Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 12

Matthew 12:3. ἐπείνασε] Elz. and Fritzsche insert αὐτός, against decisive testimony. From Mark 2:25; Luke 6:3.

Matthew 12:4. ἔφαγεν] Tisch. 8 : ἔφαγον, only according to B א. Altered to suit what follows.

οὕς] Lach. Tisch.: ὅ, after B D 13, 124, Cant. 12 :Harl.* Correctly; the Received text is a correction in accordance with Mark and Luke.

Matthew 12:6.

μείζων] B D E G K M S U V Γ Π, Curss. and Fathers: μεῖζον. So Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Authority and exegesis favour the neuter, by way of explaining which the masculine would readily suggest itself.

Matthew 12:8. Before τοῦ σαββάτου Elz. inserts καί, which has been deleted in accordance with decisive testimony. From Mark and Luke.

Matthew 12:10. ἦν τήν] is certainly wanting in B C א, while Vulg. and Codd. of the It. Copt. leave it doubtful whether they did not read simple ἦν. Ἦν τήν is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly. The brevity of Matthew’s statement was supplemented from Mark 3:1, and hence ἐκεῖ came to be inserted between ἦν and τήν (by others at a different place).

Matthew 12:11. Lachm., following inadequate testimony, reads ἐγείρει instead of ἐγερεῖ. An error on the part of the transcriber.

Matthew 12:14. The following arrangement, ἐξελθόντες δὲ οἱ Φαρ. συμβ. ἔλ. κατ. αὐτοῦ (B C D A א, Curss. Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. Eus. Chrys. Fritzsche, Gersd. Lachm. Tisch.), is to be preferred to that of the Received text (οἱ δ. Φ. ς. ἔλ. κ. ἀ. ἐξ.), as being simpler and more in keeping with Matthew’s style.

Matthew 12:15. ὄχλοι] omitted in B א, Vulg. It. Eus., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Homoeoteleuton.

Matthew 12:17. With Lachm. and Tisch. we ought to adopt ἵνα instead of ὅπως, in accordance with B C D א, 1, 33, Or. Eus.; ὅπως was introduced for sake of variety.

Matthew 12:18. εἰς ὅν] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 (see note of the latter): ὅν, after B א* and several Curss. On inadequate testimony, for εἰς would be readily dropped out, from a mechanical effort to conform the construction to ὃν ᾑρέτισα; ἐν ᾧ in D is a gloss.

Matthew 12:21. τῷ ὀνόματι] Elz. Fritzsche: ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ., against decisive testimony. ἐν is an interpolation, as is also ἐπί in Eus. and several Curss.

Matthew 12:22. τὸν τυφλὸν καὶ κωφόν] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely τὸν κωφόν (B D א, Copt. Syrcur Cant. Corb. 1, Germ. 1). But λαλεῖν coming first in what follows gave rise partly to the omission of τυφλόν, partly to the inverted arrangement: κωφὸν καὶ τυφλόν (L X Δ, Curss. Syr. Arm.).

Matthew 12:28. The order ἐν πνεύμ. θεοῦ ἐγώ, as against that of the Received text, ἐγὼ ἐν πνεύμ., is supported by decisive testimony (less adequately the arrangement of Lachm. and Tisch.: κριταὶ ἔσονται ὑμῶν, in Matthew 12:27).

Matthew 12:29. In accordance with B C* X, Curss., Lachm. and Tisch. have ἁρπάσαι instead of διαρπάσει. The reading of the Received text is adopted from Mark. In what follows Lachm. has ἁρπάσει instead of διαρπάσει; so also Tisch. 7; but according to testimony that is far too inadequate. Tisch. 8, following D G K Π א, Curss., reads διαρπάσῃ. But still the evidence in favour of διαρπάσει remains so strong, that there is but the more reason to look upon διαρπάσῃ as a supposed grammatical correction.

Matthew 12:31. Tisch. 8, following Lachm., has indeed also deleted the second τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (after B א, Curss. Verss. and a few Fathers); it is, however, to be preserved as a solemn yet superfluous repetition.

