66. Καὶ ὡς ἐγένετο ἡμέρα, συνήχθη τὸ πρεσβυτέριον τοῦ aod,
ἀρχιερεῖς τε καὶ ypappareis, καὶ ἀνήγαγον] αὐτὸν eis τὸ συνέδριον
ἑαυτῶν,” 67. λέγοντες, “Ei σὺ et ὁ Χριστός, εἰπὲ ὃ ἡμῖν.
Εἶπε δὲ
αὐτοῖς, “Edy ὑμῖν εἴπω, οὗ μὴ πιστεύσητε: 68. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἐρω-
τήσω, οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτέ por, ἢ ἀπολύσητε.δ
6ο. ἀπὸ τοῦ viv®
ἔσται ὅ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καθήµενος ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάµεως τοῦ
- 0
Θεού.
πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἔφη, “΄ Ὑμεῖς λέγετε, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.
- ~~ > 70. Εἶπον δὲ πάντες, “‘ 0 οὖν εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ; Ὁ δὲ
71. Οἱ δὲ εἶπον,
“Ti ἔτι χρείαν ἔχομεν paptupias’; αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἠκούσαμεν ἀπὸ τοῦ
στόματος αὐτοῦ.
1απηγαγον in ΝΒΡΚΤ (Tisch., W.H.). 3 evrov in NBLT.
2 αυτων in SBDLT al.
6 $gBLT omit pot η απολυσητε (Tisch., 7 exopev pap. χρειαν in BLT (Tisch., W.H.).
ϐγυν Se in NABDLTX.
προφ. without the question following.— Ver. 65. ἕτερα πολλὰ, many other shameful words, filling up the time, which Lk. would rather not report particularly, even if he knew them.
Vv. 66-71. Morning trial, the pro- ceedings of which, as reported by Lk., correspond to those of the night meeting reported by Mt. and Mk. (Mt. xxvi. 5ο- 66, Mk. xiv. 55-64), only much abridged. No mention of the attempt to get, through witnesses, matter for an accusa- tion, or of the testimony concerning the word about destroying the temple. The Messiah question is alone noticed. Perhaps Lk. omitted the former because of their futility, though they were im- portant as revealing the animus of the judges.—Ver. 66. els τὸ σνυνέδριον, to the council chamber, in which the San- hedrim met.—déyovrtes, introducing the proceedings, in a very generalising way. Cf. the graphic account of the high priest rising up to interrogate Jesus, after the first attempt to incriminate Him had failed, in parallels (Mt. xxvi. 62 f., Mk. xiv. 60 f.).—Ver. 67. et σὺ cio Χ. εἰπὸν ἡμῖν: either, art Thou the Christ? tell us, or tell us whether Thou be the Christ. Christ sivzpuicitey without any epithet as in parallels (Son of God, Son of the Blessed).—etwe δὲ α.: Jesus first answers evasively, saying in effect: it is vain to give an answer to such people. In parallels He replieswith a direct ‘‘yes” (‘‘thou sayst,” Mt.; “1 am,” Mk,).— Ver. 69. What Jesus now says amounts to an affirmative answer.—am6 τοῦ viv ἔσται, etc.: Jesus points to a speedy change of position from humiliation to
Τ.Ε. = ALX al. 4 Omit και NBLT. W.H.).
exaltation, without reference to what they will see, or to a second coming.— Ver. 70. πάντες, all, eagerly grasping at the handle offered by Christ’s words.— 6 vies τ. Θ. This is supposed to be in- volved in the exalted place at the right hand.—éyo® εἰμι, the direct answer at last.—Ver. 71. paptupias: instead of μαρτύρων, no mention having been pre- viously made of witnesses.
J. Weiss (in Meyer, eighth edition). finds in this section clear evidence of the use of a Jewish-Christian source from the correspondence between the account it gives of the questions put to Jesus and His replies and the Jewish-Christian ideas regarding the Messiahship. These he conceives to have been as follows: In His earthly state Jesus was not Messiah or Son of Man; only a claimant to these honours. He became both in the state of exaltation (cf. Acts ii. 36: ‘‘ God hath made Him both Lord and Christ”). He was God’s Son in the earthly state because He was conscious of God’s peculiar love and of a Messianic com- mission. So here: Jesus is to become (ἔσται) Messianic Son of Man with glory and power (δόξα and δύναμις) ; He is Son of God (ἐγώ εἰμι). On this view Sonship is lower than Christhood. Was that Lk.’s idea? On the contrary, he evidently treats the Christ question as one of subordinate importance on which it was hardly worth debating. The wider, larger question was that as to Sonship, which, once settled, settled also the narrower question. If Son, then Christ and more: not only the Jewish Messiah, but Saviour of the world. The