Comentarios bíblicos

CHAPTER 21

Luke 21:2. Καί] bracketed by Lachm. It is wanting in B K L M Q X Π א, min. Or. But A E G H S U V Γ Δ Λ, min. have it after τινα. Thus Tisch. [not Tisch. 8]. This is correct. From ignorance objection was taken to this arrangement, and καί was sometimes placed before, and sometimes was struck out altogether.

Luke 21:3. πλεῖον] Lachm. and Tisch. have ̔πλείω, which would have to be adopted if it were not too feebly attested by D Q X, min.

Luke 21:4. τοῦ Θεοῦ] is wanting in B L X א, min. Copt. Syr.cu. Syr.jer. Deleted by Tisch. An exegetical addition.

Luke 21:6. After λίθῳ Lachm. and Tisch. [Tisch. synopa., but not Tisch. 8] have ὧδε, in accordance with B L א, min. Copt. Other authorities have it before λίθος. D, codd. of It. have ἐν τοίχῳ ὧδε. An addition from Matthew.

Luke 21:8. οὖν] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B D L X א, min. vss. A connective addition.

Luke 21:14. The reading ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of εἱς τὰς κ., is decisively attested.

Luke 21:15. Elz. Matth. Scholz have ἀντειπεῖν οὐδὲ ἁντιστῆναι. But instead of οὐδέ, A K M R, min. Slav. Brix. Or. Cyr. Didym. Griesb. have ἤ. Sometimes with ἤ, sometimes with οὐδέ, D L א, min. Ar. p. Erp. Arm. Slav. Vulg. Or. have the two verbs in the reverse order. Hence Lachm. has ἀντιστῆναι οὐδὲ ἀντειπεῖν, and Tisch. has ἀντιστῆναι ἤ ἀντειπεῖν. These variations are to be explained from the fact that ἀντειπεῖν, with ἤ or οὐδέ, on account of the similar beginning of the following verb, was passed over. So according to D, Syr. Pers.P. Vulg. ms. codd. of It. Cypr. Aug. Rinck. When the passage was restored, the verbs were placed in different order; and instead of ἤ after the previous οὐ, οὐδέ was inserted. Accordingly, read with Griesbach: ἀντειπεῖν ἢ ἀντιστ.

Luke 21:19. Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. have κτήσασθε. But A B, min. Syr.omn. Arr. Aeth. Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Or. Macar. Marcion, according to Tertullian, have κτήσεσθε. Recommended by Griesb., approved by Rinck, adopted by Lachm. The Recepta is an interpretation of the future taken imperatively.

Luke 21:22. Elz. has πληρωθῆναι. But πλησθῆναι is decisively attested.

Luke 21:23. δέ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L, Arr. It. Theophyl. An addition from the parallels.

After ὀργή Elz. has ἐν, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Luke 21:24. ἄχρι] Lachm. Tisch. have ἄχρις (Tisch. ἄχρι) οὗ, on decisive evidence. Luke always joins ἄχρι to a genitive.

Luke 21:25. ἐν ἀπορίᾳ, ἠχούσης] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐν ἀπορίᾳ ἤχους, on decisive evidence. The Recepta is an interpretation.

Luke 21:33. παρέλθωσι] Lachm. and Tisch. have παρελεύσονται, in accordance with B D L א, min. Rightly. See on Mark 13:31.

Luke 21:35. Lachm. and Tisch. place γάρ after ἐπελεύσεται, so that ὡς παγίς belongs to Luke 21:34. Thus B D L א, 157, Copt. It. Meth. Marcion, according to Tertull. I regard the Recepta as being right, as the preceding clause contains a qualifying word (αἰφνίδιος), but what follows in Luke 21:35 needed a similar qualification (ὡς παγίς). Through mistaking this, and attracting ὡς παγίς a correlative of αἰφνίδ. to the preceding clause, γάρ has been put out of its right place. Instead of ἐπελεύσεται, however, read with Lachm. and Tisch., in accordance with B D א, ἐπεισελεύσεται. The doubly compounded form disappeared through error on the part of the transcribers, as frequently happened.

Luke 21:36. καταξ.] Tisch. has κατισχύσητε, following B L X א, min. Copt. Aeth. Ar. p. Rightly; the Recepta is a very old gloss in accordance with Luke 20:35, comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:5.

ταῦτα is deleted by Matth. and Tisch. [Tisch.synops., not Tisch. 8]. But most of the principal MSS. [including אc] (not א) and vss. have it. Nevertheless, it remains doubtful whether it is to be read before (B D L X, [אc] Elz. Lachm. [Tisch. 8]) or after πάντα (A C* M). If πάντα ταῦτα τά is original, the omission of the superfluous ταῦτα is the more easily explained.

After Luke 21:38 four cursives have the section concerning the woman taken in adultery, John 7:53 to John 8:11.

Luke 21:1-4. See on Mark 12:41-44.

ἀναβλέψας] previously, Luke 20:45 ff., Jesus spoke to His disciples surrounding Him; now He lifts up His glance from these to the people farther off, and sees, etc. He must therefore have stood not far from the γαζοφυλάκ.

τοὺς βάλλοντας … πλουσίους] is connected together: the rich men casting in. After πλουσίους might also be supplied ὄντας (Bornemann), in which case, however, the meaning comes out less appropriately, for they were not rich people only who were casting in (comp. Mark 12:41).

Luke 21:2. τινα καὶ χήραν (see the critical remarks): aliquam, eamque viduam, egenam. Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 58 D, and thereon Stallbaum. Καί is: and indeed.