Matthew 12:35. Elz., against decisive testimony, inserts τῆς καρδίας after the first θησαυροῦ. A gloss. But with Tisch. 8, and on the strength of sufficient testimony, τά before ἀγαθά is to be maintained, in opposition to Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 7. The article came to be omitted from a desire to conform to the second clause.

Matthew 12:36. The reading λαλήσουσιν, adopted by Tisch. (B C א), is to be traced to the futures which follow.

Matthew 12:38. With Lachm. and Tisch. αὐτῷ should be inserted after ἀπεκρίθ., in accordance with B C D L M א, Curss. and most Verss. and Chrys. Perhaps it was omitted from being considered unnecessary.

καὶ Φαρις.] is deleted by Lachm. on too inadequate testimony.

Matthew 12:44. The arrangement: εἰς τ. οἶκ. μ. ἐπιστρ. (Lachm. Tisch.), as opposed to that of the Received text (ἐπιστρ. ἐ. τ. ὀ. μ.), finds testimony sufficiently strong in B D Z א. Comp. Luke.

ἐλθόν] D F G X Γ, Curss.: ἐλθών. So Fritzsche and Tisch. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is here and in Luke 11:25 a grammatical correction.

Matthew 12:46. δέ] omitted in B א, Curss. Vulg. It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily may it have been omitted at the beginning of the new section (one reading even begins with αὐτοῦ)!

Matthew 12:48. εἰπόντι] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: λέγοντι, after B D Z Π א, Curss. Correctly. The former has crept in mechanically, in conformity with Matthew 12:47.

Matthew 12:1 ff. Comp. Mark 2:23 ff.; Luke 6:1 ff. Any one was allowed to pluck (τίλλειν, Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 214) ears of corn in another man’s field till he was satisfied. Deuteronomy 23:25. It is customary and allowable even, at the present day. Robinson, II. p. 419. But according to Exodus 16:22 ff., it might seem as if it were unlawful on the Sabbath, and it appears from tradition (Schabb. c. 8; Lightfoot and Schoettgen on this passage) that it was actually so regarded. That the disciples did not hold themselves bound by this view, is an evidence of their more liberal spirit. Comp. Weizsäcker, p. 390.

ἤρξαντο] After this plucking had begun, there came the remonstrance on the part of the Pharisees, Matthew 12:2.

Luke, in accordance with the historical arrangement which he observes, places this incident somewhat earlier; Mark and Luke introduce it after the question about fasting. Both of them, however, mention only the first of the two proof-texts quoted by Jesus. Matthew, following a tradition that is more original as far as this matter is concerned, supplements the account in Mark, from whom, however, he essentially differs in regard to the object in plucking the corn (see on Mark, and Holtzmann, p. 73).

Matthew 12:3-4. Ἀνέγνωτε] 1 Samuel 21

The spurious αὐτός is unnecessary; καὶ οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ is connected with τί ἐποίησεν Δαυείδ. Comp. Thuc. i. 47. 2 : ἔλεγε δὲ ὁ Στύφων καὶ οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ, and Poppo’s note.

οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ] in this instance the tabernacle, which was then at Nob. Comp. Exodus 23:19. For the twelve pieces of shew-bread, on this occasion called ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, i.e. לֶחֶם הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת, loaves of the pile (1 Chronicles 23:29; Exodus 40:23), elsewhere named ἄρτοι τοῦ προσώπου, לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, loaves of the presence (of God), 1 Samuel 21:7, which, as a meat-offering, stood in the holy place, arranged in two rows upon a golden table, and were renewed every Sabbath, those of the previous week being given to the priests, see Leviticus 24:5 ff.; Lund, Jüd. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 134 ff.; Ewald, Alterth. pp. 37, 153; Keil, Arch. I. p. 91.

