[1623] Comp. De Wette, ut sup. § 193.
[1624] Gfrörer, Philo, 1, s. 495 ff.
[1625] A passage to this effect out of the law (νόμος) properly so
called, would be difficult to find: De Wette, de morte, p. 72, refers
to Isa. ix. 5; Lücke, in loc. to Ps. cx. 4; Dan. vii. 14, ii. 44.
[1626] Vom Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 179 f.
[1627] Vid. De Wette, de morte Chr. p. 73 f.
[1628] Comp. Gesenius, Jesaias 2, Th. s. 66; De Wette, Einleitung in
das A. T. § 59, 3te Ausg.
[1629]
Literal translation according to Targum of Jonathan: Quemadmodum
Hitzig, lii. 14:—As many were per multos dies ipsum exspectârunt
amazed at him, so disfigured, not Israëlitae, quorum contabuit inter
human, was his appearance, and his gentes adspectus et splendor (et
form not that of the children of evanuit) e filiis hominum, etc.
men, etc.
liii. 4:—But he bore our Idcirco pro delictis nostris ipse
infirmities, and charged himself deprecabitur, et iniquitates
with our sorrows, and we esteemed nostræ propter eum condonabuntur,
him stricken, smitten of God and licet nos reputati simus contusi,
afflicted. plagis affecti et afflicti.
Origen also relates, c. Celsus, i. 55, how a person esteemed a wise man
among the Jews, λεγόμενος παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις σοφὸς, maintained, in
opposition to his Christian interpretation of the passage in Isaiah,
that this was prophesied concerning the whole nation, which had been
dispersed and afflicted, in order that many might become proselytes,
ταῦτα πεπροφητεῦσθαι ὡς περὶ ἑνὸς τοῦ ὅλου λαοῦ, καὶ γενομένου ἐν τῇ
διασπορᾷ, καὶ πληγέντος, ἳνα πολλοὶ προσήλυτοι γένωνται.
[1630] Vid. Schöttgen, 2, s. 182 f.; Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum,
2, s. 758.
[1631] Ap. Schöttgen, 2 s. 181 f.
[1632] De Wette, de morte Chr. expiatoria, ut sup. s. 50.
[1633] vii. 29.
[1634] Schöttgen, 2, s. 509 ff.; Schmidt, Christologische Fragmente, in
his Bibliothek, 1, s. 24 ff.; Bertholdt, Christol. Jud., § 13.
[1635] Schmidt, ut sup.; Bertholdt, ut sup., § 16.
[1636] Pesikta in Abkath Rochel, ap. Schmidt, s. 48 f.
[1637] Sohar, P. II. lxxxv. 2, ap. Schmidt, § 47 f.
[1638] Gemara Sanhedrin, f. xcviii. 1; ap. De Wette, de morte Chr., p.
95 f., and ap. Hengstenberg, s. 292.
[1639] Sohar, P. II. f. lxxx. ii. 2; ap. De Wette, s. 94: Cum Israëlitæ
essent in terra sancta, per cultus religiosos et sacrificia quæ
faciebanto, omnes illos morbos et pœnas e mundo, sustulerunt; nunc vero
Messias debet auferre eas ab hominibus.
[1640] Vid. Bertholdt, ut sup. § 17.
[1641] De Wette, de morte Chr., p. 112; comp. 53 ff.
[1642] Hase, L. J. § 108.
[1643] Ibid.
[1644] Ibid. and § 109.
[1645] See his animated and impressive treatise, vom Zweck, u. s. f.,
s. 121 ff. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 224 ff., and De
Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 143.
[1646] Thus especially Herder, vom Erlöser der Menschen, s. 133 ff.
Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 227. Comp. Kuinöl, Comm. in Matth.,
p. 444 f.
[1647] LXX.: ὑγιάσει ἡμᾶς μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας· ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ
ἐξαναστησόμεθα, καὶ ζησόμεθα ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ.
[1648] Comp. Süskind, einige Bemerkungen über die Frage, ob Jesus seine
Auferstehung bestimmt vorhergesagt habe? in Flatt’s Magazin, 7, s. 203
ff.
[1649] Paulus, ut sup. 2, s. 415 ff.; Hase, L. J. § 109.
[1650] E.g. Lücke, 1, s. 426; comp., on the contrary, Tholuck, in loc.
[1651] Vid. Tholuck, ut sup.
[1652] Henke, Joannes apostolus nonnullorum Jesu apophthegmatum in
evang. suo et ipse interpres. In Pott’s and Ruperti’s Sylloge Comm.
theol. 1, s. 9; Gabler, Recension des Henke’schen Programms im neuesten
theol. Journal, 2, 1, s. 88; Lücke, in loc.
[1653] Thus, besides Henke in the above Programm, Herder, von Gottes
Sohn nach Johannes Evang., s. 135 f.; Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 165 f.; L. J.
1, a, s. 173 f.; Lücke, and De Wette, in loc.
[1654] Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 4, s. 199.
[1655] Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.
[1656] Hence Neander remains suspended in indecision between the two,
s. 395 f.
[1657] Thus Kern, die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch., Tüb.
Zeitschrift, 1836, 2, s. 128.
[1658] Thus Olshausen.
[1659] Kern says, indeed, that a similar doubleness of meaning is found
elsewhere in significant discourse; but he refrains from adducing an
example.
[1660] Probab., p. 23 ff.
[1661] Comp. Neander, s. 396, Anm.
[1662] Paulus, exeg. Handb. in loc.
[1663] Comp. Fritzsche and Olshausen, in loc.
[1664] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 97 ff. Schulz, über das Abendm., s.
317 f.
[1665] Süskind, ut sup. s. 184 ff.
[1666] Vid. Lücke, in loc.
[1667] Vid. de Wette, Comm. über die Psalmen, s. 178.
[1668] Compare, on the import and connexion of this discourse,
Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 695 ff; De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s. 197
ff; Weizel, die unchristliche Unsterblichkeitslehre, in the theol.
Studien und Kritiken, 1836, s. 599 ff.—In agreement with these
commentators I append the following division of the passage in Matthew:
I. Signs of the end, τέλος, xxiv. 4–14.
a. More remote signs, the beginning of sorrows, ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων,
4–8.
b. More immediate signs, the actual sorrows, 9–14.
II. The end, τέλος, itself, xxiv. 15–25, 46.
a. Its commencement with the destruction of Jerusalem, and
the great tribulation θλῖψις which accompanies it, 15–28.
b. Its culminating point: the advent of the Messiah, together
with the assembling of his elect, 29–31. (Here follow
retrospective observations and warnings, xxiv. 32-xxv. 30.)
c. Close of the τέλος with the messianic judgment, 31–46.
[1669] Vom Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 184, 201 ff., 207 ff.
[1670] The former adv. hæres. v. 25; the latter, Comm. in Matth. in
loc. Compare on the different interpretations of this passage the list
in Schott, Commentarius in eos J. Chr. sermones, qui de reditu ejus ad
judicium—agunt, p. 73 ff.
[1671] Bahrdt., Uebersetzung des N. T., 1, s. 1103, 3te Ausg.;
Eckermann, Handb. der Glaubenslehre, 2, s. 579, 3, s. 427, 437, 709 ff;
and others in Schott, ut sup.
[1672] This is the opinion of Lightfoot, in loc., Flatt, Comm. de
notione vocis βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, in Velthusen’s und A. Sammlung 2,
461 ff.; Jahn, Erklärung der Weissagungen Jesu von der Zerstörung
Jerusalems u. s. w., in Bengel’s Archiv. 2, 1, s. 79 ff., and others,
cited in Schott, s. 75 f.
[1673] Thus especially Jahn, in the treatise above cited.
[1674] Kern, Hauptthatsachen der evang. Geschichte, Tüb. Zeitschr.
1836, 2, s. 140 ff.
[1675] Thus Storr, Opusc. acad. 3, s. 34 ff.; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,
a, s. 346 f. 402 f.
[1676] Ut sup. s. 188.
[1677] Storr, ut sup. s. 39, 116 ff.
[1678] Paulus, in loc.
[1679] Vid. Kuinöl in Matt., s. 649.
[1680] Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, ut sup. s. 190 ff. Schott,
ut sup. s. 127 ff.
[1681] Kern, ut sup. s. 141 f. That Jesus conceived the epoch at which
he spoke to be separated from the end of the world by a far longer
interval than would elapse before the destruction of Jerusalem, Kern
thinks he can prove in the shortest way from v. 14, of the 24th chapter
of Matthew, where Jesus says, And this gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then
shall the end come. For such a promulgation of Christianity, he thinks,
it is “beyond contradiction” that a far longer space of time than these
few lustrums would be requisite. As it happens, the apostle Paul
himself presents the contradiction, when he represents the gospel as
having been already preached to that extent before the destruction of
Jerusalem, e.g. Col. i. 5: τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, (6) τοῦ παρόντος—ἐν παντὶ τῷ
κόσμῳ—(23)—τοῦ κηρυχθέντος ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν. Comp.
Rom. x. 13.
[1682] The former is chosen by Süskind, vermischte Aufsätze, s. 90 ff.;
the latter by Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 653 ff.
[1683] See his Commentarius, in loc.
[1684] Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 315 f.
[1685] Ueber den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evangel., s. 119 ff. Also
Weisse, ut sup.
[1686] Ueber den Lukas, s. 215 ff., 265 ff. Here also his opinion is
approved by Neander, s. 562.
[1687] Olshausen, bibl. Comm. 1, s. 865; Kern, ut sup. s. 138 ff. Comp.
Steudel Glaubensl. s. 479 ff.
[1688] [“Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht:” Schiller. Tr.]
[1689] Comp. especially Weizel, die Zeit des jüngsten Tags u. s. f. in
den Studien der evang. Geistlichkeit Würtembergs, 9, 2, s. 140 ff., 154
ff.
[1690] According to Kern, the appearing of the Son of Man in the
clouds, signifies “the manifestation of everything which forms so great
an epoch in the development of the history of mankind, that from it,
the agency of Christ, who is the governing power in the history of
mankind, may be as clearly recognised as if the sign of Christ were
seen in the heavens. The mourning of all the tribes of the earth is to
be understood of the sorrow with which men will be visited, owing to
the judgment, κρίσις, which accompanies the propagation of the kingdom
of Christ, as consisting in an expulsion of ungodliness out of the
world, and the annihilation of the old man.” Still further does Weisse
allow himself to be carried away by the allegorizing propensity: Christ
“commiserates those who are with child and who give suck, i.e. those
who would still labour and produce in the old order of things; he
further pities those whose flight falls in the winter, i.e. in a rude,
inhospitable period, which bears no fruit for the spirit.” (Die evang.
Gesch. 2, s. 592.)
[1691] Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T., 1, a, s. 305 ff.
[1692] Exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 403. Comp. also Kern, Hauptthatsachen, ut
sup. s. 137.
[1693] Bibl. Comm. 1, s. 865 ff.
[1694] Ueber den Ursprung u. s. f., s. 119. Weisse advances a similar
opinion, ut sup.
[1695] Compare also my Streitschriften, 1, 1, conclusion.
[1696] Comp. e.g. Gratz, Comm. zum Matth. 2, 444 ff.
