성경 주석서

CHAPTER 6

Luke 6:1. δευτεροπρώτῳ] is wanting in B L א and seven min. Syr. Arp. Perss. Copt. Aeth. codd. of It. Condemned by Schulz, bracketed by Lacbm and Tisch. Synops. See the exegetical remarks.

Luke 6:2. αὐτοῖς] bracketed by Lachm., is, with Tisch., to be struck out, as it is wanting in B C* L X א, min. Copt. Verc. Colb., while D, Cant. read αὐτῷ· ἴδε. An addition in accordance with the parallels. Of ποιεῖν ἐν, the ἐν alone is to be deleted, with Tisch., on decisive evidence, but not, with Lachm., the ποιεῖν also.

Luke 6:3. ὁπότε] Lachm. has ὅτε, in accordance, indeed, with B C D L X Δ א, min.; but taken from the parallels, from which, moreover, the omission of ὄντες (Lachm.) is to be explained, as well as in Luke 6:4 the reading πῶς (Lachm., following L R X א**, min.).

Luke 6:4. The omission of ὡς (B D, Cant. Marcion) is to be regarded as a transcriber’s error (occasioned by the subsequent ΕΙΣ). If nothing had originally been found there, only πῶς, not ὡς would have been added.

ἔλαβε καί] Lachm. has λαβών, following B C* L X 33, Syr. Copt. Theophyl. The Recepta is to be maintained. The words were left out,—an omission occasioned the more easily by the similar ἔφαγε καί which follows, as the parallels have not ἔλαβε καί. The omission occurs, moreover, in D K א, min. vss. Ir. Then λαβών was introduced as a restoration in better syntactical form.

καὶ τοῖς] B L 1, 112, Syr. Arr. Pers. Arm. Goth. Vulg. It. Theophyl. Ir. Ambr. have merely τοῖς. In view of these important authorities καί must be traced to Mark 2:26 (where the evidence against it is weaker), and should be deleted.

Luke 6:6. δὲ καί] Lachm. has δέ, in accordance with B L X א, min. vss. Cyr. But why should καί have been added? Rather the possibility of dispensing with it alongside of ἑτέρῳ gave rise to its omission.

Luke 6:7. With Lachm. and Tisch. read παρετηροῦντο (approved also by Griesb.), in accordance with preponderating evidence. See on Mark 3:2.

After δέ Elz. has αὐτόν on weighty evidence, indeed, but it is an addition. Comp. Luke 14:1; Mark 3:2.

θεραπεύσει] Lachm. and Tisch. have θεραπεύει; the future is taken from Mark.

κατηγορίαν] B S X א, min. and vss. Have κατηγορεῖν. So Tisch. D also vouches for the infinitive by reading κατηγορῆσαι, the infinitive being explained in the later reading by the use of the substantive.

Luke 6:8. ἀνθρώπῳ] B L א, min. Cyr. have ἀνδρί. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Tisch. Rightly; τῷ ἀνδρί was omitted by reason of the following τῷ (so still D, Cant.), and then τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ was inserted, in accordance with Luke 6:6 and Mark 3:3, instead of τῷ ἀνδρί.

ὁ δέ] Lachm. and Tisch. have καί, following B D L X א, 1, 33, Vulg. It. Copt. Cyr. The former suggested itself more readily to the transcribers. Comp. Luke 6:10.

Luke 6:9. οὖν] Lachm. and Tisch. have δέ, following B D L א, min. Vulg. It. Goth. Not to be decided; οὖν, it is true, is not frequently employed in the Gospel of Luke for continuing the narrative, and the reading wavers mostly between οὖν and δέ; yet it is established in Luke 3:7, Luke 19:12, Luke 22:36.

ἐπερωτήσω] Tisch. has ἐπερωτῶ, following B L א, 157, Copt. Vulg. Brix. For. Rd. The Recepta has resulted from a reminiscence of Luke 20:3; Mark 11:29. The present is extremely appropriate to the vivacity of the whole action.

