Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 27

Matthew 27:2. αὐτόν] after παρέδ. has very important evidence both for and against it, being just as liable to be inserted as a very common supplement as to be omitted on account of its superfluous character, a character likely to be ascribed to it all the more that it is wanting also in Mark 15:1. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8.

Ποντίῳ πιλ.] B L א, 33, 102, vss. Or. have simply Πιλάτῳ; but the full form of the name is to be preferred all the more that the parallel passages have only Πιλάτ.

Matthew 27:3. παραδιδούς] Lachm.: παραδούς, following only B L 33, 259, vss. (?). The aorist would more readily occur to the transcribers, since the betrayal had already taken place.

Matthew 27:4. ἀθῷον] δίκαιον, although recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, has too little evidence in its favour, and should be regarded as an early exegetical correction with a view to render the expression more forcible; comp. Matthew 23:35.

ὄψει] Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.: ὄψῃ, in accordance with decisive evidence.

Matthew 27:5. Instead of ἐν τῷ ναῷ, Tisch. 8 has εἰς τὸν ναόν. Exegetical emendation, against which there is a preponderance of evidence.

Matthew 27:9. Ἱερεμίου] The omission of the prophet’s name in 33, 157, Syr. Pers. and Codd. in Aug., as well as the reading Ζαχαρίου in 22, Syr.p in the margin, is due to the fact that the quotation is not found in Jeremiah.

Matthew 27:11. ἔστη] B C L א, 1, 33, Or.: ἐστάθη. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Exegetical emendation with a view to greater precision.

Matthew 27:16-17. Βαραββᾶν] Fritzsche: Ἰησοῦν βαραββᾶν. So Origenint. several min. Aram. Syr.jer., and early scholiasts. Advocated above all by Fritzsche in the Litt. Blatt z. allgem. Kirchenzeit. 1843, p. 538 f., in opposition to Lachm. ed. maj. p. xxxvii. f., with which latter critic Tisch. agrees. For my own part, I look upon the reading Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν as the original one, for I am utterly at a loss to see how, Ἰησοῦν should have found its way into the text (in answer to Holtzmann, who supposes that it was from Acts 4:36 through a blunder of the transcriber, and in answer to Tisch. 8, who with Tregelles traces it to an abbreviation of the name Ιησοῦν (ΙΝ), in which case it is supposed that ΥΜΙΝΙΝ came to be substituted for ΥΜΙΝ); and because to take away the sacred name from the robber would seem very natural and all the more justifiable that it is likewise omitted in Matthew 27:20 f., 26, and by the other evangelists, not to mention that, from a similar feeling of reverence, it would seem to have been suppressed in the tradition current in the apostolic age. Comp. also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 285, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weizsäcker. The view that Ἰησοῦν has been adopted from the Gospel of the Hebrews (Tisch.) is a very questionable inference from the statement of Jerome, that instead of Βαραββ. that Gospel had substituted filium magistri eorum. It would be just as warrantable to quote the same authority in favour of the originality of the reading Ἰησοῦν Βαραββ.

Matthew 27:22. αὐτῷ (Elz., Scholz) after λέγουσι has been deleted in accordance with preponderating evidence.

Matthew 27:24. The reading κατέναντι (Lachm.) is supported only by the insufficient evidence of B D; comp. Matthew 21:2.

τοῦ δικαίου τούτου] The words τοῦ δικσαίου are wanting in B D 102, Cant. 27 :Verc. Mm. Chrys. Or.int. They are placed after τούτου in A, while Δ reads τοῦ τούτου δικαίου. Lachm. inserts them after τούτου, but in brackets; Tisch. deletes them, and that correctly. They are to be regarded as a gloss (suggested by the reading δίκαιου, Matthew 27:4), written on the margin at first, and afterwards, when incorporated in the text, conjoined in some instances with τοῦ αἵματος (as in Matthew 27:4) and in others with τοῦ αἵματος; hence so many different ways of arranging the words.

Matthew 27:28. ἐκδύσαντες] B D **א 157, Cant. 27 :Verc. Colb. Corb. 2, Lachm.: ἐνδύσαντες. Correctly; ἐνδύς. was not understood, and was accordingly altered.[31] Comp. on 2 Corinthians 5:3. In what follows we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., restore the arrangement χλαμ. κοκκ. περίεθ. αὐτῷ, in accordance with important evidence.

