ΚΑ αι ΑΝ ὧν, “νιν 6} eas 4 94h Ua wy ΚΝ ew ἵ ΚΟ rs “, 4 olin sec Moh ΙΝ ἌΝ art “4.8: athe precy ἦν: 47. » ΜΕΝ a Ar “aia ewe aN) va " ν ( i “ΔΝ 0, SC ele ΣΎΝ ἡ daly eee 4 vile Pia ini Youle γ᾽ Us ΠΡ nats ΜΝ i i ᾽ POs i Add sieht uy ig Keon He we ihe i ΟΝ ay ty ine i re f) ᾿ Ν pag a Aan / 4: ᾿) ἐπεὶ 0904 Weert rane Ae Ἢ ΝΜ" foe 4 τ᾿, ἐν pees he Pall Dirty eyaret atten | nyt » oH} γα ἢ ΗΝ μ᾿ Γ ΟΣ nes if ἘΠῚ ἐν tate pegraey Pus dese vathenagl base Meee mm nee ata Aids ΠΝ Ἷ LAL eo sai sre We a} He ¥ 4 vp ΡΝ, en ae ἰὼ ΠῚ 4) ἈΚΥ ΣΝ gener see ἐν “ ῃ HoH Oe rey (ie wn es 4 Ly i es “4 ay a ΤΗΝ ἢ i on i ἫΝ i Hein ἣν ‘ane Manet Wy seabed! ἐ ap Bhs 14:3) cat νδιδι αὐ ν ese sa ! an Fiat eam mg pe “ν᾽ sal Pitches’ etic » tue ae 2 δ τετ. ads ‘3 att ty tnt r Ἢ oe - ty Balls a θυ ἜΗΝ : ΐ ἘΠ ται Wn ah oe rt Η Ἶ a ie ΠΝ ἢ ee Fant te) ἈΠ ag oi Ie us ANE a hi biti Hes i! ΠΝ esther i | 4 te Ἡ ΔΑ μα dirt) τὰ με bigot Μοὶ ὍΝ hatha SA dP ΠΝ " iN ) eit ᾿ Ἶ ἢ δῦ. Sh Notas pea ΑΝ i wna sy oy MRO ea ty . On eatin tcat fet [ἢ 3! ips ἢ sa Rs eget ἘΠ ᾿ oe ΤῊΝ Hs i ena i ΓΝ 995 4) ict ᾿ } ἐν mate ya δὴ ist it ἬΝ ἽΝ Beat ἢ ἬΝ ἕ Mirah net ΠΝ thet rok ΡΩΝ ni tah rh at a ΓΝ cae hy ve fod eh dar Ady Ὧν Migs iy Wi irk ie? Ὑ Δ ΑΜ bash tra ati Mina 4 ir i ir Ha Hest LER ELS Ost tea ovals ΜΝ ΠΗ ἜΝ: τ, i tei ui thin hg i ba ΜῊΝ Fly} ἢ i ἪΝ ΜΝ Sit) ΛΗ ΚΌΨΕ be 1 γὴν ΤῊ Meet is ran Matha ᾿ ines Pei +583 mH athe Dh Os ΤῊΝ r ὝΔΉΝ nian: πεν Bae imal Pn 2 HP ave | aw tits “" ΡΥ ΜΡ bd ΑΝ ΡΝ tint eee Nat oF we ΠΥ ΛΗ ΜΝ γεν} ΠΝ ν᾿ - Ἢ iia was ul Hrown ed ‘gh rp rat yee ‘tery ree We yt ae Τὴν neh Han "ἢ pei ah ἡ OH ἀν} τὴν *) agate prt A ἘΠῚ Sheath La ie ene tla Fi ἣν a it ie in aD abel Ede Ri ue ety ee ᾿ ᾿ i ΣΧ ft Tigray be at γ ἀπ KET τ ἪΝ an Pepe eed Hi MOOSE S ΩΝ hinge MA , wie ἧς ὁ apie ἌΝ ΠᾺΡ ET WMP TO beth oc) eden} ΣΝ pa fy ‘ $e τ bei an 7 - oF: ᾿ neath ΥΩ μι a avis ity oe We ete dege gedit ὙΠ τς ott §atho asics ᾿ YM ae 08 ἃν ode ἐἐθνε 1 pe ae he ae in reat i τῇ esi PM OPAL ee ΠῚ ὌΝ ἄγων; ἢ) AVANT hy ἢ i pete τ ὌΝ i ἢ (oe ἀπ ἣν ‘i! ay hey ea ey Ene ee ἜΝ ὙΠ τὲ ἕν nn Rita VE (Tp Ante hoe Ye ) ΠῚ Paya Hit ea eat ἮΝ cut ἘΠ ἢ A yd Hi Bata waht ae ΝΗ Ἦν ᾿ ΠΕ, Sa c Hin i rate if 4 9. ἡ ἯΙ ἡ] nee ; ᾿ Π Ἢ ἡ baste an : ᾿ bets ty ἊΝ ΠΡ Δ δ} " tat Mig dale ehae i ae ἢ , pata, ae ian ἢ i igs ΠΗ ΉΜΙ ΗΝ Ht Ret git Locate een Rae vite Ἔν aa Ἢ ἫΝ ΠΝ aN ee Bit ἤν J ae i zi ie ey nin ail f att 4: a s Tene oie " Le ties δ oa Hie pent i + i oe ΠΌΤ ἜΝ Ἂ Lota ilar : ee eis τ 9 214. yas ἀνέμου ae nt) a Aa Aa ne Be rt Ἢ γ fe ave vee 9 pba he sat ae ent ΠΧ ΜΉΝ +b Lea oe aly HA σον Ἄν" wiv) aaa ΧΙ ΓΑ eH vet 41 uke, ΠΟ ΧΧΧ awe LE Cd Ma 9 ΓῚ ei betas * μ᾿" “»" nit tanta ΠΝ οὐ ΠΝ ΗΝ (Sapesmnl ΜΠ Prey tery ὁτὴ Aas vith ARR infeed th " ¢ 4 Τρ στε ΜῊ ἜΤΗ uns Re yan! Mieke: meine Sissi ata ΤΣ ἢ" eel aoe, he ‘ DEL nay, oy Ἢ Ὃν ἽΝ ἷ ΣΉΜ f oe teeta vty Miia: eit ΟΝ tiene see i a Sauter at (ti “ΨΚ Ww halite io ie ay ad ᾿ Maat ΠΑΡ rs set anes a sega a 834 ie aly a fees ay La ᾿ 1% PW Ἵ , ah Unk haa id fev ἣ ἌΝ a if ᾧ ΜᾺ ‘ Ν ΝῊ» Ν x ia: Εἰ RA lt ἂν { Lia ἡ WANG os ve i J ἐν, i at iy ὩΔΊ py } ON Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic22meye CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY ‘ HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, LEDS OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. From the German, with the Sanction of the Author. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY Wie Lb FA My Peet C Ko SOiN, B.D: AND , WILLIAM STEWART, D.D. PART I.—SECOND DIVISION. THE GOSPELS QF MAKRK AND -LUKE. VOU LE HDINBUERG HH: Tl. & ΠΟΙ τ 38 ‘GEORGE STRERE MDCCCLXXX. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO, DUBLIN, . . . . -. ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, - . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. & > CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE. BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER, TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY REV. ROBERT ERNEST WALLIS, Px.D. Υ ΟἿΣ EE: ᾿' THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY WILLIAM STEWART, D.D., PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. EDINBURGH: T. & YO CLARK, 28 GEORGE STREET MDCCCLXXX. ahs (UL Ae a wd ‘ ; Ὧ a ᾿ a6} é ds ἊΝ eae nig Fy eager oer ae € 7 1 ww Bet i Lal, ΔΑ, ‘a Ἢ (ve &ia\*\)? Oia Cer Aa, ᾿ ί os ὃ Fi ‘ aye ξ as ee al + a 2 Ve al Wah ᾿ Ah 4 71 ¢ T " ry Ἶ { hn nv, 1 7 Ὰ ᾿ ΩΣ o ay ἡ γ ᾿ ἢ ὲ f υ i a5. “ τος TAs: we ‘ a o ΝΥ 7) a, ᾿ 9 a Ψ ἐς . Ὁ i ica Long ᾿ ! j ς Tes f ¢ ῬΑ P se Di ¥ a a t, = - > ἐ} j 1. * ‘ve tei ms Ν ὩΣ στὰ FIR ety eae wee, ἊΝ i of ai . ᾿ ΠΧ τς δι a Hes, hse ; TS hy AE Ow ῊΝ νὴ: Ν μὲν ᾿ d=) PA : ity. ΩΝ Ὁ ἊΣ μ @ ΤΟΝ ry es one a] : Tea 7 ᾿ i ἣν phil ie " τ -: ᾿ aod 0 οὖν DDADADLAD A’ 4 4 > fi 1 Lal ty Ab 4 A “ pest χ DALE ἢ i hey °¥ ἢ iY ΥῪ TRYOLVOTORH, 0981 AON ‘97" NOLGONIH A JO A, WqIAONd guy 2 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ΘῊΡ ΠΡ Ver. 2. Instead of ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως, Elz. has ἐπ᾿ ἀρχιερέων, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 4. λέγοντος) is wanting in BDL AN, min. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Or. Eus. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. ; taken from Matt. 111. 3.— Ver. 5. εὐθεῖαν] Β Ὁ 5, min. Vulg. It. Or. Ir. have εὐθείας. So Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical repetition from ver. 4. The verse bears no trace of its having been altered to agree with the LXX.— Ver. 10. ποιήσομεν] ποιήσωμεν, which Griesb. has recommended, and Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have adopted, is here and at vv. 12, 14 decisively attested. — Ver. 14. The arrangement τί ποιήσωμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς 15, With Lachm, and Tisch., to be adopted, following B C* L x, min. Syr. Ar. Vulg. Rd. Ver. Brix. Colb.; καὶ ἡμεῖς was omitted, because καΖ follows again,—an omission which, moreover, the analogy of vv. 10, 12 readily suggested,—and was afterwards restored in the wrong place (before ri ποιήσ.). ---- πρὸς αὐτούς] Lachm. has αὐτοῖς, follow- ing Β Οὗ DL Ξ, min. Vulg. It. The fecepta is a repetition from ver. 13. — Ver. 17. xai διακαθαριεῖ) Tisch. has διακαθᾶραι, as also afterwards x. συναγαγεῖν, on too weak attestation. — Ver. 19. After γυναικός, Elz. has Φιλίππου, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 22. λέγουσαν] is wanting in Β D LR, Copt. Vulg. codd. of It. Ambr. Condemned by Griesb. and Rinck, deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Taken from Matt. 111. 17. Comp. on ver. 4.— σὺ ef... ηὐδόκησωα] D, Cant. Ver. Vere. Colb. Corb.* Rd. Clem. Method. Hilar. ap., also codd. in Augustine, have υἱός μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. An old (Justin, ὁ. Zryph. 88) Ebionitic (Epiphan. Maer. xxx. 13) addition, which, echoing the expression in Acts xiii. 33, found its way into the narrative, especially in the case of Luke. — Ver. 23. Many various read- ings, which, however, are not so well attested as to warrant a departure from the Received text (Lachm. and Tisch. have LUKE IL A 4 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. adopted ὧν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, and Tisch. has ἀρχόμ. after Ἰησοῦς). - Ἄοῦ. 29 ff. Many variations in the writing of the proper names. — Ver. 33. τοῦ ᾿Αράμ] Tisch. has τοῦ ᾿Αδμεὶν τοῦ ᾿Αρνεί, following Β 1, X Τ' καὶ, Copt. Syr?. So also Ewald. Rightly ; the Recepta is a correction in accordance with Matt. 1, 4; 1 Chron. ii: 9. Vv. 1, 2. As, on the one hand, Matt. iii. 1 introduces the appearance of the Baptist without any definite note of time, only with ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ; so, on the other, Luke (“the first writer who frames the Gospel history into the great history of the world by giving precise dates,” Ewald), in fulfil- ment of his intention, 1. 3, gives for that highly important starting-point of the proclamation of the Gospel (“ hic quasi scena N. T. panditur,’ Bengel) a date specified by a sixfold reference to the history of the period, so as to indicate the emperor at Rome and the governors of Palestine, as well as the high priest of the time ; namely—(1) in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, who was succeeded by his step-son Tiberius, died on the 19th August 767, or the fourteenth year of the era of Dionysius. See Suetonius, Octav. 100. Accordingly, it might appear doubtful whether Luke reckons the year 767 or the year 768 as the first; similarly, as Tiberius became co-regent at the end of 764, or in January 765 (Tacit. Ann. 1. 3 ; Sueton. 710. 20 f.; Velleius Paterculus, ii. 121), whether Luke begins to reckon from the commencment of the co-regency (Ussher, Voss, Pagius, Clericus, Sepp, Lichtenstein, Tischendorf, and others), or of the sole- government. Since, however, no indication is added which would lead us away from the mode of reckoning the years of the emperors usual among the Romans, and followed even by Josephus,’ we must abide by the view that the fifteenth year in the passage before us is the year from the 19th August 781 to the same date 782. See also Anger, zur Chronologie d. Lehramtes Christi, I., Leipzig 1848 ; Ideler, Chronol. I. p. 418. 1 Also Antt. xviii. 6. 10, where σχὼν αὐτὸς τὴν ἀρχήν does not refer back to an earlier co-regency of Tiberius, so that αὐτός would be equivalent to μόνος ; but this αὐσός indicates simply a contrast betweeen him and Caius, who had been nominated his successor. CHAP. 111. 1, 3. 3 Authentication from coins; Sauley, Athen. francais. 1855, p. 639 ἢ --- (2) When Pontius Pilate (see on Matt. xxvii. 2) was procurator of Judaea. He held office from the end of 778, or beginning of 779, until 789, in which year he was recalled after an administration of ten years; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 2. — (3) When Herod was tetrarch of Galilee. Herod Antipas (see on Matt. 11. 22, xiv. 1); this crafty, unprincipled man of the world became tetrarch after the death of his father Herod the Great in 750, and remained so until his deposition in 792. --- (4) When Philip his brother was tetrarch of [turaea and Trachonitis. This paternal prince (see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 45 f.) became prince in 750, and his reign lasted till his death in 786 or 787, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 6. His govern- ment extended also over Batanaea and Auranitis, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11. 4,as that of Herod Antipas also took in Peraea. For information as to Jtwraea, the north-eastern province of Palestine (Miinter, de rebus Ituracor. 1824), and as to the neighbouring Zvrachonitis between the Antilibanus and the Arabian mountain ranges, see Winer, Realwirt.