Commentaires bibliques

CHAPTER 14

Matthew 14:3. Καὶ ἔθετο ἐν φυλ.] Lachm., after B א* Curss.: καὶ ἐν τῇ φυλ. ἀπέθετο. So also Tisch. 8, though without τῇ, after א*. The simple ἐν τῇ φυλ. is found in D, Or. (once), but it is adopted from Mark 6:17. Lachm.’s reading is all the more to be regarded as the original, that ἀπέθετο also occurs once in Origen, and that, in restoring the verb that had been omitted, in accordance with Mark, the simple ἔθετο, without the preposition (comp. Acts 5:25; Acts 12:4), would most readily have suggested itself.

Φιλίπποῦ] after γυναῖκα is omitted in D, Vulg. Codd. of the It. Aug., is deleted by Tisch. 7, and only bracketed by Tisch. 8. Supplement from Mark, the interpolation: ὅτι αὐτὴν ἐγάμησεν, being derived from the same source.

Matthew 14:6. γενεσίων δὲ ἀγομ.] Lachm. and Tisch.: γενεσίοις δὲ γενομένοις, after B D L א, Curss. Correctly. The genitive was by way of explaining the dative, hence the reading γενεσίων δὲ γενομένων, and then came ἀγομ. (Received text) as a gloss on γενομ., which gloss is partially found in the case of the dative reading as well (γενεσίοις δὲ ἀγομένοις, 1, 22, 59).

Matthew 14:9. ἐλυπήθη] Lachm. and Tisch.: λυπηθείς, omitting the δέ after διά, according to B D, Curss. and Codd. of It. The reading of the Received text is a logical analysis of the participle.

Matthew 14:12. σῶμα] B C D L א, Curss. Copt. Syrcur have πτῶμα. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Taken from Mark 6:29.

Matthew 14:13. With Lachm. and Tisch. 8 we ought to read ἀκούσας δέ, after B D L Z א, Curss. Verss. Or.; καί is a mechanical repetition. With Tisch. read πεζοί for πεζῇ, according to adequate testimony (including א). The reading of the Received text is taken from Mark.

Matthew 14:14. On the strength of important testimony, ὁ Ἰησοῦς after ἐξελθών (Elz. Scholz) is deleted. Beginning of a church lesson. Similarly, in Matthew 14:22, after ἠνάγκ. Comp. Matthew 14:25, where, in like manner, ὁ Ἰησοῦς was inserted after αὐτούς.

ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς] Elz.: ἐπʼ αὐτούς, against decisive testimony.

Matthew 14:15. Tisch. has οὖν after ἀπολ., and that only according to C Z א, 1, 238, Copt. Syr. p. (on the margin) Or. (twice); but correctly, seeing that οὖν might readily drop out in consequence of the ON immediately preceding it, as well as from its not being found in Mark 6:36.

Matthew 14:19. τοὺς χόρτους] The readings τοῦ χόρτου (B C* א, Curss. Or., so Lachm. and Tisch. 8) and τὸν χόρτον (D, Curss.) are to be explained from the circumstance that the plural of χόρτος occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.

λαβών] Elz.: καὶ λαβών, against the best and most numerous authorities.

Matthew 14:21. The arrangement: παιδ. κ. γυν. (Lachm.) is, as also in Matthew 15:38, without adequate testimony.

Matthew 14:22. The deleting of εὐθέως (Tisch. 8), which, no doubt, may have been adopted from Mark, is, however, not warranted by testimony so inadequate as that of C* א Syrcur Chrys.

Matthew 14:25. ἀπῆλθε] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ἦλθε, after B C** א, Curss. Verss. Or. Eus. Chrys. The preposition overlooked in consequence of the attraction not having been noticed (comp. the simple ἔρχεται in Mark).

ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, after B P Δ Θ א, Curss. Or. The reading of the Received text is taken from the parallel passages.

