聖經註釋書

CHAPTER 24

Luke 24:1. The reading βαθέως (Lachm. Tisch.), instead of the Recepta βαθέος, is so decisively attested by A B C D א, etc., that the adjective form βαθέος must appear as the alteration of ignorant transcribers.

καί τινες σὺν αὐταῖς] is wanting in B C* L א 33, Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. (not Brix.) Dionys. Alex. Eus. Aug. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition, in accordance with Luke 24:10, for which occasion seemed the rather to be given that Luke neither mentions Salome (Mark 16:1) in this place nor at Luke 24:10. D has further expanded the addition.

Luke 24:3. Instead of καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι is to be read, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence, εἰσελθοῦσαι δέ. The former is from Mark.

Luke 24:4. ἐσθήσεσιν ἀστρ.] Lachm. Tisch. have ἐσθῆτι ἀστραπτούσῃ, in accordance with B D א, Syr. al. Vulg. It. Eus. But the accustomed singular expression easily forced itself in.

Luke 24:5. τὸ πρόσωπον] τὰ πρόσωπα is attested by a preponderance of authorities. So Tisch. It is the more to be preferred in proportion as the singular suggested itself the more readily to the transcribers.

Luke 24:10. Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have ἦσαν δέ; Griesb.: ἦν δέ, on too feeble evidence. The words are wanting altogether in A D Γ and a few vss. The connection has not been apprehended, and for the restoration thereof, sometimes ἦσαν δέ has been omitted (in order to connect it closely with what has preceded), sometimes al has been intercalated afterwards (before ἔλεγον), sometimes both have been done. This αἵ is, with Lachm. Tisch., on decisive evidence, to be deleted.

After the second Μαρία is to be inserted ἡ, with Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderating evidence.

Luke 24:12 is wanting in D, Syr.jer. Cant. 24 :Verc. Rd. Rejected by Schulz and Rinck. Bracketed by Lachm. and [deleted by] Tisch. [8]. But even if the great attestation is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision in favour of its genuineness (comp. on Luke 24:36; Luke 24:39; Luke 24:51 f.), still an interpolator from John 20:5 ff. would have mentioned not only Peter, but also the ἄλλος μαθητής (comp. Luke 24:24); and the words ὀθόνια, παρακύπτειν, and ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτ. (John, loc. cit.) might, indeed, have been suggested to Luke from a source emanating from a Johannine tradition; on the other hand, it is just the incompleteness of the notice, as well as the want of agreement in the contents with Luke 24:24, that would furnish a very obvious occasion for objection and for deletion. Κείμενα is suspicious, as it is wanting in B א, min. Copt. Sahid. Syr.cu. Eus.; in other authorities it is placed after μόνα.

Luke 24:18. Elz. Lachm. have ἐν Ἱερουσ. But decisive authorities are in favour of Ἱερουσ. simply (Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch.); ἐν is an exegetic insertion. The exceedingly weakly attested εἰς, which nevertheless Griesb. has commended, proceeds from the last syllable of παροικεῖς.

Luke 24:21. After ἀλλά γε read, with Lachm. and Tisch., καί (B D L א), which disappeared because it could be dispensed with.

Luke 24:28. προσεποιεῖτο] A B D L א, min. have προσεποιήσατο. Commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. A correction, in accordance with the preceding and following aorists.

Luke 24:29. After κέκλικεν is to be adopted ἤδη. It is found in B L א, min. Arr. Copt. Syr. Slav. ms. Vulg. It., was easily passed over by occasion of the following Η Ημερα, and perhaps if it had been added, would rather have been annexed to the foregoing ὅτι πρὸς ἑσπ. ἐστί.

Luke 24:32. καὶ ὡς] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ὡς, in accordance with B D L א 33, also codd. of It. Ambr. Aug. Or. (which, however, omit ὡς ἐλ. ἡμ.). Rightly; καί was inserted for the connection, and in several versions even supplanted the ὡς.

Luke 24:36. After εἰρήνη ὑμῖν Lachm. has in brackets ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, following G Ρ, min. vss. Ambr. Aug. An addition from John 6:20. But, moreover, the preceding κ. λέγ. αὐτοῖς· εἰρ. ὑμῖν, although it is wanting only in D and codd. of It. (deleted by Tisch.), is extremely open to the suspicion of being added from John 20:19. See also Lachm. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 843. A reason for its omission, if it had been original, would be hard to perceive.

