17---26.
283
«ς BUA Eh “A ‘ Ἆ « , oe a : ᾿ 23. “Odat ὑμῖν, γραμματείς καὶ Φαρισαιοι, ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ” ἀπο- Ἡ Lk. xi. 42;
χν]]. 12.
A ‘ oe δεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον, καὶ ἀφήκατε Heb. vii.s.
A Ul A , ‘ , 4 9 ex af ‘ 4 ’ s τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόµου, Thy κρίσιν καὶ τὸν ENeov! καὶ τὴν πίστιν ταῦτα” ἔδει ποιῆσαι, κἀκεῖνα ph ἀφιέναι.ὸ oi* Οδιζλίζοντες τὸν Ρκώνωπα, τὴν δὲ κάµηλον “ καταπίνοντες.
ο here only a νο.
, (Amos vi.
24. ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί, 6).
p here only in N. T. Rev. xii.
n ~ 4 q 25. Oval ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι, ὑποκριταί, ὅτι καθαρίζετε © 16 (same
τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, ἔσωθεν δὲ γέµουσιν ἐξ ὅ
τε a \s2 , ἁρπαγῆς καὶ " ἀκρασίας.
Xu. 3 9 a / Ν lel id 6 Y, , ‘ wee! ν το εντος του ποτηριου και της παροψί ος, ινα γεγνηται και TO εκτος
αὐτῶν Ἰ καθαρόν.
1 το ελεος in NBDL. 2δε after ταντα in BCLAX. Σαφειναι in NBL.
26. Φαρισαῖε τυφλέ, καθάρισον πρῶτον
sense). I Cor. xv. 54. 2 Cor. v.4. Heb. xi. 29 (to swallow
LE xd
r Lk. xi. 39. Heb. x. 34.
6 1 Cor. vii. 5.
τον ελεον a grammatical correction.
αφιεναι in CDA al. * ot omitted in NBL, by oversight, Weiss thinks.
Tisch. retains, W.H. omit.
5 CD omit εξ, which, however, is in §$BLAX, and is retained by Tisch., W.H.,
and other editors.
5 kat της παροψιδος is in SBCLAE al., but is omitted by D, and may be a mechanical repetition from ver. 25 (Tisch. omits, W.H. bracket).
7avrov in BD and several cursives, the natural reading if και της παροψ. be
omitted.
ance of the things (‘‘non pro serie ver- borum, sed pro ratione rerum”’). On this view ‘these’? means tithe-paying. — Ver. 24. διλίζοντες (διὰ and An, Passow), a little used word, for which Hesychius gives as a synonym, διηθέω, to strain through.—Tév κώνωπα, τὴν κάµηλον, the gnat, the camel: article as usual in proverbial sayings. The proper object of the former part. is οἶνον : straining the wine so as to remove the unclean midge. Swallowing the camelisa monstrous supposition, but relevant, the camel being unclean, chewing the cud but not parting the hoof (Lev. xi. 4). The proverb clinches the lesson of the previous verse.
Vv. 25-26. Fifth woe, directed against externalism (Lk. xi. 30-41).---τῆς παροψί- Sos, the dish, on which viands were served. In classics it meant the meat, not the dish (τὸ Sov οὐχὶ δὲ τὸ ἀγγεῖον, Phryn., p. 176). Rutherford (New Phryn., p. 265) τε- marks that our word “dish” has the same ambiguity.—éo-wOev δὲ γέµονσιν ἐξ: within both cup and plate are full of, or from. ἐκ is either redundant or it points to the fulness as resulting from the things following : filled with wine and meat pur- chased by the wages of unrighteousness : luxuries acquired by plunder and licence. The verb γέµουσι occurs again in ver. 27
without ἐκ, and this is in favour of the second view. But on the other hand in ver. 26 the vessels are conceived’ of as defiled by ἁρπαγή and ἀκρασία, there- fore presumably as filled with them. Here as in vi. 22, 23, the physical and ethical are mixed in the figure.—Ver. 26. Φαρι- wate τυφλέ: change from plural to singular with increased earnestness, and a certain friendliness of tone, as of one who would gladly induce the person ad- dressed to mend his ways.—xaOdpioov : if ἐξ, ver. 25, is taken = by, then this verb will mean: see that the wine in the cup be no more the product of robbery and un- bridled desire for other people’s property (Weiss and Meyer). On the other view, that the cup is filled with these vices, the meaning will be, get rid of them.—iva γένηται, etc., in order that the outside may become clean. The ethical clean- ness is conceived of as ensuring the cere- monial. Or, in other words, ethical purity gives all the cleanness you need (‘all things are clean unto you,” Lk. xi. 41). Practically this amounts to treating ceremonial cleanness as of little account. Christ’s way of thinking and the Phari- saic were really incompatible.