—(5) When Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. See especially, Hug, Gutacht. Toy 119. <> Ebrard) p./ts0) it; Wieseler,. pa) iv τ" Schweizer in the Theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 1 ff. (who treats the chronology of Luke very unfairly); Wieseler in Herzog’s Encyki. I. p. 64 ff.; Lichtenstein, Ὁ. 131 ff; Bleek ὧν loc. The Lysanias, son of Ptolemaeus, known from Josephus, Anté. xv. 4.1; Dio Cass. 49: 32, as having been murdered by Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra in 718, cannot here be meant, unless Luke has perpetrated a gross chronological blunder; which latter case, indeed, Strauss, Gfrorer, B. Bauer, Hilgenfeld take for granted; while Valesius, on Eus. H. ZL. i. 10; Michaelis, Paulus,’ Schneckenburger in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1833, p. 1064, would mend matters uncritically enough by omitting τετραρχοῦντος (which is never omitted in Luke, see Tischendorf) ; and the remaining expression : καὶ τῆς Avoaviou 1 Τῇ his Commentary. But in his Zxeget. Handb. he acquiesces in the text as it stands, and forces upon it, contrary to the letter, the meaning: when ἡ Philip the tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis was also tetrarch over Abilene of Lysanias. Thus, indeed, the former old Lysanias would also here be meant. 4 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ᾿Αβιληνῆς some have attempted to construe, others to guess at the meaning. After the murder of that older Lysanias who is mentioned as ruler of (δυναστεύων) Chalcis, between Lebanon and Antilibanus (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 4), Antony presented a great part of his possessions to Cleopatra (see Wieseler, p. 179), and she leased them to Herod. Soon after- wards Zenodorus received the lease of the οἶκος tod Avoaviou (Joseph. Antt. xv. 10.1; Bell. Jud. i. 20. 4); but Augustus in 724 compelled him to give up a portion of his lands to Herod (Joseph. as above), who after the death of Zenodorus in 734 obtained the rest also, Antt. xv. 10. 3. After Herod’s death a part of the οἴκου τοῦ Ζηνοδώρου passed over to Philip (Antt. xvii. 11.4; Bell. Jud. i. 6.3). It is consequently not to be proved that no portion of the territory of that older Lysanias remained in his family. This is rather to be assumed (Casaubon, Krebs, Siiskind the elder, Kuinoel, Siiskind the younger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 431 ff; Winer, and others), if it is supposed that Abilene also belonged to the principality of that elder Lysanias. But this supposition is itself deficient in proof, since Josephus designates the territory of the elder Lysanias as Chalcis (see above), and expressly distinguishes the kingdom of a later Lysanias, which Caligula (Antti. xviii. 6. 10) and Claudius bestowed on Agrippa 1. (Anti. xix. 5. 1, xx 7. V5 Bell. 0.11.5, ΤΉ 2. Θ. irom region of Chalcis (Bell. 11. 12. 8). But since Abila is first mentioned as belonging to the tetrarchy of this /ater Lysanias (Antt. xix. 5. 1), and since the kingdom of the elder Lysanias is nowhere designated a tetrarchy, although probably the territory of that younger one is so named,’ it must be assumed that Josephus, when he mentions "ABSiXav τὴν Λυσανίου (Antt. xix. 5. 1), and speaks of a tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antt. xx. 7. 1; comp. Bell. ii. 11. 5, 11. 12. 18), still designates the region in question after that older Lysanias ; but that before 790, when Caligula became emperor, a tetrarchy of a later 1 Of whom, therefore, we have to think even in respect of the Greek inserip- tion which Pococke (Morgenl. 11. § 177) found at Nebi A bel (the ancient Abila), and in which Lysanias is mentioned as tetrarch. Comp. Bockh, Jnser. 4521, 4523. CHAP, III. 1, 2 5 Lysanias existed to which Abila’ belonged, doubtless as his residence, whereas it is quite another question whether this latter Lysanias was a descendant or a relation of that elder one (see Krebs, Obss. p. 112). Thus the statement of Luke, by comparison with Josephus, instead of being shown to be erroneous, is confirmed. —(6) When Annas was high priest, and Caiaphas. Comp. Acts iv. 6. The reigning high priest at that time was Joseph, named Caiaphas (see on Matt. xxvi. 3), who had been appointed by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor of Pontius Pilate, Joseph. Anté. xviii. 2,2. His father-in-law Annas held the office of high priest some years before, until Valerius Gratus became procurator, when the office was taken away from him by the new governor, and conferred first on Jsmael, then on Hleazar (a son of Annas), then on Simon, and after that on Caiaphas. See Josephus, Lc. This last continued in office from about 770 till 788 or 789. But Annas retained withal very weighty influence (John xvii. 12 ff), so that not only did he, as did every one who had been ἀρχιερεύς, continue to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also partially discharged the functions of high priest. In this way we explain the certainly inaccurate expres- sion of Luke (in which Lange, Z. J. II. 1, p. 165, finds a touch of irony, an element surely quite foreign to the simply chrono- logical context), informing the reader who may not be acquainted with the actual state of the case, that Annas was primarily and properly high priest, and next to him Caiaphas also. But according to Acts iv. 6, Luke himself must have had this view, so that it must be conceded as a result that this expression is erroncous,—an error which, as it sprang from the predominat- 1 Τὸ was situated in the region of the Lebanon, eighteen miles north from Damascus, and thirty-eight miles south from Heliopolis. Ptolem. v.18; Anton. Itiner.; Ritter, Hrdk. XV. p.1060. To be distinguished from Abila in Decapolis, and other places of this name (Joseph. v. 1. 1; Bell. ii. 13. 2, iv. 7. 5). 2 It is, however, altogether precarious with Lichtenstein, following Hofmann, to gather from the passage before us a proof that Luke did not write till after the destruction of Jerusalem, because, namely, after that crumbling to pieces of the Herodian territories, no further interest would be felt in discovering to whom Abilene belonged at the time of Tiberius. But why not? Not evena chronological interest ? 6 ᾿ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ing influence of Annas, was the more easily possible in pro- portion to the distance at which Luke stood from that time in which the high priests had changed so frequently; while Annas (whose son-in-law and five sons besides filled the office, Joseph. Anti. xx. 9.1) was accustomed to keep his hand on the helm. To agree with the actual historical relation, Luke would have been obliged to write: ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Καϊάφα καὶ "Avva. Arbitrary shifts have been resorted to, such as: that at that period the two might have exchanged annually in the administration of the office (Beza, Chemnitz, Selden, Calovius, Hug, Friedlieb, Archdol. d. Leidensgesch. p. 73 ff.) ; that Annas was vicar (13D, Lightfoot, p. 744 f.) of the high priest (so Scaliger, Casaubon, Grotius, Lightfoot, Reland, Wolf, Kuinoel, and others, comp. de Wette), which, however, is shown to be erroneous by his name being placed first; that he is here represented as princeps Synedrii (wi, Lightfoot, p. 746). So Selden, Saubert, Hammond, and recently Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 186 ff, and in Herzog’s Encykl. 1. p. 354. But as ἀρχιερεύς nowhere of itself means president of the Sanhedrim, but in every case nothing else than chief priest, it can in this place especially be taken only in this signification, since καὶ Καϊάφα stands alongside. If Luke had intended to say: “under the president Annas and the high priest Caiaphas,” he could not have comprehended these distinct offices, as they were at that time actually distinguished (which Selden has abundantly proved), under the one term ἀρχιερέως. Even in xxii. 54, ἀρχίερ. is to be understood of Annas. — ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ x.7.r.]| Comp. Jer. i. 2; Isa. ἘΣΣΙ. 4 f. From this, as from the following καὶ ἦλθεν x.7.r., ver. 3, it is plainly manifest that Luke by his chronological statements at vv. 1, 2 intends to fix the date of nothing else than the calling and jirst appearance of John, not the year of the death of Jesus (Sanclemente and many of the Fathers, who, following Luke iv. 19, comp. Isa. Ixi. 1 ff, erroneously ascribe to Jesus only one year of his official ministry), but also not of a second appearance of the Baptist and his imprisonment (Wieseler’), or of his beheading (Schegg). The mention of the 1 See in opposition to Wieseler, Ebrard, p. 187 ; Lichtenstein, p. 137 ff. CHAP. III. 3-6. ἡ imprisonment, vv. 19, 20, is rather to be regarded only as ἃ digression, as the continuance of the history proves (ver. 21). The first appearance of John, however, was important enough to have its chronology fixed, since it was regarded as the ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Mark i. 1). It was the epoch of the commence- ment of the work of Jesus Himself (comp. Acts 1. 22, x. 37, ΧΙ]. 24), and hence Luke, having arrived at this threshold of the Gospel history, ver. 22, when Jesus is baptized by John, makes at this point a preliminary pause, and closes the first section of the first division of his book with the genealogical register, ver. 23 ff, in order to relate next the Messianic ministry of Jesus, ch. iv. ff. Ver. 3. See on Matt. 11. 1 f£; Mark 1. 4. — περίχωρον τοῦ *Iopé.] Matthew and Mark have ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. There is no discrepancy ; for the apparent discrepancy vanishes with ἦλθε in Luke, compared with the narrative of the baptism in Matthew and Mark. Vv. 4-6. See on Matt. i. 5. Luke continues the quota- tion of Isa. xl. ὃ down to the end of ver. 5, following the LXX. freely. The appeal to this prophetic oracle was one of the commonplaces of the evangelic tradition in respect of the history of John, and betokens therefore, even in Luke, no special source ; he only gives it—unless a Pauline purpose is to be attributed to his words (Holtzmann)—more fully than Matthew, Mark, and John (i. 23).—JIn ὡς γέγραπται the same thing is implied that Matthew expresses by οὗτος yap ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθείς.-- φάραγξ] Ravine, Thue. ii. 67. 4; Dem. 793. 6; Polyb. vii. 15. 8; Judith ii. 8. This and the follow- ing particulars were types of the moral obstacles which were to be removed by the repentance demanded by John for the restoration of the people well prepared for the reception of the Messiah (i. 17). There is much arbitrary trifling on the part of the Fathers and others in interpreting ἡ the particulars of this passage. — The futures are not imperative in force, but declare what will happen in consequence of the command, 1 Well says Grotius: ‘‘Nimirum est anxia eorum περιεργία, qui in dictis ἀλληγορουμένοις singulas partes minutatim excutiunt ... cum satis sit in re tota comparationem intelligi.” 