministry outside Galilee with the refusal of 
 Samaritans to entertain Him (ix. 51-56); and that in Jerusalem 
 with the Lament over the city (xix. 41-44). In the first and last 
 case the tragic rejection is heightened by being preceded by a 
 momentary welcome. 
 
 It will be useful to collect for separate consideration the Miracles and the 
 Parables which are recorded by S. Luke. 
 
§6.] | CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE 
 
 MIRACLES, 
 
 * Unclean Demon cast out. 
 * Peter’s Wife’s Mother healed. 
 § Miraculous Draught of Fish. 
 
 * Leper cleansed, 
 * Palsyed healed. 
 
 * Withered Hand restored. 
 + Centurion’s Servant healed. 
 
 § Widow’s Son raised, 
 
 * Tempest stilled. 
 
 * Gerasene Demoniac. 
 
 * Woman with the Issues 
 * Jairus’ Daughter raised. 
 * Five Thousand fed. 
 
 * Demoniac Boy. 
 
 + Dumb Demon cast oute 
 § Spirit of Infirmity. 
 
 § Dropsical Man. 
 
 § Ten Lepers cleansed, 
 
 * Blind Man at Jerichoe 
 
 PARABLES, 
 
 § Two Debtors. 
 
 * Sower. 
 
 § Good Samaritan, 
 
 § Friend at midnight, 
 
 § Rich Fool. 
 
 § Watchful Servants, 
 
 § Barren Fig-tree. 
 
 * Mustard Seed. 
 
 + Leaven. 
 
 § Chief Seats, 
 
 § Great Saupets 
 
 § Rash Builder. 
 
 § Rash King. 
 
 + Lost Sheep, 
 
 § Lost Coin. 
 
 § Lost Son. 
 
 § Unrighteous Stewarde 
 § Dives and Lazarus. 
 
 § Unprofitable Servants. 
 
 § Malchus’ ear. § Unrighteous Judge. 
 § Pharisee and Publicane 
 § Pounds. 
 
 * Wicked Husbandmen. 
 
 Thus, out of twenty miracles recorded by Luke, six are peculiar to him; 
 while, out of twenty-three parables, all but five are peculiar to him. And he 
 omits only eleven, ten peculiar to Matthew, and one peculiar to Mark (iv. 26-29). 
 Whence did Luke obtain the eighteen parables which he alone records? And 
 whence did Matthew obtain the ten parables which he alone records? If the 
 “Oracles” contained them all, why does each Evangelist omit so many? If 
 S. Luke knew our Matthew, why does he omit all these ten, especially the 
 Two Sons (Mt. xxi. 28-32), which points to the obedience of the Gentiles (see 
 p. xxiv). In illustration of the fact that the material common to all three 
 Gospels consists mainly of narratives rather than discourses, it should be noticed 
 that most of the twenty miracles in Luke are in the other two also, whereas 
 only three of the twenty-three parables in Luke are also in Matthew and Mark. 
 It is specially worthy of note that the eleven miracles recorded by all three 
 occur in the same order in each of the Gospels; and the same is true of the 
 three parables which are common to all three. Moreover, if we add to these the 
 three miraculous occurrences which attest the Divinity of Christ, these also are 
 in the same order in each. The Descent of the Spirit with the Voice from 
 Heaven at the Baptism precedes all. The Transfiguration is placed between 
 the feeding of the 5000 and the healing of the demoniac boy. The Resurrection 
 closes all. Evidently the order had already been fixed in the material which all 
 three Evangelists employ. 
 
 §6. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE, 
 
 (i.) It has already been pointed out (p. xxxv) that Luke aims at 
 fulness and completeness. “(a) Comprehensiveness is a charac- 
 teristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a 
 biography ; and his object seems to have been to give his readers 
 
xlii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 
 
 as full a picture as he could of the life of Jesus Christ, in all the 
 portions of it—infancy, boyhood, manhood—respecting which he 
 had information. 
 
 But there is a comprehensiveness of a more important kind 
 which is equally characteristic of him: and for the sake of a 
 different epithet we may say that the Gospel of S.(Luke is in a 
 special sense the wmiversal Gospel.» All four Evangelists | tell us 
 that the good tidings are sent to “all the nations” (Mt. xxviii. 19 ; 
 Mk. xiii. 10; Lk. xxiv. 47) independently of birth (Jn. i. 12, 13). 
 But no one teaches this so fully and persistently as S. Luke. (He 
 gives us, not so much the Messiah of the O.T., as the Saviour of 
 all mankind and the Satisfier of all human needs. Again and 
 again he shows us that forgiveness and salvation are offered to all, 
 and offered freely, independently of privileges of birth or legal 
 observances. Righteousness of heart is the passport to the King- 
 dom of God, and this is open to everyone; to the Samaritan 
 (ix. 51-56, x. 30-37, xvil. 11-19) and the Gentile (ii. 32, iii, 6, 38, 
 iv. 25-27, Vil. 9, X. I, xii. 20, XXi. 2A, XXIV; 47) as weil as to the 
 Jew (i. 33, 54, 68-79, il. To); to publicans, sinners, and outcasts 
 (iii, 12, 13, V. 27-32, Vil. 37-50, XV. I, 2, 11-32, XVill. 9-14, xix. 
 2-10, xxiil. 43) as well as to the respectable (vil. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1) 5 
 to the poor (i. 53, ii. 7, 8, 24, iv. 18, vi. 20, 21, Vil. 22, Xiv. 13, 21, 
 XVi. 20, 23) as well as to the rich (xix. 2, xxill. 50). And hence 
 Dante calls S. Luke “the writer of the story of the gentleness of 
 Christ,” scriba mansuetudinis Christi (De Monarchia, i. 16 [18], 
 ed. Witte, 1874, p. 33; Church, p. 210). It cannot be mere 
 accident that the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal 
 Son, the Great Supper, the Pharisee and the Publican, the rebukes 
 to intolerance, and the incidents of the sinner in the house of 
 Simon, and of the penitent robber are peculiar to this Gospel. Nor 
 yet that it omits Mt. vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xx. 16, xxii. 14, which might be 
 regarded as hostile to the Gentiles. S. Luke at the opening of the 
 ministry shows this universal character of it by continuing the 
 great prophecy from Is. xl. 3 ff. (which all four Evangelists quote) 
 till he reaches the words “‘ All flesh shall see the salvation of God” 
 (iii. 6). And at the close of it he alone records the gracious 
 declaration that ‘the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that 
 which was lost” (xix. 10; interpolated Mt. xviii. 11). 
 
 It is a detail, but an important one, in the universality of the 
 Third Gospel, that it is in an especial sense the Gospel for women. 
 Jew and Gentile alike looked down on women.? But all through 
 this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many types 
 
 1Comp. also the close of the Acts, esp. xxviii. 28; and the was (Lk. 
 xvi, 16), hich i is not in Mt. (xi. 12). 
 
 3 In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they have not been made 
 Women. 
 
§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE _ xiii 
 
 of womanhood are placed before us: Elizabeth, the Virgin Mary, 
 the prophetess Anna, the widow at Nain, the nameless sinner in 
 the house of Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman 
 with the issue, Martha and Mary, the widow with the two mites, 
 the “daughters of Jerusalem,” and the women at the tomb. A 
 Gospel with this marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intolerance 
 appropriately carries the pedigree of the Saviour past David and 
 Abraham to the parent of the whole human race (iii. 38). It is 
 possible that Luke simply copied the genealogy as he found it, or 
 that his extending it to Adam is part of his love of completeness ; 
 but the thought of the father of all mankind is likely to have been 
 present also. 
 
 It is this all-embracing love and forgiveness, as proclaimed in 
 the Third Gospel, which is meant, or ought to be meant, when it 
 is spoken of as the “ Gospel of S. Paul.” The tone of the Gospel 
 is Pauline. It exhibits the liberal and spiritual nature of Chris- 
 tianity. It advocates faith and repentance apart from the works 
 of the Law, and tells abundantly of God’s grace and mercy and the 
 work of the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline Epistles these topics and 
 expressions are constant. 
 
 The word wlorts, which occurs eight times in Mt., five in Mk., and not 
 at all in Jn., is found eleven times in Lk. and sixteen in the Acts: werdvo.a, 
 twice in Mt., once in Mk., not in Jn., occurs five times in Lk. and six in Acts: 
 xdpes, thrice in Jn., not Mt. or Mk., is frequent both in Lk. and Acts: &Aeos, 
 thrice in Mt., not in Mk. or Jn., occurs six times in Lk. but not in Acts: &geocs 
 a&papttwy, once in Mt., twice in Mk., not in Jn., is found thrice in Lk. and 
 five times in Acts; and the expression ‘‘ Holy Spirit,” which is found five times 
 in Mt., four in Mk., four in Jn., occurs twelve times in Lk. and forty-one in 
 Acts. See oni. 15. 
 
 It is characteristic that rlva picbdv exere (Mt. v. 46) becomes ola syiv 
 xdpes dor (Lk. vi. 32) ; and &cec0e duets TéXerot, ws 6 marhp buayr 6 otpdvios 
 réXerds éorw (Mt. v. 48) becomes yivece olkrlippoves, kadws 6 marhp vuov 
 olkripuwy éorw (Lk. vi. 36). Note also the incidents recorded iv. 25-27 and 
 x. I-16, and the office of the Holy Spirit as indicated i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 
 26, 27, iv. I, X. 21, xi. 13, all of which are peculiar to Lk. 
 
 But it is misleading in this respect to compare the Second 
 Gospel with the Third. From very early times the one has been 
 called the Petrine Gospel, and the other the Pauline. S. Mark is 
 said to give us the teaching of S. Peter, S. Luke the teaching of 
 S. Paul. The statements are true, but in very different senses. 
 Mark derived his materials from Peter. Luke exhibits the spirit 
 of Paul: and no doubt to a large extent he derived this spirit from 
 the Apostle. But he got his material from eye-witnesses. Mark 
 was the im¢erpreter of Peter, as Irenzeus (iii. 1. 1, 10. 6) and Tertullian 
 (Adv. Marcion. iv. 5) aptly called him: he made known to others 
 what Peter had said. Paul was the 2/wminator of Luke (Tert. iv. 2): 
 he enlightened him as to the essential character of the Gospel. 
 
xliv [§ 6. 
 Luke, as his “‘ fellow-worker,” would teach what the Apostle taught, 
 and would learn to give prominence to those elements in the 
 Gospel narrative of which he made most frequent use. Then at 
 last “‘ Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel 
 preached by him” (Iren. iii. 1. 1). . 
 
 Jiilicher sums up the case justly when he says that Luke has adopted from 
 Paul no more than the whole Catholic Church has adopted, viz. the universality of 
 salvation and the boundlessness of Divine grace: and it is precisely in these two 
 points that Paul has been a clear-sighted and logical interpreter of Jesus Christ 
 (Zznl. § 27, p. 204). See also Knowling, 7he Witness of the Epistles, p. 328, 
 and the authorities there quoted. 
 
 Holtzmann, followed by Davidson (Jztrod. to N.T. ii. p. 17) and Schaff 
 (Apostolic Christianity, ii. p. 667), gives various instances of parallelism be- 
 tween the Third Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Resch (Aussercanonische 
 Paralleliexte, p. 121, Leipzig, 1893), while ignoring some of Holtzmann’s ex- 
 amples, adds others; but some of his are not very convincing, or depend upon 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 
 
 doubtful readings. The following are worth considering :— 
 
 S. LUKE, 
 iv. 32. év cEovola jv 6 Adyos abrod. 
 
 vi. 36. 6 marhp Suav olktlppwy early. 
 
 vi. 39. pyre Stvarat TUPdds Tudrdv 
 Odnyetv 5 
 
 vi. 48, 2Onkev Oenéduov. 
 
 vil. 8. dvOpwrbs elus bwd eEovclay 
 Tagobmevos. 
 
 Vill, 12, miotevoavTes TwOGouv, 
 
 Vili. 13. wera xapas Séxovrar rT. Ab-yov. 
 
 x. 7. déwos yap 6 épydrns Tob pucbod 
 avrov. 
 x. 8. éoOlere TA mapariOéueva dpiv. 
 
 x. 16. 6 dBerGv buds eue aOeret’ 6 
 6é éué aberGy aberet roy drocrethayTd 
 
 x. 20, 7a dvduara duav évyéypatr 
 év Tots otlpavois. . 
 xi. 7. “7 pot Kbarous mapexe. 
 
 xi. 29. 7) yeved attrn .. . onpetov 
 Snret. 
 
 xi. 41. kal ldo) mdvra xabapa dpiv 
 éorly. 
 
 xii, 35. fotwoar tudv al dadies 
 TeplefwoUevot. 
 
 cate, CE CAG 
 oikovdpos ; 
 
 xiii. 27. daréaorynre dm’ éuod martes 
 épydrat dbixlas (Ps. vi. 8). 
 
 xviii. I. dety mdvrore mpocetxerOar 
 aurovs 
 
 dpa éorly 6 mords 
 
 S. PAUL 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 4. 6 Adyos wou we. & 
 drodclEe: rvevparos Kal Suvdpews. 
 
 2 Cor. i. 3. 6 tarp Tay olkrippar. 
 
 Rom. ii. 19. mwémovOas ceavrdv ddr7yar 
 elvac TUPAG. 
 
 I Cor. iii. 10. Oeuédcov 20nKa. 
 
 Rom. xiii. 1. é£ovclats barepexovous 
 broraccésOw. 
 
 1 Cor. i. 21. coat rods meorevovTas. 
 
 Rom. i. 16. els cwryplay wavtl rt. 
 WioTevovTt. 
 
 1 Thes. i. 6. deEduevor 7. Adyov « 2 « 
 peta Xapas. 
 
 1 Tim. v. 18. déos 6 épydrns rod 
 pAcO00 airod. 
 
 I Cor, x. 27. wav 76 mapatiOépevov 
 byuiv écBiere. 
 
 I Thes. iv. 8. 6 d0erGv ovk dvOpw- 
 mov dOeret d\Nd Tov Oedy, 
 
 Phil. iv. 3. dy rd dvépara év BIBAw 
 fw7js (Ps. Ixix. 28). 
 
 Gal. vi. 17. xéaous pot pndels mrape- 
 xEeT OH. 
 
 1 Cor.i. 22. "Iovdator onpeta alrodow. 
 
 Tit. i, 15. mdvra xaOapa tots xaa- 
 pois. 
 
 Eph. vi. 14. orfre obv mepifwodpevor 
 tiv dopdy duav (Is. xi. 5). 
 
 I Cor. iv. 2. fnreirat év rots olxovd- 
 pots iva miords Tes ebpeO7. 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 19. dmroorntw dard ddcxlas 
 mas 0 dvondgwr 7d dvoua Kuplov. 
 
 Col. i. 3. mdvrore mpoceux duevot. 
 
 2 Thes, i, 11. mpocevydueba rdvrore. 
 
§ 6.] 
 
 kal ph éveaxetv. 
 
 xx. 16. sy yévolro. 
 
 XX. 22, 25. tkeorw nuas Kaloape 
 Popov dovvat 7) ov; admddore ra Kaloa- 
 pos Katoapt. 
 
 XX. 35. ol d¢ katragiwOévres Tov alavos 
 éxelvou Tuxelv. 
 
 xx. 38. mdvres yap alT@ fGouw. 
 
 xxi, 23. €orat yap .. . Opyh Te 
 ag TovTw. 
 
 xxi, 24. Axpt 03 mAnpwHGow Katpol 
 eOvav. 
 
 Xxi. 34. fj Tore BapynOGouv al kapdtac 
 Uuav év Kpewddyn kal péOn ... Kal 
 ériaTy ep duds epvidios  Huépa éxelvn 
 ws mays. 
 
 Xx1. 36. dypumvetre O€ év mavrl Kapp 
 Sedpevor. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE 
 
 xlv 
 
 _ Gal. vi. 9. wh evkaxdpuer. 
 Rom. ix. 14, xi. 11; Gal. iii. 21. 
 Rom. xiii. 7. dwédote maow Tas 
 dpéirds, TH Tov pdpov Tov Pbpov. 
 
 2 Thes. i. 5. els TO xaratwwOjvas 
 bpas THs BaotNelas Tod Oeod. 
 
 Rom. vi. 11. (Gvras TG Oew. 
 
 Gal. ii. 19. va Oe@ (jou. 
 
 1 Thes. ii. 16. &pOacev dé éx’ abrovds 
 % Spyn els Tédos. 
 
 Rom. xi. 25. &xpt 03 7d mAjpwpya 
 Tov €Ovav eloéNOn. 
 
 I Thes. v. 3-5. tTére aldpvldios avrois 
 émlorarat 8AcOpos . . . duets 5& ovx 
 éoré év oxbrer, va  tuepa buds ws 
 Kdémrns [kAérras] KaraddBy. 
 
 Eph. vi. 18. mpooevyduevor év mayrt 
 KaLp@ . . » Kal dypumvodrtes. 
 
 xxii. 53. 7% efovcla Tod oxbrous. Col.i.13. é« TAs eEovclas Tod oxbrous. 
 
 It is not creditable to modern scholarship that the foolish opinion, quoted 
 by Eusebius with a gaol dé (Z. Z. iii. 4. 8) and by Jerome with guzdam sus- 
 pucantur (De vir. zllus. vii.), that wherever S. Paul speaks of ‘‘my Gospel” 
 (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8) he means the Gospel of S. Luke, still 
 finds advocates. And the supposition that the Third Gospel is actually quoted 
 1 Tim. v. 18 is incredible. The words \évye 7 ypad7 refer to the first sentence 
 only, which comes from Deut. xxv. 4. What follows, ‘‘ the labourer is worthy 
 of his hire,” is a popular saying, adopted first by Christ (Lk. x. 7; Mt. x. 10) 
 and then by S. Paul. Had S. Paul quoted the saying as an utterance of Christ, 
 he would not have said \éyer ) ypad7. He would have used some such expres- 
 sion as pynwovevew Tv Nbywv Tod Kuplov Inood Srt adrds Neyer (Acts xx. 35), Or 
 maparyyéAret 6 KUptos (I Cor. vii. 10, 12), or meuvnuevor Tav Abywy Tod Kuplov 
 "Inaod, ods eAddnoev (Clem. Rom. Cov, xiii. 1; comp. xlvi. 7), or simply elev 
 6 kUpios (Polyc. vii. 2). Comp. 1 Thes. iv. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 14, xi. 23. 
 
 (4) More than any of the other Evangelists S. Luke brings 
 before his readers the subject of Prayer; and that in two ways, 
 (1) by the example of Christ, and (2) by direct instruction. All 
 three Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane (Mt. 
 xxvil. 39; Mk. xiv. 35; Lk. xxil. 41); Mark (i. 35) mentions His 
 retirement for prayer after healing multitudes at Capernaum, where 
 Luke (iv. 42) merely mentions the retirement: and Matthew 
 (xiv. 23) and Mark (vi. 46) relate His retirement for prayer after 
 the feeding of the 5000, where Luke (ix. 17) relates neither. But 
 on seven occasions Luke is alone in recording that Jesus prayed: 
 at His Baptism (iii. 21) ; before His first collision with the hierarchy 
 (v. 16); before choosing the Twelve (vi. 12); before the first 
 prediction of the Passion (ix. 18); at the Transfiguration (ix. 29) ; 
 before teaching the Lord’s Prayer (xi. 1) ; and on the Cross (xxiii. 
 [34], 46). Moreover, Luke alone relates the declaration of Jesus 
 that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the 
 Twelve, ‘Pray that ye enter not into temptation” (xxii. 32, 40), 
 
xlvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 
 
 It was out of the fulness of His own experience that Jesus said, 
 “Ask, and it shall be given you” (xi. 9). Again, Luke alone re- 
 cords the parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, the Friend 
 at Midnight (xi. 5-13) and the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1-8); 
 and to the charge to “watch” (Mt. xxv. 13; Mk. xiii. 33) He adds 
 “Cat every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail,” ete. 
 (xxi. 36). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the 
 a between real and unreal prayer is illustrated (xviii. 
 II-13). 
 
 (c) The Third Gospel is also remarkable for the prominence 
 which it gives to Praise and Thanksgiving. It begins and ends 
 with worship in the temple (i. 9, xxiv. 53). Luke alone has pre- 
 served for us those hymns which centuries ago passed from his 
 Gospel into the daily worship of the Church: the Gloria in 
 Excelsis, or Song of the Angels (ii 14); the Magnijicat, or Song 
 of the blessed Virgin Mary (i. 46-55); the Benedictus, or Song of 
 Zacharias (i. 68-79) ; and the unc Dimittis, or Song of Symeon 
 (ii. 29-32). Far more often than in any other Gospel are we told 
 that those who received special benefits “glorified God” (Sofafew 
 tov @edv) for them (ii. 20, v. 25, 26, Vil. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, 
 xviii. 43). Comp. Mt. ix. 8, xv. 31; Mk. ii. 12. The expression 
 “praising God” (aivetv tév @edv) is almost peculiar to Luke in 
 N.T. (ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, xxiv. 53°; Acts ii. 47, iil. 8, 9). “ Bless- 
 ing God” (evAoyely tov Oedv) is almost peculiar to Luke (i. 64, 
 ii. 28, xxiv. 53): elsewhere only Jas. iii. 9. ‘Give praise (aivor 
 dddvac) to God” occurs Luke xviii. 43 only. So also yatpeyv, 
 which occurs eight times in Matthew and Mark, occurs nineteen 
 times in Luke and Acts; yapd seven times in Matthew and Mark, 
 thirteen times in Luke and Acts. 
 
 (d) The Gospel of S. Luke. jis rightly styled “the most /izerary 
 of the Gospels ” (Renan, Zes Evangiles, ch. xiii.). ‘S. Luke has 
 more literary ambition than his fellows” (Sanday, Book by Book, 
 p. 401). He possesses the art of composition. He knows not 
 only how to tell a tale truthfully, but how to tell it with effect. He 
 can feel contrasts and harmonies, and reproduce them for his 
 readers. The way in which he tells the stories of the widow’s son 
 at Nain, the sinner in Simon’s house, Martha and Mary at 
 Bethany, and the walk to Emmaus, is quite exquisite. And one 
 might go on giving other illustrations of his power, until one had 
 mentioned nearly the whole Gospel. The sixth century was not 
 far from the truth when it called him a painter, and said that he 
 had painted the portrait of the Virgin. ‘There is no picture of her 
 so complete as his. How lifelike are his sketches of Zacharias, 
 Anna, Zacchzeus, Herod Antipas! And with how few touches is 
 gach done! Asa rule Luke puts in fewer descriptive details than 
 Mark. In his description of the Baptist he omits the strange attire 
 
§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlvii 
 
 and food (Mk. i. 6; Mt. iii. 4). In the healing of Simon’s wife’s 
 mother he omits the taking of her hand (Mk. i. 31; Mt. viii. 15). 
 In that of the palsied he omits the crowding at the door (Mk. ii. 2). 
 And there are plenty of such cases. But at other times we have 
 an illuminating addition which is all his own (iii. 15, 21, iv. 13, 15, 
 40, 42, V. I, 12, 15, 16, Vi. 12, vill. 47, etc.). His contrasts are 
 not confined to personal traits, such as the unbelieving priest and 
 the believing maiden (i. 18, 38), the self-abasing woman and the 
 self-satisfied Pharisee (vii. 37 ff.), the thankless Jews and the thank- 
 ful Samaritan (xvii. 17), the practical Martha and the contemplative 
 Mary (x. 38-42), the hostile hierarchy and the attentive people 
 (xix. 47, 48), and the like; the fundamental antithesis between 
 Christ’s work and Satan’s! (iv. 13, x. 17-20, xiii. 16, xxii. 3, 
 31, 53), Often exhibited in the opposition of the scribes and 
 Pharisees to His work (xi. 52, xii. 1, xiii. 14, 31, XV. 2, XVi. 14, 
 X1X. 39, 47, XX. 20), is brought out with special clearness. The 
 development of the hostility of the Pharisees is one of the main 
 threads in the narrative. It is this rare combination of descriptive 
 power with simplicity and dignity, this insight into the lights and 
 shadows of character and the conflict between spiritual forces, 
 which makes this Gospel much more than a fulfilment of its 
 original purpose (i. 4). There is no rhetoric, no polemics, no 
 sectarian bitterness. It is by turns joyous and sad ; but even where 
 it is most tragic it is almost always serene.? As the fine literary 
 taste of Renan affirms, it is the most beautiful book in the world. 
 (e) S. Luke is the only Evangelist who writes Ais¢ory as distinct 
 from memoirs. He aims at writing “in order,” which probably 
 means in chronological order (i. 5, 26, 36, 56, 59, li. 42, iil. 23, 
 ix. 28, 37, 51, xxii. 1, 7), and he alone connects his narrative with 
 the history of Syria and of the Roman Empire (ii. 1, iii. 1). The 
 sixfold date (iii. 1) is specially remarkable: and it is possible tbat 
 both it and ii. 1 were inserted as finishing touches to the narra- 
 tive. The words éros (3$) and piv (12) occur more often in his 
 writings than in the rest of N.T.: and this fact points to a special 
 fondness for exactitude as regards time. Where he gives no date, 
 —probably because he found none in his authorities,—he fre- 
 quently lets us know what incidents are connected together, 
 although he does not know in what year or time of year to place 
 the group (iv. 1, 38, 40, vii. 1, 18, 24, Vili. 1, X. 1, 21, Xi. 37, xii. 1, 
 xiii, 1, 31, xix. 11, 28, 41, xxii, 66, xxiv. 13). He is very much 
 1 Both in Mark (i. 21-28) and in Luke (iv, 31-37) the miracle of healing the 
 demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is perhaps placed first as being 
 typical of Christ’s whole work. But there is no evidence of any special 
 “‘demonology” in Luke. With the doubtful exception of the ‘spirit of 
 infirmity” (xiii. 10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone 
 
 records. 
 7 A warked exception is the violent scene so graphically described xi. 53, 54. 
 
xviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 
 
 less definite than Josephus or Tacitus; but that is only what we 
 ought to expect. He had not their opportunities of consulting 
 public records, and he was much less interested in chronology than 
 they were. Yet it has been noticed that the Agricola of Tacitus 
 contains no chronology until the last chapter is reached. The 
 value of Christ’s words and works was quite independent of dates. 
 Such remarks as he makes xvi. 14, xviii. 1, 9, xix. 11 throw far 
 more light upon what follows than an exact note of time would 
 have done. Here and there he seems to be giving us his own 
 estimate of the situation, as an historian or biographer might do 
 (ii. 50, iii, 15, viii. 30, xx. 20, xxii. 3, xxiii, 12): and the notes, 
 whether they come from himself or his sources, are helpful. If 
 chronology even in his Gospel is meagre, yet there is a continuity 
 and development which may be taken as evidence of the true 
 historic spirit! He follows the Saviour through the stages, not 
 only of His ministry, but of His physical and moral growth (ii. 40, 
 42, 51, 52, lil. 23, iv. 13, xxil. 28, 53). He traces the course of 
 the ministry from Nazareth to Capernaum and other towns of 
 Galilee, from Galilee to Samaria and Perzea, from Perzea to Jeru- 
 salem, just as in the Acts he marks the progress of the Gospel, as 
 represented successively by Stephen, Philip, Peter, and Paul, from 
 Jerusalem to Antioch, from Antioch to Ephesus and Greece, and 
 finally to Rome. 
 
 (/) But along with these literary and historical features it has a 
 marked domestic tone. In this Gospel we see most about Christ in 
 His social intercourse with men. The meal in the house of Simon, 
 in that of Martha and Mary, in that of a Pharisee, when the 
 vharisees were denounced, in that of a leading Pharisee on a 
 sabbath, when the dropsical man was healed, His sojourn with 
 Zacchzeus, His walk to Emmaus and the supper there, are ali 
 peculiar to Luke’s narrative, together with a number of parables, 
 which have the same quiet and homely setting. The Good 
 Samaritan in the inn, the Friend at Midnight, the Woman with the 
 Leaven, the Master of the house rising and shutting the door, the 
 Woman sweeping for the Lost Coin, the Father welcoming the Lost 
 Son, all have this touch of familiar domesticity. And perhaps it 
 is to this love of homely scenes that we may trace the fact that 
 whereas Mk. (iv. 31) has the mustard-seed sown “on the earth,” 
 and Mt. (xiii. 31) makes a man sow it “in his field,” Lk. (xiii. 19) 
 tells us that a man sowed it “in his owx garden.” Birks, Hor. Lv. 
 
 (ii.) When we consider the style and language of S. Luke, we 
 are struck by two apparently opposite features,—his great com- 
 
 1 Ramsay regards Luke as a historical writer of the highest order, one whe 
 *¢ commands excellent means of knowledge . . . and brings to the treatment of 
 his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight” (S. Paz 
 the Traveller, pp. 2, 3, 20, 21, Hodder, 1895). 
 
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlix 
 
 mand of Greek and his very un-Greek use of Hebrew phrases and 
 -onstructions. These two features produce a result which is so 
 peculiar, that any one acquainted with them in detail would at 
 once recognize as his any page torn out of either of his writings. 
 This peculiarity impresses us less than that which distingu shes the 
 writings of S. John, and which is felt even in a translation ; but it 
 is much more easily analysed. It lies in the diction rather than in 
 the manner, and its elements can readily be tabulated. But for this 
 very reason a good deal of it is lost in translation, in which pecu- 
 liarities of construction cannot always be reproduced. In any 
 version the difference between S. Mark and S. John is felt by the 
 ordinary reader. The most careful version would fail to show to 
 an attentive student more than a good portion of the differences 
 between S. Mark and S. Luke. 
 
 The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most 
 versatile of all the N.T. writers. He can be as Hebraistic as the 
 LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. And, in the main, 
 whether intentionally or not, he is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew 
 society, and Greek in describing Greek society. It is impossible 
 to determine how much of the Hebraistic style is due to the 
 sources which he is employing, how much is voluntarily adopted 
 by himself as suitable to the subject which he is treating. That 
 Aramaic materials which he translated, or Greek materials which 
 had come from an Aramaic source, influenced his language con- 
 siderably, need not be doubted ; for it is where he had no such 
 materials that his Greek shows least sign of such influences. In 
 the second half of the Acts, where he writes of his own experiences, 
 and is independent of information that has come from an Aramaic 
 source, he writes in good late Greek. But then it is precisely here 
 that he is describing scenes far away from Jerusalem in an Hellen- 
 istic or Gentile atmosphere. So that it is quite possible that to 
 some extent he is a free agent in this matter, and is not merely 
 exhibiting the influence under which he is writing at the moment. 
 No doubt it is true that, where he has used materials which directly 
 or indirectly are Aramaic, there his style is Hebraistic ; but it may 
 also be true that he has there a//owed his style to be Hebraistic, 
 because he felt that such a style was appropriate to the subject- 
 matter. 
 
 He has enabled us to judge of the two styles by placing two 
 highly characteristic specimens of each in immediate juxtaposition. 
 In the Acts the change from the more Hebrew portion to the more 
 Greek portion takes place gradually, just as in the narrative there 
 is a change from a Hebrew period (i—v.), through a transitional 
 period (vi.—xii.), to a Gentile period (xiii—xxviii.).1 But in the 
 
 1 Compare in this respect the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) and the speech 
 of posils (xxiv. 2-9) with the speeches of Peter (ii. 14-39, iii. 12-26). 
 
| THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 
 
 Gospel the remarkably elegant and idiomatic Greek of the Preface 
 is suddenly changed to the intensely Hebraistic Greek of the open- 
 ing narrative. It is like going from a chapter in Xenophon to a 
 chapter in the LXX.1_ And he never returns to the style of the 
 Preface. In the Gospel itself it is simply a question of more or 
 less Hebrew elements. They are strongest in the first two chapters, 
 but they never entirely cease ; and they are specially common at 
 the beginning of narratives, e.g. Vv. I, 12, 17, Vi. 1, 6, 12, viil. 22, 
 ix. 18, 51, etc. It will generally be found that the parallel passages 
 are, in the opening words, less Hebraistic than Luke. In construc- 
 tion, even Matthew, a Jew writing for Jews, sometimes exhibits 
 fewer Hebraisms than this versatile Gentile, who writes for Gentiles. 
 Comp. Lk. ix. 28, 29, 33, 38, 39 with Mt. xvii. 1, 2, 4, 15; Lk. 
 xili. 30 with Mt. xix. 30; Lk. xviii. 35 with Mt. xx. 29; Lk. xx. 1 
 with Mt. xxi. 23. 
 
 From this strong Hebraistic tinge in his language some (Tiele, 
 Hofmann, Hahn) have drawn the unnecessary and improbable 
 conclusion that the Evangelist was a Jew; while others, from the 
 fact that some of the Hebraisms and many other expressions 
 which occur in the Third Gospel and the Acts are found also in 
 the Pauline Epistles, have drawn the quite impossible conclusion 
 that this hypothetical Jew was none other than S. Paul himself. 
 To mention nothing else, the “we” sections in the Acts are fatal 
 to the latter theory. In writing of himself and his companions, 
 what could induce the Apostle to change backwards and forwards 
 between “they” and “we”? As to the former theory, good 
 reasons have been given above for attributing both books to a 
 Gentile and to S. Luke, who (as S. Paul clearly implies in Col. iv. 
 11-14) was a Gentile. The Hebraistic colour in the Evangelist’s 
 language, and the elements common to his diction and that of the 
 Pauline Epistles, can be easily explained, and more satisfactorily 
 explained, without an hypothesis which imports more difficulties 
 than it solves. The Hebraisms in Luke come partly from his 
 sources, partly from his knowledge of the LXX, and partly from 
 his intercourse with S. Paul, who often in his presence discussed 
 the O.T. with Jews in language which must often have been 
 charged with Hebraisms. The expressions which are common to 
 the two Lucan documents and the Pauline Epistles are partly 
 mere accidents of language, and partly the result of companion- 
 ship between the two writers. Two such men could not have 
 been together so often without influencing one another’s language. 
 
 S. Luke’s command of Greek is abundantly shown both in the 
 Freedom of his constructions and also in the richness of his vocabulary. 
 
 1 There are some who attribute the strongly Hebraistic tone of the first two 
 chapters to a conscious and deliberate imitation of the LXX rather than to the 
 influence of Aramaic sources. 
 
 “: 
 
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE li 
 
 (a), The freedom of his constructions is seen not infrequently 
 even in his Hebraisms. Two instances will suffice. (1) His 
 frequent use of éyévero is often purely Hebraistic (i. 8, 9), 
 sometimes less so (vi. 1), sometimes hardly Hebraistic at all 
 (Acts ix. 3, xxi. 1). This will be found worked out in 
 detail in a detached note at the end of ch. i. (2) His 
 frequent use of periphrastic tenses, ze. the substantive verb 
 with a present or perfect participle instead of the simple 
 tense, exhibits a similar variety. 
 
 The use of jv with pres. or perf. part. as a periphrasis for imperf, or pluperf. 
 indic. is of Aramaic origin in many cases and is frequent in the Gospels,—most 
 frequent in Luke; but it is not always easy to say whether it is a Hebraism or 
 a use that might very well stand in classical Greek. For jy with pres. part. see 
 i. 10, 21, 22, i, 33, 51; iv. 20, 31, 38, 44, V- 16, 17, 29, vi, 12, viii. 40, ix. 53, 
 xi. 14, xiii. 10, II, xiv. I, xv. I, xix. 47, [xxi. 37], xxiii. 8, xxiv. 13, 32. Most 
 of these are probably due to Hebrew or Aramaic influence ; but many would be 
 admissible in classical Greek, and may be used to imply continuance of the 
 action. Ini. 21, 22, ii. 51, iv. 31, xv. I, xix. 47, xxii. 8, xxiv. 13, 32 the 
 simple imperf. follows immediately in the next clause or sentence. That such 
 cases as il. 33, iv. 20, ix. 53, xl. 14, xiil. 10, II, xiv. I are Hebraistic need 
 hardly be doubted. So also where 4v with perf. part. is used for the pluperf. 
 (i. 7, ii. 26, iv. 16, 17, v.17, 1x. 32,45, xviil. 34), i. 7 and ix. 32 with most 
 of the others are probably Hebraistic, but v. 17 almost certainly is not. 
 Anyhow, Luke shows that he is able to give an Hellenic turn to his Hebraisms, 
 so that they would less offend a Greek ear. Much the same might be said of 
 his use of «af to introduce the apodosis, which may be quite classical (ii. 21), 
 but may also be Hebraistic, especially where /dov is added (vii. 12, xxiv. 4), or 
 airés (v. I, 17, Vili. I, 22, ix. 51, etc.): or of his frequent use of é» r@ with the 
 infinitive (i. 8, 21, ii. 6, 43, v- I, etc.). 
 
 Simcox, Zang. of N.T. pp. 131-134, has tabulated the use of periphrastic 
 imperf. and pluperf. See also his remarks on Luke’s Hebraisms, Writers of 
 N.T. pp. 19-22. 
 
 But Luke’s freedom of construction is conspicuous in other respects, Al- 
 though he sometimes co-ordinates clauses, joining them, Hebrew fashion, with 
 a simple xal (i. 13, 14, 31-33, xvi. 19, etc.), yet he is able to vary his sentences 
 with relatives, participles, dependent clauses, genitive absolutes, and the like, 
 almost to any extent. We find this even in the most Hebraistic parts of the 
 Gospel (i. 20, 26, 27, ii. 4, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43); but still more in other 
 parts: see especially vii. 36-50. He is the only N.T. writer who uses the 
 optative in indirect questions, both without Gy (i. 29, iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 3 ; Acts 
 xvii. II, xxi. 31, xxv. 20) and with it (vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, x. 17), some- 
 times preceded by the article (i. 62, ix. 46). In xviii. 36 the a» is doubtful. 
 The elegant and idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in Luke 
 (i. 4, v. 9, ix. 36, xii. 46, xv. 16, xxiii, 41; Acts i. 22, ii. 22, iii, 21, 25, etc.), 
 especially after was (ii. 20, iii. 19, ix. 43, xix. 37, xxiv. 25; Actsi. 1, x. 39, 
 xill. 39, xxii. 10), whereas it occurs only twice in Matthew (xviii. 19, xxiv. 50) 
 and once in Mark (vii. 13). His more frequent use of re is another instance of 
 more idiomatic Greek (ii. 16, xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. 11 (625), xxii, 66, xxiii, 12, 
 xxiv. 20): only once in Mark and four times in Matthew. Sometimes we find 
 the harsh Greek of Matthew or Mark improved in the parallel passage in Luke: 
 2.g. TOv OedbvTwv & oToais TepiTatetv Kal domacrods év Tals ayopais (Mk. xii. 38) 
 has an awkwardness which Luke avoids by inserting ¢iAovvTwy before dcmac: 
 Bobs (xx. 46). Or again, d\Ad elrwuev "EE avOpirwv—égoB8odvro troy bxdov* 
 Gxavres yap elxov Tov Iwdvny byTws Ste rpophrys qv (Mk. xi. 32) is smoothed 
 
ii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [$ 6. 
 
 in more details than one in Luke: édy dé elrwpev EE avOpwrwy, 6 dads Aras 
 Katadbdoe: Nuds* memecuevos yap ect lwavnv mpopyrny elvat (xx.6). Com- 
 pare kai mpwl €vyvxa lav, which perhaps is a provincialism (Mk. i. 35), with” 
 yevouévns 6 juépas (Lk. iv. 42). In the verses which follow, Luke’s diction is 
 smoother than Mark’s. Compare also Lk. v. 29, 30 with Mk. ii. 15, 16 and 
 Mt. ix. 10, 11; Lk. v. 36 with Mk. ii. 21 and Mt. ix. 16; Lk. vi. 11 with Mk. 
 iii. 6 and Mt. xii. 14. The superior freedom and fulness of Luke’s narrative of 
 the message of the Baptist (vii. 18-21), as compared with that of Matthew 
 (xi. 2, 3), is very marked. 
 
 (6) But Luke’s command of Greek is seen also in the 7ichness 
 of his vocabulary. The number of words which occur in his two 
 writings and nowhere else in N.T. is estimated at 750 or (includ- 
 ing doubtful’ cases) 851; of which 26 occur in quotations from 
 LXX. In the Gospel the words peculiar to Luke are 312; of 
 which 52 are doubtful, and 11 occur in quotations. Some of these 
 are found nowhere else in Greek literature. He is very fond of 
 compound verbs, especially with did or éz/, or with two preposi- 
 tions, as éravayev, érerépyecbat, avtimapepyecOar, ovykatatiGevat, 
 mpocavaBaiver. He may have coined some of them for himself. 
 The following are among the most remarkable words and expres- 
 sions which occur either in both his writings and nowhere else in 
 N.T., or in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. No account is 
 ere taken of the large number, which are peculiar to the Acts. 
 
 Those in thick type are found in LXX. Those with an 
 asterisk are shown by Hobart to be frequent in medical writers. 
 Many of these might be frequent in any writers. But the number 
 of less common words, which are peculiar to Luke in N.T., and 
 are fairly common in medical writers, is remarkable ; and those of 
 them which are not found in LXX are specially to be noted. 
 
 Thirty times in G. and A. éyévero 8€ (not Jn. x. 22). 
 
 Vine times in G. and A. nuépa yiverat. 
 
 Exght times in G. év adty TH (7uEpa, wpa, olxia). 
 
 Seven times in G.and A. drrodéxer Oar, *cuvBaddrew, év rats nudpars Tavras. 
 
 Six times in G.and A. ka@6t1, tmovnpds as an epithet of rvedua: six in G, 
 éritTata, Aéyerv mapaBodny. 
 
 Five times in G, and A. é€fjs, xadetRs Kal? Odjs THs, mpocéxeTe EavTots, 6 
 otparnyés or ol orp. ToD iepod, 6 Weros or tioros (of God): five in G. 
 advakpivery (in the legal sense), kal otros, kal ws, Aipvy, ev mug TOY. 
 
 Four times in G. and A. Garrewv, diamropety, érraipery THY hoviv, ém-pavesy, 
 Kabtévar, *oSuvacbar, *opictv, *ouvapmaterv, airy, évavtiov, evAaBas, 
 kpat.oTos, * tapadeduuévos (in the medical sense of “palsied’’): four in G. 
 *xatakAlverv, BaddAdvtiov, ddarivny, as nyy.ev. 
 
 Three times in G. and A. dvafnretv, afvoty c. z7/i-2., SueAOetv ews Sucra- 
 vat, émiBiBalerv, *érixeiperv, cuprAnpodv, aity TH wpa, am aldvos, Sikac- 
 THs, TA Seopa, SovdAn, EvavTi, éorépa, OapBos, BovAy tod Ocod, *lacts, 
 monirns, TH Hwepa TGV caPBatwv, *ovyyévera, Ta UrdpxovTa alr, xelp 
 Kupiov: three in G. Oepamevery amd, ckamrev, okipTav, KaTa Td os, 
 ouTevtés, TH uépa Tod caBBdrou, év mia TOY juepav. 
 
 1 Owing to the various readings it may be doubted either (1) whether the 
 word is used by Luke, or (2) whether it is not used by some other writer. 
 
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lili 
 
 Twice in G. and A. dvaderxvivar, dvaxabliew, *avaomav, avadalvew, 
 * aveupioxev, avTei@etv, AtToypady, *aroTivdccev, * Statypetv, * ducxupl- 
 ferOa, *Srodeverv, * évedpevery, emdetv, *ettévas, 77 exouévy, xp Karpod, 
 *kataxAelety, KaTakodovdev, KAdows, KAtver Hepa, *KALvidiov, dpLvds, 
 * rapaBialeoOat, meptdaptretv, mopevov eis eipyyny, * mpoBadXev, mpotopev- 
 eo0a1, *rpocdoxta, *mpouTapxev, TTPATLA, TuvetvaL, TpPavpatilery, Tpaxvs, 
 xpeodidérns: twice in G. dypa, * dvarerpos, * avtimapépxer Oa, dotparTery, 
 atep, *avaoTypds, Bouvds, yeAGv, duayoyyifew, duadareiv, * Soxy, éxpvetnpl- 
 Lew, éxtedety, errarteiv, * éravepyerOar, epypepla, Ledyos, jyeuoveveiv, ovoia, 
 i] Tais, mpdxtwp, wpecPeia, mpodepetv, *omapyavovv, guKodayteiv, * vro- 
 Xopetv. 
 
 It is not worth while to make a complete list of the words (over 200 in 
 number) which occur ovce in the Third Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. The 
 following will give a good idea of their character :— 
 
 dypavreiv, aOpoitew, GAdoyevyjs, apreoupyds, avaderkts, * dvdAnuyis, 
 *dvaduveiv, *avtTtBaddeww, drapricuds, ameAmrilew, * amoxNelew, drocToua- 
 rigew, * amowvyev, dpyiteAdvys, * abromrns, * ddpbs, * Beddvn, * Body, Bpdor- 
 pos, *yipas, * SiaBaddAewv, duaypryoperv, * Sadelrevv, Stapepiopds, Siaveverv, 
 *Stavénpa, * dtavucrepeverv, * diampayyatevter Oat, * Staceterv, * Siaxwpilerv, 
 “ Sinyious, * éyxuos, * Bile, *exxpépacdar, * éxxwpeiv, * édxodv, * euBah- 
 Lew, évdéxerat, érabpolfew, ererdjmep, mero épxer Gar, 7d émiBdddor, * evriped@s, 
 émimopeverOai, émioiticpds, *émioxvetv, *emiyetv, * evpopeiv, * HurOavys, 
 * Pewpia, * Ovpidv, *ixpas, lodyyedos, *katdBaois, * katadeiv, caradiOdfew, 
 KaramAeiv, * katawdyeuv, kepdtiov, KALola, Kpewddy, KpuTTh, Aapmpas, * Ajposy 
 *Xvowtedet, *petewpilerv, pepiorys, * 6deverv, buBpos, * dards, * dppds, 
 mapmdnbel, mavdoxeiov, ravdoxevs, * wapddofos, wapakadvrrew, * maparhpnats, 
 TEplKpUMTELV, Teptoikelv, TepioTav, Wiyyavov, * wéfew, * rwakldvov, * rAyppvpa, 
 * rpaypatever Oa, mpouedeTav, * tpocavaBatver, mpocdaravar, mpocepyaférbat, 
 * rpoowatew, * rriccev, * PHyHa, *aodhos, olkepa, ciidtew, oiTopérpior, 
 *cuKdpivos, cuxomopéa, cuvkatatiévar, *ovvKvela, * cuvrlatev, * cvv= 
 vew, “redeodopelv, tTetparAdos, *tTpatpa, * vypds, *bdpwarixbs, * to- 
 otpwvvivat, * ddBnOpov, gpoviuws, * xaopa, * ddv. 
 
 But the words which are peculiar to Luke in N.T. are by 
 no means even the chief of the marks of his style. Still more 
 striking are those expressions and constructions which he uses 
 frequently, or more frequently than any other writer. Many of 
 these occur more often in S. Luke’s writings than in all the rest 
 _of N.T. A collection of them is rendered much more useful by 
 being to some extent classified ; and the following lists have been 
 made with a view to illustrating the affinities between the diction 
 of S. Luke and of S. Paul and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 both jointly with the Pauline Epistles and also by itself. In this 
 survey the Pastoral Epistles have been kept distinct from the main 
 groups of the Pauline Epistles, in order to show their harmony with 
 the diction of the Apostle’s beloved companion. Words peculiar to 
 Luke and to the Pastoral Epistles are not improbably Pauline. 
 Words which are found in other Pauline Epistles as well as 
 in the Pastoral Epistles and in Luke’s writings are still more 
 safely regarded as Pauline. 
 
 Eight classes have been made; and in them the very great 
 variety of the words included,—many of them quite classical or of 
 
liv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 
 
 classical formation,—illustrate the richness of S. Luke’s vocabulary 
 and his command of the Greek language. (1) Expressions peculiar 
 to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. (2) Peculiar to S. Luke and 
 S. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (3) Peculiar to S. Luke 
 and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) Not found in any other 
 Gospel and more frequent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. 
 (5) Found in one or more of the other Gospels, but more fre- 
 quent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. (6) Due to Hebrew 
 influence. (7) Miscellaneous expressions and constructions which 
 are specially frequent in his writings. (8) Expressions probably or 
 possibly medical. In the first of these classes the second list con- 
 tains expressions peculiar to the writers in question, although not 
 frequent in Luke. The figures state the number of times which 
 the word occurs in that book or group; and in fractions the upper 
 figures indicates the number of times that the word occurs in the 
 writings of Luke, the lower figure the number of times which it 
 occurs elsewhere: e.g. in class 3 the fraction ? means twice in 
 Luke’s writings and once in Hebrews; and in classes 4 and 5 the 
 fraction } means seven times in Luke’s writings and four times in 
 the other books of N.T. Where various readings render the exact 
 proportions doubtful a “‘c.” is placed in front of the fraction; e.g. ¢. $. 
 In classes 1 and 2, when a reference to chapter and verse is given, 
 this is the only instance of the use of the word in that book or group. 
 
 (1) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. 
 
 
 
 Main. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OAT Te Ae Ge 3 xii. 23. | 2 Th. ii. 10 
 amonoyeta bas . - 2 6 2 
 amd Tov viv. . e 5 xviii, 6 | 2 Cor. v. 16 
 *arevifew e ° 2 Io 2 
 *dromos ° . | xxiii, 41 2 2 Th. iii. 2 
 OiarropeterOar ° 3 xvi. 4 Rom. xv. 24 
 CyKGNELY = Veni ln at) We 6 Rom. viii. Fe 
 76 elpnuévov e - | ii, 24 2 Rom. i ae I 
 éEatrooré\New le . 3 7 
 épyacia Stig . . | xii. 58 4 Eph. iv. 19 
 épiordvar . - . 7 II edt TAS: 2 
 *nouxdgew . ° . 2 2 1 Th. iv. 11 
 idovd yap e e e 5 ix, It 2 Cor. Vii. II 
 Kakoupyos . ° . 3 2 Tim. ii. 9 
 KaTayyeNer e e II 
 kaTdyew . |v. If 7 Rom. x. 6 
 KQTQVTG@P - ‘ 9 4 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 6.] 
 
 
 
 
 xaTratiwO7vas 
 
 olkovoula . 
 7a mepl - 
 
 Waruds . 
 
 
 
 6 Abyos 7. Kuplov 
 
 cuverdévat, -Letv 
 
 B®» Ww 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 Th, i. 
 ped Yost 
 
 5 
 1 Cor. iv. 4 
 3 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lv 
 
 S. Luke. S. PavL. | 
 
 Past. 
 
 ?1 Tim. i. 4 
 
 All the above are proportionately common in S. Luke’s writings ; but there 
 are many more which illustrate the affinities between the two writers ; e.g. 
 
 &5ndos . 
 alpvidios =n 
 
 alxpahwrlfew 
 
 avdyvwols .» 
 avddeua . 
 dvaxplvev » 
 dvaNloxew » 
 dvadvew . 
 *dvaréwrey » 
 GvaCTATOUP » 
 dvatlOccOat e 
 *dveots » e 
 dvénros e 
 advo . . 
 dvratédoue 
 
 dvratoxplvecOas 
 
 dvriketo@at . 
 
 dvrihapBdverPat 
 
 dreOjs e 
 drewh ° 
 drodekvivas 
 dmoBohkh » 
 *drrohover Oat 
 GTosTONH 
 dmpboKoTos » 
 dmwbeicbat . 
 dpa ; or dpa; 
 dporpiav 
 
 *ioddadew e 
 f dromos * 
 axdpioTos » 
 ( BépBapos 
 { Biwrixds 
 Bvelifev 
 
 déqoww troveic Oa 
 
 dexrés. 5 
 
 coeeoeevsrvecseecse5usoeee#eset*eeeeeeteeeeeeeseteeeee eee e 
 
 xl. 44 
 xx. 34 
 xxi, 24 
 
 xxill, 14 
 ix. 54 
 xii. 36 
 
 vi. 35 
 
 ?Xxv, 21 
 2 
 XXv. 14 
 xxiv. 23 
 
 x. 35 
 
 I Cor. xiv. 8 
 Telha ves 
 
 2 
 2 Cor. iii. 14 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 2? 
 Phil. i, 23 
 Philem, 12 
 Gal. v. 12 
 Gal. ii, 2 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 Rom. xi. 9 
 Rom. ix. 20 
 
 4 
 
 Rem. i. 30 
 Eph. vi. 9 
 
 2 
 Rom. xi. 15 
 1 Cor. vi. I1 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 Gal. ii. 17 
 1 Cor. ix. 10 
 Tebhs vers 
 Panne yrs 25 
 
 Phil. i. 4 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 6 
 1 Tim. iv. 13 
 
 2 
 2 Tim. iii. 9 
 
 2 
 1 Tim. vi. 2 
 2 Tim. iii. 2 
 
 1 Tim. i. 19 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 2 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 9 
 1 Tim. ii. I 
 
fevla . ° 
 gupacOar 
 
 lvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 
 S. LuKg. 
 Gosp. Acts, 
 
 SiayyA\Xew . ° a) ix) 60: xxi. 26 
 Oratpety = ° . | xv. 12 
 Ouarayh =n = - vii. 53 
 Ovepunvetew i » | xxiv. 27 | ix. 36 
 Obypua e ° ry 5 Are x 2 
 Opbjmos 5 5 0 2 
 Suvdorns F . | i. 52 viii. 27 
 el déxal , - . | xi. 18 
 eupavis ‘ . x. 40 
 &vdokos = 5 5 2 
 evdverOas . ‘ . | xxiv. 49 
 évKaKkely == g ’ . | xviii. I 
 &vvomos = . ° xix. 39 
 eLaprifey . F ‘3 xxi. 5 
 éfoubévery . é - 2 iv. II 
 éfovola Tr. oxbrous » | xxil. 53 
 eEouordfew . 5 a |) ssaik 25 
 émawep 5 . | xvi. 8 
 emravaTaverOat .» 5356 
 éméxew ° . Sl Sane 4 2 
 émielkeia sg . - Xxlv. 4 
 émipmeneto bas . ° 2 
 éxloracis , ° xxiv. 12 
 émipalvew . C ot 79 XXvii, 20 
 evaryyedtor7s - : xxl. 8 
 evyev7s ° A li sabes 1) |) Sea ah 
 evceBew ° ° XVil. 23 
 féev 7. mvetpare » : Xviil. 25 
 &npla . . ° e 2 
 forypety a c » |v. 10 
 
 *Swoyovely 4 26 . | xvii. 33 | vii. 19 
 Géarpoy . ° . 2 
 KaOnkew 4 ; XXxil, 22 
 KarevOvvep . . . | i. 79 
 KivOEvvevelp » - » | Vill. 23 
 Kpara.ovaGas e : 2 
 Kupieve ly > . | xxii, 25 
 Aelrevy = fail ; . | xviii. 22 
 papripecba. F é xx. 26 
 peQoTdvas -ew =, . | xvi. 4 2 
 peGtoKer Gar ° o | xii. 45 
 pépts . ° ° o | X. 42 2 
 peraddbvat . 5 | iii. er 
 vomod.ddoKahos . - |v. 17 v. 34 
 vorglferbar. ° . 2 
 voulerew . ° . xXx. 31 
 
 . 8 
 
 TO S. LUKE (§ 6 
 S. Pav. 
 Main. Past. 
 Rom. ix. 17 
 
 1 Cor. xii, 11 
 Rom. xiii. 2 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 4 
 Rom, x. 20 
 2 
 
 14 
 5 
 1 Cor, ix. 21 
 
 8 
 Col. i. 13 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 Rom. ii. 17 
 Phil. ii. 16 
 2 Cor. x. I 
 
 2 Cor. xi. 28 
 
 Eph. iv. 11 
 1 Cor. i. 26 
 
 Rom, xii, 11 
 2 
 
 1 Cor, iv. 9 
 Rom. i. 28 
 
 2 
 1 Cor. xv. 30 
 
 -bvwHHH WN 
 
 Xxvili. 23| Philem. 22 
 
 xxi. 24 
 
 2 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 7 
 1 Tim. vi. 15 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 17 
 
 1 Tim, iv. 16 
 1 Tim. iii. 5 
 
 2 
 1 Tim. v. 4 
 
 2 Tim. ii, 26 
 I Tim, vi. 13 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 15 
 
 1 Tim. i. 7 
 Tit. ii, 10 
 
§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE iv 
 
 
 
 dvoudter . F . 2 xix. 13 6 2 Tim. ii. 19 
 értacla Sn e ° 2 xxvi, 19 | 2 Cor. xii. I 
 
 dovérns Bal Ks >| 75 Eph. iv. 24 
 
 éyouoy . » | iii, 14 
 
 ways : ° ° . | xxi. 34 Rom, xi. 9 3 
 mavot\la . ° » | xi. 22 
 
 mavoupyla . 2 e | Xx. 23 4 
 
 awavTws ° e e | iv. 23 3 5 
 
 mwaparyyerla - ° 2 1 Th. iv. 2 2 
 Tapackevafey 4 e x. 10 3 
 
 mapaxepdvey . ’ 2 1 Cor. xvi. 6 | Tit. iii. 32 
 mapokiver bat - ° xvii. 16 | 1 Cor. xiii. 5 
 
 mappnoidgerbas . . 2 
 
 matpla ° . - | i. 4 iii, 25 Eph. iii. 15 
 
 mweOapxe . - . 3 Tit. iii, 1 
 meplepyos . e ° xix. 19 1 Tim. v. 13 
 mwepmoetcOas = « ~— o || XVil. 33 | xx. 28 1 Tim. iii. 13 
 éml mretov . . 3 2 
 wAnpodpopety ° «|i I 2 
 mwonTela = g wks xxii, 28 | Eph. i. 12 
 
 moNreverOas - ~ xxiii. I Phil, i. 27 
 
 mopety : ° e ix, 21 2 
 
 mpecBurépioy ° » | xxii, 66 | xxii. 5 1 Tim. iv. 14 
 mpecBirys » : obi. IS Philem. 9 Tit. ii. 2 
 mpodorns . . - | vi. 16 vii. 52 2 Tim. iii. 4 
 mMpoemeiyp 5 ele i, 16 2 
 
 Tpobuula « e > xvii. II 
 
 mpoLoem te ge ii, 31 Gal. iii. 8 
 
 WpoKbTTEw « . e | i. 52 2 3 
 Tpbvowa ° . . xxiv. 2 | Rom. xiii. 14 
 
 mpoopliew . ° . iv. 28 5 
 
 powers e ° xix. 36 2 Tim. iii. 4 
 kara mpbcwrop » | i. 31 2 2 : 
 
 papolvew . s . xvi. 22 2 Cor. xL 25 
 
 céBacua ln ° ° xvii. 23 | 2 Th. ii. 4 
 
 oKorety ° 2 » | xi. 35 5 
 
 oroxety =n ~ - xxi. 24 
 
 ovyxadifew , ° » | xxi. 55 Eph. ii. 6 
 
 ouykrelew . «| Ve 3 
 
 ovyxaipev .» ° . 3 4 
 
 ouppiBagevr. - - 3 4 
 
 ouvavrihauBdverr . » | X. 40 Rom. viii. 26 
 
 civiecuos . ° ° Vill. 23 3 
 
 ouvéKdtuos » - - xix. 29 | 2 Cor. viii. 19 
 
 cuvecblew - e | xv. 2 xi5 4 
 
 cuvevookely » ° 2 | xi. 48 2 3 
 
 ovvoxy ° ° e | xxi. 25 2 Cor. ii. 4 
 
 auoré\e e e v. 6 I Cor. vii. 29 
 
 — 
 
 
 
viii 
 
 
 
 cwparik6s » 
 70 TWTNPLOP « 
 cwppoovvn » 
 TETpaTOOa « 
 *ripnots 2 
 Sotvat Tbrop 
 UBpis . 
 
 vm7}Koos 
 
 brwmidgev 
 vorépnua 
 
 paokew 
 
 gravOpurla 
 pirdpyupos . 
 popos . ° 
 ppbyynois =. 
 xaplferOas « 
 
 Xapiroov 
 XEltporovety 
 Xp7TOat 
 
 ee eersrpeeeeseveeeeeeeeete 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 
 
 
 
 [S6. 
 
 
 
 1 Tim. iv. 8 
 xxviii. 28] Eph. vi. 17 
 
 XXVi. 25 2 
 2 Rom. i. 23 
 2 1 Cor. vii. 19 
 2 
 2 2 Cor. xii. 10 
 vii. 39 2 
 1 Cor. ix. 27 
 8 
 2 Rom. i, 22 
 XXVill. 2 Tit. ili, 4 
 2 Tim. iii. 2 
 2 
 Eph. i. 8 
 4 15 
 Eph. i. 6 
 xiv. 23 | 2 Cor. viii. 19 
 2 3 
 
 (2) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul and the 
 Lpisile to the Hebrews. 
 
 dueurros s 
 dvaykatos 
 advdpyvnows =, 
 dvramod.dévas 
 adéiotv . ° 
 amoketcbat . 
 GrohUTpwos » 
 ao pahns e 
 agiuTdvas 
 BovA} . ° 
 Orapapriper Gas 
 Ov Av airlay . 
 expepery . 
 éxpevyery 
 évduvayotv 
 évrvyxavew 
 émlOeats ° 
 Karapyev =e 
 Aecroupyety » 
 
 NhWON AW 
 
 
 
 Tit. iii, 14 
 2 Th. i 
 Col. i. 5 
 
 7 
 Phil. iii. 1 
 2 Cor. xii. 8 
 
 2 
 1 Th. iv. 6 
 
 3 
 1 Tim. vi. 7 
 3 
 
 Sy 
 
 2 
 2 Tim. i. 10 
 Rom, xv. 27 
 
§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lix 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 4 2 
 2 18? ii. 6 
 = 5 Rom. i. 4 iv. 7 
 mapatretcOat » 3 xxv. II 4 3 
 mapdKAnots . 2 4 19 1 Tim. iv. 13 3 
 jepuaipey =e 2 2 Cor. iii. 16 x. 55 
 mepépxerOae « 2 1 Tim, v. 13| xi. 37 
 oxhnpiver | xix. 9 | Rom. ix, 18 4 
 . 2 
 : 3 2 Tim. ii. 10 2 
 ° Gal. ii. 12 x. 38 
 . 2 Cor. i, 21 i 
 
 (3) Expressions peculiar to S. Lukes Writings and to the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 dvadéyecOart, dvafewpeiv}, dvactdcews tvyxdvew, *dvopfotvd, dvurepor}t, 
 * dradddooew F, dmoypagerBbact, dpxmyés$, doddevrost, doreost, dorpor ¥, 
 *Bojbea4, duaridecPart, per’ elpivnst, elovévar?, éxdelrew?, * evoxdeiv}, Evrpo- 
 pos?, émiaré\derv?, eowrepost, * edOeros}, leparela}, iidoxecOart, xatarwavery, 
 Karapevyery ; 4, xKepdratov f, AUTpworst by péroxort, dp0dst, madasodvd, els rd 
 mavrenést, *wapadteobast, mapokeiv}, *mapotvoudst, rarpidpyns?, meptxetoGal 
 rt, woppwOevt, cvvarrgv $, cxedbr FZ, Tedelwoist, Urapiist, Excepting dvaGewpeiv, 
 dvacrdcews Tuyxdvewv, dvwtepov, éowrepos, and els rd wavTedés, all the above are 
 in LXX. 
 
 (4) Expressions not found in the other Gospels and more frequent 
 in S. Luke's Writings than in all the rest of N.T. 
 
 dyadNlacts$, alveiv$, *dvardurewt, av0’ Gv, droroyeicbas, dogpddrea?, 
 * drevifew 12, * dromwos}, agiordvat 4, Bovn$, Bpédos$, dtawapriperbar 4, Starrop- 
 everOart, éyxadeiv$, EupoBosF, eLamooréNew 19, éwépxer Oars, *épyacia $, écOjs#, 
 evayyerlferGat i, ediordvat 3, * novydfevF, xaTayev $, KaTavTGy £, * xatépxerOar 
 ¢. 44, 6 Adyos Tod Kuplov$, pePiordvar§, wépis§, wjv+P, awd tov viv}, érraciat, 
 * oplfew$, maverOa$, Ta mepl 3, mpeoBurépovt, mpotpxeras c. $, *mpood-yeuv c.F, 
 awukvos $, ovyar t, omevdew }, *creipat, cvvavrgvs, vrdpxew (excluding 7a brdp- 
 xovra) 22, *drodéxecOar}, *drodapPdvewt, broorpépe ’ : and several others 
 which occur twice in Luke and once elsewhere. All of these occur in LXX, 
 except dvaréurew, 
 
 (5) Expressions found in one or more of the other Gospels, but mor 
 eect in S. Luke's Writings than in all the rest of N.T. 
 ayev 6. exo SEER, <orepov § % ér aAnbeias$, auddrepor $ 
 
 dvaryewv 22, * avaipety 2, dvurrdvat 6.335 avr éyew 8, dxmy yet hey c. 28 
 
 drordacewv py Biplane: Kat aités32, adeois -dpapriay § §, Boav c.& 
 
 er pov 6.8, deioOar tS, duapepiley $ 3, Siavotyet, Siaczpépeny 8, 
 
 vacwlev$, diardocev?, diepxerGar ¢. 33, SupyeirGar 5, dotvar 3, 
 
Ix THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 
 
 eav$, eyyilew 24, Host, «i St ppye§, els Exarros ts elodyew$, eto- 
 pepe $, éxarovrdpxs "yy éxotacis$, éAenucovvyn 1, euarysmAavat, 
 SREB evade S, edyew s, eaipvas ts earns, eényctobar4, 
 eEurrdvat '5 on RE STEN oe CTE EY , Sra Remmere ees éros Z§, 
 ev HS _Mpepus ts, kal Tysgpav 12, Oavpdlew emit, *idoGari$, idod 
 yap$, ixavés 25, iwarurpos3, nae kere katavoetv &, 
 ees KoA\Aao Oat, kovioprosy, +, Kpeuav s, kTacOar$, kwAvew 44, 
 mas 6 Nadst*, peyadiver §, * HEC OVUETIOY, 3, pvnpos, vopilew s, Vopit- 
 Kos §, ) oikoupevn #, dvéuate*g , ép0s3, ravraxod§, eizetv Or HilloA 
 eee ye 14, mapayiverba ¢. 7, Sains Tapaxpyua * 2 , Tepi- 
 xwpos $, mnpaS, ry Getv 22, *rAHO0s%5, wAnvis, *zAnpyst?, mpoc- 
 doxav a mpooriBévat 13, GAR BEVIS pipn%, carkedew$, ordoisg, 
 dua ordpartos ¢, nee oe qs ouycadeiyt, owlNanetyay po Nate 
 Paver}, ROSE tow 6 Z 3 ovvepxer Oats. » *ovvexew§ ED 
 ovvTBévat 2 T Taooew ¢. 2 Tetpapxys 3. » tis €€ Snare, ov Tporovt p 
 bBpilewZ, ra brapyovra ¥, brodexvivars, tyros 2, xadav $, woe 6.48. 
 Excepting axpiBéorepov, ddeois duaptidy, CLavtys, 6vopatt, TeTpapxys, 
 and tis e€ tyuar, all the above are found in LXX. 
 
 To these may be added a few which are specially frequent in 
 Luke’s writings, although not ue excess of the rest of N. = taken 
 together : dpxer arti, ape ¢.29, dexeoGarzs, babi = 6 Adyos 
 Tov @cov+$, Dixvoss, SUES GT Te a Tpoomirrew Fy ripest eae 
 oxilew 8, tpepey +, tpopy8, xapis twenty-five times in Lk. and Acts, 
 not in Mt. or Mk., and only thrice in Jn. 
 
 Phrases which indicate the expression of emotion are unusually 
 common, and belong to the picturesqueness of Luke’s style; e.g. 
 poBos péyas$, xapa meyaAn Or ToAAH*, Hovy peyddy FF. 
 
 Equally remarkable is his fondness for avyp, where others have 
 avOpwros or <is or nothing. Thus, vi. 8 7@ dvdpi, Mt. and Mk. ro 
 avOparre ; Vili. 27 avip tis, Mk. avOpwros ; ix. 38 avnp, Mt. avOpwrros, 
 Mk, els; xxiii. 50 avyp, Mt. av@pwzos, Mk. nothing. Comp. v. 8, 
 12, 18, Vili. 38, ix. 3°, xxii. 63: and the word is very much more 
 frequent i in Lk. than in all the other Gospels together. 
 
 The expression zais airot or cov in the sense ‘of God's servant” 
 is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 54, 69 ; Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 25, 27, 30), 
 with the exception of Mt. xii. 18, which is a quotation from Is. 
 xlii, 1. 
 
 (6) Expressions frequent in S. Luke's Writings and probably 
 due to Hebrew Influence. 
 
 The frequent use of éyévero is discussed at the end of ch. i. 
 Add to this Luke’s fondness for évdatov, which does not occur 
 in Mt. or Mk. and only once in Jn. (xx. 30). It is found more 
 than thirty times in Lk. and Acts, especially 1 in the phrase évamuov 
 Tov @eod (i. 19, 75, Xli. 6, XVI. 15) Or Kupiov (i. 15). With this com- 
 
§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xi 
 
 pare mpd mpog wo Twos (vii. 27, ix. 52, x. 1) and kata tpdcH 
 mov twvos (ii. 31). The frequent use of idov (i. 38, it, 34, 48, 
 Wil, 25, 27,34, etc.) and kai ido (i. 20, 31, 36, li. 25, Vv. 12, Vil. 12, 
 37, etc.) ; of p papa, for the matter of what is spoken (i. 65, ii. 15, 
 19, 51)3 of oikos. in the sense of “family” (i. 27, 33, 69, il. 4, 
 X. 5, XIX. 9); of efs in the sense of tis (v. 12, 17, Vill. 22, Xill. 10, 
 xx. I) or of zp@ros (xxiv. 1); of UWeoros for “the Most High 7 
 (i. 32, 35, 76, Vi. 35), illustrates the same kind of influence. So 
 also do such expressions as Toveiv éXeos peta (2 92g.% 37) 
 and peyaddvery éXeos peta (i. 58); rovetv Kparos (i. 51); €x 
 kotAias pyntpés (i. 15); combinations with év 77 kapdia or év 
 tats x. such as diaddyecOa (iii. 15, v. 22 ; COMP. XXIV. 38), diary- 
 petv (it. 51), PéoGax (i. 66, xxi. 14), owBaddew (ii. 19); év Tats 
 npepats (i. 5, 39, il. I, iv. 2, 25, V. 35, etc.); TH MmEpa Tov caf- 
 Barov (xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5); with perhaps 8a ordpuaros (i. 70), 
 where both the expression and the omission of the article seem to 
 be Hebraistic: in LXX we commonly have, however, év 74 ordpare 
 or ék Tov otduaros. Nearly all these expressions are found in the 
 Acts also, in some cases very often. The frequent use of peri- 
 phrastic tenses has been pointed out above (p. li) as being due 
 in many cases to Hebraistic influence. The same may be said of 
 the attributive or characterizing genitive, which is specially common 
 in Luke (iv. 22, xvi. 8, 9, xviii. 6; comp. x. 6, xx. 34, 36); 
 and of the frequent use of kai airds (ii. 28, v. I, 17, Vili. 1, 22, 
 XVii. 11, xix. 2), kal airy (ii. 37), and kal adrof (xiv. 1, xxiv. 14) 
 after éyévero, xai idov, and the like. Phrases like doéaleuv rov 
 @edv (v. 25, 26, vii. 16, xili, 13, XVil. 15, XVill. 43, Xxill. 47), 6 
 Adyos Tod Meod (v. I, Vill. 11, 21, xi. 28), and éradpecy Tv 
 g@wvyyv (xi. 27) may be placed under the same head; and they all 
 of them occur several times in the Acts. 
 
 In common with other N.T. writers S. Luke uses several 
 Hebrew words, which may be mentioned here, although they are 
 not specially common in his writings: dpyy (iv. 24, xl. 37, XVill. 
 17, etc. ), BeceBovrA (xi. 15, 18, 19), yéevva (xii. 5), TATH% (ii AN, 
 EXO FT, 7, 9, I, 12, gn od8Barov (I¥;, 16, 35, Vis Ey, 2,5. 75 9, 
 etc.), caravas (x. 18, xi. 18, xiii. 16, etc.). Three others eccur 
 once in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T.; Baros (xv 6), 
 Kopos (Xvi. 7). oixepa (i. 15). Other words, although Gree* in 
 origin, are used by him, as by other N.T. writers, in a sense which 
 is due to Hebrew influence; ayyedos (i. 11, 13, 18, ete.), yeap- 
 parevs {V. 21, 30, Vi. 7, ix. 22, etc.), Bud BoXos (iv. 2-33, Vill. 12), 
 eOvn (ii. 32, XVill. 32, Xxi. 24 bis, etc.), eienvy (i. 79, i. 29, Vil. 49, 
 etc.), xvptos (1. 6, 9, II, 15, etc.); and édypepia (i. 5, 8) is a Gree k 
 word specially formed to express a Hebrew idea. 
 
\xii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 6. 
 
 (7) Miscellaneous Expressions and Constructions which are 
 specially frequent in S. Luke's Writings. 
 
 In his use of the avtic/e he has several favourite constructions. 
 He is very fond of év r@ followed by a present infinitive to express 
 time during which (i. 8, 21, li. 6, 43, V. I, 12, Vill. 5, 42, etc.) or 
 by an aorist infinitive to express time after which (ii. 27, iii. 21, 
 ix. 34, 36, x1. 37, etc.); also of rod with an infinitive to express 
 purpose or result (i. 73, il. 27, Vv. 7, xii. 42, etc.). He frequently 
 employs 76 to introduce a whole clause, especially interrogations, 
 much as we use inverted commas (i. 62, ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 
 23, 24, 37). 
 
 In the case of certain verbs he has a preference for special 
 constructions. After verbs of speaking, answering, and the like 
 he very often has pds and the accusative instead of the simple 
 dative. Thus, we have etreiy mpos (1. 13, 18, 28, 34, 61, ii. 15, 
 34, 48, 49, etc.), AaAeiy mpos di. 19, 55; ii. 18, 20, xii. 3, etc.), A€yety 
 7pos (iv. 21, v. 36, Vil. 24, Vili. 25, ix 23, etc.), droxpiver Gan pos 
 (iv. 4, Vi. 3, XIV. 5), yoyyvCew pds (Vv. 30), cvvlynretv mpds (xxii. 23), 
 ovvAaXeiv zpés (iv. 36). It often happens that where Mt. or Mk 
 has the dative, Luke has the accusative with zpds (Mt. ix. 11; Mk 
 i. 16; Lk. v. 30) Whereas others prefer éf¢pxeoOar éx, he has 
 eee a6 (iv. 35, 41, Vv. 8, viii. 2, 29, 33> 35> 38, ix. 5, etc.), 
 and for Oavyalew zu he prefers Barpdew éri tive (il. 33, IV. 22, 
 ix. 43, xx. 26). For Gepazeveww vécous he sometimes has Oepareveww 
 a7 voowy (V. 15, Vil. 21, viii. 2). He is fond of the infinitive after 
 dua 76 (ii. 4, Vill. 6, ix. 7, xi. 8, xvill. 5, etc.), wera 7d (xii, 5, xxii 
 20), and zpo rod (il. 21, xxil. 15). The quite classical éyew tu is 
 common (vii. 42, ix. 58, xi. 6, xli. 17, 50, xiv. 14). His use of the 
 optative has been mentioned above (p. li). 
 
 Participles with the article often take the place of substantives 
 (ii. 27, iv. 16, viii. 34, xxii. 22, xxiv. 14). They are frequently 
 added to verbs in a picturesque and classical manner: avacravrtes 
 e¢Bador (iv. 29); kaioas ediSackev (Vv. 3), orabels exeAevoer (xviii. 
 40), otpadeis éreripnoe (ix. 55), etc. They are sometimes strung 
 together without a conjunction (ii. 36, iv. 35, V. IT, 19; 25 ,ebe)- 
 
 S. Luke is very fond of vds, and especially of the stronger 
 form das. It is not always easy to determine which is the right 
 reading ; but amas is certainly very common (iii. 21, iv. 6, v. 26, 
 vill. 37, ix. 15, Xix. 37, 48, xxill. 1; also in Acts). Elsewhere in 
 N.T. azas is rare. Not unfrequently Luke has zs or das where 
 the others have nothing (iil. 155 16,25; iv. 37, V- 11, 28, VL 4 Eo. 
 17, 19, 30, Vil. 35, etc.). mas 6 Aads and amas 6 X. are very freq. 
 
 In the use of certain prepositions he has some characteristic 
 expressions : els 7a Gra (i. 44, ix. 44) and <is ras dxods (vii. 1), év 
 rots dow (iv. 21) and é& pécw (i. 46, Vili. 7, X. 3, XXL. 21, xxil. 27, 55, 
 
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE Ixiii 
 
 xxiv. 36); Kata 7d os (i. Q, ii. 42, xxii. 39) 70 elBic pévov (ii. 27), 
 70 elwOés (iv. 16), 70 cipnpevoy (ii. 24), and td dpicpévov (xxii. 22) ; 
 Tapa rods 7ddas (Vii. 38, Vill. 35, 41, XVil. 16), whereas Mark has 
 mpos 7. 7ddas (Vv. 22, vii. 25). Luke is very fond of ovv, which 
 is rather rare in the other Gospels but is very frequent in both of 
 Luke’s writings. Sometimes he has ovv where the others have 
 pera. (viii. 38, 51, xxii, 14, 56) or kai (xx. 1) or nothing (v. 19). 
 
 The pronouns ards (see below) and ovTos are specially common. 
 The latter is added to a numeral, tpiryy Tavtny ipépay (xxiv. 21), 
 to make it more definite. ris ¢€ duav; is almost peculiar to him 
 (xi. 5, Xl. 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii. 7), and so also is tis éotw otros 
 6s; (v. 21, vil. 49). The indefinite tvs with nouns is freq. 
 
 In using conjunctions he is very fond of combining 5€ with «ai, 
 a combination which occurs twenty-six times in his Gospel (ii. 4, 
 iil. 9, 12, iv. 41, Vv. 10, 36, vi. 6, ix. 61, etc.) and seven in the Acts. 
 It is rare in the other Gospels. His Hebraistic use of xai airdés, 
 avTy Or avrot, and of xat idov, to introduce the apodosis to éyévero 
 and the like, has been pointed out above (p. lxi). But Luke is 
 also fond of kai airés at the beginning of sentences or independent 
 clauses (i. 17, 22, iii. 23, iv. 15, V. 37, Vi. 20, xv. 14, etc.), and 
 of kai otros, which is peculiar to him (i. 36, viii. 41?, xvi. 1, 
 xx. 28). In quoting sayings he most frequently uses 8¢, and «fev 
 d€ occurs forty-six times in the Gospel and fourteen in the Acts. 
 It is not found in Mt. or Mk., and perhaps only once in Jn. 
 (xii. 6 [viii. 11,] ix. 37?): they prefer é 6 0é eirev, or Kal A€yet, KT. 
 Luke also has eAcyev dé nine times in the Gospel ; it occurs twice 
 in Mk, once in Jn., and never in Mt. Five times he begins a 
 sentence with a! és (temporal), which is not found elsewhere in 
 N.T. (xv. 25, xix. 41, xxii. 66, xxiii. 26; Actsi. 10). The inter- 
 rogative «i is found eighteen times in Gospel and Acts (vi. 7, 9, 
 Xlil. 23, Xiv. 28, 31, xxil. 49, 67, etc.), ef d& uyye five times, and ef 
 dpa twice. All of these are comparatively rare elsewhere. 
 
 The idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in both 
 books (i. 4, il. 20, ili. 19, Vv. 9, ix. 36, 43, xil. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, 
 etc.): it is rare in Mt. and Mk., and is not common in Jn. 
 
 After rotro he has éru in Gospel and Acts (x. 11, xii. 39, etc.) ; 
 Mt. and Mk. never; Jn. only after dua rotro. 
 
 He is fond of combinations of cognate words, e.g. purdacorras 
 pvdaxds (il. 8), epoByOnoay poBov péyay (ii. 9), Barris bevres 76 Bar- 
 TLO A (vil. 29), 7 0 adotpary aoTparrovca ae 24). Some of these 
 are Hebraistic, especially such as éruupig érefvpyoa (xxii. 15). 
 
 (8) Expressions probably or possibly medical. 
 
 _ It was perhaps not until 1841 that attention was called to the 
 existence of medical phraseology in the writings of S. Luke. In the 
 
Ixiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [g 6. 
 
 Gentleman’s Magazine for June 1841 a paper appeared on the 
 subject, and the words ayAvs (Acts xiii. 11), xpauraAn (Lk. xxi. 34), 
 TapadeAvpéevos (v. 18, 24; Acts vill. 7, ix. 33), mapofvopos (Acts 
 XV. 39), ouvexoméevn mupeTo peyddw (Lk. iv. 38), and sdpwzixds 
 (xiv. 2) were given as instances of technical medical language. 
 Since then Dr. Plumptre and others have touched on the subject ; 
 and in’ 1882 Dr. Hobart published his work on Zhe Medical 
 Language of St. Luke, Dublin and London. He has collected 
 over 400 words from the Gospel and the Acts, which in the main 
 are either peculiar to Luke or are used by him more often than 
 by other N.T. writers, and which are also used (and often very 
 frequently) by Greek medical writers. He gives abundant quota- 
 tions from such writers, that we may see for ourselves; and the 
 work was well worth doing. But there can be no doubt that the 
 number of words in the Gospel and the Acts which are due to 
 the Evangelist’s professional training is something very much less 
 than this. It may be doubted whether there are a hundred such 
 words. But even if there are twenty-five, the fact is a considerable 
 confirmation of the ancient and universal tradition that “ Luke the 
 beloved physician” is the author of both these books. Of 
 Dr. Hobart’s long list of words more than eighty per cent. are 
 found in LXX, mostly in books known to S. Luke, and sometimes 
 occurring very frequently in them. In all such cases it is more 
 reasonable to suppose that Luke’s use of the word is due to his 
 knowledge of LXX, rather than to his professional training. In 
 the case of some words, both of these causes may have been at 
 work. In the case of others, the medical training, and not famili- 
 arity with LXX, may be the cause. But in most cases the prob- 
 ability is the other way. Unless the expression is known to be 
 distinctly a medical one, if it occurs in books of LXX which were 
 known to Luke, it is probable that his acquaintance with the ex- 
 pression in LXX is the explanation of his use of it. Ifthe expres- 
 sion is also found in profane authors, the chances that medical 
 training had anything to do with Lk.’s use of it become very 
 remote. It is unreasonable to class as in any sense medical such 
 words as d6potlew, dxoy, avaipety, avadapBavev, dvopfodv, amacreiv, 
 umaAddocev, drove, aropeiv, aopddea, apeois, etc. etc. All of 
 these are frequent in LXX, and some of them in profane authors. 
 also. 
 
 Nevertheless, when Dr. Hobart’s list has been well sifted, there 
 still remains a considerable number of words, the occurrence or 
 frequency of which in S. Luke’s writings may very possibly be due 
 to the fact of his being a physician. ‘The argument is a cumulat- 
 ive one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical 
 writers may be explained as mere coincidences: but the large 
 pumber of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory for 
 
§6.] | CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE Ixv 
 
 all of them ; especially where the word is either rare in LXX, or 
 not found there at all. 
 
 The instances given in the Gentleman's Magazine require a 
 word of comment. Galen in treating of the diseases of the eye 
 gives ayAvs as one of them, and repeatedly uses the word, which 
 occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Perhaps xpauradAy, which 
 in bibl. Grk. is found Lk. xxi. 34 only, is a similar instance. It 
 occurs more than once in Aristophanes, but is frequent in medical 
 ‘vriters of the nausea which follows excess. In zapadeAvpévos we 
 have a stronger instance. Whereas the other Evangelists use 
 mapadutixos, Luke in harmony with medical usage has zapaAedv- 
 pevos, as also has Aristotle, a physician’s son (Z7h. Vic. i. 13. 15). 
 But this use may come from LXX, as in Heb. xii. 12. That aapo- 
 évopos is a medical term is indisputable; but as early as Demos- 
 thenes it is found in the sense of exasperation, as also in LXX 
 ‘Deut. xxix. 28 ; Jer. xxxix. [xxxii.] 37). The instance in Lk. iv. 38 
 13 perhaps a double one: for cvvexopévy is possibly, and zuperd 
 peyadAw probably, a medical expression. Moreover, here Mt. and 
 Mk. have merely TUPET TOUT A, and in Acts xxviil. 8 we have the 
 parallel ruperois xai ducevtepia ovvexopevov. In tdpwmrixds we have 
 a word peculiar to Luke in bibl. Grk. and perhaps of purely 
 medical origin. 
 
 By adopting doubtful or erroneous aes Hobart makes other instances 
 double, ¢.g. érémecev for érecev (Acts xiii. 11), BapyvOdouv for BapnOdow (Lk. 
 xxi. 34). Again, whether or no avamriccew has any medical flavour, Lk. 
 
 iv. 17 must not be quoted in connexion with it, for there the true reading is 
 > 
 avoléas. 
 
 To the examples given in the Gentleman’s Magazine may per- 
 haps be added such instances as daxtiAw rpoowavew (xi. 46), where 
 Mt. has daktvAw Kwjoat: did Tpypatros BeAdvys (xvili. 25), Where Mk. 
 has dua tTpvpadsas padidos: earn 7 plots TOD aiparos (vill. 44), Where 
 Mk. has éénpdv0n 7 myyi tT. aiwatos: éotepedOyoav at Baces adrovd 
 kal Ta ovodpa (Acts il. 7); and more doubtfully é60vnv técoapow 
 dpxais kaenevov (Acts x. 11) and avexd@cev (vii. 14; Acts ix. 40). 
 
 Luke alone relates what may be called the surgical miracle of 
 the healing of Malchus’ ear (xxi. 51). And perhaps the marked 
 way in which he distinguishes demoniacal possession from disease 
 (vi. 18, xili. 32; Acts xix. 12) may be put down to medical train- 
 ing. His exactness in stating how long the person healed had been 
 afflicted (xili. 11 ; Acts ix. 33) and the age of the person healed 
 (vill. 42; Acts iv. 22) is a feature of the same kind. For other 
 possible instances see notes on iv. 35, V. 12, Vii. Io. 
 
 The coincidences between the preface of the Gospel and the 
 opening words of some medical treatises are remarkable (see small 
 print, pp. 5, 6). And it is worth noting that Luke alone records 
 Christ’s quotation of the proverb, “Iatpé, Oeparevoov ceavrov 
 
 e 
 
Ixvi 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 
 
 [§ 6 
 
 (iv. 23); and that almost the last words that he records in the 
 Acts are S. Paul’s quotation from Is. vi., which ends kai idcopar 
 
 airovs (xxviii. 26, 27). 
 
 The following table will illustrate some characteristics of S. 
 Luke’s diction as compared with that of the other Synoptists :— 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 iii. 10. 457 dé. 
 
 ili. 16. rvetua Geod. 
 
 iii. 17. pwvh éx 7. ovp- 
 wor. 
 
 iv. 1. Gv}xOn. 
 iv. 5, 8. maparapBdvet. 
 
 iv. 12. dvexwpycer. 
 
 iv. 18. Thy Oddaccapy. 
 
 iv. 20. adpévres Ta Slxrva. 
 
 viii. 2. Aempds mporehOwp 
 tpocktve aire. 
 
 Vili. 4. kal Aéyee 6 Inoois. 
 
 ix. 2. mpocégepoy atre 
 trapahurexéy. 
 ix. 7. éyepOels, 
 
 ix, 8. époBHOncar, 
 
 ix. 9. Ma06atov Xeyouévor. 
 xii, 50. 7d OAnua 7. war- 
 $s ou. 
 xiii. 7. éxt ras dxdvOas. 
 
 xiii, 19. T Adyor 7. Ba- 
 osdelas. 
 
 xiii. 20. AapBdvwv, 
 
 xili. 21. oxavdarlferas, 
 
 v. 15. Kalovow dixvor. 
 
 vill. 21. KUpte. 
 
 viii. 30. dyé&\n xolpwr 
 ToNAGr. 
 
 ix. 18. l50) d&pxwv [els] 
 cove Pav mpockiver aiTy. 
 
 x. 18. éredetrycer, 
 
 x. 14. Eepxdpeva EEw. 
 avi. 15. Aéyets 
 
 S. MARK. 
 
 i. 10. 7d wvedpa. 
 
 i, 11. gwyh éx 7. obpa- 
 yu. 
 
 i. 12. 7d zy. abrov éxBdd- 
 Ae. 
 
 i, 14. #AGer. 
 
 i. 16. Thy Oddaccapy. 
 
 i. 18. ddévres 7a Slxrva, 
 
 i, 40. Nempds mapaxadav 
 atrév Kal yovuTerar. 
 
 i. 44. wal A\éyet, 
 
 ii, 3. pépovres mpds abror 
 mwapadurikdr. 
 li. 12. 77yép8n Kal evdus. 
 
 ii. 12, é&loracbat 
 
 ii, 14. Aevely. 
 
 iii, 35. 7d O&qya TF. 
 Gcod. 
 
 iv. 7. els Tas dxdvOas. 
 
 iv. 14. rdv Adbyor. 
 iv. 16, AapBdvovow. 
 iv. 17. oxavdanlfovrat, 
 
 iv. 38. d:ddoxade. 
 
 v. 7. dpklfw ce. 
 
 v. II. dy&q Xolpav pey- 
 dd. 
 
 v. 22. Epxerat eis Tv dp- 
 xXiowayayw Kal alate 
 apods Tods 76das avrov. 
 
 ¥. 23. éoxdrws Exel. 
 v. 29. evOds eEnpdvOn 7 
 vi. II. éxmopevdpevot éxet- 
 
 Gev, 
 Vili. 29, érnpwra. 
 
 S. LuKgE. 
 iii. 9. 4dn 5é nal, 
 iii, 22. 7d wv. Td Bycor, 
 iii. 22. @wv hy €& odpavod 
 yevéo Oar 
 iv. i. bréorpeper 
 
 iv. 5, 9. Fyayer, ava 
 yayav. 
 
 iv. 14. bréorpeper. 
 
 v. I. Thy Aluvny 
 
 v. Il. agévres wWavTa. 
 
 v. 12, dvip wdAhpns 
 Admpas weoav él mpbe- 
 wrov €6e407 avtov. 
 
 v. 14. kal atrds rap 
 hyyetrev. 
 
 v. 18. dvdpes pépovres 
 ee » TapadedAupévos. 
 
 Vv. 25. TapaxpyHya ave 
 aoras éveimiov altar. 
 
 v. 26. €wAcOnoar pb- 
 Bov. 
 v. 27. 6véuare Acvelv, 
 
 viii. 21. Tov Adyor 7. 
 @cod. 
 
 viii. 7. év wéow T. dkav- 
 Oay. 
 viii. 11.6 Ad6yosT. Oeod. 
 
 SéxovTau 
 adgloravran 
 Avxvov &Was. 
 éTLoTaTa. 
 déopal cov. 
 ayn xolpwr 
 
 viii. 13. 
 
 Viii. 13. 
 
 viii. 16. 
 
 viii. 24. 
 
 viii. 28. 
 
 viii. 32. 
 tkavar. 
 
 vili. 41. kal ldod 7dOev 
 dvyp kal odros &pxwy Tis 
 ouwaywyns um7pxev Kak 
 meow Tape Tos wbdas 
 "Inood. 
 
 viii. 42. kal adrh daé- 
 OvncKev. 
 
 viii. 44. mWapaxpyjua 
 orn F piots. 
 
 ix. 5. éfepxduevar ard, 
 
 ix. 20. efwrev 84 
 
§ 7.] 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 Xvi. 20. éwerlunoer, 
 xvi. 28, duhv \éyw duiv. 
 
 XVil. 4. KUpte. 
 XVil. 16, mpoojveyka. 
 
 xvii, 18, €OepamrevOn 4 
 mais. 
 
 xix. 13. masdla. 
 
 xxii, 18. yvods Thy mov- 
 nplav. 
 
 XXVi. 20, pera T, OWdexa 
 padnrov. 
 
 Xxvi. 27. AaBwr. 
 
 XXVi. 29. ov ph dm’ prt. 
 
 XXvVi. 41. Ypryopetre kat 
 mpocevxeobe. 
 
 xxvi. 64. da dprt. 
 
 XXVli. 2. dmijyayov Kat 
 mapédwkay Ilewidry. 
 
 xxvii. 13. Aéyet. 
 
 XXVil. 57. dvOpwiros m\ov- 
 clos, Tobvoua "Iwan. 
 
 xxviii. 8. dreAOodoar... 
 ESoapov damaryyethas ois 
 uadyrais avroi. 
 
 THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL 
 
 S. MARK. 
 vill, 30. éxerlunoer. 
 ix. I. dpuhv A\éyw dyer. 
 ix. 5. “PafBel, 
 
 ix. 18. elza. 
 ix. 27. avéorn. 
 
 x. 13. matdla, 
 
 xii. 15. eldws thy bré- 
 Kpiowv. 
 
 xiv. 17. weTa TOV SwdeKa, 
 . 23. Aaa. 
 Xiv. 25. ovxért od 11%}. 
 
 - 38. ‘ypnyopetre xat 
 mpooevxer Oe, 
 
 xv. I. damrijveykay Kal 
 mapédwxav Teddy. 
 
 XV. 4. emnpora, 
 
 XV. 43. "Iwonp evox nuwv 
 Bovdeuris. 
 
 xvi. 8. é&eAOotdoat « » » 
 ovdevi ovdér elrav. 
 
 Ixvii 
 S. Luxe. 
 
 ix. 21. émiryjoas wap- 
 hyvetdrev. 
 
 ix. 27. Aéyw byuiv ad7- 
 Oas. 
 
 ix.. 33. €miotdara, 
 
 ix. 40. €deHOn». 
 
 ix. 42. ldoaro 
 waitda, 
 
 xviii. 15. Ta Bpédn. 
 
 XX. 23. KaTavOyoas THY 
 mwavoupylav. 
 
 xxil. 14. of drédoToAot 
 ovr atte. 
 
 xxii. 17. deEdwevos. 
 
 xxii, 18. ob uh dad Tod 
 vor. 
 
 xxii. 46. dvacrdyres 
 mpocevxeobe, 
 
 xxii, 69. dd Tod viv. 
 
 xxiii. I. dvacrTav érav 
 TO TARGOS atrav #yayor 
 avrov éml r. TlecdGrov. 
 
 xxiii. 9. eanpdéra ev é- 
 yous ikavots. 
 
 xxii. 50. kat ldod avnp 
 évéuatet I.,  Bovdeurys 
 Umdpxwr. 
 
 Xxiv. 9. JrocrpéVacat 
 oe. GTHYyElAay TavTa 
 mdvra Tos evdexa Kal 
 @ Gov Tots Aovrots. 
 
 Top 
 
 These are only specimens taken from a large number of 
 
 instances, and selected for their brevity and 
 they admit of comparison. 
 
 the ease with which 
 
 The student who has mastered tne 
 
 main features of Luke’s style will be able to find many more for 
 
 himself. 
 
 § 7. THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL. 
 
 This question may be regarded as naturally following the dis- 
 
 cussion of S. Luke’s peculiarities and characteristics, for it is by a 
 knowledge of these that we are able to solve it. The question has 
 been keenly debated during the last forty years, and may now be 
 said to be settled, mainly through the exertions of Volkmar, 
 Hilgenfeld; and Sanday. Dr. Sanday’s,article in the Fortnightly 
 Review, June 1875, in answer to Supernatural Religion, was pro- 
 nounced by Bishop Lightfoot to be ‘“‘able and (as it seems to me) 
 unanswerable” (On Sup. Fel. p. 186). This article was incor- 
 
Ixviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [§ 7. 
 
 perated in Zhe Gospels in the Second Century, Macmillan, 1896, 
 now unfortunately out of print, and it remains unanswered. It is 
 now conceded on all sides' that Marcion’s Gospel does not 
 represent the original S. Luke, and that our Third Gospel has 
 not been largely augmented and interpolated, especially by the 
 addition of the first three chapters and the last seven verses ; but 
 that Marcion’s Gospel is an abridgment of our S. Luke, which 
 therefore was current before Marcion began to teach in Rome in 
 or before a.D. 140. The statements of early Christian writers (not 
 to be accepted as conclusive without examination) have been 
 strongly confirmed, and it is right to speak of Marcion’s Gospel as 
 a “mutilated” or “ amputated ”’ edition of S. Luke. 
 
 Trenzeus says of Marcion: zd guod est secundum Lucam evangelium 
 circumcidens (i. 27. 2, iil. 12.7); and again: Marcion et gui ab co sunt, ad 
 intercidendas converst sunt Scripturas, quasdam quidem in totum non cog- 
 noscentes, secundum Lucam autem evangelium et epistolas Pauli decurtantes, 
 hec sola legitima esse dicunt, que ipst minoraverunt (iil. 12.12). Similarly 
 Tertullian: Qzzs tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit? 
 (Adv. Marcion. i. 1). Marcion evangelio suo nullum adscribit auctorem. 
 ... ex tis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse 
 quem cederet (ibid. iv.2). Epiphanius also: 6 wév yap xapaxryp Tov Kara AouKay 
 onualver 76 evayyéduov: ws 6 AKpwrnplacTrar TE GpXHy EXwWY, MITE “eo, UATE 
 Tédos, tuatlov BeBpwuévou vrd wodAdGy onT Gy éréxe Tov Tpbrov (Her. i. 3. II, 
 Migne, xli. 709). Epiphanius speaks of additions, 7a d€ rpoorl@ynouv: but these 
 were very trifling, perhaps only some two or three dozen words. 
 
 The evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the contents 
 of Marcion’s Gospel is quite independent, and it can be checked 
 to some extent by that of Irenzeus. ‘Their agreement is remark- 
 able, and we can determine with something like certainty and 
 exactness the parts of the Third Gospel which Marcion omitted ; 
 not at all because he doubted their authenticity, but because he 
 disliked their contents. They contradicted his doctrine, or did 
 not harmonize well with it, or in some other way displeased him. 
 In this arbitrary manner he discarded i. ii. and ili. excepting Iii. 1, 
 with which his Gospel began. Omitting ili. 2-iv: 13, 17-20, 24, 
 he went on continuously to xi. 28. _ His subsequent omissions 
 were xi. 29-32, 49-51, xiil. I-9, 29-35, XV. LI—32, XVll. 5—I0, 
 XVili. 31-34, xix. 29-48, xx. 9-18, 37, 38, xxl. I-4, 18, 21, 22, 
 xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51, xxlv. 47-53. Perhaps he also 
 omitted vii. 29-35 ; and he transposed iv. 27 to xvii. 18. 
 
 It should be observed that not only does Marcion’s Gospel 
 
 1 An exception must be made of the author of Zhe Four Gospels as 
 Historical Records, Norgate, 1895, pp. 93-95. The work is retrograde, and 
 rakes together criticisms and ‘positions which have been rendered impotent and 
 untenable. One is tempted to apply to it the author’s own words (respecting a 
 volume of very real merit and ability, which has rendered signal service to the 
 cause of truth), that it “may be said, without much injustice, to beg every 
 question with which it deals” (p. 491). 
 
§ 7.] THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL Ixix 
 
 contain nearly all the sections which are peculiar to Luke, but it 
 contains them in the same order. Where Luke inserts something 
 into the common tradition, Marcion has the insertion ; where Luke 
 omits, Marcion omits also. This applies in particular to “the 
 great intercalation” (ix. 51—xvili. 14) as well as to smaller 
 insertions; and this minute agreement, step by step, between 
 Marcion and Luke renders the hypothesis of their independence 
 incredible. The only possible alternatives are that Marcion has 
 expurgated our Third Gospel, or that our Third Gospel is an 
 expansion of Marcion’s; and it can be demonstrated that the 
 second of these is untenable. 
 
 (1) In most cases we can see why Marcion omitted what his 
 Gospel did not contain. He denied Christ’s human birth; 
 therefore the whole narrative of the Nativity and the genealogy 
 must be struck out. The Baptism, Temptation, and Ascension 
 involved anthropomorphic views which he would dislike. All 
 allusions to the O.T. as savouring of the kingdom of the Demiurge 
 must be struck out. And so on. In this way most of the 
 omissions are quite intelligible. The announcement of the 
 Passion (xviii. 31-34) and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, ete. 
 (xix. 29-48), were probably disliked as being fulfilments of O.T-. 
 prophecy. It 1s less easy to see Marcion’s objection to the 
 Prodigal Son (xv. 11-32) and the massacre of Galileans, etc. 
 (xiii. 1-9) ; but our knowledge of his strange tenets is imperfect, 
 and these passages probably conflicted with some of them. But 
 sach changes as “‘all the righteous” for “ Abraham and Isaac and 
 Jacob and ali te prophets” (xiii. 28), or “the Lord’s words” for 
 “the law” (xvi. 17), or “those whom the god of that world shall 
 account worthy” for “they that are accounted worthy to attain to 
 that world” (xx. 35), are thoroughly intelligible. Others which his 
 critics supposed to be wilful depravations of the text are mere 
 differences of reading found in other authorities ; e.g. the omission 
 of aidvov (x. 25) and of 7 pepioryy (xii. 14) ; and the insertion of 
 kal kaTadvovta Tov vomov Kal TOvs mpopyTas (Xxili. 2). 
 
 (2) But the chief evidence (in itself amounting to something 
 like demonstration) that Marcion abridged our S. Luke, rather 
 than the Evangelist expanded Marcion, is found in the peculiari: zs 
 and characteristics of Luke’s style and diction. These run through 
 our Gospel from end to end, and on the average are as frequent in 
 the portions which Marcion omitted as in the rest. In the first 
 two chapters they are perhaps somewhat more frequent than else- 
 where. It is quite incredible that the supposed interpolator made 
 a minute analysis of the style and diction of Marcion’s Gospel, 
 practised himself in it, and then added those portions of our 
 Gospel which Marcion did not include in his Gospel: and that he 
 accomplished this feat without raising a suspicion. Such a feat in 
 
Ixx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 8. 
 
 that age would have been a literary miracle. Only those who 
 have worked through the passages expunged by Marcion, carefully 
 marking what is peculiar to Luke or characteristic of him, can 
 estimate the full force of this argument. But the analysis of a few 
 verses will be instructive. 
 
 The dotted lines indicate that the expression is found more 
 often in Luke’s writings than in the rest of N.T., and the fraction 
 indicates the proportion: eg. the § with xa6eiAev means that 
 kaGaipety occurs six times in Lk. and Acts, and three elsewhere in 
 the rest of N.T. The plain lines indicate that the expression is 
 peculiar to Luke in N.T., and the figure states the number of 
 times in which it occurs in his writings: e.g. xara 76 €80s occurs 
 thrice in Lk. and Acts, and nowhere else in N.T. 
 
 eee nw ewencnsees Pe , 
 evérhyoev 2" ayaddv, kat rhovrotrtas eLarréoretAcv 19 Kevovs. davte\d- 
 
 iréotpaper 38 cis Tov otxov abris (i. 52-56). oa 
 
 ee I 
 éoptj Tod mdoxa, Kal Gre eyévero érdvZ$ dwoexa, dvaBawdvTwv 
 RN ere Slee co steay : 
 
 a a 4, ‘5 ¢ 
 aitav «ata TO e0s3 THs éopTns, Kal TehewodvTwy Tas Hmepas, 
 
 Trois 2 yvworois' 42 Kal pa evpovtes tréotpeav %3 eis “IepovoaAnp, 
 
 § 8. THE TEXT, 
 
 The authorities quoted for the various readings are taken from 
 different sources, of which Tischendorf’s /Vov. Zest. Gree. vol. i. 
 ed. 8, Lipsiz, 1869, and Sanday’s App. ad Wov. Test, Sieph., 
 Oxonii, 1889, are the chief. The Patristic evidence has been in 
 many cases verified. Gregory’s /rolgomena to ‘Tischendorf, 
 Lipsiz, 1884-94, and Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s /utroduction 
 to the Criticism of N.T., Bell, 1894, must be consulted by_ those 
 who desire more complete information respecting the authorities. 
 
 + 
 
§ 8] THE TEXT Ixxi 
 
 (1) GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. 
 Primary uncials. 
 
 & Cod. Sinaiticus, sec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the 
 Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Peters- 
 burg. Contains the whole Gospel complete. 
 
 Its correctors are 
 x* contemporary, or nezriy so, and representing a second 
 MS. of high value ; 
 x” attributed by Tischendorf to sxc. vi. ; 
 &° attributed to the beginning of sec. vii. Two hands of 
 about this date are sometimes distinguished as »@ and 
 Roe. 
 
 A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sec. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library 
 at Alexandria ; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. 
 in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete. 
 
 B. Cod. Vaticanus, sec. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly 
 since 1533! (Batiffol, Za Vaticane de Paul itt, etc., p. 86). 
 Complete. 
 
 The corrector B? is nearly of the same date and used a 
 good copy, though not quite so good as the original. 
 Some six centuries later the faded characters were 
 retraced, and a few new readings introduced by B?. 
 
 C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, seec. v. In the National Library 
 at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 
 i. 2-ii. 5, ii. 42-ili. 21, iv. 25-vi. 4, vi. 37-vii. 16 or 17, 
 Vili. 28-xii. 3, xix. 42—-XX. 27, Xxi. 2I-xxil. 19, xxiii, 25- 
 xxiv. 7, xxiv. 46-53. 
 
 These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, 
 and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX 
 and N.T. 
 
 D. Cod. Bezae, sec. vi. Given by Beza to the University 
 Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains 
 the whole Gospel. 
 
 L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sec. viii. National Library at Paris. 
 Contains the whole Gospel. 
 
 R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sec. viii. Brought from a convent 
 in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British 
 Museum. Contains i. 1-13, i. 69-11. 4, 16-27, iv. 38-v. 5, 
 V. 25-vi. 8, 18-36, 39, Vi. 49-Vil. 22, 44, 46, 47, Vill. 5-15, 
 Viii. 25-ix. T, 12-43, X . 3-16, xi. 5727, XU. 4-15, 40-52, 
 xiii. 26-xiv. I, xiv. 12—-xv. I, xv. 13-Xvi. 16, XVii. 21—Xxvili. 10, 
 xviii. 22—XX. 20, XX. 33-47, XXL. I2-xxii. 15, 42-56, xxii. 71- 
 wail. 11, 38-51. By a second hand xv. 19-21. 
 
 T. Cod. Borgianus, sxc. vy. In the Library of the Propaganda at 
 Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains xxii. 20-xxiii. 20, 
 
Ixxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 8. 
 
 X. Cod. Monacensis, sec. ix. In the University Library at 
 Munich. Contains i. 1-37, ii. 19-iii. 38, iv. 21-x. 37, 
 xi. I-XVili. 43, XxX. 46—-xxiv. 53. 
 
 A. Cod. Sangallensis, seec. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in 
 Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole 
 Gospel. 
 
 =. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, szec. viii. In the Library of the 
 Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains i. 1-9, 
 19-23, 27; 28, SJE 36-66, 1. 77-ii. 19, 21, 22, 33-39) 
 iii. 5-8, 11-20, iv. 1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, v. 17-36, vi. 21- 
 vii. 6, 11-37, 39-47, Vili: 4-21, 25-35, 43-50, ix. 1-28, 
 32, 33) 35, ix. 41-x. 18, 21-40, xi, I; 4; § 4) 24-30, 31, 32; 
 
 33: 
 
 If these uncials were placed in order of merit for the textual 
 criticism of the Gospel, we should have as facile princeps B, with 
 ® as equally easily second. Then T, 2, L, C, R. The Western 
 element which sometimes disturbs the text of B is almost entirely 
 absent from the Gospels. 
 
 Secondary Uncials, 
 
 E. Cod. Basileensis, sec. viii. In the Public Library at Basle. Contains 
 the whole Gospel, except iii. 4-15 and xxiv. 47-53. 
 
 F. Cod. Boreeli, sec. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains 
 considerable portions of the Gospel. 
 
 G. Cod. Harleianus, sec. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable 
 ortions. 
 
 K. Cod. Cyprius, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the 
 whole Gospel. 
 
 M. Cod. Campianus, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains 
 the whole Gospel. 
 
 S. Cod. Vaticanus, sec, x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the 
 Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel. 
 
 U. Cod. Nanianus, sec. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains 
 the whole Gospel. 
 
 Only six uncials MSS., SBK MSU, afford complete copies of all four 
 Gospels. 
 
 (2) VERSIONS, 
 
 The Versions quoted are the following: 
 The Latin (Lat.). 
 The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet} 
 The Vulgate (Vulg.). 
 The Egyptian (Aegyptt.). 
 The Bohairic (Boh.), 
 The Sahidic (Sah.). 
 The Syriac (Syrr.). 
 The Curetonian (Cur.) 
 The Sinaitic (Sin.). 
 The Peshitto (Pesh.). 
 
§ 9.) LITERARY HISTORY bodii 
 
 The Harclean (Harcl.). 
 The Palestinian (Hier.). 
 The Armenian (Arm.), 
 The Ethiopic (Aeth.). 
 The Gothic (Goth.), 
 
 We are not yet in a position to determine the relation of the 
 recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac (Syr-Sin.) to the other Syriac 
 Versions and to other representatives of primitive texts: and it 
 would be rash for one who is ignorant of Syriac to attempt a 
 solution of this problem. But the readings of Syr-Sin., as given 
 in the translation by Mrs. Lewis, are frequently quoted in the 
 notes, so that the reader may judge to what extent they support 
 the text adopted in this commentary. 
 
 It should be noticed that four of the seven instances of Con- 
 fiate Readings, cited by WH. (ii. pp. 99-104) as proof of the 
 comparative lateness of the traditional text, are found in this 
 Gospel (ix. 10, xi. 54, xii. 18, xxiv. 23). Mr. Miller, in his new 
 edition of Scrivener’s Jutroduction to the Criticism of the N.T. 
 (Bell, 1894), denies the cogency of the proof; but the only case 
 with which he attempts to deal, and that inadequately (ii. pp. 292, 
 293), is Lk. xxiv. 53. See the Classical Review, June 1896, p. 264. 
 
 §9. LITERARY HISTORY. 
 
 It is not easy to determine where the literary history of the 
 Third Gospel begins. The existence of the oral tradition side by 
 side with it during the first century of its existence, and the 
 existence of many other documents (i. 1) previous to it, which 
 may have resembled it, or portions of it, very closely, are facts 
 which render certainty impossible as to quotations which bear 
 considerable resemblance to our Gospel. They may come from 
 this Gospel; but they may also have another source. Again, 
 there are possibilities or probabilities which have to be taken into 
 account. We do not know how soon Harmonies of two, or three, 
 or four Gospels were constructed. The Third Gospel itself is a 
 combination of documents; and there is nothing improbable in 
 the supposition that before Tatian constructed his Diatessaron 
 others had made combinations of Matthew and Luke, or of all 
 three Synoptic Gospels (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 302). 
 Some early quotations of the Gospel narrative look as if they 
 may have come either from material which the Evangelists used, 
 or from a compound of their works, rather than from any one of 
 them as they have come down to us. On the other hand the 
 difficulty of exact quotation must be remembered. MSS. were 
 
xxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 9. 
 not abundant, and even those who possessed them found a diffi 
 culty in “verifying their references,” when rolls were used and 
 not pages, and when neither verses nor even chapters were num- 
 bered or divided. In quoting from memory similar passages of 
 different Gospels would easily become mixed ; all the more so, if 
 the writers who quote were in the habit of giving oral instruction 
 in the Gospel narrative ; for in giving such instruction they would 
 be in the habit of constructing a compound text out of the words 
 which they chanced to remember from any two or three Gospels. 
 What they wanted to convey was the substance of “the Gospel,” 
 and not the exact wording of the Gospel according to Matthew, or 
 Mark, or Luke. 
 
 There is nothing in the Epistle of Barnabas which warrants us 
 in believing that the writer knew the Third Gospel : and the co- 
 incidence of Kowwvyces év racw TO TAnTIoV Gov, Kal OK épets 
 i8ua elvae (xix. 8) with Acts iv. 32 is too slight to be relied upon. 
 Comp. Didaché iv. 8. Indeed it is not impossible that this 
 Epistle was written before our Gospel (a.D. 70-80). In the 
 Epistle of Clement, which doubtless is later than the Gospel 
 
 (A.D. 95, 96), we have the perplexing phenomena alluded to 
 
 above. 
 
 MT. v, 7, Vil. 1, 2 
 
 pakdpres of édehwoves, 
 ore abrot &denOjoovrat, 
 
 uh Kplvere, ta ph 
 kptOjre® év @ yap Kplua- 
 Tt Kplvere xpiOjoecBe, 
 kal év @ pérpw perpetre 
 
 Crem. Rom. Cor, xiii. 2, 
 
 otrws yap elrev’ éde- 
 Gre, iva éhenOjre: adlere, 
 ta dgeOg dutv* ws mot- 
 etre, odTw mornOijocerat 
 buivy ws Oldore, obrws 
 Sobjoerae byivs ws xpl- 
 vere, obrws xpiOjaec be" 
 os xpnoreverde, obrws 
 XpnorevOjoerat byiv* @ 
 
 Lx, vi. 36-38 
 
 +lvecbe olxrippoves Kab- 
 os Tmarhp vpav olK- 
 tipuwv éorly' kat ph 
 kplvere, kal ov wh KpiO7jre* 
 kal ph kaTadixdgere, kat 
 ob} ph KaradikacO7re, 
 dmodvere, Kal dodu- 
 O@jcecbe* Sldore, Kal do- 
 
 werpnOhoeras duiv. perp pepe: é&v alte Ofoerartpiv. .. @ yap 
 perpnOioerar duty. pérpy petpetre dvTimerpy- 
 Ojoeras [or peTpnOjoerat] 
 
 byir. 
 
 This quotation is found in the Epistle of Polycarp (ii. 3) i in 
 this form : pynpovedovres 8 & dv elev 6 _icbptos Sddoxwv" HN Kpivere, 
 iva ft) Kpubijre® adiere, kat apeOjorat byiv’ édeGre, va éhenOjre’ o 
 HeTpw peTpette, avTyerpyOnoerat dpiv. And Clement of Alexandria 
 (Strom. il. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) has it exactly as Clement of 
 Rome, with the exception of dvrierpyOycerar for petpyOycerat: 
 but he is perhaps quoting his namesake. If not, then the 
 probability that both are quoting a source different from any of 
 our Gospels becomes much greater (Resch, Agrapha, pp. 96, 
 97). 
 
 \ 
 
§9.] 
 MrT. xviii. 6,7, xxvi. 24. 
 
 és 8 ay cxavdarloy eva 
 TOV pukpOv TOUTWY, TOY 
 miorevovrwy els gud, cup- 
 géper air@ Wa Kxpeyacdn 
 poidros dvixds mepl tpd- 
 xnrov avrov Kal Kara- 
 mwovriaOn év TH Tedder 
 Ths Oaddoons. oval TE 
 Koop. . » » 
 
 oval d& rye dvOpwry 
 éxelvy dv o5 6 vids Tov 
 
 LITERARY HISTORY 
 
 Cem. Rom. Cor. xlvi. 8. 
 
 elrey ydp* oval Tp 
 avOpamp éxelvp* Kaddv 
 hv atre@ el ovx éyevv On, 
 h éva trav éxdexTGv prov 
 oxavdadloa* Kpetrrov hy 
 avria mepireOqvar pido 
 kal KaramovrigOjvar els 
 Thy Oddaccav, h Eva Tov 
 éx\exT@v gov diaoTpéyat. 
 
 boxy 
 
 LK. xvii, 1, 2, xxii. 22. 
 
 dyéviexrby éorw Toi 
 7a oxdviara ph Oe, 
 Any oval du’ od Epxerat* 
 Avotrede? atr@ el AlBos 
 Pudxds meplkerrae rept 
 Tov Tpdxnrov atrovd Kat 
 Eppirras els Thy Oddaccar, 
 h wa oKxavdartlog trav 
 paxpov TovTwy Eva. 
 
 odalr@ dvOpary éxelvp 
 8’ ob xapadldoras, 
 
 avOpwrov mapadldoorar® 
 Kandy qv atr@ el ove 
 éyevv}0n &  AvOpwros 
 éketvos. 
 
 Here again Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. 18, p. 561) 
 quotes exactly as Clement of Rome, with the exception of 7 for 
 ovx after «i, and the omission of tyv before GaAdocav. In Clem. 
 Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have a composite quotation (Is. xiii. 11; Ps. 
 xxiii, 10; Job v. 11, etc.), which may possibly have been in- 
 fluenced by Lk. i. 52, 53, xiv. 11, xviii. 14; but nothing can be 
 built on this possibility. We must be content to leave it doubtful 
 whether Clement of Rome knew our Gospel according to Luke; 
 and the same must be said of Polycarp (see above) and of Ignatius. 
 In Zph. xiv. we have gavepov 76 Sévdpov ard Tod Kaprov airod, 
 which recalls ék yap rod kaprov 76 Sévdpov ywwdoxerat (Mt. xii. 33) 
 and éxacrov yap Sévdpov éx Tod idiov Kaprod ywdaKerar a vi. 44). 
 Smyr. iii. we have the very remarkable passage which perplexed 
 Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome as to its source: 6re mpéds Tovs zept 
 Ilérpov 7AOev, epy airois’ AdBere, pyrapyoaré pe, kal dere Ste ovK 
 eit Sausdviov dowpatov. This may be a condensation of Lk. 
 xxiv. 36-39, or may come from oral tradition or a lost document. 
 Of other possibilities, 76 wip 7d doBeorov (Eph. xvi.) recalls Mk. 
 ix. 43 rather than Lk. ili. 17: xadots padyras cay PirAqs, xdpts oor 
 ovx éorw (Folyc. ii.) is not very close to Lk. vi. 32: jdovat tod 
 Biov (Rom. vii.) is found Lk. viii. 14, but is a common phrase: 
 and other slight resemblances (e.g. J/agn. x.) may as easily come 
 from other Gospels or from tradition. 
 
 We are on surer ground when we come to the Didaché and 
 the Gospel of Peter, the dates of which remain to be determined, 
 but which may be placed between a.p. 75 and 125. In the former 
 we find further evidence of a combination of passages from 
 Matthew and Luke, of which we have seen traces in Clement of 
 Rome, and which suggests the possibility of a primitive Harmony 
 of these two documents. 
 
 ( 
 
bexvi 
 
 MT. xxv. 13 
 
 ‘vervopeire ods, 
 
 rt ote §«6oldare 
 
 Th 
 quépav ode rhv Spay. 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 
 
 DIDAcHE xvi. 1. 
 
 ‘yprryopetre dxtp ris 
 fons tudvs of dAdyvoe 
 tuav ph cBecPjowoar, 
 kal al dodves Suv ph 
 éxdvécOwoav, GAA yev- 
 ea0e Erotpor® ov yap oldare 
 Thy Gpav év @ 6 Kuptos 
 hua Epxerat. 
 
 Ise 
 LK. xii. 35. 
 
 Ecrucay bpGr al dopves 
 meprefwopévas Kat ol AVX- 
 vot Kathuevot, Kal vpets 
 Suoroe avOpwras mpoc- 
 Sexouévors Tov Kuptoy 
 éaurar. 
 
 Here the acquaintance with our Gospel is highly probable, for 
 of the Evangelists Luke alone has the plural of Avyvos and of 
 
 éodus. 
 
 In giving the substance of the Sermon on the Mount, the 
 
 Didaché again seems to compound the two Gospels. 
 
 MT, vil, Vv. 
 
 8gdyra oby Soa ear 
 Ogre va woidow dpiv 
 ol dvOpwra, ottws Kal 
 bpets rovetre avrois. 
 
 4 dyamare Tods éxOpods 
 buav Kal mpocevxerbe 
 wxep Toy SiwwKdvTwy das. 
 
 dav yap ayamrjonte 
 To’s ayaTavras wvpas, 
 tiva pacOdv ExeTE;.. 
 a7... otxt Kal ob 
 €Ovixol 7d atrd Totovaty ; 
 
 ® Soris oe pamlte els 
 Thy Setiav odyova, oTpé- 
 yr atr@ kal Thy &dAdAnv. 
 
 Boris ge dyyapeioe 
 puoy &y, Braye per’ 
 avrov dv0. 7G Gedovtl 
 cot KpOjvas Kal Tov xI- 
 Travd gov aBeiv, aes 
 aire xal 7d ludriov. 
 © + alrobytl ce dbs, Kat 
 roy Oé\ovTa dd cov da- 
 vlcacbat uh dmooTpagpys. 
 
 DipacuHe i. 2-5. 
 
 wdvra 5¢ Soa dv Oed- 
 hons wh ylvec@al cot, Kat 
 od) Gd\Aw ph mole... 
 ev\oyeire Tos KkKaTapw- 
 pévous duty Kal mpoced- 
 xecbe brép Tav éxOpav 
 dua, vnorevere 5 vrép 
 TOV SiwkdovTwv bpas* ola 
 yap xdpis, dav ayarare 
 Tos dayamavras vps; 
 ovxt Kal Ta EOvn 7d adrd 
 To.ovow ; vets dé dya- 
 Ware TOUS pucovvTas buas 
 Kal obx eere ExOpiv... 
 édy Tis gor O@ pdmiopa els 
 Ti Sekidv ovarydva, orpéy* 
 atr@ kal Thy GdAnv, Kak 
 &rn rédetos* ey ayya- 
 peton oé€ tis puldrov ev, 
 Umarye wer’ avrov dvo* day 
 G&py tis Td tudridy cov, 
 dds adr@ Kal rdv xiTGva" 
 éav AdBy Tis dd cov 7d 
 abv, ph daralre ovdé 
 yap Stvaca. mavtl TO 
 alrobytl ce dldov, kal ph 
 dmalret. 
 
 Lx, vi, 
 
 81 Kas Oédere Iva wot- 
 Gow byiv of &vOpwrot, 
 moveire abrois dpolws. 
 
 8 ed\oyeire Tovs KaTa- 
 pwpuévous buds, mpocev- 
 xecbe wept Trav émnpea- 
 
 Cévrwv tpas. 7 ada 
 dyanGre ods éxOpods 
 Uuav. 
 
 32 kal el d-yamare Tos 
 dyaravras duds, ola 
 duly xdpts dorly ; Kal yap 
 of duaprwrol rods d-ya- 
 movras avrovs dyamraouw. 
 
 35 hiv dyarare Tovs 
 éx9pods duaGy ... Kal 
 écrar 6 = yuoOds = bpaov 
 onus. 
 
 27@ TUmTovTl ce éml 
 Thy ovaybva mapexe Kal 
 Thy dddAnv, 
 
 kal dard rou alpovrés cou 
 76 ludriov Kal Tov xiTGva 
 Bh Kwdvoys. ™ ravri al- 
 rouvrl ce dldov, Kal dard 
 tov alpovrés Ta oh ph 
 dmalret. 
 
 Expressions which are peculiar to each form of the Sermon 
 are here so abundant that we conclude that this doctrine of the_ 
 
 Two Ways has been influenced by both forms. 
 
 But the order in 
 
 which the several precepts are put together is so different from 
 both Gospels, that the editor can scarcely have had either Gospel 
 before him. Very possibly the order and wording have been 
 disturbed by oral instruction in Christian morality given to cate- 
 chumens (Sanday, Bamptons, p. 302). But the evidence of 
 
§ 9.] LITERARY HISTORY Ixxvii 
 acquaintance with the Third Gospel is strong ; and it is somewhat 
 strengthened by the fact that in the Dzdaché Christ is called the 
 “Servant (ats) of God” (ix. 2, 3, x. 2, 3), a use of wats which in 
 N.T. is almost confined to Luke (Acts ill, 11.34) 26, Ive 27," 30); 
 comp. iv. 23; Lk. i. 54, 69). But this use is common in LXX, 
 and may easily be derived from Isaiah or the Psalms rather than 
 from the Acts. Nevertheless there is other evidence of the in- 
 fluence of the Acts on the Didaché, and scarcely any evidence of 
 the influence of Isaiah or of the Psalms: indeed the references to 
 the O.T. are remarkably few. And this not only makes it quite 
 possible that the use of 6 zais cov comes from the Acts, but also 
 still further strengthens the conviction that the Dzdaché is in- 
 debted to the writings | of S. Luke. Comp. gvyKowovynoes O€ 
 mdyra TO depos gov Kal ovk épeis ida elva (Did. IV. 8) with ovdé 
 eis TL TOV brapxovrwv aitd eeyey idiov elvor, GAN jv avrois ravTa 
 kowa (Acts iv. 32). Bryennios and Wiinsche see traces of Lk. 
 ix. 1-6 and x. 4-21 in Lid. xi.; but this chapter might easily have 
 stood as it does if Luke had never written. Yet there is enough 
 in what has been quoted above to establish the fact of the influence 
 of Luke on the Didaché. 
 
 It is generally admitted that the fragment of the Gosfe/ of 
 eter suffices to show that the writer of that apocryphal narrative 
 was acquainted with all four of the Canonical Gospels. But it 
 will be worth while to quote some of the expressions and state- 
 ments which have a marked resemblance to Luke in particular. 
 
 GOSPEL OF PETER, LK, xxiii., xxive 
 
 @ edaros réuwas mpods ‘Hpwdnr. 7. IewGros , » » avéreupev abrdov 
 mpos ‘Hpwdnv. 
 
 54. Kal cdBBarov érépwoxer. 
 
 32. Hyovro 6é Kal Erepa KaKxodpyo 
 Svo. 
 
 §. xal cdBBarov émipwoxet. 
 10. #veyKov Svo Kkakovpyous. 
 
 13. els 6é Ts TOV Kakovpywy éxelvwr 
 aveldicev atrous, Aéywv" tueis Sud Td 
 kaka & éroujoapev olTw memdvOapuer, 
 ovTos 6¢ owrhp yevouevos TGV avOpwTwv 
 rl nolknoev Has ; 
 
 15. 6 HAvos du. 
 
 28. 6 dads Amas yoyyute Kal xéz- 
 TeTat TA OTHON. 
 
 34. mpwlas dé émipwoxorros Tod caB- 
 Barov. 
 
 36. dvo dvdpas KareNObvras éxetOev 
 FOND dévyyos eXovras. 
 
 (50. SpOpov oe THs Kupiakfis . . . em 
 TP wvhpari. 
 
 54. & pépomer els uynuocuvny atrod, 
 
 39. els 6¢ TGv KpeuacbévTwy Kaxovp- 
 youv epraopruet avréy. . . 
 
 41. d&ia yap ov émpdtapev drohap- 
 Bavopev* odros dé ovdév dromov érpaker. 
 
 45. Tov Alou éxelmrovTos. 
 48. mdvres ol cuvmapayevopuevor 5x Aor 
 2» « TUMTOVTES TA OTHON. 
 
 54. kal odBBarov érépwoxev. 
 
 4. vdpes Sto éxécrncay atrais év 
 écOnri dorparTovcy. 
 
 I. TH O¢ pug Tov caBBdrwv BpOpov 
 Babéws ert 7d pvtua 7FAGav Pépovon 
 4 7jrolpacay dpwpyara. 
 
 These resemblances, which are too close and too numerous to 
 be accidental, are further emphasized when the parallel narratives 
 
lxxviii © THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [s 9. 
 
 are compared. S. Luke alone mentions the sending to Herod. 
 He alone uses the expression ca@arov erépwokey (contrast Mt. 
 xxviii. 1). He alone calls the two robbers xaxodpyo.. He alone 
 tells us that ove of the robbers reviled, and that one contrasted 
 the justice of their fate with the innocence of Jesus. He alone 
 mentions the sun in connexion with the darkness. He alone 
 speaks of a// the multitudes of spectators, and of their beating 
 their breasts. He alone calls the two Angels at the tomb avdpes 
 (Mt. and Mk. mention only one), and calls the tomb pvjya; and 
 he alone uses ¢épew of the women bringing the spices. There are 
 other passages in which the Gosfel of Peter resembles Luke with 
 one or more of the other Gospels; but what has been quoted 
 above is sufficient to show that the writer of the apocryphal gospel 
 was influenced by S. Luke’s narrative. It must be remembered 
 that these ten coincidences are found within the compass of fifty- 
 five verses, and that they are not exhaustive. The inscription on 
 the cross, otrés €or 6 BaciAcis Tod “IopayaA (11), is closer to that 
 given by S. Luke, 6 B. ray "Iovdaiwy otros (xxiii. 38), than to any 
 of the other forms ; and perhaps the words of the robber, cwryp 
 yevopevos (see above, 13), are suggested by cScov ceavTov Kal Has 
 (xxili. 39). The use of peony fpia for “midday” (15) is found 
 in N.T. nowhere but Acts xxii. 6. The cry of the Jews after 
 Christ’s death, tere ore wocov Sikatds éorw (28), looks like an 
 adaptation of the centurion’s confession, évTws 6 dv6purros ovTos 
 dikavos Hv (xxiii. 47); and perhaps ee jaar mdvra. dep eldov (45) 
 is an echo of efyyovvTo Ta ey TH 600 (xxiv. 35)- And, as already 
 pointed out (§ 1), Pseudo-Peter always speaks of Jesus Christ 
 as 6 KUptos, a use which begins to be common in the Third 
 Gospel. 
 
 The evidence of another interesting document of about the 
 same date is worth quoting. The Zestaments of the XII. Patri- 
 archs is a Jewish Christian writing which almost certainly was 
 composed between the two destructions of Jerusalem, A.D. 70 and 
 135. It shows marked traces of a knowledge of the Synoptic 
 traditions and of S. Luke’s Gospel in particular. Some of the 
 coincidences given below are probably the result of independent 
 citation of the O.T. But the citation may have been suggested 
 to the later writer by acquaintance with it in the Gospel narrative. 
 
 Test. XII. PATR. S. LUKE. 
 otvoy xal olxepa ov Extov (Reubeni.). olvov kal cikepa ob ph aly (i. 153 
 Num. vi. 3). 
 Eyrr Bre Stxalws rdoxw (Sim. iv.). kal jets wev dixalws Gar 41). 
 EcecOe evpicxovres xdpw évuwrioy "Inoods mpoéxomrev . . . XdpiTt mapa 
 
 Be08 xat dvOpwixwv (Sim. v.). 04 Kal dvOpdmros (ii. 523 1 Sam. 
 ii. 26). 
 
§ 9.) LITERARY 
 6 chs cua AaBav Kal cuvecOlwy 
 avOpwrors Ecwoev avrovs (Sim. vi.) 
 
 dvedxOncav of ovpavol (Levi ii., 
 xviii. ). 
 
 mepl Tob wéANovTos AuTpodcOar Tov 
 ‘Topa7yd (Lbzd.). 
 
 ws émickéynrat Kipios mévra Td 
 Fyn & omddyxvos viod atrod Ews 
 aldvos (Levi iv.). 
 
 cuverjpouy Tods Adyous ToUTous ev TH 
 xapola pou (Levi vi.). “ 
 
 kalye éxpuya Totro év Ty Kapdla pov, 
 kal ovK dv7yyye\a attd mavTl ay- 
 Oper (Levi viii.). 
 
 dvvapus ‘Tylorov (Levi xvi.). 
 
 érémecev éx’ atrovds Tpouds (Judah 
 iii. ). 
 
 moet TayvrTa Ta Oikarmpata Kuplov cat 
 trakovew évtddas Geod (Judah xiii.). 
 
 dvovynoovrat ém’ avrdy ol ovpavol, 
 éxxéat mvedua, evAoylav Ilarpés aylov 
 (Judah xxiv.). 
 
 of év mrwyxela did Kipiov mdouric- 
 Ojoovrat, Kal of év meng xopracby- 
 govTa, Kal of év dobeveig loxvcover 
 (Judah xxv.). 
 
 émioTpéver Kapdlas 
 Kvprov (Dan v.). 
 
 dmeGeis + mpds 
 
 kal édy duoroyjoas petavojcy Ades 
 atr@ (Gad vi.). 
 
 kal airés A\Oay ws &vOpwiros, éo8iwv 
 kal xlywy pera TOv avOpwHmwv (Asher 
 vii.). See above, Sim. vi. 
 
 HISTORY xxix 
 
 auvecOle abrots (xv. 2) comp. cuve- 
 payouevy xal ouverloyev aitm (Acts 
 x. 41). 
 
 dvewx Siva. Tov ovpavéy (ili, 21; Is. 
 Ixiv. 1). 
 
 atrbs éoriwv 6 wé\Nwr AuTpovcGat Tov 
 "Iopand (xxiv. 21). 
 
 Oia omddyxva éddouvs Beod judy év 
 ols émicxéperas Nuas avarody &€ tous 
 (i. 78). 
 
 cuvernper TA pyuata Tatra... ey 
 TQ Kapolg atrfs (ii. 19; comp. ii. 51). 
 
 kal atrol éclynoay kal ovdevl am7y- 
 yerlav év éxelvats tais juépas ay 
 éwpaxay (ix. 36). 
 
 dvvapus “LWlorov (i. 35). 
 
 poBos érérecev ém’ airéy (i. 12; 
 comp. Acts xix. 17). 
 
 mopevouevoe év wdcats Tats évTodais 
 kal dixarmuacw Tod Kuplov (i. 6). 
 
 dvewxOjvac Tov ovpaydv Kal kara- 
 Bava 7d rvedpa 7d Gyop (ii. 21, 22). 
 
 paxdprot ol wruryol, bre buetépa eoriv 
 % Bacthela Tod Geov, paxdpioe ol mec- 
 vavTes viv, bre xoprac@yjcovra (vi. 
 20, 21; Mt. v. 3-6). 
 
 émioTpéyat Kapdlas matépwv éri 
 rékva* Kal dmeBets ev Ppovycet dixalwy 
 (i. 17; Mal. iv. 5). 
 
 kal éay peravoncn, 
 (xvii. 3). 
 
 €drjrvbev 6 vids Tod avOpwrov écOwv 
 kal wlywy (vii. 343 Mt. xi. 19). 
 
 ages 
 
 avT@ 
 
 Besides these verbal coincidences there are many coincidences 
 
 in thought, especially respecting the admission of the Gentiles to 
 the Kingdom through the Messiah, who is the Saviour of all, Jew 
 and Gentile alike. ‘The Lord shall raise up from Levi a Priest, 
 and from Judah a King, God and man. He shall save all the 
 nations and the race of Israel” (Simeon vii.). ‘A King shall rise 
 from Judah and shall make a new priesthood . . . unto all the 
 nations (Levi viii.). Comp. Judah xxiv. ; Zebulon ix.; Dan. vi. ; 
 Naphtali iv., viii.; Asher vii.; Benjamin ix. Moreover, there are 
 passages which are very similar in meaning, although not in word- 
 ing, to passages in Luke: comp. the end of Joseph xvii. with 
 Lk. xvii. 27, and the beginning of Joseph xviii. with Lk. vi. 28. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to trace the history of the Third Gospel 
 in detail any further. It has been shown already (pp. xv—xvii) 
 that Justin Martyr, Tatian, Celsus, the writer of the Clementine 
 Homilies, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and the Churches of 
 Lyons and Vienne, knew the Third Gospel, and that Irenzus, the 
 
boxx * THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 10. 
 
 Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others 
 definitely assign it to S. Luke. In the second half of the second 
 century this Gospel is recognized as authentic and authoritative ; 
 and it is impossible to show that it had not been thus recognized 
 at a very much earlier date. 
 
 The order of the Gospels has not always been the same. But, 
 just as in the interpretation of the four symbolical creatures, the 
 calf has uniformly been taken as indicating S. Luke, so in the 
 arrangement of the Gospels his has almost invariably been placed 
 third. The order with which we are familiar is the common order 
 in most MSS. and Versions: but in D 594, abcdefff,igr and 
 the Gothic Version, and in the Apostolic Constitutions, what is called 
 the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) prevails. The 
 obvious reason for it is to have the two Apostles together and before 
 the other two Evangelists. In a few authorities other arrangements 
 are found. X and the Latin & have John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, 
 while 90 has John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and 399 John, Luke, 
 Matthew. The Curetonian Syriac has Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. 
 
 § 10. COMMENTARIES, 
 
 A good and full list of commentaries on the Gospels is given 
 by Dr. W. P. Dickson.in the English translation of Meyer’s Com- 
 mentary on S. Matthew, i. pp. xxili—-xlili and of commentaries on 
 S. Mark and S. Luke in that of Meyer’s Commentary on S. Mark 
 end S. Luke, i. pp. xiii-xvi. It will suffice to name a few of the 
 chief works mentioned by him, especially those which have been 
 in constant use during the writing of this commentary, and to add 
 a few others which have appeared since Dr. Dickson published 
 his lists (1877, 1880), or for other reasons were omitted by him.* 
 Of necessity the selection here given in many cases corresponds 
 with that in the volume on Romans by Dr. Sanday and Mr. 
 Headlam; and the reader is referred to that (pp. xcix—cix) for 
 excellent remarks on the characteristics of the different com- 
 mentaries, which need not be repeated here. 
 
 1. GREEK WRITERS. 
 
 OricEN (Orig.); + 253. Homilix in Lucam in Origenis Opp. 
 ed. Delarue, iii. 932; Lommatzsch, v. 85; Migne, xili. 1801, 
 1902. These thirty-nine short Homilies are an early work, and 
 have been preserved in the Latin translation made by Jerome. A 
 few fragments of the original Greek survive in the PAz/ocalia (ed. 
 
 1 See also Jrtroduction to the Synoptic Gospels by Dr. P. J. Gloag, T. & T- 
 Clark, 1895, and the literature quoted p. 200 
 
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES IXxXx1 
 
 J. A. Robinson, Camb. 1893) and elsewhere. The genuineness of 
 these Homilies has been disputed, but is not doubtful. A sum- 
 mary of the contents of each is given in Westcott’s article 
 OricengEs, D. Chr. Biog. iv. 113. The first twenty are on Lk. 
 i., ii., and the next twelve on Lk. iii., iv., leaving the main portion 
 oi the Gospel almost untouched. Besides these there are frag- 
 ments of notes in the original Greek, which have been preserved 
 in Venice MS. (28, 394); Migne, xviii. 311-370. They extend 
 over chapters i.—xx. 
 
 Eusesius of Czsarea (Eus.); t before 341. Eis 76 xara 
 Aovkéy ebayyéAvov in Migne, xxiv. 529. Only fragments remain: 
 on Lk: i. 5, 18, 19, 32, 35, 38, ll. 32, iv. 1SMvi. 18, 20, vil. 29, 30, 
 Vill. 31, 43, 1X. I, 3, 4, 7, 26, 28, 34, x. 6, 8, xi. 21, xii. 11, 22, 34, 
 36) 37) 42) 45, Xili. 20, 35, xiv. 18, xvii. 3, 23, 25-31, 34, 37) 
 XVili. 2, Xix. 12, 13, 17, XX. 2, 3, XX1. 25, 26, 28-32, 36, xxii. 30, 57, 
 Xxiv. 
 
 Cram of Alexandria (Cyr. Alex.); + 444. “E&jynois «is 7d 
 kata Aovkay evayyéAvov in Migne, Ixxil. 475. Only portions of the 
 original Greek are extant, but a Syriac version of the whole has 
 been edited by Dr. R. Payne Smith, who has also translated this 
 version into English (Oxford, 1859). The Syriac version shows 
 that many Greek fragments previously regarded as part of the com- 
 mentary are from other writings of Cyril, or even from other writ- 
 ings which are not his. The Greek fragments which coincide with 
 the Syriac prove that the latter is a faithful translation, The com- 
 mentary is homiletic in form. 
 
 THEopHy.act (Theoph.), archbishop of Bulgaria (1071-1078); 
 tafter 1118. Migne, cxxili. 
 
 EvuTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS (Euthym.); fafter 1118. Migne, 
 cxxix. 853. 
 
 These two almost contemporaneous commentaries are among 
 the best of their kind. They draw much from earlier writers, but 
 do not follow slavishly, and are far superior to medizval Latin 
 commentaries. The terseness of Euthymius is not unlike that of 
 Bengel. 
 
 2. LaTIN WRITERS. 
 
 AmprosE (Ambr.); 1397. Z£xfositio Evang. sec. Lucam; 
 Migne, xv. 1525. Ambrose follows Philo and Origen in seeking 
 for spiritual or mystical meanings under the natural or historical 
 sense, and these are sometimes very far-fetched : 2” verbis ludtt, in 
 sententits dormitat (Jerome, Prol. in Hom. Orig. in Luc.). 
 
 EvucHERIUS; +449 or 450. Liber instructionum in Luce 
 Evang. ; Migne, 1. 799. 
 
 ARNOBIUS JUNIOR; tafter 460. Amnmnotationes ad quedam 
 oe Joca ; Migne, liii. 570, 578. 
 
Ixxxii -THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 10. 
 
 PaTERIus of Brescia; friend of Gregory the Great. He col- 
 lected from the writings of Gregory an Lxfositio Vet. et (Nov. 
 Test., of which Book III. is a catena of Passages on S. Luke; 
 Migne, Ixxix. 1057. In the eleventh century the monk ALULF 
 made a similar collection ; Migne, Ixxix. 1199. 
 
 None of these works are very helpful as regards exegesis. 
 Eucherius and Arnobius do not repay perusal. The extracts from 
 Gregory are mainly from the J/ova/ia or commentary on Job, full 
 of allegorical interpretation. 
 
 Breve, the Venerable; +735. Jn Lucam Exp. Libri VI.; 
 Migne, xcii. 397; Giles, xi., xii.; ed. Colon. 1612, v. 217. The 
 character of the work may be given in his own words: “I have 
 made it my business, for the use of me and mine, briefly to com- 
 pile out of works of the venerable Fathers, and to interpret accord- 
 ing to their meaning (adding somewhat of my own) these 
 following pieces ”—and he gives a list of his writings (A. Z. sub 
 jin. See also the Prol. in Marc.). This commentary is far 
 superior to those just mentioned, and is an oasis in a desert. 
 
 SEDULIUS Scotus; + ¢. 830. A mere compiler, often from 
 Origen; Migne, ciii. 27, WALAFRID STRaABUS of Reichenau ; 
 +849. Glossa ordinaria, a compilation with some original matter ; 
 Migne, cxiv. 243, 893. It became very famous. We may pass 
 over with bare mention CHRISTIANUS DRUTHMARUS; ¢ 850; 
 Migne, cvi. 1503: BRUNO ASTENSIS; ¢. 1125; Migne, clxv. 33: 
 and PETRUS CoMESTOR ; ¢. 1180; Migne, cxcviii. 1537. 
 
 THomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus; +1274.  Lxpositio 
 continua or Catena aurea in Evangelia, a mosaic of quotations (to 
 be accepted with caution) from over eighty Christian writers, from 
 Ignatius to Euthymius, so arranged as to form a summary of 
 patristic theological teaching. O#. ed. Venet. iv. 5 ; translated 
 Oxford, 1845. 
 
 ALBERTUS Macnus of Ratisbon; ¢ 1280. 
 
 3. REFORMATION AND PosT-REFORMATION WRITERS. 
 
 Erasmus, Desiderius; 11536. Adnotationes in NV.T., 1516; 
 Paraphrases, 1522. 
 
 BuTZER or Bucer, Martin; 1551. Jn sacra quatuor Evan- 
 gelia Enarrationes, 1551. 
 
 Catvin, John; +1564. Jn harmoniam ex Matt. Marc. et Luc. 
 compositam Commentarit, 1553; Brunsvige, 1868; translated by 
 the Calvin Trans. Society, 1842; strong and independent. 
 
 Beza, Theodore; +1605. <Adnotationes in NV.T., 1565, 
 1594- 
 
 Grotius (Huig van Groot); +1645. Adnotationes in N.T., 
 t644. Arminian; an early attempt to apply philological principles 
 
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES bexxiii 
 
 (learned from J. J. Scaliger) and classical illustrations to the Bible ; 
 still useful. 
 
 Hammonb, Henry ; + 1660. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; 
 “the Father of English Commentators.” Paraphrase and Annota- 
 tions of the N.T., 1653, 1845; “reveals genuine exegetical tact 
 and learning.” Biblical paraphrase is of English origin. 
 
 One or two Roman Catholic commentators in this period 
 require mention. 
 
 CajEtTAN, Cardinal (Jacob de Vio) ; +1534; a Dominican. Jz 
 quatuor Evang. et Acta Apost. Commentarit, 1543. Under pressure 
 from Luther (1518) he became considerably emancipated from 
 patristic and scholastic influence. 
 
 Ma.ponatus, Joannes (Maldon.); +1583; a Spanish Jesuit. 
 Commentarit in quatuor Evangelia 1596; ed. Sansen, 1840; ed. 
 K. Martin (condensed) 1850. Admirable of its kind: he rarely 
 shirks a difficulty, and is often sagacious in his exposition. An 
 English translation by G. J. Davie is being published by 
 Hodges. 
 
 CoRNELIUS A LaPIDE (van Stein); 11637; a Jesuit. Comm. 
 in quatuor Evang., 1638. Part of a commentary on almost the 
 whole Bible. A voluminous compilation, including much allegory 
 and legend; devout and often edifying, but sometimes puerile. 
 English translation of the Comm. on S. Luke, Hodges, 1887. 
 
 Escopar Y MeEnposa, Antonio; +1669; a Spanish Jesuit, 
 whose casuistry was gibbeted by Pascal. Jn Evangelia sanctorum 
 et temporis commentarit, 1637. 
 
 Two great names in the eighteenth century serve well as a 
 transition from the writers of the two preceding centuries to the 
 present age. 
 
 BENGEL, Johann Albrecht (Beng.); +1751. Gnomon N.T., 
 1742. A masterpiece, rivalling Euthymius Zigabenus in terseness, 
 and excelling him in originality and insight. English translation, 
 Clark, 1857. 
 
 WETSTEIN, Johann Jacob (Wetst.); +1754. Vou. Test. 
 Grecum, 1751, 1752. A monument of criticism and learning. 
 Wetstein was a leader in the field of textual criticism, and the 
 stores of learning collected in his notes have been of the greatest 
 service to all subsequent students of N.T. 
 
 4. MODERN WRITERS. 
 
 SCHLEIERMACHER, Fried. Dan. Ernst; +1834; Ueber die 
 Schriften des Lukas, 1817. Translated anonymously by Thirlwall, 
 1825. 
 
 BoORNEMANN, Fried. August.; 1850. Scholia in Luce Evan- 
 gelium, 1830. , 
 
Ixxxiv . THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§ 10. 
 
 De Werte, Wilh. Mart. L.; 1849. <Kurze Erklarung der 
 Evangelien des Lukas und Markus, 1839. Free, precise, and 
 compact. 
 
 Meyer, Hein. Aug. Wilh.; +1873.  <Kritisch exegetischer 
 Kommentar uber das N.T. Markus und Lukas, 1846. Excellent. 
 A good English translation of the fifth edition was published by 
 T. & T. Clark, 1880. Grammar is sometimes ridden to death; 
 but this is still one of the best commentaries for English readers. 
 The German revisions of Meyer by Bernhard Weiss, 1885, etc., 
 are superior, especially as regards the text. 
 
 OosTERZEE, Jan Jacob van; 1882. In Lange’s Theologische- 
 homiletisches Bibelwerk, 1857-1876, he commented on S. Luke. 
 English translation published by T. & T. Clark, 1864. The notes 
 are in three sections throughout ; critical, doctrinal, and homiletic. 
 
 Hany, G. L., Professor of Theology at Breslau. Das Zvan- 
 gelium des Lukas, 1892, 1894. Two substantial volumes, full of 
 useful material, but grievously perverse in questions of textual 
 criticism. 
 
 ScHanz, Paul. Das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas, 1883. 
 Probably much the best Roman Catholic commentary. 
 
 LasserRE, Henri. Les Saints Evangiles, 1886, 1887. A 
 French translation of the Gospels with brief notes. Uncritical, but 
 interesting. It received the ¢mprimatur of the Archbishop of 
 Paris and the praise of Leo x111., ran through twenty-five editions 
 in two years, and then through the influence of the Jesuits was 
 suppressed. 
 
 GopET, Fréderic, Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur 
 ? Evangile de S. Luc, 1871, 1872, 1888. Equal to Meyer in 
 exegesis, but weak in textual criticism. The edition of 1888 is 
 greatly to be preferred. An English translation of the second 
 edition was published by T. & T. Clark, 1879. 
 
 ALForRD, Henry; 1871. Greek Testament, vol. i. 1849, 5th 
 ed. 1863. Sensible and clear. 
 
 WorpsworTH, Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln; 11885. 
 Greek Testament, vol. i. 1856, 5th ed. 1866. Scholarly and devout, 
 supplying the patristic element wanting in Alford, but otherwise 
 inferior ; weak in textual criticism. 
 
 McCLELLAN, John Brown. Zhe ew Testament, a new trans- 
 lation, from a revised text, with analyses, copious references and 
 illustrations, chronological and analytical harmony, notes and dis- 
 sertations, vol. i. 1875; unfortunately the only one published. 
 Contains some grotesque renderings and perverse arguments, with 
 a great deal of valuable matter. 
 
 PLuMPTRE, Edward Hayes; +1891. The Synoptic Gospels in 
 Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Cassell, 1878. 
 Popular and suggestive, with a tendency to excessive ingenuity, 
 
§ 10.] COMMENTARIES Ixxxv 
 
 Jones, William Basil, Bishop of St. David’s, and Cook, 
 Frederic Charles, Canon of Exeter; St. Luke in the Sfeaker’s 
 Commentary, 1878. Inadequate. 
 
 Carr, Arthur, JVotes on the Greek Testament, St. Luke, 1875. 
 A scholarly handbook. 
 
 Farrar, Fred. William, Dean of Canterbury. St. Luke in the 
 Cambridge Greek Testament, 1884 and later. More full, but less 
 precise, than Carr. 
 
 SADLER, Michael Ferrebee: 71895. Gospel acc. to St. Luke, 
 1886. Dogmatic and practical rather than critical: somewhat 
 capricious in textual criticism. 
 
 Bond, John. WH. text of St. Luke with introduction and 
 notes, 1890. Brief to a fault, but useful. 
 
 CAMPBELL, Colin. Critical Studies in St. Luke’s Gospel, 1890. 
 Fails to establish a special demonology and Ebionite tendency, 
 but contains many useful remarks, 
 
 BERNARD, Thomas Dehany. Zhe Songs of the Holy Nativity, 
 1895. Did not come to the knowledge of the present writer until 
 the commentary on chapters i. and ii. was in print.} 
 
 Index II. contains the names of many other writers whose 
 works are of great use to the student of this Gospel. 
 
 1 A similar fact caused the omission at p. xxix of some recent discussions of 
 the Synoptic problem: e.g. The Abbé Loisy, Essays in ZL’ Enseignement 
 Biblique, 1892, Revue des Religions, 1894, and Revue Bzbligue, 1896 (see the 
 Guardian, August 1896, p. 1317); W. Arnold Stevens and E. De Witt Burton, 
 A Harmony of the Gospels for Historical Study, Boston, 1896. 
 
ABBREVIATIONS: 
 
 Ecclestastical Writers. 
 Ambr. 
 
 Aug. 
 Bas. 
 
 Chrys. 
 Clem. 
 Clem. 
 
 Clem. 
 Clem. 
 
 Aiew 
 Hom. 
 
 Recogn. 
 Rom. 
 
 Iren-lat. 
 
 ee 
 
 Ambrose. 
 
 Augustine. 
 
 Basil. 
 
 Chrysostom. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria. 
 Clementine Homilies. 
 Clementine Recognitions. 
 Clement of Rome. 
 Cyprian. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria. 
 Cyril of Jerusalem. 
 Dionysius of Alexandria. 
 Epiphanius. 
 
 Eusebius. 
 
 Euthymius Zigabenus. 
 Gregory of Nazianzum. 
 Gregory of Nyssa. 
 Hermas. 
 
 Hippolytus. 
 
 Ignatius. 
 
 Irenzus. 
 
 Latin Version of Irenzeus, 
 Jerome. 
 
 Josephus. 
 
 Latin Version of Origen. 
 Tertullian. 
 Theophylact. 
 
 Egyptian. 
 Bohairic, 
 Sahidic. 
 
Oi 8.6. ee. @ Oa: as" oo8 6 0-4 @q6a 6 ee s @€ « 
 
 ABBREVIATIONS bexxvi 
 
 Ethiopic. 
 
 Syriac. 
 
 Curetonian. 
 Sinaitic. 
 
 Peshitto. 
 
 Harclean, 
 Jerusalem. 
 Coverdale. 
 
 Geneva. 
 
 Luther. 
 
 Rheims (or Douay). 
 Tyndale. 
 
 Wiclif. 
 
 Authorized Version. 
 Revised Version. 
 
 Textus Receptus. 
 Tischendorf. 
 Tregelles. 
 
 Westcott and Hort. 
 Alford. 
 
 Bengel. 
 
 De Wette. 
 
 Grotius. 
 Maldonatus. 
 Meyer. 
 
 Nosgen. 
 
 Wetstein. 
 Wordsworth (Chr.). 
 
 Burton, V.Z7: Moods ana 
 Tenses. 
 
 Corpus Inscriptionum Gre 
 carum. 
 
 Pére sl Jesus Christ. 
 
Ixxxvill THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 
 
 Lft. Epp. ° - J. B. Lightfoot,! Votes on 
 Epistles of S. Paul. 
 
 Wsctt. . : ° - Westcott. 
 
 Edersh. Z. & Z, 5 » Edersheim, Zife and Times 
 of Jesus the Messiah. 
 
 Fist. of J. N. - History of the Jewish Nation. 
 
 Rob. Res. in Pal. : e Robinson, Aesearches in 
 
 Palestine. 
 
 Schiirer, 7. P. in T. of J. C. .« Schiirer, Jewish People in the 
 Times of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Scriv. Znt. e - Scrivener, Jntroduction to 
 the Criticism of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Stanley, Sin. & Fal, Stanley, Sizaiand Palestine 
 
 Trench, Mir. . 4 e Trench, Miracles. 
 ATs ° ° »  Larables. 
 Syn. . ° . »  LVew Testament Syn- 
 onyms. 
 Tristram, Vat. Hist.of B. . Tristram, Vatural History 
 of the Bible. 
 D. B2 or D. B.? ° e Smith’s Dictionary of the 
 Bible, 1st or 2nd edition. 
 D. Chr. Ant. « . e Smith’s Dictionary of Chris- 
 
 tian Antiquities. 
 Kraus, Keal-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. Kraus, Real- Encyklopadie 
 der Christlichen Alter- 
 ' thiimer. 
 Herzog, PRZ.1 or PRE.2 . Herzog’s Protestantische 
 Real-Encyklopidie, 1st or 
 2nd edition. 
 
 Crem. Lex. . ° « Cremer, Lexicon of New 
 Testament Greek. 
 
 L.& S. Lew. ° - Liddle and Scott, Lexicon. 
 
 Greg. Proleg. « . « Gregory, Prolegomena ad 
 Tischendorfi ed. N.T. 
 
 Win. . ° . - Winer, Grammar of N.T. 
 Greek (the page refers to 
 Moulton’s edition). 
 
 om. . e ° ° omit. 
 
 ins. e e e - insert. 
 
 N.B.—The text commented upon is that of Westcott and Hort. The 
 very few instances in which the editor is inclined to dissent from this 
 text are noted as they occur. 
 
 1 The name of John Lightfoot is not abbreviated in this volume, 
 
THE 
 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE. 
 
 —_-———— 
 
 THE TITLE OF THE GOSPEL 
 
 THE title cannot be any part of the original autograph. It is 
 found in different forms in ancient authorities, the earliest being 
 the simplest: xara Aouxay (8 B F), evayyéAtov kata Aouxay (A C 
 D 2), 76 xara Aouxay etayyéAtov or 76 kata Aovuxay dytov evayyéALov 
 (cursives). 
 
 The xara neither affirms nor denies authorship: it implies conformity to a 
 type. But, inasmuch as all four Gospels have the xa7vd, these uniform titles 
 must be interpreted according to the belief of those who gave the titles, viz. the 
 Christians of the first four centuries ; and it was their belief that each Evangelist 
 composed the Gospel which bears his name. Had the xard meant no more 
 than ‘‘drawn up according to the teaching of,” then this Gospel would have 
 been called xara Ilaidov, and the second Gospel would have been called xara 
 Tlézporv ; for it was the general tradition that Mark wrote according to the 
 teaching of Peter, and Luke (in a different sense) according to the teaching of 
 Paul. The xard, however, is not a mere substitute for the genitive of author- 
 ship, but indicates that the same subject has been treated by others. Thus, 
 9 wadad diabyxn Kara Tods €8dou7jxorv7a points to the existence of other transla- 
 tions, just as “Ounpos xara "Apictapxoy or xara ’Apiatogdryy points to the 
 existence of other editions. That the xard does not exclude authorship is 
 shown by such expressions as 7 xa7a Mwioéa xevrdzevyos (Epiphanius) and 
 i xaQ” “Hpédorov icropia (Diodorus): comp. év ois tropynparicpois Tols Kata 
 roy Necuiay (2 Mac. ii. 13). Strictly speaking, there is only one Gospel, 
 evayyeioy Geo’, the Gospel of God concerning His Son (Rom. i. 1); but it 
 has been given to us in four shapes, evayyéNov tetpdyopgor (Iren. Her. 
 di. 11. 8), and the xard indicates the shape in which the writer named 
 
 composed it. 
 
 L 14 THE PROLOGUE OR PREFACE. 
 
 The classical style of this opening, and its similarity to the 
 prefaces of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius, hardly amount 
 to proof that Lk. was well read in classical literature, and con- 
 sciously imitated Greek historians ; but there is nothing improbable 
 in this supposition. Among the words which are classical rather 
 
2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LL 
 
 than biblical should be noticed éreidyzep, értyetpetv, avardooes Oat, 
 Supynows, xafeEMs. The construction also is classical, and in no 
 way Hebraistic. We have clauses idiomatically interlaced, not 
 simply co-ordinated. The modest position claimed by the writer 
 is evidence of his honesty. A forger would have claimed to be an 
 eye-witness, and would have made no apology for writing. Ewald 
 remarks that “in its utter simplicity, modesty, and brevity, it is 
 the model of a preface to an historical work.” Its grammatical 
 construction should be compared with that of the preface to the 
 synodical epistle in Acts xv. 24, 25: ‘EwewSy qxovocopev . . . edogev 
 NLL. 
 
 This prologue contains all that we really kxow respecting the 
 composition of early narratives of the life of Christ, and it is the 
 test by which theories as to the origin of our Gospels must be 
 judged. No hypothesis is likely to be right which does not 
 harmonize with what is told us here. Moreover, it shows that an 
 inspired writer felt that he was bound to use research and care in 
 order to secure accuracy. 
 
 1. *Enev8ymep. A stately compound, suitable for a solemn 
 opening: freq. in class. Grk., but not found in LXX, or elsewhere 
 in N.T. Quoniam quidem, “ For as much as,” Weil denn einmal. 
 
 moddot. The context seems to imply that these, like Lk., were 
 not eye-witnesses. That at once would exclude Mt., whose Gospel 
 Lk. does not appear to have known. It is doubtful whether Mk. 
 is included in the zodAo&Z The writers of extant apocryphal 
 gospels cannot be meant, for these are all of later origin. Probably 
 all the documents here alluded to were driven out of existence by 
 the manifest superiority of the four Canonical Gospels. The 
 émtxeipnoay cannot imply censure, as some of the Fathers thought, 
 for Lk. brackets himself with these writers (é0fe xaot); what 
 they attempted he may attempt. The word occurs 2 Mac. ii. 29, 
 vii. 19 ; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13; and is freq. in class. Grk. in the sense 
 of “put the hand to, take in hand, attempt.” The notion of 
 unlawful or unsuccessful attempting is sometimes implied by the 
 context: it is not contained in the word. Luther renders unter- 
 wunden haben, “have ventured.” Lk. must have regarded these 
 attempts as insufficient, or he would not have added another. 
 Meyer quotes Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer), éwecdyrep wept tovtou 
 modXol érixeipyoav amoAoyjcacfa. It is doubtful whether 
 em.xetp. necessarily implies a great undertaking. 
 
 dvatdéaca. Sijyynow. “To draw up again in order a narra- 
 tive”; z.e. to arrange afresh so as to show the sequence of events. 
 The verb is a rare one, and occurs elsewhere only Plut. AZoral. 
 
 p. 969 C, De sollert. animal. xii. (Reiske, x. p. 36), in the sense ot 
 ractice go over again in order,” Iren. iti. 21. 2, and as v4 
 Eccles, ii. 20. The subst. implies something more than mere 
 
eae: | THE PROLOGUE OR PREFACE 3 
 
 notes or anecdotes; “a leading through to the end” (durch- 
 Jihren), “a narrative” (Ecclus. vi. 35, ix. 15 ; 2 Mac. ii. 32, vi. 
 17; Plat. Rep. 392 D; Arist. /Hez. iii. 16. 1). 
 
 Versions vary greatly: ordinare narrationem (Latt.), componere narra- 
 tionem (Beza), stellen die Rede (Luth.), “ordeyne the telling” (Wic.), 
 “compyle a treates” (Tyn.), “set forth the words” (Cov.), “set forth the 
 declaracion”’ (Cran.), “‘ write the historie” (Gen.), “compile a narration” 
 ae “set forth in order a declaration” (AV.), “draw up a narrative” 
 
 RV.), composer une narration suivie (Godet), coordonner en corps de récit 
 (Lasserre), “ Restore from memory a narrative” (Blass). 
 
 Tov jweTANpodopypévov. “Of the things which have been car- 
 ried through to the end, of the matters which have been accom- 
 plished, fully established.” Here again English Versions differ 
 much; but “surely known” (Tyn.), “surely to be believed” 
 (Cran.), “surely believed” (AV.), cannot be justified. The vert 
 when used of fersons may mean “persuade fully, convince,” and 
 in pass. “be fully persuaded” (Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5); but of chings 
 it means “fulfil” (2 Tim. iv. 5, 17). Here we may render 
 “accomplished.” Others less well render “fully proved.” See 
 Lightfoot on Col. iv. 12. The év jpiv probably means “among us 
 Christians.” Christendom is the sphere in which these facts have 
 had their full accomplishment. The 7iv in ver. 2 shows that con- 
 temporaries are not meant. If these things were handed down to 
 Lk., then he was not contemporary with them. The verse is 
 evidence that the accomplished facts were already fully established 
 and widely known, for they had already been narrated by many. 
 See Westcott, Jnr. to Gosp. p. 190, 7th ed. 
 
 2. xabds mapedocay jpiv. “ Hven as they delivered them to us.” 
 The difference between as, “as,” and kafds, “just as,” should be 
 marked in translation: the correspondence was exact. Lk. im- 
 plies that he himself was among those who vecezved the tradition. 
 Like the zoAAoi, he can only arrange afresh what has been handed 
 down, working at second hand, not as an eye-witness. He gives 
 no hint as to whether the facts were handed down orally or in 
 writing. The difference between the zodAoi and these adrérrat is 
 not that the zoAAoi wrote their narratives while the atromwra did 
 not, but that the airérrat were primary authorities, which the 
 moNAol were not. 
 
 Smppétat yevouevor tod Adyou. They not only had personal know: 
 ledge of the facts (atrémra), they also had practical experience of 
 the effects. They had preached and taught, and had thus learned 
 what elements in the Gospel were of most efficacy for the winning 
 and saving of souls. That rod Adyou belongs to brnpérat only, not 
 to av’rémra:, and means “the doctrine,” z.e. the Gospel (Acts vi. 4, 
 Vili. 4, Xiv. 25, xvi. 6, xvii. 11), is manifest from the context. 
 Origen and Athanasius are wrong in making vod Adyov mean the 
 
4 ‘THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LI.2,3. 
 
 personal Word, the Son of God, a use which is peculiar to Jn. 
 The am’ dpxns refers to the beginning of Christ’s ministry (Jn. xv. 
 27, Xv1. 4). For éwnpétns see on iv. 20 and comp. Acts xiii. 5. 
 
 8. eof kapot. This is the main sentence, the apodosis of 
 erevdymep moAXol érexeipnoay. It neither implies nor excludes 
 inspiration: the édofe may or may not have been inspired. The 
 wish to include inspiration caused the addition in some Latin 
 MSS. of e¢ spiritui sancto (Acts xv. 28), which makes what follows 
 to be incongruous. With édofe comp. the Muratorian Fragment : 
 Lucas iste medicus . . . nomine suo ex opinione conscripstii— 
 Dominum tamen nec tpse vidit in carne—et idem, prout assequi 
 potuit, ita et a nativitate Joannis incepit dicere. The xapoi shows 
 that Lk. does not blame the zodAoc: he desires to imitate and 
 supplement them. It is their attempts that encourage him to write. 
 What they have done he may do, and perhaps he may be able to 
 improve upon their work. This is his first reason for writing a 
 narrative. 
 
 mapykoov0yKdtt. This is his second reason for writing, making 
 the argument @ fortiori. He has had special advantages and 
 qualifications ; and therefore what was allowed to others may be 
 still more allowed to him. ‘These qualifications are fourfold, and 
 are told off with precision. In the literal sense of “following a 
 person closely so as to be always beside him,” zapaxodovGety 
 does not occur in N.T. Here it does not mean that Lk. was 
 contemporaneous with the events, but that he had brought himself 
 abreast of them by careful investigation. Comp. the famous 
 passage in Dem. De Cor. cap. liil. p..285 (344), tapaxoAovOyKxdra 
 Tois mpaypacw e€ apyis. 
 
 avw0ev. This is the 7st of the four qualifications: he has gone 
 back to the very beginning, viz. the promise of the birth of the 
 Forerunner. ‘From the first” is the meaning of avw6ev here, not 
 “thoroughly,” vadicitus, as in Acts xxvi. 5, which would make 
 avwGev almost the same as waouw. Vulg. has a principio, and d@ has 
 desusum (comp. the French dessus). It is the maow which implies 
 thoroughness ; and this is the second point. He has begun at the 
 beginning, and he has investigated everything. The Syriac makes 
 mwacw masc., but there is little doubt that it is neut., and refers to 
 mpayparwv in ver. I. 
 
 axpiBas. This is the ¢4zrd point. He has done all this 
 “accurately.” There is no idle boast in any one of the three 
 points. No other Gospel gives us this early history about the 
 Baptist and the Christ. No other is throughout so full, for of 
 170 sections contained in the synoptic narrative 48 are peculiar 
 to Lk. And, in spite of the severest scrutiny, his accuracy can 
 very rarely be impugned. We cannot be sure whether he means 
 to imply that dxpyBas was not true of the zodAo/, but we may be 
 
L 3, 4.| THE PROLOGUE OR PREFACE 5 
 
 sure that none of them could claim all three of these points. Ir 
 any case we have an inspired historian telling us in his inspired 
 writings that he is giving us the results of careful investigation. 
 From this it seems to follow that an inspired historian may fail in 
 accuracy if his investigation is defective. 
 
 xadeéjs. This is the fourth point, resulting from the other three. 
 He does not propose to give a mere collection of anecdotes and 
 detached sayings, but an orderly narrative systematically arranged. 
 Chronological order is not necessarily implied in xaGeéjs, but 
 merely arrangement of some kind. Nevertheless, he probably 
 has chronological order chiefly in view. In N.T. the word is 
 peculiar to Lk. (viii. 1; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, xviii. 23), as is also 
 the more classical é&7s (vil. 11, ix. 37, etc.) ; but édeéjs does not 
 occur. 
 
 Kpdtiote Ocopide. The epithet xpdricros, often given to persons 
 of rank (Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), is strongly in favour of 
 the view that Theophilus was a real person. The name Theophilus 
 was common both among Jews (= Jedidiah) and among Gentiles, 
 But it was a name likely to be used to represent any pious reader. 
 See Lft. on “ Acts,” D.B.? pp. 25, 26. The word xpaticros occurs 
 in N.T. only here and in the Acts, where it is evidently a purely 
 official epithet, for the persons to whom it is applied are of bad 
 character. 
 
 4, wva émyvods wept dv KaTnxyOys Adyov Thy dopdderay. “In 
 order that thou mightest fully know the certainty concerning the 
 words wherein thou wast instructed.” The Adyo. are not the 
 mpdypata or historic facts, but the details of the Adyos or Gospel 
 (ver. 2), which “ministers of the word” had communicated to 
 Theophilus. The compound érvyv@s indicates additional and more 
 thorough knowledge. It is very freq. in Lk. and Paul: see esp. 
 Rom. 1. 28, 32; 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Lft. on Col. i. 9; Trench, Sya, 
 Ixxv. In N.T. xarnyeiv, “to sound down into the ears, teach 
 orally,” is found only in Lk. and Paul. The position of ri 
 dopdadcay gives it solemn emphasis. Theophilus shall know that 
 the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical 
 foundation. 
 
 The idiomatic attraction, mepl dy xarnx4Ons Adywr, is best resolved into 
 mepl Tv Abywr ods KaTnxHOns, not mepl THv Abyww Tepl Gy Karnx7HOns. Only 
 of persoys does mepl twos stand after xarnxelv (Acts xxi. 21, 24): of things 
 me have the acc. (Acts xviii. 25; Gal. vi. 6). These attractions are very freq. 
 in Lk. 
 
 On the superficial resemblance between this preface and Jos. Con. Apion. 1. 
 9, 10, see Godet, i. pp. 92, 93, 3¢me ed. 1888. The resemblance hardly 
 amounts to remarkable coincidence, and such similarities are common in 
 literature. It is more interesting to compare this preface with that of the 
 medical writer Dioscorides. The opening words of Dioscorides’ treatise, wept 
 bAns larpixjs, run thus: ToAAGy ov pdvov dpxalwy, ddAAd Kal véwy cvvratapévwr 
 
6 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [i 4. 
 
 wept Ths Tov dapydKxwy cxevaclas re kal Svvdwews kal Soxipaclas, Pidrate ’Apete, 
 mepdcoual cor wapacricat wh Kevyy unde ddoyov opuhy éoxnxévar mpds THVOE THY 
 mwpayyarelay. The date of Dioscorides Pedacius is uncertain; but, as Pliny 
 does not mention him, he is commonly assigned to the first or second century 
 A.D. He is said to have been a native of Anazarbus in Cilicia, about fifty 
 miles from Tarsus; and in that case he would almost certainly obtain his 
 medical knowledge in the great school at Tarsus. That he and S. Luke may 
 have been there at the same time with S. Paul, seems to be a not impossible 
 conjecture. The treatise wep) dpyalys lnrpixijs, commonly attributed to Hippo- 
 crates (c. 460-350 B.C.), begins: ‘Oxéco. éwexelpnoav wept inrpixns Aéyew 7 
 yodpew, K.T.A. 
 
 L 5-IL 52. THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY. 
 
 These chapters have often been attacked as unhistorical. 
 That Marcion omitted them from his mutilated edition of this 
 Gospel is of no moment. He did not do so upon critical grounds, 
 but because their contents did not harmonize with his doctrine. 
 It is more to the point to urge that these early narratives 
 lack apostolic authority; that they cover ground which popular 
 imagination, in the absence of history, would be sure to fill; that 
 they abound in angelic appearances and other marvels; that 
 their form is often highly poetical; and that it is sometimes 
 difficult to reconcile them with the narrative of Mt. or with 
 known facts of history. To this it may be replied that reserve 
 would keep Christ’s Mother from making known these details at 
 first. Even Apostles may have been ignorant of them, or unwilling 
 to make them known until the comparatively late period at which 
 Lk. wrote. The dignity, beauty, and spirituality of these narratives 
 is strong evidence of their authenticity, especially when contrasted 
 with the silly, grotesque, and even immoral details in the apo- 
 cryphal gospels. They abound in historic features, and are 
 eminently true to life. Their independence of Mt. is evident, 
 and both accounts bear the stamp of truthfulness, which is not 
 destroyed by possible discrepancies in a few minor points. That 
 Lk. is ever at variance with other historians, has still to be proved ; 
 and the merit of greater accuracy may still be with him, even if 
 such variance exists. 
 
 This Gospel of the Infancy is made up of seven narratives, 
 in two parallel groups of three, followed by a supplement, which 
 connects these two groups with the main body of the Gospel. 
 
 I. 1. The Annunication of the Birth of the Forerunner 
 (5-25); 2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38) ; 
 3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of 
 the Forerunner (39-56). 
 
 II. 4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80); 5. The Birth of 
 the Saviour (ii. 1-20); 6. The Circumcision and Presentation of 
 the Saviour (ii. 21-40). 
 
L 5.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY Vy) 
 
 III. 7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (ii. 41-52). 
 
 On the two accounts of our Lord’s infancy see E. C. S. 
 Gibson, Exfositor, 2nd series, iii. p. 116; Gore, Dissertations on 
 Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 12 ff.: Murray, 1895. 
 
 I. 5-25. Zhe Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner. 
 
 “When John the Baptist appeared, not the oldest man in 
 Palestine could remember to have spoken even in his earliest 
 childhood with any man who had seen a prophet... . In these 
 circumstances it was an occurrence of the first magnitude, more 
 important far than war or revolution, when a new prophet actually 
 appeared” (Zcce Homo, ch. i.). The miracles recorded are in 
 keeping with this. God was making a new departure in dealing 
 with His people. We need not, therefore, be startled if a highly 
 exceptional situation is accompanied by highly exceptional facts. 
 After more than three centuries of silence, Jehovah again speaks 
 by prophecies and signs to Israel. But there is no violent rupture 
 with the past in making this new departure. The announcement 
 of the rise of a new Prophet is made in the temple at Jerusalem, 
 to a priest of the old covenant, who is to be the Prophet’s father. 
 It is strong evidence of the historic truth of the narrative that no 
 miracles are prophesied of the new Prophet, and that after his 
 appearance his disciples attribute none to him. 
 
 5. "Eyéveto év tais ipepats. The elegant idiomatic Greek of the 
 preface comes abruptly to an end. Although the marks of Lk.’s 
 style are as abundant here as in any part of the Gospel, yet the 
 form of the narrative is strongly Hebraistic; so much so that one 
 may be confident that he is translating from an Aramaic document. 
 These first two chapters seem to consist of a series of such docu- 
 ments, each with a distinct conclusion (i. 80, ii. 40, ii. 52). If they 
 are historical, the Virgin Mary must have been the source of much 
 that is contained in these first two chapters; and she may have 
 been the writer of documents used by Lk. In any case, we have 
 here the earliest documentary evidence respecting the origins of 
 Christianity which has come down to us,—evidence which may 
 justly be called contemporary. Both éyévero and & tais jyépats 
 are Hebraistic (see on ver. 39); but there is no need to understand 
 nv or any other verb after éyevero, “It came to pass that there was.” 
 Rather, “There arose, came into notice,” or simply “ There was.” 
 See on iv. 36, and comp. Mk. i. 4; Jn. i. 6. 
 
 “Hpwdou Bacthéws tis “loudaias. Herod “the Great,” a title not 
 
8 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [r 6. 
 
 given to him by his contemporaries, who during his last years 
 suffered greatly from his cruelty. It is in these last years that the 
 narrative of Lk. begins. The Herods were Idumzans by birth,} 
 though Jews by religion, and were dependent upon the Romans 
 for their sovereignty. -As Tacitus says: Regnum ab Antonio 
 Herodi datum victor Augustus auxit (Hist. v. 9. 3). 
 
 The name ‘Hp¢dns is contracted from “Hpwl5ys, and should have iota sub- 
 script, which is well supported by early inscriptions. Later inscriptions and 
 coins omit the iota. In the Codex Ambroszanus of J.sephus the name is 
 written with iota adscript, Hpwidys (Azt. xi.—-xx.). See the numerous 
 instances from inscriptions cited by Schiirer in the 7heo/. Lztztg. 1892, No. 
 21, col. 516. The ro# inserted before Bacihéws in A and other texts is in 
 accordance with classical usage. But in LXX the art. is commonly omitted 
 in such cases, because in Hebrew, as in English, “Saul, king of Israel,’ 
 “George, king of Pagid) is the common idiom (Gen. xiv. I, 2, 18, xx. 2, 
 xxvi. I, etc. etc.). See Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 47. 
 
 Baothas tis “loudaias. This was the title conferred on him by 
 the Senate at the request of Antony, Messala, and Atratinus (Jos. 
 Ant. xiv. 14. 4). Judzea here may mean “the land of the Jews, 
 Palestine” (vii. 17, xxili. 5; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, xi. 1, 29). Besides 
 Judzea in the narrower sense, Herod’s dominions included Samaria, 
 Galilee, a great deal of Perzea, and Coele-Syria. For the abundant 
 literature on the Herods see D.Z.? i. p. 1341; Herzog, PRZ.? vi. 
 Pp. 47; Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. i. 1, p. 400. 
 
 iepeds Tis dvépatt Zaxapias. In the Protevangelium of James 
 (viii.), Zacharias is called high priest; and this has been adopted by 
 later writers, who have supposed that the incident narrated by Lk. 
 took place on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies. But 
 the high priest would not have been called iepevs ts, and it could 
 not have been by /of (éAaxe) that he offered incense on the Day of 
 Atonement. Priestly descent was much esteemed. The name 
 means ‘‘ Remembered by Jehovah.” For évépatt see on v. 27. 
 
 e€ épypepias “ABid. The word édypepia has two meanings: 
 1. “service for a term of days” (Neh. xiii. 30; 1 Chron. xxv. 8; 
 2 Chron. xiii. 10); 2. ‘fa course of priests who were on duty for a 
 term of days,” viz. for a week (1 Chron. xxii. 6, xxviii. 13; 1 Esdr. 
 i. 2,15). These courses were also called duarpécers, and by Josephus 
 matpiat and épypepides (Anz. vii. 14. 7; Vita, i.). Abijah was de- 
 scended from Eleazar, and gave his name to the eighth of the 
 twenty-four courses into which David divided the priests (1 Chron. 
 xxiv. 10; 2 Chron. viii.14). Of these twenty-four only the courses 
 of Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim returned from captivity 
 (Ezra ii. 36-39); but these four were divided again into twenty- 
 
 1 Tempus quoque Herodis aliegene videlicet regis etiam tpsum Domenico 
 
 attestatur adventui. Predictum namque fuerat, guia non defictet princeps ex 
 Juda, Tonec veniat qui mitiendus erat (Bede). 
 
L 5, 6.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 9 
 
 four with the old names. So that Zacharias did not belong to the 
 original course of Abijah, for that did not return from exile. Each 
 course was on duty twice during the year; but we know far too 
 little about the details of the arrangement to derive any sure chron- 
 ology from the statements made by Lk. See on ii. 7. 
 
 Wieseler places the vision of Zacharias early in October A.U.Cc. 748 or B.C. 6 
 (Chron. Syn. ii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 123). With this result Edersheim agrees (Z. and 
 T. i. p. 135), as also does Andrews (L. of our Lord, p. 52, ed. 1892). Lewin 
 
 refers May 16th, B.c. 7 (Fastz Sacrz, 836). Caspari is for July 18th, B.c. 3, 
 
 ut remarks ‘‘ how little reliance is to be placed upon conclusions of this kind” 
 (Chron. Eznl. § 42, Eng. tr. p. 57). For the courses of priests, see Herzog, 
 PRE. art. Priestertum im A.T.; Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. 
 ji. I, pp. 216-220. 
 
 yurh aire éx tav buyatépwy ’"Aapdv. “ He had a wife,” not “his 
 wife was” (AV.). Lk. follows LXX in omitting the art. with the 
 gen. after @vydrnp: comp. xili. 16 and the quotations Mt. xxi. 5 
 and Ja. xii. 15, and contrast Mt. xiv. 6. To be a priest and 
 married to a priest’s daughter was a double distinction. It was a 
 common summary of an excellent woman, ‘She deserves to marry 
 a priest.” In the fullest sense John was of priestly birth. See 
 Wetst.: Sacrosancta precursoris nobilitas non solum a parentibus, 
 sed etiam a progenitoribus gloriosa descendit (Bede). Aaron’s wife 
 was Elisabeth = Elisheba = “ God is my oath.” 
 
 6. Sixator. Once a term of high praise, and meaning righteous- 
 ness in the fullest sense (Ezek. xviii. 5, 9, 11, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26); 
 but it had come to mean little more than careful observance of 
 legal duties. The addition of the Hebraistic évavriov tod Ocod 
 (Acts viii. 21; Gen. vi. 8, 11, 13, Vil. I, xX. 9) gives dixacor its full 
 meaning: Zacharias and Elisabeth were saints of the O.T. type. 
 Symeon is called Sixaos (ii. 25), and Joseph (Mt. i. 19). Comp. 
 Sixawov <lval pw 6 vopos H dios O apa wapetye TH Oecd (Eur. Lon. 
 643). The Gospel was to restore to Sixasos its original spiritual 
 meaning. See detached note on ¢he word Sixavos and its cognates, 
 Rom. 1.17. For dydtepor see on v. 7. 
 
 Topeudpevor ev Tacats Tats évTohats Kal Sikardpacwt.x. Another 
 Hebraism (Deut. xxviii. 9; 1 Sam. viii. 3, 5; 1 Kings iii. 14, etc.). 
 The distinction often drawn, that évrodat are moral, while dixaw- 
 
 _ pata are ceremonial, is baseless; the difference is, that the latter 
 is the vaguer term. Here, although they differ in gender, they 
 have only one article and adjective, decause they are so similar in 
 meaning. Comp. Col. ii. 22; Rev. v. 12; and see Win. xix. 3 ¢, 
 p. 157. The two words are found combined Gen. xxvi. 5 and 
 Deut. iv. 40. For 8txarépara, “things declared right, ordinances,” 
 comp. Rom. ii. 26 and Heb. ix. 1, and see note in Sf. Comm. on 
 1 Cor. v. 6 as to the force of the termination -ua. The genitive 
 here, as in Rom. ii. 26 and viii. 4, expresses the authority from 
 
10 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L 6-8. 
 
 - which the ordinance springs. The dpepmro. anticipates what 
 follows, and, of course, does not mean that they were sinless. No 
 one is sinless; but the conduct of some is free from reproach. 
 Comp. Phil. iii. 6. 
 
 7 Kal odx fv adtois téxvov. This calamity is grievous to all 
 Orientals, and specially grievous to Jews, each of whom is ambitious 
 of being among the progenitors of the Messiah. It was commonly 
 believed to be a punishment for sin (Lev. xx. 20, 21; Jer. xxii. 30). 
 The story of Glaucus, who tempted the oracle at Delphi, and “at 
 the present time has not a single descendant” (Hdt. vi. 86. 16), 
 indicates a similar belief among the Greeks. Zacharias and 
 Elisabeth had the sorrow of being childless, as Anna of being 
 husbandless, and all three had their consolation. Comp. the 
 births of Samson and Samuel, both of whom were Nazirites, and 
 of Isaac. 
 
 xa0ét.. Peculiarto Lk. ‘‘ Because that” (xix. 9; Acts ii. 24, xvii. 31), 
 or “according as” (Acts ii. 45, iv. 35). In class. Grk. editors commonly 
 Write xa0’ 87. The clause cal dupérepo . . . Foav does not depend upon 
 xa@ért, which would be illogical, but is a separate statement. Their age 
 would not explain why they had had no children, but why they were not likely 
 tohave any. ‘‘ They had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren ; and 
 they were both advanced in years,” so that they had no hope of children. 
 
 tmpoBeBynkdtes ev tals Hpépats adtay. Hebraistic: in class. Grk. 
 we should rather have had 77 jAuKia. In LXX we have mpoPeB. 
 Hpépats, OF Hepwr, Or Tov Huepwv (1 Kings i. 1; Gen. xxiv. 1; Josh. 
 xili. 1). Levites were superannuated at about sixty, but a priest 
 served as long as he was able. 
 
 8. *Eyévero . . » €Aaxe. On the various constructions with éyévero in 
 Lk. see detached note at the end of this chapter; and on év T@ tepatevev 
 avtév, “while he was officiating as priest,” which is another very favourite 
 construction with Lk., see on iii. 21. The verb leparevew is freq. in LXX, 
 but occurs nowhere else in N.T. It is not found earlier than LXX, but is not 
 rare in later Greek. See Kennedy, SourcesofN.T. Grk. p. 119. The phrase 
 Kata Td eos is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ii. 42, xxii. 39), but occurs in Theod. 
 Bel 15; and @os occurs ten times in his writings, and only twice elsewhere 
 (Jn. xix. 40; Heb. x. 25). Comp. xara 76 el@copévoy (ii. 27) and kara 70 eiwOds 
 (iv. 16; Acts xvii. 2). It is for the sake of those who were unfamiliar with the 
 usages of the temple that he says that it was ‘‘according to the custom of the 
 priest’s service” that it was decided by lot which priest should offer incense. 
 To take xara 7d 200s Tis leparias with what precedes robs it of all point; it is 
 tautology to say that he was officiating as priest according to the custom of she 
 priest’s service. But the number of cases in which Lk. has a clause or word 
 which is grammatically amphibolous is very large; vv. 25, 27, ii. 22, where 
 see note. Tie word leparela occurs in N.T. only here and Heb. vii. 5. ‘‘In 
 relation to lepwovvn (Heb. vii. 11, 12, 24) it expresses the actual service of 
 the priests, and not the office of priesthood” (Wsctt. on Heb. vii. 5). 
 
 Zhaxe Tod Ouprdcar. The casting of lots took place twice a day, 
 at the morning and the evening offering of incense. In the morn- 
 
1 8-11.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY Il 
 
 ing the drawing lots for offering the incense was the third and chief 
 of a series of drawings, four in all; in the evening it was the only 
 one. We do not know whether this was morning or evening. No 
 priest might have this honour twice; and the number of priests 
 was so great that many never offered the incense. The fortunate 
 lot was a Wjdos Aevxy, to which there is a possible reference 
 Rev. ii. 17. The priest who obtained it chose two others to help 
 him ; but, when they had done their part, they retired, leaving him 
 alone in the Holy Place. For the very elaborate details see 
 Edersh. Zhe Temple, its Ministry and Services, pp. 129-142. 
 
 The gen. Tod @uutGoat is probably governed by €\axe, which in class. Grk. 
 commonly has a gen. when it means “‘ became possessed of,” and an acc. 
 when it means ‘‘ obtained by lot” (Acts i. 17; comp. 2 Pet. i. 1). In 1 Sam. 
 xiv. 47 we have Zaovd éhaxe [a/. 7. kataxAnpotra] Tod Bacidevew él Iopa7r. 
 The eloed Ow els Tov vady must be taken with 6uydca, not with Gaye: “he 
 obtained by lot to go in and burn incense,” not ‘‘after entering into the vads 
 he obtained by lot to burn incense.” The lots were cast d¢fore he entered the 
 Holy Place, which was the front part of the vadés. 
 
 10. wav 75 TAHO0s Fv TOG Aaod mpoceuxspevov. Cod. Am. has the 
 same order, omnis multitudo erat populi orans. ‘The position of 
 tov Aaod is against taking jv with zpocevydmevov as the analytical 
 tense instead of the imperf., a constr. of which Lk. is very fond 
 (ga. 20, 21, 22, il. 33, iv. 17, 31, 38, 44, etc.); qv may mean 
 “was there,” or “there was,” and rod Aaod be epexegetic of 76 
 mAnGos. But certainty is unattainable and unimportant. We need 
 not infer from wav 76 7AAOos that there was a great multitude. As 
 compared with the solitary priest in the vaés, all the worshippers 
 outside were a 7A7jG0s. The word is a favourite one with Lk., who 
 uses it twenty-five times against seven in the rest of N.T. It is 
 remarkable that prayer is not expressly mentioned in the Law as 
 part of public worship, except in connexion with the offering of the 
 first-fruits (Deut. xxvi. 15). But comp. 1 Kings viii. 33-48; 
 2 Chron. vi. 14-42; Is. lvi. 7. The people were inside the iepdy, 
 although outside (é£w) the vads, and the other priests would be 
 between them and the vads. 
 
 11. GhOn S€ adt@ GyyeAos Kupiov. It was the most solemn 
 moment of his life, when he stood alone in that sacred spot to offer 
 the pure and ideal symbol of the imperfect prayer which he and 
 those outside were offering. The unique circumstances contri- 
 buted to make him conscious of that unseen world which is around 
 all of us (2 Kings vi. 17; comp. Lk. xv. 7, 10). For éf6y see on 
 xxil. 43; and for an analysis of the psychological facts see Lange, 
 L. of Christ, bk. ii. pt. i. § 2; Eng. tr. i. 264. But must we not 
 choose between admitting an objective appearance and rejecting 
 the whole asa myth? To explain it as a “false perception” or 
 optical delusion, z.e. a purely subjective result of psychological 
 
12 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE ([L 11-18. 
 
 causes, seems to be not admissible. In that case Zacharias, like Lord 
 Herbert of Cherbury,! would have accepted the sign which he sup- 
 posed that he had received. To believe in the reality of a subject- 
 ive appearance and not believe its testimony is a contradiction. 
 Moreover, the psychological explanation leaves the dumbness to be 
 explained. Again, we have similar appearances ver. 26, il. 9, 13, 
 XXli. 43, xxiv. 4. Can we accept here an explanation which is very 
 difficult (ii. 9, 13) or inadmissible (xxiv. 4) elsewhere? Are all 
 these cases of false perception? See Paley, Evidences of Christt- 
 anity, prop. ii. ch. i.; Mill, Panthetstic Principles, ii. 1. 4, p. 123, 
 2nd ed. 1861; Edersh. Z. & Z. i. p. 142, il. p. 751. 
 
 ex Se€iwy Tod Quctactypiov. The place of honour. It was “the 
 right side of the altar,” not of Zacharias, who was facing it. Comp. 
 Acts vii. 55, 56. The right side was the south side, and the Angel 
 would be between the altar and the golden candlestick. On the 
 left, or north side, of the altar was the table with the shewbread. 
 
 12. pdBos émémecey én attév. Fear is natural when man be- 
 comes suddenly conscious of contact with the unseen: Humane 
 Jragilitatis est spiritualis creature visione turbari (Bede). Comp. 
 ii. 9, 1X. 343 Judg. vi. 22, xili. 22; Job iv. 15, etc. For the phrase 
 comp. Acts xix. 17; Exod. xv. 16; Judith xv. 2. In class. Grk. 
 the dat. is more usual: Thuc. iii. 87. 1; Xen. Azad. ii. 2.19; Eur. 
 Andr. 1042. 
 
 18. cimev S¢ mpds adtév. Both eizev dé and cizev rpos are very 
 freq. in Lk., who prefers e«izev d€ to xal eizev even at the beginning 
 of narratives, and uses zpds avrov, avrovs, x... in preference to 
 aiTG, avrois, x.7.A., after verbs of speaking, answering, etc., to an 
 extent which is quite remarkable (vv. 18, 19, 34, 55, 61, 73, 
 ii. 15, 18, 20, 34, 48, 49, etc. etc.). This pds is so strong a mark 
 of his style that it should be distinguished in translation: etrev 
 mpos abrov, ‘He said unzo him,” and «trey airé, “ He said Zo him.” 
 But not even RV. does this. 
 
 Mi) dood. This gracious charge is specially common in Lk. 
 (ver. 30, ii. 10, Vili. 50, xii. 4, 7, 323; Acts xviii. 9, xxvii. 24). 
 Bengel says of it, Primum alloquium celeste in aurora NV.T. per 
 Lucam amenissime descripta. Comp. Gen. xv. 1; Josh. viil. 1; 
 Is. xliii. 1, 5, xliv. 2; Jer. xlvi. 27, 28; Dan. x. 12. 
 
 Sidr. “ Because,” as generally in N.T. Comp. ii. 7, xxi. 28. 
 It never means “therefore”; not Rom. i. 19 nor 1 Thes. ii 18. 
 
 eionkova0n 4 Sénois cov. “ Thy supplication was heard,” at the 
 time when it was offered. The pass. is used both of the petition 
 (Acts x. 31; Ps. iv. 2) and of the petitioner (Mt. vi. 7; Heb. v. 7). 
 The word déyous implies Zersonal need ; it is a “special petition for 
 the supply of want” (Lft. on Phil. iv. 6; Trench, Svz. li). Un- 
 like mpooevyy, it may be used of petitions to men The word’ 
 
 1 Life, written by himself, sed fin., pp. 171 ff. ed. 1792, pp. 24: ff. ed. 1824. 
 
L 18, 14.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 13 
 
 favours, but by no means proves, the view that the prayer of 
 Zacharias was fora son. And the context at first seems to con 
 firm this. But would Zacharias have made his private wishes the 
 main subject of his prayer at so unique an opportunity? Would 
 he have prayed for what he regarded as impossible? As Bede 
 remarks, Vemo orat quod se accepturum desperat. Having prayed 
 for it as possible, would he have refused to believe an Angel who 
 told him that the petition was granted? It is much more probable 
 that he and the people were praying for the redemption of Israel,— 
 for the coming of the Messiah’s kingdom ; and it is this supplica- 
 tion which was heard. To make déyous refer to habitual suppli- 
 cation, and not to the prayer offered with the incense, seems 
 unnatural. 
 
 What Didon points out (p. 298) in quite a different connexion seems to 
 have point here. It was an axiom with the Rabbins that a prayer in which 
 there was no mention of the kingdom of God was no prayer at all (Bady/., 
 Beracoth, fol. 40, 2); and in the ritual of the temple the response of the 
 people to the prayers of the priests was, ‘‘ Blessed be the name of the glory of 
 the Kingdom of God for ever” (Babyl., Taanzth, fol. 16, 2): Jésus Chrést, 
 ed. 1891. See also Edersh. Zhe Temple, p. 127. 
 
 kai % yur gou “EderodBer yervyoer uidv co. Not 7 yuvy yap. 
 “ For thy wife shall bear thee a son” would have made it clear 
 that the son was the answer to the déyous. But “and thy wife 
 shall bear thee a son” may mean that this is an additional boon, 
 which (as ver. 17 shows) is to prepare the way for the blessing 
 prayed for and granted. Thus, like Solomon, Zacharias receives 
 the higher blessing for which he prayed, and also the lower blessing 
 for which he did not pray. 
 
 Tevvdw is generally used of the father (Mt. i. 1-16; Acts vii. 8, 29; Gen. 
 v. 3-30, xi. 10-28, etc.) ; but sometimes of the mother (ver. 57, xxiii. 293 
 Jn. xvi. 21). The best authorities give "Iwdvys, with only one » (WH. ii. 
 App. p. 159). In LXX we have “Iwdyys (2 Chron. xxviii. 12); "Iwdvap 
 2 Chron. xvii. 15; Neh. xii. 13); ’Iwvdv (Neh. vi. 18); "Iwvd (2 Kings 
 XXV. 23; comp. Jn. xxi. 15-17). All these forms are abbreviations of Jeho- 
 hanan, ‘‘ Jehovah’s gift,” or ‘‘ God is gracious.” Gotthold is a German name 
 of similar meaning. It was a Rabbinical saying that the names of six were 
 given before they were born—Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and 
 Messiah. 
 
 14. woddot ent TH yevéoer adtod xaphoovrat, With the wodXot 
 here contrast wavri 7@ Aad in ii. 10. The joy at the appearance of 
 a Prophet after centuries of need was immense, although not uni- 
 versal. The Pharisees did not dare to say that John was not a 
 Prophet (Mt. xxi. 26); and Herod, until driven to it, did not dare 
 to put him to death (Mt. xiv. 5). The word dyaAA~acrs means 
 “extreme joy, exultation.” It is not class., but is freq. in LXX. 
 Elsewhere in N.T. only ver. 44; Acts ii. 46; Jude 24; Heb. i. g 
 (from Ps. xliv. 8). 
 
14 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO -S. LUKE [I. 14, 15. 
 
 In class. Grk. xalpeww more often has the simple dat., but émé is usual in 
 N.T. (xiii. 17; Acts xv. 31; Mt. xviii. 13, etc.). It marks the daszs of the 
 
 joy. The reading yervjoe (G XT) for yevéoe (NX A BC D) probably comes 
 from yevyjcet in ver. 13. 
 
 15. Eorar yap wéyas évdmov [rod] Kuptov. For he shall be great 
 in the truest sense of the term. Whatsoever a character man has 
 before God, of that character he really is. 
 
 The adj. évwzios is found in Theocr. (xxii. 152) and i in LXXx, but évdrov 
 as a prep. seems to be confined to LXX and N.T. It is not in Mt. or Mk., 
 but is specially freq. in Lk. (v2. 17, 19, 75, iv. 7, v. 18, 25, etc.), as also 
 in Rev. The phrase évywziov rod xuplov or Oeod is a Hebraism (xii. 6, xvi. 155 
 
 Acts iv. 19, vil. 46, x. 31, 3353 Judg. xi. II; I Sam. x. 19; 2 Sam. Ve 35 
 vi. 5). The preposition retains this meaning in modern Greek. 
 
 oivoy Kal oikepa of ph min. He is te drink neither wine nor 
 any intoxicating liquor other than wine. The same Hebrew word 
 is rendered sometimes oikepa, sometimes peOvopa, and sometimes 
 gixepa pébvopa (Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Judg. xiii. 4, 7, 14). 
 Wiclif here has “ne wine ne syder.” See D.B.2 art. “ Drink, 
 Strong.” John is to be a Nazirite, not only for a time, as was 
 usual, but for all his life, as Samson and Samuel. This is not 
 disproved by the omission of the command not to cut his hair 
 (Edersh. Zhe Tempe, p. (322). Eusebius (Prep. Evang. vi. 10. 8) 
 has gen. oikepos, and ouxépuros is also quoted ; but oikepa is usually 
 undeclined. 
 
 Tvetparos dytou whyoPycetat. This is in obvious contrast to 
 olvov Kal _oikepa. In place of the physical excitement of strong 
 drink he is to have the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 
 The whole phrase is peculiar to Lk. (vv. 41, 67; Acts ii. 4, 
 iv. 8, 31, 1x. 17, xili. 9); and the two elements of it are specially 
 characteristic of him. Excepting Mt. xxii. ro, xxvii. 48; Jn. 
 XIX. 29, {uaAnut Occurs Only in Lk., who uses it twenty-two times. 
 Mt. has the expression “ Holy Spirit ” five times, Mk. and Jn. each 
 four times. Lk. has it fifty-three times, of which twelve are in the 
 Gospel. He uses three forms: mvdpa dyvov (i. 15, 35, 455 67, 
 [ii. 25)] iil. 16, iv. I, Xl. 13); 70 dytov wvedpa (xi, To, 12); and 76 
 mvevpa TO ayLov (it 26, iii, 22). According to Schoettgen (i. 
 P. 255), “to be filled with the Holy Spirit is” locutio Judzis famtlt- 
 aris. He gives one example. Comp. the contrast in Eph. v. 18. 
 
 étu é« Kowdlas pntpds attov. A Hebraism (Ps. xxii. 11, lxxi. 6; Is. 
 xlix. i. 5: comp. Judg. xiii. 5, 7, xvi. 17; Job xxxi. 18, etc.); instead of 
 the more classical éx yeverijs, with or without ev6us (Hom. //. XxIv. 535, Od. 
 xviii. 6; Arist. £th. Wie. vi. 13. I, vil. I4. 4, villi. 12. 6). For the ére 
 comp. tr ék Bpégeos, ért arr” apxijs, ért Kal éx mapévrwv, where é7t seems to 
 mean ‘‘even.” The expression does not imply that John was filled with the 
 Spirit before he was born (ver. 41). In LXX xouAla is often used of the 
 womb (see esp. Jer. i. 5); but this is very rare in class. Grk. 
 
1 16, 17.| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 15 
 
 16, 17. The two personal characteristics just stated—subjection 
 of the flesh and sovereignty of the spirit—will manifest themselves 
 in two external effects,—a great religious revival and the prepara- 
 tion for the Messianic kingdom. The first of these was the 
 recognized work of every Prophet. Israel, through sin, was con- 
 stantly being alienated from God; and it was one of the chief 
 functions of a Prophet to convert the people to God again (Jer. 
 iii. 7, 10, 14, xvili. 8; Ezek. iii. 19; Dan. ix. 13). 
 
 wat aités. The personal pronouns are much more used in N.T. than in 
 class. Grk., esp. in the oblique cases. But even in the nom. the pronoun is 
 sometimes inserted, although there is little or no emphasis. Lk. is very fond 
 of beginning sentences with xal airés, even where aérés can hardly mean 
 “She on his part,” as distinct from others (iii. 23, v. 14, 17, vi. 20, etc.). In 
 wpoeXevoerat we have another mark of Lk.’sstyle. Excepting Mk. vi. 33 
 and 2 Cor. ix. §, the verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 47; Acts xii. 10, 
 XX. 5, 13). 
 
 évdmov aitos. ‘Before God,” who comes to His people in 
 the person of the Messiah (Is. xl. 1-11; Mal. iii. 1-5). It is 
 unlikely that airod means the Messiah, who has not yet been 
 mentioned. There is no analogy with avrés éda, ipse dixit, where 
 the pronoun refers to some one so well known that there is no 
 need to mention him by name. For évdmuoy see on ver. 15; and 
 for Suvapis, on iv. 14, 36. Elijah is mentioned, not as a worker of 
 miracles, for “John did no sign” (Jn. x. 41), but as a preacher of 
 repentance: it was in this that the Baptist had his spirit and 
 power. For Rabbinic traditions respecting Elijah as the Fore- 
 runner see Edersh. Z. & T. ii. p. 706. 
 
 The omission of the articles before rvevyar: and duvdue is probably due 
 to the influence of an Aramaic original, in which the gen. which follows 
 would justify the omission. Proper names in -as pure commonly have gen. 
 in -ov (Mt. 1. 6, iii. 3); but here Hyela is the true reading. 
 
 émotpépat kapdias tatépwy éxt téxva. The literal interpretation 
 here makes good sense, and perhaps, on the whole, it is the best. 
 In the moral degradation of the people even parental affection had 
 languished: comp. Ecclus. xlvili. 10. Genuine reform strengthens 
 family ties; whatever weakens them is no true reform. Or the 
 meaning may be that the patriarchs will no longer be ashamed of 
 their offspring: comp. Is. Ixiii. 16. In any case, dmeifeis is not to 
 be referred to réxva. It is not the disobedience of children to 
 parents that is meant, but that of the Jews to God. 
 
 The Vulg. renders dre:@ets by incredibiles, for which some MSS. have 
 incredulos: comp. dissoctabzlis, penetrabilis for adjectives in -d7/s with this 
 force. Lat. Vet. varies: zneruditos (f), non consentientes (d), contumaces (e). 
 
 & dpovycer Sixaiwy. The prep. of rest after a verb of motion expresses 
 the result of the motion (viii. 17; Mt. xiv. 3): ‘*Turn them so as fo de in 
 the wisdom >f the just.” For gpéynois see Lft. on Col. i. g: the word 
 
16 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [1 17-19. 
 
 occurs only here and Eph. i. 8in N.T. De Wette, Bleek, and others main- 
 tain that ¢péynots here means simply ‘‘ disposition,” Gesézzmung. In what 
 follows it is better to make érowudcar dependent upon émorpéya, not 
 co-ordinate with it. The preparation is the consequence of the conversion, 
 and the final object of the mpoekevoerar: ne Dominus populum tmparatum 
 majestate sua obterat (Beng.). 
 
 18. Kata ti yvécopat todto; The very question asked by 
 Abraham (Gen. xv. 8): “In accordance with what shall I obtain 
 knowledge of this?” #e¢. What shall be in harmony with it, so as 
 to be a sign of it? Comp. the cases of Gideon (Judg. vi. 36-39) 
 and of Hezekiah (2 Kings xx. 8), who asked for signs; also of 
 Moses (Exod. iv. 2-6) and of Ahaz (Is. vii. 11), to whom signs 
 were given unasked. The spirit in which such requests are made 
 may vary much, although the form of request may be the same, 
 and the fact that Zacharias had all these instances to instruct him 
 made his unbelief the less excusable. By his éy@ ydp ety, x.7.A., he 
 almost implies that the Angel must have forgotten the fact. 
 
 19. Groxpilels 6 Gyyehos ciev. In Attic droxplyowas, in Homeric and 
 Tonic droxplyouat, is used in the sense of ‘‘answering.” In N.T. broxpl- 
 vouot occurs only once (xx. 20), and there of ‘‘acting a part,” not ‘‘ answer- 
 ing”: comp. 2 Mac. v. 25. But dsoxpiOels for the class. dmoxpwdpevos 
 (which is rare in N.T.) marks the decay of the middle voice. In bibl. Grk. 
 the middle voice is dying ; in mod. Grk. it is dead. Machon, a comic poet 
 about B.c. 250, is perhaps the earliest writer who uses daexpl@yy like 
 dmexpivdunv in the sense of ‘‘replied, answered.” In LXX, as in N.T., 
 dwexpwapny is rare (Judg. v. 29 [A]; 1 Kings ii. 13 1 Chron. x. 13). See 
 Veitch, Greck Verbs, p. 78. 
 
 19. "Eyd eipt FaBpmr. Gabriel answers his éyd eiwe with 
 another. “Thou art old, and not likely to have children, but 
 I am one whose word is to be believed”: dyyéAw amuoteis, kat 7a 
 aroareihavtt (Eus.). The names of two heavenly beings are given 
 us in Scripture, Gabriel (Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21) and Michael (Dan. 
 X. 13, 21, xii. 1; Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7); other names were given in 
 the later Jewish tradition. It is one thing to admit that such 
 names are of foreign origin, quite another to assert that the belief 
 which they represent is an importation. Gabriel, the “Man of 
 God,” seems to be the representative of angelic ministry to man ; 
 Michael, ‘ Who is like God,” the representative of angelic opposi- 
 tion to Satan. In Scripture Gabriel is the angel of mercy, Michael 
 the angel of judgment. In Jewish legend the reverse is the case, 
 proving that the Bible does not borrow Jewish fables. In the 
 Targums Gabriel destroys Sennacherib’s army; in the O.T. he 
 instructs and comforts Daniel. The Rabbis said that Michael flies 
 in one flight, Gabriel in two, Elijah in four, and Death in eight ; 
 fe. mercy is swifter than judgment, and judgment is swifter than 
 destruction. 
 
 & mapeotnkds evdmov Tod Gcod. See on ver. 15. Gabriel is “the 
 
I. 19, 20.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY i7 
 
 angel of His presence” (Is. lxiii. 9; comp. Mt. xviii. 10). “*Stand- 
 ing before” implies ministering. In LXX the regular phrase is 
 mapacrhvat evwrvov (Jobi. 6, which is a close parallel to this; 1 Kings 
 XVil. 1, xvili. 15; 2 Kings iii. 14, v. 16). It is also used of service 
 to a king (1 Kings x. 8). But when Gehazi “stood before his 
 master,” we have wapeuoryKet mpos Tov KUptov adrod (2 Kings v. 25). 
 
 Only here and ix. 27 does Lk. use the unsyncopated form of the perf. part. 
 of Yornws and its compounds. Elsewhere he prefers éarws to éornKws (i. II, 
 v. I, 2, xviii. 13; Acts iv. 14, vii. 55, etc.) In Mt. xxvii. 47 and Mk. ix. 
 I and xi. 5, éoryxérwy is the right reading. In Jn. the unsyncopated form 
 is common. 
 
 émeotddny Aaijoat mpds cé kal edayyeNicacbat cor taita. This 
 reminds Zacharias of the extraordinary favour shown to him, and 
 so coldly welcomed by him. It is the first use in the Gospel 
 narrative of the word which was henceforward to be so current, 
 and to mean so much. In LXX it is used of any good tidings 
 (2 Sam. i. 20; 1 Chron. x. 9), but especially of communications 
 respecting the Messiah (Is. xl. 9, lii. 7, 1x. 6, lxi. 1). See on i. 10 
 and iv. 18. 
 
 20. kai i800 gon crwrdy Kal pi Suvdpevos Nadjoar. The idod is 
 Hebraistic, but is not rare in class. Grk. It introduces something 
 new with emphasis. Signum poscenti datur congruum, quamvis non 
 optatum (Beng.). The analytical form of the fut. marks the dura- 
 tion of the silence (comp. v. 10, vi. 40?, xvii. 35 ?, xxi. 17); and py 
 Suvdpevos, x.7.A., is added to show that the silence is not a voluntary 
 act, but the sign which was asked for (comp. Dan. x. 15). Thus 
 his wrong request is granted in a way which is at once a judgment 
 and a blessing ; for the unbelief is cured by the punishment. For 
 ow7dw of dumbness comp. 4 Mac. x. 18. 
 
 We have here one of many parallels in expression between Gospel and 
 Acts. Comp. this with Acts xiii. 11; i. 39 with Acts i. 15; i. 66 with Acts 
 xi. 21; ii. 9 with Acts xii. 7; xv. 20 with Acts xx. 37; xxi. 18 with Acts 
 XXVil. 343 xxiv. 19 with Acts vii. 22, 
 
 In N.T. 47 with the participle is the common constr., and in mod. Grk. 
 it is the invariable use. In Lk. there is only one instance of od with a parti- 
 ciple (vi. 42). See Win. lv. 5. 8, pp. 607-610; Lft. Zp. a St. Paul, p. 39, 
 1895. The combination of the negative with the positive statement of the 
 same thing, although found in class. Grk., is more common in Heb. literature. 
 In Acts xiii. 11 we have éon Tuddds wi) Bérwy ; comp. Jn. i. 3, 20, iii. 16, 
 x. 5, 18, xvilil. 20, xx. 27; Rev. ii. 13, ili. 9; Ps. Ixxxix. 30, 31, 48; 2Sam. 
 xiv. 5; Is. xxxviii. I, etc. 
 
 &Xpt hs hpépas. Gal. iii. 19 is the only certain exception to the rule 
 that dypr, not &xpis, usually precedes vowels in N.T. Comp. xvii. 27, xxi. 
 24, and see on xvi. 16. For the attraction, comp. Acts i. 2; Mt. xxiv. 38. 
 Attractions are specially freq. in Lk. Seeoniii. 19. ~ 
 
 av@ ov. Only in this phrase does dy7t suffer elision in N.T. It is 
 equivalent to dvri rovTwy 871, ‘‘for that, because” (xix. 44; Acts xii. 23; 
 2 Thes. ii. 10; Lev. xxvi. 43; 2 Kings xxii. 17; Ezek. v. 11). It is found 
 in class. Grk. (Soph. Am. 1068; Aristoph. P/ut. 434). 
 
 2 
 
18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LI 20-23 
 
 ofties. Stronger than the simple relative: ‘which are of such a 
 character that.” Comp. ii. 10, vii. 37, 39, viii. 3, 15. Almost always in nom, 
 
 els tov Karpov aitav. That which takes place in a time may be regarded 
 as entering into that time: the words go on to their fulfilment. Comp. els 7d 
 BéNoy (xiii. 9) and els 7d werakd) odBBarov (Acts xiii. 42). 
 
 QL. jv 5 Aads mpoodoxay. As in ver. 20, the analytical tense 
 marks the duration of the action. Zacharias was longer than was 
 customary; and the Talmud states that the priests were accustomed 
 to return soon to prevent anxiety. It was feared that in so sacred 
 a place they might incur God’s displeasure, and be slain (Lev. xvi. 
 13). Hence éQavpatov év ta xpovitervy, “They were wondering while 
 he tarried.” Comp. ver. 8, and see on iii. 21. The common 
 rendering, “ a¢ his tarrying,” or “ because he tarried,” guod tardaret, 
 is improbable even if possible. This would have been otherwise 
 expressed: éOavpalov émi (ii. 33, iv. 22, ix. 43, etc.), which D reads - 
 here; or dia (Mk. vi. 6; Jn. vii. 21); or Sze (xi. 385; Jn. iii. 7, iv. 
 27); Or epi (ii. 18). 
 
 22. odk eduvato Nahijoar adtois. He ought to pronounce the 
 benediction (Num. vi. 24-26) from the steps, either alone or with 
 other priests. His look and his inability to speak told them at 
 once that something extraordinary had taken place ; and the sacred 
 circumstances would suggest a supernatural appearance, even if his 
 signs did not make this clear to them. 
 
 The compound éréyvwoay implies clear recognition and full knowledge 
 (v. 22, xxiv. 16, 31); and the late form émtactay (for dyxv) is commonly used 
 of supernatural sights (xxiv. 23; Acts xxvi. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 1; Dan. ix. 23, 
 x. I, 7, 8, 16). For kal avrds, “‘he on his part,” as distinct from the con- 
 gregation, see on ver. 17, and Win. xxii. 4. b, p. 187. The periphrastic tense 
 jv Suavevwv again calls attention to the continued action. The verb is found 
 here only in N.T., but occurs twice in LXX (Ps. xxxiv. 19; Ecclus. xxvii. 
 22). In Stduerve kapds both the compound and the tense emphasize the fact 
 that it was no mere temporary seizure (xxii. 28; Gal. ii. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 4). 
 
 28. ds ewryjoOyoav at Hpepar THs Aevtoupytas adtos. When the 
 week for which the course of Abijah was on duty for public service 
 was at an end. See on v.15 and 57. In class. Grk. Aeroupyia 
 (Xeds, Epyov) is freq. of public service undertaken by a citizen at 
 his own expense. In bibl. Grk. it is used of priestly service in the 
 worship of God (Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21; Num. viii. 22, xvi. 9, xviii. 4; 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 2), and also of service to the needy (2 Cor. ix. 12; 
 Phil. ii. 30). 
 
 daqOev ets Tdv otkov attos. This was not in Jerusalem, in the 
 Ophel quarter, where many of the priests resided, but in an un- 
 named town in the hill-country south of Jerusalem (ver. 39). It is 
 probable that most of the priests who did not live in the city itself 
 resided in the towns and villages in the neighbourhood. Con- 
 venience would suggest that they should live inside Judea. In 
 Neh. xi. 10-19 we have 1192 priests in Jerusalem ; in 1 Chron. ix 
 
I, 23-25.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 19 
 
 13 we have 1760. Later authorities speak of 24,000; but such 
 figures are very untrustworthy. The whole question of the resi- 
 dences of the priests is an obscure one, and Josh. xxi. must not be 
 quoted as evidence for more than a projected arrangement. That 
 it was carried into effect and maintained, or that it was revived after 
 the Exile, is a great deal more than we know. Schiirer, Jewish 
 People in the T. of J. C. ii. 1, p. 229. 
 
 24, cuvé\aBev. The word occurs eleven times in Lk. against 
 five times elsewhere. He alone uses it in the sense of conceiving 
 offspring, and only in these first two chapters (vv. 31, 36, ii. 21). 
 This sense is common in medical writers and in Aristotle. Hobart 
 remarks that the number of words referring to pregnancy and 
 barrenness used by Lk. is almost as great as that used by Hippo- 
 crates: év yaorpl éxewv (xxi. 23), €yxvos (ii. 5), oretpa (i. 7), drexvos 
 (xx. 28). And, excepting év yaorpi éxev, all of these are peculiar 
 to himself in N.T. (Zed. Lang. of LR. p. 91). 
 
 meptexpuBev éautyy pivas wévte. The reflexive pronoun brings 
 out more forcibly than the middle voice would have done that the 
 act was entirely her own (Acts xxiii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 31; 1 Jn. i. 8); 
 and the compound verb implies a// round, complete concealment. 
 Her motive can only be conjectured ; but the enigmatical conduct 
 and remark are evidence of historic truth, for they would not be 
 likely to be invented. The five months are the first five months ; 
 and at the end of them it would be evident that she had ceased 
 to be % oretpa (ver. 36). During these five months she did not 
 wish to risk hearing a reproach, which had ceased to be true, but 
 which she would not care to dispute. She withdrew, therefore, 
 until all must know that the reproach had been removed. 
 
 The form éxpvBoy is late: in class. Grk. Expuya is used. But a present 
 xpUBw is found, of which this might be the imperfect. 
 
 It can hardly be accidental that my is scarcely ever used in N.T. in a 
 literal sense by any writer except Lk., who has it five times in his 
 and five times in the Acts. The chronological details involved in thi 
 frequent use are the results of the careful investigation of which he writes in 
 the preface. The other passages are Gal. iv. 10; Jas. v. 17, and six times 
 oS aa So also éros occurs fifteen times in Lk. and six in Mt. Mk. 
 and Jn. 
 
 25. émeidev ddedetv Sverdds pou ev dvOpdros. The object of 
 ércidey is neither éué understood (as all English Versions except 
 Wic. and Rhem.) nor 76 dveidés pov (Hofmann), but ddedciy: 
 “watched to take away, taken care to remove.” The constr. seems 
 to be unique; but comp. Acts xv. 14. Alford and Holtzmann 
 translate “hath designed, condescended to remove”; but can 
 éetdev mean that? Elsewhere in N.T. it occurs only Acts iv. 29; 
 but in class. Grk. it is specially used of the gods regarding human 
 affairs (Aesch. Suppl. 1. 1031; Sept. 485). Hdt. «124. 2 is not 
 
20 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L 2%, 26. 
 
 rightly quoted as parallel. Omitting éweidev, Rachel makes the 
 same remark: “AdeiAev 6 @eds prov 76 dveidos (Gen. xxx. 23 ; comp. 
 Ps. cxiii. 9; Is. iv. 1); but the different position of the pov is 
 worth noting. In é& dvOpwros we have another amphibolous 
 expression (see on ver. 8). It may be taken with ddeAciv, but 
 more probably it belongs to 76 évetdds pov (ver. 36). 
 
 26-88. Zhe Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour. 
 
 The birth of the Baptist is parallel to the birth of Isaac; that 
 of the Messiah to the creation of Adam. Jesus is the second 
 Adam. But once more there is no violent breach with the past. 
 Even in its revolutions Providence is conservative. Just as the 
 Prophet who is to renovate Israel is taken from the old priesthood, 
 so the Christ who is to redeem the human race is not created out 
 of nothing, but “ born of a woman.” 
 
 26. eis modu THs TodtNatas 4 dvopa Nafapér. The description 
 perhaps implies that Lk. is writing for those who are not familiar 
 with the geography of Palestine. There is no reason for believing 
 that he himself was unfamiliar with it. Comp. ver. 39, iv. 31, 
 Vil. /I1, Vill.''26, 1X. 10, XVI. EL, 31%29;/37, 40 
 
 Galilee is one of many geographical names which have gradually extended 
 their range. It was originally a little ‘‘circuit” of territory round Kadesh- 
 Naphtali containing the towns given by Solomon to Hiram (1 Kings ix. 11). 
 This was called the ‘‘circuit of the Gentiles,” because the inhabitants were 
 strangers (I Mac. v. 15, Tad. dd\d\oPiAwy). But it grew, until in the time of 
 Christ it included the territory of Naphtali, Asher, Zebulon, and Issachar 
 (D.Z.7 i. p. 1117). For a description of this region see Jos. B. /. iii. 3. 1-3. 
 Nazareth is mentioned neither in O.T. nor in Josephus, but it was probably 
 not a new town in our Lord’s time. The site is an attractive one, in a basin 
 among the south ridges of Lebanon. The sheltered valley is very fruitful, and 
 abounds in flowers. From the hill behind the town the view over Lebanon, 
 Hermon, Carmel, the Mediterranean, Gilead, Tabor, Gilboa, the plain of 
 Esdraelon, and the mountains of Samaria, is very celebrated (Renan, Vze de /. 
 p- 27). It would seem as if Mt. (ii. 23) was not aware that Nazareth was the 
 original home of Joseph and Mary. 
 
 
 
 1¢°Tt has been argued that the different modes in which God is recorded to 
 have communicated with men, in St. Matthew by dreams and in St. Luke by 
 Angels, show the extent of the subjective influence of the writer’s mind upon 
 the narrative. But surely those are right who see in this difference the use of 
 various means adapted to the peculiar state of the recipient. Moreover, as St. 
 Matthew recognizes the ministry of Angels (xxviii. 2), so St. Luke relates 
 Visions (Acts x. 9-16, xvi. 9, xviii. 9, 10). . . . It is to be noticed that the 
 contents of the divine messages (Matt. i. 20, 21; Luke i. 30-33) are related 
 conversely to the general character of tne Gospels, as a consequence of the 
 difference of character in those to whom they are addressed. The promise of 
 Redemption is made to Joseph ; of a glorious Kingdom to the Virgin” (Wsctt. 
 Int. to Gospels, p. 317, 7th ed.). 
 
I. 26-28.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 21 
 
 The form of the name of the town varies much, between Nazareth, Nazaret, 
 Nazara, and Nazarath. Keim has twice contended strongly for Nazara (/. of 
 Naz., Eng. tr. ii. p. 16, iv. p. 108); but he has not persuaded many of the 
 correctness of his conclusions. WH. consider that ‘‘the evidence when 
 tabulated presents little ambiguity” (ii. App. p. 160). Nafapd@ is found 
 frequently (eight out of eleven times) in Codex A, but hardly anywhere else. 
 Nafapd is used once by Mt. (iv. 13), and perhaps once by Lk. (iv. 16). 
 Nagapé@ occurs once in Mt. (xxi. 11) and once in Acts (x. 38). Everywhere 
 else (Mt. ii. 23; Mk. i. 9; Lk. i. 26, ii. 4, 39, 51; Jn. i. 46, 47) we have 
 certainly or probably Nafapér. Thus Mt. uses the three possible forms 
 equally ; Lk. all three with a decided preference for Nazaret; while Mk. and 
 Jn. use Nazaret only. This appears to be fairly conclusive for Nazaret. Yet 
 Scrivener holds that ‘‘regarding the orthography of this word no reasonable 
 certainty is to be attained” (Jt. ¢o Crit. of N.T. ii. p. 316); and Alford 
 seems to be of a similar opinion (i. Prolegom. p. 97). Weiss thinks that 
 Nazara may have been the original form, but that it had already become 
 unusual when the Gospels were written. The modern town is called 2” 
 Nazzrah, and is shunned by Jews. Its population of 5000 is mainly Christian, 
 with a few Mahometans. 
 
 27. éuvnoteupévnv. This is the N.T. form of the word (ii. 5): in 
 LXX we have peuvyorevp. (Deut. xxii. 28). The interval between 
 betrothal and marriage was commonly a year, during which the 
 bride lived with her friends. But her property was vested in her 
 future husband, and unfaithfulness on her part was punished, like 
 adultery, with death (Deut. xxii. 23, 24). The case of the woman 
 taken in adultery was probably a case of this kind. 
 
 ef oixou Aaveid. It is unnecessary, and indeed impossible, to 
 decide whether these words go with avdpi, or with wap@évoy, or 
 with both. The. last is the least probable, but Chrysostom and 
 Wieseler support it. From vv. 32 and 69 we may with probability 
 infer that Lk. regards Mary as descended from David. In ii. 4 he 
 states this of Joseph. Independently of the present verse, therefore, 
 we may infer that, just as John was of priestly descent both by 
 Zacharias and Elisabeth, so Jesus was of royal descent both by 
 Mary and Joseph. The title “Son of David” was publicly given 
 to Jesus and never disputed (Mt. i. 1, ix. 27, xil. 23, xv. 22, 
 xx. 30, 31; Mk. x. 47, 48; Lk. xviii. 38, 39). In the Zest. XZZ. 
 Patr. Christ is said to be descended from Zevé and Judah 
 (Simeon vii.); and the same idea is found in a fragment of 
 Ireneeus (frag. xvii., Stieren, p. 836). It was no doubt based, 
 as Schleiermacher bases it’ (S¢. Zuke, Eng. tr. p. 28), on the fact 
 that Elisabeth, who was of Levi, was related to Mary (see on 
 ver. 36). The repetition involved in ts mapOévou is in favour of 
 taking e& oixov Aaveid with dvdp/: otherwise we should have ex- 
 pected airjs. But this is not conclusive. 
 
 28. Xaipe, kexapitwpévyn.t Note the alliteration and the con- 
 
 1 The Ave Maria as a liturgical address to the Virgin consists of three 
 
 parts, two of which are scriptural and one not. The first two parts, ‘‘ Hail, 
 Mary, full of grace: the Tord is ~ith thee,” and ‘‘ Blessed art thou among 
 
22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 28-30. 
 
 nexion between xafpe and xdpis. The gratiz plena of the Vulg. 
 is too indefinite. It is right, if it means “full of grace, which 
 thou hast reetved”; wrong, if it means “full of grace, which 
 thou hast to bestow.” From Eph. i. 6 and the analogy of verbs 
 IN -w, Kexapitwpévy must mean “endued with grace” (Ecclus.- 
 xviii. 17). Von ut mater gratiz, sed ut filia gratie (Beng.). 
 What follows explains xeyapitwpévn, for with pera cod we under- 
 stand éo7, not éorw (comp. Judg. vi. 12). It is because the Lord 
 is with her that she is endued with grace. Tyn., Cov., and Cran., 
 no less than Wic. and Rhem., have “full of grace”; Genev. has 
 “freely beloved.” 
 
 The familiar edAoynuévn od ev yuvasély, although well attested (A C DX 
 PAT, Latt. Syrr. Aeth. Goth., Tert. Eus.), probably is an interpolation 
 borrowed from ver. 42: 8 BL, Aegyptt. Arm. omit. 
 
 29. Here also léofca (A), for which some Latin texts have cum audisset, 
 is an interpolation borrowed perhaps from ver. 12. It is not stated that Mary 
 saw Gabriel. The pronominal use of the article (7 65é) is rare in N.T. 
 (Acts i. 6; Mt. ii. 5, 9). It is confined to phrases with wév and 6é, and 
 mostly to nom. masc. and fem. 
 
 SvetapdxOy. Here only in N.T. It is stronger than érapay6n 
 in ver. 12. Neither Zacharias nor Mary are accustomed to 
 visions or voices: they are troubled by them. There is no 
 evidence of hysterical excitement or hallucination in either case. 
 The Stedoyifero, “reckoned up different reasons,” is in itself 
 against this. The verb is confined to the Synoptic Gospels 
 (v. 21, 22; Mk. ii. 6, 8): Jn. xi. 50 the true reading is AoyieoOe. 
 
 mwotamés. In N.T. this adj. never has the local signification, 
 “from what country or nation?” cujas? (Aesch. Cho. 575; Soph. 
 O.C. 1160). It is synonymous with zotos, a use which is found in 
 Demosthenes ; and it always implies astonishment, with or without 
 admiration (vii. 39; Mt. viii. 27; Mk. xiii. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 11; 1 Jn. 
 iii. 1). In LXX it does not occur. The original form is zodazés, 
 and may come from zod ad; but -damos is perhaps a mere ter- 
 mination. 
 
 ety. It is only in Lk. in N.T. that we find the opt. in indirect questions. 
 In him it is freq. both without dy (iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 23; Acts xvii. I1, 
 xxi. 33, xxv. 20) and with dy (vi. 11; Acts v. 24, x. 17). In Acts viii. 31 we 
 have opt. with dy in a direct question. Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 1123 
 Win. xli. 4. c, p. 374. 
 
 80. Mi poBod, Mapidp, eSpes yap xdpw mapd ta Ocg. See on 
 
 women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (ver. 42), are first found in the 
 Liber Antiphonianus attributed to Gregory the Great ; and they were authorized 
 as a formula to be taught with the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, ¢. A.D. 1198. 
 The third part, ‘‘ Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at 
 the hour of death,” was added in the fifteenth century, and was authorized by 
 Pope Pius v. in 1568. 
 
L 80-33.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 23 
 
 ver. 13. The etpes xdpw 7. 7.®. explains xexapitwpevy. The phrase 
 is Hebraic: Nde etpev xdpw evavriov Kupiov tod @eod (Gen. vi. 8; 
 comp. xviii. 3, xxxix. 4). See on iv. 22. 
 
 ovhAypayy. For the word see on ver. 24, and for the form comp. ii. 21, 
 xx. 47; Acts i. 8, ii. 38, xxiii. 27; Jn. v. 43, xvi. 14, 15, 24. In Ionic we 
 have fut. Adupount. Veitch, p. 359; Win. v. 4. f, p. 54. 
 
 év yaotpt kat TéEn vidv, Kat Kahécets 76 Svowa. The same word- 
 ing is found Gen. xvi. 16 of Ishmael, and Is. vil. 14 of Immanuel. 
 Comp. Gen. xvii. 19 of Isaac, and Mt. i. 21 of Jesus. In all cases 
 the xaAéoeis is not a continuation of the prophecy, but a command, 
 as in most of the Ten Commandments (Mt. v. 21, 27, 33; comp. 
 Ek iv. 12; Acts xxiii. 5, etc.). Win. xii. 5. c, p. 396. The 
 name "Ingots was revealed independently to Joseph also (Mt. i. 21). 
 It appears in the various forms of Oshea, Hoshea, Jehoshua, 
 Joshua, Jeshua, and Jesus. Its meaning is “ Jehovah is help,” o1 
 “God the Saviour.” See Pearson, Om the Creed, art. ii. sub init. 
 p- 131, ed. 1849. 
 
 32. obtos gota: péyas. As in ver. 15, this is forthwith ex- 
 plained; and the greatness of Jesus is very different from the 
 greatness of John. The title vids ‘Ywiorou expresses some very 
 close relation between Jesus and Jehovah, but not the Divine Son- 
 ship in the Trinity ; comp. vi. 35. On the same principle as @eés 
 and Kvptos, “Yyoros is anarthrous: there can be only one Highest 
 (Eeclus, vil. 15, xvil. 26, xix. 17, Xxiv. 2, 23, xxix. 11, efc.). The 
 kAnPyjceTar is not a mere substitute for ora: He not only shall be 
 the Son of God, but shall be recognised as such. In the Acti Pauli 
 et fi heclee we have Makdpuot of codiavy AaBdvtes “Inood Xprorod, Ste 
 abrtoi viol iyiorou KAyOycovrat (Tischendorf, p. 239). For t3v Opévov 
 Aaveid comp. 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13 ; IShixs 6,775 xvii; 
 
 AavelS tod matpds adtod. This is thought to imply the Davidic 
 descent of Mary; but the inference is not quite certain. Jesus 
 was the heir of Joseph, as both genealogies imply. Comp. Ps. 
 cxxxii. 11; Hos. iii. 14. There is abundant evidence of the belief 
 that the Messiah would spring from David: Mk. xii. 35, x. 47, 
 xi. 10; Lk. xviii. 38, xx. 41; 4 Ezra xii. 32 (Syr. Arab. Arm.) ; Ps. 
 Sol. xvii. 23, 24; Talmud and Targums. See on Rom. i. 3 
 
 83. Baotledoer . . . els Tods aidvas. Comp. “ But of the Son 
 he saith, God is Thy throne for ever and ever” (Heb. i. 8, where 
 see Wsctt.); also Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14; Jn. xii. 34; Rev. xi. 15. 
 The eternity of Christ’s kingdom is assured by the fact that it is to 
 be absorbed in the kingdom of the Father (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). 
 These magnificent promises could hardly have been invented by a 
 writer who was a witness of the condition of the Jews during the 
 half century which followed the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed, 
 we may perhaps go further and say that “it breathes the spirit of 
 
24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 33-36, 
 
 the Messianic hope before it had received the rude and crushing 
 blow in the rejection of the Messiah” (Gore, Dissertations, p. 16). 
 Comp. 2. 17, 54, 55, 68-71, li. 38. ; 
 
 _ The constr. Bagthevew éml c. acc. is not classical. We have it again 
 
 xix. 14, 27. 
 
 834, Mas €otor todto. She does not ask for proof, as Zacharias 
 did (ver. 18); and only in the form of the words does she ask as to 
 the mode of accomplishment. Her utterance is little more than 
 an involuntary expression of amazement: zon dubitantis sed admir- 
 antis (Grotius). In contrasting her with Zacharias, Ambrose says, 
 Hee jam de negotio tractat; wWle adhuc de nuntio dubitat. It is 
 clear that she does not doubt the fact promised, nor fora moment 
 suppose that her child is to be the child of Joseph. 
 
 émet Gvdpa ob ywdoxw. Comp. Gen. xix. 8; Judg. xi. 39; 
 Num. xxxi. 17. The words are the avowal of a maiden conscious 
 of her own purity; and they are drawn from her by the strange 
 declaration that she is to have a son before she is married. It is 
 very unnatural to understand the words as a vow of perpetual 
 virginity, or as stating that such a vow has already been taken, or 
 is about to be taken. It is difficult to reconcile ov« éyivwoxey (im- 
 perf., not aor.) adriy ews (Mt. i. 25) with any such vow.! 
 
 35. Mveipa a&yrov émehedcetat emt o€. It may be doubted whether 
 the article is omitted “‘ because Holy Spirit is here a proper name” ; 
 rather because it is regarded impersonally as the creative power of 
 God. Comp. kat rvetpya cod érepépero éxdvw Tod vdatos (Gen. i. 2): 
 the two passages are very parallel. See on ver. 15. Both zvedua 
 and dy.ov have special point. It is spirit and not flesh, what is 
 holy and not what is sinful, that is to produce this effect in her. 
 With éredctoera eri cé comp. Acts i. 3. Excepting Eph. ii. 7 and 
 Jas. v. i, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (xi. 22, xxi. 26; Acts i. 8, 
 Vili. 24, Xiil. 40, Xiv. 19). 
 
 Sdvapis ‘Ywiorou émoxidcer gor. For Suvapis see on iv. 143 for 
 émokidcer comp. the account of the Transfiguration (ix. 34), and 
 for the dat. comp. the account of Peter’s shadow (Acts v. 15). It 
 is the idea of the Shechinah which is suggested here (Exod. xl. 38). 
 The cloud of glory signified the Divine presence and power, and it 
 is under such influence that Mary is to become a mother. 
 
 8.6. This illative particle is rare in the Gospels (vii. 7; Mt. xxvii. 8); 
 not in Mk. or Jn. 
 
 Td yevvevov Gytov KAnOAceTaL vids Geos. “ The holy thing which 
 shall be born shall be called the Son of God,” or, ‘‘That which 
 
 1H. Lasserre renders pucsque je n'ai nul rapport avec mon marz, and ex- 
 plains that avy s¢guzfie mari, epoux; et la phrase marque la voeu de virginite 
 conjugale fait par Marie (pp. 265, 564, ed. 1887). It is impossible that dvdpa, 
 without either article or possessive pronoun, can mean ‘‘ my husband,” 
 
L. 35-37.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 25 
 
 shall be born shall be called holy, the Son of God.” The latter of 
 these two renderings seems to be preferable. Comp. &y:ov t6 xupiw 
 KAnOyoerar (ii. 22); Nalwpaios xAnOyoerar (Mt. il. 23); viol Ocod 
 KAnOnoovra (v. 9); eAdxuoros KAnOyoerat and péyas KX. (v. 19). In 
 all cases the appellation precedes the verb. The unborn child is 
 Ee dy.ov as being free from all taint of sin. De hoc Sancto idem 
 
 ngelus est locutus, Dan. ix. 24 (Beng.). The é« ood, which many 
 Bathorities insert after yevvdpevoy, is probably an ancient gloss, de- 
 rived perhaps from Mt. i. 16: 8 AB C?D and most versions omit. 
 
 The title “Son of God,” like “Son of Man,” was a recognized 
 designation of the Messiah. In £xoch, and often in 4 Ezra, the 
 Almighty speaks of the Messiah as His Son, Christ seldom used 
 it of Himself (Mt. xxvii. 43; Jn. x. 36). But we have it in the 
 voice from heaven (ill. 22, ix. 35); in Peters confession (Mt. 
 xvi. 16); in the centurion’s exclamation (Mk. xv. 39); in the devil’s 
 challenge (iv. 3, 9); in the cries of demoniacs (Mk. iii. 11, v. 7). 
 Very early the Christian Church chose it as a concise statement of 
 the divine nature of Christ. See on Rom. i. 4, and Swete, Apost. 
 Creed, p. 24. For éywov see on Rom.i. 7. The radical meaning 
 is “set apart for God, consecrated.” 
 
 86. Kal idod "EXewdBer  auyyevis cov. Comp. ver. 20. Mary, 
 who did not ask for one, receives a more gracious sign than 
 Zacharias, who demanded it. The relationship between her and 
 Elisabeth is unknown. 
 
 *€Cousin,” started by Wiclif, and continued until RV. substituted ‘‘kins- 
 woman,” has now become too definite in meaning. The kinship has led 
 artists to represent the two children as being playmates; but Jn. i. 31 seems 
 to be against such companionship. It has also led to the conjecture that 
 Jesus was descended from both Levi and Judah (see on ver. 27). But Levites 
 might marry with other tribes; and therefore Elisabeth, who was descended 
 from Aaron, might easily be related to one who was descended from David. 
 This verse is not evidence that Mary was not of the house of David. 
 
 The late form cuyyevis (comp. evyevis), and the Ion. dat. yjpet for yipg 
 (Gen. xv. 15, xxi. 7, xxv. 8), should be noticed ; also that obros being the 
 subject, the noun has no article. Comp. xxi. 22. The combination kat 
 odros is peculiar to Lk. (viii. 41?, xvi. I, xx. 28). The relative ages cf Jesus 
 and of John are fixed by this statement. 
 
 We may take xadXouuévy as imperf. part., ‘‘ Used to be called.” This 
 reproach would cease when she reappeared at the end of the five months 
 (ver. 24). xaXoUmevos with appellations is freq. in Lk. 
 
 87. odk dduvatjcet Tapa Tod Gcod wav Aya. The negative and 
 the verb are to be closely combined and taken as the predicate of 
 wav phya. We must not take ot« with wav. This is plain from 
 Gen. xviii. 14: py addvvaret wapa Td Ocd wav ppya; “ Hath God 
 said, and can He not do it?” ze. Is anything which God has pro- 
 mised impossible? RV. here has “be void of power” for ddvvarety ; 
 but it is doubtful whether the verb ever has this signification. Of 
 things, it means “to be impossible” (Mt. xvii. 20); and of persons, 
 
26 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L. 87, 88. 
 
 “to be unable” ; in which case, like Suvareiy (Rom. xiv. 4; 2 Cor. 
 ix. 8), it is followed by the infin. That “be impossible” is the 
 meaning, both here and Gen. xviii. 14, is probable from Job xlii. 2, 
 olda Ore mavta Svvacat, advvarel 5é cor ovf&v ; and from Zech. viii. 6, 
 where ddvvaryjce is used of a thing being too hard for man but not 
 too hard for God; and from Jer. xxxii. 17, where both Aquila and 
 Symmachus have ov« advvaryce for ob px) aroxpyBy of LXX. We 
 render, therefore, “ From God no word shall be impossible.” The 
 idiom ov - . . was, in the sense of “all . . . not,” ze. “none,” is 
 probably Hebraic. Comp. Mt. xxiv. 22. It is less common in 
 N.T. than in LXX (Exod. xii. 16, 44, xx. 16; Dan. ii. 10, etc.), 
 Win. xxvi. I, p. 214. 
 
 38. “150d % SouAn Kupiov. That idov is not a verb, but an 
 exclamation, is manifest from the verbless nominative which follows 
 it. Comp. v. 12, 18. . “Handmaid” or “servant” is hardly 
 adequate to SovAn. It is rather “bondmaid” or “slave.” In an 
 age in which almost all servants were slaves, the idea which is 
 represented by our word “servant” could scarcely arise. In N.T. 
 the fem. SovAy occurs only here, ver. 48, and Acts ii. 18, the last 
 being a quotation. 
 
 yévoTsd por kata Td fApd cov. This is neither a prayer that 
 what has been foretold may take place, nor an expression of joy at 
 the prospect. Rather it is an expression of swbmission,—“ God’s 
 will be done”: zivag eiue ypdpomevos: 6 Bovderar 6 ypadeds, 
 ypadérw (Eus.). Mary must have known how her social position 
 and her relations with Joseph would be affected by her being with 
 child before her marriage. There are some who maintain that the 
 revelation made to Joseph (Mt. i. 18-23) is inconsistent with what 
 Lk. records here ; for would not Mary have told him of the angelic 
 message? We may reasonably answer that she would not do so. 
 Her own inclination would be towards reserve (ii. 51); and what 
 likelihood was there that he would believe so amazing a story? 
 She would prefer to leave the issue with regard to Joseph in God’s 
 hands. 
 
 dmjdOev am adits 6 dyyedos. Ut peracta legatione. Comp. 
 Acts xii. 10; Judg. vi. 21. 
 
 On the whole of this exquisite narrative Godet justly remarks: ‘* Quelle 
 dignité, quelle pureté, quelle simplicité, quelle délicatesse dans tout ce dialogue! 
 Pas un mot de trop, pas un de trop peu. Une telle narration n’a pu émaner que 
 de la sphere sainte dans laquelle le fait lui-méme avait eu leu” (i. p. 128, 3eme 
 ed. 1888). Contrast the attempts in the apocryphal gospels, the writers of 
 which had our Gospels to imitate, and yet committed such gross offences against 
 
 taste, decency, and even morality. What would their inventions have been if 
 they had had no historical Gospels to guide them? 
 
 Dr. Swete has shown that the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception 
 was from the earliest times part of the Creed. Beginning with Justin 
 Martyr (Afo/. i. 21, 31, 32, 33, 63; Z7y. 23, 48, 100), he traces back 
 
Lt 38, 39.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 27 
 
 through Aristides (J. R. Harris, p. 24; Hennecke, p. 9; Barnes, Canon. and 
 Uncanon. Gospfp. p. 13), Ignatius (Eph. xix.; Trall. ix.; Smyr. i.), the 
 Valentinians, and Basilides, to S. Luke, to whom these Gnostics appealed. 
 The silence of S. Mark is of no weight; his record does not profess to go 
 farther back than the ministry of the Baptist. In the Third Gospel we reach 
 not merely the date of the Gospel (A.D. 75-80), but the date of the early 
 traditions incorporated in these first chapters, traditions preserved (possibly 
 in writing) at Jerusalem, and derived from Mary herself. 
 
 The testimony of the First Gospel is perhaps even earlier in origin, and is 
 certainly independent. It probably originated with Joseph, as the other with 
 Mary (Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 78; Dissertatzons on Subjects connected 
 with the Incarnatzon, pp. 12-40). Greatly as the two narratives differ, both 
 bear witness to the virgin birth (Swete, Zhe Apostles’ Creed, ch. iv.). 
 
 89-56. Zhe Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother 
 of the Forerunner. 
 
 This narrative grows naturally out of the two which precede it 
 in this group. The two women, who through Divine interposition 
 are about to become mothers, meet and confer with one another. 
 Not that a desire to talk about her marvellous experience prompts 
 Mary to go, but because the Angel had suggested it (ver. 36). 
 That Joseph’s intention of putting her away caused the journey, is 
 an unnecessary conjecture. 
 
 It is not easy to see why the Song of Elisabeth is not given in metrical 
 form either in WH. orin RV. It seems to have the characteristics of Hebrew 
 poetry in a marked degree, if not in so full a manner as the Magnificat, 
 Benedictus, and Nunc Dimittis. It consists of two strophes of four lines 
 each, thus— 
 
 Rindoynuévn od ev yuvaséely, 
 
 kal evAoynuévos 6 Kapmds Tis KoiAlas cov. 
 kal 1é0ev por TOTO 
 
 ta Eq H warp Tod Kuplov pou mpds eué 5 
 
 Sod yap ws éyévero 7) Pwvh Tod doracpod cov els TA Grd pov, 
 éoxlprnoev év dryaddidoet Td Bpédos ev TH Kotla pov. 
 kal paxapla 7 mictevoaca bre €orar TeAElwors 
 Tots Aadypévots avty mapa Kuplov. 
 
 On all four songs see a paper on ‘‘ Messianic Psalms of the N.T.,” ty 
 B. B. Warfield, Zxfosztor, 3rd series, ii. pp. 301, 321 ff. 
 
 89. “Avactaoa. A very favourite word with Lk., who has it 
 about sixty times against about twenty-two times in the rest of 
 N.T. It occurs hundreds of times in LXX. Of preparation for 
 a journey it is specially common (xv. 18, 20; Acts x. 20, xxii. Io, 
 etc.). Lk. is also fond of such phrases as év tats tpépats TavTats, 
 Or €v Tais ypépats Twos (Ver. 5, li. I, iv. 2, 25, V. 35, Vi. 12, ix. 36, 
 eres Acts 1. £5, i) 18, Vv. 37, Vi. I, Vil. az, etc.). ‘They are: not 
 found in Jn., and occur only four times in Mt., and the same in Mk. 
 Here “in those days” means soon after the Annunciation. As 
 
28 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 39-42. 
 
 the projected journey was one of several days, it would require time 
 to arrange it and find an escort. See small print note on ver. 20. 
 émopedOn eis Thy puny. There is no trace of “Opewy as a 
 proper name; 7 épwy means the mountainous part of Judah as 
 distinct from the plain (ver. 65; Gen. xiv. 10; Num. xiii. 29; 
 Josh. ix. 1, x. 40; comp. Judith 1. 6, ii. 22, iv. 7). It is worth 
 noting that in this narrative, which is from an independent source, 
 Lk. twice uses 4 dpw7. Elsewhere, When he is on the same ground 
 as Mt. and Mk., he uses, as they do, 70 6pos (vi. 12, Vili. 32, ix. 
 28, 37). None of them use either é 6pos or Ta Opn. Lft. On a Fresh 
 Revision of NV. TZ. pp. 124, 186, 3rd ed. 1891. For the shortening of 
 Opewn} to épwy see WH. ii. App. p. 154. Grotius rightly remarks on 
 peta omroudys, 7e negligeret signum quod augende ipsius jiduciz Deus 
 assignaverat. Comp. Mk. vi. 25 ; Exod. xii. 11 ; Wisd. xix. 2. 
 eis 7éAuv “lovda. Lk. does not give the name, probably because 
 he did not know it. It may have been Hebron, just as it may 
 have been any town in the mountainous part of Judah, and Hebron 
 was chief among the cities allotted to the priests. But if Lk. had 
 meant Hebron, he would either have named it or have written tiv 
 7oAw in the sense of the chief priestly dwelling. But it is very 
 doubtful whether the arrangement by which certain cities were 
 allotted to the priests was carried into effect; and, if so, whether 
 it continued. Certainly priests often lived elsewhere. Eli lived 
 at Shiloh, Samuel at Ramathaim-Zophim, Mattathias at Modin. 
 None of these had been allotted to the priests. See on ver. 23. 
 
 That ’Io’da is the name of the town, and represents Juttah ("Irdv or "Ierrd 
 or Tay’), which was in the mountain region of Judah (Josh. xv. 55), and had 
 been allotted to the priests (Josh. xxi. 16), is possible. Reland (1714) was 
 perhaps the first to advocate this. Robinson found a village called Yztah in 
 that region (Zes. 2 Fal. ii. p. 206), and the identification is attractive. But 
 the best authorities seem to regard it as precarious. A tradition, earlier than 
 the Crusades, makes Azz Karim to be the birthplace of John the Baptist. 
 Didon (/ésus Christ, App. D) contends for this, appealing to V. Guerin, 
 Description de la Palestine, i. p. 83, and Fr, Liévin, Gucde de la Palestine, ii. 
 But it is best to regard the place as an unknown town of Judah. In any case, 
 the spelling ‘‘Juda” (AV.) is indefensible ; comp. iii. 33. 
 
 41. éyéveto . . . eoxiptncev. See detached note at the end of 
 the chapter. It is improbable that in her salutation Mary told 
 Elisabeth of the angelic visit. The salutation caused the move- 
 ment of the unborn child, and Elisabeth is inspired to interpret 
 this sign aright. Grotius states that the verb is a medical word for 
 the movement of children in the womb, but he gives no instances. 
 It is used Gen. xxv. 22 of the unborn Esau and Jacob, and Ps. 
 cxili. 4, 6 of the mountains skipping like rams. In class. Grk. it is 
 used of the skipping both of animals and of men. For émAjo8n 
 mveupatos Gyiou see ON ver. 15. as = “ when ” is very freq. in Lk. 
 
 42, dvepwvncev. 1 Chron. xv. 28, xvi. 4, 5, 42; 2 Chron. 
 
L 42-45. | THE GOSPEL OF TIIE INFANCY 29 
 
 v. 13; here only in N.T. Lk. frequently records strong expres- 
 sions of emotion, adding peydAn to kpavyn, wry, xapd, etc. (il. 10, 
 iv. 33, Vili. 28, xvil. 15, XIX. 37, xxii, 23, 46, xxiv. 52). It is 
 perhaps because kpavyy seemed less appropriate to express a cry of 
 joy that it has been altered (A C D) to the more usual ¢wv7. But 
 it is convincingly attested (s BL). It means any cry of strong 
 feeling, whether surprise (Mt. xxv. 6), anger (Eph. iv. 31), or 
 distress (Heb. v. 7). 
 
 Edhoynpévy od év yuvorgiv, A Hebraistic periphrasis for the 
 superlative, “‘Among women thou art the one who is specially 
 blessed.” Mary has a claim to this title ar’ é&oxjv. Comp. 
 vii. 28. Somewhat similar expressions occur in class. Grk., esp. in 
 poetry: & ira yuvatkGv (Eur. Alc. 460); & oxérAv avdpdv (Aristoph. 
 Ran. 1048). In N.T. cidAoynuevos is used of men, etAoyyros of 
 God: see on ver. 68. With eddoynpevos 6 kaptds Tis KoNias cou 
 comp. evAoynuéva Ta exyova THs K. cov (Deut. xxviii. 4) and kaprév 
 kotAtas (Gen. xxx. 2; Lam. ii. 20). See small print on ver. 15. 
 
 43. kat mé0ev por todto. We understand yéyovey: comp. Mk. 
 xii. 37. MModestix filii preludens gut olim Christo erat dicturus, ov 
 épxn mpos pe; (Grotius). It is by inspiration (ver. 41) that Elisabeth 
 knows that she who greets her is 7 pjryp tod Kupiov, Ze. of the 
 Messiah’ (Ps. cx. 1). The expression “ Mother of God” is not 
 found in Scripture.} 
 
 Tn tva €\Oy we have a weakening of the original force of tva, which begins 
 with the Alexandrine writers as an alternative for the infinitive, and has 
 become universal in modern Greek. Godet would keep the telic force by 
 arbitrarily substituting ‘* What have I done?” for ‘‘ Whence is this to me?” 
 
 ‘‘What have I done in order that?” ete. Comp. the Lucan constr., toiro 
 Gru (x. II, xii. 39; Acts xxiv. 14). 
 
 44, *I80d yap as eyéveto wv) Tod domacpod cov. On this 
 yap Bengel bases the strange notion that the conception of the 
 Christ takes place at the salutation: ydp vationem experimens, cur 
 hoc ipso temporis puncto Elisabet primum “ Matrem Domini sui” 
 proclamet Mariam. . . . Nunc Dominus, et respectu matris et 
 progenitorum, et respectu locorum, ubi conceptus xque ac natus est, 
 ex Juda est ortus. It is a mark of the delicacy and dignity of the 
 narrative that the time is not stated; but ver. 38 is more probable 
 than ver. 40. Excepting 2 Cor. vii. 11, ido ydp is peculiar to Lk. 
 (ver. 48, ii. 10, vi. 23, xvil. 21; Acts ix. 11). For éyéveto hwy 
 see on lili. 22 and 36. 
 
 45. pakapia 4 motevcaca St. Latin texts, both of Lat. Vet. 
 and of Vulg., vary much between deata gue credidit quoniam and 
 beata que credidisti guoniam. English Versions are equally varied, 
 even Wic. and Rhem. being different.  “ Blessed is she that 
 
 SE. Didon inaccurately renders this, Comment se fact-2l que la mére de mon 
 Dieu vienne a mot (p. 111). 
 
30 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I 45. 
 believed” is probably right. This is the first beatitude in the 
 Gospel; and it is also the last: paxdpuoe of pay tdvres Kal muotev- 
 gavtes (Jn. xx. 29). In Mk. paxdpios does not occur; and in 
 Jn. only xii. 17 and xx. 29. It is specially common in Lk. 
 
 This verse is one of many places in N.T. in which 67: may be either ‘‘ that” 
 or ‘‘ because”: see on vii. 16. There can be little doubt that Luther, Erasmus, 
 Beza, and all Latin and English Versions are right in taking the latter sense here. 
 The 67: introduces the reason why the belief is blessed and not the contents (Syr. 
 Sin.) of the belief. There is no need to state what Mary believed. Elisabeth 
 adds her faith to Mary’s, and declares that, amazing as the promise is, it will 
 assuredly be fulfilled. Only a small portion of what had been promised (31-33) 
 nad as yet been accomplished ; and hence the éorat teAeiwors, ‘‘ There shall 
 be a bringing to perfection, an accomplishment” (Heb. vii. 11). Comp. éfeAed- 
 couar els Tehelwow TOv Adyww Gv éadjcare per’ éuod (Judith x. 9). 
 
 46-56. The Magnificat or Song of Mary. 
 
 This beautiful lyric is neither a reply to Elisabeth nor an 
 address to God. It is rather a meditation; an expression of per- 
 sonal emotions and experiences. It is more calm and majestic 
 than the utterance of Elisabeth. The exultation is as great, but it 
 is more under control. The introductory <izev, as contrasted with 
 avepdvycev Kpavyy peyddy (ver. 42), points to this. _The h is 
 modelled upon the O.T. Psalms, especially the Song of Hannah 
 {1 Sam. ii. 1-10); but its superiority to the latter in moral an 
 spiritual elevation is very manifest. From childhood the Jews 
 knew many of the O.T. lyrics by heart ; and, just as our own poor, 
 who know no literature but the Bible, easily fall into biblical 
 language in times of special joy or sorrow, so Mary would naturally 
 fall back on the familiar expressions of Jewish Scripture in this 
 moment of intense exultation. The exact relation between her 
 hymn and these familiar expressions can be best seen when the 
 two are placed side by side in a table. 
 
 THE MAGNIFICAT. 
 
 Meyahtve 7 Yux7y pou Tév KUpiop 
 kal éya\Alacev 7d rvedud ov 
 éxl T@ curipl wow 
 Sr. éwéBheVer éxl ri rarelyvwow 
 
 ths SovAns abrov 
 l5od yap dxrd Tod viv 
 paxapoicly we macau al yeveal. 
 6r érolncév wor peyada 6 Suvarés, 
 kal &yov 76 bvoua atrod, 
 cal rd 2eos atrod els yeveds cal yeveds 
 
 tots poBoupévots avTov. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 1 ’EorepedOn 7 xapdla pov év Kuply, 
 bYdOn Képas wou 
 év Ge@ pov. 
 3 day ériBrérwy ériPréyns Thy tawel- 
 vuoW 
 Ths SovAns cou— 
 8 Maxapla éyw, Sr 
 paxapltovcly we wacat al yuvatKes. 
 4 Scris érolncev ev cot TA 
 5 Gyov Kal PoBepdv 7d Svopa avrod. 
 © 7d dé Arcos Tod Kuplov awd 720 al&vos 
 kal Ews Tov alavos 
 él rods poBoupévous autor. 
 
 
 
 1y Sam. ii. 1. 
 * Deut. x. 21. 
 
 31 Sam. i. 11. 
 SPs) exe: 
 
 ® Gen. xxx. 13 
 S Pscii ys 
 
I. 46, 47.] 
 
 "Exolycev xpdtos év Bpaxlove abrov 
 
 dtecxdpmicev drrepnpdvous 
 diavola Kapdlas abrap. 
 wadetAev Suvdoras ad Opbywy 
 kal UWwoev TaTrewvovs, 
 mewavTas évérAnoev ayabav 
 kal wAovrovvras ctaméareiAev Kevovs. 
 
 *AvreddBero Iopahd mrasdds avrod, 
 
 pynoOnvar éddovs, 
 xadcs E\dAnoev mpds Tods marépas 7UGY 
 TO ABpady kal Te orépyare avroi els 
 
 TIIE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 3I 
 
 26d dramevdoas ws Tparparlay drep- 
 Hpavor, 
 kal év T@ Bpaxlov TAs Suvdwews cov 
 Oveckdpmigas Tovs €xGpovs cou 
 3 éLamocté\\wy lepets alypaddrous 
 duvdotas dé ys katéorpewev. 
 3 dy moodyTa Tazrewous els tos, 
 kal dmo\wNdras ebeyelpovTa. 
 * Kipios mrwxlfer kal wdovrlfer 
 Tamewvot kal dvuot. 
 8 Wuyi rewvacav évérdycer dyabar. 
 © 0 de, "Icpad, mais pov, od dvrTeda- 
 Bopnyv— 
 7 euvjoOn Tod édéous abrod TH laxwB. 
 8 ducer els adjOevay TH "laxdB, eeov 
 7@ ’ABpadu, KdBort Guooas Tots 
 
 Tov al@vde TaTpdow nav kara Tas Nuépas TAs 
 _Eumpooder, 
 970 Aaveld kal T@ oréppart atrod ews 
 
 al@vos, 
 
 The hymn falls into four strophes, 46-48, 49 and 50, 51-53, . / 
 
 54 and 55.1 
 
 46. Meyadiver 4 ux pou tov Képiov. The verb is used in the 
 literal sense of “enlarge,” Mt. xxili. 5: comp. Lk.i. 58. More often, 
 as here, in the derived sense of “‘esteem great, extol, magnify” 
 (Acts v. 13, x. 46, xix. 17). So also in class. Grk.~ Weiss goes 
 too far when he contends that “distinctions drawn between 
 yxy and mvcdpua have absolutely no foundation in N.T. usage” 
 (sind ginzlich unbegriindet); but it is evident that no distinction 
 is to be made here. The yvy7 and the zvedua are the immaterial 
 part of man’s nature as opposed to the body or the flesh. It is in 
 her inner, higher life, in her real self, that Mary blesses God in 
 jubilation. If a distinction were made here, we ought to have 
 peyodvver 76 rvedud pov and yyaddiace % Wx pov, for the mvedpua 
 is the seat of the religious life, the yuyx7 of the emotions. See Lft. 
 Notes on the Epp. of S. Paul, p. 88, 1895, and the literature there 
 quoted, esp. Olshausen, Ofwsc. p. 157. 
 
 47. jyodXiacev. A word formed by Hellenists from dydA\\oum, and 
 freq. in LXX (Ps. xv. 9, xlvii. 12, Ixix. 5; Is. xxxv. 2; Jer. xlix. 4). The 
 act. is rare ; perhaps only here and Rev. xix. 7; but as v./. 1 Pet. i. 8. The 
 aor. may refer to the occasion of the angelic visit. But it is the Greek idiom 
 to use the aor. in many cases in which we use the perf., and then it is mis- 
 leading to translate the Grk. aor. by the Eng. aor. Moreover, in late Grk. 
 
 1 Ps, Ixxxix. II. 
 
 “1 Sam. ii. 7. SAPS evil Os 6 Is. xli. 8. 
 
 TPs. xcviil. 3. 8 Mic. vii. 20. 92 Sam. xxii. 51. 
 
 10 On the structure of Hebrew poetry, see Driver, Literature of the O.T. 
 pp. 338-345, T. & T. Clark, 1891. 
 
 On the use of the A/agnijicat, first at Lauds in the Gallican Church, from 
 A.D. 507, and then at Vespers on Saturday in the Sarum Breviary, see Blunt, 
 Annotated Prayer-Book, 
 
 2 Job xii. 19. 8 Jobv. II. 
 
32 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [L 47-51. 
 
 the distinction between aor. and perf. had become less sharp. Simcox, 
 Lang. of N.T. pp. 103-106. 
 
 7G GG 7G cwripi pou. He is the Saviour of Mary as well as 
 of her fellows. She probably included the notion of external and 
 political deliverance, but not to the exclusion of spiritual salvation. 
 For the expression comp. 1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 3; Tit. i. 3, ii. 10, ili. 4; 
 Jude 25; Ps. xxiil. 5, cvi. 21. In the Ps. Sol. we have ’AAjbea 
 tov Sixaiwy rapa Ocod cwrjpos avrar (ill. 7); and jets dé eAmiodpev 
 émi @cdv tov cwripa hydv (xvii. 3). Comp. Ps. Sod. viii. 39, xvi. 4. 
 
 48, St éméBdeev emt Thy tamelvwow THs SovAns avTod. Comp. 
 Hannah’s prayer for a child 1 Sam. i. 11. In spite of her humble 
 position as a carpenter’s bride, Mary had been chosen for the 
 highest honour that a human being could receive. For tazeivwous 
 comp. Acts viii. 33 (from Is. lili. 8) and Phil. iii. 21; and for idetp 
 Thy Taretvwow Comp. 2 Kings xiv. 26 and Ps. xxv. 18. This use 
 of émiBAéreav emi is freq. in LXX (Ps. xxv. 16, lxix. 16, cii. 19, 
 cxix. 132, etc.) ; see esp. 1 Sam. ix. 16. 
 
 idod yap amd Tod viv pakaprodciv pe Tacat at yeveat. For idob 
 yép see on ver. 42, and for dm toG viv see ony. 10. Elisabeth 
 had begun this paxapifew, and we have another instance in the 
 woman from the crowd (xi. 27). Note the wide difference between 
 the scope of Mary’s prophecy, paxapiotow waco ai yeveat, and 
 Leah’s statement of fact, paxapiLovelvy pe wacat ai yuvaikes (Gen. 
 XXX. 13). 
 
 The Latin renderings of awd rod vp are interesting: ex hoc (Vulg.), 
 a modo (d), a nunc (Cod. Gall.). 
 
 49. S11 émoincéy por peydda 6 Suvatds. Here the second strophe 
 begins. The reading weyaActa may come from Acts ii. 11: comp. 
 & éroinoas peyadcia (Ps. Ixx. 19). With 6 duvarés comp. divapus 
 ‘Ypiorov (ver. 35) and Kvpuos xparatds kai dvvards (Ps. xxiil. 8). In 
 LXX dvvards is very common, but almost invariably of men. After 
 both dvvards and airot we should place a colon. The clause xai 
 aylov TO dvop.a avrod is a separate sentence, neither dependent upon 
 the preceding dr, nor very closely connected with what follows. 
 
 50. kai Td Edeos adtod eis yeveds Kal yeveds Tots hoPoupevors 
 aitov. Comp. Ps. Sol. x. 4, kat 16 éAeos Kupiov éri tovs dyarévras 
 avrov év dAnOea, Kal uvnoOnoerar Kvpios tév SovAwv avrod ev édéet? 
 also xiii. 11, él d€ rods daious Td EAcos Kupiov, Kal emt Tovs HoBovpe- 
 vous avtov 7d Ecos airov. With eis yeveds x. y. Comp. eis yeveds 
 yevedv (Is. xxxiv. 17), eis yevedy Kat yevedy (Ps. lxxxix. 2), and Kara 
 yeveay Kat yevedvy (1 Mac. il. 61). “Fearing God” is the O.T. 
 description of piety. Nearly the whole verse comes from Ps. 
 Cili, 17. 
 
 51, “Emolncev xpdros év Bpaxlov adtod, Steoxdpmicev, x.t.A. Begin- 
 ning of the third strophe. The six aorists in it are variously explained. 
 
I. 51-54.) THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 33 
 
 1. They tell of things which the Divine power and holiness and mercy 
 (wv. 49, 50) have already accomplished in the past. 2. According to the 
 
 _ common prophetic usage, they speak of the future as already past, and tell of 
 the effects to be produced by the Messiah as if they had” been produced. 
 3. They are gnomic, and expréssGod’s normal acts. We may set aside this 
 last. ~It is very doubtful whether the aor. is ever used of what is normal or 
 habitual (Win. xl. 5. b, 1, p. 346). Of the other two explanations, the 
 second is to be preferred. It is more likely that Mary is thinking of the far- 
 reaching effects of the blessing conferred upon herself than of past events un- 
 connected with that blessing. In either case the six aorists must be translated 
 by the English perfect. They show that in this strophe, as in the second, we 
 have a triplet. There it was God’s power, holiness, and mercy. Here it is 
 the contrasts between proud and humble, high and low, rich and poor. 
 
 Both érotnoev kpatos and év Bpaxtovt attod are Hebraisms. For the 
 former comp. de&a Kuplov éroincev divas (Ps. cxvVilil. 15). For Spaxlwy to 
 express Divine power comp. Acts xiii. 17 > Jn. xii--38 (from Is. liii. 1); Ps. 
 xliv. 3, xcvili. I, etc. The phrase év xepl xparaig Kal év Bpaxlom symrg is 
 freq. in LXX (Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vi. 21, xxvi. 8). This use of é is in the 
 main Hebraistic (xxii, 49; Rev. vi. 8; Judg. xv. 15, xx. 16;-1 Kings xii. 18 3 
 Fadith vi. 12, viii. 33). Win. xlviii. 3. d, p. 485. 
 
 trrepndavous Siavolqa Kapdias aitav. The dat. limits drepnpavous: 
 they arg proud and overweening in thought. In N.T. drepijpavos is never 
 ‘* conspicttous above” others, but always in a bad sense, ‘‘ looking down on” 
 others (Jas. iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5; Rom. i. 30; 2 Tim. iii. 2. It is freq. in 
 LXX.. Comp. Ps. Sol. ii. 35, xoulfwv brepnddvous els dwddeay alivov ép 
 driulg ; also iv. 28. See Wsctt. on I Jn. ii. 16, and Trench, Sym. xxix. 
 
 52. kafethev Suvdotas dad Opdvav Kai dpwoev tatewots. “He 
 hath put down potentates from thrones.” ‘ Potentates” rather 
 than “princes” (RV.), or “the mighty” (AV.), because of 1 Tim. 
 vi. 15. Comp. duvdcrat Papaw (Gen. |. 4). In Acts viii. 27 it is 
 an adj. It is probable that tazewovs here means primarily the 
 oppressed poor as opposed to tyrannical rulers. See Hatch, Bidsical 
 Greek, pp. 73-77. Besides the parallels given in the table (p. 31) 
 comp. ava\apBdavev zpacis 6 Kiptos, Tarewvav S& duaptwAovs Ews TAS 
 yis (Ps. cxlvii. 6); Opovots dpxdvrwv Kabetrev 6 Kiptos, kal éxdbicey 
 mpgets avr att&v (Ecclus. x. 14); also Lk. xiv. 11, xviii. 14; Jas. 
 i.9, 10. In Clem. Rom. Cor. lix. 3 we have what looks like ax 
 paraphrase, but may easily come from O.T. Comp. Zxoch xlvi. 5.~ 
 
 58. tewavtas évém\yoev Gyadv. Both material and spiritual 
 goods may be included. Comp. wAjpes dprwv AAattadOnoav, Kat 
 aobevotvres tapyxav yv (1 Sam. ii. 5); also Ps. Sol. v. 10-12, x. 7. 
 
 54. *AvtehdBeto “lopaijA madds adrot. The fourth strophe. 
 The regular biblical meaning of dvriAapBavoya is “lay hold of 
 in order to support or succour” (Acts xx. 35; Ecclus. ii. 6); hence 
 avriAnwus is “succour, help” (1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Ps. xxi. 20, lxxxiii. 8), 
 and dy7iAjmrwp is “helper” (Ps. xviii. 3, liv. 6). There is no 
 doubt that zadds airod means “ His servant,” not “His son.” 
 The children of God are called réxva or viot, but not zatSes. We 
 have vais in the sense of God’s servant used of Israel or Jacob 
 (Is. xli. 8, 9, xlii. 1, xliv. 1, 2, 21, xlv. 4); of David (Lk. i. 693 
 
 3 
 
34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 54-56, 
 
 Acts iv. 25; Ps. xvii. 1; Is. xxxvii. 35); and of Christ (Acts 
 iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30). Comp. Ps. Sol. xii. 7, xvii. 23; Didaché, 
 IX. 2, 3, X. 2, 3. 
 
 prnoPivat éhéous. “So as to remember mercy,” Ze. to prove 
 that He had not forgotten, as they might have supposed. Comp. 
 Ps. Sol. x. 4, kai pvncOynoerar Kipios tav SovAwv avrod ev édee. 
 
 55. kaOas éhddynoev mods. ‘‘ Even as He spake unto”: see on 
 gv. 2 and 13. ‘This clause is not a parenthesis, but explains the 
 extent of the remembrance of mercy. RV. is the first English 
 Version to make plain that to “ABpadp, x.t.X., depends upon 
 pvnoOjvac and not upon éAdAyoev by rendering zpés “unto” and 
 the dat. “toward.” To make this still more plain, “As He spake 
 unto our fathers” is put into a parenthesis, which is not necessary. 
 The Genevan is utterly wrong, “(Even as He promised to our 
 fathers, ¢o wz, to Abraham and his sede) for ever.” It is im- 
 probable that Lk. would use both zpés and the simple dat. after 
 é\dA\yoev in the same sentence; or that he means to say that 
 God spoke to Abraham’s seed for ever. The phrase eis tév aidva 
 is common in the Psalms, together with «is tov aidva Tod aidvos 
 (Heb. i. 8) and «is aidva aiévos. It means “unto the age,” ze. 
 the age xar efoynv, the age of the Messiah. The belief that 
 whatever is allowed to see that age will continue to exist in that 
 age, makes «is tov aidva equivalent to “‘for ever. This strophe, 
 like ver. 72, harmonizes with the doctrine that-Abraham is still 
 alive (xx. 38), and is influenced by what takes place in the 
 development of God’s kingdom on earth (Jn. viii. 56; comp. Heb. 
 Si rs Is. xxix, 22.123). 
 
 For els rév alava ACF MS here have @ws aldvyos (1 Chron. xvii. 16; 
 Ezek, xxv. 15?), which does not occur in N.T. 
 
 56. “Evewev S¢ Maprap odv aity- Lk. greatly prefers vv to 
 
 d. He uses ovv much more often than all N.T. writers put 
 together. In his Gospel we find him using ovv where the parallel 
 passage in Mt. or Mk. has perd or kat ; ¢.g. vill. 38, 51, XX. I, XXil. 14, 
 56. We have ovy three times in these first two chapters ; here, ii. 5 
 and 13. It is not likely that an interpolator would have caught 
 all these minute details in Lk.’s style: see Introd. § 6. 
 
 és pvas tpets. This, when compared with piy éxros (ver. 36), 
 leads us to suppose that Mary waited until the birth of John the 
 Baptist. She would hardly have left when that was imminent. 
 Lk. mentions her return before mentioning the birth in order to 
 complete one narrative before beginning another; just as he 
 mentions the imprisonment of the Baptist before the Baptism of 
 the Christ in order to finish his account of John’s ministry before 
 beginning to narrate the ministry of Jesus (iii. 20, 21). That 
 Mary is not named in vz. 57, 58 is no evidence that she was not 
 
L 56, 57.] |§THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 3, 
 
 present. It would be unnatural to say that one of the ..ousehold 
 heard of the event; and, in fact, of ovyyevets would include her, 
 whether it is intended to do so or not. Origen, Ambrose, Bede, 
 and others believe that she remained until the birth of John. For 
 the patristic arguments for and against see Corn. & Lap. Lk. 
 leaves us in doubt, probably because his authority left him in 
 doubt ; but Didon goes too far in saying that Lk. insinuates that 
 she was not present.} 
 
 For this use of és comp, viii. 42 (not ii. 37); Acts i. 15, v. 7, 36. Lk. 
 more often uses ®cel in this sense (iii. 23, ix. 14, 28, xxii. 41, 59, xxiii. 44; 
 Acts ii. 41, etc.). In baéorpeyev we have another very favourite word which 
 runs through both Gospel and Acts. It does not occur in the other Gospels, 
 and is found elsewhere only Gal. i. 17 and Heb. vii. 1. 
 
 Meyer rightly remarks that ‘‘the historical character of the Visitation of 
 Mary stands or falls with that of the Annunciation.” The arguments against it 
 are very inconclusive. I. That it does not harmonize with Joseph’s dream in 
 Mt. i. 20; which has been shown to be incorrect. 2. That there is no trace 
 elsewhere of great intimacy between the two families ; which proves absolutely 
 nothing. 3. That the obvious purpose of the narrative is to glorify Jesus, in 
 making the unborn Baptist acknowledge Him as the Messiah; which is mere 
 assertion. 4. That the poetic splendour of the narrative lifts it out of the 
 historical sphere ; which implies that what is expressed with great poetic beauty 
 cannot be historically true,—a canon which would be fatal to a great deal of 
 historical material. We may assert oi this narrative, as of that of the Annuncia- 
 tion, that no one in the first or second century could have imagined either. 
 Least of all could any one have given us the A/agnzjicat,—‘“‘ the most magni- 
 ficent cry of Joy that has ever issued from a human breast.” Nothing that has 
 come down to us of that age leads us to suppose that any writer could have 
 composed these accounts without historic truth to guide him, any more than an 
 architect of that age could have produced Milan cathedral. Comp. the Prot- 
 evangelium of James xii.-xiv.; the Pseudo-Matthew ix.-xii.; the Hist. of Joseph 
 the Carpenter iii.-vi. 
 
