Bibelkommentare

CHAPTER 12

John 12:1. ὁ τεθνηκώς] is wanting in B. L. X. א. Verss. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But those testimonies are here the less decisive, since the word before ὃν ἐγ. ἐκ. νεκρ. ὁ Ἱ. appeared entirely superfluous, and hence was easily dropped. For its addition there was no reason.

John 12:2. ἀνακ. σὺν αὐτῷ] Elz.: συνανακ. αὐτῷ, against decisive testimonies.

John 12:4. Instead of Ἰούδ. Σίμ. Ἰσκαρ., Tisch. has merely Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαρ., and that before εἷς, according to B. L. א. Cursives, Verss., where, however, the position before εἷς is not so strongly supported. Σίμωνος was, after John 6:71, John 13:2; John 13:26, readily added.

John 12:6. εἶχεν καί] B. D. L. Q. א. Cursives, Copt. Vulg. Or.: ἔχων. A correction of the style.

John 12:7. εἰς τ. ἡμέρ. τ. ἐνταφ. μ. τετήρ.] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἵνα εἰς τ. ἡμέρ. τ. ἐνταφ. μου τηρήση, after decisive testimonies. Not being understood, the words were altered according to the thought in the parallel passages, especially Mark 14:8.

John 12:8 is entirely wanting in D., and, had the counter testimony been stronger, would have been liable to the suspicion of having been interpolated from Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, if it stood before ἄφες, κ.τ.λ., and occupied the characteristic position of words as in the Synoptics (πάντοτε first).

John 12:13. ἐκραζον] Lachm. and Tisch., ἐκραύγαζον, after preponderating evidence. The Rcc. is from Matt. and Mark.

John 12:15. θύγατερ] θυγάτηρ (Lachm., Tisch.) is so decisively supported, that the vocative—which of itself might easily find its way into the text—must be traced to the LXX., Zechariah 9:9.

John 12:17. ὅτι] The witnesses are much divided between ὅτι and ὅτε (Tisch.); but the latter (A. B. Q. א.) is the more strongly attested. Nevertheless ὅτι, which Lachm. also has, is to be preferred; it was changed into ὅτε, because mechanically referred to the preceding ὁ ἂν μετʼ αὐτοῦ.

John 12:22. καὶ πάλιν] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἔρχεται, and then before λέγουσιν: καί, according to A. B. L. Cursives, Codd. d. It. Aeth. Rightly. The more closely defining κ. πάλιν was added to the repeated ἔρχεται (so א); and as this had at a later time displaced the verb, the καί before λέγουσιν also disappeared, as a disturbing element. Had the verb been written as a gloss, ἔρχονται would have been found.

John 12:25. Instead of ἀπολέσει, read with Tisch. ἀπολλύει, according to B. L. א., etc. The future was introduced through the parallelism.

John 12:26. ἐάν τις] Elz.: καὶ ἐάν τις, against such weighty testimony, that καί was already rightly deleted by Griesb.

John 12:30. The position of ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη (Lachm., Tisch.) is decisively accredited.

John 12:31. The first τούτου is wanting in witnesses of too weak authority to cause its rejection (Griesb.).

John 12:35. ἐν ὑμῖν] Elz.: μεθʼ ὑμῶν, against preponderating testimonies. An interpretation.

John 12:35-36. Instead of ἕως, Lachm. and Tisch. have both times ὡς, after decisive testimony. The first ἕως arose through the final letter of the preceding περιπατεῖτε, and the more readily, as a reminiscence of John 9:4 suggested itself. The second ἕως then followed of itself, but has, besides, some other testimonies (including א.) than the first.

John 12:40. ἐπιστραφ.] Lachm. and Tisch.: στραφ., according to B. D. א. 33. The compound form is from the LXX., Isaiah 6:10 (hence also many witnesses have ἐπιστρέψωσιν). On the other hand, ἰάσομαι (so Lachm. and Tisch.) instead of ἰάσωμαι is so decisively supported by almost all the Uncials, that it is not to be traced to the LXX., but the conjunctive is to be regarded as an attempt to conform to what precedes.

John 12:41. ὅτε] Lachm. and Tisch., after decisive testimony: ὅτι, which, not being understood, was altered.