Luke 21:4. οὗτοι refers to the more remote subject (Förtsch, Obss. in Lys. p. 74; Winer, p. 142 [E. T. 195]). Jesus points to the persons in question.

εἰς τὰ δῶρα] to the gifts (that were in the treasury), not: guae donarent (Beza), to which the article is opposed.

Luke 21:5-6. Καί τινων λεγ. κ.τ.λ.] These expressions gave the occasion for Jesus to utter the following discourse, and that, as is plain from the discourse itself, to His disciples (the apostles also included), to whom, moreover, the τινές belonged.

ἀναθήμασι] Lachmann and Tischendorf, following A D X א, have the Hellenistic form ἀναθέμασι (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 249, 445; Paralip. p. 391 ff., 417, 424). On the many votive offerings of the temple, partly also such as the two Herods had given, and even Ptolemy Euergetes, see Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 2; Antt. xv. 11. 3, xvii. 6. 3; c. Apion. I. 164; Ottii Spicileg. p. 176 f., and generally, Ewald, Alterth. p. 81 ff. The most splendid was the golden vine, presented by Herod the Great. See Grotius. For the votive gifts of Julia, see in Philo, p. 1036 D.

ταῦτα ἃ θεωρ.] Nominative absolute. See on Matthew 7:24; Bernhardy, p. 69; Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 325 f. [E. T. 379 f.].

Luke 21:5-38. See on Matthew 24:25; Mark 13. In Luke a very free reproduction from the Logia and Mark. That this discourse was spoken on the Mount of Olives (Matt. Mark), there is in him no trace. Rather, according to him, it still belongs to the transactions in the temple, which began Luke 20:1 (comp. Luke 21:37); hence, moreover, the ἀναθήματα are found only in Luke.

Luke 21:7-10. Ἐπηρώτ.] those τινές.

οὖν] since in consequence of this assurance of thine that destruction shall occur; when, therefore, shall it occur?

τί τὸ σημεῖον κ.τ.λ.] not an incorrect departure from Matthew 24:3 (de Wette), but substantially as Mark 13:4, from whom Matthew differs by a more precise statement of the point of the question.

Luke 21:8. ὁ καιρός] the Messianic point of time—that of the setting up of the kingdom.

Luke 21:9. ἀκαταστ.] tumults; see on 2 Corinthians 6:5.

Luke 21:10. τότε ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς] then, after these preliminary warnings, entering upon the further description of the impending judgment. Casaubon, following Beza, connects τότε with ἐγερθ. In that case the insertion of ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς would be absolutely without motive. The motive is found precisely in τότε, which, however, notifies simply only a resting-point of the discourse, not “a much later point of time,” to which what follows would belong (Holtzmann, following Köstlin), which variation as to time Luke might have put into the mouth of Jesus as easily as at Luke 21:12.

Luke 21:11. Ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ belongs not only to σημεῖα (B, Lachmann: ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ σημ.), but also to φόβητρα, because in the connection the latter needs some qualifying clause. μεγάλα belongs to both. Moreover, comp. with reference to this detail which Luke has here, 4 Esdr. Luke 5:4. On φόβητρα (terrific appearances), comp. Plat. Ax. p. 367 A; Lucian, Philop. 9; Isaiah 19:17. As to κατὰ τόπους, see on Matthew 24:7.

Luke 21:12-13. Πρὸ δὲ τούτων π.] otherwise in Matthew and Mark. But Luke follows a later modification of the tradition moulded after the result.[241] In opposition to the words of the passage (for πρό means nothing else than before, previously), but with a harmonistic end in view, Ebrard, Diss. adv. erron. nonnullor. opinion. etc. p. 34, says: “persecutiones non post ceteras demum calamitates sed inter primas esse perferendas.”

Luke 21:13. εἰς μαρτύριου] but it shall turn (comp. Php 1:19) to you for a witness, i.e. not: εἰς ἔλεγχου τῶν μὴ πιστευσάντων (Euthymius Zigabenus), but it will have for you the result that ye bear witness for me. The context requires this by means of ἔνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόν. μου, Luke 21:12, and see Luke 21:14 f. The matter itself is regarded as something great and honourable (εἰς μαρτυρίου δόξαν, Theophylact). Comp. Acts 5:41. For the testimony itself, see for example Acts 4:11 f. The reference to martyrdom (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann) is opposed to the context and brings in a later usus loquendi.

[241] In respect of this Baur, Evang. p. 477 (comp. his Markusevang. p. 99 f.), thinks that Luke desires to claim what has been previously said by Jesus “altogether specially for His Apostle Paul.” Comp. also Köstlin, p. 158, and Holtzmann. But then it would have been an easy thing for him to name more specially Pauline sufferings. Compare rather Matthew 10:17 f.

Luke 21:14-15. Comp. Luke 12:11 f.; Matthew 10:19 f.; Mark 13:11 f.

ἐγώ] stands with great emphasis at the beginning, opposed to the προμελετ. ἀπολογ. of the disciples. Bengel well says: “Jesus loquitur pro statu exaltationis suae.”

στόμα] a concrete representation of speech. Comp. Soph. Oed. R. 671, Oed. C. 685. A kindred idea, Exodus 4:16; Isaiah 15:1-9.

ἀντειπεῖν] corresponds to στόμα, and ἀντιστ. to σοφίαν (comp. Acts 6:10).

The promise was to be fulfilled by the Holy Ghost as the Paraclete, John 14. Comp. Acts 6:10. But a reference to the fate of Stephen (Holtzmann) is not sufficiently indicated.

Luke 21:16. Καί] Bengel rightly says: “non modo ab alienis.” Comp., besides, Mark 13:12 f.