[997] In this passage, it is true that celibacy is at first recommended
as good for the present distress; but the Apostle does not rest there;
for at v. 32 ff. he adds, He that is unmarried careth for the things of
the Lord—he that is married for the things of the world:—a motive to
celibacy which must be equally valid under all circumstances, and which
affords us a glimpse into the fundamental asceticism of Paul’s views.
Comp. Rückert’s Commentary in loc.
[998] Vid. Gfrörer, Philo, 2, s. 310 f.
[999] A concise elucidation of them may be found in Hase, L. J. § 129.
[1000] Vid. Gemara Hieros. Berac. f. v. 4, in Lightfoot, p. 423, and R.
Manasse Ben Isr. in Schöttgen, i. p. 180.
[1001] See his 4th Fragment, Lessing’s 4ten Beitrag, s. 434 ff.
[1002] L. J. 1, b, s. 115 ff.
[1003] Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1, a, s. 140 f.;
also Paulus himself, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 283 f.
[1004] Comp. De Wette, in loc.
[1005] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 45, 47.
[1006] Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.
[1007] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 186.
[1008] Sieffert, über den Ursprung des ersten Ev., s. 117 f.
[1009] Comp. De Wette, 1, 1. s. 189.
[1010] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 313 f.; Schneckenburger, über den
Ursprung, s. 54.
[1011] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 182, 196 f.; Olshausen, in
loc., and the writers mentioned in the foregoing note.
[1012] Ut sup. 180.
[1013] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 189, 1, 2, s. 67, 76.
[1014] Joseph., b. j. iv. v. 4.
[1015] Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N.T., 1, s. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in
das N.T., 2, s. 10 ff.; Credner, Einl., 1, s. 207.
[1016] Vid. Theile, über Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in Winer’s und
Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, s. 401 ff.; De Wette, in loc.
[1017] Targum Thren. ii. 20, in Wetstein, s. 491.
[1018] Comp. De Wette, in loc.
[1019] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321.
[1020] This “secret information” is very welcome to Dr. Paulus, because
it gives a useful hint “as to many occurrences in the life of Jesus,
the causes of which are not obvious” (L. J. 1, b, s. 141); that is
Paulus, like Bahrdt and Venturini, though less openly, is fond of using
such secret and influential allies as deus ex machinâ, for the
explanation of much that is miraculous in the life of Jesus (the
transfiguration, residence after the resurrection, etc.).
[1021] Orig. c. Cels. i. 62.
[1022] Let the reader bear in mind the kindred names Nicolaus and
Nicolaitans.
[1023] Prob., p. 44. Bretschneider is right, however, in declaring
against Kuinöl’s method of supplying a connexion between the discourses
in John, by the insertion of propositions and intermediate discourses,
supposed to have been omitted. Lücke judiciously admits (1, p. 446)
that if, in John, something appears to be wanting between two
consecutive expressions of Jesus, we are yet to suppose that there was
an immediate connexion between them in the mind of the Evangelist, and
it is this connexion which it is the task of exegesis to ascertain. In
truth the discourses in the fourth gospel are never entirely wanting in
connexion (apart from the exceptions to be noticed in § 81), though
that connexion is sometimes very latent.
[1024] Bereschith R., sect 39 f. xxxviii. 2. Bammidbar R., s. 11 f.
ccxi. 2. Tanchuma f. v. 2, in Schöttgen, i. s. 704. Something similar
is said of Moses, from Schemoth R., ib.
[1025] Jevamoth f. lxii. 1, xcii. 1, in Lightfoot, p. 984.
[1026] E.g. Knapp, comm. in colloq. Christi cum Nicod. in loc.
[1027] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 183. L. J. 1, a, s. 176.
[1028] Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.
[1029]
III. 11: ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ I. 18: θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε
τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε. 13: πώποτε. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ ὣν
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς
οὐρανὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
καταβὰς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ. 11: —καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ
παρέλαβον.
[1030] Sup. § 46.
[1031] This is informed in the Probabilia, p. 46.
[1032] Ut sup. p. 476.
[1033] Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup.
[1034] De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part
of Jesus in the synoptical gospels, Matt. xix. 21, xx. 22 f. But these
two cases are of a totally different kind from the one under
consideration in John. We have here to treat of a want of
comprehension, in the face of which it is surprising that Jesus instead
of descending to its level, chooses to elevate himself to a still less
attainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the synoptists, on the
other hand, we have examples of an excessive self-valuation, too high
an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part
of the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with
perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt
presentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel
with that of Nicodemus, if the latter had piqued himself on his
enlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden flight into a higher region, had
sought to convince him of his ignorance.
[1035] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 96.
[1036]
III. 19: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, I. 9: ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν, τὸ
ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν φωτίζον πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον
κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἰς τὸν κόσμον. 5: καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῆ
μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς. σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ
κατέλαβεν.
III. 16: ὅυτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς
τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ 1 John iv. 9: ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ
τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι τὸν
πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, μὴ ἀπόληται υἱὸν αὑτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέστειλεν
ἀλλ’ ἔχη ζωὴν αἰώνιον. ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα ζήσωμεν
δι’ αὐτοῦ.
[1037] Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.
[1038] Tholuck (Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 335) adduces as examples of a
similar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source,
with the writer’s own matter, Gal. ii. 14 ff. Euseb., H. E. iii. 1, 39.
Hieron. Comm. in Jes. 53. But such instances in an epistle, a
commentary or an historical work interspersed with reasoning and
criticism are not parallel with those in an historical narrative of the
nature of our fourth gospel. In works of the former kind, the reader
expects the author to reason, and hence, when the discourse of another
party has been introduced, he is prepared at the slightest pause to see
the author again take up the argument. It is quite different with a
work like our fourth gospel. The introduction, it is true, is put forth
as the author’s own reasoning, and it is there quite natural that after
a brief quotation from the discourse of another, v. 15, he should, at
v. 16, resume the character of speaker without any express intimation.
But when once he has entered on his narrative, which is strictly a
recital of what has been done, and what has been said, all that he
annexes without any mark of distinction (as e.g. xii. 37) to a
discourse explicitly ascribed to another, must be considered as a
continuation of that discourse.
[1039] Philo. Opp. ed. Mang. i. 44. apud Gfrörer, i. p. 122.
[1040]
Joh. v. 20: ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν John iii. 35 (the Baptist): ὁ γὰρ
υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ, ἃ πατηρ ἀγαπᾷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα
αὑτὸς ποιεῖ. δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ.
24: ὁ τὸν λόγον μου 1 Joh. iii. 14: ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν, ὅτι
ἀκούων—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου μεταβεβηκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς
εἰς τὴν ζωήν. τὴν ζωήν.
32: καὶ οἶδα, ὅτι ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ Joh. xix. 35: καὶ ἀληθινή ἑστιν
μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ. αὐτοῦ ἡ μαρτυρία, κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν,
ὃτι ἀληθῆ λέγει. Comp. xxi. 24. 1
34: ἑγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν Joh. 3, 12.
μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω.
1 Joh. v. 9: εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν
36: ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω μαρτυρίαν μείζω ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ
τοῦ Ἰωάννου. θεοῦ, μείζων ἐστίν· ὅτι αὔτη ἐστιν
ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε
37: καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ, αὐτὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.
μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ ἐμοῦ.
Joh. i. 18: θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε
Ib.: ὄυτε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ πώποτε. Comp. 1 Joh. iv. 12.
ἀκηκόατε πώποτε, οὕτε τὸ εἶδος
αὐτοῦ ἑωράκατε. 1 Joh. i. 10: καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ
ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν.
38: καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε
μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν. 1 Joh. v. 12: ὁ μὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν
τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.
40: καὶ οὐ θέλετε ἐλθείν πρός με,
ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχητε. 1 Joh. ii. 15: οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη
τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ.
42: ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ
ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. Joh. xi. 43: ἡγάπησαν γὰρ τὴν δόξαν
τῶν ἀνθρώπων μᾶλλον, ἤπερ τὴν δόξαν
44: πῶς δύνασθε ὑμεῖς πιστεύειν, τοῦ θεοῦ.
δόξαν παρὰ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνοντες,
καὶ τὴν δόξαν τὴν παρὰ του μόνου
θεοῦ οὐ ζητεῖτε·
[1041] Vid. the passages compared by Gfrörer, 1, s. 194, from Philo, de
linguarum confusione.
[1042] Sup. § 14.
[1043] De profugis, Opp. Mang., i. s. 566, Gfrörer, 1, s. 202. What is
farther said of the λόγος: ἀφ’ οὒ πᾶσαι παιδεῖαι καὶ σοφίαι ῥέουσιν
ἀένναοι may be compared with John iv. 14, vi. 35, vii. 38.
[1044] See Lücke’s History of the interpretation of this passage in his
Comm. 2, Appendix B, p. 727 ff.
[1045] Hase, L. J. § 99.
[1046] Comp. Bretschneider, Probab., pp. 56, 88 ff.
[1047] In relation to this chapter, I entirely approve the following
remark in the Probabilia (p. 56): videretur—Jesus ipse studuisse, ut
verbis illuderet Judæis, nec ab iis intelligeretur, sed reprobaretur.
Ita vero nec egit, nec agere potuit, neque si ita docuisset, tanta
effecisset, quanta illum effecisse historia testatur. Comp. De Wette,
exeg. Handb., 1, 3, s. 6.
[1048] E.g. by Tholuck and Lücke. The latter, however, allows that it
is rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks,
that the discourses of the Shepherd and the Vine are rather comparisons
than parables; and Neander shows himself willing to distinguish the
parable presented by the synoptists as a species, under the genus
similitude, to which the παροιμίαι of John belong.
[1049]
x. 27: τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς x. 3: καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς
φωνῆς μου ἀκούει, αὐτοῦ ἀκούει.
κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά· 14: καὶ γινώσκω τυ ἐμα
28: καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσί μοι. 4: καὶ τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ.
