Notes

Schoettgen Ch. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. Dresdae et Lipsiae, 1733–1742. Vol. 1–2.

Friedrich G. De Christologia Samaritanorum. Lipsiae, 1821.

Tacitus. Historiae. Liber V, 13. «Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum libris contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Iudaea rerum potirentur». Similar in Suetonius: Suetonius. De vita Caesarum. Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1886. P. 4; Josephus Flavius. De bello Judaico. Liber V. Cap. 5. § 7. Ver. 31; Philo Judaeus. Opera omnia. Tom. II. P. 423 sqq., 435 sqq.

Gratz P. J. Kritisch-historischer Commentar über das Evangelium des Matthäus. Tübingen : Laupp, 1821. Tom. I. P. 72.

Suetonius Tranquillus C. De vita Caesarum. Divus Vespasianus. Lipsiae : B. G. Teubner, 1886. Caput 4; Josephus Flavius. De bello Judaico. Berolini : Weidmannos, 1895. Liber VI. Cap. 5. § 4. Εὗρον δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ τὸ λόγιον, ἡγεμονίαν ἀποδειχθέντος ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίας αὐτοκράτορος.

Josephus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. Berolini : Weidmannos, 1890. Liber XX. Cap. 5. § 1.

Josephus Flavius. De bello Judaico. Liber I. Cap. 2. § 7. Ver 13, 38.

Stahl F. W. Von den messianischen Zeiten // Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur / hrsg. von J. G. Eichhorn. Leipzig : Weidmann, 1794. Band VI. Stück 1. S. 1–33.

Midrasch Tehillim. (Schocher Tob). Editio Salomon Buber. Vilna : Typographia Romm, 1891. Ad Psalmus 74, 9.

Eisenmenger J. A. Entdecktes Judenthum. Königsberg, 1711. Tom. II. P. 698 sqq.

Once, when Jesus Christ hinted at this event, one of the Pharisees exclaimed with vehemence: «God forbid!» (Lk 20:16; Jn 9:10).

Schmidius Ch. E. Dissertatio, quae Iudaeorum, qui Christi tempore vixerunt, de eadem re varias opiniones accommodate ad loca Novi Testamenti enarrat. Jenae : Litteris Straussianis, 1775.

Targum Jonathan. In Michaeam. 3, 2 // Biblia Sacra Polyglotta / edidit Brianus Waltonus. Londini : Thomas Roycroft, 1657. Tom. III.

Bertholdt L. Christologia Judaeorum Jesu Apostolorumque aetate. Erlangae : Palm, 1811.

Bertholdt L. Christologia Judaeorum Jesu Apostolorumque aetate. Erlangae : Palm, 1811.

Bertholdt L. Christologia Judaeorum Jesu Apostolorumque aetate. Erlangae : Palm, 1811. § 31, 32.

Seiler G. F. De regni a vatibus divinis Messiae promissi vera natura atque indole. Erlangae: Typis Kunstmannianis, 1791.

Stapfer J. F. Institutiones theologiae polemicae universae, ordine scientifico dispositae. Tiguri : Heidegger et Socios, 1743–1752. Tom. III. Cap. XI. § 14 (Sect. de Judaismo).

Bertholdt L. Christologia Judaeorum Jesu Apostolorumque aetate. Erlangae : Palm, 1811. § 2, 3.

Confer: Fleck F. F. De regno Christi sive de regno divino, ex mente Jesu Christi et Apostolorum. Lipsiae : Sumptibus Friderici Fleischeri, 1826.

Filaret (Drozdov), Metr. Nachertanie tserkovno-bibleyskoy istorii [An Outline of Church-Biblical History]. Moscow: Synodal Press, 1824. Period X.

Bertholdt L. Commentatio de ortu theologiae veterum Hebraeorum. P. 1, 5 sqq., 100 sqq.

Targum Jonathan. In Isaiam. 40, 10 // Biblia Sacra Polyglotta / edidit Brianus Waltonus. Londini : Thomas Roycroft, 1657. Tom. III.

Justinus Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo. Londini : Apud Richardum Sare, 1722. Cap. 49. (Ed. Thirlby, p. 268; Paris. p. 226). «Πάντες ἡμεῖς τὸν Χριστὸν ἄνθρωπον προσδοκῶμεν γενέσθαι, καὶ τὸν Ἠλίαν χρίσαι αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα».

This is evident, among other things, from the heresy of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, who taught that Christ was a man, and not God. For these heretics, descending from the Jews of Palestine, retained, it is supposed, the very opinion of the Messiah they had held before their conversion to Christianity. See: Eusebius of Caesarea. Liber III. Cap. 27; Jerome of Stridon. Epistulae. Epistula 112, 13; Tertullian. De praescriptione haereticorum. Cap. 33.

Berthold L. Christologia Judacorum Jesu Apstolorumqur actate. Erlangae : Palm, 1811. § 29, 33.

Abraham Shalom. Neve Schalom. Venetiis : Apud Joannem de Gara, 1574. Lib. IX. Cap. 5.

Philo himself, though in other respects quite free of his countrymen’s fantastical notions, hoped that the scattered Jews would be carried to Jerusalem in the twinkling of an eye by angels. See: Philo Judaeus. De execrationibus // Opera omnia quae reperiri potuerunt. Londini : Typis Gulielmi Bowyer, 1742. Vol. II. P. 435–436. (Editio Mangey).