 57-80. The Birth and Circumcision of the Forerunner. 
 
 57. émdyobn 6 xpdvos tod téxew adtyv. Expressions about time 
 or days being fulfilled are found chiefly in these two chapters in 
 N.T. (ver. 23, li. 6, 21, 22). They are Hebraistic: e.g. érAyps- 
 Oncav ai juepar Tod téxew airyv (Gen. xxv. 24 ; comp. xxix. 21; Lev. 
 xii. 4,6; Num. vi. 5, etc.). And rod réxew is gen. after 6 xpovos. 
 
 1Didon has some excellent remarks on the poetical portion of this 
 narrative. La podsze est le langage des impressions véhémentes et des idées 
 sublimes. Chez les Juifs, comme chez tous les peuples d Orient, elle jaillait 
 inspiration. Tout Ame est podte, la joe ou la douleur la fait chanter. St 
 jamats un coeur a di faire explosion dans quelque hymne inspirée, Cest bien 
 celui de la jeune fille clue de Dieu pour étre la mére du Messie. 
 
 Elle emprunte a [histotre bibligue des femmes gut, avant elle, ont tressaill 
 dans leur maternité, comme Liah et la mére de Samuel des expressions qu elle 
 élargit et transfigure. Les hymnes nationaux gui célébrent la gloire de son 
 peuple, la miséricorde, la puissance, la sagesse et la fid'lité de Dieu, reviennent 
 sur ses lévres habituces a les chanter (Jésus Christ, p. 112, ed. 1891). The 
 whole passage is worth consulting. 
 
36 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |L. 57-62. 
 
 épeydduvey Kuptos Td eXeos adtod pet adtas. The verb is not 
 used in the same sense as in ver. 46, nor yet quite literally as in 
 Mt. xxiil. 5, but rather “made conspicuous,” ze. bestowed con- 
 spicuous mercy. Comp. eueyaAvvas tiv Sucatootvvyy cov (Gen. 
 xix. 19). The mer air7s does not mean that she co-operates 
 with God, but that He thus deals with her. Comp. ver. 72, x. 37, 
 and cidere & Cueyadvvey pe tudv (1 Sam. xii. 24). In ocuvéxatpov 
 aéty we have the first beginning of the fulfilment of ver. 14. It 
 means “rejoiced with her” (xv. 6, 9; 1 Cor. xii. 26), rather 
 than “congratulated her” (Phil. ii. 17). 
 
 59. AOav wepitepety TO Taidiov. The nom. must be under- 
 stood from the vontext, amici ad eam rem advocati, viz. some of 
 those mentioned ver. 58. Circumcision might be performed 
 anywhere and by any Jew, even by a woman (Exod. iv. 25). 
 
 On the mixture of first and second aorist in such forms as 7\@ap, éreca, 
 eldapev, dvetday, etc., see Win. xiil, I. a, p. 86; WH. ii. App. p. 164; 
 and comp. ver. 61, ii. 16, v. 7, 26, vi. 17- Vil. 24, Xi. 2, 52, xxii. 52; Acts 
 Tig 235 XUls 75) XV1e 97 XXL 7g ELC, 
 
 exddouv atts ért TH dvdpatt tod tatpds attoé. Not merely 
 “they wished to call,” but “they began to call, were calling ” ; 
 comp. v. 6; Acts vii. 26; Mt. iii, 14. The custom of com- 
 bining the naming with circumcision perhaps arose from Abram 
 being changed to Abraham when circumcision was instituted. 
 Naming after the father was common among the Jews (Jos. Vita, 
 1; Anz. xiv. 1. 3). For the éwé comp. éxAnOy éw évopate attav 
 (Neh. vii. 63). 
 
 60. kAnPycetar “lwdvys. It is quite gratuitous to suppose that 
 the name had been divinely revealed to her, or that she chose it 
 herself to express the boon which God had bestowed upon her. 
 Zacharias would naturally tell her in writing what had taken place 
 in the temple. With kadetrat TG dvéuare comp. xix. 2. 
 
 62. évévevov. Here only in N.T., but we have vevw similarly 
 used Acts xxiv. ro and Jn. xiii. 24. Comp. éweve dpfarpo, 
 oypaiver de Tool, duddoKer Oe evvevpacw daxTvAwy (Prov. vi. 13), 
 and 6 évvevwv eau pera. SdXov (Prov. x. 10). Some infer 
 that Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb; and this is often the 
 meaning of xwdds (ver. 22), viz. “/unted in speech or hearing, or 
 both” (vii. 22). But the question is not worth the amount of 
 discussion which it has received. 
 
 To tt dv Oko. The art. turns the whole clause into a sub 
 stantive. “They communicated by signs ¢he question, what he,’ 
 etc. Comp. Rom. viii. 26; 1 Thes. iv. 1; Mt. xix. 18. The ro 
 serves the purpose of marks of quotation. 
 
 This use of 76 with a sentence, and especially with a question, is common 
 in Lk. (ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 23, 24, 37; Acts iv. 21, xxii 30). Note 
 
I. 62-65.] | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 37 
 
 the dy: “what he would Jerhags wish, might wish.” We have exactly the 
 same use of dy Jn. xiii. 24; comp. Lk. vi. 11; Acts v. 24, xxi. 33. Win. 
 xlii. 4, p. 386. 
 
 63. aitjoas mivaxidiov. Postulans pugillarem (Vulg.), cum petis- 
 set tabulam (ad). Of course by means of signs, évvevpacw daxridov. 
 One is inclined to conjecture that Lk. or his authority accidentally 
 put the évvevew in the wrong place. Signs must have been used 
 here, and they are not mentioned. They need not have been used 
 ver. 62, and they are mentioned. The zwaxidiov would probably be 
 a tablet covered with wax: Joguitur in stylo, auditur in cera (Tert. 
 De idol. xxiii.). 
 
 All four forms, rivat, riaxls, wivdxcov, and rwaxlé.ov, are used of writing- 
 tablets, and mivaxida is v./.(D) here. But elsewhere in N.T. rivat isa ‘‘ dish” 
 or ‘‘ platter” (xi. 39; Mt. xiv. 8,11; Mk. vi. 25, 28). Note the Hebraistie 
 particularity in €éypawev Aéywv, and comp. 2 Kings x. 6; 1 Mac. x. 17, 
 xi. 57. This is the first mention of writing in N.T. 
 
 *Iwdvys éotiv dvopa adtod. Not éora, but éoriv: habet vocabulum 
 suum quod agnovimus, non quod elegimus (Bede) ; quasi dicat nullam 
 superesse consultationem in re quam Deus jam definitsset (Grotius) ; 
 non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat (Beng.). The é@atpacav 
 awdvtes may be used on either side of the question of his deafness. 
 They wondered at his agreeing with Elisabeth, although he had not 
 heard her choice of name; or, they wondered at his agreeing with 
 her, although he had heard the discussion. 
 
 64. dvedxOn 8é€ Td otdpa attod mapaxpjpa. The prophecy 
 which he had refused to believe was now accomplished, and the 
 sign which had been granted to him as a punishment is withdrawn. 
 That the first use of his recovered speech was to continue blessing 
 God (éAdAer ebAoyGv), rather than to complain, is evidence that the 
 punishment had proved a blessing to him. The addition of kat 
 yAGéooa attod involves a zeugma, such as is common in all lan- 
 guages: comp. 1 Cor. iii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 3; Win. lxvi. 1. e, p. 777. 
 The Complutensian Bible, on the authority of two cursives (140, 
 251), inserts dijpOpaOy after 7 yAdooa airod: see on i. 22. For 
 Tapaxphpa see on v. 25 and comp. iv. 29. We are left in doubt 
 as to whether éAddex eddoyay refers to the Benedicfus or to some 
 evAoyia which preceded it. The use of ézpodyrevee and not 
 evAdynoev in ver. 67 does not prove that two distinct acts of thanks- 
 giving are to be understood. 
 
 65. éyéveto éwit mavtas péBos. See on iv. 36. Zacharias (ver. 12) 
 and Mary (ver. 30) had had the same feeling when conscious of the 
 nearness of the spiritual world. A writer of fiction would have 
 been more likely to dwell upon the joy which the wonderful birth 
 of the future Prophet produced; all the more so as such joy 
 had been predicted (ver. 14). The adrods means Zacharias and 
 Elisabeth. 
 
38 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 65, 66. 
 
 Stehahetro mdvta Ta pyyata tadra. This need not be confined 
 to what was said at the circumcision of John. It is probably the 
 Hebraistic use of pyyata for the ¢hings which are the subject- 
 matter of narration. Comp. ii. 19, 51, where RV. has “sayings” 
 in the text and “things” in the margin ; and Acts v. 32, where it 
 has “things” in the text and “sayings” in the margin. Comp. 
 LXX Gen. xv. I, xxil, I, 16, poodx. 7, xl. 1, xlviii. 1, and esp. 
 xxiv. 66, ravra Ta pypata & éxoinoev. The verb diadaXely occurs 
 only here and vi. 11: not in LXX, but in Sym. several times in 
 the Psalms. 
 
 66. W@evto mdvres of Axovcavtes év TH Kapdiq av’tay. Comp. ii. 19. 
 We find all three prepositions with this phrase, év, éml, and els: &@ero Aaveld 
 Ta phyara &v Hh kapola avrod (1 Sam. xxi. 12); 20eTo Aaveyn éml Thy kapelav 
 avrov (Dan. i. 8); rideade els riv kapdlay vuay (Mal. ii. 2). Lk. is fond of 
 constructions with évy rq x. or év Tats x. (ii. 19, ili. 15, v. 22, xxi. 143 
 comp. ii. 51, xxiv. 38). In Hom. we have both @eival 7s and @écOae m1, 
 either év ¢peol or év or7Oecot. Note that, not only is rds or drasa favourite 
 word with Lk., but either form combined with a participle of dkotw is also 
 freq. and characteristic (ii. 18, 47, iv. 28, vi. 47, vil. 29, xx. 453 Acts v. 5, 
 TI, ix. 21, x. 44, XXVi. 29; comp. Acts iv. 4, xviii. 8). See on vi. 30. 
 
 Tt dpa 15 watdiov tovTo ota; Not ris; the neut. makes the question 
 more indefinite and comprehensive: comp. 7! dpa 6 Ilérpos éyévero (Acts xii. 
 18). The dpa, zgetur, means ‘‘in these circumstances” ; viii. 25, xii. 42, 
 xxii. 23. 
 
 kal yap xelp Kuptou nv pet attod. ‘‘ For besides all that,” #.e. 
 in addition to the marvels which attended his birth. This is a 
 remark of the Evangelist, who is wont now and then to interpose 
 in this manner: comp. ii. 50, ili. 15, Vil. 39, XVi. 14, XX. 20, 
 xxiii, 12. The recognition that John was under special Divine 
 influence caused the questioa, ti dpa éorar; to be often repeated in 
 after times. Here, as in Acts xi. 21, xelp Kupiov is followed by 
 pera, and the meaning is that the Divine power interposes to guide 
 and bless. See small print on i. 20 for other parallels between 
 Gospel and Acts. Where the preposition which follows is ézé, the 
 Divine interposition is generally one of punishment (Acts xill. 11; 
 Judg. ii. 15; 1 Sam. v. 3, 6, vil. 13; Exod. vii. 4, 5). But this is 
 by no means always the case (2 Kings iii. 15; Ezra vii. 6, viil. 
 22, 31); least of all where xelp has the epithet éya@y (Ezra vii. 
 9, 28, vill. 18). In N.T. xelp Kupiov is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 
 XL 21, Xill. 12; comp. iv. 28, 30). 
 
 67-79. The Benedictus or Song of Zacharias may be the ev- 
 Aoyia mentioned in ver. 64.1 To omit it there, im order to continue 
 the narrative without interruption, and to give it as a solemn 
 conclusion, would be a natural arrangement. As the Magnificat 
 is modelled on the psalms, so the Benedictus is modelled on the 
 
 1 Like most of the canticles, the Benedéctus was originally said at Lauds: 
 and it is still said at Lauds, in the Roman Church daily, in the Greek Church 
 on special occasions. See footnote on p. 67. 
 
L 66.] 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 39 
 
 prophecies, and it has been called “the last prophecy of the Old 
 
 Dispensation and the first in the New.” 
 the Magnificat is regal, that of the Benedictus is sacerdotal. 
 
 And while the tone of 
 The 
 
 one is as appropriate to the daughter of David as the other to the 
 
 son of Aaron. 
 seen in a table. 
 
 THE BENEDICTUS. 
 
 EvAoynrds Kuptos 6 Geds rod Iopann, 
 drt emecxéyaro Kal émolnoev NiTpwow 
 To daw aurov, 
 kal ityeipev képas owrnplas 7; piv 
 év olky Aaveld matdds avrod, 
 
 Kaas edddnoev id orbyaros TOv aylup 
 am’ aldvos Tpopyr av | avTod 
 ouwrnplav é& €xOpav quay Kal éx 
 XElpds TavTWY THY MecouyTey pas, 
 mounoar €Aeos pera TOV TaTépw meav 
 kal penoOjvat diadjKns aylas avTod, 
 
 8pxov dv Spocev mpds ABpady 
 Tov TaTépa Huar, 
 Tov Sodvat juiv dpoBws éx xerpds 
 €xOpav pucbévtas 
 Aarpevew avT@ év dordryre 
 kal dixacootyy 
 évériov avtod macats Tats 
 
 Teepats NOv. 
 
 Kal od 6é, masdlov, rpopyrns 
 ‘YWlorov krnOjon, 
 mpotopevon yap évw7mov Kuplou 
 
 éroupdoat ddovs avTod, 
 Tod dodvar yvGouw owrnplas 
 T@ Aaw avrov 
 év adécet dpaptlov, 
 61a omAdyxva édéous Oeod judy, 
 év ols emirkéWerar Huds 
 dvaronrh ef dpous, 
 émipavat Tots év oxére Kal oxig 
 Oavdrov Kadnuévors 
 Tov KaTevOdvat Tovs mbdas NUdY 
 els ddv elpyyys. 
 
 There is a manifest break at the end of ver. 75. 
 
 The relation between new and old may again be 
 
 THE OLo TESTAMENT. 
 
 1 3 Buhoyaras Kipios 6 Oeds "Ioparnr. 
 AUTpwow dméorerhev 
 TO NaG avrod. 
 8 exe? eEavater® Képas T@ Aaveld, 
 4 Gvarene? Képas Tavtl TH oikwIopahh. 
 5 SWdoe Képas Xpiorob avrod. 
 
 6 Eowoev avTons € ex xewpav pucotyruv Kar 
 éurpwaaTto avrovs ek Xetpos €xOpod. 
 1 dca els ahyBevav 7T@ laxwB, 
 &eov TQ ABpadp, Kabdre Gpmooas 
 TOUS TATPAL LOY. 
 8 éuvicOn Tis dia dHKns auTov. 
 9 € nyo On o 6 Beds Tis, SiaOnkns avrov ris 
 mpos "ABpady, kal Ioadk, cal laxwp, 
 0 Srrws oTjow Tov Spkov Hou, bv 
 @poca Tots TaTpdow buav, Tod Sodvat 
 auTots yiv péovcay yadda Kal wére, 
 U1 euvjcOn els Tov aldva diaOhKns avrou 
 Abyou ob éverelharo els xuAlas yeveds, 
 dy débero TH ’ABpadu, 
 kal Tov Spkov avrou TH ’Ioadk. 
 
 LD -Rya efarrocré\Xw Tov Ayyeddv pov 
 kal emiBdéperat oddv mpd mpoowmov 
 
 pov. 
 B éroudoare Thy oddv Kuplov. 
 
 14 kaOnuévous év oxéret, 
 1 ol karouxovytes ev xdpa kal oxlg 
 Oavdrou pas Adupe ed’ duds, 
 16 kaOnuevous ev oxéret kal oxla 
 Gavdrov. 
 
 The first 
 
 of these two portions thus separated may be divided into three 
 
 1 Ps, xli. 14, Ixxii. 18, evi. 48. 
 
 4 Ezek. xxix. 21. 51 Sam. ii. 10, 
 8 Ps. cvi. 45. 9 Exod. ii. 24. 
 12 Mal. ili. 1. Ys. xl. 3. 
 
 16 Ps, cvii. 10. 
 
 7 Ps. cxi. 9. 
 § Ps. cvi. 10, 
 nO er xin 5s 
 1 Ts, xlii. 7. 
 
 8 Ps. cxxxii. 17. 
 7 Mic. vii. 20. 
 1 Ps. cv. 8, 9. 
 15 Ts, ix. 1. 
 
40 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |I. 66-70. 
 
 strophes (68, 69; 70-72; 73-75), and the second into two (76, 
 773 78, 79): 
 
 67. émdjobn mvedpatos dyiou Kat énpopyteucev. See on ver. 15. 
 The prophesying must not be confined to the prediction of the 
 future ; it is the delivery of the Divine message; speaking under 
 God’s influence, and in His Name. Zacharias sees in his son the 
 earnest and guarantee of the deliverance of Israel. 
 
 In some texts érpog¢jrevcev has been altered into the more regular poeg7)- 
 tevoev, but everywhere in N.T. (even Jude 14) the augment should precede 
 the prep. in this compound. This is intelligible, seeing that there is ne 
 
 simple verb ¢yrevw. Comp. Num. xi. 25, 26; Ecclus. xliii. 13, and the 
 similar forms #gcev and qvoEev. Win. xii. 5, p. 84. 
 
 68. Eddoyntés Kupios 6 Ocds tod “Iopand. Not éoriv but ef is 
 to be supplied. The line is verbatim as Ps. xli. 14, lxxii. 18, 
 cvi. 48, excepting that in LXX rod is omitted. In N.T. eidAoyyrés 
 is used of God, but never of men: see on ver. 42. In LXX there 
 are a few exceptions: Deut. vii. 14; Ruth ii. 20; 1 Sam. xv. 13, 
 XXV. 33. 
 
 emecképato Kal émoincev AUtpwow To Aad adtod. Here, as in 
 Ecclus. xxxil. 17, an acc. is to be supplied after érecxéparo; there 
 Tov tamewov, here tov Aadv. See on vii. 16. Excepting Heb. ii. 6, 
 where it is a quotation from Ps. viii. 5, this verb is used in the 
 Hebrew sense (Exod. iv. 31) of Divine visitation by Lk. alone in 
 N.T. Comp. Ps. SoZ. iii. 14. No doubt Avtpwow has reference 
 to political redemption (ver. 71), but accompanied by and based 
 upon a moral and spiritual reformation (vv. 75, 77). Comp. 
 IPSHEXxXiy 75 
 
 69. kal jyetpev képas cwtnpias jpiv. For this use of éyeipw 
 comp. 7yepev Kvpios cwrjpa 76 “Iopaynd (Judg. ili. 9, 15). In 
 Ezek. xxix. 21 and Ps. cxxxii. 17 the verb used is dvaréAAw or 
 éfavaréAAw (see table). The metaphor of the horn is very freq. in 
 O.T. (x Sam. ii. 10; 2 Sam. xxii. 3; Ps. Ixxy. 5, 6, Tete) ane 
 is taken neither from the horns of the altar, nor from the peaks of 
 helmets or head-dresses, but from the horns of animals, especially 
 bulls. It represents, therefore, primarily, neither safety nor dignity, 
 but strength. The wild-ox, wrongly called “unicorn” in AV., was 
 proverbial for strength (Num. xxiv. 22; Job xxxix. 9-11; Deut. 
 xxxiii. 17). In Horace we have addis cornua pauperi, and in Ovid 
 tum pauper cornua sumit. In Ps. xviii. 3 God is called a xépas 
 cwrypias. See below on ver. 71. For matdds adtod see on ver. 54. 
 “Tn the house of His servant David” is all the more true if Mary 
 was of the house of David. But the fact that Jesus was the heir 
 of Joseph is sufficient, and this verse is no proof of Mary’s descent 
 from David. 
 
 70. Second strophe. Like ver. 55, this is not a parenthesis, 
 but determines the preceding statement more exactly. Asa priest, 
 
L 70-74.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 41 
 
 Zacharias would be familiar with O.T. prophecies. Even if the ray 
 before aa aiévos (A C D) were genuine, it would be unlikely that 
 Tav dyiwv means “the saints” in app. with tay az aidvos tpopyrar. 
 Lk. is fond of the epithet dycos (ver. 72, ix. 26; Acts ill. 21, x. 22, 
 xxi. 28). He is also fond of the periphrasis Ba sae (Acts 
 i. 16, ii. 18, 2h iv. 25): comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22. And the 
 expression dm aidvos is peculiar to him in N.T. (Acts iii. 21, 
 xv. 18). It is used vaguely for “of old time.” Here it does not 
 mean that there have been Prophets “since the world began.” 
 
 Comp. oi yeyavres | ot ar aidvos (Gen. vi. 4), and Peeper Kal 
 ratadéyyet Tous am’ aidves pyropas (Longin. xxxiv.), and adverbially 
 Hes. Theog. 609). 
 
 71. cwrmpiay é& éxOpav fpav. This is in app. with xépas 
 owrnpias and epexegetic of it. That the eyOpdv judy and trav 
 pucovvTwy qpas are identical is clear from Ps. xviii. 18 and cvi. 10 
 (see table). ‘The heathen are meant. Gentile domination prevents 
 the progress of God’s kingdom, and the Messiah will put an end 
 to this hindrance. Comp. Exod. xviii. 10. 
 
 Neither cwrnpla (vv. 69, 77, xix. 9; Acts iv. 12, etc.) nor Td cwrypiov 
 (ii. 30, ili. 6; Acts xxviii. 28) occur in Mt. or Mk. The former occurs once 
 in Jn. (iv. 22). Both are common in LXX. The primary meaning is 
 preservation fsom bodily harm (Gen. xxvi. 31; 2 Sam. xix. 2), especially of 
 the great occasions on which God had preserved Israel (Exod. xiv. 13, xv. 2; 
 2 Chron. xx. 17); and hence of the deliverance to be wrought by the Messiah 
 (Is. xlix. 6, 8), which is the meaning here. Comp. tod xupiov 7 owrnpla én’ 
 olxov "Iopanr els eddppoctvnv aldvioy (Ps. Sol. x. 9; and very similarly xii. 7). 
 As the idea of the Messianic salvation became enlarged and purified, the word 
 which so often expressed it came gradually to mean much the same as 
 ** eternal life.” See on Rom. i. 16, 
 
 72. wovnoa EXeos peta, x.t-A, This is the purpose of jyepev 
 xépas. The phrase is freq. in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 12; Judg. i. 24, 
 vill. 35; Ruth i. 8; 1 Sam. xx. 8, etc.). Comp. per’ airijs, ver. 
 58. ‘In delivering us God purposed to deal mercifully with our 
 fathers.” ‘This seems to imply that the fathers are conscious of 
 what takes place: comp. vv. 54, 55. Besides the passages given 
 in the table, comp. Lev. xxvi. 42, and see Wsctt. on Heb. ix. 
 15, 16. 
 
 73. Spkov Sv Gpocev mpos “ABpadp. Third strophe. The oath 
 is recorded Gen. xxii. 16-18: comp. xxvi. 3. 
 
 It is best to take dpxov in app. with diafijxns, but attracted in case to 
 éy: comp zz. 4, 20, and see on ii. 19. It is true that in LXX prycO va is 
 found with an acc. (Exod. xx. 8; Gen. ix. 16). But would Lk. give it first 
 a gen. and then an acc. in the same sentence? For the attraction of the 
 antecedent to the relative comp. xx. 17 and Acts x. 36. 
 
 Gpooev pds ’A. So also in Hom. (Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288): but see 
 on ver. 13. 
 
 74. tod Sotvar qpiv. This is probably to be taken after dpxoy as the 
 contents and purpose of the oath; and the promise that ‘‘thy seed shall 
 
42 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I. 74-77. 
 
 possess the gate of his enemies” (Gen. xxii. 17) is in favour of this. But it 
 is possible to take ro dodvat as epexegetic of ver. 72; or again, as the 
 purpose of #fyetpev xépas, and therefore parallel to ver. 72. This last is not 
 likely, because there is no rod with rovjom. This Tod c. zz/fin. of the purpose 
 or result is a favourite constr. with Lk. (vv. 77, 79, ii. 24, where see reff.). 
 It marks the later stage of the language, in which aim and purpose become 
 confused with result. Perhaps the gen. of the aim may be explained on the 
 analogy of the part. gen. after verbs of hitting or missing. 
 
 €x xetpos €xOpav. It does not follow from écudrynte cai dSixae- 
 oovvy that spiritual enemies are meant. The tyranny of heathen 
 conquerors was a hindrance to holiness. In addition to the 
 parallel passages quoted in the table, comp. Ps. xviii. 18, picerat 
 pe &€ €xOpadv pov Suvaray kal éx tov pucovyTwv pe. 
 For the acc. pucdévras after juty comp. col 6¢ cvyyveéun Aévew 745” orl, 
 Bi) TaoxXoveay ws éy@ kaxGs (Eur. AZed. 814). 
 
 75. Natpevew atts. Comp. Aarpetoere 75 Ocd ev TH Sper TovT 
 (Exod. ili. 12). We must take évdm-ov aitod with Aatpevew aira. 
 The service of the redeemed and delivered people is to be a 
 priestly service, like that of Zacharias (ver. 8). For évémoy see on 
 ver. 15, and for \atpedew on iv. 8. The combination 6ovdtys kal 
 Sikarocdvy becomes common ; but perhaps the earliest instance is 
 Wisd. ix. 3. We have it Eph. iv. 24 and Clem. Rom. xlviii.: 
 comp. Tit. i. 8 and 1 Thes. ii. ro. 
 
 76. Kal od 8€, matdiov. Here the second part of the hymn, and 
 the distinctively predictive portion of it, begins. The Prophet 
 turns from the bounty of Jehovah in sending the Messiah to the 
 work of the Forerunner. ‘‘ Buz thou also, child,” or “ Yea and 
 thou, child” (RV.). Neither the xaé nor the dé must be neglected. 
 There is combination, but there is also contrast. Not “ my child”: 
 the personal relation is lost in the high calling. The xAy@yon has 
 the same force as in ver. 32: not only “shalt be,” but “shalt be 
 acknowledged as being.” 
 
 Tpotropedon yap évdmuov Kuptov. Comp. Kupios 6 @eds cov 6 
 MpoTropevdmevos TPO Tpoowrov gov, Kaha eAdAnoev Kvpuos (Deut. 
 xxxi. 3). Here Kvpfov means Jehovah, not the Christ, as is clear 
 from vv. 16, 17. , 
 
 77. Tod Sodvar yvdouw owrnptas TH Naw aitos. This is the aim 
 and end of the work of the Forerunner. In construction it comes 
 after érouudoat ddovs aitod. We may take év apécer dpaptiwv aitav 
 with either dotva, or yv@ouw, Or gwrypias. The last is best. John 
 did not grant remission of sins; and to make “&zxozw/ledge of 
 salvation” consist in remission of sins, yields no very clear sense. 
 But that sa/vation is found in remission of sins makes excellent 
 sense (Acts v. 31). The Messiah brings the cwrnpta (vv. 69, 71): 
 the Forerunner gives the knowledge of it to the people, as consist- 
 ing, not in a political deliverance from the dominion of Rome but 
 
I 77-79.| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 43 
 
 in a spiritual deliverance from the dominion of sin. This is the 
 irst mention of the “remission of sins” in the Gospel narrative. 
 
 78. Sa omAdyxva éddous Ceod Hpav. ‘Che concluding strophe, 
 referring to the whole of the preceding sentence, or (if we take a 
 single word) to zporopevoy. It is decause of God’s tender mercy 
 that the child will be able to fulfil his high calling and to do all 
 this. Comp. Zest. X/Z. Patr. Levi iv., €ws émurxépytar Kipios mavra 
 ra vn ev orAdyvots viod aitovd Ews aidvos. 
 
 Originally the or\dyxva were the ‘‘inward parts,” esp. the upper portions, 
 the heart, lungs, and liver (uzscera thoracts), as distinct from the év7epa or bowels 
 (wiscera abdominis). The Greeks made the ox\dyxva the seat of the emotions, 
 anger, anxiety, pity, etc. By the Jews these feelings were placed in the évrepa; 
 and hence in LXX we have not only omAdyxva (which may include the év7epa), 
 but also xovAla and éyxara used for the affections. Moreover in Hebr. literature 
 these words more often represent compassion or love, whereas orAdyxva in class. 
 Grk. is more often used of wrath (Aristoph. Raz. 844, 1006; Eur. 4/c. 1009). 
 ‘‘ Heart” is the nearest English equivalent for omAdyxva (RV. Col. iii. 123 
 Philem. 12, 20). See Lft. on Phil. i. 8. ‘* Because of our God’s heart of 
 mercy,” z.¢. merciful heart, is the meaning here. For this descriptive or 
 characterizing gen. comp. Jas. i. 25, ii. 4; Jude 18. Some would make yvaouw 
 cwrnplas an instance of it, “‘ saving knowledge,” z.e. that brings salvation. But 
 this is not necessary. For év ois see on év Bpaxlov, ver. 51. For émuokéetar! 
 comp. vii. 17; Ecclus. xlvi. 14; Judith vill. 33 ; and see on ver. 68. 
 
 dvatoh} é€ dipous. “Rising from on high.” The word is used 
 of the rising of the sum (Rev. vil. 2, xvi. 12; Hom. Od. xii. 4) and 
 of stars (Aésch. P.V. 457; Eur. Phen. 504). Here the rising of 
 the heavenly body is put for the heavenly body itself. Comp. the 
 use of dvareAdw in Is. lx. 1 and Mal. iv. 2. Because sun, moon, 
 and stars do not rise from on high, some join e€ tous with 
 émiaxewerat, which is admissible. But, as dvarody means the sun 
 or star itself, whose light comes from on high, this is not necessary. 
 Seeing that dvaré\Aw is used of the rising or sprouting of slants, 
 and that the Messiah is sometimes called “the Branch” (Jer. xxiii. 
 5) XXxili. 15; Zech. ili. 8, vi. 12), and that in LXX this is expressed 
 by dvaroA7, some would adopt that meaning here. But e& tous, 
 éripavat, and xarevfdvae are conclusive against it. These expres- 
 sions agree well with a rising sun or star, but not with a sprouting 
 branch. 
 
 79. émupavat Tots ev oxdter Kal ota Oavdrou Kadynpévous. For 
 émipavar comp. Acts xxvii. 20, and for the form Ps. xxx. 17, cxvii. 
 27. In 3 Mac. vi. 4 we have 30 @apad. . . drddeoas, Béyyos 
 emipavas éAéous IopaiA yéve. Note that the xa@ypevous ev oxdret 
 of Is. xlii. 7 and the oxia @avdrov of Is. ix. 1 are combined here as 
 in Ps. cvii. 10 (see table). Those who hold that these hymns are 
 
 1 This is the reading of § B Syr. Arm. Goth. Boh. and virtually of L, 
 which has émecxéWarrar. Godet defends éreoxéyiiro, because Zacharias would 
 not suddenly turn from the past to the future; but this thought would lead to 
 the corruption of the more difficult reading. 
 
44 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [LZ 79, 80. 
 
 written in the interests of Ebionism have to explain why zremedype 
 vous év mTwxela (Ps. cvil. 10) is omitted. 
 
 Tob KaTeuOdvar Tols Tddas Hav eis 68dv eipyyns. For the constr 
 comp. vv. 74, 77. Those who sat in darkness did not use their 
 feet: the light enables them to do so, and to use them profitably. 
 The 74 shows that Jews as well as Gentiles are regarded as being 
 in darkness until the Messianic dawn. ‘The way of peace” is the 
 way that leads to peace, especially peace between God and His 
 people (Ps. xxix. 11, Ixxxv. 9, cxix. 165; Jer. xiv. 13). It was one 
 of the many blessings which the Messiah was to bring (ii. 14, x. 5, 
 xxiv. 36). See on Rom.i. 7 and comp. 606v owrnpias (Acts xvi. 17). 
 
 80. TS 8é madiov nugave kal expatatodro mvedpatt. The verse 
 forms a set conclusion to the narrative, as if here one of the 
 Aramaic documents used by Lk. came to an end. Comp. ii. 40, 
 52; Judg. xiii. 24, 25; 1 Sam. ii. 26. In LXX avdédvw is never, as 
 here, intrans. Thus avfavé oe opddpa (Gen. xvii. 6); niéyOy ro 
 ma.dtov (Gen. xxi. 8). In N.T. it is used of physical growth (ii. 40, 
 Xil. 27, xiii. 19), and of the spread of the Gospel (Acts vi. 7, xii. 24, 
 xix. 20). With éxparaodro rvevuare comp. Eph. iii. 16; and for 
 the dat. Rom. iv. 20 and 1 Cor. xiv. 20. 
 
 jv ev tais epnpots. The wilderness of Judzea, west of the Dead 
 Sea, is no doubt meant. But the name is not given, because the 
 point is, not that he lived in any particular desert, but that he lived 
 in desert places and not in towns or villages. He lived a solitary 
 life. Hence nothing is said about his being “in favour with men”; 
 for he avoided men until his dvadeéts brought him disciples. This 
 fact answers the question whether John was influenced by the 
 Essenes, communities of whom lived in the wilderness of Judza. 
 We have no reason to believe that he came in contact with them. 
 Excepting the ascetic life, and a yearning for something better 
 than obsolete Judaism, there was little resemblance between their 
 principles and his. He preached the Kingdom of God; they 
 preached isolation. They abandoned society ; he strove to reform 
 it. See Godet zz /oco and D.Z.? art. “Essenes.” Lk. alone uses 
 the plur. ai épypor (v. 16, viii. 29). 
 
 €ws pepas avadelgews attod mpos tov “lopaynh. John probably 
 went up to Jerusalem for the feasts, and on those occasions he and 
 the Messiah may have met, but without John’s recognizing Him as 
 such. Here only in N.T. does avadeérs occur. In Ecclus. xlii. 6 
 we have avadeéw xpdvwv as a function of the moon. In Plut. the 
 word is used of the proclaiming or inauguration of those who are 
 appointed to office (Alar. viii. ; C. Grac. xii.). It is also used of 
 the decication of a temple (Strabo, viii. 5. 23, p. 381). Comp. 
 avédeéev Of the appointment of the Seventy (x. 1). It was John 
 himselt sho proclaimed the inauguration of his office by manifesting 
 hims:f o the people at God’s command (iii. 2). 
 
THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 45 
 
 NoTE ON THE USE OF éyévero. 
 
 More than any other Evangelist Lk. makes use of the Hebr. formula, éyévero 
 dé or kal éyévero. But with it he uses a variety of constructions, some of which 
 are modelled on the classical use of ovvé8n, which Lk. himself employs Acts xxi. 
 35. The following types are worth noting. 
 
 (a) The éyévero and that which came to pass are placed side by side as 
 _ parallel statements in the indicative mood without a conjunction. 
 
 i. 8. éyévero 6¢ év TG leparevew airdv . . . Adaxe TOD Oumaca. 
 i. 23. Kal éyévero ws émdjobnoay ai juépar Tis Aecroupylas avrov, ar7AdOer. 
 - i. 41. Kal éyévero ws Hxoucev Tov doracpuov THs M. 7’E., éoxlprncev 7d Bpégos. 
 
 ii. 1. éyévero dé év tats juépars éxelvaus €E7pAOev dbyua. 
 
 Of the same type are i. 59, il. 6, 15, 46, vii. II, ix. 18, 28, 29, 33, 37, xi. I, 
 14, 27, XVil. 14, XViil. 35, XIX. 29, xx. I, xxiv. 30, 51. In viii. 40, ix. 57, x. 
 38 the éyévero 6€ is probably spurious. In the Acts this type does not occur. 
 
 (8) The éyévero and that which came to pass are coupled together by xal, 
 which may be regarded as (I) uniting two co-ordinate statements; or (2) 
 epexegetic, “It came to pass, zamely” ; or (3) introducing the apodosis, as 
 often in class. Grk., ‘‘ It came to pass that.” 
 
 v. I. éyévero 56 &v TQ Tov BxAOv emixeioba aiT@ . . . Kal abrds Fv éorws. 
 v. 17. Kal éyévero év pug TOy Huepwv kal abrds qv diddoKwy. 
 
 viii. I. Kal éyévero €v TH Kabek7s Kal abrds duddever. 
 
 viii. 22. éyévero 6¢ év pug T&v juepwv Kal abrds dvéBy els motor. 
 
 Of the same type are v. 12, ix. 51, xiv. I, xvil. II, xix. 15, xxiv. 43 Acts 
 y. 7. It will be observed that in nearly all cases the xal is followed by avrés or 
 avrol. Inv. 12 and xxiv. 4 it is followed by the Hebraistic /dov, and in xix. 15 
 we have simply xal trey. 
 
 (y) That which takes place is put in the infinitive mood, and this depends 
 upon éyévero. 
 
 iii, 21. éyévero O¢ év TQ BarricOjvar dravta Tov Aadv . . . dvewxORvar Tov 
 ovpavdr. 
 
 vi. 1. evyévero 58 év caBBdrw SiamopeterOar avrdy did orropluwy. 
 
 vi. 12. éyévero dé év tats nuépats Tavrass eEehOetv avrdv els Td bpos. 
 
 Xvi. 22. éyévero 6¢ drrobavety Tov Trwx bv. 
 
 This type of construction is common in the Acts: iv. 5, ix. 32, 37, 43, xi 26, 
 xiv. I, xvi. 16, xix. I, xxii. 6, 17, xxviii. 8, 17. 
 
 (6) In the Acts we have several other forms still more closely assimilated to 
 classical constructions, the éyévero being placed later in the sentence, or being 
 preceded by as or dre. 
 
 ix. 3. év d¢7@ ropevecOar éyévero abrov éyylfew TH Aayacke. 
 
 xxi. I. ws 0¢ éyévero dvaxOjvat juds . . . HAGouer els Thy KG. 
 
 xxi. 5. dre de éyévero ebaprioa: judas Tas Tuepas, eEEPovTes erropevducbo. 
 x. 25. ws dé éyévero Tov eloeNOeiv tov Ilérpov, . . . mpocextvncer. 
 
 In these last three instances we are far removed from the Hebraistic types (a) 
 and (8). The last is very peculiar ; but comp. xxvii. I and the exact parallel in 
 Acta Barnab. Apocryp. vii. quoted by Lumby, os dé éyévero Tod Tedécar airovs 
 dcdaoKovras. 
 
 We have obtained in this analysis the following results. Of the two Hebra- 
 istic types, (a) is very common in the first two chapters of the Gospel, where Lk. 
 is specially under the influence of Hebrew thought and literature, and is probably 
 translating from the Aramaic ; but (a) is not found at all in the Acts, and (8) 
 occurs there only once. On the other hand, of the more classical types, (y) is 
 much less common in the Gospel than in the Acts, while the forms grouped 
 under (6) do not occur in the Gospel at all. All which is quite what we might 
 have expected. In the Acts there is much less room for Hebrew influences than 
 there is in the Gospel ; and thus the more classical forms of construction become 
 there the prevailing types. 
 
46 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [TL 
 
 Il. 1-20. Zhe Birth of the Saviour, its Proclamation by the 
 Angels, and tts Verification by the Shepherds. 
 
 The second of the narratives in the second group (i. 57-ii. 40) 
 in the Gospel of the Infancy (i. 5-ii. 52). It corresponds to the 
 Annunciation (i. 26-38) in the first group. Like the sections which 
 precede and which follow, it has a clearly marked conclusion. And 
 these conclusions have in some cases a very marked resemblance. 
 Comp. ii. 20 with i. 56, and ii. 40 and 52 with i. 80. This 
 similarity of form points to the use of material from one and 
 the same source, and carefully arranged according to the sub- 
 ject-matter. This source would be some member of the Holy 
 Family (see on i. 5). The marks of Lk.’s style, accompanied by 
 Hebraistic forms of expression, still continue; and we infer, as 
 before, that he is translating from an Aramaic document. The 
 section has three marked divisions: the Birth (1-7), the Angelic 
 Proclamation (8-14), and the Verification (15-20). The con- 
 nexion with what precedes is obvious. We have just been told 
 how the promise to Zacharias was fulfilled ; and we are now to be 
 told how the promise to Mary was fulfilled. 
 
 1-7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem at the Time of the 
 Enrolment.. The extreme simplicity of the narrative is in very 
 marked contrast with the momentous character of the event thus 
 narrated. We have a similar contrast between matter and form in 
 the opening verses of S. John’s Gospel. The difference between 
 the evangelical account and modern Lives of Christ is here very 
 remarkable. The tasteless and unedifying elaborations of the 
 apocryphal gospels should also be compared.! 
 
 1-3. How Bethlehem came to be the Birthplace of Jesus 
 Christ, although Nazareth was the Home of His Parents. This 
 explanation has exposed Lk. to an immense amount of criticism, 
 which has been expressed and sifted in a manner that has produced 
 a voluminous literature. In addition to the commentaries, some 
 
 1 “Such marvellous associations have clung for centuries to these verses, that 
 it is hard to realise how absolutely naked they are of all ornament. We are 
 obliged to read them again and again to assure ourselves that they really do set 
 forth what we call the great miracle of the world. If, on the other hand, the 
 Evangelist was possessed by the conviction that he was not recording a miracle 
 which had interrupted the course of history and deranged the order of human 
 life, but was telling of a divine act which explained the course of history and 
 restored the order of human life, one can very well account for his calmness” 
 (F. D. Maurice, Lectures on S. Luke, p. 28, ed. 1879). 
 
pa oe | THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 47 
 
 of the following may be consulted, and from Schtirer and Herzog 
 further information about the literature may be obtained. 
 
 S. J. Andrews, Zzfe of our Lord, pp. 71-81, T. & T. Clark, 
 1892; T. Lewin, ast Sacri, 955, Longmans, 1865; J. B. 
 McClellan, Zhe New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 
 392-399, Macmillan, 1875; C. F. Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, 
 pp. 172-174, Beck, 1891; *E. Schiirer, Jewish People in the Time of 
 Jesus Christ, i. 2, pp. 105-143, T. & T. Clark, 1890; B. Weiss, 
 Leben Jesu, i. 2. 4, "Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. pp. 250-252; K. Wieseler, 
 Chronological Synopsis of the "Four Gospels, pp. 66-106, 129-135, 
 Deighton, 1864; O. Zockler, Handbuch der Ti heologischen Wissen- 
 schaften, 1. 2, pp. 188-190, Beck, 1889; A. W. Zumpt, Das 
 Geburtsjahr Christi (reviewed by Woolsey in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 
 1870), Leipzig, 1869; D.B.? art. “ Cyrenius”; Herzog, PREZ? 
 xiii. art. “Schatzung”; P. Schaff, Azstory of the Church, i. pp. 
 121-125, T. & T. Clark, 1883; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at 
 Bethlehem ? 1899; Hastings, D.B. art. Chronology of N.T. 
 
 1. *Eyéveto 8€ ev tais Hpepats exelvars e&AOev Sédypa mapa Kat- 
 capos Adyovorou atroypddecbar tacav Thy oikounévny. For the constr. 
 see detached note at the end of ch. i.; and for & rais jpépais 
 éxeivats see On i. 5 and 39. The time of the birth of John is 
 roughly indicated. Even in class. Grk. the first meaning of 8dypa, 
 as “opinion, philosophic tenet,” is not very common (Plat. Aef. 
 538 C); it is more often a “public decree, ordinance.” This is 
 always the meaning in N.T., whether an ordinance of the Roman 
 Emperor (Acts xvii. 5), or of the Apostles (Acts xvi. 4; comp. 
 Ign. Mag. xiii.; Didaché, xi. 3), or of the Mosaic Law (Col. ii. 14; 
 Eph. ii. 15; comp. 3 Mac. i. 3; Jos. Anz. xv. 5. 3). For é&\ev 
 Séypa comp. Dan. ii. 13 (Theod.). In Daniel doypa is freq. of a 
 royal decree (iii. 10, iv. 3, vi. 9, 10). See Lft. on Col. ii. 14. 
 
 dmoypdpec8ar. Probably passive, ut describeretur (Vulg.), not 
 middle, as in ver. 3. The present is here used of the continuous 
 enrolment of the multitudes ; the aorist in ver. 5 of the act of one 
 person. The verb refers to the writing off, copying, or entering 
 the names, professions, fortunes, and families of subjects in the 
 public register, generally with a view to ¢axation (drotipnots or 
 tiunua). It is a more general word than dzotiudw, which implies 
 assessment as well as enrolment. But it is manifest that the dze- 
 yeay here and in Acts v. 37 included assessment. The Jews were 
 exempt from military service; and enrolment for that purpose 
 cannot be intended. In the provinces the census was mainly for 
 purposes of taxation. 
 
 macav Thy oikounevnv. ‘The whole inhabited world,” ze. the 
 Roman Empire, ordis terrarum.. Perhaps in a loose way the ex- 
 pression might be used of the provinces only. But both the zacav 
 and the context exclude the limitation to Palestine, a meaning 
 
48 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [I1.1. 
 
 which the expression never has, not even in Jos. Avzé. viii. 3. 4. 
 See on iv. 5 and xxi. 26. In inscriptions Roman Emperors are 
 called kvptou THs oixovjévns. The verse implies a decree for a general 
 census throughout the empire. 
 
 It must be confessed that mo direct evidence of any such decree 
 exists beyond this statement by Lk., and the repetitions of it by 
 Christian writers. But a variety of items have been collected, 
 which tend to show that a Roman census in Judeea at this time, 
 in accordance with some general instructions given by Augustus, 
 is not improbable. 
 
 1. The rationarium or rationes tmberii, which was a sort of balance-sheet 
 published periodically by the emperor (Suet. Aug. xxviii.; Cal. xvi.). 2. The 
 libellus or breviarium tottus tmperiz, which Augustus deposited with his will 
 (Tac. Aum. i. 11. 5,6; Suet. Aug. ci.). 3. The zxdex rerum gestarum to be 
 inscribed on his tomb, which was the original of the M/armor Ancyranum. 
 But these only indicate the orderly administration of the empire. A general 
 census would have been useful in producing such things; but that does not 
 prove that it took place. Two passages in Dion Cassius are cited; but one of 
 these (liv. 35) refers to a registration of the emperor’s private property, and 
 the other (lv. 13) to a census of Roman citizens. If Augustus made a 
 general survey of the empire, of which there is evidence from the commen- 
 tarit of Agrippa mentioned by Pliny (Vat. Hist. iii. 2. 17), this also would 
 have been conveniently combined with a general census, although it does 
 not show that such a census was ordered. Of some of the provinces we 
 know that mo census was held in them during the reign of Augustus. But 
 it is probable that in the majority of them a census took place; and the 
 statement of so accurate a writer as Lk., although unsupported by direct evi- 
 dence, may be accepted as substantially true: viz. that in the process of reduc- 
 ing the empire to order, Augustus had required that a census should be held 
 throughout most of it. So that Lk. groups the various instances under one ex- 
 pression, just as in Acts xi. 28 he speaks of the famines, which took place in 
 different parts of the empire in the time of Claudius, as a famine 颒 6p olkov- 
 pévnv. Of the Christian witnesses none is of much account. Riess seems to be 
 almost alone in contending that Orosius (A/7st. Rom. vi. 22. 6) had any 
 authority other than Lk. Cassiodorus (Varéarwm Epp. iii. 52) does not men- 
 tion a census of persons at all clearly ; but if ovd2s Romanus agris divisus cen- 
 suque descriptus est means such a census, he may be referring to Lk. ii. 1. The 
 obscure statement of Isidore of Spain (Ztymologzarum, v. 26. 4; Opera, ili. 229, 
 ed. Arevallo) may either be derived from Lk. or refer to another period. What 
 Suidas states (Lex. s.v. dmoypag7) partly comes from Lk. and partly is improb- 
 able. At the best, all this testimony is from 400 to 1000 years after the event, 
 and cannot be rated highly. The passages are given in full by Schiirer (Jewzsh 
 People in the T. of J. C. i. 2, pp. 116, 117). But it is urged that a Roman 
 census, even if held elsewhere, could not have been made in Palestine during the 
 time of Herod the Great, because Palestine was not yet a Roman province. In 
 A.D. 6, 7, when Quirinius certainly did undertake a Roman census in Judea, 
 si-h a proceeding was quite in order. Josephus shows that in taxation Herod 
 act:d independently (Azz. xv. 10. 4, xvi. 2. 5, xvii. 2. I, 11. 2; comp. xvil. 8. 4). 
 Vaat Ilerod paid tribute to Rome is not certain ; but, if so, he would pay it out 
 of taxes raised by himself. The Romans would not assess his subjects for the 
 tribute which he had to pay. Josephus, whose treatment of the last years of 
 ITerod is very full, does not mention any Roman census at that time. On the 
 contrary, he implies that, even after the death of Herod, so long as Palestine 
 was ruled by its own princes, there was no Roman taxation ; and he states that 
 
11. 1, 2.] THE GOSPEL OF: TIE INFANCY 49 
 
 the census undertaken by Quirinius A.D. 7 excited intense opposition, presum- 
 ably as being an innovation (Av#. xviii. I. I, 2. I). 
 
 In meeting this objection, let us admit with Schiirer and Zumpt that the case 
 of the Clitz is not parallel. Tacitus (Avz. vi. 41. 1) does not say that the 
 Romans held a census in the dominions of Archelaus, but that Archelaus wished to 
 have a census after the Roman fashion. Nevertheless, the objection that Augustus 
 would not interfere with Herod’s subjects in the matter of taxation is untenable. 
 When Palestine was divided among Herod’s three sons, Augustus ordered that 
 the taxes of the Samaritans should be reduced by one-fourth, because they had 
 not taken part in the revolt against Varus (Aw#. xvil. 11. 4; B. /. ti. 6. 3); and 
 this was before Palestine became a Roman province. If he could do that, he 
 could require information as to taxation throughout Palestine ; and the obsequi- 
 cus Herod would not attempt to resist. The value of such information would 
 be great. It would show whether the tribute paid (if tribute was paid) was 
 adequate ; and it would enable Augustus to decide how to deal with Palestine 
 in the future. If he knew that Iferod’s health was failing, he would be anxious 
 to get the information before Herod’s death; and thus the census would take 
 place just at the time indicated by Lk., viz. in the last months of the reign of 
 Herod. 
 
 2. airn dmoypady mpdrn éyévero. This may be accepted as 
 certainly the true reading ;2 and the meaning of it is not really 
 doubtful. ‘This took place as a first enrolment, when Q. was 
 governor of Syria.” The object of the remark is to distinguish 
 the census which took Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem from the 
 one undertaken by Q. in A.D. 6, 7, at which time Q. was governor 
 of Syria. But was he governor B.c. 4, when Herod died? It is 
 very difficult to establish this. 
 
 From B.c. 9 to 6 Sentius Saturninus was governor; from B.c. 
 6 to 4 Quinctilius Varus. Then all is uncertain until a.p. 6, 
 when P. Sulpicius Quirinius becomes governor and holds the 
 census mentioned Acts v. 37 and also by Josephus (Ax¢. xviii. 
 I. I, 2. 1). It is quite possible, as Zumpt and others have shown, 
 that Quirinius was governor of Syria during part of the interval 
 between B.c. 4 and A.D. 6, and that his first term of office was 
 B.C. 3, 2. But it seems to be impossible to find room for him 
 between B.c. 9 and the death of Herod; and, unless we can do 
 that, Lk. is not saved from an error in chronology. Tertullian 
 states that the census was held by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Mare. 
 iv. 19); and if that is correct we may suppose that it was begun 
 by him and continued by his successor. On the other hand, 
 Justin Martyr three times states that Jesus Christ was born ézi 
 Kvupyviov, and in one place states that this can be officially ascer- 
 tained é« tav droypaday tév yevopévew (Afol. i. 34, 46; Dial. 
 
 1 See the treatment to which Herod had to submit in the matter of Sy!leus 
 (Jos. Ant. xvi. 9. 3, 4)- 
 
 2 B (supported by 81, 131, 203) has airy droypagh rpcirn éyévero. 
 
 NS has the impossible alrhy amoypagihy éyévero rpdrn. 
 
 D (supported by Orig-Lat.) has atirn éyévero droypagh mpiry. 
 
 Thus all three are against the 7 before droypa¢7 inserted in ACLRZ. 
 
 4 
 
50 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IZ 2. 
 
 We must be content to leave the difficulty unsolved. But it is 
 monstrous to argue that because Lk. has (possibly) made a mistake 
 as to Quirinius being governor at this time, therefore the whole 
 story about the census and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem is a 
 fiction. Even if there was no census at this time, business con- 
 nected with enrolment might take Joseph to Bethlehem, and Lk. 
 would be correct as to his main facts. That Lk. has confused 
 this census with the one in A.D. 6, 7, which he himself mentions 
 Acts v. 37, is not credible. We are warranted in maintaining (1) 
 that a Roman census in Judea at this time, in accordance with 
 instructions given by Augustus, is not improbable; and (2) that 
 some Official connexion of Quirinius with Syria and the holding of 
 this census is not impossible. The accuracy of Lk. is such that 
 we ought to require very strong evidence before rejecting any 
 statement of his as an unquestionable blunder. But it is far 
 better to admit the possibility of error than to attempt to evade 
 this by either altering the text or giving forced interpretations of it. 
 
 The following methods of tampering with the ext have been suggested: to 
 regard mpwry as a corruption of mpérw éree through the intermediate wpwret 
 (Linwood); to insert mpd ris after éyévero (Michaelis) ; to substitute for Ku- 
 pnvlov either KuytiAlov (Huetius), or Kpovlov=Saturnini (Hleumann), or Zaroup- 
 vivov (Valesius) ; to omit the whole verse as a gloss (Beza, Pfaff, Valckenaer). 
 All these are monstrous. The only points which can be allowed to be doubtful 
 in the text are the accentuation of airy and the spelling of Kupyvlov, to which 
 may perhaps be added the insertion of the article. 
 
 Among the various z/evpretations may be mentioned— 
 
 (1) Giving mp&ros a comparative force, as in Jn. i. 15, 30: “‘ This taxing 
 took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Huschke, Ewald, Caspari) ; 
 or, as éoxdrn Tov vidy 7 mirnp éeTedcbTyce (2 Mac. vii. 41) means ‘‘ The mother 
 died last of all, and later than her sons,” this may mean, ‘‘ This took place as 
 the first enrolment, and before Q. was governor of S.” (Wieseler). But none of 
 these passages are parallel: the addition of jyeuovevovros is fatal. When 
 mp@tos is comparative it is followed by a simple noun or pronoun. It is 
 incredible that Lk., if he had meant this, should have expressed it so clumsily. 
 
 (2) Emphasizing éyévero, as in Acts xi. 28: ‘‘This taxing took effect, 
 was carried out, when Q. was governor of S.” (Gumpach, etc.) ; ze. the decree 
 was issued in Herod’s time, and executed ten or twelve years later by Q. 
 This makes nonsense of the narrative. Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem to be 
 enrolled, if no enrolment took place then? There would be some point in 
 saying that the census was fizzshed, brought to a close, under Q., after having 
 been begun by Herod ; but éyévero cannot possibly mean that. 
 
 (3) Reading and accentuating adr) 7 daoypagy: ‘‘ The raising of the tax 
 itself (as distinct from the enrolment and assessment) first took place when Q.,” 
 etc. ‘* Augustus ordered a census and it took place, but no money was raised 
 until the time of Q.” (Ebrard). This involves giving to daroypa¢7 in ver. 2 
 a totally different meaning from dmoypdpeoOa: in ver. I and dmoypdyac@at in 
 ver. 5; which is impossible. 
 
 (4) With avrh 7 dwoypagi}, as before: ‘‘The census itself called the first 
 took place when Q.,” etc. The better known census under Q. was commonly 
 regarded as the first Roman census in Judza: Lk. reminds his readers that 
 there had really been an earlier one (Godet). This is very forced, requires the 
 insertion of the article, which is almost certainly an interpolation, and assumes 
 
IL. 2-4.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 51 
 
 that the census of A.D. 6, 7 was generally known as “‘the fivs¢ census.” From 
 Acts v. 37 it appears that it was known as “‘¢he census”: no previous or 
 subsequent enrolment was taken into account. In his earlier edition Godet 
 omitted the 7: in the third (1888) he says that this interpretation requires the 
 article (i. p. 170). 
 
 McClellan quotes in illustration of the construction: al7la 6¢ atrn mpwrn 
 éyévero To modéuou (Thuc. i. 55. 3); alrn trav mepl OnBas éyévero dpxh kal 
 kardoracis mpwrn (Dem, 291. 10); mpurn wey pqvvots evyévero ality Kard ToUTOW 
 trav dvdpav (Andoc. iii. 5); atrn mpurn Snuoredhs Kplois éyévero dperfs mpds 
 mwAabrov (Aristid. i. 124); and adds the curious remark that ‘‘the Holy Spirit 
 would have us note that the Saviour of the World was registered in the jirst 
 census of the World !” 
 
 Hyyepovevovtos THs Xupias Kupyviov. Like wjyeudv (xx. 20, 
 xxi. 12, etc.) and jyepovia (iii. 1), the verb is generic, and may 
 express the office of any ruler, whether emperor, propretor, 
 procurator, etc. It does not tell us that Quirinius was /egatus 
 in B.c. 4 as he was in a.D. 6. And it should be noted that Justin 
 (see above) states that Quirinius was procurator (éritporos) at the 
 time of this census (Afo/. i. 34); and that in the only other 
 place in which Lk. uses this verb he uses it of a procurator (iil. 1). 
 This gives weight to the suggestion that, although Varus was 
 legatus of Syria at the time of the enrolment, yet Quirinius may 
 have held some office in virtue of which he undertook this census. 
 Lk. is probably not giving a mere date. He implies that 
 Quirinius was in some way connected with the enrolment. For 
 what is known about P. Sulpicius Quirinius see Tac. Azza. ii. 
 gomAyelll. 22. 1, 2, 23. 1, and esp. 48; Suet. .77. xlix. . Dion 
 Cassius (liv. 48) calls him simply IomAvos ZovArixios. But he 
 was not really a member of the old patrician gems Su/picia. The 
 familiar word Quirinus (Kvpivos) induced copyists and editors to 
 substitute Quirinus for Quirinius. 
 
 B has Kupelvov, but there is no doubt that the name is Quirinius and not 
 Quirinus. This is shown, as Furneaux points out in a note on Tac. Azz. ii. 
 30. 4, by the MS. readings in Tacitus; by the Greek forms Kuplyios (Strabo, 
 12, 6, 5, 569) and Kupijwos (here and Jos. Avz?. xviii. 1. 1), and by Latin 
 inscriptions (Orell. 3693, etc.). Quirinius is one of the earliest instances of a 
 person bearing two Gentile names. 
 
 8. Kat éemopevovto mdvtes arroypdpeoOar, Exaotos eis Thy EauTOd 
 mékw. The «af looks back to ver. 1, ver. 2 being a parenthesis. 
 The zavres means all those in Palestine who did not reside at the 
 seat of their family. A purely Roman census would have required 
 nothing of the kind. If Herod conducted the census for the 
 Romans, Jewish customs would be followed. So long as Augustus 
 obtained the necessary information, the manner of obtaining it was 
 immaterial. Where does Lk. place the death of Herod? 
 
 4. *AvéBy S€ Kat “Iwotp dad tis TadtNaias ex médews NaLapér. 
 For dvéBy comp. ver. 42, xvili. 31, xix. 28; Acts xi. 2; and for 
 
52 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 4,5 
 
 Sé kat see on iii. 9. Note the change of prep. from do to é 
 But dzé is used of towns (x. 30; Acts villi. 26, xli. 14, xx. 17, 
 etc.), and ék of districts (xxiii. 55; Acts vii. 4, etc.); so that there 
 is no special point in the change, although it should be preserved 
 in translation. Comp. Jn. i. 45 and xi. 1; also the ex of Lk. 
 xxl. +@ with the azo of Acts xxvil. 34. 
 
 eis wow Aauveid. That Bethlehem was David’s birthplace and 
 original home is in accordance with 1 Sam. xvii. 12 ff. and xvii. 58 ; 
 but both passages are wanting in LXX. In O.T. “the city of 
 David” always means the fortress of Zion, formerly the stronghold 
 of the Jebusites (2 Sam. v. 7,9; 1 Chron. xi. 5, 7), and in LXX 
 moXts in this phrase commonly has the article. Bethlehem 1s about 
 six miles from Jerusalem. Note that Lk. does not connect (~hrist’s 
 birth at Bethlehem with prophecy. 
 
 fits kadcirar ByOdecp. In late Greek 8o7us is sometimes scarcely dis- 
 tinguishable from 8s: comp. Acts xvii. 10, But in ix. 30 (as in Acts xxiii. 14, 
 xxvill. 18, and Eph. i. 23, which are sometimes cited as instances of éo7s= 
 8s) there may be special point in doris. Even here it may ‘‘denote an 
 attribute which is the essential property of the antecedent,” and | may possibly 
 refer to the meaning of Bethlehem. Comp. wédw xrioas TQUTHV, Tes vov 
 Méug¢is kadetroe (Hdt. ii. 99. 7). 
 
 ByOdeeu. “House of Bread”; one of the most ancient 
 towns in Palestine. It is remarkable that David did nothing 
 for Bethlehem, although he retained affection for it (2 Sam. 
 Xxlil. 15); and that Jesus seems never to have visited it again. 
 In Jn. vii. 42 it is called a xan, and no special interest seems 
 to have attached to the place for many years after the birth of 
 Christ. Hadrian planted a grove of Adonis there, which con- 
 tinued to exist from A.D. 135 to 315. About 330 Constantine 
 built the present church. D.ZB.? art. “Bethlehem.” The modern 
 name is Beit Lahm; and, as at Nazareth, the population is almost 
 entirely Christian. 
 
 oixou k. Tatpias. Both words are rather indefinite, and either 
 may include the other. Here otxos seems to be the more com- 
 prehensive ; otherwise «ai zatpiaés would be superfluous. Usually 
 matpia is the wider term. That a village carpenter should be able 
 to prove his descent from David is not improbable. The two 
 grandsons of S. Jude, who were taken before Domitian as 
 descendants of David, were labourers (Eus. @. £. iii. 20. 1-8). 
 
 5. droypdpaca. ‘To get himself enrolled.” The aorist of 
 his single act, the present (ver. 3) of a series of such acts. Both 
 are middle, while droypdédeofar in ver. 1 is probably passive. 
 We must not take otv Mapidp with droypdpacfa: it belongs to 
 avéBy. It is essential to the narrative that she should go up with 
 with him; not so that she should be enrolled with him. In a 
 Roman census women paid the poll-tax, but were not obliged to 
 
II. 5-7.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 53 
 
 come in persun. That Mary had property in Bethlehem is a con- 
 jecture which 1s almost disproved by her resourcelessness in the 
 place. And if it was necessary for her to come, because she also 
 was of David’s line, would not Lk. have written d1a 76 elvat adtous 
 e€ oixov x. 7. A.P This reading is found in Syr-Sin.: ‘ because 
 they were both of the house of D.” It is fuiile to argue that a 
 woman in her condition would not have gone unless she was com- 
 pelled: therefore Lk. represents her as being compelled: there- 
 fore he has made a mistake. She would be anxious at all risks 
 not to be separated from Joseph. Lk. does not even imply that 
 her presence was obligatory ; and, if he had said that it was, we 
 do not know enough about the matter to say whether he would 
 have been wrong. Had there been a law which required her to 
 remain at home, then Lk. might be suspected of an error. For 
 avy see on 1. 56. 
 
 TH epvyoteupévy atte, ovon éyxvw. The yvvarxi of A, Vulg. 
 Syr. and Aeth. is a gloss, but a correct one. Had she been only 
 his betrothed (i. 27; Mt. i. 18), their travelling together would 
 have been impossible. But by omitting yuvac«i Lk. intimates 
 what Mt. states i. 25. The ovoy introduces, not a mere fact, but 
 the reason for what has just been stated. Not, he had her with 
 him, and she happened to be with child; but, he took her with 
 him, “‘ decause she was with child.” After what is related Mt. i. 19 
 he would not leave her at this crisis. See on i. 24. 
 
 6, 7. The Birth of the Saviour at Bethlehem. The Gosfe/ of 
 Pseudo-Matthew (xiii.) represents the birth as taking place before 
 Bethlehem is reached. So also apparently the Protevangelium of 
 James (xvii.), which limits the decree of Augustus to those who 
 lived at Bethlehem! For éw\yjo@noav see on i. 15 and 57. 
 
 7. Tov vidv adits tov mpwtdtoKov. The expression might 
 certainly be used without implying that there had been subsequent 
 children. But it implies the possibility of subsequent children, 
 and when Luke wrote this possibility had been decided. Would 
 he have used such an expression if it was then known that Mary 
 had never had another child? He might have avoided all 
 ambiguity by writing povoyevyjv, as he does vii. 12, viil. 42, ix. 38. 
 In considering this question the imperf. éyivwoxev (Mt. i. 25) has 
 not received sufficient attention. See Mayor, Zp. of Si. James, 
 Pp. Xix—xxil. 
 
 éorapydvwcev aitév. It has been inferred from her being able 
 to do this thatthe birth was miraculously painless (rqv dévddwov 
 Kino, Euthym. ), of which there is no hint. For the verb comp. 
 opixdyn abriy éorapydvoca, “T made thick darkness a swaddling 
 band for it” (Job xxxviii. 9). 
 
 év $dtvy. ‘The traditional rendering “in a manger” is right ; 
 not “a stall » either here or in xili. 15. The animals were out at 
 
BA THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [1I. 7% 
 
 pasture, and the manger was not being used. Justin (77. Ixxviii.) 
 and some of the apocryphal gospels say that it was in a cave, which 
 is not improbable. In Origen’s time the cave was shown, and the 
 manger also (Com. Ceds. i. 51). One suspects that the cave may 
 be a supposed prophecy turned into history, like the vine in xix. 31. 
 Is. Xxxill. 16 (obros oikjoe: ev tYyAG omAalw wérpas dxvpas) was 
 supposed to point to birth in a cave, and then the cave may have 
 been imagined in order to fit it, just as the colt is represented as 
 “tied ¢o a vine,” in order to make Gen. xlix. 11 a prediction of 
 Lk. xix. 30-33 (Justin, AZo/. i. 32). 
 
 ok qv abtots Témos év TH KaTahUpatt. Most of the Jews then 
 residing in Palestine were of Judah or Benjamin, and all towns 
 and villages of Judah would be very full. No inhospitality is 
 implied. It is a little doubtful whether the familiar translation 
 “in the inn” is correct. In x. 34 “inn” is wavdoxeiov, and in 
 xxii. 11 kardAvpa is not “inn.” It is possible that Joseph had 
 relied upon the hospitality of some friend in Bethlehem, whose 
 “‘ suest-chamber,” however, was already full when he and Mary 
 arrived. See on xxii. 11. But xaradAvua in LXX represents five 
 different Heb. words, so that it must have been elastic in meaning. 
 All that it implies is a place where burdens are loosed and let 
 down for a rest. In Polybius it occurs twice in the plural: of 
 the general’s quarters (ii. 36. 1), and of reception rooms for envoys 
 (xxxll. 19. 2). It has been suggested that the “inn” was the 
 Geruth Chimham or “lodging-place of Chimham” (Jer. xli. 17), 
 the [son] of Barzillai (2 Sam. xix. 37, 38), “which was dy 
 Bethlehem,” and convenient for those who would “go to enter into 
 Egypt.” See Stanley, Siz. & Pal. pp. 163, 529. Justin says 
 that the cave was ovveyyuvs THs Kwuns, which agrees with “by 
 Bethlehem.” The Mandra of Josephus (Azzé. x. 9. 5) was perhaps 
 the same place as Geruth Chimham. 
 
 8-14. The Angelic Proclamation to the Shepherds: zrwxoi 
 eiayyeAtCovrat (vii. 22). It was in these pastures that David spent 
 his youth and fought the lion and the bear (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35). 
 “A passage in the Mishnah (Shek. vii. 4; comp. Baba K. vii. 7, 
 80 a) leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there 
 were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and accordingly, that the 
 shepherds who watched over them were not ordinary shepherds. 
 The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on account of their 
 necessary isolation from religious ordinances and their manner of 
 life, which rendered strict religious observance unlikely, if not 
 absolutely impossible. The same Mischnic passage also leads us 
 to infer that these flocks lay out a// the year round, since they are 
 spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover—that is, 
 in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is 
 nearly greatest” (Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. pp. 186, 187). For details of 
 
 S 
 
IL. 8, 9.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 55 
 
 the life of a shepherd see D.Z. art. “Shepherds,” and Herzog, 
 PRE.? art. “ Viehzucht und Hirtenleven.” 
 
 8. dypavdodvtes. Making the dypds their aiAy, and so “ spend- 
 ing their life in the open air”: a late and rare word, whereas 
 dypavdos is class. This statement is by no means conclusive 
 against December as the time of the year. The season may have 
 been a mild one; it is not certain that all sheep were brought 
 under cover at night during the winter months 
 
 It is of the flocks in the wz/derness, far from towns or villages, that the often 
 quoted saying was true, that they were taken out in March and brought home 
 in November. These shepherds may have returned from the wilderness, and if 
 so, the time would be between November and March. But the data for 
 determining the time of year are so very insufficient, that after minute calculation 
 of them all we are left in our original uncertainty. Among those who have 
 made a special study of the question we have advocates for almost every month 
 in the year. The earliest attempts to fix the day of which we have knowledge 
 are those mentioned (and apparently condemned as profane curiosity) by 
 Clement of Alexandria (Stvom. i. 21 sub fin.). In his time some took April 21, 
 others April 22, and others May 20, to be the day. What was unknown in his 
 time is not likely to have been discovered afterwards respecting such a detail. 
 December 25th cannot be traced higher than the fourth century, and it seems to 
 have been adopted first in the West. We must be content to remain in 
 ignorance as to the date of the birth of Christ. See on é¢nueplasi. 5; D. of 
 Chr. Ant. art. ‘‘ Christmas” ; Andrews, L. of our Lord, pp. 12-21, ed. 1892. 
 
 guddocovtes pudaxds. The plural refers to their watching in 
 turns rather than in different places. The phrase occurs Num. 
 vill. 26; Xen. Anad. ii. 6. 10; but in LXX tas gvAakas dvd. is 
 more common; Num. iii. 7, 8, 28, 32, 38, etc. Comp. Plat. 
 Phedr. 240 E; Laws, 758 D. The fondness of Lk. for such 
 combinations of cognate words is seen again ver. 9, Vil. 29, 
 XVil. 24, Xxil. 15, and several times in the Acts. See on xi. 46 and 
 xxiii. 46. We may take ris vuxrds after puAaxds, “ night-watches,” 
 or as gen. of time, “by night.” 
 
 9. dyyehos Kupiou énéotn adtois. The notion of coming 
 suddenly is not inherent in the verb, but is often derived from the 
 context: see on ver. 38.1 In N.T. the verb is almost peculiar to 
 Lk., and almost always in 2nd aor. In class. Grk. also it is used 
 of the appearance of heavenly beings, dreams, visions, etc. Hom. 
 Z1. x. 496, xxiii. 106; Hadt. i. 34. 2, vil. 14. 1. Comp. Lk. xxiv. 4; 
 Aes Xi 7, XXII. 11. 
 
 Sofa Kupiou. The heavenly brightness which is a sign of the 
 presence of God or of heavenly beings, 2 Cor. iii. 18: comp. Lk. 
 1X. 31, 32. In O.T. of the Shechinah, Exod. xvi. 7, 10, xxiv. 17, 
 
 4 In Vulg. it is very variously translated: e.g. stare juxta (here), supervenire 
 (ii. 38, xxi. 34), s¢ave (iv. 39, x. 40, xxiv. 4), convenzre (xx. 1), concurrere 
 (Acts vi. 12), adstare (Acts x. 17, xi. II, xii. 7), adséstere (Acts xvii. 5, 
 xxiii. 11), zazmznere (Acts xxviii, 2). 
 
56 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IZ 9-11 
 
 xl. 34; Lev. ix. 6, 23; Num. xii. 8, etc. This glory, according to 
 the Jews, was wanting in the second temple. 
 
 10. 6 Gyyedos. The art. is used of that which has been mentioned before 
 without the art. Comp. 76 Bpégos and ry ¢drvp in ver. 16. 
 
 M} doBetcbe. Comp. i. 13, 30, v. 10; Mt. xiv. 27, xxviii. 5, 10.1 
 For i800 ydp see on i. 44. 
 
 evayyeAiLopat suiv xapdv peyddynv. The verb is very freq. in 
 Lk. and Paul, but is elsewhere rare; not in the other Gospels 
 excepting Mt. xi. 5, which is a quotation. See oni. 19. 
 
 The act. occurs Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6; the pass. Lk. vii. 22, xvi. 16; Gal. 
 i. 11; Heb. iv. 2, 6; 1 Pet. i. 25, iv. 6; the mid. is freq. with various 
 constructions. As here, dat. of pers. and acc. of thing, i i. 19, iv. 43; Acts 
 viii. 35; acc. of thing only, viii. 1; Acts v. 42, viii. 4, 12; acc. of person, 
 iii. 18; Acts viii. 25, 40; acc. of person and of thing, Acts xiii. 32. 
 
 ijtts Eorat watt 76 hag. “Which shall have the special char- 
 acter of being for all the people.” The 77s has manifest point here 
 (see on ver. 4); and the art. before Aad should be preserved. A 
 joy so extensive may well banish fear. Comp. 76 Aad, i. 68, 77, 
 and rév Aady, vii. 16. In both these verses (9, 10) we have instances 
 of Lk. recording intensity of emotion: comp. i. 42, Vill. 37, 
 xxlv. 52; Acts v. 5, 11, xv. 3. Dat. after ety is freq. in Lk. 
 
 11. eréxOn butv ojpepov cwmp. ‘lo the shepherds, as a part, 
 and perhaps a specially despised part, of the people of Israel. 
 Here first in N.T. is owryjp used of Christ, and here only in Lk. 
 Not in Mt. er Mk., and only once in Jn. (iv. 42): twice in Acts 
 (¥. 31, xiii. 23), and freq. in Tit. and 2 Pet. The 1st aor. of rixro, . 
 both act. and pass., is rare: see Veitch. 
 
 Xptotés kptos. The combination occurs nowhere else in N.T., 
 and the precise meaning is uncertain. Either “ Messiah, Lord,” or 
 “ Anointed Lord,” or “the Messiah, the Lord,” or ‘an anointed 
 one, a Lord.” It occurs once in LXX asa manifest mistranslation. 
 Lam. iv. 20, “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the 
 Lord,” is rendered rvetua mpoowrov jpdv Xpictos kvpios. If this 
 is not a corrupt reading, we may perhaps infer that the expres- 
 sion Xpuords xvpios was familiar to the translator. It occurs 
 in the Ps. Sof, where it is said of the Messiah kai ov« éorw 
 dduxia év Tails Huepais adrod év péow aitdv, ott wavTes ayvol, Kal 
 Bactreds airdv Xprords kvpwos (xvii. 36: comp. the title of xviii.). 
 But this may easily be another mistranslation, perhaps based on 
 
 1 «This Gospel of Luke is scarce begun, we are yet but a little way in the 
 second chapter, and we have already three wold t2meres in it, and all, as here, 
 at the coming of an Angel (i. 13, 30, ii. 10). . . . What was it? It was not 
 the fear of an evil conscience; they were about no harm... . It is a plain 
 sign our nature is fallen from her or iginal ; Ileaven and we are not in the terms 
 we should be, not the best of us all” (Bishop Andrewes, Serv. V. On the 
 Nativity). 
 
20 11-14.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 57 
 
 that in Lam. iv. 20. Comp. <izev 6 xpios TG Kupiw po. (Ps. cx. 1), 
 and érexadeodpnv Kvpiov aatépa xvpiov pov (Ecclus. li. 10). See 
 Ryle and James, Ps. of Sol. pp. 141-143. The addition of év 
 moet Aaveid here indicates that this owryjp is the King of Israel 
 promised in the Prophets: see on ver. 4. 
 
 12. kai Todt Spiv TS onpetov. BE omit the7é. Sign for what? 
 By which to prove that what is announced is true, rather than by 
 which to find the Child. It was all-important that they should be 
 convinced as to the first point ; about the other there would be no 
 great difficulty.—eipyoete Bpépos. “Ye shall find a babe,” “not 
 the babe,” as most English Versions and Luther; Wiclif has “a 
 yunge child.” This is the first mention of it; in ver. 16 the art. is 
 right. In N.T., as in class. Grk., Bpédos is more often a newly- 
 born child (xviii. 15; Acts vii. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 2) than 
 an unborn child (Lk. i. 41, 44); in LXX it is always the former 
 (1 Mac. i. 61; 2 Mac. vi. 10; 3 Mac. v. 49; 4 Mac. iv. 25), unless 
 Ecclus. xix. 11 be an exception. Aquila follows the same usage 
 (Ps. viii. 3, xvi. 143; Is. Ixy. 20).—é€omapyavwpévov Kal Keiuevoy év 
 $d7vy. Both points are part of the sign. The first participle is 
 no more an adjective than the second. No art. with darvy: the 
 shepherds have not heard of it before. 
 
 13. é&épvns.1 The fact that this is expressly stated here 
 confirms the view that suddenness is not necessarily included in 
 eveory (ver. 9). For ctv 16 dyyédw see on i. 56.—otpatias. Magna 
 appellatio. Hic exercitus famen pacem /audat (Beng.). The 
 genitive is partitive: “a@ multitude (no art.) forming part of the 
 host.” Comp. 1 Kings xxil. 19; 2 Chron. xviii, 18; Ps. cil. 21; 
 Josh. v. 15).—aivoivrwy. Constr. ad sensum. The whole host 
 of heaven was praising God, not merely that portion of it which 
 was visible to the shepherds. The verb is a favourite with Lk. 
 (ver. 20, xix. 37, xxiv. 53?; Acts ii. 47, ili. 8, 9). Elsewhere 
 only Rom. xv. 11 (from Ps. cxvii. 1) and Rev. xix. 5; very freq. 
 in LXX. - 
 
 14, Acga . . . edSoxias. The hymn consists of two members 
 connected by a conjunction ; and the three parts of the one mem- 
 ber exactly correspond with the three parts of the other member. 
 
 Gory to God 7m the highest, 
 And om earth PEACE among men of His good will. 
 Acéa balances cipyvy, év ipioros balances ézi y7js, Ged balances ev 
 évOpdros cidoxias. This exact correlation between the parts is 
 lost in the common triple arrangement; which has the further 
 awkwardness of having the second member introduced by a con- 
 
 1 The word is thus written in the best texts here and ix. 39: comp. égvldtos, 
 xxi. 345 Kepéav, xvi. 173 Kpewa)n, xxi. 34 (WH. App. pp. 150, 151). In class. 
 Grk. ovpdvios is of three terminations ; but the true reading here may be ovpdvod 
 
 (B D). 
 
58 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [IL 14 
 
 junction,! while the third is not, and of making the second and 
 third members tautological. “On earth peace” is very much the 
 same as “Good will amongst men.” Yet Scrivener thinks that “in 
 the first and second lines heaven and earth are contrasted ; the 
 third refers to both those preceding, and adleges the efficient cause 
 which has brought God glory and earth peace” (Int. to Crit. of 
 NV.T. ii. p. 344) ; which seems to be very forced. The construction 
 ev avOpwrrots evdoxias is difficult ; but one of the best of modern Greek 
 scholars has said that it “may be translated ‘among men of His 
 counsel for good’ or ‘of His gracious purpose.’ This rendering 
 seems to be in harmony with the preceding context and with the 
 teaching of Scripture in general” (T. S. Evans, Contemp. Rev., 
 Dec. 1881, p. 1003). WH. take a similar view. They prefer, 
 among possible meanings, “in (among and within) accepted man- 
 kind,” and point out that “the Divine ‘favour’ (Ps. xxx. 5, 7, 
 Ixxxv. I, lxxxix. 17, cvi. 4) or ‘good pleasure,’ declared for the 
 Head of the race at the Baptism (ili. 22), was already contemplated 
 by the Angels as resting on the race itself in virtue of His birth” 
 (ii. App. p. 56, where the whole discussion should be studied). 
 H. suggests that the first of the two clauses should end with ézi 
 yns rather than @es, and that we should arrange thus: “Glory 
 to God in the highest and on earth; Peace among men of His 
 good pleasure.” With the construction of this first clause he com- 
 Dares vil. 17 and Acts xxvi. 23: ‘Glory to God zo¢ only in heaven, 
 but now also on earth.” “In this arrangement ‘ glory’ and ‘ peace’ 
 stand severally at the head of the two clauses as twin fruits of the 
 Incarnation, that which redounds to ‘God’ and that which enters 
 into ‘men.’” This division of the clauses, previously commended 
 by Olshausen, makes the stichometry as even as in the familiar 
 triplet, but it has not found many supporters. It destroys the 
 exact correspondence between the parts of the two clauses, the 
 first clause having three or four parts, and the second only two. 
 W. here leaves H. to plead alone. 
 
 evdoxias. The word has three meanings : (1) “ design, desire,” 
 as Ecclus. xi. 17; Rom. x. 1; (2) “satisfaction, contentment,” as 
 Ecclus. xxxv. 14; 2 Thes. i. 113; (3) “benevolence, goodwill,” as 
 Ps. evi. 4; Lk. ii. 14. Both it and eddoxeiy are specially used of 
 the favour with which God regards His elect, as Ps. cxlvi. 12; 
 Lk. iii. 22. The meaning here is “ favour, goodwill, good pleasure” ; 
 and dv@pwio. cidoxias are “men whom the Divine favour has 
 biessed.” See Lft. on Phil. i. 15. Field (Otium Norv. iii. p. 37) 
 urges that, according to Greeco-biblical usage, this would be, not 
 GvOpwror evdoxias, but avdpes evdoxias, and he appeals to nine ex- 
 amples in LXX. But two-thirds of them are not in point, being 
 singulars, and having reference to a definite adu/¢ male and not to 
 
 1 Syr-Sin. inserts a second ‘‘and” before ‘‘ goodwill to man.” 
 
II. 14-16.} THE GOSPEL OF TIIE INFANCY 59 
 
 human beings in general. These are 2 Sam. xvi. 7, xvili. 20; Ps. 
 Ixxx. 18; Jer. xv. 10; 27d. Aq.; Dan. x. 11. There remain avdpes 
 BovAjs pov, Ps. cxix. 24, Aq. 3; of avdpes tas diabyxys cov, Obad. 7; 
 avdpes eipyvixot cov, Obad. 7. This last is again not parallel, as being 
 accompanied by an adj. and not a gen. Substitute avdpes aivaruv, 
 Ps. exxxvili. 19. Of these instances, all zecessarily refer to adult 
 males, excepting Aq. in Ps. cxix. 24, and this more naturally does 
 so, for “counsellors” are generally thought of as male. But, 
 - allowing that the usual expression would have been avdpaow 
 evdoxtas, this might well have been avoided here in order to em- 
 phasize the fact that all, male and female, young and old, are 
 included. Even in the case of an individual S. Paul writes 6 av- 
 Opwros THs avopias (2 Thes. ii. 3), so that the combination is at 
 anyrate possible. See on Rom. x. 1. 
 
 The reading is a well-known problem, but the best textual critics are 
 unanimous for e’doxias. The internal evidence is very evenly balanced, as 
 regards both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, which are well stated 
 and estimated in WH. (ii. App. pp. 55, 56). The external evidence is very 
 decidedly in favour of the apparently more difficult reading evdoxlas. Roughly 
 speaking, we have all the best MSS. (excepting C, which is here defective), 
 with all Latin authorities, against the inferior MSS., with nearly all versions, 
 except the Latin, and nearly all the Greek writers who quote the text. Syr- 
 Sin. has ‘‘ and goodwill to men.” 
 
 For evdoxlas, S* A BD, Latt. (Vet. Vulg.) Goth. Iren-Lat. Orig-Lat. 
 and the Lat. Gloria in excelszs. 
 
 For evdoxia, LPTPAAZ®, etc., Syrr. (Pesh. Sin. Harcl.) Boh. Arm. 
 Aeth. Orig. Eus. Bas. Greg-Naz. Cyr-Hier. Did. Epiph. Cyr-Alex. 
 
 ‘©The agreement, not only of § with B, but of D and all the Latins with 
 both, and of A with them all, supported by Origen in at least one work, and 
 that in a certified text, affords a peculiarly strong presumption in favour of 
 evdoxlas. If this reading is wrong, it must be Western ; and no other reading 
 in the New Testament open to suspicion as Western is so comprehensively 
 attested by whe earliest and best uncials” (WH. p. 54). The vehemence with 
 which Scrivener argues against evdoxlas is quite out of place. 
 
 15-20. The Verification by the Shepherds, 
 
 15. é\ddouv mpds GAAHAous AreAPopev 8H. “They repeatedly 
 said unto one another, Come then let us go over,” or “Let us at 
 once go across.” The compound verb refers to the intervening 
 country (Acts ix. 38, xi. 19, xvill. 27), and the 67 makes the 
 exhortation urgent. Lk. is fond of deépxeo@ar, which occurs thirty 
 times in his writings and less than ten elsewhere in N.T. In LXX 
 it is very freq. Note és = “when.” 
 
 76 pypa tod7>. This need not be limited to the saying of the 
 Angel. It is rather the thing of which he spoke: see oni. 65. In 
 class. Grk. Adyos is used in a similar manner; e.g. Hdt. i. 21. 2. 
 Videamus hoc verbum quod factum est (Vulg.). 
 
 16. 7A8av omevcavtes Kal Gvevpav. For these mixed forms of the aor, 
 see oni. 59. Lk. alone in N.T. uses omevdew in its class. intrans. sense (xix, 
 
60 THE GOSPEL AZSCORDING TO S. LUKE [II 16-20. 
 
 5,6; Acts xx. 16, xxii. 18). In 2 Pet. iii. 12 it is intrans. as in Is. xvi. 5. 
 Lk. alone uses dveuvploxew (Acts xxi. 4), but the mid. occurs 4 Mac. iii. 14: 
 2nd aor. in all three cases. The compound implies a search in order to find. 
 In his Gospel Lk. never uses te without xal (xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. ITI, etc.). 
 Here both Bpégos and ¢arvy, having been mentioned before, have the article. 
 
 17. éyvdpicav. “They made known,” not merely to Mary and 
 Joseph, but to the inhabitants of Bethlehem generally. Both in 
 N.T. and LXX yvwpifw is commonly trans. ; but in Phil. i. 22 and 
 Job xxxiv. 25, as usualiy in class. Grk., it is intrans. Vulg. makes 
 it intrans. here: cognoverunt de verbo guod dictum erat tllis de puero 
 hoc. But ver. 14 makes this very improbable. 
 
 18, mdvtes ot dxodcavtes. See oni. 66. This probably includes 
 subsequent hearers, just as ver. 19 includes a time subsequent to the 
 departure of the shepherds. The constr. €0atvpacav mepi is unusual. 
 But in English “about,” which is common after “ perplexed,” might 
 easily be transferred to such a word as “astonished.” 
 
 19. 4 8€ Mapia mdvta cuveTnper TA PHuata taita. ‘ But Mary” 
 could have no such astonishment; neither did she publish her 
 impressions. The revelations to Joseph and herself precluded 
 both. Note the change from momentary wonder (aor.) to sus- 
 tained reticence (imperf.): also that rdévra is put before the verb 
 with emphasis. Comp. Dan. vii. 28; Ecclus. xxxix. 2.—cuvBd\\ouca 
 év TH Kapdia adtas. Conferens in corde suo. From whom could 
 Lk. learn this? The verb is peculiar to him (xiv. 31; Acts iv. 15 ; 
 xvii. 18, xviii. 27, xx. 14). See small print note on i. 66. 
 
 20. So0fdLovtes Kal aivodvtes. The latter is the more definite 
 word. The former is one of the many words which have acquired 
 a deeper meaning in bibl. Grk. Just as ddéa in bibl. Grk. never 
 (except 4 Mac. v. 18) has the class. meaning of “ opinion,” but 
 rather “ praise” or “glory,” so doa in bibl. Grk. never means 
 “form an opinion about,” but “praise” or “glorify.” It is used 
 of the honour done by man to man (1 Sam. xv. 30), by man to God 
 (Exod. xv. 2), and by God to man (Ps. xci. 15). It is also used of 
 God glorifying Christ (Acts iii. 13), a use specially common in Jn. 
 (viii. 54, x1. 4, etc.), and of Christ gloryfying God (xvii. 4). See 
 on Rom. i. 21. For the combination comp. aiverdy kat dedogac- 
 pevov (Dan. iii. 26, 55). For aivety see on ver. 13. 
 
 waco. ois. For the attraction see on iii. 19. If jxoucav refers 
 to the angelic announcement, then ka@ds refers to eiSov only. But 
 qkovcay Kal eioov May sum up their experiences at Bethlehem, 
 which were a full confirmation (xa$dés= “even as, just as”) of what 
 the Angel had said. 
 
 Schleiermacher points out that, if this narrative had been a mere poetical 
 composition, we should have had the hymn of the shepherds recorded and more 
 extensive hymns assigned to the Angels (5. Zwke, Eng. tr. p. 31). He regards 
 the shepherds as the probable source of the narrative ; “‘for that which to them 
 was most material and obvious, the nocturnal vision in the fields, is the only 
 
II. 20, 21.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 61 
 
 circumstance treated in detail” (p. 33). But any narrator would give the vision, 
 and could hardly give it more briefly without material loss. The brevity of it, 
 especially when contrasted with the apocryphal gospels, is strong guarantee for 
 its truth. How tempting to describe the search for the Babe and the conversa- 
 tion between the parents and the shepherds! Of the myth-hypothesis Weiss 
 rightly says that ‘‘it labours in vain to explain the part played here by the 
 shepherds by means of the pastoral tales of the ancients, and is driven to drag 
 in, awkwardly enough, the legends of Cyrus and Romulus” (Leben Jeszt, i. 2. 
 4, note, Eng. tr. p. 255). As for the old rationalism, which explained the 
 angelic vision by 2gvzs fatuzs or other phosphoric phenomena, which travellers 
 have said to be common in those parts; ‘‘ the more frequent such phenomena, 
 the more familiar must shepherds above all men, accustomed te pass their nights 
 the whole summer long in the open air, have been with them, and the less likely 
 to consider them as a sign from heaven pointing at a particular event” 
 (Schleierm. p. 36). 
 
 21-40. The Circumcision and the Presentation in the Temple. 
 
 This forms the third and last section in the second group of 
 narratives (i. 57-li. 40) in the Gospel of the Infancy (i. 5-ii. 52). 
 It corresponds to the Visitation (i. 39-56) in the first group. Its 
 very marked conclusion has close resemblance to i. 80 and ii. 52. 
 See introductory note to vv. 1-20 (p. 46). The absence of parallel 
 passages in the other Gospels shows that at first this portion of the 
 Gospel narrative was less well known. An oral tradition respect- 
 ing the childhood of the Christ (when hardly anyone suspected that 
 He was the Christ) would be much less likely to arise or become 
 prevalent than an oral tradition respecting the ministry and cruci- 
 fixion. We can once more trace a threefold division, viz. a longer 
 narrative between two very short ones: the Circumcision (21), the 
 Presentation in the Temple (22-38), and the Return to Home Life 
 at Nazareth (39, 40). 
 
 21. The Circumcision. The verse contains an unusual number 
 of marks of Lk.’s style. 1. Kai dre (vv. 22, 42, vi. 13, xxii. 14, 
 xxili. 33); 2. gAnOevv (twenty-two times in Lk. and Acts, and 
 thrice elsewhere in N.T.); see oni. 57; 3. row c¢. zmjin. to express 
 aim or purpose (i. 74, 77, 79, ii. 24, iv. 10, v. 7, Vili. 5, etc.); 
 see on i. 74; 4. kai introducing the apodosis (v. 1, 12, 17, vii. 12, 
 ix. 51, etc.); 5. cvAAapBaverr (eleven times in Lk. and Acts, and 
 five times elsewhere). See on v. I. 
 
 21. toi mepiteuetv atdtdv. There being no art. with jpépac 
 (contrast ver. 22), we cannot, as in ver. 6 and i. 57, make the gen. 
 depend on at.7épar or 6 ypovos. The éx7a does not take the 
 place of the art. As Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh” (Rom. vill. 3), and “it behoved Him in all things to be 
 made like unto His brethren” (Heb. ii. 17), He underwent cir- 
 cumcision. He was “born under the law” (Gal. iv. 4), and ful- 
 filled the law as a loyal son of Abraham. Had He not done so, 
 adk av GAws TapedexOy SiddoKwv, GAX’ droméugdOn dv ws GAASPvA0s 
 
62 TIlE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 21, 22. 
 
 (Euthym.) His circumcision was a first step in His obedience to 
 the will of God, and a first shedding of the redeeming blood. It 
 was one of those things which became Him, in order “to fulfil all 
 righteousness” (Mt. iii. 15). The contrast with the circumcision 
 of the Baptist is marked. Here there is no family gathering of 
 cejoicing neighbours and kinsfolk. Joseph and Mary are strangers 
 in a village far from home. 
 
 The reading 7d raldvov (D E G H) for avrés (N AB R & and versions) prob- 
 ably arose from this being the beginning of a lection, ‘‘ Him” being changed 
 to ‘‘the child” (AV.) for greater clearness. The same kind of thing has 
 been done at the beginning of many of the Gospels in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, ‘‘ Jesus” being substituted for ‘‘ He” or ‘‘Ilim”: e.g. the Gospels 
 for the 6th, gth, 11th, 12th, 16th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd Sundays after 
 Trinity. 
 
 kat exdynOy. The xai is almost our “then” and the German 
 da: but it may be left untranslated. It introduces the apodosis, 
 as often in Grk., and esp. in Lk. This is simpler than to explain 
 it as a mixture of two constructions, “ When eight days were ful- 
 filled . . . He was called” and “Eight days were fulfilled... 
 and He was called” (Win. hii. 3. f, p. 546, lxv. 3. c, p. 756) 
 Comp. Acts i. 10. “ He was a/so called” is not likely to be right. 
 The Vulgate and Luther are right. £7 postguam consummati sunt 
 dies octo ut circumcideretur vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus. Und da 
 achi Tage um waren, dass das Kind beschnitten wiirde, da ward sein 
 Name genannt Jesus. This passage, with that about John the Baptist 
 (i. 59), is the chief biblical evidence that naming was connected 
 with circumcision: comp. Gen. xvii. 5, ro. Among the Romans 
 the naming of girls took place on the eighth day: of boys on the 
 ninth. The purification accompanied it ; and hence the name des 
 lustricus. ‘Tertullian uses zominalia of the naming festival (Zdo/. 
 xvi. 1). Among the Greeks the naming festival was on the tenth 
 day ; Sexaryny éoriav or Ove. 
 
 ovd\AnppOAvat This and corresponding forms, such as A7juPouat, mpoocw- 
 mo\nuwia, and the like, are abundantly attested in good MSS. both of LXX 
 and of N.T. See on i.31. xockla=“ womb” is specially freq. in Lk. 
 
 22-38. The Purification and the Presentation in the Temple. 
 Here also we have a triplet. The Ceremony (22-24); Symeon 
 and the Nunc Dimittis (25-35); and Anna the Prophetess (36-38). 
 Symeon and Anna, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, with those spoken 
 of in ver. 38, are evidence that Judaism was still a living religion 
 to those who made the most of their opportunities. 
 
 22. ai fpépar tod x. Lev. xii. 6. Lk. is fond of these peri- 
 phrases, which are mostly Hebraistic. Comp. 7 jmépa rév oa Ba- 
 
I. 22.) TIE GOSPEL OF TIE INFANCY 63 
 
 tov (iv. 16), or Tod caBBarov (xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5), } 7uépa Taw 
 afvpwv (xxii 7), and the like. 
 
 rod KaSapiopod attay. “Of ‘heir purification.” The Jewish 
 law (Lev. xii.) did not include the child in the purification. This 
 fact, and the feeling that least of all could Jesus need purifying, 
 produced the corrupt reading aiz7js, followed in AV. 
 
 No uncial and perhaps only one cursive (76) supports the reading aurjs, 
 which spread from the Complutensian Polyglott Bible (1514) to a number of 
 editions. It is a remarkable instance of a reading which had almost no 
 authority becoming widely adopted. It now has the support of Syr-Sin. 
 The Complutensian insertion of dinp9pw6n alter 4 YAGooa avrov in i. 64 was 
 less successful, although that has the support of two cursives (140, 251). 
 D here has the strange reading avro8, which looks like a slip rather than a 
 correction. No one would alter av7&v to avrov. The Vulgate also has 
 purgationis ejus, but some Lat. MSS. have corum. The aurjs might come 
 from LXX of Lev. xii. 6, drav dvamAnpwhGow al juépar kabdpoews auras. 
 Note that Lk. uses xa@apioués and not xd@apots, which is a medical term for 
 menstruation, and which Gentile readers might misunderstand, 
 
 The meaning of airéy isnot clear. Edersheim and Van Hengel 
 interpret it of the Jews; Godet, Meyer, and Weiss of Mary and 
 Joseph. ‘The latter is justified by the context: “When the days 
 of ¢heir purification were fulfilled . . . they brought Him.” Con- 
 tact with an unclean person involved uncleanness. Purification 
 after childbirth seems to have been closely connected with purifica- 
 tion after menstruation; the rites were similar. Herzog, PRZ.? 
 art. Reinigungen. After the birth of a son the mother was unclean 
 for seven days, then remained at home for thirty-three days, and on 
 the fortieth day after the birth made her offerings. 
 
 Kata Tov vopov Mwucéws. These words must be taken with what 
 precedes, for the law did not require them to bring Him to Jeru- 
 salem (Lev. xii. 1-8). We have already had several places in 
 ch. i. (vv. 8, 25, 27) in which there are amphibolous words or 
 phrases: comp. Vill. 39, ix. 17, 18, 57, x. 18, xi. 39, Xli. I, xvii. 22, 
 XVIii. 31, XIX. 37, Xxl. 36, etc. 
 
 The trisyllabic form Mwiicojs is to be preferred to Mwofs. The name is 
 said to be derived from two Egyptian words, mo = ‘‘ water,” and ugaz = ‘to 
 be preserved.” Hence the LXX, a version made in Egypt, and the best 
 MSS. of the N.T., which in the main represent the text of the N.T. that was 
 current in Egypt, keep nearest to the Egyptian form of the name by preserving 
 the v. Josephus also has Mwvo7jjs. But Mwo7js is closer to the Hebrew form 
 of the name, and is the form most commonly used by Greek and Latin writers. 
 Win. v. 8, pe 472” 
 
 évjyayov. One of Lk.’s favourite words (iv. 5, viii. 22, and 
 often in Acts). It is here used of bringing Him x éo the capital, 
 like dvaBavévrwv in ver. 43. In the literal sense they went down; 
 for Bethlehem stands higher than Jerusalem. This journey is the 
 first visit of the Christ to His own city. 
 
64 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 22, 23, 
 
 *lepood\upa. In both his writings Lk. much more often uses 
 the Jewish form ‘Iepovoadyjp (vv. 25, 38, 41, 43, 45, etc.), which 
 Mt. uses only once (xxiii. 37), and Mk. perhaps not at all (? xi. 1). 
 Jn. uses the Greek form in his Gospel, and the Jewish form in the 
 Apocalypse. The Jewish form is used wherever the name is not 
 a geographical term, but has a specially religious signification (Gal. 
 iv. 25; Heb. xii. 22). The Greek form is neut. plur. In Mt. ii. 3 
 it may be fem.; but perhaps zaca % woXus was in the writer’s mind. 
 Neither form should have the aspirate, which a “ false association 
 with iepds” has produced (WH. ii. 313; App. p. 160). This visit 
 to Terusalem probably preceded the arrival of the Magi, after which 
 Joseph and Mary would hardly have ventured to bring Him to the 
 city. If this is correct, we must abandon the traditional view that 
 the Epiphany took place on the thirteenth day after the Nativity. 
 There is no improbability in Joseph’s going back to Bethlehem 
 for a while before returning to Nazareth. See Andrews, Lie of our 
 Lord, p. 92, ed. 1892; Swete, Zhe Afostles Creed, p. 50, ed. 1894. 
 
 In any case the independence of Mt. and Lk. is manifest, for we do not 
 know how to harmonize the accounts. Lk. seems to imply that “ the law of 
 Moses” was kept in all particulars; and if so, the purification did not take 
 place before the fortieth day. Mt. implies that the flight into Egypt took 
 place immediately after the visit of the Magi (ii. 14). As Bethlehem is so 
 close to Jerusalem, Herod would not wait long for the return of the Magi 
 before taking action. We adopt, therefore, as a tentative order the Presenta- 
 tion on the fortieth day, Return to Bethlehem, Visit of the Magi, Flight into 
 Egypt, without any return to Nazareth. 
 
 Tapacticat Tt Kupiw. The Heb. verb in Ex. xiii. 12 means 
 “cause to pass over.” It is elsewhere used of parents causing their 
 children to pass through the fire in offering them to Moloch, but is 
 not then translated by zapiornps (Deut. xviii. 10; 2 Kings xvi. 3, 
 XVli. 17, xxiii. 10, etc.). For rapaorjoa of offering to God comp. 
 Rom. xii. 1. This rapacrjcat 7 xvpiw is quite distinct from the 
 purification, which concerned the mother, whereas the presentation 
 concerned the son. It is evident that the presentation is the main 
 fact here. Not, “she came to offer a sacrifice,” but “they brought 
 Him up to present Him to the Lord,” is the principal statement. 
 The latter rite points back to the primitive priesthood of all first- 
 born sons. Their functions had been transferred to the tribe of 
 Levi (Num. ili. 12); but every male firstborn had to be redeemed 
 from service in the sanctuary by a payment of five shekels (Num. 
 Xviii. 15, 16), as an acknowledgment that the rights of Jehovah 
 had not lapsed. This sum would be about twelve shillings accord- 
 ing to the present worth of that amount of silver, but in purchasing 
 power would be nearly double that. 
 
 23. The quotation (which i is not a parenthesis) is a combination of Ex. 
 
 xiii. 2 with Ex. xiii. 12, and is not exact with either: KhyOyoerar a ay. perhaps 
 comes from Ex. xii. 16; comp. Lk. i. 35. For wav apoev see Gen. vii. 23; 
 
II. 23, 24.| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 65 
 
 Ex. i. 22. The Stavotyov pytpav seems to be fatal to patristic speculations 
 respecting Mary’s having given birth to the Christ c/awso utero, and therefore 
 painlessly : see on ver. 7. 
 
 Excepting Mk. vii. 34, dtavolyw is peculiar to Lk. (xxiv. 31, 45; Acts vii. 
 56, xvi. 14, xvii. 3); freq. in LXX (Gen. iii. 5, 7; Exod. xiii. 15; Num. iii. 
 12, etc.). 
 
 24. tobi Sodvar Ouciav. See on i. 74, and to the reff. there given 
 addive7, Will. 5, 1X. 51,.xil. 42, xxi. 22, xxii. 6, 31, XXIV. 15, 25, 29, 
 45. This is Mary’s offering for her own purification: it has nothing 
 to do with the ransom of the firstborn. The record of the offerings 
 is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend 
 would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by 
 saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed of to bring 
 the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. 
 
 Ledyos tpuyovwr. ‘The offering of thepoor. It has been argued 
 that this is evidence that the Magi had not yet come. But their 
 gifts, even if they had already offered them, would not have raised 
 Mary’s condition from poverty to riches. Only well-to-do people 
 offered a lamb and a pigeon. Neither here nor elsewhere in N.T. 
 have we any evidence that our Lord or His parents were among 
 the abjectly poor. 
 
 ‘©The pigeon and turtle-dove were the only birds enjoined to be offered in 
 sacrifice by the law of Moses. In almost every case they were permitted as a 
 substitute for those who were too poor to provide a kid ora lamb. . . . But 
 while the turtle-dove is a migrant, and can only be obtained from spring to 
 autumn, the wild pigeons remain throughout the year; and not only so—they 
 have young at all times. Consequently, at any time of the year when the turtle- 
 dove was unattainable, young pigeons might be procured. There is also a force 
 in the adjective ‘ young’; for while the old turtle-dove could be trapped, it was 
 hopeless to secure the old pigeon” (Tristram, Wat. Hzst. of the B. pp. 211, 213). 
 
 25-35. The Benediction of Symeon. He and Anna are repre- 
 sentatives of the holiness which, in a time of great spiritual deadness, 
 still survived among the men and women of Israel. They are 
 instances of that ‘spontaneous priesthood” which sometimes 
 springs up, and often among the lower orders, when the regular 
 cziyy Have become corrupt and secularized. To identify Symeon 
 with any other Symeon is precarious, the name being exceedingly 
 common. He is introduced rather as an unknown person (av@pwzros 
 #v). It is sometimes said that Symeon, son of Hillel and father of 
 Gamaliel, would hardly have been old enough; he was president 
 of the Sanhedrin a.D. 13. But ver. 29 does not necessarily imply 
 that Symeon is very old. What we know of the Sanhedrin at this 
 period, however, does not lead us to expect to find saints among 
 its presidents. In the Gospel of Nicodemus he is called sacerdos 
 magnus, and it is his two sons who are raised from the dead by 
 oe and reveal what they have seen in Hades (Pars altera, 
 
 bods) 
 5 
 
66 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 25, 26. 
 
 25. év “lepoucadnp. It is remarkable that with one excep- 
 tion (Rom. xv. 26) this expression is used in N.T. by no one 
 but Lk., who has it very often (ver. 43, ix. 31; Acts 1. 8, ii. 5, 
 VIET ix. £3, 21,,X: 30, xill. 27, Xvi 4, 3x0 11). In LXX it is 
 common. 
 
 ed\aBys. The word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts ii. 5, 
 Vili. 2, xxii. 12): lit. “taking hold well,” and so “cautious.” Lat. 
 timoratus (Vulg.), ¢imens (e), metuens (d), timens deum (tr). 
 Plutarch uses edAd@ea in the sense of “ carefulness about religious 
 duties, piety”; but edAaBys is not thus used in class. Grk. We 
 find the combination of these same two adjectives, Sixaros and 
 evans, twice in Plato’s sketch of the ideal statesman. He ought 
 to have both moderation and courage ; and of moderation the two 
 chief elements are justice and circumspection. If he is merely 
 courageous, he will be wanting in 76 dikasov kat evrAaBes (Polit. 
 311 B). See also Philo, Quis rer. div. her. vi., of the <etAaBaa of 
 Abraham. ‘The meaning of the combination here is that Symeon 
 was conscientious, especially in matters of religion. 
 
 mpoodexopevos (See ON XXiil. 51) mapdkAnow. 1. “ Appeal for 
 help”; 2. “encouragement”; 3. “consolation.” The last is the 
 meaning here. Those who “sit in darkness and the shadow of 
 death” (i. 79) need consolation; and the salvation which the 
 Messiah was to bring was specially called such by the Jews. 
 Comp. “Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people” (Is. xl. 1, xlix. 13, 
 li. 3, xi. 2, Ixvi. 13). There was a belief that a time of great 
 troubles (dolores Messiz) would precede the coming of the Christ. 
 Hence the Messiah Himself was spoken of as “the Consoler,” or 
 “the Consolation.” Comp. Joseph of Arimathzea, “ who was wait- 
 ing for the kingdom of God” (xxiii. 51; Mk. xv. 43); and with 
 this “ waiting” or “looking” of Symeon and Joseph comp. Jacob’s 
 death-song, Gen. xlix. 18. 
 
 mvedpa iv Gyvov. This is the order of the words in the best 
 authorities ; and the separation of dyvov from zvetpua by Hv accentu- 
 ates the difference between this expression and that in the next 
 verse. Here the meaning is, “an influence which was holy was 
 upon him”; i. 15, 35, 41, 67 are not parallel. See oni. 15. The 
 accusative, éx’ airéy, indicates the coming, rather than the resting, 
 of the holy influence; the prophetic zpudse. 
 
 26. Kexpypatiopévov. The act. = 1. “transact business” 
 (xpjua); 2. “give a divine response” to one who consults an 
 oracle; 3. “give a divine admonition, teach from heaven” (Jer. 
 XXV. 30, xxxl. 2; Job xl. 8). The pass. is used both of the 
 admonition divinely given, as here, and of the person divinely 
 admonished (Mt. ii. 12, 22; Acts x. 22; Heb. viii. 5, xi. 7). It is 
 gratuitous to conjecture that it was in a dream that the Holy Spirit 
 made this known to Symeon. 
 
II. 26-28.] 1HE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 67 
 
 py iSetv ©. wpiv % Gv iS. This is the only example in N.T. of mply 
 with the subj. (Win. xli. 3. b, p. 371); and, if the reading is correct, the only 
 instance of mplv dv: but perhaps either # or dv should be omitted. The repe- 
 tition ef ‘‘see” is doubtless intentional. In many languages ‘‘see” is used 
 of any kind of experience (Acts ii. 27, 31, xiii. 35-37, etc.). 
 
 tov Xpiotov Kupiov. “The Anointed of the Lord” ; Him whom 
 God has sent as the Messiah. Comp. rov Xp. tod @eov (ix. 20), 
 and also 1 Sam. xxiv. 7. 
 
 27. év76 mvedpar. Not “ina state of ecstasy” (Rev. i. ro), 
 but “under the influence of the Spirit,” who had told him of the 
 blessing in store for him. By 1d tepev is probably meant the Court 
 of the Women.—ev 14 eicayayetv. “After they had brought in”: 
 see on iii. 21. The verb is a favourite with Lk. (xiv. 21, xxii. 54, 
 and six times in Acts): elsewhere only Jn. xviii. 16; Heb. i. 6. 
 
 rods yovets. We cannot infer from this that either here or 
 ver. 41 Luke is using an authority that was ignorant of the super- 
 natural birth of Jesus. It is more reasonable to suppose that the 
 whole of this “Gospel of the Infancy” comes from one source, 
 viz. the house of Mary, and that in these passages the narrator 
 employs the usual expression. Joseph (iv. 22) and Mary were 
 commonly called His parents: comp. ver. 33.—It is possible 
 to take mept atrod after véuov or after eifucpévov ; but more prob- 
 ably it belongs to rod rorjoat, For xara 75 eiPiopévov see on i. 8. 
 
 28. kal aitds. First the parents, and then Ze holds the child in 
 his arms ; the cai being either “also” (he as well as they), or simply 
 introducing the apodosis after év 7G eicayayetv.. Each side acts its 
 proper part. The parents bring Him in accordance with the Divine 
 Law, and Symeon welcomes Him in accordance with the Divine 
 impulse. Symeon is sometimes called @coddxos. See on viii. 13. 
 
 Latin renderings of dyxd\as vary: w/zas(Vulg.), manus (cef), amplexum 
 (a), a/as (d). The last is a late use of a/a. 
 
 29-32. The Nunc Dimittis. In its suppressed rapture and 
 vivid intensity this canticle equals the most beautiful of the 
 Psalms. Since the fifth century it has been used in the evening 
 services of the Church (Afos¢. Cons?. vii. 481), and has often been 
 the hymn of dying saints. It is the sweetest and most solemn of 
 all the canticles. 
 
 Symeon represents himself as a servant or watchman released 
 from duty, because that for which he was commanded to watch has 
 appeared. Corfip. the opening of the Agamemnon of Aischylus, 
 
 1 Most of the canticles from O.T. and N.T. were said at Lauds both in East 
 and West. But the J/agnzjicat was transferred in the West to Vespers, and the 
 Nunc Dimitiis seems to have been always used in the evening, in the East at 
 Vespers, in the West at Compline. Kraus, Real.-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. ii. p. 5063 
 Bingham, Ovzg. vi. 47. 
 
68 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ II. 29-31. 
 
 where the sentinel rejoices at his release from the long watch for 
 the fire-signal respecting the capture of Troy. 
 
 29. viv. “Vow that I have at last seen the long-looked for 
 Messiah”: the viv stands first with emphasis. 
 
 dtroNvets tT. SodAGv o., Séomota. All three words show that the 
 figure is that of the manumission of a slave, or of his release from 
 a long task. Death is the instrument of release. “AzoAvw is used 
 of the deaths of Abraham (Gen. xv. 2), of Aaron (Num. xx. 29), of 
 Tobit (Tob. iii. 6), of a martyr (2 Mac. vii. 9): comp. Soph. Amz. 
 1268, and many examples in Wetst. Acozdrys is the “master of a 
 slave,” and the Greeks sometimes refused the title to any but the 
 gods in reference to themselves (Eur. “/zpfo/. 88). In Scripture it 
 is not often used of God: Acts iv. 24; Rev. vi. 10; perhaps 
 Jude 4, which, however, like 2 Pet. ii. 1, may refer to Christ. 
 Comp. Job v. 8; Wisd. vi. 7, viii. 3; Ecclus. xxxvi. 1; 3 Mac. 
 ii. 2; Philo, Quis rer. div. her. vi.; and see Trench, Sy. xxviii. 
 In using the word Symeon acknowledges God’s absolute right to 
 dispose of him, either in retaining or dispensing with his service. 
 
 kata Td ppd cov. The Divine command communicated to 
 him (ver. 26). Note the exact correspondence between his hymn 
 and the previous promise: dzroAvers = idciy Odvatov, <idov = idy, TO 
 cwTypidv gov = Tov Xpiotov Kupiov.—eév eipyyn. With emphasis, 
 answering to the emphatic viv: the beginning and the end of the 
 verse correspond. It is the peace of completeness, of work 
 finished and hopes fulfilled. Comp. “Thou shalt go to thy fathers 
 in peace” (Gen. xv. 15). 
 
 80. 6m. Introduces the cause of the perfect peace.—ei8op ot 
 é0adpot pou. Hebraistic fulness of expression: comp. Job xix. 27, 
 xlii. 5. His hands also had handled (1 Jn. i. 1); but he mentions 
 sight rather than handling, because sight was specially promised 
 (ver. 26). This verse probably suggested the worthless tradition 
 that Symeon was blind, and received his sight as the Messiah 
 approached him. 
 
 Ts owrmpiov. ‘The Messianic salvation,” and scarcely to be 
 distinguished from tiv cwrypiav. Comp. iii. 6; Acts xxviii. 28; 
 Ps. xcviil. 3; Is. xl. 5; Clem. Rom. Cor. xxxvi. 1. In EX@@itas 
 freq., sometimes in the sense of “safety,” sometimes of “ peace- 
 offering.” Win. xxxiv. 2, p. 294. That Symeon says so little about 
 the Child, and nothing about the wonders which attended His 
 birth (of which he had probably not heard), is a mark of genuine- 
 ness. Fiction would have made him dwell on these things. 
 
 31, 32. The second strophe of the canticle. Having stated 
 what the appearance of the Messiah has been to himself, Symeon 
 now states what the Messiah will be to the world. 
 
 81. jTotpacas. When used of God, the verb almost = “ ordain.” 
 Comp. Mt. xx. 23, xxv. 34; Mk. x. 40; 1 Cor. ii. 9; Heb. xi. 16, 
 
IL 31, 32.) THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 69 
 
 where, as here, the word is used of ordaining blessings. It is used. 
 only once of punishment (Mt. xxv. 41). 
 
 Kata Tpdcwnov tévtwv Tov Kav. This includes both Jews and 
 Gentiles, as the next verse shows, and is in harmony with the 
 universal character of this Gospel: comp. Is. xix. 24, 25, xlii. 6, 
 xlix. (Ga se KD and especially li. TO, droxadiyer Kvpuos Tov Bpaxiova 
 avrov TOV ; Eyov évesrruov TAaVTWV TOV ebvarv, kal Oyovrat TavTa Ta akpa 
 THS YRS THV TwTypiav THY Tapa Tod Ocod jydv. Both in LXX and 
 N.T. xara azpdcwroy is common; it occurs several times in 
 Polybius. 
 
 82. The cwrypiov is analysed into light and glory, and “ the 
 peoples” into heathen and Jews,—that “ profound dualism which 
 dominates the biblical history of humanity from Genesis to Revela- 
 tion” (Godet). The passage is a combination of Ps. xcviii. 2, 
 évavtiov Tav €Ovav arexddupe THY Oikacoovvyv aitod, with Is. xlix. 6, 
 dddwxa oe cis Pads eOvav, and Pas and ddfay are in apposition with 
 70 cwrypiov. But some take both as depending on jjroiyacas, and 
 others take ddgay after eis co-ordinately with dzroxdAvyuw. This last 
 is Luther’s: eim Licht zu erleuchten die Heiden und zum Preis deines 
 Volkes ; but it is very improbable. 
 
 dmokdhupy ebvav. Either 1. “revelation fo belong to the Gen- 
 tiles” ; or 2. “‘zzstruction of the Gentiles” ; or 3. “unveiling of the 
 Gentiles,” ze. for removing the gross darkness which covers them 
 (Is. xxv. 7, lx. 2); or 4. (taking é6véy after das) “a light of the 
 Gentiles unto revelation” (Is. xl. 5). The first is best, “a light 
 with a view to revelation which shall belong to the Gentiles,” making 
 eOvav a poss. gen. Does dmoxaAviis ever mean “instruction”?! 
 And to represent the heathen as revealed by the light seems to be 
 an inversion: revealed 7o whom? 
 
 Elsewhere in N.T. the gen. after daoxd)vyis is either the person who reveals 
 (2 Cor. xii. 1; Rev. i. 1), or the thing revealed (Rom. ii. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 13); but 
 the poss. gen. is quite possible. The word is eminently Pauline (Crem. Lex. 
 p- 343). _ It may be doubted whether the glory of Israel (Rom. ix. 4) is men- 
 tioned after the enlightening of the Gentiles in order to indicate that Israel 
 obtained its full glory after and through the enlightenment of the Gentiles ; for 
 the heathen accepted the salvation which the Jews refused, and from the heathen 
 it came back to Israel (Bede, Beng.). 
 
 The strain of confidence and joy which pervades the canticle is strong 
 evidence of the historical character of the narrative. The condition of the 
 Jewish nation at the close of the first century or beginning of the second is cer- 
 tainly not reflected in it: cest le pur accent primztif (Godet). And Schleier- 
 macher remarks that “‘it is a circumstance too natural for a poetical fiction ” 
 that Symeon takes no notice of the parents until they show surprise, but is lost 
 in an enthusiastic address to God. See small print on i. 56. 
 
 83-35. Symeon’s Address to the Virgin. “The foreboding of 
 suffering to Mary, so indefinitely expressed, bears no mark of fost 
 
 1 Grotius admits without commending this rendering, and quotes Ps. cxix. 18, 
 dmroxd\upov rods 6PParpovs Lov. 
 
70 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 88-35 
 
 actum invention. But the inspired idea of Messiah in the pious 
 old man obviously connected the sufferings which He was to 
 endure in His strife against the corrupt people with those which 
 were foretold of Him in Is. liii.” (Neander, Leben Jesus Christi, 
 § 18, Eng. tr. p. 27). The change from the unmixed joy and glory 
 of the angelic announcements and of the evangelic hymns is very 
 marked. Here for the first time in the narrative we have an 
 intimation of future suffering. 
 
 33. jv. When the sing. verb was written, only the first of the persons 
 mentioned was in the writer’s mind: such irregularities are common (Mt. xvii. 
 3, Xxil. 40). —Oavpalovtes ent. Excepting Mk. xii. 17, this construction is 
 peculiar in N. T. to Wika (ive 225d xe0 ASh ax. 26; Acts iii. 12). It is quite 
 class. and freq. in LXX (Judith x. 7, 19, 23, xi. 203 Job xli. 1; Eccles. v. 73 
 Is. lii. 15). The objection of Strauss, that this wonder of the parents is 
 inconsistent with the angelic annunciation, is pointless. Symeon’s declaration 
 about the Gentiles goes far beyond the Angel’s promise, and it was marvellous 
 that Symeon should know anything about the Child’s nature and destiny. 
 
 84, xetror. “Is appointed,” Phil. i. 16; 1 Thes. iii. 3; Josh. 
 iv. 6; not “is lying” here in thine arms. 
 
 eis mrdow. In accordance with Is. viii. 14, where the same 
 double destiny is expressed. The coming of the Messiah neces- 
 sarily involves a crisis, a separation, or judgment («p/o.s). Some 
 welcome the Light; others “love the darkness rather than the 
 Light, because their works are evil” (Jn. iii. 19), and are by their 
 own conduct condemned. Judas despairs, Peter repents; one 
 robber blasphemes, the other confesses (2 Cor. ii. 16). Hence the 
 mrT@ots Of many is an inevitable zesw/t of the manifestation of the 
 Christ. Yet the purpose is not rraovs, but dvdoracis and owrnpia 
 (Rom. xi. 11, 12). Elsewhere in N.T. dvdotacis means the 
 resurrection of the dead; in bibl. Grk. it is never transitive. 
 Some understand the metaphor as that of a stone lying (keira), 
 against which some stumble and fall (Mt. xxi. 44; Acts iv. 11; 
 Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 6), while others use it as a means to rise. 
 But the latter half of the figure is less appropriate. 
 
 onpetov. A manifest token, a phenomenon impossible to 
 ignore, by means of which something else is known. A person 
 may be a onpetov, as Christ is said to be here, and Jonah in 
 xi. 30.—dvtiNeyopevov. “Which zs spoken against.” This is the 
 mrToo.s, that men recognize, and yet reject and oppose, the 
 onpeiov ; an Opposition which reached a climax in the crucifixion 
 (Heb. xii. 3). For the passive comp. Acts xxviii. 22. 
 
 85. From kati ood to popdaia is not a parenthesis ; there is 
 nothing in the construction to indicate that it is one, and a state- 
 ment of such moment to the person addressed would hardly be 
 introduced parenthetically. It is the inevitable result of the 
 dytiAoyia: the Mother’s heart is pierced by the rejection and 
 
IL. 35, 36.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 71 
 
 crucifixion of her Son.—adrjjs.1 In opposition to otros.—thy 
 Wuxyv. The seat of the affections and human emotions. —poppaia. 
 (1) A long Thracian pike ; (2) a large sword, greater than pdxarpa 
 (i 36, 38, 49, 52) or éipos. Such a weapon better signifies 
 extreme anguish than doubi, the interpretation which Origen, Bleek, 
 and Reuss prefer, as if she would be tempted to join in the 
 dy7Xéyew. In that case we should expect 70 avedua for 7. puxyy. 
 The word is frequent in LXX and Rev. (i. 16, ii. 12, 16, vi. 8, 
 xix. 15, 21). 
 
 dmws dv. This depends upon the whole statement from *I8ov 
 to poudaia, not on the last clause only; on ketra:, not on duedev- 
 cerat. It was the Divine purpose that the manifestation of the 
 Messiah should cause the crisis just described ; men must decide 
 either to join or to oppose Him. The ay indicates that in every 
 case the appearance of the Christ produces this result: thoughts, 
 hitherto secret, become known through acceptance or rejection of 
 the Christ. 
 
 Acts iii. 19, 20 should be compared. There, as here, we have els 
 followed by dzws dv. In N.T. dzws dy is rare ; elsewhere only in quotations 
 from LXX (Acts xv. 17 from Amos ix. 12; Rom. iii. 4 from Ps. li. 6). 
 
 ék m. kapdtwv. “Forth from many hearts,” where they have 
 been concealed; or “Forth from the hearts of many.” For 
 Biadoyropol see on v. 22. 
 
 86-88. Anna the Prophetess. That the Evangelist ebtained 
 this narrative “directly or indirectly from the lips of this Anna 
 who is so accurately described,” is less probable than that the 
 source for all this chapter is one and the same, viz. some member 
 of the Holy Family, and probably Mary herself. 
 
 86. jv. Either “was sresent,” as in Mk. xv. 40, in which case 
 jv in the sense of “was” has to be understood with what follows ; 
 or simply “there was,” which is better. Thus all runs in logical 
 order. First the existence of Anna is stated, then her life and 
 character, and finally her presence on this occasion. Symeon 
 comes to the temple under the influence of the Spirit; Anna 
 (Hannah) dwells there continually. The sight of the Messiah 
 makes him at once long for death; it seems to give her renewed 
 vigour of life. Is this subtle distinction of character the creation 
 of a writer of fiction? We find fiction at work in the tradition 
 that Mary had been brought up in the temple under the tutelage 
 of Anna. There is nothing here to indicate that Anna had ever 
 seen Mary previously. 
 
 1 It is not easy to decide whether the dé after cod is genuine or not. Om. 
 BL, Vulg. Boh. Aeth. Arm. Ins. § A D, Syrr., Orig. If it be admitted, 
 comp. i. 76; and render cal. . . dé. . . in the same way in both passages: 
 “Yea and.” For duedevoerat see on ver. 15. 
 
72 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II. 86, 87. 
 
 Neither in ver. 36 (kal yy) nor in ver. 37 (kal avr7) does cai = *‘also” in 
 ref. to ver. 25. The meaning is not ‘‘ There was Symeon, the holy and aged 
 man ; a/so Anna, the holy and aged woman.” Throughout the section kal 
 = Ried ” 
 
 mpopitis. She was known as such before this occasion. Like 
 Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and the daughters of Philip, Anna was 
 a woman divinely inspired to make known God’s will to others. 
 That her genealogy is given because prophetesses are rare, is 
 doubtful. But Lk.’s accuracy appears in such details, which a 
 forger would have avoided for fear of mistakes. Although the ten 
 tribes were lost, some families possessed private genealogies. For 
 the word mpopytis comp. Rey. il. 20; Exod. xv. 20; Judg. iv. 4; 
 2 Chron, xxxiv. 2; Is. viii. 3. 
 
 For the omission of the art. after @vydrnp see on i. 5.—Pavouyr = ** Face 
 of God,” Peniel or Penuel (Gen. xxxii. 31, 32); in LXX eldos Qcof.—Aonp, 
 2 Chron. xxx. II. 
 
 aitn mpoBeByxuta, x.t.A. “She was advanced in many days, 
 having lived with a husband seven years from her Virginity, and 
 herself a widow even for eighty-four | years.” From avrn zpoe«B. to 
 Teoodpwv is a parenthesis in which jv is to be understood: fycaca 
 explains zpoSeGBnxvia, and airy balances pera dvdpds. She was of 
 great age, decause she had lived! seven years as a wife and eighty- 
 four years by herself (Rom. vil. 25) as a widow. The éws draws 
 attention to the great length of her widowhood; “up to as much 
 
 ” (Mt. xviii. 21, 22). That she should be considerably over a 
 hundred years old is not incredible. But the eighty-four may be 
 intended to include the seven years and the time before her 
 marriage. In any case the clumsy arrangement of taking al! three 
 verses (36-38) as one sentence, and making avry the nom. to 
 dv@wpoXoyetro, should be avoided. ‘That she had never, in spite of 
 her early widowhood, married again, was held to be very honourable 
 to her: comp. 1 Tim. v. 3, 5. onogamia apud ethnicos in summo 
 honore est (Tertul. de. Exh. Cast. xiii.: comp. de Monog. xvi.; ad 
 Uxor. i. 7). See quotations in Wetst. on 1 Tim. iii. 2, and 
 Whiston’s note on Jos. Azz. xviil. 6. 6. 
 
 37. ovK d&dplotato Tod tepod. See on viii. 13. This is to be 
 understood, like xxiv. 53, of constant attendance, rather than of 
 actual residence within the temple precincts, although the latter may 
 have been possible. She never missed a service, and between the 
 services she spent most of her time in the temple. In spite of her 
 age she kept more than the customary fasts (comp. v. 33), perhaps 
 more than the Mondays and Thursdays (see on xviii. 12), and spent 
 an unusual amount of time in prayer. 
 
 1 The first aorist of {#v is late Greek. It occurs Acts Xxvi. 5 ; Rom. xiv. 94 
 Rey. ii. 8, xx. 4. Attic writers use ¢Biwy, which is not found in N.T 
 
Il. 837-39.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 73 
 
 Aatpevovea, Freq. in Lk., Paul, and Heb. See on iv. 8. Not in Mk. 
 or Jn. Mt. iv. 10 from Deut. vi. 13.—vikta k. qpépav. Comp. Acts 
 xxvi. 7. This is the usual order: Mk. iv. 27, v. 5; Acts xx. 31; 1 Thes. 
 ii. 9, i. 10; 2 Thes. iii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 5; 2 Tim. i. 3. But the other is 
 also common: xvill. 7; Acts ix. 24; Rev. ix. 8, etc.; and in O.T. is more 
 common. It may be doubted whether the order makes any difference of 
 meaning: see Ellicott on 1 Tim. v. 5, and comp. Hom. Od. ii. 345; Z/. 
 xxiv. 73, v. 4yO; Plat. Zheaet. 151 A. 
 
 838. atti tH wpa. “That very hour” (RV.): see on x. 7, 21. 
 AV. exaggerates with “that instant,” as does Beza with eo tpso 
 momento, and also Gen. with ‘“‘at the same instant.”—émortéca. 
 “Coming up” and “standing by,” rather than ‘‘ coming suddenly ” 
 (Gen. and Rhem.), although the word often has this meaning from 
 the context. Comp. xxi. 34, x. 40, xx. 1; Acts iv. 1, vi. 12, xxil. 13, 
 xxili. 27 ; and see on ver. 9.—dv@wpodoyeito. The avri does not 
 tefer to Symeon, meaning that “she 7 ¢uxn gave thanks”; but to 
 the making 4 return, which is involved in all thanksgiving: Ps. 
 Ixxvili. 13, Ezra ili. 11; 3 Mac. vi. 33; Zest. XZZ. Patr. Judah i. 
 
 éd\dde. Not on that occasion, but afterwards, “she was 
 habitually speaking.” When she met Mary and Joseph she could 
 not speak waow Tots rpoodexopévors, for they were not present. 
 Grammatically wept avtoé may refer to 76 @cd, but it evidently 
 tefers to the Child. Godet divides the people into three sections : 
 the Pharisees, who expected a political deliverer ; the Sadducees, 
 who expected nothing; and the blessed few, who expected the 
 spiritual deliverance or consolation (ver. 25) of Jerusalem. Bengel 
 argues from waow erant igitur non pauct, which does not follow, 
 especially when we consider Lk.’s fondness for the word. 
 
 AUtpwow “lepoveadyp. This, without év, is certainly the true reading 
 (SB, many Versions and Fathers), “‘redemption of Jerusalem.” Comp. Is. 
 xl. 2. Fiction would probably have given Anna alsoa hymn. Against the 
 hypothesis that this narrative is ‘‘a poetical and symbolical representation,” 
 Schleiermacher asks, ‘‘ Why should the author, along with Symeon, have 
 introduced Anna, who is not made even to answer any poetical purpose?” 
 
 89. éré\ecay. “‘ Brought to a close, accomplished”; especially 
 of executing what has been prescribed: xii. 50, Xviil. 31, XXil. 37 ; 
 Acts xiii. 29; Rom. ii. 27; Jas. ii. 8. See Jn. xix. 28, which 
 illustrates the difference between rteAéw and Tedctdw. Syr-Sin. 
 here inserts “Joseph and Mary” as nom. to “accomplished.” 
 Why not “ His father and His mother” (ver. 33) or “ His parents” 
 (ver. 43), if that text was framed to discredit the virgin birth? 
 
 Nafapér. Lk. appears to know nothing of the visit of the 
 Magi. It would have suited his theme of the wnzversality of the 
 Gospel so well, that he would hardly have omitted it, if he had 
 known it. In that case he was not familiar with our First Gospel. 
 From Mt. ii. 11 we infer that the Holy Family, after the Purifi- 
 _cation, returned to Bethlehem and there occupied a house (77 
 
74 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [II 89-41 
 
 oixfav). The parents may have thought that the Son of David, 
 born in Bethlehem, ought to be brought up there. Thence they 
 fly to Egypt, a flight not mentioned in the authority used by Lk. 
 
 40. The conclusion of a separate narrative: comp. i. 80. 
 Contrast the reticence of this verse (which is all that we know 
 respecting the next eleven years) with the unworthy inventions of 
 the apocryphal gospels. 
 
 jvEavev K. Expatatodto. Of bodily development in size and 
 strength ; for wvevmare is an insertion from i. 80.—m)npotpevoy. 
 Pres. part. “Being filled” day by day. The copia is to be regarded 
 as wisdom in the highest and fullest sense. The intellectual, moral, 
 and spiritual growth of the Child, like the physical, was veaZ, His 
 was a perfect humanity developing perfectly, unimpeded by 
 hereditary or acquired defects. It was the first instance of such a 
 growth in history. For the first time a human infant was realizing 
 the ideal of humanity. 
 
 xdpis Gcod iv ew atts. See on iv. 22 and comp. Acts iv. 33. 
 
 It was near the beginning of this interval that the Jews sent an embassy of 
 fifty to follow Archelaus to Rome, to protest against his accession, and to 
 petition that Judza might be annexed to Syria (Jos. B. /. ii. 6. 13 Ant. xvii. 
 II. 1), of which fact we perhaps have a trace in the parable of the Pounds 
 (xix. 14). And it was near the end of this interval that another embassy went 
 to complain of Archelaus to Augustus: and he was then deposed, and banished 
 to Vienne in Gaul (Avs. xvii. 13. 2; B. /. ii. 7. 3). Lewin, Paste Sacrz, 377, 
 944, IOII, 1026. 
 
 41-52. The Boyhood of the Messiah. 
 
 His Visit to Jerusalem and the Temple, and His first recorded 
 Words. Here again, as in the Circumcision, the Purification, and 
 the Presentation, the idea of fidelity to the Law is very con- 
 spicuous. Hort, /udaistic Christianity, Lect. ii., Macmillan, 1894. 
 
 41. kat éros. The expression occurs here only in N.T. 
 Combined with the imperf. it expresses the habitual annual practice 
 of Josephand Mary. At the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles 
 every male had to go up to Jerusalem (Ex. xxiii. 14-17, Xxxiv. 23; 
 Deut. xvi. 16). But since the Dispersion this law could not be 
 kept ; yet most Palestinian Jews tried to go at least once a year. 
 About women the Law says nothing, but Hillel prescribed that 
 they also should go up to the Passover. Mary, like Hannah 
 (1 Sam. i. 7), probably went out of natural piety, and not in 
 obedience to Hillel’s rule. 
 
 TH €opty. ‘‘ For the feast,” or, more probably, ‘‘a¢ the feast”: dat. of 
 time, as in viii. 29, xii. 20, xili. 14, 15, 16; Acts vii. 8, xii. 21, xxi. 26, 
 xxil. 13, xxvii. 23. In class. Grk. 77 €opry without év is rare: Win. xxxi. 5, 
 p- 269. The phrase 7 éopry rod mdoxa occurs again Jn. xiii. I only; not in 
 
Il. 41-44.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 76 
 
 LXX. The fact that yove?s has not been changed here, even in those MSS. 
 in which vv. 27 and 43 have been corrupted, is some evidence that the 
 corruption was not made for dogmatic reasons. The love of amplification or 
 of definiteness might suffice. 
 
 42, érav dédexa. At the age of twelve a young Jew became 
 ‘a son of the Law,” and began to keep its enactments respecting 
 feasts, fasts, and the like. The mention of the age implies that 
 since the Presentation Jesus had not been up to Jerusalem.— 
 évaBawovtwv. Imperf. part. “On their usual going up.”—xara 76 
 €00s. See small print on i. 9. 
 
 43. kai teewodvtwy. Note the change of tense. “ And after 
 they had fulfilled.” There is nothing ungrammatical in the com- 
 bination of an aor. with an imperf. part. But the reading avaBavtwv 
 is an obvious correction to avoid apparent awkwardness.—ras 
 jepas. The prescribed seven days (Ex. xii. 15, 16; Lev. xxiii. 
 6-8 ; Deut. xvi. 3), or the customary two days, for many pilgrims 
 left after the principal sacrifices were over. 
 
 iméuewev. Contains an idea of persistence and perseverance, 
 and hence is used of remaining after others have gone: comp. Acts 
 xvil. 14. The attraction of Divine things held Him fast in spite of 
 the departure of His parents. It would be His first experience of 
 the temple services, and especially of the slaying of the Paschal 
 lamb.—é6 mais. ‘The Boy,” to distinguish from 76 ra:d/ov: see on 
 ver. 52.—ouk éyvwoay. This shows what confidence they had in 
 Him, and how little they were accustomed to watch Him. That 
 it shows neglect on their part is a groundless assertion. They 
 were accustomed to His obedience and prudence, and He had 
 never caused them anxiety. See Hase, Geschichte Jesu, § 28, 
 p. 276, ed. 1891. 
 
 44, ti cuvodia. “The caravan.” The inhabitants of a village, 
 or of several neighbouring villages, formed themselves into a 
 caravan, and travelled together. The Nazareth caravan was so 
 long that it took a whole day to look through it. The caravans 
 went up singing psalms, especially the ‘songs of degrees” (Ps. 
 CXX.—Cxxxlv.): but they would come back with less solemnity. It 
 was probably when the caravan halted for the night that He was 
 missed. At the present day the women commonly start first, and 
 the men follow; the little children being with the mothers, and the 
 older with either. If this was the case then, Mary might fancy that 
 He was with Joseph, and Joseph that He was with Mary. Tristram, 
 Lastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 56. 
 
 huépas 6d6v. In LXX 6ddv juépas (Num. xi. 31; 1 Kings xix. 4). Comp. 
 mopelay nuépas tds (Jon. iii. 4). 
 he compound dvefyjrovy expresses thoroughness (Acts xi. 25 ; Job iii. 4, 
 x. 6; 2 Mac. xiii. 21). 
 
 avyyevetow. A barbarous form of dat. plur. found also Mk. vi. 4 and 
 1 Mac. x. 89. For yworois see on xxiii. 49. 
 
76 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [I 45-47, 
 
 45. ph edpdvtes. “Because they did not find”. see on iii. 9. 
 —inéotpeay dvalntoivres. The turning back was a single act, the 
 seeking continued a long time. Comp. Mk. viii. 11, x. 2. Insuch 
 cases the pres. part. is not virtually fut., as if it meant “in order to 
 seek.” The seeking was present directly the turning back took 
 place. Win. xlv. 1. b, p. 429. For éméotpepav see small print on 
 i. 56, and for éyévero see detached note after ch. i. 
 
 46. i\pépas tpets. These are reckoned in three ways. (1) One 
 day out, at the end of which the Child is missed; one day back; 
 and on the third the finding. This is probably correct. (2) One 
 day’s search on the journey back ; one day’s search in Jerusalem ; 
 and on the third the finding. (3) Two days’ search in Jerusalem, 
 and then the finding. This is improbable. Jerusalem was not a 
 large place, and less than a day would probably suffice. We may 
 understand that on all three days Jesus was in the temple with the 
 doctors. Godet conjectures that He there had an experience 
 similar to that of Jacob at Bethel (Gen. xxviii. 10-22): “God 
 became more intimately Azs God, As Father.” There is no 
 evidence. 
 
 év T@ tep@. Not in a synagogue, if there was one in the temple 
 enclosure, but probably on the terrace, where members of the 
 Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and festivals. If 
 this is correct, His parents had left on the third day, and the 
 Passover was still going on. If all had been over, this public 
 teaching would have ceased. 
 
 xaOe{dpnevov. Asa learner, not asateacher. St. Paul sat “at 
 the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts xxii. 3). Jesus probably sat on the 
 ground, while the Rabbis sat on benches or stood.—ev péow. See 
 on viii. 7. Not dignitatis causa@ (Beng.) or as doctor doctorum 
 (Calov.), but because there were teachers on each side, possibly in 
 a semicircle. The point is that He was not hidden, but where He 
 could easily be found. For a list of distinguished persons who 
 may have been present, see Farrar, Z. of Christ, i. ch. vi., from 
 Sepp, Leben Jesu, i. § 17. Of biblical personages, Symeon, 
 Gamaliel, Annas, Caiaphas, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea 
 are possibilities. 
 
 dxovovTa aitay kal émepwravta adtous. Note that the hearing is 
 placed first, indicating that He was there as a learner; and it was 
 as such that He questioned them. It was the usual mode of 
 instruction that the pupil should ask as well as answer questions. 
 A holy thirst for knowledge, especially of sacred things, would 
 prompt His inquiries. The Aradic Gospel of the Infancy represents 
 Him as instructing them in the statutes of the Law and the 
 mysteries of the Prophets, as well as in astronomy, medicine, 
 physics, and metaphysics (1.-lii.). See on iii. ro. 
 
 47. éfictavro. A strong word expressing great amazement : 
 
II. 47-49.]| THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 77 
 
 vill. 56; Acts -ii. 7, 12, vili. 13, ix. 21. For émt comp. Wisd. v. 2 
 and the éwi which Lk. commonly uses after Gavpdew (see on ver. 
 33); and for mdvtes ot dxovovtes see on i. 66.—ouvéser. “ Intelli- 
 gence”; an application of the ao¢ia with which He was ever being 
 filled (ver. 40): see Lft. on Col. i. 9.—démoxpiceow. His replies 
 would show His wonderful intellectual and spiritual development 
 The vanity of Josephus (Vita, 2) and of Bellarmine (Via, pp. 
 28-30, ed. Dollinger und Reusch, Bonn, 1887) leads them to 
 record similar amazement respecting themselves. 
 
 48. iSdvtes. Return to the original subject, ot yovets.—éfe- 
 mdynoov. Another strong expression: ix. 43; Acts xiii. 12. 
 They were astonished at finding Him there, and thus occupied, 
 apparently without thought of them. 
 
 pat p adtod. It was most natural that she should be the first 
 to speak. Her reproachful question perhaps contains in it a vein 
 of self-reproach. She and Joseph had appeared to be negligent. 
 
 {ntooper. “Are seeking”: the pain of the anxiety has not yet 
 quite ceased. For kdyo see on xvi. 9. 
 
 8 B read {nroduer, which WH. adopt. Almost all other editors follow 
 almost all other authorities in reading é{yrodper. 
 
 dduvdpevor. ‘In great anguish” of mind, as in Acts xx. 38 and 
 Zech. xii. 10; of body and mind, xvi. 24, 25; comp. Rom. ix. 2; 
 1 Tim. vi. 10. The poydata (ver. 35) has already begun its work. 
 Anguish cannot be reasonable. But they might have been sure 
 that the Child who was to be the Messiah could not be lost. This 
 agrees with ver. 50. 
 
 49. ti dt efytetré pe; Not a reproof, but an expression of 
 surprise: comp. Mk. ii. 16. He is not surprised at their coming 
 back for Him, but at their not knowing where to find Him. 
 
 Here also §& has the pres. {yreire. 
 
 €v Tois TOU watpds pou. ‘Engaged in My Father’s business” is 
 a possible translation: comp. 7a Tod cod (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 
 33); T2. Tov Kupiov (1 Cor. vii. 32, 34). But “in My Father’s house” 
 is probably right, as in Gen. xli. 51. Irenzeus (zr. v. 36. 2) para- 
 phrases the év 77) oixia of Jn. xiv. 2 by év rots: comp. év tots “Apav 
 (Esth. vii. 9); é€v tots airod (Job xvill. 19); Ta Avxwvos (Theoc. ii. 
 76). Other illustrations in Wetst. The Armenian Version has 
 in domo patris met. The words indicate His surprise that His 
 parents did not know weve to find Him. His Father’s business 
 could have been done elsewhere. There is a gentle but decisive 
 correction of His Mother’s words, “Thy father and I,” in the reply, 
 “Where should a child” be (dec), but in his father’s house? and My 
 Father is God.” For the Set see on iv. 43. It is notable that the 
 first recorded words of the Messiah are an expression of His Divine 
 
78 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IL 49-52. 
 
 Sonship as man; and His question implies that they knew it, or 
 ought to know it. But there is nothing which implies that He had 
 just received a revelation of this relationship. These first recorded 
 words are the kernel of the whole narrative, and the cause of its 
 having been preserved. They must mean more than that Jesus is 
 a son of Abraham, and therefore has God as His Father. His 
 parents would easily have understood so simple a statement as 
 that. 
 
 50. of cuvfxay 76 ffpa. L7go non ex illis hoc didicerat (Beng.). 
 There is nothing inconsistent in this. They learnt only gradually 
 what His Messiahship involved, and this is one stage in the process. 
 From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recog- 
 nized that at this stage she and Joseph had not understood. This 
 verse, especially when combined with the next, shows clearly who 
 was the source of Lk.’s information.} 
 
 51. qv Gmotaccdpevos. This sums up the condition of the 
 Messiah during the next seventeen years. ‘The analytical tense 
 gives prominence to the continuance of the subjection: comp. i. 
 18, 20, 21. For trordacoew comp. x. 17, 20. 
 
 adtots. The last mention of Joseph. He was almost certainly 
 dead before Christ’s public ministry began; but this statement of 
 continued subjection to him and Mary probably covers some years. 
 The main object of the statement, however, may be to remove the 
 impression that in His reply (ver. 49) Jesus resents, or henceforward 
 repudiates, their authority over Him. 
 
 Suetnpet. Expresses careful and continual keeping. Gen. 
 XXXVll. II is a Close parallel: comp. Acts xv. 29. We must not 
 confine mdyta Ta pypata to wv. 48, 49; the phrase is probably used 
 in the Hebraistic sense of “things spoken of.” Comp. i. 65, il. 19; 
 Acts v. 32: but in all these cases “sayings” is more possible than 
 here. Still more so in Dan. vii. 28: 76 fyya ev tH Kapdia pov 
 duerypyoa [? cvvernpyoa]. 
 
 52. The verse is very similar to 1 Sam. ii. 26, of which it is 
 perhaps a quotation. See Athan. Con. Avian. iii. 51, p. 203, ed. 
 Bright ; Card. Newman, Select Treatises of S. Athan. 1. Pp. 419; 
 Wace & Schaff, p. 421; Pearson, On the Creed, art. ill. p. 160. 
 
 "Ingots. The growth is very clearly marked throughout: 70 
 Bpédos (ver. 16); TO aasdéiov (ver. 40); “Incots 6 wats (ver. 43); 
 *Incods (ver. 52). Von statim plena statura, ut Protoplasti, appa- 
 ruit: sed omnes xtatis gradus sanctificavit. Senectuseum non decebat 
 (Beng.). Schaff, Zhe Person of Christ, pp. 10-17, Nisbet, 1880. 
 
 1 “This fine tender picture, in which neither truth to nature, nor the beauty 
 which that implies, is violated in a single line, . . . cannot have been devised 
 by human hands, which, when left to themselves, were always betrayed into 
 coarseness and exaggeration, as shown by the apocryphal gospels” (Keim, /és. 
 of Naz., Eng tr. ii. p. 137). 
 
IZ. 52.] THE GOSPEL OF THE INFANCY 79 
 
 mpockomrev. Here only in the Gospels, and elsewhere in N.T. 
 only in S. Paul (Rom. xiii. 12; Gal. i. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9, 13). 
 The metaphor probably comes from pioneers cutting in front; but 
 some refer it to /engthening by hammering. Uence the meaning of 
 “promote”: but more often it is intransitive, as always in N.T. 
 Actual growth is expressed by the word, and to explain it of 
 progressive manifestation is inadequate. Hooker, £ccd. Pol. bk. v. 
 
 . I-3. 
 cl te. Not “knowledge” but “wisdom,” which includes know- 
 ledge: it is used of the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts vii. 22), 
 Jesus was capable of growth in learning; e.g. He increased in 
 learning through experience in suffering: Euafev ad’ dv éxabev 
 (Heb. v. 8, where see Westcott’s notes). 
 
 fAtxia. Not “age,” which is probably the meaning xii. 25 and 
 Mt. vi. 27, but would be rather an empty truism here. Rather, 
 “stature,” as in xix. 3: justam proceritatem nactus est ac decoram 
 (Beng.). His intellectual and moral growth (co¢/a), as well as His 
 physical growth (7Au«ia), was perfect. The mpockomre 7Acxig corre- 
 sponds to eweyaAvvero (in some copies éxopevero peyaAvvdpevor) in 
 1 Sam. ii. 26. 
 
 xdpin. “Goodwill, favour, loving-kindness” (ver. 40, i. 30; 
 Acts iv. 33, vil. 10): see on iv. 22. That He advanced in favour 
 with God plainly indicates that there was moral and spiritual 
 growth. At each stage He was perfect for that stage, but the 
 perfection of a child is inferior to the perfection of a man; it is 
 the difference between perfect innocence and perfect holiness. He 
 was perfectly (reXéws) man, as set forth in the Council of Constan- 
 tinople (A.D. 381) against Apollinaris, who held that in Jesus the 
 Divine Logos was a substitute fora human soul. In that case an 
 increase in codia and in xdpis rapa Oe would have been incon- 
 ceivable, as Pearson points out (Oz the Creed, art. iii. p. 160; comp. 
 E. Harold Browne, Lx. of the XXXIX. Articles, iv. 2. 4). 
 
 kat vOpdmous. Nothing of the kind is said of John (i. 66, 80); 
 his sternness and his retirement into the desert prevented it. But 
 an absolutely perfect human being living among men could not 
 fail to be attractive until His public ministry brought Him into 
 collision with their prejudices and sins.1_ Comp. what Josephus 
 says of the development of Moses (Azz. ii. 9. 6); also the promise 
 made in Prov. iii. 4 to him who keeps mercy and truth: “so shalt 
 
 1 Pearson in a long note gives the chief items of evidence as to the primitive 
 belief that Is. liii. 2, 3 was to be understood literally of the personal appearance 
 of Jesus as “fa personage no way amiable ; an aspect, indeed, rather uncomely.” 
 . . . ‘But what the aspect of His outward appearance was, because the Scrip- 
 tures are silent, we cannot now know” (Ox the Creed, art. ii. pp. 87, 88). 
 
 Lange has some good remarks on the ‘‘ master-stroke of Divine wisdom ” 
 which rag Jesus to be brought up at Nazareth (Z. of Christ, Eng. tr. i. pp. 
 317, 324). 
 
80 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IZ 52-III. 1. 
 
 thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and 
 man ”—é€vdmov Kupiov kat avOpdrrwv. 
 
 For answers to the objections urged by Strauss against the 
 historical character of this narrative see Hase, Gesch. Jesu, § 28, 
 p. 280, ed. 1891. 
 
 I, 1-IX. 60. THE MINISTRY. 
 
 III. 1-22. The External Preparation for the Ministry of the 
 Christ: the Ministry of John the Baptist, Mt. iii, 1-12; Mk. 
 i. 1-8; Jn. i. 15-24. 
 
 fTic quasi scena N.T. panditur is Bengel’s illuminative remark. 
 “Tt was the glory of John the Baptist to have revived the function 
 of the prophet” (Zece Homo, p. 2); and it is difficult for us to 
 realize what that meant. A nation, which from Samuel to Malachi 
 had scarcely ever been without a living oracle of God, had fer 
 three or four centuries never heard the voice of a Prophet. It 
 seemed as if Jehovah had withdrawn from His people. The 
 breaking of this oppressive silence by the voice of the Baptist 
 caused a thrill through the whole Jewish population throughout 
 the world. Lk. shows his appreciation of the magnitude of the 
 crisis by the sixfold attempt to give it an exact date. Of the four 
 Evangelists he is the only one to whom the title of historian in the 
 full sense of the term can be given; and of Christian writers he is 
 the first who tries to fit the Gospel history into the history of the 
 world. It is with a similar wish to do justice to a crisis that 
 Thucydides gives a sixfold date of the entry of the Thebans into 
 Plateea, by which the thirty years’ truce was manifestly broken and 
 the Peloponnesian War begun (ii. 2; comp. v. 20). 
 
 - The section is carefully arranged. First the Date (1, 2); then 
 a Description of the new Prophet (3-6); then an account of his 
 Preaching and its Effects (7-17) ; and an Explanation as to how it 
 came to an End (18-20). He baptizes the Christ (21, 22). 
 
 1,2. The Date. The event that is thus elaborately dated is 
 the appearance of the new Prophet, not the beginning of Christ’s 
 ministry. See below on the conclusion of ver. 2. Ellicott con- 
 siders it the date of the captivity of the Baptist. This had been 
 advocated by Wieseler in his Sywapszs (ii. ch. il. Eng. tr. p. 
 178), but he abandoned it in his Beztrdge. Others would make 
 it refer to Christ’s baptism, which may have followed closely 
 
Ii. 1.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 81 
 
 upon John’s first appearance as a preacher (Caspari, Chron. Eini. 
 § 33, Eng. tr. p. 41). But the interval between the beginning of 
 John’s ministry and his baptizing Jesus cannot be determined. 
 Some estimate it at one month, others at six months, because John 
 was six months older than Jesus (Lewin, Fast? Sacri, 1171). Weiss 
 (Leben Jesu, I. ii. 8, Eng. tr. i. p. 316) shows that the interval was 
 not more than six months. The appearance of one who seemed 
 to be a Prophet soon attracted immense attention; and when 
 large numbers accepted his doctrine and baptism, it became 
 imperative that the hierarchy should make inquiry as to his 
 authority and claims. But it appears from Jn. i. 19-28 that the 
 first investigation made by the Sanhedrin was about the time when 
 the Baptist met Jesus. In neither case can year or time of year 
 be determined. Jf Jesus was born towards the end, John about 
 the middle, of 749 (B.c. 5), then John might begin to preach about 
 the middle of 779, and Jesus be baptized early in 780 (A.D. 27). 
 
 It is little or no confirmation of this result that both the Greek and the 
 Roman Churches celebrate the Baptism of Christ on Jan. 6th. Originally, the 
 Nativity, the Visit of the Magi, and the Baptism were all celebrated on Jan. 6th. 
 When Dec. 25th was adopted as the date of the Nativity, the Roman Church 
 continued to celebrate the Baptism with the Epiphany to the Gentiles on Jan. 
 6th, while the Greek Church transferred the latter along with the Nativity to 
 Dec. 25th, commemorating the Baptism alone on Jan. 6th. The fact that both 
 the Eastern and the Western Church have concurred in celebrating the Baptism 
 on Jan. 6th seems at first sight to be imposing testimony. But there is little 
 doubt Pe all trustworthy evidence had perished before any of these dates were 
 selected. 
 
 Instead of the elaborate dates given in these first two verses, Mt. (iii. 1) has 
 simply "Hv 6¢ rats quépars éxelvars, while Mk. (i. 4) has nothing. Comp. the 
 somewhat similar dating of the erection of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings vi. 1). 
 Beng. says of this date, Apocha ecclesiee omnium maxima. Hic quasz scena N.T. 
 panditur. Ne nativitates guidem, aut mortis, resurrectionts, ascensionts christé 
 tempus tam precise definitur. 
 
 1. “Ev érer S€ wevrexardexdtw Tis yepovias TiBepiov Kaicapos. 
 He naturally begins with the Roman Empire, and then takes the 
 tocal governors, civil and ecclesiastical. ‘Now in the 15th year 
 of the reign of Tiberius Cesar,” or “of Tiberius as Cesar.” Is the 
 15th year to be counted from the death of Augustus, Aug. roth, 
 
 -A.U.C. 767, A.D. 14? or from the time when he was associated 
 with Augustus as joint ruler at the end of 764 or beginning of 
 765, A.D. I1 or 12? It is impossible to determine this with 
 certainty. Good authorities (Zumpt, Wieseler, Weiss) plead for 
 the latter reckoning, which makes the Gospel chronology as a 
 whole run more smoothly; but it is intrinsically less probable, 
 
 1 For the chief data respecting the limits of our Lord’s life see Lft. 
 Biblical Essays, p. 58, note; and on Lk.’s chronology in these verses see 
 Twald, Ast. of /srael, vi., Eng. tr. p. 149, and Lange, Z. of C. bk. ii. pt. iik, 
 Tiga je e 
 
82 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [TIL 1. 
 
 and seems to be inconsistent with the statements of Tacitus and 
 Suetonius. 
 
 The main points are these. 1. Tiberius was not joint Emferor with 
 Augustus; he was associated with him only in respect of the provinces and 
 armies: wt provincias cum Augusto communiter administraret, simulque 
 censum ageret (Suet. 77d. xxiy); ut wquum et jus im omnibus provinciis 
 exercitibusque esset (Vell. Paterc. ii. 121); jtlius, collega itmperiz, consors 
 tribunicix protestatis adsumitur, omnisque per exercitus ostentatur (Tac. Ann. 
 i. 3.3; comp. i. 11. 2 and iii. 56. 2). 2. It is clear from Tacitus (Azz. i. 5-7) 
 that, when Augustus died, 7zberzus was not regarded by himself or by o:hers as 
 already Emperor. Suetonius confirms this by saying that Tiberius, while 
 manifestly getting the imperial power into his hands, for a time refused the 
 offer of it (77d. xxiv.). 3. No instance is known of reckoning the reign of 
 Tiberius from his association with Augustus. The coins of Antioch, Lk.’s own 
 city, which helped to convert Wieseler from the one view to the other by 
 seeming to date the reign of Tiberius from the association, are not admitted by 
 Eckhel to be genuine. On the other hand, there are coins of Antioch which 
 date the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. It remains, therefore, 
 that, although to reckon from the association was a possible method, especially 
 in the provinces, for there Tiberius had been really a consort of Augustus, yet 
 it is more probable that Lk. reckons in the usual way from the death of the 
 predecessor (see Wieseler, Chron. Synop. ii. ch. ii.; Keim, Jesus of Naz. ii. 
 pp. 381, 382; Lewin, Fastz Sacrz, 1044; Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p- 65). 
 
 ifteen years from the death of Augustus would be A.D. 29, at which time our 
 Lord would probably be 32 years of age, which sufficiently agrees with Lk.’s 
 “about 30” (ver. 23). J the earlier date is admissible, the agreement becomes 
 exact. : 
 
 tyepovias. Quite a vague term, and applicable to the rule of 
 emperor, king, 4gatus, or procurator, as is shown by Jos. Anz. 
 XVili. 4. 2, and by the use of jpyéuwv in N.T.: xx. 20, xxi. 12; 
 Acts xxiii. 24, 26, 33, etc. Wieseler is alone in seeing in this 
 word (instead of povapxia), and in xatcap (instead of Z<Baords), 
 evidence that the co-regency of Tiberius is meant (Beifrdge z. 
 richtigen Wairdigung d. Evan. 1869, pp. 191-194). From the 
 Emperor Lk. passes to the local governor under him. 
 
 tyyepovevovtos. ‘The more exact érurpoevovros of D and other 
 authorities is an obvious correction to mark his office with pre- 
 Cision: ézitporos=procurator. Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus 
 A.D. 25, and was recalled a.D. 36 or 37 by Tiberius, who died, 
 March A.D. 37, before Pilate reached Rome. Having mentioned 
 the Roman officials, Lk. next gives the local national rulers. 
 
 tetpapxouvtos. The word occurs nowhere else in N.T., but is 
 used by Josephus of Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis (B._/. iii. 10. 7). 
 The title tetrarch was at first used literally of the governor of a 
 fourth ; e.g. of one of the four provinces of Thessaly (Eur. AZ. 
 1154), or one of the fourths into which each of the three divisions 
 of Galatia were divided (Strabo, 430, 540, 560, 567). But after- 
 wards it came to mean the governor of any division, as a third or 
 a half, or of any small country; any ruler not a Baowdeds (Hor. 
 
III. 1.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 83 
 
 Sat. i. 3. 12). Such seems to be the meaning here; but it may 
 be used in its literal sense, Pilate’s province representing the 
 fourth tetrarchy, viz. the dominions of Archelaus. 
 
 In d we have the singular rendering: 2 anno guintodecimo ducatus Tiberi 
 Cwxsaris procurante Pontio Pilato Judex, quaterducatus Galizx FHerode. 
 
 ‘Hpwdov. Antipas, son of Herod the Great and Malthace the 
 Samaritan. See small print on i. 5 for the iota subscript. Two 
 inscriptions have been found, one at Cos and one at Delos, which 
 almost certainly refer to him as tetrarch, and son of Herod the 
 king (Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. I. vol. ii. p. 17). 
 His coins have the title tetrarch, and, like those of his father, bear 
 no image. Herod Philip was the first to have any portrait on the 
 coins of a Jewish prince. He had the images of Augustus and 
 Tiberius put upon his coins. As his dominions were wholly 
 heathen, this would cause little scandal. He even went so far as 
 to put the temple of Augustus at Panias on his coins. Herod 
 Antipas was made tetrarch of Perea and Galilee, B.c. 4 (Jos. Ans. 
 xvii. 11. 4; B./. ii. 6. 3). As he ruled this district until a.p. 39 
 or 40, the whole of Christ’s life falls within his reign, and nearly 
 the whole of Christ’s ministry took place within his dominions. 
 For his character see on xili. 32. He was by courtesy allowed 
 the title of Baowev’s (Mk. vi. 14); and as Agrippa had obtained 
 this by right, Antipas and Herodias went to Rome, a.D. 39, to try 
 and get the courtesy title made a real one by Caligula. The 
 attempt led to his banishment, the details of which are uncertain, 
 for Josephus makes inconsistent statements. Either he was 
 banished: at Baiz, A.D. 39, to Lugdunum (Ant. xviii. 7. 2), or he 
 had a second audience with Caligula a¢ Lugdunum, a.p. 40, and 
 was banished to Spain (B. /. ii. 9. 6). The latter is probably 
 correct (Lewin, Fasti Sacrt, 1561). 
 
 $iNiamov. Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleo- 
 patra. He reigned for nearly 37 years, B.C. 4 to A.D. 33, when he 
 died at Julias, which he had built and named in honour of the 
 infamous Julia, d. of Augustus and wife of Tiberius. He was the 
 builder of Czesarea Philippi (2.7. ii. 9. 1), and was the best of the 
 Herods (Azz. xviii. 4. 6). He married his niece Salome soon 
 after she had danced for the head of the Baptist, ¢ a.p. 31 (Azz. 
 xviii. 5. 4). Trachonitis (tpaxdv=rtpaxds Kat aerpwdys tozos) 
 derived its name from the rugged character of the country. It lay 
 N.E. of Galilee in the direction of Damascus, and its inhabitants 
 were skilled archers and very often banditti (Az. xv. 10.1). The 
 expression tis “Ir. kai Tp. xwpas, “the region of Itureea and 
 Trachonitis,” seems to indicate that more than these two is 
 included; probably Auranitis and Batanza. “Imvpaia, both here 
 and perhaps everywhere, is an adjective. 
 
34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [|HIL1, 2. 
 
 Avoaviou tis “ABiAnvis tetp. Not merely Strauss, Gfrorer, B. 
 Bauer, and Hilgenfeld, but even Keim and Holtzmann, attribute 
 to Lk. the gross chronological blunder of supposing that Lysanias, 
 son of Ptolemy, who ruled this region previous to B.c. 36, when he 
 was killed by M. Antony, is still reigning 60 years after his death. 
 Such a mistake is very improbable; and the only difficulty about 
 Lk.’s statement is that we have no indisputable evidence of this 
 tetrarch Lysanias. 
 
 But 1. Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, was styled 42mg and not tetrarch, and the 
 seat of his kingdom was Chadczs in Coele-Syria, not Abila in Abilene. 2. It is 
 pure assumption that no one of his name ever ruled in these parts afterwards. 
 3. Josephus (Azz. xix. 5. 1) speaks of ‘‘ Abila of Lysanias,” and (xx. 7. 1) of a 
 tetrarchy of Lysanias (comp. &. /. ii. 11. 5, 12. 8); and as the son of Ptolemy 
 was not called tetrarch, nor was connected with Abila, and, moreover, reigned 
 for only 5 or 6 years, it is improbable that ‘‘ Abila of Lysanias” was called 
 after him. Therefore these passages in Josephus confirm rather than oppose Lk. 
 4. A medal found by Pococke designates Lysanias ‘‘ ¢e¢rarch and high priest.” 
 If this refers to either, it is more likely to refer to Lk.’s Lysanias. 5. Two 
 inscriptions exist, one of which proves that Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, 
 left children ; the other, that at the time when Tiberius was associated with 
 Augustus there was a ‘‘tetrarch Lysanias” (Boeckh, Corp. zuscr. Gr. 4523, 
 4521). See Davidson, Jutr. to N.T. i. pp. 214-221, Ist ed.; Rawlinson, 
 Bampton Lectures for 1859, p. 203; Wieseler in Herzog,? i. pp. 87-89; and 
 the reff. in Thayer’s Grimm under Avoavias, 
 
 2. emt dpxepews “Avva kat Katdda. Lk. now passes to the 
 ecclesiastical rulers. ‘The singular is probably not accidental, and 
 certainly not ironical. ‘Under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas,” 
 which means that between them they discharged the duties, or that 
 each of them in different senses was regarded high priest, Annas 
 de jure (Acts iv. 6) and Caiaphas de facto (Jn. xi. 49). 
 
 Annas had held office A.D. 7-14, when he had been deposed by Valerius 
 Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate, who set up in succession Ismael, Eleazar 
 (son of Annas), Simon, and Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, who held office A.D. 
 18-36, when he was deposed by Vitellius. Four more sons of Annas succeeded 
 Caiaphas, the last of whom (another Annas) put to death James the “‘ brother 
 of the Lord’ and the first bishop of Jerusalem. It is manifest that Annas 
 retained very great influence, and sometimes acted as high priest. ‘‘ Annas 
 the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as 
 many as were of the kindred of the high priest” (Acts iv. 6). Perhaps, so far 
 as it was safe to do so, he was encouraged to ignore the Roman appointments and 
 to continue in office during the high priesthoods of his successors. This would 
 be especially easy when his own son-in-law or son happened to be the Roman 
 nominee.! There were no less than twenty-eight high priests from the time of 
 Herod the Great to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus (Jos. Am¢. xx. 10). 
 
 éyéveto fipa Ocod emi “lwdynv. It is clear from this that what 
 Lk. is anxious to date with precision is not any event in the life 
 of the Messiah, but the appearance of the new Prophet, who was 
 
 1 Josephus says that David appointed Zadok high priest mer’ "ABia@dpov, 
 giros yap qv aut (Ant. vii. 5. 4). See Lft. Bzb/cal Essays, p. 163. 
 
Ill. 2,3.) PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 85 
 
 to be the Messiah’s herald, and who was by some mistaken for 
 the Messiah. John’s preaching and baptizing is an epoch with 
 Lk. (Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 24). As distinct from 6 Adyos tod 
 @cov, which means the Gospel message as a whole (see on 
 Vili. 11), f7za Ocod means some particular utterance (Mt. iv. 4; 
 comp. Lk. xxii. 61). The phrase yiveoOat fjya Kupiov (not God) 
 is freq. in LXX (Gen. xv. 1; 1 Sam. xv. 10; 2 Sam. vil. 4; 1 Kings 
 Xvli. 2, 8, xviii. 1, xx. 28, etc.) ; also yiverOot Adyov Kupiov (2 Sam. 
 exw 0s) © Kings vi. ©i, xi. 22, x. 20, xvi. 1, etc.). It is the 
 O.T. formula to express Divine inspiration. In all cases the 
 phrase is almost always followed by zpés: but in 1 Chron. xxii. 8 (?) 
 and Jer. i. 1 we have evi. Jer. i. 1 is a close parallel to this: ro 
 pyya Tod Meod b éyévero eri “Iepeuiav. The phrase occurs nowhere 
 else in N.T. 
 
 *lwdvny Tov Zaxaptou vidv. Lk. alone describes the Baptist thus. 
 No other N.T. writer mentions Zacharias.—é€v rH épypw. The one 
 mentioned as his abode (i. 80). Both AV. and RV. rather obscure 
 this by using “deserts” in i. 80 and “wilderness” here. Mt. calls 
 it “the wilderness of Judzea” (iii. 1). It is the Jeshimon of 1 Sam. 
 xxiii. 19. See D.Z.? art. “ Arabah,” and Stanley, Siz. & Pal. p. 310. 
 
 3-6. Description of the New Prophet. Lk. omits the state- 
 ments about his dress and food (Mt. iii. 4; Mk. i. 6), and also the 
 going out of the people of Jerusalem and Judea to him (Mt. iii. 5 ; 
 Mk. i. 5). The famous account of the Baptist in Jos. Azz. xviii. 
 5. 2 should be compared. It may have been altered by Christian 
 scribes, but its divergence from the Gospel narrative as to the 
 motive for imprisoning and killing John, is in favour of its origin- 
 ality.2 
 
 3. macav meplxwpov Tod “lopSdvov. The same as “the plain of 
 Jordan,” which is thus rendered in LXX Gen. xiii. 10, 11; by 7@ 
 meptxopw tod ’I., 2 Chron. iv. 17; and by 1@ meptoixw rod ’I., 1 
 Kings vii. 46. The expression covers a considerable portion of the 
 Jordan valley at least as far north as Succoth (2 Chron. iv. 17). 
 The Baptist, therefore, moved north from the limestone desert on 
 the W. shore of the Dead Sea, and perhaps went almost the whole 
 length of the valley to the confines of the Sea of Galilee. For 
 “Bethany (Beth-Anijah=‘ House of Shipping’) beyond Jordan” 
 must have been near Galilee (Jn. i. 28), and is supposed by 
 Conder to be the same as Bashan (Handbook of the Bible, pp. 315, 
 320). See, however, J.Z.? art. “ Bethabara.” John was some- 
 times on one bank and sometimes on the other, for we read of his 
 working in Peraa (Jn. x. 40). His selection of the valley of the 
 
 1“ This part of John’s ministry, viz. his work as a reformer, Josephus has 
 brought out prominently ; while he has entirely failed to notice the indelible 
 stamp of the Baptist’s labours left upon the history of the Theocracy ” (Neander, 
 L.J.C. § 34). 
 
86 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [1 8, 4 
 
 Jordan as his sphere of work was partly determined by the need of 
 water for immersion. Stanley, Siz. & Pal. p. 312. 
 
 knptcowy . . . dpaptiav. Verbatim as Mk. i. 4. Nowhere in 
 N.T. has xypiocey its primary meaning of “act as a herald”; but 
 either “proclaim openly” (viii. 39, xii. 3; Mk. i. 45, etc.) or 
 “preach the Gospel” (Mt. xi. 1; Mk. iii. 14; Rom. x. 14, 15, 
 etc.). To “preach baptism” is to preach the necessity or value of 
 baptism ; and “repentance baptism” (Bamticpa peravoias) is bap- 
 tism connected with repentance as being an external symbol of the 
 inward change (Acts xiii. 24, xix. 4). The repentance precedes 
 the baptism, which seals it and reminds the baptized of his new 
 obligations. To submit to this baptism was to confess that one 
 was a sinner, and to pledge oneself to a new life. The “change 
 of mind”? (jerdvova) has reference both to past deeds and to future 
 purposes, and is the result of a realization of their true moral 
 significance (Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 1, 6, xii. 17). This inward 
 change is specially insisted upon in the account of John’s preach- 
 ing in Jos. Avft. xviii. 5. 2. The word is rare in Mt. (ili. 8, 11) 
 and Mk. (i. 4), and does not occur in Jn. It is freq. in Lk. (ver. 8, 
 V. 32, xv. 7, xxiv. 473; Acts v. 31, xi. 18, etc.). We find it m 
 Jos. Axi. xiii. 11. 3 of Aristobulus after the murder of his brother ; 
 in Plut. Pevicles, x., of the Athenians after the banishment of 
 Cimon ; and in Thuc. iii. 36. 3 of the Athenians after the sentence 
 on Mitylene. See American Ch. Rev. No. 134, pp. 143 ff. John’s 
 “repentance baptism” was eis dpeow dpaptiav. This was its 
 purpose, assuring the penitent of forgiveness, and of deliverance 
 from the burden, penalty, and bondage of sin (Trench, Sy. xxxiii.;. 
 Crem. Zex. p. 297: comp. Lk. i. 77; Acts ii. 38; Heb. x. 18). 
 
 4. ev BiB\w Adywr. With the exception of Phil. iv. 3, €v BiBAw 
 is peculiar to Lk. (xx. 42; Acts i. 20, vii. 42). The form BéBXos 
 is usual where the meaning is a writfng or document, BvBAos where 
 the plant or papyrus as writing material is intended (Hdt. ii. 96. 3, 
 v. 58. 3). For Adyo in the sense of the “utterances of a teacher 
 or prophet” comp. Acts xx. 35 ; Amos i. 1. 
 
 wv) Bodvtos . . . Tas TptBous adtod. From Mt. iii. 3 and Mk. 
 i. 3 we see that, in the tradition of which all three make use, these 
 words were quoted as applying to the Baptist. ‘This is therefore 
 a primitive interpretation; and we learn from Jn. i. 23 that it 
 originated with the Baptist himself. John was a ¢wvy making 
 known the Adyos. ‘The whole man was a sermon.” The message 
 was more than the messenger, and hence the messenger is regarded 
 
 1 Lactantius, in writing de Pendtentza prefers res¢piscentza as a better, al- 
 though still inadequate, rendering. Js enim quem facti suc panitet, errorem 
 suum pristinum intelliget ; ideogue Greect melius et significantius perdvowp 
 dicunt, quam nos latine possumus resipiscentiam aicere. Restpiscit enime aé 
 mentem suam guast ab insania recipit, etc. (Div. Inst. Vi. 24. ©). 
 
Ii. 4-6.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 87 
 
 as mainly a voice. Jn. has etOvvare for eifefas rovctre (i. 23), and 
 this looks as if he were translating direct from the Hebrew, which 
 has one word and not two. The quotation in the other three is 
 identical, and (with the substitution of airod for tod @cod [jpar]) 
 verbatim as LXX. Lk. quotes Is. xl. 4, 5 as well as xl. 3, and 
 here slightly varies from LXX, having «decias for cielav, and ai 
 Tpaxetat eis ddovs Aclas for } Tpaxeta eis redia.? 
 
 év TH epypo. It is possible to take these words with éroiudoare 
 rather than with gdwv7 Bodvros: but here, as in Mt. and Mk., the 
 latter arrangement is more natural—vox clamantis in deserto. 
 Barnabas (ix. 3) connects them with Boévros. It is evident from 
 the scenery which is mentioned that it is in a desert that the road 
 for the coming King has to be made. The details symbolize the 
 moral obstacles which have to be removed by the repentance 
 baptism of John, in order to prepare the people for the reception 
 of the Messiah, or (as some prefer) of Jehovah (Is. xxxv. 8-10). 
 That Lk. means the Messiah is shown by the substitution of atrot 
 for rod @cod: and that this interpretation is in accordance with the 
 primitive tradition is shown by the fact that all three Gospels have 
 this substitution. Just as Oriental monarchs, when making a royal 
 progress, send a courier before them to exhort the population to 
 prepare roads, so the Messiah sends His herald to exhort His own 
 people (Jn. i. 11) to prepare their hearts for His coming. 
 
 5. gdpayt. ‘<A valley shut in by precipices, a ravine”; here only in 
 N.T., but found in LXX (Judith ii. 8) and in class. Grk. (Thue. ii. 67. 4). 
 It is perhaps from the same root as gapdw=‘‘ plough” and foro=“‘ bore.” 
 
 Bovvés. Herodotus seems to imply that this is a Cyrenaic word (iv. 
 199. 2): but it is freq. in later writers and in LXX. Comp. xxiii. 30, and 
 for the sense Zech. iv. 7; Is. xl. 4. 
 
 éotat Ta oKoha els, K.T.A. “The crooked places shall become 
 straight ways, and the rough ways smooth ways”: 7.e. roads shall 
 be made where there were none before, and bad roads shall be 
 made good roads. Comp. the account of Vespasian’s march into 
 Galilee, especially the work of the pioneers (Jos. 2. //. iii. 6. 2). 
 
 6. aca odp§. Everywhere in N.T. this expression seems to 
 refer to the human race only ; so even Mt. xxiv. 22; Mk. xiii. 20; 
 1 Pet. i. 24; comp. Acts ii. 17; Rom. iii. 20. Fallen man, man 
 in his frailty and need of help, is meant. In LXX it often in- 
 cludes the brutes: Gen. vi. 19, vii. 15, 16, 21, viii. 17, ix. 11, 
 
 1 Ewald says of the prophecy of which these verses form the introduction, that 
 ‘it is not only the most comprehensive, but also, in respect of its real prophetic 
 subject-matter, the weightiest piece of that time, and altogether one of the most 
 important portions of the O.T., and one of the richest in influence for all future 
 time. . . . It is especially the thought of the passing away of the old time, 
 and the flourishing of the new, which is the life of the piece” (Prophets of 0,7. 
 Eng. tr. iv. pp. 244, 254; comp. pp. 257, 259). 
 
88 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IIL 6, 7 
 
 15, 16, 17; Ps. cxxxvi. 25; Jer. xxxii. 27, xlv. 5. The phrase is 
 one of many which occur frequently in Is. xl.—-lxvi., but not at all 
 in the earlier chapters (Driver, /sacah, p. 197). 
 
 75 owtmpiov. It was obviously for the sake of this declaration 
 that Lk. continued the quotation thus far. That “the salvation 
 of God” is to be made known to the whole human race is the 
 main theme of his Gospel. 
 
 7-17. John’s Preaching and its Effects. This section gives us 
 the burden of his preaching ("EXeyev, imperf.) in accordance (otv) 
 with the character which has just been indicated. The herald who 
 has to see that hearts are prepared for the Messiah must be stern 
 with hypocrites and with hardened sinners, because the impenitent 
 cannot escape punishment (7-9); must supply different treatment 
 for different classes (10-14; comp. ver. 5); and must declare the 
 certainty of his Master’s coming and of its consequences (15-17). 
 
 7. “EXeyev ov. ‘He used to say, therefore”: being the pre- 
 dicted Forerunner, his utterances were of this character. We need 
 not regard this as a report of what was said on any one occasion, 
 but as a summary of what he was in the habit of saying during his 
 ministry to the multitudes who came out of the towns and villages 
 (éxzropevopévors) into the wilderness to hear the Prophet and gain 
 something from him. Mt. (iil. 7) represents this severe rebuke as 
 addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees; which confirms the 
 view that Lk. is here giving us the substance of the preaching 
 rather than what John said on some particular day. What he 
 said to some was also said to all; and as the salvation offered_was 
 universal, so also was the sin. This is thoroughly characteristic of Lk. 
 
 amticOyvar. As a substitute for repentance, or as some magical 
 rite, which would confer a benefit on them independently of their 
 moral condition. ‘Their desire for his baptism showed their belief 
 in him as a Prophet; otherwise the baptism would have been 
 valueless (Jn. i. 25; comp. Zech. xiii. 1; Ezek. xxxvi. 25). Hence 
 the indignation of John’s disciples when they heard of Jesus 
 baptizing, a rite which they regarded as their master’s prerogative 
 (Jn. iii. 26). The title 6 Bartiorys or 6 Barrtifwy shows that his 
 baptism was regarded as something exceptional and not an ordinary 
 purification (Jos. Avz. xviil. 5. 2). Its exceptional character con- 
 sisted in (1) its application to the whole nation, which had become 
 polluted ; (2) its being a preparation for the more perfect baptism 
 of the Messiah. It is only when baptism is administered by im- 
 mersion that its full significance is seen. 
 
 Pas is intensive from Bamrw, like Barrio from BadXo : Barrw, 1 
 dip”; Bawri{w, ‘I immerse.” Tevyijuara is “‘ offspring ” of animals or men 
 (Ecclus. x. 18) ; ; “‘fruits” of the earth or of plants (Deut. xxvii, 4, II, 18, 42, 
 5; Mt. xxvi. 29; Mk. xiv. 25; Lk. xxii. 18); “‘ rewards” of righteousness 
 (Hos. x. 12; 2 Cor. ix. I0). 
 
- 
 
 III. 7,8.) PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 8g 
 
 Tevyypata éxisvev. Genimina (Vulg.) or generatio (b ff2l1qr) or 
 progenies (acdef) viferarum. In Mt. this is addressed to the 
 Pharisees, first by John and afterwards by Jesus (iii. 7, xii. 34, 
 Xxili. 33). It indicates another parentage than that of Abraham 
 (Jn. viii. 44), and is perhaps purposely used in opposition to their 
 trust in their descent: comp. Aesch. Cho. 249; Soph. Azz. 531. 
 John’s metaphors, like those of the prophecy (ver. 5), are from the 
 wilderness ;—vipers, stones, and barren trees. It is from this stern, 
 but fresh and undesecrated region, and not from the “ Holy,” but 
 polluted City, that the regenerating movement proceeds ([Is. xli. 
 18). These serpent-like characters are the oxod:dé that must be 
 made straight. Comp. Ps. lviii. 4, cxl. 3. 
 
 iméderéev. “Suggested” by showing to eye or ear: vi. 47, 
 xil. 5; Acts ix. 16, xx. 35; elsewhere in N.T. only Mt. iii. 7. 
 
 THs pedovons épyijs. It is possible that this refers primarily to 
 the national judgments involved in the destruction of Jerusalem 
 and the banishment of the Jews (xxi. 23; 1 Mac. i. 64); but the 
 penalties to be inflicted at the last day are probably included 
 (Rom. i. 18, ii. 5, 8, iii. 5, v. 9). The Jews believed that the judg- 
 ments of God, especially in connexion with the coming of the 
 Messiah, as threatened by the Prophets (Joel ii. 31; Mal. iii. 2, 
 iv. 1; Is. xiii. 9), were to be executed on the Heathen. The Baptist 
 proclaims that there is no such distinction. Salvation is for all 
 who prepare their hearts to receive the Messiah; judgment, for all 
 who harden their hearts and reject Him. Birth is of no‘avail. 
 
 8. woujoate otv kaptods dgious tT. p. “If you desire to escape 
 this wrath and to welcome the Messiah (ovv), repent, and act az 
 once (aor. imperat.) as those who repent.” Comp. xx. 24; Acts 
 iil. 4, Vil. 33, 1X. II, XVi. 9, xxi. 39, xxil. 13; and see Win. xliii. 3. a, 
 p- 393. Mt. has xapzév (iii. 8), which treats the series of acts as a 
 collective result. Comp. S. Paul’s summary of his own preaching, 
 esp. déia THs petavolas épya mpaccovras (Acts xxvi. 20). 
 
 It was a Rabbinical saying, “If Israel would repent only one day, the 
 Son of David would come forthwith” ; and again, ‘‘If Israel would observe 
 only one sabbath according to the ordinance, forthwith would the Son of 
 David come” ; and, “‘ All the stages are passed, and all depends solely on 
 repentance and good works.” 
 
 The phrase rovety kapmdv is not necessarily a Hebraism (Gen. i. 11, 12): 
 w occurs Arist. De Plant. i. 4, p. 819, ii. 10, p. 829. Comp. Jas. iii. 12; 
 Mk. iv. 32. 
 
 pa) &p§no8e. “ Do not even begin to have this thought in your 
 minds.” Ommnem excusationis etiam conatum precidit {Beng.). If 
 there are any passages in which apxojaz with an infin. is a mere 
 periphrasis for the simple verb (xx. 9), this is not one of them. 
 See Win. Ixv. 7. d, p. 767; Grim-Thay. p. 79; Fritzsche on Mt. 
 XVI. 21, Pp. 539.—Neéyew €v éautois. “To say within yourselves” 
 
go THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE  |III. 8-11 
 
 rather than “among yourselves.” Comp. vii. 49 and Acyere ev rats 
 kapdiats tuav (Ps. iv. 5). For the perennial boast about their 
 descent from Abraham comp. Jn. viii. 33, 53; Jas. ii. 21; 2 Esdr. 
 vi. 56-58 ; Jos. Anz. iii. 5. 3; B./. v. 9. 4; Wetst. on Mt. iii. 9. 
 
 éx tOv AiQwy toUTwy. There is a play upon words betwee2 
 “children” (4anim) and “stones” (abanim). It was God who 
 made Abraham to be the rock whence the Jews were hewn (Is. 
 li. 1, 2); and out of the most unpromising material He can make 
 genuine children of Abraham (Rom. iv., ix. 6, 7, xi. 13-24; Gal. 
 iv. 21-31). The verb éyetpat is applicable to both stones and 
 children. 
 
 9. 78. “Although you do not at all expect it.” The image 
 of the axe is in harmony with that of the fruits (ver. 8). In the 
 East trees are valued mainly for their fruit; and trees which pro- 
 duce none are usually cut down. ‘And even now also the axe is 
 laid unto the root.” 
 
 The mpés after xetrat may be explained either, ‘‘is brought to the root 
 and lies there”; or, ‘‘lies directed towards the root.” In either case the 
 meaning is that judgment is not only inevitable, but will come speedily: 
 hence the presents, é€xxémtetat and BadXetar. 
 
 The 6é «al (in Mt. simply 6é) is Lk.’s favourite method of giving emphasis ; 
 ver. 12, ii. 4, iv. 41, Vv. 10, 36, ix. 61, x. 32, xi. 18, xi) 54 ,57sixtvenles 
 Xvi. I, 22, xvili. 9, xix. 19, xx. 12. For mw with a participle, expressing a 
 reason or condition, comp. ii. 45, vii. 30, xi. 24, xii. 47, xxiv. 23; Acts xi. 26, 
 Xvii. 6, xxi. 34, Xxvil. 7; and see Win. lv. 5 (8), p. 607. For eéxxémreuw, ‘‘to 
 cut off,” of felling trees, comp. xiii. 7, 9; Hdt. ix. 97. 1. See notes on 
 vi. 43. 
 
 10-14. John’s Different Treatment of Different Classes. Peculiar 
 to Lk., but probably from the same source as the preceding verses. 
 It shows that, in levelling the mountains and raising the valleys, 
 etc. (ver. 5), he did not insist upon any extraordinary penances or 
 “counsels of perfection.” Each class is to forsake its besetting 
 sin, and all are to do their duty to their neighbour. The stern 
 warnings of the Baptist made the rulers leave in disgust without 
 seeking baptism at his hands (vii. 30; Mt. xxi. 25); but they made 
 the multitude anxious to comply with the conditions for avoiding 
 the threatened judgment. 
 
 10. érypdétwy. “Continually put this question.” The notion 
 of vepeti‘ion comes from the imperf. and not, as in éaurety (xvi. 3, 
 Xvili. 35), from the ém/, which in éepwrdy indicates the direction of 
 the inquiry ; Plato, Soph. 249 E, 250. Comp. émedd0y in iv. 17. 
 
 Ti odv trowjowpev ; “ What then, if the severe things which thou 
 sayest are true, must we do?” For the conjunctivus deliberativus 
 comp. xxiii. 31; Mt. xxvi. 54; Mk. xii. 14; Jn. xii. 27; and see 
 Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356; Matth. 515. 2; Arnold’s Madvig, p. 99; 
 Green, p. 150. 
 
 11. SUo xitévas. The x:tév was the under and less necessary 
 
III. 11-13.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 9! 
 
 garment, distinguished from the upper and almost indispensable 
 iudtiov ; vi. 29; Acts ix. 39; Mt. v. 40; Jn. xix. 23. When two of 
 these xur@ves were worn at once, the under one or shirt would be the 
 Hebrew cetoneth, the upper would be the Hebrew mez/, which was 
 longer than the ce¢onetz. It was common for travellers to wear two 
 (Jos. Azz. xvii. 5. 7); but Christ forbade the disciples to do so 
 (ix. 3; Mt. x. 10). It is not implied here that the two are being 
 worn simultaneously. See Trench, Syz. 1.; Conder, Handb. of B. 
 p. 195; D.B.’ art. “Dress”; Schaffs Herzog, art. “Clothing and 
 Ornaments of the Hebrews.” If the owner of two shirts is to “give 
 a share” (petadétw), he will give one shirt. Comp. Rom. i. 11, 
 xil. 8; and contrast Peter’s reply to the same question Acts ii. 37, 
 38. With regard to Bpwyata, nothing is said or implied about 
 having superfluity or abundance. He who has any food is to 
 share it with the starving. Comp. 1 Thes. ii. 8. 
 
 This verse is one of those cited to support the view that Lk. is Ebionite in 
 his sympathies, a view maintained uncompromisingly by Renan (Les Evangiies, 
 ch. xili.; V. de_/. chs. x., xi.), and by Campbell (Crztzcal Studies in St. Luke, 
 p- 193). For the answer see Bishop Alexander (Leading Jdeas of the Gospel, 
 p- 170). Here it is to be noticed that it is Mt. and Mk. who record, while Lk. 
 omits, the poor clothing and poor food of the Baptist himself; and that it is Mt. 
 
 who represents his sternest words as being addressed to the wealthy Pharisees 
 and Sadducees, while Lk. directs them against the multitudes generally. 
 
 12. teXGvar. From réAn (Mt. xvii. 25; Rom. xiii. 7) and 
 avéopar; so that etymologically teXAOvac = pudblicani, “those who 
 bought or farmed the taxes” under the Roman government. But 
 in usage teA@var = fortitores, “those who collected the taxes” for 
 the pudlicani. This usage is common elsewhere, and invariable in 
 N.T. Sometimes, and perhaps often, there was an intermediate 
 agent between the teA@vat and the pudlicant, e.g. apxireAwvys OF 
 magister (xix. 2). 
 
 These ‘‘ tax-collectors” were detested everywhere, because of their oppres- 
 siveness and fraud, and were classed with the vilest of mankind: povxol Kal 
 mopvoBockol kal TeAOvat kal Kddakes Kal cuxopdyTat, Kal ToLodTos buthos TOv mavTa 
 kukévTwv ev TH Bly (Lucian. Wecyomant. xi.; comp. Aristoph. Zguzt. 248 ; 
 Theophr. Chavac. vi.; Grotius, 27 /oco; Wetst. on Mt. v. 46). The Jews especi- 
 ally abhorred them as bloodsuckers for a heathen conqueror. For a Jew to 
 enter such a service was the most utter degradation. He was excommunicated, 
 and his whole family was regarded as disgraced. But the Romans allowed the 
 Herods to retain some powers of taxation; and therefore not all tax-collectors 
 in Palestine were in the service of Rome. Yet the characteristic faults of 
 the profession prevailed, whether the money was collected in the name of Czesar 
 or of Herod ; and what these were is indicated by the Baptist’s answer. See 
 Lightfoot, Ogera, i. pp. 324, 325; Herzog, PREZ." art. Zo//; Edersh. LZ. & 7. i. 
 Pp. 515. 
 
 18. Avddoxahe. Publicani majore ceteris reverentia utuntur 
 (Beng.). 
 
 a\éov wapd. For wapd after comparatives comp. Heb. i. 4, iii. 3, ix. 23, 
 
g2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ III. 13, 14, 
 
 xi. 4, xii. 24; Hdt. vii. 103. 6; Thuc. i. 23. 4, iv. 6. 1. The effect is to 
 intensify the notion of excess: so also drép, xvi. 8; Heb. iv. 12. 
 
 76 Statetaypévov. “That which stands prescribed” (perf.) ; 
 a favourite word with Lk.: viii. 55; xvii. 9, 10; Acts vii. 44, xviii. 2, 
 XX. 13, XXlll. 31, xxiv. 23. Comp. disfonere, verordnen. It is from 
 the general meaning of “transacting business” that mpdéocew 
 acquires the special sense of “exacting tribute, extorting money”: 
 comp. xix. 23. This use is found from Herodotus onwards: Hdt. 
 ili. 58. 4; Aisch. Cho. 311; Pers. 476; Eum. 624; Xen. Anab. 
 vil. 6. 17: Comp. mpdktwp, ciompdocey, éxrpdooev, and many 
 illustrations in Wetst. Agere is similarly used: publicum quadra- 
 gesime in Asia egit (Suet. Vesp. i.); but what follows is of interest 
 as showing how rare an honourable pudblicanus was: manebanique 
 imagines in civitatibus et posite sub hoc titulo KAAQS, TEAQNH- 
 SANTI. This is said of Sabinus, father of Vespasian. After farm- 
 ing the guvadragesima tax in Asia he was a money-lender among 
 the Helvetii. It is to be noticed that the Baptist does not con- 
 demn the calling of a tax-collector as unlawful for a Jew. He 
 assumes that these reAdva will continue to act as such. 
 
 14. otpateucpevor. ‘Men on service, on military duty”; mz/i- 
 tantes rather than milites (Vulg.). In 2 Tim. ii. 4, ovdels otparevo- 
 pevos is rightly rendered emo militans. Who these “men on 
 service” were cannot be determined ; but they were Jewish soldiers 
 and not Roman, and not on service in the war between Antipas and 
 his father-in-law Aretas about the former’s repudiation of the latter’s 
 daughter in order to make room for Herodias. That war took 
 place after the Baptist’s death (Jos. Am¢. xviii. 5. 2), two or three 
 years later than this, and probably a.p. 32 (Lewin, Fastz Sacri, 
 1171, 1412). These orparevouevoe were possibly gendarmerie, 
 soldiers acting as police, perhaps in support of the tax-collectors. 
 Such persons, as some modern nations know to their cost, have 
 great opportunities for bullying and delation. By their cal mets 
 they seem to connect themselves with the teAdvat, either as know- 
 ing that they also were unpopular, or as expecting a similar answer 
 from John. 
 
 Mndéva Siaceionte. Like concutio, S:aceiw is used of intimida- 
 tion, especially of intimidating to extort money (3 Mac. vil. 21). 
 Eusebius uses it of the extortions of Paul of Samosata (2 £. 
 vii. 30. 7); where, however, the true reading may be ékoefe. In 
 this sense oeéw also is used (Aristoph. Zguit. 840; Pax, 639); and 
 it is interesting to see that Antipho couples cefw with ovxopavrd. 
 ®iroxparys obroat érépous tav trevOeivwr Ecere kat €ouxopdvret (Oral. 
 vi. p. 146, 1. 22).1 This last passage, combined with the verse 
 
 1In the Passo S. Perpetue, iii., the martyr suffers much orpariwrav cuxogay- 
 
 rlats mdelorats, and this is represented in the Latin by concussures militum. 
 Comp. Tert. De Fuga in Pers. xii., xiii. 
 
III. 14, 15.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 93 
 
 before us, renders it probable that ovxod¢dvrns, a “ fig-shower,” is 
 not one who gives information to the police about the exportation 
 of figs, but one who shows figs by shaking the tree ; ze. who makes 
 the rich yield money by intimidating them. Nowhere is ovko- 
 gavrys found in the sense of “informer,” nor yet of ‘ sycophant.” 
 It always denotes a “false accuser,” especially with a view to 
 obtaining money ; Arist. Ach. 559, 825, 828. Hatch quotes from 
 Brunet de Presle, /Votices et textes du Musée du Louvre, a \etter of 
 B.C. 145 from Dioscorides, a chief officer of finance, to his sub- 
 ordinate Dorion: zepi d& Stacercpav Kai wapadedv eviwy dé Kal 
 cukopayteicbar mpoadeponevwv Bovdopcha spas py duadavOaveu, 
 x.7.A., “in the matter of fictitious legal proceedings and plunder- 
 ings, some persons being, moreover, alleged to be even made the 
 victims of false accusations,” etc. (B77. Grk. p. 91). Comp. Lev. 
 xix. 11; Job xxiv. 9. Hesychius explains cuxofdyrys as wevdo- 
 KaTiyopos. 
 
 dpwviors. From dor, “cooked food” to be eaten with bread, 
 and @véouat, “I buy”: hence “rations, allowance, pay” of a 
 soldier; 1 Cor. ix. 7; 1 Mac. iii. 28, xiv. 32; 1 Esdr. iv. 56; and 
 freq. in Polybius. John does not tell these men on service that 
 theirs is an unlawful calling. Nor did the early Christians con- 
 demn the life of a soldier: see quotations in Grotius and J. B. 
 Mozley, University Sermons, Serm. v. 
 
 15-17. The certainty of the Messiah’s Coming and the Conse- 
 quences of the Coming. Mt. iii. r1, 12. The explanatory open- 
 ing (ver. 15) is peculiar to Lk. The substance of ver. 16 is common 
 to all three; but here Lk. inserts the characteristic taéov.v. In 
 ver. 17 he and Mt. are together, while Mk. is silent. Lk. shows 
 more clearly than the other two how intense was the excitement 
 which the Baptist’s preaching caused. 
 
 15. MpocSoxavros. What were they expecting? The result of all 
 this strange preaching, and especially the Messianic judgment. 
 Would it be put in execution by John himself? For this absolute 
 use of zpoodoxdw comp. Acts xxvil. 33. Excepting Mt. xi. 13, 
 xxiv. 50, 2 Pet. iil. 12-14, the verb is peculiar to Lk. (i. 21, vil. 
 19, 20, Vili. 40, xii. 46; Acts iii. 5, etc.) 
 
 The Vulg. here has the strange rendering exzstzmante ; although in i. 21, 
 vii. 19, 20, viii. 40 mpoodoxdw is rendered exfecto, and in xii. 46 sfero. Cod. 
 Brix. has sfevante here. See on xix. 43 and xxi. 23, 25 for other slips in 
 Jerome’s work. Here d has an attempt to reproduce the gen. abs. in Latin: 
 et cogitantium omnium. Comp. ix. 43, XIX. II, xxi. 5, xxiv. 36, 4I. 
 
 py mote aités. “If haply he himself were the Christ.” Their 
 thinking this possible, although “ John did no sign,” and had none 
 of the insignia of royalty, not even descent from David, is remark- 
 able. Von ita crassam adhuc ideam de Christo habebant, nam 
 
94 THE GOSPEL ACCORDIN(; TO S. LUKE [Ii1. 15, 16 
 
 Johannes nil splendoris externt habebat et tamen talia de eo cogita- 
 dant (Beng.). That this question had been raised is shown by 
 Jn. i. 20. The Baptist would not have declared “I am not the 
 Christ,” unless he had been asked whether he was the Messiah, or 
 had heard the people discussing the point. 
 
 For the constr. comp. BA more din avrois 6 Oeds werdvoray (2 Tim. ii. 25). 
 The opt. in indirect questions is freq. in Lk. both without dy (i. 29, viii. 9, 
 Acts xvii. 11, xxi. 33) and also with dy (i. 62, vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, 
 x. 17). 
 
 16. mao. Showing how universal the excitement on this point 
 was. Neither Mt. (iii. 11) nor Mk. (i. 7) has the taouy of which 
 Luke is so fond: comp. vi 30, Vii. 35, 1x. 43, Xi. 4, Xil. Io. 
 
 The aor. mid. dmexplvyaro is rare in N.T. (xxiii. 9; Acts iii. 12; Mt. 
 Xxvil. 12; Mk. xiv. 61; Jn. v. 17, 19); also in LXX (Judg. v. 29; 1 Kings 
 ii. 1; 1 Chron. x. 13; Ezek. ix. 11). In bibl. Grk. the pass. forms prevail : 
 see small print on i. 19. 
 
 "Ey® péev dSart. Both with emphasis: “ Z with water.” 
 
 5 ioxupétepos. Valebat Johannes, sed Christus multo plus (Beng.). 
 The art. marks him as one who ought to be well known. 
 
 Aécat tov indvta Tv Grodnpdtwv. More graphic than Mt.’s 7a 
 tod. Baoracat, but less so than Mk.’s xias Adoat Tov iw. Tov b70d. 
 avtov. Both AV. and RV. mark the difference between trdednpa, 
 “that which is bound under” the foot, and cavddAuov, dim. of 
 cavoadov, by rendering the former “shoe” (x. 4, xv. 22, Xxil. 35; 
 Acts vii. 33, xill. 25) and the other “sandal” (Mt. vi. 9; Acts 
 xii. 8). The Vulg. has caleamenta for trodjpara, and sandalia or 
 calige for cavdd\va. In LXX the two words seem to be used 
 indiscriminately (Josh. ix. 5, 13); but tod. is much the more 
 common, and it is doubtful whether the Jews before the Captivity 
 wore shoes or manalim (Deut. XXxlli. 25) as distinct from sandals. 
 Comp. of inavres tv trodypdrwv atrdv (Is. v. 27). To unfasten 
 shoes or sandals, when a man returned home, or to bring them to 
 him when he went out, was the office of a slave (See Wetst. on Mt. 
 iii. 11). John is not worthy to be the bond-servant of the Christ. 
 The adrod is not so entirely redundant as in some other passages : 
 ‘whose latchet of his shoes.” } 
 
 attés. In emphatic contrast to the speaker. 
 
 év mvedpart dyiv., See on i, 15. That the & with mvedjpate 
 dyiw and its absence from #Sar: marks a distinction of any great 
 moment, either here or Acts i. 5, must be doubted; for in Mt. 
 iii. 11 oth expressions have the éy, and in Mk. i. 8 neither. The 
 simple dat. marks the instrument or matter wz which the baptism 
 
 1Comp. Mk. vii. 25; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Rev. iii. 8, vii. 2, 9, xiii. 8, xx. 8. 
 Such pleonasms are Hebraistic, and are specially common in LXX (Gen. i. 113 
 Exod. xxxv. 29, etc.); Win. xxii. 4 (b), p. 184. 
 
III. 16,17} PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 95 
 
 is effected ; the év marks the element zz which it takes place (Jn. 
 i 3D): 
 
 $ a mupt. This remarkable addition is wanting in Mk. Various 
 explanations of it are suggested. (1) That the jiery tongues at 
 Pentecost are meant, is improbable. Were any of those who 
 received the Spirit at Pentecost among the Baptist’s hearers on 
 this occasion? Moreover, in Acts i. 5 kat wvpi is not added. 
 ‘2) That it distinguishes two baptisms, the penitent with the 
 Spirit, and the impenitent with Zeval fire, is very improbable. 
 The same persons (tas) are to be baptized with the Spirit and 
 with fire. In ver. 17 the good and the bad are separated, but not 
 here. This sentence must not be made parallel to what follows, 
 for the winnowing-shovel is not baptism. (3) More probably the 
 mupt refers to the illuminating, kindling, and purifying power of 
 the grace given by the Messiah’s baptism. Sfiritus sanctus, quo 
 Christus baptizat, igneam wim habet: atgue ea vis ignea etiam 
 conspicua fuit oculis honinum (Beng.): comp. Mal. ili. 2. (4) Or, 
 the jiery trials which await the disciple who accepts Christ’s 
 baptism may be meant: comp. xii. 50; Mk. x. 38, 39. The 
 passage is one of many, the exact meaning of which must remain 
 doubtful ; but the purifying of the believer rather than the punish- 
 ment of the unbeliever seems to be intended. 
 
 17. mrdov. The “winnowing-shovel” (fala lignea; Vulg. 
 ventilabrum), with which the threshed corn was thrown up into 
 the wind (rriw=“‘spit”).! This is a further description of the 
 Messiah,—He whose zrvov is ready for use. Note the impressive 
 repetition of atrod after 77) xewpt, tiv GAwva, and thy drobjKnv.? 
 
 thy G&dwva. The threshing-floor itself, and not its contents 
 It is by removing the contents—corn to the barn, and refuse to 
 the fire—that the floor is thoroughly cleansed. Christ’s threshing- 
 floor is the world; or, in a more restricted sense, the Holy Land. 
 See Meyer on Mt. iii. 12. 
 
 éoBéor». Comp. Mk. ix. 43; Lev. vi. 12, 13; Is. xxxiv. 8-10, 
 Ixvi. 24; Jer. vii. 20; Ezek. xx. 47, 48. In Homer it is a freq. 
 epithet of yéAws, «A€os, Boy, pevos, and once of Padé (//. xvi. 123). 
 As an epithet of zip it is opposed to padaxdy and paxpdv. See 
 
 1 The wooden shovel, Jala lignea (Cato, R. FR. vie 45. 151), ventilabrum 
 (Varro, 2. #. i. 52), seems to have been more primitive than the vazzus, which 
 was a basket, shaped -like the blade of a large shovel. The mrvov was a shovel 
 rather than a basket. In Tertullian (Prescrzp. ili.) palam zm manu portat ad 
 purgandam aream suam is probably the true reading: but some MSS. have 
 ventilabrum for palan. 
 
 2 The form écaxaOGpat is worth noting: in later Greek éxd@dpa for éxaOnpa 
 is not uncommon. Mt. here has dvaxa@apte?, but classical writers prefer d.a- 
 Kadatpew to diaxaaplfew.—For the details of Oriental threshing see Herzog, 
 PRE.? art. Ackerbau; D.B.* art. “Agriculture.” For &xvpa comp. Job 
 xxi, 18, and Hdt. iv. 72. 2; the sing. is less common (Jer. xxiii. 28) 
 
96 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IIL 17-19, 
 
 Heinichen on Eus. & £. vi. 41. 15 and viii. 12.1. It is therefore 
 a fierce fire which cannot be extinguished, rather than ar endless 
 fire that will never go out, that seems to be indicated: and this is 
 just such a fire as 76 a&xvpov (the refuse left after threshing and 
 winnowing) would make. But doBeoros is sometimes used of a 
 fire that never goes out, as that of Apollo at Delphi or of Vesta at 
 Rome (Dion. Hal. cxciv. 8). For xataxaiew comp. Mt. xiii. 30, 
 40; also Ex. iil. 2, where it is distinguished from xaéew ; it implies 
 utter consumption. ; 
 
 18-20. § Explanation of the Abrupt Termination of the 
 Baptist’s Ministry. This is given here by anticipation in order 
 to complete the narrative. Comp. the conclusions to previous 
 narratives: i. 66, 80, il. 40, 52. 
 
 18. ModAa péev o8y Kat érepa. The comprehensive woAda kai 
 érepa confirms the view taken above (ver. 7) that this narrative 
 (7-18) gives a summary of John’s teaching rather than a report of 
 what was said on any one occasion. The érepa means “of a 
 different kind” (Gal. i. 6, 7), and intimates that the preaching of 
 the Baptist was not always of the character just indicated. 
 
 The cases in which yév ofy occurs must be distinguished. 1. Where, as 
 here, év is followed by a corresponding 6é, and we have nothing more than 
 the distributive uévy . . . 6&. . . combined with ofr (Acts viii. 4, 25, xi. 19, 
 xii. 5, xiv, 3, XV. 3, 30, etc.). 2. Where no 6é follows, and péy confirms 
 what is said, while o#y marks an inference or transition, guzdem zgztur (Acts 
 i. 6, li. 41, V. 41, xiii, 4, xvii. 30; Heb. vii. 11, viii. 4, etc.). Win. liii. 8, a, 
 Pp. 556. 
 
 Tapakahav ednyyedtlero . . . édeyxdpevos. These words give 
 the three chief functions of the Baptist: to exhort all, to preach 
 good tidings to the penitent, to reprove the impenitent. It is 
 quite unnecessary to take tov Aadv with zapaxaddv, and the order 
 of the words is against such a combination. 
 
 In late Greek the acc. of the Jerson to whom the announcement is made is 
 freq. after evayyedlferOar (Acts xiv. 15, xvi. 10; Gal. i. 9; I Pet. i. 123 
 comp. Acts viii. 25, 40, xiv. 21): and hence in the pass. we have mrwyxol 
 evaryyeAlfovrat. The acc. of the message announced is also common (viii. 1; 
 Acts v. 42, vill. 4, 12, x. 36, xi. 20). Where both person and message are 
 combined, the person addressed is in the dat. (i. 19, ii. 10, iv. 43; Acts 
 viii. 35; comp. Lk. iv. 18; Acts xvii. 18; Rom. i. 15, etc.): but in Acts 
 xiii, 32 we have double acc. Here the Lat. texts vary between evangelszabat 
 populum (Cod. Am.) and evang. populo (Cod. Brix.). 
 
 19. ‘HpwJSys. Antipas, as in ver. 1. The insertion of the 
 name ®.Airrov after yuvatkés comes from Mk. and Mt. (ACK X 
 and some versions). This Philip must be carefully distinguished 
 from the tetrarch Philip, with whom Jerome confuses him. He 
 was the son of Mariamne, on account of whose treachery he had 
 been disinherited by Herod the Great; and he lived as a private 
 
IIL. 19, 20.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 97 
 
 individual at Jerusalem (Jos. B. /. i. 30. 7). Josephus calls both 
 Antipas and also this Philip simply “Herod” (Azz. xviii. 5. 4). 
 Herodias became the evil genius of the man who seduced her from 
 his brother. It was her ambition which brought about the down- 
 fall of Antipas. Lk. alone tells us that John rebuked Antipas for 
 his wicked life (kal mepi mdvtwv) as well as for his incestuous 
 marriage. Obviously éAeyxépevos means “rebuked, reproved” 
 (1 Tim. v. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 2), and not “convicted” or “ convinced” 
 (Jn. viii. 46, xvi. 8). In the former sense éAéyxev is stronger 
 than éityudv: see Trench, Syz. iv. 
 
 Once more (see on ver. I) we have a remarkable rendering in d: Herodes 
 autem quaterducatus cum argueretur ab eo, etc. 
 
 Note the characteristic and idiomatic attraction (rdytwy v), and comp. 
 ii. 20, v. 9, ix. 43, xii. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, xxiv. 25; Acts iii. 21, x. 39, 
 xili. 39, XXii. 10, xxvi, 2. 
 
 20. mpoodOykev kal todto émt maow, katékdewev, k.T.A. “He 
 added this also on the top of all—he shut up John in prison” ; 
 i.e. he added this to all the other zovypa of which he had been 
 
 uilty. 
 
 é Tkephas in the famous passage which confirms and supple- 
 ments the Gospel narrative respecting the Baptist (Azz. xviii. 5. 2), 
 says that Antipas put him in prison because of his immense 
 influence with the people. ‘They seemed to be ready to do what- 
 ever he told them; and he might tell them to revolt. This may 
 easily have been an additional reason for imprisoning him: it is no 
 contradiction of the Evangelists. What Josephus states is what 
 Antipas publicly alleged as his reason for arresting John: of course 
 he would not give his private reasons. The prison in which the 
 Baptist was confined was in the fortress of Macheerus at the N.E. 
 corner of the Dead Sea. Seetzen discovered the site in 1807 
 above the valley of the Zerka, and dungeons can still be traced 
 among the ruins. ‘Tristram visited it in 1872 (Déscoveries on the 
 East Side of the Dead Sea, ch. xiv.). It was hither that the 
 daughter of Aretas fled on her way back to her father, when she 
 discovered that Antipas meant to discard her for Herodias, 
 Macherus was then in her father’s dominions; but Antipas 
 probably seized it immediately afterwards (Jos. Azz. xviii. 5. 1, 2). 
 
 The expression mpocé@nxev Totro, xaréx\ecey must not be confounded 
 with the Hebraisms mpocé@ero méupar (xx. II, 12), mpooéero ovddaBeiv 
 (Acts xii. 3). It is true that in LXX the act. as well as the mid. is used in 
 this manner: mpooé@yxe texety (Gen. iv. 2); mpocéOnxe adjoa (Gen. 
 xviii. 29): see also Exod. x. 28; Deut. iii. 26; and for the mid. Exod. 
 xiv. 13. But in this Hebraistic use of mpoorl@nu for ‘*go on and do” the 
 second verb is always in the infin. (Win. liv. 5, p. 588). Here there is no 
 Hebraism, and therefore no sign that Lk. is using an Aramaic source. 
 
 Karaxnelew is classical, but occurs in N.T. only here and Acts xxvi. 103 
 fn both cases of imprisoning. It is freq. in medical] writers, and Galen uses 
 
 7 
 
98 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [III. 20, 21 
 
 it of imprisonment (Hobart, A/ed. Lang. of Lk. pp. 66, 67). Mt. xiv. 3 we 
 have dmé@ero, and Mk. vi. 17, €dy0ev, of Herod’s putting John into prison. 
 
 21, 22. Jesus is baptized by John.—lIt is remarkable, that 
 although the careers of the Forerunner and of the Messiah are 
 so closely connected, and so similar as regards prediction of birth 
 retirement, ministry, and early end, yet, so far as we know, they 
 come into actual contact only at one brief period, when the 
 Forerunner baptized the Christ. Once some of John’s disciples 
 raised the question of fasting, and Jesus answered it (v. 33; Mt 
 ix. 14), and once John sent some of his disciples to Jesus te 
 question Him as to His Messiahship (vil. 19-23; Mt. xi. 2-19) ; 
 but there is no meeting between Christ and the Baptist. Lk., 
 having completed his brief account of the Forerunner and his 
 work, begins his main subject, viz. the Messiah and His work. 
 This involves a return to the point at which the Forerunner met 
 the Messiah, and performed on Him the rite which prepared Him 
 for His work, by publicly uniting Him with the people whom He 
 came to save, and proclaiming Him before them. 
 
 21. ev ta BawticOjvar Gmavta tov Aadv. “After all the people 
 had been baptized”; cum taptizatus esset omnis populus (Cod. 
 Brix.) : not, “‘zvz/e they were be‘ng baptized”; cum baptizaretur 
 (Cod. Am.). The latter would be év 76 with the fves. infin. 
 
 Both constructions are very freq. in Lk. Contrast the aorists in ii, 27, 
 ix. 36, xi. 37, xiv. I, xix. 15, xxiv. 30, Acts xi. 15 with the presents in v. I, 
 12, vili. 5, 42, ix. 18, 29, 33, 51, X- 35, 38, xi. I. 27, xvii. I, 14, xxiv. 4, 
 
 15, 51; Acts viii. 6, xix. I. . is also fond of the stronger form &7as, 
 which is rare in N.T. outside his writings. Readings are often confused, but 
 daas is well attested v. 26, viii. 37, ix. 15, xix. 37, 48, xxiii. 1; Acts i ii. 44, 
 
 iv. 31, Ve 16, x. 8, xis 10, xvie 3, 28, xxv. 24; and may be right in other 
 places. 
 
 That there were great multitudes present when John baptized 
 the Christ is not stated; nor is it probable. Had Lk. written ev 
 T® BarileoGa., this would have implied the presence of many other 
 candidates for baptism ; but it was not until “after every one of 
 the people had been baptized” that the baptism of Jesus took 
 place. Possibly Jesus waited until He could be alone with John. 
 In any case, those who had long been waiting for their turn would 
 go home soon after they had accomplished their purpose. It was 
 some time before this that John said to the people, “‘ He that cometh 
 after me... is standing in the midst of you, and ye know Him 
 not” (Jn. i. 26). They could hardly have been so ignorant of Him, 
 if large multitudes had been present when John baptized Him. 
 
 kal ‘Inood BamticSévros. It is remarkable that this, which seems 
 to us to be the main fact, should be expressed thus incidentally by 
 a participle. It is as if the baptism of all the people were regarded 
 as carrying with it the baptism of Jesus almost as a necessary com- 
 
II. 21, 22.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 99 
 
 plement: ‘After they had been baptized, and when He had been 
 baptized and was praying.” But perhaps the purpose of Lk. is to 
 narrate the baptism, not so much for its own sake as an instance of 
 Christ’s conformity to what was required of the people, as for the 
 sake of the Divine recognition and authentication which Jesus then 
 received. : 
 
 Jerome has preserved this fragment of the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews: ‘‘ Lo, 
 the mother of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, John the Baptist baptizeth 
 for remission of sins: let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, 
 Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? except perchance 
 this very thing which I have said is ignorance” (Adv. Pelag. iii. 1). The 7ractatus 
 de Rebaptesmate says that the Pazlé Predicatio represented “‘ Christ, the only 
 man who was altogether without fault, both making confession respecting His 
 own sin, and driven almost against His will by His mother Mary to accept the 
 baptism of John: also that when He was baptized fire was seen on the water, 
 which is not written in any Gospel” (xvii.; Hartel’s Cyprzan, ii. p. 90). The 
 fire in the water is mentioned in Justin (77y. lxxxviii.), but not as recorded by 
 the Apostles ; and also in the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews. 
 
 kat mpogeuxopevouv. Lk. alone mentions this. On his Gospel 
 as emphasizing the duty of prayer see Introd. § 6. Mt. and Mk. 
 say that Jesus saw the Spirit descending ; Jn. says that the Baptist 
 saw it; Lk. that it took place (éyévero) along with the opening of 
 the heaven and the coming of the voice. Mk. says simply 76 
 mvedtpa; Mt. has zvetua cod; Lk. 1d mvedua 7d dyov. See on 
 5. 
 
 The constr. of éyévero with acc. and infin. is on the analogy of the class. 
 constr. of ovvé8n: it is freq. in Lk. See note, p. 45. The form dvewy- 
 Ojvat is anomalous, as if assimilated to dvepx@a:: comp. Jn. ix. 10, 14; 
 Rev. iv. 1, vi. I. 
 
 22. cwopatikw etder Os tepiotepdv. “In a bodily form” is 
 peculiar to Lk. Nothing is gained by admitting something visible 
 and rejecting the dove. Comp. the symbolical visions of Jehovah 
 granted to Moses and other Prophets. We dare not assert that the 
 Spirit cannot reveal Himself to human sight, or that in so doing 
 He cannot employ the form of a dove or of tongues of fire. The 
 tongues were appropriate when the Spirit was given “‘ by measure” 
 to many. The dove was appropriate when the Spirit was given 
 in His fulness to one. It is not true that the dove was an ancient 
 Jewish symbol for the Spirit. In Jewish symbolism the dove is 
 Israel. The descent of the Spirit was not, as some Gnostics 
 taught, the moment of the Incarnation: it made no change in the 
 nature of Christ. But it may have illuminated Him so as to com- 
 plete His growing consciousness of His relations to God and to 
 man (ii. 52). It served two purposes: (1) to make Him known to 
 the Baptist, who thenceforward had Divine authority for making 
 Him known to the world (Jn. i. 32, 33); and (2) to mark the offi- 
 cial beginning of the ministry, like the anointing of a king. As at 
 
100 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _ [III. 22. 
 
 the Transfiguration, Christ is miraculously glorified before setting 
 out to suffer, a voice from heaven bears witness to Him, and “ the 
 goodly fellowship of the Prophets” waits on His glory. 
 
 The phrase dwvhy yevéo Oar is freq. in Lk. (i. 44, ix. 35, 36; Acts ii. 6, 
 vii. 31, X. 13, xix. 34). Elsewhere only Mk. i. 11, ix. 7; Jn. xil. 30; Rev. viii. 5. 
 Comp. €pxetat pwr}, Jn. xii. 28; c&€pxerar PwvyH, Rev. xvi. 17, xix. 5. 
 
 xu. Responsio ad preces, ver. 21 (Beng.). The 2v shows that the 
 voice conveyed a message to the Christ as well as to the Baptist. 
 Mk. also has 2% ef: in Mt. iii. 17 we have Otros éorw. Diversitas 
 locutionum adhuc etiam utilis est, ne uno modo dictum minus intell- 
 gatur (Aug.). In the narrative of the Transfiguration all three have 
 Otrés éotuv. 
 
 The reference seems to be to Ps. ii. 7; and here D and other important 
 witnesses have Tids wou ef ot, ey ohuepov yeyévynkd oe. Augustine says that 
 this was the reading of some MSS., ‘‘ although it is s¢a¢ed not to be found in the 
 more ancient MSS.” (De Cons. Evang. ii. 14: comp. Enchir. ad Laurent. xlix.). 
 Justin has it in his accounts of the Baptism (77y. Ixxxviii., ciii.). In Mt. it is 
 possible to take 6 dyamnrds with what follows: ‘‘The beloved in whom I am 
 well pleased” ; but this is impossible here and in Mk. i. 11, and therefore im- 
 probable in Mt. The repetition of the article presents the epithet as a separate 
 fact: ‘*Thou art My Son, My beloved one.” Comp. povvos éov dyamnrds 
 (Hom. Od. ii. 365). It is remarkable that St. John never uses dyamnros of 
 Christ: neither in the Fourth Gospel nor in the Apocalypse does the word occur 
 in any connexion. 
 
 evddxynoa. ‘<I am well pleased”: the timeless aorist. Comp. Jn. xiii. 3. 
 The verb is an exception to the rule that, except where a verb is compounded 
 with a prep., the verbal termination is not retained, but one from a noun of the 
 same root is substituted: e.g. dduvaretv, evepyeretv, not ddvvacbat, evepydferOat. 
 Comp. kapadoxety and dvo@vicKew, which are similar exceptions, Win. xvi. 5, 
 
 . 125. 
 
 i The voice does not proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, as a legend would prob- 
 ably have represented. No such proclamation was needed either by Jesus or 
 by the Baptist. The descent of the Spirit had told John that Jesus was the 
 Christ (Jn. i. 33). This voice from heaven, as afterwards at the Transfiguration 
 (ix. 35), and again shortly before the Passion (Jn. xii. 28), followed closely upon 
 Christ’s prayer, and may be regarded as the answer to it. His humanity was 
 capable of needing the strength which the heavenly assurance gave. To call 
 this voice from heaven the Sath-Xol of the Rabbis, or to treat it as analogous 
 to it, is misleading. The Rabbinic Bath-Kol, or ‘‘ Daughter-voice,” is regarded 
 as an echo of the voice of God: and the Jews liked to believe that it had been 
 granted to them after the gift of prophecy had ceased. The utterances atiri- 
 buted to it are in some cases so frivolous or profane, that the more intelligent 
 Rabbis denounced it as a superstition. 
 
 It has been pointed out that Lk. appears to treat the baptism of Jesus by 
 John as a matter of course. Mt. tells us that the Baptist at first protested 
 against it; and many writers have felt that it requires explanation. Setting 
 aside the profane suggestions that Jesus was not sinless, and therefore needed 
 “repentance baptism for remission of sins,” or that He was in collusion with 
 John, we may note four leading hypotheses. 1. He wished to do honour to 
 John. 2. He desired to elicit from John a declaration of His Messiahship. 
 3. He thereby gave a solemn sign that He had done with home life, and was 
 beginning His public minis‘ry. 4. He thereby consecrated Himself for His 
 
IIL. 22.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY Io! 
 
 work.—This last seems to be nearest to the truth. The other three would be 
 more probable if we were expressly told that multitudes of spectators were 
 present ; whereas the reverse seems to be implied. John’s baptism was prepara- 
 tory to the kingdom of the Messiah. For everyone else it was a baptism of 
 repentance. The Messiah, who needed no repentance, could yet accept the 
 preparation. In each case it marked the beginning of a new life. It conse- 
 crated the people for the reception of salvation. It consecrated the Christ for 
 the bestowing of it (Neander, Z. 7. C. § 42 (5), Eng. tr. p. 68) But besides 
 this it was a “‘ fulfilment of righteousness,” a complying with the requirements 
 of the Law. Although pure Himself, through His connexion with an unclean 
 people He was Levitically unclean. ‘‘ On the principles of O.T. righteousness 
 His baptism was required” (Lange, Z. of C. i. p. 355). 
 
 In the Fathers and liturgies we find the thought that by being baptized Him- 
 self Jesus elevated an external rite into a sacrament, and consecrated the element 
 of water for perpetual use. Aafgtizatus est ergo Dominus non mundari volens, 
 sed mundare aguas (Ambr. on Lk. iii. 21, 23). ‘“* By the Baptisme of thy wel 
 beloved sonne Jesus Christe, thou dydest sanctifie the fludde Jordan, and al other 
 waters to this misticall washing away of synne” (First Prayer-Book of Edw. vi. 
 1549, Public Baptism) ; which follows the Gregorian address, ‘‘ By the Baptism 
 of Thine Only-begotten Son hast been pleased to sanctify the streams of water” 
 (Bright, Amczent Collects, p. 161). 
 
 There is no contradiction between John’s ‘‘Comest Thou to me?” (Mt. 
 iii. 14) and “‘I knew Him not” (Jn. i. 31, 33). Asa Prophet John recognized 
 the sinlessness of Jesus, just as Elisha recognized the avarice and untruthfulness 
 of Gehazi, or the treachery and cruelty of Hazael (2 Kings v. 26, viii. 10-12) ; 
 but until the Spirit descended upon Him, he did not know that He was the 
 Messiah (Weiss, Zebex Jesu, I. ii. 9, Eng. tr. i. p. 320), John had three main ; 
 functions: to predict the coming of the Messiah ; to prepare the people for it; | 
 and to point out the Messiah when He came. When these were accomplished, | 
 his work was nearly complete. 
 
 23-38. The Genealogy of Jesus Christ. Comp. Mt. i. 1-17. 
 The literature is very abundant: the following are among the prin- 
 cipal authorities, from which a selection may be made, and the 
 names of other authorities obtained. 
 
 Lord A. Hervey, Zhe Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour, 
 Macmillan, 1853; J. B. McClellan, Zhe New Testament of our 
 Lord and Saviour, i. pp. 408-422, Macmillan, 1875; W. H. Mill, 
 Observations on the Application of Pantheistic Principles to the 
 Theory and Historic Criticism of the Gospel, pp. 147-218; D.B.? 
 art. “Genealogy”; D. of Chr. Biog. art. “ Africanus”; Schafi’s 
 Flerzog, art. “Genealogy”; Commentaries of Mansel (Sfeaker), 
 Meyer, Schaff, on Mt. i; of Farrar, Godet, M. R. Riddle, on 
 Lk. iii. 
 
 Why does Lk. insert the genealogy here instead of at the beginning of his 
 Gospel? It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that this zs the beginning 
 of his Gospel, for the first three chapters are only introductory. The use of 
 dpxouevos here implies that the Evangelist is now making a fresh start. Two of 
 the three introductory chapters are the history of the Forerunner, which Lk. 
 completes in the third chapter before beginning his account of the work of the 
 Messiah. Not until Jesus has been anointed by the Spirit does the history of 
 the Messiah, z.e. the Anointed One, begin ; and His genealogy then becomes of 
 importance. Ina similar way the pedigree of Moses is placed, not just before 
 
102 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [III. 22, 23. 
 
 or just after the account of his birth (Exod. ii. 1, 2), where not even the names 
 of his parents are given, but just after his public appearance before Pharaoh as 
 the spokesman of Jehovah and the leader of Israel (Exod. vi. 14-27). 
 
 The statement of Julius Africanus, that Herod the Great caused the genealo- 
 gies of ancient Jewish families to be destroyed, in order to conceal the defects 
 of his own pedigree (Eus. H. Z. i. 7. 13), is of no moment. If he ever gave 
 such an order, it would of necessity be very imperfectly executed. Tle rebuild- 
 ing of the temple would give him the opportunity of burning the genealogies of 
 the priests, which were preserved in the temple archives, but pedigrees in the 
 possession of private families would be carefully concealed. Josephus was able 
 to give his own genealogy, as he “‘ found it described in the pud/ic records” —éev 
 tats Onuoolas déArots dvaryeypayuevnv ( Veta, 1); and he tells us what great care 
 was taken to preserve the pedigrees of the priests, not merely in Judzea, but in 
 Egypt, and Babylon, and ‘‘ whithersoever our priests are scattered” (AZzon. 
 i. 7). It is therefore an empty objection to say that Lk. cou/d not have 
 obtained this genealogy from any authentic source, for all such sources had been 
 destroyed by Herod. It is clear from Josephus that, if Herod made the attempt, 
 he did not succeed in destroying even all public records. Jews are very tena- 
 cious of their genealogies ; and a decree to destroy such things would be evaded 
 in every possible way. The importance of the evidence of Africanus lies in his 
 claim to have obtained information from members of the family, who gloried in 
 preserving the memory of their noble extraction; and zz hzs referring both 
 pedigrees as a matter of course to Joseph. It is not probable that Joseph was the 
 only surviving descendant of David who was known to be such. But it is likely 
 enough that all such persons were in humble positions, like Joseph himself, and 
 thus escaped the notice and jealousy of Herod. Throughout his reign he took 
 no precaution against Davidic claimants; and had he been told that a village 
 carpenter was the representative of David’s house, he would possibly have 
 treated him as Domitian is said to have treated the grandsons of Judas the 
 brother of the Lord—with supercilious indifference (Eus. H. Z. iii. 20). 
 
 23. aités. ‘He Himself,” to whom these miraculous signs 
 had reference: comp. i. 22; Mt. fii. 4. The AV. translation of 
 the whole clause, aétés fv “Inoods adpxdpevos doel érav tpidKovta, 
 “Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age,” is im- 
 possible. It is probably due to the influence of Beza: incipiebat 
 esse quasi annorum triginta. But Cranmer led the way in this 
 error in the Bible of 1539, and the later versions followed. Purvey 
 is vague, like the Vulgate: “was bigynnynge as of thritti year,”— 
 erat incipiens quasi annorum trigtnta. ‘Tyndale is right: “was 
 about thirty yere of age when He beganne”; ze. when He began 
 His ministry in the solemn way just recorded. Comp. the use of 
 dpédpevos in Acts i. 22. In both cases diddoxew may be under- 
 stood, but is not necessary. In Mk. iv. 1 we have the full expres- 
 sion, mpéato dSidacxew, which is represented in the parallel, Mt. 
 xiii. 1, by éké@y7o. Professor Marshall has shown that ypéaro and 
 éxd@nro may be equivalents for one and the same Aramaic verb 
 (Expositor, April 1891): see on v. 21. 
 
 It is obvious that this verse renders little help to chronology. 
 “ About thirty” may be anything from twenty-eight to thirty-two,— 
 to give no wider margin. [It is certain that our era is at least four 
 years too late, for it begins with a.u.c. 754. Herod the Great 
 
III. 23-27.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 103 
 
 died just before the Passover a.U.c. 750, which. is therefore the 
 latest year possible for the Nativity. If we reckon the “ fifteenth 
 year” of ver. 1 from the death of Augustus, Jesus was probably 
 thirty-two at the time of His Baptism. 
 
 dy ulds, ds évopileto, “lwo Tod ‘Het. This is the right punctua- 
 tion: ‘being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of 
 Heli.” It is altogether unnatural to place the comma aféer “luond 
 and not before it: “ being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of 
 Heli”; ze. being supposed to be the son of Joseph, but being 
 really the grandson of Heli. It is not credible that vids can mean 
 both son and grandson in the same sentence. J. Lightfoot pro- 
 posed that “Jesus” (viz. vids, not viod) should be understood 
 throughout ; ‘‘ Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so 
 the son of Heli, and so the son of Matthat,” etc. (Hor. Hed. on 
 Lk. iii. 23). But this is not probable: see on rod @cod (ver. 38). 
 
 It is evident from the wording that Lk. is here giving ¢he genealogy of Joseph 
 and not of Mary. It would have been quite out of harmony with either Jewish 
 ideas or Gentile ideas to derive the birthright of Jesus from His mother. In the 
 eye of the law Jesus was the heir of Joseph; and therefore it is Joseph’s descent 
 which is of importance. Mary may have been the daughter of Heli; but, if 
 she was, Lk. ignores the fact. The difference between the two genealogies was 
 from very early times felt to be a difficulty, as is seen from the letter of Julius 
 Africanus to Aristides, ¢. A.D. 220 (Eus. A. Z. i. 73 Routh, Rel. Sacr. ii. 
 p- 228); and it is probable that so obvious a solution, as that one was the pedi- 
 gree of Joseph and the other the pedigree of Mary, would have been very soon 
 advocated, if there had been any reason (excepting the difficulty) for adopting 
 it. But this solution is not suggested by anyone until Annius of Viterbo pro- 
 pounded it, ¢ A.D. 1490. 
 
 The main facts of the two genealogies are these. From Adam to Abraham 
 Lk. is alone. From Abraham to David, Lk. and Mt. agree. From David to 
 Joseph they differ, excepting in the names of Zorobabel and his father Salathiel. 
 The various attempts which have been made at reconciling the divergences, 
 although in no case convincingly successful, are yet sufficient to show that recon- 
 ciliation is not impossible. If we were in possession of all the facts, we might 
 find that both pedigrees are in accordance with them. Neither of them presents 
 difficulties which no addition to our knowledge could solve. In addition to the 
 authorities named above, the monographs of Hottinger, Surenhusius, and Voss 
 may be consulted. 
 
 27. tod ZopoBdBed tod Zatabinr. It is highly improbable that 
 these are different persons from the Zerubbabel and the Shealtiel 
 of Mt. i. 12. That at the same period of Jewish history there 
 should be two fathers bearing the rare name Salathiel or Shealtiel, 
 each with a son bearing the rare name Zerubbabel, and that both 
 of these unusually-named fathers should come in different ways 
 into the genealogy of the Messiah, is scarcely credible, although 
 this hypothesis has been adopted by both Hottinger and Voss. 
 Zerubbabel (= “ Dispersed in Babylon,” or ‘Begotten in Baby- 
 lon”) was head of the tribe of Judah at the time of the return from 
 the Babylonish Captivity in the first year of Cyrus; and he was 
 
104 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IIL 27-38. 
 
 therefore an obvious person to include in the pedigree of the 
 Messiah. Hence he was called the /esa or Prince of the Cap- 
 tivity. In 1 Chron. iii. 19 he is given as the son of Pedaiah and 
 nephew of Shealtiel: and this is probably correct. But he became 
 the heir of Shealtiel because the latter had no sons. In Mt. i. 12 
 and 1 Chron. iii. 17, Shealtiel is the son of Jechoniah, king of 
 Judah; whereas Lk. makes him the son of Neri. Jeconiah is 
 called Coniah, Jer. xxii. 24, and Jehoiachin, lii. 31; 2 Kings xxiv. 6; 
 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8, 9; and all three names mean “The Lord will 
 establish.” From Jer. xxii. 30 we learn that he had no children; 
 and therefore the line of David through Solomon became extinct in 
 him. The three pedigrees indicate that an heir for the childless 
 Jeconiah was found in Shealtiel the son of Neri, who was of the 
 house of David ¢hrough Nathan. Thus the junction of the two 
 lines of descent in Shealtiel! and Zerubbabel is fully explained. 
 Shealtiel was the son of Neri of Nathan’s line, and also the heir of 
 Jeconiah of Solomon’s line; and having no sons himself, he had 
 his nephew Zerubbabel as adopted son and heir. Rhesa, who 
 appears in Lk., but neither in Mt. nor in 1 Chron., is probably not 
 a name at all, but a title, which some Jewish copyist mistook for a 
 name. ‘“Zerubbabel Rhesa,” or ‘‘Zerubbabel the Prince,” has 
 been made into “Zerubbabel (begat) Rhesa.” This correction 
 brings Lk. into harmony with both Mt. and 1 Chron. For (1) the 
 Greek *Iwavds represents the Hebrew Hananiah (1 Chron. ili. 19), 
 a generation which is omitted by Mt.; and (2) Lk.’s “Iovéa is the 
 same as Mt.’s "ABuovd (Jud-a = Ab-jud). Again, “Iovda or “ABtovd 
 may be identified with Hodaviah (1 Chron. iil. 24); for this name 
 is interchanged with Judah, as is seen by a comparison of Ezra 
 iii. 9 and Neh. xi. 9 with Ezra ii. 40 and 1 Chron. ix. 7. 
 
 86. aha tod Katvap tod “Appatdd. In LXX this Cainan appears 
 as the son of Sala or Shelah, and father of Arphaxad, in the genea- 
 logy of Shem (Gen. x. 24, xl. 12; 1 Chron. i. 18). But the name 
 is not found in any Hebrew MS., or in any other version made from 
 the Hebrew. In LXX it may be an insertion, for no one earlier 
 than Augustine mentions the name. D omits it here, while 8 B L 
 have the form Kawap for Kawav. But the hypothesis that inter- 
 polation here has led to interpolation in LXX cannot be maintained 
 upon critical principles. 
 
 38. "Addp. That Lk. should take the genealogy beyond David 
 and Abraham to the father of the whole human race, is entirely in 
 harmony with the Pauline universality of his Gospel. To the Jew 
 it was all-important to know that the Messiah was of the stock of 
 Abraham and of the house of David. Mt. therefore places this fact 
 
 1 Both forms of the name, Shealtiel and Salathiel, are found in Haggai and 
 elsewhere in O.T.; but in the Apocrypha and N.T. the form used is Salathie] 
 («I have asked God ”). 
 
III. 88.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 105 
 
 in the forefront of his Gospel. Lk., writing to all alike, shows that 
 the Messiah is akin to the Gentile as well as to the Jew, and that 
 all mankind can claim Him as a brother.! 
 
 But why does Lk. add that Adam was the son of God? Cer- 
 tainly not in order to show the Divine Sonship of the Messiah, 
 which would place Him in this respect on a level with all mankind. 
 More probably it is added for the sake of Gentile readers, to remind 
 them of the Divine origin of the human race,—an origin which they 
 share with the Messiah. It is a correction of the myths respecting 
 the origin of man, which were current among the heathen. Scrif- 
 tura, etiam quod ad humani generis ortum pertinel, figit satiatque 
 cognitionem nostram ; eam gui spernunt aut ignorant, pendent errant- 
 gue inter tempora antemundana et postmundana (Beng.). It is very 
 forced and unnatural to take rod @cod as the gen. of 6 @eds, and 
 make this gen. depend upon @v vids at the beginning of the gene- 
 alogy, as if Jesus and not Adam was styled the “‘son of God.” ‘Thus 
 the whole pedigree from as évouilero to “Addy would be a gigantic 
 parenthesis between @v vids and tod Ocov. The tov throughout 
 belongs to the word zz front of it, as is clear from the fact that 
 *Iwond, the first name, has no 70d before it. Each rod means “‘ who 
 was of,” z.e. either “the son of” or “the heir of.” Both AV. and 
 RV. give the sense correctly. 
 
 IV. 1-13. Zhe Jnternal Preparation for the Ministry of the 
 Christ: the Temptation in the Wilderness, Mt. iv. 1-11; Mk. 
 Lorey 53. 
 
 R. C. Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 1-65, Macmillan, 
 1867; B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. ii. 10, Berlin, 1882; Eng. tr. i. 
 pp. 319-354; H. Latham, Pastor Pastorum, pp. 112-146, Bell, 
 1890; P. Schaff, Person of Christ, pp. 32, 153, Nisbet, 1880; A. 
 M. Fairbairn, Zxfoszéor, first series, vol. iil. pp. 321-342, Hodder, 
 1876; P. Didon, Jésus Chris?, ch. ii. pp. 208-226, Plon, 1891. 
 
 Many futile and irreverent questions have been raised respect- 
 ing this mysterious subject; futile, because it is impossible to 
 answer them, excepting by empty conjectures; and irreverent, 
 because they are prompted by curiosity rather than by a desire for 
 illumination. Had the answers to them been necessary for our 
 spiri{ual welfare, the answers would have been placed within our 
 reach. Among such questions are such as these: Did Satan 
 
 1 «<Tn the one case we see a royal Infant born by a regal title to a glorious 
 inheritance ; and in the other a ministering Saviour who bears the natural sum 
 of human sorrow” (Wsctt. Jt. to the Gospels, 7th ed. p. 316). The whole 
 passage should be read. 
 
106 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE Eve: 
 
 assume a human form, and change his form with each change of 
 temptation, or did he remain invisible? Did he know who Jesus 
 was, or was he trying to discover this? Did he know, until he was 
 named, that Jesus knew who he wasP_ Where was the spot from 
 which he showed all the kingdoms of the world? 
 
 ; Three points are insisted upon in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 (ii. 18, iv. 15), and beyond them we need not go. 1. The tempta- 
 tions were real. 2. Jesus remained absolutely unstained by them. 
 3. One purpose of the temptations was to assure us of His sym- 
 pathy when we are tempted. The second point limits the first and 
 intensifies the third. The sinlessness of Jesus excluded all those 
 temptations which spring from previous sin ; for there was no taint 
 in Him to become the source of temptation. But the fact that the 
 solicitations came wholly from without, and were not born from 
 within, does not prevent that which was offered to Him being 
 regarded as desirable. The force of a temptation depends, not 
 upon the sin involved in what is proposed, but upon the advantage 
 connected with it. And a righteous man, whose will never falters 
 for a moment, may feel the attractiveness of the advantage more 
 keenly than the weak man who succumbs; for the latter probably 
 gave way before he recognized the whole of the attractiveness; or 
 his nature may be less capable of such recognition. In this way 
 the sinlessness of Jesus augments His capacity for sympathy: for 
 in every case He felt the fw// force of temptation.? 
 
 It is obvious that the substance of the narrative could have 
 had only one source. No one has succeeded in suggesting any 
 probable alternative. There is no Old Testament parallel, of which 
 this could be an adaptation. Nor is there any prophecy that the 
 Messiah would have to endure temptation, of which this might be 
 a fictitious fulfilment. And we may be sure that, if the whole 
 had been baseless invention, the temptations would have been of 
 a more commonplace, and probably of a grosser kind. No Jewish 
 or Christian legend is at all like this. It is from Christ Himself 
 that the narrative comes ; and He probably gave it to the disciples 
 in much the same form as that in which we have it here. 
 
 1 «¢ Sympathy with the sinner in his trial does not depend on the experience 
 of sin, but on the experience of the strength of the temptation to sin, which only 
 the sinless can know in its full intensity. He who falls yields before the last 
 strain” (Wsctt. on Heb. ii. 18). See Neander, Z. 7. C. §§ 46, 47, pp- 77, 78 
 
IV. 1, 2.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 107 
 
 1. whypys Tvedpatos dylov. These words connect the Tempta- 
 tion closely with the Baptism.! It was under the influence of 
 the Spirit, which had just descended upon Him, that He went, in 
 obedience to God’s will, into the wilderness. All three accounts 
 mark this connexion ; and it explains the meaning of the narrative. 
 Jesus had been endowed with supernatural power; and He was 
 tempted to make use of it in furthering His own interests without 
 regard to the Father’s will. And here av7jx0y .. . retpacOjvar 
 (Mt. iv. 1) must not be understood as meaning that Christ went 
 into the wilderness to court temptation. That would be too like 
 yielding to the temptation which He resisted (vv. 9-12). He 
 went into the desert in obedience to the Spirit’s promptings. That 
 He should be ¢empied there was the Divine purpose respecting 
 Him, to prepare Him for His work. 
 
 Neither Mt. nor Mk. has dco as an epithet of rvefya here (see on i. 15) ; 
 and neither of them has Lk.’s favourite bréorpepev. 
 
 HyeTo év TH Trvedpate ev TH epypw. “He was led zz (not zxZo) 
 the wilderness,” z.e. in His wanderings there, as in His progress 
 thither, He was under Divine influence and guidance. The imperf. 
 indicates continued action. Tradition, which is not likely to be of 
 any value, places this wilderness close to Jericho. Some region 
 farther north is more probable. The *pépas teocepdxovta may be 
 taken either with jyero (RV.) or with weipafdmevos (AV.)- As the 
 temptation by Satan was simultaneous (pres. part.) with the lead- 
 ing by the Spirit, the sense will be the same, whichever arrange- 
 ment be adopted. In Mk. also the words are amphibolous, and 
 may be taken either with jv év rj épjpo or with repafduevos. It 
 we had only the account in Mt. we might have supposed that the 
 temptations did not begin until the close of the forty days. The 
 three recorded may have come at the end of the time, as seems to be 
 implied with regard to the first of them. Or they may be given as 
 representative of the struggles which continued throughout the 
 whole period. 
 
 2. mweipafdpuevos. The word is here used in its commonest 
 sense of “try or test,” with a szzster motive. In N.T. it has three 
 uses: 1. “try or attempt” to do (Acts ix. 26, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6); 2. 
 “try or Zest,” with a good motive (Jn. vi. 6; 2 Cor. xili. 5; Rev. 
 ii. 2), especially of God’s sending trials (1 Cor. x. 13; Heb. xi. 17; 
 
 1 Te baptéme et la tentation se succedent [un a Tautre dans la réalité de 
 Phistotre, comme dans le récit des Evangélistes. Ces deux faits inséparables, 
 qui sSéclatrent en s’opposant dans un contraste vigoreux, sont le vrai prélude 
 de la vie du Christ. Lun est la manifestation de [Esprit de Dieu, Cautre, 
 celle de Tesprit du mal; [un nous montre la filiation divine de Jésus, Pautre, 
 sa nature humaine vouée a la lutte et a Pépreuve; [un nous révele la force infinie 
 avec laquelle il agira, Pautre, Tobstacle quil saura renverser; Tun nous 
 enseigne sa intime, Pautre, la lot de son action (Didon, p. 225). 
 
108 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 2. 
 
 Rev. iii. 10); 3. “try or Zes¢,” with a Jad motive, in order to pro- 
 duce perplexity or failure (xi. 16; Mt. xix. 3; Jn. viii. 6), especially 
 of tempting to sin (1 Cor. vii. 5; 1 Thes. iii. 5; Jas. i. 13). It is 
 thus of much wider meaning than doxwalew (xii. 56, xiv. 19), 
 which has only the second of these meanings. Trench, Sya. 
 Ixxiv. ; Cremer, Zex. p. 494. 
 
 bmd to SiaBddov. All three use id of the agency of Satan. 
 He is not a mere instrument. ‘ Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 11; Acts x. 38. 
 In N.T. d:aB8odos with the art. always means Satan, “the calumni- 
 ator,” car efoyyv. In Mt., Jn., Acts, Eph., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., 
 James, Jude, 1 Pet., and Rev. this use is invariable. It is possible 
 that 6 dvaBoAos was originally a translation of Satan=“ the ad- 
 versary.” In LXX évdiaBaddewv sometimes means “ meet, oppose” 
 (Num. xxil. 22, 32), and duaBoAos means “adversary” (1 Mace. i. 
 36). In Job (i. 6-12, ii. 1-7) and Zech. (iii. 1-3) 6 diéBorAos is 
 used as in N.T. for Satan, as the accuser or slanderer of God to 
 man and of man to God. In this scene he endeavours to mis- 
 represent God, and to induce Jesus to adopt a false view of His 
 relation to God, 
 
 The existence of such a being is sometimes denied, but on 
 purely @ priori grounds. To science the question is an open one, 
 and does not admit of demonstration either way. But the teach- 
 ing of Christ and His Apostles is clear and explicit; and oniy 
 three explanations are possible. Either (1) they accommodated 
 their language to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such; or 
 t?} they shared this superstition, not knowing it to be such; or 
 3) the doctrine is not a superstition, but they taught the actual 
 truth. As Keim rightly says, one cannot possibly regard all the 
 sayings of Jesus on this subject as later interpolations, and “‘ Jesus 
 plainly designated His contention with the empire of Satan as a 
 personal one” (Jes. of Vaz., Eng. tr. ii. pp. 318, 325). See Gore, 
 Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, pp. 23-27. 
 
 odk epayev otdév. This does agree well with the supposition 
 that Jesus partook of the scanty food which might be found in the 
 wilderness. The vyorevoas of Mt. seems to imply the deliberate 
 fasting which was customary in times of solemn retirement for 
 purposes of devotion. But this does not exclude the possibility 
 that the mental and spiritual strain was so great that for a time 
 there was no craving for food. In any case the want of food 
 would at last bring prostration of body and mind; and then the 
 violence of temptation would be specially felt. Both Mt. and Lk. 
 appear to mean that it was not until near the end of the forty days 
 that the pangs of hunger were endured. For ouvtedetoor of days 
 being completed comp. Acts xxi. 27; Jobi. 5; Tobit x. 7.} 
 
 1 The fasts of Moses and Elijah were of similar duration (Deut. ix.9; 1 K. 
 xix. 8), The number forty in Scripture is connected with suffering. The 
 
IV. 3.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 109 
 
 8. etrev. Mt. adds zpoceA@av, which is a very favourite ex- 
 pression of his. It does not necessarily imply corporal presence, 
 although Mt. himself may have understood it in that sense. Jesus 
 says of the approaching struggle in Gethsemane, “The prince of the 
 world cometh” (Jn. xiv. 30). Nowhere in Scripture is Satan said 
 to have appeared in a visible form: Zech. iil. 1 isa vision. And 
 nothing in this narrative requires us to believe that Satan was 
 visible on this occasion. 
 
 Ei vids et tod Geos. Both Mt. and Lk. have vids 7. ©. without 
 the article, the reference being to the relationship to God, rather 
 than to the office of the Messiah. The emphatic word is vids. 
 The allusion to the voice from heaven (ili. 22) is manifest, but is 
 not likely to have occurred to a writer of fiction, who would more 
 probably have written, “If Thou art the Christ.” The “if” does 
 not necessarily imply any doubt in Satan, although Augustine takes 
 it so;! but it is perhaps meant to inspire doubt in Jesus: “ Hath 
 God said, Thou art My beloved Son, and yet forbidden Thee to 
 give Thyself bread?” Comp. “ Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not 
 eat of any tree of the garden?” (Gen. iii. 1). The suggestion 
 seems to be that He is fo work a miracle in order to prove the 
 truth of God’s express declaration, and that He may doubt His 
 relation to God, if God does not allow the miracle. 
 
 This seems better than to regard the first temptation as a temptation of the 
 flesh. Vf the food had been there, would it have been sinful for Jesus to partake 
 ofit? Again, it is sometimes said that it was a temptation fo use Hits supernatural 
 power to supply His own necessities. Among ‘‘the Laws of the Working of 
 Signs” we are told was one to the effect that ‘‘Our Lord will not use His 
 special powers to provide for His personal wants or those of His immediate 
 followers.”? This law perhaps does not hold, except so far as it coincides 
 with the principle that no miracle is wrought where the given end can be ob- 
 tained without miracle. Some of Christ’s escapes from His enemies seem to 
 have been miraculous. Was not that “‘ providing for a personal want”? His 
 rejoining His disciples by walking on the sea might be classed under the same 
 head. The boat coming suddenly to land might be called ‘‘ providing for the 
 wants of His immediate followers.” Had He habitually supplied His personal 
 wants by miracle, then He would have ceased to share the lot of mankind. 
 But it would be rash to say that it would have been sinful for Him to supply 
 Himself with food miraculously, when food was necessary for His work and 
 could not be obtained by ordinary means. It is safer to regard this as a 
 temptation to satisfy Himself of the truth of God’s word by a test of His own. 
 
 Deluge lasted forty days and nights (Gen. vii. 4, 12). The Israelites wandered 
 for forty years (Num. xiv. 33, xxxii. 13). Egypt is to lie waste forty years 
 (Ezek. xxix. 11). Ezekiel is to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah (z.e. the 
 penalty for that iniquity) forty days, each day representing a year (iv. 6). 
 Offenders received forty stripes as a maximum (Deut. xxv. 3). A mother was 
 unclean for forty days after childbirth (Lev. xii. 1-4). Perhaps we are to 
 understand that the fast of the Ninevites lasted forty days. 
 
 1 Dubztavit de illo demonum princeps, eumque tentavit, an Christus esset 
 explorans (De Civ. Dez, ix. 21). 
 
 3 Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 113. 
 
110 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 8-5, 
 
 The singular r@ AL0w Tobrw is more graphic tl.an the ol Al@or obra. of Mt. A 
 single loaf is all that He need produce. The similarity between lumps of stone 
 and loaves of bread perhaps explains why this material, so common in the 
 wilderness, was selected for change into food. 
 
 For the use of wa after elwé (x. 40, xix. 15, etc.) see Win. xliv. 8, pp. 
 420-424; B. Weiss on Mt. iv. 3; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 177; Green, 
 Gr. of N.T. p. 170. It is a weakening of the telic force of tva rather than a 
 mere substitute for the infinitive. 
 
 4. Christ does not reply to the “if” by affirming that He is 
 the Son of God; nor does He explain why the Son of God does 
 not accept the devil’s challenge. He gives an answer which holds 
 good for any child of God in similar temptation.!. The reply is a 
 pointed refutation, however, of the special suggestion to Himself, 
 6 av@pwrros having direct reference to vids tr. Oeov. Satan suggests 
 that God’s Son would surely be allowed to provide food for Him- 
 self. Jesus replies that God can sustain, not only His Son, but 
 any human being, with or without food, and can make other things 
 besides bread to be food. Comp. “ My meat is to do the will of 
 Him that sent Me” (Jn. iv. 34). The reply is verbatim as LXX 
 of Deut. viii. 3. As all His replies come from this book, we may 
 conjecture that Jesus had recently been reading it or meditating 
 on it. The repeated use of a book which is so full of the trials of 
 Israel in the wilderness may suggest a parallel between the forty 
 days and the forty years. The direct reference is to the manna. 
 
 The addition of the remainder of the quotation in A D and other authorities 
 comes from Mt. It differs in wording in the texts which insert it. If it were 
 genuine here, its absence from the best authorities would be most extra- 
 ordinary. The insertion of 6 diaBodos and of els bpos byAcv in ver. 5, and 
 the peweenizce of Tov Kécpou for THs olkouyévns, are corruptions of the same 
 kind. 
 
 5. Lk. places second the temptation which Mt. places last. 
 The reasons given for preferring one order to the other are sub- 
 jective and unconvincing. Perhaps neither Evangelist professes to 
 give any chronological order. Temptations may be intermingled. 
 It is very doubtful whether the 7ére with which Mt. introduces the 
 temptation which he places second, and the zaAw with which he 
 introduces his third, are intended to specify sequence in time. 
 Many Lat. MSS. (Gbcflqr) here place wv. 5-8 after vv. g-11. 
 Lk. omits the command to Satan to depart;? and we have no 
 means of knowing which temptation it zmediately followed. Mt. 
 naturally connects it with the one which he places last. 
 
 évayaydév. See on ii. 22. The word does not require us to 
 
 1Trench quotes from Ambrose: Won enim quast Deus utitur protestate 
 (quzd enim mzhi proderat), sed quasi homo commune stbi arcesstt auxtlium. 
 
 2 It is worth noting that AV., which follows those texts that insert "Ywaye 
 éricov ov, Lavava in ver. 8, renders the words ‘‘ Get thee behind Me, Satan ” 
 there, and ‘* Get thee hence, Satan” in Mt. 
 
IV. 5, 6.] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY Il 
 
 believe that Satan had control of Christ’s person and transferred 
 Him bodily from the desert to a mountain-top. From no mountain 
 could “all the kingdoms of the world” be visible, least of all “in 
 a moment of time.” If Satan on the mountain could present to 
 Christ’s mind kingdoms which were not visible to the eye, he 
 could do so in the desert. We may suppose that he transferred 
 Jesus 7” thought to a mountain-top, whence He could in thought 
 see all. For “all the kingdoms of the world” comp. Ezra i. 2, 
 where we have tas ys for “of the world”: in Mt. rod xéopov, 
 which D substitutes here. 
 
 Tis oikoupévns. A favourite expression with Lk. (ii. 1, xxi. 26; 
 Acts xi. 28, xvii. 6, 31, xix. 27, xxiv. 5): elsewhere only six times, 
 of which one is a quotation (Rom. x. 18 from Ps. xix. 5). It 
 describes the world as a Jlace of settled government, “the civilized 
 world.” To a Greek it might mean the Greek world as distinct 
 from barbarian regions (Hdt. iv. 110. 4; comp. Dem. De Cor. 
 p. 442). Later it meant “the Roman Empire,” ovdis terrarum, as 
 in ii. 1 (Philo, Zeg. ad Caz. 25). In inscriptions the Roman 
 Emperor is 6 xvpuos THs oixovpevys. Finally, it meant “the whole 
 inhabited earth,” as here and xxi. 26 (Rev. xvi. 14; Heb. i. 6; 
 Jos. Azz. viii. 13. 4: B./. vii. 3. 3). In Heb. ii. 5 it is used of 
 the world to come as an ordered system: see Wsctt. Lk. omits 
 kat tHv dogav airav here, but adds it in Satan’s offer. 
 
 év ottyph xpdvov. LPuncto temporis: comp. év pirp dépOadrpod 
 f@orexy.52). Not in Mt. Comp. Is. xux. 5; 2 Mac. ix. 41. 
 It intimates that the kingdoms were represented, not in a series of 
 pageants, but simultaneously: acuta tentatio (Beng.). To take ev 
 orypy xp. With dvayaydy is not a probable arrangement. With 
 ortypn (orilew =“ to prick”) comp. stmulus, “stick,” and “ sting.” 
 
 6. Zot Sdow .. . Ste Evol mapadsédorar. Both pronouns are 
 emphatic: “To Z%ee I will give . . . because to me it hath been 
 delivered.” 
 
 The avré&p after rhv ddtay is a constructio ad sensum, referring to the 
 kingdoms understood in ri éfovelay ratrny, ‘‘ this authority and jurisdiction.” 
 In rapadédorac we have the common use of the perf. to express permanent 
 and present result of past action ; ‘‘it has been given over” and remains in 
 my possession: comp. yéypamrat (4, 8, 10) and elpyrat (12). 
 
 Satan does not say by whom it has been given over; and two answers are 
 possible: 1. by God’s permission ; 2. by man’s sin. But the latter does not 
 exclude the former; and in any case conjitetur tentator, se non esse conditorem 
 (Beng.). That it refers to a Divine gift previous to his revolt against God, is a 
 gratuitous conjecture. Christ Himself speaks of Satan as “‘the ruler of this 
 world” (Jn. xii, 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). In the Rabbinical writings ‘‘ Lord of 
 this world” is a common name for Satan, as ruler of the heathen, in opposition 
 to God, the Head of the Jewish theocracy. The devil is the ruler of the un- 
 believing and sinful; but he mixes truth with falsehood when he claims to have 
 dominion over all the material glory of the world. Comp. Eph. ii. 2; 2 Com 
 
112 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _[IvV. 6-9. 
 
 iv. 4; Rev. xiii. 2. In ¢ 4» 6é\w the mixture of falsehood seems to be still 
 greater. Even of those who are under the dominion of Satan it is only in a 
 limited sense true that he can dispose of them as he pleases. But the subtlety 
 of the temptation lies partly in the fact that it appeals to what is in a very real 
 sense true. Satan intimates that the enormous influence which he possesses 
 over human affairs may be obtained for the promotion of the Messiah’s King- 
 dom. Thus all the pain and suffering, which otherwise lay before the Saviour 
 of the world, might be evaded.! 
 
 7. éav mpooxumons. Mt. adds zeodv, which, like zpoocd@uv, 
 indicates that he may have believed that Satan was visible, 
 although this is not certain. Even actual prostration is possible 
 to an invisible being, and “fall down and worship” is a natural 
 figure for entire submission or intense admiration. In the East, 
 prostration is an acknowledgment of authority, not necessarily of 
 personal merit. The temptation, therefore, seems to be that of 
 admitting Satan’s authority and accepting promotion from him. 
 
 évétiov énot. Lk.’s favourite expression (i. 15, 17, 19, 75, etc.). The 
 usual constr. after mpooxuvety is the acc. (ver. 8; Mt. iv. 10; Rev. ix. 20, 
 
 xiii, 12, xiv. 9, II) or the dat. (Acts vii. 43; jn. iv. 21, 233 Rev. iv. 10, 
 vii. 11): but Rev. xv. 4 as here. 
 
 gota. cod maga. The éfovcfa which has been delivered to 
 me I am willing to delegate or transfer”: magna superbia (Beng.). 
 The acceptance of it would be equivalent to zpocxtvyous. Just as 
 in the first case the lawful desire for food was made an occasion of 
 temptation, so here the lawful desire of power, a desire specially 
 lawful in the Messiah. Everything depends upon why and how 
 the. food and the power are obtained. Christ was born to be a 
 king ; but His Kingdom is not of this world (Jn. xviii. 36, 37), and 
 the prince of this world has nothing in Him (Jn. xiv. 30). He 
 rejects the Jewish idea of the Messiah as an earthly potentate, and 
 thus condemns Himself to rejection by His own people. He 
 rejects Satan as an ally, and thereby has him as an implacable 
 enemy. ‘The end does not sanctify the means. 
 
 8. mpookuyycets. Mt. also has this word in harmony with 
 Satan’s mpooxuvyoys ; but in LXX of Deut. vi. 13 we have ¢o- 
 BnOyon: see on vii. 27.—Aatpedcers. Lit. “serve for hire” 
 (Adrpis = “‘hireling”). In class. Grk. it is used of the service of 
 slaves and of freemen, whether rendered to men or to God: in 
 N.T. always of religious service, but sometimes of the worship of 
 idols (Acts vii. 42; Rom. i. 25). Trench, Syz. xxxv. Propositum 
 erat Domino humilitate diabolum vincere, non potentia (Jerome). 
 
 9. 76 mrepvy.ov tod tepod. It is impossible to determine what 
 
 1In this connexion a remark of Pére Didon is worth quoting. Of the 
 traditional scene of the Temptation he says that there Christ avazt sous les yeux 
 ce chemin de Jéricho a Jérusalem qwil devait suture, un jour, avec ses disciples, 
 pour aller 2 la mort ( Jésus Christ, ch. iii. p. 209). 
 
Iv. 9-12.] PREPARATION FOR TIIE MINISTRY 113 
 
 this means. The article points to its being something well known 
 by this name. The three points conjectured are: 1. the top of 
 the Royal Porch, whence one looked into an abyss (Jos. Azz. 
 xv. II. 5); 2. the top of Solomon’s Porch; 3. the roof of the 
 <ads. It was from 76 wrepvy.ov Tod iepod that James the Just was 
 thrown, according to Hegesippus (Eus. & Z. ii. 23. 11, 16). Had 
 any part of the vads been intended, we should perhaps have had 
 tT. vaod rather than 7. tepov. 
 
 Ei uids et tod Ocod. The repetition of this preamble is evidence 
 that this temptation is in part the same as the first (ver. 3). In 
 both cases Jesus is to “tempt” (ver. 12) God, to challenge Him 
 to prove His Fatherhood by a test of His Son’s own choosing. 
 But, whereas in the first case Christ was to be rescued from an 
 existing danger by a miracle, here He is to cour¢ needless danger 
 in order to be rescued by a miracle. It may be that this is also a 
 partial repetition of the second temptation. If the suggestion is 
 that He should throw Himself down into the courts of the temple, 
 so that the priests and the people might see His miraculous 
 descent, and be convinced of His Messiahship, then this is once 
 more a temptation to take a short cut to success, and, by doing 
 violence to men’s wills, avoid all the pain and suffering involved 
 in the work of redemption.! If this is correct, then this tempta- 
 tion is a combination of the other two. It is difficult to see what 
 point there is in mentioning the temple, if presumptuously seeking 
 peril was the only element in the temptation. The precipices of 
 the wilderness would have served for that. The Bdde ceautdv 
 expresses more definitely than the mid. would have done that the 
 act is to be entirely His own. Not “Fall,” nor “Spring,” but 
 “Cast Thyself”; desice teipsum. Comp. éavrots mAavamev (1 Jn. 
 i. 8). 
 
 10. The fact that after tod gudéfor. ce Satan omits év rdcais 
 tais ddots gov is in favour of the view that presumptuous rushing 
 into danger is part of the temptation. To fling oneself down from 
 a height is not going “in one’s ways,” but out of them. The 
 disobedient Prophet was slain by the lion, the obedient Daniel 
 was preserved in the lions’ den. But we are not sure that the 
 omission of the words has this significance. 
 
 11. émt xerpdv. “ Ox their hands,” implying great carefulness. 
 The mpés Aifov has no special reference either to the temple or the 
 rocks below: stones abound in most places, and lie in the way 
 of those who stumble. 
 
 12. Eipyta. In Mt. Idédw yéyparrat. Jesus had appealed to 
 Scripture; Satan does the same; and then Jesus shows that 
 isolated texts may be misleading. They may be understood in a 
 sense plainly at variance with some other passage. Satan had 
 
 y a Edersh. Z. & 7. i. p. 304; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 140. 
 
114 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [Iv. 12, 13. 
 
 suggested that it was impossible to put too much trust in God. 
 Christ points out that testing God is not trusting Him. 
 
 The verb éxmecpa few is wholly biblical (x. 25 ; Mt. iv. 7; Ps. Ixxvii. 18). In 
 the Heb. it is ‘‘ Ye shall not tempt”: but in LXX we have the sing. as here. 
 
 18. mdévra weipacpdv. “Every kind of temptation”: a further 
 indication that He was tempted throughout the forty days, and that 
 what is recorded is merely an illustration of what took place. 
 The enemy tried all his weapons, and was at all points defeated. 
 Comp. zaca duaptia kai BAacdynpia, “all manner of sin and 
 blasphemy” (Mt. xii. 31); wav dédpov, “every kind of tree (Mt. 
 ili, 10); 6 wey macys Hoovys dmoXatwy Kal pydemids amexopevos 
 dxédaotos, “he who enjoys every kind of pleasure,” etc. (Arist. 
 Eth. Nic. ii. 2. 7). 
 
 &xpt kaipod. ‘Until a convenient season.” This rendering 
 gives the proper meaning both of dyp and of xatpos: comp. Acts 
 xiii, 11, xxiv. 25; Lk. xxi. 24. It is Satan’s expectation that on 
 some future occasion he will have an opportunity of better success ; 
 and an opportunity came when Judas was allowed to deliver the _ 
 Christ into the hands of His enemies. That this was such an 
 occasion seems to be indicated by Christ's own declarations: 
 “The prince of this world cometh; and he hath nothing in Me” 
 Jn. xiv. 30); and “This is your hour and the power of darkness” 
 Lk. xxii. 53). Satan was not visible in a bodily shape then, and 
 probably not on this earlier occasion. It is Peter who on one 
 occasion became a visible tempter (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33). Not 
 that we are to suppose, however, that Satan entirely desisted from 
 attacks between the beginning and end of Christ’s ministry: ‘“ Ye 
 are they which have continued with Me in My temptations,” rather 
 implies the contrary (xxii. 28); but the evil one seems to have 
 accumulated attacks at the beginning and the end. In the wilder- 
 ness he employed the attractiveness of painless glory and success ; 
 in the garden he tried the dread of suffering and failure. All 
 human temptation takes place through the instrumentality of 
 pleasure or pain. 
 
 Luke says nothing about the ministration of Angels which followed the 
 temptation, as recorded by both Mt. and Mk., not because he doubts such facts, 
 for he repeatedly records them (i. 11, 26, ii. 9, xxii. 43; Acts v. 19, vill. 26, 
 xii. 7, xxvii. 23), but probably because his source said nothing about them. Mk. 
 seems to mean that Angels were ministering to Jesus during the whole of the 
 forty days: his three imperfects (fv . . . Hv . . . dinxdvour) are co-ordinate, 
 
 The Temptation is not a dream, nor a vision, nor a myth, nor a parable, 
 translated into history by those who heard and misunderstood it, but an histor- 
 ical fact. It was part of the Messiah’s preparation for His work. In His 
 baptism He received strength. In His temptation He practised the use of it. 
 Moreover, He thus as man acquired experience (Heb. v. 8) of the possibilities of 
 evil, and of the violent and subtle ways in which His work could be ruined. 
 
 Only from Himself could the disciples have learned the history of this 
 
Iv. 18.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 115 
 
 struggle. Among other things it taught them the value of the Jewish Scriptures. 
 With these for their guide they could overcome the evil one, as He had done: no 
 special illumination was necessary (xvi. 29, 31). 
 
 IV. 14-IX. 50. The Ministry in Galilee. 
 
 Lk., like Mt. and Mk., omits the early ministry in Judzea; but 
 we shall find that his narrative, like theirs, implies it. All three of 
 them connect the beginning of the Galilean ministry with the 
 Baptism and the Temptation; while Mt. and Mk. make the im- 
 prisonment of the Baptist to be the occasion of Christ’s departure 
 from Judza into Galilee (Mt. iv. 12; Mk. i. 14). But they neither 
 assert nor imply that John was imprisoned soon after the Tempta- 
 tion; nor do they explain why the arrest of John by Herod Antipas 
 should make Christ take refuge in this same Herod’s dominions. 
 It is from the Fourth Gospel that we learn that there was a con- 
 siderable interval between the Temptation and John’s imprison- 
 ment, and that during it Jesus went into Galilee and returned to 
 Judea again (ii. 13). From it also we learn that the occasion of 
 the second departure into Galilee was the jealousy of the Pharisees, 
 who had been told that Jesus was making and baptizing more 
 disciples even than the Baptist. Much as they disliked and feared 
 the revolutionary influence of John, they feared that of Jesus still 
 more. John declared that he was not the Christ, he “did no sign,” 
 and he upheld the Law. Whereas Jesus had been pointed out as 
 the Messiah; He worked miracles, and He disregarded, not only 
 traditions which were held to be equal to the Law (Jn. iv. 9), but 
 even the Law itself in the matter of the Sabbath (Jn. v. 9g, 10). 
 Thus we see that it was not to escape the persecution of Herod, but 
 to escape that of the Pharisees, who had delivered the Baptist into 
 the hands of Herod, that Jesus retired a second time from Judea 
 into Galilee. It was “after that John was delivered up” (Mk. i. 14), 
 and “when He eard that John was delivered up” (Mt. iv. 12), 
 that Christ retired into Galilee. In neither case was it Herod’s 
 action, but the action of those who delivered John into the hands 
 of Herod, that led to Christ’s change of sphere. And in this way 
 what is recorded in the Fourth Gospel explains the obscurities of 
 the other three. 
 
 There is a slight apparent difference between the first two Gospels and the 
 third. The three Evangelists agree in noticing only one return from Judza 
 
116 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 14. 
 
 to Galilee, and possibly each knows of only one. But whereas Mt. and Mk. 
 seem to point to the second return, for they connect it with the delivering u 
 of the Baptist, Lk. seems rather to point to the first return, for he connects it 
 with ‘‘ the power of the Spirit,” an expression which suggests a reference to 
 that power which Jesus had received at the Baptism and exercised in the 
 Temptation. It is quite possible, however, that the expression refers to the 
 
 wer with which He had worked miracles and taught in Galilee and Judzea ; 
 in which case all three Gospels treat of the second return to Galilee. 
 
 Not very much plan is discernible in this portion of the Gospel ; 
 and it may be doubted whether the divisions made by com- 
 mentators correspond with any arrangement which the writer had 
 in his mind. But even artificial schemes help to a clearer appre- 
 hension of the whole ; and the arrangement suggested by Godet is, 
 at any rate, useful for this purpose. He takes the Development in 
 the Position of Christs Disciples as the principle of his divisions. 
 
 1. iv. 14-44. To the Call of the first Disciples. 
 
 2. v. I-vi. 11. To the Nomination of the Twelve. 
 
 3. vi. 12—-viii. 56. To the first Mission of the Twelve. 
 
 4. ix. 1-50. To the Departure for Jerusalem. 
 
 These divisions are clearly marked out in the text of WH.,a 
 space being left at the end of each. 
 
 IV. 14-44. Zhe Ministry in Galilee to the Call of the first 
 Disciples. The Visits to Nazareth and Capernaum. 
 
 14,15. Comp. Mt. iv. 12; Mk. i. 14. These two verses are 
 introductory, and point out three characteristics of this period of 
 Christ’s activity. 1. He worked in the power of the Spirit. 2. His 
 fame spread far and wide. 3. The synagogues were the scenes of 
 His preaching (comp. ver. 44). 
 
 14. év TH duvdper Tod TveUpatos. This is perhaps to remind us 
 that since His first departure from Galilee He has been endowed 
 with the Holy Spirit and has received new powers (iii. 22, iv. 1, 18). 
 Bengel’s post victoriam corroboratus connects it too exclusively 
 with the Temptation. Unless, with De Wette, we take kai oypy 
 eéf\Oev as anticipating what follows, the statement implies much 
 preaching and perhaps some miracles, of which Lk. has said 
 nothing ; for Jesus is famous directly He returns. The power of 
 the Spirit had already been exhibited in Him. Jn. says that “the 
 Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in 
 Jerusalem at the feast” (iv. 45). But it is not likely that they had 
 heard of the wonders which attended the Birth, or of those which 
 attended the Baptism. 
 
 There are various marks of Lk.’s style. 1. baéorpewev, for which Mt. has 
 dvexwpynoev and Mk. 7\@ev. Comp. ver. 1, where Lk. has bréorpevev, while 
 Mt. has dv7jx6y. 2. SUvapes of Divine power. Comp. i. 35, and see on 
 iv. 36. 3. «a0 Ans in this sense. Comp. xxiii. 5; Acts ix. 31, 42, x. 37: 
 
Tv. 14, 15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 117 
 
 it is peculiar to Lk. See Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 148. 4. 4 weptxdpos, se. 
 "yj, is an expression of which Lk. is fond (iii. 3, iv. 37, vii. 17, viil. 37; Acts 
 xiv. 6); not in Jn., and only twice in Mt. (iii. 5, xiv. 35) and once in Mk. 
 (i. 28; not vi. 55). 
 
