NOTES.

CHAPTER I.

In the remarks on the results of textual revision prefixed to the Notes on each Chapter, it is not intended to enter minutely into each critical point, but to indicate generally the drift and import of the corrections, and occasionally to state the grounds on which a reading is preferred.

κατὰ Μαθθαῖον is adopted in preference to κατὰ Ματθαῖον by the best recent editors on the authority of NBD. The evidence, however, is not conclusive, for in the text even these MSS. admit the other forms in some instances. See Scrivener's Introd. p. 488.

2. ¿yévvŋoev. In accordance with all the uncial MSS. the final v (called peλKVOTIKOV or attached') is added in the best critical editions before vowels and consonants alike. To this rule Tischendorf admits a few exceptions, as dusí (ch. vi. 24), Baoráσaoi (ch. xx. 12). It is probable that 'v' ¿þeλKVOTɩKÓv appeared invariably in the written prose language even in Attic Greek. See Winer, 43, 44, note 2, and Scrivener's Introd. p. 486, 487.

18. (a) 'Inσoû, now read by Tisch. (ed. 8), though absent from editions 5 and 7, is supported by all the Greek codices, but rejected by some critics, chiefly on the evidence of Irenæus, who (as appears from the Latin version of his works) read roû Xploroû and sustained it on special grounds; but also because the collocation ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς is hardly defensible from the position of the adjective xpiorós, and is not found elsewhere in the genuine text of the N. T. See Hammond (Text. Crit. p. 66 foll.), who discusses this reading at length: and Scrivener's Introd. p. 493.

The reading τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις, “the birth of the Messiah, is theologically valuable as denoting that the Messiah was born, against the false teaching that Jesus became the Messiah, or the Messiah entered into Him at baptism. Hence the interest of the discussion. (B) After uvnorevoelons the received text has yàp the usual particle for beginning a narrative in explanation of a statement: cp. τοιοῦτον ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμ ̓, ὅπως γὰρ ἤλθομεν κ.τ.λ.

Soph. Ant. 407.

Nam is similarly used in Latin. The insertion of yap in the text was probably the unconscious error of a copyist familiar with clas sical usage.

22. κυρίου not τοῦ κυρίου. Κύριος, in the sense of Jehovahthe triune God-is almost invariably without the article.

25. υἱὸν (Ν Β) for τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον. The reading of the textus receptus is probably due to Luke ii. 7, where πрwтÓTOKOV is unchallenged. The insertion may have been made for controversial reasons, as slightly favouring the view that 'the brethren of the Lord' were his full brethren. But this is unlikely.

Evayyeλtov, like Xplorós (see ch. i. 18), is rare in the classics. The history of it is that of many Hellenistic words-first Homeric, then vernacular, then again found in literature. It occurs twice in Homer, in the sense of 'reward for good news,' Od. XIV. 152 evayyÉMOV dé μOL ἔστω | αὐτίκ ̓ ἐπεί κεν κεῖνος ἰὼν τὰ ἃ δώμαθ ̓ ἵκηται: and again in the same passage 1. 166. In Aristoph. Eq. 656 evayyéλía Oúew is 'to sacrifice for good news,' Eq. 647 evayyéria oтepavoûv, 'to crown for good news.' In later Greek evayyéλov acquires the more familiar sense of 'good news,' as distinct from 'reward for good news.' The LXX. has the word in both senses. It was a familiar term to educated Romans: cp. 'Primum ut opinor evayyéλia. Valerius absolutus est,' Cic. ad Att. II. 3. In its N. T. use evayyeλov is closely allied to the thought of the Kingdom of God, it is distinctively the announcement of the Messianic hopes fulfilled. The word is not used by St John except in one passage of the Apocalypse, ch. xiv. 6, or by St James, and once only by St Peter, it does not occur in St Luke's Gospel. With St Paul, however, evayyéλcov is very frequent, and to him is due its leading place in the Christian vocabulary. For the verb see ch. xi. 5. The English equivalent 'gospel' (A.-Saxon Godspell) is a felicitous rendering, though it fails to convey all that belongs to evayyélov. The Continental languages have naturalised the Greek word: évangile (French), evangelium (German), evangelio (Italian).

Kaтá, according to.' The gospel is presented according to the plan and aims of the different writers inspired to meet the requirements of particular readers and to satisfy special needs.

1. Bíẞlos yevéσews, 'Book of generation,' i.e. the pedigree extracted from the public archives which were carefully preserved and placed under the special care of the Sanhedrin. The expression recalls, perhaps designedly, Gen. v. 1 αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων.