Matthew 14:26. ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, after B C D Te א, Curss. Eus. Chrys. Theophyl. Correctly; the accusative crept in mechanically from Matthew 14:25, through not noticing the difference of meaning in the two cases.

Matthew 14:28. The arrangement ἐλθεῖν πρός σε (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by decisive testimony.

Matthew 14:29. ἐλθεῖν] Tisch.: καὶ ἦλθεν, after B C* (?) Syrcur Arm. Chrys. By way of being more definite, since, according to Matthew 14:31, Peter was beside Jesus.

Matthew 14:1 f. Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ] See Matthew 13:54-58. The more original narrative in Mark 6:14 ff. (comp. Luke 9:7-9) introduces this circumstance as well as the account of the Baptist’s death, between the sending out and the return of the Twelve, which, considering the excitement that had already been created by the doings of Jesus, would appear to be rather early. Yet Luke represents the imprisonment of John as having taken place much earlier still (Luke 3:19 ff.).

Ἡρώδης] Antipas. Comp. note on Matthew 2:22. Not a word about Jesus, the Jewish Rabbi and worker of miracles, had till now reached the ear of this licentious prince in his palace at Tiberias; because, without doubt, like those who lived about his court, he gave himself no particular concern about matters of this sort: he, upon this occasion, heard of Him for the first time in consequence of the excitement becoming every day greater and greater.

τ. ἀκοὴν Ἰησοῦ, as in Matthew 4:24.

Matthew 14:2. Τοῖς παισὶν αὐτοῦ] to his slaves (comp. note on Matthew 8:6), who, according to Oriental ideas, are no other than his courtiers. Comp. 1 Samuel 16:17; 1Ma 1:6; 1Ma 1:8; 1 Maccabees 3 Esdr. Matthew 2:17; Diod. Sic. xvii. 36.

αὐτός] indicating by its emphasis the terror-stricken conscience: He, the veritable John.

ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν] from the dead, among whom he was dwelling in Hades. The supposition of Wetstein and Bengel, that Herod was a Sadducee (erroneously founded upon Mark 8:15, comp. Matthew 16:6), is no less inconsistent with what he here says about one having risen from the dead, than the other supposition that he believed this to be a case of metempsychosis (Grotius, Gratz, von Cölln); for he assumes that not merely the soul, but that the entire personality of John, has returned. Generally speaking, we do not meet with the doctrine of transmigration among the Jews till some time after; see Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 463 f. [E. T. 545 f.]. Herod’s language is merely the result of terror, which has been awakened by an evil conscience, and which, with the inconsistency characteristic of mental bewilderment, believes something to have happened—though contrary to all expectation—which, in ordinary circumstances, was looked upon as theoretically impossible; while, again, the opinions that were circulating respecting Jesus (Luke 9:7 f.) would suggest, in the case before us, the particular idea to which Herod here gives expression. The Pharisaic belief in the resurrection, which was not unknown to Herod, became, in spite of himself, the psychological starting-point.

διὰ τοῦτο] on this account, because he is no ordinary man, but one risen from the dead.

αἱ δυνάμεις] the powers manifesting themselves in his miracles.

Matthew 14:3. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great, and of Berenice. She married Herod Antipas, who had become so enamoured of her that he put away his wife, the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 1, 4. The brother of this Herod, Herod Philip (Mark 6:17), called by Josephus simply Herod, a son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, the high priest’s daughter, and not to be confounded[451] with Philip the tetrarch, who was Cleopatra’s son, had been disinherited by his father, and was living privately at Jerusalem in circumstances of considerable wealth. Joseph. Antt. xvii. 1. 2, 8. 2. The aorists are not to be taken in the sense of the pluperfect, but as purely historical. They relate, however (Chrysostom: διηγούμενος οὕτως φήσιν), a statement that has been already made in a previous passage (Matthew 4:12), namely, that Herod, in order to give a more minute account of the last (and now completed, see on Matthew 14:13) destiny of the Baptist, seized John, bound him, and so on. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 173 [E. T. 200].

ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ] Comp. Matthew 11:2; for the pregnant use of the ἘΝ, see Kühner, II. 1, p. 385 f.; Buttmann, p. 283 [E. T. 329]. What Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 2, says about Machaerus being the place of imprisonment, is not to be regarded as incorrect (Glöckler and Hug, Gutachten, p. 32 f.); but see Wieseler, p. 244 f., to be compared, however, with Gerlach as above, p. 49 f. On the date of John’s arrest (782 U.C., or 29 Aer. Dion.), see Anger, rat. temp. p. 195; Wieseler, p. 238 ff.; and in Herzog’s Encycl. XXI. p. 548 f., also in his Beitr. p. 3 ff. Otherwise, Keim, I. p. 621 ff. (Aer. Dion. 34–35), with whom Hausrath substantially agrees. For ἀπέθετο (see critical notes), comp. 2 Chronicles 18:26; Polyb. xxiv. 8. 8 (ΕἸς ΦΥΛΑΚΉΝ).

[451] Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 51, thinks that Mark has fallen into this error, and that the omission of the name Philip in Matthew and Luke (Luke 3:19) should be regarded as intended to correct it. Comp. also Hase, Bleek, Volkmar, Keim. No doubt it is strange that the two sons of Herod the Great should have borne the name Philip. But then this was only a surname, while it is to be remembered that Herod had also two sons, both of whom were called Antipater. Besides, the two Philips were only half-brothers. See Gerlach also in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 32 f.; Wieseler, Beitr. p. 7.

Matthew 14:4 f. Οὐκ ἔξεστι] Because Philip was still living, and had a daughter. Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 1, 2; Lightfoot on this passage. For ἔχειν γυναῖκα, as expressing matrimonial possession, see note on 1 Corinthians 5:1. It is probable that Herod only made John’s bold rebuke a pretext for putting him in prison; the real cause, according to Josephus, 18:5. 2 f., was fear lest he should be the means of creating an insurrection.

εἶχον] not: aestumabant (a common but ungrammatical rendering), but: they held him as a prophet, i.e. they stood to him as to a prophet. This is in conformity with classical usage, according to which ἔχω τινα, with a predicate, expresses the relation in which a person stands to some other person; for example, φίλους αὐτοὺς ἔχεις (Xen. Symp. iv. 49): thou standest related to them as to friends; Eur. Herc. fur. 1405: παῖδʼ ὅπως ἔχω σʼ ἐμόν, I stand to thee as to a child; Herodian, i. 13. 16; and see likewise the note on Luke 14:18; Philemon 1:17. The appended ὡς means: not otherwise than as. Krüger, § 57. 3. 1 and 2; Kühner, II. 2, p. 995. Similarly also in Matthew 21:26. Otherwise in Mark 11:32.

Matthew 14:6 ff. Γενέσια, Birthday celebration. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 103 f.; Suicer, Thes. I. p. 746; Loesner, Obss. p. 40. Others (Heinsius, Grotius, Is. Vossius, Paulus) interpret: a festival by way of commemorating Herod’s accession, because the latter is often compared to a birth, Psalm 2:7; 1 Samuel 13:1. An unwarranted departure from ordinary usage. Wieseler likewise takes the word as referring to the accession, but improperly appeals, partly to the fact of its being used to denote a celebration in memory of the dead (Herod. iv. 26), comp. Lex. rhet. p. 231, a figurative sense which only tells in favour of our interpretation, and partly to the Rabbinical גנוסיא של מלכם (Avoda Sara i. 3), where, however, the royal birthdays are likewise meant. No instance is to be found in the Greek classics (for the Latin natalis, see Plin. Paneg. 82).

For the dative of time, see Winer, p. 205 [E. T. 276].