Also κἀγω ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς corresponds to ἐγὼ ἠλθον, ἳνα ζωὴν
ἔχωσι, v. 10, and καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου is the
counterpart of what is said v. 12 of the hireling who allows the sheep
to be scattered.
[1050] Comp. v. 44 with vii. 17; v. 46 with viii. 12; v. 47 with iii.
17; v. 48 with iii. 18, v. 45; v. 49 with viii. 28; v. 50 with vi. 40,
vii. 17, viii. 28.
[1051] L. J., b, s. 142.
[1052] Lücke, Tholuck, Paulus, in loc.
[1053] Cyril, Erasmus. Tholuck’s expedient, which Olshausen approves,
is to give ἐμαρτύρησεν the signification of the pluperfect, and to
understand γὰρ as an explicative. But I do not see how this can be of
any avail, for γὰρ and οὖν (v. 45) would still form a relation of
agreement between two propositions, which one would have expected to be
opposed to each other by μὲν and δὲ.
[1054] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 251, 56.
[1055] This idea is so entirely in the spirit of the ancient
harmonists, that I can scarcely believe Lücke to be the first to whom
it had occurred (Comm. 1, s. 545 f.).
[1056] Vid. sup. § 39.
[1057] Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 158.
[1058] Lücke, 2, s. 478.
[1059] Tholuck, in loc.
[1060] Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 175; Lücke, Tholuck, Olshausen, in loc.;
Hug, Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 209.
[1061] Wegscheider, Einl. in das Evang. Joh., s. 271; Tholuck, Comm. s.
37 f.
[1062] Thus Eckermann, theol. Beiträge, 5, 2, s. 228; (Vogel) der
Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem jüngsten Gericht, 1, s.
28 ff.; Wegscheider, s. 281; Bretschneider, Probabil., 33, 45, apud
Wegscheider, ut sup. s. 281; Bretschneider, Probab., p. 33, 45.
[1063] De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 105; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh., s.
38 f.; Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 344 ff.; Lücke, 1, s. 198 f.
[1064] Commentar, 4, s. 275 f.
[1065] Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, opusc. p. 1 ff.,
Einleit. in das N. T., s. 1302 ff. This opinion is approved by
Wegscheider, ut sup. p. 270 ff. and also Hug, 2. 263 f., and Tholuck,
Comm. p. 38, think the supposition of early notes not to be altogether
rejected.
[1066] Lücke, 1, s. 192 f.
[1067] Henke, programm. quo illustratur Johannes apostolus nonnullorum
Jesu apophthegmatum et ipse interpres.
[1068] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 14 f.
[1069] Ut sup. p. 199.
[1070] Wegscheider, p. 286; Lücke, p. 195 f.
[1071] Wegscheider, p. 285; Lücke, ut sup.
[1072] Lücke, s. 124 f. 175. Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang.
Matthäi, in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 109.
[1073] S. 39.
[1074] S. 197. “But lastly, why should we fear to adduce,” etc.
[1075] The aid promised to the disciples when brought before rulers and
tribunals, Matt. x. 19 f., is quite distinct from a bringing to
remembrance of the discourses of Jesus (John xiv. 26).
[1076] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 2, 3, 31 ff.
[1077] De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 103; Hase, L. J., § 7.
[1078] Lücke, ut sup. pp. 336, 337. Kern, ut sup.
[1079] Tholuck, ut sup.
[1080] Bretschneider, ut sup.
[1081] De Wette, ut sup. § 105.
[1082] Comp. Schulze, der schriftst. Charakter und Werth des Johannes.
1803.
[1083] Stronck—de doctrinâ et dictione Johannis apostoli, ad Jesu
magistri doctrinam dictionemque exacte composita. 1797.
[1084] Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, p. 200.
[1085] Ut. sup. p. 199.
[1086] In his review of the 2nd Ed. of Lücke’s Commentar., in the Litt.
Blatt der allgem. Kirchenzeitung 1834, no. 18.
[1087] This peculiarity of the discourses in John cannot be better
described than by Erasmus in his Epist. ad Ferdinandum, prefatory to
his Paraphrase: habet Johannes suum quoddam dicendi genus, ita sermonem
velut ansulis ex sese cohærentibus contexens, nonnunquam ex contrariis,
nonnunquam ex similibus, nonnunquam ex iisdem, subinde repetitis,——ut
orationis quodque membrum semper excipiat prius, sic ut prioris finis
sit initium sequentis, etc.
[1088] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 303 ff.; Sieffert, über den
Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang. s. 58, 73, u. s.; Schneckenburger, über
den Urspr. s. 73.
[1089] Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.
[1090] See the above named critics, passim; and Hug, Einl. in das N. T.
2, s. 212.
[1091] Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.
[1092] Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.
[1093] I say, examine whether—not, consider it decided that—so that the
accusation of opponents, that I use both the particularity and the
brevity of narratives as proofs of their mythical character, falls to
the ground of itself.
[1094] Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.
[1095] Ut sup. s. 311.
[1096] Schleiermacher (s. 175) does not perceive the connexion of the
discourse on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in Matthew (xii. 31
f.), though it links on excellently to the foregoing expression, ἐγὼ ἐν
πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια (v. 28). It is more easy, however, to
understand this difficulty, than that he should think (s. 185 f.) that
discourse better introduced in Luke (xii. 10). For here, between the
preceding proposition, that whosoever denies the Son of Man before men,
shall be denied before the angels of God, and the one in question, the
only connexion is that the expression ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
brought to the writer’s recollection the words εἰπεῶ λὸγος εἰς τὸν υίὸν
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. One proof of this is that between the latter passage and
the succeeding declaration, that the necessary words would be given to
the disciples, when before the tribunal, by the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, the
connexion consists just as superficially in the expression πνεῦμα
ἅγιον. What follows in Matthew (v. 33–37), had been partly given
already in the Sermon on the Mount, but stands here in a better
connexion than Schleiermacher is willing to admit.
[1097] Luke makes the demand of a sign follow immediately on the
accusation, and then gives in succession the answers of Jesus to both.
This representation modern criticism holds to be far more probable than
that of Matthew, who gives first the accusation and its answer, then
the demand of a sign and its refusal; and this judgment is grounded on
the difficulty of supposing, that after Jesus had given a sufficiently
long answer to the accusation, the very same people who had urged it
would still demand a sign (Schleiermacher, s. 175; Schneckenburger,
über den Urspr. s. 52 f.). But on the other hand, it is equally
improbable that Jesus, after having some time ago delivered a forcible
discourse on the more important point, the accusation concerning
Beelzebub, and even after an interruption which had led him to a
totally irrelevant declaration (Luke xi. 27 f.), should revert to the
less important point, namely, the demand of a sign. The discourse on
the departure and return of the unclean spirit, is in Matthew (v.
43–45) annexed to the reply of Jesus to this demand; but in Luke (xi.
24 ff.) it follows the answer to the imputation of a league with
Beelzebub, and this may at first seem to be a more suitable
arrangement. But on a closer examination, it will appear very
improbable that Jesus should conclude a defence, exacted from him by
his enemies, with so calm and purely theoretical a discourse, which
supposes an audience, if not favourably prepossessed, at least open to
instruction; and it will be found that here again there is no further
connexion than that both discourses treat of the expulsion of demons.
By this single feature of resemblance, the writer of the third gospel
was led to sever the connexion between the answer to the oft-named
accusation, and that to the demand of a sign, which accusation and
demand, as the strongest proofs of the malevolent unbelief of the
enemies of Jesus, seem to have been associated by tradition. The first
Evangelist refrained from this violence, and reserved the discourse on
the return of the unclean spirit, which was suggested by the suspicion
cast on the expulsion of demons by Jesus, until he had communicated the
answer by which Jesus parries the demand of a sign.
[1098] Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.
[1099] Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.
[1100] De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 139.
[1101] Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.
[1102] For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in
Marc. p. 97 ff.
[1103] Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.
[1104] Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at
dramatic effect in the εἰπέτις, and the ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα of Matthew,
as compared with the εἶπον and περιβλεψάμενος κύκλῳ of Mark. This is a
remarkable proof of the partial acumen which plays so distinguished a
part to the disadvantage of Matthew in modern criticism. For who does
not see that if Matthew had εἶπον, it would be numbered among the
proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the words
ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which
could give to them more than to the περιβλεψάμενος of Mark, the stamp
of artificiality; we might as well attribute the latter expression to
Mark’s already discovered fondness for describing the action of the
eyes, and consequently regard it as an addition of his own.
[1105]
Answer to the announcement, viii. Answer to the woman, xi. 28:
21: μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ μενοῦγγε μακάριοι (sc. οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ
οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ μοῦ, ἀλλ’) οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον
ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.
[1106] Ut sup s. 177 f.
[1107] That which decided the Evangelist to place the visit after the
parable of the sower, was probably not, as Schleiermacher thinks, a
real chronological connexion. On the contrary, we recognize the usual
characteristic of his arrangement, in the transition from the
concluding sentence in the explanation of the parable: these are they
who having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with
patience, to the similar expression of Jesus on the occasion of the
visit: those who hear the word of God and do it.
[1108] Ut sup. s. 152.
[1109] Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone
of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not
doubt for a moment that every observant reader will, without
hesitation, prefer the representation of Mark, who, without mentioning
the mother, confines the whole transaction to Jesus and the two
apostles. But so far as historical probability is concerned, I would
ask, why should not a woman, who was one of the female companions of
Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 56), have ventured on such a petition? As regards
psychological probability, the sentiment of the church, in the choice
of the passage for St. James’s day, has usually decided in favour of
Matthew; for so solemn a prayer, uttered on the spur of the moment, is
just in character with a woman, and more especially a mother devoted to
her sons.
[1110] Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.
[1111] Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.
[1112] Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.
[1113] Lücke, 1, s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 174 f.; i.
3, s. 40.
[1114] Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.
[1115] Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.
[1116] Lücke, s. 438.
[1117] Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.
[1118] Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.
[1119] Kuinöl, in loc.