Matthew 27:29. ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν] As the reading ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.) has such important evidence as that of A B D L N א, min. vss. Fathers in its favour, and the one in the Received text might so easily originate in a mechanical conforming with ἐπὶ τὴν κεφ. (for which Tisch., in opposition to a preponderance of MS. evidence, substitutes ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς), we cannot but regard ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ as having the best claim to originality.

Matthew 27:33. Elz. has ὅς ἐστι λεγόμενος κρανίου τόπος. So also Scholz. There is a multiplicity of readings here. Fritzsche, Rinck (comp. also Griesb.) have simply ὅ ἐστι κρανίου τόπος, while Lachm. and Tisch. read ὅ ἐστιν κρανίου τόπος λεγδμενος. The balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of regarding the neuter ὅ as genuine; it was changed to the masculine to suit τόπον and τόπος. Further, λεγόμενος is wanting only in D, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It., where its omission may probably have been resorted to as a means of getting rid of a difficult construction, while the readings λεγόμενον, μεθερμηνευόμενος, μεθερμηνευόμενον (Mark 15:22), καλούμενον (Luke 23:33), are also to be regarded as exegetical variations. We ought therefore to retain the λεγόμενος, and in the order in which it is taken by Lachm. and Tisch., on the authority of B L א, min. Ath. Its earlier position in Elz. is probably due to ἐστι λεγόμ. (comp. ἔστι μεθερμ., Mark 15:22) being sometimes taken together.

Matthew 27:34. ὍΞΟς] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ΟἿΝΟΝ, which is supported by evidence so important, viz. B D K L Π* א, min. vss. and Fathers, that we must regard ὌΞΟς as derived from Psalm 68:22. The word ΟἿΝΟΝ was allowed to remain in Mark 15:23 because the gall did not happen to be mentioned there; and this being the case, the alteration, in conformity with Psalms 68. as above, would not so readily suggest itself.

Matthew 27:35. After κλῆρον Elz. inserts: ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου· Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔλαβον κλῆρον. Against decisive evidence; supplement from John 19:24.

Matthew 27:40. κατάβηθι] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : καὶ κατάβ., following A D א, min. Syr.jer. Cant. 27 :Verc. Colp. Clar. Cyr. The καί has been added for the purpose of connecting the two clauses together.

Matthew 27:41. After πρεσβυτέρων, Matth., Fritzsche insert καὶ Φαρισαίων, for which there is important though not preponderant evidence. Those chief adversaries of Jesus were by way of gloss mentioned on the margin, but subsequently the words crept into the text, being sometimes found along with, and sometimes substituted for, πρεσβυτέρων (as in D, min. Cant. 27 :Verc. Colb. Clar. Corb. 2, Gat. Cassiod.).

Matthew 27:42. εἰ βασιλ.] Fritzsche and Tisch. read simply βασιλ., following B D L א, 33, 102, Sahid. Correctly; εἰ is a supplementary addition from Matthew 27:40, its insertion in D, min. vss. Eus. before πέποιθεν below being likewise traceable to the same source.

πιστεύσομεν] Lachm.: πιστεύομεν, only in accordance with A, Vulg. 27 :Verc. Colb. Or.int., but correctly notwithstanding. By way of gloss the present was replaced sometimes by the future (Elz.) and sometimes by the subjunctive πιστεύσωμεν. Tisch. 8 adopts the latter.

ἐπʼ αὐτῷ] The witnesses are divided between αὐτῷ (Elz., Lachm.), ἐπʼ αὐτῷ (Griesb., Tisch. 7), and ἐπʼ αὐτόν (Fritzsche, Tisch, 8). The reading ἐπʼ αὐτῷ (E F G H K M S U V Δ Π, min.) should te preferred, inasmuch as this expression not only occurs nowhere else in Matthew, but is a somewhat rare one generally.

Matthew 27:44. For αὐτόν, Elz. has αὐτῷ, against decisive MS. authority. Emendation in conformity with the construction ὀνειδίζειν τινί τι.