Luke 24:38. Instead of ἐν ταῖς καρδ. B D, codd. of It. al. Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular; the plural is an amendment.

Luke 24:39. αὐτὸς ἐγώ εἰμι] Several different arrangements of the words occur in the MSS. and vss. Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός, in accordance with B L א 33.

Luke 24:40 is wanting only in D, codd. of It. Syr.cu., but is deleted by Tisch., and comes under the same suspicion of being added from John (Luke 20:20) as the words κ. λέγ. αὐτ. εἰρ. ὑμ., Luke 24:36.

Luke 24:42. καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσ. κηρ.] suspected by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with A B D L Π א, Cant. Clem. Or. Eus. Epiph. Ath. Cyr. An ancient omission on the part of a transcriber, probably only occasioned by καὶ … καὶ The peculiarity of the food betrays no interpolation; καὶ ἄρτου or καὶ ἄρτον (comp. John 21:9) would rather have been added.

Luke 24:46. καὶ οὕτως ἔδει] is wanting in B C* D L א, Copt. Aeth. Arr. codd. of It. Fathers. Suspected by Griesbach and Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition in the way of gloss.

Luke 24:47. ἀρξάμενον] The reading ἀρξάμενον in B C* L N X א 33, Copt. Aeth. Tisch. is to help out the construction, in connection with the omission of δέ, Luke 24:48 (which Tisch., following B C* L א, has deleted).

Luke 24:51 f. The omission of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ. οὐρανόν, and at the same time of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν in the same set of authorities (D, Cant. 24 :Verc. Corb. Rd. Aug.), throws on both (the former is wanting also in א*) the grave suspicion (comp. on Luke 24:36; Luke 24:39) of being added for the sake of completeness.

Luke 24:53. In a few authorities αἰνοῦντες καί is wanting (which Griesb., in accordance with B C* L א, Ar. p., regards as suspicious); in others καὶ εὐλογοῦντες (which Tisch., in accordance with D, codd. of It. Copt. Aug., has kept out). The Recepta is to be maintained, since αἰνεῖν τ. Θεόν is especially frequent in Luke, but neither αἰνοῦτες nor εὐλογοῦντες offered occasion for an addition by way of gloss. But κ. εὐλ. might easily drop out in consequence of the homoeoteleuton in αἰνοῦντες and εὐλογοῦντες.

Luke 24:1-12. Comp. on Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8.

The question of the special sources from which Luke has taken the considerable portion that is peculiar to him in the account of the resurrection (Griesbach: from the mouth of the Joanna named by him alone, Luke 24:10), as well as in all that still follows that account, cannot be decided; but assuredly he did not as yet know the conclusion of Mark as it now stands.

βαθέως (see the critical remarks): the adverb[267] of degree is immediately annexed to a substantive. See on 2 Corinthians 11:23. Hence: deep in the morning, i.e. in the first morning twilight. Comp. Plat. Crit. p. 43 A, Prot. p. 310 A. The opposite is: ὁ ἔσχατος ὄρθρος, Theocr. xvi. 63.

Luke 24:2. ΕὖΡΟΝ ΔῈ Κ.Τ.Λ.] agrees as little as Mark 16:4 with the narrative of the rolling away of the stone in Matthew 28:2.

Luke 24:4. ἘΝ Τῷ ΔΙΑΠΟΡ. ΑὐΤ. ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ] while they were in great perplexity concerning this. Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 237 A, Soph. p. 217 A, Tim. p. 49 B. In the New Testament only in Luke. Still Lachmann and Tischendorf have the simple form ἀπορεῖσθαι (B C D L א), but this easily crept in through neglect of the compound form. Also Luke 9:7, Acts 2:12, the reading ἨΠΟΡΕῖΤΟ occurs.

ἘΠΈΣΤ.] as Luke 2:9.

ἌΝΔΡΕς] The angels (Luke 24:23) are designated according to the form of the appearance which they had in the view of the women.[268] Comp. Acts 1:10; Mark 16:5. And their clothes had a flashing brightness (ἀστραπτ.).

Luke 24:5. τί ζητεῖτε κ.τ.λ.] indicating the groundlessness of their search.

τὸν ζῶντα] denotes Jesus not as Him who is Himself the life (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, following John 1:4), nor yet the conquering life (de Wette), but, according to the context, quite simply Him who is alive, and no νεκρός. Comp. Luke 24:23.

μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν] the grave is in general conceived of as the place where the dead are, where, therefore, he who is sought, is sought among the dead. Luke 24:6 f. ὡς ἐλάλ] Luke 9:22, Luke 18:32 f. The reference to Galilee (Matthew and Mark) Luke could not adopt; see Luke 24:49-50.

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρ.] The designation of Himself previously used by Jesus. After the resurrection He no longer calls Himself by this name. Comp. Luke 24:26. ἀνθρώπ. ἁμαρτ.] heathens. Comp. Luke 18:32; Galatians 2:15. Otherwise Matthew 26:45.

Luke 24:8. It is psychologically improbable that the remembrance occurred to them now for the first time and at the prompting of the angel, if Jesus actually foretold His resurrection in terms so definite. But see on Matthew 16:21.

Luke 24:9. κ. πᾶσι τοῖς λοιποῖς] who adhered to the company of the disciples as followers of Jesus.

Luke 24:10 f. According to the corrected reading (see the critical remarks), ἦσαν δὲ … Ἰακώβου is a supplementary enumeration of the most eminent of the women who brought the tidings; after which by means of καὶ αἱ λοιπαὶ κ.τ.λ. the same bringing of the tidings is related also of their female companions, and then by καὶ ἐφάνησαν κ.τ.λ. the narration is further continued. There were, however (these women who returned and announced, etc.), Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; moreover (καὶ), the rest of the women with them told this to the apostles, and their words appeared to them as a fable, and they believed them not. As to Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, see on Matthew 27:55 f.; as to Joanna, on Luke 8:3.

ἐφάνησαν] the plural of the verb with the neuter plural (see, in general, Winer, p. 456 [E. T. 645]) denotes here the declarations of the several individual persons. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 3. 12.

λῆρος] a foolish rumour, trick. Plat. Protag. p. 347 D, Hipp. maj. p. 304 B: λήρους καὶ φλυαρίας; Xen. Hist. iv. 8. 15; Arist. Plut. 23, and elsewhere; Soph. Trach. 435: ληρεῖν ἀνδρὸς οὐχὶ σώφρονος.

Luke 24:12. The disciples did not believe the women, but Peter, hasty and impetuous as he was, desired to inform himself by his own sight about this enigmatical state of affairs. To take ἔδραμεν as a pluperfect (Paulus) is on account of βλέπει impossible; a perverted system of harmonizing, in which even Calvin led the way. Of the ἄλλος μαθητής of John 20:3, Luke says nothing, but, according to Luke 24:24, does not exclude him. The account is vague in the connection of its several parts,[269] as even Luke 24:34 presupposes something that is not related.

παρακύψ.] stooping down into the grave, John 20:5; John 20:11.

μόνα] so that thus the corpse was gone.[270]

πρὸς ἑαντ.] not: with Himself (as Mark 14:4; Luke 18:11), so that it would belong to θαυμάζων (Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Wolf, Schegg, and others, following the Vulgate), in which case, however, it would be superfluous, and its position before θαυμάζων would have no motive; but it belongs to ἀπῆλθε: to his home, i.e. πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ διαγωγήν, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. John 20:10. Examples in Kypke, I. p. 33 7.

θαυμάζ. τὸ γεγονός] συνῆκε γὰρ, ὅτι οὐ μετετέθη· ἦ γὰρ ἂν μετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων μετετέθη, Euthymius Zigabenus.[271] Comp. John 20:7 f.

[267] βαθέως might, it is true, be also the genitive of the adjective (see generally, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 246 f.). Thus Bleek, Buttmann, and Schegg. Only no certain instance of such a genitive form occurs in the New Testament.

[268] Schleiermacher makes out of this, persons commissioned by Joseph of Arimathaea. By means of such, Joseph had had the body of Jesus brought away from the grave, in which it had been provisionally laid. See L. J. p. 471. At an earlier period Schleiermacher made another shift, but not a better. See Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 386 ff.

[269] Since vv. 24 and 34 presuppose what nevertheless is not previously narrated, it is certainly to be assumed that vv. 1–12 and ver. 13 ff. have been taken from two distinct sources, which Luke in his working up has not sufficiently compared together. There has not been wanting here, moreover, the supposition of a tendency. According to Baur (Theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 61), the scene at Emmaus is to put in the background the manifestation which was made only to Peter.