8 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. ἑτοιμάσατε K.T.X. Καὶ ὄψεται κιτιλ. ought to have guarded against the taking the expressions imperatively. — On the use of the Cyrenaic (Herod. iv. 199) word Bovvos, hill, in Greek, see Schweighiiuser, Lex, Herod. I. p. 125 f.; Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 154; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 356. — εἰς εὐθεῖαν] scil. ὁδόν. See Lobeck, Paralip. p. 363; Winer, p. 521 [E. T. 738 f.]. — αἱ τραχεῖαι] scil. ὁδοί, from what follows, the rough, uneven ways. — λείας] smooth. Comp. Xen. Mem. 111. 10. 1: τὰ τραχέα Kal τὰ λεῖα. ---- τὸ σωτήρ. τ. Θεοῦ] See on ii. 80. It is an addition of the LXX. The salvation of God is the Messianic salvation which will appear in and with the advent of the Messiah before all eyes (ὄψεται πᾶσα σάρξ). As to πᾶσα σάρξ, all flesh, designating men according to their need of deliverance, and pointing to the wniversal destination of God’s salvation, see on Acts ii. 16. Vv. 7-9. See on Matt. iii. 7-10.— ὄχλοις] Kuinoel erroneously says: “ Pharisaei et Sadducaci.” See rather on Matt. iii. 7.1. — ἐκπορ.] the present. The people are repre- sented as still on their way. — οὖν] since otherwise you cannot escape the wrath to come. —xai μὴ ἄρξησθε x.7.r.] and. begin not to think, do not allow yourselves to fancy ! do not dispose yourselves to the thought! “Omnem excusationis etiam conatum praecidit,” Bengel. Bornemann explains as though the words were καὶ μὴ πάλιν (he likens it to the German expression, “das alte Lied anfangen”); and Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 540, as if it meant καὶ μηδέ, ne quidem. Comp. also Bengel. Vv. 10, 11. Special instructions on duty as far as ver. 14 peculiar to Luke, and taken from an unknown source. — οὖν] in pursuance of what was said vv. 7—9.— troujowper] (see the critical remarks) is deliberative. On the question itself, comp. Acts ii. 37, xvi. 30.— μεταδότω] namely, a χιτών. --- ὁ ἔχων βρώματα] not: “qui cibis abundat,’ Kuinoel, following older commentators. The demand of the stern preacher of repentance is greater; it is that of self-denying love, as it is 1 The generalization proves nothing on behalf of Luke’s having been ignorant of our Matthew (Weiss). From such individual instances an easy argument is drawn, but with great uncertainty, especially as Luke knew and made use of a multitude of evangelistic sources of which we know nothing. yy yy Ὼ Y XY an TAN y ARS AL AN ka LUN ‘ \ nel. NOV 18ot \ ' VUY 1000 Ἃ MYY WEY Wasi, + 2X AA LLY 4 ¢ ( AA NX LA Ai cet MIN = CHAP; ΤΙ. 12—15, perfected from the a of Jesus in the Serna” of ‘the Mount. Vv. 12, 13. Τελῶναι] See on Matt. v. 46.— παρὰ τὸ διατεταγμ. ὑμῖν] over and above what is prescribed to you (to demand in payment). See Winer, p. 215 [E.T. 300f.]. The unrighteousness and the exactions of those who farmed the taxes are well known. See Paulus, Hxeget. Handb. I. p. 353 f. On πράσσειν, to demand payment, to exact, see Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 482; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 17. Ver. 14. Yrparevopevos] those who were engaged in military service, an idea less extensive than στρατιῶται. See the passages in Wetstein. Historically, it is not to be more precisely defined. See references in regard to Jewish military service in Grotius. According to Michaelis, there were Thracians, Germans, and Galatians in the service of Herod in his war against Aretas; but this war was later, and certainly Jewish soldiers are meant. According to Ewald: soldiers who were chiefly engaged in police inspection, e.g. In connec- tion with the customs. — καὶ ἡμεῖς] we also. They expect an injunction similar (καί) to that which the publicans received. — διασείειν] to do violence to, is used by later writers of exactions by threats and other kinds of annoyance (to lay under contribution), as concutere. Comp. 3 Macc. vil. 21 ; see Wetstein, and Schneider, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 1. — συκο- φαντεῖν, in its primitive meaning, although no longer occur- ring in this sense, is to be a fig-shower. According to the usual view (yet see in general, Ast, ad Plat. Rep. p. 362 ; Westermann, ad Plut. Sol. 24), it was applied to one who denounced for punishment those who transgressed the pro- hibition of the export of figs from Attica. According to the actual usage, it means to denounce falsely, to traduce, and, as in this place, to be guilty of chicane. It is often thus used also in the Greek writers. See Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 775 ff.; Becker, Char. i p. 289 tf. ΠὨονηρὸν, πονηρὸν ὁ συκοφάντης ἀεὶ καὶ βάσκανον, Dem. 307. 23; - Herbst, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 30, p. 79 f. Ver. 15, Statement of the circumstances which elicited the following confession ; although not found in Matthew and 10 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, Mark, it has not been arbitrarily constructed by Luke (Weisse) in order to return again to the connection, ver. 9 (Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann), but was probably derived from the same source as ver. 10 ff, and at all events it is in keeping with the impression made by the appearance of John, and his preaching of baptism and repentance. Comp. John i. 25, where the more vmmediate occasion is narrated.-— προσδοκῶντος] while the people were in expectation. The people were eagerly listen- ing—for what? This is shown in what follows, namely, for an explanation by John about himself. Comp. Acts xxvii. 33. — μήποτε] whether not perchance. Comp. on Gal. ii. 2. -- αὐτός] ipse, not a third, whose forerunner then he would only be. Ver. 16. See on Matt. ii, 11; Mark i. 7 f.— ἀπεκρίν.) “interrogare cupientibus,” Bengel. — ἔρχεται] placed first for emphasis. — od... αὐτοῦ] Comp. Mark i. 7, vii. 25 ; Winer, p. 134 [E. T. 183 f.].— αὐτός] he and no other. Ver. 17. See on Matt. 111. 12. Vv. 18-20. See on Matt. xiv. 3 ff; Mark vi. 17 ff On μὲν οὖν, quidem igitur, so that μέν, “rem praesentem con- firmet,”’ and οὖν, “conclusionem ex rebus ita comparatis conficiat,’ see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 662 f.— καὶ ἕτερα] and other matters besides, different in kind from those already adduced. As to καί with πολλά, see Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. 249 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 243; and as to ἕτερα, see on Gal. 1. 7. ---εὐηγγελίζετο τ. λαόν] he supplied the people with the glad announcement of the coming Messiah. On the construction, comp. Acts viii. 25, 40, xiv. 21, xvi. 10; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 268.— ὁ δὲ Ηρώδης «.7.d.] an historical digression in which several details are brought together in brief compass for the purpose of at once completing the delineation of John in its chief features. To that description also belonged the contrast between his work (ednyyerif. τ. λαόν) and his destiny. The brief intimation of vv. 19, 20 was sufficient for this. -— ἐλεγχόμενος x.7.r.] See Matt. xiv. 3 f. -- καὶ περὶ πάντων x.t.r.| peculiar to Luke, but, as we gather from Mark vi. 20, essentially historical. The πονηρῶν, attracted with it, stands thus according to classical usage. CHAP. III. 21-23. 4 See Matthiae, ὃ 473, quoted by Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 177, 349. — ;Ἐἐπὶ πᾶσι] to all his wicked deeds. —— καὺ κατέ- κλεισε] simplicity in the style is maintained at the expense of the syntax (Kiihner, ὃ 720). ---- ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ] in the prison, whither he had brought him. Comp. Acts xxvi. 10; Herodian, v. 8. 12, and elsewhere; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 4. 10. Vvi 215:222 Seeton Matty die 13-17 >>Marked, 9211; — ἐγένετο δὲ x.7..] resumes the thread dropped at ver. 18 in order to add another epitomized narrative, namely, that of the baptism of Jesus.— ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι «.7.d.] Whilst? the assembled people (an hyperbolical expression) were being bap- tized, it came to pass when Jesus also (kai) was baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, etc. The entire people was therefore present (in opposition to Kuinoel, Krabbe, and others). The characteristic detail, cat mpocevy., is peculiar to Luke. — σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡσεὶ Tepict.| so that He appeared as a bodily dove. See, moreover, on Matthew. Ver. 23. Αὐτός] as Matt. iii. 4: He Himself, to whom this divine σημεῖον, ver. 22, pointed. — ἦν ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν πριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος) He was about thirty years of age (comp. ii. 42 ; Mark v. 42), when He made the beginning, viz. of His Mes- sianic office. This limitation of the meaning of ἀρχόμενος results from ver. 22, in which Jesus is publicly and solemnly announced by God as the Messiah. So Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Er. Schmid, Spanheim, Calovius, Clericus, Wolf, Bengel, Griesbach (in Velthusen, Comment. I. p. 358), Kuinoel, Anger (Zempor. rat. p. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten- Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, and others. With the reception of his baptismal consecration, Jesus entered on the 1 Bleek is in error (following de Wette) when he translates: when... He was baptized. See ii. 27, viii. 40, ix. 36, xi. 87, xiv. 1, xix. 15, xxiv. 30; in general, Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 226 f. [E. T. 264]. ? So also Paulus, only that, after the example of Calvisius, he further attaches ὧν to ἀρχόμενος, in which case, however, it would be useless, and the subsequent genealogy would be without any connecting link. Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p- 125, placing ἀρχόμενος before ὡσεί (so Lachmann in the margin and Tischen- dorf), explains: ‘‘and he was—namely, Jesus when He began—about thirty years of age.” Therefore in the most essential point his view is in agreement with ours, 12 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. commencement of His destined ministry. Comp. Mark i. 1; Acts 1. 21 ἢ, x. 37. The interpretation given by others: “ Incipiebat autem Jesus annorum esse fere triginta,” Castalio (so Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, and many more), could only be justified either by the original running: ἤρξατο εἶναι ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, OY ἣν ὡσεὶ ἔτους τριακοστοῦ ἀρχόμενος. It is true that Grotius endeavours to fortify himself in this interpretation by including in the clause the following ὦν, so that ἄρχομαι dv ἐτῶν τριάκοντα might mean: incipio jam esse tricenarius. But even if ἣν... ὧν be conjoined in Greek usage (see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. 11. 3. 13, p. 207, Leipzig), how clumsy would be the expression ἣν ἀρχόμενος ov, incipiebat esse! and, according to the arrangement of the words, quite intolerable. Even ἐρχόμενος has been conjec- tured (Casaubon).