[1697] Antiq. xx. viii. 6 (comp. bell. jud. ii. xiii. 4.): And now
these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them
into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest
wonders and signs that should be performed by the providence of God.
And many that were prevailed on by them, suffered the punishments of
their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them.
[1698] Bell. jud. v. xii. 1, 2.
[1699] More ample comparisons of the results mentioned by Josephus and
others, with the prophecy, see in Credner, Einleit. in das N. T. 1, s.
207.
[1700] Bertholdt, Daniel übersetzt und erklärt, 2, s. 668 ff.; Paulus,
exeg. Handb. 3, a, s, 340 f.; De Wette, Einleit. in das A. T., § 254
ff.
[1701] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 247; Credner, Einl. in das N. T. 1,
s. 206 f.
[1702] De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 97, 101. Exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s.
204, 1, 2, s. 103.
[1703] Paulus, Fritzsche, De Wette in loc.
[1704] B. j. V. xii. 1: To encompass the whole city round with his
army, was not very easy, by reason of its magnitude and the difficulty
of the situation; and on other accounts dangerous.
[1705] B. j. V. xi. 1 ff, xii. 1.
[1706] Vid. Schöttgen, 2, s. 509 ff.; Bertholdt, § 13; Schmidt,
Biblioth. 1, s. 24 ff.
[1707] Vid. Schöttgen, 2, s. 525 f.
[1708] Antiq. X. xi. 7. After having interpreted the little horn of
Antiochus, he briefly adds: In the very same manner Daniel also wrote
concerning the government of the Romans, and that our country should be
made desolate by them. He doubtless supposed that the fourth, iron
monarchy, Dan. ii. 40, represented the Romans, since, besides
attributing it to a dominion over all the earth, he explains its
destruction by the stone as something still future, Ant. X. x. 4:
Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the King; but I do
not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe
things past or things present, but not things that are future. Now
Daniel ii. 44 interprets the stone to mean the heavenly kingdom, which
would destroy the iron one, but would itself endure for ever,—a
messianic particular, on which Josephus does not choose to dilate. But
that, correctly interpreted, the iron legs of the image signify the
Macedonian empire, and the feet of iron mixed with clay, the Syrian
empire which sprang out of the Macedonian, see De Wette, Einleit. in
das N. T., § 254.
[1709] Vid. Joseph., Antiq. xii. v.
[1710] Vid. Hase, L. J., § 130.
[1711] The passages bearing on this subject are collected and explained
in Schott, Commentarius, etc., p. 364 ff. Comp. Lücke, in loc. and
Weizel, urchristl. Unsterblichkeitslehre, in the Theol. Studien, 1836,
s. 626 ff.
[1712] Vid. Tholuck, in loc.
[1713] Comp. Tholuck, ut sup.
[1714] Thus Lücke, and also Tholuck, in loc.; Schott, p. 409.
[1715] Olshausen, 1, s. 870.
[1716] Fleck, de regno divino, p. 483.
[1717] Winer’s bibl. Realwörterb.
[1718] Schneckenburger, über den Urspr., s. 9 f. Lücke, 1, s. 133, 159,
2, s. 402.
[1719] Comp. besides the critics above cited, Hug, Enleit. in das N. T.
2, s. 215.
[1720] For the most correct views on this point see Lücke, 2, s. 407
ff.
[1721] As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.
[1722] Hug, ut sup. s. 221.
[1723] Kuinöl, in loc.
[1724] Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 579 f.
[1725] Lücke, in loc.
[1726] Lightfoot, in loc.
[1727] Probabil. ut sup.
[1728] Vol. II. § 62.
[1729] Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the
descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s. 458 Anm.):
“Perhaps the passage, Gen. xlix. 17, Dan shall be a serpent, an adder
in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall
fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas,
whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”
[1730] That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the
chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ,
p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as
earlier than the synoptical one.
[1731] Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.
[1732] Vol. II. § 89.
[1733] See these and the following reasons in Olshausen, 2, s. 458 ff.
[1734] Olshausen, ut sup.
[1735] Such an argument may be gathered from what Olshausen says, 2, s.
387, 388.
[1736] Ueber den Lukas, s. 88.
[1737] Orig. c. Cels., ii. 11 f.
[1738] Comp. Probabil., p. 139.
[1739] Still farther back we find, not the knowledge of Jesus
concerning his betrayer, but an important meeting between them, in the
apocryphal Evangelium infantiæ arabicum, c. xxxv. ap. Fabricius 1, p.
197 f., ap. Thilo, 1, p. 108 f. Here a demoniacal boy, who in his
attacks bit violently at everything around him, is brought to the child
Jesus, attempts to bite him, and because he cannot reach him with his
teeth gives him a blow on the right side, whereupon the child Jesus
weeps, while Satan comes out of the boy in the form of a furious dog.
Hic autem puer, qui Jesum percussit et ex quo Satanas sub forma canis
exivit, fuit Judas Ischariotes, qui illum Judæis prodidit.
[1740] Iren. adv. hær. I. 35: Judam proditorem—solum præ ceteris
cognoscentem veritatem perfecisse proditionis mysterium, per quem et
terrena et cælestia omnia dissoluta dicunt. Epiphan. xxxviii. 3: Some
Cainites say, that Judas betrayed Jesus because he regarded him as a
wicked man πονηρὸν, who meant to destroy the good law: ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν
αὐτῶν, οὐχι φασιν, ἀλλὰ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸν ὤντα παρέδωκε κατὰ τὴν ἑπουράνιον
γνῶσιν ἔγνωσαν γάρ, φησιν, οἱ ἄρχοντες, ὅτι, ἐὰν ὁ Χριστὸς παραδοθῇ
σταυρῷ, κενοῦται αὐτῶν ἡ ἀσθενὴς δύναμις· καὶ τοῦτό, φησι γνούς ὁ
Ἰούδας, ἔπευσε καὶ πάντα ἐκίνησεν ὤστε παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν, ἀγαθὸν ἔργον
ποιήσας ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν. καὶ δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ ἀποδιδόναι αὐτῷ
τὸν ἔπαινον, ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ κατεσκευάσθη ἡμῖν ἡ τοῦ σταυροῦ σωτηρία καὶ
ἡ διὰ τῆς ποιαύτης ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἄνω ἀποκάλυψις.
[1741] Theophylact, in Matth. xxvii. 4.
[1742] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 249. Klopstock gives a similar
representation in his Messias.
[1743] K. Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Beiträge, 1, Thl. 2ter Versuch, s. 18
ff.; comp. Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 3, 1, s. 163 ff.
[1744] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 451 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 143 ff.;
Hase, L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.
[1745] Schmidt, ut sup.
[1746] Hase.
[1747] Paulus.
[1748] Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 578 f.
[1749] Vol. II. § 88; comp. Hase, ut sup.
[1750] [The German Thaler (Rixthaler) is equivalent to about three
shillings. Tr.]
[1751] Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, s. 318 ff.
[1752] Even Neander thinks this a possible origin of the above
statement in the first gospel, s. 574, Anm.
[1753] L. J. Chr., s. 573.
[1754] Comp. also Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 759 f.
[1755] Ueber die Anordnung des letzten Paschamahls Jesu, in his neust.
theol. Journal, 2, 5, s. 441 ff.
[1756] Bell. jud. vi. ix. 3.
[1757] Thus Gabler, ut sup.; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b, s. 781; Kern,
Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 3 f.; Neander, s. 583.
[1758] Beza, in Matth. xxvi. 18, correctly, save that he supposes too
special a reference to the approaching sufferings of Jesus, thus
represents the object of this prediction: ut magis ac magis
intelligerent discipuli, nihil temere in urbe magistro eventurum, sed
quæ ad minutissimas usque circumstantias penitus perspecta haberet.
[1759] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 385 f. Comp. in opposition to this De Wette,
in loc.
[1760] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321; Schleiermacher, über den
Lukas, s. 280; Weisse, die evang. Gesch., s. 600 f.
[1761] Vid. Theile, über die letzte Mahlzeit Jesu, in Winer’s and
Engelhardt’s neuem krit. Journal, 2, s. 169, Anm., and zur Biographie
Jesu, § 31.
[1762] Thus Lightfoot, horæ, p. 463 ff.; Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s.
273 ff.; also Venturini 3, s. 634 ff.
[1763] An insufficient outlet from this difficulty is pointed out by
Lightfoot, p. 482 f.
[1764] Fragm. ex Claudii Apollinaris libro de Paschate, in Chron.
Paschal, ed. du Fresne. Paris, 1688, p. 6 f. præf.
[1765] See especially Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.; Kern,
Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 5 ff.
[1766] Diss. de verâ notione cœnæ Domini, annexed to Cudworth, syst.
intell., p. 22, not. 1.
[1767] See these counter observations particularly in Lücke and de
Wette, in loc.; in Sieffert über den Ursprung, s. 127 ff., and Winer,
bibl. Realwörterb. 2, s. 238 ff.
[1768] Antiq. II. xiv. 16.
[1769] Fritzsche, vom Osterlamm; more recently, Rauch, in the theol.
Studien und Kritiken, 1832, 3, s. 537 f.
[1770] Comp. De Wette, theol. Studien und Krit. 1834, 4, s. 939 f.;
Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh. s. 245 f.; Winer, ut sup.
[1771] Calvin, in Matth. xxvi. 17.
[1772] Grotius, in Matth. xxvi. 18.
[1773] Iken, Diss. philol. theol., vol. 2, p. 416 ff.
[1774] Vid. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, a, s. 486 ff.
[1775] Michaelis, Anm. zu Joh. 13.
[1776] Sieffert, ut sup.; Hase, L. J., § 124; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1,
3, s. 149 ff; Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 31.
[1777] Theile, in Winer’s Krit. Journal, 2, s. 157 ff.; Sieffert and
Lücke, ut sup.
[1778] Pesachin f. lxv. 2, ap. Lightfoot, p. 654: Paschate primo
tenetur quispiam ad pernoctationem. Gloss.: Paschatizans tenetur ad
pernoctandum in Hierosolyma nocte prima. On the other hand, Tosaphoth
ad tr. Pesachin 8: In Paschate Aegyptiaco dicitur: nemo exeat—usque ad
mane. Sed sic non fuit in sequentibus generationibus,—quibus
comedebatur id uno loco et pernoctabant in alio. Comp. Schneckenburger,
Beiträge, s. 9.
[1779] Tract. Sanhedr. f. lxxxix. 1, ap. Schöttgen, i. p. 221; comp.
Paulus, ut sup. s. 492.
[1780] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763 f.; comp. 755; Lücke, 2, s. 614.
[1781] Sanhedr. f. xliii. 1, ap. Schöttgen, ii. p. 700.
[1782] Ueber die ursprüngliche Bedeutung des Passahfestes u. s. w.,
Tübinger Zeitschrift f. Theol. 1832, 1, s. 90 ff.
[1783] Ut sup. s. 167 ff.
[1784] Sieffert, ut sup. s. 144 ff.; Lücke, s. 628 ff.; Theile, zur
Biogr. Jesu, § 31; De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 149 ff.; comp.
Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 580 ff. Anm.
[1785] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 763; Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev.
