That it might be fulfilled (Matthew 1:22, note) which was spoken by (through, Revised Version; Matthew 1:22, note) the prophet; rather, Isaiah the prophet, according to the margin of Westcott and Hort, on the evidence of the original hand of the Sinaitic and a few cursive manuscripts, the Rushworth Latin Gospels, a manuscript of the AEthiopic Version, the Clementine Homilies, Porphyry as quoted by Jerome, and remarks by Eusebius.
Dr. Herr ('Appendix') writes, "It is difficult not to think ἠσαίου genuine. There was a strong temptation to omit it (cf. Isaiah 27:9; Micah 1:2); and, though its insertion might be accounted for by an impulse to supply the name of the best known prophet, the evidence of the actual operation of such an impulse is much more trifling than might have been anticipated ..
The erroneous introduction of Isaiah's name is limited to two passages, and in each case to a single Latin manuscript." If it be genuine, it is a parallel case to the reading "Jeremiah" instead of "Zechariah" in Matthew 27:9, for which no satisfactory explanation has yet been suggested.
A simple error of memory (cf. Alford) on the part of one who shows himself so well acquainted with Hebrew customs and modes of thought as our evangelist does, is perhaps the most improbable of all solutions.
Possibly, just as there were summaries of legal maxims current in our Lord's time (cf. Matthew 5:21, note), so there were in Hebrew-Christian circles well known sets of quotations from the Old Testament, which were not expressly divided one from another (cf.
Romans 3:10-18), and which were ferreted to under the name of the author of the best known passage. (Observe that this would distinguish these summaries from liturgical quotations.) Thus Zechariah's mention of the potter (Zechariah 11:13) was placed in connexion with Jeremiah's visit to the potter's house, and with his warning of the possible rejection of Israel (Jeremiah 18:1-6; cf.
Jeremiah 19:1-11); cf. further Pusey's remarks on the passage in Zechariah, and Psalms 78:2 (or perhaps Psalms 78:1-3), where Israel is bid listen to the lessons derived from their ancestors' behaviour, with the warning in Isaiah 6:9, Isaiah 6:10.
We have an example of a similar connexion of passages in Mark 1:2, Mark 1:3, where Malachi 3:1 is closely joined to Isaiah 40:3. Observe that if St. Mark had copied his source (ex hypothesi) to the end of the quotation from Malachi, and for some reason omitted the next quotation, he might very easily have still retained the name "Isaiah" with which he introduces his double quotation.
Had he done so, we should have had another parallel to our present verse and Matthew 27:9. The prophet. If "Isaiah" be not genuine, this refers to "Asaph the seer" (2 Chronicles 29:30), who was the recognized author of the psalm.
So David is called "a prophet" in Acts 2:30. Saying, I will open my mouth (Matthew 5:2, note) in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. From Psalms 78:1, Psalms 78:2.
The first clause of the quotation is verbally the same as the LXX., and fairly represents the meaning of the original ( יף לשמב החתף)). The second clause is different from the LXX., the first verb being a literal translation from the Hebrew, and the rest a paraphrase.
I will utter ( ἐρεύξομαι: העיב)): so the LXX. in Psalms 19:2; and cf. Psalms 119:171; Psalms 145:7. Things which have been kept secret ( κεκρυμμένα); but the Hebrew is תודיח, i.e. "enigmatical sayings."
From the foundation of the world. ἀπὸ καταβολῆς, for κόσμου of the Received Text must be omitted. But the Hebrew מדק ינם (i.e. "from of old") hardly, in the context of the psalm, refers further back than the be ginning of the national history of Israel, when the Israelites came out of Egypt.
"Asaph … here recounts to the people their history from that Egyptaeo-Sinaitic age of yore to which Israel's national indepen dence and specific position in relation to the rest of the world goes back He will set forth the history of the fathers after the manner of a parable and riddle, so that it may become as a parable, i.
e. a didactic history, and its events as marks of interrogation and nota benes to the present age" (Delitzsch). What, however, is the exact connexion of thought in the gospel between the passage as it stands, and its context?
The first clause evidently corresponds in meaning to verse 34; Christ fulfils in a fresh sense the expression of the psalmist by speaking in parables (vide infra). But the second clause brings in a different thought, not found, save very indirectly, in verse 34, namely, that Christ utters things that be fore were always hidden.
What does the evangelist mean by this second clause?