 15. kai adtds éSi8ackev. Lk. is so fond of this mode of transi- 
 tion that avrds possibly has no special significance ; if it has, it is 
 “He Himself,” as distinct from the rumour respecting Him. The 
 impert points to His habitual practice at this time, and seems to 
 
 
 
 eprive what follows of all chronological connexion. All the 
 Gospels mention His teaching in synagogues, and give instances of 
 His doing so during the early part of His ministry (Mt. iv. 23; 
 imee5s xi Oo, xill. 545 Mk. i. 21, 30, ii. 1; Vigig; Lk. iv. 44, vi. 6; 
 Jn. vi. 59). ‘Towards the close of it, when the hostility of the, 
 teachers became more pronounced, there is less mention of this 
 practice: perhaps He then taught elsewhere, in order to avoid 
 needless collision. It should be noticed that here, as elsewhere, it 
 is the feaching rather than the worship in the synagogues that is 
 prominent. Synagogues were primarily places of instruction 
 (xiii. 10; Jn. xviii. 20; Acts xili. 27, xv. 21, etc.), and it was as 
 
 such that Augustus encouraged them. Morality of a high kind 
 was taught there, and morality is on the side of order. 
 
 év Tals guvaywyats adtay. This means in the synagogues of the 
 Galileans. Galilee at this time was very populous. Josephus no 
 doubt exaggerates when he says that the smallest villages had 
 fifteen thousand inhabitants (2. /. iii. 3. 2), and that there were 
 over two hundred towns and villages. But in any case there were 
 many Galileans. Among them there was more freshness and less 
 formalism than among the inhabitants of Judza. Here the 
 Pharisees and the hierarchy had less influence, and therefore 
 Galilee was a more hopeful field in which to seek the first elements 
 of a Church. On the other hand, it was necessary to break down 
 the prejudices of those who had known Him in His youth, and had 
 seen in Him no signs of His being the Messiah that they were 
 expecting: and the fame of the miracles which He had wrought in 
 Judzea was likely to contribute towards this. Thus the Judean 
 ministry prepared the way for the more promising ministry in 
 Galilee. We have.no means of estimating the number of Galilean 
 synagogues; but the fact that such a place as Capernaum had 
 either none, or only a.poor one, until a Roman centurion was 
 moved to provide one (“himself built us our synagogue,” vii. 5), 
 is some evidence that by no means every village or even every 
 small town possessed one. The remains of ancient synagogues 
 exist at several places in Galilee ; Ze//-Hum, [rbid (the Arbela of 
 1 Mac. ix. 2), /isch (Giscala), Meiron (Mero), Kasyoun, Nabartein, 
 and Ke/r-Beretm. But it is doubtful whether any of these are older 
 than the second or third century. 
 
 
 
Paes 
 
 118 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 15, 16. 
 
 The origin of synagogues is to be sought in the Babylonish captivity ; and 
 they greatly increased in number after the destruction of the temple. The fact 
 that Jewish legend derives the institution of synagogues from Moses, shows how 
 essential the Jews considered it to be. The statement that there were at one 
 time 480 synagogues in Jerusalem is also legendary ; but 480 may be a symbol- 
 ical number. One has only to remember the size of Jerusalem to see the 
 absurdity of 480 places of public instruction in it. But large towns sometimes 
 had several synagogues, either for different nationalities (Acts vi. 9; see 
 Lumby and Blass) or different handicrafts.! 
 
 Sofatsuevos 675 mévtwy. Because of the power of His preach- 
 ing, especially when contrasted with the lifeless repetitions and 
 senseless trivialities of ordinary teachers. 
 
 16-80. The Visit to Nazareth. Comp. Mt. xiii. 53-58; Mk. 
 vi. 1-6. It remains doubtful whether Lk. here refers to the same 
 visit as that recorded by Mt. and Mk. If it is the same, he per- 
 haps has purposely transposed it to the opening of the ministry, as 
 being typical of the issue of Christ’s ministry. He was rejected by 
 His own people. Similarly the non-Galilean ministry opens with a 
 rejection (ix. 51-56). In any case, the form of the narrative is 
 peculiar to Lk., showing that he here has some special source. We 
 are not to understand that the Galilean ministry began at Nazareth. 
 More probably Christ waited until the reports of what He had said 
 and done in other parts of Galilee prepared the way for His return 
 to Nazareth as a teacher. 
 
 16. 06 jv [dva}reOpoppevos. This tells us rather more than 
 ii. 51: it implies, moreover, that for some time past Nazareth had 
 ceased to be His home. But the addition of “where He had been 
 brought up” explains what follows. It had been “ His custom” 
 during His early life at Nazareth to attend the synagogue every 
 
 ‘sabbath. It is best to confine xara 76 eiwOds to the clause in 
 _# \which it is embedded, and not carry it on to dvéorn dvayvévar: it 
 
 lwas possibly the first time that He had stood up to read at 
 
 Nazareth. But the phrase may refer to what had been His custom 
 elsewhere since He began His ministry ; or it may be written from 
 the Evangelist’s point of view of what was afterwards His custom. 
 We may therefore choose between these explanations. 1. He had 
 previously been in the habit of attending the synagogue at Nazareth, 
 and on this occasion stood up to read. 2. He had previously been 
 in the habit of reading at Nazareth. 3. He had lately been in the 
 habit of reading elsewhere, and now does so at Nazareth. 4. This 
 was an early example of what became His custom. In no case 
 must the sermon be included in the custom. That this was His 
 first sermon at Nazareth is implied by the whole conte=*. 
 
 1Qn synagogues see Edersh. LZ. & TZ. i. pp. 430-450, Ast. of Jewish 
 
 Nasion, pp, 100-129, ed. 1896; Schiirer, Jew7sh People in the T. of J. C. ii. 2, 
 
 . 52-89; Hausrath, V.7. Z2mes, i. pp. 84-93; Plumptre in D.Z.; Leyrer in 
 erzog, PRE.1; Strack in Herzog. PRZ.*; and other authorities in Schiirer. 
 
IV. 16.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 119 
 
 In D both reOpappévos and atr@ after eiwObs are omitted, and the text 
 tuns, é\Owy dé els Nafaped drrou Fv KaTd 7d elwOds ev TH nuepe TOY caBBdrew 
 eis THY cuvaywy7jyv ; but in the Latin the former word is restored, venzens 
 autem in Nazared ubi erat nutricatus introzbit secundum consuetudinem in 
 sabbato in synagogam. The omissions are perhaps due to Marcionite in- 
 fluence. According to Marcion, Christ came direct from heaven into the 
 synagogue, de cxlo in synagogam (see p. 131); and therefore all trace of His 
 previous life in Nazareth must be obliterated. He was not reared there, and 
 was not accustomed to visit the synagogue there. Only a custom of attend- 
 ing the synagogue existed. See Rendel Harris, Study of Codex Bez#, p. 232, 
 in Texts and Studies, ii. 1. Comp. the insertions ix. 54, 55, which may be 
 due to the same influence. ; 
 
 The phrase card 7d elw@ds occurs in LXX Num, xxiv. 1; Sus. 13. Itis 
 characteristic of Lk. See on xara 7d €@os, i. 8. With the dat. xara 7d elwOds 
 
 occurs only here and Acts xvii. 2; and 77 7uépg TOv caBBdrwy occurs’ ~_ 
 
 only here, Acts xiii. 14, and xvi. 13: but comp. Lk. xiii. 13, 16 and xiv. 5. 
 It is a periphrasis for év Tots caB., or év TH oaB., or Tois caB., or TY oaB. 
 
 évéorm dvayvavwr. Standing to read was the usual practice, 
 excepting when the Book of Esther was read at the Feast of 
 Purim: then the reader might sit. Christ’s standing up indicated 
 that He had been asked to read, or was ready to doso, This is 
 the only occasion on which we are told that Jesus read. 
 
 The lectern was close to the front seats, where those who were most likely 
 to be called upon to read commonly sat. A lesson from the 7horah or Law 
 was read first, and then one from the Prophets. After the lesson had been 
 read in Hebrew it was interpreted into Aramaic (Neh. viii. 8), or into Greek in 
 places where Greek was commonly spoken. This was done verse by verse in 
 the Law; but in the Prophets three verses might be taken at once, and in this 
 case Jesus seems to have taken two verses. Then followed the exposition or 
 sermon. The reader, interpreter, and preacher might be one, two, or three 
 persons. Here Christ was both reader and preacher; and possibly He inter- 
 preted as well.!_ Although there were officers with fixed duties attached to each 
 synagogue, yet there was no one specially appointed either to read, or interpret, 
 or preach, or pray. Any member of the congregation might discharge these 
 duties ; and probably those who were competent discharged them in turn at the 
 invitation of the dpxiovvdywyos (Acts xii. 15. Comp. Philo in Eus. Prep, 
 Evang. viii. 7, p. 360 A, and Quod omnis probus liber xii.), Hence it was 
 always easy for Jesus to address the congregation. When He became famous 
 as a teacher He would often be invited to do so.?_ And during His early years 
 He may have read without interpreting or expounding ; for even those under 
 age were sometimes allowed to read in the synagogues. We cannot infer from 
 His being able to read that He Himself possessed the Scriptures. In N.T. 
 dvarywwwoxw is used in no other sense than that of readzng; lit. recognizing 
 
 1 We have no right to infer from this incident that the Hebrew Bible could 
 still be understood by the people. Nothing is said about interpretation; but 
 we cannot assume that it did not take place. Mk. xv. 34 is evidence of some 
 knowledge of O.T. in Aramaic. See Classccal Review, May 1894, p. 216, 
 against Kautzsch, Grammatzk des biblischen Aramdzschen, p. 19. 
 
 2 Comp. ’Avacras 6€ Tis TOv eumetpordtww bdyyeirat TdpicTa Kal cvvoloorra, 
 ols das 6 Blos émiddce mpds 7d BédATLOv (Philo, De Seftenarzo, vi.). See also 
 the fragments of Philo in Eus. Prep. Evang. viii. 7. 12, 13, and viii, 12, 10, 
 ed. Gaisford. These three passages give us Philo’s account of the synagogue 
 services. 
 
120 TITE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 16-18. 
 
 again the written characters; of reading aloud, Acts xiii. 27, xv. 213; 2 Cor. 
 ili. 15; Col. iv. 16; 1 Thes. v. 27. 
 
 17. éwedd0y. “Was handed” to Him, “was given over by 
 handing”: comp. ézefjrovy (ver. 42). It does not mean “was 
 handed to Him zz addition,” implying that something else had 
 been handed to Him previously. This meaning is not common, 
 and is not found elsewhere in N.T. The reading of the Parascha, 
 or section from the Law, had probably preceded, and had been 
 read possibly by someone else. This was the Haphthara, or pro- 
 phetic section (Acts xiii. 15). That Is. lxi. 1, 2 was the lesson 
 appointed for the day is quite uncertain. We do not even know 
 whether there was at that time any cycle of prophetical lessons, 
 nor whether it would be strictly adhered to, if there was such. 
 Apparently Isaiah was handed to Him without His asking for it; 
 but that also is uncertain. The cycle of lessons now in use is of 
 much later origin; and therefore to employ the Jewish lectionary 
 in order to determine the day on which this took place is futile. 
 On the other hand, there is no evidence that “Jesus takes the 
 section which He lights upon as soon as it is unrolled”; for cipe 
 quite as easily may mean the opposite ;—that He intentionally 
 found a passage which had been previously selected. 
 
 The more definite dvamrvéas (ND) is probably a correction of dvolfas 
 (AB L and most versions). The former occurs nowhere in N.T., while the 
 latter is very common: see esp. Rev. v. 2, 3, 4, 5, X. 2, 8, xx. 12. Fond as 
 Lk. is of analytical tenses, fv yeypauevor occurs nowhere else in his writings : 
 €ort yeypay. Is common in Jn. (ii. 17, vi. 31, 45, X- 34, Xil. 14, 16) 
 
 18. The quotation is given by the Evangelist somewhat freely 
 from LXX, probably from memory and under the influence of 
 other passages of Scripture. To argue that the Evangelist cannot 
 be S. Luke, because S. Luke was a Gentile, and therefore would 
 not know the LXX, is absurd. S. Luke was not only a constant 
 companion of S. Paul, but a fellow-worker with him in dealing 
 with both Jews and Gentiles. He could not have done this 
 without becoming familiar with the LXX. 
 
 Down to dméoraAxey pe inclusive the quotation agrees with 
 LXX. After that the text of LXX runs thus: idoacOa Tods cuvte- 
 Tpypevous THv Kapdiay, KnpvEar aixwadrwrous adeow Kal Tupdois ava- 
 Brau, KarX€écat évavtov Kupiov dextév. In many authorities the 
 clause idcacOat tovs cuvtetpyspevous THY Kapdiay has been inserted 
 into the text of Lk. in order to make the quotation more full and 
 more in harmony with O.T. We have similar insertions Mt. xv. 
 8; Acts vii. 37; Rom. xiii. 9; Heb. xiii. 20, and perhaps ii. 7.1 
 
 1 Scrivener, Jz. to Crit. of N.T. i. pp. 12, 13, 4th ed. 
 The evidence against the clause idcacOat . . . Thy kapdlay here (in § AQ of 
 LXX 79 xapdig) is decisive. It isomicted by 8 BD LZ,13-69, 33, most MSS. of 
 
Iv. 18.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I2!I 
 
 In the original the Prophet puts into the mouth of Jehovah’s ideal 
 Servant a gracious message to those in captivity, promising them 
 release and a return to the restored Jerusalem, the joy of which is 
 compared to the joy of the year of jubilee. It is obvious that 
 both figures, the return from exile and the release at the jubilee, 
 admirably express Christ’s work of redemption. 
 
 Mvedpa Kupiou ém ene. In applying these words to Himself the 
 Christ looks back to His baptism. He is more than a Prophet; 
 He is “the Son, the Beloved One,” of Jehovah (iii. 21, 22). 
 
 With ém’ éué (€or) comp. Fv ém avrov (ii. 25).—od elvexev. Not “ where- 
 fore,” as in Acts xix. 32, which here would spoil the sense, but ‘‘ because,” 
 a meaning which otvexey often has in class. Grk. Vulg. has propter quod. 
 Comp. Gen. xviii. 5, xix. 8, xxii. 16, xxxviil. 26; Num. x. 31, xiv. 43, etc. 
 The Ionic form etvexev is found xviii. 29 ; Acts xxviii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. I0: 
 but évexev is the commonest form (2 Cor. vii. 12), and évexa also occurs before 
 consonants (vi. 22; Acts xxvi. 21). 
 
 éxptcey pe. The Christ was anointed with the Spirit, as Pro- 
 phets and priests were anointed with oil (1 Kings xix. 16; Ex. 
 XXVIll. 41, xxx 30). Unlike wévys (2 Cor. ix. 9), mrwxds “always 
 had a bad meaning until it was ennobled by the Gospels” (vi. 20, 
 vil. 22; 2 Cor. vi. 10; Jas. ii. 5). It suggests abject poverty 
 (xré0cw=“T crouch”). See Hatch, 8767. Gre. pp. 76, 77. 
 
 améotahkey pe. Change from aor. to perf. “He anointed 
 Me (once for all); He hath sent Me (and I am here)”: comp. 
 t Cor. xv. 4. We have had dzoaréAAw of the mission of Gabriel 
 (i. 19, 26); here and ver. 43 we have it of the mission of the 
 Christ ; vii. 27 of the Forerunner ; ix. 2 of the Twelve. Whereas 
 méumw is quite general and implies no special relation between 
 sender and sent, drooré\Aw adds the idea of a delegated authority 
 making the person sent to be the envoy or representative of the 
 sender. But zéu7w also is used of the mission of the Christ (xx. 13), 
 of Prophets (ver. 26, xx. 11, 12), and of the Apostles (Jn. xiii. 20, 
 xx. 21). Strictly speaking, aixwahdétors means “prisoners of war” 
 (aixuy and dAwrés): freq. in class. Grk. but here only in N.T. 
 The cognate aiywadwrifw occurs xxi. 24; 2 Cor. x. 5; 2 Tim. iii. 
 6; aixyzadwoia, Eph. iv. 8. Neither this metaphor nor that of 
 tuddots avdéBAeyv harmonizes very well with the year of jubilee, to 
 which Godet would restrict the whole passage. Both might apply 
 to captives in exile, some of whom had been blinded by their 
 captors, or by long confinement in a dungeon. 
 
 Gmootethat TeOpaucpevous ev ddécer. These words come from 
 another part of Isaiah (Iviii. 6), and are perhaps inserted through 
 a slip of memory. Jesus was reading, not quoting without book; 
 and therefore we cannot suppose that He inserted the clause. 
 
 Lat. Vet. and best MSS. of Vulg., most MSS. of Boh. Aeth. Arm. Syr-Sin., 
 Orig. Eus. etc., all the best editors and RV. See Sanday, App. ad N.T. p. 117. 
 
122 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 18-20, 
 
 Lightfoot says that it was lawful to skip from one passage to an- 
 other in reading the Prophets, but not in reading the Law (Hor. 
 Feb. on Lk. iv. 17). That might explain the omission of a few 
 verses, but not the going dack three chapters. The insertion 
 comes from the Evangelist, who is probably quoting from memory, 
 and perhaps regards the unconsciously combined passages as a 
 sort of “programme of the ministry.” The strong express’on 
 teQpauopevous is here applied to those who are shattered in fortune 
 and broken in spirit. 
 
 For the pregnant construction, ‘‘ send so as to be in,” comp. i. 17. The 
 asyndeton throughout, first between éypicev and daéoradxev, and then be- 
 tween the three infinitives which depend upon dméoradxev, is impressive. 
 
 19. évautév Kupiou Sextév. The age of the Messiah, which is 
 Jehovah’s time for bestowing great blessings on His people. 
 Comp. kaupds dexrds (2 Cor. vi. 2; Is. xlix. 8): dexrds is not found 
 in class. Grk. It is strange that Clement of Alexandria and 
 Origen, who are commonly so ready to turn fact into figure, here 
 turn an expression which is manifestly figurative into a literal 
 statement of fact, and limit Christ’s ministry to a period of twelve 
 months (comp. Clem. Hom. xvii. 19). Keim and other modern 
 writers have made the same limit; but the three Passovers dis- 
 tinguished by S. John (ii. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55) are quite fatal to it.? 
 It is, however, an equally faulty exegesis to find the three years 
 (ze. two years and a fraction) of Christ’s ministry in the three 
 years of Lk. xiii. 6-9 or the three days of xiii. 31-33. The first of 
 these is obviously a parabolic saying not to be understood literally; 
 and the other probably is such. The suggestion that the three 
 servants sent to the wicked husbandmen mean the three years of 
 the ministry is almost grotesque. See Nosgen, Gesch. Jesu Christi, 
 Kap. viii., Miinchen, 1890. ; 
 
 20. The vivid description of what followed the reading of the lesson points 
 to an eye-witness as the source of the narrative. But the ‘‘ closed” of AV. and 
 RV. gives a wrong impression of the first incident: it leads one to think of a 
 modern book with leaves. The Rhemish has “folded”; but ‘‘rolled up” 
 would be a better rendering of wrvgas. The long strip of parchment, or less 
 probably papyrus (2 Jn. 12), would be wound upon a roller, or possibly upon 
 two rollers, one at each end of the strip. Hence the name megz//ah (volumen), 
 from g&/al, ‘to roll.” Such a book was in Greek sometimes called kepaNis 
 (Ezr. vi. 2; Ezek. iii. 1-3) or xepadis BiBdAlov (Heb. x. 7; Ps. xxxix. 8; Ezek. 
 ii. 9): and it is said that xe@aAls originally meant the knob (cornu or umbzlecus) 
 at the end of the roller ; but no instance of this use of xegadls appears to be 
 known (Wsctt. on Heb. x. 7). 
 
 Grodods TG Ennpérn. The dzro- implies that it was the minister or 
 1Qn the uncertainty respecting the length of the ministry, and the con- 
 
 jectures respecting it made by early Christians, see Iren, Hw. ii, 225; Eus. 
 H. £. i. 10; Sanday in the Zxfosztor, ist series, xi. p. 16, 
 
Iv. 20, 21.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 123 
 
 chazzan who had handed Him the book who received it dack again. 
 The 7 may have the same meaning, just as ro B.8diov means the 
 book which had been given to Him. But 76 iznpéry more prob- 
 ably means the minister usually found in a synagogue. It was 
 among the duties of the chazzan to take the Scriptures from the 
 ark and put them away again (Surenhusius, dA/ishna, il. 246, 
 iii. 266). He taught the children to read, and inflicted the 
 scourgings (Mt. x. 17). A Roman epitaph to a Jew who held 
 this office is quoted by Schiirer, II. ii. p. 66— 
 
 ®dafos IovAtavos vrnperys 
 PdaBia IovAravyn Ovyarnp warpe 
 Ev epyvn n Kounnots cov. 
 
 ‘The chazzan of the synagogue became the deacon or sub-deacon 
 of the Christian Church. 
 
 A wrnpérns is lit. ‘an under-rower” (épécow). The word may be used 
 of almost any kind of attendant or servant (Acts v. 22, 26, xili. 5; Mt. 
 xxvi. 58; Mk. xiv. 54, 65; Jn. vii. 32, 45; I Cor. iv. 1). For the two 
 participles, m7vfas . . . daodovs, without kal, comp. Acts xii. 4, 25. 
 
 éxd@icev. This was the usual attitude for expounding or 
 preaching, and in the synagogues there was commonly a raised 
 seat for the purpose. On other occasions we find Christ sitting 
 to teach (v. 3; Mt. v. 1; Mk. iv. 1; [Jn. viii. 2]); and the 
 disciples do the same (Acts xvi. 13). 
 
 joav atevifovtes. ‘‘ Were fixed intently.” Their intense interest 
 was caused by His reputation as a teacher and as a worker of 
 miracles, as well as by His having been brought up amongst 
 them ; perhaps also by His look and manner of reading. That 
 He had selected an unexpected passage, or had omitted the usual 
 lesson from the Law, and that this surprised them, is pure con- 
 jecture. Comp. Acts vi. 15, where the same verb is used of the 
 whole Sanhedrin riveting their eyes upon Stephen. It is a 
 favourite word with Lk., who uses it a dozen times: elsewhere in 
 N:T. only 2 Cor. i. 7, 13. It occurs in LXX (x Es. vi. 28; 
 3 Mac. ii. 26), in Aq. (Job vii. 8), and in Jos. (2. 7. v. 12. 3). The 
 analytical tense marks the continuance of the action. 
 
 21. jp§ato Sé Ayer. The ypgaro is not pleonastic: it points 
 to the solemnity of the moment when His words broke the silence 
 of universal expectation: comp. vii. 24, xi. 29, xii. I, xiv. 18. 
 What follows may be regarded as a summary of what was said. 
 It gives us tne main subject of His discourse. We are led to 
 suppose that He said much more; perhaps interpreting to them in 
 detail the things concerning Himself (xxiv. 27). The conversation 
 with Nicodemus is similarly condensed by S. John (iii. 1-21). 
 Even without this narrative we should know from vii. 22 and Mt. 
 
124 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Iv. 21, 22. 
 
 x1. 5 that Christ interpreted Is. Ixi. 1 ff. of Himself. The whole 
 of the O.T. was to Him a prophecy respecting His life and work. 
 And this applies not only to prophetic utterances, but also to rites 
 and institutions, as well as to historical events, which were so 
 ordered as to be a forecast of the salvation and judgment which 
 He was to bring." 
 
 1 yeadi attn. “This passage of Scripture” (Mk. xii. 10; Jn. 
 vii. 42, etc.): for Scripture as a whole the plural is used (xxiv. 27, 
 32, 453 Mt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29, xxvi. 54, 56; Mk. xii. 24, etc.) 
 His interpretation of the prophecy was at the same time a fulfil- 
 ment of it; for the voice of Him of whom the Prophet wrote 
 was sounding in their ears. Hence it is that he affirms memAjpwrar 
 év tots Gow buav. As Renan says, J/ ne préchait pas ses opinions, 
 i se préchait luiméme. 
 
 aA 
 
 22. éuaptipouv aitd. “They bore witness to Him,” not that 
 
 Cy 
 
 what He said about Himself, but that what rumour had said 
 respecting His power as a teacher, was true. They praised Him 
 in an empty-hearted way. What they remembered of Him led 
 them to think that the reports about Him were exaggerations ; but 
 they were willing to admit that this was not the case. Comp. x1. 
 48. This “bearing witness” almost of necessity implies that 
 Jesus had said a great deal more than is recorded here. What 
 follows shows that they did not believe the teaching which so 
 startled and impressed them, any more than those whose attention 
 was riveted on Stephen, before he began to address them, were 
 disposed to accept his teaching. The cases are very similar. 
 Hence éfavafov expresses amazement rather than admiration. 
 For davyaley éxé see small print on ii. 33. 
 
 tots Aéyous THS xapttos. Characterizing genitive or genitive of quality ; 
 freq. in writings influenced by Hebrew, ‘‘ which employs this construction, not 
 merely through poverty in adjectives, but also through the vividness of phrase- 
 ology which belongs to Oriental languages (Win. xxxiv. 3- b, P. 297- Comp. 
 olkovéuos TAS dOtklas (xvi. 8); Kpirijs THs ddcxlas (xvill. 6); axpoaris émuAnopovas 
 (Jas. 1. 25); Kptrai diadoyiouay movnpay (Jas. ii. 4); and perhaps the difficult 
 Tpowns amooklacua (Jas. i. 17). The meaning here is ‘* winning words.” The 
 very first meaning of xdpis (xalpw) is ‘ “comeliness, winsomeness” (Hom. Od. 
 
 1“Tesus acknowledged the Old Testament in its full extent and its perfect 
 sacredness. The Scripture cannot be broken, He says (Jn. x. 35), and forthwith 
 draws His argument from the wording of it. Of course He can only have 
 meant by this the Scripture in the form in which it was handed down, and He 
 must have regarded it exactly as His age did (comp. xi. 51). Any kind of 
 superior knowledge in these matters would merely have made Him incapable of 
 placing Himself on a level with His hearers respecting the use of Scripture, or 
 would have compelled Him to empioy a far-reaching accommodation, the very 
 idea of which involves internal untruthfulness. All, therefore, that is narrated 
 in Scripture He accepted absolutely as actual history, and He regarded the 
 several books as composed by the men to whom they were ascribed by tradition 7 
 (B. Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. iii. 5, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 62, 63). 
 
IV. 22, 23.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 125 
 
 viii. 175; Eccles. x. 12; Ps. xliv. 3; Ecclus. xxi. 16, xxxvii. 21; Col. iv. 6): 
 and in all these passages it is the winsomeness of /angwage that is specially 
 signified. From this objective attractiveness it easily passes to subjective 
 “favour, kindness, goodwill,” esp. from a superior to an inferior (Acts ti. 47 ; 
 Gen. xviii. 3, xxxii. 5, xxxiii. 8, etc.); and hence, in particular, of finding 
 *€ favour” with God (i. 30; Acts vii. 46; Exod. xxxili. 12, 13, 16, etc.). From 
 the sense of God’s favour generally (ii. 40, 52; Jn. i. 14, 16) we come to the 
 specially theological sense of ‘‘God’s favour to sinners, the free gift of His 
 grace” (Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24, 32; and the Pauline Epp. fasszm). Lastly, it 
 sometimes means the ‘‘gratitude” which this favour produces in the recipient 
 (vi. 32-34, xvii. 9; 1 Cor. x. 30). The word does not occur in Mt. or Mk. 
 See Sanday on Rom. i. 5, and Blass on Acts ii. 47 and iv. 33. 
 
 Origen evidently had this passage in his mind when he wrote: ‘‘ For a proof 
 that grace was poured on His lips (Ps. xliv. 3, Eexv0n  xapis ev xeldeoly cov) 
 is this, that although the period of His teaching was short,—for He taught 
 somewhere about a year and a few months,—the world has been filled with His 
 teaching” (De Prim. iv. 1. 5). But the words so calculated to win did not win 
 the congregation. They were ‘‘ fulfilled in their ears,” but not in their hearts.} 
 A doubt at once arose in their minds as to the congruity of such words with one 
 whom they had known all His life as the ‘‘son of Joseph” the carpenter. 
 Here odros has a contemptuous turn, as often (v. 21, vil. 39, 49, xv. 2, xxii. 56, 
 59, etc.): yet the Vulg. in none of these places has zs¢e, but Azc. ‘‘Is not this 
 person Joseph’s son? What does he mean by using such language?” Just as 
 a single sentence is given as a summary of His discourse, so a single question is 
 given as a summary of their scepticism. 
 
 While the od7os and vids is in all three, the question as a whole differs. Mk. 
 has Ovy odds dori 6 TéxTwv, 6 vids THs Maplas ; (vi. 3). Mt. has Ovx odrés éorw 
 6 Tod Téxrovos vids; (xiii. 55). Lk. Ovxl vids dorw "Iwoid ofros; And while 
 the others mention Christ’s brothers and sisters in close connexion with His 
 mother, Lk. mentions none of them. Lk. and Jn. seem to prefer the expres- 
 sion ‘‘son of Joseph ” (Lk. ili. 23, iv. 22; Jn. i. 45, vi. 42). Renan thinks that 
 Mare ne connatt pas Joseph (V. de J. p. 71). But it may be that, as he does 
 not record the virgin birth of Christ, he avoids the expression ‘‘son of Joseph ” 
 or ‘‘the carpenter’s son,” which those who have recorded the virgin birth could 
 use without risk of being misunderstood, 
 
 23. Mdvtws épeité por thy wapaBohhy tadtyv. “ At all events, 
 assuredly, ye will say,” etc.: waytws is used in strong affirmations 
 (Acts xxl. 22, xxvilil. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 10). Excepting Heb. ix. 9 and xi. 
 19, tapaZody occurs only in the Synoptic Gospels: in Jn. x. 6 and 
 Xvi. 25, 29, aS in 2 Pet. ii. 22, the word used is rapounio. It need 
 not be doubted that the notion of placing Jeszde for the sake of 
 comparison, rather than that of merely putting forth, lies at the root 
 of zapaBoAn. From the notion of (1) “throwing beside” come 
 the further notions of (2) “exposing” and (3) “comparing,” all 
 three of which are common meanings of wapa8ddXew. While the 
 adj. awapaBodos represents the derived notion on the one side, the 
 subst. rapaZoA7 represents that on the other side. A zapafoAn, 
 therefore, is “an utterance which involves a comparison.” Hence 
 various meanings: 1. a complete parable or allegory (viii. 4, xiii. 6, 
 
 1 Comp. Augustine’s description of his indifference to the preaching ot 
 Ambrose, although charmed with his winning style: Rerum incurzosus et con: 
 temptor adstabam et delectabar suavitate sermonis (In Ezek. xxxiii. 32). 
 
126 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _[IV. 28. 
 
 etc.) ; 2. a single figurative saying, proverb, or illustration (here ; 
 v. 36, Vi. 30) 3: 3.4 saying of deeper meaning, which becomes in- 
 telligible through comparison, in which sense it is sometimes joined 
 with ckorewvds Adyos (Prov. i. 6), tpdBAnpua (Ps. xlix. 5) Ixxviii. 2), 
 and the like. In the teaching of Christ zapaBoAy is commonly 
 used in the first sense, and is a means of making known the 
 mysteries of the kingdom in a mixed audience; for it conceals 
 from the unworthy what it reveals to the worthy (viii. 9, 10). See 
 Crem. Lex. pp. 124, 657; Hatch, B26/. Grk., p. 70; Hase, Gesch. 
 Jesu, § 63, p. 535, ed. 1891; Didon, /ésus Christ, ch. vi. p. 391, 
 ed. 1891; Latham, Pastor Pastorum, ch. x. 
 
 ‘latpé, Qepdmeucov ceautdy. ‘‘ Heal thine own lameness” is the 
 Hebrew form of the proverb. Similar sayings exist in other litera- 
 tures: ¢.g. a fragment of Euripides, aAAwv iarpds, atrés eAxeot 
 Bptwv ; Ser. Sulpicius to Cicero, Wegue imitare malos medicos, qui 
 in alienis morbis profitentur tenere se medicine scientiam, ipst se 
 curare non possunt (Cie. Fp. ad aivers0s, i iv. 5). Hobart quotes 
 from Galen, éxpnv ouv avrov €avToU TPWOTOov iao Oar 70 ovprTwpa Kat 
 ovrus érixetpety Erépous Oepareverv. Comp. Aesch. P. V. 469; Ov. 
 Metam. vii. 561 ; and the other examples in Lightfoot and Wetst. 
 It is remarkable that this saying of Christ is preserved only by 
 the beloved physician. Its meaning is disputed. Some take the 
 words which follow to be the explanation of it: “ Heal the ills of 
 thine own town.” Thus Corn. 4 Lap., “Cure Thine own people 
 and Thine own country, which should be as dear to Thee as Thyself.” 
 Similarly Beng. Alf. Sadler and others. It is thus made to mean 
 much the same as “Charity begins at home.” But tatpe and 
 ceavrov Ought to be interpreted of the same person or group; not 
 one of a person and the other of his neighbours. “ Prophet, 
 heal Thine own countrymen” is not parallel to “ Physician, heal 
 Thyself.” The saying plainly refers to the passage just read from 
 Isaiah ; and although Lk. omits the words “to heal the broken- 
 hearted,” -yet Christ must have read them, and He had probably 
 explained them. He professed to be the fulfilment of them, and 
 to be healing the miseries of mankind. The people are supposed 
 to tell Him to better His own condition before bettering that of 
 others. He must make His own position more secure, and give 
 evidence of His high mission before asserting it. He must work 
 convincing miracles, such as He is sazd to have worked elsewhere. 
 Comp. cacov seavtév kat Hpds (xxiii. 39). 
 
 dca qkovcapev. They do not say dca 2rotyoas, wishing to leave 
 it open whether the report may not de untrue. We learn from 
 Jn. ii. 12 that after the miracle at Cana, Jesus was at Capernaum 
 for a short time ; and from John ii. 23, that there were many unre- 
 corded miracles. It is probably to reports of some of these that 
 reference is here made. For the constr.comp. Acts vii. 12and xxiv. 10. 
 
IV. 23--25° THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 127 
 
 els thy Kadapvaotp. See on ver. 31. The readings vary between els 
 thy Kad. (SB), eis Kad. (D L), & 77 Kad. (x), and & Kag. (AK). The 
 substitution of é for els, and the omission of the article between a preposition 
 and a proper name, are obvious corrections by a later hand. The els is not 
 “put for év.” It may be doubted whether these two prepositions are ever 
 interchanged. Rather els is used because of the idea of motion contained in 
 ** come to -” It is scarcely possible that els contgins the notion of “‘to 
 the advantage of,” and indicates the petty jealousy of the people of Nazareth. 
 We have the same constr. i. 44; Acts xxviii. 6 (comp. Lk. xi. 7); and in no 
 case is there any idea of advantage. That the jealousy was a fact, and that 
 the people of Nazareth were inclined to discount or discredit all that seemed 
 _ to tell in favour of prosperous Capernaum, is probable ; but there is no hint 
 of this in the els. What is said to have happened f Capernaum ought to 
 happen ere. Comp. the Commish use of ‘‘to” for “fat.” In N.T. dée is 
 never ‘‘ thus,” but either ‘‘ hither” (ix. 41, xiv. 21, xix. 27) or ‘‘ here” (ix. 
 33, xxii. 38). The & ry warplé cov is epexegetic of Sde, and means ‘* Thy 
 native town,” not the whole of Israel: comp. Mk. vi. 5; Mt. xiii. 58. 
 
 24, Etwev 8¢. When these words occur between two utter- 
 ances of Christ, they seem to indicate that there is an interval 
 between what precedes and what follows. The report of what 
 was said on this occasion is evidently very condensed. Comp. 
 Vi. 39, Xi. 16, xv. II, XVii. I, 22, xvill. 9, and see on i: 8. The 
 dé is “but” (Cov.) rather than. “and” (all other English Versions) ; 
 ait autem (Vulg.). “ But, instead of gratifying them, He said.” 
 There are various proverbial sayings which declare that those who 
 are close to what is great do not appreciate the greatness. Jesus 
 declares that He is no exception to this rule, and implies that He 
 will work no miracles to free Himself from its operation. In the 
 wilderness He had resisted a similar suggestion that He should 
 work a miracle of display, a mere répas (vv. 9-11). In this matter 
 Nazareth is a type of the whole nation, which rejected Him 
 because He did not conform to their own ideas of the Messiah. 
 Their test resembles that of the hierarchy, “He is the King of 
 Israel ; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will 
 believe Him” (Mt. xxvii. 42). Eizev dé is peculiar to Lk. (i. 13). 
 
 25. “But I am like the Prophets, not only in the treatment 
 which I receive from My own people, but also in My principles of 
 action. For they also bestowed their miraculous benefits upon 
 outsiders, although there were many of their own people who 
 would have been very glad of such blessings.” Christ is here 
 appealing to their knowledge of Scripture, not to any facts out- 
 side the O.T.  TZestatur hoc Dominus ex luce omniscientiz suz 
 is not a legitimate inference. Arguments drawn from what was 
 known to Him, but not known to them, would not be likely to 
 influence His audience. Note as = “ when.” 
 
 éw GAnfetas. ‘On a basis of truth”: comp. Mk. xii. 14. We have 
 similar adverbial expressions in éx’ tons (se. polpas), éwl cxodFs, éxl Kacpod, 
 éx’ déclas. 
 
128 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _ [IV. 25-28, 
 
 émt érn tpta Kal pivas €&. Jesus, 'ike His brother James (Jas. 
 v. 17), follows Jewish tradition as to the duration of the famine. 
 In 1 Kings xviii. t we are told that the rain came in the third 
 year, which would make the drought about wo years and a half. 
 But ever since the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, three 
 years and a half (=42 months=1260 days) had become the 
 traditional duration of times of great calamity (Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7; 
 Rey. xi. 2, 3, xii. 6, 14, xiii. 5). The Jews would regard “in the 
 third year” as covering three years, and would argue that the 
 famine must have continued for some time after the rain came. 
 
 For éml ¢. acc. of duration of time (‘‘ over,” ¢.¢. “‘ during”), comp. Acts 
 xiii. 31, xix. 10; Hdt. ili. 59. 2, vi. 101. 3; Thuc. ii. 25. 4. Heb. xi. 30 is 
 different. In accordance with common usage Acués is here masc. ; but in 
 xv. 14 and Acts xi. 28 it is fem. acc. to what is called Doric usage, as in the 
 Megarean of Aristoph. Acharn. 743. But this usage occurs elsewhere in late 
 Greek. It perhaps passed from the Doric into the Kowh Addexros: for 
 examples see Wetst. and L. and S. Zex. In LXX perhaps only 1 Kings xviii. 2. 
 
 éml tacav thy yyv. Here, as in Jas. v. 17, only the land of 
 Israel need be understood ; but it is possible that in each case we 
 have a popular hyperbole, and that the whole world is meant. 
 Lk. xxi. 23 and Rom. ix. 28 are not quite parallel, for there the 
 context plainly limits the meaning. Lk. xxiii. 44 is another 
 doubtful case, and there AV. has “earth” and RV. “land.” 
 Both have “land” here. 
 
 26. The translation of ef yu in this and the following clauses by ‘‘ but 
 only ” (RV.), sed (Beza), or sed tantum, is justifiable, because ‘‘ save” (AV.) 
 and zsz (Vulg.) seem to involve an absurdity which was not apparent to a 
 Greek. It is not, however, correct to say that in such cases el 7 is put for 
 add, any more than in Mt. xx. 23 or Mk. iv. 22 it would be correct to say 
 that é\Ad is put for ef w7. Here and in Mt. xii. 4 (comp. Rom. xiv. 14; 
 1 Cor. vii. 17; Gal. i. 7, ii. 16) ‘‘ the question is not whether el mw retains 
 its exceptive force, for this it seems always to do, but whether the exception 
 refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone” (Lft. on Gal. i. 19): comp. 
 Rev. xxi. 27.—In els Zdperra, x.7.d.. we perhaps have a quotation from LXX 
 of 1 Kings xvii. 9. There, as here, the readings vary between 2dGvos and 
 Didwrlas (sc. y7s or x@pas). Here the latter is right, meaning the zerrzzory of 
 Sidon, in which Sarepta lay. Zarephath (in Syriac Zsazfah, in Greek 
 Zdpedba, Zdpewra, and Zépha) is probably represented by the modern 
 Stirafend on the coast road between Tyre and Sidon. 
 
 27. éwi’EXucatov. For this use of él with a proper name to give a date, 
 ‘Cin the time of,” comp. iii. 2; Acts xi. 28; 1 Mac. xiii. 42, xiv. 27; 2 Mac. 
 xv. 22. The spelling “EA:ooatos is not well attested (WH. ii. App. p. 159). 
 For some of the ‘‘ many lepers” comp. 2 Kings vii. 3, where we have four at 
 the gate of Samaria. In N.T. Zvpios is the only form of the adj. that is 
 found, viz. here and perhaps Mk. vii. 26 ; but Zvpos, Dvpros, and Dupiaxés occur 
 elsewhere (Hdt. ii. 104. e ; Aesch. Pers. 83; Theophr. C. P. ii. 17. 3). 
 
 28. érdjoOncav wévtes Oupod. See on i. 66. They see the 
 point of His illustrations; He has been comparing them to those 
 Jews who were judged less worthy of Divine benefits than the 
 
IV. 28-30.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 129 
 
 heathen. It is this that infuriates them, just as it infuriated the 
 Jews at Jerusalem to be told by S. Paul that the heathen would 
 receive the blessings which they despised (Acts xiii. 46, 50, xxii. 
 21, 22). Yet to this day the position remains the same; and 
 Gentiles enjoy the Divine privileges of which the Jews have 
 deprived themselves. His comparing Himself to such Prophets 
 as Elijah and Elisha would add to the wrath of the Nazarenes 
 On the other hand, these early instances of God’s special blessings 
 being conferred upon heathen, would have peculiar interest for Lk 
 29. €ws dpptos tod Spous. Tradition makes the scene of this 
 attempt to be a precipice, varying from 80 to 300 feet in height, 
 which exists some distance off to the S.E. of the town; and we 
 read that “they cast Him owf of the town and led Him as far as 
 the brow,” etc. But modern writers think that a much smaller 
 precipice close at hand is the spot. Wan der Velde conjectures 
 that it has crumbled away ; Conder, that it is hidden under some 
 of the houses. Stanley says that Nazareth “is built ‘upon,’ that 
 is, on the side of, ‘a mountain’; but the ‘brow’ is not beneath, 
 but over the town, and such a cliff as is here implied is to be found, 
 as all modern travellers describe, in the abrupt face of the lime- 
 stone rock, about 30 or 4o feet high, overhanging the Maronite 
 Convent at the S.W. corner of the town” (Siz. & Pai. p. 367). 
 So also Robinson (Res. im Pal. ii. pp. 325, 330), Hacket (D.Z. ii. 
 p- 470), and Schulz in Herzog (PREZ.? x. p. 447). The é¢' of, of 
 course, refers to Tod dpous, not to édpvos. Both AV. and RV. have 
 “ the brow of the hill whereon,” which might easily be misunder- 
 stood. The town is on the hill, but not on the brow of it: the 
 brow is above the modern village. Nowhere else in N.T. does 
 éppvs occur. Comp. Hom. //. xx. 151; and d¢dpvdes, Z7. xxii. 411, 
 and Hdt. v. 92. 10, with other instances in Wetst. Susercilium is 
 similarly used: Virg. Georg. i. 108; Liv. xxvii. 18, xxxiv. 29. 
 Gore kataxpypvioat. The dove is not needed (i. 22; Mt. ii. 2, xx. 28; 
 Acts v. 31); but it expresses more clearly the result which was intended. 
 Comp. xx. 20, where, as here, éore has been altered in some texts into the 
 simpler els 76, a constr. which Lk. does not employ elsewhere. In ix. 52 the 
 true reading is perhaps &s; but in Mt. x. I, xxiv. 24, xxvii. 1 there is no doubt 
 about the ®ore. For xataxpnuvifw (here only in N.T.) comp. 2 Chron. 
 xxv. 12; 2 Mac. xii. 15, xiv. 43; 4 Mac. iv. 25; Jos. Amt. vi. 6. 2, ix. 9. I. 
 
 The whole attempt to put Jesus to death was perhaps an instance of the form 
 of punishment which the Jews called the ‘‘rebel’s beating,” which was some- 
 what analogous to Lynch Law. The ‘“‘rebel’s beating” was administered by 
 the people, without trial and on the spot, when anyone was caught in what 
 seemed to be a flagrant violation of some law or tradition. Comp. the attempts 
 to stone Jesus (Jn. vill. 59, x. 31). We havea similar attempt upon S. Paul’s 
 life (Acts xxi. 31, 32). In S. Stephen’s case a formal trial seems to have ended 
 in the “‘rebel’s beating” (Edersh. The Temple, p. 43). 
 
 830. adtés Sé Srey 814 pecou attav éwopedeto, “But He (in 
 9 
 
130 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 80, 81. 
 
 contrast to this attempt), after passing through the midst of them, 
 went His way.” The addition of 6:4 péocov is for emphasis, and 
 seems to imply that there was something miraculous in His 
 passing through the very midst of those who were intending to 
 slay Him, and seemed to have Him entirely in their power. They 
 had asked for a miracle, and this was the miracle granted to them. 
 Those who think that it was His determined look or personal 
 majesty which saved Him, have to explain why this did not 
 prevent them from casting Him out of the synagogue! It seems 
 better with Meyer and ancient commentators to understand a 
 miracle dependent on the will of Jesus: comp. Jn. xviii. 6; Dan. 
 vi. 22. Jn. vill. 59 is different: then Jesus hid Himself before 
 escaping. For 8vedv see on ii. 15. - 
 
 émopeveto. Here used in its common signification of going on 
 towards a goal: “ He went His way” to Capernaum. And, so far 
 as we know, He did not return to Nazareth. It had become a 
 typical example of “His own people receiving Him not” (Jn. 
 i. 11); and apparently it had no other opportunity (but see 
 Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. ch. xxvii.) If Mk. vi. 1-6 and Mt. xiii. 
 53-58 refer to a different occasion, it probably preceded this. 
 After the attempt on His life He would not be likely to return; 
 and, if He did return, they could hardly, after this experience of 
 Him, ask, “ Whence has this man this wisdom?” or be astonished 
 at His teaching. 
 
 Meyer (on Mt. xiii. 53), Wieseler (Chron. Syn. iii. 2, Eng. tr. p. 258), Godet 
 (Zc., Eng. tr. i. p. 240), Tischendorf (Syzop. Evan. §§ 29, 54), and others dis- 
 tinguish the two occasions. If with Caspari (Chron. Int. § 100) we identify 
 them, then Lk. is the more full and vivid, for the others omit the text of the 
 discourse and the attempt to kill Him. In this case Strauss may be right in sup- 
 posing that Lk. has placed the incident at the beginning of the ministry, although 
 it took place later, because he saw how typical it was of the ministry as a whole © 
 (Leben Jesu, p. 121, 1864). That it was this attempt on His life which made 
 Christ change His abode from Nazareth to Capernaum is contradicted by ver. 
 16. ‘‘ Where He had been brought up ” implies that He had ceased to reside 
 ‘here: and from ver. 23 we infer that Capernaum had already become His 
 headquarters. hither His Mother and brethren had also moved, while His 
 sisters remained at Nazareth (Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. vi. 3), very probably because 
 they had married there. 
 
 81-44, The Stay at Capernaum: chiefly a Record of Miracles 
 of Healing. See Wsctt. Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles, 
 Macmillan, 1859 ; Lutroduction to the Study of the Gospels, App. 
 E: “A Classification of the Gospel Miracles,” Macmillan, 1888. 
 
 81-37. The Healing of a Demoniac in the Synagogue at Caper- 
 
 1 Even Godet is among these. La majesté de sa personne et la fermeté de 
 son regard imposerent & ces furieux. L’historie raconte plusieurs traits sem- 
 blables (i. p. 327, 3eme ed.). Better Didon: Une force divine le gardait 
 (p. 312, ed. 1891). See Hase, Gesch. Jesu, p. 445, ed. 1891. 
 
IV. 81.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 131 
 
 naum. Mk. i. 21-28. Both Lk. and Mk. place this first among 
 Christ’s miracles; whereas Mt. puts the healing of a leper first 
 (viii. 2-4). Marcion began his mutilated edition of Lk. at this 
 point with the words ‘O @EO’S xar7jAbev cis Kadapvaovp. The 
 earlier portion, which teaches the humanity of Christ, he omitted, 
 excepting the first clause of iii. 1 (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 7. 1). 
 
 81. katqGev. Nazareth is on higher ground than Capernaum, 
 which was on the shore of the lake; and therefore “went down” 
 or “came down” is the probable meaning. But it is possible that 
 here and Acts xviii. 5 it means “returned,” as often in class. Grk. 
 (Hdt. iv. 4. 2, v. 30. 4; Thuc. viii. 68. 3). Excepting Jas. iit. 
 15, the verb occurs in N.T. only in Lk. (ix. 37 and twelve times 
 in Acts). 
 
 Kadapvaovp. This is the correct spelling, Caphar-Nahum, of which 
 Kazrepvaovm is a Syrian corruption (WH. ii. App. p. 160). It was the chief jeoth 
 town, as Tiberias was the chief Roman town, of the neighbourhood. It was 
 therefore a good centre, especially as traders from all parts frequently met 
 there (Mk. ii. 15, iii. 20, 32, etc.). It is not mentioned in O.T., and perhaps 
 was not founded till after the Exile. Josephus mentions it only once, viz. in his 
 description of the lake (2. /. iii. 10. 7, 8), and then not as a town but asa 
 my) yov.uwrdrn, which irrigates the neighbourhood: but there is no doubt that 
 the Kegapydépuy, to which Josephus was carried, when he was thrown from his 
 horse in a skirmish with Roman troops, is Capernaum (V2fa, 72). The identi- 
 fication with the modern 7e// Hm (Nau, Pococke, Burckhardt, Renan,? Ritter, 
 Rédiger, Ewald) is possible, but not certain. Many advocate the claims of 
 Khan Minyeh, which is three miles to the south (Quaresmius, Keim, Robinson, 
 Sepp, Stanley, Strauss, Wilson). For the chief arguments see Wilson in D.&.? 
 i. p. 530, and in P2cturesque Palestine, ii. p. 81; Schulz in Herzog, RZ.? vii. 
 p. 501; Keim, Jes. of Waz., Eng. tr. ii. p. 369; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 
 221-239, ed. 1892. The doubts about the site show how completely the woes 
 
 ronounced upon the place (Mt. xi. 23) have been fulfilled. But in any case 
 esus left the seclusion of the mountains for a busy mercantile centre by the lake. 
 
 woh THs Fadtdatas. Lk. adds this, because this is the first 
 time that he mentions Capernaum in his narrative. The explana- 
 tion could not be made ver. 23. It is another small indication 
 that he is writing for those who are not familiar with the geography 
 of Palestine: comp. 1. 26, ii. 4, vili. 26. 
 
 Hy S8doKxwv attods év tots codBBaow. Some make vv. 31, 32a 
 general introduction, stating the habitual practice, of which vz. 
 33-37 gave a particular instance. In support of this they urge 
 the analytical tense, jv diddoxwy, and the plur. tots caBBaow: 
 “He used to teach them on the sabbath days.” But in the 
 parallel passage édédacxev and jv Sdidacxwy are equivalent, and 
 
 10Of the czng petztes villes dont Phumanité parlera eternellement autant que 
 de Rome et d Athenes, Renan considers the identification of Magala (Medjde/) 
 alone as certain. Of Capharnahum, Chorazin, Dalmanutha, and Bethsaida he 
 says, // est douteux qu'on arrive jamais sur ce sol profondement dévasté, a fixer 
 tes places o% Chumanité voudrait venir baiser Tempreinte de ses pieds (Vie da 
 Jésus, p. 142). 
 
132 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |Iv. 31-383. 
 
 apparently refer to one occasion only (note the <i@vs, Mk. i. 22, 2 3): 
 and 7a cafBara is often sing. in meaning (Mt. xxviii. 1; Col. 11. 
 16; Exod. xx. 10; Lev. xxiii. 32; Jos. Avi. 1. ij) me OGmeer 
 Hor. Sat. i. 9. 69). Acts xvii. 2 is the only place in N.T. in which 
 odf8Bara is plur. in meaning, and there a numeral necessitates it, 
 émt oafBatra tpia; which, however, may mean “for three weeks,” 
 and not “ for three sabdaths.” Syr-Sin. here has “the sabbath days.” 
 
 The Aramaic form of the word ends in a, the transliteration of which into 
 Greek looked like a neut. plur. This idea was confirmed by the fact that 
 Greek festivals are commonly neut. plur.: ra yevéow, éyxalvia, mavabjvasa, 
 k.T.A. Hence od8B8ara may either mean “<a sabbath” or ‘sabbaths” or “a 
 week.” Here it is better to retain the sing. meaning, and refer the whole of 
 32-37 to one occasion. In N.T. od$Bacw is the usual form of the dat. plur., 
 with caS8dros as v./. in some authorities (in B twice, Mt. xii. 1,12). In 
 LXX oaSS8dros prevails. Josephus uses both. 
 
 82. év éfoucia Fv 6 Néyos adtod. This does not refer to the 
 power which His words had over the demoniac, but to the authority 
 with which they came home to the consciences of His hearers. 
 The healing of the demoniac was not so much an example of this 
 éfovoia as evidence that He had a Divine commission to exercise 
 it. Lk. omits the comparison with the formal and ineffectual 
 teaching of the scribes (Mk. i. 22; Mt. vii. 29). 
 
 The é means “‘clothed in, invested with” (i. 17, iv. 36, xi. 15, 18, 19, 
 20, xx. 2, 8; I Cor. ii. 4; Eph. vi. 2; 2 Thes. il. 9). This use of éy is freq. 
 in late Grk. Green, Gram. of N.T. p. 206. 
 
 833. év TH ocuvaywyq. “In the synagogue” in which He was 
 teaching on that sabbath; which confirms the view that ver. 31 
 refers to a particular occasion. We have already been told that it 
 was His practice to teach in the synagogues. But “in the syna- 
 gogue” may mean in the only one which Capernaum possessed 
 oe tvedpa Satpoviou dkaQdptov. The phrase is unique, and 
 the exact analysis of it is uncertain. The gen. may be of apposi- 
 tion (ii. 41, xxii. 1; Jn. ii, 21, xi. 13, xiii. x), or of quality (see on 
 ver. 22), or of possession, z.é. an influence which belonged to an 
 unclean demon (Rev. xvi. 14). As to the Evangelists’ use of the 
 epithet dxafaprov, strange mistakes have been made. Wordsworth 
 inaccurately says, “Both St. Mark and St. Luke, writing for Gentiles, 
 add the word axafaprov to dapoviov, which St. Matthew, writing to 
 Jews (for whom it was not necessary), ever does.” Alford in 
 correcting him is himself inaccurate. He says, “ The real fact is, 
 that St. Mark uses the word dauémov thirteen times, and never 
 adds the epithet axd@aprov to it (his word here is zvedpa only) ; 
 St. Luke, eighteen times, and only adds it this once. So much 
 for the accuracy of the data on which inferences of this kind are 
 
IV. 88, 84.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 133 
 
 founded.” Edersheim is still more inaccurate in his statement of 
 the facts (Z. & 7. i. p.479n). Farrar has the strange misstate- 
 ment that “the word ‘unclean’ is peculiar to St. Luke, who writes 
 for Gentiles.” It occurs in Mt., Paul, and Apoc., as well as Mk. 
 The facts are these. Mt. uses daudvoy ten times, and has 
 &xdOaprov twice as an epithet of zvedia. Mk. has dapodrioy thirteen 
 times, and axd@aprov eleven times as an epithet of mvedua. Lk. in 
 the Gospel has dapoviov twenty-two times, with d«dfaprov as an 
 epithet, once of daydviov, and once of wvcdua; and with rovnpov 
 twice as an epithet of rvedua. In the Acts he has daudvov once ; 
 and uses dxafaprov twice, and zovypéy four times, as an epithet of 
 avedpa. ‘The fact, therefore, remains, that the two Evangelists who 
 wrote for Gentiles (to whom demons or spirits were indifferent) 
 add a distinctive epithet much more often than the one who wrote 
 for Jews (who distinguished evil spirits from good). Moreover, 
 both Mk. and Lk. add this epithet the very first time that they 
 mention these beings (Mk. i. 23; Lk. iv. 33); whereas Mt. men- 
 tions them several times (vii. 22, vili. 16, ix. 33, 34) before he adds 
 the dxdOaprov (x. 1). In this passage Lk. and Mk. describe the 
 fact of possession in opposite ways. Here the man has the unclean 
 spirit. There he is in the unclean spirit’s power, év mvevpare 
 dxabdpry : with which we may compare the expression of Josephus, 
 rors id THv daipoviwy AapPavopevors (Ant. vill. 2. 5). Similarly, 
 we say of a man that “he is out of his mind,” or that “his mind 
 is gone” out of him. That a man thus afflicted should be in the 
 synagogue is surprising. He may have come in unobserved ; or 
 his malady may have been dormant so long as to have seemed to 
 be cured. The presence of “the Holy One of God” provokes a 
 crisis. For évéxpagev comp. Josh. vi. 5; 1 Sam. iv. 5; and for 
 dova peydhy see on 1. 42. 
 
 84. “Ea. Probably not the imperative of éaw, “ Let alone, leave 
 me in peace,” but an interjection of anes or dismay ; common in 
 Attic poetry, but rare in prose (Aesch. P. V. 298, 688; Eur. ec. 
 501; Plato, Prot. 314 D). Here only in N.T. Comp. Job iv. 
 19 a xv. 16, xix. 5, xxv. 6. Fritzsche on Mk. i. 24 (where the word 
 is an interpolation) and L. and S. Zex. regard the imperative as the 
 origin of the interjection, which does not seem probable. 
 
 ti fpiv Kat cot; Not “What have we to contend about?” a 
 meaning which the phrase has nowhere in N.T. and perhaps only 
 once, if at all, in O.T. (2 Chron. xxxv. 21), but “ What have we in 
 common?” Comp. vill. 28; Mt. viii. 29; Mk. i. 24; Jn. ii. 4; 
 Judg. xi. 12; 1 Kings xvii. 18; 2 Kings ili. 13; 2 Sam. xvi. 10; 
 1 Esdr. i. 26; Epict. Déss. i. 1. 16, i. 27. 13, ii. 9. 16. 
 
 *"Inood Neteeny’ This form of the adjective is found xxiv. 19; Mk. i. 
 
 24, X. 47, xiv. 67, xvi. 6; but not in Mt. or Jn. or Acts. Its appearance 
 here is no proof that Lk. is borrowing from Mk. Nafwpaios occurs Lk. xviii. 
 
134 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |IV. 34, 35 
 
 37; Mt. ii. 23, xxvi. 713 Jn. xviii. 5, 7, xix. 19; Acts ii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 10, 
 vi. 14, xxii. 8, xxvi. 9; but not in Mk. The adjective, esp. Nafwpaios, 
 which is used in the title on the cross, sometimes has a tinge of contempt ; 
 and with the article it may be rendered ‘‘the Nazarene.” Hence the early 
 Christians were contemptuously called ‘‘the Nazarenes” (Acts xxiv. 5). Con- 
 trast 6 dwd Natapér (Mt. xxi. 11; Mk. i. 9; Jn. i. 46; Acts x. 38), which 
 is a mere statement of fact. It is worth noting that this demoniac, who is a 
 Jew, addresses Jesus as ‘‘of Nazareth,” which the Gerasene, who was Zosszbly 
 a heathen, does not do (viii. 28). 
 
 HdOes aaohdoor Hpas; The nuds and the preceding jpiv prob- 
 ably do not include the man, but rather other evil spirits. Com- 
 munem inter se causam habent demonia (Beng.). It seems to be 
 idle to speculate as to the meaning of doAéoo.: apparently it is 
 the same as eis tHv 4Burcov aedOeiv (Vili. 31). 
 
 odd oe Tis et, 6 Gyros TOU Ocod. In Mk. otdaper, which is more 
 in harmony with juiv and judas. Godet remarks that 6 dyos tov 
 @cod explains the knowledge. It was instinctive, and therefore 
 oida is more suitable than ywooxw. L’antipathie nest pas moins 
 clairvoyante que la sympathie. In the unique holiness of Jesus the 
 evil spirit felt an essentially hostile power. The expression 6 dytos 
 tod @eod occurs in the parallel in Mk. and Jn. vi. 69; but nowhere 
 else: comp. Acts iv. 27; 1 Jn. il. 20; Rev. ili. 7. It may mean 
 either ‘‘ consecrated fo God” or “consecrated 4y God.” In a lower 
 sense priests and Prophets are called dyvo: tod @eod or Kupiov (Ps. 
 cvi. 16). It was not in flattery (#ale adulans, as Tertullian says) 
 that the evil spirit thus addressed Him, but in horror. From the 
 Holy One he could expect nothing but destruction (Jas. ii. 19; 
 comp. Mt. viii. 29). 
 
 35. émetipnoev ait. “He rebuked the demon” who had used 
 the man as his mouth-piece. The verb is often used of rebuking 
 violence (ver. 41, Vili. 24, 1x. 42; Mt. viii. 26, xvii. 18; Mk. iv. 39; 
 Jude 9); yet must not on that account be rendered “restrain” 
 (Fritzsche on Mt. viii. 26, p. 325). 
 
 In N.T. émityzdw has no other meaning than ‘‘rebuke”; but in class. 
 Grk. it means—1. “‘lay a value on, rate”; 2. “lay a penalty on, sentence” 
 3. ‘chide, vate, rebuke.” But while there is a real connexion between the 
 first and third meanings of the Greek verb, in English we have a mere 
 accident of language: ‘‘ rate” = ‘‘ value” is a different word from “‘rate” = 
 “scold.” Note that Christ required no faith of demoniacs, 
 
 SipdOyr. Lit. “Stop thy mouth with a gids, be muzzled”: 
 used literally 1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18; and as here, Mt. xxii. 12; 
 Mk. i. 25, iv. 39; Jos. B. J. 1. 22-53.5) Lhe peculiar infin. gipoiv 
 occurs 1 Pet. ii. 15. Comp. drodcxaroty (Heb. vii. 5); Katacxyvotv 
 (Mt. xiii, 32; Mk. iv. 32). The verb is probably a vernacular 
 word: it is not found between Aristoph. (Vu. 592) and LXX 
 (Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. p. 41). 
 
IV. 35-37.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 135 
 
 Kat @&ehOe dr’ aitov. This is the true reading. Other writers commonly 
 have é&épyouat éx; but Lk. prefers éEépxouar dé (ver. 41, v. 8, vili. 2, 20, 
 33, 35, 38, ix. 5, xi. 24, etc.). 
 
 plipay adtév . . . pndev BAday adtéy. ‘‘ Having thrown him” 
 down in convulsions (orapégov Mk.). . . without (as one might 
 have expected) having injured him at all.” With ovdé BAdwpay we 
 should have had a mere statement of fact. But in N.T we com- 
 monly have py with participles: comp. xi. 24, xii. 47,and see Win. 
 lv. 5. 6, p.607. For pndev BAdWav Mk. has duvicay dovi peyadn. 
 It was the convulsions and the loud cry which made the spectators 
 suppose that the man had been injured. The malice of the demon 
 made the healing of the man as painful as possible. Hobart 
 classes both fizrew and BAamrew as medical words, the one being 
 used of convulsions, the latter of injury to the system (Med. Lang. 
 of Lk. p. 2). 
 
 36. eyéveto OdpBos. Mk. has éGapB7Oycav; but Lk. is fond of 
 these periphrases with yivowat (i. 65, Vi. 49, Viil. 17, xii. 40, xili. 2, 4, 
 XVlll. 23, etc.): see on ili, 22. The word expresses amazement 
 akin to terror, and the subst. is peculiar to Lk. (v. 9; Acts iii. 10). 
 Just as Christ’s doctrine amazed them in comparison with the 
 formalism of the scribes, so His authority over demons in compari- 
 son with the attempts of the exorcists: all the more so, because a 
 single word sufficed for Him, whereas the exorcists used incanta- 
 tions, charms, and much superstitious ceremonial (Tob. viii. 1-3 ; 
 Jos. Azz. vili. 2. 5; Justin, Apol. ii. 6; Try. Ixxxv.). 
 
 tis 6 Adyos obtos. Not, Quid hoc rec est? ‘What manner a 
 thinge is this?” (Beza, Luth. Tyn. Cran. Grotius), but Quod est 
 hoc verbum? “What is this word?” (Vulg. Wic. Rhem. RV.). 
 It is doubtful whether in N.T. Adyos has the meaning of “ event, 
 occurrence, deed”: but comp. i. 4 and Mk. i. 45. Whether Adyos 
 is here to be confined to the command given to the demon, or 
 includes the previous teaching (ver. 32), is uncertain. Mk. i. 27 is 
 in favour of the latter. In this case we have an ambiguous 67 to 
 deal with ; and once more “because” or “for” is more probable 
 than “that” (see on i. 45). But if “that” be adopted, 6 Adyos has 
 the more limited meaning: “What is this word, that with authority?” 
 etc. 
 
 ev e€oucia kal Suvdper. eSovoia, cut non potest contradic ; dvvaper, 
 cui non potest resisti (Beng.). Mk. has xar efovoiav only. The 
 beloved physician is fond of dvvauis, esp. in the sense of “ inherent 
 power of dealing” (v. 17, vi. 19, Vili. 46, ix. 1; Acts iii. 12, iv. 7, 
 vi. 8). Mk. has it only once in this sense (v. 30), and Mt. not at 
 all. The plural in the sense of “ manifestations of power, miracles” 
 (x. 13, xix. 37), is freq. in Mt. and Mk. See on Rom. i. 16. 
 
 37. éfemopeveto HXos Tept aitod. In these sections attention is 
 often directed to the impression which Jesus made on His audi- 
 
136 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 87. 
 
 ences (vv. 20, 22, 32, 36, v. 26), and to the fame which spread 
 abroad respecting Him (vv. 14, 15, 37, 40, V. 15, 17). *Hyos (6) 
 occurs only here, Acts 11. 2, and Heb. xii. 19. In xxi. 25, jxous 
 may be gen. of either 4 7x or 76 jxos. But the existence of 76 
 #xos is donbtful. The more classical word is 4 4x7, of which 
 6 4xos is a later form. Hobart classes it as a medical word, esp. 
 for noises in the ears or the head (p. 64). 
 
 As already stated, this healing of a demoniac is recorded 
 by Mk., but not by Mt. Ebrard and Holtzmann would have us 
 believe that it is to compensate for this omission that Mt. gives two 
 demoniacs among the Gadarenes, where Mk. and Lk. have only one. 
 
 In considering the question of demonzacal possesston we must never lose sight 
 of the indisputable fact, that our sources of information clearly, consistently, and 
 repeatedly represent Christ as healing demoniacs by commanding demons to 
 depart out of the afflicted persons. Zhe Synoptic Gospels uniformly state that 
 Jesus went through the form of casting out demons. 
 
 If the demons were there, and Christ expelled them and set their victims 
 free, there is nothing to explain: the narrative is in harmony with the facts. 
 
 If the demons were not there, and demoniacal possession is a superstition, we 
 must choose between three hypotheses. 
 
 1. Jesus did not employ this method of healing those who were believed to 
 be possessed, but the Evangelists have erroneously attributed it to Him. 
 
 2. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out 
 demons, although He knew that there were no demons there to be cast out. 
 
 3. Jesus did employ this method and went through the form of casting out 
 demons, because in this matter He shared the erroneous belief of His con- 
 temporaries. 
 
 n the whole subject consult articles in D.&.?, Schaff-Herzog, Eucy. Brit. 
 on ‘‘Demoniacs,” ‘‘ Demons,” ‘‘Demonology”; Trench, JZzracles, No. 5; 
 Caldwell, Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1876, vol. xxvii. pp. 369 ff. No explanation is 
 satisfactory which does not account for the uniform and repeated testimony of 
 the Evangelists. 
 
 88, 39. The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law. Mk. i. 30. 
 
 It is quite beyond doubt that the relationship expressed by zev@epd is either 
 ** wife’s mother” or ‘‘husband’s mother” (xii. 53; Mt. viii. 14, x. 35; Mk. 
 i. 30; Ruthi. 14, ii. 11, 18, 19,23; Mic. vii. 6; Dem. Plut. Lucian). So also 
 mevOepés is either ‘‘ wife’s father” or ‘‘ husband’s father” (Jn. xviii. 13; Gen. 
 XXxVili. 25, 38; Judg. i. 16; 1 Sam. iv. 19, 21). But for ‘‘ wife’s father” the 
 more indefinite yauSpés (‘‘a relation by marriage”) is freq. in LXX (Exod. 
 iii. I, iv. 18; Num. x. 29; Judg. iv. 11, xix. 4, 7,9). In Greek there is a dis- 
 tinct term for ‘‘ stepmother,” viz. the very common word pyrpud (Hom. Hes. 
 Hdt. Aisch. Plat. Plut.); and if Lk. had intended to designate the second 
 wife of Peter’s father, he would have used this term. That he should have 
 ignored a word in common use which would express his meaning, and employ 
 another word which has quite a different meaning, is incredible. That Peter 
 was married is clear from 1 Cor. ix. 5. Clement of Alexandria says that Petet’s 
 wife helped him in ministering to women,—an apostolic anticipation of Zenana 
 missions (S¢vom. ili. 6, p. 536, ed. Potter). He also states that Peter and Philip 
 had children, and that Philip gave his daughters in marriage (zdzd. p. 535, ed. 
 Potter, quoted Eus. A. £. iii. 30. 1); but he gives no names. It is remarkable 
 that nothing is known of any children of any one Apostle. This is the first 
 mention of Peter by Lk., who treats him as a person too well known to need 
 introduction. For other miracles of mercy on the sabbath see on xiv. I. 
 
IV. 38, 39.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 137 
 
 88. “Avactds Sé dd tis cuvaywyjs. This may refer to Christ’s 
 rising from His seat; but it is more natural to understand it of 
 His leaving the synagogue. The verb is used where no sitting or 
 lying is presupposed, and means no more than preparation for 
 departure (i. 39, xv. 18, 20, xxiii. 1; Acts x. 20, xxil. 10): see on 
 i. 39. Mk. has eviews ‘the plur. including Simon and Andrew, 
 James and John. Neither Lk. nor Mt. mention the presence of 
 disciples, but Peter, and perhaps Andrew, may be understood 
 among those who jparncay auvTov TEpl avTys. 
 
 cuvexonevy TupeT@ peydaho. Perhaps all three words are medical, 
 and certainly cvvéxouaz occurs three times as often in Lk. as in the 
 rest of N.T. Galen states that fevers were distinguished as 
 “creat” and “slight,” weyaAor and cptxpot (Hobart, p. 3). Comp. 
 Plat. Gorg. 512 A. Note the analytical tense. 
 
 89. émotas émdvw aitis émetiynoev. Instead of this both Mt. 
 and Mk. state that He touched her hand. Proximus accessus 
 ostendebat, virtuti Jesu cedere morbum, neque ullum corpori gus a 
 morbo imminere periculum (Beng.). The ézeriuyoe of ver. 35 does 
 not show that the use of the same word here is meant to imply that 
 the fever is regarded as a personal agent. But comp. xiii. 11, 16; 
 Mk. ix. 17, 23. The ddyxev, which is in all three narratives, 
 harmonizes with either view. In any case this unusual mode of 
 healing would interest and impress a physician; and Lk. alone 
 notices the suddenness with which her strength returned. For 
 Tapaxpyue. See ON V. 25. 
 
 Sinkdver adtots. Mk. has air@: the airois includes the disciples 
 and others present. Her being able to minister to them proves 
 the completeness of the cure. Recovery from fever is commonly 
 attended by great weakness. And this seems to be fatal to the view 
 of B. Weiss, that Christ’s cures were “ momentary effects produced 
 by His touch, which, although the result was absolutely certain, yet 
 merely began a healing process that was completed in a perfectly 
 natural way.” What is gained by such an hypothesis? 
 
 The Attic form of the imperf. of diaixovéw is édi&xébvouv ; but denxédvour is 
 the reading of the MSS. in Eur. Cyc/. 406 (Veitch, s.z.). Comp. viii. 3; Mt. 
 iv. II, vill. 15; Mk. i. 13, 31; Jn. xii. 2; I Pet. i. 12. 
 
 40, 41. Numerous Healings in the Evening. LVous rencontrons 
 ici un de ces moments dans la vie du Seigneur ot la puissance miracu- 
 leuse se déployait avec une richesse particulitre: vi. 19” (Godet, 
 i. p. 339). Comp. Mt. viii. 16, 17; Mk. i. 32-34. The healing 
 of the demoniac (ver. 35), and of Peter’s mother-in-law, had proved 
 that He could heal diseases both of mind and body. All three 
 note the two kinds of healing; but “the physician separates the 
 two with special distinctness, and lends no support to the view 
 that possession is merely a physical disorder.” 
 
138 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IV. 40, 41, 
 
 40. Advovtos 8€ tod fAiov. Mt. has Owias dé yevopevys, while 
 Mk. has “Owias 52 yevouevys, dre eSvoev 6 HAwos. We infer that 
 here Mk. gives us the whole expression in the original tradition, of 
 which all three make use; and that Mt. uses one half and Lk. the 
 other half of it. See v. 13, xxii. 34, xxiii. 38, for similar cases. 
 Some infer that Mk. has combined the phrases used by the other two, 
 and therefore must have written last of the three. But an analysis 
 of the passages which all three have in common shows that this is 
 incredible. The literary skill required for combining two narra- 
 tives, without adding much new material, would be immense; and 
 Mk. does not possess it. It is much simpler to suppose that Mk. 
 often gives the original tradition in full, and that the other two 
 each give portions of it, and sometimes different portions. See E. 
 A. Abbott, Zzcy. Brit. oth ed. art. “Gospels,” and Abbott and 
 Rushbrooke, Zhe Common Tradition of the Syn. Gosp. p. Vie 
 
 Atvovros. “When the sun was setting,” or “ere the sun was 
 set,” as the hymn gives it.1 The eagerness of the people was such 
 that the very moment the sabbath was over they began to move 
 the sick: comp. Jn. v. 10. Note Lk.’s favourite dravtes. 
 
 évl éxdotw aitav Tas xelpas émtiBels. Lk. alone preserves this 
 graphic detail, which emphasizes the laborious solicitude of the 
 work. Sic singuli penitius commoti sunt ad fidem (Beng.). It does 
 not apply to the demoniacs, who were healed Adyw, as Mt. states. 
 
 The action is a generally recognized symbol of ¢ransmisston, especially in 
 conferring a blessing (Gen. xlviii. 14; Lev. ix. 22, 23; Mk. x. 16). It is also 
 used to symbolize the transmission of guilt (Lev. i. 4, iii. 2, vill. 14, xvi. 21, 
 22). The statement that ‘‘our Lord healed at first by laying on of hands, but 
 gradually passed over to the exclusive use of the word of power, in order that 
 He might not encourage the popular idea that there was a necessary connexion 
 between the laying on of hands and the cure,” is not confirmed by Scripture. 
 The nobleman’s son and the man at Bethesda were healed by a word (Jn. iv. 50, 
 v. 8); Malchus, by a touch. There was no necessity to use either word or 
 touch. He could heal by an act of will, and at a distance from His person 
 (vii. 10, xvii. 14; Jn. iv. 50). But He more often used means, possibly to aid 
 the faith of those who needed healing (xiii. 13, xiv. 4, Mt. viii. 3, ix. 29; Mk 
 Vil. 33, Vili. 23, 25; Jn. ix. 6: comp. Mk. v. 23, 28, 41, vil. 32, viii. 22). 
 The fact that Jesus commonly used some action in healing made the Jews the 
 more irate at His healing on the sabbath. Excepting Acts xvii. 25, Gepamevw in 
 N.T. is always ‘‘heal, cure,” not merely ‘“‘serve, take care of.” Like colere, it 
 is used of service both to God and to men; and like curare, it is both ‘‘ to care 
 for” and ‘‘to cure.” The imperfects, éOepdarevev and ¢éjpxero, mark the con- 
 tinuance and repetition of the actions. 
 
 41. ééjpxeto Sé kal Saipdma amd woAAGy. “But demons also” 
 
 1 The form dtvw seems to be Ionic, but occurs once or twice in Attic prose 
 (Veitch, s.v.). Except éducey or &u in Mk. i. 32, the word does not occur again 
 in N.T. It is freq. in LXX (Judg. xiv. 18; 2 Sam. ii. 24; 1 Kings xxii. 36; 
 2 Chron. xviii. 34, etc.). It means ‘‘sink into, enter,” év7ov or the like being 
 
 ressed or understood. Lk. never uses the unclassical éWla (ix. 12, xxii. 14, 
 xxiii. 54, xxiv. 29), which occurs ofter " Mt. and Mk. and twice in Jn. 
 
 ' 
 
IV. 41, 42.) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 139 
 
 (as well as diseases) “came out of many.” For 8é kat see on iii. 9, 
 and for éfépxec@a. dé see on ver. 35: both are characteristic of 
 Lk. He alone mentions the xpdfew of the demons. There is not 
 much difference between 6 vids rod @cod here and 6 dytos rod Oeod 
 in ver. 34. In both cases it is the presence of Divine holiness 
 which is felt and proclaimed. Phil. ii. ro is here not to the point ; 
 for kataxOovia there probably does not mean devils. 
 
 ouUK ela atta ade, dr. “He suffered them not to speak, 
 because.” Not, “suffered them not to say that”; which would 
 require Aéyew. In N.T. Aadeiy and Aéye are never confused ; not 
 even Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 17; 1 Thes.i. 8. Excepting Mt. 
 xxiv. 3 and 1 Cor. x. 13, édw is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 55; 
 Acts v. 38, xiv. 16, xvi. 7, xix. 30, xxili. 32, XXViil. 32, 40, XXxvili. 4); 
 and «ciwy is the usual form of imperf. 
 
 Godet’s suggestion, that the demons wished to compromise Jesus by exciting 
 a dangerous enthusiasm among the people, or to create a belief that there was a 
 bond of connexion between their work and His, is gratuitous. Their cries are 
 more like involuntary exclamations of dismay. That Jesus should not allow 
 them to make Him known was natural, although Strauss condemns it as incon- 
 sistent. Vec tempus erat, nec ht precones (Beng. on Mk. iii. 12). ‘It was not 
 meet that unclean demons should usurp the glory of the apostolic office” (Cyril 
 Alex.). Jesus had rejected the offered assistance of the evil one in the 
 wilderness, and could not desire to be proclaimed as the Messiah by His 
 ministers. Moreover, while the national ideas respecting the Messiah remained 
 so erroneous, the time for such proclamation had not yet come. Comp. 
 
 Jn. vi. 15. 
 
 42, 43. The Multitude’s Pursuit of Him. Comp. Mk. i. 35-39 
 Although Lk. has some features which Mk. has not, the latter’s 
 account is more like that of an eye-witness. 
 
 42. Tevopévms Sé fpepas. See on vi. 12. Mk. has the strong 
 expression zpwt évvvya Aiav. It was so early that it was still like 
 night. This shows His anxiety to escape the multitude and secure 
 time for refreshment of His spiritual nature by converse with God: 
 Mk. adds kaxet rpoontxero. _Jesus had probably passed the night 
 in Simon’s house ; and for of éxhor Mk has Siwy Kai oi per’ abrod, 
 for as yet Jesus had no fixed disciples. Peter in telling Mk. of the 
 incident would say, “ We went after Him.” 
 
 ot dxdor emeLntrouvy adtév. ‘The multitudes kept seeking for 
 Him.” The ém- marks the direction of the search: comp. éédo6y 
 (ver. 17). They wanted more of His teaching and of His 
 miraculous cures. See on xi. 29. But neither this nor the 
 mo\AGv in ver. 41 proves that there had not been time to heal all 
 who came the previous evening. Would He have sent any empty 
 away? Lk. is fond of recording the eagerness of the people to 
 come to Christ (v. I, 19, V1. 19, Vill. 19, 40, xii. I, xxi. 38: comp, 
 xix. 3 and xxiii. 8). 
 
 HAVov ews adtod, kai Katetxov adTdv Tod pi TopeveoOar dm abTay, 
 
140 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE _[IV. 42, 48. 
 
 They did not leave off seeking wa¢i7 they reached Him, and they 
 tried to stay Him from going away from them. 
 
 This use of ws with a person is not classical: comp. tws jdv (Acts 
 ix. 33) and ws rod Bactkéws (1 Mac, iii. 26). Of place (iv. 29, x. 15) or of 
 time (xxiii. 44) ws is common enough. 
 
 With xaretyov (imperf. of attempted or intended action) comp. éxdéAouv 
 (i. 59). The 70d wh ropeveoOa is not Lk.’s favourite construction to express 
 purposes or result (see on i. 74), but the gen. after a verb of detention or 
 prevention: comp. Rom. xv. 22. For the apparently superfluous negative 
 comp. xx. 27, xxlv. 16; Acts x. 47, xiv. 18, xx. 27. Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 409; 
 Ixv. 2. B, Pp. 755- 
 
 48. Kai tats érépais wédeow. Placed first for emphasis. “To 
 the other cities also (as well as to Capernaum) I must preach the 
 good tidings.” It is a rebuke to them for wishing to monopolize 
 Him. It is not a rebuke for interrupting His preaching by 
 requiring Him to work miracles. There is no evidence that He 
 ever regarded these works of mercy as an interruption of His 
 ministry, or as an unworthy lowering of it. On the contrary, they 
 were an essential part of it; not as evidence of His Messiahship, 
 but as the natural work of the great Healer of body and soul. 
 They were, moreover, an important element in His teaching, for 
 His miracles were parables. As evidence they did not prove His 
 Messiahship, and He did not greatly value the faith which was 
 produced by them (Jn. ii. 23, 24). He Himself regarded them as 
 merely auxiliary (Jn. xiv. 11). He warned His disciples that false 
 Christs and false prophets would work miracles (Mk. xiii. 22), just as 
 the O.T. had warned the Jews that a Prophet was not to be believed 
 simply because he worked miracles (Deut: xiii. 1-3). And, as a 
 matter of fact, Christ’s miracles did not convince the Jews (Jn. 
 xii. 37). Some thought that He was a Prophet (vii. 16, ix. 8, 19; 
 Mt. xxi. 11; Jn. ix. 17), a view taken even by His disciples after 
 the crucifixion (xxiv. 19); while others attributed His miracles to 
 Satanic agency (Mt. xii. 24). On the other hand, the Baptist, 
 although he wrought no miracles, was thought to be the Messiah 
 (see on iii. 15). The saying here recorded does not mean, there- 
 fore, “You are mistaking My work. I came to preach the good 
 tidings, not to do works of healing”: but, “ You are selfish in your 
 desires. I came to preach the good tidings and to do works of 
 healing to all, and not to a favoured few.” For edayyehioacOar see 
 on ii. 10. 
 
 Sei. For the second time (ii. 49) Christ uses this word respect- 
 ing His own conduct. Comp. ix. 22, xili. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, 
 XXIL 37, xxiv. 26, 44, 46. His work and His sufferings are ordered 
 by Divine decree. The word is thus used of Christ throughout 
 N.T. (Acts iii. 21, xvii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 25). 
 
 thy Baowdetay tod Ocod. This is Lk.’s first use of this frequent 
 
IV. 43.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I4I 
 
 expression (vi. 20, vii. 28, viii. 1, 10, etc.), which Jn. employs twice 
 (iii. 3, 5), Mt. thrice (xii. 28, xxi. 31, 43), and Mk. often. For its 
 import see Ewald, ist. of Zsrae/, vi., Eng. tr. pp. 201-210; 
 Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Kingdom of God”; Edersh. Z. & JZ. i. 
 pp. 265-270. ‘The éml rodro refers to the whole of what precedes : 
 “For this end,” viz. “to preach the good tidings everywhere in the 
 land.” For this use of éwi comp. xxiii. 48 and Mt. xxvi. 50. It 
 is quite classical (Xen. Azad. il. 5. 22, vil. 8. 4). For émeotddnv 
 see on ver. 18. The evidence for it (§ BC DLX) as against 
 dméotadpar (A QR) is overwhelming. Yet Godet says on peut 
 hésiter. Jt refers to the mission from the Father, as does the 
 eénAOov of Mk. But it is possible to give the latter the inadequate 
 interpretation of leaving the house at Capernaum. 
 
 44. Kal fv kyptcowy eis Tas cuvaywyds Tis “loudaias. This 
 statement forms a conclusion to the section (14-44); and the 
 analytical tense indicates that what is stated continued for some 
 time. 
 
 Both Lk. and Mk. have els tas cuvvayywyds, which in both cases has been 
 altered into the easier év tats ovvaywyais. The els may be explained asa 
 pregn. constr., ‘‘ He went into the synagogues and preached there” or as ex- 
 pressing the motion or direction of the preaching (Mk. iv. 15; Jn. viii. 26). 
 Comp. és Tév Sjuov raita Aéywow (Thuc. v. 45. 1). It seems probable that 
 the reading "Iovdalus (§ BC LQR) is the original one, which has been 
 corrected to I'ad:vAalas (A DXT'A ATI) on account of its difficulty. But, as 
 in i. 5 and vii. 17, Judea may here mean the whole country of the Jews, 
 Palestine. Lk. often uses Iovdala in this sense (xxiii. 5; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, 
 xi. I, 29, xxvi. 20; comp. Gal. i. 22). Classic writers use the term in much 
 
 the same manner. Strabo means by it all the region from Lebanon south- 
 war 
 
 V.1-VL. 11. From the Call of the first Disciples to the Nomina- 
 tion of the Twelve. 
 
 This section presents a symmetrical arrangement, which possibly 
 is intentional. The call of a leading disciple (1-11) is followed 
 by two healings which provoke controversy (12-16, 17-26) ; and 
 then the call of another leading disciple (27-39) is followed 
 by two incidents on the sabbath, which again provoke controversy 
 (vi. 1-5, 6-11). 
 
 V. 1-11. The call of Simon. In Mt. iv. 18-22 and Mk. i. 
 16-20 the narrative is the call of Simon and Andrew, and of James 
 and John. Here Andrew is not mentioned. And although all obey 
 the call (ver. t1), yet Simon alone is addressed (vz. 4, 10). But 
 
142 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V.1, 2. 
 
 the identity of this incident with that narrated by Mt. and Mk, can 
 neither be affirmed nor denied with certainty. In Mt. and Mk. 
 the disciples are fishing ; here they are washing their nets before 
 putting them away. The important point is that in all narratives 
 those called are at work. Similarly, Levi is called from his busi- 
 ness. It would seem as if none of the Twelve were called when 
 idle. 
 
 1. *Eyéveto 8. See detached note at the end of ch. i. For tév 
 dxov see On xi. 29; for év TG Tév dxXov EmKetoar see On ili. 21 ; for 
 tov Adyov Tod Oeod see on vill. 11; for kat introducing the apodosis 
 see on il. 21; and for kat atdtés see on ver. 14. All these points, 
 with the analytical jv éotds (i. 7, 10, 20, 21, etc.), are characteristic 
 of Lk. Not often do we find so many marks of his style in so 
 small a compass. Comp. vill. 22, 37, 40, 41. For the popular 
 desire to behold Christ see on iv. 42. With émxeto@at comp. xxii. 
 23; Acts xxvii. 20; 1 Cor. ix. 16; Heb. 1x. 10; Jos: Azzjeeugaeas 
 It is used in a literal sense Jn. xi. 38, xxi. 9. Here it is mainly 
 figurative, but it includes the notion of physical pressure. The 
 avrds distinguishes Jesus from the 6yAos: comp. iv. 15, 30. 
 
 Tapa Thy Nipyny Tevynoapér. With characteristic accuracy Lk. 
 never calls it a sea, while the others never call it a lake. Except 
 in Rev. of the “lake of fire,” Aduvy in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. 
 When he uses @aAacoa, he means sea in the ordinary sense (xvii. 
 2, 6, xxi. 25; Acts iv. 24, etc.). 
 
 In AV. of 1611 both here and Mk. vi. 53 the name appears as “‘ Genesareth,” 
 following the spelling of the Vulgate ; but in Mt. xiv. 34 as ‘‘Genesaret.” The 
 printers have corrected this to ‘‘Gennesaret” in all three places. Tevyyoapér 
 is the orthography of the best MSS. in all three places. Josephus writes both 
 Aluvn Tevvnoapiris (Ant. xviii. 2. 1) and Nluvyn Tevvnodp (B. J. iii. 10. 7). 
 1 Mac. xi. 67 we have 7d tédwp tod Tevynodp. But in O.T. the lake is called 
 Oddacca Xevéped (Num. xxxiv. I11?; Josh. xii. 3) from a town of that name near 
 to it (Josh. xix. 35). Josephus contrasts its fertility with the barrenness of the 
 lower lake in the Jordan valley (2. /. iv. 8. 2): the one is the ‘‘Sea of Life,” 
 the other the ‘‘Sea of Death.” See Stanley’s fine description of ‘‘ the most 
 
 sacred sheet of water that this earth contains” (Szz. & Pal. pp. 368-378) ; 
 Farrar, Life of Christ, i. pp. 175-182; Conder, D.Z.? art. “‘ Gennesaret.” 
 
 For apd ¢. acc. after a verb of rest comp. xviii. 35; Acts x. 6, 32; 
 Heb. xi. 12: Xen. Azad. iii. 5. I, vii. 2. II. 
 
 With qv écrwés (which is the apodosis of éyévero), kal eldev is to be joined : 
 ‘Tt came to pass that He was standing, and He saw.” It is very clumsy to 
 make xal atrés jv éords parenthetical, and take xa eldev as the apodosis of 
 éyévero. 
 
 2. ot S€ Greets. “ But the sea-folk” (As) or “fishermen.” It 
 is one of many Homeric words which seem to have gone out of 
 use and then to have reappeared in late Greek. Fishing in the 
 lake has now almost ceased. The Arabs dislike the water. The 
 washing of the nets was preparatory to hanging them up to dry. 
 As distinct from virrw, which is used of washing part of the human 
 
V. 2-6. THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 143 
 
 body, and Aovw, which is used of washing the whole of it, huvw is 
 used of washing inanimate objects (Rev. vii. 14, xxii. 14; Gen. xlix. 
 11; Exod. xix. 10). In Lev. xv. 11 all three words are used with 
 exactly this difference of meaning. Trench, Syz. xlv. 
 
 +a Sixtua. The most general term for nets of all kinds, of which 
 dpdhiBrynorpov (Mt. iv. 18) and caynvy (Mt. xiii. 47) are special 
 varieties. Trench, Syz. lxiv.; D.Z. art. “ Net.” 
 
 8. énavayayeiv, The correct word for “putting off to sea” 
 (2 Mace. xii. 47; Xen. Hed/en. vi. 2. 28): elsewhere in N.T. only 
 Mt. xxi. 18 in the sense of “return.” For the double preposition 
 comp. éavépxomat (x. 35, xix. 15) and éravarravw (x. 6). Christ 
 uses Peter’s boat as a pulpit, whence to throw the net of the Gospel 
 over His hearers. We have a similar scene Mk. iv. 1, and in 
 both cases He sits to teach, as in the synagogue at Nazareth. 
 Peter was probably steering, and therefore both before and after 
 the sermon he is addressed as to the placing of the boat. But the 
 letting down of the nets required more than one person, and hence 
 the change to the plural (yaAdoare). Von statim promittit Dominus 
 capturam: explorat prius obsequia Simonis (Beng.). 
 
 6. Emortdta. Lk. alone uses éruorarys (vill. 24, 45, ix. 33, 49, 
 xvii. 13), and always in addresses to Christ. He never uses 
 *“PaBBei, which is common in the other Gospels, esp. in Jn., but 
 would not be so intelligible to Gentiles. The two words are not 
 synonymous, émordérys implying authority of any kind, and not 
 merely that of a teacher. Here it is used of one who has a right 
 to give orders. 
 
 Su dAns vuKTds Komidcavtes. Through the whole of the best 
 time for fishing they had toiled fruitlessly. Only in bibl. Grk. has 
 koridw the meaning of ‘work with much effort, toil wearisomely ” 
 (ait27 5 Acts xx. 35; Mit. vii.28;. Josh. xxiv. 13, etc). The 
 original meaning is “become exhausted, grow weary” (Jn. iv. 6). 
 Clem. Alex. quotes a letter of Epicurus, Myre véos tis dv peddErw 
 pirocogelv, pyre yépwv imdpxwv Komidtw pirocopdy (Strom. iv. 8, 
 Pp. 594, ed. Potter). 
 
 emt 8€ 7G pyuatt cov xahdow Ta Sixtua. “But relying upon 
 Thy word I will have the nets let down.” The “nevertheless” of 
 AV. Cran, and Gen. is too strong: for that we should have zAqv 
 (vi. 24, 35, etc.). For this use of émi, “on the strength of,” comp. 
 ii, 20; Acts iv. 21. Win. xlviii: d, p. 491. The xaddoare and 
 mojoavres Show that the xaAdow includes the employment of 
 others. Excepting Mk. ii. 4 and 2 Cor. xi. 33, yaA dw is peculiar to 
 Lk. (vv. 4, 5; Acts ix. 25, xxvii. 17, 30). | With the faith involved 
 in xoAdow 7a Sikrva we May compare KéeAcvody pe eAGetv mpds od 
 émt 7a voara (Mt. xiv. 28). 
 
 6. ouvéxhevoay whi90s ixOdwy wodd. Nota miracle of creation, 
 but at least of knowledge, even if Christ’s will did not bring the 
 
144 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [vV. 6-8, 
 
 fish to the spot. In no miracle before the Resurrection does 
 Jesus create ; and we have no sufficient reason for believing that 
 the food provided at the second miraculous draught of fishes was 
 created (Jn. xxi. 9-13). There is no exaggeration, as De Wette 
 thinks, in dceppyoero or in BvbierOar (ver. 7). The nets “were 
 breaking,” ze. beginning to break, when the help from the other 
 boat prevented further mischief, and then both boats were over- 
 loaded. On the masses of fish to be seen in the lake see Tristram, 
 Nat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 285, and D.B.? p. 1074: “The density 
 of the shoals of fish in the Lake of Galilee can scarcely be con- 
 ceived by those who have not witnessed them. They sometimes 
 cover an acre or more on the surface in one dense mass.” 
 
 The form piyjocw occurs in poetry (Hom. //. xvili. 571, xxiv. 454) and late 
 prose (Strab. xi. 14. 8). It is a collat. form of piyyvuse (Veitch, s.v., and 
 Curtius, Ztym. 511, 661): but see on ix. 42. 
 
 7 Katéveucay Tots petsxors. Possibly because they were too 
 far off for a call to be heard. The other boat was still close to the 
 shore (ver. 2), for Simon alone had been told to put out into deep 
 water. The verb is freq. in Hom., and occurs in Hdt. and Plato, 
 generally in the sense of “nod assent, grant.” Here only in N.T. 
 Euthymius suggests that they were too agitated to call. 
 
 Here and Heb. i. 9 (from Ps. xliv. 8) we have uéroxos as a subst. Comp. 
 Heb. iii. I, 14, vi. 4, xii. 8: and see T. S. Evans ont Cor. x. 16-18 in 
 Speakers Com. *‘ As distinguished from kowwyds (ver. 10; Heb. x. 33), which 
 suggests the idea of personal fellowship, “éroxos describes participation in 
 some common blessing or privilege, or the like. The bond of union lies in 
 that which is shared and not in the persons themselves” (Wsctt. on Heb. 
 iii. 1). For ovA\aBéoGar in the sense of ‘‘assist” comp. Phil. iv. 3. In 
 class. Grk. the act. is more common ir this sense. For 7\@av see on i. 59. 
 
 émdnoav dphdtepa, Ta mrota dote BulilecOar adtd. For érAnoav 
 see on i. 15; duporepor is another favourite word (i. 6, 7, vi. 39, 
 vii. 42; Acts viil. 38, x. 16, xxiii. 8); not in Mk. or Jn. “They 
 filled both the boats, so that they degax to sink” : comp. dteppycero. 
 The act. is used 2 Mac. xii. 4 of the sinking of persons; by Poly- 
 bius (ii. 10. 5) of the sinking of ships; and 1 Tim: vi. 9 of sending 
 down to perdition. Nowhere else in N.T. 
 
 8. Eipwv Nétpos mpocemecev tois ydvacw “Incod. This is the 
 only place in his Gospel in which Lk. gives Peter both names, 
 and it is the first mention of the surname: see on Vi, 14. 
 
 The constr. mpoortmrewv Tots yor. is quite classical (Eur. Or. 1332 3 comp. 
 Mk. vii. 25 ; Soph. O. C. 1606) ; often with dat. of pers. (viii. 28, 47 ; Acts 
 xvi. 29; Mk. iii. II, v. 33). 
 
 "E€ehOe Gm éyod. Not “Leave my boat,” which is too definite, 
 but, “Go out of my vicinity, Depart from me.” See on iv. 35. 
 
V. 8-10.| THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 145 
 
 It is quite erroneous to introduce here the notion that sailors 
 believe it to be unlucky to have a criminal on board (Cic. De Vat. 
 Deor. iii. 37. 89 ; Hor. Carm. ili. 2. 26). In that case Peter, like 
 Jonah, would have asked to be thrown into the sea. That the 
 Twelve, before their call, were exceptionally wicked, trép racav 
 ipaptiay dvouwrepouvs (Barn. v. g), is unscriptural and incredible. 
 But Origin seems to accept it (Con. Ceds. i. 63; comp. Jerome, 
 Adv. Pelag. iii. 2). See Schanz, ad loc. p. 198. 
 
 Peter does not regard himself as a criminal, but as a sinful man ; and this 
 miracle has brought home to him a new sense, both of his own sinfulness and of 
 Christ’s holiness. 1t is not that he fears that Christ’s holiness is dangerous to a 
 sinner (B. Weiss), but that the contrast between the two is felt to be so intense 
 as to be intolerable. The presence of the sinless One is a reproach and a con- 
 demnation, rather than a peril ; and therefore such cases as those of Gideon and 
 Manoah (Judg. vi. 22, xili. 22), cited by Grotius and De Wette, are not quite 
 parallel. Job (xlii. 5, 6) is a better illustration; and Beng. compares the 
 centurion (Mt. viii. 8). The objection that Peter had witnessed the healing of 
 his wife’s mother and other miracles, and therefore couid not be so awestruck 
 by this miracle, is baseless. It frequently happens that one experience touches 
 the heart, after many that were similar to it have failed to do so. Perhaps, 
 without being felt, they prepare the way. Moreover, this was a miracle in 
 Peter’s own craft, and therefore was likely to make a special impression on 
 him ; just as the healing of a disease; known to the profession as incurable, 
 would specially impress a physician. 
 
 Kupte. The change from émordra (see on ver. 5) is remarkable, 
 and quite in harmony with the change of circumstances. It is the 
 “‘ Master” whose orders must be obeyed, the “ Lord” whose holi- 
 ness causes moral agony to the sinner (Dan. x. 16). Grotius, 
 followed by Trench, points out that the dominion over all nature, 
 including “the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through 
 the paths of the seas” (Ps. viii. 8), lost by Adam, is restored in 
 Christ, the ideal man and the second Adam. But that Peter 
 recognized this is more than we know. In what follows notice the 
 characteristic rdvtas and ovr. 
 
 .9. emt tH Gypa tav ixOwr. This was the das/s of their amaze- 
 ment: see small print on il. 33, and comp. Acts xiv. 3 and Rom. 
 v. 14. There is no need to make dypu act. in ver. 4, “a catching,” 
 and pass. here, “the thing caught.” “For a catch” in ver. 4; 
 “at the catch of fish” here. If dy ovvé\aBov (BD X, Goth.) is 
 the true reading, both may be act. But if 7 ovvéAafor is right, 
 then in both places a@ypa is pass. In either case we have the 
 idiomatic attraction of the relative which is so freq. in Lk. See 
 small print on iii, 19. The word is common in poetry both act. 
 and pass. Not in LXX, nor elsewhere in N.T. Note the change 
 of meaning from ovAAaBéoGar in ver. 7 to ovvéAaBov. The verb 
 is freq. in Lk., but elsewhere rare in N.T. 
 
 10. “IdkwBov kai “lwdvyy. The first mention of them by Lk. 
 
 IO 
 
146 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 10, 11, 
 
 In Mt. and Mk. they were in their boat, mending their nets, when 
 Jesus called them; and Mt. adds that Zebedee was with them, 
 -which Mk. implies (i. 20). For kowvwvot see on ver. 7. Are they 
 the same as the péroyor? It is possible that Peter had his xowwvot 
 in his boat, while the péroxou were in the other boat. In any case 
 the difference of word should be preserved in translation. This 
 Tyn. Cran. and Gen. effect, with “fellows” for méroxyor and 
 “partners” for kowwvot. But Vulg. and Beza have soci for both; 
 and RV. follows AV. with “partners” for both. 
 
 eimey Tpos Tov Zipwva “Incods. It is still Peter who is singled 
 out for notice. Yet some critics affirm that it is the tendency of 
 this Evangelist to depreciate Peter. For ph good see on i. 13: 
 excepting Mk. v. 36 and Rev. i. 17, Lk. alone uses the expres- 
 sion without an accusative. Peter’s sense of unworthiness was in 
 itself a reason for courage. Quo magis sibi displicebat hoc magis 
 Domino placet (Grotius). 
 
 amd tod viv. The present moment is a crisis in his life, of 
 which he was reminded at the second miraculous draught of fishes, 
 when the commission given to him now was restored to him after 
 his fall. Excepting 2 Cor. v. 16 and [Jn. viii. 11], do rod viv is 
 peculiar to Lk. (i. 48, xii. 52, xxli. 18, 69; Acts xviii. 6). Comp. 
 €ws Tod viv (Mt. xxiv. 21; Mk. xiii. 19) and aypr tod viv (Rom. viii. 
 2oi5| Phil, i. 5): 
 
 GvOpérous on LwypHv. Both substantive and verb have special 
 point (sez instead of fish ; for /ife instead of for death) ; while the 
 analytical tense marks the permanence of the new pursuit: comp. 
 i. 20. This last is preserved in Rhem. “shalt be taking,” follow- 
 ing Vulg. ers capiens. Beza seems to be alone in giving the full 
 force of CwypGv (Cwds and aypetv) : vivos capies homines. But to add 
 “alive” in English deprives “men” of the necessary emphasis.! 
 The verb is used of sparing the lives of those taken in battle: 
 Ldypet, Atpéos vié, od 8 aia dé€ar drowa (Hom. ZZ. vi. 46). Else- 
 where in N.T only 2 Tim. ii. 26, of the evil one. Comp. the 
 exhortation of Socrates to Critobulus: “AAAG Oappay weipS ayabds 
 yiyvecOat, kat towtros yryvopevos Onpav émtxe!pe rods Kadovs Te 
 kayabovs (Xen. AZem. ii. 6. 28). 
 
 ll. katayaydvres Ta Thoia. Like éxavayayetv in ver. 3, this is 
 a nautical expression ; freq. in Acts (ix. 30, xxii. 30, xxiii. 15, 20, 
 etc.). Comp. avdyevv, vill. 22. 
 
 adévtes Tdvta jkohovOncav adits. Even the large draught of 
 fishes does not detain them. They are sure that He who has 
 given them such marvellous returns from their usual business will 
 be ready to provide for them when, at His summons, they abandon 
 
 1Cod. Brix. has hominum eritis captores, including James and John, 
 although zolz témere precedes. D has moujow yap tuas aduets dvOpdarwy (from 
 Mt. and Mk.) after the insertion pi) yiverGe adtets x Odwr. 
 
Vv. 11] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 147 
 
 their business. The call was addressed to Peter (ver. 10), but the 
 sons of Zebedee recognize that it concerns them also; and they 
 leave and follow. 
 
 In this late Greek d¢lnu is preferred to Xelww and its compounds, and 
 dxodovbéw to érouat (which does not occur in N.T.) and its compounds. 
 
 The fact that other disciples besides Peter obeyed the call and followed 
 Jesus, is the main reason for identifying this narrative with Mk. i. 16-20 and 
 Mt. iv. 18-22. All three have the important word a¢évres, and Mt. and Lk. 
 have jKxodovOncav att, for which Mk. has dwf\ov éxicov airod. But note 
 that Lk. alone has his favourite rdvra after dpévres (comp. vi. 30, vii. 35, 
 ix. 43, xi. 4, xii. 10). Against these similarities, however, we have to set the 
 differences, chief among which is the miraculous draught of fishes, which Mt. 
 and Mk. omit. Could Peter have failed to include this in his narrative? And 
 would Mk. have omitted it, if the Petrine tradition had contained it? It is 
 easier to believe that some of the disciples were called more than once, and that 
 their abandonment of their original mode of life was gradual: so that Mk. and 
 Mt. may relate one occasion and Lk. another. Even after the Resurrection 
 Peter speaks quite naturally of ‘‘ going a fishing” (Jn. xxi. 3), as if it was still at 
 least an occasional pursuit. But we must be content to remain in doubt as to 
 the relation of this narrative to that of Mk. and Mt. See Weiss, Leben Jesu, 
 L. iii. 4, Eng. tr. ii. pp. 54-59. : 
 
 This uncertainty, however, need not be extended to the relation of this 
 miracle to that recorded in Jn. xxi. 1-14. It cannot be accepted as probable 
 that, in the source from which Lk. drew, ‘‘ the narrative of the call of Peter has 
 been confused with that of his reinstatement in the office which had been 
 entrusted to him, and so the history of the miraculous draught of fishes which is 
 connected with the one has been united with the other.” The contrast between 
 all the main features of the two miracles is too great to be explained by confused 
 recollection. 1. There Jesus is not recognized at first; here He is known 
 directly He approaches. 2. There He is on the shore; here He is in Peter’s 
 boat. 3. There Peter and John are together ; here they seem to be in different 
 boats. 4. There Peter leaves the capture of the fish to others ; here he is chief 
 actor in it. 5. There the net is not broken; here itis. 6. There the fish are 
 caught close to the shore and brought to the shore; here they are caught in 
 deep water and are taken into the boats. 7. There Peter rushes through the 
 water to the Lord whom he had lately denied ; here, though he had committed 
 no such sin, he says, ‘‘ Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” 
 There is nothing improbable in two miracles of a similar kind, one granted to 
 emphasize and illustrate the call, the other the re-call, of the chief Apostle. 
 
 The way in which the Fathers allegorize the two miracles is well known, the 
 first of the Church Militant, the second of the Church Triumphant. R. A. 
 Lipsius would have it that the first is an allegory of quite another kind, the 
 main point of which is the wéroxo in the other boat. He assumes that James 
 and John are in Peter’s boat, and explains thus. That Christ first teaches and 
 then suddenly speaks of fishing, tells us that the fishing is symbolical. The 
 fishing in deep water is the mission to the heathen, which Peter at first is 
 unwilling (?) to undertake (comp. Acts x. 14). The marvellous draught after the 
 night of fruitless toil is the conversion of many heathen after the failure of the 
 mission to the Jews. This work is so great that Peter with the two other 
 Apostles of the Jews are unequal to it, and have to call Paul, Barnabas, and 
 others to help them. Peter then recognizes his former unwillingness (?) as a 
 sin, and both he and the sons of Zebedee are amazed at the success of the 
 mission to the heathen (Gal. ii. 9). Thus the rejection of Jesus by the people 
 of Nazareth (iv. 29, 30), and His preaching ‘‘to the other cities also” (iv. 43), 
 teach the same lesson as the miraculous draught ; viz. the failure of the mission 
 
148 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |[V. 11, 12, 
 
 to the Jews and the success of the mission to the heathen (Jahrb. fiir prot. 
 Theol. 1875, i. p. 189). The whole is exceedingly forced, and an examination 
 of the details shows that they do not fit. If the common view is correct, that 
 James and John were the yéroxor in the other boat, the whole structure falls to 
 the ground. Had Lk. intended to convey the meaning read into the narrative 
 by Lipsius, he would not have left the point on which the whole is based so 
 open to misconception. Keim on the whole agrees with Lipsius, and dog- 
 matically asserts that ‘‘the artificial narrative of Lk. must unhesitatingly be 
 abandoned . . . It is full of subtle and ingenious invention . . . Its historical 
 character collapses under the weight of so much that is artificial ” (Jes. of az. iii. 
 pp- 264, 265). Holtzmann also pronounces it to be ‘‘ legendary and consciously 
 allegorical ” (27 /oco). Does Peter’s apparently inconsistent conduct, beseeching 
 Jesus to depart and yet abiding at His feet, look like invention? 
 
 12-16. The Healing of a Leper. Here we certainly have an 
 incident which is recorded by all three Evangelists. The amount 
 of verbal agreement is very great, and we may confidently affirm 
 that all three make use of common material. Mt. (viii. 1-4) is the 
 most brief, Mk. (i. 40-45) the most full; but Mt. is the only one 
 who gives any note of time. He places the miracle just after Jesus 
 had come down from delivering the Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 On the subject of Leprosy see H. V. Carter, Leprosy and 
 Elephantiasis, 1874; Tilbury Fox, Skin Diseases, 1877; Kaposi, 
 Hautkrankheiten, Wien, 1880 ; and the literature given at the end of 
 art. Aussaz¢z in Herzog; also in Hirsch, Handb. d. Pathologie, 1860. 
 
 12. Kat iSov. Hebraistic; in Mt. viii. 2, but not in Mk. i. 4o: 
 the xai is the apodosis to éyévero, as in ver. 1. No verb follows 
 the idov, as if the presence of the leper were a surprise. Had the 
 man disregarded the law in approaching the crowd? Or had the 
 people come upon him suddenly, before he could avoid them? 
 What follows shows a third possibility. 
 
 wAnpns Aémpas. This particular is given only by the beloved 
 physician. His face and hands would be covered with ulcers and 
 sores, so that everyone could see that the hideous disease was at 
 a very advanced stage. This perhaps accounts for the man’s 
 venturing into the multitude, and for their not fleeing at his 
 approach ; for by a strange provision of the law, “if the leprosy 
 break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of 
 him that hath the plague, from his head even to his feet, . . . then 
 the priest . . . shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague” 
 (Lev. xiii. 12, 13). 
 
 éSey6n adtod. Excepting Mt. ix. 38, the verb is peculiar in 
 N.T. to Lk. and Paul. It is especially freq. in Lk. (viii. 28, 38, 
 ix. 38, 40, x. 2, etc.). In LXX it represents a variety of Hebrew 
 words, and is very common. Here Mk. has zapaxadd@v. 
 
 édv Ons, Stvacat pe kaBapicar. All three accounts have these 
 words, and the reply to them, @éAw, xafapio6y7, without variation. 
 The dvvacat is evidence of strong faith in the Divine power of 
 Jesus ; for leprosy was believed to be incurable by human means. 
 
V. 12-14.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 149 
 
 It was “the stroke” of God, and could not be removed by the 
 hand of man. But it is characteristic of the man’s imperfect 
 apprehension of Christ’s character, that he has more trust in His 
 power than in His goodness. He doubts the will to heal. He 
 says xa@apioa: rather than Geparetoa: or idcacGar because of the 
 pollution which leprosy involved (Lev. xiii. 45, 46). In O.T. 
 “unclean” and “clean,” not “sick” and “healed,” are the terms 
 used about the leper. The old rationalistic explanation, that 
 xafapicot means “to pronounce clean,” and that the man was 
 already cured, but wanted the great Rabbi of Nazareth to absolve 
 him from the expensive and troublesome journey to Jerusalem, 
 contradicts the plain statements of the Gospels. He was “full of 
 leprosy” (Lk.); “immediately the leprosy departed from him” 
 (Mk. Lk.). If xa@apioa. means “to pronounce clean,” then 
 kaOapioOy7t means “be thou pronounced clean.” Yet Jesus sends 
 him to the priest (Lk. Mk. Mt.). Contrast the commands of 
 Christ with the prayers of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha, when they 
 healed. 
 
 18. éxrelvas Thy xetpa. All three have this Hebraistic ampli- 
 fication. In LXX the phrase commonly occurs in connexion 
 with an act of punishment: Ex. vil. 5, 19, Vili. I, 2, 1x. 22, 23, 
 Role ot 22, XIV. 16, 27, 26, 275 Ezek. vi. 14, XIV. 9, XVI. 27; 
 xv 7) 13, 10, XxXxv. 3; Zeph. 1. 4, i. 135 Jer. vi. 12, xv. 6. In 
 N.T. it rarely has this meaning. Jesus touched the leper on the 
 same principle as that on which He healed on the sabbath: the 
 ceremonial law gives place to the law of charity when the two 
 come into collision. His touch aided the leper’s faith. 
 
 4) Aémpa adwhOev dm adtod. Here again (see on iv. 40) Mk. 
 has the whole expression, of which Lk. and Mt. each use a part. 
 Mk. has aayjAOev aa airod 4 dézpa, kal éxafapicOy, and Mt. has 
 exabapiocOy atrod 4 A€rpa. All three have eiOéws or edOvs, showing 
 that Jesus not merely prepared the way for a cure which nature 
 accomplished, but healed the leper at once by His touch. 
 
 14, kat attés. Lk.’s favourite form of connexion in narrative: 
 Peet, 375% 17, 22, 26, il, 23, iv. 15, Vi. 20, €te: 
 
 mapyyyerkev. The word is specially used of commanders | / 
 
 whose orders are passed along the line (apa), and is freq. in Lk. 
 
 (viii. 29, 56, ix. 21; Acts i. 4, iv. 18, v. 28, 40, x. 42, etc.); rare || ./ 
 in Mt. (x. 5, xv. 35) and Mk. (vi. 8, viii. 6); not in Jn. All the || 
 others use evréh\Aco Oa, and Mt. xeAevewv, both of which are rare in || 
 
 Lk. Here Mt. and Mk. have Aéye. 
 
 pydevi_ ciety. The charge was given with emphasis (dpa 
 pydevt_pndiv ecirys) and sternness (éuBpyynodpevos), as Mk. tells 
 us. The meaning of it is variously explained. To prevent (1) the 
 man from having intercourse with others before being pronounced 
 clean by proper authority; (2) the man from becoming proud 
 
 j 
 j 
 
150 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [v. 14 
 through frequent telling of the amazing benefit bestowed upon 
 him ; (3) the Zves¢s from hearing of the miracle before the man 
 arrived, and then deciding, out of hostility to Jesus, to deny the 
 cure; (4) the people from becoming unhealthily excited about 
 so great a miracle. Chrysostom and Euthymius suggest (5) that 
 Christ was setting an example of humility, dddoxwy 76 axopumracrov 
 kal aptAdtmor, in forbidding the leper to proclaim His good deeds. 
 Least probable of all is the supposition (6) that “ our Lord desired 
 to avoid the Levitical rites for uncleanness which the unspiritual 
 ceremonialism_ of the Pharisees might have tried to force upon— 
 Him” for having touched the leper. The first of these was pro 
 ably the chief reason; but one or more of the others may be true 
 also. The man would be likely to think that one who had been 
 so miraculously cured was not bound by ordinary rules; and if he 
 mixed freely with others before he was declared by competent - 
 authority to be clean, he would give a handle to Christ’s enemies, 
 who accused Him of breaking the law. In the Sermon on the 
 Mount He had said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law 
 or the prophets” (Mt. v. 17); which implies that this had been 
 
 
 
 || Said of Him. The command pyéevi nde <irys is further evidence 
 
 that Jesus did not regard miracles as His chief credentials. And 
 || there are many such commands (viii. 56; Mt. ix. 30, xii. 16; 
 ‘Mk. i. 34, ili. 12, V. 43, Vil. 36, Vili. 26). 
 GAAQ darehOav SetEov ceavrdy 7G lepet. Sudden changes to the oratzo 
 directa are common after wapayyéA\w and similar verbs (Acts i. 4, xxiii. 22 ;.- 
 
 Mk. vi. 8, 9; comp. Acts xvii. 3; Tobit viii. 21; Xen. Anad. i. 3. 16, 20). 
 Win. Ixiii. 2, p. 725. 
 
 T@ tepet. As in the original (Lev. xiii. 49), the sing. refers to 
 
 | the priest who was on duty at the time. Note the xa0ds, “exactly 
 
 ”: the reference is to Lev. xiv. 4-10, which enjoins rather ex- 
 
 _ pensive offerings. Comp. Mt. i. 24. For the form Mwvojs see 
 
 on ii. 22. This charge is in all three narratives almost in the 
 same words. On its import see Hort, /udazstic Christianity, p. 30. 
 
 kaSapiopos. Lmundatio (Vulg.), mundatio (fq) purgatio (a), 
 purificatio (d). 
 
 eis paptuptov adtois. ‘This addition is in all three, and various 
 explanations have been suggested. That (1) the priests may be 
 cenvinced of My Divine power ; (2) the priests may see that I do 
 not disregard the Law ; (3) the people may be convinced that the 
 ‘cure is complete, and that the leper may be readmitted to society ; ; 
 
 -)<(4) the people may see that I do not disregard the Law, _ It is the. 
 
 sacrifice which is the paprvpuov, and therefore the second or fourth 
 explanation is to be preferred. Both may be right.} 
 
 1«<«Tt is worthy of notice, that all the places where our Lord is stated to 
 have met with lepers are in the central districts of Samaria and Galilee. . . . It 
 
V. 15, 16.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 151 
 
 15. Sijpxeto Sé paddov 6 Adyos epi adtod. Lk. does not state, 
 as Mk. does, that this was owing to the man’s disobedience. Mt. 
 omits both points. This use of duépyouar of the spreading of a 
 report is quite classical (Thuc. vi. 46. 5; Xen. Azad. i. 4.7). The 
 word is a favourite one with Lk.; see on ii. 15. The paddov 
 means “more than before, more than ever” (Jn. v. 18, xix. 8), 
 or “all the more,” because of the command not to tell (xviii. 39 ; 
 Acts v. 14, ix. 22, xxii. 2), 
 
 guvnpxovto SxAot woAAol GKovew kal OepamederOar amd tOv do- 
 Qevedv. For miracles mentioned as being numerous, but without 
 details, comp. iv. 40, vi. 18, vii. 21. The constr. SeparevecOar dad 
 is peculiar to Lk. (vii. 21, viii. 2). The usual constr. with dep. 
 is the acc. (iv. 23, 40, ix. 1, etc.). For déo@ever® comp. Vili. 2, xiii. 
 11, 12; Acts xxviii. 9; Heb. xi. 34, where we have a similar 
 constr., édvvapwOynoav ard aobeveias. 
 
 _ 16. attés 8€ tv Smoxwpdv év tals epypors Kat mpoceuxdpevos. 
 The verse forms one of those resting-places with which Lk. fre- 
 quently ends a narrative (i. 80, ii. 20, 40, 52, iil. 18-20, iv. 13, 15, 
 30, 44). “But He” on His part, in contrast to the multitudes 
 who came to see Him, “was in retirement in the deserts, and in 
 prayer.” See on iii, 21. The analytical tense expresses what 
 Jesus was engaged in while the multitudes were seeking Him. 
 That they were unable to find Him is not implied here, and Mk. 
 states the opposite. For the adrés comp. iv. 30, vi. 8, viii. 37, 54, 
 xi. 17, 28, xxill. 9; and for Groxdpew, ix. 10. The verb occurs 
 nowhere else in N.T., but is freq. in class. Grk. Lk. alone uses 
 
 ~~ the plur. of épyyds (i. 80, viii. 29). See Bede, ad Loc. 
 
 For év after a verb of motion, to express the rest which is the result of the 
 motion, comp. Mt. xiv. 3; Jn. iil. 35; 2 Cor. viii. 16. Such condensed 
 constructions are not common, if found at all, in earlier writers. The con- 
 verse use of els after verbs of rest is more common (xi. 7, xxi. 37; Acts ii. 39, 
 vii. 4, viii. 20, 23, 40, etc.). Win. 1. 4. a, p. 514. 
 
 17-26. The Healing of a Paralytic. Mt. ix. 1-8; Mk. ii. 1-12. 
 We again have a narrative which is narrated by all three Synoptists 
 in a way which shows that they are using common material. Mt. 
 is again the most brief. Mk. and Lk. agree in the details, but 
 differ considerably in the wording. Different translations of the 
 same Aramaic original, or of two very similar Aramaic originals, 
 would account for these similarities and differences. The cast of 
 the opening verse is very Hebraistic, as is shown by éyévero, by 
 €v pd TOV HuEpady, by Kal adrds, and by dvvapyus Kvpuov jv eis. See 
 on iv. 36 and on viii. 22. The év yud trav juepdv is an absolutely 
 indefinite expression, which we have no right to limit. Mt. and 
 Mk. give no date. The phrase é€vy wa rv is peculiar to Lk. 
 
 is just in this district that to this day we find the colonies of lepers most 
 numerous” (Tristram, aster Customs in Bible Lands, p. 19). 
 
1§2 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 17, 18. 
 
 17. @apicato.. The first mention of them by Lk., who assumes 
 that his readers know who the Pharisees were. This introduction 
 of them stamps them as hostile to Christ ; and we have here the 
 first collision in Galilee between Jesus and the authorities at 
 Jerusalem. On the Pharisees see Jos. Azz. xiii. 5. 9, x. 6, xvii. 2. 
 4, Xvilil. 1. 2, 3; B./ ii. 8.14; Schiirer, Jewish People, II. ii. § 26, 
 p. 10; Hausrath, V.Z. Zimes, 1. p. 135; Keim, Jes. of WVaz. i. p. 
 321; Edersh. Z. & 7. i. pp. 96, 97, 310-324. 
 
 vopodisdcKahor. The word is formed on the analogy of tepodidac- 
 kaos and xopodiddoxados, but is not classical. Elsewhere only 
 Acts v. 34 and 1 Tim. i. 7. In all three cases teachers of the 
 Jewish Law are meant, and the term is almost a synonym for ot 
 ypopparets in the N.T. sense. That they had come ek méons képns 
 Tis TadtAatas Kat “loudaias is, of course, a popular hyperbolical 
 expression, and illustrates Lk.’s fondness for r@s: comp. vi. 17. 
 
 Suvapyts Kupiou Av eis To idoOar aitév. “The power of Jehovah 
 was present for Him to heal with”; ze. for Jesus to employ in 
 working miracles of healing. See on iv. 36 and comp. i. 35, xxiv. 
 49; Acts vi. 8. Hence miracles are often called dvvapets, or out- 
 comes of the power of God. Trench, Syz. xci. The failure to 
 see that airdv is the subject, not the object, of idea. produced 
 the corrupt reading atrovs (A C D and versions). ‘This corrupt 
 reading produced the erroneous interpretation of Kupiov as mean- 
 ing Christ. Lk. often calls Christ “the Lord”; but in such cases 
 Kvpuos always has the article (vil. 13, x. 1, Xl. 39, xii. 42, xill. 15, 
 XVil. 5, 6, xvili. 6, xix. 8, xxil. 61). Kvpos without the article 
 means Jehovah (i. 11, ii. 9, iv. 18; Acts v. 19, Vill. 26, 39, xii. 7). 
 This verse shows us Jesus armed with Divine power and con- 
 fronted by a large body of hostile spies and critics. What follows 
 (vv. 19, 26) proves that there was also a multitude of curious 
 spectators, who had not declared for either side, like the multitude 
 round Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Carmel (1 Kings xviii. 
 21). 
 
 Except in quotations from LXX (Mt. xiii. 15; Jn. xii. 40) and one other 
 passage (Jn. iv. 47), léo0o1 with act. eae is peculiar to Lk. (vi. 19, ix. 2, 
 II, 42, xiv. 4, xxil. 51; Acts ix. 34, x. 38, etc.). 
 
 18, ds fv mapadedupevos. “Here and wherever St. Luke men- 
 tions this disease, he employs the verb wapaAveoOar, and never 
 awapadutixos. The other N.T. writers use the popular form zapa- 
 Aurixds, and never use the verb, the apparent exception to this, 
 Heb. xii. 12, being a quotation from the LXX, Is. xxxv. 3. St. 
 Luke’s use is in strict agreement with that of the medical writers” 
 (Hobart, AZed. Lang. of St. Lk. p. 6). 
 
 éfyjrouv adtov eiceveyxetv. Into the house, although it has not 
 yet been stated that Jesus was in a house. Mk. tells us that there 
 
V. 18, 19.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 153 
 
 were four bearers, and that the place was thronged even about the 
 door. For évémov see small print on i. 15. 
 
 19. For 7 with a participle expressing a reason see small print on iii. 9. 
 With zolas understand 6d08 and comp. éxeivys (xix. 4). Here we should 
 have expected dé, which some inferior MSS. insert in both places. ‘‘ By 
 what 4zzd of a way” emphasizes their perplexity. For the omission of 6dés 
 comp. iii. 5. Win. xxx. II, lxiv. 5, pp. 258, 738. The classical rv GAws 
 illustrates this common ellipse. 
 
 Sia Tov dxdov. “ Because of the multitude”; not “through the 
 multitude,” a meaning of &d ¢. acc. which is found only in poetry 
 and freq. 11 Hom. It was probably by means of outside steps 
 that they “went up on to the top of the house.” Oriental houses 
 sometimes have such steps; and in any case ‘adders could be 
 used. ‘That the Gna was a dwelling-house is not stated. In bibl. 
 Grk. it means a roof rather than a house (Deut. xxii. 8; Josh. ii. 
 6, 8), and in N.T. seems to imply a flat roof (xii. 3, xvii. 31 ; Acts 
 x. 9; Mk. xu. 15; Mt. x. 27, xxiv. 17). It may have been over 
 a large hall on the ground floor. Even if Jesus was teaching in 
 the upper room of a dwelling-house (and the Rabbis often taught 
 there), the difficulty of getting on to the roof and removing a small 
 portion of it would not be very great. Edersh. Asz¢. of J. WV. p. 253. 
 
 Sia Ty Kepapewv KajKay. The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. 
 (Acts ix. 25, x. 11, xi. 5); freq. in class. Grk. Mk. has aweoréy- 
 acav Ti otéynv dou Hy, Kai eLopvéavtes yaAdow. We need not 
 infer from éfopvgavres that under the tiles was clay or mortar to be 
 “dug ou.” But, it there was anything of the kind to be cut 
 through and removed, this could easily be done without serious 
 consequences to those who were in the crowded room below. 
 Men who had so much at stake, and who had got thus far, would 
 not desist through fear of sprinkling a few persons with rubbish. 
 To make these difficulties, which are very unsubstantial, a reason 
 for rejecting the whole narrative as a legend, is rather childish 
 criticism. ‘The constructor of a legend would not have made his 
 details conspicuously incredible. The suggestion that Jesus was 
 in a gallery outside the house, teaching the multitude in the open 
 court below, is not helpful. In that case, why unroof the gallery? 
 The sick man might have been let down to the front of it. Need- 
 less difficulty has been made about rather a simple matter? 
 
 ody 7@ khuvidtw. Lk. alone has his favourite cvv. The sub- 
 stantive occurs here only. It is the dim. of xAtvy (viii. 16, xvii. 
 34), and perhaps means here a portion of the xAivym mentioned in 
 ver. 18. Not all of what had been used to bring him through the 
 streets would be let down through the roof. Comp. xAwdpuov 
 (Acts v. 15). Double forms of diminutives are not uncommon: 
 
 - For another explanation see Tristram, Zastern Customs, pp. 34, 35+ 
 
154 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 19-21. 
 
 e.g. yovaixvoyv and yuvaikdpioy (2 Tim. iii. 6); zard~ov (i. 59, 66) 
 and qa.odpLov (Jn. vi. 9)3 mivaKov and mivakiovov (i. 63). Mk. has 
 the inelegant xpdBarros, grabatus (Acts v. 15, ix. 33), for which 
 the Greeks preferred oxiuzrovs or oxipadduov. 
 
 20. i8av thy amictw attay. The faith of the man and of those 
 who brought him. All three accounts have the words; but Mt. 
 omits the persevering energy which proved how strong their faith 
 was. We need not assume that the paralytic himself did not share 
 his friends’ confidence. 
 
 For a full discussion of the Weaning of ‘‘ Faith” in the New Testament and 
 in some Jewish Writings see detached note on Rom. i. 17. Here it will suffice 
 to point out its four main uses for (1) belief in God ; (2) belief in His promises ; 
 (3) belief in Christ ; (4) belief in some particular utterance or claim of God or of 
 Christ. Of these four the last is the commonest use in the Synoptic Gospels, 
 where it generally means belief in the power of Christ, or of God in Christ, to 
 work miracles. The efficacy of Christ’s power is commonly dependent upon 
 the faith of those who are to be benefited by its exercise, as here. Comp. vii. 
 50, viii. 48, xvii. 19, xviii. 42. By an easy transition this faith in the power of 
 God or of Christ to work miracles becomes used of the conviction that the 
 believer himself has received power to work miracles. Comp. xvii. 6. In 
 xviii. 8 the faith to be found on earth means faith in the Son of Man. 
 
 “AvOpwrre, ahewvtal cot at dpaptia. cov. Mk. has réxvoy, and 
 Mt. has @dpoe rékvov. It is not likely that Lk., the writer of the 
 Gospel of grace for all, has deliberately changed the more tender 
 address, because it seemed to be unsuitable to one who must, as 
 he thinks, have been a grievous sinner. Comp. xii. 14 and xxii. 
 57. And we affirm more than we know, if we say that this absolu- 
 tion was necessary for the man’s cure, because otherwise he would 
 not have believed that Jesus could heal him, and his faith was 
 essential to the cure. He probably believed, and perhaps knew, 
 that his malady was the direct consequence of his own sin (xiii. 2 ; 
 Jn. v. 14, ix. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 30). But it does not follow from this 
 that faith on his part was thus far absent. 
 
 Suidas seems to be right in regarding d¢éwvrat as a Dorie form of the 
 perf. indic. for d¢etyrat. But it was admitted rather freely, even by Attic 
 writers. Comp. dvéwyrat (Hdt. ii. 165. 1; but the reading is not certain) 
 and elw6a from é0w (iv. 6). Win. xiv. 3. a, p. 96; Veitch, s. v. In Mt. and 
 Mk. the true reading here is dplevrac: but ddéwvrat occurs again vil. 47, 48; 
 I John ii. 12, and probably Jn. xx. 23. Some have regarded it as a sub- 
 
 junctive: vemzssa sunto. Fritzsche (on Mt. ix. 2) pertinently asks, Quo usa 
 aut more subjunctivum in talibus locts absolute posttum defendas ? 
 
 21. jpgavto Siadoyifecbar. Not a mere periphrasis for dceAoyi- 
 gavro: see on iv. 21. Hitherto they had found nothing in His 
 words to excite criticism. Here they seemed to see the oppor- 
 tunity for which they had been watching, and their discussions 
 forthwith began.1 The ypappartets are evidently the same as the 
 
 1 Tt has been suggested that joav xaOjuevor (Mk. ii. 6) and fptavro (= joav 
 Apxébpevor) here are simply different trarislations of the Aramaic verb, which has 
 
Vv. 21-23.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 155 
 
 vowodiddoKaXo. in ver. 17. Neither Mt. nor Mk. mention the 
 Pharisees here ; and both of them imply that the criticisms were 
 not uttered aloud: év éavrois (Mt.), év tats xapdéars (Mk.). Even 
 here utterance is not stated, for Aéyovres may be used of thoughts 
 (xii. 17; Mt. xxi. 25). 
 
 Tis éotiv obtos Ss Aadet BAacpypias ; An accidental iambic line. 
 We have another ver. 39, if edf€ws be admitted as genuine. The 
 otros is contemptuous, as often (iv. 22, Vii. 39, 49, ix. 9, xiv. 30, 
 xv. 2, etc.). In N.T., as in class. Grk., BAacdypia has the two 
 meanings of “evil speaking” (Col. iii. 8; Eph. iv. 31; 1 Tim. vi. 4; 
 Jude 9: comp. Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16) and “ blasphemy” (Mt. xii. 31, 
 xxvl. 65; Rev. xiii. 6). These cavillers assume that Jesus has 
 claimed to have pardoned the man on His own authority, not 
 merely to have said that He knew that his sins have been forgiven 
 by God. And Jesus does not say that they are mistaken in this. 
 He acts on His own authority in accordance with the will of the 
 Father, doing on earth what the Father does in heaven (Jn. v. 19, 
 21). For dq¢evae of sins comp. Mt. xii. 31; Mk. iii. 28; Rom. 
 iv. 7, etc. ; 
 
 22. emyvols 8é 6 “Ingots Tods Siadoyropods attav. The com- 
 pound verb implies thorough and accurate knowledge (1 Cor. 
 xiii. 12; Rom. i. 32; Justin, Z77y. ili. p. 221 A). The subst. ézi- 
 yvwors is used of “ the knowledge of God and of Christ as being the 
 perfection of knowledge: e.g. Prov. ii. 5; Hos. iv. 1, vi. 6; Eph. 
 i ¥7, iv. 12, 2 Pet. 1. 1, 2, 8, i. 20; Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 5, p. 73” 
 (Lft. on Col. i. 9). Comp. the climax in AfZost. Const. vii. 39. 1, 
 yraors, éxiyvwots, tAynpogopia. On both ériyvwors and diaroyww- 
 poovs see Hatch, 5zd/. Grk. p. 8. The latter seems here to mean 
 “thoughts” (évOvunoes, Mt. ix. 4) rather than “discussions” 
 (ix. 46). In LXX it is used of the counsels of God (Ps. xxxix. 6, 
 xcl. 6). It is, however, more often used in a bad sense (Ps. lv. 5, 
 xciii. 11, cxlv. 4, etc.), and is specially freq. in Lk. (ii. 35, vi. 8, 
 ix. 47, xxiv. 38). Not in Jn., and only once each in Mt. and Mk. 
 
 év Tais kapdiats Spay. This seems to imply that there had been 
 no utterance. Christ read their thoughts. See on Rom. i. 21. 
 
 23. ti éotw edkoTtepov, eimety . .. Heimetv. It is in this 
 verse and the next that the three accounts are most similar— 
 almost verbatim the same. ‘The challenge is a very practical one, 
 and the point of it is in the eiwety. It is easier to say, “ Thy sins 
 are forgiven,” because no one can prove that they are not forgiven. 
 But the claim to heal with a word can be easily and quickly 
 tested. 
 
 the very different meanings of “sitting at rest” and “beginning”; or possibl 
 of two verbs which are identical in spelling (Zxgosttor, April 1891, p. 28s) 
 See on iii. 23. But these possibilities seem to be too isolated and sporadic to 
 be of great value in accounting for differences between the Gospels. 
 
156 TIITE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 23, 24, 
 
 evkomdtepov. Lit. ‘‘more capable of being done with easy labour” (ed, 
 kémos). In N.T. always in the comparative (xvi. 17, xvili. 25; Mk. x. 25; 
 Mt. xix. 24); but edxomwoy occurs I Mac. iii. 18; Ecclus. xxii. 15. It is 
 found in Polyb., but not in class. Grk.—For ris in the sense of ‘‘ whether of 
 two” like mérepos, as guzs = uter, comp. xxii. 27; Mt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 17, 
 xXvil. 17, 21; Xen. Cy”. iii. 1. 17. 
 
 24. 6 vids tod dvOpémov. This remarkable phrase in all four 
 Gospels is invariably used by Christ of Himself; upwards of eighty 
 times in all. The Evangelists never use it of Him, and no one 
 ever addresses Him by this title. Yet none of the four ever 
 directs our attention to this strict limitation in the use of the 
 phrase, so that their agreement must be regarded as undesigaed, 
 and as evidence of their accuracy. 
 
 In O.T. we have ‘son of man” used in three different connexions, and it 
 must be noted that in each case the rendering in LXX is ulds dv@pdémov and not 
 6 ulds Tod dvOpwmov. In the Psalms it is used of the ideal man: viii. 4, Ixxx. 16, 
 exliv. 3, cxlvi. 3. In Zzekze/ it is the title by which the Prophet is addressed, 
 ii. I, 3, 6, 8, iii. 1, 34, etc. etc.; upwards of eighty times in all. In Daniel's 
 night visions (vil. 13, 14), *‘ One like a son of man came with the clouds of 
 heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days,” and received a dominion which was 
 universal and eternal. With this should be compared various passages in the 
 Book of Enoch, of which this is specially noteworthy. ‘‘ There I saw one who 
 had a head of days, and His head was white like wool; and with Him was a 
 Second, whose countenance was like the appearance of a man, and His counte- 
 nance was full of grace, like one of the holy angels. And I asked one of the 
 angels who were with me, and who showed me all the secrets, concerning this 
 Son of Man, who He was, and whence He was, and why He goes with the 
 Head of days. And he answered and said to me: This is. the Son of Man who 
 has justice, and justice dwells with Him; and all the treasures of secrecy He 
 reveals, because the Lord of the spirits has chosen Him, and His portion over- 
 comes all things before the Lord of the spirits in rectitude to eternity. And this 
 Son of Man, whom thou hast seen, will arouse the kings and mighty from their 
 couches, and the strong from their thrones, and will loosen the bands of the 
 strong, and will break the teeth of the sinners” (xlvi.). This Son of Man is the 
 Messiah. He is called ‘‘ the Anointed ” (xlviii. 11, li. 4), ‘‘the Righteous One” 
 (xxxvili. 2, lili. 6), ‘“‘the Elect One” (Zasszm), and the Lord speaks of Him as 
 ““My Son” (cv. 2). That these Messianic passages in the Book of Enoch are 
 of Christian origin is the opinion of a few critics, but it is difficult to maintain it. 
 Everything distinctly Christian is absent. This Son of Man or Messiah is not 
 the Word, is not God. That He has lived on the earth is nowhere intimated. 
 Of the historical Jesus, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, or the Ascension, there 
 is not a hint ; nor yet of baptism, or of the eucharist, or of the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. Why should a Christian write just what any Jew might accept about 
 the Messiah and no more? But if the whole of the Book of Enoch was 
 written before the birth of Christ, then we have sufficient evidence to show that 
 when Christ was teaching on earth ‘‘Son of Man” was already accepted by the 
 Jews as one title, although not a common one, for the Messiah.! The idea of a 
 weak and suffering Messiah was unwelcome to the Jews, and therefore a name 
 
 1 Le Livre d’Hénoch, en particulier, lequel étart fort lu dans entourage de 
 Jésu: (Jude Epist. 14) ows doune la clef de Pexpression de ‘Fils de Phomme,” 
 et des tdées qui sy rattachazent (Renan, V. de /. p. xi.). It is, of course, quite 
 possible that the writer of the Book of Enoch took the idea from Daniel. For 
 a discussion of the title see Dorner, Person of Chrest, Eng. tr. I. i. p. 54. 
 
V. 24-26. | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 157 
 
 which emphasized human weakness was not a favourite one. ‘‘ But the very 
 reason which induced them to avoid the title induced our Lord to take it. It 
 expressed His Messiahship definitely enough for His purpose ; but it expressed it 
 iy that veiled and suggestive way which characterised the whole of His teaching 
 on His own person. At the same time, it conveyed to those who had ears to 
 hear the whole secret of the Incarnation. That which the Jews shrank from 
 and ignored He rather placed in the forefront of His mission” (Sanday in the 
 Expositor, Jan. 1891, p. 30, art. ‘On the Title, ‘Son of Man’”). 
 
 ént tis y7is- In all three acwounts there is room for doubt as 
 tc the words which this expression qualifies. Here either éfouc/av 
 éxet Or dduévar Gpaptias, In Mk. and Mt. it may qualify 6 vids Tot 
 avOpwrov. It is best taken with efovotay exer. But the difference 
 in meaning is not great. 
 
 eimev TS Tapahedupevy. This is not the apodosis to iva eidjre, 
 but a parenthesis :! the apodosis to iva «idjre is Bol Aeyw. Note 
 the emphasis on oot: “to thee I say the crucial words.” Clement 
 of Alexandria gives this address to the paralytic in singularly dif- 
 ferent language: dvdora, dyot TO rapepéevw, Tov oKiproda ep dy 
 KaTdkeioat AaBwv ame oixade (Ped. i. 2, p. 101, ed. Potter). Prob- 
 ably a paraphrase. 
 
 25. twapaxpipa dvactas évémov. Every one of these words is 
 characteristic of Lk. For tapaxypjpma Mk. has his equally charac- 
 teristic «vs, a feature which recurs Lk. Vili. 44, 55, xviii. 43, 
 xxii. 60. Lk. has zrapaxpyya ten times in the Gospel and six times 
 in the Acts: elsewhere only Mt. xxi. 19, 20. For avaocrds Mt. 
 has éyepOeis and Mk. jyyépOy wat: see on i. 39. For évidarvov abrav 
 Mk. has eurpoobev ravtwv. 
 
 dpas ép 6 katéxerto. L/ doit porter maintenant ce grabat qui l’a 
 si longtemps porté (Godet). The wording is peculiar to Lk., and is 
 perhaps intended to suggest this inversion of relations. Lk. alone 
 records that he glorified God. The phrase dofaleuv rov @eov 
 is specially common with him (ver. 26, vil. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, 
 XViil. 43, xxiil. 47; Acts iv. 21, xi. 18, xxi. 20): once in Mk., twice 
 in Mt., once in Jn. 
 
 The reading ¢¢’ 6 (RU A) is an obvious correction to a more usual con- 
 struction. For the acc. after a verb of rest comp. xxi. 35; Mt. xiii. 2; Mk. 
 iv. 38; Jn. xxi. 4; also Plato, Sym. 212 D, émiorivac él Tas Ovpas. 
 
 26. Exotaors edaBev Gnavtas. Mk. has wdvras, Mt. nothing. 
 Lk. is fond of the stronger form. He alone records all three 
 emotions—amazement, fear, and gratitude to God. The last is in 
 all three. For ékotaois comp. Mk. v. 42, xvi. 8; Acts ili. 10; Gen. 
 XxVil. 33; I Sam. xiv. 15; 2 Chron. xiv. 14. Mt., whose narrative 
 
 1 That this parenthesis occurs in exactly the same place in all three proves 
 that all three made use of a narrative, the form of which was already fixed, either 
 in memory or in writing (Salmon, /7¢. to WV. 7. p- 121, 5thed.). Comp. Lk. 
 viii. 28, 29 with Mk. v. 7, 8, where we have similar agreement in arrangement. 
 
158 | THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 26, 27 
 
 is much the most brief, adds after éddéacav rov @edv, tov Sdvra 
 éLoveiay rovavrnv tois dvOpwos, which seems to refer to the pre- 
 ceding éfouciav éxe.. He who is ¢he Son of Man, the ideal repre- 
 sentative of the race, had vindicated His claim to possess authority 
 to forgive sins. 
 
 EtSapev mapdSofa ojpepov. The adj. occurs here only in N.T 
 In LXX it is not rare (Judg. xiii. 13; Wisd. v. 2; Ecclus. xliii. 25° 
 2 Mac. ix. 24; 4 Mac. ii. 13). It is used of the miracles of Jesus 
 in the famous passage, of very doubtful origin, in Josephus: codés 
 davnp, €t ye dvdpa airov Aéyew xpy Hv yap Tapaddswv Epywv wownrys 
 (Ant. xviii. 3. 3). Whereas évdofa (xiii. 17) has reference to the 
 d6&a or glory of the agent, wapddoێa refers to the dda or opinion of 
 the spectators ; but ddfa in the sense of “opinion” or “belief” is 
 not found in N.T. For the mixed form of aor. eidayev see small 
 print on i. 59, and comp. 1 Sam. x. 14 and 2 Sam. x. 14. 
 
 27-39. The Calling of Levi and the Discussion about Fasting. 
 Mt. ix. 9-17; Mk. ii. 13-22. In all three narratives this section 
 is connected closely with the healing of the paralytic; but Mt. 
 places both incidents much later, viz. after the return from the 
 country of the Gadarenes. 
 
 The common identification of Levi with Matthew is probably correct ; but 
 his father must not be identified with the father of James the Less. Matthew 
 is probably a contraction of Mattathias = ‘‘ Gift of God,” and this name may 
 have been given to Levi after His conversion, like that of Peter to Simon. 
 Comp. Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23). In Galilee it was 
 common to have two names ; and therefore both names may have been original. 
 But if Levi was the earlier name, and was less well known among Christians, 
 that would account for Mk. and Lk. using it, while Mt. equally naturally would 
 let it be evident that a reAdvys had become, by Christ’s mercy, the well-known 
 Apostle. There can be no reasonable doubt that the three narratives refer to 
 the same incident. And, as Levi is mentioned in no list of the Twelve, and 
 Matthew is mentioned in all such lists, the identity of Levi the reAdvys with Mt. 
 the teAdvys and Apostle need not be doubted. Such doubts, however, are 
 ancient. They existed in the Gnostic commentator Heracleon (Clem. Alex. 
 Strom. iv. 9, p. 595, ed. Potter), and were shared by Origen. They have been 
 reproduced by Grotius (on Mt. ix. 9) and Michaelis; and more recently by 
 Sieffert, Neander, Ewald, Keim, and Reuss. But a satisfactory solution, which 
 is not contradicted by any evidence, is not to be rejected because it does not 
 amount to demonstration. 
 
 27. é&j\Oev. So also Mk., while Mt. has rapaywv éxetOer. 
 Departure from the town, rather than from the house, is probably 
 meant; and we therefore obtain no evidence as to the site of 
 Capernaum. We may place Capernaum away from the lake, and 
 yet suppose the reAdvioy to have been close to the shore. The 
 customs collected there went to Herod Antipas, not to the imperial 
 fiscus (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11. 4, 5; B.//. ii. 6. 3): see on xx. 25. 
 
 €Qedoato tekdvnv. ‘Looked attentively at, contemplated, a 
 tax-collector,” as if reading his character. The verb often implics 
 
Vv. 27-29.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 159 
 
 enjoyment in beholding (vii. 24; Jn. i. 14, 32, 38; 1 Jn.i.1z). For 
 the teMGvar sve on iii. 12. The Talmud distinguishes two classes 
 of reAGvar: the Gaddat or tax-gatherer (e.g. of income-tax or poll- 
 tax), and the Jokes or custom-house officer. The latter was 
 specially hated, as having greater opportunities for vexatious 
 exactions, especially from the poor. Levi was one of the latter. 
 The great commercial route from Acre to Damascus, which con- 
 tinued until the crusades as the wa maris, passed the lake at or 
 near Capernaum, and gave employment to excisemen (Is. ix. 1). 
 
 évopatt Aevetv. Mk. has Aecvely tov rod “AAdaiov, and Mt. nas 
 Maé@@aiov. The fondness of Lk. for é6vémarx in introducing a name 
 is here conspicuous. Mt. has Aeyduevov, and Mk. has neither. 
 Comp. i. 5, x. 38, xvi. 20, xxili. 50, and over twenty times in the 
 Acts. Mt. and Mk. have dvéuare once each. Jn. says évoua 
 airé (i. 6, iii. 1, xviil. 10). 
 
 kaOijpevoy emt TO Tehdviov, Excepting in the parallel passages, 
 reAwviov does not occur in N.T. Nor is it common elsewhere. 
 In Strabo, xvi. 1. 27, it seems to mean “customs, taxes,” and some 
 would render ért 76 teAdviov, “to receive the customs.” But it is 
 more probable that it means the place where dues were collected, 
 “the tol bothe” (Wic.) or “the custom-house” (Rhem.). Comp. 
 the similarly formed dexarariov, “ the office of a collector of tenths.” 
 Very likely Levi was sitting outside the fortitorium. He must 
 have been visible from the outside: the ézi is “at,” not “in.” 
 
 28. xatadimay mwdvra. Lk alone mentions this.! Note the 
 characteristic tavra, and comp. ver. 11. The fact illustrates the 
 doctrine, to which Lk. often bears witness, that riches are a peril 
 and an impediment, and that the kingdom of God is specially 
 preached to the poor. The statement is against the supposition 
 (D.B. ii. p. 969) that Mt. returned to his business afterwards ; and 
 it is quite gratuitous to suppose that the statement is a mere 
 reminiscence of ver. 11. In that case why has dd¢iévar been 
 changed to xataXetrew ? 
 
 There is a slight awkwardness in xaradurdép preceding dvacrds: the rising 
 was the first act in the leaving all and in the following Christ. Both Mt. and 
 Lk. represent the following as habitual, jxo\ov@e. Mk. regards the single act 
 on this occasion, 7xohov@ncev. With the call, AxoAov@er wor, comp. Jn. i. 44, 
 and with the result comp. ver. 11 and Mt. iv. 19, 22. The two combined lead 
 one to the view that this is a call to become an Apostle. 
 
 29. émoincev Soxhy peyddny. “Made a great reception” 
 (Séxouar) or banquet. The word is peculiar to Lk., who has 
 doxnv woveiy again xiv. 13. The phrase occurs in LXX (Gen. 
 xxi. 8, xxvi. 30; Esth. i. 3, v. 4, 8). Of course év rH oikig adtod 
 
 1 Ce seul mot suffit. La parole qui venait de guérir le lépreux, de rendre au 
 paralysé le mouvement et de renzettre les péchés, transforma soudainement um 
 publicain en disciple (Didon, /. C. ch. iii. p. 340). 
 
160 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [V. 29-81. 
 
 means in Levi’s house, which is not included in xaradirav wavra. 
 He was not at his house when he left all. The zdvra refers to his 
 whole mode of life, his business as a teAwvys. 
 
 It is strange that any one should understand the words either here or Mk. 
 ii. I5 as meaning “‘in the house of Jesus.” Had Jesus a house? If so, how 
 improbable that Levi should hold a reception in it! If the narrator had meant 
 this, must he not have given the name instead of atrod, which would inevitably 
 be misunderstood? Mt. has simply év rq olxlg, which possibly means ‘‘in- 
 doors,” as opposed to the outdoor scene él 76 rehkwov. There is no evidence 
 that Christ had a house at Capernaum. After the call of Simon and Andrew 
 He is entertained in the house of Simon and Andrew (Mk. i. 16, 29); and 
 after the call of Levi He is entertained in the house of Levi. The new disciple 
 wishes his old friends to make the acquaintance of his new Master. C’est son 
 premier acte missconaire (Godet). 
 
 Rv dxXos Todds TehovGv Kal GAXKwv ot Foav per abtay Kataket- 
 pevot. This proves that the house was a large one, which the 
 house of Jesus would not have been: and it also shows the 
 character of the company, for only social outcasts would sit down 
 at the same table with reAdvat. 
 
 80. eydsyyufoy of dapicaion kal ot ypappartets adtav. The avray 
 means “the scribes of the Pharisees,” ze. who belonged to that 
 party. Some scribes were Sadducees. That this is the meaning 
 is clear from Mk. ii. 16. It is pointless, and scarcely grammatical, 
 to make airév refer to the inhabitants of the place, who have not 
 been mentioned. These scribes were probably not invited guests, 
 but had entered during the meal, like the woman that was a sinner 
 in the house of Simon. The Szzazticus and other authorities omit 
 avrav, doubtless because it was not clear what it meant. 
 
 For yoyyvfw, which is not in Mk. or Mt., see Lft. on Phil. ii. 14, and 
 Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 39. The Atticists preferred rovOopifw. 
 Both are probably onomatop.—Note that here, as in vv. 31, 33 and iv. 43, 
 Lk. has mpés c¢. ace. after a verb of speaking, where Mk. (ii. 16-19) has the 
 dat. See oni. 13. 
 
 Ava Ti peta Tav Tehwvdv Kai dpaptwhdv éobiete; The single 
 article (so in all three) brackets them as one class. In Mt. and 
 Mk. the disciples are not included in the charge (éo6/e, not 
 éoOierc) ; but they both mention that the disciples were sitting at 
 table with Jesus and the reA@vai, and therefore were open to the 
 charge. Lk., on the other hand, does not mention that the 
 disciples were sitting at table, but his éoGere implies it. With 
 Sta ti comp. Exod. v. 14. 
 
 81. In all three accounts Jesus ignores the insinuation against His disciples, 
 and answers for Himself. He is responsible for the intercourse with tax- 
 collectors and sinners. For ot ty.atvovres Mt. and Mk. have ol laxvorres. 
 This looks like a deliberate change made by Lk. for the sake of a word which 
 would more definitely express health as opposed to sickness. Like mapaedv- 
 uévos for mapadurixds (vv. 18, 24) and léoGat for diacwfeww (vi. 19), these changes 
 
V. 31-34. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 161 
 
 may be the result of Lk.’s medical training (Hobart, p. 67; Salmon, zt. to 
 N.T. p. 129, 5th ed.). But would Lk. have made changes in a report of 
 Christ’s words? There would be no need to have scruples, for oi loxvovres is 
 only a translation of the Aramaic, and Lk. might think that of dycalvovres was a 
 better translation. Christ’s reply is an argumentum ad hominem, partly 
 ironical. On their own showing the Pharisees had no need of a teacher, while 
 these outcasts were in the greatest need of one. 
 
 82. cis petdvoiav. These words are peculiar to Lk., but in 
 some texts have been transferred to Mk. and Mt. Both perdvoua 
 and peravoeiv are freq. in Lk. See on xv. 7. Obviously those who 
 are really dékaro. do not need to be called to repentance ; but who 
 are Sikavou? That is the question which Christ’s reply suggests. 
 If we had only Mk.’s account, we might suppose that what follows 
 took place on some other occasion ; but both Lk. and Mt. (rére) 
 connect it with the banquet in Matthew’s house. 
 
 33. of Sé etmay. The same who asked the previous question, 
 viz. the Pharisees and their scribes (ver. 30). Mt. says that it was 
 the disciples of John who came up and put this question. Mk. 
 states that both the disciples of John and the Pharisees were 
 keeping a fast at that very time, and joined in asking why Christ’s 
 disciples did not do so also. We know from Jn. iii. 26 how 
 jealous the Baptist’s disciples were of Christ, and therefore ready 
 to criticize. Perhaps they were also jealous of the freedom from 
 legal restraints which His disciples seemed to enjoy. They leave 
 an opening for the reply, ‘‘ You have no need to fast.” The four 
 words which follow vyorevovow, viz. the words tuxva kai Seqoers 
 wowouvtar, are peculiar to Lk. They imply that Christ’s disciples 
 habitually neglected the frequent fasts which the disciples of John 
 and of the Pharisees kept. The fasts on Mondays and Thursdays 
 are probably meant, which were not obligatory, but which some 
 Pharisees observed (xviii. 12). Moses was believed to have gone up 
 Mount Sinai on a Thursday and to have come down on a Monday. 
 The Day of Atonement was the only fast of universal obligation. 
 For rrovetoOar Seqoers comp. 1 Tim. ii. 1; it refers to prayers at fixed 
 times according to rule. The disciples of Jesus seemed to have no 
 rule respecting such things. A late tradition fixes the number of 
 the Baptist’s disciples as thirty, answering to the days of the 
 month, as the Twelve are supposed to answer to the months of the 
 year (Clem. Hom. ii. 23).—xat wivovow. These words also are 
 peculiar to Lk. in harmony with xat zivere in ver. 30. 
 
 84. Individuals were at liberty to choose their own days for 
 fasting, but they must not select a sabbath or any of the great 
 feasts. Christ suggests another exception, which very possibly 
 was made by the Pharisees themselves. Is it possible to make 
 the guests fast ata wedding? Mt. and Mk. omit the wovetv: Can 
 the wedding-guests fast? Would it not be morally impossible to 
 
 II 
 
162 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [v. 34-36, 
 
 have such a combination? To John’s disciples this parable would 
 come home with special force, for their master had called Jesus 
 “the Bridegroom,” and himself “the friend of the Bridegroom.” 
 
 tods viods Tod vuydavos. The common Hebraism to express 
 those who are closely connected with the vuzdev: comp. x. 6, 
 xvi. 8, xx. 36; Acts iv. 36; Mt. xxiii. 15; Jn. xii. 36, etc. In 
 1 Mac. iv. 2 of vioi rs axpas means the garrison of the citadel. 
 But in LXX such expressions are not very common (1 Kings i. 52; 
 2 Sam. xii. 5; Gen. xi. 10). The word vuzddy seems scarcely to 
 occur in class. Grk., but it is rightly formed (Tobit Vi.’ T4;257)s 
 Comp. rapGevav, yuvaikdy, dvdpdv, Bowv, dyzredwv, k.T.d. 
 
 85. édevoovtat Sé Fcpar. “ But days will come,” é.e. days very 
 different from the joyous days of the wedding. It is best to take 
 this clause separately. After it there is an aposiopesis, which is 
 mournfully impressive ; and then the sentence begins again. 
 
 kal tay dtrap0q dm’ adtay 6 vupdios. There is no «at in Mt 
 or Mk., and some texts omit it here, because of its apparent 
 awkwardness. We may take the xa/ as beginning a fresh sentence, 
 or as epexegetic of the preceding clause. ‘But days will come— 
 and when the bridegroom shall be taken away,” etc. Or, “ But 
 days will come, yea, days when the bridegroom,” etc. ‘The word 
 dzap6y is in all three, and nowhere else in N.T. It is common in 
 class. Grk., esp. of the moving of fleets and armies. 
 
 téte vnotedcouow. “Then they will fast””—of their own accord. 
 He does not say, “ Then ye will be able to make them fast,” which 
 would be the exact antithesis of what goes before; and the change 
 is significant. Compulsion will be as superfluous then as it would 
 be outrageous now: comp. xvii. 22. This is the first intimation of 
 His death and departure, after which fasting will be appropriate 
 and voluntary. Its value consists in its being spontaneously 
 adopted, not forcibly imposed. This point is further developed in 
 the short parables which follow. Note the characteristic év 
 €xe(vars Tats 7epacs (not in Mt. ix, 15), and see on ix. 36. 
 
 86. “Edeyev 5é kal tapaBohhy mpds adtovs. These introductory 
 words are peculiar to Lk., and the phrase Adyery rapaBorny is 
 used by no one else (xii. 41, xili. 6, xiv. 7, xviii. 1, xx. 9). For the 
 characteristic $€ kat see small print on iii. 9, and for héyew mpds 
 see on i. 13. For pairs of parables see on ver. 37 and xiii. 18. 
 
 G16 tuatiou katvod oxtoas. ‘This also is peculiar to Lk.’s narra- 
 tive, and it heightens the effect of the parable. Both Mt. and Mk. 
 represent the patch as coming from an unused piece of cloth. To 
 tear it from a new garment is an aggravation of the folly. A good 
 garment is ruined in order to mend, and that very ineffectually, an 
 old one. In all three we have é/8Anya for patch ; in Mt. and Mk. 
 wArjpwpa also; and Mk. for émBaAXa has émipdrre. In Plutarch 
 and Arrian é7iBAnpa means. “tapestry” for hangings. In the 
 
V. 36, 37.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 163 
 
 sense of “patch” it seems to occur only in Sym. Josh. ix. 11 (5). 
 The Latin translations of é7iBAnpa vary : commissura (Vulg.), insu- 
 mentum (a), immissura (a). 
 
 el 52 perjye (el dé 7} ye, Lach. Treg.). ‘‘ But if he acts otherwise,” z.e. if 
 he commits this folly. Vz caveat errorem (Grotius). The formula is freq. in 
 Lk. (ver. 37, x. 6, xiii. 9, xiv. 32), who never uses el dé uj. El 6¢ wu} ye is 
 stronger than el dé yw, and follows both negative (xiv. 32; Mt. ix. 17; 2 Cor. 
 xi. 16) and affirmative sentences (x. 6, xiii. 9; Mt. vi. 1). It is found in 
 Plato (Rep. ii. 375 C): comp. Hdt. iv. 120. 4. See Fritzsche on Mt. vi. 1 
 and Meyer on 2 Cor. xi. 16. 
 
 kal Td kawvov oxicet. “ Both he will rend the new garment ”—- 
 in tearing the patch from it. AV. here goes wrong, although 
 (except as regards the tense) all previous English Versions were 
 right. Reading oxife with A and Vulg. rwmfzt, Wic. Tyn. Cran. 
 and Rhem. have “ He breaketh the new,” while Cov. has “ He 
 renteth the new.” Beza has “the o/d breaketh the new.” Luther 
 and AV. seem to be alone in taking 76 xawvéy as the nom., “ Both 
 the new maketh a rent.” With oxioe comp. Jn. xix. 24; Is. 
 XXXVii. I. 
 
 kal TO kawvov . . . Kal T@ Tada. The double xaié marks the 
 double folly. RV. avoids the awkwardness of “ Soth he will rend 
 . . . and the piece,” etc., by rendering, “He willrend . . . and 
 also the piece,” etc. The combination with xait 7@ wadag shows 
 that 76 xawvdy is object and not subject. 
 
 As to the precise meaning, interpreters are not agreed, beyond 
 the general truth that a new spirit requires a new form. But the 
 piece torn from the new garment is probably exemption from fast- 
 ing. To deprive Christ’s disciples of this freedom, while He is with 
 them, would be to spoil the system in which they are being trained. 
 And to impose this exemption upon the disciples of John and the 
 Pharisees, would also spoil the system in which they have been 
 trained. In the one case fasting, in the other non-fasting, was the 
 natural outcome of the environment. For a variety of interpreta- 
 tions see Godet, who in his third ed. has changed his own (1888). 
 87. This second parable carries on and develops the teaching 
 
 of the first. We have similar pairs of parables in the Mustard-seed 
 and the Leaven, the Treasure hid in the Field and the Pearl of 
 great price, the Ten Virgins and the Talents, the Lost Sheep and 
 the Lost Coin, the Unwise Builder and the Unwise King. In three 
 respects this second parable differs from the first. (1) The piece 
 of new cloth represents only a fragment of the new system ; the 
 new wine represents the whole of it. (2) The new garment and 
 the old one are only marred; the new wine is lost and the old 
 skins are destroyed. (3) Not only is the wrong method con- 
 demned, the right method is indicated (4AAG . . . BAnréov). The 
 argument is @ fortiorz. If it is a mistake to take the natural out 
 
164 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE ‘V. 87-39. 
 
 come from one system and force it upon an alien sys'em, much 
 more fatal will it be to try to force the whole of a new and grow- 
 ing system into the worn out forms of an old one. “I thank Thee, 
 O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these 
 things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto 
 babes” (x. 21). The scribes and Pharisees, wise in the letter of 
 the law, and understanding their own cramping traditions, were 
 incapable of receiving the free spirit of the Gospel. Young and 
 fresh natures, free from prejudice and open to new light and new 
 impressions, were needed to receive the new word and preserve it 
 unchecked and untramelled for future generations. On the fitness 
 of the twofold parable to the occasion Bengel remarks, pavrabolam 
 a veste, a vino: imprimis opportunam convivio. 
 
 ovdets Bddder oivov véov eis dokods tadaods. For BadXew of 
 pouring liquids comp. Jn. xili. 5; Mt. xxvi. 12; Judg. vi. 19; 
 Epictet. iv. 19. 12. Skin-bottles, w¢ves, are still in use in the East, 
 made of a single goat-skin (Hom. JZ. iii. 247), from which the flesh 
 and bones are drawn without ripping up the body. The neck of 
 the animal becomes the neck of the bottle. Gen. xxi. 14, 15, 19; 
 Ps. cxix. 83. Comp. Hdt. ii. 121. 20, iii. 9. 2; Hom. Od. v. 265. 
 In Job xxxii. 19 it is said that even new skins are ready to burst 
 when they are full of new wine: comp. xxxvill. 37. See Herzog, 
 PRE’? art. Schiauch; Tristram, Wat. Hist. of B. p. 92. 
 
 88. oivoy véov eis doKxols Katvols BAntéov. Here certainly, and 
 perhaps here only in N.T., the difference between véos and kauds 
 must be marked in translation: ‘“ /Vew wine must be put into fresh 
 wine-skins.” While véos is new in reference to “me, “young” as 
 opposed to “aged,” xa.vdés is new in reference to guality, “fresh” 
 as opposed to “worn out.” Trench, Syz. lx.; Crem. Lex. p. 321. 
 But “a fresh heaven and a fresh earth” (2 Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xxi. 1), 
 and still more a “fresh Jerusalem” (Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2), would be 
 intolerable. No English version prior to RV. distinguishes here 
 between véos and xawds; and Vulg. has zovus for both. None 
 translates doxot “skins” or ‘wine-skins,” but either ‘ bottles” 
 (Wic. Cran. Rhem. AV.) or “vessels” (Tyn. Cov. Gen.). The 
 conclusion, kat dudorepor ovvrypodvrat, is an interpolation from Mt. 
 ix. 17 (§BL and Aegyptt. omit). 
 
 89. This third parable is peculiar to Lk. While the first two 
 show how fatal it would be to couple the new spirit of the Gospel 
 with the worn out forms of Judaism, the third shows how natural it 
 is that those who have been brought up under these forms should 
 be unwilling to abandon them for something untried. The con- 
 version of an outcast teAwvys, who has no such prejudices, may be 
 easier than one whose life is bound up in the formalism of the past. 
 Grotius, starting from Ecclus. ix. 13, oivos véos gidos véos: édv 
 radaw6h, per’ eippootvys miecat airov, interprets: Significavit hin 
 
V. 39-VI. 1.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 165 
 
 proverbio Christus homines non subito ad austeriorem vitam pertra- 
 hendos, sed per gradus quosdam assuefaciendos esse; which implies 
 that Christ considered Jewish fasting the more excellent way, up 
 to which His disciples must be gradually educated. Moreover, the 
 subito on which this explanation turns is an interpolation: «iééws 
 is not genuine (8B C!L, Boh. A‘th. Arm. omit). Wetstein quotes 
 a multitude of passages to show that old wine was considered to 
 be superior to new, and concludes; Pharisxorum austeritas com- 
 paratur vino novo, Christi lenitas vino veteri ; which exactly inverts 
 the parable. The comparative merits of the old and the new wine 
 are not touched by the parable, but the /as¢e for them. One who 
 is accustomed to old will not zw7shk for new: it does not attract him 
 by look or fragrance. 
 
 Aéyer yap: ‘O madatds xpyotds éotiv. The reading of A C and Vulg. 
 (xpnorérepos, melzus) is a manifest corruption. The prejudiced person will 
 not even try the new, or admit that it has azy merits. He knows that the old 
 is pleasant, and suits him; and that is enough: he is not going to change. 
 Phariszts doctrina sua antiqua magts erat ad palatum, quam generosa doctrina 
 Jesu, quam wi putabant esse novana (Beng.), and which they would not even 
 taste. Comp. Rom. vii. 6; 2 Cor. iii. 6. If we admit the undoubtedly 
 spurious ev@éws, we have another iambic line in this verse as in ver. 21: miwy 
 mahavov ev0éws Peder véov. The whole verse is omitted in D and in most of 
 the best MSS. of the old Latin; but WH. seem to be alone in placing it in 
 brackets as of doubtful authority. On the three parables see Trench, Studzes 
 in the Gospels, pp. 168-183. 
 
 VI. 1-5. The first Incident on the Sabbath (see Maurice, Zec- 
 tures on St. Luke, p. 823, ed. 1879). The Call of Peter was followed 
 by two healings which provoked opposition to Christ: and now the 
 Call of Levi is followed by two incidents on the sabbath, which 
 lead to similar opposition. Mk. agrees with Lk. in placing these 
 two immediately after the call of Levi; Mt. has them much later 
 (xii. 1-14). On the connexion here see Schanz, ad /oc. 
 
 1. év caBBdtw Seutepompdte. This passage is a well-known 
 crux in textual criticism and exegesis. Is devrepotpdrw part of the 
 true text? Ifso, what does it mean? ‘The two questions to some 
 extent overlap, but it is possible to treat them separately. 
 
 1. The external evidence is very much divided, but the balance is against 
 the words being original.1 The reading is Western and Syrian, and ‘‘has no 
 other clearly pre-Syrian authority than that of Daf” The internal evidence is 
 also divided. On the one hand, ‘‘ The very obscurity of the expression, which 
 does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests strongly to its genuine- 
 ness” (Scriv.), for ‘‘there is no reason which can explain the insertion of this 
 
 lins ACDEHKMRSUVXIAATI most cursives, Vulg. Syr-Harcl. 
 Goth. Arm., Epiph. Chrys. Greg-Naz. Amb. Hieron. and perhaps 
 Clem-Alex. 
 om. © B L six or seven good cursives, Syrr. Boh. Aeth. That evangelistaria 
 omit is not of much moment, as they often omit notes of time. 
 
 
 
166 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL L 
 
 word, while the reason for omitting it is obvious” (Tisch.) On the other hand, 
 ‘“all known cases of probable omission on account of difficulty are limited to 
 single documents or groups of restricted ancestry, bearing no resemblance to the 
 attestation of text in either variety or excellence” (WH.). Moreover, if any 
 sabbath had really borne this strange name, which is introduced without explan- 
 ation as familiar to the readers, it would almost certainly have been found 
 elsewhere, either in LXX, Philo, Josephus, or the Talmud. In the life of 
 Eutychius (512-582) by his chaplain Eustathius devrepompwrn kupiaxy is used of 
 the first Sunday after Easter, but the expression is obviously borrowed from this 
 passage, and throws no light. In the whole of Greek literature, classical, 
 Jewish, or Christian, no such word is found independently of this text. The 
 often quoted devreposexdrn, ‘‘second tenth” (Hieron. ad Zz. xlv. 13), gives no 
 help. The analogy of devrepoyduos, devrepordkos, x.T.d., Suggests the meaning 
 of ‘‘a sabbath which for a second time is first”; that of deuvrepéoxaros, which 
 Heliodorus (afud Soran. Med. vet.) uses for ‘‘ last but one,” suggests the mean- 
 ing ‘‘first but one,” z.e. ‘‘second of two firsts.” But what sense, suitable to 
 the passage, can be obtained from either of these? The more probable conclusion 
 is that the word is spurious. 
 
 How then did it get into the text and becume so widely diffused? The con- 
 jecture of Meyer is reasonable. An early copyist inserted mpwrw to explain év 
 érépw caBBdrw in ver. 6; this was corrected to devrépw because of iv. 31; and 
 the next copyist, not understanding the vorrection, combined the two words. 
 A few MSS. have the reading devrépw mpwrw, among them R (Cod. Nitriensis), 
 a palimpsest of the sixth cent. in the British Museum. See Knight’s Field. 
 
 2. If the word is genuine, what can he its meaning? Jerome put this ques- 
 tion to Gregory Nazianzen, and the latter v/eganter luszt, saying, Docebo te super 
 hac re tn ecclesta (Hieron. £%. lii.). Of the numerous conjectures the following 
 may be mentioned as not altogether incredible. (1) The first sabbath of the 
 second year in a sabbatical cycle of seven years. This theory of Wieseler has 
 won many adherents. (2) The first sabbath in Nisan. The Jewish civil year 
 began in Tisri, while the ecclesiastical year began in Nisan; so that each year 
 there were two first sabbaths, one according to civil, the other according to 
 ecclesiastical reckoning: just as Advent Sunday and the first Sunday in January 
 are each, from different points of view, the first Sunday in the year. It would 
 be possible to call the second of the two ‘‘a second first Sunday.” But would 
 anyone use such language and expect to be understood? (3) The first sabbath 
 of the second month. It is asserted that the story of David obtaining the shew- 
 bread would often be in the lesson for that sabbath. But the lectionary of the 
 synagogues in the time of Christ is unknown. See on iv. 17. For other guesses 
 see Godet, McClellan, and Meyer. Most editors omit or bracket it. Tisch. 
 changed his decision several times, but finally replaced it in his eighth edition. 
 
 StaropeveoOar adtév 81a omopipwv. Excepting Rom. xv. 24, the 
 verb is peculiar to Lk. (xiii. 22, xvili. 36; Acts xvi. 4). In N.T. 
 odpty.os occurs only here and parallels. In Theophr. (Z& P. vi. 5. 4) 
 we have 7) oropipy, sc. yj. In Gen, i. 29 it is applied te tire seed, 
 wavTa xOptTov ordpimov areipov omrépya.; SO that, like ometcerOau, it 
 can be used either of the field or of the seed. 
 
 értAAov of pabyntal adtod Kat yoO.ov tods otdxuvas. For this 
 Mk. has 4p£avto 6d6v roeiy TiAXOvTEs TOUS oTdXvas, Which has been 
 interpreted to mean “ began to make a way by plucking the ears.” 
 But (1) all three imply that Jesus was walking in front of the dis- 
 ciples. What need was there for them to make a way? (2) How 
 would plucking the eavs make a path? (3) In LXX 6d6v qoteiy is 
 
VI. 1-4] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 167 
 
 used for zter facere (Judg. xvii. 8). All three mean that the 
 disciples went along plucking the ears. This was allowed (Deut. 
 Xxili, 25). 
 
 Wdxovtes tats xepotv. This and the riAAovres constituted the 
 offence: it was unnecessary labour on the sabbath. According to 
 Rabbinical notions, it was reaping, thrashing, winnowing, and pre- 
 paring food all at once. Lk. alone mentions the rubbing, and the 
 word Wo xew seems to occur elsewhere only in the medical writer 
 Nicander (Zheriaca, 619). It is from the obsolete ya, a collat. 
 form of yaw. Comp. Hdt. iv. 75. 2. For the action described see 
 Robinson, es. in Pal. i. pp. 493, 499. 
 
 2. tweés Sé€ Tav dapicaiwy, As in ver. 30, they are represented 
 as addressing their question to the disciples. In Mk. ii. 24 and 
 Mt. xii. 2 the charge against the disciples is addressed to Christ, 
 while in Mk. ii. yg and Mt. ix. 11 the charge against Christ is 
 addressed to the disciples. The tots od4BBac.w may mean either 
 “on the sabbath days” (AV. and most English Versions) or “on 
 the sabbath day” (RV.). Although Vulg. has 7” sadbdatis, Wic. 
 has “in the saboth”; Cov. also “upon the sabbath.” See on 
 iv. 31. 
 
 8. o05€ todTo dvéyvwre 6 ewoinoev Aaueid. ‘Have ye not read 
 even this that David did?” Does your knowledge not extend 
 even thus far? RV. follows AV. in translating 0 évofyjoev as if it 
 were the same as the vé éroinoey of Mt. and Mk., “what David 
 did.” 
 
 kat ot pet adtod Sytes. “The young men,” whom David was 
 to meet afterwards. He came to Nob alone (1 Sam. xxi. 1), 
 
 4. cionOev cis tov oixov toi Ocod, ‘This is not stated in O.T., 
 but may be inferred from his being seen by Doeg the Edomite, 
 who was “detained before the Lord”: ze. he was in the tabernacle 
 as a proselyte, perhaps to be purified, or to perform a vow. 
 
 Tols dptods THs mpolecews. Lit. “the loaves of the setting 
 forth.” These were the twelve loaves of wheaten bread placed 
 before the Lord, in the Holy Place every sabbath. The word 
 “shewbread” first appears in Coverdale, probably from Luther’s 
 Schaubrote. Wic. follows the panes propositionis of Vulg. with 
 “looves of proposisiounn,” which is retained in Rhem. Tyn. has 
 “loves of halowed breed.” In O.T. we have also dprou rod 
 mpoowrov, 7.¢. of the presence of God (1 Sam. xxi. 7; Neh. x. 33), 
 Or dprou évesarior (Exod. xxv. 30), Or Gprou Tis mpoapopas (1 Kings 
 vii. 48), Or again of dprot of Siazayrds, ze. “the perpetual loaves” 
 (Num. iv. 7). But the expression used here, Mt. xii. 4 and Mk. 
 ii, 26, occurs Exod. xxxix. 36?, xl. 23; 1 Chron. ix. 32, xxiii, 29: 
 comp. 2 Chron. iv. 19. For the origin of 4 zpoOco.s trav dprwv 
 (Heb. ix. 2) comp. 2 Chron. xiii. 11, xxix. 18. See Edersh. Zhe 
 Temple, pp. 152-157; Herzog, PRE.? art. Schaubrote. 
 
168 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 4-6, 
 
 €dwxev kal Tots pet attov. This also is not stated in 1 Sam. 
 xxi., but it is implied in David’s asking for jive loaves, and in 
 Abimelech’s asking whether the wallets of the young men were 
 Levitically clean. For éfeotw ¢. acc. et inf. see on xx. 22. 
 
 5. Kupids éotiv tod caBBdtou 6 vids tod avOpdrou. In all three 
 accounts Kvpios comes first with emphasis. The Son of Man con- 
 trols the sabbath, not is controlled by it. This does not mean 
 that He abrogates it (Mt. v. 17-20), but that He has power to 
 cancel the literal observance of it in order to perform or permit 
 what is in accordance with its spirit. Mk. gives the additional 
 reason that “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the 
 sabbath,” ¢.e. that it was given to be a blessing, not a burden. 
 Even the Rabbis sometimes saw this; ‘‘The sabbath is handed 
 over to you; not, ye are handed over to the sabbath” (Edersh. 
 L. & T. ii. p. 58). Ritual must give way to charity. The Divine 
 character of the Law is best vindicated by making it lovable; and 
 the Pharisees had made it an iron taskmaster. And, if the sabbath 
 gives way to man, much more to the Son of Man. In Jn. v. 17 
 Christ takes still higher ground. The Father knows no sabbath in 
 working for man’s good, and thy Son has the same right and 
 liberty. For 6 vids tod dvOpdmou see on v. 24. The point here is 
 that Christ as the representative of man defends man’s liberty. 
 
 Cod. D transfers ver. 5 to after ver. 10, and instead of it has the remarkable 
 insertion : 77 atrq Auépa Ocacduerds Twa épyafduevoy TH caBBdrw elev abr‘ 
 GvOpwre, el pev oldas tl morets, waxdpos el’ ef O€ pH oldas, émtkardparos Kal 
 mwapaBdrns el rod vouov. For dvOpwire comp. xii. 14; émixatdparos, Jn. vil. 47 5 
 mapaBdarns vouov, Rom. ii. 25, 27; Jas. ii. 11. It is possible that the tradition 
 here preserved in Cod. D is the source from which both S. Paul and S. James 
 derive the phrase rapaBdrns véuov. In Rom. ii., where it occurs twice, we have 
 the address dv@pwme twice (vv. 1, 3). There is nothing incredible in Christ’s 
 having seen a man working (not necessarily in public) on the sabbath. The 
 words attributed to Christ are so unlike the undignified, silly, and even immoral 
 inventions in the apocryphal gospels that we may believe that this traditional 
 story is true, although it is no part of the Canonical Gospels. D has other con- 
 siderable insertions Mt. xx. 28 and Jn. vi. 56. See A. Resch, 4Agrapha 
 Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente (Leipzig, 1889) pp. 36, 189. 
 
 6-11. The Second Incident on the Sabbath. Mt. xii. 9 would 
 lead us to suppose that it was the same sabbath (peraPas éxetOev 
 7Abev). Lk. definitely states that it was év érépw caBBdrw, but not 
 that itwas “on the very next sabbath following.” He alone 
 mentions that Jesus taught in the synagogue on this occasion, and 
 that the withered hand that was healed was the right one. 
 
 6. ’Eyévero 52 . . . elondOciv airiv . . . kali... xalfv. Thesame 
 Hebraistic constr. as in ver. I, somewhat modified in accordance with classical 
 usage: see note at the end of ch. i. We have éypol at the Pool of Bethesda 
 (Jn. v. 3); but outside N.T. the word seems to mean, when applied to the 
 human body, either “not wet” or “lean.” 
 
VL 7-9.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 169 
 
 7. mapetnpoovto Sé abtév of ypappatets kat ot Gapicato. Lk. 
 alone tells us who the spies were. Mt. puts their inquisitiveness 
 into words, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” The verb 
 signifies “watch narrowly,” esp. with sinister intent, perhaps from 
 looking sideways out of the corner of one’s eyes, ex obliguo et 
 occulto. As in Gal. iv. 10, the mid. gives the idea of interested 
 observance. Mk. has zaperjpovy: comp. xx. 20; Sus. 12, 15, 16; 
 Polyb. xvii. 3. 2; Aris. Pet. ii. 6. 20; Top. viii. 11. 1. 
 
 ei év TG caBBdtw Oepameder. The present has reference to His 
 habitual practice, of which His conduct on this occasion would be 
 evidence. But 8B with other authorities read Gepavevoe, which 
 is probably genuine in Mk. iii. 2, and may be genuine here. The 
 future would limit the question to the case before them 
 
 tva eUpwow Katnyopetv attéy. According to what is probably the 
 invariable rule in N.T. we have the subj. in spite of the past tense on 
 which the final clause is dependent. The opt. for this purpose is obsolete ; 
 for yvot (Mk. ix. 30) and similar forms are probably meant to be subj. 
 Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 107. 
 
 8. adrds Sé 7Set Tods Siadoyicpods adtay. ‘ But He,” in contrast 
 to these spies (v. 16, viii. 37, 54) “knew their thoughts.” For 
 Stahoytopds Comp. ii. 35, V. 22, ix. 46, xxiv. 38. It commonly 
 means intellectual and inward questioning rather than actual dis- 
 puting: but see on v. 22 and comp. 1 Tim. ii. 8. 
 
 TO dvdpt TH Enpdv Exovte thy xelpa. “To the man who had 
 Ais hand withered,” not “who had the withered hand.” For dvdpt 
 comp. v. 12: Mt. and Mk. have av@parrw. 
 
 "Eyeipe kal oO eis TO pécov. Lk. alone preserves this. 
 Christ’s method is as open as that of His adversaries is secret. 
 ‘“s Arise and stand zz/o the midst” ; z.e. “Come into the midst and 
 stand there”: comp. xi. 7; Acts vill. 40. Win. 1. 4. b, p. 516. 
 In what follows note Lk.’s favourite dvag7vds (i. 39), which neither 
 Mt. nor Mk. has here. 
 
 None of them records any words of the man ; but Jerome in commenting on 
 Mt. xii. 13 states, 2 evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionite ... home 
 zste guz aridam habet manum cemmentarius scribitur, istiusmodt vocibus 
 auxtilium precans, Cementarius eram, manibus victum queritans : precor te, 
 Jesu, ut mihé restitues sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos. See on xviii. 25. 
 
 9. “Emepwrjcw ipas, et. He answers the questioning in their 
 hearts by a direct question which puts the matter in the true light. 
 To refuse to do good is to do evil; and it could not be right to do 
 evil on the sabbath. 
 
 The reading of TR., émepwrijow tuas rt, is wrong in both variations; and 
 has the disadvantage of being ambiguous, for 7: may be indefinite or intere 
 rogative. ‘TI will ask you something, Is it lawful?” etc. Or, “I will ask 
 you what is lawful,” etc. 
 
170 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 9-11. 
 
 Wuxhvy cdoat % dmokéoor. It was a principle of the Rabbinists 
 that periculum vite pellit sabbatum; but the life must be that of a 
 Jew. This canon was liberally interpreted ; so that a large number 
 of diseases might be attended t» on the sabbath, as being 
 dangerous. These modifications of the rigid rule were based on 
 the principle that it was lawful to do good and avert evil on the 
 sabbath ; and to this Jesus appeals. If the Pharisees said, “ This 
 man’s life is not in danger,” the answer would have been easy, 
 “You do not know that, any more than in the cases always 
 allowed.” The addition of 9 drodéca: has special point, for this 
 was what these objectors were doing. ‘They did not consider that 
 they were breaking the sabbath in plotting to destroy Jesus on 
 this day (ver. 7). Were they to be allowed to destroy, while He 
 was forbidden to save? 
 
 10. mepiBdepdpevos mdvtas adtots. Mk. adds, still more 
 graphically, per’ dpyns, ovAAvTovpevos ert TH Twpwce THS Kapdias 
 aitév: but rdvras is peculiar to Lk. See on vii. 35 and ix. 43. 
 Mt. omits the whole of this, but inserts the case of the sheep 
 fallen into a pit. Lk. has a similar question about an ass or ox 
 fallen into a well, which was asked on another occasion (xiv. 5). 
 
 "Extewov Thy xelpd cou. As His challenge to His enemies 
 remained unanswered, He now makes trial of the man. The 
 attempt to obey this command was evidence of his faith. 
 
 With the double augment in darexareord0n comp. émpotragta, émpoeprjrevor, 
 éxaTeckevacar, ésuveuapripovr, npepiorat, which occur in various writers. 
 Exod. iv. 7, dmexazéorn; Jer. xxiii. 8, dmexaréorncev; Ign. Smyr. xi., 
 dmexateoTd0n. Win. xii. 7. a, p. 84. 
 
 Cod. D here inserts ver. 5. 
 
 11. avolas. The phrensy or loss of reason which is caused by extreme 
 excitement ; dementia rather than zwszpzentia (Vulg.) or amentia (Beza). 
 Plato distinguishes two kinds of avo, 7d pev pavlay, 7d 8 dpablay (Zem. 
 86 B). It is the former which is intended here. Elsewhere 2 Tim. iii. 9; 
 Prov. xxii. 15 ; Eccl. xi. 10; Wisd. xv. 18, xix. 3; 2 Mac. iv. 6, etc. 
 
 ti av momoaev. “What they should do,” if they did any- 
 thing. In Lk. the opt. is still freq. in indirect questions: see on 
 ili. 15. Mk. says that the Pharisees forthwith took counsel with the 
 Herodians how they might destroy Him (droAécwow). They 
 would be glad of the assistance of the court party to accomplish 
 this end. With their help Antipas might be induced to treat 
 Jesus as he had treated the Baptist. Lk. nowhere mentions the 
 Herodians. 
 
 The Acolic form rovjceay is not found in the best MSS. here, In Acta 
 xvii. 27 Wnagyjoeay is probably genuine. 
 
VI. 12, 13.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 171 
 
 VI. 12-VII1. 56. From the Nomination of the Twelve to their 
 First Mission. 
 
 In proportion as the work of Christ progresses the opposition 
 between Him and the supporters of moribund Judaism is in- 
 tensified. . 
 
 12-16. The Nomination of the Twelve. Common to all 
 three: comp. Mk. iii. 13-19; Mt. x. 2-4. JL’élection des Douse est 
 le premier acte organisateur accompli par Jésus-Christ. Sauf les 
 sacrements, Cest le seul. Car Cétait ce college, une fois constitué, qui 
 devait un jour faire le reste (Godet). 
 
 12. év tais *pépats tr. See on i, 39. This expression, like 
 éyévero and 7 with the participle, are characteristic of Lk., and are 
 not found in the parallels in Mt. and Mk. For the constr. comp. 
 ov. 1 and 6; for mpocedgéac8a. see Introd. § 6. The momentous 
 crisis of choosing the Twelve is at hand, and this vigil is the pre- 
 paration for it. 
 
 Stavuxtepevov. Here only in N.T., but not rare elsewhere; Job ii. 9 
 (where LXX has much which is not in the extant Heb.); Jos. Am#. vi. 
 
 13.9; B. /. i. 29. 2; Xen. Hellen. v. 4. 3. The analytical tense emphasizes 
 the long continuance ‘of the prayer. 
 
 TH] Tpocevxf Tod Geos. The phrase occurs nowhere else. It 
 means prayer which has God for its object: comp. GjAos @eod 
 (Rom. x. 2); 6 &HAos Tod olkov cov (Jn. ii. 17) ; riots *Inood (Gal. 
 ili, 22), Win. xxx. 1. a, p. 231.1 That apocevyy here means an 
 oratory or place of prayer is incredible: see on Acts xvi. 13. 
 Lightfoot says that some Rabbis taught that God prays: “ Let it 
 be My will that My mercy overcome My wrath.” But such trifling 
 has no place here. 
 
 13. éyéveto ijpépa. The phrase is freq. in Lk. (iv. 42, xxii. 66; 
 Acts xii. 18, XVI. 35, XXill. 12, xxvii. 29, 33, 39).—mpooepdynger. 
 “Called to Him, summoned. » This is the more correct use of 
 the word. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “ address, call to” 3 and, 
 excepting Mt. xi. 16, it is used only by Lk. (vii. 32, xiii, 12, 
 XXili. 20; Acts xxi. 40, xxil. 2).—rols pafytds. These are the 
 larger circle of disciples, out of whom He selected the Twelve. 
 Comp. Jn. vi. 70; Mt. xix. 28; Rev. xxi. 14. That either the 
 larger circle or the Twelve had spent the night with Him is neither 
 stated nor implied. 
 
 éxdeEdpevos. This implies the telling over (Aéyev) in preference 
 to others (éx) for one’s own advantage (mid.), The word is fatal 
 
 } Green compares én’ etceBelg cod (Jos. Anz. ii. 8, 1) and mpds Ixerelay Tod 
 
 Geod (ii. 9. 3): and, for the art. before mpocevyq ‘‘as an abstract or general 
 term,” Mt. xxi. 22; Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. vii. 5 (Gram. of N.T. p. 87). 
 
172 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL 18, 14. 
 
 to Lange’s theory that Judas was forced upon our Lord by the 
 importunity of the other Apostles (Z. of C. ii. p. 179). 
 
 ols Kal dmoctédous avépacev. Not at the time possibly, but 
 afterwards. The xai marks the naming as a separate act from the 
 election. The word dméctodos is used only once each by Mt. 
 (x. 2), Mk. (vi. 30), and Jn. (xiii. 16); by Lk. six times in the 
 Gospel (ix. fo, xi. 49, XVil. 5, Xxli. 14, xxiv. 10) and often in the 
 Acts. In the Gospels the Twelve are generally cad/ed the Twelve. 
 The word occurs once in LXX, éya cius ddareAos rpds oe oKAypos 
 (x Kings xiv. 6); and once in N.T. it is used of Christ (Heb. iii. 1). 
 See Lft. Galatians, pp. 92-101, 6th ed.; D.Z.? art. “ Apostle” ; 
 Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch. ii, 111 ff.; Sanday on Rom. i. 1. 
 The theory that Lk. writes in order to depreciate the Twelve, does 
 not harmonize with the solemn importance which he assigns to 
 their election. And criticism is out of harmony with itself, when 
 it adopts this theory, and then suggests that Lk. has invented this 
 early election. See on xxii. 45. 
 
 14-16. In construction the twelve names are in apposition to daocréXovs, 
 and the narrative is not resumed until ver. 17. The four lists of the Apostles 
 eh ed in the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts agree in two main features. 
 
 The names are arranged in three groups of four. 2. The same Apostles, 
 Peter, Philip, and James of Alphzeus, stand first in each group. Only in respect 
 of one name is there material difference between the lists. In the third group 
 Lk. both here and Acts i. 13 has Judas of James; for whom Mt. (x. 3) and 
 Mk. (iii. 18) have Thaddzeus or Lebbzeus. In both places Thaddzeus is proh- 
 ably correct, Lebbzeus being due to an attempt to include Levi among the 
 Apostles. Levi = Lebi or Lebbi, the Greek form of which might be LeS8atos, 
 as Qaddaios of Thaddi. Some MSS. read LeSatos, which is still closer to Levi. 
 See WH. ii. App. pp. 12, 24. The identification of Thaddzeus with Judas of 
 James solves the difficulty, and there is nothing against it excepting lack of direct 
 evidence. No pairing of the Apostles is manifest in this list as in that of Mt. 
 If the xal after Qwudy be omitted, there is a break between the second and third 
 group; but otherwise the list is a simple string of names. In the first six 
 names Lk. agrees with the first three pairs of Mt. In the other six he places 
 Matthew before Thomas (while Mt. places himself last in his group) and Simon 
 Zelotes before Judas of James. 
 
 14. Xipeva dv kai dvopacev Métpov. The similarity to the pre- 
 ceding clause is marked. This certainly does not mean that Simon 
 received the name of Peter on this occasion, and there is nothing 
 to show that the Twelve received the name of Apostles on this 
 occasion. But it should be noticed that henceforth Lk. always 
 speaks of him as Peter (vill. 45, 51, ix. 20, 28, 32, 33, xii. 41, etc.) 
 and not as Simon. In xxii. 31 and xxiv. 34 Lk. is quoting the 
 words of others. Hitherto he has called him Simon (iv. 38, v. 3, 
 4, 5, 10) and once Simon Peter (v. 8), but never Peter. In the 
 Acts he is never called Simon without the addition of the surname. 
 The usage with regard to the names Saul and Paul is very similar. 
 See papers by Dean Chadwick on “The Group of the Apostles” 
 
VI. 14, 15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 173 
 
 and on “Peter” in Expositor, 3rd series, vol. ix. pp. 100-114, 
 187-199, 1889; also Schanz, ad Joc. p. 216. 
 
 *Avdpéav. Only in his lists of the Apostles does Lk. mention 
 Andrew. Mt. mentions him on one other occasion, and Mk. on 
 three others (Mt. iv. 18; Mk. i. 16, 29, xiii. 3). Nearly all that we 
 know about him comes from Jn. (i. 41, 45, vi. 8, xii. 22). Although 
 one of the earliest disciples, he does not become one of the chosen 
 three, although Mk. xiii. 3 seems to indicate special intimacy. For 
 legends respecting him see Lipsius, Apokryphen Afostelgeschichten 
 u. Apostellegenden, i. pp. 543-622 ; Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, 
 
 - 17; 34- 
 
 4 *IdkwBov Kat "lwdvyv. This is their order according to age, and 
 it is observed in all three Gospels ; in Acts i. 13 John precedes 
 James. The fact that James was the first of the Twelve to be put 
 to death is evidence that he was regarded as specially influential. 
 James and John were probably first cousins of the Lord; for, 
 according to the best interpretation of Jn. xix. 25, their mother 
 Salome was the sister of the Virgin Mary. That the title of 
 Boanerges was given to them “at the time of the appointment of 
 the Twelve” (D.B.? i. p. 1509) is a baseless hypothesis. See 
 Trench, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 138-146 ; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. 
 Bpovryn. For legends see D.B.*i. p. 1511; Lipsius, iii. pp. 201-228, 
 i. pp. 348-542. 
 
 ¢ihurmov. All that we know of Him comes from Jn. (i. 44-49, 
 vi. 5-7, xii. 21, 22, xiv. 8,9). There seems to have been some 
 connexion between him and Andrew (Jn. i. 44, xii. 22); and both 
 in Mk. iii. 18 and Acts i. 13 their names are placed together in the 
 lists; but the nature of the connexion is unknown. §Lipsius, 
 ill. pp. I-53. 
 
 BapPodopatov. The ancient and common identification with 
 Nathanael is probable, but by no means certain. 1. As Bar-tholomew 
 is only a patronymic, “son of Talmai,” the bearer of it would be 
 likely to have another name. 2. The Synoptists do not mention 
 Nathanael ; Jn. does not mention Bartholomew. 3. The Synoptists 
 place Bartholomew next to Philip, and Philip brought Nathanael to 
 Christ. 4. The companions of Nathanael who are named Jn. xxi. 2 
 are all of them Apostles. Lipsius, iii. pp. 54-108. 
 
 15. MaO@atov kat Owpav. In all three these names are com- 
 bined ; but Mt. reverses the order, and after his own name adds 
 6 teAdvys, which is found in none of the other lists. All that we 
 know of Thomas is told us by Jn. (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29, xxi. 2). 
 Lipsius, ili. pp. 109-141, 1. pp. 225-347. 
 
 *IdkwBov “AXpaiou. His father is probably not the father of Levi 
 (Mk. ii. 14), and James himself is certainly not the brother of the 
 Lord (Mt. xiii. 55 ; Mk. vi. 3; Gal. i. 19) who was the first over- 
 seer of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13; Gal. ii. 9, 12° 
 
174 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 15, 16. 
 
 The brethren of the Lord did not believe on Him at this time 
 (Jn. vii. 5), and none of them can have been among the Twelve. 
 But the Apostle James the son of Alpheus is probably identical 
 with James the Little (Mt. xxvii. 56; Mk. xv. 40; Jn. xix. 25), for 
 Alphzus and Clopas may be two different Greek forms of the 
 Aramaic Chalpai; but this is uncertain. See Mayor, Z/. of 
 S. James, pp. i-xlvi; also Exfositors Bible, S. James and S. Jude, 
 pp. 25-30 (Hodder, 1891). Inall the catalogues James of Alphzeus 
 heads the third group of Apostles. Lipsius, ili. 229-238. 
 
 Tov Kadoupevov Lydwmy.! Lk. has this in both his lists, while 
 Mt. and Mk. have 6 Kavavatos, which in sédme authorities has 
 been corrupted into Kavavirys. Neither of these forms can mean 
 “Canaanite,” for which the Greek is Kavavaios (Mt. xv. 22 and 
 LXX), nor yet “of Cana,” for which the Greek would be Kavaios. 
 Kavavaios is the Aramaic Kazan in a Greek form (on the analogy 
 of Papicaios from Pharish and *Acowdatos from Chasid) and = 
 fnrwrys. Lipsius, iii. pp. 142-200. See on i. 36. 
 
 Rhem. leaves the word untranslated, Cananzus, and Wic. makes it unintel- 
 ligible, ‘‘Canane.” All the other English Versions make it a local adj., ‘‘ of 
 Cana,” or “‘ of Cane,” or ‘Sof Canan,” or ‘‘of Canaan,” or ‘‘ the Canaanite.” 
 The last error seems to begin with Cranmer in 1539. RV. is the first-to make 
 clear that ‘‘ Kananzean” means ‘‘ Zealot.” Lft. On Reviston, pp. 138, 139 
 (154, 155, 2nd ed.) ; Fritzsche on Mt. x. 4. The Zealots date from the time of 
 the Maccabees as a class who attempted to force upon others their own rigorous 
 interpretations of the Law. S. Paul speaks of himself as wepiooorépws (mdwrijs 
 birdpxwy Tov TaTpiKGv pou mapadécewv (Gal. i. 14), 2.¢ he belonged to the 
 extreme party of the Pharisees (Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5; Phil. ii. 5, 6). 
 Large numbers of this party were among the first converts at Jerusalem (Acts 
 xxi. 20). From these extremists had sprung the revolt under Judas of Galilee 
 (Acts. v. 37; Jos. Azz, xviii. I. I, 6), and the Szcarzz, who were the proximate 
 cause of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jos. 2. J. iv. 3. 9, 5. I, 7. 2, vil. 8. I, 
 10. I, 11. 1). Milman, Aést. of the Jews, ii. pp. 191, 291, 299, 323, 4th ed. 
 1866; Ewald, Hzst. of Israel, vii. 559 ff., Eng. tr.; Herzog, PREZ.? art. 
 ‘«Zeloten.” Whether the Apostle Simon was called {mAwryjs because he had 
 once belonged to this party, or because of his personal character either before or 
 after his call, must remain uncertain, 
 
 16. *lovSav *laxéBov. That there were two Apostles of the 
 name of Judas is clear from Jn. xiv. 22, although Mt. and Mk. 
 mention only one; and the identification of their Thaddzeus with 
 the Judas not Iscariot of Jn. and with this Judas of James makes 
 all run smoothly. “Iovdas “Iaxwfov must be rendered “ Judas the 
 son of James,” not “ the dzother of James,” for which there is no 
 justification. When Lk. means “brother” he inserts ddeXdds 
 (iii. 1, vi. 14 Acts xii. 2). Nonnus in his Paraphrase (MeraBodn) 
 of Jn. xiv. 22 has ‘Iovdas vids "IaxwBouo, “Iovdas adeAdds "lax Bou 
 (Jude 1) is quite a different person, viz. the brother of James the 
 
 1 This use of kaXovpmevos is very common in Lk, (vii. 11, viii. 2, ix. 10, x. 
 39, xxi. 37, xxii. 3, xxiii. 33), and still more so in Acts. Not in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 
 
VI. 16, 17.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 175 
 
 Lord’s brother. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. rightly supply “sonne” 
 here, and Luth. also has sow. The error begins with Beza’s 
 Jratrem, Of this James, the father of Judas Thaddeus, nothing 
 is known. Lk. adds the name of the father, because his arrange- 
 ment places this Judas next to the traitor. 
 
 ‘loxapid9. This epithet probably means “man of Kerioth,” 
 which was a place in Judah (Josh. xv. 25), or possibly in Moab 
 (Jer. xlviii. 24). Jn. vi. 71 confirms this; for there and Jn. 
 xill. 26 the true reading gives “Judas son of Simon Iscariot” ; 
 and if the name is a local epithet, both father and son would be 
 likely to have it. Im this case Judas was the only Apostle who 
 was rot a Galilean, and this may have helped to isolate him. 
 Other derivations of “Iscariot,” which connect the word with 
 “lying,” or “strangling,” or “apron,” ze. bag, or “ date-trees ” 
 (kapwwrides), are much less probable. We know nothing about 
 Simon Iscariot. Farrar identifies him with Simon Zelotes, which 
 is most improbable. Simon was one of the commonest of names. 
 The MSS. vary between “Ioxapiw6, which is right here, and Ioxapu- 
 tns, which is right xxii. 3. Here only is mpodétys used of Judas: 
 it occurs in the plur. Acts vii. 52; 2 Tim. iii. 4; and in the sing. 
 2 Mac. v. 15, x. 13. All English Versions go wrong about éyéverto 
 mpoddtns. Nowhere in Scripture is Judas styled “ ze traitor,” and 
 éyévero should be distinguished from jv: therefore, not “was the 
 traitor,” but “‘decame a traitor,” as the American Revisers pro- 
 posed. Judas “turned traitor.” The difficulty about the call of 
 Judas is parallel to the powers bestowed upon a Napoleon. The 
 treason of Judas shows that no position in the Church, however 
 exalted, gives security against the most complete fall. 
 
 The verb used of the treachery of Judas is never oda but sapade- 
 Odvac (xxii. 4, 6, 21, 22, 48; Mt. x. 4; Mk. iii. 19; Jn. vi. 64, 71). In 
 class. Grk. mpodrdbvae commonly has this meaning; aapadcddvac rarely. 
 Here the Lat. texts vary between Zrvodztor (Vulg.) and ¢radztor (c f ff, r) and 
 qui tradidit eum or tllum (d e). 
 
 17-19. The Descent from the Mountain, and many Miracles 
 of Healing. The parallel passages in Mk. iii. 7-12 and Mt. iv. 24, 
 25 are very different from Lk. and from one another in wording. 
 
 17. émt té7ov medwod. This way mean a level spot below the 
 summit; but in connexion with xaraBds, and without qualification, 
 it more naturally means level ground near the foot of the mountain. 
 Hither it would be more likely that multitudes would come and 
 bring their sick, than to a plateau high up the mountain. 
 
 The Latin texts vary: 1% loco campestri (Vulg.), in loco campense (a), in I. 
 plano (f) in J. pedeplano (1.). 
 
 koi OvAcy WOAUS pulyvov word, Not a nom. pendens, bat 
 
176 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 17-19. 
 
 included in the preceding éory: comp. the constr. viii, 1-3. He 
 stood, and they stood. But the éo7ry is no evidence as to Christ’s 
 attitude during the discourse, because the healings intervene: 
 iv. 20 shows that Lk. is aware of Christ’s sitting to preach. 
 
 kat 790s Todd Tod Aaod, k.7.A. This is a third group. Christ 
 and the Twelve form one group. The multitude of disciples in 
 the wider sense form a second. And besides these there is a 
 mixed throng from Judza and the sea-coast : see on xi. 29. 
 
 laOfjvat aad. The prep. is not classical ; but we say “‘to be cured from” 
 (Mk. v. 29). In the perf., 1 aor. and 1 fut. pass. the dep. idowat is pass. in 
 meaning (vii. 7, vill. 47, xvii. 15; Acts iii. 11). Except in Lk., the verb is 
 rare in N.T. writers.—There should be at least a colon at trav vécwv airav : 
 here the long sentence which began at ver. 13 ends. 
 
 18, 19. For similarly condensed accounts of groups of miracles 
 comp. iv. 40, V. 15, vii. 21. We once more have an amphibolous 
 expression: see on li. 22. Here amd mveupdtov dxaQdptwv may be 
 taken either with évoxAovmevor or with eOcparevovro. From ver. 17 
 and vii. 21 we infer that the latter constr. is right: “They that 
 were troubled with them were healed of unclean spirits.” But in 
 the other cases the gen. with dé follows the verb; so that 
 évoxAovpevor ard may be right. The “and” before “ were healed” 
 in AV. is from a corrupt reading: not only Wic. and Rhem. with 
 Vulg., but also Cov., omit the “and.” For mveupdtav dxatdptav 
 see on iv. 33. Note ras and wdvras here and zdo7ns in ver. 17. 
 They are not found in Mk. iii. 7, ro: see on ver. 30. With map 
 attod é&jpxeto comp. Jn. xvi. 27. Lk. commonly writes ef€pyo- 
 pat aad: see small print on iv. 35, and comp. vili. 46, which 
 illustrates darecOat, Svvopus, and é&ypxero. For Stvapis and idto 
 see on iv. 36. 
 
 20-49. The Sermon ézi tézov zedivod. 
 
 To call it *‘ the Sermon on the Plain,” following the AV. in ver. 17, is con- 
 venient, but scarcely justifiable. ‘‘The plain” has not been mentioned, and 
 70 medlov does not occur in N.T. Moreover, it is by no means certain that this 
 téros meduvés was at the foot of the mount. And to talk of ‘‘ the Sermon on 
 the Plain” assumes, what cannot be proved, that the discourse here recorded is 
 entirely distinct from ‘‘the Sermon on the Mount” (Mt. v. I-vii. 29). The 
 relations between the two discourses will never cease to be discussed, because 
 the materials are insufficient for a final decision. The following are the chicf 
 hypotheses which have been suggested in order to explain the marked similari- 
 ties and differences. 1. They are reports, at first or second hand, of tw 
 similar but different discourses, distinct in time, place, and circumstance (Auger, 
 Greswell, Osiander, Patritius, Plumptre, Sadler ; so also in the main Barradius, 
 Basil, Doddridge, Toletus, Tostatus). 2. They are reports of two different 
 discourses delivered on the same day, Mt. giving the esoteric address to the 
 disciples on the mountain, Lk. the exoteric address to the mixed multitude 
 below (Augustine, Lange). 3. They are recensions, with interpolations and 
 omissions, of two independent reports of one and the same sermon (Schleier- 
 macher). 4. They are recensions of the same report, to which Mt. adds 
 
VI. 20-49.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 177 
 
 material from other sources, and from which Lk. perhaps omits portions (B. 
 Weiss). 5. Mt. gives a conflate arrangement of sayings which were uttered on 
 various occasions, and some of these occasions are given by Lk. (Bleek, Calvin, 
 Godet, Holtzmann, Keim, Kuinoel, Neander, Pott, Semler, Weizsacker, 
 Wieseler). 6. Both sermons are a conglomeration of detached sayings collected 
 into an anthology of aphorisms (Strauss, and to some extent Baur). Besides 
 the writers mentioned above under the last four heads, a multitude of commen- 
 tators adopt the view that the main portions of the reports given by Mt. and Lk, 
 represent one and the same discourse (Bengel, Bucer, Calovius, Caspari, 
 Chemnitz, Chrysostom, De Wette, Ebrard, Edersheim, Ellicott, Ewald, Farrar, 
 Fritzsche, Grotius, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Lewin, Luther, McClellan, Meyer, 
 Milman, Olshausen, Oosterzee, Origen, Robinson, Schanz, Schneckenburger, 
 Sieffert, Stroud, Tholuck, Tischendorf, Wordsworth). 
 
 Bad or inadequate arguments are used on both sides. It is a great deal too 
 much to say with Schleiermacher that the fact that the portions common to both 
 appear in the same order, with the same beginning and end, “‘ proves zncontro- 
 vertibly the identity of the discourse.” Any preacher repeating a carefully 
 prepared sermon would begin and end in the same way, and would put 
 his points in the same order. And it is mere dogmatism without argument ~ 
 when Sadler asserts that ‘‘the Lord wzzss¢ have pronounced each [beatitude] 
 which St. Matthew records, and yet it is equally plain that He cou/d hardly 
 have pronounced them according to St. Luke’s form. He would not have 
 said, Blessed are ye meek ones, Blessed are ye merciful ones, Blessed are 
 ye peacemakers. The four given by St. Luke are the only ones which coudd 
 well have been pronounced personally on the disciples ; so that the beatitudes 
 as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke respectively, cow/d not have been altered 
 forms of the same discourse.” Much more reasonable is the position of Grotius, 
 who believes that both record the same sermon: szcut factt narrationes circum- 
 stantiis congruentes non temere ad res diversas referendex sunt, ita sermones nihil 
 vetat sepius habitos cosdem aut similes, presertim continentes vite totius pre- 
 cepta, que non potuerunt nimium sepe repett (on Lk. vi. 17). We know 
 beyond all question that some of our Lord’s words were uttered several times, 
 and there is nothing antecedently improbable in the hypothesis that the words 
 of this discourse, gua non potuerunt nimium sepe repete, were delivered in one 
 or other of these forms more than once. Nor does it follow that those portions 
 which Lk. gives as having been uttered on other occasions were not also uttered 
 as parts of a continuous discourse. A preacher naturally repeats fragments of 
 his own sermons in giving catechetical instruction, and also gathers up detached 
 items of instruction when composing a sermon. The fact that Lk. meant to 
 record these other occasions may have been part of his reason for omitting the 
 similar words in this discourse. Another consideration which may have deter- 
 mined his selection is the thought of what would best suit Gentile readers. But 
 in any case the dictum of Grotius must be remembered, that the hypothesis of 
 a repetition of verbally similar sayings may be used with much more freedom 
 than the hypothesis of a repetition of circumstantially similar acts. 
 
 The conclusion arrived at by Sanday and P. Ewald is of this kind. The 
 beatitudes originally stood in the Zogza in a form similar to that in Mt. v. 3-12. 
 Lk. used the Zogza, but had also a document entirely independent of the Zagza ; 
 and this contained a discourse, spoken originally on some other occasion, but 
 yet so like the Sermon on the Mount as to be identified with it by Lk. The 
 sermon in Luke is, therefore, a compound of the reports of two similar but 
 different discourses ; and in this compound the elements derived from the Zogza 
 are dominated by those derived from the independent document (Zxfosztor for 
 April 1891, p. 315). It seems, however, simpler to suppose that Lk. took the 
 whole of his report from the document which contained this very similar, but 
 different sermon. See Paul Feine, Ueber das gegenseit. Verhdltniss d. Texte der 
 Bergpredigt bez Matthdus und Lukas in the Jahrb. fiir Protest. Theologze, xi. 1. 
 
 12 
 
178 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE  [VI. 20-49, 
 The following tables will show the parallels between the two Evangelists :— 
 
 BETWEEN THE Two SERMONS, 
 
 Lk, vi. 20, 21, » Mtv.3,.4,6. -Lic vi3768i, o Me iwitox,f2: 
 22523. rein, 1 415:420) ae 3-5. 
 27-30. : 39-42. 43-46 . - 16-21. 
 
 Shia. vii. 12. 47-49. 
 
 24-27. 
 
 BETWEEN DETACHED SAYINGS IN LK. AND THB 
 SERMON IN MT, 
 
 Lk. xiv. 34, 35 . Mt v.13. Lk. xi. 34-36. . Mt. vi, 22-23. 
 viii. 16 and xi, 33. . XVI Sie . 24. 
 Xvi. 17 » ° I xii, 22-31 . . 25-34. 
 xii, 58,59. 6 25, 26. xi, 9-135 vii, 7-11. 
 XV1. 15 « e 32. xi. 24 . . 13. 
 xi, 2-4. 800 vi, 9-13. 25-27 . . 22, 23. 
 
 mi. 33,342 19, 21. 
 
 BETWEEN THE SERMON IN LK. AND DETACHED 
 SAYINGS IN MT. 
 
 Lk, vi. 39 6 s Mt, xv. 14. Lk. vi. 40 e e Mt. x. 24. 
 
 This last saying was frequently uttered. It is recorded twice by Jn. (xiii. 16, 
 xv. 20), and the four records seem to refer to four different occasions ; besides 
 which we have a similar utterance Lk. xxii. 27. 
 
 These tables leave three verses of the sermon in Lk. without a parallel in 
 Mt. (or any other Gospel), viz. the four woes corresponding to the four beati- 
 tudes, vv. 24-26. The portions of the sermon in Mt. which have no parallel in 
 Lk. amount to forty-one verses, viz. Mt. v. 5, 7-10, 14, 16, 17, 19-24, 27-31, 
 33-38, 43, vi. 1-8, 14-18, vii. 6, 14, 15. 
 
 The plan of both discourses is the same. 1. The qualifications of those who 
 can enter the kingdom (Lk. 20-26; Mt. v. 1-12); 2. The duties of those who 
 have entered the kingdom (Lk. 27-45; Mt. v. 13-vii. 12); 3. The judgments 
 which await the members of the kingdom (Lk. 46-49; Mt. vii. 13-27). En- 
 couragement, requirement, warning ; or invitation, principles, sanction ;—these 
 are the three gradations which may be traced in these discourses ; and, as Stier 
 remarks, the course of all preaching is herein reflected. 
 
 ‘There is considerable unanimity as to the spot where the sermon was 
 delivered (Stanley, Sz & Pal. pp. 368, 369; Caspari, Chron. and Geograph. 
 Int, to the L. of C. § 108, p. 171; Robinson, Pal. ii. 370, iii. pp. 241, 4853 
 Farrar, Z. of C. i. p. 250, and on Lk, vi. 12; Keim, /es. of az. ii. p. 280). 
 On the other hand, Edersheim asserts that ‘‘ the locality is for many reasons 
 unsuitable”; but he gives no reasons (Z. & 7. i. p. 5243; see also Thomson, 
 Land and Book, ii. p. 118). 
 
 20-26. The Qualifications necessary for Admission to the 
 Kingdom: the Happiness of those who possess them (20-23), and 
 the Misery of those who possess them not (24-26). This contrast 
 of Blessings and Woes at the beginning of the sermon corresponds 
 with the contrast in the parable with which it ends. 
 
VI. 20.] 
 
 THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 
 
 179 
 
 THE BEATITUDES COMMON TO MT. AND LK. WITH THE CORRESPONDING 
 
 Makdpros 
 
 1. of rrwxol 7H rveb- 
 part, ort avrav cor 7 
 Bacirela Tov otpavar. 
 
 2. ol mevOodvres, Sre 
 atrol Tapak\nOjoovrat. © 
 
 4. ob mewavres Kal dup- 
 Gyres Thy Sixarocvyny, bre 
 avrol xopracOyjcovTat. 
 
 8. éore bray dvetdlowow 
 tuds Kal didtwow Kal 
 elmwow mav Tovnpoy Kab’ 
 tpav wevddpevor Evexev 
 émov" 
 
 xalpere kal dyadNaobe, 
 Sri 6 pucOds buav odds 
 év Tots ovpavots: otrws yap 
 edlwkav ods mpodijras 
 rods mpd Duar. 
 
 Woks IN LK, 
 
 Maxdpros 
 
 I. of mrwxol, bre dbue- 
 tépa dor % Baotdela Tob 
 Oecd. 
 
 3. of kAalovres viv, Ore 
 yehdoere. 
 
 2. of mewavres viv, ort 
 XopracOjcecbe. 
 
 4. éore Bray puojowow 
 buds ol dvOpwirot, kal brap 
 dgoplowow buds Kal dveu- 
 dlowow Kar exBadwow 7d 
 bvoua nav ws Trovnpov 
 Evexa Tod vlod rod dvOpiw- 
 mou: xdpyre év éxelvy TH 
 mwepe Kat TKLPTHTATE, dod 
 "yap o pac Bos bpay TONDS 
 éy T@ ovpavg@ kata Ta 
 atra yap érolovy Tots mpo- 
 giyrats ol marépes avraov. 
 
 Odal 
 
 I. buty rots rrovalas, 
 Bru dawéyere Thy mapd- 
 KAjow dpov. 
 
 3. ol yeh@vres viv, Sri 
 mevOnoere kal KAavoere. 
 
 2. vpiv, ol éumemAno- 
 pévot viv, Ort mewdeoere. 
 
 4. Bray Kaas dpas et- 
 mwow waves ol dvOpwirot, 
 kaTa Ta ara yap éxolou 
 Tois wWevdompogiyras ol 
 matépes alrav. 
 
 VI. 20-23. Four Beatitudes; which correspond to the first, 
 second, fourth, and eighth in Mt. v. 3-12; those relating to the 
 meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers being 
 omitted. In the four that Lk. gives the more spiritual words which 
 occur in Mt. are omitted, and the blessings are assigned to more 
 external conditions. Actual poverty, sorrow, and hunger are 
 declared to be blessed (as being opportunities for the exercise of 
 internal virtues); and this doctrine is emphasized by the corre- 
 sponding Woes pronounced upon wealth, jollity, and fulness of 
 bread (as being sources of temptation). It is in the last Beatitude 
 that there is least difference between the two. Even in Lk. 
 unpopularity is not declared to be blessed, unless it is “for the 
 Son of Man’s sake”; and there is no Woe pronounced upon 
 popularity for the Son of Man’s sake. 
 
 20. Kat adtés émdpas tods dpbahpods attod eis tols padnrds. 
 Lk.’s favourite mode of connexion in narrative : see on v. 14 and 
 comp. viii. 1, 22, ix. 51, etc. With émdpas 7. 69. comp. xviii. 13 
 and Jn. xvii. 1. We must not take «is with <Aeyev; Lk. would 
 have written zpds, and after eye: contrast adi, 65 and Mk. 
 iil. 29. Mt. has tpoojAGav aire ot pabyraiavrod, Kal... edidacKey 
 aitovs. The discourse in doth cases is addressed to the disciples ; 
 there is nothing to indicate that the discourse zz Z&. is addressed 
 to mixed multitudes, including unbelieving Jews and heathen, 
 These Beatitudes would not be true, if addressed to them. It is to 
 the faithful Christian that poverty, hunger, sorrow, and unpopularity 
 
180 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 20, 21. 
 
 are real blessings; to others they may be mere sterile suffering. 
 Whereas, even for the heathen, to be poor zz spzrz¢ and to hunger 
 and thirst after righteousness are blessed things. In Mt. the 
 Beatitudes are in the third person and have a wider sweep. 
 
 paxdptot ot. This is the common constr. both in LXX and N.T., the 
 reason for the blessedness being expressed by a noun or participle which is the 
 subject of the sentence (Ps. ii. 12, xl. 5, xli. 2, Ixxxiv. 5, 6, 13, Ixxxix. 16, 
 etc.); but the reason is sometimes expressed by the relative with a finite verb 
 (Ps. i, I, xxxii. I, 2; Lk. xiv. 153 Jas. i. 12), or by Gre (xiv. 14; 1 Pet. 
 iv. 14), or by édv (Jn. xiii, 17; 1 Cor. vii. 40). 
 
 oi mrwxot. See on iv. 18. We have no right to supply 7@ 
 mvevuatt from Mt. It is actual poverty that is here meant. Nor 
 is it the meaning that actual poverty makes men “poor in spirit.” 
 Still less does it mean that in itself poverty is to all men a blessing. 
 There is no Ebionite doctrine here. But “to you, My disciples, 
 poverty is a blessing, because it preserves you in your dependence 
 on God, and helps you to be truly His subjects”: 76 yap twerépa 
 deuxtix@s pds wapovtas éAéyero (Eus.) Some of these disciples had 
 made themselves poor by surrendering all in order to follow Christ. 
 Gomp: "Ps. lxodi. 12, 33. 
 
 Spetépa éotiv 4 Baoidtela. ‘Yours zs the kingdom,” not “ will 
 be.” It is not a promise, as in the next Beatitudes, but the state- 
 ment of a fact. But the Kingdom is not yet theirs in its fulness ; 
 and those elements which are not yet possessed are promised in 
 the Beatitudes which follow. 
 
 21. of mewdvtes viv. “Those of you who are suffering from 
 actual want in this life. Ye shall have compensation.” 
 
 exoptacOncecGe. Originally the verb was confined to supplying 
 animals with fodder (xépros), and if used of men implied a brutish 
 kind of feeding (Plato, Ref. ix. p. 586). But in N.T. it is never 
 used of cattle, and when it is used of men it has no degrading asso- 
 ciations (ix. 17; Jn. vi. 26; Phil. iv. 12; Jas. ii, 16); not even 
 xv. 16, if the word is genuine there, nor xvi. 21. Comp. tovs 
 mTTwXovs adits xoptdow aptwy (Ps. cxxxii. 15). In LXX xoprdlo 
 and ziuaAnpu are used to translate the same Hebrew word, some- 
 times in the same verse: dru éydpracey Wuxnv Kevyv, Kat Woxyv 
 mewooav évérdyncev ayabdv (Ps. cvii. 9). Here the filling refers to 
 the spiritual abundance in the Kingdom of God. Jn all four cases, 
 although the suffering endured is external and literal, yet the com- 
 pensating blessing is spiritual. 
 
 ot KkAatovtes viv. Mt. has zevOotvres, which expresses the 
 mourning, while «Aaiovres implies outward manifestation of grief in 
 loud weeping, just as yeAdoere implied outward expression of mirth 
 in laughter. Though common in LXX, yeAdo occurs in N.T, only 
 here and ver. 20, 
 
VI. 22, 23.] | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 181 
 
 22. ddopicwow Spas. ‘ Mark you off from (dé) by a boundary 
 (Gpos).” It is used both in a good sense (Acts xiii. 2; Rom. i. 1; 
 Gal. i. 15) and also in a bad, as here. Comp. xai p’ ard yas dpice 
 (Eur. Hee. 940). Excommunication from the congregation as well 
 as from social intercourse is here meant. The usual sentence was 
 for thirty days, during which the excommunicated might not come 
 within four cubits of any one. Comp. Jn. ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2. 
 Whether there was at this time a more severe form of excommunica- 
 tion is uncertain. Herzog, PREZ.? art. Bann bei den Hebriern ; 
 Grotius on Lk. vi. 22; Lightfoot, Hor. Hed. on Jn. ix. 22. 
 
 éveiSicowo.v. The object to be supplied may be either the preceding 
 buds (so most English Versions) or the following 76 dvoua duady (Bede, Weiss). 
 Vulg. supplies nothing ; and Tyn. and Gen. have simply ‘‘and rayle” with- 
 out an object. Neither AV. nor RV. has ‘you ” in italics. 
 
 éxBddwow 7d dvoua Spay as tovnpéy. ‘Throw your name con- 
 temptuously away, reject it with ignominy, as an evil thing.” 
 There is no idea of striking a name off the list as a mark of dis- 
 grace, ex albo expungere, a meaning which é«@dAXew never has. 
 It is used of hissing an actor off the stage and otherwise dismissing 
 with contempt (Aristoph. Z£g. 525; WVud. 1477; Soph. O. C. 631, 
 636; O. Z. 849; Plato, C7zto, 46 B). ‘Your name” means “the 
 name by which you are known as My disciples,” as Christians. 
 “‘ Christian” or ‘“‘ Nazarene” was a name of bad repute, which it 
 was disgraceful, and even unlawful, to bear, for Christianity was 
 not a veligio licita. For wovnpov as an epithet of évoua comp. Deut. 
 Xxll. 19. 
 
 évexa Tod uiod Tod dvOpdmov. A vital qualification. The hatred 
 and contempt must be undeserved, and be endured for Christ’s 
 sake ; not merited by one’s own misconduct. 
 
 28. oxipmoate. Peculiar to Lk. See on i. 41 and comp. 
 Mal. iv. 2. 
 
 kata TA adTa yap émoiouv Tois mpopytats. This implies that they 
 are to receive “‘a prophet’s reward” (Mt. x. 41), as in this world, so 
 in the next. 
 
 For the dat. comp. trois pucotcw dpas (ver. 27). In class. Gk. we should 
 have had 1a atta érolouv rods rpod. Thus, éya dé raira Toiroy érolnca adv 
 dixy (Hadt. i. 115. 3, iv. 166. 3: comp. Aristoph. Wud. 259; Vesp. 697). In 
 later Gk, the dat. of relation becomes much more common, 
 
 oi watépes attay. The gen. refers to of dv@pwro in ver. 22; 
 “the father of them” whe hate and abuse you. 
 
 24-26. Four Woes corresponding to the four Beatitudes 
 There is no evidence that these were not part of the original dis- 
 course. Assuming that Mt. and Lk. report the same discourse, 
 Mt. may have omitted them. But they may have been spoken on 
 some other occasion. Schleiermacher and Weiss would have it 
 
182 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VL 24, 25. 
 
 that they are mere glosses added by Lk. to emphasize and explain 
 the preceding blessings. Cheyne thinks that some of them were 
 suggested to Lk. by Is. lxv. 13-16. We have no right to assume 
 that no persons were present to whom these words would be 
 applicable. Even if there were none present, yet these Woes 
 might have been uttered as warnings both to those who heard 
 them and to others who would learn them from those who heard. 
 Just as the Beatitudes express the qualifications of those who are 
 to enter the Kingdom, so these show the qualities which exclude 
 men from it. It is possible that some of the spies and adversaries 
 from Judzea were among the audience, and thus Jesus warns them 
 of their condition. When the discourse as placed by Mt. was 
 spoken there was less opposition to Christ, and hence no Woes 
 (Pastor Pastorum, p. 256). 
 
 24, whyv. Curtius makes rAjv an adverbial form of méov, so that its 
 radical meaning would be ‘‘ more than, beyond” (Gr. Ztym. 282); but Lft. 
 (Phil. iii. 16) connects it with zéAas, in the meaning “‘ besides, apart from 
 this, only.” For the accusatival form comp. dlxnv, éxlkdny, clam, coram. It 
 sometimes restricts, sometimes expands, what precedes. It is a favourite 
 word with Lk., in the Gospel as an adv. (ver. 35, x. II, 14, 20, xi. 41, xii. 31, 
 xili. 33, xvii. I, xviii. 8, xix. 27, xxii. 21, 22, 42, xxiii. 28), in the Acts as a 
 prep. (viii. I, xv. 28, xxvii. 22). ‘* But” “is the only possible rendering here. 
 
 ovat butv tots mAovotors. As a matter of fact the opponents of 
 Christ came mostly from the wealthy classes, like the oppressors of 
 the first Christians (Jas. v. 1-6). See Renan, L’Antechrist, p. xii; 
 Ewald, Hist. of [srael, ii. p. 451. But the cases of Nicodemus and 
 Joseph of Arimathea show that the rich as such were not excluded 
 from the kingdom.—éméxete. ‘Ye have to the full”; so that 
 there is nothing more left to have. The poor consolation derived 
 from the riches in which they trusted is all that they get: they 
 have no treasure in heaven. Comp. Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16; Philem. 15 ; 
 and see Lft. on Phil. iv. 18. This meaning is classical: comp. 
 drodapBavw, drepyafopat, For wapdk\now see on ii. 25, and comp. 
 xvi. 25 of Lazarus. 
 
 25. of éumemAnopévor viv. “Sated with the good things of this 
 life, ” like Dives (Ezek. xvi. 49). Grotius compares the epitaph, 
 téao éxw Goo émiov Kat édyrva. It may be doubted whether the 
 change of word from xopralecOa (ver. 21) indicates that horum 
 plenitudo non meretur nomen satietatis (Beng.): comp. 1. 53. In 
 Lat. Vet. and Vulg. we have saturor both here and ver. 21. 
 
 mewdoete, This received a partial and literal fulfilment when 
 Jerusalem was reduced to starvation in the siege: but the reference 
 is rather to the loss of the spiritual food of the Kingdom. Comp. 
 Is. lxv. 13. Hillel said, ‘“‘The more flesh one hath the more 
 worms, the more treasures the more care, the more maids the more 
 unchastity, the more men-servants the more theft. The more law 
 
VI. 25-27.) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 183 
 
 the more life, the more schools the more wisdom, the more counsel 
 the more insight, the more righteousness the more peace.” 
 
 ot yeAGvtes viv. “Who laugh for joy over your present pro- 
 sperity,” the loss of which will surely come and cause grief. But 
 the worst loss will be that of spiritual joy hereafter (Is. Ixv. 14). 
 
 26. Stay kahds einwow Spas. It is the wealthy who are com- 
 monly admired and praised by all who hope to win their favour. 
 The praise of worldly men is no guarantee of merit: rather it shows 
 that those who have won it do not rise above the world’s standard 
 (Jn. xv. 19; Jas. iv. 4). Plutarch says that Phocion, when his 
 speech was received with universal applause, asked his friends 
 whether he had inadvertently said anything wrong. 
 
 ois eudoTpopytats. Just as the persecuted disciples are the 
 representatives of the true Prophets, so the wealthy hierarchy 
 whom all men flatter are the representatives of the false (Jer. 
 Vv. 31; comp. xxiii. 17; Is. xxx. 10; Mic. ii. 11). 
 
 Having stated who can and who cannot enter the Kingdom, 
 Jesus goes on to make known the principles which regulate the 
 Kingdom. 
 
 27-45. Requirement: the Duties to be performed by those 
 who are admitted to the Kingdom of God. This forms the main 
 body of the discourse. Lk. omits the greater portion of what is 
 reported in Mt. respecting Christ’s relation to the Mosaic Law 
 (v. 17-19), and His condemnation of existing methods of interpret- 
 ing it (v. 20-48) and of fulfilling it (vi. 1-18). This discussion of 
 Judaic principles and - practices would not have much meaning for 
 Lk.’s Gentile readers. The portion of it which he gives is stated 
 without reference to Judaism. The main point in Mt. is the 
 contrast between legal righteousness and true righteousness. In 
 Lk. the main point is that true righteousness is love; but the 
 opposition between formalism and the spirit of love is not urged. 
 The opposition which is here marked is the more universal 
 opposition between the spirit of selfishness and the spirit of love. 
 There is a break in this main portion, which Lk. marks by making 
 a fresh start, Eirey 8¢ xal zapaB8odjv atrois, but the second half 
 (39-45) continues the subject of the working of the principie of 
 love. 
 
 27. *A\Ad. What is the contrast which this dAAd marks? The 
 emphatic position of the tuiv seems to show that the contrast is 
 between those on whom the Woes have been pronounced and the 
 faithful hearers now addressed. Others interpret, “ But, although 
 
184 | THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL 27, 28. 
 
 I have denounced them, I do not allow you to hate them: you 
 must love them.” There is, however, no indication that the 
 enemies who are to be loved are the wealthy who have just been 
 denounced, and such a limitation of the meaning of enemies 
 cannot be justified: comp. Mt. v. 44. 
 
 tots dkovoucw. ‘Who give ear and obey,” tots zevfomevois 
 (Euthym.). It is unnatural to take it literally as meaning “ My 
 audience,” in contrast to the rich who have just been addressed zw 
 their absence. Representatives of the rich may have been present 
 among the audience. Schanz interprets “who listen with attention.” 
 
 There is on the whole a double climax in what follows,—the worse the 
 treatment received, the better the return made; but it is not quite exact. One 
 would expect that dyamare would be coupled with tos pucofvras. This is the 
 first time that Lk. uses the word dyamgv, which sums up the whole spirit of the 
 Gospel: it is most frequent in the writings of Jn. ‘‘It should never be 
 forgotten that dydz7y is a word born within the bosom of revealed religion: it 
 occurs in the Septuagint ; but there is no example of its use in any heathen 
 writer whatever” (Trench, Syz. xii.). This is not true of dyamgy and dyamd- 
 few, which are common in class. Grk. But Christianity has ennobled the 
 meaning of both dyamgv and guAeiv, with their cognates : épgv, which is scarcely 
 capable of such advancement, does not occur in N.T. See on xi. 42, the only 
 place where dyd2ry occurs in Lk. 
 
 tovs éx@povs. For the combination with rots pucodow comp. 
 i. 71; Ps. xviii. 18, cvi. 10; and for the fourfold description of 
 enmity comp. ver. 22. In Mt. v. 44 we have only enemies and 
 persecutors according to the best texts; and as xaAds zrotetre Tovs 
 pwc. twas (note the acc.) is not genuine there, this is the only 
 passage in which xadds rovetyv= “benefit, do good Zo”: comp. 
 Kadds eizeiy (ver. 26), and contrast Mt. xii. 12; Mk. vii. 37; Acts 
 %. 33; 1 Cor. vil. 37, 38; Phil. iv. 143 Jas. ii. G)eeeeaee 
 i. 19; 3 Jn. 6.—1tois picodow. For the dat. comp. tots tpopyrats 
 (ver. 23) and rots Wevdorpodyrais (ver. 26). See the expansion of 
 this principle Rom. xii. 17-21; 1 Thes. v. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 9. 
 Comp. Exod. xxiii. 4; Job xxxi. 29; Prov. xvii. 5, xxiv. 17, 
 xxv. 21. See detached note on she relation of Rom. xii.-xiv. to the 
 Gospels at the end of Rom. xiii. 
 
 28. eddoyeite Tots Katapwpevous Suds. In class. Grk. edAoyetv 
 means “praise, honour,” whether gods or men: comp. i. 64, ii. 28 ; 
 Jas. iii. 9. The meaning “invoke blessings upon” is confined to 
 LXX and N.T. (Gen. xiv. 19, xxii. 17, xlviii.g; Rom. xii. 14; 
 Acts iii. 26). 
 
 In class, Grk, xarapac@at is followed by a dat. (Hom. Hdt. Xen. Dem.)- 
 as in Ep. Jer. 65: but in N.T. by an acc. (Mk. ix. 21; Jas. iii. 9); and the 
 interpolation Mt. v. 44.—For mpocetxec0e mepl we might have expected mp. 
 barép, and the MSS. here and elsewhere are divided between vép and mepl 
 (Gal. i. 4; Col. i. 3; Rom. i. 8). But comp. Acts viii, 15; Heb, xiii. 18; 
 Col. iv. 3. Win. xlvii. 1. 2, p. 478 
 
VI. 28-30.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 185 
 
 tov émnpealdvtay Spas. Aristotle defines érypeacpes as éyuzro- 
 diapos tais Bovryceow, ody iva te abTG, GAN tva pH exeivw (Rhet. 
 ii, 2. 3). It is “spiteful treatment.” 
 
 29, 30. Whereas vv. 27, 28 refer to the active dydan which returns good 
 for evil, these refer rather to the passive waxpoOuula, which never retaliates. 
 The four precepts here given are startling. - It is impossible for either govern- 
 ments or individuals to keep them. A State which endeavoured to shape its 
 policy in exact accordance with them would soon cease to exist; and if 
 individuals acted in strict obedience to them society would be reduced to 
 anarchy. Violence, robbery, and shameless exaction would be supreme. The 
 inference is that they are not precepts, but illustrations of principles. They are 
 in the form of rules; but as they cazzot be kept as rules, we are compelled to 
 look beyond the letter to the spirit which they embody. If Christ had given 
 precepts which could be kept literally, we might easily have rested content with 
 observing the letter, and have never penetrated to the spirit. What is the spirit? 
 Among other things this :—that resistance of evil and refusal to part with our 
 property must never be a Zersonal matter: so far as we are concerned we must 
 be willing to suffer still more and to surrender still more. It is right to with- 
 stand and cven to punish those who injure us: but in order to correct them and 
 protect society ; not because of any personal anzmus. It is right also to with- 
 ho'd o7r possessions from those who without good reason ask for them; but in 
 or@er to check idleness and effrontery ; not because we are too fond of our 
 possessions to part with them. So far as our personal feeling goes, we ought to 
 be ready to offer the other cheek, and to give, without desire of recovery, 
 whatever is demanded or taken from us. Love knows no limits but those 
 which love itself imposes. When love resists or refuses, it is because com- 
 pliance would be a violation of love, not because it would involve loss or 
 suffering. 
 
 29. 14 téntovti oe emt Thy craydva. A violent blow with the 
 fist seems to be meant rather than a contemptuous slap, for 
 c.ayév means “jaw-bone” (Judg. xv. 15, 16; Ezek. xxix. 14; 
 Mic. v. 4; Hos. xi. 4). In what follows also it is an act of 
 violence that is meant; for in that case the upper and more 
 valuable garment (iudriov) would be taken first. In Mt. v. 40 the 
 spoiler adopts a legal method of spoliation (xp:@jvar), and takes 
 the under and less indispensable garment (xiréva) first. See on 
 ili. 11 and comp. Jn. xix. 23. 
 
 Here only do we find témrev émi c. dat. In class, Grk. ¢. gen., ¢.2. 
 éml xéppns TimTev or maTtdccev (Plato, Gorg. 486 C, 508 D, 527 A). Some- 
 times we have els (Mt. xxvii. 30), which some MSS. read here and xwiii. 13. 
 Comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5. So also xwvew dxé is not common. Comp. od 
 
 Bh Kwdtoe 7d pynuciov atrod amd cob (Gen. xxii. 6) and dméd cod Kwhiwy 
 (Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 11, iii. 3. 51). The more usual constr. both in N.T. and 
 class. Grk. is either acc. and inf, (xxii. 2; Acts xvi. 6, xxiv. 23) or acc. of 
 pers. and gen. of thing (Acts xxvii. 43). Note that alpew does not mean 
 simply ‘‘ take, ” which is AauSdvew, but either “take up” (v. 24, ix. 23) or 
 “take away ” (xix. 24, xxiii. 18). 
 
 80. ravti aitoiyti ce Si80v. There is no zayré in Mt. v. 42, 
 and this is one of many passages which illustrate Lk.’s fondness 
 
 for was (ver. 17, Vil. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4). The zav7i has been 
 differently understood. ‘No one is to be excluded, not even 
 
186 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VL 30, 81. 
 
 one’s enemies ” (Meyer, Weiss). Omni petenti te tribue, non omnia 
 petenti ; ut id des, quod dare honeste et juste potes (Aug.). Neither 
 remark is quite right. Our being able to give juste e¢ toneste 
 depends not only on what is asked, but upon who asks it. Some 
 things must not be conceded to any one. Others ought to be 
 given to some petitioners, but not to all. In every case, however, 
 we ought to be wzddimg to part with what may be lawfully given 
 to any. The wish to keep what we have got is not the right motive 
 for refusing. 
 
 Sidou, Kal dad Tod aipovtos TA od py dmaiter. The pres. in all 
 three cases implies continual action, making a practice of it. 
 ‘Continually give, and from him who continues to take away thy 
 goods do not continue to ask them again.” For aipey in the sense 
 of “‘take as one’s own, appropriate,” comp. xi. 52, xix. 21; Mk. 
 xv. 24. It does not imply that violence is used. But the py 
 amaire. implies that hitherto asking them back has been usual. 
 The verb dzairety is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xii. 20: comp. Wisd. 
 xv. 8; Ecclus. xx. 15; Hdt.i. 3. 2). Prof. Marshall thinks that 
 we have here another instance of different translation of the same 
 Aramaic, and that Lk.’s aipovros and Mt.’s dave(oacGar may repre- 
 sent the same word ; also Lk.’s darairee and Mt.’s droortpagyjs. See 
 on vy. 21 and villi. 15. 
 
 31. Kal KaOas Oédkere. The xai introduces the general principle 
 which covers all these cases: “and in short, in a word.” How 
 would one wish to be treated oneself if one was an aggressor? 
 How ought one to wish to be treated? But obviously the principle 
 covers.a great deal more than the treatment of aggressors and 
 mnemies. In Tobit iv. 15 we have, “Do that to no man which 
 thou hatest” ; but this purely negative precept, which was common 
 with the Rabbis, falls immeasurably short of the positive command 
 of Christ. Isocrates has @ wdacxovres id’ Erépwv dpyilerbe, tatra 
 tois GAXots py) Toveire, and the Stoics said, Quod tibi fieri non vis, 
 alteri ne feceris; and the same is found in Buddhism. In the 
 Avdaxy, i. 2, and Agost. Const. vii. 2. 1, we have both the positive 
 and the negative form. Cod. D, Iren. (iii. 12. 14), Cypr. (Zest. 
 iii. 119) and other authorities insert the negative form Acts xv. 29. 
 How inadequate the so-called Rabbinical parallels to the Sermon 
 on the Mount are, as collected by Wiinsche and others, has been 
 shown by Edersheim (Z. & 7. i. p. 531). Note the xaGus, “even 
 as, precisely as”: the conformity is to be exact. For @ékew tva 
 comp. Mt. vii. 12; Mk. vi. 25, ix. 30, x. 35; Jn. xvii. 24, and see 
 on iv. 3. The xat tyeis before zovetre is omitted by B and some 
 Latin texts. ‘Do likewise” occurs only here, ili. rz, and x. 37. 
 
 32-35. Interested affection is of little account: Christian love 
 is of necessity disinterested ; unlike human love, it embraces what 
 is repulsive and repellent. 
 
VI. 82-35.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 187 
 
 82. mola Gpiv xdpis. “What kind of thank, or favour, have 
 you?” This may be understood either of the gratitude of the 
 persons loved or of the favour of God. The latter is better, and is 
 more clearly expressed by riva puoOdv éxere; (Mt. v. 46). Other- 
 wise there does not seem to be much point in oi duaprwAoi. For 
 xdpis of Divine favour comp. i. 30, ii. 40, 52; Acts vil. 46. 
 
 kal yap. ‘‘For even”; xam etcam. Comp. Mt. viii. 9; Mk. vii. 28, 
 X. 45; Jn. iv. 45; 1 Cor. xii. 14; and see Ellicott on 2 Thes. iii, 10; Meyer 
 on 2 Cor, xiii. 4. 
 
 83. Here only is aya@omovetv found with an acc. after it. It does not 
 occur in profane writers, and elsewhere in N.T. is absolute: vv. 9, 35; Mk. 
 iii, 4; 1 Pet. ii, 15, 20, iii. 6,17; 3 Jn. 11. But in 1 Pet. and 3 Jn. it is 
 used of doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong, whereas in 
 Lk. and Mt. it is used, as in LXX, of helping others as opposed to harm- 
 ing them: Num. x. 32; Jud. xvii. 13 (Cod. B dyaOuvet); Zeph. i. 12. 
 Hatch, Bz6/. Grk. p. 7; but see Lft. on Clem. Rom. Cov. ii. p. 17. 
 
 For dpaptwdot Mt. has in the one case reA@vor and in the 
 other é6vuxoi. Of course both “publicans” and “heathen” are 
 here used in a moral sense, because of their usual bad character ; 
 and Weiss confidently asserts that Lk. is here interpreting, while 
 Mt. gives the actual words used. But it is possible that Mt. 
 writing as a Jew, has given the classes who to Jews were sinners 
 kat’ efoxyv instead of the general term. 
 
 84. This third illustration has no parallel in Mt., but see Mt. 
 v. 42; and comp. Prov. xix. 17. 
 
 Savlonre. The texts are divided between this form, davelonre, davelfnre, 
 and davelfere. In N.T. davlfw is to be preferred to davelfw, which is the 
 class. form. The verb means to ‘“‘lend upon zéerest,” whereas klxpyue 
 indicates a friendly loan; and therefore 7&4 toa would include both interest 
 
 and principal, 
 
 GmokdBwouw. “Receive as their due, receive Jack,” or perhaps 
 “receive zz full” ; comp. dzréxw in ver. 24, and see Lft. on Gal. iv. 
 5; also Ellicott and Meyer. The phrase dod. ta toa need not 
 mean more than “‘receive equivalent services,” but more probably 
 it refers to repayment in full: comp. épaviw and avrepavilw. 
 
 85. m\yv. See on ver. 24. ‘ Suz, when this kind of interested 
 affection has been rejected as worthless, what must be aimed at is 
 this.” Note the pres. imperat. throughout: “ Hadztually love, do 
 good, and lend”; also that Christ does not change the word 
 davi¢ere, nor intimate that it does not here have its usual meaning 
 of lending on interest. 
 
 pydev daedmilovres. The meaning of this famous saying de- 
 pends partly upon the reading, whether we read pyde or pydéva,! 
 
 1 The external evidence stands thus— 
 For pndév dn. ABLRXT Aete., Latt. Syr-Harcl.? Boh. 
 For pydéva da. N= II*; Syrr. Tisch. is almost alone among recent 
 editors in preferring wydéva ; WH. and RV. place in the margin. 
 
188 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VL 35. 
 
 but mainly upon the interpretation of deAmi{ovres. All English 
 Versions previous to RV. adopt the common view that dzeAz. 
 means “hoping for in return,” a meaning which is without example, 
 but which is supposed to be justified by the context, or rather by 
 the corrupted context. Thus Field argues: “No doubt this use of 
 the word is nowhere else to be met with; but the context is here 
 too strong for philological guzbd/es (!). ‘If ye lend to them zap’ év 
 “EATIIZETE *AIIO\aBeiv, what thank have ye?’ Then follows the 
 precept: ‘ Lend pndev “AITEATIIZONTES,’ which can by no possi- 
 bility bear any other meaning than pydev eAmilovres aroAaPetv ” 
 (Otium JNorv. ili. p. 40). The argument would be precarious, even 
 if the facts were as stated ; but the true reading is wap dy éAmi€ere 
 AaBety (8 BL, Justin), and therefore the whole falls to the ground. 
 The usual meaning of dveArilw, “I give up in despair,” makes 
 excellent sense ; either “despairing of nothing,” or “ despairing of 
 no one” (uydéva). “ Despairing of nothing” or “ never despairing ” 
 may mean either “never doubting that God will requite you,” or 
 “never despairing about your money.” The latter meaning is 
 almost identical with “ despairing of no one,” ze. “never doubting 
 that your creditor will pay.” But it has been suggested that pydeva 
 may be eut. plur., on the authority of Steph. Zzesaur. v. col. 962 
 [iii. col. 3645]. If this were correct, the two readings would have 
 the same meaning. On the authority of a single passage in the 
 Anthologia Palatina (ii. 114, p. 325, Brunck), Liddle and Scott 
 give dveAri~w a transitive meaning, “causing to despair”; but 
 there aAAov dmedzifwv (of an astrologer who said that a person had 
 only nine months to live) may mean “giving him up in despair”: 
 comp. Polyb. ii. 54. 7. Therefore we may safely abandon the 
 common interpretation and render “giving up nothing in despair” 
 or ‘never despairing.” Comp. émi didov éav ordons poudatay, py 
 dreArions (Ecclus. xxii. 21); 6 O& daoxadtwas puorypia aaydmie 
 (xxvii. 21); Ta Kat airdv arndricas (2 Mac. ix. 18), of Antiochus 
 when stricken with an incurable disease. Galen often uses the 
 verb of desperate cases in medicine; see Hobart, p. 118, and Wetst.! 
 D and many early Latin texts have #zhz/ desperantes. See the valuable 
 
 note in Wordsworth’s Vulgate, p. 344. But he thinks it Zosszb/e that Lk. 
 
 may have written dae\mlfew for éAmlfev dad on the analogy of drec@leap for 
 éoOlew dé and dmodaBelv for AaBety ad, 
 
 
 
 1 What mischief the common interpretation (sanctioned by the Vulgate, mzhz? 
 tnde sperantes) has wrought in Europe is strikingly shown by Dollinger (Aéa- 
 demische Vortrage, i. pp. 223 ff. ; Studzes in European History, pp. 224 ff.) 
 On the strength of it Popes and councils have repeatedly condemned the taking 
 of any interest whatever for loans. As loans could not be had without interest, 
 and Christians were forbidden to take it, money-lending passed into the hands 
 of the Jews, and added greatly to the unnatural detestation in which Jews were 
 held. The paradox that Christians may not take interest has been revived by 
 Ruskin. 
 
VI. 35-38.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 189 
 
 cece viol “Yicrov. In Mt. v. 9 peacemakers are called viot 
 @cov. The moral likeness proves the parentage. Just as in 2. 
 32, 33 Lk. has the generic duaprwAot where Mt. has the specific 
 TeAX@vat and éOvixol, so here we have “‘ zs £imd towards the unthank- 
 ful and evil” instead of ‘“‘ maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the 
 good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Mt. v. 45). 
 For ‘YWiorov comp. i. 32, 35, 76. 
 
 36, 37. A further development of the principle of Christian 
 love. Having told His disciples to cherish no personal animus 
 against those who injure them, He now warns them against judging 
 others respecting any supposed misconduct. To pose as a general 
 censor morum is unchristian. Censoriousness is a transgression of 
 the royal law of love, and an invasion of the Divine prerogatives. 
 Not only vengeance but judgment belongs to God. And judgment, 
 when it is inevitable, must be charitable (aoAvere), directed by a 
 desire to acquit rather than to condemn. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4; 
 Jas. iv. 11, 12. Hillel said, “ Judge not thy neighbour until thou 
 comest ines his place” (Ewald, Ast. of Israel, vi. p. 27). See on 
 ver. 31. 
 
 The loose citations of these two verses by Clement of Rome (i. 13. 2) and 
 Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 18, p. 476, ed. Potter) are interesting. th 
 have the words as xpyorevecbe, obrws xpyorevOjcerat duty immediately before 
 @ pérpw, K.T.A. They represent ylvecGe olxripuoves in Lk., for which Justin 
 has yiveoOe 5& xpyorol Kal oixripyoves (Try. xcvi.; Apol. i. 15). Comp. Clem. 
 Hom. iii. 57. It is probable that Clem. Alex. here quotes Clem. Rom. uncon- 
 sciously. 
 
 88. The transition is easy from charity in judging others to 
 benevolence in general. Comp. ver. 30 and iii. 11. God remains 
 in debt to no man. “He giveth not by measure” (Jn. iii. 34), 
 nor does He recompense by measure, unless man serves Him by 
 measure. Disciples who serve in the spmit_of love make no 
 such calculations, and are amply repaid. We are here assured of 
 this fact in an accumulation of metaphors, which form a climax. 
 They are evidently taken from the measuring of corn, and Bengel 
 is clearly wrong in interpreting izepexyvyvopevor of fluids: eis tov 
 koAzrov is conclusive. The asyndeton is impressive. 
 
 The form dzepexxuvyduevoy seems to occur nowhere else, excepting as 
 v./, Joel ii. 24. The class. form is trepexxéw. 
 
 Sdcoucw eis Tov KéATTOv Gudv. Who shall give? Not the persons 
 benefited, but the instruments of Gfd’s bounty. The verb is 
 almost impersonal, “there shall b¢ given,” do06joera. Comp. 
 airovow (xii. 20) and airjoovow (xii. 48). The xddmos is the fold 
 formed by a loose garment overhanging a girdle. This was often 
 used as a pocket (Exod. iv. 6; Prov. vi. 27; and esp. Ps. Ixxix. 
 12; Is. Ixv. 6; Jer. xxxii. 18). Camp. Hdt. vi. 125. 5; Liv. xxi. 
 18. 10; Hor. Sav. ii. 3. 172, and other illustrations in Wetst. 
 
190 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI. 88-40. 
 
 & yap pétpw petpetre. There is no inconsistency, as Weiss 
 states (stimmt immer nicht recht), with what precedes; but he is 
 right in condemning such interpretations as 76 air pérpw, ov pyv 
 tocovTw (Theophyl.) and eadem mensura in genere sed exuberans 
 (Grot.) as evasions. The loving spirit uses no measure in its services; 
 and then God uses no measure in requiting. But the niggardly and 
 grudging servant, who tries to do just the minimum, receives just 
 the minimum in return. In Mk. iv. 24, 25 we have this saying 
 with a different application. 
 
 89. The second half of the discourse begins here, and this is 
 marked by a repetition of the introductory Eimev. The connexion 
 with what precedes perhaps is, that, before judging others, we must 
 judge ourselves ; otherwise we shall be blind leaders of the blind. 
 This saying occurs in quite another connexion Mt. xv. 14. It 
 may easily have been uttered several times, and it is a common- 
 place in literature. We are thus shown the manifold application 
 of Christ’s sayings, and the versatility of truth. See Wetst. on Mt. 
 xv. 14. With the exception of Mk. xii. 12, the phrase etwev tapa- 
 Bodyy is peculiar to Lk. (xii. 16, xv. 3, xviii. 9, xix. II, xX. 19, 
 xxi. 29). 
 
 eis Bd0uvov. “Into a pit” rather than “into the ditch,” which 
 all English Versions prior to RV. have both here and Mt. xv. 14. 
 In Mt. xii. 11 nearly all have “a pit.” The word is a doublet of 
 Bo@pos, puteus, and is perhaps connected with Babs. Palestine is 
 full of such things, open wells without walls, unfenced quarries, 
 and the like. For éd7yetv comp. Acts viii. 31; Jn. xvi. 13; Ps. 
 XMiv.. 5, Ixxxv. 11, Cxviil. 35; Wisd,-ix. 11, X. 17 
 
 40. This again is one of Christ’s frequent sayings. Here the 
 connexion seems to be that disciples will not get nearer to the 
 truth than the teacher does, and therefore teachers must beware of 
 being blind and uninstructed, especially with regard to knowledge 
 of self. In xxii. 27 and in Jn. xiii. 16 the meaning is that disciples 
 must not set themselves above their master. In Mt. x. 24 the 
 point is that disciples must not expect better treatment than their 
 master. So also in Jn. xv. 20, which was a different occasion. 
 
 KaTypTicpevos Sé Tas EoTat ws SiSdoKados av’tov. The sentence 
 may be taken in various ways. 1. Every well instructed disciple 
 shall be as his master (AV.). 2. Every disciple, when he has 
 been well instructed, shall be as his master. 3. Every disciple 
 shall be as well instructed as his master (Tyn. Cran.). But Per- 
 fectus autem omnis erit, si sit sicut magister ejus (Vulg.), “ Every one 
 shall be perfect, if he be as his master” (Rhem.), Wenn der Jiinger 
 ist wie sein Meister, so ist er vollkommen (Luth.), is impossible. 
 The meaning is that the disciple will not excel his master; at the 
 best he will only equal him. And, if the master has faults, the 
 disciple will be likely to copy them. 
 
Vi. 40-43 } THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I9I 
 
 For xataptif{w, ‘make &prios, equip,” comp. Mt. iv. 21; Mk. i. 19; 
 1 Thes. iii. 10; Gal. vi. 1; Heb. x. 5, xi. 3, xiii. 21. It is a surgical word, 
 used of setting a bone or joint: for examples see Wetst. on Mt. iv, 21. There 
 is no mas in Mt. x. 24, 25: see on ver. 30. 
 
 41, 42. In order to avoid becoming a blind teacher, whose 
 disciples will be no better than oneself, one must, before judging 
 and attempting to correct others, correct oneself. Self-knowledge 
 and self-reform are the necessary preparation of the reformer, 
 without which his work is one of presumption rather than of love. 
 
 “Al, wdpdos, ‘Anything small and dry”: in class, Grk. usually in plur, 
 
 of chips, twigs, bits of wood, etc. Curtius connects it with oxapplov, “‘a 
 splinter” (Gr. Etym. 683); but better with kdpgdew, “to dry up. | Ip 
 Gen. viii. 11 it is used of the olive twig brought by the dove. See Wetst. on 
 Mt. vii. 3. The Séxos is the ‘‘bearing-beam, main beam,” that which 
 receives (d¢xouat) the other beams in a roof or floor, It is therefore as 
 necessarily large as a xdpdos is small, 
 
 katavoets, ‘Fix thy mind upon.” It expresses prolonged 
 attention and observation. Careful consideration of one’s own 
 faults must precede attention to those of others. The verb is 
 specially freq. in Lk. (xii. 24, 27, xx. 23; Acts xi. 6, xxvil. 39: 
 comp. Heb. iii. 1, x. 24; Rom. iv. 19). 
 
 42, mas Suvacat dye. ‘With what face can you adopt this 
 tone of smug patronage?” In Mt. vii. 4 the patronizing “Adehoé 
 is wanting. 
 
 Gdes éxBddw. For the simple subj. after ddlyue comp. Mt. xxvii. 49 ; 
 Mk. xv. 36. Epict. Déss. i. 9. 15, iii, 12. 15.. In modern Greek it is the 
 regular idiom, Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356.—In od BAéwov we have the only 
 
 instance in Lk. of od with a participle: ‘‘ When thou dost not look at, much 
 less anxiously consider ” (katavowy) : see small print on i. 20. 
 
 émoxpitd. The hypocrisy consists in his pretending to be so 
 pained by the presence of trifling evil that he is constrained to 
 endeavour to remove it. Comp. xili. 15. That he conceals his 
 own sins is not stated; to some extent he is not aware of them. 
 The tére means “then, and not till then”; and the S1aBdders is 
 neither imperative nor concessive, but the simple future. When 
 self-reformation has taken place, then it will be possible to see 
 how to reform others. Note the change from BdAéew to diaBde- 
 mew; not merely look at, but “see clearly.” In class. Grk. 
 duaBAerw means “look fixedly,” as in deep thought. Plato notes 
 it as a habit of Socrates (edo, 86 D). 
 
 43. ob ydp éotw. Codex D and some versions omit the yap, 
 the connexion with the preceding not being observed. The con- 
 nexion is close. A good Christian cannot but have good results 
 in the work of converting others, and a bad Christian cannot have 
 such, for his bad life will more than counteract his efforts to 
 reclaim others. 
 
192 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (VI. 43-48, 
 
 The etymological connexion between xapmés (cargo, Herbst, harvest) and 
 kdppos is by no means certain. But if it is a fact, it has no place here. The 
 hhrase mrovety Kap7rdév is not classical, but a Hebraism (iii. 9, viil. 8, xiii. 9; Gen. 
 1. II, 12; Ps. cvii. 37). By campév (ojmw) is meant (1) what is “rotten, 
 putrid,” and (2) what is ‘‘ worthless.” See Wetst. on Mt. vii. 18. A rotten 
 tree would produce no fruit ; and fishes just caught would not be putrid (Mt. 
 xiii. 48). In both places the secondary meaning is required. 
 
 44, The unreformed can no more reform others than thorns 
 and briars can produce figs and grapes. It is by their fruits that 
 each comes to be known (ywvwcxerar). The identification of the 
 many Hebrew words which denote thorny shrubs is a hopeless 
 task. Neither the originals nor their Greek representatives can be 
 satisfactorily determined (Groser, Z7ees and Plants of the Bible, 
 p. 172). Elsewhere in N.T. Baros is used of the burning bush 
 (xx. 37; Acts vil. 30, 35; Mk. xii. 26; Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4): in Hom. 
 it is a “thorn-bush, bramble” (Od. xxiv. 230). The verb tpvyaw 
 is specially used of the vintage (Rev. xiv. 18, 19; Lev. xix. 10, 
 XXV. 5, I1; Deut. xxiv. 21). Comp. the similar sayings Jas. iii. 
 II, 12, which are probably echoes of Christ’s teaching as remem- 
 bered by the Lord’s brother. 
 
 45. This forms a link with the next section. When men are 
 natural, heart and mouth act in concert. But otherwise the mouth 
 sometimes professes what the heart does not feel. 
 
 46-49. The Judgments which await the Members of the King- 
 dom. The Sanction or Warning. Mt. vii. 13-27. This is some- 
 times called the Epilogue or the Peroration: but it is not a mere 
 summing up. It sets forth the consequences of following, and the 
 consequences of not following, what has been enjoined. 
 
 46. The question here asked may be addressed to all dis- 
 ciples, none of whom are perfect. The inconsistency of calling 
 Him Lord and yet failing in obedience to Him was found even 
 in Apostles. What follows shows that the question applies to 
 the whole of Christian conduct. Of the four parables in the latter 
 half of the sermon, the first two (the blind leading the blind; the 
 mote and the beam) have special reference to the work of correct- 
 ing others; the third (the good and bad trees) may be either 
 special or general ; while the fourth (the wise and foolish builders) 
 is quite general. With Kupe comp. xiii. 25; Mt. xxv. 11, 12; 
 Jas. i. 22, 26. 
 
 47. For mas & épxdpevos see small print on i. 66, and for 
 Srodeigw see on iii. 7 and Fritzsche on Mt. iii. 7. 
 
 48. goxapev Kai €Bdbuvey kal eOnxev Oepediov. “He dug and 
 went deep (not a hendiadys for ‘dug deep’) and laid a founda- 
 tion.” The whole of this graphic description is peculiar to Lk. 
 
VI. 48, 49.] THE MINISTRY IN GALiLEE 193 
 
 Robinson stayed in a new house at Nazareth, the owner of which 
 had dug down for thirty feet in order to build upon rock (Res. ia 
 Fal. ii. p. 338). The parables in Mt. and Lk. are so far identical 
 that in both the two builders desire to have their houses near a 
 water-course, water in Palestine being very precious. In Mt. they 
 build on different places, the one on the rock and the other on 
 the sand, such as is often found in large level tracts by a dry 
 water-course. Nothing is said about the wise builder digging 
 through the sand till he comes to rock. Each finds what seems 
 to him a good site ready to hand. 
 
 TAnppipys. “A flood,” whether from a river or a sea: and 
 hence a flood of troubles and the like. See Jos. Ant. ii. 10. 2 
 and examples in Wetst. Here only in N.T., and in LXX only 
 Job xx. 23. 
 
 obk icxucev. “Had not strength to.” The expression is a 
 favourite one with Lk. (viii. 43, xilil. 24, xiv. 6, 29, xvi. 3, xx. 26; 
 Acts vi. Io, xv. _I0, xix. 16, 20, XXV. 7, XXVil. 16). For palin 
 comp. vii. 24, xxi. 26; Acts ii. 25 fr. Ps. xv. 8, iv. 31: freq. in LXX. 
 
 Sia Td KaAGS olkoSopyobat aityv. This is certainly the true reading 
 (8 BL& 33 157, Boh. Syr-Harcl. marg.). The common reading, reBeueNlwro 
 yap éxl tiv rétpav (AC DX etc.; Latt. Syrr. Goth. Arm.), is obviously 
 taken from Mt. The Ethiopic combines the two readings, 
 
 49. 1 mpocépyéev 6 wotapds. Lk. gives only the main incident, 
 the river, created by the Tain, smiting the house. But Mt. is much 
 more graphic : KaréBn 7 pox kal WA@ov ot woTapol Kal érvevoav 
 DL dvepou kat mpocéKowav TH oixig éxeivn. 
 
 cuvénecev. “It fell in,” ze. the whole fell together in a heap: 
 much more expressive than é érecev, which some texts (A C) here 
 borrow from Mt. 
 
 éyéveto Td piiypo. To harmonize with zpocépyfev. This use of 
 pyype for “ruin” (so first in Rhem.) seems to be without example. 
 In class. Grk. it is used of bodily fractures or ruptures, and also of 
 clothes ; so also in 1 Kings xi. 30, 31; 2 Kings i ii. 12. But Amos 
 vi. 11 of rents ina building, matage Tov olkov Tov péyav OAdcpacw, 
 kal TOV Olkov TOV ptKpov pdypacey. Hobart contrasts the Bpoxn, 
 mporéxoyay, érecev, and mrdois of Mt. with the tAnpprvpa, rpocép- 
 ongev, ovverecer, and fiypa of Lk., and contends that the latter 
 four belong to medical phraseology (pp. 5b 8G): 
 
 The péya, like peydAy in Mt., comes last with emphasis. 
 Divine instruction, intended for building up, must, if neglected, 
 produce disastrous ruin. The xe?rac cis rrdow (ii. 34) is fulfilled. 
 The audience are left with the crash of the unreal disciple’s house 
 sounding in their ears. 
 
 Similar Rabbinical sayings are quoted, but as co ms who lived 
 after A.D. 100, by which time Christ’s teaching had red Bleed es both Jewish 
 
 13 
 
194 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VL 49-VIZ 2. 
 
 and pagan thought. ‘‘ Whosesoever wisdom is above his works, to what is he 
 like? Toa tree whose branches are many and its roots few. Then the wind 
 cometh and rooteth it up and turneth it over. And, whosesoever works are 
 above his wisdom, to what is he like? To a tree whose branches are few and 
 its roots many. Though all the winds come upon it, they move it not from its 
 place” (AZishna, Pirge aboth, III. xxvii.) And again, ‘*To whom is he 
 like, that with many merits uniteth great wisdom? To him who first layeth 
 granite blocks and then bricks. Though ever so mighty floods wash round the 
 building, yet they cannot make it give way. But to whom is he like, who 
 knoweth much and fulfilleth little? To him who layeth the foundation with 
 bricks, which are disturbed by the least water (40th R. Nathan, xxiii.). See 
 Edersh, Z. & 7. i. p. 540; Nicholson on Mt. vii. 24. 
 
 VII. 1. The division of the chapters is misleading. This 
 verse forms the conclusion of the preceding narrative quite in 
 Lk.’s manner. Comp. iv. 30, 37, 44, V. I1, 16, 26, vi. 11, etc. 
 It is not the introduction to what follows, for Jesus must have 
 been in Capernaum some time before the centurion heard about 
 Him. Lk. says nothing about the impression which the discourse 
 made upon the people (Mt. vii. 28), nor about their following Him 
 (Mt. viii. 1). 
 
 *Emetdy éwhypocev wavta Ta fypata avtov, This is the only place in 
 N.T. in which é7ed4 is used in the temporal sense of ‘‘after that, when 
 now.” Hence ’Ervel dé is found in many texts. K_ has ’Emed) dé, while D 
 has Kal éyévero ére. In the causal sense of ‘‘since, seeing that,” éed7 
 occurs only in Lk. and Paul (xi. 6; Acts xiii. 46, xiv. 12, xv. 24; 1 Cor, 
 i, 21, 22, xiv. 16, xv. 21). See Ellicott on Phil. ii. 26. For émAjpwoe, 
 ““completed,” so that no more remained to be said, comp. Acts xii. 25, 
 xiii. 25, xiv. 26, xix. 21. 
 
 eis Tas Gkous TOV Aaov, The els marks the direction of what was said: 
 comp. i. 44, iv. 44; Acts xi. 22, xvii. 20. Both in bibl. Grk. and in class. 
 Grk. dxo# has three senses. 1. ‘‘ The thing heard, report” (1 Sam. ii. 24; 
 1 Kings ii, 28; Jn. xii. 38; Rom. x. 16). 2. ‘*The sense of hearing” 
 (2:Sam. xxii. 4, 55 Job. xii. 53 1 Cor. xii. 173 2 PeteiS)seeseeene 
 ear” (Mk, viie 35; Heb. v. 11; 2 Mac. xv. 39). 
 
 2-10. The healing of the Centurion’s Servant at Capernaum. 
 Mt. viii. 5-13. Mt. places the healing of the leper (Lk. v. 12--14) 
 between the Sermon on the Mount and the healing of the cen- 
 turion’s slave. This centurion was a heathen by birth (ver. 9), and 
 was probably in the service of Antipas. He had become in some 
 degree attracted to Judaism (ver. 5), and was an illustration of the 
 great truth which Lk. delights to exhibit, that Gentile and Jew 
 alike share in the blessings of the kingdom. The azima naturaliter 
 Christiana of the man is seen in his affection for his slave. 
 
 2. 7pedev teheutav. “ Was on the point of dying,” and would 
 have done so but for this intervention (Acts xii. 6, xvi. 27, etc.). 
 Burton, § 73. For évtipos, “held in honour, held dear,” comp. 
 xiv. 83 Phil. ii. 29; 1 Pet. it. 4, 6; Is. xxviii. 16. ) Giegmer 
 explains why this deputation of elders came. 
 
VII. 3-6.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 195 
 
 8. dméotetbev mpds aidtév mpeoButépous. These elders (no 
 article) would be leading citizens ; but they need not be identified 
 with the dpyicwvdywyor (viii. 49, xili. 14; Acts xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17), 
 as Godet formerly advocated. The compound wiacdfew, “to 
 bring safe through,” is almost peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts 
 XXlil. 24, XXVli. 43, 44, xxvilil. 1, 4; Mt. xiv. 36; 1 Pet. iii. 20). 
 
 4. ot 8¢ mapayevdpevot. A favourite verb (ver. 20, vill. 19, 
 xi, 6, xii. 51, Xiv. 21, xix. 16, xxii. 52; and about twenty times in 
 Acts): elsewhere in N.T. eight or nine times, but very freq. in 
 LXX. 
 
 aiuéds éotiv & wapdé—y tovTo, ‘He is worthy that Thou shouldest do 
 this for him”; 2 sing. fut. mid. The reading wapéEe (GT A) is 3 sing. fut. 
 act. and must not be taken as analogous to the exceptional forms ole, yet, 
 and Bove. But beyond doubt wapéEy (SN ABCDRZ& ete.) is the correct 
 reading. 
 
 5. dyamd yap 7d €0vos jpav. This would hardly be said of one 
 who was actually a proselyte. He had learned to admire and 
 respect the pure worship of the Jews and to feel affection for the 
 people who practised it. This would be all the more likely if he 
 were in the service of the Herods rather than that of heathen 
 Rome. 
 
 Thy cuvaywyhy adtés dkoddpyoev jpiv. ‘ At his own expense he 
 built us ovr synagogue,” the one which we have; not “a syna- 
 gogue” (AV.). Had Capernaum only one synagogue? 
 
 If 7e// Him represents Capernaum, and if the ruins of the synagogue there 
 are from a building of this date, they show with what liberality this centurion 
 had carried out his pious work. But it is doubtful whether the excellent work 
 exhibited in these ruins is quite so early as the first century. The centurions 
 appear in a favourable light in N.T. (xxili. 47; Acts x. 22, xxii. 26, xxiii. 17, 
 23, 24, xxiv. 23, xxvii. 43). Roman organization produced, and was maintained 
 by, excellent individuals, who were a blessing to others and themselves. As 
 Philo says, after praising Petronius the governor of Syria, rots 5¢ dyaOots dyabas 
 imnxeiv Eorxe yowopas 6 Oeds Ov dv whedrodvres SPednOjoovrat (Leg. ad Caium, 
 p. 1027, ed. Gelen.). Augustus had recognized the value of synagogues in 
 maintaining order and morality. 
 
 6. oF poxpdy, Comp. Acts xvii. 27. The expression is 
 peculiar to Lk., who is fond of od with an adj. or ady. to express 
 his meaning. Comp. od zoAAoi (xv. 13; Acts i. 5), od roAv (Acts 
 XXVii. 14), ov« 6Aryds (Acts xii, 18, xiv. 28, xv. 2, xvil. 4, 12, 
 xix. 23, 24, XXvii. 20), ok 6 tuxdv (Acts xix. 11, xxviii. 2), od 
 donpos (Acts xxi. 39), ov perpiws (Acts xx. 12). 
 
 érepipev pious. Comp. xv. 6, Acts x. 24. Mt. says nothing about 
 either of these deputations, but puts the message of both into the 
 mouth of the centurion himself, who comes in person. In Lk. the 
 man’s humility and faith prevail over his anxiety as soon as he sees 
 that the first deputation has succeeded, and that the great Rabbi 
 
196 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 6-9. 
 
 and Prophet is really coming to him. Therefore he sends the 
 second deputation to say that he is not worthy of a visit, and that 
 the visit is not necessary. 
 
 Kupte, py oxtddouv. “Lord, cease to trouble Thyself.” The 
 verb is a marked instance of the tendency of words to become 
 weaker in meaning: oxtAXw (cKdAov, xi. 22) is 1. “flay”; 2 
 “mangle”; 3. “vex, annoy” (viii. 49; Mk. v. 35; Mt. ix. 36). 
 See Lxfositor, 1st series, 1876, iv. pp. 30, 31. What follows 
 seems to show that the centurion was not a proselyte. The house 
 of a Gentile was polluting to a Jew; and therefore ov yap ixavds 
 eit, k.7.., is quite in point if he was still a heathen. But it is 
 rather strong language if he had ceased to be a heathen. For wa 
 after ixavds see Burton, § 216. 
 
 7. eimé Aéyo, kat iabytw 6 wats pou. Lit. “Say with a word, 
 and let my servant be healed.” The word is to be the instrument 
 with which the healing is to take place, instead of Jesus’ coming in 
 person: comp. Acts li. 40 and Gal. vi. 11. There is no doubt 
 that 6 zais wou means “ my servant.” This use is found in N.T. 
 (xii. 45, xv. 26; Mt. vili. 6, 8, 13), and is very freq. in LXX and in 
 class. Grk, 
 
 It has been contended that in Mt. viii. 6, 8, 13 mats must mean ‘‘son,” 
 because the centurion calls his servant dodAos in ver. 9: as if it were improbable 
 that a person in the same conversation should speak sometimes of his ‘‘ servant” 
 and sometimes of his ‘‘boy.” In both narratives wats and doAos are used as 
 synonyms ; and it is gratuitous to suppose that in using dod\os Lk. has misin- 
 terpreted the mats in the source which he employed. Comp. xv. 22, 26. Here 
 6 mais pov is more affectionate than 6 dodAds wou would have been, 
 
 8. éy> advOpwrds eipr bad efovcrav tacodpevos. The ety 
 must not be united with racoduevos and made the equivalent of 
 TdgoopaL: Tacodpevos is adjectival. Thus, “For I am a man who 
 is habitually (pres. part.) placed under authority.” But, “For I 
 am an ordinary person (dv@pw7os), avd a person in a dependent 
 position ” is rather an exaggeration of the Greek. Comp. tro THY 
 Tod Bacidéus éfovoiay weocivy (2 Mac. iii. 6). The Kal yap shows 
 the intimate connexion with what precedes, eizé Adyw Kat iabyrw : 
 see on vi. 32. “I know from personal experience what a word 
 from one in authority can do. A word from my superiors secures 
 my obedience, and a word from me secures the obedience of my 
 subordinates. Thou, who art under no man, and hast authority 
 over unseen powers, hast only to say a word and the sickness is 
 healed.” Perhaps dvOpurros hints that Jesus is superhuman. 
 Evidently $16 e€ovotay tagcdpevos means that, if an inferior can 
 give effective orders, much more can a superior do so. It is the 
 certainty of the result wzthout ‘ personal presence that is the point. 
 