[1120] Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.
[1121] English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.
[1122] Eng. Comm. ap. Lücke. According to Neander (s. 387, Anm.),
Jesus, after his last entrance into Jerusalem, when the enthusiasm of
the populace was on his side, must have shunned every act that could be
interpreted into a design of using external force, and thus creating
disturbances. But he must equally have shunned this at the beginning,
as at the end, of his career, and the proceeding in the temple was
rather a provocation of external force against himself, than a use of
it for his own purposes.
[1123] Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10, 16, p. 321 f., ed. Lommatzsch.
[1124] Lücke, in loc.
[1125] Lücke, s. 413.
[1126] Ib. and Tholuck, in loc.
[1127] Olshausen, 1, s. 785.
[1128] Comm. 4, s. 164.
[1129] Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.
[1130] Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.
[1131] Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.
[1132] Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;
Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.
[1133] This difference struck Origen, who has given a critical
comparison of these four narratives, to which, in point of acumen,
there is no parallel in more modern commentaries. See his in Matth.
Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.
[1134] Origenes, ut sup.
[1135] Ib.
[1136] Ib.
[1137] Ib.
[1138] Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.
[1139] Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.
[1140]
Luke vii. 38: τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς John xii. 3: ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς
θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε. θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.
[1141] Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.
[1142] Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.
[1143] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.
[1144] Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; also Tholuck, s. 228.
[1145] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.
[1146] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no
trace in Mark’s account that the words συντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρον signify
an accidental fracture; nor, on the other hand can they, without the
harshest ellipsis, be understood to imply merely the removal of that
which stopped the opening of the vessel, as Paulus and Fritzsche
maintain. Interpreted without violence, they can only mean a breaking
of the vessel itself. Is it asked with Paulus (Ex. Handb. 3. b. s.
471): To what purpose destroy a costly vessel? or with Fritzsche (in
Marc. p. 602): To what purpose risk wounding her own hand, and possibly
the head of Jesus also? These are questions which have a bearing on the
matter considered as the act of the woman, but not as a narrative of
Mark; for that to him, the destruction of a precious vessel should
appear suited to the noble prodigality of the woman, is in perfect
accordance with the exaggerating style which we have often observed in
him.
[1147] Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.
[1148] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 466, and many others.
[1149] Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.
[1150] Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.
[1151] Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.
[1152] Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.
[1153] Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.
[1154] Schulz, ut sup.
[1155] Thus Grotius and Herder.
[1156] Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.
[1157] Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.
[1158] Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.
[1159] For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid.
Paulus and Lücke in loc.
[1160] Probab., p. 72 ff.
[1161] Euseb. H. E. iii. 39: ἐκτέθειται δὲ (ὁ Παπίας) καὶ ἄλλην
ἱστορίαν περὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληθείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ
Κυρίου, ἣν τὸ καθ’ Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει.
[1162] Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.
[1163] Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod.
apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.
[1164] 3, s. 379 f.
[1165] See the passages quoted in the first volume, Introd. § 14, notes
9, 10, to which may be added 4 Esdr. xiii. 50 (Fabric. Cod. pseudepigr.
V. T. ii. p. 286), and Sohar Exod. fol. iii. col. 12 (Schöttgen, horæ,
ii. p. 541, also in Bertholdt’s Christol. § 33, note 1).
[1166] See the rabbinical passages quoted in the 1st vol. ut sup.
[1167] That the σεληνιαζόμενοι associated with them by Matthew are only
a particular species of demoniacs, whose malady appeared to be governed
by the changes of the moon, is proved by Matt. xvii. 14 ff. where a
δαιμόνιον is expelled from a σεληνιαζόμενος.
[1168] Compare the passages of ancient physicians, ap. Winer, bibl.
Realwörterb. 1, s. 191.
[1169] Rabbinical and other passages, ap. Winer, ut sup. s. 192.
[1170] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 475; comp. Hase, L. J. s. 60.
[1171] Ut sup. s. 191.
[1172] Grätz, Comm. z. Matth. 1, s. 615.
[1173] B. Comm. 1, s. 424. According to this, the passage relates to
the Jewish people, who before the exile were possessed by the devil in
the form of idolatry, and afterwards in the worst form of Pharisaism.
[1174] Thus Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 447.
[1175] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 566.
[1176] Ut sup. 1, b, s. 483; 2, s. 96.
[1177] Hence the words δαιμονᾷν, κακοδαιμονᾷν were used as synonymous
with μελανχολᾷν μαίνεσθαι. Hippocrates had to combat the opinion that
epilepsy was the effect of demoniacal influence. Vid. Wetstein, s. 282
ff.
[1178] Let the reader compare the רוּחַ רָעָה מֵאֵת יְהוָֹה, which made Saul
melancholy, 1 Sam. xvi. 14. Its influence on Saul is expressed by
בִּעֲתַתּוּ.
[1179] Vid. Creuzer, Symbolik, 3, s. 69 f.; Baur, Apollonius von Tyana
und Christus, s. 144.
[1180] Bell. jud. vii. vi. 3.
[1181] Antiq. vi. xi. 2. On the state of Saul.
[1182] Philopseud., 16.
[1183] Vitæ Apollon. iv. 20, 25, comp. Baur, ut sup. s. 38 f. 42. Even
Aristotle speaks of δαίμονί τινι γενομένοις κατόχοις. de mirab. 166,
ed. Bekk.
[1184] Ut sup., bell. j.: τὰ γὰρ καλούμενα δαιμόνια—πονηρῶν ἐστιν
ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα, τοῖς ζῶσιν εἰσδυόμενα καὶ κτείνοντα τοὺς βοηθείας μὴ
τυνχάνοντας.
[1185] Apoll. i. 18.
[1186] Ut sup. iii. 38.
[1187] Vid. Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum, 2, s. 427.
[1188] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 39; L. J. 1, a, s. 217. He appeals in
support of this to Matt. xiv. 2, where Herod, on hearing of the
miracles of Jesus, says: It is John the Baptist, he is risen from the
dead. In this expression Paulus finds the rabbinical opinion of the
עיבור, which is distinct from that of the גלגזל, or transmigration
of souls properly so called, (that is, the passage of disembodied souls
into the bodies of infants, while in the process of formation), and
according to which the soul of a dead person might unite itself to that
of a living one, and add to its power (vid. Eisenmenger 2, s. 85 ff.)
But, as Fritzsche and others have shown, the word ἠγέρθη refers to an
actual resurrection of the Baptist, and not to this rabbinical notion;
which, moreover, even were it implied, is totally different from that
of demoniacal possession. Here it would be a good spirit who had
entered into a prophet for the strengthening of his powers, as
according to a later Jewish idea the soul of Seth was united to that of
Moses, and again the souls of Moses and Aaron to that of Samuel
(Eisenmenger, ut sup.); but from this it would by no means follow, that
it was possible for wicked spirits to enter into the living.
[1189] Justin, Apol. ii. 5., Eisenmenger, ut sup.
[1190] Homil. viii. 18 f., ix. 9 f.
[1191] Orat. contra Græcos, 16.
[1192] See his Commentatio de dæmoniacis quorum in N. T. fit mentio,
and his minute consideration of demoniacal cases. So early as the time
of Origen, physicians gave natural explanations of the state of those
supposed to be possessed. Orig. in Matth. xvii. 15.
[1193] B. Comm. 1, s. 296, Anm.
[1194] S. 295 f.
[1195] S. 302, after the example of Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 474.
[1196] Homil. viii. 19.
[1197] Thus Asmodeus chooses Sara and her husband as objects of torment
and destruction, not because either the former or the latter were
particularly wicked, but because Sara’s beauty attracted him. Tob. vi.
12–15.
[1198] S. 294.
[1199] It fills s. 289–298.
[1200] I have endeavoured to present helps towards a scientific
conception of the states in question in several essays, which are now
incorporated in my Charakteristiken u. Kritiken. Comp. Wirth, Theorie
des Somnambulismus. S. 311 ff.
[1201] See note 16, the passage quoted from Lucian.
[1202] Joseph., Antiq. viii. ii. 5.
[1203] Joseph., ut sup.
[1204] Gittin, f. lxvii. 2.
[1205] Justin Mart. dial. c. Tryph. lxxxv.
[1206] Exeg. Handb. 1, 6, s. 422; L. J. 1, a, s. 128.
[1207] Bibl. Comm. i. 296.
[1208] Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. Jud. §§ 36–41.
[1209] According to Pesikta in Jalkut Schimoni ii. f. lvi. 3 (s.
Bertholdt, p. 185). Satan recognizes in the same manner the
pre-existing Messiah at the foot of the throne of God with terror, as
he qui me et omnes gentiles in infernum præcipitaturus est.
[1210] Fritzsche, in Marc., p. 35: In multis evangeliorum locis homines
legas a pravis dæmonibus agitatos, quum primum conspexerint Jesum, eum
Messiam esse, a nemine unquam de hac re commonitos, statim intelligere.
In qua re hac nostri scriptores ducti sunt sententia, consentaneum
esse. Satanæ satellites facile cognovisse Messiam, quippe insignia de
se supplicia aliquando sumturum.
[1211] A favourite resort of maniacs, vid. Lightfoot and Schöttgen, in
loc., and of unclean spirits, vid. rabbinical passages, ap. Wetstein.
[1212] The notion that the cutting himself with stones which Mark
ascribes to the demoniac, was an act of penance in lucid moments,
belongs to the errors to which Olshausen is led by his false opinion of
a moral and religious point of view in relation to these phenomena. It
is well known, however, that the paroxysms of such disorders are
precisely the occasions on which a self-destructive fury is manifested.
[1213] Vid. the collection of such explanations, ap. Fritzsche, in
Matt., p. 327.
[1214] Thus Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 309; Paulus, in loc. Hase,
L. J. § 75.
[1215] Schulz, ut sup.
[1216] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 127.
[1217] Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 232.
[1218] Vid. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 329.
[1219] Natürliche Geschichte, 2, 174.
[1220] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 473; Olshausen, s. 302.