Matthew 27:46. The MSS. present very considerable variety as regards the spelling of the Hebrew words. Lachm.: Ἠλί ἠλί λημὰ σαβακθανί. Tisch. 8 : Ἡλεὶ Ἡλεὶ λιμὰ σαβαχθανί. The latter is the best attested.

Matthew 27:49. ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα, supported though it be by B C L U Γ א, min. vss. Chrys., is clearly an irrelevant interpolation (after αὐτόν) borrowed from John 19:34. Yet this interpolation occasioned the error condemned by Clem. 5:1311, that Christ’s side was pierced before He expired.

Matthew 27:52. ἠγέρθη] B D G L א, min. Or. Eus.: ἠγέρθησαν. So Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. But how readily would the whole surroundings of the passage suggest the plural to the mechanical transcribers!

Matthew 27:54. γενόμενα] Lachm. and Tisch.: γίνομενα, following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, has γενόμενα as well). The aorist might have originated as readily in a failure to appreciate the difference of meaning as in a comparison of the present passage with Luke 23:47 f.

Matthew 27:56. For Ἰωσῆ, Tisch. 8 has Ἰωσήφ, following D* L א, vss. Or. Eus. Emendation suggested by the assumption that the mother of Jesus must have been intended (comp. on Matthew 13:55); hence *א enumerates the three Marys thus: Μαρ. ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ ἡ Μαρ. ἡ Ἰωσήφ καὶ ἠ Μαρ. ἡ τῶν υἱῶν Ζεβ.

Matthew 27:57. ἐμαθήτενσε] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ἐμαθητεύθη, following C D א and two min. Altered in accordance with Matthew 13:52.

Matthew 27:64. Elz. inserts νύκτος after αὐτοῦ, against decisive evidence; borrowed from Matthew 28:13. The δέ again, which Elz. has after ἔφη, Matthew 27:65, is an interpolation for sake of connection, and is wanting in very important witnesses (not, however, in A C D א).

[31] Lachm. adopts the reading ἐνδύσαντες in accordance with his fundamental principles of criticism, still he looks upon it as an error of early date. See his Praef. ed. maj. II. p. 6.

Matthew 27:1 By the time the Sanhedrim met, as it now did, in full sederunt (πάντες, comp. Matthew 26:59), for the purpose of consulting as to how they were now to give effect to the verdict of Matthew 26:66, it was well on in the morning (after cock-crowing, Matthew 26:74).

ὥστε] they consulted before going further (comp. on Matthew 22:15) as to what the consequence might be (comp. on Matthew 24:24) if they carried out their intention of putting Him to death, in other words, if they were likewise to give effect to the verdict already agreed upon: ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστί.

Matthew 27:2 Δήσαντες] The shackles which had been put upon. Jesus at the time of His arrest (Matthew 26:50, comp. with John 18:12), and which He still wore when He was led away from Annas to Caiaphas (John 18:24), would seem, from what is here stated, to have been either wholly or partially removed during the trial. With the view of His being securely conducted to the residence of the procurator, they take the precaution to put their prisoner in chains again. It is not expressly affirmed, either by Matthew or Mark, that the ἀπήγαγον was the work of the members of the Sanhedrim in pleno (as generally supposed, Weiss and Keim also sharing in the opinion); and, indeed, it is scarcely probable that they would have so far incurred the risk of a popular tumult (comp. Matthew 26:5). The statement in Luke 23:1 is unquestionably the product of a later tradition. As for Matthew and Mark, they seem to assume that merely a deputation accompanied the prisoner, though doubtless it would be large enough to be in keeping with the importance of the occasion. Comp. also on Matthew 27:3.

παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν Ποντίῳ, κ.τ.λ.] For after Judaea became a Roman province (from the time that King Archelaus was dethroned, 759 U.C.), the Sanhedrim had lost the jus gladii. Comp. on John 18:31. On Pontius Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judaea, who was successor to Valerius Gratus, and who, after holding office for ten years (from A.D. 26 onwards), was summoned to Rome at the instance of Vitellius, then governor of Syria, to answer to certain charges made against him, and then (according to Euseb. ii. 7) banished to Vienne, where he is said to have committed suicide, see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 87 ff.; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 663 ff.; Gerlach, d. Röm. Statthalter in Syr. u. Jud. p. 53 ff.; Hausrath, Zeitgesch. I. p. 312 ff. For certain Christian legends regarding His death, consult Tischendorf’s Evang. Apocr. p. 426 ff. Caesarea was the place where the procurators usually resided (Acts 23:23 f., Matthew 24:27, Matthew 25:1); but, as it was the Passover season, Pilate was in Jerusalem (to be ready, in fact, to quell any disturbance that might arise, comp. on Matthew 26:5), where he lived in the praetorium (see on Matthew 27:27).