 9. 5 "Ingots 2batpacev adtov. This is stated in both narratives 
 Comp. Mk. vi. 6. Those who are unwilling to admit any limita- 
 
VII. 9, 10.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 197 
 
 tions in Christ’s knowledge have to explain how wonder is com- 
 patible with omniscience. One limitation is clearly told us by 
 Himself (Mk. xiii. 32); so that the only question is how far such 
 limitations extend. See on ii. 46, 52, and xvii. 14. Note the 
 solemn Adyw Spiv, and comp. ver. 28, x. 12, 24, x1. 8, 9, 51, etc. 
 
 ovdé év TO “Iopahd tooadtyy mlotw ebpov. This again points co 
 the centurion being still a heathen. Nowhere among the Jews had 
 He found any one willing to believe that He could heal without 
 being present. It is natural that Lk. should express this preference 
 for a Gentile more strongly than Mt., who has zap’ oddevi tooavrnv 
 miotw év T4 IopayA evpov. Lk. here omits the remarkable passage 
 Mt. viii. 11, 12; but he gives it in quite a different connexion 
 xiii. 28, 29. Such teaching, so necessary and so unwelcome to the 
 Jews, may easily have been repeated. 
 
 10. étootpépavres. See oni. 56 and iv. 14. Lk.’s bytatvovta is 
 stronger than the id@7 of Mt. The servant was not only cured, but 
 “in good health.” Von modo sanum, sed sanitate utentem (Beng.) 
 Hobart remarks that Lk. “is the only N.T. writer who uses tyatvew 
 in this its primary sense, ‘to be in sound health,’ with the exception 
 of S. John, 3 Ep. 2. For this meaning it is the regular word in 
 the medical writers” (p. 10). See on v. 31 and comp. xv. 27. 
 Here and v. 31 Vulg. has sanus ; in xv. 27, salvus. 
 
 The identification of this miracle with that of the healing of the son of the 
 royal official (BaotAckés) in Jn. iv. is not probable: it involves an amount of 
 misinformation or carelessness on one side or the other which would be very 
 startling. Irenzeus seems to be in favour of it; but ‘‘ centurion ” with him may 
 be a slip of memory ora misinterpretation of BaoiAtcds. Origen and Chrysostom 
 contend against the identification. Is there any difficulty in supposing that on 
 more than one occasion Jesus healed without being present? ‘The difficulty is 
 to explain one such instance, without admitting the possession of supernatural 
 powers: this Strauss has shown, and the efforts of Keim and Schenkel to 
 explain it by a combination of moral and psychical causes are not satisfying. 
 There is no parallel to it in O.T., for (as Keim points out) the healing of 
 Naaman is not really analogous. 
 
 11-17. §The Raising of the Widow’s Son at Nain. Because 
 Lk. alone records it, its historical character has been questioned. 
 But there were multitudes of miracles wrought by Christ which 
 have never been recorded in detail at all (iv. 23, 40, 41, vi. 18, 19; 
 Jn. ii. 23, iv. 45, vil. 31, xii. 37, XX. 30, Xxi. 25), and among these, 
 as ver. 22 shows, were cases of raising the dead. We must not 
 attribute to the Evangelists the modern way of regarding the raising 
 of the dead as a miracle so amazing, because so difficult to perform, 
 that every real instance would necessarily become widely known, 
 and would certainly be recorded by every writer who had knowledge 
 of it. To a Jew it would be hardly more marvellous than the heal- 
 ing of a leper; and to one who believes in miracles at all, dis- 
 tinctions as to difficulty are unmeaning. It is not unreasonable to 
 
198 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIZ 10-12. 
 
 suppose, either that this‘event never came to the knowledge of the 
 other Evangelists, or that, although they knew of it, they did not 
 see the necessity for recording it. It is worth noting that nearly all 
 recorded instances of raising the dead were performed for women 
 (1 Kings xvii. 23; 2 Kings iv. 36; Jn. xi. 22, 32; Acts ix. 41; 
 Heb. xi. 35). 
 
 1. év 7 éf7s. It is not easy to decide between the reading év 7@ éf7s, 
 se. xpbvw (ABR), and év rp éé7s, sc. qjuépa (NCD). On the one hand, Lk. 
 elsewhere, when he writes év 7@, has xa0e&fs (viii. I) ; on the other, when he 
 writes 77 és, he does not prefix év (ix. 37; Acts xxi. I, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18). 
 The less definite would be more likely to be changed to the more definite than 
 vice versa. Thus the balance both of external and internal evidence is in 
 favour of év r@ é&fjs, and we must not limit the interval between the miracles 
 toa single day. In N.T. é&7s is peculiar to Lk. (ix. 37; Acts xxi. I, xxv. 17, 
 xxvil. 18). So also is ws nyyeoev (v. 12, xv. 25, xix. 29, 41). 
 
 Naty. The place is not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture ; and 
 the village of that name in Josephus (B._/. iv. 9. 4) is on the other 
 side of the Jordan, and cannot be the same. 
 
 A hamlet called Wezz was found by Robinson about two miles west of 
 Endor, on the north slope of Little Hermon, which is where Eusebius and 
 Jerome place it; and it would be about a day’s journey from Capernaum. 
 *¢ One entrance alone it could have had, that which opens on the rough hillside 
 in its downward slope to the plain” (Stanley, Sz. &° Pal. p. 357); so that the 
 very path on which the two companies met can be identified. About ten 
 minutes’ walk on the road to Endor is a burying-place which is still used, and 
 there are many tombs cut in the rock. Robinson, /a/. iii. p. 469; Bzb/. Res. 
 ii. 361; Thomson, Land & Book, p. 445; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 127. 
 The expression, 7éAw kadoupévny Naty, looks as if Lk. were writing for those 
 who were not familiar with the country ; comp. i. 26, 39, iv. 31. See on vi. 15. 
 
 ot padyrat adtod. Including more than the Twelve; vi. 13. 
 See on xi. 29. 
 
 12. kat idS0d éfexopiLeto teOvnxds. “Behold there was being 
 carried out a dead man.” Or, “there was being carried out dead 
 the only son,” etc. The xaé introduces the apodosis of as dé 
 nyy-oe, and must be omitted in translation: “then” would be too 
 strong. See onv.12. The compound verb occurs here only in 
 N.T. and nowhere in LXX. It is equivalent to éx@epew (Acts v. 
 6, 9, 10) and efferre, and is used of carrying out to burial, Polyb. 
 xxxv. 6. 2; Plut. Ags, xxi.; Cyc. xlii. In later Gk. éxxopdy is 
 used for ék@opd of burial. With refvyxds comp. Jn. xi. 44. 
 
 povoyevis vids TH pytpt adtod. Comp. vill. 42, ix. 38; Heb. 
 xi. 17; Judg. xi. 34; Tobit iii. 15, viii. 17. Only in Jn. is povoyevys 
 used of the Divine Sonship (i. 14, 18, ili. 16, 18; 1 Jn. iv. 9). 
 
 kal avth jv xypa. The fv may safely be pronounced to be certainly 
 genuine (NBC LSV®& and most Versions). For air# some editors write 
 airy, and a few authorities have xal airy x7pg. The mourning of a widow 
 for an only son is typical for the extremity of grief: orba cum flet unicum 
 
VIL 12-15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 199 
 
 mater (Catull. xxxix. 5). Comp. Jer. vi. 26; Amos viii. 10; Zech. xii. 10; 
 Prov. iv. 3. 
 
 Sxog THs ToAEws tkavds. Some of this multitude would be hired 
 mourners, and musicians with flutes and cymbals. The mother 
 would walk in front of the bier, and Jesus would naturally address 
 her before touching it. This use of ixayds for “enough and to 
 spare, much,” is specially freq. in Lk. (vill. 27, 32, XX. 9, xxi. 38, 
 xxiii. 8, 9; Acts Vili. 11, ix. 23, 43, xi. 24, 26, etc.). It is possibly 
 colloquial : it occurs in ’Aristoph. Pax 354. See Kennedy, Sources 
 of N.T. Grk. p. 79- D here has zoAvs. 
 
 13. kai idav adtqy 6 Kuptos éomayviobn éw airy. The introduc- 
 tion of 6 Kvpuos has special point here: it is the Lord of Life meet- 
 ing sorrow and death. The expression is characteristic of Lk. 
 Comp. xxiv. 34, and see on v.17. Compassion 1s elsewhere men- 
 tioned as a moving cause in Christ’s miracles (Mt. xiv. 14, xv. 32, 
 xx. 34; Mk. i. 41, vill. 2). The verb is peculiar to the Synoptists ; 
 and, excepting in parables (Lk. x. 33, xv. 20; Mt. xvili. 27), is 
 used of no one but Christ. It is followed, as here, by éri ¢. dat. 
 Mt. xiv. 14; and by zepi ¢. gen. Mt. ix. 36; but generally by 
 ext ¢. acc. (Mt. xv. 32; Mk. vi. 34, Viil. 2, ix. 22). 
 
 Mi) KAate. “Do not go on weeping, cease to weep”: comp. 
 ver. 6. He is absolutely sure of the result ; otherwise the command 
 would have been unnatural. Quis matrem, nisi mentis inops, in 
 Junere nati Flere vetat? 
 
 14. 7Wato tis copod, ot S¢ Bacrdlovtes Ectyocay. Lk. clearly 
 intimates that the purpose of the touching was to make the bearers 
 stand still. At such solemn times words are avoided, and this 
 quiet sign sufficed. Perhaps it also meant that Jesus claimed as 
 His own what Death had seized as his prey. Lk. equally clearly 
 intimates that the resurrection was caused by Christ’s command. 
 This is the case in all three instances of raising the dead (vill. 54; 
 Jn. xi. 43). The copés may be either the bier on which the body 
 was carried, or the open coffin (probably wicker) in which it was 
 laid (Gen. 1. 26; Hdt. i. 68. 3, ii. 78. 1). 
 
 It is worth noting that Sacrdfes, which occurs twenty-seven times in 
 N.T. (x. 4, xi. 27, xiv. 27, xxii. 10, etc.), is found only once in LXX. 
 
 coi heyw. “To thee I say, Arise.” To the mother He had said, 
 “Weep not.” The cot is emphatic. For this use of Aé€yo, almost 
 in the sense of “I command,” comp. Xi. Q, xii. 4, xvi. 9. 
 
 15. dvexd@icev 6 vexpds. The verb occurs only here and Acts 
 ix. 40 in N.T.; in both cases of persons restored to life and sitting 
 up. Not in LXX. In this intrans. sense it is rare, excepting in i 
 medical writers, who often use it of sick persons sitting up in bed 
 (Hobart, p. 11). The speaking proved complete restoration. 
 
‘ 
 4 
 
 200 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (VII. 15--17. 
 
 To suggest that the young man was in a trance does not get rid of the 
 miracle. How did Jesus know that he was in a trance, and know exactly how 
 to rouse him? And can we suppose that this happened on ¢hree different occa- 
 sions, even if we could reconcile Christ’s action with a character for truthfulness ? 
 Here and in the case of Jairus’ daughter it is the Evangelist who tells us that the 
 person was dead ; but Jesus Himself declared that Lazarus was dead (Jn. xi. 14). 
 We are told that the symmetry of the three instances is suspicious ; raised from 
 the death-bed, raised from the bier, raised from the tomb. But no Evangelist 
 gives us the triplet. Lk. is the only writer who records more than one, and the 
 two which he records he places in unsymmetrical order, the raising from the bier 
 coming before the raising from the death-bed. Strauss has shown how unsatis- 
 factory the trance theory is (Zebex Jesu, ed. 1864, p. 469). 
 
 édwxev autév tH pnytpt. The sudden change of nominative 
 causes no obscurity. Comp. xiv. 5, xv. 15, xvii. 2, xix. 4; Acts vi. 
 6, x. 4. Jesus might have claimed the life which He has restored, 
 nam juvenis jam desierat esse matris sue; but compassion for the 
 mother again influences Him. Comp. ix. 55; Acts ix. 41; 1 Mac. 
 x. 9; I Kings xvii. 23; 2 Kings iv. 36. 
 
 16. "EhaBev 8€ pdBos mévtas. It is natural that this should be 
 the first feeling on seeing a corpse reanimated. But a writer of 
 fiction would rather have given us the frantic joy of the mother 
 and of those who sympathized with her. Comp. i. 65, v. 8, 26, 
 viii. 37; Acts ii. 43, xix. 37. See oni. 12, and also Schanz, ad Joc. 
 
 héyovtes Gt. . . Kat St. It is very forced to make 67 in 
 both cases argumentative: “Saying, (We praise God) because 
 
 . and because.” It is possible to take the second ort in this 
 way; but the common method of making both to be recitative is 
 preferable. Both, therefore, are to be omitted in translation, the 
 words quoted being in the ovatio recta (Tyn. Cran. Cov. RV.). 
 Cases in which 67 may be taken either way are freq. in N.T. 
 (i. 45, Ui. 11, iv. 36, Vil. 39, ix. 22, x. 21, xi. 38, xxl. 70; 1 Jn. il 
 
 12-14, etc.) 
 
 *Ereokepato 6 Oeds Tov Nady adtod. Comp. i. 68, 78; Acts xv. 
 14; Heb. ii. 6. The verb was specially used of the “visits” of a 
 physician. Comp. Mt. xxv. 36, 43; Jas. i. 27; Acts vi. 3, vii. 23, 
 xv. 36, the only other passages in N.T. in which the word occurs. 
 In the sense of visiting with judgment or punishment it is never 
 used in N.T. and but seldom in LXX (Ps. Ixxxviii. 33 ; Jer. ix. 9, 
 25, xi. 22, li. 29). After the weary centuries during which no 
 Prophet had appeared, it was indeed a proof of Jehovah’s visiting 
 His people that one who excelled the greatest Prophets was among 
 them. No one in O.T. raised the dead with a word. 
 
 17. €&7Oev 6 Adyos obTos ev SAN TH “lovdaia wept adtou. The 
 Adyos is the one just mentioned,—that God had visited His people 
 in sending a mighty Prophet. The statement does not imply that 
 Lk. supposed Nain to be in Judza. “Iovdaia here probably means 
 Palestine: see on iv. 44 and xxii. § But even if we take it in the 
 
VIL. 17-19.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 201 
 
 narrower sense of Judza as distinct from Galilee, Samaria, and 
 Perza, there is no need to attribute to Lk. any geographical in- 
 accuracy. “This saying went forth (from Nain and circulated) 
 in Judzea”; ze. it reached the headquarters of Christ’s opponents, 
 For tepi adrod comp. Vv. 15. 
 
 This pregnant use of a prep. of rest after a verb of motion is perha 
 found only in late Grk., for in Thuc. iv. 42, 3 and Xen. He//en, vii. 5. 10 the 
 readings vary between dayjecay and dxfcoay. Comp. viii. 7, and see Win. 1 
 4 a, Pp. 514. 
 
 kal +don TH Teptxdpw. Note the position of this clause, which 
 is added after wep! airod with augmented force: “and (what is 
 more) in all the region round about”; ze. round about “Iovdaia, 
 not Nain. Comp. Acts xxvi. 23. The verse prepares the way for 
 the next incident by showing how the Baptist’s disciples came to 
 hear about “all these things.” 
 
 The evidence that Jesus raised the dead is that of all four Gospels and of 
 primitive tradition. The fact seems to have been universally believed in the 
 early Church (Justin, Afo/. i. 22. 48; Try. Ixix.; Orig. ¢. Cels. ii. 48). 
 Quadratus, one of the earliest apologists, who addressed a defence of Christianity 
 to Hadrian A.D. 125, says in the only fragment of it which is extant, ‘‘ But the 
 works of our Saviour were always present, for they were true; those that were 
 healed and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when 
 they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present ; and 
 not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after His departure, they 
 were there for a considerable time, so that some of them lived even to our own 
 times” (Eus. H. Z. iv. 3. 2). This does not mean that Quadratus had seen 
 any of them, but that there was abundance of opportunity, long after the event, 
 to inquire into the reality of these miracles. S. Paul uses the same kind of 
 argument respecting the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Weiss points 
 out how unsatisfactory are all the attempts to explain the evidence on any 
 other hypothesis than the historical fact that Jesus raised the dead (Leben Jesu, 
 i, pp. 557-565, Eng. tr. ii. 178-186). He concludes thus: ‘‘In no other 
 miracle did the grace of God, which appeared in His Messiah, manifest itself so 
 gloriously, by overcoming the consequences of sin and thereby giving a pledge 
 for the highest consummation of salvation.” See Aug. /z Joh. Trac, xlix. 2, 
 
 18-35. The message from the Baptist to the Christ. Peculiar 
 to Lk. and Mt., who place it in different connexions, but assign to 
 it the same occasion, viz. that John had “heard in his prison the 
 works of the Christ” (Mt. xi. 2). Lk.’s narrative, as usual, is the 
 more full. He does not mention that John is in prison, having 
 already stated the fact by anticipation (ii. 20). The wepi ravrwv 
 tov7wv shows that the works reported to the Baptist include the 
 healing of the centurion’s servant and the raising of the widow’s son. 
 
 apos Tov KUptov. This is probably the true reading (B LLRX, a ff Vulg.) 
 rather than mpés Tov Incodv (NS AXT, bef). See on ver. 13. 
 
 19. Xd et & Epxdpevos; “ Art Zhou (in emphatic contrast to 
 érepov) He that cometh,” ze. whose coming is a matter of quite 
 notorious certainty (ili. 16, xiii. 35, xix. 38; Heb. x. 37). 
 
202 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (vii. 19-2L, 
 
 % Etepov tpoodoxapev; “Or must we look for another, different 
 in kind?” whereas aor might be another of the same kind (Lft. 
 on Gal. i. 6, 7). The reading érepov (8 BL RX @) is right, and is 
 not taken from Mt. It is a\dov (A D) that is the corruption. 
 For the delib. subj. comp. iii. 10, 12, 14. See oniii. 15. 
 
 The meaning of the question thus sent to Christ has been 
 much discussed. 1. Chrystostom and other Fathers have sug- 
 gested that the question was asked for the sake of John’s disciples, 
 who needed strengthening or correcting in their beliefs. See 
 Oxford Library of the Fathers, x. p. 267, note e. Luther, Calvin, 
 Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others adopt this view. But the whole 
 context is against it. Christ’s reply is addressed to John, not to 
 the disciples; and it is not clear that the disciples even under- 
 stood the message which they carried. 2. Weiss and other critics 
 follow Tertullian (JZarcion. iv. 18) in contending that John’s own 
 faith was failing, because the career of Jesus did not seem to 
 correspond with what he and the people had expected, and with 
 what he had foretold (iii. 17). There is nothing incredible in this 
 view ; but the Baptist had had such a long and stern preparation 
 for his work, and had received such convincing evidence that Jesus 
 was the Messiah, that a failure in his faith is surprising. 3. Hase 
 and others suggest that he was not failing in faith, but in patience. 
 John was disappointed that Jesus did not make more progress, 
 and he wished to urge Him on to take a more prominent and 
 indisputable position. ‘If Thou do these things, manifest Thyself 
 unto the world.” Perhaps John was also perplexed by the fact 
 that one who could work such miracles did not set His forerunner 
 free, nor “cleanse His threshing-floor” of such refuse as Antipas 
 and Herodias. This view suits the context better than the second. 
 John’s sending to Jesus is strong evidence that he was not seriously 
 in doubt as to His Messiahship. For a false Christ would not 
 have confessed that he was false; and what proof could the true 
 Christ give more convincing than the voice from heaven and the 
 visible descent of the Spirit? 4. The view of Strauss, that John 
 had just begun to conjecture that Jesus is the Messiah, and that 
 therefore this narrative is fatal to the story of his having baptized 
 Jesus and proclaimed Him as the Messiah, is answered by 
 Hase (Gesch. Jesu, § 39, p. 388, ed. 1891). See also Hahn, 1. 
 
 . 475: 
 E on Ocpamevew amo. See on v. 15: it is peculiar to Lk. 
 
 pactiywy. “ Distressing bodily diseases”; Mk. iii. 10, V. 29, 
 34. In LXX< it is used of any grievous trouble, but not specially 
 of disease: Ps. xxxv. 15, Ixxxvili. 32; Ecclus. xl. 9; 2 Mac. vil. 
 37: comp. Hom. JZ. xii. 37, xili. 812; Aesch. Sept. 607; Ag. 642. 
 The notion that troubles are Divine chastisements is implied in 
 the word. It is used literally Acts xxii. 24 and Heb. xi. 36. 
 
VIL. 21-24.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 203 
 
 éxapicato. “He graciously bestowed, made a free present 
 of”; magnificum verbum (Beng.); comp. 2 Mac. iii. 31. 
 
 22. dmayyethate “lwdver. See on viii. 20. The answer is ex- 
 pressly sent to John: there is no intimation that it is for the in- 
 struction of his disciples, who are sent back, “like the messenger 
 from Gabii to Sextus Tarquinius,” to relate a symbolical narrative, 
 which their master is to interpret. That ¢Zey can understand it is 
 neither stated nor implied. 
 
 tupdot dvaBhérouow, k.t.4. There is probably a direct reference 
 to Is. xxxv. 5, 6, lxi. 1. It is clear, not only that Lk. and Mt. 
 understand Jesus to refer to bodily and not spiritual healings, but 
 that they are right in doing so. John’s messengers had not “ seen 
 and heard” Christ healing the spiritually blind and the morally 
 leprous. Moreover, what need to add rrwxoi edayyediCovrar, if all 
 that precedes refers to the preaching of the good tidings? It is 
 unnatural to express the same fact, first by a series of metaphors, 
 and then literally. All the clauses should be taken literally. They 
 seem to be arranged in two groups, which are connected by xai, 
 and in each group there is a climax, the strongest item of evidence 
 being placed last. 
 
 TTwXoi eVayyehtLovrar. This was the clearest sign of His being 
 the Christ (Is. Ixi. 1), as He Himself had declared at Nazareth (iv. 
 18-21). His miracles need not mean more than that He was “a 
 great Prophet”; moreover, the Baptist had already heard of them. 
 But it was a new thing that the poor, whom the Greek despised 
 and the Roman trampled on, and whom the priest and the Levite 
 left on one side, should be invited into the Kingdom of God (vi. 
 20). For the passive sense of eiayyedifecfar comp. Heb. iv. 2, 6, 
 and see Win. xxxix. I. a, p. 326, and Fritzsche on Mt. vi. 4.. For 
 evayéA\ov see on Rom. i. 1. 
 
 23. paxdpios. Not pdxapior, as it would have been if the 
 direct reference were to the disciples of John. It implies that 
 the Baptist had in some way found an occasion of stumbling in 
 Jesus (z.e. he had been wanting in faith, or in trust, or in patience) ; 
 and it also encourages him to overcome this temptation. 
 
 cxavdadioq. Only here and xvii. 2 in Lk., but frequent in 
 Mt. and Mk. The verb combines the notions of “trip up” and 
 “entrap,” and in N.T. is always used in the figurative sense of 
 “causing to sin.” See on xvii. 1. This record of a rebuke to the 
 Baptist is one of many instances of the candour of the Evangelists. 
 For és édv see Greg. Proleg. p. 96, and Win. xli. 6, p. 390; this 
 use of édy for dv is common in LXX and N.T. (xvii. 33?; Mt. v. 
 19, 32, Xli. 32, xviil. 5 ; Jas. iv. 4). 
 
 24. mepi ‘lodvov. This is further evidence that the question and 
 answer just recorded concerned John himself. The people had 
 heard Jesus send a rebuke to the Baptist. But He forthwith 
 
204. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S LUKE [VI¥. 24-97, 
 
 guards them from supposing that John has ceased to be worthy of 
 reverence. He waits till his disciples are gone; because if they 
 had heard and reported Christ’s praise of John to their master, it 
 might have cancelled the effect of the rebuke. This panegyric is 
 almost the funeral oration of the Baptist; for soon after this he 
 was put to death. For qpgato see on iv. 21. 
 Tt é&4\Gare. In each of the three questions it is possible to put the 
 note of interrogation defore the infinitive, and render, ‘* Why went ye out? to 
 
 behold?” etc. But the order of the words favours the usual punctuation. 
 Perhaps Oedcac@at implies ‘‘ behold” with wonder and admiration. 
 
 kddapov . . . cadeudpevov. The literal meaning makes ex- 
 cellent sense: “Did you go out into the wilderness to admire 
 what you would certainly find there, but which would have no 
 interest or attraction? Or did you go out to see what would no 
 doubt have been interesting and attractive, but which you were 
 not likely to find there?” But it also makes good sense to in- 
 terpret, ‘Had John been a weak and fickle person, you would 
 not have made a pilgrimage to see him.” 
 
 25. avOpwrov év pahaxots. Such a person would not be found 
 in the wilderness; although he might have attracted them. This 
 seems to show that the xaAdpoy is not metaphorical, for this is 
 obviously literal. 
 
 ot év inatiopa evddgm Kal tpupf bmdpxovtes. ‘Those who live 
 in gorgeous apparel and luxury.” The word iuarirpds is of late 
 origin, and is seldom used excepting of costly vesture (ix. 29; 
 Acts xx. 33; Jn. xix. 24; 1 Tim. ii. 9; Gen. xxiv. 535) Bxodsar 
 22, xii 35; 1 Kings x. 5). See Trench, Syw. 1. For evddé 
 comp. xiii. 17, and for émdpxovtes see on viii. 41. In N.T. tpudy 
 occurs only here and 2 Pet. ii. 13; in LXX only as v./, Lam. iv. 5. 
 But it is freq. in class. Grk. It means an enervating mode of life 
 (@pvrroua, “I am broken up and enfeebled ”). 
 
 26. mepicadtepov mpopytov. This completes the climax: xdAa- 
 pov, avOpwrov, rpopyrny, Tepiaadtepov Tpopytov. In mepusodrepov 
 we have a late equivalent of zAéov. It may be masc. or neut., 
 but is probably neut., like wAcfoy in xi. 32. Comp. xii. 4, XX. 47. 
 They went out to see something more than a Prophet, and they 
 did see it. 
 
 27. This quotation from Malachi (iii. 1) is given by Mk. at the 
 opening of his Gospel coupled with wv} Bodrtos, «.7.4., and 
 attributed as a whole to Isaiah. Neither Heb. nor LXX has mp6 
 mpogémou gov, which Mt. Mk. and Lk. all insert in the first clause. 
 See on ix. 52. Moreover, they all three have drooréAAw and 
 katagKevacet instead of the efarooréAAw and émBreerar of LXX. 
 See on iv. 18. The passage was one of the common-places of 
 Messianic prophecy, and had been stereotyped in ar independent 
 Greek form before the Evangelists made use of it. 
 
VII. 28.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 205 
 
 28. év yevyntots yuvorxdy. A solemn periphrasis for the whole 
 human race; that it implies weakness and frailty is not evident: 
 in Job xiv. 1 these qualities are expressed. It is human generation 
 as distinct from heavenly regeneration that is meant. John’s 
 superiority lay, not in his personal character, but in his office and 
 mission: the glory of being the immediate forerunner of the 
 Messiah was unique. He was a Prophet, like Moses and Elijah ; 
 yet he not only prophesied, but saw and pointed out to others 
 Him of whom he prophesied. Lk. omits the Hebrew dunv. 
 
 The word mpo¢7rns is an interpolation. The external evidence against 
 it is immense (§ BK LM X& and most Versions), and it is improbable that 
 the possibility of Prophets outside Israel would be indicated. 
 
 6 8é puxpdtepos. There is no need to make this a superlative, 
 as AV. alone among English Versions: better, “he that is in- 
 ferior,” i.e. less than other members of the Kingdom, less than 
 any among the more insignificant. It is most unnatural to explain 
 6 puxporepos of Christ. Chrysostom says, mepl éavrov A€ywv cixoTws 
 KpUTrTeL 76 mpocwmov ova THY ert KpaTovcav brovo.ay Kal Oud me) py 
 ddan rept eavrod peya, Tu Aéyew (Hom. XXXVii. P. 417); and above 
 he explains puxpétepos as kata THV aA tKuay kal Kata THY TOV 7oAAGV 
 dd£av (p. 416). Much the same view is taken by Hilary, Theophy- 
 lact, Erasmus, Luther, Fritzsche, and others. In that case ev rH 
 BactAcia tod @eod must be taken after peflwv, which is awkward ; 
 and we can hardly suppose that Jesus would have so perplexed 
 the people as to affirm that He was inferior to the Baptist, who in 
 all his teaching had enthusiastically maintained the contrary (iii. 
 16; Mt. ili. 11; Mk. 1.7; Jn. i. 15, 20, 27, 30, ili. 28-30). By 
 his office John belonged to the old dispensation ; he was its last 
 and highest product (major propheta, quia finis prophetarum), but 
 he belonged to the era of preparation. In spiritual privileges, in 
 grace, and in knowledge any even of the humbler members of the 
 Kingdom are superior to him. He is a servant, they are sons; he 
 is the friend of the Bridegroom, they are His spouse. It is 
 possible to understand “Iwdvov after puxpérepos, but it is unnecessary: 
 more probably the comparative refers to others in the Kingdom. 
 The paradox, “ He that is less than John is greater than John,” is 
 capable of interpretation ; but the principle that the lower mem ee 
 of a higher class are above the highest member of a lower class is 
 simpler. The superlative of pxpds does not occur in N.T. 
 
 29, 30. Many have supposed that these two verses are a 
 parenthetical remark of the Evangelist. But a comment inserted 
 in the middle of Christ’s words, and with no indication that it is 
 a comment, is without a parallel and improbable. Jn. iii. 16-21 
 and 31-36 are not parallel. ‘There the question is whether com- 
 ment is added. In both passages it is probable that there is no 
 
206 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 28-31 
 
 comment. But, assuming that the Evangelist is in both cases 
 commenting, he aggends his comment: he does not zz#ser¢ it into 
 the utterances of others. Here vy. 29 and 30 are part of Christ’s 
 address, who contrasts the effect which John’s preaching had 
 upon the people and upon the hierarchy (see Schanz). The con-. 
 nexion between ver. 30 and ver. 31 is close, as is shown by the ov. 
 
 29. mas 6 habs dkotcas. “ All the people, when they heard” the 
 preaching of the Baptist. Note the 74s, and see small print on i. 66. 
 
 edikalwoay Tov Oedv, BamticOévtes. “ Admitted the righteous- 
 ness of God (in making these claims upon them and granting them 
 these opportunities) 4y being baptized.” Their accepting baptism 
 was an acknowledgment of His justice. See on ver. 35, and the 
 detached note on ¢he word Sixavos and tts cognates, Rom. i. 17. 
 
 30. ot voutxot. Lk. often uses this expression instead of of 
 ypappareis, which might be misleading to Gentile readers (x. 25, 
 xi. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3). Elsewhere in N.T. the word occurs only 
 Mt. xxii. 35; Tit. ill. 9, 13. Comp. 4 Mac. v. 4; Corp. Lnscr. 
 2787, 8. 
 
 thy Bouhhy Tod Ocod HOétHoav eis Eautovs. “They frustrated 
 the counsel of God concerning themselves”: comp. «cis jas in 
 1 Thes. v. 18. The rendering, ‘‘for themselves, so far as ‘they 
 were concerned, they rendered the counsel of God effectless,” 
 would require 16 eis éavrovs. The verb is a strong one: “render 
 aferov, placeless, inefficacious” (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 15; Jn. xii. 48; Lk. 
 x. 16). Free will enables each man to annul God’s purpose for 
 his salvation. The phrase thy Boudkhvy tod Geos is peculiar to Lk. 
 in N.T. (Acts xii; 36, xx. 27; comp. il. 23, iv. 28). It occurs 
 Wisd. vi. 4; comp. Ps. xxxli 11, cvl. 11; Prov. xix. 21. With pi 
 Bamriocbévtes comp. the case of Nicodemus (Jn. iii. 4, 5). 
 
 31. The spurious reading ele 5¢ 6 Kupios was interpolated at the be- 
 ginning of this verse to mark wv. 29, 30 as a parenthetical remark of the 
 Evangelist. Owing to the influence of the Vulgate the interpolation was 
 followed by all English Versions prior to RV. Almost all MSS. and ancient 
 versions omit the words. But their spuriousness must not be quoted as 
 evidence against the view which they support. Many false readings are 
 correct glosses upon the true text, although that is probably not the case 
 here. 
 
 Tive ody dpordcw, The ody would not be very intelligible if 
 vv. 29, 30 were omitted; but after ver. 30 it is quite in place. 
 “Seeing that the rulers and teachers have rejected the Divine in- 
 vitation given by John, and that ye (Aéyere, ver. 34) follow them 
 in refusing to follow Me, to what, then, shall I liken the people of 
 this generation?” So comprehensive a phrase as tods dvOpdrrous 
 THs yeveds tavTns may include the Baptist and the Christ: and 
 to assume that it does include them frees the true interpretation 
 of the parable from seeming to be somewhat at variance with the 
 
VII. 31-33.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 207 
 
 opening words. With the double question comp. xiii. 18; Mk. 
 iv. 30. 
 
 39, There are two parties of children. This is more clearly 
 marked by rots érépos in Mt. than by dAAyAos here. Which of 
 the two groups is blamed? It has been taken both ways. (1) The 
 children who invite the second group to play, first at dances and 
 then at dirges, represent Jesus and the Baptist with their respective 
 followers. The children who waywardly refuse to join in any kind 
 of game are the Jews as represented by the hierarchy and the 
 majority of the people. These rejected both the asceticism of 
 John and the joyous freedom of the Gospel. Godet infers from 
 dAAnAos that the two groups of children change sides and take 
 turns in- proposing the form of play. But it is not necessary to 
 give so much meaning to dAAjAos. Yet such a change would 
 not be difficult to interpret. The Jews may have proposed to the 
 Baptist to become less stern. They certainly tried to force fast- 
 ing on Jesus. And hence (2) the possibility of the other inter- 
 pretation, which is preferred by Euthymius, Stier, and Alford, and 
 is ably defended by Trench (Studies in the Gospels, pp. 150-153). 
 The children sitting in the market-place and finding fault with 
 their fellows are the Jews. John comes to them in his severity, 
 and they want him to play at festivals. When he retains his strict 
 mode of life, they complain and say, “We piped to you, and you 
 did not dance.” Then Christ comes to them as the bringer of 
 joy, and they want Him to play at funerals. When He retains 
 His own methods, they say, ‘We wailed, and you did not weep.” 
 This interpretation has two advantages. It makes the men of 
 this generation, viz. the Jews, to be like the children who cry, “‘ We 
 piped,” etc. And it gives the two complaints a chronological 
 order. “We piped,” etc., is a complaint against the Baptist, who 
 came first ; “‘We wailed,” etc., is a complaint against the Christ, 
 who came afterwards. 
 
 With kanpévors comp. v. 273 with dyopd, Mk. vi. 56; with 
 Tpoopwvodow aAAyHAors, Acts xxii. 2; with ndAjoaper, 1 Cor. xiv. 7; 
 with dpxyjocacbe, 2 Sam. vi. 21; with eOpyvjcaper, Jn. xvi. 20. Of 
 these poo dwveir is a favourite word: see onvi. 13. Both Opnvetv 
 and k\atew refer to the outward manifestation of grief as distinct 
 from the feeling ; and here the outward expression only is needed. 
 
 33. ph Eo0wv dprovy pate mivev oivoy. ‘Without eating bread 
 or drinking wine”; spoken from the point of view of these who 
 objected to John. He did not take the ordinary food of n.ankind ; 
 and so Mt. says, “neither eating nor drinking.” For tne poetic 
 form o@w see on x. 7. 
 
 _, Acupdviov éxet, They afterwards said the same of Jesus (Jn. 
 Vil. 20, Vill. 48, x. 20); and Saudveov éxets shows that Sarpdvoy 
 Is acc. and not nom. Renan compares the Arabic AZedjnoun enté 
 
208 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 83-35 
 
 as showing that Orientals consider all madness to be possession by 
 a demon (V/. de //. p. 263). See on iv. 33. One regrets that the 
 American Revisers did not carry their point in getting “demon” - 
 substituted for “devil” as the rendering of damuoviov. Tyn. Cov. 
 and Cran. make great confusion by translating “hath the devil.” 
 Wic. is better with “hath a fende.” The Aéyere in vv. 33 and 34 
 shows that some of those censured are present. Comp. xi. 15, where 
 Jesus is accused of casting out demons with the help of Beelzebub. 
 34. ddyos. Like olvorérys, this is a subst. and therefore paroxytone: 
 garyés, which L. and S. give, would be an adj. See Chandler, Greek Ac. 
 centuation, §215. Latin Versions vary between devorator (Vulg.), vorator (q), 
 vorax (ce), manducator (d). English Versions vary between ‘‘ devourer ” 
 (Wic.), ‘‘glutton” (Tyn. Cov.), ‘“‘gurmander” (Rhem.), and ‘‘gluttonous 
 
 man” (Cran. AV. RV.). The ref. is to v. 33 and similar occasions. For 
 ldos TeAwvGv see V. 27, 29, 30. 
 
 85. kat eBixad0n 4 copia. “And yet wisdom was justified.” 
 In N.T. xaé often introduces a contrast, which is placed side by 
 side with that with which it is contrasted: “and (instead of what 
 might be expected), and yet.” This is specially common in Jn. 
 (i. 5, 10, ili. 11, 32, V. 39, 40, Vi. 36, 43, 70, Vii. 28, etc.). Argue 
 sometimes has the same force; Cic. De Of. iii. 11. 48. Although 
 the Jews as a nation rejected the methods both of John and of 
 Christ, yet there were some who could believe that in both these 
 methods the Divine wisdom was doing what was right. 
 edixars0y. This looks back to édtxafwoay in ver. 29, and q 
 sodia looks back to ryv BovAjy tod @cod in ver. 30. Here, as in 
 Rom. iii. 4 (Ps. li. 6), ducaudéw means ‘Show or pronounce to be 
 righteous, declare or admit to be just.” The analogy of verbs in 
 -dw is often wrongly urged. An important distinction is sometimes 
 overlooked. In the case of external qualities, such verbs do mean 
 to “make or render,” whatever the noun from which they are de- 
 rived signifies (épnudw, tuPddw, ypvodw, «.7.r.). But in the case 
 of moral qualities this is scarcely possible, and it may be doubted 
 whether there is a passage in which d:xadw clearly means “I 
 make righteous.” Similarly, dguéw never means “I make worthy,” 
 but “I consider worthy, treat as worthy.” In the case of words 
 which might apply to either external or moral qualities both mean- 
 ings are possible acc. to the context: thus éuo0w may mean 
 either “make like,” e.g. make an image like a man (Eur. /e/. 33, 
 comp. Acts xiv. 11; Rom. ix. 29), or “consider like, compare” 
 (ver. 31, xiii. 18, 20). 
 In ¢d:xasé6n we perhaps have an example of what is sometimes called the 
 gnomic aorist. Comp. Jn. xv. 6; Jas. 1. II, 24; I Pet. i, 24. Burton, 
 
 8 43. But see Win. xl. b. 1, p. 346, where the existence of this aorist in 
 N.T. is denied. 
 
 ad mdvtev tov tékvwv adtis, ‘At the hands of all her chil- 
 
VII. 35.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 209 
 
 dren”: the justification comes from them. It is certainly incorrect 
 to interpret ard as implying rescuing or protecting “from the 
 attacks of all her children,” viz. from the Jews. ~The children of 
 the Divine Wisdom are the faithful minority who have welcomed 
 the Baptist and the Christ, not the unbelieving majority who re- 
 jected them. In Mt. xi. 19 there is no wévtwv, and DLMX 
 omit it here. But it is certainly genuine: see on vi. 30. InAP#& 
 mavrwv is placed last with emphasis: there are no exceptions. 
 But the order of & B is to be preferred. Mt. has epywv for réxvwr, 
 and x has épywv here. For the personification of the Wisdom of 
 God comp. Prov. viii., ix.; Ecclus. xxiv. ; Wisd. vi. 22-ix. 18. 
 
 86-50. §The Anointing by the Woman that was a Sinner. 
 Without note of time or express connexion. The connexion 
 apparently is that she is an illustration of ver. 35. The proposal 
 to identify this anointing with that by Mary of Bethany just before 
 the Passion (Mt. xxvi. 6; Mk. xiv. 3; Jn. xii. 3) is ancient, for 
 Origen on Mt. xxvi. 6 contends against it; and it still has sup- 
 porters. Thus Holtzmann is of opinion that the act of a “clean” 
 person in the house of “an unclean” (Simon the leper) has been 
 changed by Lk. into the act of an “unclean” person in the house 
 of a “clean” (Simon the Pharisee), in order to exhibit the way in 
 which Christ welcomed outcasts, a subject which Lk. often makes 
 prominent. But the confusion of Mary of Bethany with a 
 notorious ayaptwAds by Lk., who knows the character of Mary 
 (x. 39, 42), is scarcely credible. And there is nothing improbable 
 in two such incidents. Indeed the first might easily suggest the 
 second. Simon is one of the commonest of names (there are 
 ten or eleven Simons in N.T. and about twenty in Josephus), and 
 therefore the identity of name proves nothing. Moreover, there 
 are differences of detail, which, if not conclusive, are against the 
 identification. The chief objection is the irreconcilable difference 
 between Mary of Bethany and the dyaprwdAds. Strauss and Baur 
 suggest a confusion with the woman taken in adultery. But the 
 narrative betrays no confusion : everything is clear and harmonious. 
 The conduct both of Jesus and of the woman is unlike either 
 fiction or clumsily distorted fact. His gentle severity towards 
 Simon and tender reception of the sinner, are as much beyond the 
 reach of invention as the eloquence of her speechless affection. 
 
 On the traditional, but baseless, identification of the woman 
 with Mary of Magdala see on viii. 2. The identification of this 
 woman with doth Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany is ad- 
 vocated by Hengstenberg. His elaborate argument is considered 
 a tour de force, but it has not carried conviction with it. The 
 potest non eadem esse of Ambrose is altogether an understate- 
 ment. It is probably from considerations of delicacy that Luke 
 does not name her: or his source may have omitted to do so. 
 
 14 
 
210 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIL 85-387. 
 
 The leading thought in the narrative is the contrast between 
 Pharisees and sinners in their behaviour to Christ. 
 
 36. ‘Hpdta. 8é tis adtév Tay Gapicatwr va ddyy pet adtod. There is 
 nothing to show that the Pharisee had any sinister motive in asking 
 Him, although he was evidently not very friendly. As the Pharisees 
 were generally hostile to Christ, it may have been a courageous 
 thing. He is inclined to believe that Jesus may be a Prophet 
 (ver. 39); and Jesus rebukes him as one who loved little, not as a 
 secret enemy. But, like Herod Antipas, he may simply have been 
 curious. Lk. records two other instances of Christ being the 
 guest of a Pharisee (xi. 37, xiv. 1).. For tva see on iv. 3, and comp. 
 Vi. 31, Vil. 6; and for katendiéy (8 BD LX 2) see on ix. 14. 
 
 87. Kal i800 yuvq ATs Rv. The opening words imply that her 
 presence created surprise. The ris is stronger than 4 and has 
 point here: ‘ who was of such a character as to be”: comp. viii. 3. 
 This is the right order, and év rH méXeu follows, not precedes, #rus 
 qv (S BL and most Versions). The exact meaning is not quite 
 clear: either, “which was a sinner in the city,” ze. was known as 
 such in the place itself; or possibly, “which was in the city, a 
 sinner.” The city is probably Capernaum. 
 
 épaptwdés. A person of notoriously bad character, and prob- 
 ably a prostitute: comp. Mt. xxi. 32. For instances of this use 
 of duaptwAds see Wetst. To the Jews all Gentiles were in a special 
 sense dyaptwdol (vi. 32, 33, xxiv. 7; Gal. ii. 15; 1 Mace. ii. 44); 
 but something more than this is evidently meant here. -The jv 
 need not be pressed to mean, ‘She was even up to this time” 
 
 Alf.) ; nor does accessit ad Dominum immunda, ut rediret munda 
 hae imply this. The jv expresses her public character: jv év TH 
 woAet. She had repented (perhaps quite recently, and in conse- 
 quence of Christ’s teaching); but the general opinion of her ~ 
 remained unchanged. Her venturing to enter a Pharisee’s house 
 in spite of this shows great courage. In the East at the present 
 day the intrusion of uninvited persons is not uncommon (Trench, 
 Parables, p. 302 n.; Tristram, Zastern Customs in Bible Lands, 
 p- 36). Mary of Bethany was not an intruder. Note the 
 idiomatic pres. kataxeitar: just equivalent to our “He is dining 
 with me to-day,” meaning that he will do so. 
 
 &\dBactpov pipov. Unguent-boxes or phials were called dAd- 
 Bacrtpa even when not made of alabaster. But wnguenta optime 
 servantur in alabastris (Plin. WV. AH. xiii. 3, xxxvi. 123 comp. 
 Hdt. iii. 20. 1). See Wetst. on Mt. xxvi. 6. 
 
 The word is of all three genders in different writers ; but in class. Grk. 
 the sing. is d\dBacrpos, either masc. or fem, The origin of wvpov is unknown, 
 pupw, wtppa, onvpva, wvpros being conjectures. In N.T. certainly, and prob- 
 ably in LXX also, pvpov, ‘‘ ointment,” is distinguished from &Aatov, “ oil.” 
 Trench, Sy. xxxviil. 
 
VII. 38-40.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 211 
 
 838. otaica dricw apd tods mé8as attod’. The sandals were 
 removed at meals, and people reclined with their feet behin¢c 
 them; she could therefore easily approach the feet. Whi's Id 
 writes rapa Tovs 700as (viii. 35, 41, X. 39, xvil. 16; Acts iv. 35, 
 37, V- 2, 10, Vii. 58, xxii. 3), Mk. has zpos rods rddas (v. 22, vii. 25), 
 and Jn. eis rots rodas (xi. 32). Mt. has rapa rods rédas (xv. 30). 
 
 tois Sdkpuow jpgato Bpexew Tods mddas attod Kal Tats Oprkiv, 
 k.t.\. This was no part of her original plan. She came to anoint 
 His feet, and was overcome by her feelings; hence the npégaro. 
 The Bpéxew led to the é€uaocer, which was also unpremeditated. 
 Among the Jews it was a shameful thing for a woman to let down 
 her hair in public; but she makes this sacrifice. For Bpéxew 
 comp. Ps. vi. 7: it is probably a vernacular word (Kennedy, 
 Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 39). 
 
 kat katedidet. Note the compound verb and the change of 
 tense: “She continued to kiss affectionately.” The word is used 
 of the kiss of the traitor (Mt. xxvi. 49; Mk. xiv. 45), which was 
 demonstrative, of the prodigal’s father (Lk. xv. 20), and of the 
 Ephesian elders in their last farewell (Acts xx. 37), and nowhere 
 else in N.T. Comp. Xen. AZem. ii. 6. 33. Kissing the feet was a 
 common mark of deep reverence, especially to leading Rabbis 
 (Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 32; Polyb. xv. 1. 7; Aristoph. Vesp. 608). 
 
 89. mpopytys. Referring to the popular estimate of Jesus 
 (vv. 16, 17). The otros is contemptuous. No true Prophet would 
 knowingly allow himself to be rendered unclean by contact with 
 such a person. The reading 6 zpopyrys (BZ) would mean “ the 
 great Prophet” of Deut. xvili. 15 (comp. Jn. i. 25, vii. 40), or 
 possibly “the Prophet that He professes to be.” The art. is 
 accepted by Weiss, bracketed by WH.., put in the margin by Treg., 
 and rejected by Tisch. 
 
 tis Kal ToTAT) H yuvy ATLs Gmtetar adtod. ‘Who and of what 
 character is the woman who is clinging to Him.” She was notori- 
 ous both in person and in life. See oni. 29. The a&mrera: implies 
 more than mere touching, and is the pres. of continued action. 
 Trench, Syz. xvii.; Lft. on Col. ii. 21. mo si tu, Simon, scires, 
 qualis hee jam esset femina, aliter judicares (Beng.). The or 
 comes after éyivwoxev: ‘that she is,” not “ decause she is.” See on 
 ver. 16, and comp. Is. Ixv. 5. 
 
 40. dmoxpibeis 6 “Inoots. Audivit Phariseum cogitantem (Aug. 
 Serm. xcix.). Jesus not only answered but confuted his doubts. 
 Simon questioned the mission of Jesus because He seemed to be 
 unable to read the woman’s character. Jesus shows Simon that 
 He can read As inmost thoughts: He knows tis kat rortards éort. 
 For éx@ gol 1 eimety see on xii. 4. Christ asks permission of His 
 host to speak. As Godet remarks, there is a tone of Socratic irony 
 in the address. ‘The historic present (pyowv) is very rare in Lk. 
 
212 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VI 41-44, 
 
 41. Avo xpeopidérat qoav Saviety tuvt. For the orthography of the two 
 substantives see WH. ii. App. p. 1543; Greg. Proleg. p. 89. In N.T. 
 xpeopudérns occurs only here and xvi. 5 ; in LXX Job xxxi. 37; Prov. xxix. 13. 
 The word is of late origin. All English Versions, except Rhem. and AV., 
 rightly have ‘‘lender” and not ‘‘ creditor” for davworjs: Vulg. fenerator, 
 Luth. Wucherer. In weight of silver the dezarzus was considerably less than 
 a shilling ; in purchasing power it was about two shillings, the wage of a day- 
 labourer (Mt. xx. 2) and of a Roman soldier (Tac. Az. i. 17. 8, where see 
 Furneaux). The two debts were about £50 and £5. 
 
 42. pi éxovtwv adtav dmododvar. ‘ Because they had not where- 
 with to pay”; non habentibus tllis unde redderent (Vulg.). Comp. 
 xll. 4, Xlv. 14; Acts iv. 14. Others render éyev in these passages 
 “to be able,” like Zabeo guod with the subjunctive. In éxapicato, 
 “he made them a present” of what they owed, we trace the Pauline 
 doctrine of free grace and salvation for all. Comp. ver. 21. 
 
 tls odv adtav mAelov dyamyjoet; This is the point of the parable, 
 and perhaps the only point. The love and gratitude of those who 
 have had debts remitted to them depends upon ¢hezr estimate of 
 the amount which has been remitted to them rather than upon the 
 actual amount. 
 
 43. ‘YrohapBdvw. “I suppose,” “I presume,” with an air of 
 supercilious indifference. Comp. Acts il. 15; Job xxv. 3; Tobit 
 vi. 18; Wisd. xvii. 2. It is very improbable that troAapBdvw here 
 means “TI reply,” as in x. 30; Job ii. 4, iv. 1, Vi aye ees 
 In N.T. it is almost peculiar to Lk. The *Op0ds éxpwwags may be 
 compared with the wdvv ép@as of Socrates, when he has led the 
 disputant into an admission which is fatal. In N.T. 6p6és occurs 
 only here, x. 28, xx. 21; Mk. vii. 35. Freq. in LXX. Comp. otx 
 éxpivare 6p0ads (Wisd. vi. 4). 
 
 44, otpadhels mpds Thy yuvaika. She was behind Him. His 
 turning to her while He spoke to Simon was in itself half a rebuke. 
 Up to this He seems to have treated her as He treated the 
 Syrophenician woman, as if paying no attention. The series of 
 contrasts produces a parallelism akin to Hebrew poetry, and in 
 iranslating a rhythm comes almost spontaneously. 
 
 Bhérrets TavTHY Thy yuvatka; This is probably a question: Simon 
 had ignored her presence. The oou being placed before eis thy 
 oixiay gives point to the rebuke, but it hardly makes the cov em- 
 phatic. An enclitic cannot be emphatic, and cov here is enclitic. 
 The meaning is not “I entered into ¢hime house,” in preference 
 to others; but rather, “I came to thee in thy house,” and not 
 merely in the public street ; “‘I was thy invited guest.” 
 
 GSwp por emt é8as. Comp. Gen. xviii. 4; Judg. xix. 21; 1 Sam. 
 XxY. 41; Jn. xii. 5; 1 Tim. v. 10. The reading is somewhat un- 
 certain, and there are many variations between pou and pov, 1édas 
 and rovs wédas, and also of order: pov émi tovs 7édas (XL) may 
 be right. 
 
VIr. 45-47.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 213 
 
 45. pihnpa. Comp. Gen. xxxili. 4; Exod. xviii. 7; 2 Sam. 
 XV. 5, xix. 39, xx. 9. The traitor’s choosing it as a sign seems to 
 mark it as usual. 
 
 ad jis cio Oov. The reading cionAGev (L} Vulg.) is an attempt 
 to avoid the apparent exaggeration in “since the time I came in.” 
 But there need be no exaggeration, or difference of meaning, be- 
 tween the two readings. The woman very likely entered with 
 Christ and His disciples in order to escape expulsion. Fear of it 
 would make her begin to execute her errand directly the guests 
 were placed. The compound katagidotca makes the contrast with 
 piAnpa more marked, and rots zédas makes it still moreso. The 
 piAnua would have been on the cheek, or possibly (if Simon had 
 wished to be very respectful) on the hand. 
 
 46. é\aiw. Very cheap in Palestine, where olives abound, and 
 very commonly used (Ps. xxiii. 5, cxli. 5; Mt. vi. 17). The pvpov 
 would be more valuable, and possibly very costly (Jn. xii. 3, 5). 
 This woman, whom Simon so despised in his heart, had really 
 done the honours of the house to his guest. This fact would be 
 all the more prominent if she entered close after Jesus, and thus 
 at once supplied Simon’s lack of courtesy. 
 
 47. This is a verse which has been the subject of much contro- 
 versy. What is the meaning of the first half of it? We have to 
 choose between two possible interpretations. 1. ‘For which 
 reason, I say to thee, her many sins have been forgiven, because 
 she loved much” ; ze. o6 xdpiv anticipates 6m, and héyw oor is paren- 
 thetical. Her sins have been forgiven for the reason that her love 
 was great; or her love won forgiveness. This is the interpretation 
 of Roman Catholic commentators (see Schanz), and the doctrine 
 of contritio caritate formata is built upon it. But it is quite at 
 variance (a) with the parable which precedes ; (4) with the second 
 half of the verse, which ought in that case to run, “but he who 
 loveth little, wins little forgiveness” ; (¢) with ver. 50, which states 
 that it was fa7th, not love, which had been the means of salvation ; 
 a doctrine which runs through the whole of the N.T. This cannot 
 be correct. 2. “For which reason I say to thee, her many sins 
 have been forgiven (and I say this to thee), because she loved 
 much” ; z.e. A€yw cor is not parenthetical, but is the main sentence. 
 This statement, that her many sins have been forgiven, is rightly 
 made to Simon, because he knew of her great sinfulness, he had 
 witnessed her loving reverence, and he had admitted the principle 
 that the forgiveness of much produces much love. This interpreta- 
 tion is quite in harmony with the parable, with the second half of 
 the verse, and with ver. 50. There were two things evident,—the 
 past sin and the present love,—both of them great. A third might 
 be known, because (according to the principle just admitted) it 
 explained how great love could follow great sin—the forgiveness 
 
214 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |[VII. 47-50, 
 
 of the sin. Remissio peccatorum, Simoni non cogitata, probata a 
 Jructu, qui est evidens, guum illa sit occulta (Beng). 
 
 ai Gpaptiat adrijs at moAAai. ‘The second art. refers to v. 39: 
 “The many sins of which thou thinkest. ” “Her sins, yes (accord- 
 ing to thy estimate), her many sins.’ 
 
 @ 8é ddiyov ddietat. ‘ But he to whom little is forgiven,” ze. who 
 thinks that he has committed little which could need forgiveness. 
 It is said with evident reference to Simon. O Pharisxe, parum 
 diligts, guia parum tibt dimitt suspicaris ; non quia parum dimtt- 
 titur, sed quia parum putas quod dimittitur (Aug. Serm. xcix.). For 
 this use of the dat. comp. Soph. Azz. go4. 
 
 48. ciwey 8é adtH. What He had to say to Simon (ver. 40) is 
 finished: it is His true entertainer (44-46) who now occupies His 
 attention. 
 
 dpéwvtar. ‘‘ Have been and remain forgiven”: see on Vv. 20. 
 There is nothing either in the word or in the context to show that 
 her sins were not forgiven until this moment: the context implies 
 the opposite, and this is confirmed by the use of the perf. Augus- 
 tine’s accessit ad Dominum immunda, ut rediret munda is in this 
 respect misleading. The teaching of Christ had brought her to 
 repentance and to assurance of forgiveness, and this assurance had 
 inspired her with love and gratitude. Jesus now confirms her 
 assurance and publicly declares her forgiveness. He thus lends 
 His authority to rehabilitate her with society. 
 
 49. héyew év éautois. “To say within themselves” rather than 
 among themselves; so that Jesus answered their thoughts, as He 
 had already answered Simon’s. The ofros is slightly contemptu- 
 ous, as often (v. 21; Mt. xiii. 55; Jn. vi. 42, 52, etc.). The kat 
 in ds Kal dpaptias ddinow is “even” rather than “also.” It is 
 difficult to see the point of “also.” 
 
 50. eimev S€ mpds Thy yuvaika. “ But He said unto the woman.” 
 He ignored their objection, and yet indirectly answered it, by telling 
 her that it was her faith that had delivered her from her sins. 
 
 mopevou eis eipyyyv. ‘Depart into peace,” z.e. into a lasting 
 condition of peace: a Hebrew formula of blessing and of good- 
 will, with special fulness of meaning. Comp. viii. 48; Mk. v. 34; 
 1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42. In Acts xvi. 36 and Jas. ii. 16 we have é 
 eipyvn, which is less strong, the peace being joined to the moment 
 of departure rather than to the subsequent life: comp. Judg. 
 xviii. 6. In Acts xv. 33 we have per ecipyvys. 
 
 Among the various points which distinguish this anointing from that by Mary 
 of Bethany should be noted that 4eve we have no grumbling at the waste of the 
 ointment and no prediction of Christ’s death, while ¢here no absolution is bee 
 
 nounced and Mary is not addressed. See Hase, Gesch. J. § 91, p. 651, ed. 
 1891 ; also Schanz, p. 250, at the end of this section. 
 
 VIII. 1-3. § The ministering Women. This section is 
 
VII. 1,2.) | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 7205 
 
 evidence of the excellence of Lk.’s sources. The information 
 contained in it is exact and minute. The names and other details 
 are utterly unlike fiction. An inventor would avoid such things 
 as likely to be refuted: moreover, no motive for invention can be 
 discerned. The passage tells us—what no other Evangelist 
 makes known—how Jesus and His disciples lived when they 
 were not being entertained by hospitable persons. The common 
 purse (Jn. xili. 29; comp. xii. 6) was kept supplied by the 
 generosity of pious women. This form of piety was not rare. 
 Women sometimes contributed largely towards the support of 
 Rabbis, whose rapacity in accepting what could ill be spared was 
 rebuked by Christ (xx. 47; Mt. xxiii. 13; Mk. xii. 40) with great 
 severity. 
 
 1. Kat éyéveto év 76 xalegijs Kal adtis Siddevev, See detached 
 note p. 45, and comp. v. 1, 12, 14: for év 7@ KaQegijs see small 
 print on vii. 11. The airds anticipates xal of dudexa, “ He Himself 
 and the Twelve.” But the xai before airds comes after éyévero 
 and must not be coupled with the xaé before oi dédexa. In N.T. 
 Stodedw occurs only here and Acts xvii. 1, but it is freq. in LXX 
 (Gen. xii. 6, xiii. 17, etc.) ; also in Polyb. Plut. etc. Comp. ix. 6, 
 xiii. 22. 
 
 kata Tod Kat Kata Kdpny. Ve quis Judeus preteritum se quert 
 posset (Grotius), Jesus preached city by city (Acts xv. 21) and 
 village by village. The clause is amphibolous. It probably is 
 meant to go with diddeve, but may be taken with xypicowv kal 
 evayy. The incidental way in which the severity of Christ’s 
 labours is mentioned is remarkable. Comp. ix. 58, xiii. 22; Mt. 
 ix. 35; Mk. vi. 31. For evdayyedufdpevos see on ii. 10. We are 
 not to understand that the Twelve preached in His presence, if at 
 all. Note the ovyv (not perd), and see on vv. 38, 51, and i. 56. 
 
 2. mvedpatav movnpav. See on iv. 33. We cannot tell how 
 many of these women had been freed from demons: perhaps only 
 Mary Magdalen, the others having been cured dwé doGevacdv. For 
 the dé comp. v. 15, Vii. 21. 
 
 i Kadoupévn Maydahynvy. See on vi. 15. The adj. probably 
 means “‘ of Magdala,” a town which is not named in N.T.; for the 
 true reading in Mt. xv. 39 is “ Magadan.” ‘“‘ Magdala is only the 
 Greek form of Migdol, or watch-tower, one of the many places of 
 the name in Palestine” (Tristram, Bible Places, p. 260); and it is 
 probably represented by the squalid group of hovels which now 
 bear the name of A/ejde/, near the centre of the western shore of 
 she lake. Magdala was probably near to Magadan, and being 
 much better known through 4 Maydadnv7, at last it drove the 
 latter name out of the common text. See Stanley, Six. & Pal. 
 p. 382. Mary being a common name, the addition of something 
 distinctive was convenient ; and possibly a distinction from Mary 
 
216 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [VIIL 2, 8. 
 
 of Bethany was specially designed by the Evangelists. Mary 
 Magdalen is commonly placed first when she is mentioned with 
 other women (Mt. xxvii. 56, 61, xxviii. 1; Mk. xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1; 
 Lk. xxiv. 10). Jn. xix. 25 is an exception. See on i. 36. 
 
 ap’ Fs Saypdva ewra efeAndUOer. This fact is mentioned in the 
 disputed verses at the end of Mk. (xvi. 9). It indicates a pos- 
 session of extracrdinary malignity (Mk. v. 9). We need not give 
 any mystical interpretation to the number seven: comp. xi. 26; 
 Mt. xil. 25. There is nothing to show that demoniacs generally, 
 or Mary in particular, had lived specially vicious lives: and the 
 fact that no name is given to the dyuaprwAds in the preceding 
 section, while Mary Magdalen is introduced here as an entirely 
 new person, is against the traditional identification of the two. 
 Moreover, such an affliction as virulent demoniacal possession 
 would be almost incompatible with the miserable trade of prosti- 
 tution. If Lk. had wished to intimate that the duaprwAds is Mary 
 Magdalen, he could have done it much more clearly. Had he 
 wished to conceal the fact, he would not have placed these two 
 sections in juxtaposition. Had he wished to withhold the name 
 of the duaptwdos, who may possibly be included among the €repat 
 modAal, he would have done as he has done. The dyaptwAds and 
 Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany are three distinct persons. 
 
 8. *lwdéva. She is mentioned with Mary Magdalen again 
 xxiv. 10: all that we know about her is contained in these two 
 passages. Godet conjectures that Chuza is the BaciAuxds, who 
 “believed and his whole house” (Jn. iv. 46-53). In that case her 
 husband would be likely to let her go and minister to Christ. The 
 Herod meant is probably Antipas, and his énitpowos would be the 
 manager of his household and estates: comp. Mt. xx. 8. Blunt 
 finds here a coincidence with Mt. xiv. 2; Herod “said to his 
 servants, This is John the Baptist.” If Herod’s steward’s wife was 
 Christ’s disciple, He would often be spoken of among the servants 
 at the court; and Herod addresses them, because they were 
 familiar with the subject. Comp. the case of Manaen (Acts xiii. 1), 
 Herod’s cvvrpodos (Undesigned Coincidences, Pt. IV. xi. p. 263, 
 8th ed.). Of Susanna nothing else is known, nor of the other 
 women, unless Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and Salome 
 (Mk. xv. 40) may be assumed to be among them. 
 
 aituves Sunkdvouy adtots. ‘ Who were of such a character as to 
 minister to them”; ze. they were persons of substance. For #t¢ 
 see on vii. 37, and for S:axovetv comp. Rom. xv. 25. The adrots 
 means Jesus and the Twelve, the reading airé (A L M X) being 
 probably a correction from Mt. xxvii. 55; Mk. xv. 41. But atrois 
 has special point. It was precisely because Jesus now had twelve 
 icciples who always accompanied Him, that there was need of 
 » «cli Support from other discap._ 
 
VIII. 3, 4.]} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 217 
 
 ek tov Srapydvtwy adtais. It is this which distinguishes this 
 passage from Mt. xxvii. 55 and Mk. xv. 41. There the diaxovely 
 might refer to mere attendance on Him. We learn from this that 
 neither Jesus nor the Twelve wrought miracles for their own 
 support. 
 Ilere, as in xii. 15 and Acts iv. 32, 74 brdpxovra has the dat. Every- 
 where else in Lk. (xi. 21, xii. 33, 44, xiv. 33, xvi. I, xix. 8) and elsewhere 
 in N.T. (five times) it has the gen. So also in LXX the gen. is the rule, the 
 
 dat. the exception, if it is the true reading anywhere. Both 7a brdpxovta 
 and jadpxecy are favourite expressions with Lk. See on ver. 41. 
 
 4-18. The Parable of the Sower. Mt. xiii, 1-23; Mk. 
 iv. 1-20. We have already had several instances of teaching by 
 means of parables (v. 36-39, Vi. 39, 41-44, 47-49, Vil. 41, 42); 
 but they are brief and incidental. Parables seem now to become 
 more common in Christ’s teaching, and also more elaborate. 
 This is intelligible, when we remember the characteristics of 
 parables. They have the double property of revealing and con- 
 cealing. ‘They open the truth, and impress it upon the minds of 
 those who are ready to receive it: but they do not instruct, though 
 they may impress, the careless (ver. 10). As Bacon says of a 
 parable, “it tends to vail, and it tends to illustrate a truth.” As the 
 hostility to His teaching increased, Jesus would be likely to make 
 more use of parables, which would benefit disciples without giving 
 opportunity to His enemies. The parable of the Sower is in some 
 respects chief among the parables, as Christ Himself seems to 
 indicate (Mk. iv. 13). It is one of the two which all three record, 
 the other being the Wicked Husbandmen: and it is one of which 
 we have Christ’s own interpretation. 
 
 4, Xuvidvtos S€ SxAou Trohdod kal Td KaTa Wédty emTOpEevOpevwr Tr. 
 ait. The constr. is uncertain, and we have choice of two ways, 
 according as the xat is regarded as simply co-ordinating, or as 
 epexegetic. 1. “And when a great multitude was coming 
 together, avd they of every city were resorting to Him.” 2. 
 “And when a great multitude was coming together, xamely, of 
 those who city by city were resorting to Him.” According to 2, 
 the multitude consisted wholly of those who were following from 
 different towns (ver. 1). As no town is named, there was perhaps 
 no crowd from the place itself. In any case the imperf. part. 
 should be preserved in translation. It was the growing multitude 
 which caused Him to enter into a boat (Mt. xi. 2; Mk. iv. 1). 
 See on xi. 29. Except Tit. i. 5, ata 76Acyv is peculiar to Lk. 
 
 The Latin Versions vary greatly: convenzente autem turba magna et 
 corum qui ex civitatibus adveniebant dixtt parabolam (a); conveniente autem 
 turba multa et qui de singulis civitatibus exibant dixit p. (c) ; congregato 
 zatem populo multo et ad ctvitatem iter faciebant ad eum dixit parabolam 
 swim ad eos (ai; ruse eutem turba plurima conveniset et de civitatibus pro- 
 
218 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [VIII 4-7. 
 
 perarent ad eum dixit per simtlitudinem (Vulg.); cum autem turba plurima 
 convenisset (svvéhOovtos, D) e¢ de civitatebus advenirent multi dixit per 
 stmtlitudinem (Cod. Brix.). 
 
 etmev 81d mapaBodjs. The expression occurs nowhere else. 
 Mt. and Mk. write é wapaBodais A€éyew or Aadciv, while Lk. has 
 mapaBoArnv eizety or A€yew. See on iv. 23, v. 36, and vi. 39; and 
 on the parable itself see Gould on Mk. iv. 1 ff. 
 
 5. e&f\Oev 6 omelpwy. So in all three accounts: “ Ze sower 
 went forth.” The force of the article is “he whose business it is 
 to sow”: he is the representative of a class who habitually have 
 these experiences. Rhem. has’ “Ze sower” in all three places, 
 Cran. in Mt. and Mk., Cov. in Mt. For the pres. part. with the 
 article used as a substantive comp. Iii. 11, v. 31, Vi. 29, 30, ix. 2, 
 11, x. 16, etc. There is solemnity in the repetition, 6 oreipwy tod 
 omeipat tov omdpov. The comparison of teaching with sowing is 
 frequent in all literature ; but it is possible that Jesus here applies 
 what was going on before their eyes. See the vivid description of 
 a startling coincidence with the parable in Stanley, Siz. & Fal. 
 Pp. 425. 
 
 év 73 ome(pew aitév. “During his sowing, while he sowed”: 
 avtév is subj., not obj., and refers to 6 ozefpwy, not tov amdpov. 
 See on iil. 21. Note the graphic change of prepositions: rapa 
 THv Gdov (ver. 5), ért THv wérpav (ver. 6), év péow (ver. 7), ets THY 
 ynv (ver. 8). In this verse Lk. has three features which are 
 wanting in Mt. and Mk.: ror o7opov, kat KateratyOn, and rod 
 ovpavod. 
 
 Tapa thy 686v. Not “along the way,” but “by the side of the 
 way.” It fell on the field, but so close to the road that it was 
 trampled on. 
 
 Both Lk. and Mk. here have péy followed by cal: 8 uéy . » . Kal Erepor, 
 Comp. Mk. ix. 12. The absence of 6é after uév is freq. in Acts, Pauline 
 Epp., and Heb, 
 
 6. énithv wérpay. The rock had a slight covering of soil; and 
 hence is called 16 werp&des (Mk.) and ra zerpwdy (Mt.), which does 
 not mean “stony ground,” z.e. full of stones, but ‘rocky ground,” 
 z.e. with rock appearing at intervals and with “no depth of earth.” 
 The thinness of the soil would cause rapid germination and rapid 
 withering ; but Lk omits the vapid growth. With pvév comp. Prov. 
 xxvi. 9; Exod. x. 5; and (for the constr.) Lk. ii. 4. For ixpdda, 
 “moisture,” Mt. and Mk. have fifav. The word occurs Jer. 
 xvii. 8; Job xxvi. 14; Jos. Azz. ill. 1. 3; but nowhere else in N.T. 
 
 7. év péow tav dxavOdv. The result of the falling was that it 
 was in the midst of the thorns: prep. of rest after a verb of 
 motion: comp. vii. 16. Lk. is fond of év péow (ii. 46, x. 3, xxi. 
 
VIL. 7-10.] § THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 219 
 
 21, xxii. 27, 55, xxiv. 36; Actsi. 15, etc.). Elsewhere it is rare, 
 except in Rev. Neither Mt. nor Mk. have it here. 
 
 cuvgueicat. Here only in N.T. In LXX only Wisd. xiii. 13. 
 In Plato and Aristotle it is transitive: “cause to grow together.” 
 We are to understand that the good seed fell into ground where 
 young thorns were growing ; otherwise the growing ‘ogether would 
 hardly be possible. Indeed the avé@yoav at dxavOa of Mt. and 
 Mk. almost implies that the thorns were not yet visible, when the 
 good seed was sown in the midst of them. The éménmgav means 
 “choked it off,” so as to exterminate it: comp. the dro in dzo- 
 xtetvw. Wic. has “strangliden it”; but that, though sufficient for 
 suffocaverunt (Vulg.), does not express the azé. The verb occurs 
 only here and ver. 31 in N.T., and in LXX only in Nah. ii. 12 and 
 Tobit iii. 8. 
 
 8. eis Thy yh Thy dyaOyv. Not merely upon, but into the soil. 
 The double article in all three accounts presents the soil and its 
 goodness as two separate ideas: “the ground (that was intended 
 for it), the good (ground).” Mt. and Mk. have xadyy. This 
 repetition of the article is specially frequent in Jn. Lk. omits the 
 sixty- and thirtyfold. Isaac is said to have reaped a hundredfold 
 (Gen. xxvi. 12). Hdt. (i. 193. 4) states that in the plain of 
 Babylon returns of two hundred- and even three hundredfold, 
 were obtained. Strabo (xvi. p. 1054) says much the same, but is 
 perhaps only following Hdt. See Wetst. on Mt. xiii. 8 for abundant 
 evidence of very large returns. 
 
 6 exov Gta dove dxovérw. This formula occurs in all three. 
 Comp. xiv. 353 Mt. xi. 15, xiii. 43. In Rev. we have the sing., 
 6 éxwv ovs akovodrw (ii. 7, II, 17, 29, ill. 6, 13; 22). The intro- 
 ductory édever, “ He cried aloud,” indicates a raising of the voice, 
 and gives a solemnity to this concluding charge. The imperf. 
 perhaps means that the charge was repeated. Comp. Ezek. iii. 27 ; 
 Hom. //. xv. 129. 
 
 9. tis airy etn 4 mapaBodky. “ What this parable might be in 
 meaning.” See small print oni. 29. Mt. says that the disciples 
 asked why He spoke to the multitude in parables. Christ answers 
 both questions. For émnpdtwr see on iii. 10. 
 
 10. tois 8€ Aormots. “Those who are outside the circle of 
 Christ’s disciples” ; éxetvors rots é€w, as Mk. has it. This implies 
 that it is disciples generally, and not the Twelve only, who are 
 being addressed. Mt. is here the fullest of the three, giving the 
 passage from Is. vi. 9, 10 in full. Lk. is very brief. 
 
 iva Bhérovres ph Bhérworv, At first sight it might seem as if 
 the tva of Lk. and Mk. was very different from the ére of Mt. 
 But the principle that he who hath shall receive more, while he 
 who hath not shall be deprived of what he seemeth to have, 
 explains both the fva and the 67. Jesus speaks in parables, 
 
220 THE GOSPEJ, ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ VIII. 10-12, 
 
 because the multitude see without seeing and hear without hearing. 
 But He also speaks in parables 7” order that they may see without 
 seeing and hear without hearing. They “have not” a mind to 
 welcome instruction, and therefore they are taught in a way which 
 deprives them of instruction, although it is full of meaning to those 
 who desire to understand and do understand. But what the 
 unsympathetic ‘hear without understanding” they rensember, be- 
 cause of its impressive form; and whenever their minds become 
 fitted for it, its meaning will become manifest to them. 
 
 WH. write cuviwow, from the unused owlw, while other editors prefer 
 ouviaow, from ouvlnu or the unused evéw. Similarly WH. have owlovow 
 (Mt. xiii. 13), where others give cumodow. II. App. p. 167. Here some 
 authorities have cuvGcw, as in LXX, 
 
 11. Having answered the question d.ari év tapaBodais A€yers ; 
 Jesus now answers tis éorw atrn 4 tapaBorj; To the disciples 
 “who have” the one thing needful “more is given.” The similarity 
 between the seed and the word lies specially in the vital power 
 which it secretly contains. Comp. ‘Behold I sow My law in 
 you, and it shall bring fruit in you, and ye shall be glorified in it 
 for ever. But our fathers, which received the law, kept it not, and 
 observed not the statutes: and the fruit of the law did not perish, 
 neither could it, for it was Thine ; yet they that received it perished, 
 because they kept not the thing that was sown in them” (2 Esdr. 
 ix. 31-33). 
 
 6 Adyos tod Oeod. Mt. never (?xv. 6) has this phrase ; it occurs 
 only once in Mk. (vii. 13) and once in Jn. (x. 35). Lk. has it 
 four times in the Gospel (v. 1, viii. 11, 21, xi. 28) and twelve 
 times in the Acts. Here Mk. has tov Adyor (iv. 15) and Mt. has 
 nothing (xiii. 18). So in ver. 21, where Lk. has roy A. rov @., 
 Mk. has 76 6€Anpa Tod @. (iii. 35) and Mt. 7d O&Anpa tod watpds 
 (xii. 50). Does it mean “the word which comes from God” or 
 “the word which tells of God”? Probably the former. Comp. 
 the O.T. formula ‘The word of the Lord came to.” The gen. is 
 subjective. Lft. Epp. of S. Paul, p. 15. 
 
 12. ot S€ mapa tiv 686v. There is no need to understand 
 orapévres, as is clear from Mk. iv. 15. ‘Those by the wayside” 
 is just as intelligible as “Those who received seed by the way- 
 side.” 
 
 etta, pyetat 6 SidBodos. Much more vivid than “And the 
 birds are the devil.” This is Christ’s own interpretation of the 
 birds, and it is strong evidence for the existence of a personal 
 devil. Why did not Jesus explain the birds as meaning impersonal 
 temptations. He seems pointedly to insist upon a personal ad- 
 versary. See onx. 18. Mt. has 6 zovnpés, Mk. 6 caravas. The 
 concluding words are peculiar to Lk.: “in order that they may 
 not by believing be saved.” Perhaps a sign of Pauline influence. 
 
VIII. 18-15.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 221 
 
 18. The constr. is ambiguous. In vw. 12, 14, 15 eloly is expressed, and 
 it is usually understood here: ‘‘ And those on the rock ave they which, when 
 they have heard, receive the word with joy ; avd these have no root.” But it 
 is not necessary to insert the elclyv, We may continue the protasis to rov 
 Aéyov and make «al mean also: ‘‘ And those on the rock, which, when they 
 have heard, receive the word with joy,—these also (as well as those by the 
 wayside) have no root.” Thus odra éxovoww exactly corresponds to oirol 
 elow in vv. 14, 15. But the usual arrangement is better. The of rpds kacpov 
 miorevovow is a further explanation of otro. Neither Mt. nor Mk. has 
 déxovrat, of which Lk. is fond (ii. 28, ix. 5, 48, 53, x. 8, 10, xvi. 4, 6, 7, 
 g, etc.). It implies the internal acceptance; whereas AauPdvew implies no 
 more than the external reception. 
 
 év Kaipd Treipacpod apiotavrar. Mt. and Mk. have @diWews 7 
 dwyp0v, which shows that the temptation of persecution and ex- 
 ternal suffering is specially meant: comp. Jas. i. 2. In all times 
 of moral and spiritual revival persons who are won easily at first, 
 but apostatize under pressure, are likely to form a large portion : 
 comp. Heb. iii. 12. The verb does not occur in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 
 The repetition of xa:pds is impressive. As opportunity commonly 
 lasts only for a short time, xarpés may mean “a short time.” 
 
 14, 175 88 cis Tas axavOas wévov. It is not probable that this is an acc. 
 abs.: ‘‘ Now as regards that which fell among the thorns.” The attraction 
 of odro. (for ToOro) to of dxovcarres is quite intelligible. 
 
 ind pepipvav Kal mAovTou Kat HSovav tod Biov. It is usual to take 
 this after ovymviyovra:; and this is probably correct: yet Weiss 
 would follow Luther and others and join it with ropevopevon, “going 
 on their way under the influence of cares,” etc. But ver. 7 is 
 against this: the cares, etc., are the thorns, and it is the thorns 
 which choke. This does not reduce zopevdmevor to a gehaltloser 
 Zusatz. ‘The choking is not a sudden process, like the trampling 
 and devouring; nor a rapid process, like the withering: it takes 
 time. It is as they go on their way through life, and before they 
 have reached the goal, that the choking of the good growth takes 
 place. Therefore they never do reach the goal. The transfer of 
 what is true of the growing seed to those in whose heart it is sown 
 is not difficult; and ovpmviyovrat is clearly passive, not middle 
 and transitive. The thorns choke the seed (ver. 7); these hearers 
 are choked by the cares, etc. (ver. 14). Here only in N.T. does 
 TeXeopopety occur. It is used of animals as well as of plants 
 (4 Mac. xiii. 20; Ps. Ixiv. 10, Sym.). 
 
 15. 7d Sé év TH Kadf yf, «7A. It fell zzZo the good ground 
 (ver. 8), and it is zz the right ground, Perhaps oites has its full 
 meaning: “who are of such a character as to,” etc. The two 
 epithets used of the ground, dyay) in ver. 8 and xaAy in ver. 15, 
 are combined for xapdia: “in a right and good heart.” We must 
 take é€v kapdia with xaréxouot rather than with axovcavres. Even 
 if dxovewy be interpreted to mean “hearing gladly, welcoming,” it 
 
222 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |VIL 15, 16. 
 
 is not the same as xaréyewv, which means “ hold fast” (1 Cor. 
 xi. 2). It is reasonable to suppose that axovewy means the same in 
 all four cases (12, 13, 14, 15). But xaréyovow (Lk.), rapadexovrat 
 (Mk. iv. 20), and ovvusv (Mt. xiii. 23) may all be equivalents of 
 the same Aramaic verb, meaning “to take in”: see footnote on 
 Ve2t. Comp 1 Cor-xv.2; 1 Phesovs ce 
 
 ev tropors. “With endurance, perseverance,” rather than 
 “patience,” which would be paxpoOupia: in patientia (Vulg.), in 
 tolerantia (c), in sufferentia (d), per patientiam (bf ff). See Lft. 
 on Col. i. 11; Trench, Syz. lili. This irouovy is the opposite of 
 adiotavrat (ver. 13); and is not in Mt. or Mk. Thus Lk. gives the 
 opposite of all three of the bad classes: xatéxovow, non ut in Via ; 
 Kapropopovow, non ut in spinis; &v twopovy, non ut in petroso 
 (Beng.). Neither here nor in ver. 8 does Lk. give the degrees of 
 fruitfulness. Mt. and Mk. do so both in the parable and in the 
 interpretation. The suggestion that Lk. has mistaken three 
 numerals for a word which he translates év trouev7} seems to be a 
 little too ingenious (Zxfositor, Nov. 1891, p. 381). That Jesus 
 knew that all four of the classes noticed in the parable were to be 
 found in the audience before Him, is probable enough; but we 
 have no means of knowing it. We may safely identify the Eleven 
 and the ministering women with the fourth class. Judas is an 
 instance of the third. But all are warned that the mere receiving 
 of the word is not decisive. Everything depends upon Zow it is 
 received and how it is ve¢ained. Grotius quotes from the Magna 
 Moralia: © ta ayaa wavta Gvta dyad éorw, Kat trd TovTwY pi) 
 SiapGeiperar, ofov bxd wdovrov Kai dpxjs, 6 Towodros Kahds Kal 
 ayalds. 
 
 16-18. Practical Inference. The connexion with what pre- 
 cedes need not be doubted. By answering the question of the 
 disciples (ver. 9) and explaining the parable to them, Jesus had 
 kindled a light within them. They must not hide it, but must see 
 that it spreads to others. Here we have the opposite of what was 
 noticed in the Sermon on the Mount. Here Lk. has, gathered 
 into one, sayings which Mt. has, scattered in three different places 
 (v. 15, x. 26, xiii. 12: comp. xiii. 12, xxv. 29). Mk. and Lk. are 
 here very similar and consecutive. Comp. xi. 33-36. 
 
 16. Adxvov Gipas Kahdmrer adtév oxeder. “ Having lighted a 
 lamp,” rather than “a candle.” Trench, Sy. xlvi.; Becker, 
 Charicles, iii. 86, Eng. tr. p. 130; Gadlus, ii. 398, Eng. tr. p. 308. 
 For épas see on xv. 8: it occurs again xi. 33, but not in the 
 parallels Mt. xiii. 15 ; Mk. iv. at. Instead of oxedet Mt. and Mk. 
 have the more definite i7é rév pédtoy, which Lk. has xi. 33. As 
 
VII. 16-18.) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 223 
 
 Adxvos isa “lamp,” Avxvia is a “lamp-stand,” on which several 
 Avxvor might be placed or hung: for, whereas the Aauarrjp was 
 fixed, the Avyvos was portable. Other forms of Avxvia are Avxviov 
 and dvyvetov (Kennedy, Sources of NV.T. Grk. p. 40). Comp. the 
 very similar passage xi. 33. In both passages of ciomopevopevor, 
 the Gentiles, are mentioned instead of ot év 77 oixig, the Jews (Mt. 
 xili. 15). 
 
 17. The poetic rhythm and parallelism should be noticed. 
 Somewhat similar sayings are found in profane writers: dye. dé 
 mpos das tiv adyPeav xpdvos (Menander) ; comp. Soph. Ajax, €46, 
 and Wetst. on Mt. x. 26. For davepdv yevnoerar see on iv. 36; 
 Mt has azoxaAvdbjoetar, Mk. havepwh7j. For daréxpudoy, “ hidden 
 away” from the public eye, see Lft. on Col. ii. 3. It was a 
 favourite word with the Gnostics to indicate their esoteric books, 
 which might not be published. Comp. the very similar passage 
 xii. 2; and see S. Cox in the Zxfositor, 2nd series, i. pp. 186, 
 372, and Schanz, ad doc. 
 
 18. Bdémete ov mas Gxovete. Because the doctrine received 
 must be handed on and made known to all, therefore it is all-im- 
 portant that it should be rightly heard, viz. with intelligence and 
 a “good heart” (ver. 15). Whoever gives a welcome to the word 
 and appropriates it, becomes worthy and capable of receiving 
 more. But by not appropriating truth when we recognize it, we 
 lose our hold of it, and have less power of recognizing it in the 
 future. There is little doubt that 6 Soxet éxeww means “ that which 
 he ¢hinketh he hath.” Wic. has ‘‘weneth”; Tyn. and Cran. “ sup- 
 poseth”; Coy. and Rhem. “thinketh.” ‘Seemeth” comes from 
 Beza’s widetur. It is sedfdeception that is meant. Those who 
 received the seed by the wayside were in this condition; they 
 failed to appropriate it, and lost it. Comp. xix. 26. 
 
 Mk. here inserts (iv. 24) the @ pérpw perpeire, x.7.A., which 
 Lk. has already given in the sermon (vi. 38): and both Mt. and 
 Mk. here add other parables, two of which Lk. gives later (xiii. 
 18-21). 
 
 as ait The Visit of His Mother and His Brethren. Christ’s 
 true Relations. Mt. (xii. 46-50) and Mk. (iii. 31-35) place this 
 incident before the parable of the Sower; but none of the three 
 state which preceded in order of time. Comp. xi. 27, 28, and 
 see on xi. 29. On the “Brethren of the Lord” see Lange, Leben 
 Jesu, ii. 2, § 13, Eng. tr. 1. p. 3293 Lft. Galatians, pp. 253-291, 
 in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age, pp. 3-45, Macmillan, 
 1892; J. B. Mayor, Zpzstle of S. James, pp. v-xxxvi, Macmillan, 
 1892.1 D.B.? artt. “Brother”; “James”; “ Judas, the Lord’s 
 Brother.” 
 
 1 The work as a whole, and the dissertation on this question in particular, 
 deserve special commendation. 
 
224 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 19-21. 
 
 19. Mapeyévero S€ mpds attov  pytnp Kal ot adeAdot adrod. 
 For the verb, which is a favourite with Lk., see on vii. 4. Here 
 Mk. has épxovra: and Mt. idov. In writing the sing. Lk. is think- 
 ing only of 4 wjrnp. Such constructions are common, and do 
 not imply that the first in the series of nominatives was em- 
 phatic or specially prominent, except in the writer's = 
 Comp. Jn. xvili. 15, xx. 3; Acts xxvi. 30; Philem. 23. 
 
 The precise relationship to be understood from the expression 
 ot dSeApot adtod will probably never be determined or cease to be 
 discussed. There is nothing in Scripture to warn us from what is 
 the antecedently natural view that they are the children of Joseph 
 and Mary, unless “I know not a man” (i. 34) is interpreted as 
 implying a vow of perpetual virginity. The “firstborn” in ii. 7 
 and the imperfect followed by “till” in Mt. i. 25, seem to imply 
 that Joseph and Mary Aad children; which is confirmed by con- 
 temporary belief (Mk. vi. 3; Mt. xiii. 55) and by the constant 
 attendance of the ddeAgot on the Mother of the Lord (Mt. xii. 
 46; Mk. ili. 32; Jn. ii. 12). The Epiphanian theory, which gives 
 Joseph children older than Jesus by a former wife, deprives Him 
 of His rights as the heir of Joseph and of the house of David. 
 It seems to be of apocryphal origin (Gospel according to Peter, or 
 Book of James); and, like Jerome’s theory of cousinship, to have 
 been invented in the interests of asceticism and of @ priori con- 
 victions respecting the perpetual virginity of Mary. Tertullian, 
 in dealing with this passage, seems to assume as a matter of 
 course that the adeAgoi are the children of Mary, and that she 
 and they were here censured by Christ (Marcion. iv. 19; De 
 Carne Christi, vii.). He knows nothing of the doctrine of a 
 sinless Virgin. Renan conjectures that James, Joses, Simon, 
 and Judas were the cousins of Jesus, but that the brethren who 
 refused to believe in Him were His real brethren (V. de /. p. 23). 
 This solution remains entirely his own, for it creates more diffi- 
 culties than it solves. See Lxfositor’s Bible, James and Jude, ch. 
 ili., Hodder, 1891. 
 
 guvtuxetv. Elsewhere in bibl. Grk. 2 Mac. viii. 14 only. 
 
 amnyyAn. A favourite word (vz. 34, 36, 47, vii. 18, 22, ix. 36, xiii. 1, 
 etc.). Here Mt. has elev 5¢ tts and Mk. has Aéyousw. The deyévTup is 
 certainly spurious: om. NBD LA&, Latt. Goth. etc, 
 
 21. pjtnp pou Kat GSehdoi pov. Note the absence of the article 
 in all three accounts. This is the predicate, and otro, «.7.A., is 
 the subject. And the meaning is not are “My actual mother | or 
 brethren,” which would be 4 pajryp pov kal oi ad<cApot pov, but 
 “ Mother to Me and brethren to Me,” ze. equal to such, equally 
 dear. Mt. and Mk. have the singular here: obros or airds pou 
 ddeaAgos Kai ddeaAdi kal pyryp éotiv. We cannot infer from xai 
 
VOI, 21-23.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 225 
 
 a5<A¢y that His sisters were present: they had settled at Nazareth 
 (Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. vi. 3). The texts of Mk. iii. 32, which repre- 
 sent the multitude as telling Jesus that His sisters are with His 
 Mother and brethren, are probably the result of this inference. 
 AD and some : Latin authorities insert ‘‘and Thy sisters”; 
 *BCGKL and most Versions omit the words. Christ’s reply 
 is not a denial of the claims of family ties, nor does it necessarily 
 imply any censure on His Mother and brethren. It asserts that 
 there are far stronger and higher claims. Family ties at the best 
 are temporal; spiritual ties are eternal. Moreover, the closest 
 blood-relationship to the Messiah constitutes no claim to ad- 
 mission into the Kingdom of God. No one becomes a child of 
 God in virtue of human parentage (Jn. i. 13). Jesus does not 
 say marjp pov, not merely because Joseph was not present, but 
 because in the spiritual sense that relationship to Christ is filled 
 by God alone. See on ver. 11. 
 
 22-25. The Stilling of the Tempest on the Lake of Gennesaret. 
 This is the first of a pair of miracles which appear in the same 
 order in all three Gospels (Mt. viii. 23 ff.; Mk. iv. 35ff.), the 
 second being the healing of the demoniacs in the country of the 
 Gadarenes. To these two Mk. and Lk. add the healing of the 
 woman with the issue and the raising of the daughter of Jairus, 
 which Mt. places somewhat later. The full series gives us a 
 group of representative miracles exhibiting Christ’s power over 
 the forces of nature and the powers of hell, over disease and over 
 death. 
 
 22. “Eyévero Sé ev pd Tay Hpepdv Kat adtés. All these ex- 
 pressions are characteristic, and exhibit Aramaic influence. See 
 note at the end of ch. i., and comp. v. 1, 12, 17, vi. 12. There is 
 nothing like them in Mk. iv. 35 or Mt. vill. 23, and év pig trav 
 HeepSv is peculiar to Lk. (v. 17, xx. 1). Comp. & pia trav 
 modewv (v. 12) and é&v pid tév ovvaywyédv (xiii. 10). Mt. tells us 
 that it was the sight of the multitudes around Him that moved 
 Jesus to order a departure to the other side of the lake; and 
 Mk. says that the disciples “‘leaving the multitude, take Him with 
 them, even as He was in the boat.” This seems to imply that 
 He was utterly tired, overcome by the demands which the multi- 
 tude made upon Him. For 8:é\@wpev see on ii. 15. ‘The nautical 
 expression dvdayeo@ae is freq. in Lk. and peculiar to him (Acts 
 Rit0% 3, Xvi. IX, XVI. 21, XX. 3, 13, XX1)2, XXVil. 2, 4, ¥2,°23, XXvill 
 10, 11). 
 
 28. whedvrav 8é attav dpinvecey, Excepting Rev. xviii. 17, 
 mwXety is peculiar to Lk. (Acts xxi. 3, xxvii. 2, 6, 24). In Anth. 
 Fal, 9. 517, &gumvéw means “awaken from sleep.” Here it means 
 “fall off to sleep,” a use which seems to be medical and late 
 (Heliod. ix. 12). In class. Grk. we should rather have xafurvow 
 
 15 
 
226 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VII 28-25. 
 
 (Lob. Phryn. p. 224). This is the only passage in which we read 
 of Jesus sleeping. 
 
 KatéBy Aaihay dvéuouv. ‘There came down a violent squall of 
 wind,” from the heights which surround the lake. These are 
 furrowed with ravines like funnels, down which winds rush with 
 great velocity. See Thomson, Land & Book, p. 375; Keim, 
 iv. p. 179, who quotes Rusegger, Jezsen, ili. p. 136. For dathap 
 comp. Job xxi. 18, xxxviil. 1; Wisd. v. 14, 23; Ecclus. xlviii. 93 
 Hom. //. xii. 375, xvii. 57. Mt. gives the effect of it as oewrpos 
 péyas & tH Gaddooyn. For the accent comp. xadaipoy, KAtpag, 
 x.7.., and see Chandler, § 668. 
 
 cuveAnpodvto. The verb occurs only here, ix. 51, and Acts 
 ii. 1. Note the imperf. in contrast to xaréBy. The squall came 
 down with a single rush; the filling of the boat continued and 
 was not completed. What was true of the boat is stated of the 
 crew. In class. Grk. the act. is used of manning ships thoroughly 
 (Thuc. vi. 50. 2). 
 
 24, *Emortdta, émotdta. See on v. 5. The doubling of the 
 name is here peculiar to Lk. Comp. x. 41, xxii. 31; Acts ix. 4, 
 xxii, 7, xxvi. 14. Mt. has Kupue, Mk. Arddoxade. Augustine has 
 some good remarks as to the differences between the exclama- 
 tions attributed to the disciples in the three narratives. ‘There is 
 no need to inquire which of these exclamations was really uttered. 
 ' For whether they uttered some one of these three, or other words 
 which no one of the Evangelists has recorded, yet conveying the 
 same sense, what does it matter?” (De Cons. Evang. ii. 24, 25). 
 
 emeTipnoev TO dvéuw Kal TH KAS. This does not prove that 
 Lk. regarded the storm as a personal agent: both the wind and 
 its effect are “rebuked,” a word which represents the disciples’ 
 view of the action. See on iv. 39. A kdd8wv («Avfev, “ wash 
 against”) is larger than a xtpo (Jas. i. 6; Jon. i. 4, 12; Wisd. 
 xiv. 5; 1 Mac. vi. 11; 4 Mac. vii. 5, xv. 31). 
 
 yohynvyn. Mt. and Mk. add peyakyn: the word is common 
 elsewhere, but in N.T. occurs only in this narrative. The sudden 
 calm in the sea showed the reality of the miracle. Wind may 
 cease suddenly, but the water which it has agitated continues to 
 work for a long time afterwards. In Mk., as here, the stilling of 
 the tempest precedes the rebuke: Mt. transposes the order of the 
 two incidents. In both the rebuke is sharper than in Lk., who 
 “ever spares the Twelve” (Schanz). See on vi. 13 and xxii. 45. 
 
 25. Mov 7 lots Suav; They might have been sure that the 
 Messiah would not perish, and that their prayer for help would be 
 answered. It is not their praying for succour that is blamed, but 
 their want of faith in the result of their prayer: they feared that their 
 prayer would be vain. Comp. His parents’ anguish, and see on ii. 48. 
 
 tig Gpa oitds €or; Mt. has worards. There is nothing in- 
 
VII. 25.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 227 
 
 credible in the question. Their ideas of the Christ and His 
 powers were very imperfect ; and this was probably the first time 
 that they had seen Him controlling the forces of nature. Their 
 experience as fishermen told them how impossible it was in the 
 natural course that such a storm should be followed immediately 
 by a great calm. The fear which accompanies this question or 
 exclamation is not that which the storm produced, but that which 
 was caused by a sudden recognition of the presence of super- 
 natural power of a kind that was new to them. Comp. v. 26, 
 vii. 16. For the dpa comp. xxii. 23; Acts xii. 18. 
 
 One conjectures that the framer of a legend would have made the disciples 
 accept the miracle as a matter of course: comp. v. 8, 9, Keim opposes Strauss 
 for rejecting the whole as a myth, although he himself by no means accepts the 
 whole as historical. ‘‘ Unquestionably there rests upon this brief and pregnant 
 narrative a rare majesty, such as does not reappear in the other nature-miracles. 
 With a few masterly strokes there is here sketched a most sublime picture from 
 the life of Jesus, and a picture full of truth. . . . Even His rising up against 
 weather and sea is told by Mt. and Lk. quite simply, without any ostentation ; 
 and the tentative query of the disciples, after their deliverance was accomplished, 
 Who is this? is the slightest possible, the only too modest and yet the true 
 utterance of the impression which they must at that time have received” (_/es. 
 of Naz. iv. p. 180). See Gould on Mk, iv. 41. 
 
 26-39. The Healing of the Demoniac in the Country of the 
 Gerasenes. 
 
 Gerasenes seems to be the true reading both here and Mk. v. 1, while 
 Gadarenes is best attested Mt. viii. 28; but in all three places the authorities 
 vary between Gerasenes, Gadarenes, and Gergesenes. The evidence here is 
 thus summarized— 
 
 Tadapnvav, ART AATI etc., Syrr. (Cur-Pesh-Sin-Harcl ¢x#) Goth. 
 
 Tepacnvdy, B C* (ver. 37, 22a¢ ver. 26) D, Latt. Syr-Harcl mg. 
 
 Tepyeonvav, SL XZ minusc. sex, Syr-Hier. Boh. Arm, Aeth. See WH. 
 
 ii. Ap. p. 11. If Lk. viii. 26 stood alone, one might adopt Tepye- 
 
 onvav as possibly correct there; but the evidence in ver. 37 is con- 
 
 clusive against it. 
 These Gerasenes are probably not the people of the Gerasa 
 which lay on the extreme eastern frontier of Persea, over thirty 
 miles from the lake: even in a loose description to foreigners Lk. 
 would not be likely to speak of the shore of the lake as in the 
 country of these Gerasenes. Rather we may understand the 
 town which Thomson rediscovered (Zand & Book, ii. 34-38) 
 under the name of Gersa or KXersa on the steep eastern bank. 
 Gergesa is merely a conjecture of Origen, adopted upon topo- 
 graphical grounds and not upon textual evidence. It may be 
 rejected in all three narratives. There is no real difficulty of 
 topography, whichever reading be adopted. The expression ri 
 xepav trav T. gives considerable latitude, and may include a great 
 deal more than the immediate vicinity of the town. Nor is there 
 any difficulty in the fact that Mt. knows of two demoniacs, 
 
228 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 26-39 
 
 whereas Lk. and Mk. mention only one. The real difficulties in 
 the miracle, for those who believe in the fact of demoniacal 
 possession, are connected with the swine. 1. Can beings which 
 are purely spiritual enter and influence beings which are purely 
 animal? 2. How can we justify the destruction of the swine, 
 which were innocent creatures, and which belonged to persons 
 who do not seem to have merited such a heavy loss? 
 
 On the first of these two questions our ignorance is so great 
 that we do not even know whether there is a difficulty. Who can 
 explain how mind acts upon matter, or matter upon mind? Yet 
 the fact is as certain, as that mind acts upon mind or that matter 
 acts upon matter. There is nothing in experience to forbid us 
 from believing that evil spirits could act upon brute beasts; and 
 science admits that it has “no @ griori objection to offer” to such 
 an hypothesis. And if there is no scientific objection to demoniacal 
 possession of brutes, @ fortiori there is none to that of men, 
 seeing that men have both bodies and spirits to be influenced. 
 The influence may have been analogous to that of mesmerism or 
 hypnotism. The real difficulty is the moral one. As Huxley puts 
 it, “the wanton destruction of other people’s property is a mis- 
 demeanour of evil example.” The answers are very various. 
 1. The whole story isa myth. 2. The healing of the demoniacs 
 and the repulse of the Healer by the inhabitants are historical, but 
 the incident of the swine is a later figment. 3. The demoniacs 
 frightened the swine, and the transfer of demons from them to the 
 swine was imagined. 4. The drowning of the swine was an 
 accident, possibly simultaneous with the healing, and report mixed 
 up the two incidents. 5. The demoniacs were mere maniacs, 
 whom Jesus cured by humouring their fancies; and His giving 
 leave to imaginary demons to enter into the swine, produced the 
 story of the disaster to the herd.—All these explanations assume 
 that the Gospel narratives are wholly or in part unhistorical. But 
 there are other explanations.—6. Like earthquakes, shipwrecks, 
 pestilences, and the like, the destruction of the swine is part of the 
 mystery of evil, and insoluble. 7. As the Creator of the universe, 
 the incarnate Word had the right to do what He pleased with His 
 own. 8. A visible effect of the departure of the demons was 
 necessary to convince the demoniacs and their neighbours of the 
 completeness of the cure. Brutes and private property may be 
 sacrificed, where the sanity and lives of persons are concerned. 
 9. The keepers of the swine were Jews, who were breaking the 
 Jewish law, which was binding on them, and perhaps on the whole 
 district. ‘In the enforcement of a law which bound the con- 
 science, our Lord had an authority such as does not belong to the 
 private individual” (W. E. Gladstone, JVineteenth Century, Feb. 
 1891, p. 357). Against this it is contended that the swineherds 
 
VIII. 26-28.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 229 
 
 were probably pagans, and that the district was not under Jewish 
 law (WV. C. Dec. 1890, p. 967; March 1891, p. 455). Certainty is 
 not attainable, but it is probable that one of the last two reasons 
 is the true explanation. See £xfostfor, 3rd series, 1889, ix. 303. 
 Godet’s conclusion seems to be sound, that it is one of those cases 
 in which the power to execute the sentence guarantees the right 
 of the judge.! Contrast the ‘uealing of a demoniac woman as 
 recorded in the Gospel of the Infancy, xiv. 
 
 26. xatém\eucay eis Thy xdpav Tov Tepacnvav Arts éotiv avrizepa. 
 “They landed at the country of the Gerasenes, which is in such a 
 position as to be opposite Galilee.” The verb is quite class. of 
 coming to land from the high seas, 5ut is found here only in N.T. 
 Not in LXX. See Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of S. Paul, p. 28, 
 and reff. in Wetst. The statement tells us nothing as to the 
 position of the country of the Gerasenes, for “opposite” would 
 apply to the whole of the east shore. Lk. alone mentions its 
 being “opposite Galilee”; perhaps to justify its inclusion in the 
 Galilean ministry. 
 
 Some texts have wépay from Mt. or Mk., while others have dvtimépay, of 
 which dy7irépa is a later form. Another form is dv7imépas. For the accent 
 see Chandler, § 867. 
 
 27. iayvtyncev avyp tis ek THs wéhews. The man belonged to 
 the city, but he came out of the tombs to meet Jesus: é« tis 
 moAews belongs to avyp zis, not to bryvrycev. For this force of 
 izo in composition comp. troxpivomar, “answer back”; trodo- 
 yifopa, “reckon fer contra” ; ixoarpédu, “turn back.” For ixave 
 see on vii. 12; and for évedtcato see Burton, § 48. Lk. alone 
 mentions that the demoniac wore no clothes; but Mk. implies it 
 by stating that he was clothed after he was cured. All three 
 mention the tombs; and near the ruins of Khersa there are many 
 tombs hewn in the rocks. Excepting Mk. v. 3, 5 and Rev. xi. 9, 
 prvipa is peculiar to Lk. (xxiii. 53, xxiv. 1; Acts ii. 29, vil. 16); 
 but he more often uses pvnwetov. With éuevey comp. xix. 5, xxiv. 29. 
 
 28. Ti épol kal cot; See on iv. 34. 
 
 *Ingod vie Tod Oeod tod Spiorov. This expression rather indicates 
 that the man is not a Jew, and therefore is some evidence that the 
 owners of the swine were not Jews. “The Most High” (Z/yon) 
 is a name for Jehovah which seems to be usual among heathen 
 nations. It is employed by Melchisedek, the Canaanite priest and 
 king (Gen. xiv. 20, 22). Balaam uses it (Num. xxiv. 16). Micah 
 puts it into the mouth of Balaam (vi. 6); Isaiah, into the mouth 
 of the king of Babylon (xiv. 14). It is used repeatedly in the 
 Babylonian proclamations in Daniel (iii. 26, iv. 24, 32, v. 18, 21, 
 
 1 See some valuable remarks by Sanday in the Contemp. Rev. Sept. 1892, % 
 348. He inclines to the second explanation, but with reserve. 
 
- 
 
 230 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 28-80. 
 
 vii. 18, 22, 25, 27). The girl with a spirit of divination at Philippi 
 employs it (Acts xvi. 17). It is found in Pheenician inscriptions 
 also. See Chadwick, St Mark, p. 144, and Wsctt. on Heb. vii. 1. 
 For $wvf peyddn see on i. 42, and for Séopa see on v. 12: with 
 dvaxpdéas of demoniac cries comp. iv. 41; Acts viii. 7. 
 py pe Bacavions. Neither the verb nor its cognate substantive 
 is ever used in N.T. of testing metals, or of obtaining evidence by 
 torture, but simply of pain or torment The demoniac identifies 
 himself with the demon which controls him, and the torment 
 which is feared is manifest from ver. 31. 
 29. wapijyyeANev yap tO mvevpart. Authorities are very evenly 
 - divided between the imperf. and the aor. If wapzyyyeAev be right, it almost 
 means ‘‘ He had ordered.” Burton, § 29, 48. We should have expected rois 
 mvevpaow, for both in ver. 27 and ver. 30 we have daruéyvia. But the inter- 
 change of personality between the man and the demons is so rapid, that it 
 becomes natural to speak of the demons in the sing. Note that while Lk. 
 has his characteristic éeAOetv dard (vv. 33, 38, iv. 35, 41, ve. 8, etc.), Mk. 
 has the more usual é£e\Oeiy éx. 
 mohXots yap xpdévots ovvnptdket avtéy. ‘‘ Many times,” ge. on many 
 occasions, mzltzs temporibus (Vulg.), ‘‘it had seized him,” or “‘ carried him 
 away”: comp. Acts xxvii. 15. Mk. has wéA\axts. Others explain ‘‘ within 
 a long time.” See Win. xxxi. 9, p. 273. The verb is quite class., but in 
 N.T. peculiar to Lk. (Acts vi. 12, xix, 28, xxvii. 15). Hobart counts it as 
 medical (p. 244). In LXX, Prov. vi. 25; 2 Mac. iii. 27, iv. 41. 
 
 Gdtceow kal méSarcs. Both Lk. and Mk. use these two words 
 to distinguish the “handcuffs and fetters,” manice et pedice, with 
 which he was bound. See Lft. P%z/. p. 8. The former is used of 
 the chain by which the hand of a prisoner was fastened to the 
 soldier who had charge of him. Like “chains,” aAvoes are of 
 metal, whereas 7éda: might be ropes or withes. Both aAvoes and 
 médac are included in 1a deoua. The imperfects tell of what 
 usually took place. During the calmer intervals precautions were 
 taken to prevent the demons “carrying him away with” them; 
 but these precautions always proved futile. 
 
 eis Tas epypous. In order to take the man away from humane 
 influences. But the wilderness is regarded as the home of evil 
 spirits. See on xi. 24; and for the plural see on i. 80. 
 
 830. Ti cor dvond €or; In order to recall the man to a sense 
 of his own independent personality, Jesus asks him his name. It 
 was a primary condition of his cure that he should realize that he 
 is not identical with the evil powers which control his actions. 
 Perhaps also Christ wished the disciples to know the magnitude of 
 the evil, that the cure might increase their faith (ver. 25): and this 
 purpose may have influenced Him in allowing the destruction of 
 the swine. The peculiar word Acyiéy,! which is preserved in Mk. 
 
 1 That the man had ever seen a Roman legion, ‘‘at once one and many, 
 
 crsel and inexorable and strong,” is perhaps not probable. But see Trench, 
 Miia les, p. 171, 8th ed. For other Latin words comp. x. 35, xi. 33, xix. 20. 
 
VII. 30-32. ] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 231 
 
 v. 9 also, is a mark of authenticity. As Sanday points out, it is 
 more probable that this strange introduction of a Latin word 
 should represent something which really took place, than that it 
 should be pure invention (Contemp. Rev. Sept. 1892, p. 349). 
 The words ott eioqev Saipdva toda eis adrdvy are the remark 
 of the Evangelist: comp. ii. 50, iii. 15, xxiii. 12. 
 
 81. mapexddouvy aitév. “They kept beseeching Him.” The 
 plurality of those who ask is emphatically marked: with damudne 
 we might have expected wapexadAe, as in Mk. The plur. would 
 have been less noticeable in Mk., because the masc. plur., zoAAoi 
 éoev, precedes. 
 
 That rapexddovwy (8 BC DF LS, Latt. Goth.) and not rapexdAe is right 
 here, need not be doubted. 
 
 eis Thy GBuocov. In class. Grk. @8vocos is always an adj., 
 “bottomless, boundless,” and is mostly poetical In LXX 7% 
 aBuooos is used of the sea (Gen. i. 2, vil. 11; Job xli. 22, 23); 
 without the art. (Job xxviii. 14, xxxvi. 16; Ecclus. 1 3, xvi. 18) ; 
 of the depths of the earth (Ps. lxxi. 20; Deut. viii. 7); but per- 
 haps nowhere of Hades. In N.T. it means Hades (Rom. x. 7), 
 and esp. the penal part of it which is the abode of demons (Rev. 
 ix. I-11, xi. 7, xvii. 8, xx. 1, 3). The latter is the meaning here. 
 The demons dread being sent to their place of punishment. See 
 Cremer, Zex. sub v. In Mk. the petition is “that He will not 
 send them out of the country” ; but the verb is sing. and the man 
 is the petitioner. He still confuses himself with the demons, and 
 desires to stay where he feels at home. This is their wish and 
 his also. The persistent confusion of personality renders it 
 necessary that the man should have some decisive evidence of 
 the departure of the evil spirits from him. In this way his cure 
 will be effected with least suffering, Prof. Marshall thinks that eis 
 tHv aBvocov and é£w THs xépas may represent Aramaic expressions 
 so nearly alike as readily to be confounded by copyist or trans- 
 lator (Expositor, Nov. 1891, p. 377). See footnote on v. 31. 
 
 82. dyé\n xolpwy ixkavay. This illustrates the fondness of Lk. 
 for ixavds in this sense: Mt. has ay. xotpwv woAAGv and Mk. dy. 
 xofpwv peyaAn. With characteristic love of detail Mk. gives the 
 number as @s dicxiAvor, which may be an exaggeration of the 
 swineherds or of the owners, who wished to make the most of 
 their loss. Had the number been an invention of the narrator, 
 we should have had 4000 or 5000 to correspond with the legion. 
 It is futile to ask whether each animal was possessed. If some 
 of them were set in motion, the rest would follow mechanically. 
 For the érérpefey airois of Lk. and Mk. we have the direct 
 tmdyere in Mt., which need mean no more than “ depart, be gone.” 
 But the distinction between commanding and allowing what He 
 
232 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII 82-87, 
 
 might have forbidden is not very helpful. Whatever the motive of 
 the demons may have been, Jesus uses it for a good end, and 
 secures the easy and effectual cure of their victim. 
 
 33. dppnoev 7 dyé\y Kata Tod Kpnyvod. These words also are 
 in all three. The word xpyyvés need not mean an abrupt pre- 
 cipice: a steep and rocky slope suffices. MacGregor, Stanley, 
 Tristram, Wilson, and others believe that the spot which suits the 
 description can be identified. The art. implies that it was well 
 known. Comp. 2 Chron. xxv. 12. The use of dmemviyn for 
 suffocation by drowning i is classical (Dem. p. 883). 
 
 34. 16 yeyovss. Chiefly the destruction of the swine. In ver. 
 36 oi iddvres means the disciples and others near to Jesus, not the 
 swineherds. 
 
 35-89. Note how the characteristics of Lk.’s diction stand out in these 
 verses. For rév dvOpwirov ad’ ob r. 5. €£4XOev (see on ver. 29) Mk. has rév 
 Satmovefouevov, and mapa Tovs médas (see on vil. 38) has no equivalent in 
 Mk. For dmayyetday (see on ver. 20) Mk. has diyy7jcavro, while dap 
 (see on iii. 21), Td TAHOos (see oni. 10), P5Bw weydryw (see oni. 42, vii. 16), 
 cuvelxovto (see on iv. 38), and bréctrpewey (see on i. 56) have no 
 equivalents. For édetro (see on v. 12) Mk. has wapexdder; for 6 dvnp ag’ 
 od é£eAnAVGer (see on ver. 29) Mk. has the less accurate 6 datmovicbels ; for 
 avy (see oni. 56) Mk. has werd ; and for vrdorpege (see on i. 56) Mk. has 
 Uraye. 
 
 85. twatiopévov. Some of the bystanders may have given him 
 clothing ; but there would have been time to fetch ii The verb 
 is found neither in LXX nor in profane writers, but only here and 
 Mk. v. 15. The mapa tots médas implies an attitude of thankful- 
 ness rather than that he has become a disciple. It is the last of 
 the four changes that have taken place in the man. He is 
 xaOnuevov instead of restless, iuatiopévoy instead of naked, cwdpo- 
 voovra instead of raging, and rapa rots rdédas Tod “I. instead of 
 shunning human society. Baur would have it that he is meant to 
 represent the conversion of the Gentiles. We are not sure that 
 he was a Gentile; and this would have been made clear if he was 
 intended as a representative. For zapd with the acc. after a verb 
 of rest comp. Acts x. 6; Mt. xiii. 1, xx. 30; Mk. v. 21, x. 46. 
 
 836. dmfyyetkav 8€ adtots. This is not a repetition of ver. 34, 
 but a statement of additional information which was given to the 
 townspeople after they arrived on the scene. 
 
 87. dav 75 whH90s. The desire that He should depart was 
 universal, and all three narratives mention it. The people feared 
 that His miraculous power might lead to further losses: and this 
 feeling was not confined to the inhabitants of the zoAus close at 
 hand (ver. 34); it was shared by the whole district. Comp. iv. 29, 
 ix. 53, and contrast iv. 42; Jn. iv. 40. Although Keim rejects 
 the incident of the swine, yet he rightly contends that. this request 
 
VIII. 87-89.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 233 
 
 that Jesus should leave the place gives the impression of a sober 
 historical fact. There is nothing like it elsewhere in the history 
 of Jesus; and neither it nor the locality is likely to have been 
 invented. Why should a myth take Jesus across to Gerasa? 
 Some historical connexion with the locality is much more 
 probable. 
 
 38. éSeito Sé atdtod 6 dvfp. The dé¢ marks the contrast between 
 Him and the rest. Mk. says that the request was made as Jesus 
 was stepping into the boat. Mt. omits the whole incident. The 
 man fears the unfriendly populace, and clings to his preserver. 
 
 89. Sinyod éc0 cor éemoinoev 6 Oeds. In Galilee and Judea, 
 where Jesus and His disciples preached, He commonly told those 
 who were healed to be silent about their cures. In this half- 
 heathen Perzea there were no other missionaries, and the man was 
 not fitted for permanent work with Christ elsewhere. Moreover, 
 here there was no danger of the miracle being used for political 
 purposes. Lastly, it might be beneficial to a healed demoniac to 
 have free converse with all after his gloomy isolation. The 6 Oeds 
 is last with emphasis. Jesus shows the man that he must attribute 
 his deliverance to God. Both Lk. and Mk. preserve the highly 
 natural touch that, in spite of this command, the man proclaimed 
 what Jesus had done for him. Note also that xu& 6Anv thy woAw 
 is much in excess of eis Tov ofkév cov, and kyptcowy of Suyyot. See 
 on ix. Io. 
 
 Kal? éAnv thy wéALv. With xypticowr, not with dr7AGev: Win. xlix. d. 
 a, p. 499. Mk. has év ry Aexaré\ex. Nowhere else in N.T. does xa@ 
 8\nv occur: Lk. commonly writes xa’ Sdn (iv. 14, xxiii. 5; Acts ix. 31, 42, 
 x. 37). He nowhere mentions Decapolis. 
 
 40-56. The Healing of the Woman with the Issue and the 
 Raising of the Daughter of Jairus. Mt. ix. 18-26; Mk. v. 21-43. 
 The name of Bernice (Veronica) for this woman first appears in 
 the Acts of Pilate, Gospel of Nicodemus, Pt. I. ch. vii. Respecting 
 the statues, which Eusebius saw at Cesarea, and which he believed 
 to represent Christ and this woman, see #. £. vii. 18. 1-3. 
 Sozomen says that Julian removed the statue of Christ and sub- 
 stituted one of himself, which was broken by a thunderbolt (v. 21). 
 Philostorgius‘says the same (vii. 3). Malalas gives the petition 
 in which the woman asked Herod Antipas to be allowed to erect 
 the memorial (Chrvongr. x. 306-8). That the statues existed, and 
 that Christians thus misinterpreted their meaning, need not be 
 doubted. Pseudo-Ambrosius would ‘have it that the woman was 
 Martha the sister of Lazarus. 
 
 40-48. In these verses also the marks of Lk.’s style are very conspicuous 
 (see above on vy. 35-39). In ver. 40 we have év 6¢ T@ c. zuin. (see on iii. 21), 
 drootpégpery (see on i. 56), awedéfaro (see on ver. 40), foav c. particip, 
 (see on i. 10), rdvres (see on ix. 43), and tpocdoxGrres (see on iii. 15). In 
 
234 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIZ 40-43. 
 
 ver. 41, kal ldo (see on i. 20), kal odros (i. 36), brHpxev (see on ver. 41), _ 
 mapa Tovs médas (see on vii. 38). In ver. 42, kal avr (see oni. 17) and év 
 dérw c. infin. In ver. 44, Tapaxphua (see on v. 25). In ver. 45, rdyrwy 
 (vi. 30, vil. 35) and émcorara (v. 5). Inver. 46, é&ehOetv dé (see on iv. 
 35). In ver. 47, danyyetdev (see on ver. 20), évwmcov (see on i. 15), 
 wayrTés, Tov Kaod, idAn, and tapaxpjua. Not one of these expressions is 
 found in the parallel passages in Mt. and Mk. See on ix. 28-36. 
 
 40. dmeSdfaro. Peculiar to Lk. (ix. 11; Acts ii. 41, xviii. 27, 
 xxi. 17, XXIV. 3, xxvili. 30, and possibly xv. 4). The meaning is 
 they “received Him with pleasure, welcomed Him” (Euthym. 
 Theophyl. Schanz). See on iv. 42 and on xi. 29. In class. Grk. 
 the verb means “accept as a teacher, as an authority,” or “admit 
 arguments as valid”: so in Xen. Plat. Arist. etc. 
 
 41. “Ideipos. The same name as Jair (Num. xxxii. 41; Judg. 
 x. 3). It is strange that the name (= “he will give light”) should 
 be used as an argument against the historical character of the 
 narrative. It is not very appropriate to the circumstances. 
 
 émfpxev. Very freq. in Lk., esp. in Acts: not in Mt. Mk. or Jn. 
 The use of this verb as almost equivalent to efva is the beginning 
 of the modern usage. But the classical meaning of a present 
 state connected with a previous state still continues in N.T. (ix. 
 48, xi. 13, xvi. 14, 23, xxili. 50). See Sp. Comm. on 1 Cor. vii. 
 26. Here also Christ does not refuse the homage (iv. 8), as Peter 
 (Acts x. 26) and the Angel (Rev. xix. 10) do. 
 
 42, povoyerms. As in the cases of the widow’s son and the 
 lunatic boy (vii. 12, ix. 38), this fact may have influenced Christ. 
 On all three occasions Lk. alone mentions the fact. 
 
 étav Sd8exa. A critical time in a girl’s life. Not only Lk, 
 who frequently notes such things (ii. 36, 37, 42, iil. 23, xili. 11), 
 but Mk. also gives the age. All three mention that the woman 
 with the issue had been suffering for twelve years. For amé6vqoxev 
 Mk. has éoydrws exer and Mt. apt éreAcvrycer. The reason for 
 the difference between Mt. and the others is plain. Lk. and Mk. 
 give the arrivals, both of the father, who says, “She is dying,” and 
 of the messenger, who says, “She is dead.” Mt. condenses the 
 two into one. 
 
 auvérvyov. Mk. has ovvef\rBov, which is less strong: see on 
 ver. 14. In both cases the owr- expresses the pressing together all 
 round Him. The crowd which had been waiting for Him (ver. 40) 
 now clings to Him in the hope of witnessing a miracle. 
 
 48. otoa év pice. ‘Being in a condition of hemorrhage.” The 
 constr. is quite simple and intelligible ; comp. év pOopq, év éxaTdcet, Ev O0ry, 
 év éxrevelg, év ExOpg. The form pvors is from the unused ftw, from which 
 come the late forms éppuca and éppuxa, and pedars is oftenav./. Win. xxix. 
 
 . b, p. 230. 
 : cee mpocavaidcaga odov tov Biov. ‘Having, 2% addztion to all 
 ker sufferings, spent all her resources on physicians,” or ‘‘ for physicians,” or 
 
VIII. 43-45.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 235 
 
 ‘in physicians.” This use of Blos for ‘‘ means of living ” is freq. in N.T. 
 fa 12, 30, xxi. 4; Mk. xii. 44; 1 Jn. iii. 17) and in class. Grk. In 
 class. Grk. Bios is a higher word than {w7, the former being that which is 
 
 culiar to man, the latter that which he shares with brutes and vegetables. 
 is N.T. Bios retains its meaning, being either the ‘‘ period of human life,” as 
 1 Tim. ii. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 4, or ‘‘ means of life,” as here. But {w7 is raised 
 above Bios, and means that vital principle which through Christ man shares 
 with God. Hence Bios is comparatively rare in N.T., which is not much 
 concerned with the duration of temporal life or the means of prolonging it. 
 Whereas {w4 occurs more than a hundred times. See Trench, Sym. xxvii.; 
 Crem. Lex. p. 272; Lft. on Jen. ad Rom. vii. 3. 
 
 WH. follow B D., Arm. in omitting larpots... Blov. Treg. and RV, 
 indicate doubt in marg. Syr-Sin. omits. 
 
 otk toxucev. This use of icyvw for “be able” is freq. in Lk. 
 See on vi. 48. It is natural that “the physician” does not add, 
 as Mk. does, that she had suffered much at the hands of the 
 physicians, and was worse rather than better for their treatment. 
 The remedies which they tried in such cases were sometimes very 
 severe, and sometimes loathsome and absurd. See Lightfoot, 
 p. 614; Tristram, Zastern Customs in Bible Lands, pp. 22, 23. 
 44. mpocehQoica Smicev Hato. She came from behind that 
 Ae might not see her. Her malady made her levitically unclean, 
 and she did not wish to own this publicly. Her faith is tinged 
 with superstition. She believes that Christ’s garments heal magic- 
 ally, independently of His will. In other cases those who touched 
 Him in faith seem to have done so openly. Comp. vi. 19; Mt. 
 xiv. 36; Mk. iii. ro, vi. 56. 
 For 6micGev a has de retro: comp. Baruch vi. 5, v2sa ttague turba de retro 
 (Vulg.). Hence the French derrzére, 
 
 Tou Kpacmédou tod ipatiov. “The tassel” rather than “the 
 fringe” or “hem of His garment.” The square overgarment or 
 Tallith had tassels of three white threads with one of hyacinth at 
 each of the four corners. Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. p. 624 (but see 
 D.B. art. “Hem of Garment”). Of the four corners two hung 
 in front, and two behind. It was easy to touch the latter without 
 the wearer feeling the touch. 
 
 oT W fpuots. It “stood still, ceased to flow.” Mk. has 
 eEnpavOn. “This is the only passage in the N.T. in which torava 
 is used in this sense. It is the usual word in the medical writers 
 to denote the stoppage of bodily discharges, and especially such as 
 are mentioned here” (Hobart, p.15). Both wapaxpipa, for which 
 Mk. has ci@vs, and mpocavakdcaca, for which Mk. has daravycaca, 
 are also claimed as medical (pp. 16, 96). 
 
 45. There is no reason for supposing that the miracle was 
 wrought wzthout the will of Jesus. He knew that someone had 
 been healed by touching His garment; and we may believe that 
 He read the woman’s heart as she approached Him in the belief 
 
236 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII 45-50. 
 
 that He could heal her. Lk. evidently dates the cure from her 
 touching His garment; Mt. seems to place it in Christ’s words to 
 her; Mk. in do¢h places. 
 
 tis 6 dduevds wou; This does not seem to be one of those 
 cases in which Christ asked for zz/formation. He knew that He 
 had been touched with a purpose, and He probably knew who 
 had done it. Mk.’s wepueBAérero idetv THY TotTo roujcacay rather 
 implies that He knew where to look. or the woman's sake she 
 must be induced to avow her act. Note the masc., which makes 
 the question all the more general: Mk. has tis pou mato trav 
 ivatiwv. The verb implies more than touching, “laying hold of.” 
 For other cases in which Jesus asked questions of which He knew 
 the answer comp. xxiv. 17; Mk. ix. 33. See some good remarks 
 in the S. P. C. K. Comm. on Lk. viii. 46. 
 
 dpvoupevev 8é wévtwv. This explains, and to some extent excuses, 
 Peter’s characteristic interference. Lk. alone tells us that Peter 
 took the lead in this. See on ix. 20, and comp. Mk. i. 36. Note the 
 mwdvtwv, and see on ix. 43 and xi. 4. For emortdta see on Vv. 5. 
 
 cuvéxouciv oe. “Hold Thee in, keep Thee a prisoner”; xix. 
 43, xxll. 63; comp. iv. 38. Here only in N.T. does dmoO\iBew 
 occur: Lat. affigere (Vulg.), comprimere (f), contribulare (d); om. 
 ab ff,. 
 
 46. éyvwv Suvauw efedynubuiay dm éyod. For the constr. see 
 Burton, § 458, and comp. Heb. xiii. 23 ; and for 8uvapis see on iv. 
 
 6. : 
 
 47. tpénouca 7Oev. The wdytwy in ver. 45, if taken literally, 
 implies that she had previously denied her action. The 7#A6e, 
 however, seems to show that she had gone a little way from Him 
 after being healed. But she may also have been afraid that she 
 had done wrong in touching His garment. Either or both would 
 explain the tpéuovoa. She is afraid that the boon may be with- 
 drawn. For the attraction 8¢ #v airéav see small print on iii. 19, 
 and Burton, § 350: rod Aao?d is also characteristic. 
 
 48. % miotis cou ceowkév ce. All three record these words. It 
 was the grasp of her faith, not of her hand, that wrought the cure. 
 Thus her low view of the manner of Christ’s healing is corrected. 
 
 49. épyetat tis mapa Tod dpxiouvaydyou. A member of his 
 household arrives and tells Jairus that it is now too late. The 
 delay caused by the incident with the woman must have been 
 agonizing to him. But this trial is necessary for the development 
 of his faith, as well as for that of the woman, and Jesus curtails no 
 item in His work. The ré@vyxev is placed first with emphasis. 
 For oxt\e see on vii. 6. See also Blass on Acts x. 44. 
 
 50. Mi} dood, pdvov mioteucov. Change of tense. ‘“ Cease to 
 fear; only make an act of faith.” In Mk. v. 36 we have povov 
 wiareve, “only continue to believe.” In either case the meaning 
 
VIII. 50-54.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 237 
 
 is, “In the presence of this new difficulty let faith prevail, and all 
 will be well.” For py ood see on i. 13. 
 
 Bl. odk dbixev cicehOetv twa civ atta. “ Did not allow anyone 
 to enter with Him into the room.” He and the disciples had 
 already entered the house, and the parents had been there from 
 the first. Here, as in ver. 38, Lk. has ovv where Mk. has pera: 
 see on i. 56. 
 
 Mérpov Kal "lwdvny kat “IdkwBov. The chosen three (éxAexrav 
 éxXexorepor as Clem. Alex. calls them) are probably admitted for 
 the sake of the Twelve, whose faith would be strengthened by the 
 miracle. These three sufficed as witnesses. Moreover, they were 
 in character most fitted to profit by the miracle. Here, as in ix. 
 28 and Acts i. 13, John is placed before James. Elsewhere the 
 other order, which is almost certainly the order of age, prevails 
 (v. 10, vi. 14, ix. 51), and always in Mt. (iv. 21, x. 2, xvi. 1) and 
 Mk. (i. 19, 29, iil. 17, V. 37, ix. 2, X. 35, 41, Xlil. 3, xiv. 33). 
 
 Irenzeus had a text which omitted xal ’Iwdyny. Quzntus autem ingressus 
 Dominus ad mortuam puellam suscitavit eam, nullum enim, inguit, permisit 
 intrare nist Petrum et Jacobum et patrem et matrem puellz (i. 24. 4). No 
 existing text makes this omission ; but many authorities transpose James and 
 John in order to have the usual order (§ A LS X L, Boh. Aeth. Arm. Goth.) 
 
 But the evidence of BCDEFHK, abcdefffi,l1qr Cod. Am. Cod. Brix 
 etc. is decisive. There is similar confusion in ix. 28 and Acts i. 13. 
 
 52. éxdarov Sé mdévtes Kal éxdmrovro attmv. The mourners 
 (2 Chron. xxxv. 25; Jer. ix. 17) were not in the room with the 
 corpse: Mt. and Mk. tell us that Christ turned them out of the 
 house. The wavres is again peculiar to Lk.’s account: comp. 
 vv. 40, 45, 47. ‘The acc. after xowromat is class. (Eur. Zro. 623; 
 Aristoph. Zys. 396): “they beat their breasts for her, bewailed 
 her.” Comp. xxili. 27; Gen. xxiii. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 1. 
 
 ob yap dméQavev GAG KaSevder. This declaration is in all three 
 narratives. Neander, Olshausen, Keim, and others understand it 
 literally ; and possibly Origen is to be understood as taking the 
 same view. A miracle of power is thus turned into a miracle of 
 knowledge. But the ciddres in ver. 53 is conclusive as to the 
 Evangelist’s meaning: not “supposing,” but “4owing that she 
 was dead.” The xaGevda is rather to be understood in the same 
 sense as Adfapos xexoiuyrat (Jn. xi. 11). But the cases are not 
 parallel, for there Jesus prevents all possibility of misunderstanding 
 by adding Aalapos dréOavev. Yet the fact that Jesus has power to 
 awaken explains in both cases why He speaks of sleep. We may, 
 however, be content, with Hase, to admit that certainty is unattain- 
 able as to whether the maiden was dead or in a trance. 
 
 54. xparjcas tis xetpds atts. All three mention that He laid 
 hold of her, although to touch a dead body was to incur ceremonial 
 uncleanness. In like manner He touched the leper: see on v. 13. 
 
238 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [VIII. 64, 55 
 
 This laying hold of her hand and the raised voice (é¢wvycer) are 
 consonant with waking one out of sleep, and the two may be 
 regarded as the means of the miracle. Comp. and contrast through- 
 out Acts ix. 36-42. 
 
 ‘H mais, €yeipe. “ Arise, get up,” not “awake.” Mt. omits 
 the command ; Mk. gives the exact words, Zalitha cumi. For the 
 nom. with the art. as voc. see on x. Pa xviii. II, 13. For épdvycev 
 comp. ver. 8, xvi. 24. 
 
 55. éméotpepev 75 mvedpa aitas. There can be no doubt that 
 the Evangelist uses the phrase of the spirit returning to a dead 
 body, which is the accurate use of the phrase. Only the beloved 
 physician makes this statement. In LXX it is twice used of a 
 living man’s strength reviving; of the fainting Samson (Judg. 
 xv. 19), and of the starving Egyptian (1 Sam. xxx. 12). Note that 
 Lk. has his favourite tapaxp7 pa, where Mk. has his favourite 
 evdds ; and Comp. Ver. 44, V. 25, XVili. 43, Xxii. 60. 
 
 Siétagev atth Sobjvar payetv. This care of Jesus in command- 
 ing food after the child’s long exhaustion would be of special 
 interest to Lk. In their joy and excitement the parents might 
 have forgotten it. The charge is somewhat parallel to édwxev avrov 
 TH ytpt avrod (vii. 15) of the widow’s son at Nain. In each case 
 He intimates that nature is to resume its usual course: the old ties 
 and the old responsibilities are to begin again. 
 
 6 8é mapyyyethev adtots pndevi eimety TO yeyovds. The command 
 has been rejected as an unintelligible addition to the narrative. 
 No such command was given at Nain or at Bethany. The object 
 of it cannot have been to keep the miracle a secret. Many were 
 outside expecting the funeral, and they would have to be told why 
 no funeral was to take place. It can hardly have been Christ’s 
 intention in this way to prevent the multitude from making a bad 
 use of the miracle. This command to the parents would not have 
 attained such an object. It was given more probably for the 
 parents’ sake, to keep them from letting the effect of this great 
 blessing evaporate in vainglorious gossip. To thank God for it at 
 home would be far more profitable than talking about it abroad. 
 
 IX. 1-50. Zo the Departure for Jerusalem. 
 
 This is the last of the four sections into which the Ministry in 
 Galilee (iv. 14-ix. 50) was divided. It contains the Mission of the 
 Twelve (1-9), the Feeding of the Five Thousand (10-17), the 
 Transfiguration (28-36), the Healing of the Demoniac Boy (37-43), 
 and two Predictions of the Passion (18-27, 43-50). 
 
 1-9. The Mission of the Twelve and the Fears of Herod. Mt. 
 « 1-15; Mk. vi. 7-11. Mt. is the most full. Lk. gives no note 
 
IX. 1-3.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 239 
 
 of time or of connexion, and we may suppose that his sources gave 
 him no information. See Weiss, Z. /. ii. p. 119, Eng. tr. il. p. 306 
 For mention of “the Twelve” see vi. 13, Viil. I, Be TA. QML, Bl 
 xxii. 3, 47. All three mention this summons or invitation on the 
 part of Jesus. Mt. and Mk. describe it by their usual rpooxadetoOa, 
 for which Lk. has cuvkadetoOar, which he more commonly uses in 
 his Gospel (ix. 1, xv. 6, 9, xxiii. 13), while in the Acts he generally 
 uses mpooxareio Pat (il, 20;i¥e 40, Vin 2,7 xiii 25, fe.) 
 
 1. Suvapiw Kai efovgiay. Mt. and Mk. have efovotuy only (see 
 on iv. 36): dvvayis is the power, efovcia the authority to use it. 
 The Jewish exorcists had neither dvvoyis nor égovoia, and made 
 elaborate and painful efforts, which commonly failed. Elsewhere, 
 when the two are combined, éfoveia precedes Svvayus (iv. 36; 
 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. i. 21; 1 Pet. iii. 22). The rdyra with 
 Sauovia is peculiar to Lk. It covers all that would come under 
 the head of possession. | 
 
 The constr. is not really doubtful: vécous Oeparetew depends on divayuy 
 xal éfovotay, and is co-ordinate with éml mdvra Saiudvia. Others make pv. ep. 
 depend on &wxey and be co-ordinate with dvv. x. é&. The least satisfactory 
 way is to couple vécous with dacudvia, and make Bepamevew refer to both” : 
 ‘authority over all diseases and demons, to heal them.” For this meaning 
 Lk. would almost certainly have written ro Oepaevew. He as usual men- 
 tions the curing of demoniacs separately from other healings (iv. 40, 41, 
 vi. 17, 18, vii. 21, viii. 2, xiii. 32). 
 
 2. After lac@at C etc. ins. rods dodevodvras from Mt. ; AD L& ins, rovs 
 daGeveis: om. B, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. 
 
 2. knptooew Thy Baotdelav Tod Ocod Kat idobar. These two verbs 
 sum up the ministration to men’s souls and bodies. See on v. 17. 
 Mt. adds that they were to raise the dead (x. 8). Mk. tells us that 
 they were sent out dvo, dvo. For dmooré\hw see on iv. 18, p. 121. 
 
 3. pyre pdBSov. Mk. has ei pi paBdov povor (vi. 8); and the 
 attempts to explain away this discrepancy in a small matter of 
 detail are not very happy. As between Mt. and Mk. it is possible 
 to explain that both mean “Do not frocure («rjoeobe) a staff for 
 the journey, but ¢ake (aipwow) the one which you have.” But both 
 Mk. and Lk. use aipev, and the one has “Take nothing except a 
 staff,” while the other has “Take nothing, neither a ‘staff,” etc. 
 Yet in all three the meaning is substantially the same: “ Make no 
 special preparations ; go as you are.” From xxii. 35 we learn that 
 the directions were obeyed, and with good results. Lk. says 
 nothing about sandals, respecting which there is another discrep- 
 ancy between Mt. and Mk., unless we are to suppose that trodjpara 
 are different from caSd\ua. 
 
 pate &pydpuov. Mk. has xaAxdy and Mt. has both, pyde apyvpor 
 pndé xadxov. Thus Lk. is Greek, and Mk. is Roman, in choice of 
 words, In LXX dpyvpiov is very common, dpyvpos comparatively 
 
240 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Tx. 3-7 
 
 rare, while xaAxos is common as a metal, but not in the sense of 
 money. 
 
 pyre Svo xiTOvas éxew. As no zypa was allowed, the second 
 tunic, if taken, would have to be worn. Hence the form in Mk., 
 “Put not on two tunics.” Comp. Jos. Avs. xvil. 5. 7. 
 
 In éxewv we have an anacoluthon ; change from direct to oblique oration, 
 For it is scarcely admissible to take "See as infin. for imperat. The actual 
 imperat. both precedes (aipere) and follows (uévere). Win. xliii. 5. d, p. 397- 
 Mk. here is strangely abrupt in his mixture of constructions. 
 
 4. éxet petvete kal exeiOev céépyeobe. Vulg. has ef inde ne exeatis. 
 But only one cursive has py (38). Cod. Brix. has donec exeatis fr. 
 Mt. The meaning is “Go not from house to house,” as He charges 
 the Seventy in x. 7, a passage which should be compared with this. 
 The mission both of the Twelve and of the Seventy was to be 
 simple and quiet, working from fixed centres in each place. This 
 is the germ of what we find in the apostolic age,—“ the church that 
 is in their house” (Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; 
 Philem. 2). 
 
 5. For 8éxwvtat see on vili. 13, and for égepysuevor dé see On 
 iv. 35. In Acts xili. 51 we find Paul and Barnabas performing this 
 symbolical action of shaking off the dust. It signified that hence- 
 forth they had not the smallest thing in common with the place. 
 It is said that Pharisees performed this action when re-entering 
 Judzea from heathen lands. There and in Acts xviii. 6 Lk. uses 
 éxtwaoo., which Mt. and Mk. have here. For dmorwacoe. comp. 
 Acts xxviii. 5. The ém adtods means lit. “upon them,” and so 
 “against them.” Comp. 2 Cor. i. 23 and Acts xiii, 51, and 
 contrast 2 Thes. i. ro. Mk. here has airois. 
 
 6. cdayyeAtLopuevor Kat Oepamedovtes. Comp. ver. 2. Union of 
 care for men’s bodies with care for their souls is characteristic of 
 Christ and of Christian missions. The miraculous cures of the 
 apostolic age have given place to the propagation of medical and 
 sanitary knowledge, which is pursued most earnestly under Christian 
 influences. For 8:jpxovto see on ii. 15, and for edayyedtLouevor see 
 on ii. ro. Excepting Mk. i. 28, xvi. 20, 1 Cor. iv. 17, mavraxod 
 occurs only here and three or four times in Acts: here it goes with 
 both participles. 
 
 7-9. The Fears of Herod. Mt. places this section much later 
 (xiv. 1-13); but Mk. (vi. 14-16) agrees with Lk. in connecting it 
 with the mission of the Twelve. It was their going in all directions 
 up and down the villages (8ujpxovro Kara Tas Képas) that caused the 
 fame of Christ’s work to reach Herod davepoy yap éyévero 76 Gvopa 
 avtov (Mk, vi. 14), or, at anyrate, excite his fears. 
 
 7. ‘Hpwdns 6 tetpdpxos. So also Mt. But Mk. gives him his 
 courtesy title of BacwAevs. See oniii. 1, p. 83. Thera yivopeva, mdvra 
 
IX. 7-9.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 241 
 
 means “all that was being done” by Jesus and His disciples. 
 There is no wavra in Mt. or Mk., either here or in the parallels to 
 ver. 1. See on viii. 45. The thoroughly classical word 8iynmépe 
 does not occur in LXX, nor in N.T. excepting in Lk. (Acts ii. 12, 
 v. 24, x. 17). Antipas was “utterly at a loss” as to what he was to 
 think of Jesus. Note the change of tense: he heard once for all ; 
 he remained utterly at a loss) He had no doubt heard of Christ 
 before. It was the startling theories about Him which perplexed 
 Herod. 
 
 "lwdvys jyépOn dk vexpdv. This is strong evidence of the effect 
 of John’s teaching. During his life he “did no sign,” and yet they 
 think it possible that so great a Prophet has risen from the dead 
 and is working miracles. Comp. Mt. xvi. 14; Mk. viii. 28. For 
 éx vexpov comp. xx. 35. For wyép0y (§ BCL 169) most MSS. 
 have ¢y7yepta, which is not to be accepted because 7yép@y is found 
 in Mt. 
 
 8. "HXelas ébdvy. The verb is changed from 7yépn, because 
 Elijah had not died. Mt. represents Améipas as saying that Jesus 
 is the risen Baptist, and omits the suggestions about Elijah and 
 other Prophets. The account of Lk. is intrinsically more exact. 
 He would obtain good information at Czsarea from Herod’s 
 steward (viii. 3), and at Antioch from Herod’s foster-brother (Acts 
 
 Tpodytys Tis Tov dpxaiwv. We know from Jn. vii. 40, 41 that 
 some Jews distinguished the great Prophet of Deut. xviii. 15 from 
 the Messiah. Comp. Jn. i. 21. And Mt. xvi. 14 seems to show 
 that there was an expectation that Jeremiah or other Prophets 
 would return at some future crisis. The trav dpyxaiwy is peculiar to 
 Lk. (comp. ver. 19). It may be opposed either to a new Prophet 
 (vii. 16), or to the later Prophets as compared with Moses and 
 Samuel. The former is more probable. 
 
 9. “lwdvyvy éyo dmexepddioa. ‘As for John, Z beheaded him.” 
 Mt. and Mark represent Herod as saying of Christ, “This is 
 John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead”: and some in- 
 terpret this remark as meaning much the same: “Seeing that I 
 put him to death, he may have risen again.” But this is very 
 unnatural. Rather, “I thought that I had got rid of this kind of 
 trouble when I beheaded John; and here I am having it all over 
 again.” Perhaps, as Bede suggests, Antipas afterwards came to 
 the conclusion that the Baptist had risen from the dead, a view 
 which to his guilty conscience was specially unwelcome. Lk. men- 
 tions the imprisonment of the Baptist by anticipation (iii. 20) ; but, 
 excepting in this remark of Antipas, he does not record his death. 
 
 to.adta. This may refer either to the works of Christ or to 
 the speculations of the multitude respecting Him. Although 
 John had wrought no miracles during his ministry (John x. 41), 
 
 16 
 
242 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IX. 9, 10 
 
 yet, if he had risen from the dead, such things might be expected 
 of him (Mt. xiv. a). 
 
 The éy# of TR. before dxovw is of very doubtful authority (A D XT ete,): 
 Treg. brackets, Tisch. WH. RV. omit. It would have no point. 
 
 eLyjter iSetv adtév. Not merely “he desired” (AV.), but “he 
 continued seeking to see Him.” He made various attempts to 
 apply a test which would have settled the question. Herod knew 
 the Baptist ; and he could soon determine whether this was John 
 or not, if only he could see Him. Comp. xxiii. 8, where the 
 gratification of this desire is recorded. No doubt it was not 
 merely the wish to settle the question of identity which led Antipas 
 to try to see Jesus. That he was a Sadducee is a guess of Scholten. 
 
 10-17. The Feeding of the Five Thousand. This is the one 
 miracle which is recorded by all four Evangelists (Mt. xiv. 13; 
 Mk. vi. 30; Jn. vi. 1). In all four it is the climax of the ministry. 
 Henceforward attention is directed more and more to the death 
 which will bring Christ’s work to a close. From S. John we learn 
 that it took place shortly before the Passover. All four accounts 
 should be compared. Each contributes some special, features, 
 and each appears to be to a large extent independent. The marks 
 of Lk.’s style are abundant in his narrative. 
 
 10. Grootpépavtes. See small print on i. 56. Lk. connects the 
 miracle with the return of the Twelve; but he gives no hint as to 
 the time of their absence. We may perhaps allow a few weeks. He 
 does not often call the Twelve of dméctodor (vi. 13, XVil. 5. xxii. 
 14, Xxiv. 10). 
 
 Sinyjoavto attG dca émoincov. What this was has already 
 been recorded in brief (ver. 6). It is strange that anyone should 
 infer from Lk.’s not expressly mentioning, as Mk. does (vi. 12, 13), 
 the casting out of demons, “that Lk. wishes us to believe that 
 they had failed in this respect,” and “‘had evidently been able to 
 carry out only a part of their commission.” Lk. records the suc- 
 cess of the Seventy in exorcizing demons (x. 17): why should he 
 wish to insinuate that the Twelve had failed? Excepting Mk. v. 
 16, ix. 9; Heb. xi. 32, duyyeto@ae occurs only in Lk. (vill. 39; 
 Acts vili. 33, ix. 27, xii. 17). Comp. ver. 49. Lk. perhaps wishes 
 us to understand that it was the report which the Apostles brought 
 of their doings that led to Christ’s taking them apart, as Mk. says, 
 for rest. Mt. states that it was the news of the Baptist’s death 
 which led to the withdrawal. Jn. has only a vague pera tatra, 
 All may be correct ; but there can have been no borrowing. 
 
 tmapahaBav adtous. Comp. ver. 28, xvili. 31. 
 
 dmexdpyncev kat idSiav. The verb occurs only here and v. 16 
 in NT. Comp. Ecclus. xiii. 9 (12). Lk. does not seem to be 
 aware that Christ and His disciples went by boat across the lake 
 
IX. 10-13.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 243 
 
 (Mt. Mk. Jn.), while the multitude went round by land. Hence 
 it is possible that he supposed that the miracle took place near 
 Bethsaida on the west shore, and not at Bethsaida Julias on the 
 Jordan near the north-east end of the lake. See D.B.? art. 
 “Bethsaida.” Mt. Mk. and Lk. all have xar’ idiav. 
 
 The common reading, els réqrov Epnuor wédews Kahovuérns ByOoasdd 
 (ACEGHKMSVUV etc., Aeth. Arm. Goth.), seems to be an ingenious 
 conflation of the original text, els wodtv Kahoupévny Byfoudd (BLXE 33, 
 Boh. Sah.),—which is supported by D [only xany for wodwv],—wzth a correce 
 tion of it, els Térov Epnuoy (%*), or els Témov Epnuov Brbcadd (bc f,lg 
 Vulg. Syr.), or els rézrov Epnuov Kahotpevov Byfaoadd (ae f). These corrections 
 would be suggested by ver. 12 and Mt. and Mk. and the difficulty of associat- 
 ing the miracle with a ré\ts. See WH. ii. Intr, p. 102, and also Wordsw. 
 Vulg. zz Joco. For other apparent instances of conflation see xi, 54, xii. 18, 
 xxiv. 53. Note Lk.’s favourite kaXoupwévny. 
 
 11. of Sé SyAor yvdvtes FKodovOncav attd. The Baptist was 
 dead and the Twelve had returned to Jesus, so that there was no 
 longer any counter-attraction. No Evangelist tells us how long 
 Jesus and the disciples enjoyed their privacy before the multitudes 
 arrived. 
 
 dmodefdpevos adtous. “He gave them a welcome,” as they had 
 given Him (see on viii. 40), although their arrival destroyed the 
 retirement which He had sought. As Jn. states, it was His 
 miracles of healing which attracted them rather than His teaching. 
 For arodeEduevos (§NBDLXE 1 33 69) AC etc. have defduevos: 
 the compound is peculiar to Lk. It corresponds to éorAayyvicby 
 in Mt. and Mk. 
 
 ehddet adrois wept tis Bac. tr. ©., x.7.A. “‘ He continued speak- 
 ing to them about the kingdom of God; and those who had need 
 of cure He healed.” See on v. 17 and ix. 6. Neither Mt. nor 
 Jn. say anything about His teaching the multitudes, or about His 
 healing any of them. 
 
 12. 4 82 jpépa ApEaro KAlvew. Comp. Jer. vi. 43 Judg. xix. 11, ix. 33 
 1 Sam. iv. 2. In N.T. Lk. alone uses «Alvew intransitively (xxiv. 29). 
 Comp. éxxAlvere dm’ atrSv (Rom. xvi. 17). In Att. Grk. xAlvay is gener. 
 ally trans., doxAlvey intrans. Win. xxxviii. I, p. 315. 
 
 mpoceh@ovtes Sé of Sddexa. In the three it is the Twelve who 
 take the initiative ; in Jn. it is the Lord who does so. 
 els Tas KUKAw KGpas Kal Gypovs. Being similar in meaning, the nouns 
 have only one article, although they differ in gender: comp. i, 6 and xiv. 23, 
 and contrast x. 21 and xiv. 26. See oni. 6. 
 
 émoutiopév. Here only in N.T., but quite class. It is speci- 
 ally used of provisions for a journey: Gen. xlii. 25, xlv. 21; Josh 
 ix. 5, 11; Judith ii. 18, iv. 5; Xen. Avaéd. i. 5. 9, vii. 1. 9. 
 
 18. Both e?rev 5€ and wpds are in Lk.’s style, and \ither 
 occurs in the parallels. The same is true of rdvra, an¢ in ver 
 
244 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Tx. 13-16. 
 
 14 of wpés and the second dcei Note the emphatic spets. 
 “Ye are to find food for them, not they.” There is no need to 
 supply anything after ei pyre fpets dyopdowpev. “ We have no more 
 than five loaves,” leads quite naturally to “unless we are to go 
 and buy,” etc.; and then the sentence is complete. The state- 
 ment expresses perplexity (Weiss), not sarcasm (Schanz). 
 
 Oix ciolvy hpiv wreiov 4 wéevte. The mAciov 4 wévre is virtually plur. 
 and has a plur. verb. For the subjunct. after ef uy comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5, 
 and see Win. xli. 2. b, p. 368, and Burton, § 252, 253. The subjunct, after 
 el is not rare in late Grk. But this is rather a delib. subjunct. 
 
 Jn. tells us that it was Andrew who pointed out the lad with 
 the loaves, and that they were of barley-bread. On the whole, 
 his narrative is the most precise. The jpets, like the preceding 
 dyeis, is emphatic. 
 
 14. doei avdpes tmevtaxicxidvo. They were roughly counted 
 as about a hundred companies with about fifty men in each. 
 Note the avdpes: not advfpwro. The women and children, as 
 Mk. tells us, were not included in the reckoning. They would be 
 much less numerous than the men. ‘Lk. says nothing about the 
 grass, which all the others mention, and which made the com- 
 panies in their Oriental costumes look like flower-beds (zpacuat), 
 as Mk. indicates. 
 
 KatakAtvate attots KAtofas. The verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (vii. 
 36, xiv. 8, xxiv. 30); in LXX Num. xxiv. 9; Exod. xxi. 18; Judg. v. 27; 
 Judith xii. 15. The «Atclas is cogn. acc. It occurs here only in bibl, Grk. 
 Comp. Jos. Azt, xii. 2. 11; Plut. Sertor. xxvi. 
 
 Goel dva tevrjxovta. In the spaces between the groups the 
 Apostles would be able to move freely and distribute the food. 
 That the arrangement (50, 5000) has any relation to the five loaves 
 is not likely. The dvd is distributive: comp. x. 1; Mt. xx. 9; 
 Jn. ii. 6; Rev. iv. 8. 
 
 16. Here Mt. Mk. and Lk. are almost verbatim the same. 
 All three mention the taking the loaves and fishes, the looking up 
 to heaven, the blessing, and the breaking, and the giving to the 
 disciples. For ed\oynoev Jn. has edxapiorjoas. This blessing or 
 thanksgiving is the usual grace before meat said by the host or the 
 head of the house. The Talmud says that “he who enjoys aught 
 without thanksgiving is as though he robbed God.” We are 
 probably to understand that this blessing is the means of the 
 miracle. Comp. Jn. vi. 23; and of feeding the four thousand 
 “(Mt. xv. 36; Mk. viii. 6); and of the eucharist (Mt. xxvi 26; 
 Mk. xiv. 22; Lk. xxii. 17, 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24). The manner of 
 the miracle cannot be discerned: it is a literal fulfilment of Mt. vi. 
 33- Lk. alone mentions that Jesus blessed she loaves, ebdoynow 
 autovs. The preceding articles, tods wévte dprovs Kai tods dvo 
 
EX.,16,17.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 245 
 
 ixOvas, mean those which had been mentioned before in ver. 13, 
 where the words have no article. 
 
 €Si80u tots palytais. ‘Continued giving them to the disciples ’ 
 The imperf. in the midst of aorists is graphic. Comp. xxiv. 30; 
 Mk. viii. 6, and contrast xxii. 19; Mk. xiv. 22. 
 
 17. The verbal resembiance between the three accounts con- 
 tinues. For éxyoptdc@yoav see on vi. 21, and take kdacpdtwy after ro 
 mepisoedoay (De W. Hahn). All four mention the twelve xoguwox, 
 as also does Mt. in referring to this miracle (xvi. 9); whereas at 
 the feeding of the four thousand (Mt. xv. 37; Mk. viii. 8), and in 
 referring to it (Mt. xvi. 10), the word used for basket is ozupis. It 
 is the more remarkable that Lk. and Jn. both have xé¢uvor because 
 they do not mention the other miracle. The ozvpis was large, cap- 
 able of holding a man (Acts ix. 25). The xdd¢uvos was.the wallet 
 carried by every travelling Jew, to avoid buying food from Gentiles: 
 Judzis quorum cophinus fenumgque supellex (Juv. Sat. iil. 14). 
 Comp. zupsisti, Gellia, cistifero, “thou hast married a Jew” (Mart. 
 Epig. v.17. 4). These exact details would scarcely have been 
 maintained so consistently in a deliberate fiction or in a myth. 
 Still less would either fiction or myth have represented one who 
 could multiply food at will as giving directions that the fragments 
 should not be wasted (Jn. vi. 12). The possessor of an in- 
 exhaustible purse is never represented as being watchful against 
 extravagance. 
 
 Note the climax in ver. 17. They not only ate, but were 
 satisfied,—all of them ; and not only so, but there was something 
 over,—far more than the original supply. 
 
 Weiss well remarks that ‘‘the criticism which is afraid of miracles finds 
 itself in no small difficulty in the presence of this narrative. It is guaranteed 
 by all our sources which rest upon eye-witness; and these show the inde- 
 pendence of their tradition by their deviations, which do not affect the kernel 
 of the matter, and cannot be explained by any tendencies whatever. In the 
 presence of this fact the possibility of myth or invention is utterly inad- 
 missible. . . . Only this remains absolutely incontrovertible, that it is the 
 intention of all our reports to narrate a miracle; and by this we must abide, if 
 the origin of the tradition is not to abide an entirely inexplicable riddle” (Z. 7. 
 ii. pp. 196-200, Eng. tr. ii, pp. 381-385). The explanation that Christ’s 
 generosity in giving away the food of His party induced others who had food 
 to give it away, and that thus there was enough for all, is plainly not what 
 the Evangelists mean, and it does not explain their statements. Would such 
 generosity suggest that He was the Messiah, or induce them to try to make 
 Him king? Still more inadequate is the suggestion of Renan: Grace a une 
 extréme frugalité, la troupe sainte y vécut; on crut naturellement voir en 
 cela un miracle (V. de J. p. 198). 
 
 18-22. The Confession of Peter and First Announcement of 
 the Passion. Mt. xvi. 13-21; Mk. viii. 27-31. No connexion 
 with the miracle just related is either stated or implied. Lk. 
 omits the sequel of the miracle. the peremptory dismissal of the 
 
246 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [rx. 18-20. 
 
 disciples and gradual dismissal of the people, the storm, the walk- 
 ing on the sea, the discourse on the Bread of Life, the Syro- 
 phenician woman, the Ephphatha miracle, the feeding of the 
 four thousand, the forgetting to take bread, and the healing of a 
 blind man at Bethsaida Julias (Mt. xiv. 22-xvi. 12; Mk. vi. 45- 
 viii. 26; Jn. vi. 14-71). Can he then have seen either Mt. or 
 Mk.? So also here : both the others mention that the incident took 
 place near Ceesarea Philippi, 0 the confines of heathenism. Lk. 
 mentions no place. It is a desperate expedient to suppose with 
 Reuss, that the copy of Mk. which Lk. knew chanced to omit 
 these sections. From ver. 18 to ver. 50 Lk. is once more parallel 
 in the main to the other two. 
 
 18. Kai éyéveto év TH eivar adtév mpoceuxdpevov. See note at 
 the end of ch. i. and on iii. 21. For the periphrastic infinitive 
 comp. xi. 1, and Burton, § 97. Jesus Patrem rogarat, ut discipulis 
 se revelaret. am argumentum precum Jesu colligi potest ex ser- 
 monibus actionibusque insecutis ; Vi. 12, 13 (Beng.). 
 
 kata pdévas, Perhaps x#pas was originally understood. But the ex- 
 pression is used as a simple adv. and is sometimes written as one word, kara- 
 #évas. In N.T. only here and Mk. iv. 10, In LXX Ps. iv, 9, xxxli. 155 
 Jer. xv. 17; Lam. iii. 28. 
 
 cuvicavy att@ of padytat. This almost amounts to a contra- 
 diction of what precedes. ‘When He was alone praying, His 
 disciples were with Him.” “ Alone” no doubt means “in pri- 
 vate,” or “in a solitary spot,” and may be taken with ovvqcav: so 
 that the contradiction is only on the surface. Moreover we are 
 perhaps to understand that His Prayer was solitary : His disciples 
 did not join in it. In either case xara pévas is quite intelligible, 
 although the disciples may have been close to Him. But it is 
 possible that the true reading is ovv7vrycar, meaning, “ His disciples 
 met Him, fell in with Him,” as He was engaged in prayer. This 
 is the reading of B*, which a later scribe has corrected to owvjjcar. 
 And B* is here supported by the Old Latin f (occurrerunt) and 
 one excellent cursive (157), besides two less important authorities. 
 Nevertheless, it is on the whole more probable that ovvynvrycar is 
 an early attempt to get rid of the apparent contradiction involved 
 in Kata povas ow7joay. See Lxfositor, 3rd series, iv. p. 159. 
 Elsewhere in N.T. cvveiva: occurs only Acts xxii. 11. 
 
 20. ‘Ypeis 8¢. With great emphasis: “ But ye—who do ye say 
 that I am?” The impulsiveness of Peter, and his Position as 
 spokesman for the Twelve, are here conspicuous. He is oop. TOD 
 Xopod: Vili. 45, xii. 41, xvili. 28. Lvcet ceteri apostoli sciant, Petrus 
 tamen respondit pre ceteris (Bede). 
 
 rov Xptotov ToG Ceod. Whom God hath anointed” and sent: 
 eee on ii. 24 ~=©Here Mk. has simply 6 Xpiords, and Mt. 6 Xpuoros 
 
IX. 20-22.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 247 
 
 & vids rod @eod rod Lavros. See Keim on this confession, as ‘a 
 solemn event of the very highest character” (/es. of Waz. iv. 
 p. 263). Lk. and Mk. omit the praise bestowed on Peter for 
 this confession, and the much discussed promise made to him 
 (Mt. xvi. 17-19). Can it be of supreme importance ? 
 
 21. pndevi A€yew todro. Because of the grossly erroneous 
 views about the Messiah which prevailed among the people. 
 Shortly before this they had wished to take Him by force and 
 make Him king (Jn. vi. 15). Hence Jesus never proclaimed 
 Himself openly to the multitude as the Messiah ; and here, when 
 He does to the Twelve, He explains the nature of His Kingdom, 
 and strictly forbids them to make His Messiahship known. The 
 nearest approach to exceptions to this practice are the Samaritan 
 woman (Jn. iv. 26), and the outcast from the synagogue (Jn. ix. 37). 
 
 Others explain the command to keep silence as prompted by the fear lest the 
 guilt of those who were about to put Jesus to death should be increased by the 
 disciples proclaiming Him as the Messiah. Others again suggest the fear lest 
 the people, if they knew that He was the Messiah, should attempt to rescue 
 Him from the death which it was necessary that He should undergo. Neither 
 
 of these appears to be satisfactory. In any case the 8€ is adversative. What 
 Peter said was quite true: ‘‘ éu¢ He charged them, and commanded.” 
 
 22. Lk. does not tell us, as Mk. does, and still more plainly 
 Mt., that this was the deginning of Christ’s predictions respecting 
 His Passion: fjpfaro diddcKxew aitots dre Act, x.7.X. (Mk. viii. 31) ; 
 Gd Tote Hp~ato Setxvvetv, x.7.A. (Mt. xvi. 21). The first announce- 
 ment of such things must have seemed overwhelming. Peter’s 
 protest perhaps expressed the feeling of most of them. 
 
 eimay Ott Act. The ove is recitative, not argumentative. The 
 Act is here in all three; but elsewhere Lk. uses it much more 
 often than any other Evangelist. It expresses logical necessity 
 rather than moral obligation (a¢eAev, Heb. ii. 17) or natural fitness 
 (éxperev, Heb. ii. 10). It is a Divine decree, a law of the Divine 
 nature, that the Son of Man must suffer. Prophecy had repeatedly 
 intimated this decree. Comp. xili. 33, xvii. 25, xxil. 37, xxiv. 7, 26, 
 44; Jn. iii, 14, etc. For tév uidv tod dvOpdmov, the title which 
 suggested, while it veiled, His Messiahship, see on v. 24. 
 
 drodokipacjvar dé tay, K.t.A. “ Be rejected after investigation 
 at the hands of the,” etc. The Soxiacta was the scrutiny which 
 an elected magistrate had to undergo at Athens, to see whether he 
 was legally qualified to hold office. The hierarchy held such a 
 scrutiny respecting the claims of Jesus to be the Christ, and 
 rejected Him: xvil. 25, xx. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 4, 7. For the dao, “at 
 the hands of,” comp. Ecclus. xx. 20; Lk. vii. 35; Acts ii. 22; 
 Jas. i. 13; Rev. xii. 6. 
 
 Tv tmpecButépwv Kat dpxtepeww kal ypappatéwy. The three 
 nouns, as forming one body, have one article. So also in Mt. 
 
248 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IX. 23-25. 
 
 xvi. 21. In Mk. xiv. 43, 53, where the Sanhedrin is spoken of 
 with similar fulness, all three nouns have the article. The dpyte- 
 pets are rarely placed second: comp. xx. 19; Mt. xvi. 21; Mk. 
 vill. 31. The common formule are dpx., ypap., mperB. OF apx.; 
 
 mpecB., ypau. and doy. mpeoB. OF apx., pape 
 
 GmoxtavOyjvar. The pass. of dmoxrelvw is late Grk. Classical writers use 
 OvjoKw or drobvynckw. For ty tpliry jyépa Mk. has the less accurate pera 
 tpets jucpas. He also has dvacrjvat, while Mt. has éyep@jvat, which is 
 probably right here ; but dvacrjjvac (A C D, Just. Orig.) is well supported. 
 
 Lk. omits Peter’s protest against the declaration that Christ 
 must suffer, and the severe rebuke which he received. His omission 
 of ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan,” is sufficient answer to those who 
 assert that it is out of ill-will to Peter that Lk. omits “ Blessed art 
 thou, Simon Bar-Jonah.” See on v. ro and xxii. 54-62. 
 
 23-27. The Self-Renouncement required in Christ’s Followers. 
 Mt. xvi. 24-28; Mk. viii. 34-ix. 1. Although the manner of intro- 
 ducing the words is different in all three, the similarity between the 
 reports of the words is very close throughout, especially in the 
 words quoted vv. 23, 24. Throughout the Gospels it is in 
 the records of Christ’s sayings that the closest resemblances are 
 found. Comp. xviii. 16, 17, 25, 27. 
 
 23. mpds mdvtas. Both words are characteristic: see on ver. 43 
 andi. 13. The zavras represents Mk.’s rév dxAov vv Tots paby- 
 tats. The necessity of self-denial and self-sacrifice was made 
 known to all, although for the present the supreme example of the 
 necessity was a mystery revealed gradually to a very few. 
 
 Gpdtw Tov otaupov attod Kal *juepav. ‘This is the first mention 
 of the cross in Lk. and Mk. Its associations were such that this 
 declaration must have been startling. The Jews, especially in 
 Galilee, knew well what the cross meant. Hundreds of the 
 followers of Judas and Simon had been crucified (Jos. Azz. 
 XVilil. 10. 10). It represents, therefore, not so much a burden as an 
 instrument of death, and it was mentioned because of its familiar 
 associations. Comp. xiv. 27; Mt. x. 38. The xaé’ jpépay here is 
 peculiar to Lk.: comp. 1 Cor. xv. 31. We must distinguish be- 
 tween dkohou@eitw pot, “follow Me loyally,” and émicw pou epxecPat, 
 “become My disciple.” There are three conditions of discipleship: 
 self-denial, bearing one’s cross, and obedience. 
 
 24. ds yap av Gdn. Here, as in ver. 23, “‘ will” (AV.) is too weak as 
 a translation of #é\ew, being too like the simple future: “‘desireth” or 
 “‘willeth”” is better: sz gues vult, gut enim voluertt, Such inadequate 
 
 renderings of @é\e.y are common in AV. (xix. 143 Jn. vi. 67, vii. 17, vill. 44). 
 See smal] print on x. 22. Comp. xvii. 33. 
 
 25. tl yap adedeitar av@pwros. The same verb is used by all 
 three; but AV. obliterates this by rendering “profit” in Mt. and 
 
IX. 25-27.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 249 
 
 Mk., and “advantage” in Lk. Again, {npiwjvar is common to 
 all three: yet AV. has “lose” in Mt. and Mk., and “cast away” in 
 Lk. The opposition between xépdos and fyjpia is common in Grk. 
 See Lft. on Phil. iii. 7. In N.T. the act. fjpidw does not occur, but 
 only the pass. with either acc. of the thing confiscated (Phil. iii. 8), 
 - or dat. with & (2 Cor. vii. 9), or absol. (1 Cor. iii. 15). The 
 éaurév is equivalent to viv vy in ver. 24 and in Mt. and Mk. 
 To be excluded from eternal life is death. Lk. omits ‘‘ What 
 should a man give in exchange for his life?” We must keep 
 “life” for Uvxn throughout the passage: the context shows when 
 it means life as men desire it on earth, and when life as the blessed 
 enjoy it in the Kingdom. The Gospel has raised the meaning of 
 Yox7, as of wy, to a higher power. Comp. Rev. xii. 11. Frumen- 
 tum si servas perdis, si seminas renovas (Bede). 
 
 For the combination of aor. part. with fut, indic. comp. 3 Jn. 6, and 
 Burton, § 141. 
 
 26. éraicytvOn pe Kat Tods euots Adyous. Mt. omits. The 
 éxt in comp. means “on account of”: this is the ground of his 
 shame: comp. xii. 26, 27. For the constr. comp. Rom. i. 16; 
 2 Tim. i. 8, 16; Heb. xi. 16. The év ri 86&q adrod refers to the 
 mapovcia, not to the Resurrection (xii. 36, xvil. 24, xviii. 8, xix. 15, 
 xxi. 27), and is the first mention by Lk. of Christ’s promising to 
 return in glory. Lk. omits “in this adulterous generation” (Mk.). 
 
 27. adn@ds. With Ado, not with what follows. Mt. and Mk 
 have ayjv, which Lk. uses much less frequently than the others. 
 In xi. 44 and xxi. 3 Lk. has dAnOas where Mt. has ayy. For 
 attod, “here,” comp. Acts xv. 34; Mt. xxvi. 36. Mt. and Mk. 
 have ade. 
 
 yevowvtat Oavdtov. The expression is found in the Talmud, 
 but not in O.T. Comp. Mt. xvi. 28; Jn. viii. 52; Heb. ii. 9. It 
 implies experience of the bitterness of death. Comp. ideiv Gavarov 
 ‘(i. 26) and @avarov Oewpety (Jn. viii. 51). For yeveoGa: in the sense 
 of “ experience” comp. Heb. vi. 4, 5; Ps. xxxiv. 9. 
 
 Thy Bacihetav rob Ocod. Mk. adds eAnAvbviav & duvaue, and. 
 Mt. substitutes 7. vidv tod avOp. épyopevov &v TH Bacrcia airod. 
 The meaning is much disputed. The principal interpretations 
 are :—1. The Transfiguration, which all three accounts closely con- 
 nect with this prediction (most of the Fathers, Euthym. Theophyl. 
 Maldon.); 2. Zhe Resurrection and Ascension (Cajetan, Calvin, 
 Beza) ; 3. Pentecost and the great signs which followed it (Godet, 
 Hahn); 4. Zhe spread of Christianity (Nosgen) ; 5. The internal 
 development of the Gospel (Erasmus, Klostermann) ; 6. The destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem (Wetstein, Alford, Morison, Plumptre, Mansel) ; 
 7. The Second Advent (Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann). No inter- 
 nretation can be correct that does not explain cioiv twes, which 
 
250 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [rx. 27, 28 
 
 implies the exceptional privilege of some, as distinct from the common 
 experience of all, This test seems to exclude ail but the first and 
 the sixth of these interpretations ; and, if we must choose between 
 these two, the sixth must be right. ‘Shall not taste of death 
 until” cannot refer exc/usively to an event to take place the next 
 week. But both may be right. The Transfiguration, witnessed 
 by only three of those present, was a foretaste of Christ’s glory 
 both on earth and in heaven. The destruction of Jerusalem, 
 witnessed by S. John and perhaps a few others of those present, 
 swept away the remains of the Old Dispensation and left the 
 Gospel in possession of the field.. Only so far as the destruction 
 of Jerusalem was a type of the end of the world is there a 
 reference to the zapoveta (see on xxi. 32). A direct reference to 
 the zapovoia is excluded by the fact that none of those present 
 lived to witness it, except in the sense that all men will witness it. 
 Jesus has told us that during His life on earth He was ignorant of 
 the date of the day of judgment (Mk. xii. 32): and we cannot 
 suppose that in spite of that ignorance He predicted that it was 
 near ; still less that He uttered a prediction which has not been 
 fulfilled. Moreover, the od ph yedowvtar Savdrou ws implies that 
 the tuves w// experience death after seeing the Bac. tr. Ocod, which 
 would not be true of those who live to see the rapovoia (1 Cor. 
 XV. 51). 
 
 28-36. The Transfiguration. Mt. xvii. 1-13; Mk. ix. 2-13. 
 Both Lk. (vz. 31, 32) and Mt. (xvii. 6, 7) give details which Mk. 
 omits; but Mk. has very little (part of ix. 3) which is not in either 
 of the others. 
 
 Here again (see on viii. 35-39, 40-48) the marks of Lk.’s diction are numer- 
 ous: éyévero, woel (ver. 28); éyévero, év T@ with infin. (29); dv Spes (30) 
 ctv, dvdpas (32); eyévero, ev TQ, elmev wpbs, EwLaTaTA (33)5 évT@ (34)5 
 pov éyéveTo (35); év TG, kat avtol, dmyyyethap, ev éxelvats Tais 
 
 Huépats, ovdéev Sy (36). 
 
 For comment see Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 22; Trench, Studies 
 in the Gospels, pp. 184-214; Herzog, PREZ. art. Verkiarung, 
 omitted in 2nd ed. ; Schaffs Herzog, art. “ Transfiguration.” 
 
 28. doet ees éxté. A nom. without construction of any 
 kind. Comp. Acts v. 7; Mt. xv. 32; Mk. viii. 2, and wAéov in 
 ver. 13. Win. lviii. 4, p. 648. The other two have “after six 
 days,” which agrees with “about eight days.” We can hardly say 
 that Lk. is “improving their chronology.” It looks as if he had not 
 seen their expression. For tapadaBdy comp. ver. ro, and for the 
 order of the names see on vili. 51. Note that Lk. changes the 
 order of the names. He places John before James (viii. 51), which 
 may be because he wrote after John! had become the better known. 
 
 eis td Spos. The others have eis dpos tyyAov. Both expressions 
 wculd fit Hermon, which is about 9200 feet high, and would easily 
 
x. 28-31.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 251 
 
 be reached in a week frora Czsarea Philippi. It is still called 
 Jebel esh Sheikh, “the chief mountain.” It is higher than Lebanon 
 (8500) or Anti-Lebanon (8700), and its isolated white summit is 
 visible from many eminences throughout Palestine (Conder, Hand- 
 book of the Bible, p. 205 ; D.B.*1. p. 1339; Tristram, Bible Places, 
 p. 280). A tradition, which is first mentioned by Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem (Ca/ech. xii. 16), places the scene of the Transfiguration on 
 Tabor,! which at this time seems to have had a village or town on 
 the top, which Josephus fortified against Vespasian (2. /. iv. 1. 8). 
 In that case the solitude (xar idéavy) which is required for the 
 Transfiguration would be impossible. The mpoced§ac6at is peculiar 
 to this account: see on ili. 21, a similar occasion. 
 
 29. éyéveto . . . érepov. The Gentile Lk. writing for Gentiles 
 avoids the word perenopduby (Mt. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. 2), which might 
 be understood of the metamorphosis of heathen deities. Comp & 
 érépa poppy ({Mk.] xvi. 12). The Aeuxds need not be made ad- 
 verbial. The asyndeton is not violent, if it be made co-ordinate 
 with éfaorpdz7wv, a word which occurs Ezek. i. 4, 7; Nah. iil. 3. 
 
 30. Both dvSpes and otriwes are peculiar to Lk. here: see ii. 4. 
 The three Apostles saw the forms of two men who were such as to 
 be recognized as Moses and Elijah,—the representatives of the 
 Law and the Prophets. The power to recognize them was granted 
 
 _ with the power to see them ; otherwise the sight would have been 
 meaningless. In the same way S. Paul recognized Ananias in a 
 vision, although he had not previously known him (Acts ix. 12). 
 We might render the ofries “who were no others than.” That 
 Moses was to reappear as well as Elijah at the beginning of the 
 Messianic Kingdom, was a later dream of the Rabbis. See Lightfoot, 
 Hor. Heb. ad loc. See small print on ii. 22 for the form Mavojs. 
 
 $1, 32. Peculiar to Lk. See on xxii. 43. 
 
 thy e€odev adtod. His departure from this world by means of 
 the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. Comp. the use of 
 eicodos in Acts xiii. 24. For éfo80s in the sense of death see 
 2 Pet. i. 15; Wisd. ili. 2, vil.6. That the Apostles heard this 
 subject being discussed explains part of the meaning of the 
 Transfiguration. It was to calm their minds, which had recently 
 been disturbed by the prediction of Christ’s sufferings and death.” 
 The jpedXev corresponds to det in ver. 22. It is all ordained by 
 God, and is sure to take place ; and when it takes place it may be 
 regarded as a fulfilment (7Aypoty), and also as a filling full. There 
 were types and prophecies shadowing forth the Divine purpose, 
 every detail of which must be gone through. 
 
 1 In the Greek Church the Feast of the Transfiguration, Aug. 6th, is called 
 7d Ga8epov. The combination in Ps. lxxxix. 12 may be noted. 
 
 2 [n transfiguratione illud principaliter agebatur, ut de cordibus discipulorum 
 scandalum crucis tolleretur (Leo the Great, Serm. xliv., Migne, liv. 310). 
 
252 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (Ix. 31-34. 
 
 It is perhaps to be regretted that RV. retains “‘accomplish,” which is its 
 freq. rendering of redevdw (Jn. iv. 34, v. 36; Acts xx. 24; Jn. xvil. 4, etc.), 
 instead of substituting “fulfil,” which is its freq. rendering of wAnpbo (xxi. 24, 
 xxii. 16, xxiv. 44; Acts i. 16, etc.). And why not ‘‘exodus” here, and 
 Heb, xi. 22, and 2 Pet. i. 15, for 2050s ? 
 
 BeBapnpévor drvw, In N.T. only the pass. of this verb is found, and 
 the best writers do not use the pres. of either voice. In Mt. xxvi. 43 it is 
 used of the eyes of these same three being heavy with sleep: comp. Lk. xxi. 
 34; 2 Cor. i. 8, v. 43 1 Tim. v. 16. 
 
 Staypnyopycartes 8é. “But having remained awake” in spite 
 of this sleepiness would be the common meaning of the word ;1 
 but perhaps here it means “having become thoroughly awake.” 
 Syr-Sin. has “when they awoke.” It is a late word, and occurs 
 nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Lk. is fond of compounds with 
 did :-—Sraywadoxev, SiadéxeoOar, Siarcirew, diadvew, diavepev, dia- 
 vuxrepeverv, Starroveta Oat, Siarropety, SuatpaypareverOar, etc. 
 
 As the invention of a later hand these two verses (31, 32) do not explain 
 themselves. What is the motive for the invention? As a narrative of facts 
 they throw much light on the whole situation. 
 
 33. év 76 SraxwpiferBar avtols dm adtod. “As they were part- 
 ing from Him.” This again is in Lk. only, and it explains Peter’s 
 remark. His first impulse is to prevent Moses and Elijah from 
 going away. He wishes to make present glory and rapture 
 permanent. 
 
 etrev 6 Métpos. Mt. and Mk. add dzoxpiOeis. It is his response 
 to what he saw. For "Emortdta see on v. 5. He says that “it is 
 good for us to be here,” not “‘it is better.” There is no comparison 
 with any other condition. The jas probably means the Apostles, 
 not all six persons. The Apostles are ready to help in erecting 
 the oxyvai. If they were to remain there, they must have shelter. 
 
 py €i8as 6 eye. We need not follow Tertullian in interpret- 
 ing this of a state of ecstasy (amentia), as of one rapt into another 
 world. Mk. tell us plainly why Peter “‘wist not what to answer,” 
 éxpoBor yap éyévovto: and this he would have from Peter himself. 
 In any case, neither Peter’s strange proposal nor the comment 
 upon it looks like invention. 
 
 84. éyéveto vehedyn Kal émeoklaley attovs. Mt. calls it dwrewy, 
 a “luminous cloud.” Here there is perhaps an association of 
 ideas, suggested by similarity of sound, between éreoxiafey and 
 the Shechinah or 667 mentioned in ver. 31. Comp. éreoxialev 
 éxi tyv oKnviav % vepedy (Exod. xl. 29). Strictly speaking a 
 luminous cloud cannot overshadow; but it may veil. Light may 
 be as blinding as darkness. We cannot be sure whether the aérous 
 includes the three Apostles or not. It does not include them in 
 
 41 Comp. racjjs rijs vuxrds . . . diaypyyopioavres (Herodian, iii. 4. 8). 
 
IX. 34-36.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 253 
 
 ver. 33, and probably does not include them here. The reading 
 éxetvous eiceAfciv (A D P R) is meant to exclude the Apostles ; but 
 eiceAGciv avrovs (x BCL) is right. See D.Z.? art. “Cloud.” 
 
 35. For dwvy éyéveto see on iii. 22, and comp. Exod. xxxiii. 9, The 
 reading ayamrnrés (ACD PR) for éxXeXeypéevos (NBL) comes from Mt. 
 and Mk. The Versions are divided, and in many copies of the Aeth. the two 
 readings are combined. Syr-Sin. has ‘‘ the chosen.” 
 
 836. év 10 yevéoOar Thy dw. “ After the voice had come” ; 
 i.e. when it had ceased: see on iii. 21. Syr-Sin. has “when there 
 was the voice.” Peter had wished to make three tabernacles, as 
 if Moses and Elijah were to be as abiding as Christ; but now the 
 Law and the Prophets pass away, t/a dimissts, quasi jam et officio 
 et honore dispunctis (Tertul. Adv. Marcion. iv. 22), and cipé6n 
 ‘Incods povos. 
 
 kal adtot éolynoav Kal obSevt dmmyyetday ev exelvats Tals Hpepats. 
 See on v. 14, on viii. 20, and oni. 39. LK. tells us that they kept 
 silent ; Mt. tells us that Jesus charged them to tell no one until 
 the Son of Man was risen from the dead. Mk. relates both the 
 command and their observance of it. The prohibition to speak 
 oi what they had seen is a strong confirmation of the incident as 
 an historical fact. Ifthe vision is an invention, how can we ex- 
 plain the invention of such a prohibition? ‘The statement of all 
 three, that the Transfiguration took place a week after the preced- 
 ing incident, the characteristic impulsiveness of Peter, and the 
 healing of the demoniac boy immediately afterwards, are marks of 
 historical reality. 
 
 But, as in the case of other miracles, while we admit the fact, we must 
 remain in ignorance as to the manner. Were Moses and Elijah, who were 
 mysteriously removed from the earth, here present in the dody? Or were their 
 disembodied sfzrzts made visible? Or was it a mere vision, in which they only 
 seemed to be present? We cannot say: the third alternative is not excluded by 
 the fact that all three saw it, whereas a mere vision is perceived by only one. 
 As Weiss well remarks, ‘‘ We are not here concerned with a vision produced by 
 natural causes, but with one sent directly by God” ; and he adds, ‘‘ Our narrative 
 presents no stumbling-block for those who believe in divine revelation” (Z. 7. 
 ii. pp. 319, 320, Eng. tr. iii. p. 103). The silence of S. John respecting the 
 whole incident is thoroughly intelligible. (1) It had already been recorded 
 three times ; (2) the glorification of Jesus as the Son of God, which is here set 
 forth in a special incident, is set forth by him throughout his whole Gospel. 
 
 édpaxav. With this form of the 3rd pers. plur. perf. comp. Ter7jpyxap 
 and éyvwxay (Jn. xvii. 6, 7), elpnxay (Rev. xix. 3), yéyovay (Rev. xxi. 6), 
 elceknjAvbay (Jas. v. 4); also Rom. xvi. 7; Col. ii. 1; Rev. xviii. 3. Such 
 forms are common in inscriptions and in the Byzantine writers. Win. xiii. 
 2. c, p. 90; Gregory, Prolegom. p. 124. In meaning the perfect seems here 
 to be passing into the aorist ; Burton, § 88, but see $ 78. 
 
 87-43. The Healing of the Demoniac Boy. Mt. xvii. 14-18; 
 Mk. ix. 14-29. In all three this incident is closely connected with 
 
254 THE GOSPEL ACCORVING TO S. LUKE [IX. 87-40 
 
 the Transfiguration. The moral contrast between the peace and 
 glory on the mount and the struggle and failure down below is 
 intense, and is magnificently brought out by Raffaelle in the great 
 picture of the Transfiguration, which was his last work. The 
 combination of the two scenes is fatal to the unity of the subject, 
 which is really two pictures in one frame; but it heightens the 
 moral and dramatic effect. It is perhaps even more instructive to 
 regard it as three pictures. Christ and the saints in glory; the 
 chosen three blinded by the light; the remaining nine baffled by 
 the powers of darkness. 
 
 The marks of Lk.’s style continue with considerable frequency: éyévero, 
 éfjs (ver. 37); Kal ldov, €Bbnoev, Jéouat, povoyerns (38); Kal ido (39) 5 
 €denOnv (40); ldcaro (42); mdvres (43). None of these are in the parallel 
 passages. See small print on viii. 35-39, 40-48. 
 
 37. TH és tpépa. See on vii. 11. The Transfiguration 
 probably took place at night. Lk. alone tells us that the descent 
 from the mountain did not take place until next day. Thus the 
 three Apostles had time to think over what they had seen and 
 heard, before receiving fresh experiences. Lk. omits the con- 
 versation about Elijah. Mk., who is here much more full than 
 either Lk. or Mt., tells us that this 6xXos modts was gathered round 
 the other disciples, with whom scribes were disputing. The 
 opportune arrival of Christ caused great amazement. 
 
 38. For éBénoev comp. iii. 4, xviii. 7, 38, and for Soar see on v. 12. 
 
 éwuBAdWar. I aor. inf. act.; not érlBdevat, I aor. imper. mid., a tense 
 which perhaps does not occur. It means ‘‘to regard with pity”; i. 48; 
 1 Sam. i. 11, ix. 16; Ps. xxiv. 16; Tobit iii. 3, 15; Judith xiii. 4.—For the 
 third time Lk. is alone in mentioning that a child is povoyevys: vii. 12, 
 viii. 42. Comp. Heb. xi. 17; Tobit iii. 15, viii. 17; Judg. xi. 34. 
 
 89. The three accounts differ in describing the symptoms. Mt. 
 has oeAnvidferar cal xaxds eye. Mk. has adpile cat tpile tovs 
 ddovtas Kal éypaiverat. In Lk.’s description Hobart (pp. 17-20) 
 claims éépvys, peta appod, and pdyts dmoxwpet as medical expres- 
 sions, together with the preceding émBépat.! The poys occurs 
 here only in N.T. Comp. 3 Mace. vii. 6. But podrs, which is 
 found Acts xiv. 18, xxvii. 7, 8, 16; Rom. v. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 18, may 
 be the right reading here also (BR etc.). Both pyos and podos 
 mean “toil.” The dzoywpeiv means cessation of convulsions. 
 
 40. éSerOyv . . . va. See on iv. 3 and onx. 2. The disciples 
 who failed here need not be the Apostles, who were charged to 
 cast out demons (ver. 1). If they were, this one failure was 
 exceptional (Mk. vi. 12, 13). 
 
 1 Hobart adds, ‘It is worthy of note that Aretzeus, a physician of about St. 
 Luke’s time, in treating of Epilepsy, admits the possibility of this disease being 
 produced by diabolical agency (S2g. Morb. Diuturn. 27).” 
 
IX. 41-43.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 255 
 
 41. & yeved dmortos. This probably is neither addressed to the 
 disciples, who had failed to cure the lad, nor includes them. It is 
 addressed to the father, and includes the multitude. Fer unum 
 hominem Judzos arguit infidelitatis (Bede). As in the case of the 
 paralytic (v. 20), the faith of those who had charge of the afflicted 
 person is taken into account. This is more clearly brought out in 
 Mk. It wasa wish to see what the disciples could do, rather than 
 faith in Divine power and goodness, which prompted the bringing 
 of the boy to them. Possibly it was a wish to see what the 
 disciples could zof do that inspired some of them. The hierarchy 
 sometimes attacked Jesus through His disciples (Mk. ii. 16, 18, 
 24, vii. 5; comp. Lk. xiii. 14). In xii. 46 dmoros means “un- 
 faithful,” and in Acts xxvi. 8 “incredible.” 
 
 Kal Sueotpaypcvyn. Not in Mk. It isa strong expression: ‘distorted, 
 wrong-headed ” (Acts xx. 30; Phil. ii. 15; Deut. xxxii. 5). Comp. 6 Ouyds 
 Epxovras Siactpéper kal rods dplorous dvdpas (Arist. Pol. iii. 16. 5); clot 5” 
 ae al Wuxal diecrpappevar [a./. wapeotpap.] THs KaTd gpiow eews (viii. 
 7+ 7) 
 
 €ws méte Ecopar pds Suas; The notion is that of being turned 
 towards a person for the sake of intercourse; and the question 
 implies that Jesus is not of that generation, or that it is alienated 
 from Him. Comp. Is. lxv. 2. For €ws more comp. Jn. x. 24; and 
 for mpos Spas, apud vos, comp. Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. vi. 3, xiv. 49 ; 
 = i. 1, etc. Mt. has pel tuav. Vita Jesu perpetua tolerantia 
 Beng.). 
 
 In N.T. and LXX dvéxec@ar has the gen. But in class, Grk., as some- 
 times in LXX, we have the acc. after dvéxec@at (Amos iv. 7 ; 4 Mac. xiii. 27). 
 
 42. mpocepxopévou aitod. This is to be understood of the lad’s 
 approach to Jesus, not of His approach to the lad. Jesus had just 
 said, “ Bring thy son hither.” 
 
 éppngev attov Td Saipdviov. ‘The demon dashed him down.” 
 The word is used of boxers knocking down, and of wrestlers 
 throwing, an opponent: and some distinguish pycow in this 
 sense from pyyvyyr. Comp. Wisd. iv. 19; Herm. Aland. xi. 3; 
 Apost. Const. vi. 1. There is also faoow, like dpéoow, in the 
 sense of dashing to the ground (Is. ix. 10). The expulsion of the 
 demon left the boy in a condition which still required healing. 
 Lk. gives each act separately. Comp. Mk. ix. 27. For idoato see 
 small print on v. 17 ; and with dwédxev adtév TO watpt adtod, which 
 Lk. alone mentions, comp. vii. 15 and viii. 55. 
 
 43. This also is peculiar to Lk., who omits the rebuke to the 
 disciples, thus again sparing them. The division of the verses is 
 unfortunate, half of ver. 43 belonging to one section and half to 
 another. For peyadewotyt. comp. Acts xix. 27; 2 Pet. i. 16: 
 Latin texts have magnitudo (Vulg.), magnificentia (e), magnalia (a). 
 
256 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [TX. 43-45, 
 
 The zdvres in the first half of the verse, and the ravtwy ézi 
 waewv in the second half, strongly illustrate Lk.’s fondness for 
 mas: see on vil. 35 and xi. 4; and comp. Acts iv. 10, xvii. 30, 
 Xxl. 28, xxiv. 3. 
 
 43-45. The Second Announcement of the Passion. Mt. 
 xvii. 23; Mk. ix. 31, 32. 
 
 Besides the rdvrwyv and mwaouv, we have as marks of Lk.’s style, 
 
 Oavpafsdyrwy él, the attraction in tactv ols, rpbs after elev (ver. 43), 
 and the analytical 7v mapaxexaduppmévoy (ver. 45). See on ii. 33 and iii. 19, 
 
 43. Qaupaldvrwy emt maow ots emote. See small print on ii. 33 and 
 ili. 19. The imperfects include more than the preceding incident. 
 It was because the people were so constantly in an attitude of 
 empty admiration and wonder at His miracles, that Jesus again 
 tells the disciples of the real nature of His Messiahship. He is 
 not going to reign as an earthly king, but to suffer as a criminal. 
 
 Here d has one of several attempts to reproduce the gen. abs. in Latin : 
 omnium autem mirantium. Comp. et cogitantium omnium (ill. 15) ; audien- 
 tium autem eorum (xix. If); guorundam dicentium (xxi. 5); acctpientium 
 autem eorum (xxiv. 31); hee autem corum loguentium (xxiv. 36). 
 
 44, Odabe ipets cis TA Gta Sudv. “Do ye lay up in your ears,” 
 in contrast to the gaping crowd. It perhaps means “Store My 
 words in your memories, even if you do not understand them.” 
 Or again, “Do not let men’s admiration of My miracles make you 
 forget or doubt My declarations. It is into men’s hands that I 
 must be delivered.” Comp. dds «és 7a Gra “Incot (Exod. xvii. 14). 
 Cod. Am. and other MSS. of Vulg. here have 7” cordibus vestris. 
 All Grk. MSS. have «is 7a Gta tuav. This is one of several 
 places in which Jerome seems to have had a Grk. text which is no 
 longer extant. Comp. evat Petrus (xxii. 55), Aic nos esse (Mk. 
 ix. 5), Moses in quo vos speratis (Jn. v. 45); also Jn. vi. 12, vii. 25, 
 ix. 38, x. 16. The last (ovd/e, ovile for atAy, rotwvn) is crucial. 
 
 6 yap ulds Tod avOpwmou pédder. The ydp is almost “namely”: 
 “‘For what you may believe without doubting is this, that the Son 
 of Man,” etc. The mapadisoc%a: perhaps does not refer to the act 
 of Judas, but to the Divine will. When His hour was come, the 
 plots against Him were allowed to succeed. 
 
 45. iv tapaxexahuppévoy aa attav. A Hebraism, occurring 
 here only in N.T. Comp. Ezek. xxii. 26, and the subst. Wisd. 
 xvii. 6. More often we have aroxpvmrew dao: x. 21 ; Jer. XXxil. 17 ; 
 or kpumrew ad: Mt. xi. 25; Ps. xxxvii. 10. Lk. alone states that 
 this ignorance of the disciples was specially ordered for them. 
 The iva here has its full telic force. They were not allowed to 
 understand the saying then, in order that they might remember it 
 afterwards, and see that Jesus had met His sufferiro- with full 
 knowledge and free will. Comp. xviii. 34, xxiv. 16. 
 
IX, 45-47.] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 257 
 
 It is strange that this mention of their want of inderstanding should be 
 attributed to a wish to abase the Twelve in the interests of S. Paul: for (1) it is 
 plainly stated that they were prevented by God from understanding; and (2) 
 Mk. mentions their ignorance no less than Lk. We saw above that Lk. omits 
 the rebuke for want of faith addressed to the disciples who failed to heal the 
 demoniac boy. See on ver. 43 and viii. 24. 
 
 46-50. The Close of the Galilean Ministry. Two Lessons in 
 Humility. Mt. xviii. 1-7; Mk. ix. 33-39. We learn from the 
 other two that this took place after the return from the neighbour- 
 hood of Czsarea Philippi to Capernaum (Mt. xvii. 24; Mk. ix. 33). 
 The dispute took place during the journey, the comment on it at 
 Capernaum. See notes on xxii. 24-30. 
 
 46. Eionev Sé Siahoyiopds ev adtots. See small print on i. 17 
 and vii. 17. It is not necessary to confine the d:adoyocpos to their 
 thoughts (see on v. 22), and thus make a difference between Mk. 
 and Lk. But the desire of each to be pronounced the superior was 
 probably not expressed in the discussion ; and this thought Jesus 
 read and rebuked. Bede explains the occasion of the dispute to 
 be guia widerant Petrum, Jacobum, et Joannem seorsum ductos in 
 montem, secretumgue eis bi aliguod esse creditum. ‘The év aitots, 
 “among them,” rather implies that the reasoning did not remain 
 unexpressed. 
 
 76 tis dv ety. ‘The question, who perchance might be,” wer 
 wohl ware: see on iii. 15 and vi. 11; also Burton, § 179. For 
 this use of to see on i. 62, and comp. xix. 48, xxli. 2, 4, 23. 
 
 petLov aitav. Although airy does not here immediately 
 follow zis as it does xxii. 24 (see notes), yet doubtless airév is the 
 gen. after ris and not after weifwv. Whether anyone outside their 
 company was greater than they were, was not a question which 
 interested them. The point in dispute was, who among them- 
 selves was greater than the rest of them ; who stood nearest to the 
 Christ, and had the highest place in the Kingdom (Mt.). The 
 question illustrates the want of perception just mentioned (ver. 45). 
 
 47. Tis Kapdias adtay. The discussion in words was, Who is 
 the greatest? The thought in their hearts was, Am not I the 
 greatest? Will the Master decide? Comp. v. 22, vi. 8. 
 
 émAaBdpevos tradiov. The action indicates that the child 
 belongs to Him, is one of His: it represents the humblest among 
 His followers. For other instances of Christ’s attitude towards 
 children comp. x. 21, xvii. 2, xvili. 16; Mk. x. 15, etc. 
 
 In N.T. and LXX the mid. only of ér:AapBdvw is used, sometimes with 
 the acc. (Acts ix. 27, xvi. 19, xviii. 17), sometimes with the gen. (Acts 
 xvii. 19, xxi. 30, 33; with gen. always in LXX). Here and xxiii. 26 the 
 acc. is probably right (B C D, Orig.), but the reading is uncertain. 
 
 map éaut@. The place of honour. As Jesus was sitting with 
 His disciples round Him (Mk. ix. 35), wap’ éavrd would be the 
 17 
 
258 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [IX. 47, 48. 
 
 same as & péow aitav (Mt. and Mk.). Syr-Sin. has “ beside 
 them.” 
 
 The late tradition, that Ignatius was the child who was thus taken up by our 
 Lord, probably arose from a misunderstanding of the name Oeopépos, which 
 means ‘‘ bearing God” in himself, and not ‘‘ borne by God” (Qedgopos). Even 
 if @edpopos be the right accentuation, we must interpret “‘borne along and 
 inspired by God” rather than ‘‘carried in the Divine arms.” ‘The identifica- 
 tion was unknown to Eusebius, who does not mention it, and to Chrysostom, 
 who states that Ignatius had not even seen Christ (Hom. zz Jen. Mart. iv.). 
 It cannot be found earlier than the ninth century (Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 
 Migne, cxxix. 42 ; Nicephorus Callistus, #. Z. ii. 35, Migne, cxliii. 848). See 
 Lft. Jenatius, i. p. 27, il. p. 22. 
 
 48. In this saying of Christ there is again (comp. vv. 23, 24) 
 almost exact verbal agreement in the three reports. 
 
 TodTo 76 maiSiov. Or any similar little one, év 2. rovodro (Mt.), 
 év tév rowvtTwv a. (Mk.). The child is not the type of the 
 honoured disciple ; but the honoured disciple is he who welcomes 
 little children, not because he is fond of children, but because 
 they belong to Christ. 
 
 émlt T@ dvépati pov. “On the basis of My Name.” He knows 
 that he is dealing with something which concerns Christ and 
 belongs to Him, and he welcomes it for Christ’s sake. The 
 phrase is specially common in Lk. (ver. 49, xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Acts 
 iv. 17, 18, v. 28, 40, xv. 14; comp. Lk. i. 59); not in Jn. or 
 Paul. 
 
 ewe Séxerar. . . eve S&q7ar. The pronoun is emphatic. 
 
 6 yap pixpdtepos, x.7.A. Not in Mk. or Mt. It explains how 
 it is that to welcome a child for Christ’s sake is to welcome the 
 Father, for promotion in the Kingdom depends upon self-abase- 
 ment. Both 6 pixpotepos and péyas are objective; really in a 
 lowly position, really exalted. He who does the humble work of 
 serving the insignificant is promoted by God. It is the chief 
 proof of the Messiah’s presence that the foor have the Gospel 
 preached to them (vii. 22). 
 
 év wacw Spav. “Among you all.” The circle of the disciples 
 is the sphere in which this holds good. For émdpxwv see on 
 viii. 41 and xxiii. 50. 
 
 éotw péyas. Already ipso facto “is great”; not merely éorat 
 (AD). Jesus does not say “is the greatest”; and He thus gives 
 no encouragement to the desire to be above others. It is possible 
 for all in the Kingdom to have this greatness, and there is no 
 need for anyone to measure himself against others. The standard 
 is Christ. 
 
 Syr-Sin, reads, ** He that is small and is a child to you, that one is great.” 
 
 49, 50. A Second Lesson in Humility, the Humility of Tolera- 
 tion. Mk, ix. 38-40. ‘The dzroxpiOets in ver. 49 shows that there 
 
IX. 49,50.) | THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 259 
 
 is connexion: with what precedes, but the precise link is not 
 certain. The common explanation, that Christ’s évi r@ évdéuari pov 
 suggests to John’s mind the case of the stranger who cast out 
 demons é 7@ évdyary, is possible. But it is perhaps more likely 
 that Christ’s declaration about the blessedness of giving a welcome 
 to the humblest of His followers has aroused misgivings in John’s 
 mind. His words are those of one who defends his conduct, or at 
 least excuses it, and might be paraphrased, “ But the principle just 
 laid down must have limits, and would not apply to the case 
 which I mention”; or, “ But one who remains outside our body 
 is not really a follower of Thee, and therefore ought not to receive 
 a welcome.” John does not mean that the man was not an 
 Apostle, but that he was not a professed disciple. Jealousy for 
 the credit of their Master, not jealousy for their own prerogatives, 
 prompted the Apostles! to forbid this man from making use of the 
 Name. : 
 
 The reading év 7@ dvduarl cov (§ BL X AZ 1 33 69) is to be preferred to 
 ent ef év. (ACD), and is not to be discarded because it is also found in Mk. 
 ix. 38. 
 
 49. *Emortdta, cidapév twa. See on v. 5 and 26. Mk. has 
 Avddoxade. The exorcist was not pretending to bea disciple of 
 Jesus when he was not one. But, in however faulty a way, he 
 believed in the power of the name of Jesus, and tried to make 
 use of it for good (Acts iii. 6, xvi. 18). Contrast the mere 
 jugglery of the Jewish exorcists who tried to use the formula “Opxifw 
 tas Tov “Incotv dv IavAos xypvooe as a charm (Acts xix. 13-16). 
 Here the context shows that the exorcist was successful, and 
 therefore sincere. The éxw\towev may mean either “we tried to 
 forbid” or “we repeatedly forbade.” The pres. dxohou@et implies 
 persistence in such conduct. For dxoAovdeiy pera twos comp. 
 Rey. vi. 8, xiv. 13: the constr. is classical. 
 
 50. Mi) kwddete. “Cease to forbid,” not only the person in 
 question, but any such. Comp. vii. 13 and the reply of Moses 
 to the demand of Joshua, Kipue Mwvoy, xwAvcov aizovs (Num. 
 xi. 29). 
 
 8s yap otk éorw Kab? Spay bwép Sudv éotivy, The reading 
 7pGv for duGv in one or both of these places comes from Mk. 
 The saying, “ He that is not with Me is against Me” (xi. 23, where 
 see note; Mt. xii. 30) should be compared with this. There 
 Christ gives a test by which His disciple is to try Aimse/f: if 
 he cannot see that he is on Christ’s side, he is against Him. 
 Here He gives a test by which His disciple is to try others: if he 
 
 Tt is possible that only John and one other were concerned in éxwdvouev. 
 The incident may have taken place while the Twelve were working two and 
 two. John’s companion was probably James, and this may be another illustra- 
 tion of the brothers’ fiery temper (ver. 54). 
 
Sf 
 
 260 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (rx. 50, 
 
 cannot see that they are against Christ’s cause, he is to consider 
 them as for it. Renan hastily pronounces the two sayings to be 
 tout a fait oppostes (V. de J. p. 229). 
 
 Here the fourth and last division (ix. 1-50) of the section 
 which treats of the Ministry in Galilee (iv. 14-ix. 50) comes to an 
 end, and with it the first main portion of the Third Gospel. The 
 solemn maxim stated in ver. 50 makes a good conclusion to the 
 Galilean ministry, and the narrative manifestly makes a new be- 
 ginning in ver. 51. 
 
 IX. 51-XIX. 28. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 We may regard this asa narrative of the second main period 
 of Christ’s ministry. Galilee, with Capernaum as a centre, ceases 
 to be the almost exclusive sphere of His teaching, and we may 
 say that henceforward He has no centre. Although this period 
 is only one-third as long as the preceding one, it is described with 
 much greater minuteness, and the narrative of it is nearly one- 
 third longer. It is manifest that Lk. is here employing material 
 which was not used by Mk. or Mt., and we know neither its source 
 nor its character. A great deal of it must have been either in 
 writing or stereotyped in an oral form; and a great deal of it 
 , would seem to have had an Aramaic original, the translation of 
 which abounds in marks of Lk.’s own style. From ix. 51 to xviii. 
 14 he is almost alone, and he gives us information which we obtain 
 from no other source. Hence this large tract is sometimes called 
 the “great interpolation” or “intercalation.” It is also the 
 “ Pereean section” or “Samaritan section” (comp. ix. 51-56, x. 
 30-37, xvii. 11-19). An analysis, showing the parallels in Mt, is 
 given in Birks, Hore Evang. pp. 132 ff. Jn. gives us several im- 
 portant incidents belonging to the same period, viz. that which 
 lies between the end of the Galilean ministry and the Passion; 
 but we cannot be certain as to the way in which his narrative is 
 to be fitted into that of Lk. 
 
 If we had only Mt. and Mk., we might suppose that the journey from 
 Capernaum to Jerusalem for the last Passover occupied at most one or ‘two 
 weeks. Few incidents are mentioned ; and, where distances are indicated, not 
 much time is required for traversing them. Lk. lets us see that the time 
 occupied must have been several months. We are constantly reminded that 
 Jesus is on His way to Jerusalem (ix. 51, 53, xiii. 22, 33, xvil. II, xviil. 31, 
 xix. II, 28), but the progress is slow, because Jesus frequently stops to preach 
 
IX. 51.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 261 
 
 in different places. The direction of the journeying is only indirectly inti- 
 mated, first eastwards along the southern part of Galilee, and then southwards 
 through Pereea ; but, however long the time, and however circuitous the route, 
 it is a journey from Capernaum to Jerusalem. Jesus seems never to have re- 
 turned to the neighbourhood of the lake until after His death. Jn. lets us 
 know that during this interval Jesus was twice in Jerusalem ; once at the latter 
 part of the Feast of Tabernacles, after which He healed the man born blind ; 
 and again at the Feast of the Dedication ; besides which there is the visit to 
 Bethany for the raising of Lazarus; but, although there is room in Lk.’s 
 narrative for what Jn. tells, we do not know where to place it. We cannot 
 with any certainty show the correspondence between the two Gospels until 
 Jerusalem is entered for the last Passover. It seems best, therefore, not to 
 follow Wieseler (Chron. Syn. iv., Eng. tr. pp. 289-303), Ellicott (Az/sean 
 Lectures for 1859, pp. 242-343), and in the main Caspari (Chron. Ezn/. § 126- 
 143, Eng. tr. pp. 167-189), in making Lk. narrate three distinct journeys to 
 eae beginning respectively at ix. 51, xiii. 22, and xvii. 11, but to take 
 is narrative with the indistinctness which he has left. That the journeyings 
 which Jn. has so clearly given really took place, we need not doubt; and 
 nothing in Lk. contradicts Jn.’s narrative; but all interweaving of the two 
 Gospels must be taken as merely tentative arrangement. The thoroughness of 
 Lk.’s investigation is once more shown by his giving us eight or nine long 
 chapters of material which is given by no one else; while his honesty is con- 
 spicuous in the fact of his not attempting a precision which he did not find in 
 his sources. The whole is largely didactic. 
 
 ‘The proposal of Halcombe, to transfer the whole of Lk. xi. 14-xiii. 21 
 from the place which it occupies in a// MSS. and Versions to the break between 
 Vili. 21 and 22, is too violent < method of arriving at harmony (Gospel Dijfi- 
 cultzes, or the Displaced Sectzon of S. Luke, Camb. 1886). The amount of 
 harmony obtained in this way is trifling (Lk. xi. 14-26 with Mt. xii. 22 and 
 Mk. iii. 22-30, and perhaps Lk. xiii. 18, 19 with Mt. xiii. 31, 32 and Mk. iv. 
 30-32), and it is simpler to suppose that Lk. xi. 14-26 and xiii. 18, 19 are 
 given out of their chronological order, or that the sayings of Christ there 
 recorded were uttered more than once. 
 
 The historical truth of this independent pe.tion of Lk.’s 
 Gospel is guaranteed (1) by the absence of discrepancy with 
 the other Gospels, but chiefly (2) by the fact that it consists 
 almost entirely of discourses which it would have been altogether 
 beyond Lk.’s powers to invent. For convenience we may divide 
 this long section into three parts: ix. 51—xiii. 35, xiv. 1-xvii. ro, 
 xvil. 11-xix. 28. See Herzog, PRE.’ art. Jesus Christ, p. 659. 
 
 IX. 51-XIIL. 35. Zhe Departure from Galilee and First 
 Period of the Journey. 
 
 This section begins, as the previous one ends, with a lesson ot 
 toleration. In the one case the Apostles were taught that they 
 were not to take upon themselves to hinder the work of an 
 apparent outsider who seemed to be friendly. Here they are 
 taught not to take upon themselves to punish professed outsiders 
 who are manifestly unfriendly. Moreover, as the ministry in 
 Galilee is made to begin with a typical rejection of Christ at 
 
262 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |IX. 6L 
 
 Nazareth (iv. 16-30), so this ministry outside Galilee begins with 
 a rejection of Him by Samaritans. 
 
 The thoroughly Hebrew cast of the opening sentence seems to show that 
 the source here used was either an Aramaic original which Lk. translated, or a 
 translation from the Aramaic which he modified. 
 
 As marks of his style note éyévero, év T@ ¢. injfin., cunTAnpovc Oat, 
 Tas huépas THs dvadhupews, kal avrés, rod ¢c. tnfin. (ver. 51); éd¢§- 
 avTo, iv wopevdmevoy (ver. 53) 
 
 51-56. § Rejection by the Samaritans and Rebuke to the 
 Disciples. Here we have what was perhaps a new departure in 
 our Lord’s method, viz. the sending messengers in advance to 
 prepare for His arrival. The Baptist had prepared the way for 
 Christ’s work as a whole, but he had not gone beforehand to the 
 places which Christ proposed to visit. The shortness of the time 
 which still remained may have made a system of preparatory 
 messengers necessary; and this is perhaps the meaning of the 
 opening words. 
 
 51. év 73 cupmAnpotcbar tas fuépas. “When the days were 
 being fulfilled”; ze. when the number of days allotted to the 
 interval was drawing to a close. The verb occurs in N.T. only 
 viii. 23 and (exactly as here) Acts ii, 1, but with ovv7A. for 
 ouprd. See Gregory, Prolegom. p. 74. Comp. eis cvprAypwow, 
 2 Chron. xxvi. 21; Dan. ix. 2 (Theod.). For the constr. see on 
 iii. 21; and for “the days of” see on i. 39. See also on i. 57. 
 
 THs dvadnppews adtod. ‘Of His assumption,” ze. the Ascen- 
 sion. 
 
 The substantive dvdAnuyis does not occur elsewhere in N.T. or LXX. But 
 in Zest. X77. Patr. Levi xviii. it is found, and in this sense, of the new Priest 
 who is to be magnified in the world @ws dvad7jWews atrod. In Ps. Sol. iv. 20 
 it is used in a neutral sense of mere removal from the world. The wicked 
 man is to have his old age in the solitude of childlessness until he be taken 
 away (els dvdAnyw); which is perhaps the first appearance of the word in 
 extant Greek literature. See Ryle and James, ad foc. They show that this 
 neutral sense is exceptional, and that about the time when S. Luke wrote the 
 word was probably becoming a sort of technical term for the ‘* Assumption of 
 the Blessed.” runt enim a morte et receptione mea usgue ad adventum 
 illius tempora cel que fiunt (Assupt. Moszs, x. 12). Comp. Zt videbunt qui 
 recepti sunt omnes, qui mortem non gustaverunt a nativitate sua (4 Est. 
 vi. 26); Luztium verborum Esdre priusguam assumeretur (Inscription at 4 Esr. 
 viii. 20); Z¢ zw ezs raptus est Zsvas e¢ assumptus est zm” locum similium 
 ejus (4 Esr. xiv. 49). See also the passage in which Enoch describes his own 
 translation (Ixx. I, 2). The verb dveAjudpén is freq. in N.T., and may be 
 called the usual biblical expression for ascending to heaven: Mk. xvi. 19; 
 Acts i. 2, 11, 22, x. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 16; comp. 1 Mac. ii. 58; Ecclus. xlviii. 9, 
 xlix. 14; 2 Kings ii. II. 
 
 The proposal of Wieseler and Lange to make dvaA7juyis mean His ‘‘ac- 
 ceptance among men” (whether among the Galileans in particular or among 
 Israel in general) is not worthy of much consideration. See Trench, Studzes 
 in the Gospels, p. 215; Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v.; Oosterzee, ad loc. 
 
TX. 51-54,.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 263 
 
 13 mpdowroy éompicev, A Hebraism: comp. Jer. xxi. 10; 
 Ezek. vi. 2, xiii. 17, xv. 7, xx. 46, xxi. 2, xxv. 2, etc. See Gesenius, 
 Thes. p. 1109, on the same form of expression in Syriac, Arabic, 
 Turkish, and Persian. It implies fixedness of purpose, especially 
 in the prospect of difficulty or danger: comp. Is. 1. 7. The form 
 eornpioer for éeornprfey is late; for reff. see Veitch, so. For ted 
 mopevecOar see On ii. 24. 
 
 52. dréotethey Gyyédous. It is vain to speculate who these 
 were. Probably it was a new measure; but perhaps was no more 
 than a temporary precaution, owing to the probability of unfriendly 
 treatment in Samaritan territory. See on aréoradxey, iv. 18. 
 
 mpd tmpoodmou attod. Another Hebraism: comp. vii. 27, x. 1; 
 Exod. xxxli. 34, Xxxill. 2, xxxiv. 6; Lev. xvill. 24; Num. xxxiii. 
 Ea Denk £24, etc. 
 
 Lapapertoy, Jesus is taking the direct route from Galilee to 
 Judea. This is the first mention of the Samaritans by Lk. 
 Comp. x. 33, xvil. 16; Mt. x. 5; Jn. iv. 9, 39, vill. 48; Acts viii. 
 25. Mk. does not mention them. For the more important 
 treatises in the copious literature on the subject see Schiirer, 
 Jewish People, ii. 1, p. 5; Herzog, PRE.” xiii. pp. 351-355; 
 Schaff’s Herzog,’ iv. p. 2104; Hausrath, Vv. 7. Times, i. pp. 14-273 
 Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. pp. 394-403, Hist. of J. NV. p. 249. 
 
 @s érousdoat aito. This (NB), and not dove, seems to be the true 
 reading. Comp. Acts xx. 24, if ds TeAe@cat is right there: also 3 Mac. 
 i. 2; 4 Mac. xiv. 1. Purpose is implied. No case of ws ¢. zjin. denoting 
 result is found in N.T. Burton, § 372. 
 
 B3. otk ed€favtro adtév, St. The feeling was reciprocal. 
 Some Jews taught that a Samaritan’s bread was as defiling as 
 swine’s flesh: comp. Jn. iv. 9, 20. The fact that He was on His 
 way to keep a feast at Jerusalem, thus repudiating the Samaritan 
 temple on Mount Gerizim, increased the animosity of the 
 Samaritans. Jos. Az. xx. 6.1; B. J. ii. 12. 3-7; Vita, 52; 
 Wetst. on Jn. iv. 20. 
 
 76 Tpdcwrov adtod fv wopeudpevov. Another Hebraism: comp. 
 2 Sam. xvii. 11. Galileans in journeying to Jerusalem often went 
 round by Perza, in order to avoid the churlishness of the 
 Samaritans: and this our Lord may possibly have done after this 
 attempt to bring Jews and Samaritans together as guests and 
 hosts had failed. The hospitality which He had received at 
 Sychar many months before this (Jn. iv. 40) would not abolish 
 the prejudices of a/7 Samaritan towns and villages for ever. 
 
 54. iSdvres S€. They saw the messengers returning from their 
 fruitless errand. Their recent vision of Elijah on the mount may 
 have suggested to them the calling down fire from heaven. The 
 two brothers here, and perhaps also in ver. 49, show their fiery 
 
264 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [EX. 54-86. 
 
 temper as “sons of thunder.” Yet Lk., who alone gives this 
 illustration of the title, does not give the title itself (Mk. iii. 1). 
 Quid mirum filios tonitrui fulgurare voluisse? (Ambrose). 
 
 OXers etraev. For the constr. comp. xviii. 41, xxii. 9; Mt. xx. 32° 
 Mk. x. 51: Soph. 0.7. 650. In class. Grk. this constr. is more common 
 with BovAouat ; but in N.T. @é\w is about five times as frequent as BovAopat, 
 which in mod. Grk. has almost gone out of use. Note that va, which some- 
 times follows @éAw, is not inserted when the first verb is in the second person 
 and the second verb in the first person. Win. xli. 4. b, p. 356; Burton, 
 § 171. Syr-Sin. has *f Our Lord” for Kupte. 
 
 The words ws xat ‘Has érolncev (AC DX ete.) are probably a gloss. 
 That they were omitted (§ BL) because some Gnostics used them to 
 disparage the O.T., or because they seem to make Christ’s rebuke to the 
 disciples a condemnation of Elijah, is not probable. Rendel Harris thinks 
 that the insertion is due to Marcionite influence both in this case and the 
 next (Study of Codex Bezx, p. 233, in Texts and Studies, ii. 1). There is 
 less doubt about xal elev Ovx oldare molov mvetuards éore (DF K M etc); 
 and least of all about 6 yap vids rod dvOpHmov otk HAOev Wuxas avOpbruv 
 amodéoat G\Aad oGoat (F KM etc.). These two may safely be admitted as 
 later additions to the text. In the last of them there are several variations 
 in the witnesses which insert the words. Some omit ydp, some omit 
 avOpmHmwy, and some have dzoxreivar for dwéd\eoat. WH. ii. App. pp. 59, 
 60; Sanday, App. ad N.T. pp. 118, 119. 
 
 It is quite possible that Ov« oidure rolov mvetuards éore is a genuine 
 saying of Christ, although no part of this Gospel. The remainder, 6 yap 
 ulds, K.T.A., may be an adaptation of Mt. v. 17 and [xviii. 11] (comp. Lk. xix. 
 10), and could more easily have been constructed out of familiar materials. 
 
 For other instances of what may be Marcionite influence upon the text 
 see iv. 16 and xxiii. 2. 
 
 55. otpadgels 8¢. “‘ But (instead of assenting to their proposal) 
 He turned.” He was in front, and the disciples were following 
 Him. Syr-Sin. omits otpadeds as well as the three clauses. 
 
 56. émopedOnoay eis Erépay kdpnv. Although érépay might very 
 well mean a village of another £zzd, yet the probability is that it 
 does not mean a non-Samaritan village. The difference lay in its 
 being friendly and hospitable. There is no intimation that Jesus 
 abandoned His plan of passing through Samaria and turned back 
 to go round by Persea. Moreover, to have gone away from all the 
 Samaritans, because one Samaritan village had proved inhospitable, 
 might have encouraged the intolerant spirit which He had just 
 rebuked. With Hahn, Baur, Schenkel, and Wieseler we may 
 assume that this other village was Samaritan also, although there 
 is a strong consensus of opinion the other way. 
 
 57-62. Three Aspirants to Discipleship warned to count the 
 cost. In part also in Mt. viii. 19-22. The section is well 
 summarized in the chapter-heading in AV. ‘“ Divers would follow 
 Him, but upon conditions.” The first two instances are common 
 to-Lk. and Mt.; the third is given by Lk. alone. But Mt. has 
 the first two in quite a differ * ‘ace, in connexion with the 
 
IX. 57, 58.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 265 
 
 crossing to the country of the Gadarenes (viii. 19-22). Lk. con- 
 nects the three instances with the final departure from Galilee and 
 with the mission of the Seventy. That he understands these 
 aspirants to be three of the Twelve is manifestly incorrect (vi. 13) ; 
 and it is uncertain whether he regards all three incidents as having 
 taken place at one and the same time. It is probable that they 
 were grouped together because of their similarity, and perhaps 
 were already so grouped in the source which both Mt. and Lk. 
 seem to have used. 
 
 57. Kat mopevopevwy attav. The most natural, though not 
 certain, reference is to the preceding éropeVOycav «is érépay Kkdpyy. 
 But it may almost equally well refer to ropeveoGar cis “IepovcaAnp 
 (ver. 1), and quite possibly to some journey otherwise unmen- 
 tioned. 
 
 For the simple cal (§ BCL XZ) ATAATI etc. have éyévero dé, and f 
 Vulg. factum est autem; while D has xat éyévero, and acde ef factum est. 
 
 év 7H 636. Like xAacpdrwv (ver. 17) and xara povas (ver. 18), 
 these words can be taken either with what precedes or what 
 follows. The Vulgate is as ambiguous as the Greek : ambulantibus 
 illis in via dixit quidam ad illum. Beza has guidam in via dixerit ; 
 but Luther and all English Versions take the words with what 
 precedes. Comp. iv. 1, v. 24, vi. 18, Vili. 15, 39, x. 18, xi. 39, etc. 
 
 einév tis. Mt. has els ypaypareds etrev. The man had been a 
 hearer, and now proposes to become a permanent disciple, no 
 matter whither Jesus may lead him. To restrict the énou éay 
 amépxyn to the journey then in progress, or to the different routes 
 to Jerusalem (Schleierm.), is very inadequate. On the other 
 hand, there is no sign that the man thinks that he is making-a 
 very magnificent offer. His peril lies in relying on his feelings 
 at a moment of enthusiasm. 
 
 Here, as in Jn. viii. 21, 22, xiii. 33, 36, xviii. 20, xxi. 18, we have S:2ov 
 for do, a word which does not occur in bibl. Grk. 
 
 WH. have eddy (ABCKLU& 33 60) in their small ed., with Lach. 
 Treg. In the large ed. they have dv (ND), with Tisch, RV. ‘‘Pre- 
 dominantly dy is found after consonants, and édv after vowels; but there are 
 many exceptions” (ii. App. p. 173). 
 
 The xvpie after dwépyp (ACT AATI, fqé Syr. Goth.) may safely be 
 omitted (§ BD L 2, ac Vulg. Syr-Sin. Boh. Arm.), 
 
 58. At dddiexes dweods Exouowv. Jesus knows the measure of 
 the scribe’s enthusiasm. He also knows whither He Himself is 
 going, viz. to suffering and to death. He warns him of privations 
 which must be endured at once. The scribe was accustomed to 
 a comfortable home ; and that must be sacrificed : comp. xviii. 22 ; 
 Mt. xx. 22. For other cases in which Jesus checked emotional 
 impulsiveness see xi. 27 and xxii. 33. Foxes and birds are 
 
are 
 
 266 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [IX. 58, 59. 
 
 mentioned, not as representatives of the whole animal world, but 
 as creatures which lead a vagabond life. Comp. Plut. 776. Grac. ix. 
 
 Judg. xv. 4 the form dd\wrpxas is well attested: @wdeds occurs nowhere 
 else in bibl. Grk. excepting Mt. viii. 20, where see Wetst. for illustrations of 
 the use of the word for lairs of animals. Syr-Sin.-inserts “‘ Verily ” here. 
 
 katackynveécers. Lit. encampings,” and so “encampments, 
 abodes.” Therefore “roosts” would be better than “nests.” 
 Only for a short time in each year does a bird have a nest. 
 Here Vulg. has zzdos, in Mt. tabernacula (with nidos in many 
 MSS.). Here d has haditacula. In both places many texts add 
 to nidos the gloss ubi reguiescant. In Ezek. xxxvil. 27 and Wisd. 
 ix. 8 xatackyjvwors (tabernaculum) is used of Jehovah encamping 
 among His people: comp. Tob. i. 4 and Ps. SoZ. vii. 5. 
 
 ouk €xet 100 Thy Kedhahhy Kdtivy. Not because of His poverty, 
 but because of the wandering life which His work involved, a 
 life which was now more unsettled than ever. Nazareth had cast 
 Him out; of His own choice He had left Capernaum ; Samari- 
 tans had refused to receive Him: in the intervals of necessary 
 rest He had no home.! For the constr. see xii. 17. 
 
 59. Eimev 8€ mpds érepov. Mt. tells us that this man was €repos 
 Tov pabytay, t.e. one of the casual disciples, who is now invited to 
 become a permanent follower. 
 
 Quite without reason Clem. Alex, identifies him with Philip, probably 
 meaning the Evangelist (Strom. iii. 4. 522, ed. Potter). So also Hilgenfeld, 
 who identifies the scribe of ver. 57 with Bartholomew. Lange would make 
 this second case to be the desponding Thomas, and the scribe to be Judas 
 Iscariot (Z. /. ii. p. 144, Eng. tr.) Keim more reasonably remarks that it is 
 futile to attempt to discover the names by mere sagacity (/es. of Vas. iii 
 p. 270). 
 
 *Emitpepov pot mp@tov dmedOdvtt Oda tov matépa pov. The 
 most obvious meaning is the best. His father is 2” extremis ot 
 has just died, and the funeral will take place almost immediately 
 (Acts v. 6, 10). Perhaps Jesus can wait; or he may be allowed 
 to follow later, after he has performed the sacred duty of burial 
 (Gen. xxv. 9; Tobit iv. 3). “I must first bury my father” is an 
 almost brutal way of saying, “I cannot come so long as my father 
 is alive”: and to have put off following Jesus for so indefinite a 
 period would have seemed like unworthy trifling. Yet Grotius and 
 Hase (Gesch. Jesu, § 41) adopt this. 
 
 The xtpie before émirpeyov is of doubtful authority, and may come from 
 Mt. viii. 21: om. B* DV, Syr-Sin. For the attraction in dmeA@dv7u see on 
 
 1 Plutarch represents Tiberius Gracchus as saying: 7a pév Onpla Ta Tip 
 "Trandiay veudpeva kal pwredy exet, kal Kovratoy early atradv éExdorTw kai kaTaducers* 
 rots dé Urép TIS "Iradlas paxouévas Kal amobvyioKkovow déoos Kat purds, dA\ov dé 
 ovdevos, LETETTLY. 
 
{X. 59-61.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 267 
 
 iii, 19. Mt. has dwedOeiv xal 6dyat. In vy. 59 and 60 Lk, has his favourite 
 elev &é, which Mt. has in neither place. 
 
 60. “Ades tods vexpods Adyar tods éauTav vexpovs. Comp. 
 viii. 51. The apparent harshness and obscurity of the saying is 
 a guarantee for its authenticity. ‘Leave the spiritually dead to 
 bury their own dead.” There will always be plenty of people who 
 have never received or have refused the call to a higher life; and 
 these can perform the ordinary duties of the family and of society. 
 These lower duties are suitable to them,—rovs éavrdv vexpovs. 
 For a similar change of meaning from the figurative to the literal 
 comp. Jn. v. 21-29, where vv. 21-27 refer to spiritual resurrection 
 from sin, vv. 28, 29 to actual resurrection from the grave; also Jn. 
 xi. 25, 26, where “die” is used in a double manner. To take 
 vexpovs in both places as figurative, implies that the father is 
 spiritually dead. To take vexpovs in both places as literal, gives 
 the harsh meaning, “ Leave the dead to take care of themselves.” 
 
 This disciple needs to be told, not of the privations of the 
 calling, but of its lofty and imperative character. The opportunity 
 must be embraced directly it comes, or it may be lost; and 
 therefore even sacred duties must give way to it. Moreover, like 
 the high priest (Lev. xxi. 11) and the Nazirite (Num. vi. 6, 7), his 
 life will be a consecrated one, and he must not “make himself 
 unclean for his father or for his mother.” Comp. Mt. x. 37; 
 Ezek. xxiv. 16. By the time that the funeral rites were over. and 
 he cleansed from pollution, Jesus would be far away, and he 
 might have become unwilling to follow Him. 
 
 od Sé dreNOdy Sidyyehe 7. B. t. ©. Mt. omits this charge. 
 Clem. Alex., quoting from memory, substitutes for it the pre- 
 ceding charge, od 6€ axoAovGe por (loc. cit.). Word by word, it 
 forms a contrast to the man’s request; dze\Odv to dmeAOdvtt, 
 SiayyeAre to Odwar, rHv Bacirciay to Tov warépa, Tod Meod to pov. 
 “Depart, not home, but away from it; not to bury, but to spread 
 abroad; not a father, but the Kingdom; not thine own, but 
 God’s.” The ov is emphatic: “ But t4ou, who art not a vexpos.” 
 Jesus recognizes in him a :tue disciple, in spite of his hesitation; 
 and the seeming sternness of the refusal is explained. For 
 SudyyeAde, “publish everywhere,” comp. Acts xxi. 26; Rom. 
 ix. 17; Ps. ii. 7, lviii. 17; 2 Mac. iii. 34. Vulg. has adnuntia; d, 
 predica: divulga would be better than either. 
 
 61. cimey 5é Kai Erepos. This third case is not given by Mt., 
 and it probably comes from a different source. On account of its 
 similarity it is grouped with the other two. 
 
 Godet regards it as combining the characteristics of the other two, Ce? 
 homme s‘offre de lui-ménte, comme le premier ; mats il temporése, comme le 
 
 second, Lange takes the three as illustrations of the sanguine, melancholy, and 
 phlegmatic temperaments, and thinks that this third may be Matthew- 
 
268 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |IX. 61, 62. 
 
 dmotdgac0ar tots eis Tov otkdy pov. “To set myself apart from, 
 bid farewell to, them that are at my house* The case of Elisha 
 (1 Kings xix. 20) may have been in the man’s mind. His heart 
 is still with the past. He must enjoy it just once more before he 
 gives it up. Levi had done what this man wished to do, but ina 
 different spirit. He gave a farewell entertainment for his old 
 associates, but in order to introduce them to Christ. The banquet 
 was given to Him (v. 29). This man wants to leave Christ in 
 order to take leave of his friends. 
 
 In N.T. dmrordocev occurs only in the middle: xiv. 33; Acts xviii. 18, 
 21; Mk. vi. 46; 2 Cor. ii. 13: abrenunciare (d), renuncéare (Vulg.). 
 Comp. dmrorakduevos T@ Bly (Ign. Phzlad. xi.); of dmordéduevor TS Kbou™ 
 tovTw (Act. Paul. et Thec. v.). The more classical expression would be 
 domaferbatl tia (Eur. Zo. 1276; Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 2). Comp. also the use 
 of venunciare with a dative: omnzbus advocationibus renunciavé (Plin. Zp. 
 ii. 1. 8); xox multum abfuct quin vite renunciaret (Suet. Gal. xi.). In 
 eccles. Grk. dmoray7, diérakis, doratla are used of renunciation of the 
 world. See Suicer, drordocopat. 
 
 Tots eis Tov otxkdy pov. The ois is masc. with els as a pregn. constr. : 
 “to go to my house and bid farewell to those in it.” Comp. Acts viii. 40; 
 Esth. i. 5; and see Win. 1. 4. b, p. 516. Many texts of Vulg. make 7ois 
 neut.; venunczare his gue domt sunt; but Cod. Am. and Cod. Brix. have 
 gut. He would have no need to go home to take leave of his possessions. 
 But even if rots be taken as neut. it is very doubtful whether daordtac@at 
 Tols, K.T.A., cap mean “‘to set in order the things,” etc., as the Berlenburger 
 Bible takes it. Tertullian has ¢erteum cllum prius suis valedicere parentem 
 prohibet retro respectare (Adv. Marcion. iv. 23). Comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 36, 
 xii. 23. 
 
 62. émPaov thy xelpa én’ Gpotpov kat Bdérwv eis TA dtricw. 
 A proverb: 6s épyov pederav iBeinv « atAax’ éAavvor pyKere mam- 
 talvov pel? duydixas, add’ emt Epyw Oupov éxwv (Hes. Opp. 443). 
 Pliny says that a ploughman who does not bend attentively over 
 his work goes crooked : mst tncurvus prevaricatur ; inde translatur 
 hoc crimen in forum (NV. H. xviii. 19. 49). With Bdémov eis ta 
 dnicw comp. xvil. 31; Jn. vi. 66, xvili. 6; Phil. ii. 14; also py 
 repBrépys cis TA dwiow and éwéBrcpev 4 yuvy airod cis Ta Otricw 
 (Gen. xix. 17, 26). 
 D and some Lat. texts have els ra dmlow Bdérwv cal émtBdd\wy TH 
 xelpa abrod ém’ dporpév. For a similar inversion see xxii. 42. 
 
 eWOerés éotw TH Bactdela Tod Geos. Literally, “is well-placed,” 
 
 and so, “useful, fit, for the Kingdom of God”; fit to work in it 
 as a disciple of Christ, rather than fit to enter it and erjoy it. 
 When used of time «’Oeros means “seasonable” (Ps. xxxi 6; 
 Susan. 15). It was a Pythagorean precept, His 76 tepov eT EpXOLEVOS 
 py émurtpépov, which Simplicius in his commentary on Epictetus 
 explains as meaning that a man who aspires to God ought not to 
 _ be of two minds, nor to cling to human interests. Jesus says to 
 this man neither “ Follow Me” (v. 27) nor “ Return to thy house” 
 
IX. 62-X.16.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 269 
 
 (viii. 39), but “I accept no lukewarm service” (Rev. iii. 16). For 
 the constr. comp. Heb. vi. 7, and contrast xiv. 35. 
 
 Hahn thinks that this third follower, of whom Lk. alone tells us, may 
 possibly be the Evangelist himself, and that this would account for his hence- 
 forward telling us so much which no one else records. He combines this 
 conjecture with the hypothesis that Lk. was one of the Seventy, the diffi- 
 culties of which have been discussed in the Introduction, § 2, 
 
 X. 1-16. §The Mission of the Seventy. The number was 
 significant in more ways than one, and we have no means of de- 
 termining which of its various associations had most to do with 
 its use on this occasion. (1) Zhe Seventy Elders, whom God 
 commanded Moses to appoint, and who were endowed with the 
 spirit of prophecy, to help Moses to bear the burden of the people 
 in judging and instructing them: Num. xi. 16, 17, 24, 25. (2) 
 The number of the Nations of the Earth, traditionally supposed to 
 be seventy: Gen. x. (3) Zhe Sanhedrin, which probably con- 
 sisted of seventy members and a president, in imitation of Moses 
 and the seventy Elders.} 
 
 That Jesus should have followed the number given to Moses, 
 in order to suggest a comparison between the two cases, is 
 probable enough. ‘That He should have used the tradition about 
 the number of Gentile nations, in order to point out the special 
 character of this mission, viz. to others besides the Jews, is also 
 not improbable.? So far as we can tell, the Seventy were sent out 
 about the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. The number of 
 bullocks offered during the Feast was seventy in all, decreasing 
 from thirteen on the first day to seven on the last: and, according 
 to the Talmud, “There were seventy bullocks to correspond to 
 the number of the seventy nations of the world” (Edersh. Zze 
 Temple, p. 240; Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Jn. vii. 37). It was 
 about this time that Jesus had declared, “Other sheep I have, 
 which are not of this fold: them also I must lead, and they shall 
 hear My voice” (Jn. x. 16). The connexion of the mission of 
 the Seventy with this thought cannot be regarded as unlikely. It 
 is much less probable that the number was meant “to suggest the 
 thought that the seventy disciples were placed by Him in a position 
 of direct contrast” with the Sanhedrin. : 
 
 The account of the appointment of the Seventy to minister to all without 
 distinction, like the account of the appointment of the Seven to minister to 
 
 1 That the Jews regarded seventy as the normal number for a supreme court or 
 council is shown by the conduct of Josephus, who in organizing Galilee ‘‘ chose 
 out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed 
 them to be rulers of all Galilee” (B. 7. ii. 20. 5; Veta, 14); and also of the 
 Zealots at Jerusalem, who set up a tribunal of seventy chief men, to take the 
 place of the courts which they had suppressed (2. /. iv. 5. 4). Comp. the 
 legend of the Septuagint. 
 
 2 See n. 74 in Migne, vol. i. p. 1267 (Clem. Recog. ii. 42). 
 
270 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |X. 1-16. 
 
 the Hellenists (Acts vi. 1-7), is given by Lk. alone. This fact has Icd to the 
 conjecture that he himself was one of the Seventy; a conjecture apparently 
 sanctioned by those who selected this passage as the Gospel for S. Luke’s Day, 
 but implicitly contradicted by himself in his preface (i. 1-4), which indicates 
 that he was not an eye-witness. His mention of the Seventy and the silence 
 of Mt. and Mk. are very intelligible. The mission belongs to a period about 
 which he had special information, and about which they tell us little. They 
 omit many other matters connected with this part of Christ’s ministry. Had 
 they given us the other details and omitted just this one, there would have been 
 some difficulty. Moreover, this incident would have special interest for the 
 writer of the Universal Gospel, who sympathetically records both the sending 
 of the Twelve to the tribes of Israel (ix. 1-6), and the sending of the Seventy 
 to the nations of the earth. No mention of the Gentiles is made in the charge 
 to the Seventy; but there is the significant omission of any such command as 
 “Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the 
 Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. x. 
 5, 6). And in Perzea, which was to be the scene of their labours, the propor- 
 tion of Gentiles would be larger than in the districts to the west of the Jordan. 
 The silence of Jn. respecting the mission of the Seventy is no more surprising 
 than his silence respecting the mission of the Twelve. He omits these, as he 
 omits many things, because they have been sufficiently recorded, and because 
 they are not required for the plan of his Gospel. 
 
 The proposals to treat the charge to the Seventy as a mere doublet of the 
 charge to the Twelve, or as an invention of the Evangelist in the interest of 
 Pauline ideas, will not bear criticism. In either case, why does Lk. also give 
 us the charge to the Twelve (ix. I-6), and in such close proximity? In the 
 latter case, why does he not insert a special direction to go to the Gentiles? 
 The difference and the similarity between the two charges are quite in- 
 telligible. The mission of the Seventy was not permanent, like that of the 
 Twelve. Yet the object of it was not, like that of ix. 52, to prepare shelter 
 and food, but, like that of the Twelve, to prepare for Christ’s teaching. The 
 increased numbers were necessary because the time was short, and in many 
 cases His first visit would also be His last. And when we examine the two 
 charges in detail, we find that there is not only the prohibition noted above, 
 which is given to the Twelve and not to the Seventy, but also several directions 
 which are given to the Seventy and not to the Twelve. Neither in Mt. x. 
 5-15, nor in Mk. vi. 7-11, nor in Lk. ix. I-5 is there any equivalent to Lk. 
 x. 2, 8; while a good deal of what is similar in the two charges is differently 
 worded or differently arranged. See Rushbrooke’s Syzofitzcon, pp. 35, 36. One 
 may readily admit the possibility of some confusion between the traditional 
 forms of the two charges; but no such hypothesis is required. The work of 
 the Seventy was sufficiently similar to the work of the Twelve to make the 
 directions given in each case similar. An address to candidates for ordination 
 now would be largely the same, whether addressed to deacons or to priests. 
 The uncritical character of the hypothesis that this section is an invention to 
 promote Pauline doctrine is further shown by the fact that its authenticity is 
 clearly recognized in a work of notoriously anti-Pauline tendency, viz. the 
 Clementine Recognitions.2 And whatever may be the worth of the traditions 
 
 
 
 1 Renan has a remarkable passage, in which he shows how the customs of 
 Oriental hospitality aided the preaching and spread of the Gospel ( V. de /. p. 293). 
 
 2 Peter is represented as saying: Vos ergo primos elegit duodecim sibi 
 credentes, quos apostolos nominavit, postmodum alios septuaginta duos pro- 
 batissimos discipulos, ut vel hoc modo recognita imagine Moysis crederet 
 multitude, quia hic est, quem preedixit Moyses venturum prophetam (i. 40). 
 It is worth noting that in the Recoguztéons the number of the nations of the 
 earth is given as seventy-two (ii. 42). 
 
x. 1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 271 
 
 that this or that person was one of the Seventy, how could the traditions 
 (some of which are as old as the second century) have arisen, if no such body 
 as the Seventy ever existed? 
 
 As Eusebius remarks (ZH. £. i. 12. 1), ‘‘ there exists no catalogue of the 
 Seventy.” ! But he goes on to mention traditions as to a few of them, some of 
 which come from the AyZotyposes of Clement of Alexandria. Barnabas (Acts 
 iv. 36, etc.), Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), Cephas (Gal. ii. 11), Matthias (Acts i. 
 26), Joseph. called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23), and 
 Thaddzeus are mentioned as among the Seventy. Clement states definitely of 
 Barnabas the Apostle that he was one of the Seventy (Szvovz. ii. 20, p. 489, ed. 
 Potter), and in Clem. Recog. i. 7 he is called one of Christ’s disciples. So far 
 as we know, Clement was the first to separate the Cephas of Gal. ii. 11 from 
 the Apostle. This second Cephas is an obvious invention to avoid a collision 
 between two Apostles, and to free S. Peter from the condemnation of S. Paul. 
 From Acts i. 21 we know that both Matthias and Barsabbas had been with 
 Jesus during the whole of His ministry ; and therefore the tradition that they 
 were among the Seventy may be true. Thaddzeus was one of the Twelve, and 
 cannot have been one of the Seventy also. Eusebius gives the tradition as 
 rumour (gaol). To these may be added an improbable tradition preserved by 
 Origen, that Mark the Evangelist was one of the Seventy. 
 
 The early disappearance of the Seventy is sufficiently accounted for by (1) 
 the temporary character of their mission ; (2) the rise of the order of presbyters, 
 which superseded them ; (3) the fact that no eminent person was found among 
 them. It is not improbable that the N.T. prophets were in some cases disciples 
 who had belonged to this body. 
 
 The Fathers make the twelve springs of water at Elim represent the 
 Apostles, and the threescore and ten palm trees represent the Seventy disciples 
 (Exod. xv. 27; Num. xxxiii. 9). Thus Tertul. Adv. Marcion. iv. 24; Orig. 
 Hom. vii. in Exod. and Hom. xxvii. in Num.; Hieron. Zp. Ixix. 6. 
 
 1, Mera Sé taito. After the incidents just narrated (ix. 46-62). 
 The historical connexion is clearly marked. 
 
 dvédergev 6 KUpios. The verb is found in N.T. only here and 
 Acts i. 24; freq. in LXX. Comp. dvddeéis (i. 80). It means 
 “show forth, display,” and hence “make public, proclaim,” 
 especially a person’s appointment to an office: dvudéderya Tov vidv 
 pov *Avtioxov Bactéa (2 Mac. ix. 25; comp. x. II, xiv. 12, 26; 
 1 Esdr. i. 34, viii. 23). This meaning of the word seems to be 
 late (Polyb. Plut. etc.). But the use of an official word of this 
 kind points to a more important preparation for Christ’s coming 
 than is indicated ix. 52. Therefore érépous points back to ix. 1-6, 
 the mission of the Twelve. For 6 Kupios see on v. 17, and 
 comp. vil. 13: describitur hoc loco actus vere dominicus (Beng.). 
 
 The é7épous is in apposition, ‘‘others, viz. seventy.” The xal before 
 érépous (§ ACD) is of very doubtful authority, and is as likely to have been 
 inserted in explanation as omitted because superfluous. Comp. xxiii. 32, 
 where «al is certainly genuine ; and see Win. lix. 7. d, p. 665. 
 
 €BSopykovta [8vo]. Both external and internal evidence are 
 1 Steinhart in his ed. of the Scholia on Luke, by Abulfarag Bar-Hebreus 
 
 (p. 22, Berlin, 1895), questions the statement of Assemani (&. 0. iii. 1. 320), 
 that Bar-Hebrzeus gives a list of the Seventy. Such lists have been invented. 
 
272 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X.1, 2 
 
 rather evenly balanced as to the addition or omission of 6vo. The 
 word might have been either inserted or omitted to make the 
 number agree with the Seventy Elders, for with Eldad and Medad 
 they were seventy-two. The nations of the earth also are sometimes 
 reckoned as seventy, sometimes as seventy-two. The dvo might 
 also be omitted to make a favourite number (Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 
 5) XV. 27; Judg. i. 7, ix. 25 2 Kings x. 1; Ezra vill. yaa se. 
 15; Jer. xxv. 11,etc.). See Ryle, Canon of O.T. p. 158. 
 
 éBdouncovra. NACLXTAETN etc., dfg Syrr. Goth. Aeth., Iren-Lat. 
 Tert. Eus. 
 
 éBdounkovra Sve. BDMR, ace Vulg. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Arm., Clem- 
 Recogn. Epiph. Scrivener considers the evidence against 6¥o to be 
 ‘overwhelming both in number and weight.” So also Keim. WH. 
 bracket, Treg. and Tisch. omit. 
 
 éva 8do. For companionship, as in the case of the Twelve 
 (Mk. vi. 7), of the Baptist’s disciples (Lk. vii. 19), of Barnabas and 
 Saul (Acts xiii. 2), of Judas and Silas (xv. 27), of Barnabas and 
 Mark (xv. 39), of Paul and Silas (xv. 40), of Timothy and Silas 
 (xvii. 14), of Timothy and Erastus (xix. 22). The testimony of two 
 would be more weighty than that of one; and they had to bear 
 witness to Christ’s words and works. Comp. Eccles. iv. 9-12 ; Gen. 
 ii. 18. The reading ava dvo dvo (B K) seems to be a combination 
 of ava. Sve gnd dvo dvo (Mk. vi. 7; Gen. vi. 19, 20). 
 
 jmedNev adtds épxeoOar. ‘‘ He Himself (as distinct from these 
 forerunners) was about to come.” 
 
 2. “O pév Oepiopds modus, . . . eis Tov Oepicpdv adtod. This 
 saying is verbatim the same as that which Mt. ix. 37, 38 records 
 as addressed to the disciples just before the mission of the Twelve. 
 The Twelve and the Seventy were answers to the prayer thus 
 prescribed; and both had the warning of the fewness of the 
 labourers and the greatness of the work. The éAtyo has no re- 
 ference to the Seventy as being too few: the supply is always 
 inadequate. We cannot conclude anything as to the time of year 
 when the words were spoken from the mention of harvest. So 
 common a metaphor might be used at any season. Com. Jn. iv. 35. 
 
 Why does RV. retain the “truly” of AV. in Mt. ix. 37 while abolishing 
 it here? It has no authority in either place, and apparently comes from the 
 quidem of Vulg., which represents puév. 
 
 SeyOnre. The verb does not occur in Mk. or Jn., nor in Mt. excepting 
 in this saying (ix. 38). It is a favourite with Lk. (v. 12, viii. 28, 38, ix. 38, 
 40, xxi. 36, xxii. 32; Acts iv. 31, viii. 22, etc.). Elsewhere rare in N.T., 
 but very freq. in LXX. For the constr. see Burton, § 200, 
 
 Stws épydtas éxBddyn. “Send forth with haste and urgency.” 
 The verb expresses either pressing need, or the directness with 
 which they are sent to their destination. Comp. Mk. i. 12; Mt. 
 xii, 20; Jas. ii, 25. There is always human unwillingness to be 
 
X. 2-6.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 273 
 
 overcome: comp. Exod. iv. 10, 13; Judg. iv. 8; Jon. i. 3. For 
 épydtas of agricultural labourers comp. Mt. xx. 1, 8; Jas. v. 4; 
 Ecclus. xix. 1; and of labourers in the cause of religion, 2 Cor. 
 ieee 5 Pail ti..2; 2 Tim. i. F5. 
 
 3. i800 docté\hw Spas, x.t.X. Thesame is said to the Twelve, 
 with zpoBara for dpvas (Mt. x. 16).!_ For dmooréAhw see on iv. 18. 
 In the ancient homily wrongly attributed to Clement of Rome 
 (Lft., Clement, ii. p. 219) we have the following: A€ye yap 6 Kipuos 
 "Eoeobe os dpvia &v péow AvKwy" aroxpibels be 6 Mérpos atta déyer® 
 "Edy obv dvacrapégwov ot AvKou Ta Gpvia; elev 6 “Iyoods TH Tlérpw* 
 Mi) doBetobwoar ra apvia Tovs AvKous peta 76 droGavetv aitd, Then 
 follows a loose quotation of Mt. x. 28 or Lk. xii. 4, 5. See A. 
 Resch, Agrapha, Texte u. Untersuch. Vv. 4, p. 377, 1889. 
 
 4. pi) Baordlete Badddvtiov, ph ampav, wh Srodypata, The 
 Talmud enjoins that no one is to go on the Temple Mount with 
 staff, shoes, scrip, or money tied to him in his purse. Christ’s 
 messengers are to go out in the same spirit as they would go to 
 the services of the temple, avoiding all distractions. Edersh. 
 The Temple, p. 42. From Baord€ere we infer that irodjara were 
 not to be carried in addition to what were worn on the feet. 
 Sandals were allowed in the temple. Comp. ix. 3, xxii. 35. The 
 whole charge means, “Take with you none of the things which 
 travellers commonly regard as indispensable. Your wants will be 
 supplied.” In N.T. BadAdvytoy occurs only in Lk. (xii. 33, xxii. 
 35, 36): in LXX Job xiv. 17. The word is quite classical: 
 Kennedy, Sources of NV.T. Grk. p. 42. See on ix. 3 and vii. 14. 
 
 pydeva Kata Thy 68dv domdonobe. They are to go straight to 
 their destination, and not give their message of good tidings until 
 they have reached it. It is not greetings, but greetings xara tiv 
 6d6v that are forbidden.2 Omnia pretermitiatis, dum quod in- 
 junctum est peragatis (Aug.). Comp. 2 Kings iv. 29. Like the 
 sayings in ix. 60, 62, this prohibition implies that entire devotion 
 to the work in hand is necessary. 
 
 5. But directly they have reached a goal, and have obtained 
 admission to a household, a greeting is to be given. Comp. ii. 14, 
 eipyvn ev avOpwrots ; JN. XX. 19, 21, 26, eipyvy div. 
 
 6. vids cipyyns. Another Hebraism: “one inclined to peace”: 
 dignus gui illo voto potiatur. Comp. vids yeévvys (Mt. xxiii. 15) ; 
 THs GroXetas (JN. Xvil. 12); THs darevHetas (Eph. v. 6); Gavdrov (2 Sam, 
 
 1 Comp. Won derelinguas nos stcut pastor gregem suum in manibus luporum 
 malignorum (4 Esr. v. 18). Ovem lupo commiészsti (Ter. Eunuch, v. 1. 16). 
 Other examples in Wetst. on Mt. x. 16. Here dpvas év néow AvKwv must be 
 ace closely together: as certain of being attacked as lambs in the midst of 
 wolves. 
 
 2See Tristram, Zastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 57, for a graphic 
 illustration of the value of the precept, ‘‘ Salute no man by the way.” Pulkra 
 est salutatio, sed pulchrior matura exsecutio (Ambr. zx loco). 
 
 18 
 
274 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 6, 7. 
 
 xii. 5). Comp. réxva dpyjs (Eph. ii. 3). It was a saying of Hillel, 
 ** Be thou of Aaron’s disciples, loving peace and seeking for peace.” 
 
 travaTrayceres, This is the reading of &B for éravamavera, like 
 avarancovTat (Rev. uiv. 13). A 2 aor. pass. émdypy is given by Choeroboscus. 
 Veitch, sz. Tabi, Pr 456. Comp. éraveratcaro 7d rvetua ex’ avrovs (Num. 
 xi. 25; 2 Kings ii. 15). Here oe avréy probably refers to the son of peace, 
 not to the house. or ef 6¢ pye (which is freq. in Lk.) see small print on 
 v. 36, and Burton, § 275. 
 
 ep’ Spas dvaxdpyer. “As if it had been unspoken”; or, “as 
 if it had been spoken to you, instead of by you.”? Comp. Mt i ii. 
 12; Acts xviii, 21; Heb. xi. 15 ; Exod. xxxii. 27; 2 Sam. iL 22, 
 viii. 13, etc. But they have no discretion as to giving this saluta- 
 tion, however unworthy the recipient may seem to be. 
 
 7. bv airy 82 rH olla pévere. Not ‘in the same house” (as all English 
 Versions, Vulg. and Luther), which would be ¢v 7 avrq olxig, but ‘in that 
 very house,” viz. the one which has given a welcome. Comp. ii. 38, xii. 12, 
 xiii, I, 31, Xx. 19, xxiii, 12, xxiv. 13, 33; in all which places RV. has rightly 
 ‘that very.” But here it has ‘that same,” and ver. 21 it changes “that” 
 (AV.) to ‘that same.” Lk. prefers év avTy TH &pa, huépg, kK.T.A. The 
 other Evangelists prefer év éxelvy ry pg, K.7.X. 
 
 éxOovres. The poetic form éc0w is very rare in prose: comp. Vil. 33, 
 xxii, 30; Mk. i. 6; Lev. xvii. 10; Is. ix. 20; Ecclus. xx. 18, 
 
 7a wap attav. What their entertainers provide: they are to 
 consider themselves as members of the family, not as intruders ; 
 for their food and shelter are salary and not alms. Comp. ra zap’ 
 tyav, “the bounty which you provide” (Phil. iv. 18), and see Lft. 
 on Gal. i, 12. The injunction is parallel to 1 Cor. ix. 7, not to 
 1 Cor. x. 27. Christ is freeing them from sensitiveness about 
 accepting entertainment, not from scruples about eating food 
 provided by heathen. 
 
 détos yap 6 épydtys Tod picO0d adtod. Mt. x. 10 has ris Tpophs 
 abrod. Epiphanius combines the two with Lk. iii. 14: dEvos yap 
 6 épy. T. pio). adrod Kal dpKerov TO epyalouevy 7 n Tpopy avrov (Her. 
 Ixxx. 5, p. 1072 A). Much more interesting is the quotation in 
 1 Tim. v. 18, which has been made an objection to the genuine- 
 ness of the Epistle. But it is probable (1) that Aéyer yap 7H ypahy 
 applies only to Body dAodvra od diydoes, and (2) that “Agwos 6 
 épydtys Tov picGod airod is given as a well-known proverb or 
 saying of Christ. See Introduction, § 6, i. a. 
 
 py petaBatvete é€ oikias cis oixiay. “ Do not go on changing,” 
 #.e. wevere. They were not to fear being burdensome to their first 
 entertainers, nor to go back to those who had rejected them, still 
 
 1 Quod semel a dei opulentia exiit non frustra exitt, sed aliquem certe ime 
 wenit, cut cd obtingat. Solatium ministrorum, qué sibi videntur nil edificara 
 (Beng.). 
 
 a Talk not of wasted affection ; affection never is wasted” (Longfellow) 
 
X. 7-11] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM as 
 
 less to seek more pleasant quarters. Perhaps also this is a warn. 
 ing against accepting numerous invitations which would waste 
 precious time. To this day in the East travellers who arrive at 
 an Arab village are overwhelmed with a round of invitations 
 (Lasserre, Evangiles, p. 324). Note the exact and original anti- 
 thesis between é& and «is, “out of” and “into ¢He interior of.” 
 
 8. kat cis fv avy mod. Apparently vv. 5-7 apply to single 
 dwellings, vv. 8-12 to towns. For 8éxwvra see small print on 
 viii. 13. We might expect cay déywvrat for xai d€xwvrat. 
 
 7a Trapatiépeva Spiv. Just “what is offered,” without demand- 
 ing more or anything different. They must be neither greedy nor 
 fastidious. Comp. ix. 16; Gen. xxiv. 33, xliil. 31; 1 Sam. xxviii. 
 22; 2 Sam. xii. 20; 2 Kings vi. 22; 4 Mac. vi. 15. 
 
 9. Kal héyete attois. “And continue saying to them”; Ze. 
 to the inhabitants generally, not merely to the sick. 
 
 “Hyyxev é Spas 4 Bactdeta tod Geod. So that the last preach- 
 ing resembled the first: Mt. iil. 2, iv. 17; Mk.i.15. The King- 
 dom of Heaven is naturally thought of as coming “fon” men, 
 down from above. For eyyifew éxi twa see Ps. xxvi. 2; 1 Mac. 
 v. 40, 42. Comp. Mt. xii. 28. Note Lk.’s favourite éyyifecv. 
 
 10. One house might receive them, but the town as a whole 
 reject them. In that case they are to leave the house (飫\@ovres) 
 and deliver a public warning before leaving the town. 
 
 els Tas mAatelas. ‘Into the open streets” (wAdt, wAdros): It is the 
 fem. of tAaTiés with 656s understood: xili. 26, xiv. 21; Acts v. 15; Prov. 
 vii. 6; Is, xv. 3; Ezek. vii. 19. Not in Mk.-or Jn. 
 
 11. Kat tév kovtopréy Tov KohAnOévTa Hiv. “ Hven the dust that 
 cleaveth to us.” ‘Not even the smallest thing of yours will we 
 have.” Hobart claims xoAAdw as a medical word (pp. 128, 129). 
 In N.T. it is used only in the passive with reflexive force. It 
 occurs seven times in Lk. (xv. 15; Acts v. 13, Vili. 29, ix. 26, 
 x, 28, xvii. 34) and four times elsewhere (Mt. xix. 5; Rom. xii. 9; 
 1 Cor. vi. 16; Rev. xviii. 5), three of which are quotations from 
 LXX, where it is frequent; once in the active (Jer. xiii. 11). 
 Neither in LXX (excepting Tobit vii. 16 &) nor in N.T. does 
 arropaccev Occur again: comp. éxudcoev (vil. 38, 44). 
 
 TARY TodTo ywdoxete St. “ But, although you reject us, the 
 fact remains that you must perceive, that,” etc. See on vi. 24, 35. 
 Note that there is no 颒 iuas (om. 8 B D LB) after ijyytxer. The 
 message of mercy has become a sentence of judgment. “The 
 Kingdom has come nigh, but not on you, because you have put 
 it from you.” 
 
 ‘Lk alone of the Evangelists uses roUro . . . 8 (xii. 39; Acts xxiv. 14). 
 Jn. has Sr: after 5:4 robro, but after rodro has ta. 
 
276 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [X. 12-14, 
 
 12. év ri Hpépa éxeivy. The day of judgment following on the 
 completion of the Kingdom, as is clear from ver. 14. Comp. 
 Xx1. 34; Mt. vii. 22; 2 Thes.i. 10; 2 Tim. i. 12, 18, iv. 8. Lk. 
 vi. 23 is different. As in ver. 24, Lk. omits the introductory é apnv : 
 he also omits xai Toudppos. The people in the cities of the plain 
 had had no such opportunities as those to whom Christ’s. own 
 disciples preached. Comp. Mt. xi. 23. 
 
 dvextotepov. Remissius (Vulg. ); tolerabilius (Lat. Vet.). Only 
 the comparative of avexrds (avéxouar) occurs in N.T., and always in 
 this phrase: Mt. x. 15, xi. 22, 24. Not in LXX. 
 
 13-15. The Solemn Farewell to the Cities in which He had 
 preached and manifested Himself in vain. The mention of the 
 judgment which awaits the towns that shall reject His forerunners 
 naturally leads to the mention of those places which have already 
 rejected Him. It is plain from ver. 16 that this lamentation over 
 the three cities is part of the address to the Seventy. The word- 
 ing is almost the same as Mt. xi. 21-24, but there the comparison 
 with Sodom is joined to the denunciation of Capernaum. 
 
 18. Xopafetv. Excepting here and the similar Woe in Mt. xi. 21, 
 Chorazin is not mentioned in N.T. This shows us how much of 
 Christ’s work is left unrecorded (Jn. xxi. 25). The name does not 
 occur in O.T. nor in Josephus. It may be identified with the 
 ruins now called Xerazeh, about two miles N.E. of Zell Him, 
 which is supposed to be Capernaum ; and Jerome tells us that 
 Chorazin was two miles from Capernaum: est autem nunc desertum 
 in secundo lapide a Capharnaum. Some identify Zed] Him with 
 Chorazin ; but Conder, who does not believe that Ze// Him is 
 Capernaum, nevertheless regards Kerdzeh as certainly Chorazin 
 (Handbook to the Bible, pp. 324-326): and this is now the pre- 
 vailing view. D.B.? s.v. 
 
 ty caxxo.. . Kadypevor. Constructo ad sensum: comp. ver. 8, 
 Xopafely and ByOcatdd are feminine, and hence the reading xa@7jpevat (D). 
 
 év odkxy. Our “sackcloth” gives a wrong idea of odxxos, 
 which was made of the hair of goats and other animals, and was 
 used for clothing. But sacks were made of it (Gen. xlii. 25 ; Josh. 
 ix. 4) as well as garments. Comp. Jon. ili. 6. The méda points 
 toa ministry of considerable duration in these cities. 
 
 petevénoav. Like perdvova (see on iil. 3), wetavoety is much 
 more frequent in Lk. (xi. 32, xiil. 3, 5, xv. 7, etc.) than in Mt. and 
 Mk. Neither is found in Jn. See on v. 32. 
 
 ‘14. why Tépo cat Xi8an. “But, guilty as Tyre and Sidon 
 are, yet,” etc. They were both of them heathen commercial 
 towns, and are frequently denounced by the Prophets for. their 
 wickedness: Is. xxiii.; Jer. xxv. 22, xlvii. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 3-7, 
 xxviii. 12-22. Of Chorazin and Bethsaida the paradox was true, 
 
x. 14-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 277 
 
 that the Kingdom of God had come nigh to them, and yet they 
 were far from the Kingdom of God. 
 
 15. ph éws odpavod GpwOyon; “Shalt thou be exalted as far 
 as heaven? Thou shalt be thrust down as far as Hades.” Both 
 here and Mt. xi. 23 the reading 7 . . . i~weica is found in many 
 authorities ; but the evidence against it (8 B D L 2) is conclusive. 
 Godet supports it as being parfaitement claire et simple; which is 
 the explanation of the corruption. There is less certainty as to 
 whether xatayoy, which is probably right in Mt, is right here 
 (BD): xaraBiBacbjoy is well supported. In Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17 
 we have both xareBiBafov cis adov and xaréBycay eis ddov. Heaven 
 and Hades (not Gehenna) here stand for height of glory and 
 depth of shame (Is. xiv. 13-15). The desolation of the whole 
 neighbourhood, and the difficulty of identifying even the sites of 
 these flourishing towns, is part of the fulfilment of this prophecy. 
 See Jos. B.//. ili. 10. 9; Farrar, Life of Christ, ii. 101 ; Tristram, 
 Bible Places, 267 ; Renan, L’Antechris?, p. 277. 
 
 16. ‘O dxovwy Spay eno dxovet. Note the chiasmus. This 
 verse connects the work of Christ with the work of His disciples 
 (Acts ix. 4), and forms a solemn conclusion to the address to the 
 Seventy. Those who reject their message will share the lot of 
 -hose who rejected Christ :? all alike have rejected God. Comp. 
 Mt. x. 40; Jn. xiii. 20; 1 Thes. iv. 8; 1 Sam. viii. 7. The 
 Seventy must do their utmost to avert so miserable a result of 
 their labours. For dGetet see on vii. 30. 
 
 17-24. The Return of the Seventy. They would not all 
 return at once, and probably did not all return to the same place, 
 but met Jesus at different points as He followed them. Contrast 
 the very brief account of the return of the Twelve (ix. 10). 
 Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 225. 
 
 17. “Yréotpepav Sé ot EBSounkovra. Most of the authorities 
 which add dvo in ver. 1 add it here also. By “returned” is meant 
 that they came back to Jesus. He meanwhile had been moving. 
 See on iv. 14 and i. 56. 
 
 kal Ta Satudva Grotdcverar. ‘Even the demons are being 
 subjected.” ‘This was more than they expected, for they had only 
 been told to heal the sick (ver. 9); whereas the Twelve were 
 expressly endowed with power to cast out demons (ix. 1). There 
 is nothing to show that Lk. considers exorcizing evil spirits to be the 
 highest of gifts ; but the Seventy were specially elated at possessing 
 this power. They think more of it than of their success in pro- 
 claiming the Kingdom ; yet they recognize that it is derived from 
 their Master. {t is in His name that they can exorcize. His 
 reply is partly (ver. 20) like the reply to the woman who pro- 
 
 111 cherchast de toute manizre a établir en principe ses apétres ¢ dait 
 lui-méme (Ieuan, V. de /. p. 294). = = 
 
278 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |X. 17%, 18. 
 
 nounced His Mother to be blessed (xi. 27, 28). They may 
 admire this; but there is something much more admirable. 
 
 18. *E@ewpouv tov Xatavav. At the very time when His 
 ministers were casting out Satan’s ministers,—nay, even as He 
 was sending them forth to their work, Jesus knew that Satan was 
 being overcome. In the defeat of the demons He saw the down- 
 fall of their chief. This passage is again conclusive evidence as to 
 Christ’s teaching respecting the existence of a personal power of 
 evil. See on viii. 12, and comp. xiii. 16, xxii. 31. In all these 
 cases it would have been quite natural to speak of impersonal 
 evil. See DB.) art. “Satan”; Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. App. xiii. § ii. 
 
 In N.T. the form is Zaravas (not excepting 2 Cor. xii. 7), which is 
 declined, and almost invariably has the art.; but xxii. 3 and Mk, iii. 23 are 
 exceptions. In LXX the word is rare. We have cardy, indecl. and without 
 art., 1 Kings xi. 14, [23, 25], in the sense of ‘‘ adversary,” a human enemy 3 
 and rév Zaravay, or Tov Zaravd, Ecclus. xxi. 27. 
 
 For the imperf. comp. Acts xviii. 5, and see Win. xl. 3. d, p. 336 
 
 &s dotpamy. It was as visible and unmistakable: comp. 
 xvii. 24; Mt. xxiv. 27. The words are amphibolous, but are 
 better taken with eGedpovv than with é« tod ovpavod, which is to be 
 joined with zeodvra: comp. ix. 17, 27, 57, Xili. 1, etc. In B 254 
 €k Tov ovpavod precedes as aotparyv. As in ver. 15, heaven is 
 here put for the height of prosperity and power comp. Is. xiv. 12 
 and ra érovpdva (Eph. vi. 12).1 
 
 meoovta. Last with emphasis. The “fallen” of RV. is no 
 improvement on the “fall” of AV. “I beheld Satan fallen” 
 means “saw him prostrate after his fall.” The aor. indicates the 
 coincidence between the success of the Seventy and Christ’s 
 vision of Satan’s overthrow; and neither “fallen” nor “falling” 
 (cadentem, Vulg.) express this so well as “fall” in English. See 
 Burton, § 146, and T. S. Evans, Exfositor, 2nd series, iii. p. 164. 
 Some refer the fall to the original fall of the Angels (Jude 6), in 
 which case éGewpodr refers to the Son pre-existing with the Father. 
 Others to the Incarnation, or the Temptation. Rather, it refers 
 to the success of the disciples regarded as a symbol and earnest 
 of the complete overthrow of Satan. Jesus had been contemplat- 
 ing evil as a power overthrown. In any case there is no analogy 
 between this passage and Rev. xii. 12: the point is not that the 
 devil has come down to work mischief on the earth, but that his 
 power to work mischief is broken. 
 
 This verse is sometimes quite otherwise explained. ‘‘ You are elated at 
 
 1 Comp. mpds otpavdv BiBGv (Soph. O. C. 381) ; Caxsar fertur in celum (Cic. 
 Phil. iv. 3), collegam de calo detraxistz (Phil. ii. 42). 
 
 2 Cum vos nuper mitterem ad evangelizandum videbam demonem sud 
 potestate @ me privatum quasi de celo cadere, ac per vos magis casurum (Corn 
 a Lap.), 
 
X.18,19.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 279 
 
 your victory over the demons, and are proud of your spiritual powers. Beware 
 of spiritual pride. There was a time when I beheld Satan himself fall even 
 from heaven owing to this sin.”1 Others make it a rebuke to complacency and 
 elation, but in another way. ‘‘ You are overjoyed at finding that demons are 
 subject to you. That is no very great thing. I once beheld their sovereign 
 cast out of heaven itself ; and their subjection was involved in his overthrow.” 
 Both these interpretations depend upon a misunderstanding of rod ovpavoi, 
 which does not mean the abode of the Angels, but the summit of power (Lam. 
 ii. I). This is well expressed in the Clementine Liturgy, in the Collect at the 
 dismissal of the exergumens, 6 prtas abrov ws dorpamiy é& ovpavod els yhv, ob 
 TomMUK@ pryuaTt, GAd amd tips els dryutav, Ot’ Exovotovy avTod kaKkdvo.ay. 
 Hammond, Liturgees Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1878, p. 5- 
 
 19. Sé8wxa Spiv thy éfouciay, The powers which they have 
 received are larger than they had supposed. They possessed 
 during their mission, and still retain, se ¢fovoia to vanquish the 
 powers of evil. Note the article, which is almost peculiar to this 
 passage. Contrast v. 24, ix. 1, xil. 5, xix. 17; Acts ix. 14. The 
 passage is possibly moulded on Ps. xci. 13: ér domida cai Bact 
 Nickov émByoy, Kal Katararnoes Adovta Kal Spdxovta ; but comp. 
 Deut. viii. 15: tod dyaydvros oe Sua THs epyuov THS peydAns Kat 
 ms poBepas exetvys, ov dis daxvwv Kal cxopzios. The meaning is 
 that no fraud or treachery shall prevail against them. 
 
 kal él wagay Stvap.v tod éx8p0d. Contrast the dvvays of the 
 enemy with the éfovcia given by Christ. Nor shall any hostile 
 strength or ability succeed. The promise in both cases refers to 
 victory over spiritual foes rather than to immunity from bedily 
 injuries. ‘The enemy” means Satan: Mt. xiii. 25; Rom. xvi. 20; 
 1 Pet. v. 8. But protection from physical harm may be included 
 (Acts xxviii. 3-5). The appendix to Mk. more clearly includes 
 this (xvi. 18). Comp. the story of S. John being preserved from 
 being harmed by boiling oil (Tertul. Preser. Her. xxxvi.), or by 
 drinking hemlock (Lips. Apokr. Apostelgesch. i. pp. 426, 428, 432, 
 480, etc.). This latter story is unknown to the Fathers of the 
 first six centuries. 
 
 éml macav thy Suv. This does not depend upon rareiy, as is shown by 
 the change of prep. and case, but upon éfovelay, They have éfovcla over 
 every dvvayus. 
 
 matey érdve, Not of trampling under foot as vanquished, but of 
 walking upon without being hurt. 
 
 ovdév vas ov py Gdixyoet. Strong negation: ovdéy is probably the 
 subject of déuxjoe. We might translate, ‘‘and the power of the enemy shall 
 not in anywise hurt you.” For décxeiy with double acc. comp. Acts xxv. 103 
 Gal. iv. 12; Philem. 18: and for dé.cety in the sense of ‘‘ injure” comp. Rev, 
 Vil. 3, ix. 4. The reading décx7joy (BC) looks like a grammatical correction, 
 
 
 
 1Thus Gregory the Great: Mire Dominus, ut in discipulorum cordibus 
 elationem premeret, mox judictum ruinz retulit, quod ipse magister elationss 
 accepit ; ut in auctore superbixe discerent, quid de elationis vitio formidarent 
 (Moral, xxiii. 6, Migne, Ixxvi. 259). 
 
280 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 19-21, 
 
 This last clause sums up the other two. They have power 
 over fraud and force; nothing shall harm them. Comp. Jn. x. 28, 
 205 1S. ods, 9: 
 
 20. whi év tovTw ph xalpere. “But (although you may well 
 rejoice, yet) cease to rejoice in this, but continue to rejoice in 
 something better.” Pres. imperat. in both cases. Jsta Jetitia 
 periculo superbie subjacet: illa demissum gratumque animum Deo 
 sudjicit (Grotius). The casting out of demons gives no security 
 for the possession of eternal life. It is not one of ra xapiopara 
 ra petlova: still less is it the xa@ trepBodjy 6ddv (1 Cor. xii. 31). 
 A Judas might cast out demons. Comp. “I will have mercy, and 
 not sacrifice” (Hos. vi. 6), which does not mean that sacrifice is 
 forbidden, but that mercy is greatly superior. See on xxili. 28 
 and comp. xiv. 12, 13. For zAyv comp. vv. 11, 14. 
 
