ὅρκων ἣ μὴν εὐνοῆσαι Καίσαρι καὶ τοῖς βασιλέως πράγμασι. That this
oath, far from being a humiliating measure for Herod, coincided with
his interest, is proved by the zeal with which he punished the
Pharisees who refused to take it.
[314] Tholuck, s. 192 f. But the insurrection which the ἀπογραφὴ after
the depositions of Archelaus actually occasioned—a fact which outweighs
all Tholuck’s surmises—proves it to have been the first Roman measure
of the kind in Judea.
[315] Antiq. 17, 9, 10, 1 ff. B. j. 2. 2. 2. His oppressions however
had reference only to the fortresses and the treasures of Herod.
[316] Antiq. 18, 1, 1.
[317] Bell. jud. 2, 8, 1. 9. 1. Antiq. 17, 13, 5.
[318] Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc. p. 320.
[319] Winer.
[320] Adv. Marcion. 4, 19.
[321] Storr, opusc. acad. 3, s. 126 f. Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s.
63. Tholuck, s. 182 f.
[322] Michaelis, Anm. z. d. St. und Einl. in d. N.T. 1, 71.
[323] Münter, Stern der Weisen, s. 88.
[324] Paulus. Wetstein.
[325] Credner.
[326] In Schmidt’s Bibliothek für Kritik und Exegese, 3, 1. s. 124. See
Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 230; Ammon, Fortbildung, 1, s. 196; Credner,
Einleitung, in d. N.T. 1, s. 155; De Wette, exeget. Handbuch.
[327] Chap. 17. Compare Historia de nativ. Mariae et de infantiâ
Servatoris, c. 13.
[328] Fabricius, im Codex Apocryph. N.T. 1, s. 105, not. y.
[329] Ambrosius and Jerome. See Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 516.
[330] Dial. c. Tryph. 78.
[331] C. Cels. 1, 51.
[332] Hess, Olshausen, Paulus.
[333] Paulus.
[334] Chap. 14.
[335] Chap. 4 in Thilo, s. 69.
[336] In seinem Versuch über die Wundergeschichten des N. T. See
Gabler’s Neuestes theol. Journal, 7, 4, s. 411.
[337] Exeg. Handb. s. 180 ff. As Paulus supposes an external natural
phenomenon so Matthæi imagines a mental vision of angels. Synopse der
vier Evangelien, s. 3.
[338] Hebräische Mythologie, 2. Thl. s. 223 ff.
[339] Recension von Bauer’s hebr. Mythologie in Gabler’s Journal für
auserlesene theol. Literatur, 2, 1, s. 58 f.
[340] Neuestes theol. Journal, 7, 4, s. 412 f.
[341] In Luc. 2. in Suicer, 2, p. 789.
[342] Servius ad Verg. Ecl. 10, 26.
[343] Liban. progymn. p. 138, in Wetstein, s. 662.
[344] Thus Cyrus, see Herod. 1, 110 ff. Romulus, see Livy, 1, 4.
[345] Thilo, Codex Apocr. N. T. 1, s. 383 not.
[346] Vid. Schöttgen, 2, s. 531.
[347] Sota, 1, 48: Sapientes nostri perhibent, circa horam nativitatis
Mosis totam domum repletam fuisse luce (Wetstein).
[348] Ueber den Lukas, s. 29. f. With whom Neander and others now
agree.—L. J. Ch. s. 21 f.
[349] Comp. De Wette, Kritik der mosaischen Geschichte, s. 116; George,
Mythus u. Sage, s. 33 f.
[350]
Gen. xxxvii. 11 (LXX.): Luc. 2, 18 f.:
Ἐζήλωσαν δὲ οὐτὸν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν — —
αὐτοῦ, ὁ δὲ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἡ δὲ Μαριὰμ πάντα συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα
διετήρησε τὸ ῥῆμα.—Schöttgen, ταῦτα, συμβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς.
horae, 1, 262. 2, 51: καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ διετήρει
πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ
αὐτῆς.
[351] See Introduction.
[352] Perhaps as a precautionary measure to obviate objections on the
part of the Jews. (Ammon, Fortbildung, 1, s. 217.)
[353] Pirke R. Elieser, 33: Sex hominum nomina dicta sunt, antequam
nascerentur: Isaaci nempe, Ismaëlis, Mosis, Salomonis, Josiæ et nomen
regis Messiæ. Bereschith rabba, sect. 1, fol. 3, 3.—(Schöttgen, horae,
2, s. 436): Sex res prævenerunt creationem mundi: quædam ex illis
creatæ sunt, nempe lex et thronus gloriæ; aliæ ascenderunt in
cogitationem (Dei) ut crearentur, nimirum Patriarchæ, Israël, templum,
et nomen Messiæ.
[354] Comp. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen
Evangeliums, s. 69 ff.
[355] Joseph. B. J. vi. vi. 4: Tacit. Histor. v. 13; Sueton. Vespas. 4.
All the extant allusions to the existence of such a hope at the era of
Christ’s birth, relate only in an indeterminate manner to a ruler of
the world. Virg. Eclog. 4; Sueton. Octav. 94.
[356] In saying that it is inadmissible to suppose a divine
intervention directly tending to countenance superstition, I refer to
what is called immediate intervention. In the doctrine of mediate
intervention, which includes the co-operation of man, there is
doubtless a mixture of truth and error. Neander confuses the two. L. J.
Ch., s. 29.
[357] Paulus and De Wette, exeg. Handb. in loc.
[358] According to Hoffmann (p. 256), that he might control the
assertion of the magi by inquiring of his own astrologers, whether they
had seen the star at the same time. This is not merely unsupported by
the text—it is in direct contradiction to it, for we are there told
that Herod at once gave terrified credence to the magi.
[359] Fritzsche, in loc. aptly says—comperto, quasi magos non ad se
redituros statim scivisset, orti sideris tempore, etc.
[360] K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, s. 150 f. Comp. Fritzsche
and De Wette in loc.
[361] Hoffman thinks that Herod shunned this measure as a breach of
hospitality; yet this very Herod he represents as a monster of cruelty,
and that justly, for the conduct attributed to the monarch in chap. ii.
of Matthew is not unworthy of his heart, against which Neander
superfluously argues (p. 30 f.), but of his head.
[362] Schmidt, ut sup. p. 155 f.
[363] Stark, Synops. bibl. exeg. in N. T., p. 62.
[364] This was the opinion of some of the Fathers, e.g. Euseb.
Demonstr. evang. 9, ap. Suicer, 1, s. 559; Joann. Damasc. de fide
orthod. ii. 7.
[365] Chrysostomus and others ap. Suicer, ut sup. and the Evang.
infant. arab. c. vii.
[366] See Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., p. 23.
[367] Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 8.
[368] Bibl. Comm. in loc, Hoffmann, s. 261.
[369] Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, 152 ff.
[370] This is shown in opposition to Olshausen by Steudel in Bengel’s
Archiv. vii. ii. 425 f. viii. iii. 487.
[371] Schmidt, ut sup. p. 156.
[372] Babylon. Sanhedr. f. cvii. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 207. Comp.
Schöttgen, ii. p. 533. According to Josephus Antiq. xiii. xiii. 5, xiv.
2, they were Jews of each sex and of all ages, and chiefly Pharisees.
[373] Joseph. B. J. i. xxx. 3. Comp. Antiq. xvii. iv. 1.
[374] Macrob. Saturnal. ii. 4: Quum audisset (Augustus) inter pueros,
quos in Syriâ Herodes rex Judæorum intra bimatum jussit interfici,
filium quoque ejus occisum, ait: melius est, Herodis porcum (ὗν) esse
quam filium (υἱόν).
[375] Vid. Wetstein, Kuinöl, Olshausen in loc. Winer d. A. Herodes.
[376] Fritzsche, Comm. in Matt., p. 93 f.
[377] Chrysostom and others.
[378] Vid. Gratz, Comm. zum Ev. Matth. 1, s. 115.
[379] Kuinöl, ad Matth. p. 44 f.
[380] Wetstein, in loc.
[381] Schneckenburger, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das N. T., s. 42.
[382] Gieseler, Studien und Kritiken, 1831, 3. Heft, s. 588 f.
Fritzsche, s. 104. Comp. Hieron. ad Jesai. xi. 1.
[383] For both these explanations, see Kuinöl, in loc.
[384] Kepler, in various treatises; Münter, der Stern der Weisen;
Ideler, Handbuch der mathemat. und technischen Chronologie, 2. Bd. s.
399 ff.
[385] Olshausen, s. 67.
[386] Paulus, ut sup. s. 202, 221.
[387] Bengel’s Archiv. vii. ii. p. 424.
[388] At a later period, it is true, this journey of Jesus was the
occasion of calumnies from the Jews, but those were of an entirely
different nature, as will be seen in the following chapter.
[389] Ueber formelle oder genetische Erklärungsart der Wunder. In
Henke’s Museum, 1, 3, 399 ff. Similar essays see in the Abhandlungen
über die beiden ersten Kapitel des Matthäus u. Lukas, in Henke’s
Magazin, 5, 1, 171 ff., and in Matthäi, Religionsgl. der Apostel, 2, s.
422 ff.
[390] L. J. Ch., s. 29 ff.
[391] Orig. c. Cels. i. 60. Auctor, op. imperf. in Matth. ap. Fabricius
Pseudepigr. V. T., p. 807 ff.
[392] Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 130.
[393] In loc. Num. (Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 152): Multi Interpretati
sunt hæc de Messiâ.
[394] Justin, Hist. 37.
[395] Sueton. Jul. Cæs. 88.
[396] Jalkut Rubeni, f. xxxii. 3 (ap. Wetstein): quâ horâ natus est
Abrahamus, pater noster, super quem sit pax, stetit quoddam sidus in
oriente et deglutivit quatuor astra, quæ erant in quatuor cœli plagis.
According to an Arabic writing entitled Maallem, this star,
prognosticating the birth of Abraham, was seen by Nimrod in a dream.