John 12:47. καὶ μὴ πιστεύσῃ] Lachm. and Tisch.: κ. μ. φυλάξῃ, according to preponderating testimonies, and rightly; for πιστ. has manifestly arisen from the preceding (John 12:44; John 12:46). The omission of the μή in D. and Codd. of the It. is to be explained from the apparent paradox.

John 12:1-2. Οὖν] is the simply resumptive particle by which the narrative returns to Jesus, whom it had quitted at John 11:55. To assume a sequence from John 11:57, so that He is supposed to go to Bethany, either on account of His safety, or of its nearness to Jerusalem (Luthardt: “so consciously and freely He went to meet death”), and in order to put to shame the thought mentioned in John 11:55-57 (Hengstenberg), as though δέ or ἀλλά were expressed,—is not supported by any indication in the text.

πρὸ ἕξ. ἡμ. τοῦ π.] six days before the Passover. Comp. Amos 1:1. Frequently thus in Plutarch, Appian, Josephus. See Kypke, I. p. 393 f. Analogously in definitions of space, as in John 11:18. It is no Latinism. As regards the reckoning of the six days, it is to be observed that, since the 14th Nisan, on the evening of which the paschal meal was kept, was wont to be counted as already belonging entirely to the feast (see on Matthew 26:17), and hence also had been already called ἡμέρα τοῦ πάσχα (see Introd. § 2), the 13th Nisan is most naturally assumed to be the first day before the Passover; consequently the sixth day will be the 8th Nisan, i.e. (since the 14th Nisan, on which Jesus, according to John, died, was a Friday) the Saturday before Easter. So also Ebrard, Godet, and Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 511, who, however, in the Johann. Schr. I. p. 329, without any sufficient grounds, finds the previous evening probable, so that John at once names the full day of the sojourn, with which Godet also substantially agrees. But according to the Synoptics—because they make the 14th Nisan a Thursday—it would have been the Friday before Easter.[101] Against the above assumption of the Saturday as the day of arrival, the law of the Sabbath day’s journey (see on Matthew 24:20) is no objection (against Grotius, Tholuck, Wieseler, and several others), since it is not clear from what place Jesus started on that day; He may, indeed, have arrived from a place that lay very near at hand. Others, reckoning the 14th Nisan as the first day before Easter, regard the 9th Nisan as the day of arrival.[102] Others, again, including in their calculation even the 15th Nisan, arrive at the result of the 10th Nisan (Monday); so Hilgenfeld, Baur, Scholten, where we have the twofold interest directed against the historical truth of the Gospel, to obtain the day of the month for the selection of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:3), and find the day of the week which opened the Christian Easter week, and from this chronology to demonstrate the secondary relation of our evangelist to the Synoptics. Yet Baeumlein also reckons in this way.

ἦλθεν εἰς Βηθανίαν] according to the Harmonists (including Hengstenberg and Godet), making a circuit by Jericho, which is as inappropriate to the Johannean as to the synoptical account (see on Matthew 21:1). The return by Jericho is not reconcilable with the notice in John 11:54, where He, in fact, by the healing of the blind men, and by the visit to Zacchaeus, awakened so much attention.

ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ΛΆΖΑΡΟς, Κ.Τ.Λ.] added, on account of the great importance of the matter, without any further special purpose, yet with emphatic circumstantiality.

ἘΠΟΊΗΣΑΝ] the family of Bethany, namely, John 11:1-2, which is clear from the following Κ. Ἡ Μ. ΔΙΗΚ.[103] On this and the other variations from the narrative of Matthew 26:6 ff., Mark 14:3 ff., which, however, do not set aside the identity of the occurrence (different from Luke 7:3 ff.), see on Matthew 26:6 ff. The peculiarity of John’s account is founded on the fact of the writer’s being an eye-witness; but is referred by Baur, p. 256 ff., to an eclectic and arbitrary treatment, dependent on an ideal point of view; comp. also Hilgenfeld.

ὁ δὲ Λάζαρος εἶς ἦν, κ.τ.λ.] appears, indeed, a matter of course (hence Baeumlein and others believe Simon the leper to be indicated as the entertainer); but the complete restoration of him who had been raised from the dead is so weighty a consideration with John, that he further specially brings him forward as the present table companion of his Restorer. This also in answer to Marcker, Passim, p. 17.

[101] As also Wieseler, Hengstenberg, and others assume, who (see on John 18:28) regard the account of John, in respect to the day of Jesus’ death, as agreeing with that of the Synoptics.