[270] That the grave was empty is so decidedly and clearly in the whole of the New Testament (in opposition to Weizsäcker, p. 572) the correlative of the resurrection of Jesus (see also Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12), that it is not at all to the purpose when Keim (Geschichtl. Chr. p. 134) adds to the expression of his belief in an appearance of Jesus in glorified corporeality, “it makes no matter whether the grave was empty or not.” Keim, moreover, contends with force against the visionary view of the resurrection. See against this kind of view, also Gebhardt, D. Aufersteh. Christ. 1864, p. 18 ff.; Düsterdieck, Apol. Beitr. I. p. 8 ff.; Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 173 f.; Uhlhorn, D. modernen Darstell. d. Leb. Jesu, 1866, p. 115 ff.

[271] Even this simple observation of Euthymius Zigabenus is sufficient to show that every other cause by which the corpse may have disappeared from the grave, apart from His resurrection, is inconceivable. Schenkel, indeed (in his Zeitschr. 1865, 5), when he defines the resurrection as “the real mysterious self-revelation of the personality of Christ emerging living and imperishable from death,” uses for this purpose no grave, since he makes the personality of Christ emerge only from death, not from the grave. But the certainty that Christ came forth from the grave is at the foundation of every mention of the resurrection throughout the whole New Testament, in which reference, especially also the moral idea of συνθάπτεσθαι and συνεγείρεσθαι Χριστῷ (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12; Colossians 3:1; Ephesians 2:6) is of importance.

Luke 24:13-14. The journey to Emmaus, peculiar to Luke. Mark 16:12 is a meagre intimation of the same history from another source.

ἦσαν πορ.] were on the way.

ἐξ αὐτῶν] in general: of the followers of Jesus, ἐκ τῶν ὅλων μαθητῶν, Euthymius Zigabenus. They did not belong to the twelve (see Luke 24:33); whether they were of the seventy (Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others) cannot be determined. In other respects they are perfectly unknown. Luke. Luke 24:18, names only the one (Κλεόπας is the same as Κλεόπατρος, distinct from the Hebrew name Κλωπᾶς, John 19:25, or Alphaeus), and that, indeed, accidentally, because he introduces him actually speaking. In this way it is left in doubt whether he knew the name of the other or not (Ambrose calls him Ammaon). From the fact of his not being named, there is neither to be concluded a greater (Borneniann) nor a less (Kuinoel) degree of knowledge regarding him; and who he may have been is not at all to be conjectured, although Nathanael (so Epiphanius), Bartholomew, Peter, or another Simon (Origen, Cyril), nay, in spite of Luke 1:2, Luke himself (in Theophylact, so also Lange, I. p. 252), and even, conjecturally (Holtzmann), the younger James, as having made the journey with his father Alphaeus (but in 1 Corinthians 15:7 the Lord’s brother is meant)—have been guessed.

Ἐμμαούς] in Josephus, Bell. vii. 6. 6. Ἀμμαοῦς, a village, also according to Josephus 60 stadia (7½ geographical miles) in a north-western direction from Jerusalem—not to be confounded, as has often been done since Eusebius and Jerome (Robinson, Pal. III. p. 281 f.), with the town of Emmaus, 1Ma 3:40; 1Ma 9:50, in the plain of Judaea, which since the third century after Christ has been named Nicopolis, and is 176 stadia from Jerusalem.[272] See, in general, Ritter’s Palestine, XVI. pp. 512, 545; Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. III. p. 778 f.; Thrupp in The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 1860, p. 262 ff.; Zschokke, D. neutest. Emmaus, 1865, who, following tradition, is again in favour of the present village of Kubeibeh, and that on the ground of the more recent measurement of the distance from Jerusalem. Others: Culonieh; others: Kurjat et Enab.

Luke 24:14. Κ. ΑὐΤΟΊ] and they, on their part, said, in view of the appearance of Jesus to them, Luke 24:15 f.

περὶ πάντων τῶν συμβεβηκ. τούτων] Luke 24:1-12. In their subsequent discourse with the unknown one at Luke 24:18 ff. they are more prolix. On ὁμιλεῖν = διαλέγεσθαι, comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 2.

[272] Hence we find, in some MSS. (including א) and vss., the reading ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα, which Tisch.synops. on insufficient evidence prefers [Tisch. 8 has returned to ἑξήκοντα]. Even Arnold expresses himself as not averse to identifying it with Nicopolis.

Luke 24:15-16. καὶ αὐτός] καί is the usual form after ἐγένετο (comp. Luke 24:4; see on v. 12), and αὐτός, He Himself, of whom they were speaking.