Fabric. Cod. pseudepigr. V. T. i. s. 345.
[397] Testamentum XII. Patriarcharum, test. Levi, 18 (Fabric. Cod.
pseud. V. T. p. 584 f.): καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον αὐτοῦ (of the Messianic
ἱερεὺς καινὸς) ἐν οὐρανῷ,—φωτίζον φῶς γνώσεως κ.τ.λ. Pesikta Sotarta,
f. xlviii. 1 (ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 531): Et prodibit stella ab
oriente, quæ est stella Messiæ, et in oriente versabitur dies X V.
Comp. Sohar Genes. f. 74. Schöttgen, ii. 524, and some other passages
which are pointed out by Ideler in the Handbuch der Chronologie, 2 Bd.
s. 409, Anm. 1, and Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum, § 14.
[398] Compare with the passages cited Note 7. Protevang. Jac. cap.
xxi.: εἴδομεν ἀστέρα παμμεγέθη, λάμψαντα ἐν τοῖς ἄστροις τοὺτοις καὶ
ἀμβλύνοντα αὐτοὺς τοῦ φαίνειν. Still more exaggerated in Ignat. ep. ad
Ephes. 19. See the collection of passages connected with this subject
in Thilo, cod. apocr. i. p. 390 f.
[399] Exeg. Beiträge, i. s. 159 ff.
[400] Fritzsche in the paraphrase of chap. ii. Etiam stella, quam
judaica disciplina sub Messiæ natale visum iri dicit, quo Jesus
nascebatur tempore exorta est.
[401] As in Matt. ii. 11 it is said of the magi τροσήνενκαν αὐτῷ—χρυσὸν
καὶ λίβανον: so in Isa. lx. 6 (LXX.): ἥξουσί, φέροντες χρυσίον, καὶ
λίβανον οἴσουσι. The third present is in Matt. σμύρνα, in Isa. λίθος
τίμιος.
[402] V. 1. und 3: כִּי בָא אוֹרֵךְ וּכְבוֹד יהוָֹה עָלַיִךְ (LXX: Ἰερουσαλὴμ) קוּמִי
אוֹרִי זָרָח:—וְהָלְכוּ גּוֹיִם לְאוֹרֵךְ וּמְלָכִים לְנֹגַהּ זָרְחֵךְ
[403] Æneid, ii. 693 ff.
[404] Wetstein, in loc.
[405] Herod, i. 108 ff. Liv. i. 4.
[406] Octav. 94:—ante paucos quam nasceretur menses prodigium Romæ
factum publice, quo denuntiabatur, regem populi Romani naturam
parturire. Senatum exterritum, censuisse, ne quis illo anno genitus
educaretur. Eos, qui gravidas uxores haberent, quo ad se quisque spem
traheret, curasse, ne Senatus consultum ad ærarium deferretur.
[407] Bauer (über das Mythische in der früheren Lebensper. des Moses,
in the n. Theol. Journ. 13, 3) had already compared the marvellous
deliverance of Moses with that of Cyrus and Romulus; the comparison of
the infanticides was added by De Wette, Kritik der Mos. Geschichte, s.
176.
[408] Joseph. Antiq. ii. ix. 2.
[409] Jalkut Rubeni (cont. of the passage cited in Note 6): dixerunt
sapientes Nimrodi: natus est Tharæ filius hâc ipsâ horâ, ex quo
egressurus est populus, qui hæreditabit præsens et futurum seculum; si
tibi placuerit, detur patri ipsius domus argento auroque plena, et
occidat ipsum. Comp. the passage of the Arabic book quoted by Fabric.
Cod. pseudepigr. ut sup.
[410] Protev. Jacobi, c. xxii. f.
[411]
Ex. iv. 19, LXX: Matt. ii. 20:
βάδιζε, ἄπελθε εἰς Αἴγυπτον, ἐγερθεὶς—πορεύου εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ·
τεθνήκασι γὰρ πάντες οἱ ζητοῦντές τεθνήκασι γὰρ οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν
σου τὴν ψυχὴν. ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου.
We may remark that the inappropriate use of the plural in the
evangelical passage, can only be explained on the supposition of a
reference to the passage in Exod. See Winer, N. T. Gramm. s. 149. Comp.
also Exod. iv. 20 with Matt. ii. 14, 21.
[412] Vide e.g. Schöttgen, Horæ, ii. p. 209.
[413] Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 15, Anm. 9. Hoffmann, s. 269.
[414] Comp. my Streitschriften, i. 1, s. 42 f.; George, s. 39.
[415] Neander, L. J. Ch. s. 27.
[416] Schleiermacher (Ueber den Lukas, s. 47), explains the narrative
concerning the magi as a symbolical one; but he scorns to take into
consideration the passages from the O. T. and other writings, which
have a bearing on the subject, and by way of retribution, his
exposition at one time rests in generalities, at another, takes a wrong
path.
[417] Lightfoot, Horæ, p. 202.
[418] Schneckenburger, Ueber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen
Evangeliums, s. 69 ff.
[419] Thus, e.g. Augustin de consensu evangelistarum, ii. 5. Storr,
opusc. acad. iii. s. 96 ff. Süskind, in Bengel’s Archiv. i. 1, s. 216
ff.
[420] E.g. Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 51 ff. Paulus, Olshausen, in
loc.
[421] Süskind, ut sup. s. 222.
[422] The same difference as to the chronological relation of the two
incidents exists between the two different texts of the apocryphal
book: Historia de nativitate Mariæ et de inf. Serv., see Thilo, p. 385,
not.
[423] This incompatibility of the two narratives was perceived at an
early period by some opponents of Christianity. Epiphanius names one
Philosabbatius, together with Celsus and Porphyry (hæres. li. 8).
[424] Neander, L. J. Ch. s. 33, Anm.
[425] Schleiermacher, Ueber den Lukas, s. 47. Schneckenburger, ut sup.
[426] Antiq. xiv. ix. 4, xv. i. 1 and x. 4.
[427] The Evang. Nicodemi indeed calls him, c. xvi. ὁ μέγας διδάσκαλος,
and the Protev. Jacobi, c. xxiv. makes him a priest or even high
priest, vid. Varr. ap. Thilo Cod. Apocr. N. T. 1, s. 271, comp. 203.
[428] 1 Th. s. 205 ff.
[429] Cap. vi. Viditque illum Simeon senex instar columnæ lucis
refulgentem, cum Domina Maria virgo, mater ejus, ulnis suis eum
gestaret,—et circumdabant eum angeli instar circuli, celebrantes illum,
etc. Ap. Thilo, p. 71.
[430] Thus E. F. in the treatise, on the two first chapters of Matth.
and Luke. In Henke’s Mag. 5 bd. s. 169 f. A similar half measure is in
Matthäi, Synopse der 4 Evan. s. 3, 5 f.
[431] With the words of Simeon addressed to Mary: καὶ σοῦ δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν
ψυχὲν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία (v. 35) comp. the words in the messianic
psalm of sorrow, xxii. 21: ῥῦσαι ἀπὸ ῥομφαίας τὴν ψυχέν μου.
[432] Schleiermacher, Ueber den Lukas, s. 37. Compare on the other hand
the observations in § 18, with those of the authors there quoted, Note
19.
[433] Neander here (s. 24 f.) mistakes the apocryphal for the mythical,
as he had before done the poetical.
[434] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1. s. 142 f.
[435] Dial. c. Trypho, 78: Joseph came from Nazareth, where he lived,
to Bethlehem, whence he was, to be enrolled, ἀνεληλύθει (Ἰωσὴφ) ἀπὸ
Ναζαρὲτ, ἔνθα ὤκει, εἰς Βηθλεὲμ, ὅθεν ἦν, ἀπογράψασθαι. The words ὅθεν
ἦν might however be understood as signifying merely the place of his
tribe, especially if Justin’s addition be considered: For his race was
of the tribe of Judah, which inhabits that land, ἀπο γὰρ τῆς
κατοικούσης τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην φυλῆς Ἰούδα τὸ γένος ἦν.
[436] Beiträge zur Einleit. in das N. T. 1. s. 217. Comp. Hoffmann, s.
238 f. 277 ff.
[437] C. I. 8. 10.
[438] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 178.
[439] Ueber die Unzulässigkeit der mythischen Auffassung u. s. f. 1, s.
101.
[440] L. J. Ch. s. 33.
[441] Tertull. adv. Marcion iv. 8. Epiphan. hær. xxix. 1.
[442] Comp K. Ch. L. Schmidt, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 123 f.;
Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 230.
[443] On this Heydenreich rests his defence, Ueber die Unzulässigkeit.
1. s. 99.
[444] Ueber den Lukas, s. 49. There is a similar hesitation in Thelte,
Biographie Jesu, § 15.
[445] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w., s. 68 f. u. s. 158.
[446] Comp. Ammon. Fortbildung, 1, s. 194 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb.
1, 2, s. 24 f.; George, s. 84 ff. That different narrators may give
different explanations of the same fact, and that these different
explanations may afterwards be united in one book, is proved by many
examples in the O. T. Thus in Genesis, three derivations are given of
the name of Isaac; two of that of Jacob (xxv. 26., xxvii. 16), and so
of Edom and Beersheba (xxi. 31., xxvi. 33). Comp. De Wette, Kritik der
mos. Gesch., s. 110. 118 ff. and my Streitschriften, I, 1, s. 83 ff.
[447] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 110.
[448] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 145 f.
[449] Olshausen, ut sup. 1. 150.
[450] Hase, Leben Jesu, § 37.
[451] Heydenreich, über die Unzulässigkeit u. s. f. 1, s. 103.
[452] Megillah, f. 21, apud Lightfoot, in loc.
[453] Vid. Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 353.
[454] Evang. Thomæ, c. vi. ff. Ap. Thilo. p. 288 ff. and Evang. infant,
arab. c. xlviii. p. 123, Thilo.
[455] Ibid.
[456] Evang. infant, arab. c. l.
[457] Ibid. c. l. and li.; comp. ev. Thomæ, c. xix.