τι or τί] Lachm. and Tisch. have εἰ, following B D L א 157, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Aug. In view of these important authorities, and because εἰ fits in with the reading ἐπερωτῶ, which, according to the evidence, is to be approved (see above), εἰ is to be preferred.

ἀπολέσαι] also retained by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D L X א, vss. even Vulg. It. Griesb. and Scholz have ἀποκτεῖναι, which is introduced from Mark 3:4, whence also comes τοῖς σάββασιν, instead of which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted τῷ σαββάτῳ, following B D L א, Cant. Rd. Colb. Corb. For. Aug.

Luke 6:10. Instead of αὐτῷ Elz. has τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, in opposition to preponderating evidence.

After ἐποίησεν (instead of which D X א, min. and most of the vss. read ἐξέτεινεν, which is from Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:5) Elz. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have οὕτως, which is wanting in important but still not preponderating authorities, and is deleted by Griesb., but defended by. Schulz, in accordance with Luke 9:15, Luke 12:43. It is to be adopted. The possibility of dispensing with it and the ancient gloss ἐξέτεινεν occasioned the dropping out of the word.

After αὐτοῦ Elz. has ὑγιής, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew 12:13. Moreover, ὡς ἡ ἄλλη (condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.), which is wanting in B L א, min. Copt. Vulg. Sax. Verc. For. Corb. Rd., is from Matthew.

Luke 6:12. ἐξῆλθεν] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐξελθεῖν αὐτόν; which, in accordance with the preponderance of the MSS., is to be preferred.

Luke 6:14-16. Before Ἰάκωβ., before Φίλιππ., before Ματθ., before Ἰάκωβ., and before Ἰούδ. Ἰακ., is to be inserted καί, on external evidence (Tisch.).

Luke 6:16. ὅς καί] Lachm. and Tisch. have only ὅς, following B L א, min. vss. even Vulg. It. Marcion. Rightly; καί is from the parallels.

Luke 6:18. ὀχλούμ.] Tisch. has ἐνοχλ., following very important MSS. The compound form was overlooked.

Instead of ἀπό Elz. has ὑπό, in opposition to decisive evidence. An alteration arising from misunderstanding, because ἀπὸ πν. ἀκαθ. was believed to be dependent upon the participle (comp. Acts 5:16), which error, moreover, gave rise to the καί before ἐθεραπ. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted this καί, in accordance with preponderating evidence.

Luke 6:23. Instead of χάρτηε Elz. has χαίρετε, in opposition to decisive evidence.

ταῦτα or ταὐτά] Lachm. and Tisch. have τὰ αὐτά, following B D Q X Ξ, min. Marcion. The Recepta is a transcriber’s error. The same reading is to be adopted in Luke 6:26 on nearly the same evidence; so also in Luke 17:30.

Luke 6:25. ὑμῖν before οἱ γελ. (suspected also by Griesb.) is, in accordance with B K L S X Ξ א, min. Or. Ir., with Tisch., to be struck out. An addition to conform with what precedes. Elz. has ὑμῖν also before ὅταν, Luke 6:26, in opposition to decisive evidence. But νῦν is, with Tisch., following very important evidence, to be inserted after ἐμπεπλ.

Luke 6:26. οἱ ἄνθρ.] Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have πάντες οἱ ἄνθρ. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of πάντες, and it is to be maintained in opposition to Griesb. The omission was occasioned by the apparently inappropriate relation to οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν.

Luke 6:28. ὑμῖν] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have ὑμᾶς. There are weighty authorities on both sides, although the evidence is stronger for ὑμᾶς; but ὑμῖν is the more unusual, and is attested even so early as by Justin (?) and Origen; ὑμᾶς is from Matthew 5:44.

Before προσεύχ. Elz. has καί, in opposition to decisive evidence.

Luke 6:34. The reading δανείζετε, although approved by Griesb., is a transcriber’s error. Comp. on Romans 14:8. Lachm. has δανείσητε (Tisch.: δανίσητε), following only B Ξ א, 157.

Before ἀμαρτωλοί Elz. has οἱ, in opposition to decisive evidence.