[1221] This even Paulus, s. 474, and Olshausen, s. 303, find
surprising.
[1222] It is the narrative of the manner in which Apollonius of Tyana
unmasked a demon (empusa), vit. Ap. iv. 35; ap. Baur, s. 145.
[1223] Ut sup. s. 128. When, however, he accounts for this incorrect
supplement of Luke’s by supposing that his informant, being engaged in
the vessel, had remained behind, and thus had missed the commencement
of the scene with the demoniac, this is too laboured an exercise of
ingenuity, and presupposes the antiquated opinion, that there was the
most immediate relation possible between the evangelical histories and
the facts which they report.
[1224] S. 305, Anm.
[1225] Clem. Horn. ix. 10.
[1226] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 332. According to Eisenmenger, 2, 447
ff., the Jews held that demons generally had a predilection for impure
places, and in Jalkut Rubeni f. x. 2. (Wetstein) we find this
observation: Anima idololatrarum, quæ venit a spiritu immundo, vocatur
porcus.
[1227] Ut sup. s. 474, 485. Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 192.
[1228] Fritzsche, in Matth., s. 330.
[1229] Paulus, ut sup. s. 475 f.
[1230] Olshausen, s. 307.
[1231] Paulus, s. 474.
[1232] Paulus, s. 485; Winer, ut sup.
[1233] Olshausen, ut sup.
[1234] Ibid.
[1235] Ullmann, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in seinen Studien, 1, 1,
s. 51 f.
[1236] Olshausen, ut sup.
[1237] Paulus.
[1238] Ullmann.
[1239] E.g. Woolston, Disc. 1, p. 32 ff.
[1240] Jamblich. vita Pythag. no. 36. ed. Kiessling.
[1241] In the Abhandlung über genetische oder formelle Erklärungsart
der Wunder in Henke’s Museum, 1, 3, s. 410 ff.
[1242] Exeg. Beiträge, 2, 109 ff.
[1243] Antiq. viii. ii. 5.
[1244] Philostr. v. Ap. iv. 20; ap. Baur, ut sup. s. 39.
[1245] Schulz. s. 319.
[1246] As Schulz appears to do, ut sup.
[1247] See the passages quoted by Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 569,
and by Winer, 1, s. 191 f.
[1248] Thus Fritzsche, in loc.
[1249] Schleiermacher, s. 150.
[1250] Köster, Immanuel, s. 197; Fritzsche, in loc.
[1251] De abstinent. ii. p. 204 and 417 f.; Vid. Winer, 1, s. 191.
[1252] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 471 f.
[1253] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 438; L. J. 1, a, s. 223; De Wette,
bibl. Dogm. § 222, Anm. c.
[1254] Exeg. Handb. in loc.
[1255] Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 429.
[1256] Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 196.
[1257] Among the transient disorders on which Jesus may have acted
psychologically, we may perhaps number the fever of Peter’s
mother-in-law, which Jesus is said to have cured, Matt. viii. 14 ff.
parall.
[1258] It is so more or less by Eichhorn, in the allg. Bibliothek, 4,
s. 435; Herder, von Gottes Sohn u. s. f., s. 20; Wegscheider, Einl. in
das Evang. Joh., s. 313; De Wette, bibl. Dogm., § 269.
[1259] Exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 698 ff.
[1260] Ut sup. s. 705, and elsewhere.
[1261] Compare Hase, L. J., § 86.
[1262] Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 68.
[1263] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 215.
[1264] Vid. Winer, Realw., Art. Blinde.
[1265] Gratz, Comm z. Matth. 2, s. 323.
[1266] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 44.
[1267] Schulz, Anmerkungen zu Michaelis, 2, s. 105.
[1268] Sieffert, ut sup. s. 104.
[1269] Ueber den Zweck der evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Joh., s.
345.
[1270] Ut sup. s. 237.
[1271] Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 249.
[1272] Natürl. Gesch. des Propheten von Naz. 2, s. 216.
[1273] Vid. vol. i. p. 81, note.
[1274] Elsewhere also we find proof that in those times the power of
effecting miraculous cures, especially of blindness, was commonly
ascribed to men who were regarded as favourites of the Deity. Thus
Tacitus, Hist. iv. 81, and Suetonius, Vespas. vii. tell us, that in
Alexandria a blind man applied to Vespasian, shortly after he was made
emperor, alleging that he did so by the direction of the god Serapis,
with the entreaty that he would cure him of his blindness by wetting
his eyes with his spittle. Vespasian complied, and the result was that
the blind man immediately had his sight restored. As Tacitus attests
the truth of this story in a remarkable manner, Paulus is probably not
wrong in regarding the affair as the contrivance of adulatory priests,
who to procure for the emperor the fame of a miracle-worker, and by
this means to secure his favour on behalf of their god, by whose
counsel the event was occasioned, hired a man to simulate blindness.
Ex. Handb. 2, s. 56 f. However this may be, we see from the narrative
what was expected, even beyond the limits of Palestine, of a man who,
as Tacitus here expresses himself concerning Vespasian, enjoyed favor e
cœlis and an inclinatio numinum.
[1275] These are nearly the words of Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 312,
391.
[1276] De Wette, Beitrag zur Charakteristik des Evangelisten Markus, in
Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1, 4, 789 ff. Comp. Köster, Immanuel,
f. 72. On the other hand: comp. De Wette’s exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 148 f.
[1277] Pliny, H. N. xxviii. 7, and other passages in Wetstein.
[1278] Paulus, ut sup. s. 312 f. 392 ff.; Natürliche Geschichte, 3, s.
31 ff. 216 f.; Köster, Immanuel, s. 188 ff.
[1279] For the former explanation, Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, s, 390 f.;
for the latter, Olshausen, b, Comm. 1. s. 510.
[1280] Kuinöl, in Marc., p. 110.
[1281] Olshausen, s. 509.
[1282] Comp. De Wette, Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte, s. 36 f.
[1283] Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., p. xliii.
[1284] Vid. ap. Wetstein and Lightfoot, John ix. 6.
[1285] Thus Fritzsche, after Euthymius, in Marc., p. 304.
[1286] The former is the supposition of Kuinöl, the latter of Schott.
[1287] Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 391, Anm. 1.
[1288] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 472.
[1289] Natürliche Gesch. 3, s. 215.
[1290] Vid. Tholuck and Lücke, in loc.
[1291] Vid. Paulus and Lücke, in loc.
[1292] Thus Euthymius and Paulus, in loc.
[1293] B. Comm. 2, s. 230, where, however, he refers the ἀπεσταλμένος
to the outflow of the spirit proceeding from God.
[1294] S. 93.
[1295] Köster, Immanuel, s. 79; Bretschneider, Probab., s. 122.
[1296] Wetstein, in loc.
[1297] Nedarim f. xli. 1. (Schöttgen, 1, p. 93): Dixit R. Chija fil.
Abba: nullus ægrotus a morbo suo sanatur, donec ipsi omnia peccata
remissa sint.
[1298] Hase, L. J. § 73. Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 335.
[1299] Sanhedr. f. xci. 2, and Bereschith Rabba f. xxxviii. 1.
(Lightfoot, p. 1050): Antonius interrogavit Rabbi (Judam): a quonam
tempore incipit malus affectus prævalere in homine? an a tempore
formationis ejus (in utero), an a tempore processionis ejus (ex utero)?
Dicit ei Rabbi: a tempore formationis ejus.
[1300] Paulus Comm. 4, s. 264; Lücke, 2, s. 22.
[1301] This is done by Tholuck, in loc.
[1302] See the examples in Wetstein, N. T. 1, s. 284, and in Wahl’s
Clavis.
[1303] Comp. Winer, Realw., and Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 194.
[1304] Winer, ut sup. Art. Dach.
[1305] Lightfoot, p. 601.
[1306] Woolston, Disc. 4.
[1307] 1, s. 310 f.
[1308] Köster, Immanuel, s. 166, Anm. 66.
[1309] This appears to be the meaning of Paulus, L. J. 1, a, s. 238.
Otherwise exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 505.
[1310] Thus Lightfoot, Kuinöl, Olshausen, in loc.
[1311] Vid. Fritzsche, in Marc., p. 52.
[1312] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 498, 501.
[1313] Bengel, Gnomon, 1, 245, ed. 2. Paulus, s. 502, again takes an
obvious fable in Livy ii. 36 for a history, capable of a natural
explanation.
[1314] Paulus, ut sup. s. 501.
[1315] Ueber den Zweck der evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Joh., s.
351 f.
[1316] Schulz, ut sup. s. 317; Olshausen, 1, s. 322.
[1317] Exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 524 f.; bibl. Comm. 1, s. 324 f.; comp.
Köster, Immanuel, s. 201 ff.
[1318] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 524 f. 530. L. J. 1, a, s. 244 f.;
Venturini, 2, s. 204 ff.; Köster, ut sup.
[1319] Vid. Evangelium infantiæ arabicum, ap. Fabricius and Thilo.
[1320] See the observations of Paulus, Lücke, Tholuck, and Olshausen,
in loc.
[1321] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 92.
[1322] Augustin, de consens. evang. i. 20; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b,
s. 709; Köster, Immanuel, s. 63.
[1323] Ueber den Zweck Jesu, u. s. f., s. 351.
[1324] Vid. Lücke, 1, s. 552.
[1325] Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 310: discrepat autem Lucas ita a Matthæi
narratione, ut centurionem non ipsum venisse ad Jesum, sed per legatos
cum eo egisse tradat; quibus dissidentibus pacem obtrudere, boni nego
interpretis esse.
[1326] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 92 f.
[1327] Kuinöl, in Matt., p. 221 f.
[1328] Tholuck, in loc.; Hase § 68, Anm. 2.
[1329] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 253 f.; Venturini, 2, s. 140 ff.; comp.
Hase, § 68.
[1330] Lücke, 1, s. 550 f.
[1331] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 710 f.; Natürliche Geschichte, 2,
s. 285 ff.
[1332] Clem. homil. ix. 21; Fritzsche, in Matth., 313.