Matth. in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 98.
[1786] Comp. Suicer, thesaur. 2, s. 613.
[1787] Another view as to the cause of the error in the fourth gospel
is given in the Probabilia, s. 100 ff.; comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch.
1, s. 446 f. Anm.
[1788] Paulus, 3, b, s. 499; Olshausen, 2, s. 294.
[1789] Lücke, 2, s. 484 f.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 583, Anm.
[1790] Olshausen, ut sup.
[1791] Sieffert, über den Urspr., s. 152.
[1792] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 310, 381 f.
[1793] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 497.
[1794] Meyer, Comm. über den Joh., in loc.
[1795] L. J. Chr., s. 587, Anm.
[1796] Sieffert, s. 152 ff.
[1797] Comp. Lücke, s. 468.
[1798] Die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s.
12.
[1799] Hase, L. J., § 133; Kern, Hauptthatsachen, s. 11; Theile, zur
Biographie Jesu, § 31.
[1800] Sieffert, s. 153; Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. For the opposite
opinion comp. De Wette, 1, 1, s. 222, 1, 2, s. 107.
[1801] Vol. II. § 83.
[1802] The conjecture as to the origin of this anecdote in the
Probabilia, s. 70 f. is too far-fetched.
[1803] Comp. De Wette, in loc.
[1804] Ueber den Lukas, s. 275.
[1805] Olshausen, 2, s. 380.
[1806] Thus Lücke, Paulus, Olshausen.
[1807] Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 707.
[1808] This is Olshausen’s expedient, 2, s. 402. Against it see
Sieffert, s. 148. f.
[1809] Ut sup. s. 147 ff.
[1810] Comm. über die Gesch. des Leidens und Todes Jesu, in loc.
[1811] See De Wette, in loc.
[1812] Vid. Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.
[1813] P. 62: reliqui quidem narrant evangelistæ servatorem scivisse
proditionis consilium, nee impedivisse; ipsum vero excitâsse Judam ad
proditionem nemo eorum dicit, neque convenit hoc Jesu.
[1814] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 538. L. J. 1, b, s. 192. Hase, L.
J., § 137.
[1815] Comp. Lightfoot and Paulus, in loc.
[1816] Comp. on this subject especially, Lightfoot, horæ, p. 474 ff.,
and Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 511 ff.
[1817] Süskind, in the treatise: Hat Jesus das Abendmahl als einen
mnemonischen Ritus angeordnet? in his Magazin 11, s. 1 ff.
[1818] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 527.
[1819] Ueber das Abendmahl, s. 217 ff.
[1820] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 2, a, s. 39; Stephani, das h. Abendmahl, s.
61.
[1821] Vol. II. § 81.
[1822] Paulus, ut sup. s. 519 ff.; Kaiser, ut sup. s. 37 ff.
[1823] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 24: λέγει (ὁ Κέλσος)· τί οὖν ποτνιᾶται, καὶ
ὀδύρεται, καὶ τὸν τοῦ ὀλέθρου φόβον εὔχεται παραδραμεῖν, λέγων κ.τ.λ.:
He says (i.e. Celsus): Why then does he supplicate help, and bewail
himself, and pray for escape from the fear of death, saying, etc.
Julian, in a Fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia, ap. Münter, Fragm.
Patr. græc. Fasc. 1, p. 121: ἀλλὰ καὶ τοιαῦτα προσεύχεται, φήσιν, ὁ Ἰ.,
οἶα ἄθλιος ἄνθρωπος, συμφορὰν φέρειν εὐκόλως οὐ δυνάμενος, καὶ ὑπ’
ἀγγέλου, θεὸς ὢν, ἐνισχύεται. Jesus, says he, also presents such
petitions as a wretched mortal would offer, when unable to bear a
calamity with serenity; and although divine, he is strengthened by an
angel.
[1824] Gramond. hist. Gall. ab. exc. Henr. IV. L. iii. p. 211: Lucilius
Vanini—dum in patibulum trahitur—Christo illudit in hæc eadem verba:
illi in extremis præ timore imbellis sudor: ego imperterritus morior.
[1825] Evang. Nicod. c. xx. ap. Thilo, 1, s. 702 ff.: ἐγὸ γὰρ οἶδα, ὅτι
ἄνθρωπός ἐστι, καὶ ἥκουσα αὐτοῦ λέγοντος· ὅτι περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή
μου ἕως θανάτου.
[1826] Ibid. s. 706. Hades replies to Satan: εἰ δὲ λέγεις, ὅτι ἥκουσας
αὑτοῦ φοβουμένου τὸν θάνατον, παίξων σε καὶ γελῶν ἔφη τοῦτο, θέλων, ἵνα
σε ἀρπάσῃ ἐν χειρὶ δυνατῇ.
[1827] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 25.
[1828] Hieron. Comm. in Matth. in loc.: Contristabatur non timore
patiendi, qui ad hoc venerat, ut pateretur, sed propter infelicissimum
Judam, et scandalum omnium apostolorum, et rejectionem populi Judæorum,
et eversionem miseræ Hierusalem.
[1829] Calvin, Comm. in harm. evangg. Matth. xxvi. 37: Non—mortem
horruit simpliciter, quatenus transitus est e mundo sed quia
formidabile Dei tribunal illi erat ante oculos, judex ipse
incomprehensibili vindicta armatus, peccata vero nostra, quorum onus
illi erat impositum, sua ingenti mole eum premebant. Comp. Luther’s
Hauspostille, die erste Passionspredigt.
[1830] Lightfoot, p. 884 f.
[1831] Thiess, Krit. Comm. s. 418 ff.
[1832] Ut sup. s. 549, 554 f., Anm.
[1833] Schuster, zur Erläuterung des N. T., in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 9,
s. 1012 ff.
[1834] Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 2, s. 322 ff.; Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 719.
[1835] Ullmann, über die Unsündlichkeit Jesu, in his Studien, 1, s. 61.
Hasert, ib. 3, 1, s. 66 ff.
[1836] Ullmann, ut sup.
[1837] Hasert, ut sup.
[1838] Luther, in der Predigt vom Leiden Christi im Garten.
[1839] Ambrosius in Luc., Tom. x. 56.
[1840] In Matthaei’s N. T., p. 447.
[1841] Lightfoot, ut sup.
[1842] Venturini, 3, 677, and conjecturally Paulus also, s. 561.
[1843] Eichhorn, allg. Bibl. 1, s. 628; Thiess, in loc.
[1844] Comp. on this subject and the following, Gabler, neust. theol.
Journal, 1, 2, s. 109 ff. 3, s. 217 ff.
[1845] Comp. Julian, ap. Theod. of Mopsuestia in Münter’s Fragm. Patr.
1, p. 121 f.
[1846] Ueber den Lukas, s. 288; comp. De Wette, in loc. and Theile,
zur. Biogr. Jesu, § 32. Neander also appears willing silently to
abandon this trait and the following one.
[1847] Ancoratus, 31.
[1848] Vid. Wetstein, s. 807.
[1849] De part. animal. iii. 15.
[1850] Vid. ap. Michaelis, not. in loc., and Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 691 f.
[1851] Paulus, ut sup. s. 549.
[1852] Theile, in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s krit. Journal, 2, s. 353;
Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 616 f.
[1853] Comp. Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 611.
[1854] Olshausen, 2, s. 429.
[1855] Lücke, 2, s. 591.
[1856] Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 65 f.
[1857] Comm. 1, s. 177 f.
[1858] Lücke, 2, s. 392 ff.
[1859] Olshausen, 2, s. 429 f.
[1860] Commentatio critica, qua Evangelium Joannis genuinum
esse—ostenditur, p. 57 ff.
[1861] Probab. p. 33 ff.
[1862] Goldhorn, über das Schweigen des Joh. Evangeliums über den
Seelenkampf Jesu in Gethsemane, in Tzschirner’s Magazin. f. christl.
Prediger, 1, 2, s. 1 ff.
[1863] Vid. the Review of Usteri’s Comm. crit., in Winer’s and
Engelhardt’s n. krit. Journal, 2, s. 359 ff.
[1864] Hase, L. J., § 134; Lücke, 2, s. 591 f., Anm.
[1865] Against the offence which it has pleased Tholuck (Glaubw. s. 41)
to take at this expression (Verwischen), comp. the Aphorismen zur
Apologie des Dr. Strauss und seines Werkes, s. 69 f.
[1866] L. J. 1, b, s. 165 f.
[1867] Vom Zweck J. und seiner Jünger, s. 124.
[1868] 2, s. 588 f.
[1869] Ut sup.
[1870] Vid. Lücke, in loc.; Hase, L. J., § 135.
[1871] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 567.
[1872] Lücke, 2, s. 599; Hase, ut sup.; Olshausen, 2. s. 435.
[1873] How can Lücke explain the omission of the kiss of Judas in the
Gospel of John from its having been too notorious a fact? and how can
he adduce as an analogous instance the omission of the transaction
between the betrayer and the Sanhedrim by John? for this, as something
passing behind the scenes, might very well be left out, but by no means
an incident which, like that kiss, happened so conspicuously in the
foreground and centre of the scene.
[1874] So says the Jew of Celsus, Orig. c. Cels. ii. 9: ἐπειδὴ ἡμεῖς
ἐλέγξαντες αὐτὸν καὶ καταγνόντες ἠστιοῦμεν κολάζεσθαι, κρυπτόμενος μὲν
καὶ διαδιδράσκων ἐπονειδιστότατα ἑάλω. When we, having convicted and
condemned him, had determined that he should suffer punishment;
concealing himself, and endeavouring to escape, he experienced a most
shameful capture.
[1875] Lücke, 2, s. 597 f.; Olshausen, 2, s. 435; Tholuck, s. 299. The
reference to the murderer of Coligny is, however, unwarranted, as any
one will find who will look into the book incorrectly cited by Tholuck:
Serrani commentatorium de statu religionis et reip. in regno Galliæ, L.
x. p. 32, b. The murderer was not in the least withheld from the
prosecution of his design by the firmness of the noble old man. Comp.
also Schiller, Werke, 16 Bd. s. 382 f., 384; Ersch and Gruber’s
Encyclopädie, 7 Band, s. 452 f. Such inaccuracies in the department of
modern history cannot indeed excite surprise in a writer who elsewhere
(Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 437) speaks of the duke of Orleans, Louis
Philippe’s father, as the brother of Louis XVI. How can a knowledge so
diversified as that of Dr. Tholuck be always quite accurate.
[1876] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 570.
[1877] Ibid.
[1878] As Lücke, Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.
[1879] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 290.
[1880] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 576.
[1881] Paulus, ut sup. s. 577; Olshausen, 2, s. 244.
[1882] Thus e.g. Erasmus, in loc.
[1883] Thus Winer, N. T. Gramm., § 41, 5; Tholuck and Lücke, in loc.
[1884] Winer, Gramm., § 57, 4.
[1885] Thus Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 295.
[1886] Schleiermacher, ut sup.; comp. Fritzsche, in loc. Matth.
[1887] Vol. II. § 67. Vol. III. § 114.
[1888] Ut sup.
[1889] Matthew does not mention the blindfolding, and appears to
imagine that Jesus named the person who maltreated him, whom he saw,
but did not otherwise know.
