28---31.
αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἐν ἡμῖν ἄχρι τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.
30. προφήτης οὖν
ὑπάρχων, καὶ εἰδὼς ὅτι ὄρκῳ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ 6 Θεὸς, ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς
ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν,! καθίσαι ἐπὶ
τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ, 31. προϊδὼν ἐλάλησε περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, ὅτι οὐ κατελείφθη ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς adou, οὐδὲ ἡ σὰρέ
—
lroxatag. . . - τον Χ. om. NABCD? 61, Vulg., good versions, Eus., Cypr.,
Irenint., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt (rejects as a marginal gloss, so Alford)
. ’
but although a similar reading is found in DE Blass does not receive it in his β text (see Weiss on Codex D, p. 57). οσφνος, D reads καρδιας; Gig., Par., Syr. Pesh.,
so Hilg., Iren. κοιλιας (ventris) ;
so in B (LXX Ps. exxxi. 11, S?R).
2 εγκατελειφθη ΝΒΟΡΕ, Eus., Chrys., Theodrt., so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Wendt, ev. A (alt. in W.H.), too well testified to suppose that it is simply derived from ver. 27
(Wendt). ᾳδου ACDEP, Chrys., Lach. ; Wendt, Weiss. η ψυχη αυτου om.
αδην NABC*D 61, 81, Syr. Pesh., Boh., Sah., Aeth.,
NB, Eus., Thaum., so Tisch., W.H.,
Eus., Irenint., Didint., Victorin. so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt (from ver. 27,
so also ov... ovde, instead of ουτε ... ουτε.
ουδε; but ovre SACD, Eus.,
Chrys., Cyr., so Tisch., W.H., Wendt; but Weiss ovte . . . ονδε, following B).
forth and slew two of his guards, and the king fled. To this attempt the Jewish historian attributed the growing troubles in Herod’s family. In the time of Hadrian the tomb is said to have fallen into ruins. Whatever its exact site, it must have been within the walls, and therefore could not correspond with the so-called “‘tombs of the kings” which De Saulcy identified with it. Those tombs are outside the walls, and are of the Roman period (Schiirer, Fewish People, ἄν. ας, vol.) i:,. ps 270, Ε.Τ David,” B.D.*). Wetstein, in loco, quotes the testi- mony of Maundrell as to the sepulchres of David and his family being the only sepulchres within the walls. St. Jerome, Epist., xlvi., writing to Marcella, ex- presses a hope that they might pray to- gether in the mausoleum of David; so that at the end of the fourth century tradition must still have claimed to mark the spot.
Ver. 30. προφήτης: as David could not have spoken this Psalm of himself, he spoke it of some other, who was none other than the Messiah—here the word is used in the double sense of one declaring God’s will, and also of one foretelling how that will would be ful- Π]]εᾶ.---ὑπάρχων: another favourite word of St. Luke, in his Gospel, and especially in Acts; in the former it is found seven times, and in the latter no less than twenty-four times, and in all parts (ex- cluding τὰ ὑπάρχοντα), Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, Ῥ. 7. It is not used by the other Evangelists. In the N.T., as in later Greek, it is often weakened into an equivalent of εἶναι; Blass, Gram-
matik des N.G., p. 239. Here it may indicate that David was a prophet, not only in this one instance, but constantly with reference to the Messiah.—épxo ὤμοσεν, Hebraistic; cf. νετ. 17. Viteau, Le Grec du N. Τ., p. 141 (1896); for the oath cf. Ps. cxxxii. 11, 2 Sam. vii. 16.--- ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ, {.ε., of his offspring. Itisacommon Hebraistic form of expression—éoovs read here, but κοιλία in Ps. cxxxi. 11 (LXX); cf. Gen, xxxv. 11 and 2 Chron. vi. 9 (Heb. vii. 5). With regard to the human ele- ment in the Person of Jesus, Peter speaks of him as a descendant of David accord- ing to prophecy, as in the Synoptists and Rom. i. 3 (Schmid). The exact expres- sion, καρπὸς τῆς ὀσφύος, is not found in the LXX, but καρ. τῆς κοιλίας is found, not only in the Psalm quoted but in Mic. vi. 7 (Lam. ii. 20), where the same Hebrew words are used as in the Psalm: ὀσφύς in the LXX is several times a trans-