1Schulz, 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.↑2Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.↑3See the above named critics, passim; and Hug,Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 212.↑4Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.↑5Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.↑6I 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.↑7Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.↑8Ut sup. s. 311.↑9Schleiermacher (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 expressionἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπουbrought to the writer’s recollection the wordsεἰπεῶ 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 theπνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expressionπνεῦμα 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.↑10Luke 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,[393]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.↑11Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.↑12Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.↑13De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1,s. 139.↑14Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.↑15For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff.↑16Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.↑17Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at dramatic effect in theεἰπέτις, and theἐκτείνας τὴνχεῖραof Matthew, as compared with theεἶπονandπεριβλεψάμενος κύκλῳof 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 hadεἶπον, it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the wordsἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to theπεριβλεψάμενοςof 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.↑18Answer to the announcement,viii. 21:μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν.Answer to the woman,xi. 28:μενοῦγγε μακάριοι(sc.οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ, ἀλλ’)οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.19Ut sup s. 177 f.↑20That 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.↑21Ut sup. s. 152.↑22Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not doubtfor a momentthat everyobservantreader 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.↑23Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.↑24Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.↑25Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.↑26Lücke, 1,s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1, s. 174 f.; i. 3, s. 40.↑27Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.↑28Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.↑29Lücke, s. 438.↑30Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.↑31Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.↑32Kuinöl, in loc.↑33Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.↑34English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.↑35Eng. 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 creatingdisturbances. 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.↑36Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f., ed.Lommatzsch.↑37Lücke, in loc.↑38Lücke, s. 413.↑39Ib. andTholuck, in loc.↑40Olshausen, 1, s. 785.↑41Comm. 4, s. 164.↑42Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.↑43Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.↑44Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.↑45Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.↑46This 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 inMatth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.↑47Origenes, ut sup.↑48Ib.↑49Ib.↑50Ib.↑51Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.↑52Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.↑53Luke vii. 38:τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.John xii. 3:ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.54Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.↑55Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.↑56Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.↑57Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; alsoTholuck, s. 228.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.↑59Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the wordsσυντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρονsignify 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.↑60Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.↑61Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,b, s. 466, and many others.↑62Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.↑63Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.↑64Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.↑65Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.↑66Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.↑67Schulz, ut sup.↑68Thus Grotius and Herder.↑69Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.↑70Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.↑71Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.↑72For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid. Paulus and Lücke in loc.↑73Probab., p. 72 ff.↑74Euseb. 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.↑75Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.↑76Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod. apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.↑773, s. 379 f.↑
1Schulz, 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.↑2Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.↑3See the above named critics, passim; and Hug,Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 212.↑4Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.↑5Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.↑6I 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.↑7Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.↑8Ut sup. s. 311.↑9Schleiermacher (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 expressionἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπουbrought to the writer’s recollection the wordsεἰπεῶ 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 theπνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expressionπνεῦμα 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.↑10Luke 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,[393]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.↑11Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.↑12Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.↑13De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1,s. 139.↑14Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.↑15For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff.↑16Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.↑17Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at dramatic effect in theεἰπέτις, and theἐκτείνας τὴνχεῖραof Matthew, as compared with theεἶπονandπεριβλεψάμενος κύκλῳof 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 hadεἶπον, it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the wordsἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to theπεριβλεψάμενοςof 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.↑18Answer to the announcement,viii. 21:μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν.Answer to the woman,xi. 28:μενοῦγγε μακάριοι(sc.οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ, ἀλλ’)οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.19Ut sup s. 177 f.↑20That 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.↑21Ut sup. s. 152.↑22Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not doubtfor a momentthat everyobservantreader 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.