On evidence as decisive τοῦ (in Elz.) before ὑψ., Luke 6:35, is condemned. But μηδένα (Tisch.) instead of μηδέν is too weakly attested by Ξ א, Syr.utr, especially as it might easily result from a transcriber’s error.

Luke 6:36. οὖν] is wanting in B D L Ξ א, min. vss. and Fathers. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A connective particle, although not directly taken from Matthew 5:48.

Luke 6:39. δέ] Lachm. and Tisch. have δὲ καί, following preponderating evidence; the καί, which might be dispensed with, was passed over.

πεσοῦνται] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐμπεσοῦνται. The Recepta is from Matthew 15:14.

Luke 6:43. οὐδέ] B L Ξ א, min. Copt. Arm. Verc. Germ. add πάλιν, which Lachm. has in brackets. With Tisch. to be adopted; the omission of the word that might be dispensed with resulted from Matthew 7:18.

Luke 6:45. Read the second half of the verse: κ. ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν (Tisch.). In view of B D L א, min. vss. the ἄνθρωπος and θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ of the Recepta (both condemned by Griesb., and bracketed by Lachm.) are to be regarded as supplementary additions, as also in the next clause τοῦ and τῆς (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.).

Luke 6:48. τεθεμελ. γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν] Tisch. has διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι [οἰκοδομῆσθαι in Tisch. 8] αὐτήν, following B L Ξ א, 33, 157, Syr.p (in the margin), Copt. The Recepta is a gloss from Matthew 7:25.

Luke 6:49. ἔπεσε] συνέπεσε, which Griesb. has recommended and Tisch. has adopted, is so strongly attested by B D L R Ξ א, that ἔπεσε is to be referred to Matthew.

Luke 6:1-5. See on Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28, whom Luke, with some omission, however, follows (see especially Luke 6:5). Between the foregoing and the present narrative Matthew interposes a series of other incidents.

ἐν σαββ. δευτεροπρώτῳ] all explanations are destitute of proof, because δευτερόπρωτος never occurs elsewhere. According to the analogy of δευτερογάμος, δευτεροβόλος, δευτεροτόκος, etc., it might be: a Sabbath which for the second time is the first. Comp. δευτεροδεκάτη, the second tenth, in Jerome, ad Ezekiel 45. According to the analogy of δευτερέσχατος, penultimus, Heliodorus in Soran. Chirurg. vet. p. 94, it might—since from ἔσχατος the reckoning must be backwards, while from πρῶτος it must be forwards, in order to get a δεύτερος—be the second first, i.e. the second of two firsts. All accurate grammatical information is wanting. As, however, if any definite Sabbaths at all had borne the name of σάββατον δευτερόπωτον (and this must be assumed, as Luke took for granted that the expression was a familiar one), this name would doubtless occur elsewhere (in the Old Testament, in the LXX., in Philo, Josephus, in the Talmud, etc.); but this is not the case, as the whole Greek literature has not even one instance of the peculiar word in itself to show;[95] as among the Synoptics it was precisely Luke that could least of all impute to his reader a knowledge of the name; and as, finally, very ancient and important authorities have not got ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤῼ at all in the passage before us (see the critical remarks), just as even so early an authority as Syrp. remarks in the margin: “non est in omni exemplari,”