In the apocryphal (and now lost) Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, according to the testimony of Justin Martyr (Justinus Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo. Coloniae : Sumptibus Jeremiae Schrey, 1686. Cap. 72. P. 298. (Editio Coloniensis)) and Irenaeus of Lyon (Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses. Parisiis : Editio Migne (Patrologia Graeca. Tom. VII), 1857. Liber III. Cap. 20. § 4; Liber IV. Cap. 22. § 1), it was written: «Ἐμνήσθη δὲ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἅγιος Ἰσραὴλ τῶν νεκρῶν αὐτοῦ τῶν κεκοιμημένων εἰς γῆν χώματος, καὶ κατέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτοῖς τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ». See also: Liber Enoch // Fabricius J. A. Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti. Hamburgi : Sumptibus Felginerianis, 1722. Vol. I. P. 160–224; 3Ezr 2:10, 13, 15, 16, 30, 31; 1:35.

Josephus Flavius. De bello Judaico. Berolini : Weidmannos, 1895. Liber VI. Cap. 5. § 4; Josephus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. Berolini : Weidmannos, 1890. Liber X. Cap. 11. § 7. ‒ Bauer G. L. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig : Weygand, 1802. Band II. S. 413.

Eisenmenger J. A. Entdecktes Judenthum. Band II. Cap. XV. S. 872 sqq.

Philo Judaeus. De execrationibus // Opera omnia quae reperiri potuerunt / edidit Thomas Mangey. Londini : Typis Gulielmi Bowyer, 1742. Vol. II. P. 435–436; Philo Judaeus. De praemiis et poenis. Vol. II. P. 424–426; Philo Judaeus. De vita Mosis. Liber I. Vol. II. P.141; Philo Judaeus. De somniis. Liber I. Vol. I. P. 647.

Schoettgenius C. Dissertatio de regno Messiae. Dresdae : Apud Fridericum Hekel, 1742. See also, by the same author: Schoettgenius C. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in theologiam Judaeorum dogmaticam. Dresdae ; Lipsiae : Apud Christoph. Hekelii B. Filium, 1742. Tom. II. Lib. II. Cap. 1. § 13. P. 79.

Non judicant tribum, nec pseudoprophetam, nec summum pontificem, nisi judicio septuaginta unius. Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:5 (TJ Sanhedrin 18a). See: Lightfoot J. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Lipsiae, 1674. P. 203 (in Luc. 13:33).

Jesus Christ was in Jerusalem for the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, kept on the 25th of Kislev (Chaslev), which by our own calendar usually falls in December. See: Jn 10:22-23; Josephus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. Berolini : Weidmannos, 1890. Liber XII. Cap. 7. § 7.

Franke V. Entwurf einer Apologetik der christlichen Religion. Altona : Hammerich, 1817. Seite 33–63 (The author is given in the original as V. Franke; modern sources and bibliographic databases, however, unambiguously attribute this work to Georg Samuel Francke [G. S. Francke]).

Flatt J. F. Dissertatio de notione vocis Βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν // Commentationes theologicae / ed. a F. G. Velthusen, C. T. Kuinoel et G. A. Ruperti. Lipsiae, 1794–1799. Vol. 2. P. 421.

Reinhard F. V. Sur le plan formé par le fondateur de la religion chrétienne pour le bonheur du genre humain. Dresde : Chez George Joachim Göschen, 1799. P. 55–77.

St. John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew (Homily 62 on ch. 19); Homilies on the Gospel of John (Homilies 70-82 on chs. 13-17) // Works. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Theological Academy, 1901. Vol. 7, 8.

Josephus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae / ed. B. Niese. Berolini : Weidmann, 1887. Vol. 4. XVIII, 3, 2.

Tacitus C. Historiae / ed. C. D. Fisher. Oxonii : E Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1911. Liber V. Cap. 5.

The Feast of the Dedication of the Temple was kept in the month of Chaslev, which corresponds to our December.

A dream was, from ancient times, regarded as a sign of recovery in many illnesses. Euripides. Orestes, line 211. Conf. Wettstein J. J. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amstelaedami, 1751. Tom. 1 : Continens Quatuor Evangelia; Ad Johannem. Cap. 11.

The expression «to sit beside someone» generally signifies: 1) dignity and honor (1King 2:19). Thus Alexander, king of Syria (1Mac 10:63), wishing to show John special honor, bids him sit beside himself. 2) special power and a share in governing the people (Ps 109:1). 3) friendship and closeness (Sir 12:12).

John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Holy Evangelist Matthew. — St. Petersburg, 1901. Vol. 7.

The account of St. James’s martyrdom is found in Act 12:2. St. John, according to tradition, died a natural death; yet the holy Church rightly extols him, among other things, as a martyr too, because he, as he himself says (Apok 1:2, 9), was a partaker in the tribulation of Jesus Christ, and for his testimony to Him endured exile on the island of Patmos, drank a cup of poison, and was cast into boiling oil, though he came out of it, according to Tertullian’s account, stronger and more vigorous than when he went in. See: Cornelius a Lapide. Commentaria in Sacrosanctum Jesu Christi Evangelium secundum Matthaeum. Parisiis, 1877.

Let no one be troubled, says St. Chrysostom, that the apostles show themselves so imperfect on this occasion, for the sacrament of baptism had not yet been performed, and the grace of the Spirit had not yet been poured into their hearts. Their imperfection is disclosed now for this very reason: that you might know what they afterward became, in an instant, by the action of grace (Commentary on the Holy Gospel of Matthew).

Relandus H. Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata. Trajecti Batavorum, 1714. See also: Rosenmüller E. F. C. Handbuch der biblischen Alterthumskunde. Leipzig, 1827. Band 2. Biblische Geographie. Theil 2.