[458] Olshausen confesses this, s. 151.
[459] For proofs (e.g. Hieros. Taanith, lxvii. 4) see Wetstein and
Lightfoot, in loc.
[460] Lightfoot, Horæ, p. 742.
[461] Paulus, s. 279.
[462] Kuinöl, s. 353 f.
[463] Horæ, ii. p. 886.
[464] Bibl. Comm. p. 151.
[465] Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 112.
[466] In the similar account also which Josephus gives us of himself
when fourteen, it is easy to discern the exaggeration of a
self-complacent man. Life, 2: Moreover, when I was a child, and about
fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to
learning, on which account the high priests and principal men of the
city came there frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion
about the accurate understanding of points of the law.
[467]
1 Sam. ii. 26 (LXX): Luc. ii. 52:
καὶ τὸ παιδάριον Σαμουὴλ ἐπορεύετο καὶ Ἰησοῦς προέκοπτε σοφία καὶ
μαγαλυνόμενον, καὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ μετὰ ἡλικίᾳ, καὶ χάριτι παρὰ θεῷ καὶ
Κυρίου καὶ μετὰ ἀνθρώπων. ἀνθρώποις.
Compare also what Josephus says Antiq. ii. ix. 6 of the χάρις παιδικὴ
of Moses.
[468] Gabler neuest. theol. Journal 3, 1, s. 39.
[469] Joseph. Antiq. ii. ix. 6.
[470] Philo, de vita Mosis, Opp. ed. Mangey, Vol. 2. p. 83 f. οὐχ οἷα
κομιδῆ νήπιος ἥδετο τωθασμοῖς καὶ γέλωσι καὶ παιδιαῖς—ἀλλ’ αἰδω καὶ
σεμνότητα παραφαίνων, ἀπούσμασι καὶ θεάμασιν, ἃ τὴν ψυχὴν ἔμελλεν
ὠφελήσειν προσεῖχε. διδάσκαλοι δ’ εὐθὺς, ἀλλαχόθεν ἄλλος, παρῆσαν·—ὧν
ἐν οὐ μακρῷ χρόνῳ τὰς δυνάμεις ὑπερέβαλεν, εὐμοιρίᾳ φύσεως φθάνων τὰς
ὑφηγὴσεις.
[471] Chagiga, ap. Wetstein, in loc. A XII anno filius censetur
maturus. So Joma f. lxxxii. 1. Berachoth f. xxiv. 1; whereas Bereschith
Rabba lxiii. mentions the 13th year as the critical one.
[472] Schemoth R. ap. Wetstein: Dixit R, Chama: Moses duodenarius
avulsus est a domo patris sui etc.
[473] Joseph. Antiq. v. x. 4: Σαμούηλος δὲ πεπληρωκὼς ἔτος ἤδη
δωδέκατον, προεφήτευς.
[474] Ignat. ep. (interpol.) ad Magnes. c. iii.: Σολομῶν δὲ—δωδεκαετὴς
βασιλεύσας, τὴν φοβερὰν ἑκείνην καὶ δυσερμήνευτον ἐπὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶ
κρίσιν ἕνεκα τῶν παιδίων ἐποιήσατο.—Δανιὴλ ὁ σοφὸς δωδεκαετὴς γέγονε
κάτοχος τῷ θείῳ πνεύματι, καὶ τοὺς μάτην τὴν πολιὰν φέροντας πρεσβύτας
συκοφάντας καὶ ἐπιθυμητὰς ἀλλοτρίου κάλλους ἀπήλεγξε. But Solomon, ...
being king at the age of twelve years, gave that terrible and profound
judgment between the women with respect to the children.... Daniel, the
wise man, when twelve years old, was possessed by the divine spirit,
and convicted those calumniating old men who, carrying gray hairs in
vain, coveted the beauty that belonged to another. This, it is true, is
found in a Christian writing, but on comparing it with the above data,
we are led to believe that it was drawn from a more ancient Jewish
legend.
[475] This Kaiser has seen, bibl. Theol. 1, 234.
[476] Neither do we learn what Hase (Leben Jesu § 37) supposes to be
conveyed in this narrative, namely, that as it exhibits the same union
with God that constituted the idea of the later life of Jesus, it is an
intimation that his later excellence was not the result of conversion
from youthful errors, but of the uninterrupted development of his
freedom.
[477] Ueber die Unzulässigkeit u. s. f. 1, s. 92.
[478] Ueber den Lukas, s. 39 f.
[479] Cap. v. In the Greek text also the more probable reading is καὶ
μάλιστα οὐ σοφῶς, vid. Thilo, p. 287.
[480] Hence the title of an Arabian apocryphal work (according to the
Latin translation in Thilo, 1, p. 3): historia Josephi, fabri lignarii.
[481] Vid. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 368 f. not.
[482] Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. 88. According to him Jesus makes these
implements, doubtless under the direction of Joseph. In the Evang.
Thomæ c. xiii. Joseph is the workman.
[483] Cap. xxxviii. ap. Thilo, p. 112 ff.
[484] C. ix. and xiii.
[485] C. Cels. vi. 36.
[486] Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 200.
[487] Vid. Wetstein and Paulus, in loc.; Winer, Realwörterbuch, 1, s.
665. Note; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 46 f. Note.
[488] Ut sup.: ταῦτα γὰρ τὰ τεκτονικὰ ἔργα εἰργάζετο ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὢν,
ἄροτρα καὶ ζυγά. διὰ τούτων καὶ τὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης σύμβολα διδάσκων,
καὶ ενεργῆ βίον.
[489] Cap. xxxviii.
[490] Theodoret. H. E. iii. 23.
[491] Hase, Leben Jesu, § 70; Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 665.
[492] Winer, ut sup.
[493] This is done by both the above-named theologians.
[494] Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, a, s. 273 ff.
[495] Such, however, are the arguments of Paulus, ut sup. 275 ff.
[496] Comp. Hase, Leben Jesu, § 38; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 45 f.
[497] Paulus, ut sup.
[498] To this Schöttgen appeals, Christus rabbinorum summus, in his
horæ, ii. p. 890 f.
[499] As e.g. Reinhard does, in his Plan Jesu.
[500] Evang. infant. arab. c. i. p. 60 f. ap. Thilo, and the passages
quoted § 40 out of the same Gospel and the Evang. Thomæ.
[501] Cap. ii. p. 278, Thilo.
[502] Cap. x. ff.
[503] E.g. Evang. Thomæ, c. iii.–v. Evang. infant. arab. c. xlvi. f.
Evang. Thomæ, c. ii. Evang. inf. arab. c. xxxvi.
[504] Yet some isolated instances occur, vid. Semler, Baumgarten’s
Glaubenslehre, 1, s. 42, Anm. 8.
[505] Orig. c. Cels. 1. 28: καὶ (λέγει) ὅτι οὗτος (ὁ Ἰησοῦς) διὰ πενίαν
εἰς Αἴγυπτον μισθαρνήσας, κᾀκεῖ δυνάμεων τίνων πειραθεὶς, ἐφ’ αἷς
Αἰγύπτιοι σεμνύνονται, ἐπανῆλθεν, ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσι μέγα φρονῶν, καὶ δι’
αὐτὰς θεὸν αὐτὸν ἀνηγόρευσε.
[506] Sanhedr. f. cvii. 2: R. Josua f. Perachja et ישו Alexandrian
Aegypti profecti sunt — — ישו ex illo tempore magiam exercuit, et
Israëlitas ad pessima quævis perduxit. (An important anachronism, as
this Josua Ben Perachja lived about a century earlier. See Jost,
Geschichte des Isr., 2, s. 80 ff. and 142 of the Appendices.) Schabbath
f. civ. 2: Traditio est, R. Elieserem dixisse ad viros doctos: annon f.
Satdae (i.e. Jesus) magiam ex Aegypto adduxit per incisionem in carne
suâ factam? vid. Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 697 ff. Eisenmenger,
entdecktes Judenthum, 1, s. 149 f.
[507] E.g. Des Côtes, Schutzschrift für Jesus von Nazaret, s. 128 ff.
[508] Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 39 ff.
[509] Vid. Joseph. B. j. ii. viii. 2–13. Antiq. xviii. i. 5. Comp.
Philo, quod omnis probus liber and de vita contemplativa.
[510] This opinion is judiciously developed by Stäudlin, Geschichte der
Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 570 ff.; and in a romantic manner in the
Geschichte des Grossen Propheten von Nazaret, 1. Band.
[511] H. E. ii. 16 f.
[512] Comp. Bengel, Bemerkungen über den Versuch. das Christenthum aus
dem Essäismus abzuleiten, in Flatt’s Magazin, 7, s. 126 ff.; Neander,
L. J. Chr. s. 41 ff.
[513] This is stated with exaggeration by Bahrdt, Briefe über die
Bibel, zweites Bändchen, 18ter, 20ster Brief ff. 4tes Bändchen, 49ster
Brief.
[514] Comp. Paulus ut sup. 1, a, 273 ff. Planck, Geschichte des
Christenthums in der Periode seiner ersten Einführung 1, s. 84. De
Wette, bibl. Dogm. § 212. Hase L. J. § 38. Winer, bibl. Realw. s. 677
f. Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 38 ff.
[515] Exeget. Handbuch. 1 a, s. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him,
über den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 30.
[516] Vermischte Aufsätze, s. 76 ff. Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup.
[517] De Wette and Fritzsche, in loc.
[518] See Paulus, ut sup., s. 336.
[519] I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysanias,
with the parallel passages in Dion Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv.
iii. 2, vii. 8.—Antiq. xv. iv. 1. B. j. i. xiii. 1 (Dio Cassius xlix.
32). Antiq. xv. x. 1–3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq. xvii.
xi. 4. B. j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio
Cass. lix. 8). Antiq. xix. v. 1. B. j. ii. xi. 5. Antiq. xx. v. 2, vii.
1. B. j. ii. xii. 8.
[520] Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 15 ff. 93 ff.