[102] This must therefore, according to the calculation which gave Saturday for the 8th Nisan, have been the Sunday (Hase, De Wette). But if we hold that John does not fix the day of death differently from the Synoptics, we get as the result the Saturday (Wichelhaus and several others), reckoning backwards from Thursday the 14th Nisan inclusive. Further, the 9th Nisan is expressly fixed as the day of arrival in Bethany by Theophylact, and recently by Lücke and several others.

[103] That this meal is to be placed still on the same day, therefore Saturday, at the usual time of the evening repast, appears from the fact that the ἐπαύριον does not follow before ver. 12 (against Wichelhaus, p. 153 f.). The Sabbath is not opposed to this, since the preparations which had possibly been necessary for the meal might already have been made on the preceding day, if the family—which is a supposition sufficiently obvious—knew that Jesus was coming.—But the supposition that the meal was a solemn banquet, where Godet, following Bengel, introduces a company of the inhabitants of Bethany as the subject of ἐποίησαν, finds no support in the text, where, besides Jesus and the disciples, only the members of the family (no other participators) are named, and has the serving of Martha against it, which only bespeaks the usual domestic entertainment, although the gratitude and respect of the family had more richly set forth the meal expressly given to Him, to which the description δεῖπνον ποιεῖν (Mark 6:21) with the dative points.

John 12:3-4. To explain the great quantity of the ointment (12 ounces) as the outcome of the superabundance of her love (Olshausen), is arbitrary. Mary did not anoint with the whole pound, but with a portion of it (comp. on John 12:7). On πιστικός,[104] genuine, unadulterated, see on Mark 14:3.

πολυτίμου] belongs to ΜΎΡΟΥ, as ΠΟΛΥΤΕΛ., Mark 14:3.

ΤΟῪς ΠΌΔΑς ΑὐΤΟῦ] repeated, on account of the correlation with ΤΑῖς ΘΡΙΞῚΝ ΑὐΤῆς, in order to make prominent the greatness of the love; with her hairs, His feet.

ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς] ἐκ causal. Comp. Matthew 23:25; Revelation 8:5; Plat. Phaedr. p. 235 C; Dem. 581. 26, et al.

εἷς ἐκ τ. ΜΑΘ. Ἀ.] the rest did not agree with him; but it was Judas, etc.

ὁ μέλλων, κ.τ.λ.] This utterance stood in truth already in psychological connection with this destiny; see on John 6:71.

[104] If John adopted this word from Mark,—which, considering the rareness of its occurrence, is probable, and may have been done quite involuntarily,—this shows no literary dependence, and does not justify the suspicion that he also drew the subject-matter from this source (Hilgenfeld). Should πιστιχός be the adjective of a proper name (Pistic), all objection would disappear of itself. Comp. on Mark 14:3, note 2. Goth. also has pistikeinis.

John 12:5-6. Τριακοσίων] Mark 14:5 sets forth the climax in the tradition by ἐπάνω τριακ. The mention of the price itself (about 120 Rhenish guldens, or about £10) is certainly original, not the indefinite πολλοῦ of Matthew 26:9.

πτωχοῖς] without the article: to poor people.

κ. τ. γλωσσ. εἶχε κ. τ. β. ἐβάστ.] gives historical definiteness to the general κλέπτης ἦν. He had the chest, the cash-box (see as regards γλωσσόκ. 2 Chronicles 24:8; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 98 f.), in his keeping, and bore away that which was thrown into it, i.e. he purloined it. This closer definition of the sense of βαστάζειν, auferre (John 20:15; Matthew 7:17; Polyb. i. 48. 2, et al.), is yielded by the context. See Krebs, Obss. p. 153. So Origen, Codd. of the It. Nonnus, Theophylact, Cornelius a Lapide, Kypke, Krebs, and several others, including Maier, Grimm; comp. Lange.[105] The article does not signify that he had taken away all the deposits (objection of Lücke and several others), but refers to the individual cases which we are to suppose, in which deposits were removed by him. The explanation portabat (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many others, including Lücke, De Wette, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Baeumlein, Godet, Hengstenberg, Ewald; Tholuck doubtful) yields a meaning which is quite tautological, and a matter of course. The βαλλόμενα were gifts of friends and adherents of Jesus for the purchase of the necessities of life and for charitable uses. Comp. Luke 8:3; John 13:29. That the disciples had acquired earnings by the labour of their hands, and had deposited such earnings in the bag, nay, that even Jesus Himself had done so (Mark 6:3),—of this there exists no trace during the period of His ministry.