According to St. Matthew’s account, two blind men were healed, while according to Mark and Luke, only one. Moreover, in Mark and Matthew the healing takes place as He was leaving Jericho, while in Luke it is before entering that city. Besides this, St. Mark gives the blind man’s name and patronymic. To resolve the first discrepancy, it is supposed that one of the blind men was well known to everyone, which is why Luke and Mark mention only him; Matthew, meanwhile, as an eyewitness of the miracle, describes in more detail how it happened (Storr G. Über den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis. Tübingen, 1786. S. 345). To explain the second discrepancy, it is supposed that one blind man was healed on the way in, and the other on the way out of the city. In any case, the reliability of the Gospel account has little need of such conjectures; it speaks for itself!

Suicerus J.C. Thesaurus ecclesiasticus. 2nd ed. Amstelodami, Wetstenium, 1682. Vol. 2. Sub voce; Burmannus P. De vectigalibus populi romani dissertatio. Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1714. Cap. 9. P. 125; Salmasius C. Dissertatio de foenore trapezitico. Lugduni Batavorum, 1640. P. 253.

Berger J. P. Moralische Einleitung in das feyerliche Lehr-System der Religion. Liegnitz, 1755 (Ad h. l.); Niemeyer A. H. Charakteristik der Bibel. Halle, 1795.

Gregorius I (Magnus). Moralium libri, sive Expositio in Librum B. Job. // Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina / Accurante J.-P. Migne. Parisiis, 1849. T. 76. Lib. XXVII; Joannes Chrysostomus. Homilia in Zacchæum // Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca.Parisiis, 1837.

Schöttgen C. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Dresdae, 1733.

Zacchaeus means innocent, pure.

Clemens Romanus. Recognitiones // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina / accurante J. P. Migne. Parisiis, 1844. T. 1. Lib. I, III.

A mina (μνᾶ), Attic, consisted of 100 drachmas, and a drachma was equal to our imperial. See: Michaelis J. D. Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte, zu seiner Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen, 1791. T. 2. Ad Luc. 19:13.

Josephus F. Antiquitates Judaicae. Berolini, 1892. Lib. XVII. Cap. 11 ; Conf. Wolfius J. C. Curae philologicae et criticae in IV Evangelia. Hamburgi, 1739. Ad Luc. 19:12.

Geier M. De Luctu Hebraeorum liber: cum figuris aeneis. Francofurti ad Moenum, 1683. Cap. VI. § 23 sq. ; Cf. also: Grotius H. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. Erlangae, 1755. ; Lightfoot J. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. Lipsiae, 1684.

Eckermann J. C. R. Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments ; Stolz J. J. Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament ; Schulthess J. ad Joh. 11:19.

Augustinus A. In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus CXXIV. H. l.

Kuinoel C. G. Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis. Cap. 11.

Theophylactus Bulgarus. Enarratio in Evangelium Joannis // Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca. Parisiis, 1864. T. 124. Col. 113.

Both St. Chrysostom and Euthymius held that Martha did not understand Jesus Christ’s words as she should have. See John Chrysostom, St. Homilies on the Gospel of John. Homily 62; Euthymius Zigabenus. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Ch. 11.

In ancient times, it was customary to mourn the dead at their graves. Geier M. De luctu Hebraeorum. Cap. VII. § 26. P. 121 ; Rosenmüller E. F. C. Das Alte und Neue Morgenland. Bd. 5. S. 258.

Chrysostomus: In Joannem homiliae // Patrologia Graeca. T. 59; Euthymius. Commentarius in Joannem // Patrologia Graeca. T. 129; Cyrillus: In Joannis Evangelium // Patrologia Graeca. T. 73–74; Augustinus: In Joannis Evangelium tractatus // Patrologia Latina. T. 35; Theophylactus. Enarratio in Evangelium Joannis // Patrologia Graeca. T. 124.

«You knew—Blessed Augustine asks at this point—that Lazarus was dead, and did not know where he was buried!» And he adds that the God-man knew where Lazarus was buried, but, in dealing with men, acted in a human manner. See Augustinus A. In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus. Tract. 49.

Christ wept, Augustine writes, so that man might weep over himself; for why else did Christ weep, if not to teach man to weep! See Augustinus A. In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus. Tract. 49.

Again groaning within Himself (Greek ἐμβριμώμενος).

Nicolai J. De sepulcris Hebraeorum. Lib. III. Cap. 10, 11 ; Cf.: Lampe F. A. Commentarius analytico-exegeticus Evangelii secundum Joannem ; Wolfius J. C. Curae philologicae et criticae. Ad h. l.

Lampe F. A. Commentarius analytico-exegeticus Evangelii secundum Joannem. Amstelodami, 1724.

John Chrysostom, St. Homilies on the Gospel of John; Theophylact of Bulgaria, Blessed. Commentary on the Gospel of John.

The success of the prayer was as certain as if it had already been fulfilled in fact.

So that the Pharisees would not again begin to say that I work miracles not by Your power, that I am not Your envoy.

«A royal command, worthy of God!» Cyrillus Alexandrinus. In Joannis Evangelium.

The dead man comes to life, the bound man walks, wonder upon wonder; feet bound with graveclothes do not hinder his movement. St. Basil the Great. On Thanksgiving (De gratiarum actione). Ch. 1.

Some (Origen, Heumann, Semler, Heseler) supposed that these men had no evil intent, and wished only either to expose the Pharisees, who were hostile to Jesus, or to consult with them on whether, after this miracle, it was still possible not to believe the truth of His teaching. But a) the evangelist plainly sets these men in opposition to those who believed in the Lord; b) to go to Jesus’s open enemies for advice on whether one ought to believe in Him means not wishing to believe at all; c) the supposed intent—to expose the Pharisees—is far too arbitrary and out of place.

John says outright that he described in his Gospel only some of Jesus Christ’s deeds, and that, were all of them to be described, the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.