[521] Tholuck thinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in
Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 42 (A.D. 17), mentions the
death of an Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A.D.
36), cites an Archelaus, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clitæ, the
same historical conjecture, says Tholuck, is necessary, viz., that
there were two Cappadocians named Archelaus. But when the same
historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the
same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a
clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite
otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one
of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a
conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the
less historical, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the
two writers would have been silent respecting the second of the
like-named men, had such an one existed.
[522] Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und
Umbreit’s Studien, 1833, 4 Heft, s. 1056 ff. Tholuck, s. 201 ff.
[523] For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erase, with
Schneckenburger and others, the second τετραρχοῦντος, is too evident
violence.
[524] Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit. Ztg., 1803, No. 344, s. 552:
De Wette, exeg. Handbuch, in loc.
[525] See Paulus, s. 294.
[526] See Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 62.
[527] Bengel was also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, s. 204 f. ed. 2.
[528] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.
[529] So Cludius, über die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesu. In
Henke’s Museum, ii. iii. 502 ff.
[530] Cludius, ut sup.
[531] Stäudlin, Geschichte der Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, s. 580. Paulus,
exeg. Handb. 1 a, s. 136. Comp. also Creuzer, Symbolik, 4, s. 413 ff.
[532] Ut sup. p. 347.
[533] Bell. jud. iii. x. 7.
[534] See Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, A. Wüste. Schneckenburger, über
den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, s. 39.
[535] Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 38 f.
[536] Winer, ut sup., s. 691.
[537] Paulus, ut sup., s. 301.
[538] Schneckenburger, über das Alter der Jüdischen Proselytentaufe.
[539] Sanhedr. f. xcvii. 2: R. Elieser dixit: si Israëlitæ pœnitentiam
agunt, tunc per Goëlem liberantur; sin vero, non liberantur. Schöttgen,
horæ, 2, p. 780 ff.
[540] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.
[541] Thus Paulus, ut sup., s. 314 and 361, Anm.
[542] Fragment von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, herausgegeben von
Lessing, s. 133 ff.
[543] So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in loc.;
so think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in
der Periode seiner Einführung, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch, 1,
s. 691.
[544] Let the reader judge for himself whether Neander’s arguments be
not forced: “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must
necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus,
that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would
eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine
illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.
[545] Lücke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, s. 362.
[546] Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications
themselves might contain directions for—keeping the two youths apart!
s. 127.
[547] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 117 f. Paulus, ut sup., s. 366.
[548] Comp. the Fragmentist, ut sup.
[549] Hæres, xxx. 13: Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἡνοίγησαν οἱ
οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς
κ.τ.λ. καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα·
ὃν ἰδών, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σύ τὶς εἶ, Κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ
κ.τ.λ. καὶ τότε, φησὶν, ὁ Ἰωάννης παραπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε· δέομαι σοῦ
Κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον. And when he came from the water, the heavens
were opened, and he saw the holy spirit of God in the form of a dove,
etc., and a voice was heard, etc., and immediately a great light
illuminated the place; seeing which, John said to him, Who art thou,
Lord? and again a voice, etc. And then, John falling at his feet, said
to him, I beseech thee, Lord, baptize me.
[550] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen
Evangeliums, s. 121 f.; Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 1, s. 361. Usteri,
über den Täufer Johannes u. s. w., Studien, 2, 3. s. 446.
[551] Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 18. Comp. Bengel, historico-exegetical
remarks in Matt. xi. 2–19, in his Archiv. 1, iii. p. 754 ff.
[552] See Paulus, Kuinöl, in loc. Bengel, ut sup., p. 763.
[553] Calvin, Comm. in harm. ex. Matth., Marc. et Luc. in loc.
[554] We agree with Schleiermacher, (über den Lukas, s. 106 f.) in thus
designating the narrative of the third evangelist, first, on account of
the idle repetition of the Baptist’s words, ver. 20; secondly, on
account of the mistake in ver. 18 and 21, of which we shall presently
treat, and to which ver. 29, 30, seem to betray a similar one.
[555] Compare Calvin in loc. and Bengel ut sup., s. 753 ff.
[556] Thus most recent commentators: Paulus, Kuinöl, Bengel, Hase,
Theile, and even Fritzsche.
[557] This difficulty occurred to Bengel also, ut sup., p. 769.
[558] The gospel writers, after what they had narrated of the relations
between Jesus and the Baptist, of course understood the question to
express doubt, whence probably v. 6 (Matt.) and v. 23 (Luke) came in
this connection. Supposing these passages authentic, they suggest
another conjecture; viz. that Jesus spoke in the foregoing verses of
spiritual miracles, and that the Baptist was perplexed by the absence
of corporeal ones. The ἀκούσας τὰ ἔργα τ. Χ. must then be set down to
the writer’s misapprehension of the expressions of Jesus.
[559] Gabler and Paulus.
[560] De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. theol., s.
77 ff. Lücke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh. 1, s. 347 ff. Winer, bibl.
Realwörterb. 1, s. 693, Anm.
[561] Gabler and Paulus. De Wette.
[562] De Wette, ut sup., p. 76.
[563] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 2 a, die Übers., s. 29. 31.
[564] Tholuck and Lücke, in loc.
[565] Lücke, ut sup.
[566] See Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum Jesu apostolorumque ætate, §
23–25.
[567] Probabilia, p. 41.
[568] See Gfrörer, Philo und die Alexandr. Theosophie, part ii. p. 180.
[569] Lücke, ut sup., p. 500.
[570] Compare especially:
Joh. iii. 11 (Jesus to Nicodemus): Joh. iii. 32 (the Baptist): καὶ
ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ὅτι ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο
λαλοῦμεν, καὶ ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυρεῖ· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν
μαρτυροῦμεν· καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει.
οὐ λαμβάνετε.
V. 18: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ V. 36: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν
κρίνεται· ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων, ἤδη ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν
κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν εἰς το τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωὴν, ἀλλ’ ἡ
ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ μένει ἐπ’ αὐτόν.
Comp. also the words of the Baptist v. 31, with Joh. iii. 6. 12 f.
viii. 23; v. 32 with viii. 26; v. 33 with vi. 27; v. 34 with xii. 49,
50; v. 35 with v. 22, 27, x. 28 f. xvii. 2.
[571] Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 105.
[572] Paulus, Olshausen, in loc.
[573] E.g. here, v. 32, it is said: τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς
λαμβάνει, but in the Prolog. v. 11: καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον.
Comp. Lücke, s. 501.
[574] Ut sup.
[575] De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81;
biblische Dogmatik, § 209; Winer, bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 692.
[576] Neander, p. 75. This author erroneously supposes that there is an
indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus in
Acts xviii. 25, where it is said of Apollos: ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ
τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. For on comparing the
following chapter, we find that Paul had to teach the disciples of
John, that by the ερχόμενος announced by their master, they were to
understand Jesus; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord
expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine,
purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that
the more accurate instruction which he received from the Christians,
Aquila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fulfilment in the person
of Jesus.
[577] Gesenius, Probeheft der Ersch und Gruber’schen Encyclopädie, d.
A. Zabier.
[578] Bretschneider, Probab., s. 46 f.; comp. Lücke, s. 493 f.; De
Wette, Opusc a. a. O.
[579] Greiling, Leben Jesu von Nazaret, s. 132 f.
[580]
2 Sam. iii. 1. John iii. 30.
וְדָוִד הֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק ἐκεῖνον δεῖ αὐξάνειν.
וּבֵית שָׁאוּל הֹלְכִם וְדַלּים : ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι.
[581] Schulz, die Lehre vom Abendmahl, s. 145. Winer, Realwörterbuch,
1, s. 693.
[582] Commentar, s. 380.
[583] The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some
explanation, why the fourth Evangelist of all others should be
solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus,
than history allows us to conceive. According to v. 1 ff. there were
persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore
rebaptized by the Apostle Paul in the name of Jesus. Now an old
tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephesus
(Iræneus adv. hær. iii. 1). If we accept this (and it is certainly
correct in assigning a Greek locality for the composition of this
Gospel), and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts,
that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all
of whom Paul could hardly have converted; the endeavour to draw them
over to Jesus would explain the remarkable stress laid by the fourth
Evangelist on the μαρτυρία Ἰωάννου. Storr has very judiciously remarked
and discussed this, über den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der
Briefe Johannis, s. 5 ff. 24 f. Compare Hug, Einleitung in das N. T.,
s. 190 3te Ausg.
[584] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.
[585] Ueber den Lukas, s. 109.
[586] Ibid. p. 106.
[587] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w. s. 79.
[588] The expression οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is thus interpreted by the most
learned exegetists. Comp. Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck in loc.
[589] Lücke, Commentar, s. 327.
[590] Lücke, s. 339.
[591] Whether the dialogue between John and his complaining disciples
(John iii. 25 ff.) be likewise a transmutation of the corresponding
scene, Matt. ix. 14 f., as Bretschneider seeks to show, must remain
uncertain. Probab., p. 66 ff.
[592] That Jesus, as many suppose, assigns a low rank to the Baptist,
because the latter thought of introducing the new order of things by
external violence, is not to be detected in the gospels.
[593] For a different explanation see Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 48
ff.
[594] Antiq. xviii. v. 2.
[595] This former husband of Herodias is named by the Evangelists,
Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s
daughter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq. xv. ix. 3;
xviii. v. 1. 4. B. j. i. xxix. 2, xxx. 7.
[596] Antiq. xviii. v. 4.
[597] Hase, Leben Jesu, s. 88.
[598] Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. in loc. Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1,
s. 694.
[599] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 361; Schleiermacher, über den
Lukas, s. 109.
[600] Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. 225.
[601] E.g. Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen
Evangeliums, s. 86 f. That the ἐλυπήθη of Matthew, v. 9, is not
contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.
[602] S. Winer, b. Realwörterb. d. A. Herodes Antipas.
[603] Fritzsche, Commentar. in Matt., p. 491.
[604] Antiq. xviii. v. 1.