↑23Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.↑24Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.↑25Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.↑26Lücke, 1,s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1, s. 174 f.; i. 3, s. 40.↑27Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.↑28Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.↑29Lücke, s. 438.↑30Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.↑31Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.↑32Kuinöl, in loc.↑33Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.↑34English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.↑35Eng. 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 creatingdisturbances. 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.↑36Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f., ed.Lommatzsch.↑37Lücke, in loc.↑38Lücke, s. 413.↑39Ib. andTholuck, in loc.↑40Olshausen, 1, s. 785.↑41Comm. 4, s. 164.↑42Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.↑43Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.↑44Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.↑45Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.↑46This 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 inMatth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.↑47Origenes, ut sup.↑48Ib.↑49Ib.↑50Ib.↑51Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.↑52Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.↑53Luke vii. 38:τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.John xii. 3:ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.54Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.↑55Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.↑56Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.↑57Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; alsoTholuck, s. 228.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.↑59Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the wordsσυντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρονsignify 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.↑60Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.↑61Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,b, s. 466, and many others.↑62Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.↑63Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.↑64Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.↑65Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.↑66Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.↑67Schulz, ut sup.↑68Thus Grotius and Herder.↑69Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.↑70Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.↑71Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.↑72For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid. Paulus and Lücke in loc.↑73Probab., p. 72 ff.↑74Euseb. 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.↑75Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.↑76Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod. apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.↑773, s. 379 f.↑
1Schulz, 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.↑2Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.↑3See the above named critics, passim; and Hug,Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 212.↑4Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.↑5Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.↑6I 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.↑7Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.↑8Ut sup. s. 311.↑9Schleiermacher (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 expressionἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπουbrought to the writer’s recollection the wordsεἰπεῶ 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 theπνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expressionπνεῦμα 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.↑10Luke 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,[393]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.↑11Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.↑12Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.↑13De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1,s. 139.↑14Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.↑15For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff.↑16Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.↑17Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at dramatic effect in theεἰπέτις, and theἐκτείνας τὴνχεῖραof Matthew, as compared with theεἶπονandπεριβλεψάμενος κύκλῳof 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 hadεἶπον, it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the wordsἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to theπεριβλεψάμενοςof 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.↑18Answer to the announcement,viii. 21:μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν.Answer to the woman,xi. 28:μενοῦγγε μακάριοι(sc.οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ, ἀλλ’)οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.19Ut sup s. 177 f.↑20That 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.↑21Ut sup. s. 152.↑22Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not doubtfor a momentthat everyobservantreader 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.↑23Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.↑24Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.↑25Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.↑26Lücke, 1,s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1, s. 174 f.; i. 3, s. 40.↑27Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.↑28Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.↑29Lücke, s. 438.↑30Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.↑31Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.↑32Kuinöl, in loc.↑33Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.↑34English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.↑35Eng. 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 creatingdisturbances. 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.↑36Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f., ed.Lommatzsch.↑37Lücke, in loc.↑38Lücke, s. 413.↑39Ib. andTholuck, in loc.↑40Olshausen, 1, s. 785.↑41Comm. 4, s. 164.↑42Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.↑43Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.↑44Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.↑45Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.↑46This 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 inMatth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.↑47Origenes, ut sup.↑48Ib.↑49Ib.↑50Ib.↑51Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.↑52Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.↑53Luke vii. 38:τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.John xii. 3:ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.54Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.↑55Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.↑56Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.↑57Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; alsoTholuck, s. 228.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.↑59Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the wordsσυντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρονsignify 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.↑60Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.↑61Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,b, s. 466, and many others.↑62Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.↑63Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.↑64Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.↑65Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.↑66Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.↑67Schulz, ut sup.↑68Thus Grotius and Herder.↑69Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.↑70Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.↑71Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.↑72For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid. Paulus and Lücke in loc.↑73Probab., p. 72 ff.↑74Euseb. 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.↑75Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.↑76Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod. apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.↑773, s. 379 f.↑