Grotius H. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum; Lilienthal M. Die gute Sache der göttlichen Offenbarung. Th. 10. S. 842.

Schulthess J. Die Gewissheit der Schrifterklärung, erprobt an der evangelischen Erzählung von der Wiederbelebung des Lazarus. Zürich : bey Orell, Füssli und Compagnie, 1808. S. 127.

Cornelius a Lapide. Commentaria in Joannem. Parisiis, 1874. Ad cap. 11.

Kuinoel C. G. Commentarius in Libros Novi Testamenti Historicos. Vol. 3: Evangelium Iohannis. Lipsiae, 1817. Ad Matth. 14:2; Ioh.1:19.

Augustinus A. In Evangelium Ioannis expositio / Aurelius Augustinus // Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Latina. Parisiis, 1845. Vol. 35. Col. 1487.

See: Filaret (Drozdov), St. Sermon on Great Friday. Moscow, 1848. See also: John Chrysostom, hierarch. Commentary on the Holy Evangelist John. St. Petersburg, 1902. Vol. 8. Homily 65 (64).

This wilderness was so named by the first Christians after Jesus’s forty-day fast. See: Maundrell, H. Reise von Aleppo nach Jerusalem: im Jahre 1697 // Sammlung der merkwürdigsten Reisen in den Orient. Jena, 1792. Tom 1. P. 100.

A description of these places may be found in: Rosenmüller, E. F. K. Handbuch der biblischen Alterthumskunde. Leipzig, 1823.

Bertholdt L. Christologia Judaeorum Jesu apostolorumque aetate / Leonhard Bertholdt. Erlangae : Typis et sumtibus J. J. Palm, 1811.

This is plainly evident from a comparison of the circumstances.

Simon was now free of leprosy; otherwise, by law, he could not only have received no one into his house, but could not have been in it himself. He is called the leper in the same way that Lazarus is called the dead man (Jn 12:1), Matthew the tax collector (Mt 10:3), the blind seeing, the deaf hearing (Mt 11:5)—that is, by a familiar turn of speech, a past state is taken for the present one.

This supper is placed here in accordance with the chronological order St. John follows. Matthew and Mark place it after the predictions of the temple’s destruction and the end of the world, immediately before the account of Judas’s betrayal. But this, it seems, is only because it stands in close inner connection with that betrayal. Such a rearrangement of events is not infrequent among the evangelists. See Kuinoel C. G. Commentarius in Libros Novi Testamenti Historicos. Lipsiae, 1817.

Martialis M. V. Epigrammata; ed. W. M. Lindsay. Oxonii, 1929. L. III, Epigr. 12–14.

This thought is supported by the Savior’s own word «kept», and by Judas’s words, who reproached Mary not for having bought the ointment, but for not having sold it (once bought).

Lampe F. A. Commentarius analytico-exegeticus evangelii secundum Joannem. Basileae, 1727. Ad Johannem 12:3.

Some interpreters of Holy Scripture have supposed that Mary herself foresaw Jesus Christ’s death, and anointed Him with the ointment specifically for burial. See Moschius J. G. Historisch-kritische Betrachtungen über die Leidensgeschichte Jesu Christi. Leipzig, 1785. P. 32; Storr G. C. Dissertationes exegiticae in librorum Novi Testamenti historicorum aliquot loca. Tubingae, 1790. Storr G. C. Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmatik. Stuttgart, 1803.

Horatius Flaccus Q. Epodon liber. 9, 22; Ovidius Naso P. Metamorphoses. 3, 12; Vergilius Maro P. Georgica. 4, 540–551.

Meyer G. W. Versuch einer hermeneutischen Einleitung in die Schriftstellen des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen, 1799. Th. 2. S. 558.

That this prophecy was applied to the Messiah by the Jews themselves is evident from many rabbinic testimonies. Paulus H. E. G. Commentar über das Neue Testament. 2 Ausg. Lübeck, 1800–1804. Th. 3. S. 117–119.

Traces of this custom remain in the East to this day. Chardin J. Voyages de monsieur le chevalier Chardin, en Perse, et autres lieux de l’Orient. Tom. 3. P. 103, 209.

Joseph. Antiq. 2, 8, 5.

Philo. Leg. ad Gaium, 1.

Kuinoel C. T. Comm. in Matth.; Rosenmüller J. G. Scholia in N. T.; Gratz P. A. Comm. in Matth. Afterward, the palm branches themselves came to be called among the Jews hoshannot—from the frequent repetition of this word, and of the whole of Psalm 117, during the Feast of Tabernacles. Caninius A. Institutiones linguae Syriacae, Assyriacae atque Thalmudicae, una cum Aethiopicis, et Arabicis collatio. Additus est ad calcem Tractatus de nominibus Hebraicis. Antverpiae, 1582. Cap. 4.

Hosanna in Hebrew means: save, grant happiness! Hosanna in the highest (ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις), that is (ὁ ὢν ἐν ὑψίστοις), He who is in the highest, dwelling in heaven! For ὑψίστοις is the same as heaven. (Ps 93:4; Job 31:2).

Hempel C. F. Beschreibung des jüdischen Landes zur Zeit Jesu. Leipzig, 1825. S. 44–45. Relandi Palæstina.

Annas’s palace stood on the Akra, and Caiaphas’s on Zion, two hills which formed two distinct quarters of the city; Hempel C. F. Beschreibung des jüdischen Landes zur Zeit Jesu. Leipzig, 1825.

These calamitous days came thirty-eight years later. Jerusalem, by Titus’s order, was indeed surrounded on every side by a high rampart, so that it was possible neither to enter it nor to leave it.