 7a Gvépata Guay évyeypamtat év Tots ovpavots. “ Your names 
 have been written, and remain written, in heaven,” as citizens 
 possessing the full privileges of the heavenly commonwealth: zm 
 celis unde Satanas decidit: etsi reclamavit Satanas: etiamsi in 
 terra non sitis celebres (Beng.). But there is probably no refer- 
 ence to & 7@ évduari cov (ver. 17). “Do not rejoice because 
 you exorcize demons in AZy name, but rejoice because your 
 names are written in heaven,” is a false antithesis.2 There is no 
 emphasis on tuav. Comp. Heb. xii. 23; Rev. ili. 8, xvii. 8, 
 XX, 12, 15, Xxl. 27, xxl. 19; Phil. iii, 20. The figure is one or 
 many taken from O.T. and endued with a higher meaning: Is. 
 iv. 3; Ezek. xiii. 9; Dan. xii. 1. Comp. Hermas, Visage 
 Sim. ii. 9. Contrast Jer. xvii. 13. For Rabbinical illustrations 
 see Wetst. on Phil. iv. 3. Allusion to the Oriental custom of 
 recording in the archives the names of benefactors (Esth. x. 2; 
 Hat. viii. go. 6) is not probable. And it is clear from Rev. ili. 5, 
 xxii. 19; Exod. xxxii. 32; Ps. Ixix. 28 that absolute predestina- 
 tion is not included in the metaphor. For the Hebr. plur. rots 
 ovpavots comp. xii. 53, xxi. 26; Acts vil. 55. 
 
 21-24. The Exultation of Jesus over the Divine Preference 
 shown to the Disciples. Mt. xi. 25-27. Nowhere else is any- 
 thing of the kind recorded of Christ. Mt. connects it with the 
 Woes on the three cities, and connects these with the message 
 from the Baptist. 
 
 21. °Ev atta TH dpa. “In that very hour” (see small print on 
 ver. 7), making the connexion with the return of the Seventy close 
 
 2 Justin Martyr says to the Roman Emperors, duets 5’ droxretvar pev divacde, 
 Brdyac 8’ of (AZol. i. 2). He is probably adapting Plat. 4Zo/. 30 C 
 
 2 Augustine seems to suggest it Zvarr. im Ps. xci. But Enarr. in Ps, cxxx, 
 he says well: Won omnes Christiani boni demonia ejtciunt ; omnium tamer 
 nomina scripta sunt in celo. Non eos voluit gaudere ex eo guod proprium 
 habebant, sed ex eo quod cum ceteris saluiem tenebant, 
 
x. 21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 281 
 
 and express. Both this and airy 7H dpa (without &) are peculiar 
 tobe (vilo 21, xi. 12, xx. 19: and ii, 38); Acts xvi. 18, xxil, 13). 
 In the parallel passage we have év exetvyp 7@ kaip@ (Mt. xi. 25). 
 
 Hyaddudcaro To mvetpare TO dylo. “Exulted in the Holy 
 Spirit,” ze. this holy joy is a ‘Divine inspiration. ‘The fact is 
 analogous to His being “led by the Spirit in the wilderness’ 
 (iv. 1). Nowhere else is anything of the kind recorded of Christ. 
 The verb is a strong one: comp. i. 47; Acts il. 26, xvi. 343 
 2 Kings i. 20; 1 Chron. xvi. 31; Job iii. 183 Is. xii. 6, XXV. (0); 
 Psalms passim. Mt. has merely dzroxpuGeis. 
 
 The strangeness of the expression “‘ exulted in the Holy Spirit ” has led to 
 the omission of 7@ dyly in A Syr-Sin. and some inferior authorities. There is 
 no parallel in Scripture. Rom. i. 4; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii, 18, are not 
 analogous. 
 
 "E€opodoyodpat cor, mdétep KUpte Tod obpavoi kat Tis vis. coal [ 
 acknowledge openly to Thine honour, I give Thee praise” ; Gen. 
 Sieg Sie bs, xuxe Al.CVi. 47,0 Cx. 4; ROM. XIV. EI, XV:.9): Clem. 
 Rom. 1xi. 3. Satan is cast down from heaven, and vanquished on 
 earth. God is Father and Lord of both; Father in respect of the 
 love, and Lord in respect of the power, which this fact exhibits. 
 For other public recognitions of God as His Father comp. Mt. xv. 
 13, XVili. 35; Jn. v. 17, Xi. 41, xii. 27; Lk. xxiii. 34, 46. The geni- 
 tives belong to xvpue only, not to tadrep: comp. Clem. Hom. xvii. 5. 
 
 dmexpuas Tata amd copay kat cuveT@v, k.t-A. The radra refers 
 to the facts about the Kingdom made known by the Seventy. In 
 sound as in sense there is a contrast between améxpyas and 
 dmexadvpas. The aristocracy of intellect, who prided themselves 
 upon their superiority, are here the lowest of all. The statement 
 is general, but has special reference to the scribes and Pharisees, 
 who both in their own and in popular estimation were the wise and 
 enlightened (Jn. vii. 49, ix. 40). The vam are the unlearned, 
 and therefore free from the prejudices of those who had been 
 trained in the Rabbinical schools. It is very arbitrary to confine 
 the thanksgiving to drexdAvpas: it belongs to dréxpuwas also. That 
 God has proved His independence of human intellect is a matter 
 for thankfulness. Intellectual gifts, so far from being necessary, are 
 often a hindrance. S. Paul is fond of pointing out this law of the 
 “Lord of heaven and earth”: Rom. i. 22; 1 Cor. i. 19-31; 
 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. Note the omission of the article before codav, 
 ovverav, and vymios. To be coddc and ovverds is not fatal: such 
 are not zpso facto excluded, although they often exclude themselves. 
 Nor are the vymoe tps0 facto accepted. 
 
 In Clem. Hom. viii. 6 the passage is quoted thus: éouoAoyotpat oor, marep 
 Tov ovpavod kal THs Ys, bre dmérpupas Tatra amd copay kal mpecBurépwy, Kat 
 dmexdduyas abra vyrlois OnAdgovcww ; and again, xviii. 15: é7t daep Gv KpumTd 
 
282 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [x. 21, 22, 
 
 codots, drexdduas atta vymlous Onddfovew. The latter form avoids the diffi- 
 culty about thanking God for hiding from the wise. In application the vjmuot 
 are made to be the Gentiles. The Marcosians had the future,—é¢fouodoy7jc0- 
 pot (Iren. i. 20. 3). 
 
 The word v7m.os (vn, Eros) represents the Latin zzfans. Lat. Vet. and 
 Vulg. have parvulds here and Mt. xi. 25; but zzfantium, Mt. xxi. 16. It is 
 opposed to dv7jp, 1 Cor. xiii, 11; Eph. iv. 143 and to réAeios, Heb, v. 13. 
 
 vat, This resumes the expression of thanks; and hence the second 8rt, 
 like the first, depends upon e&0modoyobpal oor: ‘‘I thank Thee that thus it 
 was well-pleasing.” Comp. Phil. iv. 3; Philem. 20; Rev. xvi. 7, xxii. 20, 
 
 6 watyp. The nom. with the art. often takes the place of the voc. in 
 N.T., and generally without any difference in meaning. This is specially the 
 case with imperatives (viii. 54, xii. 32; Mt. xxvii. 29?; Mk. v. 41, ix. 253 
 Col. iii. 18; Eph. vi. 1, etc.), and may often be due to Hebrew infiuence 
 (2 Kings ix. 315; Jer. xlvii. 6). Here there is perhaps a slight difference 
 between mdrep and 6 marzp, the latter meaning, ‘‘ Thou who art the Father of 
 
 _all.” The use of 6 raryp for rarep may be due to liturgical influence. Comp.- 
 “Mk. xiv. 36; Rom. viii. 15 ; and see Lft. on Gal. iv. 6 and Col. iii. 18; also 
 Win. xxix. 2, p. 227; Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 76. 
 
 eddokia éyéveto éumpoc0év cov. A Hebraism, with evdoxta first 
 for emphasis. See on ii. 14. 
 
 22. The importance of this verse, which is also in Mt. (xi. 27), 
 has long been recognized. It is impossible upon any principles of 
 criticism to question its genuineness, or its right to be regarded as 
 among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists. And 
 it contains the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel. It 
 is like “an aerolite from the Johannean heaven” (Hase, Gesch. 
 _/esu, p. 527); and for that very reason causes perplexity to those 
 who deny the solidarity between the Johannean heaven and the 
 Synoptic earth. It should be compared with the following pas- 
 sages: Jn. iii, 35, vi. 46, Vill. 19, X. 15, 30, XIV. 9, XVi. 15, XVii. 
 6, 10.2 
 
 The introductory insertion, cal orpagels mpds Tods wabnras etrev (AC) is 
 one of the few points in which the TR. (which with § BD LM omits the 
 words) differs from the third edition of Steph. 
 
 22. Mdvta por wapedd0n. The wdvra seems primarily to refer to 
 the revealing and concealing. Christ has full power in executing 
 
 1“ This passage is one of the best authenticated in the Synoptic Gospels. 
 It is found in exact parallelism botk in Mt. and Lk., and is therefore known to 
 have been part of that ‘collection « discourses’ (cf. Holtzmann, Syzopt. Hvan- 
 gelien, p. 184; Ewald, Zvangeléen, »p. 20, 255; Weizsacker, pp. 166-169), in 
 all probability the composition of :+¢ Apostle St. Matthew, which many critics 
 believe to be the oldest of all the Evangelical documents. And yet once grant 
 the authenticity of this passage, and there is nothing in the Johannean Christo- 
 logy that it does not cover. Even the doctrine of pre-existence seems to be 
 implicitly contained in it” (Sanday, Fourth Gospel, p. 109). Keim affirms that 
 ‘© There is no more violent criticism than thet which Strauss has introduced” of 
 repudiating a passage so strongly attested (es. of Vaz. iv. p. 63). 
 
X. 22-24.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 283 
 
 the Divine decrees. But it is arbitrary to confine the wdvra to 
 the potestas revelandi. 
 
 ywdoxer tis éotw 6 vids. “Comes to know what His nature is, 
 His counsel, His will.” Mt. has érvywdoxe tov vidv, where the 
 compound verb covers what is here expressed by the ris. Both 
 might be translations of the same Aramaic. 
 
 On purely subjective grounds Keim contends for the Marcionite reading 
 &yvw, which is certainly as old as Justin (4Zo/. i. 63), although he has 
 ywdoxe, Try. c. Even Meyer thinks that éyyw may be original. But the 
 evidence against it is overwhelming. 
 
 Syr-Sin. makes the two clauses interrogative: ‘* Wo knoweth the Son, 
 except the Father? and who knoweth the Father, except the Son?” 
 
 BovAntar...amoxadvypar. ‘< Willing to reveal” (RV.); ‘‘ will reveal” 
 (AV.), is the simple future. There isa similar weakening of BovAec@a in AV. 
 Acts xviii. 15, and of @é\ew, xix. 14. See small print on ix. 24. 
 
 28, 24. In Mt. xiii. 16, 17 this saying, with some slight differ- 
 ences, occurs in quite another connexion, viz. after the explanation 
 of the reason for Christ’s speaking in parables. If the words were 
 uttered only once, Lk. appears to give the actual position. The 
 kat idiay seems to imply some interval between vv. 22 and 23. 
 Christ’s thanksgiving seems to have been uttered publicly, in the 
 place where the returning Seventy met Him. 
 
 23. & Bdéwete. The absence of ipels is remarkable. Contrast 
 tpav O& paxdptor of 6pGadpoi (Mt. xiii. 16). Lk. has no equivalent 
 to Kal ra Gra [budv] drt dxovovow. Comp. paxdpror of yudpuevor év 
 Tais juépars exeivars idetv Ta ayaba (Ps. Sol. xvii. 50, xviil. 7). 
 
 24, moddot mpopfrat kal Backets. Balaam, Moses, Isaiah, and 
 Micah; David, Solomon, and Hezekiah. For Baowcis Mt. .has 
 dixaor, and for 76éAyncav has éreOvpnoav. Vulg. has voluerunt here 
 and cupierunt in Mt. Neither AV. nor RV. distinguishes. Note 
 that Lk. again omits the introductory djv, as in ver. 12. See on 
 xii. 44. As to the Prophets comp. 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 
 
 & Gpets BXéwete. Here Mt., who has given the emphatic con- 
 trast between “you” and the ancients at the outset, omits the 
 - wets. One suspects that his arrangement of the pronouns is the 
 original one. Lk. has no tyeis with dxovere. In 2 Cor. xi. 29 
 we have an emphatic pronoun with the second verb and not with 
 the first. 
 
 25-29. The Lawyer’s Questions. This incident forms the 
 introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Comp. 
 xii, 13-15, Xlv. 15, xv. 1-3. The identification of this lawyer with 
 the one who asked, “Which is the great commandment in the 
 law?” (Mk. xii. 28-32; Mt. xxii. 35-40) is precarious, but perhaps 
 ought not to be set aside as impossible. There the question is theo- 
 logical and speculative ; here it is practical. Place, introduction, 
 and issue are quite different; and the quotation from the Law 
 
284 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 25, 26 
 
 which is common to the narratives is here uttered by the lawyer, 
 there by Christ. An identification with the man who had great 
 possessions, and who asked the very same question as the lawyer 
 asks here, although in a very different spirit (Mk. x. 17-22; Mt. 
 xix. 16-22), is impossible, because Lk. himself records that in full 
 (xvill. 18-23). The opening words of this narrative point to an 
 Aramaic source. 
 
 25. vopixds tis avéotn éxtrerpdfwv adtov. See on vii. 30. Ex- 
 cepting Mt. xxii. 35, which is possibly parallel to this, vousxés is 
 used by no other Evangelist. The dvéory implies a situation in 
 which the company were seated. Neither this question nor the 
 one respecting the great commandment was calculated to place 
 Jesus in a difficulty, but rather to test His ability as a teacher: the 
 exrreipalwy (see small print on iv. 12) does not imply a sinister 
 attempt to entrap Him. This use of res (vv. 30, 31, 33, 38) 1S 
 freq. in Lk. 
 
 tli moujoas. The tense implies that by the performance of 
 some one thing eternal life can be secured. What heroic act 
 must be performed, or what great sacrifice made? The form of 
 question involves an erroneous view of eternal life and its relation 
 to this life. Contrast the Philippian gaoler (Acts xvi. 30). 
 
 Lov aidviov KAynpovoujow. The verb is freq. in LXX of the 
 occupation of Canaan by the Israelites (Deut. iv. 22, 26, vi. 1, 
 etc.), and thence is transferred to the perfect possession to be 
 enjoyed in the Kingdom of the Messiah (Ps. xxiv. 13, xxxvi. 9, 
 II, 22, 29; Is. lx. 21); both uses being based upon the original 
 promise to Abraham. See Wsctt. Afedvews, pp. 167-169. Lk. 
 like Jn., never uses aidvios of anything but eternal beatitude 
 (xvi. 9, xviii. 18, 30). The notion of endlessness, although not 
 necessarily expressed, is probably implied in the word. See 
 Wsctt. £pp. of St. John, pp. 204-208; App. E, Gosp. of S. John 
 in Camb. Grk. Test. ; and the literature quoted in Zoeckler, Handb. 
 ad. Theol. Wissft. iii. pp. 199-201. With the whole expression 
 comp. of d€ dovot Kuplov KAnpovoyncover Conv év edppoovvy (Ps. Sol. 
 xiv. 7), and dovot kupiov kAypovopynoarey erayyedlas Kupiov (xii. 8). 
 
 26. °Ev 7 vouw. First with emphasis. A vopixds ought to 
 know that év 7 véuw the answer to the question is plainly 
 given: él Tov vopov abrov maparéure (Euthym.). 
 
 Tas dvaywdokers; Equivalent to the Rabbinical formula, 
 when scriptural evidence was wanted, ‘‘What readest thou?” 
 But perhaps the zés implies a little more, viz. ‘to what effect”? 
 The form of question does not necessarily imply a rebuke. For 
 dvaywaokew see iv. 16. That Jesus pointed to the man’s phylactery 
 and meant, ‘‘ What have you got written there?” is conjecture. 
 That he had “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” on his 
 phylactery, is improbable. The fst of the two laws was written 
 on phylacteries, and the Jews recited it morning and evening, 
 
X. 26-29.} JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 285 
 
 from Deut. vi. 3, xi. 13; hence it was the natural answer to 
 Christ’s question. ‘That he adds the second law, from Lev. xix. 
 18, is remarkable, and it may be that he was desirous of leading 
 up to the question, “And who is my neighbour?” See D.Z.? art. 
 “Frontlets” ; Schafi’s Herzog, art. “ Phylactery.” 
 
 27. Here, as in Mk. xii. 30, we have four powers with which God is to 
 be loved. Mt. xxii. 37 follows Heb. and LXX in giving ¢hree. They cover 
 man’s physical, intellectual, and moral activity. Mk. and LXX have é€ 
 throughout ; Mt. has év throughout; Lk. changes from é§ to &. For the 
 last words comp. Rom. xili. 9. 
 
 28. *OpOds dmexpiOns. Comp. ép0as expivas (vii. 43). In Mk. 
 xii. 32 it is the scribe who commends Jesus for His answer. 
 
 toto tote. Pres. imperat. ‘‘ Continually do this,” not merely 
 do it once for all; with special reference to the form of the 
 lawyer’s question (ver. 25). See Rom. ii. 13, x. 5; Lev. xviii. 5. 
 
 29. Ghwv Sikardcar éautéy, Not merely “willing,” but “ zzshing 
 to justify himself.” For what? Some say, for having omitted to 
 perform this duty in the past. Others, for having asked such a 
 question, the answer to which had been shown to be so simple. 
 The latter is perhaps nearer the fact; but it almost involves the 
 other. ‘ Wishing to put himself in the right,” he points out that 
 the answer given is not adequate, because there is doubt as to 
 the meaning of “one’s neighbour.” Qui multa interrogant non 
 multa facere gestiunt (Beng.). For Sixatacar see on vil. 35 and 
 Rom. i. 17. 
 
 kal tis éotiv pou mAnotov; The question was a very real one 
 to a Jew of that age. Lightfoot, ad /oc., quotes from Maimonides, 
 “he excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour. An 
 Israelite killing a stranger inhabitant, he doth not die for it by 
 the Sanhedrim; because he said, If any one lift up himself 
 against his neighbour.” 
 
 Kat tls éorty pou wAnolov; The xal accepts what is said, and leads on 
 to another question: comp. xviii. 26; Jn. ix. 36; 2 Cor.ii.2. Win. liii. 3. 
 a, p. 545. For the omission of the art. before rAnoloy (uov perhaps taking 
 its place) see Win. xix. 5. b, p. 163: but rAyoloy may be an adverb. 
 
 80-87. §The Parable of the Good Samaritan. Entirely in 
 harmony with the general character of this Gospel as teaching 
 that righteousness and salvation are not the exclusive privilege of 
 the Jew. The parable is not an answer to the original question 
 (ver. 25), and therefore in no way implies that works of benevolence 
 secure eternal life. It is an answer to the new question (ver. 29), 
 and teaches that no one who is striving to love his neighbour as 
 himself can be in doubt as to who is his neighbour. We may be- 
 lieve that the narrative is not fiction, but history. Jesus would 
 not be likely to invent such behaviour, and attribute it to priest, 
 
286 TIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 29, 80. 
 
 Levite, and Samaritan, if it had not actually occurred. Nowhere 
 else does He speak against priests or Levites. Moreover, the 
 parable would have far more point if taken from real life.} 
 
 80. SrohkaBdv. “Took him up” to reply to him. Here only 
 in N.T. has troAapBdvw this meaning, which is quite classical and 
 freq. in Job (ii. 4, iv. 1, vi. I, ix. 1, Xl. I, Xi. I, XV. I, XVL I, efc.). 
 Contrast vii. 43; Acts ii. 15; Job xxv. 13, where it means “I 
 suppose.” 
 
 Here Vulg. has susczpzens, with szspiczens as v.J. in many MSS. Be- 
 sides these two, Lat. Vet. has swdzczens (e) and respondens (f); but not 
 excipiens, which would be an equivalent. 
 
 “AvOpwrés tts KatéBawev. The road is downhill; but besides 
 this we commonly talk of “going down” from the capital. The 
 narrative implies that the man is a Jew. Jericho is about twenty 
 miles from Jerusalem ; and the road still, as in Jerome’s day, has 
 a bad name for brigandage from “the Arabian in the wilderness ” 
 (Jer. iii. 2), Ze. the Bedawin robbers who infest the unfrequented 
 roads. Sir F. Henniker was murdered here in 1820.? It is 
 possible that Jesus was on this road at the time when He delivered 
 the parable; for Bethany is on it, and the next event takes place 
 there (vv. 35-42). 
 
 wepiémecev Ayotats. Change from imperf. to aor. ‘Fell among 
 robbers,” so that they were all round him. Quite classical ; comp. Jas. i. 2. 
 Wetst. gives instances of this very phrase in profane authors, and it is in- 
 correct to classify mepurlrrew as a medical word. For Agoris, ‘‘ robber” 
 (xix. 46, xxii. 52; Jn. xviii. 40), as distinct from xAewrjs, “‘ thief” (xii. 33, 
 393 Jn. xii. 6), see Trench, Syz. xliv. 
 
 ot Kat éxSdcavtes adtdy. ‘“ Who, in addition to other violence, 
 stripped him.” Robbers naturally plunder their victims, but do 
 
 1“¢The spot indicated by our Lord as the scene of the parable is unmis- 
 takable. About half-way down the descent from Jerusalem to Jericho, close to 
 the deep gorge of Wady Kelt, the sides of which are honeycombed by a labyrinth 
 of caves, in olden times and to the present day the resort of freebooters and 
 outlaws, is a heap of ruins, marking the site of an ancient khan. The Kahn 
 el Ahmar, as the ruin is called, possessed a deep well, with a scanty supply of 
 water. Not another building or trace of human habitation is to be found on 
 any part of the road, which descends 3000 feet from the neighbourhood of 
 Bethany to the entrance into the plain of Jordan. Irregular projecting masses 
 of rock and frequent sharp turns of the road afford everywhere safe cover and 
 retreat for robbers” (Tristram, Eastern Customs, p. 220). 
 
 2It was near Jericho that Pompey destroyed strongholds of brigands 
 (Strabo, Geogr. xvi. 2. 41). Jerome explains ‘‘the Going up to Adummim ” or 
 ‘© Ascent of the Red” (Josh. xv. 7, xviil. 17), which is identified with this road, 
 as so called from the blood which is there shed by robbers. The explanation 
 is probably wrong, but the evidence for the robbers holds good (Ds Loczs Heb. 
 s.v. Adummim). The Knights Templars protected pilgrims along this road. 
 For a description of it see Stanley, Sz. &° Pal. p. 424; Keim, /es. of Nas. 
 
 v. p. 71. 
 
x. 30-34.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 287 
 
 not always strip them. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 28; with double accusa- 
 tive, Mt. xxvii. 31; Mk. xv. 20. It was because he tried to keep 
 his clothes, and also to disable him, that they added blows to 
 robbery. For the phrase mAnyas émQévres comp. Acts xvi. 23; 
 Rev. xxii. 18: in class. Grk. 7A. guBdAAev. Cicero has p/lagam 
 alicui imponere (Pro Sest. xix. 44); also vulnera alicui imponere 
 (De Fin. iv. 24. 66). For 4p8avq comp. 4 Mac. iv. 11. 
 
 $1. kata cuyxupiav. Not exactly “by chance,” but “by way 
 of coincidence, by concurrence.” Vulg. has accdit ut; Lat. Vet. 
 Jortuito (aff, qr), forte (d), derepente (e), while several omit (b cil). 
 The word occurs here only in N.T. and is rare elsewhere. In 
 Hippocrates we have 8¢ aAAnv twa ovyxuptay and 7a azo ovyKupias. 
 Neither ovvrvyia nor =. occurs in N.T.; and rixy only once 
 or twice, ovrrvyia not once, in LX¥Y ° 2%ulte bone occasiones 
 latent sub his que fortuita videantur. Scriptura nil describit 
 temere ut fortuitum (Beng.). 
 
 iepeds tis kateBavev. This implies that he also was on his 
 way from Jerusalem. That he was going home after discharging 
 his turn of service, and that Jericho was a priestly city, like 
 Hebron, is conjecture. 
 
 dvriumapy\Gev. ‘Went by opposite to him.” A rare word; 
 here only in N.T. In Wisd. xvi. ro it has the contrary meaning, 
 “came by opposite to them” to help them; 76 éAeos ydp cov 
 dytizapnAGev kai idcaro aitovs. Comp. Mal. ii. 7-9. 
 
 82. The insertion of yevduevos before xara rév térov (A) makes Addy 
 belong to lédév, “‘ came and saw”: and thus the Levite is made to be more 
 heartless than the priest, whom he seems to have been following. The 
 priest saw and passed on; but the Levite came up to him quite close, saw, 
 and passed on. But BLXZ omit yevéuevos, while D and other authorities 
 omit €\@dy ; and it is not likely that both are genuine. Syr-Sin. omits one. 
 Most editors now omit yevéuevos, but Field pleads for its retention, and 
 would omit €A@éy (Otium Norozc. iii. p. 43). 
 
 83. Lapapeitys S€ ts 68edwr. A despised schismatic, in marked 
 sontrast to the orthodox clergy who had shown no kindness.} 
 Comp. xvii. 16; Jn. iv. 39-42. He is not said to be xaraBaivur: 
 he would not be coming from Jerusalem. 
 
 jdOev Kat adtév. “Came down upon him, or “where he 
 was,” or “towards him ” (Acts viii. 26, xvi. 7; Phil. iii. 14). The 
 fear of being himself overtaken by brigands, or of being suspected 
 of the robbery, does not influence him. “ Directly he saw him, 
 forthwith (aor.) he was moved with compassion.” See on vii. 13. 
 
 34. mpocehOdy. This neither of the others seems to have done: 
 
 1 Blunt sees here a possible coincidence. Christ may have chosen a 
 Samaritan for the benefactor, as a gentle rebuke to James and John for wish- 
 ing just before this to call down fire on Samaritans (ix. 54). See Undesigned 
 Coincidences, Pt. IV. xxxii. p. 300, 8th ed. : 
 
288 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 84, 35, 
 
 they avoided coming near him. He was half-unconscious, an¢ 
 they wished to get past without being asked to help. 
 
 kaTédnoev TA Tpatpata adTod émyxéwv Eavoy Kat oivoy. These 
 medical details would be specially interesting to Lk. ‘“ Bound up, 
 pouring on, as he bound, oil and wine.” Neither compound 
 occurs elsewhere in N.T. Comp. tpadua éorw xatadqoa (Ecclus. 
 XXVil. 21); and, for érvyéw, Gen. xxviii. 18; Lev. v. 11. Oil and 
 wine were recognized household remedies. The two were some- 
 times mixed and used as a salve for wounds. See evidence in 
 Wetst. Both rpatma and trpavparilw are pec. to Lk. 
 
 émBiBdoas dé adtovy émi 16 TS.ov KtAvos. The verb is peculiar 
 to Lk. in N.T. (xix. 35; Acts xxiii. 24), but classical and freq. in 
 LXX. Comp. émBiBdcare tov vidv pov Zudwpov ext THY Hlovov 
 tiv éunv (1 Kings 1. 33). Krivos (krdouar) is lit. “ property,” and 
 ‘so “cattle,” and especially a “beast of burden” (Acts xxiii. 245 
 t Cor. xv. 39; Rev. xviii. 13). The mav8oxetov was probably a 
 more substantial place of entertainment than a xardAvya: see on 
 il. 7. The word occurs here only in bibl. Grk., and here only is 
 stabulum used in the sense of “inn”: comp. stabularius in ver. 35. 
 It is perhaps a colloquial word (Kennedy, Sources of NV.T. Grk. 
 p. 74). Attic wavdoxetor. 
 
 35. émi thy atpiov. ‘* Towards the morrow,” as Acts iv. § and én) rhpy 
 Gpay Tis mpocevxfs (Acts ili. 1). Syr-Sin. has ‘‘at the dawn of the day.” In 
 Mk. xv. I some texts read él 7d rpwl. This use of él is rare. Comp. ém 
 tiv &w (Thue. ii. 84. 2). The éed@dyv after atpiov (AC) is not likely to be 
 genuine ; but it would mean that he went outside before giving the money, 
 to avoid being seen by the wounded man. 8 BDLX2 and most Versions 
 om... 
 
 éxBaday Svo Syvdpia. The verb does not necessarily imply 
 any violence: “having put out, drawn out,” from his girdle; not 
 “flung out”; comp. vi. 42; Mt. xii. 35, xill. 52. The two denarit 
 would equal about four shillings, although in weight of silver 
 much less than two shillings. See on vii. 41. 
 
 mpoodaravjons. ‘Spend in addition” to the two denarii. 
 Luc. Zp. Saturn. 39. From the Vulg. supererogaveris comes the 
 technical expression opera supererogationts. 
 
 éya év T@ émavépyecOal pe. The éys is very emphatic: “I, 
 and not the wounded man, am responsible for payment.” Note 
 the pres. infin. ‘While I am returning, in the course of my 
 
 -return journey”: see on iii. 21. The verb occurs elsewhere in 
 N.T. only xix. 15, but is classical and not rare in LXX. 
 
 36, 37. The Moral of the Parable. Christ not only forces the 
 lawyer to answer his own question, but shows that it has been 
 asked from the wrong point of view. For the question, “ Who is 
 my neighbour?” is substituted, ‘To whom am I neighbour? 
 Whose claims on my neighbourly help do I recognize?” All the 
 
X. 86, 87.]  JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 289 
 
 three were by proximity neighbours to the wounded man, and his 
 claim was greater on the priest and Levite; but only the alien 
 recognized any claim. The yeyovévat is very significant, and implies 
 this recognition: “decame neighbour, proved neighbour”: comp. 
 xix. 17; Heb. xi.6. “The neighbouring Jews became strangers, 
 the stranger Samaritan became neighbour, to the wounded traveller. 
 It is not place, but love, which makes neighbourhood” (Words- 
 worth). RV. is the only English Version which takes account of 
 yeyovevar : ; Vulg. Luth. and Beza all treat it as elvas. 
 
 87. “O moujoas 73 Edeos per adtod. The lawyer goes back to his 
 own question, ti roujoas; He thereby avoids using the hateful 
 name Samaritan: “He that showed the act of mercy upon him,” 
 the éeos related of him. Comp. woujoar éXcos peta TOV TaTépwv 
 qeav (i. 72), and éueyddvvey 7d cos aitrod pet airas (i. 58). 
 The phrase is Hebraistic, and in N.T. peculiar to Lk. (Acts xiv. 
 27, xv. 4): freq. in LXX (Gen. xxiv. 12; Judg. i. 24, viii. 35, etc.). 
 
 Nopevou kat od moter époiws. Either, “Go; thou also do like- 
 wise”; or, “Go thou also; do likewise.” Chrysostom seems to 
 take it in the latter way: zopevov civ, dyai, cal ov, Kal oie 
 épotws (xi. p. 109, B). There is a rather awkward asyndeton in 
 either case; but xai oJ must be taken together. Comp. Mt. 
 xxvi. 69; 2 Sam. xv. 19; Obad. 11. “Go, and do ¢how likewise” 
 would be zopevov kai zoiet ov Suoiws. Field, Ottum Norvic. iii? p. 
 44. Note the pres. imperat. “ Thou also habitually do likewise.” 
 It is no single act, but lifelong conduct that is required. Also 
 that cat fjon does not follow ofa, as in ver. 28; perhaps be- 
 cause the parable says nothing about loving God, which does not 
 come within its scope. It is an answer to the question, “Who is 
 it that I ought to love as myself?” and we have no means of 
 knowing that anything more than this isintended. Comp. vi. 31. 
 
 The Fathers delight in mystical interpretations of the parable. For 
 references and examples see Wordsw. Comm. in loco; Trench, Par. xvii. notes. 
 Such things are permissible so long as they are not put forward as the meaning 
 which the Propounder of the Parable designed to teach. That Christ Himself 
 was a unique realization of the Good Samaritan is unquestionable. That He 
 intended the Good Samaritan to represent Himself, in His dealings with fallen 
 humanity, is more than we know.? 
 
 88-42, §The Two Sisters of Bethany. That this incident 
 took place at Bethany can hardly be doubted. If the sisters had 
 not yet settled at Bethany, the place could hardly have been called 
 % «apn Mapias cai Map@as (Jn. xi. 1). Jesus is on His way to 
 
 1 Augustine’s attempt to prove the latter point is almost grotesque. The 
 Jews said to Christ, ‘‘ Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil” (Jn. viii. 48). 
 Jesus might have replied, ** Neither am I a Samaritan, nor have I a devil”: 
 
 ut He said only, ‘I have not a devil.” Therefore He admitted that He was 
 a Samaritan (Serm. clxxi. 2). 
 
 19 
 
290 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |X. 88, 39 
 
 or from a short visit to Jerusalem which Lk. does not mention. 
 He perhaps inserts it here as a further answer to the question, 
 “What must one do to inherit eternal life?” Mere benevolence, 
 such as that of the Samaritan, is not enough. It must be united 
 with, and be founded upon, habitual communion with the Divine. 
 - “The enthusiasm of humanity,” if divorced from the love of God, 
 is likely to degenerate into mere serving of tables. But the 
 narrative may be here in its true chronological position. It is 
 one of the most exquisite among the treasures which Lk. alone 
 has preserved ; and the coincidence between it and Jn. xi. with 
 regard to the characters of the two sisters, the incidents being 
 totally different, is strong evidence of the historical truth of 
 both.! 
 
 38. “Ev 8 74 topetecPar atdtots. ‘‘ Now during their journey- 
 ings”: see on ill. 21. As Lk. does not name the village, we may 
 conjecture that he did not know where this occurred. One does 
 not see how the mention of Bethany would have put the sisters 
 in danger of persecution from the Jerusalem Jews. If that 
 danger existed, the names of the sisters ought to have been 
 suppressed. 
 
 yur) 8é tis dvépate MdpOa dmeddéato aitév. She was evidently 
 the mistress of the house, and probably the elder sister. That she 
 was a widow, is pure conjecture. That she was the wife of Simon 
 the leper, is an improbable conjecture (Jn. xii. 1, 2). The names 
 Martha, Eleazar (Lazarus), and Simon have been found in an 
 ancient cemetery at Bethany. The coincidence is curious, what- 
 ever may be the explanation. Martha was not an uncommon 
 name. Marius used to take about with him a Syrian woman 
 named Martha, who was said to have the gift of prophecy (Plut. 
 Mar. 414). It means “lady” or “mistress”: xipva. For évépare 
 see on v. 27, and for Smodéxouar comp. xix. 6; Acts xix. 7; Jas. 
 ii. 29. The verb occurs nowhere else in N.T. 
 
 els tHv olkfav, This is probably the right reading, of which els révy 
 olkov avrjs is the interpretation. Even without airjs there can be little 
 doubt that Martha’s house is meant. 
 
 89. 4 Kal mapaxalecbeioa mpds tods mé8as. The xaf can hardly 
 be “even,” and the meaning “also” is not clear. Perhaps 
 “Martha gave Him a welcome, and Mary also expressed her 
 devotion in her own way,” is the kind of thought; or, “ Mary 
 joined in the welcome, and also sat at His feet.” The meal has 
 
 1 «But the characteristics of the two sisters are brought out in a very subtle 
 way. In St. Luke the contrast is summed up, as it were, in one definite incident ; 
 in St. John it is developed gradually in the course of a continuous narrative. 
 In St. Luke the contrast is direct and trenchant, a contrast (one might almost 
 say) of light and darkness. But in St. John the characters are shaded off, as 
 it were, into one another” (Lft. Bzb/cal Essays, p. 38). 
 
X. 39-41.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 291 
 
 not yet begun, for Martha is preparing it; and Mary is not 
 sitting at table with Him, but at His feet as His disciple (Acts 
 xxii. 3). For tod Kuptou see on v. 17 and vii. 13. The verb is 
 class., but the 1 aor. part. is late Greek (Jos. Avz. vi. 11. 9). Note 
 the imperf. jxovev: she continued to listen. 
 
 40. mepieonato. ‘Was drawn about in different directions, 
 distracted.” The word forms a marked contrast to zapaxaGec- 
 Oeica. Comp. Eccles. i. 13, iii. 10, v. 19; Ecclus. xli. 4. 
 
 émotaca dé eimev, Kipte. ‘And she came up and said”: see 
 on ii. 38. Cov. has “stepte unto Him.” Other Versions previous 
 to AV. have “stood.” The word perhaps indicates an impatient 
 movement. Her temper is shown in her addressing the rebuke to 
 Him rather than to her sister. Her saying 4 a8eh$7 pou instead of 
 Mapidp is argumentum quasi ab iniguo (Beng.), and pévny is placed 
 first for emphasis. The imperf. xatéAevwev expresses the continu- 
 ance of the neglect. The word does not imply that Mary began 
 to help and then left off, but that she ought to have helped, and 
 from the first abstained. 
 
 For etrrov . . - tva comp. Mk. iii. 9, and for dvriAauSdvw see oni. 54. 
 Here the meaning of ovvavr. is ‘‘ take hold along with me, help me.” Comp. 
 Rom. viii. 26; Exod. xviii. 22; Ps. Ixxxix. 22. See Field, Otsum Norvic. 
 fii. p. 44. 
 
 41. Mdp0a, Mdp0a, pepiuvas. The repetition of the name con- 
 veys an expression of affection and concern: xxii. 31; Acts ix. 4; 
 Mt. vii. 21. Comp. Mk. ix. 36; Rom. vili. 15 ; Gal. iv. 16, and 
 see on vill. 24.1 The verb is a strong one, “thou art anxious,” 
 and implies division and distraction of mind (sepifw), which 
 believers ought to avoid: Mt. vi. 25, 28, 31, 34; Lk. xii. 11, 22, 
 26; Phil. iv. 26. Comp. pépimva, vili. 14, xxi. 34, and especially 
 1 Pet. v. 7, where human anxiety (épiuva) is set against Divine 
 Providence (Ae). 
 
 kat OopuBdfy. “And art in a tumult, bustle.” The readings 
 vary much, and certainty is not obtainable, respecting the central 
 portion of Christ’s rebuke. The form @opvBafouar seems to occur 
 nowhere else: tup8alw is fairly common: epi tavtas tupBaleo Oat 
 (Aristoph. Pax. 1007). An unusual word would be likely to be 
 changed into a familiar one. In any case pepiurds refers to the 
 mental distraction, and the second verb to the external agitation. 
 Martha complains of having no one to help her ; but it was by her 
 own choice that she had so much to do. : 
 
 1 Repetitio nominis indicium est delectationis, aut movends intentionis ut 
 audiret intentius (Aug.). D doubles veavicxe in vii. 14. It is not serving, 
 but excess in it, that is rebuked; and this is not rebuked until Martha begins 
 to find fault with her sister. See Wordsw. It is characteristic of Mary that 
 she makes no reply, but leaves all to the Master. 
 
292 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X. 41, 42, 
 
 The difference between @opuBdfy (8 BC D L) and tupBdty (A P) is unim- 
 portant : the question is as to the words which ought to stand between Mdp@a 
 and Mapidy. As regards the first part the decision is not difficult. Nearly 
 all Greek MSS. have pepiuvds xal OopvBagy (or tupBdfy) wept wédAda after 
 Mdp@a, and have ydp or dé after Mapidu or Mapla. But on the evidence of 
 certain Latin authorities (ab e ff,i Amb.) the Revisers and WH. give a place 
 in the margin to OopvBdgy only after Mdp@a, with neither ydp nor dé after 
 Mapidu: and these same authorities with D omit all that lies between @opvu- 
 Bdgp and Mapidu, This curt abrupt reading may be rejected. It is less easy 
 to determine the second part. We may reject éAlywy dé éorw xpela, which 
 has very little support. Both this reading and évés 6é éorw xpela 
 (ACPI ATI) are probably corruptions of éAlywv dé dorw xpela 4 évds 
 (SBC?L). The last might be a conflate reading from the other two, if 
 the evidence did not show that it is older than éAlywv dé éoriw xpela: it is 
 found in Boh. and Aeth. and also in Origen. See Sanday, Ags. ad N.T. 
 p- 119. Syr-Sin. has ‘‘ Martha, Martha, Mary hath chosen for herself the 
 good part, which,” etc. 
 
 ddiywv 8€ éotw xpela 4H Evds. The dAtywv is opposed to zept 
 mwodAd, and évés has a double meaning, partly opposed to zepi 
 woAXd, partly anticipatory of the aya) pepis. There was no need 
 of an elaborate meal ; a few things, or one, would suffice! Indeed 
 only one portion was necessary ;—that which Mary had chosen. 
 Both xpeia and pepis are used of food; 7a zpos tHv xpetav being 
 necessaries as distinct from ra mpds tiv tpudyy. For pepis as a 
 “portion” of food comp. Gen. xliii. 34; Deut. xviii. 8; 1 Sam. 
 i. 4, ix. 23; Neh. viii. 12, xii. 47; Eccles. xi. 2. For pepis in the 
 higher sense comp. Kvpuos 7) pepis THs KAnpovopias pov (Ps. xv. 5). 
 See also Ps, Ixxiii. 26, cxix. 57, cxlii. 5; Lam. iii. 24; Ps. Sol. v. 6, 
 xiv. 3. 
 Neither é\lywy nor évés can be masc., because the opposition is to woA)d. 
 
 And if the meaning were ‘‘ Few Zeof/e are wanted for serving, or only one,” 
 we should require “ds, as only women are mentioned. 
 
 42. Mapidp ydp. Explanation of évés, and hence the yap. Not 
 many things are needed, but only one, as Mary’s conduct shows. 
 The dp (§ BL A) would easily be smoothed into 6¢ (A CP), or omitted 
 as difficult (D). Versions and Fathers support all three readings. WH. ane 
 RV. adopt dp. 
 thy dyabiy pepisa. “The good part.” No comparison is 
 stated ; but it is implied that Martha’s choice is inferior. In com- 
 parison with Mary’s it cannot be called “the good part,” or “the 
 one thing” necessary, although it is not condemned as bad. Her 
 distracting anxiety was the outcome of affection. Lae pars 
 Marthe non reprehenditur, sed Marie laudatur (Bede). Con- 
 firmata Marie immunitas (Beng.). Comp. Jn. vi. 27. 
 
 1 Comp. Lucian, ‘‘But what if a guest at the same table neglects all that great 
 variety of dishes, and chooses from those that are nearest to him one that suffices 
 for his need, and is content with that alone, without even looking at all the rest, 
 is not he the stronger and the better man?” (Cynic. 7). 
 
%. 42.] | JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 293 
 
 Atts odk GdatpeOycetat atts. ‘Which is of such a character 
 as not to be taken away from her.” Activa vita cum corpore deficit. 
 Quis enim in xterna patria panem esurienti porrigat, ubi nemo sitit? 
 quis mortuum sepeliat, ubi nemo moritur? Contemplativa autem hic 
 incipitur, ut in celesti patria perficiatur (Greg. Magn. in LEzech. 
 ii. 34). 
 
 The omission of the prep. before the gen. (N BDL, ez ae, #//¢ bilgq) is 
 unusial. Hence AC PIA etc. insert dx’ before airjjs (ad ea Vulg. f). 
 
 In this narrative of the two sisters in the unnamed village Lk. unconsciously 
 supplies historical support to the Johannine account of the raising of a 
 If that miracle is to be successfully discredited, it is necessary to weaken the 
 support which this narrative supplies. The Tiibingen school propose to resolve 
 it into a parable, in which Martha represents Judaic Christianity, with its trust 
 in the works of the Law; while Mary represents Pauline Christianity, reposing 
 simply upon faith. Or, still more definitely, Martha is the impulsive Peter, 
 Mary the philosophic Paul. But this is quite incredible. Even Lk. has not the 
 literary skill to invent so exquisite a story for any purpose whatever. And 
 Martha was not occupied with legal ceremonial, but with service in honour of 
 Christ. This service was not condemned: it was her excitement and fault-find- 
 ing that were rebuked. The story, whether an invention or not, is ill adapted 
 to the purpose which is assumed as the cause of its production. 
 
 XI. 1-18. §On Prayer. Lk. shows no knowledge of time or 
 place, and it is possible that the paragraph ought to be placed 
 earlier in the ministry. Mt. places the giving of the Lord’s Prayer 
 much earlier, in the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 5-15). Both 
 arrangements may be right. Christ may have delivered the Prayer 
 once spontaneously to a large number of disciples, and again at 
 the request of a disciple to a smaller group, who were not present 
 on the first occasion. But if the Prayer was delivered only once, 
 then it is Lk. rather than Mt. who gives the historic occasion 
 (Neander, De Wette, Holtzmann, Weiss, Godet, etc. See Page, 
 Expositor, 3rd series, vii. p. 433). Mt. might insert it to exemplify 
 Christ’s teaching on prayer. Lk. would not invent this special 
 incident. 
 
 The section has three divisions, of which the second and third 
 belong to the same occasion: the Lord’s Prayer (1-4) ; the Friend 
 at Midnight (5-8); Exhortation to Perseverance in Prayer (9-13). 
 
 1-4. The Lord’s Prayer. For abundant literature see Herzog, 
 PRE. iv. p. 772; Keim, Jes. of Naz. iii. p. 337. For the 
 liturgical use of the Prayer see D. Chr. Ant. ii. p. 1056; Kraus, 
 Real-Ence. a. Chr. Alt.i. p. 562. 
 
 Note the marks of Luke’s style: éyévero, év 7G efvat, elvar rpocevxo- 
 beevov, elwev tpds, elrev Sé, Td Kad’ Huépay, airol, ravyrl. The last 
 three, which are in the Prayer itself, point to the conclusion that at least some 
 of the differences in wording between this form and that in Mt. are due to Lk., 
 and that the form in Mt. better represents the original, which would be in 
 Aramaic. The differences cannot be accounted for by independent translation. 
 The Greek of the two forms is too similar for that, especially in the use of the 
 
204 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XL1,2 
 
 perplexing word émovo.os. Both Evangelists must have had the Prayer in 
 Greek. F. H. Chase supposes that the disciples adapted the Prayer for use on 
 special occasions, either by alterations or additions, and that doth forms exhibit 
 the Prayer as changed for liturgical purposes, émiovc.os being one of these later 
 features ( Zexts &° Studies, vol. i. No. 3, Camb. 1891). 
 
 - 1. mpoceuxdpevov. See Introd. § 6.i.b. That this was at dawn, 
 or at one of the usual hours of prayer, is conjecture. Nothing is 
 known of a form of prayer taught by the Baptist; but Rabbis 
 sometimes drew up such forms for their disciples. 
 
 2. eimev 8€ adrois. The disciple had said diagov pas, and 
 Jesus includes all in His reply. 
 
 After rpooetyno6e D inserts much from Mt. vi. 7, and in the Lat. has the 
 form multzloguentia for multzloguium : putant enim quidam quia in multilo- 
 quentia swa exandzentur, 
 
 Ndtep. There is little doubt that the texts of Lk. which give 
 the more full form of the Prayer have been assimilated to Mt. by 
 inserting the three clauses which Lk. omits.1 The temptation to 
 supply supposed deficiencies would be very strong ; for the copyists 
 would be familiar with the liturgical use of the longer form, and 
 would regard the abbreviation of such a prayer as intolerable. The 
 widespread omission is inexplicable, if the three clauses are genuine; 
 the widespread insertion is quite intelligible, if they are not. The 
 express testimony of Origen, that in the texts of Lk. known to him 
 the clauses were wanting, would in itself be almost conclusive ; and 
 about the second and third omitted clauses we have the express 
 testimony of Augustine also (Zzchir. cxvi.: see Wordsworth’s 
 Vulg. 2 Joco). Syr-Sin. has “Father, hallowed be Thy name. 
 And Thy kingdom come. <Axd give us the continual bread of every 
 vay. And forgive us our sins; azd we also, we forgive everyone 
 who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” A few 
 authorities, which omit the rest, add 7ué4v to Ilarep, and four have 
 sancte for noster (ac ff, 1). 
 
 In O.T. God is seldom spoken of as a Father, and then in 
 reference to the nation (Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixilil. 16; Jer. iii. 4, 19, 
 xxxi. 9; Mal. i. 6, ii. 10), not to the individual. In this, as in 
 many things, the Apocrypha links O.T. with N.T. Individuals 
 begin to speak of God as their Father (Wisd. ii. 16, xiv. 3 ; Ecclus. 
 Xxili. i. 4, li. 10; Tobit xiii. 4; 3 Mac. vi. 3), but without showing 
 
 1 For the details of the evidence see Sanday, 4f/. ad N.T. p. 119. In 
 general it is NBL, Vulg. Arm., Orig. Tert., which omit the clauses in ques- 
 tion ; but & is on the other side with regard to yevn@jTw 7d OéAnud cov, K.T.r. 
 Other authorities omit one or more of the clauses. Those which contain the 
 clauses vary as to the wording of the first two. ‘‘ Neither accident nor intention 
 can adequately account for such clear evidence as there is in favour of so large an 
 omission, if S. Luke’s Gospel had originally contained the clauses in question” 
 (Hammond, Zextual Criticism applied to N.T. p. 83, Oxford, 1890). 
 
XL 2,8] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 295 
 
 what right they have to consider themselves sons rather than 
 servants. Christ gave His disciples éfovcvay réxva cod yevéo Gat 
 (Jn. i. 12; comp. iii. 3; Rom. viii. 23; Gal. iv. 5). But we must 
 notice how entirely free from Jewish elements the Prayer is. It is 
 not addressed to the “Lord God of Israel,” nor does it ask for 
 blessings upon Israel. See Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 416. 
 
 dy.aoOjTo. “Let it be acknowledged to be holy, treated as 
 holy, venerated.” Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 15 ; Is. xxix. 23; Ezek. xx. 41, 
 XXXVili. 23; Ecclus. xxxili. (xxxvi.) 4. 
 
 +3 Svopd gov. A common expression in both O.T. and N.T. 
 It is not a mere periphrasis for God. It suggests His revealed 
 attributes and His relation to us. Comp. oi dyav@vres 70 dvopa 
 gov (Ps. v. 12); of yryvwoxovtes 76 Gvopd cov (Ps. ix. 11) ; od BeBy- 
 Adoes 70 Gvopa 76 ayov (Lev. xvili. 21). It is freq. in Ps. Sod. (v. 1, 
 Vii. 5, Vili. 31, ix. 18, xv. 4, etc.). Codex D adds to this petition 
 the words éq’ yas, szper nos, which may be an independent addi- 
 tion, or a survival of the petition for the coming of the Spirit of 
 which there are traces elsewhere.! 
 
 €Odtw  Bacideia cov. It is asserted that in bibl. Grk. Baou- 
 Aefa is the abstract noun, not of BactAc’s, but of xvpros, and should 
 therefore be rendered “dominion” rather than “kingdom.” Had 
 “kingdom” been meant, SaciAevov would have been more distinct, 
 a word current then, and still the only designation in modern 
 Greek. The petition therefore means, “Thy sway be extended 
 from heaven to this world (now ruled by the adversary), so as to 
 extirpate wickedness.” See A. N. Jannaris in Contemp. Rev. 
 Oct. 1894, p. 585. For Rabbinical parallels to these first two 
 petitions see Wetst. on Mt. vi. 9, 10. 
 
 For such mixed forms as é\@drw, which is specially common, see on i. 59. 
 
 8. From prayers for the glory of God and the highest good of 
 all we pass on to personal needs. 
 
 tov émovovov. We are still in ignorance as to the origin and 
 exact meaning of this remarkable word. It appears here first in 
 Greek literature, and is the only epithet in the whole Prayer. And 
 it is possible that in the original Aramaic form there was nothing 
 
 1 There is evidence from Tertullian (Adv. Mare. iv. 26), from Gregory 
 Nyssen (De Orat. Dom. ed. Krabinger, p. 60), and from an important cursive 
 (Cod. Ev. 604 = 700 Gregory), elaborately edited by Hoskier (1890), that the 
 Lord’s Prayer in Lk. sometimes contained a petition for the gift of the Spirit, 
 instead either of ‘‘Thy kingdom come” or of ‘‘Hallowed be Thy name.” In 
 Gregory and Cod. Ev. 604 the petition runs thus: "E\@érw 7d avedud cov [7d 
 dyov] ép’ juas Kal kabapicdrw judas ; but in Gregory 7d dyov is doubtfu’ This 
 addition may have been made when the Prayer was used at the laying on of 
 hands, and thus have got into some texts of Lk. Chase in 7exts & Studies, 
 i. 3, p. 28. The 颒 judas of D may have come from this addition. Comp. Zz 
 uns komme dein Rezch. 
 
296 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XL 3. 
 
 equivalent to it. The presence of the « (érovoros, not émovetos) 
 makes the derivation from éetvat, érdv, or éxi and ovoia very 
 doubtful. With Grotius, Scaliger, Wetstein, Fritzsche, Winer, 
 Meyer, Bishop Lightfoot, and others, we may suppose that évovczos 
 comes from ézudv, perhaps with special reference to 4 émodea, “ the 
 coming day.” The testimony of the most ancient Versions is 
 strongly in favour of the derivation from éméva: and of a meaning 
 having reference to ¢me, whether “of to-morrow,” or “that 
 cometh,” or “for the coming day,” or “daily,” ‘“ continual,” or 
 “for the day.” 
 
 Jerome found guotidianum as the translation both in Mt, and Lk. He sub- 
 stituted supersubstantzalem in Mt. and left guotedanwm in Lk., thus producing 
 a widespread impression that the Evangelists use different words. Cod. Gall. 
 has sapersubstantialem in Lk. See Lft. On a Fresh Revision of the N.T. 
 App. i. pp. 218-260, 3rd ed. For the other views see McClellan, Zhe W.7. 
 pp. 632-647. Chase confirms Lft., and contends that (1) This petition refers to 
 bodily needs ; (2) The epithet is temporal, not qualitative ; ; (3) The epithet is 
 not part of the original form of the petition, and is due to liturgical use ; (4) All 
 the phenomena may be reasonably explained if we assume that the clause origin- 
 ally was ‘*Give us our (ov the) bread of the day” (Zexts & Studzes, i. 3, 
 
 2-— 
 
 es aes contends that the word has nothing to do with time at all. He 
 points to the use in LXX of zrepiovatos in the sense of ‘‘ constituting a property” 
 (Exod. xix. 5; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18), as obviously coined from 7reptov- 
 ola, ‘* wealth, abundance,” for the translation of the Hebrew seguila, And he 
 interprets, ‘‘ Ask not for bread meptovatov, to be treasured up as wealth (segulla, 
 @noavpds), but for bread émovcvov, mere bread.” Accordingly the term €zov- 
 gos is a new formation coined for the purpose, on the analogy of, and as a direct 
 allusion and contrast to, meptovovos, that is, intended to imply the opposite 
 meaning. He considers that the formation 7epiovcies was apparently facilitated 
 by the existence of such words as ovotos, Exovcros, €fedovoros, and that it was 
 the existence of meprovovos which produced the form ézvocses instead of émrovatos. 
 So also in the main Tholuck. 
 
 Sisou jpiv. ‘Continually give to us,” instead of Sés in Mt. 
 The change of tense brings with it a corresponding change of 
 adverb: didov juiv 16 Kal” yyépay for dds Hiv onwepov: “ continually 
 give day by day” for ‘“‘ Give once for all to-day.” In N.T. 76 xa@” 
 np€pav is peculiar to Lk. (xix. 47; Acts xvii. 11). This fact and 
 the insertion of his favourite tavré with ddeiAovr, and the substi- 
 tution of his favourite kat atroé for kat jets with adéopuer, incline 
 us to believe that some of the differences between this form of the 
 Prayer and that in Mt. are due to Lk. himself. The petition in 
 Lk. embraces more than the petition in Mt. In Mt. we pray, 
 “Give us to-day our bread for the coming day,” which in the morn- 
 ing would mean the bread for that day, and in the evening the 
 bread for the next day. In Lk. we Pray, ss Continually give us 
 day by day our bread for the coming day.” One stage in advance 
 is asked for, but no more: “one step enough for me.” 
 
 D here has ovepov, and most Latin texts have odie. But Codd. A niat. 
 Gat. Turon. Germ. 2 support 76 xa’ 4uépay with cotzdze or quotzdie, 
 
JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 207 
 
 4. ras dpaptias jpav. Mt. has ra ddeAjpara ypor, and there 
 is reason for believing that Mt. is here closer to the Aramaic 
 original. - The é¢eidovr of Lk. points to this, and sy does rv 
 Spernv jpav in the Didaché (viii. 2). Anyone accustomed to LXX 
 would be likely to prefer the familiar dpes ras duaprias (Ps. XXiv. 18; 
 comp. Num. xiv. 19; Ex. xxxii. 32; Gen. 1. 17), even if iess literal. 
 Moreover, é¢eAnpwata would be more likely to be misunderstood 
 by Gentile readers. 
 
 kal yap adtol ddiowev. For this Mt. has as Kal ypets apnkapev. 
 The Old Syriac has the future in hoth Mt. and Lk., and in Lk. it 
 has what may be the original form of the petition : ‘e Remit to us, 
 and we also will remit.” ‘Tertullian seems to have had the future 
 in his mind when he wrote Deditoribus denique dimissuros nos in 
 oratione profitemur (De FPudic. ii.). If this is correct, dplopey is 
 closer to the original than ad¢yxayev is. But the connexion is the 
 same, whether we ask for forgiveness because we ave forgiven, or 
 because we do forgive, or because we w/// forgive. It was a Jewish 
 saying, Dies expiationis non expiationis donec cum proximtis in gratiam 
 vedierts. 
 
 The form d¢lw is found Mk. i. 34, xi. 16; Rev. xi. 9. Comp. cvvlw, Mt. 
 xiii. 13; WH. ii. App. p. 167. 
 
 mavtt opetdovte piv. Here the rots dderérars yudv of Mt. looks 
 more like the original form, as being simpler. The introduction 
 of zav7é is in harmony with Lk.’s usage: see on Vi. 30, Vii. 35, ix. 43. 
 
 eicevéyxys. ‘‘ Bring into.” The verb occurs five times in Lk. 
 (v. 18, 19, xii. 11 ; Acts xvii. 20) and thrice elsewhere (Mt. vi. 13 ; 
 1 Tim. vi. 7; Heb. xiii. 11) ; and everywhere, except in the Lord’s 
 Prayer, it is rendered in AV. by “bring,” not “lead.” Jn Lk. 
 eioayew is also very common (ii. 27, xiv. 21, xxii. 54; Acts vii. 45, 
 ix. 8, etc.). The latter word implies guidance more strongly than 
 cioéepew does. For examples of the petition comp. xxii. 40, 46; 
 Mk. xiv. 38; Mt. xxvi. 41. The inconsistency between this peti- 
 tion and Jas. i. 2 is only apparent, not real. This petition refers 
 especially to the internal solicitations of the devil, as is shown by 
 the second half of it, as given in Mt., “ but deliver us from the evil 
 one.” §, James refers chiefly to external trials, such as poverty 
 of intellect (i. 5), or of substance (i. 9), or persecution (ii. 6, 7). 
 Moreover, there is no inconsistency in rejoicing in temptations 
 when God in His wisdom allows them to molest us, and yet pray- 
 ing to be preserved from such trials, because of our natural weak- 
 ness. Aug. Zf. cxxi. 14, cxlv. 7, 8; Hooker, Zecles. Pol. v. 48. 13. 
 
 1 Gregory Nyssen goes so far as to make 6 metpag pos a name for the devil : 
 &pa 6 meipacuts Te Kal 6 movypods év Te Kal Kata Thy onpaclay éorl (De Orat. 
 Dom. v., Migne, xliv. 1192). So also Nilus, the friend and pepil of of Chrysose 
 tom : weipac ues pev éyerat Kal avrds 6 Sean (Zp. 1., Migne, lxxix. 573). 
 
298 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 4-6. 
 
 There is a very early Latin gloss on e os znducas which found its way into 
 the text of the Prayer itself. Qzzs on sinet nos deduct in temptationem ? asks 
 Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. iv. 26). Ne patiaris mos zxduct, or me passus fueris 
 induct nos, is Cyprian’s form (De Dom. Orat, xxv.). Augustine says, Multi pre- 
 cando tta dicunt, Ne nos patiaris znduct in temptationem (De Serm. Dom. ix. 30, 
 Migne, xxxiv. 1282; De Dono Persev. Migne, xlv. 1000). And several MSS. of 
 the Old Latin have these or similar readings (Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. ii. 
 Oxford, 1886, p. 32). Dionysius of Alexandria explains the petition as meaning 
 this: xal 6) kal ph eloevéyxns quads eis wetpacuov, Tovr’ €ott wh edzys Tuas 
 éumecety els mecpagudv (Migne, x. 1601). Evidently the idea of God’s leading 
 us into temptation was from early times felt to be a difficulty; and this gloss 
 may have been used first in private prayer, then in the liturgies, and thence have 
 found its way into Latin texts of the Gospels. 
 
 Jannaris contends that this is not a gloss, but a correct translation of the 
 Greek. He holds that in the time of Christ the active of this verb was fast 
 acquiring the force of the middle, and that elceveyxety = eloevéyxacOu, ‘‘to 
 have one brought into.” The petition then means, ‘‘ Have us not brought into 
 temptation.” And he suggests that the true reading may be the middle, elce- 
 véyxy, to which s has been added by a mistake. The evidence, however, is too 
 uniform for that to be probable. 
 
 There is yet another gloss, which probably has the same origin, viz. the 
 wish to avoid the difficulty of the thought that God leads us into temptation : 
 ne inducas nos in temptationem quam ferre non possumus (Jerome 22 Lzech, 
 xlviii. 16; comp. Hilary zz Ps. cxviii.). Pseudo-Augustine combines the 
 two: ze patiares nos induct in temptalionem quam ferre non possumus (Serm. 
 lxxxiv.). ‘‘ The fact that these glosses occur in writers who are separated from 
 each other in time and circumstance, and that they are found in Liturgies be- 
 longing to different families, shows very clearly that they must be due to very 
 early liturgical usage” (Chase, pp. 63-69). That Lk. omitted dda pioas 
 judas ard Tod movnpod because he saw that deliverance from the tempter is in- 
 cluded in preservation from temptation, is less probable than that this clause 
 was wanting (very possibly for this reason) in the liturgical form which he 
 gives. All authorities here, and the best authorities in Mt., omit the doxology, 
 which is no doubt a liturgical addition to the Prayer. See Treg. on Mt. 
 vi. 13. 
 
 5-8. §The Parable of the Friend at Midnight. This parable 
 is parallel to that of the Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8). Both of 
 them are peculiar to Lk., whose Gospel is in a special sense 
 the Gospel of Prayer; and they both teach that prayer must 
 be importunate and persevering. So far as they differ, the one 
 shows that prayer is never out of season, the other that it is sure 
 to bring a blessing and not a curse. 
 
 5,6. Tis é& tuav. The sentence is irregularly constructed: 
 1) the interrogative is lost in the prolongation of the sentence; 
 t the future (fe, wopevoerar) drifts into the deliberative subjunc- 
 tive (cir), which in some texts has been corrected to the future 
 (épc). Excepting Mt. vi. 27, ris é& tuév is peculiar to Lk. (xii. 
 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii. 7). Win. xli. 4. b, p. 357. Excepting Mk. 
 Xlll. 35, pecovuKtiov is peculiar to Lk. (Acts xvi. 25, xx. 7). In 
 the East it is common to travel by night to avoid the heat. 
 
 dire, xpiodv pot tpets dptous. As distinct from davetfw (“I 
 lend on interest” as a matter of business), xéxpn, which occurs 
 
XI. 6-11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 299 
 
 here only in N.T., is “I allow the use of” as a friendly act. There 
 is no need to seek any meaning in the number three. For tapa- 
 rlOnp of food comp. ix. 16; Mk. vi. 41, vill. 6. 
 
 7. Mn pou Komrous mdépexe. It is the trouble that he minds, not 
 the parting with the bread. When he has once got up (avaoras, 
 ver. 8), he gives him as much as he wants. For xémous wapéxewv 
 comp. Mt. xxvi. 10; Mk. xiv. 6; Gal. vi. 17; and for xézros see 
 Lft. Zpp. p. 26. 
 
 pet énov eis tHv Kolryv eloly. Prep. of motion after verb of rest; 
 comp. Mk. fii. 1], x. 10; Acts vili. 40: and plur. verb after neut. plur., 
 the persons being animate ; ule Bale x. 21; Mk. iii. 11, v. 13. Win. 1. 
 
 4. b, pp. 516, 518, lviii. 3. B, p 
 . eb kal, As distinct aes a el, ef kal implies that the supposition 
 
 is a fact, ‘‘although”: xviii. 45 2 Cor. xii. II, vil. 8; I Pet. iii. 14. For 
 él kal . - ye comp. xviii. 4, 53 Win. lili. 7. b, Pp. 554. 
 
 ov Bde. “« Will vefuse to rise and give.” The negative is part of the 
 verb and is not affected by the ef. Otherwise we should have had m7: xvi. 31, 
 xviii. 4; Rom. viii. 9; Mt. xxvi. 42; 1 Cor. vii. 9. The use is classical. 
 Soph. 47. 1131. Sinem, Lang. of N.T. p. 184; Win. lv. 2. c, p. 599. 
 
 dud ye. In N.T. ye is rare, except as strengthening other particles; 
 xviii. 5; 1 Cor. iv. 8: “At least because of.” 
 
 dveidiay. ‘Absence of aidws, shamelessness”; Ecclus. xxv. 
 22; here only in N.T. 
 
 9-18. Exhortation to Perseverance in Prayer, based on the 
 preceding parable and confirmed (11-13) by personal experience. 
 Mt. has the same almost verbatim as part of the Sermon on the 
 Mount (vii. 7-11). 
 
 9. Kay bpiv héyw. “also say to you”: the éydé is emphatic 
 by being expressed, the iuty by position; contrast ver. 8, and 
 see on xvi. 9. The parable teaches them; /esws also teaches 
 them. The parable shows how the urgent supplicant fared ; the 
 disciples may know how /Zey will fare. The three commands are 
 obviously taken from the parable, and they form a climax of in- 
 creasing earnestness. They are all pres. imperat. “ Continue 
 asking, seeking, knocking.” Comp. Jn. xvi. 24; Mt. xxi. 22; Mk. 
 xl. 24. 
 
 10. AapBdver . . . ebptoxer. The parallel with ver. 9 would 
 be more exact if these two verbs, as well as dvovryyoera, were 
 futures. But here, as in Mt. vii. 8, dvotyerat (BD) is possibly 
 the true reading 
 
 11. tov matépa. ‘As being his father.” Mt. has dv@pwzos, 
 “as a human being,” or (more simply) “person.” The construc- 
 tion is broken, and can scarcely be rendered literally. ‘Of which 
 of you as being his father will the son ask for a fish? Will he 
 for a fish hand him a serpent?” The question ought to have 
 continued, “and for a fish receive a serpent”; but the abrupt 
 change to the father’s side of the transaction is very emphatic. 
 
300 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 11-18. 
 
 For py interrog. when a negative reply is expected comp. v. 34, 
 — XVii. 9, Xxil - 35> : 3 : 
 
 ph émddce. Will he give over, hand to him”: xxiv. 30, 42; 
 Acts xv. 30. 
 
 The text is confused, and it is doubtful whether we ought to have two 
 pairs, as in Mt., or three. If two, they are not the same two as in Mt. 
 There we have the loaf and the stone with the fish and the serpent. Here 
 we have the fish and the serpent with the egg and the scorpion. But perhaps 
 before these we ought to have the loaf and the stone, although B and some 
 other authorities omit. The insertion from Mt., however, is more intelligible 
 than the omission. 
 
 12. cxopriov. x. 19; Rev. ix. 3, 9, 10; Deut. viii. 15; Ezek. 
 ii. 6. When its limbs are closed round it, it is egg-shaped. 
 Bread, dried fish, and hardboiled eggs are ordinary food in the 
 East. It is probable that some of these pairs, especially “a stone 
 for a loaf,” were proverbial expressions. ‘A scorpion for a fish,” 
 ayti mepkns oKoptiov, seems to have been a Greek proverb. The 
 meaning here is, that in answer to prayer God gives neither what 
 is useless (a stone) nor what is harmful (a serpent or scorpion). 
 
 18. movnpot smdpxortes. “Being evil from the first, evil 
 already”: much stronger than dytes “(Mt.). Lilustre testimonium 
 de peccato original (Beng.). See on vili. 41 and xxiii. 50. 
 
 Sopata. Mt. vii. 11; Eph. iv. 8; Phil. iv. 17. The word is 
 very freq. in LXX, where it represents ten different Hebrew 
 words. 
 
 6 é€ odpavod. Pregnant construction for 6 év otpdvw e& otpavod 
 Séce: comp. ix. 61; Col. iv. 16. Win. lxvi. 6, p. 784. With 
 the assurance here given comp. aireirw rapa tot Sidovros @cod racw 
 GOs kal pi) dvediLovros (Jas. i. 5). The change from émiddce 
 to ducer in both Lk. and Mt. is noteworthy: the idea of “hand- 
 ing over” would here be out of place. 
 
 mvedpa Gyiov. See on i. 15. Mt. has dyaa: One of the 
 latest maintainers of the theory that Lk. is strongly influenced by 
 Ebionism, remarks on this difference between Mt. and Lk., 
 “From this important deviation in Luke’s version of this passage 
 we learn that the course of thought is from the material to the 
 spiritual : ae mercies, even daily bread, are transcended 
 altogether. . This is one of the most important passages in 
 Iuke that can be cited in support of an Ebionite source for much 
 ot his Gospel.” This may well be correct: in which case the 
 t stal arnount of support is not strong. 
 
 D and some other authorities have dyafdv déua here. Hence various 
 sonflations: ,rvetua dyabdv (L8), bomum donum spiritus sancti (Aeth.). 
 From donum datum (bcd ff, ilr), bona data (aq), spzrztum bonum (Vulg.), 
 spiritum bonum datum (E), etc. Assimilation to the first half of the verse 
 ss the source of corruption. 
 
XI. 14-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 301 
 
 14-26. The Dumb Demoniac and the Blasphemy of the 
 Pharisees. Mt. xii. 22-30; Mk. ili. 19-27. 
 
 14. Saipdrov kwpdv. The demon is called dumb because it 
 made the man dumb: Mt. has rv@dAdv cai xwddv. When the 
 demon is cast out, it is the man who speaks, éAdAncev 6 kwdos. 
 For éyéveto see p. 45. 
 
 atpacay. Stupebant (a,il), obstupebant (b), stupuerunt (ff). 
 Mt. has éé’oravro. The combination of dumbness and blindness 
 with possession made them suppose that no exorcist could succeed 
 in suchacase. Probably the man was deaf also, so that there 
 seemed to be no avenue through which the exorcist could com- 
 municate with a victim who could neither see him, nor hear him, 
 nor reply to his manipulations. 
 
 15. twés S¢ e& attav eimay. This is very vague. Mt. says 
 ot @apicator, and Mk. still more definitely of ypapyparets ot dd 
 *IepoooAvpwv KataBdavtes. They had probably come on purpose to 
 watch Him and oppose Him. It was at Jerusalem about this time 
 that they had said, “Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil,” and, 
 “ He hath a devil, and is mad” (Jn. viii. 48, x. 20). 
 
 °Ev BeeLeBovA. “In the power of B.” The orthography, 
 etymology, and application of the name are uncertain. Here, vz. 
 18,19; Mt. x. 25, xli. 24, 27, NB have BeefeGovdA, and B has this 
 Mk. iii. 22. The word occurs nowhere else in N.T. and nowhere 
 at all in O.T. With the form BeeAfeBovA comp. Baad pviav 
 (2 Kings i. 2, 3, 6) and Mviav (Jos. Anz. ix. 2. 1) for Beelzebub = 
 “Lord of flies.” But BeedXfeBovB is found in no Greek MS. of 
 N.T., and the form See/zebub owes its prevalence to the Vulgate ; 
 but even there some MSS. have Jdee/zebu/. With the termination 
 -BovB the connexion with the Ekronite god of flies must be 
 abandoned. BeedfeBovA may mean either, ‘ Lord of the dwelling,” 
 z.e. of the heavenly habitation, or, “ Lord of dung,” z.e. of idolatrous 
 abomination. “Lord of idols,” “ Prince of false gods,” comes close 
 to “Prince of the demons.” JD.4.? art. “Beelzebub.” It is un- 
 certain whether the Jews identified Beelzebub with Satan, or 
 believed him to be a subordinate evil power. Unless xiii. 32 refers 
 to later instances, Lk. mentions no more instances of the casting 
 out of demons after this charge of casting them out by diabolical 
 assistance, 
 
 16. metpdfovres. The demand for a mere wonder to compel 
 conviction was a renewal of the third temptation (iv. 9-12). Comp. 
 Jn. it 18, vi. 50. 
 
 17. Ta Siavorjpata. “ Thoughts,” not “ machinations,” a mean- 
 ing which the word nowhere has. Here only in N.T., but freq. 
 in LXX and classical: Prov. xiv. 14, xv. 24; Is. lv. 9; Ezek. xiv 
 3, 4; Plat. Prot. 348 D; Sym. 210 D. 
 
 otkos émi otkov. Mt. xii. 25 and Mk. iii. 25 do not prove that 
 
302 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XxI. 17-20. 
 
 diapeptobeis is here to be’understood. In that case we should 
 expect éf éaurév or xa’ éavrod rather than ézi oixov. Comp. 
 mimrew emt Tl, Vill. 6, xiii. 4, xx. 18, xxiii. 30. It is better, with 
 Vulg. (domus supra domum cadet) and Luth. (em Haus fallet tiber 
 das andere), to keep closely to the Greek without reference to Mt. 
 xi. 25 or Mk. iii. 25. We must therefore regard the clause as an 
 enlargement of épyotrar: “house falleth on house”; or possibly 
 “house after house falleth.” Comp. vats te vi mpooémumre 
 (Thuc. ii. 84. 3). Wetst. quotes wipyou S& ripyos evérurrov 
 (Aristid. Rhodiac. p. 544). In this way Lk. gives one example, a 
 divided 2ingdom ; Mk. two, &ingdom and house ; Mt. three, £imgdom, 
 city, and house, 
 
 In class. Grk. éml after verbs of falling, adding, and the like is commonly 
 followed by the dat. In bibl. Greek the acc. is more common: Avrny éml 
 Avrnv (Phil. ii. 27); AlOos éml AiPov (Mt. xxiv. 2); dvoulay éml rhv dvoulav 
 (Ps. Ixviii. 28); dyyeAla éml dyyeNlav (Ezek. vii. 26). In Is. xxvili. 10 we 
 have both acc. and dat., OAlyuv él Oliv, Edrlda én’ edrlde. 
 
 18, ci 8é kai 6 Zatavds. Satan also is under the dominion of 
 the same law, that division leads to destruction. The fondness 
 of Lk. for 5¢ cai is again manifest: see on ili. 9. Contrast «i 
 kai in ver. 8. Here xai belongs to 6 Zar. and means “also.” 
 Burton, § 282. Mt. and Mk. here have simply xai i. 
 
 ott héyere. Elliptical: “Z use this language, because ye say,” 
 etc. Comp. Mk. iil. 30, and see on vii. 47. 
 
 19. An argumentum ad hominem. 
 
 oi viol Guay. First with emphasis. See Acts xix. 13 and Jos. 
 Ant. vill. 2. 5 for instances of Jewish exorcisms ; and comp. Azz. 
 vi. 8.2; B. J. vii. 6. 3; Tobit viii. 1-3; Justin M. Z7y. Ixxxv. ; 
 Apol. li. 6; 1 Sam. xvi. 14, 23. 
 
 20. <i Sé év SaxtUAw Ceod.! As distinct from the charms and 
 incantations used by Jewish exorcists, who did not rely simply 
 upon the power of God. Mt. has év zvevpatt @eod. Lk. seems 
 to be fond of Hebraistic anthropomorphisms: i. 51, 66, 73. But 
 it is not likely that “the fimger of God” indicates the ease with 
 which it is done. Comp. Exod. viii. 19, xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 10; 
 Ps. viii. 4. 
 
 épOacev ep tpas. In late Greek, PAdvw followed by a preposition 
 commonly loses all notion of priority or surprise, and simply means “‘ arrive 
 at, attain to”: Rom. ix. 31; Phil. iii. 16; 2 Cor. x. 14; 1 Thes. ii. 163 
 Dan. iv. 19. In 1 Thes. iv. 15 it is not followed by a preposition, and that 
 is perhaps the only passage in N.T. in which the notion of anticipating 
 survives. Here Vulg. and many Lat. texts have prevenzt, while a, has 
 antictpavit ; but many others have fervenzt, and d has adpropingquavit. 
 
 1 The éy after el 5€ (D) or after Geod (BC LR) is of doubtful authority: 
 in the one case it probably comes from ver. 19, in the other it may come fiom 
 Mt. xii. 28. 
 
XI. 21-23.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 303 
 
 21. Stav & icxupds KaQwmdtopévos. Here Lk. is very different 
 from Mt. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27, while they resemble one another. 
 “The strong one” is Satan, and the parable is very like Is. xlix. 
 24-26, which may be the source of it. Luther is certainly wrong 
 in translating, Wenn ein starker Gewapneter: xabwrhiopévos is an 
 epithet of 6 ioxvpds. Coverdale is similar: “a stronge harnessed 
 man.” RV. restores the much ignored article: “¢e strong man 
 fully armed.” 
 
 Thy éautod addnv. “His own homestead.” Mt. and Mk. have 
 oixtav. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 3, 58; Mk. xiv. 54, xv. 16; Jn. xviii. 15. 
 Meyer contends that in all these places avAy retains its meaning 
 of “court, courtyard,” as in Mt. xxvi. 69; Mk. xiv. 66; Lk. 
 xxii. 55. But there is no hint here that “our Lord encountered 
 Satan in the aiAy of the High Priest.” For 7a émdpxovta see on 
 Vili. 3: substantia ejus (d), facultates ejus (agC), ea que possidet 
 (Vulg.). Mt. and Mk. have ra oxevy. 
 
 22. érav 5é. Note the change from &rap with pres, subj. to érd» with 
 aor. sub., and comp. xpi) dé, Srav pév TiOjoAe Tovds véuous . . » ode, 
 érevdav dé Ona0e, puddtrew (Dem. p 525, 11); ‘‘ whenever you are enact- 
 ing... after you have enacted.” So here: ‘‘ Al] the while that the 
 strong man is on guard . . . but after a stronger has come.” In ver. 34 
 both 8ray and érdy have pres. subj.; in Mt. ii. 8 éwdy has aor. subj.; and 
 émdv occurs nowhere else in N.T. 
 
 icxupétepos abrod émehOdy. This is Christ: daexdvodpuevos ras 
 dpxas kal Tas eovaolus edevyndricey ev wappycia. OprapBeicas airovs 
 (Col. ii. 15). For érépxouar in a hostile sense comp. 1 Sam. 
 xxx. 23; Hom. //. xii. 136, xx. 91. See on i. 35. Here Mt. 
 and Mk. have «iocAOuv. 
 
 Thy TovoThiav atrod atper eh’ x émemot0e. Because it had been 
 so efficacious. Comp. Eph. vi. 11. 
 
 7a ok0Aa adtod. Bengel explains, gvz Satanas generi humano 
 eripuerat, identifying 74 oxdAa with 74 irdpxovra (ver. 21: comp. 
 Esth. iii. 13). But 7&4 oxdAa may be identified with ryv mwavorXiar. 
 In either case Christ makes the powers of hell work together for the 
 good of the faithful. Some who identify ra oxtAa with 7a tardpyovra 
 interpret both of the souls which Satan has taken captive, and 
 especially of demoniacs. Comp. rév ioxupSv pepret oxida (Is. lili. 12). 
 
 23. 6 ph dv pet épot Kat épot éotiv. Verbatim as Mt. xii. 30. 
 The connexion with what precedes seems to be that the contest 
 between Christ and Satan is such that no one can be neutral. 
 But that the warning is specially addressed to those who accused 
 Him of having Beelzebub as an ally (ver. 15), or who demanded 
 a sign (ver. 16), is less evident. See on ix. 50. 
 
 ouvdywv. Comp. iii. 17, xii. 17, 18. But the metaphor is 
 perhaps not from gathering seed and fruit, but from collecting a 
 flock of sheep, or a band of followers. Comp. owdye ods 
 
304. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI. 23-25. 
 
 éoxopmiopévous (Artem. Oxeir. i. 56. 1). Hillel had said, ‘“‘ Whoso 
 revileth the Name, his name perisheth; and whoso doth not in- 
 crease it, diminisheth,” 
 
 oxoptife, onic and Hellenistic for the more classical oxeddvyupu 3 
 comp. Jn. x. 12, xvi. 32; I Mac. vi. 54; 2 Sam, xxii. 15. 
 
 24-26. Almost verbatim as Mt. xii. 43-45, where see Alford. It 
 is not likely that there is any reference to the success of the Jewish 
 exorcists, as being only temporary, and leading to an aggravation 
 of the evil. The disastrous conclusion is the result, not of the 
 imperfect methods of the exorcist, but of the misconduct of the 
 exorcized. The case of a demoniac who is cured and then allows 
 himself to become repossessed is made a parable to illustrate the 
 case of a sinner who repents of his sins, but makes no effort to 
 acquire holiness. Such an one proves the impossibility of being 
 neutral. He flees from Satan without seeking Christ, and thus 
 falls more hopelessly into the power of Satan again. 
 
 24, tod dvOpdmov. “The man” who had been afflicted by it. 
 
 80 dvd8pwv téTwv. “Through wareriess places” (Tyn. RV.). 
 The wilderness is the reputed house of evil spirits; Tobit vili. 3, 
 where Vulg. has Angelus apprehendit demonium, et religavit tllud 
 in deserto superioris Aegypti. Comp. Bar. iv. 35; Lev. xvi. 10; Is. 
 Xiil. 21; Rev. xvill. 2.! 
 
 dvdmavow. Cessation” from wandering (Gen. vili. 9): the 
 demon seeks a soul to rest in. In LXX dvdravots is common of 
 the sabbath-rest: Exod. xvi. 23, xxill. 12; Lev. xxili. 3, etc. The 
 punctuation is here uncertain. We may put no comma after ava- 
 mavow and make pi) etpioxoy co-ordinate with {yrotv: “seeking rest 
 and finding none.” This necessitates a full stop at etpicxov and 
 the admission of rére before A¢ye. as genuine. But rére (8° BL 2) 
 is probably an insertion from Mt. xii. 44 (om. AC D R, Vulg. Aeth. 
 Arm.) ; and, if it be omitted, we must place a comma after ava- 
 mavow and take ju7) ebpioxov with A€ye. This is to be preferred. 
 
 pi) ciptoxor [téte] héyet. ‘‘ Because he doth not find it [then] he 
 saith.” 
 
 eis Tov otkov pou d0ev eéAOov. He still calls it “my house.” No 
 one else has taken it, and he was not driven out of it; he “ went 
 out.” No mention is made of exorcism or expulsion. 
 
 25. [cxoddfovra]. This also may be an insertion fr. Mt. but 
 the evidence is stronger than for tére (SS BCL RI, Aeth. flr). 
 Tisch. omits; WH. bracket the word. If it is genuine, it 1s 
 placed first as the main evil. It is “standing idle,” not occupied 
 
 1 See Gregory Nazianzen’s interpretation of ‘‘ waterless places” as the un- 
 baptized ; “‘dry of the divine stream” (Oration on Holy Baptism, xxxv. ; Post- 
 Nicene Library, vii. p. 373). For the application of the parallel to the Jews, 
 the Christian Church, and individuals, see Alford on Mt. xii. 44. : 
 
XI. 25-27.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 305 
 
 by any new tenant. The Holy Spirit has not been made a guest 
 in place of the evil spirit. 
 
 cecapwpevoy kal Kexoopnpevoy. Ready to attract any passer-by, 
 however undesirable. The three participles form a climax, and 
 perhaps refer to the physical and mental improvement in the man. 
 There is much for the demon to ruin once more, but there is no 
 protection against his return. He brings companions to share the 
 enjoyment of this new work of destruction, and to make it complete 
 and final. 
 
 The verb capbw (cdpov=“‘a broom”) is a later form of calpw, and occurs 
 again xv. 8. For xexoounuévov comp. Rev. xxi. 2. 
 
 26. wapohapBdver. Comp. ix. 10, 28, xviii. 31; Acts xv. 39. 
 Here again we have a climax. He brings additional spirits, more 
 evil than himself, seven in number. Comp. the seven that went 
 out from Mary of Magdala (viii. 2). Here in the best texts érra 
 comes last, in Mt. first. In either case the word is emphatic. 
 See Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xii. 43, Migne, cxx. 478. 
 
 eiveMMdvta katouet. ‘There is nothing to oppose them; “they 
 enter in and settle there,” taking up a permanent abode: xiil. 43 
 Acts i. 19, 20, il. 9, 14, iv. 16, etc. The verb is freq. in bibl. Grk., 
 esp. in Acts and Apocalypse. In the Catholic and Pauline Epp. it 
 is used of the Divine indwelling (Jas. iv. 5; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Eph. iii 
 17; Col. 1. 19, ii. 9). Contrast maporxety of a temporary sojourn 
 (xxiv. 18; Heb. xi. a; Gen. xxi. 23). In Gen. xxxvii. 1 both verbs 
 occur. 
 
 Xelpova tov mpdtwv. The expression is proverbial ; Mt. xxvii. 64. 
 Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 20; Heb. x. 29; Jn. v.14. Lk. omits the words 
 which show the primary application of the parable: Otrws éorat kat 
 TH yeved tatty 7H tovnpa. The worship of idols had been exorcized, 
 but that demon had returned as the worship of the letter, and with 
 it the demons of covetousness, hypocrisy, spiritual pride, uncharit- 
 ableness, faithlessness, formalism, and fanaticism. 
 
 27, 28. These two verses are peculiar to Lk., and illustrate his 
 Gospel in its special character as the Gospel of Women. Christ’s 
 Mother is once more declared by a woman to be blessed (i. 42), 
 and Mary’s prophecy about herself begins to be fulfilled (i. a 
 The originality of Christ’s reply guarantees its historical character. 
 Such a comment is beyond the reach of an inventor. 
 
 27. taita. Apparently this refers to the parable about the 
 demons. Perhaps the woman, who doubtless was a mother, had 
 had experience of a lapsed penitent in her own family. Bene senttt, 
 sed muliebriter loguitur (Beng.). For a collection of similar sayings 
 see Wetst. 
 
 émdpaca dwvyv. The expression is classical (Dem. De Cor. § 369, p. 
 323: comp. vocem tollit, Hor. A. P. 93); in N.T. it is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 
 20 
 
306 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TOU S. LUKE [x1. 27-29. 
 
 ii. 14, xiv. 11, mdi. 22). But it is not rare in LXX (Judg. ii. 4, ix. 7; Ruth 
 i. 9, 14; 2 Sam. xiii, 36). 
 
 Makapta 7 Kowhia, Mt. xii. 46 tells us that it was at this moment 
 that His Mother and His brethren were announced. The sight of 
 them may have suggested this woman’s exclamation. Lk. records 
 their arrival earlier (viii. 19-21), but he gives no connecting link. 
 Edersheim quotes a Rabbinical passage, in which Israel is repre- 
 sented as breaking forth into these words on beholding the Messiah : 
 “ Blessed the hour in which the Messiah was created ; blessed the 
 womb whence He issued ; blessed the generation that sees Him ; 
 blessed the eye that is worthy to behold Him” (Z. & 7. ii. p. 
 201). For cxotAéa = “womb” comp. i. 15, 41, 42, 44, ll. 21, Xxiil. 
 29; Acts ili. 2, xiv. 8. 
 
 28. Mevoiv. This compound particle sometimes confirms what 
 is stated, “yea, verily” ; sometimes adds to what is said, with or 
 without confirming it, but virtually correcting it: “yea rather,” 
 “that may be true, but.” Here Jesus does not deny the woman’s 
 statement, but He points out how inadequate it is. She has missed 
 the main point. To be the Mother of Jesus implies no more than a 
 share in His humanity. To hear and keep the word of God implies 
 communion with what is Divine. The saying is similar to vill. 21. 
 The relationship with Christ which brings blessedness is the spiritual 
 one. For tév Adyov tod Ocod see on Vill. II. 
 
 Here and Phil. iii. 8 some authorities have pevodvye (Rom. ix. 20, x. 18); 
 but in N.T. ev ody is more common (Acts i. 18, v. 41, xiil. 4, XVii. 30, xxili. 
 22, xxvi. 9). In class Grk. neither form ever comes first in a sentence. Of 
 the Lat. text Wordsworth says, Codces hic tantum variant quantum vix alibe 
 in evangelits in uno saltem vocabulo (Vulg. p. 388). Among the renderings 
 are quippe enim, quippini, guinimmo, immo, manifestissime, etiam. Many 
 omit the wor 
 
 kal duddcoovtes. Comp. Jas. i. 22-25. S. James may have 
 been present and heard this reply. He also says paxdpuos is the 
 man who hears and does tov Adyor. 
 
 29-36. The Rebuke to those who Demanded a Sign (ver. 16). 
 A longer account of the first half of the rebuke is given Mt. xii. 
 39-42. 
 
 29. Tav 8 Sxdwv erraporLopévwv. Lk. once more notes how the 
 rultitude was attracted by Christ’s words and works: comp. ver. 
 27, lv. 42, V. I, Vi. 17, Vil. II, Vill. 4 19, 40, 1%. 11, 37, K0emuegee 
 XIV. 25, XV. I, xVili. 36, xix. 37, 48. The verb is a rare compound ; 
 here only in bibl. Grk. For fpgato A€yew see on iv. 21 and iii. 8. 
 To wovnpa Mt. adds xat porxaris. 
 
 ei 7) TO onpetoy “lava. At first sight Lk. appears to make the 
 parallel between Jonah and Christ to consist solely in their preach- 
 ing repentance. He omits the explanation that Jonah was a type 
 of the burial and resurrection of Christ. But do6jcerar and éorat 
 show that this explanation is implied. Christ had for long been 
 
XI. 29-32.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 307 
 
 preaching ; yet He says, not that sign has been given or is being 
 given, but that it sza// be given. The infallible sign is still in the 
 future, viz. His resurrection. Nevertheless, even that ought not 
 to be necessary ; for His teaching ought to have sufficed. Note 
 the emphatic repetition of oypetov thrice in one verse.? 
 
 Some have interpreted onpetoy ov dofjoerar as meaning, either 
 that Jesus wrought no miracles, or that He refused to use them as 
 credentials of His Divine mission. It is sufficient to point to ver. 
 20, where Jesus appeals to His healing of a dumb and blind de- 
 moniac as proof that He is bringing the kingdom of God to them. 
 The demand for a sign and the refusal to give it are no evidence as 
 to Christ’s working miracles and employing them as credentials. 
 What was demanded was something quite different from wonders 
 such as Prophets and (as the Jews believed) magicians had wrought. 
 These scribes and Pharisees wanted direct testimony from God 
 Himself respecting Jesus and His mission, such as a voice from 
 heaven or a pillar of fire. His miracles left them still able to doubt, 
 and they ask to be miraculously convinced. This He refuses. See 
 Neander, Z. /. C. § 92, Eng. tr. p. 144. 
 
 81. Baci\tcoa votov. Lk. inserts this illustration between the 
 two sayings about Jonah. Mt. keeps the two sayings about Jonah 
 together. Lk. places the Ninevites after the Queen of Sheba either 
 for chronology, or for effect, or both: their case was the stronger of 
 the two. There is a threefold contrast in this illustration: (1) be- 
 tween a heathen queen and the Jews; (2) between the ends of the 
 earth and here; (3) between Solomon and the Son of Man. There 
 may possibly be a fourth contrast between that enterprising woman 
 and the men of this generation implied in tév avipav, which is not 
 in Mt. 
 
 voTou . . . €k TOv Tepdtwy THS yis- Sheba was in the southern 
 part of Arabia, the modern Yemen, near the southern limits of the 
 world as then known. Comp. Ps. ii. 8. 
 
 thetov Zohouavos. There is no need to understand oypeiov: “a 
 greater thing, something greater, than Solomon.” 
 
 82. dvBpes Nuvevetrar. No article: “Men of Nineveh.” RV. 
 retains “‘ Ze men of Nineveh.” 
 
 eis TO Kypuypa. “Jn accordance with the preaching” they re- 
 pented; ze. they turned towards it and conformed to it; comp. 
 eCwypnuevor tx adrod eis 76 éxetvov OéAnua (2 Tim. ii. 26); or else, 
 “out of regard t it” they repented; comp. otrwes éAdBere tov 
 
 1 Sanday inclines to the view that Mt. xii. 40 ‘‘is a gloss which formed no 
 eae of the original saying, but was introduced, very naturally though erroneously, 
 y the author of our present Gospel” (Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 433). On 
 the question whether Christ’s appeal to Jonah requires us to believe that the 
 story of the whale is historical see Sanilay’s Bampton Lectures, pp. 414-4193 
 Gore’s Bampton Lectures, 1891, pp. 195-200; with the literature there quoted, 
 
308 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 82-35, 
 
 vouov els Siarayas ayyéAwy (Acts vii. 53); 6 Sexdmevos Sik uov eis 
 6voya. Sixaiov (Mt. x. 41). See on x. 13; and for kypvypa, as 
 meaning the subject rather than the manner of preaching, see Lft. 
 Votes on Epp. p. 161. 
 
 33-36. The Light of the inner Eye. There is no break in the 
 discourse, and this should hardly be printed as a separate section: 
 the connexion with what goes before is close. Christ is still con- 
 tinuing His reply to those who had demanded a sign. Those 
 whose spiritual sight has not been darkened by indifference and 
 impenitence have no need of a sign from heaven. Their whole 
 soul is full of the light which is all around them, ready to be re- 
 cognized and absorbed. ‘This saying appears to have been part of 
 Christ’s habitual teaching. Lk. gives it in a rather different form 
 after the parable of the Sower (viii. 16-18). Mt. has it as part of 
 the Sermon on the Mount (v. 15, vi. 21, 22), but does not repeat 
 it here. Mk. has a portion of it after the parable of the Sower 
 (iv. 21). See S. Cox in the ZxZositor, 2nd series, i. p. 252. 
 
 833. Adxvov &pas. See on vill. 16.—eis kpimmv. “Into a vault, 
 crypt, cellar.” But no ancient Version seems to give this render- 
 ing, although Euthym. has ri déxpudov oikiav. Win. xxxiv. 3. 
 b, p. 298. For the word comp. Jos. &. /. v. 7. 4; Athen. v. (iv.) 
 205 A; and the Lat. crxypta; Suet. Cad. lvili.; Juv. v. 106. 
 
 id tov podiov. ‘Under ¢ke bushel,” ze. the one in the room, 
 or in the house; as we say “‘¢he sofa, the shovel.” In capacity a 
 modius is about a peck=16 sextarit or } pedysvos (comp. Nep. 
 Aft. ii.): elsewhere only Mt. v. 15; Mk. iv. 21. 
 
 84. 6 Adxvos Tod capatos. ‘The /amp of the body.” To trans- 
 late Avxvos “candle” in ver. 33 and “light” in ver. 34 (Tyn. Cov. 
 Cran. Gen. AV.) is disastrous. Vulg. has /ucerna in both; Wic. 
 has “lanterne” in both, and Rhem. “candel” in both; RV. still 
 better, “lamp” in both. 
 
 érav . . . émav. See on ver. 22. Here both are followed by the pres. 
 subj., and there is no appreciable difference. 
 
 Gm\ots. “Free from distortion, normal, sound.”—ovnpds. 
 “Diseased”: zovnpia 6¢6aApav occurs Plat. Hip. min. 374 D. 
 Comp. movnpa eis cwpatos (Plat. Zim. 86 D) and the common 
 phrase zovypds éxye. Faith, when diseased, becomes the darkness 
 of superstition ; just as the eye, when diseased, distorts and ob- 
 scures. Comp. Mt. vi. 22, 23. 
 
 35. ondmet odv. Here, and not in the middle of ver. 34, the 
 meaning passes from the eye of the body to the eye of the soul.! 
 
 pi) TO pas TO ev col oxdtos éotiv. This happens when the eye 
 of the soul is so diseased that it cannot receive any ray of Divine 
 
 1 Comp. Seneca, Zffugisse tenebras, bono lucis fru, non tenut visu clara 
 prospicere, sed totum diem admitter. 
 
XI. 35-89.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 309 
 
 truth. The py is interrogative, and the indicative after it suggests 
 that the case contemplated is an actual fact: “look whether it be 
 not darkness” ; considera num, schaue ob wohl nicht. The vide ne 
 of Vulg. is not exact. Comp. Gal. iv. 11; Thuc. iii 53. 2, Win. 
 lvi. 2. a, p. 631; Simcox, Zang. of V.T. p. 109. 
 
 86. The tautology is only apparent. In the protasis the em- 
 phasis is on ddor, which is further explained by ui Exov pépos Tt oxo- 
 zwov: in the apodosis the emphasis is on éwtwév, which is further 
 explained by as 6rav 6 Avxvos, x.7.X. “If thy whole body... it 
 shall be wholly fué/ of light.” Complete illumination is illumina- 
 tion indeed, and those who possess it have no need of a sign from 
 heaven in order to recognize the truth. 
 
 37-54. § The Invitation from a Pharisee. Christ’s Denuncia- 
 tion of Pharisaic Formalism and Hypocrisy. A similar condemna- 
 tion of the Pharisees is placed by Mt. somewhat later, and is given 
 with great fulness (xxiii.). If these sayings were uttered only once, 
 we have not much material for determining which arrangement is 
 more in accordance with fact. See on ver. 54. 
 
 37. "Ev 3¢€ 7@ Aadfjoa. “Now after He had spoken” (aor.), 
 rather than “ As He spake” (AV. RV.). See on iii. 21. There 
 is nothing to show that the invitation was the result of what Christ 
 had just been saying. Indeed, there may have been a consider- 
 able interval between vz. 36 and 37. 
 
 Smws dptomon. Here, as in Jn. xxi. 12, 15, the early meal of 
 breakfast or lunch is meant rather than dinner or supper: comp. 
 xiv. 12; Mt. xxii. 4. At this time the first meal of all was called 
 axpaticpa. Bekker, Charicles, vi. excurs. i., Eng. tr. p. 240. 
 
 88. eOadpacev. We are not told that he expressed his surprise. 
 Jesus read his thoughts and answered them. Jesus had just come 
 from contact with the multitude, and, moreover, He had been 
 casting out a demon; and the Pharisee took for granted that He 
 would purify Himself from any possible pollution before coming 
 to table. This was not enjoined by the Law but by tradition, 
 which the Pharisees tried to make binding upon all (Mk. vii. 3). 
 This man’s wonder is evidence that his invitation was not a plot to 
 obtain evidence against Jesus: he was not expecting any trans- 
 gression. 
 
 éBartic®). This need not be taken literally of bathing. Prob- 
 ably no more than washing the hands is meant; and this often 
 took place at table, the servants bringing water to each person. 
 Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. pp. 204-207. We may understand Christ’s 
 omission to wash before coming to table, or refusal of the water 
 offered to Him at table, as a protest against the attempt to “bind 
 burdens” upon men, and to substitute trivialities for the weightier 
 matters of the Law. Comp. Derenbourg, His¢. de. la Pal. p. 134. 
 
 39. eimev S€ 6 Képios. The use of 6 Kuipios here (see on v. 17 
 
310 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (XI. 39-41. 
 
 and vii. 13) perhaps has special point. The Pharisee might regard 
 Him as an ordinary guest; but He has a message to deliver to 
 him. 
 
 Nov. The meaning is not certain; but it probably refers to 
 time, and is not merely concessive. “It was not so formerly, but 
 this is the fact now.” Comp. 2 Cor. vil. 9 and Col. i. 24, where 
 see Lft. Or, ‘Here we have a case in point.” Comp. 2 Kings 
 vii. 6. Or, “ This is what you as a matter of fact do,” in contrast 
 to what you ought to do—zAny 7a évovta Odre. With the whole 
 saying comp. Mt xxiii. 25. For mivaxos Mt. has zapoyidos: comp. 
 Mk. vi. 25; Mt. xiv. 8. 
 
 76 Sé EowSev budv. Here the outside of the cup and platter is 
 contrasted with the hearts of the Pharisees. In Mt. the point is 
 that the outside of the vessels is kept clean, while the meat and 
 drink in them are the proceeds of rapacity and the means of 
 excess (dkpacias). Comp. év moxiAia ayaptidv kat axpacias (Ps. 
 Sol. iv. 3): amantes convivia devoratoresgule (Assump. Moys. 
 vii. 4). Here some make 76 éowfev mean the inside of the vessels, 
 and take ipdv with dprayjjs x. rovnpias. But the position of tydv 
 is conclusive against this. Others make 76 écwfev tjydv mean 
 “‘your inward parts” in the literal sense. “You can keep the 
 vessels from polluting the food; but that will not prevent the food, 
 which is already polluted by the way in which it was obtained, 
 from filling you with uncleanness.” But this is not probable. 
 For Jewish trifling about clean and unclean vessels see Schoettg. 
 and Wetst. on Mt. xxiii. 25, 26; and for the moral sterility of such 
 teaching, Pressensé, Le Svécle Apostolique, p. 90. 
 
 40. ddpoves. A strong word: quite classical, but in N.T. 
 almost confined to Lk (xii. 20) and Paul (Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. 
 XV. 353 2 Cor. xi. 16, 19, xii. 6, 11; Eph. v. 17. See on xxiv. 25). 
 
 ouK 6 Toincas TO efwbev. This is almost certainly a question. 
 “Not he who has done the outside has thereby done the inside,” 
 makes sense, but it is harsh and hardly adequate. It is better with 
 most Versions to make otk=zonne. “Did not God, who made 
 the material universe, make men’s souls also?”! It is folly to be 
 scrupulous about keeping material objects clean, while the soul is 
 polluted with wickedness.? 
 
 41, zhiv Ta Evovta Sdte EXenpoodvynv. The why is here expans- 
 
 1 We may get the same sense from the text of C DI and some cursives, 
 which transpose éw6ev and éow6ev. So also from some Latin texts: nonne qué 
 fecit interiora et exteriora fecit (a), quz fecet quod intus est et quod forss est (ce). 
 
 Ergo miser trepidas, ne stercore feda canino 
 
 Atria displiceant oculss venientis amici, 
 
 Ne perfusa luto sit portecus : et tamen uno 
 
 Semodio scobis hxe emundat servulus unus. 
 
 Tilud non agitas, ut sanctam filius omni 
 
 Adspiciat sine labe domum vitioqgue carentem (Juv. xiv. 64). 
 
XI. 41-43.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 311 
 
 ive and progressive, “only.” See on vi. 24. The meaning of 
 7a €vovra is much disputed, and the renderings vary greatly: guz 
 sunt (bd g); ex his qux habetis (f); quod superest (Vulg.); ea que 
 penes vos sunt (Beza) ; guantum potestis (Grot.) ; von dem, das da ist 
 (Luth.). Quod superest is impossible ; and the others are not very 
 probable. Nor is it satisfactory to follow Erasmus, Schleiermacher, 
 and others, and make the saying ironical : ‘‘ Give something to the 
 poor out of your luxuries, and then (as you fancy) all your dpray7j 
 and zovypia will be condoned.” According to this ra évovra means 
 either what is in the cups and platters, or what is in your purses. 
 And this is perhaps right, but without irony. ‘The contents of 
 your cup and platter give ye in alms, and, lo, all things are clean 
 to you,” #.e. benevolence is a better way of keeping meals free 
 from defilement than scrupulous cleansing of vessels. We are 
 told that this is “‘a peculiarly Ebionitic touch.” But it is very good 
 Christianity. Others make 74 é&vovra = 7d écwSev: “ As for that 
 which is within you, as for the care of your souls, give alms.” See 
 Expositor, 2nd series, v. p. 318. Or, “Give your souls as alms,” 
 #.¢. give not merely food or money, but your heart. Comp. dds 
 mewv@vtt Tov aprov ék Wuy7s cov (Is. lviii. 10). In any case, ravra 
 refers specially to the vessels used at meals. Zzey will not defile 
 where benevolence prevails. With the passage as a whole comp. 
 Mk. vii. 18, 19 and the Baptist’s commands (LK. iii. 11). 
 
 42. ada odai Sutv. “ But, far from acting thus and obtaining 
 this blessing, a curse is upon you.” Rue is mentioned in the 
 Talmud as a herb for which no tithe need be paid. 
 
 mapépxeoe. “Ye pass by, neglect”: comp. xv. 29; Deut. 
 xvii. 2; Jer. xxxiv. 18; Judith xi. 10; 1 Mac. il. 22. Elsewhere 
 in N.T. it means “pass by” literally (xviii. 37; Acts xvi. 8), or 
 “‘pass away, perish” (xvi. 17, xxi. 32, 33, etc.). Here Mt. has 
 adiKere, 
 
 thy kpiow. “The distinction between right and wrong, recti- 
 tude, justice.” This use of xpiots is Hebraistic; comp. Gen. 
 XVili. 19, 25 ; Is. v. 7, lvi. 1, lix. 8; Jer. xvii. 11 ; 1 Mac. vii. 18. 
 
 Thy G&ydany tod Geod. Here only does Lk. use the word dydzn, 
 which occurs once in Mt. (xxiv. 12), and not at allin Mk. It is 
 fairly common in LXX, esp. in Cant. (ii. 4, 5, 7, etc.). 
 
 kdketva pi) wapetvat. Their carefulness about trifles is not con- 
 demned, but sanctioned. It is the neglect of essentials which is 
 denounced as fatal. It is not correct to say that Christ abolished 
 the ceremonial part of the Law while retaining the moral part: see 
 Hort, /udaistic Christianity, pp. 30, 31. 
 
 43. dyanGte thy tpwroKabedpiav. “Ye highly value (Jn. xii. 43) 
 the first seat.” This was a semicircular bench round the ark, and 
 facing the congregation. Edersh. Z. & TZ. i. p. 436. Comp. 
 xx. 46; Mt. xxii. 6; Mk. xii. 39. 
 
312 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 43-47. 
 
 Some Latin texts agree with C D in adding to this verse et przmos discubi- 
 tos in convivits (bl qr), or et prémos adcubitos zn cenzs (d). 
 
 44, éoté Ss TO pvynpeta Ta Gdyda. “Whosoever in the open 
 field toucheth a grave shall be unclean seven days” (Num. xix. 16). 
 Hence the Jews were accustomed to whitewash such graves to 
 make them conspicuous. People mixed freely with Pharisees, 
 believing them to be good men, and unconsciously became infected 
 with their vices, just as they sometimes walked over a hidden grave 
 and were polluted without knowing it. In Mt. xxiii. 27 the 
 Pharisees are compared to the whitewashed graves, which look 
 clean and are inwardly foul. 
 
 45. tdv vopxdv. See on vii. 30. Not all the Pharisees were 
 professional students (voyuKo/), or teachers of the Law (vopodidae- 
 kaAot). 
 
 kal jas bBpifers. “Thou insultest even us,” the better in- 
 structed among the Pharisees. ‘The verb implies outrageous treat- 
 ment (xviii. 32; Acts xiv. 5; Mt. xxii. 6; 1 Thes. ii. 2), and 
 “reproachest” is hardly strong enough. Comp. évuBpilew (Heb. 
 x. 29). In class. Gk. i@piZew is commonly followed by eis, esp. in 
 prose. ‘ Reproach” would be évediZew (Mt. xi. 20). 
 
 46. There is a triplet of Woes against the lawyers (vv. 46, 47, 
 52), as against the Pharisees (42, 43, 44). With this first Woe 
 comp. Mt. xxii. 4. In both passages goprioy occurs ; and, as dis- 
 tinct from Bapos and dyxos, it means that which a man is expected 
 to bear (Mt. xi. 30). But Lk. shows his fondness for cognate 
 words by writing foprilere Pdptia, while Mt. has deopevovow 
 gopria. See on xxiii. 46. 
 
 SucBdotaxta. Prov. xxvii. 3. The word probably occurs here 
 only in N.T., and has been inserted Mt. xxiii. 4 from here. The 
 reference is to the intolerably burdensome interpretations by which 
 the scribes augmented the written Law. They made it far more 
 severe than it was intended to be, explaining every doubtful point 
 in favour of rigorous ritualism. 
 
 od mpoowavete. Touching with a view to removing seems to be 
 meant ; but it may indicate that, while they were rigorous to others, 
 they were evasive themselves. They were scrupulous about their 
 own traditions, but they did not keep the Law. It is not admis- 
 sible, however, to interpret tots gopriots in a different way from 
 doptia dvaBdaoraxra, making the latter refer to traditions, and rtois 
 dopriots to the Law. Both mean the same, the force of the article 
 being “the opria just mentioned.” Seeing that the vop.Kxot were 
 not neglectful of traditions, rots doprious must mean the Law; and 
 therefore ¢opria Sve Bdcraxra must have this meaning. 
 
 47. Comp. Mt. xxiii. 30; Acts. vil. 52. 
 
 OikOSopEtTE TA ypELA TOV TpopyTav ot Sé warépes Spdv. “ Ve 
 
 build the tombs of the prophets, w/z/e your fathers.” The “Tombs 
 
XI. 47-49.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 313 
 
 of the Prophets,” near the top of the Mount of Olives, are still “an 
 enigma to travellers and antiquarians.” All that can safely be 
 asserted is that they are not the “ tombs of the prophets” mentioned 
 here. Robinson, Res. im fal. iil. p. 254. 
 
 48, pdptupés éote kal cuveuSoxeite. “‘ Ye are witnesses and con- 
 sent to”; or, ‘ Ye bear favourable witnesses to and approve”: not, 
 “Ve bear witness ‘Aa¢ ye approve.” Mt. has papzupetre only 
 (xxiii. 31), which some texts introduce here (AC D). Comp. Saul, 
 who was ovvevooxay to the murder of Stephen (Acts viii. 1). The 
 dpa. as first word is not classical: comp. Acts xi. 18. 
 
 tv ratépwy Spay. “ Your fathers, morally as well as actually ; 
 for you carry on and complete their evil deeds.” Externally the 
 Pharisees seemed to honour the Prophets. Really they were dis- 
 honouring them as much as those did who slew them; for they 
 neglected the duties which the Prophets enjoined, and ignored 
 their testimony to Christ. 
 
 49, 81a todro kai. “Because of your complicity with your 
 fathers’ murderous deeds, there is this confirmation of the Woe 
 just pronounced.” Comp. Mt. xxiii. 34. 
 
 i] copia Tod Ocod eimev “Amooteko. The words which are here 
 ascribed to the “ Wisdom of God” are in Mt. xxiii. 34 Christ’s own 
 words, spoken on a later occasion. It is improbable that Christ is 
 here quoting what He said on some previous occasion. Nowhere 
 does He style Himself “the Wisdom of God”; nor does any 
 Evangelist give Him this title; nor does @eod codiav or codia az 
 @cod (1 Cor. i. 24, 30) warrant us in asserting that this was a 
 common designation of Christ among the first Christians, so that 
 tradition might have substituted this name for the éyé used by 
 Jesus. That He is quoting from a lost book called ‘The Wisdom 
 of God” is still less probable.?_ Written words would be intro- 
 duced with Aéyec rather than «fev, and the context seems to imply 
 some Divine utterance. In the O.T. no such words are found; 
 for Prov. i. 20-31 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22, xxxvi. 14-21 are quite 
 inadequate. And we obtain nothing tangible when we make the 
 passage “a general paraphrase of the fenor of several O.T. pas- 
 sages.” Rather it is of the Divine Providence (Prov. viii. 22-31), 
 sending Prophets to the Jewish Church and Apostles to the 
 Christian Courch, that Jesus here speaks: ‘‘God in His wisdom 
 said.” Comp. vil. 35. Jesus here speaks with confident know- 
 ledge of the Divine counsels: comp. x. 22, xv. 7, 10. 
 
 1 Vulg. has ¢estificamini quod consentitis, and a few cursives read 671 cuvevio- 
 kefre. Lat. texts vary greatly: guéa consentitis (r), et consentitis (CT), con- 
 sentitis (E), consentire (cil), consentientes (f), non consentientes (abq), non 
 consentire (d) following wh cuvevioxety (D). 
 
 2 See Ryle, Canon of O.T. p. 155; and for apparent quotations from 
 ere which cannot be found in Scripture comp. Jn. vii. 38; 1 Cor. ii. 9; 
 
 ph. v. 14. 
 
314 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XIL 49-52, 
 
 Gmootédous. Mt. has codots kat ypaypareis, and mentions 
 crucifixion and scourging along with death and persecution. By 
 coupling the persecuted Apostles with the persecuted Prophets, 
 Jesus once more indicates the solidarity of the Pharisees with their 
 wicked forefathers: comp. Mt. v.12. For é& att@v (rwas) comp. 
 Jn. xvi. 17; 2 Jn. 4; Rev. ii. 10. For 8idfouow (8 BC LX) in the 
 sense of “ persecute” comp. xxi. 12; Acts vii. 52, ix. 4, xxii. 4, 7, 
 etc. 
 
 50. tva éx{Zntn9{ 173 ata. This is the Divinely ordered 
 sequence. ‘The verb is almost unknown in profane writings ; and 
 nowherse else in N.T. is it used of “demanding dack, requiring as 
 a debt.” Comp. 2 Sam. iv. 11; Ezek. iii. 18, 20, xxxiii. 6, 8; 
 Gen. ix. 5, xlii. 22. 
 
 Td éxkexupevoy Grd KataBohfs Kéopou. Comp. Mt. xxv. 34; 
 Heb. iv. 3, ix. 26; Rev. xili. 8, xvii. 8. The expression xaraBoAy 
 kdopov does not occur in LXX. Comp. aa’ dpyjs (Ps. Ixxviii. 2). 
 
 éxxexuuévov. This is the reading of B and a few cursives; but almost all 
 other authorities have éxxuvyéuevoy, which may easily have come from Mt. 
 The grammarians condemn éxxvvw or éxxvvvw (Aeolic) as a collateral form of 
 éxxéw. It is used of bloodshed Acts xxii. 20, and the pres. part., if genuine 
 here, is very expressive: ‘‘ the blood which is perpetually being shed.” 
 
 dard Tis yeveds TaUTys. To be taken after exfyrn6y. The refer- 
 ence is specially to the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 32). 
 
 51. The murders of Abel and Zacharias are the first and last 
 murders in the O.T., which in the Jewish Canon ends with 
 Chronicles. In both cases the éexfyrnots is indicated: “ The voice 
 of the brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground” (Gen. 
 iv. 10); ‘The Lord look upon it, and require it” (2 Chron. 
 xxiv. 22). Chronologically the murder of Uriah by Jehoiakim 
 (Jer. xxvi. 23) is later than that of Zachariah the son of Jehoiada. 
 Zachariah ¢he son of Barachiah was the Prophet, and there is no 
 mention of his having been murdered: in Mt. xxiii. 35 ‘the son 
 of Barachiah” is probably a mechanical slip. For tod oixou Mt. 
 has rod vaod, and the vads is evidently the otxos meant here. 
 
 vat, Néyw Spiv. Comp. vii. 26, xii. 5. Not elsewhere in N.T. 
 
 52. thy Kdelda THs yvéoews. ‘The key which opens the door 
 to knowledge,” not “‘ which is knowledge”: the gen. is not one of 
 apposition. There is no reference to a supposed ceremony by 
 which a “doctor of the law” was “symbolically admitted to his 
 office by the delivery of a key.” No such ceremony appears to 
 have existed. The knowledge is that of the way of salvation, which 
 can be obtained from Scripture. But the scribes had cut off all 
 access to this knowledge, first, by their false interpretations ; and, 
 secondly, by their contempt for the people, whom they considered 
 to be unworthy of instruction or incapable of enlightenment. 
 Their false interpretations were fatal to themselves (atrot ovx 
 
XI. 52, 53.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 315 
 
 eionAOare) as well as to others. See Hort, /udaistic Christianity, 
 p. 141; Recog. Clem. i. 54, li. 30, 46. Excepting in the Apocalypse 
 (i. 18, iii, 7, ix. 1, xx. 1), KAe’s occurs only Matt. xvi. 19. The 
 reading éxpvware (D and some Versions) for jpare is an interpreta- 
 tive gloss. Note that here Lk. has voy.xot where Mt. (xxiii. 14) has 
 ypappareis, and comp. xii. 44. 
 
 Tovs eicepxopevous. “Those who were continually trying to 
 enter” (imperf. part.). The aorists indicate what was done once 
 for all and absolutely. 
 
 53. KdxetOev éfeXOdvtos aitod. In their vehemence they followed 
 Him out of the Pharisee’s house. But it by no means follows 
 from what they did in their excitement that “the Pharisee’s feast 
 had been a base plot to entrap Jesus.” 
 
 The text of this verse exhibits an extraordinary number of variations. 
 The above is the reading of NBCL 33, Boh. For it ADX, Latt. Syr- 
 Cur. substitute Aéyovros dé airod taira mpds avrovs or mpds Tov adv: and 
 to this D X Latt. Syr-Cur. add évwmiov mavrds tod aod or Tov 6x00. For 
 ol ypayuarets x. of bap. D and various Lat. texts give ol Pap. x. ol voutxol, 
 legis periti (Vulg. cdef). For dewas evéxew C has devas éréxew, H 6. 
 ovvéxev, and D § with various Lat. texts 6. éyew: male habere (bd q), male 
 se habere (a), graviter habere (cei), graviter ferre (1), and moleste ferre (r), 
 representing 6. éyew, while gravzter zusistere (Vulg.) is Jerome’s correction 
 to represent 6. évéxew. Again, for dmrocropatlfew atrév D and most Lat. 
 texts substitute cuvBdd\d\ew atr@: comminare zlli (a), committere cum illo 
 (bilqr), committere tll (d), conferre cum eo (c), conferre illi (e), altercart 
 cum illo (f) representing cupBdddew atr@, while os efus opprimere (Vulg.) 
 represents émioroulfev. Not one represents dzrooroparl fev. 
 
 évéxew. In Mk. vi. 19 and Gen. xlix. 23 (the only place in 
 which the act. occurs in LXX) this verb is followed by a dat. It 
 may be doubted whether xédov, which is expressed Hdt. i. 118. 1, 
 vi. I19. 2, Vili. 27. 1, is here to be understood. If anything is to 
 be understood, rév vodvy is more probable, as in the analogous 
 cases of éréyew (which C here reads) and zpocéyew. The mean- 
 ing appears to be that they “watched Him intensely, were actively 
 on the alert against Him”; which suits Gen. xlix. 23 (éveiyov 
 avT@ Kvpior Tofevpatwrv) as well as the context here. But external 
 pressure may be the meaning in both places, although in Mk. 
 vi. 19 internal feeling suits the context better (“cherished a 
 grudge against”). In the gloss of Hesychius, évéyet* pyyotkaxel, 
 éykertat (? éykoret), it is possible that pvyoucaxe? refers to Mk. vi. 
 19 and éyxevrat (or éyxoret) to Lk. xi. 53. See Field, Otium Norvie. 
 ill. pp. 22, 45, and the note in Wordsworth’s Vulgate. 
 
 Grootopatife. Originally, “‘to dictate what is to be learned 
 by heart and recited” (Plato, Zuthyd. 276 C, 277 A); hence ra 
 drootopatioueva, “the dictated lesson” (Arist. Soph. £7. iv. 1). 
 Thence it passed, either to the pupil’s part, mere recitation, as of 
 the Sibyl reciting verses (Plut. Zhes xxiv.); or to the teacher’s 
 
316 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XxI. 58, 54 
 
 part, the plying with questions ‘‘to provoke to answer,” as here. 
 See Wetst. ad Joc., and Hatch, 7d. Gre. p. 40. 
 
 54. Confusion in the text still continues; but the true reading is not 
 oubtful. WH. give this as a good instance of conflation, the common 
 reading being compounded of the original text and two early corruptions of 
 it. Comp. ix. 10, xii. 18, xxiv. 53. 
 
 (a) évedpevovres atrdv Onpetoal te éx Tod ctéuaros at’rov. NBL Boh. 
 Aeth. Syr-Cur. (some omit avrév). 
 
 ‘B) §nrobvtes apopunv Twa AaBety atrod iva etpwow Karnyopjcat avrov. 
 D, d Syr-Sin. ? 
 
 (y) &nrodvTes apopujvy Twa AaBety adirod tva Karnyopjowow aitov. Lat. 
 
 et. (some omit adrod). 
 
 (5) evedpevovtes atrév, Snrodvtes Onpedoal te éx Tod oréparos avrov, iva 
 Katnyopnowow avrol. ACEGHKMUVIAATIL, and with 
 small variations X, all cursives, Vulg. etc. WH. ii. Introduction, 
 p- 102, 
 
 évedpevovtes. Elsewhere in N.T. only Acts xxiii. 21: comp. 
 Deut. xix. 11; Prov. xxvi. 19; Wis. ii. 12; Ecclus. xxvii. 10, 28; 
 Lam. iv. 19; Jos. Amzt. v. 2. 12; in all which places it has, as 
 here, the acc. instead of the usual dat. 
 
 Onpedoat.! Here only in N.T. Comp. Ps. lviii. 4. Both this 
 word and évedpevovres are very graphic. Godet remarks that we 
 have here ume scene de violence peut-étre unique dans la vie de 
 Jésus: and huic vehementiz suberat fraudulentia (Beng.). We 
 infer from xii. 1 that now the disciples are present. 
 
 It is possible that in Mt. xxiii. what took place on this occasion is com- 
 bined with what was said in the temple just before the Passion. Lk. gives 
 only a very brief notice of the later denunciation (xx. 45-47 ; comp. Matt. xxiii. 
 1-7). But the fact that he gives two denunciations is against the theory that only 
 one was uttered, which he assigns to one occasion and Mt. to another. It may, 
 however, easily have happened that some of what was said on the first occasion 
 has been transferred to the second, or wzce versa. 
 
 XII. The greater part of the utterances of Christ which Lk. 
 records in this chapter are also recorded in different parts of Mt., 
 for the most part either in the Sermon on the Mount (v.—vii.), or 
 in the Charge to the Twelve (x. 5-42), or in the Prophecy of the 
 Last Days (xxiv. 4-51). Here they are given in the main as a 
 continuous discourse, but with marked breaks at vv. 13, 22, 54. 
 Lk. evidently regards vy. 1-21 as spoken immediately after the 
 commotion at the Pharisee’s house; and there is little doubt that 
 vv. 22-53 are assigned by him to the same occasion. How 
 much break there is between vv. 53 and 54 is left undetermined. 
 The fact that many of Christ’s sayings were uttered more than 
 
 1 Comp. Elié po, & Zwxpares, ov aloxiver, rnAKodros Gv, dvdpara Onpevwr, 
 kal édy tis phate audpry, Epuaov Tairo mrovovuevas ; (Plat. Gore. 489 B), 
 
XIL.1.]: JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 317 
 
 once, and were differently arranged on different occasions, will 
 partly explain the resemblances and differences between Lk. and 
 Mt. here and elsewhere. But it is also probable that there has 
 been some confusion in the traditions, and that words which one 
 tradition placed in one connexion were by another tradition placed 
 in another. 
 
 Lk. xii, 92-9 =Mt. x. 26-33. Lk. xii. 51-53 = Mt. x. 34-36. 
 
 22-32= vi. 25-34. 54-50= [xvi 2, 3]. 
 25 eS vi. 19-21. 57-59 = v. 25, 26, 
 39-46= = xxiv. 43-51. 
 
 1-12. Exhortation to Courageous Sincerity. This is closely 
 connected with what precedes. The commotion inside and out- 
 side the Pharisee’s house had attracted an immense crowd, which 
 was divided in its sympathy, some siding with the Pharisees, 
 others disposed to support Christ. His addressing His words to 
 His disciples rather than to the multitude indicates that the latter 
 were in the main not friendly. But the appeal made to Him by 
 one of them (ver. 13) respecting a purely private matter shows that 
 His authority is recognized by many. The man would not have 
 asked Him to give a decision in the face of a wholly hostile 
 assembly. But this warning to His followers of the necessity for 
 courageous testimony to the truth in the face of bitter opposition 
 implies present hostility. The connexion with the preceding 
 scene is proved by the opening words, ’Ev ois, “In the midst of 
 which, in the meantime.” 
 
 1. tOv pupiddwv tod dxdov. Hyperbolical, as in Acts xxi. 20, 
 The article points to what is usual; “the people in their myriads.” 
 Comp. od gdo8yOjcopat dd prpiadwy raod Tov KikXo émBeuevov 
 pot (Ps. iii. 7). 
 
 npéato héyeww. The jpéaro gives a solemn emphasis to what 
 follows: see on iv. 21, and comp. xiv. 18 and Acts ii. 4. It may 
 possibly refer to tpatov ; He began to address the disciples, and 
 then turned to the people. The mparovy means that His words 
 were addressed primarily to the disciples, although the people 
 were meant to hear them. After the interruption He addresses 
 the people directly (ver. 15). It makes poor sense to take zp@rov 
 with zpocexere, “First of all beware” (Tyn. Cran. Gen.), for to 
 beware of Pharisaic hypocrisy cannot be considered the first of 
 all duties. For other amphibolous constructions see on ii. 22. 
 
 Npocéxete Eautots dd. “‘ Take heed to yourselves and avoid; 
 beware of.” The warning phrase tpooéxere éavtots is peculiar 
 to Lk. (xvii. 3, xxi. 34; Acts v. 35, xx. 28); but in LXX zpdcexe 
 geavtS is common (Gen. xxiv. 6; Exod. x. 28, xxxiv. 12; Deut. 
 iv. 9, etc.). For the reflexive see on xxi. 30. 
 
318 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XI 1-4, 
 
 ard THs Cupns. This constr. is common after verbs of avoiding, ceasing 
 from, guarding against, and the like; mwatw, xwAvw, guddccomat, K.T.r. 
 Comp. mpbcexe ceavtS amd mdons mopveas (Tobit iv. 12). The pronoun is 
 often omitted, xx. 46; Mt. vii. 15, x. 17, xvi. 6, 11; Deut. iv. 232 
 
 This warning seems to have been given more than once (Mk. 
 viii, 15). Leaven in Scripture is generally a type of ev? which 
 corrupts and spreads, disturbing, puffing up and souring that which 
 it influences. The parable of the Leaven (xiii. 20, 21; Mt. xiii. 
 33) is almost the only exception. Ignatius (A/agnes. x.) uses it in 
 both a good and a bad sense. In profane literature its associations 
 are commonly bad. The /lamen Dialis was not allowed to touch 
 leaven or leaven bread (Aulus Gellius, x. 15): comp. Juv. iii. 188. 
 The proverb puxpa Ciun sAov 76 dipapya Cupot, is used of pernicious 
 influence (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9). Fermentation is corruption. 
 
 If rév Sapicatwy is rightly placed last (B L), it is epexegetic. ‘‘ Beware 
 of the leaven which is hypocrisy,—I mean the Pharisees’ leaven.” In Mt. 
 xvi. 12 ‘‘ the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” is interpreted as meaning 
 their doctrine. 
 
 2. Oude SE cuyKekahuppevoy éorw. “ Burt there is nothing 
 covered up, which shall not,” etc. Hypocrisy is useless, for one 
 day there will be a merciless exposure. It is not only wicked, but 
 senseless. 
 
 8. av® dv. This is commonly rendered “wherefore,” like 
 avtt rovrov, “for this cause” (Eph. v. 31). But in i. 20, xix. 44; 
 Acts xii. 23 it=dyri rovrwy, 6ru; and it may have the same mean- 
 ing here. “There is nothing hid, that shall not be known: 
 because whatever ye have said in the darkness shall be heard in 
 the light,”"—guoniam que in tenebris dixistis in lumine dicentur 
 (Vulg.). Christ is continuing to insist that hypocrisy is folly, far 
 it is always unmasked at last. There was a saying of Hille, 
 “Think of nothing that it will not be easily heard, for in the end 
 it must be heard.” See small print on i. 20. It is in wording 
 that this is parallel to Mt. x. 26, 27: the application is very 
 different. 
 
 év Tots Tapelois .. . emt Tay Swpdtwy. “Store chambers” are 
 commonly “‘zzzer chambers, secret rooms,” especially in the East, 
 where outer walls are so easily dug through: comp. Mt. vi. 6, 
 xxiv. 26; Gen. xlili. 30; Judg. xvi. 9; 1 Kings xxii. 25. To this 
 day proclamations are often made from the housetops: comp. et 
 tav Swudrwy (Is. xv. 3; Jer. xix. 13, xlvili. 38). See D.B? i 
 p. 1407; Renan, Zes Evangiles, p. 262 n. 
 
 The Latin Versions give a variety of renderings: zw cel/ardzs (ilr), zn 
 promptalibus (d), 2 promptuarits (e), in cubzlibus (Vulg. (f); om. bq). 
 Comp. ver. 24. 
 
 4. Adyw 8é Sytv tots pidors pou. “ My friends are not likely 
 
XII. 4-6.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 319 
 
 to be hypocrites, although persecution will tempt them to become 
 such”: comp. Jn. xv. 15. 
 py doBnoite aad Tay aroxtewévtwv. The use of dxé here is 
 analogous to that in ver. I, of that which one turns away from. It is 
 Hebraistic (Lev. xix. 30, xxvi. 2; Deut. i. 29, iii. 22, xx. 1; Josh. xi. 6; 
 1 Sam. vii. 7; Jer. i. 8, 17; 1 Mac. ii. 62, viii. 12, etc.) It is not used of 
 fearing God. 
 
 peta tadta, The plural may refer to the details of a cruel 
 death, or to different kinds of death. Not in Mt. x. 28. 
 
 py éxdvtav. Lk. is fond of this classical use of €xewv: ver. 50, 
 Vii. 40, 42, xiv. 14; Acts iv. 14, xxiii. 17, 18, 19, xxv. 26, xxviii: 
 19. Here Mt. (x. 28) has py duvapévor. 
 
 5. hoByOnte tov peta 1d daokteivat Exovra efouciav, x.T.d. 
 There is little doubt that this refers to God and not to the devil. 
 The change of construction points to this. It is no longer 
 poByGyre ad Tovtov, but rovrov PoByOynre, “fear without trying 
 to shun,” which is the usual construction of fearing God. More- 
 over, we are not in Scripture told to fear Satan, but to resist him 
 courageously (Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 9) ; Tov Gcov doPnOyre, Td dia BorAw 
 dvtiornte is scriptural doctrine. Moreover, although the evil one 
 tries to bring us to Gehenna, it is not he who has authority to send 
 us thither. This passage (with Mt. x. 28), the king with twenty 
 thousand (see on xiv. 33), and the Unjust Steward (see on xvi. 1), 
 are perhaps the only passages in which the same words have been 
 interpreted by some of Satan and by others of God. 
 
 épBadeiv cis thy yeevvav. Excepting here and Jas. iii. 6, 
 yéevva occurs only in Mt. and Mk. in N.T. Notin LXX. The 
 confusion caused in all English Versions prior to RV. by translat- 
 ing both yéewa and adys “hell” has been often pointed out. 
 Lft. On Revision, pp. 87, 88; Trench, On the AV. p. 21. Téewa 
 is a transliteration of Ge-Hinnom, “Valley of Hinnom,” where 
 children were thrown into the red-hot arms of Molech. When 
 these abominations were abolished by Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 10), 
 refuse of all kinds, including carcases of criminals, was. thrown 
 into this valley, and (according to late authorities) consumed by 
 fire, which was ceaselessly burning. Hence it became a symbolical 
 name for the place of punishment in the other world. D.Z.? artt. 
 “Gehenna,” “ Hinnom,” and “ Hell.” 
 
 6. mévte otpoulia . . . docapiwy Svo. Mt. has vo ozpovbia 
 Gooapiov. Both have év é§ adray od, which is more expressive than 
 ovdev é& aitay, throwing the emphasis on &: “not even one of 
 them,” although five cost so little. Both orpov6ds and ozpovOiov 
 commonly mean “sparrow,” although sometimes used vaguely for 
 “bird” or “fowl”: eg. Ps. xi. 1, lxxxiv. 4. The Heb. ¢ziffor, 
 which it often represents, is still more commonly generic, and was 
 applied to any variety of small passerine birds, which are specially 
 
320 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIL 6-9, 
 
 numerous in Palestine, and were all allowed as food. Tristram, JVad. 
 fist. of B. p. 201. It is unfortunate that déoodpuov and its fourth 
 part xodpdvrys (Mt. v. 26; Mk. xii. 42) should both be translated 
 “farthing,” while dyvaprov, which was ten to sixteen times as much 
 as an doodpuor, is translated “penny.” “Shilling” for dyvapior, 
 “penny” for doodpiov, and “farthing” for xodpévrys would give 
 the ratios fairly correctly, although a shilling now will buy only 
 about half what a denarius would buy then. 
 
 évimuov tod Oeod. A Hebraism, very freq. in Lk. (i. 19, xvi. 
 15; Acts iv. 19, vil. 46: comp. Lk. i. 6, 15, 75 ; Acts viii. 21, x. 4). 
 It implies that each bird is individually present to the mind of 
 God. Belief in the minuteness of the Divine care was strong 
 among the Jews: (Von est vel minima herbula in terra cui non 
 prefectus sit aliguis in celo. 
 
 7. GANG kal ai tpixes THs Kehadfs. “ But (little as you might 
 expect it) even the hairs of your head.” Comp. xxi 18; Acts 
 XXVil. 34; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings i. 52; Dan. iii. 27. 
 
 PB} poBetobe . . . Siaddpete. ‘“‘ Cease to fear (pres. imper.). . 
 ye are different from, z.e. are superior to”: Mt. vi. 26, xii. 12; 
 1 Cor. xv. 41; Gal. iv. 1. This use of dtadépw is classical. 
 
 8. Adyw Sé buiv. The “also” of AV. (“Also I say unto you”) 
 is impossible. The fear of men, which lies at the root of 
 hypocrisy, as opposed to the fear of a loving God, appears to be 
 the connecting thought. 
 
 mas. Nom pend. placed first with much emphasis. For similar con- 
 structions comp. xxi. 6; Jn. vi. 39, vil. 38, xvii. 2. 
 
 dpodoyycet év éuot, The expression comes from the Syriac rather 
 than the Hebrew, and occurs only here and Mt. x. 32. The phrase 
 opvupe év (Mt. v. 34-36) is not quite parallel. Here perhaps the 
 second éuoAcyyoeu requires év, and this leads to its being used 
 with the first. That Christ will confess His disciples is not true 
 in the same sense that they will confess Him: but they will make 
 a confession zz His case, and He will make a confession z# theirs ; 
 their confession being that He is the Messiah, and His that they 
 are His loyal disciples. As early as the Gnostic teacher Heracleon 
 (¢. A.D. 170-180), the first commentator on the N.T. of whom 
 we have knowledge, this év after 6uoAoyyoe attracted notice.t 
 
 9. dmapynPycetar évaimov Tay dyyéAwv. This expressive com- 
 pound verb is used of Peter’s denial of Christ (xxii. 34, 61; Mt. 
 xxvi. 34, 75, Mk. xiv. 30, 72)» In Mt. we have dpvycopa Kayo 
 aitov éumpoobev tod watpds pov. Note that Lk. has his favourite 
 éevwmov for éumpoobev (see on i, 15), and that he has “the 
 Angels of God” where Mt. has ‘‘ My Father”: comp. xv. To. 
 
 1The fragment of Heraclecn, preserved by Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, is 
 translated by Westcott, Canon of V.7. p. 275, 3rd ed. 
 
XII. 10, 11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 321 
 
 10. Comp. Mt. xii. 31, 32 and Mk. iii. 28, 29, in both which 
 places this difficult saying is closely connected with the charge 
 brought against our Lord of castigg out demons through Beelzebub ; 
 a charge recorded by Lk. without this saying (xi. 15-20). We 
 cannot doubt that Mt. and Mk. give the actual historical con- 
 nexion, if these words were uttered only once. 
 
 was. Here again Lk. has a favourite word (see on vii. 35): 
 Mt. has és éav, and Mk. has és av. Also for eis tév vidv Mt. has 
 Kata Tov viod. For this use of «is after BAacdypetv and the like 
 comp. xxii. 65; Acts vi.11; Heb. xii.3. After duaprdve it is the 
 regular construction, xv. 18, 21, xvil. 4; Acts xxv. 8, etc. The 
 Jewish law was, “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he 
 shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall certainly 
 stone him” (Lev. xxiv. 16). 
 
 Td Gytov mvedpa. See oni. 15. 
 
 ovk ddefycetar. Constant and consummate opposition to the 
 influence of the Holy Spirit, because of a deliberate preference 
 of darkness to light, renders repentance, and therefore forgiveness, 
 morally impossible. Grace, like bodily food, may be rejected 
 until the power to receive it perishes. See on 1 Jn. v. 16 in 
 Camb. Grk. Test.,and comp. Heb. vi. 4-8, x. 26-31. The identity 
 of the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” with the “sin unto 
 death” is sometimes denied (D.Z.? i. p. 442); but a sin which 
 will never be forgiven must be a sin unto death. Schaff’s Herzog, 
 i. p. 302. In each case there is no question of the efficacy of 
 the Divine grace. The state of him who is guilty of this sin is 
 such as to exclude its application (Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 1-8, p. 165). 
 Blasphemy, like lying, may be acted as well as uttered: and it 
 cannot safely be argued that d/asphemy against the Spirit must be 
 a sin of speech (Kurzg. Kom. N.T.i. p. 75). See Aug. on Mt. xii, 
 31, 323 also Paschasius Radbertus, Migne, cxx. 470-472. 
 
 11, 12. Comp. xxi. 14, 15, which is parallel to both Mt. x. 19, 
 20 and Mk. xiii. 11, but not so close to them in wording as these 
 verses are. The connexion here is evident. There is no need 
 to be afraid of committing this unpardonable blasphemy by ill- 
 advised language before a persecuting tribunal; for the Holy 
 Spirit Himself will direct their words. 
 
 ll. cichépwoww Spas emi tds cuvaywyds. In all four passages 
 their being brought before synagogues is mentioned. The elders 
 of the synagogue were responsibie for discipline. They held courts, 
 and could sentence to excommunication (vi. 22; Jn. ix. 22, xii. 
 42, xvi. 2), or scourging (Mt. x. 17), which was inflicted by the 
 ianpérys (see on iv. 20). Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. 
 II. ii. pp. 59-67 ; Derenbourg, ist. de /a Pal. pp. 86 ff. The épxat 
 and éfouctat would include the Sanhedrin and Gentile tribunals. 
 
 a 
 
 py peptpvnonte TOs 4 Ti dwoAoyjonobe. Neither the form nor 
 21 
 
322 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIL 11-15. 
 
 the matter of the defence is to cause great anxiety beforehand. See 
 on ver. 22 and x. 41. Excepting Rom. ii. 15 and 2 Cor. xii. 19, 
 dmoXoyetv is peculiar to Lk. (xxi. 14 and six times in Acts) 
 Here Mt. and Mk. have AaAyonre. 
 
 D 157, abcde ff,ilq Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Aeth. omit 4 rl, which may 
 possibly come from Mt. x. 19. If so, this is a Western non-interpolation. 
 See note at the end of ch. xxiv. WH. bracket. 
 
 12. év aiti tH pa. “In that very hour”: see small print on 
 x. 7,and comp. Exod. iv. 12 and 2 Tim. iv. 17. Renan points out 
 the correspondence between this passage and Jun. xiv. 26, xv. 26 
 (V. de. p. 297, ed. 1863). Comp. Ix. ive £1: 
 
 13-15. § The Avaricious Brother rebuked. This incident forms 
 the historical introduction to the Parable of the Rich Fool 
 (16-21), just as the lawyer’s questions (x. 25-30) form the his- 
 torical introduction to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. 
 Comp. xiv. 15, xv. 1-3. We are not told whether the man was 
 making an unjust claim on his brother or not; probably not: 
 but he was certainly making an unjust claim on Jesus, whose 
 work did not include settling disputes about property. The man 
 grasped at any means of obtaining what he desired, invading 
 Christ’s time, and trying to impose upon his brother an extraneous 
 authority. Facile ii, gui doctorem spiritualem admirantur, eo 
 delabuntur, ut velint eo abuti ad domestica componenda (Beng.). 
 Compare Christ’s treatment of the questions respecting the pay- 
 ment of the ddrachma, the woman taken in adultery, and payment 
 of tribute to Cesar. 
 
 18. ciwé TG dSeXpG pov. He does not ask Jesus to arbitrate 
 between him and his brother, but to give a decision against his 
 brother. There is no evidence that the brother consented to 
 arbitration. 2 
 
 14, “AvOpwre. A severe form of address, rather implying dis- 
 approbation or a desire to stand aloof, xxii. 58, 60; Rom. ii. 1, 
 ix. 20. Comp. Soph. 47. 791, 1154. As in the case of the lepers 
 whom He healed (v. 14, xvii. 14), Jesus abstains from invading 
 the office of constituted authorities. No one appointed Him 
 (xaréornoev) to any such office. Comp. Tis ce xatéornoev apxovta 
 kal duxacriy ef av; (Exod. ii. 14), words which may have been 
 familiar to this intruder. Comp. Jn. xviii. 36. 
 
 peptomyy. Here only in N.T. Not in LXX. There is no 
 need to interpret it of the person who actually executes the 
 sentence of partition pronounced by the xpirjs. The xpirjs who 
 decides for partition is a pepiorys. 
 
 15. gvddocecbe dwé. The expression is classical (Xen. He//. vii. 2. 103 
 
 Cyr. ii. 3. 9), but the only similar passage in N.T. is @vAdgare éaurd dnd 
 rav clddd\wy (I Jn. v. 21): it is stronger than mpocéxere dad, 
 
XI. 15-17.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM = 323 
 
 dons mheovesias. “Every form of covetousness ” : comp. 
 mavra Tetpag pov, * ‘every kind of temptation” (iv. 13) ; Taca duaptia 
 kal raodnpia (Mt. xii. 31). On mAcovecia, “the greedy desire to 
 have more,” as a more comprehensive vice than prrapyrpia, see 
 Lft. Zp. P. 56 and on Col. iii. 5. He quotes ¢uvAdfacbe otv ad 
 Ths Topvetas Kal THs piAapyupias (Test. XLL. Pair. Jud. xviii.), and 
 somewhat differs from Trench, Sym. xxiv. Jesus, knowing what 
 is at the root of the brother’s unreasonicxe request, takes the 
 opportunity of warning the whole multitude (zpos airovs) against 
 this prevalent and subtle sin. 
 
 ouk év TO Teptocevelv tut. Not in the fact that a man has 
 abundance iis it the case that his life is the outcome of his 
 possessions” ; 7.e. it does not follow, because a man has abundance, 
 that his life consists in wealth. Some render, “For not because 
 one has abundance, is his life part of his possessions,” ze. so that 
 he can secure it. But the other is simpler. Life depends for 
 its value upon the use which we make of 7a trdpyovra, and for 
 its prolongation upon the will of God. It is unlikely that 4 {Loy 
 here means or includes eternal life; but it includes the higher 
 life as distinct from Pios. Comp. ov yep ev 7H trepBorH 70 
 arapKes oud 7 7 mpakts, Suvarov & Kal pay dpxovra yas Kai Gadarrns 
 mpdrrewy a KoAd’ Kal yap dao perpiwy Suvair’ ay tis mpatrew Kara 
 
 tiv apernv (Arist. Zth. WVic. x. 8. 9). 
 
 For the'dat. after repiscevery comp. xxi. 4 and Tobit iv. 16, and for that 
 after 7a Urdpxovra see on Vili. 3. 
 
 16-21. § The Parable of the Rich Fool, which illustrates both 
 points ;—that the life that is worth living does not depend upon 
 wealth, which may be a trouble and anxiety; and that even mere 
 existence cannot be secured by wealth. 
 
 16. Etrev 8é TapaBoAiy mes. Each separate combination is 
 characteristic: efrev 5é, etwev wapaBorynv, and elrev zpos. 
 See on vi. 39, and comp. xv. 
 
 edpdopycev. Here only in bibl. Grk. Josephus uses it of 
 Galilee as productive of oil (2. 7. ii. 21. 2); but elsewhere it 
 occurs in this sense in medical writers only (Hobart, Pp. 144): 
 comp. teAea popely (viii. 14). 
 
 4) xépa. Comp. xxi. 21; Jn. iv. 35; Jas. v. 4. There is 
 no hint that the man’s wealth was unjustly acquired; and this 
 is some slight confirmation of the view that the brother’s claim 
 was not unjust (ver. 13). There is perhaps a reference to Ecclus. 
 xi. 18, 19 or to Ps. xlix. 16-20. 
 
 17. Ti woow; Comp. Eccles. v. ro. 
 
 otk €xw Tod ouvdgw. Quasi nusquam essent quibus pascendis 
 possent impendi (Grot.). nopum sinus, viduarum domus, ora 
 infantum .. . iste sunt apothece gue maneant in xternum (Ambr.). 
 
324 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 17-20, 
 
 Note the repetition of pov: “my fruits, my barns, my goods, my 
 soul.” It is just here that there is some resemblance to the story 
 of Nabal: “Shall I take my bread, and my water, and my flesh 
 that I have killed for my shearers and give.it unto men of whom 
 I know not whence they be?” (1 Sam. xxv. 11): but it is toomuch 
 to say that there is an evident reference to Nabal. 
 
 18. xafeXd. First with emphasis: he is eager to set to work. 
 But pauperum nulla mentio (Beng.). Comp. adedet, which is the 
 true reading, Rev. xxii. 19; and see Veitch, p. 25. Note the 
 chiasmus between kaGeXG and oikodouyjow. 
 
 The text of the words which follow xat cuvdéw éxe? is much confused, 
 but mdvra tov otrov Kal Ta dyabd pov (N#°BLTX, Syr-Hare. Boh. Sah. 
 Aeth. Arm.) is probably correct, the ov after ctrov (§ 2° X, Syr-Harc. Boh. 
 Sah. Aeth. ) being rejected as an insertion. 
 
 WH. give the evidence in full (ii. p. 103), and regard it as a marked 
 instance of conflation. Comp. ix. 10, xi. 54, xxiv. 53. The main facts are 
 these. The expression 7a yerquara is very common in LXX for the fruits 
 of the earth, and the phrase cuvayew Ta yevfuata occurs Exod. xxiii. 10 ; 
 Lev. xxv. 20; Jer. viii. 13. The familiar 7a yevquard wou was substituted 
 in some documents for the unusual combination tév oirov cal Ta dyabd 
 (* D), in others for rdv ctrov (AQ EFG H etc.), in one for 7a dya8d pov 
 (346) ; yet another variation is caused by the substitution of tods xapmovs mou 
 (from ver. 17) for the whole of the unusual combination (39), omnes fructus 
 meos(acde). Thus we have— 
 
 (a) Tov ctrov [mou] kal Ta dyadd pov, 
 
 (8) 1. Ta yevjpara et 
 
 2. Tovs Kapmovs Lov. 
 (6) 1. 7a yevquatd pov kal Td dyabd et 
 2. Tov ciréy pou Kal Ta YyevjuaTd pov. 
 The common reading (6. 1) is a conflation of 8. 1 and a 
 
 19. ép tH Wuxq pod. There is probably no irony in making 
 him address, not his body, but his soul: the Yuxy is here used as 
 the seat of all joyous emotions. Comp. BA pepyvare TH YuxH tt 
 payyre (ver. 22). Field quotes Kaptépyoov, Wuxn, mpobecpuiav 
 oUVTOPOY, | iva Tov mA€iw xpdvoy arodavons dao pahods 7Sovys (Charit. 
 Aphrod. iii. 2); and Wetst. quotes OappyvG éuavrdv Kat mpos TH 
 €pavtod Wuyi eirav’ "AOnvaios etut (Libanius, D xvi. p. 463). See 
 Stallbaum on Plat. Repub. ii. 8, p. 365 A. 
 
 keipeva els Eryn oddd* dvaratov, ddye, mle. These words are 
 omitted in D and some Latin authorities (abcde ff). With eis érn woAha 
 comp. Jas. iv. 13-17; Prov. xxvii. 1; Ecclus. xxix. 12: and with oaye, whe 
 comp. Tobit vii. 10 and the remarkable parallel Ecclus. xi. 19. The 
 asyndeton marks the man’s confidence and eagerness. 
 
 20. cimev 8€ adtS 6 Oeds. This is a parable, not history. It 
 is futile to ask how God spoke to him. For “Adpwv see on xi. 40 
 and xxiv. 25. The tatty tH vuxti is placed first in emphatic 
 contrast to the éry woAAd. See Schanz, pp. 347, 348. 
 
 Thy Wuxyv cou aitodow dad ood. “They are demanding thy 
 
XII. 20-22.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 325 
 
 soul of thee”: the present tense is very impressive. They do 
 not demand it for themselves, and so we have act. and not mid. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20; and see the parallel lesson Wisd. xv. 8. For 
 the impersonal plural comp. av. 11, 48, vi. 38, XVi. 9, Xxill. 31. 
 There is no need to think of dyyeAor Gavarydopor (Job xxxiii. 23), 
 or of Ayorai (x. 30). 
 
 & S€ Frotpacas, tim Zotar; WVulg. Rhem. and RV. preserve 
 the telling order: guze autem parasti cujus erunt? “And the 
 things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?” Comp. 
 Ps. xxxix. 6, xlix. 6; Eccles. ii. 18-23; Job xxvii. 17-22. When 
 not even his yvx7 is his own to dispose of, what will become of 
 his dya6a? 
 
 21. Oncaupifev aitd. Comp. Mt. vi. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 14; and 
 for the eis before Gedv comp. xvi. 8. It is to be regretted that the 
 eis is rendered differently in the two passages in both AV. (“‘in, 
 towards”) and RV. (“for, toward”). “ Being rich toward God” 
 means being rich in those things which are pleasing to Him. 
 Amassing wealth without reference to the God who bestows it is 
 mAcovegia, and wAcoveéia is appoovvy. 
 
 The change from air@ to els Geov, instead of Oc, is intentional, and 
 Juvenal’s dives t2bz, pauper amiczs (v. 113) is not quite parallel; nor again 
 Hecato in Cic. De Off iii. 15. 63: Negue enim solum nobis divites esse 
 
 volumus, sed liberts, propinguts, amicis, maximeque ret publicw. The whole 
 verse is omitted in D andabd. 
 
 22-58. God’s Providential Care and the Duty of Trust in 
 Him (22-34) and of Watchfulness for the Kingdom (35-48) 
 which Christ came to found (49-53). The address to the people 
 (vv. 15-21) being ended, Jesus once more turns specially to the 
 disciples; and it should be noticed that in doing so He no 
 longer speaks in parables. That what follows was spoken on the 
 same occasion as what precedes seems to be intended by Lk., but 
 is not stated. The dca rotro is included in the traditional report 
 (see Mt. vi. 25), and proves nothing as to the original historical 
 connexion. It is more to the point to notice that covetousness 
 and hoarding are the result of want of trust in God (Heb. xiii. 5), 
 and that an exhortation to trust in God’s fatherly care follows 
 naturally on a warning against covetousness. There is logical, but 
 not necessarily chronological connexion. More convincing is the 
 coincidence between details. The mention of sowing, reaping, 
 store-chamber, and barn (ver. 24) may have direct reference to the 
 abundant harvests and insufficient barns in the parable (zz. 17, 18). 
 But it does not follow, because this lesson was given immediately 
 after the parable of the Rich Fool, that therefore it was not part 
 of the Sermon on the Mount; any more than that, because it was 
 delivered there, it cannot have been repeated here. 
 
 22. Etwev 8€ mpds Tots padytds. Note both the dé and the 
 
326 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XII. 22-26. 
 
 7pés, and comp. ver. 16, vii. 50, ix. 13, 14, 59, 62, etc. Assuming 
 a connexion with what precedes, Ata todto will mean, “ Because 
 life does not depend on riches.” 
 
 py peptuvate. “Be not anxious”: comp. ver. 11 and x. 21. 
 See Lft. On Revision, 2nd ed. p. 190; Trench, On the A.V. p. 
 39; T. L. O. Davies, Bible English, p. 100, for evidence that 
 “thought” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries meant 
 distressing anxiety. Comp. 1 Sam. ix. 5 with x. 2. S. Paul 
 reiterates Christ’s teaching (1 Cor. vil. 32; Phil. iv. 6). 
 
 TH oxy. Not, “zz your soul,” but, “for your soul.” Here 
 again the reference to the parable (Wvx7, daye) seems to be direct. 
 If so, the necessity for translating yvx7 in the same way in both 
 passages is all the stronger. The ywvx7 is the source of physical 
 life and physical enjoyment. 
 
 23. mheidv eotiv THs tpopas. “Is something greater than the 
 food” (comp. xi. 31, 32). Therefore He who gave the greater will 
 not fail to provide the less. 
 
 24. xatavoyoate. A favourite verb: see on ver. 27. Mt. has 
 euBréware; and for tods xépaxas he has ra zerewa Tod ovpavov. 
 Ravens are mentioned nowhere else in N.T., but often in O.T. 
 See especially tis 8 jrotuacev xépaxt Bopdvy (Job xxxviii. 41), and 
 Kal OwdovtTe Tots KTHVvEerL Tpopiy aditav Kal Tos VooGOIS TOV KOpaKwv 
 Tots émixadoupevors aitdv (Ps. cxlvii. 9g). The name (Heb. ’ored) 
 covers the whole of the crow tribe (including rooks and jack- 
 daws) which is strongly represented in Palestine. Like the vulture, 
 the raven acts as a scavenger: but it is a fable that it turns its 
 young out of the nest, leaving them to feed themselves, and that 
 this is the point of our Lord’s mention of them. The raven is 
 very careful of its young; and God feeds both old and young. 
 Tristram, JVat. Hist. of B. pp. 198-201. 
 
 Here Vulg. bfl have ced/arcum for tapeiov, while d has promptuarium. 
 See on ver. 3. 
 
 Staddpete tav metewav. See on ver. 7. ‘The birds are God’s 
 creatures; but ye are God’s children”: 6 warjp tpav (Mt.), not 
 avTav. 
 
 25. Tis Sé e& Suav. See on xi. 5. 
 
 pepipvav Sdvatar emt Thy HAuktav mpoobetvar mhxuv. “* By being 
 anxious can add a sfam to his age.” That 7Arxéa here means 
 “age” (Heb. xi. 11; Jn. ix. 21, 23), and not “stature ” (xix. 3), is 
 clear from the context. It was prolongation of life that the anxiety 
 of the rich fool failed to secure. Not many people give anxious 
 thought to the problem of adding to their stature ; and the addition 
 of a whyus (the length of the forearm) would be monstrous, and 
 would not be spoken of as éAdyiorov. Many persons do give 
 anxious thought to the prolongation of their allotted age, and 
 
XII. 25-28.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 327 
 
 that by any amount, great or small. Wetst. quotes Mimnermus, 
 anxviov éxi xpdovov EvOcow ABys teptoueba, See on ii. 52, where 
 qAuxia probably means stature. For mhxus see D.Z.) iii. pp. 
 1736 ff. ; and for the literature on Hebrew Weights and Measures, 
 Schaff’s Herzog, iv. p. 2486. 
 
 26. el ody oS? EXdytorov SivacGe. These words have no equivalent 
 in Mt. and are omitted in D, which for the whole verse has simply «al 7repl 
 Tov Aomwdy Tl pepiuvare. So also abcd ffjilr: et de ceteris quid sollicité 
 estts, By tay oirav are meant clothing (Mt.), food, and other bodily 
 necessities. 
 
 For ov we might have expected wydé. But el=érel, and the sentence 
 is conditional in form only. “If (as is certain) ye cannot ” = ‘* Since ye 
 cannot.” Comp. Jn. iii. 12, v. 47; 1 Cor. xi. 6; Heb. xii. 25. Win. lv. 2, 
 a, p. 600. Or we may consider ov’dé as belonging to dvvacée, and not to 
 the whole sentence: ‘“‘If ye are unable.” Simcox, Lang. of N.T. p. 183. 
 But the former is better. 
 
 27. ta xpiva. Mt. adds rod daypod. The word occurs no- 
 where else in N.T., but is freq. in LXX, esp. in Cant. (ii. 16, iv. 
 5, V- 13, Vi. 2, 3, etc.): Heb. shushan or shoshannah. Some 
 flower with a brilliant colour is evidently meant, and the colour is 
 one to which human lips can be compared (Cant. v. 13). Either 
 the scarlet Martagon (Zi/ium Chalcedonicum) or the scarlet anemone 
 (anemone coronaria) may be the flower that is thus named. Like 
 otpovdia, however (ver. 7), xpiva may be generic; and to this day 
 the Arabs call various kind of flowers “lilies.” See D.&. art. 
 “Lily”; and comp. Stanley, Sz. & Pal. pp. 139, 430. Note that, 
 while Mt. has xatapav@dvev, Lk. has his favourite xatavoeiv 
 (ver. 24, Vi. 41, xx. 23; Acts vil. 31, 32, xi. 6, xxvii. 39). For 
 Koma see on v. 5: it covers the works of men, me that of 
 women. 
 
 After 7a xplva rs D has ofre v7jGet odre bdalvet, while d has gzomodo 
 meque neunt neque texunt, and a has guomodo non texunt neque neunt. 
 Several other Lat. texts have zexunt. Thus, guomodo crescunt non laborant 
 neque neunt neque texunt (blr); guomodo crescunt non nent neque texunt (c) ; 
 quomodo crescunt non laborant non neunt neque texunt (ff,); and, by a 
 curious slip, gzomodo non crescunt non laborant neque neunt neque texunt (i). 
 
 28. ei SE év dypO. First with emphasis. “If in the field,” 
 where such care might seem to be superfluous. AV. wrongly 
 takes év dypé with évta ojpepor, following Vulg. quod hodie in agro 
 est. Both here and in Mt. the night connexion is, “which to- day 
 is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven.” For k\iBavos, a portable 
 oven, as distinct from imvos, see D.B. The xdAcBavos is often 
 mentioned in LXX, generally as a simile for great heat (Ps. xx. 9; 
 Hos. vii. 4-7, etc.) ; izvos neither in LXX nor in N.T. Wood 
 being scarce in Palestine, grass is commonly used_as fuel. For 
 éudidfer, which is a late word (Job xxix. 14, xxxi. 19), see 
 Veitch. 
 
328 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XII. 29-82. 
 
 29. kat Guets pt Lntetre. ‘And do you cease to seek”: comp. 
 ver. II, Vi. 30, 37, Vii. 13, Vill. 49, 50, 52, etc. Mt. has the aor. 
 Pepyyao TE. 
 
 py petewpitecQe. In class. Grk. and in LXX (Ps. cxxx. 1; 
 2 Mac. v. 17, vil. 34) this would probably mean, “ Be not lifted 
 up, do not exalt yourselves, seek not high things.” So the Vulg. 
 nolte in sublime toll. Old Latin texts differ: molite solliciti esse ; 
 nec solliciti sitis (c); non abalienetis vos (d): and many omit the 
 passage. Luth. fakret nicht hoch her. Tyn. Cov. and Cran. “neither 
 clyme ye up an high.” But most commentators interpret it as a 
 metaphor from ships tossing at sea: ‘‘ Waver not anxiously, be 
 not tossed about with cares.” Comp. peréwpov ev dow of a 
 criminal expecting punishment (Jos. J. /. iv. 2. 5); and see 
 S. Cox, who turns the word into a parable, Zxfosztor, 1st series, 
 i. p. 249, 1875. Edersheim contenas for the LXX meaning, “be 
 not uplifted” (Z. & 7. ii. p. 217). The verb is one of the rarer 
 words which are common to N.T., Philo, and Plutarch. , 
 
 30. taita yap mévta. This is the right combination; not 
 mavta 7a €Ovn: hec enim omnia gentes mundi guerunt. The 
 heathen seek anxiously after all these things, because they know 
 nothing of God’s providential care. The phrase ra evn tov 
 kécpov occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX, but represents an 
 Aramaic expression common in Rabbinical writings. 
 
 The plural verb shows that the different nations are considered dis- 
 tributively ; and the compound expresses the anxiety with which they seek. 
 Each nation seeks laboriously after the sum-total of these things. On the 
 difference between Tatra mdvra here and mdvra 7atra, Mt. vi. 32, see ate 
 lxi. 2. b, p. 686. In both places émifnrovow is the true Ber and 
 émi{nret a grammatical correction. 
 
 Suav 8 6 matyp. But you, who know that you have such a 
 Father, have no need to be disturbed about these wants. 
 
 81. Lk. alone has his favourite mhyv. See on vi. 24. “ But 
 (dismissing all this useless anxiety) continue to seek,” etc. Mt. 
 adds zpdrov to fnretre. 
 
 Origen quotes ele yap 6 "Ingots rots pabyrais atrod Alreire ra peydda 
 kal Ta pLKpd duty mpooreOncerat, Kal alretre 7a émoupdvia Kal Td émlyea 
 mpooreOhoerat vuiv (De Orat. § 2). Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 24, p. 416, 
 ed. Potter, and iv. 6, p. 579. 
 
 32. This verse has no parallel in Mt., and it is the only verse 
 in this“section which is entirély without equivalent in the Sermon 
 onthe Mount. The passage reads so well both with and without it, 
 that it is difficult to see why it should have been either inserted or 
 omitted without authority. In it the Good Shepherd assures His 
 flock that, while the anxious seeking of the dAvyomurrov after food 
 and raiment is vain, their seeking after the Kingdom of God will 
 
XII. 82-34.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 320 
 
 not be vain. He gives the Kingdom to those who seek it, and 
 with it gives the necessaries of life. Wéereas those who neglect 
 the Kingdom that they may secure the necessaries, may lose both. 
 Kuptos Toupaiver pe, Kal ovdey pe torepyoer (Ps. xxiii. 1). The 
 puxpov motvuov are the disciples as contrasted with the pupiddes 
 Tov 6xXov (ver. 1). 
 
 mouuvloy = mouuévioy, which is not a diminutive, and therefore paxpov is 
 neither superfluous nor an epithet of affection, but an expression of fact. 
 
 On the nom. with the art. for the voc. see on x. 21; and for evddxnoev see 
 
 Lft. on Col. i. 19, and comp. Rom. xv. 26. 
 
 83. The first half of this verse (to 7aatovpeva) has no parallel 
 in Mt. As in vi. 29, 30, we have a rule given, not that it may be 
 kept literally, but that it may illustrate a principle. So far as 
 attachment to our possessions is concerned, we must be ready to 
 part with them (1 Cor. vii. 30). Our fondness for them is not 
 our justification for keeping them. But there is no Ebionism 
 here, no condemnation of possessions as sinful.1_ As Bede points 
 out, Christians are not commanded to retain nothing for their 
 own use (for Christ Himself had a purse out of which He gave 
 alms), but to take care that fear of poverty does not interfere with 
 benevolence. Almsgiving is not to be a mere giving of what we 
 can spare. Nor is it merely for the sake of the receiver. It is 
 also for the good of the giver, that his heart may be freed from 
 covetousness. ‘The attempt to keep the letter of the rule here 
 given (Acts ii. 44, 45) had disastrous effects on the Church of 
 Jerusalem, which speedily became a Church of _paupers, constantly 
 in need of alms (Rom. xv. 25, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 4, 
 ix. 1). Fora émdépxovta see on viii. 3; and for Badddvtia see on x. 4. 
 
 dvéxherrrtov. Not elsewhere in N.T. or LXX. Comp. xvi. 9, 
 xxii. 32; and, for the command, Mk. x. 41. Heaven is not to 
 be bought with money; but, by almsgiving, what would be a 
 hindrance is made a help.? In ows the reference perhaps is to 
 costly garments, which are a favourite form of wealth in the 
 East. The word occurs Is. 1. 9, li. 8; Job iv. 19, xxvii. 18; 
 Prov. xiv. 32; but in N.T. only here and Mt. vi. 19. 
 
 34. Almost verbatim as Mt. vi. 21. S. Paul states a similar 
 
 1 On the alleged Ebionism of Lk. see Introd: § 3. b, and also Alexander, 
 Leading Ideas of the Gospels, pp. 163= 
 
 * Margoliouth quotes from El- Ghawale s pane of the Religious Sciences 
 many. striking sayings attributed to Christ by Mahometan writers: among them 
 these. ‘‘He that seeks after this world is like one that drinks sea-water. 
 The more he drinks the thirstier he becomes, until it slay him” (iii. 161). 
 “ There are three dangers in wealth. First, it may be taken from an unlawful 
 source. And what if it be taken from a lawful source? they asked. He 
 answered : It may be given to an unworthy person. They asked, And what if 
 it be given toa worthy person? He answered, The handling of it may divert 
 its owner from God ” (iii. 178). 
 
330 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 84-87. 
 
 principle 1 Cor. vii. 32-34. Wealth stored up in this world has 
 many enemies ; that which is stored in heaven is safe from them 
 all. The ydp is specially to be noted. The reason why treasure 
 must be stored in heaven is that the hearts of those who bestow 
 it may be drawn heavenwards. 
 
 35-48. The Duty of Loyal Vigilance. From ver. 35 to ver. 38 
 this section has no parallel in Mt. The interpellation of Peter 
 (ver. 41) is also peculiar to Lk. But wv. 39, 40 and 42-46 are 
 parallel to Mt. xxiv. 43-51. The discourse once more takes 4 
 parabolic turn, watchfulness being inculcated by the parables of the 
 Master’s Return (3 on 38, 42-48) and of the Thief’s Attack (39, 40). 
 
 35. “Eotwoav Spay ai dapves mepteLoopévar, The long garments 
 of the East are a fatal hindrance to activity. Comp. xvii. 8; 
 Acts xil. 8; 1 Kings xviii. 46 ; 2 Kings iv. 29, ix. 1; Job xxxviii. 3, 
 xl. 7; Jer. 1.17. Tristram, Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 
 158. Note the emphatic position of épév and pets. “‘ Whatever 
 others may do, this is to be your condition.” 
 
 ot AUXvor Katdpevot, K.t.A. This is the parable of the Ten 
 Virgins condensed (Mt. xxv. 1). 
 
 836. mpoodexopnévois.  Lxpectantibus (Vulg.) cum desiderio et 
 gaudio (Beng.): comp. ii. 25, 38, xxiii. 51. 
 
 méte dvahion ék TOv ydpwv. If the rendering “when he shall 
 return from,” etc., is correct, this is the only place in N.T. in which 
 the verb has this meaning: comp. 2 Mac. viii. 25, xiii. 7, xv. 28; 
 3 Mac. v. 21; Wisd. ii. 1. The more usual sense is “break up 
 (a feast, camp, etc.), depart”: comp. Phil. i. 23; Judith xiii. 1; 
 2 Mac. ix. 1: and this may be the meaning here. See instances 
 in Wetst. So Luther, wenn er aufbrechen wird. ‘The wedding 
 is not his own, but that of a friend which he has been attending. 
 In Esther (ii. 18, ix. 22) ydmou is used of any banquet or festival : 
 but the literal meaning is better here.! 
 
 For the plural of a single marriage feast comp. xiv. 8; Mt. xxii. 2, 
 xxy. IO, and see Win, xxvii. 3, p. 219. For the constr. tva é6évr0s « « ' 
 dvolfwow atrG see Win. xxx. II, p. 259, and comp. xv. 20. 
 
 87. mepiLdcetar Kal dvakdwet adtods. Comp. Rev. iii. 20, 21, 
 Christ acted in this way when He washed the disciples’ feet: not, 
 however, in gratitude for their faithful vigilance, but to teach 
 them humility. Nevertheless, that was a type of what is promised 
 here: comp. Rey. xix. 9. References to the Sa‘urnal/ia, when 
 Roman masters and slaves changed places in sport, are here 
 
 1 Kimchi on Is. Ixv. mentions a saying of R. Johanan ben Zacchai, who in- 
 vited his servants without fixing a time: sapzentes se ornarunt, stolidi abierunt 
 ad opera sua. Thus some went ornatz and others sordzdz, when the time came, 
 pene the latter were disgraced (Keim, /es. of Naz. v. p. 256. Comp. Schoettgen, 
 
 p- 216). 
 
XII. 37-41.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 331 
 
 quite out of place. The parable xvii. 7-10 sets forth the usual 
 course between master and man. 
 
 88. Seutépa. The first watch is not mentioned, because then 
 the wedding-feast was going on. These are probably the two 
 last of the ¢hvee Jewish watches (Judg. vii. 19), not the two middle 
 watches of the Roman four (Mk. xili. 35; Acts xii. 4). See on 
 xxli. 34 and D.B. art. “Watches of Night.” In D, Marcion, 
 Irenzus, and some other authorities, the first watch (79 éorepw7j 
 vAakh) is inserted: WH. ii. App. p. 61. 
 
 89. ywwoxete. Probably indic. But Vulg. Luth. Beza, and 
 all English Versions make it imperat. There is nothing strange 
 in the sudden change of metaphor, especially in Oriental language. 
 The “thief in the night” is a proverb for unexpected events 
 (i bhesr vane) 2) Pet. dij mo; Rey. i. 3, xvii 15)x Comp. the 
 changes of metaphor in the parallel passage Mt. xxiv. 40-44. 
 
 adyKev. ‘* Left his house” (RV.). AV. makes no distinction between 
 addjKxev here and elacey in Mt. xxiv. 43, rendering both ‘“‘suffered.” But 
 the RV. elsewhere renders dpinuu by ‘‘suffer” (viii, 51, xviii. 16); and 
 dgjxev here cannot mean that he west owt of the house, for ‘‘he would have 
 kept awake” implies that he remained in it. If the distinction between elacev 
 and ddjxev is to be marked, the latter might be translated ‘‘allowed,” a 
 word which the Revisers nowhere use, except in the margin of Mk. iv. 29. 
 
 StopuxOqvar. “To be dug through,” the walls being made of 
 mud. Wic. has “to be myned” here and “to be undermynyde” 
 in Mt. for perfodiri of Vulg. Comp. duprfev ev oxdrer oikias 
 (Job xxiv. 16); cay d¢ &v 7d Siopdypare eipeOy 6 KA€wrys (Exod. 
 XXll. 2); ovd« év Suopvypaew evpov ators (Jer. li. 34). 
 
 41. Eiwey 8€ 6 Métpos. This interruption should be compared 
 with that in ix. 33. Each of them connects the discourse in which 
 it appears with a definite incident. It illustrates Peter’s impulsive- 
 ness and his taking the lead among the Twelve. Perhaps it was 
 the magnificence of the promise in ver. 37 which specially moved 
 him. He wants to know whether this high privilege is reserved 
 for the Apostles. For mapaBodhy déyers see on v. 36, and for 
 mpés=“‘in reference to” comp. xviii. 1; Rom. xviii. 21; Heb. i. 
 7, 8, xi. 18, and possibly Lk. xix. 9 and xx. 19. Here mpos jas 
 comes first with emphasis. 
 
 i) kal mpds mdvtas.- Peter is sure that it has reference to the 
 Twelve: the question is whether others are included. The em- 
 ployment of parables would make him suppose that the multitude 
 was being addressed, as in ver. 16; for Jesus did not commonly 
 employ this kind of teaching with His permanent disciples. The 
 spirit of the question resembles Jn. xxi. 21, and the answer 
 resembles Jn. xxi. 22. In Mk. xiii. 37 we have what looks like 
 a direct answer to the question here asked by S. Peter, “ What I 
 say to you I say to all, Watch.” 
 
332 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XITI. 42-46, 
 
 42. Tis dpa éotiv. Christ answers one question by another, 
 which does not tell the questioner exactly what he wishes to know, 
 but what it concerns him to know. It is enough that each who 
 hears recognizes that he is an oixovduos with responsibilities. 
 This was true in the highest sense of the Apostles. The oixovopos 
 here is a dspensator (Vulg.) or villicus (d), a superior slave left in 
 charge of the household and estate (see on xvi. 1). Other names 
 are ordinarius, actor, procurator, the meanings of which seem to 
 have varied at different periods and on different estates. Bekker, 
 Gallus, Excursus ili. p. 204, Eng. tr. Hatch seems to assume 
 that dispensator and villicus were terms of fixed and invariable 
 meaning (Bibl. Grk. p. 62). With mortés comp. Num. xii. 7; 
 1 Sam. xxii. 14; and with ppdvpos comp. xvi. 8; Gen. xli. 39. 
 With @epametas (abstr. for concr.) comp. éyapy O& Bapaw kal 7H 
 Geparreia airod (Gen. xlv. 16). Contrast Lk. ix. 11. 
 
 o.topétprov. ‘A measured portion of food, ration.” These 
 rations on Roman estates were served out daily, weekly, or 
 monthly. The word occurs nowhere else, but ovroperpety is 
 found (Gen. xlvii. 12, 14). Comp. Hor. £f. i. 14. 40. See 
 instances in Wetst. 
 
 44, ddnPds héyw Spiv. Here, as in ix. 27 and xxi. 3, Lk. has 
 aAnOas where Mt. has auyv. See on x. 12. Comp. voprxoi (xi. 52) 
 where Mt. has ypapparets (xxiii. 14), and his never using “Pa@Be. 
 
 éml waco Tots Urapxovow avTov, See on viii. 3. This passage and 
 Mt. xxiv. 47 seem to be the only instances in N.T. of this use of ézt. 
 Elsewhere we have the gen. (ver. 42) or acc. (ver. 14), the former being 
 more common (Mt. xxiv. 45, Xxv. 21, 23). 
 
 45. Xpovifer 6 KUpids pou. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4; Eccles. 
 viii. 11. The “But and if” of AV. is simply “But if” (RV.); 
 “and if” being “an if,” a double conditional, which was common 
 in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 
 
 apéqtat. He begins to do this, but the arrival of his lord puts 
 a stop to it: comp. v. 21, xiii. 25; Acts xi. 15. This oixovomos 
 has a large familia of slaves under him. Perhaps he makes merry 
 on what he ought to have given them. For zavdur«y as a verna- 
 cular word for a female slave see Kennedy, Sources of V.T. Grk. 
 p. 40. MeficxerOar is “to get drunk,” as distinct from peOvew 
 “to be drunk” (Acts ii. 15). 
 
 46. For the attraction in év &pg 7 ob yev boxes See on iii. 19, 
 
 StxoTouyjcet. To be understood literally; for his having his 
 portion with the unfaithful servants does not imply that he still 
 lives: their portion is a violent death. For the word comp. Ex. 
 xxix. 17; and for the punishment 2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3; 
 Susannah 59; Amos i. 3 (LXX); Heb xi. 37. There is no 
 
, 
 
 XII. 46-48.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 333 
 
 example of the word being used of scourging or other severe treat- 
 ment. There is a gradation of punishments: for vile misconduct 
 and tyranny, death; for deliberate neglect, many stripes; for 
 unintentional neglect, few stripes. Herodotus uses daréuvew: ii. 
 139. 2, Vii. 39. 5. Comp. Suet. Caligula, xxvii.: multos honesti 
 ordinis . . . medios serra dissecuit. 
 
 TS pépos adtod peta Tov dmictwv Oyce, “Will appoint his 
 portion with the unfaithful servants,” z.e. those guilty of a gross abuse 
 of trust. ‘ Unbelievers” here has no point. Mt. has rav troxpi- 
 tov, which means much the same as tev azictwv. This unfaithful 
 steward expected to be able to play the part of a trusty agent ac 
 the time of his lord’s arrival. For 76 pwépos we have 7 pépis in 
 LXX, Is. xvii. 14; Jer. xill. 25. 
 
 Here the parallel with Mt. xxiv. 43-51 ends. What follows is 
 preserved by Lk. alone. 
 
 47. éxeivos 8¢ 6 Sodd0s. “ Aut that servant,” ///e autem serous. 
 Both AV. and RV. have “and.” The dé marks the contrast be- 
 tween this transgressor and the oixovéyos, for wij érousdoas 7 Touneas 
 mpos TO O¢Anua avrod is a less serious offence than the outrages 
 which are described in vz. 45, 46, and one which a// servants may 
 commit. 
 
 Sapyoetat wéAdas. Understand zArjyas and comp. raéew éAzyas 
 (Xen. Anad. v. 8.12). In N.T. dépw is never “I flay,” but always 
 “‘T beat.” Comp. the vulgar “hide, giving a hiding to.” In LXX 
 dépw does not occur, except as v./. in Lev. 1. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 34, 
 XXXV. 11; but in all three places the meaning is “flay,” and the 
 true reading possibly éxdépw. Comp. Mic. ii 8, ili. 3. The 
 doctrine of degrees of punishment hereafter is taught here still 
 more plainly than in x. 12, 14. See Aug. De Civ. Dez, xxi. 16. 
 
 There are two classes not mentioned here: 6 yvots xal zoujoas 
 and (so far as that is possible) 6 pa yvovs cai roijyoas: see on 
 Rom. ii. 14. 
 
 48. 6 wh yvous. Seeing that he is a servant, he might have 
 known his master’s will, had he been anxious to find it out. 
 Nevertheless it is true that even he, who, in ignorance for which 
 he is not responsible, commits déia wAnyév, has to suffer. The 
 natural consequences of excess or transgression must follow. 
 
 In the second half of the verse it is doubtful whether the two parallel state- 
 ments mean exactly the same thing or not. Either, ‘‘ He who receives much is 
 expected to exhibit much gratitude, and also readiness to make return; and is 
 expected to do more than ¢hose who have received less”: or, ‘* He who receives 
 a gift (é500y), must make a proportionate return: and he who receives a deposit 
 (wapé@evro), must restore more than #e has recezved.” In the latter case the 
 second half states the principle of the parables of the Talents and the Pounds. 
 Note the impersonal plurals, and comp. ver. 20. 
 
 49-58. The discourse seems to return to its starting-point 
 
334 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII. 48-51. 
 
 (vv. 1-2). Christ’s teaching inevitably provokes opposition and a 
 division between those who accept it and those who reject it. 
 There is no parallel in Mt. or Mk. to wv. 49, 50. 
 
 49. Nip. First foremphasis. “It is fire that I came to cast upon 
 the earth.” The context seems to show that the fire of division 
 and strife is meant: or, comparing ili. 16, we may understand the 
 fire of holiness, which excites hostility and controversy. Lgnis” ille 
 non est nativus terre (Beng.). His xpiwa éy@ eis Tov Koopov Tadrov 
 7AOov (Jn. ix: 39: comp. lil. 19). 
 
 kat Ti O€dw et 75y dvypoy; A passage of well-known difficulty, 
 the translation of which remains doubtful. With this punctuation 
 we may follow AV. and RV., “What will I, if it be (is) already 
 kindled?” the meaning of which is not clear: comp. LXX of 
 Josh. vii. 7. Or, with De Wette, Weiss, and many others, “ How 
 I wish that it were already kindled!” which does rather serinus 
 violence to the Greek. Or, with Origen, Meyer, etc., we may 
 punctuate, kat ti @édw; ei 78y avyhOy. “ And what will I? Would 
 that it were already kindled!” (Win. liii. 8. c, p. 562); which is 
 rather abrupt and harsh: but comp. xix. 42 and Jn. xii. 27. Per- 
 haps the first is best, meaning, ‘What more have I to desire, if 
 it be already kindled.” The next verse does not imply that it is 
 not kindled ; and the history of Christ’s ministry shows that it was 
 kindled, although not to the full extent. Comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 21. 
 Christ came to set the world on fire, and the conflagration had 
 already begun. Mal. iii. 2. Comp. the constr. in Ecclus. xxiii. 14. 
 
 50. Bdamticpa Sé €xouat BamticOAvar. Having used the meta- 
 phor of fire, Christ now uses the metaphor of water. The one 
 sets forth the result of His coming as it affects the world, the other 
 as it affects Himself. The world is lit up with flames, and Christ 
 is bathed in blood: Mk. x. 38. His passion is a flood in which 
 He must be plunged. The metaphor is a common one in O.T. 
 Ps. Ixix. 2, 3, 14, 15, xlil. 7, cxxiv. 4, 5, cxliv. 7; [ssi 
 Jordan in flood and mountain torrents in spate would suggest such 
 figures. See on ix, 22. 
 
 Tas guvéxopat €ws STou TeheoOH. “ How am I oppressed, afflicted, 
 
 until it be finished”: comp. villi. 37; Job iii. 24. The prospect 
 of His sufferings was a perpetual Gethsemane: comp. Jn. xii. 27. 
 While He longed to accomplish His Father’s will, possibly His 
 human will craved a shortening of the waiting. Comp. ovvéxouat 
 dé ék tov dvo (Phil. i. 23). With reAeoOG comp. reréAcoral, Jn. xix, 
 28, 30. 
 51. With vv. 51 and 53 comp. Mt. x. 34, 35. It was the belief 
 of the Jews that the Messiah would at once introduce a reign of 
 peace and prosperity. Jesus does not wish His followers to live 
 in a fool’s paradise. He is no enthusiast making wild and delusive 
 promises. In this world they must expect tribulation. 
 
XII. 61-55.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 335 
 
 GAN 7. “Except, but.” Although the dA)’ has no accent, it seems to 
 represent @XXo rather than dAAd: “I came not to send any other thing than 
 division.” Or there may be a mixture of ovdév GAXNo F and oddéy AKO, adrAd: 
 comp. 2 Cor. i. 13; Job vi. §; Ecclus. xxxvii. 12, xliv. 10. The expression 
 is cmon in class. Grk.; and in Hdt. i. 49. 1, ix. 8. 3 the origin of it seems 
 to be shown. See Stallbaum on Phado, 81 B; Win. li. 7. n. 5, p. 552. 
 
 Stapepiopés, Comp. Mic. vii. 12; Ezek. xlviii. 29. Here only 
 in N.T. Christ prepares them for disappointment. 
 
 52. This verse has no parallel in Mt. x. Comp. Mic. vii. 6, 
 on which what follows seems to be based. Godet says that there 
 are five persons here and six in ver. 53. There are five in both 
 cases, the mother and mother-in-law being the same person. Ex- 
 cepting 2 Cor. v. 16, dwé tod vi is peculiar to Lk. (i. 48, v. 10, 
 xxii. 18, 69; Acts xviii. 6). It is not rare in LXX (Gen. xlvi. 30; 
 Ps. cxii. 2, Cxili. 26, cxx. 8, cxxiv. 2, cxxx. 3, Is. ix. 7, etc.). 
 
 53. watnp éwi vid ... pymnp = @uyatépa . . . wevOepad emi 
 Thy viudny. The change from the dat. to the acc. possibly indicates 
 that the hostility is more intense in the case of the women. But 
 LXX of Mic. vii. 6 more probably was the cause of the change. 
 There we have éxi rj of the women, but vids ariyale rarépa of 
 the men. In Mt. x. 35 we have xard ¢. gen. in all three cases. 
 Lk. omits “A man’s foes shall be those of his own household.” 
 Comp. Mal iv. 6. 
 
 For vipdn=“‘ daughter-in-law” comp. Mt. x. 35; Gen. xi. 31, xxxviii. 
 11; Lev. xvili, 15, etc.; Jos. dnt. v. 9. I. In Jn. iii, 29; Rey, xviii. 23, 
 etc., it has the classical meaning of “‘ bride.” 
 
 54-59. §Ignorance of the Signs of the Times. Christ once 
 more addresses the multitude (ver. 15), apparently on the same 
 occasion ; but it is by no means certain that Lk. means this. If 
 so, this is a last solemn word by way of conclusion. The parallel 
 passage Mt. xvi. 2, 3 is of very doubtful authority. It can hardly 
 be derived from Lk., from which it differs almost entirely in word- 
 ing, but perhaps comes from some independent tradition. 
 
 54. “Eheyey 8¢ cai. The formula is suitable for introducing 
 a final utterance of special point. Comp. v. 36, ix. 23, xvi. 1, 
 xviii. I. For tots dxAors see On xi. 29. 
 
 éxt Sucpav. In the West, and therefore from the Mediter- 
 ranean Sea, which was a sign of rain (1 Kings xviii. 44). Robinson, 
 Res. in Pal.i. P- 4295 D.B. art. “ Rain.” 
 
 eibéws A¢yere G7. "OpBpos Epxerar. Both the eiéws and the pres. 
 épxerat point to the confidence with which the announcement is 
 made: “at once ye say, Rain is He Comp. épxerar apa, 
 “OpBpos is “heavy rain, a thunder-shower”: Deut. xxxii. 2; Wisd. 
 xvi. 16; Ecclus. xlix. 9; Jos. Anz. ii. 16. 3. 
 
 ed ae vétov mvéovta. Understand idyre. One sees that it is 
 a south wind by the objects which it moves. Lk. alone uses véros 
 
336 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 55-59. 
 
 of the south wind (Acts xxvii. 13, xxviii. 13). Elsewhere it means 
 the South, as frequently in LXX (xi. 31, xiil. 29; Mt. xii. 42; Rev. 
 XxI. 13; I Sam. XXVil. IO, XxX. I, 14, 275 2 Salll. XSlvegy eehmes 
 vil. 25, 39 [13, 25], etc.). 
 
 kavowv. ‘Scorching heat”: Mt. xx. 12; Jas. 1. 11; Is. xlix. 
 10; Ecclus. xviii. 16, xliii. 22. Perhaps nowhere in N.T. does 
 xavowy mean the burning east wind (Job xxvii. 21 ; Hos. xii. 1); 
 but Jas. i. 11 is doubtful. 
 
 56. droxpitat. Comp. Mt. xxiii. 13 ff. They professed to be 
 unabl2 to interpret signs, such as the birth, preaching, and death 
 of the Baptist, the preaching and miracles of Jesus. But their 
 weather-wisdom proved that they could be intelligent enough 
 where their worldly interests were concerned. 
 
 Soxipdte. “To test.” In 76 tpdcwrov Tod otpavod and Katpdv 
 we have almost the only words that are common to this passage 
 and Mt. xvi. 2, 3. With tov xaipdv (tempus Messiz) comp. xix. 
 44. 
 
 57. Tl Sé kal dp éautav. ‘ But why even of yourselves, out 
 of your own hearts and consciences,” without information from 
 externals: comp. xxi. 30. Or possibly, “Of yourselves a/so,” as 
 readily (<d@éws) as in the case of the weather. In either case af’ 
 éavtav comes first for emphasis. For $€ kai see small print on ili. 9. 
 
 58. as yap tmdyeis. yap sepe ponitur, ubi propositionem exctpit tractatio. 
 Here év 77 66@ stands first with emphasis; no time is to be lost. And the 
 Latinism dds épyactay, da operam, occurs here only. Wetst. quotes Hermo- 
 genes, De Jnventione, iii. 5. 7. Excepting Eph. iv. 19, épyacla in N.T. is 
 peculiar to Lk. (Acts xvi. 16, 19, xix. 24, 25). Hobart regards it as medical 
 (p. 243), but it is very freq. in LXX. Note os = “when.” 
 
 GanddaxGar. “To be quit of him” by coming to terms with him. 
 Christ is perhaps taking the case of the two brothers (vv. 13, 14) as an illus- 
 tration. The amd before the atro is omitted in B, but is certainly right 
 Acts xix. 12, In class. Grk. both constructions are found, but the simple 
 gen. is more common. Plat. Leg. 868 D; Xen. Jem. ii. 9. 6. 
 
 katacvpy. Here only in N.T. and only once in LXX of ruining or 
 demolishing : 8re éy® xatécupa rév ‘Hoad (Jer. xlix. 10). In Lat. detraho is 
 used of dragging into court. For examples see Wetst, Mt. has wapadg 7g 
 KplT]. 
 
 mapaddcer TO mpdktopt Kat & mpdxtwp ce Badet eis pudaxhy 
 Tradat te exactori et exactor mittat te in carcerem (Vulg.). For 
 exactor Cod. Palat. (e) has the strange word pignerarius. No- 
 where else in bibl. Grk. does zpdxtwp occur. At Athens the 
 magistrate who imposed a fine gave notice to the zpdxropes, who 
 entered it as due from the person fined ; but they did not enforce 
 payment, if the fine was not paid. They merely kept the record. 
 See D. of Ant.2 art. Practores. For zpdxropt Mt. has tanpérp. 
 
 59. héyw oot. He addresses each individual. Mt. has épyy 
 Aéyw cof (comp. ver. 44), and for Aerréy has Kodpdvrnv. The 
 
XII. 59-XIII. 1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 337 
 
 Nerdy (Aerrés=“ peeled, thin, small”) was half a guadrans and 
 the eighth of an as: see on ver. 6, and comp. xxi. 2; Mk. xii. 42. 
 Can the payment be made é& ¢gvAaxy? The parable gives no 
 answer to this question. But it teaches that the proper time for 
 payment is before judgment is given, and that release is impossible 
 until full payment is made. The Talmud says: “The offences 
 between man and God the Day of Atonement doth atone for. 
 The offences between man and his neighbour the Day of Atone- 
 ment atoneth for, only when he hath agreed with his neighbour.” 
 There is no need to interpret the details in the parable, and make 
 the dvtidunos mean the law of God, and the dpywy God Himself, 
 and the xpiryjs the Son of God. 
 
 XIII. 1-9. § Three Exhortations to Repentance, of which two 
 (1-3; 4, 5) are based upon recent occurrences, while the third 
 (6-9) is a parable. All three seem to have been omitted by 
 Marcion in his mutilated Gospel ; but it is not easy to see what he 
 disliked in them. They are peculiar to Lk., and both external and 
 internal evidence guarantee their authenticity. Time and place 
 are indefinite ; but the connexion with what precedes is expressly 
 stated, and the scene must have been away from Jerusalem. 
 
 1-8. The Moral of the Massacre of the Galilean Pilgrims, 
 There is no record of this massacre in any other source. But the 
 turbulent character of the Galilzans, and the severity of Pilate and 
 other Roman governors, make the incident more than credible. 
 Horrible massacres are recorded by Josephus (A 77. xvii. 9. 3, xviii. 3. I, 
 xx. 5.3; B/. ii. 3. 3, 9.4, V. 1.5). The fact that such things were 
 common accounts for the absence of other records ; and possibly not 
 very many were slain. But such an outrage on Galilzans may have 
 been one of the causes of the enmity between Herod and Pilate 
 (xxiii. 12); and Keim conjectures that it was on this occasion 
 that Barabbas was imprisoned. So also Lewin, Fast# Sacri, 1407. 
 
 Others have conjectured the occasion to have been the insurrection under 
 Judas of Galilee, the Gaulonite of Gamala (Avz#. xviii. 1. 1; B./. ii. 8. 1); but 
 that was many years earlier (¢. A.D. 6), and these new-comers evidently report 
 some recent event. On the other hand, the insurrection of the Samaritans 
 (Ant. xviii. 4. 1) took place later than this, being the immediate cause of the 
 recall of Pilate (A.D. 36). And what had Samaritan rebellion to do with the 
 massacre of Galilzans? Comp. Philo’s summary of the enormities of Pilate: ras 
 Swpodoxlas, Tas UBpers, Tas apmaryas, Tas alklas, Tas émnpelas, Tos dxplrovs Kat 
 éraddjrous ddvous, THY dvjyutov Kal dpyadewrdrny wudtynta (Leg. ad Gaium, 
 XXXVill. p. 1034 c, ed. Galen.). Again he says of him: fv yap rhy dicw 
 dxapmhs Kal werd Tod avOddous dueldexros ; and, ola ofv éyxdrws Exwv Kal Bapd- 
 pnus dvOpwros. See Lewin, 1493; Derenbourg, p. 198. 
 
 1. Napjcav. Not, “there were present,” as all English Versions 
 render, but, “there came,” vexerunt (Cod. Brix.). These inform- 
 ants were not in the crowd which Jesus had been addressing, but 
 brought the news afterwards. For this use of zapeivac comp. Acts 
 
 22 
 
338 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIIL 1-3. 
 
 x. 21; Mt. xxvi. §0; Jn. xi. 28: sometimes followed by zpos 
 (Acts xii. 20; Gal. iv. 18, 20), or by eds (Col. i. 6): comp. Lk. 
 xl. 7. In Mt. xxvi. 50; Acts x. 21, xii. 20, Vulg. has vemio; in 
 Col. i. 6, pervento. Wetst. quotes a close parallel: aapyody tives 
 amayyéAXovtes TodXOds THY “EAAjvev vewrepifev (Diod. Sic. xvii. 8). 
 
 ev avT@ TO katp@. “At that very opportunity,” viz. just as He 
 was speaking about the signs of the times. Possibly they had 
 heard His last words, and thought that their story would be 
 regarded as a sign: 7G xarp@ may look back to rév xaupdv (xii. 56: 
 comp. i. 20, iv. 13). 
 
 dv 76 atwa Mewdatos éutgev peta Tov Qucrav adtay. These pilgrims 
 from Galilee had come up to Jerusalem for one of the Feasts, 
 probably Tabernacles, and had come into collision with the 
 Romans, no doubt through some fanatical act of rebellion. The 
 merciless Zrocurator, himself in Jerusalem to keep order during 
 the Feast, sent troops to attack them as they were sacrificing in 
 the temple courts, and their blood was mingled with that of the 
 slaughtered beasts. The expression, ‘‘ mingling blood with blood,” 
 occurs elsewhere. Schoettgen quotes (of Israelites who were cir- 
 cumcised in Egypt at the Passover): e¢ circumcisi sunt, et commixtus 
 est sanguis paschatis cum sanguine circumcisionts (Hor. Hebr. p. 286). 
 And again: David swore to Abishai, if he laid hands on Saul, “I 
 will mingle thy blood with his blood” (zdzd. p. 287 ; Lightfoot, 
 Hor. Hebr. ad loc.). 
 
 2. We gather the object of these informants from Christ’s 
 answer. They did not want Him as a Galilean to protest against 
 Pilate’s cruelty, perhaps by heading another Galilean revolt. 
 Rather, like Job’s friends, they wanted to establish the view that 
 this calamity was a judgment upon the sufferers for exceptional 
 wickedness (Job iv. 7, viii. 4, 20, xxii. 5; comp. Jn. ix. £, 2). 
 Perhaps they had heard about the threatened “cutting asunder” 
 (xii. 46), and thought that this was a case in point. There is no 
 hint that they wished to entrap Him into strong language respect- 
 ing Pilate. 
 
 mapa wavtas T. TF. éyévovto. “* Showed themselves to be (comp. x. 36) 
 sinners Jeyond all the Galilzans.” Comp. the use of wapd after comparatives, 
 iii. 13. 
 
 3. mdvres Spotws dodetcbe. The suffering of a whole nation is 
 more likely to be produced by the sin of the nation than the suffer- 
 ing of an individual by the sin of the individual. Lxempla sunt 
 omnium tormenta paucorum. Jesus condemns neither the Galilzans 
 nor Pilate, but warns all present of what must befall ‘em unless 
 they free themselves from ¢hezr guilt. It is this approach of judg- 
 ment upon His whole people which seems to fill Christ’s thought, 
 and to oppress Him far more than the approach of His own suffer- 
 
XIII. 3-5.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 339 
 
 ings. Grotius points out how exact the éuoiws is. Vide quam 
 omnia congruerint. Paschatis enim die occisi sunt, magna pars in 
 ipso templo pecudum ritu, ob eandam causam seditionis. But it is 
 unlikely that this massacre took place at the Passover. The rest 
 is right. IlodAol . . . mpd rév Oupdrwv érecov airoi Kat Tov“ EAAqon 
 maou kat BapBapos ceBacpiov Bopov xaréorecav dion pov (BZ. /. 
 VeliT.1 3). 
 
 4, 4 The Moral of the Catastrophe at Siloam. This incident 
 also is recorded here only. Jesus mentions it spontaneously as 
 something fresh in their memories. ‘The tower” means the well- 
 known tower. 
 
 4, év 7 XiNwdp. The év perhaps indicates that it was surrounded 
 by buildings. 
 
 The Greek form of the name varies. ZiAwdu in LXX and Josephus; 
 ZiAwds in Josephus ; ZAwd in Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Note 
 the article, which agrees with Jewish usage. In Jn. ix. 7 and in LXX the 
 article occurs: comp. 7év ZapGva (Acts ix. 35). Few sites have been identi- 
 
 fied with more certainty than Siloam: Conder, Handbk. of B. p. 3353 
 Stanley, Sz. & Fal. pp. 180, 428; Tristram, Bzble Places, p. 162. 
 
 Sperkéror, vil. 41, xl. 4; Mt. vi. 12, xviii. 24-34. The change 
 of word from duaprwAoi (ver. 2) ought to be marked in translation, 
 as by Wic. Rhem. and RV.; and also the change from dépoiws 
 (ver. 3) to dcavrws (ver. 5), as by RV., although there is little 
 change of meaning. If Ewald’s guess is correct, that these eighteen 
 were working at the aqueducts made by Pilate, to pay for which he 
 had used tov tepdv Onoavpdv (kaAcirar dé KopBavas), then dderérar 
 may be used in allusion to this, implying that it was held that 
 these workmen ought to pay back their wages into the treasury 
 (Jos. B. /. ii. 9. 4). Jesus reminds the people that they are all 
 sinners, and that all sinners are debtors to Divine justice (xii. 58). 
 
 5. wetavoyonte.. The change of tense, if this be the right reading 
 (SA DLMT UX), points to the need of zmedzate repentance, as distinct 
 from a s¢a/e or continued attitude of repentance, peravofre (ver. 3). Vulg. 
 
 expresses the difference by wzs¢ paenttentzam habueritis (ver. 3) and sé penz- 
 tentiam non egeriizs (ver. 5). See on iii. 3 and v. 32. 
 
 mdvtes GoatTws drodeicbe, The dcatrus is stronger than opotws, 
 as “in the same manner” than “in like manner.” In both verses 
 the MSS. are divided, but with a balance in ver. 3 for o“otws and 
 for acavrws here. See Jos. B. /. vi. 5. 4, 7. 2, 8. 3, etc., for the 
 similarity between the fate of these eighteen and that of the Jews 
 at the fall of Jerusalem. 
 
 6-9. §The Parable of the Barren Fig tree. It sets forth the 
 longsuffering and the severity of God. His visitation of sin, how- 
 ever long delayed in order to give opportunity of repentance, is 
 sure. The fig tree, as in Mk. xi. 13, is the Jewish nation, but also 
 any individual soul. Comp. Hos. ix. 10; Joel i. 7. It is arbitrary 
 
 ( 
 
340 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIII 6-9. 
 
 to assert that the withering of the barren fig tree in Mt. xxi. and 
 Mk. xi. is a transformation of this parable into a fact, or that the 
 supposed fact has here been wisely turned into a parable. 
 
 6. “Eheyev 5€ tadtHy Thy TapaBodknv. See ony. 36. The parable 
 is a continuation of the warning, “‘ Except ye repent, ye shall all 
 likewise perish.” 
 
 Lucy... & TO dumekOv. attod. The main subject of the 
 parable is placed first. Deut. xxii. 9 forbids the sowing of corn in 
 vineyards, but to plant other fruit trees there was not a violation of 
 this. At the present day fruit trees of various kinds are common 
 in vineyards and in cornfields in Palestine (Stanley, Szz. & Pad. 
 p. 421). “The fig tree ripeneth her green figs, and the vines are 
 in blossom” (Cavz. ii. 13), perhaps implies this combination. 
 
 7. tpia erm ad od Epxouar. Lit. “It is three years from the 
 time when I continue coming”: comp. Thuc. i. 18. 1. A fig tree 
 is said to attain maturity in three years, and a tree that remained 
 fruitless for so long would not be likely to bear afterwards. See 
 quotations in Wetst. The three years of Christ’s ministry cannot 
 well be meant. The tree had been fruitless long before He began 
 to preach, and it was not cut down until forty years after He ceased 
 to do so. Cyril suggests Moses and Aaron, Joshua and the 
 Judges, and the Prophets (Migne, vol. Ixxii. 753). Ambrose pro- 
 poses the annunciations to Abraham, Moses, and Mary (Migne, 
 vol. xv. 1743). Other triplets equally good might be easily de- 
 vised ; but none are required. See Schanz, ad /oc. p. 369. 
 
 iva Tl kal Ty yjv Katapyet; ‘Why, in addition to doing no 
 good, does it sterilize the ground?” Utguid etiam terram occupat 
 (Vulg.). Excepting here and Heb. ii. 14, the verb is used in N.T. 
 only by S. Paul. He has it often, and in all four groups of his 
 Epistles. In LXX only in Ezra (iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8). Latin 
 Versions vary between occupat, evacuat, detinet, and intricat; 
 English Versions between “occupy,” “keep barren,” “cumber,” 
 and “hinder.” All the latter, excepting Rhem. and RV., miss the 
 cat: it not only gives no fruit, it also renders good soil useless 
 (apyov). 
 
 8. xémpia. Here only in N.T. In Jer. xxv. 33 (xxxii. 19) and Ecclus. 
 xxii. 2 this plur. occurs as here without the art. The curious reading xéguvor 
 
 komplwy is found in D, and is supported by cofimum stercords or cophinam ster- 
 corts of various Latin texts, d having gua/um stercorés. 
 
 g. eis TO peddov. In the true text (NW BL 33, Boh. Aeth.) this expression 
 precedes ei 62 wuyye, and we have an aposiopesis as in Acts xxiii. 9; Rom. 
 ix. 22-24. Comp. Exod. xxxii. 32, where LXX supplies the apodosis. The 
 ellipse of kah@s éxet occurs in class. Gk. It is perhaps possible to make els 7d 
 
 
 
 1 Both dpyds (contr. from depyds) and dpyla are used of land that yields no 
 return: Xen. Cyr. iii. 2. 19; Theophr. &. Phys. v. 9. 8. Comp. Rom. vi. 6, 
 ‘that the body as an instrument of sin may be rendered unproductive, inactive ” 
 (karapy 07) ; also 1 Cor. xv. 26; 2 Cor. iii. 14; 2 Tim. i. 10, 
 
XIII. 9-11.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 341 
 
 #é\Xov the apodosis: ‘‘if it bear fruit, we may postpone the queg.ion ; but if 
 not,” etc. That els 7d wéA\ov may mean ‘‘again next year” is clear from 
 Plutarch’s use of it for magistrates designate: eg. Tdv Ilelowva xaréorynoev 
 Umaroy els Td wé\dov (Cw#s. xiv.) ; and perhaps it may mean ‘‘next year (Syr- 
 Sin.),” the prep. being redundant, as in els ryv tplryv: comp. Jos. Ant. 
 i. 11. 2. But that éros need not be understood, and that the prep. need not 
 be redundant, is clear from 1 Tim. vi. 19, where els 7d wéAXov means ‘‘ against 
 the time to come.” Only if the prep. be made redundant is the transfer of els 
 70 wéddov to éxxoWers (A D) possible ; for ‘‘ agazzs¢t next year thou shalt cut it 
 down” would here make no sense; but the external evidence is conclusive 
 against the transfer. Comp. Acts xiii. 42; Hom. Od. xiv. 384. 
 
 For the change from édy to el (kav . . . el dé wjyrye) comp. Acts v. 38, 39. 
 It occurs in class. Grk.; and in most cases of this kind either conjunction 
 might just as well have been used twice. Here it is possible that the first 
 alternative is given as more problematical than the second. 
 
 e€xxdwpers adtnv. “Thou shalt (have) it cut down,” shalt give 
 the order for it. The vine-dresser will not even then cut it down 
 without express command. He does not say éexxdyw. Comp. the 
 Baptist’s warning, in which this same verb (éxxozrerat) is used 
 (iii. 9). Trench gives a striking parallel in an Arabian recipe for 
 curing a barren palm tree (Par. p. 359, roth ed.). 
 
 10-17. § Healing of a Woman on the Sabbath from a Spirit of 
 Infirmity. The details are manifest tokens of historical truth. 
 The pharisaic pomposity of the ruler of the Synagogue, with his 
 hard and fast rules about propriety ; Christ’s triumphant refutation 
 of his objections ; and the delight of the people, who sympathize 
 with the dictates of human nature against senseless restrictions ;— 
 all this is plainly drawn from life. See Keim, Jes. of Vaz. iv. 
 pp. 15, 162. Here, as in vi. 1-11, Christ claims no authority to 
 abolish the sabbath. He restores it to its true meaning by rescu- 
 ing it from traditions which violated it. See Hort, /udatstic 
 Christianity, p. 32. 
 
 10. This is the last mention of His teaching in a synagogue, 
 and the only instance of His doing so in the latter part of His 
 ministry. In many places where He was known the elders would 
 not have allowed Him to preach, seeing that the hierarchy had 
 become so hostile to Him. It is evident that rots ca8Bacw is 
 sing. in meaning, as always in the Gospels. See on iv. 31, where, 
 as here, we have the periphrastic imperfect. 
 
 11. tvedpa éxouoa dolevetas. “Who had a spirit that caused 
 infirmity.” See Sanday on Rom. viii. 15. Similarly a demon that 
 caused dumbness is called a “dumb spirit” (xi. 14; Mk. 
 ix. 17,25). Weiss would have it that this expression is the Evan- 
 gelist’s own inference, and a wrong inference, from Fv édycev 6 
 Zaravas (ver. 16), which probably means that Jesus knew her 
 malady to be the consequence of her sinful life. Therefore Satan, 
 who caused the sin, caused the malady. Weiss asserts that the 
 laying on of hands never occurs in the case of demoniacs. And 
 
342 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIIL 11-15. 
 
 he appeals to OepazevecGe (ver. 14), observing that exorcisms are 
 not healings (L. /. ii. p. 53, Eng. tr. ii. p. 239). But we know too 
 little to affirm that Jesus never laid His hands on demoniacs ; and 
 both Gepazrevew (vill. 2; Mt. xvii. 16) and ido@ar (ix. 42) are used 
 of healing them. Jesus generally cured ordinary diseases with 4 
 touch or laying on of hands (iv. 40, v. 13, ix. 44, 54, xiv. 4, 
 xxli. 51); but He sometimes healed such with a word (iv. 39, 
 Vv. 24, Vi. 10, vii. 10). Although He commonly healed demoniacs 
 with a word (iv. 35, 41, Vili. 29, 1x. 42), He may sometimes have 
 touched them. And it should be noted that droAéAvoa, which 
 implies that she has already been freed from the wvedua aoGevetas 
 (comp. v. 20), precedes the laying on of hands. Therefore this 
 act, like the laying hold of the demoniac boy (Mk. ix. 27), may 
 have been added in order to complete the physical cure. There is 
 nothing to show that the woman had come expecting to be healed 
 by Jesus. For cuvkvmrouga see Ecclus. xii. 11, xix. 26. 
 
 érn Séxa dunt. To suggest that this isa reminiscence of the eighteen on 
 whom the tower fell, and that the twelve in viii. 43 is a reminiscence of the 
 twelve in viii. 42, is hardly sober criticism. Do numbers never come a second 
 time in real life? And he must be a poor inventor who is incapable of varying 
 numbers. 
 
 pi Suvapévy. As usual in N.T., we have 4 with the participle, although 
 it refers to a matter of fact. Comp. i. 20; Acts ix. 9; and see Simcox, Zang. 
 of N.T. p. 188. 
 
 dvaktipa. eis TS twavtehés. “Wholly to lift up herself, to 
 straighten herself properly.” Nearly all English Versions follow 
 the Vulgate in taking «is 76 wavredés with py duvvapevy; nec omnino 
 poterat, “could not in any wise, could not at all.” But it may go 
 with dvaxvio., after which it is placed: “coulde not well loke up” 
 (Cov.) ; honnte nicht wohl aufsehen (Luth.). Comp. ode eis 76 
 mavtedés Svvarat (Heb. vii. 25), the only other passage in N.T. in 
 which it occurs. Not in LXX. Josephus always has it next to 
 the word to which it belongs (Avzé. i. 18. 5, iii. 11. 3, 12. I, Vi. 2. 3, 
 vii. 13. 3). 
 
 12. dwodd\ucat, “Thou hast been and remainest loosed” ; 
 an unasked for cure. Comp. dé¢éwvrat (v. 20, vii. 48). 
 
 18. rapaxpipa dévwpAd0y. See on v. 25. The verb occurs in 
 N.T. only here, Acts xv. 16, and Heb. xii. 12; but is freq. in LXX. 
 Hobart shows that it is used by medical writers of straightening 
 abnormal or dislocated parts of the body (p. 22). 
 
 14. droxpibecis 8€ 6 dpxtouvdywyos. Comp. viil. 41. No one 
 had spoken to him, but he replies to what had been dine. He 
 indirectly censures the act of Jesus by addressing the people as 
 represented by the woman. 
 
 15. ‘Yroxpitat. All who sympathize with this faultfinder are 
 addressed, especially of dvrixeiuevor aird (ver. 17). There was 
 
XIII. 15-17.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 343 
 
 hypocrisy in pretending to rebuke the people, when he was really 
 censuring Jesus; and in professing to have a zeal for the Law, 
 when his motive was azimus against the Healer. There was no 
 evidence that people had come in order to be healed. And, if 
 they had done so, would they have broken the Law? Cyril has a 
 very animated attack on this man, whom he addresses as Backavias 
 aydpdarodov, rebuking him for not seeing that Jesus had not broken 
 even the letter of the Law in keeping its spirit (Migne, vol. 1xxii. 
 770; Payne Smith, p. 454). See also Iren. iv. 8. 2. For 6 Kupuos 
 see on v. 17 and vii. 13. 
 
 The sing. saoxpird (D U X and some Versions) is an obvious correction. 
 All English Versions prior to RV., even Wic. and Rhem., have the sing., in 
 spite of Aypocritz in Vulg. 
 
 Nuet tov Boty adtod. Christ appeals from his perverted inter- 
 pretation of the law to a traditional and reasonable interpretation. 
 But here the Talmud makes the characteristic reservation that, 
 although water may be drawn for the animal, it must not be carried 
 to the animal in a vessel (Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. App. xvii.). For 
 other arguments used by Christ respecting the Sabbath, see vi. 3, 
 5,9; Mk. ii. 27, 28; Jn. v.17. We may place them in an ascend- 
 ing scale. Jewish tradition; charity and common sense; the 
 Sabbath is a blessing, not a burden ; the Son of Man is Lord of 
 it ; Sabbaths have never hindered the Father’s work, and must not 
 hinder the Son’s. Such appeals would be varied to suit the 
 occasion and the audience. 
 
 16. An argument @ fortiori. If an animal, how much more a 
 daughter of Abraham ; if one whom yourselves have bound for a 
 few hours, how much more one whom Satan has bound for eighteen 
 years. Comp. Job ii.; Acts x. 383 I Cor. Vo. 5a 2, COm aa 73 
 1 Tim. i. 20: and with idod déxa Kai dxrd ery comp. idod recaepa- 
 xovta érn (Deut. vili. 4); also Acts ii. 7, xiii, 11. 
 
 ede. AuOfAvor. Not only she may be loosed, but she ought to 
 be. The obligation was for the healing on the Sabbath. It was a 
 marked fulfilment of the programme of the ministry as announced 
 in the synagogue at Nazareth (iv. 18). There is no prescription 
 against doing good ; and a religion which would honour God by 
 forbidding virtue is self-condemned. 
 
 17. \éyovtos aitod. “As He said” (RV.), not ‘When He had 
 said” (AV. ). 
 
 katyoxuvovto. “Were put to shame”: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 14, 
 ix. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 16; in all which passages RV. is more accurate 
 than AV. See also LXX of Is. xlv. 16. 
 
 éml maou Tots evBdgors Tots yivopevors bw adtoo. “Over all the 
 glorious things that were dezmg done by Him.” For rots evdéEos 
 comp. Exod. xxxiv. 10 ; Deut. x. 21; Job v. 9, ix. 10, xxxiv. 243 
 
344 TUE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII 17-19. 
 
 and for the pres. part. Mk. vi. 2. It refers to much more than the 
 healing of this woman: gue gloriose fiebant ab eo (Vulg.). 
 
 Some would put a full stop at air@, and make Kal mas 6 8xNos Exatper 
 the introduction to what follows. But this robs the statement of all point. 
 As a revolt of the popular conscience against the censoriousness of the hier- 
 archy it is full of meaning. 
 
 18-21. The Parables of the Mustard Seed and of the Leaven. 
 The former is given by all three (Mt. xiii. 31, 32 ; Mk. iv. 30-32), 
 the latter by two (Mt. xiii. 33). Thus Mt. as well as Lk. places 
 them together. Both parables set forth the small beginning, 
 gradual spread, and immense development of the Kingdom of God, 
 the one from without, the other from within. Externally the King- 
 dom will at last embrace all nations ; internally, it will transform 
 the whole of human life. Often before this Jesus has mentioned 
 the Kingdom of God (vi. 20, vii. 28, viii. 10, ix. 2, 27, 60, 62, x. 9, 
 II, xi. 20): here He explains some of its characteristics. Mk. 
 places the Mustard Seed immediately after the parables of the 
 Sower and of the Seed growing secretly; Mt. after those of the 
 Sower and of the Tares. But neither gives any note of connexion. 
 Whereas the ovv of Lk. clearly connects this teaching with the 
 preceding incident. 
 
 18, 19. The Parable of the Mustard Seed. 
 
 18. “Edeyev odv. It is a needlessly violent hypothesis to regard 
 this as a fragment torn from its context, so that the ovr refers to 
 something not recorded. On the other hand, it is a little forced 
 to connect the ody with the enthusiasm of the multitude for His 
 - teaching and miracles. This success is but an earnest of far 
 greater triumphs. It is safer to refer it back to ver. 11. After the 
 interruption caused by the hypocritical remonstrance He continued 
 His teaching. With the double“ question which introduces the 
 parable comp. tive apoudscare KUpiov, Kal Tive Spordpate apowwdoare 
 airév ; (Is. xl. 18). The parable itself is more condensed in Lk. 
 than in Mk. and Mt. 
 
 19. kéxxw owdmews. It is the smallness of the seed in com- 
 parison with the largeness of the growth that is the point. Whether 
 other properties of mustard need be taken into account, is doubtful. 
 
 It is not quite certain what plant is meant. Stanley is inclined to follow 
 Royle and others in identifying it with the Sa/vadora Perszca, called in the 
 East Aharde/, the very word used in the Syriac Version to translate olvam. 
 It is said to grow round the lake of Gennesareth, and to attain the height of 
 twenty-five feet in favourable circumstances. Its seeds are small and pungent, 
 
 1 With this pair of Parables comp. the Garments and the Wine-skins 
 (v. 36-39), the Rash Builder and the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep 
 and the Lost Coin (xv. 3-10). Other pairs are not in immediate juxtaposition ; 
 z.¢. the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5-8) and the Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8). 
 
XIII. 19-21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 345 
 
 and are used as mustard (S77. & Pal. p. 427). Edersheim follows Tristram 
 and others in contending for the Sizapzs nigra. ‘‘ Small as a mustard-seed ” 
 was a Jewish proverb to indicate the least drop of blood, the least defilement, 
 etc. Even in Europe the Szapzs sometimes reaches twelve feet (Z. & 7. 
 i. p. 593; Wat. Hest. of B. p. 472). 
 
 avOpwros. Comp. xx. 9. Lk. commonly writes dvOpwads Tis: x. 32, 
 xii, 16, xiv. 16, xv. II, xvi. I, 19, xix. 12; comp. xviii. 2. 
 
 eis Kimov éautoo. See Introd. §6.i.f. Not merely “the earth | 
 (Mk.) or “‘his field” (Mt.), but “his own garden,” viz. Israel. 
 
 éyéveto els Sévdpov. All three use ylvouat, Lk. alone adding els; bu 
 péya before dévdpov is not genuine either here or in Mt. For ylvouar es 
 comp. xx. 17; Acts iv. II, and v. 36, etc. The expression is freq. in LXX, 
 and is also classical. 
 
 TQ TeTELvd TOU ovpavod KaTecKyywoev, K.T.A. All three have this 
 expression. See on ix. 58, and comp. troxatw atrod kateckyvovv 
 Ta Onpia Ta aypia, Kal ev Tois KAddoLs aiTod KaT@KovY TA OpvEa TOD 
 ovpavod (Dan. iv. 9, 18) and & tats rapapvacw aitod evdocevoay 
 mavTa TH TeTELVa TOU ovpaved (Ezek. xxxl. 6: comp. xvii. 23), pass- 
 ages which show that this was a recognized metaphor for a great 
 empire giving protection to the nations,} 
 
 20, 21. The Parable of the Leaven. Mt. xiii. 33; comp. Lk. 
 AM, ¥; 
 
 expuipey eis GNevpou odta tpia. The beginnings of the Kingdom 
 were unseen, and Pagan ignorance of the nature of the Gospel 
 was immense. But the leaven always conquers the dough. How- 
 ever deep it may be buried it will work through the whole mass 
 and change its nature into its own nature. Josephus says that a 
 oarov was one and a half of a Roman modius (Ant. ix. 4. 5). It 
 was a seah, or one third of an epkah ; which was an ordinary baking 
 (Gen. xviii. 6). There is no more reason for finding a meaning for 
 the three measures than for the three years (ver. 7). But Lange is 
 inclined to follow Olshausen in interpreting the three measures as 
 the three powers in human nature, body, soul, and spirit ; and he 
 further suggests the material earth, the State, and the Church, 
 
 In class. Gk. we generally have the plur. ddevpa (ddéw), It means 
 6‘ wheaten meal” (Hdt. vii. 119. 2; Plat. Rep. ii. 372 B). 
 
 €ws ov. Comp. Acts xxi. 26, In Lk. xxiv. 25 it is followed by the subj., 
 as often. 
 
 22-80. The Danger of being excluded from the Kingdom of 
 God. The warning grows out of the question as to the number of 
 
 1 Wetst. quotes from the Talmud, ‘‘ There was a stalk of mustard in Sichin 
 from which sprang out three branches, of which one was broken off, and out of 
 it they made a covering for a potter’s hut, and there were formed on it three 
 cabs of mustard. Rabbi Simeon, son of Calaphta, said, A stalk of mustard was 
 in my field into which I was wont to climb, as men are wont to climb into a 
 fig tree.’ 
 
346 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XTIL 22-24. 
 
 the saved, but no note is given of time or place. The introductory 
 Sieropetero seems to point back to ix. 51, “ He was continuing His 
 journey” (see on vi. 1). In any case it is part of the last je=rney- 
 ings which ended in the Passion. For the substance of the 
 discourse comp. Mt. vill. 13, 14, 22, 23, xix. 30; Mk. x. 37. 
 
 22. kata wohers kai xépas. Once more we have an amphi- 
 bolous phrase: see on ver. 11, x. 18, xi. 30, xii. 1, etc. Either, 
 “He went on His way, teaching through cities and villages”; or, 
 “He went on His way through cities and villages, teaching.” 
 
 23. Etmev 8€ 1s ai7a. We have no means of knowing 
 whether he was a disciple or not, or what his motive was. The 
 question has always been an attractive one to certain minds 
 (2 Esdras viii.). 
 
 ei Shiyor oi cwlspevor. The questioner perhaps supposes that, 
 at any rate, none but Jews will be saved. Comp. Acts ii. 47; 
 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15. In all these passages the pres. part. 
 should be marked; “those who are being saved, who are in the 
 way of salvation.” 
 
 For el introducing a dzrect interrogative comp. xxii. 49; Acts i. 6, xix, 2; 
 Mi. xii. 10, etc. The constr. is not classical, and may be explained as 
 arising from the omission of Oavpdtw, ywaoxew Ow, or the like. In 
 German we might have, Ob Wenige selig werden? 
 
 €imev mpds atro’s. Note the plur. As in xii. 15, 42, Jesus 
 gives no answer to the question asked, but replies in a way that 
 may benefit others as well as the interrogator far more than a 
 direct answer would have done. 
 
 24. *Aywvifecbe cicehOciv. “Keep on striving to enter,” or, 
 “Strain every nerve.” Questio theoretica initio vertitur ad praxin 
 (Beng.). Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Ecclus. iv. 28; Dan. 
 vi. 14 (Theod.). In Mt. vii. 13 we have ciceAGare Sia zaps oTerys 
 zvAys. But the context is quite different; and there it is an out- 
 side gate, while here the door leads directly into the house, and is 
 so narrow that only those who are thoroughly in earnest (Buacrat) 
 can pass through it. Vulg. has per angustam portam in both 
 places; but some Lat. texts have janwam or ostium here. 
 
 LntAoovcw ecicehGeiv Kai ovK icxdcovow. ‘The futures are most 
 important, whether we place a comma or a full stop after the second. 
 Jesus does not say that there ave many who sérive in vain to enter, 
 but that there wz// be many who wz// seek in vain to enter, after 
 the time of salvation is past. Those who continue to strive now, 
 succeed. The change from “strive” to “seek” must also be 
 noted. Mere Cyreiv is very different from dywvierGa (1 Tim. 
 Vi. 12). Comp. Jn. vii. 34. 
 
 obx icxdcovow. “Will not have strength to” (vi. 48, xvi. 3) 
 appropriate to the attempt to force a closed door. Not in 
 
XIII. 25-29.]| JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 347 
 
 25. ad’ ob av éyep$9. Connect this closely with what precedes : 
 * Shall not be able, when once the master of the house shall have 
 risen up,” etc. With this arrangement a full stop is placed at rode 
 éoré, and tdre begins a new sentence. 
 
 Those who place a full stop at lcxvcovew differ much as to the apodosis 
 of dd’ 05. Some make it begin at kal dptnoGe, more at xal droxp.Oels, and 
 others at 7é7e. Of these three the first is the worst, making dpfyo@e= 
 &ptecOe, and the last is the best (AV. RV.). 
 
 26, 27. Comp. Mt. vii. 22, 23. When the attempt to force 
 the door has failed, ye will begin to use this plea; but it will be 
 cut short by the reply, Oi oida twas. The plea is almost gro- 
 tesque in its insufficiency. To have known Christ after the flesh 
 gives no claim to admission into the kingdom. 
 
 anéotyte aw éuov mavtes épyara: adicias. A quotation from Ps. 
 vi. 9, where we have mdvtes ol épyafduevoe Thy avoulay. Aristotle says that 
 as dikaocvvn sums up the whole of virtue, so dévxia sums up the whole of 
 vice (Eth. Nic. v. 1. 19). Contrast the quotation of the same text in Mt. 
 vii. 23. Vulg. preserves one difference by having guz oferaminz there and 
 operariz here; but ignores another in using zwzguztas for dvoula there and 
 also for déuxla here. Similarly AV. and RV. have “‘iniquity” in both. 
 With épydrar déixlas comp. ol épydrat Tis dvoulas (I Mac. ili. 6); Tov Kadov 
 kal ceuvarv épydrnv (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 27); THY Wokeuxav (Cyr, iv. I. 4). 
 
 28. “Exe €orat 6 kdauvOyds. There is no need to interpret 
 éxet Of time, a use which is rare in class. Grk. and perhaps does 
 not occur in N.T. Here the meaning is, “There in your ex- 
 -Clusion, in your place of banishment.” Note the articles with 
 kAavOpds and Bpvypds, “the weeping and the gnashing,” which are 
 indeed such. Elsewhere in N.T. Bpvypzdés occurs only in Mt. 
 (vill. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30). In LXX Prov. 
 xix. 12; Ecclus. li. 3; also Aq. Ps. xxxvii. 9. These two verses 
 (28, 29) occur in Mt. (viii. 11, 12) in a different connexion and 
 with some difference of wording. 
 
 *ABpaap kat “Ioadk Kat lakoB Kal wavtas 7. mpodytas. For all this 
 Marcion seems to have substituted wdvtas rods duxalous, in order to avoid a 
 direct reference to O.T. (Tert. dav. Marcion, iv. 30). The evidence is wholly 
 against the conjecture that Marcion’s reading was the original one, which was 
 altered in order to oppose him and agree with Mt. viii. 11. In Mt. rdvras 
 Tods mpogijras is wanting. Some Lat. texts add dez to prophetas, and many 
 add zxtrozre, or intrare, or introeuntes before 2 regno or im regnum. 
 
 buds Sé ékBaddopuevous ef. “ But yourselves dezug cast forth 
 without,” in the attempt to enter. They never do enter; but, as 
 they would have entered, but for their misconduct, their exclusion 
 is spoken of as “ casting out.” 
 
 29. 7n§ouc. amd dvatohGy, x.t.A. A combination of Is. xlv. 6 
 and xlix. 12: comp. lix. 19; Jer. iii. 18; Mal. i. rz. In Mt. viii. 
 11, 12 the exclusion of the Jews and admission of the Gentiles is 
 
348 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XII1. 29, 30. 
 
 still more clearly expressed. This was the exact opposite of 
 Jewish expectations. x mundo futuro mensam ingentem vobis 
 sternam, quod gentes videbunt et pudefient (Schoettgen, Hor. Hed. 
 p. 86); ze. the Gentiles were to be put to shame at the sight of 
 the Jews in bliss. Here it is the Jews who gnash their teeth, while 
 the Gentiles are in bliss. There is no roAXof with yéovcrv, so that 
 the man’s curiosity remains unanswered ; but the context implies 
 many rather than few. In Mt. zoAXoé is expressed; and this also 
 seems to have been against Jewish expectations. Vidi filios 
 canacult gui numero admodum pauci sunt (Schoettgen, p. 80). The 
 Jews commonly spoke of the Messianic Kingdom as a banquet 
 (xiv. 15; Rev. xix. 9). For the four quarters of the globe comp. 
 Ps. cvil. 3; 1 Chron. ix. 24. Of the order in which they are given 
 here Bengel remarks, Hoc fere ordine ad fidem conversi sunt popult. 
 Mt. has only East and West. 
 
 Even if 8pec@e (B'D X) were the right reading for 8yyoGe (AB*RT, 
 lyre &) in ver. 28, there would be no need to make #fovew depend upon 
 Srav. There should in any case be a full stop at éw. 
 
 80. eiciv écxato. . . . eictv mparo.. There are some of each 
 class who will be transferred to the other. Mt. xx. 16 we have 
 €vovTa oi €oxarToL TpHTor Kal of mpHTou €oyator. From that passage 
 coupled with Mt. xix. 30 = Mk. x. 31 we infer that this was a say- 
 ing which Jesus uttered more than once. But here only is it 
 introduced with «at idov, of which Lk. is so fond (i. 20, 31, 36, 
 Vv. 12, Vil. 12, 37, etc.), and for which Mt. and Mk. have zodAot- 
 d€._ The practical answer to the question in ver. 23 remains, 
 ‘““ Whatever be the number of those who are in the way of salva- 
 tion, that which concerns you is, that you should without delay 
 secure a place among them.” 
 
 81-35. §The Message to Herod Antipas and the Lament over 
 Jerusalem. From &v airy 77 dpa it is clear that the scene does 
 not shift. It probably lies in Persea, but we cannot be certain. 
 Both Perzea and Galilee were under the jurisdiction of Antipas. 
 The Pharisees wanted to frighten Jesus into Judza, where He 
 would be more in the power of the Sanhedrin; but that they did 
 not invent this alarm about Antipas is clear from Christ’s reply. 
 He would have denounced ¢he Pharisees for cunning and deceit, 
 if they had brought Him a lying report; and it is very unnatural 
 to make 77 dXwext tatty refer to the inventor of the report, or 
 to the Pharisees as a body, or indeed to anyone but Herod. For 
 the same reason we need not suppose that the Pharisees were in a 
 plot with Herod. They reported his words without consulting 
 him. Although the tetrarch wished to see Christ work a miracle, 
 yet he probably regarded Him as a dangerous leader like the 
 Baptist ; and that he should openly threaten to put Him to death, 
 
XIII. 31, 32.| JOURNEYINGS TOWAKDS JERUSALEM 349 
 
 in order to induce Him to leave his province, is probable enough. 
 The wish to disturb Jesus in His work, and to create a panic 
 among His followers, would make the Pharisees report this threat, 
 even it they had no hope of driving Him into the power of the 
 hierarchy. The incident is remarkably parallel to the attempt of 
 Amaziah, priest of the golden calf at Bethel, who first denounced 
 the Prophet Amos to Jeroboam 1., and then tried to frighten 
 Amos out of Israel into Judah, equally in vain (Amos vii. 10-17). 
 See Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 238. 
 
 81. Oder ce droxtetvar. “Would fain kill Thee” (RV.). 
 The “will” of all other English Versions is too like the simple 
 future: comp. ix. 23. They do not say, “has determined to kill.” 
 Possibly Jesus was in the very district in which John had been 
 captured by Antipas; and this may have suggested the threat or 
 the report of it, or both. 
 
 82. cimate 1H GAGTeKt TadTn. As adurné is usually fem. (ix. 
 58; Mt. viii. 20; Judg. i. 35; 1 Kings xxi. 10; and also in class. 
 Grk.), we cannot infer that the fem. is here used in a contemptuous 
 sense: but the masc. occurs Cant. ii. 15. Here, as usual, the 
 fox is used as a symbol of craftiness, not of rapacity, as some 
 maintain. Herod’s craftiness lay in his trying to get rid of an 
 influential leader and a disquieting preacher of righteousness by a 
 threat which he had not the courage to execute. He did not 
 wish to bring upon himself a second time the odium of having 
 slain a Prophet! In the Talmud the fox is called “the sliest of 
 beasts.” See examples in Keim, /es. of /Vaz. iv. p. 344, and Wetst. 
 Foxes of more than one species are very common in Palestine. 
 Dis arte “Rox.” 
 
 €xBdddrw Saudvia Kat idoers daotekG. As in the reply to the 
 Baptist (vii. 22), Jesus gives the casting out of demons and the 
 healing of the sick as signs of the Messiah’s works. In N.T. 
 tacts is peculiar to Lk. (Acts iv. 22 30); in LXX Prov. iii. 8, 
 iv. 22. 
 
 The reading émreAXS (AR) is a correction to a more familiar verb, for 
 dzrorehG occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Jas. ii. 15; 1 Esdr. v. 73 (same 
 v.t, as here) ; 2 Mac. xv. 39. It means, ‘‘I bring quite to an end.” 
 
 oypepov Kal avpiov Kal TH tpitn. The three days have been 
 interpreted to mean (1) three actual days, (2) the three years of 
 the ministry, (3).a long time, (4) a short time, (5) a definite time. 
 
 1 Cyril argues that, because we have ravry and not ékelvy with rj dAdex, 
 the fox must be some one nearer the spot than Herod, viz. the Pharisees 
 (Migne, vol. Ixxii. p. 582), Theophylact uses the same argument. But it is 
 
 € common use of odros for that which is condemned or despised, wu/pz istd ; 
 or still more simply, ‘‘that fox of yours,” ze. whom you put forward and 
 make use off Comp. oiros, v. 21, vii. 39, 49; Jn. vi. 42, vii. I 5, 36, 49, ix. 16, 
 xii. 34. 
 
350 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIIZ. 32, 88. 
 
 The last is probably right. The course of the Messiah is 
 determined, and will not be abbreviated or changed because of 
 the threats of a Herod.! For the same expression of three actual 
 days comp. xix. 10, 11. See also Hos. vi. 2. 
 
 tedevodpar, “I am perfected,” conswmmor (Vulg.). Comp. 
 Heb. ii. 10. In both cases the idea is that of “ bringing Christ 
 to the full moral perfection of His humanity, which carries with 
 it the completeness of power and dignity” (Wsctt.). This is the 
 only passage in N.T. outside the Epistle to the Hebrews in which 
 this verb is used of Christ. In that Epistle it is thus used thrice 
 (ii. 10, V. 9, vil. 28), and the idea which it represents is one of the 
 main characteristics of the Epistle. It is doubtful whether there 
 is here any reference to the special phrase reAcody tas xetpas, 
 which is used in LXX of the installation of prvzes¢s in their office 
 (Exod. xxix. 9, 29, 33, 35; Lev. vill. 33, xvi: 325 Numeaieegn 
 comp. Lev. xxi. 10; Exod. xxviii. 37 (41); Jud. xvii. 5); although 
 such a reference would be very appropriate on the approach of 
 Christ’s sacrifice of Himself. See Wsctt. on Zhe zdea of tedeiwors 
 and on Zhe tedeiwors of Christ (Hebrews, pp. 63-67). 
 
 Tedevoduat is probably pass. and not mid.; pres. and not Attic fut, 
 Ellicott, Hudsean Lectures, 1859, p. 264, 4th ed.; Keim, iv. p. 344. 
 
 83. mhiv Set pe ojpepov Kk. aupiov kK. TH eXomevn TopeverOar, 
 “ Howbeit” (see on vi. 24, 35) “it is ordained by Divine decree 
 (see on iv. 43, ix. 22) that I go on My way hence, as Herod desires ; 
 not, however, because you suggest it, but because My work at this 
 time requires it.” The same verb is used in both places: zopevou 
 evredbev and det pe mopeveoOar. But, as ééeAOeiv is not repeated, 
 the repetition of zopevecbar (comp. topevfévres eimatre) may be 
 accidental.2. The expression 77 éxouéevy for “the next day” 
 occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only Acts xx. 15; 1 Chron. x. 8; 
 2 Mac, xii. 39: comp. Acts xiii. 44, xxi. 26; 1 Mac. iv. 28. 
 
 To understand ydép¢ instead of quépg and translate ‘‘I must go on My 
 way to-day and to-morrow in the adjoining region also,” is against the con- 
 text: TH éxouévy plainly = rp tpiry. 
 
 obk evdéxeTat mpopytny amodéoOar éfw “lepovcadyp. “It cannot 
 be allowed,” zon convenit, non fieri potest: 2 Mac. xi. 18; Plat. 
 Rep. vi. 501 C. The saying is severely ironical, and that in two 
 ways. (1) According to overwhelming precedent, Jerusalem is 
 
 1 «<The number three seems here, as in the three years (ver. 7), to denote a 
 period of time as complete in itself, with a beginning, middle, and end” 
 (Andrews, Z. of our Lord, p. 396). Unzverst temporis requisite ad opus suum 
 perfecto significatur (Cajetan). 
 
 2 Maldonatus, whom Trench approves, makes the Avy signify, ** Although 
 I must die on the third day, yet threats will not interfere with My continuing 
 My work until then.” Rather, ‘‘ Although I must go to Jerusalem, yet it is 
 not threats which send Me thither.” 
 
X1II. 83, 84.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 351 
 
 the place in which a Prophet ought to be put to death. Que uros 
 jus illud occidendi Prophetas quasi usu ceperat (Grotius). Jewish 
 usage has determined that Jerusalem is the right place for such 
 crimes. (2) When the conditions of place and time have been 
 fulfilled, it is not Herod that will be the murderer. ‘“‘ You profes 
 to be anxious for My safety, if I remain in Herod’s dominions, 
 Do not be alarmed. I am in no danger here, nor from Him, 
 But I must go to your capital: and it is there, and at your hands, 
 that I shall die.” Jesus is not referring to the Sanhedrin aS 
 having the exclusive vigi¢ to try a Prophet; nor does He mean 
 that no Prophet had ever been slain outside Jerusalem. The 
 Baptist had been murdered at Macheerus.! But such cases were 
 exceptional. By long prescription it had been established that 
 Jerusalem was the proper scene for these tragedies. 
 
 mpodytyv. Any Prophet. To make it equivalent to rév rpog¢ijrny, and 
 interpret it of Christ in particular, does violence to the Greek. 
 
 84, 35. The Lament over Jerusalem. This lament is called 
 forth by the thought of the previous verse. What sorrow that 
 the Messiah should have to speak thus of the metropolis of His 
 own people! The connexion is natural; all the more so if the 
 Pharisees (ver. 31) ‘came from Jerusalem. But the connexion in 
 Mt. xxiii. 37 is not less natural; and there Christ is at Jerusalem. 
 To decide between the two arrangements is not easy: and to 
 suppose that such words were spoken on two different occasions 
 is rather a violent hypothesis; which, however, is adopted by 
 Alford, Andrews, Ellicott, and Stier. The wording is almost 
 identical in both places, especially in the remarkable turn from 
 the third sing. (airyv) to the second sing. (cov), and thence to 
 the second plur. (76<Ajocare). On the whole it seems to be more 
 probable that the lament was uttered when Jerusalem was before 
 His eyes, than when it and its inhabitants were far away. For 
 the repetition of the name see on x. 41. 
 
 84. ¥ dmoxteivouca tos mpopytas. “The slayer of Prophets”; 
 pres. part. This is her abiding character; she is a murderess, 
 laniena prophetarum, rpopytoxtévos. Comp. Acts vii. 52. 
 
 ALGoBododica Tods darectahpevous mpds attyv. As the wicked 
 husbandmen did (Mt. xxi. 35): comp. Heb. xii. 20. This is a 
 repetition in a more definite form of the preceding clause. It is 
 arbitrary to make rovs droora\mévous refer to the Apostles and 
 other messengers of the Gospel: they are the same class as rovs 
 mpopytas, See Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xxiii. 37, Migne, cxx. 
 7809. 
 
 1 But perhaps even in the case of the Baptist the hierarchy at Jerusalem 
 
 had a hand: He was ‘‘delivered up” by some party. Comp. mapadoéjvas 
 (Mk. i. 14), mapedd0y (Mt. iv. 12). 
 
352 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XIITI. 84, 35. 
 
 tocdkis HOAnoa emuouvdgar ta tékva cou. These words, which 
 are found in both Mt. and Lk., are evidence from the Synoptists 
 themselves respecting much work of Christ in Jerusalem which 
 they do not record. As S. John tells us, He ministered there at 
 other times than just before His Passion. The context forbids 
 us from taking ra réxva cov in any other sense than the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem. (Comp. xix. 44, and see Neander, Z. /. C. § 110, 
 Eng. tr. p. 165.) This is fully admitted by Strauss, if the words 
 were really spoken by Christ.1 He suggests therefore that they 
 come from an apocryphal source, and probablysthe same from 
 which he supposes xi. 49-51 to have been taken. In this he has 
 been followed by Loman and Pfleiderer (see Hahn, ii. p. 255). But, 
 like x. 22, this verse—;so strongly confirming the Johannean 
 tradition—is far too well attested to be got rid of by any sup- 
 positions. The pronouns in éemovydgar mean “together to one 
 place—to Myself.” Comp. Ps. ci. 23 ?, cv. 47. 
 
 dv Tpdtrov Opyis Thy éauTAs voooidy. ‘Even as a hen her own 
 brood.” For 6v tpérov comp. Exod. ii. 14. Like “fowl” in 
 English, épvis is used specially of domesticated hens (Xen. Azad. » 
 iv. 5. 25; Aesch. Zum. 866). Mt. has 7a voooia awrqs, “her 
 chickens.” ‘This similitude is not found in O.T., but is frequent 
 in Rabbinical literature. Schoettgen, pp. 207-210. Comp. 7a 
 Ketvou TEKV éxwv 70 wrepols THlw Tade (Eur. Heracl. 10). Jerome 
 quotes Deut. xxxii. 11 in illustration: “As an eagle that stirreth 
 up her nest, that fluttereth over her young, He spread abroad His 
 wings, He took them, He bare them on His pinions.” With tao 
 tas mrépuyas comp. Ruth ii. 12; Is. xxxi. 5; Mal. iv. 2; Ps. xvii. 8, 
 xxxvi. 8, lvil. 2, Ixi. 5, Lxii. 8. 
 
 kal ouk HMeAnoate. In tragic contrast with zogaks 7OAynoa: 
 comp. Jn. i. 5, 10, II. 
 
 35. dpterar Spiv 6 otkos Suadv. Neither here (DEGHMU 
 X A, Latt. Boh. Syr.) nor in Mt. xxiii. 38, where it is better 
 attested, is €pyuos more than a gloss. Comp. 6m els épnuwow 
 éorat 6 oiKkos ovros (Jer. xxil. 5), and éyxataAeAoura Tov olkdy pov, 
 apjKka tiv KAypovopiay pov (Jer. xii. 7). “Is being left to you” 
 means “ You have it entirely to yourselves to possess and protect ; 
 for God no longer dwells in it and protects it.” Comp. ape@joerat 
 (xvii. 34, 35). By “your house” is meant the home of ra téxva 
 cov, the city of Jerusalem. Note the repetition tpiv ... tuar. 
 Syr-Sin. here has, “ Your house is forsaken” ; in Mt. it is defective. 
 
 héyw Sé Sutv oF ph iynté pe. With great solemnity and with 
 strong assurance. Comp. Jn. vii. 34, viii. 21. 
 
 €ws eimnte. Their seeing Him is dependent upon their repent- 
 
 1 Hier sind alle Ausfliichte vergebens, und man muss bekennen: sind diess 
 
 wirkliche Worte Jesu, so muss er ofter und linger, als es den synoptischen 
 Berichten nach scheint, in Jerusalem thatig gewesen sein (L. J. 1864, p. 249), 
 
XIII. 35.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 353 
 
 ance; and this is left uncertain; for the 7fe dre or av Héy Gre 
 after €ws (AD, Vulg.) is not genuine. There are three inter- 
 pretations of the point of time indicated by this declaration. (1) 
 The cries of the multitude on Palm Sunday (xix. 38; Mt. xxi. 9; 
 Mk. xi. 9). But this is quite inadequate. Christ would not have 
 declared with this impressive solemnity the fact that He would not 
 enter Jerusalem for some weeks, or possibly months. (2) Zhe 
 Second Advent. But where are we told that the unbelieving Jews 
 will welcome the returning Christ with hymns of praise? (3) Zze 
 conversion of the Jews throughout all time. This last no doubt 
 is right. The quotation EiAoynpévos, x.7.X., is verbatim from LXX 
 of Ps. cxviii. 26, and é& évduat. Kvpiov means as the representative 
 of Jehovah. Converted Israel will thus welcome the spiritual 
 presence of the Messiah. 
 
 XIV, 1-XVII. 10. The Second Period of the Journey. 
 
 This forms a new division of the section which has been 
 styled “‘the Journeyings towards Jerusalem”: see on ix. 51. The 
 first portion of it (xiv. 1-24) may be thus subdivided. A 
 Sabbath-meal in the House of a Pharisee, including the Healing 
 of a Dropsical Man on the Sabbath (1-6), a Discourse about 
 taking the lowest seats (7-11) and inviting Lowly Guests (12-14), 
 and the Parable of the Great Supper (15-24). The whole is 
 peculiar to Lk., and probably comes from some source unknown 
 to Mt. and Mk, 
 
 1-24. § A Sabbath-meal in the House of a Pharisee. Time and 
 place are quite undetermined. The chief men among the Pharisees 
 no doubt lived mostly at Jerusalem. Beyond that we have no clue. 
 
 1-6. The Cure of a Dropsical Man at the Sabbath-meal. 
 The cure of the man with the withered hand (vi. 6-11; Mt. 
 xii. 9-14; Mk. iii. 1-6) should be compared but not identified. 
 Although Lk. records both cures, with very important differences 
 of detail, Strauss and Keim maintain that this is a mere doublet 
 of the other, and reject both. The style of the opening words 
 indicates an Aramaic source. 
 
 Of the seven miracles of mercy on the sabbath, Lk. records four: the 
 Withered Hand (vi. 6), the Woman bowed down eighteen years (xiii. 14), 
 Simon’s wife’s mother (iv. 38) and this. The others are: the Paralytic at 
 Bethesda (Jn. v. 10), the Man born blind (Jn. ix. 14), the Demoniac at 
 Capernaum (Mk. i. 21). 
 
 1 Not only do SBK LM RX, Syr. Boh. Arm. and some Lat. texts here 
 omit #ée: dre, but no authorities insert the words Mt. xxiii. 39, which adds to 
 the weight of the evidence against them here. 
 
 23 
 
354 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIv. 1-8. 
 
 1, Kat éyévero év 7@ éhOeiv adtév. ‘* And it came to pass after 
 He had entered” (aor.), not “‘as He entered” (AV.) nor “when 
 He entered” (RV.): cum intrasset or introisset (some MSS. of 
 Vulg.) rather than cum intraret (Vulg.). See on iii. 21 and the 
 note at the end of ch. 1. p. 45. 
 
 Tos TOV apydvTwy Tov Papicatwy. Of one of the chief men of 
 the Pharisees.” We have no knowledge of official rulers of the 
 Pharisees ; but of course they had their leading men. That the 
 invitation of a leading Pharisee was accepted (ver. 12) after what 
 is recorded xi. 37-54 might seem surprising, especially as Jesus 
 knew the minds of those whom He was to meet (ver. 3). But 
 there was still the possibility of influencing some of them for good. 
 We know of no case in which Jesus refused an invitation. 
 
 caBBdrw payetv dptév. Sabbath banqueting was common, and 
 became proverbial for luxury. Odserva diem sabbati, non Judaicis 
 delicits; and Hodternus dies sabbati est, hunc in presenti tempore 
 otio quodam corporaliter languido et filuxo et luxurioso celebrant 
 Judei (Aug.). See Wetst. ad Joc. and Polano, Zhe Talmud ; 
 Selections translated from the original, p. 259. 
 
 kal adtol joav maparnpovpevor aitéy. Lk.’s favourite construc- 
 tion. See on v. 14 and vi. 20. The xaé introduces the apodosis 
 of éyévero: “it came to pass .. . that the Pharisees themselves 
 were persistently watching Him.” For raparnpeic Oar of interested 
 and sinister espionage see on vi. 7. Excepting Mk. iii. 2 and Gal. 
 iv. 10, the verb occurs only in Lk. (xx. 20; Acts ix. 24). 
 
 The translation ‘‘ were there, watching” is erroneous: jjcav waparnpov- 
 wevot is the periphrastic imperf. It is also an error to carry on the con- 
 struction of éyévero beyond ver. I: vv. I and 2 are quite independent state- 
 ments, 
 
 2. kat i80d d/Opwrds tis. We are left in doubt whether the 
 man was placed there as a trap, which the absence of ydép does 
 not disprove, or was there by accident, or had come in the hope 
 of being healed. The last is probable: but the tov seems to 
 imply that his presence was unexpected by the company, and 
 perhaps by the host. He was probably not an invited guest, as 
 améAvoev (ver. 4) appears to show. But in an Eastern house he 
 would have no difficulty in obtaining admission (Tristram, Zastern 
 Customs, pp. 36, 81): and, if he hoped to be healed, he would 
 take care to appear ¢umpooGev airod. Note the rs vv. 2, 19, 20. 
 
 SSpwmxds. Not elsewhere in bibl. Grk., but freq. in medical 
 writers. The disease seems to be indicated as a curse Num. 
 v. 21, 22; comp. Ps. cix. 18. Comp. Hor. Carm. ii. 2. 13. 
 
 8. dmoxpileis . . . mpds ToUs vopiKots Kal apicaious. He 
 answered their thoughts implied in joav maparnpovpevor, This 
 watching had now a definite object owing to the presence of the 
 dropsical man. Comp. v. 22, vii. 4o. The vopsxot (see on 
 
XIV.3-5.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 355 
 
 vii. 30) and @apicator are put as one class, and are a more 
 definite description of the atro¢ in ver. 1.. Note the Hebraistic 
 elev héyor. 
 eparedcar 4 08; Comp. dyaforoujoa 7 KaKxoroijoar (vi. 9) ; 
 e€ oipavod 7} é€ avOpdrwv (xx. 4). The dilemma, if they had 
 planned one against Him, is turned against themselves. These 
 lawyers were bound to be able to answer such a question: and if 
 rigorist Pharisees made no objection when consulted beforehand, 
 they could not protest afterwards. They take refuge in silence ; 
 not in order to provoke Him to heal, but because they did not 
 know what to say. They did not wish to say that healing on tne 
 sabbath was allowable, and they did not dare to say that it was 
 not. For jovxdéfo in this sense comp. Acts xi. 18, xxi. 14; Job 
 xxxil. 6; Neh: v. 8. ; 
 The el before éeo7s (A, Syrr. Arm.) probably comes from Mt. xii. 10 
 (om. SBDL 59, Latt. divided). If it is genuine, comp. xiii. 23. Most of 
 
 the authorities which insert ef have Oepazrevewv for Oepamredoat (also from Mt. 
 xii, 10) and omit # ov. 
 
 4, émdaBdpevos idcato, That the laying hold of him is to be 
 regarded as the means of the cure is not certain. The touching 
 in order to heal is more often expressed by amrecOat (v. 13, 
 xxii. 51; Mk. i. 41, vil. 33, Vill. 22; Mt. viii. 3, 15, xvii. 7, xx. 34) 
 or by émiriévar tas xEélpas (iv. 40, xill. 13; Mk. vi. 5, viii. 23, 25, 
 etc.). Both idéo@a: (see small print on v. 17) and émaAaBéobar 
 (ix. 47, XX. 20, 26, xxili. 26, etc.) are freq. in Lk. Christ read the 
 man’s faith, as He read the hostility of the Pharisees, and responded 
 to it. 
 
 dmé\uoev. This probably means something more than the 
 letting go after the ém:AaBdperos, viz. “dismissed him” from the 
 company, to prevent interference with him. 
 
 5. Tivos tuav uids 4 Bods. The emphatic word is tuav. ‘ How 
 do you act, when your interests are concerned? When your son, 
 or even your ox, falls into a well?”! Palestine abounds in un- 
 protected cisterns, wells and pits. Wetst. quotes from the Mishna, 
 Si in puteum bos aut asinus ... filius aut filia. The argument 
 is that what the Pharisees allowed themselves for their own benefit 
 must be allowed to Christ for the benefit of others. Their sabbath 
 help had an element of selfishness ; His had none. 
 
 The reading vos 7 Bods probably comes from xiii. 15. The correction was 
 doubly tempting: 1. because vids seemed rather to spoil the @ fortéoré argu- 
 ment; 2. because dvos is more naturally coupled with Bods. Comp. Deut. 
 xxii. 4. The reading mpoSarov (D) for vids has a similar origin, while 8is is a 
 conjecture as the supposed original of both vids and dvos, The evidence is 
 
 1 There is possibly a reference to the wording of the fourth commandment, 
 fn which son stands first among the rational creatures possessed, and ox first 
 among the irrational (Deut. v. 14). 
 
356 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 5-7. 
 
 thus divided: ds ABEGHMSUVTIAL ete., efg Syrr., Cyr-Alex.— 
 bvos SK LXII, abci Syr-Sin. Vulg. Arm. Aeth. See WH. ii. App. p. 62; 
 Sanday, 4Zp. to Grk. T. p. 120. The dmoxpiOels before mpds avrovs elmer 
 (s A, Vulg.) is probably an insertion. 
 
 Note the Hebraistic construction instead of rls buay od ulds, wr. 0K 
 evbéws dvacrdce airov 3 
 
 6. otk toxucav avraroKpOfjvot. Stronger than jovxacay (ver. 
 3): “They had no power to reply.” Lk. is fond of noting that 
 people are silenced or keep silence (xx. 26; Acts xi. 18, xii. 17, 
 xv. 12, xxii, 2). For the compound verb comp. Rom. ix. 20; 
 Judg. v. 29; Job xvi. 8, xxxii. 12. 
 
 7-11. Discourse on choosing the Lowest Seats at Entertain- 
 ments. We may suppose that the healing of the dropsical man 
 preceded the meal. This now begins; and, as they settle round 
 the tables, there is a manceuvring on the part of some of the 
 guests to secure the best places. To suggest a comparison 
 between healing the dropsy and dealing with duplicem animi 
 hydropem, superbie tumorem et pecuniz sitim is almost as fanciful 
 as supposing that “falling into a well” is meant to refer to the 
 dropsy. ‘The latter supposition (Aug. Bede) still finds favour. 
 
 7. “Edeyev 8€ . . . mapaBodyy. Comp. v. 36, xili. 6, xviii. I. 
 The “parable” is not in the form of a narrative, but in that of 
 advice, which is thus called because it is to be understood meta- 
 phorically. Christ is not giving counsels of worldly wisdom or of 
 good manners, but teaching a lesson of humility. Every one 
 before God ought to feel that the lowest place is the proper place 
 for him. There is no need to suppose that this was originally a 
 parable in the more usual sense, and that Lk. has turned it into an 
 exhortation ; still less that ver. 7 is a fictitious introduction to a 
 saying of which the historical connexion had been lost. 
 
 dréxov. Sc. ray votv: comp. Acts iii. 5 ; I Tim. iv. 16; Ecclus, xxxi. 2. 
 He directed His attention to this: not the same as its attracting or catching 
 His attention. 
 
 Tas mpwtox\tcias. In the mixture of Jewish, Roman, Greek, 
 and Persian customs which prevailed in Palestine at this time, we 
 cannot be sure which were the most honourable places at table. 
 Josephus (Azz. xv. 2. 4) throws no light. But the Talmud says 
 that, on a couch holding three, the middle place is for the 
 worthiest, the left for the second, and the right for the third 
 (Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 207, 494). Among the Greeks it was 
 usual for each couch to have only two persons (Plat. Sym. 175 A, 
 C), but both Greeks and Romans sometimes had as many as four 
 on one couch. D. of Grk. and Rom. Ant. artt. Cena, Symposium, 
 Triclinium ; Bekker, Charicles, Sc. vi. Exc. i.; Gallus, Se. ix. Exe. 
 i. ii, Comp. Lk. xx. 46; Mt. xxiii. 6; Mk. xii. 39. 
 
XIV. 7-10.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 357 
 
 éfeh¢yovro. ‘They were choosing out for themselves ; e/igebant 
 (bcdefff,) rather than e/igerent (Vulg.).” The same thing seems 
 to have taken place at the Last Supper (xxii. 24), and the washing 
 of the disciples’ feet may have been intended as a rebuke for this. 
 
 8. eis ydpous. Probably sing. in meaning; “to a wedding- 
 feast”: see on xli. 36. The meal at which this was said was an 
 ordinary one, as is shown by ¢ayeiv aproy (ver. 1), the common 
 Hebrew phrase for a meal (ver. 15; Mt. xv. 2; Mk. iii. 20; Gen. 
 XXXVil. 25, xliil. 16; Exod. ii. 20, etc.). Jesus singles out a 
 marriage, not perhaps because such a feast is a better type of the 
 Kingdom of God, but because on such occasions there is more 
 formality, and notice must be taken of the rank of the guests. 
 
 katakhwOjs. Peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (vii. 36, ix. 14, xxiv. 30): 
 four times in LXX, and common in class. Grk. 
 
 9. 6 cé kal adréy kadéoas. It is misplaced ingenuity to render, 
 “thee thyself also,” dich auch selbst. “Thee and him,” ée e¢ tlum 
 (Vulg.), is right. His inviting both gave him the right to arrange 
 both guests as he pleased. Contrast ii. 35. 
 
 épet. For the change from subjunct. to fut. indic, comp. xii. 58 See 
 also épet after tva, ver. 10. 
 
 Aés tovTw téTov . . . Tov Ecxatoy témov, Here AV. is inferior 
 to all previous versions. Vulg. has /ocum in both places. Luth. 
 omits in both. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. have “rowme” in both: 
 Wic. and Rhem. “place” in both. “The lowest voom” means 
 “the lowest Z/ace” ; but in that case “ give this man room” should 
 precede. Otherwise “lowest room” will seem to mean the bottom 
 chamber. 
 
 “*Thou hast set my feet in a large room” (Ps, xxxi. 8), #.¢. in abundant space 
 (Ps. xvili. 19). Bishop Hall calls Pope Pius 11. ‘‘as learned as hath sat in 
 that roome this thousand yeeres” (Letters, Dec. ii. Ep. 3). Davies, Bzbze 
 English, p. 152. Comp. Ter. Heaut. ili. 3. 25. Sy. /ube hunc abire hine 
 aliguo. Cl. Quo ego hine abeam? Sy. Quo? quo libet: da iillis locum. Abs 
 deambulatum, Cl. Deambulatum? Quo? Sy. Vah, quasi desit locus, 
 
 Gp§ . . Katéxew. The apf marks the contrast between the 
 brief self-assumed promotion and the permanent merited humilia- 
 tion. Comp. Prov. xxv. 5, 7, which Christ seemed to have had in 
 His mind. The displaced guest goes from top to bottom, because 
 the intermediate places have meanwhile been filled. 
 
 10. iva . . . épet cor. Perhaps iva is here used éxBartxas, of 
 the vesu/¢ rather than of the puzfose: “so that he will say to thee.” 
 But if the idea of purpose be retained, it is Christ’s purpose in 
 giving the advice, not the purpose with which the hearer is to 
 adopt the advice. There is no recommendation of “the pride 
 that apes humility,” going to a low place iz order #o be promoted. 
 See small print on xx. 10. 
 
358 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 10-12 
 
 The fut. indic. after fva is common in late Greek: xx. 10; Mk. xv. 20; 
 Jn. vii. 3, xvii. 2; Acts xxi. 24; Gal. ii. 4, etc. Win. xli. b. 1, p. 360; 
 Simcox, Zang. of V.T. p. 109; Burton, § 199. 
 
 mpocavaByOi avdtepov. Perhaps ‘* Come up higher,” ¢.¢. to where the 
 host is sitting: accede (acf ff,iqr) rather than ascende (Vulg.). Comp. 
 dvdBawwe mpos je (Prov. xxv. 7). The verb is classical and frequent in LXX, 
 esp. in Joshua of geographical description (xi. 17, xv. 3, 6, 7, xvili. 12, xix. 
 II, 12; Exod. xix. 23, etc.) The adv. occurs elsewhere in bibl. Grk. only 
 Heb. x. 8; comp. avwrepos (Neh. iii. 25), dvwraros (Tobit viii. 3), dowrepos 
 (Acts xvi. 24; Heb. vi. 19), xatwrepos (Eph. iv. 9). 
 
 ay 
 
 évémuoy mdévtwy. Both words are characteristic: see on i. 15 
 and vi. 30. The wdvrtwy is unquestionably to be retained 
 (8A BLX 1, 33 69, Syrr. Boh. Aeth.). 
 
 1l. mas 6 Gav éautdv. One of our Lord’s repeated utterances : 
 xvill. 14; Mt. xxiii. 12. In all three places AV. spoils the anti- 
 thesis by varying the translation of tazewéw, “abase,” “humble.” 
 The saying here guards against the supposition that Christ is 
 giving mere prudential rules of conduct or of good taste. Humility 
 is the passport to promotion in the Kingdom of God. Comp. for 
 the first half x. 15 ; and for the second half Jas. iv. 10; 1 Pet. v. 6. 
 Note that while Lk. in both places has 74s with the participle (see 
 on i. 66), Mt. has dovus. 
 
 12-14. The Duty of inviting Lowly Guests. The previous 
 discourse was addressed to the guests (ver. 7): this is addressed 
 to the host. It is a return for his hospitality. We cannot be 
 sure that all the other guests were of the upper classes, and that 
 this moved Jesus to utter a warning. Some of His disciples may 
 have been with Him, and they were not weaithy. Still less may 
 we assert that, if all the other guests were of the upper classes, this 
 was wrong. All depends upon whether the motive for hospitality 
 was selfish. But it is wrong to omit benevolence to the poor, in 
 whose case the selfish motive is excluded. As before, we have a 
 parable in a hortatory form ; for Jesus is not merely giving rules 
 for the exercise of social hospitality. 
 
 12. “Edeyev 8€ kal TH KekAyKoTt adtéy. “But He was saying 
 to him also that had bidden Him”; gui invitaverat eum (df), 
 invitanti eum (8), invitatori (ab c ff,ilqr): convivatori suo benigne 
 rependens, mvevpartixa avti capxixav (Grotius). For dépictov see on 
 Kea 
 
 py ddve. Pres. imperat. ‘Do not haditually call.” It is the 
 exclusive invitation of rich neighbours, etc., that is forbidden. 
 
 As distinct from xaeiv, gwvetv would specially apply to invitation by word 
 of mouth: and the use of ¢wvetv for invitations is very rare. Neither Vulg. 
 nor any English Version before RV. distinguishes between pwvet here and 
 kddet, ver. 13, although in wz. 7, 8, 12 «adel is rendered zzvzfare and ver, 12 
 puveiv, vocare. 
 
 thougious, With yerrdvas only. It is pleasant to entertain 
 
XIV. 12-14.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 359 
 
 one’s friends, seemly to entertain one’s relations, advantageous to 
 entertain rich neighbours. But these are not high motives for 
 hospitality ; and we must not let our hospitality end there. 
 
 pa) mére Kal adrol dvtiKadécwoty oe. Godet remarks that this 
 warning is playful. Prends-y garde: la pareille a recevoir, Cest un 
 malheur a éviter! Car, une fois la retribution recue, Cen est fait de 
 la remuneration future. Comp. ovre pév ds dvtuxAnOyoopevos KaAet 
 pe tus (Xen. Symp. i. 15). 
 
 13. Soxhv mors. See on v. 29. 
 
 KdAer TTwXoUs, dvametpous. The former would not have the 
 money, the latter would not have the strength, to give an enter- 
 tainment. That dvaze(povs is here generic, and that ywAovs and 
 tu dovs are species under it, is improbable: comp. ver. 21. The 
 mTwxoi are one class,—those wanting in means; and all the rest 
 belong to another class,—those wanting in physical strength. 
 Beyond this we need not specify ; but in Plato we have dvdrnpo! 
 containing the other two classes, of xwAof Te kat TupAot Kat of dAAoL 
 dvarnpou (Crizvo, p. 53 A). The ava is intensive: “very maimed.” 
 For the command comp. ver. 21 and Neh. viii. ro. 
 
 14, paxdpios gon, dtr odk exoucwv avramododvar cot. The dru is 
 strictly logical. Good deeds are sure to be rewarded either in this 
 world or in the world to come. ‘Those persons are blessed whose 
 good deeds cannot be requited here, for they are sure of a reward 
 hereafter. For odk éxovow see on xil. 4. For dvtamododvar in a 
 good sense comp. Rom. xi. 35; 1 Thes. iii. 9; in a bad sense, 
 Rom. xii. 19; Heb. x..30. The dvi expresses retaliation, exact 
 repayment. Comp. Arist. £7. (Vic. ix. 2. 5, where we have déats, 
 azrodoréov, and avramddoats. 
 
 év TH avactace: Tov Stxatwy. It is possible that there is here 
 a reference to the doctrine of a double resurrection, first of the 
 righteous, and then of all. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thes. iv. 16; 
 Rey. xx. 5, 6. If so, this is the avdoracts é« vexpdv (xx. 35; Acts 
 iv. 2s Phill im1r; 1 Pet. 1. 3: comp. Mk: 1x. 9, xii. 25 } Mt. xvi: 9; 
 Gal. i. 1), which implies that some are for the present left unraised, 
 as distinct from the avdoraois vexpov (Acts xvii. 32; 1 Cor. xv. 
 12, 21; Heb. vi. 2), which is the general resurrection. See Lft. 
 on Phil. iii. 11. But r@v duxaiwy may be added merely to indicate 
 the character of those who practise disinterested benevolence. 
 
 15-24. The Parable of the Great Supper. The identity of this 
 with the Parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son, often called 
 the Parable of the Wedding Garment (Mt. xxii. 1-14), will continue 
 to be discussed, for the points of similarity and of difference are 
 both of them so numerous that a good case may be made for either 
 view. But the context, as well as the points of difference, justifies 
 
 1The form dvdzeipos seems to be a mere misspelling of dvdaypos (Tobit 
 xiv. 2N: 2 Mac. viii. 24 AV); but it is well attested. WH. ii. App. p. 151. 
 
360 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 15-17. 
 
 a distinction. The parable in Mt. is a comment on an attempt 
 to arrest Christ (xxi. 46), and tells of rebels put to death for insult- 
 ing and killing their sovereign’s messengers ; this is a comment on 
 a pious remark, perhaps ignorantly or hypocritically made, and 
 tells of discourteous persons who, through indifference, lose the 
 good things to which they were invited. It is much less severe in 
 tone than the other ; and even in those parts which are common 
 to the two has very little similarity of wording. 
 
 15. tis Tv cuvavaxerpévwr. ‘The resurrection of the just” 
 suggests the thought of the Kingdom, and this guest complacently 
 assumes that he will be among those who will enjoy it. With this 
 introductory incident comp. x. 25-30, xli. 13-15, xv. I-3. 
 
 gdyetat dptov. A Hebraism: comp. ver. 1; 2 Sam. ix. 7, 10; 
 2 Kings iv. 8, etc., and see on ver. 8. It points to the Jewish 
 idea that the Messianic age will be inaugurated by a banquet and 
 will be a prolonged festival (Is. xxv. 6). The reading dpucrov 
 (EH MSU VI) isa mere corruption of dprov. 
 
 16. 6 8 etmev adtG. “ But He said to him” (Rhem.). “ And” 
 (Wic.) and “Then” (Tyn. Gen. AV.) obscure the fact that Christ 
 is opposing the comfortable self-complacency of the speaker. What 
 he says is correct, but the spirit in which he says it is quite wrong. 
 Only those who are detached from earthly things, and treat them 
 as of small account in comparison with the Kingdom of God, will 
 enter therein. 
 
 émotet Setrvov péya. “Was about to make a great supper,” 
 similar to that at which Jesus was now sitting. One might expect 
 the mid., but comp. ver. 12; Acts viii. 2; Xen. Anad. iv. 2. 23. 
 The moddovs are the Jews who observe the Law. In Mt. it is 
 avOpwros BactAeds who made a marriage-feast for his son. 
 
 17. tov So0ddov. The vocator, who was sent to remind them, 
 according to custom, and not because they were suspected of 
 unwillingness.!_ Comp. Esth. v. 8, vi. 14. This custom still pre- 
 vails. To omit the second summons would be “a grievous breach 
 of etiquette, equivalent to cancelling the previous more general 
 notification. To refuse the second summons would be an insult, 
 which is equivalent among the Arab tribes to a declaration of war” 
 (Tristram, Zastern Customs, p. 82). The dotdAos represents God’s 
 messengers to His people, and specially the Baptist and Jesus 
 Christ. Comp. Mt. xi. 28-30. 
 
 “EpyeoOe, St. Oy EToura éotiw. The true reading may be épxecbat 
 (SADKLPRA) to follow elmety (Syr-Sin.), décere tnvetatis ut ventrent 
 (Vulg.). See small print note on xix. 13. But the wdvra after éorw (AP, 
 Syr-Sin. Vulg. f) or before éro.ua (D, ae) comes from Mt. xxii. 4. S* BLR, 
 bc ff,ilq omit. 
 
 
 
 1 Vocatores suos ostendenti, ut diceret a quibus invitatus esset (Plin. NV. H. 
 xxxy, 10, 36. 89). Comp. Suet. Calg. xxxix.; Sen. De /ra, iii. 37. 3. 
 
XIV. 18-20.] "JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 361 
 
 18. jpéavto amd puds wdvtes TapartetoPar. Every word is full of 
 point. The very beginning of such conduct was unexpected and 
 unreasonable, and it lasted some time. There was no variation ; 
 it was like a prearranged conspiracy: they all pleaded that they 
 were at present too much occupied to come. And there was not 
 a single exception. The zapacretofar comes as a surprise at the 
 end, there being no aAA4a or dé at the outset to prepare for a con- 
 trast. This absolute unanimity prepares us for a joyous accepiance 
 of the courteously repeated invitation. On the contrary, they begin 
 “to beg off,” deprecari (Acts xxv. 11; 2 Mac. ii. 31). In Jos. Avz. 
 vii. 8. 2 the verb is used, exactly as here, of excusing oneself from 
 an invitation. They ought to have excused themselves when the 
 first invitation came, if at all. Their begging off now was breaking 
 their promise ; and the excuses were transparently worthless. In 
 Mt. there is no begging off. Those invited simply apeArjoavres 
 dir Bov 5 and some of them insulted, and even killed the vocasores. 
 For dpxeoat of proceedings which last some time comp. vii. 38, 
 mil 4.5) xix, 37) 45, xxii, 23, xxiii. 2. Here the further idea of 
 interruption is not present. 
 
 Gd puds. The expression is unique in Greek literature. Comp. am’ 
 evdelas, amd TH tons, ef bpOiis, 6a mdons. Weare probably to supply yrayys : 
 amd pads kal THs aurijs yveuns (Philo, De Spec. Legg. ii. p. 311). Both éx 
 
 pads yvaipns and éx pds dwv7js are also found. We might also supply Wuxjs. 
 Less probable suggestions are pas, cvvOjKys (Vulg. simul), alrlas, 0600. 
 
 exw avdykqy. A manifest exaggeration, He had already 
 bought it, probably after seeing it; and now inspection could 
 wait. For the phrase, which is classical, comp. t Cor. vil 34.5 
 Heb. vii. 27; Jude 3; and the insertion Lk. xxiii. 17. Not in 
 LXX. 
 
 exe pe Tapytpevoy. It is doubtful whether this is a Latinism, 
 habe me excusatum, t.e. ‘Consider me as one who has obtained 
 indulgence.”! But certainly ye, which is enclitic, cannot be em- 
 phatic: “Whatever you do about others, 7 must be regarded as 
 excused.” This would require éu¢, and before rather than after 
 EXE. Comp. ov Gappodyrd pe e&ers (Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 35). 
 
 19. mopevopar. “Tam on my way.” He pleads no dvayxy, and 
 is too indifferent to care about the manifest weakness of his excuse. 
 That he had bought the oxen “on approval” is not hinted. Both 
 these two seem to imply that they may possibly come later, if the 
 host likes to wait, or the feast lasts long enough. Hence the host’s 
 declaration ver. 24. 
 
 20. od Suvapar. He is confident that this is unanswerable. 
 See on ver. 26. “When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not ga 
 
 1 Inuitas tune me, cum scis, Nasica, vocasse, 
 Excusatum habeas me rogo: ceno donii. 
 —(Mart. ii. 79.) 
 
362 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 20-23. 
 
 out in the host, neither shall he be charged with any business: he 
 shall be free at home one year” (Deut. xxiv. 5). Comp. Hdt. 
 i720, 5: 
 
 21. The zdvres (ver. 18) probably means more than three. 
 But three suffice as examples.. Some said that they would not 
 come now; others declared that they could not come at all. 
 Comp. the parable of the Pounds, where three servants are 
 samples of the whole ten, and represent two classes (xix. 16-21). 
 
 “Efeh@e taxéws. Not because his anger makes him impatient ; 
 but because he has no intention of putting off anything to please 
 the discourteous persons who have insulted him. He goes on with 
 his arrangements at once. 
 
 eis Tas TAaTEtas Kat puyas. We have the same combination Is. 
 xv. 3. This use of Avy is late: Acts ix. 11, xli. 10; Ecclus. ix. 73 
 ‘Tobit xiii. 18. A lane resembles a stream ; and the original sense 
 of pvu7 is the rush or flow of what is in motion. See Kennedy, 
 Sources of NV.T. Greek, p. 16. The two words combined stand for 
 the public places of the town, in which those who have no comfort- 
 able homes are likely to be found. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 26-28. 
 
 tods mrwXovs Kal dvatelpous, k.t.A. The Jews who do not ob- 
 serve the Law; the pudlicans and sinners. ‘These were not asked 
 simply because the others refused, and in order to fill the vacant 
 places. They would have been asked in any case; but the others 
 were asked first. They both live in the city: ze. both are Jews. 
 But those who respected the Law had a prior claim to those who 
 rebelled against it. The similarity of wording shows the connexion 
 with the preceding discourse (ver. 13); and therefore Bengel’s 
 attractive distinction is probably not intended. He points out 
 that the oor would get no other invitation ; the maimed would not 
 be likely to marry; the 4/zd could not go to see farms ; and the 
 Zame would not go to prove oxen. Contrast Mt. xxii. 9, ro. 
 
 eiodyaye GSe. See on ii. 27. It is assumed that they can be 
 “brought in” at once, without formal invitation. They are not 
 likely to refuse. The mixture of guests of all classes is still seen 
 at Oriental entertainments. 
 
 22. Kupte, yéyovey 6 éwétagas. He executes the order, and 
 then makes this report. There is no 73y, and we are not to sup- 
 pose that he had axticzpated his master’s order ; which would have 
 been audacious officiousness, and could hardly have been done 
 without his master’s knowledge. 
 
 ért Toros éotiv. Comp. ver. 9. No such expression is found 
 in Mt. xxii. 10. It is added because the servant knows that his 
 master is determined to fill all the places, and that the banquet 
 cannot begin till this is done. 
 
