Chú giải Kinh Thánh

Matthew 27:60 Ὃ ἐλατόμησεν] Aorist, as in Matthew 27:55.

The other evangelists say nothing about the grave having belonged to Joseph; John 19:42 rather gives us to understand that, owing to the necessary despatch, it was made choice of from its being close at hand. We thus see that Matthew’s account is unsupported by the earlier testimony of Mark on the one hand, and the later testimony of Luke and John on the other. This, however, only goes to confirm the view that in Matthew we have a later amplification of the tradition which was expunged again by Luke and John, for this latter at least would scarcely have left unnoticed the devotion evinced by Joseph in thus giving up his own tomb, and yet it is John who distinctly alleges a different reason altogether for the choice of the grave. The ordinary supposition, that Matthew’s account is intended to supplement those of the other evangelists, fails to meet the exigencies of the case, especially in regard to John, on whom so tender a feature in connection with the burial would doubtless have made too deep an impression to admit of his passing it over in silence.

As a new grave was calculated to do honour to Jesus (comp. on John as above), the circumstance that this one had not been previously used may have gone far to determine the choice, so that there is no ground for supposing that what is said with reference to this has been added without historical warrant (Strauss, Scholten).

ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ] The article is to be understood as indicating a rocky place just at hand.

τῇ θύρᾳ] Comp. Hom. Od. ix. 243: πέτρην ἐπέθηκε θύρῃσιν. In Rabbinical phraseology the stone used for this purpose is called גּוֹלָל, a roller. See Paulus, exeget. Handb. III. p. 819. Such a mode of stopping up graves is met with even in the present day (Strauss, Sinai u. Golgatha, p. 205).

Matthew 27:61 Ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ] present at the burial.

ἡ ἄλλη Μαρ.] see Matthew 27:56. The article is wanting only in A D*, and should be maintained, Wieseler (Chronol. Synops. p. 427) notwithstanding. Its omission in the case of A may be traced to the reading ἡ Ἰωσήφ, which this MS. has at Mark 15:47. Wieseler approves of this reading, and holds the Mary of our text to be the wife or daughter of Joseph of Arimathea. But see remark on Mark 15:47.

καθήμεναι, κ.τ.λ.] unoccupied, absorbed in grief; comp. Nägelsbach on Hom. Il. i. 134.

Matthew 27:62 Ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκ.] which follows the day of preparation, i.e. on Saturday. For παρασκεύη is used to designate the day that immediately precedes the Sabbath (as in the present instance) or any of the feast days. Comp. on John 19:14. According to the Synoptists, the παρασκεύη of the Sabbath happened to coincide this year with the first day of the feast, which might also properly enough be designated σάββατον (Leviticus 23:11; Leviticus 23:15),—this latter circumstance being, according to Wieseler (Synops. p. 417), the reason why Matthew did not prefer the simpler and more obvious expression ἥτις ἐστὶ σάββατον; an expression which, when used in connection with the days of the Passover week, was liable to be misunderstood. But Matthew had already spoken so definitely of the first day of the feast as that on which Jesus was crucified (see Matthew 24:17 to Matthew 27:1), that he had no cause to apprehend any misunderstanding of his words had he chosen to write ἥτις ἐστὶ σάββατον. But as little does that precise statement regarding the day permit us to suppose that the expression in question has been made to turn on the divergent narrative of John (in opposition to de Wette). The most natural explanation of the peculiar phraseology: ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τ. παρασκ., is to be found in that Christian usage according to which the παρασκεύη (i.e. the προσάββατον, Mark 15:42) has come to be the recognised designation for the Friday of the crucifixion. Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel suppose that it is the part of Friday after sunset that is intended, by which time, therefore, the Sabbath had begun. This, however, is distinctly precluded by τῇ ἐπαύριον.

Matthew 27:63 Ἐμνήσθημεν] we have remembered, it has just occurred to us, the sense being purely that of the aorist and not of the perfect (in opposition to de Wette).

ἐκεῖνος ὁ πλάνος] that deceiver (2 Corinthians 6:8), impostor; Justin, c. Tr. 69: λαοπλάνος. Without once mentioning His name, they contemptuously allude to Him as one now removed to a distance, as got rid of by death. This is a sense in which ἐκεῖνος; is frequently used by Greek authors (Schoem. ad Is. p. 177; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 559).

ἐγείρομαι] present; marking the confidence with which he affirmed it.

Matthew 27:64 Καὶ ἔσται] is more lively and natural when not taken as dependent on μήποτε. The Vulgate renders correctly: et erit.

ἡ ἐσχάτη πλάνη] the last error (see on Ephesians 4:14), that, namely, which would gain ground among the credulous masses, through those who might steal away the body of Jesus pretending that He had risen from the dead.