(1) The genealogy is an answer to the question which would be asked by every Jew of any one who claimed to be the Messiah, 'Is he of the house of David?' for by no name was the Messiah more frequently spoken of by Jews and by foreigners (see ch. xv. 22), and designated in the Talmud, than by that of the Son of David.

(2) Both this genealogy and that in St Luke's Gospel trace Joseph's descent. But see below, v. 16.

(3) St Matthew traces the pedigree from Abraham, the Father of the Chosen Race, through David, from whose house the Messiah was expected; St Luke, true to the scope of his Gospel, traces it from the common Father of Jew and Gentile.

(4) St Matthew gives the royal succession, St Luke, the family lineage. This accounts for many variations in names.

(5) This genealogy descends from father to son, and is therefore probably the more exact transcript of the original document. Luke's ascends from son to father.

St

2. Tòv 'Iσαáк. The article is generally used with indeclinable proper names for the sake of perspicuity. See Winer, p. 141.

3. Oάpap. St Matthew also differs from St Luke in naming women in the genealogy. Of the four mentioned two-Rahab and Ruth-are foreigners, and three-Thamar, Rahab and Bathshebawere stained with sin. The purpose of the Evangelist in recording their names may be to show that He who came to save 'that which was lost,' the Friend of sinners, does not scorn such descent.

5. Σαλμών. Ιεσσαί. According to the received chronology the space of time between Salmon and Jesse was not less than 400 years. In that space there are only four generations recorded in the text. Either then the received chronology is wrong or the genealogy not complete. In all probability the former is at fault, and the shortening of the period named would bring 'Jewish history into harmony with Egyptian and with the internal evidence of the Israelitish history itself.' See Art. 'Genealogy' in Bib. Dict. for this and other points. 6. Aavels Tov Baoiλéa. A special hint of Christ the king, of whom David was the type.

ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου. For the omission of γυναικός ep. Hectoris Andromache,' En. III. 319: such ellipse is natural where there would be no difficulty in supplying the missing word.

It is at this point that St Luke's genealogy branches off. According to natural descent Joseph was a descendant of Nathan, not of Solomon. The genealogies meet again in the names of Zorobabel and Salathiel. See below, v. 12.

8. 'Iwpàu Sè éyévvnoev tòv 'Ojelav (Uzziah). The names of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah are here omitted; see note, v. 17.

11. Ιωσείας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ιεχονίαν (Jehoiakim); but in the next v. Jechonias=Jehoiachin. A step is thus wanting in the gene⚫alogy, which is supplied by a very early though probably not genuine reading: Ἰωσείας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωακείμ· Ἰωακεὶμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν 'Iexovíav (Jehoiachin). The insertion would make fifteen steps in this portion of the genealogy and would not remove the difficulty unless τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς were placed after Ιωακείμ.

Ιεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. No brethren of Jehoiachin are mentioned, but Jehoiakim had three (1 Chr. iii. 15): a further indication that 'Iexovías in this verse=Jehoiakim.

ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος. At the time of the migration or transportation to Babylon' (606 B.C.). For ènì in this sense cp. èπì Klavdiov, Acts xi. 28; èπì άpxɩepéws "Avva, Luke iii. 2. This use of the preposition comes from the conception that one event rests on,

ST MATTHEW

6

but not wholly on, a person or other events. μeToKeola, the LXX. word for the Babylonish exile, for which the classical μeToKía is also used. For the genitive Baßuλ@vos see Winer, p. 234. Cp. French 'chemin de Paris,' road to Paris.

12. Ιεχονίας ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαλαθιήλ, Jehoiachin had no children of his own, 'write ye this man childless' (Jer. xxii. 30). Salathiel was the son of Neri (Luke), but heir to Jehoiachin.

13. Ζοροβάβελ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ̓Αβιούδ Here a step is omitted, Abiud-the Hodaiah of 1 Chron. iii. 24-being the grandson of Zerubbabel. Rhesa, who is named as Zerubbabel's son (Luke iii. 27), is conjectured to be a title (Rhesa or Rosh a Prince): in that case the text in Luke should run, which was the son of Rhesa Zorobabel.' The Juda of Luke is the same as Abiud.

16. Ιακωβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσήφ. ‘Joseph which was the son of Heli' (Luke), see last note; probably Joseph was the son of Heli and the heir to Jacob. It is conjectured with much probability that Jacob was Mary's father. In that case, although both genealogies show Joseph's descent, they are in fact equally genealogies of Mary's family.

(According to Matthew) Jacob_

Mary (?)

