5. ΚΑΙ τινων λεγόντων περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ὅτι λίθοις καλοῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασι 1 κεκόσµηται, εἶπε, 6. “"Ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε, ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν ats οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ,2 ὃς οὗ καταλυθήσεται.. 7. Ἐπηρώτησαν δὲ αὐτόν, λέγοντες, “΄Διδάσκαλε, πότε οὖν ταῦτα ” Ce ar a 2 Hee” , 35 ἔσται; καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον, ὅταν µέλλῃ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι ;
δ. Ὁ δὲ εἶπε, “"Βλέπετε μὴ πλανηθῆτε: πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί µου, λέγοντες, Ὅτι ὃ ἐγώ εἰμι: καί, Ὁ καιρὸς ἤγγικε.
1 5ο in BLQAal.(W.H.). αναθεµασιν in SADX (Tisch.).
2 S$BL minusc. add wSe (W.H.).
what the coin was or what the contribu- tion amounted to. Mk. states its value in Roman coinage (κοδράντης).---Ψετ. 3. εἶπεν: to whom not indicated. The narrator is concerned alone about the saying—@An@as, for Mk.’s Hebrew ἀμὴν, as nearly αἱν/αγς.- πτωχὴ : Lk. does not avoid this word: the use of the other term in his preliminary narrative is a matter of style. πτωχὴ implies that the widow might have been expected to beg rather than to be giving to the temple treasury.—Ver. 4. ἅπαντες οὗτοι, all these, referring to the rich and pointing to them.—torepyjpartos: practically = Mk.’s ὑστερήσεως, preferred possibly because in use in St. Paul’s epistles: not so good a word as ὑστέρησις to denote the state of poverty out of which she gave. Lk.’s expression strictly means that she gave out of a deficit, a minus quantity (“ ex eo quod deest illi,” Vulg.), a strong but intelligible way of putting it.—7t. βίον, her living, as in xv. 12, 30 = means of subsistence. Lk. combines Mk.’s two phrases into one.
THE APOCALYPTIC DISCOURSE (vv. 5- 38).—Vv. 5-7. Introduction to the dis- course (Mt. xxiv. 1-3, Mk. xiii. 1-4).—Kat τινων λεγόντων, and some remarking. A most unemphatic transition, as if what follows were simply a continuation of discourse in the temple on one of many topics on which Jesus spoke. No in- dication that it was disciples (any of the Twelve) who asked the question, or that the conversation took place outside. Cf. the narrative in Mk. The inference that Lk. cannot have known Mk.’s narrative (Godet) is inadmissible. Lk. omits many things he knew. His interest is obviously in the didactic matter only, and perhaps we have here another instance of his “sparing the Twelve”. He may not have cared to show them filled with thought- less admiration for a building (and a system) which was doomed to judicial
3 Omit οτι NBLX.
destruction. — Ai@o.s καλοῖς, beautiful stones: marble, huge; vide Joseph., B. J., ν.5,2.--καὶ ἀναθήμασι, and votive or sacred gifts, in Lk. only; the reference implies that the spectators are within the building. These gifts were many
and costly, from the great ones of the
earth: a table from Ptolemy, a chain from Agrippa, a golden vine from Herod the Great. The temple was famous for its wealth. Tacitus writes: ‘illic im- mensae opulentiae templum,” Hist., vi. 8.—kexédopytat: perfect, expressing the permanent result of past acts of skilful men and beneficent patrons—a highly ornamented edifice, the admiration of the world, but marked for destruction by the moral order of the universe.—Ver. 6. ταῦτα ἆ § Some (Grotius, Pricaeus) take ταῦτα = τούτων: of these things which ye see a stone shall not be leit. Most, however, take it as a nominative absolute = as for these things which ye see (vide Winer, § lxiii. 2d). This suits better the emotional πιοοά.---ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι: cf. v. 35, where a similar ominous allusion to coming evil days occurs.—Ver. 7. διδάσκαλε, Master, suggesting its correlate, disciples, but not necessarily implying that the question proceeded from the Twelve; rather the contrary, for they would not be so formal in their manner of speaking to Jesus (cf. Mt. and Mk.).—+ére οὖν ταῦτα, etc. : the question refers exclusively to the pre- dicted destruction of the temple= when, and what the sign? Soin Mk. Cf. Mt.