— ὦν] belongs to υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσήφ, and ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as he was considered (ὡς ἐδόκει, τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις" ὡς γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια εἶχεν, οὐκ ἣν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, Euthymius Zigabenus), is a parenthesis. Paulus, who connects ὥν with ἀρχόμ,, explains: according to custom (Jesus did not begin His ministry sooner). Comp. on Acts xvi. 13. It is true the connecting of the two participles ἀρχόμενος ὦν would not in itself be ungrammatical (see Pflugk, ad Hee. 358); but this way of looking at the matter is altogether wrong, because, in respect of the appearance of the Messiah, there could be no question of a custom at all, and the fixing of the age of the Levites (Num. iv. 3, 47), which, moreover, was not a custom, but a daw, has nothing to do with the appearance of a prophet, and especially of the Messiah. Comp. further, on ὡς ἐνομίζ,, Dem. 1022. 16: of νομιζόμενος μὲν υἱεῖς, μὴ ὄντες δὲ γένει ἐξ αὐτῶν, and the passages in Wetstein. Others (quoted by Wolf, and Wolf himself, Rosenmiiller, Osiander) refer ὦν to τοῦ “HAL: ewistens (cum putaretur filius Josepht) filius, i.e. nepos Eli. So also Schleyer in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 540 ff Even Wieseler (in the Stud. wu. Arit. 1845, p. 361 ff.) has condescended in like manner (comp. Lightfoot, p- 750) to the desperate expedient of exegetically making it out to be a genealogical tree of Mary thus: “ being a son, as {ξ was thought, of Joseph (but, in fact, of Mary), of Eli, ete. Wieseler CHAP. III. 23. 13 supports his view by the fact that he reads, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, ὡς ἐνομίζ. after vids (B Ls), and on weaker evidence reads before Ιωσήφ the tod which is now again deleted even by Tischendorf. But as, in respect of the received arrangement of ὡς ἐνομ., it is only the ὧν υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσήφ, and nothing more (in opposition to Bengel), that is marked out as coming under the ὡς ἐνομίζετο, so also is it in the arrangement of Lachmann (only that the latter actually brings into stronger prominence the supposed filial relationship to Joseph); and if tod is read before “Iwan, no change even in that case arises in the meaning.’ For it is not vids that would have to be supplied in every following clause, so that Jesws should be designated as the son of each of the persons named, even up to τοῦ Θεοῦ inclusively (so Lightfoot, Bengel), but υἱοῦ (after Tov), as the nature of the genealogical table in itself presents it,’ making τοῦ Θεοῦ also dogmatically indubitable ; since, according to Luke’s idea of the divine sonship of Jesus, it could not occur to him to represent this divine sonship as having been effected through Adam. No; if Luke had thought what Wieseler reads between the lines in ver. 20, that, namely, Eli was Mary's father, he would have known how to express it, and would have written something like this: ὧν, ὡς μὲν ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσὴφ, ὄντως (xxiii. 47, xxiv. 34) δὲ Μαρίας τοῦ Ηλί κτλ. But he desires to give the genealogy of Jesus on the side of His foster-father Joseph : therefore he writes simply as we read, and as the fact that he wished to express required. As to the originally Zbionitic point of view of the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, see on Matt. i. 17, Remark 3. REMARK.—AI] attempts to fix the year in which Jesus was born by means of the passage before us are balked by the ὡσεί of ver. 23. Yet the era of Dionysius bases its date, although incorrectly (754 after the foundation of Rome), on Luke iil. 1 This indifferent σοῦ came into the text with extreme facility, in accordance with the analogy of all the following clauses. 5 Instances of a quite similar kind of stringing on the links of a genealogy one after the other by τοῦ are found in Herod. iv. 157, vii. 204, viii. 131, and others in Wetstein. The Vulgate is right in simply reading, ‘‘ filius Joseph. gui fuit Heli, qui fuit Matthat,”’ etc. 14 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, 1, 23. Hase, 7. J. § 26, follows it, setting aside, because of its mythical associations, the account of Matthew, that the first childhood of Jesus occurred as early as the time of the reign of Herod the Great. But these legendary ingredients do not justify our rejecting a date fixed by a simple reference to the history of the time, for it is rather to be regarded as the nucleus around which the legend gathered. As, however, Herod died in 750 (Anger, Lat. tempor. pot; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 59 ff.), the era of Dionysius is at ¢ any rate at least about four years 1n error. If, further, it be necessary, according to this, to place the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod, ‘which occurred in the beginning of April, then, even on the assumption that He was born as early as 750 (according to Wieseler, in February of that year), it follows that at the time when the Baptist, who was His senior only by a few months, appeared—accord- ing to ii. 1,in the year from the 19th August 781 to 782— He would be about thirty-one years of age, which perfectly agrees with the ὡσεί of ver. 23, and the round number τριά- zovra; in which case it must be assumed as certain (comp. Mark i. 9) that He was baptized very soon after the appear- ance of John, at which precise point His Messianic ἀρχή Com- menced. If, however, as according to Matt. 11. 7,16 is extremely probable, the birth of Jesus must be placed as sae as perhaps a year before the date given above,’ even the age that thus results of about thirty-two years is sufficiently covered by the indefinite statement of the passage before us; and the year 749 as the year of Christ’s birth tallies well enough with the Baptist beginning to preach in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius.” ' Not “ at least two years, probably even four or more years,” Keim, D. ges- chichtl. Christus, p. 140. * From the fact that, according to the evangelists, Jesus after His baptism began His public official ministry without the intervention of any private teach- ing, the opinion of the younger Bunsen (Ze Hidden Wisdom of Christ, ete., London 1865, II. p. 461 ff.)—that the Lord, at the beginning of His official career, was forty-six years of age—loses all foundation : It rests upon the mis- understanding of John ii. 20 f., viii. 57, which had already occurred in the case of Irenaeus. See, on the other hand, Rosch in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 4 ff. The assumption of the latter, that the year 2 before the era of Dionysius was the year of Christ’s birth, rests in accordance with ancient tradition, to be sure, yet on the very insecure foundation of the appearance of the star in the history of the Magi, and on distrust of the chronology of Herod and his sons as set forth by Josephus, for which Rosch has not adduced suflicient reasons, CHAP, III. 27-36. 15 Ver. 27. Τοῦ Ζοροβάβελ, τοῦ Σαλαθιήλ] The objection that in this place Luke, although giving the line of David through Nathan, still introduces the same two celebrated names, and at about the same period as does Matt. i. 12, is not arbitrarily to be got rid of. The zdentity of these persons has been denied (so, following older commentators, Paulus, Olshausen, Osiander, Wieseler, Bleek), or ὦ levirate marriage has been suggested as getting quit of the difficulty (so, fol- lowing older commentators, Ebrard, who says that Matthew mentions the legal, Luke the natural father of Salathiel), or it has been supposed (so Hofmann, Weissag. wu. Hrfiill. ΤΙ. p. 37) that Salathiel adopted Zerubbabel. But the less reliance can be placed on such arbitrary devices in proportion as _his- torical warranty as to details is wanting in both the divergent cenealogies, although they both profess to give a genealogy of Joseph. The attempt to reconcile the two must be given up. It is otherwise in respect of the names Amos and Nahum, ver. 25, which cannot be identified with the well-known prophets, and in respect of the names Levi, Simeon, Juda, Joseph, vv. 29, 30, which cannot be identified with the sons of Jacob, as (in opposition to B. Bauer) is shown by the great difference of time. Ver. 36. Tod Kaivay] In Gen. x. 24, xi. 12; 1 Chron. i. 24. Shalach (nev) is named as the son of Arphaxad. But the genealogy follows the LXX. in Gen. (as above) ; and certainly the name of Kenan also originally stood in Genesis, although the author of 1 Chronicles may not have read it in his copy of Genesis. See Bertheau on 1 Chron. p. 6. REMARK.— The genealogy in Luke, who, moreover, in accord- ance with his Pauline universalism carries on the genealogical line up to Adam, is appropriately inserted at this point, just where the Messianic consecration of Jesus and the commence- ment therewith made of His ministry are related. Hence, also, the genealogy is given in an ascending line, as Luke did not intend, like Matthew, to begin his Gospel just at the birth of Jesus, but went much further back and started with the conception and birth of the Baptist; so in Luke the proper and, in so far as the historical connection was concerned, the right place for the genealogy could not have been, as in Matthew, 16 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. at the beginning of the Gospel. Comp. Koéstlin, p. 306.—In its contents the genealogy is extremely different from that in Matthew, since from Joseph to David, Luke has far more and almost throughout different links in the genealogy; since Matthew gives the line of Solomon, while Luke gives that of Nathan (2 Sam. v. 14; 1 Chron. 111. 5), although he intro- . duces into it from the former Σαλαθιήλ and Ζοροβάβελ. Seeking in several ways to get rid of this last-mentioned difficulty (see on ver. 27), many have assumed ¢hat Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives that of Mary. To reconcile this with the text, τοῦ 'H~/ has been taken to mean: the son- in-law of Eli, as, following many older commentators (Luther, also Chemnitz, Calovius, Bengel), Paulus, Olshausen, Krabbe, Ebrard, Riggenbach, Bisping, and others will have it; but this, according to the analogy of the rest of the links in the chain, is quite impossible. The attempt has been made to connect with this the hypothesis of Epiphanius, Grotius, Michaelis, and others, that Mary was an heiress, whose husband must therefore have belonged to the same family, and must have had his name inscribed in their family register (Michaelis, Olshausen) ; but this hypothesis itself, while it is equally objectionable in being arbitrary, and in going too far in its application, leaves the question altogether unsolved whether the law of the heiress was still in force at that time (see on Matt. 1. 