τῷ ἡγεμόνι] principi. The more precise designation would have been τῷ ἐπιτρόπῳ, procuratori. Comp. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3. 1 : Πιλάτος δὲ ὁ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἡγεμών. On the comprehensive sense in which ἡγεμών is frequently used, see Krebs, Obss. p. 61 ff.

Matthew 27:3 Τότε] as Jesus was being led away to the procurator. From this Judas saw that his Master had been condemned (Matthew 26:66), for otherwise He would not have been thus taken before Pilate.

ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτόν] His betrayer, Matthew 26:25; Matthew 26:48.

μεταμεληθεὶς, κ.τ.λ.] cannot be said to favour the view that Judas was animated by a good intention (see on Matthew 24:16, Remark 2), though it no doubt serves to show he neither contemplated nor expected so serious a result. It is possible that, looking to the innocence of Jesus, and remembering how often before He had succeeded in disarming His enemies, the traitor may have cherished the hope that the issue would prove harmless. Now: “vellet, si posset, factum infectum reddere,” Bengel. Such was his repentance, but it was not of a godly nature (2 Corinthians 7:9 f.), for it led to despair.

ἀπέστρεψε] he returned them (Matthew 26:52; Thuc. v. 75, viii. 108; Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 3, al), i.e. he took them back (Genesis 43:21; Jdg 11:13; Jeremiah 28:3), Heb. הֵשִׁיב

τοῖς ἀρχ. κ. τ. πρεσβ.] from which it is to be inferred that Matthew did not look upon this as a full meeting of the Sanhedrim (Matthew 27:2).

Matthew 27:4 Ἥ μαρτον παραδούς] see on Matthew 26:12.

αἷμα ἀθῷον] εἰς τὸ χυθῆναι, Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. Deuteronomy 27:25; 1Ma 1:37; 2Ma 1:8; Phalar. ep. 40; Heliod. viii. 10.

τί πρὸς ἡμᾶς] sc. ἐστι; what is it as regards us? i.e. what matters it to us? we are in no way called upon to concern ourselves about what thou hast done. Comp. John 21:22 f.; the words are also frequently used in this sense by Greek authors.

σὺ ὄψῃ] Thou wilt see to it thyself, thou wilt have to consider for thyself what is now to be done by thee; comp. Matthew 27:24; Acts 18:15; 1 Samuel 25:17; 4Ma 9:1. “Impii in facto consortes, post factum deserunt,” Bengel.

Matthew 27:5 Ἐν τῷ ναῷ] is to be taken neither in the sense of near the temple (Kypke), nor as referring to the room, Gasith, in which the Sanhedrim held its sittings (Grotius), nor as equivalent to ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (Fritzsche, Olshausen, Bleek); but, in accordance with the regular use of ναός (see on Matthew 4:5) and the only possible meaning of ἐν, we must interpret thus: he flung down the money in the temple proper, i.e. in the holy place where the priests were to be found. Judas in his despair had ventured within that place which none but priests were permitted to enter.

ἀπήγξατο] he strangled himself. Hom. Od. xix. 230; Herod. vii. 232; Xen. Cyrop. iii. 1. 14; Hier. vii. 13; Aesch. Suppl. 400; Ael. V. H. v. 3. There is no reason why the statement in Acts 1:18 should compel us to take ἀπάγχομαι as denoting, in a figurative sense, an awakening of the conscience (Grotius, Perizonius, Hammond, Heinsius), for although ἄγχειν is sometimes so used by classical authors (Dem. 406, 5; and see the expositors, ad Thom. Mag. p. 8), such a meaning would be inadmissible here, where we have no qualifying term, and where the style is that of a plain historical narrative (comp. 2 Samuel 17:23; Tob 3:10). With a view to reconcile what is here said with Acts 1:18, it is usual to assume that the traitor first hanged himself, and then fell down headlong, Matthew being supposed to furnish the first, and Luke the second half of the statement (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Kaeuffer, Paulus, Ebrard, Baumgarten