 23. ppaypots. “Hedges” (dpdcow = “I fence in”): Mt. 
 xxi. 33; Mk. xii. 1. Just as wAaraia: xal fpdyar represent the 
 
XIV. 23-25.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 363 
 
 public roads inside the city, so 680i kai paypot the public roads 
 outside the city; and this command is the invitation to the 
 heathen. 
 
 dvdyxacov cicedOeiv. By persuasion. A single servant could 
 not use force, and those who refused were not dragged in. Comp. 
 Mk.-vi. 45 || and zapeBiacavro (xxiv. 29 ; Acts xvi. 15). The text 
 gives no sanction to religious persecution. By showing that 
 physical force was not used it rather condemns it. 
 
 iva yepicOy pov 6 oixos. LVec natura nec gratia patitur vacuum 
 (Beng.). We are not told the result of this third invitation ; but 
 we may conclude that the Gentiles fill the void which the unbelief 
 of the Jews has left (Rom. xi. 25). In Mt. the result of the second 
 invitation is étAjoOy 6 vypduy, and there is no third. Augustine 
 interprets this third summons as a call to heretics, which cannot 
 be correct. 
 
 24, A€yw yap tyiv. Solemn introduction of the main point of 
 the parable. The transition from sing. (é&eAGe) to plur. (iptv) is 
 variously explained. (1) That some of the rw xoi (ver. 21) are 
 present and are included in the address. (2) That there is a transi- 
 tion from the parable to its application, and Christ speaks half as 
 the host to his servant and others, and half in His own person to 
 the Pharisee and his guests. (3) That the host addresses, not 
 only the servant, but all who may hear of what he has done. In 
 favour of (2) we must not quote xi. 8, xv. 7, 10, Xvi. 9, xvili. 14; 
 Mt. xxi. 43. In all these places it is Jesus who is addressing the 
 audience ; not a person in the parable who sums up the result. 
 Here the éxeivwy and the pov show that the latter is the case. In 
 Mt. the conclusion to the parable is toAAot ydp ciow KAqroi, dALyot 
 de éxAexrot (xxii, 14), and these are the words of Christ, not of the 
 Bacrrevs. 
 
 25-35. § Warnings against Precipitancy and Half-heartedness 
 in Following Christ. The Parables of the Rash Builder, the Rash 
 King, and the Savourless Salt. The section has been called “The 
 Conditions of Discipleship.”” These are four. 1. The Cross to be 
 borne (25-27 ; Mt. x. 37, 38). 2. The Cost to be counted (28-32). 
 3. All Possessions to be renounced (33). 4. The Spirit of Sac- 
 rifice to be maintained (34, 35; Mt. v. 13; Mk. ix. 49). 
 
 The journeying continues, but we are not told the direction ; 
 and a large multitude is following. They are disposed to believe 
 that Jesus is the Messiah, and that the crisis of the Kingdom is at 
 hand. They therefore keep close to Him, in order not to miss any 
 of the expected glories and blessings. This fact is the occasion of 
 the address. They must understand that following Him involves 
 agreatdeal. Like the guest in the Pharisee’s house (ver. 15), they 
 have not realized what the invitation to enter the Kingdom implies. 
 
 25. Duvewopevovro b¢ aiva. ‘‘ Now there were going with Him, 
 
364 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIV. 25-28. 
 
 of what continued for some time. Comp. vii. 11, xxiv. 15. Else- 
 where only Mk. x. 1 of people assembling, but often in LXX 
 (Gen. xiii. 5, xiv. 24, xviii. 16, etc.). 
 
 26. od picet tov Tmatépa éautod, k.t.A. Does not hate them so 
 jar as they are opposed to Christ. The context and the parallel 
 passages (Mt. vi. 24, x. 37) show that the case supposed is one in 
 which choice must be made between natural affection and loyalty to 
 Christ. In most cases these two are not incompatible; and to 
 hate one’s parents as such would be monstrous (Mt. xv. 4). But 
 Christ’s followers must be ready, if necessary, to act towards what 
 is dearest to them as if it were an object of hatred. Comp. Jn. 
 Xll. 25. Jesus, as often, states a principle in a startling way, and 
 leaves His hearers to find out the qualifications. Comp. vi. 29, 30; 
 Mt. xix. 12. The kat tiv yuvaixa here is a comment, whether 
 designed or not, on yvvaixa éynwa in ver. 20. Comp. xviii. 29. 
 
 Thy Wuxiv éautod. Not merely his carnal desires, but his life 
 (ix. 24, xil. 23); all his worldly interests and affections, including 
 life itself. Vec tamen sufficit nostra relinquere, nisi relinquamus et 
 nos (Greg. Mag. Hom. xxxii.). So that puceiv tiv Wuxqv éavrod is 
 drapvycacbat éavtoy (ix. 23) carried to the uttermost. 
 
 eivat pou pants. The emphasis is on pafyrys, not on pov, 
 which is enclitic. ‘He may be following Me in some sense, but 
 he is no disciple of Mine.” Would any merely human teacher 
 venture to make such claims? 
 
 27. ov Baordle: tov otaupdv éautod. Comp. ix. 23; Mt. x. 38, 
 xvi. 24; Mk. vill. 34. Only here and Jn. xix. 17 is Baoralew used 
 of the cross ; here figuratively, there literally. ‘‘ Carrying his own 
 cross” would be a familiar picture to many of Christ’s hearers. 
 Hundreds had been crucified in Galilee for rebellion under Judas 
 the Gaulonite (A.D. 6). 
 
 In late Gk. Baordgew seems to be more common than ¢épe, when the 
 carrying is figurative: LXX of 2 Kings xviii. 14; Job xxi. 3. It is specially 
 common in the later versions of Aq. Sym. and Theod. All three have it Is. 
 xl. 11, lxvi. 12; Jer. x. 5: and both Sym. and Theod. have it Prov. ix. 12; 
 Is. lxiii. 9. But in none of these places does it occur in LXX. 
 
 28-33. Two Parables upon Counting the Cost: the Rash 
 Builder and the Rash King. Comp. Mt. xx. 22; Mk. x. 38. It 
 is possible that in both parables Jesus was alluding to recent 
 instances of such folly. It was an age of ostentatious building and 
 reckless warfare. The connexion with what precedes (ydp) seems 
 to be that becoming a disciple of Christ is at least as serious a 
 matter as any costly or dangerous undertaking. 
 
 28. tis yap é& bpuav Oéhwy. “For which of you (see on xi. 5), 
 if he wishes.” 
 
 xaQicas. In both parables (ver. 31) this represents long and 
 
XIV. 28-83.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 365 
 
 serious consideration. The matter cannot be settled off-hand. 
 Comp. Virg. Aen. x. 159. 
 
 Undlte.. Calculates” (Wipos = calculus). In class. Gk. commonly in 
 mid. of voting. Comp. Rev. xiii. 18: notin LXX. Neither drapricuds nor 
 damrdvyn occur again in N.T., but damdvy is fairly common in LXX, and 
 dmapricpds is very rare in Greek literature! In LXX dzaprifewv occurs 
 (1 Kings ix. 25) ; also in Aq. and Sym. See Suicer, daaprifw. 
 
 29. pi} ioxvovtos éxtedéoar. “ Not having the means to finish.” 
 For éxreAely comp. Deut. xxxii. 45; 1 Kings xiv. 15; 2 Chron. 
 iv. 5; 2 Mac. xv. 9; Dan. ili. 40 (Theod.). Not elsewhere in N.T. 
 
 830. Odros. Contemptuous: v. 21, Vii. 39, xili. 32, where see 
 reff. The lesson conveyed is not so much, “It is better not to 
 begin, than to begin and fail,” as, “It is folly to begin without 
 much consideration.” 
 
 81. cuvBadetv cis woAepov. To be taken together: “to engage 
 with another king for the purpose of war.” The verb. is intrans., as 
 1 Mac. iv. 34; 2 Mac. viii. 23, xiv. 17; and often in Polyb. The 
 more common expression is ovpBadrAav cis paxynv (Jos. Ant. vi. 
 5. 3: soalso in Polyb.). Comp. conjiigere. 
 
 év Séka xididow. “Lguipped with ten thousand,” a meaning 
 which readily flows from “clad in, invested with.” Comp. 1. 17 ; 
 Rom: xv, 29; © Cor. iv. 21; Heb. ix. 25; Jude 14. The very 
 phrase occurs 1 Mac. iv. 29. 
 
 82. «i dé unye. See small print on v. 36. 
 
 €pwrG [ta] mpds eipyynv. ‘‘ Asks for negociations with a view to 
 peace.” ‘The ra is omitted in 8 B (? Aomeofel.), and the meaning 
 will then be, “negociates for peace.” BKII have eis for zpos 
 (perhaps from ver. 28). Comp. xix. 42 and examples in Wetst. 
 There is a remarkable parallel to this second parable Xen. AZem. 
 iii. 6. 8. 
 
 83. This verse shows the futility of asking what the tower 
 means, and who the king with the twenty thousand is. These 
 details are part of the framework of the parables, and by themselves 
 mean nothing. The parables as a whole teach that to become 
 Christ’s disciple involves something which ought to be well weighed 
 beforehand. ‘This something was explained before, and is shown 
 in another form here, viz. complete self-renunciation. 
 
 ¥ Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verb. xxiv., and Apoll. Dysc. De Adv. p. §32, 7, seem 
 to be alfsost the only quotations. The Latin renderings here are ad perjiczendum 
 (f Vulg.), ad consummandum (ar), ad consummationem (e), ad perfectum (d). 
 
 2 Those who insist on explaining the king with the twenty thousand com- 
 monly make him mean Satan. But would Christ suggest that we should come 
 to terms with Satan? To avoid this difficulty others regard the king as repre- 
 senting God. But would Christ place the difference between the power of God 
 and the power of man as the difference between twenty thousand and ten 
 thousand? Contrast the ten thousand talents and the hundred pence (Mt. 
 xviii, 24, 28). See on xii. 5 and xvi, I. 
 
366 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XIV. 83-88. 
 
 drotdcceTat Tao Tots EauTod bmdpxouow. ‘* Renounceth all 
 his own belongings,” the chief of which were specified ver. 26. 
 See on ix. 61 and vil. 3. All disciples must be veady to renounce 
 their possessions. Many of the first disciples were called upon 
 actually to do so. Comp. the sarcasm of Julian: “In order that 
 they may enter more easily into the Kingdom of Heaven in the 
 way which their wonderful law bids them, I have ordered all the 
 money of the Church of Edessa to be seized” (£Z¢. xliii.). Note 
 the characteristic tas and waoutv. Comp. v. 11, 28. 
 
 It is very forced to put a full stop at was é€ judy, and make two inde- 
 pendent sentences. ‘‘Such is the case therefore with all of you. Whoever 
 renounceth not,” etc. 
 
 MSS. vary much as to the order of the three words elval wou wabyris. 
 
 84, 35. The Spirit of Sacrifice. The similitude respecting salt 
 was probably uttered more than once, and in more than one form. 
 Comp. Mt. v. 13; Mk. ix. 50. The salt is the self-sacrifice spoken 
 of vv. 26, 27, 33. The figure of salt is not found in O.T., but 
 comp. Job. vi. 6. 
 
 34. Kahév ody 75 Gdas. The ovy (§ B LX 69, Boh.) perhaps 
 refers to previous utterances: “Salt, therefore (as I have said before), 
 is good.” LWihil utilius sale et sole (Plin. H. WV. xxxi. 9. 45. 102). 
 
 éav 8€ kal 76 Gdas. The xai (8 B L X, Vulg. codd. Syr., Bede) 
 must be preserved. “But if even the salt.” In Mt. v. 13 there is no 
 cai. Note the characteristic 6 «ai, and see small print on iii. 9. 
 
 In LXX and N.T. das is the common form, with dda as z./. in good 
 MSS. Inclass. Gk. ds prevails. 
 
 In class. Gk. pwpalyw is ‘I am foolish” (Eur. Ad. 614); in bibl. Grk. 
 pwpaivouat has this meaning (Rom. i. 22; Mt. v. 13), wwpalyw being “I 
 make foolish” (1 Cor. i. 20). Mk. has dvadov ylvec@at, Vulg. has evanueret ; 
 ade infatuatum fuerit. 
 
 év tive GptuOycerat; Quite impossibly Tyn. and Cran. have ‘* What 
 shall be seasoned ther with?” From meaning simply ‘‘ prepare,” dpréw came 
 to be used of preparing and flavouring food (Col. iv. 6), 
 
 85. It is futile to discuss what meaning is to be given to “the 
 land” and “the dunghill.” They do not symbolize anything. 
 Many things which have deteriorated or become corrupt are use- 
 ful as manure, or to mix with manure. Savourless salt is not even 
 of this much use: and disciples without the spirit of self-devotion 
 are like it. That is the whole meaning.! If this saying was uttered 
 only once, we may prefer the connexion here to that in the Sermon 
 on the Mount. Mk. so far agrees with Lk. in placing it after the 
 Transfiguration. But all three arrangements may be right. 
 
 
 
 1 For this savourless salt in Palestine see Maundrell, Journey from Aleppo to 
 Jerusalem, pp. 161 ff. (quoted by Morison on Mk. ix. 50); alsc Thomson, “‘I 
 saw large quantities of it literally thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot 
 of men and beasts” (Zand & Book, p. 381). 
 
XIV. 35-XV. 1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 367 
 
 xorplay, The word is one of many which seem to be of a colloquial char- 
 acter, and are common to N.T. and the comic poets. See Kennedy, Sources 
 of N.T. Grk. pp. 72-76. In N.T. only here. Comp. xiii. 8. 
 
 “O €xwv Gra dxovew dxovérw. A solemn indication that attention 
 to what has been said is needed, and will be rewarded. It is 
 another of Christ’s repeated sayings.. See on viii. 8. 
 
 XV. 1-82. Three Parables for the Encouragement of Penitent 
 Sinners. The Love and Free Forgiveness of God. The Lost 
 Sheep (3-7) and the Lost Coin (8-10) form a pair. Like the 
 Mustard Seed and the Leaven (xiii. 18-21), and the Rash Builder 
 and the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), they teach the same lesson, which 
 the Prodigal Son (11-32) enforces and augments. In the first two 
 Jesus justifies His own conduct against the criticisms of the 
 Pharisees. In the third He rebukes their criticisms, but at the 
 same time continues the lesson to a point far beyond that touched 
 by the objectors. When we regard them as a triplet, each parable 
 teaching a separate lesson, Bengel’s classification will stand: 
 1. Peccator stupidus ; 2. sui plane nesciens ; 3. sciens et voluntarius. 
 But the insertion of efzev d€ (ver. 11) clearly marks off the third 
 parable from the first two, whereas these are closely connected by 7, 
 which almost implies that the second is little more than an alter- 
 native way of saying the same thing as the first 
 
 1-8. The Murmuring of the Pharisees against Christ’s Inter- 
 course with Publicans and Sinners. We have had several other 
 cases in which Jesus has made a question, or an appeal, or a criti- 
 cism, the occasion of a parable: ver. 15, 25-29, xil. 13-15, Xiv. 15. 
 There is once more no indication of time or place ; but connexion 
 with what precedes is perhaps intended. There a thoughtless 
 multitude followed Him, intending to become His disciples, and He 
 warns them to count the cost. Here a number of publicans and 
 simners congregate about Him, and He rebukes the suggestion 
 that He ought to send them away. It was well to check heedless 
 enthusiasts, that ¢ey might be saved from breaking down after- 
 wards. It would have been a very different thing to have sent away 
 penitents, that He might be saved from legal pollution. 
 
 1. "Hoav S€ atta éyyiLovtes mdvtes of TeAGvat Kat of GuaptwAot. 
 The meaning of zdvres determines the meaning of the tense. We 
 may regard it as hyperbolical for “‘ very many,”—-a common use of 
 “all.” Or it may mean all the tax-collectors and other outcasts of 
 the place in which He then was. In either of these cases joav 
 éyy‘Lovres (see on i. 10) will mean “ were drawing near” on some 
 particular occasion. Or we may take zdyres literally of the whole 
 class of publicans and sinners ; and then the verb will mean “ used 
 to draw near,” wherever He might be. This was constantly hap- 
 pening, and the Pharisees commonly cavilled (imperf.), and on one 
 eccasion He uttered these parables (aor.). It was likely that He 
 
368 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XvV. 1-4. 
 
 would attract these outcasts more and more. Comp. vii. 29, 37, 
 and see on xi. 29. For the characteristic tavres see on i. 66, 
 Vi. 30, xii. 10, etc. Note the repeated article: the reAGvar and the 
 dpaptwAot are grouped together as ove class by the Pharisees them- 
 selves (v. 30; Mt. ix. 11); not so here by the Evangelist. 
 
 2. Seysyyutov. “ Murmured among themselves, throughout 
 their whole company.” In N.T. only here and xix. 7, which is 
 very similar. Comp. Exod. xvi. 2, 7, 8; Num. xiv. 2; Josh. ix. 18. 
 “The scribes” are usually placed before “the Pharisees ” (v. 21, 
 vi. 7, Xl. 53; Mt. xii. 38, etc.). Here perhaps the Pharisees took 
 the lead: comp. v. 30 (true text); Mk. vii. 1, 5. 
 
 mpoodéxetar. ‘Allows them access, gives them a welcome”: 
 Rom. xvi. 2; Phil. ii. 29. 
 
 ouvecOier. A much more marked breach of Pharisaic decorum 
 than zpoodéxerat. He accepted invitations from Levi and other 
 tax-collectors, and in His outdoor teaching He took His meals 
 with them. 
 
 3. etmev $é. “ But (in answer to this cavilling) He said.” Cov. 
 and Cran. have “But”; Tyn. and Gen. “Then.” Something 
 stronger than “And” (AV. RV.) is needed. Note efzéy 8¢, cizev 
 mpos, and elrev tiv tapaBoAnv as marks of Lk.’s style. None 
 of them is found in Mt. xviii. 12. 
 
 4-7. The Parable of the Lost Sheep. Comp. Mt. xviii. 12-14, 
 where this parable is given in a totally different connexion, and 
 with some differences of detail. Comp. also Jn. x. 1-18. We 
 have no means of knowing how often Jesus used the simile of the 
 Good Shepherd in His teaching. No simile has taken more hold 
 upon the mind of Christendom. See Tert. De Pud. vii. and x. 
 Comp. Ezek. xxxiv.; Is. xl. 11; 1 Kings xxii. 17. 
 
 4. Tis dvOpwmos é§ buay. Once more He appeals to their per- 
 sonal experience. See on xi. 5, and comp. xii. 25, xiv. 5, 28. The 
 avOpwos inserted here marks one difference between this parable 
 and the next. 
 
 éxwy éxatoy mpdBata. The point is, not that he possesses so 
 much, but that the loss in comparison to what remains is so 
 small, 
 
 dmodéoas é& adtav év. This is the point of the first two parables, 
 —the particular love of God for each individual soul. In Mt. we 
 have wAavn64 (Exod. xxiii. 4 ; Is. lili. 6; Jer. xxvii. 17) for droXéoas, 
 
 katahelmer Ta evevnxovta évvéa, He is the owner, not the shep- 
 herd. His leaving them does not expose them to danger. The 
 wilderness (in Mt. 7a dpy) is not a specially perilous or desolate 
 place, but their usual pasture, in which they are properly tended. 
 He does not neglect them, but for the moment he is absorbed in 
 the recovery of the lost. Cyril Alex. and Ambrose make the ninety 
 and nine to be the Angels, and the one the human race, Ambrose 
 
XV. 4-7.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 369 
 
 adds, Dives igitur pastor cujus omnes nos centesima portio sumns. 
 Migne, xiv. xv. 1756; Ixxii. 798; Payne Smith, p. 497. 
 mopevetat él Td Gmodwdds. For el of the goal comp. Acts viii. 26, 
 
 ix. 11; Mt. xxii. 9; in each case after mopevec@ar, Mt. has here ropevéeis 
 fnret 76 TWAavwpevor. 
 
 ws edpy aitd, Peculiar to Lk. There is no cessation of the 
 seeking until the lost is found. See Lange, Z. of C. i. p. 497. 
 
 5. émtidyow én tods Gpous adtod. This also is peculiar to Lk. 
 The owner does not drive it back, nor lead it back, nor have it 
 carried: he carries it himself. Comp. Is. xl. 11, xlix. 22, Ix. 4, Ixvi. 12. 
 In LXX dGypos is common; in N.T. only here and Mt. xxiii. 4. 
 
 xalpwv. There is no upbraiding of the wandering sheep, nor 
 murmuring at the trouble. Comp. the use of xaipwy, xix. 6; Acts 
 Vill. 39. 
 
 6. cuvKadet tods pious, See on ix. 1. In Mt. there is nothing 
 about his calling others to rejoice with him. Only his own joy is 
 mentioned. It is a mark of great joy that it seeks sympathy. 
 
 16 dtrokwdds. Not 6 dawAcoa (ver. 9). The sheep went astray 
 through its own ignorance and folly (Ps. cxix. 176): the coin was 
 lost through the woman’s want of care. This is another mark of 
 difference between the first parable and the second. 
 
 7. \éyw Spiv. Mt. has the characteristic dujv Aéyw piv. 
 
 4 énl. For # without a previous comparative see small print on xvii. 2, 
 and comp. Mt. xviii. 8; Mk. ix. 43, 45, 47; I Cor. xiv. 19. Win. xxxv. 2. 
 c, p. 302; Simcox, p. 92. Perhaps # may be said to imply paddov by a 
 usage which was originally colloquial. It is freq, in LXX; Gen, xlix. 12; 
 Num. xxii. 6, etc. In Mt. xviii. 13 the “adov is expressed. 
 
 Sikatorg oitives oF xpetay Exouow petavolas. ‘‘ Righteous who 
 are of such a character as to have no need of repentance.” The 
 oirwes does not prove that d:xaéous means those who are really 
 righteous. It will fit any explanation of dicators and ov xpeiav 
 éxovo.v. If both expressions be taken literally, the ninety-nine 
 represent a hypothetical class, an ideal which since the Fall has not 
 been reached. But as Jesus is answering Pharisaic objections to 
 intercourse with flagrant sinners, both expressions may be ironical 
 and refer to the external propriety of those whose care about legal 
 observances prevents them from feeling any need of repentance. 
 Comp. v. 31. 
 
 Mt. here has rots wy wewAavnwévors. In any case the xaipor, 
 ver. 5, and the xapa here are anthropomorphic, and must not be 
 pressed. Juspferata aut prope desperata magis nos aff--iunt (Grotius); 
 but such wz/ooked for results are impossible to Omniscience. We 
 must hold to the main lesson of the parable, and not insist on 
 interpreting all the details.1 
 
 1 Tn the Midrash there is a story that Moses, while tending Jethro’s flocks, 
 went after a lamb which had gone astray. As he thought that it must be weary, 
 24 
 
370 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 7, 8. 
 
 Note the confidence with which Jesus speaks of what takes 
 place in heaven, and compare it with the claims made upon His 
 followers, xiv. 26, 33. 
 
 petavoodvT. . . . yetavoias. Both verb and substantive are 
 much more common in Lk. than in Mt. or Mk. Neither occurs 
 in Mt. xviii. 14 or anywhere in Jn. See on v. 32 and iii. 3. 
 
 8-10. §The Parable of the Lost Coin. The main points of 
 difference between this and the preceding parable are the changes 
 from a man to a woman, and from a sheep, which could stray of its 
 own accord, and feel the evil consequences, to a coim, which could 
 do neither. From this it follows that, while the man might be 
 moved by pity rather than by self-interest to bring back the sheep, 
 the woman must be moved by self-interest alone to recover the 
 coin; also that the woman can blame herself for the loss of the 
 coin (jv dwAeca), which the man does not do with regard to 
 the sheep (17d drodwAds). Hence we may infer that the woman 
 represents the Church rather than the Divine Wisdom, if she repre- 
 sents anything at all. The general result of the two parables is 
 that each sinner is so precious that God and His Ministers regard 
 no efforts too great to reclaim such. 
 
 8. tis yu; No é& dudrv is added, perhaps because no women 
 were present. Yet there may be something in the remark of Wetst. 
 Cum varios haberet auditores Christus, mares, feminas, juntores, 
 iis parabolas accommodat: de pastore, de muliere frugt, de filio pro- 
 digo. Women also may work for the recovery of sinners. 
 
 Spaxpds. The word occurs here only in N.T., but often in 
 LXX (Gen. xxiv. 22; Ex. xxxix. 2; Josh. vii. 21, ete). The 
 Greek drachma was a silver coin of nearly the same value as a 
 Roman denarius} (vii. 41, x. 35, Xx. 24), Which is not mentioned 
 in LXX. It was the equivalent of a quarter of a Jewish shekel 
 (Mt. xvii. 24). Ten drachmas in weight of silver would be about 
 eight shillings, but in purchasing power about a pound. Wic. has 
 “besant,” Tyn. and others have “groat,” Luth. has Groschen. 
 That the ten coins formed an ornament for the head, and that the 
 loss of one marred the whole, is a thought imported into the 
 parable. 
 
 Gmtet. The act. is peculiar to Lk. in N.T., and always in the 
 sense of £indling (viii. 16, xi. 33; Acts xxviii. 2, and perhaps Lk. 
 xxii. 55: comp. Ex. xxx. 8; Tob. viii. 13 ; Jud. xiii. 13). Oriental 
 houses often have no windows, and a lamp would be necessary for 
 a search even in the day. 
 
 he carried it back on his shoulders, Then God said, that, because he had shown 
 pity to the sheep of a man, He would give him His own sheep, Israel, to feed 
 (Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. p. 257; Wetst. on Lk. xv. 5). 
 
 1 Nearly all Latin texts have dragmas, dracmas, or drachmas here; but Cod. 
 Palat. and dd Novatzanum xv. (Hartel’s Cypr. App. p. 65) have denarios, 
 
XV. 8-10.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 371 
 
 capoi.! Von sine pulvere (Beng.). It may be doubted whether 
 there is any lesson intended in the coins being lost zz the house, 
 whereas the sheep strays from the fold ; as showing that souls may 
 be lost in the Church as well as by going out of it. In any case, 
 the details are graphic, and express great and persevering activity. 
 “The charge against the Gospel is still the same, that it turns the 
 world upside down” (Trench, Far. p. 386). 
 
 9. Tas pidas Kal yeitovas. “Her women friends and neigh- 
 bours.” No meaning is to be sought in the change of gender, 
 which merely preserves the harmony of the picture. It is women 
 who congratulate Naomi and Ruth (Ruth iv. 14, 17). 
 
 10. yivetar xapa évdmov. ‘There comes to be joy,” etc. The 
 yiverau = éorau in ver. 7. Joy will arise in any case that may 
 occur. “In the presence of” means “in the judgment of.” The 
 angelic estimate of the facts is very different from that of the 
 Pharisees: comp. xii. 8, xvi. 22; Eph. 1. 4-14. 
 
 én évt Guaptwko. This is the moral throughout,—the value of 
 a single sinner. The Pharisees condemned Jesus for trying to 
 reclaim multitudes of sinners. They had a saying, “ There is joy 
 before God when those who provoke Him perish from the world.” 
 
 11-32. §The Parable of the Prodigal Son. It completes the 
 trilogy of these parables of grace, but we cannot be sure that it was 
 uttered on the same occasion as the two other parables. The 
 Evangelist separates it from them by making a fresh start: Etrev 
 dé (comp. xxiv. 44). But this may mean no more than that Jesus, 
 having justified Himself against the murmuring of the Pharisees, 
 paused ; and then began again with a parable which is a great deal 
 more than a reply to objections. Even if it was delivered on some 
 other occasion unknown to Lk., he could not have given it a more 
 happy position than this. The first two parables give the Divine 
 side of grace ; the seeking love of God. The third gives the human 
 side ; the rise and growth of repentance in the heart of the sinner. 
 It has been called Lvangelium in Evangelio, because of the number 
 of gracious truths which it illustrates.2 It has two parts, both of 
 which appear to have special reference to the circumstances in 
 which Lk. places the parable. The younger son, who was lost and 
 is found (11-24), resembles the publicans and sinners ; and the 
 elder son, who murmurs at the welcome given to the lost (25-32), 
 resembles the Pharisees. In the wider application of the parable 
 the younger son may represent the Gentiles, and the elder the 
 Jews. Like the Lost Coin, it is peculiar to Lk., who would take 
 
 1 MSS. of the Vulg. nearly all read evertzt, which Wordsworth conjectures 
 to be a slip for everrzt. Lat. Vet. has scopzs mundavit (b f ff 1), scopes mundabit 
 (iq), scopes commundat (a), scopis mundat (cr), mundat (d), emundat (e), 
 
 4 Inter omnes Christi parabolas hee sane eximia est, plena affectuum ef 
 pulcherrimis picta coloribus 
 
372 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 11-13. 
 
 special delight in recording a discourse, which teaches so plainly 
 that God’s all-embracing love is independent of privileges of birth 
 and legal observances. Its literary beauty would be a further 
 attraction to the Evangelist, who would appreciate the delicacy, 
 picturesqueness, and truth of this description of human circum- 
 stances and emotions. See Jerome, £/. xxi., for a commentary, 
 
 11. “AvOpwmds tis etxev. The appeal to the personal experience 
 of each is no longer made; but the idea of Jossession still continues 
 (éxwv, éxovea, eyev). In each case it is the owner who exhibits the 
 self-sacrificing care. 
 
 12. 73 émPdddov pépos tis odcias. According to Jewish law 
 this would be half what the eldest received, z.e. one-third (Deut. 
 xxi. 17): but had he any claim to it in his father’s lifetime? 
 
 Very possibly he had. We have here perhaps a survival o1 
 that condition of society in which testaments “ took effect immedi- 
 ately on execution, were not secret, and were not revocable” 
 (Maine, Ancient Law, ch. vi. p. 174, ed. 1861), and in which it 
 was customary for a father, when his powers were failing, to abdi- 
 cate and surrender his property to his sons. In such cases the 
 sons were bound to give the father maintenance; but the act of 
 resignation was otherwise complete and irrevocable. Both in 
 Semitic and in Aryan society this seems to have been the primitive 
 method of succession, and the Mosaic Law makes no provision for 
 the privileges of testatorship (zdzd. p. 197). The son of Sirach 
 warns his readers against being in a hurry to abdicate (Ecclus. 
 XXxlii. 19-23), but he seems to assume that it will be done before 
 death. We may say, then, that the younger son was not making 
 an unheard-of claim. His father would abdicate some day in any 
 case: he asks him to abdicate now. See Lxfositor, 3rd series, 
 X. pp. 122-136, 1889; Edersh. fist. of J. WV. p. 367. 
 
 This intrans. use of ém8dAdw occurs Tobit iii. 17, vi. 11; 1 Mac. x. 30. 
 
 Comp. xryjudrwv 7d émiBaddov (Hdt. iv. 115. 1). Other examples in Suicer. 
 For ovcia comp. Tobit xiv. 13; 3 Mac. iii. 28. 
 
 Suethev attots tov Biov. The verb occurs elsewhere in bibl. 
 Grk. 1 Cor. xii. 11 ; Num. xxxi. 27; 1 Mac. i. 6, etc. For tov Bidv 
 see On viii. 43. Here it means the same as 7) ovata: Comp. ver. 31. 
 
 13. pet od todas fuepas. He allows no delay between the 
 granting of his request and the realization of his freedom. On the 
 fondness of Lk. for such expressions as 0d woAAoi, ov paxpay, 
 and the like, see on vii. 6. 
 
 cuvaydéywv mdvta. He leaves nothing behind that can minister 
 to his desires; nothing to guarantee his return. The stronger 
 form arava is well attested ( A etc.). 
 
 els xopav paxpdv. There is no reason for making paxpdy an adv. (ver. 
 
 20) rather than an adj. either here or xix, 12: paxpos in the sense of ‘‘dis« 
 tant, remote ” is quite classical. 
 
XV. 13-16.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 373 
 
 éxet. Away from his father’s care and restraint, and from the ~ 
 observation of those who knew him. 
 
 Steckdpmicev Thy odctay. The opposite of cvvaydywv ravra. It 
 had cost him nothing to collect it together, and he squanders it as 
 easily as he acquired it. 
 
 {av dodtws. The expression occurs Jos. Amz. xii. 4. 8; but 
 dowrws is not found again either in N.T. or LXX. The dowros is 
 “one who does not save, a spendthrift, a prodigal”: Prov. vii. 11 ; 
 comp. Arist. Zh. Vic. ii. 8. 2, iv. 1. 5. For dowria see Eph. 
 Weros wut. d65% Pet./ivs 43, Prov. xxviii, 75) 2 Macs, vi. 4. 
 Sometimes dowros is taken in a passive sense, “one who cannot 
 be saved, abandoned”; erditus rather than prodigus, as if for 
 doworos (Clem. Alex. Ped. ii. 1, p. 168, ii. p. 184, ed. Potter). 
 But the active signification is appropriate here. Trench, Syz. 
 xvi. ; Suicer and Suidas s. dowros. 
 
 14. The working of Providence is manifested in coincid- 
 ences. Just when he had spent everything, a famine, and a 
 severe one, arose in precisely that land to which he had gone to 
 enjoy himself, and throughout (xard) the land. And he himself 
 (kai atrds), as well as the country, began more and more to be in 
 want. 
 
 Aupds toxvpd. See small print on iv. 25. For kat atrdés see on i. 17, 
 v. 14, vi. 20. For torepetoOar, “‘ to feel want” (mid.), comp. 2 Cor. xi. 8; 
 Phil. iv. 2; Ecclus. xi. 11. 
 
 15. mopeuleis éxoddyOn Evi tay odttdav. He has to leave his 
 first luxurious abode and attach himself, in absolute dependence, 
 to one of another nation, presumably a heathen. Evidently his 
 prodigality has not gained him a friend in need. Godet sees in 
 this young Jew, grovelling in the service of a stranger, an allusion 
 to the reAG@vau in the service of Rome. Excepting the quotation 
 from LXX in Heb. viii. 11, woditns in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. 
 (xix. 14; Acts xxi. 39): in LXX Prov. xi. 9, 12, xxiv. 43, etc. 
 For éko\dyOn see on x. 11. For the sudden change of subject 
 in émeppev Comp. Vii. 15, Xiv. 5, XVii. 2, xix. 4; Acts vi. 6. 
 
 Béoxew xoipous. A degrading employment for anyone, and an 
 abomination to a Jew. Comp. Hdt. ii. 47. 1. But the lowest 
 degradation has still to be mentioned. 
 
 16. émeOiper xoptacPAva.. Exactly as in xvi. 21, of the pangs 
 of hunger. See on vi. 21. There is no doubt that yoprac@jva 
 (SBDLR) is not a euphemism for yeuloar rHv Kowdlay airot 
 (APQ XT A), but the true reading: cupiebat saturari (df), con 
 cupiscebat saturari (e). Syr-Sin. supports A. 
 
 €k TOV Kepatiwy Gv jobiov ot xoipo.. The pods of the “ carob 
 tree,” or “locust tree,” or “John the Baptist’s tree,” or “S. John’s 
 Bread”; so called from the erroneous notion that its pods were 
 
374. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 16-18. 
 
 the locusts which were the Baptist’s food. The carob tree, 
 ceratonia siligua, is still common in Palestine and round the 
 Mediterranean. It is sometimes called Sidigua Greca. But it is 
 rash to assume that the sz/gue of Hor. Zp. ii. 1. 123; Pers. 
 ili. 55; Juv. xi. 58, are carob pods (D.&.?i. p. 1412).1_ For the 
 attraction in dv see on iii. 19. 
 
 ovdels edi8ou airs. ‘No one used to give him” even this 
 miserable food, so that the quantity which he got was small. The 
 neighbours cared nothing about this half-starved foreigner, who 
 even in this vile employment could not earn enough to eat. 
 
 17. eis Eautdv Sé e€h@dv. Implies that hitherto he has been 
 “beside himself”: comp. év éavrd yevduevos (Acts xii. 11). The 
 expression is classical both in Greek (Diod. Sic. xiii. 95 ; Epictet. 
 ili. 1.15) and Latin, vedive ad se (Hor. £f. ii. 2. 138; Lucret. iv. 
 1020; Ter. Adelph. v. 3. 8). This “coming to himself” is mani- 
 fested in the thought of home and the longing for it. Want rekindles 
 what his revelry had extinguished. See Blass on Acts xii. 11. 
 
 Mécot picbior . . . mepiscedovtat dptwv. There is no emphasis 
 on dprwv in contrast to xepariwy: the contrast lies in their having 
 plenty to eat. Godet sees the proselytes in these piofio. The 
 word occurs in N.T. only here and ver. 19: in LXX Lev. xxv. 50; 
 Job vii. 1; Tobit v. 11; Ecclus. vii. 20, xxxiv. 27, XXxVil. II. 
 
 Only in late Greek is repiocevw trans. In N.T. both act. (xii. 15, xxi. 4) 
 and pass. (Mt. xiii. 12, xxv. 29) are used in much the same sense. 
 
 éyh 82 Aid GSe dwdddupar. Comp. 7d aicyiorw ddeOpa, Awa 
 teXevtTnoat (Thue. iii. 59. 4). The ade is after Amo inXBL, 
 before Awd in DRU, ego autem hic fame pereo (Vulg.), while 
 AEF etc. omit. The transfer to before Axwé caused it to be lost 
 in ey 6é. 
 
 18. dvactas topedcopat. Not mere Oriental fulness of descrip- 
 tion (i. 39; Acts x. 20, xxii. 10). The dvacrds expresses his 
 rousing himself from his lethargy and despair (Acts v. 17, ix. 6, 
 18). 
 
 eis Tov odpavdy. “ Against heaven.” This is not a rare use of 
 eis: comp. xvil. 43 Mt. xviii. 21; 1 Cor. vi. 18, vill. 12. It is 
 common in LXX and is found also in class. Grk. Comp. Pharaoh’s 
 confession, “Hudpryxa evavtiov Kupiov tod @cod tpudv Kai cis tpas 
 (Exod. x. 16); also Plat. Rep. iv. 396 A; Phedr. 242 C; Hdt. 
 i. 138. 2; Soph. O. C. 968. Filial misconduct is a sin utterly 
 displeasing to God. But the eis does not mean “‘ crying to heaven 
 for punishment,” immelschreiend, which is otherwise expressed 
 (Gen. iv. 10, xvili. 21). For Gpaptévw évdémdv twos comp. 1 Sam. 
 
 166 These ‘husks’ are to be seen on the stalls in all Oriental towns, where 
 
 they are sold for food, but are chiefly used for the feeding of cattle and horses, 
 and especially for pigs” (Tristram, Wat, Hest. of B. p. 361). 
 
XV. 18-22.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 375 
 
 vii. 6, xx. 1; Tobit iii. 3; Judith v. 7; Sus. 23. The sin is 
 
 regarded as something to be judged by the person who re. 
 ards it. 
 
 : KAnOivar vids cov. By the father himself. What other people 
 
 may call him is not in question. 
 
 19. ds éva tay picPiwy gov. This will be promotion from his 
 present position. He asks it as a favour. 
 
 20. dvactas 7\Pev. The repentance is as real and decided as 
 the fall. He prepares full confession, but no excuse ; and, having 
 made a good resolution, he acts upon it without delay. Here the 
 narrative respecting the younger son practically ends. What 
 follows (20-24) is mainly his father’s treatment of him ; and it is 
 here that this parable comes into closest contact with the two 
 others. Every word in what follows is full of gracious meaning. 
 Note especially éavrod, “his ow father,” attod paxpday azéxovtos, 
 éorAayxvicOn, and Spapdv. In spite of his changed and beggarly 
 appearance, his father recognizes kim even from a distance. 
 
 émémecev wt Tov tpdxndov aitod Kai Katepiinoev adtéy. The 
 exact parallel in Acts xx. 37 should be compared. Excepting Mk. 
 iii, 10 and the quotations Rom. xv. 3 and Rev. xi. 11, éwemrimrevy 
 is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 12; Acts viii. 16, x. 44, etc.), and he 
 alone uses it in this sense: comp. Gen. xxxiii. 4, xlv. 14, xlvi. 29. 
 Latin texts vary much in rendering érérecev: cecidit (Vulg.), 
 incubuit (ad Hier. ad Dam.), procidit (r), superjecit se (e). None 
 of them marks the xara-in xaredidynoey, “kissed him tenderly,” 
 deosculatus est. See on vii. 38, and comp. Tobit vii. 6; 3 Mac. 
 v. 49. As yet the son has said nothing, and the father does not 
 know in what spirit he has returned ; but it is enough that he Zas 
 returned. ‘The father has long been watching for this. 
 
 With the constr, avrod dxéxovros eldev atrdy, for airov dméxovra elder, 
 comp. xii. 36, 
 
 21. He makes his confession exactly as he had planned it: but 
 it is doubtful whether he makes his humiliating request. The 
 words zroinodv pe os x.7.X., are here attested by SBD UX; but 
 almost all other MSS. and most Versions omit them. They may 
 be taken from ver. 19, and internal evidence is against them. 
 Augustine says, lVon addit quod in illa meditatione dixerat, Fac 
 me sicut unum de mercenariis tuis (Quest. Evang. ii. 33). He 
 had not counted on his father’s love and forgiveness when he 
 decided to make this request; and now emotion prevents him 
 from meeting his father’s generosity with such a proposal. But 
 the servants are not present. They would not run out with the 
 father. Not till the two had reached the house could the order to 
 them be given. 
 
 22. Taxd éfevéyxate. “Bring forth quickly”; cito proferte 
 
376 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XV. 22-24 
 
 ‘The father says nothing to his son ; he continues to let his conduct 
 speak for him. 
 
 The 7ax¥ must be retained with & BLX, Syr-Sin. Vulg. Boh. Aeth. 
 Arm. Goth. D and other MSS. have raxéws. 
 
 otohhv thy mpdtyv. Not, “Ais best robe,” still less “his former 
 robe,” which without avrod is scarcely possible; but, “the best 
 that we have, the finest in the house.” Comp. Ezek. xxvii. 22. 
 The oroAy (créAXw) was any long and stately robe, such as the 
 scribes loved to promenade in (xx. 46), the salar: Mk. xii. 38, 
 xvi. 5; Rev. vi. 11, vii. 9, 133; Esth. vi. 8,11; 1 Mac. x. 21, xiv. 9. 
 It is the common word for the liturgical vestments of Aaron: 
 Exod. xxvili. 2, xxix. 21. Trench, Syz. 1; D.2B.? i. p. 808. 
 
 The ri before crodjv (D? R) has been inserted because of the rv before 
 mpwrnv, for an epithet joined to an anarthrous noun is commonly itself 
 anarthrous. But comp. Rom. ii. 14, ix. 30; Gal. iii. 21, 
 
 SaxtuAvov. Here only in N.T., but freq. in LXX and in classical 
 writers. Comp. av7p xpvoodaxrvAwos (Jas. ii. 2). We are probably 
 to understand a signet-ring, which would indicate that he was a 
 person of standing and perhaps authority in the house (Esth. 
 iii. 10, vill. 2; Gen. xli. 42). The Grodjpatra were marks of a 
 freeman, for slaves went barefoot. None of the three things 
 ordered are necessaries. The father is not merely supplying the 
 wants of his son, who has returned in miserable and scanty 
 clothing. He is doing him honour. The attempts to make the 
 robe and the ring and the sandals mean distinct spiritual gifts are 
 misapplied labour. 
 
 23. Ovcate. Not “sacrifice” (Acts xiv. 13, 18; 1 Cor. x. 20), 
 for the context shows that there is no thought of a thank-offering 
 but “slay” for a meal (Acts x. 13, xl. 7; Jn. x. ro): it implies 
 tather more ceremony than the simple “kill.” 
 
 tov pdcxov tov otteutéy. There is only one, reserved for some 
 special occasion. But there can be no occasion better than this. 
 Comp. 1 Sam. xxviii. 24 ; Judg. vi. 25, 28 (A); Jer. xlvi. 21. With 
 
 oitevTos COMP. azradevtés, yvwords, GedrvevaTos, XwveuTos. 
 
 eippavOapey. Excepting 2 Cor. ii. 2, this verb is always pass. in N.T., 
 but with neut. meaning, ‘‘ be glad, be merry” (xii. 19, xvi. 19; Acts vii. 41, 
 ete.). 
 
 24. Note the rhythmical cadence of this refrain (24, 32), and 
 comp. Exod. xv. 1, 21; Num. xxiii, xxiv.; 2 Sam. i. 19-27. 
 Carmine usi veteres in magno effectu (Beng.). There is probably 
 no difference in meaning - between the two halves of the refrain ‘ 
 but vexpds means “dead to me,” and doAwdds “lost to me.” 
 Would the father speak to the servants of his son’s being morally 
 
XV. 24-27.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM = 377 
 
 dead? Whereas he might well speak of one who had gone away, 
 apparently for ever, as practically dead. And if we give a moral 
 sense to vexpos, why not to droAwAdds (xix. 10; [Mt. xviii. 11])? 
 
 Here the first part of the parable ends. The welcome which 
 Jesus gave to outcasts and sinners is justified. The words xai 
 npsavto evppaiverbar should be given to ver. 25 rather than to ver. 
 24. An interval elapses during which the father’s command is 
 executed; and then the banquet, which is the setting of the 
 second part of the parable, begins. 
 
 25-32. In the episode of the elder son the murmuring of the 
 Pharisees is rebuked, and that in the gentlest manner. They are 
 reminded that they are sons, and that to them of right belongs the 
 first place. God and His gifts have always been accessible to 
 them (ver. 31), and if they reject them, it is their own fault. But 
 self-righteousness and exclusiveness are sinful, and may be as fatal 
 as extravagance and licentiousness. 
 
 25. év dyp@. Doing his duty, but in no loving spirit. This 
 explains why he was not present when his brother returned. 
 
 cuppwvias kal xopav. Performed by attendants, not by those at 
 the banquet. Comp. Déscumbens de die inter choros et symphonias 
 (Suet. Calig. xxxvii.). Neither word occurs again in N.T. In 
 LXX yxopds is freq. (Exod. xv. 20, xxxil. 19; Judg. xi. 34, etc.); 
 cvpdwvia (Dan. iil. 5, 10) is a musical instrument. D.Z.? art. 
 “Dulcimer”; Pusey, Dazzie/, p. 29. There were some who under- 
 stood symphonia in this passage to mean a musical instrument, for 
 Jerome (£Z/. xxi.) protests against the idea. It almost certainly 
 means a band of players or singers, and probably fluteplayers (Polyb. 
 XXV1. IO. 5, xxxi. 4. 8). D. of Ant.? art. Symphonia. 
 
 26. tay waidwv. Perhaps not the same as the dodAo (ver. 22), 
 who are occupied with the banquet. 
 
 Vulg. has servz for both; Cod. Vercell. has werd for both ; Cod. Palat. 
 has Auer? for waides and servi for Sod\ax. No English Version distinguishes 
 the two words, and RV. bya marginal note implies that the same Greek word 
 is used. 
 
 ti av ely taita. “What all this might mean.” Comp. Acts 
 x. 17, and contrast Lk. xviil. 36, where there is no dv. Here SAD 
 omit av. His not going in at once and taking for granted that 
 what his father did was right, is ZerZafs an indication of a wrong 
 temper. Yet to inquire was reasonable, and there is as yet no 
 complaint or criticism. See second small print on i. 29. 
 
 27. 871. Recitative, and to be omitted in translation: see on i. 45 and. 
 vii. 16. Not, ‘‘ Because thy brother is come.” There is no hint that the 
 servant is ridiculing the father’s conduct. 
 
 bytatvovta. Not to be taken in a moral sense, about which the 
 servant would give no opinion, but of bodily health. The house- 
 
378 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XV. 27-80. 
 
 hold knew that the father had been anxious about his son’s safety. 
 See on vii. ro, and comp. Tob. v. 21. For émé\aBev of “receiving 
 back” comp. vi. 34. 
 
 28. dpyicOy Sé Kal odx 79ehev. Note the characteristic 5@ cai 
 here and ver. 32 (see on iii. 9), and the change of tense: the 
 unwillingness to go in was a state which continued. Hence 
 the father’s entreaties continue also (mapexdAer). He treats both 
 sons with equal tenderness: the égeh@dv here is parallel to dpapv 
 in ver. 20. 
 
 The reading 740é\ncev (A L. PQ RX) arose from a wish to harmonize the 
 tenses. The reading ody (P QT A) instead of 5¢ (§ A B D LR X) is followed 
 
 in Vulg. (pater ergo zliius) and AV. (‘‘ therefore came his father out”): but 
 it is a correction for the sake of smoothness. Lat. Vet. either vero or autem. 
 
 29. tocaita éry Soudedw oor. His view of his relation to his 
 father is a servile one. With tocaita comp. Jn. xii. 37, xxi. 11. 
 
 obdémote evtoAyy cou TapHAPov. The blind self-complacency of 
 the Pharisee, trusting in his scrupulous observance of the letter of 
 the Law, is here clearly expressed. This sentence alone is strong 
 evidence that the elder brother represents the Pharisees rather 
 than the Jewish nation as a whole, which could hardly be supposed 
 to make so demonstrably false a claim. For wap{\@ov in the sense 
 of “neglect, transgress,” see on xi. 42. 
 
 €pot odddrote dwkas Epipov. The pronoun first with emphasis: 
 “Thou never gavest me a kid,”—much less a fatted calf. He is 
 jealous, and regards his father as utterly weak in his treatment of 
 the prodigal; but what specially moves him is the injustice of it 
 all. His own unflagging service and propriety have never been 
 recognized in any way, while the spendthrift has only to show 
 himself in order to receive a handsome recognition. 
 
 Both here and Mt. xxv. 32, B has éplqcov for ép:pos. Here the diminutive 
 has point. In LXX épigos prevails. 
 
 iva peta tOv pitwv pou edppavdd. He does not see that he is 
 exhibiting much the same spirit as his brother. He wants to have 
 his father’s property in order that he may enjoy himself apart from 
 him. 
 
 80. 6 vids cou odtos. Contemptuous: “This precious son of 
 yours.” He will not say “my brother.” 
 
 peta Tropvay. This is mere conjecture, thrown out partly in con- 
 trast to pera tv gidwv pov (who of course would be respectable), 
 partly to make the worst of his brother’s conduct. That it shows 
 how #e would have found enjoyment, had he broken loose, is not 
 so clear. But although there is contrast between ropvdv and tov 
 didwv pov, and between rév aitevtov pooxov and épidoy, there is 
 none between éOvaas and édwxas, as if the one implied more exertion 
 and trouble than the other, and therefore more esteem. 
 
XV. 80-32.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 379 
 
 #\Gev. There is no bitterness in this, as if to imply that a 
 stranger had come rather than a member of the family ve‘urned. 
 Throughout the parable the prodigal is said to “come,” not to 
 “return” (vv. 20, 27; comp. 18). But there may be bitterness in 
 cov tov Biov. As the father had freely given the younger son his 
 share, it would more fairly have been called rév Biov airod, . 
 
 81. Téxvov. More affectionate than vié, although the son had 
 not said, “Father.” Comp. ii. 48, xvi. 25 ; Mt. xxi. 28; Mk. x. 24; 
 2 Tim. ii. 1. 2 
 
 ot mdvtote. In emphatic contrast to the one who has been so 
 long absent, and perhaps in answer to his own emphatic éuof (ver. 
 29). ‘What he is enjoying for this one day, #hou hast always 
 been able to command.” But, like the Pharisees, this elder son 
 had not understood or appreciated his own privileges. Moreover, 
 like the first labourers in the vineyard, he supposed that he was 
 being wronged because others were treated with generosity. 
 
 mdvTa Ta ea od eotiv. If he wanted entertainments he could 
 always have them; the property had been apportioned: d:etAcv 
 avrots tov Biov (ver. 12). 
 
 Thus the first reproach is gently rebutted. So far from the 
 elder son’s service never having met with recognition, the recogni- 
 tion has been constant ; so constant that he had failed to take 
 note of it. The father now passes to the second reproach,—the 
 unfair recompense given to the prodigal. It is not a question of 
 recompense at all; it is a question of joy. Cana family do other- 
 wise than rejoice, when a lost member is restored to it? 
 
 32. cddpavOfvar S€ Kat xapyvat der. Note the emphatic order. 
 “To be merry and be glad was our bounden duty.” The ei¢par- 
 @jvat of the external celebration, the xapjvat of the inward feeling. 
 The imperf. perhaps contains a gentle reproof: it was a duty which 
 the elder son had failed to recognize. 
 
 6 dSeAdds cou obtos. The substitution of 6 ddeAdds cov for 
 6 vids pov, and the repetition of otros, clearly involve a rebuke: 
 “this thy brother, of whom thou thinkest so severely. If I have 
 gained a son, thou hast gained a brother.” 
 
 Not the least skilful touch in this exquisite parable is that it 
 ends here. We are not told whether the elder brother at last 
 went in and rejoiced with the rest. And we are not told how the 
 younger one behaved afterwards. Both those events were still in 
 the future, and both agents were left free. One purpose of the 
 parable was to induce the Pharisees to come in and claim their 
 share of the Father's affection and of the heavenly joy. Another 
 was to prove to the outcasts and sinners with what generous love 
 they had been welcomed. Marcion omitted this parable. 
 
 XVI. 1-81. On the Use of Wealth. This is taught in two 
 parables, the Unrighteous Steward (1-8) and the Rich Man and 
 
380 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL. 
 
 Lazarus (19-31). The intermediate portion is partly supplementary 
 to the first parable (9-13), partly introductory to the second 
 (14-18). The first is addressed to the disciples (ver. 1), but is 
 felt by the Pharisees who heard it to apply to them (ver. 14). The 
 second appears to be addressed directly to the Pharisees. Both of 
 them teach that riches involve, not sin, but responsibility and peril. 
 They are a trust rather than a possession; and the use made of 
 wealth in this world has great influence upon one’s condition in 
 the great Hereafter. ‘The steward seems to illustrate the case of 
 one who by a wise use of present opportunities secures a good con- 
 dition in the future; while the rich man exhibits that of one who 
 by misuse of his advantages here ruins his happiness hereafter. 
 
 Attempts have been made to connect these two parables with 
 the three which precede, and also with the three which follow. A 
 connexion in fact with what precedes cannot be established. 
 There is no clear intimation of a break, but there is intimation of 
 a fresh start, which may or may not be upon the same occasion. 
 But in ¢hought a connexion may be admitted. These two parables, 
 like the previous three, are directed against special faults of the 
 Pharisees. ‘The former three combated their hard exclusiveness, 
 self-righteousness, and contempt for others. These two combat 
 their self-indulgence. It is still harder to establish a connexion in 
 fact between these two and the three which follow; but Edersheim 
 thinks that the thought which binds all five together is righteous- 
 ness. The five run thus: the Unrighteous Steward, the Unrighteous 
 Owner (Dives), and the Unrighteous Judge; the Self-righteous 
 Pharisee and the Self-righteous Servant (Z. & T. ii. p. 264). 
 Milligan gives a somewhat similar grouping (Zxfositor, August, 
 1892, p. 114). 
 
 1-8. § The Parable of the Unrighteous Steward. The difficulty 
 of this parable is well known, and the variety of interpretations is 
 very great. A catalogue of even the chief suggestions would serve 
 no useful purpose: it is sufficient to state that the steward has 
 been supposed to mean the Jewish hierarchy, the tax-collectors, 
 Pilate, Judas, Satan, penitents, S. Paul, Christ. Here again, there- 
 fore, we have absolutely contradictory interpretations (see on xiv. 
 33). But the difficulty and consequent diversity of interpretation 
 are for the most part the result of mistaken attempts to make the 
 details of the parable mean something definite. Our Lord Him- 
 self gives the key to the meaning (ver. 9), and we need not go 
 beyond the point to which His words plainly carry us. The 
 steward, however wanting in fidelity and care, showed great prud- 
 ence in the use which he made of present opportunities as a means 
 of providing for the future. ‘The believer ought to exhibit similar 
 prudence in using material advantages in this life as a means of 
 providing for the life to come. If Christians were as sagacious 
 
XVI.1.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 381 
 
 and persevering in using wealth to promote their welfare in the 
 next world, as worldly men are in using it to promote their in- 
 terests here, the Kingdom of God would be more flourishing than 
 it is. We may put aside all the details of the parable as mere 
 setting. Every parable contains details which are not intended to 
 convey any lesson, although necessary to complete the picture, or 
 to impress it upon the memory. In this parable the proportion 
 of such details is larger than in others. It should, however, be 
 noticed that the steward provides for his future by means of goods 
 which are not his own, but are merely entrusted to his care. The 
 wealth out of which the Christian lays up treasure in heaven is in 
 like manner not his own, but is held in trust. The method of the 
 parable is very similar to that in the parable of the Unrighteous 
 Judge (xiii. 2). In both we have an argument @ fortiorz. In that 
 case the argument is, If an unrighteous judge will yield to the 
 importunity of a stranger, how much more will a righteous and 
 loving Father listen to the earnest prayers of His own children? 
 Here the argument is, If an unrighteous steward was commended 
 by his earthly master for his prudence in providing for his future 
 by a fraudulent use of what had been committed to him, how 
 much more will a righteous servant be commended by his heavenly 
 Master for providing for eternity by a good use of what has been 
 committed to him? But see the explanation given by Latham in 
 Pastor Pastorum, pp. 386-398. ‘The literature on the subject is 
 voluminous and unrepaying. For all that is earlier than 1800 see 
 Schreiber, Wistorico-critica explanationum parabole de improbo econ. 
 descriptio, Lips. 1803. For 1800-1879 see Meyer-Weiss, p. 515, 
 or Meyer, Eng. tr. p. 209. - 
 
 1. "Edeyev S€ kal mpds tods pabytds, For ecyey dé of a new 
 start in the narrative see xviii. 1. The meaning of the xai is 
 that at this time He also said what follows, and it was addressed 
 to the disciples. The latter would include many more than the 
 Twelve. Note both dé xad (xv. 28, 32) and zpds. 
 
 “AvOpwrds tis jv mAovotos. The rich owner is almost as 
 variously interpreted as the steward. The commonest explana- 
 tion is God; but the Romans, Mammon, and Satan have also 
 been suggested. Grave objections may be urged against all of 
 these interpretations. It is more likely that the owner has no 
 special meaning. We are probably to understand that he lived 
 in the town while the steward managed the estate. Note the rus. 
 
 oixovouoy. Here he is a superior person to the one mentioned 
 xli. 42. There the steward is a slave or freedman, left in charge 
 of other slaves, corresponding on the whole to the Roman a@s- 
 pensator or villicus. Here he is a freeman, having the entire 
 management of the estate, a procurator. Comp. Si mandandum 
 aliquid procuratori de agriculturd aut imperandum villico est (Cic. 
 
382 TILE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL 1-3. 
 
 De Orat. i. 58. 249). But the procurator was often a slave, and 
 perhaps in some cases was not superior to the disfensator or the 
 villicus. See D. of Ant. ii. pp. 496, 957. Vulg. has wz//icus here 
 and disfensator xii. 42 (where see note) and avcarius Rom. xvi. 23. 
 
 SreBAyjOy adits. This use of duaBaddew of hostile information 
 presumably true is not common in class. Grk. It probably implies 
 accusing Jehind a person’s back (Dan. iii. 8, vi. 24 (Theod.) ; 2 Mac. 
 ili, 11; 4 Mac. iv. 1; Hdt. viii. rro. 1; Thue. iii. 4. 4); but évdca- 
 BadXev is used Num. xxii. 22 of mere hostility. Eusebius (perhaps 
 quoting Papias) says of the woman, who may be identical with the 
 woman taken in adultery, duaBAnbeion éxi tod Kupiov (HA. ZL. iii. 
 39. 16). Vulg. here has diffamatus est; Beza, delatus est; Luther, 
 der ward beriichtiget. ‘The ws by no means implies that the charge 
 was false (Jas. ii. 9), but is in accordance with the best authors, 
 who use it after xaryyopeitv as well as after duaBadrAcw. The 
 steward does not deny the charge. 
 
 &s Stackoprifwr. Not guasi dissipasset (Vulg.), “that he had 
 wasted” (AV.); but “as wasting” or “as a waster of.” For ra 
 iwdpxovta aitod see on viii. 3. The epithet tov oixovopuov ris 
 aduxtas (ver. 8) does not refer to this culpable neglect and 
 extravagance, but to the fraudulent arrangement with the creditors. 
 Nevertheless there is no hint that his fraud was a new de- 
 parture. 
 
 2. gwvjcas aitov. For dwveiv of summoning by a message 
 comp. xix. 15; Jn. ix. 18, 24, xi. 28. 
 
 Ti TodTo dkovw mept ood; No emphasis on oi, as if it meant 
 “of thee among all people.” The question is taken in three ways. 
 “What? do I hear this of thee?” 2. “What is this that I hear 
 of thee?” (RV.). 3. “Why dol hear this of thee?” Acts xiv. 
 15, where ti tavra moire; means, “Why do ye these things?” 
 is in favour of the last. See Blass on Acts xiv. 15. 
 
 dmd80s Tov Aéyov. “ Render the (necessary) account.” This is 
 commonly understood of the final account, to prepare for the 
 surrender of the stewardship. But it might mean the account to 
 see whether the charge was true; and the use elsewhere in N.T- 
 rather points to this (Mt. xii. 36; Acts xix. 40; Rom. xiv. 12; 
 Heb. xiii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 5). In that case the thought to be 
 supplied is, ‘‘a steward who cannot disprove charges of this kind 
 is an impossibility.” The steward, knowing that he cannot dis- 
 prove the charges, regards this demand for a reckoning as equivalent 
 to dismissal. 
 
 With the originally Ionic form é¥vy (NBD P) contrast ¢dyecas and 
 mleoat (xvii. 8). 
 
 8. etrev év éoutS. Not then and there, but when he thought 
 the matter over afterwards. Comp. vii. 39, xviii. 4; Mt. ix. 3. 
 
XVI. 3-8.) JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 383 
 
 Note the pres. ddatpetrat, “is taking away,” ze. what he is doing 
 amounts to that. He does not say, “has taken away.” 
 
 oxdmtew obk icxtw. “I have not strength to dig.” Comp. 
 oxdrrev yap ovK eriorapat (Aristoph. Aves, 1432). Only here and 
 xviii. 35 does éwattetv occur in N.T. Comp. Ps. cvili. 10; Ecclus. 
 xl. 28. It means “to ask again and again, ask importunately,” and 
 so “to beg for alms.” Soph. O.C.1364. Comp. zpocaireiy, Jn. ix. 8. 
 
 4. éyvev. The asyndeton and the aor. express the suddenness 
 of the idea: swbzto consilium cepit (Beng.). This aor. is sometimes 
 called aoristus tragicus. Burton, § 45. The subject of Seva: 
 is the debtors mentioned afterwards. See Blass on Acts xiii. 22, 
 
 5. xpeoptdetav. Comp. vii. 41 ; Prov. xxviii. 13; Job xxxi. 37. 
 They paid in kind, and the steward had sometimes received more 
 from them than he had put down in the accounts. This time 
 he makes the amount paid agree with the amount entered by 
 reducing the amount paid. He thus curries favour with the 
 debtors, and to some extent lessens the number of his manifest 
 defalcations. The covenants were kept by the steward; and he 
 now hands to each debtor his written agreement,—Aéfar cov 7a 
 ypapy.ara,—in order that the debtor may reduce the amount which 
 he covenanted to pay. The debtor gained on this last payment. 
 The steward gained on the previous payments. 
 
 6. Bdtous. Here only in N.T. Comp. Aq. Sym. Theod. 
 Is. v. 10 (where LXX has xepduov), and Jos. Azz. vill. 2.9. The 
 bath was for liquids what the efah was for solids. It equalled 
 about 8} gallons, being the pertpytys of Jn. ii. 6; and 100 bach 
 of oil would probably be worth about £10. See Edersh. His¢. of 
 /- LV. p. 283, ed. 1896. For xa@ioas see on xiv. 28. 
 
 7. «épous. Here only in N. T. Comp. Lev. xxvii. 16; Num. 
 xi. 32; Ezek. xlv. 13: Jos. Azz. xv. 9. 2. The cor or homer=10 
 ephahs = 30 seahs or odra (xiil. 21; Mt. xiii. 33). It equalled 
 about ro bushels, and 100 cor of wheat would be worth £100 to 
 #120. But there is very great uncertainty about the Hebrew 
 measures, for da¢a are vague and not always consistent. We are 
 to understand that there were other debtors with whom the steward 
 dealt in a similar manner; but these suffice as examples. The 
 steward suits his terms to the individual in each case, and thus 
 his arbitrary and unscrupulous dealing with his master’s preperty 
 is exhibited. See Schanz, ad loc. 
 
 Both Bdros and xképos are instances of Hebrew words which have assumed 
 regular Greek terminations, See Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 44. 
 
 8. tov oikovdpnov Tis adiucias. These words are to be taken 
 together, aS Tod papwva tis adukias shows. In both cases we 
 have a characterizing genitive. Comp. xpuris tis dduxias (xviii. 6). 
 Win. xxx. 9. b, p. 254, xxxiv. 3. b, p. 297; Green, p. go. 3 
 
384 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL& 
 
 It is grammatically possible to take ris ddiclas after éwyjvecev (4 Mac 
 i. 10, iv. 4); but in that case 67 Ppovluws érolyoey would be very in- 
 congruous. 
 
 gpovipws. “ Prudently, intelligently,” with a shrewd adjustment 
 of means to ends. It is the man’s prompt savoir faire that is 
 praised. Wic. has “prudently” from prudenter (Vulg.); but all 
 other English Versions have “wisely.” Some have erroneously 
 concluded from this that the scrutiny of the accounts ended 
 favourably for the steward; others that, although he did not 
 escape detection, yet he was allowed to remain steward for his 
 shrewdness. The original charge was not disproved, and the 
 steward was dismissed. His master saw that in spite of this he 
 had found friends and a home, and for this commended him. 
 Comp. Syr. Zo, queso, laudas qui heros fallunt? Chr. Jn loco 
 ego vero laudo Recte sane. Ter. Heaut. iii. 2. 26. The adv. occurs 
 here only in N.T., but ¢pdvysos is common (xii. 42; Mt. vii. 24, 
 x. 16, xxiv. 45, etc.). 
 
 Stt of viol Tod aidvos tovTov. “ He was justified in praising 
 his shrewdness, because”; or, “I cite this example of shrewdness, 
 because.” This is the moral of the whole parable. Men of the 
 world in their dealings with men like themselves are more prudent 
 than the children of light are in their intercourse with one another. 
 Worldly people are very farsighted and ready in their transactions 
 with one another for temporal objects. The spiritually minded 
 ought to be equally ready in making one another promote heavenly 
 objects. ‘‘The sos of this world” occurs only here and xx. 34; 
 but comp. Acts iv. 36; Mk. il. 19. 
 
 dpovipdrepot vep. For this use of dmép comp. Heb. iv. 123 Judg. xi, 
 25; 1 Kings xix. 4; Ecclus, xxx. 17; also apd, iil. 13. 
 
 tods uios Tod durds. We have viol gwrds, Jn. xii. 36; 1 Thes. 
 v. 5; and réxva guts, Eph. v. 8; comp. 2 Thes. ii. 3. Is the 
 expression found earlier than N.T. ? Comp. i. 78, ii. 32; and see 
 Lft. Epp. p. 74. ‘ , 
 
 eis Thy yevedv Thy Eauvtav. Not, “zm their generation,” but, 
 “ towards their own generation” ; erga idem sentientes; tm Verkehr 
 mit thres Gleichen. The clause belongs to both of viot 7. aidvos 
 tovrov and tovs viod’s tr. dwrds, not to the former only. The 
 steward knew the men with whom he had to deal: they would 
 see that it was to their own interest to serve him. The sons of 
 light ought to be equally on the alert to make use of opportunities. 
 
 Vulg. has zz generatione sua; but Cod. Palat. reads zm saculum istut, 
 which respects the els, while it misrepresents €aurap, 
 
 9-14. Comments respecting the Parable and its Application, 
 which are still addressed to the disciples. To prevent possible 
 
XVL9.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 385 
 
 but his prudence in using present opportynities as a means of 
 providing for the future. 
 SS Kal cyh apir eye. “ And J say to you,” or “J also say 
 to you”; balancing what the masér said to the steward. The 
 > lrypiapalepel seman: iinetie pallor nara 
 
 Heese, ws im 48 and Acts x. 26, the comect reading scenes to be eat 
 
 éautois wooate gikovs. The pronoun stands first with 
 emphasis. “In your own interest make friends.” The friends 
 are those in need, who are succoured by the benevolent use of 
 wealth, and show their gratitude by blessing their benefactors and 
 =e gee Sf pig atelier armcireminie gaara 
 (ME xxv. 40), and it is well worth while having them as friends. 
 Se ae a in. Mammon is not personified here as it is 
 im ver. 13. Comp. 29 éreye éxi ypypacw aédixus (Ecclus. v. 8). 
 
 The word appears to mean “thet which is trusted im” Lascrmems Puemizce 
 mammon dicitur (Aug. De Serm. Dom. in Monte, i. t4. 47). Bet although 
 found im Punic it is of Syman orig and was m we mthe Targums. The 
 expression occurs in the Book of Enoch: “Our souls are satished with the 
 mammon of unrizghizousness, bat this does not prevent us from 
 into the flame of the pam of Sheol*® (ima. 10). “There are rebbimieal sayings 
 which are akm to what Jesus here szys: 4g. that “alms are the aalt of 
 riches,” and that “the rich help the poor im this world, but the poor the 
 
 2 
 lt 
 tH 
 Uo 
 att 
 : 
 ee 
 m 
 
 iva Gray éxhiwy Séfevra: Spas. Here, as m xiv. 10, the Sa, 
 if it expresses purpose and not result, refers to Christ’s purpose 
 in giving this advice rather than to that of the disciples im follow- 
 ing it. “When it shall fail” means when the wealth shall have 
 come toanend. The subject of &Airy is 5 papewas. The read 
 ing exXizyre or exXcizyre would mean “when ye die” (Gen 
 xxy. 8, xlix. 33; Ps. civ. 29; Jer. xiii (xix) 17, 22; Tobit xiv. 11; 
 Wisd. v. 13). In either case the verb is mtrans. No acc. is to be 
 understood. Comp. Ps. Sof. ii 16, xvii 5. 
 
 The evidence although somewhat confused, is quite decisive for the sing, 
 éxXiry or Gcheixy (R* AB*DLRXI ete, Spyz Boh Am. Acth) 2s 
 agaist the plur. é&cMrgre or écXcirqre FROPAA ae ce, Vale. Goth.) 
 Wordsw. is almost alone in defending éxMfrgre. Sadler represents the choice 
 as between “ye fail” and “‘ they fil.” 
 
 Sefévrax. This may be impersonal, like eiotcw im xi 20 
 
 25 
 
386 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XVI. 9-12. 
 
 But possibly the ¢iAo are to be understood as procuring the 
 reception: gui eos introducant in tabernacula xterna, gui necesst- 
 tatibus suis terrena bona communicaverint (Aug. Quest. Evang. 
 ii. 34); or again, as giving them a welcome when they enter. Comp. 
 the use of SexeoGar ix. 5, 48; Jn. iv. 45. 
 
 eis Tas aiwvious oxyvds. The emphasis is on aiwviovus, “into 
 the eferna/ tabernacles,” in contrast to the uncertain and transitory 
 houses of the debtors (ver. 4). The steward secured a home for 
 atime; but a wise use of opportunities may secure a home for 
 eternity. In 5 Esdras ii. 11 God is represented as promising ‘o 
 Israel, dabo ei's tabernacula xterna, que preparaveram tills (Fritzsche, 
 p. 643). Some such idea Peter seems to have had in his mind 
 at the Transfiguration (ix. 33). The combination of “eternal” 
 with “tabernacles” is remarkable, because oxyvai is commonly 
 used of dwellings which are very temporary. 
 
 10. We have here a general principle which is capable of 
 application in a variety of spheres. The reference to the parable 
 is less direct than in ver. 9. 
 
 év ékaxtot@. ‘In very little” rather than ‘‘in that which is least.” 
 Comp. xix. 17. We find in Irenzeus, Sz 27 modico fideles non fuzstis, quod 
 magnum est guzs dabit vobts (ii. 34. 3), which is probably a loose quotation 
 of Lk. made from memory. In the so-called 2 Ep. Clem. Rom. we have a 
 similarly fused citation: ef 7d puxpdv ov érnpjoare, 76 wéya Ths div dwoe 5 
 Aéyw yap buiv dre 6 miords ev ehaxlaTw Kal év ToAN@ meoTds ety (viii.), 
 which some suppose to have come from an apocryphal gospel, and others to 
 be the source used by Irenzus. Comp. Hippol. Her. x. 29, a éml te 
 puxp@ mords evpebels kal Td uéya muorevOnvar SvvyOys. All three are probably 
 reminiscences of Lk. Comp. Mt. xxv. 21, 23. 
 
 11. 74 dSikw papova. Obviously this means the same as the 
 Popwva THs ddckcas, 2.e. the wealth which is commonly a snare and 
 tends to promote unrighteousness. Some, however, make 7a 
 adikw balance 76 éAnOuwov, and force ddi.xos to mean “ deceitful,” 
 and so “false” wealth, which is impossible. 
 
 +o &\$ivdv. That which is a real possession, genuine wealth. 
 We are not to supply popwva, which is masc. Heavenly nches 
 would not be called ‘“‘mammon.” It is clear that this is parallel 
 to woAAG in ver. 10, as ddékw papwva to éAaxiorw, and that this 
 genuine wealth means much the same as the “ten cities” (xix. 
 17). The connexion between motot and motedce, “trusty” and 
 “entrust,” is perhaps not accidental. Neither Latin nor English 
 Versions preserve it. Cran, has the impossible rendering, “‘ who 
 wyll beleve you in that whych is true.” 
 
 12. év 76 dddotpiw. Earthly wealth is not only trivial and 
 unreal; it does not belong to us. It is ours only as a loan and 
 a trust, which may be withdrawn at any moment. Heavenly 
 possessions are immense, real, and eternally secure. With odx 
 eyéveobe, ‘‘ye did not prove to be,” comp. yeyovévat (x. 36). 
 
XVI 12-14.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 387 
 
 TO Gpérepov tis Sécer Suiv; ‘ Who will give you (in the world 
 to come) that which is entirely your own,” your inheritance, “the 
 kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” 
 (Mt. xxv. 34). The case sketched in these three verses (10-12) 
 is that of a wealthy owner who educates his son for managing the 
 estate to which he is heir, and proves his fitness for it by allow- 
 ing him to have control of something that is of little value except 
 as an instrument for forming and discerning character. If the 
 son proves faithless in this insignificant charge, he is disinherited. 
 Zl y a la une admirable conception du but de la vie terrestre et 
 mime de Pexistence de la mativre (Godet). 
 
 It seems to be impossible to make satisfactory sense of the notable 
 reading 7d 7uérTepov, attested by B L and Origen, and to some extent by 
 Tertullian, who has meum (Adv. Marc. iv. 33): eil also have meum, and 
 157 has éwov. Almost all other witnesses (NADPRXTAATI etc., 
 Versions, Cypr. Cyr-Alex. etc.) have 7d buérepov, which, however, would be 
 an inevitable correction, if 7d juérepov were genuine, 
 
 13. This verse forms a natural conclusion to the comments 
 on the parable; and, if it was uttered only once, we may believe 
 that this is its original position, rather than in the Sermon on the 
 Mount, where it is placed by Mt. (vi. 24). So Schanz, Weiss. 
 
 OdSels oikérns SUvatat Sucl Kuptors Soudevew. ‘No domestic 
 can de a slave to two masters”: comp. Jas. iv. 4. To bea 
 servant to two masters is possible, and is often done. But to be 
 at the absolute disposal of two masters is not possible. The 
 force of dovAevew must be preserved, and the special meaning of 
 oixérys is also worth noting. 
 
 # évds dvOéfetar. The omission of the article makes very little 
 difference: ‘‘one or other of the two.” As the second clause is 
 less strong than the first, the 7 may be understood in the sense 
 of “or at cast he will hold on to”—so as to stand by and 
 support. 
 
 ov Sdvac8e. It is morally impossible, for each claims undivided 
 service. Mammon is here personified as a deity, devotion to 
 whom is shown in “ covetousness which is idolatry ” (Col. iii. 5). 
 No vice is more exacting than avarice. 
 
 14-18. Introduction to the Parable of the Rich Man and 
 Lazarus. 
 
 14. “Hxovoy 8€ taita mdévra. This shows that the occasion is 
 the same; but the scoffs of the Pharisees diverted Christ’s words 
 from the disciples (ver. 1) to themselves. Note the zavro. . 
 
 gi\dpyupo. adpxovtes. Avarice was their constant character- 
 istic: for the verb see on viii. 41 and xxili. 50. The adj. occurs 
 2 Tim. iii. 2 and nowhere else in bibl. Grk., but is quite classical. 
 2 Mac. x. 20 we have ¢uAapyupetv. The covetousness_ of 
 the Pharisees is independently attested, and they regarded their 
 
388 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVI. 14, 15 
 
 wealth as a special blessing for their carefulness in observing the 
 Law. Hence their contempt for teaching which declared that 
 there is danger in wealth, and that as a rule it promotes un- 
 righteousness. They considered themselves an abiding proof of 
 the connexion between riches and righteousness: moreover, they 
 had their own explanation of the reason why a Rabbi who was 
 poor declaimed against riches. Comp. xx. 47. 
 
 SEcpuxtypilov. ‘Turned up the nose (uuxrfp) at”: xxiii. 35; Ps. ii. 4, 
 xxxiv. 16. Here deridebant (f), tnridebant (a), subsannabant (d). In class, 
 Grk. puxrnplfev is more usual: Gal. vi. 7; 2 Kings xix. 21; Pr. i. 303 
 Is. xxxvii. 22; Jer. xx. 7. In medical writers it means ‘‘ bleed at the nose.” 
 
 15. évdmiov tav avOpérwv. This is the emphatic part of the 
 statement. The Pharisees succeeded in exhibiting themselves as 
 righteous persons im the judgment of men; but God’s judgment 
 was very different. Comp. Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16, xxiil. 5, 6, 7, 25. 
 
 6 8€ Ocds yudoKer Tas Kapdias. The use of ywwoxew, which 
 commonly implies the acquisition of knowledge, rather than 
 eidévat, is remarkable. We find the same word used of Christ, 
 even where the knowledge must have been supernatural (Jn. ii. 
 24, 25, X. 14, 27, xvii. 25). The exact antithesis would have been, 
 “but before God ye cannot justify yourselves.” This, however, 
 would have implied that there were no Pharisees who were not 
 hypocrites: that God reads their hearts is true in all cases. 
 Comp. 6 6& @eds derar eis kapdiay (1 Sam. xvi. 7), and again, 
 magas Kapdias éraler Kbpios Kal wav évOvunua ywdoxe (1 Chron. 
 XXVIii. 9). 
 
 dt. 7d ev dvOpdors Gndév. We must understand something 
 before 67: “‘ But God knoweth your hearts [and He seeth not as 
 man seeth], because that which is exalted in the eyes of men,” 
 etc. For this use of év comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 11, and perhaps Jude 1: 
 it is clear that év évOpdzrous = evwdriov TV Gree above. Comp. 
 Job x. 4; 1 Sam. xvi. 7. 
 
 BSAvypa. Here only in N.T. in the general sense of an 
 Jae comp. Gen. xlili. 31, xlvi. 34. Elsewhere (Mt. 
 
 a5; Mk. xu 24> Rev, xvit 4; 5). xxi. 27) of the special 
 abominations of idolatry: comp. 1 Kings xi. 5, 33, xx. 26; 2 Kings 
 xvi. 3, xxi. 2. The word belongs to Hellenistic Greek, and is very 
 freq. in LXX. It meant originally that which greatly offends the 
 nostrils, and it is very much in excess of the usual antithesis to 
 tymAdv, Viz. Tarrewov. See Suicer, 5.2. 
 
 16-18. The discourse has been so greatly condensed that the connecting 
 links have been lost. It is possible that the connexion is something of this kind. 
 “*To be justified before God is all the more necessary now when the Kingdom 
 of God among men is being founded. The Law has been superseded. Its types 
 have been fulfilled, and its 2xclusiveness is abolished: everyone now can force 
 his way to salvation. But the oral principles of the Law are imperishable ; 
 
XVI. 15-18.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 386 
 
 you cannot abolish them. And thus your frequent divorces violate the spirit of 
 the Law.” Others regard ver. 18 as symbolical. ‘* You and those whom you 
 instruct are wedded to the Divine revelation, and if you desert it for anything 
 else you are guilty of spiritual adultery.” But in that case what meaning can 
 the second clause have? How can anyone commit spiritual adultery by accept- 
 ing the revelation which the Jews rejected? See on ver. 18 for another attempt 
 at a parabolic interpretation. 
 
 16. “O vouos kat of mpopftat. A common expression for the 
 ‘ O.T. Dispensation. It may point to a time when the Hebrew 
 Canon consisted only of the Law and the Prophets (Mt. v. 17, 
 Vii. 12, xxii. 40; Acts xili. 15, xxviii. 23). See Ryle, Canon of O.T. 
 -p. 118. 
 
 E péxpt “lodvov. We supply joov: “they existed and had 
 authority until John.” 
 
 This is the only passage in which wéxpr is found preceding a vowel ; else- 
 where wéxpis is used (Mk. xiii. 30; Heb. xii. 4). See on dxpu, i. 20. 
 
 mas eis adtyv Bidfetar. ‘Every one forces his way into it,”— 
 perhaps not always in the right spirit. See Hort, /udazstic 
 Christianity, p. 26. The zs is to be noticed: the Jew has no 
 longer any exclusive rights. Here fiaerat is mid. according to 
 class. usage: in Mt. xi. 12 it is pass.—“‘the Kingdom of God is 
 forced, taken by storm.” 
 
 17. Edxomdtepov. See on v. 23. The 8 which follows it is 
 “But” (RV.), not “And” (AV.). Many English Versions omit 
 the conjunction. Facilius est autem (Vulg.). 
 
 xepéav. Minime litere minimus apex, t.e. one of the little horns 
 (xépas) or minute projections which distinguish Hebrew letters, 
 otherwise similar, from one another. There are several Jewish 
 sayings which declare that anyone who is guilty of interchanging 
 any of these similar letters in certain passages in O.T. will destroy 
 the whole world. Wetst. on Mt. v. 18; Schoettg. i. p. 29; Edersh. 
 L. & T. i. pp. 537, 538. 
 
 For the form xepéa = xepala comp. ii. 13, and see WH. ii. App. p. I51. 
 Marcion read rv Adywy pov, or TS Adywv TOD Kuplov, instead of rod vdyov. 
 The reading has no support ; and wlay xepéav is more applicable to the written 
 law than to the as yet unwritten words of Christ. See Tert. 4dv. Marcion. 
 iv. 33, and contrast Lk. xxi. 33. 
 
 mecetv, “To fall to the ground” as devoid of authority: 
 comp. Rom. ix. 6?; 1 Cor. xiii. 8. The moral elements in the Law 
 are indestructible, and the Gospel confirms them by giving them a 
 new sanction. 
 
 18. Perhaps this introduces an example of the durability of the moral law in 
 spite of human evasions. Adultery remains adultery even when it has been 
 legalized, and legalized by men who jealously guarded every fraction of the 
 letter, while they flagrantly violated the spirit of the Law. ‘‘ Because he hath 
 found some unseemly thing in her” (Deut. xxiv. 1), was interpreted with such 
 
390 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL 18 
 
 frivolity, that Hillef is said to have taught that a map might divorce his wife for 
 spoiling the dinner. Comp. Mk. x. 11, 12 and Mt. v. 32 for other statements 
 of Christ’s doctrine. Mt. v. 32 states the one exception. 
 
 It is very forced to take the whole utterance as a parable. ‘‘It is spiritual 
 adultery to cast off all the obligations of the Law; and it is also spiritual 
 adultery to maintain all those obligations which have been rescinded by the 
 Gospel.” But this does not fit the wording; and, if it did, would it have been 
 intelligible to those who heard it? According to this explanation the wife 
 unlawfully put away = those elements in the Law which are eternal ; and the 
 divorced wife unlawfully married to another man = those elements of the Law 
 which are obsolete. But in the parable (if it be a parable) we have not two 
 women but one. It is better to take the words literally, and leave the connexion 
 with what precedes undetermined. 
 
 19-31. § The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus; in two 
 scenes, one on earth (19-22) and the other in Hades (23-31). It 
 continues the lesson respecting the right employment of earthly 
 possessions. The unjust steward showed what good results may 
 follow from a wise use of present advantages. The rich man shows 
 how disastrous are the consequences of omitting to make a wise 
 use of such things. This second parable illustrates in a marked 
 way some of the utterances which precede it. ‘That which is 
 exalted among men” describes the rich man in his luxury on earth. 
 ‘An abomination in the sight of God ” describes him in his misery 
 in Hades. “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than 
 for one tittle of the law to fail,” shows that Moses and the Prophets 
 still avail as the teachers of conduct that will lead a man to 
 Abraham’s bosom rather than to the place of torment. There is 
 no taint of “ Ebionitic heresy” in the narrative. It emphasizes the 
 dangers of Ith; but it nowhere implies the unlawfulness of 
 wealth. (See Milligan, 4 Group of Parables, in the Expositor for 
 September 1892, p. 186.) It is not suggested that the rich man 
 ought to have renounced his riches, but that he ought not to have 
 found in riches his highest good. He ought to have made his 
 earthly possessions a means of obtaining something much higher 
 and more abiding. Out of this mammon, which in his case was 
 unrighteous mammon, he might have made Lazarus and others his 
 “friends,” and have secured through them eternal tabernacles. 
 His riches were “zs good things,” the only good things that he 
 knew ; and when he lost them he lost everything. ‘‘ What doth it 
 profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?” There 
 is no reason for supposing that the second half of the parable is a 
 later addition, or that it is the only part which has a meaning. It 
 is when both are combined that we get the main lesson,—that to 
 possess great wealth and use it solely for oneself, without laying up 
 treasure in heaven, is fatal. 
 
 The parable is sometimes understood quite otherwise. Lazarus is the Jewish 
 people, ill-treated by earthly powers, such as the Romans and their underlings ; 
 and Dives and his five brothers are the Herods: (1) Herod the Great, 
 
KVI. 19, 20.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 3901 
 
 (2) Archelaus, (3) Philip, (4) Antipas, (5) Agrippa I., (6) Agrippa 11. Father, 
 sons, and grandsons are thus all put together as brothers for simplification. It 
 is a natural consequence of such an interpretation as this that the parable is 
 assumed to be the invention of a later age, and to have been wrongly attributed 
 to Christ. It is difficult to believe that He could have wished to suggest any 
 such meaning. Moreover, this interpretation destroys the connexion with the 
 context. 
 
 19. “AvOpwros 8€ tis tv motors. “Now a certain man was 
 rich” is less probable than “* Now there was a certain rich man” 
 comp. ver. I, xiii, 11. Note the rues. 
 
 moppupav kal Bucoov. The former for the upper garment, the 
 latter for the under. Both were very costly. The former means 
 first the muvex, secondly the dye made from it (1 Mac. iv. 23), and 
 then the fabric dyed with it (Mk. xv. 17, 20). Similarly, Bvocos is 
 first Egyptian flax, and then the fine linen made from it (Exod. 
 XXVi. I, 31, 36; Ezek. xvi. 10, xxvii. 1). The two words are com- 
 bined Prov. XXxi, 22: Comp. Rev. xVill, 12, 16. For edppatvopevos 
 comp. xii. 19, xv. 23, 29: Aapampas occurs nowhere else in bibl. 
 Grk. 
 
 20. dvopatt Adpatos. For évémari see on v. 27: the expression 
 is freq. in Lk. Nowhere else does Christ give a name to any 
 character in a parable. That this signifies that the name was 
 ‘written in heaven,” while that of the rich man was not, is far- 
 fetched. ‘Tertullian urges the name as proof that the narrative is 
 not a parable but history, and that the scene in Hades involves his 
 doctrine that the soul is corporeal (De Anzmd, vii.).2 It is possible 
 that the name is a later addition to the parable, to connect it with 
 Lazarus of Bethany. He was one who “ went to them from the 
 dead,” and still they did not repent. As he was raised from the 
 dead just about this time, so far as we can determine the chrono- 
 logy, there may be a reference to him. But it is more probable 
 that the name suggests the helplessness of the beggar; and some 
 name was needed (ver. 24). Tradition has given the name Nineuis 
 to the rich man. The theory that the story of the raising of 
 Lazarus has grown out of this parable is altogether arbitrary. 
 
 €BéBAnto pds Toy TUAGva attod. Not “had been flung at his 
 gate,” as if contemptuous roughness were implied. In late Greek 
 Badrew often loses the notion of violence, and means simply “ lay, 
 place”: v.37; Jn. v. 7, xii. 6, xviii. 11, xx. 25, 27, xxi. 6; Jas. 
 iil, 3; Num. xxii. 38. By Aare is meant a large gateway or 
 portico, whether part of the house or not (Acts x. 17, xii, 14; Mt 
 xxvi. 71; 2 Chron. iil. 7; Zeph. ii. 14). It indicates the grandeur 
 of the house. 
 
 1 Jésus se serait-tl abaissé a de paretlles personalités ? asks Godet, with some 
 Treason. 
 
 2 Ambrose also takes it as history: Marratio magis quam parabola videtur, 
 quando etiam nomen exprimitur (Migne, xv. 1768). 
 
392 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVI. 20-22. 
 
 et\kwpévos. The verb occurs here only in bibl. Grk., but is 
 common in medical writers, especially in the pass., “ be ulcerated.” 
 
 The irregular augment, instead of the usual 7\xwyévos, is well attested 
 here, and perhaps arose from analogy with €\xw. Comp. xateipydcaro (Rom, 
 xv. 18). WH. ii. App. p. 1613; Greg. Prodeg. p. 121. 
 
 21. émbupav xoptacOijvar. This does not imply (Iren. ii. 34. 1) 
 that his desire was not gratified. His being allowed to remain 
 there daily, and his caring to remain there daily, rather indicates 
 that he did get the broken meat. He shared with the dogs (Mk. 
 vii. 28). But perhaps it does imply that what was given to him did 
 not satisfy his hunger. Some authorities insert from xv. 16 kat 
 ovdeis édidou aire, ef nemo illi dabat, which even asa gloss seems to 
 be false. 
 
 The silence of Lazarus throughout the parable is very im- 
 pressive. He never murmurs against God’s distribution of 
 wealth, nor against the rich man’s abuse of it, in this world. And 
 in Hades he neither exults over the change of relations between 
 himself and Dives, nor protests against being asked to wait upon 
 him in the place of torment, or to go errands for him to the visible 
 world. 
 
 GAA Kal ot xUves. “Nay, even the dogs.” This shows his 
 want and his helplessness. Not only was his hunger unsatisfied, 
 but even the dogs came and increased his misery. He was scantily 
 clad, and his sores were not bound up; and he was unable to drive 
 away the unclean dogs when they came to lick them. The sugges- 
 tion that the dogs were kinder to him than the rich man was, is 
 probably not intended ; although the main point of vv. 20, 21 is to 
 continue the description of Dives rather than to make a contrast 
 to him. Here was a constant opportunity of making a good use 
 of his wealth, and he did not avail himself of it. 
 
 ér&etxov. ‘* Licked the surface of.” Here only in bibl. Greek. The 
 reading awéAetxov has very little authority. For ddd xal comp, xii. 7, 
 xxiv. 22. 
 
 22. This verse serves to connect the two scenes of the parable. 
 The reversal of the positions of the two men is perhaps intimated 
 in the fact that Lazarus dies first. The opportunity of doing good 
 to him was lost before the rich man died, but the loss was not 
 noticed. 
 
 drevexOjvar attov.. “His sould was carried,” a Joco alieno in 
 patriam. Clearly we are not to understand that what never hap- 
 pened to anyone before happened to bim, and that body and soul 
 were both translated to Hades. In saying that he died (dzo@aveiv) 
 the severance of soul and body is implied. “And the fact that his 
 burial is not mentioned is no proof that it is not to be understood 
 
XVI. 22, 23.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 393 
 
 Jesus would scarcely have shocked Jewish feeling by the revolting 
 idea that close to human habitations a corpse was left unburied. 
 In each case the feature which specially characterized the death is 
 mentioned. See Aug. De Civ. Dei, xxi. 10. 2. 
 
 iS tOv &yyé\wv. The transition was painless and happy. A 
 Targum on Cantic. iv. 12 says that the souls of the righteous are 
 carried to paradise by Angels. Comp. the Aeroupyixa rvevpara 
 of Heb. i. 14 and the dyyeAou Aevrovpyot of Philo. But zt is no 
 purpose of the parable to give information about the unseen world. 
 The general principle is maintained that bliss and misery after 
 death are determined by conduct previous to death; but the 
 details of the picture are taken from Jewish beliefs as to the con- 
 dition of souls in Sheol, and must not be understood as con- 
 firming those beliefs. The properties of bodies are attributed to 
 souls in order to enable us to realize the picture. 
 
 eis Tov KoATov “ABpadp. This is not the objective genitive, 
 “the bosom which contained Abraham,” but the subjective, 
 “that in which Abraham received Lazarus.” Comp. Mt. viii. 11. 
 Lazarus in Sheol reposes with his head on Abraham’s breast, as a 
 child in his father’s lap, and shares his happiness. Comp. Jn. 
 i. 18. The expression is not common in Jewish writings; but 
 Abraham is sometimes represented as welcoming the penitent into 
 paradise. Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. p. 280. Comp. otrw yap rafdvras 
 (v.2. Oavovras) jpas ABpadp cal “IoadK xat*TaxnP trodéfovrat (4 Mac. 
 xiii. 17). Such expressions as “go to one’s fathers” (Gen. 
 xv. 15), “lie with one’s fathers” (Gen. xlvii. 30), “be gathered to 
 one’s fathers” (Judg. ii. 10), and “sleep with one’s fathers” 
 (1 Kings i. 21), apply to death only, and contain no clue as to the 
 bliss or misery of the departed. ‘Abraham’s bosom” does con- 
 tain this. It is not a synonym for paradise; but to repose on 
 Abraham’s bosom is to be in paradise, for Abraham is there (Jn. 
 viii. 56: Diptychs of the Dead in the Liturgy of S. James). 
 
 kat étdpyn. It is not the contrast between the magnificence of 
 his funeral (of which nothing is stated) and the /ac& of funeral for 
 Lazarus (of which nothing is stated) that is to be marked, but the 
 contrast between mere burial in the one case and the ministration 
 of Angels in the other. 
 
 Some authorities seem to have omitted the «al before év 7@ ddy and to 
 have joined these words with érdgy. Vulg. has et sepultus est in inferno: 
 elevans autem oculos suos. Aug. has both arrangements. Comp. Jn. 
 xiii. 30, 31 for a similar improbable shifting of a full stop in some texts, 
 Other examples Greg. Proleg. p. 181. 
 
 28. kai €v to adn. “In Hades,” the receptacle of a// the 
 departed until the time of final judgment, and including both 
 paradise and Gehenna. That Hades does not mean “hell” as 
 
394 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVL. 23, 24 
 
 a place of punishment is manifest from Acts ii. 27, 31; Gen 
 XXXVil. 35, xlil. 38, xliv. 29; Job xiv. 13, xvii, ©) teu lmae 
 Hades includes a place of punishment is equally clear from this 
 passage. In the Psalms of Solomon Hades is mentioned only in 
 connexion with the idea of punishment (xiv. 6, xv. 11, xvi. 2). 
 See Suicer, s.v. The distinction between Hades and Gehenna is 
 one of the many great advantages of RV. Dives “lifts up his 
 eyes,” not to look for help, but to learn the nature of his changed 
 condition. 
 
 indpxwv.é€v Bacdvors. Torment is now his habitual condition : 
 not dv, but drdpxwv. That he is punished for his heartless neglect 
 of great opportunities of benevolence, and not simply for being 
 rich, is clear from the position of Abraham, who was rich. Comp. 
 péyas yap Yux7ns ayov Kal Kivdvvos év aiwviw Bacdvw Kelpwevos Tots 
 mapaBao. tiv évtoAjv tod @eot (4 Mac. xiii. 14); and contrast 
 Sixaiwy de Yuxal ev yxepl Ocod, Kal od py ayrat aitav Bacavos 
 (Wisd. iii. 1).  Luxurtoso carere deliciis poena est (Ambr). 
 
 opa “ABpadu. The Jews believed that Gehenna and paradise 
 are close to one another: Edersh. Ast. of Jewish (Nation, p. 432, 
 ed. 1896. We need not suppose that the parable teaches us 
 to believe this. The details of the picture cannot be insisted 
 upon. 
 
 &md paxpdbev. The dzd is pleonastic, and marks a late use, when the 
 force of the adverbial termination has become weakened: Mt. xxvii. 51; 
 Mk. v. 6, xiv. 54, xv. 40, etc. In LXX we have dé dmicGev (freq. in 1 and 
 2 Sam.), dd érdvwOev, dad mpwifev: and in Aq. awd dpxnev and amd 
 KukAdOev. 
 
 With xoArros comp. ludria of a single garment (Acts xviii. 6; Jn. xiii. 4, 
 xix. 23) and yduor of a single wedding (xii. 36). We have similar plurals in 
 late class. Grk. 
 
 24. Mdrep “ABpadp., He appeals to their relationship, and to 
 his fatherly compassion. Will not Abraham take pity on one of 
 his own sons? Comp. Jn. viii. 53. Note the characteristic xai 
 avtos (see on i. 17, v. 14). The wrjoas implies raising his 
 voice, in harmony with dd paxpo0er. 
 
 mréupov AdLapoy. Not that he assumes that Lazarus is at his 
 beck and call, although Lange thinks that this is “the finest 
 masterstroke of the parable” that Dives unconsciously retains his 
 arrogant attitude towards Lazarus. See also his strange explana- 
 tion of the finger-drop of water (Z. of C.i. p. 507). On earth 
 Dives was not arrogant; he did not drive Lazarus from his gate; 
 but neglectful. In Hades he is so humbled by his pain that he is 
 willing to receive alleviation from anyone, even Lazarus. 
 
 iva Bday TS Gkpoy tod SaxtUAou attod GSatos. The smallest 
 alleviation will be welcome. On earth no gnjoyment was too 
 extravagant: now the niost trifling is worth imploring. 
 
XVI. 24-26.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 395 
 
 With the part. gen. S8aros comp. Bader Thy SaxtuAoy Toy Sekiby aed Tod 
 éaalov (Lev. xiv. 16). To understand t: and make édardés 7: nom. to Bay 
 is an improbable const. See Win. xxx. 8. c, p. 252. 
 
 dduvGpat ev TH pAoyt tavry. “I am in anguish in this flame” 
 of insatiable desires and of remorse: a prelude to the yéevva Tod 
 mdpos (Mt. v. 22). For édvvapar see on il. 48. 
 
 25. Téxvov. He does not resent the appeal to relationship: 
 the refusal is as gentle as it is decided. The rich man cannot fail 
 to see the reasonableness of what he experiences. 
 
 amékaBes. “Thou didst receive zz ful/.” This seems to be 
 the meaning of the azo-. Nothing was stored up for the future: 
 comp. azéxewv, vi. 24; Mt. vi. 2, 5,16. Note the prjcOnr. It is 
 only in the mythological Hades that there is a river of Lethe, 
 drowning the memory of the past. 
 
 ta dya0d cov. Herein also was fatal error. He had no idea 
 of any other good things, and he kept these to himself. 
 
 kat AdLapos suite a kaxé. There is no aired. His evil 
 things were not his own, but he accepted them as from God, 
 while the rich man took his good things as possessions for which 
 he had no account to render. Comp. vv. 11, 12. 
 
 viv 8é &8e. Contrast of time and place: “But xow here.” 
 The 6 d€ of TR. has scarcely any authority. The same corruption 
 is found 1 Cor. iv. 2. Comp. ov« éorw & adov Lyrica tpudyv 
 (Ecclus. xiv. 16). There is, however, no hint that during their 
 lives Dives had been sufficiently rewarded for any good that he had 
 done, and Lazarus sufficiently punished for any evil that he had 
 done. And there is also no justification of the doctrine that to 
 each man is allotted so much pleasure_and so much pain; and 
 that those who have their full allowance of pleasure in this world 
 cannot have any in the world to come. Abraham’s reply must be 
 considered in close relation to the rich man’s request. Dives had 
 not asked to be freed from his punishment. He accepted that as 
 just. He had asked for a slight alleviation, and in a way which 
 involved an interruption of the bliss of Lazarus. Abraham replies 
 that to interfere with the lot of either is both unreasonable and 
 impossible. Dives had unbroken luxury, and Lazarus unbroken 
 suffering, in the other world. ‘There can be no break in the pangs 
 of Dives, or in the bliss of Lazarus, now. 
 
 éSuvacat. An intermediate form between édurdecat and dduvG. Such 
 things belong to the popular Greek of the time. Comp. xavyaoa: (Rom. 
 ii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 7), kaTaxauxadoar (Rom. xi. 18), and see on ¢dyecas and 
 wlecat (Lk. xvii. 8). 
 
 26. év mact toutas. Ln his omnibus (Vulg.). The émi (A, etc.) 
 for ¢v (8 BL) is a manifest correction. While ver. 25 shows that 
 on equitable grounds no alleviation of the lot of Dives is admis- 
 
396 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XWI. 26-30. 
 
 sible, ver. 26 shows that the particular kind of alleviation asked for 
 is impossible. Can it mean, “In all these regions, from end to end”? 
 
 Xdopa péya eompixtar. ‘Has been and remains fixed.” 
 Evidence is lacking to show that the Jews pictured the two parts 
 of Hades as divided by a chasm. Here only in bibl. Grk. is 
 xéopa found: not Num. xvi. 30. 
 
 Chaos magnum firmatum est (Vulg. f), chaus magnum confirmatus est (d), 
 chaos magnus firmatus est (1). For this use of chaos comp. Postta est mth 
 regia celo : Possidet alter aquas, alter inane chaos(Ovid, Fast. iv. 599). Bentley 
 conjectured chasma, the ma having been lost in magnum and chas expanded 
 into chaos. This conjecture finds support in two MSS. of Vulg., M having 
 cane and Y chasmagnum. Jerome would be likely to correct chaos into 
 chasma. 
 
 Stas... ph Suvavrar. Not, “so that they cannot” (AV.); 
 but, “ in order that they may not be able.” 
 
 pndé. “Nor yet”: this would be still less permissible. The 
 ot before éxetOev is probably not genuine, but we may understand 
 a new subject. Groups from each side are supposed to contem- 
 plate crossing ; not one group to cross and recross. 
 
 27. But perhaps there is no xdaoua between paradise and 
 the other world ; and Dives makes another request, which, if less 
 
 selfish than the first, is also less humble. It implies that he has 
 
 scarcely had a fair chance. If God had warned him sufficiently, 
 he would have €scaped this place of torment. 
 
 28. Siapaptépyta adtoits. ‘‘ May bear witness successfully,” 
 right through to a good issue. But the dia- need not mean more 
 than “thoroughly, earnestly” (Acts ii. 40, Vili. 25, X. 42, Xviil. 5, 
 XX. 21, 23, 24, xxiii. 11, xxviii. 23). Elsewhere in N.T. only five 
 times, but freq. in LXX. That any five persons then living, 
 whether Herods, or sons of Annas, or among the audience, are 
 here alluded to, is most improbable. That the request is meant 
 to illustrate the Pharisees’ craving for signs is more possible: and 
 the lesson that the desire to warn others from vicious courses may 
 come too late is perhaps also included. But the simplest _e 
 tion of the request is that it prepares the way for the moral of the 
 parable,—¢he duly of making use of existing 0260 Rennes 
 
 29. dxovcdtacav autav. LVemo cogitur. Auditu fideli salvamur, 
 non apparitionibus. Herodes, audire non cupiens, miraculum non 
 cernit (Beng.). Wonders may impress a worldly mind for the 
 moment; but only a will freely submitting itself to moral control 
 can avail to change the heart. 
 
 80. Odxi, mdtep “ABpadp. Not, “No, they will not repent for 
 Moses and the Prophets,” which Abraham has not asserted ; but, 
 “No, that is not enough.” He speaks from his own experience. 
 
 It is better to take dad vexp&v with wopev07 than with 7s. Vulg. is as 
 amphibolous as the Greek : sz guzs ex mortuis terit ad cos, See oni, & 
 
 el 
 
XVI. 80, 81.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 397 
 
 petavonaovo. “They will repent.” Not, “they will give all 
 to the poor,” or “they will leave all and become as Lazarus.” 
 There is no hint that being rich is sinful, or that the poor are sure of 
 salvation. In ver. 28 he did not say that wealth had ruined himself. 
 
 81. Ei... od dkovovow. “If, as matters now stand, they 
 are refusing to hear.” We go beyond the tenour of the reply 
 when we make it mean that “a far mightier miracle than you 
 demand would be ineffectual for producing a far slighter effect.” 
 Does ék vexpov avacrh imply “a far mightier miracle” than do 
 vexpov mopevdn? And does weoOyoovra imply “a far slighter 
 effect” than peravonoovow ? “ Persuaded” obviously means “ per- 
 suaded to repent”; and one who “goes from the dead” to warn 
 the living must “rise from the dead.” By this conclusion Christ 
 once more rebukes the demand for a sign. Those who ask for it 
 have all that they need for the ascertainment of the truth; and the 
 sign if granted would not produce‘tonviction. Saul was not led to 
 repentance when he saw Samuel at Endor, nor were the Pharisees 
 when they saw Lazarus come forth from the tomb. The Pharisees 
 tried to put Lazarus to death and to explain away the resurrection 
 of Jesus. For allegorical interpretations of the parable see Trench, 
 Parables, p. 470, toth ed.} 
 
 In otk dxovovowy the negative belongs to the verb so as almost to form one 
 word, and is not influenced by the el: ‘‘If they disregard.” Comp. xi. 8, 
 xii. 26, xviii. 4. The pres. indic. represents the supposition as contempor- 
 aneous. Note the change from el with pres, indic. to édv with aor. subjunc. 
 The latter is pure hypothesis. 
 
 ’ THE IDEA OF HADES OR SHEOL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 It is surprising how very little advance there is in O.T., respecting concep- 
 tions of the unseen world, upon Greek mythology. It is scarcely an exaggera- 
 tion to say that, until about B.c. 200, the Jewish Sheol is essentially the same 
 in conception as the Hades of Greek poetry. There are no moral or spiritual 
 distinctions in it. Good and bad alike are there, and are apparently much in 
 the same condition. Moreover, there is no thought of either of them rising 
 again. In some places, Zosszbly, Sheol or Hades is merely a synonym for the 
 grave or death, which receives good and bad alike, and retains them: e.g. Gen. 
 XXXVii. 35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6. But in passages in which the unseen world 
 of spirits is plainly meant, the absence of the religious element is remarkable. 
 Nay, in one way the bad are better off than the good ; for while the just have lost 
 the joys which were the reward of their righteousness, the wicked have ceased 
 to be troubled by the consequences of their iniquity. See Davidson on Job iii. 
 16-19. Sheol is a place of rest ; but also of silence, gloom, and ignorance. In 
 the only passage in which the word occurs in Ecclesiastes we are told that there 
 is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou 
 goest” (ix. 10). Those who have gone thither return no more, and none escape 
 it (Job vii. 9, 10, x. 21, 22, xx. 9). 1t is a Jand of forgetfulness, in which there 
 
 1 Near the end of the Koran are two passages worth comparing. (Sale’s 
 Koran, chs. cii., civ. ). 
 
398 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII 1. 
 
 s no more remembrance of God or possibility of serving Him (Ps. vi. 5, xxx. 9, 
 Ixxxviil. 12; comp. Is. xxxviii. 11, 18). And it is insatiable (Prov. i. 12, xxvii. 
 20, xxx. 16; comp. Is. v. 14). In some Psalms there is some trace of hope for 
 eternal life in God in the other world (xlix. 15), but not of hope for 1 esurrection. 
 In xvii. 15 “‘ when I awake” probably does not mean awake from death, but 
 from sleep. It is the dazly renewal of communion with God that is desired. 
 In Is, xxv. 8, and still more in Is. xxvi. 19, hope in a resurrection from Sheol is 
 expressed ; and in Dan. xii. 2 we reach the idea of resurrection with rewards 
 and punishments. 
 
 Side by side with the hope of a resurrection (2 Mac. xii. 43-45, xiv. 46) 
 comes the belief that Sheol is only an intermediate state, at any rate for tke 
 righteous (2 Mac. vil. 9, II, 14, 36, 37; voch li.): and along with the idea 
 of a resurrection to rewards and punishments comes the idea that there is 1e- 
 tribution in Sheol itself, and consequently a separation of the righteous from 
 the wicked (Zzoch xxii.). But the idea of rising again to be punished does not 
 seem to have prevailed. The view rather was that only the righteous were 
 raised, while the wicked remained for ever in Sheol (Zxoch \xiii. 8-10, xcix. 
 11). In this way Hades becomes practically the same as Gehenna (fs. So/. 
 xiv. 6, xv. II, xvi. 2). In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus there is 
 nothing to show whether Hades is intermediate or final: but the doctrine of its 
 being a place of retribution, with a complete separation of the righteous from 
 the wicked, could hardly be more clearly marked. In the Talmud, Sheol is 
 identical with Gehenna, just as in popular English ‘‘ hell” is always a place of 
 punishment, and generally of final punishment. See DB? art. ‘‘ Hell”; 
 Herzog, PREZ.? art. Hades; Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 168. 
 
 XVII. 1-10. Four sayings of Christ. These are, The Sin of 
 Causing Others to Sin (1, 2); The Duty of Forgiveness (3, 4); 
 The Power of Faith (5, 6); and, The Insufficiency of Works 
 (7-10). They have no connexion with the much longer utter- 
 ances which precede them. Some of them are given by Mt. and 
 Mk. in other positions. And the four sayings appear to be with- 
 out connexion one with another. It is possible to make them 
 into two pairs, as RV. does by its paragraphs. But the connexions 
 between the first and second, and between the third and fourth, 
 are too uncertain to be insisted upon. 
 
 1, 2. The Sin of Causing Others to Sin. These two verses are 
 found in reverse order, and somewhat differently worded, Mt. 
 XViii. 6, 7, and ver. 2 is found Mk. ix. 42. 
 
 1. *AvévSextov. Here only in bibl. Grk., and rare elsewhere, excepting 
 in writers who knew this passage. In xiii, 33 we have évééxerat, from which 
 this comes ; and the intermediate évdexrov éort is found in Apollonius. The 
 meaning is ‘‘it is unallowable, it cannot be,” ov« évdéxerat. 
 
 The gen. in Tod . . . wn édGciv may be variously explained, but best as 
 an expression of deszgz, implied in what is not allowed, a construction of 
 which Lk. is very fond: see on ii. 21. Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 408. Others refer 
 it to the notion of hindering implied in dvévdexrov (Burton, § 405); while 
 Meyer makes avév. a substantive on which the gen. depends, ‘‘ There is an 
 impossibility of offences” not coming. Here only does oxdvdaXov occur in 
 Lk. It isa late form of cxavdddyOpov (Aristoph. Ach. 687), the “‘ bait-stick ” 
 in a trap, and combined the ideas of ensnaring and tripping up. It is a bibl 
 and eccles. word, freq. in LXX. 
 
 mA}v oval 8¢ of épxerat, See on vi. 24, and comp. xxii, 22. 
 
XVIL 2,3.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 399 
 
 2. ducitehet ata. “It is well for him, is worth his while” 
 lit. “it pays the taxes (Aver ra zéAy), repays the outlay.” Here 
 only in N.T., but found Tobit iii. 6; Ecclus. xx. 10, 14, xxix. 14, 
 and quite classical. 
 
 In Tertullian (Ado. Marcion. iv. 35) we have an insertion from Mt. xxvi. 
 
 24: expedisse ed, si natus non fuisset, aut s¢ molino saxo ad collum deligato, etc. 
 
 A similar mixture of texts is found i in Clem. Rom. (Cor. xlvi.), who has éva 
 Tay éxhext&y for Toy puxpay TotTwv eva. 
 
 AiBos pudixds. “A stone fit for a mill” (uvAn). Mt. xviii. 6 
 and Mk. ix. 42 we have ptAos dévixés for AiBos puhixds. Neither 
 occurs in LXX. 
 
 kat éppirrat, Mk. has @eBAyra. The change from pres. to 
 perf. is graphic: “It is good for him if a millstone is hanged 
 about his neck and he has been hurled.” As to the double pp see 
 Greg. Proleg. p. 121. 
 
 7. ‘‘Rather than”: see small print on xv. 7, and comp, AvotreAet won 
 droGaveiy F Sp. (Tobit iii. 6). Such L plea are common in LXX (Gen. 
 xlix. 12; Jon. iv. 3, 8; Tobit xii. 8; Ecclus. xx. 25, xxii. 15, etc.), bat are 
 found also in class. Grk. xahdrv Td a fv 9 ov dbNlus (Menander). Nothing 
 is to be understood with fa, such as “‘ rather than (to remain alive) in order 
 to.” It is the late use of tva with the telic force lost. Win. xliv. 8. c¢, p. 
 424; Burton, §214. Comp. Mt. v. 29, 30; 1 Cor. iv. 3. 
 
 tiv pixpdv tovTwv éva. As the saying is addressed to the dis- 
 ciples (ver. 1), it is unlikely that the whole body of the disciples 
 is included in “these little ones.” It is more natural to under- 
 stand it of the more insignificant among them (comp. vii. 28), or 
 those who were young in the faith, or possibly children. The &a 
 comes last with emphasis. To lead even one astray is an awful 
 responsibility. 
 
 mpocéxete éautois. These words come better as a conclusion 
 to the previous warning than as an introduction to the exhortation 
 which follows. They are analogous to “He that hath ears to 
 hear, let him hear.” For the constr. see on xii. 1. For instances 
 in which there is discrepancy as to the division of verses see Greg. 
 Proleg. p. 175- 
 
 8, 4. §The Duty of Forgiveness. Those who connect this 
 saying with the one which precedes it, make an unforgiving spirit 
 to be set forth as a common way of causing others to stumble. 
 Others regard it as an @ fortiori argument. If we must avoid 
 doing evil to others, much more must we forgive the evil which 
 they do to us. A better link is found in the severity of oz. 1 and 
 2, “when thou sinnest against another,” and the tenderness of 
 pv. 3 and 4, “when others sin against thee.” 
 
 The dé, which A etc. insert after édy, is perhaps an attempt to mark a 
 contrast between the two sayings and thus link them. Or it may come from 
 
400 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIL 3-6. 
 
 Mt. xviii. 15: om. SBDLX, Latt. Boh. Aeth. Arm. Goth. Neither here 
 nor Mt. xviii. 15 is the els sé, which D and some Latin authorities insert after 
 Gudpry, genuine: om. § A BL XA, Cod. Am. Cod. Brix. Syr. Goth. Never- 
 theless, what follows shows that offences els o¢ are specially meant. 
 
 émutipnoov. The tenderness is not to be weakness, The fault 
 is not to be passed over without notice (Lev. xix. 17). 
 
 4, émtaxis tis jpépas. In Peter’s question (Mt. xviii. 21, 22) 
 there is no r7s 7jépas, which is genuine here after the first érraxis 
 only: and there is no peravod. See on xv. 7. The “seven 
 times” is of course not to be taken literally. Comp. “Seven 
 times a day do I praise thee” (Ps. cxix. 164). Unlimited forgive- 
 ness is prescribed. But too much meaning is put into A¢yor, 
 when it is explained to mean that the mere exfression of repent- 
 ance is to suffice. Professed repentance may be ostentatiously 
 unreal. 
 
 5, 6. The Power of Faith. There is no sign of connexion with 
 what precedes. The fact that we have rods pafyrads in ver. 1 and 
 oi ddaro\o here points to different occasions. Mt. connects this 
 saying of Christ with the Apostles’ question, ‘‘ Why could not we 
 cast it out?” (xvii. 19, 20). Mk. has a similar saying after the 
 withering of the barren fig tree (xi. 23). Marcion omitted vv. 5-10. 
 
 5. 76 kuptw. See on v. 17 and vii. 13. The expression has 
 point here. The Apostles ask the Lord who had given them their 
 office to supply them with what was necessary for the discharge of 
 that office. 
 
 Npdobes Hptv wiotw. ‘Give us faith in addition: add it to the 
 gifts already bestowed.” The “faith” here meant is faith in 
 Christ’s promises. It is very forced to make it refer to what pre- 
 cedes; the faith that enables one to forgive a brother seven times 
 in a day. Power to fulfil that duty would have been otherwise 
 expressed. See Sanday on Rom. i. 5 and additional note pp. 31-34. 
 
 6. Etéyere . . . ééyeteav. Irregular sequence, which has produced the 
 reading el elxere (D EGH) asacorrection. In the protasis the supposition 
 is left open: in the apodosis it is implicitly denied. See Moulton’s note 5. 
 Win. p. 383. We have a further change of tense in bajxovgev dy, implying 
 that the obedience would a¢ once have followed the command. Comp. Xen. 
 Anab, v. 8. 13. 
 
 és Kékkov owvdrews. It is not a question of additional faith. 
 Is there genuine faith to any extent? See on xiii. 18. 
 
 TH guxapivw. At the present time both the white and the 
 black mulberry are common in Palestine; and in Greece the latter 
 is still called cvxapwéa. It is not certain that the ovxdpuos here 
 is a different tree from the ovxomopéa (xix. 4).1 But in any case 
 
 1 «Two points may be urged in favour of those who identify the two trees: 
 
 (1) In LXX every instance in which the Hebrew has Shzkmin the Greek has 
 cvxdpavos, although the fig, and not the mulberry, is certainly intended. (2) As 
 
XVII. 6-8. ] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 401 
 
 both are different from the English sycomore, which is a maple. 
 The ovxauwos is mentioned 1 Chron. xxvii. 28; 2 Chron. i. 15, 
 ix. 27; Ps, Ixxviii. 47; Is. ix. 10. In Mt. xvii. 20 we have 7d Sper 
 rovTw for 7} cvKapivw tovrn, the saying being uttered just after the 
 descent from the Mount of Transfiguration. Comp. Mt. xxi. 21||. 
 Here Christ’s reply seems to indicate that it is faith in His promise 
 that they should work miracles that is desired by the Apostles. 
 
 To treat the saying as a parable, and make the tree mean the 
 Kingdom of God and the sea the heathen world, is fanciful. 
 
 7-10. §The Insufficiency of Works, or, the Parable of the 
 Unprofitable Servant. The attempts to find a connexion between 
 this and the preceding saying are forced and unsatisfactory. Ob- 
 viously these four verses are not concerned with miracles, which 
 cannot be meant by 7a Sarayfévra tyiv (ver. 10). It is the 
 ordinary duties of the Christian life that are meant. See the illus- 
 tration in Hermas (Sc. v. 2. 1-11), and comp. Seneca, De Benef. 
 ili. 18. 
 
 7. Tis S¢ é€ Syuay. There is no need to seek for explanations 
 as to why Jesus speaks to “the poor Apostles” as if they had 
 slaves who ploughed for them, or to point out that Zebedee had 
 had hired servants (Mk. i. 20). There is no evidence that these 
 words were addressed to the Twelve; and the words almost 
 necessarily imply that they were addressed to a mixed audience of 
 well-to-do persons. For tis ef éuav see on xi. 5, 6. 
 
 Ed0éws: belongs to wapeAOwy rather than to épe?, as is shown 
 by the pera ztatra afterwards, which balances «i@éws: “Come 
 straightway and sit down to eat.” Wic. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Rhem. 
 RV. with Vulg. and Luth. adopt this arrangement. AV. follows 
 Gen. with “say unto him by and by,” where “ by and by” has its 
 original meaning of “immediately”: AV. of xxi. 9; Mt. xiii. 21; 
 Mk. vi. 25. Comp. “presently,” Mt. xxvi. 53; 1 Sam. i 16 
 (T. L. O. Davies, Bible English, p. 109; Lft. On Revision, p. 196, 
 2nd ed.; Trench, Ox the A.V. of N.T. p. 48). 
 
 tapehQav dvdmece. “Come forward and sit down to meat.” 
 This use of zapépxopae is classical, but in N T. is peculiar to Lk. 
 (xii 37). Comp. the insertion Acts xxiv. 7 and 2 Chron. xxv. 7 A. 
 
 8. ‘Erofpacov tl Seumvijcw . . . Staxdver. Change from aor. to pres. 
 ‘* Prepare once for all. . . continue to serve.” With rl deumvijow comp. 
 Mt. x. 19: in class, Grk. we should have 6 71, as in Acts ix. 6. 
 
 The forms ¢dyeou and wlecw are analogous to édvvacar (xvi. 25) and 
 8ivacar (Mt. v. 36). They belong to the popular Greek of the time, but are 
 not quite constant; Mk. ix. 22 we have dvvp. See Veitch, s.v.; Win. xv. 
 
 
 
 to the mulberry it has yet to be shown that it was then known in Palestine; 
 and further the mulberry is more easily plucked up by the roots than any other 
 tree of the same size in the country, and the thing is oftener done” (Groser, 7rees 
 and Plants in the Bible, pp. 121, 123). : 
 
 26 
 
402 THE GOSPF, ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII 8-1L 
 
 pp. 109, 110; WH. if. p. 304. Both ¢dyeoa: and wlecat are found Ruth 
 li, 9, 14; Ezek. xii. 18. 
 
 With gee xdpevy comp. 1 Tim. i, 12; 2 Tim. i. 3; Heb. xii. 28: the 
 expression is classical. The od Sox of A D, Vulg. etc. is an insertion. 
 
 10. oftws kal duets, Stay romonte dvta. A purely hypothetical 
 case. Nothing is gained by placing a full stop at duets. With 
 7a StataxGévra ipiv comp. 76 diateraypévov tyiv (iii. 13; Acts 
 xxiii. 31). 
 
 dxpeto. Not “vile” as in 2 Sam. vi. 22, nor “good for 
 nothing” as in Ep. Jer. 15, the only places in which the word 
 occurs in LXX; but “unprofitable,” because nothing has been 
 gained by them for their master. He has got no more than his 
 due. Comp. Mt. xxv. 30, the only other passage in N.T. in which 
 the word is found. That God does not need man’s service is not 
 the point. Nor are the rewards which He gives in return for man’s 
 service here brought into question. The point is that man can 
 make no just c/azm for having done more than was due. Miser 
 est guem Dominus servum inutilem appellat (Mt. xxv. 30); deatus 
 gui se ipse (Beng.). Syr-Sin. omits dxpetou 
 
 XVII. 11-XIX. 28. The Third Period of the Journey. 
 
 11-19. Here begins the last portion of the long section (ix. 
 51-xix. 28), for the most part peculiar to Lk., which we have 
 called ‘‘the Journeyings towards Jerusalem”: see on ix. 51. For 
 the third time (ix. 51, 52, xiii. 22) Lk. tells us that Jerusalem is 
 the goal, but we have no means of knowing whether this represents 
 the beginning of a third journey distinct from two previous 
 journeys. Marked breaks may be made at the end of xiii. 35 
 and xvil. 10. But we have no data for determining what the 
 chronology of the different divisions is; and the geography is 
 almost as indistinct as the chronology. This last portion, however, 
 brings us once more (x. 38) to Bethany, and to the time which 
 preceded the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. 
 
 11-19. §The Healing of the Ten Lepers. The gratitude of 
 the Samaritan leper illustrates the special theme of this Gospel. 
 The opening of the narrative indicates an Aramaic source: but 
 that it is placed here “to contrast man’s thanklessness to God 
 with the sort of claim to thanks from God, which is asserted by 
 spiritual pride,” is not probable. 
 
 11. év t@ wopeverar. ‘‘ As He was on His way.” See cu iii, 21 and 
 comp. ix. 51, the beginning of this main portion, where the a nstruction is 
 
XVI 11, 12.] JOURNEYINGS TOWAR)DS JERUSALEM 403 
 
 similar, The aéréy is probably a gloss (om. 8 BL), but a correct gloss. As 
 no one else is mentioned it is arbitrary to translate ‘‘as ¢hey were on their 
 way.” Latin texts all take it as singular: dum iret, cum iret, dum vadit, 
 dum iter faceret. So also Syr-Sin., which omits éyévero, 
 
 Kat avtés Sijpxeto. The apodosis of éyévero: see on ¥. 12, 14, Vi. 
 20; alsoonii. 15. There is no emphasis on airés. 
 
 Sia pécov. This is the reading of 8B D L, accepted by Tisch. 
 Treg. WH. and RV. It means “through what lies between,” ze. 
 along the frontier, or simply, “between.” This is the only 
 passage in N.T. in which oa ¢. acc. has its original local sig- 
 nification. Even if 6a pécov were the right reading, we ought 
 to translate it “between” and not “through the midst of.” This 
 use is found in Xenophon: 61a pécov Se fet ToUTwy rotapds (Anad. 
 i. 4. 4), of a river flowing between two walls; and in Plato: 7 76 
 tovtwv O7 dia péecov ddpev (Leg. vii. p. 805 D), of an intermediate 
 course. “Through the midst of Samaria and Galilee” would 
 imply that Jesus was moving /vom Jerusalem, whereas we are 
 expressly told that He was journeying ‘owards it. Samaria, as 
 being on the right, would naturally be mentioned first if He was 
 going eastward along the frontier between Samaria and Galilee 
 possibly by the route which ends at Bethshean, near the Jordan. 
 In order to avoid Samaritan territory (ix. 52-55), He seems to 
 have been making for Persea, as Jews often did in going from 
 Galilee to Jerusalem. On the frontier He would be likely to meet 
 with a mixed company of lepers, their dreadful malady having 
 broken down the barrier between Jew and Samaritan. See Conder, 
 Handbk, of B. p. 311; Tristram, Bible Places, p. 222; Eastern 
 Customs, pp. 19, 21. In the leper-houses at Jerusalem Jews and 
 Mahometans will live together at the present time. 
 
 There is no doubt that ver. 11 forms acomplete sentence. To make 
 
 from xal airés to Tadc\alas a parenthesis,and take drjvryoay as the 
 apodosis of éyévero, is quite gratuitous clumsiness 
 
 12, Séka Aewpoi GvSpes. Elsewhere we read of four (2 Kings 
 vii. 3), but so large a company as ten was perhaps at that time 
 unusual. Now it would be common, especially in this central 
 region. These ten may have collected on hearing that Jesus was 
 approaching. No meaning is to be sought in the number. 
 
 €otycav moppwev. In accordance with the law, which the 
 leper of v. 12 possibly did zot break: see notes there. The 
 precise distance to be kept was not fixed by law, but by tradi- 
 tion, and the statements about it vary. See Lev. xiii. 45, 46; 
 Num. v. 2, and the evidence collected in Wetst. The adv. occurs 
 Heb. xi. 13 and often in LXX, esp. in Isaiah (x. 3, xiii. 5, 
 XXXill. 13, 17, Xxxix. 3, etc.). On the authority of B F, WH. adopt 
 dvéotynoay in the text, with éorncay in the margin. LK. is very 
 fond of this compound. 
 
404. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII. 13-18. 
 
 13. kat adtol Rpav dovyy. They took the initiative. Here jpav 
 povay agrees with wéppwber, just as in xvi. 24 g$wvycas agrees 
 with a6 paxpober. Comp. erraipew puvnv (xi. 27) and tov 
 pwviv (Gen. xxxix, 15, 18). This phrase occurs Acts iv. 24; 
 Judg. xxi. 2; 1 Sam. xi. 4. For émortdra see on v. 5. 
 
 14, kai i8dv. ‘And directly He saw”: which seems to imply 
 that, until they cried out, He had not perceived who they were. 
 This previous supernatural knowledge was not necessary. But 
 He knows, without seeing or hearing, that they all were cleansed 
 (ver. 17). This knowledge was necessary. 
 
 emdeigate Eautods Tois tepedow. ‘Show yourselves to the 
 priests” appointed for this purpose. Each of the ten would go 
 to the priest near his own home. In v. 14 we have 7@ iepet, 
 
 | there being then only one leper. The Samaritan would go to a 
 
 priest of the temple on Mount Gerizim. 
 
 év 7@ éwdyev. ‘Their faith was shown in their obedience to 
 Christ’s command, and on their way the cure took place. As 
 they were no longer companions in misery, the Jews would rejoice 
 that the Samaritan turned back and left them. 
 
 15. Gréotpefev. See on iv. 14 and vii. ro. Even Hahn 
 follows Schleiermacher in referring this to the Samaritan’s return 
 from the priest. In that case he would have zzevztably returned 
 without the others. It was because he saw (i8év) that he was 
 healed (not after he had been declared to be clean) that he came 
 back to give thanks. The peta pwviis peydd\ns may mean that he 
 still “stood afar off” (see on i. 42), as having not yet recovered 
 the right to mix with others: for mapa& tos médasg (see on Vii. 38) 
 need not imply close proximity. But if the loud voice be only an 
 expression of great joy, a man in the jubilation of such a cure 
 would not be punctilious about keeping the exact distance, 
 especially when he knew that he was no longer a leper. It is 
 most improbable that he did not see that he was cleansed till the 
 priest told him that he was. 
 
 16. kal aidtés jv Xapapetryns. Here the airds has point: “and 
 he was a S.” The only one who exhibited gratitude was a despised 
 schismatic. That a// the others were Jews is not implied. 
 
 17. dmoxpibets 8é 6 *Inoods. See small print on i. 19, p. 16. 
 Here first we learn that Jesus was not alone; for His “answer” 
 is addressed to the bystanders, and is a comment on the whole 
 incident rather than a reply to the Samaritan. 
 
 Odx of Séka. “ Were not Zhe ten,” etc.—all the ten who had 
 asked Him to have mercy on them. The mod with emphasis at 
 the end, like ov in ver. 8. These questions imply surprise, and 
 surprise implies limitation of knowledge (vii. 9; Mt. viii. 10; 
 Mk. vi. 6). 
 
 18. This sentence also may be interrogative: so WH. and RV. 
 
XVII. 18-20.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM  4C5 
 
 text. The eipé6ycav is not a mere substitute for joav: it marks 
 or implies the discovery or notice of the quality in question (1 Pet. 
 ii. 22; Rev. xiv. 5). 
 
 é\Xoyevyjs. The classical word would be d\Ad¢duAos (Acts x. 
 28) or dAXoeOv7js. But addAAoyevys is very freq. in LXX, especially 
 of the heathen (Exod. xii. 43, xxix. 33, xxx. 33; Lev. xxii. 
 10, etc.). 
 
 The Samaritans were a mixed people, both as regards race and religion. 
 They were Israelites who had been almost overwhelmed by the heathen 
 colonists planted among them by the Assyrians. Those from Cuthah (2 Kings 
 xvii. 24, 30) were probably the most numerous, for the Jews called the 
 Samaritans Cuthites or Cutheans (Jos. Amt. ix. 14, 3, xi. 4. 4, 7. 2, xiii. 
 9. 1). These heathen immigrants brought their idolatry with them, but 
 gradually mixed with it the worship of Jehovah. Both as regards race and 
 religion it was the Jewish element which grew stronger, while the heathen 
 element declined. Refugees from Judza settled among them from time to 
 time ; but we do not hear of fresh immigrants from Assyria. The religion at 
 last became pure monotheism, with the Pentateuch as the law of worship and 
 of life. But in race the foreign element no doubt predominated, although 
 Christ’s use of dA\oyev7js does not prove this. He may be speaking with a 
 touch of irony: ‘‘this man, who is commonly regarded as little better than a 
 heathen.” See Schiirer, Jewzsh People in T. of J. C. ii. 1, pp. 6-8; Edersh. 
 Hist. of Jewtsh Nation, pp. 249, 486, 499, ed. 1896; Derenbourg, Azs¢. 
 de la Fal, i. p. 433; Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6, xii. 5. 5. 
 
 19. % mlotis cou cécwxéy ce. He did well to be thankful and 
 publicly express his thankfulness; but he had contributed some- 
 thing himself, without which he would not have been cured. 
 Comp. viii. 48, xviil. 42. Others refer the saying to some benefit 
 which the Samaritan received and which the nine lost, and explain 
 it of moral and spiritual salvation. Comp. vii. 50, viii. 48, 50. 
 
 20-37. The Coming of the Kingdom of God and of the Son 
 of Man. The introductory verses (20-22) are peculiar to Lk. 
 for the rest comp. Mt. xxiv. 23 ff.; Mk. xiii. 21 ff. 
 
 20. “EmepwrnQeis. There is no evidence that the question of 
 the Pharisees was asked in contempt. Jesus had taught that the 
 Kingdom was at hand, and they ask when it may be expected. 
 Perhaps they wanted to test Him. If He fixed an early date, 
 and at that time there were no signs of the Kingdom, they would 
 know what to think. His reply corrects such an idea. There will 
 be no such signs as would enable a watcher to date the arrival. 
 A spiritual Kingdom is slow in producing conspicuous material 
 effects ; and it begins in ways that cannot be dated. 
 
 With this rather loose use of ére for Sere in an indirect question comp. 
 xii. 36; Mk. xiii. 4, 33, 35; Mt. xxiv. 3. Nowhere in N.T. is ézore found. 
 
 tTapatnpycews. Here only in bibl. Grk. and not classical, 
 although zaparypety is not rare either in N.T. or LXX, and occurs 
 in medical writers of watching the symptoms of a disease (Hobart, 
 
406 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIL 20-22 
 
 p. 153). It implies c/ose rather than sinister watching, although 
 the latter sense occurs. See on xiv. 1. The interpretation cum 
 multa pompa, cum regio splendore, fits neither the word nor the 
 context. The meaning is that no close observation will be able 
 to note the moment of its arrival, which will not be marked by 
 external sounds. 
 
 21. ob8€ epodow. “ Neither will they say” (with any reason) : 
 non erit quod dicatur (Grot.). In ver. 23 they do say this; but it 
 is a groundless statement. The idod before éxet (A D, Vulg.) is 
 an insertion from ver. 23. 
 
 i800 yép. See on i. 44. This idov introduces the true state- 
 ment in contrast to the previous idov, which introduced a false 
 one. The yap marks the reason why “Lo here” or “ There” 
 cannot be accepted. Note the solemn repetition of 7 BaovAcia 
 Tov @eov. 
 
 évtés Spav éoriv. Usage sanctions either translation: “ within 
 you, in your hearts” (Ps. xxxvill. 4, Cvill. 22, cill. 1; Is. xvi. 11; 
 Dan. x. 16 (Theod.); Ecclus. xix. 23 [26]: comp. Mt. xxiii. 26); 
 or, ‘among you, in your midst” (Xen. Azad. i. 10. 3; Hellen. ii. 3. 
 19; Plat. Zeg. vii. 789 A). The latter seems to suit the context 
 better ; for the Kingdom of God was not in the hearts of the 
 Pharisees, who are the persons addressed. The meaning will 
 then be, ‘‘so far from coming with external signs which will attract 
 attention, the Kingdom is already in the midst of you (in the 
 person of Christ and of His disciples), and you do not perceive 
 it.” Note the contrast between épotcw, the supposition that the 
 Kingdom is still in the future, and éoriv, the fact that it is really 
 present. But this rendering of évrds lacks confirmation in Scrzf- 
 ture, and the context is not deccs¢ve against the other. If ‘within 
 you” be adopted, the meaning will be, “Instead of being some- 
 thing externally visible, the Kingdom is essentially spiritual: it is 
 in your hearts, 7f you possess it at all.” 
 
 All Latin texts have z#tra vos est. But the interpretation of ‘‘ within you” 
 varies considerably. Gregory Nyssen explains it of the image of God bestowed 
 upon all men at their birth (De Verg. xii.; comp. De Beat. i.), which cannot 
 be right. Cyril of Alexandria makes it mean, ‘‘lies in your pone to appro- 
 
 riate it,” éy éfovela Ketrat 7d AaBety adryv (Migne, Ixxii. 841). Similarly 
 
 aldonatus, guza poterant, sz vellent, Christum recipere. But this is translating 
 évrds buav “within you,” and interpreting ‘‘ within you” as much the same 
 as ‘‘among you.” If they had ot received Christ or the Kingdom, it was 
 not yet within them. Against ‘‘in your hearts” Maldonatus points that not 
 only does Lk. tell us that the words were addressed to the Pharisees, in whose 
 hearts the Kingdom was not ; but that he emphasizes this by stating that the 
 next saying was addressed to the dzsczf/es. Among moderns, Godet argues 
 ably for ‘‘ within you” (see also McClellan): Weiss and Hahn for ‘‘among 
 you.” Syr-Sin. has “among.” Comp. xii. 28. 
 
 22. Etmev 82 mpds tos palytds. Apparently this is the same 
 
XVIL. 22-24] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 407 
 
 occasion (comp. xii. 22); and perhaps the Pharisees have retired. 
 But we cannot be certain of either point. Christ takes up the 
 subject which the Pharisees had introduced, and shows that it is 
 the Second Advent that will be accompanied by visible signs. 
 But with regard to these, discrimination must be used. Comp, 
 Mt. xxiv. 23, 26 and Mk. xiii. 21, to which this is partly 
 parallel. 
 
 *Ehedcovrat fpépar. No article: “ Days will come”: as in 
 was, Xx. 6; Mt. ix. 15; Mk. ii. 20. Even RV. has “ The days 
 will come.” ‘Comp. the Johannean phrase, <pxerat dpa, “There 
 cometh a” hour” (Jn. iv. 21, 23, v. 25, 28, xvi. 2, 25, 32). But 
 it is erroneous to make this passage mean the same as v. 35; 
 Mt. ix. 15; Mk. ii. 20:—“ Days will come, when the bridegroom 
 shall be taken away from them ; then will they fast in those days.” 
 This means, not that hereafter there will be a time when the 
 disciples will long in vain for one day of such intercourse with 
 Christ as they are constantly enjoying now; but that there will 
 be days in which they will yearn for a foretaste of the coming 
 glory, a glory which must be waited for and cannot be antici- 
 pated. “Oh for one day of heaven in this time of trouble!” 
 is a futile wish, but it will be framed by some. It is clear from 
 ver. 26 what “the days of the Son of Man” must mean. But 
 what does piav tév fpepay, x.t.., mean? The common rendering, 
 “‘ one of the days,” etc., makes good sense. But the possibility of 
 taking the expression as a Hebraism, “one” being used for “ first,” 
 as in pu Tdv caBBdrwv (Mk. xvi. 2), is worth noting. Comp. xxiv. 1; 
 Mt. xxviii. 1; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Jn. xx. 1. In this case 
 the desire would be for “the jivs¢ of the days of the Son of 
 Man,” the day of His return. 
 
 Kat odk deo8e. Not because it will never come; but because 
 it will not come in those days of longing. 
 
 23. There is no contradiction between this and ver. 21. That 
 refers to true signs of the First Advent; this to false signs of 
 the Second. It covers all premature announcements of the 
 approach of the Last Day. AW predictions of exact dates, and all 
 statements as to local appearances, are to be mistrusted. 
 
 pH amehOnte pyde SidEqte. “Do not leave your ordinary 
 occupation, still less go after those who offer to lead you to the 
 place of the Son of Man’s appearing.” 
 
 24, Gowep yap  dotpam. As sudden, and as universally 
 visible. None will foresee it, and all will see it at once; so that 
 no vefort respecting it can have any value. Von ejus ergo venturi 
 tempus aut locus potest a mortalibus observari, gui fulguris instar 
 omnibus coruscus videlicet et repentinus adveniet (Bede). See on 
 ii. 8, xi. 46, xxiii. 46 for Lk.’s fondness for cognate words. The 
 wording here is almost identical with Mt. xxiv. 27. 
 
408 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIL. 24-30 
 
 The art. before dorpdmrrovca is probably an insertion: om. NBLXT. 
 Without it translate, ‘‘ when it lightens.” For fu/gur e has choruscatéo and 
 d has scoruscus. In what follows we again have an amphibolous expression 
 (ix. 17, 18, 27, 57, x. 18, etc.) ; but é« r7s . . . bm ovpavdy should be taken 
 with Adare. rather than with dotpdmrovoa. For the ellipse of xwpa after 
 4 on’ ovpavoy or 4 umd Tov ovpavev comp. Deut. xxv. 19; Job i. 7, fi. 2) 
 xviii. 4, xxxiv. 13, xxxviii. 18, xlii. 15. The words év 77 inéow avrod after 
 dv@pmmrov are of doubtful authority : om. BD, abcdei Aeth., while 1 has 
 in adventu suo (comp. Mt. xxiv. 27): om. Alius homints in die sua ff,. 
 Syr-Sin. has ‘so shall be the day of the Son of Man.” 
 
 25. mpatov Sé Set adtoy .. . dmodokipacOAvar, ‘But there is 
 no need to te expecting this now”: the events immediately im- 
 pending are very different. For Set see on iv. 43, and for 
 dmodokipacOjvar see On ix. 22, and comp. xvili. 31. Just as the 
 thought of impending suffering needs to be cheered by that of 
 future glory, so the thought of future glory needs to be chastened 
 by that of impending suffering. Comp. ix. 44. 
 
 26. Having told the disciples that the Son of Man will not 
 come as soon as they wish (22), in what way He will not come 
 (23), in what way He will come (24), and what will happen first 
 (25), Christ now states in what condition the human race will be 
 when He comes. 
 
 kal KaQws eyévero. Not aomep, as in ver. 24. There some- 
 thing azalogous was introduced; here something exactly similar 
 is cited. “Just as, even as.” Comp. xi. 30; Jn. ili. 14; 2 Cor. 
 i. 5, x. 7, etc. In Attic Greek we should rather have nao (Rom. 
 Vili. 26), xaOa (Mt. xxvii. 10), or kaOdzrep (Rom. xii. 4). 
 
 27. jobov, envoy, éydpouv, éyapiLovro. The imperfects and the 
 asyndeton are very vivid: ‘‘ They were eating, they were drinking,” 
 etc. The point is not merely that they were living their ordinary 
 lives, but that they were wholly given up to external things. 
 
 It is of no moment whether xal rOev C) KaraKxhuo ps i is made to depend 
 upon &xpt is yuépas or not: probably it is independent. But certainly 
 dpolws belongs to KaOws éyévero (s¢militer stcut factum est, Vulg.), and not to 
 drwrecev wdvras (perdidit omnes pariter), which is pointless. The épolws 
 anticipates kara 7a aurd in ver. 30. 
 
 28, 29. There is no parallel to this in Mt. xxiv. It is a 
 second instance ge careless enjoyment suddenly overwhelmed. 
 Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 5, 6 
 
 29. €Bpctev wip wat Oetov. The subject of éBpetev is Kvpios, which is 
 expressed in Gen. xix. 24 (comp. Mt. v. 45) and must be supplied here, 
 because of drwAecev, The verb is not impers., as in Jas. v. 17. Grotius 
 makes 7p cal Oefov the nom. and compares iva wh Bpexy verds (Rev. xi. 16). 
 Gen. xix. 24 and the sing. verb are against this. Comp. Hom. Od, xxii. 493. 
 
 80. dmoxah’mretat. A technical expression in this connexion 
 (x Cor. i 7; 2 Thes:ig; 1 Pet. 1 9, 13, 1v.1%g).) “Dhewpresems 
 
XVII. 80-34. ] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 409 
 
 indicates the certainty of the veil being withdrawn. Up to that 
 day He is hidden from man’s sight: then at once He is revealed. 
 
 81. In Mt. xxiv. 17, 18 and Mk. xiii. 15, 16 these words are 
 spoken of /7zghz before the destruction of Jerusalem. Here /Zght is 
 neither expressed nor understood. The point is absolute indifference 
 to all worldly interests as the attitude of readiness for the Son of Man. 
 We need not discuss whether the words were spoken in a literal 
 sense, as in Mk. and Mt., and Lk has applied them spiritually ; or 
 in a spiritual sense, and Mt. and Mk. have taken them literally. 
 Christ may have used them in both senses. The warning about 
 flight from Judea is recorded by Lk. elsewhere (xxi. 21). On the 
 oratio variata of the constr. see Win. Ixili. 2. 1, p. 722, 723. 
 
 32. pynpovedete THS yuvarkds Adt. Lot’s wife looked back with 
 a wish to recover worldly possessions and enjoyments. She proved 
 herself to be unworthy of the salvation that was offered her. In like 
 manner the Christian, whose first thought at the Advent of the Son 
 of Man was about the safety of his goods, would be unfit for the 
 Kingdom of God. 
 
 Note that Christ says, “‘ Remember,” not “ Behold.” Vothing 
 that is in existence ts appealed to, but only what has been told. 
 Attempts have been made to identify the Pillar of Salt. Josephus 
 believed that he had seen it (Amz. i. 11. 4). Comp. Wisd. x. 7; 
 Clem. Rom. Cor. xi.; Iren. iv. 31. 3; Cyr. Hier. Cazech. xix. 8. 
 
 833. mepitoujcac8ar. “To preserve for himself”: elsewhere 
 “to gain for oneself” (Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 13). The reading 
 oéoat (A R) comes from ix. 24. 
 
 twoyorycer. “Shall preserve alive”: Acts vii. 19; 1 Tim. vi. 13; 
 Exod. i. 17; Judg. viii. 19; 1 Sam. ii. 6, xxvii. 9, 11; 1 Kings 
 xxl. 31. The rendering “shall bring to a new birth” has been 
 rightly abandoned by Godet. In bibl. Grk. it is not used of 
 “bringing forth alive,” “viviparous.” From ix. 24; Mt. x. 39, 
 xvi. 25; Mk. viii. 35; Jn. xii. 25 it appears that this solemn warn- 
 ing was often uttered : for most of these passages refer to differert 
 occasions. It is the one important saying which is in all four. 
 
 84, 35. The closest intimacy in this life is no guarantee of 
 community of condition when the Son of Man comes. The 
 strangest separations will take place between comrades, according 
 as one is fit to enter the Kingdom and another not. 
 
 84. tatty TH vuKti. This must not be pressed to mean any- 
 thing, whether a time of great horror or actual night. Christ is not 
 intimating that His return will take place in the night-time. 
 eye is part of the picture, for it is then that people are in 
 
 e 
 
 Buo ert Khivys pds. “Two on one bed.” Not necessarily two 
 men, although that is probably the meaning. AV. was the first 
 English Version to insert “ men,” and RV. retains it. The “ being 
 
410 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIL. 34-37. 
 
 taken” probably means “taken from destruction” (Jn. xiv. 3), as 
 G\Adtpios THs épyns (Eus.), as Lot from Sodom; while “left” 
 means “left to his fate” (xiii. 35). Or, “taken into the Kingdom” 
 and “left outside” may be the meaning. 
 
 35. This image presupposes day rather than night, and refers 
 to a fact which is still of everyday occurrence in the East. Whether 
 people be sleeping or working when the Lord comes, those who 
 still cling to things earthly will be left without share in the 
 Messianic joy. And in this matter “no man may deliver his 
 brother”: €orae wAelorn Kal dxpiBys Tdv TpdTwv 4 Soxiyacia (Cyr.). 
 
 86. An ancient (D, Latt. Syrr.) insertion from Mt. xxiv. 40: om, 
 # A BQR, Aeth. Copt. Goth. 
 
 87. Mou, kupte; The question is one of curiosity which Christ 
 does not gratify. Moreover, it assumes, what He has just been 
 denying, that the Second Advent will be local—limited to one 
 quarter of the earth. 
 
 “Orou 75 cGpa, éxet Kat ot detot. This was perhaps a current 
 proverb. The application is here quite general. ‘‘ Where the con- 
 ditions are fulfilled, there and there only will the revelation of the 
 Son of Man take place.” Or possibly, “‘Where the dead body of 
 human nature, clinging to earthly things, is, there the judgments of 
 God willcome”: ui peccatores, bi Dei judicia. Jesus thus sets aside 
 all questions as to the ¢me (ver. 20) or the Alace (ver. 37) of His 
 return. One thing is certain ; that a// who are not ready will suffer 
 (vv. 27, 29). Upon all who are dead to the claims of the Kingdom 
 ruin will fall (37). The wraua of Mt. xxiv. 28 expresses more 
 definitely than oda that the body is a dead one: comp. Mt. 
 xiv. 12; Mk. vi. 29, xv. 45; Rev. xi. 8,9. But cdua for a dead 
 body is quite classical, and is always so used in Homer, a living 
 body being déuas: comp. Acts ix. 40. 
 
 oi detot. “The vultures.” Here, as in Mic. i. 16, the griffon 
 vulture ( Vultur fulvus) is probably meant: comp. Job xxxix. 27-30 ; 
 Hab. i. 8; Hos. viii. 1, and see Tristram, (Vat. Hist. of B. p. 172; 
 D.B.? art. “Eagle.” Eagles neither fly in flocks nor feed on 
 carrion. During the Crimean War, griffon vultures, which had 
 previously been scarce round Sebastopol, collected in great 
 numbers, “‘ from the ends of the earth,” as the Turks said. In the 
 less general interpretation of this saying of Christ the dero¢ are the 
 ministers of judgment which overtake the ungodly. A reference to 
 the eagles of the Roman standards is not in point here, although 
 it is possible Mt. xxiv. 28. The patristic interpretation of the 
 saints gathering round the glorified body of Christ is equally 
 unsuitable to the context.) See Didon, 7 C. ch. ix. p. 613, 
 ed. 1891. 
 
 1“Orav 6 ulds TOU dv Opamov maparyévnrat, TOTe bn advres ol derol, rourécrw ol 
 vd bYnrd weromevor, kal Tay émvyelwy We MB ee dvevnypevot mpayudrwr, ér’ 
 
XVIII. 1, 2.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 4II 
 
 XVIII. 1-8. § The Parable of the Unrighteous Judge. Comp. 
 xv. 8-10, 11-32, xVi. I-9, I9—31, Xvil. 7-10. The connexion with 
 what precedes is close, and is implied in the opening clause ; for 
 avrois naturally refers to the same audience as before. Had there 
 been no connexion, atrois would have been omitted : comp. xiii. 6. 
 Godet appeals also to the formula éAeyer dé xa‘; but here the xai 
 is not genuine. The connexion is, that, although the time of 
 Christ’s return to deliver His people is hidden from them, yet they 
 must not cease to pray for deliverance. Both here and xxi. 36 we 
 have the command to be unremitting in prayer immediately after a 
 declaration that the hour of Christ’s coming is unknown; and the 
 same connexion is found Mk. xiii. 33. 
 
 1. “Edeyev 8 mapaBodyy. See on v. 36. 
 
 mpos TO Setv. Not merely the duty, but the necessity of per- 
 severance in prayer is expressed ; and prayer in general is meant, 
 not merely prayer in reference to the Second Advent and the 
 troubles which precede it. Only here and ver. 9 is the meaning of 
 a parable put as the preface to it ; and in each case it is given as 
 the Evangelist’s preface, not as Christ's. 
 
 mwdvrote tpocetxecOar. Comp. wavrote yalpere. ddiaXeirTws 
 apoaetxeobe (1 Thes. v. 17). Grotius quotes Proclus ad Timzum, 
 xp adiadcizrus edyeoOar THs TEpit TO Hetov Opyoxeias. See Origen, 
 wept evyns, xil.; Tert. De Orat. xxix.; Lft. Zp. p. 81. On the other 
 hand, we have the Jewish doctrine that God must not be wearied 
 with incessant prayer. Zanchuma, fol. 15. 3. A man ought not to 
 pray more than three times a day. Hourly prayers are forbidden. 
 Si quis singulis horis ad te salutandum accedit, hunc dicis te contem- 
 tui habere: idem ergo quogue valet de Deo, quem nemo hominum 
 singulis horis defatigare debet (Schcettgen, i. 305). 
 
 The form évxaxety is right here, elsewhere éyxaxetv (2 Cor. iv. 1, 16; Gal. 
 vi. 9; Eph. iii. 13 ; 2 Thes. ili. 13); but in all six places some texts have 
 éxxaxetv. See Gregory, Proleg. p. 78. Ellicott makes éyxaxeiy mean “‘ to 
 lose heart zz a course of action,” and éxxaxei “‘to retire through fear out of 
 it” ; but authority for any such word as éxkaxety seems to be wanting. Per- 
 haps éyxaxeiy is not found earlier than Polybius. See Suicer. 
 
 2. Kpirys tis qv év tit woke, We are probably to understand 
 a Gentile official. He had no respect for either the vox Dei or 
 the vox populi, consciously (ver. 4) defying Divine commands and 
 public opinion. See numerous parallels in Wetst., and contrast 
 2 Cor. vill. 21. The Talmud speaks of frequent oppression and 
 venality on the part of Gentile magistrates; and for a striking 
 illustration of the parable witnessed by himself see Tristram, 
 Eastern Customs in Bible Lands, p. 228. Note the rues. 
 
 atrév cuvdpapodvra (Cyr. Alex., Migne, Ixii. 848). Justorum animez aquilss 
 comparantur, quod alta petant, humila derelinquant, longzvam ducere ferantur 
 ztatem (Ambr., Migne. xv. 1781). Comp. Paschasius Radbertus on Mt. xxiv. 28, 
 
412 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE {[ XVIII. 2-5. 
 
 The idea of évrpéoyuat seems to be that of ‘‘ turning towards” a person, 
 and so ‘‘ paying respect” (xx. 13 ; Mt. xxi. 37; Mk. xii. 6; 2 Thes. iii. 143 
 Heb. xii. 9). But as évrpémw means “I put to shame” (1 Cor. iv. 14), 
 évrpémoua may possibly have the notion of ‘‘ being abashed, having a feeling 
 of awe,” before a person. In class. Grk. it is commonly followed by a gen. 
 
 8. xypa Sé qv. Typical of defencelessness: she had neither a 
 protector to coerce, nor money to bribe the unrighteous magistrate. 
 Tl e O.T. abounds in denunciations of those who oppress widows : 
 Exod. xxli. 22; Deut. x. 18, xxiv. 17, xxvil. 19; Job xxii. 9, 
 xxlv. 3; Jer. xxii. 3; Ezek. xxii. 7, etc. Comp. Von, tifa me dit 
 ament, auderet facere hee vidue muliert, que in me facit (Ter. 
 fleaut. v. 1. 80). 
 
 jpxeto. “Continued coming, came often,” ventitabat. The 
 imperf. indicates her persistence. 
 
 *ExDSixynody pe dd. “ Give me a sentence of protection from ; 
 vindicate my right (and so protect me) from.” Assere me jure 
 dicundo ab injuria adversarit mei (Schleusn.). For the émé comp. 
 xll. 15, 58, xlil. 16, xx. 46: it does not express the penalty exacted 
 from the adversary, but the protection afforded from him, as in picat 
 npGs ard Tod rovnpov’. The meaning is “preserve me against his 
 attacks” rather than “ deliver me out of his power,” which would 
 require ék. For dvti8ikos comp. xii. 58; Mt. v. 25. 
 
 As often, the dd follows up the idea suggested by the éx in the compound 
 verb: see on efépxouat add (iv. 35), and comp. also éxhéyouat dao (vi. 13), 
 exfnreiv amd (xi. 50, 51), éxdudxw dad (Joel ii. 20; Dan. iv. 22, 29, 30, 
 Theod.), etc. Here d has devindica me ab. 
 
 4. ox 70ekev. The imperf. (SA BDLQRXA) has more 
 point than the aor. (E etc.): he continued refusing, just as she 
 continued coming. With émt xpevoy comp. ézi wAciova xp. (Acts 
 XVili. 20) ; €f door xp. (Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 39; Gal. iv. 1). 
 
 Ei kat tov Ocdv ob doPodpar. “Although I fear not God,” imply- 
 ing that this is the actual fact (2 Cor. xii. 11), whereas Kat «# 
 would have put it as an hypothesis (1 Cor. vili. 5; 1 Pet. ili. 1). 
 Win. lit. 7. b, p. 554. 
 
 Perhaps its being given as a fact explains the use of od rather than wu: or 
 the ov coalesces with the verb, and thus escapes the influence of the el: comp. 
 
 xi, 8, xiv. 26, xvi. II, 12, 31; 2 Cor. xii. 11. Burton, §§ 284, 469. But see 
 Simcox, Zang. of N.T. p. 184. 
 
 ovsé. “Nor yet, nor even”: a climax. 
 
 5. Sid ye Td mapéxerv por Kétrov. “Yet because she troubleth 
 me.” Comp. dia ye tiv dvatdiay airod (xi. 8), where, as here, ei xaé 
 is followed by o# and ye. Both xézrov and trwmaly are strong 
 words, and express the man’s impatience. 
 
 On the reading rhv xjpa Tavrnv see Gregory, Prolegom. p. 58. 
 eis TeAos Epxopevy Srwmdly pe. “ Unto the end, to the utter. 
 
XVIII. 5-7.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM = 413 
 
 most” easily passed in meaning to either “continually” or “at 
 last”; and either of these makes sense here, according as we join 
 eis TéAos with the participle or the verb or both. Either, “ by con- 
 tinually coming wear me out”; or, “at last by her ccming wear 
 me out”; or, “be for ever coming and plaguing me.” The first 
 is best : it was her ZerZetwal coming that was so trying. Both réAos 
 and és réAos are frequent in class. Grk. In LXX eis réXos is frequent. 
 éromd{y. From tzumv, which means (1) the part of the 
 face below the eyes ; (2) a blow there, a black eye; (3) any blow. 
 Hence tirwmidfm means (1) hit under the eye, give a black eye; 
 (2) beat black and blue; (3) mortify, annoy greatly (1 Cor. ix. 27). 
 Comp. at réAas trwriacpeévae (Aristoph. Pax, 541). There is no 
 doubt that “annoy greatly” is the meaning here. Comp. Qui me 
 sequatur quoguo eam, rogitando obtundat, enecet (Ter. Eun. iii. 5. 6). 
 Meyer, Godet, Weiss and others advocate the literal meaning, and 
 regard it as a mauvaise plaisanterie or an exaggeration on the part 
 of the judge. But, as Field points out (Otiwm JVorvic. iil. p. 52), 
 the tenses are fatal to it. ‘‘ Lest at last she come and black my 
 eyes for me” would require €Afotoa izwmdon. The judge was 
 afraid of being annoyed continually, not of being assaulted once. 
 
 The Latin Versions vary much in their rendering both of els réXos and of 
 drumdty: 2 novissimo (Vulg.), 7% novessimo die (q), 2 tempus (d), usque ad 
 jinem (e), usque quaque (1), im finem (rt): suggzllet (Vulg.), constringat 
 (b ff, q), molestéor stt mihi (e), tnvidiam mihi faczat (1). 
 
 Strauss has pointed out similarities of feature between the parables of the 
 Rich Fool, the Friend at Midnight, and the Unrighteous Judge, especially 
 with regard to the soliloquies in each case: duedoyifero ev ait& héywr Th 
 woujow, 8rt K.T.A., TOUTO Tojow (xii. 17, 18); elev 5é ev éauT@ 6 olkovduos 
 Ti woujow, Ort K.7.A., 2yvwv th moijow (xvi. 3, 4); elev év éaur@ (xviii. 4), 
 One may admit that these are ‘‘signs of a common origin,” but that they are 
 also ‘‘signs of a Jewish-Christian, or indeed of an Ebionite source,” is not su 
 evident. He says that this ‘‘ mimic” repetition, ‘‘ What shall I do?. .- 
 This will I do,” is thoroughly Jewish. But as Christ was a Jew, speaking to 
 Jews, there is nothing surprising in that. He says also that the Ebionites 
 laid great stress on prayer, and inculcated a contempt for riches; and that 
 two of the three parables do the one, while the third does the other. But 
 assuredly the Ebionites were not peculiar in advocating prayer, nor in 
 despising riches, although in the latter point they went to fanatical excess. 
 See Strauss, Z. J. § 41, p. 257, ed. 1864. 
 
 6. Etmev 8€ 6 xdptos. The insertion indicates a pause, during 
 which the audience consider the parable, after which Jesus makes 
 a comment and draws the moral of the narrative. For 6 kdptos of 
 Christ see on v. 17 and vii. 13; and for o xpiths Tis ddikias see on 
 xvi. 8. 
 
 7. ob pi wojon. This intensive form of the simple negative 
 may be used in questions as well as in statements, and expresses 
 the confidence with which an affirmative answer is expected: 
 comp. Jn. xviii. rr. Rev. xv. 4 is not quite parallel. The argu 
 
414 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XVIIL 7, 8 
 
 ment here is @ fortiori, or (as Augustine, Quest. Evang. ii. 45) 
 ex dissimilitude, and has many points. If an unjust judge would 
 yield to the importunity of an unknown widow, who came and spoke 
 to him at intervals, how much more will a just God be ready to 
 reward the perseverance of His own elect, who cry to Him day and 
 night? Comp. the very similar passage Ecclus. xxxv. 13-18 
 [xxxiil. 18-22], and the similar argument Lk. xi. 13. The treat- 
 ment of the Syrophenician woman (Mt. xv. 22—28 ||) is an illustra- 
 tion of the text. With tv Bodvrwy atté comp. the souls of the 
 saints under the altar (Rev. vi. gQ-11). In both cases it is deliver- 
 ance from oppression that is prayed for. 
 
 kal pakpodupet ém adtois. ‘And He is long-suffering over 
 them” (RV.). This, and not paxpofvydv (E), is the reading of 
 almost all uncials and of other important authorities: e¢ patiens est 
 in tllts (d e), et patientiam habebit in tilis (Vulg.). 
 
 The exact meaning of the different parts of the clause cannot 
 be determined with certainty; but the general sense is clear 
 enough, viz. that, however long the answer to prayer may seem to 
 be delayed, constant faithful prayer always zs answered. 
 
 The chief points of doubt are (1) the construction of kal waxpoOupe?, (2) the 
 meaning of paxpoOupe?, (3) the meaning of é’ a’rois. (1) We need not join 
 kal paxpoOuuet to od wh mojoy, but may take it with Tay Bowvrwy, which is 
 equivalent to of Bodow: the elect cry and He paxpoOupet er’ atrots. (2) We 
 need not give pwaxpofuue? its very common meaning of ‘“‘is slow fo anger”: it 
 sometimes means ‘‘ to be slow, be backward, tarry,” and is almost synonymous 
 with Bpadvvw. Comp. Heb. vi. 15; James v. 7; Job vii. 16; Jer. xv. 15; and 
 the remarkably parallel passage Ecclus. xxxv. [xxxii.] 22, kal 6 Kupios od wh 
 Bpadivy ovdé wh paxpoOuunce én’ avtrois. So also paxpofuula may mean 
 ‘*slow persistency” as well as ‘‘slowness to anger.” Comp. I Mac. viii. 4, 
 and see Trench, Syz. liii. (3) This being so, there is no need to make ér’ 
 avrots refer to the enemzes of the elect, although such loose wording is not 
 impossible, especially if Lk. had the passage in Ecclus. in his mind. The 
 words naturally, and in strict grammar necessarily, refer to the elect, and 
 indicate the persons in respect of whom the slowness of action takes place. 
 Comp. paxpofuyGv ér’ aire (James v. 7). The meaning, then, seems to be, 
 ‘€ And shall not God deliver His elect who cry day and night to Him, while He 
 is slow to act for them?” That is, to them in their need the paxpoOupla of God 
 seems to be Bpadurns (Rev. vi. 10), just as it does to the ungodly, when they see 
 no judgment overtaking them (2 Pet. iii. 1-10). But it is possible that waxpoupet 
 means ‘‘is not impatient.” The unjust judge heard the widow’s frequent 
 request with impatience and dislike. God listens to the ceaseless crying of His 
 saints with willingness and pleasure. In this sense waxpoOupety is the opposite 
 of dtv@uuetv, ‘‘ to be quick-tempered.” 
 
 8. év tdxet. “ Quickly, without delay”; celeriter (a), confestim 
 (d), cifo (Vulg.). Although He bears long, and to those who are 
 suffering seems to delay, yet He really acts speedily. This inter- 
 pretation is confirmed by Acts xil. 7, xxil, 18, xxv. 4; Rom. 
 xvi. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 4; Rev. i. 1, xxii. 6. Others prefer zepente, 
 tnopinato. Thus Godet says, that although God delays to act, yet, 
 
XVII. 8.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 4I5 
 
 when the moment comes, He acts swiftly, as at the Deluge and the 
 destruction of Sodom. So Didon, 7heure sonnée, la vengeance sera 
 foudroyante (J. C. ch. ix. p. 614). In any case, the & rdxe is 
 placed last with emphasis. 
 
 mayv. ‘ Howbeit (certain as the Messiah’s deliverance of His 
 people is, a sorrowful question arises) the Son of Man, when He 
 is come, will He find faith on the earth?” The zAny is not 
 im Uebrigen (Weiss), nor seulement (Godet), but doch (Luther), 
 cependant (Lasserre). Latin Versions have verum (d), tamen (bi 
 1q), or verumtamen (Vulg.). Note the emphatic order, both 6 
 vids t. avOp. and éAédv being placed before the interrogative 
 particle. Yet Syr-Sin. has, “Shall the Son of man come and find.” 
 
 Only here and Gal. ii. 17 (where some prefer dpa) is dpa found in N.T. 
 In LXX it is always followed by ye (Gen. xviii. 13, xxvi. 9, xxxvii. 10; Jer. 
 iv. 10), but without ye it is freq. in Sym. Latin Versions have zumguzd (bci 
 1q) or futas (Vulg.). See Blass on Acts viii. 30. 
 
 thy miotw. ‘*The necessary faith, the faith in question, faith 
 in Jesus ‘as the Messiah and Saviour.” Others prefer “the faith 
 which perseveres in prayer,” or again “loyalty to Himself,” which 
 is much the same as faith in Christ. The answer to this despond- 
 ing question, which seems, but only seems, “to call in question 
 the success of our Lord’s whole mediatorial work,” has been given 
 by anticipation xvii. 26: the majority, not only of mankind but of 
 Christians, will be absorbed in worldly pursuits, and only a few 
 will “endure to the end” (Mt. xxii. 12, 13). No doubt is 
 expressed or implied as to the coming of the Son of Man, but only 
 as to what He will find. 
 
 There is therefore no reason for conjecturing that the parable received its 
 present form at a time when belief in the Second Advent was waning. Still 
 less reason is there for interpreting it of the Christian Church seeking help from 
 pagan magistrates against Jewish persecutors, and then concluding that it must 
 have been composed after the time of S. Luke (De Wette). On the other 
 hand, Hilgenfeld sees in the thirst for vengeance, which (he thinks) inspires 
 the parable, evidence of its being one of the oldest portions of the Third 
 Gospel. 
 
 9-14. § The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. This 
 has no connexion either with the parable which precedes it or with 
 the narrative which follows it. The two paiables were evidently 
 spoken on different occasions and addressed to different audi- 
 ences, the first to the disciples on a specified occasion, the 
 second to the persons described in ver. 9 on some occasion not 
 specified. They are placed in juxtaposition, probably because 
 tradition assigned them to the same portion of Christ’s ministry 
 (Hahn) ; or fosstbly because they both (but in very different ways) 
 treat of prayer (Keil). That Lk. brackets the two parables for 
 
416 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIII 9-11. 
 
 some reason is shown by the xai. But note the d¢ also, and see 
 on lil. 9. 
 The xal is genuine (§BDLMQRXA, Vulg.) although A ete. with 
 
 several Versions omit. 
 
 9. As in ver. 1, this preface to the parable is the Evangelist’s : 
 elmev 5é, dé kal, ciwev apos, and cirev wapaBoAny are all 
 marks of his style. It is possible to take mpos here as meaning 
 “with a view to,” as in ver. 1, or “against,” as in xx. 19. But it 
 is much more likely that it means “unto” after «fev, because (1) 
 this construction is specially common in Lk. and (2) we here have 
 persons and not the substantial infinitive after rpés: dixit autem et 
 ad quosdam qui (Vulg.). Syr-Sin. has “against.” 
 
 Tods tremovboTas ep Eautois 671. They themselves were the 
 foundation on which their confidence was built: xi. 22; 2 Cor. 
 i. 9; Heb. ii. 13; Deut. xxviii. 52; 2 Sam: xxtg5y is meee 
 xil. 2, etc. The constructions & tw, exit twa, and «is tiva are 
 less common. Grotius and others render 67 “because,” making 
 the righteousness a fact and the ground of their self-confidence ; 
 which is incredible. Comp. Prov. xxx. 12; Is. Ixv. 5. The 
 Talmud inveighs against the Pharisaism of those “who implore 
 you to mention some more duties which they might perform.” 
 
 - fouSevodvras. A strong word, common to Lk. and Paul: 
 “utterly despised, treated as of no account,” xxiii, 11; Acts 
 ive 225 Rom. xiv..3, ro. » Comp, #s. Sofia: 
 
 tos Aormods. ‘The rest, a// others” (RV.): comp. of Aourot 
 (ver. 11). The “other” of AV. and most English Versions has 
 been silently altered into “others” by the printers: “other” 
 means “other folk,” but tots Aourovs means “ a// other folk.” 
 
 10. dvéByoay. ‘They went ~p” from the lower city to Mount 
 Moriah, the “ Hill of the House,” on which the temple stood. 
 We are probably to understand one of the usual hours of prayer 
 Gi) 203 :Acts iL 25, it 2, x9). 
 
 11. otaGeis. This perhaps indicates the conscious adopting of an 
 attitude or of a conspicuous place: debout et la téte haute (Lasserre) ; 
 apres sétre placé en évidence (Reuss) ; im loco conspicuo instar statuz 
 stans erectus (Valck.). Contrast ver. 13 and comp. ver. 40, xix. 8; 
 Acts ii. 14, xvii. 22, xxvii. 21. The expression is peculiar to Lk. 
 Standing was the common posture at prayer among the Jews 
 (1 Sam. i. 26; 1 Kings viii. 14, 22; Mt. vi. 5; Mk. xi. 25). See 
 Lightfoot on Mt. vi. 5. 
 
 apds €avtév. These words probably follow tatra (BL, Vulg. Boh. Arm. 
 Orig.) ; but, even if they precede, they must be taken with rpoontxero (comp. 
 2 Mac. xi. 13): zztra se precabatur (e), apud se orabat (Vulg.). This use 
 of mpds éauréy is classical. ‘‘Standing by himself” would be xaé’ cauréy, 
 ceorsum, which D here reads: comp. Acts xxviii. 16; Jas. ii. 17. The char- 
 
XVIIL 11,12.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 417 
 
 — of his prayer shows why he would not utter it so that others could 
 ear, 
 
 edxapict@ oot. There is no prayer, even in form; he asks God 
 
 for nothing, being thoroughly y satisfied with his present condition. 
 And only in form is this utterance a thanksgiving ; it is self-con- 
 gratulation. He glances at God, but contemplates himself. In- 
 deed he almost pities God, who but for himself would be destitute 
 of faithful servants. 
 "ot Aowtrol tay avOpdrav. “The rest of men” (RV.), “all other 
 men,” ceteri hominum (Vulg.). He is in a class by himself; every 
 one else in a very inferior class. For other vainglorious thanks- 
 givings used by Jews see Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. p. 291. Contrast 
 S. Paul’s declaration 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10, and see Scheettgen, i. p. 
 306. Voli in precibus bona tua enumerare. 
 
 Gptayes, Gdixot, porxot. Gratias agit, non quia bonus, sed quia 
 solus ; non tam de bonis que habet, quam de malis que in alits videt 
 (Bernard, De Grad. Humil. v.17). But there is no hint that he 
 was lying in acquitting himself of gross and flagrant crimes. Such 
 falsehood in a silent address to God is scarcely intelligible. His 
 error lay in supposing that all other men were guilty of these 
 things, and that he himself was not guilty of sins that were as bad 
 or worse. Hillel had taught, “ Endeavour not to be better than 
 the community, and trust not in thyself until the day of thy death.” 
 The oitos is contemptuous, as often. The teAdvys is pointed out 
 to the Almighty as a specimen of oi Aouroi 7. dvOpa7rwv. 
 
 12. He cites these good works as instances of the ways in 
 which he is still further superior to other men. He is superior 
 not only in what he avoids, but in what he performs. Charac- 
 teristically he names just those things on which Pharisees prided 
 themselves (Mt. ix. 14, xxili. 23). 
 
 Sis tod caBBdrov. Mondays and Thursdays. Moses was sup- 
 posed to have ascended the mount on the fifth day, and to have 
 come down on the second. For the sing. of odBBarov in the sense 
 of “a week” comp. Mk. xvi. 9; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. It is amazing that 
 any should have taken this as meaning “I fast twice on the 
 sabbath,” which would be unintelligible. The jejuno bis in sabbato 
 of the Vulg. might mislead those who knew no Greek. The frequent 
 statement that the Pharisees observed the second and fifth days 
 as fasts all through the year (D.Z.? i. 2. p. 1054), and held that 
 this was enjoined by the oral Law, is without foundation: and 
 those who make it are inconsistent in saying that this Pharisee 
 boasts of works of supererogation. In that case he merely states _ 
 that he keeps the Law in its entirety. The Mosaic Law enjoins 
 only one fast in the year, the Day of Atonement. Other annual 
 fasts were gradually established in memory of national calamities 
 (Zech. viii. 19). Occasional fasts were from time to time ordered 
 
 27 
 
418 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVII 12, 13. 
 
 in seasons of drought and other public calamities, and these ad- 
 ditional fasts were always held on Mondays and Thursdays. Thus, 
 a five days’ fast would not last from Monday to Friday inclusive, 
 but would be held on all Mondays and Thursdays until the five 
 days were made up (see the Didache, viii. 1; Apost. Const. vii. 23. 1). 
 But many individuals imposed extra fasts on themselves, and 
 there were some who fasted on Mondays and Thursdays a// the 
 year round. Such cases would be commonest among the Pharisees, 
 and the Pharisee in the parable is one of them: but there is no 
 evidence that all Pharisees adopted this practice or tried to make 
 it a general obligation (Schiirer, Jewish People in the T. of J. C. 
 II. ii. p. 118; Edersh. Z. & 7. ii. p. 291 ; Wetstein and Lightfoot, 
 ad /oc.). The man, therefore, zs boasting of a work of supererogation. 
 What is told us about Jewish fasting in the N.T. (v. 33; Mt. vi. 16, 
 ix. 14; Mk. ii. 18; Acts xxvii. 9) is confirmed by the Mishna. 
 Note that the Pharisee has dropped even the form of thanksgiving. 
 
 With dts rod caSBdrov comp. érrdxis Tis qupas (xvii. 4). The genitives 
 in xxiv. 1; Mt. ii. 14, xxv. 6, xxviii. 13; Gal. vi. 17 are not parallel. 
 
 dmodexatevw mévra. Here again, in paying tithe of everything, 
 
 he seems to boast of doing more than the Law required. Tithe 
 
 was due (Num. xviii. 21; Deut. xiv. 22), but not of small garden 
 
 herbs (Mt. xxiii. 23). There is something for which God owes 
 thanks to Azm. 
 
 The rare form dodexaredw is found in B x* here in place of the not very 
 
 common dzodexaréw or dmodexarG. WH. ii. App. p. 171. The simple dexa- 
 Tevw is more usual, 
 
 Soca ktdpar. “All that I get” (RV.): gusecungue adguiro (iq), 
 que adguiro (d). It was on what he acguired, not on what he 
 possessed, that he paid tithe; on his income, not on his capital. 
 All English Versions prior to RV. go wrong here with Vulg. (guex 
 ossideo), Luth. (das ich habe), and Beza. “ Possess” would be 
 kextnpat. There is a similar error xxi. 19. Excepting Mt. x. 9 
 and 1 Thes. iv. 4, the verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts i. 18, 
 Vili. 20, xxii. 28): it is freq. in LXX. 
 
 13. paxpodev éotds. Far from the Pharisee: nothing else is 
 indicated. In his self-depreciation he thinks himself unworthy to 
 come near in worship to one who. must be a favoured servant of 
 God. But we need not suppose that he remained in the Court of the 
 Gentiles (Grot.), in which case the Pharisee in the Court of Israel 
 would hardly have seen him. Comp. xxiii. 49. The change from 
 orabeis (ver. 11) to éords perhaps implies less of a set, prominent 
 position in this case. Vulg. has sams in both places; but Cyprian 
 has cum stetisset for otafe’s and stabat e¢ for éords (De Dom. 
 Orat. vi.). Comp. Tac. Hist. iv. 72. 4. ' 
 
 odk 7Oedev O0dE Tods dpPOahpods Ewapar. The common explana- 
 
XVIII. 18, 14.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 419 
 
 tion, “woul not lift up even his eyes,” much less his hands and 
 his face (1 Tim. ii. 8; 1 Kings viii. 22; Ps. xxviii. 2, lxili. 4, 
 cxxxiv. 2), dces not seem to be satisfactory. The ovdé strengthens 
 the previous ovx and need not be taken exclusively with ods 
 éPOadrpovs: “would not even Ut up his eyes to heaven,” much less 
 adopt any confident or familiar attitude towards God. See Mal- 
 donatus, ad Joc. Some Rabbis taught that it was necessary to 
 keep the eyes down or to close them in praying (Scheettgen, i. 
 . 307). 
 A =m “He continued to smite”; ‘undebat (d), percutiebat 
 (Vulg.). Comp. vill. 52, xxiii. 48. Om. cis after erurve 8 B D. 
 tAacOyntt por TH GpaptwrS. ‘Be merciful (Dan. ix. 19) to me 
 the sinner.” He also places himself in a class by himself; but he 
 makes no comparisons. Consciousness of his own sin is supreme ; 
 de nemine alto homine cogitat (Beng.). For similar self-accusation 
 comp. Ps. xxv. 11, xl. 12, li. 3 ; Ezra ix. 6; Dan. ix. 8; 1 Tim. i. 15. 
 The verb occurs elsewhere in N.T. only Heb. ii. 17, with acc. of 
 the sin. In LXX it isnot common. Ps. lxiv. 3, with acc. of the 
 sin. Ps. xxiv. 11, lxxvii. 38, lxxviii. 9, with dat. of the sin. 2 Kings 
 v. 18, with dat. of the person, as here. The compound ééAao- 
 coat is the more usual word. The classical construction with 
 acc. of the Zerson propitiated is not found in bibl. Grk., because 
 the idea of “ propitiating God”. is not to be encouraged. “The 
 ‘propitiation’ acts on that which alienates God and not on God, 
 whose love is unchanged throughout” (Wsctt. on Heb. ii. 17, and 
 Additional Note on 1 Jn. ii. 2, Zp. of S. John, p. 83). 
 
 The Latin Versions have propztiare (c ff, 1), repropitzare (b), miserere (d), 
 propitus esto (Vulg.). 
 
 14. déyw Spiv. As often, this formula introduces an important 
 declaration uttered with authority (vii. 26, 28, ix. 27, x. 12, 24, 
 “LG, .51, Xi 4, 5; 8,127, 375 445-51, xi. 3, ete.). Here Chust 
 once more claims to know the secrets both of man’s heart and of 
 God’s judgments. 
 
 KatéByn obtos Se8ixatwpévos. The pronoun perhaps looks back 
 to the contemptuous otros in ver. 11. “This despised man went 
 down justified in the sight of God,” te. “accounted as righteous, 
 accepted.” Comp. vii. 35, x. 20, xvi. 15; Is. Ll. 8, lili. 11; Job 
 xxxiil. 32. The Talmud says, “So long as the temple stood, no 
 Israelite was in distress ; for as often as he came to it full of sin 
 and offered sacrifice, then his sin was forgiven and he departed a 
 just man” (Scheettgen, i. p. 308). 
 
 map’ éxetvoy. The expression is one of comparison, and of é¢se/f 
 does not exclude the possibility of the Pharisee being justified in 
 some smaller degree. Comp. xiii. 2, 4. But the context perhaps 
 excludes it. Thus Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. iv. 36), ideogue 
 
420 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIII. 14, 15. 
 
 alterum reprobatum, alterum justificatum. Also Euthym. (ad /oc.), 
 6 Stkaudoas povov éavrov KatedixacOn mapa @cod, 6 S€ KaradiKdoas 
 povov éavtTov edikatwOy rapa @cod. Aug., however, points out that 
 the Scripture does not say that the Pharisee was condemned (£4. 
 XXXVi. 4. 7). 
 
 The readings are various, but ap’ éxeivov (% BL, Boh. Sah., Orig. Naz.) 
 may be safely adopted: ad z//o (Vulg.) is a misrepresentation of this, and 
 padov rap’ akewov Tov papicecov (D) an amplification of it. The 4 éxetvos 
 (min. pauc.) of Elz. is a gloss; which, however, may have helped to produce 
 the common reading # yap éxeivos (AEGHKM PQ etc.), IAP being 
 changed to TAP. If 4 yap éxeivos (Tisch., Treg. mazg.) be adopted, it 
 must be interrogative: ‘‘I say to you, this man went down to his house 
 justified—or did the other do so?” Other Latin variations are pre z//um 
 phariszum (a), mages quam ille pharisewus (bce), to which some add gui se 
 exaltabat (fff,ilqr). % map’ éxetvov (Hofm. Keil) and #mep éxetvos (Hahn) 
 are conjectures. 
 
 Ste was 6 Sav, xt. Verbatim as xiv. 11 (where see note), 
 which Weiss pronounces to be its original position, while its ap- 
 pearance here is due to Lk. Why is it assumed that Jesus did 
 not repeat His sayings ? 
 
 The suggestion (Aug. Bede) that the Pharisee represents the Jews and the 
 publican the Gentiles cannot be accepted. Nor need we suppose (Godet) that 
 Lk. is here showing that the Pauline doctrine of justification was based on the 
 teaching of Christ. There is nothing specially Pauline here, We are not told 
 that the publican was justified by faith in Christ, but by confession of sin and 
 prayer. The meaning is simple. Christ takes a crucial case. One generally 
 recognized as a saint fails in prayer, while one generally recognized as a sinner 
 succeeds. Why? Because the latter’s prayer is real, and the former’s not. 
 The one comes in the spirit of prayer,—self-humiliation ; the other in the spirit 
 of pride,—self-satisfaction. 
 
 15-17. Little Children brought to Christ. Mt. xix. 13-15; 
 Mk. x. 13-16. The narrative of Lk., which has been proceeding 
 independently since ix. 51, here rejoins Mt. and Mk. The three 
 narratives are almost verbatim alike. Where Lk. differs either he 
 has an expression peculiar to himself, as ra Bpégy (ver. 15) or 
 mpogekadéoaro (ver. 16); or he and Mk. agree against Mt., as 
 in abtav dxrytae (ver. 15), epxecOar and rod @eod (ver. 16), Os av 
 pa Sé€nrat, x... (ver. 17), where Mt. varies considerably in word- 
 ing. Only in the kat before ya KwAvere (ver. 16) does Lk. agree 
 with Mt. against Mk. 
 
 15. Mpoogdepov 8 atte kai ta Bpépy. The d¢ and xat ra Bpédn 
 are peculiar to Lk. For é¢ Mk. has caf and Mt. rore: for xal 7a 
 Bpédy both have simply radia. “Now people were bringing to 
 Him even their babes,” or “their babes also,” as well as sick 
 folk. In any case Bpépos must be rendered here as in ii. 12, 16: 
 comp. i. 41, 44; Acts vii. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 2. AV. has “babe,” 
 “infant,” and “young child.” Vulg. has izfans throughout 
 
XVIII. 15-18.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 421 
 
 anryta. Mt. says more distinctly, ras xeipas ériO} adrots Kat 
 mpocevéntat. Blessing them is meant: comp. Gen. xlviili. 14, 15. 
 
 The pres. subj. after imperf. indic. is a constr. that is freq. in LXX. It 
 shows how the opt. is going out of use. But here it might be explained as 
 expressing the thought of those who brought the babes, a thought put in a 
 direct form for the sake of vividness: ‘‘that He may touch” for ‘‘ that He 
 might touch.” Win. xli. b. 1. a, p. 360. 
 
 émetinwv attots, Not because, as Chrysostom and Theophylact 
 suggest, they thought that little children were unworthy to approach 
 Him ; but because they thought it a waste of His time and an 
 abuse of His kindness; or, as Jerome, followed closely by Bede, 
 puts it, ewm in similitudinem hominum offerentium importunitate 
 fassari. On the first anniversary of their birth Jewish children 
 were sometimes brought to the Rabbi to be blest. 
 
 Lk. has the imperf. in both places, rpocépepov . . . émeriuwyv: Mt. mpoc- 
 avéxOnoav . . . éwerlunoav: Mk. rpocédepov . . . émerlunoar. 
 
 16. mpocexadécato. Even if with B we omit aird, this would 
 mean that He called the children (with their parents), and then 
 addressed the disciples. Mk. has idov ... jyavaxrnce, Mt. 
 ‘simply «ier. 
 
 ph koddete. “Cease to forbid.” The wording is almost identical 
 in all three narratives. Jerome and Euthym. (on Mt. xix. 14) point 
 out that Christ does not say rovrwy but ro.otrwr, ut ostenderet non 
 atatem regnare sed mores. It is not these children, nor all chil- 
 dren, but those who are childlike in character, especially in 
 humility and trustfulness, who are best fitted for the Kingdom. 
 
 17. Verbatim as in Mk. x. 15. Mt. gives a similar saying on 
 a different occasion (xviii. 3, 4). The 8€&rat explains the rovovrwv : 
 a child receives what is offered to it, in full trust that it is good for 
 it, pydev Siaxpwvdpevos, pydé dudiBddAwv zrept airod (Euthym.). 
 
 18-80. The Rich Young Ruler who preferred his Riches to 
 the Service of Christ. Mt. xix. 16-30; Mk. x. 17-31. In all 
 three narratives this section follows immediately upon the one 
 about bringing children to Christ. This young ruler is humiliated 
 by being told that there is still a great deal to be done before he 
 is qualified for {wi aidvis. Thus the lessons supplement one 
 another. The children, like the publican, are nearer the Kingdom 
 than they could suppose themselves to be; the rich young man, 
 like the Pharisee, is farther from it than he supposed himself to 
 be. Those who can be benefited by being abased (9, 22), are 
 abased; while those who cannot be harmed by being exalted (16), 
 are exalted. Here again Lk. often agrees with Mk. in small 
 details of wording against Mt., and only once (dxovcas in ver. 2 
 with Mt. against Mk. 
 
 18. dpxwv. Lk. alone tells us this, and we are in doubt 
 
422 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIII. 18, 19. 
 
 he means byit. His being a veavicoxos, as Mt. tells us (xix. 20, 22), 
 is rather against his being a member of the Sanhedrin or a ruler 
 of a synagogue. Weiss, Neander, and others conjecture that 
 veavioxos is an error, perhaps an inference drawn by Mt. from 
 Christ’s charge, especially tia tov warépa cov, x.7.A. Certainly 
 éx vedrnros (which is wanting in the best texts of Mt.) does not 
 seem appropriate to a veavioxos. Yet Holtzmann supposes that 
 veavioxos has been added through a misconception of é« vedryros. 
 But the rich ruler’s self-confidence might easily make him pose as 
 an older man than he really was. Keim seems to be nearer the 
 truth when he says that “the whole impression is that of an eager 
 and immature young man” (/es. of Vaz. v. p. 36). The statement 
 of Mk., that he ran to Jesus and kneeled to Him (x. 17), indicates 
 youthful eagerness. 
 
 ti moujoas, k.t.4. See on x. 25, where the same question is 
 asked. In Mt. the “good is transferred from ‘‘ Master” to “ what,” 
 AiddoxaXe, ti dyafdv roujow; and hence Christ’s reply is different, 
 Tt pe épwrds wept tov ayafov; The ruler thought that by some 
 one act, perhaps of benevolence, he could secure eternal life: he 
 was prepared for great expenditure. Similar questions were dis- 
 cussed among the Rabbis: see Wetst. on Mt. xix. 16. 
 
 19. Ti pe Ayers dyabdv; So also in Mk. In none of the 
 three is there any emphasis on “ Me,” which is an enclitic. There 
 is no instance in the whole Talmud of a Rabbi being addressed 
 as “Good Master”: the title was absolutely unknown among the 
 Jews. ‘This, therefore, was an extraordinary address, and perhaps 
 a fulsome compliment. The Talmud says, ‘There is nothing else 
 that is good but the Law.” ‘The explanation of some ancient and 
 modern commentators, that Jesus is here speaking merely from 
 the young man’s standpoint, is not satisfactory. “You suppose 
 Me to be a mere man, and you ought not to call any human being 
 good. ‘That title I cannot accept, unless I am recognized as 
 God.”! The young ruler could not understand this; and the 
 reply must have had some meaning for 47m. His defect was 
 that he trusted too much in himself, too little in God. Jesus 
 reminds him that there is only one source of goodness whether 
 in action (Mt.) or in character (Mk. Lk.), viz. God. He Himself 
 is no exception. His goodness is the goodness of God working 
 in Him. “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He 
 seeth the Father doing... . For as the Father hath life in 
 Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Him- 
 
 1So Cyril, ad loc., El wh wemlorevxas dre Oebs elu, ws TA wbyy Tpérovra 
 77 dvurdty pice mepirédekds pot, Kal dyabdv amoKanets, dv 0H Kal vevdurKas 
 &vOpwmrov elvar kara o€; and Ambrose, Quzd me dicts bonum, quem negas 
 Deum? Non ergo se bonum negat, sed Deum designat. See also Jerome, 
 Basil, Epiphanius, etc. Maldonatus and Wordsworth follow. 
 
XVIII. 19-22.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 423 
 
 self... . I can of Myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and 
 My judgment is righteous, because I seek not My own will, but 
 the will of Him that sent Me” (Jn. v. 19-30). Von se magistrum 
 non esse, sed magistrum absque Deo nullum bonum esse testatur 
 (Bede). ‘There is no need to add to this the thought that the 
 goodness of Jesus was the goodness of perfect development (see 
 on ii. 52), whereas the goodness of God is that of absolute per- 
 fection (Weiss on Mk. x. 18). 
 
 ovdels ayalds el ph els 6 Oeds. So also Mk. Here the article is 
 wanting in SB. The saying appears in a variety of forms in quotations, 
 ustin has two: ovdels dya6ds ef uh pdvos 6 Oeds 6 moijoas Ta TavTa (AfZol. 
 1. 16), and els éorly dyads, 6 mariyp pou 6 év Tots ovpavois (Try. Ci.). 
 Marcion seems to have read els éorly dyads, 6 Oeds 6 marjp. In Hippol. 
 Philosoph. v. 1 els early dyabbs, 6 marhp év rots odpavois, and a similar 
 reading appears four times in Clem. Hom. See Zeller, Apostelg. pp. 32 ff., 
 Eng. tr. pp. 105-119, and WH. ii. App. pp. 14, 15. 
 
 20. tds évtodds oidas. Jesus securos ad Legem remittit ; con- 
 tritos Evangelice consolatur (Beng.). This is, however, not the 
 main point. Nothing extraordinary or not generally known is 
 required for salvation: the observance of well-known commands 
 will suffice. 
 
 Here again Lk. exactly agrees with Mk., except that he places the 
 seventh before the sixth commandment, and omits, as Mt. does, ui) azro- 
 orepions, which perhaps represents the tenth. In Rom. xiii. 9, Jas. ii. II, 
 and in Cod. B of Deut. v. 17 adultery is mentioned before murder. Philo 
 says that in the second mevrds of the decalogue adultery is placed first as 
 Béy.orov aouknudrwy (De decem orac. xxiv., xxxil.). In all three of the Gospels 
 the fifth commandment is placed last and none of the first four is quoted. 
 In Mt. they are in the same form as in Exod. xx. and Deut. v., Ov govevoes, 
 k.7.A4. So also Rom. xiii. 9. In Mk. and Jas ii. 11, My povevogs. 
 
 21. taita wdvta epdata ex vedtytos. Not so much a boast, 
 as an expression of dissatisfaction. “I wanted to be told of 
 something special and sublime; and I am reminded of duties 
 which I have been performing all my life.” The reply exhibits 
 great ignorance of self and of duty, but is perfectly sincere. 
 
 That it was possible to keep the whole Law is an idea which is frequent 
 in the Talmud. Abraham, Moses, and Aaron were held to have done so. 
 R. Chanina says to the Angel of Death, ‘‘ Bring me the book of the Law, 
 and see whether there is anything written in it which I have not kept” 
 (Schcettg. i. pp. 160, 161. See also Edersh. Z. & 7. i. p. 536). 
 
 Here, as in Mt. xix. 20; Gen. xxvi. 5; Exod. xii. 17, xx. 6, we have 
 the act. of @uAdrrw: Mk. x. 20; Lev. xviii. 4, xx, 8, 22, xxvi. 3, the mid. 
 without difference of sense. 
 
 22. dkotcas S€ 6 “Inoots. Mk. has the striking euBAdlas 
 airG jydarnoey abtév, which is strong evidence that behind Mk. 
 is one who was intimate with Christ From jydryce mdvta 
 
424 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XVIII. 22-24, 
 
 Toryoov, and axodovGe por (v. 27, ix. 59) we may conjecture that 
 this was a call to become an Apostle. 
 
 “Ere €v cou Netwer. Mk. has & oe torepet. Mt. transfers the 
 words to the young man, ti ér torepd; Christ neither affirms 
 nor denies the ruler’s statement of his condition. Assuming it 
 to be correct, there is still something lacking, viz. detachment 
 from his wealth. In what follows we have two charges, one to 
 sell and distribute; the other to follow Christ: and the first is 
 preparatory to the second. But we may not separate them and 
 make the first the one thing lacking and the second the answer to 
 ri wojoas in ver. 18. In eers Oyoavpov ev Tots odpavots we have 
 a clear reference to wiv aidvoy, and this promise is attached 
 to the first charge. The mdvra (comp. vi. 30, vii. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4) 
 and the compound 81d80s (xi. 22; Acts iv. 35; elsewhere only Jn. 
 vi. 11) are here peculiar to Lk. 
 
 Mt., having transferred the words about ‘lacking something yet” to the 
 rich young man, gives Christ’s reply El @éAes 7éAecos elvae in place of “Eve 
 év got delmet. These words cannot mean a perfection superior to the fulfil- 
 ment of the Law, for no such perfection is possible (xvii. 10). A miscon- 
 ception of this point led to the distinction between the performance of duty 
 and moral perfection, which has produced much error in moral theology. 
 Clem. Alex. rightly says, érav elay El Oédets Téevos yevéoOan (ste), TwAjoas TA 
 brdpxovta dds TTw ots, éhéyxer TOV Kavxwpevoy érl TH Tdcas Tas evTohas eK 
 vedrnros TeTnpynKévat’ ov yap meTAnpwKer 76, “Ayaryjoes Tov TAnoloy gov ws 
 éaurév: rére 5é, rd Tod Kuplov cuvrederovpmevos, edvddoKeTo Ov aydmnv peTa- 
 dddvac (Strom. iii. 6, p. 537, ed. Potter). Neander, Z. 7. C. § 226, Eng. tr. 
 
 6 
 E se class. Grk. this use of delaecv for éAdelzrev is mostly poetical. 
 
 For éiddos (B E-F etc.) $A DLM RA have dvs from Mt. and Mk. And 
 for év rots ovpdvos (BD) NALR have év ovpdvos from Mt., and P, Vulg. 
 Goth. have év ovpdyw from Mk. The plur. is supported by zz cw@/s (ade), 
 but the article is doubtful. 
 
 23. mepiumos. Stronger than Avrovmevos (Mt. Mk.), to which 
 Mk. adds the graphic orvyvdcas (Ezek. xxxii. 10; [Mt. xvi. 3]). 
 For zepiAvzos comp. Mk. vi. 26, xiv. 34; Mt. xxvi. 38. He wanted 
 to follow Christ’s injunctions, but at present the cost seemed to 
 him to be too great. 
 
 movctos opddpa. The statement explains, and perhaps in 
 some measure excuses, his distress. He possessed a great deal 
 more than a boat and nets; and Peter, James, and John were 
 not told to sell their boats and nets and give the proceeds to the 
 poor; because their hearts were not wedded to them. 
 
 24, Mads ducKkddws. All three have this adv., which occurs 
 nowhere else in bibl. Grk. Clem. Alex. seems to allude to the 
 saying when he writes 6 Adyos tots teAwvas A€yer SvoKdAWS Two- 
 Onoerar (Strom. v. 5. p. 662, ed. Potter). Lk. omits the departure 
 of the ruler, which took place before these words were uttered. 
 Mk. alone records (x. 24) the consternation which they excited in 
 
XVIII. 24, 25.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 425 
 
 the disciples, and Christ’s repetition of them. It was perhaps 
 largely for the sake of Judas that these stern words about the 
 perils of wealth were uttered to them. 
 
 25. In the Talmud an elephant passing through the eye of a 
 needle is twice used of what is impossible; also a camel dancing 
 in a very small corn measure. See Lightfoot, Schcettgen, and 
 Wetstein, ad Joc. For edxomdtepov see small print on v. 23. The 
 reading xdpiAov= “cable” here and Mt. xix. 24 is an attempt to 
 tone down a strong statement. It is found only in a few late 
 MSS. The work xdpsAos occurs only in Suidas and a scholiast 
 on Aristoph. Vesf. 1030. Some would give the meaning of 
 “cable” to xaynAos (so Cyril on Mt. xix. 24), but no doubt the 
 animal is meant. Others would make the “needle’s eye” into a 
 narrow gateway for foot-passengers; but this also is erroneous. 
 See Expositor, 1st series, iii. p. 369, 1876; WH. ii. App. p. 151. 
 For BeAdvys, which occurs nowhere else in bibl. Grk., Mt. and 
 Mk. have fadidos, and for tpywaros Mk. has tpypadtas. Hobart 
 claims both BeAcvyn and tpyya as medical, the former with good 
 reason (p. 60). 
 
 Celsus said that this saying of Christ was borrowed along with others from 
 Plato. But the passage which he quoted from the Zaws (v. p. 742) merely 
 says that a man cannot be at once very good and very rich. There is nothing 
 about a camel or a needle. Orig. Com. Cels. vi. 16. 1. The saying in the 
 Koran (vii. 38), ‘‘ Neither shall they enter into paradise, until a camel 
 through the eye of a needle,” is probably taken from the Gospels (Sale, p. 108). 
 
 It is specially to be noted that this hard saying about the 
 difficulty of those who have riches entering into the Kingdom of 
 God is in all three Gospels and not merely in the one which is 
 supposed to be Ebionite in tone. Comp. Mt. vi. 19-21; Mk. xii. 
 41, 42. Lk. omits the great amazement, éferAjocovro odddpa 
 (Mt.), wepusoas eferAjooovto (Mk.), which this second utterance 
 on the impediments caused by wealth excited in the disciples. 
 
 The Latin translator of Origen’s comm. on Mt. xix. has the following exe 
 tract from ‘‘a certain Gospel which is called According to the Hebrews.” But 
 neither this preface nor the extract are in the Greek text of Origen. Dzxit ad 
 eum alter divitum, Magister, guid bonum factens vivam? Dixit et, Homo, 
 legem et prophetas fac. Respondit ad eum, Fect. Dixit et, Vade, vende omnia 
 quz possides et divide pauperibus et vent, seguere me.  Coepit autem dives 
 scalpere caput suum (sic), et non placutt et. Et dixtt ad eum Dominus, Quo- 
 modo dices Legem fect et prophetas? quoniam scriptum est in lege Diliges 
 proximum tuum stcut te ipsum, et ecce multi fratres tut, filit Abrahz, amict? 
 Sunt stercore, morientes pre fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non 
 egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad cos. Et conversus dixit Simoni adisctpulo 
 suo, sedentt apud se, Simon, filt Johannx, factlius est camelum intrare per 
 JSoramen acus quam divitem in regnum celorum. See also the fragment quoted 
 from the narrative of the man with the withered hand (Lk. vi. 8). These 
 specimens explain why the Gosfel according to the Hebrews was allowed to pass 
 into »blivion, and it is difficult to believe that this Nazarene Gospel was the 
 
426 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X VIII. 25-80. 
 
 original Hebrew of our Mt. If it was, ‘‘ our Greek Evangelist must have been 
 a most unfaithful translator” (Salmon, /z¢. to V.7. p. 166, 5th ed.). We 
 may add that he must have been a person of very superior taste and ability. 
 
 26. Kal tis Stvara. cwOhvat; Not “what rick man” (Weiss), 
 but “what person of any description”: Num. xxiv. 23. The 
 whole world either possesses or aims at possessing wealth. If, 
 then, what every one desires is fatal to salvation, who can be 
 saved? The «at adds emphasis to the question, which arises out 
 of what has just been said: comp. x. 29; Jn. ix. 36; 2 Cor. 
 ii. 2. 
 
 27. Ta dduvata mapa dvOpdmos. This shows that ver. 25 
 means an impossibility, not merely something difficult or highly 
 improbable. It is a miracle of grace when those who have wealth 
 do not put their trust in it. Lk. omits the steadfast look 
 (€BAdpas) with which Mt. and Mk. say that this declaration was 
 accompanied. He sympathizes with their perplexity and hastens 
 to remove it. 
 
 Not only before proper names which begin with a vowel (Mt. xxviii. 15 3 
 Jn. i. 40), but also in other cases, apd sometimes is found unelided ; rapa 
 Guaprwhy (xix. 7). This is commonly the case before dy@pwros: comp. Mt. 
 xix. 26; Mk. x. 27; Jn. v. 34, 41; Gal. i. 12, 
 
 Suvata mapa 7 Od. Zaccheus proved this (xix. I-10). 
 Comp. Zech. viii. 6; Job xlii. 2. For parallels from profane 
 writers see Grotius and Wetstein on Mt. xix. 26. But zapa 
 avOpuros and rapa 7G Océ certainly do not mean hominum judicio 
 and Dei judicio (Fri. Ew.): they refer to what each can do. Man 
 cannot, but God can, break the spell which wealth exercises over 
 the wealthy. Comp. i. 37; Gen. xviii. 14; Jer. xxxil. 17, 27; 
 Zech. viii. 6. 
 
 28. efmev 8¢ & Mérpos. His being the one to speak is 
 characteristic; but he does not speak in a spirit of boastfulness. 
 Rather it is the reaction from their consternation which moves 
 him to speak: sfe ex verbis Salvatoris concepta (Beng.). He 
 wants to be assured that God’s omnipotence has been exerted on 
 their behalf, and that they may hope to enter the Kingdom. Mt. 
 adds ri dpa éorac jpiv; Note the efwev Sé, which neither Mt. 
 nor Mk. has. 
 
 29. *Auhv Aéyw Spiv. In all three: it is a declaration of great 
 moment. Not only has God done this for the Twelve, but for 
 many others: and every one who has had grace to surrender is 
 sure of his reward. Lk. alone has yvvaixa, and alone omits 
 dypovs, among the things surrendered. The omission is note- 
 worthy in connexion with his supposed Ebionitism. 
 
 80. wodNamAaciova. Job’s family was exactly restored; his 
 goods wére exactly doubled. The dramatic compensations of the 
 
XVIII. 30.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 427 
 
 O.T. are far exceeded by the moral and spiritual compensations 
 of the Gospel: and it is evident from this passage that material 
 rewards are included also. What is lost in the family is replaced 
 many times over in Christ and in the Church. This would apply 
 in a special way to converts from heathen families, who found 
 loving fathers and brethren to replace the cruel relations who cast 
 them out. Lk. and Mt. omit (but for no imaginable dogmatic 
 reasons) the important qualification pera duwypav. ‘He only is 
 truly rich,” said the Rabbi Meir, “ who enjoys his riches.” The 
 Christian sacrifices what is not enjoyed for what brings real 
 happiness. 
 Mk, has ékarovram)aclova. D supported by many Latin authorities 
 (a bedeff,ilqr, Cypr. Ambr. Aug. Bede) here has émram)\aclova. Cyprian 
 quotes the passage thrice, and each time has septzes tantum: in isto tempore. 
 WH. conjectures ‘‘some extraneous source, written or oral.” Vulg. and f 
 have mu/lio plura in hoc tempore. 
 Between Ad8y (BD M, Arm.), which may come from Mk., and doAdBy 
 (SW APR etc.) it is not easy to decide. With droddBy comp. xxiii. 41; 
 Rom. i. 27; Col. iii. 24; 2Jn. 8. It is often used with 7. puoddv (Xen. 
 Anab. vii. 7. 14; Her. viii. 137. 6). Vulg. has e¢ non reczpzat. 
 
 év TH katp@ toUTw. Note the contrast with 7 aidve: not merely 
 in this world, but in this season. So also in Mk. Comp. ev 7é 
 viv xatpd (Rom. ili. 26, viii. 18), and tov Kaipoy tov éverrnKdTa 
 (Heb. ix. 9), which means the same: see Wsctt. 
 
 év TH aide TH epxopévw. “In the age which is in process of 
 being realized.” See on vii. 19, and comp. Eph. i. 21, ii. 7; Heb. 
 vi. 5. Bengel remarks that Scripture in general is more explicit 
 about temporal punishments than temporal rewards, but about 
 eternal rewards than eternal punishments, 
 
 Millennarians made use of this promise as an argument for their views. 
 It would be in the mz//ennium that the faithful would receive literally a 
 hundredfold of what they had given up for the Kingdom’s sake: zon zntelli- 
 gentes quod si tn ceteris digna sit repromissio, in uxoribus appareat turpitudo ; 
 ut qui unam pro Domino dimiserit, et centum recipiat in futuro (Jerome on Mt. 
 xix. 20). 
 
 Lk. omits the saying about last being first and first last, having already 
 recorded it in a different connexion (xiii. 30). 
 
 81-384. The Third Announcement of the Passion. Mt. xx. 
 17-19; Mk. x. 32-34. For previous announcements (just before 
 and just after the Transfiguration) see ix. 22, 44. The raising of 
 Lazarus should probably be placed here. The decree of the San- 
 hedrin for the arrest of Jesus had very likely already been passed 
 when our Lord made this new announcement of His death. 
 Apostolis sepius dixit et indies expressius, ut in posterum testes 
 essent prescientia tpsius (Grotius). 
 
 ‘The ecltrep (ver. 31) is the one item which Lk. and Mt, have in common 
 against Mk. In several expressions in vv. 32, 33 Lk. agrees with Mk, 
 
428 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIII. 31-33. 
 
 against Mt. The elwev rpés, the rdvra (see on vii. 35, ix. 43, xi. 4), 7a 
 veypaupméva (see on xxil. 37), and all of ver. 34 are peculiar to Lk.’s 
 account. 
 
 81. NaparaBdév. “Took to Himself” (ix. 28, xi. 26; Acts xv. 
 39). The notion of taking aséde, away from the multitude, is 
 involved, but is not prominent. In class. Grk. it is freq. of taking 
 a wife, a companion, an ally, or adopting ason. This announce- 
 ment specially concerned the Twelve who were to accompany 
 Him to Jerusalem. See the graphic account of their behaviour 
 Mixa 2. 
 
 Sa tv mpopytav. This is the regular expression for the 
 utterances of prophecy: they are spoken dy means of the Prophets.” 
 The Prophet is not an originating agent, but an instrument. But 
 this is the only place in which the phrase occurs in Lk., who 
 says little to his Gentile readers about the fulfilment of prophecy. 
 Comp. Mt. 1. 22, ii. 5, 15,23, iv. 14, vill. 17, xil; my eeaiegeuenes 
 In Mt. ii. 17 and iii. 3 io is a false reading. Comp. Hag. ii. 2.— 
 See Gould on Mk. x. 33, 34. 
 
 TO vi Tod dvOpsmov. Once more an amphibolous expression, 
 It can be taken with either teXecOyjoerat OF Ta yeypappeva, If 
 with the former it may mean either “dy the Son of Man” (which 
 is not probable, for it is not what He does, but what others do to 
 Him that is predicted), or “unto the Son of Man” (RV. Hahn, 
 Nosgen). Comp. évarAnpotra: airous 4 mpodyreia (Mt. xiii. 14). 
 But for this Lk. elsewhere has év 7G vid 7. avOp. (xxii. 37). It 
 seems better to take the dat. with ra yeypappéva: “for the Son 
 of Man,” ze. prescribed for Him as His course (Weiss, Godet), or 
 “of the Son of Man” (Vulg. Wic. Tyn. Cov. Cran. Rhem, AV. 
 Alf.). Hence the ancient gloss in the text of D, zepi rod viod 
 7.0. Wiis. 4,/p. 266. Green, p. 100. 
 
 32. mapadobjcetat yap tots eOveowv. This is a new element of 
 definiteness in the prophecy, and it almost carries with it, what Mt. 
 xx. 19 distinctly expresses, that the mode of death will be cruci- 
 fixion. It is said that this prediction has been made more definite 
 by the Evangelist, who has worded it in accordance with ac- 
 complished facts. But, in that case, why were not ix. 22 and 44 
 made equally definite? That Christ should gradually reveal more 
 details is in harmony with probability. Lk., however, omits the 
 high priests and scribes, and their condemning Christ to death 
 before handing Him over to the heathen, although both Mt. (xx. 
 18) and Mk. (x. 33) say that Jesus predicted these details on this 
 occasion. Here Lk. alone has tGpicbyoerar (xi. 45; Acts xiv. 5; 
 elsewhere twice). 
 
 33. TH pepo TH Tpity. Mk. has the less accurate pera tpets 
 yeépas, Which can hardly have been invented to fit the facts. 
 While the prediction of His death might shake the disciples’ faith 
 
XVIII. 33, 84.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 429 
 
 in His Messiahship, the prediction of His rising again was calculated 
 to establish it. 
 
 84. Kat adtol ot8€v tovTwy cuvikav. Comp. ii. 50. Note the 
 characteristic cal abrodand @v Kkexpuppévov. Lk. alone mentions 
 the appeal to prophecy (ver. 31), and he alone states—with three- 
 fold emphasis—that the Twelve did not at all understand. But 
 Mt. and Mk. 7//ustraze this dulness of apprehension by the request 
 of the sons of Zebedee for the right and left hand places in the 
 Kingdom, which Lk. omits. Their minds were too full of an 
 earthly kingdom to be able to grasp the idea of a Messiah who 
 was to suffer and to die: and without that they could not under- 
 stand His rising again, and did not at first believe when they 
 were told that He had risen. Their dulness was providential, 
 and it became a security to the Church for the truth of the 
 Resurrection. The theory that they believed, because they ex- 
 pected that He would rise again, is against all the evidence. Comp. 
 1X. 45. 
 
 aes én aitév. This was changed when He dujvorter 
 abray tov vody Tod cuvévat Tas ypadds (xxiv. 45). For dm adtav 
 comp. ix. 45, X. 21, xix. 42; 2 Kings iv. 27; Ps. cxviii. 19?; Is. 
 xl. 27; Jer. xxxix. 17. This statement is not identical with either 
 of the other two. It explains the fact that they not only did not 
 understand any of this at the time, but “did not get to know 
 (éyivwcxov) the things that were said.” 
 
 35-43. The Healing of Blind Bartimzus at Jericho. Mt. 
 xx. 29-34; Mk. x. 46-52. This miracle probably took place in 
 the week preceding that of the Passion. 
 
 The three narratives have exercised the ingenuity of harmonizers. Lk. and 
 Mk. have only one blind man; Mt. again mentions two (comp. Mt. ix. 27). 
 Lk. represents the miracle as taking place when Jesus was approaching Jericho ; 
 Mt. and Mk. as taking place when He was leaving it. Lk. says that Jesus 
 healed with a command, dvd8\eYov; Mk. with a word of comfort, traye, 7 
 mlorts gov céowkév oe; Mt. with a touch, #Waro rév éuudrwv atrdv. Only those 
 who have a narrow view respecting inspiration and its effects will be concerned 
 to reconcile these differences and make each of the three verbally exact. These 
 make many suggestions. I. There were ¢hree different healings (Euthym. on 
 Mt. xx. 34). 2. As Christ entered Jericho, Bartimzeus cried for help, and was 
 not healed ; he then joined a second blind man, and with him made an appeal 
 as Jesus left Jericho, and then both were healed (Calvin and Maldon. followed 
 by Wordsw.). 3. One blind man was healed as He entered, Bartimzeus, and 
 another as He left (Aug. Quxst. Evang. ii. 48). 4. One was healed as He entered 
 and one as He left; and Mt. combines the first with the second (even Neander 
 inclines to this, Z. 7. C. § 236, note). 5. There were two Jerichos, Old and 
 New, and Lk. means that Jesus was approaching New Jericho, Mt. and Mk. 
 that He was leaving Old Jericho (Macknight), although there is no evidence 
 that Old Jericho was still inhabited, or that ‘‘ Jericho” without epithet could at 
 this time mean anything but the city which was given by Antony to Cleopatra, 
 and afterwards redeemed by Herod the Great (Jos. Amz. xv. 4. 2, 4). See 
 Stanley, Sz#. & Pal. p. 310; also some good remarks by Sadler on Mk. x. 46, 
 to the effect that “‘the inspiration of the Evangelists did not extend to minutiz 
 
430 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XVIIL 35-38. 
 
 of this sort” ; and by Harvey Goodwin against forced explanations (Gosf. of 
 S. Luke, p. 311, Bell, 1865). 6. See below on ver. 35. The narrative of Mk., 
 who gives the name Bartimzeus and other details, is probably the most exact of 
 the three. See Wsctt. utr. to the Gospels, ch. vii. p. 367, 7th ed. 
 
 The attempts of Hitzig and Keim to use the name, which in Syriac may per- 
 haps mean ‘‘son of the blind,” to discredit the whole narrative, are rightly con- 
 demned by Weiss (Z. /. ii. p. 439, Eng. tr. iii. p. 222). Strauss suggests that 
 the name comes from ézrerluwy (ver. 39; Mk. x. 48) and émertunoe (Mt. xx. 31) 
 (Z. J. §71, p. 429, 1864). For other possible meanings see Lightfoot, Hor. 
 Heb. ad loc. 
 
 35. év To eyyilew adriv eis “leperxd. The translation, “When 
 He was not far from Jericho,” z.e..as He had just left it (Grotius, 
 Nosgen), is perhaps the worst device for harmonizing Lk. with 
 Mt. and Mk. The meaning of éyyi€ew is decisive; and there is 
 the «is in addition. Both Herod the Great and Archelaus had 
 beautified and enlarged Jericho, which at this time must have pre- 
 sented a glorious appearance (D.4.? art. Jericho”). It was here 
 that Herod had died his horrible death (Jos. B. /. i. 33. 6, 7). 
 Note the characteristic éyé€vero and év 74 ¢. infin. See on iii. 21, 
 and comp. 2 Sam. xv. 5. 
 
 In class. Grk. éyylfew is not common, and usually has the dat. In bibl. 
 Grk. it is very frequent; sometimes with dat., esp. in the phrase éyylfewv ro 
 @e@ (Jas. iv. 8; Exod. xix. 22; Lev. x. 3; Is. xxix, 13, etc.); sometimes 
 with mpés (Gen. xlv. 4, xlviii. 10; Exod. xix. 21, etc.) ; and also with els 
 (xix. 29, xxiv. 28; Mt. xxi. 1; Mk. xi. 1; Tob. vi. 10, xi. 1). In N.T. 
 éyylfew is always intrans. 
 
 For érarav (8 B D L, Orig.) AP Q Rete. have rposarrév. Comp. xvi. 3. 
 
 836. dxXou Statropevopévouv. The caravan of pilgrims going up to 
 the Passover. See on vi. 1 and on xi. 29; also Edersh. Ast. of 
 J. N. p. 255, ed. 1896. Leaving His place of retirement (Jn. 
 xi. 54, 55), Jesus had joined this caravan ; and it is probable that 
 He came to Jericho in order to do so. The crowd was there, 
 according to all three narratives, defore the miracle took place. 
 This shows how untenable is the view of Keim, Holtzmann, and 
 Weiss, that Lk. has purposely transferred the healing from the 
 departure to the entry in order to account for the crowd at the 
 meeting with Zaccheeus (xix. 3): the miracle produced the crush 
 of people. But according to Lk. himself the crowd was there 
 before the miracle. 
 
 énuvOdvero th etn todtTo. In N.T. rvuv@dvopae is almost 
 peculiar to Lk. (xv. 26, where see note; Acts iv. 7, x. 18, 29, etc.) 
 Omitting av with NABP etc. against DKLMQRX, “He 
 enquired what this was,” not “ what this possibly might be.” Mt. 
 it; 4S Jue ivi 52: 
 
 37. For dmfyyetAav see on viii. 20; for Nafwpatos see on iv. 34 
 (Mk. here has Naapyvds, and Mt. omits the epithet); and for 
 wapépxerat see ON Vil. 4. 
 
XVIII. 88-48.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 43! 
 
 88. éBoncev. Comp. ix. 38, xvii. 13. 
 
 vié Aaveid’. This shows that he recognizes Jesus as the 
 Messiah (Mt. ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xxi. 9, 15). It is not this which 
 the multitude resent, but the interruption: comp. v. 15. They 
 regard him as an ordinary beggar, asking for money. And Jesus 
 was perhaps teaching as He went. Mk. tells us how the attitude 
 of the people changed towards him, when they saw that Jesus had 
 decided to listen to him. See Gould on Mk. x. 47. 
 
 89. otyjon. Excepting Rom. xvi. 25 and 1 Cor. xiv. 28, 30, 34, 
 the verb is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ix. 36, xx. 26 ; Acts xii. 17, xv. 
 12,13). Mt.and Mk. have ow7év, which 8 A Q R, Orig. read here. 
 
 éxpafey. Note the change of verb and tense from é@éyoe. 
 While Bodw is specially an intelligent cry for help, xpafw is often an 
 instinctive cry or scream, a loud expression of strong emotion. In 
 class. Grk. xpaZw is often used of the cries of animals. The two 
 words are sometimes joined (Dem. De Cor. p. 271; Aristoph. 
 Plut. 722). Mt. and Mk. have xpaw in both places, and Mt. has 
 the aor. in both. The man’s persistency is evidence of his faith, 
 which Christ recognizes. 
 
 40. orafets. See on ver. 11: the others have ords. Excepting 
 in Mt. and Acts, where the verb is common, xeAevw occurs here 
 only in N.T. In LXX it is found only in the Apocrypha. Mk. 
 here describes the man’s casting away! his iuarioy and leaping up 
 to come to Jesus, when the people had passed on to him Christ’s 
 command. Christ’s making those who had rebuked him to be the 
 bearers of His invitation to him is to be noted. 
 
 With the constr., éyyloavros avrov . . . atrév instead of éyylcayra, comp. 
 xii, 36, xv. 20, xvii, 12, xxii. 10, 53; Acts iv. 1, xxi. 17. 
 
 41. Ti cot Akers trorjow; Not that Jesus gives him carte 
 blanche (Godet) to have anything that he likes; but that He will 
 make clear to the multitude that this is no ordinary beggar, but 
 one who has faith to ask to be healed. For the constr. see 
 on ix. 54. Both Mt. (xiv. 19, xx. 34) and Lk. (xix. 5) use dva- 
 BAeww in both senses, “look up” and “recover sight.” 
 
 42. | wiotts cov. The multitude had called Jesus “the 
 Nazarene,” and had tried to silence the blind man. He had called 
 Him the “Son of David,” and had persevered all the more. Mt. 
 says that Jesus touched the eyes, but omits these words. Comp. 
 Vil. 50, Vili. 48, xvii. I9. 
 
 43. mapaxpiya. Mk. has ei@vs: comp. v. 25, vili. 44, 55; 
 xxii. 60. Lk. alone records that the man glorified God, and that 
 the people followed his example ; comp. ix. 43. The poetical word 
 aivos is not rare in LXX, but occurs in N.T. only here and in a - 
 
 1 Tn Syr-Sin. Timai Bar-Timai ‘‘ rose and ‘ook up his garment, and came to 
 Jesus.” Comp. Jn. xxi. 7. 
 
432 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIx. 1, % 
 
 quotation from Ps. viii. 2 in Mt. xxi. 16. With afvoy dddva comp. 
 ddgar diddvac (xvii. 18; Rom. iv. 20; Rev. iv. g). 
 
 It is worth while to collect together the characteristics of Lk.’s style which 
 are very conspicuous in this section, especially when it is compared with Mt. 
 and Mk. In ver. 35 we have éyévero, év T@c. infin., and érattGy (only 
 here and xvi. 3); in ver. 36, duamopevomévov (vi. I, xiii. 22) and éruvOdvero 
 (xv. 26); in ver. 37, dmajyyerday (vill. 20) and mapépxerae (vii. 4); in 
 ver. 38, €Bdycep (ili. 4, ix. 38, xviii. 38); in ver. 39, ovyjon (ix. 36, xx. 26) 
 and atrés; in ver. 43, mapaxphma (v. 25) and mas (vii. 35, xi. 4). In all 
 these cases, either other expressions are used by Mt. and Mk., or they omit the 
 idea which Lk. thus expresses. 
 
 XIX. 1-10. §The Visit to Zacchzeus, the Tax-collector of 
 Jericho. The on other grounds improbable conjecture, that we 
 have here a distorted variation of the Call of Matthew, the Tax- 
 collector of Capernaum, is excluded by the fact that Lk. has 
 recorded that event (v. 27-32). Even if the two narratives were 
 far more similar than they are, there would be no good reason for 
 doubting that two such incidents had taken place. The case of 
 Zacchzeus illustrates the special doctrine of this Gospel, that no 
 one is excluded from the invitation to the Kingdom of God. The 
 source from which Lk. obtained the narrative seems to have been 
 Aramaic. In time it is closely connected with the preceding 
 section. 
 
 1. Sinpxeto Thy “lepexd. ‘‘ He was passing through Jericho,” and 
 the meeting took place inside the city. For the verb see on ii. 15, 
 and for the constr. comp. ii. 35; Acts xii. 10, xiii. 6, xiv. 24, etc. 
 Apparently the meeting with Zacchzeus was what detained Him in 
 Jericho: otherwise He would have gone through without staying : 
 comp. xxiv. 28. 
 
 2. dvopatt kadovpevos Zaxxatos. For the dat. comp. i. 61. The 
 name, which means “ pure,” shows him to have been a Jew: Ezra 
 ii. 9; Neh. vii. 14. Tertullian says, Zaccheus, etst allophylus, for- 
 tasse tamen aliqua notitia scripturarum ex commercio Judaico affiatus 
 (Adv. Marcion. iv. 37. 1). But the Jews murmured because Jesus 
 lodged with a man that was a sinner. They would have said a 
 heathen, if it had been true. See below on ver. 9. The Clementines 
 make Zacchzus a companion of Peter, who appoints him, much 
 against his wish, to be bishop of Czsarea (Hom. iii. 63; Ltecog. 
 iii. 66); and the Afost. Const. say that he was succeeded by 
 Cornelius (vii. 46). Clem. Alex. says he was identified with 
 Matthias (.S¢rom. iv. 6. p. 579). The Talmud mentions a Zacchzeus 
 who lived at Jericho and was father of the celebrated Rabbi 
 Jochanan. He might be of the same family as this Zacchzus. 
 The use of avyp here (comp. i. 27, viii. 41, xxiii. 50) rather than 
 avOpwrros (comp. ii. 25, vi. 6) perhaps is no mark of dignity: see 
 ver. 7. 
 
XIX. 2-4] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 433 
 
 kal adtés Hv GpxiteAdvns Kat abtds mAovcos. Note the double 
 kal av7os, and see on v. 14 and vi 20, 
 
 The second xal adrés (BK UTI, Vulg.) is doubtful: om. D, de; xat ores 
 fv (AQR); kat qv (8 L, Boh. Goth.). The last may be right. 
 
 épxirehvns. This is evidently an official title, and means 
 more than that Zacchzeus was a very rich tax-collector (Didon). 
 Had that been the meaning, we should have 67 or yap instead of 
 kai, Perhaps we may render, “‘Commissioner of Taxes.” The 
 word occurs nowhere else, and the precise nature of the office can- 
 not be ascertained. Probably he was intermediate between the 
 portitores and the publicant, and by the Romanus would have been 
 called magister. Jericho, as a large frontier city, through which 
 much of the carrying trade passed, and which had a large local 
 trade in costly balsams, would be a likely place for a commissioner 
 of taxes. This is the sixth notice of the tax-collectors, all favour- 
 able, in this Gospel (ili. 12, v. 27, Vil. 29, XV. I, XVili. 10). 
 
 8. é{yte iSeiv. Not like Herod (xxiii. 8), but like the Greeks 
 (Jn. xii. 21). He had heard of Him, and perhaps as mixing freely 
 with publicans and sinners. ama notum vultu noscere cupiebat 
 (Grotius). For the indic. after ris dependent comp. Acts xxi. 33. 
 
 oUK €dUvato amd Tod OxAou. The multitude was the source of the 
 hindrance. Comp. xxi. 26, xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14, xxii. 113; Jn. 
 xxl. 6; Heb. v. 7. His being unable to free himself from the 
 throng is not the meaning of the dé. In class. Grk. we should 
 have ova with acc. For Auta see on ii. 52. 
 
 4. cis 16 EumpooOev. Strengthens the zpodpaywy. He ran on 
 to that part of the city which was in front of Christ’s route. There 
 is nothing to show that he wished to Ade, and that Christ’s call to 
 him was like His making the woman with the issue disclose her 
 act (Trench). On the other hand, there is no evidence that he 
 braved the derision of the crowd. We may say, however, that no 
 thought of personal dignity or propriety deterred him from his 
 purpose. 
 
 TR. omits «ls 76, which is sufficiently attested by NBL, frocessit in 
 priore et (e), antecedens ab ante (d), D having rpodaBdv for rpodpapsvy. 
 
 cuxopopeay. “A fig-mulberry,” quite a different tree from the 
 fig and the mulberry and the common sycomore. Its fruit is like 
 the fig, and its leaf like the mulberry, and hence the name. The 
 ov«apvos Of xvii. 6 is commonly held to be the mulberry, but 
 may be another name for the fig-mulberry, as Groser thinks. The 
 fig-mulberry “«ecalls the English oak, and its shade is most pleas- 
 ing. It is consequently a favourite wayside tree. . . . It is very 
 easy to climb, with its short trunk, and its wide lateral branches 
 forking out in all directions” (Tristram, Wat. Hist. of B. p. 398). 
 
 28 
 
434 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING [fo S. LUKE [XIx.4-8. 
 
 The MSS. vary much, but all early uncials except A have -opéa and not 
 sHopala ; and -uopéa is much better attested than -uwpéa or -uwpala. The 
 common form is cuxdpopos. 
 
 With éxelvys se. 6500 comp. molas, v. 19. 
 
 For the sudden change of subject, dvéBy .. . fueAXev, comp. xiv. 5, 
 xv, I5, xvii. 2; and for the subjunctive after a past tense, dvéBy... Iva t5y, 
 comp. vi. 7, xviii. 15, 39; Jn. iv. 8, vii. 32. 
 
 5. Zaxxate. There is no need to assume that Jesus had super- 
 natural knowledge of the name: Jn. iv. 17, 18 is not parallel. 
 Jesus might hear the people calling to Zacchzeus, or might enquire. 
 And He seems not to use His miraculous power of knowledge 
 when He could obtain information in the usual way (Mk. viii. 5; 
 Jn. xi. 34). The explanation that He thereby showed Zacchzus 
 that He knew all about him, is not adequate. Would Zacchzeus 
 have inferred this from being addressed by name? 
 
 omrevoas katéByO. He had made haste to see Christ: he must 
 make haste to receive Him. <Accepit plus quam sperabat, qui, quod 
 
 otuit, fecit (Maldon.). As in the case of Nathanael (Jn. i. 47), 
 Feces knew the goodness of the man’s heart. Here supernatural 
 knowledge, necessary for Christ’s work, is quite in place. For 
 omevoew see on ii. 16. 
 
 onpepov yap év TH oikw gov. First, with emphasis. ‘‘ This very 
 day; in thy Zouse.” For Set of the Divine counsels see on iv. 43. 
 Taken in conjunction with xaradtoa (ver. 7), petvar possibly means 
 “to pass the night.” But neither word necessarily means staying 
 for more than a long rest. 
 
 7. mdvtes Si€yoyyutov. Note the characteristic rdvres, and 
 comp. v. 30, xv. 2. It was not jealousy, but a sense of outraged 
 propriety, which made them all murmur. 
 
 Napa dpaptwhd. First, with emphasis. They allude, not to the 
 personal character of Zacchzus, but to his calling. For apa 
 unelided before a vowel see small print on xviii. 27, and Gregory, 
 Prolegom. p. 95. 
 
 katahicat. Only here and ix. 12 in N.T. has xaradvw the 
 classical meaning of “loosing one’s garments and resting from a 
 journey”: comp. Gen. xix. 2, xxiv. 23, 25; Ecclus. xiv. 25, 27, 
 xxxvi. 31. Elsewhere in N.T. it means “throw down, destroy” 
 (xxi. 6; Acts v. 38, vi. 14, etc.). 
 
 8. orafets. Perhaps indicates a set attitude: see on xviii. 11. 
 It is a solemn act done with formality. The narrative represents - 
 this declaration as the immediate result of personal contact with 
 the goodness of Christ. He is overwhelmed by Christ’s con- 
 descension in coming to him, and is eager to make a worthy- 
 acknowledgment. That he was stung by the reproach 7apa duap- 
 tw\@G avépi, and wished to prove that he was not so great a sinner, 
 is less probable. The d¢ does not show that Zacchzeus is answer- 
 ing his accusers, but that Lk. contrasts his conduct with theirs. 
 
XIX. 8.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 435 
 
 The solemn declaration is addressed mpés tv xUptov, not to them ; 
 and the “I8od with which it begins indicates a sudden resolution, 
 rather than one which had been slowly reached. 
 
 7a jpica. ‘MSS. clearly certify to 7a qulova (L alone has julcea), 
 apparently from a form juloos, against rad qusov and still more against 7a 
 tion: this peculiar form occurs in an inscription from Selinus in Cilicia 
 (C.Z.G. 4428)” WH. ii. App. p. 158. But editors are much divided. 
 Lach. quicea, Treg. Tisch. and Weiss juloea, TR. and RV. julon, WH. 
 tuto. May not julcea and jylora be mere mistakes for juloea, and juicy 
 be a supposed improvement? The neut. plur. depends upon the neut. plur. 
 of ry bxapxyévtwr. Comp. Tay vicwy tas juloeas (Hdt. ii. 10. 4); of qulcas 
 tov dprwv (Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 4). For ta trdpxovta see on viii. 3. 
 
 SiSwpe tots mrwxois. “I hereby give to the poor”: it is an act 
 done there and then. The present tense might mean “I am in 
 the habit of giving” (Godet) ; but this is not likely. For (1) this 
 makes Zacchzus a boaster; (2) tév trapxdvtwy has to be inter- 
 preted “income,” whereas its natural meaning is “that which one 
 has possessed all along, capital”; (3) drodidwys must follow dup, 
 and it is improbable that Zacchzus was in the habit of making 
 fourfold restitution for zxadvertent acts of injustice ; and a man so 
 scrupulous as to restore fourfold would not often commit acts of 
 deliberate injustice. Standing in Christ’s presence, he solemnly 
 makes over half his great wealth to the poor, and with the other 
 half engages to make reparation to those whom he has defrauded. 
 So Iren. Tertul. Ambr. Chrys. Euthym. Theoph. Maldon. etc. 
 Aug. and Euthym. suggest that he kept one half, not to possess 
 it, but to have the means of restitution. That he left all and 
 became a follower of Christ (Ambr.) is not implied, but may 
 eventually have taken place. 
 
 €l Tivos Tt €ouxoddvtnca, The indic. shows that he is not in 
 doubt about past malpractices: ‘if, as I know is the case, I have,” 
 etc. Comp. Rom. v. 17; Col. ii. 20, iii. 1. For cuxogartety see 
 on iii. 14, the only other place in N.T. in which the verb occurs: 
 in LXX it is not rare. The constr. reds 7 is on the analogy of 
 dzrootepety and similar verbs. 
 
 GrodiS8wpr tetpamhody. This was almost the extreme penalty 
 imposed by the Law, when a man was compelled to make repara- 
 tion for a deliberate act of destructive robbery (Exod. xxii. 1; 
 2 Sam. xii. 6). But sevenfold was sometimes exacted (Prov. vi. 31). 
 If the stolen property had not been consumed, double was to be 
 paid (Exod. xxii. 4, 7). When the defrauder confessed and made 
 voluntary restitution, the whole amount stolen, with a fifth added, 
 was sufficient (Lev. vi. 5; Num. v. 7). Samuel promises only 
 simple restitution if anything is proved against him (1 Sam. xii. 3). 
 Zacchzus is willing to treat his exactions as if they had been de- 
 structive robberies. In thus stripping himself of the chief part 
 
436 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIx. 8, D. 
 
 even of his honestly gained riches he illustrates xviii. 27. Zcce 
 enim camelus, deposita gibbi sarcina, per foramen acus transit, hoc 
 est dives et publicanus, relicto onere divitiarum, contempto sensu 
 fraudium, angustam portam arctamque viam que ad vitam ducit 
 ascenait (Bede). 
 
 9. mpds aitéy. Although Christ uses the third person, this 
 probably means “unto him” (Mey. Hahn) rather than “in refer- 
 ence to him” (Grot. Nosg. Godet): see on xviii. 9. Ewald reads 
 mpos avrdv, like zpos éautdv, xvili. 11, as if Jesus were thinking 
 aloud. 
 
 To avoid the difficulty some texts have the plur. pds adrovs (R), ad ellos 
 (abc ff,ils), and some omit (de, Cypr.). Some MSS. of Vulg. have ad eos 
 or a z/los for ad eum. 
 
 St. Enpepov. The ore is merely recitative and is not to be 
 translated. The oypepoy confirms the view that dows and azo- 
 diSwyu refer to a present resolve and not to a past practice. 
 
 cotnpia ... eyéveto. A favourite constr. with Lk. See on 
 iv. 36. Only on this occasion did Jesus offer Himself as a guest, 
 although He sometimes accepted invitations. Just as it was toa 
 despised schismatic (Jn. iv. 26), and to a despised outcast from 
 the synagogue (Jn. ix. 37), that He made a spontaneous revelation 
 of His Messiahship, so it is a despised tax-collector that He selects 
 for this spontaneous visit. In each case He knew that the re- 
 cipient had a heart to welcome His gift: and it is in this welcome, 
 and not in the mere visit, that the owrnp/a consisted.! 
 
 That 16 otkw rtodtw is said rather than 7@ avdpi rovrw probably 
 means that the blessing extends to the whole household; rather 
 than that Jesus is alluding to the hospitality which He has received 
 under this roof. In any case it is to be noted that it is the house 
 which has suddenly lost half its wealth, and not the poor who have 
 the promise of abundant alms, that Jesus declares to have received 
 a blessing. To this occasion we may apply, and possibly to this 
 occasion belongs, the one saying of Christ which is not recorded 
 in the Gospels, and which we yet know to have been His, “It is 
 more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). 
 
 kaQot. kal adtds vids “ABpadp. This is conclusive as to Z. 
 being a Jew. The words cannot be understood exclusively in a 
 spiritual sense, as Cyprian seems to take them (Zf. Ixiii. 4, ed. 
 Hartel). Chrysostom points out the moral sonship: Abraham 
 offered his heir to the Lord, Zacchzeus his inheritance. Comp. 
 xiii. 16, and see Weiss, Z. /. ii. p. 438, Eng. tr. iii. p. 221. For 
 xaQdétt, which is peculiar to Lk., see small print on i. 7. The 
 meaning is that he also, as much as any one else, is an Israelite. 
 
 1In the Roman Church this verse is part of the gospel in the service for the 
 dedication of churches. : 
 
XIX. 9,10.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 437 
 
 “ His detested calling has not cancelled his birthright. My visit 
 to him, and his receiving salvation, are entirely in harmony with 
 the Divine Will” (ver. 5). 
 
 10. #\Gev. First with emphasis: “ He came for this very pur 
 pose.” The ydép explains cwrgpia éyévero: salvation to such as Z. 
 is the object of His Epiphany. For the neut. of a collective whole, 
 76 d@mokwhds, comp. Jn. vi. 37, xvil. 2, 24; and for the thought, 
 Lk. xv. 6, 9, 32; Ezek. xxxiv. 16. The expression is no evidence 
 that Zacchzus was a heathen. Comp. 1a droAwAdra oixov Iopayh 
 (Mt. x. 6, xv. 24). - 
 
 11-28. § The Parable of the Pounds. It is probable that this 
 is distinct from the Parable of the Talents (Mt. xxv. 14-30 ; comp. 
 Mk. xiii. 34-36). It is more likely that Jesus should utter some- 
 what similar parables on different occasions than that Mt. or Lk. 
 should have made very serious confusion as to the details of the 
 parable as well as regards the time and place of its delivery. 
 
 Here Jesus is approaching Jerusalem, but has not yet entered it in triumph: 
 apparently he is still in Jericho. In Mt. He is on the Mount of Olives a day 
 or two after the triumphal entry. Here He addresses a mixed company pub- 
 licly. In Mt. He is speaking privately to His disciples (xxiv. 3). Besides the 
 difference in detail where the two narratives are parallel, there is a great deal in 
 Lk. which is not represented in Mt. at all. The principal items are: (1) the 
 introduction, ver. 11; (2) the high birth of the chief agent and his going into a 
 far country to receive for himself a kingdom, ver. 12; (3) his citizens hating him 
 and sending an ambassage after him to repudiate him, ver. 14; (4) the signal 
 vengeance taken upon these enemies, ver. 27; (5) the conclusion, ver. 28. 
 Strauss supposes that Lk. has mixed up two parables, the Parable of the Pounds, 
 which is only another version of the Parable of the Talents in Mt., and another 
 which might be called the Parable of the Rebellious Citizens, consisting of 
 vv. 12, 14, 15, 27. Without denying the possibility of this hypothesis, one may 
 assert that it is unnecessary. As regards the Talents and the Pounds, Chrysos- 
 tom pronounces them to be distinct, while Augustine implies that they are so, 
 for he makes no attempt to harmonize them in his De Consensu Evangelistarum. 
 Even in the parts that are common to the two parables the differences are very 
 considerable. (1) In the Talents we have a householder leaving home for a 
 time, in the Pounds a nobleman going in quest of a crown; (2) the Talents 
 are unequally distributed, the Pounds equally; (3) the sums entrusted differ 
 enormously in amount; (4) in the Talents the rewards are the same, in the 
 Pounds they differ and are proportionate to what has been gained ; (5) in the 
 Talents the unprofitable servant is severely punished, in the Pounds he is merely 
 deprived of his pound. Out of about 302 words in Mt. and 286 in Lk., cnly 
 about 66 words or parts of words are common to the two. An estimate of the 
 probabilities on each side seems to be favourable to the view that we have 
 accurate reports of two different parables, and not two reports of the same 
 parable, one of which, if not both, must be very inaccurate. And, while both 
 
 rables teach that we must make good use of the gifts entrusted to us, that in 
 t. refers to those gifts which are unequally distributed, that in Lk. to those in 
 which all share alike. See Wright, Syzopszs, § 138, p. 127. 
 
 The lesson of the parable before us is twofold. To the disciples 
 of all classes it teaches the necessity of patiently waiting and 
 actively working for Christ until He comes again. To the /ews it 
 
o 
 
 438 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX 10, 11. 
 
 gives a solemn warning respecting the deadly opposition which 
 they are now exhibiting, and which will be continued even after 
 His departure. There will be heavy retribution for those who 
 persistently reject their lawfully appointed King, This portion of 
 the parable is of special interest, because there is little doubt that 
 it was suggested by contemporary history. Herod the Great, ap- 
 pointed procurator of Galilee by Julius Czesar B.c. 47 and tetrarch 
 by Antony B.c. 41, went to Rome B.c. 40 to oppose the claims of 
 Antigonus, and was made king of Judzea by the senate (Jos. Azz. 
 XIV. 7. 3, 9. 2, 13. 1, 14.4; B. J. i. 14. 4). His son Archelaus 
 in like manner went to Rome to obtain the kingdom which his 
 father, by a change in his will, had left to him instead of to Antipas. 
 The Jews revolted and sent an ambassage of fifty to oppose him 
 at Rome. Augustus, after hearing them and the Jews on the spot, 
 confirmed Herod’s will, but did not allow Archelaus the title of 
 king until he had proved his worthiness. This he never did; but 
 he got his “kingdom” with the title of ethnarch (Azz. xvii. 8. 1, 
 9. 3, 11.4; B./. ii. 6. 1, 3). All this had taken place B.c. 4, in 
 which year Antipas also went to Rome to urge his own claims 
 against those of Archelaus. His more famous attempt to obtain 
 the title of king did not take place until after this, and cannot be 
 alluded to here. The remarkable feature of the opposing embassy 
 makes the reference to Archelaus highly probable; and Jericho, 
 which he had enriched with buildings, would suggest his case as 
 an illustration. But the reference is by some held to be fictitious, 
 by others is made a reason for suspecting that the author of this 
 detail is not Christ but the Evangelist (Weiss). 
 
 11. *Axoudvtav 8¢ aitav taita. These words connect the parable 
 closely with what precedes. The scene is still Jericho, in or near 
 the house of Zacchzeus ; and, as taita seems to refer to the saying 
 about owrnpia (vv. 9, 10), attav probably refers to the disciples 
 and those with Zaccheus. The belief that the Kingdom was close 
 at hand, and that Jesus was now going in triumph to Jerusalem, 
 was probably general among those who accompanied Him, and 
 the words just uttered might seem to confirm it. “ But because 
 they heard these things” (Mey.) is, however, not quite the mean- 
 ing: rather, “Azd as they heard” (AV. RV.) ; Zee zllis audientibus 
 (Vulg.). 
 
 Here Cod. Bezae has one of its attempts to reproduce the gen. abs. in 
 Latin: audzentium autem eorum ; comp. iii. 15, ix. 43, xxi. 5, 26, etc. 
 
 mpoobels etrev mapaBodyv. Not, “ He spoke, and added a par- 
 able” to what He spoke; but, “ He added and spoke a parable” 
 in connexion with what had preceded. Joris est Domino, pre- 
 missum sermonem parabolis adfirmare suljectis (Bede). It is a 
 Hebraistic construction: comp. Gen. xxxvili. 5 ; Job xxix. 1; Gen. 
 
XIX. 11-18.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 439 
 
 xxv. 1. In Lk. xx. 11, 12; Acts xii. 3; Gen. iv. 2, viii. 12 we 
 have another form of the same idiom, zpocéOero wéuyat, etc. See 
 also on vi. 39 for etwev tmapaBohip. 
 
 The Latin equivalents are interesting: addidit dicens (a), adjectt et aixtt 
 (e), addidit dicere (s), adjictens dixit (Vulg.). See also xx. II. 
 
 81d. 78 €yyds etvar I. About six hours’ march ; 150 stades (Jos. 
 B. J. iv. 8. 3), or about 18 miles. The goal was almost in sight ; 
 the arrival could not be much longer delayed. 
 
 Tapaxpyipa padre. . . dvadaivesdo. It is against this that 
 the parable is specially “directed. The Messiah was there; ; 
 Jerusalem was only a few hours distant; the inauguration of the 
 Kingdom must be imminent: Tapaxpny.a is placed first with 
 emphasis. The péAAc, “is sure to,” and dvadaivecbau, “come to 
 view,” are both appropriate: they believed that they werecertain 
 of a glorious pageant. Comp. Acts i. 6. 
 
 12. edyevjs. In a literal sense here and 1 Cor. i. 26; comp. 
 Jobi. 3: ina figurative sense Acts xvil. II; comp. 4 Mac. Vi. 5, 
 1x. 23, 27. The paxpdv, which is probably an adj. as in xv. 13, 
 has obvious reference to zapaypyjya: the distance would exclude 
 an immediate return. Note the res. 
 
 AaBeiv éaute Baowheiav. If we had not the illustrations from 
 contemporary history, this would be a surprising feature in the 
 parable. He is a vassal of high rank going to a distant suzerain 
 to obtain royal authority over his fellow-vassals. For smootpépat 
 see small print on i. 56; it tells us that the desired BacwAcia is at 
 the starting point, not at a distance. 
 
 18. He plans that, during his absence, servants of his private 
 household shall be tested, with a view to their promotion when he 
 is appointed to be king. 
 
 Séxa Sovdous éautod. ‘Ten bond-servants of his own.” It 
 does not follow, because we have not déxa ray 6. adrod, that he had 
 only ten slaves. This would require rots 6. 6. and would be very 
 improbable; for an Oriental noble would have scores of slaves. 
 The point of éavrod (? “his Aousehold slaves”) is, that among them, 
 if anywhere, he would be likely to find fidelity to his interests. 
 As he merely wishes to test them, the sum committed to each is 
 small,—about £4. In the Talents the householder divides the 
 whole of his property (ra tzdpxovra atrod), and hence the sums 
 entrusted to each slave are very large. 
 
 Npaypatevcacbe, ‘Carry on business,” especially as a banker 
 or a trader: here only in N.T., and in LXX only Dan. viii. 27 and 
 some texts of 1 Kings ix. 19. Vulg. has negotiamini (not occupate), 
 which Wic. renders “chaffare.” The “occupy” of Rhem. and 
 AV. comes from Cov. and Cran., while Tyn. has “buy and sell.” 
 We have a similar use of “ occupy” Ezek. xxvii. 9, 16, 19, 21, 22, 
 
440 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 18-17. 
 
 where Vulg. has xegotiatio and negotiator: comp. “occupy their 
 business in great waters” (Ps. cvii. 23). 
 
 Latimer exhibits the same use of ‘‘ occupy”; and in a letter of Thomas 
 Cromwell to Michael Throgmorton, A.D. 1537, he calls Pole ‘‘a merchant and 
 occupier of all deceits” (Froude, As. of Eng. ch. xiv.). ‘Occupy till I 
 come” is now misunderstood to mean ‘‘ keep possession till I come.” 
 
 WH. are alone in reading mpayyaredcacGar here. All other editors make 
 the verb 2nd pers. plur. imper. not infin. WH. regard the decision difficult 
 both here and xiv. 17, but prefer the infin. here as ‘‘justified by St. Luke’s 
 manner of passing from ovatzo obléqgua to oratio recta” (ii. p. 309). 
 
 év 6 €pxopat. ‘‘ During the time in which I am coming,” z.e. the time 
 until the return. For épyoua in the sense of ‘‘come back” comp. Jn. iv. 16 
 and esp. xxi. 22, 23. The meaning ‘‘to be on the journey” (Oosterz. 
 Godet) is impossible for épxec@ar. The reading éws (TR. with E etc.) is an 
 obvious correction of év @ (NA BDKLR etc.). 
 
 14. While the dodo represent the disciples, the zoAtra: repre- 
 sent the Jews. The Jews hated Jesus without cause, éuionoav pe 
 Swpedv (Jn. xv. 25; Ps. Ixviii. 5): but they had reason enough for 
 hating Archelaus, who had massacred about 3000 of them at the 
 first Passover after his accession (Azz. xvii. 9. 3; B./. ii. 1. 3). 
 
 Od O€dopev todtov. They state no reasons: stat pro ratione 
 voluntas. The rtovrov is contemptuous (¢stwm), or at least ex- 
 presses alienation: ‘“‘he is no man of ours.”” So the Jews, of Christ. 
 
 15. For Kai éyévero . . . kal eimev see note p. 45, and for ev ta 
 émavehQetv see on iii. 21. The double compound occurs only here 
 and x. 35 in N.T. Comp. éravdyev (v. 3, 4). Both verbs occur 
 in LXX. 
 
 tods Souhous TouTous ofs. This implies that he had other slaves 
 to whom nothing had been entrusted. 
 
 tva yvot. For this form comp. Mk. v. 43 and ix. 30. TR. with A etc. 
 has yvq@ in all three places. The zis after yvot (A R, Syrr. Arm. Goth. Vulg.) 
 is not genuine: om. § BD L, Boh. Aeth. de. 
 
 ti Stempaypatevcavto. ‘What business they had done”: here 
 only in bibl. Grk. In Dion. Hal. ili. 72, it means “attempt to 
 execute.” He wants to know the vesw/¢ of their trafficking. But 
 the word does not assume that they have “gained by trading” 
 (AV. RV.); and hence xegotiatus esse¢ (Vulg.) is better than 
 lucratus esset (f). 
 
 16. 4 pva cou mpoonpydcato. “Thy pound worked out in 
 addition, won”: modeste lucrum acceptum fert herili pecuniz, non 
 industria suz (Grot.). Comp. ovk eya d& GAXa % xdpis Tod Bcov 
 [4] oiv uot (1 Cor. xv. 10): see also 1 Cor. iv. 7. The verb 
 occurs here only in bibl. Grk. Comp. Mt. xxv. 16. 
 
 17. edye. In replies approving what has been said this is classical ; but 
 the reading is doubtful: edye (BD, Latt., Orig. Ambr.), e#, possibly from 
 Mt. xxv. 21 (NAR etc., Syrt.). 
 
XIX. 17-21.] JOURNEYINGS TOWAKDS JERUSALEM 441 
 
 év €haxiotw motos éyévov. “Thou didst prove faithful in a very 
 little”: comp. xvi. 10. The management of £4 was a small 
 matter. 
 
 torOt éEovctay €xwv. The periphrastic pres. imper. is not common in 
 N.T. Comp. Gen. i. 6; Bu‘on, §97. Lk. is probably translating: Mt. is 
 much more classical: éml mo\AGy oe KatTaoTyHow (xxv. 21). For étovclay 
 &xew comp. Mt. vii. 29. 
 
 18. With éroljcev mévre pvaGs comp. ei wh ef tis abrady dpyvpiov roret 
 (Plat Rep. ix. 581 C): pecuntam facere is fairly common. 
 
 19. éwdvw yivov. ‘Come to be over, be promoted over.” In 
 both cases the efficient servants “receive as their reward,—not 
 anything they can sit down to and enjoy,—but a wider sphere of 
 activity” (Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 320). Urbs pro mina; 
 mind ne tugurium quidem emeretur. Magna rerum amplitudo ac 
 varietas in regno Dei, gquamvis nondum cognita nobis (Beng.). 
 
 20. kalo étepos. The omission of the article in A and inferior 
 MSS. is a manifest correction to avoid a difficulty. As there were 
 ten servants, the third cannot rightly be spoken of as 6 €repos. 
 Weiss takes this as evidence that in the original parable there 
 were only three servants, as in the Talents; and therefore as 
 evidence that the two narratives represent the same original. But 
 it would have been tedious to have gone through all the ten, which 
 is around number, as in the Ten Virgins. The three mentioned 
 are samples of the whole ten. Some gained immensely, some con- 
 siderably, and some not at all. The two first classes having been 
 described, the representative of the remaining class may be spoken 
 of as 6 érepos, especially as he is of quite a different kind. They 
 both belong to the profitable division, he to the unprofitable. 
 
 fv etxov droxeupevyy. ‘Which I was keeping stored up.” He 
 is not owning a fault, but professing a virtue: “I have not lost or 
 spent any of it.” In Col. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Heb. ix. 27 the verb 
 is used of what is “stored up” and awaits us in the future: here 
 only in a literal sense. 
 
 govdapia, A Latinism: sadarvum (Acts xix. 12; Jn. xi. 44, xx. 7). 
 Comp. daodprov (xii. 6), Neyewv (viii. 30), Syvdpiov (x. 35), Kevtuplwy (Mk. 
 XV. 39), KodpavTys (Mt. v. 26), etc. 
 
 21. adotmpss. Here only in N.T. Comp. 2 Mac. xiv. 30, and 
 see Trench, Syz. xiv. The word originally means “rough to the 
 taste, stringent.” It is in this servant’s plea and in the reply to it 
 that the resemblance between the two parables of the Pounds and 
 of the Talents is closest. 
 
 Gipers 6 ok €OyKkas. Perhaps a current proverbial expression 
 for a grasping person. We need not decide whether he means, 
 “If I had gained anything, you would have taken it,” or, “If I 
 had lost it, you would have held me responsible.” The general 
 
442 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX 21-25. 
 
 sense is, “You are a strict man; and I have taken care that you 
 should get back the exact deposit, neither more nor less.” 
 
 22. kpivw oe. “Do I judge thee”; “ judico (f Vulg.), con- 
 demno (e). Most editors prefer xpwa, “will I judge” (AV. RV.); 
 judicabo (ad). But Tyn. has “judge I thee” and Luth. richte ich 
 dich. Hist. pres. (Aéyet, xiii. 8, xvi. 7, 29) is very rare in Lk. 
 
 The Latin Versions vary greatly in rendering rovnpé: znzgue (d), znjfideles 
 (eff,ir), crudelis (b), nequa et pager (f), infidels et piger (q), enfideles et male 
 (a), zeguam (Vulg.). Comp. Mt. xviii. 32. The szger comes from Mt. 
 xxv. 26, rovnpé dovAe Kal dxvnpé. 
 
 23. émi tpdmeLav. ‘On a banker’s table.” Here the inter- 
 rogation ends, and «day begins a declaratory sentence. It would 
 have been very little trouble to put it in a bank. There the 
 money would have been as safe as in the napkin, and would have 
 borne interest. 
 
 The often quoted saying, ‘‘Show yourselves tried bankers,” TiveoOe 
 Tpamefirat ddxtuor, may easily be a genuine utterance of Christ. But if it isa 
 mere adaptation, it comes from Mt. xxv. 27 rather than from Lk. See Resch, 
 Agrapha, pp. 118, 234; Wsctt. Zz. to Gosp. App. C. i 
 
 toka. In N.T. the word occurs only in these parables ; but is 
 freq. in LXX ; Deut. xxiii. 19; Lev. xxv. 36, 37; Exod. xxii. 25, 
 etc. The notion that money, being a dead thing, ought not to 
 breed (rexeiv, téKos), augmented the prejudice of the ancients 
 against interest. Aristotle condemns it as mapa ¢ivow (Pol. 
 i. I0. 4; comp. £7¢A. JVic. iv. 1. 40). Cicero represents Cato as 
 putting it on a level with murder (De Of. ii. 25. 89). “The 
 breed of barren metal” (Shaks.). 
 
 av aitd émpaga, The protasis is readily understood from the previous 
 question: comp. Heb. x. 2. For this use of rpdocew see on iii. 13. 
 
 24, tois mapeotacow. His attendants, or body-guard, or 
 courtiers: comp. 1 Kings x. 8; Esth. iv. 5. The man who had 
 proved most efficient in service is rewarded with an additional 
 sum with which to traffick for his sovereign. 
 
 25. The subject of <izav and the meaning of airé are un- 
 certain. The common interpretation is that ‘he attendants who 
 have received this order here express their surprise to ‘he master 
 who gave it; ze. the remonstrance is part of the parable. But it 
 is possible that Lk. is here recording an interruption on the part of 
 the audience, and thus lets us see with what keen interest they 
 have listened to the narrative. It is the audience who remonstrate 
 with Christ for giving the story sucha turn. They think that He 
 is spoiling the parable in assigning the unused pound to the 
 servant who has most and therefore seems to need it least (see on 
 xx. 15). But in any case the remonstrance serves to give point to 
 
XIX. 25-27.] JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM 443 
 
 the declaration which follows. Comp. Peter’s interruption and 
 Christ’s apparent ignoring of it xil. 41, 42 ; and again xviii. 28, 29. 
 In all the cases there is an indirect answer. A general principle is 
 stated which covers the point in question. 
 
 Bleek rejects ver. 25 as an interpolation: om. D 69, bde ff, q, Syr-Cur. 
 Syr-Sin. The difficulty might cause the omission. The insertion of ydp 
 after devo i in ver. 26 (ADR, Syrt. Goth.) is due to a similar cause. Both 
 omission and insertion may be influenced by Mt. xxv. 28, 29. 
 
 26. \éyw Spiv. Whose words are these? The answer will 
 partly depend upon the view taken of ver. 25. If the interruption 
 is made by the king’s attendants, then ver. 26, like ver. 24 and 
 ver. 27, gives the words of the king. But if the interruption 
 comes from Christ’s audience, then ver. 26 may be His reply to 
 the audience ; after which He finishes the parable with the king’s 
 words in ver. 27. The Ad€yw ipiy does not prove that Christ 
 is giving these words as His own: comp. xiv. 24. But in any 
 case, either in His own person or in that of the king in the 
 parable, Jesus is stating a principle which answers the objection 
 in ver. 25. In Mt. xxv. 29 this principle is uttered by the house- 
 holder in the parable without A€yw iptv. 
 
 dm 8€ tod ph exovros. With this apparent paradox comp. 
 vill. 18, when an unused gift is spoken of, not as 6 éye, but as 6 
 Soxet éyetv. He alone possesses, who uses and enjoys his pos- 
 sessions. 
 
 27. mAhv Tods €xOpovs pou tovTous. The rovrous represents the 
 enemies as present to the thoughts of the audience: comp. rovrous 
 in ver. 15. It is possible to take the pronoun with what follows, 
 as in Syr-Sin.: “Bring hither mine enemies, those who would 
 not,” etc. And this makes one more witness for the reading 
 éxeivovs (AD R etc., Latt. Syrr. Goth.), which almost all editors 
 reject as a correction of rovrous (SB K LMU, Aegyptt.). For 
 amAny comp. xviii. 8. 
 
 katacpdtate adtotds Eumpoobdv pov. Comp. éodatey LapoviAr 
 tov “Ayay éveitiov Kupiov (1 Sam. xv. 33). The punishment of 
 rebellious subjects and active opponents is far more severe than 
 that of neglectful servants. The compound xarac¢afw occurs 
 nowhere else in N.T., but is not rare in LXX. It means “hew 
 them down, slay them utterly.” The destruction of Jerusalem 
 and the doom of all who deliberately rebel against Christ are here 
 foreshadowed. Augustine more than once points to this sentence 
 in answer to the objection that the severe God of the O.T. cannot 
 be identical with the God of Love in the N.T. In the Gospels, as 
 in the Law, the severity of God’s judgments against wilful dis- 
 obedience is plainly taught. Comp. Con. Faust. xxii. 14. 19. 
 
 The nobleman, who goes on a long journey and returns a 
 
444. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 27, 28. 
 
 king, is Christ. He leaves behind Him servants of various 
 degrees of merit, and enemies. When the King returns, each of 
 these is rewarded or punished according to his deserts; and the 
 rewards are larger opportunities of service. There is no special 
 meaning in ten, which is a round number; nor in three, which 
 gives a sufficiently representative classification. And it may be 
 doubted whether there is any special meaning in the ¢vansfer of 
 the pound from the unprofitable to the most profitable servant. 
 The point is that zo neglect opportunities ts to lose them; and that 
 to make the most of opportunities ts to gain others. The main 
 lesson of the parable is the long period of Christ's absence, during 
 which there will be abundant time for both service and rebellion. 
 There is not to be, as the disciples fancied, zmmediate triumph and 
 joy for a//; but, first a long time of probation, and then triumph 
 and joy for those only who have earned them, and in exact pro- 
 portion to their merits. 
 
 28. Historical conclusion, corresponding to the historical intro- 
 duction in ver. 11. 
 
 €mopeveto eumpoodev. “He went on before.” Although the 
 aitév is not expressed, this probably means “in front of the 
 disciples”: comp. Mk. x. 32. But eurpoofev may = eis 76 Eumpoo- 
 Oev (ver. 4), aS é7icw=eis Ta driow (Mt. xxiv. 18): in which case 
 the meaning would be, “ He went forwards” from Jericho towards 
 Jerusalem. With dvaBatvwv comp. xaréBawver (x. 30) of the oppo- 
 site route. 
 
 D omits éurpooGev anda dhave simply zbat; c ff,ilqrs abzz, while Vulg. 
 has grecedebat. D inserts 6é after dvaBalywy. Syr-Sin. reads, ‘‘ And when 
 He had said these things, ¢hey went out from there. And as He was going 
 up to Jerusalem, and had reached Bethphage,” etc. 
 
 XIX. 29-XXI. 38. THE LAST DAYS OF PUBLIO 
 TEACHING. 
 
 29-40. The Triumphal Procession to Jerusalem. Mt. xxi. 
 1-11; Mk. xi. 1-11. Comp. Jn. xii. 1-19. ‘The Journeyings 
 towards Jerusalem” are over, and Lk. now permanently rejoins 
 the other Gospels in describing the concluding scenes. As com- 
 pared with them, he has both additions and omissions. He 
 omits the supper at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, 
 which Mt. and Mk. place without date after the triumphal entry, 
 but which Jn. states to have taken place before the entry. Lk. 
 has already given a similar incident, a meal at which Jesus is 
 a guest and a woman anoints Him (vii. 36-50), and perhaps for 
 
xIx. 29.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 445 
 
 that reason omits the supper at Bethany. The chronology may 
 be tentatively arranged thus. Jn. tells us that Jesus arrived at 
 Bethany six days before the Passover, viz. Nisan 8, a day on which 
 pilgrims often arrived at Jerusalem, as Josephus states. Assuming 
 that the year is A.D. 30, Nisan 8 would be Friday, March 31. 
 Jesus and His disciples reached Bethany that afternoon, either 
 before the sabbath began, or after having done no more than “a 
 sabbath day’s journey” after it began. But the chronology of 
 these last days, as of the whole of our Lord’s life, is uncertain. 
 At Bethany He would part from the large caravan of pilgrims in 
 whose company He had been travelling. Most of these would 
 press on to Jerusalem. See Wieseler, Chron. Syn. v. 2, Eng. 
 tr. p. 358, and comp. Caspari, Chron. Einl. § 165, Eng. tr. 
 p- 217. 
 
 29. Bn%payyn. Accent, derivation, and site are all doubtful. 
 But ByObdayy is preferable to Byfdayq ; the meaning is probably 
 “ House of unripe figs,” and the situation must have been near 
 Bethany. See Robinson, Mes. in Pad. i. 433 ; Stanley, Sin. & Pai. 
 p. 422; D.B.* s.v. Caspari, following Lightfoot, contends that 
 Bethphage was not a village, but a whole district, including 
 Bethany and all that lay between it and Jerusalem. The meaning 
 in this case would be, that Jesus drew near to the district Beth- 
 phage and to the particular spot in it called Bethany (Chron. Zin. 
 § 144, 145, Eng. tr. pp. 189-191). The passage is worthy of 
 study. In N.T. Bethphage is mentioned in these three narratives 
 only ; in O.T. not at all. The Talmud says that it was east of 
 the walls of Jerusalem. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome knew it, 
 but do not describe its position. Its being placed first points 
 to its being more important than Bethany. 
 
 The derivation of Bethany is still more uncertain, but its site is 
 well ascertained. The conjecture “ House of dates” is confirmed 
 by the adjacent “ House of figs” and “Mount of olives.” The 
 names point to the ancient fertility of the neighbourhood. 
 
 7 kadovpevov “EXat@v, Here also there is doubt about the accent, 
 which in this case, as in xplyw (ver. 22), affects the meaning. In Mt. and 
 Mk. the article, rév "EXa:&y, shows that the word is gen. plur.; but here, 
 with Lach. Tisch. Treg. and others, we may write "EAa:év, as nom. sing. 
 In that case the name is treated as a sound and not declined. In xxi. 37 
 the same doubt arises. Acts i. 12 we have ’EXa:@vos, as in Ant. vii. 9. 2, 
 from "Eady, Olivetum, ‘an olive-grove, Olivet.” But ver. 37 and the 
 parallels in Mt. and Mk. render Edaréy the more probable here (WH. ii. 
 App. p. 158: so also Hahn, Wittichen, and Wetzel). The fact that "EXads 
 commonly has the article is not decisive (Field, Oszum Norvie. iii. p. 53). 
 
446 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ XIX. 29-33. 
 
 Jos. B. /. ti. 13. 5, v. 2. 3, vi. 2. 8 are all doubtful; but both Bekker and 
 Dindorf edit "ENavéy in all three places. Deissmann, Wewe Bibelstud. p. 36. 
 
 In ver. 29 note the characteristic éyévero and kaAovpevorv: 
 In the latter we have an indication that Lk. is writing for those not 
 familiar with Palestine: comp. xxi. 37, xxil. 1. Neither occurs in 
 the parallels in Mt.and Mk. Note also és=“when” and yyyccev. 
 
 30. ‘Yrdyete. So also Mk., while Mt. has his favourite 
 mopeveoGe. The details which ‘Mk. alone records render the 
 conjecture that Peter was one of the two who were sent reasonable. 
 
 Ty Katévavtt kounv. Whether Bethany, or Bethphage, or an 
 unnamed village, is quite uncertain. This compound preposition 
 is not found in profane writers, but is common in bibl. Grk. (Mt. 
 xxl. 2; Mk. xi. 2; Rom. iv. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 195 Exod oxime 
 xxxli. 5, etc.). L. & S. Lex. quote C. Z 2905 D. 13. 
 
 ep Sv oddels matoTe avOpdmwv exdOicey. This intimates to the 
 disciples that it is no ordinary journey which He contemplates, 
 but a royal progress: comp. Deut. xxi. 3; Num. xix. 2; 1 Sam. 
 vi. 7. The birth of a virgin and the burial in a new tomb are 
 facts of the same kind. 
 
 81. odtws épeite 671. Vulg. and AV. make om the answer to 
 Ava ti; So also Mey. and Hahn. But in Mt. xxi. 3 we have ore 
 and no && ri; In both places the 67 is recitative. Comp. 
 Vii. 16, Xxil, 70. 
 
 “O kUptos. This rather implies that the owner has some know- 
 ledge of Jesus. Lk. omits the assurance that the owner will send 
 the colt. That the whole had been previously arranged by Jesus 
 is possible, for He gives no intimation that it was not so. But the 
 impression produced by the narratives is that the knowledge is 
 supernatural, which on so momentous an occasion would be in 
 harmony with His purpose. Comp. Jn. xiv. 29, xvi. 32, xxi. 18, 
 and see on Lk. xxii. 10, 13, 34. As Godet points out, this pro- 
 phetic knowledge must not be confounded with omniscience. 
 
 82. kabos eimev. “ Hxactly as He said.” This xafeés, in 
 slightly different connexions, is in all three narratives. Mt. has 
 “they did even as He appointed”; Mk., “they sazd to them even 
 He said”; Lk., “they found even as He said.” They could not 
 have done and said just what He had commanded, unless the facts 
 had been such as He had foretold. Lk. and Mk., as writing for 
 Gentiles, take no notice of the prophecy in Zech. ix. 9, which 
 both Mt. and Jn. quote. 
 
 Justin, in order to make the incident a fulfilment of Gen. xlix. I1, 
 ‘* Binding his foal unto the vine,” etc., says that the m&\os was mpds duwehop 
 dedeuévos (AZol. i. 32). 
 
 83. of KUpiot adtod. The owner of the colt and those with 
 him: tues t&v éxet EoryKdtwv (Mk.). In all three narratives Jesus 
 
XIX. 84-87.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 447 
 
 uses the singular. A fiction would have made exact correspondence 
 by representing the remonstrance as coming from one person only. 
 Mt. omits the fulfilment of the predicted remonstrance. 
 
 35. adtav 7a indria. The pronoun stands first with emphasis: 
 they did not spare their own chief garments. Comp. éavrév in 
 ver. 36. 
 
 In both verses readings vary: here TR. with A R etc. has éavrdv, while 
 NBDL, Orig. have airév: there TR. with SD has atréy, while ABK 
 have Cae The best editors are unanimous for av’rGv here, 
 
 émeBiBacaoy. Lk. alone tells us of their placing Him on the 
 colt. The other three merely state that He sat on it.) Nowhere 
 in O.T. do we find kings thus mountéd. While there is much in 
 this triumphal procession that tells of royalty, there is also some- 
 thing which adds, ‘“‘ My Kingdom is not of this world” (Godet). 
 Against carnal chiliastic notions of the Kingdom this entry on 
 “a colt the foal of an ass” is an évonia realis ordained by the 
 Lord Himself (Nosgen, Gesch. J. Chr. p. 506). For érBiBalw 
 comp. x. 34; Acts xxiii. 24: it is not rare in LXX. 
 
 86. imeotpdvvvov Ta ipdtia. Change of subject: it is the 
 multitude that does this. Robinson tells how the people of 
 Bethlehem spread their garments before the horses of the English 
 consul and his suite (es. im Pal. i. p. 473): other instances in 
 Wetst. on Mt. xxi. 8. Lk. omits the branches strewn in the way. 
 All three omit the multitude with palm branches coming from 
 Jerusalem to meet the procession (Jn. xii. 13, 18). 
 
 87. Here every word differs from the wording of the others, 
 although the substance is the same. As marks of style note dar, 
 tAnOos, pwvy peyaAn, tacdv Sv. The 757 is amphibolous, and 
 may be taken either with éyyi£ovros (AV.) or with zpos 779} xataBdoe 
 (RV.): see on xvii. 22 and xviil. 31. In either case zpds tH 
 kataBdaoe is epexegetic of éyyifovros, “When He was drawing 
 nigh, viz. at the descent,” etc. It is at the top of this descent 
 that the S.E. corner of the “City of David” (but not the temple) 
 comes in sight; and the view thus opening may have prompted 
 (ngavro) this “earliest hymn of Christian devotion” (Stanley). 
 Many of the pilgrims were from Galilee, where Jesus still had 
 enthusiastic friends. 
 
 The reading mpés Thy xardBactv (D) is an obvious correction. DMT 
 with ade Syrr. Aeth. omit #57. In both readings D is supported by Syr- 
 Sin., ‘‘ When ¢ey came near to the descent,” etc. With this plur. comp 
 that of Syr-Sin. in ver. 28. 
 
 
 
 1Mk. says én’ atrév (rdv dor), Jn. ex’ aird (dvdpiov), Mt. alone men- 
 tions both the colt and its mother and continues the plural throughout; ézé- 
 Onxav én’ abtav Ta imdtia, Kal érexdbicev érdvw atray: over which Strauss is 
 sarcastically critical. Y 
 
448 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 87, 38. 
 
 The Latin Versions are interesting in what follows. Nearly all MSS. 
 of Vulg. have omnes turbex descendentzum, which is a mere slip for déscentium 
 (T@y wabnrGy), a reading preserved in G M of Vulg. as in Codd. Am. and 
 Brix. Ddéscentes was substituted for désczpul¢ possibly to show that a larger 
 body than the Twelve was meant. Cod. Bezae has dscentes Jn. vi. 66, 
 xxi. 2, while almost all have it Jn. xxi. 12, and c has it Lk. xxii. 45. Comp. 
 Tert. Prescr. ili. 
 
 Suvdwewyr. The healing of Bartimzeus and the raising of 
 Lazarus would be specially mentioned. 
 
 For duvayzéwv D has yewoudvar, gue fiebant (d), factzs (x); om. Syr-Cur. 
 Syr-Sin. 
 
 38. Edhoynpévos 6 epxsuevos . . . ev dvdpart Kuptov. In these 
 words all four agree. Lk. and Jn. add 6 BactXcvs, which in Mk. 
 is represented by 7 épyouevyn Bacrdcia and in Mt. ‘Qeava re vid 
 Aaveid. Lk. substitutes dda (more intelligible to Gentiles) for 
 the Hosanna of the other three. See on ii. 14. “He that 
 cometh in the name of the Lord” means God’s representative, 
 envoy, or agent. The words év otpav@ eipnyn are in Lk. alone, 
 and are perhaps part of his paraphrase of Hosanna. Heaven is 
 the abode of God, and there is peace there because man is recon- 
 ciled to God, or perhaps because peace is now prepared for man 
 in the heavenly Kingdom. 
 
 These cries (comp. iv. 34) clearly recognize Jesus as the Messiah. The 
 Psalms from which they come were sung at the Passover and at the F. of 
 Tabernacles, and hence were familiar to the people. Ps. cxvii. is said by 
 some to have been written for the F. of Tabernacles after the Return, by 
 others for the dedication of the second temple. The supposition that the 
 Evangelists have confounded the Passover with the F. of Tabernacles, and 
 have transferred to the former what was customary at the latter, is gratuitous. 
 These responses from the Hallel were sung, not only at the Passover, but at 
 other Feasts ; and the waving of palm branches was not confined to the F, of 
 Tabernacles (1 Mac. xiii. 51). See Edersh. Z, & 7. ii. p. 371. 
 