εἰ μή] only appears to stand for ἀλλά, and retains its usual meaning of nisi. The language, however, assumes the tone of absolute negation: which it was not lawful for Him to eat, nor for those who were with Him, not lawful except for the priests alone. The neuter ὅ (see the critical remarks) indicates the category: what, i.e. which kind of food. See Matthiae, p. 987; Kühner, II. 1, p. 55. Comp. note on Galatians 1:7; Galatians 2:16; Luke 4:26 f.; Dindorf in Steph. Thes. III. p. 190 C; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 195.

Matthew 12:5. Ἀνέγνωτε] Numbers 28:9.

βεβηλοῦσι] that is, if one were consistently to judge according to your precepts, which forbid every sort of work on the Sabbath as being a desecration of that day. For βεβηλ., profanant, comp. Acts 24:6, and see Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 558.

Matthew 12:6. As in Matthew 12:3 f. Jesus had reasoned a majori (from the fact of David, when hungry, being allowed to eat the shew-bread) ad minus (to the fact of the hungry disciples being allowed to pluck the corn on the Sabbath), so in Matthew 12:5 He reasons a minori (viz. from the temple, where the Sabbath is subordinated to the sacrificial arrangements) ad majus, viz. to His own authority, which transcends the sanctity of the temple, and from acting under which the disciples might well be the less disposed to be bound to keep the Sabbath. The key to this argument is to be found in Matthew 12:6, which contains the minor proposition of the conclusion: what is allowable in the case of the servants of the temple, namely, to work on the Sabbath, must be conceded to the servants of Him who is greater than the temple; I am greater than the temple; therefore, and so on.

In all the elevation and truth of His self-consciousness Jesus points with τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε to His own person and character as surpassing the temple in sanctity and greatness; not to the Messianic work (Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), with which the plucking of the corn had nothing to do; nor, again, to the interests of the, disciples! (Paulus, Kuinoel); nor, finally, to the ἔλεος in Matthew 12:7 (Baur). The neuter μεῖζον, a greater thing, is more weighty than the masculine. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 396. Comp. Matthew 11:9.

ὧδε] demonstrative, as in Matthew 12:41-42. Notice how sublimely great is the consciousness that God is dwelling in Him in a higher sense than in the temple; comp. note on John 2:19.

Matthew 12:7. After this defence of His disciples, He shows the Pharisees that in judging them as they had done they were animated by a perverse disposition. He shows how they were destitute of the compassionate love which God requires in Hosea 6:6, while their thoughts were exclusively directed to sacrifice and ceremonial religion generally. From want of ἔλεος, which would have disposed them to regard the conduct of the hungry ones in a totally different light, they, i.e. those ceremonialists, had condemned the disciples. See, besides, note on Matthew 9:13.

Matthew 12:8. Γάρ] τοὺς ἀναιτίους, I say, for, and so on. “Majestate Christi nititur discipulorum innocentia et libertas,” Bengel. The authority of the Messiah (under which His disciples have acted) is superior to the law of the Sabbath; the latter is subject to His disposal, and must yield to His will. Bertholdt, Christol. p. 162 f. For the idea, comp. John 5:18; Holtzmann, p. 458. Others (Grotius, Kuinoel) interpret thus: Man may set aside the laws regarding the Sabbath, whenever it is for his advantage to do so. In opposition to the regular use of ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀνθρ., the argument is different in Mark 1:27.

Matthew 12:9 ff. Comp. Mark 3:1 ff.; Luke 6:6 ff.

Καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν, κ.τ.λ.] therefore on the same Sabbath day. Different from Luke, who has ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββάτῳ, to which further division of time Mark likewise fails to make any reference whatever.

αὐτῶν] the Pharisees, whom He had just sent away. It is impossible to say where the synagogue was to which those Pharisees belonged. But to take αὐτῶν without any definite reference, as in Matthew 11:1 (“of the people of the place,” de Wette, Bleek), is precluded by ἐπηρώτησαν, etc., of which the Pharisees mentioned in Matthew 12:14 are to be regarded as the subject.