I regard ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤῼ as not being genuine, although, moreover, the suspicion suggests itself that it was omitted “ignoratione rei” (Bengel, Appar. Crit.), and because the parallel places have nothing similar to it. In consideration of ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββ., Luke 6:6, probably the note ΠΡΏΤῼ was written at the side, but a comparison with Luke 4:31 occasioned the corrective note ΔΕΥΤΈΡῼ to be added, which found its way into the text, partly without (so still Arro. and Arer.), partly with ΠΡΏΤῼ (thus ΔΕΥΤΈΡῼ ΠΡΏΤῼ, so still R Γ, min.), so that in the next place, seeing that the two words in juxtaposition were meaningless, the one word ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤῼ was coined. Wilke also and Hofmann, according to Lichtenstein; and Lichtenstein himself, as well as Bleek and Holtzmann (comp. Schulz on Griesbach), reject the word; Hilgenfeld regards it as not being altogether certain.[96] Of the several attempts at explanation, I note historically only the following: (1) Chrysostom, Hom. 40 in Matth.: ὅταν διπλῆ ἡ ἀργία ᾖ καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἑτέρας ἑορτῆς διαδεχομένης, so that thus is understood a feast-day immediately following the Sabbath. Comp. Epiphanius, Haer. 30, 31. So also Beza, Paulus, and Olshausen. (2) Theophylact understands a Sabbath, the day before which (παρασκευή) had been a feast-day.[97] (3) Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. iii. 110 (comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Surenhusius, Wolf), thinks that the πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων is meant, and was called ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΠΡΏΤΗ: ἘΠΕΙΔῊ ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟΝ ΜῈΝ ἮΝ ΤΟῦ ΠΆΣΧΑ, ΠΡῶΤΟΝ ΔῈ ΤῶΝ ἈΖΎΜΩΝ· ἙΣΠΈΡΑς ΓᾺΡ ΘΎΟΝΤΕς ΤῸ ΠΆΣΧΑ Τῇ ἙΞῆς ΤῊΝ ΤῶΝ ἈΖΎΜΩΝ ἘΠΑΝΗΓΎΡΙΖΟΝ ἙΟΡΤῊΝ, ἫΝ ΚΑῚ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΌΠΡΩΤΟΝ ἘΚΆΛΟΥΝ,—that every festival was called a Sabbath. Comp. Saalschütz: “the second day of the first feast (Passover).” (4) Most prevalent has become the view of Scaliger (Emend. tempor. VI. p. 557) and Petavius, that it is the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover.[98] Comp. already Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 31. From the second Easter day (on which the first ripe ears of corn were offered on the altar, Leviticus 23:10 ff.; Lightfoot, p. 340) were numbered seven Sabbaths down to Pentecost, Leviticus 23:15. Comp. also Winer, Realwörterb. II. p. 348 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 72, and Gesch. Chr. p. 304. (5) According to the same reckoning, distinguishing the three first Sabbaths of the season between Easter and Pentecost from the rest, Redslob in the Intell. Bl. der allgem. Lit. Zeit., Dec. 1847, p. 570 f., says that it was the second Sabbath after the second Easter day, δευτερόπρωτος being equivalent to ΔΕΎΤΕΤΟς ΤῶΝ ΠΡΏΤΩΝ, therefore about fourteen days after Easter. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. XI. p. 254: that it was the second of the two first Sabbaths of the Passover month. (6) Von Til and Wetstein: that it was the first Sabbath of the second month (Igar). So also Storr and others. (7) Credner, Beitr. I. p. 357, concludes that according to the κήρυγμα τοῦ Πέτρου (in Clem. Strom. vi. 5, p. 760, Pott) the Sabbath at the full moon was called πρῶτον (a mistaken explanation of the words, see Wieseler, p. 232 f.), and hence that a Sabbath at the new moon was to be understood. (8) Hitzig, Ostern und Pfingst. p. 19 ff. (agreeing with Theophylact as to the idea conveyed by the word), conceives that it was the fifteenth Nisan, which, according to Leviticus 23:11, had been called a Sabbath, and was named δευτερόπρ., because (but see, on the other hand, Wieseler, p. 353 ff.) the fourteenth Nisan always fell on a Saturday. (9) Wieseler, l.c. p. 231 ff.,[99] thinks that it was the second-first Sabbath of the year in a cycle of seven years, i.e. the first Sabbath of the second year in a week of years. Already L. Capellus, Rhenferd, and Lampe (ad Joh. II. p. 5) understood it to be the first month in the year (Nisan), but explained the name from the fact that the year had two first Sabbaths, namely, in Tisri, when the civil year began, and in Nisan, when the ecclesiastical year began. (10) Ebrard, p. 414 f., following Krafft (Chron. und Harm. d. vier Evang. p. 18 f.), regards it as the weekly Sabbath that occurs between the first and last Easter days (feast-Sabbaths). For yet other interpretations (Grotius and Valckenaer: that the Sabbath before Easter was called the first great one πρωτὸπρωτον, the Sabbath before Pentecost the second great one δευτερόπρωτον, the Sabbath before the feast of Tabernacles ΤΡΙΤΌΠΡΩΤΟΝ[100]), see in Calovius, Bibl. Ill., and Lübkert, l.c.

