µένα διὰ τῶν προφητῶν τῷ vid τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 32. παραδοθήσεται. γὰρ τοῖς ἔθνεσι, καὶ ἐμπαιχθήσεται, καὶ ὑβρισθήσεται, καὶ ἐμπτυσθή- σεται, 32. καὶ µαστιγώσαντες ἀποκτενοῦσιν αὐτόν: καὶ τῇ ἡμέρα τῇ. τρίτῃ ἀναστήσεται. τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο κεκρυµµένον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκον τὰ λεγό--
34. Καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐδὲν τούτων συνῆκαν, καὶ ἦν
μενα.
35. Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν eis Ἱεριχώ, τυφλός τις
ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν προσαιτῶν. pévou, ἐπυνθάνετο ti? ety τοῦτο. *Ingois 6 Ναζωραῖος παρέρχεται."
υἱὲ Δαβίδ, ἐλέησόν pe.”
1 36. ἀκούσας δὲ ὄχλου διαπορευο-
37- ἀπήγγειλαν δὲ αὐτῷ, “Om 38. Καὶ ἐβόησε, λέγων, ''Ιησοῦ,
‘ « , > , Dw ie, 30. Και οι προαάγοντες επετιµων GUTW ινα
σεωπήσῃ ὃ: αὐτὸς δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν, “Vie Δαβίδ, ἐλέησόν
1 επαιτων in SBDL Orig. 3 σιγηση in BDLPX 245 al.
phetarum vaticiniis a dei filio”’. Nor is it necessary to insert ἐν before τ. ὑ. 7. d. The meaning is: all things shall happen to the Son of Man as written in the prophets.—reAeto- Bar stands for γίνεσθαι, being used because of the prophetic reference (in Lk. only). So Pricaeus: “ reXeto@ar hic esse quod Marc, xi. 23, 24 εἶναι, quod 1 Cor. iv. 5 γίνεσθαι, quod 1 Pet. v. 9 ἐπιτελεῖσθαι ”. In all these places the verb is followed by the dative. —Vvy. 32, 33. The details of the Passion are the same’as in Mk., except that no mention is made of the Jewish rulers, and that other particulars are given in a somewhat different order.—Ver. 34. This is peculiar to Lk. A similar statement in ix. 45 with the same curious repetition. ‘An emphatic prolixity’’ is Meyer’s comment. J. Weiss (Meyer) from the facts that this verse repeats ix. 45 and that Lk. avoids repetition infers that the words must have been in his source. I rather think that we have here an effort on Lk.’s part to compensate by a general statement about the ignorance of the Twelve for the instructive narrative about the two sons of Zebedee which comes in at this point in Mt. and Mk., and which Lk. omits, doubtless by way of sparing the disciples an exposure. The iteration (same thing said three times) is in Lk.’s manner (Acts xiv. 8), but it is significant here. The aim is by repetition of a general statement to con- vey the impression made by the con- crete story—an utter impossibility. No wonder Lk. labours in expression, in view of that humiliating proof of ignorance and moral weakness! But
- wv avin DL (W.H. marg.}, T.R. conforms to parall.
the attempt to express the inexpressible: is interesting as showing that Lk. must have had the sons of Zebedee incident in his mind though he does not choose to record it. The omission of this incident carries along with it the omission of the second and most important saying of our Lord concerning the significance of His. death. Lk.’s gospel contains hardly any basis for a doctrine on that subject (ef. Mt. xx. 28, Mk. x. 45).
Vv. 35-43. The blind man at Fericho (Mt. xx. 29-34, Mk. x. 46-52).---τυφλός τις: the blind man is not named, from which J. Weiss (Meyer) infers that the name cannot have been in Lk.’s source. A very precariousinference. Lk. deviates. from the tradition in the parallels as to the place of the incident : connecting it with the entrance into Jericho instead ot the exit from the town.—émattr@v as in xvi. 3.—Ver. 36. adxovoas: in Lk. what he hears is the multitude passing through, which he would have seen if he had not been blind. In the parallels what is heard is that it was Jesus around whom the multitude had gathered, which even a seeing man might have had to learn by the ear. Lk. is careful to bring out the fact of Ῥ]πάπεςς.-- διαπορευοµένου is an instance of a participle serving as the object of a verb. What was heard was the passing of the crowd.—rt εἴη τ., the optative without ἄν in an indirect question makes the question definite (cf. ili. 15, viii. 9, xv. 26).—Ver. 37. Nat- ωραῖος: the usual form in Lk., an exception in iv. 34.—Ver. 38. ἐβόησεν: aorist, he cried out once.—Ver. 39. οἱ - προάγοντες, those in front, nearest him.