[1890] Vid. Gesenius, in loc.
[1891] Matth. xxvi. 63; comp. Mark xiv. 61: ὁ δὲ Ἰ. ἐσιώπα.
Matth. xxvii. 12: οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο.
Matth. xxvii. 14; comp. Mark xv. 5: καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲ
ἓν ῥῆμα, ὥστε θαυμάζειν τὸν ἡγεμόνα λίαν.
Luke xxiii. 9: αὐτὸς δὲ οὐδὲν ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ.
John xix. 9: ὁ δὲ Ἰ. ἀπόκρισιν οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ.
[1892] Vol. II. § 74.
[1893] Thus Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 289; Olshausen, 2, s.
445.
[1894] Thus Paulus, ut sup. s. 577 f.
[1895] Comp. Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 1, s. 609.
[1896] Bengel, in the Gnomon.
[1897] Paulus, ut sup. s. 578.
[1898] Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 2, s. 343.
[1899] Paulus and Olshausen, in loc.; Schleiermacher, ut sup. 289;
Neander, s. 622, Anm.
[1900] Comp. de Wette, in loc.
[1901] Thesaurus, vid. ἀπάνχω.
[1902] Grotius.
[1903] Heinsius.
[1904] Perizonius.
[1905] Thus the Vulgate and Erasmus. See in opposition to all these
interpretations, Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 473 ff.
[1906] Œcumenius, on the Acts, I.: ὁ Ἰούδας οὐκ ἐναπέθανε τῇ ἀνχόνῃ,
ἀλλ’ ἐπεβίω, κατενεχθεὶς πρὸ τοῦ ἀποπνιγῆναι. Comp. Theophylact, on
Matth. xxvii. and a Schol. Ἀπολιναρίου ap. Matthæi.
[1907] Thus, after Casaubon, Paulus, 3, b, s. 457 f.; Kuinöl, in Matth.
747 f.; Winer, b. Realw. Art. Judas, and with some indecision
Olshausen, 2, s. 455 f. Even Fritzsche is become so weary on the long
way to these last chapters of Matthew, that he contents himself with
this reconciliation, and, on the presupposition of it, maintains that
the two accounts concur amicissime.
[1908] 2 Band, 2 Stück, s. 248 f.
[1909] L. J., § 132. Comp. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 33.
[1910] Vid. Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 748.
[1911] Vid. Schmidt’s Biblioth., ut sup. s. 251 f.
[1912] Paulus, 3, b, s. 457 f.; Fritzsche, p. 799.
[1913] Vid. De Wette, in loc.
[1914] In other parts of the N. T. also we find passages from this
psalm messianically applied: as v. 4, John xv. 25, v. 9; John ii. 17;
and John xix. 28 f., probably v. 21.
[1915] Still for other conjectures see Kuinöl, in loc.
[1916] § 119.
[1917] Hitzig, in Ullmann’s and Umbreit’s Studien, 1830, 1, s. 35;
Gesenius, Wörterbuch; comp. Rosenmüller’s Scholia in V. T. 7, 4, s. 320
ff.
[1918] Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.: Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et
ipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus, Cæsari tum Tiberio nunciavit.
c. v.: Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Christianum in seculum
introit, annunciatum sibi ex Syria Palæstina, quod illic veritatem
illius Divinitatis revelaverat, detulit ad Senatum cum prærogativa
suffragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. For further
details on this subject, see Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. 1, p. 214
ff., 298 ff.; comp. 2, p. 505.
[1919] Œcumen. ad Act. i.: τοῦτο δὲ σαφέστερον ἱστορεῖ Παπίας, ὁ
Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου μαθητής· μέγα ἀσεβείας ὑπόδειγμα ἐν τούτῳ τῷ
κόσμῳ περιεπάτησεν Ἰούδας. Πρησθεὶς γὰρ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τὴν σάρκα, ὥστε μὴ
δύνασθαι διελθεῖν, ἁμάζης ῥᾳδίως διερχομένης, ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμάξης ἐπίεσθη,
ὥστε τὰ ἔνκατα αὐτοῦ ἐκκενωθῆναι.
[1920] Vid. sup.
[1921] In Münter’s Fragm. Patr. 1, p. 17 ff. For the rest the passage
is of very similar tenor with that of Œcumenius, and is partly an
exaggeration of it: τοῦτο δὲ σαφέστερον ἱστορεῖ Παπίας, ὁ Ἰωάννου
μαθητὴς, λέγων οὔτως ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ τῆς ἐξηγήσεως τῶν κυριακῶν λόγων·
μέγα δὲ ἀσεβείας ὑπόδειγμα έν τούτῳ τῷ κόσμῳ περιεπάτησεν ὁ Ἰούδας·
πρησθεὶς ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τὴν σάρκα, ὥστε μηδὲ ὁπόθεν ἃμαξα ῥᾳδίως
δίερχεται, ἐκεῖνον δύνασθαι διελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ αὐτὸν μόνον τὸν ὄνκον
τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ· τὰ μὲν γὰρ βλέφαρα τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ (Cod. Venet.:
φασὶ τοσοῦτον ἐξοιδῆσαι, ὡς αὐτὸν μὲν καθόλου τὸ φῶς μὴ βλέπειν) μηδὲ
ὑπὸ ἰατροῦ δίοπτρας ὀφθῆναι κ.τ.λ. Μετὰ πολλὰς δὲ βασάνους καὶ τιμωρίας
ἐν ἰδίῳ, φασὶ, χωρίω τελευτήσαντος κ.τ.λ.. Papias, the disciple of
John, gives a clearer account of this (in the fourth section of his
exegesis of our Lord’s words) as follows: Judas moved about in this
world a terrible example of impiety, being swollen in body to such a
degree that where a chariot could easily pass he was not able to find a
passage, even for the bulk of his head. His eyelids, they say, were so
swelled out that he could not see the light, nor could his eyes be made
visible even by the physician’s dioptra, etc. After suffering many
torments and judgments, dying, as they say, in his own field, etc.
[1922] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 231 f.; 1, 4, s. 10 f.
[1923] According to Babl. Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 486, this mode
of procedure would have been illegal. It is there said: Judicia de
capitalibus finiunt eodem die si sint ad absolutionem; si vero sini ad
damnationem, finiuntur die sequente.
[1924] Besides this passage of John: ἡμὶν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι
οὐδένα, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, there is no
other authority for the existence of this state of things than an
obscure and variously interpreted tradition, Avoda Zara f. viii. 2
(Lightfoot, p. 1123 f.): Rabh Cahna dicit, cum ægrotaret R. Ismaël bar
Jose, miserunt ad eum, dicentes: dic nobi, ô Domine, duo aut tria, quæ
aliquando dixisti nobis nomine patris tui. Dicit iis —— quadraginta
annis ante excidium templi migravit Synedrium et sedit in tabernis.
Quid sibi vult hæc traditio? Rabh Isaac, bar Abdimi dicit: non
judicârunt judicia mulctativa. Dixit R. Nachman bar Isaac: ne dicat,
quod non judicârunt judicia mulctativa, sed quod non judicârunt judicia
capitalia. With this may be compared moreover the information given by
Josephus, Antiq. xx. ix. 1, that it was not lawful for Ananus (the high
priest) to assemble the Sanhedrim without the consent of the
procurator. On the other hand the execution of Stephen (Acts vii.)
without the sanction of the Romans might seem to speak to the contrary;
but this was a tumultuary act, undertaken perhaps in the confidence
that Pilate was absent. Compare on this point Lücke, 2, s. 631 ff.
[1925] De bell. Jud. II. ix. 3.
[1926] As Lücke supposes, s. 631.
[1927] Calvin, in loc.
[1928] Lücke and Tholuck, in loc.
[1929] Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 252.
[1930] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 291.
[1931] Dial. cum Tryph. 103.
[1932] It is doubted whether this custom, of which we should have known
nothing but for the N. T., was of Roman or Jewish origin; comp.
Fritzsche and Paulus, in loc, and Baur, über die ursprungliche
Bedeutung des Passahfestes, u. s. f., Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1832, 1,
s. 94.
[1933] According to one reading, the full name of this man was Jesus
Barabbas, which we mention here merely because Olshausen finds it
“remarkable.” Bar Abba meaning Son of the father, Olshausen exclaims:
All that was essential in the Saviour appears in the murderer as
caricature! and he quotes as applicable to this case the verse: ludit
in humanis divina potentia rebus. For our own part, we can only see in
this idea of Olshausen’s a lusus humanæ impotentiæ.
[1934] In the Evang. Nicodemi and in later ecclesiastical historians
she is called Procula Πρόκλη. Comp. Thilo. Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 522,
Paulus, exeg. Handb., 2, b, s. 640 f.
[1935] Cap. II. s. 520, ap. Thilo.
[1936] Ignat. ad Philippens. iv.: φοβεῖ δὲ τὸ γύναιον, ἐν ὀνείροις αὐτὸ
καταταράττων καὶ παύειν πειρᾶται τὰ κατὰ τὸν σταυρόν. (The devil)
terrifies the woman, troubling her in her dreams, and endeavours to put
a stop to the things of the cross. The Jews in the Evang. Nicodemi, c.
II. p. 524, explain the dream as a result of the magic arts of Jesus:
γόης ἐστι—ἰδοὺ ὀνειρόπεμπτα ἔπεμψε πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκά σου, He is a
magician—see, he has sent messages in a dream to thy wife.
[1937] E.g. Theophylact, vid. Thilo, p. 523.
[1938] Vid. Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. They especially adduce the dream
of Cæsar’s wife the night before his assassination.
[1939] Comp. Sota, viii 6.
[1940] Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 808.
[1941] Comp. in particular the passages cited by Wetstein, on Matth.
xxvii. 26.
[1942] Paulus, ut sup. s. 647.
[1943] From the explanation of Paulus, s. 649 f., it appears highly
probable that the στέφανος ἐξ ἀκανθῶν was not a crown of sharp thorns,
but one taken from the nearest hedge, in order to deride Jesus by the
vilissima corona, spineola (Plin. H. N. xxi. 10).
[1944] A similar disguising of a man, in derision of a third party, is
adduced by Wetstein, (p. 533 f.) from Philo, in Flaccum.
[1945] Thus Paulus, Kuinöl, Tholuck and Olshausen in their
Commentaries; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 634.
[1946] Fritzsche, in Marc. 684: Significat Joannes, Jesum suam crucem
portavisse, donec ad Calvariæ locum pervenisset.
[1947] Joseph., Antiq. xiv. vii. 2.
[1948] It is used in the former way by Grotius; in the latter, by
Olshausen, 2. s. 481.
[1949] Comp. Paulus, Fritzsche, and De Wette, in loc.
[1950] Vid. Paulus and Fritzsche, in loc. Winer, bibl. Realw. art.
Golgotha.
[1951] Wassenbergh, Diss. de trajectionibus N. T. in Balcknaer’s scholæ
in 11. quosdam N. T. 2, p. 31.
[1952] Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 295; Winer, N. T.
Gramm., s. 226, and Fritzsche, in Matt., p. 814.
[1953] Apol. i. 35. Dial. c. Tryph. xcvii.