ἐγγίσας] probably overtaking them from behind.

ἐκρατοῦντο κ.τ.λ.] they were held so that they knew Him not. Examples of κρατεῖσθαι of organs of the body: impediri, quominus vim et actionem sibi propriam exserant, see in Kypke. The expression itself, which indicates a peculiar external influence, not to speak of its telic connection, as well as the correlative διηνοίχθησαν κ.τ.λ. in Luke 24:31, should have prevented their failure to recognise Him from being attributed to an unfamiliar dress of Jesus, and to an alteration of His countenance by the tortures of crucifixion; or, on the other hand, to the disciples’ own dejection (Paulus, Kuinoel, Lange, and others). The text represents only a wonderful divine effect. The matter is otherwise represented in Mark 16:12, where Jesus appears ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ.

Luke 24:17-18. What are these discourses that ye in turn throw out to one another as ye walk, and are of gloomy countenance? Instead of καὶ ὄντες σκυθρωποί, the address passes over into the finite verb, bringing out this characteristic more emphatically, Matthiae, § 632; Kühner, § 675. 4. After καί we are not to supply τί (Beza). The relative clause οὓς ἀντιβάλλ. πρ. ἀλλ. corresponds to the idea of συζητεῖν (disputare).

σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς κ.τ.λ.] Dost thou alone dwell as a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not learned, etc.? In respect of this question of surprise, it is to be considered—(1) that the destiny of Jesus is so entirely the only thought in the soul of the two disciples, and appears to them now so absolutely as the only possible subject of their conversation and their sadness, that from their standpoint they instantly conclude from the question of the unknown one that he cannot at all know what has come to pass, since otherwise he would not begin by asking of what they speak and why they look sad; (2) that μόνος belongs to παροικεῖς and καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως; so that thus παροικεῖς Ἱερ. καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως (there is no comma to be placed before καί), taken together, constitute the ground of their question, whether it is he alone in whose experience this is the case. Hence it is wrong to take καί in the place of a relative. Comp. John 7:4παροικεῖν Ἱερουσ. may either mean: dwell as a stranger in Jerusalem (thus often in the LXX.; usually with ἐν, but also with the accusative, Genesis 17:8; Exodus 6:4), or: dwell near, at Jerusalem (Grotius, Rosenmüller, and, with hesitation, Bleek; comp. Xen. De redit. i. 5; Isocr. Panegyr. 162; Thuc. iii. 93; Lucian, D. M. ii. 1); thus Ἱερουσ. would be in the dative. The former view is the usual and the correct one (comp. Hebrews 11:9; Acts 7:6; Acts 13:17; 1 Peter 1:17; 1 Peter 2:11), since the disciples might recognise the unknown, perchance, as a foreign pilgrim to the feast (even from his dialect), but not as a dweller in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Ungrammatically (not to be supported by passages such as Genesis 24:37; Numbers 20:15; Psalm 15:1; Psalm 120:6, where the LXX. have translated ישב and שכן by terms more specific than the original), Theophylact, also Zeger and others, have taken παροικεῖν as simply to dwell; and Castalio, Vatablus, Clarius, and Kuinoel have taken it in the figurative sense of ξένον εἶναι and hospitem esse: “de iis, qui quid agatur ignorant, art thou then alone so strange to Jerusalem?”

Luke 24:19-21. Ποῖα] scil. οὐκ ἔγνων γενόμενα κ.τ.λ. The qualitative word of interrogation presupposes things of a special kind which must have happened; προσποιεῖται ἄγνοιαν, Euthymius Zigabenus.

οἱ δὲ εἶπον] Probably here also Cleopas was the speaker, and the other added his own assent to what was said.

ὃς ἐγένετο] not: who was (thus usually), but: who became, whereby the idea se praestitit, se praebuit (see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4), is expressed.

ἀνὴρ προφ.] an honourable expression, Bernhardy, p. 48.

δυνατὸς ἐν ἔργῳ κ. λόγῳ] Comp. Thuc. i. 139. 4, where Pericles is called λέγειν τε καὶ πράσσειν δυνατώτατος. ἐν marks the sphere wherein, etc. Comp. Acts 18:24; Acts 7:22; Jdt 11:8; Sir 21:8. In the classical writers the mere dative of the instrument is the usual form. See Bornemann, Schol. p. 159. See examples of both arrangements: ἔργῳ κ. λ. and λόγῳ κ. ἔ., in Lobeck, Paralip. p. 64 f.; Bornemann, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 6; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 373. In this place ἔργῳ is put first as containing the first ground of acknowledgment of the Messianic dignity. Comp. Acts 1:1; John 10:38; Acts 10:38ἐναντίον κ.τ.λ.] i.e. so that He represented Himself as such to God and the whole people.

