Vv.9, 10. Prophetic reference, τότε, as in ii, 17, not ἵνα or ὅπως.--διὰ Ἱερεμίου, by Jeremiah, in reality by Zechariah (xi. 13), the reference to Jeremiah probably due to there being somewhat similar texts in that prophet (xvill. 2, 3, xxxii. 6-15) running in the evangelist’s mind. A pettyerror. More serious is the question whether this is not a case gf prophecy creating ‘“‘facts,”’ whether the whole story here told is not a legend growing out of the O. T. text
324
11. Ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἔστη 1 ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡγεμόνος: καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν ὁ ἡγεμών, λέγων, “2d ef ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ιουδαίων; Ὁ δὲ
Ἰησοῦς ἔφη αὐτῷ," “Xd λέγεις.”
12. Καὶ ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι
αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο-
13. τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὅ Πιλάτος, “Odx ἀκούεις πόσα cod καταµαρ-
τυροῦσι ; θαυμάζειν τὸν ἡγεμόνα λίαν.
14. Καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲ ev ῥῆμα. ὥστε
1 ΜΒΟΙ,Σ have εσταθη, for which the scribes substituted the more usual εστη. 2 avrw has the support of ΑΒΧΔΣ, but Tisch. and W.H. (in text) on the authority
of SL omit it.
quoted. So Brandt, who thinks the betrayal the only fact in the story of Judas, all the rest legendary (E. G., p. 11). The truth rather seems to be that facts, historical traditions, suggested texts which otherwise would never have been thought of. This may be inferred from the manipulation necessary to make the prophecy correspond to the facts: ἔλαβον, ist person singular in Sept., 3rd person plural here = they took; the expression ‘the children of Israel” introduced with apparent intention to make the nation responsible for the betrayal ; the substitution of the phrase “the field of the potter ’’ for ‘‘ the house of the Lord”. And after all the mani- pulation how different the circumstances in the two cases! In the one case it is the prophet himself, valued at a petty sum, who cast his price into the House of the Lord; in the other, it is the priests, who bought the life of the prophet of Nazareth for a small sum, who give the money for a potter’s field. The only real point of resemblance is the small value set upon a prophet in either case. It is a most unsatisfactory instance of prophetic fulfilment, almost as much so as that in Mt. ii. 23. But its very un- satisfactoriness makes for the historicity of the story. That the prophetic text, once associated with the story in the minds of believers, reacted on the manner of telling it, ε.σ., as to the weighing of the price (xxvi. 15), and the casting of the money into the holy place (xxvii. 5), is conceivable.
Vv. 11-26. Fesus before Pilate (Mk. xv. 2-15, Lk. xxiii. 2-7, 13-25).—Ver. 11. 6 δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς: δὲ resumes an interrupted story (ver. 2).—ov el, etc.: Art Thou the King of the Jews? ‘The question reveals the form in which the Sanhedrists pre- sented their accusation. They had translated ‘‘ Christ” into ‘‘ King of the
Jews” for Pilate’s benefit, so astutely giving a political aspect to what under the other name was only a question of religion, or, as a Roman would view it, superstition. A most unprincipled pro- ceeding, for the confession of Jesus that He was the Christ no more inferred a political animus than their own Messianic expectations.—ov λέγεις = yes. One is hardly prepared for such a reply to an equivocal question, and there is a temptation to seek escape by taking the words interrogatively = dost thou say so? or evasively, with Theophy. = you say, I make no statement. Ex- planations such as are given in John xviii. 33-37 were certainly necessary.— Ver. 12. The accusations here referred to appear to have been made on the back of Pilate’s first question and Christ’s answer. Mark indicates that they were copious. In Lukethechargeis formulated before Pilate begins to interrogate (κα. z). The purpose of their statements would be to substantiate the main charge that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews in a sense hostile to Roman supremacy. What were the materials of proof? Possibly perverse construc- tion of the healing ministry, of the con- sequent popularity, of Christ’s brusquely independent attitude towards Rabbinism, suggesting a defiant spirit generally.— οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο (note use of Ist aorist middle instead of the more usual ἄπεκ- ρίθη). Jesus made no reply to these plausible mendacities, defence vain in such a case.—Ver. 13. Pilate noting His silence directs His attention to what they have been saying.—Ver. 14. καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη: still no reply, though no disrespect to the governor intended. --ὥστε θαυμάζειν, etc., the governor was very much (λίαν, at the end, emphatic) astonished: at the svzlence, and at the man; the silence attracting