Commentaires bibliques

CHAPTER 15

Matthew 15:1. οἱ] is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B D א, Curss. Or. But how readily might the article have been overlooked, seeing that, in this passage, it might well appear superfluous, as rather in the way, in fact! Had it been adopted from Mark 7:1 (whence, according to well-nigh the same testimony, is derived the arrangement Φαρ. κ. γραμμ., followed by Tisch. 8), it would have been put before γραμμ.

Matthew 15:4. ἐνετείλατο λέγων] Fritzsche, Lachm.: εἶπεν, which Griesb. likewise approved, after B D Te, 1, 124, and several Verss. and Fathers. Taken from Mark 7:10.

Matthew 15:5. καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : οὐ μὴ τιμήσει, after B C D Te א (which has τιμηση), Curss. Verss. and Fathers. The omission of καί is by way of simplifying the construction. But the future has so much testimony in its favour, besides that of B C D, etc., that (with Tisch.) it must be preferred. In what follows Lachm. has deleted ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ (after B D א Syrcur). Omitted in consequence of homoeoteleuton.

Matthew 15:6. τὴν ἐντολήν] Lachm.: τὸν λόγον, after B D א** Verss. and Fathers; Tisch.: τὸν νόμον, after C Te א* Curss. Ptol. The last is correct; τ. ἐντολ. is from Matthew 15:3, τ. λόγ. from Mark 7:13.

ὁ λαὸς οὗτος] Elz. Scholz: ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν καί, against B D L Te א, 33, 124, and many Verss. and Fathers. From the LXX.

Matthew 15:14. ὁδηγοί εἰσι τυφλοὶ τυφλῶν] Numerous variations; Lachm.: τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηλοὶ τυφλῶν. So L Z א**, Curss. and many Verss. and Fathers, and supported also by B D, 209, Syrcur, which latter have merely τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηγοί,[453] where τυφλῶν has been displaced by the τυφλός immediately following. Nevertheless, we must prefer to retain the reading of the Received text, which has still strong testimony in its favour, besides being defended by Tisch. The reading of Lachm. is an unsuccessful attempt to amend the style.

Matthew 15:15. ταύτην] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B Z א, 1, Copt. Or., but it may have been omitted all the more readily from the fact that Mark 7:17 has no demonstrative, and because the parable does not immediately precede.

Matthew 15:16. Ἰησοῦς] with Lachm. and Tisch., and on the strength of important testimony, is to be deleted as being a common supplement.

Matthew 15:17. οὔπω] Fritzsche, Lach. and Tisch.: οὐ, after B D Z, 33, 238, Syr. Syrcur Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. Altered in conformity with Mark 7:19.

Matthew 15:22. ἐκραύγασεν αὐτῷ] Lachm.: ἔκραζεν (on the margin: ἔκραξεν), after B D א** 1; Tisch. 8 : ἔκραξεν, after Z א* 13, 124, Or. Chrys. But of the two words κράζειν is far more generally used in the New Testament (κραυγάζειν occurs again in Matthew only in Matthew 12:19), and was further suggested here by Matthew 15:23. Αὐτῷ, although having rather stronger testimony against it, is likewise to be maintained; for, with the reading ἐκραύγ., it proved to be somewhat in the way, and hence it was either omitted, or interpreted by means of ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ (D, Cant.), or placed after λέγουσα (Vulg. and Codd. of It.).

Matthew 15:25. προσεκύνησεν] Elz.: προσεκύνει, which Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. likewise read, after Griesb. had approved of the aorist, and Matthaei had adopted it. The greatest amount of testimony generally is in favour of the aorist; the greatest amount of the oldest testimony (including Curss. B D א*, though not C), in favour of the imperfect; the latter is to be preferred, partly just because it is better authenticated, and partly because the transcribers were more used to the aorist of προσκυν.

Matthew 15:26. οὐκ ἔστι καλόν] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.: οὐκ ἔξεστι, only after D and a few Verss. and Fathers, also Orig. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is from Mark 7:27.

Matthew 15:30. Instead of τοῦ Ἰησοῦ we should read αὐτοῦ, with Lachm. and Tisch., according to important testimony.

Matthew 15:31. For λαλοῦντας, B, Aeth. and a few Curss. have ἀκούοντας. Defended by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 348. It is taken from Matthew 11:5.

For ἘΔΌΞΑΣΑΝ, Tisch. 8 reads ἘΔΌΞΑΖΟΝ, only after L א, Curss.

Matthew 15:32. ἩΜΈΡΑΙ] Elz.: ἩΜΈΡΑς, against decisive testimony. Correction.