The question, why Jesus had not taken away the custody of the chest from the dishonest disciple (which indeed, according to Schenkel, he probably did not hold), is not answered by saying that He would remove every pretext for treason from him (Ammonius, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others), or that He did not desire violently to interfere with the development of his sins (Hengstenberg); for neither would harmonize with the educative love of the Lord. Just as little, again, is it explained by suggesting that Judas carried on his thefts unobserved, until perhaps shortly before the death of Jesus (Lücke), which would be incompatible with the higher knowledge of the Lord, John 2:25; comp. John 6:64; John 6:71. The question stands rather in the closest connection with another—how Jesus could adopt Judas at all as a disciple; and here we must go back solely to a divine destination, Acts 1:16; Acts 2:23. Comp. the note after John 6:70-71. That the custody of the chest had been entrusted to Judas only by agreement of the disciples among one another (Godet), is an assumption which quite arbitrarily evades the point, while it would by no means have excluded the competency of Jesus to interfere.

[105] Who, however, explains: he laid hold of. But βαστάζειν denotes to lay hold of only in the sense of ψηλαφᾶν (Suidas). See Reisig, ad Soph. O. C. 1101; Ellendt, Lex Soph. I. p. 299. And also in this sense only in the tragic poets.

John 12:7-8. According to the Recepta, Jesus says: “She has fulfilled a higher purpose with the spikenard ointment (αὐτό); in order to embalm me with it to-day (as though I were already dead), has she (not given it out for the poor, but) reserved it.” Comp. on Matthew 26:12. According to the correct reading, however (see the critical notes): “Let her alone, that she may preserve it (this ointment, of which she has just used a portion for the anointing of my feet, not give it away for the poor, but) for the day of my embalmment” (for behoof of that). Nonnus aptly remarks: ὄφρα φυλάξῃ σώματος ἡμετέρου κειμήλιον, εἰσόκεν ἔλθῃ ἡμετέρων κτερέων ἐπιτύμβιος ὥρη. Comp. also Baeumlein. According to this view, the ἡμέρα τοῦ ἐνταφ. is the actual, impending day of embalmment, in opposition to which, according to the Recepta, the present day of the anointing of the feet would be represented proleptically as that of the anointing of the corpse. The thought of the Recepta is that of the Synoptics; the Johannean carries with it the supposition of originality, and, comparing the thoughtful significance of the two, the Johannean is more in harmony with the circumstance that Mary anointed the feet merely, and by no means resembles a faulty correction (Hengstenberg, Godet). The circumstance that, afterwards, the corpse of Jesus was not actually anointed (Mark 16:1), can, in view of an utterance so rich and deep in feeling, afford no ground for deserting the simple meaning of the words.

τηρεῖν is to be explained, agreeably to the context (comp. John 2:10), as an antithesis to ἐπράθη, John 12:5, but not by the quite arbitrary assumption that the ointment had remained over from the burial of Lazarus (Kuinoel and several others); but to understand τηρήσῃ of the past; that she may have preserved it (B. Crusius, Ebrard) is grammatically wrong.[106] According to Ewald, ΤΗΡΕῖΝ is to be understood, as elsewhere, of festal usages (John 9:16): “Let her so observe this on the day of my burial,” so that Jesus would have that day already regarded as equivalent to the day of His burial, when such a loving custom was suitable. But as regards τηρεῖν, see what precedes; instead of the indefinite ΑὐΤΌ, it, however, τοῦτο was at least to have been expected.

John 12:8. Reason of the statement introduced with ἽΝΑ, Κ.Τ.Λ.

ΜΕΘʼ ἙΑΥΤῶΝ] in your own neighbourhood, so that you have sufficiently immediate opportunity to give alms to such. For the rest, see on Matthew 26:11.

[106] The modification of this rendering in Luthardt: “Let her rest as regards the fact that she has kept the ointment for me with the design (even though unconscious) of preserving it for the representation, beforehand, of the day of my embalmment,” is a grammatical impossibility. Similarly, however, Bengel.

John 12:9-11. Οὖν] since Jesus thus tarries in the neighbourhood. The lively intercourse among the pilgrims to the feast tended the more to spread the information.

ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων] here again (comp. John 11:19), not generally of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (so usually), but, according to the standing usage in John, of the Jewish opposition. They came, not for Jesus’ sake alone, to observe Him further, but in order also to see Lazarus, and to be convinced of His actual and continued restoration to life. Since, however, many of the Ἰουδαῖοι went forth (from Jerusalem) for the sake of Lazarus, and became believers in Jesus, the chief priests (i.e. not indeed the Sanhedrim as such in general, bat rather that part of it which composed its hierarchical head) took counsel to put Lazarus also to death. We have here, accordingly, the antithesis, that the sight of Lazarus subdues many of the hitherto adverse party to faith (comp. already John 11:45); and on the other hand, that the extreme Right of the hierarchy resolves the more energetically to counterwork this.

ἦλθον] Still on Saturday evening and Sunday. The procession of people took place then on Sunday (John 12:12).

ἐβουλ. δέ] Simple continuation of the narrative; hence, neither is δέ to be understood as namely, nor ἐβουλ. as the pluperfect (Tholuck).

οἱ ἀρχιερ.] It was indeed for the interest of the hierarchy (not exactly for that of the Sadducees, Acts 5:17, as Lampe thought, since the chief priests are here adduced as such generally, not according to their possible sectarian tendency) to remove out of the way the living self-witness also on whom the miracle had been wrought, not merely the worker of the miracle Himself. The tyrannical power, in this way, proceeds consistently, in order, as it imagines, to put away even the recollection of the affair. “Praeceps est malitia et semper ultra rapit,” Grotius.

ὑπῆγον] not: they fell away (Cornelius a Lapide, Lampe, Paulus), which, without closer definition, does not lie in the word, but rather: they took themselves off, they removed to a distance; so great an attractive power did the matter possess for them, and then followed the falling away. The separation in the position of the words: πολλοὶ … τῶν Ἰουδαίων, brings both points emphatically out.

John 12:12-13. Τῇ ἐπαύρ.] after the day designated in John 12:1, consequently Sunday (Palm Sunday), not: after the deliberation mentioned in John 12:10-11 (Ebrard and Olshausen, Leidensgesch. p. 36).

ὄχλ. πολ. κ.τ.λ.] Unprejudiced pilgrims to the feast, therefore not Ἰουδαῖοι again.

ἀκούσαντες] perhaps from the Ἰουδαῖοι in John 12:11 who had returned as believers.

τὰ βαΐα τ. φ.] as a symbol of joy. The article τῶν (not τά) contains the element of definiteness; the branches of the palm-trees standing on the spot. On βαΐον comp. 1Ma 13:51; Symm. Cant. i. 8; Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 88. The expression: the palm branches of the palms, is similar to οἰκοδεσπότης τῆς οἰκίας, and the like, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 536 f. The thing itself has in other respects nothing to do with an analogy to the Lulab at the feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:40). Comp. however, 1Ma 13:51.

ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ] see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 156 [E. T. p. 320].

ὡσαννά, κ.τ.λ.] See on Matthew 21:9.

βασιλεὺς τ. Ἰ.] without the article (Lachmann has it; Tischendorf, καὶ ὁ): the King of Israel who comes in the name of the Lord.

John 12:14-15. Εὑρὼν, δὲ κ.τ.λ.] The more detailed circumstances, how He had obtained the young ass (ὀνάριον), are passed over by John; hence he is not in contradiction with the Synoptics (Matthew 21:2 ff. parall.).

καθώς ἐστι γεγρ.] Zechariah 9:9. See on Matthew 21:5. John cites very freely from memory; hence the omission of the other prophetic predicates (even of the πραΐς in Matt.), because he has in his eye simply the point of the riding in upon the young ass, as a Messianic σημεῖον excluding all doubt. All the more fitted to tranquillize, then (μὴ φοβοῦ), in ever more peaceful array, without horse and chariot, is the coming of the King of Zion. Instead of μὴ φοβοῦ, John might also have said χαῖρε σφόδρα (LXX.); but there floated before him, in his citation from memory, simply the opposition to that terror by which otherwise a royal entrance may be accompanied. “The Church’s figure of the cross” (Hengstenberg) did not yet lie on this ass’s foal, otherwise John would not have passed over the עָנִי of the passage, nor have found the emphasis in μὴ φοβοῦ.