[1333] Wetstein, N. T. 1, p. 349; comp. Olshausen, in loc.
[1334] Köster, Immanuel, s. 195, Anm.
[1335] Lücke, 1, s. 550.
[1336] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 268.
[1337] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 80 f.
[1338] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 50.
[1339] Schleiermacher, ut sup.
[1340] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 48 ff.
[1341] Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 421.
[1342] Winer, b. Realw. 1, s. 796.
[1343] Paulus, ut sup. s. 49, 54; Köster, Immanuel, s. 185 f.
[1344] Ut sup. s. 83, ex Tract. Schabbat.
[1345] Schabbat, f. 12, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 123.
[1346] See the passage last cited.
[1347] Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 427; in Mar., p. 79.
[1348]
1 Kings xiii. 4, LXX: καὶ ἰδοὺ Matth. xii. 10: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος
ἐξηράνθη ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ. ἐ͂ν τὴν χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν (Mark,
ἐξηραμμένην.)
6: καὶ ἐπέστρεψε τὴν χεῖρα τοῦ
βασιλέως πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐγένετο 13: τότε λέγει τῷ ἀνθρωπῳ· ἔκτεινον
καθὼς τὸ πρότερον. τὴν χεῖρα σου· καὶ ἐξέτεινε· καὶ
ἀποκατεστάθη ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη.
[1349] Tacit. Hist. iv. 81.
[1350] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 341 f.
[1351] Ut sup. s. 196.
[1352] Winer (bibl. Realw. 1, s. 796) says: We should be contented to
refrain from seeking a natural explanation in individual cases (of the
cures of Jesus), and ever bear in mind that the banishment of the
miraculous out of the agency of Jesus can never be effected so long as
the gospels are regarded historically.
[1353] Disc. 3.
[1354] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 263 ff. L. J. 1, a, s. 298.
[1355] Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.
[1356] Comp. with Comm. 4, s. 290, his Leben Jesu, 1, a, s. 298.
[1357] Bretschneider, Probab., s. 69.
[1358] As by Hase, L. J. § 92.
[1359]
Mark ii. 9: (τί ἐστιν, εὐκοπώτερον, John v. 8: ἔγειραι, ἆρον τὸν
εἰπεῖν——) ἔγειραι, καὶ ἆρόν σου τὸν κράββατόν σου, καὶ περιπάτει.
κράββατον καὶ περιπάτει;
11:—ἔγειρα καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου 9: καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ
καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἦρε τὸν
κράββατον αὑτοῦ καὶ
12: καὶ ἠγέρθη εὐθέως, καὶ ὤρας τὸν περιεπάτει.
κράββατον ἐξῆλθεν ἐναντίον πάντων.
[1360] Ueber den Zweck des Evang. und der Briefe Joh., s. 351 ff.
[1361] Comm. in Matth. p. 263. Observe his argumentation: verba [N.B.
Matthaei]: ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν, non possunt latine reddi: jam mortua est:
nam, auctore [N.B. Luca] patri adhuc cum Christo colloquenti nuntiabat
servus, filiam jam exspirasse; ergo [auctore Matthaeo?] nondum mortua
erat, cum pater ad Jesum accederet.
[1362] Compare, on the subject of these vain attempts at
reconciliation, Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 132, and Fritzsche,
in Matth., p. 347 f.
[1363] Olshausen, in loc.
[1364] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 131 ff.; Schulz, über d. Abendmahl,
s. 316 f.
[1365] Vid. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 2, p. 449 ff.
[1366] Homil. ii. 19.
[1367] Cap. x.
[1368] Ut sup. s. 129.
[1369] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 526, 31 f.; Schleiermacher, ut
sup. s. 132; Olshausen, 1, s. 327. Even Neander does not express
himself decidedly against this interpretation of the words of Jesus;
while with regard to the girl’s real condition, he thinks the
supposition of a merely apparent death probable. L. J. Chr., s. 343.
Comp. 338 f.
[1370] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 95; Weisse, die ev.
Geschichte, 1, s. 503.
[1371] Comp. Neander. L. J., s. 342.
[1372] Natürliche Geschichte, 2, s. 212.
[1373] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 716, Anm. and 719 f.
[1374] Ibid, ut sup. s. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 47.
[1375] Thus Hase also, L. J. § 87.
[1376] Venturini, 2, s. 293.
[1377] Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 103 f.
[1378] Paulus, Comp. 4, s. 535 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 55 ff.
[1379] Im the translation of the text in his Leben Jesu, 2, b, s. 46,
Paulus appears to suppose, beside the message mentioned in the gospel,
three subsequent messages.
[1380] Comp. C. Ch. Flatt, etwas zur Vertheidigung des Wunders der
Wiederbelebung des Lazarus, in Süskind’s Magazin, 14tes Stück, s. 93
ff.
[1381] Journal für auserlesene theol. Literatur, 3, 2, s. 261, Anm.
[1382] Flatt, ut sup. 102 f.; De Wette, in loc.; Neander, s. 351 f.
[1383] Flatt, ut sup.; Lücke, Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.
[1384] Lücke, 2, s. 388.
[1385] Flatt, ut sup. s. 104 f.; Lücke, ut sup.
[1386] Flatt, s. 106; Olshausen, 2, s. 269.
[1387] Flatt, s. 97 f.
[1388] Compare on this subject, especially Flatt and Lücke.
[1389] Comm. 4, s. 437; in the L. J. 1, b, s. 57, and 2, b, s. 46, this
conjecture is no longer employed.
[1390] Ut sup. s. 272 ff. Even Neander shows himself not disinclined to
such a conjecture as far as regards v. 4 (s. 349). As Gabler believes
that these expressions cannot have come from Jesus, but only from John,
so Dieffenbach, in Bertholdt’s Krit. Journal, 5, s. 7 ff., maintains
that they cannot have proceeded from John, and as he holds that the
rest of the gospel is the production of that apostle, he pronounces
those passages to be interpolations.
[1391] Disc. 5.
[1392] Bretschneider, Probab., s. 61.
[1393] 1, s. 276 f.
[1394] Comm. 2, s. 376. Also Neander, s. 346.
[1395] Tholuck, s. 202; Olshausen, 2, s. 260.
[1396] Ut sup.
[1397] Andachtsbuch, 1, s. 292 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 134.
[1398] S. 59 f. 79.
[1399] Comp. de Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 135.
[1400] This is what Neander maintains, L. J. Chr., s. 354. He objects
that the fourth Evangelist must in any case have known of
resuscitations of the dead by Jesus, even supposing the narrative in
question to be an unhistorical exaggeration. But this objection is
refuted by the observation, that, as an inducement to the formation of
such a narrative, the general tradition that Jesus had raised the dead
would be sufficient, and an acquaintance with particular instances as
exemplars was not at all requisite.
[1401] This argument applies also to De Wette, who, while acknowledging
that such an idea would be unsuitable in the mouth of Jesus, supposes
nevertheless that it was really in his mind.
[1402] Dieffenbach, über einige wahrscheinliche Interpolationen im
Evangelium Johannis, in Bertholdt’s krit. Journal, 5, s. 8 f.
[1403] Comm. z. Joh., 1te Aufl., 2, s. 310.
[1404] Thus the author of the Probabilia also argues, p. 61.
[1405] Disc. 5.
[1406] Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 103 ff.
[1407] Saunier, über die quellen des Markus, s. 66 ff.
[1408] Comp. Winer bibl. Realw. d. A.
[1409] Let the reader recollect the well-known expression of Spinoza.
[1410] Whitby, Annot. in loc.
[1411] Thus Grotius and Herder; Olshausen also adopts this explanation
under the form of conjecture, 2, s. 256 f., Anm.
[1412] See these arguments dispersed in Paulus and Lücke on this
chapter; in Gabler, ut sup. p. 238 ff.; and Hase, L. J. § 119.—A new
reason why Matthew in particular is silent on the resurrection of
Lazarus, has been excogitated by Heydenreich (über die Unzulässigkeit
der mythischen Auffassung, 2tes Stück, s. 42). The Evangelist, he says,
omitted it, because it required to be represented and treated with a
tenderness and liveliness of feeling, of which he did not think himself
capable. Hence, the modest man chose to avoid the history altogether
rather than to deprive it by his manner of narration, of its proper
pathos and sublimity.—Idle modesty truly!
[1413] Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 10.
[1414] Gabler, ut sup. s. 240 f.; also Neander, s. 357.
[1415] Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 402.
[1416] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 139. In Schleiermacher’s
Lectures on the Life of Jesus (if I may be permitted to refer to a work
not yet printed), the silence in question is explained in the following
manner. The synoptical Evangelists in general were ignorant of the
relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the
apostles did not wish an intimate personal connection of this kind to
pass into the general tradition, from which those Evangelists drew; and
ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of
course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with them.
But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve? Are we to
infer secret, or even, with Venturini, tender ties? Must not such a
private relation in the case of Jesus have presented much to edify us?
The intimations which John and Luke afford us on this subject contain
in fact much of this description, and from the narrative which the
latter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that
the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to
allow something of these relations to appear, so far as they could
retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection of
Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than
that visit with its single aphorism “One thing is needful,” and
involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of
Bethany; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore
have hindered the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.
[1417] Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matth., Tübing. Zeitschrift,
1834, 2, s. 110.
[1418] Bertholdt. Christol. Jud. § 35.
[1419] See the passages quoted from Tanchuma, Vol. I. § 14.
[1420] 1 Kings xvii. 23, LXX. καί ἔδωκεν αὐτὸ τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ, Luke vii.
15: καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν τῇ μητρὶ αὑτοῦ.
