47+ Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος, ἰδού, “loddas εἷς τῶν δώδεκα ἦλθε,
where and καὶ μετ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολὺς μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ "ξύλων, ἀπὸ τῶν
ip ρατα]].
=cudgels, ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ.
48. 6 δὲ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν
ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς σημεῖον, λέγων, ““Ov ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστι: κρατή-
Φον σατε αυτον.
ῥαββί, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν.
c a 2. «4 , 35 “ Ἑταῖρε, ep ᾧ } πάρει ;
49. Καὶ εὐθέως, προσελθὼν τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἶπε, “'Χαῖρε,
5ο. ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ,
Τότε προσελθόντες ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρας
1 «hb ο in NABCDLA, etc. (modern editors).
the latter of delivering into the hands of those who sought His life (Euthy. on νετ. 21).
The scene in the garden is intrinsically probable and without doubt historical. The temptation was to suppress rather than to invent in regard both to the behaviour of Jesus and to that of His disciples. It is not the creation of theo- logy, though theology has made its own use of it. It is recorded simply beeause it was known to have happened.
Vv. 47-56. The apprehension (Mk. xiv. 43-52, Lk. xxii. 47-53).--εἷς τ. δώδεκα, as in ver. 14, repeated not for information, but as the literary reflection of the chronic horror of the apostolic church that such a thing should be possible. That it was not only possible but a fact is one of the almost undisputed cer- tainties of the passion history. Even Brandt, who treats that history very sceptically, accepts it as fact (Die Evan- gelische Geschichte, p. 18).--μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, etc.: the description of the company to whom Judas acted as guide is vague ; 6x. πολ. is elastic, and might mean scores, hundreds, thousands, according to the standard of comparison.—éxAos does not suggest soldiery as its constituents, neither does the description of the arms borne—swords and staves. Lk. (xxil. 52, στρατηγοὺς τ. ἱεροῦ) seems to have in his mind the temple police, consisting of priests and Levites with assistants, and this view appears intrinsically pro- bable, though Brandt (E. G., p. 4) scouts it. The Jewish authorities would make arrangements to ensure their purpose ; the temple police was at their command, and they would send a sufficiently large aumber to overpower the followers of their victim, however desperate their re- sistance.—Ver. 48. ἔδωκεν: the traitor, as he approached the place where he shrewdly guessed Jesus would be, gave (dedit, Vulg.), not had given. His plan was not cut and dry from the first. It flashed upon him as he drew near and began to think how he would meet his Master. The old charm οἱ the Master
reasserts itself in his soul, and he feels he must salute Him affectionately. At the same instant it flashes upon him that the kiss which both smouldering love and cowardice compel may be utilised as a sign. Inconsistent motives? Yes, but such is human nature, especially in the Judas type: two-souled men, drawn opposite ways by the good and evil in them ; betraying loved ones, then hang- ing themselves.—Ver. 48. αὐτός ἐστιν, He and no other is the man.—Ver. 49. κατεφίλησεν, kissed Him heartily. In late Greek there was a tendency to use compounds with the force of the simple verb, and this has been supposed to be a case in point (De Wette). But coming after Φφιλήσω, ver. 48, the compound verb is plainly used with intention. It occurs again in Lk. vii. 38, 45, xv. 20, obviously with intensive force. Whata tremendous contrast between the woman in Simon’s house (Lk. vii.) and Judas! Both kissed Jesus fervently: with strong emotion ; yet the one could have died for Him, the other betrays Him to death. Did Jesus remember the woman at that moment ?—Ver. 50. ἑταῖρε: so might a master salute a disciple, and disciple or companion is, I think, the sense of the word here (so Elsner, Palairet, Wolf, Schanz, Carr,Camb. N. T.). It answers to ῥαββί in the salute of Judas.—éq’ ὃ πάρει, usually taken as a question: ‘‘ad quid venisti 2” Vulg. Wherefore art thou come? A.V. ‘ Wozubistduda?” Weiz- sacker. Against this is the grammatical objection that instead of 6 should have been τὶ. Winer, § 24, 4, maintains that Ss might be used instead of τίς in a direct question in late Greek. To get over the difficulty various suggestions have been made: Fritzsche renders: friend, for what work you are come! taking 6= οἷον. Others treat the sen- tence as elliptical, and supply words before or after: ¢.g., say for what you are come (Morison), or what you have come for, that do, R. V., Meyer, Weiss. The last is least satisfactory, for Judas had already done it, as Jesus instinctively