성경 주석서

그리스도의 죽으심과 고난에 관한 기록은 그분의 생애 가운데 어느 부분보다도 네 복음서 기자 모두에 의해 더욱 상세하고 충만하게 기록되어 있다. 우리가 무엇을 마음에 정하고 또 알기를 사모해야 하겠는가? 오직 그리스도, 곧 십자가에 못 박히신 그분이 아니겠는가? 그리고 이 장은 바로 그 잊을 수 없는 기록을 시작한다. 속량 받은 자들의 해가 이제 이르렀고, 작정된 일흔 이레가 이제 다 찼으니, 곧 메시야 곧 왕이 끊어짐으로써 허물이 마치고, 화목이 이루어지며, 영원한 의가 드러나게 될 때였다(단 9:24,26). 이 두려운 장면이 여기에 소개되니, 마땅히 경외함과 거룩한 두려움으로 읽어야 할 것이다. 이 장에서 우리는 다음을 본다. I. 그리스도의 고난에 대한 예비, 곧 서막들. 1. 그분이 제자들에게 미리 주신 알림(마 26:1,2). 2. 관원들이 그분을 대적하여 꾸민 음모(마 26:3-5). 3. 베다니의 한 만찬에서 그분의 머리에 향유를 부음(마 26:6-13). 4. 유다가 그분을 팔기로 제사장들과 흥정함(마 26:14-16). 5. 그리스도께서 제자들과 함께 유월절을 잡수심(마 26:17-25). 6. 그분이 주의 만찬을 제정하심과, 그 후에 제자들과 나누신 강론(마 26:26-35). II. 그분이 그 고난에 들어가심과, 그 고난의 몇 가지 세부 내용. 1. 동산에서의 그분의 고뇌(마 26:36-46). 2. 유다의 도움으로 관원들이 그분을 붙잡음(마 26:47-56). 3. 대제사장 앞에서 그분이 심문 받으심과, 그 법정에서의 정죄(마 26:57-68). 4. 베드로가 그분을 부인함(마 26:69-75).

그리스도께서 자기가 팔리고 십자가에 못 박히실 것을 예고하신다(마태복음 26:1, 마태복음 26:2). 대제사장들과 서기관들과 장로들이 그를 죽일 일을 의논한다(마태복음 26:3-5). 한 여자가 베다니에서 그의 머리에 향유를 부으니 제자들이 이를 분개하여 여기나 그리스도께서 그 여자의 행위를 옹호하신다(마태복음 26:6-13). 유다가 은 삼십을 받고 그를 넘겨주기로 대제사장들과 약조한다(마태복음 26:14-16). 그가 제자들과 함께 유월절을 잡수시며, 자기의 임박한 죽으심과 그들 중 하나가 자기를 팔리라는 것을 그들에게 확언하신다(마태복음 26:17-21). 저마다 ‘나는 아니지요?’ 하고 물을 때에 그리스도께서 유다가 그 배신자임을 밝히신다(마태복음 26:22-25). 마지막 만찬을 잡수신 뒤에, 그의 교회에서 그의 희생 제사가 되신 죽으심을 기념하여 지키도록 성찬을 제정하신다(마태복음 26:26-29). 그들이 찬미하고 감람산으로 나아가니, 그가 다시 자기의 임박한 죽으심과 부활을 알리신다(마태복음 26:30-32). 베드로가 자기 주께 신실하겠다는 결심을 밝히나, 그리스도께서 그의 부인과 배교를 예고하신다(마태복음 26:33-35). 그가 겟세마네로 가시니, 거기서 있었던 일들(마태복음 26:36-46). 유다가 대제사장의 무리를 데리고 와서 입맞춤으로 그를 판다(마태복음 26:47-50). 베드로가 대제사장의 종의 귀를 베어 버리고, 그리스도께서 무리와 더불어 말씀하신다(마태복음 26:51-55). 제자들이 도망하고 그는 가야바에게로 끌려간다(마태복음 26:56, 마태복음 26:57). 베드로가 멀찍이 따라간다(마태복음 26:58). 그들이 거짓 증인을 구하고 우리 주를 신문하니, 그가 자기를 그리스도라고 밝히신다(마태복음 26:59-64). 그들이 그를 신성모독으로 고발하고 능욕한다(마태복음 26:65-68). 베드로의 부인과 회개(마태복음 26:69-75).

CHAPTER 26.

THE PASSION HISTORY.