[1421] Thus the author of the Abhandlung über die verschiedenen
Rücksichten, in welchen der Biograph Jesu arbeiten kann, in Bertholdt’s
krit. Journ., 5, s. 237 f., Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 202.—A
resuscitation strikingly similar to that of the young man at Nain is
narrated by Philostratus, of Apollonius of Tyana. “As according to
Luke, it was a young man, the only son of a widow, who was being
carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it is a young maiden
already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The command to set down
the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are sufficient here, as
there, to bring the dead to life” (Baur, Apollonius v. Tyana und
Christus, s. 145). I should like to know whether Paulus, or any other
critic, would be inclined to explain this naturally; if, however, it
ought to be regarded as an imitation of the evangelical narrative (a
conclusion which can hardly be avoided), we must have a preconceived
opinion of the character of the books of the New Testament, to evade
the consequence, that the resuscitations of the dead which they contain
are only less designed imitations of those in the Old Testament; which
are themselves to be derived from the belief of antiquity, that a
victorious power over death was imparted to the favourites of the gods
(Hercules, Esculapius, etc), and more immediately, from the Jewish idea
of a prophet.
[1422] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 287.
[1423] Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1, b, s. 468 ff.; Venturini, 2, s.
166 ff.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol., 1, s. 197. Hase, also, § 74, thinks this
view probable.
[1424] Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 363, who for the rest here offers but a
weak defence against the natural explanation.
[1425] Hase, ut sup.
[1426] Vid. Vol. 1, § 14, note 9.
[1427] Neander alters the fact, when he describes Jesus as falling
asleep in the midst of the fury of the storm and the waves, and thus
manifesting a tranquillity of soul which no terror of nature could
disturb (s. 362). Luke says expressly, as they sailed he fell asleep:
and there came down a storm, etc., πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφὺπνωσε· καὶ
κατέβη λαίλαψ κ.τ.λ., and according to the representation of the other
Evangelists also, the sleeping of Jesus appears to have preceded the
breaking out of the storm, since otherwise the timorous disciples would
not have awaked him—they would rather not have allowed him to go to
sleep.
[1428] Comp Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 82.
[1429] This may serve as an answer to Tholuck’s accusation,
Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 110.
[1430] Ueber den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 68 f.
[1431] According to Jamblich. vita Pyth, 135, ed. Kiessling, there were
narrated of Pythagoras, ἀνέμων βιαίων χαλαζῶν τε χύσεως παραυτίκα
κατευνήσεις καὶ κυμάτων ποταμίων τε καὶ θαλασσίων ἀπευδιασμοὶ πρὸς
εὐμαρῆ τῶν ἑταίρων διάβασιν, instantaneous tranquillizings of violent
winds and hailstorms, and soothings of the waves of rivers and seas, to
afford easy transit to his companions. Comp. Porphyr. v. p. 29 same ed.
[1432] Ut sup. s. 491.
[1433] Paulus, Memorabilien, 6, Stuck, No. V.; exeg. Handb. 2, s. 238
ff.
[1434] Against the extremely arbitrary expedient which Paulus has here
adopted, see Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, p. 288.
[1435] The former by Bolten, Bericht des Matthäus, in loc; the latter
in Henke’s neuem Magazin, 6, 2, s. 327 ff.
[1436] Comp. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc.
[1437] See the excellent passage in Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth., p. 505.
[1438] Mark’s inclination to exaggerate shows itself also in his
concluding sentence, v. 51, (comp. vii. 37): and they were sore amazed
in themselves beyond measure and wondered; which will scarcely be
understood to import, as Paulus supposes (2, s. 266), a disapproval of
the excessive astonishment.
[1439] Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 68 f.; Weisse,
die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 521.
[1440] Vid. Lücke and Tholuck.
[1441] Homil. in Joann. 43.
[1442] In De Wette’s objection, that the opinion of an exaggeration of
the miracle in John, is discountenanced by the addition that they were
immediately at the land (ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 79), there appears to me
only a misunderstanding; but his assertion that in John the manner in
which Jesus goes over the sea is not represented as a miracle (s. 78),
is to me thoroughly incomprehensible.
[1443] Bretschneider, Probab., p. 81.
[1444] See the passages in Wetstein, p. 417 f.
[1445] Jamblich, vita Pythagoræ, 136; comp. Porphyr. 29.
[1446] Lucian, Philopseudes, 13.
[1447] Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 68.
[1448] See the examples in Wetstein, in loc.
[1449] Die h. Schrift des n. Bundes, 1, s. 314, 2te Aufl.
[1450] Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, 502 ff. Comp. Hase, L. J. § 111.
[1451] Comp. Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 2, s. 68 ff.
[1452] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200. Comp. Hase, ut sup.
[1453] Olshausen, 1, s. 512. This theologian, in the note on the same
page, observes, that according to the words, We have taken no bread,
Matt. xvi. 7, the disciples, even after the second feeding, were not
alive to the fact, that there was no necessity for providing themselves
with food for the body in the neighbourhood of the Son of Man. But this
instance is not to the point, for the circumstances are here altogether
different. That from the miraculous feeding of the people when they
were accidentally belated in the wilderness, the disciples did not draw
the same convenient conclusion with the biblical commentator, can only
redound to their honour.
[1454] Ibid.
[1455] Gratz, Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 90 f.; Sieffert, über den Ursprung,
s. 97.
[1456] Thiesz, Krit. Commentar, 1, s. 168 ff.; Schulz, über das
Abendmahl, s. 311. Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 523.
[1457] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 145; Sieffert, ut sup. s. 95
ff.; Hase, § 97. Neander is undecided, L. J. Chr., s. 372 ff., Anm.
[1458] Comp. Saunier, ut sup. s. 105.
[1459] Paulus, ex. Handb. 2, s. 315; Olshausen, ut sup.
[1460] Olshausen, s. 513.
[1461] See the proof in De Wette, Kritik der mos. Gesch., s. 220 ff.,
314 ff.
[1462] Thus Olshausen, in loc. after Pfenninger. Comp. Hase, § 97.
[1463] This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has
its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in
my total disbelief in a living God: otherwise assuredly it would not
have appeared so great a difficulty to me that the Divine causality
should have superseded human operations (s. 479, der 3ten Aufl.).
[1464] Jesus Messias, 2, Bd. No. 14, 15 and 20.
[1465] For this reason Neander (s. 377) passes over the miracle with a
few entirely general remarks.
[1466] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 205 ff.
[1467] Olshausen, in loc.
[1468] Against Neander’s attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette,
exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 77.
[1469] This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He
finds the key to the history of the miraculous multiplication of the
loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they
misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the Pharisees and
Sadducees. He asks them whether they did not remember how many baskets
they had been able to fill from the five and again from the seven
loaves, and then adds, How is it that ye do not understand that I spake
it not to you concerning bread, etc. (Matt. xvi. 11). Now, says Weisse,
the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the
leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the
latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (s. 511 ff.). But
the form of the question of Jesus: πόσους κοφίνους (σπυρίδας) ἐλάβετε;
how many baskets ye took up, presupposes a real event; we can form no
conception, as we have already remarked in relation to the history of
the temptation, of a parable in which Jesus and his disciples would
have played a principal part; moreover, the inference which Jesus would
convey is, according to the text, not that because the present
narrative was figurative, so also must be the interpretation of the
subsequent discourse, but that after the earlier proof how superfluous
was any solicitude about physical bread where Jesus was at hand, it was
absurd to understand his present discourse as relating to such.
[1470] Vid. Vol. I. § 14.
[1471]
2 Kings iv. 43, LXX.: τί δῶ John vi. 9: ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς
τοῦτο ἔνώπιον ἑκατὸν ἀνδρῶν; τοσούτους;
Ibid. v. 44: καὶ ἕφαγον, καὶ Matt. xiv. 20: καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες,
κατέλιπον κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα Κυρίου. καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν, καὶ ἦραν τὸ
περισσεῦον τῶν κλασμάτων, κ.τ.λ.
[1472] Exeg. Handb. 2, s. 237 f.
[1473] Joma f. 39, 1: Tempore Simeonis justi benedictio erat super duos
panes pentecostales et super decem panes προθέσεως, ut singuli
sacerdotes, qui pro rata parte acciperent quantitatem olivæ, ad
satietatem comederent, imo ut adhuc reliquiæ superessent.
[1474] Comp. De Wette, ex Handb. 1, 1, s. 133 f.
[1475] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 74.
[1476] Neander is of opinion that an analogy may be found for this
miracle yet more easily than for that of the loaves—in the mineral
springs, the water of which is rendered so potent by natural agencies,
that it produces effects which far exceed those of ordinary water, and
in part resemble those of wine! (s. 369.)
[1477] In Joann. tract. 8: Ipse vinum fecit in nuptiis, qui omni anno
hoc facit in vitibus.
[1478] Thus Augustine, ut sup. approved by Olshausen: sicut enim, quod
miserunt ministri in hydrias in vinum conversum est opere Domini, sic
et quod nubes fundunt, in vinum convertitur ejusdem opere Domini.
[1479] Even Lücke, 1, s. 405, thinks the analogy with the above natural
process deficient and unintelligible, and does not know how to console
himself better than by the consideration, that a similar inconvenience
exists in relation to the miracle of the loaves.
[1480] Chrysost. hom. in Joann. 21.
[1481] Woolston, Disc. 4.
[1482] P. 42.
[1483] Tholuck, in loc.
[1484] Comm. 4, s. 151 f.
[1485] Von Gottes Sohn u. s. f. nach Johannes Evangelium, s. 131 f.
[1486] C. Ch. Flatt, über die Verwandlung des Wassers in Wein, in
Süskind’s Magazin, 14. Stück, s. 86 f.; Olshausen, ut sup. s. 75 f.;
comp. Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 372.
[1487] Olshausen, ut sup.
[1488] Lücke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too
far-fetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, s.
406. Comp. De Wette, ex. Handb. 1, 3, s. 37.
[1489] [A Wirtemberg wine Maas, or measure, is equal to about 3½ pints
English, or more exactly 3·32.—Tr.]
[1490] Wurm, de ponderum, mensurarum etc. rationibus, ap. Rom. et
Græc., p. 123, 126. Comp. Lücke, in loc.
[1491] Homil. in Joann. in loc.
[1492] Tholuck, in loc.
[1493] This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the
faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the
baptism (s. 370).