By the temple, both here and in other places where it is said that Jesus Christ entered the temple, taught in the temple, and the like, one should understand the outer part of the temple, which consisted of a spacious courtyard divided into various sections, and the numerous outer structures adjoining the temple proper. The Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, which properly constituted the temple itself, were inaccessible to anyone not belonging to the priestly order. Rosenmüller E. F. K. Handbuch der biblischen Alterthumskunde. Leipzig, 1823–1831.

Gratz J. S. Neuer Versuch einer Erläuterung der drey ersten Evangelien. Tübingen, 1821. Bd. 2. S. 367 (Ad Matth. 21:15).

Reimarus H. S. Vom Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger. Braunschweig, 1778; Voltaire. Catéchisme de l’honnête homme. Genève, 1763. P. 34–40.

Berger J. G. I. Durchaus philologische Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Lemgo, 1797. Th. 1. S. 238–240.

Paulus H. E. G. Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar über das neue Testament. Lübeck, 1801, where testimonies of the ancient rabbis on the meaning of the prophecy are cited.

Harras J. G. Bemerkungen über den letzten Einzug Jesu zu Jerusalem // Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur. Leipzig, 1800. Bd. 10. St. 2. S. 189–242.

Jesus Christ, St. Chrysostom reasons, had often come to Jerusalem, but never with such solemnity as this. Why was that? His earlier visits belonged only to the beginning of the plan of salvation; He Himself was not yet known to everyone, and the time of His sufferings had not yet come. For this reason He had not, until now, declared Himself in any special way, and had, as it were, kept Himself hidden. But after He had given many proofs of His own omnipotence, when the cross already stood at the door, He declares Himself with solemnity… All this could have been done from the very beginning, but it would have served no purpose. Chrysostomus J. Homiliae in Matthaeum. Hom. 66 (al. 67).

Eusebius. Demonstratio Evangelica. Lib. 8. Cap. 4.

Josephus F. Antiquitates Judaicae. Lib. XVIII, 3, 3.

Three kinds of fig tree grow in Palestine: a) early ones, which set fruit in March and ripen in July (Is 28:4; Jer 24:1-3); b) keremas, which set fruit in July and ripen in August; and c) late ones, whose fruit remains until spring. See: Plinius Secundus C. Historiae Naturalis libri XXXVII, 1627; Warnekros C. E. Entwurf der Hebräischen Alterthümer. Weimar, 1794. S. 131; Bochart S. Geographia Sacra, seu Phaleg et Canaan. Lugduni Batavorum [Leiden], 1692. P. 332.

The sale of sacrificial animals was especially necessary for foreign Jews, who, coming from afar, could not bring their own animals with them. Even Moses foresaw the need to permit this kind of trade in due time (Num 15:13-15).

The exchange of money was necessary because neither the temple treasury nor the tax collected for the temple accepted foreign coin; meanwhile foreign Jews had very little Hebrew money, since it had no use in other lands.

One can judge the number of such animals from Josephus’s own testimony, who says that at a single Passover as many as 250,600 lambs were sold.

The evangelist calls them chief priests not in the strict sense of the word (Act 4:6).

For instance, Baruch was sent by Jeremiah.

Examples of such fine points of inquiry are found in abundance in the Mishnah. Sanhedrin. Fol. 110. § 5.

In the original—«they will go before you». But among the Hebrews such a comparison is often used in place of an absolute negation (Gen 48:22; 1Sam 24:18; Lk 18:14). That in this case too the comparison is used in place of a negation is evident from the very nature of the matter.

Wine-presses in the East, even today, are dug underground as protection from the heat of the sun. Jahn O. Archäologie oder Handbuch der Geschichte der griechischen und römischen Kunst. Bd. I. Th. 1. Leipzig, 1846. S. 13, § 18.

This psalm contains a solemn song, in which David thanks God, in the temple, for the overthrow of his enemies. The kingdom of Judah is compared here to a building, whose builders are Saul and the elders of the twelve tribes of Israel. The stone they rejected is David, whom God Himself afterward made the head of the corner—made king and victor. And since David was a divinely appointed type of his great Descendant, the Messiah, many features of his reign and personal fortunes apply, in a mystical sense, to Jesus Christ (Act 4:11; Rom 9:33; Eph 2:20; 2Tim 2:19; 1Pet 2:7).

It must be supposed that Jesus Christ had in mind, here, the following passage from the prophets: (Is 8:14-15); in the prophet, God is compared to a holy stone, and the wicked are likened to men who, struck with fear, flee, and, stumbling over the holy stone, fall and are broken. In the present case, Jesus meant Himself by the stone. Those who fell upon this stone are counted among the Jews who, offended by His humbled state, would not accept His teaching. For such men, repentance was easy, and they suffered only one punishment—the loss of its benefits. But there were also, among those who did not believe in Christ, men upon whom the stone itself would fall, to crush them, because they sinned not from weakness and ignorance, but from malice and unruliness; they were unrepentant, and so unworthy of mercy as well. One such strange fall occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem.

In the original stands γάμος—properly, a marriage, a wedding feast. But the purpose of the parable, and of the discourse, requires us to suppose a different feast, most likely one held at an heir’s accession to the throne; such feasts were as widespread in the East as anywhere else (1King 1:9). At the same time γάμος sometimes means any feast whatsoever, and the interpreters of Est 9:22 used it in that sense.

One of the punishments in use in the East (Dan 9:26).

In the East, those who must appear before the king are first sent a fine garment (a caftan) for the occasion. Jahn O. Biblische Archäologie. Theil 1. Wien, 1858. Ch. 6.2. S. 162.

Golberg V. Jüdische Geschichte.