These chapters give with exceptional fulness and minuteness of detail the story of Christ’s last sufferings and relative incidents. The story finds a place in all four Gospels (Mark 14, 15; Luke 22, 23; John 18, 19), showing the intense interest felt by Christians of the apostolic age in all that related to the Passion of their Lord. Of the three strata of evangelic tradition relating respectively to what Jesus taught, what He did, and what He suffered, the last-named probably came first in origin. Men could wait for the words and deeds, but not for the awful tale of suffering. Even Holtzmann, who puts the teaching first, recognises the Passion drama as the nucleus of the tradition as to memorable facts and experiences. In the formation of the Passion chronicle the main facts would naturally come first; around this nucleus would gather gradually accretions of minor incidents, till by the time the written records began to be compiled the collection of memorabilia had assumed the form it bears, say, in the Gospel of Mark; the historic truth on the solemn subject, at least as far as it could be ascertained. The passionless tone of the narrative in all four Gospels is remarkable; the story is told in subdued accent, in few simple words, as if the narrator had no interest in the matter save that of the historian: ἀπαθῶς ἅπαντα διηγοῦνται, καὶ μόνης τῆς ἀληθείας φροντίζουσι. Euthy. Zig. ad Matthew 26:67.

Chapter 26 and parallels contain the anointing, the betrayal, the Holy Supper, the agony, the apprehension, the trial, the denial by Peter.

CHAPTER 26

Matthew 26:3. After ἀρχιερεῖς Elz. Scholz have καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς, which, in accordance with A B D L א, min. vss. Or. Aug., has been deleted as an interpolation from Mark 14:1, Luke 22:2.

Matthew 26:4. The order δόλῳ κρατήσωσι (reversed in Elz.) is supported by decisive evidence.

Matthew 26:7. βαρυτίμου] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : πολυτίμου, which, though in accordance with A D L M Π א, min., is, nevertheless, taken from John 12:3. Comp. Mark 14:3. From this latter passage is derived the order ἔχουσα ἀλάβ. μύρου (Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L א, min.).

τὴν χεφαλήν] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : τῆς κεφαλῆς, following B D M א, min. Chrys. But the genitive would be suggested to the transcribers by a comparison with Matthew 26:12, quite as readily as by Mark 14:3.

Matthew 26:8. αὐτοῦ] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, both here and in Matthew 26:45, as being a common interpolation; similarly with Tisch. after βλασφ., Matthew 26:65.

Matthew 26:9. τοῦτο] Elz. inserts τὸ μύρον, against decisive evidence; borrowed from Mark 14:5; John 12:5.

The article, before πτωχοῖς, which may as readily have been omitted, in accordance with John 12:5, as inserted, in accordance with Mark 14:3, is, with Elz. and Tisch. 8, to be left out. There is a good deal of evidence on both sides; but the insertion might easily take place out of regard to Matthew 26:11.

Matthew 26:11. πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχούς] E F H M Γ, min. Chrys.: τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ πάντοτε. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche. As this reading may have been taken from John 12:8 as readily as that of the Received text from Mark 14:7, the matter must be determined simply by the balance of evidence, and this is in favour of the Received text.

Matthew 26:17. ἑτοιμάσωμεν] The evidence of D K U, min. Or. in favour of the reading ἑτοιμάσομεν (Fritzsche) is inadequate.

Matthew 26:20. Lachm. and Tisch. read μαθητῶν after δώδεκα, on the authority of A L M Δ Π א, min. vss. Chrys. Correctly; the omission is due to Mark 14:17.

For ἕκαστος αὐτῶν, Matthew 26:22, it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt εἷς ἓκαστος, in accordance with weighty evidence. Had εἷς been derived from Mark 14:19, we should have had εἷς καθʼ εἷς; κὐτῶν, again, was an interpolation of extremely common occurrence.

Matthew 26:26. εὐλογήσας] Scholz: εὐχαριστήσας, following A E F H K M S U V Γ Δ Π, min. vss. Fathers. Considering, however, the weight of evidence that still remains in favour of εὐλογ. (B C D L Z א), and having regard to the preponderating influence of Luke and Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23 ff.) rather than Mark, upon the ecclesiastical phraseology of the Lord’s Supper, it is better to retain εὐλογ.

For this reason we should also retain τόν before ἄρτον, though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, and not found in B G D G L Z א, min. Chrys. Theophyl.

For ἐδίδου Lachm. reads δούς, omitting at the same time καί before εἶπε, in accordance with B D L Z א** min. Cant. Copt. Due to a desire to make the construction uniform with the preceding. Had δούς been changed to a tense in accordance with Mark and Luke, we should have had ἔδωκε.

Matthew 26:27. τὸ ποτήριον] The article, which is deleted by Tisch., and is wanting in B E F G L Z Δ א, min., is due to the ecclesiastical phraseology to which Luke and Paul have given currency.