[1494] Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, s. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc.
[1495] E.g. by Woolston, ut sup.
[1496] Flatt, ut sup. s. 90; Tholuck, in loc.
[1497] Olshausen, in loc.
[1498] Comp. also the Probabilia, p. 41 f.
[1499] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 150 ff.; L. J. 1, a, s. 169 ff.; Natürliche
Gesch. 2, s. 61 ff.
[1500] Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sup. s. 77 ff. and Lücke, in
loc.
[1501] He makes the word μεθύσκεσθαι, v. 10, refer to John also.
[1502] Lücke, s. 407.
[1503] Bibl. Theol. 1, s. 200.
[1504] In the passages cited Vol. I. § 14, out of Midrasch Koheleth, it
is said among other things: Goël primus—ascendere fecit puteum: sic
quoque Goël postremus ascendere faciet aquas, etc.
[1505] A natural explanation of this miracle is given by Josephus in a
manner worthy of notice, Antiq. iii. 1, 2.
[1506] We may also remind the reader of the transmutation of water into
oil, which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 9.) narrates of a Christian bishop.
[1507] Compare the Probabilia, ut sup.
[1508] De Wette thinks the analogies adduced from the Old Testament too
remote; according to him, the metamorphosis of wine into water by
Bacchus, instanced by Wetstein, would be nearer to the subject, and not
far from the region of Greek thought, out of which the gospel of John
arose. The most analogous mythical derivation of the narrative would be
to regard this supply of wine as the counterpart to the supply of
bread, and both as corresponding to the bread and wine in the last
supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, by the not
yet overthrown authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that
the narrative bears less of a legendary than a subjective impress, by
the obscurity that rests upon it, and its want of one presiding idea,
together with the abundance of practical ideas worthy of Jesus which it
embodies. By these observations De Wette seems to intimate his approval
of a natural explanation, built on the self-deception of John; an
explanation which is encumbered with the difficulties above noticed.
[1509] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 157 ff.
[1510] L. J. § 128.
[1511] Augustin. de verbis Domini in ev. sec. Joann., sermo 44: Quid
arbor fecerat, fructum non afferendo? quæ culpa arboris infæcunditas?
[1512] Disc. 4.
[1513] Orig. Comm. in Matt., Tom. xvi. 29: Ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀναγράψας τὰ
κατὰ τὸν τόπον, ἀπεμφαῖνόν τι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητὸν προσέθηκε, ποιήσας,
ὅτι—οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.—Εἴποι γὰρ ἃν τις· εἰ μὴ ὁ καιρὸς σύκων ἦν,
πῶς ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰ. ὡς εὑρήσων τι ἐν αὐτῇ. καὶ πῶς δικαίως εἶπεν αὐτῇ·
μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ; comp. Augustin ut sup.
Mark, in relating this event, adds something which seems not to tally
well with his statement, when he observes that it was not the season
for figs. It might be urged: if it was not the season for figs, why
should Jesus go and look for fruit on the tree, and how could he, with
justice, say to it, Let no man eat fruit of thee for ever?
[1514] Toupii emendd. in Suidam, 1, p. 330 f.
[1515] Heinsius and others, ap. Fritzsche, in loc.
[1516] Maji Obs., ib.
[1517] Dahme, in Henke’s n. Magazin, 2. Bd. 2. Heft, s. 252. Kuinöl, in
Marc, p. 150 f.
[1518] Vid. Kuinöl, in loc.
[1519] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, a, s. 175; Olshausen, b, Comm. 1, s.
782.
[1520] As Sieffert thinks, Ueber den Urspr., s. 113 ff. Compare my
reviews, in the Charakteristiken und Kritiken, s. 272.
[1521] Vid. Paulus, ut sup. s. 168 f.; Winer, b. Realw. d. A.
Feigenbaum.
[1522] Bell. Jud. III. x. 8.
[1523] Ullman, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 50;
Sieffert, ut sup. s. 115 ff.; Olshausen, 1, s. 783 f.; Neander, L. J.
Chr., s. 378.
[1524] Paulus, ut sup. s. 170; Hase, L. J. § 128; also Sieffert, ut
sup.
[1525] Heydenreich, in the Theol. Nachrichten, 1814, Mai., s. 121 ff.
[1526] Comm. in Matt. p. 637.
[1527] Comm., in Marc. p. 481: Male—vv. dd. in eo hæserunt, quod Jesus
sine ratione innocentem ficum aridam reddidisse videretur, mirisque
argutiis usi sunt, ut aliquod hujus rei consilium fuisse ostenderent.
Nimirum apostoli, evangelistæ et omnes primi temporis Christiani, qua
erant ingeniorum simplicitate, quid quantumque Jesus portentose fecisse
diceretur, curarunt tantummodo, non quod Jesu in edendo miraculo
consilium fuerit, subtiliter et argute quæsi verunt.
[1528] Μὴ ἀκριβολογοῦ διατί τετιμώρηται τὸ φυτὸν, ἀναίτιον ὄν· ἀλλὰ
μόνον ὂρα τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ θαύμαζε τὸν θαυματουργόν.
[1529] Ambrosius, Comm. in Luc, in loc. Neander adopts this opinion, ut
sup.
[1530] Conceptions of the narrative in the main accordant with that
here given, may be found in De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 176 f.; 1,
2, s. 174 f., and Weisse, die evang. Gesch., 1, s. 576 f.
[1531] Vom Erlöser der Menschen nach unsern drei ersten Evangelien, s.
114.
[1532] In a treatise on the history of the Transfiguration, in his
neuesten theol. Journal, 1. Bd. 5. Stück, s. 517 ff. Comp. Bauer, hebr.
Mythol. 2, s. 233 ff.
[1533] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 534 f.
[1534] Olshausen, ut sup. s. 537.
[1535] Olshausen, 1, s. 539; comp. s. 178.
[1536] Thus Tertull. adv. Marcion, iv. 22; Herder, ut sup. 115 f., with
whom also Gratz agrees. Comm. z. Matth. 2, s. 163 f., 169.
[1537] Comp. Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 552; Olshausen, 1, s. 523.
[1538] Olshausen, ut sup.
[1539] Rau, symbola ad illustrandam Evv. de metamorphosi J. Chr.
narrationem; Gabler, ut sup. s. 539 ff.; Kuinöl, Comm. z. Matth. p. 459
ff.; Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 474 f.
[1540] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 319; Schleiermacher, über den
Lukas, s. 148 f.; comp. also Köster, Immanuel, s. 60 f.
[1541] Bauer has discerned this, ut sup. s. 237; Fritzsche, p. 556; De
Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 56 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s.
536; and Paulus also partly, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 447 f.
[1542] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 2, 436 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 7 ff.;
Natürliche Geschichte, 3, s. 256 ff.
[1543] Ut sup.
[1544] Paulus, exeg. Handb., s. 446; Gratz, 2, s. 165 f.
[1545] Comp. De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T. § 79.
[1546] Thus Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 62 ff.
[1547] Neander, because he considers the objective reality of the
transfiguration doubtful, also finds the silence of the fourth
Evangelist a difficulty in this instance (s. 475 f.).
[1548] Olshausen, s. 533, Anm.
[1549] Vid. Rau, in the Programme quoted in Gabler, neuestes theolog.
Journal, 1, 3, s. 506; De Wette, in loc. Matth.
[1550] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 553; Olshausen, 1, s. 541. Still less
satisfactory expedients in Gabler, ut sup. and in Matthäi, Religionsgl.
der Apostel, 2, s. 596.
[1551] This even Paulus admits, 2, s. 442.
[1552] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 149.
[1553] This is an answer to Weisse’s objection, s. 539.
[1554] Comp. Jalkut Simeoni, p. 2 f. x. 3, (ap. Wetstein, p. 435):
Facies justorum futuro tempore similes erunt soli et luna, cælo et
stellis, fulguri, etc.
[1555] Bereschith Rabba, xx. 29, (ap. Wetstein): Vestes lucis vestes
Adami primi. Pococke, ex Nachmanide (ibid.): Fulgida facta fuit facies
Mosis instar solis, Josuæ instar lunæ; quod idem affirmarunt veteres de
Adamo.
[1556] In Pirke Elieser, ii. there is, according to Wetstein, the
following statement: inter docendum radios ex facie ipsius, ut olim e
Mosis facie, prodiisse, adeo ut non dignosceret quis, utrum dies esset
an nox.
[1557] Nizzachon vetus, p. 40, ad Exod. xxxiv. 33 (ap. Wetstein): Ecce
Moses magister noster felicis memoriæ, qui homo merus erat, quia Deus
de facie ad faciem cum eo locutus est, vultum tam lucentem retulit, ut
Judæi vererentur accedere: quanto igitur magis de ipsa divinitate hoc
tenere oportet, atque Jesu faciem ob uno orbis cardine ad alterum
fulgorem diffundere conveniebat? At non præditus fuit ullo splendore,
sed reliquis mortalibus fuit simillimus. Qua propter constat, non esse
in eum credendum.
[1558] From this parallel with the ascent of the mountain by Moses may
perhaps be derived the interval—the ἡμέραι ἓξ—by which the two first
Evangelists separate the present event from the discourses detailed in
the foregoing chapter. For the history of the adventures of Moses on
the mountain begins with a like statement of time, it being said that
after the cloud had covered the mountain six days, Moses was called to
Jehovah (v. 16). Although the point of departure was a totally
different one, this statement of time might be retained for the opening
of the scene of transfiguration in the history of Jesus.
[1559] Vide Bertholdt, Christologia Judæorum, § 15, s. 60 ff.
[1560] Debarim Rabba, iii. (Wetstein): Dixit Deus S. B. Mosi: per vitam
tuam, quemadmodum vitam tuam posuisti pro Israelitis in hoc mundo, ita
tempore futuro, quando Eliam prophetam ad ipsos mittam, vos quo eodem
tempore venietis. Comp. Tanchuma f. xlii. 1, ap. Schöttgen 1, s. 149.