τῆς πρώτης] which found acceptance with the multitude through giving out and encouraging others to give out that He was the Messiah.

χείρων] worse, i.e. more fatal to public order and security, etc. For the use of this expression, comp. Matthew 12:45; 2 Samuel 13:15.

Matthew 27:65 f. Pilate’s reply is sharp and peremptory.

ἔχετε κουστωδίαν] with Luther, Vatablus, Wolf, Paulus, de Wette, Keim, Steinmeyer, ἔχετε is to be taken as an imperative, habetote (comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 11; Mark 9:50; Mark 11:22; Soph. Phil. 778): ye shall have a watch! For if it be taken as an indicative, as is generally done in conformity with the Vulgate, we must not suppose that the reference is to Roman soldiers (Grotius, Fritzsche), for the Sanhedrim had not any such placed at their disposal, not even to the detachment that guarded the cross (Kuinoel), for its duties were now over, but simply to the ordinary temple guards. But it is evident from Matthew 28:14 that it was not these latter who were set to watch the grave. This duty was assigned to a company of Roman soldiers, which company the Acta Pil. magnifies into a cohort.

ὡς οἴδατε] as, by such means as, ye know how to prevent it, i.e. in the best way you can. The idea: “vereor autem, ut satis communire illud possitis” (Fritzsche), is foreign to the text.

μετὰ τῆς κουστωδίας] belongs to ἠσφαλίς. τ. τάφ.; they secured the grave by means of (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 530 D) the watch, which they posted in front of it. The intervening σφραγίς. τ. λίθ. is to be understood as having preceded the ἠσφαλ. τ. τ. μετὰ τ. κουστ.: after they had sealed the stone. To connect μετὰ τ. κουστωδ. with σφραγίς. (Chrysostom) would result either in the feeble and somewhat inappropriate idea that the watch had helped them with the sealing (Bleek), or in the harsh and unnecessary assumption that our expression is an abbreviation for μετὰ τοῦ προσθεῖναι τὴν κουστωδίαν (Fritzsche).

σφραγίς.] Comp. Daniel 6:17. The sealing was effected by stretching a cord across the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, and then fastening it to the rock at either end by means of sealing-clay (Paulsen, Regier. d. Morgenl. p. 298; Harmar, Bcobacht. II. p. 467); or if the stone at the door happened to be fastened with a cross-beam, this latter was sealed to the rock (Strauss, Sinai und Golgatha, p. 205).

REMARK.

As it is certain that Jesus cannot have predicted His resurrection in any explicit or intelligible manner even to His own disciples; as, moreover, it is impossible to suppose that the women who visited the grave on the resurrection morning could have contemplated embalming the body, or would have concerned themselves merely about how the stone was to be rolled away, if they had been aware that a watch had been set, and that the grave had been sealed; and finally, as the supposition that Pilate complied with the request for a guard, or at all events, that the members of the Sanhedrim so little understood their own interest as both to leave the body of Jesus in the hands of His followers instead of taking possession of it themselves, and to bribe the soldiers to give false testimony instead of duly calling them to account, as they might have done, for their culpable neglect, is in the highest degree improbable, just as much so as the idea that the procurator would be likely to take no notice of a dereliction of duty on the part of his own soldiers, who, by maintaining the truth of a very stupid fabrication, would only be proclaiming how much they themselves were to blame in the matter: it follows that the story about the watching of the grave—a story which is further disproved by the fact that nowhere in the discussions belonging to the apostolic age do we find any reference confirmatory or otherwise to the alleged stealing of the body—must be referred to the category of unhistorical legend. And a clue to the origin of this legend is furnished by the evangelist himself in mentioning the rumour about the stealing of the body,—a rumour emanating to all appearance from a Jewish source, and circulated with the hostile intention of disproving the resurrection of Jesus (Paulus, exeg. Handb. III. p. 837 ff.; Strauss, II. p. 562 ff.; Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 458 ff.; Weisse, Ewald, Hase, Bleek, Keim, Scholten, Hilgenfeld). The arguments advanced by Hug in the Freyburg. Zeitschr. 1831, 3, p. 184 ff.; 5, p. 80 ff.; Kuinoel, Hofmann, Krabbe, Ebrard, Lange, Riggenbach, Steinmeyer, against the supposition of a legend, resolve themselves into arbitrary assumptions and foreign importations which simply leave the matter as historically incomprehensible as ever. The same thing may be said with regard to the emendation which Olshausen takes the liberty of introducing, according to which it is made to appear that the Sanhedrim did not act in their corporate capacity, but that the affair was managed simply on the authority of Caiaphas alone. Still the unhistorical character of the story by no means justifies the assumption of an interpolation (in opposition to Stroth in Eichhorn’s Repert. IX. p. 141),—an interpolation, too, that would have had to be introduced into three different passages (Matthew 27:62; Matthew 27:66, Matthew 28:4; Matthew 28:11 ff.); yet one can understand how this apocryphal story should have most readily engrafted itself specially and exclusively upon the Gospel of Matthew, a Gospel originating in Judaeo-Christian circles, and having, by this time, the more developed form in which it has come down to us. For a further amplification of the legend, see Ev. Nicod. 14.