τοὺς στάχυας] the ears of corn that offered themselves on the way.

ἬΣΘΙΟΝ ΨΏΧΟΝΤΕς Κ.Τ.Λ.] they ate (the contents), rubbing them out. The two things happened at the same time, so that they continually conveyed to their mouths the grains set free by this rubbing.

Luke 6:3. οὐδὲ τοῦτο] have you never so much as read this? etc.

ὁπότε] quandoquidem, since, Plato, Legg. x. p. 895 B; Euthyd. p. 297 D; Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 2; not elsewhere in the New Testament. Comp. Hermann, ad Soph. O. C. 1696.

Luke 6:4. ἔξεστι] with an accusative and infinitive, occurring only here in the New Testament, frequently in the classical writers, Plat. Polit. p. 290 D; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, iii. 12. 8, and elsewhere; also after a preceding dative (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. p. 57, ed. 2).

Luke 6:5. ἔλεγεν αὐτ.] as Mark, but without the auxiliary thought found in Mark which introduces the conclusion.

[95] In Eustathius in Vita Eutych. n. 95, the Sunday after Easter is called δευτεροπρώτη κυριακή; but this epithet manifestly originated from the passage before us.

[96] Tischendorf had deleted it in his edition of 1849, but in ed. 7 (1859) [also in ed. 8 (1869)] had restored and defended it; now [1867] (in the Synops. ed. 2) he has, with Lachmann, bracketed it.

[97] Comp. Luther’s obscure gloss: “the second day after the high Sabbath.” Schegg explains the expression even as a Christian designation, namely, of the Saturday after Good Friday. In opposition to Serno (Tag des letzt. Passahmahls, 1859, p. 48 ff.), who, according to his mistaken supposition of the doubling of the first and last feast-days, brings out the sixteenth Nissan, see Wieseler in Reuter’s Repert. 1860, p. 138.

[98] The explanation of Scaliger is followed by Casaubon, Drusius, Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, and many more; and is defended, especially against Paulus, by Lübkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 671 ff. Opposed to Scaliger are Wieseler, Synopse, p. 230; Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 394 f.; and aptly Grotius in loc. Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 813, tries to improve the explanation of Scaliger by assuming that preceding the cycle between Easter and Pentecost there is a shorter cycle from 1 Nisan to Easter; that the first Sabbath of this first cycle is therefore the first-first, while the first Sabbath of that second cycle (from Easter to Pentecost) is the second-first.

[99] Tischendorf, Synopse, ed. 2, now opposes the explanation of Wieseler, with which in ed. 1 he agreed.

[100] V. Gumpach also (üb. d. altjüd. Kalend., Brüssel 1848) understands a Sabbath of the second rank. Very peculiarly Weizsäcker, p. 59, says: “that Luke 4:16; Luke 4:31 recounts two Sabbath narratives, and now Luke 6:1; Luke 6:6 recounts other two,” and that the Sabbath in the passage before us is therefore the first of this second series of narratives, consequently the second-first. But what reader would hare been able to discover this reference, especially as between Luke 4:31 and Luke 6:1 so many other narratives intervened? Weizsäcker, moreover, pertinently observes, in opposition to every hypothesis of an explanation in accordance with the calculation of the divine services, that our Gospel stands much too remote from things of this kind.

REMARK.

In D, which does not read Luke 6:5 till after Luke 6:10, the following passage occurs after Luke 6:4 : τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἶ· εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. In substance it certainly bears the stamp of genius, and is sufficiently liberal-minded to admit of its being original, even although it is not genuine. I regard it as an interpolated fragment of a true tradition.