1Schulz, 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.↑2Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.↑3See the above named critics, passim; and Hug,Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 212.↑4Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.↑5Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.↑6I 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.↑7Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.↑8Ut sup. s. 311.↑9Schleiermacher (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 expressionἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπουbrought to the writer’s recollection the wordsεἰπεῶ 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 theπνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expressionπνεῦμα 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.↑10Luke 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,[393]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.↑11Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.↑12Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.↑13De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1,s. 139.↑14Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.↑15For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff.↑16Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.↑17Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at dramatic effect in theεἰπέτις, and theἐκτείνας τὴνχεῖραof Matthew, as compared with theεἶπονandπεριβλεψάμενος κύκλῳof 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 hadεἶπον, it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the wordsἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to theπεριβλεψάμενοςof 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.↑18Answer to the announcement,viii. 21:μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν.Answer to the woman,xi. 28:μενοῦγγε μακάριοι(sc.οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ, ἀλλ’)οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.19Ut sup s. 177 f.↑20That 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.↑21Ut sup. s. 152.↑22Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not doubtfor a momentthat everyobservantreader 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.↑23Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.↑24Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.↑25Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.↑26Lücke, 1,s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1, s. 174 f.; i. 3, s. 40.↑27Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.↑28Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.↑29Lücke, s. 438.↑30Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.↑31Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.↑32Kuinöl, in loc.↑33Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.↑34English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.↑35Eng. 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 creatingdisturbances. 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.↑36Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f., ed.Lommatzsch.↑37Lücke, in loc.↑38Lücke, s. 413.↑39Ib. andTholuck, in loc.↑40Olshausen, 1, s. 785.↑41Comm. 4, s. 164.↑42Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.↑43Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.↑44Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.↑45Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.↑46This 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 inMatth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.↑47Origenes, ut sup.↑48Ib.↑49Ib.↑50Ib.↑51Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.↑52Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.↑53Luke vii. 38:τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.John xii. 3:ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.54Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.↑55Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.↑56Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.↑57Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; alsoTholuck, s. 228.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.↑59Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the wordsσυντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρονsignify 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.↑60Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.↑61Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,b, s. 466, and many others.↑62Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.↑63Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.↑64Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.↑65Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.↑66Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.↑67Schulz, ut sup.↑68Thus Grotius and Herder.↑69Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.↑70Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.↑71Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.↑72For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid. Paulus and Lücke in loc.↑73Probab., p. 72 ff.↑74Euseb. 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.↑75Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.↑76Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod. apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.↑773, s. 379 f.↑
1Schulz, 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.↑2Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.↑3See the above named critics, passim; and Hug,Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 212.↑4Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.↑5Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.↑6I 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.↑7Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.↑8Ut sup. s. 311.↑9Schleiermacher (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 expressionἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπουbrought to the writer’s recollection the wordsεἰπεῶ 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 theπνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expressionπνεῦμα 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.↑10Luke 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,[393]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.↑11Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.↑12Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.↑13De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1,s. 139.↑14Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.↑15For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff.↑16Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.↑17Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at dramatic effect in theεἰπέτις, and theἐκτείνας τὴνχεῖραof Matthew, as compared with theεἶπονandπεριβλεψάμενος κύκλῳof 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 hadεἶπον, it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the wordsἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to theπεριβλεψάμενοςof 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.↑18Answer to the announcement,viii. 21:μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν.Answer to the woman,xi. 28:μενοῦγγε μακάριοι(sc.οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ, ἀλλ’)οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.19Ut sup s. 177 f.↑20That 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.↑21Ut sup. s. 152.↑22Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not doubtfor a momentthat everyobservantreader 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.↑23Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.↑24Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.↑25Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.↑26Lücke, 1,s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1, s. 174 f.; i. 3, s. 40.↑27Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.↑28Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.↑29Lücke, s. 438.↑30Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.↑31Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.↑32Kuinöl, in loc.↑33Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.↑34English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.↑35Eng. 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 creatingdisturbances. 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.↑36Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f., ed.Lommatzsch.↑37Lücke, in loc.↑38Lücke, s. 413.↑39Ib. andTholuck, in loc.↑40Olshausen, 1, s. 785.↑41Comm. 4, s. 164.↑42Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.↑43Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.↑44Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.↑45Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.↑46This 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 inMatth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.↑47Origenes, ut sup.↑48Ib.↑49Ib.↑50Ib.↑51Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.↑52Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.↑53Luke vii. 38:τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.John xii. 3:ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.54Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.↑55Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.↑56Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.↑57Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; alsoTholuck, s. 228.↑58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.↑59Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the wordsσυντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρονsignify 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.↑60Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.↑61Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,b, s. 466, and many others.↑62Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.↑63Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.↑64Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.↑65Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.↑66Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.↑67Schulz, ut sup.↑68Thus Grotius and Herder.↑69Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.↑70Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.↑71Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.↑72For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid. Paulus and Lücke in loc.↑73Probab., p. 72 ff.↑74Euseb. 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.↑75Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.↑76Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod. apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.↑773, s. 379 f.↑
1Schulz, 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.↑
1Schulz, 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.↑
2Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.↑
2Olshausen, b. Comm. 1. s. 15.↑
3See the above named critics, passim; and Hug,Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 212.↑
3See the above named critics, passim; and Hug,Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 212.↑
4Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.↑
4Comp. Saunier, über die Quellen des Markus, s. 42 ff.↑
5Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.↑
5Kern, über den Urspr. des Ev. Matt. ut sup. s. 70 f.↑
6I 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.↑
6I 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.↑
7Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.↑
7Ueber den Lukas, s. 74, and elsewhere.↑
8Ut sup. s. 311.↑
8Ut sup. s. 311.↑
9Schleiermacher (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 expressionἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπουbrought to the writer’s recollection the wordsεἰπεῶ 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 theπνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expressionπνεῦμα 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.↑
9Schleiermacher (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 expressionἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν υἰὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπουbrought to the writer’s recollection the wordsεἰπεῶ 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 theπνεῦμα ἅγιον, the connexion consists just as superficially in the expressionπνεῦμα 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.↑
10Luke 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,[393]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.↑
10Luke 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,[393]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.↑
11Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.↑
11Vid. Griesbach, Comm. crit. in loc.↑
12Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.↑
12Comp. Schleiermacher, s. 190 f.↑
13De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1,s. 139.↑
13De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1,s. 139.↑
14Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.↑
14Ueber den Urspr. s. 115.↑
15For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff.↑
15For the proof of this interpretation, see Fritzsche, comm. in Marc. p. 97 ff.↑
16Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.↑
16Ueber den Lukas, s. 121.↑
17Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at dramatic effect in theεἰπέτις, and theἐκτείνας τὴνχεῖραof Matthew, as compared with theεἶπονandπεριβλεψάμενος κύκλῳof 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 hadεἶπον, it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the wordsἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to theπεριβλεψάμενοςof 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.↑
17Schneckenburger (über den Ur. s. 54) finds an attempt at dramatic effect in theεἰπέτις, and theἐκτείνας τὴνχεῖραof Matthew, as compared with theεἶπονandπεριβλεψάμενος κύκλῳof 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 hadεἶπον, it would be numbered among the proofs that his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for the wordsἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, there is nothing to be discovered in them which could give to them more than to theπεριβλεψάμενοςof 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.↑