[1954] Christologie des A. T. 1, a, s. 182 ff.
[1955] Paulus, exeg. Handbuch 3, b, s. 669–754; Bähr, in Tholuck’s
liter. Anzeiger für christl. Theol. 1835, No. 1–6. Comp. also Neander,
L. J. Chr., s. 636, Anm.
[1956] Adv. Marcion, iii. 19.
[1957] Mostellaria, ii. 1.
[1958] Vid. Kuinöl, Paulus, in loc.
[1959] Sanhedrim, f. xliii. 1, ap. Wetstein, p. 635: Dixit R. Chaja, f.
R. Ascher, dixisse R. Chasdam: exeunti, ut capite plectatur, dant
bibendum granum turis in poculo vini, ut alienetur mens ejus, sec. d.
Prov. xxxi. 6: date siceram pereunti et vinum amaris anima.
[1960] Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.
[1961] Comp. Paulas, in loc.
[1962] Thus Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 710 f.; Tholuck, s. 316.
[1963] Comp. also Bleek, Comm. zum Hebräerbrief, 2, s. 312, Anm.; De
Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 198.
[1964] Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 710.
[1965] Olshausen, p. 484; Neander, s. 637.
[1966] Thus Chrysostom and others.
[1967] Beza and Grotius.
[1968] Paulus, s. 763; Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 143; Fritzsche, in
Matth., p. 817.
[1969] Vid. Thilo, Cod. apocr. 1, s. 143. Further apocryphal
information concerning the two malefactors crucified with Jesus is to
be found in the evang. infant. arab. c. xxiii. ap. Thilo, p. 92 f.;
comp. the note p. 143; in the evang. Nicod. c. ix. 10, Thilo, p. 581
ff.; c. xxvi. p. 766 ff.
[1970] Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.
[1971] Confessio Judæi ægroti, ap. Wetstein, p. 820:—da portionem meam
in horto Edenis, et memento mei in seculo futuro, quod absconditum est
justis. Other passages are given, ib., p. 819.
[1972] Cetuboth, f. ciii. ap. Wetstein, p. 819: Quo die Rabbi moriturus
erat, venit vox de cœlo, dixitque: qui præsens aderit morienti Rabbi,
ille intrabit in paradisum.
[1973] Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Matth.
[1974] Quoted in Wetstein, p. 536; compare, however, the correction of
the text in Paulus, ex. handb. 3, b, s. 751.
[1975] Tholuck, in loc.
[1976] E. G. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 36, Anm. 13.
[1977] Expositors observe in connexion with this particular, that the
coat of the Jewish high priest was also of this kind. Jos. Antiq. iii.
vii. 4—The same view of the above difference nas been already presented
in the Probabilia, p. 80 f.
[1978] Apol. i. 35.
[1979] Adv. Marcion, ut sup.
[1980] Justin, Apol. i. 50, and elsewhere, even speaks of apostacy and
denial on the part of all the disciples after the crucifixion.
[1981] Vid. Calvin, Comm. in harm. evv. in Matth. xxvii. 46; Olshausen,
in loc.
[1982] Thus Paulus, Gratz, in loc. Schleiermacher, Glaubenslehre, 2, s.
154, Anm.
[1983] Such is the inference drawn by the author of the Wolfenbüttel
Fragments, von Zweck Jesu und seiner Jünger, s. 153.
[1984] Schneckenburger, Beiträge, s. 66 f.
[1985] According to Olshausen, s. 495, there is no syllable in this
speech by which such a meaning is intimated; on the contrary, a secret
horror had already diffused itself over the minds of the scoffers, and
they trembled at the thought that Elias might appear in the storm. But
when one who attempts to give a beverage to Jesus is dissuaded under
the pretext of waiting to see if Elias would come to save him, εἰ
ἔρχεται Ἠλίας, σώσων αὐτὸν, this pretext is plainly enough shown to be
meant in derision, and hence the horror and trembling belong only to
the unscientific animus of the biblical commentator, which makes him
contemplate the history of the passion above all else, as a mysterium
tremendum, and causes him to discover even in Pilate a depth of feeling
which is nowhere attributed to this Roman in the gospels.
[1986] Credner, Einleitung in das N. T. 1, s. 198.
[1987] Thus Rettig, exegetische Analekten, in Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s
Studien, 1830, 1, s. 106 ff.; Tholuck, Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 307 ff.;
comp. on the various attempts at reconciliation Lücke and De Wette, in
loc. Joh.
[1988] The Evang. Nicodemi makes the Jews very absurdly maintain: there
happened an eclipse of the sun in the ordinary course ἔκλειψις ἡλίου
γέγονε κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός, c. xi. p. 592, ap. Thilo.
[1989] Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 143; Neander, L.
J. Chr. s. 639 f.
[1990] Comp. Fritzsche and De Wette, in loc. Matth.
[1991] Tertull. Apologet. c. xxi.; Orig. c. Cels. ii. 33, 59.
[1992] Euseb. can. chron. ad. Ol. 202, Anm. 4; comp. Paulus, s. 765 ff.
[1993] Serv. ad Virgil. Georg. i. 465 ff.: Constat, occiso Cæsare in
Senatu pridie Idus Martias, solis fuisse defectum ab hora sexta usque
ad noctem.
[1994] Echa R. iii. 28.
[1995] R. Bechai Cod. Hakkema: Cum insignis Rabbinus fato concederet,
dixit quidam: iste dies gravis est Israëli, ut cum sol occidit ipso
meridie.
[1996] Succa, f. xxix. 1: Dixerunt doctores: quatuor de causis sol
deficit: prima, ob patrem domus judicii mortuum, cui exequiæ non fiunt
ut decet, etc.
[1997] Vid. Fritzsche, in loc.; comp. also De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1,
s. 238; Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 36.
[1998] Hieron. ad Hedib. ep. cxlix. 8 (comp. his Comm. in loc.): In
evangelio autem, quod hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non
velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi miræ magnitudinis
corruisse.
[1999] The possibility of this is admitted by Neander also, but with
the presupposition of some fact as a groundwork (s. 640 f.).
[2000] Ueber den Lukas, s. 293. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 1, s.
240.
[2001] Georg. i. 463 ff.
[2002] When Hase, § 143, writes: “The earth trembled, mourning for her
greatest Son,” we see how the historian in speaking of this feature,
which he maintains to be historical, involuntarily becomes a poet; and
when in the second edition the author qualifies the phrase by the
addition of an “as it were:” it is further evident that his historical
conscience had not failed to reproach him for the license.
[2003] Only such must be here thought of, and not sectatores Christi,
as Kuinöl maintains. In the Evang. Nicodemi, c. xvii., there are indeed
adherents of Jesus, namely, Simeon (Luke ii.) and his two sons, among
those who come to life on this occasion; but the majority in this
apocryphal book also, and as well in the ἀναφορὰ Πιλάτου (Thilo, p.
810), according to Epiphanius, orat. in sepulchrum Chr. 275, Ignat. ad
Magnes. IX. and others (comp. Thilo, p. 780 ff.), are Old Testament
persons, as Adam and Eve, the patriarchs and prophets.
[2004] Comp. the various opinions in Thilo, p. 783 f.
[2005] Comp. especially Eichhorn, Einl. in d. N. T. 1, s. 446 ff.
[2006] Stroth, von Interpolationen im Evang. Matth. In Eichhorn’s
Repertorium, 9, s. 139. It is hardly a preferable expedient to regard
the passage as an addition of the Greek translator. See Kern, Ueber den
Urspr. des Evang. Matth. s. 25 and 100.
[2007] Thus Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc. The latter calls this
explanation a mythical one.
[2008] Leben Jesu, § 148.
[2009] Ueber den Urspr. s. 67.
[2010] Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s. 798.
[2011] Dial. c. Tryph. cxiii.
[2012] See the collection of passages relative to this subject in
Schöttgen, 2, p. 570 ff.; and in Bertholdt’s Christologia, § 35.
[2013] See the passages collected by Wetstein.
[2014] See this idea further developed in the Evang. Nicod. c. xviii.
ff.
[2015] The instances are collected in Paulus, exeg. Handb., 3, b. s.
781 ff.; Winer, bibl. Realwörterb. 1, s. 672 ff.; and Hase, § 144.
[2016] According to Tertullian by the former, according to Grotius by
the latter; see Paulus, s. 784, Anm.
[2017] Thus Gruner and others ap. Paulus, s. 782 ff.; Hase, ut sup.;
Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 647.
[2018] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 36: τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων νεκρῶν σωμάτων τὸ αἷμα
πήγνυται, καὶ ὕδωρ καθαρὸν οὐκ ἀποῤῥει· τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν νεκροῦ
σώματος τὸ παράδοξον, καὶ περὶ τὸ νεκρὸν σῶμα ἦν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τῶν
πλευρῶν προχυθέν. Comp. Euthymius in loc. ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἄν
μυριάκις νύξῃ τις, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. ὑπερφυὲς τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ
τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅπι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγείς.
[2019] Schuster, in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 9, s. 1036 ff.
[2020] Gruner, Comm. de morte J. Chr. vera, p. 47; Tholuck, Comm. z.
Joh. s. 318.
[2021] Comp. Hase, ut sup.
[2022] Winer, ut sup.
[2023] Comp. the similar statement of an anatomist in De Wette, in loc.
and Tholuck ut sup.
[2024] Wetstein and Olshausen, in loc.; comp. Hase, ut sup.
[2025] Lücke, in loc.
[2026] Thus Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 95 f.; Tholuck, in loc.
According to Weisse (die evang. Gesch. 1, s. 102, 2, s. 237 ff.) the
Evangelist referred to a passage of the apostolic epistle, under a
misapprehension of its meaning, namely, to 1 John v. 6: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ
ἐλθὼν δὶ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰ. ὁ Χρ.· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἐν
τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι.
[2027] Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.
[2028] Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. 7, 4, p. 340.
[2029] Vid. ap. Rosenmüller, in loc.; Schöttgen, 2, p. 221; Bertholdt,
§ 17, not. 12.
[2030] Comp. Joseph, b. j. iv. v. 2. Sanhedrin, vi. 5, ap. Lightfoot,
p. 499.
[2031] Vid. Lipsius, de cruce, L. II. cap. 14.
[2032] Comp. Winer, 1, s. 802.
[2033] Sanhedrin, ap. Lightfoot, p. 499.
[2034] Ulpian, xlviii. 24, 1 ff.
[2035] Vol. II. § 80.
[2036] Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 68 ff.
[2037] Thus Grotius; Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 165.
[2038] See the fifth Fragment, in Lessing’s viertem Beitrag zur
Geschichte und Literatur, s. 467 f. Comp. concerning these differences
also Lessing’s Duplik.
[2039] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 102 ff.
[2040] Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 721.
[2041] Thus Tholuck, in loc.
[2042] See the Fragments, ut sup. s. 469 ff.
[2043] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 99 f.; Kuinöl and Lücke leave open the
choice between this expedient and the former.
[2044] Comp. De Wette, in loc. Matth.
[2045] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 45 ff.
[2046] Kuinöl, in Matth. p. 786; Hase, § 145; Tholuck, Comm. s. 320.