How the Herodians thought about their own nation’s relation to the Romans, and about political independence in general, may be guessed from the following words of Herod Agrippa, preserved for posterity by Josephus. «To avoid losing one’s freedom—he says—it is right to fight; but whoever, once defeated, then tries to throw off the victor’s yoke, resembles a stubborn slave more than a zealot for freedom». See Josephus Flavius. The Jewish War. Bk. 2. Ch. 16. § 4.

Maimonides. In tractatus Gezelah. C. 5.

That every Jewish sect was ready to take its own enemy under its protection, so long as it found in him an ally for its own errors, and saw in defending him a means of annoying the other sects, is proved by the example of the Apostle Paul, who unexpectedly found, in fully half of his own judges and accusers, zealous defenders—for no other reason than that it seemed to the Pharisees that the opinions for which he was accused resembled their own sect’s teaching, and were opposed to the Sadducees (Act 23:6-9).

Schöttgen C. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae; Eisenmenger J. A. Entdecktes Judenthum. Tom. II. P. 943.

Indeed, among the later rabbis one finds a doctrine of the soul’s state after death that is far purer, and even resembles the Gospel’s own teaching. «In the age to come—one writes—there will be no eating or drinking, no begetting of children, no trading; there is no envy there, no anger, no strife, and the like» (Berakhot. Talmud Babylonicum. Fol. 17.). In a still later rabbi one even finds the very same proof of the resurrection of souls that Jesus Christ uses in the present instance. Menasseh Ben Israel. De resurrectione mortuorum. Lib. I. Cap. 10, Sect. 6. P. 68. (Contr. Schöttgen C. Horae Hebraicae).

A specimen of such reasoning may be seen in the Talmud Babylonicum. Tractatus Sanhedrin. Fol. 90.

St. Mark hints at this rather plainly, when he says that one of the scribes… seeing that Jesus Christ had answered them well, came up and asked. The same may be concluded from the approval Jesus Christ gave this scribe. Since, however, St. Matthew says outright that this test, too, was made at the Pharisees’ own instigation, and not with good intent, some (Rosenmüller E. F. K. Das alte und neue Morgenland. Leipzig, 1813. Bd. 3. S. 199.) have supposed that the question about the greatest commandment was posed twice: the first time by a Pharisee with evil intent, as Matthew relates, the second time—without evil design, as Mark describes. This is an unproven supposition, and one inconsistent with the circumstances of the case (Kuinoel C. T. Commentarius in Libros Novi Testamenti Historicos. Lipsiae, 1807–1818). Here, following the example of Chrysostom and Theophylact, it is taken that both evangelists present one and the same question, and that, though the speaker began it without a very pure intention, he ended it with a good feeling.

Cornelius a Lapide. Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram; ad h. l.

A metaphorical expression, denoting the office of the teachers of the law, who explained the law of Moses, and were therefore, in a sense, Moses’s successors.

The law of rites, by their sheer number alone, already formed a rather heavy yoke. The Pharisees increased this weight still further by adding a multitude of traditions, by extending the meaning of the ritual rules, and by insisting that the slightest breach of a rite was a grave offense.

Bands worn on the forehead and on the arms, bearing the words of the law, especially the following: Ex 13:1-16; Deut 6:4, 11:13-21. The custom of wearing these bands arose from a literal interpretation of certain of Moses’s own commandments, e.g., Ex 13:9, 16; Deut 6:8, 11, 18. The Pharisees, to display special piety, made these phylacteries as large and as broad as possible. See Lundius J. Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer. Hamburg, 1704. Buch 4. Kap. 14. § 21–52.

Cords (tassels) of blue, the color the law prescribed for the priests’ garments. Moses commanded that every Hebrew should have a blue cord sewn to the corners of his garment, in remembrance that the whole Hebrew people was to be a holy people (Num 15:38; Deut 22:12). The Pharisees lost no time in turning these cords into fuel for their own hypocrisy, making them as large as they possibly could.

Jesus’s disciples truly never set themselves up as independent teachers, but only as messengers of one Teacher—Jesus. It was, however, the vainglory with which the Pharisees loved to be called teachers that the Lord forbade—not the name itself, which is innocent in itself. The Apostle Paul, in one place (1Tim 2:7), calls himself a teacher of the Gentiles, though he constantly speaks of himself as the least of Jesus’s disciples.

Among the Hebrews, the heads of a school were called fathers, from whom the disciples took their own designation; for instance, the followers of Shammai were called Shammaites, the followers of Hillel, Hillelites. In the same way, in the Corinthian church, some began to call themselves of Paul, others of Apollos, still others of Cephas, but the Apostle Paul put a stop to this custom, which threatened to split the Christian Church into small factions (1Cor 1:11-13).

Καθηγητής—leader-in-chief. This was the title given to the presidents of the Sanhedrin and of the synagogue (Selden J. De Synedriis et Praefecturis Juridicis Veterum Ebraeorum. P. 737).

The Pharisees devoured the houses of widows with their long prayers. By a false piety, making themselves the arbiters of pious women’s consciences and property, they induced them to make various donations in their own favor, even to declare themselves heirs of their property, to the injury and detriment of the rightful heirs.

Pharisaism and impure proselytism are always inseparably linked. The Jewish Pharisees were especially notorious for this kind of false piety.

The Pharisees (among whom oath-taking was in wide use) divided oaths into greater ones—inviolable—and lesser ones—easily broken. An oath by the temple treasures and offerings was deliberately classed among the more solemn oaths, so as to elevate the importance of these things in the people’s eyes, and thereby move them to give all the more generously to the temple. See Lightfoot J. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in quatuor Evangelistas. V. 33.