CHAPTER 28

Matthew 28:2. ἀπὸ τ. θύρας] is wanting in B D א, 60, 84, Vulg. It. Or. Dion. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Exegetical addition, which many witnesses have supplemented still further by adding τοῦ μνημείου (Mark 16:3).

Matthew 28:6. ὁ κύριος] is wanting, no doubt, only in B א, 33, 102, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Ar.pol. one Cod. of the It. Or.int. Chrys.; but, with Tisch., it is to be condemned. This designation is foreign to Matth., while as “gloriosa appellatio” (Bengel) it was more liable to be inserted than omitted.

Matthew 28:8. ἐξελθ.] Tisch.: ἀπελθ., following B C L א, 33, 69, 124. Correctly; the more significant reading of the Received text is derived from Mark.

Matthew 28:9. Before καὶ ἰδού the Received text inserts: ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. No Such clause is found in B D א, min. Syr. Ar.pol. Perss. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Sax. It. Or. Eus. Jer. Aug. Defended by Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, Scholz, Bornem. (Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix.); condemned by Mill, Bengel, Gersd., Schulz, Rinck, Lachm., Tisch. There would be nothing feeble or awkward about the words if thus inserted, on the contrary, the effect would be somewhat solemn (see Bornem.); but seeing that they are wanting in witnesses so ancient and so important, and seeing that ὡς is not found in this sense anywhere else in Matth. (other grammatical grounds mentioned by Gersd. are untenable), there is reason to suspect that they are an early addition for the sake of greater precision.

Matthew 28:11. For ἀπήγγ. read, with Tisch. 8, ἀνήγγ., though only in accordance with D א, Or. Chrys. The Received reading is taken from Matthew 28:10, while ἀναγγέλλειν occurs nowhere else in Matthew.

Matthew 28:14. ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγ.] Lachm.: ὑπὶ τοῦ ἡγ., following B D, 59, Vulg. It. But this is an explanatory correction in consequence of not catching the sense.

Matthew 28:15. Lachm. inserts ἡμέρας after σήμερον, in accordance with B D L. Correctly; as Matth. does not add ἡμέρ. in any other instance (Matthew 11:23, Matthew 27:8), it was more natural for the transcriber to omit than to insert it.

Matthew 28:17. αὐτῷ] is wanting in B D א, 33, 102, Vulg. It. Chrys. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A somewhat common addition, for which other MSS. (min.) have αὐτόν.

Matthew 28:19. After πορευθ. Elz. inserts οὖν, which is bracketed by Lachm. and deleted by Matth. and Tisch. Added as a connecting particle, but wanting in very important witnesses, while other and less important ones have νῦν.

Matthew 28:1. On the various ways of viewing and interpreting the story of the resurrection, see, as regards their critical aspect, Keim, III. p. 527 ff.; and on the apologetic side, consult Steinmeyer, Apolog. Beitr. III. 1871.

ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων] but late on the Sabbath, means neither … after the close of the Sabbath (Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek), nor: after the close of the week (Severus of Antioch, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Wieseler, p. 425); for ὀψέ, sero, with a defining genitive (without which it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament) always denotes the lateness of the period thus specified and still current (τὰ τελευταῖα τούτων, Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. in general, Krüger, § xlvii. 10. 4; Kühner, II. 1, p. 292. Take the following as examples of this usage from classical authors: Xen. Hist. ii. 1. 14; Thuc. iv. 93. 1 : τῆς ἡμέρας ὀψέ; Dem. p. 541, ult.: ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας ἐγίγνετο; Luc. Dem. enc. 14, and de morte Peregr. 21 : ὀψὲ τῆς ἡλικίας. Hence by: late on the Sabbath, we are not to suppose Saturday evening to be intended,—any such misunderstanding being precluded both by the nature of the expression made use of, an expression by no means synonymous with the usual ὀψίας γενομένης (in opposition to Keim), and by what is still further specified immediately after,—but far on in the Saturday night, after midnight, toward daybreak on Sunday, in conformity with the civil mode of reckoning, according to which the ordinary day was understood to extend from sunrise till sunrise again. Lightfoot, comparing the Rabbinical expression בפיקי שובא, aptly observes: “ὀψέ totam noctem denotat.” Comp. so early a writer as Augustine, de cons. ev. 24. Consequently the point of time mentioned here is substantially identical with that given in Luke 24:1 : τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος, and in John 20:1 : τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββ. πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης; while, on the other hand, Mark 16:2 represents the sun as already risen. For ὀψέ comp. Ammonius: ἑσπέρα μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ μετὰ τὴν δύσιν τοῦ ἡλίου ὥρα· ὀψέ δὲ ἡ μετὰ πολὺ τῆς δύσως.

