Lukas 1:29

1:29 But ¹  she was greatly troubled ²  by his words and began to wonder about the meaning of this greeting. ³ 

Lukas 1:67

Zechariah’s Praise and Prediction

1:67 Then ⁴  his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, ⁵ 

Lukas 1:73

1:73 the oath ⁶  that he swore to our ancestor ⁷  Abraham.

This oath grants ⁸ 

Lukas 2:35

2:35 Indeed, as a result of him the thoughts ⁹  of many hearts will be revealed ¹⁰  – and a sword ¹¹  will pierce your own soul as well!” ¹² 

Lukas 15:5

15:5 Then ¹³  when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

Lukas 22:51

22:51 But Jesus said, ¹⁴  “Enough of this!” And he touched the man’s ¹⁵  ear and healed ¹⁶  him.

Lukas 23:45

23:45 because the sun’s light failed. ¹⁷  The temple curtain ¹⁸  was torn in two.

[1:29]  ¹ tc Most mss (A C Θ 0130 ˹³ Ï lat sy) have ἰδοῦσα (idousa, “when [she] saw [the angel]”) here as well, making Mary’s concern the appearance of the angel. This construction is harder than the shorter reading since it adds a transitive verb without an explicit object. However, the shorter reading has significant support (א B D L W Ψ Ë¹ 565 579 1241 sa) and on balance should probably be considered authentic.

[1:29]  ² sn On the phrase greatly troubled see 1:12. Mary’s reaction was like Zechariah’s response.

[1:29]  ³ tn Grk “to wonder what kind of greeting this might be.” Luke often uses the optative this way to reveal a figure’s thinking (3:15; 8:9; 18:36; 22:23).

[1:67]  ⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[1:67]  ⁵ tn Grk “and he prophesied, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant and has not been translated.

[1:67]  sn Prophesied. The reference to prophecy reflects that Zechariah is enabled by the Spirit to speak God’s will. He does so in this case through a praise psalm, which calls for praise and then gives the reason why God should be praised.

[1:73]  ⁶ tn This is linked back grammatically by apposition to “covenant” in v. 72, specifying which covenant is meant.

[1:73]  ⁷ tn Or “forefather”; Grk “father.”

[1:73]  ⁸ tn Again for reasons of English style, the infinitival clause “to grant us” has been translated “This oath grants” and made the beginning of a new sentence in the translation.

[2:35]  ⁹ tn Or “reasonings” (in a hostile sense). See G. Schrenk, TDNT 2:97.

[2:35]  ¹⁰ sn The remark the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed shows that how people respond to Jesus indicates where their hearts really are before God.

[2:35]  ¹¹ sn A sword refers to a very large, broad two-edged sword. The language is figurative, picturing great pain. Though it refers in part to the cross, it really includes the pain all of Jesus’ ministry will cause, including the next event in Luke 2:41-52 and extending to the opposition he faced throughout his ministry.

[2:35]  ¹² sn This remark looks to be parenthetical and addressed to Mary alone, not the nation. Many modern English translations transpose this to make it the final clause in Simeon’s utterance as above to make this clear.

[15:5]  ¹³ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[22:51]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “But answering, Jesus said.” This is redundant in contemporary English and has been simplified in the translation.

[22:51]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “his”; the referent (the slave of the high priest mentioned in the previous verse) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[22:51]  ¹⁶ sn When Jesus healed the man’s ear he showed grace even to those who hated him, following his own teaching (Luke 6:27-36).

[23:45]  ¹⁷ tc The wording “the sun’s light failed” is a translation of τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος/ ἐκλείποντος (tou Jhliou eklipontos/ ekleipontos), a reading found in the earliest and best witnesses (among them Ì⁷⁵ א B C*^vid L 070 579 2542 pc) as well as several ancient versions. The majority of mss (A C³ [D] W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy) have the flatter, less dramatic term, “the sun was darkened” (ἐσκοτίσθη, eskotisqe), a reading that avoids the problem of implying an eclipse (see sn below). This alternative thus looks secondary because it is a more common word and less likely to be misunderstood as referring to a solar eclipse. That it appears in later witnesses rather than the earliest ones adds confirmatory testimony to its inauthentic character.

[23:45]  sn This imagery has parallels to the Day of the Lord: Joel 2:10; Amos 8:9; Zeph 1:15. Some students of the NT see in Luke’s statement the sun’s light failed (eklipontos) an obvious blunder in his otherwise meticulous historical accuracy. The reason for claiming such an error on the author’s part is due to an understanding of the verb as indicating a solar eclipse when such would be an astronomical impossibility during a full moon. There are generally two ways to resolve this difficulty: (a) adopt a different reading (“the sun was darkened”) that smoothes over the problem (discussed in the tc problem above), or (b) understand the verb eklipontos in a general way (such as “the sun’s light failed”) rather than as a technical term, “the sun was eclipsed.” The problem with the first solution is that it is too convenient, for the Christian scribes who, over the centuries, copied Luke’s Gospel would have thought the same thing. That is, they too would have sensed a problem in the wording and felt that some earlier scribe had incorrectly written down what Luke penned. The fact that the reading “was darkened” shows up in the later and generally inferior witnesses does not bolster one’s confidence that this is the right solution. But second solution, if taken to its logical conclusion, proves too much for it would nullify the argument against the first solution: If the term did not refer to an eclipse, then why would scribes feel compelled to change it to a more general term? The solution to the problem is that ekleipo did in fact sometimes refer to an eclipse, but it did not always do so. (BDAG 306 s.v. ἐκλείπω notes that the verb is used in Hellenistic Greek “Of the sun cease to shine.” In MM it is argued that “it seems more than doubtful that in Lk 23⁴⁵ any reference is intended to an eclipse. To find such a reference is to involve the Evangelist in a needless blunder, as an eclipse is impossible at full moon, and to run counter to his general usage of the verb = ‘fail’…” [p. 195]. They enlist Luke 16:9; 22:32; and Heb 1:12 for the general meaning “fail,” and further cite several contemporaneous examples from papyri of this meaning [195-96]) Thus, the very fact that the verb can refer to an eclipse would be a sufficient basis for later scribes altering the text out of pious motives; conversely, the very fact that the verb does not always refer to an eclipse and, in fact, does not normally do so, is enough of a basis to exonerate Luke of wholly uncharacteristic carelessness.

[23:45]  ¹⁸ tn The referent of this term, καταπέτασμα (katapetasma), is not entirely clear. It could refer to the curtain separating the holy of holies from the holy place (Josephus, J. W. 5.5.5 [5.219]), or it could refer to one at the entrance of the temple court (Josephus, J. W. 5.5.4 [5.212]). Many argue that the inner curtain is meant because another term, κάλυμμα (kalumma), is also used for the outer curtain. Others see a reference to the outer curtain as more likely because of the public nature of this sign. Either way, the symbolism means that access to God has been opened up. It also pictures a judgment that includes the sacrifices.