Luke 6:6-11. See on Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6, in comparison with which Luke’s narrative is somewhat weakened (see especially Luke 6:10-11).

δὲ καί] for that which now follows also took place on a Sabbath.

ἐν ἑτέρῳ σαββ.] inexact, and varying from Matthew. Whether this Sabbath was actually the next following (which Lange finds even in Matthew) is an open question.

Luke 6:9. According to the reading ἐπερωτῶ ὑμᾶς, εἰ (see the critical remarks): I ask you whether. With the Recepta, the MSS. according to the accentuation τι or τί favour one or other of the two different views: I will ask you something, is it lawful, etc.? or: I will ask you, what is lawful? The future would be in favour of the former. Comp. Matthew 21:24.

Luke 6:11. ἀνοίας] want of understanding, dementia (Vulg.: insipientia), 2 Timothy 3:9; Wis 19:3; Wis 15:18; Proverbs 22:15; Herod. vi. 69; Plat. Gorg. p. 514 E, and elsewhere. Also Thucyd. iii. 48. Usually: madness. Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 86 B: δύο … ἀνοίας γένη, τὸ μὲν μανίαν, τὸ δὲ ἀμαθίαν. As to the Æolic optative form ποιήσειαν (comp. Acts 17:27), see Winer, p. 71 [E. T. 91]. Ellendt, ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 353. Lachmann and Tischendorf have ποιήσαιεν (a correction).

Luke 6:12-13. Comp. Mark 3:13-15.

τὸ ὄρος] as Matthew 5:1.

προσεύξασθαι κ.τ.λ.] comp. on Luke 5:16.

ἐν τῇ προσεὐχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ] in prayer to God. Genitive of the object (see Winer, p. 167 [E. T. 231 f.]).

τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ] in the wider sense. Comp. Luke 6:17.

καὶ ἐκλεξάμ, κ.τ.λ.] The connection is: “And after He had chosen for Himself from them twelve … and (Luke 6:17) had come down with them, He took up His position on a plain, and (scil. ἔστη, there stood there) a crowd of His disciples, and a great multitude of people … who had come to hear Him and to be healed; and they that were tormented were healed of unclean spirits: and all the people sought,” etc. The discovery of Schleiermacher, that ἐκλεξάμ. denotes not the actual choice, but only a bringing them together, was a mistaken idea which the word itself ought to have guarded against. Comp. Acts 1:2.

οὓς καὶ ἀπ. ὠνόμ.] An action concurring towards the choice, and therefore, according to Luke, contemporaneous (in opposition to Schleiermacher). Comp. Mark 3:14, which is the source of this certainly anticipatory statement.

Luke 6:12-49. Luke inserts at this point the choice of the Twelve, and then a shorter and less original (see also Weiss in the Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1864, p. 52 ff.) edition of the Sermon on the Mount.[101] According to Matthew, the choice of the Twelve had not yet occurred before the Sermon on the Mount; nevertheless it is implied in Matthew, not, indeed, sooner than at Luke 10:1, but after the call of Matthew himself. Luke in substance follows Mark in what concerns the choice of the apostles. But he here assigns to the Sermon on the Mount—which Mark has not got at all—a position different from that in Matthew, following a tradition which attached itself to the locality of the choice of the apostles (τὸ ὄρος) as readily as to the description and the contents of the sermon. See, moreover, Commentary on Matthew. According to Baur, indeed, Luke purposely took from the discourse its place of distinction, and sought in the Pauline interest to weaken it as much as possible.

[101] That Matthew and Luke gave two distinct discourses, delivered in immediate succession (which Augustine supposed), that were related to one another as esoteric (given to the disciples exclusively) and exoteric (in the ears of the people), is neither to be established exegetically, nor is it reconcilable with the creative power of discourse manifested by Jesus at other times, in accordance with which He was certainly capable, at least, of extracting from the original discourse what would be suitable for the people (in opposition to Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 566 ff.). And how much does the discourse in Matthew contain which there was no reason for Jesus keeping back from the people in Luke’s supposed exoteric discourse! Comp. also Matthew 7:28, from which passage it is clear that Matthew neither regarded the discourse as esoteric, nor knew anything of two discourses.

