Ver. 13. ᾿Ελθὼν: here again this verb
222
13. Ἐλθὼν δὲ 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς eis τὰ µέρη Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου ἠρώτα τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, λέγων, “Τίνα µε] λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι
εἶναι, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ; ”
14. Οἱ δὲ εἶπον, “Ot μὲν Ιωάννην
τὸν Βαπτιστήν" ἄλλοι δὲ Ἡλίαν: ἕτεροι δὲ Ἱερεμίαν, ἢ ἕνα τῶν
1 SSB and most versions omit µε, which has probably come in from the parallels. The omission of pe requires the , after ειναι to be deleted.
may mean not arriving at, but setting out for, or on the way: unterwegs, Schanz. So Grotius : cum proficisceretur, non cum venisset. Fritzsche dissents and renders : postquam venerat. Mk. has ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ to indicate where the conversation began. On the whole both expressions are elastic, and leave us free to locate the ensuing scene at any point on the road to Caesarea Philippi, say at the spot where the city and its surroundings came into view.—Ka.oapelas τ. Φ.: a notable city, romantically situated at the foot of the Lebanon range, near the main sources of the Jordan, in a limestone cave, in the province of Gaulonitis, ruled over by the Tetrarch Philip, enlarged and beautified by him with the Herodian passion for building, and furnished with a new name (Paneas before, changed into Caesarea of Philip to distinguish from Caesarea on the sea). ‘A place of exceedingly beautiful, picturesque. sur- roundings, with which few spots in the holy land can be compared. What a rush of many waters; what a wealth and variety of vegetation!” Furrer, Wanderungen, 414. Vide also the de- scription in Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, and in Professor G. A. Smith’s Historical Geography of the Holy Land.—triva λέγουσιν, etc.: with this grand natural scene possibly or even probably (why else name it?) in view, Jesus asked His disciples a significant question meant to lead on to important disclosures. The question is variously reported by the synoptists, and it is not easy to decide between the forms. It would seem simpler and more natural to ask, ‘“‘ whom do, etc., that Jam?” (µε εἶναι, Mk. and Lk.). But, on the other hand, at a solemn moment Jesus might prefer to speak impersonally, and ask: ‘‘ whom εως thatthe Son of Manis?” (Mt.). That title, as hitherto employed by Him, would not prejudge the question. It had served rather to keep the question who He was, how His vocation was to be defined, in suspense till men had learned to attach new senses to old words, It is intrinsically unlikely that He would combine the two forms of the
question, and ask: ‘‘ whom, etc., that J, the Son of Man, am?’ as in the T. R. That consideration does not settle what Mt. wrote, but it is satisfactory that the best MSS. leave out the µε. The ques- tion shows that Jesus had been thinking of His past ministry and its results, and it may be taken for granted that He had formed His own estimate, and did not need to learn from the Twelve how He stood. He had come to the conclusion that He was practically without reliable following outside the disciple circle, and that conviction is the key to all that follows in this memorable scene. How the influential elasses, the Pharisees, and the priests and political men = Sadducees, were affected was apparent. Nothing but hostility was to be looked for there. With the common people on the other hand He had to the last been popular. They liked His preaching, and they took eager advantage of His healing ministry. But had they got a definite faith about Him, as well as a kindly feeling towards Him; an idea well-rooted, likely to be lasting, epoch-making, the starting-point of a new religious movement? He did not believe they had, and He expected to have that impression confirmed by the answer of the Twelve, as indeed it was. Ver. 14. Reply of disciples: the general effect being: opinions of the people, favourable but crude, without re- ligious definiteness and depth, with no promise of future outcome.—'lody., Ἠλίαν., “Ἱερμ. Historic characters, recent or more ancient, redivivi—that the utmost possible: unable to rise to the idea of a wholly new departure, or a greater than any character in past his- tory ; conservatism natural tothe common mind. All three personages whose re- turn might be expected; the Baptist to continue his work cut short by Herod, Elijah to prepare the way and day of the Lord (Mal. iv. 5), Jeremiah to bring back the ark, etc., which (2 Maccab. ii. 1-12) he had hid in a cave. Jeremiah is classed with the other well-known prophets (ἢ ἕνα τ. π.), and the supporters of that hypothesis are called ἕτεροι, as if to distinguish them not merely numeri-