[1561] This narrative is pronounced to be a mythus by De Wette, Kritik
der mos. Gesch. s. 250; comp. exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 146 f.; Bertholdt,
Christologia Jud. § 15, not. 17; Credner, Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s.
241; Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 319, at least admits that there is
more or less of the mythical in the various evangelical accounts of the
transfiguration, and Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 448 f. and 456 adduces the
mythical view of this event not without signs of approval. Compare also
Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 459, and Gratz, 2, s. 161 ff.
[1562] Plato also in the Symposion (p. 223, B. ff. Steph.), glorifies
his Socrates by arranging in a natural manner, and in a comic spirit, a
similar group to that which the Evangelists here present in a
supernatural manner, and in a tragic spirit. After a bacchanalian
entertainment, Socrates outwatches his friends, who lie sleeping around
him: as here the disciples around their master; with Socrates there are
awake two noble forms alone, the tragic and the comic poet, the two
elements of the early Grecian life, which Socrates united in himself:
as, with Jesus, the lawgiver and prophet, the two pillars of the Old
Testament economy, which in a higher manner were combined in Jesus;
lastly, as in Plato both Agathon and Aristophanes at length sleep, and
Socrates remains alone in possession of the field: so in the gospel,
Moses and Elias at last vanish, and the disciples see Jesus left alone.
[1563] Weisse, not satisfied with the interpretation found by me in the
mythus, and labouring besides to preserve an historical foundation for
the narrative, understands it as a figurative representation in the
oriental manner, by one of the three eye-witnesses, of the light which
at that time arose on them concerning the destination of Jesus, and
especially concerning his relation to the Old Testament theocracy and
to the messianic prophecies. According to him, the high mountain
symbolizes the height of knowledge which the disciples then attained;
the metamorphosis of the form of Jesus, and the splendour of his
clothes, are an image of their intuition of the spiritual messianic
idea; the cloud which overshadowed the appearance, signifies the
dimness and indefiniteness in which the new knowledge faded away, from
the inability of the disciples yet to retain it; the proposal of Peter
to build tabernacles, is the attempt of this apostle at once to give a
fixed dogmatical form to the sublime intuition. Weisse is fearful (s.
543) that this his conception of the history of the transfiguration may
also be pronounced mythical: I think not; it is too manifestly
allegorical.
[1564] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 160.
[1565] Kuinöl and Gratz, in loc.
[1566] Thus e.g. Lightfoot, in loc.
[1567] Wetstein, Olshausen, in loc., Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 164,
214.
[1568] Vid. De Wette, in loc.
[1569] Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 415: Marcus Matthæi, xix. 1, se
auctoritati h. l. adstringit, dicitque, Jesum e Galilæa (cf. ix. 33)
profectum esse per Peraeam. Sed auctore Luca, xvii. 11, in Judæam
contendit per Samariam itinere brevissimo.
[1570] Paulus, 2, s. 293, 554. Comp. Olshausen, 1, s. 583.
[1571] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 159.
[1572] Paulus, 2, s. 294 ff.
[1573] Paulus, ut sup. 295 f., 584 f.
[1574] Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 161 f.; Sieffert, über den Urspr., s.
104 ff. With the former agrees, in relation to Luke, Olshausen, ut sup.
[1575] Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh., s. 227; Olshausen, 1, s. 771 f.
[1576] Tholuck and Olshausen, ut sup.
[1577] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 92 ff., 98 ff.; Schleiermacher,
über den Lukas, s. 244 f.
[1578] Schleiermacher, ut sup.
[1579] Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 432, Anm.
[1580] Hase, L. J. § 124.
[1581] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 172.
[1582] Paulus, 3, a, s. 115; Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 541.
[1583] Olshausen, 1, s. 776.
[1584] Comm. in Matth., p. 630. His expedient is approved by De Wette,
exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 173.
[1585] Paulus, ut sup. s. 143 f.
[1586] Glassius, phil. sacr., p. 172. Thus also Kuinöl and Gratz, in
loc.
[1587] N. T. Gramm., s. 149.
[1588] Eichhorn, allgem. Bibliothek, 5, s. 896 f.; comp. Bolten,
Bericht des Matthäus, s. 317 f.
[1589] Vide Fritzsche, in loc. This is admitted by Neander also, s.
550, Anm.
[1590] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 310 f.; Sieffert, über den
Urspr., s. 107 f.
[1591] That the above motive will not suffice to explain the conduct of
Jesus, Paulus has also felt; for only the despair on his part of
finding a more real and special motive, can account for his becoming in
this solitary instance mystical, and embracing the explanation of
Justin Martyr, whom he elsewhere invariably attacks, as the author of
the perverted ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible. According to
Justin, the ass designated ὑποζύγιον (that is under the yoke), is a
symbol of the Jews; the ass never yet ridden, of the Gentiles (Dial. c.
Tryph. 53); and Paulus, adopting this idea, endeavours to make it
probable that Jesus, by mounting an animal which had never before been
ridden, intended to announce himself as the founder and ruler of a new
religious community. Exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 116 ff.
[1592] Natürliche Gesch. 3, s. 566 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 550,
Anm.
[1593] Weisse, s. 573.
[1594] Apol. i. 32: τὸ δὲ δεσμεύων πρὸς ἄμπελον τὸν πῶλον
αὐτοῦ—σύμβολον δηλωτικὸν ἦν τῶν γενησομένων τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ
πραχθησομένων. πῶλος γάρ τις ὄνου εἱστήκει ἔν τινι εἰσόδῳ κώμης πρὸς
ἄμπελον δεδεμένος ὃν ἐκέλευσεν ἀγαγεῖν αὐτῷ κ.τ.λ. Binding his colt to
a vine—was a symbol indicative of what would happen to Christ; for
there stood at the entrance of a certain village, bound to a vine, an
ass’s colt, which he ordered them to bring to him, etc.
[1595] Vid. Schöttgen, horæ, ii. p. 146.
[1596] Midrasch Rabba, f. xcviii.
[1597] On account of this silence of the fourth Evangelist, even
Neander (ut sup.) is in this instance inclined to admit, that a more
simple event, owing to the disproportionate importance subsequently
attached to it, was unhistorically modified.
[1598] Comp. Paulus, in loc.
[1599] The citation given by Matthew is a combination of a passage from
Isaiah with that of Zechariah. For the words Tell ye the daughter of
Zion, εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιὼν, are from Isa. lxii. 11; the rest from
Zechariah ix. 9, where the LXX. has with some divergency: ἰδοὺ ὁ
βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι δίκαιος καὶ σώζων αὐτὸς πραῢς καὶ ἐπιβεβηκὼς
ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον.
[1600] Hitzig, über die Abfassungszeit der Orakel, Zach. ix.–xiv. in
the Theol. Studien, 1830, 1, s. 36 ff. refers the preceding verse to
the warlike deeds of this king, and the one in question to his pacific
virtues.
[1601] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 121 ff.
[1602] Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 274 ff.
[1603] In the passage cited Introd., § 14, from Midrasch Coheleth, the
description, pauper et insidens asino in Zechariah, is in the very
first instance referred to the Goël postremus. This ass of the Messiah
was held identical with that of Abraham and Moses, vid. Jalkut Rubeni
f. lxxix. 3, 4, ap. Schöttgen, i. s. 169; comp. Eisenmenger, entdecktes
Judenthum, 2, s. 697 f.
[1604] Sanhedrin f. xcviii. 1 (ap. Wetstein): Dixit R. Alexander: R.
Josua f. Levi duobus inter se collatis locis tanquam contrariis visis
objecit: scribitur Dan. vii. 13: et ecce cum nubibus cœli velut filius
hominis venit. Et scribitur Zach. ix. 9: pauper et insidens asino.
Verum hæc duo loca ita inter se conciliari possunt: nempe, si justitia
sua mereantur Israëlitæ, Messias veniet cum nubibus cœli: si autem non
mereantur, veniet pauper, et vehetur asino.
[1605] His predictions concerning particular circumstances of his
passion, uttered shortly before its occurrence, in the last days of his
life, can only be considered farther on, in the history of those days.
[1606] Comp. Olshausen, bibl. Comm., 1, s. 528.
[1607] Gesenius, Jesaias, iii. 137 ff.; Hitzig, Comm. zu Jes., s. 550.
[1608] Gesenius, ut sup. s. 158 ff.; Hitzig, s. 577 ff.; Vatke, bibl.
Theol. 1, s. 528 ff.
[1609] De Wette, Comm. zu den Psalmen, s. 514 ff.; 3te Aufl.
[1610] Ibid. s. 224 ff.
[1611] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 677 ff., and De Wette in loc.
[1612] See this view developed by Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc, p. 381 f.
[1613] Vid. Fritzsche, ut sup.
[1614] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 415 ff.; Ammon, bibl. Theol. 2, s.
377 f.; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 246. Fritzsche also, ut sup. and
Weisse, 1, s. 423, partly admit this.
[1615] Bertholdt, Einleitung in d. N. T. 1305 ff.; Wegscheider, Einl.
in das Evang. Johannis, s. 271 f.
[1616] Daniel, übersetzt und erklärt von Bertholdt, 2, s. 541 ff., 660
ff.; Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 339 ff.
[1617] De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in his Opusc. Theol., p.
130; Hase, L. J. § 06.
[1618] Vom Zweck Jesu und seiner Junger, s. 114 ff. 153 f.
[1619] Ueber den Zweck und die Wirkungen des Todes Jesu, in the
Göttingischen Bibliothek, 1, 4, s. 252 ff.
[1620] See the list in De Wette, ut sup. s. 6 ff. The most important
voices for the existence of the idea in question in the time of Jesus,
have been noticed by Stäudlin in the above treatise, 1, s. 233 ff., and
by Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T., 1, a, s. 270 ff., b, s, 290
ff; for the opposite opinion, by De Wette, ut sup. p. 1 ff.
[1621] Comp. De Wette, bibl. Dogm, § 201 f.; Baumgarten Crusius, bibl.
Theol. § 54.