17, Rem. 2), even apart from the fact that Mary’s Davidic descent is wholly with- out proof, and extremely doubtful. See oni. 36,11.4. Another evasion, with a view to the appropriation of the genealogy to Mary, as well as that of Wieseler, is already refuted’ at ver. 23. See also Bleek, Beitr. p. 101 f—Hence the conclusion must be maintained, that Luke also gives the genealogy of Joseph. But if this be so, how are we to reconcile the genealogy with that given in Matthew? It has been supposed that Joseph was adopted (Augustine, de consens. evangel. 11. 3; Wetstein, Schegg), or more usually, that he sprang from ἃ levirate marriage (Julius Africanus in Eusebius, H. £. 1. 7), so that Matthew adduces his natural father Jacob, while Luke adduces his legal father Eli (Julius Africanus, Theophylact, Euthymius 1 That Eli was the father of Mary is also inferred by Delitzsch on Hebr. p. 290, who suggests that after the premature death of his father Jacob, Joseph was adopted, namely, by this Eli as his foster son, and brought up along with Mary ; that thus, therefore, Eli was Joseph's foster father, but Mary’s αὐλὴ father. What groundless devices! And yet the passage itself i is ‘‘as simple as possible until we want to force it to say what it does not say,” Nofmann, Schri/t- bew, II. 1, p. 112, CHAP. III. 17 Zigabenus, Augustine), or vice versé (Ambrosius, Grotius, Wet- stein, Schleiermacher). But what a complication this hypothesis, in itself quite arbitrary, involves! In this way Eli and Jacob must be taken to be mere half-brothers, because they have different fathers and forefathers! So in respect of Salathiel’s mother, we must once more call in the help of a levirate marriage, and represent Neri and Jechonia as in like manner half-brothers! In addition to this, the obligation to the levirate marriage for the half-brother is not authenticated, and the im- porting of the natural father into the legal genealogy was illegal; finally, we may make the general remark, that neither Matthew nor Luke adds any observation at all in citing the name of Joseph’s father, to call attention to any other than the ordinary physical paternal relationship. No; the reconciliation of the two genealogical registers, although they both refer to Joseph, is impossible ; but it is very natural and intelligible that, as is usual in the case of great men, whose descent in its individual steps is obscure, no anxiety was felt to investigate his ancestry until long after the death of Jesus—until the living presence of his great manifestation and ministry no longer threw into the shade this matter of subordinate interest. The genealogical industry of the Jewish Christians had collected from tradi- tion and from written documents several registers, which, ap- pearing independently of one another, must have given very different results, as far back as David, in consequence of the obscurity of Joseph’s genealogy. The first evangelist adopted a genealogy in accordance with the David- Solomon line; but Luke adopted a totally different one, following the David- Nathan line! But that Luke, as a matter of fact, rejected the genealogy of Matthew, is according to i. 3 to be regarded as a result of his later inquiries, as in general the great and irreconcilable divergence of his preliminary history from that of Matthew suggests the same conclusion. Only the motives of his decision are so completely unknown to us, that to con- cede to his genealogy the preference (v. Ammon, L. J. 1. p. 179) remains unsafe, although the derivation of the Davidic descent of Jesus from the Nathan (therefore not the royal) line presupposes an investigation, in consequence of which the derivation of that descent “through Solomon, which doubtless had first presented itself, was abandoned in the interest of rectification (according to Kostlin, indeed, in the Hbionitic 1 This variation in the Davidic descent of the Messiah occurs also in the later Jewish theology. See Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1860, 3, p. 460 f. LUKE IL. B 18 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. interest, in opposition to the royal line stained with crime, and in opposition to worldly royalty in general).—As the genealogy in Matthew is arranged in accordance with a significant numerical relation (three times fourteen), a similar relation is also recognisable in the genealogy by Luke (eleven times seven), even although no express reference is made to it. See already Basil, M. III. p. 399 Ὁ. CHAP, IV. 19 ODA αν Ver. 1. εἰς τὴν ἔρημον] B D LY, Sahid. codd. of It. have ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is a mechanical alteration in accordance with the parallels. — Ver. 2. Before ἐπείνασε Elz. Scholz have ὕστερον, in opposition to Β D LX, vss. Cyr. Beda. From Matt. iv. 2.— Ver. 3. Following nearly the same evidence, read with Lachm. and Tisch. εἶπεν δέ instead of καὶ εἶπεν. ---- Ver. 4. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι Θεοῦ] is wanting in B 1, δὲ, Sahid. Left out by Tisch. But almost all the versions and Fathers vouch for these words; if they had been added, they would, especially in an expression so well known and frequently quoted, have been more closely and perfectly adapted to Matthew. — Ver. 5. ὁ διάβολος] is wanting in B D Lx, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Cant. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Tisch. An addition from Matthew. There is almost quite as strong evidence against εἰς ὄρος ὑψ., which nevertheless is found in D, but with the addition of λίαν. Lachm. has bracketed εἰς ὄρος tx). ‘Tisch. has rightly deleted it. The expression ἀναγ. by itself seemed to be in need of the more exact definition, and so it was added from Matthew. —Ver. 7. Instead of πᾶσα, Elz. has πάντα, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matt. iv. 9.— Ver. 8. Instead of γέγραπται by itself, Elz. has: ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου σατανᾶ" γέγραπται γάρ. So also has Scholz, but without γάρ; Lachm. has ὕπ. ὁπ. w. 6. in brackets, and has deleted γάρ. Against um. ὁπ. μ. 6. are BDL#R, min. and most of the vss. Or. Vigil. Ambr. Bede ; against γάρ there is decisive evidence. Both the one and the other, deleted by Tisch., are interpolations; see on Matt. iv. 10. — Ver. 9. Instead of υἱός Elz. has ὁ υἱός, in opposition to evidence so decisive that υἱός without the article is not to be derived from ver. 3.— Ver. 11. Instead of καί Elz. and the Edd. have καὶ ὅτι. As this ὅτι has by no means the preponder- ance of evidence against it, and as its omission here may be so easily accounted for by its ‘omission in the parallel passage in Matthew, it ought not to have been condemned by Griesb. — Ver. 17. ἀναπτύξας] A Β 1, & 33, Syr. Copt. Jer. have ἀνοίξας. So Lachm. ; but it is an interpretation of the word ἀνώσπτ., which 20 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. occurs in the New Testament only in this place. — Ver. 18. The form εἵνεκεν (Elz. ἕνεκεν) is decisively attested. Not so decisively, but still with preponderating evidence, is εὐαγγελίσασθαι (Elz. εὐαγγελίζεσθαι) also attested. — After ἀπέσταλχέ μὲ Elz. and Scholz (Lachm. in brackets) have ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν, Which is not found in BDL 5 δὲ, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ms. It. Sax. Or. and many Fathers. An addition from the LXX.— Ver. 23. Instead of εἰς Kaz. (Tisch. following B [and 8]: εἰς τὴν Kaz.) Elz. Scholz have ἐν τῇ Kaz., in opposition to Β D Ls, min. Marcion, the reading in these authorities being εἰς. An amendment. Comp. the following ἐν τῇ carp. 6.— Ver, 25. ἐπὶ ἔτη] Β D, min. vss. have merely ér7. So Lachm. But how easily ἘΠῚ would drop out as superfluous, and that too when standing before ETH, a word not unlike ἘΠῚ in form !— Ver. 26. Σιδῶνος] A B C Ὁ 1, Χ Ir 8, min. vss. in- cluding Vulg. It. Or. have dias. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. From the LXX. 1 Kings xvil. 9.— Ver. 29. Before ὀφρύος Elz. and Lachm. (the latter by mistake) have τῆς, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Instead of ὥστε Elz. and Scholz have εἰς τό, in opposition to B DL», min. Marcion, Or. An interpretation. — Ver. 35. ἐξ] BDLV2ZR&, min. Vulg. It. Or. have ἀπ᾿. Approved by Griesb. and Schulz. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; Luke always expresses himself thus. See immediately after- wards the expression ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, which is in correspond- ence with Christ’s command. — Ver. 38. ἐχ] BC DL Qs, min. Or. Cant. have ἀπό Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Rightly ; ἐκ is from Mark i. 29.— The article before σενθερά (in Elz.) has decisive evidence against it. — Ver. 40. ἐπιθείς] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπιτιθείς, following B D Q 5, min. Vulg. It. Or. ἐπιθείς Was the form most familiar to the transcribers. — Ver. 41. zpatovra] Lachm. Tisch. have κραυγάζοντα, following A D EG HQUVra4,min. Or. Rightly; the more current word was inserted. After od εἶ Elz. Scholz have ὁ Χριστός, which has such weighty evidence against it that it must be regarded as a gloss. — Ver. 42. Instead of ἐπεζήτουν Elz. has ἐζήτουν, in opposition to decisive evidence. — Ver. 43. εἰς τοῦτο ἀπέσταλμαι] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην. Rightly; ἐπί isin B L®&, min, and ἀπεστάλην in BD LX 8, min. Both the εἰς and the perfect form are taken from Mark 1. 38, Elz. Vv. 1-13. See on Matt. iv. 1-11. Comp. Mark i. 13.— According to the reading ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (see the critical remarks), Luke says: and He was led by the (Holy) Spirit in the wilder- CHAP. IV. 1-13 21! ness, whilst He was for forty days tempted of the devil. Thus the Spirit had Him in His guidance as His ruling principle (Rom. viii. 14). Luke relates besides, varying from Matthew, that Jesus (1) during forty days (comp. Mark i. 13) was tempted of the devil (how? is not specified), and that then, (2) moreover, the three special temptations related in detail occurred.’ This variation from Matthew remained also in the Recepta εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, in respect of which the translation would be: He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness in order to be tempted of the devil during the space of forty days (by reason of the present participle, see on 11. 45).— Ver. 3. τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ] more concrete than Matt. iv. 4.— Ver. 5. ἀναγαγών] (see the critical remarks) he led Him upwards from the wilderness to a more loftily situated place. The “very high mountain ” (Matthew) is a more exact definition due to the further developed tradition. Luke has drawn from another source. — ἐν στυγμῇ xp.] in a point of time, in a moment, a magically simultaneous glimpse; a peculiar feature of the representation.” On the expression, comp. Plut. Mor. p. 104 A; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 126.— Ver. 6. αὐτῶν] τῶν βασι- Aecav. — Observe the emphasis of col... ἐμοί... σύ (ver. 7). — παραδέδοται) by God, which the boastful devil cunningly intends to have taken for granted. — Ver. 10 f. ὅτι] not recita- tive, but: that, and then καὶ ὅτε: and that. Comp. vii. 16. Otherwise in Matt. iv. 6.