Matthew 15:35 f. ἘΚΈΛΕΥΣΕ … ΛΑΒΏΝ] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ΠΑΡΑΓΓΕΊΛΑς Τῷ ὌΧΛῼ ἈΝΑΠ. Ἐ. Τ. Γ. ἜΛΑΒΕΝ (and ΚΑΊ before ΕὐΧΑΡ. below), after B D א, Curss. Or. An attempt to amend the style with the help of expressions taken from Mark.

For ἜΔΩΚΕ, Tisch. 8 has ἘΔΊΔΟΥ, after B D, Curss. Chrys. Taken from Mark 8:6.

Matthew 15:39. ἈΝΈΒΗ] Elz. Schulz, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἘΝΈΒΗ, only after B א, Curss. Correction, because ἘΜΒ. ΕἸς Τ. ΠΛ. happens to be the common form of expression; Matthew 8:23, Matthew 9:1, Matthew 14:32. D has ἘΝΒΑΊΝΕΙ.

[453] *א: ὁδηγοί εἰσιν τυφλοί.

Matthew 15:1. The three sections of ch. 15, having as their respective subjects the washing of hands (Matthew 15:1-20), the woman of Canaan (Matthew 15:21-31), and the feeding of the four thousand (Matthew 15:32-39), occur elsewhere only in Mark (Matthew 7:8), whom Matthew partly abridges and partly supplements.

τότε] when He was staying in the country of Gennesareth.

οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱερος. γρ. (see critical notes): the scribes who belonged to Jerusalem, and had come from that city (Mark 7:1). Well-known attraction of the preposition with the article. See Kühner, II. 1, p. 473 ff., and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 11. Comp. Acts 21:27; Colossians 4:16, al.

Matthew 15:2. Παράδοσις] ἄγραφος διδασκαλία, Hesychius. The Jews, founding upon Deuteronomy 4:14; Deuteronomy 17:10, for the most part attached greater importance to this tradition than to the written law. Hence, Berachoth f. 3. 2 : הכיבים דברי סופרים מדברי תורה. Comp. Schoettgen. They laid special stress upon the traditional precept, founded on Leviticus 15:11, which required that the hands should be washed before every meal (ὅταν ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν, a rendering of the Hebrew אָכַל לֶחֶם). See Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. Jesus and His disciples ignored this παράδοσις as such.

τῶν πρεσβυτ.] which had been handed down from the men of olden time (their forefathers). It is not the scribes that are meant (Fritzsche), nor the elders of the nation (Bleek, Schegg), but comp. Hebrews 11:2. It is the wise men of ancient times that are in view. Observe, moreover, the studied precision and peremptory tone of the question, which has something of an official air about it. The growing hostility begins to show itself in an open and decided manner.

Matthew 15:3. Καί] also, implies a comparison between the ὑμεῖς and οἱ μαθηταί σου; that is to say, the παραβαίνειν is acknowledged to be true of both parties, the only difference being in the matters in which the transgression is exemplified. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636.

διὰ τ. παράδ. ὑμ.] which you observe. Notice how the one question is met with another in the same style, thereby rendering the reductio ad absurdum only the more telling. Luther appropriately remarks that “He places one wedge against the other, and therewith drives the first back.”

Matthew 15:4. Exodus 20:12; Exodus 21:17.

τίμα] involves the idea of a practical manifestation of reverence in the form of kind deeds, Matthew 15:5.

θανάτῳ τελευτ.] מוֹת יוּמָת, the meaning of which (he shall certainly die, he executed) has not been exactly hit by the LXX. in the phrase θανάτῳ τελ., though it is in conformity, with Greek idiom: He shall end (Matthew 2:19) by death (execution, Plat. Rep. p. 492 D, and very frequently in classical writers). See Lobeck, Paral. p. 523; Köster, Erläut. p. 53.

Matthew 15:5 f. Δῶρον] sc. ἐστι, קָרְבָּן, a gift, κατʼ ἐξοχήν, namely, to God, i.e. to the temple. See Lightfoot and, in general, Ewald, Alterth. p. 81 ff. Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Maldonatus connect δῶρον with ὠφεληθῇς: a temple-offering, which will be given by me, will bring a blessing to thee. The conjunctive, however, is clearly independent of ἐάν. Chrysostom observes correctly: δῶρόν ἐστι τοῦτο τῷ θεῷ, ὃ θέλεις ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῆναι καὶ οὐ δύνασαι λαβεῖν.