Luke 6:14-16. Comp. on Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19.

ζηλωτήν] Comp. Acts 1:13. See on Matthew 10:4.

Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου] Usually (including even Ebrard and Lange): Judas the brother of James, and therefore the son of Alphaeus; but without any foundation in exegesis. At least Judges 1:1 might be appealed to, where both Jude and James are natural brothers of the Lord. In opposition to supplying ἀδελφός, however, we have to point out in general, that to justify the supplying of the word a special reference must have preceded (as Alciphr. Ep. ii. 2), otherwise we must abide by the usual υἱός, as at Luke 6:15; further, that Matthew 10:2 mentions the pairs of brothers among the apostles most precisely as such, but not among them James and Lebbaeus (who is to be regarded as identical with our Judas; see on Matthew 10:2[102]). Hence (so also Ewald), here and at Acts 1:13, we must read Judas Song of Solomon of James, of which James nothing further is known.[103]

ΠΡΟΔΌΤΗς] Traitor (2Ma 5:15; 2Ma 10:13; 2Ma 10:22; 2 Timothy 3:4); only here in the New Testament is Judas thus designated. Matthew has παραδούς, comp. Mark. Yet comp. Acts 7:52.

Observe, moreover, that Luke here enumerates the four first-named apostles in pairs, as does Matthew; whereas in Acts 1:13 he places first the three most confidential ones, as does Mark. We see from this simply that in Acts 1:13 he followed a source containing the latter order, by which he held impartially and without any mechanical reconciliation with the order of the passage before us. The conclusion is much too hasty, which argues that Mark was not before him till Acts 1:13, and that when he wrote the Gospel he had not yet become acquainted with Mark’s work (Weizsäcker).

[102] Ewald takes a different view, that even during the lifetime of Jesus Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου had taken the place of the Thaddaeus (Lebbaeus), who had probably been cut off by death. See his Gesch. Chr. p. 323. In this way, indeed, the narrative of Luke in the passage before us, where the choice of the Twelve is related, would be incorrect. That hypothesis would only be capable of reconciliation with Acts 1:13. According to Schleiermacher also, L. J. p. 369, the persons of the apostolic band were not always the same, and the different catalogues belong to different periods. But when the evangelists wrote, the Twelve were too well known in Christendom, nay, too world-historical, to have allowed the enumeration of different individual members.

[103] Comp. Nonnus, Paraphrase of John 14:22 : Ἰσύδας υἱὸς Ἰακώβοιο.

Luke 6:17. Ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ] according to the connection of Luke (Luke 6:12, εἰς τὸ ὄρος; Luke 6:17, καταβάς), cannot be otherwise understood than: on a plain; not: over a plain (Michaelis and Paulus); nor: on a small overhanging place of the declivity (Tholuck); comp. Lange, who calls the discourse in Matthew the Summit-sermon, and that in Luke the Terrace-sermon. The divergence from Matthew 5:1 must be admitted, and remains still, even if a plateau is supposed on which jutted out a crest previously ascended by Jesus (Ebrard; comp. Grotius, Bengel, and others; a vacillating arbitrariness in Olshausen). Matthew’s narrative is original; Luke has a later tradition. As the crowd of hearers, according to this later tradition, came from greater distances, and were thus represented as more numerous, a plain was needed to accommodate them. According to Baur, Evang. p. 457, this divergence from Matthew is due also to the tendency of Luke to degrade the Sermon on the Mount, which would surely be a very petty sort of levelling.

καὶ ὄχλος κ.τ.λ.] scil. ἔστη. See on Luke 6:13. A similar structure in the narrative, Luke 8:1-3.