[2047] A confusion of the κῆπος garden near to the place of execution,
where according to John Jesus was buried, with the garden of
Gethsemane, where he was taken prisoner, appears to have given rise to
the statement of the Evang. Nicodemi, that Jesus was crucified ἐν τῷ
κήπῳ, ὅπου ἐπιάσθη in the garden where he was apprehended, C. ix. p.
580, ap. Thilo.
[2048] Τῇ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν (the next day, that
followed the day of the preparation), is certainly a singular
periphrasis for the sabbath, for it is a strangely inappropriate mode
of expression to designate a solemn day, as the day after the previous
day: nevertheless we must abide by this meaning so long as we are
unable to evade it in a more natural manner than Schneckenburger in his
chronology of the Passion week, Beiträge, s. 3 ff.
[2049] The former, ut sup. s. 437 ff.; the latter in the exeg. Handb.
3, b, s. 837 ff. Comp. Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 253.
[2050] Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 206;
Olshausen 2, s. 506.
[2051] Michaelis, ut sup.
[2052] Olshausen overlooks the latter point when he (ut sup.) says the
watch had not received the command to prevent the completion of the
interment.
[2053] Olshausen indeed is here still so smitten with awe, that he
supposes Pilate to have been penetrated with an indescribable feeling
of dread on hearing this communication from the Sanhedrists, s. 505.
[2054] Olshausen, s. 506.
[2055] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 198 f.
[2056] Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, 9, s. 141.
[2057] Kern, über den Ursprung des Ev. Matth. Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834,
2, s. 100 f.; comp. 123. Compare my Review, Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik,
Nov. 1834; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritiken, s. 280.
[2058] Hase, L. J., § 145.
[2059] Comp. Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch.
2, s. 343 f.
[2060] Comp. Theile, ut sup.
[2061] Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s.
102 f.
[2062] Kuinöl, in Marc. p. 194 f.
[2063] Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.
[2064] Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62
f. Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’s viertem Beitrag, s.
472 ff. On the other hand, Lessing’s Duplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6.
Thl. s. 394 f.
[2065] De Wette, in loc.
[2066] Michaelis, s. 150 ff.
[2067] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.
[2068] Michaelis, s. 117.
[2069] Michaelis, s. 146.—Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting
the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean
different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the
stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to
the women, c. Cels. v. 56.
[2070] Paulus, in loc. Matth.
[2071] I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477
f.)
“1. Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave, ἔδραμεν. John xx. 4:
Peter and John ran, ἔτρεχον.
2. Luke v. 12: Peter looked in, παρακύψας. John v. 5: John looked
in, παρακύψας.
3. Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone, βλέπει τὰ ὀθόνια
κείμενα μόνα. John v. 6, 7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the
napkin not lying with the clothes: θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, καὶ
τὸ σουδάριον οὐ μετά τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον.
4. Luke v. 12: Peter went home, ἀπῆλθε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν. John v. 10:
Peter and John went home again, ἀπῆλθον πάλιν πρὸς ἑαυτούς.”
[2072] Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 800 f.
[2073] Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistæ suas de resurrectione
Domini narrationes hauserint. Opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, Vol. 2, p. 241
ff.
[2074] Comp. Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 64 f., Anm.
[2075] On this subject comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 245;
Ammon, Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, 2, 1, s. 6;
Theile, zur Biogr. Jesu, § 37.
[2076] Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321 f.; Schneckenburger, ut sup.
s. 61 ff.
[2077] Vol. II. § 74.
[2078] Concerning this sense of ἐπίστευσεν, and its not being
contradicted by οὔπω γὰρ ἤδεισαν τὴν γραφὴν κ.τ.λ. (v. 9), see the
correct view in Lücke, in loc.
[2079] Weisse is of a different opinion, ut sup. s. 355, Anm.
[2080] As Paulus, Fritzsche, Credner, Einleitung, 1, § 49. Comp. De
Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 2, s. 199 f. A middle view in Hug, Einl. in d.
N. T. 2, § 69.
[2081] Orig. c. Cels. v. 52: ὁ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς, ὡς ἕοικεν. οὐκ
ἐδύνατο ἁνοῖζαι τὸν τάφον, ἁλλα’ ἑδεήθη ἄλλου ἀποκινήσοντος τὴν πέτραν.
[2082] Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1034 ff.: Kuinöl,
in Matth., p. 779.
[2083] Friedrich, über die Engel in der Auferstehungsgeschichte. In
Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 6, s. 700 ff. Kuinöl, ut sup.
[2084] Thus a treatise in Eichhorn’s allg. Bibl. 8, s. 629 ff., and in
Schmidt’s Bibl. 2, s. 545 f.; also Bauer, hebr. Myth. 5, s. 259.
[2085] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 829, 55, 60, 62.
[2086] Fritzsche, in Marc. in loc., Nemo—quispiam primi temporis
Christianis tam dignus videri poterat, qui de Messia in vitam reverso
nuntium ad homines perferret, quam angelus, Dei minister, divinorumque
consiliorum interpres et adjutor. Then on the differences in relation
to the number of the angels, etc.: Nimirum insperato Jesu Messiæ in
vitam reditui miracula adjecere alii alia, quæ Evangelistæ religiose,
quemadmodum ab suis auctoribus acceperant, literis mandârunt.
[2087] Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.
[2088] In Lessing’s Beiträgen, ut sup. s. 485.
[2089] Michaelis, s. 259 f.; Kuinöl, in Luc., p. 743.
[2090] Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 299 f.; Paulus, s. 910.
[2091] Ut sup. s. 486.
[2092] Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik des N. T., mit Anwendung
auf die Leidens- und Auferstehungsgeschichte Christi, herausgegeben von
Steiner, s. 314.
[2093] Duplik, Werke, 6 Bd. s. 352.
[2094] Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 17
f.
[2095] Exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 835.
[2096] Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 524.
[2097] This is done by Schulz, über das Abendm. s. 321;
Schneckenburger, ut sup.
[2098] On which account Michaelis, s. 118 f., is of opinion that εἶπεν
was the original reading in Matthew also. Comp. Weisse, die Evang.
Gesch. 2, s. 347 f.
[2099] Vol. I. § 57.
[2100] The opinion that the true locality of the appearances of the
risen Jesus before the disciples was Galilee, is concurred in by
Weisse, 2, s. 358 ff.; but in accordance with his fundamental
supposition concerning the synoptical gospels, he gives the preference
to the narrative of Mark before that of Matthew.
[2101] Vid Billroth’s Commentar, in loc.
[2102] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 897; Olshausen, 2, s. 541.
[2103] Hieron. de viris illustr. ii.: Evangelium quoque, quod
appellatur secundum Hebræos,—post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert:
Dominus autem, postquam dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis (apparently
in relation to the watch at the grave, which is here represented as a
sacerdotal instead of a Roman guard; vid. Credner, Beiträge zur Einl.
in das N. T. s. 406 f.), ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim
Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab illa hora, qua biberat calicem
Domini, donec videret eum resurgentum a dormientibus (on the
inconceivableness of such a vow, despairing as the disciples were,
comp. Michaelis, s. 122). Rursusque post paululum: Afferte, ait
Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur Tulit panem et benedixit ac
fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo et dixit ei: frater mi, comede panem
tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus.
[2104] Lessing, Duplik, s. 449 ff.
[2105] As Kern admits, Hauptthats. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, s. 57.
[2106] Hauptthatsachen, ut sup. s. 47.
[2107] Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, s. 205, 210; Weisse, die
evang. Gesch. 2, s. 409.
[2108] Comp. Kaiser, bidl. Theol. 1, s. 254 ff.; De Wette ut sup.;
Ammon, Fortbildung, 2, 1, Kap. 1; Weisse, die Evang. Gesch., 2, 7 tes
Buch.
[2109] That it was the marks of the nails in the hand, which became
visible in the act of breaking bread, by which Jesus was recognized
(Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 882; Kuinöl, in Luc. p. 734.) is without
any intimation in the text.
[2110] The part of this conversation which relates to John, has already
(§ 116) been considered. In that relating to Peter, the thrice repeated
question of Jesus: Lovest thou me? has reference, according to the
ordinary opinion, to his as often repeated denial; but to the words:
When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou
wouldest, but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy
hands, and another shalt gird thee, and carry thee whither thou
wouldest not, ὅτε ἦς νεώτερος, ἐζώννυες σεαυτὸν καὶ περιεπάτεις ὅπου
ἤθελες· ὅταν δὲ γηράσῃς, ἐκτενεῖς τὰς χεῖράς σου καὶ ἅλλος σε ζὼσει καὶ
οἴσει ὄπου οὐ θέλεις (v. 18 f.), the Evangelist himself gives the
interpretation, that Jesus spoke them to Peter, signifying by what
death he should glorify God. He must here have alluded to the
crucifixion, which, according to the ecclesiastical legend (Tertull. de
præescr. hæer. xxxvi. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) was the death suffered by
this apostle, and to which in the intention of the Evangelist the words
Follow me, v. 20 and 22 (i.e. follow me in the same mode of death) also
appear to point. But precisely the main feature in this interpretation,
the stretching forth of the hands, is here so placed as to render a
reference to crucifixion impossible, namely, before the leading away
against the will; on the other hand, the girding, which can only
signify binding for the purpose of leading away, should stand before
the stretching forth of the hands on the cross. If we set aside the
interpretation which, as even Lücke (s. 703) admits, is given to the
words of Jesus ex eventu by the narrator: they appear to contain
nothing more than the commonplace of the helplessness of age contrasted
with the activity of youth, for even the phrase, shall carry thee
whither thou wouldest not, does not outstep this comparison. But the
author of John xxi., whether the words were known to him as a
declaration of Jesus or otherwise, thought them capable of being
applied in the manner of the fourth gospel, as a latent prophecy of the
crucifixion of Peter.
[2111] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 834 ff.; L. J. 1, b. s. 265 ff.;
Ammon, ut sup.; Hase, L. J. § 149; Michaelis, ut sup., s. 251 f. Comp.
also Neander, L. J. Chr. s. 650.
[2112] Tholuck, in loc., comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 866, 881.
A similar natural explanation has lately been adopted by Lücke, from
Hug.
[2113] Paulus, ut sup. s. 882.
[2114] Paulus, ut sup. 883, 93; Lücke, 2, s. 684 f.
[2115] Calvin, Comm. in Joh. in loc., p. 363 f. ed. Tholuck.
[2116] Thus Suicer, Thes. s. v. θύρα; comp. Michaelis, s. 265.
[2117] Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.
[2118] Griesbach, Vorlesungen über Hermeneutik, s. 305; Paulus, s. 835.
Comp. Lücke, 2, s. 683 ff.
[2119] Vid. Tholuck and De Wette, in loc.
[2120] Comp. Olshausen, 2, s. 531, Anm.
[2121] Thus, besides Calvin, Lücke, ut sup.; Olshausen, 530 f.
[2122] Olshausen, ut sup. s. 530.
[2123] Comp. Fritzsche, in Marc. p. 725.
[2124] See the various explanations in Tholuck and Lücke, of whom the
latter finds an alteration of the reading necessary. Even Weisse’s
interpretation of the words (2, s. 395 ff.), although I agree with the
general tenor of the explanation of which it forms a part, I must
regard as a failure.
