성경 주석서

Matthew 26:70. Ἔμπροσθεν πάντων (see the critical remarks): before all who were present.

οὐκ οἶδα τί λέγεις] evasive denial: so little have I been with Him, that I am at a loss to know what is meant by this imputation of thine.

Matthew 26:71. Ἐξελθόντα] from the court-yard to the porch, which, passing through some part of the buildings that stood round the four sides of the former, conducted into the anterior court outside (προαύλιον; according to Mark 14:68, it was in this latter that the present denial took place). Comp. Hermann, Privatalterth. § 19. 9 ff. In spite of the plain meaning of πυλών, door, doorway (see Luke 16:20; Acts 10:17; Acts 12:13 f., Matthew 14:13; Revelation 21), it is usually supposed that it is the outer court in front of the house, the προαύλιον (see Poll. i. 77, ix. 16), that is meant.

αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖ] ἐκεῖ belongs to λέγει, while αὐτοῖς, in accordance with a loose usage of frequent occurrence (Winer, p. 137 f. [E. T. 181]), is meant to refer to the people generally whom she happened to meet with. It would be wrong to connect ἐκεῖ with καὶ οὗτος (Matthaei, Scholz), because in such a connection it would be meaningless.

Matthew 26:72. Observe the climax in the terms of the threefold denial.

μεθʼ ὅρκου] is peculiar to Matthew, and is here used in the sense of an oath.

τὸν ἄμθρωπον] the man (in question). Alas, such is the language, cold and distant, which Peter uses with reference to his Master! What a contrast to Matthew 16:16! “Ecce, columna firmissima ad unius aurae impulsum tota contremuit,” Augustine.

Matthew 26:73. The answer of Peter given at Matthew 26:72, and in the course of which his Galilaean dialect was recognised, gave occasion to those standing by (that they were exactly Sanhedrim officers, apparitores, Kuinoel, Paulus, does not necessarily follow from the use of ἑστῶτες) to step up to Peter after a little while, and to corroborate (ἀληθῶς) the assertion of the maid-servant.

ἐξ αὐτῶν] of those who were along with Jesus, Matthew 26:71.

καὶ γάρ] for even, apart from circumstances by which thou hast been already identified.

ἡ λαλιά σου] thy speech (see on John 8:43), namely, through the coarse provincial accent. The natives of Galilee were unable to distinguish especially the gutturals properly, pronounced the letter שׁ like a ת, etc. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 435, 2417; Lightfoot, Centur. Chorogr. p. 151 ff.; Wetstein on our passage; Keim, I. p. 310.

Matthew 26:74. Τότε ἤρξατο] for previously he had not resorted as yet to the καταθεματίζειν, but had contented himself with the simple ὀμνύειν (Matthew 26:72, μεθʼ ὅρκου). Whereas before he had only sworn, he now takes to cursing as well. “Nunc gubernaculum animae plane amisit,” Bengel. The imprecations were intended to fall upon himself (should he be found, that is, to be telling an untruth). For the word καταθεματίζω, which was in all probability a vulgar corruption, comp. Revelation 22:3; Iren. Haer. i. 13. 2, 16. 3; Oecolampadius, ad Act. xxiii. 12.

ὅτι] recitantis, as in Matthew 26:72.

ἀλέκτωρ] a cock. There are Rabbinical statements (see the passages in Wetstein) to the effect that it was not allowable to keep animals of this sort in Jerusalem; but as there are other Rabbinical passages again which assert the opposite of this (see Lightfoot, p. 483), it is unnecessary to have recourse (Reland, Wolf) to the supposition that the bird in question may have belonged to a Gentile, may even have been about Pilate’s house, or some house outside the city.

Matthew 26:75. Ἐξελθ. ἕξω] namely, from the porch (Matthew 26:71) in which the second and third denial had taken place. Finding he could no longer repress the feeling of sorrowful penitence that filled his heart, the apostle must go outside to be all alone with his remorse and shame. The fear of being detected (Chrysostom) had by this time undoubtedly become to him a very secondary consideration; he was now himself again.

εἰρηκότος αὐτῷ] who had said to him (Matthew 26:34), in itself a superfluous expression, and yet “grande participium,” Bengel.

πικρῶς] he wept bitterly. Comp. Isaiah 22:4, and the passages in Wetstein. How totally different was it with Judas! “Lacrymarum physica amaritudo (comp. Hom. Od. iv. 153) aut dulcedo (comp. γλυκύδακρυς, Meleag. 45), congruit cum affectu animi,” Bengel.

REMARK.

Seeing that the whole four evangelists concur in representing Peter as having denied Jesus three times, we are bound to regard the threefold repetition of the denial as one of the essential features of the incident (in opposition to Paulus, who, in the discrepancies that occur in the various accounts, finds traces of no less than eight different denials). The information regarding this circumstance can only have been derived from Peter himself; comp. also John 21:1 ff. As for the rest, however, it must be acknowledged—(1) that John (and Luke too, see on Luke 22:54 ff.) represents the three denials as having taken place in a different locality altogether, namely, in the court of the house in which Annas lived, and not in that of Caiaphas; while to try to account for this by supposing that those two persons occupied one and the same dwelling (Euthymius Zigabenus, Ebrard, Lange, Lichtenstein, Riggenbach, Pressensé, Steinmeyer, Keim), is a harmonistic expedient that is far from according with the clear view of the matter presented in the fourth Gospel; see on John 18:16; John 18:25. (2) That the Synoptists agree neither with John nor with one another as to certain points of detail connected with the three different scenes in question, and more particularly with reference to the localities in which they are alleged to have taken place, and the persons by whom the apostle was interrogated as to his connection with Jesus; while to say, in attempting to dispose of this, that “Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogationes facta uno paroxysmo, pro una numeratur” (Bengel), is to make a mere assertion, against which all the accounts of this incident without exception enter, so to speak, an emphatic protest. (3) It is better, on the whole, to allow the discrepancies to remain just as they stand, and to look upon them as sufficiently accounted for by the diverse forms which the primitive tradition assumed in regard to details. This tradition has for its basis of fact the threefold denial, not merely a denial several times repeated, and, as Strauss alleges, reduced to the number three to agree with the prediction of Jesus. It is to the narrative of John, however, as being that of the only evangelist who was an eye-witness, that we ought to trust for the most correct representation of this matter. Olshausen, however, gives to the synoptic narratives with the one hand so much of the merit in this respect as he takes from the Johannine with the other, and thus lays himself open to the charge of arbitrarily confounding them all.

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.