τῇ ἐπιφωσκ. εἰς μίαν σαββάτων when it was dawning toward Sunday, i.e. as the light was beginning to appear on the morning of Sunday. Understand ἡμέρα after ἐπιφωσκ.; and for ἐπιφώσκει ἡ ἡμέρα, comp. Herod, iii. 86: ἁμʼ ἡμέρῃ διαφωσκούσῃ, also Mark 9:45. The participial expression without the ἡμέρα is similar to ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, and the like (Kühner, II. 1, p. 228). Keim supposes the evening to be intended, since, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, the day began with the rising of the stars or the lighting of lamps, so that the meaning of our passage would be as follows: “In the evening after six o’clock, just when the stars were beginning to twinkle”[39] But to say nothing of the startling discrepancy that would thus arise between Matthew and the other evangelists, we would be under the necessity, according to Luke 23:54 (see on the passage), of understanding the words immediately following as simply equivalent to: τῇ μίᾳ σαββάτων ἐπιφωσκούσῃ; comp. ΣΑΒΒΆΤΟΝ ἘΠΙΦΏΣΚΕΙ, Ev. Nicod. 12, p. 600, Thilo’s edition. Nor, if we adopt Keim’s interpretation, is it at all clear what substantive should be understood along with τῇ ἐπιφωσκ. Ewald, Apost. Zeit. p. 82, unwarrantably supplies ἑσπέρᾳ, and, like Keim, supposes the reference to be to the evening lighting of the lamps, though he is inclined to think that Matthew intended summarily to include in his statement what the women did on Saturday evening and early on Sunday, a view which finds no support whatever in the text; as for the intention to embalm the body, there is no trace of such a thing in Matthew. Lastly, to suppose that in framing his statement as to the time here in question, the author of our revised Gospel has had recourse to a combination of Mark 16:1-2 (Weiss), is to give him but little credit for literary skill; for instead of taking the trouble to form any such combination, he had only to take Mark’s two statements and place the one after the other, thus: διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, λίαν πρωῒ τῆς ΜΙᾶς ΣΑΒΒΆΤΩΝ. But so far from that, he has proceeded in entire independence of Mark.

The expression ΜΊΑ ΣΑΒΒΆΤΩΝ corresponds exactly to the Rabbinical mode of designating the days of the week: אחד בשבת, Sunday; שני בשבת, Monday; שלישי בשבת, Tuesday, and so on. See Lightfoot, p. 500. Observe that ΣΆΒΒΑΤΑ denotes, in the first instance, Sabbath, and then week; and similarly, that the ἩΜΈΡᾼ to be understood with ἘΠΟΦΩΣΚ. is to be taken in the sense of day light (John 4:4; John 11:9; Romans 8:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:5).

ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία] as in Matthew 27:56.

In John 20:1 only Mary Magdalene is mentioned, whereas in the Synoptists we have an amplified version of the tradition as regards the number of the women, Matthew mentioning two, Mark three (Salome), while Luke (Matthew 24:10) gives us to understand that, in addition to the two Marys and Joanna, whom he specially names, there were several others. In dealing with such discrepancies in the tradition we should beware of seeking to coerce the different narratives into harmony with one another, which can never be done without prejudice to their respective authors. We see an illustration of this in the supposition that Mary Magdalene came first of all to the grave, and then hastened back to the city to inform Peter of what had taken place, and that during her absence Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women arrived (Olshausen, Ebrard). Comp. on John 20:1. The same thing is exemplified by the other view, that Mary Magdalene went to the grave along with the rest of the women, but that on the way back she outran the others, etc. For the various attempts to harmonize the divergent narratives, see Griesbach, Opusc. II. p. 241 ff.; Strauss, II. p. 570 ff.; Wieseler, p. 425 ff.

ΘΕΩΡῆΣΑΙ ΤῸΝ ΤΆΦΟΝ] to look at the grave; according to Mark and Luke, to anoint the body. This latter statement is the more original and more correct of the two, though Matthew could not consistently adopt it after what he had said about the sealing and watching of the grave.

[39] This idea of Keim’s about the twinkling of the stars is an importation; for the expression ἐπιφώσκει, as applied to the evening, has reference only to the ordinary domestic lighting of the lamps. See in particular, Lightfoot on Luke 23:54.