Matthew 26:28. τὸ τῆς] Lachm. and Tisch. have simply τῆς, in accordance with B D L Z א, 33. τὸ is an exegetical addition.

καινῆς before διαθ. is wanting in B L Z א, 33, 102, Sahid. Cyr., and is a liturgical addition. Had it been originally written, this is just the place of all others where it would not have been omitted.

Matthew 26:31. διασκορπισθήσεται] A B C G H* I L M א, min. Or. (once): διασκορπισθήσονται. So Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is a grammatical correction.

Matthew 26:33. Instead of εἰ καί of the Received text, there is decisive evidence for the simple εἰ. καί would be written in the margin from Mark 14:29, but would not be inserted in the text as in the case of Mark.

ἐγώ] The evidence in favour of inserting δέ (which is adopted by Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche) is inadequate. An addition for the purpose of giving prominence to the contrast.

Matthew 26:35. After ὁμοίως important witnesses read δέ, which has been adopted by Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche. Taken from Mark 14:31.

Matthew 26:36. ἓως οὗ] Lachm.: ἓως οὗ ἄν; D K L Δ, min.: ἓως ἃν. The reading of Lachm., though resting only on the authority of A, is nevertheless to be regarded as the original one. οὗ ἄν would be omitted in conformity with Mark 14:32 (C M* א, min. have simply ἓως), and then there would come a restoration in some instances of οὗ only, and, in others, merely of ἄν.

Matthew 26:38. We should not follow Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7, in adopting ὁ Ἰησοῦς; after αὐτοῖς; a reading which, though attested by important witnesses, is nevertheless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (A B C* D J L א, and the majority of vss.), while, moreover, it would be inserted more readily and more frequently (in this instance probably in conformity with Mark 14:34) than it would be omitted.

Matthew 26:39. προελθών] so B M Π, It. Vulg. Hilar. Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. 7. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of προσελθών, which, indeed, has been adopted by Matth., Scholz, and Tisch. 8; but it is evidently a mechanical error on the part of the transcriber; προέρχεσθαι occurs nowhere else in Matth.

The μου after πάτερ (deleted by Tisch. 8) is suspected of being an addition from Matthew 26:42; however, the evidence in favour of deleting it (A B C D א, etc.) is too weighty to admit of its being retained.

Matthew 26:42. τὸ ποτήριον] is wanting in A B C I L א, min. vss. and Fathers; in D it comes before τοῦτο (as in Matthew 26:39); in 157, Arm., it comes before ἐάν, in which position it also occurs in Δ, though with a mark of erasure. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch. A supplement from Matthew 26:39. Further, the ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ following, though the evidence against it is not quite so strong (B D L א, however), and though it is defended by Fritzsche, and only bracketed by Lachm., is to be condemned (with Griesb., Rinck, Tisch.) as an interpolation from Matthew 26:39.

Matthew 26:43. εὑρίσκει αὐτοὺς πάλιν] Lachm. and Tisch., with the approval of Griesb. also: πάλιν εὗρεν αὐτούς, following B C D I L א, min. and the majority of vss.; while other important witnesses (such as A K Δ) also read εὗρεν, but adhere to the order in the Received text. Accordingly, εὗρεν is decidedly to be adopted, while εὑρίσκει is to be regarded as derived from Matthew 26:40; as for πάλιν, however, there is so much diversity among the authorities with reference to its connection, and consequently with reference to its position, that only the preponderance of evidence must decide, and that is favourable to Lachm. and Tisch.

In Matthew 26:44, again, πάλιν is variously placed; but, with Lachm. and Tisch., it should be put before ἀπελθών, in accordance with B C D I L א, min. vss. ἐκ τρίτου, which Lachm. brackets, is, with Tisch., to be maintained on the strength of preponderating evidence. Had it been inserted in conformity with Matthew 26:42, it would have been placed after πάλιν; had it been from Mark 14:41, again, we should have had τὸ τρίτον. The omission may have been readily occasioned by a fear lest it should be supposed that Jesus prayed τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον but once before.

After εἰπών Tisch. 8 repeats the πάλιν (B L א, min. Copt.), which may easily have been omitted as superfluous. However, the preponderance of evidence (especially that of the vss. also) is against adopting it, so that there is reason to regard it rather as a mechanical repetition.

Matthew 26:50. The reading ἐφʼ ὅ (instead of ἐφʼ ᾧ, as in Elz.) is attested by decisive evidence.

Matthew 26:52. ἀπολοῦνται] F H K M S U V Γ Δ, min. vss. and Fathers: ἀποθανοῦνται. Approved by Griesb. in opposition to the principal mss.; a gloss, for which Sahid. must have read πεσοῦνται.