[605] Dial. c. Tryph. 8, s. 110. der Mauriner Ausg.
[606] Hess. Geschichte Jesu, 1 Bd. s. 118.
[607] Paulus, ut sup., s. 362 ff. 337. Hase, L. J., s. 48, erste Ausg.
[608] Hieron. adv. Pelagian. iii. 2: In Evangelio juxta Hebræos—narrat
historia: Ecce mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei: Joannes
baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum; eamus et baptizemur ab eo.
Dixit autem eis: quid peccavi ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte
hoc ipsum quod dixi, ignorantia est.
[609] The author of the Tractatus de non iterando baptismo in Cyprian’s
works, Rigalt., p. 139, says (the passage is also found in Fabric. Cod.
apocr. N.T., s. 799 f.): Est—liber, qui inscribitur Pauli prædicatio.
In quo libro, contra omnes scripturas et de peccato proprio confitentem
invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit, et ad accipiendum
Joannis baptisma pæne invitum â matre suâ Mariâ esse compulsum.
[610] Justin. Mart. dial. c. Tryph. 88: κατελθόντος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ
ὕδωρ, καὶ πῦρ ἀνήφθη ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνη, κ.τ.λ.. Epiphan. hæres. 30, 13
(after the heavenly voice): καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα.
[611] See Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung
Christi, in the theolog. Studien und Kritiken, 2 Bd. 3 Heft, s. 442
ff., and Bleek, in the same periodical, 1833, 2, s. 428 ff.
[612] Bauer, hebr. Mythologie, 2 s. 225 f. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum
Evang. Matt. i. s. 172 ff.
[613] These are Theodore’s words, in Münter’s Fragmenta patr. græc.
Fasc. 1, s. 142. Orig. c. Cels. i. 48. Basil. M. in Suicer’s Thesaurus,
2, p. 1479.
[614] As even Lücke confesses, Comm. zum Evang. Joh. i., s. 370, and
Bleek, ut sup., s. 437.
[615] Comp. Eusebius, H. E. vi. 29.
[616] See Paulus, Bauer, Kuinöl, Hase and Theile.
[617] De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 208. Anm. 6, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 34
f. 1, 3, s. 29 f. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 58 f. Usteri,
Bleek, Hase, Kern, Neander.
[618] According to Bava Mezia, f. lix. 1 (in Wetstein, p. 427), R.
Elieser appealed to a heavenly sign, in proof that he had tradition in
his favour: tum personuit echo cœlestis: quid vobis cum R. Eliesere?
nam ubivis secundum illum obtinet traditio.
[619] Dial. c. Tryph. 88.
[620] Hæres. xxx. 13.
[621] Pædagog. i. 6.
[622] De consens. Evangg. ii. 14.
[623] S. Wetstein in loc. des Lukas, and De Wette, Einl. in das N. T.,
s. 100.
[624] S. Rosenmüller’s Schol. in Psalm ii.
[625] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 57.
[626] Tibull. Carm. L. 1, eleg. 8, v. 17 f. See the remark of
Broeckhuis on this passage; Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 70 f.; Paulus,
exeg. Handb. 1, a, s. 369.
[627] Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. s. 80.
[628] Chagiga c. ii.: Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, sicut
columba, quæ fertur super pullos suos nec tangit illos. Ir Gibborim ad
Genes. 1, 2, ap. Schöttgen, horæ, i. p. 9.
[629] Targum Koheleth, ii. 12, vox turturis is interpreted as vox
spiritus sancti. To regard this, with Lücke, as an arbitrary
interpretation, seems itself like arbitrariness, in the face of the
above data.
[630] Bereschith rabba, s. 2, f. 4, 4, ad Genes. T. 2 (ap. Schöttgen ut
sup.): intelligitur spiritus regis Messiæ, de quo dicitur, Jes. xi. 2:
et quiescet super illum spiritus Domini.
[631] Sohar. Numer. f. 68. col. 271 f. (in Schöttgen, horæ, 2, p. 537
f.). The purport of this passage rests on the following cabalistic
conclusion: If David, according to Ps. lii. 10, is the olive tree; the
Messiah, a scion of David, is the olive leaf: and since it is said of
Noah’s dove, Gen. viii. 11, that it carried an olive leaf in its mouth;
the Messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove.—Even Christian
interpreters have compared the dove at the baptism of Jesus to the
Noachian one; see Suicer, Thesaurus, 2, Art. περιστερὰ, p. 688. It has
been customary to cite in this connection, that the Samaritans paid
divine honours to a dove under the name of Achima, on Mount Gerizim;
but this is a Jewish accusation, grounded on a wilful misconstruction.
See Stäudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Archiv. für K. G. 1, 3, s. 66. Lücke,
1, s. 367.
[632] See Fritzsche, Comm. in Matt., p. 148.
[633] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 120.
[634] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 175 f.
[635] Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 1, s. 378 f.
[636] From the orthodox point of view, it cannot be consistently said,
with Hoffmann (p. 301), that for the conviction of his messiahship and
the maintenance of the right position, amid so many temptations and
adverse circumstances, an internally wrought certainty did not suffice
Jesus, and external confirmation by a fact was requisite.
[637] Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 14: ἐπειδὴ γὰρ βούλονται τὸν μὲν Ἰησοῦν
ὄντως ανθρώπον εἶναι, Χριστὸν δὲ ὲν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὸν ἐν εἴδει
περιστερᾶς καταβεβηκότα, κ.τ.λ.:—They maintain that Jesus was really
man, but that that which descended from heaven in the form of a dove
became Christ in him.
[638] Epiphan. hæres. xxviii. 1.
[639] Epiphan. hæres. xxx. 13:—περιστερᾶς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης
εἰς αὐτὸν:—of a dove descending and entering into him.
[640] See the passage above, § 48, note 7.
[641] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evang.,
s. 39.
[642] Comm. z. Ev. Joh. 1, s. 344.
[643] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 27.
[644] Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc, s. 23 De Wette, exeg. Handb.,
1, 2, s. 33.
[645] Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., s. 379.
[646] Lightfoot, horæ, p. 243.
[647] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung des ersten kan. Evang., s. 46.
[648] Ibid.
[649] Thus Euthymius, Kuinöl, and others.
[650] Fritzsche, in loc.
[651] Beitrag zur Erklärung der Versuchungsgeschichte, in Ullmann’s and
Umbreit’s Studien, 1834, 4, s. 789.
[652] Ueber den Lukas, s. 56.
[653] Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 46 f.
[654] Exegetische Beiträge, 1, s. 277 ff.
[655] Comm. in Matth. s. 172 ff.
[656] In the Essay quoted, s. 768.
[657] Thus, e.g., Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., p. 84. Comp. Gratz, Comm.
zum Matth., 1, s. 229. Hoffmann, p. 315.
[658] Usteri, über den Täufer Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung
Christi. In den theol. Studien und Kritiken, zweiten Jahrgangs (1829),
drittes Heft, s. 450. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 38.
[659] De Wette, bibl. Dogmatik, § 171. Gramberg, Grundzüge einer
Engellehre des A. T., § 5, in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche
Theologie, 1 Bd. s. 182 f.
[660] Glaubenslehre, 1, ss. 44, 45, der zweiten Ausg.
[661] Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge. Kuinöl, in Matt.
[662] In a fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Münter’s Fragm. Patr.
Græc. Fasc. 1, p. 99 f.
[663] Paulus.
[664] Hoffmann thinks that the devil, in his second temptation,
designedly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple
roof, the essential aim of the temptation being to induce Jesus to a
false use of his miraculous power and consciousness of a divine nature.
But this evasion leaves the matter where it was, for there is the same
absurdity in choosing unfit examples as unfit temptations.
[665] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s. 124.
[666] See the author of the discourse de jejunio et tentationibus
Christi, among Cyprian’s works.
[667] Compare Joseph. B. J. v. v. 6, vi. v. 1. Fritzsche, in Matth., s.
164. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 40.
[668] The one proposed by Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 90; the other by
Fritzsche, p. 168.
[669] Theodore of Mopsuestia, ut sup. p. 107, maintained against Julian
that the devil had made the image of a mountain, φαντασίαν ὄρους τὸν
διάβολον πεποιηκέναι, and according to the author of the discourse,
already cited, de jejunio et tentationibus Christi, the first
temptation it is true passed localiter in deserto, but Jesus only went
to the temple and the mountain as Ezekiel did from Chaboras to
Jerusalem—that is, in spiritu.
[670] Paulus, s. 379.
[671] See for the former, H. Farmer, Gratz, Comm. zum Ev. Matth. 1, s.
217; for the latter, Olshausen in loc., and Hoffmann (s. 326 f.) if I
rightly apprehend him.
[672] Paulus, s. 377 ff.
[673] Fritzsche, in Matth. 155 f. Usteri, Beitrag zur Erklärung der
Versuchungsgeschichte, s. 774 f.
[674] Ullmann, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, 1, s.
56. Usteri, ut sup., s. 775.
[675] Usteri, s. 776.
[676] 1 Bd. s. 512 ff.
[677] The former in Henke’s n. Magazin 4, 2, s. 352; the latter in the
natürlichen Geschichte, 1, s. 591 ff.
[678] This view is held by Ullmann, Hase, and Neander.
[679] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 54. Usteri, ut sup., s. 777.
[680] If something really experienced by Jesus is supposed as the germ
of the parable, this opinion is virtually the same as the preceding.
[681] J. E. C. Schmidt, in seiner Bibliothek, 1, 1, s. 60 f.
Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 54 f. Usteri, über den Täufer
Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Christi, in den theol. Studien, 2,
3, s. 456 ff.
[682] K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, s. 339.
[683] Hasert, Bemerkungen über die Ansichten Ullmann’s und Usteri’s von
der Versuchungsgesch., Studien, 3, 1, s. 74 f.
[684] Hasert, ut sup., s. 76.
[685] Zur Biographie Jesu, § 23.