— μήποτε] ne unguam, not neces- ? According to Hilgentfeld, Luke’s dependence on Matthew and Mark is said to be manifested with special clearness from his narrative of the temptation. But just in regard to this narrative he must have followed a distinct source, because otherwise his variation in the sequence of the temptations (see on Matt. iv. 5, Rem.), and the omission of the angels’ ministry, would be incomprehensible (which Hilgenfeld therefore declares to be a pure invention), as, moreover, the ἄχρι καιροῦ (ver. 13) peculiar to Luke points to another source. ? The various attempts to make this ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου intelligible may be seen in Nebe, ὦ. Versuch. d. Herrn, Wetzlar 1857, p. 109 ff. The author himself, regarding the temptation as an actual external history, avails himself of the analogy of the fatum morganum, but says that before the eye of the Lord the magical picture immediately dissolved. But according to the connection ἐν ory. xp. does not mean that the appearance lasted only a single moment, but that the whole of the kingdoms were brought within the view of Jesus, not as it were successively, but in one moment, notwithstanding their varied local situation upon the whole earth. Bengel says appropriately, ‘‘ acuta tentatio.” 22 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. sarily to be written separately (Bornemann); see rather Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 11. p. 107; Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 129 f.— Ver. 13. πάντα πειρασμ.] every temptation, so that he had no further temptation in readiness. “ Omnia tela consumsit,” Bengel. — ἄχρι καιροῦ] until a fitting season, when he would appear anew against Him to tempt Him. It is to be taken subjectively of the purpose and idea of the devil ; he thought at some later time, at some more fortunate hour, to be able with better success to approach Him. Historically he did not undertake this again directly, but indirectly, as it repeatedly occurred by means of the Pharisees, etc. (John viii. 40 ff.), and at last by means of Judas, xxii. 31; but with what glorious result for the tempted! Comp. John xiv. 30. The difference of meaning which Tittmann, Synon. p. 37, has asserted (according to which ἄχρι καιροῦ is said to be equi- valent to ἕως τέλους) is pure invention. See Fritzsche, ad ftom. I. p. 308 f. Whether, moreover, the characteristic addi- tion ἄχρι καιροῦ is a remnant of the primitive form of this narrative (Ewald) or is appended from Jater reflection, is an open question. But it is hardly an addition inserted by Luke himself (Bleek, Holtzmann, and others), since it is connected with the omission of the ministry of the angels. This omission is not to be attributed to a realistic effort on the part of Luke (Holtzmann, but see xxi. 43), but must have been a feature of the sowrce used by him, and hence the ἄχρι καιροῦ must also have already formed part of it. Ver. 14. Comp. on Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14. The public Galilaean ministry of Jesus begins, ver. 14 forming the introduction, after which, in ver. 15 ff., the detailed narrative follows. Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 50, arbitrarily, and contrary to the analogy of the parallels, says: that ver. 15 f. 1 According to Wieseler, Synopse, p. 201, the persecutions on the part of the Jews are meant, which had begun, John y. 15-18 ff. ; there would therefore be a longer interval between vv. 13, 14. But a comparison of ver. 14 with ver. 1 shows that this interval is introduced in the harmonistic interest ; moreover, Hofmann’s reference to the agony in Gethsemane (Schriftbew. 11. 1, p. 317) is introduced, since not this, but probably the whole opposition of the hierarchy (John viii. 44), and finally the crime of Judas (John xiii. 2, 27), appears as the work of the devil. CHAP. IV. 15, 16. Ὁ was the conclusion of a document which embraced the baptism, the genealogy, and the temptation. — ἐν τ. δυνάμ. τοῦ πν.] invested with the power of the Holy Spirit: “ post victoriam corroboratus,’ Bengel.—xal φήμη «.7.r.] and yumour went forth, etc., not anticipating what follows in ver. 15 (de Wette); but it is the rumour of the return of the man who had been so distinguished at his baptism, and had then for upwards of forty days been concealed from view, that is meant. — καθ᾽ ὅλης «.7.r.] round about the whole neighbourhood, Acts vil. 31, 42. Ver. 15. Αὐτός] He Himself, the person as opposed to their report. Ver. 16. As to the relation of the following incident to the similar one in Matt. xii. 53 ff, Mark vi. 1 ff, see on Matthew. No argument can be drawn from ver. 23 against the view that the incidents are different, for therein a ministry at Capernaum would already be presupposed (Schleiermacher, Kern, de Wette, Weiss, Bleek, Holtzmann, and others), as a previous ministry in that same place in the course of a journey (not while residing there) is fully established by vv. 14,15. According to Ewald (comp. also his Gesch. Chr. p. 345), who, moreover, rightly distinguishes the present from the subsequent appearance at Nazareth, there are incorporated together in Luke two distinct narratives about the discourses of Jesus in Nazareth. But with reference to the mention of Capernaum at ver. 23, see above; the connection, however, between vv. 22 and 23 is sufficiently effected by οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ vids ᾿Ιωσήφ. In ver. 31 ff. if is not the first appear- ance of Jesus at Capernaum in general that is related, but the first portion of His ministry after taking up His residence there (ver. 31), and a special fact which occurred during that ministry is brought into prominence (ver. 33 ff.). According to Kostlin, p. 205, Luke met with the narrative at a later place in the Gospel history, but placed it here earlier, and allowed the yevou. eis Καῴφαρν. inappropriately to remain because it might at a pinch be referred to ver. 15. Assuredly he did not proceed so frivolously and awkwardly, although Holtzmann also (comp. Weizsiicker, p. 398), following Schleier- 24 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. macher, ete., accuses him of such an anticipation and self- contradiction, and, moreover, following Baur and Hilgenfeld, makes this anticipation find its motive withal in the supposed typical tendency of ver. 24. — οὗ ἣν reApapp.] an observation inserted to account for the circumstances mentioned in vv. 22, 23.— κατὰ τὸ εἰωθ. αὐτῷ] refers to His visiting the synagogue on the Sabbath, not also to the ἀνέστη. The Sabbath visit to the synagogue was certainly His custom from His youth up. Comp. Bengel and Lange, Z. J. 11. 2, p. 545. --- ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι) for the Scripture was read standing (Vitringa, Synag. p. 135 f.; Lightfoot, p. 760 f.; Wetstein za loc.); so when Jesus stood up it was a sign that He wished to read. It is true, a superintendent of the synagogue was accustomed to summon to the reading the person whom he regarded as being fitted for it; but in the case of Jesus, His offermg Himself is as much in keeping with His peculiar pre-eminence, as is the immediate acquiescence in His appli- cation. Ver. 17. ᾿Επεδόθη] it was given up to Him—that is to say, by the officer of the synagogue, Lightfoot, p. 763. — -ΗἩ σαΐου] the reading of the Parascha (section out of the law), which preceded that of the Haphthara (prophetic section), appears to have been already concluded, and perhaps there was actually in the course a Haphthara from Isaiah." But in accordance with His special character (as κύριος τοῦ σαββάτου, Matt. xii. 8), Jesus takes the section which He lights upon as soon τ as it is unrolled (avamr., comp. Herod. i. 48, 125), and this was a very characteristic Messianic passage, describing by very definite marks the Messiah’s person and work. By ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλ. and εὗρε the lighting exactly on this passage is represented as fortuitous, but just on that account as being divinely ordered (according to Theophylact: not κατὰ συντυχίαν, but αὐτοῦ θελήσαντος). Vv. 18, 19. Isa. Ιχ]. 1, 2, following the LXX. freely. The historical meaning is: that He, the prophet, is inspired and or- dained by God to announce to the deeply unfortunate people in 1 The arrangement of the present Haphtharas was not yet settled at the time of Jesus, See Zunz, Gottesd. Vorirdge d. Juden, p. 6. 7 CHAP, IV. 18, 19. 20 their banishment their liberation from captivity, and the blessed future of the restored and glorified theocracy that shall follow thereupon. The Messianic fulfilment of this announcement, 1.6. the realization of their theocratic idea, came to pass in Christ and His ministry.'—od εἵνεκεν] in the original text }¥” : because, and to this corresponds οὗ eivexev: propterea quod, because, as οὕνεκεν is very frequently thus used by the classical writers. The expression of the LXX., which Luke preserves, is there- fore not erroneous (de Wette and others), nor do the words οὗ εἵνεκεν introduce the protasis of a sentence whose apodosis is left out (Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. 11. p. 96). The form εἵνεκεν (2 Cor. vii. 12) is, moreover, classical; it occurs in Pindar, Jsthm. viii. 69, frequently in Herodotus (see Schweig- hatiser, Lex. sub. verb.), Dem. 45. 11. See generally, Κα σου, II. ὃ 68. 19. 1 ἢ -- ἔχρισε] a concrete description, borrowed from the anointing of the prophets (1 Kings xix. 16) and priests (Ex. xxviii. 41, xxx. 30), of the consecration, which in this instance is to be conceived of as taking place by means of the spiritual investiture.” — πτωχοῖς) the poor DY. See on Matt. v. 5. They—in the original Hebrew the unhappy exiles—are more precisely designated by αὐχμαλώτ., as well as by the epithets, which are to be taken in their historical sense typically, τυφλοῖς and τεθραυσμένους (crushed to pieces), whereby the misery of the πτωχοί is represented as a blinding and a bruising. According to the typical reference to the Messiah, these predicates refer to the misery of the spiritual bondage, the cessation of which the Messiah was to announce and (ἀποσ- tetdat) to accomplish. Moreover, the LXX. varies consider- ably from the original Hebrew (doubtless the result of a various reading which mixed with this passage the parallel in Isa, xlii. 7), and Luke again does not agree with the LXX., especially in ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμ. ἐν ἀφέσει, which words are from Isa. lviii. 6, whence Luke (not Jesus, who indeed read from the roll of the book) or his informant relating from 1 Comp. Schleiermacher, LZ. J. p. 270f. 2 Observe the difference of tense, ἔχρισε. . . ἀπίσταλκε: He anointed me, He hath sent me (and I am here !) ; also the lively asyndeton in the two verbs (ἀσέσε, without xa/), as well as also in the three infinitives. 