Matthew 26:53. The placing of ἄρτι after παραστ. μοι, by Tisch. 8, is in opposition to a preponderance of evidence, and is of the nature of an emendation; ὧδε is likewise inserted by some.

πλείους] Lachm. and Tisch.: πλείω, after B D א*. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is an unskilled emendation. For the same reason the following ἤ, which Lachm. brackets, should, with Tisch., be deleted, in accordance with B D L א; though we should not follow Tisch. 8 in reading λεγιώνων (A C K L Δ Π* א*) for λεγεῶνας, because the genitive is connected with the reading πλείους.

Matthew 26:55. πρὸς ὑμᾶς] is, with Tisch., following B L א, 33, 102, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Chrys., to be deleted as an interpolation from Mark 14:49.

Matthew 26:58. ἀπὸ μακρόθεν] ἀπό should be deleted, with Tisch., in accordance with important evidence. Taken from Mark 14:54.

Matthew 26:59. καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι] is wanting, no doubt, in B D L א, min. vss. and Fathers, but it was omitted in conformity with Mark 14:55. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A desire to conform with Mark also serves to explain the fact that, in a few of the witnesses, ὅλον is placed before τὸ συνέδρ.

θανατώσωσιν] θανατώσουσιν, as read by Lachm. and Tisch., is supported by decisive evidence, and had been altered to the more usual subjunctive. αὐτόν should likewise be put before θανατ. (B C D L N א, min. Vulg. It.).

Matthew 26:60. The reading of the Received text, which is attested by the important evidence of A C** E F G, etc., and likewise maintained by Fritzsche and Scholz, is: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον. Καὶ πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύπων προσελθόντων οὐχ εὗρον. Griesb.: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πολλῶν ψευδ. προσελθ. Lachm. and Tisch.: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον πολλ. προσελθ. ψευδ., after which Lachm. gives the second οὐχ εὗρον in brackets. This second οὐχ εὗρον is wanting in A C* L N* א, min. vss. and Fathers (Or. twice); while in A B L Θ.f א, min. Syr. Or. Cyr. the order of the words is: πολλ. προσελθ. ψευδ. Further, Syr. Arr. Pers.p Syr.jer Slav., though omitting the second οὐχ εὗρον, have retained καὶ before πολλῶν; and this reading (accordingly: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον καί πολλῶν προσελθόντων ψευδομαρτύρων) I agree with Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 282 f., regarding as the original one. This καὶ, the force of which was missed from its not being followed by a verb, occasioned considerable embarrassment to the transcribers, who disposed of the difficulty by adding a second οὐχ εὗρον, while others got rid of the troublesome καί by simply omitting it.

δύο-g0- ψευδομάρτ-g0-.] Tisch., following B L א, min. vss. (also Syr.) and Or. (once), reads merely δύο. Correctly; ψευδομάρτ. is an addition, which might seem all the more necessary since a saying of Christ’s actually underlay the words.

Matthew 26:65. ὅτι] is wanting before ἐβλασφήμ. in such important witnesses, that Lachm. and Tisch. are justified in deleting it as a common interpolation.

Matthew 26:70. For αὐτῶν πάντων read, with Tisch. 8, following preponderating evidence, merely πάντων, to which αὐτῶν was added for sake of greater precision.

Matthew 26:71. For τοῖς ἐκεῖ, which Tisch. 8 has restored, Scholz and Tisch. 7 read αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ. Both readings are strongly attested; but the latter is to be preferred, because the current τοῖς ἐκεῖ would involuntarily suggest itself and supersede the less definite expression αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ.

Matthew 26:74. καταθεματίζειν] Elz., Fritzsche: καταναθεματίζειν, against decisive evidence. A correction.

마태복음 26:1-16. 그리스도께서 자신의 죽음이 이제 이틀 안에 있을 것을 마지막으로 선포하심, 그리고 유대 지도자들이 동시에 그 죽음을 이루려는 음모를 꾸밈, 베다니에서의 기름 부음, 유다가 자기 주를 넘기기로 대제사장들과 합의함(막 14:1-11; 눅 22:1-6; 요 12:1-11 병행). 해설은 마가복음 14:1-11 주석을 보라.

마가복음 14:1-11, 누가복음 22:1-6, 요한복음 12:1-7도 보라.

예수께서 이 말씀을 다 마치시고 — 그는 이 말씀을 감람산에서 시작하시어(마태복음 24:1), 자기가 가시던 베다니에 들어가실 때까지 계속하셨다.