[2125] Comp. on this subject especially Weisse, ut sup. s. 339 ff.
[2126] Brennecke, biblischer Beweis, dass Jesus nach seiner
Auferstehung noch 27 Jahre leibhaftig auf Erden gelebt, und zum Wohle
der Menschheit in der Stille fortgewirkt habe. 1819.
[2127] Ut sup. s. 793, 925. Comp. Briefe über den Rationalismus, s.
240.
[2128] Noch etwas über die Frage: warum haben die Apostel Matthäus und
Johannes nicht ebenso wie die zwei Evangelisten Markus und Lukas die
Himmelfahrt ausdrücklich erzählt? In Süskind’s Magazin, 17, s. 165 ff.
[2129] Joann. Damasc. de f. orth. 4, 1: εἰ καὶ ἐγεύσατο βρώσεως μετὰ
τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ νόμῳ φύσευως· οὐ γὰρ ἐπείνασεν· οἰκονομίας δὲ
τρόπῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς πιστούμενος τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ
παθοῦσα καὶ ἀναστᾶσα.
[2130] The vagueness of the conception which lies at the foundation of
the evangelical accounts is well expressed by Origen, when he says of
Jesus: καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς
παχύτητος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος, καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτον σώματος
φαίνεσθαι ψυχὴν. After the resurrection, he existed in a form which
held the mean between the materiality of his body before his passion,
and the state of the soul when altogether destitute of such body (c.
Cels. ii. 62).
[2131] Hence even Kern admits that he knows not how to reconcile that
particular in Luke with the rest, and regards it as of later,
traditional origin (Hauptthats., ut sup. s. 50). But what does this
admission avail him, since he still has, from the narrative of John,
the quality of palpability, which equally with the act of eating
belongs to the “conditions of earthly life, the relations of the
material world,” to which the body of the risen Jesus, according to
Kern’s own presupposition, “was no longer subjected”?
[2132] Many fathers of the church and orthodox theologians held the
capability thus exhibited by Jesus of penetrating through closed doors,
not altogether reconcileable with the representation, that for the
purpose of the resurrection the stone was rolled away from the grave,
and hence maintained: resurrexit Christus clauso sepulchro, sive nondum
ab ostio sepulchri revoluto per angelum lapide. Quenstedt, theol.
didact. polem. 3, p. 542.
[2133] Comp. Schleiermacher’s Weihnachtsfeier, s. 117 f.
[2134] Joseph. vita, 75: πεμφθεὶς δὲ ὑπὸ Τίτου Καίσαρος σὺν Κερεαλίῳ
καὶ χιλίοις ἱππεῦσιν εἰς κώμην τινὰ Θεκώαν λεγομένην, πρὸς κατανόησιν,
εἰ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος ἐστι χάρακα δέξασθαι, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ὑποστρέφων εἶδον
πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀνεσταυρωμένους, καὶ τρεῖς γνωρίσας συνήθεις μοὶ
γενομένους, ἤλγησα τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ μετὰ δακρύων προσελθὼν Τίτῳ εἴπον. Ὁ
δ’ εὐθὺς ἐκέλευσεν καθαιρεθέντας αὐτοὺς θεραπείας ἐπιμελεστάτης τυχεῖν.
καὶ οἱ μὲν δύο τελευτῶσιν θεραπευόμενοι, ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν. And when I
was sent by Titus Cæsar with Cerealius and 1,000 horsemen, to a certain
village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for
a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered
three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my
mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so
he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the
greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of
them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered. For
the arguments of Paulus on this passage, see exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 786;
and in the Appendix, s. 929 ff.
[2135] Bretschneider, über den angeblichen Scheintod Jesu am Kreuze, in
Ullmann’s und Umbreit’s Studien, 1832, 3, s. 625 ff.; Hug, Beiträge zur
Geschichte des Verfahrens bei der Todesstrafe der Kreuzigung,
Freiburger Zeitschr. 7, s. 144 ff.
[2136] Bahrdt, Ausführung des Plans und Zwecks Jesu. Comp. on the other
hand, Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, 793 f.
[2137] Xenodoxien, in der Abh.: Joseph und Nikodemus. Comp. on the
other hand Klaiber’s Studien der würtemberg. Geistlichkeit, 2, 2, s. 84
ff.
[2138] Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 785 ff. L. J. 1, b, s. 281 ff.
[2139] Schuster, in Eichhorn’s allg. Biblioth. 9, s. 1053.
[2140] Winer, bibl. Realw. 1, s. 674.
[2141] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 63: Μετὰ ταῦτα ὁ Κέλσος οὐκ εὐκαταφροντήτως
τὰ γεγραμμένα κακολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι ἐχρῆν, εἶπερ ὄντως θείαν δύναμιν
ἑκφῇναι ἤθελεν ὁ Ἰ., αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι καὶ τῷ καταδικάσαντι καὶ
ὅλως πᾶσιν ὀφθῆναι.—67: οὐ γὰρ—ἐπὶ τοῦτ’ ἐπέμφθη τὴν ἀρχὴν, ἵνα λάθῃ.
Comp. the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, in Lessing, s. 450, 60, 92 ff.;
Woolston, Disc 6. Spinoza, ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. ed. Gfrörer.
[2142] Ut sup. 67: ἐφείδετο γὰρ καὶ τοῦ καταδικάσαντος καὶ τῶν
ἐπηρεασάντων ὁ Χριστὸς, ἵνα μὴ παταχθῶσιν ἀορασίᾳ.
[2143] Comp. Mosheim, in his translation of the work of Origen against
Celsus, on the passage above quoted; Michaelis, Anm. zum fünften
Fragment, s. 407.
[2144] Hase, L. J., § 149; Diss.: librorum sacrorum de J. Chr. a
mortuis revocato atque in cœlum sublato narrationem collatis vulgaribus
illa ætate Judæorum de morte opinionibus interpretari conatus est C. A.
Frege, p. 12 f.; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 362 ff.
[2145] Orig. c. Cels. ii. 55: τίς τοῦτο εἶδε (the pierced hands of
Jesus, and, in general, his appearances after the resurrection), γυνὴ
πάροιστρος, ὡς φατὲ, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας, ἤτοι
κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας, ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δόξῃ
πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθεὶς, ὅπερ δὴ μυρίοις συμβέβηκεν· ἢ, ὅπερ μᾶλλον,
ἐκπλῆξαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τῇ τερατείᾳ ταύτῃ θελήσας, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου
ψεύσματος ἀφορμὴν ἄλλοις ἀγύρταις παρασχεῖν.
[2146] The 5th Fragment, in Lessing’s 4th Beitrag. Woolston, Disc. 8.
[2147] Ut sup. 56.
[2148] Ullmann, Was setzt die Stiftung der Christlichen Kirche durch
einen Gekreuzigten voraus? In his Studien, 1832, 3, s. 589 f. (Röhr);
Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 28, 236. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b,
s. 826 f.; Hase, § 146.
[2149] Spinoza, ut sup.: Apostolos omnes omnino credidisse, quod
Christus a morte resurrexerit, et ad cœlum revera ascenderit—ego non
nego. Nam ipse etiam Abrahamus credidit, quod Deus apud ipsum pransus
fuerit—cum tamen hæc et plura alia hujusmodi apparitiones seu
revelationes fuerint, captui et opinionibus eorum hominum accommodatæ,
quibus Deus mentem suam iisdem revelare voluit. Concludo itaque Christi
a mortuis resurrectionem revera spiritualem, et solis fidelibus ad
eorum captum revelata fuisse, nempe quod Christus æternitate donatus
fuit, et a mortuis (mortuos hic intelligo eo sensu, quo Christus dixit:
sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos) surrexit, simul atque vita et
morte singularis sanctitatis exemplum dedit, et eatenus discipulos suos
a mortuis suscitat, quatenus ipsi hoc vitæ ejus et mortis exemplum
sequuntur.
[2150] Die evang. Gesch. 2, s. 426 ff.
[2151] Versuch über die Auferstehung Jesu, in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, 2,
4, s. 545 ff.
[2152] Ibid., s. 537; Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 258 f.; Frege, ut sup.
p. 13.
[2153] In his allg. Bibliothek, 6, 1, s. 1 ff.
[2154] Comm. exeg. de repentina Sauli—conversione. In his opusc.
theol.; Fortbildung des Christenth. 2, 1, Kap. 3. Comp. also my
Streitschriften, 2tes Heft, s. 52 ff.
[2155] Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche durch die
Apostel, 1, s. 75 ff.
[2156] This is done in the treatise in Schmidt’s Bibliothek, and by
Kaiser, ut sup.
[2157] Comp. Weisse, ut sup. p. 398 ff.
[2158] Comp. Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, s. 223.
[2159] Comp. also Schmidt’s Biblioth. 2, s. 548.
[2160] May the three days’ abode of Jonah in the whale have had any
influence on this determination of time? or the passage in Hosea quoted
above, § 111, note 3? The former is indeed only placed in this
connexion in one gospel, and the latter is nowhere used in the N. T.
[2161] Compare with this explanation the one given by Weisse, in the
7th chapter of his work above quoted. He agrees with the above
representation in regarding the death of Jesus as real, and the
narratives of the grave being found empty as later fabrications; the
point in which he diverges is that above mentioned—that in his view the
appearances of the risen Jesus are not merely psychological and
subjective, but objective magical facts.
[2162] Vol. II. § 68.
[2163] Apol. i. 61.
[2164] As is done by Teller, im excurs. 2, ad Burneti I. de fide et
offic. Christ, p. 262.
[2165] The work of Beckhaus, über die Aechtheit der sog. Taufformel,
1794, met with general approval.
[2166] Comp. De Wette. exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 246.
[2167] Comp. Baur, in the Tübinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, Jahrgang
1830, 2, s. 75 ff.
[2168] Comm. z. Joh., s. 332.
[2169] Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 686; De Wette, s. 204.
[2170] Less, Auferstehungsgeschichte, s. 281; Kuinöl, in loc.
[2171] Lücke, s. 687.
[2172] Vid. ap. Michaelis, Begräbniss- und Auferstehungsgeschichte, s.
268; Olshausen, 2, s. 533.
[2173] This is Tholuck’s opinion, ut sup.
[2174] Comp. Weisse, die evang. Geschichte, 2, s. 418.
[2175] Gabler, in the neuesten theol. Journal 3, s. 417, and in the
Vorrede zu Griesbach’s opusc. acad. p. xcvi. comp. Kuinöl, in Marc., p.
222.
[2176] Seiler, ap. Kuinöl, ut sup. s. 223.
[2177] Comp. Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 921; De Wette, Religion und
Theologie, s. 161.
[2178] Kern, Hauptthatsachen, Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1836, 3, s. 58, Comp.
Steudel (Glaubenslehre, s. 323), who supposes the ascension to have
been a vision which God produced in the disciples. Against this comp.
my Streitschriften, 1, s. 152 ff.
[2179] See especially Paulus, ut sup. s. 910 ff.; L. J. 1, b, s. 318
ff.
[2180] Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 146, Anm. 28.
