Vv. 22-23, Settlement in Nazareth in
18—22.
evi! τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἀντὶ “HpwSou τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ,” ἐφοβήθη ) ἐκεῖ j der
ig,
ἐκεῖσε. « XVii. 20.
ἀπελθεῖν > χρηματισθεὶς δὲ Kat ὄναρ, ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὰ " µέρη τῆς John xi. 8;
XVili. 3.
k Ch. xv. 21; xvi 13. Mk. viii. το.
1 Omit επι NB and several cursives. With em the usual construction; therefore
its omission here probably correct.
2 SSBC place Ἡρωδου after τ. πατ. αυτον,
Galilee. Joseph returns with mother and child to Israel, but not to Judaea and Bethlehem.—daxotoas . . . Ἠρῴδου: Archelaos reigns in his father’s stead. A man of kindred nature, suspicious, truculent (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 2), to be feared and avoided by such as had cause to fear his father.—Baotdever, reigns, not in the strict sense of the word. He exercised the authority of an ethnarch, with promise of a royal title if he con- ducted himself so as to deserve it. In fact he earned banishment. At Herod’s death the Roman emperor divided his kingdom into four parts, of which he gave two to Archelaus, embracing Judaea, Idumaea and Samaria; the other two parts were assigned to Antipas and Philip, also sons of Herod: to Antipas, Galilee and Peraea; to Philip, Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis. They bore the title of Tetrarch, ruler of a fourth part (Joseph., Ant., 17, 11, 4).---ἐφοβήθη éxet ἀπελθεῖν. It is implied that to settle in Judaea was the natural course to follow, and that it would have beer. followed but for a special reason. Schanz, taking a hint from Augustine, suggests that Joseph wished to settle in Jerusalem, deeming that city the most suitable home for the Messiah, but that God judged the despised Galilee a better training school for the future Saviour of publicans, sinners and Pagans. This hypothesis goes on the assumption that the original seat of the family was Nazareth.—éet; late Greek for ἐκεῖσε. In later Greek authors the distinction between ot ov, of οὗ, ὅποι ὅπου, éxet and ἐκεῖσε practically disappeared. Rutherford’s New Phrynichus, p. 114. Vide for another instance, Luke xxi. 2. Others explain the substitution as a case of attraction common in adverbs of place. The idea of remaining is in the mind = He feared to go thither to abide there. Vide Lobeck’s Phryn., p. 44, and Fritzsche.—ypypariodels τῆς Γαλιλαίας: again oracular counsel given in a dream, implying again mental perplexity and need of guidance. Going to Galilee, Judaea being out of the question, was not a matter of course, as we should
»
have expected. The narrative of the first Gospel appears to be constructed on the assumption that Nazareth was not the original home of the holy family, and to represent a tradition for which Nazareth was the adopted home, Beth- lehem being the original. ‘‘ The evan- gelist did not know that Nazareth was the original seat of the family.’’ Weiss, Matt. evang. Ῥ. 98. Ver. 23. κατῳκησεν.
Sept. is used regularly for aw in the
κατοικεῖν in
sense of to dwell, and with év in Luke and Acts (Luke xiii. 4; Acts i. 20, etc.) in the same sense. "ere with eis it seems to mean going τς’ settle in, adopting as a home, the district of Galilee, the parti- cular town called Nazareth.—eis πόλιν is to be taken along with κατῴ. not with ἐλθὼν. Arrived in Galilee he transferred his familyto Nazareth, as afterwards Jesus migrated to Capernaum to carry on there His ministry (iv. 13, where the same form of expression recurs).—Nafapér, a town in lower Galilee, in the tribe of Zebulon, nowhere mentioned in O. T. or Josephus. ---ὅπως πληρωθῇ, etc.: a fnal prophetic reference winding up the h‘story of the infancy. ὅπως not ἵνα, as usual, but with much the same meaning. It does not necessarily imply that a prophetic oracle consciously influenced Joseph in making his choice, but only that the evangelist saw in that choice a fulfilment of pro- phecy. But what prophecy ? Thereference is vague, not to any particular prophet, but to the prophets in general. In no one place can any such statement be found. Some have suggested that it occurred in some prophetic book or oracle no longer extant. ‘ Don’t ask,” says Euthy. Zig., ‘in what prophets; you will not find: many prophetic books were lost ” (after Chrys.). Olearius, in an elaborate note, while not adopting, states with evident sympathy this view as held by others. Jerome, following the Jewish scholars /erudit' Hebraeorum) of his time, believed the reterence to be Mainly to Isaiah xi., where mention is