26 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. memory having taken them erroneously, but by an association of ideas easily explained mixed them up in this place. — ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου Sextov] an acceptable year of the Lord, ie. a welcome, blessed year belonging to Jehovah, whereby is to be understood in the typical reference of the passage the Mes- sianie period of blessing, while in the historical sense the blessed future of the theocracy after the exile is denoted by the words FIM? ΠΥ ΤΟΝ, ie. a year of satisfaction for Jehovah, which will be for Jehovah the time to show His satisfaction to His people (comp. ii. 14). The passage before us is strangely abused by the Valentinians, Clemens, Hom. xvii. 19, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and many more, to limit the ministry of Jesus to the space of one year,’ which even the connection of the original text, in which a day of vengeance against the enemies of God’s people follows, ought to have prevented. Even Wieseler, p. 272, makes an extraordinary chronological use of ἐνιαυτός and of σήμερον, ver. 21, in support of his assumption of a parallel with John vi. 1 ff. in regard to time, according to which the sojourn of Jesus in Nazareth is said to have fallen on the Sabbath after Purim 782. The year is an allusion to the year of jubilee (Lev. xxv. 9), as an inferior prefigurative type of the Messianic redemption. The three infinitives are parallel and dependent on ἀπέσταλκέ με, whose purpose they specify. — ἐν ἀφέσει] a well-known constructio pregnans: so that they are now in the condition of deliverance (Polybius, i. 79. 12, xxii. 9. 17), comp. ii. 39. Vv. 20, 21. Τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ] i179, to the officer of the synagogue, who had to take the book-roll back to its place, after it had been folded up by Jesus (πτύξας corresponding to the ἀνα- πτύξας of ver. 17). — ἐκάθισε] in order now to teach upon the passage which had been read,—this was done sitting (Zunz, ' Keim also, D. geschichtl. Chr. p. 140 ff., has very recently arrived at this conclusion in view of Origen’s statement, de princip. iv. 5: ‘‘a year and a few months,” and that too on the ground of the calculation of the Baptist’s death, according to the account of Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5, concerning the war of Antipas against Aretas. The testing of this combination does not belong to this place. But the Gospel of John stands decidedly opposed to the one-year duration of Christ's official teaching. See, besides, the discussions on the subject in Weizsacker, p. 306 ff. CHAP. IV. 22-24, a7 Gottesd. Vortriige d. Juden, p. 99 1). ---- ἤρξατο] He began. Bengel appropriately says: “ Sollenne initium.” — ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν] in your ears is this Scripture (this which is written, see on Mark xii. 10) fulfilled—to wit, by the fact that the voice of Him of whom the prophet prophesied has entered into yourears. A concrete individualizing mode of expression. Comp. i. 44, ix. 44; Acts xi. 22; Jas. v. 4; Ecclus. xxv. 9; 1 Mace. x. 7;' Bar. i. 3 f.; LXX. Isa. v. 9. How decisively the passage before us testifies in favour of the fact that from the beginning of His ministry Jesus already had the clear and certain consciousness that He was the Messiah!’ Moreover, that nothing but the theme of the discourse delivered by Jesus is here eiven is manifest from the passage itself, as well as from ver. 22; but He has placed it remarkably close to the beginning of His discourse, and so led the hearer all at once in mediam rem (comp. Zunz, as above, p. 353). Grotius well says: “ Hoc exordio usus Jesus explicavit prophetae locum et explicando implevit.” Ver. 22. ᾿Εμαρτύρ. αὐτῷ] testified in His behalf, praising Him. See Kypke, Loesner, and Krebs. Frequently in the Acts, Rom. x. 2, Gal. iv. 15, and elsewhere. — ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος] at the sayings of graciousness (genitivus qualitatis), comp. on Col. iv. 6; Hom. Od. viii. 175: χάρις ἀμφιπεριστέφε- ται ἐπέεσσιν ; Ecclus. xxi. 16, xxxvii. 21.— καὶ ἔλεγον] not: at nonnulli dicebant, Kuinoel, Paulus, and older commentators ; but their amazement, which ought to have been expressed simply at the matter of fact, showed itself, after the fashion of the Abderites, from the background of a limited regard for the person with whom they knew that these λόγους τ. χάριτος did not correspond. — ὁ vids ᾿Γωσήφ] If Luke had intended to an- ticipate the later history of Matt. xiii. and Mark vi., for what purpose would he have omitted the brothers and sisters ? Vv. 23, 24. Whether what follows, as far as ver. 27, is taken from the Zogia (Ewald), or from some other written source (Késtlin), or from oral tradition (Holtzmann), cannot be determined. But the Zogia offers itself most obviously as the source. — πάντως] certainly ; a certainty that this would 1 Comp. Beyschlag. Christ. d. N. 7. p. 361. 28 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. be the case. See on 1 Cor. ix. 10. — ἰατρέ «.7.r.] a figurative proverb (παραβολή, 2viD) that occurs also among the Greeks, the Romans, and the Rabbins. See Wetstein and Lightfoot. The meaning here is: If thow desirest to be a helper of others (vv. 18, 19, 21), first help thyself from the malady wnder which thow art suffering, from the want of consideration and esteem which attaches to thee ; which healing of Himself, as they think, must be effected by means of miracle as a sign of divine attestation. See what follows. Others understand it: Help thine own fellow-townsmen (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Paulus, de Wette, Schegg, Bisping). This is opposed to the meaning of the words, as σεαυτόν and éatpé can only be one person. Moreover, the parabolic word concerning the physician is retained only in Luke, whom it might specially interest. — εἰς Kadapvaovp] (the name is to be written thus in Luke also, with Lachmann and Tischendorf) indicates the direction of γενόμενα, which took place at Capernawm (Bernhardy, p. 220), comp. on xxviii. 6. The petty jealousy felt by the small towns against Capernaum is manifest here. — ὧδε ἐν τῇ πατρ. σου] here in thy birth-place. After the adverb of place comes the place itself, by way of a more vivid designation. Borne- mann, Schol. p. 34; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 22.— Ver. 24. But the hindrance to the fulfilment of that παραβολή, and also to the working here as at Capernaum, is found in the fact that no prophet, ete. According to this, it is unfounded for Baur, Evang. p. 506, to assume that the writer here under- stood πατρίς in a wider reference,' so that Paul’s experience in the Acts of the Apostles—of being compelled, when rejected by the Jews, to turn to the Gentiles—had already had its precedent here in the history of Jesus Himself. That the whole section—to wit, from καὶ φήμη, ver. 14, to ver. 30—is an interpolation from the hand of the redactor, is asserted by 1 Comp. Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 168, ‘‘the Jewish home of Christianity ;” Holtzmann also, p. 214. Whether in general Luke looked on the rejection of Christ in Nazareth as a “‘significant prelude for the rejection of Christ by His whole people” (Weiss in the Stud. τ. Krit. 1861, p. 697), cannot be decided at all, as he gives no hint on the subject. CHAP. IV. 25-29. 29 Baur, Markusevang. p. 218.— εἶπε δέ] after ver. 23 let a significant pause be supposed. Vv. 25, 26. In order, however, to quote to you ie ical examples, in which the miraculous power of the prophets was put forth, not for countrymen, but for strangers, nay, for Gentiles, I assure you, etc. Jesus knew that here this stern- ness and open decisiveness on His part were not at all out of place, and that He need not hope to win His hearers; this is only confirmed by the later similar incident in Matt. xiii. 54 ff. — ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία x. μῆνας ἕξ] so also Jas. v.17. But according to 1 Kings xvii. 1, xvii. 1, the rain returned in the third year. Jesus, as also James (see Huther in Joc.), follows, according to Luke, the Jewish tradition (Jalkut Schimoni on 1 Kings xvi. in Surenhusius, eatarx. p. 681), in which in general the number 34 (= 4 of 7) in the measure- ment of time (especially a time of misfortune, according to Dan. xii. 7) had become time-honoured (Lightfoot, p. 756, 950; Otto, Sprcileg. p. 142). It was arbitrary and unsatis- factory to reckon (before 1 Kings xvii. 1), in addition to the three years, the naturally rainless six months preced- ang the rainy season (Benson on Jas. v. 17; Wetstein, Wiesinger, and others; comp. also Lange, II. p. 547 f.), or to date the third year (Beza, @ienancem Schegg) from the flight of Elias to Sarepta (1 Kings xvii. 9). — πᾶσαν τ. ἘΠ not the whole region (Beza), ne the wholé earth ; popularly hyperbolical—On Sarepta, situated between Tyre and Sidon, and belonging to the territory of the latter, now the village of Surafend, see Robinson, Palestine, III. p. 690 ff. — Σιδῶνος) the name of the town of Sidon, as that in whose territory Sarepta lay. — μέγας] in xv. 14 λιμός is feminine, as it passed over from the Doric into the κοινή (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 188). But in this place the reading μεγάλη, approved by Valckenaer, is so weakly attested that it cannot be thought of. — εἰ μη] not sed (Beza, Kuinoel), but nisi ; see on Matt. xii, 4 Ver. 27. See 2 Kings v. 14. — ἐπί] at the time, iii. 2. Ver. 29. “Ews ὀφρύος tod ὄρους) up to the lofty brink (superciliwm) of the hill. See Vunean, Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, 30 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. Ῥ. 877, and Wetstein. This situation of Nazareth upon a hill (ἐφ᾽ οὗ), ic. hard by a hill, is still entirely in accordance with its present position,—* the houses stand on the lower part of the slope of the western hill, which rises steep and high above them,” Robinson, Pal. III. p. 419. Especially near the present Maronite church the mountain wall descends right down from forty to fifty feet,’ Robinson, 1... p. 423 ; hitter, Hrdk. XVI. p. 744.— ὥστε] of what, as they figured to themselves the result was to be. See on Matt. xxiv. 24, xxv. 1; comp. Luke ix. 52, xx. 20. — κατακρημν.] 2 Chron. xxv. 12; Dem. 446. 11; Josephus, Antt. ix. 9. 