 Hase calls attention to the audacity of the whole transaction. Jesus and 
 His disciples were under the ban of the hierarchy. The Sanhedrin had issued 
 a decree that, if any one knew where He was, he should give information, that 
 they might arrest Him (Jn. xi. 57). And yet here are His disciples bringing 
 Him in triumph into Jerusalem, and the populace enthusiastically joining with 
 them. Moreover, all this had been arranged by Jesus Himself, when He sent 
 for the colt. What He had hitherto concealed, or obscurely indicated, or 
 revealed only to a chosen few, He now, seeing that the fulness of time is come, 
 makes known to the whole world. He publicly claims to be the Messiah. 
 This triumphal procession is the Holy One of God making solemn entry into 
 the Holy City. ase is justly severe on Strauss for the way in which he 
 changed his view from edition to edition: the truth being that the triumphal 
 entry is an historical fact, too well attested to be discredited (Gesch. /esz, 
 § 94). 
 
 39, 40. Here Lk. is alone, not only in wording, bui in sup- 
 stance. The remonstrance of these Pharisees is intrinsically 
 probable. Having no power to check the multitude (Jn. xi. 19), 
 
xr. 39-41] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 449 
 
 and perhaps not daring to attempt it, they call on Jesus to do so. 
 Possibly they wished to fasten the responsibility upon Him, and 
 they may have been sent by the Sanhedrin to spy and report. 
 This Messianic homage was offensive to them, and they feared a 
 tumult which might cause trouble with Pilate, 
 
 89. dd tod dydhov. It matters very little whether we take 
 these words with twes tav (AV. RV.) or with eiwav (Weiss, 
 Hahn). Perhaps At8dcxahe implies that He is no more than a 
 teacher: it is the way in which His critics and enemies commonly 
 address Him (vii. 40, xx. 21, 28; Mt. xii. 38, etc.). But comp. 
 xxi. 7; Mk. iv. 38. 
 
 Syr-Sin, has, ‘Some of the feos from amongst the crowd said unto 
 Him, Good Teacher, rebuke Thy disciples, shat they shout not.” 
 
 40. Christ’s reply is of great sternness. It implies that their 
 failure to appreciate the significance of the occasion is amazing in 
 its fatuity. It is not likely that there is any reference to the crasl.- 
 ing of the stones at the downfall of Jerusalem (Lange, Oosterzee). 
 Perhaps ot Ai@ot xpdgovcw was already a proverbial expression. 
 Comp. Aifos é« totxov Bojocrat (Hab. ii. 11): Farietes, medius 
 fidius, ut mihi videntur, tibi gratias agere gestiunt (Cic. Marcel. iii.) , 
 and see other illustrations in Wetst. Nothing is gained by making 
 ot AiGo figurative: “men of stony hearts”; such an event “ might 
 rouse even the dullest to rejoice” (Neander). Comp. iii. 8. 
 
 dav . . . Giwmycovcw. This is the abundantly attested reading 
 (SABLRA). With the exceptional constr. comp. éa7 wh tis ddayijce 
 (Acts vill. 31); éay duets orjxere (1 Thes. iii. 8); day ofdauer (I Jn. v. 15); 
 éay mpoogéper? (Lev. i. 14). In Jn. viii. 36 and Rom. xiv. 8 the indic. 1s 
 probably a false reading. Win. xli. 2 (b), p. 369; Lft. Zg. p. 46; Simcox 
 Lang. of N.T. p. 110, 
 
 There is no authority for inserting mox (Beza), ‘‘ shortely ” (Genev.), or 
 “‘ immediately ” (AV.) with “‘ cry out.” 
 
 The reading xexpdtovrat (AR.) is a substitution of the form which is 
 most common in LXX (Ps. Ixiv. 14; Job xxxv. 9; Jer. xi. II, 12, xlvii. 2 
 etc.). See Veitch, s.v. ‘*The simple fut. perf. does not occur in N.T.” 
 Burton, § 93. 
 
 41-44. §The Predictive Lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem. 
 The spot where these words must have been uttered can be 
 ascertained with certainty, although tradition, as in other cases 
 (see on iv. 29), has fixed on an impossible site. See the famous 
 description by Stanley, Siz. & Fal. pp. 190-193, together with 
 that of Tristram (Zand of Israel, p. 174), part of which is quoted 
 in the Eng. tr. of Caspari’s Chron. Zini. p. 188. See also 
 Tristram, Bib Places, p. 125. This lamentation must not be 
 confounded with the one recorded xiii. 34, 35; Mt. xxiii. 37. 
 
 41. éhauvcev. Stronger than éédxpucey (Jn. xi. 35): it implies 
 wailing and sobbing. It is used of the widow at Nain (vii. 13), 
 
 29 
 
a 
 
 450 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XIX. 41, 42, 
 
 the penitent in the Pharisee’s house (vii. 38), and the mourners 
 in the house of Jairus (viii. 52). It was the sight of the city and 
 the thought of what might have been, which called forth the 
 lamentation. The attitude of the Pharisees had just shown Him 
 what the real condition of the city was. Christianity is sometimes 
 accused of being opposed to the spirit of patriotism: but there is 
 deep patriotism in this lamentation. 
 
 With éx’ airfy comp. xxiii. 28; Rev. i. 7, xviii. 9, In class. Grk. we 
 have éx’ airy, but more often adrjv without a prep. Here TR. with E 
 etc. has éx’ atr7. 
 
 42. Ei éyvws év tH Hpépa tadty Kat od td mpds etpyyny—This 
 is probably correct; but the text is somewhat uncertain. The 
 aposiopesis is impressive. In the expression of strong emotion 
 sentences are often broken: xxii. 42; Jn. vi. 62, xii. 27; Exod. 
 xxxli. 32. Win. lxiv. 2, p. 749. The words imply that there have 
 been various opportunities, of which this is the last. Thus once 
 more (7ood«ts, xii. 34) the synoptic narrative is found to imply 
 the Judean ministry recorded by Jn. The kat od perhaps implies 
 no comparison: “even thou” (AV. RV.). But if “thou also” 
 (Rhem.) be preferred, it probably means, “as well as My disciples.” 
 For the wish comp. Deut. xxxii. 29. The protasis, “If thou hadst 
 known,” does not imply any such definite apodosis as, “ Thou 
 wouldest weep as I do, for thy past blindness”; or, “Thou 
 wouldest not perish”; or, ‘‘ Thou wouldest hear Me and believe” ; 
 or, “I would rejoice like My disciples”; all of which have been 
 suggested (Corn. 4 Lap. ad /oc.). The expression is virtually a 
 wish, “O that thou hadst known.” Comp. ei etyov paxatpay ev 
 Th xeypt pov (Num. xxii. 29); ef KaTeueivapey Kal KatwxioOnpev 
 mapa Tov “lopdavyv (Jos. vii. 7); €f Kovoas Tov éevroddy pov (Is. 
 xlviii. 18). In all these places Vulg. has wt/mam, and RV. either 
 “would that” or “O that.” For ta mpés eipyyny see on xiv. 32. 
 There is possibly an allusion to the name Jerusalem, which perhaps 
 means “ inheritance of peace.” 
 
 The kal ye before év 79 juépg (TR. with AR) can hardly be genuine; 
 om. NSBDL, Boh. Aeth. Goth. Iren-lat. Orig. The cov after nuépa is 
 still more certainly an insertion; om. SX ABDL, Boh. Aeth. Arm. Iren-lat. 
 Orig. Eus. Bas. The cov after elpijvnv has the support of Versions, but is 
 just the kind of addition which is common in Versions; om. & B L, Iren-lat. 
 Orig. Epiph. Godet naively remarks, Les deux mots xalye et cov ont une 
 grande valeur; which explains the insertion. Elsewhere in N.T. «cai ye 
 occurs only Acts ii. 18 in a quotation, 
 
 viv 3€ “But now, as things are.” The actual fact is the 
 reverse of the possibility just intimated. Comp. Jn. viii. 40, 
 ix. 41 ;.1 Cor. vil. 14, xii. 20. 
 
 éxpJByn. ‘‘ Hidden once for all, by Divine decree”: comp. 
 
xIx. 42, 43.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 451 
 
 Jn. xii. 38-40. The nom. to éxp¥8y is not “the fact that (67) 
 days will come,” etc. (Theoph.), but 74 zpos cipyvyv. For the 
 form éxpv¥y see Veitch, s.v. 
 
 43. Sr jgovow jpepar. “ Because days will come”; not “ she 
 days” (AV. RV.): see on v. 35 and xvil. 22. Dyes multi, quia 
 unum diem non observas (Beng.). The 67t probably depends 
 upon «i éyvws: “ Would that thou hadst known in time; because 
 the consequences (now inevitable) of not knowing are terrible.” 
 Our 67« may introduce the explanation of viv d& éxp¥By: “ They 
 are hid from thine eyes, because the very reverse of peace will 
 certainly come upon thee.” But in any case dr is “ because, 
 for,” not “ that.” 
 
 It is not easy to decide between wapeuSarotcw (% C* L), which Tisch. 
 and WH. prefer, and mep:Sadotow (TR. with A Betc.). D has xat Sadroiow 
 éml cé. In LXX zapepSdddew is freq. for ‘to encamp”: Num. i. 50, ii. 
 17, 27, iii. 38, xxxiii. 10, II, 12, 13, etc. Here it would mean “‘ cast up in 
 front” or ‘‘ plant in beside,” rather than ‘‘surround.” In Vulg., through 
 carelessness on Jerome’s part, cércumdabunt is used to translate both wep- 
 Badodcww and mepixuxAdcovowy, although earlier Lat. texts distinguish. Simi- 
 larly we have pressura for both dvdyxy (xxi. 23) and cuvoxy (xxi. 25). For 
 a converse inaccuracy see on xxiv. 14. 
 
 xdépaxe, From meaning a single stake (va//us), ydpaé comes 
 to mean, not only a “ palisade” (va//um) but a “rampart” or 
 “palisaded mound” (va//um and agger combined). This is its 
 meaning here: comp. Is. xxxvii. 33; Ezek. iv. 2, xxvi. 8; Jos. 
 Vita, xliii. In Ezek. iv. 2 we have zepiBareis ex airy xdpaxa, 
 “Pale” (Wic.), “rampars” (Gen.), and “bank” (Tyn. Cov. RV.) 
 are all preferable to “trench” (Rhem. AV.). It is said that these 
 details show that the prophecy has been re-worded to fit the 
 event more precisely and that therefore this Gospel was written 
 after A.D. 70. The argument is precarious, although the con- 
 clusion is probable. At any rate it is worthy of note that neither 
 here nor elsewhere does Lk. call attention to the fulfilment of the 
 prophecy, as he does in the case of Agabus (Acts xi. 28). To 
 those who assume that Jesus was unable to foresee the siege of 
 Jerusalem, the amount of detail in the prediction is not of much 
 moment. But it is not logical to maintain that Jesus could fore- 
 see the siege, but could not have foreseen these details; or to 
 maintain that He would make known the coming siege, but would 
 not make known the details. What is there in these details which 
 is not common to all sieges? Given the siege, any one might add 
 them. J/ n'est pas nicessaire pour cela detre prophite (Godet). 
 Moreover it is possible that Jesus is freely reproducing Is. xxix. 3: 
 kal xukAdow ézi o€, cai Badd emi ct xdpaxa, Kai Oyjow zepi ce 
 mépyous. In both cases note the solemn effect of the simple co- 
 ordination of sentences with xa‘: here we have xai five times, 
 
452 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX. 43, 44 
 
 Note also the impressive repetition of the pronoun: we have gov, 
 got, or oe ten times in two verses. For the fulfilment of this 
 prophecy see Jos. 2. 7. v. 6. 2,12. 2. The Jews burnt the palisade, 
 and then Titus replaced it with a wall. 
 
 ouvéfouctv oe mavtodev. One of Lk.’s favourite verbs: iv. 38, 
 Vili. 37, 45, Xii. 50, xxii. 63; Acts vii. 57, xviii. 5, xxviii. 8. It is 
 possibly medical (Hobart, p. 3). The adv. occurs elsewhere in 
 N.T. in Mk. i. 45 and Heb. ix. 4 only: it is rare in LXX. This 
 “keeping in on every side” was so severe that thousands died of 
 famine (Jos. B. /. v. 12. 3, Vi. I. 1). 
 
 44, Baioiciv ce kai ta Tékva cou év aot. Not a case of 
 zeugma, for édadifew may mean “dash to the ground” (RV.) 
 quite as well as “/ay even with the ground” (A.V.), and the 
 former will apply to both buildings and human beings. Comp. 
 eOapiet Ta vyTid cov mpos THY mérpav (Ps. CXxxVil. 9); Kal Ta 
 brorithia aitav eadicOyoovra: (Hos. xiv. 1). In Amos ix. 14 
 noagiopevas is a false reading tor 7Pavicpevas, and therefore the 
 passage gives no support to the rendering, “raze, level to the 
 ground.” Field, Ottum JVorvic. iii. p. 53. Add in confirmation, 
 Ta VATA aiths édad.odvow (Nah. iii. 10). The AV. translation, “lay 
 thee even with the ground,” makes this tautological with “not 
 leave in thee one stone upon another.” The tékva are all the 
 inhabitants, not the young only. 
 
 The Latin Versions are interesting: ad terram prosternent (f Vulg.); ad 
 terram consternent (some MSS. of Vulg.); ad ¢erram sternent (E); ad solum 
 deponent (e); ad nihtlum deducent (a); pavimentabunt (a). In class. Lat. 
 pavimentare means ‘“‘to cover with a paviment ” (Cic. (OC) foe ieee 
 Comp. the double meaning of ‘‘ to floor.’ 
 
 ouK apycoucw Aidoy emt AiGov. Comp. drus py xatalepOy 
 éxet p2nde AiMos (2 Sam. xvii. 13); Kataomdcw «cis xaos Tovs Aifous 
 aitjs (Mic. i. 6). For av@ dv see on i. 20 and xii. 3. 
 
 obk €yvws Tov Katpov THs émokomys cov. “Thou didst not 
 recognize the time in which God visited thee ”—érucxepard ce. 
 The whole of this period of opportunity, which culminated é& TH 
 4<épa tavry, was unnoted and unused. Like éicxérropar (see on 
 i. 68), érucxo7y is a neutral term, and may imply either blessing 
 or punishment. Here and 1 Pet. ii. r2 (not v. 6) in the former 
 sense, as in Gen. l, 24; Job xxix. 4; Ecclus. xviii. 20; and 
 perhaps Wisd. iii. 7. In the sense of visiting with punishment it 
 does not occur in N.T., but in LXX. of Exod. iii. 16; Is. x. 3, 
 xxix. 6; Wisd. xiv. 11, xix. 15. It is not found in class. Grk. 
 For 76v xaipov Syr-Sin. has “ the day.” 4 
 
 Here Lk. rather abruptly ends his account of the triumphal procession. 
 The actual entry into the city is not recorded by him. ‘The proposal of 
 
 Schleiermacher and others to distinguish two triumphal entries, one unexpected 
 and unannounced, recorded by the three, and one expected and arranged, re- 
 
XIX. 44,45.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 453 
 
 corded by S. John, is no real help. Does the hypothesis make either record 
 more intelligible? What good purpose would a second triumphal procession 
 serve? Would the Romans have allowed this popular Teacher to enter the 
 city a second time with a tumultuous crowd hailing Him as King? 
 
 45, 46. The Second Cleansing of the Temple. Mt. xxi. 12, 13; 
 Mk. xi. 15-17. Both Mt. and Mk. record the entry into Jeru- 
 salem. The latter tells us how He entered the city and the 
 temple, and having “looked round about upon all things,” went 
 back in the evening to Bethany with the Twelve (ver. 11). It was 
 the day following that He returned to Jerusalem and cleansed the 
 temple, the cursing of the barren fig-tree taking place on the way. 
 Lk. omits the latter, and records the former very briefly. He 
 groups the cleansing and the subsequent teaching in the temple 
 with the triumphal procession as a series of Messianic acts. They 
 are all parts of the last great scene in which Jesus publicly assumed 
 the position of the Christ. 
 
 That this is a second cleansing, and not identical with Jn. ii. 14-22, may 
 be regarded as reasonably certain. What is gained by the identification, which 
 involves a gross chronological blunder on the part of either Jn., who places it at 
 the beginning of Christ’s ministry, or of the others, who place it at the very end? 
 Could any of those who were present, John or Peter, transfer so remarkable an 
 event from one end of their experiences to the other? Such confusion in 
 memory is not probable, especially when we consider the immense changes 
 which distinguish the last Passover in the ministry from the first. That the 
 three should omit the first cleansing is only natural, for they omit the whole of 
 the early Judzean ministry. Jn. omits the second, as he omits the institution of 
 the Eucharist and many other things, because it has been recorded already, and 
 is not necessary for the plan of his Gospel. On the other hand, there is no diffi- 
 culty in the supposition that the temple was twice cleansed by Jesus. He was 
 not so reverenced in Jerusalem that one such act would put an end to the 
 scandal for ever. The hierarchy would be glad of this opportunity for publicly 
 treating His authority with contempt; and this would be the more easy, as 
 Jesus does not seem to have kept the next Passover at Jerusalem (Jn.vi.4). If 
 a year or two later He found that the evil had returned, and perhaps increased, 
 would He not be likely to act as He did before? There are differences in the 
 details as given by Jn. and by the others, which confirm the view that he and 
 they are recording different events. 
 
 45. clreOdy els to iepdv. If we had no other account, we 
 should suppose that this took place on the same day as the 
 triumphal entry. But as Lk. gives no note of time, there is no 
 discrepancy between him and Mk. The Court of the Gentiles is 
 meant. The traffic would be great as the Passover drew near; 
 and, as the hierarchy profited by it, we may be sure that they 
 would try to make the attempt to stop it fail. 
 
 qptaro ékBaddev. So also in Mk., whose account is specially 
 graphic, as that of an eye-witness. In this respect the narrative in 
 Jn. ii. 14 ff. is similar. Heére perhaps npéaro éxB. is merely the 
 Hebraistic paraphrase for 飢@aAev (Mt. xxi. 12) or e£€BadAev. See 
 on iil. 8 and xii. 45, and comp. LXX of Gen. ii. 3; Deut.i.5; 
 
454 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XIX 45-48, 
 
 Judg. i. 27, 35; 1 Esdr. iv. 1, 13, 33. Lk. omits the buyers, the 
 money-changers, and the dove-sellers (Mt. Mk.) ; also His allowing 
 no vessel to be carried through the temple (Mk.). 
 
 46. Here the three narratives are almost verbatim the same, 
 and very different from Jn. ii. 15, 16. On the first occasion, He 
 charged them not to make His Father’s house a house of traffic 
 (oixov éuzropiov): now He charges them with having made it a 
 robbers’ den (omydo1ov Anorév). The scandal is worse than before. 
 For a detailed description see Edersh. Z. & 7. i. pp. 364-374; also 
 a remarkable passage in Renan, V. de /. p. 215, in which he points 
 out how “ antichristian” the traditions of the temple have always 
 been. In the passage from Is. lvi. 7 Lk. substitutes éora: for 
 kAnOynoerat, and with Mt. omits zaow tots é6véow, which one would 
 have expected Lk. to preserve. Would he have omitted this, if 
 he had had Mk., who preserves it, before him? See on xx. 17. 
 Comp. py om7jdaov Anoradv 6 olkds pov ob émixéexAnTat TO dvopd 
 pov ér aire éxet évurriov buov; (Jer. vil. 11). 
 
 That xat crac before 6 ofxos, and not écrw after mpocevyjs is the right 
 reading is sufficiently attested by S?B LR, Arm., Orig. But it is very un- 
 natural to take kal €orae with yéypamras: ‘‘It stands written and shall be 
 so.” 
 
 47, 48. The Publicity and Popularity of Christ’s Final Teach- 
 ing. Mt. xi. 19. These two verses form a link between the 
 sections before and after them, introducing the public work which 
 followed the public entry. Comp. the similar notice with which 
 the record of this brief period of public work closes, xxi. 37, 38. 
 
 47. iv Si8dcxwy. Periphrastic imperfect expressing continued 
 action: iv. 31, V. 17, Xlii. 10. For 75 xa’ hpépavy comp. xi. 3. Mt. 
 says that He healed the blind and the lame who came to Him in 
 the temple. 
 
 oi dpxtepets Kat of ypapparets. Soin all three. The activity of 
 the hierarchy is in marked contrast to His: while He teaches and 
 heals, they seek to destroy. Lk. alone mentions ot zpérot tod Aaod. 
 The difference of designation is against their being identical with 
 oi zpeoBurepo. Comp. Acts xiil. 50, xxv. 2, xxviii. 7, 17; Mk. 
 Vi. 21. 
 
 Jésus restait ainsi a Jérusalem un provincial admiré des provinciaux 
 comme lui, mats repoussé par toute Laristocratze de la nation. .. . Sa voix 
 
 eut a Jérusalem peu @éclat. Les préjugés de race et de secte, les ennemts 
 airects de Pesprit de Pévangile, y étaient trop enracinés (Renan, V. de /. 
 
 P+ 344). 
 
 48. 13 ti woujowow. For this use of rd see on i. 62, and comp. 
 vi. II. 
 
 5 Nads yap Gas. Not oxAos, not the mere crowd, but the whole 
 nation, which was numerously represented. A mixed multitude of 
 
XIX. 48.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 455 
 
 Jews from all parts of the world was gathering there for the Pass- 
 over. These would sympathize with His cleansing of the temple ; 
 and His miracles of healing would add to the attractiveness of 
 His teaching. This representative multitude “hung on His lips, 
 listening.” Comp. pendet narrantis ab ore (Aen. iv. 79) ; narrantts 
 conjux pendet ab ore viri (Ov. Her. i. 30). Other examples in 
 Wetst. and McClellan. See on xi. 29. 
 
 The form éfexpéuero (SB, Orig.) is preferred by Tisch. and WH. It im- 
 plies a pres. xpévouat, But éfexpéuaro, if genuine, is imperf. also. Veitch, 
 5. Kpéuapat. 
 
 XX. 1-8 The Question of the Sanhedrin respecting the 
 authority of Jesus. Mt. xxi. 23-27; Mk. xi. 27-33. Having 
 given a general description of the activity of Jesus and of His 
 enemies during these last days, Lk. now gives some illustrations of 
 both. It was fear of the people which kept His opponents from 
 proceeding against Him: and therefore their first object was to 
 discredit Him with His protectors. Then they could adopt more 
 summary measures. 
 
 None of the Evangelists enables us to answer with certainty the question 
 whether the hierarchy had at first any idea of employing the szcavzz to assassinate 
 Jesus. Mt. xxvi. 4 might mean this. But more probably this and other notices 
 of plots against the life of Jesus refer to the intention of getting Him out of the 
 way by some legal process, either as a blasphemer or as a rebel against the Roman 
 government. Of course, if a mob could be goaded into a fury and provoked to 
 put Him to death (iv. 29; Jn. viii. 59, x. 31), this would suit their purpose 
 equally well. The intrinsic probability of the controversies reported by the 
 Evangelists as taking place after the triumphal entry is admitted even by Strauss. 
 
 If the tentative chronology suggested above be accepted, this conversa- 
 tion about authority took place probably two days after the entry, and on 
 Tuesday, April 4, Nisan 12. This day is sometimes called the ‘‘ Day of Ques- 
 tions.” We have (1) the Sanhedrin asking about Authority, and (2) Christ’s 
 counter-question about the Baptist ; (3) the Pharisees and Herodians asking about 
 the Tribute ; (4) the Sadducees asking about the Woman with Seven Husbands 3 
 (5) the Scribe asking which is the First Commandment; (6) Christ’s question 
 about Ps. cx. It is Zosszb/e that on this day the question was asked about the 
 Woman taken in Adultery ; but that is too precarious to be worth more than a 
 passing mention, although Renan places it here without doubt, and makes it the 
 proximate cause of the arrest and death of Jesus (V. de //. p. 346). If it were 
 included, we might group the questions pressed upon Christ thus: (i.) a personal 
 question ; (ii.) a political question ; (iii.) a doctrinal question ; (iv.) an ethical 
 question; (v.) a question of discipline. Of hardly any day in our Lord’s 
 life have we so full a report. With Lk. xx. and xxi. comp. Mt. xxi. 18—xxvi. 53 
 Mk. xi. 20-xiv. 2; Jn. xii. 20-43. It includes at least four parables: the Two 
 Sons (Mt. xxi. 28-32), the Wicked Husbandmen (Mt. xxi. 33-44; Mk. 
 xii. I-11; Lk. xx. 9-18), the Ten Virgins (Mt. xxv. 1-13), and the Talents 
 (Mt. xxv. 14-30). The day may be considered the last working-day of Christ’s 
 ministry, the last of His public teaching, the last of activity in the temple, the 
 last of instruction to the people and of warning to their leaders. ‘‘It is a picture 
 with genuine Oriental local colouring. - We see Jesus sitting, surrounded 
 
456 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TOS. LUKE [XX.1-3. 
 
 by a multitude awed into silence. They are all devoutly meditating on the 
 great Messianic question. From time to time an emissary from His opponents 
 steps up to Him with Eastern solemnity and ceremoniousness, to propose some 
 well-considered question. Anxiously do the multitude listen for Jesus’ answer. 
 Then again follows a meditative silence as before, until at last Jesus Himself 
 delivers a connected discourse” (Hausrath, VV. 7. Times, ii. p. 250). 
 
 1. év pid tdv fpepOv. Lk. alone uses this expression (v. 17, 
 villi. 22; Comp. v. 12, xiii. 10). He is still indefinite in his 
 chronology. Mt. is a little more clear. It is Mk. who enables us 
 to distinguish three days ; presumably Sunday, Monday, and Tues- 
 day. ‘“ Zhe days” perhaps refers to the “daily teaching in the 
 temple ” (xix. 47); and this deputation from the Sanhedrin is the 
 result of their “seeking to destroy Him.” We have a similar 
 deputation to the Baptist Jn. i. 19. See fourth note on Lk. ix. 22. 
 For edayyedLouévou, which defines the character of His teaching 
 more clearly than dddacKovros, see on ii. To. 
 
 énéotnoav. One of Lk.’s favourite words (see on ii. 38): “ there 
 came upon Him.” So also ody tots mp. and mpds adroy illustrate 
 his fondness for these prepositions. Mt. and Mk. here have xai 
 for ovv (see on i. 56), and neither of them has zpds after Aéyew. 
 
 The introduction of the ovatze recta by déyorres or Aéyww after elzretv is 
 rare (Mk. xii. 26): but either is common after Aa)ety (Acts viii. 26, xxvi. 31, 
 XXVili. 25, etc.). 
 
 2. év woia . .. motets; So in all three. The two questions 
 are not identical; nor is the second a mere explanation of the first. 
 It anticipates the reply, “By the Méessiah’s authority,” with 
 another question, “Who made Thee Messiah?” They ask by 
 what &izd of authority, human or Divine, ecclesiastical or civil, 
 assumed or conferred, He acts. They refer not merely to His 
 teaching, but also to His cleansing the temple, as zovets shows. 
 On the first occasion they had asked for a oypetov as a guarantee 
 for the lawfulness of His zovety (Jn. ii. 18). They do not venture 
 to do more than question Him, for they know that the feeling and 
 conscience of the people are with Him for putting down their 
 extortionate and profane traffic, for His teaching, and for His 
 works of healing. ‘This was the one point where He seemed to be 
 vulnerable. ‘‘ For there was no principle more firmly established 
 by universal consent than that authoritative teaching required 
 previous authorization,” because all such teaching was traditional 
 ‘Edersh. Z. & 7: ii. p. 381). For év éfoucta see on iv. 32. 
 
 8. eimev mpds adtods. Both Mt. and Mk. have airois. 
 
 "Epwrjow tuas Kayo Adyov The Adyor refers to their answer 
 rather than His question, as is shown by dy eay eiayré pou (Mt. 
 xxi. 24). ‘You ask Me to state My authority. I also will ask 
 you for a statement” ; not, “ask you a question” (RV.), nor, “ask 
 you one thing” (AV.). As teachers they must speak first. 
 
XX. 8-8.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 457 
 
 The éva (A C D) is an insertion from Mt, and Mk. om. § BLR, Syr-Sin. 
 Latin texts are divided. 
 
 4. Verbatim as Mt. and Mk., except that Mt. inserts adder, 
 and Mk. adds dzoxpi6yré wo. “ Baptism of repentance” was the 
 special characteristic of John’s teaching (iii. 3). The question as 
 to its origin is not a mere escape from their attack by placing them 
 in a difficulty: the answer to it would lead to the answer to their 
 question. John had testified to the Divine authority of Jesus, 
 and his baptism was a preparation for the Messianic Kingdom. 
 What had been their view of John’s position? That was a ques- 
 tion to which the official guides of the nation were bound, and 
 had long been bound, to furnish an answer. For the alternative 
 e€ ovpavod or e& dvOpdrwv comp. Acts v. 38, 39. 
 
 5. cvvehoyloavro, Here only in N.T., but classical %CD have 
 cuvedoylfovro, Comp. ver. 14. 
 
 6. xatadiOdoe. Here only: but Acbdfey is found Jn. x. 31-33, xi. 8; 
 Acts v. 26, xiv. 19. In LXX Ac@dfew occurs twice (2 Sam. xvi. 6, 13), but 
 NOoBore is the common verb: comp. xiii. 34; Acts vil. 58. The xara- 
 expresses “‘stoning dowz, overwhelming with stones”: comp. kaTadOoBoreiv 
 
 Exod. xvii. 4, and cara\Ootv in Josephus. Here Mt. and Mk. have the less 
 definite expression, ‘‘ fear the multitude.” 
 
 mpopytyy etvat. Their intense joy at the reappearance of a 
 Prophet after three centuries of silence (p. 80) would be the 
 measure of their fury against a hierarchy which should declare that 
 John had not been a Prophet at all. Comp. vii. 29, 30. With 6 
 hads amas comp. xix. 48. Nowhere else does memetopeévos éeotiv 
 occur. 
 
 7. py eidévac 7d0cev, This shameful and dishonest avowal is 
 excelled a few days later by their answer to Pilate, “We have no 
 king but Ceesar” (Jn. xix. 15). Z?mentes lapidationem, sed magis 
 timentes veritatis confessionem (Bede), these professed “Teachers of 
 Israel” (Jn. ili. 10), who so scorned the ignorant multitude (Jn. 
 vii. 49), confessed that they had not yet decided whether one, 
 who for years had been recognized by the nation as a Prophet, 
 had any Divine commission. If they were not competent to judge 
 of the Baptist, still less were they competent to judge of the Christ. 
 Nosgen, Gesch. J. C. i. p. 514. 
 
 8. O88é éyd. Verbatim as in Mt. and Mk. Their refusal to 
 answer His question cancels their claim to an answer from Him. 
 This they admit by ceasing to press it. See Gould on Mk. xi. 33. 
 
 9-19. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Mt. xxi. 
 33-46; Mk. xii. 1-12. Mt. here gives a trilogy of parables, plac- 
 ing this one between the Two Sons and the Marriage of the King’s 
 Son. Godet thinks that the Two Sons cannot have been uttered 
 where Mt. places it. But it fits the preceding discussion about 
 the Baptist very well; and Mk., who records one parable only, 
 
458 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE  [XX.9. 
 
 says qpfaro abrots év rapaBoXats AaXetv, which agrees well with the 
 fact that more than one parable was spoken. The idea of “ work 
 in the vineyard” is common to both parables. In this parable 
 Christ lets His enemies know that He is aware of their murderous 
 plans against Himself ; and in it He warns both them and the people 
 generally of the fatal results to themselves, if their plans are carried 
 out.1 It is the special characteristic of this parable that zt does not 
 teach general and permanent truths for the guidance of Christians, 
 but refers to past, present, and future events. From the conduct of 
 His traditional enemies, especially at that very time, He predicts 
 His own end and theirs. The parable is capable of spiritual ap- 
 plication as to God’s dealings with churches and individuals, but 
 its primary reference is to the treatment which He is receiving 
 from the Jewish hierarchy. The parable contains the answer to 
 the question which they had raised. He is acting in the authority 
 of His Father who sent Him to them. The imagery is taken from 
 the O.T. and would be readily understood by the audience. The 
 main source is the similar parable Is. v. 1-7 ; but comp. Jer. ii. 21; 
 Ezek. xv. 1-6, xix. 10-14; Hos. x. 1; Deut. xxxii. 32, 33, and the 
 many other passages in which Israel is spoken of as a vineyard or 
 a vine; Ps. lxxx. 8 ff.; Joel i. 7, ete. 
 
 It has been said that the main difference between this parable and Is. v. or 
 other O.T. figures is, that there the husbandmen or leaders and teachers of the 
 people are not mentioned: it is the mation as a whole that fails in its duty to 
 Jehovah. Here it is those who have charge of the nation that are condemned: 
 the vineyard itself is not destroyed for its unfruitfulness, but is transferred to 
 more faithful stewards. And, in support of this view, it has been pointed out 
 that in the first times of the Kingdom the nation went voluntarily into idolatry ; 
 ic was not led into it by the priests and other teachers: but now it was mainly 
 the official teachers who prevented the people from accepting Jesus as the 
 Messiah. This, however, does not fit vv. 15, 16, which show that the tenants 
 fre the Jewish nation, and not merely the leaders, and that the vineyard is not 
 the nation, but its spiritual privileges. The nation was not to be transferred to 
 other rulers, but its privileges were to be transferred to other nations. 
 
 9. “Hptata Sé mpds tov Nady Adyev. There is a pause after the 
 discomfiture of the deputation from the Sanhedrin; and then 
 Jesus “begins” to address a different company. But while He 
 speaks to the people He also speaks a¢ the hierarchy, who are still 
 present, though silenced. Mt. and Mk. regard the parable as 
 addressed to the latter. Syr-Sin. has “to speak to them.” D,ade 
 omit zpds Tov Ady. Comp. v. 36. 
 
 “Av@pwmos. Lk. commonly adds zis: see small print note on xui. 19. 
 TR. follows A in adding tts here. 
 
 1 Keim speaks with severity of the ‘‘destructive criticism” which ‘‘again 
 miserably fails to see anything but an invention of the dogmatic artist ” in “* this 
 grand self-revelation of Jesus,” which is attested by all three Gospels (v. p 
 142). 
 
XX.9,10.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 450 
 
 ébvtevoev apmedGva. The phrase is freq. in O.T. (Gen. ix. 20; Deut. 
 xx, 6, xxviii. 30, 39; Ps. cvi. 37, etc.). Lk. omits the fence, the winepress, 
 and the tower. 
 
 éééSero, In all three narratives in this place, but nowhere else 
 in N.T. In LXX it is used of giving a daughter in marriage ; 
 Exod. ii. 213 Ecclus. vii. 25; 1 Mac. x. 58: but the sense of 
 letting out for hire is classical; Plat. Leg. vii. 806 D, yewpyiar dé 
 éxdcdopevar SovAows awapyiv Tov €K THS yns amoteAovow ixavyy. 
 Among the Jews rent was sometimes paid in money, but generally 
 in kind. If in kind, it was either a fixed amount of produce, 
 whether the harvest was good or bad; or a certain proportion, 
 e.g. a third or fourth, of each harvest. This latter system led to 
 much disputing and dishonesty, and does so still wherever it is 
 adopted. The tenants in the parable have a long lease and pay 
 in kind; but it is not clear whether they pay a fixed or a propor- 
 tionate amount. 
 
 The same form (-ero, not -oro) is found in the best MSS. in all three. 
 Comp. dedidero (Acts iv. 35) and mapedidero (1 Cor. xi. 23). Gregory, 
 Proleg. p. 124. 
 
 xpdvous txavods. This addition is peculiar to Lk. See on 
 vii. 12, We may understand several years. 
 10. katp@. No doubt 6 kaipos tév kaprav (Mt.) is meant. 
 Syr-Sin. has “at one of the seasons.” 
 améoteikev . . . SodAov. So also Mk., while Mt. has rovs dov- 
 Aovs airov. In Lk. it is always a single slave who is sent, and the 
 treatment becomes, worse each time, culminating in the slaying of 
 the heir, before whom no one is killed. In Mt. and Mk. there 
 is no such dramatic climax, and several are killed before the son 
 is sent: all which is more in accordance with facts in Jewish 
 history. See 1 Kings xvili. 13, xxii. 24-27; 2 Kings vi. 31, xxi. 16; 
 2 Chron. xxiv. 19-22, xxxvi. 15, 16; Neh. ix. 26; Jer. xxxvii. Is, 
 xliv. 4; Acts vii. 52. 
 iva amd tod kaprod. Keim says that this means the O.T. 
 tenth ; but it does not necessarily imply a proportionate amount 
 at all. A fixed amount, independent of the yield, would be paid 
 G76 TOU Kap7ov. 
 tva ... Saoovow. The fut. indic. is found in class. Grk. after bres, 
 but not after ta. In bibl. Grk. it is found most often in the /as¢ of a series 
 of verbs following iva: but cases in which the verb depends immediately upon 
 wa occur: 1 Cor. ix. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 1, Rev. vi. 4, viii. 3, ix. 20, xiii. 12, 
 
 xiv. 13, and other passages in which the reading is somewhat doubtful. See 
 on xiv. 10. Burton, § 198, 199. 
 
 efaméotetbav . . . kevov. They probably told him, and _per- 
 haps tried to persuade themselves that his master’s demand was 
 unjust. Excepting Gal. iv. 4, 6, the verb is peculiar in N.T. to 
 
460 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XX. 10-16, 
 
 Lk. (Acts vii. 12, ix. 30, xi. 22, xil. 11, xill. 26, xvi 54mm) 
 but it is freq. in LXX. For the phrase “send empty away” comp. 
 i. 533 Gen. xxxi. 42; Deut. xv. 13; 1 Sam. vi. 3; Job xxii.9. For 
 Setpavtes See ON Xil. 47. 
 
 11. mpocd0eto mépyor. A Hebraism: see on xix. 11. Whether 
 this is a second messenger sent that same vintage, or the messenger 
 sent at another vintage, is not stated. The important point is 
 that chastisement does not follow upon the first outrage. The 
 husbandmen have several opportunities; and these are brought 
 by different persons. If one messenger’s manner of delivering his 
 message was unpleasing, another’s would be the opposite. But 
 this time they add insult (aéripacavres) to violence. Comp. the 
 use Of drydlew in Jn. viii. 49; Acts v. 41; Rom.i. 24, i. 23; 
 Jas. i. 6. The verb is freq. in LXX. 
 
 12. tpavpaticavtes. Worse than defpavres x. arysdoavres, as 
 e€éBadov is worse than éfarécrekav. Comp. Heb. xi. 36-38; 
 Acts vii. 52. 
 
 13. Tt moijow; Peculiar to this account ; as also is the quali- 
 fying tows, which occurs nowhere else in N.T., and only once in 
 LXX (1 Sam. xxv. 21), where English Versions have “surely.” 
 Godet contends for such a meaning here: fourtant, en tout cas, 
 certainement. But comp. KA. “Iows. AQ@. Ovx iows, GAX’ dvTws 
 & Sapovie (Plat. Lazws, xii. 965). 
 
 We must remember that it is the d&v@pwros of ver. 9 who de- 
 liberates as to what he shall do, says icws, and expects that his 
 son will be well received. All this is the setting of the parable, 
 and must not be pressed as referring to God.. This man repre- 
 sents God, not by his perplexity, but by his long-suffering and 
 mercy. 
 
 évtpawyoovtat. In all three: for the meaning see on xviii. 2, This 
 form of the fut. is late. In Polyb. and Plut. the verb sometimes has an acc., 
 but in class, Grk. a gen., when it means ‘‘ reverence.” Comp. Exod. x. 3; 
 Wisd. ii. 10. 
 
 The idévtes of TR. with A R, Vulg. Goth. comes from ver. 14; om. 
 NBCDLQ, acdeffjilqr, Boh. Arm. The Syriac Versions are divided. 
 Syr-Sin. is defective here. 
 
 14, S:ehoyiLovro mpds &AAHAous. This touch also is peculiar to 
 Lk. It perhaps looks back to xix. 47, 48. Nothing is gained by 
 taking zpds a\AnAovs with A€yovres: Comp. pds éavrovs, which is 
 equally amphibolous, ver. 5. 
 
 A Kand Latt. have diedoyloavro, cogztaverunt; and ACQ, Vulg. have 
 mpos éaurovs from Mk, xii. 7 for mpds d\AjAovs (§ BD LR, Boh. Arm.) 
 For 6 kAnpovépos see Wsctt. on Heb. i, 2 and his detached note on Heb. 
 vi. 12, p. 167. 
 
 15. éxBaddvtes dméxtewav. This perhaps was intended to re 
 present their turning him out of his inheritance. It may be 
 
xX. 15-17.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 461 
 
 doubted whether it refers to Jesus “suffering without the gate.” 
 Outside the vineyard would be outside Israel rather than outside 
 Jerusalem. Moreover in Mk. the heir is killed defore he is cast 
 out of his inheritance. It is possible that they regard the vine- 
 yard as already made over to the heir, as was often the case in 
 ancient law: see on xv. 12. Comp. the case of Naboth: éf#pyayov 
 avrov é€w THs TéAews Kal éXiGoBoAnoav atrév AiGos, Kat awéGaver 
 (1 Kings xx. 13). No doubt é&w t. duedGvos goes with exPa- 
 Aovtes (iv. 29; Acts vii. 58, which is closely parallel), not with 
 dzréxtewvav. 
 
 tt ovv mouoer aitois; Not, ré ody éxoigcey; Our Lord in- 
 dicates that the parable is not a mere fiction: it is a key toa 
 future which depends upon present action. Assuming that the 
 heir is killed, what will happen? In Mt. some of the bystanders 
 answer the question. They are so interested, and enter so fully 
 into the spirit of the narrative, that, witnout seeing the application 
 to themselves, they reply xaxots xax@s drodéoe avtovs. See on 
 xix. 25, and comp. David’s reply to Nathan’s parable (2 Sam. 
 xil. 5, 6 
 
 7. éhedoetat kal dmohdcer . . . kat Sdcet. Three points: He 
 will no longer send but come ; will punish the wrong-doers ; will 
 transfer their privileges to others. The Jews were familiar with the 
 idea of the Gentiles being gathered into the Messianic Kingdom 
 (Is. ii. 2; lx. passim; Jer. ii. 17). Yet this was restricted to 
 those Gentiles who had taken no part in oppressing Israel, but had 
 submitted to Israel; and later Judaism as a rule denied even this 
 to the heathen (Charles, Zzoch, xc. 30). Here the Jews are to lose 
 what the Gentiles gain. 
 
 dxoUcavtes Sé eimay Mi) yévorro. We need not confine this tc 
 the Zeop/e and conclude that “the Pharisees had too much warines : 
 and self command to have allowed such an exclamation to escape 
 from their lips.” The exclamation may not mean more than 
 “That is incredible,” or “ Away with the thought.” See Lft. on 
 Gal. ii. 17 and Sanday on Rom. iii. 4. This is the only instance 
 of pi yévorro in N.T. outside the Pauline Epp., where it generally 
 is used to scout a false inference which might be drawn. Burton, 
 § 176, 177. Here it probably refers to the punishment rather 
 than to the sin which brings it,—to dwodéoea kai déce rather than 
 to dméxrewar. 
 
 The expression is rare in the Pauline Epp. except in Rom., where it 
 occurs ten times: twice in Gal. and once in 1 Cor. In LXX it is rare, and 
 never stands as an independent sentence: Gen. xliv. 7, 17; Josh. xxii. 29, 
 xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xx. [xxi.] 3. 
 
 17. épBdépas adtots. Lk. alone has this touch. Comp. 
 xxii. 61 and Elisha’s fixed look on Hazael (2 Kings viii. 11). 
 
462 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 17, 18 
 
 Ti ody éottv. “If the destruction which I have just foretold is 
 not to come (pu yévorro), how chen do you explain this text?” 
 The passage is once more (see on ver. 9) from the Hallel Psalms 
 (cxvili. 22, 23), where see Perowne. The Rabbis recognized it as 
 Messianic: see Schoettg. i. p. 173. In all three Gospels the 
 quotation is verbatim as in LXX. For 16 yeypappévov see on 
 Xxlil. 37, and for dmo8oxipacav see on ix. 22. Perhaps AtOov is “a 
 stone” rather than “He stone”: the builders may have rejected 
 many stones, one of which became xegad7 ywvias. But, if the 
 Jews used Ai@os as a name for the Messiah, as seems to be prob- 
 able, ‘‘¢Ze stone” is better. In Justin Martyr we have Aifos as a 
 name for Christ (Z77y. xxxiv. xxxvi.): see on Rom. ix. 33. 
 
 For the attraction of Al0ov to éy sce on ili. 19, and for éyev7}6y e/g sce On 
 xiii. 19. 
 
 Kepadt) ywvias. Not the key-stone of the arch, but a corner- 
 stone uniting two walls; but whether a foundation-stone at the 
 base of the corner, or a completing stone at the top of it, is un- 
 certain. Comp. Acts iv. 11 and 1 Pet. ii. 7; also dxpoywveatos in 
 Eph. i. 20 and Is. xxviii. 16. Mt. and Mk. quote ver. 23 of Ps. 
 Cxvill. as well as ver. 22, and Mt. adds the explanation that the 
 Kingdom shall be transferred to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
 thereof. Would Lk. have omitted this reference to the believing 
 and loyal Gentiles if he had known it? We conclude that he was 
 not familiar with Mt.’s account. See on xix. 46. 
 
 18. mas 6 meohy . . . adtdv. These words are not in Mk. and 
 are of somewhat doubtful authority in Mt. xxi. 44, where they are 
 omitted by D 33, or bdeff,, Syr-Sin., Orig. But the charac- 
 teristic as is in any case peculiar to Lk. The first half of the 
 saying seems to be an adaptation of Is. vill. 14, and the second 
 half an adaptation of Dan. ii. 34, 35, 44. Christ is a stumbling- 
 block to some (ii. 34), and they suffer heavily for their short- 
 sightedness. They not only lose the blessing which is offered, 
 but what they reject works their overthrow. 
 
 cuvO\acOycerar. “Shall be shattered”; confringetur (Lat. 
 Vet., Beza), conguassabitur (Vulg.), wird zerschellen (Luth.). But 
 in Mt. xxi. 44 Vulg. has confringetur. The verb occurs nowhere 
 else in N.T., but the act. is found in LXX (Ps. lvii. 7; Mic. iii. 3), 
 and several times as 2.7. 
 
 ep dv 8 av wéon. Note the impressive change of construction. 
 In the first case the man is the chief agent; in the second the 
 stone. And the main thought now is simply Ad@os: the metaphor 
 of xefadi ywvias is dropped. A chief corner-stone would not be 
 likely either to trip up a person or to fall on him. 
 
 Atkpyoer adtov. The rendering “grind to powder,” which all 
 English Versions from Tyn. to AV. give (Rhem. “breake to 
 
XX. 18, 19.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 463 
 
 pouder”), follows the comminuet of Vulg. (in Mt. conteret), but is 
 without authority. Not only in classical authors (Hom. Xen. 
 Plut. Lucian,), but also in LXX, it means “to winnow chaff from 
 grain,” from AuKcpés, “a winnowing fan.” In Ruth ili, 2, Aucud 
 Tov dAwva tov KkpiOdv, and Ecclus. v. 9, py Ackpa ev ravrt avéuo, 
 the meaning is indisputable. Hence “to blow away like chaff, 
 sweep out of sight or out of existence”: dvaArjpiperar S€ airov 
 Kavowv Kat daeAevoerat, Kal Atkuyoe avtov €k TOU TOroV aiTod 
 (Job xxvii. 21); kat wdppw airov dwéerar ds xvodv axvpov Aukpov- 
 Tov drévavtt avepov (Is. xvii. 13); 6 Arkpyoas tov “Iopand cvvager 
 avrov (Jer. xxxi. 10); Kat Aikuyow ev raow Tos Everw Tov olKov 
 Tov “Iopan\, ov tporov AiKwarar év 7H Ackus (Amos ix. 9). Dan. 
 ii. 44 is important, as being the probable source of the saying: 
 there, while in LXX we read zardéa xai agavioe, Theodotion has 
 Aerruvel kat Aukpnoe, Showing that AuKpjyoa=adpavice. Comp. 
 Theod. éyévero doel Kovioptos amd Gdwvos Gepwys, kai e&qpev 7d 
 mARGos ToD wvevpatos, Kal Téros ovx eipéOy avrois (Dan. ii. 35). 
 “Scatter him as chaff,” therefore, is the meaning. When a heavy 
 mass falls, what is pulverized by the blow is scattered by the rush 
 of air. The commovet illum of Cod. Palat. (e) looks like an attempt 
 to preserve the right idea. 
 
 19. év adi TH po. “In that very hour”: Lk.’s usual expression: 
 see on x. 7, 21. There is no equivalent to it here in Mt. or Mk. 
 
 éyvwcay yap St. mpds adtovs. So also in Mk. xii. 12, while 
 Mt. has epi avrév. Vulg. has ad zpsos here and ad eos in Mk. 
 But apés may be either “with a view to, in reference to” (see on 
 xii, 41, xVili. 1, 9, xix. 9), or “against” (AV. RV.): comp. Acts 
 xxiii. 30. Here, as in Heb. i. 7, 8, Wsctt. prefers the meaning 
 “in reference to”: comp. Rom. x. 21; Heb. xi. 18. The nom. 
 to éyvworar is ot ypappareis, not 6 Aads, which would require éyva, 
 to be unambiguous. In Mt. the nom. to éyvwcay must be the 
 hierarchy. And ydp gives the reason, not for é{jryoay, but for 
 époByOnoav, as the order of the sentences shows: and this is still 
 more clear in Mk. by the change of tense from é{#rovv (see Gould). 
 The hierarchy recognize that the parable was directed against 
 themselves ; and this made them fear the people, who had heard 
 the parable also. 
 
 In class. Grk. rpés twa often means ‘‘in reply to,” and hence ‘‘ against,” 
 being less strong than xard twos, as adversus than zm. Here Beza has 
 adversus zpsos and Luther azf sze. 
 
 20-26. The Question about the Tribute. Mt. xxii. 15-22; 
 Mk. xii. 13-17. There is no evidence that a night intervened 
 between the previous question and this one. The connexion 
 between vv. 19 and 20 is close; and ver. 19 took place év avrg 
 7 pa with what precedes. The previous question about 
 
464 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XX. 20, 
 
 authority had emanated from the Sanhedrin as a whole. The 
 different parties represented in it now act separately and devise 
 independent attacks. This one comes from the Pharisees (Mt. 
 Xxll. 15), who send a group composed of Pharisees and Herodians 
 (Mt. xxii. 16; Mk. xii. 13). Neither Lk. nor Jn. mention the 
 Herodians. Their alliance with Pharisees is remarkable, for the 
 Pharisees detested the Herodian dynasty ; and this is not the first 
 instance of such an alliance (Mk. ili. 6). But opponents often 
 combine to attack those who are obnoxious to both. 
 
 20. tapatnpyoavtes. See on xiv. 1. Both AV. and RV. 
 follow Tyn. Cran. Cov. and Gen. in translating “ watched im” ; 
 but neither indicates by italics that “him” is not in the Greek. 
 Wic. and Rhem. have no pronoun, in accordance with Vulg. 
 observantes miserunt. It is doubtful whether the pronoun ought 
 to be supplied, for zaparypeivy without case may mean “to watch 
 an opportunity.” See Field and Alford, ad Joc. Mt. has his 
 favourite mopevOértes. 
 
 D and some Versions here have dmoxwp7jcavres: so Goth. Aeth. cum 
 recessissent (fi1), cum adiscesstssent (a), recedentes (A), secesserunt et (e). 
 
 evkabérous. ‘Suborned to lie in wait”; lit. “sent down into.” 
 In N.T. here only, and in LXX Job xix. 12, xxxi. g: but classical. 
 Comp. Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 2. The toxpwopevous shows for what 
 purpose they were suborned : they posed as scrupulous persons with 
 a difficulty of conscience. In different ways all three accounts call 
 attention to their hypocrisy. Meyer quotes, Qui ‘um, cum maxime 
 Jallunt, id agunt ut viri boni videantur (Cic. De Of. i. 13. 41). 
 
 émudBwvtat attod Adyou. “Take Him in His speech”; airod 
 depending upon éAa. and Adyou being epexegetic (De W. Mey. 
 Go.): rather than “take hold of His speech,” atrod depending 
 upon Adyov (Holtz. Hahn). Vulg. has eum in sermone. So also 
 Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. Rhem. Luth. Comp. éreAdBero pov tis 
 atodjs (Job xxx. 18) and émrAapPaverar avtod rs irvos (Xen. 
 Anab. iv, 7.12). Mt. has drws airov raywWetowow ev Adyw, Mk. 
 iva avtov dypevowow Ady». Jesus had baffled them with a dilemma 
 (ver. 4), and they now prepare a dilemma for Him. Comp. the 
 constr. in xix. 4. 
 
 dote tapadodvat ... Tod hyepdvos. Peculiar to Lk. Quod 
 per se non poterant, presidis manibus efficere tentabant, ut veluti 
 ipsi a morte ejus viderentur immunes (Bede). For dore comp. 
 iv. 29; Mt. xxiv. 24. 
 
 7H dpxf Kal tH efoucia +. yep. It is an improbable refine- 
 ment to press the double article and separate 77 dpyy from rod 
 hyepovos: “so as to deliver Him to the Government, and (in 
 particular) to the authority of the governor” (Mey. Weiss) ; or, “so 
 as to deliver Him to the rule (of the Sanhedrin), and to the 
 
XX. 20-24.| LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 405 
 
 authority of the governor” (Nésg. Hahn). For the combination 
 of dpxy with éfovota comp. xii. 11; 1 Cor. xv, 24; Eph. iii, 10; 
 Col. i. 16, ii. 15; Tit. ili. 1. See Lft. on Col. i. 16. 
 
 The generic term 7yyeudv may be used of the emperor (comp. jyyenovla 
 iii. 1) or any of his subordinates. In N.T. it is often used of the émlrpozos or 
 procurator (Mt. xxvii. 2, 11, 14, etc. ; Acts xxiii. 24, 26, 33, xxiv. I, 10, etc.) 
 and less definitely of any governor (xxi. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 14). Comp. Jos. 
 Ant. xviii. 3. 1; and iyenovedy ii. 2, iii. I. 
 
 21. dpOws déyers Kal SiSdoxers. The falseness of these fulsome 
 compliments in their mouths (oidapev 671) stamps this as one of 
 the most dastardly of the attacks on Christ. They go on to 
 emphasize their flattery by denying the opposite. 
 
 ob AapBdvers mpdcwmov. Affreux barbarisme pour des lecteurs 
 grecs (Godet). The expression is a Hebraism, which originally 
 meant “raise the face,” ¢.e. make the countenance rise by favour- 
 able address, rather than “accept the face.” Hence it came to 
 mean “regard with favour,” but not necessarily with wadue favour : 
 comp. Ps. lxxxi. 2; Mal. i. 8, 9. But the bad sense gradually pre- 
 vailed ; and both here and in Gal. ii. 6 (see Lft.) partiality is 
 implied, as in Lev. xix. 15 and Mal. ii. 9. In LXX the common 
 phrase is Oavydley mpdowrov: comp. Jude 16. The compounds 
 MporwmroAnpTTyS, Tporwrodnpiyia, etc., always imply favouritism. 
 
 Both Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. for ‘“‘ way of God” read ‘‘ word of God.” 
 
 22. The $épos (classical and in LXX) or capitation-tax must be dis- 
 tinguished from 7é\7, which are indirect taxes. Mt. and Mk. here have 
 khvoov, but in Mk. émuxepddatov is a notable v./, 
 
 For npas (NA BL) TR. has qutv (CD PIAATI). Only here and vi. 4 
 does ébeorw ¢. acc. et infin. occur in N.T. Kafoape stands first with 
 emphasis. Usually both dat. and acc. follow Sodvas: i. 74, 77, xii. 32, xvii. 
 18; Acts v. 31, vil. 5; Mt. xix. 7, xx. 4, etc. 
 
 23. Katavoyoas ... Tavoupylav. Mt. has yvots .. . movyptay, 
 Mk. <idws . . . tadxpiow. See on xii. 27 for Lk.’s fondness for 
 ckatavoéw, In N.T., as in class. Grk., ravovpyia always has a bad 
 meaning (1 Cor. iii. 19; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3; Eph. iv. 14). In 
 LXX it may mean “versatility, skill” (Prov. i. 4, viii. 5). 
 
 24, Aci~até pot Syvdpiov. Mk. has dépere, which implies that 
 they had to fetch it. They would not have heathen money on 
 their persons. Mt. has zpooyveyxay aro, which implies the same 
 thing ; and he calls it 76 véutopa rod Kyvoov, because this poll-tax 
 had to be paid in denarit. 
 
 Tl pe wedgere (AC D P) is an insertion here from Mt. and Mk. NBL 
 omit. See Wright, Syzopsis, § 80, p. 73. 
 
 Kaigapos. Probably that of Tiberius. There was no royal 
 effigy on Jewish coins : and Roman copper coins, if for circulation in 
 
 39° 
 
466 fHE GOSPFT, ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XX. 24, 26 
 
 Palestine, had no image on them. It was a base piece of flattery 
 on the part of Herod Philip that he placed on his coins the head 
 of the emperor, and the dezarivs used on this occasion may have 
 been one of his. It is possible but not probable that it was a 
 foreign coin, such as circulated outside Palestine! “Judas of 
 Galilee” (Acts v. 37; Jos, Avz. xviii. 1. 6, xx. 5. 2) or the 
 Gaulonite (Avs. xviii. 1. 1) had denounced the payment of tribute 
 to Czesar as treason against Jehovah, the only Lord that Israel 
 could acknowledge (A.D. 6): and probably the Galileans who were 
 listening to Jesus on this occasion were thoroughly in sympathy. 
 But His adversaries had conceded the whole point when they 
 aamitted that the coinage was Ceesar’s: for even Judaism admitted 
 that coinage implies the right of taxati., and is evidence of the 
 government to which submission is due. Ubdicungue numisma 
 alicujus regis obtinet, illic incole regem istum pro domino agnoscunt 
 (Maimon.). See Edersh. Z. & 7° ii P- 3853 Fix. of J. NV. p: 
 257. Grotius quotes Tiva éxe xapaxrjpa tovro TO T Tpagcdptor ; 
 Tpravod (Arrian. Zpice. iv. 5. 17). 
 
 25. Tolvuy aréSote. This s the right order (SBL, Boh. Goth. 
 Arm.), contrary to the best usa,e; and hence the correction dmédore Tolvus 
 (ACPAATI). D, Syr-Sin. und Lat. Vet. omit rolvuy. For rolvu first in the 
 sentence comp. Heb. xiii. 13 ; Is. iii. 10, v. 13, and contrast 1 Cor. ix. 265 
 Wisd. i. 11, viii. 9, The rolvuy (Mk. ofv) marks the sayings as a conclusion 
 drawn from the previous admission: ‘‘ Then render to Czesar,” etc. 
 
 74 Katcapos Kaicapt, This is the answer to the Pharisaic 
 portion of His questioners, as ra tod Ocod TG Oecd to the Herodian. 
 The error lay in supposing that Czsar and God were mutually 
 exciusive alternatives. Duty to Cesar was part of their duty to 
 God, because for purposes of order and government Czesar was 
 God’s vicegerent. In Rom. xii. 1, 2 S. Paul insists on the second 
 of these principles, in xiii. 1-7 on the first. See detached note at 
 the end of Rom. xiiii As Judza was an imperial province, its 
 taxes would go to the jiscws of the emperor, not to the evarium of 
 the senate. 
 
 +4 Tod @eod. No one duty is to be understood to the exclusion 
 of others, whether offerings in the temple, or penitence, etc. All 
 duties owed by man to God are included.? For dodidwyu of paying 
 what is due comp. Vil. 42, X 35, xil. 59; and see Wsctt. on Heb. 
 
 1Some ‘‘heretic” sent R. Juda an imperial denarius, and he was deciding 
 not to accept it, when another Rabbi advised him to accept it and throw it 
 into a well before the donor’s feet (Avoda Sara f. 6 quoted by Wetst. on Mt. 
 XAll, 21); 
 
 2It may be doubted whether the idea that man bears the image of God 
 just as the coin bears the image of Czesar is to be supplied: ‘‘ Render then the 
 coin to Czesar, and give the whole man up to God” (Latham, 4 Servece of 
 Angels, D. 50). 
 
 + 
 
XX. 25, 26.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 467 
 
 xii. rr. They had said ¢dpov Sodvaz, as if the tribute was a 
 gift. By substituting azddore He indicates that it is a due. 
 
 26. otk icxuoav . . . évavtiov tod Aaod. Peculiar to Lk., who 
 draws special attention to this further victory of Jesus. All three 
 record the wonder of His adversaries. 
 
 For the constr. of a’rof see on ver. 20. This use of évyayrloy is 
 common in LXX, but in N.T, is found only here, xxiv. 19; Acts vii. 10, 
 
 viii. 32: comp. évavrt i. 8; Acts viii. 21. 
 For Oavpaflery ért see on ii. 33, and for ovygv see on xviii. 39. 
 
 27-38. The Question of the Sadducees respecting a Woman 
 with Seven Husbands. Mt. xxii. 23-33; Mk. xii. 18-27. Mt. 
 tells us expressly that this took place év éxeivy ri jyépa. Lk. 
 mentions the Sadducees several times in the Acts (iv. 1, v. 17, 
 - xxiii, 6-8) but here only in his Gospel. Mk. also here only. 
 This question was less dangerous than the previous one. It con- 
 cerned a matter of exegesis and speculation, not of politics, and 
 was doctrinal rather than practical. Like the first two questions, 
 it aimed at destroying Christ’s influence with the multitude. 
 While the first aimed at inspiring them with distrust, and the 
 second at rousing their indignation against Him, this one is calcul- 
 ated to excite their ridicule. If Jesus failed to answer it, He and 
 His supporters would be placed in a grotesque position. The 
 Sadducees were not popular, for the doctrine of the resurrection 
 is precious to the majority of mankind, and they would be glad of 
 this opportunity of publicly exhibiting the popular doctrine as 
 productive of ludicrous results. Josephus says that when Sad- 
 ducees became magistrates, they conformed to the views of the 
 Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not tolerate them (Azzé. 
 xviii. 1. 4). 
 
 But the doctrine of the resurrection and of invisible powers (Acts xxiii. 8; 
 Jos. B. 7. ii. 8. 14) was not the main point in dispute between Sadducees and 
 Pharisees, but a deduction from the main point. The crucial question was 
 whether the oral tradition was binding (Av#. xiii. 10. 6). The Pharisees con- 
 tended that it was equal in authority to the written Law, while the Sadducees 
 maintained that everything not written was an open question and might be 
 rejected. Apparently the Pharisees were willing to concede that the doctrine 
 of the resurrection is not to be found in the written Law; and indeed outside 
 the Book of Daniel it is not clearly taught in O.T. What is said in favour of 
 it (Job xix. 26; Ps. xvi. 9, 11; Is. xxvi. 19) seems to be balanced by statements 
 equally strong on the other side (Ps. vi. 5, Ixxxviii. 10, II, cxv. 17 ; Eccles. ix. 
 4-10; Is. xxxviii. 18, 19). Hence it followed, on Sadducean principles, that the 
 doctrine was without authority, and was simply a pious opinion. That the Sad- 
 ducees rejected the O.T., with the exception of the Pentateuch, is a mistake of 
 Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Jerome, and others; and perhaps arises from 
 confusion with the Samaritans. But no Jew regarded the other books as equal 
 in authority to the Books of Moses; and hence Jesus, in answering the 
 Sadducees, takes His argument from Exodus (Bleek, Jt. to O.7. § 305, Eng. 
 tr. ii. p. 310), The name Zaddouxaios probably comes from Zadok, the best 
 attested form of which in many passages of LXX is Zaddovn (2 Sam. viii. 173 
 
468 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 27-33 
 
 Neh. iii. 29, x. 21, xi. 11, xiii. 13; Ezek. xl. 46, xliii. 19, xliv. 15, xlvili, 11): 
 but whzch Zadok gave the name to the sect, remains doubtful (Schiirer, Jewish 
 People in the T. of J. C. Il. ii. pp. 29-43; Hausrath, 4.7. Temes, i. pp. 
 136-150; Pressensé, Le Szécle Apostolique, pp. 87, 88, ed. 1888. For minor 
 points of difference between Sadducees and Pharisees, see Kuenen, Religion 
 of Israel, iii. pp. 234-238 ; Derenbourg, pp. 132-144). 
 
 27. tiwes Tv LaS8ouxaiwy ot héyovres. The of Aey. may agree 
 with tives, or be an irregular description of tév 2088. In the 
 latter case comp. Mk. xii. 40; but the former is better. All 
 Sadducees held that the resurrection was not an article of faith, 
 but some may have believed that it was true. One might render 
 ot Xéyorres “who were saying” at that moment. 
 
 A€yorres is the reading of NBCDL 1 33 etc., de Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. 
 
 Aegypt. Goth. Aeth., which is not discredited because it is also in Mt. 
 But Tisch. follows APT AATI etc. in reading dvridéyortes. 
 
 "Edv tivos &SeAbds. The quotation gives the substance rather 
 than the wording of Deut. xxv. 5; comp. Gen. xxxvili. 8. The 
 levirate law is said still to prevail among the Kalmucks and 
 other nations in the East. See Morison on Mk. xii. 19. 
 
 29. énta otv adeXpol. The ody appears to indicate that what 
 is about to be narrated was a consequence of this levirate law. 
 But the ovy may be a mere particle of transition. Mt. inserts 
 map iv, as if they professed to describe what had actually taken 
 place. It is said to have been a well-known problem, the recog- 
 nized answer to which was, that at the resurrection the woman 
 would he the wife of the first brother. This answer Christ might 
 have given; but, while it would have avoided the ridicule to which 
 the Sadducees wished to expose Him, it would not have refuted 
 their doctrine. D, Syr-Sin. cd ff,1q ins. wap’ jpiv here. 
 
 dtexvos. ‘“ Childless” asin ver. 28: comp. ver. 31. All three 
 imply that there was neither son nor daughter. And this is laid 
 down in the Talmud,—that the deceased brother must have no 
 child at all, although Deut. xxv. 5 says simply “have no son” (RV.). 
 Some maintained that the levirate law, which to a large extent 
 had gone out of use, did not apply to a wedded wite, but.only to 
 a betrothed woman. The Mishna recommends that the levirate 
 law be not observed. 
 
 80. kal 6 SevTepos. This is the reading of NBDL 157, e, omitting 
 AhaBev after cal and ri yuvaika cal obros dwé@avev drexvos after 6 detrepos. 
 These insertions are found in APT A ATI, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Vulg. 
 
 81. od katéAumoy Téxva Kal dméfavov. The main point is placed 
 first, although their death logically precedes. 
 
 83. tivos adrav yiverot yuv; The question is a plausible 
 appeal to the rough common sense of the multitude, and is based 
 upon the coarse materialistic views of the resurrection which then 
 prevailed. 
 
XX. 34-36.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 469 
 
 84. Jesus begins by removing this erroneous basis and shows 
 that the question is futile. The words oi viot tod aidvos.. . 
 tuxetv are peculiar to Lk., who omits “ Ye do err, not knowing 
 the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” Comp. Eph. i. 21. 
 
 85. of Sé Katagiwwévtes Tod aidvos exeivov. One might have 
 expected simply oi viot +. aiévos éx. But the substitution of 
 xaéiwévres corrects the assumption that all the sons of this world 
 will enter the Kingdom which begins with the resurrection. 
 Comp. Acts v. 41; 1 Thes. i. 5. Nowhere else does oi aiwv 
 éxeivos occur in N.T. It means the age beyond the grave regarded 
 as an age of bliss and glory. See on Rom. xii. 2. In itself it 
 implies resurrection; but, inasmuch as this is the doctrine in 
 dispute, the resurrection is specially mentioned. The word dvd- 
 otacts occurs Zech. ili. 8; Lam. ill. 63; Dan. xi. 20; title of 
 Ps. Ixv. But not until 2 Mac. vii. 14, xii. 43 is it used of 
 resurrection after death. 
 
 Tis ék vexpov. This must be distinguished {" i.. [}] avaoracts 
 tov] vexpdv. The latter is the more compreh.ie:ve term and 
 implies that a// the dead are raised (Mt. xxii. 31 ; Acts xvii. 32, 
 Ski G, Xx, 20, XXvL. 23° hom, £43 % Cor. xy. 12, 13, 425 
 Heb. vi. 2). Whereas davaoracis éx vexpdv rather implies that 
 some from among the dead are raised, while others as yet are not. 
 Hence it is used of the resurrection of Christ and of the righteous, 
 and is equivalent to the avdoraois fwys (Acts iv. 2; 1 Pet. i. 3: 
 comp. Col. i. 18). The avdoracis vexpdv includes the avacracis 
 xpicews as well as the av. fwys (Jn. v. 29). Comp. xiv. 14; 
 1 Thes. iv. 16; Rev. xx. 5,6; and see Lft. on Phil. iii. 11 and 
 Mey. on Rom. i. 4. With the construction comp. rovrov tuxeiv 
 ov 7E.WOnv adres (Aesch. P. V. 239). 
 
 yopiLovrar, Identical in meaning with yapiéoxovrat (ver. 34). 
 
 In both verses the simple verb is the right reading. In both places TR. 
 follows inferior authorities in reading éxyap. 
 
 86. obdé yap dmofavetv. The ydp means that the abolition of 
 death involves the abolition of marriage, the purpose of which is 
 to preserve the human race from extinction. 
 
 For oi (ABDLP 106 157) Tisch. has ooré (NQRIAAT). It 
 looks like a correction, 
 
 todyyehou ydp eiow. The adj. occurs here only in bibl. Grk. 
 and was probably coined by Lk. on the analogy of isdorepos 
 (4 Mac. xvii. 5), ioude\ghos, iodbeos, x.7.A. Mt. and Mk. have 
 @s dyyeAo. Grotius quotes from Hierocles rots icodatpovas Kat 
 ivayyedous Kai Tois dyavois Hpwow dpuofovs. “They do not marry, 
 because they cannot die; and they cannot die, because they are 
 like angels ; and they are sons of God, being sons of the resur- 
 
470 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 36-38 
 
 rection.” In correcting the error of the Sadducees about the 
 resurrection Jesus incidentally corrects their scepticism respecting 
 Angels (Acts xxii. 8). See Latham, 4 Service of Angels, pp. 
 52-60. 
 
 The connexion of kal viol elo.y Qcod is uncertain. The repetition of 
 elowy is rather against the clause being taken with lodyyehou ydp elow. More 
 probably it is co-ordinate with ovdé daofavety divayra. It is worth noting 
 that both in Job i. 6, ii. 1, and Gen. vi. 2 LXX has not viol but dyyedou 
 Tod Geod. Comp. I Cor. xv. 52; Rev. xxi. 4. But in any case it is the 
 émmortality of the Angels, not their sexlessness or immateriality, that is the 
 point of the argument. For tijs av. viol dvtes see on xxiii. 8. 
 
 87. Having shown that their question ought not to have been 
 asked, being based upon a gross misconception of the conditions 
 of the future state, Jesus proceeds to answer the objection which 
 their question implied, viz. that the doctrine of the resurrectioz 
 is inconsistent with the Mosaic Law. On the contrary, Moses 
 implies the doctrine. The levirate law is no argument against a 
 resurrection ; and the passage here quoted is a strong argument 
 in favour of it. 
 
 kat Mwuoys. “Even Moses,” who was supposed to be against 
 the doctrine (Mey. Weiss, Holtzm.). Less well, ettam Moses, non 
 modo prophetez (Beng.). Jesus quotes Moses because they had 
 done so (ver. 28), not because the Sadducees accepted only the 
 Pentateuch (Tert. Orig. Hieron.), which was not the case. 
 
 épnvucev. Not, “hinted,” but “disclosed, intimated, revealed.” 
 Both in class. and bibl. Grk. pyvvw is specially used of making 
 known what was secret (Acts xxiii. 30; 1 Cor. x. 28; Jn. xi. 57; 
 Soph. O. #&. 102). 
 
 éxt tis Bdétou. “In the Bush,” ze. in the portion of Scripture 
 known as “the Bush.” In Mk. we have év r7 BiBAw Movoews 
 ért tod Barov, where AV. violently transposes ézi 7. 6.,—“ how in 
 the bush God spake unto him.” Comp. 2 Sam. i. 18 and Rom. 
 xi. 2. The O.T. was divided into sections, which were named 
 after something prominent in the contents. Examples are quoted 
 from the Talmud. The rhapsodists divided Homer into sections 
 and named them on a similar principle. In the Koran the 
 chapters are named in this way. But the possibility of the simple 
 local meaning here must not be excluded. 
 
 The gender of Bdros varies. Here and Acts vii. 35 it is fem. In Mk. 
 and in LXX it is masc. (Exod. iii. 2, 3, 4; Deut. xxxiii, 16). So also in 
 Polyb. and Theophr. Several Old Latin texts here read szcut dixet vide 
 in rubo (cfff,ilq), which seems to imply a Greek text ws Aéye eldop 
 
 éy Tp B. 
 88. The Sadducees based their denial of the resurrection on 
 the alleged silence of Scripture and on the incredibility of exist- 
 ence after the death of the body (Jos. 2. /. ii. 8.14). Christ 
 
XX. 88-40.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 471 
 
 demolishes their premises by showing that Scripture is not silent, 
 but teaches the reality of existence after death. His argument 
 has less force against those who admit existence after death, but 
 hold that this existence of the soul apart from the body will 
 continue for ever. This, however, was not the error which He 
 was combating, and perhaps was not a common view. Yet even 
 against this error the argument has force, as Bengel points out. 
 Deus non est non entis deus: tpse est deus vivens; ergo tt gut 
 deum habent, vivese debent, et qua parte vivere intermiserant, 
 reviviscere in perpetuum, But perhaps this is more than is in- 
 tended. What is obvious is this:—Dead things may have a 
 Creator, a Possessor, a Ruler: only living beings can have a God. 
 If Abraham or any of the patriarchs had ceased to exist when he 
 died, God would have ceased to be his God. “I am the God of 
 Abraham” implies that Abraham still lives. Comp. oi da tov 
 @cov axobavevres Ldcw 74 OG, dorep “ABpadp x. "Ioadx x. “TaxdB 
 (4 Mac. xvi. 25).2 It is in reference to us that they seem to die- 
 in reference to Him zavres ficou. The mdvtes need not be re- 
 stricted to the three patriarchs: it includes all who are mentioned 
 in vv. 35, 36. Mk. adds zoAd zAavaobe, but the condemnation of 
 this doctrinal error is less severe than of the Pharisaic hypocrisy 
 
 89, 40. The Testimony of the Scribes. Some of the Pharisees 
 could not refrain from expressing their admiration of the manner 
 in which Jesus had vanquished their opponents. That proof of 
 the doctrine of the resurrection, which Sadducees had defied 
 the Pharisees to find in the Pentateuch, Jesus had produced, and 
 in the most convincing manner. The scribes were now persuaded 
 that it was useless to ply Jesus with hard questions. Such 
 attempts merely gave Him the opportunity of winning victories 
 But we learn from Mt. and Mk. that one of them came forward to 
 try Him once more (zepdé{wv aizrév) with a question that was 
 much debated, as to which commandment was chief. There is 
 nothing to show, however, that there was any snare in the ques- 
 tion: the scribe may have wished to try His sagacity on a point 
 which was very interesting. That a similar inquiry has been 
 narrated elsewhere (x. 25), may be Lk.’s reason for omitting the 
 incident here. 
 
 40. ydp. The fact that this was not understood caused it to be altered 
 if many texts into 6é. Godet maintains that it ‘‘ has absolutely no sense,” and 
 
 
 
 1 Gamaliel is said to have silenced Sadducees by quoting such promises as 
 Deut. i. 8, xi. 9. God’s promises must be fulfilled, and these were not fulfilled 
 to the patriarchs during their lifetime. Again, if God quickened buried seed, 
 how much more His own people (Edersh. A7st. of J. N. p. 316). 
 
 2? The Fourth Book of Maccabees, although written before the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, was probably written not verv long before Christian interpola- 
 tions, or conscious imitations of Christian phraseology, are possible (Scbirer, 
 Jewish People in the T. of J. C. Ul. iii. p. 244). 
 
472 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 40-42, 
 
 erroneously states that WH. have abandoned it. It is attested by NBL, 33, 
 Aegyptt., and gives excellent sense. Some of His opponents praised Him, 
 Jor they saw that He was always victorious, and that they must risk no more 
 defeats. 
 
 41-44 Jesus in turn asks a Question about David and the 
 Messiah. Mt. xxii. 41-46; Mk. xii. 35-37, where see Gould. It 
 is yet another opportunity of instructing them, not of vanquishing 
 and humiliating them, that is sought. The approbation recorded 
 in ver. 39 (comp. Mk. xii. 32) gave signs that some of His opponents 
 were open to conviction, and might even now recognize the 
 Christ. 
 
 41. mpds adtots. The scribes who had expressed admiration 
 are perhaps chiefly meant. In any case, “unto them” and not 
 “in reference to them” is the meaning. 
 
 Nas Adyouow. Mt. gives of ypapparets as the subject of 
 Aéyovow, which does not imply that the scribes had gone away. 
 “‘ With what right do teachers say?” This is the usual doctrine; 
 but do people consider what it involves in reference to other 
 statements ? 
 
 42. airds ydp. This is the reading of §XBLR 1 33, 1, Aegyptt., and 
 may be safely preferred to cal airés (A D P, Syrr. Vulg. Goth.). Q has xal 
 autos yap. 
 
 év BiBkw Yahav. See on iii. 4. Mt. has wvevyore and Mk. 
 TO Tv. TO ayiw for BiBAw Vorpaov. The quotation is verbatim the 
 same in all three, excepting that Mt. and Mk. have tzoxarw for the 
 brorddiov of LXX. and Lk. All three omit the 6 before Kvptos. 
 In the Hebrew we have different words for Lord: “ Jehovah saith 
 to my Adonai.” Ps. cx. was always believed to be Messianic, and 
 to have been written by David. ‘That it is Messianic is a matter 
 of spiritual interpretation; and, as Jesus here gives this doctrine 
 the sanction of His authority, no loyal Christian will consider that 
 he is free to question it. The authorship of the Psalm is a 
 question of ¢ritcism; and nothing in the method of Christ’s 
 teaching, or in the contents of Scripture generally, warrants us in 
 believing that He here frees us from the duty of investigating a 
 problem which is capable of being solved by our own industry 
 and acuteness. We have no right to expect that Scripture will 
 save us from the discipline of patient research by supplying. us 
 with infallible answers to questions of history, chronology, geology, 
 and the like. _ 
 
 The last word has not yet been spoken as to the authorship of Ps. cx.; but 
 it is a mistake to maintain that Jesus has decided the question. There is 
 nothing antecedently incredible in the hypothesis that in such matters, as in 
 other details of human information, He condescended not to know more than 
 His contemporaries, and that He therefore believed what He had been taught 
 in the school and in the synagogue (see footnote, p. 124). Nor ought we 
 
XX. 42-44] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 473 
 
 summarily to dismiss the suggestion that, although He knew that the Psalm 
 was sot written by David, He yet abstained from challenging beliefs respect- 
 ing matters of fact, because the premature and violent correction of such beliefs 
 would have been more harmful] to His work than their undisturbed continuance 
 would be. In this, as in many things, the correction of erroneous opinion 
 might well be left to time. But this suggestion is less satisfactory than the 
 other hypothesis. It should be noticed that, while Jesus affirms both the 
 inspiration (Mt. Mk.) and the Messianic character (Mt. Mk. Lk.) of Ps. cx., 
 yet the argumentative question with which He concludes need not be under- 
 stood as asserting that David is the author of it, although it seems to imply 
 this. It may mean no more than that the scribes have not fairly faced what 
 their own principles involve. Here is a problem, with which they ought to 
 be quite familiar, and of which they ought to be able to givea solution. It is 
 their position, and not His, that is open to criticism. The question, ‘‘ Why 
 callest thou Me good?” appears to serve a similar purpose. It seems to imply 
 that Christ is not to be called good in the sense that God is called good (Mk. 
 x. 18). But it need mean no more than that the young man who addressed 
 esus as ‘Good Master” ought to reflect as to the significance of such 
 ge before making use of it.? 
 
 44, xal mas adroit vids éotww; De Wette and Strauss both point 
 out that this question must imply either (1) that the Messiah is zo? 
 the Son of David, or (2) that the inspired Psalmist teaches that the 
 Messiah is no mere political deliverer. Strauss, with Schenkel and 
 Volkmar, prefers the former alternative.* But it is incredible that, 
 even if Jesus were a mere buman teacher, He would thus gratuit- 
 ously have contradicted the express utterances of Scripture (2 Sam. 
 vii. 8—29 ; Is. ix. 5-7, xi. I-10; Jer. xxili. 5-8; Mic. v. 2) and the 
 popular belief which was built upon them ; especially as this belief 
 was a valuable help to His own work (xviii. 38; Mt. xv. 22, xii. 23, 
 xxi. 9). Whereas, those who believe in His Divinity need have 
 no difficulty in admitting, that, on a point which was no part of 
 His teaching, Jesus might go all His human life without even rais- 
 ing the question as to the truth of what was authoritatively taught 
 about the authorship of this or that portion of Scripture. 
 
 45-47. The Condemnation of the Scribes. Like Mk. xii. 
 38-40, this seems to be a summary of the terrible indictment of 
 
 1“ Tf I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them 
 out?” (Lk. xi. 19) is possibly a similar case. It need not imply that Jewish 
 exorcists had succeeded in casting out demons, but only that they were credited 
 with no diabolical witchcraft in making the attempt. The question may mean 
 no more than “ Judge Me on the same principles as you judge your own 
 exorcists.” See Wright ad /oc. and xvi. 19. 
 
 On Ps. cx. see Gore, Bampton Lectures, 1891, Lect. vii. sub fin. and 
 note 55; Driver, Zut. to Lit. of O.T. p. 362 and note; Perowne, Psalms, ii. 
 P 302, with the remarks of Thirlwall there quoted ; Meyer on Mt. xxii. 43; 
 
 Weiss on Mt. xxii. 43 with note; Bishop Mylne, Jzdian Ch. Quar. Rev. Oct. 
 1892, p. 486; Schwartzkopff, Konnte Jesus trren? 1896, pp. 21-36. 
 
 2 Latham is of the same opinion from a different point of view. He thinks 
 that Jesus repudiated the title ‘‘ Son of David,” as implying that the Redeemer 
 of the world was a Jewzsh Messiah, with a title based on legitimacy and 
 genealogy (Pastor Pastorum, p. 415). 
 
474 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XX. 45-47, 
 
 the hierarchy given at length in Mt. xxiii. Lk. perhaps did not 
 know the longer report preserved by Mt. As he had already given 
 an account of a similar discourse (xi. 39-52), there was the less 
 need to give a full report here. 
 
 45. *Axovovtos 8€ travrés tod Aaod. It is in the hearing of the 
 multitude who had just been witnesses of the contest, in which the 
 scribes had been so signally defeated, that Jesus utters His final 
 condemnation of them. Comp. the ‘similar condemnation xii iy 
 where as here we have zpocéyere dé, and see notes there. Comp. 
 also the somewhat parallel passage in Ezek. xxii. 25: apralovres 
 dpmdypara, | Yoxas xatecOiovres ev Swacreig, Kal Tyas AapPavovres 
 kal ai xnpai cov edn OivOnoay €v péow cov. 
 
 46. wepimatetv év otodais. Mk. also has this Hellenized ex- 
 pression for tAarvvovow 7a puvdAaxTypia adrdv (Mt. xxiii. 5). The 
 saying from déoracpors év Tats ayopais to Tots Seizvors is in all three 
 accounts. Comp. xiv. 7, and see Wetst. on Mt. xxiii. 6, 7. 
 
 Salmon quotes AV. of this and of Mk. xii. 38 in illustration of the variety 
 which independent translation is sure to produce. Here, ‘‘ /ove to go in long 
 clothing, and love sa/utatzons in the market places and the chief seats in the 
 synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts, which for a pretence make lo 
 prayers.” In Mark, ‘‘desire, walk, robes, greetings, markets, highest, chief 
 show” for the words in italics, the Greek in all cases being the same. 
 
 tév Behévtwv Tepiwatetv. This constr. of 0é\w = ‘like, love” ¢, enfin. 
 occurs only here and Mk. xii. 38. It is perhaps an extension of the 
 
 ” Hebraistic 0éhw twa or 7s = “take delight in,” and in Mk. xii. 38 an acc. in 
 coupled with the infin. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 43, ix. 13; xii. 7; Heb. x. 5, 8. 
 But Lk. separates the acc. from @eAdvrwy by inserting the more usual 
 grotvTwv, Win. liv. 4, p. 587. What follows is common to all three 
 accounts, See on xi, 43 and xiv, 7. 
 
 47. ot KatecQiovci tas oikias tov xnpov. Comp. Mk. xii. 40; 
 but this item in the condemnation is not found in the true text of 
 Mt. xxiii. Probably wealthy widows are chiefly meant. They de- 
 voured widows’ houses by accepting hospitality and rich presents 
 from pious and weak women. Sexus muliebris ut ad superstitionem 
 pronior ita magis patet ad eas fraudes (Grot.). They would find 
 widows a specially easy prey, and their taking advantage of the 
 defenceless aggravated their guilt. C’éfatent les Tartuffes de 
 Pépoque (Godet). Josephus says of the Pharisees ofs trjxro 7 
 youaixuviris (Ant. xvii. 2. 4). Comp. the cases of Fulvia (xviii. 3. 5) 
 and of Helene (xx. 2. 5) as instances of devout and benevolent 
 women. ‘The wife of Pheroras, brother of Herod the Great, paid 
 the fines of thousands of Pharisees who had been fined for refusing 
 to swear loyalty to Cesar (xvii. 2. 4). The Talmud gives evidence 
 of the plundering of widows. Jnter plagas que a Phariseis pro- 
 veniunt hxc etiam est. Est gut consultat cum orphanis, ut alimenta 
 viduex eripiat (Sota Hieros. f. 20. 1, Schoettg. i: 199) Ofa 
 plundered widow R. Eleazar says, Plaga Phariseorum tetigit illam, 
 
XX. 47-XXI.8.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 475 
 
 Ajpipovrat wepicadtepov Kpipa. The “more abundant” may be 
 understood in two ways: (1) in proportion to the high estimation 
 in which they were held in this world; or (2) in proportion to the 
 hypocrisy which makes a trade of religion (Gould). Qui male 
 agit, gudicatur. Qui bono abutitur ad malum ornandum, magis 
 judicatur (Beng.). For \jpyopor kpipa comp. Rom. xiii. 2; Jas. 
 iii. 1 ; and for meptcodtepov see on vii. 26. 
 
 XXI. 1-4. The Widow’s Mites. Mk. xii. 41-44. The incident 
 is not recorded by Mt. The saying respecting “ widows’ houses” 
 might lead to the preservation of this narrative. Mk. and Lk. give 
 both, Mt. neither. 
 
 1. "AvaBdépas. Mk. has xaficas. The long discussions had 
 wearied Him, and He had been sitting with downcast or closed 
 eyes. 
 
 ‘ eidey tods BddAovtas ... mAouclous. Either, “He saw the 
 rich who were casting,” etc. Or, “ He saw those who were casting 
 . . » Tich people.” The former is better. In either case the im- 
 perf. part. expresses what was continually going on: vidit eos gui 
 mittebant munera sua in gazophylacium divites (Vulg.). 
 
 76 yalopuddxiov. We are not sure that there was a separate 
 building called the Treasury. But the thirteen trumpet-mouthed 
 boxes which stood in the spacious Court of the Women appear 
 to have been known as the Treasury. These Skhofaroth or 
 “trumpets” were each of them inscribed with the purpose to 
 which the money put into them was to be devoted. See Edersh. 
 The Temple, p. 26. Besides these there was the strong-room whither 
 their contents were taken from time to time. This, however, 
 cannot be meant here. Comp. Jn. viii. 20. 
 
 Both in LXX and in Josephus we find sometimes 7a yatoduvAdxia (Neh. 
 x. 38, xiii. 9; B. J. v. 5. 2, vi. 5. 2), sometimes 7d yafopuAdkiov (2 Kings 
 xxill. 11; 1 Mac. xiv. 29; Azé, xix. 6. 1): and we cannot say that there is 
 any difference of meaning. 
 
 2. wevixpdvy. Exod. xxii. 25; Prov. xxviii. 15, xxix. 7; but 
 nowhere else in N.T. Vulg. and 1 have pauperculam: see also 
 Vulg. of Is. Ixvi. 2. Note the teva. 
 
 hevrTé& So. See on xil. 59. The exact amount would not be 
 visible from a distance. Jesus knew this, as He knew that it was 
 all that she had, supernaturally. It was not lawful to offer less than 
 two ferutahs or mites. This was therefore the smallest offering 
 ever made by anyone; so that Bengel’s remark on the two mites 
 is out of place: guorum unum vidua retinere potuit. She could 
 have kept doth. 
 
 3. “Adn%as Adyw Syiv. Introduces something contrary to the 
 usual view. Here, as in ix. 27 and xii. 44, Lk. has dA70Gs, 
 where Mk. or Mt. has apyv. 
 
476 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXL 3-5. 
 
 mhetov mévtav. Von modo proportione geometrita, sed animo, 
 quem spectabat Dominus (Beng.). 
 
 For m)etov (AB T'A AIl), which is supported by Aeov (8), Tisch. prefers 
 mAelw (DQ X), which is supported by w)clova (L). Orig. has aAciov several 
 times. 
 
 4. mdvtes yap otro. Pointing to those of them who were still 
 in sight. 
 A eis Ta SGpa. “ Unto the gifts,” which were already in the 
 
 oxes. 
 
 €k Tod botepypatos. Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 14, xi. 9; Judg. xix. 20; 
 Ps, xxxili. 10. Whereas they had more than they needed for their 
 wants, she had less: they had a surplus, and she a defiait. Yet 
 out of this deficient store she gave,—gave all she had. 
 
 The Latin Versions vary much in rendering both expressions: de exuper- 
 antia (s), de co quod superfuit zllis (e), de quo super zllis fuct (a), ex eo quod 
 abundavit tllis (f), ex abundant (Vulg.): de exiguttate sua (a), de tnopia sua 
 (er), de minimo suo (d), ex co guod deest zi (f Vulg.). 
 
 mdvta tov Biov. All that she had to support her at that time: 
 comp. Vili. 43, xv. 12, 30; Cant. viii. 7; Soph. Phil. 933, 1283. 
 
 5-36. The destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem fore- 
 told. Mt. xxiv. 1-36; Mk. xili. 1-32. The section falls into 
 three divisions: the Occasion of the Prophecy (5-7), the Prophecy 
 (8-28), the Exhortation to Vigilance based on the Parable of the 
 Fig Tree (29-36). Edersheim has shown in detail how different 
 contemporary Jewish opinion respecting the end of the world was 
 from what is contained in this prediction, and therefore how unten- 
 able is the hypothesis that we have here only a reflexion of ordinary 
 Jewish tradition (Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 434-445). 
 
 5-7. Lk. gives no indication of time or place. Mk. and Mt. 
 tell us that it was as Jesus was leaving the precincts that the remark 
 of the disciples was made. The discourse as to the comparative 
 merits of the offerings made in the Temple would easily lead on to 
 thoughts respecting the magnificence of the temple itself and of 
 the votive gifts which it received. 
 
 5. tiwwv Aeysvtav. Mt. and Mk. tell us that these were 
 disciples. 
 
 Here again Cod. Bezae has a reproduction of the gen. abs. in Latin, 
 quorundam dicentium: comp. ver. 26. 
 
 AiBorg Kadois. Some of the stones of the substructure were 
 enormous. The colurns of the cloister or portico were monoliths 
 _of marble over forty feet high. See Josephus, whose account 
 should be read in full (2.7. v. 5), Tacitus (#s¢. v. 12), Milman 
 (Hist. of the Jews, ii. bk. xvi. p. 332), Edersheim (Zempée, p. 21), 
 Renan (V de/. p. 210). “It is almost impossible to realise the 
 
XXI. 5-7.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 477 
 
 effect which would be produced by a building longer and higher 
 than York Cathedral, standing on a solid mass of masonry almost 
 equal in height to the tallest of our church spires” (Wilson, Recovery 
 of Jerusalem, p. 9). 
 
 éva?jpacwv. Mt. and Mk. say nothing about the rich offerings, 
 which were many and various, from princes and private individuals 
 (2 Mac. iii. 2-7): e.g. the golden vine of Herod, with bunches as 
 tall asa man (Jos. B. /. v. 5. 4; Ant. xv. 11. 3: comp. xvii. 6. 3; 
 XViii. 3. 5, xix. 6. 1). Ji/ic immense opulentiz templum (Tact. Hist. 
 v. 8.1). For dva$yya comp. 2 Mac. ix. 16; 3 Mac. ili. 17; Hat. 
 i. 183. 6. Here only in N.T. 
 
 On the relation between dvd@nua and dvd@eua see Ellicott and Lft. on 
 Gal. i. 8; Trench, Syz. v. ; Cremer, Lex. p. 547. In MSS. the two words 
 are often confounded. Here § AD X have dva@éuacw, which Tisch. adopts. 
 
 6. tatta & Gewpeite. Wom. pendens: comp. Mt. x. 14, xii. 36; Jn. 
 vi. 39, Vii. 38, xv. 2, xvii. 2; Acts vil. 40. 
 
 éXevoovtTat Hepat. ‘* Days will come”: no article. Comp. v. 35, 
 XVii. 22, xix. 43, XXiii., 29. 
 
 odk ddeOycerar AtOos eri A(Pw. A strange prediction to those 
 who had been expecting that the Messianic Kingdom would imme- 
 diately begin, and that Jerusalem would be the centre of it. 
 Respecting the completeness of the fulfilment of this prediction see 
 Stanley, Szm. & Pal. p. 183; Robinson, es. in Pal. i. p. 295. 
 
 7. Just as Lk. omits the fact that the remark about the glorious 
 buildings was made as Jesus was leaving the temple (ver. 5), so he 
 omits the fact that this question was asked while Jesus was sitting 
 on the Mount of Olives. Mt. knows that it was “the disciples” 
 who asked ; but the interpreter of Peter knows that Peter, James, 
 John, and Andrew were the enquirers. Both state that the question 
 was asked kar’ id/av. 
 
 mote ovv tata éotat; They accept the prediction without 
 question, and ask as to the date, respecting which Christ gives 
 them no answer: comp. xiil. 23, 24, xvil. 20. Perhaps they con- 
 sidered that this temple was to be destroyed to make room for 
 one more worthy of the Kingdom. Their second question, ri 76 
 onpetov, shows that they expect to live to see the preparatory 
 catastrophe. 
 
 8-28. The Prophecy. The Troubles which will follow the 
 Departure of Christ—False Christs, Wars, Persecutions (8-19). 
 The Destruction of Jerusalem (20-24). The Signs of the Return 
 of the Son of Man (25-28). The record of the prediction in Mt. 
 and Mk. is similarly arranged. But in all three records the out- 
 lines of the two main events, with their signs, cannot always be 
 disentangled. Some of the utterances clearly point to the Destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem; others equally clearly to the Return of the 
 Christ. But there are some which might apply to either or both; 
 
478 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 8-11 
 
 and we, who stand between the two, cannot be sure which one, if 
 only one, is intended. In its application to the lives of the hearers 
 each event taught a similar truth, and conveyed a similar warning ; 
 and therefore a clearly cut distinction between them was as little 
 needed as an exact statement of date. Some of the early com- 
 mentators held that the whole of the prophecy refers to the end of 
 the world without including the fall of Jerusalem. 
 
 8. mAavnOyte. “Be led astray.” The verb is used nowhere 
 else in Lk. It implies no mere mistake, but fundamental departure 
 from the truth: Jn. vii. 47; 1 Jn. i. 8, ii. 26, iii. 7; Rev. ii. 20, 
 xli. 9, XX. 3-10, etc. ‘“‘Deceive” (AV.) would rather be amardv 
 (Jas. i. 26: comp. 1 Cor. ili. 18; Gal. vi. 3). 
 
 émt 7@ dvdpatt pov. Christ’s name will be the dasés of their 
 claim. We know of no false Messiahs between the Ascension and 
 the fall of Jerusalem. Theudas (Acts v. 36), Simon Magus (Acts 
 viii. 9), the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38) do not seem to have come 
 forward as Messiahs. Dositheus, Simon Magus, and Menander 
 might be counted among the “ many antichrists” of 1 Jn. ii. 18, 
 but not as false Christs. We seem, therefore, at the outset to have 
 a sign which refers rather to Christ’s return than to the destruction 
 of Jerusalem. 
 
 9. dxatactacias. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 5, xii. 20; 
 Jas. iii. 16; Prov. xxvi. 28; Tob. iv. 13. In Josephus we have 
 abundant evidence of such things. ‘Tacitus says of this period— 
 opimum casibus, atrox prelits, discors seditionibus, ipsd etiam pace 
 sevum. Quatuor Principes ferro interemptt. Trina bella civilia, 
 plura externa ac plerumque permixta (Hist. i. 2. 1).—wronOijrte. 
 Only here and xxiv. 37: Mt. and Mk. have OpoetoGe. 
 
 Set. It is so ordered by God: comp. xiii. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, 
 xxiv. 7, 26, 44, 46. 
 
 otk e0éws. First, with emphasis: “Not immediately is the 
 end.” For “by-and-by” as a translation of ed#éws see on xvii. 7. 
 By 18 7éAos is not meant 76 téAos ddivwv (comp. Mt. xxiv. 8), but 
 mavtwv To TéAos (1 Pet. iv. 7), the end of the world and the coming 
 of the Son of Man. 
 
 10. Téte édeyev adtots. A new introduction to mark a solemn 
 utterance. The tore with é\eyey is unusual; but that does not 
 make the combination of rére with éyepOyoerat (Beza, Casaubon, 
 Hahn) probable. 
 
 D, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. ade ff,ilr omit the words, 
 
 éyepOyoetar €Ovos én €Ovos. Only here and in the parallels is 
 this use of éyetpeo('o. eri twa found in N.T. Comp. éreyep6y- 
 covrat Aiyvrruon er Aiyumrious . . . [ereyepOjoerac] woAus emt rod 
 Kat vouos emt vopov (Is. xix. 2). 
 
 11. After describing the general political disturbances which 
 
XXI. 11-15.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 479 
 
 shall precede the end, Jesus mentions four disturbances of nature 
 which shall also form a prelude: earthquakes, famines, pestilences, 
 and terrible phenomena in the heaven. Lk. alone mentions the 
 Aorpot (elsewhere in a metaphorical sense: Acts xxiv. 5; Prov. 
 xxi. 24; Ps. i. 1; 1 Mac. xv. 21). Lk. alone also mentions the 
 hoBnOpa te kat onpeia. On the prodigies which preceded the 
 capture of Jerusalem see Jos. B. /. vi. 5. 3; Tac. Hist. v. 13. 
 
 According to the better text (NBL, Aegyptt. Arm. Aeth.) card rézovus 
 belongs to Aowwol kal Arwol, not (as in Mk.) to cecopol weyddot (A D, Latt.). 
 Syr-Sin. has ‘‘in divers places” with both. Many authorities (§ ADL, de 
 Boh.) have Awol x. Aomwol. For the paronomasta comp. fwhv kal mvojv (Acts 
 xvii. 25); ywwones & dvaywdoxes (Acts viii. 30); uabev ad’ dv érabey 
 (Heb. v. 8); évaluny in "Ovjomos (Philem. 20); rivés TSv KAddwy ébexAdo- 
 @ycav (Rom. xi. 17). Some Latin, Syriac, and Aethiopic authorities here 
 insert e¢ hzemes tempestates, ‘‘ probably from an extraneous source written or 
 oral” (WH. ii. App. p. 63). Comp. the addition of kal rapaxal in Mt. 
 xiii, 8. And as regards the terrors generally comp. 4 Esdr. v. 4-10. 
 
 12-19. Calamities specially affecting the Disciples; Persecu- 
 tion and Treachery. While Lk. and Mk. emphasize the persecu- 
 tion that will come from the Jews, Mt. seems almost to confine it 
 to the Gentiles (but see Mt. x. 17-19). Jn. also records that 
 Christ foretold persecution (xv. 18-21), and in particular from the 
 Jews (xvi. 2, 3). The Acts may supply abundant illustrations. 
 Note that Lk. has nothing about “the Gospel being preached ¢o 
 all the nations” (Mk. xili. 10; Mt. xxiv. 14). Would he have 
 omitted this, if either of those documents was before him? 
 
 12. mpd 8€ toUtwy. The prep. is certainly used of time, and 
 not of superiority in magnitude. Persecutions are among the first 
 things to be expected. The tendency of Mt. to slur the misdeeds 
 of the Jews is conspicuous here. While Lk. mentions tas ovva- 
 yoyds and Mk. adds cvvédpia, Mt. has the vague term @Aiuw. 
 
 13. dmoBycetar Gpiv cis paptipiov. “The result to you will be 
 that your sufferings will be for a testimony.” A testimony to 
 what? Not to the innocence of the persecuted, which is not the 
 point: and they were commonly condemned as guilty. Possibly 
 to their loyalty: comp. Phil. 1. 19. More probably to the truth of 
 the Gospel, For the verb comp. Job xiii. 16; 2 Mac. ix, 24. 
 
 14, mpopederGv. The regular word for conning over a speech: 
 here only in N.T. Mk. has the less classical rpoyepysvav. Comp. 
 X. I9, 20, and see on xii. 11. Hahn would make the word mean 
 anxiety about the resu/t of the defence. 
 
 15. éyo ydép. With emphasis: “all of that will be JZ care.” 
 In the parallel assurances in Mt. x. 20 and Mk. xiii. 11 it is the help 
 of the Holy Spirit that is promised. In form this verse is peculiar 
 to Lk. By oroyva is meant the power of speech; by codia the 
 choice of matter and form. Comp. eyo dvoifw 7d ordya cov 
 
480 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 15-19, 
 
 (Exod. iv. 12), and dédwxa rods Adyous pou cis 7d oTdpa cov (Jer. 
 i. 9). 
 
 avtictyvat. This refers to copia (Acts vi. 10) as ayreurety to 
 oropa. Their opponents will find no words in which to answer, 
 and will be unable to refute what the disciples have advanced. Vos 
 ad certamen acceditis, sed ego prelior. Vos verba editis, sed ego sum 
 gui loguor (Bede). Quid: sapientius et tncontradicibilius confessione 
 simplici et exserta in martyris nomine cum Deo invalescentis (Tert. 
 Adv. Marc. iv. 39. 20). Holtzmann would have it that these 
 verses (12-15) are the composition of the Evangelist with definite 
 reference to the sufferings of S. Paul and S. Stephen. 
 
 16. kal bmd yovéwy. “ Hven by parents” (RV.) rather than 
 “doth by parents” (AV.). Cov. also has “even.” Comp. xii. 52, 
 53; Mt. x. 35 for similar predictions of discord in families to be 
 produced by the Gospel. 
 
 Bavatdcouow. This verb is in all three accounts. It cannot 
 be watered down to mean “put in danger of death” (Volkmar): 
 ver. 18 does not require this evasion. Comp. é& atr&v amoxreveite 
 <al oravpwoere (Mt. xxiii. 34) and é& airdy dzoxrevotow (Lk. 
 xl. 49). Here é€ éuav naturally means “some of you Apostles.” 
 Three of the four who heard these words—James, Peter, and 
 Andrew—suffered a martyr’s death. 
 
 17. kat écecbe picovpevor. This verse is found in the same 
 form in all three, excepting that Mt. inserts trav cOvav after rdvrwv, 
 which is in harmony with his omitting synagogues as centres of 
 persecution (xxiv. 9). For the paraphrastic future see on i. 20. 
 
 18. kat Opié... od ph dméAnta. Peculiar to Lk. This 
 proverbial expression of great security must here be understood 
 spiritually ; for it has just been declared (ver. 16) that some z2// 
 be put to death. ‘Your souls will be absolutely safe; your 
 eternal welfare shall in nowise suffer” (Mey. Weiss, Nosg.). Jn. 
 x. 28 is in substance closely parallel. This is more satisfactory 
 than to take it literally and supply s¢xe premio, ante tempus 
 (Beng.); or supply from Mt. x. 29 dvev tov ratpos tuav (Hahn). 
 The proverb is used of physical preservation, Acts xxvii. 34; 
 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings i. 52. 
 
 19, év TH Sropov budv. “In your endurance” of suffering 
 without giving way; whereas paxpofvpia is patience of injuries 
 without paying back. See Trench, Syz. liii.; Lft. on Col. i. 11, 
 ili. 12 ; Wsctt. on Heb. vi. 12. The Latin Versions often confuse 
 the two words. 
 
 Here we have fatientia (ef ff,iqrs Vulg.), colerantia (a), suferentza (d). 
 These three translations are found also viii. 15. In no other Gospel does 
 brouovy occur ; and in no Gospel does waxpo@vyla occur. 
 
 ktTyoece Tas Wuxds buoy. “ Ye shall wiz your suuls,” uu “ your 
 
XXL 19-21.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 451 
 
 lives.” This confirms the interpretation given above of ver. 18. 
 There the loss of eternal salvation is spoken of as death. Here 
 the gaining of it is called winning one’s life. See on ix. 25 and 
 xvii. 33- In Mt. (xxiv. 13, x. 22) and Mk. (xiii. 13) this saying is 
 represented by “He that endureth (tzopetvas) to the end, the 
 same shall be saved.” Neither Lk. nor Jn. use izopévew in this 
 sense. 
 
 The reading is uncertain as regards the verb, AB some cursives, Latt. 
 Syrr. Arm. Aeth. and best MSS. of Boh., Tert. Orig. support xrjcecde, 
 which is adopted by Treg. WH. RV. and Weiss; whileX DL RXTA etc., 
 some MSS. of Boh., Const-Apost. Bas. support xrjcac@e, which is adopted 
 by Tisch. Neither reading justifies ‘‘ Jossess your souls,” a meaning confined 
 to the perf. Cov. has ‘‘ holde fast”; but nearly all others have ‘‘ possess,” 
 following in verb, though not in tense, the Zosszdedztés of Vulg. Other Lat. 
 texts have adguzretts (c ff,1) or adguzrzte (di). See last note on xviii. 12. 
 
 20-24. The Destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 20. xuxoupévny. “ Being compassed”: when the process was 
 completed it would be too late; comp. Heb. xi. 30. No English 
 Version preserves this distinction: but Vulg. has wideritis circum- 
 dari, not circumdatam (ae). Instead of this Mt. and Mk. have 
 ‘the abomination of desolation,” etc. 
 
 4 épypwots. The word is freq. in LXX, but in N.T. occurs 
 only here and the parallels. The disciples had been expecting an 
 immediate glorification of Jerusalem as the seat of the Messianic 
 Kingdom. It is the desolation of Jerusalem that is really near at 
 hand. 
 
 21, téte . . . Ta Spy. Verbatim the same in all three. What 
 follows, to the end of ver. 22, is peculiar to Lk. By “ the.moun- 
 tains” is meant the mountainous parts of Judza: but é péow 
 airs (see on vill. 7) refers, like eis airyy, not to Judza, but to 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 xadpats. ‘“*Land-estates” (xii. 16), “country” as opposed to 
 the town. See Blass on Acts viii. 1. The Jews who fled from 
 the country into Jerusalem for safety greatly increased the miseries 
 of the siege. It is probably to this prophecy that Eusebius refers 
 when he speaks of “the people of the Church in Jerusalem being 
 commanded to leave and dwell in a city of Perza called Pella, in 
 accordance with a certain oracle which was uttered before the war 
 to the approved men there by way of revelation” (#7. £. iii. 5. 3). 
 The flight to Pella ¢//ustrates the prophecy; but we need not 
 confine so general a warning to a single incident. It is important 
 to note that the wording of the warning as recorded here has not 
 been altered to suit this incident. Marcion omitted vz. 18, 21, 22. 
 
 Vulg. pee —s Vet. are misleading in translating éy rais xdpais in 
 regionibus. e Frag. Ambrcsiana (s) give more rightly zm agrv7s. Sse Old- 
 Latin Biblical Texts, ti. p. 83. 
 
 oI 
 
482 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 22-24, 
 
 22. fpepar exdicyoews. Comp. LXX of Deut. xxxii. 35; Hos. 
 ix. 7; Ecclus. v. 9. In what follows note the characteristic con- 
 struction, and verb, and adjective. There is an abundance of 
 such utterances throughout the O.T. Lev. xxvi. 31-33; Deut. 
 XXVili. 49-57; 1 Kings ix. 6-9; Mic. iii. 12; Zech. xi. 6; Dan. 
 ix. 26,27. The famous passage in Eus. HZ. £. ii. 23. 20 should 
 be compared, in which (like Origen before him) he quotes as from 
 Josephus words which are in no MS. of Josephus which is extant: 
 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge (kar exdikyow) 
 James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the 
 Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a very just man.” 
 
 23. odat ... tucpats. Verbatim the same in all three. For 
 évdyxn Mt. and Mk. have Ads. In Job xv. 24 we have avayky 
 kat O@Xiyus: comp. Job vii. 11, xviil. 14, xx. 22. In class. Grk. 
 dvéykn rarely means “distress,” a meaning common in bibl. Grk. 
 (1 Cor, vii. 26; 1 Thes. ii. 7; 2 Cor. vi. 4, xii. 105) Bsvevinonaes 
 19, 28; Ps. Sol. v. 8). See small print on ver. 25. The meaning 
 of ént tis yas is determined by 16 hag totrw. The. latter 
 means the Jews, and therefore the former means Palestine (AV. 
 RV.) and not the earth (Weiss). For the Divine épyy comp. 
 1 Mac. i. 64, ii. 49; 2 Mac. v. 20; Ps. SoZ ii. 26, xvii. 14. The 
 opyn is provoked by the people gué ¢antam gratiam calestem 
 spreverit (Beng.). 
 
 24. kal mecodvrat otdpat. paxatpys. This verse and the last 
 words of ver. 22 are peculiar to Lk. Note the characteristic 
 a7avta, paraphrastic future, and.aypt. The often repeated asser- 
 tion of Josephus, that 1,100,000 perished in the siege and 97,000 
 were carried into captivity (B. 7. vi. 9. 3) is quite incredible: they 
 could not have found standing-ground within the walls. The 
 sexcenta millia of Tacitus (sz. v. 13. 4), if taken literally, is far 
 too many for the’ number of those besieged: but sexcenti need 
 not mean more than “very many.” Perhaps 70,000 is an ample 
 estimate. 
 
 The ash é& orbuart paxalpas occurs Gen. xxxiv. 263 Jos. x. 28; év 
 
 arbuart poudalas, Jos. vi. 21, vill. 24; év orduare Elpous, Jos. x. 30, 32, 35, ~ 
 
 37, 39. The plur. o7éuara waxalpys is found Heb. xi. 34. In the best MSS. 
 substantives in -pa form gen. and dat. in -pys and -py (WH. ii. App. p. 156). 
 
 éorat matounévy. See oni. 20, and see also Burton, § 71. Plus 
 sonat quam warnOnoera (Beng.): it expresses the permanent con- 
 dition, Ja domination écrasante (Godet). Comp. the LXX of 
 Zech. xii. 3, Ojoopar tHv “Iepoveadij. AiGov Kataratovpevoy macw 
 tois €Oveow.! Jerusalem has more often been under the feet of 
 
 1 This use of raréw, ‘*I tread,” as =xatamaréw, ‘‘I trample on,” is classical: 
 Plat. Phedr. 248 A; Soph. 47. 1146; Ant. 745; Aristoph. Vesp. 377. The 
 meaning is certainly not ‘shall be inhabited by” (Hahn), as in Is, xlii. 5. 
 Comp. Rev. xi. 23 Ps. Sol. vii. 2, ii. 2. 
 
XXI. 24, 25.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 483 
 
 Gentiles than in the hands of Christians. Romans, Saracens, 
 Persians, and Turks have all trampled upon her in turn. 
 
 The Latin Versions vary much: e7zt calcata (d 4), ertt zncalcata (e), erit 
 tn concalcationem (a), concalcabitur (xr), calcabctur (Vulg.). 
 
 dxptos. See on i. 20: dxpus ob is possibly correct Rom. xi. 25; 
 Heb. iii. 13. ‘ 
 
 katpot e0vav. As stated already, the whole of this verse is 
 peculiar to Lk., and some have supposed that the last part of it is 
 an addition made by him. It is not necessary to charge him with 
 any such licence; although it is possible that oral tradition has 
 here, as elsewhere, paraphrased and condensed what was said. 
 The “seasons of the Gentiles” or “‘ opportunities of the Gentiles” 
 cannot be interpreted with certainty. Either (1) Seasons for 
 executing the Divine judgments; or (2) for lording it over Israel ; 
 or (3) for existing as Gentiles; or (4) for themselves becoming 
 subject to Divine judgments; or (5) Opportunities of turning to 
 God ; or (6) of possessing the privileges which the Jews had for- 
 feited. The first and last are best, and they are not mutually 
 exclusive. Comp. dxpt ob 70 rAjpwua tay éOvdv eicéX\On (Rom. 
 xi. 25), where the whole section is a comment on the promise 
 that the punishment of Israel has a limit. The plur. xa:pof corre- 
 sponds with the plur. évy: each nation has its xarpés: but comp. 
 €ws tANpwHdow Katpol tod aidvos (Tob. xiv. 5), where the whole 
 passage should be compared with this. 
 
 25-28. The Signs of the Second Advent. Lk. here omits 
 what is said about shortening the days and the appearance of 
 impostors (Mt. xxiv. 22-26; Mk. xiii. 20-23). On the latter 
 subject he has already recorded a warning (xvii. 23, 24). 
 
 25. év HAiw kK. cekyvy k. Gotpors. ‘In sun and moon and 
 stars.” In Mt. and Mk. the three words have the article. All 
 English Versions prior to RV. wrongly insert the article here, Cov. 
 with “sun,” the rest with all three words. Similar language is 
 common in the Prophets: Is. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7; Joel ii. 10, 
 iii. 15: comp. Is. xxxiv. 4; Hag. li. 6, 21, etc. Such expressions 
 indicate the perplexity and distress caused by violent changes: 
 the very sources of light are cut off. To what extent they are to 
 be understood literally cannot be determined: but it is quite out 
 of place to introduce here the thought of Christ as the sun and the 
 Church as the moon, as do Ambr. and Wordsw. ad Joc. (Migne, 
 xv. 1813). The remainder of this verse and most of the next are 
 peculiar to Lk. 
 
 gvvoxy occurs only here and 2 Cor. ii. 4 in N.T.; but comp. viii. 45, 
 xi. 45, xii, 50. In LXX it is found Judg. ii. 3; Job xxx. 3; Jer. lit. 5; 
 Mic. v. 1. In Vulg. Jerome carelessly uses Jressura both for suvoy here 
 and for dvdyxy in ver. 23; although Lat. Vet. distinguishes, with conpressia 
 
484 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXL 25-28, 
 
 (a), confiictto (d), conclusio (e), or occursus (f) for cuvoxh, and mecessitas 
 (ader) or pressura (f) for dvdyn. See small print on xix. 43. 
 
 év Gmopia 7xods. All English Versions prior to RV. go astray 
 here, but Wic. and Rhem. less than the rest, owing to the Vulgate: 
 in terris pressura gentium pre confusione sonitus maris et fluctuum. 
 Tertullian is better: im terra angustias nationum obstupescentium 
 velut a sonitu maris jluctuantis (Adv. Mare. iv. 39). It is the 
 nations who are “i perplexity af the resounding of sea and 
 surge.” Figurative language of this kind is common in the 
 Prophets: Is. xxviii. 2, xxix. 6, xxx. 30; Ezek. xxxviii. 22; Ps. 
 xlii. 7, lxv. 7, xxxviii. 7. See Stanley, Jewish Church, i. p. 130. 
 
 It is uncertain whether 7xous is to be accented jxois as from 7xe, or 
 fxous as from 7xos (iv. 37; Heb. xii. 19; Acts ii. 2). See WH. ii. App. 
 p- 158. The reading jxovcns (DI A ATI etc.) is a manifest correction: the 
 evidence against it (§ ABCLM RX and Versions) is overwhelming. For 
 the gen. after dzoplg, “ perplexity because of,” comp. karahéywy Tav ZkvOéwr 
 Thy droplnv (Hdt. iv. 83. 1). The conjecture év daeplg is baseless, and gives 
 an inferior meaning. 
 
 26. dropuxdvtwv. “ Fainting, swooning,” as Hom. Od. xxiv. 348, 
 rather than “expiring,” as Thuc. i. 134. 3; Soph. 47. 1031. 
 
 The arescentibus of Lat. Vet. and Vulg. is remarkable; but a has a 
 refrigescentibus and d has déefictentium.' Of these three words refrigescere 
 best represents droyixew. But in LXX puyxew is used of drying in the sun 
 or air: Num. xi. 32; 2 Sam. xvii. 19. Comp. tol 6’ lidpd darepixovro 
 XITaver, ordvre worl mvoujv (Hom. //. xi. 621): ‘‘ They dried the sweat off 
 their tunics.” Rhem. renders avescentzbus ‘* withering away.” Hobart claims 
 both droyixew and mpocdoxla as medical (pp. 161, 166). But medical writers 
 use dropixew of being chilled, not of swooning or expiring. He gives many 
 instances from Galen of tpoodoxla (which occurs here and Acts xii. 10 only 
 in N.T.) as denoting the expectation of an unfavourable result. For this use 
 of dé see on xxiv. 4I. 
 
 7] olxoupevy. See on iv. 5. 
 
 ai Surdpers TOY odpavav cahevOjcovra, Comp. taxjoovrat macat 
 al Suvdpets Tv otpav@v (Is. xxxiv. 4). The verb which Lk. sub- 
 stitutes is one of which he is fond (vi. 38, 49, vii. 24; Acts ii. 25, 
 iv. 31, xvi. 26, xvii. 13). By ai duvdyes 7. ovp. is meant, not the 
 Angels (Euthym.), nor the cosmic powers which uphold the 
 heavens (Mey. Oosterz.), but the heavenly bodies, the stars (De W. 
 Holtz. Weiss, Hahn): comp. Is. xl. 26; Ps. xxxiii. 6. Evidently 
 physical existences are meant. 
 
 27. kal tote Spovrar. “Not 7/7 then shall ¢hey see.” Not 
 éweoGe: there is perhaps a hint that those present will not live to 
 see this. This verse is in ali three: comp. 1 Thes. iv. 16; 2 Thes. 
 i. 7, ii. 8; Rev. i. 8, xix. 11-16. 
 
 28. This word of comfort is given by Lk. alone. Only here in 
 
 1 Deficientium hominum a timore: another eae of gen. abs. in 
 Latin. Comp. iii. 15, ix. 43, xix. II, xxi. 5, xxiv. 36, 4I. 
 
XXI. 28-33.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 485 
 
 N.T. is dvax’rrew used of being elated after sorrow. Comp. Job 
 x. 15, and contrast Lk. xiii, 11; Jn. villi. 7, 10. The disciples 
 present are regarded as representatives of believers generally. 
 Only those who witness the signs can actually fulfil this injunction. 
 
 GarodUtpwots. At the Second Advent. Here the word means 
 little more than “release” or “deliverance,” without any idea of 
 “ransom” (Auvrpov). See Sanday on Rom. ili. 24 and Wsctt. 
 Heb. pp. 295-297- 
 
 29-33. The Parable of the Fig Tree. Mt. xxiv. 32-35; Mk. 
 xili, 28-32. 
 
 29. Kat eimev. This marks the resumption of the discourse 
 after a pause: comp. xi. 5. More often Lk. uses «izev 8€ or 
 edeyev 5€: xiv. 12, xx. 41, etc. For etwev mapaBodyy see on Vi. 39. 
 Lk. alone makes the addition kai wavra 7a dévdpa: see on vi. 30 
 and vii. 35. Writing for Gentiles, Lk. preserves words which cover 
 those to whom fig trees are unknown. 
 
 830. mpoBddwowv. Here only without acc. We must understand 7a 
 gira. In Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 19 xaprdéy is added: comp. Acts xix. 33. 
 
 ad éavtav yiweoKete. ‘* Of your own selves ye recognize: ” z.¢. with- 
 out being told. For éavrod, -Gv, of the 2nd pers. comp. xii. I, 33, Xvi. 9, 15, 
 xvii. 3, 14, xxii. 17, xxiii. 28. It occurs in class. Grk. where no ambiguity 
 is involved. 
 
 There is no justification for rendering @épos ‘‘ harvest,” which would be 
 Oepiopés (x. 2). In N.T. @épos occurs only in this parable, 
 
 82. 4 yeved aitn. This cannot well mean anything but se 
 generation living when these words were spoken: vii. 31, xi. 29- 
 32, 50, 51, xvii. 25; Mt. xi. 16, etc. The reference, therefore, is 
 to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of 
 the world. To make 7 yeved avrn mean the Jewish race, or the 
 generation contemporaneous with the beginning of the signs, is not 
 satisfactory. See on ix. 27, where, as here, the coming of the 
 Kingdom of God seems to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 83. 6 odpavds Kai i yq. Comp. 2 Pet. ill. 10; Heb. i. 11, 12; 
 Rey. xx. II, xxl. 1; Ps. cil. 26; Is. li. 6. A time will come 
 when everything material will cease to exist; but Christ’s words 
 will ever hold good. The prophecy just uttered is specially 
 meant ; but all His sayings are included. Comp. ovdé yap rapyAGev 
 aa airav Adyos (Addit. Esth. x. 5). 
 
 ov 2} WapeNevoovTar. So also in Mk. xiii. 31; but in Mt. xxiv. 35 
 mwapé\Owowv, which A R X etc. read here and AC D X etc. read in Mk. As 
 the subj. is the usual constr. in N.T. after od uj, copyists often corrected the 
 fut. indic. to aor. subj. Comp. Mk. xiv. 31; Mt. xv. 5; Gal. iv. 30; Heb. 
 x. 17, etc. The Old Latin MSS. used by Jerome seem here to have read 
 transient . . . tramszent. Our best MSS. of the Vulgate read ¢ranszbunt 
 . . . transient, Jerome may have forgotten to correct the second ¢ramsdent 
 into transzbunt: or he may have wished to mark the difference between 
 Tapedevoovras and zapéAQwow. Cod. Brix. with the Book of Dimma and 
 
486 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 83, 34. 
 
 some other authorities has transcbunt ... preeieribunt. See Hermathena, 
 No. xix. p. 386. 
 
 34-36. Concluding Warning as to the Necessity of Ceaseless 
 Vigilance. Comp. Mt. xxv. 13-15; Mk. xiii. 33-37. The form 
 of this warning differs considerably in the three Gospels. Not 
 many words are common to any two of them; and very few are 
 common to all three. It should be noted that here as elsewhere 
 (x. 7=1 Tim. v. 18, xxiv. 34=1 Cor. xv. 5), Lk. in differing from 
 Mt. and Mk. agrees with S. Paul. Comp. with this 1 Thes. v. 3. 
 See Lft. Zs. p. 72. 
 
 84. For mpocéyete S€ Eautots see on ver. 29 and xii. 1; and for 
 BapynPaow see on 1x. 32. 
 
 kperaddy. Not “surfeiting,” but the nausea which follows a 
 debauch: cragu/a. Here only in bibl. Grk. For this and pé6y 
 (Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 21) see Trench, Sya. lxi.; and for the 
 orthography see WH. ii. App. p. 151. 
 
 pepluvars Buotixats. The adj. occurs 1 Cor. vi. 3, 4: but is not found 
 in LXX, nor earlier than Aristotle. Comp. mpds ras Biwrixds xpelas danperew 
 (Philo, Vzt. Mo. iii. 18). 
 
 The remarkable rendering sozzs for uepluvarts in Cod. Bezae has long 
 attracted attention, and has been regarded by some as a manifest Gallicism. 
 It is confidently connected with the French sozzs. But the connexion is not 
 certain. The word may be a form of somnzzs, and the transition from “‘ dis- 
 turbing dreams” to “‘ perplexities” and ‘‘cares” would not be difficult. The 
 word occurs once in the St. Gall MS. of the Sortes, and sonzarz occurs four 
 times. It was therefore a word which was established in use early in the 
 sixth century. Whether it is original in the text of D, or is a later substitu- 
 tion, is much debated. Here other renderings are sol/cztudinibus (ae), 
 cogitatzonzbus (b f), curzs (Tert. Vulg.). The prevalent Old Latin rendering 
 was sollicetudines (abd f) both in vill. 14 and Mt. xiii. 22 (comp. Mk. iv. 19) ; 
 and the translator of Irenzeus has sol//zcztudinibus here. See Scrivener, 
 Codex Bezae, pp. xliv, xlv. Rendel Harris, p. 26; and an excellent review 
 in the Guardian, May 18, 1892, p. 743. 
 
 édviSios. Here, but not 1 Thes. v. 3 or Wisd. xvii. 14, this form is best 
 attested: WH. Intr. 309, App. 151. The Latin renderings are repentaneus 
 (a), subztaneus (de), repentena (f Vulg.). 
 
  tipépa éxetvy. This is the one expression which in this 
 section is common to all three accounts. Comp. x. 12, xvil. 31. 
 The day of the Messiah’s return is meant. 
 
 @s mayts. According to the best authorities (§ BDL, abce ffi Boh., 
 Tert.) these words belong to what precedes, and the yap follows émeweev- 
 cerat, not mayls. The whole recalls @é80s kai Bd@uvos cal rayls ép’ juds 
 Tovs évorxodbvras éml THs ys (Is. xxiv. 17). The resemblance between the 
 passages, and the fact that émeweAevoerat suits the notion of a mayls 
 ( noose” or ‘‘lasso”’), accounts for the transposition of the ydp. Originally 
 a mayis (riyyvupn) is that which ZoZ/s fast: Ps. xci. 3; Prov. vii. 23; Eccles. 
 ix. 12. Here most Latin texts have /agueus, but Cod. Palat. has meus. 
 ctpula. 
 
 35-36. Note the characteristic repetition of ras. 
 
XXI. 35, 86.] LAST DAYS OF PUBLIC TEACHING 487 
 
 85. mdons ths yas. Not the land of the Jews only. Possibly 
 xaOnpévous indicates that, as at the flood, and at Belshazzar’s 
 feast, people are sitting at ease, eating and drinking, etc. (xvii. 27): 
 but it need not mean more than inhabiting. Comp. pdxarpay eyo 
 KaA® emt mévras tovs Kabnpévous ext THs yys (Jer. xxv. 29). For 
 émi mpoo. 7. t. yijs comp. 2 Sam. xviii. 8. The phrase is Hebraistic. 
 
 86. dypumveire 5é. Comp. Eph. vi. 18; Heb. xiii. 17; 
 2 Sam. xii. 21; Ps, cxxvi. 1; Prov. viii. 34. 
 
 The o#v (ACR, bcfi,, Syrr. Aeth. Arm.) for 6¢(% BD, ade) probably 
 comes from Mt. xxv. 13 and Mk, xiii. 35. 
 
 év wavtl koipO. xviii. 1 and 1 Thes. v.17 are in favour of 
 taking these words with Seduevor (Wic. Gen. Rhem. AV.) rather 
 than with dypumvecire (Tyn. Cov. Cran. RV.). For similar questions 
 comp. ix. 17, 18, 57, x. 18, xi. 39, etc. 
 
 Katicxvonte. This is the reading of § BL X 33, Aegyptt. Aeth. and is 
 adopted by the best editors. It properly means ‘‘ prevail against” (Mt. 
 xvi. 18; Jer. xv, 18; 2 Chron. vili. 3; comp. Lk. xxiii. 23; Is. xxil. 43 
 Wisd. xvii. 5). The xaragww0fre of ACDR, Latt. Syrr. Arm., Tert. 
 perhaps comes from xx. 35. 
 
 ota0qvat. ‘*To hold your place,” comp. Tére oryjoera év mappyola 
 mwoNdq 6 dlkatos (Wisd. v. 1). It is clear from xi. 18, xviii. 11, 40, xix. 8; 
 Acts ii. 14, v. 20, xi. 13, xvii. 22, xxv. 18, xxvii. 21, etc., that ora@jvar is 
 not to be taken passively of dezng placed by the Angels (Mt. xxiv. 31). 
 Comp. ris divarat oradjvac; (Rev. vi. 17). For the opposite of ora@jvat 
 see xxiii, 30; Rev. vi. 16: comp. I Jn. ii. 28. 
 
 THE APOCALYPSE OF JESUS. 
 
 Hase (Gesch. Jesu, § 97), Colani (/. C. et les croyances messianiques de som 
 temps), and others think that Jesus had penetration enough to foresee and pre- 
 dict the destruction of Jerusalem, but they cannot believe that He was such a 
 fanatic as to foretell that He would return in glory and judge the world. Hence 
 they conclude that these predictions about the Pavzsza were never uttered by 
 Him. Keim sees that Mk. xiii. 32 cannot be an invention (/es. of Naz. v. 
 p- 241): in some shape or other Jesus must have foretold His glorious Return. 
 Therefore this eschatological discourse is based upon some genuine utterances of 
 Jesus ; but has been expanded into an apocalyptic poem with the help of other 
 material. Both Keim and some of those who deny the authenticity of any pre- 
 diction of Christ’s Return assume the existence of an apocalypse by some Jewish 
 Christian as the source from which large portions of this discourse are taken. 
 Weizsicker holds that the apocalypse was Jewish, and was taken from a lost 
 section of the Book of Enoch. Weiffenbach, followed by Wendt and Vischer, 
 upholds the theory of a Jewish-Christian original. 
 
 But did this spurious apocalypse, the existence of which is pure conjecture, 
 also supply Lk. with what he has recorded xi. 49-51, xiii, 23-27, 35, xvii. 23, 
 37, xvill. 8, xix. 15, 43, xx. 16? Did it supply Mt. with what he has recorded 
 Vil. 22, xX. 23, xix. 28, xxi. 44, xxil. 7, xxv. 31, xxvi. 64? Mk. also with the 
 parallels to these passages? That all three derived these utterances from 
 Apostolic tradition is credible. Is it credible that a writing otherwise unknown 
 and by an unknown author should have had such enormous influence? And its 
 influence does not end with the three Evangelists. It has contzibuted largely 
 
488 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI. 87, 88. 
 
 to the Epistles of S. Paul, especially to the very earliest of them. Comp. 
 1 Thes. ii. 16, iv. 16, 17, v. I-33; 2 Thes. ii, 1-12. And it would seem to 
 have influenced much of the imagery in Revelation, which foretells wars, 
 famine, pestilence, and persecution (vi. 4, 5, 8, 9), and the Return of the 
 Savieur accompanied by the armies of heaven (xix. 11-16). This supposed 
 fictitious apocalypse is assigned to A.D. 68, or thereabouts; and therefore long 
 after the Pauline Epistles were written. Apostolic tradition, which is known to 
 have existed, is a far safer hypothesis. See Godet, ad doc. (ii. pp. 430 ff.), whose 
 remarks have been freely used in this note. See also Briggs, The Messiah o 
 the Gospels, T. &. T. Clark, 1894, ch. iv. where this ‘‘ Apocalypse of Jesus” 
 is critically discussed, with special reference to the theory of Weiffenbach and 
 others that the assumed Jewish-Christian apocalypse consisted of these three 
 portions :—(a) the dpx? wdlywy, Mk. xiii. 7, 8=Mt. xxiv. 6-8=Lk. xxi. 9-11; 
 (8) the OAtfus, Mk. xiii. 14-20=Mt. xxiv. 15-22; (y) the mapovela, Mk, 
 xiii, 24-27=Mt. xxiv. 29-31=Lk. xxi. 25-27.1_ Briggs points out the insigni- 
 ficance of the fact that ideas such as these are found in Jewish pseudepigrapha. 
 These ideas were by them derived from the O.T., which was the common 
 source of both canonical and uncanonical apocalypses, whether Jewish or 
 Christian. Jesus uses this source on other occasions, and there is nothing 
 unreasonable in the belief that He uses it here. The cosmical disturbances 
 foretold (wv. 25-27) ‘‘ belong not only to the theophanies and the Christophanies 
 of prophecy, but also to the theophanies and Christophanies of history in both 
 the Old Testament and the New. They represent the response of the creature 
 to the presence of the Creator” (p. 155). Both Briggs and Nosgen (Gesch. J. C. 
 Kap. ix.) give abundant references to the literature of the subject in Beyschlag 
 (Z. /.), Hilgenfeld (Zz/. z. N.7.), Holsten (de Syn. Zv.), Immer (li. 
 Theol.), Mangold in Bleek (Zzu/. 2. N.7.), Pfleiderer (Urchristen.), Pressensé 
 (J. C.), Spitta (de Offbg. des Joh.) and Wendt (Lehre Jesu). See also especially 
 D. E. Haupt (Zschatolog. Aussagen Jesu in d. Syn. Evang., Berlin, 1895). 
 
 87, 38. General Description of the Last Days of Christ’s 
 Public Ministry. 
 
 37. Tas qpépas. “ During the days.” From the other narra- 
 tives we infer that this covers the day of the triumphal entry and 
 the next two days. It is, therefore, retrospective, and is a 
 repetition, with additional detail, of xix. 47. The contrast with 
 tas Sé vdxtas, “but during the nights,” is obvious. It is not clear 
 whether jv belongs to év 76 icpd or to didadoKwv, which probably 
 ought to follow (SsACDLRXTAATI) and not precede (BK) 
 év T@ tepa. 
 
 éfepyduevos judileto eis. ‘Leaving (the temple) He used to 
 go and bivouac on” (iv. 23, vii. 1, ix. 61, xi. 7). Comp. pyxere 
 aiducOjre eis Nuevy (Tobit xiv. 10), t7d tobs KAddous abrys 
 atdwcOijoeror (Ecclus. xiv. 26). On the M. of Olives He would 
 be undisturbed (xxii. 39). For kadodpevoy see on vi. 15, and for 
 *"EAawy see on xix. 29. It is not probable that eis 76 dpos is to 
 be taken with éfepyduevos, but the participle of motion has 
 influenced the choice of preposition. 
 
 38. dpOpile mpds adtéy. Another condensed expression: “rose 
 early and came to Him.” The verb occurs here only in N.T., but 
 
 1 Holtzmann (Handcomm. on Mt. xxiv. 4-34, Eng. tr. p. 112) makes the 
 divisions thus: (a) Mt. xxiv. 4-14; (8) 15-28; (y) 29-34- 
 
XXI. 88-XXIL.1.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 489 
 
 is freq. in LXX. Twice we have the two verbs combined, ai\ic- 
 Onte Gde... kai épOptctre aipiov cis dddv tydv (Judg. xix. g)° 
 avAicGGpe ev Kopats” épOpicwper cis duweAGvas (Cant. vii. 11, 12). 
 The literal meaning is the right one here, although dp@pi{w may 
 mean “seek eagerly” (Ps. Ixxvii. 34 ; Ecclus. iv. 12, vi. 36; Wisd. 
 vi. 14). Contrast Ps. cxxvii. 2; 1 Mac. iv. 52, vi. 33, xi. 67; 
 Gospel of Nicodemus xv. The classical form ép@pevw is always 
 used in the literal sense. 
 
 Most MSS. of Vulg. here have the strange rendering manicabat ad eum, 
 which is also the rendering in Cod. Brix. (f), the best representative of the 
 Old Latin text on which Jerome worked. But G has mane zbat, which may 
 possibly be Jerome’s correction of manicabat, a word of which Augustine 
 says mihi non occurrit. See Ronsch, 74. und Vulg. p.174. Other render- 
 ings are—vigelabat ad eum (d), de luce wigilabant ad eum (a), ante lucem 
 veniebat ad eum (er), diluculo conventendum erat (Tert.). See on xvi. 26. 
 
 Five cursives (13, 69, 124, 346, 556), which are closely related, here 
 insert the pericope of the Woman taken in Adultery, an arrangement ‘which 
 was perhaps suggested by p8p:fe here and Spépou Jn. viii. 2. The common 
 origin of 13, 69, 124, 346 is resused as certain. See Scrivener, Jt. to 
 Crit. of N.T. i. pp. 192, 202, 231; T. K. Abbott, Collation of Four Important 
 MSS. of the Gospels, Dublin, 1877. ‘*The Section was probably known to 
 the scribe exclusively as a church lesson, recently come into use ; and placed 
 
 a aes here on account of the close resemblance between vz. 37, 38 and [Jo] 
 
 vii, 53, Vili. I, 2, Had he known it as part of a continuous text of St. 
 John’s Gospel, he was not likely to transpose it” (WH. ii. App. p. 63). 
 
 XXIL-XXIV. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION, 
 
 We now enter upon the last main division of the Gospel 
 (xxii.—xxiv.), containing the narratives of the Passion, Resurrection, 
 and Ascension. The first of these three subjects falls into three 
 parts :—The Preparation (xxii. 1-38); the Passion (xxii. 39—xxiii. 
 49); and the Burial (xxiii. 50-56). In the first of these parts we 
 may distinguish the following sections:—The Approach of the 
 Passover and the Malice of the Hierarchy (xxii. 1, 2); the 
 Treachery of Judas (3-6); the Preparation for the Paschal Supper 
 (7-13) ; the Institution of the Eucharist (14-24) ; the Strife about 
 Priority (25-34); the New Conditions (35-38). In this part of 
 the narrative the particulars which are wholly or mainly peculiar 
 to Lk. are those contained in vz. 8, 15, 24, 28-30, 35-38. 
 
 XXII. 1-38. The Preparation for the Passion. Comp. Mt. 
 xxvi. 1-29; Mk. xiv. 1-25. 
 
 E “Hyyehev. ““Was drawing nigh.” Mt. and Mk. say more 
 
 definitely pera dvo 7pepas. Keim calls attention to the fidelity 
 of this introductory section, 27. I-13 (¥. p. 305, n.). 
 
 q €opr) tov G{ipwr. The phrase is freq. in LXX (Exod 
 
490 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII 1-4, 
 
 xxlil, 15, xxxiv. 18; Deut. xvi. 16; 2 Chron. viii. r2, etc.), but 
 
 occurs nowhere else in N.T. Comp. ii. 41. Lk. is fond of these 
 Hebraistic circumlocutions: 9 juépa 7. af. (ver. 7), 9 Huépa trav 
 oaBBdrwv (iv. 16; Acts xiii. 14, xvi. 13), juepae 7. a€. (Acts xii. 3, 
 xx. 6); BiBdos Wadpay (xx. 42; Acts 1. 20), BiBAos trav rpopyrav 
 (Acts vii. 42), etc. See small print on iv. 16. 
 
 4 Neyopevn Mdoxa. Strictly speaking the Passover on Nisan 
 14th was distinct from the F. of Unleavened Bread, which lasted 
 from the 15th to the 21st (Lev. xxiii. 5,6; Num. xxviii. 16, 17; 
 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 21; Ezra vi. 19, 22; 1 Esdr. i. 10-19; comp. 
 Mk. xiv. 1). But they were so closely connected, that it was 
 common to treat them as one festival. Not only Lk. as “ writing 
 mainly for Gentiles” does so, but Mt. (xxvi. 17); and Josephus 
 goes beyond either in saying éopriv dyopey ep yuepas oxo, THY 
 tov “Afipwv Aeyouevnv (Ant. ii. 15. 1). Comp. cata tov Karpov 
 Ths tov "Alipwv éoptyas iv Bdoxa A€youev (xiv. 2.1). Elsewhere 
 he distinguishes them (47z, iii. 10. 5, ix. 13. 3). 
 
 2. élntouw... 73 was. “They continued seeking as to the 
 method”: comp. xix. 47, 48, and for the 76 see oni. 62. Mt. 
 tells us that they held a meeting in the house of Caiaphas. 
 
 évéhwow. Another of Lk.’s favourite words. Here, xxiii. 32, 
 and eighteen times in the Acts it has the special meaning of 
 “remove, s/ay”: so also 2 Thes. ii. 8, where the reading is 
 doubtful. This meaning is common in LXX (Gen. iv. 15; Exod. 
 ii, 14, 15, xxi. 29, etc.) and in class. Grk. Except Mt. ii. 16; 
 2 Thes. ii. 8, and Heb. x. 9 (where see Wsctt.), it occurs only in 
 Lk. With époBodvto comp. xx. 19, xix. 48, xxi. 38. 
 
 8. Eioa lev S€ Laravas. Comp. Jn. xiii. 2, where this stage is 
 represented as the devil making suggestions to Judas, while his 
 entering and taking possession of the traitor is reserved for the 
 moment before he left the upper room to carry out his treachery 
 (xiii. 27). See on x. 18 and comp. iv. 13, to which this perhaps 
 looks back. Satan is renewing the attack. Neither Mt. nor Mk. 
 mentions Satan here. But there is no hint that Judas is now like 
 a demoniac, unable to control his own actions (Hahn). Judas 
 opened the door to Satan. He did not resist him, and Satan did 
 not flee from him. Jesus must suffer, but Judas need not become 
 the traitor. 
 
 Tov KadoUpevoy “loxapidtyy. All three give this distinctive sur- 
 name (see on vi. 16), and also the tragic fact that he was tav 
 Sadexa. Comp. i. 36, vi. 15, Vil. 11, Vili. 2, 1x. 10, X. 39, Xix. 2, 29. 
 
 For xadovpevov (§ BD LX) TR. has émixwdovpevov (ACPRT'AATI), a 
 form commonly used in Acts (i. 23, iv. 36, x. 5, 32, xii. 25). In Acts i. 23 
 we have both verbs. 
 
 4. otparnyois. Lk. alone mentios these officials. They are 
 
XXII. 4-6.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 491 
 
 the leaders of the corps of Levites, which kept guard in and 
 about the temple. The full title is orparyyoi tod iepod (ver. 52). 
 See Edersh. Zhe Temple, p. 119; Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3. These 
 officers would be consulted, because they had to take part in 
 carrying out the arrest. The chief of them was called 6 orparnyds 
 Tov tepod (Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26), or “the man of the temple mount ” 
 or “the man of the mount of the house.” Comp. 2 Mac. iii. 4. 
 Here and ver. 52 the plur. has no art. 
 
 D, abcdeff,ilq Syr-Cur. Aeth. omit xal orparnyots, but all these, 
 excepting D d, substitute xal tots ypauparetow. CP retain both, adding 
 Tov lepod to orparyyots. 
 
 mapado. In vi. 16 Judas is called zpoddrys, but elsewhere 
 mapadidovat, not mpodiddvar, is the word used to describe his 
 crime. ~ 
 
 5. éxdpncav. It was wholly unexpected, and it simplified 
 matters enormously. 
 
 cuvébevto. Acts xxiii. 20; Jn. ix. 22; and quite classical. 
 Mk. has érnyyeiAavto. The éoryoay of Mt. refers to the actual 
 paying of the money. He alone states the amount, — thirty 
 shekels. 
 
 6. dtep Sxdov. Either “without a crowd” or “without 
 tumult.” Comp. Mt. xxvi. 5. Contrast pera oxAov, Acts xxiv. 18. 
 In bibl. Grk. the poetical word drep occurs only here, ver. 35, and 
 2 Mac. xii. 15. Very possibly the priests had intended to wait 
 until the feast was over before arresting Jesus. The offer of Judas 
 induced ...em to make the attempt before the feast began. 
 
 Keim rightly rejects with decision the theory that the betrayal by Judas 
 is not history, but a Christian fiction personifying in Judas the Jewish people. 
 That Christians should invent so appalling a crime for an Apostle is quite . 
 beyond belief. The crime of Judas is in all four Gospels and in the Acts, 
 and is emphasized by Christ’s foreknowledge of it. Speculations as to other 
 causes of it besides the craving for money are not very helpful: but the 
 motives may easily have been complex. 
 
 The well-known difficulty as to the time of the Last Supper and of our 
 Lord’s death cannot be conclusively solved with our present knowledge. But 
 the difficulty is confined to the day of the mont. All four accounts agree 
 with the generally accepted belief that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. In 
 the Synoptists this Friday seems to be the 15th Nisan. Jn. (xiii. 1, 20, 
 xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31) clearly intimates that it was the 14th, and we shall 
 probably do rightly in abiding by his statements and seeing whether the others 
 can be brought into harmony with it. This is perhaps most easily done by 
 regarding, in accordance with Jewish reckoning, the evening of the 13th as the 
 beginning of the 14th. All, therefore, that is said to have taken place ‘‘on 
 the first day of unleavened bread” may have taken place after sunset on what 
 we should call the 13th. It seems improbable that the priests and their 
 officials would go to arrest Jesus at the very time when the whole nation was 
 celebrating the Paschal meal. It is more easy to believe that Jesus celebrated 
 the Paschal meal before the usual time, viz. on the Jewish 14th, but before 
 
492 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO Ss, LUKE [XXII 6-16. 
 
 midnight and some twenty hours before the usual time for slaughtering the 
 lambs, at which time He was dying or dead upon the cross. 
 
 Professor D. Chwolson of Petersburg has made a new attempt at a solution 
 in a recently published essay, Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines 
 Todes ; Mémoire de [ Académie Impériale des Sciences, vii¢ Serie, tome xli, 
 No. 1. A criticism in the Guardzan, June 28, 1893, tends to show that it 
 leaves the crucial question just where it was. A later contribution is that of 
 G. M. Semeria, Ze Jour de la Mort de Jésus ; Rev. 621. 1, 1896. 
 
 7. "H\Oev Se H Hp. t. af. The day itself arrived, as distinct 
 from “was approaching” (ver. 1). This arriving would take 
 place at sunset on the 13th. See Schanz, ad foc. Mt. and Mk. 
 have 7H zpwéry Tov alipuv. 
 
 der OecOar. This in no way proves that the 14th, according 
 to our reckoning, is intended. The day on which the lambs had 
 to be killed began at sunset on the 13th, and ended at sunset on 
 the 14th; and the lambs were killed about 2.30-5.30 P.M. on the 
 14th in the Court of the Priests. Each head of the company sharing 
 the lamb slew the animal, whose blood was caught in a bowl by 
 a priest and poured at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering 
 (Edersh. Zhe Temple, p. 190). It was on the evening of the 13th 
 that the houses were carefully searched for leaven, in silence, and 
 with a light: comp. 1 Cor. v. 7; Zeph.i. 12. The édea refers to 
 legal necessity: it was so prescribed. 
 
 8. dméoreXkev. Both Mt. and Mk. omit this preliminary order 
 and begin with the disciples’ question: and Lk. alone gives the 
 names of the two who were sent. As this does not harmonize 
 with the theory that Lk. shows azimus against Peter, we are told 
 that Peter and John are named by Lk. as the representatives of 
 the old Judaism. The treason of Judas might lead Jesus to select 
 two of His most trusted Apostles. 
 
 10. The care with which Jesus avoids an open statement to 
 all the disciples as to the place ordained for the supper may be 
 explained in the same way. Until His hour is come Judas must 
 be prevented from executing his project: and no miracle is 
 wrought, where ordinary precautions suffice. In what follows Lk. 
 and Mk. are almost identical: Mt. is more brief. 
 
 Evidently the av@pwios is not the head of the household, but a 
 servant or slave: the carrying of water was specially the work of 
 ~-slaves or of women (Deut. xxix. 11; Josh. ix. 21-27; Gen. 
 xxiv. I1; Jn. iv. 7). The head of the house is zm the house 
 (vv. 10, 11). The suggestion, therefore, that this is the master of 
 the house drawing the water for making the leaven, according to 
 custom, on the 13th of Nisan, falls to the ground. This incident 
 gives no help in deciding between the 13th and the 14th. The 
 water was more probably for washing the hands before the evening 
 meal. With xepdysov voatos comp. addBacrtpov pdpov (vil. 37). 
 As in the case of the colt (xix. 30), we are uncertain whether this 
 
XXII. 10-12.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 493 
 
 is a case of supernatural knowledge, or of previous arrangement ; 
 but in both cases prophetic prescience seems to be implied. 
 
 For amphoram aque portans (Vulg.) bajulans bascellum (vascellum) 
 ue (d). 
 A 11. épetre. Fut. for imperat. This is more common in prohibitions than 
 in commands (iv. 12; Acts xxiii. 5; Mt. vi. 5). In the Decalogue, only the 
 ositive tlua Tov matépa has the imperative: the negative commandments 
 fete ov with the fut. indic. Win. xlili. 5. c, p. 396. 
 
 T® oixodeomdsTy THS otxlas. A pleonasm marking a late stage in the 
 1anguage, in which the meaning of olkodeomérys has become indefinite: comp. 
 Urorbd.ov Tov WodGy (xx. 43), cvav auBboia, orparnydv TAS oTpatins, the 
 Daily Journal, etc. The cogn. accus. (7é\ewov modepetv, olkodometv otxov) is 
 different. 
 
 6 SiSdoKados. Like 6 xvpios (xix. 31), this implies that the 
 man knows Jesus, and is perhaps in some degree a disciple. 
 
 To katddupa. Not necessarily the same as the avdyauov 
 (ver. 12). It is possible that Jesus only asked for the large 
 general room on the ground floor (comp. ii. 7), but that the man 
 gave Him the best room, reserved for more private uses, above the 
 katdAvya. It was a common thing for the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 to lend a room to pilgrims for the passover, the usual payment 
 being the skin of the paschal lamb and the vessels used at the 
 meal. Mt. alone gives the words 6 xatpds pov éyy’s éoriv, which 
 perhaps explains why Jesus is having the paschal meal before the 
 time. Neither here, nor at the supper, is any mention of a lamb: 
 and perhaps there was none. The time for slaughtering had not 
 yet come; and, as Jesus was excommunicated, it is not likely that 
 the priests would have helped His disciples to observe the ritual 
 respecting it. Moreover, there would hardly be time for all this 
 and for the roasting of the lamb. The Last Supper was the 
 inauguration of a new order rather than the completion of an old 
 one ; and its significance is enhanced if the central symbol of the 
 old dispensation was absent, when He whom it symbolized was 
 instituting the commemoration of that which the old symbol pre- 
 figured. It was on the last great day of the F. of Tabernacles, 
 when the water from Siloam was probably zo¢ poured out beside 
 the altar, that Jesus cried, ‘If any man thirst, let him come unto 
 Me, and drink” (Jn. vii. 37); and it was when the great lamps 
 were oz lit in the Court of the Women, that He said, “I am the 
 Light of the World” (Jn. vill. 12). From vv. 15-19 it appears 
 that 74 méoxa and pdyw refer to the eucharistic bread and wine. 
 
 12, avayorov. ‘* Anything raised above the ground (dvd or dw and 
 aia or yi), upper floor (Xen. Azad. v. 4. 29), upper room.” Only here and 
 Mk. xiv. 15. The MSS. vary between dvdyauov, dvdyasor, dviryewy, avwryews, 
 dvwyatov, and dvwyeov. Most, including the best, have dvdyatov. That 
 this room is identical with the drepgoy, Acts i. 13, is pure conjecture: the 
 change of word is against it. 
 
494 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII. 12-16. 
 
 In both passages Vulg. has cenaculum, for which Old Latin texts have 
 here medianum (a), pede plano locum (b), supertorum locum (q), im superioré- 
 bus locum (ce), and supertorem domum (a). 
 
 éotpwpevov. “Spread, furnished ”—with what, depends upon 
 the context, which here suggests couches or cushions: comp. Acts 
 ix. 34. Luther erroneously has gefflastert. Mk. adds €rotmoy, 
 which some insert here. 
 
 13. xaQds. ‘‘ Even as”: the correspondence was exact ; comp. 
 xix. 32. The Evangelists seem to intimate that Christ’s knowledge 
 was supernatural rather than the result of previous arrangement. 
 But in any case the remaining ten, including Judas, were left in 
 ignorance as to where the meal was to take place. 
 
 14-23. The Last Supper, with the Institution of the Eucharist 
 as a new Passover: comp. Mt. xxvi. 20-29; Mk. xiv. 17-25. The 
 declaration that one of them is a traitor is placed by Mt. and Mk. 
 at the beginning of the section, by Lk. at the end (ver. 21): comp. 
 Jn. xiii. 21, where the wording of the declaration agrees with Mt. 
 and Mk. Lk. seems to have used an independent source: comp. 
 1Cor “xt. (24, 25. 
 
 14. Lk.’s independence appears at once: nearly every word in 
 the verse differs from Mt. and Mk. 
 
 dvémecev, Mt. has avéxero: the practice of standing (Exod. 
 xii. 11) had long been abandoned; first for sitting, and then for 
 reclining. Jos servorum est, ut edant stantes; at nunc comedunt 
 recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in libertatem, was 
 the explanation given by the Rabbins. The choosing of the lamb 
 ten days in advance had also been given up. Here, as elsewhere, 
 dvariztw implies a change of position (xi. 37, xiv. 10, xvil. 7; Jn. 
 xili. 12, 25, etc.). Lft. On a Fresh Revision of N.T. p. 80. 
 
 ot &nécrodor. This is the true reading. In some texts dédexa has been 
 inserted (AC PR) or substituted (LX) from Mt. and Mk. Ten to thirty 
 was the number for a passover. Note that Lk. once more has ovv, where 
 others have werd or kal: comp. viii. 38, 51, xx. I, xxii. 56. 
 
 15. The whole of this verse and most of the next are peculiar 
 to Lk. The combination of ériGupia éreOiunoa with Tot pe rabeiv 
 is remarkable. ‘The knowledge of the intensity of the suffering 
 does not cancel the intensity of the desire. ) 
 
 *EmOupla éaefupnoa. A Hebraism common in LXX. Comp. Acts 
 fv. 17, v. 28, xxiii. 143 Jn. iii. 29; Mt. xiii. 14, xv. 4; James v. 17; Gen. 
 xxxi. 30; Exod. xxi. 20; Deut. vii. 26, etc. . 
 
 16. od ph ddyw airs. After this present occasion. The avro 
 must refer to rodro 7d mdoxa (ver. 15), and shows that this need 
 not imply a lamb. The Passover of which Christ will partake, 
 after having fulfilled the type, is the Christian Eucharist, in which 
 He joins with the faithful in the Kingdom of God on earth. Others 
 
XXII. 16-18.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 495 
 
 suppose the reference to be to the spiritual banquet in the world 
 to come. But if avré means the paschal lamb, in what sense could __ 
 Jesus partake of that in the future? The Mishna itself con- \ 
 templates the possibility of a passover without a lamb, and rules 
 that unleavened bread is the only essential thing. With an influx 
 
 _ of many thousands of pilgrims, to provide a lamb might be in 
 
 |__ some cases impossible. 
 
 17. Sefdpevos. It was handed to Him: contrast AaBar, ver. 19 
 (Schanz). It is usual to consider this as the first or second of the 
 four cups that were handed round during the paschal meal; the 
 eucharistic cup being identified with the third or fourth. But we 
 are in doubt (1) as to what the paschal ritual was at this time; 
 
 , (2) as to the extent to which Jesus followed the paschal ritual in 
 this highly exceptional celebration ; (3) as to the text of this pas- 
 sage, especially as to whether Lk. records two cups or only one: so 
 that identifications of this kind are very precarious. In any case, 
 
 _Lk. mentions a cup defore the breaking of the bread, whether this 
 be the eucharistic cup or not: and S. Paul twice mentions the cup 
 first (1 Cor. x. 16, 21), although in his account of the institution 
 he follows the usual order (1 Cor. xi. 23). In the Avdayy the cup 
 is placed first (ix. 2: see Schaff’s 3rd ed. pp. 58-61, 191). 
 edxapioTyoas. This seems to imply the eucharistic cup. All 
 three have edxapioryoas of the cup. Lk. repeats it of the bread, 
 where Mt. and Mk. have etAoyyoas, 
 
 In the Jewish ritual the person who presided began by asking a blessing on 
 the feast; then blessed, drank, and passed the first cup. Then Ps. xiii. and 
 xiv. were sung and the bitter herbs eaten, followed by the second cup. After 
 which the president explained the meaning of the feast: and some think that for 
 this explanation of the old rite Jesus substituted the institution of the new one. 
 After the eating of the lamb and unleavened cakes came the thanksgiving for the 
 meal and the blessing and drinking of the third cup. Lastly, the singing of Ps, 
 cxv,—Cxviii, followed by the fourth cup: and there was sometimes a fifth. 
 
 Sf Siopepifare. Comp. Acts ii. 45; Judg. v. 30. Followed by eis 
 éaurous, it expresses More strongly than the mid. (xxiii. 34; Mt. 
 xxvil. 35) the fact of mutual distribution. In some texts (A D etc.) 
 eis éavrovs has been altered into the more usual dat. (Jn. xix. 24; 
 Acts ii. 45). The distribution would be made by each drinking in 
 turn, rather than by each pouring some into a cup of his own. 
 The «is éavrovs perhaps corresponds to the wavres of Mt. and Mk. 
 Iléere (emvov) eé adrod ravres, 
 
 18. dm tod viv. This at first sight appears to mean that Jesus 
 did not partake of the cup. “I say, Divide it among yourselves, 
 because henceforth I shall zof drink,” etc. But this would be 
 strange ; for (1) according to Jewish practice it would be monstrous 
 for the presiding person to abstain from partaking ; (2) Jesus had 
 just said that He earnestly desired to partake of this paschal meal; 
 
é ar 
 
 496 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII 18. 
 
 and (3) vv. 17, 18 seem to be parallel to 15, 16: He eats the 
 paschal food, and then says that it is for the last time under these 
 conditions ; and He drinks of the paschal cup, and then says that it 
 is for the last time under these conditions. There is nothing in any 
 of the accounts to prevent us from supposing that Jesus drank 
 
 _before handing the cup to the others. The ydp explains why they 
 are to consume it among ¢hemselves, and not expect Him to take 
 more than was ceremoniously necessary ; and the a6 rod voy will 
 then be quite exact. “I have just drunk ; but from this moment 
 onwards I will drink no more”: comp. ovKéri od py iw. It was 
 possibly because a7é rot vdv seemed to mean that Jesus refused to 
 drink that some texts (A C etc.) omitted the words. 
 
 ToU yevy}matos THs dpmréhou. Some regard this as a reference to 
 the Jewish benediction at the first cup: “Blessed be Thou, O 
 Lord our God, the King of the world, who hast created the fruit 
 of the vine.” It is quite uncertain that this form was in use at the 
 time. 
 
 Latin variations in rendering are of interest: gexeratione vitis (Vulg.), 
 fructu vines (a), creatura vinex (d), gentmine vitis (5). Comp. iii. 7. Syr- 
 Sin. ons “fof the vine.” See Pasch. Radb. on Mt. xxvi. 29, Migne, 
 cxx. 895. 
 
 { 19, 20. In connexion with what follows we have these points to consider. 
 
 (1) Are the words from 76 brép budv didbuevoy to 7d brép duav exxuvvdpuevor 
 
 part of the original text? (2) Ifthey are, is 7d 7orjprov in ver. 20 the same as 
 
 __xorjp.ov in ver. 17? 
 
 Assuming provisionally that the overwhelming external evidence of almost 
 
 ’ all MSS. and Versions in favour of the words in question is to be accepted, we 
 
 may discuss the second point. As in the other case, neither view is free from 
 
 \\ serious difficulty. If the cup of ver. 20 is not the same as that of ver. 17, then 
 
 Lk. not only states that Jesus did not drink of the eucharistic cup (for 0} uh 
 
 alw dd Tov vov excludes the partaking of any subsequent cup), but he aisu 
 
 records that Jesus charged the Apostles to partake of the earlier cup, while he is 
 
 silent as to any charge to partake of the eucharistic cup. So far as this report 
 
 of the Institution goes, therefore, we are expressly told that the Celebrant 
 
 refused the cup Himself, and we are not told that He handed it to the disciples. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we identify the two cups, and regard vv. 17, 18 as the 
 
 remature mention of what should have been given in one piece at ver. 20, then 
 
 its severance into two portions, and the insertion of the distribution of the bread 
 
 between the two portions, are inexplicable. Of the two difficulties, this seems 
 
 to be the greater, and it is better not to identify the two cups. It is some con- 
 
 firmation of this that in ver. 17 or7jpiov is without the article, ‘*a@ cup,” while 
 
 in ver. 20 it is ‘‘¢he cup.” But 7d rorjpiov need not mean more than ‘the cup 
 
 just mentioned.” In Mt. and Mk. srorjpioyv has no article: and in all three 
 
 prov has no article: so that its absence in ver. 17 and presence in ver. 20 is 
 
 not of much weight in deciding between the two difficulties. The only way to 
 avoid both these difficulties is to surrender the passage as an interpolation. 
 
 Dad fil omit from 70 brrép bur to éxxuvyducvov, and Syr-Cur. omits ver. 20, 
 while b e Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. place ver. 19 before ver. 17, an arrangement 
 which has been elaborately advocated by Dean Blakesley (Pre/ectzo in Scholis 
 Cantab. Feb. 14, 1850). The possibility of the whole being an importation from 
 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25 may be admitted on the evidence ; but the probability of ver. 19, 
 either to 7d Gud mov (b e Syr-Cur.), or to the end (Syr-Sin.), having stood 
 
XXII. 19.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 497 
 
 originally before ver. 17 is almost infinitesimal. In what way can we account 
 for so simple an arrangement (harmonizing with Mt. and Mk.) becoming almost 
 universally disturbed? ‘‘ These difficulties, added to the suspicious coincidence 
 with 1 Cor. xi. 24f., and the Transcriptional evidence given above, leave-no 
 moral doubt (see /trod. § 240) that the words in question were absent from 
 the original text of Le, notwithstanding_the-purely--Western ancestry_of the 
 deeuments which omit them” (WH. ii. App. p. 64). For the other view see 
 Scrivener; also R. A. Hofimann, Adendmahisgedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, 
 
 PP- 5-25: 
 
 19. \aBdv dprov edyapioricas éxXacev, The taking bread (ora 
 loaf), breaking, giving thanks, and the declaration, “This is My 
 Body,” are in all four accounts. But for edyapeorjoas here and 
 1 Cor. xi. 24 Mt. and Mk. have eiAoyjoas, and both here and 1 Cor. 
 AdBere is omitted. Mt. alone has ¢ayere with Ader of the bread, 
 and Lk. alone has Adfere of the cup (ver. 17); but perhaps this is 
 not the eucharistic cup (see above). 
 
 Toiré éotiv 75 cGpdé pov. Not much is gained by pointing out 
 that the éorw would not be expressed in Aramaic. It must be 
 understood ; and the meaning of rotro, and its relation to 76 cépa 
 pov must be discussed. The rodro cannot mean the act of break- 
 ing and eating, nor anything else excepting “this bread.” For the 
 meaning of éo7: see ver. 20, where the rorypuov is identified with 
 % kaw? dvayKn, and comp. cic in Jn. viii. 12, ix. 5, xiv. 6, xv. I, 5. 
 In taking this bread they in some real sense take His Body. See 
 Thirlwall’s Charges, vol. i. Charges v. and vi.; vol. ii. Charge x. 
 and esp. p. 251, ed. Perowne, 1877; also Gould on Mk. xiv. 22. 
 
 73 bmép Spav S8duevov. Peculiar to this account: “which is 
 being given for your advantage.” The xAdmevov, which many texts 
 add to 76 iép tor in 1 Cor. xi. 24, is not genuine. 
 
 todto troette. The proposal to give these words a sacrificial 
 meaning, and translate them “Offer this, Sacrifice this, Offer this 
 sacrifice,” cannot be maintained. It has against it (1) the ordinary 
 meaning of wovetv in N.T., in LXX, and in Greek literature gener- 
 ally ; (2) the authority of all the Greek Fathers, who knew their 
 own language, knew the N.T. and the LXX, and understood the 
 words as having the ordinary meaning, “ Perform this action”; 
 (3) the authority of the Zar/y Liturgies, which do not use roveiv or 
 jacere when the bread and wine are offered, but zpoodépew or 
 offerre, although the words of institution precede the oblation, and 
 thus suggest rovety or facere ; (4) the authority of a /arge majority 
 of commentators, ancient and modern, of the most various schools, 
 who either make no comment, as if the ordinary meaning were too 
 
 1 It has been asserted that Justin Martyr (77y. xli. and Ixx.) is an exception. 
 But this isa mistake. That Justin himself sometimes uses roreiy in a sacrificial 
 sense is possible ; that he understood rofro ro:e?re in this sense is not credible. 
 No subsequent Father notes that Justin gives this interpretation, an interpreta 
 tion so remarkable that it must have attracted attention. 
 
 32 
 
498 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXII 19 
 
 obvious to need stating: or give the ordinary meaning without 
 mentioning any other as worthy of consideration; or expressly 
 reject the sacrificial meaning; (5) the testimony of the Septuagint, 
 in which the various and frequent Hebrew words which mean 
 “offer” or “sacrifice” are translated, not by zovetvy, but by rpoade- 
 pew or avadépe or the like; (6) the fact that here and in x Cor. 
 xl. 24 the writer might easily have made the sacrificial meaning clear 
 by using zpoo¢épew or dvapépav. He has not even suggested such 
 a meaning, as he might have done by writing zouctre rodrov, 2.¢. 
 Tovrov Tov aptov. He has given as a translation of Christ’s words 
 neither “ Offer this bread,” nor “‘ Offer this,” nor “ Do this bread ” 
 (which might have suggested “ Offer this bread”), but “ Do this 
 thing.” See Zxposztor, 3rd series, vii. 441; T. K. Abbot, Zssays 
 on the Original Texts of O. & N.T., Longmans, 1891, p. 110; 4 
 Reply to Mr. Supple’s and other Criticisms, Longmans, 1893 ; 
 Mason, Faith of the Gospel, Rivingtons, 1888, p. 309. 
 
 eis THY Epny dvdpynow. “ With a view to a calling to mind, a 
 recollection, of Me.” The word means more than a mere record 
 or memorial, and is in harmony with the pres. imperat. zovetre : 
 “‘ Continually do this in order to bring Me to mind,” ze. “to remind 
 yourselves and others of the redemption which I have won by My 
 death.” The eucharist is to be a continual calling to mind of Him 
 who redeemed men from the bondage of sin, as the Passover was 
 an annual calling to mind of redemption from the bondage of 
 Egypt (Exod. xii. 24-27, xili. 8, 14). In N.T. dvdyvqow occurs 
 only here, 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, and Heb. x. 3, where see Wsctt. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; 2 Tim. i. 6. In LXX it occurs Lev. xxiv. 7; 
 Num. x. 10; Wisd. xvi. 6; the titles of Ps. xxxvii. and lxix. 
 T. K. Abbott has shown that a sacrificial meaning cannot be 
 obtained from dvdéuvyow any more than from ovetre (Essays, ete. 
 p. 122; A Reply, etc. p. 34). 
 
 The els corresponds to tva rather than to és, and indicates the purport of 
 the new institution. For the possessive pronoun used objectively comp. 
 Rom. xi. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 31, xvi. 17. 
 
 The omission of this charge, tofro movetre, x.7.d., in Mt. and Mk. has 
 attracted attention. Dr. C. A. Briggs says, “‘ Jiilicher (Zur Gesch. der Abend- 
 miahlsfecer in der Gltesten Kirche, in the Theolog. Abhandlungen Wetzsacker 
 gewidmet, 1892, s. 238 seg.) and Spitta (Urchréstenthum, i. s. 238 seg.) are 
 doubtless correct in their opinion that the earliest Christian tradition, repre- 
 sented by Mark and Matthew, knew nothing of an institution of the Lord’s 
 Supper by Jesus on the night of His betrayal, as a sacrament to be observed 
 continuously in the future. But they admit that Paul and Luke are sustained 
 by the earliest Christian usage in representing it as a permanent institution. 
 It is easier to suppose that the risen Lord in connection with these manifesta- 
 tions commanded the perpetual observance of the holy supper, just as He gave 
 the Apostles their commission to preach and baptize, and explained the 
 mystery of His life and death (Luke xxiv. 25-49). Paul and Luke would 
 then combine the words of Jesus on two different occasions” (Zhe Messiah of 
 the Gospels, T. & T. Clark, 1894, p. 123). 
 
 . 
 
XXII. 20-22.| THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 499 
 
 20. 13 motipiov. The to may mean the cup which all Christians 
 know as part of the eucharist, or (if this passage be genuine) 
 the cup mentioned before (ver. 17). Paul also has the article, 
 Mt. and Mk. not. The other portions of this verse which are in 
 1 Cor., but not in Mt. and Mk., are dcavrus pera 76 Serrvjra... 
 To morypiov . . . Kaw? . . . ev 7d. On the other hand, Paul and 
 Lk. omit IIdere && abrod ravres (Mt.) or émioy e€ adrod ravres (Mk.). 
 The dcavtws means that He took it, gave thanks, and gave it to 
 them. For xawj, which is opposed to zadad (2 Cor. iii. 6; 
 comp. Rom. xi. 27), see on v. 38. 
 
 Siabykn ev TH aipatt pov. Mt. and Mk. have 76 aia pov ris 
 SiaOy«ns, which is closer to LXX of Exod. xxiv. 8, 76 ala ris 
 Siadyxns. Comp. év aluart Siabyxns (Zech. ix. 11). The éeséa- 
 mentum sanguine suo obsignatum of Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. 
 iv. 40) gives the sense fairly well. The ratification of a covenant 
 was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what 
 was written in blood was believed to be indelible. For S:a0yxy 
 see Wsctt. on Heb. ix. 15, 16, with the additional note, p. 298. 
 
 76 Sreép Spay exxuvvonevoy, The trav is peculiar to this passage. 
 Mk. has izep rodAGv, Mt. wepi woAAGy, and Paul omits. The 
 tpov both here and in ver. 19 means the Apostles as representatives 
 of all. 
 
 The part. fs the Afolic form of the pres. part. pass. of éxxdrw = éxxéu 
 (comp. Acts xxii. 20); ‘‘ being poured out,” like dudéuevoy (ver. 19). In 
 sense 70 €xx. agrees with afuati, but in grammar with rorjpiov: in Mt. and 
 Mk., both in sense and grammar, with aiua. But see Win. Ixvii. 3, p. 791. 
 
 21-28. The Declaration about the Traitor, Comp. Mt. 
 xxvi. 21-25; Mk. xiv. 18-21; Jn. xili. 21-30. 
 
 If Lk. places this incident in its proper place, Judas did partake 
 of the eucharist. But the question cannot be decided. See 
 Schanz, ad loc. pp. 509, 510. 
 
 21. thi idod 4 xelp . . . emt tis tpaméfys. The expression is 
 peculiar to Lk. The w)yjyv here indicates a transition; an expan- 
 sion or change of subject. From the meaning of His death He 
 passes to the manner of it. Others take it as a restriction of imép 
 tpov ; others again as marking a contrast between Christ’s conduct 
 and that of the traitor. See on vi. 24, 35, x. 11, 14. The verse 
 may be understood literally, but probably means no more than 
 that the traitor was sharing the same meal with Him: comp. Mt. 
 XXVi. 23. 
 
 22. It is here that Lk. is almost verbatim the same as Mt. and 
 Mk. Such solemn words would be likely to be remembered in 
 one and the same form. Keim draws attention to their conspicu- 
 ous originality. They are not adaptations of anything in O.T., 
 although Obad. 7 and Mic. vii. 6 might appropnately have been 
 
500 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 22-24, 
 
 used (v. p. 309). He regards Lk. as most exact. In any case 
 mopeverat, for which Mt. and Mk. have izdye, is to be noticed. It 
 is probably used in the LXX sense of “depart, die”: comp. Ps. 
 Ixxvill. 39. 
 
 ott 6 ulds pev. The “because” explains how such an amazing 
 thing has come to pass. Failure to see the meaning of ére 
 (s BD LT, Sah. Boh.) has caused the substitution in many texts 
 of xa (AXTAATIL, bcefff, Vulg. Syr-Sin. Arm. Aeth.), while 
 others omit (ad, Orig.). 
 
 kata TO @picpevov. It is part of the Divine decree that the 
 death of the Christ should be accompanied by betrayal: Mt. and 
 Mk. have kafas yéyparrat rept adrod: comp. Acts i. 23. Except- 
 ing Rom. i. 4; Heb. iv. 7, dpiZev is peculiar to Lk. (Acts ii. 23, 
 X. 42, XL 20, XVil.. 26, 31): 
 
 why obat. Mt. and Mk. have ovat d€; but Lk. is fond of 
 aAnv (ver. 21). Although God knows from all eternity that Judas 
 is the betrayer of the Christ, ye¢ this does not destroy the freedom 
 or responsibility of Judas. The éxeive marks him off as an alien: 
 comp. Jn. xilil. 26, 27, 30. Mt. and Mk. add xadov air@ ei ovk 
 eyevv7Oy 6 avOpwrros éxeivos. 
 
 23. Here jpéarto is the one word which is common to all three. 
 Mt. and Mk. say that they each asked Jesus (and Mt. adds that Judas 
 in particular asked) “Is it I?” No one seems to have suspected 
 Judas ; and perhaps Christ’s 2d «izas was heard by Judas alone. 
 Jesus may have had Judas next to Him on one side, S. John being 
 on the other. For zpacoew of doing evil comp. Jn. iii. 20, 21; 
 Rom. vii. 19 ; Thue. iv. 89. 2. 
 
 24-30. The Strife as to Precedence. 
 
 Disputes of this kind had taken place before, and the frequent records of 
 them are among the abundant proofs of the candour of the Evangelists. Buta 
 comparison of the records seems to indicate that the tradition respecting them 
 had become somewhat confused ; and it is possible that what was said on one 
 occasion has in part been transferred to another. Comp. Mt. xviii. 1-5 ; Mk. 
 ix. 33-37; Lk. ix. 46-48; Jn. xiii. 14: also Mt. xx. 24-28; Mk. x. 41-45; 
 Lk. xxii. 24-27. Of these last three passages, Mt. and Mk. clearly refer to the 
 same incident, which took place considerably before the Last Supper. If Lk. 
 merely knew what Jesus said on that occasion, but did not know the occasion, 
 he would hardly have selected the Last Supper as a suitable place for the incident. 
 He probably had good reason for believing that a dispute of this kind took place 
 at the supper. Jesus may have repeated some of what He had said on a similar 
 occasion ; or Lk. may have transferred what was said then to the present occa- 
 sion. But there is no note of time or sequence in ver. 24, where 6é xal simply 
 indicates that something of a different character (6¢) from what precedes also 
 (xal) took place: and it is scarcely credible that this strife occurred after Jesus 
 had washed their feet and instituted the eucharist. More probably the dispute 
 arose respecting the places at the paschal meal—who was to be nearest to the 
 Master; and the feet-washing was a symbolical rebuke to this contention. 
 Here ver. 27 appears to have direct reference to His having washed their feet. 
 
 24, *Eyévero 8éxai “But there arose also”: see small print on 
 
XXII. 24-27.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 01 
 
 ili. 9. The 5é€ perhaps contrasts this discussion with that as to 
 which of them was the traitor. But we are not sure that the one 
 discussion came closely after the other. 
 
 gidoverxia, ‘‘Contentiousness.” Here only in N.T., but quite 
 classical. It is sometimes coupled with Baoxavia (4 Mac. i. 26; 
 M. Antonin. iii. 4), and easily comes to mean “contention” 
 (2 Mac. iv. 4; Jos. Azz. vii. 8. 4). 
 
 Soxet etvar, “Is accounted, allowed to be”—omnium suffragits ; 
 implying who ought to be so accounted. See Lft. on Gal. i. 6. 
 
 peiLev. Not quite equivalent to the superlative, which would 
 have indicated several gradations from lowest to highest.: The 
 comparative implies only two,—a superior and all the rest as 
 equals: ix. 46; Mk. ix. 34. Win. xxxv. 4, p. 305. 
 
 25. Almost verbatim as the account of the earlier strife pro- 
 voked by James and John (Mt. xx. 25; Mk. x. 42). For xuptedou- 
 ow comp. Rom. xiv. 9; 2 Cor. 1. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 15. Mt. and Mk. 
 use the compounds, xataxvp. and xarefovcral. 
 
 evepyérat Kahodvtat Peculiar to Lk. The phrase evepyérys 
 Baoréos aveypddy (Hat. viii. 85. 4: comp. Thuc. i. 129. 2; Esth 
 li. 23, Vi. 1) is not parallel. There persons who have done special 
 service to the sovereign are formally credited with it. Here it is 
 the sovereign who receives the title of Benefactor (ze. of his 
 country, or of mankind) as a perpetual epithet ; e.g. some of the 
 Greek kings of Egypt. Comp. 2wrip, Pater patriz, Servus ser- 
 vorum. For less formal instances of the title see McClellan and 
 Wetstein. 
 
 It is better to take xaXofyrat as middle: ‘‘ claim the title,” hume titulum 
 stbi vindicant (Beng.). This is what the disciples were doing. 
 
 26. 6 peiLwy. He who is really above the rest. True great- 
 ness involves service to others: obdesse oblige. For ywéoOw, “let 
 him prove himself to be,” comp. x. 36, xii. 40, xvi. II, xix, 17. 
 We have an echo of this 1 Pet. v. 3. For vedtepos as duaxovav 
 comp. Acts v. 6, 10: vewrepov dé A€yer Toy Ecxarov (Euthym.), the 
 lowest in rank. 
 
 The Latin Versions have junzor (ef Vulg.), minor (acfi,i), minus (d, 
 petxpbrepos D), 7uvenzs (r), adulescentzor (bq). 
 
 For 6 iyovpevos we have gud preest (abfq), guz princeps est (tr), qui 
 primus est (l), gui preesens est (e), gui ducatum agzt (d), gui precessor est 
 
 ulg.). In N.T. 77yéoua: means ‘‘ lead ” only in pres. part., and most often 
 in Lk. It is used of any leader, ecclesiastical or civil (Acts vii. 10, xiv. 12, 
 xv. 22; Mt. ii. 6; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24). In LXX it is freq. 
 
 27. éy Sé év péow Spay. This need not be confined to the 
 feet-washing (Euthym. De W. Godet, Hahn), nor to the fact that 
 the person who presided at the paschal meal served the others 
 (Hofm.): and the reference to either is uncertain. The whole of 
 
502 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII. 27-30 
 
 Christ’s ministry was one of service to His disciples (Nosz. Weiss). 
 For év p.éow see on Vill. 7. 
 Strauss, Keim, and others regard the feet-washing recorded in Jn. as a mere 
 
 fictitious illustration of Lk. xii. 37 and xxii. 27 (Z. /. § 86, p. 542, ed. 1864 ; 
 Jes. of Naz. Vv. p. 341 0). 
 
 28-30. Nearly the whole of this is peculiar to Lk. But comp. 
 Mt. xix. 28. Having rebuked them for raising the question of 
 precedence among themselves, Jesus shows them wherein the 
 privileges which they a// enjoy consist, viz. in their standing by 
 Him in His service to others. He gives preference to none. 
 
 28. of Siapepernkdtes pet euod. The idea of persistent loyalty 
 is enforced by the compound verb, by the perfect tense, and by 
 the preposition (Lft. on Gal. ii. 5): “‘who have perseveringly re- 
 mained with Me and continue to do so” (i. 22; Heb. i. 11; 2 Pet. 
 iil. 4). 
 
 ). Tois metpacpots pov. The trials to which He had been sub- 
 jected during His ministry, and especially the latter portion of it. 
 
 These, even to Him, were temptations to abandon His work. — 
 
 Comp. axpt xarpod (iv. 13). 
 
 kay® StatiWepar suiv. ‘And JZ on My part, in return for your 
 loyalty, hereby appoint to you dominion, even as My Father 
 appointed to Me dominion.” As in i. 33, Baovdcia is here 
 “dominion” rather than “a kingdom”: comp. xxili. 42; Rey. 
 xvii. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 12. See on xi. 2. Comp. ty Bactrciay eis 
 viv ‘Adeéavopar di€Gero (Jos. Anz. xiii. 16. 1). 
 
 A connexion with 6:a@jxn (ver. 20) is doubtful. The xawvh diabjcn is 
 with all the faithful; this dcari@ewac seems to be confined to the Apostles. 
 The verb does not necessarily mean ‘‘covenant to give” or ‘‘assign by be- 
 quest,” which would not fit dué@ero here, but may be used of any formal 
 arrangement or disposition (Hdt. i. 194. 6; Xen. Anad. vii. 3. 10; Mem. 
 i. 6. 133 Cyr. Ve 2. 7 Q)e 
 
 830. tva goOynte Kat mivnte. This is the purpose of conferring 
 regal power upon them. Some make from xafws to BacwAciov a 
 parenthesis and render, “I also (even as My Father appointed to 
 Me dominion) appoint to you that ye may eat and drink,” ete. 
 So Theophyl. Nosg. Hahn. But Baowrelav belongs to both d:a- 
 7iMeuor and défero, So Euthym. De W. Mey. Weiss, Schanz, 
 Godet. 
 
 éxt tis tpaméLys pou. The Jews commonly regarded the 
 Messianic Kingdom as a banquet: comp. xiii. 29, xiv. 15. Czbus 
 potusque, tlle de quo alias aicitur, Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
 Justitiam (Bede). 
 
 xaOyo0€ éxt Opdvwvr. The meaning of the promise is parallel to 
 what precedes. As they have shared the trials, so they shall share 
 the joy; and as they have proclaimed the Kingdom to Israel. so 
 
XXII. 30, 81.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 503 
 
 they shall exercise royal power over Israel, judging them accord- 
 ing as they have accepted or rejected what was proclaimed. Comp. 
 r Cor. vi. 2,°3:; Rev. xx, 4. 
 
 As to the verb, the readings are very various: xadlfecde (EF K MSU 
 VXT A), KxaSlonobe (H), xadéfnobe (D). But the choice lies between 
 xa0jjc0e (B* T A), which must depend upon iva, and ka@jcecbe (8% A B?G 
 LQ), which rather gives this as an independent promise. In Mt. xix. 28 
 xa0joeo0e is right, and may have been transferred to this passage, as dwdexa 
 has been in some authorities (§ D X, abcd flq) with Opévw». 
 
 81-34. The Prediction of Peter’s Denial. 
 
 Both the prediction and the fulfilment are given in all four Gospels. A 
 comparison of them shows that Lk. and Jn. are quite independent of one an- 
 other and of the other two. We have three separate narratives. Lk. agrees 
 with Jn. (xiii. 36-38) in placing the prediction in the supper-room. Mt. 
 (xxvi. 30-35) and Mk. (xiv. 26-30) place it on the way from the room to 
 Gethsemane. It is not likely that it was repeated; and the arrangement of 
 Lk. and Jn. is to be preferred. But some make three predictions ; two in the 
 room (Lk. being different from Jn.), and one during the walk to Gethsemane. 
 Godet regards a repetition of such a prophecy zzpossible de supposer (ii. p. 476). 
 
 81. Lk. makes no break in Christ’s words, but it is possible 
 that a remark of Peter’s, such as Jn. records, is omitted. The 
 apparent want of connexion between vv. 30 and 31 has led to the 
 insertion «ize d2 6 Kvpios (8 A D Q X, Latt.), as if to mark the be- 
 ginning of a new subject. BLT, Sah. Boh. Syr-Sin. omit. Bede 
 suggests by way of connexion, /Ve gloriarentur undecim apostolt, 
 suisve viribus tribuerent, quod soli pene inter tot millia Judxorum 
 dicerentur in tentationibus permansisse cum Domino, ostendtt et eos 
 si non juvantis se Domini essent opitulatione protecti, eadem procella 
 cum ceteris potuisse contert. 
 
 Xipwv Zinwy. The repetition of the name is impressive: see 
 on x. 41. Contrast Iézpe ver. 34. The whole of this address 
 (31, 32) is peculiar to Lk. It tends to mitigate Peter’s guilt, by 
 showing how sorely he was tried. Lk. “ever spares the Twelve.” 
 See pp. 146, 172, 511. 
 
 6 Zatavds é&mTHAcaTo Spas. “Satan obtained you by asking” 
 (RV. marg.) ; “procured your being surrendered to him,” as in 
 the case of Job (i. 12, ii. 6): exoravit vos. Neither fostulavit 
 (Tert. Cypr.), nor guzsivit (c), nor exfetivit (f Vulg.) is adequate. 
 The aorist of the compound verb necessarily implies success in the 
 petition. In class. Grk. the mid. would generally have a good 
 sense: “obtained your release by entreaty.” See instances in 
 Wetst. and Field As in x. 18 Jesus is here communicating a 
 portion of His divine knowledge. See notes there and on viii. 12. 
 Note the plur. éyas, which covers both ov and ois ddeAdovs 
 cov. Satan was allowed to try them all (Mt. xxvi. 31, 56; Mk. 
 xiv. 27, 50); Juda non cantentus (Beng.). Comp. Apost. Const. 
 vi. 5.4: Zest. XIL, Pair. Benj. iii. 
 
§04 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIT. 81-34. 
 
 toi owlacat, See oni. 74: “in order to sift.” Neither verb 
 nor substantive (oivov, “a sieve, winnowing riddle”) is classical. 
 They are probably colloquial for xécxwov and kooxwevew, which 
 survives in modern Greek. In Amos ix. 9 we have Auxuay. See 
 Suicer, s.z. 
 
 Ut ventilet (ef ff,ilqr, Ambr.), wt vexaret (Cypr. Aug.). ut cerneret (d, 
 Tert. Hil.), ad cernendum (c), ut cribraret (Vulg.). 
 
 82. éyh Sé edeyOnv. See onv. 12. The éyw Sé€ and the aor. 
 are in marked contrast to Satan and his request. We may regard 
 e€ntynoaro and éde740nv as contemporaneous. 
 
 mept god. As being the leader on whom so much depended, 
 and as being in special need of help, as his fall proved. Jesus 
 prayed for all (Jn. xvii. 2, 9, 15, 17). The interpolator of Ignatius 
 understands this as a prayer for all: 6 denfeis py exdetrew TH 
 miatw T&v amroctéAwy (Smyrn. vii.) For iva after déouae comp. 
 IX. 40, xxi. 36. 
 
 pi} éxdXtry. “Fail not utterly, once for all.” Defect in Petro 
 H evepyea THs wlotews ad tempus: at ew labefactavit, non extinxit 
 (Grotius). 
 
 kat oJ. Answering to eyo dé Christ has helped him: he 
 must do what he can for others. 
 
 Tote émuotpeas otypicov. ‘When once thou hast turned 
 again, stablish” (RV.). It is unnatural to take wore with orypicov 
 (Mey. Weiss) ; and it is a mistake to make émortpéwas a sort of 
 Hebraism (Ps. Ixxxv. 7, émuorpépas Cwdoes jas), meaning “in 
 turn” (Grot. Maldon. Beng.), a use which perhaps does not occur 
 in N.T. See Schanz. On the other hand, ‘‘when thou art con- 
 verted” is too strong. It means turning again after a temporary 
 aberration. Yet it is not turning ¢o the brethren, but turning from 
 the fault that is meant. It is not likely that the transitive sense is 
 meant: “convert thy brethren and strengthen them”: comp. 
 i. 16, 17; Jas. v. 19, and contrast Acts ili. 19, xxvili. 27; Mt. 
 xiii. 15; Mk. iv. 12. See Lxfos. Times, Oct. 1899, p. 6. 
 
 This metaphorical sense of ornplfecv is not classical: comp. Acts xviii. 23 ; 
 Rom. i. 11, xvi. 25; Jas. v. 8, etc. The form orjpicov for orjpiEor is late. 
 
 Some Latin texts add, without any Greek authority, e¢ rogate ne intretis 
 in temptationem (a bce fi,iq). 
 
 33. pera ood. First, with enthusiastic emphasis: “ With Zhee 
 I am ready.” The impulsive reply is thoroughly characteristic. As 
 at the feet-washing (Jn. xili. 6, 8) he has more confidence in his 
 own feelings than in Christ’s word; but this version of the utter- 
 ance is less boastful than that in Mt. xxvi. 33 and Mk. xiv. 29. 
 
 84. Aéyw cou, Mérpe. For the first and last time in the Gospels 
 Jesus addresses him by the significant name which He had given 
 him. Rock-like strength is not to be found in self-confidence, but 
 
XXII. 34-86.) THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 505 
 
 in humble trust in Him. Mt. and Mk. have ’Apjy Aéyw oor: Jn. 
 ’"Aunv div A. co. The solemn earnestness with which this 
 definite prediction was uttered made a deep impression upon all. 
 
 onpepov. Mt. has tavry rH vuxti. Mk, has both. The new 
 day began after sunset. See iv. 40, v. 13, and xxiii. 38 for similar 
 cases in which Mt. and Lk. have different parts of an expression, 
 of which Mk. has the whole. 
 
 ob dwrycer . . . GAéxtwp. The third of the four Roman watches 
 was called dAexropopwvia, gallicinium (Mk. xiii. 35; Apost. Const. 
 Vili. 34. 1; Strabo, vii. 35; Geopon. 1153). The expression here is 
 equivalent to “Before this night is past.” Mk. alone mentions 
 the double cock-crowing, and the fact that Peter, so far from being 
 silenced, kept on protesting with increased vehemence. 
 
 és Tpls pe arapvyoy eldévat. This is the true reading (§ BLMQXT), 
 The pls is in all four Gospels: the e/dévar in Lk, alone. 
 
 85-38. §The New Conditions; the Saying about the Sword. 
 The opening words mark the beginning of a new subject; and 
 there is no indication of any connexion with what precedes. It is 
 one more proof of His care for them. Precautions and equipments, 
 which would have hindered them in more peaceful times, have 
 become necessary now. What He formerly forbade, He now en- 
 joins. Dominus non eddem vivendi regula persecutionis quam pacis 
 tempore discipulos informat (Bede). 
 
 35. “Ote améotetha buds dtep B. The wording suggests a direct 
 reference to x. 4, which is addressed to the Sevendy. In ix. 3, 
 where similar directions are given to the Zze/ve, the wording is 
 different. In the source which Lk. is here using the words given 
 in x. 4 would seem to have been addressed to the Apostles. 
 There may have been some confusion in the tradition respecting 
 two similar incidents, or in the use which Lk. makes of it. 
 
 This use of Sorepeiy rivos occurs here only in N.T. Comp. Jos. Avs. 
 ii, 2, 1. The pass. is thus used xv. 14; Rom, iii. 23; Heb. xi. 37. 
 
 86. 6 pi exov. This is ambiguous. It may look back to 
 6 éxwv Badddvrov: “He that hath no pwrse, let him sell his gar- 
 ment and buy a sword” (Cov. Gen. Rhem. RV.). Or it may 
 anticipate pdxapay: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his 
 garment and buy one” (Tyn. Cran. AV.). The former is far the 
 more probable. Only he who has no money or wallet, would sell 
 the most necessary of garments (iudruoy, vi. 29), to buy anything. 
 But even the tudtov is less indispensable than a sword; so 
 dangerous are their surroundings. ‘For henceforth the question 
 with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they 
 possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve 
 their lives” (Cyril Alex. Sy. Com. ad /oc., Payne Smith, p. 680). 
 
506 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII, 36-38. 
 
 Christ implies that His Apostles will have to rely upon their own 
 resources and to confront deadly hostility. Comp. Jn. xv. 18-21. 
 Christ does not mean that they are to repel force by force ; still 
 less that they are to use force in spreading the Gospel. But in a 
 figure likely to be remembered He warns them of the changed 
 circumstances for which they must now be prepared. 
 
 37. héyo yop jpiv. The yap introduces the explanation of the 
 change from ore dzéoretXa to viv. 
 
 7d yeypappévov. Comp. xx. 17; 2 Cor. iv, 13. More often we have 
 Th yeypappéva: xviii. 31, xxi. 22; ‘Acts xiii. 29; Rev. xx. 12, xxii. I9. 
 
 The érz before rodro (T AA TI, "Vulg. Am.) is spurious. It is the kind of 
 insertion which versions are apt to make for the sake of completeness: ‘‘ must 
 yet be fulfilled.” For Set see on iv. 43 and ix. 22, 
 
 év éyoi. Therefore the disciples must expect no better treatment 
 than the Master receives (Mt. x. 24; Jn. xv. 20, xiii, 16: see on 
 Vi. 40). 
 
 Kai peta dvénov. The xaé is part of the quotation: kat éy ois 
 dvépos éoyioGn (Is. lili. 12): “evew with the transgressors” is 
 incorrect. In AV. dyvoyos is translated in five different ways: 
 “transgressor” (Mk. xv. 28); “wicked” (Acts ii. 23; 2 Thes. 
 il. 8), “without law” (1 Cor. ix. 21), “lawless” (1 Tim. i. 9), 
 unlawful 7i(2 Pet. i. §): 
 
 kal yép. An extension of the argument: “and what is more.” 
 This fulfilment is not only necessary,—it is reaching its conclusion, 
 “is having an end” (Mk. iii. 26). The phrase 7éAos éxew is used 
 of oracles and predictions being accomplished. See Field, O¢. 
 Norvic. iii., and comp. teréAeorat (Jn. xix. 30). 
 
 Om. yép D, ade fi,il Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Failure to see the point of the 
 ‘yép would cause the omission. 
 
 7 mept éuot. This form of expression Is found in no other Gospel ; 
 but the plur., 7@ mepl €uo, occurs xxiv. 19, 27 and is freq. in Acts (1. 3, 
 XViii. 25, xxiii, 11, 15, xxiv. 10, 22, xxvili. 15, 31: in viii. 12, xix. 8, xxvill. 
 23 the 7d is probably spurious). Some texts (AXT'A etc.) have rh here 
 for 76: ea guxz sunt de me (Vulg.) ; ea guz de me scribta sunt (Cod. Brix.). 
 But 76 (" BD LQ) has been altered to the more usual expression, perhaps 
 to avoid the possible combination of 7d wepi €uod TéAos. There is no need to 
 
 understand ‘yeypayyévoyv, Much which concerned the Christ had never been 
 written. 
 
 88. pdéxatpar. Chrysostom has supposed that these were two 
 knives, prepared for the slaughtering (ver. 8) or carving of the 
 paschal lamb. In itself this is not improbable: but nowhere else 
 in N.T. does paxaipa mean a knife. Assuming that swords are 
 meant, these weapons may have been provided against robbers on 
 the journey to Jerusalem, or against attack in the city. Peter had 
 one of them, and may have been the speaker here. It is one 
 more instance of the Apostles’ want of insight, and of the 
 Evangelists’ candour: comp. Mk. viii. 17. Schleiermacher points 
 
XXII. 38.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 507 
 
 out that the obscurity of the passage is evidence of its genuine- 
 ness and originality (p. 299, Eng. tr.). 
 
 ‘Ikavév €or. Satis est (cfi,q Vulg.), sat est (ai), sufficit 
 (bdflr) which last perhaps represents dpxet (D). The reply is 
 probably the equivalent for a Hebrew formula for dismissing the 
 subject (Deut. iii. 26), not with impatience, but with satiety or 
 sorrow. Comp. éws tod viv ixaydv (1 Mac. ii. 33). But even if it 
 means that two swords are a sufficient quantity (“They are enough 
 for you,” Syr-Sin.), it intimates that the subject is dismissed. 
 Bede is hardly right in his view: duo gladi sufficiunt ad testi- 
 montium sponte passi salvatoris, i.e. to prove that he could have 
 resisted, had He pleased. If the words apply to the swords, they 
 are spoken with a sad irony (povovxi dvayeAd, Cyril Alex.), as 
 meaning, not that the two weapons will be sufficient for the pro- 
 tection of the company, but that none at all are required: they 
 have grievously misunderstood Him.! Zs gi/t nicht mehr mit dem 
 leiblichen Schwerdt fechten, sondern es gilt hinfort leiden um des 
 Evangelit willen und Kreuz tragen: denn man kann wider den 
 Teufel nicht mit Eisen fechten ; darum ist Noth AXes dran zu setzen, 
 und nur das geistliche Schwerdt, das Wort Gottes, zu fassen (Luth.). 
 
 XXII. 39-XXIII. 49. The Passion. In this part of the 
 narrative of the Passion proper, z.e. from the Agony to the Death, 
 the particulars which are wholly or mainly peculiar to Lk. are 
 Xxii. 51, xxiii. 6-12, 27-32 [34], 40-43, 46: and these particulars 
 are among the most precious details in the history of the Passion. 
 
 ‘39-46.)The Agony in the Garden. With regard to the 
 omission of nearly the whole of the last discourses (Jn. xiv.—xvii.) 
 Godet remarks that the oral tradition was not a suitable vehicle 
 for transmitting such things: Céfazent des trésors quwun ceur élite 
 pouvait seul garder et reproduire. On the other hand Jn. omits 
 
 1The Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface vit!., A.D. 1302, bases the double 
 power of the Papacy on this text. The following are among the most remark- 
 able passages: /eztur Ecclesiz, unius, et unice unum corpus, unum caput, non 
 duo capita quasi monstrum, Christus setlicet et Christi vicarius, Petrus Petrique 
 Successor... . In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet 
 et temporalem evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis: Ecce 
 gladii duo hic; z# Leclesta scilicet, cum Apostoli loquerentur ; non respondit 
 Dominus nimis esse, sed satis... . Uterque ergo in potestate Ecclesiz, spiritualis 
 scilicet gladius, et materialis: sec ts quidem pro Ecclesia, tlie vero ab Ecclesia 
 exercendus ; tlle sacerdotis, 1s manu Regum et militum; sed ad nutum et 
 pattentiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem 
 auctoritatem spirituali subject potestate . .. sic de Ecclesia et ecclesiastica 
 potestate verificatur vaticinium Jeremiz [i. 10]: Ecce constitui te hodie super 
 gentes, et regna, etc. gua seguuntur.... Porro subesse Romano Pontificz 
 omnem humanam creaturam declaramus, dicimus et definimus ommnino esse de 
 necessitate salutis (Raynald. xxiii. p. 328; see Milman, Za¢. Chr. Bk. xi. ch. 
 ix. ; Robertson, Bk. vii. ch. v. ; Stubbs’ A/oshezm, ii. p. 261 ; Zoeckler, Hanaé 
 a. Theol. Wiss. ii. p. 167 ; Gregorovius, Stadi Rom, v. p. 562; Berchtold, Dz 
 Bulle Unam Sanctam, Miinchen, 182% 
 
508 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 39-42, 
 
 the whole of this scene, although there is a clear reference to it 
 xviii. 11. Lk.’s narrative once more differs considerably from that 
 of Mt. (xxvi. 30-41) and of Mk. (xiv. 26-38), which are almost 
 verbatim the same; and it is very much shorter. It is in vv. 39, 
 42, 46 that Lk. comes most closely to the other two. 
 
 89. éfehOdv. From the house. 
 
 kata 76 €@os. Peculiar to Lk. (i. 9, ii. 42): comp. moAAdxus 
 ow7xOn “Incots éxet (Jn. xviii. 2). It was no longer necessary 
 to keep Judas ignorant of His movements; so He follows His 
 usual practice. Lk. omits the tyvyoavtes which records the 
 chanting of the second part of the Hallel. Jn. alone mentions the 
 passing of the gloomy ravine of the Kidron (xviii. 1). 
 
 40. tot témov. Lk. and Jn. call it “the place,” Mt. and Mk. 
 xopiov and add the name I'efoypavei = “ oil-press.” The traditional 
 Gethsemane is a questionable site. Both Robinson and Thomson 
 would place the garden higher up the Mount of Olives. The 
 tradition is continuous from the age of Constantine, but cannot 
 be traced to any earlier source. Stanley inclines to accept it as 
 correct (Siz. & Pal. p. 455). See D.&.? art. “Gethsemane.” 
 
 Npocedxeobe. This first command to pray (comp. ver. 46) is 
 recorded by Lk. alone. It is given to the eleven; the second is 
 to the chosen three, whom Lk. does not notice particularly. 
 
 41. dreondoOy. Avulsus est (Vulg.). ‘“ He was drawn away ” 
 by the violence of His emotion, which was too strong to tolerate 
 the sympathy of even the closest friends: comp. Acts xxi. 1. It 
 seems to be too strong a word to use of mere separation: but 
 comp. 2 Mac. xii. 10, 17; 4 Mac. iii. 18; Is. xxviii. 9. 
 
 Goel AlGov Bodrjv. Mt. and Mk. have yuxpév. Comp. dcel rbtou Body 
 (Gen, xxi. 16): Aelaero Soupds épwiy (Hom. J, xxiii. 529). The acc. in Jn. 
 vi. 19 is not quite parallel. 
 
 eis ta ydvara. Lk. alone mentions this. Standing was the 
 more common attitude (xviii. 11; Mt. vi. 5; Mk. xi. 25; 1 Sam. 
 i. 26): but on occasions of special earnestness or humiliation 
 kneeling was more natural (1 Kings viii. 54; Ezra ix. 5; Dan. vi. 
 10). In N.T. kneeling is the only attitude mentioned ; perhaps 
 in imitation of Christ’s example here: Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, 
 xxl. 5; Eph. iii. 14. The phrase reac ra yévara is not classical, 
 but comp. gexza ponere. See on ill. 21: the imperf. mpoonuxeto 
 implies continued prayer. 
 
 42. Mdrtep, et Rover, mapéveyke. We might have expected ei 
 GéXers (comp. eav OédAys, V. 12), because of 7d O€Anpwa in the next 
 sentence. But this is one of the passages which tend to show 
 that in N.T. 6é4w indicates mere choice, while BovAouwa: implies 
 deliberate selection (Mt. i. 19). T’1e ltter is far less common in 
 N.T. In LXX there is not much diffeic:.. 
 
XXII. 42, 43.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 509 
 
 This is the only passage in which the Attic Bove: for Bor Xp is well sup- 
 ported. Such forms are found in some texts Mt. xxvii. 4; Jn. xi. 40; 
 Acts xvi. 31, xxiv. 8. 
 
 In Dacde fh ph 7d OAAnua. . « yevéoOw precedes el Bovher . . . epod, 
 dv being omitted. Several of the same authorities have a similar inversion 
 ix. 62. 
 
 The reading mapeveyxetv (AQXTAA) tums the prayer into an un- 
 finished pleading: ‘‘ Father, if Thou be willing to remove this cup from 
 Me.”—Comp. Exod. xxxii. 32, BDT Versions, and Orig. support map- 
 éveyxe. Vulg. transfer calicem istum; Tert. transfer poculum istud ; but he 
 may be quoting Mk. xiv. 36 (De Orat. iv.) Boh. Sah, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sia. 
 have ‘‘let this cup pass.” 
 
 mapéveyke TodTo Td ToTHpioy dw éyod. “This cup” and the 
 address “Father” are in all three accounts. In O.T. the meta- 
 phor of “cup” for a person’s fortune, whether good or bad, is 
 very common (Ps. xi. 6, xvi. 5, xxilil. 5, xxv. 8, etc.) In N.T. 
 specially of the sufferings of Christ (Mk. xiv. 36; Jn. xviii. 11; 
 Mt. xx 22, 23; Mk. x. 38, 39): comp. Rev. xiv. 10, xvi. I9, 
 xvii 6, In class. Grk. zapadépew zorypiov would mean to place 
 a cup at the side of a person, put it on the table near him 
 (Hdt. i. 119. 5, 133- 3; Plat. Ae. i. p. 354). But in Plutarch 
 mapadépew is used in the sense of “lay aside, remove” (Camill. 
 xli.). Elsewhere in N.T. it is used of leading astray (Heb. xiii. 9 ; 
 Jude 12). : 
 
 7d O€Anpd pou. Either BovAnua or BovAy might have been 
 used of the Father’s will, but less suitably of Christ’s (Eph. i. 11). 
 The ywéoOw is peculiar to Lk. It recalls yevnfijrw 1d OéAqud 
 cov (Mt. vi. 10), which Lk. omits (xi. 2). For mAyjvy comp. x 
 ri, 14, 20. 
 
 43, 44. As in the case of vz. 19, 20, we have to consider whether this 
 passage is part of the original text. For the evidence see the additional note 
 at the end of ch. xxiii. One thing is certain. ‘‘It would be zmosstble to 
 regard these verses as a product of the inventiveness of the scribes. They can 
 only be a fragment from the traditions, written or oral, which were, for a time 
 at least, locally current beside the canonical Gospels, and which doubtless in- 
 cluded matter of every degree of authenticity and intrinsic value. These verses 
 
 and the first sentence of xxiii. 34 may be safely called the most precious among 
 the remains of this evangelic tradition which were rescued from oblivion by the 
 
 « 
 
 scribes of the second century” (WH. ii. App. p. 67). It matters little whether | 
 Lk. included them in his narrative, so long as their authenticity as evangelic™ 
 tradition is acknowledged. In this respect the passage is like that respecting 
 
 the Woman taken in Adultery. 
 
 43. doy. “Was visible” to the bodily eye is obviously 
 meant. It is against the context and the use of the expression in 
 other places to suppose that internal perception of an invisible 
 spiritual presence is intende¢ Lk. is fond of the expression 
 (i. 11, ix. 31, xxiv. 34; Acts il. 3, vii. 2, 26, 30, 35, ix. 17, xiii. 31, 
 xvi. 9, xxvi. 16; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 5-8), which Mt. and Mk. use 
 once each (xvii. 3, ix. 4), and Jn. thrice (Rev. xi. 19, xii. 1, 3), but 
 
510 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII. 48, 44. 
 
 not in his Gospel. The én’ odpavos would not have been added 
 if the presence of the Angel was invisible. 
 
 éviocxtwv. Elsewhere in N.T. only Acts ix. 19, of bodily 
 strengthening: comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 40; Ecclus. 1. 4; and this may 
 well be the meaning here, but without excluding the strengthening 
 of soul and spirit. Either would tend to produce the other; and 
 the sight of His Father’s messenger would strengthen both body 
 and spirit. Commentators have speculated as to what the Angel 
 said (see Corn. 4 Lap. ad /.). There is nothing to indicate that he 
 
 spoke. Hobart remarks of évcyvew that, outside the LXX “its . 
 
 use in the transitive sense, ‘to strengthen,’ is confined to Hippocrates 
 and St. Luke” (p. 89). In Acts ix. 19 the true reading is probably 
 evirxvOn.4 
 
 év aywvia. Here only in N.T. Field contends that fear is 
 the radical notion of the word. The passages in which it occurs 
 in LXX confirm this view: 2 Mac. iii. 14, 16, xv. 19; Comp. 
 dywvav Esth. xv. 8 [v. 1]; Dan. i. 10; 2 Mac. iii. 21. It is fre- 
 quently coupled with such words as ¢dfos, déos, ppiky, etc. For 
 examples see Field, Of. JVorv. iii. p. 56. It is, therefore, an agony 
 of fear that is apparently to be understood. Mk. has adypovety 
 with éxfayPetcbar, Mt. with Avretofar.—éxtevéotepov. “ More ex- 
 tendedly,” and hence “ more persistently.” This seems to be 
 parallel to the wimrew éri rpdcwrov aitod (Mt.) and émt ris yas 
 (Mk.). Heb. v. 7 probably refers specially to this. Comp. éxrevés 
 of prayer, and éxréveta of worship and service, Acts xii. 5, Xxvi. 7. 
 
 44. cet OpdpBor atpatos kataBaivovres. Even if xataBatvovros 
 (x V X, Vulg. Boh.) be right, the words do not zecessarily mean 
 more than that the drops of sweat in some way resembled drops of 
 blood, e.g. by their size and frequency. But it is not likely that no 
 more than this is intended, or that the words are a metaphorical 
 expression, like our “tears of blood.” ‘That Justin in referring to 
 the statement omits aipatos—idpas doet OpopBor xarexetro (/7y. 
 ciii.}—does not prove that he did not understand actual blood to 
 be meant. Rather it shows that he considered that O@pdéyPor, 
 “clots,” sufficiently expressed “drops of blood.” ? 
 
 The expression ‘‘ bloody sweat” is probably a correct interpretation: and 
 the possibility of blood exuding through the pores seems to be established by 
 examples. Comp. Arist. Hzs¢. Anzm. ili. 19. De Mezeray states of Charles Ix. 
 
 
 
 3 Even Meyer is disposed to admit that this strengthening by an Angel is 
 legendary, because it is ‘‘ singular” (absonderlich), and not mentioned by Mt. 
 or Mk., who has Peter to rest upon. Let us admit that perhaps Lk. did not 
 mention it either. That does not prove that it is legendary; unless we are 
 prepared to admit that the ministry of Angels after the temptation, which is 
 analogous to this, and which is attested by both Mt. (iv. 11) and Mk. (i. 13), is 
 legendary also. 
 
 2Tn class. Grk. @p4u80s, both with and without aYuaros, may mean a drop 
 of blood (Aesch. Zum. 184; Chotph. 533, 5463; Piato, Crt. p. 120 A.). 
 
XXII. 44-47. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 511 
 
 of France that ‘‘ During the last two weeks of his life (May 1574) his consti- 
 tution made strange efforts . . . blood gushed from all the outlets of his body, 
 even from the pores of his skin; so that on one occasion he was found bathed 
 in a bloody sweat.” See W. Stroud, Zhe Physical Cause of the Death of 
 Christ, 1847, pp. 85-88, 379-389. Schanz cites Lonarz, De sudore sanguinis, 
 Bonn, 1850, and Langen, Dze J/etzten Lebenstage, p. 214. Why is aluaros 
 added, if no afua accompanied the /5pés? It would be visible in the moon- 
 light, when Jesus returned to the disciples: «bz guzdem non solis oculis, sed 
 quast membris omnibus ievesse videtur (Bernard, /n Dom. Palm, Serm. 
 iii, 4). 
 
 45. Lk. is much more brief than Mt. and Mk., but adds dvacras 
 ard THs mpooevyyns and also azo trys Avrys. Prolonged sorrow , 
 produces sleep, and in mentioning this cause of their slumber Lk. 
 “once more “spares the Twelve.” For dvaords see on i, 39, and 
 for dao of the cause see on xix. 3, xxi. 26, xxiv. 41. 
 
 46. Ti xa@evSere; The special address to Peter is omitted. 
 
 mpocetxeoe iva py. All three assign this to the first return 
 from prayer. No words are recorded of the second, and Lk. 
 omits both it and the third. These movements are some evidence 
 as to Christ’s human knowledge. Would He have come to the 
 disciples, without waking them (as seems on the second occasion 
 to have been the case), had He known beforehand that they were 
 asleep? And does not etpicxev, which is in all three, almost 
 imply that until He came He did not know, as in the case of the 
 barren fig tree (Mk. xi. 13)? 
 
 tva py. ‘That... not” (Wic. RV.) rather than “lest” (Tyn. 
 Gen, Rhem. AV.). Comp. ver. 40, where the constr. is equivalent, although 
 not identical. -In both places we have the pres. imperat. of continuous 
 
 prayer. 
 
 47-53. The Traitor’s Kiss and the Arrest of Jesus. Mt. xxvi. 
 47-56; Mk. xiv. 43-52; Jn. xviii. 2-11. It would have been 
 possible for Jesus to have evaded Judas by not going to the usual 
 place (ver. 40) or by leaving it before he arrived. The sneer of 
 Celsus, that Jesus went to the garden “to make His escape by 
 
 _disgracefully hiding Himself,” is out of place. By going and re- 
 
 maining where Judas must find Him, He surrendered Himself 
 voluntarily. As Origen says, “At the fitting time He did not 
 prevent Himself from falling into the hands of men” (Ceé:. 
 ii, 10). 
 
 a "Ett adtod Aadodvtos . .. Sxdos Kat... lovdSas els Tov 
 \déSexa. These nine words are in all three accounts. He was 
 still addressing the disciples when He was interrupted by a hostile 
 multitude led by one of the Twelve. See Blass on Acts x. 44. 
 
 pudijoat adrév. Lk. omits that it was a prearranged sign; also 
 the xaipe “‘Pa@@ei and the fact that an ostentatiously affectionate 
 kiss (xatepiAncev) was given. Jn. does not mention the kiss. 
 
512 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 47-51, 
 
 His narrative shows how unnecessary tl.e treacherous signal was, 
 for Jesus came forward and declared Himself.! 
 
 48. piAjpar. First, with great emphasis. “Is it with a kiss 
 that thou betrayest?”  Osculo Filium hominis tradis? hoc est 
 amoris pignore vulnus infligis, et caritatis officio sanguinem fundis, 
 et pacis instrumento mortem irrogas, servus Dominum, discipulus 
 prodis magistrum, electus Auctorem (Bede). Jesus does not say, 
 s betrayest thou Me?” but “ betrayest thou the Son of Man?” 
 He reminds Judas that it is the Messiah whom he is treating with 
 this amazing form of treachery. Mt. words Christ’s rebuke very 
 differently : “Eraipe ef’ Oo Tapel. Mk. omits the rebuke. 
 
 49. Kupie, et matdgouev év paxaipy; Lk. alone records this 
 question. It is said that “since it was illegal to carry swords on 
 a feast-day, we have here another sign that the Last Supper had 
 not been the Passover.” But if the pdxapa was a large knife 
 used for killing the lamb, this would not hold: see on ver. 38. 
 
 For the constr. see on xiii. 23 and Burton, § 70, 169: and for the form 
 paxalpy see on xxi. 24. 
 
 50. efs. All three use this indefinite expression: Jn. alone 
 tells us that it was the impetuous Peter, who acted without waiting 
 for Christ’s reply. When Jn. wrote it was not dangerous to dis- 
 close the name of the Apostle who had attacked the high priest’s 
 servant. And John alone gives the servant’s name. As a friend 
 of the high priest (xvill. 15) he would be likely to know the name 
 Malchus. Malchus was probably taking a prominent part in the 
 arrest, and Peter aimed at his head. 
 
 TS ots adtod 7d Sefidv. Mt. has @riov, Mk. and Jn. ardpuoy. 
 Jn. also specifies the ~7gh¢ ear. Mt. records the rebuke to Peter, 
 “Put up again thy sword,” etc. 
 
 51. “Edte €ws tovrov. The obscurity of the saying is evidence 
 that it was uttered: an invented utterance would have been 
 plainer. If addressed to the disciples (as drroxpieis implies, for 
 He is answering either their question or Peter’s act), it probably 
 
 means, ‘‘Suffer My assailants to proceed these lengths against 
 
 Me.” If addressed to those who had come to arrest Him, it 
 might mean, “Tolerate thus much violence on the part of My 
 followers,”—violence which He at once rectifies. It can hardly 
 mean, ‘‘ Allow Me just to touch the sufferer,” for He is still free, 
 as ver. 52 implies: the arrest takes place at ver. 54. Some even 
 
 1 It was perhaps in memory of this treacherous act that the ‘kiss of 
 peace” was omitted in public service on Good Friday. Tertullian blames 
 those who omit it on fast-days which are less public and universal. But dve 
 Paschz, quo communis et quasi publica jejuni religio est, mertto deponimus 
 osculum (De Orat, xviii.) At other times the omission would amount to a 
 proclamation that one was fasting, contrary to Christ’s command. 
 
XXII. 51-53. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 513 
 
 make éws rovrov masc. “to go as far as Malchus”: but comp. 
 Lev. xxvi. 18. In either of these last cases we should have had 
 pe after ere. For édw see on iv. 41. 
 
 idoato adtov. Lk. the physician alone records this solitary 
 miracle of surgery. A complete restoration of the ear is meant 
 and required. ‘He touched the eav,” not the place where the 
 ear had been. Peter’s act had seemed to place Jesus in the 
 wrong and to justify His enemies: He was shown to be the 
 Leader of dangerous persons. To undo this result it was necessary 
 to render Malchus uninjured, and to surrender without resistance. 
 This confirms the interpretation given above of ‘Eare éws tovrov : 
 they are a public command to the disciples not to impede the 
 arrest. Comp. Jn. xviii. 36. Marcion omitted vv. 49-51. 
 
 In the Classical Review of Dec. 1893 Dr. E. A. Abbott proposes to resolve 
 this miracle into a misunderstanding of traditional language. The ingenuity is 
 unconvincing, See Additional Note p. 545. 
 
 52. tods mapayevonevous én aitév. These are not fresh arrivals, 
 but portions of the dyAos of ver. 47 more particularly described. 
 There is nothing improbable in the presence of dpyxepets, who are 
 mentioned by Lk. alone. Anxiety about the arrest, which might 
 be frustrated by a miscalculation of time, or by the people, or by 
 a miracle, would induce them to be present. For otpatnyods tod 
 iepod see on ver. 4. Jn. tells us that Roman soldiers with their 
 chief officer were there also (xvili. 3, 12). Jesus addresses the 
 Jewish authorities, who are responsible for the transaction. 
 
 The reading én’ airy (ABDLTXT ATI), “against Him” (RV.), is to 
 be preferred to mpds airév (§ GH RA), *‘to Him” (AV.) 3; but Tisch., with 
 his bias for §&, adopts the latter. 
 
 “Qs emt Anorhy. First with emphasis. These words down to 
 xa’ ypépav are the same in all three accounts. Jesus is not a 
 bandit (x. 30, xix. 46). The fact that they did not arrest Him 
 publicly, nor without violence, nor in the light of day, is evidence 
 that the arrest is unjustifiable. Perhaps éJ\wv means “clubs,” as 
 Rhem. from fustibus (Vulg.): comp. Jos. B./. ii. 9. 4. 
 
 53. Every point tells; “‘ Every day there was abundant oppor- 
 tunity; you yourselves were there ; the place was the most public 
 in the city; and you made no attempt to touch Me.” The 
 sentence is certainly not a question (Hahn). Tisch. does not 
 make even the first part, from as to évAwy, a question: so also 
 Wic. and Cran. 
 
 &\N’ atry éoriy, “But the explanation of such outrageous 
 conduct is not difficult. This is your hour of success allowed 
 by God; and it coincides with that allowed to the power of 
 darkness.” So Euthym. dpa év 7 Sivapu ehaBere car’ euod OedOev: 
 
 33 
 
514 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXI1. 53, 54, 
 
 comp. Jn. viii. 44. Perhaps there is an intimation that the night 
 is a fit season for such work: comp. Jn. xiii. 30, and see Schanz, 
 . 520. 
 
 és ° é€ouoia tod oxdtous. See Lft. on Col. i. 13, where the same 
 phrase occurs. He points out that éfovaia is sometimes used of 
 unrestrained and tyrannical power, as well as of delegated and 
 constitutional power. But the latter may be the meaning here. 
 It is by Divine permission that Satan is 6 dpywy Tod Koopou 
 tovrov (Jn. xiv. 30). 
 
 Lk. omits the flight of a@// the disciples, which Mt. and Mk. 
 record. This is further evidence, if any be needed, that Lk. 
 exhibits no aximus against the Twelve. See on ver. 45 and vi. 13. 
 
 54-62. Peter’s Denials are recorded in detail by all four 
 Evangelists, who tell us that three denials were predicted (Mt. 
 xxvi. 34; Mk. xiv. 30; Lk. xxii. 34; Jn. xiii. 38), and vecord three 
 denials (Mt. xxvi. 70, 72, 74; Mk. xiv. 68, 70, 71; Lk. xxii. 57, 
 58, 60; Jn. xvili. 17, 25, 27). As already pointed out, Lk. and 
 Jn. place the prediction during the supper, Mk. and Mt. on the 
 road to the Mount of Olives, which is less likely to be correct, if 
 (as is probable) the prediction was made only once. 
 
 As to the ¢hree denials, all four accounts are harmonious respecting the first, 
 but differ greatly respecting the second and third. The first denial, provoked 
 by the accusation of the maid, seems to have led to a series of attacks upon S. 
 Peter, which were mainly in two groups; and these were separated from one 
 another by an interval, during which he was not much noticed. Each of the 
 four narratives notices some features in these groups of attacks and denials: but 
 it is unreasonable to suppose that they profess to give the exact words that were 
 spoken in each case. See on viii. 24 for Augustine’s remarks on the different 
 words recorded by the three Synoptists as uttered during the storm on the lake. 
 Alford on Mt. xxvi. 69, and Westcott in an additional note on Jn. xviii., have 
 tabulated the four narratives: see also Rushbrooke’s Synoptzcon, p. 114. With 
 these helps the four can readily be compared clause by clause ; and the independ- 
 ence of at least three of them soon becomes apparent. This independence 
 results from truthfulness, and the variations will be a difficulty to those only who 
 hold views of verbal inspiration which are contradicted by abundant phenomena 
 both in O.T. and N.T. ‘‘St. Luke adds force to the episode by placing all 
 three denials together. With St. John, however, dramatic propriety is sacrificed 
 to chronological accuracy” (Lft. Bzblical Essays, p. 191). BPRS ee 
 
 54. Xud\aBértes. All four use this verb in connexion with the 
 arrest of Jesus. It is freq. in Lk., especially of the capture of 
 prisoners: Acts i. 16, xii. 3, xxiii. 27, xxvi. 21. Jn. tells us that 
 they bound Him and took Him zpés “Avvay zpérov, #.e. before His 
 being examined by Caiaphas, as recorded Mt. xxvi. 57-68 and 
 Mk. xiv. 53-65. Both these examinations were informal. They 
 were held at night, and no sentence pronounced in a trial held at 
 night was valid. Hence the necessity for a formal meeting of the 
 Sanhedrin after daybreak, to confirm what had been previously 
 decided. This third ecclesiastical trial is mentioned by all the 
 
XXII. 54, 55.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 515 
 
 Synoptists (ver. 66; Mt. xxvii. 1; Mk. xv. 1); whereas Jn. gives 
 only the first (xviii. 12), and shows that it was in connexion with 
 it that Peter’s denials took place. Lk. can hardly be said to give 
 either of the first two hearings. He says that Jesus was taken to 
 the high priest’s house, and was there denied by Peter and 
 ill-treated by His captors; and then he passes on to the formal 
 assembly of the Sanhedrin; but there is no mention of any 
 previous examination. With the help of the other narratives, 
 however, we obtain an account of all three hearings. The space 
 devoted by all four to these Jewish and Roman trials seems to be 
 out of proportion to the brief accounts of the crucifixion. But 
 they serve to bring out the meaning of the crucifixion by exhibit- 
 ing the nature of the Messiahship of Jesus. Why was Jesus con- 
 demned to death by the Sanhedrin? Because He claimed to be 
 the Son of God. Why was He condemned to death by Pilate? 
 Because He claimed to be the King of the Jews. 
 
 Hyayov Kat eionyayov. “They led Him (away) and brought 
 Him.” The latter verb is a favourite with Lk. See on ii. 27. 
 
 DT, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. some Old Lat. texts Vulg. Aeth. omit xal elovy- 
 ayov. 
 
 eis Thy oikiav Tod dpxtepéws. It is impossible to determine 
 whether this means of Annas or of Caiaphas (comp. iii. 30 and 
 Acts iv. 6): but the narrative of Jn. (xviii. 12-24) renders it. 
 highly probable that Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas shared 
 the same palace, occupying different parts of it. As Lk. records 
 no examination of Christ before either of them, we do not know 
 whether he connects Peter’s fall with the hearing before Annas (as 
 Jn.), or with that before Caiaphas (as Mt. and Mk.). All that he 
 tells us is that Jesus was kept a prisoner and insulted between the 
 night arrest and the morning sitting of the Sanhedrin. Possibly 
 his authorities told him no more. 
 
 AKohovGer paxpdbev. This following at a distance is noted by 
 all three. Quod sequitur, amoris est, quod e longo, timoris. 
 
 55. mepiapdvrwv. Here only in N.T. Comp. 3 Mac. iii. 7. 
 This would be April, at which time cold nights are not uncommon 
 in Jerusalem, which stands high, 
 
 ADRXTAATI have aydvtwr, which is peculiar to Lk. in the sense of 
 kindling: viii. 16, xi. 33, xv. 8; Acts xxviii. 2. For év péow see on viii. 7. 
 
 éxd@yto 6 Métpos pécos aitdv. Cod. Am. and other MSS. of Vulg. 
 have erat Petrus in medio corum, All Greek texts have éxé@yro. Where 
 did Jerome find #v? See on ix. 44. 
 
 Here only in N.T. is cuvxaifw intransitive: contrast Eph. ii. 6. DG, 
 bedefff,ilq Vulg. Arm. Syr-Sin. have wepixaOicdvtwy. But a (conseden- 
 a supports NABLRX etc. (cuvka@icdvtwy): and this is doubtless 
 
 nght. 
 
516 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXII 56-61. 
 
 56. maSicxn. All four use this word of the person who 
 began the attack on Peter. Jn. says that she was the doorkeeper. 
 It was not Pilate, nor any of the Sanhedrin, nor a mob of soldiers, 
 but a single waiting- maid, who frightened the self - confident 
 Apostle into denying his Master. Note the res. 
 
 mpds Td d@s. Comp. Mk. xiv. 54. For drevioaca, which is a 
 favourite word with Lk. (iv. 20 and often in Acts), Mk. has 
 euBr(Qpaca, 
 
 kal otos ody aito jy +The meaning of the xai is not obvious: 
 as well as who? Possibly S. John, who was present and known to 
 the household. With otv airé jv comp. xxiv. 44; Acts xiii. 7. 
 The fondness of Lk. for cv here comes out. Mk. and Mt. have 
 pera, and Jn. has é« trav pabyrav. 
 
 57. Ovdx oida adtév. For aitovy Mk. and Mt. have the less 
 explicitly false rf Xéyers. Lk. has 6 Aéyets ver. 60, where they have 
 tov avOpwrov. Here Lk. again mitigates by omitting the oath 
 which accompanied the second denial (Mt.), and the cursing and 
 swearing which accompanied the third (Mt. Mk.). This first 
 denial seems to have been specially public, gupooOev ravrwv (Mt.). 
 
 58. peta Bpayd. Lk. alone states that a second denial followed 
 close on the first. For érepos Mt. has a\An, Mk.  waudioxy, Jn. 
 elrov. For dvOpwie see on xii. 14. 
 
 59. Siactdons doet dpas pias. Mk. and Mt. say pera puxpov. 
 The classical diéoryue is peculiar to Lk. (xxiv. 51; Acts xxvii. 28. 
 In LXX Exod. xv. 8; Prov. xvii. 9, etc.). 
 
 &Xos Tis. Jn. says a kinsman of Malchus; Mt. and Mk. say 
 the bystanders. In this third attack all four call attention to the 
 positiveness of the speaker; because he had seen Peter in the 
 garden with Jesus (Jn.), and because of Peter’s Galilean Acadia 
 (Mt.). The Galileans are said to have mixed the gutturals in 
 pronunciation, and to have had in some respects a peculiar 
 vocabulary. 
 
 Sucyxuptfero. Classical, but only here and Acts xii. 15 in bibl. 
 Grk. 
 
 60. tapaxpypa. All four note how quickly the crowing 
 followed upon the third denial. Lk. has his favourite Tapaxphpa 
 and Mk. his favourite «dvs: comp. v. 25, Vill. 44, 55, XVIll. 43. 
 But the graphic ét Aadodvros adtod 1s given by Lk. alone. 
 
 eddvncev Gdéxtwp, No article: “a cock crew.” A few cursives 
 insert 6. 
 
 The objection which has been raised, that the Talmud pronounces fowls 
 which scratch on dungheaps to be unclean, is futile. In this the Talmud is 
 inconsistent with itself: and Sadducees would have no scruples about what was 
 
 not forbidden by the written law. Certainly Romans would have no such 
 scruples. 
 
 61. otpagets. Lk. alone preserves this incident Peter is 
 
XXII. 61-66.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 517 
 
 probably still in the court, while Jesus is inside. It is improbable 
 that Jesus was present when Peter denied Him. He may have 
 been visible through door or window, but scarcely within hearing. 
 The otpadels évéBXeev may have taken place as He was being 
 led to or from the examination before Caiaphas. 
 
 onpepov. Lk. alone repeats this part of the prediction (ver. 34): 
 otherwise all three have the same words. Jn. omits Peter’s recol- 
 lection of the warning and also his bitter weeping. 
 
 The ojuepor is omitted in A DI A Aand several Versions, but it is attested 
 by § BK LMT, Boh. Sah. Syr-Sin. Aeth. b ff, 1. 
 
 62. WH. bracket this verse, which is wanting in abeff,il*r. But 6 
 Tlérpos (ATA A, Vulg.) is no doubt an addition both here and Mt. xxvi. 75. 
 
 63-65. The First Mocking. As Lk. omits the examination by 
 Caiaphas, it is impossible to determine whether he places this 
 mocking before or after it. He knows that Jesus, after being 
 denied by His chief Apostle, was insulted by His captors, and then 
 taken before the Sanhedrin. His omissions seem to show that 
 he is making no use of Mt. or Mk. Comp. Mt. xxvi. 67, 68; Mk. 
 xiv. 65. 
 
 es. ot cuvéxovtes attév. Not members of the Sanhedrin, but 
 the servants or soldiers in whose charge Jesus had been left. Here 
 only is cvvéxew used of holding fast a prisoner. Comp. viii. 45 ; 
 xix. 43. 
 
 Sépovres. Comp. xii. 47, xx. 10, Of the five expressions which are used 
 in describing these blows each Evangelist uses two: Lk. dépovres and walcas ; 
 Mt. ékod\dgicay and épdmicavy; Mk. xodagifew and fparlcpacw fdaBor. 
 Comp. the treatment of the Apostles, Acts v. 40; and of S. Paul, Acts 
 xxi. 32, xxiii. 2. Lk. omits the spitting. All three have the Mpodyrevaov. 
 
 65. érepa wodAd. Comp. iii. 18. The statement here is made by Lk. 
 only. On the combination of participle and verb, describing the same action 
 from different points of view, see Burton, § 121. 
 
 66-71. The Third Jewish Trial. The Sanhedrin could hold 
 no valid meeting before daybreak, and what had been irregularly 
 done in the night had to be formally transacted after dawn.! 
 Comp. Mt. xxvii. 1; Mk. xv. 1. But Lk. is quite independent ; 
 whereas Mt. and Mk. have much in common. 
 
 66. as éyéveto jpépa. All three note the early hour: ecidis 
 mpwt (Mk.), zpwias d€ yevouevns (Mt.). The expression #pépa 
 yiverat is characteristic of Lk. Comp. iv. 42, vi. 13; Acts xii. 18, 
 XV1. 35, XXIll. 12, XXV1l. 29, 33, 39. 
 
 76 mpeoButéprov tod aod, dpxepets te Kat ypappateits. The 
 meaning is that the three component parts of the Sanhedrin met, 
 
 1 Synedrium magnum sedet a sacrificio jugi matutino ad sacrificium juge 
 pomeridianum (Maimonides, Sanhed, iii.) ; sesstones judicit sunt instituendss 
 mane, non autem postquam homo edit et bibet (Synops. Soh. p. 56 n. 2). 
 
§18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIL 66-70. 
 
 and that Jesus was brought before the whole assembly. Mt. and 
 Mk. also give the three parts as well as the whole. The place of 
 meeting is not given by any. That portions of what is recorded of 
 
 one examination should resemble portions of what is recorded of 
 
 another is natural. Before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin 
 the same questions would be asked. At this last and only valid 
 trial everything of importance would have to be repeated. It is 
 probable that 76 ovvédpiov airdv is here used in a technical sense 
 for the Great Council or Sanhedrin. Comp. Acts iv. 15, v. 21, 27, 
 34, 41, Vi. 12, 15, XXL 30, xxii: 1, 6, 15, 20, 28, suaaeOumsee 
 Herzog, art. Synedrium; Keim, Jes. of Naz. vi. pp. 63-72; 
 Edersh. Z. & TZ. ii. pp. 553-557; ist. of J. NV. ch. v.; Farrar, 
 L. of C. TI. Excurs. xiii.; and above all Schiirer, 7, P. in T. of 
 J. C. II. i. pp. 163-195, where the literature of the subject is 
 given. 
 
 Note the re xal, which neither Mt. nor Mk. has. In the Gospel Lk, 
 never has re without «al following: ii. 16, xii. 45, xxi. II, etc. 
 
 67. Ei od et 6 Xpiotds, etmov hptv. Sz tu es Christus, dic nobis 
 (Vulg.). The ei is conditional, and the emphasis is on 6 Xprords, 
 not on ov, This is the simplest construction, and is adopted by 
 Luth. Wic. Rhem. RV. De W. Schanz, Mey. Nosg. Go. Hahn, ete. 
 Others prefer, “Art Thou the Christ? tell us”: so Erasm. Tyn. 
 Cran. Gen. AV. Or, “Tell us whether Thou art the Christ”: 
 Ewald and some others. The question. was vital; and in the 
 examination recorded by Mt. and Mk. it was coupled with “ Art 
 Thou the Son of God?” (ver. 70). 
 
 "Edy Gpiv . . . dmoxpiOfAte. This part of Christ’s reply is 
 peculiar to this occasion, whereas what follows (ver. 69) is almost 
 verbatim as in Mt. and Mk. The meaning seems to be, “If I 
 tell you that I am the Christ, ye will assuredly not believe ; and if 
 I try to discuss the question, ye will assuredly refuse to do so.” 
 Note that here the proceedings are conducted by the Sanhedrin as 
 a body ; not, as in the earlier trial, by the high priest alone (Mt. 
 xxvi. 62, 63, 65; Mk. xiv. 60, 61, 63). For the addition 4 amo 
 Avonre see additional note at the end of ch. xxiii. 
 
 69. dd tod viv Sé€. His glorification has already begun: Jn. 
 xli. 31. Hoc ipsum erat iter ad gloriam (Beng.) Comp. the 
 parallel Acts vii. 56, where see Blass. 
 
 The 6é is thus placed because dré 700 voy is virtually one word. TR. with 
 TAATI, Sah. omits dé, and Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. substitute yép. The Latin 
 Versions are again interesting in their rendering of dé Tot viv: a@ modo 
 (acdr), ex hoc Vulg.): see oni. 48 and also on v. 10. 
 
 70. etzay S¢ wdvtes. The wdvres is again peculiar to Lk. 
 (vii. 35, xix. 37, xx. 18): in Mt. and Mk. the high priest asks the 
 
 ~~ 
 
XXII. 70, 71.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 519 
 
 question. In the allusion to Dan. vii. 13 they recognize a claim 
 to Divinity, and they translate 6 vids rod dvOpdrov into 6 vids Tod 
 @cod. But it is not clear whether by the latter they mean the 
 Messiah or something higher. 
 
 pets Aéyere Ste €ys cipt. Both here and Jn. xviii. 37 “that I 
 am” (English Versions, Godet) is more probable than “ decause I 
 am” (Luth. Weiss, Hahn). A third possibility, to make the whole 
 a question, is worth noting. For other cases of ambiguous 67: 
 comp. i. 45, Vil. 16, xix. 31. 
 
 _ 71. Axovcapev. “We have heard” that He claims to be the 
 Messiah and the Son of God. It is quite natural that in accusing 
 Him to Pilate nothing is said about this charge of blasphemy,— 
 one of great weight with the Sanhedrin, but which the heathen 
 procurator would not appreciate. 
 
 XXII. 1-7. The Civil Trial before Pilate. Comp. Mt. 
 XxXVil. 2, 11, 12; Mk. xv. 1-3; Jn. xviii. 28-37. Lk. assumes 
 that his readers know that Jesus was condemned to death by the 
 Sanhedrin. But it was necessary to have Him condemned by the 
 Roman /rocurator also, in order that the sentence might be 
 executed, and without delay, by him who possessed péxpe tod 
 kreivev efovaiav (Jos. B. /. ii. 8. 1).1 It is almost certain that at 
 this time the Jews were deprived of the right of inflicting capital 
 punishment. They sometimes did inflict it and risked the conse- 
 quences, as in the case of S. Stephen: and the Romans sometimes 
 found it expedient to ignore these transgressions (Jn. v. 18, 
 Vii. I, 25, Vili. [5,] 59; Acts v. 33, xxl. 31, xxvi. 10). A good deal 
 would depend upon the character of the execution and the humour 
 of the procurator. But besides Jn. xvilil. 31 we have the express 
 statement, guadraginta annis ante vastatum templum ablata sunt 
 judicia capitalia ab Israéle (Bab. Sanh. f. 24, 2). See Blass on 
 Acts vii. 57. 
 
 But it is quite possible that in some of the cases in which the Jews are repre- 
 sented as trying to put persons to death, the meaning is that they wished to 
 hand them over to the Romans for execution. See notes on Jn. xviii. 31 in 
 Camb. Grk. Test. In the accounts of this Roman trial we have the attempts of 
 the Jews to induce Pilate to condemn Jesus contrasted with Pilate’s attempts to 
 save Him from execution. The Sanhedrin hoped that Pilate would confirm their 
 sentence of death ; but Pilate insists on trying the case himself. This he does 
 
 1 The expressions jus g/adiz and fotestas gladii are of later date. Professor 
 Chwolson argues that the Sadducees were dominant when Jesus was condemned 
 to death. It was against the law as maintained by the Pharisees to sentence a 
 criminal and execute him within a few hours. The law required an interval of 
 forty days for the collection of evidence on his behalf. It was the Sadducees, 
 the servile upholders of Roman authority, who took the lead against Christ. 
 They were the wealthy class, who lived on the temple sacrifices and dues, and 
 therefore were bitter antagonists of a Teacher whose doctrine tended to the 
 reform of lucrative abuses (Das dizte Passamahi Christi, etc., Appendix). 
 
520 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 1, 2, 
 
 in his mpacrwpiov or palace (Mt. xxvii. 17; Mk. xv. 163 Jn. xviii. 28, 33, 
 xix. 9). But we do not know where this was. A little later than this (Philo, Zeg. 
 ad Gaium, § 38, ed. Mangey, ii. 589) the Roman governor resided in ‘‘ Herod’s 
 Przetorium,” a large palace on the western hill of the city. But Pilate may have 
 used part of the fortress Antonia, the site of which is supposed to be known; 
 and some conjecture that a chamber with a column in it is the scene of the 
 scourging. For the rather considerable literature concerning Pilate see Leyrer 
 in Herzog, art. Pélatus, sub fin., and Schiirer, Jew7sh People, etc. I. ii. p. 82, 
 who refers especially to G. A. Miiller, Pontzus Pilatus, Stuttgart, 1888. 
 
 1. dévactav Grav 73 wAHP0s. All three words are characteristic: 
 see on i. 39, on iii. 21, and on i. 10. The whole body of the 
 Sanhedrin (airév) is meant, not including the populace, who at 
 this point are not mentioned in any of the accounts. 
 
 éml tov MeAGtov. Neither in order to shift the responsibility 
 on to him, nor to avoid disturbing the feast with a Jewish execu- 
 tion, nor to ensure death by crucifixion, but simply in order to get 
 their own sentence of death confirmed. 
 
 2. Lk. is alone in giving clearly the three political charges, 
 which could not fail to have weight with Pilate: (1) seditious 
 agitation, (2) forbidding tribute to Tiberius, (3) assuming the title 
 of king. The point of qpgavto seems to be that they began to do 
 all this, but Pilate interposed: comp. v. 21, xii. 45, xiil. 25, xix. 37. 
 The todtov is probably contemptuous: “this fellow” (Tyn. Cov. 
 Cran. Gen. AV.). Whether cépayey refers to “catching in the 
 act” or to “discovering by investigation” is not certain. 
 
 The form e¥papev is well attested here (B* LT X) as dvedpay in ii. 16. In 
 2 Sam. xvii. 20 we have edpay with 7\@ay and zapf\Oay. See small print 
 on i. 59. 
 
 Stactpédovra 15 €Ovos Hpav. They imply that the perversion of 
 the nation was seditious. The excitement caused by Christ’s 
 ministry was notorious, and it would not be easy to prove that it 
 had no political significance. For the verb comp. ix. 41; Acts 
 xiii. 10, xx. 20; Exod. v. 4; 1 Kings xviii. 17, 18. 
 
 Kovovta dpous Kaloapt Si8dvar. Jesus had done the very 
 opposite a day or two before (xx. 25). But this second charge 
 seemed to be of one piece with the third. If He claimed to be a 
 king, He of course would forbid tribute to a foreign power. Vulg. 
 wrongly changes the dare of Lat. Vet. to dart. 
 
 Xpiotov Bacihéa. “ Messias, a king” (comp. ii. 11) is more 
 probable than either “King Messias,” or, “an anointed king” 
 (Schegg). They add BaciAea that Pilate may know the political 
 significance of Xpucrds (Schanz). It is here that the charge made 
 before Pilate approximates to the charge on which they condemned 
 Jesus (xxii. 69-71). But with them it was the theological signi- 
 ficance of His claim that was so momentous: and this Pilate 
 could not regard. 
 
XXIII. 2-7.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION §21 
 
 Epiphanius (arc. 316, 317, 346) tells us that after diacrpégorra rd 26vos 
 Marcion inserted xal xaraXtovta Tdv véuov Kal tods rpogjras ; and that after 
 kw\tovTa . . . dtddvas he added kal dmocrpégovta tas ‘yuvaixas xal Ta 
 téxva. The former of these interpolations is found in various MSS. of 
 the Old Latin, ef solventem legem [nostram] et prophetas (bce ff,ilq), and in 
 some MSS. of Vulg. (EQ R), while the latter is added to ver. 5 in some Old 
 Latin texts: see below. Prof. Rendel Harris attributes these insertions to 
 Marcion himself, who was himself accused of these things, 7exts & Studies, 
 ii. I, p. 230. See small print note on xvi. 17. 
 
 8. 50 ef 6 Bacieds tHy “loudatwy; All four record this question, 
 and in exactly these words. The pronoun is emphatic, implying 
 that His appearance was very much against such a claim. 
 
 X0 Aéyets. Like the reply in xxii. 70, this is probably not inter- 
 rogative. It condenses a conversation given at greater length by 
 Jn., without whose narrative that of the three is scarcely intelligible. 
 It would be extraordinary that Pilate should simply hear that Jesus 
 admitted that He claimed to be King of the Jews, and at once de- 
 clare, “I find no fault in this man.” But a conversation with Jesus 
 had convinced Pilate that He was a harmless enthusiast. He did 
 not claim to be a king in the ordinary sense. 
 
 4, xat tols dxhous. The first mention of them. The procession 
 of the Sanhedrin would attract a crowd; and perhaps some had 
 come to ask for the customary release of a prisoner (Mk. xv. 8). 
 
 afriov = alria is peculiar to Lk., and is always combined with a negative: 
 vv. 14, 22; Acts xix. 40, 
 
 5. éicyuov. Intransitive, as in 1 Mac. vi. 6, so that nothing 
 is to be understood: “they were the more urgent,” invalescebant 
 (Vulg.). ‘They became more definite in their accusations, because 
 Pilate took the matter too easily. 
 
 kaQ’ SAns THs “lovdaias. Comp. iv. 44. Whether this means 
 the whole of Palestine (i. 5, vii. 17 ; Acts ii. 9, x. 37, xi. I, 29) or 
 Judza proper (ii. 4; Acts i. 8, viii. 1), is uncertain. In either 
 case we have allusion to an activity of Jesus in southern Palestine 
 of which Lk. records very little. 
 
 Gmd THs FadtNaias. Vutrix seditiosorum hominum (Grot.). The 
 €ws GS¢ may have special reference to the triumphal entry into 
 Jerusalem ; but it may also refer to previous visits of Jesus to the 
 city. 
 
 With the constr. dptduevos dd. . . ws comp. Acts i. 22; Mt. xx. 8; 
 [Jn. viii. 9]. The very words xa6’ Sdys rijs "Iovdalas, dptduevos awd tijs 
 Tad:Aalas occur Acts x. 37. 
 
 At the end of ver. 5 Cod. Colb. adds et fiizos nostros et uxores avertil a 
 nobis, nom enim bapiizatur sicut nos; and Cod. Palat. has the same down to 
 nobis, and continues eu enim baptizantur sicut et nos nec se mundant. 
 
 The retention of ‘‘ Jewry” in AV. here, Jn. vii. 1, and Dan. v. 13 (where the 
 same word is translated *‘ Jewry” and “‘ Judah ”) was probably an oversight. 
 
 7. émvyvots. Freq. in Lk. in the sense of ‘‘ thoroughly ascertain” ; 
 vii. 37 ; Acts xix. 34, xxii. 29, xxiv, 11, xxviii. I, etc. 
 
§22 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X XIII. 7-10. 
 
 dvérneppev adtév. The verb may be used in the legal sense of 
 “sending wp” to a higher authority or “referring” to another 
 jurisdiction, like remitto, which Vulg. has here and vv. 11, 15: 
 comp. Acts xxv. 21; Jos. B. J. il. 20.5; Philo, De Creat. Prin. 
 viii. But in vv. 11, 15 the meaning “send Jack” is more suitable, 
 and may be retained here: comp. Philem. 11. If Jesus originally 
 belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, sending Him to Herod was 
 sending Him éack; just as the man Jorn blind is said to recover 
 his sight (dévaBXérew), because sight is natural to man (Jn. 
 ix. 15, 18). It was perhaps chiefly in order to get rid of a difficult 
 case, or to obtain official evidence from the tetrarch, that Pilate 
 sent Jesus, rather than merely to conciliate Antipas. Justin says 
 that Pilate xapufomevos Sedepévov tov “Incoty éreupe (77y. cili.) ; and 
 comp. Vespasian allowing Agrippa to have the prisoners who came 
 from the latter's kingdom (Jos. B. /. iii. 10. 10). Herod had 
 come up to keep the feast, and probably occupied the palace of 
 the Asamoneans (B. /. ii. 16. 3; Anz. xx. 8. 11). 
 
 8-12. §The Trial before Herod. It has been noticed by 
 Schleiermacher that its omission by Jn. is no serious objection to 
 its authenticity. ‘‘ The transaction is too circumstantially detailed 
 to admit a doubt, and our reporter seems to have had an acquaint- 
 ance in the house of Herod who supplied him with this fact, as 
 John seems to have had in the house of Annas” (S. Luke, p. 304, 
 Eng. tr.). Joana, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (viii. 3), 
 would be a likely source of information: see on viii. 3 and 
 XxlV. 10, 
 
 8. iv b\w, 73 dkoverv, HAmLev. These expressions indicate 
 the continuance of the wishing, hearing, and hoping: comp. ix. 9. 
 Such curiosity is not gratified any more than the demand for signs 
 from heaven (xi. 29). With é txavav xpdvev comp. xpdévw ixava 
 (viii. 27 ; Acts viii. 11), xpdvous ixavovs (xx. 9). 
 
 TR. follows ARTAA in reading é€ lxavod, to which HMXII add 
 xpévov. But SBDLT, Sah. Am. give the plural. 
 
 9. adtds Sé oddev atexpivato alto. “But He on His part 
 answered him nothing.” The language and tone of Antipas 
 showed that he was in no condition to profit by anything that 
 Jesus might say: see on iii. 1. “He regarded Jesus as a sight.” 
 Yor émexpivato comp. iil. 16. 
 
 Cod. Colb. adds guasi non audiens: and Syr-Cur. has the more remark- 
 able guasé non tbi erat. This may have suggested the possibly Docetic touch 
 in the Gospel of Peter, “‘ He held His peace as z# no wise feeling pain.” Both 
 Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. for év Aéyors lkavo?s have ‘‘in cunning words.” Syr- 
 Sin. omits vv. 10, II, 12. j 
 
 10. iorjxercav. This, and not elorjxew, is the pluperf. of lorapas. 
 The evidence varies in the fourteen places; hut lorijxew is never a mere 
 
XXIII. 10-12. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION §23 
 
 itacism, and is freq. in LXX. Even B, which often prefers e: to 4, supports 
 lorjxe five times (WH. ii. App. p. 162). 
 
 evtéves. ‘* At full stretch, vehemently,” in N.T. only here and Acts 
 xviii. 28: comp. Josh. vi. 8; 2 Mac, xii. 23. In Latin texts we have 
 tnstanter (c), fortiter (d), vehementer (ax), constanter (fVulg.). Apparently 
 they had kept silence while Herod was questioning Jesus; but His silence 
 had exasperated them. 
 
 11. éfouleviicas . . . eumatgas. These participles are put first 
 in their clauses with emphasis. Herod’s baffled curiosity takes 
 this despicable revenge: comp. xvill. 9; Gal. iv. 14. We need 
 not suppose that Antipas formally pronounced Him innocent, 
 but that he did not condemn Him to death. He evaded the 
 responsibility, as Pilate tried to do. In the Gosfel of Peter Herod 
 sentences the Lord ; and when “ Joseph, the friend of Pilate and 
 of the Lord,” asks Pilate defore the crucifixion for the Lord’s body, 
 Pilate sends to ask Herod for it. The chief guilt throughout is 
 transferred from Pilate to Herod and the Jews. 
 
 aby Tois otpatevpacw. Probably a guard of honour: cum mili- 
 tibus suis (f). It was one of these perhaps that he had sent to 
 behead John in the prison (Mk. vi. 27; Mt. xiv. 10). It was fitting 
 that the prince who had murdered the Baptist should mock the 
 Christ. 
 
 épmaigas. He treats Him as a crazy enthusiast, and gives a 
 mock assent to His claim to be a king, which the scribes no 
 doubt reported. Latin texts have zvriszt (c), inludens (d), deludens 
 (r), delusum (a), inlusit (Vulg.). 
 
 éoOijTa Aapmpdv. “A bright robe,” sp/endidum (c), rather than 
 ‘a white robe,” candida (a), alba (f Vulg.). That it was a toga 
 candida to mark Him as a candidate for royalty, is not likely: it 
 was to mark Him as already king. The epithet does not indicate 
 its colour, but its “gorgeous” character: comp. Jas. ii. 2, 3. In 
 Acts x. 30 it is used of angelic apparel. Elsewhere in N.T. éo@ys 
 occurs only xxiv. 4; Acts i. 10, xii. 21: comp. 2 Mac. viii. 35, 
 xi. 8. 
 
 12. éyévovto Sé pikor. Although Pilate failed in the attempt to 
 transfer the responsibility to Herod, yet something was gained by 
 the transaction. In the Gosfe/ of Peter Herod addresses him as 
 "AdcAdé IHetAGre. The cause of enmity may easily have been some 
 dispute about jurisdiction. 
 
 Ephrem conjectured that the enmity arose through Pilate sending soldiers 
 to punish the chief men of Galilee who had been the guests of Herod when he 
 put the Baptist to death, and that this was the occasion when the blood of 
 Galileans was mingled with their sacrifices. For the importance of this 
 strange idea as a link in the evidence respecting the Dzatessaron see Rendel 
 Harris in Contemp. Review, Aug. 1895, p. 279. 
 
 D transposes the clauses, and has dyélg for éx6pa: Byres dé év dnila 6 II. 
 a. 6'H. éyévovro pltot ev airy 7. Hu. So also Cod. Colb. csem essent autem 
 tn dissenstonem pil. et her. facti sunt amici tn illa die. 
 
 wee 
 
§24 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 13-16, 
 
 13-25. The vain Attempts of Pilate to avoid Sentencing Jesus 
 to Death. Comp. Mt. xxvil. 15-26; Mk. xv. 6-15. Pilate’s first 
 two expedients had failed: (1) telling the Jews to deal with the 
 case themselves ; (2) sending it to Herod. He now tries two 
 others: (3) to release Him in honour of the feast ; (4) to scourge 
 Him and let Him go. Roman dislike of a gross injustice to an 
 innocent person possibly influenced him ; but perhaps the chief 
 motive was the superstitious fear, produced by his wife’s dream 
 and confirmed by Christ’s bearing and words. Jn. states that he 
 again and again declared Jesus to be innocent (xviii. 38, xix. 4, 6). 
 In wording Lk. is not very similar to either Mt. xxvii. 15-26 or 
 Mk. xv. 6-15 ; but the substance of all three is the same. Jn. is 
 more full and quite independent ; he distinguishes the conversa- 
 tion inside the pvxzorium with Jesus and outside with the Jews. 
 
 13. cuvkaheodpevos. See on ix. 1. Pilate in taking the matter 
 in hand again summons not only the hierarchy, whose bitterness 
 against Jesus he knew, but the populace, whom he hoped to find 
 more kindly disposed, and able to influence their rulers. 
 
 14. dmootpépovta tév Kady. ‘Seducing the people from their 
 allegiance.” He condenses the three charges in ver. 2 into one. 
 Note the emphatic éy# and the évézov tudv: the one anticipates 
 ‘Hp#dys, and the other implies that they know with what thorough- 
 ness the case has been investigated. 
 
 dvaxptvas. In its forensic sense of a judicial investigation the 
 word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (Acts iv. 9, xii. 19, xxiv. 8, 
 xxvill. 18). But the classical use for a preliminary examination 
 must not here be pressed. See Dict. of Grk. and Rom. Ant., art. 
 Anakrisis ; Gardner and Jevons, pp. 574 ff. Pilate’s od0év eGpoy is in 
 direct contradiction to their evpapev (ver. 2). For airvov see on ver. 4. 
 
 15. add o88€ “HpwSys. Therefore the friendship between Herod 
 and Pilate is hardly “a type of Judaism and Heathenism leagued 
 together to crush Christianity.” Both were willing to set Jesus 
 free. What we see here 1», however, an anticipation of what not 
 unfrequently happened during the first three centuries, viz. that 
 Jewish mobs incited the heathen against the Christians. 
 
 dvérreppev yap aitév mpds Has. This reading agrees better with 
 “No, nor yet Herod” than does “ For I sent you to him,” and the 
 external evidence for it is decisive. : 
 
 For the text, § BK LM TTI and some cursives; for dvereupa yap duds 
 mpds abrév, AD XT'AA. Versions are divided, Latt. against AXgyptt., while 
 Syrr. including Syr-Sin. have the conflate, ‘‘ For I sent Flim to him.” Wic. 
 had a Lat. text such as Cod. Brix. am remisit eum ad nos, for he renders 
 ‘‘ For he hath sent Him again tous,” although Vulg. has nam remzsi vos ad 
 zllum. Some Latin authorities combine both readings. 
 
 éotly wempaypévov aito. “Is done dy Him,” or “hath been 
 done 4y Him” (RV.). The former is perhaps better, as giving the 
 
XXII 15-19.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 525 
 
 result of the trial before Herod. The dat. indicates that what is 
 done stands to the person’s credit; Win. xxxi. 10, p. 274: XXiv. 35 
 is not parallel. ‘Nothing worthy of death is done unto Him” 
 (AV.) is scarcely sense. Cov. has “There is brought upon Him 
 nothing that is worthy of death.” For the periphrastic perfect see 
 Burton, § 84. 
 
 16. maiSedoas. He uses a light word to express the terrible 
 fiagellatio, in order to excuse the injustice to his own conscience, 
 and to hide his inconsistency from them. It is no punishment, 
 but a chastisement to warn Him to be more circumspect in future. 
 But the priests would see that a judge who was willing to inflict 
 this on an innocent person could be induced by further pressure to 
 inflict death. Scourging was sometimes fatal: Hor. Sav. i, 2. 41; 
 comp. i. 3. 119. Comp. Deut, xxii, 18. 
 
 17. This verse is wanting in ABK LTT, Sahe a, while D, Syr-Cur. 
 Syr-Sin. 2th. insert it after ver. 19. It is a gloss based on Mt. xxvii. 15 
 and Mk. xv. 6. Alf. urges that dvdy«nv elyev is an idiom in Lk.’s manner. 
 But Lk. uses it only once (xiv. 18), as do also S. Paul (1 Cor. vii. 37) and 
 S. Jude (3). Homeeoteleuton (ANATKHN, ANEKPATON) might explain 
 the omission in one family of witnesses; but against this is the widespread 
 omission, and the fact that the gloss is inserted in two different places. The 
 passage reads more naturally without the gloss than with it. 
 
 18. avéxpayov. We have the I aorist iv. 33, viii. 28; Mk. i. 23, vi. 49: 
 and in LXX both aorists are common. Here ADXT have dvéxpagay, 
 NBLT advéxpayov. Here only in bibl, Grk. does tayrA7Gel occur. 
 
 Aipe toitov. E medio tolle istum: Acts xxi. 36, xxii. 22; Mt. 
 XXIV. 39; Jn. xix. 15: comp. Acts vill. 33. They are perhaps re- 
 calling such passages as Deut. xvii. 7, xix. 19. 
 
 GadAuooy S€ jpiv. Nothing is known of this custom of releas- 
 ing a prisoner at the Passover apart from the Gospels. Pilate says 
 “Ye have a custom” (Jn. xviii. 39), which is against the hypothesis 
 that he originated it. The Herods may have done so in imitation 
 of Roman customs. At the first recorded Zctisternium prisoners 
 were released (Livy, v. 13. 7). 
 
 BapaBBav. “Son of Abba” (father). Other instances of the 
 name are given by Lightfoot: Samuel Bar-Abba, Nathan Bar- 
 Abba (Hor. Heb. Mt. xxvii. 16). But evidence is wanting that 
 Abba was a proper name. On the remarkable reading “Jesus 
 Barabbas” Mt. xxvii. 16, 17 see WH. ii. App. 19. 
 
 19. 81a ordow twa yevouerny. Of Barabbas they might with 
 some truth have said votrov etpayey dtactpédovra 7d éOvos (ver. 2). 
 Not that he had originated the ordovs, but that he had taken a 
 conspicuous part in it. The ordots was probably no popular move- 
 ment, but some plundering disturbance. Jn. calls him simply “a 
 robber,” and he may have been connected with the other two 
 robhers who were crucified with Jesus The rather awkward order 
 
526 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE | XXIII. 19-23. 
 
 of the words in the verse is perhaps to intimate that while the 
 atdous took place in the city the murder did not. 
 
 On the rare form of periphrastic tense (j» with aor. part.), see Burton, 
 § 20. PdAnGels is the reading of BLT, for which 8A DXT etc. have the 
 more usual BeBAnu(u)évos: and while SBLTX,fq have & ry gpvdaky, 
 ADT Aetc. have the obvious correction els Thy puhaxiy. 
 
 Excepting Mk. xv. 7 and Heb. ix. 8, erdovs in N.T. is peculiar to Lk. 
 (ver. 25; Acts xv. 2, xix. 40, xxiii. 7, 10, xxiv. 5). In LXX it represents 
 acet Hebrew words of different meaning. Syr-Sin. here has ‘‘ wicked 
 
 eeds, 
 
 20. That we should read 6¢é (S ABDT, Latt. Boh. Sah.) and not ody 
 (XT AAetc.) after mdédw is certain. That adrois is to be added after rpoc- 
 epovncev (NBLT, Latt. Boh. Sah. Syr-Cur. Aith.) is also certain. But 
 Lk. uses the verb absolutely, xiii. 12; Acts xxi. 40. Contrast vii. 32; Acts 
 XXlL. 2. 
 
 érepdvouv. “Kept shouting at him”: clamabant (f), proclama- 
 bant (a), succlamabant (Vulg.). In N.T. the verb is peculiar to 
 Lk. (Acts xii. 22, xxl. 34, xxil. 24); but it is classical. According 
 to all four Gospels the demand for crucifixion was not made until 
 Pilate had proposed to release Jesus on account of the feast. Lk. 
 and Jn. give the double cry, ‘‘ Crucify, crucify.” Mt. has oravpw- 
 Oyrw, Mk. and Jn. cravpwoor, Lk. stavpov. 
 
 We must read oravpov, 2 aor. imper. act., and not oravpod, mid. NB 
 DF* have cravpov (d¢s), while ALPXT etc, have orabpwaoy (42s); but 
 U 157, abefff,1 Arm. Aeth. omit the second ‘‘ Crucify.” 
 
 22, Ti yap Kaxdv éwotycev; So in all three. The yap means 
 “Impossible ; for what evil hath this man done?” This is well 
 represented by the idiomatic “Why,” which we owe to the Vulg. 
 Quid enim, through Rhem. Cov. has “ What evil ¢hez,” etc. The 
 tptrov refers to vv. 4 and 14. 
 
 obSév aitiov Oavdtov. The Oavarov is a qualification added after 
 the failure of the mission to Herod (ver. 15). Previously it was 
 ovdey aitiov without limitation (vv. 4, 14). In his weakness Pilate 
 begins to admit, ‘‘ Well, perhaps He may be guilty of something: 
 but He is not guilty of a capital offence.” He began by saying 
 that Herod had not found Him worthy of death. Now he says 
 the same himself. In each case the proposal is the same,—a- 
 devoas aroAvow (vv. 16, 22). 
 
 23. éméxewvto . p. aitodpevor. Comp. maddov éméxerto ddvav, 
 HGAAov ééKewTo Bracpnpodvres (Jos. Ant. xviii. 6. 6, xx: Senay 
 With puvats peydAaus comp. i. 42, iv. 33, Viil. 28, xvii. 15, etc. 
 
 katioxuov. Comp. xxi. 36: “they prevailed, ” but not until 
 Pilate had tried whether the zadevew would satisfy them (Jn. 
 xix. 1). Mt. and Mk. connect the scourging with the cruci- 
 fixion, because it usually preceded this punishment in Roman 
 
XXIIL 23-26.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 527 
 
 law.! It is extremely unlikely that Pilate allowed the scourging 
 to be repeated. He merely separated it from the crucifixion in 
 the hope that the latter would not be required. Note the 
 impressive repetition of wvai. 
 
 24, énéxpwev. ‘He gave sentence”; 2 Mac. iv. 47; 3 Mac. 
 iv. 2. Here only in N.T., but classical. For 16 airnua comp. 
 Phil. iv. 6. 
 
 25. dmé\ucev . . . wapédwxev, This tragic contrast is in all 
 three ; and all four use zapédwxer of the final surrender. Comp. 
 Acts iii. 14, and note the contrast between these aorists and the 
 imperfect jrTodvro, “kept demanding.” Both the repetition of 
 tov 81a otdow, x.7.A. and the addition of TG Oehjpat. atta are 
 peculiar to Lk. The writer thus emphasizes the enormity of the 
 transaction. In the Gosfe/ of Peter Herod is present at this point 
 and gives the sentence. He does not wash his hands, and the 
 blame is transferred to him and the Jews. So also in the Acta 
 Pilati (B. x.) it is the Jews who hastily execute the sentence, as 
 soon as Pilate has pronounced it. Comp. Justin (Z7y. cviii.) ov 
 oTAUpwoavTwY HUdV. 
 
 26-82. § The Road to Calvary, Simon the Cyrenian, and the 
 Daughters of Jerusalem. With the exception of ver. 26, the whole 
 of this is peculiar to Lk. In ver. 26 his wording is closer to Mk. 
 xv. 21 than to Mt. xxvii. 32. 
 
 26. Kupyvaiov. Josephus tells of the origin of the Jewish 
 colony in Cyrene (AZvon. ii. 4), and quotes Strabo respecting it 
 (Antz. xiv. 7. 2): this gives us important information respecting 
 that branch of the Dispersion. Comp. Amz. xvi. 6. 1, 5; 1 Mac. 
 xv. 23; 2 Mac. il. 23. That Cyrene was the chief city of the 
 district, which is the modern Tripoli, is shown by the name 
 Cyrenaica and by Acts ii. 10. For the literature of the subject 
 see D.B.? i. p. 688. This Simon may have been a member of the 
 Cyrenian synagogue at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 9). It has been pro- 
 posed to identify him with “Symeon that was called Niger,” who 
 is mentioned in company with “ Lucius of Cyrene” (Acts xiii. 1). 
 But Simon or Symeon was one of the commonest of names; and 
 Lk. would probably have given the same designation in both 
 books, if he had meant the same person. If the Rufus of Rom. 
 xvi. 13 is the Rufus of Mk. xv. 21, then the wife of Simon of 
 Cyrene was well known to S. Paul. 
 
 épxopevov dm dypod. Mk. has the same. He might be taking 
 ‘a sabbath day’s journey”; so that this is no proof as to the date. 
 But he would not be likely to be coming in from the country on 
 such a sabbatical day as Nisan 15. 
 
 1 Jos. B. J. ii. 14. 9, v. 11. 15 Livy, xxii. 13. 6, xxxiii. 36. 3; Cic. Jn Verr 
 vy. 62, 162, Capital punishment of any kind was generally, according to Roman 
 custom, preceded by beating. 
 
528 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [| XXIII. 26-28. 
 
 The gen. of TR. following APTA etc. (Ziuwvds rivos Rupaealenye is prob- 
 ably a grammatical correction. 
 
 eméOnxav ait tov otaupdv. His being a provincial may have 
 made them more ready to make free with him. Perhaps it was 
 only the cross-beam (fatibudum) which he carried; and if he 
 carried both pieces, they would not be fastened together as finally 
 erected. On the shape of the cross see Justin, Z7y. xci.; 1 AZo. 
 lv.; Iren. ii, 24. 4; Tert. Adv. Jud. x.;. Ad. Wangan 
 Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Cross”; Kraus, Real-Enc. d. Chr. Alt. ii. 
 p. 225. At first Jesus carried it Himself (Jn. xix. 17), according 
 to the usual custom, ékaotos tv Kaxovpywy expéper Tov EavToU 
 oravpov (Plutarch, De Sera Num. Vind. ix. p. 554 B), as iridicated by 
 the word furcifer: but He was physically unable to continue to do 
 so. Indeed it has been inferred from ¢é¢povowy airév (Mk. xv. 22) 
 that at length He was unable even to walk, and was therefore 
 carried to Golgotha: but comp. Mk. i. 32, vii. 32, Vili. 22, ix. 19. 
 On the other hand Lange interprets ¢épew dricfev as meaning 
 that Simon carried the lower end, while the top was still carried 
 by Jesus. But this is not in harmony with tva apy tov oravpov 
 avrod (Mt. Mk.). Syr-Sin. here has, “that he might bear the 
 cross and follow Jesus.” 
 
 The Basilidian Gnostics taught that Simon was crucified in the place of 
 Jesus, being transformed by Jesus to look like Him, while Jesus in the form of 
 Simon stood by and laughed at His enemies: and it was for this reason that 
 they disparaged martyrdom, as being an honour paid, not to Christ, but to 
 Simon the Cyrenian. See Photius, 426/. cxiv. 292. Irenzeus (i, 24. 4) wrongly 
 attributes this doctrine to Basilides himself, who was not docetic, but made 
 the sufferings of Jesus an essential part of his system. Contrast Hippol. 
 Refut. vii. 15. The Mahometans teach a similar doctrine; that God deceived 
 the Jews and caused them to crucify a Spy, or an emissary of Judas, or Judas 
 himself, in mistake for Jesus. See Sale’s Koran, pp. 38, 70, Chandos ed. 
 
 27. yuvaixGy at éxérrovto, This incident is in place in the 
 “Gospel of Womanhood” (i. 39-56, ii. 36-38, vii. 11-15, 37-50, 
 viii. 1-3, x. 38-42, Xl. 27, xili. 11-16). These are probably not 
 the women who had miniscered to Him previously (viii. 1-3), but 
 sympathizers from the city. Comp. Zech. xii. 10-14. In the 
 Gospels there is no instance of a woman being hostile to Christ. 
 For éxémtovto comp. viii. 52 and Mt. xi. 17. 
 
 The xal after ai—‘‘ which also bewailed” (AV.)—must be omitted upon 
 decisive evidence: A BC* D LX, Boh. Sah. Vulg. ete. 
 
 28. otpadets mpds attds. As they were following Him, this 
 would hardly have been possible, if He was still carrying the cross: 
 comp. Vii. 9, 44, 55, X. 23. For “daughter of” = “inhabitant of” 
 comp. Is. xxxvii. 22; Zeph. iii. 14; Jer. xlvi. 19; Ezek. xvi. 46. 
 
 ph kAalete én” éué- mAty ép Eautds Kdalete. Comp. Judg, 
 
XXIIL 28-31.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 529 
 
 xi. 37, 38. Note the chiasmus, making the contrast between épé 
 and éavrds very emphatic. His sufferings will be short, and are 
 the road to glory: theirs will be prolonged, and will end in shame 
 and destruction. Christ is not rebuking mere sentimentality or 
 sympathetic emotion, as if the meaning were that they ought to 
 lament their own sins rather than His sufferings. The form of 
 command is similar to that in x. 20. They are not wrong in 
 weeping for Him: nevertheless there is something else for which 
 they may weep with far greater reason. That for which He wept 
 (xix. 41-44) may rightly move them to tears,—the thought that a 
 judgment which might have been averted must now take its 
 course. For the legend of Veronica see D. of Chr. Biog. iv. 
 
 p. 1107. 
 
 Comp. an eloquent passage in a lecture on the relation of Art to Religion 
 by Ruskin, in which he contrasts the barren emotion produced by realistic 
 representations of the past agonies of Christ with sympathetic realization of the 
 present miseries of mankind (Lectures on Art, Oxford, 1870, § 57, p. 54)» 
 
 29. Epxovrat jpépar. “ Days are coming”: comp. Heb. viii. 8 ; 
 Jer. vil. 32, ix. 25, xvi. 14, xix. 6, xxiii. 5, 7, etc. In all these cases 
 idov precedes épxovrat. In Lk. the fut. is more common: v. 35, 
 XVii. 22, xix. 43, xxl. 6. Here the nom. to épotcw is not 7a téxva 
 tpov, but “ people, the world in general”: man wird sagen. 
 
 Maxdptat at oretpar. As a rule childless women are com- 
 miserated or despised (i. 25, 36), but in these dreadful times they 
 will be congratulated. Comp. Eur. Androm. 395; Al. 882; Tac. 
 Ann. ii. 75.1. See oni. 24. 
 
 80. rote dpfovrat. The nom. is the same as to épotow,—the 
 population generally, not the women only; and the rére means 
 simply év éxeivats tais 7uépas. The wish is that the mountains 
 may fall on them and &7// them, not hide and grosect them. Death 
 is preferable to such terror and misery. So also in the original 
 passage Hos. x. 8; comp. Rev. vi. 6, and contrast Is. ii. 19. 
 
 81. St ei év 73 Gypd ~vAw. This is not a continuation of the 
 cry of despair, but gives the reason for predicting such things. 
 ‘These horrors will certainly come, Jecause,” etc. In Syr-Sin. the 
 6zt is omitted: “Who do these things in the moist tree, what shall 
 they do in the dry?” Proverbs of similar import are found in 
 various languages, and are capable of many applications: comp. 
 Prov. xi. 31; 1 Pet. iv. 17, 18. This saying is an argument @ 
 fortiori, and it may be easily applied in more than one sense here. 
 (1) If the Romans treat Me, whom they admit to be innocent, in 
 this manner, how will they treat those who are rebellious and 
 guilty? (2) If the Jews deal thus with One who has come to save 
 them, what treatment shall they receive themselves for destroying 
 Him? (3) If they behave thus before ‘he’r cup of wickedness is 
 
 34 
 
530 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X XIII. 31-33. 
 
 full, what will they commit when it overflows? The use of vAov, 
 lignum, for a tree as well as for timber is late Greek (Gen. i. 29, 
 ii. 9, iil. 1; Is. xiv. 8; Ps. i. 3). In Ezek. xxi. 3 [xx. 47] we have 
 Evdov xAwpdy and &tAov ~ypdv combined; but otherwise there 
 is no parallel. 
 
 For the delib. subjunct. yévyrat comp. Mt. xxvi. 54, and “Qua éyw, tl 
 wddw; th yd wor wjiora yévnrar; (Hom. Od. v. 465). See Burton, § 169. 
 
 82. étepo. kakoUpyot 840. This is the order of 8 B and Aegyptt., 
 which has been corrected to érepor dv0 xaxotpyo., to avoid the 
 implication that Jesus was a Kaxodpyos. With a similar object 
 Syr-Sin. with Codd. Colb. and Palat. omits érepo., and perhaps 
 the omission of xai before érepo. (Syr-Cur. b) is due to the same 
 cause. Yet the implication is not necessary. We may retain the 
 order of s B and translate, “‘ others, viz. two malefactors” ; or, “‘two 
 very different malefactors.” In the latter case xaxotpyos is used of 
 Jesus with irony against those who treated Him as such: é& rots 
 avépmous eAoyioGy (Is. liii. 12). But it is perhaps best to regard it 
 as what Field calls “a negligent construction” not likely to be 
 misunderstood. In that case the AV. is courageously accurate 
 with “two other malefactors”: for the comma after “other” is 
 a later insertion of the printers ; it is not found in the edition of 
 1611. These two xaxodpyou were bandits (Mt. xxvii. 38, 44; Mk. 
 xv. 27). The hierarchy perhaps contrived that they should be 
 crucified with Jesus in order to suggest similarity of crime. In 
 the persecutions, Christians were sometimes treated in this way. 
 Comp. moAAdxis dua Kaxovpyots éurouretoas TO oTadiw (Eus. Mart. 
 Fal, vi. 3). 
 