Matthan or Matthat

Heli (according to Luke) Joseph

17. This division into three sets, each containing fourteen steps of descent, is an instance of a practice familiar to readers of Jewish antiquities. Lightfoot says, "They do so very much delight in such kind of concents, that they oftentimes screw up the strings beyond the due measure and stretch them till they crack.' Such a system necessitates the omission of steps in the descent: see notes vv. 8 and 13. 18-25.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST. Luke i. 26-56 and ii. 4—7. St Mark and St John give no account of the birth of Jesus, St Luke narrates several particulars not recorded by St Matthew, (1) the annunciation, (2) Mary's salutation of Elizabeth in a city of Juda (or Juttah), and (3) the journey from Galilee to Bethlehem.

18. ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. See v. 21.

XpioToû. As a classical word xplords is very rare (Esch. Prom. Vinct. 480 and Eur. Hipp. 516 are among the few instances where it occurs) and thus belongs to a class of words that have passed into Christian use without any debasing pagan associations. In the LXX. it is frequent as a translation of the Hebrew Mashiach (anointed). To the Jew it would suggest the thought of (1) Prophet, un å¥ηole Tŵv χριστῶν μου καὶ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις μου μὴ πονηρεύεσθε, Ps. civ. 15; (2) Priest, καὶ εἰσοίσει ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, Levit. iv. 16 ; (3) King, ποιῶν ἔλεος τῷ χριστῷ αὐτοῦ τῷ Δαβίδ, Ps. xvii. 54. As a proper name it was the Messiah, the Xploròs youμevos of Dan. ix. 25—— the only passage where the term Mashiach is applied directly to the

coming Deliverer. In the N. T. the Hebrew form is used twice (John i. 41 and iv. 25), where it is explained: euphκaμev тòv Meoσiav ö ÈσTW μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός (ch. i. 42) and οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεYoμevos XPLOTÓs. Note that one title-Messiah or Christ—has been adopted almost to the exclusion of others quite as common in the O. T., 'The Branch,' He that cometh' (ò èpxóuevos, Hebr. Habba), 'The Prophet.' This is partly due to the great influence of Daniel's prophecy, partly to the appropriateness of the title to the Son of David.

μvnotevbelons, 'betrothed.' Among the Jews the betrothal took place a year before marriage, and during the interval the betrothed maiden remained with her own family. But from the day of betrothal the pair were regarded as man and wife. For the genitive absolute μνηστ....Μαρίας instead of the nominative as subject to εὑρέθη see Winer, p. 260.

Mapías. The Hebrew form is Miriam.

19.

Síkalos av, since he was a just man,' i.e. one who observed the law, and, therefore, feeling bound to divorce Mary. But two courses were open to him. He could either summon her before the law-courts to be judicially condemned and punished, or he could put her away by a bill of divorcement before witnesses, but without assigning cause. This is meant by λάθρα ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν, the more merciful course which Joseph resolved to adopt. The tradition of medieval art that Joseph was an old man at this time rests on no scriptural evidence, but the fact that he disappears from the Gospel history after Luke ii. 51, and the inference that he died before our Lord's ministry began are adduced in support of that view.

καὶ μὴ θέλων. καὶ appears to have a restrictive force and to be equivalent to Kalтol. See Jelf, 759. 3, and Campbell's Soph. Introd. § 25. 2. 6. Cp. ὦ στέφανε χαίρων ἄπιθι καί σ' ἄκων ἐγὼ | λείπω, Aristoph. Eq. 1250, and кal eòs èμμì кaì où dúvaμaí σe diúкew, Bion, Id. 1. 53. In all these passages, however, it is better to see the restrictive or adversative force not in the connecting particle but in the contrasted clauses and to regard kaì as simply conjunctive. See Winer, 545.

newv, since he was unwilling,' quum nollet. In modern Greek un is always the negative used with participles. Perhaps the origin of the usage may be traced to the fact that the participle generally explains the motive or condition of an action and so would require un rather than ou. Then from the tendency to grammatical uniformity the usage became universal. In the N. T. there is a close approach in this respect to the rule of modern Greek.

Sayparioal, to display,' 'exhibit,' here to expose in open court,' as opposed to λάθρα ἀπολῦσαι. παραδειγματίσαι—the reading of the received text-is used by Polybius of punishing the guilty for an example to others, 11. 60. 7, xv. 32. 5, et alibi, see Schweighäuser sub The simple verb which does not appear to be classical is found in the sense of 'displaying' as in a triumph in Col. ii. 15, ràs éžovolas

VOC.