There is an aposiopesis after ὠφεληθῇς, whereupon Jesus proceeds in His discourse with καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμής. But your teaching is: “Whoever will have said to his father: It is given to the temple, whatever thou wouldest have got from me by way of helping thee” (the Jews, of course, understood the apodosis to be this: he is not bound by that commandment, but the obligation is transferred to his Corban). And (in consequence of this vow) he will certainly not be honouring. Comp. Käuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων. notione, p. 32 f., and Beza, de Wette, Keim. Some, however, postpone the aposiopesis till the close, and understand καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμής. as forming part of what is supposed to be spoken by the Pharisees in their teaching: But whosoever says … and does not honour … (he is not liable to punishment). So Fritzsche. But this is not in keeping with usage as regards οὐ μή; nor is it in itself a probable thing that the Pharisees should have said quite so plainly that the honouring of parents might be dispensed with. Others, again, reject the aposiopesis, and regard καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμ. etc. as an apodosis, taking the words, like the expositors just referred to, as forming part of what is understood to be spoken by the Pharisees: “whoever says … he is not called upon, in such cases, to honour his parents as well.” Such, after Grotius, is the interpretation of Bengel, Olshausen, Bleek; comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. 750, note]. According to this view, καί would be that of the apodosis (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636) in a relative construction (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146). But οὐ μὴ τιμ. does not mean: he need not honour, but: he assuredly will not honour; or, as Ewald and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391, explain it, he shall not honour,—which direct prohibition from the lips of such wily hypocrites as those Pharisees, is far less conceivable than the prudent aposiopesis above referred to.

For ὠφελεῖσθαί τι ἔκ τινος, comp. Thuc. vi. 12. 2 : ὠφεληθῇ τι ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς, Lys. xxi. 18, xxvii. 2; Aesch. Prom. 222; Soph. Aj. 533. More frequently with ὑπό, παρά, ἀπό. The opposite of it is: ζημιοῦσθαί τι ἔκ τινος, Dem. lii. 11. For the passive with accusative of the thing, see Kühner, II. 1, p. 279 f.

καὶ ἠκυρώσατε] and you have thereby deprived of its authority. ἠκυρ. is placed first for sake of emphasis, and is stronger than παραβαίνετε in Matthew 15:3. That such vows, leading to a repudiation of the fifth commandment, were actually made and held as binding, is evident from Tr. Nedarim v. 6, ix. 1. Joseph, c. Ap. i. 22.

Matthew 15:6 is a confirmation, and not a mere echo, of what is said in Matthew 15:3.

Matthew 15:7 ff. Καλῶς] admirably, appropriately characterizing.

προεφήτ.] has predicted, which de Wette unwarrantably denies to be the meaning of the word in the present instance, understanding προφ. in the sense of the inspired utterance generally. Jesus regards Isaiah 29:13 (not strictly in accordance with the LXX.) as a typical prediction, which has found its fulfilment in the conduct of the scribes and Pharisees.

μάτην δέ] δέ denotes a continuation of the matter in hand; and μάτην indicates, according to the usual explanation, that their σέβεσθαι is attended with no beneficial result (2Ma 7:18, and classical writers), produces no moral effect upon their heart and life, because they teach as doctrines the commandments of men. But seeing that the μάτην σέβεσθαι consists of mere lip-service in which the heart plays no part, thus according with the idea involved in ὑποκριταί,—and inasmuch as διδάσκοντες, etc., is evidence that such is the nature of the service, the interpretation: sine causa, found so early as in the Vulgate, is better suited to the context. Their σέβεσθαι of God is meaningless (temere, comp. Soph. Aj. 634, and Lobeck’s note, Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 285), because they do not teach divine, but human doctrine, the consequence of which is that the σέβεσθαι has no motive principle in the heart, where, on the contrary, human interest takes the place of the fear of God. Comp. the μάταιος θρησκεία of Jam 1:26. For the opposite of such worship, consult John 4:24. See Apol. Conf. A., pp. 206, 256.

There is no Hebrew word corresponding to μάτην in the above quotation from Isaiah; probably the text made use of by the LXX. contained a different reading.

ἐντάλμ. ἀνθρ.] promulgating as doctrines, precepts of a merely human origin; comp. Colossians 2:22.

Matthew 15:10. Ἐκείνους μὲν ἐπιστομίσας καὶ καταισχύνας ἀφῆκεν, ὡς ἀνιάτους, τρέπει δὲ τὸν λόγον πρὸς τὸν ὄχλον, ὡς ἀξιολογογώτερον, Euth. Zigabenus. During the discussion the ὄχλος had been standing in the background; He invites them to come near.