[2181] Seiler, ap. Kuinöl, ut sup. s. 221; Olshausen, s. 591 f. Comp.
Griesbach, locorum N. T. ad ascensionem Christi in cœlum spectantium
sylloge. In his opusc. acad. ed. Gabler, vol. 2, s. 484 ff.
[2182] Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. u. s. f., s. 19.
[2183] Olshausen, s. 593 f.
[2184] Even Fritzsche, weary at the conclusion of his labour, writes in
Matth., p. 835: Matthæus Jesu in cœlum abitum non commemoravit, quippe
nemini ignotum.
[2185] Michaelis, ut sup. 352.
[2186] The treatise: Warum haben nicht alle Evangelisten die
Himmelfahrt Jesu ausdrücklich miterzählt? in Flatt’s Magazin, 8, s. 67.
[2187] The above-named Treatise in Flatt’s Magazin.
[2188] Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 19 f.
[2189] As by Kuinöl, p. 208 f., 217.
[2190] Nevertheless comp. De Wette on the Acts, i. 12.
[2191] Vid. Vol. i., § 56, and the authors there cited. The reference
to a reckoning in Daniel, in Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b. s. 923, appears
to me too artificial.
[2192] On this subject comp. especially Ammon, Ascensus J. C, in cœlum
historia biblica. In his opusc. nov. p. 43 ff. Fortbildung des
Christenth. 2, 1, s. 13 ff.; also Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1, s. 83 ff.; de
Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, s. 247; Weisse, die evang. Gesch. 2, p. 375
ff.
[2193] This is also Hase’s opinion, L. J. § 150.
[2194] Joseph. Antiq. iv., viii. 48, it is said of Moses: And as he was
going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with
them, a cloud stood over him on a sudden, and he disappeared in a
certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which
was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that because of
his extraordinary virtue, he went to God. Philo, however, vita Mosis,
opp. ed. Mangey, vol. ii. p. 179, makes the soul only of Moses ascend
into heaven.
[2195] Iren. adv. hær. i. 10. Tertull. de præscr. hær. xiii. adv. Prax.
ii. de veland. virg. i. Orig. de principp. proem. iv.
[2196] Iren. adv. hær. iii. xviii. 7.
[2197] Athanas. contra Arianos, orat. 2, 33.
[2198] Gregor. Naz. Or. 51, p. 740, B.: τὸ γὰρ ἀπρόσληπτον ἀθεράπευμον.
ὃ δὲ ἥνωται τῷ θεῷ, τοῦτο καὶ σώζεται.
[2199] —ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ. συμφώνως
ἄπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι, καὶ τέλειον τὸν
αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκ
ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ
ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν
χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας· πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν
θεότητα, ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν
ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν
ἀνθρωπότητα, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστὸν, υἱὸν, κύριον, μονογενῆ, ἐκ δύο
φύσεων ασυνχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον· οὐδαμοῦ
τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον
τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως, καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν
συντρεχούσης· οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον ἣ διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ’ ἔνα
καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰ. Χ.
[2200] The 6th Œcumenical Synod of Constantinople declared: δύο φυσικὰ
θελήματα οὐχ ὑπεναντία,—ἀλλ’ ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ θέλημα—καὶ
ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ πανσθενεῖ θελήματι.
[2201] Athanas. de incarn. 54: αὐτὸς ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς
θεοποιηθῶμεν. Greg. Nyt. Orat. cass. 35: τότε τε κατεμίχθη πρὸς τὸ
θεῖον, ἵνα τὸ ἡμέτερον τῇ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἐπιμιξίᾳ γένηται θεῖον. Joann.
Damasc. de f. orth. iii. 20: πάντα ἀνέλαβεν (τὰ αδιάβλη τὰ πάθη τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου ὁ Χ.) ἵνα πάντα ἁγιάση. Greg. Naz. or. ii. 23 f. Hilar.
Pictav. de trin. ii. 24: humani generis causa Dei filius natus ex
virgine est—ut homo factus ex virgine naturam in se carnis acciperet
perque hujus admixtionis societatem sanctificatum in eo universi
generis humani corpus existeret. For other expressions of the kind, see
Münscher, Dogmengesch., herausg. von Cölln, 1, § 97, Anm. 10.
[2202] Münscher, § 96, Anm. 5, s. 423 f.
[2203] Augustin, de Catechiz. rudib. 7.
[2204] Vid. Münscher, § 96.
[2205] Ibid. § 97.
[2206] Comp. Form. Concord., Epit. und Sol. decl. VIII. p. 605 ff. and
761 ff. ed. Hase. Chemniz, de duabus naturis in Christo libellus, and
loci theol., loc. 2, de filio; Gerhard. II. th. 1, p. 640 ff. (ed.
1615); Quenstedt, theol. didact. polem. P. 3, c. 3. Comp. De Wette,
bibl. Dogm. § 64 ff.
[2207] See the Oratio appended to the locus de pers. et offic. Chr.
Gerhard, ut sup. p. 719 ff.
[2208] Vid. Gerhard, II. th. 1, p. 685 ff.; Marheineke, Instit. symb. §
71 f.
[2209] Reinhard, Vorles. über die Dogm. s. 354, conformably to the
proposition urged by the Reformed against the Lutherans: Nulla natura
in se ipsam recipit contradictoria, Planck, Gesch. des protest.
Lehrbegriffs, Bd. 6, s. 782.
[2210] Fausti Socini de Christi natura disputatio. Opp. Bibl. Fr. Pol.
1, p. 784; Catech. Racov. Q. 96 ff. Comp. Marheineke, Instit. symb. §
96. Spinoza, also, ep. 21, ad Oldenburg, Opp. ed. Gfrörer, p. 556,
says: Quod quædam ecclesiæ his adduut, quod Deus naturam humanam
assumpserit, monui expresse, me, quid dicant, nescire; imo, ut verum
fatear, non minus absurde mihi loqui videntur, quam si quis mihi
diceret, quod circulus naturam quadrati induerit.
[2211] (Röhr) Briefe über den Rationalismus, s. 378 ff.; Wegscheider
Inst. theol. § 128; Bretschneider, Handb. der Dogm. 2, § 137 ff.; also
Kant, Relig. innerhalb der Gränzen der blossen Vernunft. 2tes St. 2ter
Absch. b.
[2212] Glaubenslehre, 2, §§ 96–98.
[2213] Spinoza, tract. theol. polit. c. vi. p. 133. ed. Gfrörer, and
ep. 23, ad Oldenburg, p. 558 f. Briefe über den Rat., 4ter, 5ter, 6ter,
12ter. Wegscheider, §§ 11, 12. Schleiermacher, §§ 14, 47.
[2214] Prælect. theol. c. xv.
[2215] In the work: defensio fidei cath. de satisfactione Chr. adv. F.
Socinum.
[2216] Summa, P. 3, Q. 48, A. 2.
[2217] Comm. in Sentt. L. 3, Dist. 19.
[2218] See, besides Socinus, Kant, Relig. innerhalb der Grenzen der
blossen Vernunft, 2tes Stück, 1ter Abschn., c.
[2219] Töllner, Der thätige Gehorsam Christi untersucht. 1768.
[2220] Wegscheider, § 199.
[2221] Compare with what follows especially the Briefe über den
Rationalismus, s. 372 ff.; Wegscheider, §§ 128, 133, 140.
[2222] For the different views, see Bretschneider, Dogm. 2, s. 353,
systematische Entwicklung, § 107.
[2223] Röhr, Briefe, s. 36, 405 ff.
[2224] Schleiermacher, on his Glaubenslehre, to Dr. Lücke, 2tes
Sendschreiben, Studien, 2, 3, s. 481 ff.
[2225] Glaubenslehre, 2, §§ 92–105.
[2226] This opinion has been already put forth in the most noted
reviews of Schleiermacher’s system; comp. Braniss, über
Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre; H. Schmid, über Schl. Glaubensl. s. 263
ff.; Baur, die christl. Gnosis, s. 626 ff., and the Review of
Rosenkranz, Jahrb. fur wiss. Kritik, 1831.
[2227] 2ter Sendschreiben.
[2228] Schmid, ut sup.
[2229] Comp. Rosenkranz, ut sup. s. 935 ff.
[2230] Baur, ut sup. s. 653.
[2231] Thus Schmid, ut sup. s. 267.
[2232] Ep. 21, ad Oldenburg. Opp. ed. Gfrörer, p. 556:—dico, ad salutem
non esse omnino necesse, Christum secundum carnem noscere; sed ed
æterno illo filio Dei, h. e. Dei æterna sapientia, quæ sese in omnibus
rebus, et maxime in mente humana, et omnium maxime in Christo Jesu
manifestavit, longe aliter sentiendum. Nam nemo absque hac ad statum
beatitudinis potest pervenire, utpote quæ sola docet, quid verum et
falsum, bonum et malum sit.
[2233] Religion innerhalb der Gränzen der blossen Vernunft. drittes
Stück, 1te Abthl. vii.
[2234] Ut sup. 2tes Stück, 1ter Abschn. 3tes Stück, 1te Abthlg.
[2235] This is shown by Baur, christl. Gnosis, s. 660 ff.
[2236] Censur des christl. protestantischen Lehrbegriffs, 3, s. 180.
[2237] Religion und Theologie, 2ter Abschnitt, Kap. 3; comp. bibl.
Dogmatik, § 255; kirchliche, § 64 ff.
[2238] Ideen über Mythologie u. s. w. in Henke’s neuer Magazin, b. s.
454 ff. Comp. Henke’s Museum, 3, s. 455.
[2239] Vorlesungen über die Methode des akademischen Studiums, s. 192.
[2240] Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes, s. 561 ff.; Vorlesungen über
die Philos. der Relig. 2, s. 234 ff. Marheineke, Grundlehren der
christl. Dogmatik. s. 174 ff. Rosenkranz, Encyklopädie der theol.
Wissenschaften, s. 38 ff., 148 ff.; comp. my Streitschriften, 3tes
Heft, s. 76 ff.
[2241] Dogmatik, § 326.
[2242] Encyklopädie, s. 160.
[2243] Selbstbewusstsein und Offenbarung, s. 295 f. Comp. Bauer,
Recens. des L. J., Jahrbücher f. wiss. Kritik, 1836, Mai, s. 699 ff.
[2244] Compare with this my Streitschriften, 3 Heft, s. 68 ff. 125.
[2245] With this should be compared the explanation in the
Streitschriften, ut sup. s. 119.
[2246] Of this also there is an explanation in the Streitschriften, 3,
s. 166 f.
[2247] Herein lies the answer to the objection which Schaller (der
historische Christus und die Philosophie, s. 64 ff.) has made to the
above view; namely, that it teaches only a substantial, not a personal
unity of man with God. That unity which exists in the determination of
the race has already been present in individuals separately, according
to the different measure of their religious development, and thus the
substantial unity has become, in different degrees, a personal unity.
[2248] Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion, 2, s. 263 ff.
Compare the collection of the several propositions of Hegel on the
person of Christ and the evangelical history, in my Streitschriften, 3.
Heft, s. 76.
[2249] Glaubenslehre, 1, s. 47.
[2250] In the 2ten Sendschreiben on his Glaubenslehre.