[686] See Zech. iii. 1, where Satan resists the high priest standing
before the angel of the Lord; farther Vajikra rabba, f. cli. 1 (in
Bertholdt, Christol. Jud., p. 183), where, according to Rabbi Jochanan,
Jehovah said to מלאך המות (i.e. to Satan, comp. Heb. ii. 14 and
Lightfoot, horæ, p. 1088): Feci quidem te κοσμοκράτορα, at vero cum
populo fœderis negotium nulla in re tibi est.
[687] See the passages quoted by Fabricius in Cod. pseudepigr. V. T.,
p. 395, from Gemara Sanhedrin.
[688] The same, p. 396. As Abraham went out to sacrifice his son in
obedience to Jehovah, antevertit eum Satanas in via, et tali colloquio
cum ipso habito a proposito avertere eum conatus est, etc. Schemoth, R.
41 (ap. Wetstein in loc. Matth.): Cum Moses in altum adscenderet, dixit
Israëli: post dies XL hora sexta redibo. Cum autem XL illi dies elapsi
essent, venit Satanas, et turbavit mundum, dixitque: ubi est Moses,
magister vester? mortuus est. It is worthy of remark that here also the
temptation takes place after the lapse of 40 days.
[689] Thus Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 173. His very title is striking, p.
154: Quod in vulgari Judæorum opinione erat, fore, ut Satanas
salutaribus Messiæ consiliis omni modo, sed sine effectu tamen, nocere
studeret, id ipsum Jesu Messiæ accidit. Nam quum is ad exemplum
illustrium majorum quadraginta dierum in deserto loco egisset jejunium,
Satanas eum convenit, protervisque atque impiis— —consiliis ad
impietatem deducere frustra conatus est.
[690] Schöttgen, horæ, ii. 538, adduces from Fini Flagellum Judæorum,
iii. 35, a passage of Pesikta: Ait Satan: Domine, permitte me tentare
Messiam et ejus generationem? Cui inquit Deus: Non haberes ullam
adversus eum potestatem. Satanas iterum ait: Sine me, quia potestatem
habeo. Respondit Deus: Si in hoc diutius perseverabis, Satan, potius
(te) de mundo perdam quam aliquam animam generationis Messiæ perdi
permittam. This passage at least proves that a temptation of the
Messiah undertaken by the devil, was not foreign to the circle of
Jewish ideas. Although the author of the above quotation represents the
demand of Satan to have been denied, others, so soon as the imagination
was once excited, would be sure to allow its completion.
[691] Deut. viii. 2 (LXX.) the people are thus addressed: μνησθήσῃ
πᾶσαν τὴν ὁδὸν, ἥν ἤγαγέ σε Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου τοῦτο τεσσαρακοστὸν ἔτος
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ὅπως κακώσῃ σε καὶ πεῖρασῃ σε καὶ διαγνωσθῇ τὰ ἐν τῇ
καρδίᾳ σου, εἰ φυλάξῃ τὰς ἐντολάς αὐτοῦ ἢ οὔ.
[692] Ziegler, in Gabler’s n. theol. Journ., 5, 201; Theile, zur Biogr.
J., § 23.
[693] See Wetstein, s. 270; De Wette, Kritik der mos. Geschichte, s.
245; the same in Daub’s and Creuzer’s Studien, 3, s. 245; v. Bohlen,
Genesis, s. 63 f.
[694] Deut. viii. 3, καὶ ἐκάκωσέ σε καὶ ἐλιμανχόνησε σε, κ.τ.λ.
[695] S. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V. T., p. 398 ff.
[696] Gemara Sanh., as in note 3. The colloquy between Abraham and
Satan is thus continued:
1. Satanas: Annon tentare te (Deum) in tali re ægre feras? Ecce
erudiebas multos—labantem erigebant verba tua—quum nunc advenit ad te
(Deus taliter te tentans) nonne ægre ferres (Job iv. 2–5)?
Cui resp. Abraham: Ego in integritate mea ambulo (Ps. xxvi. 11).
2. Satanas: Annon timor tuus, spes tua (Job iv. 6)?
Abraham: Recordare quæso, quis est insons, qui perierit (v. 7)?
3. Quare, quum videret Satanas, se nihil proficere, nec Abrahamum sibi
obedire, dixit ad illum: et ad me verbum furtim ablatum est (v. 12),
audivi—pecus futurum esse pro holocausto (Gen. xxii. 7), non autem
Isaacum.
Cui resp. Abraham: Hæc est pæna mendacis, ut etiam cum vera loquitur,
fides ei non habeatur.
I am far from maintaining that this rabbinical passage was the model of
our history of the temptation; but since it is impossible to prove, on
the other side, that such narratives were only imitations of the New
Testament ones, the supposed independent formation of stories so
similar shows plainly enough the ease with which they sprang out of the
given premises.
[697] Note 1.
[698] Bertholdt, Christolog. Judæorum Jesu ætate, § 36, not. 1 and 2;
Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 169 f.
[699] Compare with the above statement the deductions of Schmidt,
Fritzsche, and Usteri, as given § 54, notes 1–3, and of De Wette, exeg.
Handbuch, 1, 1, s. 41 ff.
[700] Fritzsche, p. 591.
[701] Olshausen, bibl. Comm., 1, s. 189 f.
[702] Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 38 f.; über den Ursprung u. s. f.,
s. 7 f.
[703] De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T., § 98 u. 106.
[704] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, a, s. 39.
[705] Guerike, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das N. T., s. 33; Tholuck,
Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 303.
[706] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. w., s. 9.
[707] Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matthäi, in der Tübinger
Zeitschrift, 1834, 2tes Heft, s. 198 ff. Comp. Hug, Einleit. in d. N.
T., 2, s. 205 ff. (3te Ausg.).
[708] Tholuck, Comm. zum Evang. Joh., p. 207.
[709] Comp. Lücke, ut sup., s. 546.
[710] De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T., § 98.
[711] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 7.; Beiträge u.
s. f., s. 38 ff.
[712] Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 207. Comp. Gabler’s Treatise on the
Resurrection of Lazarus, in his Journal für auserlesene theol.
Literatur, 3, 2.
[713] Hug, Einleit. in das N. T., 2, s. 210.
[714] Hug, ut supra, s. 211. f.
[715] Compare Weisse, die evang. Geschichte 1, s. 29 ff.
[716] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 6, s. 463.
[717] This Schleiermacher has made evident, über den Lukas, s. 63.
[718] Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums,
s. 89.
[719] Olshausen, Fritzsche, in loc. Hase, Leben Jesu, § 62. Sieffert,
ut supra.
[720] Sieffert, ut supra.
[721] What these mighty works were can only be made clear when we come
to the chapter on the Miracles.
[722] Schleiermacher, ut supra, s. 64.
[723] Schleiermacher, ut supra, s. 63 f.
[724] Ordo temporum, p. 220 ff. ed. 2.
[725] Paulus, ut supra, 1, b, s. 407.
[726] Paulus, ut supra. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 765.
[727] Bibl. Comm. 1, 470.
[728] Hase, Leben Jesu, § 62.
[729] Ueber den Lukas, s. 93.
[730] Ut supra, 479; comp. 2, p. 214.
[731] Adv. Marcion, iv. 8.
[732] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 788 f.
[733] Lücke, Comm. zum Evang. Joh., 2, s. 6.
[734] Bengel, ordo temporum, p. 219 f.
[735] Hug, Einleit. in das N. T. 2, s. 229 ff.
[736] Paulus, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., s. 279 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 784
ff.
[737] Summaries of the different opinions are given by Hase, L. J., §
53; and by Lücke, Comm. z. Ev. Joh., 2, s. 2 ff.
[738] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 785.
[739] See Storr, über den Zweck der evang. Gesch. und der Briefe
Johannis, s. 330.
[740] Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 666.
[741] Clem. Alex. Stromat. 1, p. 174, Würzb. ed., 340 Sylburg; Orig. de
principp. iv. 5, comp. homil. in Luc. 32.
[742] Iren. adv. hær. i. 1, 5. ii. 35, 38, on the Valentinians. Clem.
hom. xvii. 19.
[743] Iren. ii. xxii. 5 f. Comp. Credner, Einl. in das N. T. 1, s. 215.
[744] Lightfoot and Tholuck in loc.
[745] Joseph. Antiq. xviii. iv. 2.
[746] Sueton. Tiber. c. lxxiii. Joseph. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10.
[747] Comp. Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 214 f.
[748] See especially the labours of Paulus in the Chronological
Excursus of his Commentary and his exegetical Manual; of Hug, in the
Einl. z. N. T. 2, s. 2, 233 ff.; and others, given by Winer in his
bibl. Realwörterbuch 1, s. 667.
[749] Winer, ut sup.; comp. Kaiser, biblische Theologie, 1, s. 254.
Anm.; die Abhandlung über die verschiedenen Rücksichten u. s. w., in
Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 239.
[750] Olshausen 1, s. 24 ff.
[751] Schneckenburger’s Beiträge, s. 25 ff.
[752] All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying,
and rising again, is here omitted, and reserved for the history of the
Passion.
[753] Paulus, exeget. Handb. 1, 6, s. 465; Fritzsche, in Matth., p.
320.
[754] Thus after Herder, Köster e.g. in Immanuel, s. 265.
[755] Lücke, Comm. zum Joh., 1, s. 397 f.
[756] e.g. Grotius.
[757] Abenesra, see Hävernick, ut sup. Comm. zum Daniel, s. 244.
[758] Schöttgen, horæ, ii. s. 63, 73; Hävernick, ut sup., s. 243 f.
[759] See for the most important opinions, Hävernick, ut sup., s. 242
f.
[760] Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy, 2
Sam. i. 17 ff. as קֶשֶׁת and the denomination of the Messiah as צֶמַח.
Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he
would not have called the reference of υἰὸς τοῦ ἀ. to the passage in
Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubensl., § 99, s. 99, Anm.)
[761] That the expression οἱ ἑν τῷ πλοίῷ includes more than the
disciples, vid. Fritzsche, in loc.
[762] There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put
by Jesus to his disciples: τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τον υἱὸν
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah?