The law established that a tithe should be given from the produce of field and orchard (Lev 27:30; Deut 14:22), but the Pharisees, who did not belong to the tribe of Levi and so were not bound by this law, gave a tenth part of all their other garden produce too, which by common opinion was not subject to tithing, in order to appear more devout.

A Jewish proverb. See Wernsdorf J. C. De adagiis Novi Testamenti. Lib. I. Cap. 3.

The Pharisees, so as not to become unclean in any way through contact with something unclean, washed with the greatest care every vessel used for food and drink. Yet their clean cups were filled with iniquity; the food they held was the fruit of deceit, plunder, and hypocrisy.

The strongest and most degrading of comparisons! Tombs, among the Jews, were considered so unclean that the mere touch of one already defiled a man. Nicolai J. De sepulchris Hebraeorum. Lib. I. Cap. 2. Sect. 11; Lib. IV. Cap. 3.

Contemporary Jewish history offers no exact parallel to this, but the act was carried out in the very spirit of the Pharisees.

Here Jesus Christ gives His disciples a title already in use among the Jewish teachers of that time. In St. Luke it is stated outright: «I will send prophets and apostles» (Lk 11:49).

Three men named Zechariah are known in Jewish history: 1. A priest who, for rebuking King Joash, was stoned by the king’s own order in the temple (2Chron 24:20-21), but he is called the son of Jehoiada, not of Berachiah. 2. A prophet, whose prophecies we possess, but of whose death nothing is known. 3. Zechariah, son of Baruch, who, according to Josephus (Josephus F. De Bello Judaico. Lib. IV. Cap. 6. Sect. 3), was put to death by the Zealots in the temple before the destruction of Jerusalem. But this event occurred some time after Christ’s Ascension. Which Zechariah, then, does Jesus Christ mean here? Probably the first, whose killing Jewish writers regard as one of the chief causes of God’s punishment that fell upon the Jewish people at the destruction of Jerusalem (Graetz, H. Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart). By Jewish custom, Jehoiada, Zechariah’s father, may have had another name—Berachiah. The Lord points to two killings—of Abel and of Zechariah—because they were the most notable, and formed the first and the last murder of a righteous man mentioned in the historical books of the Old Testament.

A very similar passage in expression and thought is found in the Third Book of Esdras (3Ezr 1:30-33).

If these words are referred to the following verse, the sense will be: «They will not see Me any more in this temple». But if referred to what precedes, and to the following chapter (Mt 24:1-34), they will contain a prediction of the temple’s destruction. It is better to combine both senses, since they not only do not exclude one another, but rather presuppose one another.

That is, you will never see Me again in the temple.

Several classes of such proselytes existed among the Jews, distinguished from one another by how far the proselyte undertook to observe the various Jewish laws and rites. See Lightfoot J. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. Cantabrigiae, 1658; Wettstein J. J. Novum Testamentum Graecum. Amstelaedami, 1751–1752.

Lücke F. Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes. Bonn, 1820–1825.

Chrysostomus J. Homiliae in Joannem; Olshausen H. Biblischer Commentar über sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments. H. l.

John Chrysostom, St. Homilies on the Gospel of St. John the Theologian.

Lampe F. A. Commentarius analytico-exegeticus Evangelii secundum Joannem.

John Chrysostom, St. Homilies on the Gospel of St. John the Theologian.

Lightfoot, J. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae impensae in Evangelium cum Matthaei. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 200; Josephus, F. Antiquitates Judaicae. Lib. 10. Cap. 11. Sect. 7.

Wetstenius J. J. Novum Testamentum Graecum; ad h. l.

John Chrysostom, St. Homilies on Matthew.

᾿Αρχαὶ ὁδύνων.

To understand this expression one should know that, in Asia, roofs are for the most part flat, and often used for walking. Sometimes they are joined to one another by walkways, so that one can cross the roofs from one end of the city to the other. See: Paulus H. E. G. Sammlung der merkwürdigsten Reisen in den Orient. Jena, 1801. Th. 6. S. 245.

Among the Jews, the bridegroom, together with his friends, took the bride from her father’s house on the eve of the wedding, and brought her into his own house. People came out to meet them with lamps and torches. Iann. Archaeolog. I. § 179.

In the years 37, 55, 61, and 66. See Suetonius. Lives of the Twelve Caesars: Nero, 48; Galba, 18; Tacitus. Annals, XII, 58; XIV, 27; XV, 22; Histories, I, 2; Flerov I. A. Memorabilia, 13.

In the years 45 and 46. See Tacitus. Annals, XII, 43; Suetonius. The Divine Claudius, 18; Josephus Flavius. Jewish Antiquities, XX, 2, 3; Act 11:28.

In the year 66. See Josephus Flavius. Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 9, 8; Tacitus. Annals, XVI, 13; Suetonius. Nero, 39.

Whole chapters of Josephus’s history are filled with descriptions of this bloodshed. See Josephus Flavius. The Jewish War, II, 14, 5-9; 15, 1-3; XVIII, 1-3.

All these calamities were indeed regarded as portents of what was to come. See Pliny the Elder. Natural History, XI, 88.

A comet in the shape of a sword appeared over Jerusalem for a whole year; besides this, crowds of fighting horsemen were seen in the air. See Josephus Flavius. The Jewish War, VI, 5.

An extraordinary light around the altar at night, lasting about an hour; at the Feast of Unleavened Bread the bronze doors, which twenty men could barely open, opened by themselves. The sacrificial animal gave birth before the altar. At the Feast of Pentecost, at night, a voice was heard in the temple: «Let us depart from here!» See Josephus Flavius. The Jewish War, VI, 5. Josephus 6, 5.