Crusius). But such a way of parcelling out this statement, besides being arbitrary in itself, is quite inadmissible, all the more so that it is by no means clear from Acts 1:18 that suicide had been committed. Now as suicide was regarded by the Jews with the utmost abhorrence, it would for that very reason have occupied a prominent place in the narrative instead of being passed over in silence. It has been attempted to account for the absence of any express mention of suicide, by supposing that the historian assumed his readers to be familiar with the fact. But if one thing forbids such an explanation more than another, it is the highly rhetorical character of the passage in the Acts just referred to, which, rhetorical though it be, records, for example, the circumstance of the purchase of the field with all the historical fidelity of Matthew himself, the only difference being that Luke’s mode of representing the matter is almost poetical in its character (in opposition to Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Pressensé, Paret, Keim, all of whom concur with Paulus in assuming, in opposition to Matthew, that Judas bought the field himself). Comp. on Acts 1:18. In Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18, we have two different accounts of the fate of the betrayer, from which nothing further is to be gathered by way of historical fact than that he came to a violent end. In the course of subsequent tradition, however, this violent death came to be represented sometimes as suicide by means of hanging (Matthew, Ignatius, ad Philipp. interpol. 4), at a later stage again as a fall resulting in the bursting of the bowels, or at a later period still as the consequence of his having been crushed by a carriage when the body was in a fearfully swollen condition (Papias as quoted by Oecumenius, ad Act. l.c., and by Apollinaris in Routh’s reliquiae sacr. p. 9, 23 ff.; also in Cramer’s Catena, p. 231; Overbeck in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1867, p. 39 ff.; Anger, Synops. p. 233). There is no other way of accounting for so many diverse traditions regarding this matter, but by supposing that nothing was known as to how the death actually took place. Be this as it may, we cannot entertain the view that Judas sunk into obscurity, and so disappeared from history, but that meanwhile the Christian legends regarding him were elaborated out of certain predictions and typical characters (Strauss, Keim, Scholten) found in Scripture (in such passages as Psalm 109:8; Psalm 69:25); such a view being inadmissible, because it takes no account of what is common to all the New Testament accounts, the fact, namely, that Judas died a violent death, and that very soon after the betrayal; and further, because the supposed predictions (Psalms 69, 109, 20) and typical characters (such as Ahithophel, 2 Samuel 15:30 ff; 2 Samuel 17:23; Antiochus, 2Ma 9:5 ff.) did not help to create such stories regarding the traitor’s death, but it would be nearer the truth to say that they were subsequently taken advantage of by critics to account for the stories after they had originated.

Matthew 27:6 Οὐκ ἔξεστι] “argumento ducto ex Deuteronomy 23:18, Sanhedr. f. 112,” Wetstein.

τιμὴ αἵματος] the price of blood, which is supposed to have been shed.

κορβ.] τὸν ἱερὸν θησαυρόν, καλεῖται δὲ κορβανᾶς, Josephus, Bell. ii. 9. 4.

Matthew 27:7 f. Ἠγόρασαν] It is not said that they did so immediately; but the purchase took place shortly after, according to Acts 1:18.

τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμ.] the field of the potter, the field which had previously belonged to some well-known potter. Whether the latter had used the field for the purpose of digging clay, it is impossible to determine.

εἰς ταφὴν τ. ξένοις] as a burying-place for the strangers, namely, such foreign Jews (proselytes included) as happened to die when on a visit to Jerusalem; not Gentiles (Paulus), who, had they been intended, would have been indicated more specifically.

διό] because it had been bought with the τιμὴ αἵματος above (Matthew 27:6).

ἀγρὸς αἵματος] חֲקַל דְּמָא, Acts 1:18, where, however, the name is traced to a different origin. On the place which in accordance with tradition is still pointed out as the field here referred to, see Robinson, II. p. 178 ff.; Tobler, Topogr.