This, when compared with the sequel, seems a premature disclosure;
hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its primâ
facie meaning. Some (e.g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not
as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer
limitation of the question: For whom do the people take me? for the
Messiah? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well
observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not
elsewhere discernible in Jesus. Others, therefore, (as Paulus and
Fritzsche,) give the expression υἱὸς τ. ἀ. a general signification, and
interpret the question thus: Whom do men say that I, the individual
addressing you, am? But this explanation has been already refuted in
the foregoing section. If, then, we reject the opinion that the υἱὸς τ.
ἀ. is an addition which the exuberant faith of the writer was apt to
suggest even in an infelicitous connexion, we are restricted to De
Wette’s view (exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 86 f.), namely, that the
expression, ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀ. was indeed an appellation of the Messiah, but
an indirect one, so that it might convey that meaning, as an allusion
to Daniel, to Jesus and those already aware of his Messiahship, while
to others it was merely the equivalent of, this man.
[763] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 28 f.
[764] This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is
also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., s. 213. 536, and
Schneckenburger ut sup.
[765] Schneckenburger, ut sup., s. 29.
[766] Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 309, comp. 352. Olshausen, s. 265.
[767] Fritzsche, p. 352. Olshausen, ut sup.
[768] The opposite view is held by the Fragmentist, who thinks the
prohibition was intended to stimulate the popular eagerness.
[769] Fritzsche, s. 309.
[770] Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 74.
[771] Comp. the excellent treatise of Paulus on the following question
in the Einl. zum Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 28 ff.
[772] Even if a different reading be adopted for the parallel passage
in Matthew (xix. 16 f.), it must remain questionable whether his
statement deserves the preference to that of the two other Evangelists.
[773] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 130, 253.
[774] Olshausen, ut sup. 1, s. 108 ff.
[775] Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor. §§ 8. 35, 42.
[776] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 59.
[777] Porphyr. Vita Pythag., 26 f. Jamblich. 14, 63. Diog. Laert. viii.
4 f. 14. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana, pp. 64 f. 98 f. 185 f.
[778] See a notification and exposition of the passages in Lücke, Comm.
zum Ev. Joh., 1, s. 211 ff.
[779] Winer, de Onkeloso, p. 10. Comp. De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T.,
§ 58.
[780] Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 23–25. Comp. Lücke ut sup., s.
244, note.
[781] Schöttgen, ii. s. 6 f.
[782] Targ. Jes. xvi 1: Iste (Messias) in deserto fuit rupes ecclesiæ
Zionis. In Bertholdt, ut sup. p. 145.
[783] Sohar chadasch f. lxxxii. 4, ap. Schöttgen, ii. s. 440.
[784] Nezach Israël c. xxxv. f. xlviii. 1. Schmidt, Bibl. für Kritik u.
Exegese, 1, s. 38: משׂיח מפני תוהו. Sohar Levit. f. xiv. 56.
Schöttgen, ii. s. 436: Septem (lumina condita sunt, antequam mundus
conderetur), nimirum ... et lumen Messiæ. Here we have the
pre-existence of the Messiah represented as a real one: for a more
ideal conception of it, see Bereschith Rabba, sect. 1, f. iii. 3
(Schöttgen).
[785] Von dem Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 108–157.
[786] Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 114.
[787] Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 518. Olshausen also, p. 744,
understands the discourse symbolically, though he attaches to it a
different meaning.
[788] Paulus, exeget. Handb. 2, s. 613 f.
[789] Liebe, in Winer’s exeg. Studien, 1, 59 ff.
[790] So Reinhard, über den Plan, welchen der Stifter der christlichen
Religion zum Besten der Menschheit entwarf, s. 57 ff. (4te Aufl.).
[791] Paulus, Leben Jesu 1, b, s. 85, 94, 106 ff.; Venturini, 2, s. 310
f.; Hase, Leben Jesu 1 ed. §§ 68, 84. Hase has modified this opinion in
his 2nd edition, §§ 49, 50 (comp. theol. Streitschrift, 1, s. 61 ff.),
though with apparent reluctance, and he now maintains that Jesus had
risen above the political notion of the messianic kingdom before his
public appearance.
[792] Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 606 f.
[793] De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 216.
[794] Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., §§ 30 ff.
[795] Ibid., § 39.
[796] E.g. Reinhard, Plan Jesu, s. 14 ff.
[797] For an exaggeration in the Ebionite Gospel, vid. Epiphanius,
hæres. xxx. 16.
[798] Bertholdt, ut sup. § 31.
[799] This is done the most concisely in the Wolfenbüttel Fragments,
von dem Zweck u. s. f., s. 66 ff.
[800] Especially Fritzsche, in Matt., s. 214 ff.
[801] Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 406 ff.
[802] Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 273.
[803] Winer, b. Realw., 1 Bd. s. 426.
[804] Fritzsche, s. 214 ff.
[805] Reinhard, s. 15 ff. Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der
Periode seiner Einführung, 1, s. 175 ff.
[806] De Wette, Bibl. Dogm., § 210.
[807] Fritzsche, s. 214.
[808] Vid. the Fragmentist, s. 69.
[809] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 600 f. Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 296,
312.
[810] Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 598 f.
[811] Comp. Hase, L. J., s. 84. Rabbinical notions of the abrogation of
the Law in Schöttgen, ii. s. 611 ff.
[812] Thus the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 72 ff.
[813] Reinhard; Planck, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Per. seiner
Einführung, 1, s. 179 ff.
[814] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 380 f. Hase, L. J., § 102.
[815] Olshausen, 1, s. 507.
[816] Hase, ut sup.
[817] Antiq. xx. vi. 1. For some rabbinical rules not quite in
accordance with this, see Lightfoot, p. 991.
[818] Bertholdt, Christol. Judæor., § 7.
[819] Some erroneously attribute this meaning to their question; see in
Lücke 1, s. 533.
[820] Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 47 ff. 97 f.
[821] Lücke, 1, s. 520 ff.
[822] Tholuck, in loc.
[823] Lücke and Tholuck, in loc. Hase, L. J., 67.
[824] E.g. Tholuck, in many passages.
[825] Comp. Schöttgen, horæ, i. s. 970 f. Wetstein, s. 863.
[826] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, 187; Comment. 4, in loc.
[827] Comp. Olshausen in loc., and Bretschneider, Probab., s. 50.
[828] Olshausen, Lücke, in loc.
[829] Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. s. 49 f.
[830] Homil. ii. 6, comp. iii. 12.
[831] Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 371 f.
[832] Lightfoot, p. 1002.
[833] Lücke, 1, s. 542.
[834] Lücke, s. 540, note. Bretschneider, s. 52
[835] Comm. in Joan, tom. 13.
[836] Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth., s. 100; Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, s. 388;
Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, §§ 56, 61.
[837] Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 212.
[838] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 213; Sieffert, über den Ursprung u.
s. f., s. 72.
[839] See Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 189.
[840] Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 372.
[841] Paulus, ut sup.
[842] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 464.
[843] Gnomon, in loc.
[844] Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 168.
[845] S. 385.
[846] Vid. Lücke, s. 389 f.
[847] Ut sup.
[848] P. 141.
[849] Storr, üeber den Zweck der ev. Gesch. und der Br. Joh., s. 350.
[850] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 449.
[851] Bibl. Comm. 1, p. 283.
[852] Ueber den Lukas, s. 70.
[853] This, with the legendary character of both narratives, is
acknowledged by De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 37, 1, 2, s. 38 f.
[854] Neander is of the same opinion, L. J., s. 249 f.
[855] Uber den Ursprung des ersten kan. Ev., s. 73.
[856] Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834 Nov.; now
in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 264 f.
[857] According to De Wette, the copious draught of fishes was a
symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits of the apostolic
ministry.
[858] Porphyr. vita Pythagoræ, no. 25, ed. Kiessling; Jamblich. v. P.
no. 36. ders. Ausg. It is fair to adduce this history, because, being
less marvellous than the gospel narrative, it can hardly be an
imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hence it evinces a
common tendency of the ancient legend.
[859] Luke v. 5: δι’ ὅλης τῆς νυκτὸς κοπιάσαντες οὐδὲν ἐλάβομεν. John
xxi. 3: καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἐπίασαν ουδέν.
[860] Comp. de Wette, exeg Handb., 1, 3, s. 213.
[861] Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 255.
[862] Sieffert, ut sup. p. 55.
[863] Kuinöl, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 513. L. J., 1, a,
240.
[864] Bertholdt, Einleitung, 3, s. 1255 f. Fritzsche, s. 340.
[865] Sieffert, s. 56; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 91.
[866] Sieffert, s. 60.
[867] De Wette, ut sup.
[868] Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 510. L. J., 1, a, 240.
[869] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 76.
[870] Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 470.
[871] Augustin c. Faust. Manich. xvii. 1.
[872] iii. i. 4.
[873] Plutarch. de gloria Atheniens., at the beginning.
[874] Schulz, Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 308.
[875] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, p. 134.
[876] Ut sup., p. 77.
[877] De Wette, exeg. Handb. I, 1, p. 93.
[878] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 48. Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 632.
[879] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.
[880] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 85.
[881] Ut sup., s. 88.
[882] Ep. Barnab. 8, and the Gospel of the Ebionites ap. Epiphanius,
hær. xxx. 13.
[883] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 87.
[884] If ἡ πόλις Ἀνδρέου καὶ Πέτρου, John i. 45, mean the same as ἡ
ἰδία πόλις, Matth. ix. 1, that is, the place where they were resident,
there exists a contradiction on this point between John and the
synoptists.
[885] Comp. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 358.
[886] Comp. Lightfoot, in loc.
[887] Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 55 f.
[888] Comp. de Wette, in loc.
[889] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 556.
[890] This is probably a mere inference of Mark. Because Jesus excluded
the multitude, and forbade the publication of the event, the Evangelist
saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to
admit only the three favoured apostles.
[891] In the ancient church it was thought that Jesus had communicated
to these three individuals the γνῶσις, to be mysteriously transmitted.