ἡ θυγάτηρ τῆς Ἡρωδ.] and of Philip. She was called Salome, and married her uncle, Philip the tetrarch. See Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 4. Her dancing was, doubtless, of a mimetic and wanton character. Hor. Od. iii. 6. 21. Wetstein on this passage. Moreover, this circumstance of the girl dancing is in keeping with the view that fixes the date of this scene as early as the year 29; while it is entirely at variance with Keim’s supposition, that it occurred in the year 34–35, by which time Salome had been long married, and, for aught we know, may already have been left a widow; for which reason Keim considers himself all the more justified in ascribing a legendary character to the narrative, though without interfering in any way with the historical nucleus of the story, which he believes has not been affected by the plastic influence of legend; while Volkmar again declares the whole to be a fabrication.

ἐν τῷ μέσῳ] In the centre of the banqueting hall. The subject of ἤρεσε is still ἡ θυγάτ.

ὅθεν] as in Acts 26:19, frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and common in classical writers.

προβιβασθεῖσα] urged, induced, prevailed upon, not: instructed (neither is it to be so rendered in Exodus 35:34). See Plat. Prot. p. 328 B; Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1; Polyb. iii. 59. 2, xxiv. 3. 7; Bremi, ad Aeschin. Ctesiph. 28; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 17.

ὧδε] therefore without any delay.

ἐπὶ πίνακι] upon a plate.

Matthew 14:9. Λυπηθείς] he was annoyed, διότι ἔμελλε μέγαν ἀνελεῖν ἄνδρα, καὶ κινῆσαι πρὸς μῖσος ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ὄχλον, Euth. Zigabenus, comp. Matthew 14:5; Mark 7:20. Altogether, he was deeply pained at finding matters take this sudden and tragic turn, which is not inconsistent with Matthew 14:5, but may be accounted for psychologically as arising out of that disturbed state of the conscience which this unlooked-for catastrophe has occasioned; consequently, we must not, with Schneckenburger, suppose (comp. Weiss and Holtzmann) that Matthew has failed to notice Mark’s statement that Herodias was desirous to see John put to death. This circumstance is involved in what Matthew says in Matthew 14:8. Bengel appropriately observes: “Latuerat in rege judicii aliquid.”

διὰ τοὺς ὅρκ.] The μεθʼ ὅρκ. in Matthew 14:6 represents a series of oaths that had been given, one at one time and another at another.

συνανακειμένους] to whom he did not wish to appear as perjured. A case of unlawful adhering to an oath, similar in its character to what was done by Jephthah.

Matthew 14:10-11 f. Considering that it would require rather more than two days to return from Machaerus (see note on Matthew 14:3), the fortress on the southern frontier between Peraea and the dominion of Aretas, to Tiberias (where Antipas was residing), Fritzsche thinks that it is out of the question to suppose that the head can have been actually delivered at the feast; comp. Lightfoot. But this circumstance, helping as it does to lend a tragic air to the whole proceeding, is just one which the reader naturally takes for granted, and one which is found to be necessary in order to give unity and completeness to the scene (Strauss, I. p. 397); so that, with Maldonatus, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, Keim, we must suppose the festival to have taken place in Machaerus, and not in Tiberias. Not even Wieseler’s view, that the feast was held in Julias in Peraea, and that the head was brought thither by messengers travelling post-haste, can be said to be in sufficient accord with the tragic scenery of the simple narrative. The account in Mark (Matthew 6:25, ἐξαυτῆς; Matthew 14:27, ἐνεχθῆναι) is unfavourable to such a view, as is also the ὧδε in Matthew 14:8 and Matthew 14:11, which plainly implies that the thing was done there and then.

ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ] therefore in private by the hand of an assassin. “Trucidatur vir sanctus ne judiciorum quidem ordine servato; nam sontes populo omni inspectanti plecti lex Mosis jubet,” Grotius.

καὶ ἐδόθη τ. κ. καὶ ἤνεγκε τ. μ. ἀ.] the horrible scene in a few simple words.

Matthew 14:12. The disciples, to be near their master, had remained somewhere in the neighbourhood of the prison, probably in the town of Machaerus itself. For πτῶμα, a corpse, see Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 375.