552
οὖν μὴ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν.
36. εἰ οὖν τὸ σῶμά σου
ὅλον φωτεινόν, μὴ ἔχον TL µέρος σκοτεινόν, ἔσται φωτεινὸν ὅλον, ὡς ὅταν ὁ λύχνος τῇ ἀστραπῇ purify σε.” 1 37. Ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι, ἠρώτα 3 αὐτὸν Φαρισαῖός τις} ὅπως
ἀριστήσῃ παρ) αὐτῷ" εἰσελθὼν δὲ ἀνέπεσεν. ἰδὼν ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι οὗ πρῶτον ἐβαπτισθη πρὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου.
38. ὁ δὲ Φαρισαῖος 39.
εἶπε δὲ ὁ Κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν, “Nov ὑμεῖς οἱ Φαρισαῖοι τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ πίνακος καθαρίζετε: τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν γέµει
' On νετ. 36 vide below, and W.H. (appendix) on νν. 35, 36.
2 epwra in ABM 69 al,
then will it be lighted indeed, as when the lamp with its lightning illumines thee (so Meyer). Even thus the saying seems unsatisfactory, and hardly such as Lk., not to say our Lord, could have been responsible for. The critical question thus forces itself upon us: is this really what Lk. wrote? Westcott and Hort think the passage contains ‘“‘a primitive corruption,” an opinion which 1. Weiss (in Meyer, p. 476, note) en- dorses, making at the same time an attempt to restore the true text. Such attempts are purely conjectural. The verse is omitted in D, some Latin codd., and in Syr. Cur. The new Syr. Sin. has it in a form which Mrs. Lewis thus renders: ‘ Therefore also thy body, when there is in it no lamp that hath shone, is dark, thus while thy lamp is shining, it gives light to thee ’— a sentence as dark as a lampless body. Vv. 37-54. In the house of a Pharisee ; criticism of the religion of Pharisees and scribes (Mt. xxiii.), This section con- tains a selection of the hard sayings of Jesus on the “righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,” given with much greater fulness in Mt.’s great anti- pharisaic discourse, the severity of the attack being further mitigated by the words being thrown into the form of table talk. This is the second time Jesus appears as a guest in a Pharisee’s house in this gospel, speaking His mind with all due freedom but without breach of the courtesies of life. The effect and probable aim of these representations is to show that if it ultimately came to an open rupture between Jesus and the Pharisees it was their fault, not His.— Ver. 37. ἐν τῷ λαλῆσαι, while He was speaking, as if it had been ἐ. τ. λαλεῖν. év goes most naturally with the present infinitive, but Lk., who uses év with in- finitive much more frequently than any
> Omit tis NBL 1, 13, 69 al. (Tisch., W.H.).
other N.T. writer, has ἐν with the aorist nine times. Vide Burton (M. and T., § 109), who remarks in reference to such cases: “' The preposition does not seem necessarily to denote exact co- incidence (of time), but in no case ex- presses antecedence. In 1 Cor. xi, 21 and Heb. iii. 12 the action of the in- finitive cannot be antecedent to that of the principal verb.”—apioryoq: the meal was breakfast rather than dinner. —Ver. 38. ἐθαύμασεν: the cause of wonder was that Jesus did not wash (ἐβαπτίσθη) before eating. We have here Lk.’s equivalent for the incident in Mt. xv. 1 ff., Mk. vii. 1 ff., omitted by him. But the secondary character of Lk.’s narrative appears from this, that the ensuing discourse does not, as in Mt. and Mk., keep to the point in hand —neglect of ritual ablutions, but ex- patiates on Pharisaic vices generally.— Ver. 39. 6 Κύριος, once more this title in narrative.—vvv : variously taken as = igitur or = ecce, or as a strictly temporal particle = now “a silent contrast with a better πάλαι (Meyer). Hahn affirms that viv at the beginning of a sentence can mean nothing else than “now’’. But Raphel, in support of the second of the above senses (‘‘ admirationem quan- dam declarat”’), quotes from Arrian viv δύναταί τις ὠφελῆσαι καὶ ἄλλους, μὴ αὐτὸς ὠφελημένος (Epict., Jib. iii., cap. 23, 1). Bengel cites 2 Kings vii. 6, Sept., where viv in the first position