Vid. in Gieseler, K. G. 1, s. 234.
[892] Even Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 167 f., remarks that the fourth
Evangelist seems to have had a design in noticing this circumstance.
[893] This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the
first volume of the second ed. of Lücke’s Comm. zum Johannes, in Lt.
Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeitung, Febr., 1834, no. 18, s. 137 f., he says:
“The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous
circumstances connected with Peter (excepting vi. 68), such as place
him in marked subordination to John [here the passages above considered
are cited]. An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the
Gospel of John.” We may add that it seems to have proceeded from an
antagonist of Peter, for it is probable that he had such of the school
of John, as well as of Paul.
[894] Vid. Lücke, Comm. zum Joh. 2, s. 708.
[895] Paulus, in his review of Bretschneider’s Probabilien, in the
Heidelberger Jahrbüchern, 1821, no. 9, s. 138.
[896] Lücke, ut sup. s. 664.
[897] Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 111 f.
[898] Comp. Paulus, ut sup. s. 137.
[899] Thus most of the expositors, Fritzsche, Matth., s. 359; Winer,
Realwörterb. 1, s. 163 f. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 98.
[900] Joseph., bell. jud. iv. iii. 9.
[901] Comp. Credner, Einleitung 1, s. 64; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1,
s. 98 f.
[902] De Wette, ut sup.
[903] Ueber den Lukas, s. 88 f.
[904] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 307; Schneckenburger, über den
Ursprung, s. 13 f.
[905] Tuf haarez, f. xix. c. iii.; Clem. hom. xviii. 4; Recognit.
Clement. ii. 42; Epiphan. hær. i. 5.
[906] Schneckenburger, ut sup.; Gieseler, über Entstehung der schriftl.
Evangelien, s. 127 f.
[907] Lightfoot, p. 786.
[908] De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1, s. 99 f. 1, 2, s. 61. 1, 3, s.
220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., § 24. For the contrary opinion, see
Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 498 f.
[909] All that relates to the sufferings, death, and resurrection of
Jesus is here excluded.
[910] Augustin, de consens. ev. ii. 19; Storr, über den Zweck des
Evang. u. d. Br. Joh., s. 347 ff. For further references see Tholuck’s
Auslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl., § 1.
[911] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 47 ff. 1, 2, s. 44.
[912] Tholuck, s. 24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 584.
[913] Schulz, vom Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Sieffert, s. 74 ff.; Fritzsche,
s. 301.
[914] Olshausen, Bibl. Comm., 1, s. 197; Kern, in der Tüb. Schrift,
1834, 2, s. 33.
[915] Schulz, ut sup. s. 315; Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 26;
Credner, Einleit., 1, s. 69.
[916] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 89 f.
[917] Tholuck, p. 11, and my Review of the writings of Sieffert and
others in the Jahrbuch f. wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834; now in my
Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 252 ff.
[918] Comp. Tholuck, ut sup. s. 25 ff.; De Wette, exeget. Handb., 1, 1,
s. 49.
[919] Storr, Ueber den Zweck u. s. w., s. 348 f. Olshausen.
[920] De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 44 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s.
155 f., Anm.
[921] Homil. xv. 7; comp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f. wiss.
Theologie, 1, s. 298 f.; Schneckenburger, über das Evangelium der
Aegyptier, § 6.
[922] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, s. 29.
[923] Ut sup. s. 90, Neander agrees with him, ut sup.
[924] The Rabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and
curses, vid. Lightfoot, p. 255. As here we have eight blessings, they
held that Abraham had beenblessed benedictionibus septem (Baal Turim,
in Gen. xii. Lightfoot, p. 256); David, Daniel with his three
companions, and the Messiah, benedictionibus sex. (Targ. Ruth. 3,
ibid.) They also counted together with the twenty beatitudines in the
Psalms, as many væ in Isaiah. (Midrasch Tehillim in Ps. i. ib.).
[925] Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58. Neander tries to show, very
artificially, a real connection of thought, s. 157, Anm.
[926] Olshausen in loc. The true reading is indicated by
Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 58; Tholuck, ut sup. s. 11.
[927] This cause is overlooked by Schleiermacher, s. 205; comp. De
Wette, in loc.
[928] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 90. Tholuck, s. 21.
[929] Tholuck, s. 12, 187; De Wette, in loc.
[930] Ut sup. 206 f.
[931] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 86.
[932] De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 48.
[933] Orig. de orat. xviii. and Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 48 f.
[934] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 173; Olshausen, 1, s. 235; Sieffert,
s. 78 ff. Neander, s. 235 f. note.
[935] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 69. 1, 2, s. 65.
[936] N.T. 1, 323. The parallels may be seen in Wetstein and Lightfoot.
[937] Comm. in Matt., p. 265.
[938] Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 69 ff.; Neander, s. 237 ff.
[939] Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 176.
[940] From vi. 19 to the end of the chapter even Neander finds no
orderly association, and conjectures that the editor of the Greek
Gospel of Matthew was the compiler of this latter half of the discourse
(p. 169, note).
[941] Neander, ut sup.; De Wette, in loc.
[942] De Wette, 1, 2, s. 45.
[943] De Wette in loc. des Lukas.
[944] E.g. Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 545.
[945] Schulz, ut sup. s. 308, 314; Sieffert, s. 80 ff.
[946] Olshausen, in loc. The latter bold assertion in Kern, Über den
Ursprung des Evang. Matth., s. 63.
[947] Schulz, s. 315.
[948] Vid. De Wette, Archäol., § 265, and in loc.
[949] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 99.
[950] Schulz, s. 308; Sieffert, s. 82 ff.
[951] The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism finds
throughout the 12th chap. of Luke, I am as little able to discover as
Tholuck, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, s. 13 f., who has strikingly
exposed the partiality of Schleiermacher for Luke, to the prejudice of
Matthew.
[952] Vid. De Wette in loc.
[953] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 169 f.; Schneckenburger, über
den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 32 f.
[954] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 110. 1, 2, s. 62.
[955] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 314.
[956] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 437.
[957] L. J. Chr., s. 175.
[958] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 33.
[959] Olshausen, s. 438.
[960] Schleiermacher, s. 120.
[961] Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., s. 120, 128, 134; De Wette, in loc.
[962] Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 74; Fritzsche ut
sup.; De Wette in loc.
[963] Schleiermacher, ut. sup. s. 192; Olshausen, 1, s. 431;
Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 33.
[964] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 2, s. 73 f.
[965] Analogies to these parables and apothegms are given out of the
rabbinical literature by Wetstein, Lightfoot, and Schöttgen, in loc.
[966] Ueber den Lukas, s. 220.
[967] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 202 ff. Olshausen in loc.
[968] Ut sup.
[969] Schneckenburger has decided, Beiträge, No. V. where he refutes
Olshausen’s interpretation of the parable, that this verse does not
really belong to its present position, while with respect to the
preceding verses from v. 9, he finds it possible to hold the contrary
opinion. De Wette also considers that v. 13 is the only one decidedly
out of place. He thinks it possible, by supplying an intermediate
proposition, which he supposes the writer to have omitted, and which
led from the prudent use of riches to faithfulness in preserving those
entrusted to us, to give a sufficient connexion to v. 9 and 10–12,
without necessarily referring the idea of faithfulness to the conduct
of the steward. The numerous attempts, both ancient and modern, to
explain the parable of the steward without a critical dislocation of
the associated passages, are only so many proofs that it is absolutely
requisite to a satisfactory interpretation.
[970] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 80.
[971] Ut sup. s. 208.
[972] Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.
[973] Comp. De Wette, 1, 2, s. 86 f.
[974] On the Essenes as contemners of riches (καταφρονητὰς πλούτου),
comp. Joseph., b. j. ii. viii. 3; Credner, über Essener und Ebioniten,
in Winer’s Zeitschrift, 1, s. 217; Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 311.
[975] Thus Kuinöl, Comm. in Luc., p. 635.
[976] Ueber den Lukas, 239 f. Neander agrees with him, L. J. Chr., p.
188.
[977] This is a reply to Neander’s objection, p. 191, note.
[978] How Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, p. 76, can pronounce the more
complex form of the parable in Luke as not only the most fully
developed but the best wound up, I am at a loss to understand.
[979] Comp. De Wette, I, I, s. 208 f.
[980] V. 12. Ἄνθρωπος τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακρὰν, λαβεῖν
ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὑποστρέψαι. 14. οἱ δὲ πολίται αὐτοῦ ἐμίσουν αὐτὸν,
καὶ ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπισω αὐτοῦ, λέγοντες· οὐ θέλομεν τοῦτον
βασιλεῦσαι ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς. 15. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐπανελθεῖν αὐτὸν λαβόντα τὴν
βασιλείαν, καὶ εἶπε φωνηθῆναι αὐτῷ τοὺς δούλους—(καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·) 27.
—τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐκείνους, τοὺς μὴ θελήσαντάς με βασιλεῦσαι έπ’
αὐτοὺς, ἀγάγετε ὧδε καὶ κατασφάξατε ἕμπροσθέν μου.
[981] Fritzsche, p. 656. This remark serves to refute De Wette’s
vindication of the above particular in his exeg. Handb.
[982] Paulus, exeg. Handb 3, a, s. 210; Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s.
811.
[983] Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.
[984] From the appendix to Schneckenburger’s Beiträgen, I see that a
reviewer in the Theol. Literaturblatt, 1831, No. 88, has also
conjectured that we have here a blending of two originally distinct
parables.
[985] Comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 152.
[986] Ueber den Lukas, s. 153 f.
[987] Comp. De Wette, in loc.
[988] Vid. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc.
[989] Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 111.
[990] Comp. De Wette, in loc., Matt.
[991] Vid. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, p. 155.
[992] Analogous passages from Jewish writings are given in Wetstein,
Lightfoot, Schöttgen, in loc.
[993] Bemidbar R. ad. Num. v. 30, in Wetstein, p. 303.
[994] E.g. Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 46.
[995] For probable doubts as to the correctness of the position given
to this discourse of Jesus, vid. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 525, Anm.