18Answer to the announcement,viii. 21:μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν.Answer to the woman,xi. 28:μενοῦγγε μακάριοι(sc.οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ, ἀλλ’)οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.
18
Answer to the announcement,viii. 21:μήτηρ μοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοί μοῦ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λὸγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτόν.Answer to the woman,xi. 28:μενοῦγγε μακάριοι(sc.οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ μοῦ, ἀλλ’)οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν.
19Ut sup s. 177 f.↑
19Ut sup s. 177 f.↑
20That 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.↑
20That 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.↑
21Ut sup. s. 152.↑
21Ut sup. s. 152.↑
22Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not doubtfor a momentthat everyobservantreader 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.↑
22Schulz (üb. d. Abendm. s. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of the recent criticism on Matthew when he asserts, that he does not doubtfor a momentthat everyobservantreader 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.↑
23Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.↑
23Compare Schleiermacher, ut sup. s. 283.↑
24Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.↑
24Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, L. J. Chr., s. 388, Anm.↑
25Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.↑
25Ueber den Urspr. s. 108 ff.↑
26Lücke, 1,s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1, s. 174 f.; i. 3, s. 40.↑
26Lücke, 1,s. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb.1,1, s. 174 f.; i. 3, s. 40.↑
27Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.↑
27Ut sup. s. 109; comp. Schneckenburger, s. 26 f.↑
28Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.↑
28Lightfoot, s. 632, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi. 2.↑
29Lücke, s. 438.↑
29Lücke, s. 438.↑
30Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.↑
30Lücke, s. 437; Sieffert, s. 110.↑
31Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.↑
31Comm. in Joh. tom. 10, § 17; Opp. 1, p. 322, ed. Lommatzsch.↑
32Kuinöl, in loc.↑
32Kuinöl, in loc.↑
33Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.↑
33Bretschneider, Probab. p. 43.↑
34English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.↑
34English Commentators, ap. Lücke, 1, s. 435 f., Anm.↑
35Eng. 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 creatingdisturbances. 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.↑
35Eng. 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 creatingdisturbances. 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.↑
36Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f., ed.Lommatzsch.↑
36Comm. in Joh. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f., ed.Lommatzsch.↑
37Lücke, in loc.↑
37Lücke, in loc.↑
38Lücke, s. 413.↑
38Lücke, s. 413.↑
39Ib. andTholuck, in loc.↑
39Ib. andTholuck, in loc.↑
40Olshausen, 1, s. 785.↑
40Olshausen, 1, s. 785.↑
41Comm. 4, s. 164.↑
41Comm. 4, s. 164.↑
42Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.↑
42Hieros. Joh. tobh. f. lxi. 3, ap. Lightfoot, p. 411.↑
43Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.↑
43Lücke, Comm. 1, s. 410.↑
44Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.↑
44Ut sup., comp. also Woolston, Disc. 1.↑
45Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.↑
45Thus Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, b, s. 766; L. J. 1, a, s. 292;Tholuck, Lücke, Olshausen, in loc.; Hase, L. J. § 96, Anm.↑
46This 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 inMatth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.↑
46This 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 inMatth. Commentarior. series, Opp. ed. de la Rue, 3, s. 892 ff.↑
47Origenes, ut sup.↑
47Origenes, ut sup.↑
48Ib.↑
48Ib.↑
49Ib.↑
49Ib.↑
50Ib.↑
50Ib.↑
51Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.↑
51Comp. Schleiermacher, über den Lukas, s. 111.↑
52Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.↑
52Origenes and Schleiermacher. Winer, N. T. Gramm., s. 149.↑
53Luke vii. 38:τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.John xii. 3:ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.
53
Luke vii. 38:τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ—ταῖς θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς ἐξέμασσε.John xii. 3:ἐξέμαξεν ταῖς θριξὶν αὑτῆς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.
54Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.↑
54Kuinöl, Comm. in Matt., p. 687.↑
55Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.↑
55Sieffert, über den Ursprung, s. 125 f.↑
56Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.↑
56Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 277.↑
57Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; alsoTholuck, s. 228.↑
57Vid. Kuinöl, ut sup. p. 688; alsoTholuck, s. 228.↑
58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.↑
58Paulus, exeg. Handb. 2, s. 582; 3, b, s. 466.↑
59Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the wordsσυντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρονsignify 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.↑
59Schneckenburger, über den Ursprung, u. s. f., s. 60. There is no trace in Mark’s account that the wordsσυντρίψασα τὸ ἀλάβαστρονsignify 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.↑
60Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.↑
60Kuinöl, in Matth., p. 689.↑
61Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,b, s. 466, and many others.↑
61Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3,b, s. 466, and many others.↑
62Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.↑
62Ueber den Lukas, s. 111 ff.↑
63Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.↑
63Sieffert, ut sup. s. 123 f.↑
64Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.↑
64Schulz, ut sup. s. 320 f.↑
65Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.↑
65Schneckenburger, ut sup. s. 60.↑
66Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.↑
66Lücke, 2, s. 417; comp. Lightfoot, horæ, p. 468, 1081.↑
67Schulz, ut sup.↑
67Schulz, ut sup.↑
68Thus Grotius and Herder.↑
68Thus Grotius and Herder.↑
69Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.↑
69Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lücke, in loc.↑
70Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.↑
70Maimonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.↑
71Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.↑
71Mischna, tr. Sanhedr. c. 10.↑
72For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid. Paulus and Lücke in loc.↑
72For a thorough discussion of this and the following points, vid. Paulus and Lücke in loc.↑
73Probab., p. 72 ff.↑
73Probab., p. 72 ff.↑
74Euseb. 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.↑
74Euseb. 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.↑
75Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.↑
75Lücke, 2, s. 217. Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 410.↑
76Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod. apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.↑
76Elsewhere also the two were confounded, vid. Fabricii Cod. apocryph. N. T. 1, s. 357, not.↑
773, s. 379 f.↑
773, s. 379 f.↑