Four years before the war, a certain villager, as though inspired from on high, began to cry out through the city, «Woe to Jerusalem and the temple!», and continued doing so for seven years—right up to the siege of the city itself; at last, having said «Woe to me too», he was killed that very instant by a stone hurled from an enemy’s sling. See Josephus 17, 5.

King Agrippa, with a powerful and moving speech, urged the Jews publicly to end the uprising.

Ananus and others. See Josephus Flavius. The Jewish War, IV, 3.

«They believed in obvious deceivers—Josephus writes—as though they were prophets, but paid no heed to, and did not believe, the manifest signs foretelling the coming calamities; it seemed as though everyone had been deafened by something, had lost the use of eyes and ears». See Josephus Flavius. The Jewish War, IV, 5.

Josephus Flavius. The Jewish War.

Such were: Bar Kokhba, who set himself up as the Messiah in the reign of Hadrian; then the Cypriot impostor Homerite, and others. Stolberg F. L. von. Geschichte der Religion Jesu Christi : [Judengeschichte]. Hamburg, 1806.

After Bar Kokhba’s overthrow, the destroyed Jerusalem was rebuilt by the Romans, and named Aelia Capitolina.

According to Nazianzen’s testimony, the Jews expelled from their homeland were permitted, only on one appointed day of the year, to look upon their native city from a distance.

Of this wondrous event we have, besides the testimony of many Christian writers, the testimony of a pagan writer as well—Ammianus Marcellinus.

He took Jerusalem and laid it waste with extraordinary cruelty. Paul. Diac. Rom. 68; Zonar. 50, 3.

Thus, in Isaiah (13:9-11) the fall of Babylon is depicted; in Ezekiel (32:7-8), the captivity of Egypt; in Joel (2:10), God’s judgment on the kingdom of Judah.

Ewald H. Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott, oder die Theologie des Alten und Neuen Bundes. Bd. 2. § 57–60.

So thought St. Chrysostom too, in his Homilies on Matthew.

John of Damascus. On Heresies; Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos. Ecclesiastical History, XVIII, 50.

Ambrose of Milan. On the Faith, V, 8; Origen. Commentary on Matthew, Tr. 30; Augustine. Questions on the Gospel of Matthew, 61.

Petrushevsky A. I. Metrology. St. Petersburg, 1831. P. 233.

«He does not even ask a fixed price, so as at least to sell for more advantage, but leaves the price to the buyers’ own will, as though selling some despised slave». See Gerasim (Yared), archim. Explanation of the Sunday Gospels: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. St. Petersburg, 1891.

«They promised to give him silver» (Mk 14:11).

From Mt 26:17-18 and Lk 22:8-13 one may conclude that the Savior Himself kept the disciples in some uncertainty on this point.

Theophylact of Bulgaria, Blessed. Commentary on the Holy Gospel of Matthew. Kazan, 1875.

Babylonischer Talmud. Tractatus Sotah. Fol. 12a; Tractatus Megillah. Fol. 26a.

Theophylact of Bulgaria, Blessed. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Ch. 22.

It was not possible for the priests themselves to perform the slaughter of all the lambs, for the number of pilgrims, according to Josephus, reached as many as 2,000,000.

Theophylact of Bulgaria, Blessed. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Ch. 22.

Whose house was it, exactly? Joseph of Arimathea’s? Nicodemus’s? Simon the leper’s? John Mark’s, whose house, even after Jesus Christ’s Resurrection, remained a gathering place for Christ’s followers (Act 12:12)? The last is the more likely. Only in no case could the owner of the house have been John himself, who is supposed to have bought a house from Caiaphas shortly before this—though this was Cyril of Jerusalem’s own opinion—for otherwise it would follow that John was sent to John.

Jahn J. Biblische Archäologie. Th. III. Wien, 1805; Winer G. B. Biblisches Realwörterbuch. Leipzig, 1847; Lund J. Die Alten jüdischen Heiligthümer. Hamburg, 1738.

Jahn O. Archäologische Beiträge. Berlin, 1847. Th. III.

Did the dispute really arise on the occasion of the washing of feet? It seems to us most likely that it did. 1) Because it was in this very situation that such a dispute could most easily have arisen. Jesus Christ and the apostles had no servants of their own; the strangers who might have served them on the paschal evening were all occupied with their own household, keeping the Passover themselves, so that the holy company had to see to the washing of their own feet. For this purpose the basin, the water, and the towel had long been ready, but notice—they had lain unused until this moment (otherwise they would have been put away). Why? Because of the dispute: because no one wished to take upon himself the duty of a servant. And so the Savior, by washing the disciples’ feet, turns into a remedy the very act that had been the cause of the sickness. 2) Other reasons offered to explain the occasion of the dispute over precedence are far less satisfactory—for instance, that it arose over where each was to recline at the supper. In that case the disciples’ ambition would be reduced to something crude, and so is less likely. And besides, who could have disputed over reclining next to the disciple «whom Jesus loved» (Jn 13:23)? Still less likely is it that the disciples fell to disputing over their own worth because of a revived dream of the Messiah’s earthly kingdom at this particular time. For, apart from the fact that there is no sign of such a dream being revived just then, the Savior’s own words, now promising to seat them on thrones, would in that case have been not a remedy against such a fantasy, but fuel and encouragement for it.

That the washing of feet was the cause of the dispute over precedence, anyone may be convinced of by comparing St. John’s own words, describing the washing, with St. Luke’s words, setting out the dispute. In St. Luke, the Savior says to the disciples: «Who is greater: the one who reclines, or the one who serves?» (Lk 22:27). It is plain that, here, service means the washing of feet. And if so, then the cause of it was the dispute over precedence, for one cannot suppose that the disciples got up such a dispute after the Teacher’s extraordinary example of humility.