Комментарии к Библии

The narrative of the death and sufferings of Christ is more particularly and fully recorded by all the four evangelists than any part of his history; for what should be determine, and desire to know, but Christ, and him crucified? And this chapter begins that memorable narrative. The year of the redeemed was now come, the seventy weeks determined were now accomplished, when transgression must be finished, reconciliation made, and an everlasting righteousness brought in, by the cutting off of Messiah the Prince, Da 9:24,26. That awful scene is here introduced, to be read with reverence and holy fear. In this chapter, we have, I. The preliminaries, or prefaces, to Christ's sufferings. 1. The previous notice given by him to his disciples, Mt 26:1,2. 2. The rulers' conspiracy against him, Mt 26:3-5. 3. The anointing of his head at a supper in Bethany, Mt 26:6-13. 4. Judas's bargain with the priests to betray him, Mt 26:14-16. 5. Christ eating the passover with his disciples, Mt 26:17-25. 6. His instituting the Lord's supper, and his discourse with his disciples after it, Mt 26:26-35. II. His entrance upon them, and some of the particulars of them. 1. His agony in the garden, Mt 26:36-46. 2. The seizing of him by the officers, with Judas's help, Mt 26:47-56. 3. His arraignment before the chief priest, and his condemnation in his court, Mt 26:57-68. 4. Peter's denying him, Mt 26:69-75.

Christ predicts his being betrayed and crucified, Matthew 26:1, Matthew 26:2. The chief priests, scribes, and elders consult about his death, Matthew 26:3-5. A woman anoints his head at Bethany, at which the disciples are offended, but Christ vindicates her conduct, Matthew 26:6-13. Judas, for thirty pieces of silver, engages with the chief priests to betray him, Matthew 26:14-16. He eats a passover with his disciples, and assures them of his approaching death, and that one of them would betray him, Matthew 26:17-21. On each asking, Is it I? Christ asserts that Judas is the traitor, Matthew 26:22-25. Having eaten his last supper, he institutes the eucharist, to be observed in his Church as a memorial of his sacrificial death, Matthew 26:26-29. They sing a hymn, go to the mount of Olives, and he again announces his approaching death and resurrection, Matthew 26:30-32. Peter asserts his resolution to be faithful to his Master, and Christ foretells his denial and apostasy, Matthew 26:33-35. He goes to Gethsemane; the transactions there, Matthew 26:36-46. Judas comes with the high priest's mob and betrays him with a kiss, Matthew 26:47-50. Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant; Christ discourses with the multitude, Matthew 26:51-55. The disciples flee, and he is led to Caiaphas, Matthew 26:56, Matthew 26:57. Peter follows at a distance, Matthew 26:58. They seek false witnesses, and question our Lord, who declares himself to be the Christ, Matthew 26:59-64. They accuse him of blasphemy, and abuse him, Matthew 26:65-68. Peter's denial and repentance, Matthew 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.

Mt 26:1-16.

CHRIST'S FINAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS DEATH, AS NOW WITHIN TWO DAYS, AND THE SIMULTANEOUS CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO COMPASS IT--THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( =

Mr 14:1-11; Lu 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11).

For the exposition, see on

Mr 14:1-11.

See also Mark 14:1-11; Luke 22:1-6; John 12:1-7.

When Jesus had finished all these sayings - He began these sayings on Mount Olivet, Matthew 24:1, and continued them till be entered into Bethany, whither he was going.