Luke 6:18-19. Ἀπὸ πνευμ. ἀκαθ.] belongs to ἐθεραπ. Comp. Luke 6:17, ἰαθῆναι ἀπό. The καί before ἐθεραπ. is not genuine. See the critical remarks. After ἐθεραπ. only a colon is to be placed; the description of the healings is continued.

καὶ ἰᾶτο πάντ.] not to be separated from what precedes by a comma, but δύναμις is the subject. See Luke 5:17.

ἐξήρχ.] Comp. Luke 8:46 : “Significatur non adventitia fuisse efficacia, sed Christo intrinseca ἐκ τῆς θείας φύσεως,” Grotius.

Luke 6:20-21. Καὶ αὐτός] And He, on His part, as contrasted with this multitude of people seeking His word and His healing power. Comp. Luke 5:1; Luke 5:16.

εἰς τοὺς μαθητ. αὐτοῦ] in the wider sense, quite as in Matthew 5:2; for see Luke 6:13; Luke 6:17. As in Matthew, so here also the discourse is delivered first of all for the circle of the disciples, but in presence of the people, and, moreover, for the people (Luke 7:1). The lifting up of His eyes on the disciples is the solemn opening movement, to which in Matthew corresponds the opening of His mouth.

μακάριοι κ.τ.λ.] Luke has only four beatitudes, and omits (just as Matthew does in the case of πενθοῦντες) all indication, not merely that κλαίοντες, but also that πτωχοί and πεινῶντες should be taken ethically, so that according to Luke Jesus has in view the poor and suffering earthly position of His disciples and followers, and promises to them compensation for it in the Messiah’s kingdom. The fourfold woe, then, in Luke 6:24 ff. has to do with those who are rich and prosperous on earth (analogous to the teaching in the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus); comp. Luke 1:53. Certainly Luke has the later form of the tradition, which of necessity took its rise in consequence of the affliction of the persecuted Christians as contrasted with the rich, satisfied, laughing, belauded υἱοῖς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου; comp. the analogous passages in the Epistle of Jam 2:5; Jam 5:1 ff; Jam 4:9. This also is especially true of the denunciations of woe, which were still unknown to the first evangelist. Comp. Weiss in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1864, p. 58 f. (in opposition to Holtzmann). That they were omitted in Matthew from motives of forbearance (Schenkel) is an arbitrary assumption, quite opposed to the spirit of the apostolic church; just as much as the notion that the poverty, etc., pronounced blessed in Matthew, should be interpreted spiritually. The late date of Luke’s composition, and the greater originality in general which is to be attributed to the discourse in Matthew, taken as it is from the Logia,[104] which formed the basis in an especial manner of this latter Gospel, make the reverse view less probable, that (so also Ewald, p. 211; comp. Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1862, p. 323) the general expressions, as Luke has them, became more specific at a later date, as may be seen in Matthew, by reason of possible and partly of actually occurring misunderstanding. Moreover, the difference in itself is not to be got rid of (Tholuck says that the outer misery awakens the inner; Olshausen, that τ. πνεύματι, must in Luke be supplied!); probably, however, it is to be conceded that Jesus assumes as existing the ethical condition of the promise in the case of His afflicted people (according to Luke’s representation) as in His believing and future members of the kingdom; hence the variation is no contradiction. The Ebionitic spirit is foreign to the Pauline Luke (in opposition to Strauss, I. p. 603 f.; Schwegler, and others).

ὑμετέρα] “Applicatio solatii individualis; congruit attollens, nam radii oculorum indigitant,” Bengel.

χορτασθ. and ΓΕΛΆΣ.] corresponding representations of the Messianic blessedness.

[104] For the Logia, not a primitive Mark (Holtzmann), was the original source of the discourse. The form of it given by Luke is derived by Weizsäcker, p. 148, from the collection of discourses of the great intercalation (see on Luke 9:51), from which the evangelist transplanted it into the earlier period of the foundation of the church. But for the hypothesis of such a disruption of the great whole of the source of this intercalation, Luke 9:51 ff., there is no trace of proof elsewhere. Moreover, Weizsäcker aptly shows the secondary character of this discourse in Luke, both in itself and in comparison with Matthew.