Luke 24:20. ὅπως τε] et quomodo, still depending on the οὐκ ἔγνως of Luke 24:18, which is mentally supplied as governing τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ. On εἰς κρίμα θανάτου, to the condemnation of death, comp. Luke 23:24καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν] for it was their work that He was crucified by the governor. Comp. Acts 2:23Luke 24:21. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν] but we, on our part, were entertaining the hope (observe the imperfect), etc. This hope, demolished by the crucifixion, how soon was it again inflamed! Acts 1:6αὐτός] He, and no other

λυτροῦσθαι] according to the politico-theocratic idea of the national Messiah. Comp. Acts 1:6, and see Theophylact.

ἀλλά γε] but indeed, although we cherished this hope. See Hermann, ad Eur. Ion. 1345, Praef. p. xx.; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 12. On the immediate juxtaposition of the two particles, a usage foreign to the older Greek writers, see Bornemann, Schol. p. 160; Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 15 f., 25; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. I. p. 331 B.

καί] (see the critical remarks): besides.

σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις] σὺν denotes the accompanying circumstance: with all this, i.e. with the having undergone all this fate, namely, of being delivered up and crucified (Luke 24:20). Comp. Nehemiah 5:18; 3Ma 1:22; and see, generally, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 763.

τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον] The subject is Jesus, who immediately before was the subject emphatically made prominent. Comp. Beza, Kypke. ἄγειν, of time: to spend; as e.g. δέκατον ἔτος ἄγειν, to be in the tenth year, and the like, does not belong merely to the later Greek.[273] Compare the passages in Kypke. τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν is equivalent to ταύτην τρίτην οὖσαν ἡμέραν, or ταύτην, ἣ τρίτη ἐστὶν ἡμέρα. See Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 5. Comp. iii. 5. 9. Hence: But indeed, besides all this, He passes this present day as the third since, etc. In this case, it is true, σήμερον is superfluous, but it corresponds to the painful excitement of the words. Comp. Mark 14:29. ἄγει has been ungrammatically taken as impersonal: agitur (Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Buttmann, Bleek, and others); while others grasp at arbitrary modes of supplying the subject, as ὁ χρόνος (Camerarius), Θεός (Heinsius), ὁ ἥλιος (Er. Schmid, Heumann). Bornemann regards Ἰσραήλ as the subject: “Is dies, quem Israel hodie celebrat, tertius est, ex quo,” etc. But the context leads us neither to Israel nor to the mention of the celebration of the festival.

[273] Sophocles, El. 258, has: ἔπειτα ποίας ἡμέρας δοκεῖς μʼ ἄγειν: What kind of days thinkest thou I am spending?

Luke 24:22-23. Nevertheless on this frustration of our hopes the following also has occurred, which has again aroused them, and still (Luke 24:24) has left them till now unfulfilled.

ἐξ ἡμῶν] from our company, ὡς ἡμεῖς πισταί, Euthymius Zigabenus.

ὄρθριαι] an Attic form, instead of which, however, the later ὀρθριναί (see Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 186; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 51) is preponderatingly attested, and is, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be preferred.

καὶ μὴ εὑρ.] καὶ … ἦλθον, instead of carrying on the participial expression in conformity with γενόμεναι, continues with greater emphasis in an independent sentence.

καὶ ὀπτασίαν κ.τ.λ.] καί: and moreover, besides the fact that they found not the body.

οἳ λέγουσιν] indicative, the direct vision mingling in a lively manner with the oratio obliqua, Bernhardy, p. 299; Reisig, Conject. p. 226 f.

Luke 24:24. Τινές] therefore not merely Peter, Luke 24:12. But did Luke conceive these several persons as having gone together? Probably, according to the analogy of Luke 24:22. Moreover, comp. on Luke 24:12.

οὕτω καθὼς κ.τ.λ.] namely, that the corpse was not in the grave.

αὐτὸν δὲ οὐκ εἶδον] but Him, Him who yet, according to that angelic assurance narrated by the women, was to live, Him they saw not; a tragical conclusion!