1. Ver. 30. Αὐτὸς δέ] But He, on His part, while they thus dealt with Him. — διὰ μέσου] emphatically: passed through the midst of them. According to Paulus, it was sufficient for this, “ that a man of the look and mien of Jesus should turn round with determination in the face of such a mobile vulgus.” Comp. Lange, 7. J. 11. p. 548: “an effect of His personal majesty ;” and III. p. 376: “a mysterious something in His nature.” Comp. Bleek. According to Schenkel, the whole attempt on the person of Jesus is only a later tradition. On the other hand, the old commentators have: φρουρούμενος τῇ ἡνωμένῃ αὐτῷ θεότητι, Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. Am- brosius, in addition to which it has been further supposed that He became invisible (Grotius and others). The latter view is altogether inappropriate, if only on account of διὰ μέσου avr. But certainly there is implied a restraint of his enemies which was miraculous and dependent on the will of Jesus. It is otherwise in John viii. 59 (ἐκρύβη). Why Jesus did not surrender Himself is rightly pointed out by Theophylact: οὐ τὸ παθεῖν φεύγων, ἀλλὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἀναμένων. --- ἐπορεύετο] went on, that is to say, towards Capernaum, ver. 31, and therefore not back again to Nazareth as has been harmonisti- cally pretended. Vv. 31-37. See on Mark i. 21-28, whom Luke with some slight variations follows. — κατῆλθεν] Down from Nazareth, 1 The place which is pointed out by tradition as the spot in question 15 at too great a distance {rom the town. See Robinson, l.c., and Korte, Reisen, p. 218 ff. CHAP. IV. 31-37. 91 which lay higher up, to Capernaum, which was situated on the shore. Comp. Matt. iv. 18. ---- πόλιν τ. Γαλιλ.7 for here Capernaum occurs for the first time in Luke in the course of the history (it is otherwise at ver. 23). — ἦν διδάσκ.] expresses the constant occupation of teaching on the Sabbaths (otherwise in Mark), comp. on Matt. vii. 29.—Ver. 33. πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου] The genitive is a genitive of apposition or of nearer definition (Winer, p. 470 [E. T. 666—7]); and δαιμόνιον, which, according to Greek usage, is in itself applicable to either good or evil spirits, being used by Luke for the jirst time in this passage, is qualified by ἀκαθάρτου. --- ἔα] not the imperative of éaw (Vulg.: sine; Euthymius Zigabenus, ad Mare. ἄφες ἡμᾶς, comp. Syr.), but “interjectio admirationis metu mixtae” (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 465): ha! Pilato, Prot. p. 314 D. Seldom occurring elsewhere in prose, even in the New Testament only in this place (not Mark i. 24). See Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 32 f., who, nevertheless, traces back the origin of the expression to the imperative form.— ἦλθες K.T.r.| not interrogatively. The words themselves are simply taken from Mark; all the less therefore is any hint to be read into them of the redeeming ministry of Jesus to the Gentile world (Baur, Evang. p. 429 f.).— Ver. 35. pipar] is to be accented thus. See Bornemann, p. 4; comp., nevertheless, Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 31 ff. — εἰς μέσον] He threw him down into the midst in the synagogue. The article might, but must not, be added. See the instances from Homer in Duncan, ed. Rost; Kriiger, ad Xen. Anab. i. 8.15. Observe, moreover, that here. Luke describes more vividly than Mark, although his description is too unimportant “to glorify the miracle” (Holtzmann).— Ver. 36. τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος] not: guid hoc rei est? (Beza, Er. Schmid, Grotius, Kuinoel, de Wette); but: what sort of a speech is this? to wit, that which is related in ver. 35; comp. Theophylact : τίς ἡ πρόσταξις αὕτη ἣν προστάσσει, ὅτι ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ φιμώθητι. It is otherwise at ver. 32, where λόγος is the discourse which teaches; here, the speech which commands. Mark i. 27 has, moreover, given the former particular (the διδαχή) here again as the object of the people’s astonishment 32 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. and conference ; but Luke, working after him, distinguishes the two, using for both, indeed, the general expression λόγος, but clearly limiting this expression in ver. 32 by διδαχή, and in ver. 36 by ἐπιτάσσει. Baur decides otherwise in the Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 70.— ὅτι] since he, etc., accounts for this question asked in astonishment. — ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ x. δυνάμ.] with authority aud power. The former is the authority which He possesses, the latter the power which He brings into operation. — Ver. 37. ἦχος] noise (Acts ii. 2; Heb. xii. 19), a stronger expression for rumour. ‘The classical writers use ἠχώ thus (Herod. ix. 24; Pind. Ol. xiv. 29). Vv. 98: 41. See on Matt. viii. 14-16; Mark 1. 29-3 Matthew places the narrative later, not till after the Sermon on the Mount.\—dmo τῆς συναγωγ He went from the synagogue into the house of Simon. The article before πενθερά is not needed. Winer, p. 108 f. [E. T. 148 ff]. Luke, the physician, uses the technical expression for violent fever-heat : πυρετὸς μέγας (the opposite: μικρός). See Galen, De diff. febr. 1, in Wetstein. — ἠρώτησαν] they asked ; Peter, to wit, and the members of the family,—hence it is not the plural introduced here without reason only from Mark i. 30 (Weiss). — ἐπάνω αὐτῆς} so that He was bending over her. — ἐπετίμ. τῷ πυρετῷ] the fever regarded as a hostile power, and as personal. Mark, whom Matthew follows, has not this detail; whereas both have the touching with the hand. A divergence in the tradition as to the miraculous method of cure. — αὐτοῖς} refers to Jesus, Simon, and the other members of the family. Comp. ἠρώτησαν, ver. 38. — Ver. 40. ἀσθε- voovtas νόσοις] according to Matthew, demoniacs and sick persons (comp. Mark), with which Luke nevertheless also agrees at ver, 41." -- τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιτιθείς] Matthew has λόγῳ, with 1 The arrangement in Luke, so far as he places (ch. v.) the call of Peter later, is in any case not arbitrarily produced, although he follows the tradition which (as Matthew) does not include the companionship of James and John (so Mark). 2 All three also agree essentially as to the time of ἀν (δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου), Until the evening Jesus had remained in the house of Simon, therefore the sick were first brought to Him there, Thus it was neither with a view to avoiding the heat of the sun, nor to choosing, from ‘‘delicacy of feeling,” as Lange supposes, the twilight for the public exhibition of infirmities. CHAP. IV. 42-44. ore reference, however, to the demoniacs. In él ἑκάστῳ, which need not» be pressed (Weiss, Holtzmann), are implied the solicitude and the indefatigableness of this miraculous ministry of love. — λαλεῖν, ὅτι] to speak, because. See on Mark i. 34. Vv. 42-44. See on Mark i. 35--39, who is more precise and more vivid. — The bringing of so many sick folks to Him, ver. 40, is to be explained, not by this hasty departure, the appointment of which had been known (Schleiermacher), but, in accordance with the text (ver. 37), by the fame which the public healing of the demoniac in the synagogue had brought Him. — ἕως αὐτοῦ] not simply: to Him, but: even up to Him, they came in their search, which therefore they did not discontinue until they found Him. Comp. 1 Mace. iii. 26; Acts ix, 38, xxiii. 23. — eis τοῦτο] namely, to announce not only here, but everywhere throughout the land, the kingdom of God. — ἀπέσταλμαι] It is otherwise in Mark i. 36, whose expression is original, but had already acquired in the tradition that Luke here follows a doctrinal development with a higher meaning. LUKE. IL. σ 34 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, CH AP LE RN: Ver. 2. The mss. have ἀπέπλυναν (so Elz. Scholz), ἔπλυναν, ἔπλυνον, ἀπέπλυνον. ‘Tisch. has the second reading, Lachm. the third. The preponderance of evidence wavers between ἔπλυνον (BD) and ἔσλυναν (C* 1, Χ 8), and excludes the compound form. But since, according to this, even the Mss. which read the Recepta (A E F G, etc.) add to the evidence in favour of ἔπλυνΑ Ν, this form receives the critical preponderance. The compound form is either a mere clerical error (as Ev. 7 has even ἐπέπλυνον), or a gloss for the sake of more precise specifica- tion. — Ver. 6. σλῆθος ἰχθύων] So Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch., following the greater number of the Uncials, but not B D, which have ἐχθύων πλῆθος, which Lachm. has again restored. Comp. Vulg. and codd. of It. The reading of Griesb. is to be preferred on account of its preponderating evidence, and still more because the words πλῆθος πολύ would more readily be brought together by the transcribers than separated. — Ver. 165. As ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ is wanting in important authorities, in others stands after ἀκούειν, and A has ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, it is rightly condemned by Griesb., struck out by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 17. ἐληλυθότες] Lachm. has συνεληλ., following only A* D, min. Goth. Vere.— αὐτούς] Tisch. has αὐτόν, follow- ing BLzZex. Rightly; αὐτούς arose from a misunderstanding, because an accusative of the object appeared necessary.— Ver. 19. sofas] Elz. has διὰ ποίας, in opposition to decisive evi- dence. An interpretation. — Ver. 21. With Lachm. and Tisch. read ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι, according to B DL &, Cyr. Ambr. The Recepta is from Mark 11. 7. But in ver. 24 the form ἀφεῖναι (Tisch.) is too weakly attested [Tisch. 8 has ἀφιέναι]. -- Ver. 22. The omission of ἀποκριθ. (Lachm.) is too feebly accredited. — Ver. 24. σαραλελυμένῳ] Lachm. has παραλυτικῷ, following important authorities, but it is taken from the parallels. — Ver. 25. Instead of ἐφ᾽ 6, Elz. Scholz, Lachm. have ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. 3ut the former has a preponderance of evidence in its favour, and ᾧ more naturally occurred to the transcribers. — Ver. 28, ἠκολούθησεν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠκολούθει, following CHAP VY. 1—11. 35 BDL Ξ 69. The Recepta is taken from the parallels. — Ver. 29. Before Λευΐς (Tisch. has on very good authority Asue/s) the article (Elz.) is on decisive evidence deleted. — Ver. 30. αὐτῶν] is wanting in D F X 8, min. vss., and is re- garded with suspicion by Griesb., but it was omitted as being superfluous and apparently irrelevant. The arrangement οἱ Φαρισ. x. οἱ yp. αὖτ. 15, With Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted in accordance with B C D 1, καὶ, min. Vulg. It. and others. The Recepta is taken from Mark ii. 16. The article before reAwvav, Which is not found in Elz., is adopted on decisive evidence by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. καὶ ἁμαρτ., also, is so decisively attested that it is now rightly defended even by Tisch. — Ver. 33. διὰ τί] is wanting in B L 5, 33, 157, Copt.; deleted by Tisch. An addition from the parallels. — Ver. 36. ἱματίου καινοῦ] BD LX &x8, min. vss. have ἀπὸ ἱωατίου καινοῦ σχίσας (yet σχίσας is not found in X, and also otherwise too weakly attested). Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. But it is manifestly a gloss inserted for explaining the genitive, for which there appeared a reason in this place although not in the parallels. — σχήσει is well attested by B C D L X 8, min, and συμφωνήσει still better (by the additional evidence of