 Note the characteristic Jv, and for avatpeO7vat see on xxii. 2. 
 
 The Latin Versions render xaxodpyo latrones (abefff,1), maligni (d), 
 ret (c), neguam (Vulg.), to which are added the names of the robbers, /oathas 
 et Maggatras (1). Similarly in Mk. xv. 27 we have names added, Zoathan et 
 Chammatha (c), and in Mt. xxvii. 38, Zoathan et Camma. See on ver. 39. 
 
 83-88. The Crucifixion. The narrative is substantially the 
 same as Mt. xxvii. 33-44 and Mk. xv. 22-32; but it has inde- 
 pendent features. 
 
 33. témov. This word is used by all three. The precise place 
 is still a matter of controversy, and must remain so until excava- 
 tion has determined the position of the old walls, outside which it 
 certainly was. See MacColl, Contemp. Rev., Feb. 1893, pp. 
 167-188 ; D.B.? i. pp. 1205, 1652-1657. 
 
 tov Kadovpevov Kpaviov. See on vi. 15. It was so called on 
 account of its shape, not because skulls were lying there unburied, 
 which would have outraged Jewish feeling. Lk. omits the Hebrew 
 name Golgotha (Mt. xxvii. 33; Mk. xv. 22; Jn. xix. 17), which 
 would have conveyed no meaning to Greek readers, as he has 
 
XXII. 33, 34a.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 531 
 
 already omitted (without Greek equivalent) Gethsemane and 
 Gabbatha. It is from the Latin (Jocum gui vocatur Calvariz) that 
 the word “Calvary” has come into all English Versions prior to 
 RV., which has, “the place which is called The Skull.” 
 
 The ancient explanation that the place was thus called because of the skull 
 of Adam, who was buried there by Noah after the Flood, is rejected by Jerome 
 (on Mt. xxvii., Migne, xxvi. 209), as zzterpretatio mulcens aurem populi, nec 
 tamen vera. But he wrongly adopts the view that it was a place in which 
 truncantur capita damnata, a view which even Fritzsche (on Mt. xxvii. 33) has 
 defended. No such place has ever existed in the East, least of all at Jerusalem: 
 and such a place would be styled xpavlwv réros not xpavlov. A rocky protrusion, 
 resembling a skull in form, is no doubt the meaning. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem 
 speaks of it as ‘rising on high and showing itself to this day, and displaying 
 even yet how because of Christ the rocks were then riven” (Catech. Lect. 
 xiii. 39). : 
 
 For the attractive Adam legend compare Ambrose, ad loc.: Congruebat 
 guippe ut bi vite nostra primitia locarentur, ubi fuerant miortis exordia 
 (Migne, xv. 1852). Chrys. and Euthym. do not go beyond ¢radition (¢act 
 tes), which they do not expressly accept. See Tisch. aff. crit. ad Jn. xix. 17. 
 
 éotatpwoay attov. It will always remain disputable whether 
 our Lord’s feet were nailed as well as His hands. Jn. xx. 25-27 
 proves that His hands were nailed: but it is not cer¢aim that Lk. 
 xxiv. 39 has any reference to the nails. In the Gospel of Peter, 
 before the burial, nails are taken from the hands only. Ewald 
 refers to the Zectschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes, i. 20, for 
 evidence that in Palestine the medizval tradition limited the 
 nailing to the hands ; but this is less probable. 
 
 év wey... 6v 6... For this late use of the relative comp. Mt. 
 xxi. 35, xxii. 5, xxv. 15; 1 Cor. xi. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 20; Rom. ix. 21. 
 
 34a. As in the cases of xxii. 19b, 20 and of 43, 44, we have to consider 
 whether this passage is part of the original text. For the evidence see the 
 additional note at the end of the chapter. ‘‘ Few verses of the Gospels bear in 
 themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the 
 Words from the Cross: but it need not therefore have belonged originally to 
 the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an 
 extraneous source. Nevertheless, like xxii. 43f.; Mt. xvi. 2f., it has ex- 
 ceptional claims to be permanently retained, with the necessary safeguards, in 
 its accustomed place” (WH. ii. App. p. 68). 
 
 6 8€ “Ingots edeyev. The d¢ and the imperf. refer back to 
 éotavpwoav aitov: while they crucified Him, He in contrast to 
 them was saying. 
 
 &pes adtois. This cannot refer to the Roman soldiers, who 
 were doing no more than thefr duty in executing a sentence which 
 had been pronounced by competent authority. It was the Jews, 
 and especially the Jewish hierarchy, who were responsible for 
 what was being done: and but for the pressure which they had 
 put upon him, even Pilate would have remained guiltless in this 
 matter. What follows shows that the petition refers to the act of 
 
532 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [X XIII. 34a, 35. 
 
 crucifixion, not to their sins generally. In this way He “made 
 intercession for the transgressors” (Is. liii. 12); where, however, 
 LXX has 8a tas dvopias aitav wapedo0y. 
 
 od yap oidac.v ti motodow. This was true even of the rulers 
 (Acts iil. 17), still more of the people, and most of all of Pilate. 
 Their ignorance of what they were doing in crucifying the Christ 
 mitigates their guilt. Comp. xii. 48, and rovotow in ver. 31: also 
 the use of the words attributed to James the Just at his martyrdom 
 (Hegesip. af. Zus. H. £. ii. 23. 16). 
 
 34b. Atapeprfsuevor . . . KAfjpov. The wording is very similar 
 in all three, and is influenced by Ps. xxii. 19, which Jn. (xix. 24) 
 quotes verbatim from LXX. Some texts wrongly insert the 
 quotation Mt. xxvii. 35; but the Synoptists use the wording of 
 the Psalm without directly quoting it. Jn. tells us that it was a 
 quaternion of soldiers (comp. Acts xii. 4) who were carrying out 
 the procurator’s sentence, and thus came to share the clothes as 
 their perquisite. And Jn. distinguishes, as does the Heb. of Ps. 
 xxli. 19, although LXX and the Synoptists do not, between the 
 upper and under garments. This dividing of the clothes is one 
 more detail in the treatment of Christ as a criminal, and a criminal 
 whose career was closed. 
 
 The sing. kAfjpov (8 BC DL, bed Aeth.) has been altered in some texts 
 
 to KAypous (A X, aefff, Vulg. codd. plur. Syr-Sin.) to harmonize with usage, 
 e.g. 1 Chron, xxv. 8, xxvi. 13, 143; Neh. x. 34, xi. I, etc. 
 
 835. Oewpay. egepuxtypitov. Both words are from Ps. xxii. 8: 
 mavtes ot Gewporvrées pe CLeuvxtynpicav pe. Mt. and Mk. use other 
 words ; but they add, what Lk. omits, the fulfilment of éexivyoav 
 kepoAynv. Lk. marks clearly four kinds of ill-treatment which 
 Jesus received. The people iorjxes Oewpdv, the rulers é&euuk- 
 typitov, the soldiers évéroufav, and the robber éBAacdype. They 
 form a sort of climax. The @ewpdv implies vulgar curiosity, 
 staring as at a spectacle (comp. ver. 48): for éxuuxrnpi~w comp. 
 xvi. 14, where, as here, Cod. Bezae has subsannabant. For the 
 form totyKe see ON Ver. 10. 
 
 “A\Nous écwcev, This sarcasm is preserved in all three 
 narratives, but Lk. alone gives the cone otros and 6 
 éxAextos. Comp. ix. 35. Jesus was elected from all eternity to 
 fulfil all these things. 
 
 WH. and RV. put a comma after tod Oeob, which belongs to 6 Xpiorés, not 
 to 6 éxexTés. TR., following A C°Q XT etc., places 6 before rod Geov, while 
 C*, ff, have 6 é\ex7bs before rod Geos. Syr-Sin. supports this combination. 
 D has ef ulds ef rod Oeod ef Xprords ef 6 éxAexrbs, sz filzus es ded st chrastus es 
 electus ; and the insertion of uiés is found in other texts. 
 
 The ovv avtrois after dpxovres (AT ATI, f Vulg. Syr-Sin.) is an insertion 
 to harmonize with Mt. and Mk, 
 
 86 87. This mockery by the soldiers is peculiar to Lk, 
 
XXIII. 35-38.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 533 
 
 Apparently it was the hierarchy who took the initiative. They 
 told the King of Israel to come down from the cross ; the soldiers 
 told the King of the Jews to save Himself. Note the change of 
 tense (eéepuxrypifov, évérargav), which implies that the soldiers 
 were less persistent in their derision than the rulers. The reading 
 évémailov (A C D Q etc.) has all the look of a correction. 
 
 86. df05 mpoohéportes. Offering some of their sour wine or Zosca, 
 which the Evangelists call dos, perhaps in connexion with érérurdv 
 pe d&0s (Ps. Ixviii. 22). Probably they could not have reached 
 His lips with a vessel held in the hand; otherwise the sponge 
 would not have been placed on a stalk, however short (Jn. xix. 29): 
 but there is no reason for supposing that Christ’s feet were on a 
 level with the heads of the spectators, as pictures sometimes 
 represent. 
 
 Comp. the words which legend has put into the mouth of His Mother at 
 the cross: KAivov oraupé, va mepikaBodca roy vidy pov Katagidjow Tov ends 
 uléy (Acta Pilate, B. x.). 
 
 838. jv Se Kat émypadh ém attG. For emvypady Mt. has 7. 
 aitiav avrov, Mk. 7 érvypadpi) THs airias adrod, Jn. titrAov. Thus 
 Mk. again has the whole expression of which Mt. and Lk. have 
 each a part: comp. iv. 40, v. 13, xxii. 34. The name and crime 
 of the person executed was sometimes hung round his neck as he 
 went to the place of crucifixion and then fastened to the cross. 
 The «ai suggests that this inscription was an additional mockery. 
 
 The wording differs in all four Gospels, and perhaps it varied in the 
 three languages. It was directed against the hierarchy rather than against 
 Jesus. All four variations contain the offensive words ‘‘ The King of the 
 Jews” (Jn. xix. 21). But Lk. regards it as an insult to Jesus. In the 
 Gospel of Peter the wording is ‘‘ This is the King of /svae/,” just as at the 
 mock homage the address is ‘‘ Judge righteously, O King of /srae/,” 
 
 The words ypduuaciv ‘“EXAnvixots kal “Pwyarkots kal ‘EBpacxots are almost 
 certainly a gloss from Jn. xix. They are omitted in § °4 BC* L, Syr-Cur. 
 Syr-Sin. Boh. Sah., and by the best editors. The authorities which insert 
 the words differ as to the order of the languages and as to the introductory 
 words yeypapmérn or émvyeypamméevn, éw avr@ or én’ a’t@ yeypaupévn. The 
 omission of the statement, if it were genuine, would be unintelligible. Comp. 
 Jos. Ant. xiv. 10.2; B. J. vi. 2. 4, v. 5. 2. In the inscription itself the 
 order of NBL, 6 Bac. ré&v I. obros, is to be preferred. D has the same, 
 adding éorwy after obros, rex Judworum hic est. Contrast Eus. 4.2. vy. 1. 44. 
 
 89-43. § The Two Robbers. Mt. (xxvii. 44) and Mk. (xv. 32) 
 merely state that those who were crucified with Him reproached 
 Him. 
 
 Harmonists suggest that during the first hour both robbers reviled Jesus, 
 and that one of them (who may have heard Jesus preach in Galilee) afterwards 
 changed his attitude and rebuked his comrade. So Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Theophylact, Euthymius, on Mt. xxvii. But Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, and 
 Augustine confine the reviling to one robber, who in Mt. and Mk. is spoken of 
 in the plur. by syecdoche. See Maldonatus on Mt. xxvii. 44: with Suarez he 
 
$34 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 80-42, 
 
 adopts the latter view. Or they insist upon the difference between dveldifov, 
 which Mt. and Mk. use of the two robbers, and éBAac@fuet, while Lk. uses of 
 one of them. Both bandits reproached Jesus (perhaps for not having helped 
 them in their revolt against existing conditions of society); but only one of 
 them razled upon Him. It is much simpler to suppose that Mt. and Mk. 
 regard the two Ayoral as a class, to which the conduct of either of them may be 
 attributed. Christ’s conversation with the penitent robber would not be heard 
 by many. The constant reviling (imperf.) of the other would be much more 
 widely known. That éve.di{w may mean much the same as BAacgnuéw is seen 
 from vi. 22; Rom. xv. 3; I Pet. iv. 14. The two verbs are combined 2 Kings 
 xix. 22, and seem to be synonymous. Mt. and Mk. would hardly have omitted 
 the incident of the penitent robber, if they had known it; but here Lk. once 
 more has other sources of information. The incident would have special interest 
 for him as illustrating the doctrine that salvation is open to all. 
 
 In the Avabze Gospel of the Infancy (xxiii.) the names of the two robbers are 
 given as Titus and Dumachus, Titus bribes Dumachus to release the Holy 
 Family, whom they had captured. In the Greek form of the Gospel of 
 Nicodemus (Acta Pzlatd x.) the penitent malefactor is Dysmas, and the other is 
 nameless. In the Latin form (Gesta Pz/ati x.) the two are Dismas and Gestas, 
 See small print note on ver. 32. 
 
 39. Ets S€ tv kpewacOévrwy. When used of hanging on a cross 
 or gibbet éi &i\ov is commonly added (Acts v. 30, x. 39; Gal. 
 iil. 13; Gen. xl. 19, 22; Deut. xxi. 22, 23, etc.): but here the 
 context is sufficient. 
 
 Odxi od e?. This is the true reading (SBC*L and most 
 Versions, including Syr-Sin.) rather than Ei od e& (AQ RX etc. 
 cfq Vulg.). “Art thou not” is a more bitter taunt than “If thou 
 art.” 
 
 D de omit the utterance, and | substitutes ge destruebas templum et in 
 tribus diebus rexdificabas illum, saluum te fac nunc et descende de cruce. 
 
 40. O88€ poBA od tov Gedv. The ovdé cannot be taken with 
 either ov (De W. Nosg.) or rév @cdv (Pesh.), but only with Pof7. 
 “Dost thou not even fea7,” to say nothing of penitent submission 
 (Schanz). ‘Dost not even thou fear” would be ovdé od Pofy; 
 Vulg. Wegue tu times, Beza Ve tu quidem times, and Godet Zt tot non 
 plus, tu ne crains donc point, are all inaccurate. The meaning is, 
 “You and He will soon have to appear before God. Does not 
 even fear restrain you from adding to your sins; whereas He has 
 nothing to answer for.” 
 
 41. oi8év dromov. A meiosis: “nothing unbecoming,” still 
 less anything criminal ; Acts xxv. 5; Job xxvii. 6, xxxiv. 12, XXxV. 13; 
 Prov. xxiv. 55; 2 Mac. xiv. 23. 
 
 D has ovéév movnpdv érpaéev and then adds a characteristic amplification : 
 kal orpagels mpds Tov Kvpiov elrev abt MvijoOnrl pov ev TH Huepa Tis éhevoews 
 cov. dmoxpiOels 5é 6 Inoods elrev att TH emAnovvTt(?) Odpoe, oHpEepov 
 uer’ éuod ton év TH Tapadelow. Respondens autem Jesus dixit gui objurgabat 
 animeaquzor esto, hodie mecum erts in paradiso. See on ver. 53 and vi. 5. 
 
 42. *Inood, prvjoOyti pov. “Jesus, remember me.” The 
 insertion of xkipe (A RXTA etc. and most Versions) was made 
 
 M 
 
XXII. 42, 48.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 535 
 
 because “Ijood was mistaken for the dat. after Aeyev: dicebat ad 
 Jesum, Domine, memento mei (Vulg.). So also Syr-Sin. Comp. 
 GAAG pvyioOnri pov da ceavtod Grav ev aor yévyrat (Gen. xl. 14). 
 The robber knew that he had only a few hours to live, and there- 
 fore this prayer implies a belief in a future state in which Jesus is 
 to receive him in His Kingdom. Possibly he believed that Christ 
 would raise him from the dead. In any case his faith in one who 
 is crucified with him is very remarkable. Some saw Jesus raise 
 the dead, and did not believe. The robber sees Him being put to 
 death, and yet believes. Contempserunt Judzt mortuos suscitan- 
 tem: non coniempsit latro secum in cruce pendentem (Aug. Serm. 
 xxiii. 3). D again amplifies with orpadets pos 7. Kiptov. 
 
 év TH Baotdela cou. This is perhaps the best supported read- 
 ing: comp. Mt. xvi. 28, xxv. 31. It means “when Thou comest 
 in the glory and power of Thy Kingdom”: whereas eis riv 
 Bactrciav cov (BL, Vulg., Hil. Ambr.) would mean “comest ixZo 
 Thy Kingdom.” The former refers to Christ’s return in glory, the 
 latter to His return to the Father through death. The alteration 
 of & into «is as more appropriate to €A@ys seems more probable 
 than the converse. That the robber had heard what is recorded 
 Jn. xviii. 36, 37 is possible, but not probable. He believes that 
 Jesus is the Messiah, and he knows that the Messiah is to have a 
 kingdom. It is all but certain that the robber was a Jew. This 
 is antecedently probable; and to a heathen the word “ paradise” 
 would hardly have been intelligible. 
 
 There is no reason for supposing that the robber felt the need of obtaining 
 forgiveness from the Messiah. To the Jew death is an expiation for sin. 
 In the ‘‘Confession on a Death Bed” in the Authorized Daily Prayer Book of 
 the United Hebrew Congregations we have, ‘‘O may my death be an atonement 
 for all my sins, iniquities, and transgressions, of which I have been guilty 
 against Thee” (p. 317). 
 
 43. “Auyy co héyw, As usual, this introduces something of 
 special importance, or beyond expectation: iv. 24, xii 37, xviil. 17, 
 29, xxi. 32. BC*L have this order; others the common "Api 
 A€yw cor 
 
 onpepov. To take this with Aéyw robs it of almost all its force. 
 When taken with what follows it is full of meaning. Jesus knows 
 that both He and the robber will die that day, and He grants him 
 more than he had asked or expected. Uderior est gratia guam 
 precatio. Ille enim rogabat ut memor esset sui Dominus cum venisset 
 in regnum suum: Dominus autem ait illi: Amen, amen dico tibi 
 Hodie mecum eris in paradiso. Ubi Christus, tbi vita, thi regnum 
 (Ambr. ad /oc.). 
 
 pet €u0d gon. Not merely in My company (ctv éyoi), but 
 sharing with Me. The promise implies the continuance of con- 
 sciousness after death. If the dead are unconscious, the assurance 
 
§36 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII. 43, 44. 
 
 to the robber that he will be with Christ after death would be 
 empty of consolation. 
 
 €v 73 tapadetow. The word, said to be of Persian origin, is 
 used in various senses in Scripture: 1. “a park or pleasure- 
 ground” (Neh. ii. 8; Cant. iv. 13; Eccl. ii. 5); 2. “the garden of 
 Eden” (Gen. ii. 8-10, 15, 16, iii. 1-3, 8-10, etc.); 3. “ Abraham’s 
 Bosom,” 7z.e. the resting-place of the souls of the just until the 
 resurrection (the meaning here) ; 4. ‘“‘a region in heaven,” perhaps 
 identical with “the third heaven” (2 Cor. xii. 4). It is doubtful 
 whether 6 zapddeuros Tod Meod (Rev. ii. 7) is the same as 3 or 4, 
 or is yet a fifth use. By His use of the word, Jesus neither con- 
 firms nor corrects Jewish beliefs on the subject. He assures the 
 penitent that He will do far more than remember him at some 
 unknown time in the future: this very day He will have him in 
 His company in a place of security and bliss. See Wetst. 
 
 Epiphanius (317, 347) states that Marcion omitted this promise of Christ 
 
 to the robber. 
 
 Origen sometimes adds rod Geo to wapadelow: elr add patrés. Syr-Cur. 
 substitutes 27 horto Eden. 
 
 44-49. The Death. In substance, and sometimes in wording, 
 Lk. is the same as Mt. xxvii. 45-56 and Mk. xv. 33-41. But 
 the words recorded in ver. 46 are peculiar to this Gospel, and 
 once more (comp. vv. 27-32) are among the most precious details 
 in the history of the Passion. 
 
 44. 78 woel dpa extn. This is Lk.’s first note as to the time 
 of day (xxii. 66), and he qualifies it with his favourite acet (i. 56, 
 ill. 23, ix. 14, 28, xxii. 41, 59). In days in which there were no 
 clocks, and on a day on which the darkness and the earthquake 
 caused so much disturbance of the ordinary signs of the hour,. 
 very large margin for inaccuracy may be covered by aoei. All 
 three Synoptists give the sixth hour, ze. about noon, as the time 
 when the darkness began; while Mk. (xv. 25) gives the third hour 
 as the time of the Crucifixion. On the apparent discrepancy be- 
 tween these statements and Jn. xix. 14 see Ramsay in the Lxfositor 
 for March 1893 and June 1896. The 737 is in B C* L, Boh. 
 
 ed dkny Thy yy. “Over the whole Zand” (Orig. Luth. Calv. 
 Bez. Mald. Nosg. Schanz, Hahn, Tyn. Cov. Gen. RV.), rather than 
 “over all the earth” (Euthym. Beng. De W. Mey. Godet, AV.). 
 For “land” comp. iv. 25, xxi. 23: for “earth” xxi. 35; Acts i. 8. 
 The Gospel of Peter has jv 8 peonp pia Kal oxoros Katéoxe Tacav 
 tiv ‘Iovdaiav, where, as here, the time of day and the darkness are 
 co-ordinate (xad, not 6re): Win. lili. 3, p. 543. 
 
 These exceptional phenomena, as Godet points out, may be attributed either 
 to a supernatural cause or to a providential coincidence. On ne peut mécon- 
 
 naitre une relation profonde, dun coté, entre Phomme et la nature, de Pautie, 
 entre Phumanité et Christ. The sympathy of nature with the sufferings of the 
 
XXIII. 44,45.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 537 
 
 Son of God is what seems to be indicated in all three accounts, which are here 
 almost verbally the same; and possibly the Evangelists believed the darkness 
 to have enveloped the whole earth. 
 
 45. tod HAlou éxdetmovtos. The reading is doubtful; but this 
 is probably correct, although ékAirdvros may possibly be correct. 
 “The sun failing,” or “the sun having failed,” is the meaning: 
 and we must leave it doubtful whether Lk. supposes that there 
 was an eclipse (which is impossible at full moon), or uses éxAecizrewv 
 in its originally vague sense of “fail.” The latter is probable. 
 Neither in LXX nor elsewhere in N.T. is éxAcizw used of the sun. 
 The fact that it might mean an eclipse, and that an eclipse was 
 known to be impossible, would tempt copyists to substitute a 
 phrase that would be free from objection; whereas no one would 
 want to change éoxorio67 6 jAwos. The Gospel of Peter states that 
 ““many went about with lamps, supposing it is night,” and that the 
 darkness lasted until Jesus was taken from the cross, when the 
 earthquake took place: “then the sun shone out, and it was 
 found to be the ninth hour.” 
 
 The evidence stands thus :— 
 
 tov jAlov éxdelrovros (or éxduréytos SL al., Tisch.) 8 BC* (?) L codd. 
 ap. Orig. Aegyptt. Orig. ‘‘Cels.” WH. RV. Weiss. kal éoxorla@n 6 Aros 
 ACDQRXT etc., codd. af. Orig-lat. Latt. Syr. Marcion af. Epiph. 
 Lach. Treg. D has éox. 6 The Latin renderings are zztenebricatus est sol 
 (a), cenebrzcavit sol (c), obscuratus est sol (def Vulg.). See WH. ii. App. 
 pp. 69-71 for a full discussion of the evidence. 
 
 Julius Africanus (¢. A.D. 220) in his Chronica opposes the heathen 
 historian Thallus for explaining this darkness as an eclipse, which at the 
 Passover would be impossible (Routh, fe/. Sacr. ii. pp. 297, 476). In the 
 Acta Pilati, A. xi. the Jews are represented as explaining away the darkness 
 in a similar manner: éxAevus AAlov yéyovev kata 7d elwOés ! 
 
 Origen (Con. Cels. ii. 33, 59 ; comp. 14) tells us that Phlegon (a freedman 
 of Hadrian) recorded the earthquake and the darkness in his Chronicles. 
 Eusebius in his Chronicle quotes the words of Phlegon, stating that in the 
 202"4 Olympiad (4 year of the 203'4, Arm. Vers.) there was a very great 
 eclipse ; also that there was a great earthquake in Bithynia, which destroyed 
 a great part of Nicaea (Eus. Chron. p. 148, ed. Schcene). It is impossible to 
 determine whether the events recorded by Phlegon have any connexion with 
 the phenomena which accompanied the death of Christ. 
 
 éoxtoOy S€ 73 Kataméracpa, Between the Holy Place and the 
 Holy of Holies (Exod. xxvi. 31; Lev. xxi. 23, xxiv. 3; Heb. vi. 19; 
 comp. Heb. x. 20) there was a curtain called 16 devrepov xatarée 
 taopa (Heb. ix. 3), to distinguish it from the curtain which 
 separated the outer court from the Holy Place. The latter was 
 more accurately, but not invariably, called 76 KdAvupa (Ex. 
 xxvii. 16; Num. iii. 25). But Jewish traditions state that there 
 were /wo curtains, one cubit apart, between the Holy Place and 
 the Holy of Holies, the space between them being called rtapaéis 
 because of the perplexity which led to this arrangement (J. Light- 
 
538 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII. 45, 46, 
 
 foot on Mt. xxvii. 51). It is not clear how many curtains are 
 included in 74 xatawerdcwata in 1 Mac. iv. 51. It is futile to 
 speculate ow the curtain was rent; but the fact would be well 
 known to the priests, “‘a great company” of whom soon afterwards 
 became “obedient to the faith” (Acts vi. 7). The pécov of Lk. is 
 more classical than the eis dvo of Mt. Mk. and the Gospel of Peter 
 
 46. dwvjcas pwvh peyddy. All three mention this loud voice, 
 which seems to indicate that Jesus did not die of exhaustion, 
 Comp. Stephen’s cry (Acts vil. 60). But here the fondness of Lk. 
 for cognate words is conspicuous. While he has ¢wvycas duvy, 
 Mt. has xpagas gory, and Mk. dgels dwvyv: comp. i. 42, ii. 3, 9, 
 Vil. 29, Xl. 50, XVli. 24, xxii. 15: and see on xi. 46. The aorist 
 does not prove that dwrv7jcas is not to be taken with efev, and we 
 may suppose that what was uttered with a loud voice was the say- 
 ing, ‘Father, into Thy hands,” etc. Comp. the freq. dzoxpuets 
 eizev. But it is admissible to make the ¢wvyjcas refer to “It is 
 finished,” or to some separate inarticulate cry. It is quite un- 
 necessary to suppose that Lk. has here taken the words of Ps. 
 xxxi. 6 and attributed them to Jesus, in order to express His sub- 
 missive trust in God at the moment of death. Are we to suppose 
 that Jesus did not know Ps. xxxi.? or that, if He did not, such a 
 thought as this could not occur to Him? 
 
 eis xetpds cou TapatiWenor tT. mv. p. The psalmist, thinking of 
 a future death, has zapa6yocopua, which L and inferior MSS. read 
 here. The voluntary character of Christ’s death is very clearly 
 expressed in this last utterance, as in afjxey 76 mvetpa (tt.) and 
 mapédwkey TO mvevua (Jn.). None of the four says daeGavev, or 
 éxoiunOn, or éreAcdryoev. Quis ita dormit quando voluerit, sicut 
 Jesus mortuus est quando voluit? Quis tta vestem ponit quando 
 voluerit, sicut se carne exuit quando voluit? Quis ita cum voluerit 
 abit guomodo cum voluit obiit ? (Aug. Tr. in Joh, xix. 30). To urge 
 that this utterance is not consistent with ver. 43 is futile, unless we 
 
 1Jerome says, Jn evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scripium est, 
 legimus non velum templi scissum, sed superlimenare Templi mire magnt- 
 tudinis coruisse (Ad Hedyb. viii.). Elsewhere he says, superlimenare templi 
 infinite magnitudints fractum esse atque divisum legimus (Com. in Matt. 
 xxvii. 51). See Nicholson, Gosfel acc. to the Hebrews, p. 62. 
 
 In the Gemara it is stated that some forty years before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, the heavy gates of the temple, which could with difficulty be moved 
 by many men, and which were locked at the time, flew open about midnight at 
 the Passover. Josephus (2./. vi. 5. 3) reports an occurrence of this kind shortly 
 before the capture of the city. As Neander remarks (Z. 7. C. § 293 n.), 
 these accounts hint at some strange occurrence as being remembered in connexion 
 with the time of the Crucifixion. 
 
 The rending of the veil perhaps symbolized the end of the temple and its 
 services. In Clem. Recogn. 1. 41 it is otherwise interpreted as a lamentation 
 (comp. the rending of clothes) over the destruction which threatened the place. 
 Better Theophylact : decxvivros rod Kuplov, 8re odk ér dBara tora Ta“ Ayia TOF 
 dylwv, GAG Tots ‘Pwyalors tapadobévra, Baca kal BEBnAa yevyjoorTat. 
 
XXIII. 46-48.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 539 
 
 believe that God is excluded from paradise (Ps. xvi. 10, cxxxix. 8 ; 
 Acts ii. 27). 
 
 Strauss, Renan, and others are unwilling to decide whether all the Seven 
 Words from the Cross are to be rejected as unhistorical. Keim will commit 
 himself to no more than ‘‘the two probable facts, that shortly before His 
 death Jesus uttered a cry of lamentation, and when on the point of dying a 
 death-cry ” (vi. p. 162). One asks once more, Who was capable of inventing 
 such words ? Gonipare the inventions in the apocryphal gospels. 
 
 47. 6 éxatovtdpyys. The one who was there to superintend 
 the execution, supplicio prexpositus: all three speak of him as “ che 
 centurion.” Legend has invested him with the name Longinus 
 (Acta Pilati, B. xi.), which perhaps originally meant the soldier 
 with the Adyxyn (Jn. xix. 34), and later writers make both him 
 and the soldier with the spear die a martyr’s death. See D. of 
 Chr. Ant. p. 1041. 
 
 Td yevouevov. Not merely the manner of Christ’s death, but its 
 extraordinary circumstances. Mt. has tov cevopov kai Ta yuvdmeva, 
 Mk. Gre ovrws efervevoev. Mt. says that those with him joined in 
 the exclamation, and that they “feared greatly.” 
 
 eddfalev tov Oedv. He glorified God unconsciously by this 
 public confession, by saying (A€ywv) that Jesus was no criminal, 
 but had died in accordance with God’s will. The statement is the 
 Evangelist’s appreciation of this heathen’s attitude towards the 
 death of Christ. Some, however, suppose that the centurion was 
 a proselyte, and that He first consciously praised God, and then 
 added the remark which is recorded: comp. the use of the phrase 
 il 205) Van 25, 20, Vil. 16, Xili. 13, Xvil. 15, xviii. 435 Acts iv, 21, 
 xi, 18, xxi. 20. The good character of the centurions in N.T. 
 confirms the statement of Polybius, that as a rule the best men in 
 the army were promoted to this rank (vi. 24. 9). See small print 
 on vii. 5. ACPQX etc. have edogace. 
 
 "Ovtws . . . Sikatos Hy. Mt. and Mk. have ddyfads @cod vids 
 jv. Harmonists suggest that the centurion said décaros before 
 the earthquake, and @eod vids after it. More probably the two 
 expressions represent one and the same thought: “He was a 
 good man, and quite right in calling God His Father” (vv. 34, 46). 
 The centurion would not mean much by vids @cod. See Aug. De 
 Cons. Ev. iii. 20. 
 
 48. cuvmapayevopevor . . . Oewpiav. Neither word occurs else- 
 where in N.T. For Gewpia comp. Dan. v. 7; 2 Mac. v. 26, xv. 12 ; 
 3 Mac. v. 24. Note the rdvres here and ver. 49. Neither Mt. 
 nor Mk. has it: comp. xx. 18, 45, xxi. 29, xxiii. 1. The multitude 
 would be very great, owing to the Passover, and thousands would 
 see Jesus hanging dead upon the cross. They had looked on the 
 whole tragedy as a sight, sfectaculum (ver. 35). 
 
 tUmTovtes Ta 0TH9H. Many of them had had no share in clamour- 
 
540 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIII 48-50. 
 
 ing for Christ’s death; and those who had taken part had been 
 hounded on by the priests, and now felt remorse for what they 
 had caused. In the Gosfel of Peter they are made to say, “‘ Woe 
 to our sins, for the judgment and the end of Jerusalem is at 
 hand!” One Latin MS. (G) here adds dicentes ve nobis que facta 
 sunt hodix propter peccata nostra, adpropinguavit enim desolatio 
 hierusalem. In Syr-Sin, the verse runs, “And all those who sad 
 ventured there and saw what happened, smote upon their breasts, 
 saying, Woe to us, what hath befallen us! woe to us for our sins 1” 
 Syt-Cur. is similar. D adds kai ra perma to orion. 
 
 49. torjkeioav 8€ mdvtes of yvworot ata “ But (not “ And,” 
 as AV. RV.), in contrast to the crowds who iréorpedov (Lk.’s 
 favourite word), the faithful few remained.” Lk. alone mentions 
 this fact: the Apostles perhaps are included. Comp. éudxpuvas 
 Tovs yvworovs ov am’ éuod (Ps. Ixxxvil. 9); of Gyyrotd pov paxpolev 
 éoryoay (xXxxvii. 12). 
 
 For this use of yvworés comp. ii. 44. In the common signification of 
 “known,” yrworss is freq. in Acts: elsewhere in N.T. rare. 
 
 yuvatkes. Mt. and Mk. name Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of 
 James and Joses, and Salome the mother of the sons of Zebedee. 
 
 6pGcar taita. These do mot gaze as at a spectacle. The change of 
 verb from Oewpycavtes (ver. 48) is ignored in Vulg. Tyn. Gen. Rhem. AV., 
 while Cov. Cran. RV. distinguish. Although feminine, because of the nearest 
 substantive, dpGca belongs to yv@oro as well as to yuvatkes. 
 
 50-56. The Burial. Comp. Mt. xxvii. 57-61; Mk. xv. 42-47. 
 In this section the whole of vv. 54-56 and portions of the rest are 
 peculiar to Lk. Mk. tells us of Pilate’s surprise that Jesus was 
 already dead, and of his sending for the centurion to be certified 
 of the fact. Jn. xix. 38-42 is altogether independent. All four 
 show how, even before the Resurrection, love and reverence for 
 the Crucified was manifested. 
 
 50. Note the characteristic kat (dod (i. 20, 31, 36), dvopaze 
 (see on v. 27), idpxwy (see on vill. 3 and 41). 
 
 Boudeurns. A member of the Sanhedrin is meant; and trdpyw 
 is to be taken with BovAevrys. Another amphibolous expression : 
 
 comp. vv. 35, 43. 
 
 The Latin Versions render Bovdeurjs by decurzo, the technical word for a 
 member of a municipal senate; but 6 has comszlzarzus. Cod. Colb. after 
 Joseph continues de civitate arimathia cum esset decurio qué sperabat regnum 
 dei et bonus homo non consentiens concilio et actui eorum hic accesset, etc.— 
 a free transposition. 
 
 dyads kal Sikatos. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. transpose the epithets, 
 which refer to his life as a whole, and not merely to his conduct at 
 this time (i. 6, ii. 25). Mt. says that Joseph was zAovovos, Mk. 
 that he was cicyyjpwv, Jn. that he was payrys tov “Iycod Kexpoy: 
 pevos d& dia Tov PoBov Tay Tovdatwr. 
 
XXIII, 51-53. | THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 541 
 
 Bl. ovK Hv cuvkatatePerpévos. We do not know whether he had 
 absented himself, or abstained from voting, or voted in opposition 
 to the sentence: the verb occurs Exod. xxiii. 32. Apparently he 
 was not present when the sentence recorded Mk. xiv. 64 was 
 pronounced, for that was unanimous. 
 
 TH Bouhkf. Excepting 1 Cor. iv. 5; Eph. i. 11; Heb. vi. 17, 
 BovaAy is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. See on vii. 30. In LXX it is 
 very common. 
 
 1H mpage. When the word is used in a bad sense, the plur. is 
 more common (Acts xix. 18; Rom. viii. 13; Col. iii. 9), as in our 
 “practices”: but Polybius uses the sing. in this sense. Here the 
 method by which they compassed the death of Jesus is specially 
 meant. 
 
 avrav. Who these are is suggested rather than stated by the preceding 
 BovAeuris : atray means “‘ of the Sanhedrin.” Win. xxii. 3 (2), p. 182. 
 
 dd “Apipabatas modews t. 1. The dad probably means birth- 
 place or former residence (Mt. xxi. 11): his having a burial-place 
 at Jerusalem shows that he had settled there ; and his being one of 
 the Sanhedrin confirms this. Arimathzea is commonly identified 
 with Ramah, the birthplace and home of Samuel. Its full name 
 was Ramathaim-zophim = “ Double Height of the Watchers.” In 
 LXX it is called "Appafain (1 Sam. i. 19), and the identification of 
 its site ‘is, without exception, the most complicated and disputed 
 problem of sacred topography” (Stanley, Sz. & Pad. p. 224). 
 The addition of toAcews twv ‘Iovdaiwy points to Gentile readers. 
 
 mpooédexeTo T. Bacthelay 7. Oeod. “He was waiting for the 
 Messianic Kingdom”: that he recognized Jesus as the Messiah is 
 not implied. Comp. ii. 25, 38; Acts xxiii. 21, xxiv. 15. The 
 verb is not found in Mt. or Jn., and only once in Mk., but occurs 
 seven times in Lk. and Acts. 
 
 52. The wording of all three is very similar, and also of the 
 Gospel of Peter, which represents Joseph as coming defore Jesus 
 was dead, and Pilate as sending to ask Herod for the body, who 
 replies, “ Brother Pilate, even if some one had not asked for Him, 
 we were intending to bury Him .. . before the first day of the 
 unleavened bread.” Comp. the addition made in Cod. Colb. 
 
 53. éverudugev atts owddv.. The verb occurs only here, Mt. 
 XXvii. 59, and Jn. xx. 7. All three mention the ovvdév, which was 
 cut into strips (6060 or xerpior) for the burial. Mk. (xv. 46) tells 
 us that it had been bought by Joseph for the purpose, and there- 
 fore on that day; which is another sign that the feast had not 
 begun the previous evening. The Gosfel of Peter says that Joseph 
 wa hed the body before wrapping it in linen. 
 
 év pvjpatt Aafeuro. For pvypa see on xxiv. 1: the adjective is not 
 classical; once in LXX (Deut. iv. 49) and four times in Aquila (Num. 
 
542 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIIL.653, 64 
 
 xxi. 20, xxiii. 14; Deut. xxxiv. 13 Josh. xiii. 20). Comp. Aagedw (Exod. 
 xxxiv. I, 4; Num, xxi. 19, xxiii. 14; Deut. iii, 27, x. 1, 3, etc.). Verband 
 adjective seem to belong to the important class of words which became current 
 through having been needed to express Jewish ideas and customs. Kennedy, 
 Sources of N.T. Grk. p. 116. 
 
 ovk Av ovdels ovrw. Accumulation of negatives: comp. Heb. xiii. 5, 
 and see Win. lv. 9. b, p. 626; Burton, § 489. Mk. has kay. The fact is 
 mentioned as a mark of special honour in contrast to the shameful death: 
 comp. Xix. 30. 
 
 Cod. Bezae has here one ofits characteristic interpolations. After celwevos 
 it adds cal 6évtos atbrod éréOnke TS pynuelw AelBov dv pbyis elkoor exUAtov : ef 
 postto e0 imposutt in monumento lapidem quem vix viginte movebant. 
 Scrivener (Cod. Bezae, p. lii) remarks that this ‘‘strange addition” is ‘‘ con- 
 ceived somewhat in the Homeric spirit.” Comp. Od. ix. 241. Prof. Rendel 
 Harris (Cod. Bezae, ch. vii.) finds a hexameter in the Latin: zmzposuzt... 
 lapidem quem vix vigintt movebant. But against this (as an acute critic in 
 the Guardian of May 25, 1892, p. 787, points out) are to be urged (1) the 
 intrusive 2% monumento, (2) the shortening of the final syllable in wzgzntz, 
 which is improbable so early as the second century, (3) the fact that the same 
 gloss, rather differently worded, is found not only in Cod. Colb., but in the 
 Sahidic Version. Thus in one we have, fosuerunt lapidem quem wix vigintt 
 volvebant (c); in the other, posuzt lapzdem in porta sepulcré quem viginti 
 homenes volvere possent. To assume a Greek gloss, which was differently 
 translated in two Latin and one Egyptian text, is a simpler hypothesis than a 
 Latin gloss translated into Greek and Egyptian, and then from the Greek 
 into a different Latin. Moreover, the fact that the tone of the gloss is 
 Homeric rather than Virgilian points to a Greek origin. That there were 
 Homerizers and Virgilianizers at this early date may be inferred from Tertull. 
 De Prexscr. Her. xxxix. 
 
 54, mapackeujjs. The word may mean either the eve of the 
 sabbath or the eve of the Passover: and on this occasion the 
 sabbath probably coincided with Nisan 15, the first day of the 
 Passover. ‘This first day ranked as a sabbath (Exod. xii. 16; Lev. 
 xxiii. 7), and therefore was doubly holy when it coincided with an 
 ordinary sabbath. If the Passover had begun the previous even- 
 ing, would Lk. and Mk. (xv. 42) speak of its first day as the eve of 
 an ordinary sabbath? Just as we should hardly speak of “the first 
 Sunday in April,” if that Sunday was Easter Day. But, although 
 the day was a tupacxevy to both sabbath and Passover, it is the 
 former that is probably meant. Comp. Mk. xv. 42. Caspari 
 (§ 157) would take it the other way. 
 
 For tapackevgs (NBC*L 13 346, cenw pure abcl parasceues Vulg.) 
 AC*PXetc., fff, have rapackevyj, Syr-Cur. ferza sexta. For the whole verse 
 D substitutes jv 6¢ 7 quépa mpocaBBdrou, erat autem dies antesabbatum. 
 
 oéBBatov éwépwoxev. An inaccurate expression, because the 
 sabbath began, not at dawn, but at sunset. But “it was dawning” 
 easily comes to mean “it was beginning,” and is transferred to 
 things which cannot “dawn.” In the Gosfe/ of Peter, when Pilate 
 before the Crucifixion asks Herod for the body of Jesus, Herod 
 
XXIII. 54-56.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 543 
 
 replies that in any case the body would have been buried that day, 
 eel kal caBBatov éeripdoKe, yéypamtar yap €v TO vouw, HALov py 
 ddvar ext rehovevevw. The verb has nothing to do with lighting 
 /amps at the beginning of the sabbath (J. Lightfoot, Wetst.), nor is 
 the rising of the s¢ars or the g/ow of sunset meant (Hahn). 
 
 55. Kataxodov@ycacat. In N.T. here and Acts xvi. 17 only: 
 in LXX Jer. xvii. 16; 1 Es. vii. 1; Judg. xi. 6; Dan.ix. 10; 1 Mac. 
 vi. 23. Their following from the Crucifixion (ver. 49) to Joseph’s 
 garden is meant, and the xara- does not mean “dowz into the 
 grave,” but “after Joseph and his assistants.” Syr-Sin. and Syr- 
 Cur. have “ And ¢ke women, who came with Him from Galilee, 
 went to the sepulchre zz ‘heir footsteps, and saw the body when 
 they [had] brought it in there.” The fact of the women beholding 
 the tomb in which the body was laid is in all three Synoptic 
 Gospels. It is part of the evidence for the Resurrection. 
 
 For al yuvaixes (B LP X, Boh. Sah.) D 29, abeff,qr have vo yuvaixes, 
 while TR. follows-certain cursives in reading kal yuvatkes. N ACT etc. have 
 "yuvaixes without al or dvo or kal, and this Tisch. adopts. 
 
 @s éré0n. We might have expected rs: comp. vi. 4, viii. 47, xxiv. 35 
 
 56. dpdpata, In N.T. only of these spices; freq. in LXX. 
 For pvpa comp. vil. 37. Mk. says that when the sabbath was 
 over, z.e. on Saturday evening, the women bought dpwyara that 
 they might azoim¢ Him, which shows that dpwmara are not to be 
 confined to “sweet-smelling herbs” or to “dry” spices. The 
 chapter ought to end at pvpa, for 76 wév caBBarov plainly balances 
 7m S€ pia Tdv caBBarwr, and no more than a comma is needed 
 after €vroAnv. D omits xara tiv évroAny. 
 
 jjotxacav, The notice of this resting on the sabbath would be 
 strange if they had been working on so sabbatical a day as 
 Nisan 15 ; for it could not be urged that the preparation of spices 
 and ointments was in any sense zecessary. When a sabbath imme- 
 diately preceded Nisan 15, it was lawful to work on the sabbath a 
 preparations for the feast. But can we suppose that, if in this year 
 Nisan 15 immediately preceded the sabbath, pious women would 
 have worked merely to gratify affectionate feeling? Or, having 
 thought themselves justified in working for this purpose 02 
 Nisan 15, that they would scrupulously have avoided continuing 
 such work on the sabbath? If Nisan 15 coincided with the 
 sabbath, all is explained: up to sunset on Friday it was lawful to 
 work, and after sunset on Saturday it was lawful to work again. Of 
 the interval Godet remarks, On peut dire que ce sabbat était le 
 dernier de Pancienne alliance gui prenait fin avec la mort du Christ. 
 Il fut scrupuleusement respeclé par tous ceux gui, sans le savoir 
 allaient inaugurer la nouvelle. 
 
544 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIIL 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTE ON READINGS IN CHAPTERS XXIi, AND XXIII. 
 
 (1) xxii. 43, 44. “O60n 62... éml Thy viv. 
 
 Evidence for the passage :— 
 
 N*°eDFGHKLMQUXA etc. and nearly all cursives. A has 
 the Ammonian section of the passage marked in the margin, although it 
 omits the passage in the text. 
 
 All MSS. of Lat. Vet. excepting f Vulg. some MSS. of Boh. of Sah. 
 and of Arm. Syr-Cur. (omitting da’ otpavod) Syr-Pesh. Syr-Hier. 
 
 ‘Just-M. Iren. Hippol. Dion-Alex. Eus. Greg-Naz. Epiph, Hil. 
 Hieron. Aug. 
 
 Evidence against the passage :— 
 
 xn®ABRT 124: 13 has @0n 5€ prima manu, the rest secunda 
 manu. C°69 and all known Evangelistaria have the passage inserted 
 after Mt. xxvi. 39. ES VIATI and others, including nine cursives, 
 have the passage marked with asterisks or obeli. Z¢ zz Grecés et in 
 Latinis codd. complur. known to Hilary it was wanting, and it was found 
 only 72 guibusdam exemplaribus tam Grecis guam Latinis known to 
 
 erome. 
 J f, most MSS. of Boh. including the best, some MSS. of Sah. and of 
 Arm. (see Sanday, 4Z/. ad N.7. pp. 188, 191), Syr-Sin., Syr-Harcl. 
 marg. 
 
 Cyr-Alex. omits in his Homilies on Lk. Ambr. likewise. The silence 
 of Clem-Alex. Orig. Cyr-Hier. Ath, and Greg-Nys. can hardly be accidental in 
 all cases, or even in most. 
 
 Excision for doctrinal reasons will not explain the omission. ‘There is no 
 tangible evidence for the excision of a substantial portion of narrative for 
 doctrinal reasons at any period of textual history” (WH. ii. App. p. 66). 
 
 Nor does ‘‘ Lectionary practice” seem to be an adequate cause for such 
 widespread omission. It is suggested that, because the passage was read after 
 Mt. xxvi. 39 in the Lection for Holy Thursday, and omitted after Lk. xxii. 42 
 in the Lection for Tuesday after Sexagesima, therefore some MSS. came to 
 omit in Lk. or both Gospels. 
 
 It will be observed that the early non-patristic evidence in favour of the 
 words is &* D, Latt. Syrr. “‘a frequent Western combination.” 
 
 But, if we regard the passage as probably a Western insertion in the text of 
 Lk., we need have no hesitation whatever in retaining it as a genuine portion of 
 historical tradition. It is true, whoever wrote it. 
 
 (2) xxii. 68. After ob wh droxp.Ojre the words po } dwodtoyre. 
 Evidence for the words :— 
 ADXTAATetc., Latt. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin, 
 Evidence against the words :— 
 N BLT, Boh. one MS. of Vulg. (J), Cyr-Alex. Ambr, 
 A few authorities have not without 4 arodvonre. 
 With Tisch. WH. RV. we may safely omit. Treg. brackets, Alf, the same, 
 suggesting homeeoteleuton as the cause of omission. : 
 
 (3) xxiii. 34a, 6 58 ’Inoods . . » Todo. 
 Evidence for the passage :— 
 N*CACD?*LQXTAATI ete. 
 
 cefff,lr Vulg. most MSS. of Boh. Syrr. (Cur. Pesh. Harcl. Hier.) 
 Aeth. Arm. 
 
 Iren-lat. Orig-lat. Hippol. Clem-Hom. Eus, Ath. Greg-Nys. Bas. 
 Gest-Pilat. Chrys. Hil. Ambr, Hieron. Aug. 
 
XXL] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 545 
 
 Evidence against the passage :— 
 N® B D* 38 43 435. E has it marked with an asterisk, 
 abd two best MSS. of Boh. Sah. Syr-Sin. , 
 Cyr-Alex. is said by Arethas to have regarded it as spurious ; and 
 this is confirmed by the text prefixed to the Syriac Homily on Lk. 
 xxiii. 32-43 (p. 718, ed. Payne Smith). This, however, exists in only 
 one MS., which ends before ver. 34 is properly reached. 
 The omission in such witnesses would be very difficult to explain, if the 
 e had been part of the original text of Lk. But, even more strongly than 
 in the case xxii. 43, 44, internal evidence warrants us in retaining the passage 
 in its traditional place as a genuine portion of the evangelic narrative. That 
 point being quite certain, it matters comparatively little whether we owe this 
 precious fragment to Lk, or not. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTE ON XXIII. 45. 
 
 Dr. E. A. Abbott conjectures that both here and xxii. §1 we have instances 
 of substitution through misunderstanding. In the Classical Review of Dec. 
 1893, p. 443, he writes: ‘‘ Though these words (rod 7Alov éxXelrovros) might 
 mean ‘the sun failing (to give its light),’ yet the natural meaning is ‘ the sun 
 being eclipsed.’ Now every one knew that an eclipse could not happen except 
 at new moon, and every Jew knew that Passover was at full moon.” Why, 
 then, he goes on to ask, does Lk. give an explanation of the darkness, which 
 neither Mt. nor Mk. give, and which involves a portentous miracle? To the 
 imaginary reply, ‘‘ Because Lk. wished to make it clear that it was a miracle 
 and not a natural obscuration of the sun ; for he is not afraid of being the only 
 Evangelist to insert a miracle, as is shown by his account of the healing ot 
 Malchus’ ear,” Dr. Abbott rejoins that ‘‘ the latter miracle is sudstztuted rather 
 than zuserted. It is substituted for a rebuke to Peter, ‘restore thy sword to its 
 place.? Comp. Mt. xxvi. 52; Jn. xviii. 11, with droxarac7d@yre in Jer. xxix. 
 (Heb. xlvii.) 6, and it will appear that the miraculous narrative probably arose 
 from a misunderstanding of some ambiguous word, such as dmoxatacrdOyre 
 (‘be thou restored’), or dmroxatacrabyjrw (‘let it be restored’), in the original 
 tradition. ‘It’ (or ‘thou’) was interpreted by Mt. and Jn. (rightly) to be the 
 ‘sword,’ and by Lk. (wrongly) to be ‘the ear’; and the verb was interpreted 
 by Mt. and Jn. (rightly) to mean ‘restored 70 zts place,’ but by Lk. (wrongly, 
 though more in conformity with the Synoptic vocabulary, Mt. xii. 13; Mk. 
 iii. 5, viii. 25; Lk. vi. 10, where it is used of a withered hand, or of a blind 
 man) to mean ‘restored #0 z¢s original condition.’” 
 
 Is it possible that the present, also, may be a case of substitution through 
 misunderstanding? Let us turn to the parallel passage in Mt. (xxvii. 46-49) 
 and Mk. (xv. 34-36). Here we find no mention of an eclipse, but of a saying 
 of Jesus which was interpreted by the bystanders to mean that ‘‘ Z/as” had 
 “* abandoned” (éyxatanelrew) Jesus. This Lk. omits altogether. But the 
 genitive case of ‘‘ Elias” is the same as that of the ‘‘sun,” viz. #Aelov, or in 
 MSS. #Afou: and éxAelzew, although not often used of Zersons failing others in 
 an emergency, zs so used occasionally. Thus 7Alov éxAelrovros might mean 
 either ‘‘ the sz being eclipsed,” or ‘* Elzas fatling, or forsaking.” 
 
 But how could éyxataXelaovros be changed into éxXelyovros? Curtailments 
 of long compounds are not infrequent in MSS. of the N.T., and specially with 
 xatd: comp. Mk. xiv. 40; Lk. vi. 36; Mt. xiii. 40; Jas. ii. 13, lil. 14... . 
 If Lk., or others before him, concluded that 7\fov must mean the sun, they 
 would naturally infer that éyxaradelsovros must be an error for éxAelrovros. 
 
 . . . It seems probable that Lk., finding obscure and divergent traditions 
 about some utterance of Jesus, . . . considered that he was restoring the 
 original meaning, and a meaning worthy of the subject, in retaining two or 
 three words of the current tradition, but placing them in such a context as to 
 show that it was the sz, and not Z/zas, that ‘‘ failed.” 
 
 35 
 
546 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 
 
 XXIV. The Resurrection and the Ascension. 
 
 It is well known that the difficulty of harmonizing the different accounts of 
 the Resurrection given by the Evangelists and by S. Paul is great; and this 
 difficulty is perhaps at a maximum when the narrative of Lk. is compared with 
 the others. Here, as so often in the Gospels, we have not sufficient knowledge 
 to piece together the different fragments which have come down to us, and con- 
 sequently the evidence for important facts is not what we might antecedently 
 have expected or desired. But our expectations and wishes are not adequate 
 criteria, and it is no paradox to say that the difficulty of harmonizing the various 
 narratives is in itself a security for their general truthfulness. Dishonest wit- 
 nesses would have made the evidence more harmonious. As it is, each witness 
 fearlessly tells his own story according to the knowledge which he possesses, 
 and is not careful as to whether it agrees with what may have been told else- 
 where. Nevertheless there is agreement in the following important particulars :— 
 
 1. The Resurrection itself is not described. Like all beginnings, whether 
 in nature or in history, it is hidden from view. (Contrast the attempt at 
 description in the Gospel of Feter.) 
 
 2. The manifestations, while confined to disciples, were made to disciples 
 who were wholly unexpectant of a Resurrection. The theory that they were 
 visions or illusions, arising from intense and unreasoning expectation, is contrary 
 to all the evidence that has come down to us. On the contrary, 
 
 3. They were received with doubt and hesitation at first, and mere reports 
 on the subject were rejected. 
 
 4. The evidence begins with the visit of women to the tomb very early on 
 the first day of the week, and the first sign was the removal of. the stone from 
 the door of the tomb. 
 
 5. Angels were seen before the Lord was seen. 
 
 6. He was seen on various occasions by various kinds of witnesses, both 
 male and female, both individuals and companies, both sceptical and trusting. 
 
 7. The result was a conviction, which nothing ever shook, that *‘ the Lord 
 had risen indeed” and been present with them (see Wsctt. on Jn. xx. I: he 
 gives a tentative arrangement of the events of the first Easter Day, which at 
 least shows that there is no serious discrepancy between the four narratives). 
 
 Sadler asserts, and Godet endeavours to show, that each narrative is deter- 
 mined by the purpose which each Evangelist had in view in writing ; but in 
 most cases the distinctions are not very convincing. Nearly the whole of Lk.’s 
 narrative is peculiar to him, the partial exceptions being vv. 1-6 and 9, 10. 
 The nucleus of the whole is the account of the walk to Emmaus (vv. 13-43) ; 
 and the first part of the chapter is an introduction to this graphic account, with 
 special reference to vv. 22, 23. 
 
 Ao excellent opportunity of comparing six forms of the Old Latin (abcdef) 
 with one another and with the Vulgate is given in Scrivener’s edition of Codex 
 Bezae in connexion with a large portion of this chapter. He prints the first 
 twenty-four verses of this chapter as given in these authorities in seven parallel 
 columns (pp. xxxvi, xxxvii). This passage is ‘‘rich in peculiar and idiomatic 
 expressions, and little liable to be corrupted from the Synoptic Gospels.” The 
 result, he thinks, is to show that the Latin of Codex Bezae was made ‘‘immedi- ~ 
 ately from its Greek text,” which it generally servilely follows; but that 
 occasionally the translator was led away by his recollection of the Old Latin, 
 “sometimes for whole verses together,” even when the Old Latin differed from 
 the Greek. text which he was translating. Adhuc sub judice lis est. 
 
 1-11. The Visit of the Women to the Tomb and the Vision of 
 Angels. Comp. Mt. xxviii. 1-10; Mk. xvi. 1-8; Jn. xx. I-10. 
 Lk. and Jn. mention two Angels; Mt. and Mk. mention only one: 
 
XXIV. 1-4.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 547 
 
 but we know too little about the manner of Angel appearances to 
 be sure that Lk. and Jn. mention the same two Angels, or that Mt. 
 and Mk. mention the same one. In the other two cases of similar 
 difference (the Gerasene demoniacs and the blind men at Jericho) 
 it is Mt. who mentions two, while Lk. gives only one. In all 
 three cases Mk. mentions only one. Where, out of two or more, 
 only one is spokesman, he is necessarily remembered. The other 
 or others may easily be ignored or forgotten. It is an exaggeration 
 to call such differences absolute discrepancies. Lk. records only 
 those appearances of the risen Lord which took place in Judza. 
 
 1. 7H 8 pig tev caBBdatwy. ‘‘ But on the first day of the week.” The 
 dé corresponds to the previous yév: they rested on the sabbath, but the next 
 day they did not. Jn. has the same expression (xx. 1), which literally means 
 ** but on day one of the week,” una autem sabbati (Vulg.): Cov. here translates 
 *‘upon one of the Sabbathes,” and in Jn. “‘ upon one daye of the Sabbath.” 
 ian here with Cran. he rightly has ‘‘ But” (RV.) and not *f And” (Rhem.) 
 
 “Now” (AV.). 
 
 Pessin. Acts xx. 7; Mt. xxviii. 1; Mk. xvi. 2; Jn. xx. 19; Rev. ix. 12. 
 This use of the cardinal for the ordinal is Hebraistic: Gen. i. 5; Esr. ii. 6; 
 Ps. xxiii. #7#. In class. Grk. it occurs only in combination with an ordinal: 
 T@ évl kal rpinxoor@ (Hadt. v. 89. 2). 
 
 dpOpov Babdws. It is doubtful whether BaGéws is the Attic form of the 
 gen. of Ba@is (De W. Nosg. Alf.) or an adv. (Mey. Weiss). The former is 
 probable ; for 5pApos Bafvs occurs (Aristoph. Vesp. 216; Plat. Crit. 43 A; 
 see esp. Prot. 310 A; Philo, De Vita Mosis, i. 32), and 2 Cor. xi. 23 does 
 not favour the latter. For Sp8pov comp. [Jn.] viii. 2; Jer. xxv. 4, xxvi. 5. 
 
 76 pvipa. With the exception of Mk. v. 3, v. 5; Rev. xi. 9, 
 ‘he word is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (viii. 27; xxlil. 53 ; Acts ii. 29, 
 
 vii. 16). The common word is prypetov (xi. 44, 47, Xxili. 55, 
 xxiv. 2, 9, 12, 22, 24, etc.); but Mt. sometimes has rados (xxiii 
 27, 29, Xxvil. 61, 64, 66, xxviii. 1; comp. Rom. it: 13). RV. has 
 
 “tomb” for pvqjpa and prynwetov, and “sepulchre” for rados. 
 AC*DXT etc. dfq Syrr. (Cur. Sin. Pesh. Harcl. Hier.) Sah. Arm. 
 a (most MSS.) add xaf wes odv atrais, and Ded Sah. add from Mk. 
 Xvi. 3 Aoylfovro 6é év éaurais, tis Epa awoxuNice Tov AiPov ; N B C* L 33 124 
 abce fil Vulg. Boh. Aeth. (some MSS.) omit. The insertion is a gloss 
 from ver. 10 and Mk. xvi. I, 3. 
 
 2. eipov Sé€ tov AiBov. Lk. has not yet mentioned it, but he 
 speaks of it as well known or as usual. All three use dzoxvAiw of 
 the stone, while Jn. has jppévov é«: the verb occurs nowhere else 
 in N.T. Comp. Gen. xxix. 3, 8, 10; Judith xiii. 9. 
 
 3. tot kuptov *Ingot. The combination occurs nowhere else in the 
 Gospels, although possibly right [Mk.] xvi. 19; but it is frequent in Acts 
 
 (i. 21, iv. 33, vili, 16, etc.) and Epistles. Here the words are ibly a 
 very early insertion. "See note on Western Noninterpolations at end of 
 this chapter. 
 
 4 xal éyévero 1G dmopetcbar aitas mepi tovrTou, kai i8 u. Note 
 
548 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 4-6. 
 
 the strongly Hebraistic construction, so common in Lk., and see 
 additional note, p. 45. 
 
 The Latin Versions differ greatly: dum aporiarentur (d), hesttarent (f), 
 stuperent (ac), mente contristarentur (ff,), mente consternatz essent (Vulg.). 
 The last is wrong both in verb and tense. Aforéaré occurs in Vulg. 2 Cor. 
 iv. 8; Is. lix. 16; Ecclus. xviii. 6, and in Irenzus, ay es 
 
 GvSpes U0. The plur. agrees with dyyéAwv in-ver. 23. For 
 déymp of an Angel in human form comp. Acts i. 10, x. 30; for 
 éeméotyoay see on ii. 9; and for éo@js see on xxiii. 11. Only here 
 and xvii. 24 in N.T. does déotpdémtw occur. 
 
 Instead of éc67jrt dorparrovcy (SBD, Latt. Orig. Eus.) TR. has écOjoe- 
 ow dotparrovcas with AC DIA etc., Sah. Boh. Arm. L has écOjocow 
 
 Aevkats, Syr-Sin. *‘ their garments were dazzling.” &@ ots does not occur in 
 N.T. 
 
 The contrast between the Gospel of Peter and the Canonical 
 Gospels is still more marked in the account of the Resurrection 
 than in that of the Passion. There the watchers see dvo avdpas 
 come down from heaven ; and ayddrepor of veavioxor enter the tomb. 
 But the watchers see zpets avdpas come out of the tomb. Then 
 av@pwrés tus comes down from heaven and enters the tomb; and 
 the women find twa veavicxor sitting in the tomb, and he addresses 
 them. 
 
 5. éuddBwv S€ yevopevwv. In N.T. the use of éugofos (always 
 with yiverar) is almost confined to Lk. (ver. 37; Acts x. 4, 
 xxii. 9, xxiv. 25; Rev. xi. 13): in LXX (without yiveo@ar) Ecclus. 
 xix. 24; 1 Mac. xii. 2. The detail k\woucdy Ta mpdcwra mpos T. yh 
 is peculiar to Lk. Note zpos airdés: Mt. and Mk. have the dat. 
 
 Ti {ntetre tov Lavra peta Tay vekpOv; A rebuke: comp. ii. 49. 
 There is possibly a reference to Is. viil. 19, t¢ éxnrotow wept Tov 
 févrwv tos vexpovs; They ought to have remembered His assur- 
 ance that on the third day He would rise again. 
 
 6. otK gor Ode, GAAG jAyépOy. Like the doubtful words in ver. 3, this 
 sentence is wanting in D and important Latin authorities. A reason for the 
 omission is hard to find. A very early insertion from Mk. xvi. 6=Mt. 
 xxviii. 6 may be suspected: see note at the end of this chapter. 
 
 pvyoOnte. Angels “may be employed in endless ways of which 
 we can form no idea, but we have Scripture warrant for supposing 
 that they call things to remembrance, and it is not going much 
 farther to suppose that they put thoughts into people’s minds” 
 (Latham, 4 Service of Angels, p. 162). 
 
 és édddnoev Spiv. The ds is not exactly 67, but suggests the 
 wording of the statement: in both ix. 22 and xviii. 32, 33 the im- 
 portant ‘fon the third day” is predicted. The whole of this to 
 the end of ver. 8 is peculiar to Lk. On the other hand Lk, who 
 
XXIV. 6-11.]} THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 549 
 
 records no appearances in Galilee, omits mpodye tyas els riHv 
 TadtAaiav, which refers back to Mk. xiv. 28; Mt. xxvi. 32. 
 
 7. Set. See on iv. 43 and ix. 22. 
 
 9. imootpépacat. Lk.’s favourite word: Mt. has dmedfotoa 
 and Mk. é£eA@otcat. Lk. omits the speed with which they returned 
 in mingled fear and joy. 
 
 émmyyethav. Mt. says the same (xxviii. 8), but Mk. says ovdevi 
 ovdey elrav, epoSodvto ydp. If we had the conclusion of Mk.’s 
 Gospel we should know how this apparent contradiction is to be 
 explained. Obviously they did not remain silent about it for the 
 rest of their lives, but only so long as fear kept them silent. When 
 the fear passed away, they told their tale to the disciples (not 
 merely to the Apostles) in accordance with the angelic charge 
 (Mt. xxviii. 7). But it is perhaps simpler to suppose that Mt. and 
 Lk. here give, as Mt. and Mk. do in the case of the crucified 
 robbers, the tradition which was generally current, and which 
 attributed to all the women what was true of only one, viz. Mary 
 Magdalen. She on her return told the Apostles, while the others 
 kept silence through fear. A little later no doubt all told to all. 
 Note the characteristic tdvra and wacuv. Mt. has neither, and 
 he sums up “the Eleven and all the rest” in rots paéyrats atrod. 
 
 10. The other Evangelists give the names of the women at the 
 beginning of the narrative. All four place Mary Magdalen first, 
 and Jn. mentions no one else; but ov« oidayev (xx. 2) implies that 
 others were with her. ‘Mary the [mother] of James” or “the 
 other Mary” is mentioned by all three; Joana by Lk. alone, and 
 Salome by Mk. alone. For Joana see on viii. 3: it is from her 
 that Lk. may have got both these details, and also what he relates 
 xxiii. 8-12. Here only does the order # Mayé. Mapia occur: else- 
 where Mapia 4 Mayé. (so D here). 
 
 All English Versions previous to RV. follow a false reading, and make 
 one sentence of this verse. There are two sentences. ‘‘ Now they were 
 Mary Magdalen, and Joana, and Mary the mother of James”: these were 
 the women specially referred to in ver. 9. ‘‘ Also the other women with them 
 told these things unto the Apostles.” The evidence against the second ai 
 (before &\eyov) is overwhelming (n* AB D EF G Hetc. bde ff,q Sah. Aeth.), 
 and the reason for its insertion is obvious. 
 
 Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. interpret 7 "IaxéBov ‘‘the daughter of James.” 
 There is little doubt that ‘‘ mother” is meant, and that James is not the 
 Lord’s brother, the first president of the Church of Jerusalem. She is called 
 “the mother of James and Joses” (Mk. xv. 40), and ‘‘ the mother of Joses ” 
 (Mk. xv. 47) ; and she is probably the same as ‘‘ Mary the [wife] of Clopas” 
 (Jn. xix. 25). See J. B. Mayor, Zp. of St. James, Macmillan, 1892, p. xv, 
 ee the best discussion of the vexed question about the brethren of the 
 
 ord. 
 11. évdmov aitav. ‘In their sight,” in the judgment of the Apostles 
 and others ; afud zilos (c), in conspeetu eorum (d), coram zllis (f), apostolis (1). 
 For évamov see small print on i. 15, and for éaef oni. 56. 
 
2 
 
 550 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXIV. Il, 12, 
 
 Mjpos. “Nonsense” ; the word “is applied in medical language 
 to the wild talk of the sick in delirium” (Hobart): comp. 4 Mac. 
 v. 11: here only in N.T. derisus (d), delira (a), deliramentum 
 (f Vulg.). The incredulity with which mere reports were received 
 is noted [Mk.] xvi. 11. Even S. John did not infer from the dis- 
 appearance of the body that He had risen until he had examined 
 the tomb himself (Jn. xx. 8). Apparently no one had understood 
 Christ’s predictions of His rising again. They were interpreted of 
 His return in glory, either with a new body or as an incorporeal being. 
 No Apostle had grasped the fact that He would be killed, buried, 
 and raised again to life. They had seen Him dead, and women’s 
 talk about Angels who said that He was alive did not cancel that. 
 
 Ta pypata tavTa (NX BDL, abcdelq Vulg. Sah. Boh. Syr-Cur. Aeth.) 
 is certainly to be preferred to 7a pjuara airav (AIXT A etc. f Arm.). Syr- 
 Sin. has ‘* They appeared in their eyes as if they had spoken ¢hese words from 
 their wonder.” For neut. plur. with plur. verb, comp. Jn. xix. 31. 
 
 12. § The Visit of Peter to the Tomb. 
 
 The whole of this verse is of unknown and doubtful authority. It is 
 absent from important Western documents, and has the look of an insertion. 
 Its source is probably Jn. xx. 3-10, part of what is there said of ‘‘ the other 
 disciple ” (ver. 5) being here transferred to S. Peter. The only words which 
 are not found in Jn. xx. 3-10 are dvaords and Oavydgwy 7d yeyovbs: but of 
 these dvagrds (not in Jn. and rare in Mt.) and 7é ‘yeyovés (not in Mt. or Jn. 
 and once in Mk.) are specially frequent in Lk. And although Lk. more 
 often writes Oavyage él 7p, yet he sometimes has Oavydfew te (vii. 9 ; Acts 
 vii. 31). Perhaps the hypothesis of an insertion made in a second edition is 
 here admissible. See note on Western Noninterpolations at the end of this 
 chapter. 
 
 The verse has probably no connexion with what precedes. Certainly it 
 does not give the reason why the Apostles disbelieved, viz. because Peter 
 had already been to the tomb and seen no Angels but only grave-cloths. 
 That would require ydp for 6é and the pluperf. The 6é would rather mark a 
 contrast ; although they disbelieved, yet Peter went to the grave to satisfy 
 himself. Didon supposes ¢wo visits of Peter to the tomb, one with John 
 when Mary Magdalen reported the tomb empty, and a second when she 
 reported that she had seen Angels and the Lord Himself (/. C. ch. xii. 
 p- 797). More probably this verse (whatever its source) is an imperfect 
 account of the visit of Peter with John. 
 
 Ta 60dva pdva. © “ The grave-cloths without the body.” 
 
 This is the reading of §°>B, Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Boh. Sah., omitting 
 xelueva, while §* A K II omit néva. L, cf Arm. have pdva xelueva, IXTA 
 etc. kelueva, pbva. Cod. Am. has Zosz¢a only, but many MSS. of Vulg. have 
 sola posita, 
 
 mpos avtév. So B L, the rest reading mpds éavrév. The words are 
 amphibolous (comp. xxiii. 35, 43, 50), and may be taken either with dw7\Gev, 
 “*he went away to his home,” z.e. his lodging in the city (Syr-Sin. RV.! 
 Hahn), or with Oavydgwy, ‘‘ wondering with himself” (Vulg. Luth. AV. 
 RV.?). 
 
 13-32. The Manifestation to the Two Disciples at Emmaus, 
 
XXIV.18.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 551 
 
 This narrative forms a counterpart to that of the manifestation to 
 Mary Magdalen in Jn. There is a condensed allusion to the 
 incident in the appendix to Mk. (xvi. 12, 13); but the narrative is 
 peculiar to Lk., and is among the most beautiful of the treasures 
 which he alone has preserved for us. He almost certainly obtained 
 his information from one of the two disciples, and probably :n 
 writing. The account has all the effect of personal experience. 
 If this is accepted, then Cleopas may be regarded as the narrator ; 
 for Lk. would know and be likely to name the person from whom 
 he received the account. 
 
 The fact that Lk. was almost certainly a Gentile (Col. iv. 10-14), and that in 
 the preface to his Gospel he indicates that he was not an eye-witness, renders the 
 conjecture of Theophylact, that Lk. was the unnamed disciple who went with 
 Cleopas to Emmaus, very improbable. This disciple was evidently a Jew 
 (vv. 20, 27, 32) or a proselyte. Lk. may have been a proselyte before he was a 
 Christian, and his preface may mean no more than that he was not one of those 
 ‘* which from the beginning were eye-witnesses”: but nothing is gained by such 
 conjectures. In the Acts he uses the first person plural, when he himself was 
 present. Why does he not do the same here, if he was one of the two? It 
 would have added greatly to ‘‘the certainty” which he wished to impart to 
 Theophilus, if he had assured him that he himself had talked and eaten with 
 Jesus on the very day of His Resurrection. But the hypothesis still finds sup- 
 porters, ¢.g. Lange, Godet, Bp. Alexander. Origen twice gives Simon as the 
 name of the unnamed disciple (Ce/s. ii. 61, 68). This may be an erroneous 
 interpretation of 6¢@y Zivw (ver. 34). Epiphanius conjectures Nathanael, 
 which could hardly be right, if Nathanael is Bartholomew (ver. 33). But all 
 such conjectures are worthless. Probably Lk. himself did not know who the 
 other was. 
 
 13. Kat ised. As often, introduces something new and unex 
 pected : i. 20, 31, 36, li. 25, v. 12, 18, vii. 12, etc. 
 
 Svo é€ attév. Not of the Apostles (ver. 10), as is shown by 
 ver. 33, but of the disciples generally. A direct reference to zacw 
 tots Aourois (ver. g) is not manifest. For €v aétq rH jpepasee small 
 print on x. 7, and contrast AV. and RV. 
 
 &yjxovta. The reading éxarov éfjxovra (NI K! N' II and some other Gk. 
 Lat. and Syr. authorities) is ‘an Alexandrian geographical correction, though 
 not of the type of T'epyecnvav or BynOaSapd ; evidently arising from identifica- 
 tion of this Emmaus with the better known Emmaus which was later called 
 Nicopolis. The identification is distinctly laid down by Eus. Hier. Soz.. 
 though they do not refer to the distance” (WH. ii. App. p. 72). Syr-Sin. 
 has ‘‘ threescore.” 
 
 *Eppaous. The fortified town afterwards called Nicopolis can- 
 not be meant, although all Christian writers from Eusebius to 
 the twelfth century assume that it is meant. It is 176 stadia, or 
 20 English miles, from Jerusalem ; and it is absurd to suppose that 
 these two walked about 20 miles out, took their evening meal, 
 walked 20 miles back, and arrived in time to find the disciples still 
 gathered together and conversing (ver. 33). Yet Robinson con- 
 tends for it (Hes. in Pal. iii. pp. 147-151). £1 Kubeibeh, which is 
 
552 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 13-17. 
 
 63 stadia from Jerusalem, on the road to Lydda, is probably the 
 place. It is about 7 miles N.W. of Jerusalem, in the beautiful 
 Wady Beit Chanina, and the tradition in its favour dates from the 
 crusades. Of other conjectures, Ku/onieh and Beit Mizzeh are too 
 near e to 40 stades), and Xkamasa is not near enough (72 
 stades). But Caspari is very confident that Kwlonieh is right 
 (p. 242). See D.&.2 and Schaff’s Herzog, art. “Emmaus”; also 
 Didon, J. C. App. U. 
 
 14, kat adtot dptdouv. If airoé has any special force, it is “and 
 they communed ”—as well as those mentioned in ver. 10. Among 
 the disciples this was the topic of conversation. The verb is 
 peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (ver. 15; Acts xx. 11, xxiv. 26). The 
 meaning of “converse, talk with” is classical, and survives in 
 mod. Gk. 
 
 Vulg. leads the way in translating dusAet differently in ver. 14 (/ogue- 
 bantur, ‘‘talked” AV.) and ver. 15 (fabularentur, ““communed” AY.). 
 See footnote on ii. 9. 
 
 15. nat avtés “Incots. B omits xal, which makes no difference to the 
 
 sense, but is the common constr. after éyévero: see note at the end of ch. i. 
 “It came to pass . . . ¢hat Jesus Azmse/f,” about whom they were talking. 
 
 ێyyicas. He overtook them, for they assume that He comes 
 from Jerusalem (ver. 18), from which they are walking. 
 
 16. éxpatodvto. There is no eed to assume a special act of 
 will on the part of Christ, “ who would not be seen by them till the 
 time whea He saw fit.” They were preoccupied and had no 
 expectation of meeting Him, and there is good reason for believing 
 that the risen Saviour had a glorified body which was not at once 
 recognized. Comp. év érépa popdy in the appendix to Mk. 
 (xvi. 12), the terror of the disciples (ver. 37), the mistake of Mary 
 Magdalen (Jn. xx. 14, 15), and the ignorance of the Apostles on 
 the lake (Jn. xxi. 4). But it is quite possible that the Evangelist 
 understands the non-recognition of Jesus here and the recognition 
 of Him afterwards (ver. 31) to be the results of Divine volition. 
 For kpateto8o. comp. Acts ii. 24. See on xvili. 34. 
 
 Tov py. This may mean either ‘in order that they might not” or ‘so 
 that they did not.” If the latter is adopted, the negative may be regarded as 
 pleonastic. ‘‘ Were holder from knowing” easily passes into “* were holden 
 so that they did not know,” or ‘‘were holden that they might not know.” 
 Comp. xaréravoav tod uh Ovew (Acts xiv. 18); KwAdoat Tod wy Barri Ojvae 
 (Acts x. 47); ot~x UrecreAduny Tod ph dvaryyetAa (Acts xx. 27): see also 
 Gen. xvi. 2; Ps. xxxiv. 14, etc. ; Win. xliv. 4. b, p. 409. For émeyvavat 
 cone Acts xii. 14, xxvii. 39. ; 
 
 7%. a&vTtBdddete. Here only in N.T. and once only in LXX (2 Mac. 
 xi. 13). It looks back to cuvfyreiv (ver. 15). 
 
 Kat éoradnocav oxvOpwrot, This is the reading of § B, e Boh. Sah. It 
 is supported by the éorncav of L, and probably by the erasure in A. It is 
 adopted by Tisch. Treg. WH. Weiss, RV., but contended against by Field, 
 O#. Norv. iii. p. 60. With this reading the question ends at meourarobvres. 
 For oxv@pwrol comp. Mt. vi. 16; Gen. xl. 7; Ecclus, xxv. 23, 
 
XXIV. 18-21.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 553 
 
 18, dvépate KXedras, See ony. 27. The name is not to be identified 
 with K\wrds (Jn. xix. 25), which is Aramaic, whereas K)edzras (= KAeérarpos) 
 is Greek. The incorrect spelling C/eophas (AV.) comes from some Latin 
 MSS. The mention of the name is a mark of reality. 
 
 X0 pdvos mapotkets “lepoucahyp. The pronoun is emphatic. The 
 povos cannot mean “onv/y a stranger” (AV.), but either “ the only 
 stranger” or “a lonely stranger,” ze. either “Dost thou alone 
 sojourn at J.,” or “ Dost thou sojourn alone at J.” The former is 
 more probable: see Wetst. and Field for examples. The verb 
 occurs only here and Heb. xi. 9 in N.T., but is common in LXX 
 of being a stranger or sojourner (Gen. xxi. 23, 34, xxvi. 3, etc.). 
 Comp. zdporxos (Acts vii. 6, 29) and mdporxia (Acts xiii. 17). The 
 usual construction would be é& “IepovoaAju: but we have yqv nv 
 mapotxeis (Gen. xvii. 8; Exod. vi. 4). 
 
 Nota; ‘What kind of things?” The question leads them on 
 to open their hearts, and He is able to instruct them. 
 
 ds €yéveto avip tmpopytys. ‘Who proved to be, showed Him- 
 self to be, a Prophet.” The avyp is perhaps a mark of respect, as 
 in addresses (Acts i. 16, il. 29, 37, vii. 2, etc.) ; or mere amplifica- 
 tion, tpopyrys being a kind of adjective. 
 
 Suvatés év €pyw. Comp. Acts vil. 22, xviil. 24; Ecclus. xxi. 8; 
 Judith xi. 8. In class. Grk. without ¢v. In Ps. So/. xvii. 38, 42 
 we have both constructions, but in a sense different from this. 
 With the order comp. 2 Thes. ii. 17: usually Adyos kai épyov. 
 
 évavtiov. He proved Himself to be all this before God and 
 man; but no more than this. In thinking Him to be more they 
 had made a mistake. 
 
 20. It is not out of any favour to the Romans (Renan) that 
 Lk. does not mention their share in the crime. Lk. alone tells us 
 that Roman soldiers mocked Jesus on the cross (xxiii. 36). And 
 here their share (which was notorious and irrelevant) is implied in 
 mapédwxay and éoravpwoar. 
 
 21. jpets S€ AAmiLopev. “ But we were hoping,” until His 
 death put an end to our expectation, “that precisely He,” and no 
 other, “was the one who should redeem Israel.” Comp. the use 
 of 6 péAwy in xxii. 23; Mt. xi. 14; Jn. xii. 4. 
 
 Autpotca. “To cause to be released to oneself, set free for 
 oneself the slave of another, redeem, ransom.” Comp. Tit. ii. 14; 
 Deut. xiii. 5; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Hos. xiii. 14. 
 
 The of 6¢ elmay justifies us in concluding that vv. 19-24 were spoken 
 partly by Cleopas and partly by his companion, But the attempt to assign 
 definite portions to each (19, 20 to Cl., 21a to the other, 21b to Cl., and so 
 on) is wasted ingenuity. 
 
 &AAa ye. The combination does not occur elsewhere in N.T. In class. 
 Grk. another particle must immediately follow, and with this the ye coalesces, 
 as a\Xd ye 67 or GANd ye Tot. Otherwise a word or more must separate dAAd 
 
 from x The force of the two is concessive. See Stallbaum on Plat. Fep. 
 i, 331 B. 
 
’ 
 
 554 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 21-25. 
 
 ov Tacw TovToLS. Super hxc omnia (Vulg.): rather a lax use of avy, 
 Comp. Neh. v. 18; 3 Mac. i. 22, 
 
 pity tautyy tyépav dye. The verb is probably impersonal: 
 “one is keeping the third day, we are at the third day” (Grot. 
 Beng. De W. Nosg. Wordsw. Hahn). Perhaps we may understand 
 0 “Inaovs (Mey. Godet, Weiss, Alf.): the speaker has an impression 
 that there was a prediction about the third day. But it is not 
 probable that either 6 Atos, or 6 ovtpavéds, or xpdvos, or Iopayd is 
 to be supplied. Comp. zepiéxee ev ypady (1 Pet. ii. 6). The 
 onpepov after dye (APXTA etc. Syr-Pesh. Sah. Aeth. Vulg.) 
 may be omitted (x B L, Boh. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Arm.) with Tisch. 
 WH. RV. 
 
 22. adda Kal. “ Bus, in spite of this disappointment, there is 
 also this favourable item.” 
 
 ef 7pOv: and therefore not wanton deceivers. With eééorncav 
 comp. éficrdvrwy Acts viii. 9: the trans. use is found nowhere else 
 in N.T. There should perhaps be a colon at jas. To put a 
 colon (AV.) or semicolon (RV.) at pvyveiov implies that the being 
 early at the tomb was the astonishing thing. Better “amazed us: 
 having been early at the tomb and having failed to find His body, 
 they came, saying,” etc. 
 
 23. 7AOav A€youcat . . . ot Adyouow. It is all hearsay evidence 
 and unsatisfactory ; but it is sufficiently disturbing. For the constr. 
 see Burton, § 343. 
 
 24. amndOdv tives. If this refers to the visit of Peter and John, 
 it confirms the view that ver. 12 was not part of the original 
 narrative. The pleonastic xai before ai yuvaixes ought probably to 
 be omitted with B D and most Versions. 
 
 attév Sé odk eidov. This was true of Peter and John: and 
 perhaps Cleopas and his comrade had left Jerusalem without 
 having heard that Mary Magdalen had said that she had seen 
 Him. If they had heard it, like the rest, they had disbelieved it, 
 and therefore do not think it worth mentioning. 
 
 25. avéyrov. Four quite different Greek words are translated ‘‘ fool ” in 
 AV.; dvénros (elsewhere ‘‘ foolish,” Gal. iii. 1, 3; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Tit. iii. 3), 
 &cogos (Eph. v. 15), &ppwy (xi. 40, xii. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 36, etc.), and pwpds 
 Mt. v. 22, xxiii. 17, [19]; 1 Cor. iii. 18, iv. 10). The latter two are much 
 stronger in meaning than the former two. Here the Latin translations vary 
 between zmsensatz (acde) and s¢u/¢z (f Vulg.), as in xi. 40 between zszpientes 
 (c) and s¢/tz (f Vulg.): xii. 20 and Mt. xxiii. 17 all have s¢w/tws, Mt. v. 22 
 all fatuus. . “ae 
 
 Bpaseis .. . Tod morevew emi mac ols, The gen. is one of limita- 
 tion depending upon fpadets, which occurs here only in bibl. Grk. Comp. 
 €rowmor To dvedeiv (Acts xxill. 15): €roupor Tod éAOetv (1 Mac. v. 39). Else- 
 where Lk. has the acc. after musrevew émt (Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, XVi. 31, XXII. 
 19), in all which cases the object of the belief is a person. The difference is 
 between faith resting upon, and faith directed towards, an object. Note the 
 characteristic attraction ; see small print on iii. 19. 
 
 1 
 
XXIV. 25-27.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 555 
 
 émt maow ofs édddyoay of mpopitar. There is special point in 
 the zacw. Like most Jews, they remembered only the promises of 
 the glories of the Messiah, and ignored the predictions of His 
 sufferings. We cannot well separate éml waow from morevew and 
 take éxi=“‘on the top of, after, in spite of”: “slow of heart to 
 believe, in spite of all that the Prophets have spoken” (Hahn). 
 Still more unnatural is Hofmann’s proposal to transfer these words 
 to the next verse: “On the basis of all that the Prophets have 
 spoken ought not Christ,” etc. 
 
 26. odxi taita ede. “ Behoved it not the Christ to suffer 
 these very things and thus enter into His glory?” According to 
 the Divine decree respecting the Messiah as expressed in prophecy, 
 precisely the things which these two had allowed to destroy their 
 hopes were a confirmation of them. The tatra stands first with 
 emphasis: for ede comp. ix. 22, xiil. 33, xvii. 25, etc. There is no 
 need to understand de? with cioeAGeiy in order to make it clear that 
 He had not yet entered. Grammatically ée. belongs to both 
 verbs, but it chiefly influences zaGeiv: the suffering comes first, 
 and is the road to the glory. Comp. ver. 46. The same is said of 
 Christ’s followers Acts xiv. 22. 
 
 27. amd Mouvcéws. For the form see on ii. 22. Such prophecies 
 as Gen. iii. 15, xxii. 18; Num. xxiv. 17; Deut. xviii. 15, and such 
 types as the scape-goat, the manna, the brazen serpent, and the 
 sacrifices, are specially meant. Comp. Acts viii. 35. 
 
 kat amd wdvtwy Tav mpodytav. This may be regarded as a lax 
 construction not likely to be misunderstood: comp. érepot kaxotpyot 
 dvo (xxiii. 32). But this is not necessary, for with each Messianic 
 passage there was a fresh start in the interpretation. It does 
 not help much to say that Moses and the Prophets are here con- 
 sidered as one class in distinction from the rest of O.T., and that 
 the meaning is that He began with these and thence passed to the 
 Psalms (ver. 44) and other books (Hofm. Hahn). The repetition 
 of the ad shows that the Prophets are regarded as separate from 
 the Pentateuch. The literal meaning of the characteristic rdvrwyv 
 and wagacts may stand, but need not be pressed. There is 
 nothing incredible in the supposition that He quoted from each 
 one of the Prophets. 
 
 Steppjvevoev (N° PE LU) supported by diypyjveveer (M) is probably right, 
 rather than dcepujvever (AG PXITAA) or Oimpurvevev (EHKSVTI etc.). 
 But instead of dpEapevos ee - dtepurvevoev we have in D qv dpiduevos ard 
 Mwvoéws kai 7. T. Tp. éunvetew, erat incipiens a mosen. et omnium prophee- 
 tarum interpretart (d); also erat incipiens . . . interpretans (bfi,r), fuit 
 incipiens . . . interpretans (ce), erat inchoans . . . interpretans (a). But 
 f Vile. have ef incipiens .. . interpretabatur. The xat dtepunvevtew of 
 &* points to some form of this Western reading. 
 
 S.eppiveucev . . « Ta wept Eauto. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 30, xiv. 
 
556 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S, LUKE [XXIV. 27-30. 
 
 5, 13, 27. In Acts ix. 36 and 2 Mac. i. 36 the verb is used of 
 interpreting a foreign language. Neither yeypappeva (De W. Mey. 
 Weiss) nor anything else is to be understood with ra zept éavrod: 
 see small print on xxii. 37. 
 
 28. mpocetoujcato. No unreal acting a part is implied. He 
 began to take leave of them, and wou/d have departed, had they 
 not prayed Him to remain. Comp. His treatment of the disciples 
 on the lake (Mk. vi. 48), and of the Syrophenician woman (Mk. 
 vii. 27). Prayers are part of the chain of causation. 
 
 The Latin Versions suggest pretending what was not meant: fimxét se 
 (bef ff,), dzxzt se (1), fecet se (d), semulavzt se (e), adfectabat se (a). But all 
 of these, excepting the last, support mpoceroujoaro (NX ABDL) against 
 mpocerrotetro (PXT'AATI). The rpocmoretsOar did not continue. The verb 
 
 does not occur elsewhere in N.T. Comp. Job xix. 14. 
 In this verse od for of or eis #v is genuine ; not in xxii. 10, 
 
 29. wapeBidoavto. Moral pressure, especially by entreaty, is 
 meant: Acts xvi. 15; Gen. xix. 9; 1 Sam. xxviii. 23; 2 Kings 
 ii. 17, v. 16. In the last case the urgent entreaty is unsuccessful, 
 and therefore the word does not imply compulsion. Comp. 
 avaykacov eioe ety (xiv. 23). 
 
 Metvov peO” av. Combined with what follows, this implies a 
 dwelling, which may have been the home of one of ‘ne two. Their 
 allowing Him to preside does not prove that it was aninn. In 
 their enthusiasm they naturally left the chief place to Him. On 
 the other hand, pe’ judy is simply “in our company,” not neces- 
 sarily “at our house”: comp. ovy airois below. 
 
 mpos Eomépav. Comp. Gen. viii. 11; Exod. xii. 6; Num. ix. 11; Zech. 
 xiv. 7. The classical éo7épa is very freq. in LXX, but in N.T. is peculiar to 
 Lk. (Acts iv. 3, xxviii. 23). So also xAlyw of the declining day (ix. 12): 
 comp. Jer. vi. 4. 
 
 The #5 after xéxXcxey (8 BL 1 33, abefff, Vulg. Boh.) is doubtless 
 genuine. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. parbinse the sentence: ‘‘ And they began 
 to entreat Him that He would (abide) with them, because it was nearly 
 dark.” 
 
 830. év 1G KatakdOjvar. “After He had sat down”; not “as 
 He sat down” (AV.), nor dum recumberet (Vulg.): see on iii. 21. 
 In N.T. the verb is peculiar to Lk. (vii. 36, ix. 14, 15, xiv. 8): 
 comp. Judith xii. 15. 
 
 aBav tov dptov. “He took the bread” that was usual, or 
 “the loaf” that was there. That this was a celebration of the 
 eucharist (Theophylact), and a eucharist swab und specie, is an im- 
 probable hypothesis. To support it Maldonatus makes e& 7@ 
 kataxd. mean “after He had supped,” as a parallel to pera ro 
 Semvjoae (xxii. 20). But the imperf. éwedédov is against the theory 
 of a vucharist. In the Last Supper there is no change from aor. 
 to imperf. such as we have here and in the Miracles of the Five 
 Thousand (xatéxAacey kat édiSov, ix. 16) and of the Four Thousand 
 
XXIV. 80-32. ] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 557 
 
 (ékXacev kat edidov, Mk viii. 6). In none of the Gospels is the 
 imperf. used of the eucharist (xxii. 19; Mk. xiv. 22; Mt. xxvi. 26), 
 nor in 1 Cor. xi. 23. Wordsworth, although he regards this as a 
 eucharist, points out that “bread” was to the Jews a general 
 name for food, including drink as well as meat; and that to “eat 
 bread” and “break bread” are general terms for taking refresh- 
 ment. That the bread was blessed in order that it might open 
 the eyes of the disciples is also improbable: the evAdyncer is the 
 usual grace before meat. It was the breaking of the bread on the 
 part of Jesus, rather than their own partaking of the bread, which 
 helped them to see who He was: see ver. 35. 
 
 81. Sinvolxyoav ot épOadpot. This must be explained in 
 harmony with ver. 16. If the one implies Divine interposition, 
 so also does the other. These two had not been present at the 
 Last Supper, but they had probably often seen Jesus preside at 
 meals ; and something in His manner of taking and breaking the 
 bread, and of uttering the benediction, may have been the means 
 employed to restore their power of recognizing Him. Wright’s con- 
 jecture that the eucharist was instituted long before the Last Supper 
 is unnecessary. Comp. Gen. xxi. 19; 2 Kings vi. 20; Gen. iil. 5, 7. 
 
 For the augment see WH. ii. App. p. 161. All three forms, jvolx@nr, 
 dvesxOnv, and jvegxOnv, are found well attested in N.T. Gregory, Prolegom. 
 Pp» 121. Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin. add ‘‘ immediately” to ‘‘ were opened.” 
 
 dpavtos éyévero. ‘‘He vanished, became invisible”: comp. 
 ver. 37, Vi. 36, xil. 40, Xvi. II, 12, xix. 17. It is very unnatural to 
 take éyévero with dw aitév and make dd¢avros adverbial: “ He 
 departed from them without being seen.” Something more than 
 a sudden departure, or a departure which they did not notice until 
 He was gone, is intended. We are to understand disappearance 
 without physical locomotion: but we know too little about the 
 properties of Christ’s risen body to say whether this was super- 
 natural or not. Nowhere else in bibl. Grk. does a&davtos occur: 
 in class. Grk. it is poetical. In 2 Mac. iil. 34 ddaveis éyévovto is 
 used of Angels ceasing to be visible. The am airéy implies no 
 more than withdrawal from their sight: to what extent His 
 presence was withdrawn we have no means of knowing. But His 
 object was accomplished ; viz. to convince them that He was the 
 Messiah and still alive, and that their hopes had not been in vain. 
 To abide with them in the old manner was not His object. 
 
 The Latin Versions vary much, but none of them suggest a mere quiet 
 withdrawal: susguam comparuzt ab ets (ce ff) or zits (a), non comparuzt ab 
 ezs (dr), znvzsus factus est ets (bf), non aptarens factus est ab ets (6), 
 evanuit ex oculis sorum (Vulg.). Syr-Sin. has ‘“‘ He was lifted away from 
 them”: so also Syr-Cur. Respecting Jos. Av xx. 8. 6 see p. xxx. 
 
 82. katonévn Av. The periphrastic tense emphasizes the con 
 
558 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE |XXIV. 32-34. 
 
 tinuance of the emotion. Common and natural as the metaphor 
 is, it seems to have been misunderstood ; and hence the reading 
 kexadvppéevn (D), perhaps from 2 Cor. ili. 14-16 ; while excecatum 
 (c), and optusum (1) seem to imply zerypwyevy as another cor- 
 rection. Other variations are exterminatum (e) and gravatum 
 (Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Sah. Arm.). They regard the glow in their 
 hearts as further proof that it was indeed Jesus who was with them 
 as they walked. 
 
 js éhdder . . . @s Siyvoryev. ‘While He was speaking... 
 while He was opening.” Note the asyndeton and the use of the 
 same verb for the opening of their eyes and the opening of the ~ 
 Scriptures. 
 
 33-43. §The Manifestation to the Eleven and the other 
 Disciples at Jerusalem. We cannot determine whether this is 
 the same appearance as Jn. xx. 19. If it is, then tovds évdexa is 
 not exact, for on that occasion Thomas was absent; and in any 
 case it is improbable that he was present. If he was, why was 
 the incident which convinced him delayed for a week? Can 
 we suppose that. he withdrew between vv. 35, 36? It is much 
 simpler to suppose that “the Eleven” is used inaccurately. 
 
 33. atti tH dpa. “That very hour”: comp. x. 7. The 
 lateness of the hour, which they had urged upon their guest 
 (ver. 29), does not deter them. Note the characteristic dvactdvres 
 (i. 39, iv. 29, etc.) and dwéotpepar (i. 56, ii. 20, 39, 43, 45, etc.). 
 It was in order that others might share their great joy that they 
 returned at once to Jerusalem. Yet D cde Sah. insert Avrovpevot 
 (tristes, contristati) after avaordvres. 
 
 7Opocpévous. This is the reading of & B D 33, adopted by all the best 
 editors. The verb is not rare in LXX, but occurs here only in N.T. TR. 
 has cuvnbp. with A LP X etc., a verb which is found in N.T, only in Acts 
 xii. 12, xix. 25. 
 
 rods adv attots. Much the same as zavres of Nouroi (ver. 9). 
 Comp. Acts i. 14. 
 
 34. déyovras. This was the statement with which the 
 assembled disciples greeted the two from Emmaus. The 
 appendix to Mk. cannot be reconciled with this. There we are 
 told that, so far from the two being met by news that the Lord 
 was risen, their own story was not believed (xvi. 13). 
 
 & Oy Lipwvn. There is no other mention of this manifestation 
 in the Gospels; but S. Paul quotes it in the first rank as evidence 
 of the Resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 5): and this coincidence between 
 the Evangelist and the Apostle cannot well be accidental. It 
 confirms the belief that this Gospel is the work of one who was 
 intimate with S. Paul. For é6n see on xxii. 43. This manifesta- 
 tion apparently took place after the two had started for Emmaus 
 and before the disciples assembled at Jerusalem. The Apostle 
 
XXIV. 34-39.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 559 
 
 “most in need of comfort was the first to receive it.” But Lange 
 is fanciful when he adds, “‘ We here learn that after his fall Peter 
 named himself, and was named in the Church, Simon, not Peter” 
 (Z. of C. iii. p. 387). See on vi. 14. 
 
 85. kai adtol é€nyodvro. “And they on their side rehearsed.” 
 Excepting Jn. i. 8, the verb occurs only here and Acts x. 8, 
 XV. 12, 14, xxi. 19. Note that the Lord’s breaking of the bread, 
 and not their partaking of it, is spoken of as the occasion of their 
 recognizing Him. Syr-Sin. has “as He brake bread.” 
 
 36. gory ev péow. A sudden appearance, analogous to the 
 sudden disappearance (ver. 31), is intended. See on viii. 7. On 
 the words xai A€yet atrois Eipyvy tyiv, which look like a very 
 early insertion from Jn. xx. 19, see note at the end of the chapter. 
 They express what is true in fact, but is probably not part of the 
 original text of Lk. 
 
 87. wrondévtes Sé. There is some confusion of text here. This is the 
 reading of AL PXT'A etc. supported by conturbatique (b fi,), turbati autem 
 (ce), e¢ conturbati (1), conturbati vero (f Vulg.). But D has adrol 6¢ rronGév- 
 Tes, ipst autem paverunt (d), & poBnOévres 5¢, exterriti autem (a),, and B 
 OponGévres. The last may possibly be right. Syr-Sin. has ‘‘shaken” both 
 here and for rerapaypévo: in ver, 38. 
 
 mveopa, ‘The disembodied spirit of a dead person, a ghost.” 
 Comp. ¢dvracpa (Mt. xiv. 26), which D has here. Thomas 
 would explain away their evidence by maintaining that this first 
 impression respecting what they saw was the right one. For 
 EppoBor yevépevor see on ver. 5; and for this use of zveipa 
 comp. 1 Pet. iii. 19. To introduce the notion of an evi spirit 
 is altogether out of place. 
 
 38. rt... wal Sa 7h Soin NAXTAA*H, quid... et quare, 
 abcefff,1 Syr-Cur. ‘‘Why... and sera RV. But DLhave ri 
 .- «= Wa rl, and BA? ri... rl, Syr-Sin. has yea » » why, Tert. guid 
 ... guid. Vulg. inaccurately omits the second guzd. 
 
 avaBatvovow év Tq Kapdiq tpav. So A* @) BD, 7 corde vestro 
 (abceff,l. Sah. Aeth.); for which é tais xapdias dua (SA'LXTA 
 etc.), 2 cordibus vestris (f Syt-Sin.), is an obvious correction. Vulg. is 
 again the least accurate with i” corda vestra. Nowhere else does dvaB. & 
 Ty kapdig occur: elsewhere éwl ri x. (Acts vii. 23) or éxt xapdlay (1 Cor. 
 ii. 9; Jer. iii. 16). 
 
 39. Were tas xeipds pou kal tos wé8as. This seems to imply 
 that His feet as well as His hands had been nailed. Jesus first 
 convinces them of His identity,—that He is the Master whom 
 they supposed that He had lost; and secondly of the reality of 
 His body,—that it is not merely the spirit of a dead Master that 
 they see. 
 
 Tyn. Cov. Cran. Gen. AV. all have ‘‘ Behold .. . see” for ere... 
 iSere. Wic. Rhem, RV. follow vzdete . . . videte of Vulg. with ‘See. os 
 
560 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 39-41. 
 
 see.” The first refers to the test of identity, the sight of the wound-prints, 
 the second to the test of reality, the sense of touch. 
 
 Ynrabjoaré pe. 1 Jn. i. 1 seems to be a direct reference to 
 this passage: the same verb is used. The remarkable quotation 
 in Ignatius (Smyr. iii. 1) should be compared: ore zpos tovs zrepi 
 Ilérpov 7AGev, py avrois:s AdBere, WyAadyoaté pe, Kal tere Gre 
 ovk eiut Saydviov dowuatov. Eusebius (4. £. iii. 36. 11) does 
 not know whence Ignatius got these words. Jerome more than 
 once gives the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the source of 
 the saying about the écorporale demonium. Origen says that it 
 comes from the Zeaching of Peter. As all three writers knew the 
 Gospel according to Hebrews well, the testimony is perplexing. 
 We may conjecture that Origen is right, that Eusebius had never 
 seen the passage, and that Jerome’s memory has failed him. 
 That it is quite possible to forget much of a book that one has 
 translated, every translator will admit. See Lft. on Ign. Smyr. iii. 
 
 ért mvedpa. Once more an ambiguous 6re: comp. xix. 31, 43, 
 xxli. 70, etc. But “because” or “for” (AV. RV. Nosg. Godet, 
 Weiss) is much more probable than “that” (Mey. Hahn). Comp. 
 ov yap ert odpKas Te Kal doréa ives éxovow (Hom. Od. xi. 219). 
 
 40. The evidence against this verse is exactly the same as against the 
 doubtful words in ver. 36 with the addition of Syr-Cur. It may be regarded 
 as an adaptation of Jn. xx. 20, cal ri m\evpdy being changed into xal rods 
 médas to suit ver. 39. Apelles in Hipp. Ref. vii. 26 combines the two, 
 delEavra Tods Turous TOY Hwy Kal THS wAevpas. Tertullian uses ver. 40 to 
 answer Marcion’s perversion of ver. 39 (iv. 43). See note p. 568. 
 
 41. dmotovvtwy aitav amd tis xapas. A remark, “which, 
 with many similar expressions, we owe to the most profound 
 psychologist among the Evangelists.” Vix sibimet ipsi pre 
 necopinato gaudio credentes (Livy, xxxix. 49). For this use of amd 
 comp. xxi. 26, xxii. 45; Acts xii. 14; Mt. xiii. 44, xiv. 26, etc. 
 
 Exeté tte Bpdoipov evOdde; The objection that, if Jesus took 
 food in order to convince them that He was no mere spirit, 
 when food was not necessary for the resurrection-body, He was 
 acting deceitfully, does not hold. The alternative—“either a 
 ghost, or an ordinary body needing food”—is false. There is a 
 third possibility: a glorified body, capable of receiving food. 
 Is there any deceit in taking food, which one does not want, in 
 order to place others, who are needing it, at their ease? With the 
 double sign granted here, the handling and the seeing Him eat, 
 comp. the double sign with Moses’ rod and hand (Exod. iv. 1-8), 
 and with Gideon’s fleece (Judg. vi. 36-40). For Bpdo.pov comp. 
 Lev. xix. 23; Ezek. xlvii. 12; Neh. ix. 25: not elsewhere in N.T. 
 
 ev0déSe: rare in LXX, and in N.T., excepting Jn. iv. 15, 16, 
 peculiar to Lk. (Acts x. 18, xvi. 28, xvii. 6, xxv. 17, 24). 
 
XXIV. 42-44.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 561 
 
 42. xal awd pedtootov xyplov. The evidence against these words is 
 far stronger than against any of the other doubtful passages in this chapter 
 (zv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52). Here SABDL, de Boh. Syr-Sin. omit 
 the whole, while ab omit me//is. Clem-Alex. Orig. Eus. Cyr-Alex. speak ot 
 the broiled fish in a way which makes it very improbable that they would 
 have omitted the honey-comb, had it been contained in their copies of the 
 Gospel. N X are the best uncials which contain the words, and of these X 
 with E* has xnplov for xyptov. Even Godet admits that not only here, but 
 in vv. 36 and 40, the disputed words are probably interpolations. 
 
 43. évdmov aitav Epayev. Comp. oltiwes cuwvedayouey xal 
 cuveriopey ait@ peTa TO avacrHvat avrov éx vexpov (Acts x. 41). 
 Nothing is said here or in the meal at Emmaus about drinking, 
 but are we to infer that nothing was drunk ? 
 
 K II and some cursives with many Versions (Syr-Cur. Syr-Hier. Boh. 
 Aeth. Arm. c Vulg.) after &paryer add xal [AaBaw] ra exMorwa Edwxev atrois, 
 sumens religuias dedit es. 
 
 44-49. Christ’s Farewell Instructions. This section seems to 
 be a condensation of what was said by Christ to the Apostles 
 between the Resurrection and the Ascension, partly on Easter 
 Day and partly on other occasions. But we have no sure data by 
 which to determine what was said that same evening, and what 
 was spoken later. Thus Lange assigns only ver. 44 to Easter 
 Day, Godet at least vv. 44, 45, Euthymius vv. 44-49, while 
 Meyer and others assign all the remaining verses also (44-53) to 
 this same evening. On the other hand Didon would give the 
 whole of this section to a later occasion, after the manifestations 
 in Galilee. It is evident that the command to remain & 7p 
 mode (ver. 49) cannot have been given until after those manifesta- 
 tions, and was almost certainly given in ferusalem. 
 
 44. Eimey 8€ mpds adrovs. This new introduction points to a 
 break of some kind between vv. 43 and 44; but whether of 
 moments or of days we cannot be certain. It is probable that 
 Lk. himself, when he wrote his Gospel, did not know what the 
 interval was. This was one of several points about which he had 
 obtained more exact information when he wrote the first chapter 
 of the Acts. 
 
 OGror ot Adyor. “‘ These are My words, which I spake unto you 
 formerly (and repeat now), viz. that all things,” etc. 
 
 ért Gv olv Guiv: refers to His intercourse with them before His 
 death, a mode of intercourse which is entirely at an end: comp. Acts 
 ix. 39. Not that the new intercourse will be less close or con- 
 tinuous, but it will be of a different kind. His being visible is 
 now the exception and not the rule, and He is ceasing to share in 
 the externals of their lives. That the words refer to what He said 
 during the walk to Emmaus (ver. 26) is most improbable. Christ 
 is addressing all the disciples present, not merely those who walked 
 
 26 
 
562 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 44-46 
 
 with Him to Emmaus. Such passages as xviii. 31-33 and ix. 22 
 are meant. 
 
 év 74 véuw Mavoéas Kat [rots] mpopytais kat adpors. This is 
 the only place in N.T. in which the tripartite division of the 
 Hebrew Canon of Scripture is clearly made. But it does not 
 prove that the Canon was at this time fixed and closed; nor need 
 we suppose that ‘‘ Psalms” here means the whole of the Kethubim 
 or Hagiographa. Of that division of the Jewish Scriptures the 
 Psalter was the best known and most influential book ; and, more- 
 Over, it contained very much about the Messiah. Hence it is 
 naturally singled out as representative of the group. In the pro- 
 logue to Ecclesiasticus we have the tripartite division in three 
 slightay different forms (1) “the Law and the Prophets and others 
 that have followed their steps”; (2) “the Law and the Prophets 
 and other books of our fathers” ; (3) “‘the Law and the Prophets 
 and the rest of the books.” Elsewhere we have “the Law and 
 the Prophets” (xvi. 16; Mt. vii. 12); “Moses and the Prophets” 
 Xvi. 29, 31, xxiv. 27); and ‘“‘the Law of Moses and the Prophets” 
 Acts xxviii. 23); where the third division is not to be regarded as 
 excluded because not specially mentioned. Ryle, Canon of the 
 O.T. pp. 150, 191, 291. 
 
 Note that the prep. is not repeated with either rpo¢ijrais or adwois, and that 
 the art. is not repeated with Yadwois and not quite certainly with mpopyrats : 
 the three divisions are regarded as one storehouse of Messianic prophecy. 
 The evidence stands thus: xal mpogjras (ADNXTAATL, et prophets 
 Latt.), xat rots xpogjrats (B, Boh.), év rots mpod. (SN), Kal év Tots mpog. (L). 
 
 45. This opening of their understanding is analogous to that 
 in ver. 31. Comp. Acts xvi. 14, xxvi. 18; 2 Mac. i. 4. Godet re- 
 gards this as parallel to “He breathed on them, and saith unto 
 them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (Jn. xx. 22). It was by the 
 gift of the Spirit that their minds were open to understand. Con- 
 trast xviii. 34. D has diujvvéer (sic) airav tov vodv, but d has 
 adaperti sunt eorum sensus. 
 
 46. Godet would put a full stop at ypag¢ds and make xal eirev 
 airois introduce a fresh summary of what was said, possibly on 
 another occasion. It is very unnatural to make 67 mean “ be- 
 cause” or “for,” and take it as the beginning of Christ’s words. 
 “He opened their minds and (in explanation of this act) said to 
 them, Because thus it is written,” etc. (Mey.). It is more doubt- 
 ful whether ér: introduces the ovatio recta (Weiss, Hahn), in which 
 case it is left untranslated (AV. RV.), or the ovatio obliqua 
 (Rhem.). 
 
 otras yéypartat waleiy tov Xpiotév. Thus SN BC*L, Aeth. Syr. 
 Harcl. So also D, abcdeff,lr Boh., but with tov Xpiordy before wadety. 
 
 Syr-Sin. and Arm. substitute for yéypamra: the @e. of the similar ver. 26, 
 while AC-NXTAAT, fq Vulg. insert kat obrws é6e after yéypamrrat, and 
 
XXIV. 46-49.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 563 
 
 ce Cypr. omit ofrws. All are attempts to get rid of abruptness, and perhaps 
 the reading of A C? etc. is a conflation of & B etc. with Syr-Sin. and Arm. 
 D omits é« vexpar. 
 
 For the aor. infin. referring to what is future in reference to the main verb 
 see Burton, § 114. 
 
 47. én 76 dvdpate adtod. ‘On the basis of all that His name 
 implies”: it is His Messiahship which makes repentance effectual. 
 Comp. the use of émi 7d dv. ix. 48, 49, xxi. 8; Acts iv. 17, 18, 
 v. 28, 40, etc. 
 
 petdvovay eis aheow dpaptiwv, The els (8 B, Boh. Syr.) was 
 corrected to xai (AC DN X etc.) on account of the second es. 
 The eis is confirmed by iii. 3; Mt. xxvi. 28; Mk. i. 4: comp. ryv 
 perdvotay els Cwyv (Acts xi. 18). Comp. also Mt. xxviii. 19. 
 
 GpEdpevor, It is difficult to decide between taking this as a rather violent 
 anacoluthon, as if ‘‘that ye should preach” had preceded, and making it 
 the beginning of a new sentence, ‘‘ Beginning from Jerusalem ye are‘ wit- 
 nesses of these things.” The former is perhaps better. The correction dptd- 
 pevov (A C® etc.) is meant to agree with rdv Xpiordév, or perhaps to be an 
 impers. acc. abs. like éf4v, mapdv. Comp. dd dé Ilocesdytov rébduos, aptd- 
 pevov amd Tavrns wéxpe Alyimrov (Hdt. iii. 91. 1), The priority of the Jewish 
 nation in its right to the Gospel is still acknowledged, in spite of their 
 rejection of the Messiah. D has dptauévwy, d zncepzentzum. 
 
 8, tpets paptupes TovtTwv. The omission of éoré is against taking 
 dp&dwevor dad lep. with this clause. That éové is rightly omitted (B D, Aeth. 
 Aug.) is shown by its being inserted sometimes before (% A C® L etc.) some- 
 times after (C*) udprupes. AC? XT etc. have tues 56, D kal duets 56 NB 
 C* L, Boh. Syr-Harcl. have tuets alone. The omission of both conjunction 
 and verb makes the sentence more forcible and duets more emphatic. That 
 bearing testimony respecting the Passion and Resurrection was one of the 
 main functions of an Apostle is manifest from Acts i. 8, 22, ii. 32, ili. 15, 
 Vv. 32, X. 39, 41, etc. 
 
 49. kal iSod éyd. The éyd balances the preceding tyets. “I 
 have told you your part: this is mine.” The idov is wanting in 
 SDL, Latt. Boh. Syr-Sin. The combination idod éyd (vii. 27, 
 xxiii. 14; Acts x. 21, xx. 22) is extraordinarily frequent in LXX. 
 
 éfarootéh\\w Thy émayyediav. Present of what will come in the 
 immediate and certain future. Here first in the Gospels have we 
 érayyeAia in the technical sense of the “promise of God to His 
 people”: see on Rom. i. 2. The gift of the Spirit is specially 
 meant: comp. Is. xliv. 3; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; Joel ii. 28; Zech. 
 xii. 10. “The promise” therefore means the thing promised. 
 For idod eyo égarooréAdw comp. Jer. viii. 17; iSov éyd dzroatéAda, 
 vii. 27; Mt. x. 16; Mal. iv. 4 [iii. 23]: S* ACDNTIT ATI have 
 dmoocrehkAw here. In Jn. xv. 26 and xvi. 7, where, as here, Christ 
 speaks of the Spirit as His gift, réuw is used: in Jn. xiv. 16 the 
 Father dace: at the petition of Christ. 
 
 ipets Sé xaBicate év TH mode. Once more an emphatic contrast 
 between éy# and dpets. For xafifew of spending some time in a 
 
564 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 49-51 
 
 place comp. Acts xviii. 11; Exod. xvi. 29; Judg. xi. 17, xix. 4; 
 Ruth iii. 1 [ii. 23]; 1 Sam. i. 23, etc. With the command here 
 given comp. Acts i. 4. To suppose that it was spoken on Easter 
 Day involves a contradiction with Mt. xxviii. 7, 10, 16; Mk. xvi. 7; 
 Jn. xxi. 1. It implies patient waiting. 
 
 evdtonoe . . Sdvay. The metaphor is common both in 
 N.T. and LXX: Rom. xili. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 53; Gal. iii. 27; Col. 
 ili. 10; Eph. iv. 24; Job vili. 22, xxix. 14, xxxix. 19; Ps. xxxiv. 26, 
 xcil. 1, etc. There is no need to discuss whether the Spirit is the 
 dvvapis Or confers it. 
 
 According to the best texts (§ BC* L 33, Eus. Syr-Hier.) €& Sous pre- 
 cedes d¥vayuv and immediately follows évdvcnaGe, to which it belongs. Comp. 
 Is. xxxii, 15. 
 
 50-53. The Ascension and the Conclusion of the Gospel. It 
 is not improbable that, at the time when he wrote his Gospel, Lk. 
 did not know the exact amount of interval between the Resurrec- 
 tion and the Ascension. That was a piece of information which 
 he may easily have gained between the publication of the Gospel 
 and of the Acts. And while he does not state either here or 
 ver. 44 that there was any interval at all, still less does he say that 
 there was none: there is no ev airy TH jpyépa (ver. 13). Being 
 without knowledge, or not considering the matter of importance, 
 he says nothing about the interval. But it is incredible that 
 he can mean that, late at night (vv. 29, 33), Jesus led them out to 
 Bethany, and ascended in the dark. So remarkable a feature 
 would hardly have escaped mention. Probably d¢€ both here and 
 in ver. 44 introduces a new occasion. 
 
 50. éws pds ByPaviay. It is doubtful wether this can mean 
 “until they were over against Bethany.” Field regards zpos after 
 éws aS a mere expletive and compares xat adikero ews mpds avOpwrdv 
 twa "OdodAapirny (Gen. xxxvili. 1). In LXX éws eis is common, 
 and many texts (AC* XI AATI) substitute éws eis here for ws 
 mpos (¥BC*L). D has zpés without éws. The efw after avrovs 
 (A C3D X etc.) is omitted by s BC* L 33, ac Boh. Syr. Arm. 
 
 The well-known passage in the Zpzstle of Barnabas (xv. 9) is probably only 
 a clumsily expressed explanation for keeping Sunday as a day of joy; viz. be-_ 
 cause Jesus on that day rose from the dead, and (not to die again, as Lazarus 
 and others,—on the contrary) manifested Himself and ascended into heaven. 
 Acd Kal dyouer Thy jucpay Thy dyddnv els eUppocivyy, ev 7 Kal 6 Inoods dvéorn éx 
 vexpav, kal pavepwhels dvéBy els ovpavots. Grammatically év 7 belongs to dvéBn 
 as well as to dvéorn, and with Hefele we must admit the possibility that 
 Barnabas believed that the Ascension took place on Sunday. But Funk is 
 right in saying that év 7 is perhaps not intended to go beyond dvéorn ék vexpav. 
 Dressel’s expedient, however, of putting a full stop at éx vexp@v, is rather violent. 
 Harmer does not place even a comma between the clauses. 
 
 51. Sidorn dt adtay. “ Parted, withdrew from them.” The verb 
 
XXIV. 51-53.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION = 565 
 
 is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (xxii. 59; Acts xxvii. 28). This refers 
 to the Ascension, whatever view we take ef the disputed words 
 which follow. Weiss holds that, if the doubtful words are rejected, 
 we must interpret diéorq of mere withdrawal, as after previous 
 appearances ; and that Lk. purposely reserves the narrative of the 
 Ascension for the Acts. But at least a fiza/ departure is meant. 
 It is evidem that ver. 50 is preparatory to a final withdrawal, and 
 that vv. 52, 53 are subsequent to such an event. And was there 
 ever a time when Lk. could have known of Christ’s final with- 
 drawal without knowing of the Ascension? In the Acts (i. 1, 2) 
 he expressly states that 6 mpirros Adyos contained an account of 
 the work of Jesus dypt 7s qyepas . . . avedknphOy. He himself, 
 therefore, considered that he had recorded the Ascension in his 
 Gospel. 
 
 cal dvedépeto els tov been: The important witnesses which omit 
 the disputed words in vv. 3, 6, 9, 36, 40 are here joined by &* and Aug. 
 No motive for their omission, if they were in the original document, can be 
 suggested. They lock like a gloss on éi¢orq: but it is conceivable that Lk. 
 himself (or Theophilus) may have added them in a second edition of the 
 Gospel, in order to make it quite clear what diéorn dm’ atrGv meant. See 
 p- 569. Note the change from aor. to imperf. 
 
 52. mpooxvvycavtes aitév. This again is either a very ancient gloss 
 or an insertion made by the Evangelist in a second copy. See the note at 
 the end of the chapter. Comp. Mt. xxviii. 17. 
 
 inéotpepay eis “lepouoahyjp: in obedience to xaficate év Ti 
 moe (ver. 49). 
 
 peta xapas peyddns. A writer of fiction would have made 
 them lament the departure of their Master: comp. Jn. xiv. 28, 
 xvi. 6, 7, 20, 22, 23. 
 
 Note how the marks of Lk’s style continue to ee end. In 
 ver. 51 we have éyévero, €v TG evAoyetv, dv€ory: in ver. 52 Kal 
 avtoi, t7éotpeway, and the addition of »éyas to an expression 
 of emotion (ii. 9, 10, viii. 37 ; Acts v. 5, 11, xv. 3). 
 
 58. fav 8a tavrds €v 7H iep@. These words are to be taken 
 together: j#aav does nut belong to the participle, and this is not 
 an example of the periphrastic imperf. (Hahn). The continued 
 attendance of the disctpies in the temple is recorded in the Acts 
 (ii. 46, ill. 1, v. 21, 42). It savours of childish captiousness to 
 find a contradiction between 6a zavrés here and Acts i. 13, where 
 it is stated, and ii. 44, where it is implied, that the Apostles 
 were sometimes elsewhere than in the temple. No reasonable 
 critic would suppose that 6.4 zavrds is meant with absolute strict- 
 ness. It is a popular expression, implying great frequency in their 
 attendance both at the services and at other times. Comp. what 
 is said of Anna, ii. 37, which is stronger in wording and may mean 
 more. 
 
566 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [XXIV. 53. 
 
 Lachm. Treg. WH. Weiss write 6:4 wavrés, while Tisch. Wordsw. and 
 the Revisers prefer duaravrés. Comp. Acts ii. 25, x. 2, xxiv. 16; Mt. xviii. 
 10; Mk. v. 5, etc. 
 
 evhoyotvtes. The reading is uncertain. There is little doubt that alvoiy- 
 tes kal eddoyoovres (AC? XT ATI, cfq Vulg. Syr-Pesh. Syr-Harcl. Arm.) 
 and ed\oyobvres kal alvodyres (Aeth.) is a conflation. But is alvotvyres (D, 
 abdff,1 Boh. Aug. Tisch.) or evAoyotvres (§ BC*L, Syr-Sin. Syr-Hier. 
 Weiss, WH. RV.) the original? The fact that alvodyres is a favourite word 
 with Lk. does not turn the scale in its favour: evAoyobvres might be corrected 
 to alvodvres for this very reason. See WH. ii. p. 104, where the distribution 
 of evidence in this and similar instances of conflation is tabulated. Comp. 
 ix. 10, xi. 54, xii. 18. See Introduction, p. Ixxiii. 
 
 The various conjectures as to why the disciples were so joyous 
 and thankful may all be right: but they remain conjectures. Be- 
 cause of the promised gift of the Spirit (Euthym.) ; because of the 
 Lord’s teaching and blessing (Mey. Weiss); because of His glorious 
 return to the Father, which was a pledge of the victory of His cause 
 (Godet) ; because His Ascension confirmed all their beliefs and 
 hopes (Maldon.) ; because His presence with God was a guarantee 
 for the fulfilment of His promises and an earnest of their own 
 success (Hahn). 
 
 *Auiy: probably not genuine, but a liturgical addition. It is absent from 
 & C* DLO, several cursives, abd e ff,1 Syr-Sin. etc. 
 
 WESTERN NON-INTERPOLATIONS, 
 
 Unless Mt. xxvii. 49 and Lk, xii. 11 (# 7!) are to be regarded as examples, 
 all the instances of Western non-interpolations are found in the last three 
 chapters of S. Luke. In ch. xxiv. they are surprisingly frequent. The opposite 
 phenomenon of interpolation is among the most marked characteristics of the 
 Western texts. And although omissions also are not uncommon, yet Western 
 omissions for the most part explain themselves as attempts to make the sense 
 more forcible. 
 
 But there are cases in which the absence of words or passages from Western 
 authorities, and their presence in other texts, cannot be explained in this way. 
 In these cases the more satisfactory explanation seems to be that it is the other 
 texts which have been enlarged, while the Western documents, by escaping 
 interpolation, have preserved the original reading in its simplicity. 
 
 It is evident that these insertions in the original text (if insertions they be) 
 must have been made very early: otherwise they could not have become 
 diffused in every text excepting the Western. Alexandrian corruptions which 
 have spread widely are a common phenomenon. But these insertions have a 
 different aspect ; and neither internal nor external evidence favours such a theory 
 of their origin. We must look elsewhere for an explanation. That the original 
 readings should be preserved nowhere else but in a text which is wholly Western 
 is so unusual a result that there is nothing extravagant in assuming an unusual 
 cause for it. 
 
 It must sometimes have happened in ancient times that authors, having pub- 
 lished their MS. and caused it to be multiplied, afterwards issued revised copies 
 with corrections and insertions. In the cases before us ‘‘ the purely documentary 
 phenomena are compatible with the supposition that the Western and the Non- 
 Western texts started respectively from a first and a second edition of the 
 Gospels, both conceivably apostoléc (WH. ii. p. 177).” This conjectural source 
 of variations, viz. changes made in later copies by the authors themselves, is 
 
567 
 
 accepted by Scrivener as a general possibility (Scriv-Miller, i. p. 18), and is sug- 
 gested as specially applicable to the latter part of S. Luke’s Gospel (ii. pp. 298, 
 299n.). Blass regards this as highly probable with regard to the Acts. Lk. made 
 a rough copy first on cheap material, and then a better copy to give to Theophilus, 
 who was a person of distinction. In this second copy he made alterations. But 
 both remained in existence and became the parent of other copies, the Western 
 text being derived from the rough draft, and the more widely diffused text 
 from the presentation copy.! Salmon thinks that something of the same kind 
 “took place with St. Luke’s Gospel; and that in the case of the Gospel, 
 as well as in that of the Acts, it was the first draft which went into circulation 
 in the West.” He supposes that the second edition of the Gospel was about 
 contemporary with the Acts, and that between the two writings Luke had con- 
 versed with a witness able to give him additional information about the Lord’s 
 sayings and the Ascension. Having just written the full account of the latter in 
 the Acts, he added a word or two to Lk. xxiv. 51, 52. ‘‘ And since in Luke’s 
 account of the dying words of Stephen (Acts vil. 59, 60) we find an echo of two 
 of the utterances which the common texts of St. Luke’s Gospel places in the 
 mouth of the dying Saviour, I find it hard to regard the coincidence as fortuitous, 
 and but the lucky hit of an unknown interpolator” (4f/. to Hist. Int. to N.T. 
 7th ed. p. 603). See also Rendel Harris, Hour Lectures on the Western Text, 
 Camb. 1894, P; 62. A theory such as this certainly is very welcome as an 
 explanation of Lk. xxii. 43, 44 and xxiii. 34a, although neither of them can 
 be called Western non-interpolations. But in other cases the apparent insertions 
 are perhaps scarcely worthy of so high an origin: ¢.g. the non-Western insertions 
 in xxiv. 3, 6, 9 seem to be about on a level with Western insertions. See WH. 
 U. Pp. 175-177. : 
 
 The question cannot be regarded as settled ; but, assuming that there are 
 such textual phenomena as Western non-interpolations, the more manifest ex- 
 amples are Lk, xxii. 19b, 20, xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52. To which may 
 be added as a possible instance in a secondary degree xxii. 62. 
 
 XXIV.} THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 
 
 (1) xxii. rob, 20. 7d dxép bucy didbuevor . « » exxuvdpuevor. 
 Evidence for the passage :-— 
 NABCEFGHKLM (PR defective here) SUXVI'AATI and 
 all cursives. 
 Almost all Versions. 
 Marcion or Tertull. Cyr-Alex. 
 Evidence against the passage :-— 
 D omits. 
 a d ff,il omit. 
 be Syr-Cur. omit and put vz, 17, 18 in the place of the omitted 
 e, so that the verses run—16, 19a [b], 17, 18, 21, 22, etc. Syr- 
 in. has an elaborate transposition :—16, 19a b, 20a, 17, 20b, 18, 21, 
 22, etc. It also exhibits considerable changes in the wording. 
 But in order to appreciate these various attempts to get rid of the difficulty 
 involved in the ordinary text, owing to the mention of two cups, it is necessary 
 to see them in full in a tabular form. , 
 
 Cod, Veron. (b). 
 
 Wet accepto pane gratias egit et 
 fregit et dedit illis dicens hoc est corpus 
 meum 1" et accepto calice gratias egit 
 et dixit accipite hoc et dividite inter 
 vos 18dico enim vobis. .. . . veniat. 
 31 veruntamen ecce, etc. 
 
 Cod. Palat. (e). 
 
 1 et arecet panem et gratias egit ef 
 fregit et dedit eis dicens hoc est corpus 
 meum ” et accepit calicem et gratias 
 egit et dixit accipite vivite inter vos 
 18 dico enim vobis ..... . veniat. 
 41 veruntamen ecce, etc. 
 
 
 
 3 Apostolorum Acta, Fr. Blass, Geettingen, 1895, § 13, p. 32. 
 
568 
 
 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE 
 
 [XXIV. 
 
 It is obvious that these two Latin texts represent one and the same Greek 
 
 original. 
 
 There is much more difference between the two Syriac Versions, of 
 
 which Syr-Cur. agrees more with the Latin texts than with its fellow. 
 
 Syr-Cur. 
 
 19 And Ile took bread and when He 
 had given thanks, He brake it, and 
 gave to them, saying, This is My body, 
 which (is given) for you: this do in 
 remembrance of Me. 1 And He re- 
 ceived a cup, and when He had given 
 thanks, He said, Take this and divide 
 it among yourselves: for I say to 
 
 ou, I will ...+.eece-se « come 
 
 But behold, etc, 
 
 (2) xxiv. 3. 
 Evidence for the words :— 
 Almost all Greek MSS. 
 Most Versions. 
 
 SyveSi#, 
 
 1 And He took bread and gave 
 thanks over it, and brake, and gave 
 unto them, saying, This is My body 
 which I give for you: ¢hus do in re- 
 membrance of Me. ™ And after they 
 had supped, }7 He took the cup, and 
 gave thanks over it, and said, Take 
 this, share it among yourselves. ” This 
 is My blood, the new testament. 1 For 
 I say unto you, that henceforth I will 
 not drink of this fruit until the king- 
 dom of God shall comes ™ But never- 
 theless behold, ete. 
 
 After cGyua the words roi xuplou Ixcet 
 
 Evidence against the words :— 
 D omits the whole, 42 omits xuplov. 
 
 a bdeff,lr omit the whole. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. Sah. omit xuplov. 
 Nowhere else in the true text of the Gospels does 6 xuplos "Incois occur: 
 but it may be right in the appendix to Mk. (xvi. 19). 
 In the remaining instances only the evidence agaimst the passage need be 
 stated. 
 
 (3) xxiv. 6. ob ori Hoe, Adda 7ryépOn. 
 D omits the whole. C* omits dddd. 
 abdeff,lr* omit the whole. c substitutes resurrexit a mortuis, 
 which perhaps is an independent insertion. Syr-Pesh. gp omit dAAd. 
 Aeth. transposes, omitting d\\d: iyyép0n, ovx éorw Gde, exactly as Mk. 
 xvi. 6, which is the probable source of the insertion: comp. Mt. xxviii. 6. 
 Marcion apud Epiph. seems to have omitted all but 7yép@y. 
 
 (4) xxiv. 9. dd rod pynpelou. 
 D omits. 
 abcdeff,|Ir omit. 
 
 (5) xxiv. 12. ‘O 52 Ilérpes . . . ‘yeyords. 
 D omits. 
 
 abdelromit. Syr-Harcl.* omits at the beginning of one lection, 
 but perhaps accidentally. 
 (6) xxiv. 36. kal Aéyet avrois, Elpjyn byuiv. 
 D omits. 
 abdeff,lr omit. 
 G P 88 127 130 after duty add from fn vi. 20 ey elu, wh poBetobe. 
 cf Vulg. Syrr. (Pesch. Harcl. Hier.) Arm. and some MSS. of Boh. 
 after vobis add ego sum nolite timere. Aeth. adds nolite timere, ego sum. 
 i ig from Jn. xx. 19. Tisch. and Weiss omit. WH. place in double 
 kets. 
 
 (7) xxiv. 40. xat retro clray . . - kat rods wédas. 
 D omits, 
 
XXIV.] THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION 569 
 
 abde ff,1r Syr-Cur. omit. Syr-Sin. is here defective, but apparently 
 contained the verse, 
 Probably an adaptation of Jn. xx. 20. Tisch. and Weiss omit. WH. place 
 in double brackets. 
 
 (8) xxiv. St kal dvepépero els Tov otpards. 
 * D omit. 
 abdeff,1* omit. Syr-Sin. ccadenses, omitting diéorn and els rip 
 pigs ot ‘* He was lifted up from them.” Syr-Pesh. is defective. 
 . omits once and inserts once, 
 Tisch. Pn Weiss omit. WH. place in double brackets. 
 
 (9) za 52. mpocxuvyjcavres atréry. 
 D omits the whole. 
 abde ff,1 Syr-Sin. omit the whole. 
 Aug. omits the whole. 
 c Vulg. omit ex. 
 
 Tisch. and Weiss omit: WH. place in double brackets. 
 
 It will be observed that ehindichont these instances the adverse witnesses are 
 very much the same. The combination D, adel! prevails throughout ; and in 
 almost all cases these are supported by b and ff,, and very often by r also. In 
 xxii. 62, which was mentioned as a secondary instance of possible non-interpola- 
 tion, D ’ deserts its usual allies. The verse is found in all Greek MSS. and in 
 all Versions, excepting abe ff,il*r. 
 
 INTERPOLATIONS IN THE SINAITIC SYRIAC, 
 
 Some of these have been pointed out in the notes; 4g. pp. 53, 449, 468, 
 507, 540, 543, 556. But there are others which are of interest ; and in some 
 cases they are peculiar to this MS. 
 
 i, 3. to write of them one by one carefully unto thee. 
 
 6. blameless in a// thetr manner of life. 
 12. was troubled and shook. 
 13. God has heard the vozce of thy praye 
 
 v. 7. When they came, ¢hey brought up ‘ish, and filled both the ships, and 
 
 they were nearly sinking from the weight of them. 
 
 vi. 40. The disciple is not perfect as his master zm teaching. 
 
 vill. 13. receive it Zastzly with joy (Cur.). 
 29. brake his bonds and cut them, and was led. 
 xi. 36.. and 2” the sight of men they told nothing. 
 40. they were not able fo deliver him. 
 48. he that is small and zs a child to you. 
 xii, 56, this time avd z¢s signs ye do not search to prove (Cur.). 
 xiv. I. they watched what He would do (Cur 
 13. call the poe: and the blind, and ha, lame, and the maimed (order), 
 and the despised, and many others, 
 22. yet there is room at the feast (Cur.). 
 xv. 13. living wastefully with harlots (Cur.). 
 xvi. 23. And dezng cast into Sheol, he lifted up (Harcl.). 
 xviii. 36. when he heard ¢he voice of the multitude (Cur.). 
 xx. 17. When they heard these things (+ part of ver. 19). 
 24. And they showed zt to Him, saying, Czsar’s. 
 29. There were seven brethren amongst us (D, Aeth.). 
 34. The children of this world are begotten and beget and marry (D, ete.). 
 xxii, 58. Ze¢ alone, man, I know Him not. 
 
INDEX TO. THE: NOTES. 
 
 ——— 
 
 INDEX I. GENERAL 
 Abijah, the course of, 8 Aposiopesis, 340, 450. 
 Abila, 84. Apostles, lists of the, 172 
 Abilene, 84. 
 
 Abraham’s bosom, 393. 
 Acts, parallels between the Gospel 
 and the, 17, 38, 375, 521. 
 Adam’s skull, legend respecting, 531. 
 Adultery, 389. 
 woman taken in, 455, 489. 
 Aeolic forms, 170, 314, 499. 
 
 Alphzeus, 173. 
 
 Amphibolous constructions, 10, 63, 
 107, 176, 215, 265, 278, 317, 346, 
 396, 408, 428, 447, 460. 
 
 Analytical or periphrastic tenses, II, 
 17, 18, 120, 131, 142, 146, I5I, 
 171, 441, 454, 482, 525, 526, 557. 
 
 Andrew, 173. 
 
 Angels, II, 20, 114, 278, 393, 469, 
 509, — 548. 
 
 Anna, 7 
 
 Annas, wae: 515. 
 Annunciation of the birth of the 
 Baptist, 7, 13. 
 
 of the birth of Jesus, 20, 23. 
 
 of the Passion, 245, 256, 427. 
 Antipas (see Herod). 
 Aorist, the supposed gnomic, 33, 208. 
 Aorist and imperfect, 60, 245, 286, 
 
 556. 
 Aorist and perfect, 31. 
 Aorist, mixed forms of, 36, 59, 295. 
 Apocalypse of Jesus, 487. 
 Apocryphal gospels, their contrast 
 with the canonical, 26, 35, 46, 53, 
 61, 76, 168, 229, 539, 546, 548. 
 
 Archelaus, 74, 430, 438. 
 Aramaic, different 
 same, 102, 154, 186, 223. 
 imathea, 541. 
 Article, force of the, 56, 211, 404, 441. 
 absence of the, 15, 57, 281, 407, 
 
 of the 
 
 408, 558. 
 Attic forms, 137, 509, 547- 
 Attraction of the relative common in 
 Lk., 5, 17, 60, 97, 145, 256, 332, 
 374, 447. 
 Augment, 40, 170, 392, 557+ 
 Augustus, the Emperor, 48, §1, 195- 
 Ave Mariza, the, 21. 
 
 Baptism of John, 42, 85, 88, 457. 
 Baptism of Jesus by John, 98, 100. 
 Baptist, the characteristics of the, 14, 
 15, 38, 42, 44, 79, 80, 86, Io, 
 2 date of the appearance of, 
 I. 
 his message to Christ, 203. 
 Barabbas, 337, 525- 
 Bartholomew, 173. 
 Bartimzus, 429. 
 Basilidian Gnostics, 528. 
 Baskets, different kinds of, 24§. 
 Beatitudes 3, 179, 203, 306, 35% 
 Beelzebub, 301. 
 Benedictus, the, 38, 39. 
 
 Bethany, 289, 445, 564. 
 
572 INDEX TO 
 
 Bethlehem, 52. 
 Bethsaida, Lk. perhaps ignorant of a 
 second, 243. 
 Bezae ; see Codex. 
 Birth of Christ, date of, 55. 
 Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, 
 I 
 
 321. 
 
 Blind, healing the, 203, 431. 
 Bloody sweat, 510. 
 Bread, break, 557. 
 
 daily, 295. 
 Brethren of the Lord, 174, 223, 549. 
 Bull Unam Sanctam, 507. 
 Bush, the, 470. 
 
 Cesar, 466. 
 
 Czesarea Philippi, 83, 246. 
 
 Caiaphas, 84, 515. 
 
 Calvary, 530. 
 
 Capernaum, 131, 195. 
 
 Capital punishment, 519, 527. 
 
 Census, 47, 52. 
 
 Centurions, 194, 195, 539. 
 
 Chiasmus, 277, 324, 520. 
 
 Childlessness, a calamity to Orientals, 
 10, 19, 529 
 
 Children, Christ's attitude towards, 
 257, 421. 
 
 Chorazin, 276. 
 
 Christ, meaning of the title of the, 
 67, 121; comp. 448, 456. 
 
 Christology of the Synoptists, 282. 
 
 Chronology in Lk., 5, 19, 75, 81, 102, 
 250, 2601. 
 
 Circumcision, 36, 61, 62. 
 
 Cleansing of the temple probably re- 
 peated, 453. 
 
 Cleopas, 551, 553: 
 
 Climax, 184, 203, 204, 245. 
 
 Cocks not excluded from Jerusalem, 
 
 51 
 Codex Bezae, 93, 119, 168, 188, 256, 
 294, ee 327, 340, 427, 428, 438, 
 443, 486, 534, 542, 546, 555, 55% 
 Coincidences between Lk. and S. 
 Paul, 274, 411, 514, 558 
 Coins, 320, 370, 465, 475. 
 Colt, 447. 
 Confession of Peter, 245. 
 Conflation of texts, 243, 300, 316, 
 324, 524, 563, 566. 
 Court of the Women, 67, 475. 
 Cross, 248, 528. 
 Crucifixion, 531. 
 day of the, 491, 492, 527, 541, 
 542, 543. 
 Cups at the Passover, 495. 
 
 THE NOTES 
 
 Darkness at the Crucifixion, §39- 
 David, 52, 167, 472. 
 city of, 52. 
 Davidie descent of Mary uncertain, 
 21, 23, 53 
 Day of Questions, 455. 
 Dead, raising the, 197, 201, 237. 
 Demoniacs, 134, 136, 229, 253, 342. 
 Demonology, Lk. has no peculiar, 
 242, 277. 
 Demons, 133, 139, 208, 228, 278, 301. 
 Denials, Peter’s, differences respect- 
 ing, 503, 514. 
 Destruction oe Jerusalem, 250, 451, 
 481 
 Development of Christ’s human 
 nature and character, 78, 79, 114. 
 Devil, personal existence of the, 108, 
 220, 278, 343. 
 influence over Judas, 490; see 
 
 Satan. 
 Disciples other than the Twelve, 176, 
 179, 198, 254, 267. 
 pairs of, 272. 
 Discourses of Christ, 176, 316. 
 Discrepancies between the Gospels, 
 226, 239. 
 Dives, 301. 
 Divinity of Jesus Christ, 25, 78, 121, 
 364, 370, 519 
 Divorce, 390. 
 Bo used by Lk., 7, 44, 46, 
 
 Dogs, 392. 
 
 Door, the narrow, 346. 
 
 Doric usage, 128. 
 
 Dove in symbolism, 99. 
 
 Doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, 208. 
 
 Draughts of fishes, two such miracles 
 to be distinguished, 147. 
 
 Ebionism not found in Lk., 180, 300, 
 329, 390, 413, 425, 426. 
 Elijah and the Baptist, 15, 241. 
 and Moses, 251. 
 ee mother of the Baptist, 9, 
 
 aoa of, 27, 29. 
 Emmaus, 551. 
 Enoch, Book of, 156, 398, 461. 
 Essenes, 44. 
 Eternal life, 284, 386, 427. 
 Eucharist, Institution of the, 494, 
 
 557- 
 Evening, 138, 556. 
 Excommunication, 181. 
 
 Exorcists, Jewish, 259, 302 
 
I, GENERAL 
 
 Faith, 154, 213, 226, 236, 400, 431. 
 Fasting, 72, 108, 161, 417. 
 
 Feasts, 74, 448, 490, 493. 
 
 Fig tree, the barren, 339. 
 
 Fire, baptizing with, 95- 
 
 Five thousand, the feeding of, 242. 
 Forty, the number, in Scripture, 108. 
 Fox, 265, 349- 
 
 Funerals, 198, 199, 237e 
 
 Gabriel in Scripture and in Jewish 
 legend, 16, 
 
 Galileans, 263, 337. 
 
 Galilee, 20, 117, 521. 
 
 Gehenna, 277, 319. 
 
 Genealogy of Christ, 101. 
 
 given as that of Joseph, 103. 
 
 Genitive absolute in Latin of Codex 
 Bezae, 93, 256, 438. 
 
 Genitive, characterizing, 124, 383. 
 
 Gennesaret, 142. 
 
 Gentiles, salvatiori open to the, 69, 
 89, 105, 129, 270, 363, 461. 
 
 Gerasenes, 227. 
 
 Grace before meat, 244, 557. 
 
 Graves, 312. 
 
 Hades, 277, 319, 393, 397- 
 
 Hands, laying on of, 138, 341. 
 
 Hebraisms, 9, 10, 17, 29, 37, 68, 162, 
 263, 273, 320, 360, 438, 460, 465, 
 494, 548. 
 
 Hermon the probable scene of the 
 Transfiguration, 250. 
 
 Herod the Great, 7, 430, 439. 
 
 his supposed destruction of Jewish 
 genealogies, 102. 
 
 Herod Antipas, 83, 97, 241, 337, 
 348, 522. 
 
 Herod Philip, 83. 
 
 Herodians, 464. 
 
 Herodias, 97. 
 
 High priest, 8, 84, 515. 
 
 Hillel, 182, 189, 304, 318. 
 
 Hinnom, 319. 
 
 Holy Spirit, 14, 24, 66, 95, 99, 107, 
 116, 121, 300, 321, 562. 
 
 Horn of salvation, 40. 
 
 Houses in the East, 153, 318. 
 
 Iambic verse, accidental, 155 
 Ignatius, false tradition respecting, 
 258. 
 Imperative present, 186, 196, 
 » 511. 
 Imperfect and aorist, 60, 245, 286, 
 
 556. 
 
 199, 
 
 573 
 
 Impersonal plurals, 189, 325, 385. 
 
 Inspiration, not a substitute for re 
 search, 5. 
 
 Interpolations, 22, 120, 165, 168, 
 264, 294, 312, 327, 331, 410, 450, 
 521, 522, 525, 531, 533, 549 542, 
 551, 561. 
 
 Iturea, 83. 
 
 Jairus, 234. 
 
 James the brother of John, 145, 173, 
 
 237. 
 
 James of Alphzeus, 173. 
 
 Jericho, 429, 438. 
 
 Jerome, Greek text used by, 256, 
 485, 515. 
 
 occasional carelessness of, 347, 
 451, 483, 552. 
 
 Jerusalem, two forms of the name, 
 
 6 
 
 destruction of, before S. Luke 
 wrote, 451. 
 Jesus does not publicly proclaim Him- 
 self as the Messiah, 247. 
 abstains from invading the office 
 of constituted authorities, 150, 
 322, 404. : 
 often answers questions indi- 
 rectly, 332, 443. 
 seems to use His supernatural 
 power of knowledge with reser- 
 vation, 434, 446. 
 by Divine decree must suffer, 
 247, 250, 350, 408, 506, 555. 
 Jews and Samaritans, 263, 289. 
 Joana, 216, 549. 
 John the Apostle, 145, 237, 250, 259, 
 264, 279, 292, 512, 516. 
 John the Baptist ; see Baptist. 
 Jonah, 306. 
 Jordan, 85. 
 Joseph the husband of Mary, 26, 52, 
 63, 67, 75, 78. 
 Joseph of Arimathea, 540. 
 Judzea, meaning of the name, 8, 141, 
 200, 521. 
 Judas of James, 174. 
 Judas Iscariot, 172, 175, 425, 490, 
 499, SII. 
 his treachery not a fiction, 491. 
 Judas of Galilee, 248, 337, 466. 
 Judge, the unrighteous, similarities 
 between this and other parables, 
 
 413. 
 
 Judgment, day of, 276. 
 
 Juttah possibly the birthplace of the 
 Baptist, 28. 
 
574 
 
 ee of God, 140, 141, 249, 275, 
 
 Kiss a peace, 512. 
 Kneeling at prayer, 508 ; comp. 416. 
 
 Last Supper, day of the, 491. 
 Latinisms, 336, 361, 441. 
 Lawyers, 152, 206. 
 » 390. 
 Leaven, 318. 
 Lepers, healing of, 149, 404. 
 Leprosy, 148, 150. 
 Levi, 158, 268. 
 Levirate law, 468. 
 Life, 235, 249, 323. 
 Lilies of the field, 327. 
 Limitation of Christ’s human know- 
 ledge, 79, 197, 236, 404, 446, 472. 
 Lord, the word, how used of Christ 
 and of Jehovah, 152, 199, 309, 400. 
 Lord’s Prayer, 293. 
 Lord’s Supper, 495, 557 
 Lot’s wife, 409. 
 Love, 184. 
 Luke, not an eye-witness, 2, 3. 
 not one of the Seventy, 270. 
 not one of the two at Emmaus, 
 I. 
 has aie animus against the 
 Twelve, 172, 248, 255, 494, 
 51, 514. 
 order mainly chronological, 
 5, 19, 75, 81, 102, 250, 261. 
 teristics of his style, 22, 
 45, 116, 119, 142, ae 233; 
 243, 250, 254, 256, 262, 293, 
 323, 416, 428, 429, 432, 565. 
 Lysanias, 84. 
 
 Maccabees, Fourth Book of, 471. 
 
 Magdalen, 215 ; see Mary. 
 
 Magnificat, the, 30, 39. 
 
 Malchus, 513. 
 
 Mammon, 385. 
 
 Marcion’s alterations in the text of 
 Lk., 283, 347, 389, 423. 
 
 Marcion’s excisions, 6, 119, 347, 536 
 (p. Ixviii). 
 
 insertions, 264, 521. 
 
 Mark, Gospel of, whether used by 
 Lk., 2, 246, 250, 494. 
 
 Marniage, 21, 460. 
 
 Martha of Bethany, 233, 290. 
 
 Mary of Bethany, 209, 290. 
 
 Mary of Magdala, 209, 216, 540, 549. 
 
 Mary the Blessed Virgin, 21, 25, 29, 
 32, 34) 53, 60, 65, 70, 77. 
 
 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 Mary, her supposed vow of perpetual 
 virginity, 24, 53, 224. 
 
 Matthew, 158, 173. 
 
 Gospel of, whether used by Lk., 
 26, 27, 64, 74, 246, 250, 462, 
 479, 494. | 
 
 Measures of quantity, 383. 
 
 Medical language in Lk., 19, 28, 
 135, 137, 152, 161, 167, 199, 235, 
 254, 354, 392, 425, 452, 510, 550. 
 
 Messiah, 101, 448. 
 
 Millenarians, 427. 
 
 Ministry in Galilee, 115. 
 
 in Judea, 352. 
 
 Ministry, duration of Christ’s, 122. 
 
 Miracles, their harmony with a great 
 crisis, 7. 
 
 their position in the Ministry, 
 140, 217. 
 condensed reports of numerous, 
 137, I51, 176, 203. 
 Mission of the Twelve, 238. 
 of the Seventy, 269. 
 Moses, 65, 251. 
 Mount of Precipitation, 129. 
 of Transfiguration, 250. 
 Mustard-seed, 344. 
 
 Nain, 198. 
 
 Nazareth, 21. 
 
 Nazirite, 10, 14, 267. 
 
 Nominative for vocative, 238, 282. 
 
 Non-interpolations, Western, 322, 
 66, 
 
 500, 
 Nunc dimittis, the, 67. 
 
 Olives, Mount of, 445. 
 
 Optative mood, 22, 94, 170, 421. 
 
 Oral tradition, 3, 61, 507. 
 
 Orthography, questions of, 21, 28, 
 51, 57, 63, 128, 131, 142, 359, 
 389, 434, 486, 493. 
 
 Parables, characteristics of Christ’s, 
 217, 285, 367, 371, 390, 458. 
 
 coincidences between, 413, 437- 
 pairs of, 163, 344. 
 
 Paradise, 536. 
 
 Paronomasia, 479. 
 
 Passion, 489. 
 
 Passover, 490. 
 
 Paul ; see Coincidences, 
 
 Periphrastic tenses ; see Analytical. 
 
 ‘Peter, 140, 142, 144, 172, 236, 237, 
 
 252, 331, 492, 504, 514. 
 his mother-in-law, 136. 
 
I, GENERAL 
 
 Pharisees, 152, 161, 210, 309, 348, 
 367, 377, 387; 417, 464, 467. 
 
 Philip the Apostle, 136, 173. 
 
 Philip the tetrarch, 82. 
 
 Philip son of Mariamne, 96. 
 
 Phlegon, 537. 
 
 Pilate, 82, 337, 339, 520, 524. 
 
 Popular enthusiasm for i 
 306, 430, 447, 454, 489. 
 
 Pounds, ble of, not a version of 
 that of the Talents, 437. 
 
 Prayer, Lk.’s Gospel the Gospel of, 
 99, I5I, I7I, 246, 251, 294, 298, 
 4II, 508. 
 
 the Lord’s, 293. 
 
 Precepts of Christ that cannot be kept 
 literally, 185, 329. 
 
 Preface of the Gospel, its resemblance 
 to other prefaces, 6. . 
 
 se construction, 122, 141, 201, 
 488. 
 
 Prepositions of rest with verbs of 
 motion and zce versé, 15, I5I, 
 169, 201, 299, 488. 
 
 Presentation in the temple, 64. 
 
 Priests, 9, 18. 
 
 residences of the, 19, 28, 287. 
 
 Procurators of Judza, 49, 51, 82. 
 
 Prophecies of Christ, 277, 451, 477+ 
 
 Prophets and prophesying, 40, 66, 72, 
 428, 457- . 
 
 Prophets, the, as a division of 
 Scripture, 555, 562. 
 
 Psalm x., Christ’s question about, 
 472, 473. 
 
 Publicans or tax-collectors, 91, 159, 
 367, 433- 
 
 Purification, 63, 64, 150. 
 
 Purpose of the 1, 5. 
 
 Quirinius, census of, 49. 
 
 Rabbinical sayings, 13, 89, 111, 168, 
 170, 171, 193, 306, 385, 4945 see 
 Hillel, Mskna, and Talmud, in 
 Index II. 
 
 Rationalist explanations of miracles, 
 61, 149, 245. 
 eadings, important differences of, 
 22, 59, 63, 100, 110, 120, 141, 165, 
 187, 193, 227, 243, 253, 264, 272, 
 292, 294, 315, 355, 385, 387, 420, 
 486, 496, 509, 524, 525, 531, 533, 
 537, 544, 548, 550, 551, 552, 560, 
 561, 565, 566. 
 
 Rebel’s beating, 129. 
 
 Remission of sins, 42, 86, 154, 563. 
 
 Christ, 139, | 
 | Sabbath, attitude of Jesus towards the 
 
 
 
 
 
 575 
 
 Rents, Jewish methods of paying, 
 383, 459. 
 
 Resurrection, 467, 469, 546. 
 
 Riches, dangers of, 182, 325, 395, 425 
 
 Righteousness, meaning of, 9. 
 
 Robbers, the two, 530, 533. 
 
 Room, upper, 493. 
 
 Ruler, the young, 421. 
 
 168, 170, 343. 
 
 miracles wrought on the, 353. 
 Sadducees, 467, 519. 
 Salome, 540, 549. 
 Salt, savourless, 366, 
 Salvation, 41, 68. 
 Samaritans, 263, 289, 337, 404, 405. 
 Sanhedrin, 248, 269, 455, 514, 517- 
 Sarepta, 128. 
 Satan, 108, III, 278, 302, 341, 490, 
 
 5°03 
 
 never said to be visible, 109, 114. 
 Scorpions, 279, 300. 
 Scourging, 321, 525, 527. 
 Scribes, 160, 368. 
 Sepulchre ; see Graves, Tombs, 
 Sermon on the Mount, 176. 
 Seventy, the, 269, 277. 
 Shealtiel, 104. 
 Sheba, the queen of, 307. 
 Shechinah, 24, 55, 252. 
 Sheol, idea of in O.T., 397. 
 Shepherd, the Good, 328, 368. 
 Shepherds, 54. 
 Shewbread, 167 
 Sicarii, 174, 455. 
 Silence, why enjoined on the healed, 
 
 9. 
 Simon, Lk.’s use of the name, 144 
 
 172. 
 
 Simon the Pharisee, 209. 
 
 Simon Zelotes, 174. 
 
 Simon of Cyrene, 527. 
 
 Sinaitic Syriac ; see Syriac. 
 
 eres 26, 68, 332, 376, 401, 43% 
 459. 
 
 Socal 146, 
 oldiers, 92, 523, 531, 
 
 Son of David, oo as: 
 
 Son of God, 25. 
 
 Son of Man, 156. 
 
 Son of the Law, 75. 
 
 Soul and life, 249, 324. 
 
 Sparrows, 319. 
 
 Spirit and soul, 31, 71; see Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
576 
 
 Steward, different kinds of, 332, 381. 
 
 Style of Lk. ; see Luke. 
 
 Subjunctive mood, 169, 244. 
 
 Superscription or title of the Gospel, 
 I. 
 
 on the Cross, 533. 
 
 Supper, the Last, 494. 
 
 Surgery, miracle of, 513. 
 
 Susanna, 216. 
 
 Swine, difficulties respecting the de- 
 mons and the, 229. 
 
 Sycamore, 400, 433. 
 
 Synagogues, business done in, 117, 
 195, 321. 
 
 offices of, 123, 342. 
 service of, 119, 123, 341. 
 numbers of, 117, 118. 
 
 Symeon, 65. 
 
 Synoptic Gospels, 115, 125, 141, 147, 
 I5I, 242, 248, 254, 260, 424, 429, 
 450, 491, 532, 536, 549. 
 
 Syriac, Sinaitic, readings of the, 53, 
 63, 253, 258, 268, 272, 283, 288, 
 322, 352, 356, 373 402, 403, 408, 
 444, 447, 448, 449, 452, 459, 465, 
 466, 468, 478, 479, 496, 517, 518, 
 526, 532, 533, 534, 543, 544, 545, 
 547, 548, 549, 550, 556, 559, 501, 
 562, 566, 568, 569. 
 
 Tabor, 251. 
 Talmud ; see Index II. 
 Tell Hum, 117, 131, 195, 276. 
 Temple, the, 11, 476. 
 
 pinnacle of, 113. 
 
 captains of, 490. 
 Temptation of Christ real, 106, 114. 
 Tenses, sequence of, 169, 421. 
 Tetrarch, 82. 
 Theophilus, a real person, 5. 
 Tiberius Czesar, the fifteenth year of, 
 
 8 
 
 is 
 Tiberius Gracchus, 266. 
 Title ; see Superscription. 
 Tolerance, lessons of, 258, 261. 
 Tombs, 198, 229, 313, 547- 
 Trachonitis, 83. 
 Transfiguration, 250, 253. 
 Treasury in the temple, 475. 
 Trials of Christ, the ecclesiastical, 
 
 514, 517. 
 
 the civil, 519, 522. 
 
 Tribute to Cesar, 463, 520. 
 
 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 Triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 444, 
 452 
 
 Twelve, the, 172, 215, 239, 428. 
 
 Uncleanness, 63, 150, 2679 310» 
 Unicorn, 40. 
 Usury not forbidden by Christ, 188, 
 
 Veil of the Temple, 537. 
 
 Veronica, 233, 529. 
 
 Version, Authorised, criticisms on, 
 73) 102, I10, 122, 212, 248, 320, 
 325, 331, 333, 347, 354s 357s 358, 
 368, 440, 464, 521, 525, 549, 554. 
 
 Revised, criticisms on, 25, 85, 
 272, 2745 325, 331, 347, 354) 
 _ 368, 377; 407, 440, 464. 
 
 Versions, English, prior to AV., 3, 
 15, 34, 146, 159, 208, 339, 340, 
 358, 366, 386, 401, 418, 439, 449, 
 483, 484, 549. : 
 
 Latin, remarkable features ‘in, 3, 
 15, 55, 175, 217, 313, 315s 
 318, 327, 371, 375, 396, 413, 
 442, 448, 452, 480, 481, 484, 
 489, 501, 504, 521, 523, 530, 
 540, 548, 555, 556, 557, 559 
 
 Vespasian, 87, 251, 522. 
 
 Virgin birth, 26, 67. 
 
 Voice from heaven, 100, 253. 
 
 Vultures, 410. 
 
 Washing, 309. 
 
 Wedding, 331, 357- 
 
 Western non-interpolations, 322, 566. 
 Widow, 72, 198, 412. 
 
 Wine, new and old, 164, 165. 
 
 Woes, 181, 276, 311, 398, 500. 
 Words of our Lord, the first recorded, 
 
 77- 
 from the Cross, 531, 535, 53> 
 the impossibility of inventing 
 such, 539. 
 
 Zacchzeus, the head tax-gatherer, 432. 
 
 Zacharias, father of the Baptist, 8, 9 
 36, 85. 
 
 his prayer, 13. 
 
 Zacharias, the blood of, 314. 
 
 Zealots, 174, 269. 
 
 Zerubbabel, 103. 
 
 Zeugma, 37. 
 
I. WRITERS AND WRITINGS 
 
 INDEX II. 
 
 577 
 
 WRITERS AND WRITINGS. 
 
 Quotations from Greek and Latin authors in illustration of Grammar and 
 
 Diction ate not included in this Index.? 
 
 Abbott, E. A., 138, 513, 545+ 
 
 Abbott, T. K., 489, 498. 
 
 Acta Pauli et Thecle, 23. 
 
 Acts of Pilate, 233, 489, 527, 533, 
 534, 537; 539- 
 
 Africanus, 102, 103, 537- 
 
 Alexander, Bishop, 91, 329, 551. 
 
 Alford, 19, 21, 132, 207, 210, 249, 
 304, 351, 514. 
 
 Ambrose, 24, IOI, 110, 209, 264, 273, 
 323, 340, 368, 391, 4II, 422, 483, 
 531, 533,_535- 
 
 American Church Review, 86. 
 
 American Revisers, 208. 
 
 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 258. 
 
 Andrewes, Bishop, 56. 
 
 Andrews, S. J., 55, 64, 131, 350 
 
 Annius of Viterbo, 103. 
 
 Antipho, 92. 
 
 Apostolic Constitutions, 67, 155, 186, 
 432, 503- 
 
 Aquila, 26, 57, 339- 
 
 Aretzeus, 254. 
 
 Arethas, 545. 
 
 Aristotle, 185, 323, 347, 442 
 
 Arrian, 4! 
 
 Assumption of Moses, 262, 310. 
 
 Augustine, 100, 109, 125, 186, 210, 
 211, 214, 226, 273, 280, 289, 201, 
 294, 298, 354, 375s 385: 437) 443» 
 489, 533, 535» 538. 
 
 Bacon, 216. 
 
 Barnabas, Ep. of, 145, 564. 
 
 Baur, 232, 264. 
 
 Bede, 9, 12, 37, 241, 246, 249, 255, 
 257, 292, 407, 421, 423, 436, 438, 
 457, 464, 480, 502, 503, 505, 512. 
 
 er, 222. 
 
 Bengel, 17, 29, 37, 78, 81, 90, 93, 
 137, 143, 211, 214, 246, 271, 274, 
 287, 322, 334,:362, 367, 396, 423, 
 441, 471, 475, 503. 
 
 Bentley, 396. 
 
 Bernard, Saint, 417, 511. 
 
 Beza, 102, 146, 202, 249. 
 
 Birks, 260. 
 
 Blakesley, 496. 
 
 Blass, 125, 236, 415, 481, 519, 567. 
 
 Bleek, 16, 71, oe 463. 
 
 Blunt, J. H., 
 
 Blunt, J. J., oe 287 
 
 Boniface VIIT., 597. 
 
 Briggs, C. A., 488, 498. 
 
 Browne, E. Harold, 79. 
 
 Burton, 194, 208, 229, 236, 257, 278, 
 441, 449, 459, 482, 517, 526, 542 
 
 Cajetan, 249, 350. 
 vin, 249. 
 
 Campbell, ors, gl. 
 
 Caspari, 9, 178, 261, 445, 
 
 Geasenes 48. cake 
 
 Catullus, 199. 
 
 Celsus, 425. 
 
 Chadwick, 172, 230, 
 
 Chandler, 208, 226, 229. 
 
 Charles, R. H., 398, 461. 
 
 Chase, F. H., 294, 295, 298 
 
 Cheyne, 182. 
 
 Chrysostom, 150, 197, 202, 205, 436, 
 437, 506, 531, 533» 
 
 Chwolson, 492, 519. 
 
 Cicero, 442, 449, 464. 
 
 Classical Review, 119, 51} 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, 55, 122, 136, 
 143, 157, 189, 266, 271, 424, 432. 
 
 Clement of Rome, 33, 189, 399. 
 
 Pseudo-Clement, 273, 386. 
 
 Clementine Homilies, 161, 189, 281, 
 423, 432. 
 
 Clementine Liturgy, 279. 
 
 cee Recognitions, 270, 432, 
 
 peeved Bible, 37, 63 
 Conder, 85, 129, 251, 276. 
 
 
 
 1In the majority of cases the references given in this Index are to actual 
 quotations. But, as one of its purposes is to Bel naar ie the list of com- 
 
 mentaries given in the Introduction (pp. lxxx- 
 writers and writings which have been found helpful, bare 
 
 quotation are often included. 
 37 
 
 lxxxv), 2 by mention of other 
 references without 
 
578 
 
 Contem:, Review, 229, 295, 523. 
 Cornelius & Lapide, 126, 278, 450. 
 Coverdale, 167, 303. 
 Cox, S., 223, 308, 328. 
 Cremer, 231, 235. 
 Cromwell, Thomas, 440. 
 oe Se poe ‘ 
 rian, 298, 418, 427, 43 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, 139, 340, 343, 
 
 349; 368, 406, 410, 422, 505, 507. 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 251, 531, 533- 
 
 Davies, T. L. O., 326, 357, 401. 
 
 Davidson, S., 
 
 De Wette, 16, 116, 144, 334, 415, 
 ‘473. 
 
 Derenbourg, 309, 321, 3375 405. 
 
 Didaché, 47, 186, 297, 495. 
 
 Didon, 28, 35, 107, 130, 159, 415, 561. 
 
 Dimma, Book of, 485. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, 338. 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, 298. 
 
 Dioscorides Pedacius, §. 
 
 Dillinger, 188. 
 
 Dorner, 156. 
 
 Driver, 31, 88, 473. 
 
 Ebrard, 50. 
 
 Ecce Homo, 7, 80. 
 
 Edersheim, 11, 54, 129, 133, 178, 
 235, 269, 328, 345, 456. 
 
 Ellicott, 73, 261, 351, 411. 
 
 Enoch, Book of, 25, 156, 262, 385. 
 
 pen ee eee 
 piphanius, 274, 521, 536, 551. 
 
 Erasmus, 311. 
 
 Eusebius, 52, 180, 233, 271, 382, 410, 
 481, 482, 538, 537, 560. 
 
 Eustathius, 166. 
 
 Euthymius Zigabenus, 53, 150, 184, 
 207, 420, 421, 435, 501, 513, 533» 
 
 Evans, T. S., 58, 144, 278. 
 
 Ewald, H., 81, 87, 141, 189, 339, 
 
 531. 
 Ewald, P., 177. 
 Exposttor, 102, 105, 155, 196, 222, 
 246, 311, 372, 425, 498, 536. 
 Exposttor’s Bible, 174, 224. 
 Esra, Fourth Book of, 25, 262, 273, 
 
 479. 
 Esra, Fifth Book of, 386. 
 
 Fairbairn, 105. 
 
 Farrar, F. W., 133, 175, 178. 
 
 Feine, P., 177. 
 
 Field, F., 58, 188, 287, 289, 315, 
 413. 445; 452, 530 
 
 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 Fritzsche, 89, 133, 154, 192, $03, 
 I. 
 
 ao 564. 
 
 Furneaux, 51, 212. 
 
 Galen, 126, 137, 188. 
 
 Gladstone, 228. 
 
 Godet, 26, 50, 69, 76, 130, 137, 157, 
 160, I71, 211, 267, 316, 359, 387, 
 391, 447, 450, 451, 474, 488, 530, 
 
 4 
 
 543: 
 
 Gore, 24, 27, 108, 307, 473. 
 
 Gospel a to the Hebrews, 99, 169, 
 425, 530 
 
 Gospel of the Infancy, 76, 229, 534. 
 
 Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, 53. : 
 
 Gospel of Nicodemus, 65. 
 
 a ef Pie. 527, 531, 536, 540, 
 
 Gould, E. P., 218, 227, 472, 475. 
 
 pee 110, 132, 171. 
 tegory of Nazianzus, 304. 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa, 295, 297, 406. 
 
 Gregory the Great, 279, 293. 
 
 Gregory, C. R., 203, 212, 253, 392 
 393, 399, 412, 459, 557+ 
 
 Groser, 192, 401. 
 
 Grotius, 24, 28, 29, 145, 146, 164, 
 177, 215, 280, 323, 339, 351, 37%, 
 427, 440, 504. 
 
 Guardian, 486, 492, 542. 
 
 Gumpach, 50. 
 
 arr 249, 264, 269, 405, 406, 415, 
 
 Halcombe, 261. 
 
 Hall, Bishop, 357- 
 
 Hammond, C., 204. 
 
 Harnack, 172. 
 
 Harris, Rendel, 119, 264, 486, 521, 
 523, 542, 567. 
 
 Hase, 75, 80, 130, 202, 214, 282, 
 448, 487. 
 
 Hatch, 33, 93, 121, 155, 332 
 
 Haupt, D. E., 488. 
 
 Hausrath, 118, 152, 456. 
 
 Hefele, 564. 
 
 Hegesippus, 532. 
 
 Heinic en, 96. 
 
 Hengstenberg, 209. 
 
 Heracleon, 158, 320. 
 
 Hesychius, 93, 315- 
 
 Hierocles, 469. 
 
 Hilary, 544. 
 
 Hilgenfeld, 266, 415. 
 
 Hippocrates, 8, 510. 
 
 Hippolytus, 386, 423, 560 
 
II. WRITERS AND WRITINGS 
 
 Hitzig, 430. 
 
 Hobart, 135, 137, 152, 161, 193, 197, 
 199, 230, 235, 254, 275, 425, 452, 
 484, 510. 
 
 Hoffmann, R. A., 497. 
 
 Hofmann, 19, 555+ 
 
 Holtzmann, 19, 148, 209, 249, 422. 
 
 Hooker, 79, 297. 
 
 Hort, 58, 150, 311, 315, 341, 389. 
 
 Huxley, 228. 
 
 Ignatius, 560; comp. 504. 
 Frenzeus, 197, 237, 386, 528. 
 Isocrates, 186. 
 
 annaris, 296, 298. 
 erome, 112, 166, 169, 256, 276, 286, 
 
 re 377, 421, 427, 531, 538, 544, 
 
 560. 
 
 Josephus, 84, 97, 102, 117, 131, 142, 
 251, 269, 339, 345; 452s 406, 467, 
 474, 477, 482, 490, 538. 
 
 ian, the Emperor, 366. 
 tlicher, 498. 
 ulius Africanus, 102, 103, 537+ 
 ustin Martyr, 49, 54, 99, 280, 423, 
 446, 462, 497, 527. 
 Juvenal, 245, 310. 
 
 Keim, 78, 108, 122, 148, 197, 227, 
 232, 247, 282, 313, 422, 430, 458, 
 487, 502, 539. 
 
 edy, H. A. A., 10, 134, 160, 199, 
 211, 233, 273, 288, 332, 362, 542. 
 
 Lactantius, 86, 
 Lange, II, 79, 101, 262, 267, 345, 
 394, 528, 551, 559, 561. 
 €, 24, 275, 416. 
 Latham, 1009, a 182, 295, 381, 441, 
 466, 473, 548. 
 Latimer, 440. 
 Leo the Great, 251. 
 Lewin, 74, 81, 83, 92, 337. 
 Liber Antiphonianus, 22. 
 Lightfoot, J., 103, 122, 181, 235, 251, 
 269, 285, 525, 537, 543 
 an ae Ge 81, 220, 230, 290, 
 23, 326, 514. 
 » 147, 171. 
 
 579 
 
 Maccabees, Fourth Book of, 471. 
 Beceualt, 429. 
 
 M‘Lellan, 51, 101, 296, 406. 
 Magna Moralia, 222. 
 Maimonides, 285, 466, 517. 
 Maine, 372. 
 
 Malalas, 233. 
 mers 249, 350, 406, 422, 434, 
 
 533, 556. 
 
 Marcion, 119, 264, 347, 423. 
 Margoliouth, 329. 
 
 Marshall, 102, 231. 
 
 Martial, 245, 361. 
 Maundrell, 366. 
 
 Maurice, F. D., 46, 165. 
 Mayor, J. B., 53, 174, 223, 549 
 Menander, 223. 
 
 Meyer, 35, 130, 413, 510. 
 Michelis, 158. 
 
 Mill, W. H., rot. 
 
 Milligan, 380, 390. 
 
 Milman, 174. 
 
 Mimnermus, 327. 
 
 Mishna, 54, 194, 355, 468 
 Mozley, J. B., 93. 
 Muratorian Canon, 4. 
 
 Neander, i 85, 237, 422, 449, 538. 
 Nicander, 167. 
 
 Nicephorus Callistus, 258. 
 Nicholson, E, B. , 53% 
 
 Nilus, 297. 
 
 Nineteenth Century, 228. 
 
 Nonnus, 174. 
 
 Nosgen, 122, 249, 447, 457, 488. 
 
 Olshausen, 58, 237, 345- 
 
 Oosterzee, 262, 449. 
 
 Origen, 54, 122, 125, 197, 237, 271, 
 328, SII, 533, 536, 551, 560. 
 
 Page, 293. 
 
 Passio S. Perpetus, 92. 
 
 Pauli Predicatio, 99. 
 
 sper Radbertus, 305, 321, 351, 
 
 II. 
 Peaon! Bishop, 79. 
 Pfleiderer, 352. 
 Philo, 66, 119, 195, 337, 520. 
 Philostorgius 233. 
 Photius, 528. 
 Plato, 66, 170, 191. 
 Pliny the Baa. 48, 210, 268, 360, 
 
 366. 
 Plutarch, 44, 183, 210, 266, 528. 
 Polybius, 539- 
 Pressensé, 310, 468. 
 
580 
 
 Protevangelium of James, 53. 
 Psalms of Solomon, 32, 33, 41, 56, 
 57, 283, 284, 295, 310, 394 
 
 Quadratus, 201. 
 
 Ramsay, 536. 
 
 Renan, 124, 131, 156, 207, 224, 245, 
 260, 277, 322, 454, 539, 553+ 
 
 Resch, 168, 273, 442. 
 
 Reuss, 246, 416. 
 
 Riess, 48. 
 
 Robinccnt E., 193, 198, 313, 447- 
 
 Rénsch, 489. 
 
 Ruskin, 188, 529. 
 
 Ryle, 57, 262, 313, 562 
 
 Sadler, 385, 429, 546. 
 Salmon, 157, 161, 426, 474, 567. 
 Sanday, 121, 157, 177, 229, 231, 282, 
 
 307. 
 
 Schaff, 78, 105, 495. 
 
 Schanz, 184, 226, 511. 
 
 Schleiermacher, 21, 60, 69, 73, 177, 
 404, 452, 506. 
 
 Schoettgen, 310, 330, 338, 348, 352, 
 385, 411, 417, 419, 423, 474- 
 
 Scholten, 242. 
 
 Schreiber, 381. 
 
 Schurer, 19, 49, 83, 152, 263, 468, 
 518. 
 
 Scrivener, 21, 58, 165, 486, 542, 546. 
 
 Semeria, 492. 
 
 Seneca, "308. 
 
 Servius Sulpicius, 126. 
 
 Simcox, W., 22, 32, 169, 282. 
 
 Simplicius, 268. 
 
 Smith of Jordan Hill, 229. 
 
 Sozomen, 233. 
 
 Spitta, 498. 
 
 Stallbaum, 335, 5 
 
 Stanley, 54, 129, is 198, 215, 218, 
 344, 447, 449, 541. 
 
 Steinhart, 271. 
 
 Stier, 207, 351. 
 
 Strabo, 44, 51, 141, 219, 286. 
 
 Strauss, 70, 130, 197, 200, 202, 352, 
 413, 430, 437, 473, 502, 539 
 
 Stroud, 511. 
 
 Suetonius, 82, 92, 333. 
 
 Suicer, 173s 262, 268, 365 
 
 Suidas, 48, 154. 
 
 Surenhusius, 123. 
 
 Swete, 25, 26. 
 
 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 Tacitus, 48, 82, 477, 478, 482. 
 
 Talmud, 18, 159, 244, 249, 273, 311, 
 337, 343, 349, 354, 356, 411, 416, 
 419, 422, 423, 425, 468, 474, 516. 
 
 Terence, 357, 384, 412. 
 
 Tertullian, 35, 49, 202, 224, 252, 253, 
 268, 271, 295, 297, 391, 399, 4 
 
 512, 542. 
 
 Testaments of the XII, Patriarchs, 21, 
 43, 73, 262, 323, 503. 
 
 Theodotion, 463. 
 
 ee lact, 190, 205, 349 533, 551; 
 
 556. 
 
 Thirlwall, 473; 497- 
 
 Thomson, W. M., 178, 226, 
 366. 
 
 Tischendorf, 130, 166. 
 
 Tractatus de Rebaptismate, 99. 
 
 Tregelles, 173. 
 
 Trench, 143, 145, 165, 184, 207, 
 210, 230, 262, 286, 326, 341, 349, 
 371, 397- 
 
 Tristram, 65, 75, 144, 150, 164, 210, 
 215, 235, 251, 273, 286, 320, 326, 
 345, 354, 360, 374, 411, 433, 44% 
 
 Unam Sanctam, 507. 
 
 2275 
 
 Veitch, 274, 455. 
 Velleius Paterculus, 82 
 
 Warfield, 27. 
 
 Weiffenbach, 487. 
 
 Weiss, 31, 61, 124, 137, 20%, 221%, 
 239, 245, 253, 341, 406, 430, 441. 
 
 Wendt, 487. 
 
 Westcott, 20, 105, 106, 144, 284, 320, 
 350, 419, 442, 460. 
 Hi.,’21, $9, 166, 220, 243, 427, 440, 
 479 480, 497, 509, 531, 532, 551, 
 
 Wetstein, 165, 324, 327, 345, 370, 466. 
 Wieseler, 9, 50, 82, 166, 261, 262. 
 Winer, 23, 26, 33, 36, e¢ passim. 
 Wilson, C. w. +, 131, 232, 477» 
 Wordsworth, a +» 132, 289, 385, 
 422, 483, 55 
 Woden ¥ ; 243) 306, 315, 371. 
 Wright, 437, 557+ 
 
 Xenophon, 146, 
 
 Zeller, 423 
 Zumpt, 49 
 
lI, GREEK WORDS 
 
 INDEX III. GREEK WorRDs. 
 
 ‘Abin i, 
 
 "ABpady, tov Kb\rror, xvi. 22 
 
 &Bvocos, viii. 31. 
 dyaGoraety, Vi. 33- 
 dyadhgy, i. 47; X- 2%0 
 dyadXAlacts, i, 14. 
 dyarGy, vi. 27. 
 aydan, xi. 42. 
 dyamnrés, iii, 22, 
 dyyedos, re II. 
 
 Gyet, xxiv. 21. 
 ayidfew, xi. 2 
 
 dyios, i L 35. 
 
 aypa, v. 9. 
 dypavhets, ii, 8. 
 dyovla, xxii, 44.°- 
 aywvlferbat, xiii. 24. 
 &deAgol Tod Kuplov, viii. 19. 
 Aldns, x. 15, Xvi. 23. 
 Gétxla, xiii. 27. 
 Gdtxos, xvi. 11. 
 dduvatety, i. 37- 
 a&iuua, Ta, xxii. I. 
 déeretv, vil. 30. 
 aluaros, OpbuBot, xxii, 44. 
 alveiv, ii. 13. 
 
 alvos, xviii. 43. 
 
 alpewv, vi. 29. 
 
 alpew puviv, xvil. 13 
 alriov, xxiii. 4. 
 alxuddwros, iv. 18 
 alway, 1. 55. 
 
 aldvios, X. 25. 
 dxd@apros, iv. 33 
 axon, vii. I. 
 
 dxodovGer pot, XVili. 22. 
 dxovewv, Vi. 27. 
 axptBas, i. 3. 
 GddBacrpov, Vii. 37e 
 aréxrwp, xxii. 60, 
 Gdevpoy, xiii. 21. 
 GAnOGs, ix. 27. 
 
 GAN F, xii. 51. 
 adXoyevijs, xvii. 13 
 Gdvots, vill. 29. 
 Gop, iii. 17. 
 duaprwdés, Vii. 37» 
 d&pueutros, i. 
 
 dupbrepot, Ve Jo 
 
 dy, i. 62. 
 
 dvaBalverv, ii. 4. 
 
 dvd-yatov, xxii, 12, 
 dvdyeu, ii, 22, vill. 2% 
 dvaywioxery, iv. 16, 
 dvaryxdfewv, xiv. 23. 
 dvdyxny Exe, xiv. 1% 
 dvadecxvivat, x. Ie 
 dvddekis, i. 80, 
 dvafnrety, ii. 44 
 dvdOnyua, Xxi. 5. 
 dvatpeiy, xxii. 2, 
 dvaxablfey, vii. 15 
 dvaxplvew, xxiii. 14. 
 dyd\nuyis, ix. 51. 
 dvanvev, xii, 36, 
 dyduynots, xxii. 19. 
 dydzretpos, Xiv. 13. 
 dvaréurety, xxii. Jo 
 dvdoracts, li. 34. 
 dvardocecOat, i Li 
 dvarohy, i. 78. 
 "Avdpéas, Vi, 14. 
 dvexrérepov, x. 12, 
 dvévdexrov, xvii. I. 
 dvip, vi. 8, xxiv. de 
 &vOpwros, vii. 8. 
 dnordvat, i i. 39, iv. 3% 
 “Avva, ii. 36. 
 “Avvas, iii, 2. 
 
 &vowa, vi. 11. 
 
 dv6? dy, i. 20, xil, 3. 
 dvrihauBdverOat, i, S4e 
 dvrimapépxerOat, X. 31~ 
 dvrlaepa, viii. 26. 
 dvwOer, i. 3. 
 dvwrepoy, xiv. 10, 
 dmaryyé\\ew, viii. 20. 
 dmapricpués, xiv, 28, 
 Gras, iii. 21. 
 ameOjs, i. 17. 
 drrehrrifey, Vi. 35¢ 
 dméxewv, vi. 24. 
 &moros, xii. 46. 
 
 dé, vil. 35. 
 
 amd Tov viv, v. 10. 
 amoypagy, ii. 2. 
 émodéxer Gat, viii. 40, 
 dmodtdbvat, Xx. 25. 
 dmodoxidtepy, ix. 22, 
 dmoxplvec Oat, i. 19. 
 dmrohauBdvev, Vi. 34 
 amonvewv, ii, 29. 
 dmoNUrpwots, xxi. 28, 
 
 551 
 
582 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 dromvlyew, vill. J 
 dmooracOjvat, xxii, 42. 
 dmoaré\Xe, iv. 18. 
 dmécronos, Vi. 13. 
 dmooroparifeyv, xi. 53. 
 amoorpépev, Xxiil. 14. 
 amordocec@at, ix. 61. 
 dmorehety, xiii. 32. 
 damorwdooe, ix. 5. 
 cmopixew, xxi. 26, 
 drew, vill, 16, xv. & 
 darrecOat, Vii. 39. 
 dpa, i, 66. 
 apa, xviii. 8, 
 'Apipabala, xxiii, 52. 
 doaorgy, xi. 37. 
 apro THs mpobécews, vi. de 
 aproev, xiv. 34. 
 dpxerOat, iii. 8, iv. 21, xii. 4h 
 apxh K- e€ovsla, XX. 20, 
 apxeepevs, iii. 2, ix. 22. 
 apxereddns, xix. 2. 
 doBeoros, lil, 17. 
 ackds, V. 376 
 acodprov, xii. G. 
 ATWTWS, XVe IZ. 
 dreviterw, iv. 20 
 avAh, xi. 2i. 
 avernpés, xix. 21. 
 avrés, i, 16, ii. 38. 
 d@arros, xxiv. 31. 
 dgecis dpapriav, i, 7Je 
 adopltew, vi. 22. 
 E&dpwr, xi. 40, 
 apurvoir, Vili. 23. 
 axpetos, xvii. Ia. 
 
 adxpt, Axpis, i. 20, iv. 13 
 a&xupoy, il. 17. 
 
 Babéws, Xxiv. I. 
 Baddverr, vi. 48. 
 _Badddyriovy, x. 4. 
 Bddrcry, v. 375 xvi. 20, 
 Bamwrigep, i il. 7. 
 Bdaricya, iti. 3 
 Barrioris, 6, ili. 7. 
 BapaBBas, xxiii. 18. 
 BapOodopuatos, vi. 14. 
 Bacavitey, viii. 28. 
 Bdcavos, xvi. 23. 
 Baordfev, vil. 14, xiv. 27. 
 Baros, vi. 44, Xx. 37- 
 Bdros, xvie 6. 
 Bdedvyya, xvie BS. 
 BeefeBovr, xis 15. 
 Beddv7, xviii. 25. 
 ByGavla, xix. 29. 
 
 BnOreéyp, ii. 4. 
 Bybgaryh, xix. 29 
 
 BI Bos, iii. 4. 
 
 Blos, viii. 43. 
 praodnula, v. 2B. 
 BbOuvor, vi. 39. 
 
 Bodh, xxii. 41. 
 BovrerGat, x. 22. 
 Bovdeuris, xxiii. 50, 
 Bovdh rob Geod, vii. 3@ 
 poriee iii. 5. 
 
 Bpax. OP, i, 51. 
 
 Bpédos, ii. 2 xviii, 15 
 Bpéxerr, vii. 38. 
 Bpvyuss, xiii. 28 
 
 Bvooos, xvi. 19. 
 
 Tafpr7p, i. 19. 
 
 yaxopurduor, xxl, Bo 
 
 Tadidala, i. 26. 
 
 vapor, xii. 36, xiv. 8 
 
 dp, xviii. ae xxiii, 22 
 
 7¢, V. 36, xi. 
 
 yéevva, xii. 5. 
 
 yeved airy, xd. 32. 
 
 yervar, i. 13. 
 
 yévenua, iii. 7. 
 
 Tevyncapér, v. I. 
 
 Tepacnvés, sag 26. 
 
 vi, 4, iv. 25. 
 
 iver Bat, i i, 5, 41, iii. 2, iv. 36, vl 33 
 
 ywadoKev, Xe 22. 
 
 ywoplfew, ii, 17. 
 
 yvwords, xxiii. 49. 
 yoryufev, Ve 30 
 
 ypagh, H, iv. 21. 
 
 Satudrioy, iv. 33, Vile 33 
 Saxrdnos, xv. 22. 
 Sdxrvdos, Ocod, xi. 20, 
 Savltev, vi. 34. 
 danorhs, vii. 41. 
 
 6é Kal, ili. 9. 
 
 Benors, i. 13, V- 33. 
 
 be7, ii. 49, iv. 43, ix. 22 
 beicOat, v. 12. 
 
 Sépecv, xii. 47. 
 
 Seomérns, ii. 29. 
 [devrepbarpwros], vi. Be 
 SéxeoOat, xxii. 17. 
 
 6id, v. 19. 
 
 dd, T&Y mpopyTay, xviii, 3% 
 SiaBddrew, xvi. I. 
 diaBrémery, vi. 42. 
 didBoNdos, iv. 2, viii, 12. 
 OvaryyédAewv, ix. 60. 
 
 | Ouaypnyopetv, ix. 32. 
 
Ill. GREEK WORDS 583 
 
 BaPhny, xxil, 20. 
 diaroyiouds, V. 22, 
 Biauéverv, xxii. 28, 
 Siapeplfew, xxii. IF 
 dtavolyerw, ii, 23. 
 Oiardnua, xi. 17. 
 Stavuxrepeterv, vi. 12. 
 dtamparyyareverOat, xix. 15 
 Otacelew, iii, 14. 
 diarrpéper, ix. 41, xxiii, 2, 
 diarwfev, vii, 3. 
 diardocery, iii, 13. 
 diapéperv, xii. 7. 
 drépxerOat, ii, 15, Ve 15. 
 Suipynats, i. 1. 
 
 Slkatos, i, 6. 
 
 Oikavody, Vii. 29, 35 
 dixalwyua, i. 6. 
 
 Bixrvoy, Vv. 2. 
 
 616, i. 35. 
 
 Bixoroueir, xii. 46, 
 Obyua, ii. I. 
 
 Soxés, vi. 41. 
 
 Goédfetv, ii, 20. 
 
 dogdgew Tov Oedy, Vo 25. 
 dodAn, i, 38. 
 
 Gobdos, vil. 7, xv. 26, 
 Box}, V. 29. 
 
 Spaxyu, xv. 8 
 
 Svvayus, iv. 14, 36. 
 duvdorns, i. 52. 
 duvards, i. 49. 
 
 dive, iv. 40. 
 
 Svoxbdws, xviil. 24, 
 bapa, Vv. 9. 
 
 fa, iv. 34. 
 
 édy, xix. 40. 
 
 €Gv, iv. 34, 41, xxii. 51. 
 éavrov, éavray, xii, 1, xxi. 30 
 éBdoujkovra, x. 1, 17. 
 éyelpery, i. 69. 
 
 éykakelv, D, évkaKety, 
 ddaplvew, xix. 44. 
 
 E0vn, Td, TOD Kdopov, xii, 30. 
 E00s,_ kare 79, i. 8, 
 
 el, xili, 22, xxii. 67. 
 
 el oe beAyye, Vv. 36. 
 
 el xal, xi. 8, xviii. 4. 
 
 el ph, i iv. 26. 
 
 elOicpévov, kara 7d, ii. 27, 1. 8 
 elwObs, Kard 70, iv. 16. 
 elvexev, ov, iv. 18, 
 
 elev dé, i. 13, iv. 24. 
 
 elmev TapaBodjv, Vi. 39. 
 elxev mpés, i. 13. 
 
 elpjvn, ii. 29. 
 
 elpjvnp, els, vil. 50. 
 
 els, iv. 23, 44, v. 16, Vii. I, 30. 
 
 els, pula, &y, vill. 22, xiv. 18, xxiv. I. 
 
 eladyew, ii. 27. 
 
 elapépety, xi. 4. 
 
 éx, e€, ii. 4, xl. 13. 
 
 éx vexp@v, XX. 35» 
 
 éxBdddeuv, Vi. 22. 
 
 éxdidbvat, Xx. Qs 
 
 éxdukeiv, Xvili. 3 
 
 éxei, xiii, 28. 
 
 éxeivos, X. 12, xxii, 22, 
 
 éxxémrewy, ili, 9, xiii. 7. 
 
 éxxpépac bat, xix. 48. 
 
 éxdéyer Oat, vi. 13. 
 
 éxhelrewv, xvi. 9, xxii, 32, xxlil. 45, 
 
 éxpwuxryplfecr, xvi, 14. 
 
 éxreipagew, iv. 12. 
 
 éxm\jooer Oa, ii. 43. 
 
 éxmvéew, xxiii. 46. 
 
 Exoraots, v. 26. 
 
 exrevérrepor, xxii. 43. 
 
 ala, xix. 29, xxi. 37. 
 
 Ehauoy, vii. 46. 
 
 "Eady, xix. 29, xxl, 37. 
 
 é\dxLoTOos, XVie 10. 
 
 Aéyxeobat, i iii, 19. 
 
 Freos, i 1. 50, 54, 74e 
 
 *EXicaios, iv. 27. 
 
 éhxobcbat, xvi. 20, 
 
 *Eyupaots, xxiv. 13. 
 
 éumipmddvat, Vi. 25. 
 
 Eumpocdev, xix. 4, 28, 
 
 év, IV. 32. 
 
 év éfovalg, i. 32. 
 
 éy after verbs of motion, i, 17, v. 16, 
 vii. 17. 
 
 évavtlov, xx. 26. 
 
 vokos, vii. 25, xiii. 17. 
 
 évdvewv, xxiv. 49. 
 
 évedpete.y, xi, 54. 
 
 évéxew, xi. 53. 
 
 évaurdv Kuplov dexrédy, iv. 19. 
 
 évkaxely, xviii. I. 
 
 &voyra, Ta, xi, 41. 
 
 Evripos, vii. 2. 
 
 &yros bor, xvii. 2r. 
 
 évrpérecOat, xviii. 2, Xx. IZ 
 
 évwriov, i, 15. 
 
 eaureio Gar, xxii. 31. 
 
 eEaigyns, see ckégpvns. 
 
 éEaTroaré\Newy, XX. 10, 
 
 e£épxer Oar ard, iv. 35. 
 
 @Ecort, xx, 22. 
 
 edu, ii. 13, ix. 39 
 
 é&7js, vil. II. 
 
 eEvordvat, ii. 47~ 
 
eEodos, ix. 3%. 
 
 eLoubevetv, xviii. 9. 
 éfoucla, iv. 32, 36, ix. 1. 
 éfovgla ro0 oxérous, xxii. 53. 
 évalpew Puoviy, xi.127- 
 éracxtverOat, ix. 26, 
 émairetv, Xvi. 3. 
 
 émdy, Xi. 22, 34. 
 ETAVAYEL, Ve 3. 
 éravatraverOat, X. Ge 
 érre.0%, Vii. Ie 
 
 éreOnmep, i, I. 
 érépxerOat, i, 35, 
 émepwrGp, iii. 10, 
 éméxetv, XIV. 7. 
 érnpedtew, vi. 28, 
 
 éml, iv. 25, Ve 5. 
 
 él rhs Bdrou, XX. 37e 
 émiBiBdgerv, xix. 35. 
 émtBhémewv, ix. 38. 
 
 él B\nya, V. 36. 
 emvywioKery, 1, 4, V. 22 
 exvypagph, xxill. 
 
 ér.odeiy, i. 25. 
 
 émdiddvat, iv. 17. 
 émifnrety, iv. 42. 
 émixeioOat, Vv. 1, xxiii, 23 
 emda Bdvea Bau, i 1X. 47 
 émihelxew, xVi. 21. 
 émtovawos, xi. 3. 
 émumlarreww, i. 12, XV. 20. 
 émioiticos, 1x. 12. 
 émioxémrecOat, i. 68, vii. 16 
 émioxdgerv, i. 35, ix. 34. 
 émitKkoTy, xix. 44. 
 éTLOTATNS, Ve 5. 
 émiotpépev, viii. 55. 
 emirx ve, XXill. 5. 
 émirinay, iv. 39. 
 emipdoKev, XXilie 54. 
 émixelpev, i. I. 
 
 épyaclay ddbvat, xii. 58 
 &pnuot, i. 80. 
 
 €cOnots, xxiii. II. 
 éomépa, xxiv. 29. 
 
 écwbev, Td, xi. 39; 40. 
 Erepos, ix. 56, xxiii. 32. 
 ért, i. 15. 
 
 croudgev, ii. 31. 
 
 ros, i. 24, ii. 4i. 
 evayyert{ecOat, i. 19, il, 10 
 edye, xix. 17. 
 
 evyev}s, xix. 12, 
 evdokety, iii, 22. 
 
 evdoxla, ii, 14. 
 evepyérns, xxii. 35 
 edGeros, ix, 62. 
 
 584 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 evBews, xii. 54. 
 evxomwrepor, Vv. 23 
 evaBys, ii. 25. 
 evdoyetv, vi. 28, 
 evAoynpevos, i. 42. 
 evAoynTés, i. 68. 
 evTévws, xxiii. 10, 
 evxapioreiy, xxii. 17) 1Qe 
 épypepla, i. 5. 
 égiordvat, ii. Qe 
 Exew, Vii. 42. 
 Ews, iv. 42. 
 
 Zaxaplas, i 1. 5. 
 Smroris, vi. 15- 
 $a, i. 37: 
 
 fnrety, xiii. 24. 
 ZopoBaBpen, iii. 27. 
 fbn, xii. I, xiii, 226 
 Surypeiv, v. 10. 
 
 fun}, viii. 43. 
 Swoyoveiy, xvii. 33. 
 
 H, xv. a xvii. 2, 
 
 H, Gdn, xii. 51. 
 irreuovebewr, i li. 2, iil, Be 
 tryeuovla, iii. I. 
 NYVELWV, XX. 20. 
 
 Mrckla, ii, 52, xii. 25. 
 quépas, &v Tals, i. 39. 
 tulora, 7a, xix. 8. 
 ‘Hpgdns, i 5. 
 
 ‘Hpwons (Antipas), iii, 1, ix. Jo 
 “Hpwoids, i iii, 19. 
 qouxagev, xiv. 3. 
 
 ixos, iv. 37, xxi. 25. 
 
 OdpuBos, iv. 36. 
 Oavpudgev él, ii. 33. 
 OcdoGat, v. 27. 
 
 Gere, ix. 24, 54, xiii. 31, xx. 46s 
 Oédnua, xxii. 42. 
 Gedduiros, i. 3 
 Oepamever, i lv. 40, Ve T5. 
 Gépos, xxi. 30. 
 
 Oplé, xxi. 18. 
 
 OpbuBos, xxii. 44. 
 
 Qvew, XV. 23. 
 
 "Idetpos, viii. 41. 
 
 "IdxwBos ZeBedalov, v. 10, Vis Te 
 "IdkwBos ’Addalov, vie 15. 
 lacOat, vy. 17, vi. 17. 
 
 tacts, | xiii. 32. 
 
 lov, i. 38. 
 
 ldod ydp, i. 44. 
 
 leparevew, i. 8. 
 
III. GREEK WORDS 
 
 lepevs, v. 14, XVil. I4e 
 "Teperys, xviii. 35. 
 lepdy, ii. 46, iv. 9. 
 "Tepooddvpa, ii. 22, 
 *Tepovoarnp, €v, li, 250 
 "Iyoods, i. 31. 
 txavés, vii. 12, 
 lkuds, viii. 6. 
 tndoxecOat, xviii, 13. 
 ludrioy, vi. 29. 
 ipariopés, vii. 25. 
 Wa, i. 43, iv. 3. 
 "Tovda, i. 39. 
 Tovdala, i. 5, 
 xxiii. 5. 
 *Iovdas "laxwBou, vi. 16. 
 "Tovdas "Ioxapis0, vi. 16. 
 lod-yyedos, xx. 35. 
 lordvat, éorny, viii. 44. 
 © © © ey éorus, i. 19. 
 « 0 » ey oTadels, xviii. IT. 
 *Iwava, viii. 3, xxiv.- 10. 
 *Iwdvns ZeBedalov, v. 10, vi. 14. 
 *Iwvas, xi. 29. 
 
 iv. 44, Vii. 
 
 ka'yw, Xvi. 9. 
 
 xdpol, xvi. 9. 
 xadaplfev, v. 12 
 xabapicpés, ii, 22. 
 Kaeffjs, i. 3, viii. Ie 
 kabevdev, viii. 52. 
 xaOlfew, iv. 20, xiv. 28. 
 KaOort, i. 7. 
 
 Kadds, i. 2. 
 
 xal avrés, i. 16, Vv. 14, Vi. 20, 
 kal yap, vi. 32. 
 Kaid¢as, iii. 2, 
 
 xawbs, v. 38. 
 
 katpés, Vill. 13. 
 
 Kaioap, ii. 1, xx. 24, 
 kd\apos, vii. 24. 
 
 kadelv, vi. 15, xiv. 12 
 Kdimdos, XVili. 25. 
 Kapiros, i. 42. 
 
 Kdpoos, vi. 41. 
 
 kard, viii. I. 
 
 Kad’ iyuépav, 7d, xi. 3 
 kata Aovkay, p. I. 
 kard povas, ix. 18. 
 kardayeuw, v. II. 
 katatoxtvev, xiii. I7e 
 karaxNlveuw, ix. 14. 
 kataxpnuvifew, iv. 29, 
 kaTadOdfew, xx. 6. 
 Karahvew, xix. 7. 
 kard\vpa, ii. 7, xxii. 1%. 
 Karavoety, vi. 41, xii. 27. 
 
 585 
 
 KaTaméracpa, XXxill. 45. 
 kaTam)éeuv, viii. 26, 
 Korrapyeiy, xiii. 7. 
 Karaprifew, vi. 40. 
 kaTacKnvwo.s, ix. 58. 
 karapidely, vii. 38, Xv. 20. 
 KarévayTt, xix. 30. 
 katépxecOat, iv. 316 
 KaTnxeto Oat, 1. 4. 
 KaTolKelv, xi. 26, 
 katowy, xii. 55. 
 Kadapvaovp, iv. 23, 31. 
 Keto Oat, ii. 34. 
 
 Képas, i, 69. 
 
 Kepdrov, xv. 16, 
 Keparh ywvlas, xx. 17. 
 Knpvooew, ili. 3. 
 KAalew, xix. 41. 
 kAavOpds, xiii. 28, 
 Kels TIS yuwoews, xi. 52. 
 Kneéras, xxiv. 18, 
 kAnpovopety, x. 25. 
 KAlBavos, xii. 28, 
 KAlvev, ix. 12. 
 
 kAlvn, v. 19. 
 
 khuldvov, v. 19. 
 Khiola, ix. 14. 
 
 KAvdwy, Vili. 24. 
 kotAla, i. 15. 
 
 kowwyvds, v. 10. 
 Ko\AGoOat, x. IT. 
 KéAmros, vi. 38. 
 
 kéAmos ’ABpadu, xvi. 22, 
 KoTLGY, V. 5. 
 
 kémros, xi. 7. 
 
 xotpla, xiii. 8. 
 kbmrecOa, viii. 52. 
 xépaé, xii. 24. 
 
 k6pos, xvi. 7. 
 
 Koguvos, ix. 17. 
 KpauTddn, see kperdhy. 
 kpavloy, xxiii. 33. 
 Kpdomedov, Vili. 44. 
 KpareioOat, xxiv. 16. 
 KpdrioTos, i. 3. 
 Kpavy?, i. 42. 
 Kpe“aoBat, xxiii. 39. 
 KpewdAn, XXxi. 34. 
 kpnuves, vill. 33, 
 kplvov, xii. 27. 
 
 plots, xi. 42. 
 
 KpvTTn, Xi. 33. 
 Kupnvatos, xxiii. 26, 
 Kup70s, ii. 2. 
 
 Kvpuos, v. 17. 
 
 Kupios, 6, vii. 13. 
 kwoés, i. 62. 
 
586 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 Aayxdverr, i. 9. 
 Adfapos, xvi. 20, 
 Aathay, viii. 23. 
 Aageurés, xxiii. 53. 
 Aarpeverr, iv. 8. 
 
 Aéyetr mapaBodiy, v. 36. 
 
 Ady cot, buiv, vil. 9, 47, xvill. 14. 
 
 Aeyewy, viii. 30. 
 Aetroupyla, i. 23. 
 Aewrby, xii. 59, xxi. 2 
 Aevls, v. 27. 
 
 Afjpos, xxiv. II. 
 Anoris, X. 30. 
 
 Aldos, iii. 8, xx. Je 
 Aucuay, xx. 18, 
 
 Aluvy, Vv. Te 
 
 Aruds, Ve 25. 
 
 Abyos, i. 2. 
 
 Aéyos Tod Ocod, viii. IE. 
 owds, xxi, IL. 
 Avoavias, iii. I. 
 Avowredet, XvVil. 2. 
 AurpodoOat, xxiv. ZI. 
 Adrpwots, i. 68. 
 Auxvla, viii. 16. 
 Adxvos, Vili. 16, 
 
 Maydadnv}, viii. 2, teal: 10. 
 pakdplos, 1. 45, Vie 20. 
 paxpay, xv. 13. 
 
 paxpober, xvi. 23, Xvili. 13 
 MaxpoBupety, xvii. 7. 
 paKpés, xix. 12. 
 
 papwvas, XVI. Oe 
 
 Mdpé@a, x. 38. 
 
 Mapla a *TaxwBov, xxiv. Io. 
 
 Mapla 7 Maydarnvi, viii. 2, xxiv. 10. 
 
 Mapla ) MdpGas ddchpy, x. 39. 
 paprupeir, iv. 22. 
 Hapriptoy, els, V. 14s 
 pdoree, vii. 21. 
 Mar@aios, vi. 15. 
 pdxatpa, xxii. 38. 
 peyartve, i. 46, 58 
 Heyahn pov, i. 42. 
 pédew, ix. 31. 
 
 per, viii. 5 
 
 Bev ody, iii. 18. 
 pévev, xix, 6. 
 pevodv, xi. 28. 
 Heptvav, X. 416 
 Hépts, X. 42. 
 HepLori)s, xii. 14. 
 Heo ovUKTLOV, xi. 5. 
 péow, év, vill. 7. 
 peradddvat, ili, 1%. 
 
 perdvowa, iii. 3, v. 
 
 perewplferOa, xii. 29. 
 
 METOXOS, V. 7- 
 
 Hexpt, xvi. 16. 
 
 BH interrogative, | X. 15. 
 
 Hh prohibitive, vii. 6. 
 
 #4 with participles, i. 20 
 
 Bh yévorro, xx. 16, 
 
 BA wore, ili. 15. 
 
 nial 1. 24. 
 
 PNVUEY, XX. 37. 
 
 pixpbrepos, 4, vil, 28, 
 
 puceiv, xiv. 26. 
 
 priya, xxiv. Ie 
 
 pynpectov, xxiv. I. 
 
 pynorever Gat, i, 27, il, 5 
 
 Boys, ix. 39. 
 
 pObdtos, xi. 33. 
 
 Hovoyers, vii. 12, Vill. 42, ix. a 
 
 Bopor, vii. 37. 
 pwpalvey, xiv. 34. 
 
 Muwiiojs, ii. 22. 
 
 Nafapér, i. 26, 
 Nafapnvés, iv. 34 
 Nat, vii. 11. 
 vexpos, XV. 24. 
 véos, V. 37» 
 
 whwtos, X. 21. 
 voids, Vil. 30. 
 vowodtddoxados, Ve Ife 
 vbyos, 6, xvi. 16. 
 bros, xii. 55. 
 vippn, xii. 53. 
 vunper, Ve 34 
 vov, xi. 30. 
 
 vir, dard rod, i, 48. 
 vie, i ii. 37. 
 
 Eddov, xxii. 52, xxiii. 32 
 
 6 54, i. 20. 
 
 76 with clauses, i. 62, i ix. 46. 
 TOU with infinitives, i 1. 74, 77s 
 OTD sas . i 8, iil, 2% 
 7 Kad” hppa, xi. = 
 éduvacOat, ii. 48, xvi. 24. 
 olkérys, xvi. 13. 
 
 olkovdpos, xii. 42, xvi. I. 
 olkos, ii. 4. 
 
 olkounévn, 7, ii. 1, ive 5 
 xad’ 5dns, iv. 14. 
 
 SuBpos, xii. 54. 
 
 butreiv, xxiv. 14. 
 
 Opuolws, xiii. 3, 5» 
 
 duonoyeir ep, xil. 
 
Ill. GREEK WORDS 
 
 éréyart, v. 27. 
 
 éxl rg dvépart, ix. 48. 
 
 bfos, xxiii. 36. 
 
 Smicbev, xxiii, 26, 
 
 érraclay, i. 22, 
 
 brrecOat, xxii. 43. 
 
 Srrws dy, ii, 35¢ 
 
 dpOpltew, xxi. 38 
 
 dpiri, %, i. 39. 
 
 8pos, ix. 28. 
 
 8s attracted, i. 4, iii, 19. 
 
 Sorts, i. 20, ii. 4, Vil. 37. 
 
 bray, xi. 22, 34. 
 
 dr. causal, ii. 30. 
 
 5re recitative, vii. 16. 
 
 rt ambiguous, i. 45, vii. 16, 39. 
 
 od with a participle, vi. 42. 
 
 ob. 2 was, EYE 
 
 ody, iii, 7, Xiv. 34. 
 
 odros contemptuous, vii. 39, xiii. 33, 
 xiv. 30. 
 
 édpis, iv. 29. 
 
 éydma, iii, 14. 
 
 wdys, xxi. 35. 
 
 wadevery, xxiii. 16, 
 wais, vi. 7, Xv. 26. 
 
 mais avrod, i, 54. 
 Tavdoxetoy, X. 34. 
 mavoupyla, xx. 23. 
 mwavredés, els Td, xiii, 1B. 
 wdvrodev, xix. 43. 
 wdyrus, iv. 23. 
 
 wapd, v. I, vii. 38. 
 waod, after comparatives, iii, 13. 
 mapapidtecOat, xxiv. 29. 
 mapaBon%, iv. 23. 
 mapaBodhy édeyer, v. 36. 
 mapaBodhy elev, Vis 39 
 Tmapayyédev, V. 14. 
 maparylvecOat, vil. 4. 
 mapddecos, Xxili. 43. 
 mapadddvat, i. 2, vi. 16, ix. G4 
 mapddogov, v. 26. 
 mapatreiobat, xiv. 18, 
 mapdkAnots, ii. 25. 
 mapakodovGely, i. 3. 
 mapahapBdvev, xviii, 33. 
 mapadverOat, v. 18. 
 TAapacKkevy}, XXill. 54. 
 TapaTnpelv, Vi 7. 
 Taparhpyots, Xvi. 20, 
 mapaTiOévat, x. 8, xi. Ge 
 mapapéperv, Xxil. 42. 
 Tapaxpnua, V. 25. 
 wapeivat, xiii. I. 
 wapépxeoOai, xi. 42. 
 
 587 
 
 wapéxe.y, xi. 7. 
 wapiordve.y, il, 22, 
 wapeorGres, ol, xix. 24. 
 wapotkeiy, xxiv. 18. 
 was, i, 66, iii, 16, iv. 13, vi. 30, ix. 42 
 waca odpé, iii iii, 6. 
 rarely, x 19, xxi. 24. 
 warhp, ii. 49, xi. 2. 
 matpla, ii. 4. 
 aé0n, viii. 29. 
 mwedwvds, vi. 17. 
 melBecGat, xvi. 31. 
 Tle:AGros, i iii. I, xiii, I, xxiii, 3. 
 mweipdtew, iv. 2. 
 metpagpuos, Xi. 4. 
 mwéurrevy, iv. 18, 
 wevOepd, iv. 38. 
 mwevixpbs, : xxi, 2, 
 wépara Tis vis, TA, xi. 31. 
 wepl, Gayudfew, ii, 18, 
 mwepl, 7, Ta, xxii. 37. 
 mepitivvveba, xii. 35. 
 weplhumos, xviii. 23. 
 mwepirlirew, X. 30. 
 mepioeioOat, XVii. 33. 
 wepiow Go Gat, x. 40. 
 mwepiocevev, xii, 15. 
 mepioabrepos, vii, 26, 
 weptotepd, ili. 22, 
 weplxwpos, iii. 
 Tlérpos, v. 8, vi. 14. 
 mivaxlo.oy, i. 63. 
 WioTevely, XVi, II, XXIV. 24. 
 aloris, Vv. 20. 
 mors, xii. 42. 
 TmrAavacbat, xxi. 8, 
 mAareia, X. To. 
 mAeovetia, xii. 15. 
 mAryas emit eva, X. 30. 
 wAnGew, i, 15. 
 TAGs, i, 10. 
 Trnnpvpa, vi. 48. 
 AH, Vi. 24, X. II, 20. 
 mAnpns A€mpas, Vv. 12. 
 aAnpodopeiv, i, 4. 
 mAnaoloy, x. 29. 
 whovew, Vv. 2. 
 rveiua dyov, f 15. 
 mvedps,, i, 47: 
 Toei, Xxii, 19. 
 
 moteiv é\eos, i. 72, X= 37: 
 movety kdprovs, iii, 8. 
 movety Kpdros, i, 51. 
 molumov, xii. 32. 
 ®otos, v. 19, vi. 32. 
 wédts Aavelé, ii. 4. 
 wéXus Tovida, i. 36. 
 
588 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 mopever Oat, iv. 30. 
 moppwOev, xvii. 12. 
 moramés, i. 20, Vil. 39. 
 ToTHptov, xxii. 17. 
 
 m6das, mapa Tods, vil. 38 
 Tparyparever Oat, xix. IZ 
 mpaxTwp, xii. 58. 
 
 mpaéts, Xxili. 51. 
 Tpacoey, lil. 13. 
 wemparyyevov Eorw, xxiii. 15 
 tpeoBuréptov, xxil. 66. 
 rpecBvrepot, Vii. 3. 
 
 ply, ii, 26. 
 
 mpoBddrev, Xxi. 30. 
 mpodérns, vi. 16. 
 mpoépxerOat, i. 17. 
 mpobécews, ol Epror Tis, vi 3 
 mpoxdrrety, ii, 52. 
 TpomeeT Gv, xxi. Iq. 
 
 amps, xxiv. 50. 
 
 elev mpbs, 1. 13, Ve FQ 
 
 Ta mpbs, xiv. 32. 
 MpordaTavgy, X. 35. 
 mpoodéxXer Oat, XV. Ze 
 
 mpoc oxy, iii. 15. 
 mposepydgerOat, xix. 16, 
 mporevxer Oa, ili, 21. 
 Wpocevx?, Vi. 12. 
 wpocéxeuv, xii, Ie 
 wpookivew, iv. 7. 
 mpoomrotetc Oat, xxiv. 20. 
 mpoorOévat, ili. 20, xvii. §. 
 mpocOels elev, xix. II. 
 mpocéGero wéuwat, xx. IIe 
 Tporpuwvety, vi. 13. 
 mpoowavtev, xi. 46. 
 mpbowror, li. 31, ix. 51, 53. 
 tmpbowrrov hauBdvew, Xx. 216 
 mpopnrevety, i. 67. 
 mpopyrat, ol, xvi. 16. 
 mpopyrts, li. 36. 
 mpwroxadedpla, xi. 43. 
 mpwroxhola, xiv. 7. 
 mp&ros, ii. 2, XV. 22, xix. 47. 
 mparov, xii. I. 
 
 pwr oroKos, il. 7. 
 
 Trepvy.oy Tov lepod, iv. Qe. 
 wTUoV, iii. J7- 
 
 TTUTTEW, IV. 20. 
 
 TT Gots, li. 34. 
 
 TT OOS, iv. 18. 
 
 TUAW, XVi. 20. 
 
 muvOdver Gat, XVill. 36, 
 
 Top, iii. 16, xil. 49. 
 
 mupl acBéorTy, ili. I7e 
 muperds wéyas, iv. 33. 
 
 wos, i. 34, vi. 42. 
 
 lee 65, ‘t 15, §Be 
 [oat] 9 
 
 pihooew, v. Oy ix. 42 
 plarew, iv. 35. 
 poupala, ii, 35 
 
 poun, xiv. 21. 
 
 plots, Vili. 43. 
 
 odBBaropr, -ra, iv. 3¥o 
 ZaddovKator, xx. 27e 
 odxkos, x. 13. 
 ZadaGepr, iil. 27. 
 gahevew, xxi. 26, 
 Zapapelrys, ix. 52 
 Zdperra, iv. 
 
 odpé, ili. 6. 
 
 Zaravas, x. 18% 
 
 odrov, xiii, 2¥6 
 
 onpeioy, ii. 34e 
 
 ons, xii. 33 
 
 CLAyWY, Vi. 296 
 
 Zidwrla, iv. 26. 
 
 olkepa, i. 15. 
 
 Drwdp, xiii. 4. 
 
 Zluwy, vi. 14. 
 
 Liwwy 6 fprurhs, vi. 15. 
 Zluwv Papicaios, vii. 40. 
 Zlpwv 6 Kupyvaios, xxi, 26 
 givamt, xiii. 19. 
 
 owduy, Xxili. 53. 
 owidtew, xxii. 316 
 ovreutés, XV. 23. 
 oiTouérptov, Xii. 42. 
 oxavdanlfev, vil. 230 
 oxdydador, xvii. Ie 
 oKnvh, xvi. 9. 
 
 oKipTay, i, 41. 
 
 cxoptrlos, xi. 12, 
 oxvOpwrol, xxiv. 17. 
 oxvAdewpy, Vii. 6. 
 
 oKddov, xi, 22. 
 
 gopés, vil. 14. 
 govddptoy, xix. 20, 
 copla, i ii. 52. 
 
 % copia Tod cod, xi. Qe 
 omelpwy, 6, Vill. 5- 
 omevdey, ii, 16. 
 omhdyxva, i. 78. 
 omhayxvlferBat, vii. 13. 
 om dpi, vi. I. 
 
 ordous, xxiii. 19. 
 craupbs, ix. 23, Xxili. 266 
 OTON}, XV. 22. 
 
 orépa paxalpys, : XXi. 246 
 orparevouevot, iil. 14. 
 orpdérevpa, xxiii. 11. 
 
orparnyol Tob lepov, xxii. 4. 
 
 oTpwrvview, xxii, 12, 
 ovyyevls, i. 36. 
 ouKopopéa, Xix. 4. 
 ouxopavreiy, iii, 14. 
 Dupewy, ii, 25. 
 
 obv, i. 56. 
 cuvaywyh, iv. 15. 
 
 ovvayTiiapBdver Bat, X. 4D. 
 
 ouvaprd gery, Vili. 29. 
 ovvBddrewv, ii, 19. 
 ouvédpoy, xxii. 66, 
 owveivat, ix. 18, 
 civests, ii. 47- 
 ouvevioxeiv, xi. 48. 
 ouvexety, iv. 33. 
 owOdAGcOat, xx. 18, 
 ouvrAapBdverr, i. 24. 
 cuvooia, ii. 44. 
 owvoxy}, Xxi. 25. 
 ouvrlarewy, vi. 49. 
 owrvlyey, Vili. 14, 42. 
 guvmopever Oat, xiv. 25 
 gurney, ii. 19. 
 ouvriOévat, Xxil. 5. 
 ouvptecOat, vill. 7. 
 Zvpios, iv. 27. 
 
 oxord fev, xi. 25. 
 TwpariKds, iii. 22. 
 owrip, i. 47; li, II. 
 owrnpla, i, 71 
 owrip.oy, ii, 30. 
 
 Tapetov, xii. 3. 
 TATEWOUY, xiv. 1, 
 Tamelvwors, i, 
 
 Te, li. 16. 
 
 TéKvor, 
 
 TeXeElV, li. 39. 
 TEAELODY, 1x. 32. 
 Tedelwaots, i. 45. 
 TeAeoHopely, Vill. 14. 
 Téos éxewv, xxii. 37. 
 TeNwvS, ili, 12, Ve 30. 
 TEAWVLOV, Ve. 27. 
 TeTpapxery, ill. I. 
 TiBeplos Katoap, iii. 1. 
 
 Tec ev TH Kapélg, i. 66, 
 
 tls é& dudy, xi. 5. 
 Tolvuv, XX. 25. 
 TOLOUTOS, XViil. 16, 
 Tékos, xix. 23. 
 rémos, xiv. 9. 
 
 rémos wedtvds, vi. 17 
 Tpdmefa, xix. 23. 
 rpugt, vii, 25. 
 
 GREEK WORDS 
 
 bBplfew, xi. 45. 
 byralverv, v. 31, vii. 10. 
 trypov Eddov, xxiii. 31. 
 bdpwrixds, xiv. 2. 
 
 ulds T. dvOpwmov, v. 24. 
 ulds ‘YWlorou, i. 32. 
 buérepos, xvi. 12. 
 Srapxev, Vill. 41. 
 bmdpxovra, TH, Vill. 3. 
 brép, xvi. 8. 
 Umrepipavos, i, 51. 
 danperys, i. 2, iv. 20, 
 br6, iv. 2. 
 
 on’ ‘obpavdy, ty, XVil. 24e 
 brodeckvivat, iii. 7. 
 brodéxecOa, x. 38. 
 brddnya, ili, 16, ix. 3. 
 dmoxplvecOat, xx. 20. 
 dToKpirhs, vi. 42. 
 
 UrohauBavery, vil. 43, X. 3Q. 
 
 dmopéve, il. 43. 
 
 Uromovy, vill. 15, Xxi. 19. 
 
 Umroorpépey, i. 56. 
 dmoxwpetv, ix. 10. 
 Srwmridfew, xvill. 5. 
 vorepeicOat, xv. 14. 
 borépnua, xxi. 4. 
 ByiaTos, i. 32, viii. 28. 
 
 pdryos, vii. 34. 
 pdparé, iii. 5. 
 
 Papicato, v. 176 
 
 parvn, ii. 7. 
 
 P0dvw, xi. 20. 
 piddpyupos, xvi. 14. 
 PiAnua, vil. 45, xxii. 48 
 @ikurmos, vi. 14. 
 
 @ikurmos rerpdpx7s, ili. & 
 
 pynovcbat, iv. 35. 
 PoBov, un, i. 13. 
 popos, xx. 22. 
 poprloy, xi. 46. 
 ppayuds, Xiv. 23 
 Ppdvyats, i. 17. 
 gpovluws, xvi. 8 
 puraky, li. 8, xii. 38 
 gwreds, ix. 58. 
 guwveiv, viii. 8, xiv. 12. 
 puvyh éyévero, iii. 22. 
 govt peyadn, i. 42. 
 puwvyy alpew, xvii. 13 
 
 xalperv, i, 14. 
 
 | xaAgr, Ve 5e 
 
 xAdpak, xix. 43. 
 
 589 
 
590 
 
 xauplferba, vil. 21, 42. 
 xdpis, ii. 52, iv. 22. 
 xapiTovr, i. 28. 
 
 xdopa, xvi. 26. 
 
 xelp Kuplov, i. 66, 
 Xelpas émerBévan, i lv. 40. 
 xtipa, vii. 12. 
 
 XiTWwy, iii, II, Vie 2Qe 
 Xwpafely, x. 13. 
 xopés, xv. 25. 
 xopragerv, vi. 21. 
 XpGV, Xi. 5- 
 XpeoPrreT 7s, Vile 420 
 xpnuarlyerw, ii, 
 
 xplev, iv. 18. 
 
 INDEX TO THE NOTES 
 
 Xpiords, 4, ii. 26, ix. 20, 
 Xpicrds Kuptos, ii, 11. 
 Xwpa, xxi, 21. 
 
 parudry, év BIBAy, xx. 47 
 Yaruots, év, xxiv. 44. 
 Ymrapagr, xxiv. 39. 
 Yaglfey, xiv. 28. : 
 Yuxn, i. 46, ix. 25, xii, 19, 23, xx 19) 
 pure, Vir Ie 
 
 doatrus, xiii, 5. 
 aoel, i. 56. 
 
 Sore, i iv. 29. 
 epedetoGas, ix. 35 
 
 
 
 INDEX IV. ENGLISH AND LATIN WORDS 
 
 aporéari, xxiv. 4 
 by and by, xvii. 7. 
 Calvary, xxiii. 33- 
 chaos, xVi. 26. 
 cousin, i. 36. 
 decurto, xxiii. 50. 
 
 dispensator, xii. 42, xvi, Bo 
 
 manicabat, xxi. 38- 
 occupy, xix. 13. 
 PAVEMEREATE, XIX. Aho 
 
 pignerarius, xii. 58. 
 procurator, xvi. 1. 
 quaterducatus, iil, 1, 19 
 rate, iv. 35. 
 
 room, xiv. 9. 
 
 Sontis, xxi. 34. 
 
 subsannare, xvi, 14, xxill, 3g 
 thought, xii. 22. 
 venttlabrum, iii. 1J- 
 
 wsllices, xii, 42, XVio Bo 
 
The International Critical Commentary. 
 
 
 
 “4 decided advance on all other commentartes.’’ — THE OUTLOOK. 
 
 ~ DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 By the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., 
 Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 
 
 “No one could be better qualified than Professor Driver to write a critical 
 and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy. His previous works are author- 
 ities in all the departments involved; the grammar and lexicon of the Hebrew 
 language, the lower and higher criticism, as well as exegesis and Biblical the- 
 ology; ... the interpretation in this commentary is careful and sober in the 
 main. A wealth of historical, geographical, and philological information illus- 
 trates and elucidates both the narrative and the discourses. Valuable, though 
 concise, excursuses are often given.” — The Congregationalist. 
 
 “Tt is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament commentary 
 in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially one of such merit. 
 This I find superior to any other Commentary in any language upon Deuter- 
 onomy.”’ — Professor E. L. Curtis, of Yale University. 
 
 “This volume of Professor Driver’s is.marked by his well-known care and 
 accuracy, and it will be a great boon to every one who wishes to acquire a 
 thorough knowledge, either of the Hebrew language, or of the contents of the 
 Book of Deuteronomy, and their significance for the development of Old Tes- 
 tament thought. The author finds scope for displaying his well-known wide 
 and accurate knowledge, and delicate appreciation of the genius of the 
 Hebrew language, and his readers are supplied with many carefully con- 
 structed lists of words and expressions. He is at his ‘best in the detailed 
 examination of the text.” — London Atheneum. 
 
 “Tt must be said that this work is bound to take rank among the best com- 
 mentaries in any language on the important book with which it deals. On 
 every page there is abundant evidence of a scholarly knowledge of the litera- 
 ture, and of the most painstaking care to make the book useful to thorough 
 students.” — The Lutheran Churchman. 
 
 “The deep and difficult questions raised by Deuteronomy are, in every in- 
 stance, considered with care, insight, and critical acumen. The student who 
 wishes for solid information, or a knowledge of method and temper of the 
 new criticism, will find advantage in consulting the pages of Dr. Driver.” — 
 Cton’s Herald, 
 
Zhe guternational Oritical Commentary. 
 
 
 
 “We believe this series to be of epoch-making importance.” 
 — The N. Y. EvanceEuist. 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 By Dr. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D., 
 | Professor of Theology, Harvard University. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 
 
 “The typographical execution of this handsome volume is worthy of the 
 scholarly character of the contents, and higher praise could not be given it.” 
 — Professor C. H. Toy, of Harvard University. 
 
 “This work represents the latest results of ‘Scientific Biblical Scholarship,’ 
 and as such has the greatest value for the purely critical student, especially on 
 the side of textual and literary criticism.” — Zhe Church Standard. 
 
 “ Professor Moore has more than sustained his scholarly reputation in this 
 work, which gives us for the first time in English a commentary on Judges not 
 excelled, if indeed equalled, in any language of the world.” — Professor 
 L. W. BATTEN, of P. £. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 
 
 “ Although a critical commentary, this work has is practical uses, and by 
 its divisions, headlines, etc., it is admirably adapted to the wants of all 
 thoughtful students of the Scriptures. Indeed, with the other books of the 
 series, it is sure to find its way into the hands of pastors and scholarly lay- 
 men.” — Portland Zion’s Herald, 
 
 “Like its predecessors, this volume will be warmly welcomed — whilst to 
 those whose means of securing up-to-date information on the subject of which 
 it treats are limited, it is simply invaluable.” — Zadinburgh Scotsman. 
 
 “ The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and indifference 
 to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing... . Itisanoble 
 introduction to the moral forces, ideas, and influences that controlled the 
 period of the Judges, and a model of what a historical commentary, with a 
 practical end in view should be.” — The Independent. 
 
 “The work is marked by a clear and forcible style, by scholarly research, by 
 critical acumen, by extensive reading, and by evident familiarity with the 
 Hebrew. Many of the comments and suggestions are valuable, while the 
 index at the close is serviceable and satisfactory.” — Philadelphia Presbyterian. 
 
 “This volume sustains the reputation of the series for accurate and wide 
 scholarship given in clear and strong English, . . . the scholarly reader will 
 find delight in the perusal ef this admirable commentary.” — Zion's Herald. 
 
= 
 
 The International Critica? Commentary, 
 
 
 
 © Richly helpful to scholars and ministers.’—Tue PRESBYTERIAN BANNER. 
 
 The Books of Samuel 
 
 BY 
 REV. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., 
 Profess-~ of Biblical History and Interpretation tn Amherst College. 
 
 
 
 Crown 8vo, Net $3.00. 
 
 «¢Protessor Smith’s Commentary will for some time be the standart 
 work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work sq 
 faithfully accomplished.” — Zhe Atheneum. 
 
 ‘‘Tt is both critical and exegetical, and deals with original Hebrew and 
 Greek. It shows painstaking diligence and considerable research.” — The 
 Presbyterian. 
 
 ‘« The style is clear and forcible and sustains the well-won reputation of 
 the distinguished author for scholarship and candor. All thoughtful stu- 
 dents of the Scriptures will find the work helpful, not only on account of its 
 specific treatment of the Books of Samuel, on which it is based, but because 
 of the light it throws on and the aid it gives in the general interpretation of 
 the Scriptures as modified by present-day criticism.”—The Philadelphia 
 Press. 
 
 “The literary quality of the book deserves mention. We do not usually 
 go to commentaries for models of English style. But this book has a dis- 
 tinct, though unobtrusive, literary flavor. It is delightful reading. The 
 translation is always felicitous, and often renders further comment need- 
 less.” — The Evangelist. 
 
 «<The treatment is critical, and at the same time expository. Conserva- 
 tive students may find much in this volume with which they cannot agree, 
 but no one wishing to know the most recent conclusions concerning this 
 part of sacred history can afford to be without it.”—Philadelphia Presby- 
 terian Journal. 
 
 ‘‘The author exhibits precisely that scholarly attitude which will com- 
 mend his work to the widest audience.” — The Churchman. 
 
 ‘«The commentary is the most complete and minute hitherto published 
 by an English-speaking scholar.” —Ziterature. 
 
 “<The volumes of Driver and Moore set a high standard for the Old 
 Testament writers; but I think Professor Smith’s work has reached the 
 same high level. It is scholarly and critical, and yet it is written in a spirit 
 of reverent devotion, a worthy treatment of the sacred text.”—Pror, L. W. 
 Batten, of P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 
 
She Internationa’ Critica? Commentary. 
 
 
 
 ” 4 detided advance on all other commentaries.” —THE OUTLOOK. 
 
 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D., LL.D. 
 Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University. 
 
 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 
 
 
 
 *¢Tn careful scholarship this volume leaves nothing to be desired. Its in- 
 terpretation is free from theological prejudice. It will be indispensable to 
 the careful student, whether lay or clerical.” —TZhe Outlook. 
 
 ** Professor Toy’s ‘Commentary’ will for many years to come remain a 
 handbook for both teachers and learners, and its details will be studied with 
 critical care and general appreciation.” —The Atheneum. 
 
 ‘The commentary itself is a most thorough treatment of each verse in 
 detail, in which the light of the fullest scholarship is thrown upon the mean- 
 ing. The learning displayed throughout the work is enormous. Here is a 
 commentary at last that does not skip the hard places, but grapples with 
 every problem and point, and says the best that can be said.” —-Presbyterian 
 Banner. 
 
 ‘« Professor Toy’s commentary on Proverbs maintains the highest standard 
 of the International Critical Commentaries. We can give no higher praise. 
 Proverbs presents comparatively few problems in criticism, but offers large 
 opportunities to the expositor and exegete. Professor Toy’s work is 
 thorough and complete.”—T7he Congregationalist, 
 
 ‘«This addition to ‘The International Critical Commentary’ has the same 
 characteristics of thoroughness and painstaking scholarship as the preceding 
 issues of the series. In the critical treatment of the text, in noting the 
 various readings and the force of the words in the original Hebrew, it leaves 
 nothing to be desired.” — The Christian Intelligencer. 
 
 ‘« A first-class, up-to-date, critical and exegetical commentary on the Book 
 of Proverbs in the English language was one of the crying needs of Biblical 
 scholarship. Accordingly, we may not be yielding to the latest addition to 
 the International Critical Series the tribute it deserves, when we say that it 
 at once takes the first place in its class. That place it undoubtedly deserves, 
 however, and would have secured even against much more formidable com- 
 petitors than it happens te have. It is altogether a well-arranged, lucid 
 exposition of this unique book in the Bible, based on a careful study of the 
 text and the linguistic and historical background of every part of it.”—TZhe 
 Interior. 
 
 ‘‘ While this commentary is called ‘critical’ and is such, it is not one in 
 which the apparatus is spread out in detail; it is one which any intelli- 
 gent English reader can readily use and thoroughly understand,”—TZie 
 Evangelist. 
 
The Zuternational Oritical Commentary. 
 
 
 
 AMOS AND HOSEA. 
 
 By WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D. 
 
 Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the University of Chicage. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. Postage, 20 cents. 
 
 
 
 * His book combines thorough technical scholarship with large measure of 
 ethical and spiritual insight, and we think his Commentary on Amos and Hosea 
 will take its place among the best in this very excellent series.” — 7he Outlook. 
 
 * Yt is unnecessary to say that in scholarly completeness, Dr. Harper’s volume 
 ranks with the best of the International Critical Commentary Series.” — The 
 Standard, 
 
 “The commentary is remarkable for its clear analysis, and exhaustive in its 
 minute completeness. It furnishes materials to the student from which he may 
 form his own judgment rather than seeks to impress dogmatic conclusions.” 
 — The Watchman. 
 
 “7 think it safe to say that in no language can there be found such a 
 scholarly piece of work on the two important prophets, Amos and Hosea.” — 
 Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of St. Mark’s Church, New York 
 City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 
 
 ‘Professor Harper’s critical position is that of sound progressive scholar- 
 ship. He possesses also the gift of the true teacher of interesting others in 
 his subject. The volume will easily take its place as a most important com- 
 mentary on these prophets.” — Congregationalist. 
 
 “T shall have pleasure in recommending it to all students in our Seminary. 
 This book fills, in the most favorable manner, a long-felt want for a good 
 critical commentary or two of the most interesting books in the Old 
 Testament.” — Rev. Lewis B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford 
 Theological Seminary. 
 
 “He has gone, with characteristic minuteness, not only into the analysis 
 and discussion of each point, endeavoring in every case to be thoroughly 
 exhaustive, but also into the history of exegesis and discussion, Nothing at 
 all worthy of consideration has been passed by. The consequence is that 
 when one carefully studies what has been brought together in this volume, 
 either upon some passage of the two prophets treated, or upon some question 
 of critical or antiquarian importance in the introductory portion of the volume, 
 one feels that he has obtained an adequately exhaustive view of the subject.” 
 — The [nterior, 
 
ahe Zuternational Oritical Commentary. 
 
 
 
 “ We deem it as needful for the studious pastor to possess himsef 
 of these volumes as to obtain the best dictionary and encyclopedia.” 
 — THE CONGREGATIONALIST. 
 
 ST. MARK. 
 
 By the Rev. E.. P. GOULD, D.D., 
 ‘Cate Professor of New Testament Exegesis, P, E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 
 
 “ tx: point of scholarship, of accuracy, of originality, this last addition to tha 
 series is worthy of its predecessors, while for terseness and keenness of exegesis, 
 we should put it first of them all.” — Zhe Congregationalist. 
 
 “The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive criticay 
 study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in thy 
 English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the proper use o¥ 
 a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid.” — The Lutheran Quarterly. 
 
 “ Professor Gould has done his work well and thoroughly. ... The com 
 mentary is an admirable example of the critical method at its best.... Thp 
 Word study . . . shows not only familiarity with all the literature of the sub. 
 ject, but patient, faithful, and independent investigation. ... It will rank 
 among the best, as it is the latest commentary on this basal Gospel.” — Thy 
 Christian Intelligencer. 
 
 “Tt will give the student the vigorously expressed thought of a very thought 
 ful scholar.” — The Church Standard. 
 
 “Dr. Gould’s commentary on Mark is a large success, . . . and a credit ta 
 American scholarship. ... He has undoubtedly given us a commentary on 
 Mark which surpasses all others, a thing we have reason to expect will be true 
 in the case of every volume of the series to which it belongs.” — The Biblical 
 World. 
 
 “The volume is characterized by extensive learning, patient attention te 
 details and a fair degree of caution.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 
 
 “The exegetical portion of the book is simple in arrangement, admirable 
 in form and condensed in statement. ... Dr. Gould does not slavishly follow 
 any authority, but expresses his own opinions in language both concise and 
 clear.” — The Chicago Standard. 
 
 “In clear, forcible and elegant language the author furnishes the results of 
 the best investigations on the second Gospel, both early and late. He treats 
 these various subjects with the hand of a master.” — Boston Zion’s Herald. 
 
 “The author gives abundant evidence of thorough acquaintance with the 
 facts and history in the case. ... His treatment of them is always fresh and 
 scbelarly, and oftentimes helpful.” = Zhe Wew York Observer. 
 
The Gnternational Critical Commentary. 
 
 
 
 “Tt is hardly necessary to say that this series will stand first 
 among all English serial commentaries on the Bible.” 
 — THE BIBLICAL WORLD. 
 
 ST. LUKE. 
 
 By the Rev. ALFRED PLUITIIER, D.D., 
 
 Master of University College, Durham. Formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of 
 Trinity College, Oxford, 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 
 
 In the author’s Critical Introduction to the Commentary 1s contained a full 
 sreatment of a large number of important topics connected with the study of 
 the Gospel, among which are the following: The Author of the Book — The 
 Sources of the Gospel — Object and Plan of the Gospel— Characteristics, 
 Style and Language — The Integrity of the Gospel—The Text — Literary 
 History. 
 
 FROM THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 If this Commentary has any special features, they will perhaps be found in 
 the illustrations from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the 
 Septuagint, and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the 
 frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin versions, and in the attention 
 which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to 
 the marks of St. Luke’s style. 
 
 “Tt is distinguished throughout by learning, sobriety of judgment, and 
 sound exegesis. It is a weighty contribution to the interpretation of the 
 Third Gospel, and will take an honorable place in the series of which it forms 
 2 part.” — Prof. D. D. SALMOND, in the Critical Review. 
 
 “We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the iuter- 
 pretations. ... It seems to us that the prevailing characteristic of the book 
 is common sense, fortified by learning and piety.” — 7he Herald and Presbyter. 
 
 “An important work, which no student of the Word of God can safely 
 neglect.” — The Church Standard. 
 
 “The author has both the scholar’s knowledge and the scholar’s spirit 
 necessary for the preparation of such a commentary.... We know of 
 aothing on the Third Gospel which more thoroughly meets the wants of the 
 Biblical scholar.” — The Outlook. 
 
 “The author is not only a profound scholar, but a chastened and reverent 
 Christian, who undertakes to interpret a Gospel of Christ, so as to show 
 Christ in his grandeur and loveliness of character.” — The Southern Church- 
 wan. 
 
 “Tt is a valuable and welcome addition to our somewhat scanty stock of 
 first-class commentaries on the Third Gospel. By its scholarly thoroughness 
 it well sustains the reputation which the INTERNATIONAL SERIES has already 
 won.” — Prof, J. H. THAYER, of Harvard University. 
 
 This volume having been so recently published, further notices are net yet 
 svaslabie, 
 
The Zuternational Oritical Commentary, 
 
 
 
 “ For the student this new commentary promises to be inaispem 
 sable.” —The METHODIST RECORDER. 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., 
 Lady Margaret Professor of Bivinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., 
 Principal of King’s College, London, 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 
 
 “From my knowledge of Dr. Sanday, and from a brief examination of the 
 book, I am led to believe that it is our best critical handbook to the Epistle. 
 It combines great learning with practical and suggestive interpretation.” — 
 Professor GEORGE B. STEVENS, of Vale University. 
 
 “ Professor Sanday is excellent in scholarship, and of unsurpassed candor. 
 The introduction and detached notes are highly interesting and instructive. 
 This commentary cannot fail to render the most valuable assistance to all 
 earnest students. The volume augurs well for the series of which it is a mem- 
 ber.” — Professor GEORGE P. FISHER, of Yale University. 
 
 “The scholarship and spirit of Dr. Sanday give assurance of an interpreta- 
 tion of the Epistle to the Romans which will be both scholarly and spiritual.” 
 — Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT. 
 
 “The work of the authors has been carefully done, and will prove an 
 acceptable addition to the literature of the great Epistle. The exegesis is 
 acute and learned ... The authors show much familiarity with the work 
 of their predecessors, and write with calmness and lucidity.” — Mew York 
 Observer. 
 
 “ We are confident that this commentary will find a place in every thought- 
 ful minister’s library. One may not be able to agree with the authors at some 
 points, — and this is true of all commentaries, — but they have given us a work 
 which cannot but prove valuable to the critical study of Paul’s masterly epis- 
 tle.” — Zion's Advocate. 
 
 “We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans 
 yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable and 
 much needed series, by showing that it 1s possible to be critical and scholarly 
 and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible 
 readers.” — The Church Standard. 
 
 “A commentary with a very distinct character and purpose of its own, 
 which brings to students and ministers an aid which they cannot obtain else- 
 where. ... There is probably no other commentary in which criticism has 
 been employed so successfully and impartially to bring out the author’s 
 thought.” — WV, VY. Independent. 
 
 “We have nothing but heartiest praise for the weightier matters of the 
 commentary. It is not only critical, but exegetical, expository, doctrinal, 
 practical, and eminently spiritual. The positive conclusions of the books are 
 very numerous and are stoutly, gloriously evangelical. ... The commentary 
 does not fail to speak with the utmost reverence of the whole word of Gad.” 
 The Congregationalsst peryeitie 
 
the Iuteruational Oritical Gommentary, 
 
 
 
 “This admirable series." —THE LONDON ACADEMY. 
 
 EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 
 
 By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D. Litt. 
 
 Formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity College, 
 Dublin. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 
 
 ¢ The latest volume of this admirable series is informed with the very 
 best spirit in which such work can be carried out—a spirit of absolute 
 fidelity to the demonstrable truths of critical science. . . . This summary 
 of the results of modern criticism applied to these two Pauline letters is, 
 for the use of scholarly students, not likely to be superseded.” —7Ze Lon- 
 don Academy. 
 
 ‘« An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none of us can 
 afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has made himself mas- 
 ter of his theme. His linguistic ability is manifest. His style is usually 
 clear. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are especially grateful 
 for his strong defence of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great 
 monuments of Pauline teaching.” —The Expos‘tor. 
 
 «St displays every mark of conscientious judgment, wide reading, and 
 grammatical insight.” — Literature. 
 
 ‘«In discrimination, learning, and candor, it is the peer of the other vol. 
 umes of the series. The elaborate introductions are of special value.”— 
 Professor GEORGE B. SYEVENS, of Yale University. 
 
 “Tt is rich in philological material, clearly arranged, and judiciously 
 handled. The studies of words are uncommonly good. . . . Inthe 
 balancing of opinions, in the distinguishing between fine shades of mean- 
 ing, it is both acute and sound.” —7Zhe Church. 
 
 ‘©The exegesis based so solidly on the rock foundation of philology is 
 argumentatively and convincingly strong. A spiritual and evangelical tenor 
 pervades the interpretation from first to last. . . . These elements, to- 
 gether with the author’s full-orbed vision of the truth, with his discrimina- 
 tive judgment and his felicity of expression, make this the peer of any com- 
 mentary on these important letters.” — Zhe Standard. 
 
 “« An exceedingly careful and painstaking piece of work. The introduc: 
 tory discussions of questions bearing on the authenticity and integrity (of 
 the epistles) are clear and candid, and the exposition of the text displays a 
 fine scholarship and insight.” —orthwestern Christian Advocate. 
 
 ‘«The book is from first to last exegetical and critical. Every phrase in 
 the two Epistles is searched as with lighted candles. The authorities for 
 variant readings are canvassed but weighed, rather than counted. The mul- 
 tiform ancient and modern interpretations are investigated with the ex- 
 haustiveness of a German lecture-room, and the judicial spirit of an English 
 court-rcom. Special discussions are numerous and thorough.”—TZke Con: 
 gregationalist, 
 
The International Critica’ Commentary. 
 
 
 
 “J have already expressed my conviction that the Inter. 
 swational Critical Commentary ts the best critical commentary, 
 on the whole Bible, in existence.",-—Dr, LyMaN ABBOTT. 
 
 Philippians and Philemon 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. 
 ” Professor of Bictical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York, 
 
 Crown 8vo, Net $2.00. 
 
 
 
 *¢Tt is, in short, in every way worthy of the series.”— The Scotsman, 
 
 ‘« Professor Vincent’s Commentary on Philippians and Philemon appears 
 to me not less admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and its 
 clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of these Epistles.”—Dr. 
 GrEorGE P. FISHER. 
 
 “The book contains many examples of independent and judicial weigh- 
 ing of evidence. We have been delighted with the portion devoted to Phile- 
 mon. Unlike most commentaries, this may wisely be read as a whole.”— 
 The Congregationalist 
 
 ‘‘Of the merits of the work it is enough to say that it ts worthy of its 
 place in the noble undertaking to which it belongs. It is ful? of just such 
 information as the Bible student, lay or clerical, needs; and while giving an 
 abundance of the truths of erudition to aid the critical student of the text, it 
 abounds also in that more popular information which enables the attentive 
 reader almost to put himself in St. Paul’s place, to see with the eyes and feel 
 with the heart of the Apostle to the Gentiles.” —oston Advertiser. 
 
 ‘Tf it is possible in these days to produce a commentary which will be 
 free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias, the feat will be accomplished in 
 the International Critical Commentary. . . . It is evident that the writer 
 has given an immense amount of scholarly research and original thought to 
 the subject. . . . The author’s introduction to the Epistle to Philemon 
 is an admirable piece of literature, calculated to arouse in the student’s mind 
 an intense interest in the circumstances which produced this short letter from 
 the inspired Apostle.” —Commercial Advertiser. 
 
 ‘* His discussion of Philemon is marked by sympathy and appreciation, 
 and his full discussion of the relations of Pauline Christianity to slavery are 
 interesting, both historically and sociologically.” — The Dial. 
 
 ‘« Throughout the work scholarly research is evident. It commends itself 
 by its clear elucidation, its keen exegesis which marks the word study on 
 every page, its compactness of statement and its simplicity of arrangement.” 
 —Lutheran World. 
 
 ‘The scholarshiv ci the author seems to be fully equal to hist ‘dertaking, 
 and he has given to us a fine piece of work. One cannot but se that if the 
 entire series shall be executed upon a par with this portion, thet ‘an be lit- 
 tle left co be desired.” —Philadelphia Presbyterian Journal, ‘ 
 
The Internationa’ Critical Commentary. 
 
 
 
 “ The best commentary and the one most useful to the Bible 
 student ts The International Critical.” 
 —THE REFORMED CHURCH REVIEW. 
 
 ST. PETER AND ST. JUDE 
 
 By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D. 
 Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $2.50. 
 
 “‘ His commentary is very satisfactory indeed. His notes are particularly 
 valuable. We know of no work on these Epistles which is so full and satis- 
 factory.”.— Zhe Living Church, 
 
 ‘Tt shows an immense amount of research and acquaintanceship with the 
 views of the critical school.” —erald and Presbyter. 
 
 ‘*This volume well sustains the reputation achieved by its predecessors. 
 The notes to the text, as well as the introductions, are marked by erudition 
 at once affluent and discriminating.” — Zhe Outlook. 
 
 “Canon Bigg’s work is pre-eminently characterized by judicial open- 
 mindedness and sympathetic insight into historical conditions. His realistic 
 interpretation of the relations of the apostles and the circumstances of the 
 early church renders the volume invaluable to students of these themes, 
 The exegetical work in the volume rests on the broad basis of careful lin- 
 guistic study, acquaintance with apocalyptic literature and the writings of 
 the Fathers, a sane judgment, and good sense.”—American Journal of 
 
 Theology. 
 
 NUMBERS 
 
 By the Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D. 
 Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Net, $3.00. 
 
 ‘*Most Bible readers have the impression that ‘Numbers’ is a dull 
 book only relieved by the brilliancy of the Balaam chapters and some 
 snatches of old Hebrew songs, but, as Prof. Gray shows with admi- 
 rable skill and insight, its historical and religious value is not that 
 which lies on the surface, Prof. Gray’s Commentary is distinguished 
 by fine scholarship and sanity of judgment; it is impossible to 
 commend it too warmly.”—Saturday Review (London), 
 
The Mnternational 
 Theological Library. 
 
 
 
 EDITORS’ PREFACE. 
 
 THEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances in recent 
 years. New lines of investigation have been opened up, 
 fresh light has been cast upon many subjects of the deepest 
 interest, and the historical method has been applied with 
 important results. This has prepared the way for a Library 
 of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. 
 It has also made it at once opportune and practicable now 
 to secure the services of specialists in the different depart- 
 ments of Theology, and to associate them in an enterprise 
 which will furnish a record of Theological inquiry up to 
 date. 
 
 This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Chris- 
 tian Theology. Each volume is to be complete in itself, 
 while, at the same time, it will form part of a carefully 
 planned whole. One of the Editors is to prepare a volume 
 of Theological Encyclopzedia which will give the history 
 and literature of each department, as well as of Theology 
 as a whole. 
 
 The Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books 
 for Students of Theology. 
 
 The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compacts 
 ness of statement. At the same time, they have in view 
 
EDITORS’ PREFACE. 
 
 that iarge and increasing class of students, in other depart- 
 ments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thor- 
 ough exposition of Theological Science. Technical matters 
 will therefore be thrown into the form of notes, and the 
 text will be made as readable and attractive as possible. 
 
 The Library is international and interconfessional. It 
 will be conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests 
 of Theology as a science. 
 
 Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements both 
 of the results of Theological Science and of the questions 
 which are still at issue in the different departments. 
 
 The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in 
 the several branches of study assigned to them. They will 
 be associated with each other and with the Editors in the 
 effort to provide a series of volumes which may adequately 
 represent the present condition of investigation, and indi- 
 cate the way for further progress. 
 
 CHARLES A. BRIGGS. 
 STEWART D. F. SALMOND. 
 
 
 
 Theological Encyclopedia. By CHarves A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., 
 Prof. of Theological Encyclopedia and 
 Symbolics, Union Theol. Seminary, N.Y. 
 
 An Introduction to the Literature of By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
 the Old Testament. Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of 
 Christ Church, Oxford. (Revised and 
 
 enlarged edition). 
 
 Canon and Text of the Old Testa- By Francis Crawford Burkitt, M.A., Lec- 
 ment. turer in Cambridge University. 
 
 Old Testament History. By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., 
 . Professor of Biblical History, Amherst 
 College, Mass. (Vow ready.) 
 
 Contemporary History of the Old By FRAncis Brown, DD? 2D D Titts 
 Testament. Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological 
 Seminary, New York. 
 
 Theology cf the Old Testament, By the late A. B. Davipson, D.D., LL.D., 
 Professor of Hebrew, New College, 
 Edinburgh. (Wow ready.) 
 
The Jnternationaf Cheofogicaf LiGrary. 
 
 
 
 An Introduction to the Literature 
 of the New Testament. 
 
 Canon and Text of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The Life of Christ. 
 
 A History of Christianity in the 
 Apostolic Age. 
 
 Contemporary History of the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Biblical Archzology. 
 
 The Ancient Catholic Church. 
 
 The Later Catholic Church. 
 
 The Greek and Oriental Churches. 
 
 The Reformation. 
 
 Symbolics. 
 
 History of Christian Doctrine. 
 
 Christian Institutions. 
 
 Philosophy of Religion. 
 
 The History of Religions. 
 
 Apologetics. 
 
 The Doctrine of God. 
 
 The Doctrine of Man. 
 
 The Doctrine of Christ. 
 The Christian Doctrine of Salvation. 
 
 The Doctrine of the Future Life. 
 Christian Ethics. 
 
 The Christian Pastor and the Work- 
 ing Church. 
 
 The Christian Preacher, 
 Rabbinical Literature. 
 
 By Rev. James Moffatt, B.D. 
 
 By CASPAR RENE Grecory, D.D., LL.D., 
 Professor of New Testament Exegesis in 
 the University of Leipzig. 
 
 By WILLIAM SanpbAy, D.D., LL.D., Lad: 
 Margaret Professor of Divinity, an 
 Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
 
 By ARTHUR C. McGIFFERT, D.D., Professor 
 of Church History, Union Theological 
 Seminary, New York. (Mow ready.) 
 
 By FRANK C. PorTER, D.D., Professor of 
 Biblical Theology, Yale University, New 
 Haven, Conn. 
 
 By GEorGE B. STEVENS, D.D., Professor 
 of Systematic Theology, Yale University, 
 New Haven, Conn. (Vow ready.) 
 
 By G. BucHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of 
 Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. 
 
 By Rosert Rarny, D.D., LL.D., Principal 
 of the New College, Edinburgh. (/Vow 
 ready.) 
 
 By E. W. Watson, LL.D., Professor of 
 Church History, Kings College, London. 
 
 By W. F. ApENeEy, D.D., Professor of 
 Church History, New College, London. 
 
 By T. M. Linpsay, D.D., Principal of the 
 United Free College, Glasgow. 
 
 By CHarvses A. BriccGs, D.D., D.Litt., 
 Prof. of Theological Encyclopedia and 
 Symbolics, Union Theol. Seminary, N. Y. 
 
 By G. P. FisHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor 
 of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, 
 New Haven, Conn. (Revised and en- 
 farzed edition.) 
 
 By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., Professor of 
 Ecclesiastical History, P. E. Divinity 
 School, Cambridge, Mass. (Vow ready.) 
 
 By RoBERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D., sometime 
 Professor of Divinity in the University of 
 Edinburgh. 
 
 By GgorGE F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., 
 Professor in Harvard University. 
 
 By the late A. B. Bruck, D.D., sometime 
 Professor of New Testament Exegesis, 
 Free Church College, Glasgow. (Revised 
 and enlarged edttton.) 
 
 By WiLt1AM N. Crarkg, D.D., Professor 
 of Systematic Theology, Hamilton The- 
 ological Seminary. 
 
 By WILL1AM P. PATERSON, D.D., Professor 
 of Divinity, University of Edinburg. 
 
 (Author will be announced later.) 
 
 By GrorGE B. STEVENS, D.D., Professor of 
 Systematic Theology, Yale University. 
 (Now ready.) 
 
 (Author will be announced later.) 
 
 By NEwMAN SmytH, D.D., Pastor of Con- 
 gregational Church, New Haven. (fe- 
 vised and enlarged edition.) 
 
 By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., Pastor 
 of Congregational Church, Columbus, 
 Ohio. (Now ready.) 
 
 (Author will be announced later.) 
 
 By S. SCHECHTER, M.A., President of the 
 qoene Theological Seminary, New York 
 IYs 
 
 
 
The International Theofogicaf Livrarp. 
 
 AN INTRODUCTION TO 
 
 The Literature of the Old Testament 
 
 By Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt 
 
 Canon of Christ Church, Oxford 
 New Edition Revised 
 
 
 
 Crown 8vo, 558 pages, $2.50 net 
 
 -{t is the most scholarly and critical work in the English lan- 
 guage on the literature of the Old Testament, and fully up to the 
 present state of research in Ge nany.”—Prof. Puitip Scuarr, D.D. 
 
 “Canon Driver has arrang | his material excellently, is succinct 
 without being hurried or unclea., and treats the various critical prob- 
 lems involved with admirable fairness and good judgment.” 
 
 —Prof. C. H. Toy. 
 
 ‘“‘His judgment is singularly fair, calm, unbiassed, and inde- 
 
 pendent. It is also thoroughly reverential. . . . The service, 
 which his book will render in the present confusion of mind on this 
 great subject, can scarcely be overestimated.” — 7ke London Times. 
 
 ‘« As a whole, there is probably no book in the English language 
 equal to this ‘Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament’ 
 for the student who desires to understand what the modern criticism 
 thinks about the Bible.’”—Dr. Lyman Apgortt, zz the Outlook. 
 
 ‘<The book is one worthy of its subject, thorough in its treat- 
 ment, reverent in its tone, sympathetic in its estimate, frank in its 
 recognition of difficulties, conservative (in the best sense of the 
 word) in its statement of results.” 
 
 —Prof. Henry P. Smiru, zz the Magazine of Christian Literature. 
 
 ‘Tn working out his method our author takes up each book in 
 order and goes through it with marvelous and microscopic care, 
 Every verse, every clause, word by word, is sifted and weighed, and . 
 its place in the literary organism decided upon.” 
 
 — The Presbyterian Quarterly. 
 
 “It contains just that presentation of the results of Old Testa- 
 ment criticism for which English readers in this department have 
 been waiting. . . . The whole book is excellent; it will be found 
 helpful, characterized as it is all through by that scholarly poise of 
 mind, which, when it does not know, is not ashamed to present de- 
 grees of probability.”.—NMew World. 
 
 i -__-, Canon Driver’s book is characterized throughout by 
 
 thorough Christian scholarship, faithful research, caution in the 
 expression of mere opinions, candor in the statement of facts and of 
 the necessary inferences from them, and the devout recognition cf 
 the divine inworking in the religious life of the Hebrews, and of the 
 tokens of divine inspiration in the literature which records and eme 
 bodies it.”—Dr. A. P. PEABODY, 7 the Cambridge Tribune. 
 
The International Theologica? Livrarp 
 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY 
 
 By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D. 
 PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION, AMHERST COLLEGE 
 
 Crown 8vo, 538 pages, $2.50 net 
 
 This book gives a history of Old Testament times. 
 This it does by a narrative based upon those Bibli- 
 cal books which are historical inform. The nature 
 of these books is carefully considered, their data are 
 used according to historical methods, and the con- 
 clusions of recent criticism are set forth. The other 
 books of the Old Testament with the more impor- 
 tant of the Apocrypha are given their proper place 
 so far as they throw light on the development of 
 the Old Testament people. 
 
 “‘ Professor Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized history, 
 laid all who care for the Old Testament under great obligations.” 
 — The Independent. 
 
 ‘“* The volume is characterized by extraordinary clearness of cone 
 ception and representation, thorough scholarly ability, and charm 
 of style.”— The Interior. 
 
 “Dr. Smith’s volume is critical without being polemical, inter- 
 esting though not imaginative, scholarly without pedantry, and radi- 
 cal but not destructive. The author is himself an authority, and his 
 volume is the best single presentation with which we are familiar of 
 the modern view of Old Testament history.” —7he Outlook. 
 
 “This volume is the result of thorough study, is free from the 
 controversial spirit and from any evidence of desire to challenge older 
 theories of the Bible, is written in straightforward, clear style, does 
 not linger unduly in discussion of doubtful matters, is reverent and at 
 the same time fearless. If one has accepted the main positions of the 
 Higher Criticism, while he may still differ with Professor Smith's 
 conclusions here and there, he will find himself in accord with the 
 spirit of the author, whose scholarship and achievement he will 
 gladly honor.”— The Congregationalist. 
 
 ‘‘We have a clear, interesting, instructive account of the growth 
 of Israel, embodying a series of careful judgments on the countless 
 problems that face the man who tries to understand the life of that 
 remarkable people. The ‘History’ takes its place worthily by the side 
 of Driver’s Introduction. The student of to-day is to be congratulated 
 on having so valuable an addition made to his stock of tools.” 
 
 —The Expository Times. 
 
The International Theofoaica’ Library. 
 The Theology of the Old Testament. 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. 
 Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, New College, Edinburgh. 
 
 
 
 EDITED FROM THE AUTHOR’S MANUSCRIPTS 
 BY 
 
 S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., F.E.I.S. 
 Principal of the United Free Church College, Aberdeen. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 568 pages. $2.50 net. 
 
 “Tt is one of those monumental works whose publication the scholar hails 
 with gratitude. Principal Salmond has edited Professor Davidson’s manu- 
 scripts with care and fidelity. It would require much more space than we 
 can give this volume in our crowded columns even to indicate the many points 
 in which this, one of the greatest of Hebrew scholars, shows himself a lineal 
 descendant and successor of the ancient prophets whom he loved so well; but 
 it is enough to say that the work is fitted by its scholarship and its tone to 
 become a standard in every theological seminary. Great pains have been 
 taken with the Hebrew text, so frequently quoted, and its use is distinctly 
 illuminative. His learning is never introduced to dazzle, but always to en- 
 lighten the reader.” — Zhe Jnterior. 
 
 “ We hope every clergyman will not rest content till he has procured and 
 studied this most admirable and useful book. Every really useful question 
 relating to man —his nature, his fall, and his redemption, his present life of 
 grace, his life after death, his future life — is treated of. We may add that the 
 most conservatively inclined believer in the Old Testament will find nothing 
 in this book to startle him, while, at the same time, the book is fully cogni- 
 zant of the altered views regarding the ancient Scriptures. The tone is rever- 
 ent throughout, and no one who reads attentively can fail to derive fresh light 
 and benefit from the exposition here given.” — 7he Canadian Churchman. 
 
 “Dr. Davidson was so keen a student, and yet so reverent as to his Bible, 
 that anything from his pen must be of profit. The book gives evidence that 
 his eyes were wide open to all modern research, but yet he was not led astray 
 by any of the vagaries of the schools. Through all the treatment of the 
 theme he remains conservative, while seeking to know the truth.” — Zxaminer. 
 
 “No one can fail to gain immense profit from its careful study. We rejoice 
 that such a work is added to the store of helpful literature on the Old Testa- 
 ment, and we express the hope that it may find wide reading among ministers 
 and teachers of the Bible.” — 7%e Standard. 
 
 “Tn its treatment of Old Testament theology, there is nothing to equal it 
 in the English language, and nothing to surpass it in any language. While it 
 is prepared for scholars it will prove an education in the Old Testament to the 
 intelligent laymen or Sunday-school teachers who will give it a faithful read- 
 ing. The style is so clear that it cannot help but prove interesting. We com- 
 mend this book with a special prayer, believing that it will make the Old 
 Testament a richer book; and make the foundation upon which the teachings 
 of the New Testament stand more secure to every one who reads it.” 
 
 — The Heidelberg Teacher. 
 
She Internationa? Theofogica BiGrarp. 
 
 
 
 A HISTORY OF 
 
 . CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 
 
 BY 
 ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D: 
 Washburn Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New Yorks 
 
 Crown 8vo, 681 Pages, $2.50 Net. 
 
 ‘The author’s work is ably done. . . . This volume is worthy of 
 its place in the series.” — The Congregationalist. 
 
 ‘« Invaluable as a résumé of the latest critical work upon the great forma- 
 tive period of the Christian Church.” — Ze Christian World (London). 
 
 ‘«There can be no doubt that this is a remarkable work, both on account 
 of the thoroughness of its cci“*cism and the boldness of its views.” 
 —The Scotsman. 
 
 ‘*The ability and learning of Professor McGiffert’s work on the Apos- 
 tolic Age, and, whatever dissent there may be from its critical opinion, its 
 manifest sincerity, candid scholars will not fail to appreciate.” 
 
 —Dr. GEorGE P. FISHER, of Yale University. 
 
 “‘ Pre-eminently a clergyman’s book; but there are many reasons why it 
 should be in the library of every thoughtful Christian person. The style 
 is vivid and at times picturesque. The results rather than the processes of 
 learning are exhibited. It is full of local color, of striking narrative, and of 
 keen, often brilliant, character analysis. It is an admirable book for the 
 Sunday-school teacher.” — Boston Advertiser. 
 
 ‘For a work of such wide learning and critical accuracy, and which deals 
 with so many difficult and abstruse problems of Christian history, this is re- 
 markably readable.” — The Independent. 
 
 “‘Tt is certain that Professor McGiffert’s work has set the mark for 
 future effort in the obscure fields of research into Christian origin.” 
 —New York Tribune. 
 
 ““Dr. McGiffert has produced an able, scholarly, suggestive, and con- 
 structive work. He is in thorough and easy possession of his sources and 
 materials, so that his positive construction is seldom interrupted by citations, 
 tne demolition of opposing views, or the irrelevant discussion of szbordinate 
 questions.” — The Methodist Review. 
 
 ‘“‘The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole impressica of 
 Apostolic Christianity with which we leave this book, goes far to guarantes 
 its permanent value and success.”— The Expositar. 
 
che Internationa? Tbeofogicaf Library. 
 Christian Ethics, 
 
 
 
 By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., New Haven. 
 Crown 8vo, 508 pages, $2.50 net. 
 
 «« As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most attractive 
 treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and ex- 
 haustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in 
 the topic it handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the 
 task of the moral understanding and interpretation of human life.” 
 
 — The Living Church. 
 
 “This book of Dr. Newman Smyth is of extraordinary interest and 
 value. It is an honor to American scholarship and American Chris- 
 tian thinking. It is a work which has been wrought out with re- 
 markable grasp of conception, and power of just analysis, fullness otf 
 information, richness of thought, and affluence of apt and luminous 
 illustration. Its style is singularly clear, simple, facile, and strong. 
 Too much gratification can hardly be expressed at the way the author 
 lifts the whole subject of ethics up out of the slough of mere natural- 
 ism into its own place, where it is seen to be illumined by the Chris- 
 tian revelation and vision.” — The Advance. 
 
 ““The subjects treated cover the whole field of moral and spiritual re- 
 lations, theoretical and practical, natural and revealed, individual and social, 
 civil and ecclesiastical. To enthrone the personal Christ as the true content 
 of the ethical ideal, to show how this ideal is realized in Christian conscious: 
 ness and how applied in the varied departments of practical life—these are 
 the main objects of the book and no objects could be loftier.”’ 
 
 — The Congregationalist. 
 
 ‘« The author has written with competent knowledge, with great spiritual 
 insight, and in a tone of devoutness and reverence worthy of his theme.” 
 —The London Independent. 
 
 “Tt is methodical, comprehensive, and readable; few subdivisions, 
 direct or indirect, are omitted in the treatment of the broad theme, and 
 though it aims to be an exhaustive treatise, and not a popular haidbook, it 
 may be perused at random with a good deal of suggestiveness and profit.” 
 
 —The Sunday School Times. 
 
 «Tt reflects great credit on the author, presenting an exemplsry temper 
 and manner throughout, being a model of clearness in thought and term, 
 and containing passages of exquisite finish.” —Hartford Seminary Recor. 
 
 “‘ We commend this book to all reading, intelligent men, an especi Uv 
 to ministers, who will find in it many fresh suggestions.” 
 —PRoFEssorR A. H Barucp- 
 
The International Theologica Library, 
 
 
 
 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE 
 WORKING CHURCH 
 
 By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 Author of ‘‘ Applied Christianity,” ‘‘ Who Wrote the Bible?” “ Ruling 
 ; Ideas of the Presen. Age,” etc. 
 
 Crown 8vo, 485 pages, $2.50 net. 
 
 *¢«Dr, Gladden may be regarded as an expert and an authority on practi- 
 al theology. . . . Upon the whole we judge that it will be of great 
 service to the ministry of all the Protestant churches.” — The Jnterior. 
 
 “‘Packed with wisdom and instruction and a profound piety. . . . 
 It is pithy, pertinent, and judicious from cover to cover. . . . An ex- 
 ceedingly comprehensive, sagacious, and suggestive study and application 
 of its theme.” — 7he Congregationalist, 
 
 ‘«We have here, for the pastor, the most modern practical treatise yet 
 published—sagacious, balanced, devout, inspiring.” —7he Dial. 
 
 ‘« His long experience, his eminent success, his rare literary ability, and 
 his diligence as a student combine to make of this a model book for its pur- 
 pose. . . . Weknow not where the subjects are more wisely discussed 
 than here.” —TZhe Bibliotheca Sacra. 
 
 ‘‘This book should be the vade mecum of every working pastor. It 
 abounds in wise counsels and suggestions, the result of large experience 
 and observation. No sphere of church life or church work is left untreated.” 
 —The (Canadian) Methodist Magazine and Review. 
 
 ‘« A happier combination of author and subject, it will be acknowledged, 
 can hardly be found. . . . It is comprehensive, practical, deeply 
 spiritual, and fertile in wise and suggestive thought upon ways and means 
 of bringing the Gospel to bear on the lives of men.”—TZe Christian Ad- 
 vocate. 
 
 ‘Dr. Gladden writes with pith and point, but with wise moderation, a 
 genial tone and great good sense. . . . The book is written in an excel- 
 lent, business-like and vital English style, which carries the author’s point 
 and purpose and has an attractive vitality of its own.” —7xe Independent. 
 
 “« A comprehensive, inspiring, and helpful guide to a busy pastor. Ons 
 &nds in-it a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of the 
 Spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many problems 
 that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister.” 
 
 The Christian Intelligencer 
 
The Internationa Thectogicaf Library. 
 
 
 
 CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 By ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN, D.D. 
 
 Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Episcopal Theological Scheel 
 in Cambridge. 
 
 Crown 8vo, 577 pages, $2.50 net. 
 
 
 
 «* Professor Allen’s Christian Institutions may be regarded as tht mos: 
 important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 ‘of the United States has yet made to general theological thought. In a few 
 particulars it will not command the universal, or even the genera! assent of 
 discriminating readers ; but it will receive, as it deserves, the respect and 
 appreciation of those who rightly estimate the varied, learned, and independ- 
 ent spirit of the author.”—7he American Journal of Theology. 
 
 ‘“*Asto his method there can be no two opinions, nor as to the broad, 
 critical, and appreciative character of his study. It is an immensely sug- 
 gestive, stimulating, and encouraging piece of work. It shows that modern 
 scholarship is not all at sea as to results, and it presents a worthy view of a 
 great and noble subject, the greatest and noblest of all subjects.” —7he Jn- 
 dependent. 
 
 “This will at once take its place among the most valuable volumes in the 
 ‘Tnternational Theological Library,’ constituting in itself a very complete 
 epitome both of general church history and of the history of doctrines. 
 . . . A single quotation well illustrates the brilliant style and the pro- 
 found thought of the book.” —TZke Bibliotheca Sacra. 
 
 ‘« The wealth of learning, the historical spirit, the philosophic grasp, the 
 loyalty to the continuity of life, which everywhere characterize this thorough 
 study of the organization, creeds, and cultus constituting Christian Institu- 
 tion. . . . However the reader may differ with the conclusions of the 
 author, few will question his painstaking scholarship, judicial temperament, 
 and catholicity of Christian spirit.” —7he Advance. 
 
 “Tt is an honor to American scholarship, and will be read by all who 
 wish to be abreast of the age.” —TZhe Lutheran Church Review, 
 
 “« With all its defects and limitations, this is a most illuminating and sug: 
 gestive book on a subject of abiding interest.”—Zhe Christian Intelli- 
 gencer.” 
 
 “Tt is a treasury of expert knowledge, arranged in an orderly and lucid 
 manner, and more than ordinarily readable. . -. . It is controlled by the 
 candid and critical spirit of the careful historian who, of course, has his 
 convictions and preferences, but who makes no claims in their behalf which 
 the facts do not seem to warrant.” — Zhe Congregationalist, 
 
 ‘« He writes in a charming style, and has collected a vast amount of im- 
 portant material pertaining to his subject which can be found in no other 
 work in so compact a form.” =e dVew York Observer 
 
The Internationa’ Theofogicaf Library. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Apologetics; 
 Or, Christianity Defensively Stated. 
 
 By the late ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, 
 Glasgow ; Author of ‘‘ The Training of the Twelve,’’ ‘‘ The Humilia- 
 tion of Christ,’’ ‘‘ The Kingdom of God,”’ etc. 
 
 
 
 Crown 8vo, 528 pages, $2.50 net. 
 
 
 
 Professor Bruce’s work is not an abstract treatise on apologetics, 
 but an apologetic presentation of the Christian faith, with reference 
 to whatever in our intellectual environment makes faith difficult at 
 the present time. 
 
 It addresses itself to men whose sympathies are with Christianity, 
 and discusses the topics of pressing concern—the burning questions 
 of the hour. It is offered as an aid to faith rather than a buttress of 
 received belief and an armory of weapons for the orthodox believer, 
 
 «‘The book throughout exhibits the methods and the results of 
 conscientious, independent, expert and devout Biblical scholarship, 
 and it is of permanent value.” — 7he Congregationalist. 
 
 ‘““The practical value of this book entitles it toa place in the 
 first rank.” — The Independent. 
 
 “A patient and scholarly presentation of Christianity under 
 aspects best fitted to commend it to ‘ingenuous and truth-loving 
 minds.’ ”— 7he Nation. 
 
 “The book is well-nigh indispensable to those who propose to 
 keep abreast of the times.” — Western Christian Advocate. 
 
 ‘“*Professor Bruce does not consciously evade any difficulty, 
 and he constantly aims to be completely fair-minded. For this 
 reason he wins from the start the strong confidence of the reader.” — 
 Advance. 
 
 “Its admirable spirit, no less than the strength of its arguments, 
 will goiar to remove many of the prejudices or doubts of those who 
 are outsia» of Christianity, but who are, nevertheless, not infidels.”— 
 New York Tribune. ; 
 
 “In a word, he tells precisely what all intelligent persons wish to 
 know, and tells it in aclear, fresh and convincing manner. Scarcely 
 anyone has so successfully rendered the service of showing what 
 the result of the higher criticism is for the proper understanding of 
 the history and religion of Israel.” — Andover Review. 
 
 ‘‘We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more 
 stimulating to faith. . . . Without comimenting further, we repeat 
 that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and 
 sharpest defence of Christianity that has ever been written. Nec 
 theological library should he without it.” —7%on’s Herald. 
 

 

 

 

 
 lAY 0 6 198 
 
 Demco 293-5 
 
 » 
 
Wii 
 D00669971